Crop enterprise budgets were developed for both ultra narrow row cotton (UNRC) and conventional row cotton to evaluate and compare the total costs of each system. This study involved three replicated trials at two locations during the 1998 crop year. Results from these three trials indicated that UNRC had a slightly lower total cost per pound compared to conventional cotton in 2 of the 3 tests. In the third test, cost of production for UNRC was approximately 10 cents per pound higher. An analysis of the Variable Costs found that UNRC was considerably more costly when compared to conventional row cotton ranging from $17.32 to $31.84 per acre more. The difference in Variable Costs was largely a function of higher seed and chemical expenses. Fixed Costs, however, were less for UNRC compared to conventional row cotton averaging $30.10 per acre less. This decrease in Fixed Costs was largely due to the lower investment cost of a finger stripper compared to a conventional picker harvester. Fixed Costs for pre-harvest machinery and equipment were highly variable. These costs for UNRC can be higher or lower than conventional production depending on jobs saved or added, method of UNRC planting and ability to spread fixed costs over other enterprises. Yield differences for two of the trials were negligible ranging from 7 to 13 lbs of lint cotton. However, the third trial had a significant yield difference in which the conventional 38" row cotton out-yielded the UNRC cotton by 153 lbs of lint. Although not included in this study, several on-farm trials both replicated and non-replicated reported yield increases including 48, 123, 306, and 428 lbs of lint for the UNRC system. Grade and quality data and price differences were not yet available for this study. Assuming no quality discounts, Net Income for UNRC averaged $19.18 per acre higher than conventional in 2 of 3 trials. In the third trial, Net Income from UNRC was $103.58 per acre less than conventional production. In 2 of the 3 trials, Total Cost of production for UNRC averaged 2.2 cents per pound less than conventional. Experiences thus far suggest, however, that price discounts for UNRC are more than this amount. Without considerable yield or cost advantage to UNRC, such discounts would negate cost savings of the magnitude found in this study.