University of California
College of Agriculture
Agricultural Experiment Station
Berkeley, California

FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY, TULE LAKE AREA

R. L. Adams
and

Chester 0. McCorkle
June 15 - August 15, 1948

uNlVtKSUY Of- CALIFORNIA

Contribution of the
Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics
Mimeographed Report No. 94

L.iBRAR

CULUiCL Oh AGK1CULTURF
DAVIS

ESTIMATED PRACTICES, PRODUCTION, COSTS AND RETURNS FROM ALTERNATIVE
CROPS i TULE LAKE .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION (Request for the Study) . 1

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA ' 1

Irrigation ♦ *

Soils and Topography •

Climate

ITeeds and Pests • *« 4

Water Fowl ♦ * « 4

Rodents and Deer » »•»..»

Plant Diseases and Insects ...... i

REQUIREMENTS OF HOMESTEADERS AND METHOD OF ALLOCATING HOMESTEADS 5

Size of Farms •

■

PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THIS SURVEY 7

PRODUCTION, PRACTICES, COSTS, AND RETURNS FROM PRESENT CROPS .....

ONIONS

ALFALFA •

BARLEY .

CLOVER ...»

POTATOES

SUGAR BEETS 28

COMPARISON OF 1948 VERSUS 1935-1939 DATA 3 *

9
10
16
20
24

39
42

CARROTS

IRRIGATED PASTURE •

LIVESTOCK IN TULE LAKE DIVISION - FARM ORGANIZATIONS 60

CROP ROTATIONS •••

FINANCIAL NEEDS OF HOME S TEADERS AND CREDIT SOURCES 68

ii
Page

THE ROLE OF TENANCY 7 2

Nature of Government Leases , 73

Areas Leased and Rentals 74

■fcffiFTISG OUTLETS AND FACILITIES 76

LABOR CONDITIONS 80

CONCLUSION 81

iii

TABLES

Table
number

Page

Calendar of Operations for Onions (20 Acres with 300 92-Pound

Sacks Yield) i 1 U

Onion Costs (20 Acres 300 92 Pound Sacks/Acre)

(Compiled July-August, 1946) 2 12

Calendar of Operations for Alfalfa (20 Acres with 4-Ton Yield)

Mature Stand 3 13

Expense of Establishing an Alfalfa Stand of 20 Acres

(Data as of July-August 1948) 4 14

An Example of the Cost of Alfalfa Production

(Compiled July- August 1948) 5 15

Calendar of Operations for Barley (80 Acres) 6 18

Barley Costs (80 Acres - Average Yield of 32.16 Hundredweight)

(Compiled July-August, 1948) .... 7 19

Calendar of Operations - Clover (20 Acres) 8 21

Alsike Clover Costs (20 Acres - 400 Pounts/Acre)

(Compiled July-August, 1948) 9 22

Clover Costs (including Depreciation of Stand) 10 23

Carlot Shipments of Potatoes From Tule Lake, 1935-1939 11 24

Calendar of Operations - Potatoes (20 Acres) 12 26

Potato Costs (20 Acres - 300 Sacks/acre)

(Compiled July-August, 1948) 13 27

Calendar of Operations - Sugar Beets (20 Acres) Yield of

12 Tons 14 29

Sujtar Beet Costs (20 Acres - 12 Tons/Acre)

(Compiled July-August, 1948) 15 30

Comparison of 1935-1939 Costs: Net Returns 1935-1939 and

1947 for Selected Crops in the Tule Lake Division 16 32

Onion Costs 1935-1939 (20 Acres with 300-92 Pound Sacks Yield). 17 33

Alfalfa Costs 1935-1939 (80 Tons) 18 34

Barley Costs 1935-1939 (80 Acres - 32.16 Hundredweight Yield).. 19 35

Clover Costs 1935-1939 (20 Acres - 400 Pound/Acre Yield) 20 36

Potato Costs: 1935-1939 (20 iusres - 300 Sacks/Acre) 21 37

t • « • • i

,e^eJ;«£sfJ. Trot/? « 90**^05 ^piefysnqiiiig Wfn^CJ

(i-riH^p-JnaP. fifi*. . >«mi fie \ 9 -f 9n n ^+0-^0

• • ». *

Table

number Page

Sugar Beet Costs: 1935-1939 (20 Acres— 12 TonsAcre 22 33

Cabbage, Expected Yield - 10 Tons or 200 Crates

Inputs Per Acre 23 40

Cost Per Acre for Cabbage Production 24 41

Calendar of Operations - Carrots (20 Acres with Yield of 14

TonsAcre 25

Typical Costs of Producing Carrots (20 A.cres - 14 TonsAcre)
(Compiled July-Aup-ust, 1948)
(Current Costs Rather Than Estimated 1935-1939 Costs) 26 44

Cauliflower, Expected Yield - 300 to 350 Crates (6 to 7 tons)

Inputs Per Acre 27 46

Cost Per Acre for Cauliflower Production 28 47

Celery, Expected Yield - 350 to 400 65-Pound Crates

Inputs Per Acre 29 48

Cost Per Acre for Celery Production 30 49

Lettuce, Expected Yield - 150 Crates of 5 Dozen Heads

Inputs Per Acre for Pall Lettuce Production to Harvest Time. . 31 50

Cost Per Acre for Lettuce Production to Harvest Time 32 51

Market Peas, Expected Yield - 75 Bushels (2,400 Pounds)

Inputs Per Acre • 33 52

Cost Per Acre for Producing Market Peas 34 53

Market Spinach, Expected Yield - 500 Bushels (9,000 Pounds)

Inputs Per Acre for Market Spinach 35 54

Cost Per Acre for Market Spinach Production 36 55

Wheat, Expected Yield - 24 Hundredweight

Inputs Per Acre for Irrigated Wheat Production 37 56

Cost Per Acre for Irrigated '/Vheat Production * 38 57

Oats, Expected Yield - 21 Hundredweight

Inputs Per Acre for Irrigated Oat Production 39 58

Cost Per Acre for Irrigated Oat Production 40 59

Livestock Inventories in the Tule Lake Division as of

January 1, 1935-1939 and November 1, 1943-1947 41 61

Numbers of Livestock Per Farm

1935-1939 and 1943-1947 42 62

fti^AaooT SI — esioA

Z**"} £3*1

...

■

'.ioisbptx acl ei9i

■

Livestock Numbers Compared 1935-1939 with 1943-1947 ,

Two Rotations - 80-Acre Farm

4 20-Acre Fields

Rotations - 80-Acre Farm

8 10-Acre Fields • 1

Rotations - 80-Acre Farm

8 10-Acre Fields Designed for Dairying

Tabulation of Capital Requirements - 80-Acre Homestead

(Rotation - 20 Acres Each of Barley> Sugar Beets, Potatoes,
and Clover) ...» •

Public Lands Leased by the Reclamation Bureau in the Tule Lake
Area • •

Tenanting; of Homesteads in the Tule Lake Division

Leasing: Program

Tule Lake and Sump Area 1947

Price Returns Comparisons for Four Products
1937-1939, 1947 <

Farm Management Survey, Tule Lake Area
3y R. L. Adams l/ and
Chester 0. McCorkl
June 15 - August 15, 1948

Int roduct ion

On March 26, 1948 representatives of the United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Region II met with representatives of the
Giannini Foundation, College of Agriculture, University of Cali fornia, in con-
nection with a number of questions for which the Bureau desired answers. As
a result of this conference and subsequent correspondence, the C-iannini Founda-
tion agreed to undertake a farm management study of the Tule Lake reclamation
projects.

This report sets forth our findings, based on a ten-weeks' study, and in-
cluding collection, assembling, and analysis of much data (most of which had
to be collected in the field). We know that this report does not answer all
the questions proponded by Bureau officials but further study can appropriately
be postponed until the material herewith presented has been weighed and digested.

In gathering the basic data certain officials of the Bureau of Reclamation
were especially helpful. Mr. R. R. Best aided in putting Bureau records at our
disposal. Mr. E. L. Stevens shared his long-time experience with the Project
in suggesting worth-while contacts and informative sources, as well as arranging
for necessary maps and other materials. Especially helpful in contacting the
newer homesteaders was Mr. C. Ault stationed at the Tule Lake Headquarters in
the capacity of advisor for the last group of settlers. In checking and cor-
recting much of the cost data included herein, Mr, La Verne Hemstreet, vocational
agriculture instructor at Tule Lake High School, was of great assistance.

Description of Area

This survey was confined to the area designated as the Tule Lake Division
of the Klamath Project, Oregon-California administered by the United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Lying in the southern end
of the Klamath Basin the Tule Lake Division is almost entirely in California
though the natural basin extends northwestward for roughly another twenty miles.
Near the state line the basin narrows to three or four miles and then opens
again near Klamath Falls, The division between Modoc and Siskiyou counties di-
vides the Tule Lake Division into two almost equal parts, the majority of the
farm land being in Modoc County, however.

Irrigation . --Plans call for an ultimate of 63,000 acres of agricultural
lands under irrigation in this division, the largest single division in the
project. The Main Division, lying to the northwest, comprises 41,000 acres.
The purpose of the Tule Lake Division was to reclaim the bed of Tule Lake by

l/ Professor of Farm Management and Agricultural Economist in the Experiment
Station and on the Giannini Foundation.

Z/ Research Assistant on the Giannini Foundation, College of Agriculture,
University of California.

btiB \£tsH7J8.bA ,sl »5I vE

X*ac5/*fioov iM^Mtf 'ianffJd >»<lJI ^nisriad b*bulon.i stab ±aoo *d&..lo daum tiiliavt

no j ?.

ban

t9V9¥foft- ,vdnuoO s»obor4 fli ^nlad &nsl glial
;iiXw nu -reft XXao enall— .noi^jBainl

*r*lT6KjXi? arkt ni d r 3i.f'o.fio{>3 X/Jii/.J'Xt'p'i'xjiA f>cii-* &ri9m$£Bii&¥, tn&'i-lo upeseloifl \X

evaporation, then to prevent inflow, and finally to provide for irrigation, of
about 33,000 acres which lay in the lake bed, from water stored in Upper Klamath
Lake Reservoir supplemented by Lost River water. This involved extensive drain-
age and canal construction best visualized by looking at Map No. 45-52 titled
Klamath Project, Oregon-California. Viewing this map it will be noticed that
"J" canal is the main source of water for the Tule Lake Division running parallel
with the state line across the north portion and finally flowing south down the
eastern border of the basin and across the lower end.

Upper Klamath Lake provides the principal water supply for the project, its
capacity being 524,800 acre-feet. In addition, Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs,
with capacities of 538,000 and 94,000 acre-feet, respectively, furnish an addi-
tional and adequate water supply for the entire project. Water for a portion of
Tule Lake Division is diverted from Link River, the outlet at the south end of
Upper Klamath Lake. Additional water during the season of irrigating is diverted
from the Klamath River through the Lost River Division Channel to furnish the
necessary water for the remainder of the Tule Lake Division. This can be under-
stood readily by viewing map 45-52 cited earlier.

Soils and Topography. — Though the surface of the division slopes south at
the rate of between one and five feet per mile, the land is very smooth. Land
planing is usually needed on individual farms but no extensive soil moving is
required. On either side of the basin the hills rise sharply and some of the
homesteads on the periphery tend to slope more steeply. All of the division
homesteaded to date is irrigated by gravity. The soil is similar to other lake-
bottom lands in that it is a loam varying from a sandy loan to a peaty loam.
Some peat soils are found in the area. Because of the character of these soils,
breaks in canals and dikes are very serious since the soil "melts" away when in
contact with water, This is especially true in the upper end of the basin where
the lighter soils are located. These soils are deep, well drained, and very
fertile, being rioh in organic matter and nitrogen when in their natural state.
Continued cropping with little or no attention to proper rotation has resulted
in making some of the land harder to work and more subject to "puddling" and
"clodding." Where proper rotations have been maintained and where livestock
has been included in the farm organization the soils are friable and produce
good to excellent crops with a minimum of operations and little use of commer-
cial fertilizer.

Climate. -rClimatic conditions are the principal limiting factors in the
choice of enterprises in this area. Since this is an irrigated area the amount
and occurrence of rainfall is not much of a factor except insofar as it affects
the water supply for irrigation. The average annual rainfall is 8.83 inches
and while the wettest months are December to April inclusive, rainfall occurs
during each month of the year. The tabulation below is indicative.

Average Rainfall by Months (Tule Lake Station)

January
February
March
April
May
June

0.94

July

0.24

0.86

August

0.04

1.03

September

0.45

1.10

October

0.95

0.80

November

0.74

0.56

December

1.12

Annual

8.83 inches

Source of data: U. S. Weather Bureau, Climatological

Data, California Section, Annual Reports,

XeJ

' r?£i ib'^ioto th$3W "onf «b»d o3taI fti" y

ad IXiw *J

©rid "tol:

I no i^^t^iroa . Ism^o bee. ajst-fl

tr&uoz niiipj sriif- ax* Lpcuna

' aa'noa- Qftxl ' e*a*? erf* rf*iw

nXaAd orf* !o "tsftnod m&*c&e

becHevib ai
oitt rfaiv

t . , £l9vi'*oeqs9n «*f©el'«e«foa OOG^e bn^ 090^955 lo e<
»i-©ilxae faoiio qa&- gniwehr yd

dtfaoa- 3©qoi*s ncrfsxvlb ©dtf l-o ©oatnifa ori> rigi/oxfr-^vrfqa-t^oqoT bx*c a-Xio<
bnej .iirtoorca y-iov ai bnaX ed* ,elta i©q ;t©©l ©vx^i bna »?*o n jswtfed' lc &ij

noia/vib arfrt *io XXA ♦ylq'syd-a

0 sufct 1(

J- o;t b.isrf ^T-rte[^*;5q oitt no abs
i yd bad^i-wl 3jf stfab o4 bebi
lav naof a ai $i *sd* ni abod
isifl ©d4 bnwdl ».*ib aXxoe Hi

ad*
Jfllq

bonicnb

illc? oaaifT «b©dacoX asa &Ifoa

&na "arrjtifcbi

*aaj-,d^a mom

oi n*?b*ad bm

nox jbs 0ti 3510 m«] an? r.l Dobxuqnx n sod sen
lo founrinlm a iWvtvr Bqono JneXIfosai q* boQg

,flesiX ilfitft X/uo

rii Xaqionxiq ©dtf Bnoid#»noo citfamiX^rfua-janiiXO

son!" ^©"la ajdd- ni saaioq-i

Xjt/arus ©3B"T0\
[J Xi^rA od- if

0*1 s kastetn y>

w ox.'^ :>ffdi» b«jj
n©jg .do.iis .^af'iub

My 0

{noJW-fl*8 a^.^J «iirT) sd^no'.l yd lia^niaJI 9g«*io^rA

2iJ^l/A

-Barfoni ^S^B

ifjeoctni

.adnoq-Jfi X-oxmnA ^no'itfoog fiimoliX^s , t atf}Q

The figures are made up from 15 years of records, the station having operated
only since 1933.

Because of the interior location (150 miles from the coast) and the high
elevation (around 4,100 feet) the temperatures vary widely during the seasons
and even in each 24-hour period. Maximum summer temperatures as high as 105°F.
have been recorded, however, temperatures during the summer months as high as
95°F. are uncommon. The winter temperatures drop to -25°F. on some occasions.
Temperatures below zero are recorded frequently during the winters. Monthly
mean temperatures are shown in the table below. It is apparent that the winter
months are extremely cold when a monthly average falls below the freezing point.
The ground remains frozen for several weeks during the winter so that all farm-
ing operations are halted.

Monthly Mean Temperatures

January

29.3

July

65.3

February

32.7

August

63.3

March

39.4

September

56.9

April

45.5

October

48.5

May

51.8

November

36.0

June

58.3

December

32,3

Source of data: U. S. Weather Bureau Climatological

Data, California Section, Annual Reports.

These low winter temperatures have an important bearing on the agriculture
of the area. First, no crops can be grown during the period of cold, so one-
crop production is the rule. Second, when livestock is kept, it must have feed
in 6toracre for a period of five to six months and must be fed in a barn or on
a paved feed lot as no pasture plants now known will grow in weather as cold as
prevails in this area. Other less important factors will be mentioned from time
to time which are results of this cold winter climate,

A third, and extremely important climatic condition prevailing in this area,
is the killing frosts. These have been the chief natural limiting factors to
the enterprises which can be conducted. Frosts can and frequently do occur in
any month of the year. Taking the available data from 1933 to date, the following
chart was prepared to show the pattern of killing frosts clearly. It is appar-
ent from this tabulation that frosts are not uncommon in any month and that no
year has a period longer than about ten weeks absolutely free from killing frosts.
It is an old saying among the farmers that late spring frosts are expected until
July 4, and early fall frosts are expected after July 4.

Record of Killing Frosts (Tule Lake Station)

Last before July 15 First after July 15

1933

June 18

August 5

1934

June 25

July 31

1935

June 30

August 16

1936

June 28

September 13

1937

June 23

August 1

1938

May 22

August 23

1939

June 18

August 29

1940

June 8

September 5

(Table continued on next page)

8.W-

Acquis- -HZS-l larfiiO 'Xi6-ii3 'ziAt'ni 'isiljsvatq
b-ihB&lKt&'itlGtneriixa Sue-' .bi'lilf

Cont.

1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947

Record of Killing Frosts (Tule Lake Station)
Last before July 15 First after July 15

Mean

June 7
June 11
No record
June 13
No record
July 9
June 28
June 16

August
August

28
30

September 19

September 7
August 22
August 25

4 out of 5 not
later

June 28
Latest recorded July 9

4 out of 5 not earlier
Earliest recorded

August
July

16
31

Source of data: U, S. Heather Bureau Climatological Data, California Section,
Annual Reports,

Weed s and Pes ts. — Prior to the extensive irrigation establishments, weeds
were not a problem for the farmer in the Tule Lake Division. With the establish-
ment of extensive irrigation works without adequate weed control on ditch banks
and near the sources of water, it was only a short time until weed growth was
abundant on all of the farm lands. Attempts have been made at weed control with
sprays along the ditch banks by the Bureau of Reclamation but until this eradica-
tion program develops to where it is all-inclusive, weed seeds will continue to
be spread in the irrigation water.

On individual farms weed eradication has been attempted by many producers
with considerable success. Mustard can be cleaned out of the grain fields with
2,4-D very easily. Small patches of particularly noxious weeds such as Canadian
Thistle, Russian Thistle, and White Top have been brought under control in iso-
lated cases. Morning Glory is also a problem in the basin, Vhile individuals
can eliminate these weeds for a period, as long as the weeds are allowed to re-
main near the water sources and canals, no permanent relief can be had. A com-
plaint is registered by the farmers against the Bureau of Reclamation on this
item; however, weed assessments are made by the counties, not the Bureau, and
apparently no large-scale effort has been made as yet to carry out an extensive
campaign to eradicate weeds throughout the Division.

Water Fowl, — In addition to weeds there are other adverse factors worth
mentioning. One of particular importance is the damage wrought by wild fowl
during the fall. Both the Lower Klamath Lake Sump and the Tule Lake Restricted
Sump are in reserve areas. The former is in the Klamath Lake Bird Reserve, the
latter is located in the Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge. In the late summer ducks
and geese arrive in mass flights which darken the sky over the entire basin.
These birds stop over in this area during the fall and spring and when the crops
are not yet harvested they cause untold damage. Particularly with barley, they
have been known to flatten an entire field of grain in an evening. Much the
same tactics are used in this area as are used in the rice fields of the Sacra-
mento Valley in trying to scare these birds out of the grain fields. Search-
lights and sirens on trucks are used extensively by the large barley producers
in an attempt to keep the geese and ducks out of the fields.

.31 y^tft' -iwtf

. .

81 efjcl

total

■

'I'll rfpn^i

-tit

St'l I M

tcii*?-- vfi^a^ bnu sbs>sV?

rci Mn

eqc-r:

Rodents and Deer. — Rodents are plentiful, particularly rabbits, but their
damage is slight compared with the wild fowl damage. The deer from surrounding
hill country winter in the lava beds to the south but do little damage in that
the crops are usually off before they arrive.

Plant Diseas es and Insects .— As yet the entire basin is relatively free of
plant diseases as is the case with most new agricultural areas. However, con-
centrated and continuous planting of the same crop year after year can result in
an increase of plant diseases. Virus diseases in potatoes are noticeable in
some fields, especially those Where table stock is being grown and no roguing
is done. Flea beetles have been observed in the area and dusting is practiced
to keep these down. Aphids are the worst spreaders of virus diseases and the
extent of virus disease spread could well be attributed to the prevalence of
aphids in the field.

Requirements of Homesteaders and Method of Allocating Homesteads

When a person wishes to homestead in any Reclamation Project he must conform
to an established procedure followed in ascertaining the eligibility of appli-
cants. First, a notorized application form must be sent in. ?v r ith this must go
certain other information as follows ;V

(1) Certification from the bank or other financial agency familiar with
the applicant's financial status that the applicant has $2,000 in
liquid assets (cash or equipment usually).

(2) Three letters as to his character from persons acquainted with the
applicant for longer than five years.

(3) A certification that the applicant's health is adequate to carry on
the tasks of farming in the event the applicant has claimed physical
disability.

(4) Three letters from persons qualified to vouch for the applicant's
farm experience which is to consist of i

(a) two-years' experience since the applicant's fifteenth birthday,

(b) college degree in agriculture substitutes for one year of
experience,

(5) Certification of service in the armed forces during World War II if
veteran's preference is to be claimed, without which the chance of
getting a homestead is small.

In addition to this information being filed, a person to be eligible must
not have theretofore perfected a homestead entry, or had an entry cancelled for
noncompliance with the homestead law.

No applications can be accepted before a given area of land is officially
declared open to entry. When such official notice is given a deadline is set
for the receipt of applications. All applications received prior to the deadline

l/ These requirements were met by the two groups who settled since World War
II. - For the group to settle in the Spring of 1949 items {?) and (4) will be com-
bined necessitating the inclusion of only three (3) letters in total.

[j6 Bln^boH

-noo *'

ra c-trf* (fart? rtc

Tqt: enj Don! a e^noii

.pnot&aTtidmiQO iet(;

Orfj. til, 94) 2V
0 «f 0.* f$ \

.! .".flams ex

jniiqS f»f|j ai &Xjff3» o» quotg ortf no 1 ? ".II
^Irfo to ttoizulonl eii* grriffjffiBZooan benld

and within the legal limit are considered as filed simultaneously and are then
processed by a local examining board* When all of those meeting the qualifica-
tions are determined, a drawing is conducted among those possessing necessary
qualifications to select successful applicants for the various farm units.

Veterans of World War II are given a 90-day preference period for filing
applications for entry under auspices of Ptlblib Lavr 434, 78th Congress, dated
September 27, I944j on all farm-unit plan openings of the Bureau of Reclamation,

The lands in all of the divisions of the project other than the Tule Lake
Division are in private ownership. That portion of the Division not now in pri-
vate hands will pass to private ownership when the post World War II homesteaders
have "proved up." The last two entries were made in the Spring of 1947 and the
Spring of 1948. In the 1946 group 86 were chosen in the drawing out of 1,305
who were found qualified to become homesteaders.

All unentered lands in the Tule Lake Division are public lands and are
opened to settlement when irrigation works are completed and when adequate flood
protection is assured. From 1922, when the first homesteaders entered the area,
until 1946, approximately 25,225 acres were settled. A portion of the Tule Lake
Division Part" I composed of about 10,000 acres was opened in the period December
1946 to the Spring of 1948. The first opening was of 7,528 acres and went to
86 homesteaders. The remaining 3,522 was opened this winter and provided 44 ad-
ditional farms. This was in the Tule Lake Division Part II. As soon as construc-
tion is completed on remaining farm areas, plans will be made to open them to
homesteaders, with the exception of those lands which are subject to flooding in
those years when floods occur.

The Bureau of Reclamation has set up a plan for the repayment by homesteaders
for the irrigation works. This plan is outlined here roughly. The actual cost
as found by an adjustment board appointed by the Secretary of Interior is $100.55
per acre, which rate is announced under provisions of the Extension Act of Au-
gust 13, 1914, and would have to be repaid in annual installments extending over
a period of twenty years. The Act of May 25, 1926 permits the government to re-
duce this cost to $88.35 per acre with payments extending over a period of forty
years, without interest, provided the water users will organize an irrigation
district and enter into a so-called "Joint Liability Contract" with the United
States for the repayment of the reduoed cost of the irrigation works. The lands
are being opened to settlement on a water-rental basis and each approved appli-
cant agrees when executing his water-rental application to the inclusion of his
land in an irrigation district whenever the Secretary of the Interior sets a
date for such district organization.

An annual operation and maintenance charge is levied on all irrigation
lands, the charge varying from year to year depending on the amount of mainte-
nance work performed. It is this charge which has been shown at the rate of
$3.00 per acre in the cost charts presented below.

Size of Farms.— In general the attempt is made to keep the sizes of farms
near 80 acres less roads and ditches, however, adjustments are made for better
and poorer soils. The following chart shows for the two most recent settlements,
the frequency distributions of size of farm, and the mean, mode and range in
farm sizes.

»9

n&ds one bnei vXarooitdvIumia boin aa ben^bl anoo

TJj-JJTTSI

tivlb e

u6 ar(T'

Acres 1946 Settlement Coppeck Bay Settlement

(1947-48)

60- 63*9

—

64- 67.9

—

68- 71.9

72- 75.9

76- 79.9

80- 83,9

84- 87*9

88- 91*9

92- 95.9

96- 99.9

100-103*9

104-107*9

108-111*9

112-115.9

116-119.9

MM*

120-123 .9

124-127*9

128-131*9

132-135.9

136-139.9

140-143.9

Mean 87.5 80.0

Mode 74 74

Range 60.8-141.3 68.8-113.2

Source of data; Bureau of Reclamation Ovmership Maps.

In the 1946 settlement data the farms of large size are located on the east edge
of the basin next to the hills. This is not irrigable, could provide some feed
and could be dry farmed if desired.

The Coppeok Bay homesteads are more uniform in size because the area is far
more uniform in character than is that settled two years ago.

The modal size is the same in the two settlements though the mean is dif-
ferent. This results from the large number of farms with greater acreage in the
1946 settlement.

Purpose and Method of This Survey

The over-all objective of this study is to point out the possible factors
involved in financial success and to show possible reasons why certain individuals
succeed and others fail. Specifically, an attempt has been made to point out the
following:

1. Characteristics of the Tule Lake area

2. Characteristics of the Reclamation Project

3. Costs and returns for present crops grown

4. Production and practices involved with these crops

5. Cost, return, production and practices data for possible alternative
crops

6. Data in 3, 4, and 5 above in terms of 1935-1939 costs and prices

e*sa

D 901*1

. >. .• t' ; . . ■<■ • . . . ■

r .. . ■ .. r. (■.-. - • .. . ■ . «

tfm>3a«iq ,iol sff^o^gi bos ataoO ,8

■ r*

7. Desirable rotations

8. Role of livestock in the agriculture of the region

9. The role of tenancy in the division
10. Marketing outlets and facilities

Hi Labor conditions and their effects on farm organization

12. Financial needs of settlers for farm and family. Credit facilities

13. Eurnings of farms

14. Conclusions, recommendations, and suggested improvements

The basic data were collected in the area primarily from growers. Certain
information, because of its character, was of necessity taken from other sources
such as weather reports, labor and wage reports, price and production reports,
etc. In putting together the cost data actual figures collected in the field
were used for current costs but for costs of the years 1935-1939 it was neces-
sary to lean heavily on R. L. Adams' Crop Manual (1941 edition). Much of the
cost data are based on growers' experience, their answers being the sole source
of information since little bookkeeping pertinent to the farming operations
could be found. Thus, these financial statements are typical examples of reason-
able costs of production put together from information gathered from many pro-
ducers.

Certain of the items in the tables may need some clarification. The data
in the cost tables are taken from the calendars of operation. It is merely put
into money terms to get at the cost per acre and per unit. Under the miscella-
neous items, taxes have been included universally at the rate of $3/acre. Tfhile
the new settlers are not as yet paying taxes, this was included because it is an
expense they will have to meet shortly. Management charges were included at the
rate of $18/acre for row crops and $9/acre for field crops such as barley and
alfalfa. Interest was oharged at the rate of four per cent on $200. The land
value was arbitrarily established at $200. per acre realizing that in present
times it would sell for more than this amount and has been selling for much more
than $200. per acre. Compensation insurance is figured on the wages actually
paid out, not on the total wage bill because that portion going to the operator,
while it is justifiably charged against the farm business, is not paid in actual
cash to the operator each month. The rates on this compensation insurance vary
widely from task to task but for the sake of simplicity $1.24/$100. of payroll
was used. Equipment costs appear to be very high but where equipment is used
for such a short period of time each year and fuel costs are a few cents higher
than in more accessible areas, it is not difficult to account for the high per-
day rates for operating farm equipment.

Production, Practices, Costs and Returns From Present Crops

Currently, the list of crops grown in the Tule Lake Division is quite lim-
ited primarily because of two factors: (l) the environmental conditions are
such as to be a limiting factor in alternative enterprises as discussed earlier;
and (2) the outlets for possible alternative crops are undeveloped. Some un-
fortunate events have occurred in past years because of these two limitations,
particularly the second.

In this section, one truck crop and five field crops will be discussed.
These are onions, alfalfa, barley, clover, potatoes and sugar beets. These are
not the only crops grown but they are the principal cash crops at this time.

The cost data here presented are based on conditions prevailing during
1947 for the most part, with, however, certain adjustments of 1948 when 1947
data were lacking. Table 18 contains some interesting figures for comparison
with other data contained in this section. Here, prices and earnings pertain

ffOiT-JJITf otaj

no x sot* 0*1

• • Pi

i-i .. ....

H bft/3 B^2o0
.1 f . ,

9 .

to the period 1935-1939 and are offered as more typical of farm earnings than
was 1947. Much of the 1935-1939 data has been estimated from other figures
because local information was not available.

Onions

■While never reaching a position of equal importance with potatoes, barley,
or alfalfa as cash crops % onions have been grown for almost two decades. Seldom
has there been more than a total of 50 acres planted to onions in any one ;^ear
with the exception of the current postwar period. At present there are at best
ten persons producing commercial onions with plantings ranging from slightly
less than 10 to over 30 acres.

Yields in this area vary widely with a low of 175 ninety- two pound sacks
to a reported high of 1,052 ninety-two pound sacks which was obtained in 1936.
In this same year the average yield was 496 sacks, indicating that very favor-
able conditions must have prevailed. Because of this wide variation it is diffi-
cult to make a meaningful estimate of the average yield; however, such an average
would probably be about 300 to 350 sacks.

The climate in the Tule Lake region is suited to onion production. Cool
weather early in the growing season and a dry warm period later on favor the
production of onions. In addition they are hardy to temperatures several de-
grees below freezing. Onions are of the late varieties which require a longer
period of warm weather to insure bulb formation.

Soil requirements, important in onion production, are met by Tule Lake
soils. They are friable enough to permit proper bulb growth, fertile, and for
the most part well supplied with humus. Onion soils must be retentive of water
near the surface to insure sufficient moisture about the roots. Though soils of
the basin fall somewhat short of this requirement, as long as water is available
in present quantities the surface can be kept moist. The plants will stand ex-
cessive amounts of water with little injury but a. deficient supply causes a
great deal of damage in the form of "doubles" or "splits." During the period
from early maturity to harvest too much water is undesirable because the keeping
qualities decline and the onions tend to become watery.

To date there has been little or no fertilization of onions practiced in
the basin. This year a few growers are experimenting with 0-10-12 at rates
from 250 pounds to 300 pounds applied as side dressing. To the middle of July
there was little visible evidence of gains as a result of fertilizer. No nitro-
gen is needed as top growth already tends to be too luxuriant.

The chief variety is Southport White Globe with a few Red Globes and Yellow
Globe Danvers. These are particularly good storage varieties, however, few
onions produced in the basin have been stored in recent years.

About 90 per cent of the crop is contracted for dehydration by one of two
companies. G. 3. Gentry of Gilroy is contracting this year at $1.75 per sack
field run while the Basic Dehydration Company of Vacaville is contracting at
$2.00 per 100 pounds with the farmer doing the sorting. About 5-7 per cent of
dirt, trash, and grade onions is allowed by the dehydrators. They are also
furnishing sacks this year and plan to haul from the field with their own trucks,
thus eliminating the usual haul by the grower to a siding. None of the onions
sold to dehydrators are stored.

The other 10 per cent of the crop is sold as market onions to buyers such

Is TO

bjfc rrl

10.

as Crawford and Wolfe or Levy and Zentner. For these onions, storage is neces-
sary, the fees running 10 cents per sack for" 90 to 120 days of storage* While
in storage these onions are sorted at an additional average cost of 18 cents
per 100 pounds*

Tables 1 and 2 set forth examples of a calendar of operations and a cost
of producing onions on twenty acres with a yield of 300 ninety- two pound sacks.

In the cost data in table 4, certain inclusions need clarifying* The con-
tract price for pulling, topping, and sacking varies from 20 cents per sack on
good yielding fields to 50 cents on the poorest fields. Contract hauling costs
were included because as yet no hauling by the processors from the field has
been undertaken.

Setting the computed cost of $.749 per ninety- two pound sack against the
contracted price of $1.75 per sack in the field, the resultant net return
amounts to $1.00 per sack. Figuring 300 sacks per acre would bring a net return
of $300.00 per acre or $6,000.00 on twenty acres.

If figures are to be obtained for those onions put in storage a cost of
18 cents per sack for sorting and 10 cents for storage must be added to obtain
the total cost per 100 pounds. This would be about $1.09 per hundredweight.

Alfalfa

The acreage planted to alfalfa in the Tule Lake Division has shovm a marked
decrease in the last decade. From 1935 to 1939 an average of 5,788 acres was
in alfalfa, the largest acreage occurring in 1935 with 7,090 acres. By 1947
the total acreage declined to a 2,922 acres, a drop of almost 50 per cent. Total
production dropped from a 1935-1939 average of 22,370 tons to a 1947 tonnage of
11,407. This decrease has been largely due to two factors. First, cash crops
such as potatoes and barley have brought such high prices in recent years that
many commercial alfalfa producers turned to these crops because of greater re-
turns per acre. Also, many farmers using alfalfa in rotations changed to a
rotation of barley and potatoes only during the war years or substituted clover
in the rotation as a legume because of its high value for seed and its shorter
occupancy of the soil. Second, livestock numbers have declined sharply as can^
be seen from viewing the livestock inventory figures presented elsewhere in this
report. It is this combination of factors which has been the chief motivating
force toward reduction of alfalfa production.

Though only two cuttings are usually made per year the yield is high. An
over-all average is 4 tons. Those producers growing for the market attempt to
get 5 tons from the two cuttings and are often successful. For a 5-ton yield
the first cutting will yield 2-3/4 tons, the second producing about 2-1/4 tons
per acre. Some attempt a third cutting but there are several objections to
this. Of first importance is the fact that a late cutting leaves the plants
in too weakened a condition for the coming winter cold, causing considerable
winter killing. Also the late irrigation necessitated by a third cutting
leaves the ground too wet. For best results through the winter period it is
better if the alfalfa planting goes into the winter relatively dry. Those who
do not cut three times generally pasture off the last cutting.

New plantings are made in a variety of ways. The two most common methods
are (l) to plant under barley and harvest a barley crop the first year, and (2)
to plant under an oat hay crop the first year. In recent years the most fre-
quently followed of these methods was the planting with barley due to the high

-Of o
A. . • .1

>9s , anoino oearltf io1 .tost&no^ bna yyod 10
•Jaoo 9,nai«>vfi tsstoltlbbt na 9b bsiioa Ml ar

• *aoo s boe Bnoitfaioqo lo TSbfie£i3o a lo eeXqitiaxs rtf-icl .tea S bna X e^XdaT
.aSoaa hr.aoq ow*-Y*?rfin..005 lo blotcy fl ddiw 3310a \9how9 no snoxno gniouboiq lo

-noo &dT ♦gr/x?.MflX.o bsen arioisi/Joni nia;He» oXdach ni ecfab *aoo eri* ni

no afoea i^q e*noo OS fRonl aeinav anjtafoaa bna «§niqqo* ^rtilli/q not soiiq 9oend
a*8oo SnH^ri to^nod .ebXoil ^snooq erf* no 8*neo 05 o* abXail gnibXslv boo 8

t *on jhnatf-Xuaen orfi t bXo.iT srfif nl Sasrtoq
^nii>f bXuow cjio-j noq aioaa 'OOS' aniioai 1 ! ,

>tnbf£yri ioq eo.Xfc . dyoda otf bXuow a 17

o'rf* rti all alXa o* becfasXq,. ega-anaa oifT
qonb a ,39-ioa SSe»S « o* bertiXoeb 9aae*ioa Xa*od

-1

',9 ^A9 Q9 ^n-iu9 : t"ror>e^oiq.^I,m.B rrtiiiWH

I' • " ? •• ^^V».W^I»w. , SaHtf-W9.'rt'i ^ftaift.'.da'.XA. .jve^.

* -*S V- 3 TCIT^' brfi! b*T«»R «tf\^ 0*1 f rsn^ r» I. Alt '-Av «Xr*A^ # r» J.'U ' _ .

I /xq;l*3/t~ P- r ii^i.iQSj^. .-!/-V« l Jf>"

io'i . .XulsaDo«i.« rttsdi-o &t* •Vna'-fcaiii^Q bw*" (ji^jmi . eo^.«|.^M

oXefaq

ioi3l erf* ai son

uifH*p. '.inb jpXayi^f^-W^wian^i*.,^ ii^4j^i^3* l7'n»*Sd

i>jp. ;to{r ob -

-wtl fsof .cna-jv, ^ .-.^»^ .mft «» qdifg #aa na -xobiju innXq oi -

li^iti-e^i 09 Vi/fir.xeXtad- rf*i*r %<ijt>4t£>iq- arict 'aaV ■'ebdri^era ©a^nl* lo bowoXXol Yl^neup

TABLE l

Calendar of Operations for Onions (20 Acres with 300-92 Pound Sacks Yield)

Crew and equipment

Physical requirements , Labor

Dates

Operations

Men I Tractor

Equipment

Acres
per
9 hr. day

Man
days

I Man days
Tractor,; Truck j operator
days I days works

required^

! Man
days
hired

April 1-17

April 3-19

April 6-22

April 8-24

April 10-26

April 12-
April 28

April 18-
Hay 4

April 20-
May 6

April 30-
May 16

May 20-
June 6

September 20-
October 6

September 30-
October 16

Plowing

'Disking (2X)
Harrowing (2X)
Dragging (2X)
Making beds
Preirrigation

Rolling beds

Planting
Run ditches
Irrigation (4X)

Pre-emergent spray

Sinox spray
Weeding (hand)(2X)
Cultivating (3X)

Lifting

Pulling, topping,

sacking
Hauling to siding

1M
1M
1M
1M
1M
2M

1M
1M

1M
10M
1M

20T
20T
20T
20T
20T

20T

14T
20T

14T

14T
14T

20T

Piece work
Contract

3-14"
8' d.d.

12' spike h.

12' drag
3-row lister

12' wooden r.

4-row planter
V-ditcher

Sprayer
Sprayer

4-row cultivator

Bean knife on
cultivator

8.0
20.0
30.0
20.0
27 .0
10.0

23.0

15.0
10.0
45.0

45.0

ig:-o

8.0
20.0

2.5
2.0
1.3
2.0

.75
4.0

1.3
.4

16.0

.4
40.0
7.5

1.0

2.5 !

2.0 i

1.3

2.0 ;

»?5|

1.3
.4

.4
7.5
1.0

2.5
2-0
1.3
2.0

► 75
2.0

1.3
.4
8.0

7.5
1.0

2.0

8.0

40.0

V ; i
> !

Ont-f TAfffOt

Beau KUTte °B

I T r 'V

jtJfsqf lib (psruq)(cx)

JOH

2bX»(?A6J.

?f>t?J 90-

TW 1 Ttfl

y t? G

■

•yb|-| J so-

jltjiikfiov (fx)
ynp qjfcpea

f i

il^ 1 *

ybx/jj jft-

• .- » ".

. .. . • ; «

•

• ; « * f".

tfblJT $-SS

'. . ' . "

-. .

• 3F *? " •

Vbx-TT J-TA {

" '

■

■ *0 c * ' "* *

■ «

TABLE 2

Onion Ccsts (20 Acres 300-92 Pound Sacks/Acre)
(Compiled July-August, 1948)

gallons
$3.70/gallon
nox at

Materials

Seed-3pound/acre at $3.40/pound treated
Oil spray— 60 gallons/acre at $12.85/100
Sinox selective spray--l£ gallon/acre at
Sulphate of ammonia-3 pounds/acre with si

&0.265/pound
Water-$3/acre
Miscellaneous

Taxes-$3/acre
Management-$18/acre
Interest-4 per cent of $200
Compensation insurance
Growers Association dues

Total cost
Cost per acre

Cost per hundredweight (5,520 hundredweight)
Cost per 92-pound sack (6,000)

204.00
154.20
111.00

1.59
60.00

60,00
360.00
160.00
4.71

20.00

Days

Rate/hr .

Total

. Labor

Tractor driver

20.45

$1.25 \

! 230.06

Irrigating

20.00

1.00

180.00

Weeding

40.00

.85

306.00

£ 716.06

Tractor

Rate/day

20 H.P. wheel

10.85

13.78

149.51

14 H.P. wheel

9.6

9 .64

92 .54

Equipment

5.80

3-14" plow

2,5

2.32

8' double disk

2.0

3.28

6.56

12' spike harrow

1.3

.74

.96

12' drag

2.0

.10

.20

3-row lister

.75

8.74

6.56

12' wooden roller

.35

.32

4-row planter

1.3

3.45

4.48

Sprayer

4.15

3.32

4-row cultivator

8.5

2.18

18.53

V-ditcher

6.85

2.74

49.47

Contract and piece work

Pulling, topping, sacking-30

cent/sack

1,800,00

2,352.00

Hauling-$2/ton (276 ton)

552.00

530.79

604.71

4,495.08
224.75
.814
.749

('9ioA\s'io3Z bnuol 2R

ra-7.

60»0£2 $ 2S,X$ 2*. OS i9vxib ioJobiT

00.08X 00. I 00. OS gniJaginl

xc,eti 8?.£i ea.oi ison* .i.h os

55i e. fiil-ot fiaboow 'Si

•

62.81 81. S 2«8 fT . toJfivitluo woi-J^

.■ .

00,008., X _ to^sVrtso OS-sniiosa .gniqqoi ,sniXXu<3

00/S22 • " : . 1 *! 1 (aoi d?S) noJASg-aniluaH

OO.^OS baJjBai* bnuoq\0i>.£jf aio&\bauoq£-b9a2

0S.£.2X , : .* SfioXXas Q0X\28.3Xf t& atofiXanoXXas 08— ^eiqa ffC

00:iXX noXXMOT.Si ^4 9lCB\noXj>a £X~*siqa avij-'oaXsa xoni2

92«'X ' : • . ' ice 3 nuoq -sinomnis lo ejflrtq

.-. . .. . . • .fis.uD nozfsfio o&sA. • e'tswoiO.

"' '" " ' ' Je'oo Xje^of "
.... ..... ..... . .. . taq JeoO

TABLE 3

to Calendar of Operations for Alfalfa (20 Acres with 4-Ton Yield)

Mature Stand

Orew and equipment

Physical requirements

Labor required

Dates

Operations

Men

Tractor

Equipment

Here s
per
9 hr . day

Man
days

Tractor
days

Truck
days

Man days
operator
works

Man
days
hired

May 1-30

Repair ditches

20T

V-ditcher

• 5

June 1

Irrigate

a r,

4.0

2.0

2 .0

June 25-
Jul v S

V Li J. J( *J

20T

7' mower

1 A

1.43

July 6

Baking

20T

Side del.

1.67

f y 1 1L. \J\J~

July 10

Baling

20T

2 wire pickup
baler

5.0

• 1.67

1.67

3.33

July 2-12

Hauling

Contract

July 20

Irrigate

4.0

2.0

2.0'

September 1-
10

Mowing

20T

7( mower

1.43

September 2-
11 .

Raking

f .
1M

20T

Side del . r . •

1.67

September 6-
15

Baling

20T

2 wire pickup
baler

5.0

1.67

3.33

September 8-
17

Hauling

mtract

— — — _ _

;.\-V ■%>.-• ■

■

■ »*0"

•".'JiW-'W'''

ten

■

14.

prices for barley. Prom the standpoint of the alfalfa it is probably a little
better to plant with oats (for hay) because the oats mature earlier, leaving a
longer period of growth for the alfalfa before cold weather sets in. Also, oats
do not grow as close as barley and the young alfalfa plants enjoy more light and
air than when under barley.

Currently about half of the alfalfa produced in the basin is fed locally,
the other half being shipped to western Oregon dairy regions such as Coos Bay
and Tillamook. All of the alfalfa shipped to outside areas is sold f,o,b. car
at either Tule Lake or Hatfield (four miles north of Tule Lake on the state line).
This procedure eliminates storage, freight, and insurance charges. Insurance is
taken out on any alfalfa left in the fields or put in barns for feeding purposes.

Almost all of the alfalfa grown is the common or Chilean alfalfa. TJhile
this variety is not in itself too hardy to winter cold it tends to develop char-
acteristics of cold resistance when grown continually in a northern region. For
this reason it is considered good practice to purchase seed from an area with
similar climatic conditions to Tule Lake. Grimm alfalfa has been suggested for
this area because of its superior hardiness but it suffers if bacterial wilt is
prevalent. Ladak alfalfa has also been mentioned as a possible variety for the
basin. It is an extremely hardy and drought-resistant variety and has the fur-
ther advantage of being somewhat resistant to bacterial blight.

A calendar of operations for alfalfa is set up in table 3.
on a twenty-acre mature stand yielding five tons per acre.

This is based

An example of the cost involved in establishing an alfalfa stand of twenty
acres is contained in table 4. All costs for land preparation except land planing
and check establishment are borne by the nurse crop.

TABLE 4

Expense of Establishing an Alfalfa Stand of 20 Acres
(Data as of July-August 1948)

Land planing (20 acres per day)
Labor— 9 M/H at $1.25
Tractor — 9 hrs. at $1.53
8-60 land plane — 9 hrs. at

$.76

Seeding

Seed — 10 pounds/acre at $.65/pound
Seed attachment on drill--l day at $.82

Irrigation (fall)

4 M/D at $1.00/hr.

Total cost
Cost per acre

11.25
13.77
13.68

130.00
1.64

36,00

$38.70

131.64

36,00 j

$206.34 J
$ 10.32 !

The cost of producing a ton of alfalfa on the 20 acres yielding 4 tons has
been calculated in table 5 .

.. .1*5

15.

TABLE 5

An Example of the Cost of Alfalfa Production
(Compiled July-August 1948)

Days

Kate/ nr .

l otai

Labor

Tractor driver

10 .1

$110 .DO

Irrigation

o .0

l on
J. .UU

/ c. . UU

Baler

6 .7

1 .00

60 .00

* <s4o.yo

Tractor

Rate/day

d\J n .r . wheel

■in i
1U .1

10 » / o

1 1 ft

i oy • i o

1 1 ft
j.oy *xo

Equipment

v-ditcner

• 0

D • OB

7' mower

O 7

il CO

1 1 Rft

Side delivery rake 10'

O • 4

J .14

1 7 Aft

2 wire pickup baler

T\ A
0 .4

1 Q ftQ

A7 a

i no n?

XUU .

Contract

Hauling-$2/ton--80 tons

160.00

Materials

Water-$3/acre

fin nn

Wire-50 cents per ton

ao nn
4U . UU

i nn nn

XUU .UU

Miscellaneous

Taxes-$3/acre~

60.00

Depreciation-$206 .34 to

establish

years

life

51.57

Management-$9/ acre

180.00

Interest-4 per cent on

$200/acre

160.00

Compensation insurance-

$1.24/$100 payroll

1.20

Growers Association dues-&.15/

acre

3.00

455.77

Total

cost

$1,200.80

Cost

per

acre

60.04

Cost

per

ton

15.01

At a cost of |15.01 per ton for alfalfa and an expected price of about

$26.00 per ton this year the net return per ton will be about $11.00, and the

net return per acre will be about $44.00. On twenty acres this amounts to
$880.

• •/ -

' - ■

to?

C K .

■ ..

i. . . •

'■■ •'»..•• '. ..

16.

Barley

The Tule Lake Basin is highly favorable to the production of barley of
malting quality. For this reason malting barley has brought a premium price
in the years past and will probably continue to do so. Buyers consider this
barley equalled in quality only by a variety produced in Poland. The State
Department has requested buyers to discontinue purchasing from Poland, with
the result that buyers are turning to the Tule Lake area.

The total acreage in barley has increased substantially in recent years
due to the opening of more land and the high prices received by growers. Since
1935 there has been a gradual trend upward with an average for the period 1935-
1939 of 2,282 acres.. By 1947 the total barley plantings climbed to 17,289 acres.
If the leased lands,, some 26,660 acres in 1948, are included this figure would
be much higher.. As an example, in 1939 the barley acreage in the Division was
3,158 while in the same year the leased lands in barley totaled 16,542 acres.
In 1947 there were 25,196 acres of leased lands in barley. The barley acreage
in the Division for that year is not known, but the proportionate difference
would be considerably less in the latter year because of the increase in acre-
age homesteaded which took in a portion of the leased lands.

Yields of irrigated barley averaged about 27 hundredweight per acre over
the years. Seasonal averages have been as high as 32 hundredweight (viz., 1947)
indicating that the highest yields reached a figure of about 40 sacks. One
planting observed in late June of this year appeared to be headed for a yield
of between 35 and 40 hundredweight barring adverse events.

By far the principal variety is Hannchen, a two-row barley that possesses
excellent malting qualities when grown in this basin. Little barley of any
other variety is sold for malting, however, other varieties are grown for feed.
A variety of promise is Utah "White Winter, an excellent feed barley. Last year
one of the more progressive fanners of the basin testing this variety on an ex-
perimental basis, thrashed 57 sacks averaging 112 pounds. This brought $4.12
as compared with $4.85 for Hannchen yielding 39 sacks. This indicates that
though prices for malting barley are much higher than for feed barley, it might
still be more profitable to produce feed barley, the greater yield of feed
barley being the decisive factor.. Regardless of this situation, .it is highly
probable that malting barley will continue to hold a dominant position, al-
though a return of livestock to the basin would tend to increase the importance
of feed barley. Some feel that even if prices for brewing barley fall off,
feed barley production will continue to be profitable.

The principal buyers of malt barley are Anheuser-Busch and Archer-Daniels-
Midland.. Through local representatives these two organizations contract most
of the barley grown for brewing purposes.. There are other small buyers but
until this past year their purchases have had little influence., There appears
to be no serious marketing problem associated with barley..

As to peculiarities in cultural practices, mention sho
eral operations.,. First, all of the barley in the division
flooding.. The most common and evidently successful method
and then hold off further irrigation. Second, almost all o
sprayed for weeds, especially to control mustard. This ope
out to any one of a number of sprayers with either boom rig
the proper attachments. The cost runs about the same eithe
method does not leave tracks in the field., There are some

uld be made of sev-
is irrigated by
is to preirrigate
f the barley is
ration is contracted
s or airplanes with
r way but the latter
complaints about

[./I 9:1*1

■ • •- ■ i ' ' ' ■ ' tfi«: - , ..>.„

. ' ' ' b to »2 fe<fr 'a >M '•• • •' ' ■ - •

• ! '' ' ' . - -i i , .....

' ? " »•'. ■ \ •'. ' - i-.. , .

- ' > ■ • ■: - • ^ M ■ kvkr ■>■ 1 s, ■ ■ • - • . • ,

' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ■ •• • „ ' ^

'• '•" "- • • •:■ ■, > . . ,r ' 3

• ■ : '"■ ••••• • ■•* - • • •..>.-?

• ■ •i ! •' . !• •••• ,

17.

airplane spraying with 2,4-D in that the spray tends to drift and often injures
plants such as potatoes and sugar beets in nearby fields. Third, almost all of
the harvesting on the smaller places is contracted out. T/hen the harvest sea-
son arrives, many small pusher type combines are brought in to harvest the crop.
Many farmers complain that these contract machines go too fast in heavy grain,
resulting in losses from grain going over with the straw.

Several new elevators are under construction at the present time, two of
which are to be ready for use by this fall. The largest, Archer-Daniels-Midland,
has a capacity of 270,000 bushels and is located at Stronghold. The other is
about two miles south of Stronghold and is an Anheuser-Busch establishment.

Table 6 is a model calendar of operations for a barley enterprise of 80
acres. This shows the app roximate dates for various operations, crews and
equipment and work rates.

a?-?

■

I MM ??t\i til Hfflw 5mv«iqe '.-vT- f 5v j -.

LfffcftB ~ ■ l "tit i : .

H'bna fx$6d$k&ii?* ~;<* iiitiiii "'ia Lilt- Jwrrf

■ ■. ■ ■ -J I ■ . .-• , •

•*.••'•' • ' ' :•.•-...•;•» •. ■•-!>■.■

TABLE 6

Calendar of Operations for Barley (80 acres)

Crew and

equipment

Acres

Physical

Labor required

per

requirements

Man days

Man

Dates

Operations

Men

Tractor

Equipment

9 hour
day

Man
days

Tractor
days

Truck
days

operator
works

days
hired

April 1-14

Establish borders
Run ditches
Irrigating (pre)

±M

20T

POT

Disk ridger
V-ditcher

« 3

7.0

K
•V

7.0

April 21-
May 7

Disking (2X)
Harrowing (2X)

1M
1M

20T

8" tandem d^
4 section 12' h..

22
30

8.0
5.3

8.0
5^3

8.0
5.3

May 7-15

Seeding

20T

10' drill d.d.

3.0

June 7-21

Spraying (contract)

Sept. 15-
Oct. 15

Harvesting and

hauling (contract).

19.

Approximate costs involved in producing barley have been computed and are
shown in table 7. The results in this table must be interpreted as results
obtained from similar tables.

TABLE 7

Barley Costs (80 Acres - Average Yield of 32.16 Hundredweight)
(Compiled July-August,, 1948)

Days Rate/h r. Totals

I Tractor driver

17.3

$ 1.25

$194.63

! Irrigating

7.0

1..00

63.00 |

1 257

.63

Tractor

Rat e / day

20 H.P. wheel

17.3

13.78

238 . 29

238

.29 j

Equipment

Disk ridge r

.,5

V-ditcher

►5

6.85

3.42

8' tandem disk

8.0

3.28

26 ..24

12' harrow

5.3

;74

3.92

1
1

; 10* drill (d.d.)

3,,0

10.90

32.70

.03

(Contract

Amount

Cost/unit

o aa

HB.T*TTPS - hi tup find Vifml i nir

0 fiPiO entire

• oo

Ql A AA

l , U ((J

• UU

Materials

Irrigation water

80 acres

3.00

240.00

Seed

115 pounds/acre

6.15/cwt..

565.80

Sacks

2,200

272.50/1 ,000

599.50

Twine

12 pounds

1.85

22.20

1,427

.50 '

Miscellaneous

Taxes

240 ..00

Management

720.00

i
1

Insurance--.

.45 per $100 at $150 per acre

54.00

Interest — 4 per cent of $200

640.00

Growers assessment

12.00

1,666

.00

Total cost

4,727

.45

Cost per acre

.09

Cost per 100 pounds

(2,573 hundredweight)

.84

This indicates that if barley sold for $4,85 per hundredweight and cost
only $1.84 per hundredweight then the grower would net $3,01 per hundredweight.
On 80 acres yielding 30 hundredweight per acre this would mean a net return of
$7,224. over and above the return for the operator's labor,, management activi-
ties,, and return on his investment.

*■ 9

20.

Clover

One of the two important legumes used for rotations in the Tule Lake area,
clover has steadily increased in acreage in the last decade. It has become
popular particularly because of the shorter period of land occupancy as compared
with alfalfa, however, many farmers feel the two years in legumes is not long
enough and therefore favor alfalfa. Of the legume seed crops tried in this area,
clover is most important both in acreage and net returns per acre.

Alsike is the principal variety grown because of its hardiness and good
yield. Some Strawberry Clover is grown but the price fluctuates through wider
extremes than does Alsike.

Yields for clover seed average about 6.5 bushels per acre or nearly 400
pounds. The lowest yield reported since 1935 was about 250 pounds, but yields
as high as 15 bushels or 900 pounds per acre are on record. This year's crop
appears to be in excellent shape (with the exception of a few weedy fields) and
is expected to produce 450 or more pounds per acre.

As with alfalfa, clover is planted with a nurse crop of barley, or less
frequently with oats. VJhen the crop is harvested the straw is raked off and
the clover irrigated once before winter. If oats are used and cut for hay,
the straw problem is reduced and the clover gets an increased growth before
winter.

The weed problem in clover fields is frequently serious because the weeds
germinate and grow faster than the clover. Some farmers lessen weed damage by
clipping the stand back to seven or eight inches in the early part of June.
This process retards the weed growth long enough to allow the clover to come up
and smother out the weeds. There are some very clean clover fields in their
second year because of proper management. For commercial clover seed this is
important because such seed must be free from weed seed if it is to bring a
fair market price. Weed seed can be taken out with cleaning and recleaning
but these operations not only add to the costs of production, but lessen the
quality and thus decrease the selling price.

Table 8 shows the calendar of operations for 20 acres of clover yielding
400 pounds per acre. Some of the operations shown are for the barley crop used
as a nurse crop. ■

In the cost data of table 9 the costs of land preparation have been borne
by the barley crop rather than by the clover crop. Only the costs of clover
production are included in this table.

If we take the costs involved in the first year over and above the costs
with which the barley crop was charged, this net difference could be referred
to as the cost of establishing the stand. Taking this amount and charging it
off over the two years the clover is planted, would give a cost table such as
table 10.

■ - ; - :

i ...

/ . j

■ •

•J

A TABLE 8

Calendar of Operations - Clover (20 Acres)

Dates

M r\ v» 'i + "i /-\ m (~i

upcrsti-io ns

( f\ tit A H% *4

epuipmc n l

per
9 hr.

/-loir

Physical requirements

Labor reauired l :

Men

i ra,c lo r

EouiDment

Man
days

Tractor

days

Truck

days

Man days
Operator
worxs

Man
days
hired, .

A nt> i1 "I 1/1

TP <i + Q V"\ 1 i n V» V^i y\ r\ V* r^i

rjELoLDiisn Doraers

Disk ridger

Run ditches , pre-

irrigate

25T

V-ditcher

n im
J.M

1.7

April 21-

May f

U1SK

1 u
IN)

ow
mwl

8 ' tandem d .

99
mm*

2.0

Harrow (2X)

25T

12' spike harrow

1.4

1,4 !

1.4

May 7-15

Seed (with barley)

25T

10 * d-d. drill

.8 j

June 7-15

Irrigate

3.0

iMoveniDer xu—

Rake straw

14T

12 1 dump rake

November 10-

Irrigate

T nil

3.0

April 15-30

or later

Irrigate

3.0

June 7-21

Clipping

14T

6 1 mower

2.0

Octobe/ 2^)-

November 1

Mowing

14T

6' mower-swather

2.0

November 1-15

Combine

14T

6* combine

| 10.0

5.0

.-*■.

i^i*o*, ••(>S3 r )

(

■ ■ ■ •

■

—

' 1 S r '

•<.-

22.

TABLE 9

Alsike Clover Costs*/ (20 Acres - 400 Pounds/Acre)
(Compiled July-August, 1948)

Days

Rate/hr.

Total

Labor

iraci/or ariver

9.7

$1.25

$109-, 13

Irrigating

9.0

1.00

81,00

Harvesting

5.0

1.25

56,25

$246.36

1 ractor

Rate/day

141 wneel

9.7

9.64

93,51

93.51

£i(juipmenu

1 2 ' dump rake

4.70

3.29

6 ' mowe r

4.0

4.29

17.16

6 ' combine

5.0

11.80

59,00

79,45

Materials

Seed — 8 pounds/acre at 50 cents

80.00

uax»er*»—«jpo/ tic re

60,00

oacics— ou at; ou cents

40.00

180.00

Miscellaneous

Taxes

60.00

Management

180..00

Interest — 4 per cent of $200

160.00

Insurance (fire) — 45 cents/$100 at

$150/acre

13.50

Compensation insurance — $4-. 20/$100

payroll

2.36

Growers Association dues— 15 oents/

'acre

3.00

418,86

Total expenses

$1,018.20

Cost per acre

50.91

Cost per 100 pounds

12.72

Cost per bushel

7. 62

a/ Expense of establishing stand borne by nurse barley crop.

23.

TABLE 10

Clover Costs (including Depreciation of Stand)

Days

Rate/hr .

Total

Labor

Tractor driver

9.0

$ 1.25

$101,25

Irrigating

9.0

1.00

81.00

£238.50

Harvesting

5.0

1.25

56.25

Tractor

Rate/day

14T wheel

9.0

9.64

86.76

Equipment

6' mower

4.0

4.29

17 .16

6' combine

5.0

11.80

59.00 "

76.16

Material

Water

60.00

Sacks

40.00

100.00

Miscellaneous

Taxes

60.00

Management

180,00

Interest

160.00

Insurance (fire)

13.50

Compensation insurance

2.36

Growers Association dues

3.00

464.70

Depreciation—Cost of $91 ,68--lif e

of two

years

45.84

Total

Cost per acre

Cost per 100 pounds

Cost per bushel

966.12
48.31
12.08
7.25

.oaaaA Brti-iwcj

24.

Potatoes

The production of potatoes is the second most important cash crop enter-
prise in the Tule Lake Division* While the acreage of other crops has increased
many times over due largely to the increased area of land reclaimed and home-
steaded, the proportion of the acreage planted to potatoes has held fairly con-
stant over the years, but with a marked decline in 1947. The average acreage
planted to potatoes from 1935 through 1939 was 8,000 acres but in 1947 the total
declined to 4,547 acres* In total value the potato crop compares more favorably
with barley* Last year's potato crop was valued at $2j 251,843. as compared with
the value of the barley crop of $2,649,759.

Both seed potatoes and commercial potatoes are produced. Almost every
farmer in the basin raises potatoes in rotation. This is probably due to the
high yields of high quality potatoes. Though the season is short, a crop is
made every year even when unseasonable heavy frosts occur as was the case in
1947, The soil is ideal for potatoes, especially in the northern portion
toward Malin, in that it is peatty, well drained, fertile, and remains porous
during the growing season.

The crop is a late one in this district, the majority of the potatoes be-
ing shipped from September through May. Table 11 shows the pattern of shipping
for the years 1935-1939.

TABLE 11

Carlot Shipments of Potatoes From Tule Lake, 1935-1939.

Month

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

January

181

284

212

February

116

160

243

March

185

178

172

372

April

186

217

May

133

150

June

July

August

September

October

156

136

November

213

140

93 ;

December

158

215

149

91 j

Total

398

939

996

1,338

1,599 :

Source of data: California, Arizona and
Nevada Carlot Shipments of Important
Fruits and Vegetables. U.S.D.A. Agri-
cultural Marketing Service, 1935-1939.

This shows that almost the entire crop is stored for some part of the
winter, the longest storage period being about nine months. This storage is
mostly in potato cellars located along the railroad sidings, although some
farmers have cellars on their own property. In addition, buyers such as Levy
and Zentner, Crawford and Wolfe, and others maintain storage facilities.

> bssneyionf sri* ot v.X«S"tflI o^b tpto aaar!;* vam

f^T ii tl T Q"^

In 3 »

< "ana

VV{,M

The principal varieties of commercial potatoes grown in the basin are
White Rose, Netted Gem, and Burbank. VJhite Rose occupies the greatest acreage
but many other varieties are produced in small quantities, particularly for
seed purposes. The Netted Gem is well adapted to the cool climate but the
corky exterior of the tuber is not deemed as desirable as the smooth- skinned
White Rose.

Because of the nature of the soil, few of the potatoes have to be washed
prior to marketing. This is especially true of those potatoes grown in the
southern portion of the basin where the soil is lighter and whiter. Some po-
tatoes grown in the northern portion in the darker soils are washed.

An example of a calendar of operations for commercial potatoes, sometimes
referred to as table stock, as opposed to seed stock, is presented in table 12.
Attention is called to the fact that no allowance is made for the operations of
roguing or inspecting as is done with seed stock. To determine the cost of pro
ducing seed potatoes such operations would have to be included and current wage
for roguing obtained. Generally, a field must be covered three times by a
roguing crew and inspected three times at intervals during the growing season.
Tables 12 and IS are computed on the basis of table stock only.

Comparing the results obtained in table 13 with potato price data for the
area shows the following relationships. Using the support price of .*>2«25 per
hundredweight and the cost per hundredweight as computed to be $1.48 indicates
a net return per hundredweight of $.77. Figured on an acre basis with a 300-
sack yield the net return would be $231.00 per acre.

.as

.bs

< no ■ sj

m TABLE 12

Calendar of Operations - Potatoes (20 Acres)

Crew and equipment

Acres

Physical requirements

ijauor rec

■111 V* A n

per

Man days

Man

9 hr.

Man

Tractor

Truck

operator

days

Date

Operations

Men

Tractor

Equioment

day

days

works

hired

April 15-

May 1

Plow

20T

3-14" plow

10.0

2.0

Disk

20T

8' d.d.

20.0

1.0

. 1.0

1.0

Harrow

20T

10' s. tooth

24.0

May 1-15

Cutting and dipping

By 1

,he hundred-

seed

weight

May 15

Planting and

2-row planter

fertilizing

14T

and fertilizer 10-0

4.0

2.0

2»0

2.0

attach.

Cultivating

14T

2 row

10.0

2.0

Ridging

14T

10.0

2.0

Cultivating

14T

10.0

2.0

2 .0

Ridging

14T

10.0

2.0

Irrigating (6X)

14.0

4.7

9.3 !

J uiy id

Wee ding

11.0

11.0 !

Digging

14T

2-row digger

6.0

2.3

3.3

Picking up

By the sack

Hauling to cellar

By the hundred-

weight

Taking out of cellar;

."■

washing, grading,

By the hundred-

packing and load-

weight

ing

— — i

....

■:M->

M
IB

27,

Based on a 20-acre

field yielding 300 sacks,

the following

cost

table has been prepared.

TABLE 13

Potato Costs

(20 Acres--300 Sacks/Acre)

(Compiled July-August,

1948)

Days

Rate/hr .

Total

Labor

Tractor driver

17.1

$1.25

$ 192.38

Cutting seed

.50/cwt.

160.00

Dipping seed

. 25/ cwt .

80 1 00

Irrigation

14.0

1.00

126.00

Planting

2.0

1.25

22.50

Weeding

11.0

.85

84.15 $

665.03

Rate/day

Tractor

20T wheel

3i8

13.78

52»36

14T wheel

13.3

9i64

128.21

180.57

Equipment

Plow 3-14"

2..0

2.32

4.64

Disk 8' double

1.0

3.28

Harrow 10' spring tooth

.8 .

1.58

1.26

Planter 2 row

2 .0

3.45

6.90

Fertilizer attachment

2.0 .

1.44

2.88

Cultivator 2 row

8 .0 .

1.26

10.08

Digger

3.3

4.65

15.35

44.39

Contract

Amount

Cost/unit

Total

Picking up

300 s/a

.10

600.00

Hauling to cellar

300 s/a

,08

480.00

Taking out of cellar, grading,

(.18 + .5)

. j
. - j

300 s/a

.23

1,380.00

2,460.00 j

Materials^'

Seed

16 cwt./a

5.00

1,600.00

Corrosive sublimate

2£ oz.

4,00

12,60

Water

3. 00 /a

60.00

Field sacks

500/a

.05

500,00

Fertilizer 16-20-0

400 lb. /a

$'83/ton

332,00

2,504.60 1

Miscellaneous

Taxes

60.00

Management

360.00

Interest — 4 per cent of $2.00

160.00

Storage-- .10/hundredweight

600 . 00

Compensation insurance — $1. 24/1100 of $190.35

2.36

Inspection — .02/hundredweight

120.00

Growers assessment — $l/acre

20.00

1 ,322.36

Total cost

7,176.95

Cost per acre

358.85

Cost per hundredweight

1.20 !

a/ Buyer furnishes the sacks usually. If support price is used, sacks are not in-
cluded which would bring the cost up to $1 .48/hundredweight .

.woliol

••'•vV

I JO.

•

'-.ftrrViS"'

H isq Jaw -.v-

28.

Sugar Beets

This crop was introduced into the basin on an experimental basis in 1937,
but was not grown commercially until the following year. Early successes caused
an expansion of acreage with some reduction during the last two seasons.

Currently the acreage planted to sugar beets has fallen off due to the high
prices being paid for barley and other crops. Last year there were 2,030 acres
planted and harvested but this year only slightly more than 400 acres are ex-
pected to be harvested.

Yearly average tonnages run from 13 to 16-g- tons per acre, according to local
growers, with a low yield of 8 tons reported and a high of 20 tons. The Bureau
of Reclamation publishes the figure of 11#2 tons as the average yield computed
from two seasons' records. This figure may be low in light of information ob-
tained from growers and the Spreckels representative at Tule Lake. Beets pro-
duced here are small compared to those of other areas but the sugar content
consistently averages very close to 18 per cent.

Because of the texture of the soil, rolling of the land both prior to seed-
ing and after seeding is a common practice though some roll only once. This is
done to firm the seedbed and to keep the seed from blowing out of the soil. Cer-
tain plantings this year are quite spotty because of wind which blew prior to the
time the seed had sprouted and become established. Another practice which is
gaining where possible, is the irrigating by subbing. At present about 50 per
cent of the beets are irrigated by furrows and the other 50 per cent either
subbed or sprinkled. Subbing is all right provided drainage is adequate to
carry off the water as soon as the water has risen to the desired height. Some
follow the practice of digging a hole in the middle of the field where they can
check on the height of the water table. If drainage is poor, subbing is dangerous
because of the tendency of the tap roots to rot if they are kept too wet. This
in turn causes the beets to send out numerous small roots laterally and to fail
to size properly.

Bedding is not practiced to any extent in the Tule Lake Division, Only
about 5 per cent of the beets are bedded up, the remainder being planted or
flattened. The practice of fertilizing is increasing. Sugar beets have usu-
ally been planted following potatoes and thus received better than half of the
benefit of the fertilizer applied to the potatoes. This is still being prac-
ticed but in addition three types of fertilizers are being used. None are heavy
in nitrogen because top growth is already abundant. Those used are: 3-10-12,
5-10-10, and 0-10-12, all at the rate of 250 pounds/acre. Before fertilizing
on a given farm it would be wise to discuss the individual fertilizer problem
with the County Agent.

Beets produced in this area are shipped to the Spreckels refinery at Wood-
land for processing. Part of the cost of shipping is borne by the grower and
part by the refinery. Last season the total cost of shipping beets was $2.15
per ton, the grower paying $.75 (little more than one third) while the refinery
paid $1.40.

To aid growers in the production of beets, Spreckels has a representative
in the basin. Mr. Clarke Fensler, a homesteader and grower himself, has been
their field representative for several years.

An example of the operations performed in the production of sugar beets is
shown in table 14. Rolling has been included twice, once before planting to firm
the bed and once after planting to insure a tight bed and to cut down on loss of
stand from wind damage.

.83

-do

vfol ©d

. --b^se o:t noJfiq *dd
. a 2 . aid? .enao \

"hrra gni

boa. b:^

, ■•-'•'■6& •oJntbps'b'e pf

;3ijQrfo,ssrsb'"

t |Ia a.j[ galdduS- v.^oi^rii-tqV-te -E
f s.y <?-dv 9B noo 4 '8jj qW^MM •ad* 11-6

, •! dfltf .1 MM* jvl-tf ^ gc Jrfs fell 3d± fife'

juoda

:t ■Mali

jneldonq

frribni edit sauoeib oi eaiw ad bluow &i nrxal a

[biid* ano nad* atom al;fctil) dT,!

q -i^woig ori* ,rto* toq
.0*.!$ biaq

bia

ei -B***d •tagii'j
rn.il oi 3inJ#aaIq
lo a ao I no nv?ob

r .ii.ieni

*rw£q Tt)Mta oono fena b>?d od*
.oganrab bnxw moil b« J*3

TABLE 14

Calendar of Operations - Sugar Beets (20 Acres) Yield of 12 Tons

Dates

Operations

Crew and equipment

Acres
per
9 hr. day

Physical requirements

Labor required |

Men

Tractor

Equipment

Han
days

Tractor

davs

Truck

days;

Man days

operator

works

Man

days

hired

March 20-25

Chiseling

20 T

2-6'

.9 :

March 25-31

Plowing

20 T

3-14 *

8.0

2.5

A. o

April 1-7

Disk and harrow (2X)

its

20 T

10' d.d.

COm\J

1.6

10 1 spike

Ap rx i. i»u

JjtillQ pi tint;

20 T

T J 1

Land plane

25.0

. o

• o

Jvprii i.<i-io

Harrow

20T

10' spike

/SO • \J

D
. O

Q
.O

a
. o

April lo— cSj

Prei rriga~be

2.0

Roll (2X)

20T

12' roller

o'J.U

1.3

April 27-

titty t

oeeu

JL^fcl

tc ruw pxoiivci

ISO

1.3

Run ditches

20T

V- ditcher

May 27-

June 7

Thinning and 1st

weeding

9.0

40.0

Cultivate and

4- row cultivator

fertilize

! 1M

14T

with fertilizer

18.0

1.1

att.

Irrigate (sub.) (3X)

11,1 !

3.0

Cultivate

j 1M

14T

4-row cultivator

18.0

1.1

Weeding (2nd)

jl6M

20.0

September 27-

Digging and loading

fll

POT

1-row marbeet

5.0

8.0

4.0

Hauling

, Contract

•

ii° pi j i ■* **

1 !

j>lom uen.peef 2*Q

.*"o

,• i

!••'■•; 1*1 :

... .

\ T*T

- *

• • ':

•

T • v '

•

* •

■ ;

•

;

* •

■ | T* *• 1

J;.^fc.;.l',-. -

" ■ • ' .;

30 ♦

A budget of costs of producing 20 acres of sugar beets yielding 12 tons to
the acre is illustrated in table 15,

TABLE 15

Sugar Beet Costs (20 Acres--12 Tons/Acre)
(Compiled July-August, 1948)

Days

Rate/hi

Total

Labol 4

Tractor driver
Irrigation
j Weeding and thinning
: Digging
jTractor

! 20 H.P. wheel
; 14 H.P. wheel
jEquipment

Chisel 2-6'

Plow 3-14"

10' double disk

10' spike harrow

Land plane

4-row planter

V-ditcher

4-row cultivator

Fertilizer attachment

12' roller (wooden)
Contract

Hauling — 75 cents/ton + 2g- cents/ton mile
haul)

Marbeet harvester (l row) — $7/acre
'Materials

j Seed-5 pounds/acre at $,45/pound
; Water — $3/acre

Fertilizer--250 pounds 3-10-12 at $68/ton
Miscellaneous

Freight charge — 75 cents/ton to Woodland

(Company pays other $1.40/ton)
Taxes — $3/acre

Interest— 4 per cent of $200
Management

Compensation insurance
Growers association dues

Total cost
Cost per acre
Cost per ton

15.8

$1.25

$177.75

5»0

1.00

45.00

60.0

♦'85

459.00

4.0

1.25

45.00

$726*75

Rate/day

12.3

13.78

169.49

3.5

9.64

33.74

203.23

4.42

3.98

2.5

2.32

5.80

1.6

3.48

5.57

2.4

.60

1.44

15.00

12.00

1.3

3.45

4,48

6.85

2.74

2.2

2.18

4.80

1.1

1.44

1.58

1.3 •

.35

.46

42.85

(2-mile

192.00

140.00

45.00
60.00
170.00

180.00

60,00
160,00
360.00
6.25

20.00

332.00

275.00

786.26

,366.08
118.30
9.86

This reveals that the cost per acre was $118.30 while records taken from the
Bureau of Reclamation histories indicate a return on 15 tons to be $179,06 (approxi
mately $143.25 with a yield of 12 tons). This indicates a net return per acre of
$24.95. On a per ton basis the net return would be &2.08.

I. I ■ 1 1 • *'

.OS

•A- v

1«

0.6

.vv

80,d3£,<ff

1o &noo ibh sfdeHtftirg'"

..*,... - •

, , ....

31.

Comparison of 1948 Versus 1935-1939 Data

Thus far in this report the economic data cited has stressed conditions as
of 1947 and 1948. These years generally reflect a continuation of the high
prices (and farming costs) of the recent war years. It is reasonable to expect
an ultimate downturn in prices and costs, with its accompanying effect upon
farm earnings. Farmers have the responsibility of deciding what to grow and
how much, what to spend on equipment and the kind of equipment. To better in-
sure the future welfare of farmers, farm families, and the farms, wisdom suggests
that when making farming plans due weight be given to what can happen if a drop
in prices (particularly if not offset in part by a corresponding drop in oper-
ating outlays) does occur.

For purposes of guiding the thinking and planning we are inserting at this
place in our report a summary of the 1947 data with comparable data for the pre-
war (and perhaps more normal) conditions of the period 1935-1939.

.18

TABLE 16

Comparison of 1935-1939 Costs: Net Returns 1935-1939
and 1947 for Selected Crops in the Tule Lake Division

Crop and vie Id

Average
acreage
1935-1939

Cost per

acre
193P- 1939

Cost per

unit
1935-1939

Return
per acre
1935-1939

Return
per unit
1935-1939

■ Net return! Net return
per acre | per unit
1935-1939 | 1935-1939

Net return,
per acre
1947

Net return j

per unit

1947

■

Onions (300-92 lb. sks.)

30 a /

% 59.86

% .22/cvrt.

— — — —

$165.60

% .60/cwt.

$105.74

% .38/cwt.

$300.00

% 1.00/sk.

Alfalfa (4T)

5,78S

33.47

8.37/ton

30 . 20

7.55/ton

-3.27

-,82/ton

44.00 !

11.00/ton

Barley (32.16 ewt.)

2,282

27.65

.86/cwt.

35.38

l.io/cwt.

7.73

,24/cwt.

96.80 |

3.0l/cwt.

Olover (6.7 bu.)

429

24.97

3.72A^.

63.50

9.52/W

38.53

5.80/bu.

108.88 |

16.75/bu.

Potatoes (300 sk,)

7,273

125,57

.42/cwt.

249.00

,83/cwt.

123.43

.4l/cwt.

231.00 |

,77/cwt.

Sugar beets (12T)

395

65.13

5.43/ton

66.00

5.50/ton

.87

.07/ton

24.95 j

2.08/ton

a/ 1938-39 figures.

Sources of data;

Vegetable Crops in California . California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.
Agricultural Statistics , 1945. U.S.D.A.

Ann ual Renort Wages Paid in Agricultural Occupations, all Counties of Calijbrnia. 1937-1939. U.S. Farm Placement
Service.

Condensed Monthly Agri c ultural Crop and Labor Report, 1938- U.S. Farm Placement Service.
Farm Management Crop Manual. R. L. Adams. Revised Edition. January 1941.

33.

TABLE 1 7

Onion Costs 1935-1939 (20 Acres with 300-92 Pound Sacks Yield)

Days Rate/day Total

Labor

Tractor driver 19.6 $2.50 $ 49.00

Irrigating 20.0 2.50 50.00

Weeding 40.0 2.25 90.00

Tractor

20 H.P. wheel 10.8 11.10 119.88

14 H.P. wheel 8.8 7.42 65.30

Equipment

3-14" plow 2.5 2.74 6.80

8« double disk 2.0 3.84 7.66

12' spike harrow 1.3 .69 .89

12' drag 2.0 .11 .22

3- row lister .75 8.43 6.32
12' wooden roller .9 .38 .34

4- row planter 1.3 3.25 4.22
4-row cultivator 8.5 2.05 17.42
V-ditcher .4 5.10 2.04

Contract and piece work

Pulling, topping, and sacking--6 cents/lOO pounds 331.20

Materials

Seed--3 pounds/acre at $1.50/pound 90.00

Water--$1.80/acre 36.00

Miscellaneous

Taxes — $3/acre 60.00

Management — $9/acre 180.00

Interest — 4 per cent of $100 80.00

Total cost $1,197.29
Cost per acre 59.86
Cost per hundredweight .22

(Spraying has been omitted as has workers compensation insurance payments.)

Chit

■err"-

tfc 4d?ti&«s"

> .

34..

TABLE 18

Alfalfa Costs 1935-1939

(80 Tons)

Days

s\<x u c / u.a,y

j. oxax

Labor

| y»Q +- n y» /J hi TTO V>

irftuiur urivcr

10. 1

$ 2»50

$ 25.25

Irrigation

8.0

2. 50

20.00

Baler crew

6.7

3.00

20.10

Tractor

20 H.P. wheel

10.1

11.10

112.11

Kfliji rvm prif

V-ditcher

c • 10

2.55

7' mower

2.7

A OO

4. 28

11.56

Side delivery rake 10'

3.4.

A OA

4.80

16.32

2 wire pickup baler

3.4

18.90

64.26

Contract

Hauling— $1.25/ton

100.00

M ate rials

Water— $1.80/ac re

36.00

ivire— ~ <ju cencs/uon

16.00

Miscellaneous

Taxes— $3/acre

60.00

Depreciation — $46.35 to establish 4

years

of life

11.59

Management — $4 . 70/acre

94.00

Interest— 4 per cent of $100

80.00

Total cost

&C£G A A

Cost per acre

OO.'i f

Cost per ton

8.37

f-it>7. Oft)

SSfil etftr>3 allot/ A

. - fn 1 •

35.

TABLE 19

Barley Costs 1935-1939 (80 Acres - 32.16 Hundredweight Yield)

Days

Rate/day~

Total

Labor

Tractor driver
Irrigating

Tractor

20 H.P, wheel

Equipment
Disk ridger
V-ditcher
8' tandem disk
12' narrow
10' drill

Contract

Harvesting and hauling-

17.3
7.0

17.3

.5
.5
8.0
5.3
3.0

$ 2.50
2.50

11.10

3.45
5.10
3.84
.69
12.90

$4.00 acre harvesting
$1.20/ton hauling 128.5 tons
Materials

Water— $1 . 80/acre
Seed — 115 pounds/acre at
Sacks— 2,200 at 10 cents
Twine — 12 pounds at 90 cents

..05

Miscellaneous
Taxes — $3/acre
Management — $4.70/acre
Interest — 4 per cent of $100

Total cost
Cost per acre

Cost per 100 pounds (2,573 hundredweight)

$ 43.25
17.50

192.03

1.72
2.55

30.72
3.65

38.70

320.00
154.20

144.00
96.60

220.00
10.80

240.00
376.00
320.00

$2,211.72
27.65
.8

: 3J6A?

— ■- P*£g«^«Jty >,

rr — r-

6/W

, ct* 1 -. afw

TABLE 20

Clover Costs 1935-1939 (20 Acres - 400 Pound/Acre Yield)

36.

Days

Rate/day

Total

Labor

Tractor driver 9.0

Irrigating 9.0

Harvesting 5.0

Tractor

14 T wheel 9.0
Equipment

6 1 mower 4 . 0

6' combine 5.0

Materials

Water— $1.80/acre
Sacks — 80 at 10 cents

Miscellaneous
Taxes— $3/acre
Management — $4 . 70/acre
Interest — 4 per cent of |100
Insurance (fire)

Depreciation — first cost $22— life 2 years

Total cost
Cost per acre
Cost per 100 pounds
Cost per bushel

$2.50
• 2.50
3.00

7.42

4.28
10.40

$22.50
22.50
15.00

66.78

17.12
52.00

36.00
8.00

60.00
94.00
80.00
7.50
11.00

499.40
24.97
6.24
3.72

37.

TABLE 21

Potato Costs: 1935-1939 (20 Acres— 300 Sacks/Acre)

Days

Rate/day

Total

Labor

Tractor driver

17.1

$2 .50

I 42.

Cutting seed and dipping

20.0

2.00

40.

Irrigation

14.0

2 .50

35.00

Planting

2.0

2.00

4.00

Weeding

11.0

2.25

24.75

Tractor

20 H.P. wheel

3.8

11.10

42 .

14 H.P. wheel

13.3

7.42

98.

Equipment

Plow 3-14"

2.0

2.74

8' double disk

1.0

3.84

10* spike harrow

.60

2-row planter

2 .0

1.62

3..

Cultivator

8.0

.64

Digger

3,3

4.59

15.

Contract

Picking up — 5 cents/sack

300.

Hauling to cellar — $1.00/ton

30.

Taking out of cellar, grading,

24.

Materials

Seed — 1,600 pounds/acre at 2.5

cents /pound

800.

Corrosive sublimate — 45 ounces

at $2.25/pound

"Water — $1.80 acre

36.

Field sacks — 500/acre at 2-g- cents each

250.

Miscellaneous

Taxes--$3/acre

60.

Management— $9/acre

180.00

Interest — 4 per cent of |100

80.00

Storage — 5 cents/hundredweight

300.

Inspection — 2 cents/hundredweight

120.

Total cost

$2,511.35

Cost per acre

125,57

Cost per hundredweight

.42

TABLE 22

Sugar Beet Costs: 1935-1939 (20 Acres— 12 Tons/Acre)

Days Rate/day Total

Labor

Tractor driver

1D.O

&9 cin

<p oy a

Irrigation

c. n

9 <^n

<;n

Weeding and thinning

Rr\ n

O . ID

1 RQ
ioa a

i racuor

OA W P nrViool

cju xi»r • wn.ee i

Lc .0

it in

X O O a

i.'i n.r. wneex

3.5

7 49

C U a

Equipment

Chisel 2-6«

Q
• »7

tJ a

VJ V

Plow 3-14"

? 74.

ft ^

10' double disk

1 P.
X . 0

10' spike harrow

? 4

. 55

-L a

Land plane

o
• O

X O • WW

i n

X W |

4-row planter

x »o

PR
o . c o

22.

V-ditcher

c; in

4-row cultivator

9 9

9 CtK

12* roller (wooden)

1.3

.38

2-row beet lifter

4.0

4.99

19.

Contract

1 . uu/ xon

Pulling, topping, and loading--!

240,

Hauling — 40 cents /ton

96,

Materials

Seed — 5 pounds/acre at

15 cents

15,

,00

Water— $1 .80/acre

Miscellaneous

Freight charge — 55 cents/ton

132.00.

Taxes — $3/acre

60,

,00

Interest — 4 per cent of $100

.00

Management — $9/acre

180

.00

Total

cost

$1,302.68

Cost

per acre

.13

Cost

per ton

,43

■ •

Estimated Practices, Production, Costs, and Returns
From Alternative Crops: Tule Lake

In selecting the possible alternative crops for this area attention was
directed at the possibilities of production only. No consideration was given
to the economic factors such as prices which could be received if markets were
available or the feasibility of even marketing these crops. Persons in the
Division of Agronomy and Truck Crops at the University of California were con-
sulted on the possibilities of other crops and careful study was given this
phase of the work during the time spent in the field.

Of the truck crops which would produce successfully, the following offered
the best alternatives; cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, lettuce, peas
and spinach. Oats and wheat of the field crops are both capable of yielding
well and irrigated pasture is to be considered. Certain other alternatives have
been considered, however, their usefulness is seriously doubted. Of these flax
and asparagus are the most often mentioned. It is too cold in the winter for
asparagus to do well and the freezes so frequent during the summer months are
apt to catch the flax in the bloom destroying its chances for making a crop.

Examples of costs for producing these alternatives will be presented in
the following tables. Certain of the figures must be calculated because com-
parable operations are not always performed in the basin but these figures will
serve as a guide to the prospective grower should a market be found for any of
these crops. The costs used are for a more normal period such as 1935-1939
(with the exception of carrot costs, since carrots were being produced there on
a small scale this year) because the authors believe that the current cost pic-
ture is far out of line and is not likely to hold up at the inflated levels for
a prolonged period.

! . . ; . ..

....

TABLE 2 3

Cabbage, Expected Yield - IS Tons or 200 Crates
Inputs Per Acre

Acres/

Man

Tractor

M/hrs.

Required hired I

Operations

Crew and equipment

9 hr. day

hours

operator works

labor M/hrs.

Plowing

1M 20T 3-14" plow

9.0

1.0

Disking (2X)

1M 20T fi' double disk

20.0

Harrowing (2X)

1M 20T 10' spring tooth

22.0

5.0

Frame labor

10 M/hrs.

10.0

5.0

Pulling plants

6,000 at 7 M/hrs

7.0

3.5

Transplanting •

3M 14T 2-row transplanter

10.0

2.7

1.8

Irrigating (6X)

2 M/hrs.

12.0

6.0

Cultivating (3X)

1M 14T 2-row cultivator

13.0

2.1

Fettilizing

1M 14T 2-row cultivator and

fertilizer attachment

13.0

Hoeing

5 M/hrs.

5.0

Dusting (2X)

1M 14T 4r->row duster

60.0

Cutting

30 M/hrs

30.0

50.0

Trimming, packing,

and loading

By the crate

Hauling to siding

Contract

•

. 1

•

- • ;

f ** t T 1
i i

... < :

•

■ »

■

* .~.

i
■

' ■ : ".

41.

TABLE Z4,

Cost Per Acre for Cabbage Production

Hours

Rate/hour Total

cost

Labor

ueneral

1.8

.50

.90

Tractor driver

6.7

.75

5.03

Irrigating

12.0

.50

3.00

Hoeing

.50

2.50

Frame labor and pulling plants

1 f »u

.50

;

3.50

Harvesting

30.0

.50

15.00

Tractor

14 H.P. wheeled

4.0

.82

5.20

20 H.P. wheeled

2.7

1.23

5.32

Equipment

10' spring tooth harrow

.16

.12

4-row duster

.54

.16

2-row transplanter

.25

.22

Fertilizer attachment

.23

.16

2-row cultivator

2.8

.07

.20

8' double disk

0.9

.43

.38

uold. irame lob sq.it. tyco ior o

years

1.62

"m rj t a \\

Plow 3-14

1.0

.90

Amount

Cost/unit

Dtal

Contract

.12/crate

Trimming, packing, and loading

200 crates

24.00

Hauling to siding

200 crates

,05/crate

D.00

Materials

Manure

iu tons

3.00

D.00

Irrigation water

5.00

Nicotine dust

50 pounds

.18/pound

3.00

Calcium arsenate

50 pounds

.07-g/pound

5.75

Ammonium sulphate

400 pounds

50.00/ton

10.00

Seed

200

l.OO/lOO

2.00

Crates

200

.16-1-

3.00

Miscellaneous

3.00

Taxes — $3/acre

Management — $9/acre

9.00

Interest — 4 per cent of $100

1.00

Compensation insurance — $1.24/$

100 payroll

.50

Total cost per

acre

192.16

Cost per 100 pound crate

.96

Return per crate

Average return per 100 pound crate of cabbage 1935-1939 at

|il5/ton or

.75

Net loss per crate

.21

— I- ■ ..... ..

42*

Carrots

Carrot production in the Tule Lake area is in its first year on a commer-
cial basis. Prior to 1948 carrots were confined to garden plots with the ex-
ception of a few scattered plantings of stock carrots, While only on an
experimental scale this year, those who have attempted this enterprise have hopes
of building carrot production of this type into another profitable commercial
crop for the Tule Lake Basin.

Campbell»s Soup Company has been the main promotional agency behind this
carrot production. They are seeking a supply of a 2" carrot for dicing pur-
poses as a constituent in their soups. For this purpose the Red Core Chantenay
seems to be the best variety because of its color and size. Its desirable char-
acteristics are its short length, thick body, and deep red color throughout.

Carrots are resistant to frost and hence should do well in the Tule Lake
Basin. Planting should be attempted as near the fifteenth of April as possible
in order to take fullest advantage of the short growing season — an absolute
necessity if 2" carrots are to be produced. Some persons are of the opinion
that the carrots can be left in the ground in the fall to size, but experience
shows that field mice are an added hazard when this is done.

Unfortunately, the carrot crop this year has been almost a complete fail-
ure due largely to the late planting date and lack of experience in carrot pro-
duction on the part of those attempting to grow them. The stand was very patchy
and seemed to dry out toward the end of June, Another contributing factor may
have been the lack of adequate planting equipment.

Both the soil and climate are conducive to good carrot production and
fertilization thus far has not been practiced to any extent. - The peat soil of
this area is high in nitrogen content and the danger of too much top growth be-
cause of an oversupply of nitrogen is ever present. Applications of phosphorus
may be beneficial but local experimentation is needed to determine the right
answer.

Irrigation has been accomplished by both furrow and sprinkler systems, the
former being the most widely accepted. In irrigating carrots the main needs
are a three-foot penetration and a top soil not too wet during hot weather, es-
pecially if the soil is inclined to bake. An oversupply of moisture causes
root rotting; however, in the Tule Lake area with its light soil the greater
damage is liable to occur from lack of sufficient moisture and resultant mis-
shapen roots.

In spraying for weeds, care should be taken in using stove oil (not diesel
oil) particularly as to time of use. Application of stove oil should preferably
be made prior to the four-leaf stage. If the cost of hand weeding is nearly the
same as oil spraying, it is preferable to hand weed.

Note should be made of the method of handling carrots for Campbell's Soup
Company. They desire carrots topped and sacked rather than bunched for ship-
ment to their processing plant at Sacramento.

The following table sets forth a sample calendar of operations for pro-
ducing 20 acres of carrots. These figures are not intended to be precise but
are averages in some cases and in other cases are only estimates as explained
in the introductory portion of this paper.

.......

■ -

b- ... 'V

■

: ■

TABLE 25

«i

Calendar of Operations - Carrots (20 Acres with Yield of 14 Tons/Acre)

Crew and equipment

Physical requirements

Labor required

Dates

Operations

Men

Tractor

Equipment

Acres
per
9 hr. day

Man
days

Tractor

days

Truck
days

Man days
operator
works

Man
days
hi red

March 20-25

Plowing

25T

3-14 plow

O.U

o C

2.o

o c

March 25-30

Disk and harrow
Float

1M
1M

it.!

OCT

25T

OCT 1

o ' IJJ

1?' SH

o ■ x <?4 * i loat;

30.0

.67

X . J

.67
1 »U

.67

Disk and harrow

115
1H

25T
25T

8 * TD

12' SH

22.0
30.0

.y
.67

.67

.9
.67

i
i

April 5-15

Bedding

25T

3- row lister

27.0

.75

April 10-20

Planting

r% c m

25T

4- row planter

10 .0

z.o

o a
2.0

O A

2.0

May 10-20

Spray weeds (3X)

25T

30' boom sprayer

80.0

.75

Irrigate (7X)

6.0

47.00

23.5

Cultivate (2X)

25T

4- row cultivator

15.0

2.67

October 1

Plowing out

Pulling, topping,
sacking

1M
By

25T
the sack

Carrot lifter

8.0

2.5

Hauling

1.5

26.7

. . J

13.3

26.7

p ' 1

; - ! '

...

■

•.■ •

■

30* poow ebxeXeJ. . ,90*0 r **IJfc*i

:■

■ ■ ■

!" .

; -

••

■ '• . '

.. ' ■ \'

*1 :

• -•

Li'.; tun j'lajtti?^- • •• *f3" VT?* ' ; ,m»'A3

. w ^* <> ^ v/ *»
... -j . » L >liM

44.

Table 26 is an example of the cost of producing carrots on a 20-acre field
using 14 tons per acre as an estimated yield. This yield is possibly higher
than would be a long-time average yield for carrots in this area, but the yield
expected by producers of this crop was somewhat higher (20 tons).

TABLE 26

Typical Costs of Producing Carrots (20 Acres - 14 Tons/Acre)
(Compiled July-August, 1948)
(Current Costs Rather Than Estimated 1935-1939 Costs)

Labor

Tractor driver

General (hauling)

Irrigating
Tractor

20 H.P. (wheel)
Truck

1,000 miles at 7.8 cents
Equipment
3-14" plow
8 1 double disk
12' spike harrow
Float

3- row lister
4 row planter
30' boom sprayer

4 - row cultivator
Carrot lifter

Piece work

Pulling, topping,
Materials

Seed — 2 pounds/acre at #1.10

Oil spray— 3,600 gallons at $.12

Water— $3/ac re

Sacks — 11,200 at $.15 (used)
Miscellaneous

Taxes — $3/acre

Management — $18/acre

Interest— 4 per cent of $200

Compensation insurance — $1. 24/$100

Growers Association dues

Total cost
Cost per acre

Cost per ton (14 ton yield)

Days

Rate/hr.
— — ■ ■ ■ —

Total

15.2

$X. 25

$171.00

C, f • d

1 .UU

244. 80

47.0

1.00

423.00 1

! 838.80

Rate/day

15.2

13.78

208.96

38.96

78.00

2.5

2.32

5.80

1.8

3.28

5.90

1.4

.74

1.04

1.0

.10

.75

8.43

6.32

2.0

3.45

6.90

.75

2.07

1.55

2.7

2.18

5.89

2*5

5.18

12.95

16.45

sacking— 11, 200 sacks at 15 cents/sack

payroll

44.00
432.00

60.00
560.00

60.00
360.00
160.00
5.60

20.00

1,680.00

1,096.00

$ 605.60 !

4,553.81 j
227.691/1
16.98 I

a/ If the freight charge to Sacramento is included as a cost, the cost per acre
is $311,69 and the cost per ton $22.98. It is probably desirable to include the
$6/ton charge because the price offered by Campbell's Soup Company was an f.o.b.
Sacramento price.

i 15 d S409 e fid' j

" •

06.3 3s'.5 -8.1 eXd-wob""*8 |

■ " "•

S-t\#8 -3V.. *i©iai:X Vo l £

■ .■ • ' . ' "' ' ''

.e8*,S V.,? •no'tfa^.W'Xuo wi *

3*,3> a'OjX .8.1.. 3 Wfil *o«n*0

00,08a, I 3i*ca\a*nao d.I |ii 8*>ae 00S ,J X— anitfone .^gitKpfoJ vS^'Xi'^ ,

"j A- e-Xi*'f , i< :! dijM

£oU?.£ 51*1 *a ano-He^ 0<1a<,S*-«-ijittq'8 XiO

00**560.1 OOVo33 s("&?a<L.'5 - 3'XV$ «+jb 0OS«,IX*-82rr>fl2

00<?$ So tfnoo *to<$ t**#f
XXcx?vsq 00X$\*S.X£--a; runuEfti: tioi*«E

46,

When the carrot proposition was first offered to the growers the price
to be paid by Campbell's was to be $22.00 per ton. Later this was increased
to $27.00 f.o.b. Sacramento. It is doubtful whether any carrots will be
shipped out this year but from the figures in table 26 and from this price
we can conclude that producers of carrots would clear $150.31 per acre or
$10.02 per ton if their individual costs were identical with the cost struc-
ture set forth here.

,3*-

a Jrtrbivlrml

table 27

Cauliflower, Expected Yield - 300 to 350 Crates (6 to 7 tons)

Inputs Per Acre

Acres per

Man

Tractor

M/hrs .

Required hired

Ooerations
p 1

Crew and eouipment

9 hr. day

hours

ooerator works

labor M/hrs.

Plowing

1M 20T 3-14" plow

9.0

l.C

1,0

. 1.0

Disking (2X)

1M 20T 8' double disk

20.0

-.9

Harrowing (2X)

1M 20T 10' spring tooth

22.0

Furrowing

1M 20T 2-row lister

15.0

Growing plants

6 M/hrs.

6.0

Transplanting

3M 14T 2-row transplanter

13.0

2.1

1.4

i Irrigating (6X)

2 M/hrs.

12.0

6.0

1 Cultivating (3X)

1M 14T 2-row cultivator

13.0

2.1

Applying fertilizer

1M 147 2-row cultivator and

fertilizer attachment

13.0

Hoeing

5 M/hrs.

5.0

Dusting (2X)

1M 14T 4-row duster

60.0

Cutting

30 M/hrs.

30.0

30 .0

Trimming, packing,

and loading

By the crate

Hauling to siding

Contract

47.

TABLE 28

Cost Per Acre for Cauliflower Production

Hours

Rate/hour

Total c

ost

Labor

General

2.1

.50

1.05

Tractor driver

7.1

.75

5.33

r •

Irrigating

12.0

.50

6.00

Hoeing

5.0

.50

2,50

Plant bed labor

6.0

.50

3.00

Harvesting and packing

30.0

.50

15.00

Tractor

14 H.P. wheeled

3.8

.82

3.12

20 H.P. wheeled

3.3

1.23

4.06

Equipment

rlow o-i4

1.0

, yo

.90

8' double disk

.43

.39

10' soring tooth harrow

.16

.13.

2-row lister

.62

.37

2-row transplanter

.25

.18

2-row cultivator

2. 0

.0 I

.20

Fertilizer attachment

.23

.16

4- row duster

.54

.16

Amount

Cost/unit

Tota

Contract

.12,/crate

Trimming, packing, loading

300 crates

36.00

Hauling to siding

300 c rates

.05/crate

15.00

Materials

Seed

5 pounds

.80

4.00

Irrigation water

3.00

Nicotine dust

50 pounds

.18

9.00

•

Calcium arsenate

50 pounds

iGfk

3.75

Ammnni \ itti q i i 1 riH ft 4"! A f*f^ y*i~ i "I i 7 0 y»

TUU UUUtlUfi

FiO OO/t-nn

10.00

Crates

300 crates

49.50

Miscellaneous

Taxes--$3/acre

3.00

Management — $9/ac re

9.00

Interest — 4 per cent of $100

4.00

Compensation insurance — #1.24/$100 c

f payroll

.90

Total cost

per acre

189.70

Cost per crate

.63

Return

per crate

Average return per crate of cauliflower 1935-1939

.55

Wet loss per crate

.08

3 1. TIL'

I rS

. ,..„ . i.^ .i , i i-

todal bed tfital^

■-- , - ■

■

i «

■ » . • . • ^ . ■ . . .

■ >

■

* <

to tfne-r! ieq (y— ;^3<na^nl

TABLE 29

Celery, .Expected Yield - 350 to 40CT6F-Pound Crates

Inputs Per Acre

Operations

- ;

Crew and equipment

Acres/
9 hr. day

Man
hours

Tractor
hours

M/hrs.
operator works

Required hired
labor M/hrs.

! PI owin 9

1M POT 4-?4" disk plow

15.0

.6
•

: Planintr

A mi ***** m * 1^

IT' POT land olane

30.0

J Checking

HI POT V-ridger

40.0

\ 2
••

! Flooding

2 M/hrs.

2.0

•

2.0

1 Planting

10M 20T 3- row planter

9.0

10.0

1.0

9.0

: Irrigating (4X)

11?

9.0

4.0

; Crowding (3X)

4M POT 3-hand cultivators

12.0

9.0

2.2

6.8

! Scratching (3X)

5 M/hrs.

15.0

; Cultivating (3X)

1M 14T 4-row cultivator

15.0

1.8

| Fertilizing

1M 14T 4-row fertilizer attachment

15.0

! Banking

4M POT 3-hand bankers

15.0

2.4

. .6

1.8

| Cutting

1M 14T 2-row celery cutter

10.0

| Pulling and trimming

By the crate

i Packing

60 M,/hrs.

60.0

i Bed labor for

Plowing, disking, harrowing,

| producing plants

planting, irrigating, weeding

' Pulling plants

50 M/hrs.

50.0

' Hauling to siding

Contract

'■

* .

♦ • -

1 t 1 C 1 -

- t :

■ • -

■

- »

* •

1 •• • . ■ .

. . .'.

49.

TABLE 30

Cost Per Acre for Celery Production

Hours Rate/hour Total cos

t !

Labor
General

Tractor driver
Irrigating

Pulling plants and planting
Cultivators and scratchers

Packing

4.2
8.6
4.0
59.0
21.8
60.0

.50
.75
.50
.50
.50
.50

2.10

6.45
2.00
29.50
10.90
30.00

Tractor

20 H. P. wheel
14 H. P. wheel

4.9
3.7

L.23
.82

6.03
3.03

Equipment

Plow 4-24" disk
Land plane
V-ridger

3- row planter

Hand cultivators and bankers

4- row cultivator

4-row fertilizer attachment
2-row celery cutter

.6
.3

.2
1.0
8.4
1.8
0.6
0.9

.41
1.67
.57
.17
.03
.23
.23
.46

.25
.50
.11
.17
.25
.41
.14
.41

•

I
1

Contract

I Pulling and trimming — 65 pound
Hauling— 350 crates

Amount

crates 350 crates
350 Grates

Cost /unit

.12/crate
,05/crate

Total

42.00
17.50

Materials

Fertilizer 8-10-12
Crates

Water — $3/acre

400 pounds
350 crates

50.00/ton

10.00
57.75
3.00

f m

Miscellaneous
Taxes— !$3/acre
Management— $9/acre
Interest— 4 per cent of $100
Compensation insurance— $1 .24-/$! 00 payroll

3.00
9.00
4.00
.80

Total cost per acre
Cost per crate

£239. 3C
.68

Return per crate
Average return per crate of celery 1935-1939

1.40

Net profit per crate

*. .... K _

• fj

•

;

. .

• t

■

-toq. Gruffer* 9^f}iovt

TABLE 31

Lettuce, Expected Yield - 150 Crates of 5 Dozen Heads
Inputs Per Acre for Fall Lettuce Production to Harvest Time

Ope rat ions

Acres per

; Man

Tractor

M/hrs .

Required hired

Crow and equipment

day

hours

operator works

labor M/hrs .

Plowing

1M 20T 2-14" plow

6.0

1.5

! -t

Disk and harrow (2X)

III 20T 1C double disk and

10' spike harrow

27.0

0.7

0.7 .

0.7

Making beds

1M 20T 3- row lister

8.0

1.1

Irrigation

3 M/hrs.

3.0

Planting

1M 20T 6-row planter

15.0

0.6

0.6 ,

0.6

Thinning

22.5 M/hrs.

22.5

Weeding

10 M/hrs.

10.0

Fertilizing

1M 14T 4-row cultivator with

fertilizer attachment

12.0

0.8

Irrigating (6X)

3 M/hrs.

18.0

9.0

Cultivating (3X)

1M 14T 4-row cultivator

15.0

1.8

Dusting

1M 14T 4-row duster

15.0

Ov.6

0.6

(CT-f I Ai?f jut. ('2X; ' i

- •

■

•

. *

■- <

TABLE 32

Cost Per Acre for Lettuce Production to Harvest Time

51.

Hours

Rate/hour Total cost

■ ....
Labor

Tractor driver

7.1

.75

5.32

Irrigating

21.0

.50

10.50

Thinning and weeding

32.5

. 50

16.25

Trficto I*

14 H.P. wheel

3.2

. o2

20 H P. wheel

3.9

1. 26

% . tsu

Equipment

.-. ji

C_ 1 A ' Til n«
C— x^fc pxuw

1.5

. ( o

X . XW

10' double disk

0.7

10' spike harrow

0.7

Oft

• W .J

3-row lister

1.1

.94

1 OS

6- row planter

0.6

' 4-row cultivator

0.8

.23

.20

1 Fertilizer attachment

0.8

.23

.20

1 4-row duster

\J • o

.54

.32

Amount

Cost/unit

Total

Materials

Seed

1.5 pound

1.00

1.50

■ ii

Irrigation water — $3/acre

50.00/ton

3.00

Ammonium sulphate

300 pounds

7.50

Calcium arsenate

25 pounds

. 10/pound

2.50

i Miscellaneous

' Taxes — |3/acre

i Management — $9/a ere

Interest— 4 per cent of $100
Compensation insurance — $2.45/$100 payroll

3.00
9.00
4,00

Total cost per acre for

producing crop $73.85

Harvesting Costs

Cutting and loading heads — f.lO/crate
Hauling to packing shed — $>.08/crate
Cost of crates— . |. 27/c rate

Cost of packing, Icing , and loading on cars — s ^.70/crate

Total harvesting costs per acre

172.50 '

Total cost per acre
Total cost per crate

246.35
1.64

Return per crate
Average return per crate of lettuce 1935-1939

Net loss per crate

1.55

►09

S8 3JSAT

■ — ■ -i

•

•■ ••:

• *
*

■

•

woXcj {•!— S
isih oXdi/oh '01 1

19*8 il wo*i-<S ■ J

•toiavi^lijo won-* ,'

-v.

./'^■V.-i i -U |

•

- . .... -

Jr.;*

•

- ■ -

•f

> •

•" ■ ■ ■-

• " 4.
-- ' y , . ' ' jjjj j

■

TABLE 33

Market Peas, Expected Yield - 75. Bushels (2,400 Pounds)

Inputs Per Acre

Acres per j

Man

Tractor

M/hrs .

Required hired

Operations

Crow and equipment

day j

hours

operator works

labor M/hrs.

Plowing

1M 20T 4-14" plow

7.0

1.3 I

■ - 1

1.3 ,

1.3

Disking (3X)

1M 20T 10' double disk

20.0 1

1.4 1

1.4

Floating

1M 20T 12* float

15.0

o.6 ;

0.6

C.6 •

Furrowing

1M 20T 4- row fur rower

20.0

0.4

Irrigating

2 M/hrs.

2.0 '

' 2.0

Planting 30" rows

1M 10T 3-row planter

15.0

0.6 .

0.6

Irrigating (6X)

2 M/hrs.

12.0

6.0

6.'0

Hoeing

9 M/hrs.

9.0

9,0

Cultivating and

furrowing (5X)

1M 10T 3-row cultivator and

fur rower

15.0

3.0

5JD

' 3.0

Cultivating and

fertilizing

1M 10T 3-row cultivator with

fertilizer attachment

15.0

0.6

0.6 !

Dusting (3X)

1M 10T 3-row duster

25.0

1.1

Distributing picking

equipment

111 10T trailer

8.0

1.1

Picking

By the pound

Inspecting, weighing,

sacking

3 M/hrs.

3.0

Hauling to packing

shed

Contract

Grading and packing

By the hamper

Hauling to market

By the hamper

5 n\ph*>

mBBsnsi

5«<

1 9

I * '*' '

• *.•

-.5*9

«5
■>

TABLE 34

Cost Per Acre for Producing Market Peas
~ Hours Rate/hour

53.

Total cost

Labor

Tractor driver

10.1

.75

7.58

Irrigating

14.0

.50

7.00

Hoeing

9.0

.50

4.50

Inspecting, weighing, sacking
— ~- —

3.0

.50

1.50

Tractor

14 H. r. wheel

6.4

.82

3.25

dO H. r» wheel

3.7

1 .23

4.55

Equipment

4-14" plow

1.3

1.36

1.67

■ 10' double disk

1.4

• .43

.60

12' float

. .6

. .02

.01

4-row furrower

.85

.34

3-row planter

.17

.10

3-row cultivator and furrower

3.6

.16

.58

Fertilizer attachment

.23

.14

3-row duster

1.1

.54

.59

Trailer

1.1

.05

.06

Contract or Piece Work
Picking

Hauling to packing shed
Grading and packing
Hauling to market

Amount Cost/unit Total

2,400 pounds .Ol/pound 24.00

1.2 tons .75/ton .90

80 hampers ,05/hamper 4.00

80 hampers .05,/hamper 4.00

Materials
Seed

Nicotine dust
Dusting sulphur
Ammonium sulphate
Irrigation water
Hampers

60 pounds .ll/pound 6.60
20 pounds .18 /pound. 3.60
40 pounds ,04/pound 1.60
300 pounds 50.00/ton 7.50
3.00/acre 3.00
80 .18 14.40

Miscellaneous
Taxes--$3/acre
Management--! 9/acre
Interest — 4 per cent of $100
Compensation insurance — $1.24/$100 payroll

3.00
9.00
4.00
.62

Total cost per acre for

producing market peas 119.69
Cost per pound ' .05

Return per pound
Average return per pound for peas 1935-1939

.058

Net profit per pound

.008

'7- 1

rr r n 1 '

■ :

. i

... .

• •■ -

* —

•I. • .

■>

... t

■ ■

....

■

TABLE 35

Market Spinach, Expected Yield - 500 Bushels (9,000 Pounds)
Inputs Per Acre for Market Spinach

fl p c n >*

IV. _X I i

1 Trflf't nr

1*1 / Hi u •

Reouired hired

Operations

Crew and equipment

ds.y

DUUI b

XlUUl b

Anoyat fty u/nrVc!
Upt I d lUi AUI Kb

J. d U vv i in / 1 i i O •

Plowing

1M 20T 4-14" plow

X • o

J. • O

1 ^
X • »J

Disking (2X) and
Harrowing (2X)

1M 20T 10* double disk

and 10' spike harrow

n 7

Floating

1M 20T 12' float

15.0

0.6

Planting

1M 14T 4-row planter

12.0

0.8

Cultivating (2X)

1M 14T 4-row cultivator

in n

1 . c

X • O

1 ft

X • 0

Fertilizing

1M 14T 4-row cultivator with

fertilizer attachment

10.0

Irrigating (5X)

4 M/hrs .

20.0

10.0

Hoeing and thinning

30 M/hrs.

30.0

Pulling, bunching,

cutting dead leaves,

trimming roots and

packing in 40-pound

crates

83 M/hrs.

83.0

Distribute crates

1M 14T trailer

8.0

1.1

1-1 .

Hauling to market

Contract

TABLE 36

Cost Per Acre for Market Spinach Production

55.

Hours Rate/hour Total cc

)St

Labor

Tractor driver

7.2

.75

5.40

Irrigating

20.0

.50

10. (

Hoeing and thinning

30.0

• ou

15.00

Pulling, bunching, cutting dead leaves,

^rimming rooxs ana pacicing

oo . yj

• ou

41. £

Tractor

cu xitr • wncei

c < o

1 .<SO

3.£

14 n.r. wheel

4.t>

• oc

O •

— ;

Equipment

4--14 plow

. 1 . O

1.36

X •

10' double disk

0.7

.43

• •-

iu splice narrow

0.7

.08

• C

lc noax

0.6

• v

JX.

4— row planter

0.8

3fi

• c

>q
*y

2.7

9 d O

rerTjiiizer a ucacnmen u

• CO

4 ]

Trailer

1.1

.05

(

• >

Contract or Piece Work

.05/crate

Hauling to market

225 crates

li.:

Materials

Seed

25 pounds

.18

4.!

Irrigation water

Crates

225 crates

.20

55. (

Ammonium sulphate

400 pounds 50.00/ton

10. <

Miscellaneous

Taxes

3.(

Management

9.(

Interest — 4 per cent of $100

ft*

Compensation insurance — $1.24 per

$100 payroll

Total cost per acre 182.68
Total cost per bushel (18

pounds) .37

Return per unit
Average price per 18 pound bushel for market spinach (1935-

1939)

.30

Net loss per bushel

.07

TABLE 37

Wheat, Expected Yield - 24 Hundredweight
Inputs Per Acre for Irrigated Wheat Production

Operation

Crew and Equipment

Acres per
9 hr. day

Man
hours

Tractor
hours

M/hrs .
operator works

Required hired
labor M/hrs.

Establish borders

1M 20T disk ridger

60.0

0.2

Irrigating

2 M/hrs.

2*0

2.0

Plowing

HI 20T 3-14" plow

9.0

1.0

Disking and

harrowing (2X)

1M 20T 10' double disk
and 10' spike harrow

27.0

Seeding

1M 20T 10' grain drill

18.0

..5

Harvesting

Contract

Hauling

Contract

, -

■ .1 C - - -•■ i

*— ■ ■ -

-1

- 1 ■

57.

TABLE 38

Cost Per Acre for Irrigated Wheat Production

Hours Hate/hour Total

cost

Labor

Tractor driver 2.4 .75 1.80

Irrigating 2.0 .50 1.00

■

Tractor

20 H.P. wheel 2.4 1.23 2.9

Equipment

Disk ridger .2 .38 .0
3-14 ■ plow 1.0 .90 .9
10' double disk .7 .43 .3
10' spike harrow .7 .08 .0
10' grain drill .5 1.43 .7

8
0
D
6
2

Amount Cost/unit Total

Contract or Piece Work

Harvesting 3.00/acre 3.00
Hauling — $1.25/ton 24 hundredweight 1.25/ton 1.50
Storage-- 3 months at $.75 a
ton first month, $.25 per

ton thereafter 24 hundredweight 1.50

Materials

Irrigation water 3.0
Seed 100 pounds 1.25/cwt. 1.2
Sack and twine 21 .10 2.1

)
5

)

Miscellaneous

Taxes 3.0
Interest — 4 per cent of $100 4.0
Management--$1.87/acre 1.8
Insurance — $1.50 per $100 per season

insured at $32.00 per ton .5

0
0
7

Total cost per acre $29.6
Total cost per hundredweight 1.2

1
3

Return per unit

Average price per hundredweight for wheat 1935-1939 1.3

Net return per hundredweight $ .1

TABLE 39

Oats, Expected Yield - 21 Hundredweight
Inputs Per Acre for Irrigated Oat Production

Operations

Crew and equipment

Acres per
9 hr. day

Man
hours

Tractor
hours

M/hrs* .
operator hours

Required hired 1
labor M/hrs..

Establish borders

1M 20T disk ridger

60.0

0.2

Irrigating

2 M/hrs.

2.0

Plowing

iU 20T 3-14 M plow

9.0

1.0

Disking and harrowing
(2X)

1M 20T 10' double disk
and 10' spike harrow

27.0

Seeding

1M 20T 10' grain drill

18.0

Harvesting

Contract

Hauling

Contract

•

■

;

■

» -

•

t !
f i

j - • | . . . ■ . I

' ' " ^ '■

• •

. . .

: ■ - - . . ■ . * r - • ,- ^. . .

■ ■ ' r - ■ " • ' '

TABLE 40

Cost Per Acre for Irrigated Oat Production

Hours

Rate/hour

Total

cost

Labor

Tractor driver
Irrigating

2.4
2.0

.75
.50

1.80
1.00

Tractor

20 H.P. wheel

2.4

1.23

2.95

Equipment
Disk ridger
3-14" plow
10' double disk
10' spike harrow
10* grain drill

.2
1.0
.7
.7
.5

.38
.•90
.43
.08
1.43

.08
.90
.30
.06
.72

Contract or Piece Work

Amount

Cost/unit

Total

Harvesting
Hauling

Storage — 3 months at $.75 a
ton first month, $.25' per
ton thereafter

21 hundredweight
21 hundredweight

3. 00 /acre
1. 25/ton

3.00
1.31

Materials

Irrigation water
Seed

Sacks and twine

70 pounds
21

1.75/cwt.
.10

3.00
1.22
2.10

Miscellaneous
Taxes
Interest
Management

Insurance — $1.50 per $100 per season
insured at $32.00 per ton

3.00
4.00
1.87

•50

Total cost per acre

Total cost per hundredweight

29.1
1.3

2
9

Average price per hundredweight

Return per unit
of oats 1935-1939

1.2

8 ,

Net loss per hundredweight

buff's*

• '* ' ,%r.ij rjr.. j -riV.-r-- •■-a. !?-«-< .-^«>i . - —

' *•*"»" li * l«l lit K M

wn^ J.

■

i 08 VI" 6V **

-3'

•- ..

- / ■

•■

t .

■

- « - t

•

*«.■"' is £ . J
woXt? -^X^c*

•

1 .
-■

** * *|i ' i ' '-. ' ' " .i) , ,L_ .3. ^.-J'." — - .it.

Irrigated Pasture

60 (

While irrigated pastures have gained importance in the valleys of Califor-
nia, their usefulness in the Tule Lake Division is limited. During the cold
weather pastures grow very little and according to agronomists in the Experiment
Station, the usual pasture plants would make little if any growth during the five
winter months. For this reason only 5 to 7 animal-unit months of pasture could
be obtained compared with the usual 10 or 11 animal-unit months obtained in the
valley.

Plants which would probably be used would be Alsike clover, Palestine clover,
domestic rye grass, orchard grass, tall fescue, and possibly timothy. Usually
permanent pastures are seeded with some mixture of these to produce a full growth
for as long as possible during the growing period. There are at present a few
pastures in the basin but these are principally clover pastures with few excep-
tions. In addition alfalfa stands are pastured off in late summer in some cases.

Costs of irrigated pastures vary widely depending on the land preparation
required, the seed mixture used, and wage rates in the area. Irrigation is the
main cost item in most areas but would be relatively insignificant in the basin
where water is much less expensive. The Agricultural Extension Service summa-
rized the results of several pasture management records collected in four valley
counties during the years 1944 and 1945 finding that the average total cost of
producing an acre of irrigated pasture was #29.11 in 1944 and #33.52 in 1945.
In these same years the total cost per animal-unit month was $2.92 and #3.09
respectively. Because of less necessary land preparation and smaller water costs
it is believed that the total cost of irrigated pastures per acre would be less
but that any gain would tend to be offset by the reduced number of animal-unit
months of pasturage obtained because of the cold winter.

Vfith the small numbers of livestock on farms, permanent pastures have little
to offer as a substitute for the present cash crops but when and if it becomes
more profitable to sell grains in the form of meat, permanent pastures may become
important in the basin. An irrigated pasture should yield as large a tonnage per
acre as alfalfa but in addition it should have the advantage of being more eco-
nomical to harvest and feed.

The Experiment Station has come to the conclusion that pasturage from ir-
rigated pastures is usually more expensive than natural range pasture but is a
cheaper source of nutrients than most other livestock feeds. It may well be
used in place of a considerable proportion of the more expensive feeds for dairy
and other livestock where irrigation is present but irrigated pastures, unless
supplemented with dry matter, tend to bloat cattle and sheep.

Livestock in Tule Lake Division - Farm Organizations

In examining the relative importance of livestock in farm organizations in
the Tule Lake Division, an illustration of inventories of livestock is useful*
Table 41 compared livestock inventories for the years 1935-1939 with 1943-1947.
While this comparison shows the absolute differences in numbers, the general
decline is more clearly shown by introducing the factor of increased number of
farms. This item has been added to the table and the average number of eaoh
class of livestock per farm computed, this information being shown in table 42.

"v n . . r.

WpTV\

CUKVG10.

•Jo :^!<?i3io

TABLE 41

Livestock Inventories in the Tule Lake Division as of
January 1, 1935-1939 and November 1, 1943-1947

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1943

1944

1945

1946

J947

Horses and mules

711

738

692

591

544

259

153

125

Beef cattle:

Farm pastured

1,560

1,492

929

1,083

416

1,214

229

181

291

Purchased or range

pasture

214

113

. 324

583

350

710

283

146

206

Dairy cattle:

Cows 2 years plus

697

616

404

342

244

Heifers

280

193

142

113

Others

2,230

1 ,860

1,925

1,524

1,639

315

269

154

161

Purebred bulls

. 35

Sheep and lambs:

•

Farm pastured

5,170

2,140

1,255

2,600

1,486

1 ,283

961

345

358

Purchased or range

pasture

26,000

21,450

11,850

14,050

6,600

2,750

2,100

1,200

Hogs

1,490

1,407

1,635

2,017

1,692

4,249

1,664

903

325

708

Turkeys

960

1,220

437

231

668

Chickens

14,160

15,980

18,620

14,951

10,454

18,373

9,425

10,550

6,125

5,737

•

Hives of bees

112

Number of homesteads

331

317

341

412

408

407

406

449

TABLE 42

Numbers of Livestock Per Farm
1935-1939 and 1943-1947

Item

: 1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1943

j 1944

1945

i 1946 !

1947

'Horses and mules

2.1

2.3

2.0

1.4

1.3

! .6

i ' 4

•Beef cattle

4.7

5.4

.3.1

3.4

2.4

3.8

2.3

1.1

All dairy cattle

6.9

6.0

5.8

3.8

4.1

3.3

j 2.8

1.8

,1.1

1.1

Sheep and lambs

78.6

84.0

41.0

37.1

22.5

10.4

1 .8.3

5.3

Hogs

4.5

,4.4

4.8

4.9

4.1

10.4

.4.1

2.2

• - 8 !

1.6

Turkeys

3.0

3.6

1.1

1.6

! -

_ _

Chickens

42.8

50.4

54.6

36.3

25.6

45.1

j 23,5

25.9

15.1 |

12.8 ;

Hives of bees

, .1

It is readily apparent that the decline in livestock numbers has been
pronounced especially in the last three years. Declines in percentage terms
are shown in table 43. The percentage decline from 1935-1939 average numbers
to 1943-1947 average numbers are presented for dairy cattle, beef cattle,
sheep and lambs, hogs, and chickens.

TABLE 43

Livestock Numbers Compared

1935-1939

with 1943-

1947

1935-1939

1943-1947

Type of
livestock

Average
number in
division

Average
number
per farm

Average
number in
division

Average
number
per farm

Per cent decrease
in total numbers
1935-1939 to
1943-1947

Dairy cattle

1,872

5.3

860

2.0

Beef cattle

1,343

3.8

788

1.8

Sheep and lambs

18,223

52.6

2,097

5.1

Hogs

1,648

4.5

1,570 .

3.8

Chickens

14,853

41.9

10,042

24.5

— - V— - VW IM . Ii

♦-^ - -. i.- - . -f —

• !;0««;tr I . .... ^JC-T;'. |

♦

• , ■

- •

... .

... . ■ . . ■

■, c .• . • "

From the evidence presented it is apparent that declines have been greatest
in sheep and lambs. This is explained in part by one important event. With the
advent of Ladino clover in the Sacramento Valley, sheepmen from the valley came in-
to the Tule Lake Division and paid within a cent and a half of the fat lamb price
for feeders. Producers in the basin could not compete with these buyers so the
feeder sheep business declined rapidly. Additional factors were the difficulty in
obtaining competent sheep herders during the war and the unavailability of extra
feed necessary to fatten feeder sheep on small acreages. An additional problem
with sheep production occurs in the winter. In the basin proper, winters are so
severe that sheep must be kept on the range for most of the winter in order to
stay healthy. Sheepmen agree that three months out of the year is about all that
the sheep should be allowed to stay in the basin. This introduces the problem of
grazing rights, a much debated point in the basin at present.

Hog declines have been the least in percentage terms, however, this is due
largely to the actions of one man. During the early years of the war Sam Anderson
had a contract with the War Relocation Authority camps to remove the garbage and
fed nearly 4,000 hogs during this time. Currently hog numbers are way down but
occasionally newer homesteaders are producing a few for home consumption.

The beef cattle population has also shown a decline in the division but
large numbers are being fed still. Most of the larger feeders such as Liskey are
located in areas adjacent to the Tule Lake Division and feed their animals in the
surrounding areas. With the increased settlements the number of beef animals have
declined in the division largely because of the emphasis on cash crops by the home-
steaders on smaller acreages.

Chicken declines have been traced to two principal causes, namely: (1) the
attitude on the part of farmers that chickens are too much trouble to care for es-
pecially in small numbers such as would fill the needs of a single homesteader and
his family; and (2) the general emphasis placed on cash crops and away from live-
stock enterprises which has been so prevalent in recent years. In the case of
chicken declines the first cause seems to be the most outstanding.

While this decline has been general in livestock and of considerable propor-
tions, the authors are of the opinion that further declines may come but in the not
too distant future livestock will again take their place in farm organizations as
prices for cash crops decline and the need arises for converting many of these crops
into higher value animal products.

Crop Rotations

The rotation of crops is a means employed to maintain or in certain instances
to build up the productive power of the soil. A rotation accomplishes this goal
by one, all, or some combination of the following:

(a) changing the withdrawal of plant food from the soil,

(b) adding nitrogen to the soil,

(d) reducing insects,

(e) reducing diseases,

(f) reducing other pests.

The central theme of any rotation is the utilization in the scheme of plrnting of
botanically different plants. In practice the following rules are generally fol-
lowed as closely as is practicable;

.53

$B*&0&r$ nood avarf .eanXJoab *a,<

)»iq eonab-fra ad* noil
si aidT .sdroaX boa qr

a^oan bs

lo waXdoia arii aaouboitfrri airfT .rtiead* art* nX vata od bawo-IXa. 9d bXuod8 qa<

t X a^JTOX

.BesaaTpa neXXania np . 8TtSba«de

arid * (i )" t yXwun • t a QttlAft, X /jq/QpXqq ' fritf od ' btJda-<d • n*>ed . sv.erf . aeniXoftb ■ n.o^irfQ
-so ibl t*wo--o* . HXdifotJtu darim,' bp'd Wia a'ffeaioirib' sKirtJ- aJtarwtft ^o. dnaq..a,dd no., abi/didda
bn a n'oftaod a ar*r>rf. .^ui: ; ;.,f< l.p .pb'ion arid fXil' MuoW za -itotiz.-Vf^Smm- /JiancB &| vljlaipafc
-aviX rfriri '-^im .fcnfi -.sofn o ,dB^o ^b baofflq •s'iaaViqftte' X ; at sjMg add fma .trfjgt£l/|kut
aa.jo arid nl . ,tZ'V}yji t .-t.ii£>6i»% r £ir &ri&£'!Winr\' tfa nood esri ri-qidw aaBijcqriadnV ; 3fo6#a
.. fj.'c- iaof? odd ©\J dd- sfrn^os' aauuo^dart I>l.. ; ^rid .^.aniXo^'b Waidlri?)

-ioqo*rq aXdaiobianop.. to ..fuu' .aio.oi'eav/X ni .tot a/fay n3ad aari.janiXftgb . sirtd. aJirfW .
cton arii ni" iiTrf >eop.ji);sT. 'Bcioiioffb - 7 : ?diV<A , 'drarfd Tidiniqo add a?a ay^us., arid 'Vfe'noi*
8ij ^.hoitf/Jsir'ajito irr*«*l ni ^jjeXg' ii.arid ^aLad-nia^r: lliw xeo$aovll...e'iuSii\ dnfld.eib ood
sqoio easrid to ynw gniifiovrtoo' nol ajahtis bean arid bn<v ^niXodb. eqoio ^ia/sq. 'io'l c?dliq

.Bdoubonq Lanina- awXavj 3'arf.?/iri' ptfn'i

znoitoi off " 'q'on 0 • '•

aaonodani niaiHno ni ,qp niodnlam bd bayoXqrta '8nec?i3 *r ai if-qona lo noidntfon eriT

r i I. ■ ^ f t A ,f (-• * r _» ■ <v _ ,

jgniwoXXol ' orid no id art id-moo ^noa to. « XXa t ano yd

.a'bsaw.gnioubai ( 0 )

.a^aaq tad^o ,s«ioub^t , (l) ..

to yiidmXq lo wirioa art^ noi,&iitltltu odi ai aoiAa&tn \no to amari* Xandnao sdT
~ld\ yXXai«Jn©5 ana eaXui ^niwofXot ad* t»o/ioa*rq ni .ainaXq , *trma'Mtjtb yXXaoinaiod

»aXd.-joid:sfl«tq ai aa yXeaoXo - za bawoX

64.

(a) land occupied by a perennial legume for several consecutive years,

(b) follow a leguminous crop with a non leguminous crop,

(d) follow crops requiring deep plowing with crops doing well with
shallow plowing,

(e) alternate occasionally with a clean cultivated crop to control weeds,

(f) if stocks are bad, always have a succession of pasture crops in
the rotation for feed.

In summary, a good rotation generally includes one money crop, one clean-
tilled crop, one hay crop, and ono leguminous crop. Based on these principles set
forth, several rotations for the Tule Lake Division have been worked out for this
report. The following tables contain these examples of rotations. The first rota-
tions provide for four twenty-acre fields, including one clover seed crop to be
plowed under at the end of the first year. A second rotation leaves the clover in
for two harvests of seed. The latter is preferable. A third rotation is set up
with eight ten-acre fields using a double rotation scheme, clover in one and alfalfa
in the other. The last example is again based on eight ten-acre fields with the
arrangement pointed toward a dairy enterprise. Alfalfa and pasture are two of the
four constituents. (See tables 44, 45 and 46.)

These are only examples of rotations for this area. Many more quite dif-
ferent examples could be set up as well as the large number of modifications which
could be made on these given.

■

Xq qoofc ypliliifyt sqoi.o wollol (b)

q sJt irttjl orfT .bios 1to Ed-acvnflri ovtf iol
rrox^a^oi lo eelqnoxa yXno o%a aaeifT

TABLE 44

Two Rotations - 80-Acre Farm
4 20-Acre Fields

Fields

Years

— J

Years

■ !

Barley

and
clover

Clover

i 1

Potatoes

Sugar
beets

| Barley

and
I clover

Clover

Sugar beets

or
potatoes

Clover

Potatoes

Sugar
beets

3a r ley

and
clover

i 1

i Clover

Clover

Sugar j Barley
beets or j and
potatoes clover

Potatoes

Sugar
beets

Barley

and
clover

Clover

r H

Clover

Sugar
beets or
potatoes

Barley
and j Clover
clover

Sugar
beets

Barley

and
clover

Clover

Potatoes

! Sugar
' beets or
potatoes

Ba rl ey
and

clover

_ .
Clover

Clover

■

C JOAbL

■ - ■

Vsuq-.- j?CJOAeL

CI OA* J.

, — 1

> BSStSSs — ,

» *"

C JOAOt

gTKeri. peeps

IVi J ^ " ' »

■

CD
CO

TABLE 45

Rotations - 80 -Acre Farm]
8 10-Acre Fields

Fields

! Years

i ■

Alfalfa

Carrots

Alfalfa

Barley

and
clover

Clover

Barley

and
clover

Clover

Alfalfa

Barley
and
alfalfa

, 1

Barley

Alfalfa

Clover

Carrots

Clover

Carrots

: 1

Alfalfa

, ,

Carrots

Clover

Barley
and

pin TTO t*

Clover

Barley j

and
c lover

: 4

Alfalfa

Barley
and
alfalfa

Barley

Carrots

Clover

Carrots
—

Clover
.

1 ■ ■

Carrots

Alfalfa

Carrots

L —

Barley

and
clover

Clover

Barley

and
clover

Clover
1

« !

Barley-

Alfalfa

Alfalfa
1

Barley
and
alfalfa

Clover

Carrots

Clover
i ...

Carrots j
, 1

Carrots

Alfalfa

Clover

Barley

and
clover

Clover

Barley

and
clover

3arley

and
alfalfa

Barley

Alfalfa

Carrots

Clover

Carrots

Clover

a/ Each year: 20 acres — alfalfa; 20 acres — barley; 20 acres — clover; 20 acres — carrots.

p Xeei.1 bO polg8 — FJ^Jtar* SO WMMW — psrljakl SO trcfcoa — cjOAtt! so oolgs — cpttoj'e*

"*' : j ■ «•-_■

- — SLill —

OJOA3L ■

"' ' ■'•

• • »

table 46

Rotations - 80-Acre Farnfi/
8 10-Acre Fields Designed for Dairying

Fields

Years

3
3

n
D

Pasture

Barley

' 1

Pasture

Sugar
beets

Barley

and i
alfalfa j

Alfalfa

Sugar
beets

rus ture

.da r ley

ah ai i a

Jii i a i xa

Sugar
beets

tjariey

1 1

Barley

Pasture

beets

1 r

Alfalfa |

Alfalfa

Barley

beets

S 1 1 era r*

beets

Pasture

Barley

Alfalfa

i u

Alfalfa

Sugar
beets

Barley

and
alfalfa

oariey
i

raST/UrS

Sugar
beets

r^asiiure

A 1 -fc 1 fa

Aiiana :

Sugar
beets

Barley

and
alfalfa

Aiiana

Pasture

Sugar
beets

, ,

Barley

Pasture

Sugar j
beets

i j

Barley

Alfalfa

Pasture

Barley

Sugar
beets

Pasture

Barley !

I L

Sugar Alfalfa
beets

Alfalfa

Pasture

Sugar
beets

Barley

Pasture

Sugar
beets

Barley
and
alfalfa

Alfalfa

a/ Each year: 20 acres — barley; 20 acres — alfalfa; 20 acres — pasture; 20 acres — sugar beets.

;- ' i

, i

v r ur j t»

1 . •* *» .* * • f

VJVJV-

P JX.8J TJET
L . ■ ., ' . ■'

.... . .

■

... ..j. -

........ -

68.

Financial Needs of Homesteaders and Credit Sources

Yfttile capital needs for acquisition are not a factor in the Tule Lake Divi-
sion, capital requirements for operating, proving-up, and personal living are of
prime importance to the homesteaders. Capital requirements differ widely with the
kind of farm business to be financed. In general, the farms in the Tule Lake Divi-
sion at present are almost entirely involved in the production of field crops with
little livestock included in the farm organizations — a condition which cuts down
the capital requirements.

To evaluate more adequately the capital needs of the homesteader, a table
of capital requirements is a useful device in that the needs are placed in cate-
gories according to the type of requirement (i.e., investment, operating, replace-
ment, personal, etc.) and according to periods of time when the money is needed.
The following table has been set up to show the typical capital needs of a new
homesteader on an 80-acre farm planning to produce barley, potatoes, sugar beets,
and clover in a four-year rotation. The figures contained in this table are based
on more near normal conditions than are had at present.

The results of this table indicate very clearly the difficulty involved in
the first year of farming on a homestead. The Bureau requires the prospective
homesteader to have $2,000 in liquid assets as was mentioned previously. This
amount would supposedly reduce the amount which must be borrowed to roughly $2,000,
however, in order to get the crops off the first year, nearly $10,000 will have to
be borrowed. All but about $2,000 of this can be repaid at the end of the first
year and after the second year the income will more than cover all expenses.

This analysis is predicated on one assumption of utmost importance. It as-
sumes that crops will be forthcoming each year and that yields will be average or
better. This is a limiting assumption in that severe frosts would occur during
the growing season in at least one out of four years. If damaging frosts should
come during the first year the homesteader may find himself in a precarious finan-
cial position; however, with his land clear and two years of good crops and favor-
able prices he could again free himself of debts other than current production
expenses .

Borrowing money always introduces the question of sources of credit. In the
Tule Lake area the Bank of America has established itself almost as the entire
source of credit. It has placed itself in the farmers favor in the past because
of its policy of loaning to the homesteaders during the depression years, provided
proper budgets and financial statements were submitted to support loan requests.
Through wise loaning and good service the Bank of America branch at Tule Lake has
built a very large trade. Just prior to the war and during the war years an ex-
cellent manager was present at the bank who knew conditions in the basin and knew
how to satisfy the homesteaders. Outsiders feel this has had a large part to do
with the bank's popularity among homesteaders.

Production loans are also available through the Production Credit Association
of the Farm Credit Administration office at Klamth Falls and in the Tule Lake Divi-
sion of California some production credit loans are made.

.83

1 a<f o;t

itibnoo far

wcXXol adT
efl onojn no

a/to tfea pi "ii>6io 'fti .,i«&v:

-5A n

03*0 a-

ow* f>n£>, iseXo bifaX Biri'-rttiw ■^•x^ypvo^ ^ctol&lznq

,lo 85»^T.U03 *t<

. .ate

[ rttg-^XX J
' oifl anaoi

axioms ^irtnfyqoq a'alnatf art* sisitr
3 x*> oijD o"xq oi^oq /sxmoTxiiSo xc noxa

TABLE 47

Tabulation of Capital Requirements - 80-Acre Homestead
(Rotation - 20 Acres Each of Barley, Sugar Beets, Potatoes, and Clover)

, Periods

Capital requirements

jFirst year^./ 'Second year ; Third yoar ! Fourth year

T dollars

B«

Tractor

1,100

Truck

850

House (rebuilding

barracks )

1,500

Storage shed - implements ';

(out of bar recks)

500

Drilling well and

installing pump for

household water

250

iviacnincry .

?40

12* harrow (spike)

10» drill

285

7* mower (tractor)

155

12' dump rake

3-14" plow

216

2-row planter

140

2-row cultivator

Digger

310

i/xsiC rxoger

Operating Items

Hired labor

500

Seeds

950b/

Contract work

1,500

1,250

Sacks, twine, etc.

350

300

Pest control materials

Fuel for equipment

250

Water

240

Miscellaneous

100

Replacement and Maintenance

Repair and parts for

implements and

machinery

Replacing worn imple-

ments

100

Personal Items

Total

2,600

1,800

(Table continued on next page)

•

• •

BnaoaefniBlA brio JfrKwrooalqefl

■

(agpc J-xsn no b&imiinoo oldsT)

70.

Table 47 Continued.

Periods

Capital requirements .

First year&/|

Second yeari

Third year j

Fourth year

dollars

E. Recapitulation

;*»•- 1

Investment items
Ooeratinp' items
Replacement and

maintenance
Personal items
Safety factor (5 per

cent of operating

needs )

5,521
3,576

10
2,600

180

295 j
2,596

26
1,800

130

— mm

2,596

50
1,800

130

mmmm

2,596

175
1,80C

13C

)

Gross Totals

11,887

4,846

4,576

4,701

Less estimated re-
ceipts from sales of
farm products

/ , y<io

8,45S

)

Net capital
recjuiremsn us

3,959

+3,613

+3,883

+3,75(

Cumulative needs by
years

3,959

346

Amount and year of
maximum needs

3,959

a/ First year 40 acres of barley, 20 of potatoes and 20 of sugar beets*
b/ Seed saved from previous crop after first year.

. ■

' ' ' " " ■»•" .."'I ■ .■

" " ~- •■' ■ . ... ■ :' ' <■

Vlesy *bv1 ; *io^a gov 8Jofv9«tq raoi* h&vas beeZ

71.

Some implement houses are willing to sell equipment on terms of a very-
liberal nature* This has led to one of the. faults in the financial structure
of many homesteaders in that they purchase more equipment than they have genu-
ine need for and fail to take care of what they do have, knowing they they can
obtain replacements with no financial difficulty. This is another case where
an agency is actually harming farmers by overlending when on the surfaee they
are pretending to provide a real service. At the same time, it must be remem-
bered that the implement dealer is boosting his volume of sales.

VJhen examining the financial aspects of homesteading under the laws of this
country and particularly under the conditions existing in the Tule Lake Division,
it is immediately apparent that those fortunate enough to be chosen are presented
with an asset worth nearly $20,000. in more normal times. Under present condi-
tions it is worth much more. Comparing homesteading with commercial purchasing
of farms, one notes that homesteaders do enjoy a distinctly favorable financial
position, since we were informed that by building a house and farming for two
consecutive years the government gives the homesteader a deed without any pay-
ment whatsoever other than filing and proof of claim fees.

•<ri *v is 1o emsi no

72.

The Role of Tenancy

Tenancy in the Tule Lake area arises in one of two ways. First, home-
steaders going into the area often rent their places out the first year in
order to get enough cash to farm it for themselves the next year. This has
been especially true in the last two years when rents have been high. By
renting the first year or two the new homesteader has a chance to build his
house, get together his necessary equipment, and make the other necessary ar-
rangements for farming the homestead himself. The second, and by far most
important method is through government lease. Large areas in the division not
yet homesteaded are leased every year.

The table below shows the acreage in government leases for the years 1935-
1939 and 1947.

TABLE 48

Public Lands Leased by the Reclamation Bureau in the Tule Lake Area

Year

Total
acres
cropped

Cereals

Hay
and
forage

Potatoes

Sugar
beets

Idle and others

Total
Tule Lake
leased
lands

1935

52,849

31,498

5,802

227

4,401 (idle)
15,282 (grazing and
pasture)

57,230

1936

51,393

29,261

6,699

321

5,837 (flooded)
14,912 (grazing and
pasture)

57,230

1937

50,482

27,523

22,939

1,174 (flooded)
9,600 (grazing)

51,656

1938

30,519

23,221

7,225

I,- '

5,413 '

35,932

1939

30,395

23,344

6,988

88- U ,

5,963

36,358

1947

34,453

25,605

7,370

555

706

2l7(seed crops)

34,453

The following table sets forth the extent of tenancy on homesteaded farms
in the Tule Lake Division. This data was taken from the histories kept by the
Bureau of Reclamation in their files at Klamath Falls. The information was
collected on this particular topic starting in 1936.

rri naey dztVi «tii $vo eeoaia/T led*' info aa^S
ZBri sirfT ,nfl9^'*jc9n a/fa n*vl9eci8rU , - , i6'i *2 nn
y6 .^ifl R?ftd ovaii Btfua*! fl»ifw an soy; ow* cfe

^aom ttt'lfd h'fut 4 £>ciooe>? e/fl ,1Iesnirf*f>aa*8e»

bria'-stbl j g^orf ^georftfJoT agej;c3 •••erWieO '• baqqcno fasr

or\f*

^ T fit

• • X€! •

TVVi

B.TTtirt bBbea^c^roH no ijon
erf* ^q»3t 8 3ino*Biil art
".aw noiJBtmotte].- arfT

rfT «*

73.

TABLE 49

Tenanting of Homesteads in the Tule Lake Division

Year

Number of
farms

Operated by
owner or

manager

Operated

Kir

by-
tenant

Per cent operated

Kir

owner or manager

Per cent operated

tenant

1936

317

230

7.2.5

27.5

1937

341

255

•

. 86

74.7

25.3

1938

412

310

75.2

24.8

1939

408

306

102

75.0

25.0

1940

405

325

80.2

19.8

1941

404

306

75.7

24.3

1942

416

324

77.9

22.1

1943

407

317

77.9

22.1

: 1944

406

317

78.1

21.9

1945

406

300

106

73.9

26.1

' 1946

406

311

76.6

23.4

1947

449

357

79.5

20.5

Nature of Government Leases. --Public advertisement is made by the Bureau
when lands are available for lease. Such advertising is carried on sufficiently
far in advance of a given growing' season to facilitate the making of necessary
arrangements for farming. Sealed proposals from honorable discharged veterans
of World War II with the proper qualifications who are not leasers of public
lands on the Klamath Project are accepted up to the date when they are publicly
opened. If sufficient bids are not received from veterans to lease the entire
acreage, the general public is allowed to submit sealed proposals on the area
not taken.

Usually leases run for one year with the lessee having an option to extend
the term for successive additional periods of one year each for a total leasing
period of not more than five years. This was the plan followed in the 1947
leasing program of 7,826 acres opened in March of that year.

With the proposal submitted by the prospective lessee must be a certified
check, cashier's check, cash, or money order made payable to the Treasurer of
the United States covering the amount of the bid. Any person eligible to bid
may make bids on as many lots as he wishes, his accompanying payment being made
to cover his highest bid.

■'j o Bsi-rwf-

74.

Land to be leased is to be used for grazing and agricultural purposes only,
and lessees are prohibited from making any other use of it. Subletting is il-
legal and the lessee must actively participate in the farming of the land. On
the last leased lands additional provisions were added to the effect that no
buildings of a permanent nature could be erected nor crops stored on the lands
during the period December 1 to April 1.

Stringent regulations regarding cultural practices are set up and must be
strictly observed unless written permission to deviate therefrom is secured from
the District Manager. These regulations are as follows:

(1) None of the land included in the lease shall be purposely burned over
at any time.

(2) The land leased must be cropped to a soil-conserving crop for two
years at a minimum during the period of five years the lease may
run (one year plus four years' extension) and at least 50 per cent
of the acreage of each lease must be planted to a leguminous crop
for a period of any two successive years, the remainder being cropped
during any two years of the lease term to a green manure crop which
must be at least six inches in height when turned under.

(3) A proposed cropping program must be submitted to the District Manager
each year to get approval on praotices to be followed and to allow
the checking of compliance with other regulations stated above.

(4) Any fences built or already on the property must be maintained in
satisfactory condition and remain and become the property of the
United States on expiration or termination of the lease.

(5) As a soil erosion and weed control measure the lessee must seed all
lateral and drain banks to grass and all berns to grain. The Bureau
furnishes the grass seed, the lessee the grain seed.

(6) All lessees are required to evenly spread or remove, by means other
than burning, all straw or other crop residues in the fall of the
fifth year after the removal of the crop thereon.

An approved form of lease containing various conditions not set out above
and including those relating to fissionable materials, stock running at large,
rights of way for roads, posting of lands against hunting, etc., must be properly
entered into with the United States.

Areas Leased and Rentals . --Eleven separate areas were leased in 1947, each
being given an alphabetical designation. The following table shows the area
designation, the number of units in each, the total acreage in each, the average
unit acreage, the average per acre rental and total return.

- . . '. IJ

■ : ■

. -

: . !

s>.. 1 1- •

75.

TABLE 50

Leasing Program
Tule Lake and Sump Area
1947

Area

Total acreage

Number of
units

Average unit
acreage !

Average per acre
rental

Tota]

. return

1 1 I

' • ' r* " - - . *■

dollars

B-l

2,179

Off

63,

?91 71

••

D-2

32.35

168,

914.45

6 ,02b
110

110

5,10

561.00

••

876

438

8.02

024.77

8,148

254

15.54

126

322.69

7,158

1,431

16.70

119

,502.00

2,375

7.63

,121.25

2,626

656

16.2.5

,719.45

3.00

237.00

•

8.05

362,25

102

23.40

,386.80

Source of data: Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

It is apparent that areas G and H are composed of large single leases,
particularly barley leases. It is in areas such as these that holdings such
as Tulana Farms (2,676 acres) and Winema Farms (5,526 acres) are found.

In view of the possible returns from farming operations outlined previously
the rents averaged per acre are only nominal, particularly on the larger hold-
ings. This has been one of the reasons for the success enjoyed by the big op-
erators on the west side of the basin raising barley year after year. However,
there is reason for these large leases with low terms. For one reason many of
these leases were made six or seven years ago and were seven-year leases. Sec-
ondly, these large areas are subject to flooding occasionally and the risk of
flooding is borne by the lessee. Thirdly, certain dike and ditch construction
was required to be made by these lessees when they first leased the land, such
construction costing a considerable amount of money.

■

' • V' '■ "
i

••

•

■*'" ■ t'

Marketing Outlets and Facilities

76.

While some discussion of outlets for particular commodities was given in
the portion of this paper dealing with specific products a more general picture
of the marketing outlets and facilities with special reference to transportation,
locations, and prices is herewith presented.

If the two factors which limit most the actions of growers in the Tule Lake
Division were to be picked, one would certainly be the weather, the other the
lack of available markets. The marketing of many products which could be grown
is the main factor at present in accounting for their absence. This can be ex-
plained in two ways: (l) the location of this basin is such that freight charges
to key markets are almost prohibitive, and (2) the production of many of the com-
modities of the area are already well established in other farming sections of
the state, closer to markets and producing such quantities of products that the
entry into the market is difficult for Tule Lake growers, at least at prices
favorable to local producers. This is especially true- with vegetable crops.. The
basin lies equidistant from Portland and San Francisco being about 350 miles from
Portland and 380 from San Francisco. Distance alone does not show the true pic-
ture for the terrain is extremely mountainous toward both cities. In this posi-
tion, effective competition with the truck garden areas around the San Francisco
Bay and south through the Santa Clara and Salinas valleys in California and the
similar areas near Portland is nearly impossible. Celery, mentioned above, is a
case in point.

Some persons feel the solution lies in enticing processing plants into the
basin to take care of alternative products. While this would be .possible if
the acreage were very large for a given vegetable crop, as is the case in the
Salinas Valley for example, it would be difficult to persuade a business firm to
locate a plant in an area where it can operate for maybe two months out of the
year and even then not be sure of a supply of products to process. Peas for
freezing have been suggested, but experience in recent years shows that surpluses
in frozen packs are not uncommon.

With certain commodities now produced the problem of marketing is minor.
Barley is probably the surest crop from the standpoint of an available market of
any grown. Brewers are constantly competing with one another for the barley pro-
duced in the basin, this condition being present even during the periods of less
prosperity. Barley has always brought a premium price over and above what it
brought in other areas. Potatoes have an established market, and at present are
under the government price-support program. If and when this support is discon-
tinued prices are expected to drop. Onions are grown almost entirely on contract
because of past experiences with onions produced, sacked, and stored with no
buyers interested. In the case of sugar beets the sugar company (in this case,
Spreckels) contracts for the crop.

Transportation out of the basin is taken care of either by truck or train.
Onions today are almost all shipped out by truck, however, up to this year rail
shipment was most common. Alfalfa and potatoes are mostly shipped by rail,
though some potatoes, especially seed potatoes, are moved by trucks.

Railway service for freight is available but rates are high. Southern
Pacific has a line from San Francisco through Klamath Falls to Portland. They
have another line called the Central Pacific Railway running from Klamath Falls
through Tule Lake to Fernley, Nevada, and which connects at that point with eastern
lines. The Great Northern Railway Company's line from Bend, Oregon, to Bieber,
California, passes through Klamath Falls and through the basin. This line offers

r ... •■

• .. . - - "

■. .... ■ he ■ ■ ■.

■■i f ' ■ ■ >::-. ,

■: _ , ... .... -.

.:••')' i :

- : ■ i v. •: ■ : ' • • <"-
•, . : .: .

■ ■:.:fi<f ! - ■■ ■ris/,.-

I ■ ■

•'-if'

•iv;

: >

■ ■ • ■ ' : -v • ■

■ • 1 • |

■ :■ • . ■■■■■■■ - ' ■ - ■ '

)»2ttwn 'rxnZ 'Bbme'I a aari' o/ilbi 1

■ r -IAm *.a '4 ■^rf'? •'■'■•Si* *■ ;

77.

a second rail connection with San Francisco and other California markets as well
as another line to the east via Western Pacific connections.

Three paved highways lead from the area. One runs southeast to Alturas and
Reno; one northwest to Klamath Falls, Bend, Eugene, or Medford; and the newest
addition runs along the state line from Hatfield over to Dorris and down to Weed.
All are good roads but are mountainous and vory slow for truck travel.

The types of buyers and agencies which purchase specific crops have been
discussed in some detail elsewhere in this report. However ; some price compari-
sons are interesting. First, prices paid for barley have usually been higher in
this region than in other western areas because of qualities. Potatoes have not
been so fortunate in that the crop is the late potato crop and is sold in the
winter usually after a considerable period of storage. Sugar beet prices run
close to the state averages.

The following table gives data of relative prices of four products for the
Tule Lake Division. State average prices are used for comparison with Tule Lake
products. While this is only a rough comparison the data do illustrate the dif-
ferences. Value per unit produced is obtained by dividing total value by acreage
planted (not harvested) and average yields tend to be less than the state average
price paid producers.

.t. J . i+lHi <m* ;

"It. 1 ' "J'.'j 1 *

TABLE 51

Price Returns Comparisons for Four Products
1937-1939, 1947

! Barley

Potatoes

Sugar

beets

Clover seed

Year

1 Tule Lake
! value/unit

State average
price

Tule Lake
value/unit

State average
price

Tule Lake
value/unit

State average
price

Tule Lake
value/unit

State average
price

1937

.51

.64

.30

.59

5.93

14.23

17.10*/

1938

.42

.44

.42

.51

5.00

4.68

6.60

6.70^/

1939

.51

.42

.40

.57

4.16

4.93

9.54

9. 10*/

1947

2.29

1 i

1.60

, .,

1.35

1.65

12.79

12.00

24.06

■

19.00

a/ Oregon state average prices.
Sources of data:

Agricultural Prices. United States Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Histories
of Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Palls office.

40 it, T ■> fc-

: ■ . •- :

79»

As long as the difficulty in marketing these alternative cash crops exists,
other endeavors should be examined carefully. Both alfalfa and permanent pas-
ture do well in this area indicating that a diversified agriculture including
livestock enterprises would be a possible solution. There are three problems
which must be faced with livestock in the area. There is no natural grazing land
on these homesteads to supplement feed crops. The nature of the soil is such that
when wet the handling of livestock is very difficult; The inclusion of livestock
in the organization means more work and constant attention on the part of the
operator.

Overshadowing the disadvantages are such factors as better utilization of
crop residues such as straw and hay, sugar beet tops, and cull potatoes, the
maintenance of soil fertility with manure and reduction in native fertility
hauled away in cash crops; In addition the care of livestock, especially dairy
herds, provides more gainful employment for the farmer and his family — an impor-
tant item during periods of recession.

Livestock and livestock products find a ready market; A large volume of
livestock is produced in Modoc and Siskiyou counties according to the Census of
Agriculture for 1945. In Modoc County 49,652 cattle and calves were reported
and 25,383 cows and heifers two years or older were listed, representing a total
value of almost 5-g- million dollars. In 1940 the number of cows was about the
same but the number of cattle and calves was almost 10,000 greater. In Siskiyou
County the number of cattle and calves was reported at 61,205 while the number
of cows and heifers two years and older was 31,858. The total value of these
animals was slightly over 6-g million. Both cattle and c ow numbers were greater
by roughly 20 per cent in 1945 than 1940 according to the census figures for
Siskiyou County. In the section on livestock is contained further data on num-
bers of livestock in the Tule Lake Division from the period 1935-1947.

Up until the period shortly before the end of World War II dairying was a
major enterprise in the basin. The cheese factory at Malin is closed down but
should dairying again gain importance it would undoubtedly reopen; The six milk
routes from the two creameries in Klamath Falls would undoubtedly be re-established
should raw milk again become available.

Viewing the marketing problem from the standpoint of cash crops, especially
vegetables, from a longer time viewpoint a possible alleviating element enters
the picture. Should the population of the west, particularly California and
Oregon, continue to expand at current rates for the next three, four, or five
years, buyers of foodstuffs might become more interested in the products of this
region;

•tflHit Fit" *j9i^

; ... jf . r)

. X

9 ' , • SI • • - If bfl

...

1« t4-fttffin<

k3«XS9%

80.

Labor Conditions

The pattern of labor requirements in the Tule Lake area is typical of those
areas with a short growing season producing cash crops. During the period Novem-
ber through July there is very little demand for hired laborers except for weeding,
thinning beets, and irrigating. On an average-sized homestead the operator can
do all of the labor required except for these items if he raises crops requiring
this labor. When the harvest season starts, the scene changes completely. Large
numbers of hired workers are required for potato and onion harvesting; where com-
bines are operated by the homesteader, crews must be assembled, and all harvesting
must be rushed to beat the oncoming cold weather. When harvest starts there
should be nothing to stop it until completed because of the ever-present danger
of early frosts. For this reason the labor hired is almost all migrant labor and
not deemed particularly satisfactory.

This migrant group tends to work only long enough to earn a week's living
and then lays off the rest of the week. They may also quit most any time in the
afternoon whether the crop is needing attention or not. One potato grower said
that after lunch he always asks each picker how many rows he wants and then plows
out only that much. His experiences have been such that it seems to him to work
better than plowing out too much and then pleading with the pickers to complete
the harvest of what has been dug.

It is generally felt that the family workers are the most reliable. How-
ever, because of the difficulty involved in moving these families out of the
camps at the completion of the harvest season, there has been much talk about
omitting family workers. This has been settled pretty much for this year in
favor of family workers.

The War Relocation Authority camp, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Reclamation, near Stronghold has been extremely valuable since the war in ob-
taining and holding family laborers. There are no living quarters for hired
help on most of the farms, with the exception of a few of the very large opera-
tors. Even these growers cannot handle the large number of seasonal hired hands
they require.

At present, Ward 7 is being leased by the Tule Lake Grower's Association
for housing migrant workers. It is planned this year to lease more of the camp,
including the cooking facilities. The areas under lease at this time will house
approximately 150 families. The contemplated lease will handle an additional
600 single workers.

Mattresses and cots have been furnished and all heat and light bills are
paid by the growers. The charge per worker has not been established yet this
year, but several highway employees have been staying there and paying $2.50
a week per person. There is no indication that this rate will be changed. Be-
cause of the seasonality of the labor needs, a large portion of this camp lies
idle at least nine months of the year, an expense to the Grower's Association
for which there is little return.

In addition to the War Relocation Authority camp, last year the Civilian
Conservation Corps camp barracks on the west side of the basin were used for
housing some help. However, this year the plan is to keep them all in the War
Relocation Authority camp.

rjjrf 3o..£H'»<fif$ua-;

-' If.-

f '"''S^ f5 V« ..rt-^t*!! ;t f?C>Ia^C»A,£>'jft-

Conclusions

This report emphasizes a number of matters worthy of special consideration.
Those selected as of particular importance are:

(1) Statistics of price returns to growers, costs of production, and net
earnings for 1947 present a very favorable picture. These prices
(and costs) may not continue and hence future plans should give full
consideration to the lower basis as reflected in the 1937-1939 figures.

(2) Selecting settlers. The present method appears inadequate. 'Why not
prepare a searching test and require prospective settlers to take this
test, to show their knowledge of farm practices and of farm management,
grading their answers, and making selections from those at the top of
the list. The staff of the Giannini Foundation would, we are sure,
help in the preparation of questions. This method would be far more
searching than the present one of relying solely upon letters from
parties not likely to be known to the Reclamation Service.

(3) Some method of more adequate planning of farming operations to help
new settlers for the first year or two. A resident advisor (perhaps
under the auspices of the California College of Agriculture, Extension
Service, or an employee of the Bureau of Reclamation) who knows the
area and its problems could render a highly useful service and should
cut down the number of newcomers who fail to do a good job.

At present the Bureau of Reclamation has a representative to handle problems
for each group of settlers but his activities are directed toward administrative
details to such an extent that little time is available for helping new settlers
in the planning and management phases of their operations* The thought might be
extended to put all newcomers on a probationary period (say of two or three years)
and not give title to the land until fitness and capability have been adequately
demonstrated.

(4) Speculation and leasing should be discouraged. This could be done by
not permitting sales or leasing out by settlers during a fixed proba-
tionary period (say three to five years). Provision would be needed
for the Bureau when retaking such properties to reimburse the settlers
for their original investment plus a reasonable price for any improve-
ments they may have brought about, provided the improvements are neces-
sary, suitable, and economical* Bear in mind that the government
(using tax payers' money) is "staking" each settler in an average amount
of about $20,000.

No well-established agriculture can be expected until those who live and farm
in the area do so with the firm conviction that they intend to settle permanently
in the area and make farming a lifetime career.

(5) More experimental work is needed, particularly along the lines of weed
control (both in the fields and in the canals and ditches)V, in the use
of fertilizers, better strains of seeds, new crops, and especially in
developing new and better marketing outlets.

l/ Perhaps a series of strainers can be invented, both in the main canals and
at the outlets of the individual farms.

- *:.

5 o$ sen vi so iiff iv ??>i *»♦.-.»• ?.

■ . s:

■

flfl *f o i