Economic Research Service 1

United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

Electronic Report from the Economic Research Service

Statistical

Bulletin

Number

974-2

October

2001

Characteristics and Production

Costs of U.S. Cotton Farms

Nora L. Brooks1

In this report...Producing a pound of cotton cost U.S.

farmers 38 cents in operating costs and another 35 cents

in overhead costs in 1997, the latest survey year. 

Individual farm costs ranged from 18 cents to $1.97 per

pound for operating costs and from 28 cents to $2.96 per

pound for total costs. The Prairie Gateway had the

largest proportion of cotton farms while the largest cotton

farms and the largest share of cotton production were in

the Fruitful Rim.

Keywords: Costs of production, operating costs, total

costs, low-cost, high-cost, cotton, custom, farm

characteristics, enterprise size, Agricultural Resource

Management Study.

1

Agricultural Economist, Resource Economics Division,

Economic Research Service, USDA
Overview

2 Economic Research Service

U.S. cotton is a heavily exported commodity, and

world economic conditions play a large role in

the vitality of this portion of the farm sector. In

fact, over the past decade, the United States has

accounted for 25 percent of global cotton trade,

with 40 percent of U.S. raw cotton being

exported. While market variations are largely

out of the control of the individual producer, one

direct way for the operator to improve prospects

is to control production costs. Nearly half the

cost of producing cotton is related to seed,

fertilizer, chemicals, and custom work. 

The cotton version of the 1997 Agricultural

Resource Management Study (ARMS) surveyed

farmers in 12 States in the Cotton Belt to find out

about production practices, characteristics of the

farm and operator, and types of strategies they

were using to manage their farms. Respondents

to the cotton version of the 1997 ARMS

represented 28,584 farms producing cotton on

about 13.3 million acres. They represented 91

percent of U.S. cotton farms and 96 percent of

planted cotton acres. The data largely reflect

conditions facing growers of upland cotton, as

only a few growers in the sample reported

planting extra long staple or pima cotton.

This report compares selected farm

characteristics and production costs among U.S.

cotton producers in 1997. Producers are grouped

according to total cotton production costs,

enterprise size, production region, and the ERS

farm typology. This report will use total costs as

the basis for cost group analysis to see if there

are differences among farms. Total costs

represent the level required to reward all the

factors of production and keep them in

agricultural production over the longer term. For

a more complete discussion of how the

distribution of farms changes based on the

definition of the cost groups, see the Appendix.
Characteristics of Cotton Producers by Total Cost Group

Economic Research Service 3

Cotton yields and cultural practices distinguished low- and high-cost producers.

Estimated production costs were converted to a

per-pound basis and ranked from lowest to

highest to form a weighted, cumulative

distribution of farms and production. Cotton

farms were divided into three groups, according

to their level of total costs. The low-cost group

was the 25 percent of farms with the lowest

costs, while the high-cost group was the 25

percent of farms with the highest costs (fig. 1). 

The mid-cost group represented the remaining 50

percent of farms.

The average total cost of producing cotton in

1997 was $517.99 per planted acre or 73 cents

per pound of lint. Slightly less than half of

ARMS cotton farms had total costs at or below

the average cost of 73 cents per pound, which

accounted for 62 percent of the 1997 cotton crop

(tables 1 and 2).

Twenty-five percent of cotton farms surveyed

had total costs of 64 cents per pound or less. 

These low-cost producers accounted for 36

percent of cotton production. The average total

cost per pound for this group of farms was 55

cents. High-cost producers with per-pound total

costs of 92 cents or more accounted for 12

percent of U.S. cotton production in 1997. The

average total cost per pound for this group was

$1.20.
4 Economic Research Service

Table 1—Characteristics of cotton farms, by total cost group, 1997

Item Units Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost All ARMS

farms

Share of ARMS:

 Cotton farms Percent 25 50 25 100

 Cotton production Percent 36 52 12 100

Lint yield – actual Pounds 892 725 421 711

Lint yield – expected Pounds 863 764 563 751

Total acreage operated Acres 1,477 1,118 1,173 1,222

Planted cotton acreage Acres 541 474 385 469

Farm value of production Dollars per farm 606,587 488,710 318,525 475,540

Cotton value of production Dollars per farm 288,937 211,160 135,452 211,622

Cotton under contract Percent of value 15 14 10 13

Expected price at planting Dollars per pound .716 .677 .694 .691

Harvest month price Dollars per pound .695 .687 .679 .689

Table 2—Historical cotton production costs and returns per planted acre, by total cost group, 1997

Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost All ARMS

 farms

Dollars

Costs per pound of lint:

 Operating costs, actual yield .31 .38 .57 .38

 Total costs, actual yield .55 .74 1.20 .73

Costs and returns per acre:

 Gross value of production 709.06 569.72 328.54 560.18

 Total operating costs: 276.05 278.86 240.58 270.17

 Seed 16.40 17.56 18.49 17.42

 Fertilizer 36.13 37.32 27.97 35.05

 Chemicals 62.29 66.05 49.89 61.64

 Custom operations 21.99 19.48 15.67 19.42

 Fuel, lube, electricity 25.33 26.69 47.92 30.67

 Repairs 23.66 27.10 25.18 25.71

 Purchased irrigation water 5.36 11.78 9.38 9.44

 Interest on operating inputs 6.69 6.80 5.81 6.56

 Ginning 78.21 66.08 40.25 64.26

 Total allocated overhead: 211.87 260.73 266.35 247.82

 Hired labor 35.66 41.96 47.15 41.21

 Opportunity cost of unpaid labor 22.98 32.51 39.76 31.26

 Capital recovery of machinery & equipment 88.08 100.31 94.72 95.64

 Opportunity cost of land 42.17 57.51 47.16 50.96

 Taxes and insurance 12.02 14.58 16.95 14.33

 General farm overhead 10.96 13.87 20.61 14.42

Total costs 487.91 539.58 506.93 517.99

Returns above operating costs 433.01 290.86 87.96 290.01

Returns above total costs 221.14 30.14 -178.39 42.19
Economic Research Service 5

Low-cost producers reported yields of 892

pounds of lint per acre and average total costs of

55 cents per pound. In contrast, high-cost

producers reported yields of 421 pounds of lint

per acre and total costs of $1.20 per pound. 

Actual yields on low-cost farms were 29 pounds

per acre higher than the producer expected at

planting. High-cost farms, in contrast, had yields

142 pounds below expectations. Similarly, midcost farms had lower yields than were expected

at planting time. Harvest month prices were

lower than both low- and high-cost growers

expected, but higher than mid-cost growers

expected.

On a per-acre basis, total costs for high-cost

producers were $507 versus $488 for low-cost

producers. Operating costs were $36 per acre

lower for high-cost producers than for low-cost

producers. Allocated overhead costs were $54

higher for high-cost producers. Allocated

overhead costs accounted for 53 percent of total

costs for high-cost producers compared with only

43 percent for low-cost producers. 

Cotton production is highly mechanized today.

However, it is still quite labor intensive, and

labor costs, both hired and unpaid, are much

higher for high-cost than low-cost producers. 

Hired labor was a larger component than unpaid

labor, but the difference in hired labor costs was

not statistically significant. 

High-cost growers had lower operating costs

largely attributable to lower fertilizer, chemical,

and custom costs. High-cost growers put $27 per

acre less into these inputs, but used $23 more

fuel per acre. Ginning costs were almost double

for low-cost growers because their yields were

more than double those realized by high-cost

growers.

High-cost growers planted fewer acres of cotton

(fig. 2), and abandoned 26 of their 385 planted

acres while low-cost growers harvested all their

cotton acres. The low-cost growers reported

more trips across the field with all chemicals. 

Most growers applied herbicides as routine

practice whether they were pre-emergent or postemergent applications. The highest proportions

of low-cost growers applied insecticides based on

scouting data while the highest proportion of

high-cost growers used their own determination

of infestation levels as the basis for their decision

to apply insecticides. In addition, low-cost farms

were more likely than high-cost farms to use soil,

plant tissue, and nitrogen tests. Test results were

used in deciding nitrogen applications, with 95

percent of low-cost farms applying either the

recommended or a lesser amount of nitrogen per

acre.

Cultural practices also vary between low- and

high-cost growers. The majority of both groups

planted in May–a larger percentage of high-cost

growers planted in June. While most cotton is

planted in solid rows, high-cost growers were

more likely than low-cost growers to plant skiprow cotton. The most common skip pattern was

to plant two rows and skip one. The majority of

low-cost growers harvested their cotton in

October, while 36 percent of high-cost growers

harvested in October and 39 percent in

November. High-cost farms were much more

likely to use cotton strippers to harvest, while

low-cost farms were more likely to use pickers to

harvest. High-cost farms were also more likely

to use module builders. Module builders are

used in many picker-type operations as cost

savers to facilitate storage in the field without

wagons or trailers.

The only significant difference in enterprise size

was in the largest size category. Roughly 8

percent of low-cost farms had 1,500 cotton acres

or more, while only 3 percent of high-cost

producers had 1,500 or more cotton acres. A

significantly higher percentage of low-cost

operators were in the very large family typology

category—27 percent compared with only 12

percent for high-cost producers. 
6 Economic Research Service

High-cost producers were twice as likely as lowcost producers to plant cotton on land they sharerented. Some 54 percent of high-cost growers

reported planting cotton on land they sharerented, while 45 percent of low-cost growers

reported planting cotton on land they owned. 

While the largest proportion of cotton farms was

in the Prairie Gateway, 29 percent of low-cost

growers were in the Southern Seaboard

compared with 18 percent of high-cost growers. 
Characteristics of Cotton Producers by Enterprise Size

Economic Research Service 7

Farms with larger cotton enterprises receive more of their sales from cotton and have lower costs per

pound than do farms with smaller cotton enterprises.

Cotton growers reported planting 469 acres of

cotton in 1997 on average (table 3). Roughly

one-third of U.S. cotton farms planted 500 or

more acres of cotton. This third of growers

produced three-fourths of all U.S. cotton in 1997.

 Per acre yields were lower than expected across

all size classes—those with 1,000-1,499 acres

came the closest to realizing the yields they

expected.

As farm size increased, so did the size of the

cotton enterprise. On the smallest farms, the

cotton enterprise accounted for 17 percent of all

acres operated compared with 62 percent on the

largest farms. Both cotton value of production

and total farm value of production rose as the

size of the cotton enterprise increased. On the

smallest farms, cotton accounted for 26 percent

of the farm value of production, while cotton

contributed 69 percent of the total value of

production on the largest farms. Contracting was

much more common on the largest farms as

well—22 percent versus 7 percent on the

smallest farms.

Per pound production costs also declined as

enterprise size increased (table 4). Operating

costs fell from 41 cents per pound of actual lint

yield on the smallest farms to 36 cents per pound

on the largest farms. Total costs also declined as

size increased—from 78 cents per pound of lint

on the smallest farms to 68 cents per pound on

the largest farms. While the largest proportions

of farms are in the mid-cost group by definition,

farms with fewer than 200 cotton acres planted

had higher proportions of high-cost farms than

low-cost farms. Farms with 500 or more cotton

acres had higher proportions of low-cost than

high-cost. Of the farms with fewer than 1,000

cotton acres, 25-27 percent were high-cost while

only 13-17 percent of farms with 1,000 or more

acres were high-cost.

Differences in seed costs were not statistically

significant among the size classes, but seeding

rates and the source of the seed did have some

significant differences. Growers who planted

1,000-1,499 acres of cotton had the lowest

seeding rate while growers with more than 1,500

acres had the highest seeding rates. The majority

of all growers used purchased seed, with the

smallest farms having the largest proportion of

purchased seed. This proportion declined as the

enterprise size rose. While the largest farms had

the most homegrown seed, the differences were

significant only between the three smallest

classes and those with 1,000-1,499 cotton acres. 

Differences in the use of transgenic seed were

not statistically significant.

Taken together, costs for fertilizer, chemicals,

custom operations, and fuel, lube, and electricity

accounted for 58 percent of operating costs on

the smallest farms and 53 percent on the largest

farms. While the differences in ginning costs

appear quite large, they were not statistically

significant.

There were substantial differences among

farmers in their reasons for applying herbicides

and insecticides and in conducting soil tests

among sizes of farms. For herbicide

applications, farmers of all size operations

reported routine practice or treatment as the most

common reason for either pre- or post-emergent

herbicide application. Smaller operations tended

to obtain recommendations most often from

dealers, while larger operations used crop

consultants more often. For insecticide

applications, smaller operations most often

reported either operator’s determination or

standard practice, followed by scouting data or

preventive schedule, as the reason for insecticide

application. For larger operations scouting was,

by far, the most common reason reported for

insecticide use followed by operator’s

determination and preventive schedule. Farms

with 1,000-1,499 acres also most frequently

reported use of soil and other tests.
8 Economic Research Service

Table 3—Characteristics of cotton farms, by enterprise size, 1997

Item Units Less than 200- 500- 1,000- 1,500 All ARMS

200 499 999 1,499 or more farms

Share of ARMS:

 Cotton farms Percent 38 28 21 7 5 100

 Cotton production Percent 6 18 29 18 29 100

Lint yield – actual Pounds 669 652 681 714 799 711

Lint yield – expected Pounds 712 698 739 737 824 751

Total acreage operated Acres 493 1,098 1,654 2,518 3,501 1,221

Planted cotton acreage Acres 83 326 667 1,167 2,183 469

Farm value of production Dollars per farm 150,425 433,236 671,807 1,061,268 1,405,587 475,540

Cotton value of production Dollars per farm 38,509 147,939 304,951 512,741 976,803 211,622

Cotton under contract Percent of value 7 10 15 12 22 13

Expected price at planting Dollars per pound .669 .703 .709 .707 .690 .691

Harvest month price Dollars per pound .685 .685 .688 .689 .693 .689

Table 4—Historical cotton production costs and returns per planted acre, by enterprise size, 1997

Less than 200- 500- 1,000- 1,500 All ARMS

200 499 999 1,499 or more farms

Dollars

Costs per pound of lint:

 Operating costs, actual yield .41 .39 .39 .37 .36 .38

 Total costs, actual yield .78 .78 .75 .71 .68 .73

Costs and returns per acre:

 Gross value of production 522.40 509.54 534.63 563.13 636.99 560.18

 Total operating costs: 277.29 251.63 265.25 268.06 289.88 270.17

 Seed 17.86 17.26 16.52 18.27 17.89 17.42

 Fertilizer 39.91 35.87 36.95 35.49 30.61 35.05

 Chemicals 54.74 52.28 59.65 60.62 73.72 61.64

 Custom operations 40.05 19.07 17.60 20.95 15.35 19.42

 Fuel, lube, and electricity 27.38 31.54 31.23 26.19 33.38 30.67

 Repairs 24.75 24.67 25.43 25.81 27.03 25.71

 Purchased irrigation water 4.83 5.19 9.86 9.58 13.31 9.44

 Interest on operating inputs 6.78 6.10 6.42 6.50 7.08 6.56

 Ginning 61.00 59.64 61.58 64.65 71.52 64.26

Total allocated overhead: 246.22 258.09 242.66 242.10 250.46 247.82

 Hired labor 31.18 41.37 43.26 45.47 38.29 41.21

 Opportunity cost of unpaid labor 54.19 46.50 30.66 21.84 20.92 31.26

 Capital recovery of machinery & equipment 88.21 88.02 96.99 98.25 100.02 95.64

 Opportunity cost of land 37.60 44.76 42.01 53.15 68.19 50.96

 Taxes and insurance 18.34 20.51 14.01 12.62 10.10 14.33

 General farm overhead 16.70 16.92 15.73 10.77 12.94 14.42

 Total costs 523.51 509.71 507.90 510.16 540.35 517.99

Returns above operating costs 245.1 257.91 269.38 295.07 347.11 290.01

Returns above total costs -1.11 -0.17 26.72 52.97 96.64 42.19
Economic Research Service 9

Custom operations costs were significantly

higher for the smallest enterprises than for all

other sizes. The smallest farms used more

custom services than any other size class,

particularly custom cultivation and harvesting. 

They did, however, use significantly less custom

scouting than the larger farms. Growers with

1,000-1,499 cotton acres reported the use of

custom scouting most often. Scouting

recommendations were also reported most often

by the two largest groups of farms as the basis of

the decision to apply insecticides.

Growers with the smallest cotton enterprises

were more likely to be sole proprietorships and to

own their own land. When they did rent land,

they chose cash rent more often than share rent. 

Some 41 percent of growers with less than 200

cotton acres specialized in cotton production

while 42 percent specialized in crops other than

cotton or cash grains, mostly vegetables or

soybeans (fig. 3). Roughly one-fourth of farms

with less than 500 cotton acres were considered

high-cost producers. Half of growers with less

than 200 cotton acres listed a nonfarm

occupation, and almost three-fourths were in a

favorable financial condition.
Characteristics of Cotton Producers by Region

10 Economic Research Service

Both costs and returns vary regionally due to differences in yields and use of irrigation.

A third of all ARMS cotton farms were in the

Prairie Gateway while the Southern Seaboard

and the Mississippi Portal regions each had 24

percent of cotton farms (see fig. 4 for regions). 

Together these three regions accounted for 69

percent of 1997 cotton production (table 5). The

Fruitful Rim had the highest share of production

of any one region (26 percent). Lint yields were

lower than growers expected in all regions except

the Fruitful Rim—this region reported the

highest yields of any region and almost double

the U.S. average. 

In aggregate, growers in the Fruitful Rim had

larger farms and more cotton acres than growers

in the other regions. Proportionally, however,

cotton accounted for 36 percent of acres and 40

percent of total farm sales in the Fruitful Rim

compared with 44 percent of total acres operated

and 49 percent of total farm sales in the

Heartland. Farms in the Mississippi Portal

region derived 58 percent of their total value of

production from cotton sales on 39 percent of

acres operated. Although farms in the Prairie

Gateway had the lowest average values for both

cotton sales and total sales, they had the highest

proportion of sales (61 percent) from cotton and

the lowest proportion of value under contract. 

Growers in the Prairie Gateway were more likely

to specialize in cotton production (67 percent),

while 51 percent of growers in the Southern

Seaboard reported another crop as their specialty.

Operating costs per pound of lint were highest in

the Fruitful Rim, while total costs per pound

were highest in the Prairie Gateway (table 6). 

Operating costs were lowest in the Heartland. 

The lowest total costs per pound were in the

Heartland and Mississippi Portal regions. On a

per-acre basis, both operating and total costs

were lowest in the Prairie Gateway and highest

in the Fruitful Rim.
Economic Research Service 11

Table 5—Characteristics of cotton farms, by region, 1997

Item Units Heartland Prairie Southern Fruitful Mississippi All ARMS

Gateway Seaboard Rim Portal farms

Share of ARMS:

 Cotton farms Percent 4 33 24 14 24 100

 Cotton production Percent 4 24 20 26 25 100

Lint yield – actual Pounds 726 466 714 1,131 807 711

Lint yield – expected Pounds 751 498 805 1,155 821 750

Total acreage operated Acres 1,080 1,336 1,049 1,510 1,086 1,221

Planted cotton acreage Acres 475 515 398 543 427 469

Farm value of production Dollars per farm 363,140 235,239 595,156 1,041,206 385,762 475,540

Cotton value of production Dollars per farm 176,973 142,718 183,556 413,348 223,271 211,622

Cotton under contract Percent of value 21 8 11 16 17 13

Expected price at planting Dollars per pound .719 .653 .727 .738 .675 .691

Harvest month price Dollars per pound .696 .643 .702 .739 .670 .689

Table 6—Historical cotton production costs and returns per planted acre, by region, 1997

Item Heartland Prairie Southern Fruitful Mississippi All ARMS

Gateway Seaboard Rim Portal farms

 

 Dollars

Costs per pound of lint: 

 Operating costs, actual yield .33 .37 .38 .41 .36 .38

 Total costs, actual yield .67 .83 .68 .74 .67 .73

Costs and returns per acre:

 Gross value of production 570.33 342.50 564.53 979.41 610.97 560.18

 Total operating costs: 243.27 172.35 272.22 468.84 291.06 270.17

 Seed 9.44 14.20 18.36 22.32 19.24 17.42

 Fertilizer 35.80 18.04 50.75 45.39 40.69 35.05

 Chemicals 74.42 25.49 68.89 93.07 90.69 61.64

 Custom operations 7.20 9.35 15.96 53.95 16.33 19.42

 Fuel, lube, and electricity 19.39 29.50 24.21 55.04 22.96 30.67

 Repairs 30.05 23.20 21.84 30.08 29.80 25.71

 Purchased irrigation water 0 0 0 57.53 0 9.44

 Interest on operating inputs 5.97 4.15 6.56 11.45 7.13 6.56

 Ginning 61.01 48.41 65.64 100.00 64.22 64.26

Total allocated costs: 246.44 214.61 212.99 367.85 247.42 247.82

 Hired labor 17.29 24.33 30.01 100.36 38.88 41.21

 Opportunity cost of unpaid labor 21.67 35.22 35.64 28.42 24.30 31.26

 Capital recovery of mach. & equip. 110.31 83.14 83.50 117.63 110.01 95.64

 Opportunity cost of land 85.24 48.09 35.45 77.13 45.30 50.96

 Taxes and insurance 6.27 14.20 16.82 14.85 13.39 14.33

 General farm overhead 5.64 9.63 11.57 29.46 15.55 14.42

 Total costs 489.71 386.96 485.22 836.69 538.49 517.99

Returns above operating costs 327.06 170.15 292.30 510.57 319.91 290.01

Returns above total costs 80.62 -44.46 79.31 142.72 72.49 42.19
12 Economic Research Service

Seed costs were significantly lower in the

Heartland than the other regions and significantly

higher in the Fruitful Rim. Seeding rates varied

from 9 pounds per acre in the Southern Seaboard

to 17 pounds per acre in the Prairie Gateway. 

Most growers used purchased seed, ranging from

61 percent of seed in the Prairie Gateway to 100

percent in the Southern Seaboard. Use of

transgenic seed was significantly higher in the

Southern Seaboard and Fruitful Rim than in the

Prairie Gateway.

Most growers in the Fruitful Rim planted in

April, whereas most growers in the other regions

planted in May. A third of growers in the Prairie

Gateway used skip-row production (mostly plant

two rows, skip one) as did 2 percent in the

Mississippi Portal. Growers in the other regions

planted solid rows only. Most growers in the

Heartland, Fruitful Rim, and Mississippi Portal

harvested in October while most growers in the

Prairie Gateway and Southern Seaboard

harvested in November. More than 80 percent of

growers in the Prairie Gateway used stripper

harvesters and 60 percent used module

builders—considerably more than in any other

region. Module builders are generally used to

store cotton in the field and are therefore used

more often in drier climates.

Taken together, costs for fertilizer, chemicals,

custom operations, and fuel, lube, and electricity

accounted for a low of 48 percent of operating

costs in the Prairie Gateway to a high of 59

percent in the Southern Seaboard and Mississippi

Portal. Ginning costs were lowest in the Prairie

Gateway and highest in the Fruitful Rim due to

yields. Heavy use of irrigation in the Fruitful

Rim explains the higher costs for fuel there.

Fertilizer and chemical costs were significantly

lower in the Prairie Gateway than in all other

regions. Less than two-thirds of these growers

used insecticides compared with 84-92 percent in

the other regions. Only 57 percent of growers in

the Prairie Gateway reported using nematicides

compared with all growers in the Heartland. 

Growers in the Heartland made the fewest trips

over the fields with insecticides during a season,

but the most trips with herbicides. In contrast,

growers in the Fruitful Rim made the fewest trips

with herbicides and the most trips with

insecticides. Applications of both pre- and postemergent herbicides were generally made as a

routine practice, although the highest proportion

of growers in the Prairie Gateway used weed

type and density as their primary decision factor.

Custom operations were also significantly higher

in the Fruitful Rim than in other regions. These

growers reported using custom applications for

chemicals (55 percent), fertilizers (46 percent),

harvesting (44 percent), and scouting (40

percent). Sixty percent of growers in the

Mississippi Portal and 59 percent of growers in

the Southern Seaboard reported scouting. 

Growers in the Heartland applied insecticides

most often based on a preventive schedule and

history of past pest problems. Growers in the

Prairie Gateway used their own determination of

infestation levels as the primary determinant. 

Growers in the Southern Seaboard, Fruitful Rim,

and Mississippi Portal used scouting data

followed by their own determinations as the basis

of their decisions to apply insecticides.

More than a third of farms in the Prairie Gateway

and the Fruitful Rim were high-cost producers

compared with 11 percent in the Mississippi

Portal (fig. 5). Per-pound total costs were

highest in the Prairie Gateway and Fruitful Rim. 

Yields in the Fruitful Rim far surpassed those of

the other regions. Irrigation in this region evens

out the effects of adverse weather conditions but

raises production costs considerably. Ginning

costs were higher here, as they are based on

yields. Yet, farmers in the Fruitful Rim had the

highest returns above costs, on average, of any

region. Higher yield compensates for higher

production costs, and both the expected and

harvest month prices were higher in the Fruitful

Rim than in the other regions.

Sixty-five percent of growers in the Fruitful Rim

were in the three large-farm categories based on

the typology, compared with only 28 percent in
Economic Research Service 13

the Prairie Gateway. Most cotton farms were

sole proprietorships. In the Fruitful Rim, 57

percent of farms were organized as sole

proprietorships, while 22 percent were

corporations. Of all regions, the Southern

Seaboard had the lowest proportion of farms in a

favorable financial condition.
Characteristics of Cotton Producers by Typology

14 Economic Research Service

Smaller farms are more likely to specialize in cotton and have proportionally higher cotton receipts than

larger farms.

The ERS farm typology stratifies farms

according to gross value of farm product sales

and occupation of the operator (see Hoppe and

others, 1999). The cotton version of the 1997

ARMS did not have adequate sample size to use

all the classes in the typology. As a result, the

three smallest classes of farms (limited-resource,

retirement, and residential/lifestyle) have been

combined for this report and will be called “other

small farms.”

Cotton farms were fairly evenly distributed, with

15-20 percent in each of the typology groups

except nonfamily, which only had 6 percent of

farms. As with the national distribution of farms,

the share of cotton production rises with farm

size. In fact, the 39 percent of farms in the large

family and very large family categories

accounted for 60 percent of cotton production in

1997 (table 7).

The size of the cotton enterprise rose along with

farm size. All farms in the other small farm

group had fewer than 500 cotton acres while 27

percent of very large family and 37 percent of

nonfamily farms had 1,000 or more cotton acres

(fig. 6). The cotton enterprise accounted for 45

percent of total operated acreage on high-sales

farms—the highest percentage of the typology

groups. Low-sales farms had the next highest

proportion of land devoted to cotton at 42

percent. Other small farms had the lowest

proportion.

As discussed in the section on enterprise size, the

value of production for both the farm and the

cotton enterprise rose with size. But unlike the

acreage concentrations, the largest farms did not

have the highest concentration of sales from cotton.

 Low-sales family farms had the highest proportion

of sales coming from cotton (73 percent) followed

by high-sales (62 percent) and other small family

farms (61 percent). Very large family and

nonfamily farms had the lowest proportions, 36

and 42 percent, respectively. Very large family

farms had the lowest proportion of farms

specializing in cotton production across the

typology, and the largest proportion of farms

specializing in livestock (see app. table 4). Large

family farms received 53 percent of total value of

production from cotton.

Production costs varied among the typology

groups, but the most significant differences were

between small and large farms (table 8). The

only groups for which the difference in operating

costs per pound of lint were statistically

significant were low-sales and large family

farms. For total costs, significant differences

were found between very large family farms and

low-sales, high-sales, and large family farms as

well as between high-sales and nonfamily farms.

On a per-acre basis, the large, very large, and

nonfamily farms had higher operating costs. 

These groups also had significantly higher per

acre total costs, although the difference between

other small farms and large family farms was not

statistically significant. Returns above operating

costs for nonfamily farms were significantly

higher than for all other typology groups.

While yields were lower than growers expected

across the typology, other small farms and large

family farms had the largest yield shortfalls. 

Low-sales farms nearly realized their expected

yields, yet this group had the lowest expected

yields. Although their harvest month price

exceeded their expectations, this was the lowest

price across the typology. The three large farm

groups expected higher prices at planting than

did the smaller groups. While harvest month

prices were lower than growers expected at the

time the cotton was planted, the harvest month

price was still higher than that received by the

farm occupation groups. purchased more. They

used significantly more herbicide-resistant seed;

there were no statistically significant differences

in Bt seed use.
Economic Research Service 15

Table 7—Characteristics of cotton farms, by farm typology, 1997

Item Units Other Large Very Non- All

small Farm occupation family large family ARMS

 farm Low-sales High-sales family

Share of ARMS:

 Cotton farms Percent 20 15 20 20 19 6 100

 Cotton production Percent 3 7 14 21 39 16 100

Lint yield – actual Pounds 547 486 522 626 842 1,113 711

Lint yield – expected Pounds 630 492 562 708 859 1,146 751

Total acreage operated Acres 418 743 1,037 1,400 2,092 2,387 1,221

Planted cotton acreage Acres 84 309 466 548 801 852 469

Farm value of production Dollars per farm 48,250 114,811 231,152 408,341 1,255,869 1,384,834 475,540

Cotton value of production Dollars per farm 29,469 84,174 143,479 214,590 458,898 580,750 211,622

Cotton under contract Percent of value 15 12 11 13 14 13 13

Expected price at planting Dollars per pound .677 .653 .678 .703 .722 .743 .691

Harvest month price Dollars per pound .671 .660 .668 .671 .693 .736 .689

Table 8—Historical cotton production costs and returns per planted acre, by typology, 1997

Item Other Large Very Non- All

small Farm occupation family large family ARMS

 farm Low-sales High-sales family farms

Dollars

Costs per pound of lint:

 Operating costs, actual yield .40 .35 .38 .39 .37 .40 .38

 Total costs, actual yield .71 .79 .80 .77 .69 .68 .73

Costs and returns per acre:

 Gross value of production 418.73 364.85 397.19 476.70 665.24 957.22 560.18

 Total operating costs: 217.78 168.69 200.53 242.72 311.87 445.29 270.17

 Seed 14.83 17.28 13.37 17.40 19.20 20.50 17.42

 Fertilizer 27.76 21.50 27.17 34.26 41.57 46.43 35.05

 Chemicals 42.45 29.66 37.13 56.69 78.66 102.05 61.64

 Custom operations 35.93 8.62 11.90 15.34 18.72 49.26 19.42

 Fuel, lube, and electricity 18.26 21.35 31.95 28.01 35.41 32.55 30.67

 Repairs 19.37 19.81 23.49 26.70 28.17 27.68 25.71

 Purchased irrigation water 3.11 0.00 1.02 0.45 8.41 59.73 9.44

 Interest on operating inputs 5.36 4.05 4.83 5.88 7.60 10.87 6.56

 Ginning 50.71 46.42 49.69 57.98 74.13 96.22 64.26

Total allocated overhead: 173.58 218.09 217.65 236.94 271.77 307.52 247.82

 Hired labor 14.30 24.22 25.04 33.20 54.48 73.34 41.21

 Opportunity cost of unpaid labor 44.53 45.69 38.68 30.01 27.08 15.17 31.26

 Capital recovery of mach. & equip. 65.42 72.17 82.15 99.57 107.22 108.23 95.64

 Opportunity cost of land 29.30 48.52 47.54 44.27 53.63 73.96 50.96

 Taxes and insurance 12.96 16.53 13.89 15.76 14.12 10.98 14.33

 General farm overhead 7.07 10.96 10.35 14.14 15.24 25.84 14.42

 Total costs 391.36 386.78 418.18 479.66 583.65 752.81 517.99

Returns above operating costs 200.94 196.16 196.66 233.98 353.37 511.94 290.01

Returns above total costs 27.37 -21.93 -20.99 -2.96 81.60 204.41 42.19
16 Economic Research Service

Most cotton on very large family farms was

planted in May. The two farm-occupation

groups had the most growers using skip row

production—the most common skip pattern was

plant two rows skip one. The largest proportion

of small and low-sales farms harvested in

November, while the largest proportions of the

other groups harvested in October.

The low-sales group had the lowest percentage of

farms using chemicals, and they made only one

trip across the field to apply chemicals. The

nonfamily group had the highest percentage of

farms using chemicals, and they made five trips

across the field. There was no significant

difference in the proportions of farms using

fertilizers, but other small farms made two trips

across the field to apply fertilizers compared with

more than four trips by very large family farms.

Custom operations were used most commonly on

other small farms. Compared with other farm

sizes, significantly higher proportions of other

small farms used custom operations throughout

the production process. Other small farm

operators used custom seeding (38 percent),

cultivating (37 percent), application of chemicals

(62 percent), fertilizers (57 percent), and

harvesting (58 percent). They used significantly

less custom scouting (19 percent) and soil testing

(8 percent).

Other small farm operators were more likely to

rely on standard practices as the basis for

applying insecticides while very large family and

nonfamily farm operators most often relied on

scouting data. Scouting and soil tests were much

more commonly used by larger farm operations.
Economic Research Service 17

Both nonfamily and other small farms owned

more than 60 percent of their land. For lowsales, high-sales, and large family farms, 48-54

percent of land was share rented. Very large

family farms had a higher proportion of land

rented than owned. Larger farms were more

likely to irrigate.

Most farms were sole proprietorships, although

28 percent of very large family farms were

partnerships, and 41 percent of nonfamily farms

were corporations. Half the operators of other

small farms were retired or had a nonfarm

occupation, as did 91 percent of nonfamily

farms. This is largely an artifact of the

definitions of the groups. The other small farms

group is comprised of operators who reported

nonfarm occupations (retirement, residential/

lifestyle, limited-resource). Of the three groups,

only the limited-resource group is likely to list a

farm occupation. The nonfamily group is

comprised of nonfamily corporations and hired

managers. 
Glossary

18 Economic Research Service

Cost group:

Low-cost producers are the 25 percent

of U.S. cotton producers with the lowest

per-pound costs. These producers had

total costs of 64 cents per pound or less.

High-cost producers are the 25 percent

of U.S. cotton producers with the highest

per-pound costs. These producers had

total costs of 92 cents per pound or

more.

Enterprise size categories are specified as farms

with fewer than 200 cotton acres, 200-499 cotton

acres, 500-999 cotton acres, 1,000-1,499 cotton

acres, and 1,500 cotton acres or more.

Expected yield is the cotton yield per acre that

farmers reported that they expect on their

operation at the beginning of the growing season.

Expected price is the price that farmers reported

that they expected to receive at the beginning of

the season.

Financial condition describes the financial

health of a farm from a combination of net farm

income and solvency (debt/asset ratio). Farms

are categorized into one of four classes:

Favorable: positive income and

debt/asset ratio less than 0.40. These

farms are generally considered

financially stable.

Marginal income: negative income and

a debt/asset ratio less than 0.40. Periods

of negative income may not pose

financial difficulties if these farms are

carrying a low debt load and can either

borrow against equity or obtain income

from off-farm sources.

Marginal solvency: positive income and

a debt/asset ratio above 0.40. A high

debt/asset ratio may be acceptable if

these farms can generate enough income

to service their debt and meet other

financial obligations.

Vulnerable: negative income and a

debt/asset ratio above 0.40. These farms

are generally considered financially

unstable.

Farm typology categorizes farms based on the

occupation of operators and the sales class of

farms. Farms are categorized into eight groups. 

Due to sample size limitations the three smallest

classes have been combined into one group as

defined below.

Other small family farms combines

limited-resource, retirement, and

residential/lifestyle farms. Limitedresource farms have sales less than

$100,000, total farm assets less than

$150,000, and total operator household

income less than $20,000. They may

report farming, a nonfarm occupation, or

retirement as their major occupation. 

Retirement farms have sales less than

$250,000. These operators report they

are retired (excludes limited-resource

farms operated by retired farmers). 

Residential/lifestyle farms have sales less

than $250,000 and the operators report a

major occupation other than farming

(excludes limited-resource farms with

operators reporting a nonfarm major

occupation).

Farming occupation/low-sales farms

have sales less than $100,000 and the

operators report farming as their major

occupation (excludes limited-resource

farms whose operators report farming as

their major occupation).

Farming occupation/high-sales farms

have sales between $100,000 and

$249,999, and the operators report

farming as their major occupation.
Glossary

Economic Research Service 19

Large family farms have sales between

$250,000-499,999.

Very large family farms have sales of

$500,000 or more.

Nonfamily farms are farms organized as

nonfamily corporations or cooperatives,

as well as farms operated by hired

managers.

Operating costs represent the costs for

purchased inputs that are consumed in one

production period. These costs include seed,

fertilizer, chemicals, custom operations, fuel,

lube, and electricity, repairs, purchased irrigation

water, interest on operating inputs, and ginning.

Ownership costs include operating costs, hired

labor, taxes and insurance, and an imputed cost

for capital recovery.

Total costs include operating costs, paid and

unpaid labor charges, an imputed cost for capital

recovery, the opportunity cost of land, and the

enterprise share of taxes and insurance and

general farm overhead.

Transgenic seed includes seed that has been

genetically modified to be herbicide tolerant or

insect resistant.
References

20 Economic Research Service

Heimlich, Ralph. Farm Resource Regions.

From the web site of the Economic Research

Service

(http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib760/).

U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. Updated

August 2000.

Hoppe, Robert, Janet Perry, and David Banker. 

“ERS Farm Typology: Classifying a Diverse Ag

Sector.” Agricultural Outlook. pp. 11-13. U.S.

Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. November 1999.

Huffman, Wallace E. “Human Capital, Adaptive

Ability, and the Distributional Implications of

Agricultural Policy.” American Journal of

Agricultural Economics. Vol. 67, pp. 429-34.

May 1985.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. Cotton Costs and Returns.

From the web site of the Economic Research

Service

(http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns

/car/cotton2.htm). U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res.

Serv. Updated 2001.

________, National Agricultural Statistics

Service. 1997 Agricultural Resource

Management Study Phase III: Survey

Administration Manual. January 1998.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 21

Defining Cost Groups

In the past, ERS issued reports analyzing

characteristics of low-cost and high-cost

producers of selected commodities. In those

reports, variable costs were used as the basis for

defining the cost groups. This subset of costs

was used so that only directly observed costs

were used rather than assumptions about the

allocation of costs. However, disregarding the

effect of overhead costs, which reflect the

influence of management decisions, can distort

the analysis. Management decisions have as

much influence on capital items as on

expendable items. Human capital, including

allocative ability and time of an individual are

inseparable and jointly allocated (Huffman,

1985). Disregarding the costs of labor, or

including paid but not unpaid labor, may bias the

analysis for commodities that are labor intensive.

Other management decisions, such as the

decision to rent land, may alter decisions about

capital improvements to that land, as well as

ownership of the commodity in share

arrangements. There are different risks inherent

with owned and rented land, each requiring

different management strategies. 

Some commodity reports have also used

operating costs plus a subset of allocated

overhead costs to represent ownership costs. In

this case, hired labor, taxes and insurance, and

capital recovery are added to operating costs. 

This approximates a level required to stay in

business whereas operating costs are shortrun

costs. 

Total costs account for the costs of both

expendable and capital items. Costs of using

capital items are allocated to the enterprise based

on the amount of use and are associated with the

entire farm business. Total costs represent the

level required to reward all the factors of

production and keep them in agricultural

production over the longer term.

Regional distributions of farms by cost group

differ depending on which set of costs is used. 

For example, in the Prairie Gateway, the

proportion of farms declines as you move from

low- to high-cost based on operating costs alone.

When total costs are used as the basis for the cost

group designation, the proportion of farms

increases as you move from low- to high-cost

(app. fig. 1). For cotton, ownership patterns

change as you move from the west to the east

along the entire southern United States. The

distribution of farms is very sensitive to these

changes. For corn and soybeans, there is a more

homogeneous ownership pattern, and the

distribution is less sensitive to the definition of

cost groups. For this reason, total costs were

used in this report. To compare cotton with other

crops in future reports issued by ERS, a set of

tables using ownership costs as the definition for

cost groups has been included in this appendix.
Appendix

22 Economic Research Service
Appendix

Economic Research Service 23

Appendix table 1—Characteristics of ARMS cotton farms, by total cost group, 19971

Item Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost All ARMS farms

 

Cotton acreage: Percent of acres

 Percent owned 45 33 27 35

 Percent cash-rented 29 25 18 25

 Percent share-rented 27 43 54 40

 Percent dryland 72 62 78 68

 Percent irrigated 28 38 22 32

Production specialty: Percent of farms

 Cotton 59 54 53 55

 Cash grain 13 11 7 11

 Other crop 25 31 37 31

 Livestock 3 3 2 3

Enterprise size:

 Less than 200 acres 32 39 41 38

 200-499 acres 27 29 29 28

 500-999 acres 25 19 22 21

 1,000-1,499 acres 7 8 5 7

 1,500 acres or more 8 5 3 5

Region:

 Heartland 5 4 2 4

 Prairie Gateway 16 34 49 33

 Southern Seaboard 29 23 18 24

 Fruitful Rim 15 11 19 14

 Mississippi Portal 33 27 11 24

Farm typology:

 Other small farms 19 20 22 20

 Farm occupation/low-sales 13 13 20 15

 Farm occupation/high-sales 16 21 21 20

 Large family 17 23 17 20

 Very large family 27 19 12 19

 Nonfamily 7 4 8 6

Operator age:

 Less than 35 8 7 8 8

 35-44 23 21 25 22

 45-54 25 27 31 27

 55-64 28 25 24 26

 65 or older 16 20 12 17

Operator education:

 Less than high school 6 7 16 9

 High school diploma 39 37 30 36

 Some college 34 27 30 30

 Bachelor's degree 13 27 20 21

 Graduate school 8 2 4 4

Type of organization:

 Sole proprietorship 78 81 81 80

 Partnership 15 13 10 13

 Corporation 5 6 8 6

Major occupation:

 Farming 84 79 77 80

 Retired and other 12 18 20 17

Income solvency group:

 Favorable 70 69 55 65

 Marginal solvency 10 13 20 14

 Marginal income 16 14 15 15

Vulnerable 4 6 11 6

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

24 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 2—Characteristics of ARMS cotton farms, by enterprise size, 19971

 Less than 200- 500- 1,000- 1,500

Item 200 499 999 1,499 or more 

Cotton acreage: Percent of acres

 Percent owned 48 39 35 24 37

 Percent cash-rented 32 31 28 21 16

 Percent share-rented 20 30 37 56 47

 Percent dryland 71 73 68 72 60

 Percent irrigated 29 27 32 28 40

Production specialty: Percent of farms

 Cotton 41 53 67 79 90

 Cash grain 14 12 8 5 0

 Other crop 42 32 23 14 10

 Livestock 4 3 2 2 0

Total cost group:

 Low-cost 21 24 30 25 38

 Mid-cost 51 51 44 58 49

 High-cost 27 25 26 17 13

Region:

 Heartland 5 3 3 4 5

 Prairie Gateway 31 34 33 39 42

 Southern Seaboard 24 27 22 22 10

 Fruitful Rim 13 14 16 11 21

 Mississippi Portal 27 22 24 23 21

Farm typology:

 Other small farms 48 7 0 0 0

 Farm occupation/low-sales 19 19 8 2 8

 Farm occupation/high-sales 17 23 20 18 17

 Large family 9 27 31 27 13

 Very large family 4 18 35 37 45

 Nonfamily 3 6 5 17 16

Operator age:

 Less than 35 7 8 10 5 5

 35-44 13 29 29 27 20

 45-54 27 28 23 38 32

 55-64 22 25 31 24 31

 65 or older 31 10 7 6 12

Operator education:

 Less than high school 15 5 8 0 1

 High school diploma 37 39 29 34 46

 Some college 23 30 38 37 29

 Bachelor's degree 22 21 20 27 23

 Graduate school 4 5 6 2 1

Type of organization:

 Sole proprietorship 91 81 74 63 50

 Partnership 6 11 18 25 34

 Corporation 3 6 8 12 16

Major occupation:

 Farming 67 88 92 77 79

 Retired and other 26 11 7 23 20

Income solvency group:

 Favorable 73 64 54 50 82

 Marginal solvency 10 13 21 24 4

 Marginal income 10 18 19 16 11

 Vulnerable 7 5 6 10 3

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 25

Appendix table 3—Characteristics of ARMS cotton farms, by region, 19971 

 Item Heartland Prairie Southern Fruitful Mississippi

Gateway Seaboard Rim Portal

Cotton acreage: Percent of acres

 Percent owned 27 30 35 58 27

 Percent cash-rented 21 5 60 24 26

 Percent share-rented 52 65 6 19 47

 Percent dryland 66 71 88 27 74

 Percent irrigated 34 29 12 73 26

Production specialty: Percent of farms

 Cotton 53 67 39 51 57

 Cash grain 21 9 5 7 19

 Other crop 25 22 51 38 23

 Livestock 0 2 6 5 1

Enterprise size:

 Less than 200 acres 50 35 38 34 42

 200-499 acres 20 29 33 27 26

 500-999 acres 14 21 20 24 21

 1,000-1,499 acres 9 9 7 6 7

 1,500 acres or more 7 7 2 8 5

Total cost group

 Low-cost 32 12 31 26 34

 Mid-cost 52 51 50 40 55

 High-cost 16 37 19 34 11

Farm typology:

 Other small farms 27 26 14 12 22

 Farm occupation/low-sales 5 22 13 9 12

 Farm occupation/high-sales 14 24 19 15 17

 Large family 29 16 22 21 23

 Very large family 24 8 28 27 21

 Nonfamily 0 4 3 17 5

Operator age:

 Less than 35 7 7 7 4 11

 35-44 18 19 30 16 23

 45-54 30 27 26 28 29

 55-64 27 27 23 24 27

 65 or older 17 20 14 28 10

Operator education:

 Less than high school 15 11 8 13 5

 High school diploma 40 30 41 32 40

 Some college 10 25 34 30 34

 Bachelor's degree 29 29 14 20 17

 Graduate school 5 5 3 4 4

Type of organization:

 Sole proprietorship 89 86 85 57 79

 Partnership 5 10 11 20 18

 Corporation 6 3 4 22 3

Major occupation:

 Farming 96 76 80 79 82

 Retired and other 0 23 16 19 12

Income solvency group:

 Favorable 84 67 58 75 63

 Marginal solvency 16 9 20 13 14

 Marginal income 0 16 15 9 18

 Vulnerable 0 8 7 3 5

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

26 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 4—Characteristics of ARMS cotton farms, by typology group, 19971 

 Other Farm occupation Farm occupation Large Very large NonItem small low-sales high-sales family family family

 

Cotton acreage: Percent of acres

 Percent owned 61 30 36 27 28 67

 Percent cash-rented 21 16 16 25 37 10

 Percent share-rented 18 54 48 48 35 23

 Percent dryland 73 89 80 66 65 40

 Percent irrigated 27 11 20 34 35 60

Production specialty: Percent of farms

 Cotton 57 61 61 55 42 57

 Cash grain 7 7 13 15 11 6

 Other crop 36 30 26 26 37 36

 Livestock 0 1 <1 4 10 1

Enterprise size:

 Less than 200 acres 89 48 33 17 8 17

 200-499 acres 11 36 33 37 26 28

 500-999 acres 0 12 22 32 39 18

 1,000-1,499 acres 0 1 7 9 14 22

 1,500 acres or more 0 3 5 4 13 15

Region:

 Heartland 5 1 3 5 5 0

 Prairie Gateway 43 49 41 27 13 22

 Southern Seaboard 17 20 23 26 35 14

 Fruitful Rim 8 8 11 14 20 43

 Mississippi Portal 26 20 21 27 26 21

Total cost group:

 Low-cost 23 21 21 21 36 32

 Mid-cost 50 45 52 57 49 35

 High-cost 27 34 27 22 15 33

Operator age:

 Less than 35 5 3 7 14 9 1

 35-44 13 18 25 29 30 9

 45-54 20 32 23 28 33 33

 55-64 17 29 36 22 19 45

 65 or older 45 18 8 7 9 12

Operator education:

 Less than high school 18 11 6 4 69

 High school diploma 32 40 37 44 29 25

 Some college 14 38 32 32 34 30

 Bachelor's degree 31 10 20 17 24 28

 Graduate school 5 2 4 3 68

Type of organization:

 Sole proprietorship 93 97 87 74 63 44

 Partnership 5 2 10 21 28 7

 Corporation 2 1 3 5 9 41

Major occupation:

 Farming 36 100 100 93 96 9

 Retired and other 50 0 0 6 3 91

Income solvency group:

 Favorable 72 70 65 59 63 63

 Marginal solvency 12 11 20 12 11 23

 Marginal income 9 12 9 21 24 11

 Vulnerable 7 7 6 8 2 3

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 27

Appendix table 5—Input use by ARMS cotton farms, by total cost group, 19971 

 All ARMS

Item Unit Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost farms

Planting month:

 March percent of farms 3 5 2 4

 April percent of farms 30 20 26 24

 May percent of farms 65 73 62 68

 June percent of farms 2 3 10 5

Planting:

 Conventional percent of farms 83 88 100 90

 No-till percent of farms 7 6 7 7

 Solid row percent of farms 91 89 83 88

 Skip row percent of farms 9 11 17 12

 Skip patterns

 Plant 2 / skip 1 percent of farms 73 80 67 74

 Plant 2 / skip 2 percent of farms 0 6 8 5

 Plant 4 / skip 2 percent of farms 6 1 8 4

 Plant 8 / skip 1 percent of farms 15 12 11 12

Seed:

 Rate-one time pounds per acre 12.57 13.61 15.43 13.68

 Percent homegrown seed percent 13 23 21 20

 Percent purchased seed percent 87 77 79 80

 Percent herbicide resistant percent 7 6 8 7

 Percent Bt percent 18 16 13 16

Fuel use:

 Diesel gallons per acre 19 19 23 20

 Electric Kilowatt hours per acre 43 46 157 68

 Gas gallons per acre 4 5 6 5

 LP Gas gallons per acre 0.1 0.1 7 2

Custom operations:

 Chemical application percent of farms 43 44 40 43

 Cultivation percent of farms 11 11 7 10

 Fertilizer application percent of farms 37 44 28 39

 Harvesting percent of farms 31 30 25 29

 Land preparation percent of farms 5 10 3 7

 Scouting percent of farms 52 43 28 42

 Seeding percent of farms 11 11 7 10

 Soil testing percent of farms 21 18 14 18

Harvesting month:

 August percent of farms 2 2 2 2

 September percent of farms 4 4 4 4

 October percent of farms 45 42 36 41

 November percent of farms 27 41 39 37

 December percent of farms 1 3 5 3

Harvesting machinery:

 Picker percent of farms 61 51 35 50

 Stripper percent of farms 10 30 51 30

 Module builder percent of farms 17 34 29 28

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

28 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 6—Input use by ARMS cotton farms, by enterprise size, 19971 

Less than 200- 500- 1,000- 1,500

Item Unit 200 499 999 1,499 or more

Planting month:

 March percent of farms 3 3 5 3 7

 April percent of farms 25 22 24 18 26

 May percent of farms 68 72 63 77 59

 June percent of farms 4 3 7 2 8

Planting:

 Conventional percent of farms 76 99 95 100 100

 No-till percent of farms 7 8 9 5 2

 Solid row percent of farms 95 82 87 84 74

 Skip row percent of farms 5 18 13 16 26

 Skip patterns

 Plant 2 / skip 1 percent of farms 74 75 73 68 80

 Plant 2 / skip 2 percent of farms 0 13 0 0 0

 Plant 4 / skip 2 percent of farms 26 0 1 0 4

 Plant 8 / skip 1 percent of farms 0 13 11 32 9

Seed:

 Rate-one time pounds per acre 13.93 13.25 13.39 12.99 14.78

 Percent homegrown seed percent 8 17 12 28 28

 Percent purchased seed percent 92 83 88 72 72

 Percent herbicide resistant percent 6 6 9 12 3

 Percent Bt percent 15 16 15 18 14

Fuel use:

 Diesel gallons per acre 15 21 20 20 19

 Electric Kilowatt hours per acre 43 66 84 29 83

 Gas gallons per acre 9 5 5 4 3

 LP Gas gallons per acre 0.1 0.1 0.2 <.1 6

Custom operations:

 Chemical application percent of farms 47 42 39 40 36

 Cultivation percent of farms 23 4 1 3 0

 Fertilizer application percent of farms 49 33 35 24 28

 Harvesting percent of farms 50 19 11 14 11

 Land preparation percent of farms 13 5 1 4 0

 Scouting percent of farms 30 47 48 60 49

 Seeding percent of farms 22 6 1 0 0

 Soil testing percent of farms 11 19 21 31 19

Harvesting month:

 August percent of farms 2 2 3 0 5

 September percent of farms 4 3 4 3 5

 October percent of farms 32 48 42 54 52

 November percent of farms 44 33 35 33 22

 December percent of farms 2 2 4 2 9

Harvesting machinery:

 Picker percent of farms 32 52 58 62 65

 Stripper percent of farms 10 32 38 76 70

 Module builder percent of farms 5 35 39 64 68

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 29

Appendix table 7—Input use by ARMS cotton farms, by region, 19971 

Item Unit Heartland Prairie Southern Fruitful Mississippi

Gateway Seaboard Rim Portal

Planting month:

 March percent of farms 0 1 1 22 0

 April percent of farms 18 7 33 63 16

 May percent of farms 82 80 64 14 84

 June percent of farms 0 12 2 0 0

Planting:

 Conventional percent of farms 75 95 87 79 96

 No-till percent of farms 5 3 14 5 6

 Solid row percent of farms 100 65 100 100 98

 Skip row percent of farms 0 35 0 0 2

 Skip patterns

 Plant 2 / skip 1 percent of farms 0 76 0 0 53

 Plant 2 / skip 2 percent of farms 0 6 0 0 0

 Plant 4 / skip 2 percent of farms 0 3 100 0 23

 Plant 8 / skip 1 percent of farms 0 12 0 0 0

Seed:

 Rate-one time pounds per acre 12.51 16.62 9.45 15.91 11.21

 Percent homegrown seed percent 3 39 0 7 2

 Percent purchased seed percent 97 61 100 93 98

 Percent herbicide resistant percent 5 4 10 2 11

 Percent Bt percent 0 2 22 34 9

Fuel use:

 Diesel gallons per acre 17 18 20 26 19

 Electric Kilowatt hours per acre 0 57 13 246 18

 Gas gallons per acre 3 5 4 5 5

 LP Gas gallons per acre 0 4 0.1 <.1 0.1

Custom operations:

 Chemical application percent of farms 44 54 25 55 39

 Cultivation percent of farms 11 17 5 21 0

 Fertilizer application percent of farms 31 36 43 46 32

 Harvesting percent of farms 27 31 33 44 15

 Land preparation percent of farms 1 15 0 14 0

 Scouting percent of farms 27 20 59 40 60

 Seeding percent of farms 19 18 4 17 0

 Soil testing percent of farms 10 12 20 24 20

Harvesting month:

 August percent of farms 0 1 0 12 0

 September percent of farms 2 3 6 5 2

 October percent of farms 77 28 29 48 62

 November percent of farms 7 56 44 12 24

 December percent of farms 0 6 2 5 0

Harvesting machinery:

 Picker percent of farms 69 4 61 48 97

 Stripper percent of farms 0 86 3 7 0

 Module builder percent of farms 8 60 10 6 19

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

30 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 8—Input use by ARMS cotton farms, by typology, 19971 

 Other Farm occupation Large Very large

Item Unit small low-sales high-sales family family Nonfamily

Planting month:

 March percent of farms 0 1 2 5 8 8

 April percent of farms 19 16 26 22 28 46

 May percent of farms 75 78 63 70 63 46

 June percent of farms 6 6 9 2 1 0

Planting:

 Conventional percent of farms 61 100 100 98 90 94

 No-till percent of farms 4 5 13 8 6 2

 Solid row percent of farms 91 69 79 97 97 95

 Skip row percent of farms 9 31 21 3 3 5

 Skip patterns

 Plant 2 / skip 1 percent of farms 83 70 76 80 47 90

 Plant 2 / skip 2 percent of farms 0 14 0 0 0 0

 Plant 4 / skip 2 percent of farms 17 3 0 0 0 10

 Plant 8 / skip 1 percent of farms 0 14 16 20 0 0

Seed:

 Rate-one time pounds per acre 15.43 14.91 14.55 13.55 12.29 14.96

 Percent homegrown seed percent 17 30 26 30 9 4

 Percent purchased seed percent 83 70 74 70 91 96

 Percent herbicide resistant percent 4 9 6 7 12 12

 Percent Bt percent 40 14 14 19 21 19

Fuel use:

 Diesel gallons per acre 11 18 19 20 22 20

 Electric Kilowatt hours per acre 33 4 29 68 115 63

 Gas gallons per acre 7 5 5 5 4 4

 LP Gas gallons per acre 0.2 0.1 8 <.1 0.2 0

Custom operations:

 Chemical application percent of farms 62 28 39 41 39 44

 Cultivation percent of farms 37 5 3 2 4 7

 Fertilizer application percent of farms 57 26 34 37 34 42

 Harvesting percent of farms 58 29 19 21 15 29

 Land preparation percent of farms 25 0 2 1 3 13

 Scouting percent of farms 19 31 38 53 63 52

 Seeding percent of farms 38 4 1 1 3 9

 Soil testing percent of farms 8 15 16 21 23 35

Harvesting month:

 August percent of farms 0 2 2 5 2 4

 September percent of farms 2 3 4 3 6 4

 October percent of farms 29 29 48 39 53 58

 November percent of farms 51 56 28 31 25 27

 December percent of farms 0 6 9 0 2 1

Harvesting machinery:

 Picker percent of farms 27 37 51 50 79 59

 Stripper percent of farms 11 55 41 39 14 19

 Module builder percent of farms 6 37 41 40 27 9

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 31

Appendix table 9—Chemical use and testing by ARMS cotton farms, by total cost group, 19971

 All ARMS

Item Unit Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost farms

Chemical use:

 Insecticides percent of farms 85 80 75 80

 Herbicides percent of farms 96 97 97 97

 Fungicides percent of farms 9 7 3 6

 Nematicides percent of farms 78 79 58 73

Chemical use:

 Insecticides times-over 2.76 2.40 2.30 2.49

 Herbicides times-over 3.88 3.53 2.50 3.42

 Fungicides times-over 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.13

 Nematicides times-over 2.13 1.97 1.60 1.94

Reasons for herbicide applications:

 Pre-emergent

 Routine practice percent of farms 86 83 91 86

 Field map percent of farms 7 8 3 6

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 11 23 9 16

 Crop consultant percent of farms 13 7 4 8

 Post-emergent

 Routine treatment percent of farms 43 44 26 39

 Weed type/density percent of farms 39 43 38 41

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 13 11 10 11

 Crop consultant percent of farms 13 6 4 7

Reasons for insecticide applications:

 Preventive schedule percent of farms 33 31 25 30

 Boll weevil trapping targets percent of farms 12 16 16 15

 Scouting data percent of farms 44 34 29 35

 Standard practices/history percent of farms 27 28 21 26

 Local information of presence percent of farms 9 5 7 6

 Operators determination percent of farms 36 40 37 38

Testing:

 Soil test percent of farms 51 43 33 42

 Plant tissue test percent of farms 11 6 7 8

 Nitrogen test percent of farms 26 22 21 23

Nitrogen applications:

 Less than recommended percent of farms 28 24 22 25

 More than recommended percent of farms 6 16 12 12

 Equal to recommendations percent of farms 67 60 66 63

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

32 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 10—Chemical use and testing by ARMS cotton farms, by enterprise size, 19971

 Less than 200- 500- 1,000- 1,500

Item Unit 200 499 999 1,499 or more

Chemical use:

 Insecticides percent of farms 82 77 81 81 71

 Herbicides percent of farms 98 95 96 97 99

 Fungicides percent of farms 5 6 7 7 9

 Nematicides percent of farms 72 70 76 83 84

Chemical use:

 Insecticides times-over 2.23 1.80 2.27 2.49 3.35

 Herbicides times-over 3.03 3.24 3.39 3.67 3.51

 Fungicides times-over 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.19

 Nematicides times-over 1.55 1.47 1.91 2.24 2.22

Reasons for herbicide applications:

 Pre-emergent

 Routine practice percent of farms 80 94 85 77 97

 Field map percent of farms 9 5 6 6 1

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 25 12 12 10 5

 Crop consultant percent of farms 5 5 12 9 15

 Post-emergent

 Routine treatment percent of farms 37 44 35 38 48

 Weed type/density percent of farms 38 41 44 45 39

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 10 11 14 7 8

 Crop consultant percent of farms 3 7 12 12 14

Reasons for insecticide applications:

 Preventive schedule percent of farms 31 28 33 24 33

 Boll weevil trapping targets percent of farms 13 15 17 22 12

 Scouting data percent of farms 33 31 36 54 43

 Standard practices/history percent of farms 36 20 20 18 11

 Local information of presence percent of farms 6 7 8 6 5

 Operators determination percent of farms 30 43 45 39 38

Testing:

 Soil test percent of farms 29 50 49 66 40

 Plant tissue test percent of farms 4 10 8 14 13

 Nitrogen test percent of farms 17 23 27 40 26

Nitrogen applications:

 Less than recommended percent of farms 27 28 21 27 6

 More than recommended percent of farms 14 13 4 18 24

 Equal to recommendations percent of farms 59 60 76 55 70

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 33

Appendix table 11—Chemical use and testing by ARMS cotton farms, by region, 19971

Item Unit Heartland Prairie Southern Fruitful Mississippi

Gateway Seaboard Rim Portal

Chemical use:

 Insecticides percent of farms 60 66 90 92 84

 Herbicides percent of farms 100 97 99 97 94

 Fungicides percent of farms 17 0 5 3 16

 Nematicides percent of farms 100 57 77 86 82

Chemical use:

 Insecticides times-over 1.05 1.29 1.91 4.33 3.91

 Herbicides times-over 5.77 2.31 4.26 2.14 5.05

 Fungicides times-over 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.04 0.36

 Nematicides times-over 2.42 1.24 1.98 2.87 2.34

Reasons for herbicide applications:

 Pre-emergent

 Routine practice percent of farms 94 85 91 82 84

 Field map percent of farms 13 0 4 9 12

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 37 15 10 14 21

 Crop consultant percent of farms 13 1 11 9 10

 Post-emergent

 Routine treatment percent of farms 88 18 49 34 55

 Weed type/density percent of farms 47 29 39 39 58

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 42 2 7 13 21

 Crop consultant percent of farms 12 0 12 7 12

Reasons for insecticide applications:

 Preventive schedule percent of farms 54 18 31 33 39

 Boll weevil trapping targets percent of farms 23 16 9 12 21

 Scouting data percent of farms 18 14 50 48 46

 Standard practices/history percent of farms 40 17 20 41 32

 Local information of presence percent of farms 23 4 5 4 10

 Operators determination percent of farms 33 29 38 48 45

Testing:

 Soil test percent of farms 13 23 74 33 47

 Plant tissue test percent of farms 2 4 6 23 7

 Nitrogen test percent of farms 11 15 29 28 27

Nitrogen applications:

 Less than recommended percent of farms 72 19 34 8 23

 More than recommended percent of farms 0 22 8 19 7

 Equal to recommendations percent of farms 28 60 58 73 70

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

34 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 12—Chemical use and testing by ARMS cotton farms, by typology, 19971

 Other Farm occupation Large Very large

Item Unit small low-sales high-sales family family Nonfamily

Chemical use:

 Insecticides percent of farms 81 67 71 86 88 90

 Herbicides percent of farms 97 98 96 96 98 99

 Fungicides percent of farms 6 3 7 5 10 6

 Nematicides percent of farms 73 57 64 79 88 81

Chemical use:

 Insecticides times-over 1.36 1.21 1.24 2.39 3.11 4.70

 Herbicides times-over 2.49 2.62 2.78 3.43 4.30 2.90

 Fungicides times-over 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.23 0.09

 Nematicides times-over 1.17 0.97 1.00 2.02 2.48 2.96

Reasons for herbicide applications:

 Pre-emergent

 Routine practice percent of farms 75 92 92 86 87 84

 Field map percent of farms 9 5 6 4 5 12

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 29 12 14 15 12 10

 Crop consultant percent of farms 1 5 5 8 15 16

 Post-emergent

 Routine treatment percent of farms 28 41 37 46 45 38

 Weed type/density percent of farms 32 38 47 39 45 49

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 3 14 13 14 14 4

 Crop consultant percent of farms 1 4 7 7 18 6

Reasons for insecticide applications:

 Preventive schedule percent of farms 30 26 23 31 35 44

 Boll weevil trapping targets percent of farms 9 14 15 21 16 15

 Scouting data percent of farms 19 24 35 38 48 65

 Standard practices/history percent of farms 46 13 18 21 24 37

 Local information of presence percent of farms 4 3 6 7 11 6

 Operators determination percent of farms 28 33 35 46 45 51

Testing:

 Soil test percent of farms 23 32 42 54 55 53

 Plant tissue test percent of farms 0 2 10 8 11 28

 Nitrogen test percent of farms 10 19 26 26 30 34

Nitrogen applications:

 Less than recommended percent of farms 31 28 30 20 29 0

 More than recommended percent of farms 10 18 8 13 8 28

 Equal to recommendations percent of farms 59 55 63 67 64 72

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 35

Appendix table 13—Characteristics of cotton farms, by ownership cost group, 1997

Item Units Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost All ARMS

Farms

Share of ARMS:

 Cotton farms Percent 25 50 25 100

 Cotton production Percent 29 56 15 100

Lint yield – actual Pounds 800 748 505 711

Lint yield – expected Pounds 761 783 656 751

Total acreage operated Acres 1,350 1,194 1,149 1,222

Planted cotton acreage Acres 491 496 392 469

Farm value of production Dollars per farm 441,303 485,741 489,143 475,540

Cotton value of production Dollars per farm 225,770 227,798 165,194 211,622

Cotton under contract Percent of value 14 15 10 13

Expected price at planting Dollars per pound .699 .685 .696 .691

Harvest month price Dollars per pound .686 .691 .686 .689

Appendix table 14—Historical cotton production costs and returns per planted acre, by ownership cost group, 1997

Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost All ARMS

 farms

 Dollars

Costs per pound of lint:

 Operating costs, actual yield .29 .38 .58 .38

 Ownership costs, actual yield .43 .58 .94 .59

 Total costs, actual yield .56 .72 1.11 .73

Costs and returns per acre:

 Gross value of production 627.07 591.05 398.71 560.18

 Total operating costs: 230.99 280.85 291.84 270.17

 Seed 15.00 18.08 18.75 17.42

 Fertilizer 29.40 37.01 37.13 35.05

 Chemicals 44.29 68.15 66.74 61.64

 Custom operations 19.31 19.03 20.53 19.42

 Fuel, lube, electricity 21.39 26.66 52.37 30.67

 Repairs 20.63 26.86 29.13 25.71

 Purchased irrigation water 3.04 11.32 12.64 9.44

 Interest on operating inputs 5.60 6.83 7.09 6.56

 Ginning 72.33 66.91 47.48 64.26

 Total allocated overhead: 216.82 254.62 269.18 247.82

 Hired labor 25.46 42.00 58.82 41.21

 Opportunity cost of unpaid labor 34.06 29.65 31.85 31.26

 Capital recovery of machinery & equipment 75.70 99.98 109.45 95.64

 Opportunity cost of land 57.58 53.91 35.25 50.96

 Taxes and insurance 12.50 13.96 17.55 14.33

 General farm overhead 11.51 15.11 16.28 14.42

Ownership costs 344.65 436.79 477.66 421.35

Total costs 447.81 535.47 561.02 517.99

Returns above operating costs 396.08 310.20 106.87 290.01

Returns above total costs 179.26 55.58 -162.31 42.19
Appendix

36 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 15—Characteristics of ARMS cotton farms, by ownership cost group, 19971 

Item Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost All ARMS

farms

 Percent of acres

Cotton acreage:

 Percent owned 34 35 37 35

 Percent cash-rented 23 26 24 25

 Percent share-rented 43 39 40 40

 Percent dryland 80 64 64 68

 Percent irrigated 20 36 36 32

 Percent of farms

Production specialty:

 Cotton 62 53 52 55

 Cash grain 14 12 5 11

 Other crop 21 32 40 31

 Livestock 3 3 3 3

Enterprise size:

 Less than 200 acres 36 37 42 38

 200-499 acres 31 29 25 28

 500-999 acres 20 19 26 21

 1,000-1,499 acres 5 10 4 7

 1,500 acres or more 8 6 2 5

Region:

 Heartland 7 2 3 4

 Prairie Gateway 27 31 43 33

 Southern Seaboard 26 25 18 24

 Fruitful Rim 9 14 18 14

 Mississippi Portal 29 26 16 24

Farm typology:

 Other small farms 23 17 23 20

 Farm occupation/low-sales 17 15 12 15

 Farm occupation/high-sales 19 21 17 20

 Large family 15 22 22 20

 Very large family 20 19 18 19

 Nonfamily 6 5 8 6

Operator age:

 Less than 35 6 8 8 8

 35-44 22 22 23 22

 45-54 26 27 29 27

 55-64 33 21 28 26

 65 or older 12 22 11 17

Operator education:

 Less than high school 7 7 14 9

 High school diploma 43 36 30 36

 Some college 30 28 32 30

 Bachelor's degree 14 27 18 21

 Graduate school 6 2 6 4

Type of organization:

 Sole proprietorship 82 79 81 80

 Partnership 14 13 12 13

 Corporation 3 8 6 6

Major occupation:

 Farming 80 82 76 80

 Retired and other 14 17 21 17

Income solvency group:

 Favorable 75 65 56 65

 Marginal solvency 10 14 18 14

 Marginal income 10 16 16 15

 Vulnerable 5 5 9 6

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

Economic Research Service 37

Appendix table 16—Input use by ARMS cotton farms, by ownership cost group, 19971 

All ARMS

Item Unit Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost farms

Planting month:

 March percent of farms 2 3 6 4

 April percent of farms 23 25 22 24

 May percent of farms 71 69 64 68

 June percent of farms 3 3 9 5

Planting:

 Conventional percent of farms 90 87 97 90

 No-till percent of farms 8 6 7 7

 Solid row percent of farms 81 90 91 88

 Skip row percent of farms 19 10 9 12

 Skip patterns

 Plant 2 / skip 1 percent of farms 73 71 85 74

 Plant 2 / skip 2 percent of farms 7 6 0 5

 Plant 4 / skip 2 percent of farms 3 1 15 4

 Plant 8 / skip 1 percent of farms 12 16 0 12

Seed:

 Rate-one time pounds per acre 13.38 13.39 14.81 13.68

 Percent homegrown seed percent 19 18 24 20

 Percent purchased seed percent 81 82 76 80

 Percent herbicide resistant percent 6 7 8 7

 Percent Bt percent 11 18 16 16

Fuel use:

 Diesel gallons per acre 17 20 24 20

 Electric Kilowatt hours per acre 27 36 198 68

 Gas gallons per acre 4 5 6 5

 LP Gas gallons per acre 0.1 0.1 7 2

Custom operations:

 Chemical application percent of farms 36 44 47 43

 Cultivation percent of farms 7 13 8 10

 Fertilizer application percent of farms 28 43 39 39

 Harvesting percent of farms 28 30 26 29

 Land preparation percent of farms 5 10 4 7

 Scouting percent of farms 41 46 34 42

 Seeding percent of farms 7 12 8 10

 Soil testing percent of farms 16 20 15 18

Harvesting month:

 August percent of farms 2 1 3 2

 September percent of farms 3 5 2 4

 October percent of farms 47 41 36 41

 November percent of farms 32 38 41 37

 December percent of farms 2 4 3 3

Harvesting machinery:

 Picker percent of farms 49 51 46 50

 Stripper percent of farms 27 25 44 30

 Module builder percent of farms 24 31 28 28

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.
Appendix

38 Economic Research Service

Appendix table 17—Chemical use and testing by ARMS cotton farms, by ownership cost group, 19971

All ARMS

Item Unit Low-cost Mid-cost High-cost farms

Chemical use:

 Insecticides percent of farms 74 83 80 80

 Herbicides percent of farms 98 97 96 97

 Fungicides percent of farms 9 6 6 6

 Nematicides percent of farms 71 79 65 73

Chemical use:

 Insecticides times-over 2.13 2.59 2.68 2.49

 Herbicides times-over 3.32 3.74 2.74 3.42

 Fungicides times-over 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.13

 Nematicides times-over 1.70 2.09 1.85 1.94

Reasons for herbicide applications:

 Pre-emergent

 Routine practice percent of farms 90 81 91 86

 Field map percent of farms 9 6 5 6

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 14 20 11 16

 Crop consultant percent of farms 10 7 5 8

 Post-emergent

 Routine treatment percent of farms 42 41 32 39

 Weed type/density percent of farms 45 39 41 41

 Recommendations by:

 Chemical dealer percent of farms 14 10 11 11

 Crop consultant percent of farms 10 7 6 7

Reasons for insecticide applications:

 Preventive schedule percent of farms 30 30 30 30

 Boll weevil trapping targets percent of farms 15 13 20 15

 Scouting data percent of farms 37 35 33 35

 Standard practices/history percent of farms 23 29 22 26

 Local information of presence percent of farms 11 4 6 6

 Operators determination percent of farms 41 36 40 38

Testing:

 Soil test percent of farms 40 46 38 42

 Plant tissue test percent of farms 8 7 9 8

 Nitrogen test percent of farms 18 26 22 23

Nitrogen applications:

 Less than recommended percent of farms 26 22 29 25

 More than recommended percent of farms 4 16 9 12

 Equal to recommendations percent of farms 70 62 62 63

1

Data may not add due to rounding or omission of possible categories.