2002 Bootheel Irrigation Survey

Prepared by Joe Henggeler, Extension Agricultural Engineer Commercial Agricultural Program

Average irrigated acreage of those surveyed in 2002: 948 acres.
Average acreage planned for irrigation in 2003: 985 acres X 3.4 % increase

  • 21% of new irrigated land will be fixed pivots
  • 7 % of new irrigated land will be towable pivots
  • 72 % of new irrigated land will be poly-pipe

     

    I. Systems Used by Respondents

    Furrow, rigid pipe 9 % Center pivot, fixed 43 %
    Furrow, poly-pipe 32 % Center pivot, towable 11 %
    Furrow, poly-pipe using surge 4 % Furrow, rigid using surge 0 %

     

    II. Irrigation Costs

    1. Fuel

      Type

      		Cost Sample Size
      LP Gas $11.31/acre 12
      Diesel $ 9.42/acre 21
      Electric $10.86/acre 16

       

    2. Maintenance and Repairs

      Table 1. Maintenance and Repair Cost, Bootheel of Missouri, 2002
        Per Farmer Per Well Per Acre
      Wells $1,398 $ 138 $ 0.35
      Pumps $ 868 $ 139 $ 0.48
      System
      (average all types)      		 $2,412 $ 239 $ 0.37
      Total $4,678 $ 516 $ 1.20
      note: 85.1 acres/well site
      11.6 wells per farmer

    III. Irrigation Scheduling

    The percentage of corn, cotton, and soybean acreage using either Arkansas Scheduler computer program or Woodruff charts was 9%. Overall scheduling produced 5 bu/ac more corn, 118 lbs more cotton, 8 bu/ac more full season soybeans, and 7 bu/ac more double-crop soybeans then irrigators who did not use either method. Results can be seen in Table 2..

    Table 2. Yields of crops based on irrigation scheduling method employed, Sample sizes and average years of irrigating experience
    Crop
    No scheduling method
    Scheduling Methodologies
    Difference between scheduling & not scheduling
       
    Ark. Scheduler computer program
    Woodruff irrigation charts
    		 
    Corn

    158.7 bu/ac
    81% of users

    n=30

    186.7 bu/ac
    8% of users

    n = 3
    146.0 bu/ac
    11% of users

    n = 4
    + 4.7 bu/ac
    3 % increase
    Cotton
    862.5 lbs/ac
    91% of users

    n = 21
    980.0 lbs/ac
    9% of users

    n = 2
    -----
    + 117.5 lbs/ac
    14 % increase
    Soybean
    43.8 bu/ac
    91% of users

    n = 22
    52.0 bu/ac
    9 % of users

    n = 2
    -----
    + 8.2 bu/ac
    19 % increase
    Double Crop soybean
    42.7 bu/ac
    96% of users

    n = 22
    50.0 bu/ac
    4% of users

    n = 1
    -----
    + 7.3 bu/ac
    17 % increase

     

    IV. Crop Cultural Practices

    Deep-ripped:

    		 56 % (67%, 46% & 40 % for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
    Limed: 62 % (56%, 75% & 40% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
    Laser-leveled: 30 % (14%, 41% & 35% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
    Minimum till: 63 % (61%, 77% & 56% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
    Minimum till: 63 % (52%, 70%, 58% & 60% for corn, cotton, soybean and d.c. soybeans, respectively)
    Use of drain furrows: 43% (59%, 27% & 66% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)

    V. Iron Content of Wells

    The level of iron in the irrigation wells does not seem to greatly effect the yield outcome. However, wells with watered classified by farmers as "high" may show some slight yield disadvantage (Table 3).

    Table 3. Relative yields of crops based on iron content of the irrigation well.
    Crop
    Flood
    Pivot
    High
    Medium
    		 Low
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Corn (bu/ac) .88
    (5)    		 1.02
    (7)    		 1.10
    (3)    		 0.96
    (6)    		 1.18
    (6)    		 1.04
    (4)
    Cotton (bu/ac) 1.07
    (2)    		 1.05
    (6)    		 ---- 0.85
    (3)    		 1.06
    (7)    		 0.82
    (2)
    Soybeans (bu/ac) 0.94
    (5)    		 1.04
    (6)    		 ---- 0.62
    (1)    		 1.04
    (7)    		 1.10
    (1)
    DC Soybean (bu/ac) 1.18
    (2)    		 1.00
    (6)    		 0.82
    (2)    		 1.07
    (7)    		 0.99
    (5)    		 0.83
    (1)

    V. Land Value Increase when Irrigation is Present

    Irrigators were asked if irrigation on farm land increased the value of land. Compared to raw farm land the presence of irrigation increased land value by:

  • with a center pivot: $355/ac, (n=39)
  • with it being laser leveled: $394/ac, (n=44)

    Table 4. Corn yield in bushels per acre for various soil types as affected by minimum tilling, deep ripping, liming, lasering, and use of surface drains, Southeast Missouri, 2002.
      Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
      Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
    clay/gumbo 160.3

    n =3     		 179.4
    n=5     		 188.7
    n=3    		 172.3
    n=5     		 179.0
    n=4     		 165.5
    n=4    		 159.3

    n =3    		 180.0

    n = 5    		 180.2

    n = 6    		 148.5

    n = 2
    sand 179.0

    n =1    		 144.4
    n=10    		 158.3

    n =7    		 128.8

    n = 4    		 152.9

    n =28    		 133.3
    n=3    		 173.8

    n = 4    		 132.6

    n =7    		 161.0

    n =7     		 139.9

    n =7
    silt 168.9

    n = 8    		 157.4
    n=9    		 163.4
    n=9    		 162.1
    n=8    		 155.9
    n=8    		 169.0
    n=9    		 150.2

    n = 9    		 177.0

    n =8    		 163.7

    n = 7    		 162.3

    n =10
    Other --- 136.0

    n = 1    		 136.0

    n = 1    		 --- --- 136.0

    n = 1    		 136.0

    n = 2    		 --- --- 136.0

    n = 1
    AVERAGE 167.6
    n=12    		 155.7
    n=25    		 164.00
    n=20    		 157.3
    n=17    		 159.3
    n=20    		 159.9
    n=17    		 156.5
    n=17    		 162.2
    n=20    		 156.5
    n=17    		 151.8
    n=20
    AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE + 11.8  + 6.8 - .6 - 5.7 + 17.1

     
     

    Table 5. Cotton yield in pounds of lint per acre for various soil types as affected by minimum tilling, deep ripping, liming, lasering, and use of surface drains, Southeast Missouri, 2002.
    n=8 n=2 
      Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
      Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
    clay/gumbo --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
    sand 910.6
    n=10    		 846.7
    n=3    		 883.6
    n=10    		 936.7
    n=3    		 951.1
    n=9    		 771.5
    n=4    		 1035.0
    n=2     		 870.5
    n=11    		 757.2
    n=5    		 982.5
    n=8
    silt 849.4
    n = 5    		 1000.0
    n = 1    		 888.0
    n = 1    		 871.8
    n = 5    		 998.8
    n = 5    		 253.0
    n = 1    		 774.3
    n = 4    		 1075.0
    n = 2    		 956.0
    n = 1    		 858.2
    n = 5
    Other --- 794.8
    n = 4    		 794.8
    n = 4    		 ---  1050.0
    n = 2    		 539.5
    n = 2    		 850.0
    n = 2    		 739.5
    n = 2    		 600.0
    n=1    		 859.7
    n=3
    AVERAGE 890.2
    n=15    		 839.9
    n=8    		 860.23
    n=15    		 896.1
    n=8    		 978.4
    n=16    		 631.1
    n=17    		 858.4
    n=8    		 880.3
    n=15    		 763.1
    n=7    		 920.6
    n=16
    AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE + 50.3 + 35.9 + 347.2 - 21.9 - 157.5

    Table 6. Soybean yield in bushels per acre for various soil types as affected by minimum tilling, deep ripping, liming, lasering, and use of surface drains, Southeast Missouri, 2002.

      Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
      Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
    clay/gumbo 45.2
    n =6    		 37.0
    n = 2    		 43.3
    n = 3    		 43.0
    n =5    		 44.0
    n = 2    		 42.8
    n = 6    		 44.3
    n = 4    		 42.0
    n = 4    		 42.3
    n = 3    		 43.6
    n = 5
    sand 50.6
    n = 5    		 44.5
    n = 2    		 45.5
    n = 4    		 53.3
    n = 3    		 50.8
    n = 4    		 46.3
    n = 3    		 50.0
    n = 1    		 48.7
    n = 6    		 48.2
    n = 6    		 53.0
    n = 1
    silt 49.7
    n = 6    		 18.9
    n = 2    		 49.6
    n = 5    		 29.0
    n = 3    		 50.0
    n = 4    		 33.8
    n = 4    		 40.5
    n = 4    		 43.3
    n = 4    		 43.3
    n = 4    		 40.5
    n = 4
    Other --- 46.0
    n = 1    		 46.0
    n = 1    		 --- --- 46.0
    n = 1    		 --- 46.0
    n = 1    		 --- 46.0
    n = 1
    AVERAGE 48.4
    n = 17    		 35.3
    n = 7    		 46.6
    n = 13    		 42.0
    n = 11    		 49.1
    n =10    		 41.2
    n = 11    		 43.2
    n = 9    		 45.3
    n = 15    		 45.3
    n = 13    		 43.5
    n = 11
    AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE + 13.1 + 4.6 + 7.9 - 2.0 + 1.8



    Table 7. Double-crop soybean yield in bushels per acre for various soil types as affected by minimum tilling, deep ripping, liming, lasering, and use of surface drains, Southeast Missouri, 2002.

      Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
      Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
    clay/gumbo 38.8
    n = 5    		 41.0
    n = 2    		 38.0
    n = 1    		 39.7
    n = 6    		 35.0
    n = 2    		 41.2
    n = 5    		 36.2
    n = 5    		 47.5
    n = 2    		 35.0
    n = 2    		 41.2
    n = 5
    sand 37.0
    n = 2    		 42.0
    n = 3    		 35.7
    n = 3    		 46.5
    n = 2    		 46.5
    n = 2    		 35.7
    n = 3    		 53.0
    n = 1    		 36.8
    n = 4    		 36.8
    n = 4    		 53.0
    n = 1
    silt 45.3
    n = 4    		 46.8
    n = 5    		 42.0
    n = 4    		 49.4
    n = 5    		 49.0
    n = 6    		 40.3
    n = 3    		 48.5
    n = 4    		 44.2
    n = 5    		 36.5
    n = 2    		 48.9
    n = 7
    Other 54.0
    n = 1    		 37.0
    n = 1    		 45.5
    n = 2    		 --- --- 45.5
    n = 2    		 --- 45.5
    n = 2    		 45.5
    n = 2    		 ---
    AVERAGE 41.9
    n = 12    		 43.5
    n = 11    		 40.4
    n = 10    		 44.2
    n = 13    		 45.7
    n = 10    		 40.4
    n = 13    		 42.8
    n = 10    		 42.6
    n = 15    		 38.1
    n = 10    		 46.3
    n = 13
    AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE - 1.6 - 3.8 + 5.3 + 0.2 - 8.1

     

    TABLE 8.-- 2002 BOOTHEEL IRRIGATION RESULTS

      CORN COTTON FC SOY DC SOY MILO
    Number Reported 37 23 24 23 2
    Acres Reported 4136 3488 2887 2065 255
    # of Irrigations, furrow 4.9 @ 2.4" 3.0 @ 2.0" 3.3 @ 3.9" 3.5 @ 1.9" ---
    # of Irrigation, pivot 4.9 @ 2.4" 4.4 @ 1.0" 5.8 @ 1.1" 6.2 @ 1.4" ---
    Irrigated Yield 160 bu 873 lbs 45 bu 43 bu 114 bu
    Dryland Yield 104 bu 686 lbs 28 bu 30 bu 63 bu
    Increase over Dryland 55.3 bu 203.0 lbs 15.6 bu 11.7 bu 51.0 bu

     

     

    TABLE 9.--1987-2002 BOOTHEEL IRRIGATION SURVEY

    Yields for Irrigated vs Dryland Crops and their Breakeven Costs

    Year Irrig.
    Corn
    (bu)     		Non-Irrig.
    Corn
    (bu)    		 Irrig.
    Soy-
    beans
    (bu)    		 Non-Irrig. Soy-beans
    (bu)    		 Irrig.
    DC
    Soy-beans
    (bu)    		 Non-
    Irrig.
    DC Soy-
    beans
    (bu)    		 Irrig.
    Cotton
    (lbs)    		 Non-
    Irrig.
    Cotton
    (lbs)    		 Irrig.
    Milo
    (bu)    		 Non-
    Irrig.
    Milo
    (bu)
    1987 149 121 44 32 33 19 --- --- 110 101
    1988 148 88 39 32 36 27 877 718 108 91
    1989 152 117 37 27 29 23 807 605 92 77
    1990 146 86 44 29 38 31 768 528 82 32
    1991 143 84 42 29 43 30 917 678 105 69
    1992 189 135 48 37 44 32 1029 990 121 108
    1993 137 95 44 31 41 30 722 546 113 75
    1994 162 123 47 38 43 37 933 779 101 93
    1995 156 124 43 29 42 31 637 422 90 66
    1996 170 124 43 32 42 25 905 719 98 63
    1997 155 103 41 28 42 31 865 723 110 70
    1998 140 95 37 22 40 27 692 542 82 ---
    1999 163 121 49 21 43 17 787 471 --- ---
    2000 171 --- 43 --- 39 --- 733 --- 140 ---
    2001 183 119 46 31 36 21 966 777 84 50
    2002

    160
    ($2.36)*

    		 104
    ($2.36)*    		 45 ($5.59)* 28
    ($2.36)*    		 43
    ($5.19)*    		 30
    ($2.36)*    		 873 ($0.62)* 686
    ($2.36)*    		 114 ($0.62)* 63
    ($2.36)*
    Avg 158 109 43 30 40 27 834 656 103 74

    * Break-even price; after D. Reinbott. 2003. Crop Budgets: Southeast Missouri. Un-numbered report. University of Missouri Outreach & Extension Service. Scott County.

    TABLE 10A.--IRRIGATED FULL-SEASON SOYBEAN YIELD
    2002 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
    Showing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied

     
    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 47.8
    (6.8 @ 1.1")
    n = 5    		 --- --- 51.5
    (8.0 @ 5.6")
    n = 2    		 48.86
    n = 7
    Silt 25.0
    (3.0 @ 2.0")
    n =     		48.0
    (4.0 @ 1.0")
    n = 1    		 50.0
    (--- @ ---)
    n = 1    		 42.4
    (4.2 @ 3.0")
    n = 5     		41.88
    n = 8
    Clay/Gumbo 40.0
    (5.5 @ 1.0")
    n = 2    		 --- --- 44.2
    (2.2 @ 4.2")
    n = 6     		43.15
    n = 8
    Other --- --- --- 46.0
    (--- @ ---)
    n = 1    		 46.00
    n = 1
    Average 43.00
    n = 8    		 48.00
    n = 1    		 52.00
    n = 1    		 44.73
    n = 14    		 44.50
    n = 24

    furrow users with surge = 54.0 bu/ac (n = 1)

    furrow users without surge = 44.4 bu/ac (n = 14)

    TABLE 10B.-- YIELD INCREASE DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR FULL-SEASON SOYBEAN 2002 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 17.2
    n = 7    		 --- --- 29.0
    n = 2    		 20.57
    n = 9
    Silt 17.0
    n = 1    		 19.0
    n = 1    		 --- 9.6
    n = 5    		 11.97
    n = 7
    Clay/Gumbo 6.0
    n = 2    		 --- --- 15.0
    n = 6    		 12.75
    n = 8
    Other --- --- --- --- ---
    Average 14.38
    n = 10    		 19.00
    n = 1    		 --- 15.08
    n = 13    		 15.56
    n = 24

    furrow users with surge = 54.0 bu/ac (n = 1)

    furrow users without surge = 44.4 bu/ac (n = 14)

     

    TABLE 11A--IRRIGATED DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEANS YIELD

    2002 Bootheel Irrigation SurveyShowing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied

    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 38.0
    (9.3 @ 0.8")
    n = 3    		 33.0
    (6.0 @ 0.8")
    n = 1    		 --- 53.0
    (5.0 @ 1.0")
    n = 1    		 40.00
    n = 5
    Silt 39.0
    (6.0 @ 3.8")
    n = 3    		 --- 43.7
    (2.7 @ 2.5")
    n = 3    		 51.5
    (3.8 @ 2.0")
    n = 4    		 45.41
    n = 10
    Clay/Gumbo 38.0
    (3.0 @ 1.0")
    n = 1     		47.5
    (3.0 @ 0.9")
    n = 1    		 37.0
    (3.0 @ ?)
    n = 1    		 35.3
    (4.0 @ 1.5")
    n = 3    		 39.43
    n = 7
    Other 45.5
    (6.5 @ 1.0")
    n = 2     		--- --- --- 45.50
    n = 2
    Average 40.13
    n = 8    		 42.67
    n = 3    		 42.00
    n = 4    		 45.61
    n = 8    		 42.70
    n = 23

    furrow users with surge = 43.0 bu/ac (n = 2)

    furrow users without surge = 44.7 bu/ac (n = 10)

    TABLE 11B.-- YIELD INCREASE DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEAN 2002 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 12.0
    n = 3    		 5.0
    n = 1    		 --- 18.0

    n = 1    		 11.80
    n = 5
    Silt 10.07
    n = 2    		 --- 17.0
    n = 3    		 12.5
    n = 4    		 13.44
    n = 9
    Clay/Gumbo 13.0
    n = 1    		 5.5
    n = 2    		 --- 7.0
    n = 3    		 7.50
    n = 6
    Other 16.0
    n = 2    		 --- --- --- 16.50
    n = 2
    Average 13.17
    n = 8    		 5.33
    n = 3    		 17.00
    n = 35    		 11.13
    n = 8    		 11.67
    n = 22

    TABLE 12A.--IRRIGATED CORN YIELD2002 Bootheel Irrigation SurveyShowing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied
    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 152.65
    (15.0@ 1.1")
    n = 5    		 137.5
    (6.5@ 1.6")
    n = 2    		 --- 146.3
    (5.8 @ 2.7")
    n = 4

    147.56
    n = 11

     
    Silt 181.9
    (3.0@ 2.3")
    n = 4    		 --- 176.8
    (4.0 @ 3.3)
    n = 4    		 148.4
    (5.0 @ 1.9")
    n = 9    		 162.82
    n = 17
    Clay/Gumbo 187.5
    (6.8 @ 0.7")
    n = 4    		 150.0
    (4.0 @ 0.8")
    n = 1    		 150.0
    (4.0 @ 2.0)
    n = 1    		 164.0
    (6.0 @ ?)
    n = 2    		 172.25
    n = 8
    Other --- --- --- 136.0
    (3.0@ ?)
    n = 1    		 136.00
    n = 1
    Average 172.20
    n = 13    		 141.70
    n = 3    		 171.40
    n = 5    		 139.50
    n = 16    		 159.60
    n = 37

    furrow users with surge =170.2 bu/ac (n = 5)

    furrow users without surge =149.5 bu/ac (n = 11)

    TABLE 12B.-- YIELD INCREASE DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR CORN 2002 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 62.6
    n = 5    		 80.0
    n = 2    		 --- 27.5
    n = 4    		 53.00
    n = 11
    Silt 83.3
    n = 4    		 --- 82.3
    n = 4    		 39.5
    n = 9    		 59.88
    n = 17
    Clay/Gumbo 55.0
    n = 4    		 25.0
    n = 1    		 25.0
    n = 1    		 --- 45.00
    n = 6
    Other --- --- --- --- ---
    Average 67.58
    n = 13    		 52.50
    n = 3    		 68.00
    n = 5    		 35.78
    n = 13    		 55.29
    n = 34

     

    TABLE 13A.--IRRIGATED COTTON YIELD2002 Bootheel Irrigation SurveyShowing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied
    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 849.5
    (4.6 @ 1.0")
    n = 8    		 1000.0
    (2.0 @ 0.8")
    n = 1    		 300.0
    (20 @ ?)
    n = 1    		 1183.0
    (3.0 @ ?)
    n = 3    		 895.77
    n = 13
    Silt 701.5
    (5.0 @ 1.5")
    n = 2    		 978.0
    (4.0 @ 0.5")
    n = 2    		 --- 944.0
    (3.5 @ 2.0")
    n = 2    		 874.56
    n = 6
    Clay/Gumbo --- --- --- --- ---
    Other 1000.0
    (4.0 @ 0.8")
    n = 1    		 --- --- 726.3
    (3.0 @ ?)
    n = 3    		 794.73
    n = 4
    Average 836.30
    n = 11    		 985.30
    n = 3    		 300.00
    n = 1    		 952.10
    n = 8    		 872.70
    n = 23

    furrow users with surge = 1000.0 bu/ac(n = 4)

    furrow users without surge = 945.0 bu/ac(n = 11)


    TABLE 13B.-- YIELD INCREASE DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR COTTON2002 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
    Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
    Sand 136.3
    n = 8    		 300.0
    n = 1    		 0.0
    n = 1    		 466.7
    n = 3    		 214.656
    n = 13
    Silt -507.0
    n = 2    		 240.5
    n = 2    		 --- 314.0
    n = 2    		 15.83
    n = 6
    Clay/Gumbo 334.0
    n = 1    		 --- --- 210.5

    n = 2    		 251.67

    n = 3
    Other 250.0
    n = 1    		 --- --- 350.0
    n = 3    		 325.0
    n = 4
    Average 77.44
    n = 11    		 260.30
    n = 3    		 --- 396.30
    n = 8    		 202.90
    n = 23