Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002:5~ <br /> <br />as well as the ptices. This financial factor is developed by multiplying the <br />crop price by the number dcscribing the material yield differential. It esti. <br />matc the average additional dollars expected to be earned by a crop from an <br />acre of irrigated land. <br />The last factor to bc derived is the imi'uted value, in dollars per acre.foot, Slaf <br />of the water used. It is determincd by dividing the financial yield differential <br />factor by the rate of water use per acre. The result gives an indication of the <br />increase of gross revenues to be expected from the irrigation of a crop with <br />the application of one acre-foot of water. <br />The next most universal crop in Kansas is taken to be sorghum. The same Sorghum <br />moist-dry county designation is used (figure 1). The analysis for sorghum is <br />similar to the analysis for wheat. In fact, there is only one change. That <br />change deals with the possibUity that there is no dry land sorghum with <br />which to compare sorghum raised under irrigation. The material differen. <br />tial yield can not be calculated in this instance. If this condition should <br />occur, the model will immediately go back to the previous crop, wheat. and <br />use the dry land yield from that situation. Meaningful yield comparison <br />between bushels of sorghum and bushels of wheat is an absurdity. There. <br />fore, all of thc factors arc converted to dollars and the yield differential <br />calculation takes place on the basis of dollars per acre (the financial yield <br />differential). when this happens, no comparison will be made in material <br />units. By working the analysis in reverse, a material yield differential factor <br />can be developed even with no dryland crop having been raised. The number <br />cannot be supported, however, and was never derived as part of the results. <br />The imputed value factor for this crop is then determined as previously <br />stated. lt will be recalled that the label of this n umber is dollars per acre. <br />foot. <br />The last crop to be examined is corn. The seguence of calculations for tJ,is Com <br />crop is identical to that of sorghum. In the case of corn, if there is no dry. <br />land corn crop, the model is directed to use the dry land sorghum yield for <br />comparison. Should it happen that no dryland sorghum exists, it has been <br />instructed to use the dry land wheat yield. The comparisons are made in <br />terms of dollars as previously explaincd. Moist-dry county designations <br />change when the information concerning corn is used (see figure 1). This <br />delineation is based upon the statistics which show that a preponderance of <br />the corn crop is being irrigated. It also causes the state to be viewed as having <br />three distinct segments. <br />The model reiterates this phase of thc analysis until all crops have been <br />processed. As mentioned previously, if the data is avaUable this can be as <br />many as 99 crops. It would be more accurate to describe these as crop pairs, <br />since irrigation and dryland methods of agriculture are distinct technologies. 1] <br />