Cochise County dairy relocation study

              COCHISE COUNTY
DAIRY RELOCATION STUDY
The University of Arizona
A Proud Beginning
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Arizona Dairy Relocation Study
For
Cochise County, Arizona
Fall of 1985
prepared by
Otis G. Lough, Dairy Specialist, Emeritus
University of Arizona
and
Coordinator: Arizona Agri-Group
, 503 E. Oregon, Phoenix, Arizona
Telephone (602) .277-9110
Sponsored by
Willcox Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture
Arizona Department of Commerce
City of Willcox
and
Cochise County Cooperative Extension Service
with special acknowledgement to
State Representative Gus Arzberger
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P a r t I
Overview
Conclusions
Recommendations
Page
P a r t I1
understanding Arizona's Dairy Industry 67
D i s t r i b u t i o n of Arizona's Dairies 8
Location of Dairies With P o t e n t i a l f o r Relocation 9
~ e s c r i p t i o na nd Needs of a Modern Dairy 10-11
Physical Layout of a Modern Dairy 12-15
Financial S t r u c t u r e of a Modern Dairy 16-18
P a r t I11
What ~ a i r y m e n Should Know About the Sulphur
Srings Valley
F i r s t Class Citizen
Abundant Feed 19-20
Moderate Climate 20
Temperature Ranges
P r e c i p i t a t i o n
Relative Humidity
C a t t l e Comfort Index - TH1
Seasonal Milk Production P a t t e r n 26
Temperature - R a i n f a l l Comparison
Sulphur Springs Valley vs. Mesilla Valley, NM 2 7
Willcox Wind - An I n d i c a t i o n 28
Value of Eliminating Heat S t r e s s 29
Land Prices 30
P o t e n t i a l Dairy Relocation Areas
i n the Sulphur Springs Valley
Labor A v a i l a b i l i t y 31
PART IV
Cochise County Agriculture i n Brief
Climate & Weather
Topography
S o i l s
Water and I r r i g a t i o n
Land Ownership
Population
Recreation
Information Services
PART V
Appendix
Organizations i n Greater Willcox Area
Churches
Schools
Hospital & Medical F a c i l i t i e s
Other
Annual Feed Requirements f o r 5000 Dairy Cows
Miscellaneous
References
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Listing Of Tables
Number
1
2 a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
TITLE
Dairy C a t t l e Annual Feed Consumption
Arizona Dairy Herds Milked 3 t i m e s d a i l y
Dairy Investment Budget
Dairy Operating Budget
Main Crops In Cochise County
Estimated I r r i g a t e d Acreage
Selected Weather Data
Heat Units
Range In Water Levels
Water U s e by P l a n t s
Land Ownership
Population of Cochise County
H i s t o r i c S i t e s
PAGE
4
11
1 6
18
33
34
36
37
40
4 1
42
43
44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L i s t i n g of Figures
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TITLE
Arizona Dairy Farm D i s t r i b u t i o n
Dairies With Relocation P o t e n t i a l
Dairy Layout Schema tic
Maximum Average Temperatures
Minimum Average Temperatures
P r e c i p i t a t i o n
Relative Humidity
Temperature - Humidity Index
Seasonal Variation In Milk Production
Temperature - Sulphur Springs Valley
vs. E l Paso, Texas
R a i n f a l l - Sulphur Springs Valley
vs. E l Paso, Texas
Wind Data f o r Willcox and E l Paso
Areas With Dairy Relocation
P o t e n t i a l i n the Sulphur Spring Valley
PAGE
8
9
13
21
21
2 3
24
25
26
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following persons contributed significantly to the com-pilation
and preparation of the report:
Roy Ard S.C.S.; Willcox Area Manager
Dennis Armstrong U of A; Extension Dairy Specialist
Gus Arzberger Kansas Settlement farmer; State Legislator
Gus Arzberger, Jr. Kansas Settlement farmer
Howard Bethel Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Co-op;
General Manager
Dorman Brown Kansas Settlement farmer; Rotary Club
District Governor, Willcox
Fred Buck Willcox U.S. Weather Observer
Don Burnett Spitler Land & Cattle Co., Manager
Paula Bowman Cooperative Extension Service, Cochise
County; Secretary
Ellen Clark Executive Director, Willcox Chamber of
Commerce & Agriculture
Rick Cook City of Willcox, City Manager
Leonard Cheatham Laveen area dairyman
Ron Cluff Cooperative Extension Service Director,
Graham County
Anthony Cluff Chandler area dairyman
Douglas Dunn Cooperative Extension Service; Acting
Director, Cochise County
Jim Ditton A.S.C.S.; Cochise County, Director
Hank Geitz Gila Valley Economic Development
Marvin Glenn Cochise County rancher
Robert Girard United Dairymen of Arizona, Executive Director
Robert Haas Bonita area farmer
June Hawes Cooperative Extension Service, Cochise
County; Secretary
Jack Huff Willen Corporation; Farm Manager
Acknowledgments (cont Id. ) Page 2
Dr. Scott Hathorn
John Harper
Walter Kibler
Paul Lunt
Patrick Lindsay
A1 Norman
Mary Rugg
R.L. Robbs
Clyde Rhodes
William Sweitzer
U of A; Ag. Economics Specialist
Cooperative Extension Service; Pinal County
Stewart-Chandler areas dairyman
Pima area dairyman
24.S.C.S; Cochise County
New Mexico State University, Dairy Specialist
Casa Grande area realtor
Kansas Settlement Cotton Gin, Manager
Roberts Farms Inc., General Manager
Willcox area realtor
Larry Sullivan (Former) Cochise County Extension Service,
Director
Harold Skinner Valley Bank, president
Leroy Unrast Kansas Settlement p.oxk producer
Dr. Frank Wiersma U of A; Agricultural Engineer
Robert Walz Willcox area realtor
Arizona Dairy Relocation Study
For Cochise County
Overview
Approximately 90% of Arizona's dry-lot dairy opera-tions
are located within 60 miles of Phoenix. Due to con-tinuing
urbanization of the area these dairy operators
systematically plan to relocate every 15 to 20 years.
This is a well established pattern which allows major
adjustments to be financed primarily by land appreciation.
Replacement of worn and/or obsolete facilities, equipment
and expansion adjustments, and other changes are easily made
when "starting from scratch", which this relocation makes
possible.
Many community leaders in Cochise County feel that
their area offers distinct advantages for dairy operators.
Therefore they wish to take positive steps to encourage
Arizona dairymen to locate in Cochise County when faced
with the necessity of moving their operations.
As the basis for positive action a "Dairy Relocation
Feasibility Study" was commissioned for the fall of 1985.
The purpose of this study was:
1) to identify the major factors that would encourage
dairymen to relocate in Cochise County; and
2) to develop recommendations to ensure that such
relocation would be permanent and mutually desir-able
for the dairy operators and the residents
of Cochise County.
Arizona Dairy Relocation Study
For Cochise County
Conclusions
A. A minimum of 5,000 dairy cows would be desirable to
provide a sound economic base for a dairy community
in Sulphur Springs Valley.
This number of cows would give a base of operations
for specialized services unique to a modern dairy
operation, such as dairy veterinarian, production
testing (DHIA) , milking machine and equipment etc.
B. The economic impact of locating 5,000 dairy cows and
associated replacement heifers would be:
1. Five million three hundred thousand dollars
($5,300,000) of feed requiring approximately
10,000 acres of crop land would be utilized
locally per year. See Table 1.
2. Five thousand cows would provide the potential
for 65 to 100 on-farm dairy employees.
3. Gross annual income from 5,000 cows would approx-imate
11.2 million dollars ($11,200,000).
4. Taxes collected; goods and services purchased; and
sale of bull calves, cull dairy cows and manure
are other items having positive economic signifi-cance
for the area.
C. Dairy farmers, faced with relocation due to urban en-croachment
in the Salt River Valley, should be encour-aged
to investigate the advantages offered by the Sul-phur
Springs Valley area. These advantages are:
1. They and their families would be welcomed as FIRST
CLASS CITIZENS.
Abundant dairy feed stuffs (alfalfa, corn silage,
barley, grain sorghum, cottonseed and oat hay) of
the highest quality can be purchased at competi-tive
prices if sound businesslike agreements are
established. ~limination of transportation costs
presently incurred in marketing feed in the Phoenix,
Tucson or El Paso areas would provide a margin of
profit that could be shared with local dairymen.
Harvesting and utilization as silage, green chop
and high moisture grains could also reduce harvest-ing
and marketing costs. In the case of alfalfa,
(Conclusions cont'd.)
it could make an extra cutting possible. Also
local cottonseed is aflatoxin free.
3 . Land prices in the Sulphur Springs Valley are ex-tremely
attractive at $400 to $1000 per acre com-pared
to $1000 to $3000 in the Maricopa-Casa Grande-
Coolidge area. This is the area that most Salt
River Valley dairymen seem to be giving serious con-sideration
as a relocation site. Recent sales of
dairy real estate for urban development in the
Chandler area have been in the $50,000 to $80,000
range.
These attractive land prices coupled with abundant
feed production potential, moderate climate and all
weather roads make several locations attractive as
potential dairy sites.
These areas are: Stewart-Bonita, Kansas Settlement,
Cochise-Sunsites, Sunizona and Elfrida-McNeal
Farm real estate prices are depressed at this time
due to the general overproduction of all agricultural
commodities and near collapse of the Farm Credit SYS-tem
in many agricultural areas of the United States.
Another contributing factor is the relatively higher
electrical costs for pumping irrigation water when com-pared
to many other farming areas in Arizona.
Both water and power supplies exist in abundance, both
in the short and long term. The local "water problem"
is one of comparative costs. Electrical power is gen-erated
locally by the Sulphur Springs Electric Co-op,
Inc. located near Cochise, and agriculture is its
main customer. This plant has a significant reserve
capacity which can assure dairymen of an adequate
power supply. However, this excess capacity does con-tribute
to the necessary cost of electricity at present.
The comparatively higher cost difference with areas
such as Phoenix and Casa Grande will tend to disappear
in the near future, however. These areas are due to
renegotiate power supply contracts with the Boulder
Dam Authority and will share in the cost of bringing
the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant "on-line". Significant
rate increases are anticipated.
4. Heat stress becomes more threatening and costly as
cows are bred and managed to produce more and more
milk.
Thus the option of moving and/or operating in a mod-erate,
heat stress free climate becomes more desirable
(Conclusions cont'd.)
and, cost effective. Moderate climate, as exists
in the Sulphur Springs Valley, would eliminate most
of the costly heat stress imposed on dairy cows in
the Salt River Valley and Casa Grande areas ($500-
$550 annually per cow). The resulting increased pro-duction
and reproduction efficiency would return more
than the increased cost of transporting milk to the
Salt River Valley area. Investments to provide for
wind and freeze protection would be more than offset
by eliminating the need for much of the heat stress
protection now utilized by modern dairy operations.
Fortunately the windy months of March and April are
two of the dryest months of the year, reducing the
possibility of cold stress.
5. Dairy families relocating in Cochise County will have
the opportunity to live in a genuine rural environ-ment.
They will have an excellent opportunity to
develop a sense of identity, permanence, community
and leadership, while conducting their daily lives
and dairy business in a less stressful environment.
6. Dairymen located in the Sulphur Springs Valley would
have the Willcox Livestock Auction (largest volume in
the state) available to them for marketing cull and/or
surplus dairy stock. Also the Willcox Packing House
would be available for local slaughtering and process-ing
needs.
7. Competition for local labor supplies would be favor-able
as alternative employment tends to be limited
to agriculture and service industries.
8. The Sulphur Springs Valley is about equidistant from
Phoenix and El Paso, which could present alternative
marketing possibilities.
9. Schools, churches and family services are very ade-quate.
Outdoor recreation opportunities are excel-lent.
"Big City" and University of Arizona access
and activities are an easy 90 minute drive on Inter-state
10 to Tucson.
Table 1: Annual Feed Requirement In Tons, Acres and
Dollar Value For 5,000 Dairy Cows and Replacement Heifers.*
FEED TONS ACRES DOLLAR
TYPE ANNUALLY REQUIRED VALUE
(Tons) (Acres) ($1
Alfalfa hay 18,144 2,593 $1,814,400
Corn silage 44,307 1,477
Oat hay 3,600 1,200
Grain 12,610 3,602 1,544,812
Cottonseed 4,549 1, OOO**
(cotton) (9,098)
TOTALS 83,210 9,872 $5,296,022
Tons Acres Dollars
* Based on "1985 Arizona Field Crop Budgets for Cochise
County; January 1985; University of Arizona and "1983
Dry-lot Dairy Budgets; February 1983: University of
Arizona. See Appendix Tables; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; for de-tails.
** Cottonseed production credited with 1,000 acres.
Recommendations
The Willcox Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture should
initiate a "Five Year Dairy Awareness Campaign" to re-locate
dairymen with a minimum of 5,000 cows in the Sul-phur
Springs Valley area.
This campaign should be designed for two distinct audiences:
- The dairymen and their families in the Salt River
Valley.
- The farmers and allied industry people in the Sul-
Springs Valley.
Information presented in this study could form the basis
for such a campaign.
The campaign should include:
A. Propectus and/or brochures developed to tell the follow-ing
stories:
1. What the Sulphur Springs Valley has to offer
dairymen.
2. What a dairy community with 5,000 to 10,000
dairy cows has to offer the Sulphur Springs
Valley and what special needs and demands they
would place on the area.
B. Key committee members, business persons and out-standing
farmers committed to making person to per-son
contacts with prospective dairymen. The objective
is to personalize the basic messages developed in the
brochures.
C. Organized tours of appropriate points of interest for
prospective dairymen, their families and allied indus-try
people.
D. 35 mm color slide and/or video tape versions of the
two basic brochures for use and display at meetings,
field days, fairs, service clubs, etc.
E. A small Dairy Campaign "Action Committee'' with a dynamic
chairman, serving as a clearing house for inquiries,
ideas and needed follow-through actions.
F. Feature story(s) in United Dairyman of Arizona magazine
plus monthly advertisement for a selected three to six
month promotional period. A feature story is in the
Arizona Farmer Stockman would also be desirable.
Understanding Arizona's Dairy Industry*
Arizona has approximately 155 commercial dairy operations
or what might be termed individual physical facilities.
Dairy statistics are sometimes confusing as they refer to
the number of individual dairymen holding permits or member-ship
in a marketing organization. Many dairy sites or oper-ations
have more than one dairyman using the facilities which
accounts for most of the confusion concerning dairy numbers.
For purposes of this report references are made to individual
physical dairy facilities. For approximate distribution and
location of Arizona dairy operations see Figures 1 and 2.
The average dairy operation has a mature dairy herd of approxi-mately
550 cows and approximately the same number of replace-ment
heifers, ranging in age from birth to 26 months, when
they calve for the first time.
The U.S. Livestock and Crop Reporting Service estimates that
Arizona has a state dairy cow population of 87,000 cows as
of October, 1985.
These dairy operations grossed $175 million in 1984, ship-ping
22,905 pounds of milk daily per operation. They supply
most of Arizona's fresh milk and dairy product needs, much of
the hard cheese, 25% of the butter and some cultured dairy
products. Eighty-five percent of the dairies are located with-in
50 miles of Phoenix in the Salt River Valley. Holsteins
make up 90% of the state dairy herds; Guernseys, Jerseys,
Brown Swiss and Milking Shorthorns make up the remainder.
Eleven percent of the cows are registered.
Capital Investment Requirements
The typical investment of a 500-cow unit might be:
500 cows at $1,20O/cow $ 600,000
Milk base: 54 pounds of daily milk
base per milking cow
(420 cows) @ $20 per pound 453,600
Milking facilities and equipment
@ $1,8OO/cow 900,000
500 replacement heifers and calves:
average $725/hd. 362,500
6-month hay supply, 3 tons/cow @ 120/ton 180,000
30 acres of land @ $2,00O/acre 60,000
Total Investment $2,556,100
Average Investment Per Cow $ 5,011
Milking Facilities
The most common arrangement consists of a herringbone parlor,
low-level milk line, bulk milk tank, jet cow washers in the
holding pen and milking machine detachers. Twenty-five per-cent
of the cows are milked three times a day. Corrals are
constructed of steel cable and posts, with 50-150-cow group-ings.
They are equipped with metal sun shades, perimeter
feeding and lock-in stanchions. Evaporatively-cooled shades
and foggers are used on about 20% of the state's dairies.
Holding pen cooling has been added to approximately 30% of
the dairy farms since 1983.
Average Dairy Herd Improvement Association
There are 57,000 cows enrolled in the Arizona DHIA, Inc.
Arizona ranks 1st in the nation for cows on DHIA with 73% on
test with a rolling 12-month average of 16,841 lbs. of milk
and 628 obs. of fat. Arizona ranks third in the nation in
production per cow.
Co-op Marketing
Ninety percent of Arizona's dairymen are members of the
United Dairymen of Arizona. This cooperative operates a
quota program which encourages members to adjust production
+ to market needs. A supply-management plant enables the co-op
to hold reserve milk so day-to-day fluctuations in demand by
processors can be met. The market is cleared of excess milk
by converting it into cheese or butter and milk powder. A new
cheese plant was built in 1984. Cheese whey is processed inro
protein powder, milk sugar and liquid feed.
Federal Milk Marketing Order
Ninety-six percent of the milk produced in the state is regu-lated
by Federal Marketing Order 131. A major purpose of the
order is to insure Arizona consumers an adequate supply of milk.
USDA-supervised "hearings" or bargaining procedures are ar-ranged
between dairymen and milk handlers. The prime objec-tive
is to establish minimum classified prices which handlers
must pay dairymentoencourage an adequate supply of milk, but
not a burdensome surplus. The federal order has no control
over retail milk prices.
Milk Prices and utilization
Federal Milk Marketing Order Class I, 11, I11 and uniform
prices for September 1985 were $13.62, $11.12, $11.12 and
$2.59 per hundredweight, respectively. Class I utilization
averaged 58.6%. Retail supermarket prices range from $.92
to $1.10 per half gallon.
Figure 1: Distribution of commercial Dairy Operations
in Arizona
September 1985
Figure 2: Arizona Dairy Farms with Relocation Potential
Description and Needs of A Modern,
Mid-sized, Dry-lot Dairy
To work successfully with dairymen it is necessary to have
a basic understanding of their unique needs. Much of this
knowledge can be acquired by studying:
A. The locational needs
B. The organizational structure
C. The physical structure, and
D. The financial structure of a modern
dry-lot dairy.
Dairy Location Characteristics Desired
1. Immediate access to all-weather roads
2. Well drained site with moderate natural
slope (3 to 5%)
3. Close proximity (1 to 5 miles) to feed
crops; alfalfa, corn silage, grain, etc.
4. Ample good quality water with less than
1000 parts per million total soluble
salts (1500 ppm. maximum).
5. Access to main electric power hook-up.
B. Organizational Efficiency Is Based On Job Priorities
A specialized dairy organization tends to operate 24
hours a day, especially if cows are milked 3 times a
day, which is a growing trend. See Table 2. Jobs are
specialized and compete for time and space. Making
one task easy to accomplish generally complicates
another, so priorities must be established.
For example, milking and milk handling take precedent
over herdsmans' work (breeding, doctoring, etc.) , which
in turn, takes precedent over feeding, which takes
precedent over manure clean-out, etc.
Table 2 : ARIZONA DAIRY HERD 1MPROVE:fENT SUPQlhRY
ROLLING HERD AVERAGE OF OFFICIAL HERDS ABOVE 625 LBS FAT
July 1985
COWS
IN
HERD
*Stotz Dairy 7 34
*T. A. Burgeson,Jr. 249
Roe l o f f s Dairy 886
*Mesquite Dairy 596
*deJong Dairy (Mesa) 29 8
*Arizona Dairy Co. #1 973
*Ed Boschma 56 8
*A & B Dairy 543
*Desert Crest Dairy 48 1
"Rijlaarsdarn Dairy 86 8
Del Rio Dairy 194
Butler Dairy 302
*ArizonaDairyCo. 84 807
I '*Milky Way Dairy 67 2
*Arizona Dairy Co. #2 1007
*Smith-Lunt Dairy 7 7 4
Lyreedale Dairy Farm 443
Martha Linda Dairy 13 19
*Richard Anglin 63 9
*Schuburg Dairy 574
Barie Enterprises 849
Happy Acres Holstein 127
*Arizona Dairy Go. #3 1054
*Fees t r a Dairy 557
P 6 W Dairy 50 7
Triple G Dairy 1258
*Sun Country 948
Pete J. Treguboff 310
Rezzonico Ranches 572
C & B Dairy 730
*R G B Dairy 288
Stanley Boschma 61 5
*Happy Acres Brown Swiss 57
Shamrock H i l l Farm 3362
P h i l Greer 398
BBERJI
GH '
RH
GH
GH
GH
GH
GH
GH
GH
GH
GH
RH
GH
GH
GH
GB
RH
GH
GH
GH
GH
GH
GH
R J
GH
GH
GH
RH
GH
GH
GH
GH
RBS
GH
GH
* 3 X's a day milking
X
FAT FAT
AVERAGE
DAYS IR
n1u
C. Physical Layout of a Modern Dry-lot Dairy
The Milking Center (See Figure 3 .)
The Milking parlor, holding pen, milk room, machinery
room and office are housed in one centrally located
building. This is placed at the high point of the en-tire
dairy layout and must have all-weather driveways
connected to the main paved highway. These driveways
must accomodate 6,000 gallon, semi-trailer tractor
rigs for milk pick up and hauling.
Corrals
Milk cow corrals, with 100 to 150 cow capacity each are
situated along a central cow lane leading from the hold-ing
pen. This concrete-surfaced cow lane is graded to
slope a minimum of 14% away from the holding pen. Corrals
are graded to slope 3% from the outside perimier feeding
platform to the central cow lane. This lane thus serves
the dual role of moving cows to and from the parlor and
moving any run-off water from the parlor and corrals
to a waste water holding pond at the rear of the dairy
layout.
Corrals should contain a minimum of 750 square feet
per cow along the perimeter feeding platform. The
feeding space should be equipped with a lock-in, lock-out
type stanchion (self-locking type preferred). This
is where most herdsman type work is done; i.e., artifi-cial
breeding, routine doctoring, pregnancy checking,
etc.
Each corral should be equipped with a sun-rain-wind
shelter providing 40-50 sq.ft. per cow.
Corral Maintenance
The corral surface under the shelter should be crowned,
12 to 18 inches higher than the surrounding area. It
is important that the shelter be constructed so that
wet material can be removed easily and replaced with
sun-dried manure mulch. A similar routine is needed
to maintain the area behind the feeding platform. The
entire corral surface should be mulched with a drag-harrow
type implement once or twice a week as needed
to maintain dry corral conditions.
Figure 3 . Typical Drylot Dairy Layout
Cows free of moisture are less subject to wind chill,
which is the chief cause of cold stress. Also, dry
corral surfaces keep cows clean, resulting in faster
milking, less mastitis and thus higher quality milk.
Other Facilities
Calf barns, replacement heifer pens, feed storage
structures and other facilities are conveniently
located. See figure , page ; Schematic of a
Modery Dry-lot Dairy Layout.
Feeding
A grain mixture is fed in the milking parlor through
a mechanical dripple system free choice, except for
the late lactation cows that are tending to get over-conditioned
or fat.
Cows are grouped in corrals according to: (1) breeding
or reproductive status, (2) production level and (3) need
for special attention. Outside rations of grain, rough-age
and a vitamin-mineral-protein pellet are then form-ulated
to fit each corral-group's needs. They are fed
on the perimeter feeding platform using a feeder-mixer
truck equipped with electronic load cells.
Dry roughage and/or green chop is generally fed sep-arately.
Grains, protein meal and by-product feeds
are typically mixed with silage which serves as an ex-cellent
"carrier".
Prepared grains, meals, etc. are stored in a cubicle
or commodities shed. They are out-loaded as needed
with a front-end loader and placed in the feeder-mixer
truck in amounts specified by the particular ration
being prepared.
Water
Ample, high quality water free of contamination and
low in total soluble salts (less than 1,000 p.p.m.
desirable, 1,500 p.p.m. maximum) is a must. Total
requirements average approximately 150 gallons per
day per milking cow unit.
Ample heat from compressors and manifolds, can be made
available through heat exchange units for warming cow
wash water, providing hot water for equipment washing
and clean-up and for other uses.
The cooling of milk, from cow body temperature of 10l°F
to a storage temperature of 34+F is an abundant heat
source if it is captured and utilized.
Waste Water Disposal
The most desirable disposal method is to mix dairy
waste water with irrigation water. If this is not an
option a leaching field must be provided. In either
case, waste water is stored in a waste pond and pumped
as dictated by the irrigation schedule or accumulation
level if a leach field is being used.
The leach field is ideally managed and utilized as a
small irrigated pasture and/or orchard.
Family Housing Location
It is desirable to locate family housing upwind from
the dairy. In most sulphur Springs Valley locations
this would be west or southwest of the dairy operation.
With this orientation odors, dust and flies tend to be
carried away from human living quarters.
D. Financial Structure of a Modern Dry-lot Dairy
The following "700 Lactating Cow Budget" breaks out
the major new cost investment items that make up a
modern dry-lot dairy.
In the judgment of the author, these data are valid
for purposes of this study. However they should be
updated if used for actual dairy enterprise planning.
For complete details see: "1983 Dry-lot Dairy Budgets";
Western Regional Publications 66.1 and 66.3; Univer-sity
of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service.
Table 3: 700 LACTATING COW INVESTMENT BUDGET
PER
NEW INVESTMENT LACTATING
ITEM TOTAL COW UNIT
A. Parlor building $ 110,000 $ 157
B. Milking stalls 38,150 55
C. Parlor machinery 176,600 252
D. Calf barn 38,500 55
E. Calf barn equipment 6,700 10
F. Corrals 431,220 616
G. Storage facilities 66,000 94
H. Wells, water supply and
waste systems 112,043
I. Machinery and equipment 136,987 197
J. Cattle
K. Feed inventory 138,270 198
L. Milk marketing base 1,020,425 1,458
M. Land and excavation 95,200 136
Grand Total $4,051,845 $5,788
1 /
Discussion of the 700 LACTATING COW BUDGET-A
double 10 herringbone parlor with automatic detachers
and feed bowl covers is budgeted to operate at 90 cows
per hour including corral changes. Two 8 1/2 hour
shifts including 45 minutes for clean-up and set-up will
be required. Tube coolers, a cooling tower, ice bank
and plate cooler are included with sufficient storage in
silo bulk tanks for every other day pickup. All equip-ment
is budgeted a new price.
A total of 838 lactating and dry cows and 8 clean-up bulls
are included in the budget along with appropriate numbers
of young stock. Corral sizes are matched to space require-ments.
A treatment and maternity area is included.
Parlor feed storage of 15 tons and 50 foot platform scale
are included. A self unloading feeder mixer truck and
125 HP tractor with loader are used for feeding.
Forty-six acres are budgeted for the parlor, corrals,
trench silos, waste ponds and waste absorption area. A
scraper type separator is included. A total of 11 workers
(including the owner operator) are budgeted with the op-portunity
cost of the owner operator and salary of the
herdsman reflecting the level of responsibility. An assis-tant
herdsman is included.
Table 4 is the companion Operating Budget for the "700
Lactating Cow Investment Budget" above. It gives total
dollar amounts; dollars per hundredweight of milk sold;
percent of total revenue, and costs and revenue per cow
(lactating and dry) for each item.
TABLE: 4 : 2 3
OPERATING BUDGET
700 MILKING COWS (838 MILKING AND DRY COWS) WITH REPLACEMENTS
PERCENT OF PER COW
REVENUE
$ PER CWT TOTAL COSTS LACTATING
AMOUNT MILK & REVENUE AND DRY
MILK SALES 1948182 14.53 77.82 2324
CO-OP DIVIDENDS 33520 0.25 1.34 4 0
CALVES & HEIFERS SOLD 86612 0.65 3.46 103
NON-CASH REVENUE FOR
REPLACEMENT HEIFERS
RAISED 435000 3.24 17.38 519
TOTAL $ 2503314 18.67 100.00 2987
COSTS
HERD REPLACEMENT
RAISED 264206 1.97 11.48 315
DEPRECIATION 66236 0.49 2.88 7 9
PROPERTY TAXES 22973 0.17 1.00 2 7
INSURANCE 15272 0.11 0.66 18
REPAIRS & MAINTEN-ANCE
39020 0.29 1.70
FUEL AND OIL 29006 0.22 1.26 34
FEED 1419002 10.58 61.65 1693
WAGES&SALARIES* 204340 1.52 8.88 243
HAULING 44246 0.33 1.92 5 2
CO-OP FEES** 44246 0.33 1.92
UTILITIES 36872 0.27 1.60
SUPPLIES 54470 0.41 2.37
BREEDING 22626 0.17 0.98 2 7
PRODUCTION TESTING 10554 0.08 0.46
VETERINARY 7542 0.06 0.33
MISCELLANEOUS 20950 0.16 0.91 2 5
TOTAL $2301566 17.17 100.0 2756
REVENUE $ 2503314 18.67 -108.77 2987
- COSTS -$ 2301566 -$17.17 -$lOO.OO -$-
***NET REVENUE 201748 1.50 8.77 241
*Includes opportunity cost of owner's labor and management.
**Includes capital retains.
***Pretax return to total capital (investment and operating), does
not include interest on borrowed capital or opportunity cost of
(interest on) net worth.
What Arizona Dairymen Should Know About the Sulphur Springs
Valley
Agriculture has consistently been the leading industry in the
Sulphur Springs Valley although mining and railroading have
enjoyed brief periods of notoriety in the past.
With this dominance of agriculture, dairymen and their families
could be given an warm and sincere welcome and assisted into
the local socio-economic fabric of the community.
Dairymen Welcomed As First Class Citizens
Dairymen should be convinced by the Sulphur Springs Valley
citizens and communities that they will be FIRST CLASS
CITIZENS if they relocate in the area. The reasons are
simple and straigh-tforward; they will be agriculture people
in an agriculture community, and their presence would con-tribute
increased stability by providing steady markets
for locally grown feed crops. They need to be told this
by local people.
Also expressions of interest and willingness, by local
merchants, to make available the service and supplies
unique to dairy operations would help encourage prospec-tive
dairymen.
Abundant, High Quality Dairy Feed Available
The Sulphur Springs Valley is noted for its productive
soils. Four tons of sorghum and barley grains per acre
are grown using adapted varieties and good management
practices.
Five tons of corn grain per acre is not uncommon, with
verified yields of 6 tons (12,000#) per acre. Because of
the high grain content excellent corn silage can be pro-duced.
Alfalfa hay yields of 6 to 7 tons per acre are grown by
good farm managers.
Excellent dairy hay can be produced, however summer cut-tings
(July & August) can receive some field damage by fre-quent
summer rain showers. Green chop and/or alfalfa
silage programs could minimize this rain damage while
allowing farmers to produce at least one extra cutting of
alfalfa per year.
Cottonseed produced at this 4,000 foot elevation area is
free of aflatoxin.
Excellent oat hay, for dry cow feeding, can be produced.
With the exception of local swine and ranching operations,
locally produced forages and grains must be transported
some 100 to 250 miles to be utilized by dairy and cattle
feeding operations.
Principle marketing options are Tucson - Phoenix - Casa
Grande - Maricopa and the Las Cruces-El Paso areas.
The feedstuffs must be in low moisture form to transport
and market in these distant areas.
If these feedstuffs could be marketed to dairymen located
in the immediate area, most of the transportation and some
of the water removal costs could be eliminated. Utiliza-tion
as green chop, silage and high-moisture grain are
possibilities for reducing drying time and costs.
These methods of feed utilization will require educational
efforts and experience on the part of buyers and sellers
to develop workable marketing methods. Buying and selling
on a dry-matter basis is recommended.
For more detail on Cochise County agriculture see pages
3. Sulphur Springs Valley Climate Will Eliminate Heat Stress
The climate in the Sulphur Springs Valley will eliminate
the major heat stress experienced by dairy cattle in the
Salt River Valley.
During the summer months of June, July, August and Sep-tember
the average maximum temperature at 5 locations
in the Sulphur Springs Valley is 92OF. Comparable tem-perature
in the Chandler Heights-Sacaton-Casa Grande area
of the Salt and Gila River Valleys is 102OF.
Minimum temperatures for these two areas during the four
summer months are 61°F and 70°F respectively. Mean tem-peratures
for the year are 61°F and 6g°F.
See Figures 5 and 6.
This 10°F lower summer temperature in the Sulphur Springs
Valley should allow dairy cows to cool down and regain
their normal body temperature during the night. This
does not happen on most summer nights in the Salt River
Valley unless the cows are environmentally cooled.
Figure AVERAGE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE
WILLCOX-DGLS vs CEItZNDLER-CASQ GRANL,
110
Difference
8.4 Degrees F
, h
1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I
JAN FEB bIl3.H APL . MAY JNE JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
o CHNLR-CASA(57yr AV)
MONTH + IYLCX-DGLS(40yr AV)
AVERAGE DAILY MINIMUM TEMPERATURE .
WILLCOX-DGLS ve CHANDLER-CASA GRANDE
80 I
I 1 I I I I I I I 1
JAN FEB MRU APL MAY JNE JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
CIINDR-CASA(57yr AV)
MONTH
+ IVLCX-DGLS(36yr tiV)
Heat stress is produced by a combination of heat and
humidity. Figure 7 shows annual precipitation averages
by month for the two areas being compared. Note the
similar rainfall patterns throughout the year. The
additional rainfall in the Sulphur Springs Valley plus
the relative humidity data presented in Figure 8 indicate
that average summer humidity is somewhat higher (7%) in
the Willcox area. This would reduce the effective cool-ing
potential.
Figure 9 shows the Temperature-Humidity Comfort Index
for Dairy Cattle using the available mean summer tem-perature-
humidity data for Willcox and Phoenix.
This data indicates that the Willcox environment stays
below the heat stress zone for dairy cows imposed by
combinations of temperature and humidity.
Another indication of how dairy cows will produce in
the Sulphur Springs Valley is presented in Figure 10.
Average daily milk production for Arizona cows is com-pared
to production of cows in the Las Cruces-El Paso
area (Mesilla Valley). This area has a climate quite
similar to the Sulphur Springs Valley. See Figures 11
and 12 for temperature and rainfall comparisons.
Note the similarity of daily production per cow with
the exception of the summer months. The New Mexico
cows do not drop as severely. They out produce Arizona
cows by approximately 15% during the summer and fall
period.
A similar production pattern would be anticipated in the
Sulphur Springs Valley.
Wind and winter cold protection would be costs not in-curred
in the Salt River Valley. Freeze protection for
water and other essential liquids would be necessary while
wind protection for cattle would be desirable.
The alleged "wind problem" is a commonly held belief of
visitors to the Willcox area. Most residents view wind
as troublesome only in that it is usually visible due to
the dust picked up from the large Willcox Dry Lake (Playa).
This lake bed is the low spot in the Sulphur Springs Val-ley
into which rain run-off drains. The northern edge is
located about 3 miles south of Willcox and extends approxi-mately
11 miles north to south and 9 miles east to west.
During rainy periods it may be covered with a shallow
layer of water which eliminates the dust problem.
The available wind velocity data presented in Figure 13
was compiled by the Willcox official weather observer. The
low average wind velocity may be due to relatively short
periods of gusty, high velocity winds offset by long
periods of relative calm.
Figure 9 SEASONAL VARIATION IN MILK FLOW
- PNX-CSA GRND VS EL PSO-LAS ,CRUCES , 19 8 4
64
63 -
62 -
61 -
54 -
53 -
52 -
51 -
50 -
49 -
48 -
47 -
46 I I I I I I I I I I
JAN FEB MRH APL MAY JNE JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTE
PNX-CASA GRND _ + EL PSO-LAS CRCES
Figure 12 AVERAGE WIND VELOCITY M.P.H.
LAS CRUCES VS. WILLCOX
2.5
JAN FEB MRE APL MAY JNE JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
U WILLCOX( 4 YR. AV.)
MONTH
+ LAS CRCS(l1 YR.AV.)
4. The Value of Eliminating Heat Stress in Dairy Cows by
Moving Dairy Herds to the Sulphur Springs Valley.
The value of eliminating heat stress by moving dairy
herds from the Salt River Valley to the Sulphur Springs
Valley is best calculated by examining dairy cooling
studies conducted by the University of Arizona.
Most recent estimates of costs and returns of cooling
dairy cows by U of A researchers was presented at the
1985 U of A Dairy Day (10/11/85).
Equipping a dairy operation with corral shade coolers
and parlor holding pen cooling would have an estimated
annual investment and operating cost of $130 per cow.
The resulting net benefits from increased productin and
reporduction is calculated to be in excess of $415 per
cow per year.
This would indicate that a move to the Sulphur Springs
Valley could have a gross heat stress elimination effect
of almost $550 per cow annually. The animal cooling costs
of $130 would be eliminated while the $415 benefit of re-duced
heat stress could be anticipated ($130 + $415 = $545).
Heat stress is one of the most costly conditions dairymen
have to combat in the Central Arizona milkshed. University
of Arizona summer cooling trials demonstrate minimum heat
stress production losses of 8 to 10 pounds of milk per cow
per day for 120 days (June through September). This is a
loss of 1000 to 1200 pounds of milk per cow. At the 1985
average price of $12.50 per hundredweight, the dollar loss
ranges from $125 to $150 per cow per year.
The cost in reproduction and genetic improvement is con-sidered
to be twice as high as the production loss.
Breeding successes on first service drop from about 55%
during cooler months to about 15% during the summer
period. Because of this drastic decline some dairymen do
not attemp to breed cows during the summer period. Those
that do usually use "cow freshner" bulls and/or "cheap"
artificial insemination semen. The effort is to get the
cow to conceive as economically as possible under heat
stress conditions. The potential for genetic improvement
during the heat stress period is effectively lost.
5. Land Prices Should Appeal to Dairymen
The severely depressed farm real estate market in the
Sulphur Springs Valley presents a grave situation for lo-cal
crop farmers. However it can be viewed as an unusu-ally
good opportunity for dairy farmers being "forced" to
relocate due to high real estate price offers near urban
centers in the Salt River Valley.
Local real estate agents reported that irrigated farm
land in the Sulphur Springs Valley could be purchased for
$400 to $1,000 per acre. Meanwhile dairymen in the Chand-ler
area of the Salt River Valley have recently sold their
land for prices ranging from $50,000 to as high as a re-ported
$80,000 per acre. See Appendix Table .
At present most Salt River Valley dairymen are looking
at the Maricopa-Casa Grande-Coolidge areas of Pinal County
as potential relocation sites. However urban speculation
is also driving up land prices in these areas. Casa Grande
real estate agents report irrigated farm land in the area
selling for $1,000 to $3,000 per acre. Se Appendix
Table
Low electric power rates make these areas attractive in
addition to closeness to the milk market. However they
are due to renegotiate their Boulder Dam electric con-tracts
within the next few months. When this happens,
power rates in these areas are expected to raise near
those in the Sulphur Springs Valley.
With all things considered and given this type of dollar
disparity for desirable dairy real estate, this would seem
to be the ideal time to convince Salt River Valley dairy-men
to relocate in the Sulphur Springs Valley.
As in most agricultural areas, farm real estate prices in
the Sulphur Springs Valley are severely depressed due to
the general overproduction of nearly all agricultural com-modities
in the United States as well as world wide.
Resulting low farm commodity prices for several years in
a row have caused general default on farm loan payments
until the U.S. Farm Credit System is near collapse. This
has added greatly to the overall "farm problem".
6. Selected Areas With Dairy Location Potential
Several areas in the Sulphur Springs Valley meet the lo-cational
needs for dairy operations as listed on page 15.
In brief they are; all-weather roads, well drained site,
close proximity to feed crops, ample good quality water
and access to electric power hook-up.
Using the City of Willcox as a reference point, the areas
given major consideration in this study are: See Figure 4.
A. Stewart-Bonita area located 5 to 15 miles northwest
of Willcox
B. Kansas Settlement area located 12 to 20 miles south-southeast
of Willcox.
C. Cochise-Sunsites area located along Highway 666, 12 to
20 miles southwest of Willcox.
D. Sunizona area located along Highway 181, 30 to 35
miles south-southeast of Willcox.
E. Elfrida-McNeal area located along Highway 666, 35 to
50 miles south of Willcox.
7. Labor Availability
Dairy operators will. have to compete with local ranchers,
service industries and other employers for workers.
Willcox High School graduates an average of 135 seniors
annually. Some continue their education but many seek
employment in local businesses. This is the greatest
source of future resident workers.
Of real significance is the fact that Mexico is about 40
miles from the center of the Sulphur Springs Valley while
it is approximately 125 miles from the center of the Salt
River Valley.
Figure 13: Selected Areas With Dairy
Relocation P o t e n t i a l In The Sulphur Springs Valley
-G-RAH-AM -COU-NTY- -
A R T - B O N I T A AREA
f
- - -
SONORA. MEXICO
SULPHUR SPRINGS VALLEY
Cochise Countv A a r i c u l t u r e i n Brief
A b r i e f background of Cochise County a g r i c u l t u r e would be
h e l p f u l t o p r o s p e c t i v e d a i r y c l i e n t s .
F i e l d crops predominate i n t h e county. Cash r e c e i p t s from
crop production exceeded $35 m i l l i o n i n 1984. Vegetable pro-duction
has f l u c t u a t e d g r e a t l y . For example, over 7,000 a c r e s
of s p r i n g and f a l l l e t t u c e were p l a n t e d i n 1958; acreage f e l l
t o 5,000 a c r e s i n 1961 and t o 2,000 acres i n 1984. Lettuce and
c h i l i remain t h e p r i n c i p a l v e g e t a b l e crops. Other v e g e t a b l e s
produced on l i m i t e d a c r e a g e s i n c l u d e onions, beans, squash,
pumpkins, p o t a t o e s , c a u l i f l o w e r , cabbage, and c a r r o t s .
In 1972, c o t t o n and g r a i n sorghum w e r e t h e most p r o f i t a b l e f i e l d
crops i n t h e a r e a . P r e s e n t l y , Cochise County farmers a r e f i n d -
ing it hard t o compete with c o t t o n growers i n o t h e r c o u n t i e s
who have a longer growing season and less expensive water. Grain
sorghum has been r e p l a c e d with f i e l d corn. Growers i n Cochise
and Graham Counties have t h e h i g h e s t corn y i e l d s i n t h e s t a t e .
More than 1,000 acres of popcorn w e r e p l a n t e d i n 1984. Small
g r a i n and a l f a l f a a c r e a g e s have decreased i n r e c e n t years.
The g r e a t e s t i n c r e a s e i n new crop a c r e a g e h a s been i n tree crops
- - a p p l e s , pecans, p i s t a c h i o s , and peaches. Commercial f r u i t
production is l i m i t e d to areas with good a i r d r a i n a g e to p r o t e c t
a g a i n s t l a t e s p r i n g f r o s t s .
Table 5 : Main Crops i n Cochise County, Estimated Acerage*
-CROP
A l f a l f a & forage
Corn, f i e l d
Sorghum g r a i n
Cotton, s h o r t s t a p l e
Cotton, long s t a p l e
C h i l i
Lettuce spring and f a l l
Vegetables, o t h e r
Popcorn
Apple
Peach
Pecan
P i s t a c h i o
TOTALS
*Estimates a r e based on information from t h e Cochise County
A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a b i l i z a t i o n and Conservation S e r v i c e , Farm
Labor O f f i c e s , and Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e . Estimates
i n c l u d e a c r e a g e s i n t h e Bonita a r e a of southern Graham County
a d j a c e n t t o t h e Stewart D i s t r i c t .
Table 6 : Estimated I r r i g a t e d Acreage in Cochise County
(1953-1985).
Year No. of acres x 1000
Climate and Weather
Cochise County has a semi-arid or arid climate except in the
higher elevations where more humid conditions prevail. The
low, variable precipitation limits farming to the irrigable
areas and restricts the rangeland to cattle production. Cli-matic
conditions, and therefore agricultural production, varies
with altitude and exposure.
Precipitation occurs in two distinct periods; a primary period
during the summer months from early July through September and
a secondary period from December through March. (Figure 7 )
Fall and late spring months are usually dry so the principal
growing season coincides with the summer rainy period. Summer
precipitation occurs largely as severe thunder showers of vary-ing
duration and distribution. Winter and spring precipitation
falls in cyclonic storms of low intensity and relatively long
duration in comparison with summer storms. In the broad inter-mountain
valleys, winter precipitation is in the form of rain,
but in the oak woodland and conifer forests of the higher moun-tains,
snow is the prevailing form. Prolonged drouth periods
are not uncommon at low elevations and result in diminished
range production. Yearly fluctuations of as much as 100 per-cent
from the long-time average occur in the intermountain
valleys.
Lowest annual rainfall for the county is recorded at San Simon
(7.54) and the highest (30-35 inches) in the Chiricahua Mountains.
Record of precipitation from 10 to 15 inches are obtained at most
of the stations in the centrally located Sulphur Springs Valley
and along the San Pedro Drainage (Table13 ) .
In the intermountain valleys, maximum temperatures of 100 de-grees
or more are not unusual from May through September. Min-imum
termperatures during the winter months often fall below
freezing. In the lower portions of the valleys the frost-free
period ranges from 184 to 230 days. The San Pedro and San Simon
Valleys have longer frost-free periods than does the Sulphur
Springs Valley.
Within any single valley or watershed, the higher elevations
often have longer growing seasons than areas near the low center
of the valley. The explanation is simple. Most late spring
and early fall frosts are due to air cooling after the sun goes
down. The air at and near the ground surface is heated when the
sun is shining. After the sun goes down, the cold air being
heavier than warm air, descends to the ground and flows to the
lowest parts of the valleys. Thus frosts may occur near Douglas
or Double Adobe and not at Bisbee or Fort Huachuca. The loca-tion
of any farm or garden with relation to these frost con-trolling
factors will have a definite bearing on successful plant-ing
dates, particularly with vegetable, tree fruit, and other
crops that are damaged by frosts.
Table 7 Ueather data fro* thlrteen stations in Cach~se Courtty, firi:ona I
Aver age -PrccipjLat,on-
..-.---------------I-E-H PERAI'JRE.-- --. - - -- Last First Length of Days uith Nor~al
Elevatm Hean Hean
I
Sprln? Call Growing 0.01 inch Annual Prevailing
S_tatt H i 9 h 1 Lo_we_st W x 9 d i ~ i ~ uhee _ao E_~oss FLI& Sea:p_? o_r_ me
Benson 3585 113 5 80.7 44.7 64.2 Kar.27 Pav.B 226 40 10.42 U '
Bisbee 5350 106 8 7 4 48.8 61.3 Hlr.25 liov.22 242 65 18.00 SY I
Bowie 3756 116 10 81.1 47.6 63.7 Har.26 Nav.fl 227 32
1004 , I Cochise 4219 113 -4 76.8 43.4 61.2 Apr. 3 Hov. 7 218 38 11.65 U
'Cochise 4950 105 8 75.7 44.3 60.0 Apr.15 N3v.3 202 55
Stron$old
18.21 s I
Douglas 3973 111 -7 78.9 46.1 62.5 Apr. O tlav. 6 216 55 12.22 SU
Sselter
Et. 5100 105 0 74.8 ,48.0 61.9 Har.30 Nov.17 232 49
Huachr~ca
Paradise 5436 104 -6 70.3 40.0 55.2 Apr.25 Oct.20 178 55 18.99 SY
Portal 5000 102 -4 77.5 45.7 60.2 Rpr,23 Uct.28 188 53 17.16 SU I
San Siaon 3608 113 -5 79.5 44.4 64.7 k p r . 3 Nov. 9 216 34 7.84 U I
Steven's 4000 100 11 N A N A 57.5 hpr. 8 Hov.15 221 40 12.55 SU
Ranch I
Uillcox 4167 111 -2 76.0 40.6 59.6 Apr.27 Oct.28 184 4 6 11.36 U I
Table 8 10 Year (1974-83) Average Monthly Heat Unit Accurn-u
l a t i o n s Using 55OF B a s e and 86OF Maximum Temperature a t
Willcox.
Month
Ja n
Feb
Mar
A P ~
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oc t
NOV
D e c
M-ean H-eat U-nits
Topography
Cochise County, which is the only Arizona county named for
an individual Indian, was cut from eastern Pima County in
1881. It is approximately 80 miles square and contains
4,003,840 acres. The county is located in the southeastern
corner of Arizona, bounded on the east by New Mexico and on
the south by the Republic of Mexico.
The area is characterized by mountain-valley topography. Par-allel
mountain ranges and range complexes of 6,000 to 9,000 feet
altitude separate alluvial filled valleys which average 3,600
I
to 5,000 feet in elevation. There are three of these broad
intermountain valleys in Cochise County. They are the San Pedro,
Sulphur Springs and San Simon Valleys. The San Pedro and the I
San Simon Valleys drain northward into the Gila River. The
Sulphur Springs Valley, which is the largest and forms the cen-tral
portion of the county, is partially drained by Whitewater
Draw into the Rio Yaqui of Mexico, and subsequently into the
I
Gulf of California. The larger portion of Sulphur Springs Valley
has no drainage outlet and drains toward the Willcox Playa, the
largest undrained basin in Arizona. Except for a portion of the
I
San Pedro River, the principal drainages of these basins are in-termittent.
The natural vegetation of Cochise County includes forest, grass-land
and desert. Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine, the most impor-tant
economic forest type in Arizona, are found in high mountain
forests (6,000-9,000 feet elevation). Stands of pinon and juni-
I
per occur between 5,000 and 7,000 feet elevations. Chaparral
(4,000-5,000 elevation) is composed of a heterogenous association
of shrubs including sumac, scrub oak, and manzanita.
I
Grasslands (3,200-6,000 feet elevation) are the southern-most ex-tension
of the Grat Plains. Homesteaders in the Sulphur Springs
Valley broke up excellent grazing sod in order to produce field
I
ceops. In 1952, the largest solid areas of grass belt in Arizona
were found in Cochise County where the valley floors between the
mountains are high. The grass cover was a rolling, unbroken
I
sea of grass. The grass cover contains a large number of species,
many of which are excellent range grasses such as the gramas.
The prominent trees and shrubs in the drainage washes are desert
I
hackberry, desert willow, and mesquite. Yucca and cholla are
scattered over the mesa land in the grasslands. I
Sonoran desert vegetation is found at elevations below 3500 feet,
such as the lower San Pedro Valley. Palo verde, cholla, prickly
pear, and ocotillo are found at these elevations. I
The layout of the landscape has largely influenced settlement and
land use. The importance of the United States Military in connection
with Fort Huachuca, (worldwide communications center and electronic
proving grounds), retirement communities and tourism have become
I
important sources of income in recent years. Agriculture, livestock,
military, and tourism are the main sources of income in the county. I
Soils
The majority of the soils in the alluvial valleys are classified
by the Soil Conservation Service as Class IV or better. It is
estimated that there are 1,500,000 acres in the county of Class
IV or better that could be farmed if ample irrigation water were
available. 2.6% is estimated as Class I, 21.5% as Class 11, 34.5%
as Class 111, and 41.4% as class IV. Of the land suitable for
farming about 6%, or 92,000 acres is now under irrigation.
Soil surveys have been completed or northern Cochise County. Sur-veys
are in progress for the southern part of the county. These
surveys are available from the Soil Conservation Service office.
In general Cochise County soils are fairly light in color because
of low organic matter content and somewhat reddish brown because
of high degree of oxidation and lack of hydration of iron com-pounds.
The soild are rich in the relatively soluble mineral compounds,
such as lime carbonate and gypsum.
Some of the soild are saline or alkaline in character; they may
contain injurious quantities of the ordinary soluble salts found
in the area. Micronutrient deficiencies of zinc and iron are
found in some crops.
Water and Irrigation
Irrigated agriculture occured in the county as early as 1915.
Insufficient rainfall makes irrigation necessary for farming,
which takes place in the alluvial valleys near the available
sources of underground water. Wells supply most of the water
used for irrigation. There are some permanent pastures which
are irrigated from the San Pedro River near Benson and St. David.
Nearly all the power for pumping is supplied by electricity and
natural gas.
Water quality, in general, is good to excellent for agricultural
and domestic use. Localized areas have a high fluoride content,
which may cause problems for children and older residents. Shal-low
aquifers exist near the playas and along the San Pedro River
which have a high salt content.
Irrigation methods employed in the county include conventional
gravity methods with concrete ditches and tailwater systems (60%),
sprinkler systems--small lateral move sprinklers and center pivot
(30%) and drip systems (10%). Gravity systems are used for cotton
and field crop production; water is applied to alfalfa, corn,
and other grain crops via sprinkler systems; drip systems are em-ployed
to irrigate tree crops. In developing land, one should
keep in mind the need of an averaqe water flow sf ten gallons per
minute per acre to be irrigated. Requirements for sprinkler and
drip irrigation are less.
The static water levels vary throughout the county--from an
average of 220 feet in Bowie and San Simon to an average of 184
feet in the San Pedro River basin (Table . According to the
USGS maps, the water table dropped an average of 2 feet per year
from 1975-1980. This decline is less than in the previous five
year period. Rates of decline are expected to be approximately
one foot per year for the next ten years. Reduction in water
table decline is due to reduced acreage, increased water appli-cation
efficiencies, and a shift to less water intensive crops.
Arizona's groundwater law affects this county in several ways.
The law has created an "Irrigation Non-expansion Area" (INEA) in
the Whitewater Draw drainage due to its low groundwater recharge
rate and high pumpage. No new irrigation wells are permitted in
the INEA, affecting farming areas near Elfrida and McNeal. Wells
not used for irrigation between 1975 and 1980 can no longer be
used for irrigation. Water flow measuring devices were required
in January 1984. Annual reports of the amount of water used are
required (as of March 1985) by the Department of Water Resources.
Exempt wells, which pump less than 35 gallons per minute or irri-gate
less than two acres, do not have to report. Further infor-mation
can be obtained from the Department of Water Resources
(see Information Sources).
Wells throughout the area have been registered as part of the
empahsis on groundwater monitoring. New wells, which can be es-tablished
in areas outside the INEA, are required to be registered
Several areas of the state have been declared "Active Management
Areas" (AMA). Water allocation per pump will go into effect in
AMA's. These areas are located where competition for groundwater
is great, especially near metro~~litacne nters. None are located
in Cochise County.
1
Table 9 Range in Depth to Static Water kvel (feet) I
area range in depth to static water level (feet)
1961 1982 I
Kansas Settlement 20 - 260 1 40 - 3402
Bowie
San Simon
Stewart 20 - 130 100 - 150
Elfrida,McNeal
Douglas
Cochise, Pearce
Upper San Pedro basin 25 - 300 20 - 490 I
Table 1 0 . Seasonal Consumptive Water Use for Various Crops
in Cochise County.
Total
inches
per year
Total
inches
Crop Crop per year
Alfalfa Pecan (medium)
Pecan (large)
Barley Pinto beans,
May planting
Corn, silage
Pinto beans,
Cotton July planting
Grape, wine
with cover crop
Pistachio
Potato
Grape, wine with-out
cover crop Small grains
Lettuce, fall Sorghum,
May planting
Lettuce, spring
Sorghum,
Onion July planting
Wheat
Note: Consumptive use is defined as the unit amount of water
used on a given area in transpiration, building plant tissues,
and evaporation from adjacent soil. studies were conducted on
University of Arizona Experiment station farms near Tempe and
Mesa; values were calculated from Soil Conservation Technical
Release No. 21.
Land Ownership and Use
The land in Cochise County is 45% privately owned, 35% state owned
and 20% federally owned.
The land policies of Arizona and the federal government encourage 1
private ownership of land. Therefore, privately owned farm lands
in Arizona tend to be those lands whose topography, fertility, and I water-availability are most suitable for agricultural development.
In general, federally owned lands lie in the more rugged terrain
unsuited for agriculture except for grazing. Federal lands usually
consist of relatively large contiguous areas. In the northeastern
corner of the county we find a large tract of Taylor grazing land
consisting of almost two-thirds of a million acres. I
Adjoining the Taylor grazing tract is the largest part of the
Coronado National Forest found in the county, consisting of
about one-third of a million acres. In the western half of the
county there are four blocks of national forest land totaling about
I
one-fourth million acres. Fort Huachuca, a military reservation
covering nearly 50,000 acres, is in the southwestern part of the
county.
I
The intermountain valleys are suited for range cattle. The
higher mountain ranges have many areas of forest and woodland
cover which are excellent for grazing. Cattle and horses graze
1
on the range lands and in the national forest. Rough terrain
makes about 92,000 acres of this mountainour area inaccessible
to livestock grazing.
I
Tablell. Distribution of ?rota1 Acres in Cochise County Ranches, I
by Ownership
Ownership
State
No. of acres x 1000
1309
B.L.M. 408
Forest Service 282
Privately owneda 95
Total 2094
a Private land included in B.L.M. and Forest Service allotments.
Agriculture in Cochise County is extremely diversified. In
the intermountain valleys are grown such a diversity of field
I
crops as cotton, corn, alfalfa, lettuce, chile, and other crops
of lesser importance. Fruit and nut crops have become increasing-ly
important. Cotton and grain continue to be the main crops;
I
orchard acreage has increased in the eighties.
There is mining slong the bases of some of the larger mountain
ranges. Significant metallic mineral deposits of gold (Dos Cabezas
I
and Commonwealth mines), silver (Tombstone and Bronckow mines) and
copper (Bisbee and Johnson mines) were discovered in the late 1800's.
Copper is smelt.ed at Douglas, althouqh the future of this smelter
I
is questionable.
Population
Population centers other than mining settlements are restricted
to the valley floors where adequate water facilities were best
developed. The leading cities, by 1982 population, are Sierra
Vista (26,223) , Douglas (13,127) , Bisbee - the county seat (7,257) ,
Benson (4,406), and Willcox (3,379). The population of the county
has increased from 6,938 persons in 1890 to 85,686 in 1980
Table ) By the year 2,000 the county is expected to have a
population of 119,400.
Table 12. Population Growth in Cochise County.
Year No. of people
Recreation
Numerous recreational opportunities exist in the county. The
Chiricahua Mountains, near the New Mexico border, are part of
Coronado National Forest. Attractions include the 18,000 acre
Chiricahua Wilderness area and "Wonderland of Rocks" in the
Chiricahua National Monument. The mountain canyons attract
birdwatchers each year as does the Willcox Playa, where sandhill
cranes nest every winter. Game hunting opportunities abound.
The 2,834 acre Coronado National Memorial lies on the international
border with Mexico. This park commenorates the first significant
explorations by Europeans into the southwest.
Fort Bowie National Historic Site was created as a military post
in 1862. Located in Apache Pass, the fort was the center of
operations during the campaign against the famed Apache Cochise.
Cochise Stronghold Memorial Park is located in the Dragoon
Mountains. Another point of interest is Skeleton Canyon, the site
of Geronimo's final surrender to General A. Nelson A. Miles, end-ing
the Apache wars.
Table 13. Historic Sites on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Coronado National Monument
Double Adobe Site
Douglas Municipal Airport
Fort Bowie
Garden Canyon Archaeological Site
Garden Canyon Petroglyphs
Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site
Old Fort Huachuca
Dodge General Office Building, Bisbee
Quiburi
St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Tombstone
San Bernadino Ranch
Stafford Cabin
Tombstone City Hall
Tombstone Courthouse (Cochise County Courthouse)
Tombstone Historic District
Information Sources
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
P.O. Box 880
Willcox, Arizona 85644
Phone - 602-384-3588
Arizona Commission of Agriculture
and Horticulture
515 South Haskell
Willcox, Arizona 85643
Phone - 602-384-2665
Arizona Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service
3001 Federal Building
Phoenix, Arizona 85025
Phone - 602-264-3264
Cochise Community College
Douglas, Arizona 85607
Phone - 602-364-7943
Cochise County Courthouse
Bisbee, Arizona 85603
Phone - 602-432-5703
Cooperative Extension Service
450 South Haskell
Willcox, Arizona 85643
Phone - 602-384-3594
Farmers Home Administration
153 West Wasson
Willcox, Arizona 85643
Phone - 602-384-3529
National Park Service
R.R. 1 Box 126
Hereford, Arizona 85615
Phone - 602-366-5515
Production Credit Association
P.O. Box 506
Willcox, Arizona 85644
Phone - 602-384-2211
Soil Conservation Service
1118 Nineteenth Street
Douglas, Arizona 85607
Phone - 602-364-2001
Soil Conservation Service
247 South Curtis
Willcox, Arizona 85643
Phone - 602-384-2229
State Land Department
1624 West Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Phone - 602-255-4621
State of Arizona Department
of Water Resources
99 East Virginia Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Phone - 602-255-1566
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
425 East 4th Street
Safford, Arizona 85546
Phone - 602-428-4040
U.S. Forest Service
Post Office Building
Safford, Arizona 85546
Phone - 602-428-4150
Willcox Chamber of Commerce
and Agriculture
1500 North Circle I Road
Willcox, Arizona 85643
Phone - 602-384-2272
Appendix
Table 1:
Annual Feed Requirements for
5000 Dairy Cows and Replacement
Heifers (Tons, Acres & Dollar Value)
ALFALFA HAY
No. Dairy Alfalfa Hay Tons Acres Selling Price
Animals Requirements Annually @ 7T/A @ 100/Ton I
4200 17# x 305 da 10,889 1,556 1,088,900
(cows in milk) 2000#
800 cows
(dry
None
48 Bulls 10# x 365 da 88 13 8,800
(clean-up) 2000#
2778 heifers 3.3# x 183 da 839 120 83,900
(0-6 months) 2000#
I
I
2778 heifers 6# x 183 da 1,525 218 152,500
(6-12 months) 2000#
2632 heifers 10# x 365 da
(12-24 months) 2000#
TOTAL ANNUAL 18,144 2,593 $1,814,400
ALFALFA HAY VALUES TONS ACRES DOLLARS
I
Appendix Table 2:
Annual Feed Requirements 5000 (cont'd.) Page 2
CORN SILAGE
No. Dairy Corn Silage Tons Acres @ Selling Price
Annimal s Requirements Annually 30 T/A $25/T
4200 cows 32# x 305 da 20,496 683 $ 512,400
(in milk) 2000#
800 cows 30# x 60 da 720 24 18,000
(dry) 2000#
48 Bulls 30# x 365 da
( "clean-up") 2000#
2778 heifers None
(0-6 months)
2778 heifers 18# x 183 da 4,575 153 114,375
(6-12 months) 2000#
2632 heifers 38# x 365 da 18,253
(12-24 months) 2000#
TOTAL ANNUAL
CORN SILAGE VALUES
OAT HAY
44,307 1,477 $1,107,675
TONS ACRES DOLLARS
No. Dairy Oat Hay Tons Acres @ Selling Price
Animals Requirements Annually 3 T/A $85/T
800 cows 15# x 60 da 3,600 1,200 $ 306,000
(dry) 2000#
Appendix Table 3:
Annual Feed Requirements 5000 (c0nt.d.) Page 3
GRAIN
Barley/Grain
No. Dairy Sorghum Tons Acres @ Selling Price
Animals Requirements Annually 3.5 T/A $112 Ton
4200 cows 18# x 305 da 11,529 3,294 $1,291,248
(in milk) 2000#
800 cows
(dry
48 Bulls
(clean-up)
2778 heifers
2778 heifers
(6-12 months)
2632 heifers
(12-24 months)
None
None
TOTAL ANNUAL
GRAIN REQUIREMENT
12,610 3,602 $1,544,812
TONS ACRES DOLLARS
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix Table 4.
Annual Feed Requirements 5000 (cont'd.) Page 4
COTTONSEED
Cottonseed
Requirements
No. Dairy Tons Selling Price
Animals Annually $115 Ton
4200 cows
(in milk)
800 cows
48 bulls
(clean-up)
Note of caution:
No cottonseed should be fed to
young dairy heifers under 6 months
of age to avoid possible gossy-pol
poisoning.
TOTAL ANNUAL
COTTONSEED VALUES
4,549
TONS
$523,235
DOLLARS
- END -
Appendix Table 5: COST OF PUMPING WATER IN 1985" 01/26/85 Page 17
WELL NO 4 ELECTRIC POWER 575 FOOT LIFT
PINAL COUNTY---CASA GRANDE AREA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIFICATIONS AND 6SSUflPTIONS
1. WELL I S ORILLFD AND CASCD WITH 16 INCH CASING TO 1 5 0 3 F t E T
2. WELL PUMPS 1 0 5 0 GPH AND A36 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY
3. DEPRECIATE WELL ......r..r.. 25 YEARS WITH 0 PERCENT SALVAGE
4 . DFPQECIATE PUHP ASSEHBLY . . a 1 5 YEARS WITH 3 P t k C t N T SALVAGk
5 . DEPRECIATE PUWEF VNIT ...... 25 YEARS WITH 3 PERCENT SALVAGE
6. DEPRECIATE ROWLS r..o....o.. 03 YEARS u I T H 0 PERCENT SALVAGC
7. COHPUTE INTEREST ON AVERAGL INVtSTHENT AT 13.00 P t R C t N T
8. COMPUTE TAXES ON 16.00 PERCENT OF AVERAGE INVESTHkhT USING
A TAX RATE OF S12r53 PfR $100 ASSESSED VALUATION
9. COYPUTE INSURANCE ON AVERAGE INVESTHtNT I N POWER ASSEHBLY
( I T E M S 5-7 BELOW) 4T $4.77 PER $ 1.0 0 VALUE
PPICF OUOTATIflNS ( I N C L l ' D I N G 5.0 PERCFHT SALES TAX) --- 1 1 1 1 0 / 8 4
1. D R I L L I N G COST AND CASING INSTALLATION 4 5 0 0 0 1
2 . CASINGP FOUNDATION AND TEST PUHPING 32060
3. PUMP ASSEMBLY ( 8 INCH COLUflq) 21033.
4. 1 2 INCH BOWLS ( 1 2 STAGES) b 1 0 3
5. POWER UNIT--- 2 5 0 HP HOTOR 7 2 0 2 .
6. STARTER WITH COPPEkSATDR AND SECONDARY 1 0 0 8 0 l
POWER STATION U I T H SAFETY SNITCH
7. INSTALLATION LABOR AND S I T F CDSTS Z l b O .
TOTAL COST OF WELL 1 2 4 4 3 7 .
ANNUAL FIXED COSTS
DEPRECIATION
INTEREST
TAXES
F I R E AND LIGHTNING INSURANCE
TOTAL 1 7 1 9 0 .
WPTEU COST PER ACRE FOOT
1. F I X E D COST 1 7 1 9 0 . / 6 3 4 . AF
28 ENlRGY COST = ( 1 . 0 2 4 * 5 7 5 ) / . 5 4 0 * . O i 5 0 0
3, REPAIRS = . 0 1 2 0 1 0 * 575
4. PunP T A X
5 . TOTAL C@ST
WHERE 1.024 kYH TO L l F T 1 AF OF WATt2 1 FGOl AT 100
PERCENT 3 V t P A L L E F F I C I tNCY
575 - FEET OF L I F T
5 [OVERALL E F F I C I € N C Y S l ATE0 AS A D t C I M A L
rO25OO POkER CGSI P t P Y L Y It4CLUDING SALt.5 TAX
0 0 1 2 0 1 0 COST' OF PLAN1 REPAIPS, ttA1NTtNANCEp L U B ~ ? L C A T I U ~ ~
AND ATTtkDANCE PEP FUUT LIF L I F T
-K-W-H- -O-F --E-L-E-C-T-P-I-C-I-T-Y- -U-S-E-D- -T-f l- -P-U-M-P- ---I- -A-F- ---1-0-9-0-.3-7- --------0-3-6- -A-F- -8- ---g-1-1-5-5-0-.
*I985 Arizona Field Crops Budgets Pinal County, University of
Arizona College of Agriculture
Appendix Table 6: COST OF PUMPING WATER IN 1985* 01/26/85 Page 13
WELL NO. 1 ELECTRIC POWER 440 FOOT LIFT
.................C.O.C.H.I..S.E. .C.O.U.N..T.Y.-.-.-.K..A.N.S.A.S. ..S.E.T.T.L..E.M.E.N.T. .A.R..E.A. ........
SPECIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
WELL IS DRILLED AND CASED WITH 16 INCH CASING TO 600 FEET
WELL PUMPS 800 GPM AND 530 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY
DEPRECIATE WELL ............ 25 YEARS WITH 0 PERCENT SALVAGE
DEPRECIATE PUMP ASSEMBLY ... 15 YEARS WITH 3 PERCENT SALVAGE
DEPRECIATE POWER UNIT ...... 25 YEARS WITH 3 PERCENT SALVAGE
DEPRECIATE BOWLS ........... 03 YEARS WITH 0 PERCENT SALVAGE
COMPUTE INTEREST ON AVERAGE INVESTMENT AT 13.00 PERCENT
COMPUTE TAXES ON 16.00 PERCENT OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT USING
A TAX RATE OF $ 9.16 PER $100 ASSESSED-VALUATION
COMPUTE INSURANCE ON AVERAGE INVESTMENT IN POWER ASSEMBLY
(ITEMS 5-7 BELOW) AT $ .64 PER $100 VALUE
PRICE QUOTATIONS (INCLUDING 5.0 PERCENT SALES TAX) --- 11/10/84
1. DRILLING COST AND CASING INSTALLATION
2. CASING, FOUNDATION AND TEST PUMPING
3. PUMP ASSEMBLY ( 8 INCH COLUMN)
4. 10 INCH BOWLS (11 STAGES)
5. POWER UNIT--- 150 HP MOTOR
6. STARTER WITH COMPENSATOR AND SECONDARY
POWER STATION WITH SAFETY SWITCH
7. INSTALLATION LABOR AND SITE COSTS
TOTAL COST OF WELL
ANNUAL FIXED COSTS
DEPRECIATION 3966.
INTEREST 3671.
TAXES 414.
FIRE AND LIGHTNING INSURANCE 38.
TOTAL 8091.
WATER COST PER ACRE FOOT
1. FIXED COST -- 8091.1 530. AF = 15.27
2. ENERGY COST = (1.024 * 440/.540 * .08772 = 73.19
3. REPAIRS -- .012010 * 440 - 5.28
4. PUMP TAX - .OO
5. TOTAL COST = 93.74
WHERE 1.024 = KWH TO LIFT 1 AF OF WATER 1 FOOT
AT 100 PERCENT OVERALL EFFICIENCY
440 = FEET OF LIFT
.540 = OVERALL EFFICIENCY STATED, AS A DECIMAL
.08772 = POWER COST PER KWH INCLUDING SALES TAX
,012010 = COST OF PLANT REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, LUBRICA-TION
AND ATTENDANCE PER FOOT OF LIFT
KWH OF ELECTRICITY USED TO PUMP 1 AF = 834.37 530 AF = 442216
*I985 FIELD CROP BUDGETS, COCHISE COUNTY, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
Appendix Table 7:
Phoenix
TucsoWI LLCOX
WlLLCOX AREA EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE
Percent of Total
Agriculture & Mining 1.8
Construction 4.1
Manufacturing 2.2
Transportation, Communication & Public Utilities 12.3
Wholesale & Retail Trade 38.1
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 4.3
Services 30.2
Public Administration 7.1
Source: Arizona Office of Economic Planning & Development,
1977 .
WlLLCOX LABOR FORCE DATA
-19-80 -1982
Civilian Labor Force . 1,206 1,253
Employed 1,128 1,144
Unemployed 78 109
Unemployment Rate 6.5% 8.7%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security
GROWTH INDICATORS
1981 1982 1983
Taxable Sales ($) 19,879,902 19,436,743 19,924,550
Postal Receipts ($) 294,305 331,332 334,869
Building Permits 94 19 105
Median Family Income ($1 18,160 18,165 N /A
School Enrollment 1,408 1,349 1,198
Net Assessed Valuation
($1 5,378,445 6,958,330 7,381,991
PROPERTY TAX RATE PER $100 ASSESSED VALUATION
-1981
Unified School $5.71
Community College 1.35
Cochise County 2.92
State of Arizona .95
Total Outside City 10.93
City of Willcox 1.30
Total 12.23
Source: Arizona Tax Research Association
Willcox
/ Arizona Community Profile
I I
INTRODUCTION
Willcox at an elevation of 4.167 feet. was established in 1880 I
and is located in the northern ;art of the Sulphur Springs Valley in
Cochise County. The Sulphur Springs Valley cuts through Cochise
County for nearly 100 miles, and averages over 15 miles in width.
Willcox serves as the major trade and service center for agriculture.
The City of Willcox was incorporated in 1915.
WEATHER
Averaqe Averaqe
Daily Daily Precipitation
Month Max. Min. (Inches)
Januarv 58.3 24.8 0.78
~ebrua;~ 63.1 26.5 0.57
March 68.2 30.7 0.59
April 77.6 36.5 0.27
May 86.4 43.1 0.13
June 95.0 52.3 0.43
July 95.4 62.7 2.60
I
August 92.2 60.4 2.66
September 89.5 53.3 1.18
October 80.1 40.9 0.59
November 67.8 29.7 0.39
I
December 59.3 24.8 1.00
Year 77.7 40.5 11.19
Average Total Snow, Sleet and Hail Annually: 4.0 inches I
Based on a thirty year average.
PRINCIPAL WlLLCOX ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
With the establishment of the railroad, Willcox became and has
remained a major southwestern cattle shipping point. Some of the
largest cattle ranches in Arizona are located in the vast grazing lands
in the surrounding area. Corn, cotton, hay, grain, and produce such
as lettuce are important income crops of the Sulphur Springs Valley.
I
Apples and other fruits, pistachios and pecans are a very successful
new crop. Tourists attracted by the area's historic sites, as well as
those passing through the city on 1-10, have an important effect on
the city's economy. Willcox has also developed a diversity of support
I
industries, such as finance, utilities, schools, government, communi-cations
and a hospital. I
Compounded
Willcox* 3,243 3,379 +2.1%
Cochise County 85,686 89,800 +2.4
Arizona 2,718,215 2,886,600 +3.1 .
"The 1982 trade area population for Willcox was estimated to be
15,000.
I
Sources: Arizona Department of Economic Security
U.S. Bureau of the Census I
, ARIZONA OFFICE OF
OFFICE
.e..?A 4~[)E CONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPAIFNT
OF THC ' ,! ---. - .--. . --.
GovcnNon I ; * A ~ ~ U C ~ , T W ~ ~ ~ I ~ I P : ; I ~ - ~ . ROOPA, -, . r~v; ~,~x.r.:,':*>:,...*. : - .' . . .-;.: I
.-F INANCE
Union Bank: 1 office
Valley National Bank: 1 office
Desert Finance House: 1 office
Production Credit
Association: 1 office
Farmers Home
Administration: 1 office
TRANSPORTATION
Highways: 1-10, U.S. 666, Arizona 86 and 186
Railroad: Southern Pacific
Truck: Pacific Motor Transport, Bestway, Antelope, United
Parcel Service (interstate); Whitefield (intrastate),
Jenney Freight Lines (Intra & Interstate)
Bus: Continental Trailways, Greyhouhd
Airport: Cochise County Airport; one lighted, paved,
6,100-foot runway; UNICOM radio, fuel and main-tenance
COMMUNICATIONS
Newspapers: Weekly: Arizona Range News
TV Guide
Daily: Arizona Republic (Phoenix)
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)
Tucson Citizen (Tucson)
Radio: KHlL (5,000 watts), KWCX-FM
Television: 4 Tucson channels via antenna, 18stations available
via cable from Jim R. Smith & Co., Inc.
UTILITIES
Electricity: Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative
Natural Gas: Municipal, Arizona Public Service Company
Butane: Cal-Gas
Telephone: Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Mountain Bell
Water: Municipal
Sewer: Municipal
MEDICAL FACILITIES
Hospital:
Nursing Home:
Physicians:
Dentists:
Chiropractors:
Optometrist:
Veterinarians:
1 (24 beds)
2 (with 24 beds, 24 bed extended care
and 2 private homes with 9 beds)
6
3
2
1
3
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Local Government: Mayor, 6 councilmembers, city manager
Police Department: 1 chief, 7 officers, 5 dispatchers, 1 part-time
clerical, 1 humane officer
Sheriff's Department: 4 deputies. 1 humane officer, 1 dis-patcher
Dept. of Pub. Safety: 4 officers
Border Patrol: 4 patrolmen
Fire Department: 1 chief, 17 volunteers
Underwriters Rating: Grade 6
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
-No. Faculty Enrollment
Public Elementary
Middle School
Public High School
The Willcox High School campus serves as an extension campus for
Cochise College, where an Associate Arts degree can be earned.
CHURCHES
Catholic:
Latter Day Saints:
Protestant and Other:
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Library: 1
Parks: 5 - ramada, playground equipment
Pool: 1 olympic-size
Golf Courses: 2 (9-hole)
Tennis Courts: 8 (3 lighted)
Athletic Facilities: 6 lighted baseball/softball fields, 1
soccer field
Bowling Alley: 1
Miniature Golf Course: 1
Art Center: 1
Community Center with meeting facilities.
Museum of the Southwest (adjacent to 1-10): Historic display includ-ing
Rex Allen memorabilia, Willcox Cowboy Hall of Fame and a
Heritage Park.
ANNUAL EVENTS
Willcox, home of the famous TV, movie and radio personality Rex
Allen, annually celebrates "Rex Allen Days." The went, held the
second weekend of October, includes a parade, country fair, air
show, PRCA rodeo and a Rex Allen, Jr. concert.
SCENIC ATTRACTIONS
Cochise County, located in the southeastern corner of Arizona, is
unparalleled in it's historical, cultural, scenic and recreational fea-tures.
From the rugged Dos Cabezas Peaks and the Chiricahua Moun-tains
to Cochise Stronghold in Dragoon Mountains, part of the
Coronado National Forest, the dramatic changes in scenery and wild-life
will both delight and amaze visitors. These awe inspiring moun-tains
and mystifying deserts were once the homeland of the Chiri-cahua
Apache Indians, and it is from the great Apache Indian Chief,
Cochise, that the county gets it's name.
Fort Bowie, 22 miles east of Willcox was the focal point of military
operations against the Chiricahua Apaches, and affords a fascinating
journey back into history.
Within a one-hour drive of Willcox visitors can enjoy ghost towns
living among the ruins of yesterday, rich in history and western
lore. A short 36 miles from Willcox is the Chiricahua National Monu-ment.
The Apaches called this place "Say-Yahdesut" meaning point
of rocks. The visitor center has exhibits that graphically describe the
history of the area and aids the traveler in understanding what will
be seen during scenic walks and drives along the trails. The Chamber
of Commerce operates the Museum of the Southwest and a full in-formation
center. The Amerind Foundation, an excellent museum of
Indian artifacts and culture, is a half hour south of Willcox on 1-10
west.
LODGING AND MEETING FACILITIES
Motels: 14 with 309 rooms
Meeting Facilities: Numerous facilities with seating for up
to 300 persons
Mobile Home &
Trailer Parks: 8 with 188 spaces
This profile was prepared in cooperation with the Willcox Chamber
of Commerce and Agriculture.
For Further Information, contact:
Willcox Chamber of Commerce City of Willcox
Commerce and Agriculture 151 West Maley
1500 N. Circle I Road Willcox, AZ 85643
Willcox, AZ 85643 (602) 384-4271
(602) 384-2272
1/84
REFERENCES
1984 Arizona Agricultural Statistics, Bulletin S-20, July 1985,
Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.
Arizona Climate, The First Hundred Years, 1885-1985, William
D. Sellers, Richard H. Hill and Margaret Sanderson-Rae, Uni-versity
of Arizona.
1985 Arizona Dairy Industry, Dennis Armstrong and Roger Selley,
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service.
Arizona Dairy Newsletter, October 1984-September 1985, Dennis
Armstrong and Kenneth M. Marcus, Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Arizona.
Cochise County Agriculture, Deborah Young and L.M. Sullivan,
1984, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service.
Cochise County Arizona Past and Present, 1984, Ervin Bond,
Douglas, Arizona.
Consider Cooling Possibilities, 13th Annual Dairy Field Day
Proceedings, p.25, February 15, 1972, University of Arizona
College of ~~riculture.
-
Cooling Dairy Cattle in the Holdinq Pen, 1983, Frank Wiersman,
College of Agriculture, University of Arizona.
Dairy Design Practices for Semi-Arid Climates, 1981, W.T. Welchert,
Frank Wiersma, Otis G. Lough and Dennis V. Armstrong, College
of Agriculture, University of Arizona. I
1983 Drylot Dairy Budqets, Otis Lough, Roger Selley, Dennis
Armstrong, W.T. Welchert, Cooperative Extension Service, Uni-versity
of Arizona.
1985 Field Crop Budgets, Cochise County, Scott Hathorn, Jr.,
L.M. Sullivan, Deborah Young, Roger Selley, January 1985, Uni-versity
of Arizona College of Agriculture.
1985 Field Crop Budgets, Pinal County, Scott Hathorn, Jr.,
Sam Steadman and John Harper, January 1985, University of
Arizona College of Agriculture.
The Impact of Urbanization on the Beef and Dairy Industries
of Maricopa County, (Arizona), May 1975, Sharon Thomas Cropsey,
I
Master of Arts Thesis, Arizona State University.
Important Farmlands, Cochise County, Arizona, November 1983,
Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agri-culture.
References continued Page 2
Important Farmlands, Graham County, Arizona, November 1983,
Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agri-culture.
Market Report, October 1984-September 1985, Michael Groom,
"United Dairymen of Arizona".
A Methodology for Analyses of the Technological and Organi-zational
Alternatives for Drylot Dairy Operations, 1981, Lewis
S. Dougherty, Master of Science Thesis, University of Arizona.
Summer Feeding of Dairy Cows, 1965, Otis G. Lough, Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Arizona.
Weather and Dairy Cow Production Data for the Mesilla Valley,
New Mexico, October 1985, personal correspondence, Alfred W.
Norman, Cooperative Extension Service, New Mexico State Uni-versity.
Willcox, Hub of Northern Cochise County, 1975, Clyde S. Roberts,
Laura Berry and Annie Perez, "Arizona Range News".