​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

It is an understatement to say farming is very risky business.  Farmers gamble on a much larger scale than gamblers at casinos.

​

​​

​

​

​

 

While it is unanimous that the concept of underlying soil with a membrane is viable, it is early days in terms of predicting break even and ROI.   Of course, break even time frame is important.  In any case, the benefits will be reaped literally for centuries barring a major cataclysm.   In other words, the membrane is a long term capital investment, not an expense.

​

The increased yield will continue indefinitely for practical purposes.  Only time will tell what the ramifications are for increased value of land underlayed with membrane.  Over time, the biomass of dead roots will contribute nutrients to the soil.

​​

​

The only guarantee we can make at this juncture is that individual results will vary.

​

Having a significant statistical sampling which reliably forecasts the variables of: 

​

initial investment

increased yield

premium for crop quality

water savings

obviating need for multiple plantings

fertilizer savings

​​

will take time.  Initially, no changes can be made to watering and fertilizer ( short run ) .

​

The X factor: promotes drought stress tolerance.    In drought prone areas, the subsurface membrane can likely prevent a complete crop failure. 

​

The data will come from early adaptors willing to take a risk.   The term " beta " test version describes the stage of testing on the cusp of graduating to the "commercial " phase.  The book "Tipping Point " by Malcolm Gladwell describes the adoption of adaptors ranging from " early adaptors" to " Luddites ".  He cites hybrid corn as an example.  The early adaptors started with test plots.  Even after proof of concept, most farmers took a wait-and-see attitude with only a few percent trying the new corn.   In classic fashion, usage hit the threshold and hybrid corn became the mainstay. 

​

The factors besides initial investment and increased yield are unknown.   Economists call major modifications to technology " long run",   Let's look at

initial investment

increased yield

and

improved crop quality

without delving into the vagaries of depreciation. 

​

The knowns:

1.  current average yield per acre ( expressed in units of weight or bushels )

2.  average current farm gate price

3.  cost for membrane:  $2,000per acre

​

Yield multiplied by price =  gross $ yield per acre.

​

The sort of knowns:

increased yield per acre

premium for better quality

​

The unknowns: 

Savings from lowered inputs of water usage and less fertilizer. 

Premium for better quality

Possibly only one sowing 

​​

The very basic equation:

​

( improved yield per acre ) X ( farm gate price ) minus ( extant yield per acre ) = net $ yield gain per acre

​

divide net gain into $ 2,000 to derive breakeven point ( number of growing seasons )

​​

​

Let's substitute corn.

​

Assumptions for illustration only:

We know:

1. the average yield is about 179 bushels per acre

2. The price for feed grade corn is $ 7.50 per bushel

3. The yield per acre is $ 1,342

​

Some research has set records for corn production topping out at 174% increase.
Let's say the increased yield is only half of that, or 87 %.

​

That makes the new yield 334 bushels per acre

334 bushels X  $ 7.50 = $ 2,505 per acre

The incremental revenue per acre: $1,163

​

Divide $1,163 into $2,000 = 0.72 seasons break even

​​​

( There are no levels for feed grade )

​​

​

Cotton is a bit more complex
​

Cotton classing is well defined by eight criteria. 

The best upland cotton can fetch a price of $ 0.94 per pound​

​

​

Starting with only yield and constant price per pound of $ 0.64 per pound -

​

Assumptions for starting point :

1.The expected 2025 average yield in west Texas is 573 pounds per acre.

2. The farm gate price is about $0.64 per pound

3. Current average yield per acre: $ 367

4. The increased yield from the " alpha " phase was 104 %.

4.1  the fiber length was longer, but not enough data to quantify

 

Scenario # 1

Yield increase of 70 %

and

farm gate price of $ 0.64 per pound

​

To be conservative, assume a yield increase of only 70 %

the new yield would be 974 pounds

974 pounds X $ 0.64 / # = $ 623 per acre

The incremental revenue per acre:  $ 256

( $ 623 - $ 367 = $ 256  )

​

divide $ 267 into $ 2,000 = 7.5 year break even

​

Scenario # 2

Yield increase of 70 %

and

farm gate price of $ 0.81 per pound

( for illustration, say $ 0.17 per pound premium for improved quality )

​

the new yield would be 974 pounds

974 pounds X $ 0.81 / # = $ 789 per acre

The incremental revenue per acre:  $ 607

( $ 789 - $ 367 = $ 422  )

​

divide $ 422 into $ 2,000 = 4.7 year break even

​

Scenario # 3

Yield increase of 80 %

and

farm gate price of $ 0.84 per pound

( $ 0.20 per pound premium for improved quality and 80 % yield improvement )

​

the new yield would be 1,856 pounds

1,856 pounds X $ 0.84 / # = $  1,559 per acre

The incremental revenue per acre:  $ 1,192

( $ 1,559 - $ 367 = $ 422  )

​

divide $ 1,192 into $ 2,000 = 1.67 year break even

​

To reiterate, these are hypothetical examples with substitutions for example only.

Test plots in 2026 will predict both yield and premium ( classification )

( see next section  " Academic Research "​​
​

Compared to Pivot Irrigation

​

It is intuitively obvious that membranes are more efficient than pivot.​

​

For starters:
no electricity

no evaporation loss

no maintenance cost

corner triangles rendered productive

It is incontrovertible that the membranes keep the water longer in the root zone

before capillary and percolation take it away. 

The 2026 trials will quantify the difference.