My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01593
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01593
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:31:47 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:32:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.127.J
Description
Savery-Pot Hook Project
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
1/1/1964
Author
Kearl W. G.
Title
The Savery-Pot Hook Reclamation Project: Analysis of Economic Effects on Existing Ranches & New Farm Units
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />o <br />o <br />00 <br /> <br />- 24 - <br /> <br />not correspond exactly to the figures indicated in this example. <br /> <br />Budgets for a Basic Cow Calf Operation.--Budgets were constructed for a 200-head <br /> <br />breeding-cow operation at moderate levels of productivity and efficiency. It is <br /> <br />necessary to have about 57 percent of the cropland in irrip:ated pasture at anyone <br /> <br />time. Sliphtly more than 20 percent of the cropland must be in alfalfa and almost <br /> <br />a like amount in some small grain, in order to provide a rotation to maintain the <br /> <br />alfalfa and pasture acreages in good productive condition. <br /> <br />Total investment in the new farm unit for a 200-cow operation was about <br /> <br />$117,00,or about $587 per cow. This is a rood deal less than the investment per cow <br /> <br />found on the case-study ranches and is due to the fact that land investment is based <br /> <br />upon development costs, which are less than the estimated market value of croplands <br /> <br />or pastures on existing ranches. The heavier investment on the case-study ranches <br /> <br />occurred in spite of the fact that all of them made substantial use of leased land <br /> <br />and also had federal range pemits in three out of four cases. <br /> <br />Returns to selected factors, which include return to operator's labor and <br /> <br />management, interest on capital investment, and payment for water costs, were $5,917 <br /> <br />(Table 4). TIle payment for water costs was set at $5.60 per acre plus a charge of <br /> <br />three percent to cover interest on this part of operating capital used to pay water <br /> <br />charges. Thus the total charge for payment for water shown is actually about $S. 76 <br /> <br />per acre. Deducting payment for use of water and interest on investment leaves a <br /> <br />return to operator's labor of -$3,007. This means that these fam units were unable <br /> <br />to cover the full charge for interest on investment and pay the water costs. <br /> <br />Although this analysis indicates that a beef cow calf operation would be unsat- <br /> <br />isfactory for a self-contained new fam unit, even if sizes as large as 200 head of <br /> <br />cows and over 500 acres are allowed, it should be noted that the case-study ranches <br /> <br />of this size, but with outside rangeland available, did produce rather satisfactory <br /> <br />results. It should also be noted that the beef cow calf operation is only one type <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.