DIVERSITY OF 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 KH URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 AGRICULTURE 
 

CIRCULATING COPY 
 
 Costs and Benefits 
 
 from SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 AGRICULTURE LIBRARY 
 
 SEP 2 6 1990 
 
 By E. L. SAUER, J. L. McGURK, and L. J. NORTON 
 
 Bulletin 540 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 In cooperation with SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, U. S. Department of Agriculture 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Three Main Soil Groups in the Area 565 
 
 Data Obtained From Six Counties 567 
 
 Comparison of High- and Low-Conservation Farms 568 
 
 Effect of Soil Type on Income and Farm Organization 571 
 
 Effect of Proportion of Land in Hay and Pasture 574 
 
 Comparison of High- and Low-Livestock Farms 575 
 
 Costs of Conservation Farming 577 
 
 Financing Conservation Plans 583 
 
 Study of a Livestock Farm and a Grain Farm 588 
 
 Conclusions About Conservation Farming 591 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 The writers acknowledge their indebtedness to A. G. Mueller 
 for the use of materials included in his master's thesis, Farming 
 Problems and the Use oj Capital on Clarence-Rowe Soils in 
 Northeastern Illinois (1947), which served as a basis for the 
 section in this bulletin entitled "Financing Conservation Plans." 
 
 They are also indebted to R. T. Odell, of the Agronomy Depart- 
 ment, for his constructive suggestions on the discussion of the 
 slowly permeable soils, and to E. D. Walker and W. F. Purnell, 
 of the same department, for their critical review of the manu- 
 script. A number of the photographs were supplied by Mr. Purnell. 
 
 Urbana, Illinois June, 1950 
 
 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made 
 or sponsored by the Experiment Station 
 
 ' 
 
Costs and Benefits of 
 
 SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 IN NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS 
 
 By E. L. SAUER, J. L. McGtiRK, and L. J. NORTON* 
 
 "X TORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS has approximately 2y 2 mil- 
 -i-N lion acres of slowly permeable or, as they are sometimes 
 called, "tight soils." These soils are found in parts of eighteen 
 counties, as shown in the map on the next page. The slowness 
 with which water moves through these soils makes farming prob- 
 lems in this area more serious than they are in regions of similar 
 topography where more permeable soils predominate. Even on 
 gentle slopes, erosion is a serious problem. Drainage of level areas 
 is difficult because water moves into tile only slowly in some 
 areas moderately slowly and in some areas very slowly. On many 
 farms surface ditches must be used to provide drainage. Spring- 
 planting is often delayed because the soils stay wet abnormally 
 long. 
 
 Most of these problem soils are worth saving for agricultural 
 production. If, however, the land is to remain productive and 
 in condition to provide a reasonable level of living for those 
 who farm it, practices must be used that will conserve the topsoil 
 and increase its productivity. Many of the present farming pro- 
 grams need to be changed, and the necessary changes usually 
 require the outlay of some capital. 
 
 Are the benefits from conservation programs in this area 
 worth the trouble and expense involved in establishing them? 
 Can farmers on these soils afford to reduce acreages in grain and 
 increase hay and pasture acreages in order to maintain or in- 
 crease soil productivity? How much does it cost to establish a 
 complete conservation program? Would livestock farming be as 
 profitable as grain farming? If livestock are necessary in a good 
 
 1 E. L. SAUER, Research Project Supervisor, U.S. Soil Conservation Service; J. L. McGuKK, 
 formerly Assistant in Agricultural Economics; and L. J. NORTON, Professor of Agricultural Eco- 
 nomics and Marketing. 
 
 563 
 
564 
 
 BULLETIN Xo. 54U 
 
 [June, 
 
 LAKE 
 
 ELLIOTT-ASHKUM SOILS. Dark colored, 
 moderately slowly permeable to water, de- 
 veloped from thin loess on calcareous silty 
 clay loam till. 
 
 BLOUNT and EYLAR SOILS. Light colored, 
 slowly to very slowly permeable to water, 
 developed from thin loess on calcareous 
 silty clay loam to clay drift. 
 
 CLARENCE-ROWE and SWYGERT-BRYCE 
 SOILS. Dark colored, slowly to very slowly 
 <-,.< v? permeable to water, developed from thin 
 
 ; 5^'v':>-. "<w v- loess on calcareous silty clay to clay drift. 
 
 From Soil Association Map of Illinois, May, 1949, prepared in Department of Agronomy, 
 
 University of Illinois 
 
 In eighteen counties in northeastern Illinois are extensive areas where a 
 combination of thin topsoil and slowly permeable subsoil creates serious 
 farming problems. Level soils drain poorly, sloping soils erode easily. Finan- 
 cial records summarized in this bulletin show that conservation practices 
 will not only save the soil but will also substantially increase current 
 earnings. (Fig- 1) 
 
1950] 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 565 
 
 conservation program, can and will grain farmers become good 
 livestock men? 
 
 This publication attempts to give at least partial answers to 
 some of the above questions. Actual farm records are analyzed to 
 show how certain conservation practices affect production and 
 income; and estimates are given for the costs involved in estab- 
 lishing conservation programs on farms in this area. 
 
 Three Main Soil Groups in the Area 
 
 Clarence-Howe, Swygert-Bryce, and Elliott-Ashkum are the main 
 soil groups in this problem area in northeastern Illinois. 1 These soils 
 have developed from thin loess, a silty wind-blown deposit, on mod- 
 erately heavy to very heavy-textured plastic glacial till. Soil develop- 
 ment and weathering processes, including the formation of the dark 
 
 Erosion has taken most of the topsoil and exposed the unproductive till on 
 this field of Clarence silt loam. Such fields are expensive to operate, and 
 yields are not worth much. (Fig. 2) 
 
 surface soil, have not gone as far on these soils as on more permeable 
 soils. For this reason the dark surface horizons are thinner than those 
 of many other prairie soils in central Illinois. 
 
 Erosion problems are especially serious on these soils for two 
 
 1 Two "timber" types, Blount and Eylar (see map) also cover a considerable 
 acreage. They often present even more serious problems than the three groups 
 named above, as their topsoil in many places is even thinner. 
 
566 
 
 BULLETIN No. 540 
 
 [June, 
 
 Of the black locust trees 
 planted in 1941 on this badly 
 eroded spot of Clarence silt 
 loam, only a few survived. 
 Seven years later, when this 
 picture was taken, the sur- 
 vivors had made practically 
 no growth. (Fig. 3) 
 
 Planted on partly eroded 
 Clarence silt loam on the 
 rim of the area shown in 
 Fig. 3, these trees lived 
 and made satisfactory 
 growth through the same 
 seven years. Photographs 
 taken October, 1948. 
 
 (Fig. 4) 
 
 reasons: (1) the subsoil cannot absorb water rapidly and much water 
 therefore runs off the land; and (2) the rapid runoff carries topsoil 
 with it, removes the dark surface soil, and exposes the very unpro- 
 ductive glacial till (Fig. 2) . Clarence, Swygert, and Elliott are usually 
 acid; Rowe, Bryce, and Ashkum are frequently acid. All are usually 
 low in phosphorus; hence they respond to liberal applications of lime 
 and phosphate. 
 
1950] 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 567 
 
 Farming problems are most serious on the Clarence-Rowe soils and 
 least serious on Elliott-Ashkum. Clarence, Swygert, and Elliott soil 
 types are found on rolling topography, and consequently erosion is 
 most damaging on these soils (Figs. 3 and 4). Rowe, Bryce, and 
 Ashkum soils, on the other hand, occur on nearly level or depressional 
 areas. On these soils drainage is a major problem. After heavy spring 
 and summer rains, water often stands in ponds, with the result that 
 planting is delayed and crops are frequently drowned out (Fig. 5). 
 
 Soil-survey maps for all counties in northeastern Illinois except 
 Cook county have been published by the Illinois Agricultural Experi- 
 ment Station, Urbana. However, only those for Ford, Iroquois, Liv- 
 ingston, Vermilion, and Kendall counties show the distribution of these 
 three soil groups and identify them by name. Farmers in these and 
 other counties may consult with farm advisers, soil conservationists, 
 or write to the Experiment Station to determine whether their farms 
 have any of these problem soils. 
 
 Data Obtained From Six Counties 
 
 The farms from which information for this study was obtained 
 are all located on slowly permeable soils in six of the eighteen counties 
 in the problem area Ford, Iroquois, Livingston, LaSalle, Vermilion, 
 
 In depressional areas of Rowe clay loam to clay, fields pond easily and drain 
 off very slowly. Crops drown and yields are low. Two ponds like this cut 
 the income from a 40-acre field approximately 10 percent. (Fig. 5) 
 
568 BULLETIN Xo. 540 [June, 
 
 and Will. All six counties are in the cash-grain area of the state known 
 as Area 4a, where corn, soybeans, and oats are the main crops. Con- 
 clusions regarding the benefits from conservation in these six counties 
 are, however, applicable throughout the problem area. 
 
 Farm business records for 105 farms were used. For 65 farms, 
 survey records were obtained for 1945, 1946, and 1947. For 40 farms, 
 Farm-Bureau Farm-Management records were available. 1 Additional 
 information on conservation needs and costs was obtained from county 
 Soil Conservation District offices located in the area. 
 
 Comparison of High- and Low-Conservation Farms 
 
 Of the 80 farms used in this part of the study, 40 have predomi- 
 nantly Clarence-Rowe soils and 40 have mixed Clarence-Rowe, 
 Swygert-Bryce, and Elliott-Ashkum soils. Each group of 40 farms 
 consisted of 20 pairs of farms, each pair being similar in physical 
 characteristics, land-use capabilities, and size but representing op- 
 posite extremes with respect to conservation practices: that is, in 
 amounts of limestone and phosphate that had been applied, rotations 
 that had been followed, and the use made of such specific conserva- 
 tion measures as contouring, grass waterways, and drainage facilities. 
 Three-year averages of selected items for each group of high- and 
 low-conservation farms bring out differences in various costs, in land 
 use, crop yields, livestock efficiency, and earnings (Table 1). 
 
 Clarence-Rowe farms. The 20 high-conservation farms on the 
 Clarence-Rowe soils-represented a total investment of $7 an acre more 
 than the low-conservation farms, but the inventory value of the land 
 improvements (fertilizers, erosion-control measures, drainage, and 
 fencing) was a third lower. 
 
 On the high-conservation farms during the period of this study, 
 more was spent on buildings and land improvements than on the low- 
 conservation farms. Power costs were higher on the high-conservation 
 farms, but labor costs in the two groups were nearly equal. 
 
 Fifty-one percent of the tillable land on the high-conservation 
 farms and 55 percent on the low-conservation farms was in soil- 
 depleting crops (corn and soybeans). This is more land in these crops 
 than is recommended in a good long-time program for these soils. Con- 
 siderably more land was devoted to hay and pasture and soil-building 
 
 1 These records are the supervised farm-account records in a project sponsored 
 jointly by the Farm Bureau and the Agricultural Extension Service, University 
 of Illinois. 
 
1950~] COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 569 
 
 Table 1. Data Concerning 40 High- and 40 Low-Conservation Farms 
 
 Located on Two Groups of Slowly Permeable Soils 
 
 in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 (Figures are averages for three years 1945-1947) 
 
 Item 
 
 Clarence-Swygert-Elliott 
 Clarence-Rowe soils mixed soils" 
 
 20 high- 20 low- 20 high- 20 low- 
 
 conservation conservation conservation conservation 
 
 farms farms farms farms 
 
 Investment per acre 
 
 
 $101 
 
 $ 97 
 
 $109 
 
 $ 95 
 
 Inventory value of land improvements. . 
 
 6 
 22 
 
 9 
 19 
 
 6 
 19 
 
 9 
 19 
 
 Inventory value of machinery, livestock 
 and feeds 
 
 42 
 
 39 
 
 50 
 
 37 
 
 
 $171 
 
 $164 
 
 $184 
 
 $160 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Land, building, and power costs per acre (cash and depreciation) 
 
 
 $ 2.11 
 
 $ 1.79 
 
 $ 1.90 
 
 $ 1.86 
 
 
 1.39 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.62 
 
 1.51 
 
 Power and machinery costs per crop acre 
 
 9.02 
 13.69 
 
 8.07 
 13.78 
 
 10.55 
 11.79 
 
 7.75 
 11.38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Land use and crop yields 
 
 Acres per farm 
 
 236 
 
 222 
 
 294 
 
 281 
 
 Percent of farm tillable 
 
 92 
 
 87 
 
 90 
 
 88 
 
 Percent of tillable land in- 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corn 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 41 
 
 39 
 
 Soybeans 
 
 13 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 23 
 
 Oats 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 Other row or grain crops 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hay and pasture 
 
 26 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 17 
 
 Soil-building legumes 
 
 (21) 
 
 (16) 
 
 (20) 
 
 (12) 
 
 Yields per acre, bushels 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corn 
 
 43 
 
 38 
 
 50 
 
 42 
 
 Soybeans 
 
 19 
 
 19 
 
 19 
 
 19 
 
 Oats 
 
 36 
 
 36 
 
 38 
 
 34 
 
 Livestock efficiency 
 
 Productive animal units per farm 
 
 40 
 $ 22 29 
 
 27 
 $ 14 85 
 
 52 
 $ 24.69 
 
 28 
 $ 12.42 
 
 Returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed. . . 
 Percent of income from livestock 
 
 145 
 63 
 104 
 
 143 
 
 48 
 62 
 
 133 
 61 
 131 
 
 118 
 33 
 
 47 
 
 
 270 
 
 136 
 
 114 
 
 99 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Earnings 
 
 Net income per acre" $33.81 $26.42 $36.44 $27.28 
 
 Rate earned on investment, percent. ... 14.6 10.1 14.9 11.0 ^ 
 
 Clarence-Rowe, Swygert-Bryce, Elliott-Ashkum, Blount, Eylar, and other slowly permeable 
 soils. 
 
 b Includes depreciation on limestone, phosphate, erosion -control structures, tile, fencing, etc., 
 and cash costs of other fertilizers, waterways, drainage repairs, etc. 
 
 c Includes inventory changes and cash balance. 
 
570 
 
 BULLETIN No. 540 
 
 [June, 
 
 Fifty years of conservation farming on this field of Clarence-Rowe soils are 
 rewarded by a 60-bushel crop of good-quality corn. The field is planted on 
 the contour. Picture was taken in October, 1948. (Fig- 6) 
 
 legumes on the high-conservation farms. Yields of corn on the high- 
 conservation farms exceeded those on the low by 5 bushels. There 
 were no differences for soybeans and oats. 
 
 On the high-conservation farms nearly 50 percent more feed was 
 
 Fifty years of hard farming on a neighboring farm has left this field of 
 Clarence-Rowe soils eroded and depleted. Result: a 12-bushel crop of poor- 
 quality corn. Picture was taken at same time as the one above. (Fig. 7) 
 
19501 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 571 
 
 fed, and the acreage of pasture was larger. Returns per $100's worth 
 of feed fed averaged only $2 higher on the high-conservation farms. 
 Approximately 90 percent more meat and milk was produced on the 
 high-conservation farms. 
 
 The benefits of conservation farming showed up most clearly in the 
 income figures for these two groups of farms. The high-conservation 
 farms had an advantage of $7.39 more net income per acre than the 
 low-conservation farms. The cash balance per acre and the rate earned 
 on investment were also larger on the high-conservation farms. 
 
 Figs. 6 and 7 show the long-time benefits of conservation farming. 
 
 Mixed Clarence-Swygert-Elliott farms. The same relationships 
 were found between high-conservation and low-conservation farms on 
 the mixed slowly permeable soils as on the Clarence-Rowe soils. These 
 comparisons also are shown in Table 1. 
 
 On the high-conservation farms the investment per acre was 
 greater, and larger amounts per acre were spent for buildings and land 
 improvements. A much smaller proportion of tillable land was used 
 for intertilled crops corn and soybeans. Much higher acre-yields of 
 corn and oats were obtained, but there was no difference in soybean 
 yields. More livestock were kept on the high-conservation farms, as 
 indicated by the higher percentage of total income from livestock on 
 these farms and the greater amounts of meat and milk produced per 
 acre. Returns per $100's worth of feed fed were $15 higher on the 
 high-conservation farms, and the net income and cash balance per acre 
 were also higher. 
 
 Effect of Soil Type on Income and Farm Organization 
 
 To determine how soil type influences farm organization and in- 
 come, all 105 farm business records for 1947 were placed in three 
 groups according to the soil classes they represented: Clarence-Rowe, 
 Swygert-Bryce, and mixed slowly permeable soils. Farms with no soil 
 type predominating were placed in the latter group. Comparisons be- 
 tween these three groups can be seen in Table 2. 
 
 The inventory value of land and the total farm investment per 
 acre were highest ($115 and $200) in the mixed-soils group and 
 lowest ($88 and $151) in the Clarence-Rowe group. 
 
 On the Clarence-Rowe farms $1.61 an acre was spent for building 
 improvements, whereas on the mixed-soils farms and the Swygert- 
 Bryce farms $2.61 and $1.86 an acre were spent respectively. For 
 land improvements also, less was spent on the Clarence-Rowe farms 
 than on the farms of either of the other two groups. 
 
572 BULLETIN No. 540 [June, 
 
 On both the Clarence-Rowe and the Swygert-Bryce farms 55 per- 
 cent of the tillable land was in corn and soybeans; on the mixed soils, 
 50 percent. Both these figures are too high for good land-use programs 
 
 Table 2. Business Records of 105 Farms Located on Three Groups of 
 
 Slowly Permeable Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 (Values are for 1947) 
 
 Clarence- Swygert- Mixed slowly 
 
 Item Rowe Bryce permeable 
 
 soils soils soils" 
 
 Size of farm and investment per acre per farm 
 
 Number of farms 44 29 32 
 
 Acres per farm 264 269 262 
 
 Inventory value of land $ 88 $110 $115 
 
 Inventory value of land improvements 6 7 6 
 
 Inventory value of buildings 17 23 24 
 
 Inventory value of machinery, livestock and feed 40 52 55 
 
 Total farm investment $151 $192 S200 
 
 Land and building costs per acre per farm (cash and depreciation) 
 
 Buildings $1.61 $1.86 $2.61 
 
 Land improvements' 1 1 . 25 1 . 87 1 . 87 
 
 Land use and crop yields 
 
 Percent of farm tillable 84 90 93 
 
 Percent of tillable land in- 
 
 Corn 38 40 41 
 
 Soybeans 17 15 9 
 
 Oats 20 22 24 
 
 Other row or grain crops 3 1 1 
 
 Hay and pasture 22 22 25 
 
 Yields per acre, bushels 
 
 Corn 33 44 42 
 
 Soybeans 18 21 20 
 
 Oats 26 31 33 
 
 Livestock efficiency and numbers 
 
 Productive animal units per farm 
 
 Cattle 16 20 20 
 
 Hogs 10 15 14 
 
 All livestock 31 42 38 
 
 Value of feed fed per acre $17.96 $24.07 $27.47 
 
 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed $117 $136 $127 
 
 Percent of income from livestock 40 48 51 
 
 Earnings 
 
 Net income per acre" $ 21.87 $ 42.89 $ 40.10 
 
 Cash balance per farm 5 278 7 584 7 565 
 
 Cash balance per acre 19.99 28. 19 28.87 
 
 Rate earned on investment, percent 14.4 22.3 20. 1 
 
 a Clarence-Rowe, Swygert-Bryce, Elliott-Ashkum, Blount, Eylar, and other slowly permeable 
 soils. 
 
 b Includes depreciation on limestone, phosphate, erosion-control structures, tile, fencing, etc., 
 and cash costs of other fertilizers, waterways, drainage repairs, etc. 
 
 c Includes inventory changes and cash balance. 
 
1950'] 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 573 
 
 designed to maintain soil productivity. The corn yields on the Clarence- 
 Rowe farms was 11 bushels an acre lower than on the Swygert-Bryce 
 farms and 9 bushels less than on the mixed soils. 
 
 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed were less on the Clarence- 
 Rowe farms ($117) than on the Swygert-Bryce farms ($136) or the 
 mixed soils ($127). Clarence-Rowe farms also had less livestock per 
 farm. 
 
 Farms on the Swygert-Bryce soils and the mixed soils had con- 
 siderably higher earnings than the farms on the Clarence-Rowe soils. 
 Swygert-Bryce farms had a net income advantage of $21 an acre over 
 Clarence-Rowe farms, and their cash balance was approximately $8 
 an acre higher. Rate earned on invested capital was much higher on the 
 Swygert-Bryce and mixed soils than on the Clarence-Rowe soils. 
 
 Table 3. Thirty-one Farms With Highest Proportion of Tillable Land 
 
 in Hay and Pasture Compared With 31 Farms With Lowest 
 
 Proportion: Farms Located on Slowly Permeable 
 
 Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 (Selected from a total of 93 farms. Figures are averages for three years 1945-1947) 
 
 Item 
 
 High one-third 
 of farms 
 
 Low one-third 
 of farms 
 
 Land use and crop yields 
 
 Number of farms 31 31 
 
 Acres per farm 248 289 
 
 Percent of farm tillable 89 90 
 
 Percent of tillable land in- 
 
 Corn 37 42 
 
 Soybeans 8 21 
 
 Oats 24 21 
 
 Other row or grain crops 2 1 
 
 Hay and pasture 29 15 
 
 Yields per acre, bushels 
 
 Corn 47 43 
 
 Soybeans 20 20 
 
 Oats 40 36 
 
 Livestock efficiency 
 
 Productive animal units per 100 acres 18.1 10.4 
 
 Value of feed fed per acre $ 24.45 $ 13.60 
 
 Returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed $144 $124 
 
 Percent of income from livestock 65 33 
 
 Meat produced per acre, pounds 110 63 
 
 Milk produced per acre, pounds 275 93 
 
 Earnings 
 
 Net income per farm* $8 056 $9 118 
 
 Net income per acre* 32 . 49 31 . 55 
 
 Cash balance per farm 5 031 6 298 
 
 Cash balance per acre 20.30 21 .79 
 
 Rate earned on investment, percent 13.3 14.7 
 
 Includes inventory changes and cash balance. 
 
574 
 
 BULLETIN No. 540 
 
 [June. 
 
 Effect of Proportion of Land in Hay and Pasture 
 
 How did the proportion of tillable land in hay and pasture in- 
 fluence farm organization and income? This question is answered by 
 comparing the records of the 31 farms with the highest percentage of 
 such land and the 31 farms with the lowest percentage. Data for the 
 three years 1945-1947 are given in Table 3. 
 
 The high group had 29 percent of their tillable land in hay and 
 pasture and 45 percent in corn and soybeans. The low group had 
 only 15 percent of their tillable land in hay and pasture, but 63 percent 
 in corn and soybeans. The hjgh group had a yield advantage of 4 
 bushels an acre for both corn and oats. Soybean yields were the same 
 in both groups of farms. 
 
 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed were $20 higher on the farms 
 with the most hay and pasture. These farms also received a higher 
 percentage of their income from livestock and produced more meat and 
 milk per acre. Figs. 8 and 9 show the cattle on two of these farms. 
 
 The farms high in hay and pasture had only 1 a very small ad- 
 vantage in net income per acre (94 cents), but this advantage will 
 likely increase over the years since the programs on these farms are 
 
 A herd of beef cattle has proved a profitable venture as part of the pasture 
 plan on this Swygert silt loam farm. Financial returns have been very good, 
 soil fertility has been built up, and the erosion problem solved. This is the 
 fifth year of meadow in an eight-year rotation of corn, soybeans, and wheat 
 followed by five years of mixed legume-grass meadow. (Fig- 8) 
 
1950} 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 575 
 
 just getting started. The productivity of the soil is being better main- 
 tained by the growing of more hay, pasture, and livestock. 
 
 The farms low in hay and pasture had a higher cash balance per 
 acre and earned a higher rate on the investment. But if these farms 
 continue to grow their present high proportion of intertilled crops, their 
 soils will deteriorate more rapidly than the soils on the farms with 
 more land in hay and pasture. The difference in earnings will then be 
 substantially in favor of the farms with the higher percentage of till- 
 able land in hay and pasture. 
 
 Comparison of High- and Low-Livestock Farms 
 
 To utilize the larger amounts of grasses and legumes grown under 
 a conservation program, more livestock may be necessary. Since some 
 farmers feel that a reduction in grain acreage means reduced income, 
 they are often reluctant to increase their acreages of legumes and their 
 numbers of livestock beyond a minimum. Also, some farmers are not 
 livestock-minded and do not care to raise livestock; others have not 
 had enough experience or training to be good livestock men. Table 4 
 
 A high-producing dairy herd is making good use of a heavy crop of mixed 
 alfalfa and bromegrass, an excellent soil-building combination. The farm is 
 located on Swygert-Bryce soils. Earnings are steadily climbing above those 
 of the average farm in the area. (Fig- 9) 
 
576 BULLETIN Xo. 540 [June, 
 
 shows what happened on six groups of farms in 1947 that had con- 
 trasting amounts of livestock. 
 
 In the Clarence-Rowe group, the high-livestock farms received 
 70 percent of their income from livestock, the low-livestock farms 
 only 26 percent. The pattern was similar for the other two soil groups. 
 
 The high-livestock farms were smaller and had a smaller percent- 
 age of tillable land than the farms with little livestock. They also had 
 less tillable land in soil-depleting crops and more in hay and pasture. 
 
 Table 4. Farms With Most Animal Units per 100 Acres Compared 
 
 With Farms With Fewest: Total of 70 Farms Grouped According 
 
 to Soil Type, Northeastern Illinois 
 
 (Figures are for 1947) 
 
 Clarence-Rowe Swygert-Bryce Mixed slowly 
 
 soils soils permeable soils 
 
 Item 
 
 High 15 Low 15 High 10 Low 10 High 10 Low 10 
 
 in animal in animal in animal in animal in animal in animal 
 
 units units units units units units 
 
 Number of farms 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 
 232 
 
 279 
 
 232 
 
 287 
 
 223 
 
 315 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Livestock efficiency 
 
 Animal units per 100 acres 
 
 22 
 
 6 
 
 30 
 
 7 
 
 28 
 
 6 
 
 Feed fed per acre. . . 
 
 $ 31 90 
 
 $ 9 72 
 
 $ 48 40 
 
 $ 10 25 
 
 $ 35 02 
 
 $11 60 
 
 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed. , 
 
 $120 
 
 $100 
 
 $146 
 
 $116 
 
 $142 
 
 $97 
 
 Percent of income from livestock 
 
 . 70 
 
 26 
 
 82 
 
 18 
 
 76 
 
 20 
 
 Land use and crop yields 
 
 Percent of farm tillable 
 
 84 
 
 89 
 
 80 
 
 96 
 
 89 
 
 94 
 
 Percent of tillable land in- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corn 
 
 34 
 
 40 
 
 35 
 
 40 
 
 36 
 
 45 
 
 Soybeans 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 22 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 Oats 
 
 22 
 
 17 
 
 26 
 
 18 
 
 24 
 
 23 
 
 Other row or grain crops 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 Hay and pasture 
 
 .... 27 
 
 18 
 
 26 
 
 20 
 
 33 
 
 19 
 
 Yields per acre, bushels 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corn 
 
 41 
 
 29 
 
 48 
 
 46 
 
 49 
 
 42 
 
 Soybeans 
 
 .... 20 
 
 18 
 
 24 
 
 22 
 
 24 
 
 22 
 
 Oats 
 
 31 
 
 22 
 
 35 
 
 29 
 
 38 
 
 29 
 
 Land and building costs per acre (cash and depreciation) 
 
 Buildings $2.36 $1.31 $2.81 $1.39 $3.44 $1.92 
 
 Land improvements* 1.17 1.11 2.60 1.58 2.02 1.56 
 
 Earnings 
 
 Net income per acre b $29.20 $16.45 $52.51 $44.02 $53.86 $34.29 
 
 Cash balance per acre 23.67 14.62 29.19 26.92 27.48 25.55 
 
 Rate earned on investment, percent ... 17 12 27 24 25 18 
 
 Includes depreciation on limestone, phosphate, erosion -control structures, tile, fencing, etc., 
 and cash costs of other fertilizers, waterways, drainage repairs, etc. 
 b Includes inventory changes and cash balance. 
 
1950'} COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 577 
 
 On the Clarence-Rowe soils the high group had 48 percent of their 
 tillable land in corn and soybeans, the low group had 61 percent. On 
 the Swygert-Bryce soils the high group had 42 percent in corn and 
 soybeans, the low group had 62 percent. Crop yields per acre were con- 
 siderably higher on the high-livestock farms. On the Clarence-Rowe 
 soils the high-livestock farms had 12 more bushels of corn to the acre, 
 9 more bushels of oats, and 2 more bushels of soybeans. 
 
 On the high-livestock farms more was spent on buildings and land 
 improvements during the year covered by the records, including more 
 for limestone, phosphate, and other fertilizer. 
 
 Net income per acre was considerably higher on the high-livestock 
 farms in all three soil groups: $12.75 higher on the Clarence-Rowe 
 farms, $8.49 higher on the Swygert-Bryce farms, and almost $20 higher 
 on the farms with mixed soils. 
 
 Part of this larger net income on the high-livestock farms resulted 
 from the higher returns per $100's worth of feed fed. These higher 
 returns from feed are almost certainly due, in part, to the larger 
 quantities of better-quality roughage produced on these farms. The 
 higher crop yields reflect the soil-building effect of the legumes and 
 grasses and the availability of more manure. 
 
 Future price relationships between crops and livestock may of 
 course change the income advantage which the high-livestock farms 
 have over the low farms. In 1947 Illinois farm prices had the following 
 indexes, based on prices for 1935-1939 as equal to 100: (1) for crops 
 corn 288, soybeans 364, oats 313, and hay 180; (2) for livestock- 
 hogs 294, beef cattle 262, milk 238, butterfat 256, eggs 216, and 
 chickens 180. 
 
 Records for 93 farms, covering the three years 1945-1947 (Table 5) , 
 show contrasts similar to those disclosed by the more detailed study 
 of the 1947 records. On most items the margin in favor of the high- 
 livestock farms is greater for the three-year period than for 1947 alone. 
 
 Costs of Conservation Farming 
 
 Any conservation program calls for a considerable outlay of money. 
 Besides the expenses for soil treatment and for measures to conserve 
 soil and water, capital outlays for livestock, buildings, fences, and ma- 
 chinery must usually be made. It is often necessary or desirable for 
 farm owners or operators to borrow in order to make the needed 
 improvements. Since lack of capital may be a factor in delaying con- 
 servation practices on many farms, it was thought worth while to find 
 
578 
 
 BULLETIN No. 540 
 
 I June, 
 
 Table 5. Thirty-One Farms With Most Animal Units per 100 Acres 
 Compared With 31 Farms With Fewest: Farms Located on 
 
 Slowly Permeable Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 (Selected from a total of 93 farms. Figures are averages for three years 1945-1947) 
 
 Item 
 
 High one-third 
 of farms 
 
 Low one-third 
 of farms 
 
 Number of farms 31 31 
 
 Acres per farm 238 304 
 
 Livestock efficiency 
 
 Animal units per 100 acres 25.2 7.2 
 
 Value of feed fed per acre .' $ 33.81 $ 10.18 
 
 Returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed $143 $1 15 
 
 Percent of income from livestock 75 27 
 
 Land use and crop yields 
 
 Percent of farm tillable 85 90 
 
 Percent of tillable land in- 
 
 Corn 40 40 
 
 Soybeans 10 18 
 
 Oats 23 22 
 
 Other crops ; 2 2 
 
 Hay and pasture 25 18 
 
 Yields per acre, bushels 
 
 Corn 49 44 
 
 Soybeans 22 20 
 
 Oats 46 33 
 
 Land and building costs per acre (cash and depreciation) 
 
 Buildings $ 2.87 $ 1.59 
 
 Land improvements" 1 . 64 1 . 48 
 
 Earnings 
 
 Net income per acre $39 . 75 $28 . 37 
 
 Cash balance per acre 23.94 18.79 
 
 Rate earned on investment, percent 16.9 13.5 
 
 Includes depreciation on limestone, phosphate, erosion-control structures, tile, fencing, etc. 
 and cash costs of other fertilizers, waterways, drainage repairs, etc. 
 
 out just what are the amounts usually required for conservation pur- 
 poses on farms in this area. 
 
 Farmers' estimates of conservation needs. From the same farmers 
 who submitted data for the 1947 farm-business survey, information 
 was obtained concerning the improvements they thought were needed 
 in order to establish a sound farming system on their farms. These 
 estimates, converted to 1948 dollar values, are summarized in Table 6. 
 
 For 69 farms the value of the limestone, phosphate, and potash 
 estimated as needed was $2,384 per farm, or an average of $8.73 an 
 acre for the entire farm. These fertility costs represented 36 percent 
 
1950'] COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 579 
 
 of the total cost of establishing a conservation program. Twenty-two 
 percent of this cost was for rock phosphate. Of the water-disposal 
 needs, these farmers felt that tiling was most important; $1.88 an 
 acre was estimated for this purpose. More than $1,000 a farm, or 
 $4.01 an acre, was estimated for building improvements. The live- 
 stock these farmers felt would be desirable would cost $5.22 an acre, 
 w r hich is 21 percent of the total cost for the adjustment program. 
 
 Table 6. Estimated Cash Cost of Making All Farming Adjustments 
 
 Needed for Adoption of a Conservation Program on Slowly 
 
 Permeable Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 (Based on opinions of operators of 69 farms totaling 18,815 acres and 
 averaging 273 acres per farm, 1948 prices used) 
 
 Cost per farm Cost per acre Percent of total 
 
 Fertility costs 
 
 Limestone $ 809 $2.96 12.2 
 
 Rock phosphate 1 443 5 . 29 21.7 
 
 Potash 132 .48 2.0 
 
 Total $2384 $8.73 35.9 
 
 Water-disposal costs 
 
 Tiling $ 512 $1.88 7.8 
 
 Grass waterways 
 
 Seed 9 .03 .1 
 
 Construction 49 .18 .7 
 
 Erosion-control structures. .. 109 .40 2.1 
 
 Total $ 679 $2.49 10.7 
 
 Building, fencing, and equipment costs 
 Fencing 
 
 Woven wire $ 310 $1.14 4.7 
 
 Barbed wire 119 .44 1.8 
 
 Water supply 123 .45 1.8 
 
 Repair or remodel buildings 702 2.57 10.5 
 
 New buildings 394 1 .44 5.9 
 
 Livestock equipment 39 .14 .6 
 
 Machinery 449 1 . 64 6 . 7 
 
 Total $2136 $7.82 32.0 
 
 Livestock costs 
 
 Dairy cattle $ 576 $2.11 8.7 
 
 Beef cattle 305 1 . 12 4.6 
 
 Feeder cattle 466 1.71 7.0 
 
 Sheep 41 .15 .6 
 
 Hogs 36 .13 .5 
 
 Total $1424 $5.22 21.4 
 
 Total costs ... . $6623 $24.26 100.0 
 
 The average cost per farm for all the adjustments which, in the 
 opinions of the operators, should be made on these farms, was esti- 
 mated at $6,623, or $24.26 an acre. Of this total, $12.80 was for 
 establishing the conservation plan and $11.46 was for buildings, ma- 
 chinery, and livestock needed to put the plan into effect. Almost all 
 this amount is needed at the start of the program and does not include 
 the yearly expenditures which must be made for maintenance even 
 after a complete conservation program has been established. 
 
580 BULLETIN No. 540 [June, 
 
 Conservation costs based on actual plans. Data from 48 conser- 
 vation plans for farms with Swygert-Bryce and Clarence-Rowe soils 
 were obtained from the offices of three soil-conservation districts in 
 northeastern Illinois. District technicians and the farmers worked out 
 these plans together. The limestone and fertilizer applications are 
 based on recommendations of farm advisers and the Agricultural Ex- 
 periment Station. These plans cover items to be completed within five 
 years, largely in the first three years (Table 7) . 
 
 Table 7. Estimated Quantities and Cost of Materials Needed to Carry 
 
 Out Conservation Plans on 48 Farms on Slowly 
 
 Permeable Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 (Items to be completed in first five years. Costs are based on 1948 prices. 
 Farms averaged 213 acres) 
 
 Average per farm 
 
 Cost per 
 acre 
 
 Cost per 
 crop 
 acre 
 
 Percent 
 of 
 
 total 
 
 
 Amount 
 
 Cost 
 
 Limestone, tons 
 
 398 
 
 $1 294 
 2 282 
 515 
 53 
 
 30 
 156 
 108 
 55 
 1 
 17 
 16 
 18 
 44 
 
 "78 
 10 
 2 
 26 
 2 
 16 
 11 
 6 
 
 "78 
 
 $ 6.08 
 10.'72 
 2.42 
 .25 
 
 .14 
 .73 
 
 .51 
 .26 
 
 "6s 
 
 .08 
 .09 
 .21 
 
 "37 
 .05 
 .01 
 .12 
 .01 
 .08 
 .05 
 .03 
 
 "37 
 
 $ 7.61 
 13.44 
 3.03 
 .31 
 
 .18 
 .92 
 .64 
 .32 
 
 "io 
 
 .10 
 .10 
 
 .26 
 
 "46 
 .06 
 .01 
 .15 
 .01 
 .10 
 .06 
 .04 
 
 "46 
 
 26.8 
 47.4 
 10.7 
 1.1 
 
 .6 
 3.2 
 2.3 
 1.1 
 
 "A 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 .9 
 
 'i'.6 
 .2 
 
 '".5 
 .1 
 .4 
 .2 
 .1 
 
 'i!e 
 
 Phosphate, tons 
 
 104 
 
 
 8 6 
 
 Mixed fertilizer, pounds 
 
 198 
 
 
 3 9 
 
 Waterway construction, feet 
 
 . . 5 611 
 
 Permanent pasture seeding, acres. 
 
 17 
 8 
 
 
 .1 
 
 
 1 510 
 
 
 162 
 
 Working spoil banks, feet 
 
 254 
 
 Tiling feet 
 
 213 
 
 
 .1 
 
 Dams, number 
 
 .3 
 
 Drop boxes, number 
 
 .1 
 
 
 .1 
 
 Tree planting, acres 
 
 2 
 
 
 .1 
 
 
 .1 
 
 Multiflora rose, feet 
 
 . . 1 080 
 
 
 1 
 
 Fencing 
 
 
 Barbed wire, rods 
 
 .. 136 
 
 Total costs 
 
 
 $4 818 
 
 $22.66 
 
 $28.36 
 
 100.0 
 
 
 
 a Catch basins were recommended on only one of the 48 farms. 
 
 The average estimated cash cost of establishing the conservation 
 plans totaled $4,818 a farm, or $22.66 an acre. Rock phosphate repre- 
 sented 47 percent of this total; limestone, phosphate, and potash 
 together accounted for 85 percent. These fertility items are needed on 
 every farm, though the rest of the practices are not. The next largest 
 item of cost was for grass waterways, the estimate for which was. 
 however, only 3.2 percent of the total. While the cost for the rest of 
 the conservation items would not average large, a considerable outlay 
 would be required on some farms for some of them. 
 
1950] 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 581 
 
 Table 8. Distribution of 48 Farms According to Estimated Cash Cost 
 
 of Conservation Plans: Farms Located on Slowly 
 
 Permeable Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 Total cost per acre for 
 first five years 
 
 Number 
 of farms 
 
 Total cost per acre for 
 first five years 
 
 Number 
 of farms 
 
 Under $14.99 
 
 1 
 
 $25.00 to $27.49... 
 
 7 
 
 $15.00 to $17.49 
 
 2 
 
 $27.50 to $29.99 
 
 4 
 
 $17 50 to $19 99 
 
 6 
 
 Above $30 
 
 3 
 
 $20.00 to $22.49 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 $22 50 to $24 99 
 
 .8 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 According to these estimates, most of these 48 farmers would have 
 to spend a total of $17.50 to $27.50 an acre to carry their conservation 
 programs through the first five years (Table 8). 
 
 Table 9. Comparison of Cash Costs' 1 of Establishing Actual Conserva- 
 tion Programs, With Farmers' Estimates: Farms Located on 
 Slowly Permeable Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 (Figures are for 1948) 
 
 Estimated costs of actual con- 
 servation plans for 48 farms 
 averaging 213 acres 
 
 Estimated costs on 69 farms 
 
 averaging 273 acres, based 
 
 on operators' opinions 
 
 Item 
 
 Cost per 
 farm 
 
 Cost per 
 acre of 
 total 
 farm 
 
 Percent 
 of 
 total 
 
 Cost per 
 farm 
 
 Cost per 
 acre of 
 total 
 farm 
 
 Percent 
 of 
 total 
 
 Fertility costs 
 Limestone 
 
 $1 294 
 
 $ 6.08 
 
 27 
 
 $ 809 
 
 $ 2.96 
 
 23 
 
 
 2 282 
 
 10 72 
 
 47 
 
 1 443 
 
 5.29 
 
 41 
 
 Potash 
 
 515 
 
 2.42 
 
 11 
 
 : 132 
 
 .48 
 
 4 
 
 Mixed fertilizer 
 
 53 
 
 .25 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 $4 144 
 
 $19.47 
 
 86 
 
 $2 384 
 
 $ 8.73 
 
 68 
 
 Water-disposal costs 
 
 Tiling . . ' 
 
 $ 44 
 
 $ 21 
 
 1 
 
 $ 512 
 
 $ 1.88 
 
 15 
 
 
 35 
 
 .18 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Grass waterways 
 
 186 
 
 .87 
 
 4 
 
 58 
 
 .21 
 
 2 
 
 
 17 
 
 .08 
 
 
 
 
 
 Erosion-control structures . . 
 
 107 
 
 .51 
 
 2 
 
 109 
 
 .40 
 
 3 
 
 Total 
 
 $ 389 
 
 $ 1.85 
 
 8 
 
 $ 679 
 
 $ 2.49 
 
 20 
 
 Erosion-control plantings 
 Hay and pasture seedings be- 
 sides rotation hay and 
 
 $ 164 
 
 $ 77 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 Trees, multiflora rose, and 
 other shrubs 
 
 43 
 
 .20 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 $ 207 
 
 $ 97 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 Fencing 
 
 $ 78 
 
 $ .37 
 
 2 
 
 $ 310 
 
 $ 1.14 
 
 9 
 
 Barbed wire 
 
 
 
 
 119 
 
 .44 
 
 3 
 
 Total 
 
 $ 78 
 
 $ .37 
 
 2 
 
 $ 429 
 
 $ 1.58 
 
 12 
 
 Total cash costs . . 
 
 $4 818 
 
 $22 . 66 
 
 100 
 
 $3 492 
 
 $12.80 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s In computing these costs, current farm prices for limestone, phosphate, and all other materials 
 were applied to the quantities indicated as needed for establishing conservation programs on these farms. 
 
582 BULLETIN No. 540 [June, 
 
 The additional buildings, livestock, and machinery that must 
 usually go with a conservation plan would cost approximately half as 
 much as the conservation measures themselves. 
 
 Comparison of actual plans and farmers' estimates. The esti- 
 mated cash costs of the 48 actual conservation plans and the estimates 
 for the 69 farms included in the farmers' opinion survey are brought 
 together in Table 9 on page 581. 
 
 The actual plans call for much larger applications of limestone, 
 phosphate, potash, and mixed fertilizer than do the farmers' estimates. 
 Observations in this area indicate that farmers here tend to apply too 
 little limestone and phosphate to secure the good stands and yields of 
 legumes that are basic to any soil-fertility and conservation program. 
 
 The farmers in the opinion survey felt that they needed much more 
 tiling than was recommended in the actual conservation plans. The 
 actual plans emphasized grass waterways, terraces, open ditches, and 
 contour farming 1 more than did the farmers' estimates. 
 
 Actual capital expenditures. For 100 farms in this area actual 
 capital expenditures for land improvements, buildings, livestock, and 
 machinery are summarized in Table 10 for the three years 1945-1947. 
 These farms are separated on the basis of tenure into rented farms, 
 owner-operated farms, and farms operated by part-owners. 
 
 The average yearly expenditure for land improvements on these 
 farms was $1.65 an acre, which is not nearly enough to correct present 
 deficiencies and maintain improvements. The amount indicated by the 
 farmers in the opinion survey as needed, $12.80, is still too low, as 
 may be seen by comparing this figure with the estimate of $22.66 based 
 on actual conservation plans. 
 
 For machinery an average of $3.54 per acre was spent, or more than 
 twice as much as on land improvements. This may indicate a poor use 
 of capital on these farms. Long-time returns might be greater if more 
 were invested in land improvements and less in machinery. 
 
 On the owner-operated farms an average of $10.28 an acre was 
 spent yearly for livestock; whereas only $3.46 an acre was spent on 
 the tenant farms and $7.87 on the farms operated by part-owners. In 
 the opinion survey the tenant farmers indicated greater amounts 
 needed for livestock than were indicated by the owner operators. 
 
 The total annual spendings for capital purposes on all 100 farms 
 during 1945-1947 averaged $12.09 an acre, or $3,210 a farm. It is 
 
 1 Ashkum is the only major soil studied for which tile can be recommended. 
 They do not work satisfactorily in Rowe and Bryce, and they are not usually 
 necessary in Clarence, Swygert, and Elliott. 
 
1950] COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 583 
 
 Table 10. Capital Expenditures for 100 Farms Grouped According to 
 Tenure: Farms Located on Slowly Permeable Soils in Northeast Illinois 
 
 (1945, 1946, 1947) 
 
 1945 expenditures 
 
 1946 expenditures 
 
 1947 expenditures 
 
 Average for 3 years 
 
 Item 
 
 Per 
 acre 
 
 Per 
 farm 
 
 Per 
 acre 
 
 Per 
 
 farm 
 
 Per 
 acre 
 
 Per 
 
 farm 
 
 Per 
 acre 
 
 Per 
 
 farm 
 
 Rented farms 
 
 Land improvements. . . 
 
 $ 1.50 
 1.04 
 2.35 
 2.45 
 
 $ 423 
 293 
 661 
 690 
 
 $ 1 
 
 4 
 3 
 
 (15 
 ,87 
 
 ,87 
 39 
 
 $ 450 
 101 
 1 336 
 931 
 
 $ 1 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 
 ,47 
 
 ,48 
 , I (I 
 .18 
 
 $ 406 
 408 
 874 
 1 430 
 
 $ 1 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 ,64 
 
 . 9f> 
 
 .-Hi 
 .67 
 
 $ 426 
 267 
 957 
 1 017 
 
 Livestock 
 
 
 Total 
 
 $7.34 
 
 $ 1.91 
 .45 
 11.28 
 2.19 
 
 $2 067 
 
 $ 386 
 92 
 2 280 
 442 
 
 $10 
 
 $ 1 
 
 11. 
 4 
 
 28 
 
 88 
 
 77 
 : 
 18 
 
 $2 818 
 
 $ 381 
 156 
 2 296 
 846 
 
 $11 
 
 $ 1 
 1 
 8 
 3 
 
 29 
 
 .78 
 ,52 
 .23 
 ,70 
 
 $3 118 
 
 $ 331 
 
 283 
 1 531 
 689 
 
 $ 9 
 
 $ 1 
 
 10 
 3 
 
 , <w 
 
 .86 
 .91 
 
 ,28 
 ,38 
 
 $2 667 
 
 $ 366 
 177 
 2 036 
 659 
 
 Owner-operated farms 
 
 Land improvements . . . 
 
 Livestock 
 
 
 Total 
 
 $15.83 
 
 '$ 1.38 
 .87 
 6.52 
 2.65 
 
 $3 200 
 
 $ 430 
 271 
 2 039 
 827 
 
 $18, 
 
 $ 1 
 
 7 
 2. 
 
 17 
 
 43 
 
 70 
 89 
 59 
 
 $3 679 
 
 $ 441 
 215 
 2 428 
 798 
 
 $15 
 
 $ 2 
 1 
 9 
 5 
 
 23 
 
 .57 
 ,33 
 ,18 
 
 03 
 
 $2 834 
 
 $ 748 
 387 
 2 910 
 1 464 
 
 $16 
 
 $ 1 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 ,41 
 
 ,79 
 .97 
 
 .87 
 .42 
 
 $3 238 
 
 $ 540 
 291 
 2 459 
 1 030 
 
 Part-owner-operated farms 
 Land improvements. . . 
 
 Livestock ... 
 
 
 Total 
 
 $11.42 
 
 $ 1.53 
 .89 
 5.18 
 2.47 
 
 $3 567 
 
 $ 417 
 243 
 1 417 
 675 
 
 $12, 
 
 $ 1 
 
 6 
 3 
 
 61 
 
 (iO 
 55 
 97 
 
 27 
 
 $3 882 
 
 $ 429 
 146 
 1 862 
 875 
 
 $18 
 
 $ 1 
 1 
 5 
 4, 
 
 12 
 
 .82 
 
 44 
 (17 
 88 
 
 $5 509 
 
 $ 470 
 373 
 1 463 
 1 260 
 
 $14 
 
 $ 1 
 
 5 
 3 
 
 05 
 
 .65 
 
 .9(i 
 .94 
 .54 
 
 $4 320 
 
 $ 438 
 254 
 1 581 
 937 
 
 All farms 
 
 Land improvements. . . 
 
 Livestock. . . 
 
 
 Total 
 
 $10.07 
 
 $2 752 
 
 $12, 
 
 39 
 
 $3 312 
 
 $13 
 
 81 
 
 $3 566 
 
 $12 
 
 .09 
 
 $3 210 
 
 
 doubtful whether these expenditures were distributed in such a way 
 as to add most to income and long-time farm productivity. 
 
 That conservation farming requires greater capital expenditures 
 than nonconservation farming is shown by the fact that on the 
 40 high-conservation farms included in Table 1 (page 569) more was 
 spent annually for limestone, phosphate, and fertilizer than on the 
 40 low-conservation farms. Total capital expenditures were also greater 
 on the high-conservation farms. These higher conservation and capital 
 expenditures show up in the higher inventory values for land and 
 higher total farm investment per acre for the high-conservation farms 
 compared with the low-conservation farms. 
 
 Financing Conservation Plans 
 
 Many farmers lack adequate capital to finance a complete land- 
 improvement program. Before borrowing for such a program, a farmer 
 wishes to know whether he will be able to repay the loan and interest 
 from the expected returns. Also, the lender wants to be sure that the 
 loan can be repaid from the returns from the investment. 
 
584 BULLETIN No. 540 [June, 
 
 Two farms on Clarence-Rowe soils selected for study. Conserva- 
 tion plans drawn up for two Clarence-Rowe farms show how a budget- 
 ing program can be worked out that will be satisfactory to both 
 borrower and lender. The costs of the plans and the returns that might 
 be expected are shown in Tables 11 and 12. An element of conservatism 
 was introduced into the estimates by using 1946 costs in computing 
 capital requirements and 1936-1942 prices in valuing the expected 
 increases in production. All crops were converted into dollar values. 
 
 Both farms are owner-operated and are mortgaged. Past man- 
 agement was typical of this area. The soil had been quite heavily 
 cropped, fertility had been depleted, and erosion had taken its toll. 
 
 In the spring of 1946 conservation plans for these farms were 
 worked out by a soil-conservation technician and the operators of 
 the farms. Rotations were set up and new field arrangements planned. 
 Grass waterways, contouring, and erosion-control structures were 
 established where needed. Soils were tested, and long-time plans for 
 applying fertilizers were set up. 
 
 Costs and benefits on Farm 1. Farm 1 is a 160-acre farm near 
 Clarence, Illinois, with predominantly Clarence and Rowe soils. 
 Erosion is a problem on this farm. The land is tiled but, as on most 
 Clarence-Rowe farms, drainage through the tile is not satisfactory. A 
 three-year rotation of corn, oats, and clover was planned. A field 
 arrangement was laid out for cropping across the slope. Fertilizer 
 plans called for applying an average of 2% tons of limestone and 
 1,000 pounds of rock phosphate per acre on the entire farm over a four- 
 year period. 
 
 The total anticipated cost of this conservation plan was $3,216, or 
 $20.10 an acre (Table 11), this cost to be distributed over a five-year 
 period, the funds to be advanced as needed. 
 
 To compute the increase in income expected from the plan, the 
 average annual gross value of the crops produced before the start of 
 the plan was subtracted from the anticipated value of the crops to be 
 produced after the plan was in effect. The yields expected thereafter 
 are based on a study of crop yields on Clarence-Rowe soils under 
 good management. 1 
 
 The disbursement and repayment schedule for Farm 1 (Table 12, 
 page 586) is based on the assumption that capital will be borrowed as 
 needed to finance the plan, and that the increase in the value of the 
 crops will be used for payment of interest and principal on the loan. 
 
 1 ODELL, R. T., How Productive Are the Soils of Central Illinois? 111. Agr. 
 Exp. Sta. Bui. 522, 1947. 
 
1950'] COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 585 
 
 For the first three years the new income resulting from the plan would 
 not be as great as the capital outlays made during those years. After 
 the third year, it would exceed the capital outlay, so that payments 
 could then be made on the unpaid balance of the loan. By 1954 all of 
 the capital advanced for the plan can be repaid out of new income. 
 After that, all the increase can be used by the farm operator for any 
 purpose he chooses. Thus a lender would have to advance capital for 
 only the first three years of the plan, after which payments could be 
 made on the principal and the loan would be repaid in five years more, 
 or in eight years from the beginning of the plan. 
 
 Table 11. Yearly Cash Cost of Conservation Plans on Two Farms 
 Located on Slowly Permeable Soils in Northeastern Illinois 
 
 Cost items 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 Total 
 
 Farm 1, 160 acres 
 
 Grass waterways 
 
 . . $320 
 
 
 
 $ 320 
 
 
 . . 441 
 
 
 
 441 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 Rock phosphate 
 
 112 $288 
 
 $360 
 
 $192 
 
 952 
 
 
 75 
 
 104 
 
 299 
 
 $481 959 
 
 
 72 
 
 144 
 
 72 
 
 288 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 Tiling 
 
 136 
 
 
 
 136 
 
 Total 
 
 $893 $671 
 
 $608 
 
 $563 
 
 $481 $3 216 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Farm 2, 168 acres 
 
 
 $280 
 
 $ 256 
 
 
 
 $ 536 
 
 Rock phosphate 
 
 144 
 
 288 
 
 $ 584 
 
 $176 
 
 1 192 
 
 
 309 
 
 577 
 
 325 
 
 
 1 211 
 
 Fencing 
 
 90 
 
 
 108 
 
 
 198 
 
 Total 
 
 $823 
 
 $1 121 
 
 $1 017 
 
 $176 
 
 $3 137 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Costs and benefits on Farm 2. Farm 2 is a 168-acre farm near 
 Loda, Illinois, mostly on Clarence and Rowe soils on rolling land that 
 tends to erode seriously. 
 
 A four-year rotation of corn, oats, and two years of alfalfa-brome 
 is planned for this farm. The steeper slopes are to be put into per- 
 manent hay and pasture, and grass waterways are to be established in 
 all the draws where there is danger of gullies forming. All crops 
 planted on slopes are to be planted on the contour. Limestone and 
 phosphate will be applied according to test. 
 
 Capital requirements of this plan, computed in the same manner as 
 for Farm 1, were $3,137 per farm, or $18.67 an acre, excluding 
 maintenance charges (Table 11). 
 
586 
 
 BULLETIN No. 540 
 
 [June, 
 
 o 
 
 "5 
 
 iO 
 
 
 CO COO 
 
 OS CO 
 CN t- 
 
 OS CN 
 
 Sco 
 Os 
 
 1 
 
 
 Tjr-oo 
 
 t~ 00 
 
 CN 
 
 CO CO 
 
 OSO 
 O3N 
 
 OS 
 
 CO 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CN CN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 -i 
 
 
 CNCOO 
 
 2? g 
 
 O CN 
 
 CNCO 
 
 00 OS 
 
 i * 
 
 iO 
 
 
 c^cooo 
 
 See 
 CN 
 
 Tt< CO 
 
 INO 
 CO i 
 ^-CN 
 
 CN 
 CN 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 99 
 
 gj <N 
 
 m 
 
 99 
 
 
 99 ^ - 
 
 S M 
 
 99 
 
 99 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 
 O CO O 
 CO "CO 
 
 IO CO 
 00 t- 
 00 IN 
 
 OS CO 
 OOS 
 
 S S^ 
 
 
 IO Tf O 
 
 ocoo 
 
 Tf 00 
 
 CN CO 
 
 COO 
 
 CO 
 O 
 t- 
 
 
 o 
 
 OS 
 
 
 -H ,-H 
 
 CN CN 
 
 
 
 
 1 -H 
 
 CO CN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 CN 
 
 10 
 
 
 ocoo 
 co co os 
 
 co to 
 
 T* t- 
 
 00 CN 
 
 COOS 
 
 <*< COCO 
 CO "5 
 
 
 10 co t~ 
 
 -HOSt- 
 
 TJICOCO 
 
 iO 00 
 00 IN 
 
 Tf CO 
 
 -HCN 
 
 OS ' 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 ,H 
 
 IN CN 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 _!,-<' 
 
 CO CN 
 99 
 
 Jj 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l. a 
 
 IO 
 
 
 SCNO 
 COCN 
 
 CO COt- 
 
 CN CO 
 
 OS CN 
 
 coco 
 
 00 COCO 
 
 Tf 00 
 
 
 CN t^OO 
 
 O^ t- 
 
 t~ 00 
 
 O CN 
 
 co 'co 
 
 050 
 OSCN 
 
 OS 
 CO . 
 
 t- 
 
 
 1*1 
 
 ** 
 
 
 s 
 
 CN CN 
 99 
 
 * 
 
 99 
 
 
 S - : : 
 
 CO CN 
 
 99 
 
 99 : : 
 
 
 IE 
 
 o 
 
 Os 
 
 
 IOCOO 
 t*- O CD 
 
 CD iO 00 
 
 r-l CO 
 
 O IN 
 
 10 -H 
 
 CO 00 
 
 t~-* 
 
 00 t-^00 
 CN CN 
 
 
 CCOSiO 
 (NCOOO 
 
 00 
 CN 
 * CO 
 
 si 
 
 CN Tj<O 
 CN TJ< i 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO CN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4J 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 m 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 
 "^ CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s J3 
 
 OS 
 
 ^ 
 
 CD 
 
 OSOO 
 
 OS CO 
 OS CN 
 
 coco 
 
 O COLO 
 
 -H * 
 
 s 
 
 IOCOO 
 Os 00 
 COOS 
 
 00 00 
 
 t~ N 
 
 co co 
 
 OCC 
 0^ 
 
 *1 
 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 u 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 CN CN 
 
 99 
 
 * rt 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 * - : : 
 
 CO CN 
 
 s 
 
 M 
 
 c c 
 
 1* 
 
 .fa VI 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 
 VO 
 
 .-1 
 
 i-T 
 
 COOOO 
 CNTf CO 
 
 Tf CO 
 
 CO t- 
 00 CN 
 
 N CN 
 
 0000 
 
 LOO 
 
 lOCO 
 
 O OOS 
 iO t-CN 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 of 
 
 cocoioo 
 
 Tj< COCOT)! 
 
 S3 S 
 
 os co 
 
 CN CN 
 
 COO 
 
 * cooo 
 
 CO CO 
 
 1 
 
 pplicatio 
 pplicatio 
 
 cr'o 
 
 
 s 
 
 ** 
 
 
 9 
 
 99 
 
 S 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 99 
 
 03 33 
 
 V O 
 
 W d, 
 5^ 
 
 * 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 00 TjO 
 
 t^ooos 
 
 COCN 00 
 
 CN CO 
 10 CN 
 
 IN CO 
 
 CO -* 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 T)<CO -O 
 IO iO -CO 
 CNOO -i-i 
 
 t~ 00 
 
 CO IN 
 N CO 
 
 COCN 
 1 ^ 
 
 N CO'* 
 
 CO O 
 
 .t< D 
 
 2 
 
 
 -H 
 
 CN CN 
 
 
 1 -H 
 
 
 T-l 
 
 CN CN 
 
 1-1 
 
 ^H 1-1 
 
 "ti Mi 
 
 0, g 
 CO g 
 
 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 1 
 
 99 
 
 C M 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 
 cooo>o 
 
 co to 
 
 C<1 IN 
 
 coco 
 
 t~OS 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CD CO 
 
 OS OS 
 
 
 00 00 t-^ CO 00 
 IN CNIN I 
 
 IO 00 
 00 CN 
 
 o co 
 
 t-co 
 
 i- -N 
 t-00 
 
 CO CO 
 CO CO 
 
 1 
 
 'S'S 
 
 S ^ 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 i ^< 
 
 CO CN 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 8^ 
 
 
 
 6* 
 
 * 
 
 99 
 
 9 
 
 
 ** 
 
 9 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 "o'o 
 
 ,53 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 *s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u u 
 
 o o 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .2.2 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K yi 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jsla 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 QC CC 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o: rt 
 
 t 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 M) bD 
 
 jy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 -s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .5.5 
 
 3 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 o ; ; 
 
 
 
 | | 
 
 
 Be 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 > o 
 
 O o, d 
 
 _o_o 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 2, : : 
 
 
 
 -O o 
 
 
 <*- 
 
 
 
 33 iO c 
 
 -o-c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 c c 
 
 PH 
 
 
 
 0) . - 
 
 
 cw 
 
 QJ -*^* CO 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 1 
 
 S *"3 
 
 03 ci 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 ' ' 
 
 ~5 '. '. 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 O G^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 C 
 O 
 
 3 C^2 
 
 o - _ 
 
 c 02 
 
 o 
 
 IO1O 
 
 OSCS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . i i cfi 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 -t3 * IS 
 
 
 i i 
 
 
 
 i y 
 
 
 
 13 .S 
 
 c 3 
 ' a 
 
 .s - 
 
 Q) -J C 
 
 
 t. S 
 
 
 
 s| 
 
 = - 
 
 IM LH 
 rr = 
 
 V 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 till 
 
 g 
 
 H 
 
 c] O 
 
 8 -t> 
 
 ill 
 
 CO Si 
 
 
 l|||s| 
 
 .X O B|9M4 O 
 
 H I 
 
 B"O 
 2 
 
 1 If 
 
 CB CL 
 
 CB J2 
 
 
 
 
 'foco 
 
 V 
 
 o S 
 o 
 
 " S 
 
 
 g O O < O tc 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 s 5 8 
 
 
 EH 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 M >StH 
 
 
 < 
 
 fi 
 
 1-1 
 
 I-I M>H 
 
 
19501 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 587 
 
 Using the same procedure as for Farm 1, a schedule for disburse- 
 ments and repayments was calculated (Table 12). Again the cost 
 would exceed the increase in income for the first three years, but 
 the fourth year a payment of $874 could be made on the interest and 
 principal, and in six years the loan could be repaid. 
 
 Both farms how capital could be used. The expected returns 
 from investment in land improvements on these farms appear to 
 make long-term loans a safe risk. After three years, payment could 
 be made on the principal. Total principal and interest could be repaid 
 in nine years on Farm 1 and six years on Farm 2. These farmers would 
 have to wait for several years to benefit directly from the new r income, 
 but while they were repaying the loans they would be increasing their 
 net worth by improving the productivity, and hence the value, of their 
 farms. 
 
 No attempt was made to estimate the increase in income to be ex- 
 pected from livestock enterprises made possible by the larger amounts 
 and better quality of hay and pasture produced. Nor was the cost of 
 buying additional roughage-consuming livestock or of improving build- 
 ings for more livestock considered. Additional capital might have to be 
 advanced by lenders for these purposes. On farms where the buildings 
 are not adequate for intensive livestock farming, adjustments might 
 be made in the amount and class of livestock kept. Feeder or beef 
 cattle could be kept in buildings not suitable for dairy cattle. Another 
 alternative would be to borrow capital for buildings needed and repay 
 it from the income from the livestock enterprise. 
 
 These plans are for owner-operated farms, and income estimates 
 are based on crop production on the entire farm. On farms rented on 
 crop shares a problem arises in charging the costs of and assessing 
 the benefits from an improved farm plan. Normally the landlord makes 
 most capital improvements, but he gets only half of the new income. 
 If part of the increase is derived from livestock, the landlord might 
 receive even less than half the increase unless a livestock-share lease 
 was used. Methods can be worked out, however, for each individual 
 farm that will divide the costs and benefits of a conservation plan 
 equitably between the landlord and the tenant. 1 
 
 1 The Illinois livestock-share farm lease and the Illinois crop-share cash farm 
 lease, developed at the College of Agriculture, University of Illinois, will be use- 
 ful in making these adjustments. Information concerning these lease forms can be 
 obtained from your local farm adviser or by writing to the College of Agriculture, 
 Urbana, Illinois. 
 
588 BULLETIN Xo. 540 [June, 
 
 Study of a Livestock Farm and a Grain Farm 
 
 Since conservation farming in northeastern Illinois usually means 
 planting fewer acres to corn and soybeans and using more for hay 
 and pasture, a comparison has been made between two actual farms, 
 one operated for many years as a grain farm and the other as a live- 
 stock farm. These farms are both located on predominantly Clarence- 
 Rowe soils in Vermilion county. Records on land use, yields, and 
 income are shown in Figs. 10 to 12 on the following pages. 
 
 Farm A (the livestock farm) consists of 186 acres, 157 tillable and 
 the rest is permanent pasture. Farm B (the grain farm) has 160 acres, 
 144 of which are tillable. The livestock farm was probably better 
 managed during the period it was being studied. However, the grain 
 farm has a higher soil-productivity rating. 
 
 Land use. On the livestock farm half the tillable land, as an aver- 
 age, was planted to corn and soybeans each year from 1935 to 1947; 
 on the grain farm 57 percent was so planted (Fig. 10) . On both farms 
 a good land-use program would require that less land be used for soil- 
 depleting crops. On the livestock farm a larger proportion of the corn 
 crop was fed to cattle and hogs than on the grain farm. 
 
 The livestock farm had an average of 23 percent of its tillable land 
 in soil-building legumes, whereas only 14 percent was in legumes on 
 the grain farm (Fig. 10). This greater amount of hay and pasture on 
 the livestock farm was utilized as roughage for livestock. 
 
 Crop yields. Corn yields averaged 56 bushels an acre on Farm A, 
 only 40 bushels on Farm B. While average soybean yields for the 
 thirteen years were the same on both farms 22 bushels an acre 
 the livestock farm had 10 bushels a year more of oats. The trends in 
 corn, soybean, and oat yields are shown in Fig. 11. The advantage of 
 Farm A in corn and oat yields has become greater with the passing 
 of time, indicating that soil productivity has been better maintained 
 on this farm. Crop yields on Farm A compare favorably with those for 
 Vermilion county farm account keepers, who averaged 56 bushels of 
 corn, 40 bushels of oats, and 24 bushels of soybeans during the 
 same years. 
 
 Capital expenditures for land improvements. For the entire thir- 
 teen years $3,819, or $20.53 an acre, was spent on the livestock farm 
 for land improvements; whereas $2,511, or $15.69 an acre, was spent 
 on the grain farm. On the livestock farm $7.22 an acre was spent 
 for limestone and phosphate, on the grain farm $5.44 an acre was 
 spent for this purpose. 
 
1950} 
 Percent 
 80 
 
 70 
 60 
 50 
 40 
 30 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 589 
 
 TILLABLE LAND IN 
 CORN AND SOYBEANS 
 
 Mil 
 
 FARM A 
 
 1935 
 60 
 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 30 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 '36 '37 '38 '39 '40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 1947 
 
 TILLABLE LAND IN 
 SOIL-BUILDING LEGUMES 
 
 1935 '36 '37 '38 '39 '40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 1947 
 
 Percent of tillable land in corn and soybeans and in soil-building legumes 
 on two Vermilion county farms during the years 1935 to 1947. Farm A is 
 a livestock farm of 186 acres. Farm B is a grain farm of 160 acres. On both 
 farms too many acres are used for corn and soybeans. (Fig- 10) 
 
 Net income. The more desirable land-use program, the higher crop 
 yields, and the greater capital expenditures on the livestock farm are 
 reflected in the better income from this farm for the last six years 
 as compared with the income from the grain farm (Fig. 12). For four 
 of the first six years the grain farm had a higher net income per acre, 
 but since 1942 the reverse has been true. Since 1935 the average yearly 
 net income has been $5.80 an acre on the livestock farm and $4.17 on 
 the grain farm. This long-time advantage in net income per acre and 
 the increasing spread between the incomes from these two farms 
 reflect the difference in the farming systems followed. 
 
590 
 
 BULLETIN No. 540 
 
 [June, 
 
 1935 '36 '37 '38 39 '40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 1947 
 
 40 
 30 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 SOYBEANS 
 
 1935 '36 '37 '38 '39 '40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 1947 
 70 
 
 60 
 
 50 
 
 a: 40 
 
 30 
 
 m 20 
 
 10 
 
 OATS 
 
 1935 '36 '37 '38 '39 '40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 1947 
 
 Corn, soybean, and oat yields on same farms as shown in Fig. 10. On the 
 livestock farm (Farm A) these crops have averaged 56, 22, and 43 bushels 
 respectively during these years. On the grain farm (Farm B) they have 
 averaged 40, 22, and 32 bushels an acre. (Fig. 11) 
 
19501 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 591 
 
 $20 
 
 16 
 
 NET INCOME PER ACRE 
 
 1935 
 
 '36 '37 '38 '39 '4O '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 1947 
 
 The net income per acre on these two Vermilion county farms has been 
 steadily in favor of the livestock farm (Farm A) since 1942. (Fig. 12) 
 
 Conclusions About Conservation Farming 
 
 Practical and profitable. A study of more than 100 farms located 
 on slowly permeable soils in northeastern Illinois indicates that con- 
 servation measures are not only effective in maintaining soils for 
 future use but they are also an important factor in increasing farm 
 income. Investments to improve the land, such as those for limestone, 
 phosphate, and mixed fertilizers, will pay off in larger crop yields and 
 in hay and pasture of higher quality. The same total amount of grain 
 can be produced on fewer acres, and thus more acres can be shifted 
 to hay and pasture. This shift will allow livestock-minded operators 
 to have more roughage-consuming livestock, which in turn will make 
 it possible to still further build up the productivity of the soil. 
 
 More expensive but brings greater returns. On the 20 high-con- 
 servation farms on Clarence-Rowe soils, an average of 48 cents more 
 an acre a year was spent for lime, phosphate, and mixed fertilizers 
 during 1945-1947 than on the 20 low-conservation farms. In addition, 
 21 percent of the land on the high-conservation farms was in soil- 
 building legumes, compared with 16 percent on the low-conservation 
 farms. What were the results? Corn yielded 5 bushels more an acre 
 on the high-conservation farms, though there was no difference in oat 
 and soybean yields. More livestock and the higher corn yield caused 
 the yearly net income to average $7.39 an acre higher on the high- 
 conservation farms. 
 
 On the 20 high-conservation farms located on Clarence-Rowe, 
 Swygert-Bryce, Elliott-Ashkum, mixed slowly permeable soils, 75 cents 
 more an acre a year was spent for lime, phosphate, and mixed fertilizer 
 
592 BULLETIN No. 540 [June, 
 
 than on the low-conservation farms. On the high-conservation farms 
 20 percent of the land was in soil-building legumes, compared with 
 only 12 percent on the low-conservation farms. Corn and oats yielded 
 8 and 4 bushels more per acre. Soybean yields were about equal. Net 
 income was $9.16 more an acre a year. Annual costs per acre for build- 
 ings, for other land improvements, and for power and machinery were 
 slightly higher, but labor costs were about the same. 
 
 More livestock usually needed. To utilize the additional hay and 
 pasture produced under a good conservation program, the number of 
 roughage-consuming animals may need to be increased. The number 
 and kind of livestock to be kept will depend, among other things, on 
 the size and condition of present buildings, the funds or credit available 
 for constructing new buildings, and the experience and preference of 
 the operator. On the smaller farms, dairy cattle are the logical choice 
 if the buildings are suitable and the operator has the ability to handle 
 dairy cattle, for dairy cows normally produce more income per animal 
 than do beef cows. However, the decision which to use is one to be 
 made by each individual operator in light of his own resources. 
 
 On seventy farms grouped by amount of livestock kept on each, 
 those with the most livestock had the higher crop yields, a smaller per- 
 centage of land in corn and soybeans, and substantially higher earn- 
 ings. The advantage of increasing the amount of livestock in order to 
 utilize the additional amounts of hay and pasture grown under con- 
 servation farming is clearly indicated in these comparisons. 
 
 Lease adjustments can be worked out. On rented farms, if live- 
 stock are to be increased and grain acreages reduced, livestock-share 
 leases may have to replace crop-share-cash leases in some instances. 
 Landlords and tenants both would benefit by the use of a livestock- 
 share lease. Certainly conservation practices can be more readily 
 adopted under such a system, and landlords would be more willing 
 to make necessary building improvements. Longer-term leases would 
 also be desirable. When a tenant has made improvements, the lease 
 should include specific provision for compensating him for the re- 
 maining value of the improvements at the time he moves. Such a 
 provision would make tenants more willing to invest in long-time im- 
 provements. 
 
 Time needed to realize benefits. Most farmers in the past appear 
 to have invested too little in land improvements, and some may 
 have put too much into machinery and buildings. The result is a 
 
1950] COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 593 
 
 partial depletion of fertility and lower incomes than if more adequate 
 investments had been made to improve the land. Returns from land 
 improvements are not realized as quickly as are the returns from 
 certain other investments. In fact, the net cash income may actually 
 decrease during the first two or three years of a conservation program. 
 However, after the initial period the increase in returns usually more 
 than justifies the initial outlay and the period of waiting. 
 
 When borrowing is justified. Good farmers whose land has not 
 been depleted and eroded beyond recovery can justify borrowing 
 funds with which to make needed improvements in their farming plans. 
 The terms and amount of each such loan need to be geared to fit the 
 individual farm and the farm plan. Lending agencies should consider 
 loans for this purpose a sound investment when they are made to 
 competent operators on inherently productive farms, since their pur- 
 pose is to maintain soil productivity and increase the net income. 
 
 Because returns from these investments cannot be expected to ac- 
 crue in one or two years, but to be realized over a period of years, 
 lenders make a mistake if they try to place these loans on a strictly 
 short-term basis. The best way is to budget the loan and advance the 
 money for each purpose only as the money is needed. Repayment 
 schedules should be set up to coincide approximately with the in- 
 creases in returns to be expected from the investment. This means 
 that the amounts of principal to be repaid during the first two or 
 three years should be less than in the later years when there has been 
 time for the plan to increase the productivity of the soil. 
 
 The photographs on the following pages demonstrate still 
 further the necessity for well-planned conservation farming 
 on the tight soils in northeastern Illinois, and the dollar- 
 and-cents benefits to be derived from it. Scenes similar to 
 these can be found in any part of Illinois, but in no other 
 area of this size do they represent so serious a condition. 
 Here it is imperative that all the remaining topsoil be "kept 
 at home," or the land will be permanently lost to agricul- 
 tural production. 
 
594 
 
 BULLETIN No. 540 
 
 [June, 
 
 Valuable topsoil is being washed away from this field of soybeans planted 
 up and down the slope. Grass in the natural waterway would have prevented 
 some of the cutting erosion. Terracing and contour planting would have 
 done the rest. The soil here is Swygert silt loam. (Fig. 13) 
 
1950} 
 
 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION 
 
 595 
 
 When corn is planted up and down the slope on the slowly permeable soils 
 in northeastern Illinois, the losses of topsoil are enormous. Note rills be- 
 tween rows and piling up of silt in the foreground. (Fig. 14) 
 
 Financial records show that contouring and terracing increase farm earn- 
 ings on rolling land. They save soil and water, lower operating costs 5 to 
 10 percent, and increase crop yields 10 to 20 percent. These thriving soy- 
 beans were planted on the contour on a terraced field. (Fig. 15) 
 
This wide grass waterway on Rowe silt loam not only helps control erosion, 
 but has produced U/2 tons of hay an acre a year, as an average, since it was 
 established. Thus we have two benefits for the price of one. (Fig. 16) 
 
 A washed out tile line makes greater inroads each year into farm income. 
 Crops and cropland are lost, and repair becomes more costly. A grass 
 waterway in this natural drainageway would have prevented this gully. Tile 
 seldom work in these slowly permeable soils. (Fig- 17) 
 
 15,0506-5043748 
 


 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA