WSP04911 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Model part 1 Wheat libu/ac liSlac 10 The development of the model is undertaken in two segmcnts. In part one, information concerning specific crops are entered into the system as independent variables. These clements include a statement of crop type and noting whether it is raised under irrigation or dry land technology. The number of acres harvested under each crop type and the attendant yield of that crop arc the next items recorded. For each irrigated crop, there is an estimate of the average unit amount of water required to raise it. Finally, each crop has its price listed. The county is the basic unit upon which the analysis is built. Most data already exists in this format. If they do not, congruity demands they must be converted. Explicit provision is not made for dealing with fractions of counties. If it is necessary to discriminate more fmely, manipulation of the information being inserted into the model will accommodate the problem. The designation cOlmty docs not rC'luire interpretation as a political sub. division. It may be any convenient boundary where the data are compatible. The flexibility of the model is sufficient to handle as many crops as are desirabl~ and all the counties in the state. For practical purposcs, the general availability of information is inadcquate to provide data for morc than three or four of the major crojJS. If the data are available, it is possible to accom. modatc 99 different crop types and 105 counties. Regional solutions can be found by combining the appropriate counties. The operations begin by detcrmining the difference in yields between irri- gated and dryland crops by specific crop. Wheat is assumed to be a universal crop in Kansas and is always the first crop analyzed in each county. Areas of the state, where dry land technology commonly requires fallowing the flclds between successive crops, are designated as dry areas. Counties, where fallow field farming techniques arc not dominant, are designated as moist counties. As you would imagine, this causes the state to be viewed as having an east and west sector for each crop (see figure I). This form is required to accu- rately calculate the yield differential between an irrigated and dryland crop of the same type. Counties denoted as dry, have theit dryland yields allo. cated over a two year period for purposes of comparison. The result displays the material yield differential in bushels per acre in counties where an irrigated and dryland crop exist simultaneously. While increased yields are the spirit of irrigation, the forces that make it walk around arc the dollars generated. The additional yield resulting from irrigation could be absolutely constant over time. If this were the case, the decision to irrigate would be based solely upon the prices recei ved for crops. In this situtation, a yield differential of a [mancial nature would clearly be more useful than a material yield differential. In fact, a financial yield dif- ferential factor is a useful number to have even when the yields arc varying