1 ji I J University of California I\U- ' College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California APPRAISAL OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY ATTAINABLE IN 1955 by Trimble R. Hedges and Warren R, Bailey Results of a Cooperative Investigation Conducted in California by the California State Committee on Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. This Committee Included Representatives of the University of California, the United States Department of Agriculture, and State Agencies. June 1952 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 130 UBRARY DAW CONTENTS Summary i Basic Conditions Assumed , i.. 2 Projected Shifts in Land Use and Crops, 19^0 to 19$$ 7 Shifts in Land Use and Major Crops by Subareas, 1950-^1.. 21 Changes in Technology and Projected 1955 Crop Yields .... 26 Changes in Resovirce Requirements 37 Changes in Feed Supplies, 1950-1955 hi Changes in Production of Livestock and Livestock Products 53 Changes in Technology of Livestock Production 6l Appendix Tables 62 tot^K .riC Y;30loaflogT ni: BsgnsrlD Preface The California segment of the cooperative nation-wide survey of agri- cultural productive capacity was initiated in May, 19$1. The Director of the California Agricultural Experiment Station appointed a state committee for the study at the request of the Joint Land-Grant College^Department of Agriculture Committee on Appraisal of Agricultural Productive Capacity. A regional meeting of state committee chairmen from the eleven western states met with representatives of the Joint Land-Grant College-Department of Agri- culture Committee in the following week, June U and 5, to standardize pro- cedure and synchronize the work in the several states. The initial meeting of the California State Committee was held on July 6 when detailed plans were made to proceed with the analysis. Subcommittees were established on (1) Crop and Livestock Statistics, (2) Crop Production, (3) Livestock Production, and (U) Labor and Machinery. The Crop Production Coiranittee later was subdivided into three groups to study Agronomic Crops, Truck Crops, and Fruit Crops. All available relevant data were assembled for use by the various subcommittees in surveying the agricultural productive capacity of the state. This data-collecting process occupied the various subcommittees throughout the months of August, September, and October. The work of the various subcommittees proceeded as rapidly as availa- bility of data and the demands of regular duties on the time of committee members would permit. The study would have been impossible without the full cooperation furnished by members of the committees. Special credit is due the various subcommittee chairmen. Thanks also go to the many research workers and specialists who cooperated with the several subcommittees. These people furnished much valuable information. Ihe chairman also extends his appreciation to the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, the Production and Marketing Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and to other agencies and individuals too numerous to name whose assistance facilitated this study. The chairman accepts responsibility for the text of the follow- ing report but gives full credit to the people and agencies named whose efforts made the report possible. The following persons were members of the California State Committee and members of subcommittees as indicated: Asmundson, V. S., University of California, Davis Bailey, VJ. R., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Berkeley Bainer, R., University of California, Davis Chapman, H. D., University of California, Riverside Clarke, L. M. , California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento Conrad, J. P., University of California, Davis (Chairman of Crop and Livestock Statistics, Crop Production, and Agronomic Crops Subcommittees) Fairbank, J. P., University of California, Berkeley (Chairman of Labor and Machinery Subcommittee) Gordon, G. E., University of California, Berkeley :ififlO) 31- Haff, E. L., Jr., University of California, Davis (Secretary) Hedges, T. R., University of California, Davis (Chairman) Johnson, C. N., University of California, Davis Lenhart, (Mrs.) Margot W., California Department of Employment, Sacramento Linsley, E. G., University of California, Berkeley MacGillivray, J. H., University of California, Davis (Chairman of Truck Crops Subcommittee) Moody, J. T., Production and Marketing Administration, Berkeley Olmo, H. P., University of California, Davis Proebsting, E. L., University of California, Davis (Chairman of Fruit Crops Subcommittee) Schoonover, W.R., University of California, Berkeley Scott, C. E., University of California, Berkeley Scott, G. A., California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento Shultis, A., University of California, Berkeley (Vice-Chairman) Wilson, J. F., University of California, Davis (Chairman of Livestock Subcommittee) Wohletz, L. R., Soil Conservation Service, Berkeley Yudelman, M. , University of California, Berkeley (Assistant Secretary) 1 SUMMARY / This report is based on a study of California's agricultural productive capacity that can be attained by 1955. The study was made by a committee of professional workers representing every phase of production. It was part of a nation-wide study recommended jointly by the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and the Department of Agriculture, Projections made for 1955 assume high level economic activity, generally favorable farm prices, adequate supplies of production materials, but a some- what smaller farm labor force. They also assume that certain improved farming practices and certain new technology will be available or more widely used by farmers in 1955. Finally, they assume that higher levels of production, to be attainable, must be profitable to farmers. This was the guiding principle in projecting (a) allocation of land and other resources among commodities, (b) new practices and technology, and (c) yields of crops and production of livestock. The study reveals that California's agricultural plant is highly flex- ible. It can be quickly redirected toward greater output of commodities that might be in short supply during an emergency. Large shifts in the acreage of cotton, alfalfa, feed grains, rice, sugar beets, and canning tomatoes between 1950 and 1951 demonstrate this flexibility. But any major expansion in even a few commodities would mean a diversion of productive resources from other commodities. The study also indicates that California's productive capacity can be increased considerably. However, any substantial increase must come largely from greater efficiency in production rather than from additional land re- sources. The committee estimated only a 3 or 1; per cent expansion of acreage in harvested crops between 1950 and 1955. Even the current and planned development of irrigation on new lands is of relatively minor significance in the state's total production albeit a significant factor in certain crops and areas. The projected adjustments in major uses of cropland compared to 1950 and 1951 may be summarized as follows: 1950 I 1951 Estimated for Projected 1955 million acres Intertilled crops Close growing crops Hay and (crop) pasture Fruit and nuts Total land cropped 1.9 3.9 2.0 1.5 9.3 2.5 3.6 1.9 1.5 9.5 2.U 3.8 2.2 1.5 9.9 Summer fallow Total cropland 1.2 10,5 1.1 10.6 1.0 10.9 ii These projections for 1955 represent a more intensive use of our cropland than in 1950 when acreage limitations existed in cotton and rice. But the projec- tions represent less intensity than in 1951 when overexpansion occurred in certain crops. Considerable readjustments are indicated from the 1951 situa- tion if trends toward more livestock production are to be realized. Ihe suggested shifts are from cash crops into feed grains, hay, and pasture. The projected shifts in acreage for selected crops are: Estimated for 1950 I 19Fr Projected 1955 thousand acres Cotton 586 l,3Ul 1,250 Rice 2kO 319 250 Dry edible beans 319 339 320 Sugar beets 218 1U9 175 Potatoes 123 8h 90 Canning tomatoes 76 lii5 120 Feed grains 3,617 3,196 3,U65 Hay and (crop) pasture 2,02it 1,917 2,275 2,2ii5 Fruits and nuts 2,2U6 2,29U Cotton and rice were overexpanded in 1951 in terms of sustained land use and sound management policies. Some ill-equipped growers got into cotton and the crop expanded onto some lands less suited to cotton than other crops. Adequate irrigation water is a question in some areas. Projections for sugar beets represent a needed readjustment from 195l when acreage declined due to unfavorable weather in the 1950 harvest. The 1951 bean acreage was above average due partly to inability of farmers to plant intended acreage of other crops. Potato acreage was cut back sharply in 1951 in reaction to over- expansion in 1950. But the cutback was too greatj the projected acreage seems more nearly in line with probable market demand. The 1951 acreage of canning tomatoes was overexpanded in terms of probable future market demand. The 1951 acreage of feed grains, hay, and pasture were all too low in view of an expanding livestock industry. !Ihe acreage of fruits and nuts cannot be expanded quickly and no large expansion appears warranted. Improved production techniques will lead to significantly higher yields per acre of certain field crops by 1955. Compared with 1950, the projected increase will be 15 per cent for cotton, 15 per cent for ladino seed, 10 per cent for early potatoes, 9 per cent for sugar beets, and 3 per cent for alfalfa hay. For certain other field crops, no new technology is in prospect that would raise yields significantly. In this category are the cereals, dry edible beans, late potatoes, flaxseed, and the minor hay crops. However, a gradual improvement in general farming practices would have some effect on yields. iii Castor beans and safflower are so new to California that little is known about their possibilities; therefore, future yields were not projected. How- ever, if emergency demand should warrant, the production of these crops could be greatly increased with adequate price incentives. The committee pointed but that marketable production of most vegetables and fruits could bo increased on present acreages by harvesting and marketing a larger proportion of the tonnage now produced. Among the vegetable crops, only carrots are likely to experience higher yields — from use of pelleted seed, greater plant populations per acre, and improved marketing techniques. Somewhat higher yields per acre of prunes can be expected by pulling out marginal acreage and old orchards. Higher average yields of almonds and walnuts will result from a shift in acreage to more productive areas. Open permanent pasture and range in farms is a highly important grazing resource as it represents more than hO per cent of the total grazing in Cali- fornia. On the 18 million acres of this land, a highly significant increase in grazing (from 0.5^ to O.6O animal unit months per acre) can be expected by 1955. Although that increase is small compared with the maximum potential improvement, the improved range management practices needed to attain the po- tential are difficult to accomplish. Such practices, not equally applicable to all lands, include rotation grazing, reseeding, water development, and fertilization. About one-seventh of California's grazing capacity is on public and private range not in farms. While such range also has great possibilities of improvement, not much progress can be expected by 1955. About one-fifth of California's total grazing capacity is on irrigated pastures and another one-fifth represents crop residues of various kinds. Ihe average grazing capacity on irrigated pasture is expected to increase from 8.0 to 9.0 animal unit months per acre. No increases in production of crop residues are projected but it is noted that only a fraction of such potential feed is now utilized and any greater use is difficult to accomplish. California's livestock production is partially dependent upon feed grains and concentrates shipped in from other states. It is estimated that some 3° per cent of the grain requirements in 19^0 were imported. According to 1955 projections, this proportion would increase to 50 per cent. The 1955 pro- jected production of feed grains would be some 9 per cent below 1950. Thus, even larger inshipments of feed grains would be necessary to attain the pro- jected levels of livestock production. It should be noted that grain used for food and industrial purposes plus that exported from California seaports is roughly equivalent to half our total production. California's hay production is within 3 or U per cent of being in balance with requirements. The alfalfa hay shipped into the state just about equals the 150,000 tons of hay dehydrated or otherwise used in commercial mixed feeds. The projected 1955 production of hay is about 9 per cent above 1950 and will be adequate for our livestock needs. California's livestock industry has a relatively strong competitive position because the state is a deficit producing area. Nevertheless, produc- tion must be efficient because costs of feed and labor are high. The projected 1955 levul of production (compared to 1950 ) would represent increases of 10 iv per cent in cattle and calves j l8 per cent in sheep, lambs, and wool; 9 per cent in hogs; 9 per cent in railkj 31 per cent in chickens raised; 60 per cent in commercial broilers; 11 per cent in eggs; and 22 per cent in turkeys. In general, most of the additional production is expected to come from an expan- sion in number of producing animals rather than any marked increase in ef- ficiency per unit. Spme further efficiency can, of course, be expected from gradual improvement in breeding, disease and parasite control, and better balanced rations. The projected high levels of California's agricultural production are dependent upon ample supplies of machines, irrigation equipment, feeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and related materials. Adequate labor is of prime importance although, as the study shows, mechanization is reducing the labor requirement for some crops — notably cotton and sugar beets. Additional numbers of specialized farm machines needed above 19^0 levels include 5,000 more cotton pickers, 2,300 nut harvesters, 2,000 pruning rigs, and 500 agricultural airplanes. Many additional pickup balers, bale loaders, and field forage harvesters also will be required. Moreover, large numbers of replacement machines covering the whole range of farming will be required annually to maintain farm production. And, finally, adequate supplies of repair parts are of signal importance. The projected production also would require more fertilizer than was used in 19^0. The 19^5 requirements would be 37 per cent (56 thousand tons) more nitrogen (N), 70 per cent (U2 thousand tons) more phosphate (P20^), and 10 per cent (one thousand tons) more potash (K2O). Cotton and barley would account for most of the additional nitrogen, and general field crops would account for most of the phosphate. Vegetables and fruits already are ferti- lized at near optimum levels. 31- 1. APPRAISAL OF AGxRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY ATTAINABLE IN 1955 Ihis report resulted from a recommendation by the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy and the Joint Land-Grant College- Department of Agriculture Committee on Appraisal of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Hiis group agreed unanimously that a cooperative nation-wide ap- praisal of agricultural productive capacity should be made. Ihe purpose of this study was to make such an appraisal — to project what level of farm pro- duction is capable of attainment in 1955 under an assumed set of conditions. The advantages of such a study were summarized as follows: "A study of productive capacity and of the most efficient means of achieving the needed output of food and fibre would provide a guide for the more effective planning of agricul- ture's part in the mobilization program. More specifically, it would also provide information on labor and the quantities of fertilizer, machinery, and other materials needed for in- creased production and would serve as a guide for development of educational and research programs that should be given The facts and analyses included herein have been assembled and prepared by the California State Committee on Survey of Agricultural Productive Ca- pacity operating through subcommittees for the several fields of production.-' Standard forms prepared and furnished by the Department of Agriculture were used in the study with the slight modifications necessary to facilitate the vjork in California. Those forms and the required data are the basis for the tables included herein.^/ The California Crop and Livestock Reporting 1/ Trimble R. Hedges, Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, University of California, was chairman of the committee responsible for preparing this report. Warren R. Bailey, Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, USDA, was a member of the committee and assisted in the writing of this report. 2/ R. M. Trullinger, Chief, Office of Experiment Stations, USDA, letter to Director of California Agricultural Experiment Station, May 18, 195l. 3/ Membership of the State Committee is shown in the Preface. U/ The several tables were designated as "formsj' and the basic outlines for" their organization supplied by the Department of Agriculture were used in the preliminary report to the National Committee. The present organization and identification of tables were considered more effective, however, and, therefore, are being used in this report. Footnotes are used to identify the data according to the earlier report. by Trimble R. Hedges and Warren R. Baile; additional emphasis."^/ ao HI- 2 Service made available to the committee the current basic data for use in basic information was assembled by crop reporting districts. In addition, land use capability classification data were obtained from the Soil Conserva- tion Servicej fertilizer use data came from the Produetion and Marketing Administration; all other available analytical data such as land use studies, irrigation practice, and analyses of census data were furnished by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and other agencies. The main work of the committees involved locating, bringing together, and interpreting research findings from the various technologists in the Experiment Station. Much empirical information regarding farm conditions and practices also was obtained from Extension workers and other educational workers in agriculture and from people in the industries and trades as- sociated with agriculture. Finally, it was the responsibility of the com- mittee to project the various estimates which were prepared first for 1952 and ultimately for 1955. These data appear in this report in terms of 1950, 1951, and 1955 comparisons. Acreage of the various crops and other land uses, numbers of livestock, and yields and production rates represent the key information measuring agricultural productive capacity and the changes necessary to reach the 1955 attainable.o/ A great deal of supporting data is included in terms of research findings and 1950 levels of use and 1955 requirements for fertilizers, pesticides, farm machinery, labor, feed, and other resources. This study required certain projections for the future. It, therefore, demanded a definite framework of conditions, the context within which the projections were prepared.?/ The various subcommittees attempted, with one exception noted below, to hold their work consistent with the standard as- sumptions and procedures approved by the Joint Land-Grant Colleges-Department of Agricultural Committee. The conditions assumed by that group were compre- hensive and quite specific. They were concerned with the over-all level of 5/ Estimates of crop acreage and yields and of livestock numbers and pro- duction were furnished by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. These estimates have since been revised in line with the 1950 Census, but such revisions were not available early enough to permit their inclusion in this report. 6/ The Crop and Livestock Statistics Subcommittee was responsible for developing the procedure to provide the basic data required for the entire study. Membership included J. R. Conrad (Chairman), Warren R. Schoonover, George A. Scott, Leonard R. Wohletz, and E. L. Haff (Secretary). 7/ The word "projections" is used advisedly instead of the word "estimates." The~data herein are not estimates of what production will be attained in 1955; they represent projections of what is considered capable of attainment under the basic conditions assumed. projecting future Much of the BASIC CONDITIONS ASSUMED 3. economic activity, the specific price relationships directly affecting agri- culture, the availability of farm resources, management capacity and policies of farm operators, and the effectiveness of farm research and educational pro- grams . General Economic Conditions It was assumed for the economy as a whole that (1) full employment is to continue and (2) a high level of the income is to exist (Table 1). Ihese con- ditions are expected to accompany a continuing high level of defense activity and spending. It was assumed regarding agriculture that (3) "...the general level of prices assumed, and the parity ratio, will thus reflect a favorable cost-price relationship for farmers; it is suggested that farm prices and farri costs reflect a parity ratio of 105 to 110"; (h) "the total labor force available to agriculture will be somewhat less than in 1951." It was esti- mated that farm employment might be about 9h million workers in 1955 as compared with 10. k million in 1950 .^Z (5) "Production resources other than land and labor will be available in quantities needed to achieve potential production." This means that farmers will be able to obtain all the ferti- lizer, pesticides, machinery, and feed that they can profitably use. It was assumed further that (6) the pattern and level of crop production in 1950 is adjusted to what would have prevailed in 1950 assviming normal weather and production rates; (7) the maximum potential increases in crop and pasture yields and oroduction per animal were those that might be achieved with full adoption of the known crop and livestock improvement practices (including improvements in land uses) that could be carried out profitably by the better farmers. (8) The 1955 projections of the levels and patterns of crop and livestock production that could be attained are those that would result from the acreage of land that could be expected to be utilized, if educational and other programs were intensified, if farmers adopted the profit- able systems of farming best suited to their resources, and if they improved their production practices to the extent that would be attainable by that time. It is further assumed that 1955 projected levels of production are those which could be maintained indefinitely except as qualified in the section "Shifts in Land Use" (beginning page 7). The assumption regarding normal weather in 1950 (number 6) was not used by the California Committee. This committee felt that it was not feasible to make such adjustments in 1950 data for this state. The bulk of California agriculture is irrigated and, while it is recognized that unusual weather conditions affected the level of production of some few crops, it was thought that little was to be gained by attempting to completely revise the basic estimates for 1950 of the Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Appropriate attention has been given this point concerning particular crops when projecting attainable yields for 1955. It is obvious in the above statement that the word "profitable" is of dominant importance and is closely associated with prices. It became neces- sary, therefore, to give particular attention to the prices used in evaluating 8/ These data include workers under fourteen years of age as well as part time workers — hence, they differ from the census data shown in the table. 1 i'>n . TABLE 1 Selected National Economic Measures and California Farm Prices; 191^7-1950, 1949, 1950, and Projected for 195 5^/ Item Unit 1947-1950 average 1949 1950 Projected 1955 National economic measure: Population millions 148.6 150.1 152.6 162 Labor forced/ Unemployment Military force Civilian employment Nonagricultural Agricultural millions millions millions millions millions millions 63.1 2.6 1.4 59.1 51.1 8.0 63.6 3.i^ 1.5 58.7 50.7 8.0 64.6 3.1 1.5 60.0 52.5 7.5 69 2 3.5 63.5 56.5 7.0 Gross national product Consumer expenditures Gross private domestic investment Net foreign investment Government expenditures for goods and service billion dollars billion dollars billion dollars billion dollars billion dollars 257.0 178.2 38.9 2.2 37.6 255.6 178.8 33.0 .4 ^3.3 279.8 190.8 49.4 - 2.5 42.1 375 235 52 3 85 Personal disposable income billion dollars 187 0 187 4 POP 7 Consumers ' price index 1935-1939=100 168.4 170.2 171.9 190 Wholesale prices, all commodities 1926=100 158.4 155.0 161.5 185 Prices received by farmers i9io-i9ii+=ioo 266 249 256 300 Prices paid, interest, taxes and wage rates Wage rates 1910-191^100 1910-1914=100 251 429 250 428 255 425 287 525 (Continued on next page.) f" Son i ! 6. the "profitability" concept. It was recognized that, if the maximum level of production is to be feasible, it must also be profitable and requires a high level of management. The criterion of profitability was that the better farmers would find the practices profitable. Ihis hypothetical agricultural norm, therefore, becomes the criterion or yardstick to measure the attainable. The three "ifs" in assumption 8 above are highly important. The attain- able could not reasonably be expected to equal the maximum but, and this was quite important in the work of the committee, the attainable does represent a higher level of productivity than may be expected by 1955 from the usual sequence of events, the three "ifs" not being considered. Price Relationships Projected prices for 1902 and 1955 were used to indicate the relative profitability of the various crop and livestock products. These prices were prepared from information supplied by the National Joint Committee and are consistent with the framework of assumptions. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics had prepared a schedule of projected United States farm prices for 1955 which were available to the California Committee. Those data included the percentage change of the projected 1955 prices from 1950 by individual products. The actual calculation of projected California farm prices involved one change from the method used by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The California Committee first calculated at the United States level the percentage change of 1955 projected prices from the 19U7-1950 average. These ratios were then applied to the 19U7-1950 average of California prices— to project 1955 stata average prices for California products. The broader base of four years, 191^7-1950, was believed to provide a more stable and reliable basis for the price projection. Typical 1955 projected prices and the basic data for selected commodities are shown (Table 1). Data for all other important California products also were available to the Committee, The assumed 1955 price relationships represent certain changes from 1951 and other recent years — changes that are important in the projections of attainable acreage and yields. The position of cotton may be used as an example. The state average price in 1950 was kh cents per pound, the same as the preliminary estimate for 1951. This price compares with 3h cents, the average for 19^7-1950, and a projected price of 38 cents for 1955. It seems evident that this projected 1955 price will not represent as sharp a competi- tive advantage for cotton, in comparison with alternative crops, as it enjoyed in 1950 and 1951. The projected 1955 prices of feed grains and alfalfa hay both show important price increases in contrast with the projected decline for cotton prices. In livestock the major shift in 1955 price relationships is that prices of beef cattle and lambs will be lower relative to hogs than in 1950 or 1951. The prices of chickens, turkeys, eggs, and milk will continue to be relatively favorable. V 7. 9/ PROJECTED SHIFTS IN LAI© USE AND CROPS, 1950-1955- The total land area of California includes slightly more than 100. million acres of which 35| million are in farms (Table 2). No changes in farm acreage are projected between 1950 and 1955, but important shifts are projected from noncropland to cropland, and, within the latter category, from close-growing to intertilled crops, and from summer fallow or idle into crop uses. These shifts, reported on a state-wide basis, were prepared with- out benefit of the agricultural census data for 1950. The acreage in various categories may require adjustment when 1950 census data are available. The direction of the projected shifts, however, is considered accurate. The preliminary analysis of acreage shifts was made by areas based on crop re- porting districts slightly modified in accordance with land use capability (Figure 1). Shifts in Land Use The attainable level of land use for 1955 must be viewed in relation to changes that occurred from 1950 to 1951. The most important single shift in those years was 31 per cent increase (582,000 acres) in the intertilled crops (Table 2). That expansion was accomplished by an increase estimated at nearly 200,000 acres (2 per cent) in the total land in crops and decreases of 28[|,,000 acres (7 per cent) in close-growing crops, and of 107,000 acres (5 per cent) in hay and past\ire crops. The expansion of total land in crops was made po<^sible by reducing summer fallow l6ii,000 acres (13 per cent) and by bringing into cropland use some l|i;,000 acres (2 per cent) of former noncropland. Such a large change in major land use between two consecutive seasons occurs only in response to unusual stimuli and inevitably creates serious problems of readjustment throughout agriculture. Ihis is true in California, The stimuli were related primarily to cotton — particularly the enforced acreage limitation by the 1950 allotment program. The normal reaction of farmers was to expand acreage in 1951 vdien there were no controls to which was added a positive reinforcing encouragement — the sharp price increase for the crop of 1950. Some of the results of the increased cotton acreage in 195l appear quite evident. An important fraction was expanded onto land not best suited to cotton. Some growers not fully experienced with the crop or improperly 9/ The Crop Production Subcommittee was responsible for projections in this and following sections in Changes in Technology and Projected 1955 Crop Yields . This subcommittee functioned as three working subcommittees: Agronomic Crops, J. P, Conrad (Chairman) (also Chairman of Crop Production Subcommittee), L. M. Clarke, J. P. Moody, and L. R. Wohletzj Truck Crops Subcommittee, J. H. MacGillivray (Chairman), W. R. Schoonover, and J. E. llullen; Fruit Crops Subcommittee, E. L. Proebsting (Chairman), H. D. Chapman, and H. P. Olmo. 8 Figure 1. -Areas Considered in Analyzing 1955 Attainable Agricultural Productive Capacity in California Areas for Analysis (Crop-Reporting Districts as modified by combining Districts 1 and 2 and excluding Imperial County from District 8) North Coast Northern California Central Coast Sacramento Valley 5A. San Joaquin Valley 6. Sierra Southern California Sources: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Servicej U.S. Soil Conservation Service, L TABLE 2 Major Acreage and Percentage Changes in California Farm Land Use; 1950-1951, and 1950, 1951 to Projected 1955 Attainablea/ 1 Acreage Shifts in acreage Percentage change 1950 1951 1 1955 1950-1951 ! 1950-1955! 1951-1955 1950-1951 1950-1955 ■*- y y y y 1951-1955 1,000 acres Intertilled 1,875 2,457 2,394 + 582 +519 - 62 +31.0 +27.7 - 2.5 Close growing 3,903 •-J 7 y ^ -J 3,619 3,777 -284 -126 +158 - 7.3 - 3.2 + 4.4 Hay and pasture 2,02h 1,917 2,245 -107 +221 +328 - 5.3 +10.9 +17.1 Fruits and nuts 1,^95 1,503 1,534 + 8 + 38 + 31 + 0.5 + 2.6 + 2.1 Total cropped 9,297 9,1+96 9,950 +199 +653 +454 + 2.1 + 7.0 + 4.8 Summer fallow 1,227 1,063 960 -164 -267 -103 -13-3 -21.8 - 9.7 Total cropland 10, 524 10,559 10,910 + 35 +386 +351 + 0.3 + 3.7 + 3.3 Noncropped hay and pasture 18,677 18,686 18,690 + 9 + 13 + 4 + 0,1 + 0.1 + 0.0 Woodland i^,000 14-, 000 4,000 Other 2,299 2,255 1,900 - 44 -399 -355 - 1.9 -17.4 -15.7 Total 35,500 35,500 35, 500 a/ The committee estimates on major land use categories are based on 1945 Census data and various analyses of this information. The 1950 Agricultural Census for California was not available at the time the report was prepared. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service acreage data were available for crops, and the land use capability data of the Soil Conservation Service were used in preparing state balances of farm land by uses. It is recognized, however, that the estimates of summer fallow, total cropland, and "other" land are subject to considerable error, particularly as to the year in which "other" land was converted to cropland through new development and improvement. -;-5A JPG. 1 ! i 1 .... . , . 2- : . ■ ■ • - ■ 10. equipped for optimum production got into cotton. And, finally, cotton acreage tended to expand to the limit of available water supply. That is significant because all California cotton is irrigated and on many farms must compete with other crops for part of the water used. Feed grain and alfalfa were the largest contributors of acreage for the cotton expansion. But a reduction in grains and alfalfa is contrary to an expansion in California livestock. And an expansion of livestock, particu- larly in beef cattle and sheep, is considered economically sound. Such expansion will bring an increased demand for grain, hay, and other feed crops so essential to livestock production. It may be concluded, therefore, that the major shifts from cereal and hay crops to row crops (largely cotton) that occurred between 1950 and 19^1 have set the stage for rather extensive read- justments in California agriculture. The acreage shifts projected between 19^0 and 1955 reflect increased intensity and more complete use of farm land resources in California, It is expected that the total amount of cropland will increase by 3 per cent, or from 10.5 to 10,9 million acres, and that this shift will be at the expense of the category "other crops" which is indicated to decline l6 per cent, or 355^000 acres. Ihis shift will result from bringing into cultivation land formerly in noncrop uses. It means extensive land improvement and an expansion of irrigation facilities. Well irrigation largely will supply the additional water needed. Ihe corrunittee considered that the projected ditch water projects will not progress far enough by 1955 to be a major factor. The inadequacy of major land use data was a vexing problem in this study. Land improvement has proceeded at a rapid rate in the San Joaquin Valley and in other areas. It is recognized that the estimated acreage of "total cropland" probably does not include all such newly developed land brou^t into crop uses since 19U5. It seemed reasonable to the committee, however, to expect a total cropland acreage of 10.9 million by 1955. It is not important in this projection whether the 10.5 million acres estimated for 1950 is too low. If so, it merely means that a greater proportion of the 1955 attainable already has been accomplished. The other major increase in land use intensity by 1955 is a reduction of nearly 22 per cent, or 267,000 acres, in summer fallow. The net result of adding new land and reducing summer fallow is to increase the land in crops by 650,000 acres, or 7 per cent, between 1950 and 1955. T^e net result of these changes in over-all land use would be to bring the acreage of close- growing (largely cereal) crops and hay and pasture closer to 1950 levels without drastically reducing the acreage of intertilled crops. Further at- tention will be given to the relationship among individual crops in the following sections. It is important at this point to recognize that cropland expansion in the western San Joaquin Valley is being accomplished at a very considerable financial outlay, largely for providing irrigation water. A high gross in- come per acre, such as that from cotton at recent prices and yields, is essential to justify such investments. Not enough information is available to evaluate how long available ground water supplies will make farming pos- sible under present technology and prices. It is still less possible to 11. project the rate of withdrawal of land in this area from intensive crop pro- duction if physical or economic conditions later dictate such withdrawals. Certainly, much more ditch water will be required to irrigate all land now irrigated. Proportionately more will be needed as additional land develop- ment occurs. It may be concluded, therefore, that the attainable pattern of land use in California for 1955 cannot be construed as a permanent, long-term level. Additional water-supplying facilities will be needed to maintain the projected irrigated acreage. Shifts in Acreage Between Crops Before analyzing the acreage shifts among individual crops, it is useful to place them in major groups. It is also instructive to study the shifts in these groups from 1950 to 195l because those shifts are highly important in interpreting the 1955 attainable acreage of various crops. For this analysis, crops were considered in four major groups: (a) raw material, seed, and food crops, (b) feed grains, (c) hay and pasture, and (d) vegetables, fruits, and other specialty crops (Table 3). Analysis shows that between 1950 and 195l the acreage of raw material, seed, and food crops increased 800,000, or hk per cent. Feed grains decreased 1|21,000 acres, or Ik per cent. And, hay and pasture crops decreased 107,000 acres, or 5 per cent. The sharp increase in raw material, seed, and food crops, at the expense of both feed grains and hay and pasture, suggests the necessity for readjustments in all three groups. Those readjustments, as reflected in the projected 1955 acreages, are: a cutback of l50,700 acres (6 per cent) in raw material, seed, and food crops j an increase of 269,000 acres (11 per cent) in feed grains; and an increase of 328,000 acres (17 per cent) in hay and pasture. The projected 1955 attainable acreages of these major groups of crops, as compared to 1950 levels, are : 6k$,076 more acres (36 per cent) of raw material, seed, and food cropsj 152,000 fewer acres (5 per cent) of grains; and 221,000 more acres (11 per cent) of hay and pasture. These bulk shifts are discussed in more detail by major groups and by individual crops in suc- ceeding paragraphs. Raw Material, Seed, and Food Crops This group was further subdivided into those crops that increased and those that decreased in acreage between 1950 and 1951 (Table 3). Crops that increased in acreage between 1950 and 1951 included cotton, rice, processing tomatoes, dry beans, flaxseed, castor beans, and ladino seed. These crops as a group increased 953,000 acres, or 72 per cent, between those years. Cotton contributed three-fourths of that increase. Cotton expanded from 586,000 to l,3i|0,700 acres, or almost 130 per cent, which is particularly significant because all of it had to come on irrigated land. Cotton occupied in 195l more than one-fifth of all irrigated land 1c. ■■d .VRr. • -'J - .0 J.'*ii|i?***lj 0"»'v>i'u-e .0 JJU J- TABLE 3 Major Acreage and Percentage Changes in California Crop Acreage; 1950-1951, and 1950, 1951 to Projected 1955 Attainable Raw juaterials, seed, and food crops Acreage Shifts in acreage Percentage change 1950 1951 ! 1955 , 1950-1951' 1950-1955 1951-1955 195c )-l951 1950-1955 1,000 acres Increases, 195O-I951 Cotton 586 1,3^1 1,250 +755 +664 - 91 +128.8 +113.3 — 0 . Q Rice 240 319 250 + 79 + 10 - 69 + 32.9 + 4.2 — *1 J- . 0 Tomatoes (process) 76 l*<-5 120 + 69 + 44 - 25 + 92.0 + 58.9 -X f .d. Beans, dry 319 339 320 + 20 + 1 - 19 + 6.3 + 0.3 - ->.o Flaxseed 60 662 60 + 2 - 2 + 3.3 - 3.2 Castor bean d on + ift + 18 +733.3 +733.0 Ladino seed 35 i^5 55 + 10 + 20 + 10 + 28.6 + 57.1 +22.2 Total 1,318 2,271 2,075 +953 +757 -196 + 72.3 + 57.4 - 8.6 Decreases, I950-I95I Sugar beets 218 11^9 175 - 69 - 43 + 26 31.6 19.7 +17.4 Potatoes 123 84 90 - 39 - 33 + 6 31.7 26.8 + 7.1 Alfalfa seed 115 77 90 - 38 - 25 + 13 33.0 21.7 +16.9 Safflower 27 16 16 - 11 - 11 59.3 59.3 Total 1+83 326 371 -157 -112 + 45 32.5 23.2 +13.8 Net total 1,801 2,597 .... 2,446 +796 +645 -151 + 44.2 + 35.8 - 5.8 (Continued on next page.) ■■ ■ ^ .■J J ■ ! ' ' ' . -r TO JT - ■ + tp ' * • 1 ■ ■ >■ .:>.», ■ v'^ ! r > ^ ' '' s + -i^ ■ 10 - o>. 59 '8 1 I- Table 3 continued. Feed grains Acreage Shifts in acreage Percentage change 1950 1951 1955 1950-1951 1950-1955 1951-1955 1950-1951 1950-1955 1951-1955 1,000 acres Increases or con- stant^ 1950-1951 71 n (10 — — — — — — Decreases, 195O-I951 Corn (grain) 42 32 35 - 10 - 7 + 3 - 23.8 - 16.7 + 9.4 Grain sorghums 136 101 110 - 35 . 26 + 9 - 25.7 - 19.1 + 8.9 Oats (grain) 196 163 169 - 33 - 27 + 6 - 16.8 - 13.8 + 3-7 Barley (grain) 1,800 1.494 1,730 -306 - 70 +236 - 17.0 - 3.9 +15.8 Grain, hay 733 696 711 - 37 - 22 + 15 - 5.0 - 3.0 + 2.2 Total 2,907 2,486 2,755 -421 -152 +269 - 14.5 - 5.2 +10.8 Net total 3,617 3,196 3,465 -421 -152 +269 - 11.6 - 4.2 .- 1 + 8.4 (Continued on next page.) perj/jc-A. {.•is-3;.«TU). QQX.V (-81.?? ■ ; r..- ■■ ■ I : ! ■ . . , ,, . : ....,.-( Table 3 continued. Acreage 1 Shifts in acreage Percentage change Hay and pastiire 1950 1951 1955 1 1950-1951 1950-1955 1951-1955 1950-1951 1950-1955 1951-1955 1,000 acres Increases or con- stant, 1950-1951 Irrigated pasture Sudan Other hay Total 682 125 159 966 702 125 159 986 800 135 160 1,095 + 20 + 20 +118 + 10 + 1 +129 + 98 + 10 + 1 +109 + 2.9 + 2.1 + 17.3 + 8.0 + 0.6 + 13.4 + i4.o + 8.0 + 0.6 + 11.0 Decreases, 1950-1951 Alfalfa hay 1.150 -127 + 92 +219 -12.0 + 8.7 + 23.5 Net total 2,021+ 1,917 2,2^5 -107 +221 +328 - 5.3 + 10.9 + 17.1 Vegetables, fruits, and other specialty Fruits Vegetables Total 1,^^95 613 2,108 1,503 668 2,171 1,53^+ 651+ 2,188 + 8 + 54 + 62 + 38 + 41 + 79 + 31 - 14 + 17 + 0.5 J. A n + 2.9 + 2.6 a. ^ A + 0.0 H- 3.8 + 2.1 + .8 Miscellaneous inter- tilled 138 105 106 - 33 - 32 + 1 -23.8 - 23.1 + 1.0 Net total 2,246 2,276 2,294 + 29 + 47 + 18 + 1.3 1 i + 2.1 1 + .8 Source: Appendix Tables 1 to 3. 1 4 §s + b T + .1 js 3 15. available for field crops in California. 10/ Furthermore, the additional 75ii,700 acres of cotton had to come out of other crops or land uses. It is recognized that the 586,000 acres of cotton in 1950 had reflected an enforced reductipn pf §pj^'e U00,000 acres from the 19k9 level due to PMA allotments. But^ the facts that cotton sold for hO cents or more per pound during much of the fall of 1950 and that acreage allotments were removed are important in explaining the sharp increase in cotton acreage in 1951. Much of the cotton acreage added between 1950 and 1951 was taken from barley (and other cereals), alfalfa, and summer fallow. It was already noted that cotton had expanded in 195l on some lands not best suited to cotton and that irrigation water threatens to be a limiting factor in some areas. A significant point should be added regarding the complementary relationships between cotton and barley in the use of water. Barley is grown as an irrigated winter crop in the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. It is irrigated from the same pumps that irrigate cotton in the summer. Actually, the irrigation seasons of the two crops somewhat overlap. Since barley uses less water, the optimum acreage of barley is two to three times that of cotton. But, in 1951 some growers reduced their barley acreage below the optimum in the attempt to direct more water to cotton. Cot- ton acreage can be expanded temporarily in this way, at the expense of barley, but it is believe the associated drain on underground water cannot be maintained permanently. Thus, farmers have departed temporarily from rotations and pro- duction policies that will have to be re-established in considerable measure. The attainable acreage of cotton in 1955 is projected at 1^ million acres which is a cutback of 91,000 acres from the 1-1/3 million in 1951. Rice also gained in acreage between the 1950 and 1951 seasons. The increase of 33 per cent was partly a reaction to 1950 acreage allotments and partly due to unfavorable weather during the winter and spring months of 1950-51 which prevented rice farmers from planting normal acreages of barley, wheat, and other grains. Farmers tended, therefore, to plant more rice than previously planned. And, the 1951 acreage was overexpanded both in terms of normal market outlets and in terms of sound farming practice. It was in excess of that permitting optimum practices according to current technical knowledge. Because the lands used for rice have limited alternative uses, the normal management practice is to rest it on a reasonably regular schedule in order to control weeds and to insure sound soil management. The adjustment deemed necessary is reflected in the projected 1955 acreage of 250,000. That represents a considerably greater reduction from 1951, percentagewise, than that for cotton. Canning tomato acreage expanded from 75,52U acres in 1950 to lU5,000 in 1951. That expansion reflected a combination of a relatively favorable, competitive price situation plus farmer reaction to an unfavorable 1950 sugar ID / There are some 6,5 to 7.0 million acres of irrigated land in the state, of which about 2 million acres are in fruit and vegetables. ..'i.Bimc'iiXB .aaxj!' -iiuue io am. :!i 0-' 16. beet harvesting season. (For a sizable acreage of beets in the Sacramento Valley, wet weather delayed harvest until well into the spring of 1951.) The overexpanded acreage of tomatoes in 1951 was accompanied by record yields which resulted in the largest production on record. Ihe attainable acreage in 1955 J under our price assumptions, is considered to be 120,000 acres, a cutback of 25,000 acres, or 17 per cent, from 1951. Ihe reduction, inci- dentally, is approximately equal to the projected increase in sugar beets (noted later) . Acreage of dry edible beans expanded from 319,000 acres in 1950 to 339,000 in 1951 partly due to peculiar seasonal conditions in which some beans were planted on acreage that otherwise would have been in sugar beets or rice. The projected 1955 acreage of dry beans, 320,000, represents a cut- back of 19,000 acres from 195l. Acreage of ladino harvested for seed increased from 35,000 to U5,000 between 1950 and 1951. Ladino seed is a specialty crop relatively localized in the state. The seed is in demand for seeding irrigated pastures. This crop has been increasingly profitable as a result of two major technological improvements — using honey bees for improved pollinization and more effective harvesting equipment. Further expansion in production is expected, and the 1955 acreage is projected at 55,000. A promotional campaign led to an increase in castor beans from 2,1^00 acres in 1950 to 20,000 in 19511. Not much is generally known about this crop, but the possibilities from what is known are rather intriguing. One problem has been to find a satisfactory method of harvest. The development of new, lower growing varieties that facilitate harvest would encourage additional acreage. The uses for castor beans include medicinal, in plastics, as lubri- cants, and others. Agronomic research workers believe that new findings may improve the competitive position and that, under emergency conditions, ad- ditional production could be stimulated effectively. However, the prospective future market for castor beans is still somewhat problematical. Lacking more precise information, the committee projected 1955 acreage at the 1951 level. Summing up, the projected 1955 acreage of this group of crops (that showed increases between 1950 and 1951) is 757,076 acres (57 per cent) above 1950, but it is 195,700 acres (9 per cent) below 1951. About l60,000 acres of that cutback would be in cotton and rice (Table 3). Crops that decreased in acreage between 1950 and 195l included sugar beets, potatoes, alfalfa seed, and safflower. These crops had decreases totaling l50,700 acres, or hh per cent, between those years. Sugar beet acreage declined about 32 per cent from a record 218,000 acres in 1950 to 1149,000 in 1951. That reduction, as previously noted, was partly due to unfavorable weather conditions during the 1950 harvest. The acreage of 1951 is considered too low from the standpoint of good farming practices and optimum use of resources of beet producers. However, the competitive situation of sugar beets under the projected 1955 conditions does not favor recovery of the record 1950 acreage. The 1955 acreage is projected at 175,000. 17. Acreage in potatoes also declined about 32 per cent from 123,000 in 1950 to 8ii,000 in 19^lT That reduction resulted primarily because 1950 production exceeded market demand at satisfactory prices. The rather definite removal of the possibilities of government price support and allotment programs probably was another contributing factor. The acreage projected for 1955, 90,000, is 7 per cent above 195l, but it is 2? per cent below 1950. Alfalfa acreage harvested for seed was reduced from 115,000 to 77,000 between 1950 and 195l largely due to special conditions of weather affecting seed development and harvest in 1951. The attainable acreage in 1955 is set at 90,000 acres, or 13,000 larger than in 1951, but it represents a reduction from 1950. The alfalfa seed industry in California is shifting from produc- tion of common to certified seed. Production also is becoming more specialized inasmuch as the certified tends to be grown on special acreage not regularly used also for early season cuttings of hay. Safflower is another crop relatively new to California, It received considerable promotional effort in both 1950 and 1951. Some of the 27,000 acres planted in 1950 resulted from growers seeking crops to replace cotton (limited by the allotment program). The 195l acreage of safflower was cut back sharply to 16,000 partly because 1950 yields did not reach the expecta- tions of some growers and partly due to a return to cotton in 195l. Improved varieties and more knowledge of cultural requirements suggest a definite place for safflower in certain areas of the state. That is especially true if the current high demand for cotton should weaken and growers have to plant less cotton. It is quite possible that further research developments in saf- flower will improve its competitive position and thus encourage a substan- tially larger acreage. Lacking more definite information, the committee projected the 1955 acreage at l6,000, same as in 1951. Summarizing, the projected total acreage of this group of crops (that decreased in acreage between 1950 and 1951) is U5,000 acres more than in 195l, but it is 112,000 acres less than in 1950. The 1955 total of 371,000 acres is about III per cent below the 1950 figure of 1^83,000 acres (Table 3). Feed Grains Feed grains, as defined here, include barley, wheat, oats, com, grain sorghums, and grain hay. Wheat is included because much of that grown in California is used as feed. Feed grains in the state are predominantly cereal crops grown during the winter and spring months with or without ir- rigation. Wheat is grown on unirrigated land to a larger degree than barley. Grain sorghums and corn are summer, irrigated crops and, as such, compete for land with cotton. Feed grains, as a group, decreased in acreage from 2,907,000 in 1950 to 2,1|86,000 in 1951. The reduction of some l|,00,000 odd acres represented a decline of Ik per cent (Table 3). The 1955 projected attainable acreage of feed grains represents a readjustment from 195l but not back to the 1950 levels. The projected acreage for the group is 2,755,000 which is 269,000 acres (11 per cent) more than in 1951 but 152,000 acres (5 per cent) less than in 1950. 18. Considering our production resources, there is practically an unlimited market for California-produced feed grains. This situation results from a projected increase in production of livestock and livestock products needed by a sharply increasing West Coast population. Regardless of the demand situation, however, there are other crops that will pay more for the use of land than cereals where adequate water is available. It is not expected, therefore, that the cereal crops will re-establish their 1950 acreages under the assumptions projected for 1955. It is considered more economical and more profitable for California farmers to maximize their acreage of the high value crops and to ship in a large proportion of the grain and con- centrates required to feed their livestock. The situation for individual grain crops is outlined in succeeding paragraphs. Wheat was the only feed grain that did not lose acreage between 1950 and 1951 — the acreage was 710,000 in both years. No change is projected for the 1955 attainable. Barley Was responsible for a large part (306,000 acres) of the reduction in feed grains between 1950 and 1951. Barley was cut back 17 per cent. The projected 1955 acreage of 1,730,000 represents a readjustment above 1951 of '236,000 acres but still 70,000 acres below 1950. Oats (harvested for grain) were also cut back 17 per cent in 1951 from the previous year. The projected 1955 acreage (169,000) is only h per cent above 1951 and ih per cent below 1950. Grain sorghums were reduced to 101,000 acres in 1951 from 136,000 in 1950. This crop lost acreage to cotton and other summer irrigated crops. Since grain sorghum is an important ingredient of commercial mixed feeds which will be in strong demand under the assumed conditions, the acreage of this crop is expected to recover although not to the 1950 level. The pro- jected 1955 acreage is 110,000, or 9 per cent above 195l> but 19 per cent below 1950. Corn, harvested as grain, reached ii2,000 acres in 1950 when it was used to some extent as a substitute for cotton. But, in most cases, corn was a disappointing alternative and the acreage promptly declined to 32,000 acres in 1951 when farmers could again plant all the cotton they wanted. Interest in corn, as a feed crop in California, persistently reappears from time to time. That interest has stimulated research in irrigation methods, fertili- zation and other cultural practices, and new knowledge is being contributed. Nevertheless, farmers do not experience \miform success with corn. Yields are sometimes satisfactory and sometimes not. A continuing interest in corn production is expected on the part of hog producers 1*10 would use corn as a "hogged-off " crop. As an alternative to corn to be harvested as grain, grain sorghum appears to be a better alternative. Sorghum has a shorter growing season, takes less water, and is easily harvested with combine harvesters — a machine needed and used for other crops. In view of these considerations, the 1955 acreage of corn for grain was projected at 35,000 acres. Grain hay acreage dropped from 733,000 acres in 1950 to 696,000 acres in 1951, a matter of 5 per cent. Some year-to-year variation in acreage occurs because, to some extent, grain is made into hay when the crop is too poor to harvest as grain. Generally speaking, however, the grain hay 19. acreage is relatively constant in the state. It was on that basis the com- mittee projected the 1955 acreage at 711,000, Hay and Pasture Major crops in this group are alfalfa hay and irrigated pasture, chiefly ladino or trefoil alone or in combination with certain grasses. Irrigated pasture showed a 20,000-acre increase in 195l as compared with 1900 (Table 3) which is approximately the 3 per cent annual increase that has characterized this crop for the last several years (Appendix Table 1). Alfalfa hay, on the other hand, decreased 12 per cent. The net shift for the two crops, therefore, was a decrease of 5 per cent. Most of the loss in alfalfa acreage was to cot- ton both in the San Joaquin Valley and in southern California. Irrigated pasture has proven highly profitable in producing both milk and meat and represents an efficient use of land ha\'ing a limited competitive advantage in harvested crop production. Farmers will find additional lands better suited to pasture than anything else. Alfalfa hay, on the other hand, is a harvested crop that must compete for land with cotton and other crops. However, alfalfa hay need not fear competition from hay produced in other states. The bulk and consequent cost of hauling demand that most of it be produced within the state. Of course, small inshipments of alfalfa, about equivalent to the volume dehydrated, are received from Arizona and Nevada and will probably continue in about that volume. But, most of the increased hay requirements needed for increased livestock production must be produced here. The projected 1955 attainable acreage of both alfalfa and irrigated pasture is sharply above both 1950 and 1951. Ihe same is true of the minor pasture and hay crops that remained constant between 1950 and 1951. It is considered that 1,095,000 acres of irrigated pasture, sudan, and minor tame hay crops are attainable in 1955. lhat would be 11 per cent over 1951 and 13 per cent over 1950. Alfalfa hay is projected to reach l,l50,000 acres in 1955, or 2k per cent above 195l acreage and 9 per cent above 1950. These projected shifts in hay and pasture are consistent with those projected for livestock. Vegetables, Fruits, Other Miscellaneous Specialty Crops Vegetables and fruits are of dominant importance in California cash farm income. Vegetables and other specialty crops together occupied about 3A million acres out of a total of 2^ million acres of intertilled crops in 1950, and the proportion as projected for 1955 is in a similar ratio (Table 3). Bearing fruit acreage occupied an additional 1-| million acres of land in both 1950 and 1951, and little change is projected for 1955. Since practically all the vegetables and more than 75 per cent of the fruit are irrigated, the importance of these specialty crops is obvious; the two types of production combined utilize 2-| million acres, or almost 30 per cent, of all irrigated land. Vegetable acreage trends will be discussed first inasmuch as one item, processing tomatoes, already has been considered under field crops. Total vegetable acreage increased 9 per cent from 1950 to 195l (Appendix Table 2). This net figure resulted from a 70,000-acre increase in processing tomatoes accompanied by reductions of less scope in asparagus, carrots, let- tuce, and miscellaneous other vegetables. The projected acreage of all 20. vegetables for 1955 is 2 per cent less than 1951. The reduction mainly represents a readjustment in canning tomatoes amounting to 20,000 acres. Little basis seems to exist for anticipating any substantial change from 1951 levels in the projected acreage of most other vegetables. A dominant fact in the production and marketing situation is that the existing acreage of most vegetables could supply larger quantities than the market now takes. In other words, the harvested yields are less than production. Growers frequently do not harvest the entire crop because the market will not take the entire production at prices satisfactory to the grower. It was con- sidered, therefore, that any increase in demand associated with our assump- tions for 1955 could be met by the present acreage. The total acreage of fruit shows little net change either between 1950 and 1951 or the projections for 1955 (Appendix Table 3). The bearing acreage amounts to about 1^ million in all three situations while an additional 127,000 to 128,000~acres are nonbearing. The bearing acreage increased less than 1 per cent from 1950 to 1951, and the projected acreage in 1955 vrould represent less than a 3 per cent increase over 1950 — 2 per cent over 1951. In contrast to minor change in all fruit, some important shifts are indicated among individual fruits. Decreases are projected for apricots (3,000), figs (1,000), grapefruit (about 1,000), oranges (3,000), and prunes (5,000). Increases are expected for almonds and walnuts (each about 10,000), avocados (6,000), grapes (15,000), and peaches (U,000). Technology of production offers little opportunity to increase fruit production sharply through incentives. However, fruits are like vegetables in that the actual volume harvested and marketed may be varied rather widely in any given season in response to market conditions. Also, a wide range of opportunities exists for changing the method of utilizing fruits — hence, vary the production of certain products under conditions of national emer- gency. Grapes are an outstanding example. The production of raisins can be expanded tremendously at the expense of table grapes and wine. No attempt was made to prepare estimates of marketable yields and total production of either vegetables or fruits that could be obtained if condi- tions should require utilizing the maximum quantity of wholesome food from these sources. The question, however, deserves serious consideration when availability of productive resources in agriculture is being considered. Fruits and vegetables use over half of the fertilizer and comparable quanti- ties of the pesticides in California, They also exert a tremendous demand on labor supplies in greater proportion than acreage. Moreover, fruits and vegetables, particularly in reeent years, have come to require specialized machinery such as blower- type sprayers, pruning rigs, and harvesting equip- ment. Much of this new machinery has been so recently developed or is in such a stage of evolution that the optimum technology has not yet been established. Success in establishing labor-saving and other improved practices depends upon availability of these machines and, in turn, upon the steel and other materials from which they are made. Farm and Nonfarm Noncrop Grazing Open permanent pasture occupies 18| million acres of land in farms. An additional 3.3 million acres of farm woodland, out of a total of h million. AOS 9 21. are used in grazing (Appendix Table 1) . A certain amount of grazing also is available from other miscellaneous noncropland in farms. Grazing on crop aftermath and other residue from harvested crops, of course, constitutes an important segment of the total feed consumed by California livestock. The l8|- million acres of noncrop permanent pasture include a wide variety of natural conditions and, hence, a considerable range in livestock carrying capacity. Ifeisture, generally speaking, is the factor limiting the amount and quality of grazing on this kind of land throughout California. A considerable proportion of it also has a cover, in varying density, of scrub brush and other undesirable wood or woody plant growths. Estimates vary as to the amount of grazing land thus affected, but the total may reach 12 to ih million acres of which an appreciable fraction is included in the l8|- million acres of "open" permanent pasture in farms. There are other impor- tant problems in management besides limited precipitation and competition from brush and other undesirable plants, but these other problems will be considered later in the section on yields. The approximately 65 million acres of land not in farms in California include, broadly speaking, three categories of which one is of interest to agriculture. This category, v/hich includes roughly 22 million acres avail- able for grazing, contains a wide variety of conditions. About 7*7 million acres are in national forest and another l.k million acres are in private land managed by the national forest. About 6,5 million acres are in privately owned range, and roughly 6,5 million acres are public domain type grazing. Most of this grazing land, except the 6,5 million acres of privately owned range not in farms, is under control of some public agency. Because these agencies, in general, have rather definite programs and policies covering utilization, it appears that farmers can do little to change the present level of production. Some of the grazing land having undesirable brush cover, not included in the 18^ million acres noncrop pasture in farms, is either privately owned range or publicly owned grazing land. The committee could foresee no appreciable changes in acreage of open pemanent pasture and range in farms or of nonfarm land used for grazing by 1955. Similarly, it could foresee no shifts in acreage between major cate- gories (Appendix Table 1), 11/ SHIFTS IN LAND USE AND MAJOR CROPS BY SUBAREAS 1950-51— The shifts between 1950 and 1951 in land use and between major crops have been discussed in some detail for the state as a whole. Ihese shifts 11 / Subareas were based on the Crop and Livestock Reporting Service report- ing districts modified to agree in major principle with Land Use Capability Subareas of the Soil Conservation Service. The data used here for selected major crops are comparable to the estimates and projections for California as a whole presented in earlier sections. These data have not been adjusted ac- cording to the 1950 Census and, therefore, are subject to later revision. It is considered, however, that the general cropping pattern by subareas, the direction of change between seasons, and the over-all amount of change are indicated accurately by these unadjusted data. '~-lx~^-000 acres of cropland and by a shift of 163,000 acres out of summer fallow (or idle) into crop use. Ihese shifts have not been accurately identified by subareas, but shifts in acreages of selected major crops have been summarized by subareas (Table U). This tabu- lation gives some indication of the changes in cropland in the subareas between 1950 and 1951. The San Joaquin Valley, containing some UO per cent of the cropland in California, showed the largest change between 1950 and 1951; the total acreage of major crops increased by 318,000 acres. That change resulted from an in- crease of 65U,000 in raw material, seed, and food crops; a decrease of 321,000 in feed crops; and a decrease of l5}000 in specialty crops (vegetables and fruits). Most of the increase was in cotton (69U,000) which increased from 583,000 acres in 1950 to 1,277,000 acres in 1951. That increase absorbed all available idle land and summer fallow, considerable newly developed ir- rigated land, and cut heavily into acres of other crops. In 1951, cotton occupied 32 per cent of all land in crops in the Valley. Other much smaller increases occurred in processing tomatoes (21,000), dry beans, rice, and irrigated pasture. A large part of the decrease in feed crops came in barley (190,000) and alfalfa hay (85,000). Dry weather in the spring of 1951 cut into the acres harvested of dry land grains. Smaller decreases came in grain sorghum, grain hay, wheat, and truck crops. Compared with the San Joaquin Valley, the changes in other subareas were relatively minor. Those subareas having increases in total acreage of major crops were northern California, Sacramento Valley, and Imperial County. Subareas having decreases were North Coast, Central Coast, and southern California (excluding Imperial County). Northern California showed increases in barley, wheat, alfalfa hay, and irrigated pasture, and a decrease in potatoes. The Sacramento Valley grows most of the rice, one-third of the sugar beets, one-third of the canning tomatoes, and important acreages of grain and forage crops. Between 1950 and 195l, the Sacramento Valley had increases in rice (75,000), tomatoes (29,000), dry beans, grain hay, and irrigated pasture. Decreases occurred in sugar beets (19,000), barley (67,000), wheat, and alfalfa hay (36,000), Central Coast had small increases in acreages of tomatoes and wheat. It had small decreases in sugar beets, barley, grain hay, alfalfa hay, irrigated pasture, and truck crops. Southern California (excluding Imperial County) had increased acreages of cotton (23,000), tomatoes (U,000), wheat, and truck crops, and had de- creases in dry edible beans, sugar beets, barley, grain hay, and alfalfa hay. -• - i- TABLE k California Crop Acreages, 1950 and 1951, Selected ^4ajor Crops by SubareasS / Class and crop, 1950 Rav materials and food crops Cotton Rice Tomatoes (process) Beans Sugar beets Potatoes Total Feed crops Barley- Wheat Grain sorghum Grain hay Total grain Alfalfa hay Irrigation pasture Total hay and forage Total feed crop Specialty crops Truck crops (excluding tomato, processing) Deciduous tree fruits Citrus tree fruits . Other tree fruits State total sil/ Subareas 2 and 3 North! Northern coasti California 5 Central! Sacramento San Joaquin Coast ) Valley 5a Valley Sierra Southern , California£' Imperial County 1,000 acres (Continued on next page.) 586 583 3 — -- 208 28 3 -- 76 -~ 9 27 33 0 319 — - — 30 83 122 218 ^7 76 kk 18 33 123 1 10 k 88 19 1,562 1 1 10 90 395 859 "1 168 ~33 1,800 3 112 188 552 751 10 150 27 71C 2 66 166 13a d.1.0 oo 32 136 3 51 50 0 on 1 ; 733 31 k9 213 107 169 17 11+1+ 3,379 227 570 1,192 375 Bi 1,058 8 79 1+0 126 524 6 11+2 133 682 8 32 190 3'^7 22 39 1 1,7^0 TE 122 72 3i5 B71 28 iBi 135 5,119) (52) (3^+9) (642) (l,l6if) (2,063) (75) (557) (215) 538 183 16 168 102 69 361 \ 1 162 68 87 21+ 15 295 2 21+6 2 88 1 Ih t^3 1 29 • 1 .■ 1 . v • r,i.- i ■ ■ ■ * ro 1 r i • ■ • T L arrp Table k continued. 1 Subareas State totals^/ 1 2 and 3 4 5 5a 6 8 Class and crop, 1950 North coast Northern California Central Coast Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Sierra Southern Calif ornia^'' Imperial County 1,000 acres C ■ T -I- / J- • \ bpecialty crops v continued) Nuts 1 rapes Total Grand total 2kk 50J+ 2,030 8,711 11 64 2 361 63 42 1,180 7 177 1,736 394 795 3,720 0 c. 3 30 108 40 49 ^59 1,214 1 72 320 Class and crop, I951 Raw material and food crops Cotton Rice Tomatoes (process) ! Beans (dry edible) 1,3^+1 319 145 339 — 1 21 34 28"3 56 99 1,277 31 54 • 89 5 -- 26 10 117 -L-l- ( 38 ■3 i Sugar beets Potatoes Total 149 84 0 OTy 8 ~8 34 4 9^^ 57 10 52 1,513 "5 14 18 155 3^ {j Feed crops Barley Wheat Grain sorghum Grain hay 1,494 710 j 101 ! 696 1 2 2 31 124 75 Ji2 165 178 4 125 485 124 50 123 561 207 3^ 150 i 10 19 15 119 77 3 1^ 329 27 27 10 2 Total grains | 3,001 i 35 248 542 782 952 1 15 m Alfalfa hay ! Irrigation pasture | Total hay and forage • Total feed crops ' 931 i 702 1,^33 (4,634) 1 8 8 16 (51) 83 45 l25 (376) 37 30 67 (609) 90 203 293 (1,075) i 439 i 351 1 790 1 (1,742) ; 6 23 29 (73) 135 41 175 (505) 133 1 134 (200) (Continued on next page.) Table k- continued. j Subareas 1 1 2 and 3 k 5 5a 6 8 Class and crop, 1951 State , North Northern Central Sacramento San Joaquin Southern Imperial totals^/ coast California Coast Valley Valley Eierraj Calif orniaS'' County 1,000 acres ^ ppec xcix uy crops Truck crons ( cl uc\ i r\cr i processing tomatoes) 523 179 15 153 106 70 Deciduous tree fruits Citrus tree fruits 1 Other tree fruits l,k92 11 2 265 l6l 630 30 387 3 ' Nuts 1 Grapes Total 2,015 11 ~2 TO i 7H3 30 73 Grand total 9,026 62 386 1,14? 1 1,7^ 4,038 1 108 1 ! 1,183 348 a/ See map. Figure 1, for boundaries of subareas. b/ Failure to crossfoot due to rounding of figures, c/ Excluding Imperial County. ■pycjnarv'. 26. Imperial County had increased acreages of cotton (38,000) and tomatoes and decreases in wheat and grain sorghum. An upsurge of cotton production south of the Tehachapi is one outstand- ing fact emerging from the data. Cotton acreage expanded from almost nothing (3,000 acres in 1950) to 6U,000 in 1951. And, further expansion can be ex- pected as growers reportedly were well satisfied with 1951 results. Improved new varieties of cotton, more successful cultural practices, and successful mechanical harvest have made cotton a more favorable crop in these desert areas. CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY AND PROJECTED 1955 CROP YIELDS California's productive capacity, projected to 1955, depends not only on maximum use of our land but also on the maximum feasible crop and pasture yields. The hope for attaining higher yields is found largely in improved practices stemming from new technolo=,y developed through research and in the wise application of those new practices by the greatest number of farmers. Special technology research committees were appointed to assemble in- formation regarding improved production practices attainable in 1955 for field crops, truck crops, and fruit crops. These special committees were under the general cognizance of subcommittees that also were members of the California State Committee on Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Ihis operating procedure insured that the particular researcher studying a particular crop also evaluated its present and potential technology. This portion of the analysis was made more difficult by two factors. First, any major shift in acreage of a particular crop means a partial shift to better or poorer land, and that limits the usefulness of comparing average yields in estimating the effects of new practices. Second, in surprising degree, the objective of much of the research in agriculture, as intensive and highly commercialized as in California, is to protect existing levels of production rather than increase yields per se . Thus, the objectives of research often are the development of disease-resistant varieties, the discovery of effective controls for insect pests, the improvement of marketability, or even facili- tating the use of improved machinery rather than search for higher yielding varieties. Projected 1955 attainable crop yields have more meaning when compared with current levels despite the limitations already noted. For comparison, the committee chose the year 1950 but adjusted the 1950 yields of those crops affected by abnormal weather. For example, the 1950 season was rela- tively favorable for cereal crops — thus, winter wheat yields were above average. Grapes suffered reduced yields due to unseasonable July heat. The adjusted 1950 yields for these and other crops are found in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8. Variation in acreage of a crop is an important factor affecting compari- sons between projected and base yields. State average yields vary widely as the acreage of a crop expands onto poorer lands or contracts onto better lands. The projected 1955 yields allow for this factor as well as expected improvement in practices. Thus, the differences in projected and base yields are not v*iolly from changes in practices. In fact, with some crops, the -:ifiu.. 'BW nor; ■ ^ :;.;V J : " ' i ■ 10 ifi- 06 nfiitt lorltBi lam bayti'^- ^'? aXc a. tb'i woi.U TABLE 5 Yield Comparisons for Selected California Crops, Estimates for the Base Period and 1950, and Projections for 1955 Attainable and Maximixm [ Base period Unit Base period yield 1950 actual 1950 adjusted 1955 attain- able 1955 increase over 1955 Maxi- mum 1950 actual 1950 adjusted All upland cotton 1940-1949 pound 564.00 803.00 650.00 750.00 - ->3 • 00 ±U0 . UU , 800.00 Sugar beets 1940-1949 ton 15.20 17.90 17.90 19.60 1.70 1.70 22.00 Early potatoes 1945-1949 hundr e dwe ight 240.00 240.00 240.00 264.00 24.00 24.00 264.00 Alfalfa hay 1940-1949 ton 4.42 4.60 4.60 4.75 .15 .15 5.10 Alfalfa seed 1945-1949 pound 186.00 231.00 231.00 451.00 220.00 220.00 500.00 Ladino clover 1945-1949 pound 82.00 130.00 130.00 150.00 20.00 20.00 200.00 Irrigated pasture 1940-1949 AUM 6.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 Tomatoes (processing) 1948-1950 ! ton 12.30 12.70 12.70 12.90 .20 .20 14.00 Source: Estimates by Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; 1955 projections by California committee on basis of information supplied by technical committees. TABLE 6 Crop and Pasture Yields Per Acre, Estimates for the Base Period and 1950, and Projections for 1955 Attainable and Maximum Crop Acreage Unit Yield per acre Base period Average for base period 1950 adjusted 1955 attain- able Maximum Corn, all All sorghums for grain All upland cotton American-Egyptian cotton Sugar beets Irish potatoes Early Late Beans, dry edible Safflower Castor bean Stock beets Hops Oats for grain Oats for hay Barley for grain Barley for hay Winter wheat Flaxseed Rice Hay^ grain Hay, alfalfa Hay, other tame Hay, wild planted harvested planted planted planted planted planted planted planted planted planted planted harvested harvested harvested harvested planted planted planted planted harvested harvested harvested pound pound pound pound ton pound pound pound pound pound pound ton pound pound ton pound ton pound pound pound ton ton ton ton 191^0-19^9 1940-1949 1940-1949 1944- 1949 1940-1949 1945- 1949 1945-1949 1945-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 1940-1949 19^-1949 1940-1949 l,8l4 2,061 564 121 15. 22,680 24,000 20,400 1,294 20 1,490 941 1,363 948 1,025 2,927 1.56 4.42 1.56 1.26 1,904 2,184 803 168 17.9 23,460 24,000 22, 500 1,421 554 20 1,715 1,024 1,536 ,158 .322 ,240 1.50 4.60 1.60 1.25 2,100 2,100 750 19.6 26, 400 22, 500 1,500 20 1,600 941 1,536 ,002 ,450 ,450 1.56 ^.75 1.70 1.26 800 22.0 26,400 22, 500 20 3,600 1.56 5.10 1.26 (Continued on next page.) i.:;.. . ■ ■ - , . .1... :f,!s,- ^, - - ' !-.T'?.'v;:s. ,.S-„i^a^... ■• • 1'' • 1 I ...... Table 6 continued. Crop Seeds, hay and cover crop, all Alfalfa (clean) Ladino (clean) Pasture and range in farms Rotation (cropland) pasture Ladino and other irrigated Sudan pasture Sugar beet tops Hay land residue Grain land residue Open permanent pasture and range Woodland pasture Grazing land not in farms Private land National forest Public domain, district, Indian and state land Acreage harvested harvested harvested Yield per acre ^ vex CLp^C Base for base 1950 attain- Unit 1 period period adjusted able ^fa.ximum pound 1 — - - pound 1949-191^9 186 231 450 500 pound — 82 130 150 200 AUM B.O 9.0 11.0 AUM 8.0 9.0 11.0 ^.3 2.75 2.75 2.75 AUM 1.39 1.39 • jy 1 AUM 1.17 1.17 1.17 AUM 0.55 0.60 0 75 AUM 0.10 0.10 0.15 AUM 0.176 0.176 a/ 0.330 0.330 .500 0.067 0.059 .059 0.152 0.152 .152 a/ Not estimated. Sources: Based on Form 3, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; projections of I955 attainable are by the California committee. I TABLE 7 Truck Crop Yields Per Acre, Estimates for the Base Period and 1950^ and Projections for 1955 Attainable Yield per acre rl Vex cl^t; X or uase Cb U OCX Xll — Crop A /-» v" o Q ry o xLCX cdgt; UXXX \j pcX XiJiX pcx XUU cLUXtr S pel JTcig U b XXdX Vc^o UcU. ^ qIx^-i qro x^H-u— x^;^^ X .c: J 1 p4 1 '5P OdiX UdXULLpcj XXdX VtrO vCU. .Ti iTnVio OT^fl +■ IICLX V V- O O C- vi 1 QU8-1 QSO 1 4o 125 Vi a T* vi^ i" f^rl .Ti 1 m Vl r\ r» +• o \ QIj.8-1 qso none y ue ws IXclx V€o UcU. X Xd 0 oprxug IXdl Vt'O OtrU. X Xd b ixci r V c b u c u X Xd L. J. — 285 CD J V^ctX X U LiO iXOiX vcro ocru. ^ X d u c \yJ \1.\J £jdL J IiJ 1 ri 4" C3 Vi n T'VCi e ■4- o c* T'Si "ho 1 ^ r~i rr on 1 t»X d \ W £jdX } PQl opx -l-Xil^ XXdX Vt;o UoU. /•< y o -f- I r^ L.XdUcr \^ U LLU^t:;XX/ X^M-0-X^;)U 405 tup r CIJ.X L.XdUC \ *J IXLJ^tSlXy X ^T-vJ" X y ^4l IXdX vt:;o UoU. L.X d \^ XU XlldX^ wxixber iXdx Vt;o l/trU. CX d Otf \ XU XXXv^XX y 1 Gkfl_ 1 QRfl x>fu-xy;?u 740 666 opx^ixxg Vl Q T» Via Q + XXdX Vco UCU. r*>*Q'f"o I 1 T Ti r*Vi 1 UX Cti ^ XU Xil^li/ Xi^tU-X^^JU T 1 fin 1 P4n X^ Ctw 1 20^^ X^ CUJ OUJlulitrX XXdX vc o v -i^Q -f- £a i 1 ^ T Ti r»Vi 1 L.XdUtr \ x^ XXXL-Xiy x^M-u-x^pu Vifl Vfi Q "V rl XICIX Vs^OOCLL oprxxig XXdX vcb UcrU. ^-Xdwt; \WC«DUt.XiXy 1 4o X (VJ 161 »* XiX l/t:;X Vl n Y*t/o o +* o ^xcLi^c. ^wcroo%:ri.i.iy 1 Qli.6-] QSO 190 180 200 Sudnier h.8»r vested crate (western) 19^6-1950 254 235 275 Fall harvested crate (western) 1948-1950 160 150 184 Tomatoes harvested Processing harvested ton 19^8-1950 12.3 12.7 12.9 Early spring harvested lug (32 pound) 1948-1950 330 440 3^7 Early summer harvested lug (32 pound) 1948-1950 362 330 400 Early fall harvested lug (32 pound) J 946- 1950 358 380 376 All other vegetables harvested ton 1948-1950 4.60 4.70 4.69 Sources: Based on Form 3a, California Siirvey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; projections of 1955 attain- able are by the California committee. ■ 1 ■■ p- . ■ J J r- - ■ i - 1 TABLE 8 Fruit and Nut Yields Per Acre, Estimates for the Base Period and 1950, and Projections for 1955 Attainable j Yield per acre i Average ' 1955 i Base for base 1950 attain- 1 Crop Acreage Unit period period adjusted able j 1 Almonds 1 harvested ton 1946-19^9 .385 .1+13 1 50 • y^ ' Apples- -conunercial companies harvested bushel I9I+6-I9I+9 311 279 325 ; Apricots harvested ton I9I+6-I949 3-5 I+.7 3.5 Avocados harvested ton I946-I9I+9 1.2 1.7 1.5 Cherries harvested ton I9I+6-I949 2.9 3.3 3.5 Figs harvested ton Fresh ^ ^ harvested harvested ton ton (dry) I9I+6-I9I+9 191+6- I9I+9 .1+1 1.0 .38 .8 .1+0 1.0 Grapes harvested ton I9I+6-I9I+9 5.7 5.0 5.7 Wine harvested ton I9I+6-I9I+9 3.5 3.2 3.5 Table harvested ton 191+6-1949 7.1 6.5 7-1 All raisin varieties Fresh basis harvested ton 19^+6-19^9 6.7 5.7 6.7 Grapefruit harvested boxes 191+6-191+9 196 257 ) Desert harvested boxes I9I+6-I9I+9 238 360 > 215 Other harvested boxes I9I+6-I9I+9 177 210 / Lemons harvested boxes I9I+6-I9I+9 189 239 210 Oranges harvested boxes 191+6-191+9 191 2ll+ 205 Valencia harvested boxes I946-I9I+9 193 233 205 Navel harvested boxes I9I+6-I9U9 188 182 205 Olives harvested ton I9I+6-I9I+9 1.8 1.6 2.0 Peaches harvested ton I9I+6-I9I+9 9.1+ 9.3 10.3 Clingstone harvested ton I9I+6-I9I+9 11.0 10.7 12.0 Freestone . ^ harvested ton 191+6-191+9 7.6 1 7.3 8.0 (Continued on next page.) ! V f C^*^^' .... ..s. i' £o 1..V- Table 8 continued. Crop Acreage Unit Base period Yield per acre Average for base period 1950 adjusted 1955 attain- able I Pears Eartlett Other Plums Prunes Walnuts Strawberries harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested ton I ton ! ton ! ton I ton (dry) j ton j tray (12 pints) j 19^6-1949 19^-1949 1946-191^9 19'+6-1949 19i^_l9i^9 19^8-1950 7.6 7.9 7.2 3A 1.5 .59 1,200 8.6 8.9 7.0 3.3 1.4 .52 8.3 8.5 7.2 3.5 1.7 .65 1,500 Sources: Based on Form 3b, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; projections of I955 attainable are by the Cali- fornia committee. 33. influence of improved practices is not enough to offset the influence of ex- pansion onto poorer land. Thus, the projected yield of cotton, 7^0 pounds, is lower than the actual 19^0 yield of 803 pounds obtained on a rauch smaller acreage. The projected 1955 yields for a number of rav7 material, seed, and food crops show important increases over the adjusted 19^0 level (Table 5). These projections for cotton, processing tomatoes, ladino seed, sugar beets, early potatoes, and alfalfa hay and seed are considered reasonable. For several crops, the stage average yield for at least one season has actually exceeded the 1955 projected attainable. Research and technology for a number of field crops, including most of the cereals, dry edible beans, late potatoes, hops, flaxseed, and some minor hay crops, offer little promise of significantly higher yields in 1955 than in 1950. Some irriprovement is expected to result from normal improvement in general farming practices. However, no specific research knowledge, present or in prospect, seems likely to contribute important yield increases in the case of these crops. The current situation and prospects for further increases in yields, either through more complete adoption of known practices or through research and development of new technology, is now discussed for selected crops indi- vidually. Field Crops Cereal Croos Principal crops in this category are barley, wheat, and oats. A con- siderable fraction of the cereal acreage is nonirrigated, hence, vulnerable to variations in amount and timing of precipitation. As a result, cereal yields fluctuate more from year to year than the yields of many irrigated crops. For cereals, no new technology of a mjaor yield-raising influence appears in sight. Some increase can be expected from a general improvement in farming practices. But, the 1955 projected yields do not represent major increases over the 1950 level (Table 6), Cotton Cotton yields have increased over the years and are expected to increase still further by 1955. The average yield during the ten-year period, 19l|0-19U9# was 56U pounds of lint per acre. The adjusted 1950 yield was 650 pounds. (The 1950 yield actually averaged 803 pounds but on a much smaller acreage of better than average land.) The 1955 attainable yield, based on 1^ million acres in cotton, was projected at 750 pounds. The particular technology expected to bring this improvement includes weed control, insect control, better crop rotations, use of wilt-resistant strains, and closer plant spacing. Sugar Beets An average yield of 19.6 tons per acre, representing an increase of 1.7 tons over 1950, is considered attainable in 1955. A number of improved prac- tices are involved such as nitrogen fertilization, better irrigation, more 3k. adequate plant populations, and better crop rotations to control insects and disease. The last-named practice would be facilitated by the projected de- crease in beet acreage. Early Potatoes Improved techniques are already rather widely used in the production of potatoes. Ihus, the projected increase in yield from 2hO to 26k hundredweight per acre was associated very closely with a reduced acreage and use of better land for this crop. Some improvement in practices such as fertilization and greater use of certified seed were also considered important. Alfalfa Hay The state average yield has increased gradually over the years from improved general farming practices. Ttie 19^0 yield was k.60 tons compared to a 19kO'-19k9 average of h.k^ tons. A projected increase to U.75 tons at- tainable in 1955 is expected to result largely from improved control of insects and other pests. Alfalfa Seed Yields of this crop have also increased from a 19U5-19U9 average of 186 pounds to a 1950 average of 231 pounds per acre. Some of the increase has resulted from better pollination due to heavier stocking with honey bees. Further advances in irrigation practice and methods of controlling harmful insects will be major factors in sharply increasing the state average yield to a projected hSO pounds in 1955. Ladino Seed Fertilization and improved harvesting methods that facilitate recovering more of the seed produced will be important in increasing state yields from 130 pounds in 1950 to l50 pounds in 1955. Rice The projected increase in yield of rice, 3,ii50 pounds in 1955 compared to 3,2[i0 in 1950, seems reasonable in view of an indicated reduction in acreage which is basic to the policy of producers who would L'aprove their management practices. Dry Edible Beans No appreciable increases are expected, but research in progress promises to improve market quality and to minimize problems in disease control. Flaxseed The state average yield of 1,322 pounds per acre in 1950 can be com- pared with 1,025 pounds in the 19U0-19U9 period. No further increase in yield is expected from present varietal work. Steps are being taken to breed fusarium wOt resistance into present varieties. The projected 1955 yield is 1,14.50 pounds per acre. 35. Corn The 1950 yield {l,90h pounds) was slightly higher than the 19hO-19h9 average (l,8lU pounds). Ihe projected 1955 yield of 2,100 pounds mainly reflects an expected withdrawal of corn from less well-suited areas where it was tried in 1950 by farmers seeking a crop to replace cotton. Castor Beans and Safflower These new crops recently have expanded in California, but the acreage is relatively small and not yet stabilized. Although additional varietal work is needed, the experience of the last few seasons provides more knowledge about the adaptability of varieties than was known previously. In the judg- ment of researchers, additional information is needed concerning fertilization, proper irrigation techniques and adaptability to nonirrigated production in the Sacramento Valley. Such workers feel that yields of these crops quite likely will be increased but no attempt was made to evaluate the 1955 at- tainable yield for either. However, it is quite possible that important increases in both yields and acreage could be obtained by incentive measures in an emergency. Vegetables In discussing attainable acreage (in the preceding section), the point was made that a larger quantity of produce could be obtained from present plantings. It is a usual tJ-iing for some farmers to leave some fields, parts of fields, or a "final picking" untouched because the market just then will not take the additional quantities at satisfactory prices. That situation leaves little incentive for higher natural yields. The urge is often for improved quality, and much of the research has been in that direction rather than improving yields per se . Among the vegetable crops, carrots are the most likely to show impor- tant increases in yield by 1955 (Table 7). Higher yields are expected from using pelleted seed, increasing plant populations per acre, and improving marketing techniques. Ttie latter will make possible the harvesting and marketing of a larger proportion of the tonnage now produced. Fruits and Nuts Almonds, peaches, walnuts, and prunes are the crops appearing most likely to attain increased yields by 1955 (Table 8). The reason for better yields of almonds and walnuts is largely a matter of shifting acreage to more productive areas. That shift is now going on. The important factor for prunes will be pulling out marginal acreage and old orchards, thus, raising the average yield on the acreage retained. Pasture and Range Yields of pasture and range must be measured in some unit other than the bushels and tons used for harvested crops. Alternative measures sometimes used are (1) animal unit month of grazing, (2) gain in animal live weight, and (3) clipped sample areas of grass converted to dry forage (hay). None of these units are completely satisfactory for all purposes. Numbers (2) and (3) are 36. sometimes preferred in experimentation. The difficulty with numbers (l) and (2) is that they measure utilization rather than yield unless rate of stock- ing is optimum and utilization is complete. However, the projections required in this study must assume considerable imperfection in stocking and utiliza- tion. The measure deemed most suitable here is animal unit month (AUM) defined as the amount of forage req\iired to maintain a mature beef cow for thirty days. This unit is the one most commonly used in the range livestock industry. Grazing yields are to be discussed for irrigated pasture, crop residue pasture, dry land or permanent pasture, and range. Irrigated Pasture An increase by 1955 averaging one animal unit month per acre can be attained by applying improved practices already proven by research. This new level of production, 9.0 AUM compared to 8.0 in 19^0, does not represent the maximum that eventually will be attained. The projected yield represents some increase in production of forage and some progress toward more complete utilization. However, great opportunities still remain both for improved cultural practices and for more optimum stocking with livestock to insure coiaplete utilization of forage. Crop Residue Pasture Crop residue provides a considerable part of the total grazing available to California livestock. Crop residues, as defined here, include sugar beet tops, scattered grain and straw, late season crop regrowth, unmarketable refuse from fruits and vegetables, grass and other palatable weeds of any kind. In short, it includes all edible forage not harvested as a crop. The amount of grazing in AUM per acre on major kinds of crop residue is estimated at 2.75 for sugar beet tops, 1.39 for hay land, and 1.17 for grain land. Actually, no increases are expected in these yields which are figured on the basis of full utilization. But nowhere near all of the acres of such lands are grazed. More coiuplete use of crop residue offers an opportunity for addi- tional meat and wool production. Dry Land Pasture and Range Important yield increases are seen for dry land pasture and range in California by 1955. The carrying capacity of open permanent pasture and range in farms is anticipated to increase from ,55 to .60 animal unit month per acre. This relatively small increase per acre is highly important as there are some l8f million acres of this kind — about three times the irrigated crop acreage — in California. Research vjorkers in range improvement are con- vinced that certain definite practices can be used to increase forage produc- tion. Such practices include rotation grazing, reseeding where necessary, use of fertilizers in some instances, and water development. Not all practices would be necessary or appropriate for any given situation. Rotation grazing is the one most generally needed, promising the greatest improvement and having the broadest application. To accomplish optimum rota- tion grazing, however, would require considerable investment in fencing, A tremendous mileage of fence would be needed to establish rotation grazing on all promising sites. Any extensive reseeding program also would involve tClOa"."' 37. considerable material and expense. Fertilizer experiments on pasture and ranges show mixed results. Although marked responses have resulted on some sites, little effect is observed on others. Nevertheless, researchers are encouraged to believe that fertilization promises to increase the grazing capacity considerably, considering the vast area of noncrop grazing land. But, more research is needed to determine the basis for most effective use of fertilizer. Practices that appear most promising on woodland pasture are controlled brush burning, reseeding, rotation grazing, fertilization, and water develop- ment. Controlled burning, on land where brush or other undesirable woody plants now reduce carrying capacity, is considered a possibility in almost all parts of the state. Ihe cost and returns of some practices have not, as yet, been worked out. Furthermore, questions of land control, availability of livestock, and the policies of agencies controlling public land have to be considered* The committee considers the 1955 projected increase in carrying capacity of permanent pasture and range land is conservative. The potential capacity is far beyond its present production or that attainable in 1955. Progress toward realizing that potential should be stimulated by the anticipated ex- pansion of grazing livestock. But, more information about the effectiveness and costs of proven methods of range improvement might hasten the time when potential yields of pasture and range are realized. CHANGES IN RESOURCE REQUIREJffiNTS The assumptions underlying this study specified ample supplies of all required materials and equipment, but labor was assumed to be in reduced sup- ply in 1955 as compared with 1950. Considerable attention was devoted, therefore, to preparing approximations of what these assumptions might mean in terms of supplies, new equipment, and other resources needed in 1955. Only if materials are available in the quantities indicated do the attainable acres and yields for 1955 have meaning. Any special measures to increase the level of production for critical farm products above the levels indicated as attainable in 1955 necessarily, in most instances, would reqiire still greater quantities of resources than those indicated. Fertilizer Requirements California farmers now use large quantities of fertilizer, but even larger quantities will be needed. In general, farmers now fertilize fruit and vegetable crops relatively more heavily than field crops, but the use on field crops is increasing. The amounts of f ertilizerl2/ used on all crops in 1950 is estimated at 125 thousand tons of nitrogen (N), 60 thousand of phos- phoric acid i?20^)) and 12 thousand tons of potash (K2O) (Table 9). Thus, nitrogen is used in the greatest volume. 12/ In this section the quantities of fertilizer are shown in terms of the basic fertilizing constituent and not in terms of the materials as applied. \ . TABLE 9 Fertilizer by Major Crop Groups; Estimated Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yields of Crops Are Attained Acres fertilized 1 1 Quantities useda/ 1950 1955 1955 Crop Nitrogen ' (N) Phosphoric acid (P2OCS) Potash! Nitrogen (K20)i (N) Phosphoric acid ; PotashJ Nitrogen (K2O): (N) Phosphoric acid 2 5 Potash \,K20} Nitrogen (N) Phosphoric acid (P2O5) Potash (K2O) 1,000 acres tons Field crops 2,000 1,373 IU8.5 3,358 2,962 165.6 57,358 36,693 2,251 98,519 76,634 2,577 Truck crops ^53.8 369.3 227.7 481.6 405.0 247.3 19,338 15,169 4,075 21,144 16,361 i^,596 Fruits and nuts 8U.9 2hh.o 156.1+ 881.0 259.3 164.4 48,957 8,005 5,890 52,322 8,514 6,206 Total 3,268.7 1,986.3 532.6 4,720.6 3,626.3 577.3 125.653 59,867 12,216 171,985 101,509 13,379 a/ Quantities shown are in terms of basic fertilizing constituents (N, P2O5, and K2O) and not in terms of commercial materials as applied. Sources: Estimates for 1950, official sources; projections for 1955, California committee. CD '1 P5 39 Survey data indicate that approximately 3.3 ruillion acres of California's 9.3 million acres of cropland received nitrogenous fertilizer in 19^0 (Table 9). A more meaningful comparison is in terras of irrigated land. While no data are available to indicate exactly the amount of irrigated land that was fertilized, it is believed that approximately half of the 6.5 to 7.0 million acres of such land received nitrogenous fertilizer in 1950. And, by far the greater part of the nitrogen was applied on irrigated crops. Nitrogen was applied on about 8l5,000 acres of fruit crops, USUjOOO acres of truck crops, and 2,000,000 acres of other crops. 'Ihe last category (intertilled, close- grown, and hay and pasture crops) includes a total harvested acreage of about 7.6 million, 13/ Among the field crops, cotton, barley, sugar beets, alfalfa hay, winter wheat, and potatoes, in that order, make up the bulk of the fertilized acreage. About 57>000 tons of nitrogen were used on field crops in 1950. A large proportion of the truck crops was fertilized and, due to double cropping, a still greater proportion of the acreage planted received benefit from nitrogen applied during the 1950 crop year. Most of the vegetables, of course, are irrigated (Appendix Table 5). About 19,000 tons of nitrogen (N) were used on truck crops in 1950. Among the fruit and nut crops there was considerable variation in the proportion of acreage fertilized with nitrogen (Appendix Table 6). The pro- portion was highest, for the most part, among those fruit crops that are largely irrigated. Almonds, grapes, and prunes occupy an important acreage, but the proportion fertilized was low compared to most other fruits. About U9,000 ton? of nitrogen (N) were used on fruit crops in 1950. Fewer acres, roughly two- thirds as mar^r, are fertilized with phosphatic materials as with nitrogen. And yet, about 80 per cent of the truck, 33 per cent of the fruit and 67 per cent of the field crops received some phosphate. The total amount of phosphoric acid (P2O5) used in 1950 was 60,000 tons of which 15,000 tons were applied on truck crops, 8,000 on fruits, and 37,000 tons on field crops. Only 12,000 tons of potash (K2O) were used by California farmers in 1950. And fruit was the only crop where any sizable proportion (20 per cent) of the acreage received potash. Fruits got about one-half, truck crops one-third, and field crops one-sixth of the potash used. If the acreage and yields of crops projected for 1955 are to be reached, total fertilizer requirements will be considerably larger than they were in 1950. Ihe 1955 projections call for 1;6,000 tons more of nitrogen (N), U2,000 tons more of phosphoric acid (P2O5), and l,l63 tons more of potash (K2O). The acreage fertilized with nitrogen would increase by kh per cent, with phosphates by 82 per cent, and with potash by 8 per cent. It would mean a sharp expansion in the acreage of field crops to be fertilized and somewhat heavier applications on fruit and truck. 13/ Each acre producing one or more crops harvested in 1950. . '-iC-' ko Cotton and barley vlll account for most of the additional nitrogen used on field crops. The additional nitrogen for cotton alone is projected at 21,000 tons, an increase of hO per cent over 19^0 and representing half the additional nitrogen needed for all crops in the state. Most of the increase for cotton will be for additional acreage fertilized as the projected rate of application is only increased from 70 to 75 pounds of nitrogen (N) per acre (Appendix Table k) . Field crops will also use most (U0,000 tons) of the additional phosphoric acid (P20^) required in 1955. The projections mean about 1,600,000 additional acres to be fertilized at the present rates. Additional requirements for potash (K2O) will be relatively small, amount- ing to only 1,136 more tons, with 25,000 more acres to be thus fertilized. Fruit crops will need about half the additional potash. Research and Extension workers report a trend toward increasing use of fertilizer. This tendency well may be accentuated by the relatively favorable price relationships projected for 1955. Thus, the committee estimates of fertilizer requirements in 1955 could be too low. Pesticide Requirements^ ^ Adequate supplies of pesticides, including fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, were assumed when the committee prepared estimates of 1955 attainable acreage and yields. This will require sizable quantities of a wide range of materials. Estimates were prepared by the committee covering the use in^l95l and the 1955 attainable quantities (Table 10), Special recognition should be given certain aspects of the problem in projecting pesticide requirements. The current estimates of quantities used are, at best, rough approximations of specific materials used on agricultural crops and livestock. There is no central source of data, a wide range of materials is commonly used for the same purpose, and there is considerable variation in both the form of a given chemical and the rate of application. Necessarily, the projected requirements for 1955 were guided to a considerable degree by technical information regarding what should be applied under Cali- fornia conditions. Nevertheless, the over-all data are considered a reliable indication of what materials are required in a typical year. It is empha- sized that these figures relate only to agricultural uses. The rapid rate of development in the pesticide field presents a special problem. It was assumed in this analysis that the same materials tdll be available in 1955 as in 1951. Solvents, carriers, and other types of adjuvants have not been considered. It was impossible, of course, to anticipate new materials, not now known, that may be discovered and become available in quantities by 1955. Such materials, however, merely would substitute for an appropriate quantity of one or more included in these projections. Ih/ A special Pesticide Requirements Subcommittee was responsible for information in this section. E. G. Lindsley (Chairman) and C. E. Scott comprised this subcommittee. TABLE 10 Farm Pesticides; Estimated Use in 1951^/ and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yield of Crops Are Attained 1951 1955 attainable Individual Individual material Total material ! Total tons Fungicidal and insecticidal materials^/ DDT 3,2^3.5 3,182.7 Methoxychlor 163. T 171.2 DDD • 1,641.8 5,059.0 1,577.6 4,931.5 BHC 167.2 163.0 Chlordane 67.9 76.8 Toxaphene 154.2 155.7 Aldrin 39.2 Dieldrin 1.5 265.0 20.4 292.1 Parathion 368.5 740.0 TEPP 82.8 87.4 Other organic phosphates 2.5 453.8 75.0 902.4 Calcium arsenate 14.6 16.5 Basic lead arsenate 465.3 492.3 Standard lead arsenate 103.5 110.4 Other arsenicals 11.3 594.7 11.8 631.0 Cryolite 440.9 373.4 Other fluorine conpounds 0,8 0.8 441.7 374.2 Rotenone 4.4 1.6 Pyrethrins 0.5 0.5 Nicotine 55.8 60.7 45.8 47.9 (Continued on next page.) ■ • 1 CI-' • ■ - i 1 „. i I 1 ! I ■ f. ( 1 Table 10 continued. 1951 i 1955 attainable Individual ■; material i Total Individual material Total tons Fungicidal and insecticidal materials- Sulfur Organic acaricides Dinitros HON Methyl bromide Tartar emetic da yl^ATTiatp^; anrl O'hhf^T organic fungicides Ceresan N.I. ceresan Metallic copper PDB Phenothiazine 27,263.9 3,538.6 1^5 5 125.0 30.0 3.0 0.75 157.9 131.2 63.3 952.6 2.4 20.4 1 26,014.4 3,555.8 138.8 25.0 30.0 2 5 0.75 158.0 123.8 69.0 952.6 2.5 22.3 gallo ns Carbon bisulfide D-D EDB Ethylene di chloride Oil Sabadilla Lime sulfur 300,000 73,620 21,150 20,000 60,000 4,525,600 800 2,170,800 i 300,000 75,000 22,000 20,000 60,000 4,028,100 25,000 2,148,600 tons Herbicidal materials Sodium chlorate Borate- chlorate mixtures Borax 155.^ 46.1 9.4 1 160.0 50.0 9.5 (continued on next page.) 1 ! i ■ i rows Table 10 continued. 1951 1955 attainable Individual j material j Total Individiial material Total neruicxciax inauerxai.s Petroleum oils 2, 4-D acid 2, k-L esters 2, k-I) salts 2, 1+, 5-T tons 1,467.2 166.0 6.8 642.7 2.1 1,800.0 175.0 7.5 700.0 2.25 a/ Estimates were based on. 1951 for convenience in assembling data from cooperating agencies. b/ Proprietory names are used where no satisfactory chemical name is available. VCI. CCUA6L ! t » i l 1 • 1 i ! f i 1 J 1 I •; TtJCIjATCJjTtTJ- The quantities, in all instances, are stated in tons or gallons of the pure or technical material. Copper compounds are listed as metallic copper, and BHC is based on the pure gamma isomar. Sulphur applies only to insecti- cidal and fungicidal use; soil sulphur is excluded. The importance of adequate supplies of pesticide materials to the at- tainment of the 1905 projected farm production in California cannot be over- stressed. Pesticides are essential to minimize the effects of plants diseases, insects, and weeds and thus permit maximum yields and high quality of crops. And, high yields and high gross dollar value per acre are mandatory if farm- ing is to be profitable because costs of production are extremely high in California where the great bulk of the field, fruit, and truck crops are grown under irrigation. It is inconceivable that the 1955 attainable pro- duction could be accomplished in the absence of adequate quantities of these materials. Machinery Requirements— ^ The subcommittee that evaluated machinery use in 1950 and additional requirements projected in 1955 confined its attention to specialized ma- chinery. The committee estimated the numbers of such machines that will be needed if the projected acreage and yield levels are to be reached in 1955, Specifically, the projections mean the number of machines in use that year.i^/ No attempt was made to estimate the numbers of replacement machines needed between 1950 and 1955. Several important categories of improved machines must be increased in view of the assumed reduction in labor supply if the 1955 attainable volume of production is to be reached. Mechanical cotton pickers should increase by 5,000, nut harvesters by over 2,300, and pruning rigs by over 2,000 (Table 11). Pickup balers, bale loaders, and field forage harvesters are other important pieces of equipment that will be required in greater numbers. Agricultural airplanes are one of the most vital items of equipment which will be needed in greater number. Ihus, the projected 500 additional planes are considered highly important. In the past, adequate numbers of planes have been maintained through using surplus airplanes and parts made available by the Department of Defense, Such surplus materials rapidly are becoming ex- hausted and will soon be unavailable. The time has come when regular com- mercially built airplanes designed for agricultural use must take the place of the improvised planes built from surplus materials. Another important item is supply of irrigation facilities. The impor- tance of water development was mentioned in the discussion of new land develop- ment in the western San Joaquin Valley. The projected acreage in 1955 assumes 15/ The Labor and Machinery Subcommittee was responsible for information in this section and the following section. Labor Requirements. Membership included J. P. Fairbank (Chairman), Roy Bainer, C. N. Johnston, Mrs. Margo W. Lenhart, Arthur Shultis, E. L. Haff, Jr. (Secretary), and M. Yudelman (As- sistant Secretary) . 16/ See Appendix Note 1. ;3!?rii In- to •19 AW 31ftC- 1o no i TABLE 11 Specialized Machines and Equipment; Estimated Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yields of Crops Are Attained^/ Kind of machine or equipment Number of machines Crop In use 1950 Needed 1955 Portion of acreage covered Estimat"ed 1930 Recommended 1955 number Field equipment Mechanical pickers Mechanical pickers Pickup balers Bale loaders Beet harvesters Legume seed harvesters Nut harvesters Pruning rigs Lettuce loaders Field forage harvesters Sprayers, power Sprayers, blowers Airplanes Land leveling equipment (outfits) Irrigation equipment^/ Pumps Sprinkler systems Gated pipe systems Wells Well drilling rigs Barn equipment Milking machines (installations) Manure loaders, power corn cotton hay hay siigar beets ladino, alfalfa walnuts fruit hay, silage field crops trees general general 200 1,400 k,hOO h,koo 1,200 70 75 300 160 1,800 10,600 2,385 750 1,000 88,000 3,500 150 72,000 600 17,000 8,000 per cent 175 6,600 5,600 5,600 1,200 110 2,i^00 2,k00 180 3,000 12,000 3,000 1,250 1,100 120,000 8,000 300 100,000 1,000 18,000 10,000 90 26 60 60 70 100 k 3 16 11 36 25 50 10 2 50 50 90 80 70 70 85 100 66 25 21 11 k6 ^3 50 15 2 50 50 a/ Portion of acreage covered is irrigated acres not total crop acres, b/ See Appendix Note 1 for further explanation. Sources: California manufacturers and distributors, research and extension workers in the University of California, officials in the USDA, other federal agencies, and various California state departments. • i 1 # •• ■ ■ ! ■ '/ 'I i ■<■(■-■■■ j i ■ I'v •_-,r; I - - . > T .l.f; SijecysrjTssq he* that almost iiOO,000 additional acres of cropland will be developed as compared with 1950. The feasibility of maintaining the existing irrigated acreage and of developing the additional land depends in large degree on the continued availability of the irrigation equipment listed (Table 11). Large numbers of other new machines covering the whole range of farm equipment will be required annually to maintain farm production in California at its 1951 level. Agriculture in this state is now almost completely mecha- nized so far as seedbed preparation, seeding, cultivation, and pest control are concerned. Tremendous strides also have been made in mechanizing the harvest. Harvest mechanization, in fact, is within sight for practically all field crops and many of the vegetables. Recent new developments in nut har- vesters promise that these crops, too, soon will require greatly reduced amounts of hand labor. Such technological developments are vital under the conditions of short labor supplies assumed for 1955. By the same token, such a high level of technology makes agriculture extremely vulnerable to shortages of machines. A sustained supply of repair parts, above all, is extremely vital to our agriculture. It is only realistic to recognize that any short- age of necessary repair parts either in total or in point of time and place will, to that degree, reduce the possibility of attaining acreages and yields projected for 1955. Labor Requirements The opportunity to reduce labor requirements per acre and per unit of livestock between 1950 and 1955 must be considered in reference to the 1950 level of technology. Because California agriculture is already largely mechanized^ we cannot expect any general, drastic reduction in labor required per unit of crops or livestock by 1955 (Appendix Table 7). Cotton is an out- standing exception in which 37 hours per acre (of which 33 are involved in harvest) are expected to be cut from 1950 average labor requirements. And, the importance of this crop in terms of acreage makes this reduction highly significant. Sugar beets is another crop with an important percentage reduc- tion: 11 hours from the present 80 hours per acre. Most of the other reduc- tions are small, though important in total, since it is assumed that less labor will be available. Among the truck crops, carrots, celery, and tomatoes (both processing and for fresh marketing) are expected to show reductions in labor requirements (Appendix Table 8). These crops require considerable hand labor and so a reduction is highly important. Almonds, apricots, peaches, and walnuts among the deciduous fruits, and lemons and oranges among the citrus, also are expected to show reductions in labor requirements per acre (Appendix Table 9). It may well be that the reduction indicated for almonds and walnuts is less than will be realized as the pro- jected increase in mechanical nut harvesters should make possible even further reductions. Reductions in labor requirements per beef breeding cow, dairy cow, lamb on feed, laying hen and broiler are expected. Although the amount of this reduction in labor per head seems small (except for dairy cows), it is impor- tant percentagewise amounting to 7 per cent for beef cows, 10 per cent for laying hens and broilers, and 33 per cent for lambs. The reduction of 5 hours of labor per dairy cow actually amounts to slightly less than 5 per cent (Ap- pendix Table 10). sir. -".riri run as. eJh -.t'loriQ Yf^s isiW 95-inf/ .5 c L tol ba^osi^oiq -3i'r rioiflv}.'- -5 leq eujod v jB 'io ' • ^ ( 80 .r.amo jlt art* >*»riJ- bcf fim il cafe t i --icqmi EX ino 'jTj.db -sol vtqsoxo) flume jijn^as beerf -ibq loffsX ai noxto. hi. CHANGES IN FEED SUPPLIES, 1950-1955 The importance of feed supplies to livestock production need not be elaborated. Suffice to say that more feed will be needed if more livestock and livestock products are to be produced. The available supply of feed grains, hay pasture, and range will be affected by the shifts in acreages and changes in yields projected for 1955. However, even those projections in land use and crops were conditioned by anticipated trends in livestock. This section sums up the effect of projected changes in crop production on feed supplies. Feed Grains California is a deficit area in feed grains despite its large produc- tion. Large quantities of grain must be shipped into the state from the Midwest and other surplus areas in order to support the livestock industry (Table 12). A large part of the inshipraents is corn. The state harvested nearly 2 million tons of feed grains (including wheat) in 1950, from 2,71^8,000 acres planted (Appendix Table 12). The total production is divided approxi- mately two-thirds barley, one-fifth wheat, and the remainder corn, oats, and grain sorghum combined. Despite an over-all deficit situation, large quanti- ties of grain, particularly barley, are exported from California each year to Hawaii and other offshore points and some is shipped to other states. Thus, outshipments of barley in the 1950 crop year totaled nearly 600,000 tons. Net inshipments shown in Table 12 must be increased by this amount to equal total amounts shipped in. California food and industrial uses require some 650,000 tons of grain (about [iOO,000 of which is wheat) each year. A unique characteristic of California agriculture is that much of the feed grain is produced as a cash crop, it is not fed on farms where produced. Therefore, most of it goes through market and trade channels. These market channels are well organized; hence, facilities are available for rapid changes in shipments of considerable magnitude either into or out of the state. Grain stocks on farms usually are relatively low and carry-over from one crop to another is mainly in mills, warehouses, and terminal elevators. A further consequence of this situation is that stocks in all positions fluctuate relatively less throughout the year than in some other areas of the country. Carry-over of old grain, therefore, bears relatively little relationship to total available supply during the ensuing crop year. Net supply of specified grains, as estimated in this study, represents production less seed required for planting the following crop (Table 12). Thus, supply was not adjusted for differences in carry-in or carry-out for reasons already stated. The figure for corn is based on acreage harvested for grain; it excludes arsy grain contained in silage and reported elsewhere. The figure for wheat also represents total production less seed and is not limited to amount "fed on farms where grown" or "produced and fed in the state." The total supply of feed grains (including wheat) of 1,965,281; tons in the 1950 feeding season represents the net supply available from the 1950 crop for all purposes after correcting for planting seed requirement. The amount available for feeding livestock and outshipments, after subtracting 61|8,000 tons for food and industrial uses, was 1,317, 28il tons. This was 4 t" ,tni.' ii8. TABLE 12 Feed Supplies Available to Feed Livestock and for Other Purposes; Estimates for 1950 and Projected as Attainable in 1955 Year beginning October 1 Item 1950-51 1955 attainable tons California-produced feed grains Corn, net supplya/ Sorghums for grain, net supplyb/ Oats, net supplya/ Dcirxey , nsu suppxyo./ Wheat, net supplyV Total net supplyc/ 39,70U li;8,008 87,552 1,311,8140 378,180 l,965,28i| 36,li30 llli,950 66,187 1,251,395 323,050 1,792,012 Total needed for food and industrial use Total available for feeding livestock and outshipments Total needed for feeding livestockd/ Total available for outshipments Total inshipments needede/ 6i;8,000 1,317, 28ii 2,063,1^00 7li6,ll6 61i8,000 l,li;l4,012 2,295,500 1,151,1488 Other California farm-produced concentrates Cottonseed fed Skim milk fed (dry basis) 2,000 10 2,000 10 Calif ornia-pr-oduced hay Alfalfa hay, net supplyf/ Grain hay, net supplyf/ Other Tame and wild hay, net supplyf/ Total needed for feeding livestockd/ Total needed for milling mixed feed Available for outshirments Inshipments needed£/ li, 802, 000 1,099,500 U75,650 6,377,150 6,U38,000 ll;0,000 200,850 5,ii62,500 1,109,160 5ll,i;00 7,083,060 7,OU8,000 150,000 llli,9U0 Other California roughages produced and fed Corn silage Pea and bean straw silage Stock beets, pumpkin 528,000 10,000 100,000 577,500 10,000 120,000 Carrying capacity of pastures and ranges Rotation (cropland) pasture (irrigated) Open permanent pasture and range in farms (ncntiUable) Sudan grass pasture (rotation) Summer fallow and other idle farm land Woods pastured Sugar beet tops Grain (winter and aftermath) Hay residue (excluding grain hay) animal unit months 5,U56,000 10,175,000 537,500 565,000 330,000 229,900 2,026,660 883,582 7,200,000 11,100,000 580,500 ii65,ooo 330,000 313,250 2,100,000 900,000 (Continued on next page. ) . 0 1- ij&v o J Table 12 continued Item Year beginning October 1 1950-51 19^^ attainable Carrying capacity of pastures and ranges animal xinit months 90,ii31 iia,6oo 2,000,000 115,705 5iii,ooo Qh3,3hi 2i;,30i|,359 22,9^2,000 1,362,359 U50,000 90,500 lill,600 2,000,000 115,705 ii5o,ooo 8ii3,3ai 27,079,896 26,379,000 700,896 1 IitLscellaneous other field and vegetable crops Orchard cover crops Grazing land not in farms, state and Indian Private land not in national forest Private land in national forest National forest Public domain and grazing district Total carrying capacity Total requirements for livestock^/ Margin of surplus a/ Production (harvested for grain acreage times yield per harvested acre) less seed. b/ Production (harvested acreage times yield per harvested acre) less seed. c/ Available for feeding livestock, food, industrial use, and outshipments . d/ See Appendix Tables 11 and 12, column 7, line lit, for feed grains; column 10, line Ik, for hay; and column 11, line lU, for pasture and range. e/ For feeding livestock, carry-over at the end of the year, and for food and in- dustrial uses within the state (not considering, for example, outshipments; 592,000 tons barley in 1950). f/ Production less carry-out. Sources: Estimates for 1950-51, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; projections for 1955 attainable, California committee. Note: For the 1955 attainable, the carry-in and carry-out of feeds may be assumed to be equal. .VP 1 bem:f33B o^/ 5&. some 716,116 tons short of the 2,063,iiOO tons needed for livestock in the 1950-51 feed year .17/ The item "Inshipments needed" represents net inship- raents, or the margin of inshipments over outshipments. Actual inshipments probably amounted to 1.5 million tons and outshipments amounted to about 650-750 thousand tons considering barley exports. The 1955 attainable production of feed grains (including wheat) in California is projected at 1,792,012 tons, about 9 per cent below the 1950 season. The amount available for livestock is estimated at l,lUl4,012 tons, or Ih per cent below 1950. (Food and industrial uses are estimated at the same level as in 1950.) In contrast, the feed grain requirement for livestock in 1955 is projected at 2,295,800 tons, an increase of 11 per cent over the amount required in 1950. Thus, even larger total net inshipments are needed for the 1955 projected levels of livestock production. Ihe amount needed is about 1,151,788 tons which represents an increase of Uo5,672 tons, or $k per cent over 1950. There are two reasons for a smaller aggregate 1955 attainable produc- tion of feed grains than in 1950. First, the 1950 production itself was unusually high because yields were well above average. Second, grain acreage will be reduced in 1955 largely as a result of expanded cotton acreage. Ihe increase in supply of feed grains needed for livestock in 1955 results pri- marily from additional numbers of feed lot cattle (1,000,000 compared to 650,000) and more chickens, broilers, and turkeys. A minor increase also is expected from an increase in the number and rate of feeding of milk cows. The committee could not agree with recent BAE estimates of cottonseed fed whole on farms. The BAE figure for 1950 was U9,000 tons, or 10 per cent of total production, California cotton growers do not have enough livestock to feed that much cottonseed. Moreover, because they do not plant their own seed, they have no occasion to haul cottonseed back to their farms from the gin. Finally, they do not have storage facilities for bulk cottonseed. Consequently, the committee estimated that no more than 2,000 tons of cotton- seed are fed on farms. Hagr California is also a deficit hay-producing state though to a much less d^ee than in feed grains. Hay production and needs would nearly balance were it not for the alfalfa milled commercially. California's inshipments of alfalfa come largely from the Salt River Valley (Arizona) and small amounts from Nevada and Colorado. At times, California ships out hay to other states; hay was shipped to New Mexico and west Texas in the spring of 1951. The item "Inshipment needed" represents net ins hipment— that is, the excess of inship- ments above outshipments (Table 12). The amount of hay production attainable in 1955 was projected at 7,083,000 tons, up some 11 per cent above 1950. The amount needed by live- stock in 1955 would also be up 11 per cent. Thus, production increases would be in the same ratio as requirements. Net inshipments of about ll5 thousand tons would be required in the projected 1955 situation. 17/ Tae livestock feed year is considered to begin about October 1. 51. Pastures About three-fifths of all animal unit months (AUM) of grazing in Cali- fornia are on permanent pasture or range land and the other two-fifths are ^ cropland used exclusively for pasture or from crop residue (Table 12). The distribution of all grazing in 1950 and in the projected 1955 attainable situation is estimated as follows: All grazing 1950 1955 attainable per cent Rotation cropland pasture (irrigated) Other grazing on cropland Total on crop area 22.it 19. U iil.8 26.5 18.0 hk.S Open permanent and woods pasture and range in farms Total on 'land in farms li3.3 85.1 U2.2 B6.7 Private land not in farms Public land Total on land not in farms 8.7 1I4.9 7.8 13.3 Total, all grazing 100.0 1 100.0 Although the grazing on public lands is a small percentage of the total, it nevertheless is important to ranchers in certain areas of the state. It pro- vides grazing at a season of the year when some of the privately owned range is xinproductive. The expansion of irrigated pasture to about 702,000 acres, nearly all between 1935 and 195l* has been the outstanding development in the livestock grazing picture. Such pastures now provide almost one-quarter of all grazing in California. From this expansion of irrigated pasture, the proportion of grazing on the cropland area has increased to almost one-half of the total grazing. The estimates of grazing AUM as reported here are in terms of usage rather than availability except for open permanent pasture and range in farms . The figures for permanent pasture and range represent estimates of availability. It is assumed that a high percentage of the available irrigated and Sudan grass pasture is used, but this is not true of certain other categories. Not all of the available crop residue is utilized, mainly because owners of the po- tential pasturage do not have livestock. In some cases, no use can be made of crop residues because the land must be prepared for the next crop or because unfavorable weather follows closely on the harvest. It is estimated that but half the potential grazing on grain land is utilized; however, it would not be feasible to use the whole potential. Like- wise, only about hO per cent of the sugar beet tops are pastured or otherwise used for feed. . .. . 1 I 1 I Y.P 52. The estimated total grazing capacity in 1950 was 2U.3 million AUM com- pared with 22.9 million required by livestock. The margin of capacity over use, as estimated, amounted to about 6 per cent. The carrying capacity projected for 1955 is 27.1 million AUM compared with the 26. U million that would be required by livestock (Table 12). The 1955 attainable assumes a larger acreage of rotation (irrigated) pasture and higher production per acre~9.0 AUM compared with 8.0 AUM in 1950. The higher rate per acre is partly from increased yields and partly from fuller utiliza- tion, both resulting from better production and management practices. The increase in carrying capacity from sudan pasture is from an increase in acreage, and that from beet tops is from more complete utilization. The ex- pansion of irrigated pasture itself in valley areas makes feasible a greater use of sugar beet tops. The slight increase in carrying capacity of grain stubble assumes no material improvement in utilization. The estimates for open permanent pasture and range in farms calls for further comment. California has about l8,5 million acres of this kind of land. The state average yield in 1950 was estimated at .55 AUM per acre, and the projected 1955 attainable yield is .60 AUM. This increase is conserva- tive compared to the ultimate potential based on range research. Research has demonstrated that rotation grazing would increase production of range forage on grassland by 25 per cent over much of the state. Range reseeding would be effective on a more limited area, but increases of 25 to 50 per cent could be expected where applicable. Stock water development would increase utiliza- tion by 5 per cent throughout the state. Controlled burning of brush and shrubs would materially increase the grazing capacity of certain lands. There is evidence that some of the range, in the northern and north coast areas where low rainfall is not a limiting factor, would respond to fertili- zation. (Fertilizer requirements discussed elsewhere in this report do not include range use — hence, any fertilization of range would increase the 1955 fertilizer requirements , ) It would be difficult to attain the full potential in range production. Rotation grazing on ihe range land in farms would require an estimated 2,000 miles of stock fence to be financed and built. Rotation grazing in many cases would also require developing additional stock water facilities and more ranch labor. All other range improvement practices would require time and labor for planning and adoption. The aggregate increase in production from partial adoption of these practices is projected at about 8 per cent by 1955. Although public range lands in many cases also would respond to the improved practices discussed, the committee did not assume any substantial adoption of such practices by 1955. Even if the carrying capacity of public range land were increased materially, it would add only a minor amount to the state's aggregate carrying capacity. Full utilization of grazing also becomes more difficult to attain as the maximum is approached. Pasturage must be used in place whereas hay and grain can be brought to the livestock. It probably never will be economical to at- tain full utilization of foothill spring and fall range, or of grain residue, because of the difficulty of timing. On the other hand, cattle and sheep are somewhat more mobile now as a result of ready truck transportation. The c 7. 53. livestock can move from place to place to utilize sizable amounts of seasonal grazing. Livestock men, however, must learn where the pasturage is located, and, once a seasonal pattern has been established geographically, feed and livestock can be coordinated more readily, CHANGES IN PRODUCTION OF LIVESTOCK AND LIITCSTOCK, PRODUCTsM/ The most dominant factor affecting California's livestock and poultry industry during the past decade has been increasing demand, this being as- sociated with a tremendous population gain of over 53 per cent. California has been for many years a deficit production area for the major livestock products except market milk. The deficit is growing wider so that, in 1950, production related to total slaughter amounted to but 53 per cent for cattle and calves, 58 per cent for sheep and lambs, and 37 per cent for hogs. The state also is deficient in eggs, chicken meat, cheese, and certain other dairy products. This pronounced shortage relative to requirements has been a strong factor tending to create a favorable position for the livestock and poultry industries. A partially offsetting factor has been the relatively high prices of feed grains. Large inshipraents of feed grains, with attendant transportation costs, tend to keep prices relatively high. California's meat supply comes from four sources: (1) meat animals produced in basic herds on farms and ranges within the state, (2) the gain in weight made on imported feeder animals, (3) inshipments of live animals for immediate slaughter, and (k) inshipments of dressed carcasses. Other states supply receipts in (3) and (U) and contribute the feeder frames for (2). During recent years, California's own production has increased materially in cattle and calves, decreased considerably in sheep and lambs, remained about level in hog production, and increased sharply in both chicken and turkey pro- duction. Beef Cattle Net production of cattle and calves has increased steadily since I9I4O despite a decline in numbers of native beef cattle during the years 19hh to 1950 (Table 13). Beef production on California range had approached a maxi- mum in the early 19iiO's. Much of the range, in fact, was overstocked during 19h3 and 19[il4 which explains the later decline in range cattle ninnbers. Beef production not only has been maintained but has increased due to an upward trend of inshipments of stockers and feeders and a steady expansion in dairy cattle. (About one-fifth of California's beef production is from dairy herds.) Expansion in feeder cattle has been based to some extent on dry lot feeding but to a greater degree on irrigated pasture feeding. The three-fold increase in irrigated pasture acreage was noted in an earlier section. The expansion of irrigated pasture has permitted an increase in produc- tion of grass fat cattle which find a ready demand in West Coast markets. Ihe 18 / The Livestock Subcommittee was responsible for the information in this section and the following section, Changes in Technology of Livestock Produc- tion. Members were J. F. Wilson (Chairman), V. S. Asmundson, G. E. Gordon, and G, M. Tucker. ,o^^i ax . •jr.-;.. ; 0 lo nxsr . - or: :ifonoT rDUbOiq VTXBD .us *£ftm (I) Ta:. moil ear. jV. 'J-.i^-.'i::., •Sits. OP. .aox.f 5U. TABLE 13 California Cattle and Calves; Index Numbers of Inventory, Inshipraents, Slaughter, and Net Production for 1937-1950 and Projected 1955 Attainable (1937-19ia = 100 Per Cent) Year Number oi Deei animals Number of dairy animals insni Dments Total slaughter Net production Stockers and feeders For direct slaughter California StOCK slaughter 1937-19U1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 19ii2 113 Ilk 83 137 108 111; 117 19h3 123 118 8U 118 90 96 118 19iiU 128 122 105 176 123 131; 117 19ii5 123 121; 161 210 130 ll;7 131 JL714D J-3^: Ip'i Ic ( 19U7 120 128 161 169 156 158 13U 19U8 108 126 lii7 lii8 131 135 130 19U9 lOli 128 130 131; 139 138 139 1950 101 129 203 13I; 125 127 155 1951 llU 130 213 £/ 156 (estimated) 1955 li+0 131 258 172 attainable -J a/ Not estimated. Sources: Estimates for 1937-1950, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; projections for 1955 attainable, California committee. ?. i i i 09 1. r -■ 1 dLS. i t i 1 1 1 ! i •ioi en 55. trend toward more inshipped feeder stock has permitted an even greater increase in net live weight production because relatively less California feed is now required for maintenance of breeding herds, Ihe number of beef cattle in 19^0 was about the same as in 19kl, and the expansion from 19^0 to 1951 was comparable to that from 19iil to 19ii2. It is reasonable to assume that this is the upswing of the cattle cycle, but the start is at a higher level of beef cow numbers, 559,000 compared with i;70,000 in 19hO. The last high point was reached in 19kh with 658,000 head. The range will now carry more breeding cows because fewer yearlings and two-year-olds are on the ranges, because there are fewer range sheep, and because some of the range has been improved. Ihe committee expects some further range improvement by 1955, and, therefore, it projected the number of beef cows (two years old and over) at 670,000 head for the 1955 attainable (Table Ih) » "Cattle put on feed" is not a well-defined , category in California or in other western states. Vest Coast markets accept grass fat cattle with far less price discrimination compared with grain fed cattle than do eastern markets. Many cattle in California, therefore, are marketed for slaughter direct from the range, or are fattened on irrigated pasture with or without supplemental concentrates. Some of the cattle on irrigated pasture at any one time will go directly to slaughter while others will go to native range, to crop residue pasture, or to dry lot feeding. The committee's estimate of 650,000 "cattle put on feed" during 1950, 900,000 during 1951, and 1,000,000 during 1955 attainable includes all dry lot fed cattle plus the estimated pro- portion of cattle on irrigated pasture that went or will go direct to slaughter. Ihe number of stocker and feeder cattle and calves shipped into California in 1950 was 953,000 head and the estimate for 1951 is 1,000,000. The 1955 at- tainable level of 1,200,000 head continues a well-established trend and is in line with expected expansion in irrigated pastures. A recent trend which is expected to continue is for the inshipments to consist of younger, lighter weight animals and of fewer two-year-old steers. The younger, lighter weight animals are preferred for use on irrigated pastures. Sheep and Lambs Range sheep numbers and production, after reaching a peak in 19hh} have declined steadily. Interest in farm type sheep has been renewed, how- ever, during the past year or two. Range sheep declined during World War II due to the shortage of herdsmen, the overstocked condition of the range, and because ranchers feared a postwar depression in the sheep and wool business. This trend was reversed during 1950 and in 1951, for the first time since I9U2, on January 1 there were more sheep on farms than a year earlier (Table II4). The number, 1,867,000 head, is still relatively low — 70ii,000 below the 19ii0- 19U9 average and 1,257,000 below the 1930-1939 average. Indications are that range sheep numbers are continuing to decrease while farm flocks are increasing. These trends have been observed in the annual inventories elsewhere in the United States for the past two or three years. Sheep nmbers have been re- duced in the typically range states and increased in the typically "domestic sheep" states. 56. TABLE Ih California Livestock Numbers and Production, and Livestock Product Production, 19^0, 1951, and Projected 1955 Attainable Item of livestock and livestock products On farms, January 1 Horses, mules and colts Cattle and calves, all Cows kept for milk, two jears plus Other cows, two years plus Sheep and lambs, all Ewes, one year plus Hens and pullets During year Sows farrowed, spring Pigs saved, spring Sows farrowed, fall Pigs saved, fall Chickens raised (excluding commer- cial broilers) Commercial broiler production Turkeys raised Cattle put ftn feeda/ Average number of laying hens and pullets Sheep and lambs put on feedV Milk cows, average during year Calves born Lambs saved Cattle and calves shipped in (not for immediate slaughter) Sheep and lambs shipped in (not for immediate slaughter Hogs shipped in (not for immediate slaughter) Milk produced Eggs produced Wool produced Chickens raised Commercial broiler production Turkeys raised Net production, cattle and calves Net production, sheep and lambs Net production, hogs Unit number number number number number number number number number number number number number number number number number number number nimiber number number number pound dozen pound pound pound pound pound pound pound Reported for 1950 Reported or estimated for 1951 1,000 units 1955 attainable 116 2,709 903 559 1,819 l,3ii0 21,31ii 81 502 66 1;09 28,1|70 23>h6h 7,035 650 17,382 180 813 1,126 1,219 953 610 10 6,02li,000 269,iil7 15,5U7 90,682 79,8ii6 Il4i4,921 860, U60 99,581 176,170 nil 2,872 885 597 1,867 1,367 21,hkk 85 536 68 h22 32,U56 27,000 8,000 900 17,ii00 215 813 l,liiO 1,258 1,000 975 10 6,025,000 270,000 I6,02ii 103,200 91,800 155,000 865,000 10lt,000 185,000 a/ Twelve-month period beginning October 1. 100 3,200 910 670 2,157 1,600 23,i;00 65 ^hh 70 khS 36,000 36,000 12,000 1,000 19,000 215 8i;0 l,3i|0 1,^90 1,200 800 10 6,550,000 300,000 18,300 119,000 127,500 177,000 950,000 118,000 192,000 Sources: Form 10, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; pro- jections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. i i I J 57 The conunittee feels reasonably certain that farn flocks will continue to increase and has projected the January 1, 1955 attainable number of all sheep and lambs on farms at 2,157,000 head, l5 per cent above the 1951 number. The 1955 attainable number of ewes one-year-old and over is 1,600,000, an increase of 1? per cent over 1951. California's maximum potential capacity for carrying sheep is much greater than indicated by these projections. More complete use of a con- siderable amount of foothill pasture and crop residue would permit further sheep expansion. It would mean that a given band of sheep would use several kinds of land and feed in physically separated locations during the year and, hence, v7ould be moved from one ranch or area to another. Such a movement would require advance planning and contract leasing of the pasturage. Some persons estimate than from 1 to 2 million additional sheep could be accommodated in this way. However, the committee does not contemplate any substantial amount of this activity will develop in the next few years because of the many at- tendant problems. Any such activity and consequent expansion would be in addition to these projections. The ambiguity of the term "put on feed" is even more pronounced for sheep and lambs than for cattle when applied to western conditions. The number officially reported "on feed" on specific dates includes both feed lot and irrigated pasture operations; animals in breeding flocks on irrigated pasture are excluded as far as possible. Actually, only a small proportion of California's lambs receives any dry lot feeding. A much larger proportion is marketed direct from grass— either range, irrigated pasture, or various otlier kinds of pasture. The committee estimated that 215,000 sheep and lambs would be put on feed in 1951 and in the 1955 attainable compared with 180,000 in 1950, None of the increase will be in dry lot feeding. Net production of sheep and lambs in California was reported at 99.6 million pounds in 1950, The committee projected a 1955 attainable of II8 million pounds. Dairy Cows and Mlk Production Milk cow numbers and total milk production have fallen behind population growth in California, The number of dairy cows on farms was the same in 1951 as in 19ii6 and 19h9 (Table li;). The supply of market milk and cream has been maintained, however, by diverting milk from man\if actured to fluid use. The number of dairy cows on farms January 1, 1951 was 885,000 head which was a reduction of 13,000 from a year earlier. Dairy cow inventories had declined during 1950 due mainly to heavier-than-usual culling of low producers. Such culling was stimulated by very high prices for slaughter cattle and by increas- ing production costs. The average number of 813,000 cows milked during 195lj remained equal to a year earlier. The committee projects January 1 invento- ries at 910,000 head and the average number milked at 81^0,000 for the 1955 attainable. Milk production per cow increased steadily from 19lj.2 when it averaged 265 poxxnds of milk fat per cow until 1950 when it averaged 289 pounds. The committee projects a further increase in production per cow to 300 pounds for the 1955 attainable. Some shift in breeds from Jerseys and Guernseys to 58. Holsteins is expected; this will mean a larger increase in production of milk than of milk fat. The 1955 attainable yield of milk per cow would be 7,798 pounds compared with 7,U0 in 1950. 'Ihus, the 1955 projected total production of milk will be 6,550 million pounds compared with the 1950 production of 6,02k roillion and a 1951 estimate of 6,025 million pounds. Horses and Mules The committee estimated that numbers of work stock will continue to decline at about the rate of recent years and that the 1955 projected number will be 100,000 compared with 116,000 on January 1, 1950 and llii,000 in 1951 (Table ll;). Ihese estimates, insofar as possible, do not include pleasure riding horses. Ihe number of pleasure horses probably has increased in recent years. Hogs California regularly raises one-third and ships in two-thirds of all the hogs it slaughters. In addition, large quantities of cured meat, haras and bacon, and fresh pork are shipped into the state. California producers marketed about 800,000 hogs in 1950 (li31,000 under inspected slaughter) while inshipments for immediate slaughter equalled an additional 1,630,000 head (Table Ih) . Considering physical resources along, California could produce many more hogs than it does now. Our producers have the advantage of almost year-round pasture and a large local market. Moreover, hogs can be pro- duced economically on feed grains other than corn. Ihe deficit feed grain situation means, of course, that grain prices are relatively high. Ihe main reason why hog production has not increased more than it has probably is that alternative means of converting feed into meat have appeared more profitable to farmers. Hog production probably will tend to increase, but the committee could see no indication of any major expansion by 1955 and so the 1955 attainable production is set at approximately current levels. Commercial Broilers Two outstanding developments in poultry since 19ii0 have been the large expansion in production of commercial broilers and fryers (291 per cent) and in turkeys (109 per cent) . Both products have been increasingly attractive to consumers because of their relatively lower retail prices compared with "red" meats since World ¥ar II and because of their improvement in quality. California produced 23 million broilers in 1950 as compared with 6 million in I9U0 — almost a four-fold expansion in ten years. This phenomenal growth of the broiler industry during and since World War II has resulted directly from favorable meat-feed price ratios coupled with generally increased production efficiency (Table l5). Price ratios are favorable because of the strong de- mand for chicken meat. The improvements in technology and efficiency have permitted volume production of broilers at reasonable costs. S9. TABLE 15 California Poultry; Index Numbers of Inventory Hens and Pullets, Chickens, Broilers and Turkeys Raised and Eggs Produced 1937-19^0, and Projected 19^5 Attainable (1937-19lil = 100 Per Cent) 1 Year Hens and pullets January 1 Eggs per layer Eggs produced Chickens raised Broilers raised Turkeys raised 1937-19U 100 100 100 100 100 100 19ii2 110 105 m 129 1^2 110 191^3 116 100 123 1^3 213 19hk 129 no liiO 119 111 160 19h^ nil 106 127 152 21k 19U 19h6 122 108 130 112 186 19h7 nil 111; c.14.0 13/^ 19h8 122 118 11;^ 116 293 158 19h9 129 118 165 13li 386 239 1950 lli9 122 179 127 1^37 237 1951 (estimated) 150 121 179 507 269 1955 attainable 163 12i| 199 161 669 koh Sources: Estimates for 1937-1950, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; projections for 1955 attainable, California bommittee. i I t 1 ^ ■ '0- i bo 1 oc; on ■•01 1 ^ \ C • ■ r • OdI .11 1 211 :\ !p 1 t 1 ■ 1 . i i t . t • i 1 ! ■ ! >.r.r 1 1 i 1 i m i 1 i . I 1 i ! i ,< 'j r . .. . - t i • ! .- \i / ■ vC - - t ! . -.t, - 6o. The committee tentatively projected the 1955 attainable production at 36 million broilers and fryers. Actually, there is no rational basis for predicting at what level or when commercial broiler production will cease to expand under the assumed income and price conditions. Turkeys The statements regarding (a) consumer demand and (b) increased technology and efficiency for broilers also apply in large measure to turkeys. An added important factor is extending the marketing season over much of the year in contrast to its earlier seasonal orientation. Almost all the turkeys produced in California until very recently were broad-breasted bronze which in the last five years have averaged approximately 20 pounds per bird. In 19$0, growers produced about iiOOjOOO Beltsville small whites. Ihese much smaller birds, averaging 6-10 pounds, are gaining in popularity because they are suited to consumers who will not accept the larger turkeys. The committee expects that a large part of the further ex- pansion in turkey production will be in the Beltsville whites. The committee projected the 1955 attainable production of both kinds of turkeys at 12 mil- lion birds corapared with 7 million in 1950. The production in pounds would be 177 million, lU.S pounds per bird, compared with 1950 production of 114)4,921,000, 20.6 pounds per bird. This change in average market weight of turkeys is reflected in average feed requirements (Appendix Tables 11 and 12). Eggs The shifts in production during the last ten years have been economically sound for the best interests of California's livestock and poultry producers, and it is logical for these trends to continue. It is more profitable to use expensive imported feed grains to produce poultry, eggs, and milk— uses which return a high value product per pound of grain. It would not be equally profitable, in terms of existing or assumed conditions, to expand grain use in producing hogs or fattening cattle or lambs. It is profitable, however, to produce on irrigated pastures as much as possible of the ad- ditional beef and lamb needed, California had in 1950 almost 50 per cent more hens and pullets on farms than in the 1937-19lil prewar period (Table l5). The average rate of lay also had increased from 153 to I86 eggs per bird. As a result, total egg produc- tion in 1950 was 79 per cent above the prewar level. Meanwhille, California's human population had increased during the 19U0's by roughly 53 per cent. California's per-capita production of eggs, not considering eggs used by hatcheries, was 255 in 19ii0 and 305 in 1950. Even though egg production has increased more rapidly than population, the state is still a deficit egg- producing area. It is estimated than some 1.2 million cases, or about UO eggs per capita, were shipped into the state in 1951.19/ 19/ California's per-capita consumption is not known; United States per- capita consumption was about hlO eggs in 195l. 61 The committee projected the January 1, 1955 attainable at 23,1^00,000 hens and pullets compared with 21, 000 in 1951— an increase of 9 per cent. The 1955 attainable egg production was projected at 300 million dozen com- pared with 270 million— an increase of 10 per cent. The rate of lay in 1955 would be 189 eggs per average layer during the year compared with I86 per layer in 1950. Chickens raised, excluding broilers, have not kept pace with laying flocks. The nuiaber of chickens raised in 1950 was 2? per cent above the prewar (1937-19U1) average compared with a k9 per cent increase in laying flocks (Table l5). Some of this growing deficit in production of farm chickens has been closed by expanded broiler production. The committee projected the 1955 attainable number of chickens raised at 36 million com- pared with 32. It million in 1951. CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY OF LIITCSTOCK PRODUCTION The subcommittee found no statistical basis to estimate and evaluate production inplications of important changes in livestock technology by 1955 for beef cattle, sheep, or hogs. Hog production, as noted, is relatively low in the state while cattle and sheep production are closely correlated with physical resources and the production of grazing and other feed (Table Ik). Improved breeding and disease and parasite control already have effected a tremendous improvement in the efficiency of producing livestock. There is a potential for further increased efficiency in meat production to result from progress in pasture utilization both on ranges and farms. However, specific evaluation of these influences was not deemed possible. Data were available to project estimates of increased efficiency from new technology for dairy cows and poultry meat. Broilers and Turkeys Three improvements in technology common to broilers and turkeys that are attainable by 1955 are: (1) Increasing efficiency of the birds in con- verting feed into meat is expected to reduce the pounds of feed (required) per pound of meat— 6 per cent for broilers and k per cent for large turkeys. (2) The time required to produce a bird of marketable weight is expected to be reduced 8 per cent for broilers and 6 per cent for frying turkeys, (3) Improved disease and parasite control is expected to cut death losses 11 per cent for broilers, 13 per cent for large turkeys, and 1? per cent for frying turkeys . Milk Cows Improvements are expected by 1955 in the feeding of milk cows. An increase in concentrate feeding, from 1,200 to 1,300 pounds per cow, and an increase in pasture of .1 animal unit month (AUM) per cow is expected to in- crease production of milk from 6,700 to 7,200 pounds. 62. APPENDIX TABLE 1 California Field Crop Acreage; 1950, 1951, and Projected 1955 Attainable Use of farm land Acreage Reported for 1950 Reported or estimated for 1951 1955 attain- able Corn, all Sorghums for grain Cotton, all upland Sugar beets Early Irish potatoes Late Irish potatoes Beans, dry edible Safflox^er Castor beans Hops Other intertilled crops, total Stock beets, etc. Vegetables Miscellaneous Total intertilled Adjustment for multiple useV Total cropland used for inter- tilled cropsV Oats for grain Oats for hay Barley for grain Barley for hay Winter wheat Flaxseed Rice Total cropland used for close- growing crops Alfalfa Other Grain hay Alfalfa seed Ladino seed Purple vetch and peas seed All irrigated pasture Sudan and temporary pasture Total cropland used for hay, seed, and pasture crops^/ acres planted planted planted planted planted planted planted planted planted planted harvested harvested harvested harvested planted planted planted harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested 86,000 136,000 586,500 218,000 78,000 U5,ooo 319,000 27,000 2,i|00 9,U00 751,000 (5,000) (613,200) (132,800) 2,258,300 383,300 1,875,000 196,000 332,000 1,800,000 Uoi,ooo 710,000 60,000 2U0,000 3,903,000 1,058,000 159,000 733,000 115,000 35,000 67,000 682,000 125,000 2,02U,000 69,000 101,000 l,3i|l,000 li;9,000 Il9,000 35,000 339,000 16,000 20,000 9,1;00 772,700 (5,000) (667,700) (100,000) 2,901,100 2,ii57,000 163,000 279,000 i,ii9U,ooo Ul7,000 710,000 62,000 319,000 3,619,000 931,000 159,000 696,000 77,000 U5,ooo 67,000 702,000 125,000 1,917,000 80,000 110,000 1,250,000 175,000 50,000 Uo,ooo 320,000 16,000 20,000 9,i|00 760,000 (6,000) (65ii,ooo) (100,000) 2,830,U0O ii35,90G 2,39ii,500 169,000 3iU,ooo 1,730,000 397,000 710,000 60,000 250,000 3,777,000 1,150,000 160,000 711,000 90,000 55,000 65,000 800,000 135,000 2,2U5,000 (Continued on next page.) 000, I j iti'-.! If .^''-'nsj b/TP Tec ■ Appendix Table 1 continued. 63. Use of farm land Fruits Tree Bush Grapes Nuts Strawberries All nonbearing fruits Total cropland used for crops Summer fallow Total cropland^/ Wild hay- Open permanent pasture (non- cultivable) Woods, pastured Woods, not pasture Other land in farms Total land in farms Grazing land not in farms: Privately owned range Grazing districts Other public domain graz- ing Indian lands State lands Private lands in national forest National forest grazed Other land not in farms: Forest, other public land Barren, desert, etc. Total land area Acreage harvested harvested i harvested harvested harvested harvested harvested I Reported for 1950 Reported or estimated for 1951 1955 attain- able acres 1,367,600 (671,700) (3,800) (ii85,20O) (202,000) (U,900) 127,itOO 9,297,000 1,227,000 10,521^,000 177,000 18,500,000 3,300,000 700,000 2,299,000 35,500,000 6,500,000 2,978,775 2,939, 7U0 398,000 155,000 l,iilO,U35 7,657,000 17,737,230 25,077, 7U0 100,353,920 1,3714,570 (675,050) (3,800) (1^87,900) (203,600) (ii,220) 128,000 9,1495,570 1,063,1430 10,559,000 186,000 18,500,000 3,300,000 700,000 2, 255,000 35,500,000 6,500,000 2,978,775 2,939,7140 398,000 155,000 I,l4l0,l435 7,657,000 17,737,230 25,077,7140 i 100,353,920 1,1405,500 (675,500) (14,000) (500,000) (220,000) (6,000) 128,000 9,950,000 960,000 10,910,000 190,000 18,500,000 3,300,000 700,000 1,900,000 35,500,000 6,500,000 2,978,775 2,939,7140 398,000 155,000 I,l4l0,l435 7,657,000 17,737,230 25,077, 7liO 100,353,920 a/ In making the adjustment for multiple use of land by crops in the same group or m two or more groups, the first use in the crop year is considered to be the prxmary use. b/ Total acres used for crops are less than the sum of the acreages of individual crops to the extent that two or more crops were, or will be, planted on or harvested from same land during the year. Sources: Based on Form 1, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Serv- ice; projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. 6U. APPENDIX TABLE 2 California Truck Crop Acreages; 1950, 195l, and Projected 1955 Attainable Reported or Reported for estimated 1955 Use of farm land 1950 for 1951 attainable Asparagus Cantaloupe: Spring (desert) Mdsuramer Total Honeydews s Spring Summer Total Carrots: Winter Spring Fall Total Celery; Winter Spring Summer Late fall Total Lettuce: Spring V/inter Summer Fall Total Tomatoes: Processing Early spring Early summer Early fall Total All other vegetables Total acres. 71,700 70,800 75,000 15,800 26,900 ii2,700 16,700 21;, 000 Uo,70o 3U,ooo 6,500 li5o 6,800 7,250 7,000 11,600 U,6oo 10,800 27,000 10,000 3,500 8,300 21,800 25,000 3,500 2,300 1,000 7,100 13,900 2,800 2,300 950 8,000 111, 050 iU,ooo 31,100 32,700 28,iiOO 37,300 129,500 31,300 36,500 21,000 35,000 123,800 12U,000 75,52i4 3,600 7,000 20,000 30,600 215,770 613,200 1145,000 3,800 8,300 19,000 31,100 213,200 667,700 120,000 30,000 225,000 651i,ooo a/ Harvested acreage. Sources: Based on Form la, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the California Crop and Live- stock Reporting Service; projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. j •TC 1 t 1 or . i * 1 i i 00? . ! ■■■-OCtOI 1 ■ •■'it •/■'^ i 1 OOO^iiS: • •V'' f ' ') 1 000 Jjf. „ • IK-': 65. APPENDIX TABLE 3 California Fruit and Nut Crop Acreage; 1950, 195l, and Projected 1955 Attainable Use of farm land Reported for 1950 Reported or estimated for 1951 1955 attainable all} Almonds Apples Apricots Avocados Cherries Figs: Fresh Dried, Grapes Wine Table Raisin varieties, freshl Raisin varieties, driedj Grapefruit Desert Other Lemons Oranges Valencia Navel and miscellaneous Olives Peaches Clingstone Freestone Pears Bartlett Other Plums Prunes ^ft/alnuts Strawberries Other fruits Total all fruits acres^T" 91,296 25,9i;0 U5,719 ll,70ii 9,307 29,220 U85,169 (I59,iil9) (91,862) (233,888) 9,95ii (3,108) (6,81;6) 5U,Ul8 211,923 (132, 39U) (79,529) 26,826 76,902 (UU,059) (32,8U3) 39,321 (3U,179) (5,lU2) 23,1^92 102,8lii 110, 78U U,900 h,lhS 1,363,831+ ion 26,200 U5,700 12,900 9,500 inn nnn 26,000 U2,000 17,000 10,000 29,700 28,000 U87,900 (160,000) (93,200) 500,000 (163,000) (97,000) (23li,700) (2i;0,000) 9,800 ^« 9,000 «■ tm 5li,700 210,800 (132,100) (78,700) 27,100 78,900 (UU,0O0) (3li,900) 39,600 (3ii,500) (5,100) 2l|,l;00 100,600 112,500 5,150 U,220 1,370,770 55,000 209,000 (131,000) (78,000) 29,000 83,000 (I|8,000) (35,000) iiO,000 (35,000) (5,000) 25,000 98,000 120,000 6,000 i;,500 i,Uoi,5oo a/ Bearing acreage only. Sources: Based on Form lb, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the California Crop and Live- stock Reporting Service; projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. otioi xliv J i r ' 1 , -J tt^iiJ i - . • • i f ■ (IJCb ^t-i f ■"J J ?or or r^ 1 p *^ V r i ■ '■ ■ r ' 1 • ■ / .... 1 i \ - vXi>]mon siniolxleO J 66. APPENDIX TABLE k Fertilizer by Field Crops; EsUmated Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yields of Crops Are Attained 1950 a/ Acres fertilized- Rate per acre Quantities used^/ i Phos- 1 1 Phosphoric phoric Crop or kind of pasture Nitrogen (N) i acid 1 (P2°5^ Potash N-P„Oc.-K,0 25 2 Nitrogen (N) acid 1 Potash (K2O) acres pounds tons Field com 2U,580 6,072 1,370 6i;-U8-35 790 11+6 21+ Sorghums 32,7UO 11,355 7,802 3o-5a-60 618 305 233 Cotton U69,59ii 119,190 23,700 70-61-13 16,383 3,6lU 158 Sugar beets 193,6i;5 8it,705 22,210 98-89-55 9,1+60 3,777 616 Potatoes 109,216 65,2lli 25,i;85 122-71-57 6,687 2,321 728 Beans 2U,679 26,25U 3,390 U9-53-19 600 698 33 Hops 5,193 3,2UU 2,570 U f — ^U— 171+ 82 39 Small grains; Oats 55,551 iiO,3U5 7,375 27-2l;-5 739 1+87 20 Barley- lil;6,505 17^,935 17,700 ilO-27-15 9,030 2,331+ 137 Winter wheat 117,120 58,70ii 3,0146 36-30-19 2,111 888 29 Flaxseed 52,6i;0 5l,6i;0 51-50-0 1,332 1,282 Rice 191,296 828 1 1+0-36-31 3,830 15 Alfalfa hay- 123,692 U07,0liU 23,0li8 27-61-13 1,682 12,1+70 155 Pas t\u:e; Irrigated 97,366 269,798 8,71+0 61-53-12 2,980 7,167 52 Dry- 7,91U 27,155 30-50-0 120 676 Other field crops U8,339 26,6U9 2,127 3U-32-26 822 U31 27 Total 2,000,070 1,373,132 1148,561+ 1 57-53-30 57,358 36,693 2,251 (Continued on next page,) r 4 , '•.tio ■ ■ ■ - 1 - SiJ. 1 ■ ,V ' r* • f ■ 67. Appendix Table k continued. 1955 attainabl 3 1 Rate per Quantities Acres fertilized- 1 acre req\iired^/ 1 Phos- Phosphoric phoric Crop or kind of pasture Nitrogen (N) acid Potash (KgO) N-PpO^-KpO Nitrogen (N) acid (P2O5) Potash (K2O) acres Dounds tons Field corn 30,000 12,000 2,000 M-'-' 960 288 35 Sorghums 510,000 15,000 10,000 950 U05 300 Cotton 1.000.000 kOO.OOO 60.000 37 "lOO 12 000 h50 Sugar beets 170,000 70,000 20,000 10,625 3,150 550 Potatoes 85,000 50,000 30,000 T 1,0-7 <-60 5,950 1,875 900 Beans 30,000 30,000 1;,000 750 825 Uo Hops 5,200 3,200 2,600 70-t^O-30 182 16 39 Small grains: Oats 100,000 100,000 2,000 2,000 Barley 1,000,000 1,000,000 liO-l;0-0 20,000 20,000 Winter wheat 250,000 250,000 Uo-Uo-0 5,000 5,000 Flaxseed 53,000 52,000 51-50-0 1,352 1,300 Rice 210,000 50-0-0 5,250 Alfalfa hay 150,000 500,000 25,000 30-65-15 2,250 16,250 188 Pasture: Irrigated 150,000 350,000 10,000 60-60-10 U,5oo 10,500 50 Dry 25,000 100,000 30-50-0 375 2,500 Other field crops 50,000 30,000 2,000 35-35-25 875 525 25 Total 3,358,200 2,962,200 165,600 59-52-31 98,519 76,63U 2,577 a/ Individual crops in some cases receive more than one kind of fertilizer — hence, the three columns cannot be summated with the intent of calculating the total acreage fertilized. Total acreage fertilized in some form could not be ascertained from the data available. b/ Quantities shown are in terms of the "fertilizing constituent," N, PgO^ and K2O, respectively, not in terms of the material applied. Sources: Based on Form U, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data and projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. ■ / 'W.OC. ^OOO.j 7B i 1 . --jr. 1 r r ' ^*rr./ ■d ;tonn i 68. APPENDIX TABLE $ Fertilizer by Truck Crops; Estimated Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yields of Crops Are Attained 1950 Acre s fertilized^'' 1 Rate per j acre Quantities used—''' i I Phos- Phosphorid i phoric Crop Nitrogen (N) acid i Potash (P20^) j (K2O) N-P,0t;-Ko0 Nitrogen (N) acid (P2°5) Potash (KgO) acres ^ pOUuQS tons Asparagus 13,51i9 U,100 i 1,625 fti ^r> Hi 5U9 122 I46 Cabbage 6,230 U,52l 1 U,306 T m t.l. 133 95 Cauliflower lli,002 13,056 10,826 liU-oO-UO 800 559 215 Cantaloupes and other melons U3,385 ii0,81|0 20,235 1,216 1,809 318 Watermelons 15,310 li|,070 3,370 67-86-26 511 609 li5 Carrots 23,122 22,562 12,806 38-68-30 770 189 Celery 12,855 11,760 31^5-299-0 2,217 1,759 Green Limas 12,180 7,655 5,915 5L-ii8-25 L+V 328 18U "ih Green peas Ujloo l,7iiO 990 58-59-Uo 119 52 20 Lettuce 133,986 130,170 89,830 85-80-33 5,721 5,216 l,ii70 Onions 10,56U 8,5U9 5,i^03 103-76-52 5Uli 321; \\x\ Peas 3,615 3,i;8ii 1,290 58-55-37 lOi; 95 2\x Sweet corn 19,U32 8,080 li,li90 129-70-Ul 1,253 285 93 Sweet potatoes 8,680 5,835 2,950 68-58 -li9 295 169 72 Tomatoes (fresh) Ul,009 28,129 17,33U 68-75-36 1,395 1,056 316 Tomatoes (proc- essing) ii2,705 26,980 15,715 70-53-38 l,li92 712 298 All other vege- tables U9,oi|8 37,80li 30,59ii 83-70-1^3 2,037 1,315 659 Total j ii53,772| 369,335 227,679| 85-82-36 19,338 15,169 1;,075 (Continued on next page.) 1% fjfts Bje-iu.'^ 69. Appendix Table 5 continued. 1 1955 attainabl e Acres fertilized^/ j Rate per i acre Quantities required^/ Crop Nitrogen (N) Phosphori( acid I (P^O^) i Potash i (K20)iN-P20^-K20 1 Nitrogen (N) Phos- phoric acid (P2O5) 1 i ^Potash 1 (KpO) j acres pounds tons Asparagus Cabbage I Cauliflower j Cantaloupes and other melons I Watermelons 1 Carrots Celery- Green Limas Green peas Lettuce Onions Peas Sweet corn Sweet potatoes Tomatoes (fresh) Tomatoes (proc- essing) All other vege- tables 15,000 6,500 15,000 iiO,000 15,000 25,000 lli,000 15,000 U,ooo 12ii,000 10,500 3,600 20,000 9,000 30,000 75,000 60,000 5,000 ii, 500 13,500 Uo,ooo III, 000 25,000 12,000 8,000 1,800 12U,000 8,500 3,500 9,000 6,000 30,000 50,000 50,000 2,000 U,500 11,000 20,000 3,500 13,000 6,000 1,000 90,000 5,500 1,300 U,5oo 3,000 17,000 25,000 liO,000 85-60-60 110-60-ii5 ii5-85-ii0 60-90-30 70-86-26 UO-70-30 350-300- 55-50-25 60-60-110 90-80-35 105-75-50 6o-55-iiO 130-70-l|0 70-75-35 70-75-35 70-55-Uo 85-70-U5 638 358 862 1,200 525 500 2,U5o I;12 120 5,580 551 108 1,300 315 1,050 2,625 2,550 150 llil 57U 1,800 602 875 1,800 200 51; ii,960 319 96 315 225 1,125 1,375 1,750 60 220 1 300 U6 195 "^i 20 1,575 138 26 90 52 298 500 900 Total 1 li8l,6oo ii05,ooo 2147,300 88-81-37 21,lUil 16,361 ii,596 a/ Individual crops in some cases receive more than one kind of fertilizer — hence, the three col\imns cannot be summated with the intent of calculating the total acreage fertilized. Total acreage fertilized in some form could not be ascertained from the data available. b/ Quantities shown are in terms of the "fertilizing constituent," N, ^^2'^^* and K^O, respectively, not in terms of the material applied. Sources: Based on Form lia, California Siirvey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data and projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. \ t . r I 1 - i" » -' jooc). ;.o;3 i 7b APPENDIX TABLE 6 Fertilizer by Fruits and Nuts; Estimated Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yields of Crops Are Attained 1950 Acre 5 f ertilizedf;/ Rate per acre Quantities used^/ 1 Phos- ! Phosphoric phoric Nitrogen (N) acid ^ 2 5 Potash N-P^O^-K^O Nitrogen (N) acid (P2O5) Potash i (K2O) acres i pounds tons ii7,695 10,10i4 9,073 75-55-100 1,799 280 I452 15,936 13,l6l 8,251 6U-i;6-32 508 301 131 l8,57li 10,532 7,000 U6-I42-291 I429 219 1,019 17,l80 8,330 7,0i40 152-99-60 l,30l4 I4I3 210 14,256 14,093 14,027 67-I47-27 1U2 96 5I4 Figs 15,066 l,lo3 1,160 60-29-22 I455 17 12 Grapes 173,655 75,7l43 142,361 61-38-37 5,350 1,U35 793 Grapefruit 9,ol5 2,361 1,0U6 207-71-I48 1,018 Qh 25 Lemons 58,576 11,579 6,179 207-128-63 6,0514 739 19I4 Oranges 207, 7lU 38,270 2l4,l4l45 196-129-72 20,317 2,1472 877 Olives * 17,ItU6 1,053 1,228 75-67-239 65I4 35 1I47 Peaches 67,5ii5 8,3l40 6,035 97-50-33 3,279 207 101 Pears 19,856 7,979 l4,382i 66-69-378 657 277 829 Plums 17,636 l4,09l4 3,3l46i 93-50-U6 818 103 77 Prunes 36,776 33, 1149 19,1400 60-50-76 1,103 836 736 Walnuts 714,877 5,610 14, 067 118-55-32 l4,l426 155 65 Strawberries 5,23li l4,5l43 14,323 118-102-61 309 233 133 Bushberries 3,832 2,711 2,2[i9 100-56-28 191 76 32 Other fruits 3,195 1,22U 822 90-l4l4-8 Ii4l4 27 1 3 Total 8lU,86U 1 1 2i4l4,059 156,1436 1 120-66-75 U8,957 8,005! ! 5,890 (Continued on next page.) .-.0 iil'lJijLXJ Lliu'J) I 71. Appendix Table 6 continued. 19$S attainable Rate per Quantities Acre 3 fertilized^/ acre required^/ Phos- Phosphoric phoric Crop . Nitrogen (N) acid (P2O5) Potash (K^O) 2 5 2 Nitrogen t (N) acid (P2O5) Potash (KjO) acres pounds tons Almonds 60,000 i 12,000 10,000 8O-6O-IOO 2,?400 1 360! 500 Apples 16,000 13 , 000 8,500 65-ii5-35 520 292 ( lii9 Apricots 18,000 10,500 7,000 h6-i;0-290 IilU 210 1,015 Avocados 17,000 9,000 7,000 150-100-60 1,275 U50 210 Cherries 5,000 1,000 1^,000 70-50-30 175 100 60 Figs 16,000 1,200 1,200 60-30-22 U80 18 13 Grapes 200,000 80,000 Ii5,ooo 60-u0-U0 6,000 1,600 900 urapeiruit 9,000 2,000 1,000 210-70-50 9ii5 70 25 Lemons 55,000 11,000 6,000 210-130-65 5,775 715 195 Oranges 209,000 38,000 2ii,000 200-130-7C 20,900 2,U70 8I1O Olives 18,000 1,100 1,300 75-70-2iiC 675 38 156 Pp r*Vi PC! 75,000 10,000 6,500 1 r\r\ t^r\ ocf 3,750 250 llU Pears 25,000 10,000 5,000 70-70-380 875 350 950 Plums 20,000 5,000 3,500 100-50-U5 1,000 125 79 Prunes 35,000 33,000 19,000 60-50-75 1,050 825 712 Walnuts 90,000 10,000 7,500 120-55-30 S,hoo 275 112 Strawberries 5,500 5,000 ii,5oo 120-100-60 330 250 135 Bushberries ii,000 3,000 2,li00 100-55-30 200 82 36 Other fruits 3,500 1,500 1,000 90-U5-10 158 3k 5 Total 881,000 i 259,300 l6l,Uoo| 119-66-75 52,322 8,5iU 6,206 i I a/ Individual crops in some cases receive more than one kind of fertilizer — hence, the three columns cannot be summated with the intent of calculating the total acreage fertilized. Total acreage fertilized in some form could not be ascertained from the data available. b/ Quantities shown are in terms of the "fertilizing constituent," N, P20^> and K2O, respectively, not in terms of the material applied. Sources: Based on Form Ub, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data and projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. . -...0 I .. . . ^ . ; 000,61 ario.Ti!.'! ■ .01 72. APPENDIX TABLE 7 Man-Hours Per Acre of Field Crops; Estimated Use in 19S0 and Projected Requirements in 1955 I-f Projected Acres and Yields Are Attained Crop IT 1950 1955 Changes 1950-1955 Pre- 1 ! 1 Pre- \ harvest 1 Harvest! Total lharvest iHarvest Total Pre- harvest Harvest Total hours Corn for grain 18 5 23 17 5 22 -1 0 - 1 Corn for silage 20 10 30 18 8 26 -2 - 2 - h llheat, barley, oats 3 3 6 3 3 6 0 0 0 Rice 7 5 12 7 k 11 0 - 1 - 1 Grain sorghum 11 5 16 11 h 15 0 - 1 - 1 Dry beans 17 6 23 17 6 23 0 0 0 Cotton ho 62 102 36 29 65 -h -33 -37 Flaxseed 11 h 15 11 h 15 0 0 0 Early potatoes 2h 72 2h li5 69 0 - 3 - 3 Late potatoes 26 55 81 26 50 76 0 - 5 - 5 Sweet potatoes 59 70 129 58 68 126 -1 - 2 - 3 Hops 136 211 3U7 135 200 335 -1 -11 -12 Sugar beets 58 22 80 52 17 69 -6 - 5 -11 Alfalfa hay 12 Ih 26 12 12 2h 0 - 2 - 2 Grain hay 3 h 7 3 h 7 0 0 0 Wild hay 1 h 5 1 h 0 - 1 - 1 Safflower 11 5 16 11 5 16 0 0 0 Castor beans 20 7 27 20 7 27 0 0 0 Ladino seed 10 7 17 10 6 16 0 - 1 - 1 Miscellaneous pasture 13 13 13 13 0 0 Sudan pasture 10 10 10 10 0 0 Sources: Form 7, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates based on enterprise studies conducted by the University of Califor- nia and studies by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics with data adjusted where necessary to reflect the 1950 situation. Projections for 1955 attainable are by the California committee. riluo ■ 73 APPENDIX TABLE 8 Man- Hours Per Acre of Truck Crops; Estimated Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yields Are Attained Crop 1950 1955 Changes 1950-1955 Pre- harvest Harvest Total Pre- harvest Harvest Total Pre- harvest Harvest Total nours Asparagus 31 66 97 31 62 93 0 - h - h Cantaloupe h3 36 81 h3 38 81 0 0 0 Honeydews h3 38 81 h3 38 81 0 0 0 Carrots 60 2hh 30I4 55 220 275 - 5 -2h -29 Celery- 220 200 i;20 210 190 hOO -10 -10 -20 Lettuce 63 30 93 60 25 85 - 3 - 5 - 8 Tomatoes (processing) U6 150 196 hh 130 17U - 2 -20 -22 Tomatoes (jnarketing) 75 130 205 70 120 190 - 5 -10 -15 Sources: Based on Form 7a, California Survey of Agricultxiral Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimated based on enterprise studies conducted by the University of California and studies by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, with the data adjusted by the committee where necessary to reflect the 1950 situation. Pro- jections for 1955 attainable are by the California committee. APPENDIX TABLE ^ Man-Hours Per Acre of Fruits; Estimated ' Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Projected Acres and Yields Are Attained Crop 1950 1955 Changes 1950-1955 Pre- harvest Hairvest Total Pre- harvest i J Harvest! Total Pre- harvest 1 Harvest! Total hours Almonds 37 52 89 38 U5 83 +1 - 7 - 6 Apples lUO 59 199 135 60 195 -5 + 1 - ii i^ricots 115 lUU 259 110 130 2U0 -5 -li; -19 Avocados h9 28 77 U9 ho 89 0 +12 +12 Cherries 365 ii09 ill; 365 U09 0 0 0 Figs 1 1 m o7 131 »7 131 0 0 0 Grapes : Wine 36 3U 70 36 3U 70 0 0 0 Table 77 98 175 77 98 175 0 0 0 Raisin 62 70 132 62 67 129 0 - 3 - 3 Grapefruit h8 U6 9U U8 iiU 92 0 - 2 - 2 Lemons 8U 158 2U2 65 150 235 +1 - 8 - 7 Oranges 50 8U I3I4 50 80 130 0 - U - U Olives 52 lOU 156 50 110 160 -2 + 6 + il Peaches : Clingstone 167 95 262 160 95 255 -7 0 - 7 Freestone 153 106 259 150 100 250 -3 - 6 - 9 Pears Bartlett 99 98 197 95 95 190 -u - 3 - 7 Others 99 88 187 95 90 185 -U + 2 - 2 Plums 62 106 168 62 106 168 0 0 0 Prunes ii7 68 115 U7 68 115 0 0 0 Walnuts 3U Uo l\x 3U 36 70 0 -\x - U Stravifberries 290 1,160 1,U50 290 1,160 I,li50 0 0 0 Nonbearing fruits: Uo Tree \xl> U3 iiO -3 - 3 Bush 100 100 100 100 0 0 Berries 600 600 600 600 0 0 Soiirces: Based on Form 7b, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are based on enterprise studies conducted by the University of Cali- fornia Station and studies by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, with the data adjusted by the committee where necessary to reflect the 1950 situation. Projections for 1925 attainable are by the California committee. I ■ ' i I 75 APPENDIX TABLE 10 Man-Hours Per Unit of Livestock; Estimated Use in 1950 and Projected Requirements in 1955 If Number and Production are attained Total ,a/ Changes Livestock- 1950 1955 1950-1955 hours Beef breed- 15 hours per year per breed- Ih hours per year per breed- -1 ing cows ing cow ing cow tattle on 6 hours per year per head 6 hours per year per head 0 feed Dairy cows 105 hours per year per cow 100 hours per year per cow -5 Ewes k hours per year per ewe i) hours per year per ewe 0 Lambs on 3 hours per year per lamb 2 hours per year per lamb -1 feed Sheep shorn .15 hours per fleece .15 hours per fleece 0 Sows 55 hours per year 55 hours per year 0 Horses and 35 hours per year 35 hours per year 0 mules Turkeys, 3 hours per year per hen 3 hours per year per hen 0 breeding Turkeys , .6 hours per year per tvirkey .6 hours per year per turkey 0 raised Laying hens 2 hours per year per hen 1.8 hours per year per hen - .2 Commercial .15 hours per year per bird .13 hours per year per bird - .02 broilers a/ Unit of livestock or livestock production. Sources: Form 7, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates based on enterprise studies conducted by the University of Califor- nia and studies by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, v/ith the data adjusted by the committee where necessary to reflect the 1950 situation. Projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. ■r SliTOf^ CO J i ^ji , 5?q issy 1 APP3NDIX T;J3LE 11 California Livestock Feed for the Twelve-llonth Period Beginning October 1; Requirements in 1950 F eed per aniraal, bird or cwt. Concentrates Glass of livestock Grains a/ : Lii]Jc Seeds and Com- mercial by- TDroduct 2/ Total Total livestock and feec Tame Units and live- wild stock hay Concentrates Seeds and ock Grains i skiia , I produi Com- mercial by- product 8 Tame and v/ild ^§21 10 Pasture and grazing 11 pounds n.ijOa units Horses, mules, colts Milk cows (avertge dxaring year) Beef cows Feeder cattle Other cattle and calves Ewes, one year plus Feeder sheep and lambs Other sheep and lambs Hogs, cwt. net production Hens and pullets Chickens raised©/ Commercial broilers produced Tiirkeys raised Total 600 800 75 500 75 I 10 ! 10 10 280 61.9 15.2 8.2 70.0 XXX ] 1,200 i '5 i 500 I 75 i 10 I 1° ! \ 70 I eoo 2,000 150 1,000 150 20 20 20 350 0.30 t 0.12 j .15 i XXX 12.80 4.681 3.80| 21.90j XXX ! 75.0 20.0 12.0 92.0 xxx 6,000 8,000 1,400 1,000 3,000 160 150 160 20 xxx xxx xxx xxx XXX 114 813 597 900 1,214 1,367 215 335 185 23,335 32,456 27,000 8,500 1,000 tons T [LPO OAUM'S 54.2i 325.3 22.41 225. d 45. 5i I l.li 1.7! 25.9! — 722.0j 4.4 245.7! 1.9 lll.Oi — 295.5* .7 487.41 22.41 225. Oi 45.5 6.8 1.1 1.7 6.5 148.8 75.9 51.0 94.7 XXX i2,063.4j 7,0 ; 1,166.8 342: 3,252} 418 450 1,821 109! 17; XXX XXXj xxx' xxx 6,438 502 3,577 6,557 1,350 6,798 3,144 215 771 18 xxx xxx xxx xxx 22,942 a/ Includes corn, sorghums, oats, barley, and wheat fed from any soxirce. b/ Includes cottonseed fed whole and skim millc (dry basis). (Continued on next page.) ^ T"' i ... Appendix Table 11 continued. c/ Includes oilseed neals, tankage, meat scraps, fish meal, dried milk products, wheat millfeeds, gluten feed, brewers' and distillers' dried grains, hominy feed, alfalfa meal, molasses, beet pulp (dry basis), screenings, garbage, etc., fed as an individual feed or in a commercial mixed feed, d/ Numbers and net production recorded in Table 10, e/ Excluding commercial broilers produced. Sources: Form 11a, California Survey of Agricultiiral Productive Capacity. Basic data are estimates by the Cali- fornia Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; projections of 1955 attainable are by the California committee. ♦ APPENDIX TABLE 12 California Livestock Feed for the Twelve-Month Period Beginning October 1; Projected Requirements for 1955 Feed per animal, bird or cwt Total livestock and feed Concentrates Concentrates Com- Com- Seeds mercial Tame Units Seeds merai al Tame and by- and live- and by- and Pasture Grains skim product wild stock Grains skim product wild and Class of livestock a/ milk^/ c/ Total hay d/ a/ milk^/ hay grazing 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 pounds l.OOOunits 1,000 tons 1X)00AUM»« Horses, mules, colts 600 600 6,000 100 30.0 300 440 Milk cows (average during year) 800 1,300 2,100 8,000 840 336.0 546.0 3,360 3,780 Beef cows 50 50 100 1,400 670 16.8 16.8 588 7 , 839 FeeHer cattle 500 500 1 , 000 1,000 1,000 250.0 250.0 500 1,500 Other cattle and calves 75 75 150 3,000 1,415 53.1 53.1 2,122 7 ,924 Ewes, one year plus 5 10 15 160 1,600 4.0 8.0 128 3,760 Feeder sheep and lambs 10 10 20 160 215 1.1 1.1 17 215 Other sheep and lambs 10 10 20 160 392 2.0 2.0 31 902 1 Hogs, cwt. net production 280 70 350 20 192 26.9 6.7 2 19 i Hens and pullets 61.9 0.30 12.90 75.0 XXX 25,800 848.7 4.1 174.7 XXX XXX Chickens raised®/ 15.2 0.12 4.68 20.0 XXX 36,000 273.5 2.2 84.2 XXX XXX Commercial broilers produced 8.2 3.80 12.0 XXX 36 ,000 133.8 62.1 XXX XXX Turkeys raised 51.4 0.15 15.50 , 70.05 XXX 12,000 319.8 .9 108.4 XXX XXX Total XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 2,295.8 7.2 1,313.1 7,048 26,379 (Continued on next page.) _^ CD Appendix Table 12 continued. a/ Includes corn, sorghums, oats, barley, and wheat fed from any source. b/ Includes, cottonseed fed whole and skira milk (dry basis) . d/ Numbsrs and net production recorded on Table 14, last column (1955 attainable). e/ Excluding commercial broilers produced. Sources: Form lib, California Survey of Agricultural Productive Caoaoity. Basic data are cstiraatcs by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service: projections of 195? attainable are by the California committee.