Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T18:01:30.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Implications of Alternative Cotton Production Practices: Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Glenn S. Collins ,
Ronald D. Lacewell  and
John Norman
Glenn S. Collins
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at College Station
Ronald D. Lacewell
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at College Station
John Norman
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Extension Service (stationed at Weslaco), Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cotton producers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas face continuing economic pressures arising from increasing costs of productive inputs, yield-reducing infestations of insecticide-resistant pests, and often adverse climatic conditions. The input price increases in the LRGV are similar to those in other production regions of the U.S. However, insect problems arising from the LRGV climate are unique. LRGV farmers have been unable to control late-season tobacco bud-worm infestations which often reach damaging levels when beneficial insects are destroyed by insecticide treatments for boll weevils [3]. These late-season insect infestations are a result of the predominantly excessive rainfalls which occur during the harvest months of August and September. Moreover, high rainfall during harvest reduces both the quality and level of cotton yields [1].

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , July 1979 , pp. 79 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Gerald, C. J., Hipp, B. W., and Reeves, S. A.. “Yields, Growth, and Management Requirements of Selected Crops as Influenced by Soil Properties,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, B-1172, January 1977, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
[2] Larson, James L., Lacewell, Ronald D., Casey, James E. Namken, L. N. Heilman, M. D., and Parker, Ray D.. “Impact of Short-Season Cotton Production on Producer Returns, Insecticide Use and Energy Consumption—Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station MP-1204, June 1975.Google Scholar
[3] Namken, L. N. and Heilman, M. D.. “Determinate Cotton Cultivers for More Efficient Cotton Production in the Lower Rio Grande Valley,” Agronomy Journal, Volume 65, 1973, pp. 953–956.Google Scholar
[4] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climatological Data: Texas,” Environmental Data Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina, 1972-1975.Google Scholar
[5] Sprott, M. S., Lacewell, R. D. Niles, G. A. Walker, J. K., and Gannaway, J. R.. “Agronomic, Economic, Energy and Environmental Implications of Short-Season, Narrow-Row Cotton Production,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, MP-1250C, February 1976.Google Scholar
[6] Walker, Rodney L., and Kletke, Darrel D.. “The Application and Use of the Oklahoma State University Crop and Livestock Budget Generator,” Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report P-663, July 1972.Google Scholar
[7] Texas Agricultural Extension Service. “Texas Crop Budgets,” Texas A&M University, MP-1024, 1978.Google Scholar
[8] The Dallas Morning News, “Texas Almanac,” A. H. Bale Corporation, 1976-1977.Google Scholar