13-1116 May 1971 election of 5Q UIPZIIENT FOR FARMS n the T exas H igla Plain; Texas A&M University The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station H. O. Kunkel, Acting Director, College Station, Texas Content; Summary and Conclusions .............................................. .- 2 Introduction ...................................................................... .. 3 Objectives .......................................................................... .. 3 Study Area ........................................................................ .. 4 Procedure .......................................................................... .. 4 Assumptions ............................................................. ._ 4 Equipment Selection ................................................ __ 4 Data Requirements; .................................................. .. 5 Costs .......................................................................... .. 5 Findings ............................................................................ .. 6 160-Acre Farm .......................................................... .. 6 500-Acre Farm .......................................................... .- 7 960-Acre Farm .......................................................... .. 8 Additional Considerations ....................................... .- 9 Long-Run Average Cost Curve .............................. .. 9 Some Implications ............................................................ ..1O References .......................................................................... ..10 Appendix ........................................................................... ..11 Summary and Conclusions An analytical model was developed for use in select- ing least-cost combinations of farm machinery for various farm situations. The model was used to construct machin- ery systems from currently available equipment for repre- sentative irrigated farms in the fine-textured soils of the Texas High Plains. Equipment systems, exclusive of har- vest machinery, for a 160-, a 500- and a 960-acre farm which were representative for irrigated cotton-grain sor- ghum farms, were developed for five alternative wage rates ranging from $1.25 per hour through $3.25 per hour. Four-row, six-row and eight-row systems were compared at two levels of implement draft requirements for each farm situation. Prices and implement specifications were obtained from local farm machinery dealers. The performance characteristics of tractors were obtained primarily from the Nebraska Tractor Tests and the operating characteristics of implements from published data and local estimates. Farm enterprise organization was determined from 1964 Census of Agriculture data. Farm operations, including time avail- able for each operation, were adapted from farm budgets published by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Total annual costs for the 160-acre farm with the high draft assumptions and wage rate of $1.75 per hour were ' optimum six-row and eight-row equipment syst $2,064.85 for an optimum four-row equipment .1 costs were increased by $158.30 and $178.2 respectively, at the same wage rate. The ann the least-cost system, which was not a feasible system, were $2,604.85. ~ The optimum four-row equipment system f acre farm, with a wage rate of $1.75 per ho i draft assumptions, had an annual cost of $4,8y of an optimum six-row equipment system incrv costs by $41.69, and use of an optimum eight; ment system increased annual costs by $173. costs for the least-cost system, which was nip? system, were $4,798.37. Optimum six-row eq tems had lower annual costs at a wage rate of hour or above. i Optimum equipment systems for the -‘_ contained two tractors and eight-row imple wage rate of $1.75 per hour and high draft i? an optimum eight-row equipment system had of $8,755.86. An optimum six-row equipmen creased costs by $93.93 per year and an optim " equipment system by $260.23 per year whed $1.75 per hour. A r 0/ IVE FARM OPERATORS AND MANAGERS have iloped the Texas High Plains into one of the uctive areas of its size in the world by utilizing i» climate, fertile soil and irrigation. Row crops, A cotton and grain sorghum, are the most impor- icultural enterprises in the High Plains and con- iuch to the region's economy. For instance, crop f» accounted for approximately 31 percent of the ‘ income in 1959 (3, p. 1). In recent years ap- ely 16 percent and 29 percent of the nation's uction of cotton and grain sorghum, respectively, produced on the High Plains (10; 11). nsive changes have taken place in agriculture over " few decades. The average farmer's management :2: have been concerned with ever larger operating tment expenses as a result of increased farm ption and increased farm size. Many of these A are directly attributable to changes in machine i) Plains farmers have been quick to adopt many ;§- ological developments, perhaps because of rela- h educational levels and high income positions. i ors, together with a highly favorable topography, v to the acceptance and use of large implements get-powered tractors as they have become available. 7ous estimates of production costs for farms place expenses from 35 to 50 percent of total operat- (6, p. 24; 8, p. 504). About one-third of tate capital on farms is invested in farm machin- 30-1). Therefore, it would seem that relatively 4;.» omies obtained in the selection of power and _' systems could result in major improvements in s profit position. present, there are few guide- ii able to High Plains farmers for the selection i and implements so as to form a complete farm i‘ a trademark or a proprietary product does not con- iguarantee or warranty of the product by The Texas Experiment Station and does not imply its approval usion of other products that may also be suitable. g jpment for Farms in the T ems H ig/a Plains j. E. OSBORN AND W. C. BARRICK* machinery system which will minimize the annual cost of machine operations. A knowledge of optimum power and implement sys- tems for farms in a particular area and how components of these systems vary with various farm sizes and wage rates, for instance, would be valuable also to equipment dealers and manufacturers. Such knowledge would help in planning sales campaigns and in controlling inventory. In addition, a manufacturer would have a basis for reevalu- ating items of equipment never included in a least-cost equipment system. The development of a method for selecting farm machinery systems and an application of the method to ' “representative” irrigated High Plains farm situations were the main concerns of this study. Power and equipment sys- tems were developed for three sizes of farms (160, 500 and 960 acres) with specified enterprise combinations and cultural practices. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to develop a procedure for selecting combinations of farm machinery for performing specified operations for typical High Plains farms. The specific objectives follow: 1. To develop a systematic method for determining a least-cost, technically feasible combination of tractors and implements for performing specified operations. 2. To select least-cost equipment combinations for three sizes of typical High Plains farms. 5. To evaluate the effects on the least-cost equip- ment systems selected of alternative wage rates and alternative levels of implement draft require- ments. *Respectively, associate professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas Tech University and Texas A&M University- Texas Tech University Cooperative Research Unit, Lubbock; and research assistant, Texas A8zM University. 3 Study Area Portions of Castro, Crosby, Floyd, Hale, Lamb, Lub- bock, Parmer and Swisher counties constituted the study area (Figure 1). The basis for selecting this particular area was that it has similar soil types, farming practices, topography, water resources and crop combinations. The principal soil types are clay loams (Pullman, Lofton and Olton) and loams (Amarillo, Berthound, Portales, Man- sker and Zita) termed the fine-textured soils of the Texas High Plains. Because this study was conducted primarily to pro- vide information useful to commercial farmers, census data (12) were used to estimate an average size commercial crop farm in the study area. Only the data for those farms reporting harvested cropland and only farms larger than 100 acres were used in calculating an average farm size. This average size crop farm for the study area was 485 acres plus 15 acres of non-cropland for a total of 500 acres. In addition, farms of two other sizes were investi- gated — 160 acres and 960 acres. Approximately 80 per- cent of all farms in the study area fell within the 160- acre to 960-acre range (with about 7 percent smaller and 13 percent larger). Cropland was used in the following manner: corn, 0.7 percent; sorghum, 30.5 percent; wheat, 11.7 percent; cotton, 25.5 percent; soybeans, 1.1 percent; vegetables, 0.2 percent; pastured cropland, 3.2 percent; and other crops, 1.8 percent. Procedure A computer routine was developed for selecting the combination of tractors and implements which satisfied the cultivation practices required. The system finally chosen was the one for which the annual cost was least. /////’//// ///% Parmer Castro Swisher Mew/m / // ////// Lamb H818 Flgyd M/ w Figure l. Study area. 4 Assumptions Certain assumptions, necessary in any stud type, must be recognized when applying the r assumptions for this study were: ‘i 1. Crop yield was independent of equip tern so long as the specified operati completed. _ i 2. Different types of operations were pe i mutually exclusive time periods. i 3. Implement draft requirement and fieldi were independent of ground speed, p efficiency was independent of irnple 4. Farm organization and machine operii fixed throughout the service life of ;_ ment selected. ‘ 5. There were no economies of size av' farm firm in the purchase of inputs -' equipment and labor. * 6. Qualitative differences between manuf- not affect maintenance costs or produi particular implement type. i 7. Design characteristics did not prohibit implements of one manufacturer with i; any other manufacturer. i 8. Two or more implements were never ji taneously with one tractor. i Equipment Selection , Selections of implement and power combi-f based on three factors: technical feasibility, ‘Hi ments and annual costs. Technical feasibili i termined from tractor drawbar pull, impl requirement, ground speed and rate of field wi, per hour. ~ A number of different types of operatio formed during a crop year, each of which “y: ferent type of implement. Initial tractor i based on the particular operation which ap most restricting. That is, as farm size was i point was reached at which some types of -_,i quired more than one implement (and, the? than one tractor) to complete the operation i estimated to be available. The first operatiolii more than one implement was required was ‘i the most restricting (Appendix Figure 1). i. implement and tractor combination was wii operation, the potential ground speed of the i was compared with specified maximum speeds. If ground speed requirements were field capacity of the combination was comp ,5 estimated available time. Each time an -~i selected, annual variable costs for the operati A the implement were determined. The size of it for which annual costs (variable cost plus fixed i the operation were smallest was then incorpor- l the system. lwer source that satisfied the above criteria was . l e selection of implements for subsequent opera- llection of implements for these latter operations T- on the same criteria of ground speed, field d cost. Since many different power and imple- binations, each of which satisfied the technical requirements, were possible, annual costs were 7- for all technically feasible implement and trac- in including multi-tractor configurations. , uirements l ion of a system of equipment for any farm situ- _‘- 'res several types of input data including equip- _~ es, tractor and implement operating character- rations to be performed and time available for ation. i from the Nebraska test for each tractor consid- u study (diesel tractors) were used to determine ler hour and the drawbar pull at specific ground Appendix Table 2). Drawbar pull and speeds i ed to be those, listed under the “maximum 'th ballast” classification of a tractor’s Nebraska g ive and transmission coefficients were used to » data to field conditions (Table 1). Surface 5 were estimated for each operation. Since these l,» assume that wheel slip is not excessive, the l» iated with a particular drawbar pull was as- be the actual ground speed of the tractor and t in the field. it requirements, in pounds per foot of implement ' e obtained for each implement (Appendix Table p efficienciesl for each type of implement, re- A the study, are dependent upon field shape and ipment size, speed of operation, reliability of u» 2 skill of the operator and other factors. Widths q age and row-crop implements were specified in 'enCy = actual acres per hour divided by theoretical .,0ur. This figure is less than one because of time lo-st l, adjusting equipment, refueling, repairing equipment and other factors. his the ratio of the time that equipment is operational ‘i. "in the shop” for repairs) to the total time avail- sing the equipment. RACTIVE AND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS Firm, Tilled, Freshly unfilled reasonably plowed Concrete field firm soil soil l .9 .75 .55 lpted from Hunt (4, p. 31). feet (Appendix Table 3). For most implements, there is a range of ground speeds outside of which performance will not be satisfactory (Appendix Table 4). The lowest speed specified is a factor in determining the minimum tractor size which is technically feasible while the maxi- mum speed places a limit on the acres per unit of time possible with even the largest tractor. The types of operation performed were assumed con- stant from farm to farm with the acres covered by a par- ticular implement type varying in direct proportion to changes in farm size, that is, there is 3.1 times as much cotton on the iOO-acre farm as on the 160-acre farm (Appendix Table 1). Information from published budgets was used to determine the types of operations to be per- formed for each category of land use on the study farms and the number of times these operations were to be performed (1). A total number of hours available during the year was estimated for each operation considered (Appendix Table 1). Budgets published by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station were consulted to determine the months within which particular operations were performed. The time available for field operations within each month was estimated on the basis of a 10-hour-day and a 5-day week. These hours were then allocated to each operation as near to normal practice as could be determined. _ Costs Selection of the combination of equipment was based on the system with least annual costs, which included both variable and fixed costs. Annual fixed costs included depreciation and interest on investment. The straightline method for estimating depreciation was used. Estimated years of life and salvage value for tractors and equipment were 1O years and 1O percent, respectively. The annual opportunity cost for investment in machinery and power was assumed to be 7 percent of the average annual investment: where C represents the average annual investment in machinery and power, A represents the acquisition value and S represents the salvage value. Annual fixed costs (depreciation and cost of capital) were determined in an aggregated amount for each equipment system. Variable costs were calculated on an hourly basis for each operation. Hourly variable costs included costs for fuel, oil, lubricants, repairs and labor for each machinery and power combination. The total variable costs were 5 aggregated for each operation based on the hours required to perform the operation. Findings Land resources were assumed to be allocated in the same proportion for three farm sizes (160, 500 and 960 acres), and cultural practices were assumed to be identical for each farm size (Appendix Table 1). Two levels of draft requirements were evaluated (low and high; Appen- dix Table 4). The effects of five alternative wage rates per hour ($1.25, $1.75, $2.25, $2.75 and $3.25) on the equipment systems were determined. Although equip- ment and power systems were developed for each wage rate per hour, systems developed with wage rates at $1.25 and $1.75 per hour will be discussed more fully. Selection of row-crop implements is dependent, to an extent, on the size of planter selected. The equipment systems are referred to as optimum four-row equipment systems, optimum six-row equipment systems, optimum eight-row equipment systems, feasible least-cost equipment systems and nonfeasible least-cost equipment systems. Opti- mum equipment systems include a set of technically feasi- ble equipment for the indicated size that resulted in the lowest annual costs for the system. Feasible least-cost equipment systems had the lowest annual cost for a set of technically feasible equipment. Nonfeasible least-cost equipment systems had the lowest annual cost for a given condition, but the equipment system was not technically a feasible. TABLE 2. ESTIMATED VARIABLE COSTS, ANNUAL COSTS AND INVESTMENT IN MACHINERY AND POWER FOR ALTERNATIVE SIZES MENT SYSTEMS AND ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES AND DRAFT REQUIREMENTS FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 ‘ To determine the technical feasibility of a: equipment, several factors were considered. F0 ple, an eight-row cultivator is generally not row-crop system planted with either a six-row or f planter. Difficulty in spacing the outside rows r planting systems is critical for subsequent cul tices. That is, use of a four-row planter requires I of four-row cultivators andkhife sleds. Use of a planter requires selection of six-row cultivators, I 1 and rotary hoes. Use of an eight-row planter pr difficulty in the use of four-row implements f, quent cultural operations since the outside mi never be spanned by an implement. i’ 160-Acre Farm , Feasible least-cost equipment systems for hi; 160-acre farm in the study area were identical ff rates of $1.25 per hour and $1.75 per hour for A requirements (see Table 2).3 This system inclui row equipment and a 64 power take-off (PTO; power tractor. For the high draft requirements, A four-row equipment systems were uniformly least i equipment components were not identical. Optim i row equipment systems incurred the highest If at all wage rates. An optimum eight-row equip _ tem with a wage rate of $2.75 per hour had . w.‘ of about $157.32 more than the feasible least- “Appendix Tables 5 through 12 include a detailed list I ment components of each system and hours of use for 2 rate, row system and draft requirement. - Four-row Six-row Eight-row Least c: Draft requirements I Item Low High Low High Low High Low _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_dQn . selected operation w/previous equip. size? ‘L No j Figure 1. The model for selection of a least-cost set of farm machinery. 11 Yes Is smaller implement available? No Calculateitbtal Yes annual costs Have all operations I been completed? I Is this first system No No developed? Select next operation type and go to the Yes beginning — use only _ tractors selected in Store data for previous steps current system Yes w Is total annual cost IL‘ DOeé’éyStem contain of current System ' more than one tractori less than TAC of N y o previous system? Is smaller tractor available Yes Yes Yes i No Limit tractors to next smaller size — go to the beginning L No Has largest tractor available been considered? mi Choose next larger tractor - go to the beginning Print data for least-cost system Appendix Figure 1. (Continued). 12 ABLE 1. ESTIMATED ANNUAL MACHINE USE, 160-ACRE FARM, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 19691 Land use Grain sorghum Cotton Wheat Other crops Layout 44.2 36.7 17 10.2 37 Total acres Total time Times Total Times Total Times Total Times Total Times Total covered available over acres over acres over acres over acres over acres per year (hr) 1.00 44.20 1.00 36.70 1.00 10.20 91.1 50 0.25 11.15 0.25 9.12 0.5 8.5 0.25 2.16 31.3 150 2.00 88.40 2.00 73.40 3.0 51.0 2.00 20.40 3.0 111.0 344.2 450 1.00 44.20 1.00 36.70 2.0 34.0 1.00 10.20 1.0 37.0 162.1 250 2.00 88.40 2.00 73.40 2.00 20.40 182.2 200 1.00 44.20 1.00 36.70 1.0 17.0 1.00 10.20 108.1 2 3.0 30 1.00 44.20 1.50 55.10 1.50 15.30 114.4 50 1.25 55.30 1.25 45.90 1.25 12.80 113.9 250 1.00 44.20 0.50 18.40 0.50 5.10 67.7. 60 1.50 66.30 1.50 55.10 1.5 25.5 1.50 15.30 1.5 55.5 217.7 15 2.00 88.40 3.00 110.10 3.00 30.60 229.1 150 1.0 17.0 17.0 75 Davis and Madden (1). ‘frequirements for lister planter. r-BLE 2. PRICE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF TABLE 2. (CONTINUED) ,7 ORS BY HORSEPOWER RATING, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, e PTO‘ Price Fuel use Drawbar Speed horsepower (dollars)2 (gal/hr)‘ pull (lb)1 (mphll Price Fuel use Drawbar Speed (dollars): (gal/hr)‘ pull (Ibll (mphll 4,164 42] 5,712 2.99 2,750 1.400 799 11.79 6,464 2.64 1,455 6.93 6,851 1.89 2,360 4.31 54.0 5,900 2.330 1,826 9.41 2,350 4.31 2,326 7.46 3,134 3.08 3,196 5.47 4,371 1.82 3,979 4-40 3,800 1.440 988 10.85 5,120 3.34 1,375 8.23 6,415 2.43 1,555 7_12 61.0 6,100 2.710 1,923 10.63 2,144 5.38 3,002 6.36 2,311 4.81 4,313 4-76 3,091 3.59 4,440 4.53 4,105 2.50 5,315 3-32 4,000 1.850 893 11.85 6,275 3.03 1,494 7.90 7,436 2.47 2,271 5_4] 63.7 5,900 2.392 1,302 14.61 3,053 4.00 1,907 10.29 4,246 2.67 2,637 7.32 5,300 1.970 967 14.19 3,005 6.73 1,446 10.02 4,078 5.06 2,005 7.57 4,341 4-50 2,277 6.57 5,397 3-24 3,141 4.92 6,092 2.34 3,35] 439 64.0 6,250 2.957 1,354 14.08 4,532 3.21 1,737 11.12 5,496 2.31 3,353 6.31 5,270 2.354 1,332 11.91 4,217 4.95 2,532 6.74 5,107 4.17 3,643 445g 6,326 3.23 3,739 4_45 7,276 2.49 4,597 3J4 65.0 6,720 3.320 2,194 10.56 5,461 3.02 2,323 8.37 6,521 2.36 3,353 6.15 5,200 3.022 1,130 13.56 4,753 4.95 1,696 9.85 6,035 3.73 2,139 7.74 7,553 2.75 2,694 625 69.0 6,400 3.223 1,501 13.34 M 3,047 5.61 2,606 3.15 3 3,056 4_49 3,472 6.24 '* 3,332 43g 4,059 5.38 4,770 3.50 5,334 4.06 5,504 3_Q4 7,936 2.52 6,799 2.38 71.0 6,229 3.001 2,521 9.05 5,400 2.185 1,197 13.63 3,088 7.70 1,826 9.52 3,825 6.24 2,963 6.12 5,277 4.61 4,074 4.43 6,082 3.87 l3 TABLE 2. (CONTINUED) PTO‘ Price Fuel use Drawbar Speed horsepower ldollarsl’ (gal / hr)‘ pull 11b)‘ lmphll 7,533 3.1 1 8,281 2.86 9,646 2.21 80.0 6,300 3.470 1,561 14.33 2,381 10.43 3,108 8.18 4,374 5.91 4,978 5.13 6,139 4.09 6,913 3.67 8,629 2.87 8,822 2.79 9,697 2.05 85.9 6,000 3.925 2,663 10.29 3,452 8.09 4,843 5.66 6,273 4.54 9,299 2.95 10,054 2.33 92.9 7,120 4.130 1,825 14.49 2,732 10.50 3,488 8.18 4,928 5.91 5,542 5.14 6,999 4.09 7,954 3.66 9,660 2.85 9,771 2.79 10,675 2.1 1 93.6 7,200 3.949 2,107 13-81 3,175 9.64 4,915 6.20 6,144 4.92 7,029 4.23 8,676 3.29 9,199 2.76 93.9 7,400 3.912 2,149 12.50 2,250 1 1.48 3,081 8.99 3,885 7.1 1 5,055 5.57 5,204 5.27 7,051 4.06 7,452 3.71 9,672 2.79 10,184 2.31 94.9 7,200 3.954 2,878 10.72 3,867 8.23 5,183 6.21 6,544 4.92 8,518 3.72 11,349 2.63 97.8 7,200 4.506 2,398 12.84 3,958 8.33 4,921 6.76 4,978 5.60 6,724 4.99 7,245 4.54 9,922 3.30 10,329 3.12 ' 11,808 2.15 100.5 7,800 4.442 2,154 14.50 2,982 1 1.17 4,077 8.18 5,391 6.27 5,589 6.03 6,250 5.27 7,213 4.61 8,074 4.00 8,315 3.83 9,417 2.90 101.8 7,000 4.694 2,865 11.49 3,771 9.07 5,446 6.35 6,697 5.19 9,871 3.46 12,056 2.60 14 TABLE 2. (CONTINUED) PTO‘ horsepower Price ldollars)” Fuel use (gal/hr)‘ Drawbar pull (lbll 105.2 105.0 111.0 116.1 120.5 127.8 131.5 133.0 8,500 8,000 8,705 9,200 9,400 10,000 1 1,200 12,200 4.587 4.330 5.067 5.353 5.069 5.438 6.066 5.610 2,188 3,246 4,096 5,000 6,034 6,393 7,259 7,952 8,886 9,651 10,837 12,884 2,153 3,545 5,233 6,220 8,361 1 1,502 2,511 4,176 5,204 6,351 7,187 7,816 10,563 11,267 14,443 2,609 3,469 4,765 6,270 6,502 7,357 8,424 9,431 9,975 1 1,104 2,794 2,963 3,998 5,029 6,603 6,740 8,970 9,417 12,131 14,182 3,140 4,739 7,263 9,771 12,116 15,261 2,715 4,072 5,200 6,366 7,387 7,994 3,931 10,053 ” 10,809 11,965 13,204 . 10,509 * 3,723 5,023 r 6,927 3,678 11,187 15,195 16,197 , ‘Nebraska Tractor Tests (9). . ‘Price information obtained from equipment dealers 1' High Plains, 1968. APPENDIX TABLE 3. IMPLEMENT PRICE RANGE BY SIZE, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968 Width Price range Implement (ft)1 (dollars)1 Rear-mounted 13.3 (4 row) 600- 950 cultivator 20.0 (6 row) 900-1,375 26.7 (8 row) 1,200-2,050 Lister-planter 13.3 (4 row) 680-1,400 20.0 (6 row) 1,180-1,900 26.7 (8 row) 1,785-2,600 Rotary hoe 13.3 (4 row) 480- 560 20.0 (6 row) 795- 975 26.7 (8 row) 1,131 Knife sled 13.3 (4 row) 375- 485 . 20.0 (6 row) 525- 745 26.7 (8 row) 1,115 Shredder 6.7 (2 row) 575- 750_ 13.3 (4 row) 1,200-1,550 Sandfighter 30 (9 row) 135- 170 40 (12 row) 214- 245 6O (18 row) 325- 360 Chisel plow 8 400- 635 9 325 10 525 11 415- 800 12 650 13 540 15 875 21 1,100 Tandem disc 10 690- 695 11 800- 900 12 795 13 925-1,250 15 1,600 17 1,535-1,800 20 1,610-1,950 21 1,700-1,750 Grain drill 7 700 9 824 13 690 16 1,000 18 » 910- 975 Breaking plow 2.7 (3 bottom) 600- 785 4 (3 bottom) 800-1,095 5.3 (4 bottom) 1,200-1,450 9.4 (7 bottom) 2,000 V-ditcher 8.2 175- 225 Float 9 (32 ft long) 1,050 12 (32 ft long) 1,250-1,325 12 (33 ft long) 1,300 12 (45 ft long) 1,600 ‘Information obtained from equipment dealers in the Texas High Plains, 1968. TABLE 4. IMPLEMENT OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Typical ranges Typical Repair, in draft range of maintenance Minimum Maximum requirements operating Efficiency Tractive and and permissible permissible (16 per ft efficiency used transmission lubrication speed speed of width) (%) (%) coefficient l% /hr) (mph) (mph) a}: bottoms, 12 inches deep) 720-1,296 74-88 74 .9 .08 3.5 5.0 sc 190- 250 77-90 77 .75 .065 3.5 6.0 ¢ r 120- 240 60-80 77 .75 .065 2.5 6.0 I 175- 315 75-90 75 .75 .07 1.5 5.5 1191 751 .9 .24 2.0 8.0 80- 190 7O .65 .06 2.5 5.0 40- 100 80-90 80 .75 .019 3.0 8.0 54‘ 75‘ .55 .05 1.5 3.5 2271 751 .55 .06 1.5 5.0 91 1501 .75 .08 5.0 15.0 50- 130 65-85 65 .75 .08 2.5 4.0 42o‘ 25‘ .55 .04 2.5 4.5 §~ es were estimated for this study. Other data were obtained from published sources (1, 4, 5 and 6). 15 APPENIDIX TABLE 5. ' OPTIMUM FOUR-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, LOW l" QUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rates (dollars per hr) 1.251 2.25 2.75 3.25 Hours Hours Hours Item Units Size of use ' Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 54.0 294.3 53.5 286.9 53.5 282.8 53.5 Float ft 9 50.3 9 49.6 9 49.6 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 2 25.8 2 25.8 2 25.8 3 Tandem disc ft 10 61.5 12 54.8 12 54.8 12 Lister planter row 4 29.8 4 29.8 4 29.8 4 Chisel ft 11 29.5 11 29.5 13 24.9 13 Shredder row 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 Cultivator row 4 40.6 4 40.6 4 40.6 4 Rotary hoe row 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 Knife sled row 4 16.0 4 16.0 4 16.0 4 Sandfighter row 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 Grain drill ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 Ditcher unit 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for a wage rate of $1.75 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of- wage rate of $1.25 per hour. APPENDIX TABLE 6. OPTIMUM FOUR-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, HI REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 ~ Wage rates (dollars per hr) 1.25‘ 2.75 3.25 y Hours Hours Item Units Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 63.7 307.0 85.9 276.2 85.9 Float ft 9 44.5 9 44.5 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 2 25.8 3 19.2 3 Tandem disc ft 12 60.7 12 54.3 13 Lister planter row 4 39.7 4 31.6 4 Chisel ft 9 39.2 11 29.5 11 Shredder row 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 Cultivator row 4 40.6 4 40.6 4 Rotary hoe row 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 Knife sled row 4 16.0 4 16.0 4 Sandfighter row 4 2.9 9 2.9 9 Grain drill ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 Ditcher unit l 3.7 l 3.7 l ‘The equipment systems and hours of use for wage rates of $1.75 and $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system u of use for wage rates of $1.25 per hour. ~ APPENDIX TABLE 7. OPTIMUM SIX-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, LOW If QUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 f Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75‘ 2.75 3.25‘ Hours Hours Hours Item Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 53.5 267.6 53.5 260.9 53.5 256.3 53.5 Float ft 9 49.6 9 49.6 9 49.6 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 2 25.8 2 25.8 2 25.8 3 Tandem disc ft 10 61.5 12 54.8 12 54.8 12 Lister planter row 6 26.5 6 26.5 6 26.5 6 Chisel ft 11 29.5 11 29.5 13 24.9 13 Shredder row 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 Cultivator row 6 27.0 6 27.0 6 27.0 6 Rotary hoe row 6 7.4 6 7.4 6 7.4 6 Knife sled row 6 10.6 6 10.6 6 10.6 6 Sandfighter row 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 Grain drill ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 Ditcher unit 1 4.0 1 4.0 I 4.0 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for a wage rate of $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours wage rate of $1.75 per hour. ‘ l6 TABLE 8. OPTIMUM SIX-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT RE- I S, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.751 2.75 3.25 Hours Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use hp 63 7 305.7 85.9 271.5 85.9 264.9 85.9 260.7 .. ft 9 44.5 9 44.5 9 44.5 9 44.5 I plow 16 inch 2 25.8 2 25.8 3 19.2 3 19.2 disc ft 12 60.7 12 54.3 12 54.3 13 50.1 ter row 6 45.0 6 40.3 6 40.3 6 40.3 ft 9 39.2 11 29.5 11 29.5 11 29.5 row 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 row 6 41.7 6 29.7 6 29.7 6 29.7 row 6 8.8 6 7.4 6 7.4 6 7.4 row 6 10.6 6 10.6 6 10.6 6 10.6 row 9 2.9 9 3.9 9 3.9 9 3.9 ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 unit 1 3.7 1 2.7 1 2.7 1 2.7 I pment system and hours of use for a wage rate at $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for F of $1.75 per hour. TABLE 9. OPTIMUM EIGHT-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, LOW DRAFT RE- I , TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75‘ 2.75 3.25 Hours Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use hp 53.5 289.3 53.5 282.6 53.5 278.0 53.5 253.5 ft 9 49.6 9 49.6 9 49.6 9 49.6 plow 16 inch 2 25.8 2 25.8 2 25.8 a 19.4 iisc 10 61.5 12 54.8 12 54.8 12 54.8 nter row 8 25.5 8 25.5 8 25.5 8 25.5 = I1 29.5 11 29.5 13 24.9 13 24.9 raw 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 row 4 40.6 4 40.6 4 40.6 8 22.5 row 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 11.1 row 4 16.0 4 16.0 4 16.0 4 16.0 row 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 2.9 ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 unit 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 hment system and hours of use for a wage rate of $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for of $1.75 per hour. v TABLE 10. OPTIMUM EIGHT-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT ENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate [dollars per hr) 1.25‘ 2.75 3.25 Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use Size of use hp 85 9 281.4 85.9 274.8 85.9 270.6 ft 9 44.5 9 44.5 9 44.5 _ . aw 16 inch 2 25.8 3 19.2 3 19.2 Ii ft 12 54.3 12 54.3 13 50.1 i rei- row 8 30.2 8 30.2 8 30.2 I ft 11 29.5 11 29.5 11 29.5 row w _ 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 row '_-~ 4 40.6 4 40.6 4 40.6 row‘ 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 11.1 row 4 16.0 4 16.0 4 16.0 row 9 3.9 9 3.9 9 3.9 ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 unit 1 2.7 1 2.7 1 2.7 ' nt system and hours of use for wage rates of $1.75 and $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of ' ge rate of $1.25 per hour. 17 APPENDIX TABLE 11‘. LEAST COST EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, LOW DRAFTREQUIR TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, I969 ' Wage rate (dollars per hr) g 1.25 1.751 2.75 4 3.25_ Hours Hours Hours Item Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 54.0 294.3 53.5 273.3 53.5 263.13 53.5 Float ft 9 50.3 9 49.6 9 4916 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 2 25.8 2 25.8 2 25.8 3 Tandem disc ft 10 61.5 12 54.8 12 54.8 12 Lister planter row 4 29.8 4 29.8 4 29.8 4 Chisel ft I1 29.5 11 29.5 13 24.9 13 Shredder row 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 Cultivator row 4 40.6 6 27.0 6 27.0 6 f‘ Rotary hoe row 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 Knife sled row 4 16.0 4 16.0 6 10.6 6 Sandfighter row 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 2.9 9 Grain drill ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 Ditcher unit 1 4.0 I 4.0 1 4.0 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for a wage rate of $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of wage rate of $1.75 per hour. APPENDIX TABLE 12. LEAST COST EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 160-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT '< MENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 ' Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25‘ 2.75 3.25 Hours Hours Item Units Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 63.7 307.0 85.9 259.9 85.9 Float ft 9 44.5 9 44.5 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 2 25.8 3 19.2 3 Tandem disc ft 12 60.7 12 54.3 13 Lister planter row 4 39.7 4 31.6 4 Chisel ft 9 39.2 I1 29.5 11 Shredder row 2 18.7 2 18.7 2 Cultivator row 4 40.6 6 29.7 6 Rotary hoe row 4 11.1 4 11.1 4 Knife sled row 4 16.0 6 10.6 6 Sandfighter row 9 2.9 9 3.9 9 Grain drill ft 13 4.1 13 4.1 13 Ditcher unit 1 3.7 1 2.7 1 ‘The equipment systems and hours of use for wage rates of $1.75 and $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system a I of use for wage rate of $1.25 per hour. z APPENDIX TABLE 13. OPTIMUM FOUR-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500-ACRE FARM, LO REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 . Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.751 2.75 3.25’; Hours Hours Hours Item ' Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 54.0 954.4 53.5 913.6 80.0 716.8 80.0 Float tt 9 168.1 9 165.9 12 111.7 12 Breaking plow I6 inch 3 65.7 3 64.9 4 44.0 4 Tandem disc ft 10 205.4 12 183.1 17 122.7 17 Lister planter row 4 99.6 4 99.6 4 99.6 4 Chisel ft 11 98.5 13 83.3 21 55.3 21 Shredder row 2 62.5 2 62.5 4 31.5 4 Cultivator row 4 132.2 4 132.2 4 132.2 4 Rotary hoe row 4 37.1 4 37.1 4 37.1 8 Knife sled row 4 53.5 4 53.5 4 53.5 4 Sandfighter row 9 9.8 9 9.8 9 9.5 12 Grain drill ft 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 Ditcher unit 1 8.2 1 7.9 I 5 9 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for a wage rate of $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of” a wage rate of $1.75 per hour. I 18 :5 TABLE 14. OPTIMUM FOUR-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT A ENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.251 3.25 Hours Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use hp 63.7 1017.9 80.0 864.5 80.0 833.5 80.0 831.1 ft 9 148.9 12 111.7 12 111.7 12 111.7 “k plow 16 inch 2 86.3 3 71.2 3 71.2 3 71.2 ' I'_ disc ft 12 203.0 13 160.4 13 160.4 13 160.4 nter row 4 132.8 4 101.1 4 101 1 4 101.1 ~ ft 9 130.8 11 105.6 11 105.6 11 105.6 row 2 62.5 2 62.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 row 4 132.2 4 132.2 4 132.2 4 132.2 row 4 37.1 4 37.1 4 ‘ 37.1 4 37.1 row 4 53.5 4 53.5 4 53.5 4 53.5 r row 9 9.5 9 9.5 9 9.5 12 7.1 ft 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 unit 1 7.5 1 5.9 1 5.9 1 5.9 (ipment system and hours of use for a wage rate of $2.75 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for jte of $2.25 per hour. I TABLE 15. OPTIMUM SIX-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500-ACRE FARM, LOW DRAFT RE- i: TS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rote (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use S-ize of use Size of use Size of use hp 54.0 869.8 53.5 827.9 80.0 624.2 80.0 609.9 80.0 607.5 i. ft 9.0 168.1 9 165.9 12 111.7 12 111.7 12 111.7 “plow 16 inch 3 65.7 3 64.9 3 58.3 4 44.0 4 44.0 Qdisc ft 1O 205.4 12 183.1 v 17 122.7 17 122.7 17 122.7 Anter row 6 89.7 20 88.5 6 67.3 6 67.3 6 67.3 ft 11 98.5 13 83.3 21 55.3 21 55.3 21 55.3 row 2 62.5 2 62.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 row 6 87.9 6 87.9 6 87.9 6 87.9 6 87.9 row 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 row 6 35.6 6 35.6 6 35.6 6 35.6 6 35.6 row 9 9.8 9 9.8 9 9.5 9 9.5 12 7.1 ft 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 unit 1 8.1 1 7.9 1 5.9 1 5.9 1 5.9 If _TABLE 16. OPTIMUM SIX-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT RE- S, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25‘ 3.25 Hours Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use hp 80.0 818.6 101.8 664.1 101.8 661.2 101.8 649.4 ft 12 111.7 12 111.7 12 111.7 12 111.7 low 16 inch 3 71.2 3 58.3 3 58.3 3 58.3 sc ft 13 160.4 2O 118.7 20 118.7 20 118.7 er row 6 108.3 6 76.6 6 76.6 6 76.6 ft 11 105.6 13 88.3 13 88.3 15 76.5 row Q2", 62.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 row z 6 107.5 6 87.9 6 87.9 6 87.9 row 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 ( row 6 35.6 6 35.6 6 35.6 6 35.6 A r row 9 11.9 9 11.6 12 8.7 12 8.7 ft 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 unit 1 5.4 1 5.4 1 5.4 1 5.4 h ent system and hours of use for o wage rote of $2.75 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for rte of $2.25 per hour. . - 19 APPENDIX TABLE 17. OPTIMUM EIGHT-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500-ACRE FARM, LO REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 l; Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 Hou rs Hou rs Hou rs Hou rs Item Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 63.7 800.1 80.0 619.6 80.0 588.6 80.0 f- 574.3 80.0 Float 9 148.9 12 111.7 12 111.7 12 E: 111.7 12 Breaking plow 16 inch 3 58.3 3 58.3 3 58.3 4 44.0 4 Tandem disc ft 10 205.4 17 122.7 17 122.7 17 122.7 17 Lister planter row 8 66.2 8 50.4 8 50.4 ' 8 50.4 8 Chisel ft 11 98.5 21 55.3 21 55.3 21 55.3 21 Shredder row 2 62.5 2 62.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 4 Cultivator row 8 65.8 8 65.8 8 65.8 8 65.8 8 Rotary hoe row 4 37.1 4 37 1 4 37.1 4 37 1 8 Knife sled row 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 Sandfighter row 9 9.5 9 9.5 9 9.5 9 9.5 12 Grain drill ft 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 Ditcher unit 1 7.5 1 5.9 1 5.9 1 5.9 1 APPENDIX TABLE 18. OPTIMUM EIGHT-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500-ACRE FARM, HI "I REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 l Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.251 2.25 2.75 Hours Hours Hours Item Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 85.9 870.6 80.0 809.2 101.8 681.3 101.8 Float tt 9 148.9 12 111.7 12 111.7 12 Breaking plow 16 inch 3 64.2 3 71.2 3 58.3 3 Tandem disc 13 167.5 13 160.4 20 118.7 20 Lister planter row 8 100.9 8 103.7 8 86.1 8 Chisel 11 98.5 11 105.6 13 88.3 15 Sh redder row 2 62.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 4 Cultivator row 4 132.2 4 132.2 8 95.1 8 Rotary hoe row 4 37.1 4 37.1 4 37.1 8 Knife sled row 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 Sandfighter row 9 13.0 9 9.5 12 8.7 12 Grain drill ft 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 Ditcher unit 1 5.4 1 5.9 1 5 4 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for a wage rate of $1.75 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours wage rate of $1.25 per hour. * APPENDIX TABLE 19. LEAST-COST EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500 ACRE FARM, LOW DRAFT I MENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 1 Wage ra-te (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 Hours Hours Hours Hours Item Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 54.0 883.1 53.5 830.0 80.0 593.1 80.0 578.8 80.0 Float ft 9 168.1 9 165.9 12 111.7 12 111.7 12 Breaking plow 16 inch 3 65.7 3 64.9 3 58.3 4 44.0 4 Tandem disc ft 10 205.4 12 183.1 17 122.7 17 122.7 17 Lister planter row 4 99.6 4 99.6 6 67.3 6 67.3 6 Chisel ft 11 98.5 13 83.3 21 55.3 21 55.3 21 Shredder row 2 62.5 2 62.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 4 Cultivator row 6 87.9 6 87.9 8 65.8 8 65.8 8 Rotary hoe row 4 37.1 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 Knife sled row 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 Sandfighter row 9 9.8 9 9.8 9 9.5 9 9.5 12 Grain drill ft 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 Ditcher unit 1 8.1 1 7.9 1 5.9 1 5.9 1 20 E 2o. LEAST-COST EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 500-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT REQUIRE- i HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Woge rote (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 . Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours A Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use Size of use 11p 85.9 839.9 85.9 827.5 85.9 793.2 101.8 652.2 101.8 640.4 ff 9 148.9 9 148.9 9 148.9 12 111.7 12 111.7 16 inch 3 64.2 3 64.2 3 64.2 3 58.3 3 58.3 ft 13 167.5 13 167.5 13 167.5 2O 118.7 2O 118.7 row 4 105.6 4 105.6 4 105.6 6 76.6 6 76.6 f1’ 11 98.5 11 98.5 11 98.5 13 88.3 15 76.5 row 2 62.5 2 62.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 4 31.5 row 6 96.8 6 96.8 6 96.8 6 87.9 6 87.9 row 4 37.1 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 6 24.7 . row 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 26.6 8 . 26.6 row 9 13.0 9 13.0 12 9.7 12 8.7 12 8.7 f1‘ 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 13 13.8 Unit 1 5.4 1 5.4 1 5.4 1 5.4 1 5.4 g 21. OPTIMUM FOUR-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, LOW DRAFT RE- TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rote (dollars per hr) 1.25‘ 2.25 2.75” Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use Size of use hp 80.0 1,174.0 _ 80.0 1,169.4 80.0 1,161.9 hp 37.0 315.6 37 259.5 37.0 259.5 ft 12 200.0 12 200.0 12 200.0 ft 9 138.6 9 100.9 9 100.9 16 inch 4 85.6 4 85.6 4 85.6 17 239.0 17 239.0 17 239.0 row 4 179.3 4 179.3 4 179.3 ft 21 107.8 21 107.8 21 107.8 row 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 61.3 row 4 150.0 4 150.0 4 150.0 row 4 132.8 4 114.4 4 114.4 row 8 40.8 8 40.8 8 40.8 row 4 60.0 4 60.0 4 60.0 row 4 44.2 4 44.2 4 44.2 row 12 13.9 18 9.3 18 9.3 ft 13 27.0 13 27.0 18 19.5 unit 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 I hour. " hour. s I system and hours of use for system and hours of use for wage rote $1.75 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for wage wage rate $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for wage 21 APPENDIX TABLE I22. OPTIMUM FOUR-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, HIGH REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75‘ Hours Hours Hours Units Item Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 80.0 1,410.5 85.9 1,402.6 101.8 1,224.7 101.8 Tractor hp 54.0 337.6 63.7 307.7 54.0 236.7 85.9 Float ft 9 200.0 9 200.0 12 200.0 12 Float ft 9 132.2 9 117.1 12 63.3 12 Breaking plow I6 inch 3 138.6 3 124.9 3 113.4 3 Tandem disc ft 13 312.6 13 326.4 20 231.4 2O Lister planter row 4 182.0 4 190.0 4 179.3 4 Chisel ft 11 205.8 11 191.9 15 149.2 15 z Shredder row 4 61.3 4 61.3 ' 4 61.3 4 Cultivator row 4 150.0 4 150.0 4 150.0 4 Cultivator row 4 129.2 4 114.4 4 129.2 4 Rotary hoe row 4 50.0 4 50.0 8 40.8 8 Rotary hoe row 4 32.0 4 32.0 Knife sled row 4 60.0 4 60.0 4 60.0 4 Knife sled row 4 44.2 4 44.2 4 44.2 4 Sandfighter row 12 13.9 18 12.6 18 11.3 18 Grain drill ft 13 27.0 13 27.0 18 19.5 18 Ditcher unit 1 9.3 1 8.5 1 8.5 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for wage rate $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use f. rate $2.75 per hour. APPENDIX TABLE 23. OPTIMUM SIX-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, LO’ REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 _ I Wage rate (dollars per hr) Item Units 1.251 2.25 2.75’ J Size Hours Size Hours Size of use of use Tractor hp 80.0 1,124.9 80.0 1,120.3 80.0 Tractor hp 32.0 195.1 32.0 195.1 38.0 Float ft 12 200.0 12 200.0 12 Float ft 9 138.6 9 138.6 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 4 85.6 4 85.6 4 Tandem disc ft 17 239.0 17 239.0 17 Lister planter row 6 121.0 6 121.0 6 Chisel fit 21 107.8 21 107.8 21 Shredder row 4 61 3 4 61 3 4 Cultivator row 4 150.0 4 150.0 4 Cultivator row 4 42.0 4 42.0 4 Rotary hoe row 4 50.0 4 50.0 4 Rotary hoe row 4 5.2 4 5.2 4 Knife sled row 4 60.0 4 60.0 4 Knife sled‘ row 4 9.3 4 9.3 4 Sandfighter _ row 12 13.9 18 9.3 18 Grain drill ft 13 27.0 13 27.0 18 Ditcher unit 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for wage rate $1.75 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use 3 rate of $1.25 per hour. zThe equipment system and hours of use for wage rate $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipmenit system and hours of use A rate of $2.75 per hour. ’ 22 BLE 24. OPTIMUM SIX-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT REQUIRE- _j S HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) . 1.25 1.75 2.25‘ Units size Hours Size Hours size Hours of use of use of use hp 101.8 1,222.8 101.8 1,199.9 101.8 1,192.4 hp 54.0 196.4 85.9 84.0 85.9 84.0 ft 9 200.0 12 200.0 12 200.0 ft 9 132.2 12 41.7 12 41.7 16 inch 3 113.4 3 113.4 3 113.4 ft 2O 231.4 20 231.4 20 231.4 row 6 137.8 6 137 8 6 137 8 ft 13 172.1 15 149.2 15 149.2 row 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 61.3 row 6 150.0 6 150.0 6 150.0 row 6 49.0 6 28.5 6 28.5 " row 6 50.0 6 50.0 6 50.0 row 6 5.9 6 4.5 6 4.5 row 6 60.0 6 60.0 6 60.0 row 6 9.3 6 9.3 6 9.3 row 18 11.3 18 11.3 18 11.3 ft 13 27.0 13 27.0 18 19.5 unit 1 8.5 1 8.5 1 8.5 t systems and hours of use for wage rates $2.75 and $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours 3' age rate $2.25 per hour. - y ‘R1 25. OPTIMUM EIGHT-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, LOW DRAFT RE- TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr] U . 1.25‘ ' 2.25 2.752 nlts size Hours size Hours size Hours of use of use of use hp 80.0 1,059.0 80.0 1,054.4 80.0 1,046.9 hp 32.0 138.6 32.0 138.6 37.0 100.9 ft 12 200.0 12 200.0 12 200.0 ft 9 138.6 9 138.6 9 100.9 16 inch 4 85.6 4 85.6 4 85.6 ft 17 239.0 17 239.0 17 239.0 row 8 90.7 8 90.7 8 90.7 ft 21 107.8 21 107.8 21 107.8 row 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 61.3 row 8 131.7 8 131.7 8 131.7 row 8 40.8 8 40.8 8 40.8 row 8 51 9 8 51.9 8 51.9 row 12 13.9 18 9.3 18 9.3 ft 13 27.0 13 27.0 8 19.5 un|t I 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 y system and hours of use for wage rate of $1.75 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for wage ‘per hour. I- t system and hours of use for wage rate of $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use for wage hour. 23 APPENDIX TABLE 26. OPTIMUM EIGHT-ROW EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, HIGH If ‘AQUIREMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75‘ 2.75‘ I Hours Hours Item ' Units Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 120.5 1,097.7 120.5 1,070.2 120.5 Tractor hp 32.0 138.6 32.0 138.6 37.0 Float ft 12 200.0 12 200.0 ; 12 Float ft 9 138.6 9 138.6 l; 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 3 113.4 4 93.4 4 Tandem disc ft 2O 203.9 20 203.9 2O Lister planter row 8 117.0 8 117.0 8 Chisel ft 21 120.7 21 120.7 21 Shredder row 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 Cultivator row 8 143.8 8 143.8 8 if“ Rotary hoe row 8 40.8 8 40.8 8 ‘I .7. Knife sled row 8 51.9 8 51.9 8 Sandfighter row 18 9.4 18 9.4 18 Grain drill ft 13 27.0 18 19.5 18 Ditcher unit 1 8.5 1 8.5 1 lThe equipment system and hours of use for wage rate $2.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use rate $1.75 per hour. ' zThe equipment system and hours of use for wage rate $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of use rate $2.75 per hour. ‘ APPENDIX TABLE 27. LEAST-COST EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, LOW DRAFT‘ MENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 ' Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25 Item Hours Hours Hours Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor hp 80.0 1,089.3 80.0 1,059.0 80.0 1,054.4 80.0 Tractor hp 32.0 138.6 32.0 138.6 32.0 138.6 37.0 Float ft 12 200.0 12 200.0 12 200.0 12 Float ft 9 138.6 9 138.6 9 138.6 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 4 85.6 4 85.6 4 85.6 4 Tandem disc ft 17 239.0 17 239.0 17 239.0 17 Lister planter row 6 121.0 8 90.7 8 90.7 8 Chisel ft 21 107.8 21 107.8 21 107.8 21 Shredder row 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 Cultivator row 8 131.7 8 131.7 8 131.7 8 Rotary hoe row 8 40.8 8 40.8 8 40.8 8 Knife sled row 8 51.9 8 51.9 8 51.9 8 Sandfighter row 12 13.9 12 13.9 18 9.3 18 Grain drill ft 13 27.0 13 27.0 13 27.0 18 Ditcher unit 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for wage rate $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of u -{ rate $2.75 per hour. APPENDIX TABLE 28. LEAST-COST EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVE WAGE RATES FOR A 960-ACRE FARM, HIGH DRAFT? MENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1969 Wage rate (dollars per hr) 1.25 1.75 2.25 Hours Hours Hours Item Units Size of use Size of use Size of use Size Tractor , hp 101.8 1,205.5 101.8 1,182.6 101.8 1,175.1 120.5 Tractor hp 37.0 178.7 37.0 178.7 37.0 178.7 37.0 Float ft 12 200.0 12 200.0 12 200.0 12 Float ft 9 100.9 9 100.9 9 100.9 9 Breaking plow 16 inch 3 1,134.0 3 113.4 3 113.4 4 Tandem disc ft 20 231.4 2O 231.4 20 231.4 20 Lister planter row 6 137.8 6 137.8 6 137.8 6 Chisel ft 13 172.1 15 149.2 15 149.2 21 Shredder row 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 61.3 4 Cultivator row 6 150.0 6 150.0 6 150.0 8 Cultivator row 4 77.8 4 77.8 4 77.8 Rotary hoe row 8 40.8 8 40.8 8 40.8 8 Knife sled row 8 51.9 8 51.9 8 51.9 8 Sandfighter row 18 11.3 18 11.3 18 11.3 18 Grain drill ft 13 27.0 18 27.0 18 19.5 18 Ditcher unit 1 8.5 1 8.5 1 8.5 1 ‘The equipment system and hours of use for wage rate $3.25 per hour were identical to the equipment system and hours of u‘ rate $2.75 per hour. 24