UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA TESTS OF FARM ORGANIZATION IN THE TURLOCK AREA R. L. ADAMS AND L. A. CRAWFORD BULLETIN 544 DECEMBER, 1932 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 3 Area selected for study 5 Collection of basic data 9 Agriculture of the area 10 Method of testing plans of farm organizations 15 Explanation of terms 17 Tests of selected types of farm organizations 18 Analysis and findings of a 40-acre field-crops farm 19 The calendar of operations 32 Financial results 34 Effects of changes in basic data 38 Changes in enterprises 40 Analysis and findings of a 40-acre fruit farm 49 The calendar of operations 55 Financial results 56 Effects of changes in basic data 59 Changes in enterprises 60 Financial results of a 20-acre fruit farm 64 Analysis and findings of a 40-acre truck farm 65 The calendar of operations 67 Financial results 83 Possible changes in financial results 86 Analysis and findings of a 40-acre dairy farm 95 The calendar of operations 103 Financial results 104 Possible changes in financial results 108 Use of outlook reports 112 Conclusions 113 Acknowledgments 115 Appendix A: Sizes of farms in the Turlock area 115 Appendix B: Yields of crops and livestock products in the Turlock area 116 Appendix C: Selling prices of farm products in the Turlock area 117 Appendix D: Costs of items of farm expense in the Turlock area 119 TESTS OF FARM ORGANIZATION IN THE TURLOCK AREA 12 E. L. ADAMS3 and L. A. CEAWF0ED4 INTRODUCTION To obtain the highest income consistent with the size of farm and the farm enterprises which are or can be conducted is the primary aim of most farm operators. In addition to size of farm and choice of enter- prises, the earning power of any farm is also affected by the yields now being procured or which can be procured; by the selling prices now being obtained or which may be obtainable from the sale of farm prod- ucts ; by the necessary expenditures required to carry on the farm busi- ness ; and, finally, by the ability of the operator. These six factors con- stitute or vitally affect every plan of farm organization, either existing or proposed, and largely determine the earning power of every farm. The form of organization may center on some single enterprise (the specialized type of farming) or on several major enterprises (the gen- eral, or diversified, type of farming). The enterprises may consist of various crops — field crops, fruit, or truck crops ; or of livestock — sheep, beef cattle, hogs, dairy cattle, or poultry. When combined under one organization, enterprises assume either complementary, supplementary, or competitive relations. Complementary enterprises are those which support one another or contribute jointly and interdependently to the earnings of the farm, such as the production of hay or grain to be fed to livestock ; the use of skim milk produced in a dairy for feeding hogs, calves, or poultry ; or the growing of legumes for their beneficial effect upon subsequent crops. Supplementary enterprises are those which dovetail into one another in the use of land, labor, equipment, and man- agement, such as grain followed by beans or corn ; winter vegetables raised in conjunction with summer orchard fruits. Competitive enter- prises are those which vie with one another in the use of land and other 1 Eeceived for publication March 11, 1932. 2 Paper No. 35, The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. ^ 3 Professor of Farm Management, Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Sta- tion, and Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. * Associate in Agricultural Economics and Associate on the Giannini Foundation. 4 University of California — Experiment Station resources of production and thus tend to crowd each other in the farm- ing plan, such as beans and corn; alfalfa and cotton; cherries and apricots. Recognition of these relations is essential in the selection of enterprises and the determination of the number and size of each enter- prise to combine into one organization in order to develop a well-bal- anced, readily workable plan. Conditions which affect the choice of enterprises include : 1. Suitability of the physical environment — soils, topography, eleva- tion, climate, supplementary water supplies, drainage, pests, etc., as these affect yields. 2. Accessibility and receptivity of available markets, as these affect price returns. 3. Degree of complementary, supplementary, or competitive relations between enterprises, as this affects the operation of the entire farm. 4. Degree of permissible and justifiable diversification or specializa- tion, as this affects the operation of the entire farm. 5. Suitability and availability of required hired help, as this affects yields and expenditures. 6. Necessary expenditures to provide materials (seeds, spray mate- rials, irrigation water, sacks, boxes, or other market containers) . 7. Cost of using motive power (horses, tractors, trucks, and auto- mobiles). 8. Cost of using equipment. 9. Outlays required to market the product. 10. Taxes, as these affect expenditures. 11 Suitability of the equipment ; and, if additional investments are required, the nature and amount of these added investments. 12. The ability of the operator, as this affects production, expendi- tures, and marketing. 13. Earning power, as determined by 1 to 12 inclusive, plus the avail- able acreage. The purpose of this publication is to present in detail a method of making an intensive business analysis of various types of farm organiza- tions to determine the present earning power and to test proposed changes in the existing plan of organization as these affect the earning power of the farm. Subjecting a plan of farm organization to business tests, after the manner described in this text, enables the farm operator to find out what the farm is now earning, assists in determining the feasibility of pro- posed plans, indicates the possible financial outcome, and may suggest further improvements which can or should be made to obtain larger Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 5 earnings from the resources at the operator's command. As already in- dicated, the test of any proposed plan is net income, and this can be determined only after detailed information has been carefully assem- bled concerning possible yields, selling prices, the number and nature of the various cultural operations, and the time required to perform them, and expenditures required in the operation of each farm prop- erty and for each plan of organization. AREA SELECTED FOR STUDY The data which form the basis of the tests of various plans of farm organization presented in this publication were drawn from the area about Turlock, California. This is an important agricultural district of the San Joaquin Valley and was selected because the agriculture of this locality is well established and farming practices are standardized. It is an intensively farmed area of relatively small farms. The agriculture is sufficiently diversified so that it includes dairying and poultry keep- ing and a rather extensive list of field crops, fruits, and truck crops. A specific request was made of the College of Agriculture for a farm man- agement study in this area. This area consists of about 120,000 acres of well-developed farming land surrounding the city of Turlock, and comprises portions of south- ern Stanislaus and northern Merced counties. It is roughly rectangular in shape, about 12 miles wide by 16 miles long, and is bounded on the north by the Tuolumne River, on the west by selected section lines close to the San Joaquin River, on the south by the Merced River, and on the east by selected section lines lying contiguous to rolling dry-farmed grain lands. These boundaries are shown on the sketch map (fig. 2) illustrating this paragraph. These farmed lands lie on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley at eleva- tions from about 55 feet to 150 feet above sea level and form a rather level, continuous plain which slopes generally in a southwesterly direc- tion at variable rates of from 5 to 25 feet per mile. The area is part of the Turlock Irrigation District, formed in 1887, which today has about 137,000 acres under ditch. Water for irrigating is impounded behind large dams on the Tuolumne River and conveyed to the different farms of the area through a network of canals and ditches, of which about 38 per cent are concrete lined. A system of drainage ditches supplemented by a number of large electrically driven pumps, pumping from shallow wells, effectively controls the depth of water table. 6 University of California — Experiment Station The rural population numbers about 15,000 and in addition there are the incorporated cities of Turlock (population 4,271) and Ceres (popu- lation 981) 5 and the unincorporated towns or settlements of Hughson, Denair, Keyes, Hilmar, and Irwin (having an estimated total popula- tion of about 950). Fig. 1. — Location of the Turlock area, California. The rural areas are well supplied with an extensive system of roads, including many that are surfaced with concrete, giving easy access to all parts of the district and making stations on the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe railroads readily accessible shipping points for growers. 6 Population figures from IT. S. Dept. of Com. Bureau of Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States : 1930. Population; Calif ornia, table 5. Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization A network of power lines traverse the area supplying electric power to a majority of the farms in the area. The climate of this section of California is divided into a rainy season which commonly extends from early in November to May, and a dry sea- son which lasts for the balance of the year. Temperatures only occa- LEGEND Railroads Highways State at County City, Town or Village ME4] County boundary line EE3 U.S. Towns hip & se c tion lines EB County Seat Contours S3 DETAIL MAP OF THE TURLOCK AREA SCALE OF MILtS I Vl O I 2 Fig. 2. — Detail map of the Turlock area. sionally drop below freezing during the winter months and rise above 100° Fahrenheit in the summer for short periods only. Thus the area enjoys two rather distinct growing seasons: a period of about five months during the rainy season when crops favored by cool weather can be grown, such as barley, oats, peas, etc. ; and a period of six to seven months when crops somewhat sensitive to cold but which thrive during warm weather, such as alfalfa, beans, corn, melons, sweet potatoes, to- matoes, and various fruits can be produced. 8 University of California — Experiment Station The soils of the area are mostly of a sandy nature, easily worked, fairly fertile, quickly irrigated, and mostly good to excellent in char- acter although some localities are of limited agricultural importance be- cause of the presence of hardpan or alkali. The soil survey of this area indicates eight principal soil types of the Fresno, Madera, San Joaquin, and Oakley series. 6 The water table in certain localities tends to be high, traceable to ex- cessive irrigation in the past, to impervious subsoils, inadequate drain- age facilities, seepage from canals, and poor leveling and checking of Fig. 3. — Don Pedro Dam Keservoir and Power House on the Tuolumne River, owned jointly by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts, provides for a gross storage of 291,300 acre-feet of water and a generating capacity of 30,000 kilowatts of electricity, of which the Turlock Irrigation District owns 68.46 per cent. fields. This condition is being rectified by the installation of adequate drainage facilities in all parts of the area. The area is essentially one of small, intensively cultivated farms. Nearly 75 per cent of the number of the farm holdings (totaling 3,390 farms in all) are from 10 to 40 acres in size. Over 40 per cent fall in the 11-20 acre group and nearly 33 per cent into the 21-40 acre group. While the data were drawn from the Turlock area, conditions there are sufficiently typical of a large part of both the Sacramento and San 6 Fully described in: Nelson, J. W., J. E. Guernsey, L. C. Holmes, and E. C. Eck- man. Eeconnaissance soil survey of the Lower San Joaquin Valley, California, pp. 1-157. Advance sheets of field operations of the U. S. Dept. Agr. Bureau of Soils, 1915. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 9 Joaquin valleys so that the presentation is generally applicable to the irrigated areas of this part of the state after modifying for local differ- ences. The investigations and analyses thus disclose facts and methods which can be utilized to advantage by many farmers and farm leaders in planning similar readjustments designed to increase the earning power of a large number of California farms. LEGEND Fr esno sondy Zoom QUID Fresno sandy loam brown phase Oakley & Fresno Sana's undifferentiated Fresno fine sandy loom brown phase Ft* esn o ■fine sandy Zoom Modera St > IS 3 •o © © CO © © © © Amount operator can do, man days «c © lO «5 oo -2 ».£ ^'1 1^ <£> 3 3 to G cj s (-, '3 cr cj 03 a « O US iC o o cm CO -H -H r-J © CM © © IC © © (M ^ CM CM <0 CO © »c CO CM «5 © «5 CJ CO 00 O cS O to O O © •«*< OS CO t— ( CM CM © © © © © -*< CM © TJH © © © CM O © OS lO CM © CO © lO «5 CO u ^ pip 05 CO CO CO CO CJ V CJ CD O CJ O O c3 c3 c8 c$ OS i-H O CM ^ 00 © CO CO rH co co co co co q) m 4) CJ ^ M h h h h « O O O CJ c3 c3 c3 c3 d lO © © lO © CO CO lO CO ^ CO CJ CO tH CO S 03 3 cj s ft '3 o* cj X) o3 I 6 CO C 0J 3 cj "ft 1 c p is c ■p > j3 o 1. o » a> CO ? s 5 a; "co a a a <° £ So £ « IS-" 5 a 1 'J "J I c a c c c c a a b I 1 P cc 1 * XI o o ; o CO 1 1 ■ & 1 ^ ft GQ .2 .2 CO 0J CO t-l o w CM CO CM CM CM CM CM "# CM CO CM CM CO a cj - -- „., CO C -. O a a. x; e T s « b a o s -« .2 >> & JW c pq "a > 83 is CN CJ C ! u f G c 1 a CJ '1 1 c Eh c cu 4 J c3 15 is a > i C E P "a J 1 CS bj 15 e aj x: U 1 b e I S -^ C ci s V u CJ c3 ti CJ ft CM s o 1 o bO 'cj 3 b. ll I § CJ ft CO a o •• SS- .3 S ) co fa iS bO cj a ,08 co ^ ^ s- 3 < H CO 3 c '-£ I J b e '5 c 2 c A^ c S 3.2 $ CJ CO "tj ^.2 |E° <5 *3 1 3 o Cv E Cj > O S 3 o o 0) Q >> C8 3 d eg >- Bul. 544 Tests op Farm Organization 23 10 o m o o o o o o o o o © o o »o » CO i-H ~* m 5 2 ■* 43 ^ £ « co ~' a ft !3 "E ~M *3 %£ S ° cj _p -3 2 n 1 «oi Is .2 .3 * 13 HIpI ^ 2 •• S 8 m pa £ E W 24 University of California — Experiment Station labor, man days o CD c Amount operator can do, man days cn CN o CN 03 ^>^-. CO CN CO CM Labor requirements S-3 ic o io »o 1-i -H o o 00 CN •iOOlC lO 115 K3 lO OO CO CN O M i-H .-I CN rt CN o o CN »o o o ic i« o CO CN CN ^H .-t h 2£ O o3 o o o o C3 N O rt o OOO OOOO OO OOO-H COCOCOO r-H O o 2 * o o o o o o If 00 O O CO CO CN " OS CO CO o o § o3 o3 £ O O OO CO o 18.0 acres 8 . 1 acres 8 . 1 acres 8.1 acres 1 . acre 10 tons 18.0 acres 18.0 acres 12.0 acres 8 . 1 acres 8.0 acres 13 . acres c a .2* '3 o* o> C 03 1 6 co "5 0) S 'p, a a » c E ->- a i- 1 i K 1 p c . "a > c ! p e o o i> o a c a P p c J 1 b p T i ! tr p c b S 1 a ■ > c a: cc 1 C a; 2 03 1 N CO o> GO u O w CN CN CM CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CM 3 CN rt i-H ,_i^^ CNCN CN CN i-H 1-* »H CO (3 _o "o3 CD a o a o O M _C 3 o CO cc 'si a t3 GO 3* <3 c b 1 E c c x. -c o -t: X 6 c ■r ? c a D c li -a t 3. *" ja z a S 3 J 3 " i b F or E c c — X c I .t: c > eg .. & H — g | -° 1 p >> c P3 i b | 1 b c t r a C '1 c | s £ w <3 i b i j s 6 T 1 1 c h S o 2 8 3 co O CO 5 : s § ill "5 hi t § 03 1$ bJ •° P 4) 2 D g b li s b > ± 3 2 3 o a O o a> CO 'bib c 'S 0> ] CO J! *? » c ^^ 1 b c 1 i c o o3 e o> c 3 13 Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 25 o CO * *< CM. CM OO c X, e c 1 1 •1 a c C c CM c > 1 to s > c m a "a! > c ,c is c s c * 1 £ c CM a t- c £ p c h a | cm * CM CM CM h N . -h CM CM w* *H CM M ~ ■* — ( CM b C '£ G C ,£ a 6 G IS C u X C I ° 1 i ! b J P /-§ b 5 -E 1 ) I 1 E- E c "c X ,c c T fc e '5 C 5 > .. CD 3 e 5 cd 1 J CD I 5 03 C 3 to a "3 o 3 J W) P ill «■ ■ J CD a Pi S i{ i b £ .1 i c P?A- •-3 b 5 c 8i -5 e § s ■*j a 03 ( 4| 03 C! i b a E c + ,r c C *j T ,J \ 5 - 1 % I CD *• J2 b v E *&£ 1^ o3 a: pq a a P ■1 P a > b pi c p p PC 1 JP a. 1.1 «S ■ bfl +- .s I 8 a " a i ^ £ '§ J W b o3 C 1* > i E- a 1 M C "3 a *CB '+ 1 1 03 +. a i < i 'co 1 4> b ^2 C S^ >> a cd a ^^ A E" PQ - a sp £ c a t o ■ b p •- i ft 1 xl 1 ^ b < i i _ c E- e a > 1 "c i 1 J t » fc. CO .JO a g a CD 0) o O O 26 University of California — Experiment Station ft E O o M ft o 10 M s U hi P pq w ^ w P-. go o « V o o ft 2 03 O 3 ^ 6 -a o ft rt TO o 01 H «H -4 o5 « o © o o CO O CM © © ,2 uM o3 >>— i > 03-rH CO ^ CM OS CM o d o 00 O 00 O © -*< © © © © © © © CO i*< © CO © O &T3 03 u g co co co co 03 4> 4 41 (-i S-, U <~ V o o w CT> i-H © CM i-H 00 © co CO tH CO 4) & 03 en co „ co 0) 4) co co oj o v § o « © © © 00 CO © © 00 G 03 a ft '3 03 C ccj 03 i-, o co O) S ju p, a is c c > c X O " -S •f! • t- 1 CO 03 o Is T3 03 « ft 1 C » £ O • »- So £ « IS" Xi 1 bfi u " 1 co is c £ c 4 4 is c £ 1 ! X 4 CO 0> CO O w CM CO CM CM CM CO CM CM CM CM 03 - - H ^ H CM is w b 1 t- S > 1 e B b c i 1 i 1 3 b s | Id 1 c 4 C £ b C c s 1 15 c 1, c H 1 "3 o CO «H CO '5) ^^ II 3 b 1 b B.E X b c X 4 a "cr C : c 1 n 1 B a 1 1 X c o 4 £ c 4 £ 4 C 4 Q 03 C I g : X 4 X s a is ft < Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 27 o C «5 CO C3" CO ": u- W5 « c<- CO CJ CM oc CO CO CM Co LO >c «r o «: «: 11) 1(5 1C o r-i 1-4 i— CC c CO CM cN ifl M •c CM CO B* C CM M c- c t-h rt CO CO ' CO CO o o c c <= o c o c c c C lO ia a c O O C c o o c o M N C oc co •>* o «: c 1C c a> o- io c K W CO c >o •* I 03 0) II) « t h h e ~ ■- 3 C c >- t- t. t- «- t. 1- (- o o c o E o c c o c o o c. « « i o3 si +> -fc 03 £ K o3 b! c3 p3 c3 oj oc o o o c c C Oi - "■" ' *"' is X XI 1 J ti o c 3 -2 "o "o o3 o3 e 1. c o a .z o a B * if c c c i > * s * no 1- 'I c 1 J 1 C X X B c b 1 I > c X X > a P • ci CO C c •? c 4 i c X X c is e 4 10-ft. spike- harrow 2-row bean Riding cult Hor CM CNJ CM CM CN > c X 1 i c > ' 'p 3 ~c - is c c is X T P 03 ti a ^ x ,e X 1 uj b ° bfix a * 1 t T b 1 o3 s o — b P 'g 6 t 1 b a il. c 81 bi P c C3 g 1 b C b p f'i p 1 X X e b 1 "a? H 3 I E t p c 1 X X c a 03 CD o b e c 1 b p '1 ) arley Mow Raki c * 3 '1 s O eg o g 1 1 >> 03 i— i"5 c p. t. Si c c 1 c £ 3 a i S 1 03 t 03 3 C "5 c « E- p- 5j « pq Ah H < S ffl H > e. i 1 £ 1 J? 28 University of California — Experiment Station BO 1 _. >> 1M c e i« O >c B3S to e CO CO s iunt ator do, days c c «: a to CN t^ OS to CN o c «o c CN e> CN U5 C 10 ti- er »c CN C c CN O St) * H CN I o 43 eS iS o c c c C c G c c C c 'C c= lO C O G c G O 03 to c: c OC cc Tt >c C CN 00 G ^> -* w° 1-1 CN 1- O h-1 ^ ^ tS "^^ oc cr CT a BE or to cr 00 a a. a a a a a. CD Ai At o p,"0 <- >- 1.1 (- c £4*3 t c c u c 03 a s eS e K B cS 0! co or 05 g c c OC «o to G oc CN oc oc oc a> cn CN CN -2 fc. c c i fc CI 4) e "a C 6 a Cf 'a > or "a > > 1 I * c c 1 E b c ! a > is c p c 4 C At t- C 2 c c '3 c c T *E c 03 P ^ a; X XT. a CN j£ x & N a pq 6 .t: CN Ph £1 T3 c 03 oc 01 * CO CN — (M — "* «- § bJD c bO bJD § .s 3 ° a fl 03 c "c3 a o "5 43 b c E i "3 "b c J3 S3 i a cc E O 73 **- CI 3 « CO GO T c c e | c c or cr O C ">< c 'S3 _^ CD t- 9 c (■ or a o CI 03 b. 1 £. i b 1 3 -c d 03 CI '> = ^ c o3 1 03 o> >> u "c3 53 b 0_g b ^ c e « b s >> c a "o? I cr c- a 1 i b cy •° cu 1 >. bj C "P bj 1 bo.S CI X 23 *~ ¥> c 1 +J or 03 « 51 s 0) m a .2 bi 43 C CO "B 1 03 83 6 * b i *- _c « s e cv 03 05 O s ^ »3T 4* •" 4-: .2 M uh a M E c 1 1 1 3 E 5 c 3 c 1 45 ~~ 1 03 03 £ C c ^ 03 c C c 03 K O PQ ~c c3 c «! 3 E- p. Ph E- 3 5 « h < pq Eh H XI 0) 42 u c o < s o> 0> 43 a >> ■-5 d8 Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 29 £ o H < H C M fe o « <: H kH q 03 H O H eS 8 o ft iH g~ -i E3 P«H X3 bn 7; fH Oh o o 02 Pj crt « M >-! bn W ft 0) OS o © O. CO © III 0> u 03 92 0> 03 05 ID 00 S-H (- O CJ o3 o3 00 -H •* 00 c s .2* '3 c CD Xi fl o3 CD 6 0> s V ft g 5= C P c . A O o ic -g | C o o a > • CS co X3 O o i if * © (0 ce is 6 ^ ■al .3 o3 'a is CN 3 b ( c B i c GO o s 8 e X! 3 o t. a = > 1 u CD s CD o 01 p >> 03 3 C ►"8 > a h X 03 xi o i- 03 30 University of California — Experiment Station DO Is* Sis c c o OC ■>* r»i a mount aerator an do, in days c O OC ->_ oo c *-a -S^g -2 d s 0) c O iO o c CM i-i 0O OC ic io c c c c CM c c O'- C iC c oc CM CC c c K o OS '3 CD 8» o o o o c C o c o c C c c C er C c c O C c C o o .JQ e3 O c8 5C ■* o co c: « co cn iH 5C -1- c •r C ec c >o C OO 05 W^ CM CS ^ ^ ftl co „ cr cb co co o. cr co a a a cr a a f I a 1 s o a^5 tn c a i* (- Fi t- t- f p P t. >- t- -£•* 3 C « o c «- c. S C t c c c c. t 03 a! 03 ^H i-l i-l i- CO j3 rd t C s ■ft 1 b o R d £ a '3 0) t- 0. c £ "7 0, I | P V i = X o b ft g CO £ H CM *H c 5 i CM 0. c £ Cl p a a 1 X is c p > t b ft 1 'o C X pi ft _d CM 3 o M .3 73 PI c3 CO 05 j£ tH CM CN CM CI CM CM c c 03 o w d ft 6 2 3 b o ja c ° c n * h c *- 1 ; b _p p bi p 1 1 If c c c c T h # p T3 3 | g s b P b C 15 b c.S 1 b P t 0! -c p i ! | ) b 1 c r b P c c ,c 1 - b i -= to c | d b P > 1 o 03 a "3 o -o d o s 0) CO b §.s s .a or = c c s. -C c 1 t - 1 ,d bi « £ d h P 1 ll e9 3 Ph X fl £ ft O 1 "c c 5 c s X tr | c "3 6 • Ph J ^ s £ c "oB o < h ft < ft E- -< ft o H J c o a ■a > > PI 3 <3 % 1 ^ Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 31 o © o o ■o •o CM CI c 00 is c p c g Of a i c £ c c ,c c b c 5 a M a S3 a _ a-i 1 C C3 J. o £ .S «♦■ •a ^ •* O 1 It "c E- bO .s il . -r J * « a 1 S 3 J i b £ c t c o ■*- c c bO d — oj a, ••-fl § C c3 £ 3 « ^ X J3 * Jf M C o o c <*- ce ■ 13 — a £ * •a s ^ 2 O O i h c 2 I c .2 a . '3 ■£ a 2 11 5e < i (- "c J c I < 1 3 a ft CU O "§ O 32 University of California — Expp:riment Station THE CALENDAR OF OPERATIONS The calendar of operations for the 3 years of different cropping is given in detail in tables 4, 5, and 6. Chores, repair jobs, and similar routine work is not included, since our interest centers primarily in the major income-producing activities. If the time spent on chores is added, naturally the efficiency in use of the operator's time will be increased. The yearly total man and horse-labor requirements for each of the 3 typical years of the rotation are summarized in table 7. TABLE 7 Man and Horse-Labor Requirements on a 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm Man labor Horse labor Order of rotation* Total re- quired By opera- tor Opera- tor's effi- ciencyf Hired Per cent hired Total re- quired By farm owned horses Effi- ciency of farm owned horsesj Hired Per cent hired First year Second year Third year man days 187.0 160.0 130.5 man days 152.0 125.5 108.0 per cent 50.7 41.8 36.0 man days 35.0 34.5 22.5 per cent 18.7 21.6 17.2 horse days 256.5 201.0 184.0 horse days 253.5 201.0 184.0 per cent 34.5 27.3 25.0 horse days 3.0 per cent 1.2 0.0 0.0 * Acreages of crops for each year of rotation given in table 3. t Based on 245 days a year available for field work. % 245 total days available for field work. Horse efficiency based on 735 days, total for 3 horses. These summarized figures are enlightening. The total number of pro- ductive days work for the operator — ranging from 108 to 152 days an- nually and averaging, for the 3-year period, 128 1 /2 days a year — is hardly representative of a high degree of efficiency in the use of the operator 's time, when it is considered that an average of approximately 245 days each year are available for field work. An average of 128% days of work a year based on a 245-work-day year constitutes an effi- ciency in use of the operator 's time of only 52.4 per cent. Extra labor is needed only at intervals and for periods of but % to 3 days at a time. This means that no regular men can be employed and that reliance must be placed either upon the hiring of an occasional man on a day basis whenever a need arises or upon exchanging labor with a neighboring farmer. A low degree of efficiency is likewise recorded in the use of work ani- mals. Keeping horses that could be used 245 days out of the year and employing them only one-fourth to one-third of this time is bound to result in a high daily cost for the time when they are gainfully employed. Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 33 The calendar indicates that this cropping plan, the operations of which are spread fairly well over the year, results in no protracted peri- ods when either no work occurs or when the work piles up to a burden- some extent. One of the 3 years, because of the reseeding to alfalfa, pro- vides more work for the operator than do the succeeding 2 years when his work is confined to mature alfalfa, barley hay, and Blackeye beans, or to mature alfalfa and grain sorghum. During the year when alfalfa is being reestablished, May and June are busy months, but the rest of the year, as an inspection of the calendar will show, provides spare time for additional work. The other 2 years allow even more time. This is brought out more emphatically in table 8. TABLE 8 Number of Days Operator of a 40 -Acre Field-Crops Farm Has Available for Additional Work* First year Second year Third year Month Total t For soil work J Total! For soil work! Total t For soil workj 1 2 3 / 5 6 14 5 15 5 10.5 15.5 21.5 14 5 3 5 1.0 12.5 19.0 10.6 20.0 5.5 5.5 1.5 2 5 16.5 7.0 0.5 1.0 12.5 19.0 9.0 14.0 14.5 26.0 20.0 22.0 26 12.5 2 5 0.0 12.0 24.0 8 5 17.0 5 5 16.0 8.0 9.0 21.0 9.5 2.5 0.0 12.0 24.5 7 5 13.5 24 26 20.0 15 5 22.0 12 5 12 11.0 13 5 20.0 7.5 18.0 15 16.0 8.0 2.5 17.0 4 5 May 9.0 June 11.0 July 13.5 20.0 September 6.5 14.0 Total 158.0 94.5 185.0 129.0 202.0 137.0 * Labor requirements of this cropping plan are based on a 9-hour work day. t Time available for additional work is the difference between the time needed for carrying on the present organization and a 26-day month, except February, which is a 24-day month. It might be used for work away from the farm, for types of work not limited by climatic conditions, such as the handling of livestock, pruning of trees, etc., or for soil work to the extent given in columns 2, 4, and 6. X Of the total number of days available for additional work the figures in columns 2, 4, and 6 show the amount each month which can be used in performing additional soil operations under average weather conditions. The data given in table 8 is not necessarily a criticism of the present form of organization. The primary purpose of this table is to point out to the operator the possibilities for making more efficient use of his time by undertaking part-time employment, provided it can be obtained, by reorganizing his farming program, or by increasing the acreage farmed, in order to increase his income. 34 University op California — Experiment Station FINANCIAL RESULTS The final test of any proposed farm plan is the financial return which it is likely to produce. To demonstrate the procedure to be followed in calculating the net income obtainable from the cropping program pre- viously described for this 40-acre farm, investment, production, and financial statements, showing in detail the computation of gross income, expenses, and net incomes, under stated conditions of prices and costs, have been prepared. Investment Items. — An inventory of the physical properties of this 40-acre field-crops farm as a fully equipped operating unit, includes the following list of investment items : Land: 40 acres; leveled, checked, ditched; supplied with water by the Turlock Irri- gation District Buildings and structures : Farm dwelling, septic tank, and garage. These items, though necessary, are not deemed a part of the farm business. Barn for housing work animals, storing hay, and protecting implements and ma- chinery Water tank, tower, pump, motor, piping and fittings for lifting and distributing water to house and livestock Corral for horses 4 canal headgates 76 outlet boxes from ditches to checks Motive power : 3 work animals Automobile (primarily for personal use, since its operation solely for the farm business would not justify the investment and cost of operation) Implements and machinery : 14-in. sulky plow 12-in. walking plow 6-ft. spring-tooth harrow 10 -ft. spike-tooth harrow 4-ft. single-disk harrow 5 -ft. mower 10-ft. rake 2 -row corn and bean planter Bean row splitter Bean cutter 1-row walking cultivator Riding cultivator Wagon Hay stacker Fresno scraper Hand broadcaster Eveners, doubletrees, neck yokes, etc. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 35 Horse equipment : 1% sets of work harness 3 horse collars 3 halters and tie chains Curry comb, brush, barn broom, manure fork, hoof rasp, clippers, etc. Tools, hand implements, and minor equipment : 4 metal tappoons (for use in irrigating) Set of carpenter 's tools Carpenter 's vise Small set of mechanic 's tools Pipe vise, stock, dies, and cutter Pick, shovels, hoes, pitchforks, crowbar, axe*, grindstone, etc. Post-hole digger and chain blocks Sickle sharpener, rubber boots, wheelbarrow, ladders, baled-hay hooks, oil cans The list of tools and hand implements comprises the simpler items which are to be found on most well-equipped farms. Their inclusion pre- supposes ability on the part of the operator to do the simpler tasks of carpentering, pipe fitting, machinery repairing, etc. Statement of Production. — Table 9 shows the details of production by years, for both the total production of marketable product and the net amounts available for sale after deducting the amounts retained for farm use. TABLE 9 Production and Amounts of Crops Available for Sale on a 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm First year Second year Third year Alfalfa, new Alfalfa, mature Barley hay Beans Alfalfa, mature Barley hay Beans Alfalfa, mature Grain sorghum Yields per acre tons 2 25 25 tons 5 62 5 62.5 tons 2 25 25* pounds 810 10,125 200f 9,925 tons 5 125 125 tons 2 25 25* pounds 810 10,125 200 1 9,925 tons 5 125 4 121 pounds 1,800 Total production 22,500 38t Available for sale 22,462 * 18 tons fed, balance reserved for future use, since no barley hay is raised in third year, t Amount reserved for seed. Financial Statements. — Table 10 has been prepared to show both the production and maintenance requirements in terms of physical quanti- ties and monetary values, and the financial outcome of this farm under the stated conditions of selling prices of farm products and costs of farm operations. Gross income, expenses, and net income have been calcu- lated for each of the 3 years typical of the rotation and for the average of the 3-year period. The financial showing under the conditions stated is certainly not encouraging. With an average annual net income for the 3-year period 36 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 10 Income and Expenses of the 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm Annual gross income First year Second year Third year Alfalfa hay* at $12.00 a ton $1,050.00 397.00 $1,500.00 397.00 $1,452.00 359.39 Total $1,447.00 $1,897.00 $1,811.39 Annual expenses * First year, 87.5 tons; second year, 125.0 tons; third year, 121.0 tons. t First year, 35 days; second year, 34.5 days; third year, 22.5 days. X First year, 113 sacks; second year, 113 sacks; third year, 155 sacks. 1 First year, 1.0 pound; second year, 1.0 pound; third year, 1.5 pounds. First year Second year Third year Hired laborf at $2.25 a day of 9 hours $ 78.75 50.00 10.94 10.17 0.75 218.75 50.85 $ 77.63 10.94 10.17 0.75 312.50 50.85 $ 50.63 Materials and supplies: Sackstat $0.09 13.95 1.13 Contract work: Baling hay* at $2.50 a ton 302.50 19.38 109.38 5.07 17.75 156.25 5.07 17.75 151.25 11.30 3.00 152.80 1.60 54.30 8.88 34.42 0.94 2.16 2.74 10.00 80.75 51.30 6.08 4.56 7.26 0.38 152.80 1.60 54.30 8.88 34.42 0.94 2.16 2.74 10.00 80.75 51.30 6.08 4.56 7.26 0.65 152.80 1.60 Repairs and upkeep of equipment: Buildings 5.0 per cent of $1,086.00 54.30 (Dwelling, garage, and septic tank not included) 8.88 Implements and machinery, 3.6 per cent of $956.00 Harness, halters, collars, and tie chains, 1.0 per cent of $94.00 34.42 0.94 Small tools, barn, and minor equipment, 1.2 per cent of $180.00 2.16 Domestic pumping plant, 0.5 per cent of $548.00 2.74 10.00 Taxes: 80.75 Land in annual crops, farmstead, lanes, and ditches 51.30 6.08 4.56 Implements and machinery (based on average value) Hay 7.26 0.11 Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 37 TABLE 10— (Concluded) Annual expenses — (Concluded) * First year Second year Third year Depreciation of equipment: Buildings, 5.0 per cent of $1,086.00 $ 54.30 43.66 37.50 108.98 15.60 21.96 40.55 2.92 2.97 2.28 $ 54.30 43.66 37.50 108.98 15.60 21.96 40.55 2.92 ' 3.80 2.25 $ 54.30 (Dwelling, garage, and septic tank not included) - 43.66 Workstock, 10.0 per cent of $375.00 37.50 Implements and machinery, 11.4 per cent of $956.00 Harness, collars, halters, and tie chains, 16.6 per cent of $94.00 108.98 15.60 Small tools, barn, and minor equipment, 12.2 per cent of $180.00 21.96 Domestic pumping plant, 7.4 per cent of $548.00 Insurance: 40.55 2.92 Hay in barn, insured for 6 months, annual premium 2.14 1.47 Total $1,304.30 $1 ; 391.87 $1,297.12 Net farm income First year Second year Third year Average for 3 years Gross income $1,447.00 1,304.30 $1,897.00 1,391.87 $1,811.39 1,297.12 $1,718.46 1,331.10 Net farm income $ 142.70 $ 505.13 $ 514.27 $ 387.36 | On value of $9.50 a ton, first year, 25 tons; second year 32 tons; third year, 18 tons of only $387.36, the operator may be tempted to use that portion of his expenses set aside as reserve for repairs and depreciation to increase the amount of money available for personal use, including living expenses, payment of interest on borrowed money, etc. This would add to the in- come a total of $425.99 (made up of repairs, $103.44 ; and depreciation, $322.55) . But this means dipping into capital and has nothing to recom- mend it to the man who plans to continue in farming. Taxes, which for this farm average $150.33, might drop, but this is hardly to be counted upon. So, too, the cost of certain contract operations, such as baling or threshing, might decrease. But even with substantial reductions in these items, the net income would still be considered unsatisfactory for most farm operators. Basically four things appear out of line, namely, the selling prices of farm products, the yields now being obtained, the size of the farm, and the type of enterprises which comprise this farm busi- ness. The effect on net income of changes in these factors will next be considered. 38 University of California — Experiment Station EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN BASIC DATA Effect of Changes in Selling Prices. — If selling prices should increase without a corresponding advance in the items of costs, the showing would be more favorable. An increase in the prices of alfalfa hay to $18.00 a ton, of beans to $0.06 a pound, and of grain sorghum to $1.90 per 100 pounds would increase the farm earnings as shown in table 11. TABLE 11 Effect of Increase in Prices on Net Farm Income Order of rotation First year .... Second year Third year... Average Net farm income With original prices $ 142.70 505.13 514.27 S 387.36 With increased prices $ 866.20 1,453.63 1,307.66 $1,209.16 Increase in net farm income $ 723.50 948.50 793.39 $ 821.80 But even these increased prices do not bring the net farm income up to a figure deemed by local operators to be the minimum which a farm of this kind should produce, that is, $1,800 a year. To earn this required minimum through price changes alone is not to be expected in view of the present outlook. On the other hand should a decrease take place in prices obtainable for hay, beans, and grain sorghum, the amount of net income would be reduced correspondingly. A decrease of 22.7 per cent from $12.00 hay, $0.04 beans, and $1.60 grain sorghum would wipe out all net income. This corresponds to prices of $9.28 for hay, $0.03 for beans, and $1.24 for grain sorghum. Prices still lower than these would mean that the farm could not pay expenses. Effect of Increased Yields. — An increase in the amount of yield ob- tainable per acre would provide for a substantial increase in net income. Better yields may often be produced at little or no additional expense in planting and caring for the crop up to harvest, simply by adopting better or more timely cropping practices, attention to detail of opera- tion, and like measures. Increasing the yields of crops from usual to good yields (table 12), through some such means as indicated above, appears entirely feasible. These increased yields, with prices and costs remaining the same as given in table 10, provide net incomes for each of the 3 years of the rotation as shown in table 13. The effect of increase of yields upon net farm income maj^ be readily noted by comparing the earning power of the farm when only usual Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 39 TABLE 12 Increased Yields Kesulting from Improvement in Farming Practices on a 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm Present yields per acre .... Increased yields per acre Alfalfa, new tons 2.0 3.5 Alfalfa, mature tons 5.0 8.0 Barley hay tons 2.0 3.0 Beans pounds 810 1,080 Grain sorghum pounds 1,800 2,500 TABLE-13 Financial Statement for a 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm Based on Increased Yields First year Second year Third year Average of 3 years Gross income (prices same as those used in the preceding calculations) Expenses (adjusted on the basis of in- creased production) $2,413.00 1,636.72 $2,944.00 1,739.65 $2,851.39 1,632.12 $2,736.13 1,669.50 $ 776.28 $1,204.35 $1,219.27 $1,066.63 yields were obtained (table 10) with its earning power if good yields were obtained (table 13), prices, farming practices, and basic cost rates remaining the same. Effect of Change in Size of Farm. — If the size of the farm be increased to 80 acres, the annual and average gross income, expenses, and net farm income will be as shown in table 14, selling prices and the basic costs re- maining as given in table 10. TABLE 14 Financial Statement for an 80-Acre Field-Crops Farm First year Second year Third year Average of 3 years $3,154.00 2,460.88 $3,810.00 2,563.92 $3,718.80 2,316.34 $3,560.93 2,447.05 $ 693.12 $1,246.08 $1,402.46 $1,113.88 Thus by increasing the size of farm from 40 to 80 acres the average annual net income is increased from $387.36 (table 10) to $1,113.88 (table 14) , a gain of $726.52. This increase in net income results from a higher degree of efficiency in the use of equipment and in the use of the operator's time. Costs, therefore, do not increase in proportion to the increased gross income obtained from farming the larger area. 40 University of California — Experiment Station CHANGES IN ENTERPRISES The possibility of increasing the earnings of this farm by changing the plan of organization is worth considering. The calendar of opera- tions shows that the operator, on a 9-hour-day basis, has considerable available time that could be used for other productive purposes. He might work away from the farm if work is obtainable and thus increase his earnings by whatever amount of pay he secures elsewhere. There is also the chance of adding a new enterprise or two. Instead of selling his hay he has the alternative of going into the livestock business. This might consist of feeding cattle or sheep, or installing a small dairy. He might add a flock of hens. The financial possibilities of any proposed alternative plan or added enterprise can be tested by the procedure set forth in detail in testing the original plan of this farm. Suppose the operator decides to see what would happen if he added a 10-cow dairy, or 500 fowls, or both. If the number decided upon for testing is different from these figures the test- ing procedure would follow the same general plan although the results would, of course, be different. Tests of these proposals must take into account the added investment required as well as the changes in income and expenses. Analyses of these proposals are given in some detail below. Addition of a 10-Cow Dairy. — To test the merit of adding a 10-cow dairy herd to a given farm business, with the idea of increasing the net farm income, due consideration must be paid to the following items. Production per Cow : The amount of product obtained annually per cow has an important bearing upon the net income obtainable per cow. Many of the items of costs are the same irrespective of the amount of milk obtained. There is no justification for trying to make money from poor-producing cows. The average annual production per cow of 3,313 cows tested by associations operating in the Turlock area for the year ending September 30, 1930, was found to be 312.6 pounds of milk fat. Certainly no smaller yield than 312.0 pounds should be deemed satis- factory when adding a few head such as is proposed here. Sale of newborn calves would add a sum equivalent to possibly eight calves at whatever price is obtainable for them. Prices Received for Milk : The principal market outlet for dairy prod- ucts in the Turlock area is through the sale of whole milk for manufac- turing purposes. These purchases are paid for on a basis of the milk-fat content of the milk. Prices for the past 5 years have averaged about as shown in table 49 of the Appendix. These data indicate the recent price history, which, coupled with an analysis of the current outlook, will Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 41 assist the investigator in deciding upon what selling price he wants to use in testing the financial feasibility of the proposed change of plan. Initial Investment: Determination of the amount of capital which must be provided to purchase cows, erect a milking barn and milk house, procure equipment, and to meet other initial expenses as well as the influence that such outlays will have upon the annual expenditures, is of considerable importance. In order to provide a general idea of the amount of capital required for the purchase of cows and equipment and also to show the amount of money which should be set aside each year to take care of the upkeep and maintenance of the invested capital, table 15 has been compiled in some detail. TABLE 15 Investment and Annual Overhead Charges Kequired for a 10-Cow Dairy Unit First cost Annual repairs Charge for depreciation Item Rate Amount dollars 200.00 70.00 56.00 40.00 77.75 dollars 10.00 5.00 2.50 2.00 0.25 per cent 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.5 dollars 10.00 3.50 2.80 Corral for cows 2.00 19.83 Equipment total 443.75 750.00 100.00 19.75 20.0 16.0 38.13 150.00 Bull 16.00 850.00 166.00 1,293.75 19.75 204.13 * Same as listed for dairy farm on page 105 with 1 bucket, 6 cans, and milk truck eliminated, because of fewer cows. Labor Requirements : The care of a 10-cow herd, including the feed- ing, breeding, milking, care of the milk, and the incidental jobs re- quired in the operation of a dairy unit require 1,480.0 man hours a year or approximately 4 hours a day. This work is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year and does not vary greatly from an average of 123.5 man hours a month. Horse labor to the extent of 18.0 horse days a year, is required at more or less regular intervals. Operating and Maintenance Charges: Unit factors of expense in- curred in the operation of a 10-cow dairy unit are as follows : ITEM Feed (for 10 cows and 1 bull) AMOUNT OR COST PER YEAR Hay or pasture equivalent to 6 tons per head per year or a total of 66 tons. Concentrates for cows amounting to 1,200 pounds per cow, or 6 tons annually. 42 University of California — Experiment Station ITEM Supplies Hauling milk Electricity, annual pro rata charge Upkeep of dairy equipment Taxes on cows and bull Taxes on hay for herd Veterinary expense Depreciation of equipment Depreciation of cows and bull Insurance on cow barn Insurance on hay (stacked) Employers ' liability insurance AMOUNT OR COST PER YEAR Salt: 200 pounds annually. Washing powder: 25 pounds annually. Medicines : $2.50 annually. At rate of 3% cents a pound of milk-fat con- tent of whole milk. $4.50 annually. $19.75 (from table 15). Tax rate $3.80 per $100.00 : cows assessed at $40.00 each, bull at $50.00, $17.10. Tax rate $3.80 per $100.00 : 10 tons assessed at $2.00 a ton, $0.76. $10.00 annually. $38.13 (from table 15). $166.00 (from table 15). 1.3 per cent of average value: $1.30. 2.5 per cent on 66 tons for 6 months valued at $9.50 per ton: $15.68. 2.9 per cent of payroll. Effect of Adding 10 Cows to the 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm : A test by the calendar of operations shows that adding 10 cows to the 40-acre field- crops farm (original plan) results in total man and horse labor needs, provides work for the operator, and requires hired labor to the extent shown in table 16. TABLE 16 Man - and Horse Labor Eeqtjirements on a 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm with 10 Cows Added Order of rotation* First year Second year.. Third year.... Man labor Total re- quired 9-hour day 351.0 324.0 295.0 By opera- tor 10-hour day 261.5 239.0 239.5 Opera- tor's effi- ciencyt per cent 81.5 79 8 Hired labor 9-hour day 60.5 58.5 29.0 Hired per cent 17.2 18.1 Horse labor By farm- owned horses days 271.5 219.0 202 Effi- ciency! per cent 36 9 29.8 27.5 Hired days 3.0 0.0 0.0 * Acreage of crops in rotation found in table 3. t Based on 4 hours a day for 365 days (care of dairy cows) and 6 hours a day for 245 days (available for field work). A total of 293 days of 10 hours each a year. t 245 days available. Horse efficiency based on 735 days, total for three horses. Table 17 has been prepared to show the effect on net income of adding a 10-cow dairy to this 40-acre field-crops farm. The addition would re- quire the use of 66 tons of hay, formerly sold at a price of $12.00 a ton, but in place of the hay the farm would have for sale 3,120 pounds of milk fat (sold in whole milk) at $0.40 a pound, and 8 calves at $2.00 each. In this statement the expenditures have been reduced by savings in costs of baling and hauling the hay reserved for feed. They have been in- creased by the additional labor needed to carry on the reorganized plan Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 43 of work, by the purchase of concentrates (at $26.00 a ton) , salt (at $0.80 per 100 pounds) , washing powder (at $0.15 a pound) , and by the other items of cost listed under "Operating and Maintenance Charges" pages 41 and 42. Table 17 records the gross incomes, expenditures, and net incomes for both the original plan and the reorganized plan which includes the 10- cow dairy. TABLE 17 Income and Expenses of a 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm with and without a 10-Cow Dairy First year Second year Third year Original plan With 10-cow dairy Original plan With 10-cow dairy Original plan With 10-cow dairy Annual gross income $1,050.00 397.00 $ 258.00 397.00 $1,500.00 397.00 $ 708.00 397.00 $1,452.00 359.39 $ 660.00 Beans 359.39 Milk fat 1,248.00 16.00 $1,919.00 1,248.00 16.00 $2,369.00 1,248.00 Calves $1,447.00 16.00 $1,897.00 $1,811.39 $2,283.39 Annual ex penses Hired labor $ 72.00 71.86 $ 132.75 79.71 156.00 266.18 152.80 6.10 10.00 26.72 123.19 526.68 166.19 $1,646.32 $ 77.63 21.86 $ 129.38 29.71 156.00 403.80 15280 6.10 10.00 27.45 123.19 526.68 168.46 $1,733.57 $ 50.63 15.08 $ 67.50 Materials 22.93 156.00 404.50 152.80 1.60 10.00 7.98 103.44 322.55 148.33 $1,295.06 542.12 152.80 1.60 10.00 8.97 103.44 322.55 150.60 $1,391.57 484.36 152.80 1.60 10.00 6.53 103.44 322.55 150.06 $1,297.05 346.06 152.80 Electricity 6.10 10.00 24.00 123.19 526.68 Taxes 167.92 $1,603.18 Net farm ncome $ 151.94 $ 272.68 $ 505.43 $ 635.43 $ 514.34 $ 68021 With the prices and costs as used in this analysis, the various calcula- tions show that with the addition of the 10-cow dairy the average annual net income provided by this farm amounts to $529.44, an increase of only $142.08 over that provided by the original plan (table 10) . Interest on the investment required to provide the cows and their equipment is not included as an item of expense in these calculations. If the money for financing this change were borrowed at an interest rate of 7 per 44 University of California — Experiment Station cent, the additional expense chargeable to the dairy unit would have amounted to $90.56 (7 per cent of $1,293.75). It is obvious that the increase in net income is not sufficient to meet this additional demand and to repay the principal of the loan within a reasonable length of time. It may therefore be concluded that as long as the cost of the other factors of production are as given, the production and sale of hay at $12.00 a ton is almost equally as profitable as feeding that same hay to dairy cows to produce milk fat which sells for $0.40 a pound. However, should hay drop materially in price to $7.00 a ton, other factors of cost remain the same, and milk fat continue to sell at $0.40 a pound, the net income would favor the dairy by $472.07 as shown in table 18. TABLE 18 Average Annual Financial Statement of a 40 -Acre Field- Crops Farm with and without a 10-Cow Dairy (When market price of alfalfa hay is $7.00 a ton) Original plan With 10-cow dairy Difference Average annual : $1,162.63 1,331.10 -168.47 $1,964.63 1.661.03 303.60 $802.00 445.88 472.07 All other prices and costs the same as those given in table 17. Under these conditions, the increased income, after allowing 7 per cent interest on the added investment, returns to the operator only $212.50 ($303.06 — $90.56), which is far from a sufficient amount to provide a satisfactory standard of living. Addition of 500-Foid Poultry Flock. — Attention is next directed to testing the possibilities of increasing the net income of this 40-acre field- crops farm by adding a flock of 500 fowls. The effect of this move is described below ; some of the general factors that govern the adding of a poultry flock to any farm, and the testing of the addition of such a flock to this farm are considered. The question of whether or not there is justification for adding a flock of 500 fowls primarily for egg production to any given business requires careful consideration of the following factors. Production per Flock : If the annual egg production amounts to 150 eggs per hen, then the total production will amount to about 6,250 dozen, which should grade 70 per cent large, 20 per cent mediums, and 10 per cent small. There would, therefore, be available for sale 4,375 dozen large, 1,250 dozen medium, and 625 dozen small eggs. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 45 Prices Received for Eggs : The trend of selling prices of eggs for the past 5 years is given in table 49 of the Appendix. Mortality of Fowls : Mortality of fowls constitutes a factor which has a marked influence upon the earning capacity of a flock. Death losses ranging from 10 to 30 per cent or more a year are commonly experienced by many operators. A high death rate materially reduces or completely eliminates all chances for profits ; a low rate greatly increases the possi- bilities for success of the poultry enterprise. In calculating the income possibilities from poultry in the Turlock area, allowance has been made for a rate of mortality of 16 per cent in the items of expense. While this figure may fairly represent an average rate for the better flocks of the area, attention is called to the wide varia- tion in rate of mortality encountered by various producers in the industry. Depreciation of Fowls : In addition to mortality, every flock suffers from a reduction in productive capacity of the fowls due to aging and disease. As a result most poultrymen plan to replenish their laying flocks with young pullets each year. The replacement percentage varies, but for the purpose of this study, 50 per cent seems reasonable. The culled fowls have a sales value for meat, which has averaged approxi- mately 50 cents a bird during the past few years. Replacement of Fowls : The plan of operation of the poultry unit used in this text provides for the purchase of pullets, 4 to 6 months of age, with which to start the enterprise and for replacement purposes there- after to the extent that may be required by flock conditions. Starting with pullets of laying age no replacement would be necessary for the first 2 years other than to offset the losses from mortality and the culling of poor layers from the flock. If 16 per cent is allowed for mortality and 50 per cent for culling, 66 per cent of the flock must be replaced each year. This requires the purchasing of 330 pullets yearly. In this exam- ple, these pullets have been purchased at a price which would normally cover all costs of placing them with the flocks, whether obtained at the age of 2 or 3 months and raised, or purchased when about ready to lay. An experienced poultryman can usually brood and rear his pullets for less than the prices charged for good pullets and by so doing would in- crease his income by whatever net sum he could save. Initial Investment : To properly care for a flock of 500 fowls, approxi- mately 1 acre of land tightly fenced with an 8-foot fence of 2-inch mesh netting attached to substantial posts properly braced, will be required. A laying house preferably of the shed-roof, open-front type, 18 by 60 feet with additional space 10 by 18 feet for feedhouse and workroom 46 University of California — Experiment Station needs to be constructed and equipped with roosts, dropping boards, nests, feed hoppers, and drinking fountains with the necessary piping and faucets. The costs of these items (exclusive of land) together with the costs of the poultry equipment required for a 500-fowl flock are given in table 19. TABLE 19 Investment Kequired for Establishing a 500-Fowl Poultry Unit Item Poultry house, 18x70 feet (If built by the operator himself this cost can be reduced by about $150.00) Poultry-yard fencing Poultry- house equipment: Drinking fountains, including faucets and piping Feed hoppers, 8 at $3.00 Poultry equipment: Egg scales Egg cases, four 30 dozen cases at $0.50 Catching net Scraper Broom Scoop shovels, 2 Hand sprayer Wheelbarrow Feed buckets, 6 Egg buckets, 2 Pullets, 6 months old, 500 at $1.25 Total Amount $ 672.00 114.00 25.00 24.00 1.25 2.00 0.75 1.00 1.50 3.00 17.50 8.50 3 00 0.70 625.00 $1,499.20 Labor Requirements: Labor required to care for a 500-fowl flock amounts to the equivalent of 96 man days of 9 hours or approximately 8 man days a month. It is recognized that some variation is bound to occur from month to month but the amount will not be sufficient to ma- terially affect the calendar of operations. In figuring the additional expenses incurred as a result of adding a 500-fowl flock to an existing farm organization, expenditures for labor will be determined by the amount of additional hired labor required to operate the farm under the original plan and after the poultry unit has been added. To assist in cleaning houses, hauling feeds and litter, and plowing up the yards, one or two horses are needed for an annual total of 6 horse days. The amount of surplus horse labor available on most farms makes this small additional amount of horse work a negligible item. Operating and Maintenance Charges: Unit factors of expense in- curred in the operation of a 500-fowl unit are as follows : Buii. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 47 AMOUNT OR ITEM COST PER YEAR Feeds and supplies : Mash (at 30 pounds per hen per year) 15,000 pounds ... At market price Scratch grains (at 45 pounds per hen per year) 22,500 pounds At market price Supplies (grit, oyster shells, disinfectants, seed for green crops, etc.) At market price Electricity for pumping water $ 1.00 Hauling eggs, 209 cases at $0.10 20.90 Taxes Buildings, $3.80 per $100.00 on average value of $336.00 12.77 Fowls -t 6.25 Insurance, Employers ' Liability at 2.9 per cent of pay roll Repairs and upkeep of equipment Buildings, 5 per cent of $672.00 33.60 Fencing, 3 per cent of $114.00 3.42 Poultry equipment, 2 per cent of $39.20 0.78 Depreciation Buildings, 5 per cent of $672.00 33.60 Fencing, 5 per cent of $114.00 5.70 Poultry house equipment, 20 per cent of $49.00 9.80 Poultry equipment, 30 per cent of $39.20 11.76 Eeplacement of fowls, 330 pullets at $1.00 $330.00 Effect of Adding a 500-Fowl Unit : Adding a 500-f owl flock to this 40-acre field-crops farm would increase the products for sale annually by 6,250 dozen eggs and 250 culled fowls, once the flock is fully estab- lished. Sale of the eggs at a weighted average price of 26 cents a dozen and of the 250 culled fowls at 50 cents each would increase the annual gross income of this farm by $1,750.00. Expenses would be increased by the additional man labor required amounting to 16 man days the first year, 141/2 man days the second year, and 10% man days the third year. At $2.25 a day, the additional annual expense for labor amounts to $36.00, $31.63, and $23.63 and at 2.9 per cent of the payroll the additional employers' liability insurance amounts to $1.04, $0.95, and $0.69 for each of the 3 respective years. Other ex- penditures incurred in the operation of the poultry plant are as follows : ANNUAIj ITEM EXPENDITURE 15,000 pounds of mash at $1.90 per 100 pounds $285.00 22,500 pounds of scratch grains at $1.50 per 100 pounds 337.50 Supplies (grit, shell, etc.) 28.65 Hauling eggs, 209 cases at $0.10 , 20.90 Electricity, repairing and maintaining equipment, taxes, and re- placement of fowls (as shown under preceding section, "Oper- ating and Maintenance Charges) $448.68 48 University of California — Experiment Station With these changes in income and expenditures the next step con- sisted in making up a financial statement for this farm. The findings are set forth in table 20. TABLE 20 Comparison* of Financial Statement for 40-Acre Field-Crops Farm With and Without 500-Fowl Poultry Plant Original plan With addition of 500 fowls First year Second year Third year Aver- age First year Second year Third year Aver- age Differ- ence Gross income Exp's.. . $1,447.00 1,304.30 $1,897.00 1,391.87 $1,811.39 1,297.12 $1,718.46 1,331,10 $3,197.00 2,462.07 $3,647.00 2,546.18 $3,561.39 2,442.17 $3,468.46 2,483.47 $1,750.00 1,152.37 Net income $ 142.70 $ 505.13 $ 514.27 $ 387.36 $ 73493 $1,100.82 $1,119.22 $ 984.99 $ 597.63 The net flock income, as given in table 20, makes no allowance for the labor of the operator nor interest on the investment. If money must be borrowed to finance the adding of a 500-f owl flock at a rate of 7 per cent, and if the operator 's labor is considered worth 30 cents an hour, then the net flock income must provide the sum of $104.94 to pay interest and Fig. 7. — White Leghorn hens are maintained for egg production on many farms in the Turlock area. Expansion of the industry appears justified. Studies of net returns indicate that the addition of flocks of 500 hens or more offers an oppor- tunity for many farmers to increase materially the net income of their farms. $222.29 to compensate the operator. Under the conditions given above the net flock income is sufficient to meet these demands and also provides a sum of $270.40 to use in repaying the principal of the initial loan. The addition of a poultry unit, under conditions as indicated, appears to hold possibilities of adding to the net farm income. But,. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 49 Comments on Adding Livestock Enterprises. — A few comments, ap- plicable alike to poultry and dairy cows, should be stressed'. The first is the year-round program that is a vital part of dairying or poultry keeping. Fowls and cows must be cared for regularly. Feeding, egg collecting, and milking are regularly recurring chores that comprise a routine schedule that must be adhered to at all times. The work, there- fore, tends to be confining. In order to secure maximum returns from either of these enterprises the operator must possess and utilize the knowledge and ability required in the successful handling of livestock. These enterprises call for an in- telligent and competent understanding of the requirements of poultry keeping or dairying and an ability and willingness to meet these prob- lems as they arise. If much or all of the labor must be employed then the returns are pro- portionately reduced. Whether or not the operator is qualified to do this work himself is a matter for careful determination. Next an inquiry must be instituted into how much time the operator has at his disposal for these added enterprises. This may be determined by the calendar of operations of the present type of business. By adding the time required for either or both of these additional enterprises, an idea will be gained of the operator 's ability to contribute the necessary labor, and an indica- tion obtained as to the feasibility of adding a livestock enterprise, such as these, to the farm organization. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF A 40- ACRE FRUIT FARM On the 40-acre fruit farm selected for testing, 38 acres are occupied by a mature orchard and vineyard which is divided as follows : 8 acres of canning apricots, 10 acres of black juice grapes, and 20 acres of peaches of canning varieties. The balance of the acreage is utilized by farmstead, lanes, and ditches. Farming Practices. — The farming practices used in testing this form of organization are based on those customarily followed by orchardists and vineyardists in the Turlock area. A tractor of 10-drawbar horse- power has been used as the motive power for this farm. The farming practices and types of equipment used are shown in detail in the calen- dar of operations, table 21. Yields. — The average yields of marketable product used in calculat- ing the labor requirements and net income of this farm are apricots, 4 tons per acre ; juice grapes, 6 tons per acre ; and peaches, 8 tons per acre. 50 University of California — Experiment Station ID C_o3 CO Is a o d oo o d o Amount operator can do, man days o cn tN o o d d t^ SO ^ - CQ 3 s '3 & $ (-. o ■9 o o iO CO to ** O OO © io © © © © CN CN o CD o CO o o o o CN o d 5 03 03 o3 ft" o o d d o d o »o o »o o d cn d o d o CO o d o d o o to o d odd d ^2 oo to u u \n © 8 S § S a> fri . OS CO © CO 00 a> 3 V O CN $ S S § 2 S || o goo CO CO OO IO a 2* *3 U D a a) S "a 1 go b p '2 s m ) b p "p - a S 00 b c '5 p i & X a pa o a 3 a £ > 3 * o c ri a p , 1 .3 a 3 pq a> is o a ^" ° i. 3 a J3 > 3 S 4 03 02 tJ 3 03 oo 03 a> OQ bfl 3 '3 3 s O a ■a? 3 a is > 3 S 0> : & ! o ; j2 : Pi Is 1 3 u eo cn CO CM CO CM CO - eo eo cn ^h in 3 .2 "5 u a> a o a o U 3 c. c a (1 O 3 CQ Jq "G 3 a> faO b 2 « .£ §8 S ■— e "c E- cr a ,c c a ft ci a) Q 3 s (-1 03 3 tl o c »-' » p?* •2 1 3 P 1 1 c e .. t: 8 I < "5 c a i E- 33 a & tuO C 8 -F >-5 i — e "c E- ij Pm 1 t .. P . 5 *> o « 'C c ft K 1 » &■'- 03 ^ ft 2 |PC >-> -1 •> b 1 ) Eh c o & X E a ? c • >- a £ a c a e ) ) i a 4 b 03 3 (-■ CD Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 51 lO o >o O (ij « © o o o 1-1 O CI rt o in © ©' VS © iO o ©' fri © o © © © © «-<©'©'©' © io © © io © »o ©ON »fl © © o © © i-i © (B t) 1) t) © © © © ^ ^ is .5 2 2 § as g "3 '-n M s * O a W cc -| Pr < £ 6 Q 52 University of California — Experiment Station ESS Its 2 C3 £> ^T3 lO o o O T-H ,-1 o o © O «c o © © © »-H * fe o &? 3 o T3 O s -^ o o ^ T3 3 "B £ 2 T-l r-l CM »-c 'So -S3 B3 •« K. 5 « 2 J Ah K 3 1 ^ O "3 o « ? 5 -fa 3 3 & 2 a 3 £ 3 3 0, a M.3 « ft. a S 54 University of California — Experiment Station T5 t- X > o3 03 o b o b o b lO © ifl © © H5 b b csi © i-h o »n CO 3 fa o 03

bo u T3 a •c § r* »- 02 Jj s * 1 c a: a C c. C "o o 1 t % si c p c 3 rS< o X A 1 J. c s B c * "5 03 H CI - H a T3 d 03 hi 00 = 8 '4 < bl 1 .J .b i- 1 b G ) is 03 s c c - > c c bj C X m i bi C "5 c 1 a X, c J bl o I §£ fl t 8.1 13 g a "S •? .s B fe S .S g 03 3Ph •-s bC a 3 ^- 03 fe •° I S 2 03 > fl .s ■73 > a 2 d *c a 'a *a a ^^ 2 t M a .s t i s2 1 > h c "5 'c o S 9 ft & rQ o o o Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 55 THE CALENDAR OF OPERATIONS The calendar of operations given in table 21 is typical. It shows what tasks must be performed to take care of the orchards and vineyard, and to harvest and handle the mature crops. Chores and other routine work have not been included. A discussion of this phase is given under the general description of calendar of operations on page 15. The amount of man labor required to operate a fruit farm such as this, requires a total of 875% man days annually of which the operator can personally perform only 205% . As there are on the average a total of 278 days a year available for soil and tree work, the operator utilizes 73.9 per cent of his time productively. To assist him in taking care of all tasks he must employ additional help amounting to more than three times the amount that he himself can contribute, or 76.5 per cent of the total man labor requirements. In addition he must hire the picking of grapes and the hauling of his fruits to shipping points. These are shown (table 21), however, as contract work and are not reduced to a day- labor basis. No provision can be made for the steady employment of men because of the varying nature of the work which necessitates the employment of different classes of workers (e.g., pruners, spraymen, fruit thinners, fruit pickers, irrigators, etc.), and the hiring of several men at a time for short periods when needed. This results in the necessity for hiring and paying for labor on an hourly or daily basis. One of the interesting features connected with the operation of this farm is the opportunity it provides for a well-rounded program for the operator. It is expected and planned that the operator handles the culti- vation ; cleans the ditches ; operates and services the tractor ; helps with the irrigation ; digs borers ; ties, suckers, and dusts the grapevines ; helps with the orchard pruning and brush burning ; assists in propping ; super- vises the harvest ; and hauls the fruit from the orchard and vineyard to where it is picked up by the contract hauler. This program, as shown in table 22, provides work throughout the year. Yet notwithstanding the well-distributed amount of work it is evident from table 22 that with the exception of June, the operator has some spare time available for other productive uses every month in the year. The months in which he has the greatest amount of available time are from July to October, and again in January and March. This condition indicates the desirability of testing alternative propositions. 56 University op California — Experiment Station TABLE 22 Utilization of Operator's Time on a 40-Acre Fruit Farm and Days Available for Additional Work Number of man days* Month Operator employed Operator i reef November December 22.0 20.0 16 19.5 7.5 20.0 25 26.0 16.0 14 5 9.0 10.0 4 6.0 10 4 5 March.. April 18.5 6.0 1 June July August September October 0.0 10.0 ll.fi 17.0 16.0 Total 205.5 104 5 * 9-hour day. t Based on a 26-work-day month except February which is a 24-work- day month. FINANCIAL RESULTS Pertinent data relating to items of investment, total yield of market- able products, selling prices, and costs of operation and maintenance of the 40-acre fruit farm were compiled for use in testing the financial re- sults of the farm business for a typical year. These data and the analysis of the financial results are presented in the sections which follow. Investment Items. — Items, representing the total investment required to completely equip this farm as a fully developed and operating unit, are listed in detail below. Land: 40 acres; leveled and ditched; supplied with water by the Turlock Irrigation District Buildings and structures : Farm dwelling, septic tank, and garage. These items, though necessary, are not deemed a part of the farm business Implement shed for housing tractor, truck, implements, orchard and vineyard equipment Water tank, tower, pump, motor, piping and fittings for lifting and distributing domestic water supply 4 canal headgates 76 outlet boxes from ditches to checks Motive power : Tractor, 10-horsepower (drawbar rating) Motor truck, 1%-ton capacity Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 57 Spike-tooth harrow, 3-5% -ft. sections Reversible disk rielger Bucket scraper 2 spray-mixing barrels 12 picking buckets 12,000 tree props and hooks Seed broadcaster, hand (Lug boxes rented from fruit buyer) Implements and machinery : 2-12-inch moldboard plow. 5-ft. double disk harrow Spring-tooth harrow, 3-4% -ft. sections Orchard and vineyard equipment : Brush burner 12 ladders 3 pruning shears, long handled 3 pruning shears, hand 3 pruning saws Sulfur duster, hand Tools, hand implements, and minor equipment : 4 metal tappoons (for use in irrigating) Carpenter *s tools Carpenter's vise Set of mechanic 's tools Mechanic f s vise Pick, shovels, hoes, crowbar, axe, grindstone, etc. Whitewashing brush, rubber boots, gopher traps, etc. Oil cans, funnels, gasoline can, etc. This list of equipment comprises the minimum needed to carry on the farm work. It presupposes ability on the part of the operator to do minor jobs of carpentering, implement repairing, tractor and truck maintenance. Statement of Production. — The total yield of marketable products annually produced on this farm and upon which the gross income is cal- culated is given in table 23. TABLE 23 Production and Amounts of Crops Available for Sale on a 40 -Acre Fruit Farm Canning peaches Canning apricots Juice grapes tons 8 160 160 tons 4 32 32 tons 6 60 60 Financial Statement. — The unit factors involved in the production and maintenance of this farm and the financial results of a typical year 's business, with selected data on yields, selling prices, and costs of opera- tion are set forth in detail in table 24. The net farm income is $872.12 when selling prices and costs are as given in the financial statement (table 24). If this income is not suffi- cient to satisfy or to meet obligations of the operator, particularly if a 58 University op California — Experiment Station TABLE 24 Income and Expenses of a 40-Acre Fruit Farm Annual gross income Canning peaches, 160 tons at $20.00. Canning apricots, 32 tons at $30.00... Juice grapes, 60 tons at $22.50 Total $3,200.00 960.00 1,350.00 $5,510.00 Annual expenses Hired labor: 4.765K hours at $0.25 $1,191.38 1,264J^ hours at $"0.30 v (pruning and spraying) Materials and supplies: Covercrop seed: 379.35 33.60 420 pounds vetch at $0.08 33.60 Gasoline, 630 gallons at $0.15 94.50 Oil, 32 gallons at $0.64 20.48 Grease, 26 pounds at $0.25 6.50 Spray materials : Bluestone, 2,120 pounds at $0.08 169.60 Quicklime, 2,208 pounds at $0.01 22.08 Lime-sulfur, 1,000 gallons at $0.18 180.00 18.00 Grape containers, 4,800 No. 2 grape lugs at $0.10 Contract work : Picking and field-packing grapes, 60 tons at $3.00 Rental of lugs, 7,680 at $0.01 480.00 180.00 76.80 378.00 224.80 2.80 Repairs and upkeep of equipment: Buildings*, 5.0 per cent of $681.00 34.05 8.88 Tractor, 2.1 per cent of $973.00 20.43 Truck, 2.7 per cent of $600.00 16.20 Implements and machinery, 2.8 per cent of $503.00... Orchard and vineyard equipment, 0.7 per cent of $2,013.00 14.08 14.09 Small tools and minor equipment, 1.4 per cent of $83.00 1.16 Domestic pumping plant, 0.5 per cent of $548.00 Taxes: 2.74 170.24 76.00 6.84 4.18 5.93 5.32 8.00 15.20 Implements, machinery (based on average value) 3.80 * Dwelling, garage, and septic tank not included. Btjl. 544] Tests op Farm Organization Annual expenses — (Concluded) 59 Depreciation of equipment: Buildings*, 5.0 per cent of $681.00 $ 34.05 43.66 Tractor, 10.0 per cent of $973.00 97.30 Truck, 6.0 per cent of $600.00 36.00 Truck tires, 20.0 per cent of $95.00 19.00 Implements and machinery, 10.0 per cent of $503.00.... 50.30 352.28 Small tools and minor equipment, 13.2 per cent of $83.00 10.96 Domestic pumping plant, 7.4 per cent of $548.00 Insurance Truck, 1.6 per cent of $600.00 40.55 9.60 Employers' liability, 2.9 per cent of $1,570.73 45.55 Total $4,637.88 Net farm income Gross income Expenses Net farm income $5,510.00 4,637.88 $ 872.12 * Dwelling, garage, and septic tank not included. heavy indebtedness requires the payment of substantial sums for inter- est on borrowed money and repayment of principal, then ways of in- creasing net income warrant attention. Thinning of fruit, with its ac- companying outlay of $487.00, is liable to be lessened or other operations neglected even though contrary to good farming practices. One tend- ency is to utilize amounts of money which should be set aside for upkeep and replacement of equipment. Such practices are detrimental in the long run and should be resorted to only in cases of extreme urgency. The appropriation of the money reserved for repairs and depreciation would add $795.73 to the operator's cash funds, but this practice is inadvisable because the time will eventually come when lack of funds to maintain working equipment will cause substantial depletion of the farm capital. EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN BASIC DATA Effect of Change in Selling Prices. — An increase in the selling price of any one or all of the commodities produced on this farm would favor- ably affect the net farm income. Assuming prices of $45.00 a ton for apricots, $32.50 a ton for juice grapes, and $35.00 a ton for canning peaches, the gross farm income would be increased to $8,990.00. With costs remaining the same as those given in table 24, the net income from this farm would thereby be increased to $4,352.12. 60 University of California — Experiment Station Conversely, if prices obtainable for the fruit crops of this farm de- creased to $15.00 a ton for apricots, $10.00 a ton for peaches, and $20.00 a ton for grapes, the gross farm income would be reduced to $3,280.00, which, with expenses of $4,637.88 (table 24), results in a net loss of $1,357.88. Effect of Increased Yields. — Attention may well be paid to ways and means of producing better yields. If it is possible to increase the yields from the rates used in testing the original plan of this 40-acre fruit farm to those shown in table 25, the effect upon net farm income, shown in the same table, is sufficiently great to justify all reasonable effort to bring this about. TABLE 25 Effect of Increased Yields on - Income of a 40-Acre Fruit Farm with Basic Selling Prices and Costs Remaining the Same Yields per acre Original total income Total income with increased yields Increase in income Product Original yield Increased yield over original production tons tons Apricots, canning* 4 6 $ 960.00 $1,440.00 $ 480.00 Juice grapes* 6 8 1,350.00 1,800.00 450.00 Peaches, canning* 8 12 3,200.00 4,800.00 1,600.00 Total gross income 5,510.00 8,040.00 2,530.00 Expenses 4,637.88 5,547. 13t 909.25 Net farm income $ 872.12 $2,492.87 $1,620.75 * The acreage for these crops are: apricots, 8 acres; grapes, 10 acres; and peaches, 20 acres, t Adjusted to cover additional cost of harvesting larger yields. Yields such as these are by no means unattainable. They are being secured on the better lands and by the more competent orchardists. They are certainly worth the effort if there is a promise of obtaining them without incurring a corresponding increase in expense. On the other hand, the orchardist should be aware that neglect or carelessness will reduce his yields of marketable fruit. Any substantial reduction in the yields produced will materially reduce the earnings of that orchard. CHANGES IN ENTERPRISES Analysis of the calendar of operations indicates that the orchardist, whose major activities now center in the handling of a 40-acre orchard, has some available time that he could devote to additional productive labor. This suggests the possibility of farming additional acreage, doing custom work with his tractor, drying fruit instead of selling it fresh, or adding a livestock enterprise. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 61 To increase the acreage farmed, the operator would be confronted with the problem of obtaining control of additional land by purchase or lease. He would further be confronted with the problem of selecting crops or livestock enterprises for the additional acreage obtained which would least interfere with the operation of the present organization. For the operator who can command the necessary finances and who pos- sesses the requisite ability to handle a larger tract of land, this proposal has possibilities. The utilization of spare time, by contracting with neighboring farmers to do plowing, disking, or other tractor operations, offers an excellent opportunity for the operator to increase his annual income, provided such work is not allowed to interfere with the proper care of his farm. Effect of Drying Fruit. — Under some conditions and when suitable varieties are produced, the grower has the alternative (and possible necessity) of drjdng his fruit instead of selling it fresh. This raises a question concerning the financial feasibility of such procedure. The answer lies in calculating and comparing the probable gross incomes, costs, and net incomes obtainable from each of the two practices. For purposes of comparison, assuming that varieties suited for fresh ship- ment or drying are being produced, a test will be made of the effect on net income of drying the apricots and peaches produced on this 40-acre fruit farm. If the fruit dries on a ratio of 4 to 1 (4 tons of fresh fruit making 1 ton of dried fruit) this farm will have for sale, in place of the 32 tons of fresh apricots and 160 tons of fresh peaches, 8 tons of dried apricots, 2 tons of apricot pits, and 40 tons of dried peaches. The peach pits have no market value. Certain changes will occur in the basic costs already set forth if dry- ing takes the place of selling fresh. These changes include : 1. Fewer hours are required to pick fruit as less care need be exercised in picking fruit for drying than for canning (or ship- ping). The rate for picking apricots is 1,200 pounds per man day instead of 1,000 pounds, or a saving for the 8 acres of 94% hours. The rate of picking peaches for drying is 2,000 pounds per man day instead of 1,500 pounds. This means a saving of 481V2 hours in picking the 20 acres of peaches. 2. Cost of cutting is an added expense. 3. Labor for drying requires an expenditure of 336 man hours to dry the apricots and 1,760 hours to dry the peaches. 4. Sulfur must be purchased for use in drying, amounting to 256 pounds for the apricots and 1,260 pounds for the peaches. 5. Seventy-two sacks are needed for the apricot pits. 62 University of California — Experiment Station 6. Drying equipment involves an investment of $2,125. The charge for upkeep, depreciation, taxes, and insurance amounts to $211.25 annually, chargeable to the fruit dried. 7. Hauling fruit to shipping point — a contract operation — is re- duced from 32 tons to 10 tons in the case of the apricots, and from 160 tons to 40 tons for peaches. 8. Instead of renting lug boxes the farm must invest $150.00 in 600 lug boxes to care for the apricots, or $500.00 for 2,000 lug boxes to care for the peaches, or both the apricots and peaches if the two crops are dried. The annual charge for boxes amounts to $0.08 each when farm owned. Fig. 8. — The drying of such tree fruits as freestone peaches and apricots, though entailing additional equipment and added expenses, offers opportunities for in- creasing net farm income and supplies an additional outlet for products of the area. After allowing for these changes and assigning 25 cents an hour for picking, 12 cents per 50-pound lug for cutting apricots, and 5 cents per 50-pound lug for cutting peaches, 30 cents an hour for dry-yard labor, 4 cents a pound for sulfur, 5 cents each for second-hand sacks, and other costs as already indicated, the results are summarized and given in table 26. TABLE 26 Cost of Drying Apricots and Peaches on a 40-Acre Fruit Farm Drying costs for 8 acres of apricots* 20 acres of peaches* Both peaches and apricots Net added cost $404.91 12.65 $ 50.60 $767.27 4 80 $19.32 $960.33 Additional cost of drying per green ton . Additional cost per dried ton 5.00 $ 20 00 Production in tons of fresh fruit is 32 tons of apricots and 160 tons of peaches. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 63 The figures given in table 26 show that if apricots or peaches are dried, to produce a net farm income equal to that received from fresh fruits (e.g., $20.00 for peaches and $30.00 for apricots) the dried fruit must sell for four times as much (to allow for loss in weight through drying) plus the cost of drying. Thus, apricots which will bring $30.00 as fresh fruit must command a selling price of $170.60 a ton for the dried pro- duct (or 8.5 cents a pound). Likewise a price of $99.20 a ton for dried peaches (5.0 cents a pound) corresponds to $20.00 a ton for fresh fruit. If both can be sold fresh at a weighted price of $21.67 a ton then the cor- responding price for dried fruit must be $109.92 a ton (or 5.5 cents a pound) to be equal. There is a direct relation between prices of fresh and dried fruit as these affect the net income. If peaches sold fresh bring $20.00 a ton, and the price of the dried fruit is in excess of 5.1 cents a pound, drying pays. If the price for dried peaches is less than 5.1 cents a pound, drying does not pay. The relation of $30.00 a ton fresh and 8.6 cents a pound dried holds for apricots. Effect of Adding a 500-Fowi Poultry Enterprise. — The effect on net income of adding a 500-fowl poultry flock to this 40-acre fruit farm can be tested by the procedure presented in detail (pages 44 to 48) for the 40-acre field-crops farm. The first point to be considered is whether or not the operator has the time available to care for the flock. By comparing time left free from orchard operations with the work required by the flock, it is evident that there will be no undue piling up of work from July to October and during February and March. The operator may be obliged to work more than 9 hours a day or have additional help during the remaining months as follows : Additional labor required in care of poultry Month in man days November 4.0 December „ 2.0 February 3.5 April 2.0 May 7.0 June 8.0 Total additional days 26.5 Hired labor could be employed for the equivalent of 26% man days or the operator could perform this additional labor required by working a longer day (e.g., approximately 1% hours more a day in November and February, 1 hour more in December and April, 2% hours more in May, and 3 hours more in June) or else work on Sundays. While this can be done, for most orchardists it is not likely to prove attractive. However, 64 University of California — Experiment Station should the need for additional income be paramount, the adding of this poultry enterprise will increase the net farm income by $567.91, less any interest and repayment of borrowed funds required to finance the change. If there are no such deductions, then the net farm income can be raised from $872.12 from fruit alone to $1,440.03 by combining a poultry enterprise with the orchard. FINANCIAL RESULTS OF A 20-ACRE FRUIT FARM Since a large number of the fruit farms in the Turlock area consist of 20 acres instead of the 40-acre size used in this test, it will be well to examine the financial showing on these smaller units. Assuming the same kinds of crops, in the same proportional acreage, with selling prices, yields, and costs as given in the basic detailed table, the showing is as follows : Gross income $2,755.00 Expenditures 2,490.76 Net farm income 264.24 Several influences tend to result in a small annual net farm income. One is low yields. Another is a relatively low level of selling prices (in comparison with prices of former years). A third is the heavy invest- ment required for implements and machinery. Other than fewer props, the investment is about the same as that needed to equip a 40-acre fruit farm. A relatively higher per-acre charge for depreciation and mainte- nance of equipment must be met on the 20-acre farm and this automat- ically affects the net farm income. The charge for use of the tractor is high. It is utilized but 24% days a year at a total annual cost (not in- cluding interest) of $206.80. A question arises whether the keeping of two horses in place of a tractor would be more economical. The cost of keeping two horses amounts to $213.49 annually, which indicates no pos- sible saving by substituting horses for the tractor. Furthermore, the change might require the erection of a small barn and the procuring of harness, collars, halters, etc., at an added investment of about $312.00. If the farm is not equipped, the initial investment for horses would be less. With horses costing $125.00, the total investment would amount to $562.00 against the $973.00 required for the tractor. Equipping with horses instead of a tractor will necessitate a constant round of chores from which the tractor now relieves the operator. The operator on a 20-acre farm such as this is kept busier than on a 40-acre farm. The calendar of operations for this 20-acre fruit farm shows a total need for 461 man days of which the operator can perform But,. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 65 219 days of labor. On a 278-day year his efficiency is thus 79 per cent, but even so, some time would be available for other productive labor. This is shown in table 27. TABLE 27 Utilization of Operator's Time on a 20-Acre Fruit Farm and Days Available for Additional Work Number of man days* Month Operator Operator employed freet November 22.0 4.0 December 20.0 6.0 January 8.0 18.0 February 16.0 8.0 March 10 5 15.5 April 21.0 5.0 May 24.0 2.0 June 26.0 0.0 July 26.0 0.0 August 26.0 00 September 14.0 11.0 October 5.0 21.0 Total 219.0 91.0 * 9-hour day. t Based on a 26-work-day month except February which is a 24-work- day month. In considering additional work the months of April to August inclu- sive should be kept in mind. These months reflect a rather full-time schedule and any added enterprises should be of such a nature that they do not make excessive demands during these spring and summer months. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF A 40-ACRE TRUCK FARM This farm is primarily used for the production of cantaloupes and Honey Dew melons, with alfalfa and an occasional green-manure crop included in the rotation to improve or maintain the crop-producing power of the land, and some barley hay for feed for work stock. A 9-year rotation is the basis of the cropping plan, consisting of alfalfa, 3 years ; barley hay and melons, double-cropped, 1 year ; cantaloupes, 4 years, with a green-manure crop added between the second and third crops ; melons, 1 year. To distribute the work, maintain a fairly steady income year after year, and provide for a uniform acreage in crops, three fields of 121/2 acres each are provided and the balance of the acreage (2% acres) is utilized by farmstead, ditches, and lanes. The basic plan is given in table 28. 66 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 28 Kotation of Crops on a 40-Acre Truck Farm Year of rotation Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 j Barley hay followed by melons Cantaloupes 2 Alfalfa 3 Alfalfa., Cantaloupes and a green Barley hay followed by melons 4 5 Alfalfa 6 Cantaloupes and a green Melons Alfalfa 7 8 Alfalfa Cantaloupes g Alfalfa manure crop The basic rotation is indicated in its logical order in Field 1. The place in the rotation of the other two fields is shown in the last two columns of table 28. As in the case of the field-crops farm, each 3-year period of the rotation is a repetition of the first period, so far as acreage of crops is concerned. The annual crop acreages for each of the 3 typical years of the rotation are given in table 29. TABLE 29 Crop Acreages for Each of the 3 Typical Years of the Rotation on a 40-Acre Truck Farm Order of rotation Crop First year Second year Third year Alfalfa, new seeding acres 12.5 0.0 12.5 | 12.5 acres 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 25.0 acres 0.0 Alfalfa, mature 12.5 Melo7s. ha . y ..} Double - Cr ° PPed 0.0 12.5 12.5 Farming Practices. — These consist of the usual farm practices cus- tomarily followed by growers of these crops in the Turlock area. The details are set forth in the calendars of operations (tables 30, 31, and 32) prepared for this farm. Yields. — The yields of marketable products used in testing the effi- ciency of labor and the net income obtainable from this farming plan are as follows : Biil. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 67 Alfalfa (new seeding) 2 tons per acre Alfalfa (mature) 5 tons per acre Barley hay 2 tons per acre Cantaloupes 150 standard crates per acre Melons 6 tons per acre T M ^M 1* I T BPy - M Fig. 9. — ^4, Honey Dew melons are being harvested for sale to cash buyers. B, Loads of melons arriving by team and by truck at one of the typical melon markets where cash buyers bid on each individual lot. Such markets provide an outlet for the bulk of the melon crop in the Turlock area. THE CALENDAR OF OPERATIONS Tables 30, 31, and 32 present a calendar of operations for each of the 3 typical years of the rotation when operations differ. Each shows the operations to be performed, the size of the equipment used, the amount of work done a day, and the total labor requirements — both man and horse. Chores and other routine labor are not included, for the reasons already given on page 15. 68 University of California — Experiment Station fc o H «4 H O W fe o « m ■5 0) H P< >H 3 o 88 K rr) ti PI 03 2 3 n Ph 3 M £ rd c4 H s 03 «1 o •* 03 <* rO o ef h QQ 03 O 03 H fcJO ««| pj a o t: fc v -' o M ««J fc w (J <1 L. ■ >, 31 1 >n o © © o I CO © © s mnt ator do, days «■ «f > >o U5 Amc oper can man e~ c ei © AuM ej 1 " O ■2 E jj C£ •* 03 >>_ •-I > °3-*; <3 u on oo CI g> 03 >> S-3 o m o <= 1—1 T- 1 C O O »C O O 1 w n h n n 1 *" 1 >-i '3 (-1 ™ >> o m >c o <= I c O O O O © 1 c ° i ° > © »o © | »o o es O o3 ■>*< OS i- 1 W k) 03 or a on V (0 ^ oo oo oo to ® o* o» O* 0) 00 8 00 01 H k *- I- H |, t, »4 (. C |H E S u h 5) c c c O w o o o o o o ■s-S s 03 oj 03 a ■ c3 03 03 03 o3 03 fS|i OS o- O CN "5 O O >0 O oo Oa OS © cc (D CO "O !C 'j' Oi CO •- ""* (!■ fc i 03 03 -C 3 -a ^ a 03 "2 s c 1 ,c c i.1 1- 2| ^ a i ■ft pc "a "§ & > '£ 9- o^ 3 a ^ ^ ^ >> ^ s p. c P a: 5 1 16" a a K js c 6 ■S 1 'a a '3 c a _c c •3 . to a *V ^ ^ I) « i3 G 03 09 0) * tH ec c ^H § oo C to _o a "5 a a 1 > C |? 00 ^, S M a o a 2 O £ a b ti a c 03 P- b C ° "2 5 t- 1 ) I C •■'5 E 5 ) 1 C 0) oo s 03 '£ 6o a c .= ^ 'S > O 61 to O Q X. • 1 1 1 1 "3 3 c o> rt o> c oo C ^ a o> a 03 o J bo-— -5 a o3 i r a o 09 s a f s 6 C '$ t to "c s ffi H ^ to <5 to to > b a o £ S S3 a § a g 3 c Q 03 to Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization iO o t> © © o *n © © o o f 05 ^ o l-H «-l CM .2 I Is p w GO H I 049 3 gSQS O » 60 d o rt "C a a gsuu 70 University of California — Experiment Station -4 >> «« o 13 « IC «5 IC US O N H H rt ^1 lO o us o o »-i ^* © rH "v 5 IF o tN £ t2 -^ S Ph ^ cc K * o •3 5 •§ A E W do O 03 T3 bo g I a 1 1 .§ | g § P3 02 K KH 13 W $3 a -s .a a Si S « Ph Ph 3 3 AP 15 Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 71 m *ti © o © © ^H i-H ,-1 ON ■o >« u> © >o »o ~* C_ <- t* t_ o o o o o c Ci Co Cj cj 7t C3 ©©©©©© 00 ^ oo oi od oi (-. 1- - a • • ,B O .2 £ £ o bo 2 "'iEl 43 T3 3 ^ o O fc ■: d > a a 3 « 52 »; S»S5 .-s & .3 n -*j .X ° Q. m « 3 a> *< 3 O « B o *~ ' 03 © bO _, "» B 2 i-i 'a % si* .* & a bO Ph 3 § ._ o 0) M .5 03 = 1 to C 72 University of California — Experiment Station s pa . >> a IQ CO a e Amount operator can do, man days o o "5 © ob oo S uM •3 oo & 03 >>_ < W 03 CO «5 ■<»< (M 03 a V a § '3 o> 8 03 S-3 o ■*< 13 >0 O IQ o >o Ml © © o Tti © W5 8g> O 03 o 1 *" o o © © o © © h o cc ci b © © 1 o «b © © © ^ © © © 1 © O0 1 (35 * »b 00 4) 03 03 03 III! !J © © © © CM 00 CO X M H rt rt 03 03 03 ™ 5 3 s i © CNI 00 » •• hi] o3 X ll »|J Ills-? 6 X a 8 # g '3 a bo a ft ft o3 £ n "a a E c "c c T b C 'i c 5 1 '-3 1 03 n o3 t> < oti D 3 b ■A 'k it c o * 4 b "J 1 03 a o © o » * a .g © 6 1 "S.E .. E « 41 03 > CO t ■Si £ a • 5 1 t £ c c 5 o b t i 1 b II » ■ S B 03 ^ "a? a D S | 1 O oil a bi o '■§ c .. aj 4! oo > C i— t at t- c c S o b c s EC > a! c ' 1 i i b p X c i 1 »- a a > c t Eh c o a c £ <2 t •8 1 Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 73 < ■a O & 2 CO II a o o © o d o d o eo Amount operator can do, man days o CN o © o 00 d o ■8-8 g 03 £>,_* J*t3°3 < W CO t^ «o "* - CN ED g '3 c o 08 S-3 O I o CM 1 CM © d © O | o CO «S 00 O to 1 IQ CN 00© O O O O I o oo co co eo 1 CN Is O S3 O I o o © O O 1 o OS io •** «-h 1 *< 00 CM 1 CN © O © O 1 © CO 00 eo CO CO 03 fe o CO CO S £ « o C3 03 OO OS CO u « 03 OS CO CO CO CO cv a> u a) o « Ii s rt 03 03 03 »rt o o o O T»i 00 00 0) e .2* '3 cr "3 as •T is "5 c > ^ _« T * 1 a CO i 03 "o o 'ft CO d *■ i c 03 ft 5S CD s co W CN ec co cm eo cn eo cn cs» CD - r* -H ^H CN CO a p o 3 a o a O O cf 4 C £ « e c "i c ' 1 c "a? (i <1 1 a t g -2*5 |i o » B a t •i jj B Q f c 5 "i I c a! ,|.£ D 1 s'l !J 9 5 u "a > cc - e 1 ' c 1 (- B IE 1 h 1 Ph 1 J c ,4 C o a E c 1 > •-5 > >- u (2 i 03 74 University of California — Experiment Station SIS s SB 2 ff S 55 S el ^ ° a •8-2 1 eS >>_ 03 S" £-3 O c3 * b n © «s © © ^* © m esj o © co co O O © iO o "5 O © O O H -< H « N o o o © © «S M M M X o o o o o CO CM © CO © © o © © o © CO © a> as c) a; b S3 53 & s © © © © © « 00 O) 00 d .-h $ 5 3> o 2 « tX 00 £ £ 0Q S3 ^ H N N _(^ rt _ ." S T3 o « a '•? 2 m >-i »-* g o 3 4 .2 '3 *> "3 03 o 03 83 Ph w w 9 w ft, o 76 University of California — Experiment Station CD u s co ot3 a CM o 10 Amount operator can do, man days CO o CM CM >^3 (M CM CM in CM OQ fl S § 3 l 13 SL "5 O "5 1 O CO CM © 1 0> © O | o io oo eo O CM CM 1* O O O I o 00 © i-i 1 OS "0 O 1 >o CO CO CM H | CM © OS CM V s 03 © oo co 0) u a 03 CM CO fl CD £ a '3 cr fl 03 is & CD c 09 S "a £ i— i 5 c is c 5 c 4 1 '-5 4 m S 1 w cm CM 13 0> CM CM - co | CD a o a o O 3 o 13 fl o g CO 03 0) s e3 .. u^ 1 - 2 "o3 5 08-5 c b _c i "E t h- a E c t pi I c E- .s 3 u 2 CC co 03 cd a .. * co i| g a 5) & * is "£ .5 a 1.1 S"e < u 1 — e E- > c > .3 fl o 1 6 CD a o O Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 77 02 "S ft co >> u sS is a o d O © © © © © "5 Amount operator can do, man days o CM o d © CO W5 © 03 >>_ (-. o 53 © I o CM ■f c > H CO 4< a 4- c3 J? ^3 O O io c "C a CO 53 'a co * CO a 3 -^ o .Z a « S 4 CO V CD 1 (M co CM CO o < H "o3 O li sS ' «S c < ) : i ' 1 c X c. T E - c 6 C "i e ; C. ! § | . o i J* .1 C j | ; i go .{•I O 1 o t IS .2 e b ' c 1 "> c ) H i t c t. «- a U 1 c 1 5 CN c •2 2 ) E- C o CO S ,4 "2 O c li 5 j u ,5 a 1 I 1 i i 4 U3 ej a 78 University of California — Experiment Station oo W.3 § w ) &■ s Amount operator can do, man days oc JJ i-^ r^ O fe C3 1 " P ra « ? oc 03 >>_ > o3--r io c c o c CM CS «o >o >c *« ir O | w CO - 1 c- o io o o o o H H H« N '3 D 1 0) •« °J m s-c o 03 00 >, O o3 o c CO . , <-C o c c c O « C c c o 5 c o « +jj^ g o3 oa ac 03 03 K c- a 8 03 03 i +j 03 03 tj o o c c c C O © C C c c C O O c o o oo eo 2 rH 00 OC ac ■«# oc oc 00 CO "" rt 00 ^ ,H t. f- i ec cc X ,C X bO 1 CD "S a a '3 c o ^ a £ p: I ,1 1 a 3 ^ ° a bo oo .a * Z b - p: .£ h D a CO 'a oo £h c h 1 a ) JO a CM a g ^ +5 -^5 x "" 22 S -d a c3 09 £ £ g ..1 1 b c 1 t c 1 ^ 3 --S S3 ■« a bO -^ bO C '43 "3 b « e ^ 'S £3 5 » b c IS 6j O.S oo a M b .S c 2 '"S 1 1 5 X °3 111 ■= g fc o « in 1 g "S 11 o ^S J A % a « M ►5 m c c o3 Ph o c c 73 p: a "c >H < O § E- PL| < X a o 3 a >> as «< S Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 79 m m ie> i« o m io io o ic -H co o o © o o o o CO CO O O ^H co oo ai co a) t; t) » v >-l (h (h tH tH O O O V o o o o o o a> a> o o o o o o o v o o o o o V « « V - ~ s- JH o o o « c3 c3 c3 c3 o o o o QO 0O © OJ 3 •« "2 o 3 *J 03 M £2S« S s I ill 11 £ .9 £ fa Mm OHOhAP -g "5 ,o .2 M fee M -3 -a « C -h .4 <3 ^SOfe 3 -2 » > 1 3 .2 u Mm g^ £ SP2.2 'in 3 o 3 3 '«-> -* fe § 3 80 University of California — Experiment Station T3 <- © Amount operator can do, man days CO CN »o ■8-sg c3 >>_ **3 CO a (S G cd a ,2 "ft a c cX DC c 1 cr 1 ' 1 (X a b e b C | P- 1 i c c 3 1 02 i bO 3 • 1 CD 03 O w CM CN CN CN CN ~* S oj S 8 g © w ^ W 3 1 03 7*3 2 Sh o 0) O 03 cfl ^ a a bO °3 «" I ill* , g 1 i g eS fi W "a. w c « 1 ca .a ,2 E § o oo s .11 3" 'J 1 2 "3 *3 a a 1 a a CO O 1 bO _ at 1 s C£ ! * X t •X bi E 1 Ph 03 O ^ 1 ii-s to M 03 Ml § a a ^ ft -J 3 fl .5 d i § 1 a 3 j o "a? 1=1 O "S o s c 8 bO c b CO •- •- P •* CO > c h3 h % ■& a 'I a a 05 1 bfi _ •St 1! 1 c J3 1 ) Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 81 "5 o cm 00 CO CO o o «5 CM ic O tes | O co cq o 1 oi O O O O O 1 o •O N •* H 1-H CO O CXI CM O O O 1 o « O H O) iO O O O O | iO CO O 00 O CM CO o § CM 1 o 03 O oo 18.0 acres 3.0 acres 18.0 acres 13.0 acres "a > c c £ 4 1 C 'f 1 1 c I T P i 03 o o 1 si 4 u is iSS b p p i 1 a: q c •1 1 c Eh a a. > t a ! £i o o o 82 University of California — Experiment Station The annual man-labor requirements of this farm for each of the 3 typical years of the rotation amount to 251%? 227, and 220% man days of labor with an average for the 3 years of 233 man days. The yearly requirements do not vary materially from year to year. Of this total the operator can take care of 188, 152%, and 152 days respectively. Based on the 245 days a year available for field work, the operator's efficiency is 62.7 per cent, 50.8 per cent, and 50.7 per cent respectively for each of the 3 years, with a general average of 54.7 per cent. This is not a particularly high degree of efficiency. "With this scheme of crop- ping, the amount of labor which must be hired varies from 25.2 per cent to 32.8 per cent of the total needs, with an average for the 3-year period of 29.7 per cent. This extra labor is required at intervals throughout the year ranging from % man day to a maximum of 28% man days a month. During 11 of the 36 months of the rotation no hired labor is required. The irregularity of need prevents the hiring of a regular man. Reliance must, therefore, be placed upon obtaining day labor when needed. A low degree of efficiency in the use of horses results in a high cost per day of use and indicates the possibility of reducing the number of horses main- tained and hiring such additional horse work as is necessary to meet the peak labor needs. TABLE 33 Number of Days Operator of a 40-Acre Truck Farm Has Available for Additional Work* First year Second year Third year Month Total t For soil workj Totalf For soil workj Totalf For soil workj 1 2 3 4 5 6 November 13 5 15.5 13.5 13.5 5.0 8.0 3.0 7.5 10.0 14 18.5 122.0 4.5 5.5 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 100 13.0 14.5 57.0 24.0 26.0 18.0 13.5 6.0 8.0 3.0 6.0 2.0 21.5 19.5 14.0 157.5 15.0 160 6.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 21.5 18.5 10 96.5 24.0 26.0 23.0 13.5 5.5 8.0 3.0 4.5 2 5 13.5 19.5 15.0 158.0 15.0 December 16.0 January 11.0 February 0.5 2.5 April 0.0 0.0 June 4.5 July 2.5 13.5 September 18.5 October 11.0 Total 95.0 * Labor requirements of this cropping plan are based on a 9-hour work day. t Time available for additional work is the difference between the time needed for carrying on the present organization and a 26-day month, except February, which is a 24-day month. It might be used for work away from the farm, for types of work not limited by climatic conditions, such as the handling of livestock, pruning of trees, etc., or for soil work to the extent given in columns 2, 4, and 6. % Of the total number of days available for additional work the figures in columns 2, 4, and 6 show the amount each month which can be used in performing additional soil operations under average weather conditions. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 83 An examination of these calendars shows a fairly even distribution of the operator 's labor throughout the 3 years. There are 2 months during the 3 years when no work occurs, other than the usual chores. There is but 1 month, likewise, during the 3 years, when the operator is fully employed. The rest of the time he is kept busy at productive labor for a varying number of days each month, ranging from 2 to 24 days a month. As a result there is a certain amount of spare time which could be utilized for additional work. The operator's free time is shown in table 33. The data given in table 33 does not necessarily reflect a criticism of this form of organization. The primary purpose of this table is to point out to the operator the possibilities for making further use of his time than work on this farm now permits. Moreover, the data may also indi- cate that a 40-acre farm so utilized is too small if a high degree of effi- ciency is to be attained and an increased net income secured. FINANCIAL RESULTS To test the financial outcome of the cropping plan devised for this farm, it is necessary to compile data on production and costs and calcu- late net income for each of the 3 typical years of the rotation. These data together with the items of investment required for this form of farm organization are next presented. Investment Items. — The items of investment required to establish and fully equip this farm are as follows : Land: 40 acres; leveled, checked, and ditched; supplied with water by the Turlock Irrigation District Buildings and structures : Farm dwelling, septic tank, and garage. These items, though necessary, are not deemed a part of the farm business. Horse barn, with storage for hay and implements Water tank, tower, pump, motor, piping and fittings for lifting and distributing water to house and livestock Horse corral Cantaloupe packing shed 4 canal headgates 76 outlet boxes from ditches to checks Motive power: 3 horses Automobile (primarily for personal use and not included as a part of the farm business) 84 University of California — Experiment Station Walking cultivator Transplanter Wagon Hay stacker Sweet-potato plow Fresno scraper Melon-planting sled 2 knapsack dusters 6 melon-picking bags Jab planter Eveners, doubletrees, and neck yokes Implements and machinery : 14-in. sulky plow 12-in. walking plow 12-in. lister 6-f t. spring-tooth harrow 10-ft. spike-tooth harrow 4-ft. single-disk harrow 10-ft. plank drag 5-ft. mower 10-ft. rake Riding cultivator Horse equipment: \y<2. sets of work harness 3 horse collars 3 halters and tie chains Curry comb, brush, barn broom, manure fork, hoof rasp, clippers, etc. Tools, hand implements, and minor equipment: 4 metal tappoons (for use in irrigating) Carpenter's tools Carpenter *s vise Small set of mechanic's tools Mechanic 's vise Pick, shovel, hoes, crowbar, axe, grindstone, etc. Rubber boots, gopher traps, etc. Statement of Production. — The total production of crops, amounts reserved for farm use, and balances available for sale during each of the 3 years of the rotation are given in table 34. TABLE 34 Production and Amounts of Crops Available for Sale on a 40-Acre Truck Farm First year Second year Third year Alfalfa hay Canta- loupes Barley hay Melons Alfalfa hay Canta- loupes Alfalfa hay Canta- loupes Melons Yields per acre tons 2 25 25 crates 150 1,875 1,875 tons 2 25 25* tons 6 75 75 tons 5.0 62.5 11. ot 51.5 crates 150 3,750 3,750 tons 5.0 62.5 18.0 44.5 crates 150 1,875 1,875 tons 6 75 Reserved for farm use Available for sale 75 * 18 tons used, balance stored for future use so that no barley hay needs to be raised in third year, t Amount reserved for horse feed. Financial Statement. — The unit factors involved in production and maintenance of this farm and the financial results for each of the 3 typical years of the crop rotation under stated conditions of selling prices of products and costs of the factors of production, are given in detail in table 35. Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 85 TABLE 35 Income and Expenses of a 40-Acre Truck Farm Annual gross income First year Second year Third year Alfalfa at $12.00 a ton* $ 300.00 1,875.00 1,200.00 $3,375.00 $ 618.00 3,750.00 $ 534.00 1,875.00 Honey Dew melons at $16.00 1,200.00 Total : $4,368.00 $3,609.00 Annual expenses First year Second year Third year Hired labor at $2.25 a day of 9 hoursj Materials and supplies: Seed Melilotus indica, 250 pounds at $0.06 Vetch, 188 pounds at $0.08 Cantaloupe at $1.50 a pounds Honey Dew melon at $1.50 a pound Alfalfa at $0.20 a pound Barley at 1)4, cents a pound Lath furrow pipes, 1,650 at $0.05 Dusting material: Nicodust at $0.20 a pound Cantaloupe crates at $0.17f Contract work : Baling alfalfa hay at $2.50 a ton* Making crates, picking and packing cantaloupes at $0.20 a cratet Hauling alfalfa hay to shipping point at $1.25 a ton Hauling cantaloupes to shipping point at $0.03 a cratet Hauling melons to shipping point at $1.00 a ton Renting extra horses at $1.00 a day Irrigation water at $4.50 an acre for 40 acres Electricity, annual pro rata charge Repairs and upkeep of equipment: Buildings, 5.0 per cent of $1,118.00 (Dwelling, garage and septic tank not included) Irrigation structures, 2.4 per cent of $370.00 Implements and machinery, 3.2 per cent of $930.00 Harness, collars, halters, and tie chains, 1.0 per cent of $94.00 Small tools, barn, and minor equipment, 1.3 per cent of $167.00 Domestic pumping plant, 0.5 per cent of $548.00 Veterinary expense Taxes: Land in alfalfa Land in truck crops, farmstead, lanes, and ditches Buildings (based on average value) .v Work animals (based on average value) Implements and machinery (based on average value) Hay $ 142. 57.00 28.50 50.00 10.94 82.50 50.00 318.75 62.50 375.00 31.25 56.25 75.00 3.00 180.00 1.60 55.90 29.76 0.94 2.17 2.74 10.00 40.38 106.10 7.60 4.56 7.07 0.32 $ 167.63 112.50 82.50 50.00 637.50 128.75 750.00 64.38 112.50 180.00 1.60 55.90 29.76 0.94 2.17 2.74 10.00 40.38 106.10 7.60 4.56 7.07 0.32 $ 154.13 15.00 15.04 57.00 28.50 82.50 50.00 318.75 111.25 375.00 55.63 56.25 75.00 180.00 1.60 55.90 29.76 0.94 2.17 2.74 10.00 40.38 106.10 7.60 4.56 7.07 0.32 * First year, 25 tons; second year, 51.5 tons; third year, 44.5 tons, t First year, 1,875 crates; second year, 3,750 crates; third year, 1,875 era X First year, 63.5 days; second year, 74.5 days; third year, 68.5 days. i First year, 38 pounds; second year, 75 pounds; third year, 38 pounds. 86 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE S5— (Concluded) Annual expenses — (Concluded) First year Second year Third year Depreciation of equipment: Buildings, 5.0 per cent of $1,118.00 (dwelling, garage, and septic tank not included) Irrigation structures, 11.8 per cent of $370.00 Work horses, 10.0 per cent of $375.00 Implements and machinery, 10.7 per cent of $930.00 Harness, collars, halters, and tie chains, 16.6 per cent of $94.00 Small tools, barn, and minor equipment, 11.1 per cent of $167.00 Domestic pumping plant 7.4 per cent of $548.00 Insurance: Horse barn, 1.3 per cent of $225.00 Hay in barn, insured for 6 months, annual premium 2.5 per cent of cash valuell Employers' liability, 2.9 per cent of pay roll Total $2 55.90 43.66 37.50 99.51 15.60 18.54 40.55 2.92 2.97 4.14 122.88 $ 55.90 43.66 37.50 99.51 15.60 18.54 40.55 2.92 2.14 4.86 $2,884.96 $ 55.90 43.66 37.50 99.51 15.60 18.54 40.55 2.92 2.14 4.47 $2,172.86 Net farm income First year Second year Third year Average for 3 years $3,375.00 2,122.88 $1,252.12 $4,368.00 2,884.96 $1,483.04 $3,609.00 2,172.86 $1,436.14 $3,784.00 2,393.57 $1,390.43 || On value of $9.50 per ton, first year, 25 tons; second year, 18 tons; third year, 18 tons. With the yields, selling prices, and costs used in this test, the annual net farm income ranges from $1,252.12 to $1,483.04 and averages $1,390.43 per year for the 3-year period. The moderate amount of di- versification included in this cropping program is desirable as it tends to reduce the risk of total failure and to provide for a relatively stable net income from year to year. POSSIBLE CHANGES IN FINANCIAL RESULTS The average annual net income, under the conditions stated, is not high, and if the operator should set as the minimum a net income of $1,800.00 a year to maintain his standard of living, improvement must be sought in one or more ways. Suggestions for ways and means of in- creasing the net income of this farm are: (a) an increase in the price obtainable for the commodities produced for sale, (b) an increase in yields, (c) a change in the cropping program, (d) addition of one or more enterprises, or (e) an increase in the size of business. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 87 Effect of Increase in Selling Prices. — To gain the additional $409.57 required to bring the net farm income up to $1,800.00, prices would have to advance about 10.8 per cent. Instead of $1.00 a crate for canta- loupes, $16.00 a ton for Honey Dew melons, and $12.00 a ton for alfalfa hay as used in the preceding test, the prices received by the grower would have to be increased to $1.11 for cantaloupes, $17.73 for melons, and $13.30 for alfalfa hay. The individual operator is forced to accept the market price prevailing at the time when his crop is ready for har- vest, or in the case of nonperishable commodities, when he is forced to liquidate his stocks in order to obtain cash. The operator's control over selling prices is therefore confined primarily to the success which he attains in producing products of high quality and to the selection of a selling agent who will return to him the maximum amount possible under the market conditions prevailing at the time. However, if the price history of the past few years (1922-23 to 1930-31) should repeat itself these products of the Turlock area would command prices con- siderably higher than those used in the financial test of the farm. It is not beyond the realm of possibility. Effect of Increased Yields. — None of the yields used in calculating these data are exceptionally high; rather they may be termed usual yields. Increase in amount of production is both possible and feasible. Growers of these crops on the better lands and under competent manage- ment are obtaining per-acre yields of 3% tons of alfalfa (year of seed- ing), 8 tons of alfalfa (mature stands), 250 crates of cantaloupes, and 9 tons of melons. Though these are good yields they are by no means exceptional. Ex- ceptional yields run as high as 400 standard crates of cantaloupes per acre, 12 tons of Honey Dew melons, and 10 tons of alfalfa per acre per season from mature stands. There appears to be room for considerable improvement in the yields for farms similar to the one described above and such improvement will have a beneficial result upon the final net farm income obtainable. With the selling prices as given in table 35 and expenditures adjusted to cover the increased production, the net income received from this farm when good yields are obtained during each of the 3 years of the rotation is shown in table 36. The average annual net farm income of $1,390.43 (table 35) , obtained when only usual yields are produced, is increased to $3,008.09 by pro- ducing good yields. Thus an average increase in yields of slightly more than 60 per cent increases the net farm income 117 per cent, with selling prices and costs remaining the same. 88 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 36 Financial Statement of a 40-Acre Truck Farm When Good Yields are Obtained First year Second year Third year Average for 3 years $5,450.00 2,730.70 $2,719.30 $7,318.00 4,025.57 $3,292.43 $5,889.00 2,876.45 $3,012.55 $6,219.00 3,210.91 $3,008.09 Changing the Cropping Program. — Farmers' experiences in the Tur- lock area indicate that the rotation plan used in connection with this farm is that which is required in order to maintain the crop-producing power of the land. Therefore, so far as our present knowledge goes, no change in the general plan as formulated for this farm appears feasible. The particular crops selected for this rotation are merely suggestive of one of the several combinations possible with the large number of field and truck crops adaptable to this area. Whenever conditions war- rant, it is perfectly feasible to substitute in the proper place in the ro- tation, any one of the several other crops adapted to the area and to the particular conditions of the farm. For example, under some conditions sweet potatoes may be substituted for cantaloupes. Where this is pos- sible and contemplated by the operator, the proposed change should be tested in accordance with the methods described in this publication. Suppose the operator wants to know what effect a price of $1.50 per packed crate for sweet potatoes would have upon his net farm income as compared with $1.00 per packed crate of cantaloupes, should he substi- tute 25 acres of sweet potatoes for 25 acres of cantaloupes. He asks two questions: "At this price for sweet potatoes and with a yield of 100 crates of 75 pounds net per acre, will my net income be greater or less than I would obtain with cantaloupes at $1.00 per packed crate ?" and "What price must I get for sweet potatoes to give me the same net income that I could get from cantaloupes at $1.00 per packed crate ? ' ' The answers to these questions may be obtained first by drawing up a calendar of operations and, secondly, by constructing a financial state- ment. The results of these procedures are given in tables 37 and 38. Analysis of the calendar of operations shows that this combination of crops provides a rather full schedule of work for the operator from February to October, totaling 214% man days of productive work for the year, or an efficiency of 87.5 per cent. A total of 213 man days of labor or approximately 50 per cent of the total required labor must be hired. This amounts to a considerable increase over the requirements when cantaloupes are grown during this year of the rotation, but direct BUT,. 544] TESTS OF FARM ORGANIZATION 89 comparison cannot be made with the figures given since the cantaloupe harvest was shown as a contract operation, a customary practice in the area, rather than on the basis of hired day labor. To take care of peak needs extra horses are required in addition to those owned by the operator during February and April. In February it will be necessary to hire a total of 51 horse days or to contract the plowing and hire horses for the extra 10 horse days required. In April an extra horse is required for 8 days in order to complete the harvest of the first cutting of alfalfa and in the preparation of the land for sweet potatoes. Items of equipment required in addition to those listed under ''In- vestment Items" (pages 83, 84) are as follows: 12-in. lister 6-ft. plank drag Sweet potato plow Transplanter The financial results of the year's operation are shown in table 38. The gross income and expenses from the 12% acres of mature alfalfa remain the same as shown in table 35, second year of the rotation. In- come and expenses resulting from growing the 25 acres of sweet potatoes are shown in detail. The financial statement as given in table 38 provides a basis for answering the two questions propounded in an earlier paragraph. The answer to the first question is, obviously, that sweet potatoes during this year of the rotation, under the conditions stated, provide the greater net income by $631.95. The second question, ' ' What price for sweet potatoes corresponds to $1.00 a crate for cantaloupes?" can likewise now be answered. Since 2,500 crates of sweet potatoes produce a net farm income greater by $631.95 than obtained from cantaloupes (alfalfa hay receipts remain- ing constant and hence ignored) the returns from sweet potatoes can drop by this amount or approximately 25 cents a crate and still equal the returns from cantaloupes, or a price of about $0.25 less a crate will produce a corresponding amount of income. This means a selling price of $1.25 a crate of 75 pounds net from sweet potatoes will produce the same net income as that obtainable when cantaloupes sell at $1.00 a crate. Additional Enterprises. — Use of the available time of the operator in connection with an additional enterprise may well be suggested. Though worthy of consideration in connection with a farm such as this, no at- 90 University of California — Experiment Station o M « © o c O Sl§ o o c d CO a >unt ator do, days c c c o c c cr. CN >^-. 1—1 c CM c oc 1 c c c 1 G o cmi >c o "3 O C 6 cq « o o o CO CMI lO o O CM) 1 1-H >o '3 o e3 a C I c c c | C o ic o «« o c o o o o o O 03 <* se <= c o- " ^ -* o . OS V a e s a a. - a 03 cs I ! 1 CC ri o O *r. 1 .' K J= a C oo -c ^ ' "S c _o s- a c "a o * bfl * | i 0> a a c r a c i "3 -^ •1 * a > a '3 i— i _c "C o- CC c . T3 a 1 c -c X o > o tS -3 tS ^ X ^ T3 G eS CO £ £ CI CN cc CM CO ^ s o m a « ° « & O -0 T3 03 ^2 ^ e o G O c3 cS _o a O S3 a> ^ ? -, 2. ° a- "e3 0> a o a o u a. c, £ a S o 1 c 1 I C £ a.' 2 1 J s *~* fcL » * 8 _C g O O c ei C e 2 j a bo s b tx .5 M c 5 o a eg a b 1 03 • - a « C5 s 03 oil m ^ ^ o.5 "-'•re ^"E 13 O 'Z ■J S3 o3 e c c a 1 1 „_ B c *i c C .£ 'S IS '* ^3 Pl, &C i X 3 2J 3 .S "5 S c c "c E KQO "o £ OQ H H <1 H Pu X H t- jg a a > ,£ J= >> t- o 0. £ a. 1 OE 5 ■- ^ > c e a ea a. 1 fe Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 91 10 0^500 ^h ,-h o cm cm »o O O oo »o o o Ol W M >o o o o o fl H rt M N O O O f> o o o CO CM O rt © -H ■*- o3 o o © 0; c) n (Q o) h h C fl t< O O O o o +Z o i si _ o £ ^ -2 S? e S £ £ M "P. g CM T ? » J o o3 in iO e «y a -3 S 5 £ w ^H H (fl A w M C "J4 3 CI 03 hi) £ £S Q. .3 o «! — S - ^^3^2 W) IT _£? O a 3 -3 '■£ P5 gq E - e « 3 S gf^Pn'B £ | tf co H O GO .3 e a '-5 5 a a s rt qq W -c 92 University of California — Experiment Station h3 f- CO OT3 Is s c CO ■ o 00 c OO Amount operator can do, man days CN o CN o CN -a-sg a?? CO CN co CN CO > »C iO «5 O I iO O Ol M N 00 iO iC o >o O US 1 o O CD CN O *~i CN CO .-H — i 1 CO U5 O «? | O CO CN CO CN CN 1 CO O 03 fti^ O O O O I O O CO t^ O co ^H | CO © O O O O O j c rl GO O i-< O «5 K5 O O o3 oi 03 CO ■ © iti s s s t-c t- t- © »» © 03 c3 O 06 -4-2 a a; s _a '3 c CD C o3 is 09 u o 03 "3 CD a ft s s- c > c b S IS "a i a ft | a > c ft c 5 i 6" a. c E ft c r > c 03 V 03 S3 W CM CN CN CN CD ~ ~~ r-l CN — 1 3 03 <3- X. bl £ .3 1=1 5 H -•J j b I C c c X X. c 1 *- b j .3 is c s 03 8 * £ a S cd *E CD S W. I b | s t 1 Eh c o o a> CO 03 03 a> 3 03 03 .. bO 1-J js 1 ! 5 .| 8 .2 P 3 1 | o §1 O 03 $ a S o "43 3 ft 03 »-: a> C si ft M w 1 c O 03 o s >-5 Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 93 O o o o CO wo CO O «5 "0 US 0 OO U5 iojO O (M O M ^ CO OO O 1(5 1 lO io o "o O O O O O | o i-i o ■* o o io OOO OO O OlO oo o ^ o od b o t^ •o o 1 io CO o «o b CO 4.0 acres 4.0 acres 7,500 lbs. 100 crates 09 09 m . SR 0> TO .2 S B B £ "8 « * * o 3 o o o o _ 00 -* T* "^ o 1-H t- IH ai "3 (-, u o o c 1 e "5 c "o C a a 1 1 ll a 1 c 1 • i H c c 1 1 1 ll •1 § O b0 X -— ' __ rt M g M.S 3 3 s * ^ > s .3 -2 « T3 fl 03 bfl .5 o a o '-9 o 3 i 1" i 3 o o o 0> a 03 • • 09 1 i £ § a 45 "5 "^ b .H oi "E (- £ c c X Xi o .t bj £ ■ft o B "3 O 60 += a> o3 s« 1 o s a 03 1 o X! gf o (-1 ft 3 be bi 3 .c CO ^^ I 01 3 03 13 o 03 1 O H 3 «-< 1 I ro "B U 09 «3 g l - ^ s .S 1 » i -3 ^ ^ § O M « rt ft a t? o3 -2 +T '-3 ° !S m o s oj .« S3 o S ^ % & < . CQ "oj c a OJ > '5 "o H < ) 1 a 1 (4 o "5 o ( J4 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 38 Income and Expenses When Sweet Potatoes Are, Substi- tuted for Cantaloupes During Second Year of kotation on a 40-acre truck farm Annual gross income Alfalfa (from table 35) Sweet potatoes, 2,500 crates at $1.50 Sweet potato tops sold for feed, 37M> tons at $5.00 Cull potatoes for stock feed, 25 tons at $4.00 Total Annual expenses Hired labor 213 days at $2.25 per 9-hour day Materials and supplies: Sweet potato seed, 5 tons at $60.00 Manure for seed bed, 30 tons, of which 25 tons must be purchased at $1.00 a ton Sweet potato crates, 2,500 at $0.21 Contract work: Baling hay (from table 35) Hauling alfalfa hay to shipping point (from table 35) Hauling sweet potatoes to shipping point, 2,500 crates weighing 100 tons gross at $1.50 a ton Hire of additional horses, 59 horse days at $1.00 Irrigation water (from table 35) Electricity (from table 35) Repairs and upkeep of equipment (from table 35) On sweet potato equipment, 4 per cent of $173.00 Veterinary expense , Taxes (from table 35) On sweet potato equipment Depreciation of equipment (from table 35) Sweet potato equipment, 8 per cent of $173.00 Insurance: Horse barn and hay (from table 35) Employers' liability, 2.9 per cent of pay roll Total expenses Net farm income Gross income Expenditures Net farm income $ 618.00 3,750.00 187.50 100.00 $4,655.50 $ 479.25 300.00 25.00 525.00 128.75 64.38 150.00 59.00 180.00 1.60 100.39 6.92 10.00 166.03 0.13 311.26 13.84 5.06 13.90 $2,540.51 $4,655.50 2,540.51 $2,114.99 tempt is here made to show the effect on the net farm income by adding a few cows or a flock of poultry — since the manner of testing has already been worked out in connection with two of the other farms. Anyone interested will find there a full account of the method of procedure, data on production, expenditures, and added investment for testing the financial feasibility of such a plan. Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 95 Increasing the Size of Business. — The calendar of operations (tables 30, 31, and 32) for the original cropping plan indicates that a man op- erating a 40-acre truck farm such as this is not overworked. There is an opportunity for him to farm additional land, provided that in so doing he is able to proceed as economically and conservatively with the work on the home farm. The equipment can handle more land than the 40- acre unit comprising this farm with the exception that more work ani- mals would be required. Of course more help must be hired, more financing arranged, and a wider market outlet sought for the increased production. The expanding of the business does, however, hold definite possibilities. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF A 40-ACRE DAIRY FARM This 40-acre dairy farm is utilized for the production of feed for dairy cows, the product of which is sold as whole milk for manufacturing pur- poses. The cropping program, designed to produce a continuous supply and the maximum amount of feed, consists of a 9-year rotation of al- falfa, 6 years, followed by 3 years of double-cropping to barley and vetch for winter pasture and Sudan grass for summer pasture. Three fields of 12% acres each are used for the cropping plan ; the balance of the acreage (2% acres) is utilized by the farmstead, ditches, and lanes. One field is planted to alfalfa every third year and a like acreage plowed out thereby maintaining two-thirds of the cropped land in alfalfa. The rotation of crops under this 3-field system is shown in table 39. TABLE 39 Kotation of Crops on a 40-Acre Dairy Farm Year of rotation Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 1 Alfalfa, newseeding Alfalfa Alfalfa ... 2 Alfalfa Annual crops 3 Alfalfa .. Alfalfa 4 Alfalfa Alfalfa, new seeding 5 Alfalfa Alfalfa 6 Alfalfa . Alfalfa 7 Alfalfa, newseeding Alfalfa Alfalfa 8 Alfalfa 9 Alfalfa . Alfalfa When fully established, the acreages of crops for the first year of the rotation are alfalfa (new seeding), 12% acres; mature alfalfa, 12% acres ; and annual pasture crops 12% acres. During the second and third 96 University of California — Experiment Station H 3 c? ^ A ^ 03 &a ^ o OQ o « 5 fl as c =5-a d o 3 5 >>2 o a o -*d o _ +J Q g bO 0> j** d 2£ ►S 3 11 d c o3 d as o o o o o o o o o © o od i C > © MH OW O D ^ Gj Q o o o w u ?3 bfl £ d .* ^ O 03 d • fe a •+j d . . ON e h a -q 3 %* t 3^ a l3 s <3 ? i u CD cm o CO OO ooooo o COCO M O) N ■* CO CO O OS oooo ooooo coo->*i--H CM 0.5 acre 3.0 acres 1.5 acres (0 00 CO (0 CP CU CU CU CU cu OCJ O O _, w O O ccj c3 caojggcS cj OO Oi«*j-mO o >H (N rt-HT-c^HCNJ CM oo oo cq CU CU cu cu cu - S-, - f- (h OO- 00,-,,-jO eScsg c3 =3 § g c3 o»oz. OIC+--+JO | be ft £ 'ft ►. "1 t- a c \ c rC a c +. «*; ir a — c. p i a 1 •i a "a > i s- a c £ u 1 J6 1- At | c c c p a 'i. ■ I if B !- — - c. e c b cc P5 D 'J a CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CM CM CM CM ~* CM — i ^> S3 98 University of California — Experiment Station Hired labor, man day of 9 hours CO © © Amount operator can do, man day of 12 hours o CM o CM CM o Avail- able days, for soil work CO cm CO CM CM o g £2 03 Ts.S g £ co 3 ^x o co o oo OS CM © 8 CO 03 oo 00 u li o CM © © U5 Dairy labor (feeding, milk- ing, and care of cows and equipment) g2 o3 3 o 00 00 o o oo © 1 0) 00 00 (_ Ex p CM CM © CM oo *■« ■£ jj 03 « a si V-> 03 g£ o3 3 o o o o CO tO OS ■<*< 1-H CO o SO o o o © o o o Oi CO H CO ^ o> O) H CO T-t © oo ©©©©© o© © co a o> » m h w cc © 03 00 Ex o O o o 6 N 00 00 o o CM CM © o © © © © © oi © © © 00 ©00 © ©©©©© ©© © CC i 00 © 00 © © © © © CM CO Rate of work per hour OO 03 00 03 t-i 03 u o (- oj ^ 03 O M «5 CM © fH 00 00 OQ OQ 03 03 03 03 Sh « (-, u -03 O 03 03 g 03 03 03 03 +J © © CO *o •^ CM CM CO -H oo oo oo oo 03 03 0> 03 03 O 03 _, d O 03 O 03 o3 g g 03 03 03 © lO w +J © © © H H H H N CM CM c 03 S .2* '3 o* a; g 03 is 03 H o 00 G 03 s 03 a B "a > c a; ^ t o o i> i o a CM G C t a tr 1 I C a: c p 13 03 O Ih ^2 G ^ O a M 03 03 c 1 b 03 ^G XI O O 03 '3. 03 C c* | X c. g a •a cr "ft > C X a: "o o XI 00 oo s w CM CXI CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM G 03 ~— - CM CM CM -H CM ~H rt rt rt d (N CM CM G .2 & o a o 6 t-i 3 OQ 03 b a P £ « s .a s t 3 ^ 0Q > is t, c a c '% 1 oo s o O X bO > 1 .. ( 11 H £ 03 g bi cS '■% rs 03 £ w < 1 .= a _bJ 03 s 03 00 "5 - M C » .2 '£ G S S s H "3 -G oc £ H i j 1 C c c 3 G -a CJ .5 is o 03 H 3 OQ OS g.s fl'S G a 02 bi a o -2 c _G '3 M 03 Q 03 .G 00 £ £ G bi 03 03 C « 03 « b B K c, C X QQ b C 0. C" -c C 1 i .s 1 | so 08 03 s 03 c ^ G S 03 • 3 5 * ° a £x § v -' ^ 03 «S 3 °° |£ <1 j bi C ^5 S ; 3 '1 be a g u '-3 03 03 II 5 X G O 03 G 3 "3 Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 99 o to IQ © CO o cm o CO CM © CM © CO CM CO CM "5 CM CM CM "5 CM O oo CM © Os CO © OS CO © o CO co" O OS © 00 o CO CO © CM CM o CO 00 © © 00 © 00 oo © 8 CM © CM © CM © CM © © CM CO o o o o OS CO ■<*< CO ■* rt CM O CM OS © © © © © "5 i-H CO •**! CO CO CO T* CM © OS CO © © © © © © © CO CO CO OS lO OS OS -H tJ4 *H lO CM © © © CO CO o o o © CM © 00 O co © O © © © © © CO © © 00 © © CO © © © © © © OO © OS >o OS 00 lO 00 t~- r-l © OS CO © OS CM OS 03 (0 w a © CM 03 03 © © CM CM U fc- ^ U (-, tH o a o o cj o 03 03 o3 o3 o3 03 © © CM Ui © tn CM CM © © CO —H c ,£ DO ■s c c c c> a 1 c CO B > c co tr "a > c -c a: 1 o CO ^ 5 a o 3 'C * • m C a . e; •T i: x ■* i -H CD a 03 . a % O K M oj 03 «. o hi oS .a 43 o o 4 'a CO CM CO CO CM CM CM ^H CM CM CM CM CM ^H i-( CM *-l 53 e •• S3 "60 «S .2 "5 t3 m e 0> a •£ C -a * £ a c 5 s '£ o3 2 p S ° E O- T s ja c < i h c I >— cr E c c t -c ) ,p i : 6 J 3 * in o3 b a .c c c5 o S .5 co ) c 'bO O '•Q CO ^ b §•1 5.1 cC 03 03 0) £ .. i Is ^ 3 .S ! "S ^ 'b S g .£ < g « .£ 03 += a es *- .S o> E a ^ 1 b p. t c s 1 bl .6 1 b P i i f- 9 C > c 1 c H s CO 3 3 £ a Z oj -" 1 o 100 University of California — Experiment Station o ft w o r/j Fh (A a o QJ h p! a a rt *< o io o o lO CO CM o s Rate of work per hour B o 03 i-O © CO CO 00 o ft CM CO CM CM CN CM CD - - HHHNM CM oo a _o "3 ft o ft o u O a 0) c -5 5 u .« 6 C s 'a o 1 c H 'cu 5 § J "o O H a. a X a * b c c s "o Is H 2 M 3 C g 3 .5 ^ .3 ^ a b i c DC 6 c IS o OS "co 73 G 03 bl b a3 H 1 2 S3 | C H o 3 1 Cu — s cv cv u 03 3 3 03 >-5 1 > a 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 101 o o o o o IO t ^ >o o ed co SO Oi ~+i ~ c-i CO o o o o o o o o o o o o O IQ CO IO - I o o o -* O 00 o o 3 22 s £ £ C cS a S ° » „ ° ej> t-c o «5 «o o CO CO Amount operator can do, man day of 12 hours o © cm •o CO CM o Avail- able days, for soil work CO CM CM CM CM CM 00 Xi a> £ B -a| g* t-l 3 s~ o3 3 © CD o co CO O OO CO o CM CO co" 01 00 Wxi o CO CO o CO o CM o Dairy labor (feeding, milk- ing, and care of cows and equipment) c3 9 5S o o oo © d oo o 00 00 o d o CM CM 1 = Wxi o CM o o CM o d CM CO a£ g 3 ^xi o o CM o d CO o o o © t^ «o -^ CO >h N CM o CO o o o o o o O CO CO >o OJ Oi o Oi o WX 5-1- 00 ■ 1 ■ O O0 o o o © ■* O 00 o co o o o o o o o OS O 03 tft OS 00 O 00 t~- rt o o o o CM Rate of work per hour 00 (V oj © CM 4> 4> y O 03 03 © O od cm OJ cS <» oS cS (- « !- fc- U o o cj o o 03 03 o3 o3 o3 o e<| to o «o cm d d co »-3 c 4) s '3 o* o C 03 00 a 4> £ ft is c 5 c 4 C J c X C q i -2 a c .2 o a o 00 s ^ « S CO T3 C X) o o i o 03 4> | w CM « CO CO CM CM CO rt CM CM ^ CM CN rH — 4 CM ~H 00 _o "5 9 ft O a (h O OC 1 c X -C c X fed _c '? c s o .S 3 * 00 o3 b a c |1 3 M CO (f. 03 V £ 03 00 '5 ^ bO.S g c + 3 '5 3 3 c 03 XI 8 S £ a "3 s« a 23 to i b c ,6 cr E c c s s c .. ^ £ •- 3 3 00 *"" 03 bl a _c Q "3 £ . 6 s ± 3 M CO ) 3 _ a c H «n 3 4) s 03 I i 3 .2 J. 3-5 ir S 3 H .si 1 b c .'5 c PL, 6 "1 n ! bi a S CO C A ! o H cS 4 > t. « rr 1 O H 43. C 1 a s h < £ I 1 OJ X a O Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 103 years the acreage consists of mature alfalfa, 25 acres, and annual pas- ture crops, 12% acres. Thereafter each 3-year cycle of the rotation is a repetition of the first so far as acreages of crops are concerned. Farming Practices. — The methods employed in preparing for plant- ing, and producing crops and in handling the dairy herd are those customarily followed on farms of this type in the Turlock area. The calendar of operations (tables 40 and 41) indicates the details of these operations. Yields and Carrying Capacity. — The yields of crops upon which the labor requirements, as shown in the calendars of operations, are based and upon which the carrying capacity of this farm was computed are as follows : Alfalfa (season of seeding) 2 tons per acre Alfalfa (mature) 5 tons per acre Winter pasture Equivalent to 3 tons per acre Summer pasture Equivalent to 4 tons per acre The per-acre yield of crops is the controlling factor in determining the numbers of livestock which can be supported on a given acreage. This cropping program, with yields as given above after reserving the equivalent of 18 tons of hay a year for the workstock, will supply rough- age feeds for 20 cows, 1 bull, and 4 heifers raised for replacement pur- poses. Concentrates for these cattle are purchased either from neigh- boring farmers or local feed concerns. THE CALENDAR OF OPERATIONS The calendar of operations for this 40-acre dairy farm is presented in two parts : (1) For the first year of the rotation when the crops are al- falfa (new seeding), 12% acres; alfalfa (mature), 12% acres; win- ter and summer irrigated pasture (double-cropped), 12% acres; and (2) for the second and third years when the crops consist of alfalfa (ma- ture) , 25 acres ; winter and summer irrigated pasture (double-cropped) , 12% acres. The calendars thus drawn up indicate the tasks to be per- formed and labor required for planting, caring for, and harvesting the various crops and caring for the dairy herd. Chore work, such as the feeding and care of the workstock and other routine work are not in- cluded in the calculations. Producing field crops and conducting a dairy under the plan followed on this farm means that the operator is kept busy for practically all of his available time. This amounts to an average daily expenditure of 6 hours in connection with the dairy plus another 6 hours in the field 104 University of California — Experiment Station during times of planting, growing, and harvesting crops. A 20-cow dairy and its accompanying program of feed production is thus capable of keeping the operator fully employed. The figures are shown in table 42. TABLE 42 Man and Horse Labor Eequlrements on a 40-Acre Dairy Farm Man labor Horse labor Order of Rotation* Total re- quired By opera- tor Opera- tor's effi- ciencyt Hired Per cent hired Total re- quired farm- owned horses Effi- ciency of farm- owned horses! Hired Per cent hired hours 3,530 3,337 hours 3,204 3,012 per cent 87.5 82.3 hours 330 325 per cent 9.3 9.7 hours 2,274 1,744 hours 2,249 1,744 per cent 34.0 26.4 hours 25 per cent 1.1 Second year^ 0.0 * Acreage of crops for each year of rotation given on pages 95 and i t Based on 6 hours a day for 365 days (caring for dairy cows) and work, a total of 3,660 hours. X Based on a total of 6,615 hours a year. H Third year of rotation same as the second year. hours a day for 245 days for field The three horses maintained as a part of the equipment are not par- ticularly well utilized from the standpoint of efficiency. Their average use results in an efficiency of only about 30 per cent and hence the daily cost of using horses tends to be rather high. Extra labor must be hired to help out for those operations requiring the services of more than one man and during times when the work piles up so that the operator cannot handle it himself. The labor is needed for only a few days at a time, usually for 6 days or less in any 1 month. Dur- ing the 24 months shown on the calendar, extra labor is needed for 18 of these months and ranges in amount from % to 8 days a month. The hiring of men on a daily basis is the only feasible plan. It is again pointed out that efficient use of the operator 's time (and of that of horses) is not necessarily a final criterion of the desirability of a farm plan. The final test is the amount of net farm income obtainable. This is set forth in the tabulations which follow. FINANCIAL RESULTS Compilations of data reflecting the investment items required to or- ganize and equip this farm, production of marketable products, factors involved in cost of operation and maintenance and the calculation of annual and average net income for the 3-year cycle typical of the rota- tion, have been made to test the financial results of operating this farm under the plan described in the preceding pages. Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 105 Investment Items. — The items which constitute the total investment in this farm when fully equipped and operating are listed in detail below : Land: 40 acres; leveled, checked, ditched, and cross fenced; supplied with water from the Turlock Irrigation District Buildings and structures : Dwelling, septic tank, and garage. These items, though necessary, are not consid- ered as a part of the farm investment. Horse barn, with storage for hay and implements Water tank, tower, pump, motor, piping and fittings for lifting and distributing water to house and barn Corral for horses Milking barn for 20 cows Shed for bull and calves Milk house Corrals for bull and calves 4 canal headgates 76 outlet boxes from ditches to checks Motive power : 3 horses Automobile (primarily for personal use and not included as a part of the farm business) Implements and machinery : (This list is the same as that given under the 40-acre field-crops farm, with the exceptions that the bean and corn planter, bean row splitter, bean cutter, and cultivators are not needed; a manure spreader is added.) Horse equipment : 1% sets of work harness 3 horse collars 3 halters and tie chains Curry comb, brush, barn broom, manure fork, hoof rasp, clippers, etc. Dairy equipment : 2 milk buckets Milk stool 12 milk cans Hand milk truck Milk cooler Barn broom Manure fork Wheelbarrow 50 feet of %-inch hose Set of veterinary instruments Lasso Nose ring and leader for bull Curry comb Brush Square-pointed shovel 106 University op California — Experiment Station Tools, hand implements, and minor equipment : 4 metal tappoons (for use in irrigating) Set of carpenter 's tools Carpenter 's vise Small set of mechanic 's tools Pipe vise, stock, dies, and cutter Pick, shovels, hoes, pitchforks, crowbar, axe, grindstone, etc. Post-hole digger and chain blocks Sickle sharpener, rubber boots, wheelbarrow, ladders, baled-hay hooks, oil cans Statement of Production. — The production of crops on this farm is designed to supply feed for the dairy stock. Since this farm is stocked to the limit of its carrying capacity for the yields and crops as given, there will be no crops available for sale. The total annual production and the amounts of milk fat, and the number of surplus calves and culled cows available for sale are shown in table 43. All manure produced is retained for use on the crop land of the farm. TABLE 43 Total Production and Amounts of Milk Fat, Calves, and Culled Cows Available for Sale on a 40-Acre Dairy Farm* Milk fat Calves Cows pounds 312 6,240 40t 19 it 31 12 3 6,200 3 * All manure retained for use on farm crops. t For rearing calves. t Reserved for herd replacement; 3 cows to be discarded annually. 1 3 calves discarded at birth, as not worth rearing. Financial Statements. — The unit factors involved in production and maintenance of this 40-acre dairy farm and financial statements, with selected selling prices and costs, for each of the 2 years typical of the rotation are presented in table 44. The average annual net farm income from this dairy farm is $920.48 when the production per herd, selling prices of milk calves and cows, and expenses are as given in table 44. This is considerably less than the minimum amount of net farm income considered necessary by most farm operators to maintain a satisfactory standard of living. The find- ings indicate a definite need for an improvement in the situation. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 107 TABLE 44 Income and Expenses of a 40-Acre Dairy Farm Annual gross income Whole milk for manufacturing purposes, containing 6,200 pounds of milk fat at $0.40 Calves, 5 at $5.00; 7 at $2.00 Discarded cows, 3 at $45.00 Total First year $2,480.00 39.00 135.00 $2,654.00 Second year* $2,480.00 39.00 135.00 $2,654.00 Annual expenses Hired labor at $2.25 per 9-hour dayf Seed: Alfalfa, 250 pounds at $0.20 Barley, 750 pounds at V/i cents Vetch, 250 pounds at $0.08 Sudan grass, 188 pounds at 7J^ cents Dairy supplies: Salt, 575 pounds at $0.80 per 100 pounds Washing powder, 50 pounds at $0.15 Medicines Feeds: Dried skim milk for calves, 1,000 pounds at $0.06 Concentrates for calves, 2,000 pounds at 1.6 cents Concentrates for milking herd, 12 tons at $26.00 Contract work : Hauling milk, 6,200 pounds of milk fat in whole milk at ZYi cents Testing production of cows at $1.50 per cow per year Renting extra horses at $1.00 a day Irrigation water at $3.67 an acre Electricity, annual prorata charge Upkeep and repairs of equipment: Buildings, 5.0 per cent of $1,629.00 (Dwelling, garage, and septic tank not included) Irrigation structures, 2.4 per cent of $370.00 Implements and machinery, 3.2 per cent of $943.00 .... Harness, collars, halters, and tie chains for horses, 1.0 per cent of $94.00 Dairy equipment, 0.4 per cent of $122.00 Small tools, barn, and minor equipment, 1.2 per cent of $180.00 Domestic pumping plant. 0.5 per cent of $548.00 Veterinary expense Taxes: Land in alfalfa Land in annual crops, farmstead, lanes, and ditches Buildings (based on average value) Work animals (based on average value) Dairy cows and bull Implements and machinery (based on average value) Dairy equipment Hay (Concluded on p. 108) First year $ 83.25 50.00 9.38 20.00 14.10 4.60 7.50 5.00 60.00 32.00 312.00 217.00 30.00 3.00 146.80 9.10 81.45 8.88 30.18 0.94 0.49 2.16 2.74 30.00 80.75 31.15 11.25 4.56 32.30 7.14 0.74 1.72 Second year" $ 81.00 9.38 20.00 14.10 4.60 7.50 5.00 60.00 32.00 312.00 217.00 30.00 0.0 146.80 9.10 81.45 8.88 30.18 0.94 0.49 2.16 2.74 30.00 80.75 31.15 11.25 4.56 32.30 7.14 0.74 1.72 * Income and expenses of the third year are the same as the second year, t First year, 37 days; second year, 36 days. 108 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 44— (Concluded) Annual expenses— (Concluded) Depreciation of equipment: Buildings, 5.0 per cent of $1,629.00. (Dwelling, garage, and septic tank not included) Irrigation structures, 11.8 per cent of $370.00 Implements and machinery, 12.2 per cent of $943.00 Work animals, 10.0 per cent of $375.00 Bull, 16.0 per cent of $100.00 Harness, collars, halters, and tie chains for horses, 16.6 per cent of $94.00 Dairy equipment, 26.2 per cent of $122.00 Small tools, barn and minor equipment, 12.2 per cent of $180.00 Domestic pumping plant, 7.4 per cent of $548.00 Insurance: Horse barn, 1.3 per cent of $225.00 Cow barn, 1.3 per cent of $170.00 Hay in horse barn, 1.3 per cent on hay valued at $9.50 a ton for 6 months Hay in stack, 2.5 per cent on hay valued at $9.50 a ton for 6 monthsj Employers' liability, 2.9 per cent of payroll Total First year Second year* 81.45 81.45 43.66 43.66 115.05 115.05 37.50 37.50 16.00 16.00 15.60 15.60 31.96 31.96 21.96 21.96 40.55 40.55 2.92 2.92 2.21 2.21 2.14 2.14 20.78 29.69 2.41 2.35 $1,764.45 $1,718.05 Net income First year Second year* Average3years1 $2,654.00 1,764.45 $ 889.55 $2,654.00 1,718.05 $ 935.95 $2,654.00 1,733.52 $ 920.48 * Income and expenses of the third year are the same as the second year. t First year, 87.5 tons; second year, 125.0 tons. j Average annual gross income, expenses, and net income figured for the 3- year period typical of the rotation. POSSIBLE CHANGES IN FINANCIAL RESULTS The calendar of operations shows that the operator of this farm is so busily engaged with the work of raising feed crops and caring for the dairy stock that he cannot undertake more work, such as adding more enterprises or increasing the size of the business, without relying on hired help to perform the additional work. Improvement must, there- fore, be sought in other directions. Possibilities worth considering are : (1) increased production per cow, (2) a better price for the products, (3) improved crop yields, which increases the carrying capacity of the farm, (4) sale of manure, and (5) a reduction in the outlays required to maintain and protect the farm capital invested in equipment. These possibilities will be considered in some detail. Effect of Increased Production per Cow. — An annual production of 312 pounds of milk fat per cow for a 300-day milking period does not Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 109 constitute a particularly high yield. The experience of Stanislaus County dairymen indicates that a yield of 380 pounds of milk fat is not out of the realm of realization. To secure the added production would require the feeding of more concentrates. Yet allowing for the cost of the additional concentrates the average annual net farm income on the basis of this higher production would be substantially increased as fol- lows (averaged for 3 years) : Gross income (prices remaining as given in table 44) $3,198.00 Expenditures as given in table 44 (after allowing for in- crease in hauling charge, $47.60, and 6 tons additional concentrates at $26.00 a ton) 1,937.12 Net farm income $1,260.18 An increase in production of milk fat of about 22 per cent provides for an increase in the net farm income of 37 per cent. By testing the herd and culling out the poorer producing cows, by careful purchase of proven producers, and by proper handling of the dairy herd it is possible to increase production over the figures used in table 44, even without the added expense incident to the feeding of con- centrates. Attention to increased production warrants all the effort that the operator can expend to bring this about and thus increase the earn- ings of the farm. Effect of Changes in Prices of Dairy Products. — Some improvement may be possible in the price received from the sale of calves, though its effect is likely to be of only limited importance since the number for sale is small. An increase in the prices paid for manufacturing milk would obvi- ously be a material aid in increasing the net income. If instead of 40 cents a pound the price should rise to 50 cents, production and expenses remaining the same as given in table 44, then the net farm income would amount to $1,540.48, an increase of $620.00. For a herd averaging 380 pounds of milk fat a cow annually, the in- crease would be $756.00 and the net farm income would be increased to $2,016.88. Possibly the price of 40 cents obtainable for milk fat is too optimistic. It is conceivable that prices may drop to lower levels. If so, the effect on net income for farms such as this would be decidedly serious. If prices decline to 30 cents, or perhaps to 20 cents a pound for milk fat, and costs remain as given in table 44, the effect on net income would be as follows : Net income, milk fat at 40 cents (as shown in table 44) .... $920.48 Net income, milk fat at 30 cents 610.48 Net income, milk fat at 20 cents 463.60 110 University of California — Experiment Station Effect of Increased Crop Yields. — In the basic plan governing the handling of this farm, calculations have been made on the basis of usual yields. The question now arises : What would be the financial result if good yields were obtainable instead of merely usual yields, that is, if yields of new alfalfa were 3% tons instead of 2, mature alfalfa, 8 tons instead of 5, and pasture crops produced enough to provide for the increased num- ber of cows that could be carried because of the greater tonnage of al- falfa hay? A test of this proposal, made by revising the production statement, calendar of operations, and financial statements of the original plan to provide for the increased production, results in the following : Carrying Capacity : The increase in crop yields, amounting to 60 per cent, will permit an increase in the size of the herd from 20 cows to 32 cows. Six heifers would be raised instead of 4. Additional Equipment: A larger barn is required, costing $545.00 instead of $340.00 and some increases in the minor equipment, such as milk buckets, cans, etc. Labor Requirements : The labor requirements, taken from the calen- dar of operations revised in accordance with the changes which this plan entails, are summarized in table 45. TABLE 45 Man and Horse Labor Kequirements on a 40-Acre Dairy Farm with a 32-Cow Herd Man labor Horse labor Year of rotation Total re- quired By opera- tor Opera- tor's effi- ciency* Hired Per cent hired Total re- quired By farm- owned horses Effi- ciency! Hired Per cent hired hours 4,177 4,085 hours 3,638 3,347 per cent 94.7 87.2 hours 539 738 per cent 12.9 18.1 hours 2,410 1,908 hours 2,385 1,908 per cent 36.1 28.8 hours 25 per cent 1.1 SecondJ 0.0 * Based on 3,840 hours annually. t Based on a total of 6,615 horse hours a year. X Third year is same as second. Financial Statements : The financial statement for the 40-acre dairy farm, revised in accordance with the changes required by increasing from a 20 to a 32-cow herd, is shown in detail in table 46 for each of the 2 typical years of the rotation. An increase in net farm income from $920.48 (table 44) to $1,973.71, as a result of increasing crop yields, is evidence of the necessity of mak- ing each acre produce to its full capacity — or, when a change is possible, Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 111 of getting lands capable of producing good yields rather than farming lands which will produce no better than usual yields of crops. TABLE 46 Income and Expenses of a 40-Acre Dairy Farm with a 32-Cow Herd Annual gross income First year Second year* Sale of 9,924 pounds of milk fat at $0.40 $3,969.60 64.00 225.00 $4,258.60 $3,969.60 Sale of calves, 8 at $5.00, 12 at $2.00 .... 64.00 225.00 Total $4,258.60 Annual expenses Hired labor* at $2.25 per 9-hour day Materials: Seed (same as table 44) Dairy supplies Concentrates: for calves, 1.5 tons at $32.00 Concentrates for milking herd, 19.2 tons at $26.00 Dried skim milk for calves, 1,500 pounds at $0.06 Contract work : Hauling milk, 9,924 pounds of milk fat at Z X A cents. Testing cows at $1.50 each a year Irrigation water Electricity, annual pro rata charge Upkeep and repairs of equipment (same as table 44, less cow barn) Cow barn, 5 per cent of $545.00 Veterinary expense Taxes: As given in table 44 On additional cows (12) Depreciation of equipment (as given in table 44, except cow barn) Of cow barn Insurance: Horse barn (same as table 44) Cow barn, 1.3 per cent of $272.50 Hay in horse barn (same as table 44) Hay in stackf (same as table 44) Employers' liability, 2.9 per cent of payroll Total First year $ 135.00 93.48 27.36 48.00 499.20 90.00 347.34 48.00 146.80 14.50 109.84 27.25 40.00 169.61 18.24 386.73 27.25 2.92 3.54 2.22 34.20 3.92 $2,275.40 Second year* $ 184.50 43.48 27.36 48.00 499.20 90.00 347.34 48.00 146.80 14.50 109.84 27.25 40.00 169.61 18.24 386.73 27.25 2.92 3.54 2.22 47.50 5.35 $2,289.63 Net farm income First, year Second year* Average 3 years $4,258.60 2,275.40 $1,983.20 $4,258.60 2,289.63 $1,968.97 $4,258.60 2,284.89 Net farm income $1,973.71 * First year, 60 man days; second year, 82 man days. t First year, 144 tons; second year, 200 tons. 112 University of California — Experiment Station Sale of Manure. — Good farm management dictates that all manure produced should be kept for use on the home farm rather than for this valuable source of plant foods and organic matter to be sold. In times of stress, however, a sale may be justified. If so, then there would be a total of about 50 tons of manure which could be sold at a price of about $1.50 a ton. This would increase the net farm income by $75.00. Reduction in Overhead Expenses. — This farm requires reserving an- nually sums of $126.84 for upkeep and repairs and $403.73 for deprecia- tion (in order to replace items that wear out or become useless) . This is a total of $530.57. This suggests that all possible attention should be paid to prolonging the life of the equipment in order to reduce this fig- ure to as low a level as possible. Better protection, prompt repairing, and more care in the use of implements, and the prolonging of the pro- ductive life of the cows will pay in dollars and cents and add directly to the net farm income. USE OF OUTLOOK REPORTS Once the basic plan of crop rotation for any given farm has been de- termined, selection of the crops to be grown during any specific year is a matter of vital importance if the greatest possible net income is to be obtained. Market prices of most annual crops are subject to rather wide and sometimes violent fluctuations. An inquiry should therefore be made of each of the alternative enterprises as to the probable market prices which are likely to prevail at the time the crop is to be harvested. As part of this inquiry, use may well be made of the federal Agricultural Outlook published annually by the United States Department of Agri- culture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and the Agricultural Out- look for California presented annually by the Agricultural Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of California. These reports present a summary of the current available facts bearing upon the fu- ture economic conditions of important farm products, the former for important producing sections and the entire country in relation to domestic and world markets, the latter for the state of California in re- lation to national and world markets. In some instances the outlook as presented in the federal and state reports must be modified to meet local conditions. For crops not mentioned in the Outlook reports or where special local conditions prevail, current and timely data pertaining to market demand, stocks on hand in the case of nonperishable commodi- ties, and probable plantings in this and competing areas, should be as- Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 113 sembled, analyzed, and deductions drawn as to the crop which will be likely to present the most favorable conditions at the time of harvest. With properly planned crop rotations, the large number of field and truck crops adapted to this area makes possible a flexibility of cropping programs admirably suited to the judicious use of outlook information in planning the year's production program. For example, the cropping program of the 40-acre field-crops farm centering around the production of alfalfa as the principal legume for soil improvement, and including in addition, the annual crops of barley for hay, Blackeye beans, and grain sorghum, should not be considered as final but merely suggestive of a readily workable plan of organization built upon a crop rotation designed to maintain soil fertility. Several alternative enterprises for each of the annual crops of barley for hay, Blackeye beans, and grain sorghums are available and may be readily substituted in the rotation whenever the price outlook justifies their consideration. In place of barley for hay, other winter cereals (e.g. oats or wheat) may be produced for hay, grain, or winter pasture. A late crop of grain sorghum or one of the several types of melons may be substituted for the Blackeye beans, and where soil and water conditions permit, either cantaloupes, melons, or sweet potatoes may be substituted, in whole or in part, for the grain sorghums during the third year of the rotation. Similarly, replacement of the present enterprises by alterna- tives may be made in the cropping programs of the truck-crops farm and the dairy farm as presented. The proposed plan should be tested in accordance with the procedure demonstrated in testing the advisability of substituting sweet potatoes for cantaloupes in the rotation on the truck farm, under the conditions as given. CONCLUSIONS The field investigations in the Turlock area and resulting studies of farm organizations and possible alternative plans, were undertaken in order to place in the hands of interested farmers and farm leaders a comprehensive method for testing existing plans of farm organization and proposed alternative plans. Reorganization of many farms for the purpose of increasing their earning power is both desirable and practical. Such reorganization is especially necessary in times of low prices and their consequent effect upon earning power. Though involving considerable work, the deter- mination of what plan is best suited to a given farm under stated or existing conditions is entirely feasible. Considering the farm in its en- 114 University of California — Experiment Station tirety as the producing unit, the first step consists in a careful determi- nation of the present earning power. The next step consists in testing possible alternatives. Extensive use is made of the calendar of opera- tions as a basis for calculating present earning power and for testing proposed changes in organization, for determining the kind and costs of additional equipment that is needed to carry out the various alterna- tives, and in the preparation of farm budgets. The evidence is indicative of the influence of six major factors affect- ing the earning power of farms, viz., sizes of farms, types and propor- tions of various enterprises, yields, prices received for farm products, costs of operating and maintaining farms, and operators' abilities. Some farms are doubtless too small in size to provide a satisfactory net income unless the conditions governing the selection of the farm and its accom- panying enterprises, and the handling of the farm reaches a high degree of efficiency. Some growers can profit by accumulating more knowledge and applying this knowledge in selecting suitable enterprises and in the handling of their crops and livestock. The choice of enterprises is im- portant, and changes in the cropping plans of some farms will warrant attention. More attention to crop rotations and to building up the crop- producing power of the land in other ways appears to be in order. High yields are essential if large net incomes are to be obtained. Although the grower has some control over prices received for his product, through production on a more wholesale scale, by improving quality, by exercise of better salesmanship, or by joining in some cooperative movement, yet his influence upon prices will be, at best, relatively small. The costs of the various goods and services used in production are de- termined largely by influences outside the jurisdiction of the operator. It is essential, nevertheless, that operators exercise due caution and care in making only expenditures in kind and amount required in adminis- tering the farm plan, in order to insure the production of commodities at lowest possible cost. In its final analysis the question of increasing the earning power of any farm becomes largely a personal and individual matter. The means must be sought by each individual for himself. The tests of those means can, however, be reduced to a financial basis for study by following the procedures given at length throughout this publication. To present in- formation concerning the nature and manner of making these tests was the goal set by the authors in compiling this publication. Bul. 544] Tests op Farm Organization 115 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Credit for assistance is due to many who collaborated in the prepara- tion of this publication. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture was especially helpful in the initiating of this work and in the early collecting of field data ; Dr. Mor- decai Ezekiel, who is familiar with similar studies conducted in other states, generously gave us the benefit of his experience and spent consid- erable time with us in the office and in the field. Messrs. A. A. Junger- man, W. H. Brooks, and II. D. Sylvester, of the Stanislaus County Farm Advisor 's Office, cooperated continually and helpfully throughout the entire time required to institute, conduct, and complete this study. Many growers, shippers, officers of the Turlock Irrigation District, and others of the Turlock area willingly cooperated and contributed a great deal of the necessary basic data. Assistance in compiling and analyzing the various data in the office was rendered by Paul Nystrom, Gus Israel, and W. C. Hansen. APPENDIX A SIZES OF FARMS IN THE TURLOCK AREA Data from files of the Turlock Irrigation District indicate that the area under study contains 3,390 farm holdings. The farms range in size from less than 5 to over 1,280 acres. Of the total number, 73.5 per cent, however, are from 11 to 40 acres in size. The grouping of all farms by specified sizes is given in table 47. TABLE 47 Size and Number of Farms in the Turlock Area Size of farms, in acres Number in group Per cent of total in group 1-5 6-10 11-20 91 382 1,378 1,115 119 146 104 31 16 8 2.7 11 3 40.6 21-40 41-60 32.9 3.5 61-80 4.3 81-160 3.1 161-320 0.9 321-640 641-1,280 0.5 0.2 Total 3,390 100 116 University of California — Experiment Station These figures, while informative, do not necessarily show the acreages actually farmed by individuals in the area, since it is a prevalent prac- tice to rent or lease holdings from others. This is particularly true in connection with the smaller size groups. APPENDIX B YIELDS OF CROPS AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS IN THE TURLOCK AREA Crop yields of the Turlock area were obtained both from estimates of growers and their written records. For purposes of comparison, yields are grouped into three classes as follows : Best yields: yields normally obtained over a period of years by 5 to 6 growers out of 100. Good yields: yields normally obtained over a period of years by 10 to 12 growers out of 100. Usual yields : yields obtained over a period of years by 40 to 50 grow- ers out of 100. No attempt is made to offer average yield figures because they are of little or no significance in organizing or reorganizing farms. Table 48 gives the findings calculated on a per-acre basis for the prin- cipal commodities produced in the area. In some localities of the area the presence of weeds tends to reduce yields. The most troublesome are Bermuda grass, water grass, bamboo, thistles, wild sunflowers, tumbleweeds, wild morning-glory, and pig- weeds. Likewise, the prevailing practice of planting the same land year after year to the same crop tends toward a lowering of yields. Good yields are associated with the use of a regular and suitable system of crop rotation. On some soils use of green-manure crops is needed to in- sure continued good yields. Either good or excellent yields, according to the figures given in table 48, are obtainable only on suitable soil properly handled. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 117 TABLE 48 Yields of Marketable Products in the Turlock Area Product Crop yield per acre Best Good Usual Field crops: Alfalfa Beans: Blackeye (first crop) Blackeye (second crop) Baby Lima Grains: Barley Oats Wheat Grain hay Grain sorghums (first crop) Grain sorghums (second crop). Fruit crops (green basis) : Apricots Grapes: Juice Table Peaches: Cling Freestone Fruit (dried basis): Apricots Peaches Raisins Nuts: Almonds Truck crops: Melons Cantaloupes Casaba Honey Dew Persian Watermelon Spinach Sweet potatoes Livestock products: Milk fat per cow Eggs per hen 10 tons 25 sacks* 16 sacks* 15 sacksf 500 lbs. 500 lbs. 000 lbs. 4 tons 500 lbs. 500 lbs. 10 tons 10 tons 12 tons 15 tons 18 tons ,000 lbs. ,500 lbs. ,000 lbs. ,200 lbs. 8 tons 18 sacks* 12 sacks* 12 sacksf 2,500 lbs. 1,500 lbs. 2,000 lbs. 3 tons 2,500 lbs. 1,800 lbs. 6 tons 8 tons 8 tons 12 tons 14 tons 3,000 lbs. 6,000 lbs. 4,500 lbs. 800 lbs. 400 cratesj 250 cratesj 15 tons 10 tons 12 tons 9 tons 12 tons 8 tons 25 tons 18 tons 8 tons 6 tons 250 cratesl 150 cratesl 340 lbs. 300 lbs. 15 doz. 12.5 doz. 5 tons 12 sacks* 9 sacks* 9 sacksf 1,500 lbs. 1,000 lbs. 1,000 lbs. 2 tons 1,800 lbs. 1,200 lbs. 4 tons 6 tons 5 tons 8 tons 9 tons 2,000 lbs. 4,000 lbs. 2,500 lbs. 400 lbs. 7 tons 6 tons 6 tons 10 tons 4 tons 100 cratesK 260 lbs. 10 doz. * Sacks, 90 pounds net. f Sacks, 100 pounds net. % Standard cantaloupe crate (12 x 12 x 22^ inches inside dimensions). 1 Crates 75 pounds net. APPENDIX C SELLING PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE TURLOCK AREA Data were collected in the Turlock area to determine prices received by growers during the 9-year period from 1923-1931 inclusive. The fig- ures are based on material gathered from producers, buyers, shippers, farmers' cooperative marketing associations, and from market quota- tions applicable to the area (table 49) . 118 University of California — Experiment Station O NM O »-h -h 88 8 888 S8 :888! ooooo iifliOOifl ooooo lOOiflmn OOOOO OO OO 00*000 iO O ^(OOOOO) «0 O <-l -H rH ^ — < OOO OO o >o o o o i-i 00*0 • ooooo >o o o o io rtrtrtMH O 'CO OO O OOOOO COCiOOO OOO — i OOOOO IO «5 CO Cvl i-H pH CO O ■* IO (M Co 03 k OO o MH Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 119 APPENDIX D COSTS OF ITEMS OF FARM EXPENSE IN THE TURLOCK AREA During the course of the field investigations data on cost of contract operations equipment, fertilizers, insurance, seeds, and supplies to growers in the Turlock area were compiled for use in testing plans of farm organization. The data presented in tables 50 to 56 are representa- tive of usual costs prevailing during the period 1928-1930 for the items listed, and were used throughout this publication in testing the various plans of farm organization or reorganization. Costs of Selected Expenditures. — Costs of selected contract opera- tions, feeds, insurance, supplies, and farm wages as used throughout this publication are presented in table 50. TABLE 50 Costs of Selected Expenditures in the Turlock Area General contract rates Plowing with tractor $ 3.50 per acre Disk harrowing with tractor $ 1.50 per acre Cultivating with tractor (disk or spring-tooth harrow).. $ 1.50 per acre Hauling General rates 1-3 miles $ 1.00 per ton 3-5 miles $ 1.50 per ton Over 5 miles (first 5 miles at $1.50) each additional mile $ 0.10 per ton To BayKegion $12.50 per ton To Bay Region, Los Angeles lugs* $ 0.20 each 2-ton truck with driver $ 2.50 per hour Specific rates Milk fat: In cream $ 1.00 per cwt. In whole milk.... $ 3.50 per cwt. Cantaloupes : Minimum $ 0.03 per crate Up to 10 miles $ 0.01 per crate mile Casabas, Honey Dews, watermelons, etc., in bulk : 1-4 miles $ 1.00 per ton 4-8 miles $ 1.50-2.00 per ton Empty boxes (back to ranch) : Los Angeles lugs $ 0.50 per hundred Picking lugs $ 1.00 per hundred Grain : 1-10 miles $ 0.80-1.25 per ton 120 University of California — Experiment Station Specific crop contracts Alfalfa: Baling from stack $ 2.50-3.00 per ton Apricots : Picking, for drying.... $ 5.00 per ton Cutting, per 50-poimd lug box $ 0.10-0.15 per box Beans : Planting $ 1.50 per acre Threshing $ 0.45 per sack Cleaning , , $ 2.00 per ton Fumigating $ 1.50 per ton Cantaloupes : Picking per standard crate $12.50 per hundred Packing per standard crate ...$ 5.00-6.00 per hundred Picking, sorting, and packing (owner hauls from field $ 0.20-0.22 per crate Picking, hauling, sorting, and packing $ 0.25 per crate Grain : Threshing (without pitchers) $ 0.15 per sack Grapes, juice: Picking and packing in Los Angeles lug.... $ 0.03-0.04 per lug Grapes, table : Picking and packing in Los Angeles lug $ 0.04-0.05 per lug Picking and packing in Los Angeles lug (juice).. $ 3.50 per ton Peaches : Picking for cannery $ 3.00 per ton Cutting, per 40-pound lug box.... , $ 0.05 per box Sorghums, grain: Threshing (including sack sewing), per 130- pound sack $12.50 per hundred Threshing (including sack sewing).... $ 1.60 per ton Sweet potatoes: Sorting and packing $ 0.22 per crate Testing cows, per cow per year $ 1.50 per cow Cost of dairy supplies Stock salt $ 0.80 per 100 pounds Washing powder...., $ 0.15 per pound Farm wages Pruners and spraymen $ 2.70 per 9-hour day Teamsters, hay pitchers, irrigators, etc $ 2.25 per 9-hour day Cost of fertilizers Lime $ 8.00 per ton Stable manure $ 1.00 per ton Sulfur $57.00 per ton Cost of insurance Fire : Barns and contents (other than livestock and feed, annual average for 3-year policy) $1.3 percent of value £of coverage Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 121 51.0 per cent of value Outbuildings and contents | of c l 0Yerage Grain, in field * 3 - P er cent of value {of coverage Hay, in stacks (85.0 per cent recoverable in case of ^ \ ^5.0 per cent of value £of coverage Hay, in barns (85.0 per cent recoverable in case of fire N $2.5 per cent of value ' £of coverage Fire and theft: trucks S}j P er cent of value £of coverage Employers' liability 2.9 per cent of payroll Cost of market containers Cantaloupe crates $ 0.17each Grape lugs (#2) $ 0.10 each Sacks Bean $ 0.09 each Grain , $ 0.09 each Sweet potato crates $ 0.21 each Twine (sack) $ 0.75 per pound Cost of spraying and dusting materials Bluestone $ 0.08 per pound Lime-sulfur (concentrated) $ 0.18 per gallon Quicklime $ 0.01 per pound Mcodust < $ 0.20 per pound Sulfur $ 0.04 per pound Cost of stock feeds Mixed feeds : For calves $32.00 per ton For cows „.„. $26.00 per ton Poultry mash $38.00 per ton Poultry scratch $30.00 per ton Powdered skim milk $ 0.06 per pound Cost of tractor, truck, and automobile supplies Gasoline $ 0.15 per gallon Lubricating grease $ 0.25 per pound Lubricating oil $ 0.64 per gallon * Standard Los Angeles lug is 5 z /±±Y&y<2?l§y± inches (inside dimensions) and contains 24 to 26 pounds net weight of deciduous fruits or grapes. Costs of Seeds: The range and usual market price of seeds, as re- ported by seed dealers in the Turlock area, are presented in table 51. Cost of Irrigation Water. — Irrigation water for all lands within the area studied is 'supplied by the Turlock Irrigation District. An annual per-acre charge is levied by the District regardless of the amount of water used. The method of computing the irrigation tax is based on an assessed valuation of the lands (without improvements) evaluated according to their relative productivity, at an established rate of taxa- 122 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 51 Costs of Seeds in the Turlock Area Crop Range in price per cwt. Usual price per cwt. Alfalfa Barley $16.00- 22 00 1 00- 2 50 3 00- 8.00 7 00- 11 00 10.00- 14 00 100 00-200 00 100 00-150 00 2 50- 5 00 100 00-150 00 12 00- 19 00 5 00- 10.00 4 00- 7.00 2 00- 2.50 300 00-500 00 1.50- 2.50 16 00- 20.00 6 00- 12.00 2 50- 3.50 75.00-200 00 1.50- 3.25 6 00- 9.00 9.00- 15.00 $10 00- 16 00 $20 00 1 25 6 00 Beans, Baby Lima 10 00 Beans, Small Horse 12 00 Cantaloupes Casaba melons Egyptian corn 150 00 150 00 4 00 150 00 Melilotus alba 15.00 6.00 Milo Oats 5.00 2.25 300 00 Rye Spinach Sudan grass 2.00 18.00 7 50 3 00 Watermelons Wheat Vetch, common Vetch, purple 150 00 2 00 6 00 12 00 $13 00 tion. From 1923 to 1928 the tax rate per $100.00 of assessed valuation was $4.50. In 1929 the rate was reduced to $4.25. The 1930 rate was likewise $4.25. For the purposes of this study the tax rate of $4.50 per $100.00 of assessed valuation is used throughout. Within the area studied the assessed valuation of the lands mostly range from $50.00 to $150.00 an acre, which, at a tax rate of $4.50 per TABLE 52 Cost per Acre of Irrigation Water in the Turlock Area Crop Principal range in assessed valuation Usual assessed valuation Usual annual cost* of water Field crops: Alfalfa $65-110 75-110 60- 90 60- 90 90-150 75-115 $90-118 $85 90 75 75 125 100 $100 $3.82 Beans 4.05 3 37 3 37 Orchards "5 62 4 50 Truck crops $4 50 * Based on rate of $4.50 per $100.00 assessed valuation. Source of data: Office of Turlock Irrigation District, compilation and computations by authors. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 123 $100.00 of assessed valuation, indicated a possible range in the annual charge for irrigation water of $2.25 to $6.75 an acre. The principal range and usual assessed valuation of lands for each type of crop and the usual cost of irrigation water per year are given in table 52. Cost of County Tax. — The valuation of lands assessed for county taxes range from $20.00 to $150.00 an acre on a bare-land basis. Improvements are assessed in accordance with a standard schedule of valuations in which permanent plantings are listed as follows : Alfalfa $ 20.00 an acre Mature deciduous orchards $ 60.00 an acre Mature vineyards Table or raisin grapes $ 50.00 an acre Juice grapes $100.00 an acre The total assessed valuation of lands supporting plantings is made up of the assessed valuation of the improvements added to the valuation of the bare lands. For the fiscal year 1929-30, the tax rate per $100.00 assessed valuation within the area studied ranged from $3.05 to $5.30 with a general average of $3.66. This tax rate included the county base rate (outside incorporated cities), school tax, and improvement-district taxes. In computing the costs of producing farm crops used in this study, a standard tax rate of $3.80 per $100.00 of assessed valuation was used TABLE 53 Assessed Valuation and County Taxes per Acre in the Turlock Area Crop Principal range in assessed valuation of bare land Usual assessed valuation of bare land Assessed valuation of permanent plantings Total usual assessed valuation Annual tax* per acre Field crops: Alfalfa Beans $35-100 50-100 35-100 35-100 80-140 60-120 60-120 90-125 50-125 $90-125 $65 90 55 55 100 100 100 100 100 $100 $20 60 100 50 $85 90 55 55 160 200 150 100 100 $100 $3.23 3.42 Grain sorghums Irrigated pasture 2 09 2 09 Trees and vines: Orchard (full bearing) 6.08 Vineyard (full bearing) : Juice Table and raisin Truck crops: Cantaloupes Melons Sweet potatoes 7.60 5 70 3.80 3.80 $3.80 * Based on tax rate of $3.80 per $100.00 assessed valuation. Source of data: Compiled by authors from data on file in Offices of County Assessors and Tax Collectors, Merced and Stanislaus counties. 124 University of California — Experiment Station (in order to take in years of higher tax rates prior to the fiscal year 1929-30) with assessed valuations of lands for each crop as given in table 53. Purchase Cost, Depreciation, and Cost of Repairs for Selected Types of Farm Structures, Equipment, and Livestock. — Tables 54 to 56 pro- vide data concerning (a) purchase cost, (b) average annual rate of depreciation, and (c) average annual cost of repairs for items commonly required in carrying on farms devoted to field, truck, fruit, and livestock enterprises. The purchase costs are for good quality, serviceable equip- ment, bought for cash, and as of January, 1932. TABLE 54 First Cost, Depreciation, and Annual Charge for Eepairs of Farm Buildings and Structures Item Construction cost Average annual rate of depreciation Average annual charge for repairs Farm buildings and structures: Barns: Horse barn and implement shed dollars 550 00 200.00 340 00 545.00 672.00 150 00 115.00 183 00 100 00 21.00 62.00 2.57 2.50 2 .48 110 00 70.00 32.00 202.00 25.00 14.00 0.05 4.00 2 50 per cent* 5 5.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 12.5 4.0 7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 5.0 5 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 50.0 12.5 20 per cent* 3 (24 ft. x 50 ft., 24 ft. to ridge, 8 ft. to eaves) Milking barn: 10-cow capacity 3.0 20-cow capacity... 3.0 32-cow capacity 3.0 Poultry house, 500 fowl capacity 3 (18 ft. x 70 ft. and 10 ft. x 18 ft. feed room, complete with piping) Domestic water supply (installed) : Well, 8 in— 40 ft t Motor, 1 H.P 3.0 Tower t Tank, 2,000 gallons t Piping: Field crops, fruit, and truck farms 1.0 10 Fencing (per rod) : Cow corral (boards) 3.0 Horse corral (boards) 3.0 Poultry yard 2.0 Implement shed 3.0 (18 ft. x 56 ft., earth floor) Milk house 3.0 (8 ft. x 10 ft., concrete floor) Packing shed, cantaloupe 3 (18 ft. x 18 ft.) Tractor shed -. 3.0 (14 ft. x 24 ft., concrete floor) Water troughs, each 5.0 Irrigation structures : Headgates, each 1.0 Lath furrow pipes, each t Outlet boxes, each 3.0 Tappoons, each t * Per cent of construction cost. j Amounts are inconsequential. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 125 TABLE 55 Purchase Price, Annual Eate of Depreciation, and Charge for Eepairs of Farm Equipment Item Implements and machines: Broadcaster, hand Bean row splitter Bean cutter Cultivators: 1-row, walking 2-row, riding Eveners, per set Harrows : 4-ft. single disk 5-ft. double disk Spike-tooth, per section Spring-tooth, per section Hay stacker Lister, 12-in Manure spreader Melon planting sled Mower, 5-ft Plank drag Planter, 2-row corn or bean Plows : Gang, 2— 12-in Sweet potato Sulky, 14-in Walking, 8-in Walking, 10-in Walking, 12-in Rake, 10-ft Ridger, disk Scrapers : Bucket Fresno Sweet potato transplanter Wagon, 13/2-ton Wagon, 23^-ton Horse and barn equipment: Baled-hay hooks, 2 Broom, barn Brush, horse Collars, each Curry comb Halters, each Harness: Double-chain work Double-leather work Harness awl Harness punch Hoof clippers Hoof rasp, 14-in Mane and tail shears Manure fork Tie chains, each Wagon jack Wagon wrench (Continued on p. 126) Purchase price verage annual rate of depreciation Average annual charge for repairs dollars per cent dollars 6.50 16.7 0.20 8.00 10.0 0.50 45 00 10.0 0.80 10.00 10.0 1 00 76.00 10 2.50 5.00 10.0 * 63.00 16.7 2.50 128.00 14 5.00 13.00 10.0 0.50 17.00 10 1.00 85 00 10.0 2 50 26.00 10.0 1.00 200.00 8.0 6 00 25.00 5.0 20 110 00 10.0 6.00 10.00 10 * 75.00 8.3 2.00 132 00 10.0 4.00 22.00 10 1.00 104.00 12.5 3 00 18.00 10.0 50 22.00 10.0 0.75 28.00 10.0 1.00 69.00 10.0 2 00 135.00 7.0 1.00 22.00 7.0 25 37.00 10.0 0.20 120.00 7.0 5.00 90.00 8.3 1.50 160.00 8.3 2.50 70 10.0 * 1.50 100.0 * 0.75 33.3 * 7.50 16.7 * 35 50 * 2.50 16.7 25 45.00 20 2 00 65.00 20 2 00 1.00 10.0 * 1.25 10.0 * 1.75 10.0 * 60 25 * 85 10.0 * 2.50 20 * 1 25 33 3 * 2.50 10.0 * 1.75 5.0 * Amounts are inconsequential. 126 University of California — Experiment Station Table 55 — (Continued) Item Dairy equipment: Broom, barn Brush, cow Bull nose ring Curry comb Fly sprayer Hose, %-in., per foot Kicking chains Lasso Lead chain Manure fork Manure shovel, square point Milk buckets, 14-qt., each Milk cans, 10- gal Milk cooler Milk stool Milk truck, hand Veterinary instruments (trocar sea pel, milk-fever outfit, syringe, teat slitter) Orchard equipment: Brush burner Buckets, picking, each Duster, sulfur Ladders, per foot Props and hooks, each Pruning saws, each Pruning shears, each: Hand Long-handled Tree Seeder, hand broadcaster Spray machine Spray-mixing barrels, each Poultry equipment: Broom Catching net Egg buckets, each Egg cases, 30-doz Egg scales Feed buckets, each Feed troughs, each Scoop shovels, each Scraper (for dropping boards) Sprayer, hand Wheelbarrow Hand tools and implements: Axe, felling Axe, splitting Crowbar, 16-lb Hoes, 6-in., 2 Jab planter Mattock, 16-in Pick,8-lb Pitchforks, 2 Purchase price dollars 1.50 0.75 50 0.50 1.50 12 0.75 3.50 25 2 50 1 50 2 00 5.00 10.00 home made 12.50 12.25 125.00 0.25 15.00 0.40 12 1.75 3.25 4.00 2.75 6 50 300 00 1 50 1.50 75 35 2.00 1 25 0.50 3.00 1.50 1.00 17.50 8.50 1 50 1.50 2.75 2 50 1.75 1.50 1.50 3.50 Average annual rate of depreciation per cent 100.0 33 3 10 50.0 33.3 33.3 20 20.0 20.0 20.0 10 50.0 33.3 10 10 10 10.0 33.3 12 5 12.5 20.0 16.7 20.0 20 20.0 16.7 10.0 20 100.0 33 3 50.0 50.0 10.0 50 20.0 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4 20.0 10 10.0 10.0 12.5 dollars * » * * * * * * * * 10 * 0.50 Z> 1 50 * 50 * * * * Amounts are inconsequential. Bul. 544] Tests of Farm Organization 127 Table 55 — (Continued) Item Purchase price Average annual rate of depreciation Average annual charge for repairs Hand tools and implements — (continued) Shovels: Round point, long handle, 2 dollars 3.00 1 50 1.25 4.25 50 0.50 0.35 0.25 12.00 2.00 0.25 35.00 25 6.00 3 25 6 50 2 00 4 00 15 4 50 1.50 1.50 1 50 1.25 1 25 1.50 1 50 4.25 3.75 0.75 2.75 2.75 3 50 1.65 0.85 2 50 2.50 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.75 2.00 4 00 2.00 2.00 75 5.50 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.75 per cent 10.0 10 10 10 33.3 20.0 50 33.3 10.0 10 20.0 5.0 5.0 33 3 10 12.5 25.0 10 33.3 10 10 10 50 10.0 10.0 10 20.0 5.0 5 33 3 7.0 7.0 10 10.0 5.0 5.0 10 5.00 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 5.0 10 10.0 10 5 10.0 10 10 10.0 dollars 20 Square point, long handle 0.10 Sickle Snath, scythe, and brush hook * Miscellaneous: Bucket, galvanized * Funnel * Glass cutter * Gopher traps * Grindstone » Hay knife * * Platform scales, portable * Putty knife * * Step ladder, 8-ft * Wheelbarrow * Whitewash brush * Carpenter tools : Brace, rachet, and 6 bits, assorted * Chalk line, 40-ft. * Chisels, set of 6, assorted * Draw knife, 12-in * Expansive bit Files, set of 6, assorted * Hammer, claw 05 Half hatchet Hatchet * Oil stove * Plane, 15-in. jack * Plane, 10-in. smoothing Rule,3-ft * Saw, 26-in. cross-cut Saw, 26-in. rip 50 50 Spirit level * Screw drivers, set of 3, assorted * Square, 12-in. meter * Square, 24-in. steel * Steel tape, 100-ft * Wrecking bars, 30-in., 2 * Mechanical tools: Bearing scrapers, set * Cold chisel, 7-in * Hammers, ball peen, 2 (1 and 2 pounds) * Pliers, 2 pair, 6 and 8-in. * Screw jacks, 2 * Tin snips, 12-in * Valve-grinding tools * Valve lifters * Vise * Wrenches: Crescent, set of 3, 6, 8, and 10-in * End, set of 6 * Knife handle (monkey) * Socket, set of 6 * (Concluded on p. 128) * Amounts are inconsequential. 128 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 55— {Concluded) Item Pipe fitting tools: Hack saw, 12-in Oil can Pipe cutter Pipe stock and dies Pipe vise Stillson wrenches, 18-in., 2 Blacksmith tools: Anvil, 100-lb Cooling tub Forge Hammer Hardy Sledges, 16-lb., 2 Tongs, 20-in V Wedges, iron, 10-in., 2 Fencing tools: Chain blocks, H-ton capacity Post-hole digger Staple puller (For hammer, shovel, and crowbar see other lists) Concrete and brick laying tools: Brick hammer Concrete mixer Trowel, 10-in Trowel, pointing (For shovels see other lists) Purchase price dollars 1 60 0.50 3.25 9.50 3.00 6 00 15.00 1.00 25.00 1.25 1 00 4.50 2.00 1 50 12.00 2.75 0.75 1.15 45.00 2 00 0.50 Average annual rate of depreciation per cent 10 20 10.0 10.0 5 7.0 10 10 10 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 Average annual charge for repairs dollars 10 50 0.15 Amounts are inconsequential. TABLE 56 Purchase Price, Annual Rate of Depreciation, and Mortality of Farm Livestock Item Purchase price Average annual rate of depreciation and mortality Livestock (per head) : Bulls dollars 100-250 40-75 100-150 1.25 75 per cent 16.0 20.0 10.0 66.0 Pullets The figures are suggestive. Proper care and expert use will tend to prolong the life and lessen the outlay for repairs. The reverse will shorten the life and add to the repair bills. Some items have practically an indefinite life (such as crowbars, platform scales, wrenches, etc.) yet a life has been assigned in order that the original purchase price may ultimately be absorbed. 12m-2.'33