CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE CIRCULAR 78 October, 1933 BARTLETT PEAR ORCHARD MANAGEMENT ARTHUR SHULTIS CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture and Home Economics, College of Agriculture, University of California, and United States Department of Agriculture cooperating. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8, and June 30, 1914. B. H, Crocheron, Director, California Agricultural Extension Service. THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS PAGE Factors influencing profit 4 Relation between price and net profit 4 Factors influencing price 5 Relation between quality and price of fruit 5 Factors influencing quality of fruit 5 Relation between size of fruit and price 6 Relation between yield and net profit 7 Factors influencing yield 8 Effect of soil on yield 8 Relation between tree age and yield 9 Relation of cultural operations to yield 10 Relation between costs and profit 14 Labor costs 14 Labor used in the pear orchard 15 Cost of field power 17 Adaptation of field-power units to size of enterprise 18 Standard labor costs for each operation 19 Systems of soil management 20 Effect of age of tree on pruning cost 22 Material costs 22 Cash overhead costs 24 Depreciation 24 Interest on investment 26 Recapitulation of all costs 27 Determination of operator's farm income 27 How the pear grower may utilize the information presented in this circular . 31 Summary 34 Appendix: basic tables 37 BARTLETT PEAR ORCHARD MANAGEMENT^ AETHUE SHULTIS^ In order to assist pear growers in obtaining the maximum net income from their orchards, the Agricultural Extension Service has been con- ducting pear enterprise-efficiency studies since 1926. These studies, in addition to furnishing a detailed analysis of costs and returns to each cooper ator, have also resulted in the accumulation of valuable informa- tion for all growers. It is the purpose of this circular to present such portions of this information as can be of widespread use. As the records were taken from Bartlett pear orchards, the data presented herein are limited to that variety. The distribution of these 349 orchard records is shown in table 15 in the Appendix. Since the records obtained do not cover all Bartlett districts, and since the representation of certain dis- tricts is rather limited, actual costs and yields are not shown by districts, nor are they represented as being a true cross section of the Bartlett pear industry as a whole. The average costs and returns presented in tables 18 to 20 in the Appendix are to be considered as representing, for the time covered, only the group of actual orchards that are being used for this study of orchard management. Some of the main principles thus demonstrated will apply to other districts and varieties, while the minor details and the costs will be subject to variety and location adaptations or adjustments. A pear-orchard enterprise is usually conducted for the purpose of ob- taining a return for the employment of the operator's labor, managerial ability, and capital. The degree to which this object is accomplished may best be expressed as the net profit in dollars per acre. Net profit, as used herein, is the amount by which income exceeds all expenses. Expenses, in addition to cash outlay, include the value of the operator's and other unpaid family labor, depreciation, and interest on invested capital. Thus an orchard having some net profit would return to the grower wages for his labor, interest on the investment of his capital, and a profit for his management. The grower's personal income, however, would be more than the net profit by the amount of the wages and interest earned by him. Such a figure is the farm income and is the amount by which income 1 Paper No. 46, Giannini. Foundation of Agricultural Economics. 2 Extension Specialist in Farm Management and Associate on the Giannini Foundation. [3] 4 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 exceeds cash expenses and depreciation. Since the proportions of capital invested and labor performed by the grower may vary widely, the net profit, rather than farm income, is used as the best single measure of the efficiency with which an orchard is operated. FACTORS INFLUENCING PROFIT The net profit from an acre of orchard depends partly upon the man- agement of that orchard and partly upon influences over which the operator has no control. An orchard planted in good soil years ago may become unprofitable because of lower pear prices, due to subsequent overplanting of pears. Such an influence is one over which the individual grower has no control. On the other hand, an orchard planted on poor soil may never have an opportunity to produce a profitable yield ; or an orchard may be planted on suitable soil and be unprofitable because of improper care. Thus, some orchards may be unprofitable because of errors in judgment or errors in management on the part of the owners. Net profit from pear growing is determined by the yield per acre, the price per ton, and the cost per acre. All influences on profit, whether .due to the grower's management or beyond his control, work through one of the above factors. The grower's goal of maximum profit is obtained by effecting the most profitable combination of these factors. The cost per acre represents the grower's input of labor and materials. Yield per acre multiplied by price per ton determines the output of the enterprise. A low yield per acre with low costs and high prices may be profitable. A low yield sold for low prices and obtained at high costs is usually un- profitable; but a high yield of good-quality fruit obtained at low costs and sold at good prices usually results in a profit. The yield per acre is the most important factor because through it the grower may bring about a greater range in profit than he can through the relatively limited control that he can exert on costs and price. RELATION BETWEEN PRICE AND NET PROFIT Since income per acre is determined by the multiplication of yield per acre in tons by the average price per ton for all fruit sold, it follows that with a given yield the higher the price for fruit the greater the profit per acre. Prices vary from year to year and from farm to farm in the same year. In a period of low pear prices such as 1930 to 1932 it may be impossi})le for many growers to obtain a profit. 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management FACTORS INFLUENCING PRICE^ The price received for fruit sold is largely determined by the amount the consumer is willing to pay for the volume of pears offered. The grower as an individual, however, does have some control over the rela- tive price he receives as compared with the average price of all fruit for the season. The quality of the fruit, its size, the time of marketing, and the channel of sale, all cause some variation in the average price received for all fruit produced. The influence the grower can exert upon price through the efficiency of the marketing process and through a con- trolled volume of fruit offered the fresh-fruit markets, depends largely upon his participation in cooperative endeavors and is beyond the scope of this discussion. Relation Between Quality and Price of Fruit. — High-quality fruit means a larger than average percentage of fruit classified as No. 1, whether for shipping, canning, or drying, and a lower percentage of low grades and culls. As a producer of fruit of good or poor quality, the manager of a pear orchard has been able in the past to influence the average price received by as much as $10 a ton or more. With a 10-ton yield, this would amount to $100 an acre and might easily be the differ- ence between a good profit or a considerable loss. In 1930 the proportion of No. 1 fruit delivered to a certain fruit-shipping concern by pear-study cooperators varied from 33 per cent to 62 per cent. The grower deliver- ing 33 per cent No. 1 fruit received an average price of $14.03 a ton for all his fruit. The grower having 62 per cent No. 1 fruit received an aver- age price of $23.68 a ton. Factors Influencing Quality of Fruit. — Fruit from an orchard may be lower than average in quality as a result of causes such as shape, insect and disease injury, frost damage, and mechanical injury. Some of these are beyond the control of the grower at present. It is obvious, however, that proper insect and disease control will reduce damage. Some growers also feel they have been able to reduce the percentage of windfalls by pro- viding adequate soil moisture. Timely and careful picking is also im- portant. Bulletin 470* discusses the effect of time of picking on quality. One striking observation that can be made from orchard records is that relatively high-quality fruit is nearly always associated with high yields. 3 For factors influencing the price of pears see: Shear, S. W, Economic aspects of the pear industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 452:1-107. 1928. 4 Allen, F. W. Maturity standards for harvesting Bartlett pears for eastern shipment. California Agr. Exp Sta. Bui. 470:1-27. 1929. California Agricultural Extension Service [Cm. 78 In a given season and in the same locality the orchards having heavier yields per acre also tend to have higher-quality fruit. It is probably natural that good cultural care and other conditions which make for heavy yields also result in a better-quality fruit. TABLE 1 Average Prices Received per Box from Eastern Shipment of Bartlett Pears as Reported by One Shipping Concern, 1928-1931 Grades and years No. 1, 1928 No. 2, 1928 No. 1, 1929 No. 2, 1929 No. 1, 1930 No. 2, 1930 No. 1, 1931 No. 2, 1931 No. 1, 1932 No. 2, 1932 No. 1, five-year average No. 2, five-year average All grades, five-year average Average marketing cost Net returns per box Net returns per 100 pears Size, number of pears per box 90 dollars 3 31 2 2 75 2 47 2.61 1 77 0.84 0.93 100 dollars 3.29 2.76 3 66 3 54 2 64 2 13 2 35 2 29 1.69 1.57 2 73 2.46 2.59 1.77 0.82 0.82 110 dollars 3.37 2.87 3.59 3.56 2.57 2 15 2 33 2 28 1.78 1.70 2.73 2 51 2.62 1.77 0.85 0.77 120 dollars 3.49 2.89 3.69 3.64 2.46 2.09 2 36 2 30 1 87 1.85 2.77 2 55 2.66 1.77 0.89 0.74 135 dollars 3.48 2.98 3.82 3.68 2.39 2.12 2 45 2.35 2 03 1.97 2.83 2.62 2.73 1 77 0.96 0.71 150 dollars 3.55 3.03 3.93 3 73 2 40 2.15 2.61 2.40 2 21 2.01 2.94 2 66 2.80 1.77 1.03 0.69 165 dollars 3.64 3.10 4 02 3.80 2 42 2.16 2.76 2 42 2 31 2.13 3 03 2.72 2.87 1 77 1 10 0.67 180 dollars 3.73 3.08 4 06 3.78 2.43 2.14 2.90 2.43 2 47 2 18 3 12 2.72 2.92 1.77 1.15 0.64 An inspection of individual pear records discloses the fact that grow- ers can and do influence the quality of the fruit they produce. One grower in Mendocino County effected a progressive improvement in the quality of fruit from his orchard over a six-year period. In 1926 his fruit was the poorest of any delivered to the shipping concern which handled it, while in 1930 it was the best. This improvement in quality was also associated with an increase in yield. It was doubtless due to improved orchard practices, which included a change in pruning, a more complete spray program, more adequate irrigation, reduced cultivation, and some fertilizing and covercropping. Relation Between Size of Fruit and Price. — Since fruits of certain sizes are more desirable for shipping, for canning, and for drying, it 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 7 would follow that the grower can influence his price by suiting the size of his fruit to the intended market. By agreement among the shippers, Bartlett pears less than 2% inches in diameter have been largely with- held from eastern shipments in 1930, 1931, and 1932. Of fruit shipped to the eastern markets, the relatively smaller sizes have brought higher prices per box than the larger sizes. Average prices of eastern shipments of Bartletts by sizes and grades from one fruit-shipping concern are shown in table 1. This table shows that the net income per box for smaller fruit was higher, although the net income from 100 smaller pears was lower than from 100 larger ones. Local markets and canneries, however, usually prefer larger pears. It would therefore appear that the grower would derive the greatest income by securing as large a size of fruit as possible and thereby the largest possible tonnage from the fruit which has set on his trees. Pears continue to increase in size until they are picked; picking too early results in smaller fruit and a lower yield, which would be more profitable only when the earlier shipment would result in a higher price. On the other hand, thinning of fruit to increase its size is practiced only when necessary to bring the fruit to marketable size. Proper regulation of fruit-bearing is best accomplished at pruning time by the amount of fruiting wood left on each tree. RELATION BETWEEN YIELD AND NET PROFIT Pear enterprise records include mature pear orchards with yields of from 2 to 24 tons per acre. During the five years from 1926 to 1930, when an average price of $43 a ton was received, a few of these orchards were unprofitable every year because of low yields. They were unprofitable because income from the few tons of pears produced on 1 acre failed to cover the total costs involved. On the other hand, some orchards with good yields had a net profit every year, even in 1930 and 1931 when pear prices were low. With lower prices for fruit, heavier yields are required to meet costs. Consequently, many orchards unable to secure heavy yields with low expenditures may be rendered unprofitable in periods of low prices. To avoid continued losses from a low-yielding orchard, two courses are open : one is to remove or abandon the trees; the other is to build up yields to a level that will result in sufficient income to repay costs. The latter course is possible only when the yield of the orchard has been limited by improper management. A study of each of the factors influencing yield might help the owner of an orchard to discover some existing opportunities for yield improvement. California Agricultural Extension Service [CiR. 78 FACTORS INFLUENCING YIELD The yield per acre from a mature pear orchard over a period of years is influenced largely by the climate, soil, and cultural care of the or- chard. The age of the trees, the rootstock, the average climatic environ- ment, and the soil are settled once and for all when the orchard is planted and cannot thereafter be changed. Plowever, the field of cultural care undoubtedly offers considerable opportunity for influencing yield. TABLE 2 Relation Between Soil and Yield Acres reporting Average age of trees Average yield, tons per acre Mendocino County, 1926-1930: Good pear soils — Yolo series Unsuitable pear soils Lake County, 1926-1930: Good pear soils — Rincon series. Unsuitable pear soils Sacramento County, 1929-1930: River bottom soils Upland soils 703.1 67.3 589.9 220.6 398.4 116.0 4.93 7.42 2.44 5 91 3.98 Effect of Soil on Yield. — Although the pear grower cannot change the soil on which his orchard is planted, he might well consider the handicap of an unsuitable soil to trees. Table 2 shows several comparisons of or- chards on good soils with those on poor soils. In Mendocino County, younger orchards on the Yolo soil series yielded almost 2 tons to the acre more than those on the Pinole, Mariposa, and Pleasanton series, over a five-year period. In Lake County, orchards largely on the Rincon series yielded nearly 5 tons more than those on the Pinole, Klamath, and other unsuitable soils. In Sacramento County, orchards on good, deep bottom- land soils averaged 2 tons more yield per acre than those on upland and hardpan soils. The soil series referred to are government soil -survey classifications. The soils of most of the fruit districts in California have been mapped by the United States Bureau of Soils and the University of California. These soil surveys show areas suitable to tree fruits and discuss crop adaptations. Pears are not well adapted to poor or shallow soils and few orchards so located produce profitable yields — even with irrigation and fertilization. Low-yielding orchards on questionable soils 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management which have been unprofitable in the past will in all probability continue to be unprofitable in the future. Relation Between Tree Age and Yield. — The age of trees definitely limits yield. With young orchards, several years may have to elapse be- fore paying yields can be obtained. Figure 1 shows the trend of yields 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 n Eelation Between Age OF Trees AND Yield ^^ / / /^ > / / y / 10 15 20 25 30 AGE OF TREES AT BEGINNING OF CROP YEAR 35 40 Fig. 1. — This chart shows, on the average, that Bartlett pears begin to yield in their third year and that yields continue to increase up to at least forty years of age. (Data from pear enterprise records, 1926-1930.) for different ages for all Bartlett pear orchards in the enterprise-effi- ciency studies. A comparison between these data and state acreage and production figures indicates that these orchards have yields 50 per cent higher than the average of all Bartlett orchards in the state. This yield curve does not therefore represent the average nor does it represent yields that can be obtained under better conditions than those that pre- vailed in the orchards from which these figures were taken. Neither does this curve show the range in yield for any one age, which might be from zero to more than twice the yield shown. It will serve, however, as a rough check on the performance of a given orchard. If the average yield over a period of years for a certain orchard is below that shown in figure 1, it is evident the orchard is under some handicap. If the average yield is above this line, it would indicate the orchard is better than those in this study, although it does not indicate that the yield could not be 10 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 further improved with profit to the grower. W. P. Tufts,^ in commenting on this yield curve, has expressed the opinion that pear trees properly planted and developed can attain their maximum yield much sooner than the fortieth year, perhaps even in the twentieth year. Relation of Cultural Operations to Yield. — The ways in which the grower may influence the yield of pears are classified under cultural care. It is generally accepted that the regulation of tree development and fruit-bearing by pruning, the maintenance of an adequate soil mois- ture content, and the satisfactory control of pests and diseases, are among the most important essentials to good yields. Sometimes other factors must be provided for, such as pollination, drainage, and soil fertilization. Much has been said about the human factor in farming, but it is evident that this factor can influence pear yields only through the operations performed or through the methods, timeliness, and thoroughness of their performance. Pruning is the removing of certain parts of the tree in order to main- tain the proper balance between new growth and fruit-bearing wood, so that a good yield may be obtained each year. Through this annual prun- ing, the trees are developed and the set and location of fruit regulated. Yield may be considerably reduced through improper pruning, particu- larly by too severe pruning and the removal of too much fruiting wood. Lack of proper pruning will result in overbearing, poor-quality fruit, and reduced subsequent yields through a lack of new growth and fruit- ing wood. But proper development of the tree may also facilitate other operations and reduce or eliminate the necessity of bracing or propping. Pruning is therefore an important operation and should be well done, with the needs of the trees taking precedence over economy. The prin- ciples of pruning are presented in Bulletin 386.^ Brush disposal as an orchard operation has no influence on yield, but is done chiefly to facilitate other orchard operations. Therefore, the re- moval of large limbs, which will not break up and disappear in tillage, is all that is required. Spraying is always required from one to several times annually to control pests and diseases. Sometimes a dormant spray of a strength sufficient to kill certain scale insects and insect eggs is needed. One or more insecticidal sprays will always be required to prevent wormy fruit. Requirements for other pests vary so much from orchard to or- 5 Professor of Pomology at the University of California in a discussion with the author. 6 Tufts, W. P. Pruning bearing deciduous fruit trees. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 386:1-47. 1925. 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 11 chard and year to year that no general rules can be formulated. Com- lete control of all pests, if possible, would probably be uneconomical. The increased income from each control measure must be more than the cost of that measure in order for the control to be profitable. As the omission of needed sprays, however, may reduce income far more than costs are reduced, the pear grower will do well to ascertain just what sprays are needed in his orchard and then apply them on time and with thoroughness. Cultivation has as its only value to the trees the reducing or eliminat- ing of weed or covercrop competition for soil moisture and the turning under of covercrops or bulky organic fertilizers. The conservation of moisture depends upon the removal of competing plant growth and not upon the creation of a soil mulch, since tillage in a weed-free soil has been shown not to conserve or bring up any moisture. Extension Circu- lar 50" discusses soil management in detail. Cultivation, therefore, may be reduced to the minimum in pear orchards or may be eliminated en- tirely where sufficient moisture is present or can be added by irrigation, so that the pear trees do not suffer from competition. Cultivation early in the spring or shortly after an irrigation when the soil is wet does not conserve moisture but tends to pack the soil immediately below the stirred portion. A plow sole, or plowpan, thus formed retards the pene- tration of irrigation water and may thus reduce the yield and quality of fruit. A cultivation is justified only when it costs less than the replace- ment of such water as would be used by the weeds or competing plants present. Checking or furrowing is performed to facilitate the more efficient application of irrigation water. Where topography and head of water permit the use of contour checks, this method makes possible more com- plete wetting of the soil at a lower labor cost and with less danger of losing water by deep percolation. Check borders or furrows have no value except for the control of irrigation water and need to be remade only when necessary for water distribution. The omission of unnecessary cultivations between irrigations will make it possible to irrigate more than once or twice with the same checks or furrows. Irrigaiion is important to yield, for upon it depends the continuous presence of adequate available moisture in the soil throughout the grow- ing season. It should be done before the soil in any substantial part of the root zone, usually the top 4 feet, reaches the wilting point or degree of dryness beyond which the trees can obtain no moisture. Enough water 7 Veihmeyer, P. J., and A. H. Hendrickson. Essentials of irrigation and cultiva- tion of orchards. California Agr. Ext. Cir. 50:1-23. 1930. 12 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 ^i should then be applied to bring the moisture content of the root zone up to its field capacity. The application of water beyond this amount is wasteful. Extension Circular 50 referred to above gives suggestions for efficient irrigation. Blight control consists of the removal or treatment of twigs or wood infected with the disease, in order to prevent the reduction in size or even loss of the entire tree. The amount of work required varies by years and districts from nothing to an amount involving costs of over $100 an acre in some extremely bad years. Blight may be economically controlled in otherwise good pear districts. In 1930 it extracted an unusually heavy toll in fruit, trees, and expenditures for its control. This hastened the removal of some orchards, many of which were already relatively un- profitable from other causes. The application of fertilizers is seldom required in pear orchards. The majority of local field trials in northern California pear orchards have seldom shown appreciable benefits. Where benefits have been observed they were usually from the application of manure or a commercial nitro- genous fertilizer. Where a need of fertilizer is suspected, a series of test plots might well be used to discover the benefits from different treat- ments before application is made to the entire orchard. A comparison of pear orchards in the enterprise-efficiency studies disclosed the fact that those receiving fertilization and covercropping had heavier yields than those not receiving such treatment. In fairness, however, it must be said that the heavier yields are not sufficient proof of the benefit of fertili- zation. The heavier yields might have been due to other factors, and the fertilization might have been used because heavier yields provided a greater income which would allow this additional expenditure. Covercropping is the practice of growing a crop for the purpose of turning it under to improve soil fertility. Most covercrops in pear or- chards are planted in the fall and turned under in the spring. Several of the cooperators in the pear enterprise-efficiency studies feel that covercropping has benefited their orchards and improved their yields, but in the absence of a check plot this can not be definitely proved. Care- fully acquired experimental evidence to prove the value and extent of covercrop benefits is not yet available. Covercrops properly handled probably do no harm, and may do some good; they might well be used where they can be obtained with no appreciable cost. A volunteer cover- crop may frequently be obtained at no cost by allowing some seed pro- duction before cultivation or by leaving the plants missed by such cul- tivation. ^933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 13 Drainage may sometimes be needed to allow free water to drain out of the root zone. Trees on French roots will stand considerable water when dormant, but feeder roots cannot live without air. A high spring water table may limit feeder roots to the surface soil, and after rapid growth begins the trees may suffer for want of water before roots can begin to function in the deeper soil where moisture is abundant. Trees on Japan- ese roots are very easily damaged by water-logged soil. Where under- drainage is needed it should be provided, although in many cases atten- tion to surface-drainage channels may keep the water table below the danger point. Cross-pollination of pear blossoms, with some varieties and in some localities, is required for fruit production. It follows that where this condition is apt to exist, proper varieties for cross-pollination should be provided. Bees may also occasionally be required to furnish adequate insect carriers of pollen. Extension Circular 62^ includes a summary of pollination requirements of pears. Frost protection has not been practiced in California pear orchards because the complete loss of crop from frost has been rare. Considerable damage to fruit in the nature of frost rings and marks might be pre- vented, but heating will not be profitable while pears are abundant and prices low. The running of water in the orchard during a danger period may, however, be of value, although it gives only a slight or partial protection. Thinning of fruit is usually not practiced in pear orchards, although it has been done in some orchards to secure large fruit of high quality for canning and drying. It has not proved profitable, however, except in some cases where the fruit would not otherwise be salable. Propping and bracing are frequently required to support heavily laden limbs and trees and to prevent breakage. Proper development of the trees from the start can greatly reduce the amount of propping and bracing required. Harvesting of the fruit obviously has no influence on yield except through the timeliness and care with which it is performed. Loss of fruit through mechanical bruises and carelessness is easily reduced by a capa- ble orchard manager. The placing of straw under the trees is frequently done in Lake County to obtain more high-quality drying pears, but no study has been made of the economy of this practice under present low prices. 8 Philp, G. L., and G. H. Vansell. Pollination of deciduous fruits by bees. Cali- fornia Agr. Ext. Cir. 62:1-27. 1932. 14 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 Since yield is so important in securing sufficient income to cover even minimum orchard-maintenance costs, it follows that those above-men- tioned orchard operations necessary to obtain good yields should be per- formed to the required extent. Pruning, spraying, and irrigation are the main essentials. Economy in brush disposal, cultivation, preparing the land for irrigation, and some of the other operations will not impair the ability of the orchard to produce profitable yields so long as moisture is adequate and the trees are protected from the ravages of blight and de- structive pests. The slighting of any essential item of cultural care, how- ever, may easily reduce income more than costs. RELATION BETWEEN COSTS AND PROFIT The other measurable factor in the determination of profit is the total cost per acre. With a given income a reduction in cost will increase profits, but too great a lowering of expenditures for the care of an or- chard may result in an even greater decline in income due to a reduc- tion in yield or quality of fruit. The most profitable level of costs may not therefore be the lowest that can be attained. It is rather the lowest cost at which the most profitable yield of good-quality fruit can be se- cured. It will vary in different orchards and even in the same orchard in different years. Achieving the lowest possible cost level while main- taining or increasing yields and quality of fruit is a task that calls for the greatest managerial ability on the part of the pear grower. Costs of production of pears are conveniently grouped as follows : 1. Labor cost — caring for the orchard and harvesting the fruit. 2. Material cost — irrigation water, spray materials, etc. 3. Cash-overhead cost — taxes, general overhead expenses, etc. 4. Depreciation on trees, equipment, and improvements. 5. Interest on investment. LABOR COSTS Labor costs are those of the field work incidental to maintaining the orchard and harvesting and handling the fruit up to the point of de- livery at the packing-house where the marketing process begins. The costs are composed of those for man labor and for field power such as horses, tractors, and trucks. The man labor is composed of varying pro- portions of hired labor and that performed by the operator and his family. In this study the operator's and family labor is included in the man-labor costs at the customary wage rates. No allowance has been in- 1933 Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 15 eluded for management, although actual field supervision, where hired, was added to the man-labor costs of the operations covered. The cost of field-power units has been included at the hourly cost rate. This rate was computed to cover all costs including interest and depreciation as well as maintenance and operating costs for the power unit used. TABLE 3 Labor Eequirements of a Mature Pear Orchard by Operation Based on Trees Twenty Years of Age and a Yield of 10 Tons per Acre Operations Man labor 2-horse team 10-15 hp. tractor VA-ton motor truck Hours per acre for each operation Pruning, 108 trees at ^2 hour each Brush disposal Planting covercrop by hand Applying fertilizer Blight control Drainage, hand work Each single spray using 2 men and team or each single spray using 3 men and team or each single spray using 3 men and tractor. Furrow once for irrigation using tractor or furrow once using horses Contour check using team or check or ridge using tractor Irrigation, 15 inches, flow 450 gallons per minute Cultivation operations, with horses, total Plow once Disk one way with single disk Cultivate once Harrow once Cultivation operations with tractor, total Disk once with double disk Cultivate or harrow once Permanent wire bracing, each year ^Miscellaneous Propping, and hauling props in and out Picking 10 tons per acre, 11 hours per ton Hauling out of orchard! Hauling, orchardside to marketf or hauling, orchard to market 54 2 10 2 20.0 10 4 4 6.0 4.5 6 15 10 4 12 14.0 5.0 2 15 10 4 2 3 2. 3. 110 1.0* 2.0* 2 0* 2.2 2.0 15 1.0 14.0 5.0 2 1.5 1.0 15* 8 1.5 0.6 4 2 8 0.5 10* 2 0* 2.0* 1.5* 6 10 * As these operations may be done with either a team and wagon or a truck, with the same man- labor requirement, both team and truck hours are shown, although only one would apply. t The hauling out of orchard and hauling orchardside to market need to be considered together, while truck hauling from orchard to market will replace both. Labor Used in the Pear Orchard. — Average labor costs for each opera- tion over a six-year period are available from pear enterprise records. Recent years have witnessed a reduction in the cost of some of these items due to decreasing the amount of labor involved, while all items show a certain reduction in cost due to the lowering of wage rates for 16 California Agricultural Extension Service [CiR. 78 man labor. Costs in former years should, therefore, be interpreted in terms of the quantity of labor used and lower wage rates. Table 3 shows the hours of man labor and field-power work normally expended in the various operations in a mature pear orchard of twenty years of age. This TABLE 4 Computation of Hourly Operating Costs of Field-Power Units (Based on 1932 costs and conditions) Cost items 2-horse team and harness IK-ton motor truck 10-15 hp. tractor* Original cost dollars 270 dollars 800 dollars 1,200 Annual fixed costs Interest at 6 per cent on J/^ of cost dollars 8 2 11 92 26 27 166 dollars 24 17 15 6 80 142 dollars 36 Insurance 3 6 Housing, annual charge for interest and depreciation Maintenance feed, hay and pasture 5 Depreciation, 10 per cent of original cost 120 170 Additional operating cost per hour of operation! Fuel $0.15 a gallon (auto 10.19), grain for team at $1.00 per hundredweight Cylinder oil at $0.60 a gallon Other oils and grease Repairs, parts, tires, etc Servicing labor and harnessing at $0.25 an hour Total operating cost per hour dollars 0.30 06 02 0.08 0.03 0.49 * Tractor with 10 to 15 drawbar-horsepower rating. t The truck hour has been considered the equivalent of 10 miles. table, although based upon the average hours of labor spent, contains certain adjustments to make it an economical standard for a well-man- aged orchard bearing 10 tons of fruit per acre annually. Brush disposal, cultivation, preparation for irrigation, and spraying are slightly re- duced from the average time spent but are not below those shown by many well-managed orchards. The system of management is that fol- lowed by most of the pear-study cooperators, namely, the growing of a winter covercrop which is disked or turned under in the spring, two or 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 17 more crop irrigations in checks or furrows, and a fall irrigation to start the covercrop, which is planted by hand and harrowed. This is not the ideal or best system under all conditions, but will serve as a standard by which the pear grower may judge the efficiency of the operations in his orchard. Cost of Field Power. — From the labor requirements shown in table 3 the cost of each operation can be computed by applying any rate per TABLE 5 Total Cost per Hour of Operation for Field-Power Units WITH Varying Hours of Annual Use Without Driver (Based on 1932 costs and conditions) Hours of annual use 2-horse team and harness VA-ton motor truck 10-15 hp. tractor* 100 dollars 1.70 0.87 59 0.45 0.37 32 25 0.21 0.18 0.16 14 0.13 dollars 1.82 1.12 0.87 0.75 0.67 64 58 54 0.53 52 0.52 51 dollars 2.19 200 1 34 300 1.06 400 91 500 0.83 600 77 800 70 1,000 66 l,200t 0.65 l,400t 64 l,600t 64 l,800t 64 * Tractor with 10 to 15 drawbar-horsepower rating. t For uses up to 1,000 hours annually, depreciation on truck and tractor are assumed to be 10 per cent annually because of obsolescense. For annual uses over 1,000 hours, depreciation is computed hourly and based on a total useful life of 10,000 hours. hour for man labor and field-power units. This table assumes the use of a team of 2 horses, a tractor of 10 to 15 drawbar horsepower, and a 1%- ton truck. The cost per hour of the field-power units depends consider- ably upon the amount of use obtained from each annually. Part of the costs such as housing, maintenance feed, depreciation, and interest on investment occur on an annual basis regardless of use. Other costs are incurred only when work is performed. Table 4 presents a sample set of annual overhead and hourly operating costs for a team and harness cost- ing $270, a 1%-ton motor truck costing $800, and a 10 to 15 drawbar- horsepower tractor costing $1,200. Table 5 shows the total cost per hour of operation of these field-power units for varying amounts of annual use. These costs were based upon 1932 conditions and prices. The cost per hour for team work is about $0.25 when the team is used 800 hours annually. This is approximately the use required when all 18 California Agricultural Extension Service [CiR. 78 the work for a 20-acre orchard is done with horses. Table 12 shows a labor distribution for a 20-acre mature pear orchard with all field power fur- nished by horses. The cost of a truck when used 330 hours to do orchard and highway hauling for a 20-acre orchard would be about $0.83 an hour or $0.08 a mile. A tractor used in combination with a truck on a 20-acre TABLE 6 Average and Standard Labor Costs per Acre for a Mature Pear Orchard Operation Six-year average Pruning Brush disposal Planting covercrop seed Applying fertilizer Blight control Drainage Dormant spray Other sprays ... Preparation for irrigation Irrigation Cultivation Bracing, permanent Miscellaneous Total cultural labor costs Propping and tying Thinning Picking Hauling, orchard to market, etc. Total labor costs dollars 18.83 2.87 1 40 2.66 8.80 1.01 3.31 5.96 2 15 5.15 11.70 1 37 58.71 2.12 1.03 34.25 10 04 104 41 1931 pear records dollars 18.30 2.79 0.98 1.48 5 05 2.65 6.91 1.65 6.67 6.85 51 1.73 50 23 1.72 12 32 94 12 83 97.27 Suggested standard With horses dollars 13.50 75 0.25 1.00 5.50 0.25 1.65 4 95 1.50 3 00 7 00 0.75 50 40 60 1.13 27 50 14 00 83.23 With truck and tractor dollars 13.50 1.33 25 2.16 6.66 0.25 3.00 9 00 1.80 3.00 6 30 75 50 48.50 2 00 27 50 10 80 orchard would have an annual use of about 228 hours at a cost of $1.25 an hour. With cheaper or more expensive power units, rates would be lower or higher accordingly. Adaptation of Field-Power Units to Size of Enterprise. — When the rates under varying hours of use for different field-power units are ap- plied to the labor requirements of a pear orchard, the most economical sources of field power can l)e determined. The application of suitable rates from table 5 to the different operations in different-sized pear or- chards will substantiate the following statements. For orchards up to 20 acres, a team of horses appears to be the most economical, as shown by table 13. The pear grower using horses can put in more of his own time 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 19 and will have a lower cash outlay. He would have to hire the highway hauling of his fruit. An orchard much greater than 20 acres would re- quire more field work than could be done by one team, so for acreages between 25 and 40 a truck and tractor could do all field work and hauling more economically. In orchards over 40 acres there is an advantage in having all three sources of power so that each may be used for the jobs it can do most efficiently. The tractor can do the cultivation and checking most economically. The horses can do light orchard hauling and spray- ing. The truck is best for highway hauling and its ownership and opera- tion costs less for most pear orchards over 20 acres than the hiring of all necessary hauling. The most economical selection of field-power units for a given farm must also take into consideration other farm needs and resources than those of the pear orchard where the latter is not the entire farm. Standard Labor Costs for Each Operation. — In order to furnish a guide or standard for labor costs, table 6 has been prepared. Column 1 shows the average cost of performing each operation as reported in mature orchards during the six years of enterprise-efficiency studies. Column 2 shows the average costs reported in 1931. Column 3 shows costs computed from table 3 with man labor and team work at $0.25 an hour and with a contract price of $1.00 a ton for highway hauling of fruit. Column 4 is also based upon table 3 and varies from column 3 in that the work is done with a truck and tractor at rates which would apply if these power units were used only in a 20-acre orchard and with hourly rates shown in table 5 based on 1932 costs. Columns 3 and 4 of table 6 show the cost for which these various op- erations can be performed under most economical methods. Pruning is based upon the average labor requirement per acre for 108 twenty-year- old trees at the rate of $0,125 per tree as shown in table 7. Brush disposal consists of gathering by wagon or truck onl}^ the large limbs and leaving small prunings to be disked in with the covercrop. Covercrop seed is scat- tered by hand. Provision is made for the application of some fertilizer. An hour per acre is provided for looking after surface drainage. One dormant and three spring sprays are provided in table 6, column 3, with two men and a team, and in column 4, with three men and a tractor. The land is to be checked twice for irrigation — once in the spring after turn- ing in the covercrop, and once for the fall irrigation. Two crop irriga- tions of 6 inches each and one fall irrigation of 3 inches are provided for — the labor requirement being four-fifths of the time water would be used with a flow of 1 cubic foot per second, or 450 gallons per minute. Cultivation would in both cases consist of turning under the covercrop 20 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 in the spring by going over the soil two or three times before checking. No further cultivation would take place until after the second irrigation, when the soil would be cultivated each way to destroy weeds and facili- tate harvesting. A further harrowing is included in connection with seeding the covercrop, after which the second checking and fall irriga- tion would take place. Checks would remain until the spring cultivation and might be used for an early irrigation in case of a dry spring. Systems of Soil Management. — The above-suggested standards for labor costs are designed to fit a bearing orchard managed according to the system most common among growers at the present time. This sys- tem will not exactly fit all individual orchards. A more economical sys- tem, which could be followed for the purpose of economy during a period of low prices, would be as follows : The orchard would be disked two ways in the spring. Checks would then be built and the required irrigations given with no further cultivation except such as would be needed to de- stroy the ridges in order to facilitate hauling of fruit. If a good irriga- tion were given just before this cultivation took place, no further check- ing or cultivation would be necessary until the following spring. Such a program could not be followed where summer weeds, such as morning- glory, are bad. No covercrop would be planted but a volunteer crop would be given an opportunity to grow. Another system, which is successfully followed in a few pear orchards, is to allow a permanent covercrop or sod to become established and to give no regular cultivations. Permanent checks or furrows could be con- structed, and sufficient irrigations would be needed to care for both trees and covercrop. For orchard soil containing the equivalent of about 15 inches of water in the spring before tree growth starts, about 15 inches of additional water would be used by the trees and a few weeds. The per- manent summer covercrop would require from 10 to 20 inches additional water, according to the kind of crop. Where water is pumped with only a shallow lift or where water is cheap and abundant, the cost of the addi- tional water and labor for irrigation would be less than the annual cost of cultivation and checking. Where irrigation is not available, cultivation will have to take place very early in the spring to prevent the use of available soil moisture by weeds. No covercrop can be grown. The soil will also have to be kept reasonably free from weeds throughout the summer in order to conserve the little available moisture for the trees. A dry-farmed orchard on good soil may be profitable, but will probably be less profitable because of lower yields than if irrigation were given. A comparison of irrigated and nonirrigated orchards in Lake and Mendocino counties showed the irri- 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 21 gated orchards to have obtained a greater average yield and a greater net profit per acre over a five-year period. Another modification in the soil-management system is advisable for hillside orchards such as are common in the foothill pear districts. A TABLE 7 Average Time Spent in Pruning Bartlett Pear Trees of Different Ages, and THE Cost at Different Wage Eates* Age at Time per tree Cost per tree at different wage rates pruning time 20 cents per hour 25 cents per hour 30 cents per hour 35 cents per hour 40 cents per hour ijears minutes hours cents cents cents cents cents 1 0.5 0.008 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 32 2 1.5 .025 50 0.63 0.75 0.88 1.00 3 3 .050 1 00 1 25 1 50 1.75 2.00 4 5.0 .083 1.66 2 08 2 49 2 91 3.32 5 8 .133 2.66 3 33 3.99 4.66 5.32 6 11 .183 3.66 4.58 5 49 6.41 7.32 7 13 6 .226 4.52 5 65 6.78 7.91 9.04 8 16 .267 5.34 6 68 8.01 9 35 10.68 9 18 .300 6.00 7.50 9.00 10.50 12.00 10 19.5 .325 6.50 8.13 9.75 11.38 13.00 11 21 .350 7.00 8.75 10.50 12.25 14.00 12 22.0 .367 7.34 9.18 11.01 12.85 14.68 13 23 .383 7.66 9.58 11.49 13.41 15 32 14 24 .400 8.00 10 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 15 25 .417 8.34 10.43 12.51 14.60 16.68 16 26.0 .433 8.66 10.83 12.99 15.16 17.32 17 27 .450 9.00 11 25 13 50 15 75 18 00 18 28 .467 9 34 11.68 14 01 16 35 18.68 19 29 .483 9.66 12 08 14.49 16.91 19.32 20 30.0 .500 10.00 12 50 15 00 17.50 20.00 25 33.0 .550 11.00 13.75 16.50 19.25 22 00 30 34.5 .575 11.50 14.38 17.25 20.13 23.00 35 36.0 .600 12 00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 40 37.0 0.617 12 34 15.43 18 51 21.60 24 68 * Time required for pruning is based on 317 orchard records taken from pear enterprise-efficiency studies for the years 1926-1930. Costs are computed at the various rates using the time shown. For 100 trees per acre the cost per acre would be the above figures expressed as dollars. covercrop should be started in the summer or early fall so that a good soil-binding cover is present to prevent gullying or sheet erosion during the winter rains. This crop could be disked under in the spring after the rains are over and thus reduce the amount of irrigation necessary in the early summer. If no further cultivations were given, a self-seeding 22 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cm. 78 volunteer crop could be well reestablished by the time it is needed in the fall. Effect of Age of Tree on Pruning Cost. — Pruning costs vary consider- ably with the age of the trees and the wage rates paid for this work. Table 7 shows the average time spent in i^runing trees of different ages, and pruning costs at various wage rates. This table may serve as a guide or standard, which the grower may use to compare with the time spent in his orchard. The modified system recommended for pears requires less time than any other if pruning is properly done each year. It costs so little more to do a good pruning job than a poor one that the needs of each tree should be considered above economy. TABLE 8 Materiai. Costs per Acre for Mature Pear Orchards Materials Six-year average Average 1931 Suggested standard 1 2 3 Irrigation water or power for pumping Fertilizers dollars 5.38 6.15 1.51 4 33 4.58 0.61 0.46 1.40 15.00 dollars 7.42 5.86 1.11 3.72 6.05 0.71 0.37 1.78 18.13 dollars 5.00 1 50 2 00 Dormant spray materials 4 80 Other spray materials 6 20 60 1.00 Miscellaneous 50 Average total 21 60 MATERIAL COSTS Material costs are those incurred for irrigation water, spray mate- rials, covercrop seed, fertilizers, and minor items. Requirements vary so much from orchard to orchard that no attempt will be made to give actual quantities. Expenditures for materials essential to the production of heavy yields and high-quality fruit cannot be curtailed or omitted without great danger of reducing income. The only safe economy meas- ure pertaining to material costs is to limit the kind and quantity of materials used to those which are necessary, and then select and pur- chase these quantities through the most economical channels. In some cases expenditures for materials might well be increased, namely, where additional water, spray material, or fertilizers would result in sufficient increase in yield and income to more than offset the increased cost. Material costs in detail are shown in table 8. Column 1 shows the six- year averages obtained from mature pear-orchard records in the enter- 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 23 prise-efficiency studies. Column 2 shows the average costs in 1931. Col- umn 3 is a suggested standard for the present and immediate future. Not all orchards found expenditures necessary for all the items shown, so the average total material cost in columns 1 and 2 is less than the sum of the costs for the separate items. The average total in column 3 is the sum of all the items, although many orchards would not require all of them. The suggested standards of costs shown in table 8 are based upon small, regular, annual expenditures. Irrigation-water cost is lower than the average shown because of possible increases in efficiency, both in securing the water and in its application. In bottom lands of good mois- ture-holding capacity, about 15 inches of irrigation water should be sufficient. This could be pumped at a power cost of from $2 to $10 an acre, according to the lift and the suitability or efficiency of the pumping plant. Interest and depreciation on the pumping plant would be about $6 an acre more; these items are generally not considered as direct ma- terial costs but appear as part of the depreciation and interest charges. Efficient irrigation — that is, properly distributing the correct amount of water over the soil at the right time — offers considerable opportunity for a saving in water cost. This may require the use of a soil tube or auger for the examination of the soil moisture in the root zone of the trees. The size of checks or the length of furrows must also be suited to the type of soil and the rate of flow of water. Where satisfactory yields are obtained, expenditures for fertilizers are usually unnecessary. In the standard costs, $1.50 an acre each year is provided to cover the cost of fertilizer to individual trees and for ex- perimentation. The costs shown by actual records appear much greater, but those figures apply to only the acreages reporting fertilization and not to the entire acreage in the pear enterprise studies, most of which did not use any fertilizer. An expenditure for covercrop seed is usually unnecessary if the crop can be left late enough to' set seed or if no cul- tivation is performed. Where a covercrop is desired, turning under such crops as bur clover, mustard, vetches, filaree, and native grasses after some seed has set will generally result in an adequate volunteer cover- crop. A small annual expenditure for wire and screw eyes for permanent bracing of certain trees is an economy in that it reduces the recurring annual cost of propping, hooking, or tying up certain limbs. 24 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 CASH OVERHEAD COSTS Cash overhead costs consist of taxes, repairs, insurance, and general overhead expenses. Pear enterprise records in this study have included an arbitrary allowance equal to 5 per cent of the total labor and mate- rial costs to cover such items as telephone, use of family car, office sup- plies, and interest on current operating-capital needs. Actual records on some of these enterprises show this estimate to be approximately correct for the average-sized orchard. Taxes, machinery repairs, and compensa- tion insurance are not subject to very much control on the part of the orchard operator. Table 9 shows these costs in the past and a suggested standard for the future. TABLE 9 Cash Overhead Costs per Acre iit Mature Pear Orchards Items of cash overhead General expense (5 per cent of total labor and material cost) Taxes, county Machinery and equipment repairs Compensation insurance, on pay roll of hired labor Average total cash overhead Six-year average dollars 5.86 9.70 2.80 1.58 17.83 Average 1931 dollars 5.77 8 50 1.93 1.92 17.21 Suggested standard dollars 5.30 7.50 1 00 0.75 14 55 DEPRECIATION Depreciation is that amount which must be set aside each year in order to accumulate sufficient funds to replace those facilities that are now being used, when they shall have been worn out or depleted. Trees, improvements, and equipment all require an initial investment which must be largely in cash. These capital outlays are not charged to any one year but are charged in installments over the period of years during which the earning power of these facilities is utilized. Depreciation, although frequently overlooked as a current expense, is nevertheless an expense or cost that must be met. The cost of bringing a young orchard into bearing is about $400 an acre. Tables 18, 19, and 20, in the Appendix, show costs for young or- chards in detail. A pear planting is assumed to live from forty to seventy-five years. If trees are in normal production from the tenth to the fiftieth year, the $400 original cost may be charged as depreciation 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 25 at $10 a year per acre. Such a charge would replace the initial outlay- to the grower by the time the average orchard became unproductive from old age. Depreciation on improvements and equipment shows considerable variation in different orchards. Such variation is due not only to equip- ment chosen, but also to the acreage upon which such equipment is used. Most equipment used in a pear orchard is not used to capacity, therefore TABLE 10 Depreciation and Interest on Investment Charges per Acre for Mature Pear Orchards Six-year average Average 1931 Suggested standard 1 2 3 dollars 11.10 1 70 5 99 18.79 22.94 1.52 2.29 15.74 42.49 61.28 dollars 8.04 1 43 6.65 16.12 24.87 1 31 2.45 11 41 40 04 56 16 dollars 10.00 Depreciation on improvemenis 1 50 8 50 20 00 Interest on value of trees at 6 per cent Interest on value of improvements at 6 per cent 12 00 1 45 Interest on value of equipment at 6 per cent 3 65 Interest on value of land at 6 per cent Total interest on investment per acre Total interest and depreciation per acre 12.00 29.10 49 10 an increase in acreage would result in a lower cost per acre. For ex- ample, a spray rig used on 10 acres would result in a depreciation charge per acre almost five times as great as if it were used for 50 acres. Econ- omy in overhead charges for depreciation and for interest on the invest- ment is attained by selecting only such equipment as is suited to the acreage involved and by using this equipment as long as possible. Proper care, repair, and housing of such equipment as lug boxes, ladders, and hand tools can greatly reduce the cost of replacement. The life of most implements and orchard equipment varies from about five to over twenty years, according to the care and amount of use annually. Most equipment can be made to last a minimum of ten years even with heavy use. The annual depreciation charge should therefore be from 5 to 10 per cent for equipment, while in the case of buildings 26 California Agricultural Extension Service l^^^- ^^ and pipe lines a rate as low as 2 per cent of the initial cost may occa- sionally be attained. A complete list of equipment with initial cost and annual charges for interest and depreciation is presented in tables 21 and 22 in the Appendix. These tables may serve as a guide, although everything shown may not be necessary. Table 21 shows the original costs of land, trees, equipment, and improvements, upon which standard interest and depreciation costs in table 10 are based. The average invest- ment per acre for each class of facility is shown in table 22. The average investment is obtained by dividing half the original cost by the acres served, since the average investment over the useful life of an item that wears out is half of the original cost. The average investment in trees is likewise assumed to be half the cost of $400 an acre. Consequently the standard figure shown in table 10 for interest on investment in trees is less than that shown by actual records, since values in actual records were assumed to be higher at the time these records were figured. Table 10 shows a summary of depreciation costs as computed for the pear or- chards in the enterprise-efficiency studies. Column 3 is based upon the complete equipment shown in tables 21 and 22 and is suggested as a maximum standard necessary. INTEREST ON INVESTMENT Strictly speaking, interest on invested capital is not an actual expense or cost that must be met each year except to the extent that the operator is using borrowed capital upon which interest must be paid. It has its place, however, among recognized costs of production. An enterprise attracts capital or invites investment only when it offers a fee or wage for the use of that capital. In pear enterprise records a charge of 6 per cent for the present net capital invested has been included as an ex- pense. Land was usually appraised at market value, while trees, im- provements, and equipment were valued at initial cost less previously charged depreciation. Table 10 shows a summary of these charges. The consideration of interest and depreciation as costs of production makes possible the evaluation of certain schemes for equipping and man- aging an orchard enterprise. For example, an orchardist, by an invest- ment of $38 an acre, may provide a pipe line to replace head ditches for the delivery of irrigation water. Interest on this investment throughout a thirty-three year life of the pipe would average $1 per acre, which com- bined with $1 depreciation, would result in an overhead cost of $2 an acre for this pipe. It should, therefore, save $2 annually in irrigation cost to be a justifiable expense. 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 27 RECAPITULATION OF ALL COSTS A recapitulation of various groups of costs which have been discussed is shown in table 11. The costs shown by pear enterprise records for the six-year period are given on an acreage basis in table 16 of the Appendix and on a tonnage basis in table 17. Since costs have been somewhat re- duced from previous levels, the costs shown in column 3 of table 11 are suggested as a better standard for present conditions. TABLE 11 Eecapitulation of All Costs per Acre for Mature Pear Orchards Dollars per acre Six-year average Average 1931 Suggested standard 200 2,517.7 15.7 94 1 7.68 18 194.5 14.5 110.9 10.26 Total acreage included 20.0 Average number of trees per acre 108 9 10.0 Cultural labor 58.71 45.70 50 23 47.04 42 90 Propping, harvesting, and hauling fruit 41.85 Total labor 104 41 15.00 17.83 97.27 18.13 17.21 84.75 Materials 21 60 14 55 137.24 18.79 132.61 16.12 120.90 Depreciation (trees, improvements, and eauipment) 20 00 Total cash, labor, and depreciation 156 03 42.49 198.52 148.73 40 04 188.77 140 90 29.10 Total all costs per acre 170 00 All costs per ton with yields shown 25.85 18.40 17.00 DETERMINATION OF OPERATOR'S FARM INCOME The actual farm income of the pear grower from his enterprise is com- posed of net profit plus the value of his own labor, phis that part of the interest on investment which does not have to be paid out as interest on borrowed capital. In other words, it is the amount by which income ex- ceeds cash expenses and depreciation. Practically speaking, however, 28 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 b 1 S s O o ■* ->*< CO § i o CO g 1 ; 1 : |i OOOOOOOO-^OOOOO \ ^ SSI; 1 lo" i>r c^f 6 i; O : o O 1 ; 1 i - 1 §: 8§ i - - 1 - 1 ° : §g 1 8 \ 1 § i §§ ; o CO o o O CO 1 ^ ^8 !2 1 o -^ < O lO '-5 s §§ ^i" ^ (M cr> 1 t^ ^ <^ - 1 1-5 § 00 oo 8 o ^ 00 O 00 •<*< oo O. CO CO >5 i 00 o 00 CO o oo O 00 Tf< 1 <3 g s § o o CD ■<»< o ggs i l§ § i o o o o ^-5 i o ■ 2 2 ' c I c p 3 t u Hi H P J 2 ^ 3 3 i u ** •- t 5 .; 3 3 2;! 5 P ; c ?! 5 - < 5 C h - C 3 ° - H :. 3 ^ i « : C ; 'i u 3 H t- : i : -"a i fl ! j i s - s 2 c a c 3 i ; p I = 1 3 "i;: 3 3 t 3 p I i 3 t X c 2. T : : ^ ; ^ ; c i "c • + : c i, t : *■ 3 c i T i t : ;i i 1 i 1 ^ I u t.l 3 3 i t> i 3 3 3 ^ 3 C 5 I t i 1 c- C > 1. £ c 1 i 1 1 ;5 > 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 29 the grower usually considers available for personal uses all income above cash costs. He does not set aside a depreciation allowance to build up a reserve for replacing improvements, equipment, and trees, but usually makes from available income such expenditures as are required. How- ever, over a long period of years such replacement expenditures would result in an annual average amount equal to the computed depreciation charge and would reduce the income available for personal uses by that amount. All labor cost tables in this circular include the value of the grower's own labor. Labor costs are also considered cash costs in their entirety on the theory that where all labor is hired, cash must be paid for all of it and where the operator performs part of the labor, cash in the form of wages will also be required for his maintenance. Therefore, a pear en- terprise showing no net profit or loss would yield to the operator wages for the labor performed, interest for his investment, and an allowance for depreciation. The greater the operator's participation in the actual labor of the enterprise, the greater would be his personal income. By using the schedule of operations for which standard costs in table 6 were computed, a calendar of operations is presented in table 12. A 20- acre orchard in which all w^ork is done with horses is used as the basis of this table. The operator is shown to be able to perform most of the cultural labor except for some help needed for pruning, brush disposal, blight control (when necessary), and spraying. Practically all the pick- ing will need to be hired, since the operator will haul the fruit out of the orchard and supervise the picking. Table 12 shows a 20-acre orchard worked with a team of horses to afford employment of the operator for at least 2,353 hours, or 261 9-hour days. Similar calendars of operations have been worked out for other-sized orchards and for other kinds of equipment and are summarized briefly in table 13. The larger the size of orchard operated as a unit, the greater the oper- ator's total farm income, if prices are high enough to yield any farm in- come. Although the operator can participate to a smaller extent in the labor performed in a larger orchard and thus have a smaller income from labor per acre farmed, the larger acreage will still result in a greater farm income. Table 13 shows the total farm income of the oper- ator for 10, 20, 30, and 40-acre orchards yielding 10 tons of fruit per acre and with fruit selling for $15 a ton. This figure is used because it is near the average price for 1930, 1931, and 1932. The standard costs are also based upon prices and wages prevailing during this period. By using these same costs but different fruit prices or yields, farm incomes for other conditions may be estimated from table 13. 30 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 TABLE 13 Standard Labor and Tield-Power Inputs and Costs and Operator's Farm Income for Five Orchards of Different Size and Field-Power Equipment Size of unit and field power used 10 acres with 2-horse team 20 acres with 2-horse team 20 acres with truck and tractor 30 acres with truck and tractor 40 acres with 2 horses, truck, and tractor* Hours of work for entire unit Maximum hours of operator's labor 1,660 2,353 2,228 2,400 2,400 Hours of hired labor needed 945 2,699 2,640 4,902 7,400 Total hours of man labor 2,605 5,052 4,868 7,302 9,800 Hours of 2-horse team work 385 806 696 330 228 495 342 360 Hours of tractor work 216 Total labor cost in dollars for entire unit Operator's labor at $0.25 an hour Hired labor at $0.25 an hour 415.00 236.25 588.25 674.75 557.00 660.00 600.00 1,225.50 600.00 1,850.00 Total cost of man labor Cost of horses 651.25 181.40 1,263.00 201.50 1,217.00 1,825.50 2,450.00 174 00 Cost of 13^-ton truck 273.90 285.00 340 00 337.60 306 00 Cost of 10 to 15-db. hp. tractor 270.00 Cost of contract hauling at $1.00 a ton... 100 00 200.00 932.65 1,664.50 1,775.90 2,503.10 3,200.00 All costs per acre, in dollars Total labor cost 93.27 21.00 15.70 83.23 21.00 14.50 88.80 21 00 14.75 83.44 20 05 14.75 80.00 Total material costf 19.60 14.80 Total cash costs .. . 129.97 25.54 118.73 21.79 124.55 22.19 118.24 20.36 114 40 Depreciation! 19.56 155.51 31.86 140 52 29.58 146.74 29.94 138.60 28.66 133 96 28 13 Total all costs 187.37 170.10 176.68 167.26 162 09 Income and costs for entire enterprise. in dollars Income, 10 tons per acre, $15.00 a ton Total costs 1,500.00 1,873.70 3,000 00 3,402.00 3,000.00 3,533.60 4,500.00 5,017.80 6,000 00 6,483.60 Net profit -373.70 318.60 -402 00 591.60 -533.60 598.80 -517.80 859.80 —483 60 Plus interest on invesment 1,125.20 Capital and management income Plus value of operator's labor -55 10 415 00 189.60 588.25 65.20 557.00 342.00 600 00 641.60 600.00 Operator's farm income 359.90 777.85 622.20 942.00 1,241.60 * Table 23 in the Appendix shows labor requirements and costs in detail for the 40-acre orchard. t Material cost varies with cost of power for pumping. X Depreciation and interest appear in detail in table 22 in the Appendix. 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 31 HOW THE PEAR GROWER MAY UTILIZE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS CIRCULAR The grower who desires to make a complete application of the mate- rial in this circular will probably find it advantageous to pursue the following course. The first step is to determine whether the orchard in question should be operated or removed. The soil would need to be ex- amined for depth and suitability. Reference to a soil-survey map, if one is available, would help determine whether or not the soil were one upon which pears could be expected to thrive. The average yield per acre of this orchard for the past few years should be compared with the yield for the proper age shown in figure 1. If the yield is much lower than this average, the reasons ought to be determined. Low yield may be due to soil or location, or to one or more limitations which might be overcome by a change in cultural care. If, because of soil handicap, yield has been considerably lower for several years than the average for orchards of that age, and if costs have not been low enough to allow the operator a return above cash costs, the operation of the orchard will probably con- tinue to be unprofitable. If, however, low yields are known to be due to other than soil handicaps, perhaps a change in management or care of the orchard may render it profitable. If it appears that the orchard has an opportunity to earn a profit in the future with proper care and management, the next step is to attack the problems of yield. Soil moisture, soil fertility, pruning, pest and disease control, drainage, and pollination, should all be checked to locate the factor that is limiting yield. The grower should be very careful in making this decision and might well study the methods and results of other pear growers. Where doubt exists test blocks could be used to try out measures that might improve yields. A correction of cultural limita- tions should allow a gradual increase in yield. The quality of the fruit sold each year should be compared with that from other orchards. The marketing organization handling the fruit usually has facts and figures for such an impartial comparison. Where fruit is below the average quality for the community, the cause should be easily ascertained. If the off-grade fruit is due to a certain pest or disease, an improvement in the proper control measures should result in better fruit. Where a large part of the fruit is unsalable because of a rootstock or location handicap, there is little that can be done, and abandonment of the orchard should be considered. The third step to take is to compare costs, or time spent and materials used, with those of other orchards. Here is where a detailed record of the 32 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 TABLE 14 Comparison of Actual Orchard Records to a Standard Orchard A Orchard B Orchard C Suggested standard 35 6.0 84.1 13 10.6 91.0 11 2 72 20 Average yield, tons per acre 10 90.0 Dollars per ton Average price (five-year period) Average cost (five-year period).. Net profit Average harvesting cost 17.00 4.19 Dollars per acre Pruning and brush disposal Covercropping and fertilizing* Blight control Spraying* Irrigation* Cultivation Total cultural labor costs Harvesting labor costs Total labor costs Total material costs Cash overhead costs Total cash and labor costs Depreciation Total cash, labor, and depreciation Interest on investment Total all costs Income per acre, average 1926-1930 Income above cash costs Capital and management income Net profit per acre Average investment per acre Estimate, 1930-1932 conditions Income per acre at $15.00 a ton Cash and labor costs Income above cash and labor costs 24.61 29 40 23.24 66.77 48.03 114.80 20.96 15.00 150.76 28.86 179.62 36 35 215.97 177.47 26.71 -2 15 -38.50 602.37 90 00 105.00 15.00 35 03 15.20 1.48 14 35 19 01 16.67 73 34 76.42 149.76 20.98 19 11 189.85 24.16 214 01 38 62 252.63 398.50 208.65 184.49 145.87 675.95 180 00 104 00 76 00 10.66 6.85 9.60 11.28 9.56 39.35 12.25 51 60 5.82 11.30 68.72 14.48 83.20 40.49 123.69 67.84 -0.88 -15 36 -55.85 674.95 45 00 52 00 -7.00 14 83 6.00 6.00 22.00 8.00 6.50 42.90 41.85 84.75 21.60 14.55 120.90 20.00 140.90 29.10 170.00 150 00 120.90 29.10 * Composed of both labor and material costs. 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 33 cost of each operation becomes most valuable. Such a set of costs should be computed on the same basis as the costs appearing in tables 6 to 11, so that they may be compared with the standard costs shown herein. Aver- age pruning time and costs are shown in table 7 for each age of tree. This table enables the grower to check up on the time spent in pruning a tree or on the contract price. Other operation requirements and costs are shown in tables 3 and 6. The prevailing wage rates applied to stand- ard labor requirements shown in table 3 should enable the grower to compute a special standard for each operation in his orchard. Cooper- ators in these enterprise-efficiency studies have cost records which can be used for comparison with the material contained in this circular. In order to show how such records can be used in connection with this material, three examples are given in table 14. These are five-year aver- ages for actual orchards for the period 1926 to 1930, A standard is shown in the last column to enable direct comparisons without referring to pre- vious tables. The reader may set figures for his orchard in the margin. Income per acre at $15 a ton is also shown — this price being about the average for 1930, 1931, and 1932. Orchard A was thirty-five years old and had a yield of 6 tons per acre for the period, whereas the standard yield shown in figure 1 for orchards of this age is 11.5 tons. The soil-survey map shows this orchard to be partly on suitable soil and partly on poor upland soil. It has received no irrigation, fertilization, or covercropping. During the period covered a loss was incurred. With the same yield and with fruit at $15 a ton, in- come would be $90 an acre. With some reductions in costs, such as har- vesting and cultivation, but with about the same care, cash and labor costs alone would be $105 an acre. Therefore, it would not pay to con- tinue this orchard as in the past. Yield would have to be virtually doubled to bring it up to the standard. The operator has concluded that lack of moisture is the limiting factor in this orchard. This grower has arrived at the conclusion that he must secure a water supply or abandon the orchard. The costs involved and the waiting period before yields can be built up to standard, make the solution difficult. Orchard B, with an average age of thirteen years, had a yield of 10.6 tons for the five-year period. The yield was 50 per cent above the yield shown in figure 1 for that age, and conditions are favorable for the production of maximum crops at low cost in the future. It can be esti- mated that with fruit at $15 a ton, income will more than cover cash and labor costs by about $76 an acre. Comparison of costs with the standard, however, shows that pruning, fertilizing, irrigating, cultivating, and 34 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 harvesting costs are high. In 1931 this orchard had a yield of 16.8 tons per acre and was handled without any cultivation. Orchard C, with an average age of eleven years, had a yield of 2 tons per acre. This orchard is on unsuitable pear soil, as shown by the soil survey, and even with irrigation and great economy of operation was unprofitable for the period. With a yield of less than half of the standard for the age, as shown by figure 1, continuation of this orchard probably will fail to bring a profit to the owner. SUMMARY The net profit from a pear orchard depends upon the yield per acre, the price per ton for fruit, and the costs per acre. Although chance or conditions over which the grower has no control may influence profit through one of these three channels, the average level of profits or losses over a long period of years depends considerably upon the management or handling of the orchard. Since the yield per acre varies widely, the greatest opportunity for increasing individual profit is by increasing yield per acre. It will, of course, be necessary to keep production costs below income, but it is more nearly possible to keep costs below a large income than a small one. Some orchards, however, are so handicapped by poor soil or other conditions that with the limited yields obtainable and present low pear prices, in- come may be below costs for many years. It will be more profitable to remove or abandon such poor orchards than to continue to operate them at a loss. A regular succession of good yields depends largely upon the proper regulation of tree development and fruit-bearing by pruning, the con- stant presence of an adequate supply of soil moisture, and the satisfac- tory control of pests and diseases. In addition to these universal re- quirements soil drainage, pollination, and fertilizing are occasionally necessary. The price obtained for fruit in any season may be influenced by the grower through the quality of the fruit produced. Fruit quality depends largely upon the same essential factors which make for large yields. Lower costs of production per acre will increase the net profits or re- duce the losses only so far as savings are possible without reducing the yield or quality of fruit and thereby the income per acre. Economy may well be applied to all operations, but should not be carried too far with the essential operations of pruning, spraying, blight control (when necessary), and irrigation. The greater opportunities for savings in 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 35 labor cost exist in less essential operations such as brush disposal, cul- tivation, and preparation for irrigation. More efficient application of irrigation water offers a limited opportunity for saving in water cost in some cases. Even with the best management, profits from pear production under present economic conditions will be small. It is, however, possible for the grower under present conditions to increase his personal income by per- forming as much of his labor as possible and following a system of man- agement which will result in a low cash outlay. APPENDIX: BASIC TABLES 38 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cir. 78 TABLE 15 Bartlett Pear Enterprise-Efficiency Studies in California by Year AND County County 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Total for six years Number of mature orchard records* El Dorado 17 9 26 15 11 26 20 11 31 5 14 12 8 8 47 5 14 15 6 12 52 4 14 18 14 Lake Mendocino Placer 80 72 14 Sacramento Total mature orchard records 20 200 Number of young orchard recordsf El Dorado 11 20 31 57 11 16 27 53 7 14 21 52 8 6 10 4 3 31 78 2 6 9 5 25 77 4 10 14 32 14 Lake Mendocino Placer 41 79 9 Sacramento 6 149 349 * Mature orchard records are those of orchards nine years old and older at the beginning of the crop year. t Young orchards are those below nine years of age. 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 39 TABLE 16 General Summary of Pear Enterprise-Efficiency-Study Kecords Showing Costs and Returns per Acre in Mature Orchards over a Six-Year Period 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Six- year average Number of records 26 312.8 16.4 78.5 9.29 26 323.8 16 5 85.2 6.89 31 366.4 14.6 81.0 7.73 47 596.8 16.2 105.0 5.71 52 723.4 15.8 104 6.21 18 194.5 14.5 110.9 10.26 200 Total acreage 2,517.7 15.7 Average trees per acre 94.1 7.68 Dollars per acre Cultural labor 48.19 54.07 102 26 10 54 17.25 51.92 42.51 51.94 48.02 66.39 41.00 83.62 41 58 50.23 47.04 58.71 Fruit handling 45.70 Total labor 94.43 8 23 15.99 99,96 12.20 16.02 107.39 21 35 18.89 125.20 19.54 21.63 97.27 18.13 17.21 104.41 15 00 Total cash overhead 17 83 Total cash and labor 130.05 20.86 118.65 19.41 128.18 22.16 147.63 16 00 166.37 18.12 132.61 16.12 137.24 18.79 150.91 41.27 138.06 40.55 150.34 41.17 163.63 45.76 184.49 46.17 148.73 40.04 156.03 Interest on investment 42.49 Total all costs 192.18 320.19 190.14 169.28 128.01 178.61 296.30 177.65 158.24 117.69 191 51 361.84 233.66 211.50 170.33 209.39 429 15 281.52 265.52 219.76 230.66 134.48 -31.89 -50 01 -96.18 188.77 254.44 121.83 105.71 65.67 198.52 Income per acre Income above cash and labor costs 299.40 162 16 143.37 Net profit 100.88 40 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cm. 78 TABLE 17 Costs and Returns per. Ton for Mature Orchards Shown by Pear Enterprise- Efficiency-Study Eecords over a Six- Year Period 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Six- year average Number of orchards 26 9.29 26 6.89 31 7.73 47 5.71 52 6.21 18 10.26 200 7.68 Dollars per ton Cultural labor 5.19 5.82 7.53 6.17 6.72 6.22 11.63 7.19 13.45 6.69 4.89 4.59 7 64 Fruit harvesting and handling 5.95 Total labor 11.01 13.70 12.94 18.82 20.14 9.48 13.59 Total material 1.13 1.86 1.19 2.32 1 58 2.07 3.74 3 31 3.14 3.48 1.77 1.68 1 95 Total cash overhead 2 33 Total cash and labor 14.00 17.21 16.59 25.87 26.76 12.93 17.87 Depreciation 2.24 2.82 2.87 2.80 2.92 1.57 2.45 Total cash, labor, and depreciation 16.24 20.03 19.46 28.67 29.68 14 50 20.32 Interest on investment 4.44 5.88 5,33 8.02 7.43 3.90 5.53 Total all costs 20.68 25.91 24.79 36.69 37.11 18 40 25.85 Income 34.47 43.00 46.81 75 16 21.66 24 80 38.98 Income above cash and labor 20 47 25.79 30 22 49.29 -5.10 11.87 21.11 Income above all but interest 18.23 22.97 27.35 46 49 -8 02 10 30 18 66 Net profit 13.79 17.09 22.02 38.47 -15.45 6.40 13 13 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 41 g o W CO w 2 5 3 PH o c^ ^ S (in * p :zi . CO -TJH (M 1— 1 00 >. ? I CO CO . OS O s§g o CO -<*< o CO ai ^ ^ a 2 o b CI o S S 2 § J3 .2i ^ ^ 1 §88S^S? C GO lO 05 — CS lO 1 S g ?5 s :S o S g 8 S 5 § 5 »o r^ CO oc CN •^ CT> oo lO CD CD O 00 1 O CD u- CT> C^ o oo oc CO O O 05 CC CO oo — «- 00 t^ 00 lO 00 <- er: CD -* c; rr or ) l> C— 1 »c ?5 oo c 00 on CO (M g »o oc g oc CO irq 1^ CO t^ r- O o o o >o on r- c If: c o ic o lO J -a c 03 03 >> o a T3 =^i T3 t3 a s _o e! 1- - 1 -^ CC C _J2 o .2 a "o 1 T « j a c a £ £ 12 C G I 1 y ^ " fe S u ^ cS O K II c "S 1 1 3 e2 E 1 > o 3 01 a 8 1 i -< r ra H a* 5 a go ■52 <*- a -^2 g' «*& Q a ^•^ . =^ cS cj o3 p .2 o a ^- ^ OJ oo ^ O ° a*^ o*- a^s^lS -5 s OQ '-—I OD o 03 -S 2 11 42 California Agricultural Extension Service [CiR. 78 § 2 O ^ »C 05 00 oo 00 Tt< cq -H O —i o c^ lO 05 OS o 1-- t-- ccoooocqt^osot^oo-^ O i-i --H lO cc s r- e? T^ lO -H ,-1 Oi r^ «o (M OS 05 00 CO C*<'-HOO sssss^^^ CO CO CO CO "—I s O-iHOOO^OrH T-i CS O O —1 p .-HO 'H CO CO o ^ OOlOi— l-^COOSOOCO OSrtlOOOCOt^lOOS OO^hO'^OOO CO e*< lO CO .— I O O O . % -o 0)^:3 iJ.H b-^ ^ fe ftO §1 ■5 8 K^ o ^ s*i ^-fl "*- t*-l O o -3^ > 03 S^ -G " -u O «^ T3 ^§ CD l| fe-a ^ « o-d ^5! 13 Q o CI a V l-l ou -i tu hr >> G t3 ^ ^•s ■0 11 * O) >) 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 43 < W o Pi O O > o w < o Q S CO ec i-i <>i ec O C 05 t^ O — 1 CO T-H CO d CO CO S 2 JH g T-i oo CO 00 ^ s cq 0.78 2.27 4.15 2 12 3.00 0.24 0.96 1.32 5.48 2.87 7.26 05 CJCOOO-H CD 05C0- lO->* Oi CJ lO " ^ '■$■ 8 .2 2 > 00 C 1 < > c ,"2 C a I t 1 * s 1 <1 li Is o > a 1 > C 03 t c C G .2 £ 8 I O 5 i 1 o o a> dg a o ^ O as go o a; n1 ei >> -Q^ IT +-> a> o c1 J a; 01 Xi s S ^ J3 44 California Agricultural Extension Service [CiR. 78 TABLE 21 Sample Investment Costs for a Mature Pear Orchard^ Items of investment Size of unit and field power used 10 acres with 2-horse team 20 acres with 2-horse team 20 acres with truck and and tractor 30 acres with truck and and tractor 40 acres with 2 horses, truck, and tractor Original costs for entire orchard enterprise, in dollars Land at 1200 per acre 2,000.00 4,000 00 200.00 500.00 190.00 400.00 30.00 330.00 500.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 300.00 500.00 380.00 500 00 30.00 660.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 300.00 500 00 380.00 500.00 30.00 660 00 6,000 00 12,000.00 350.00 500.00 570.00 500 00 30.00 990.00 8,000 00 Trees at S400 per acre, cost at profitable bearing age 16,000 00 Housing for equipment Spray rig 400,00 500 00 Props and braces . 760 00 Irrigation system : Well, cased 500 00 30.00 Pipe at $0.50 a foot, including gates, etc. 225 gallon deep-well pump, 5-hp. motor 1,320 00 450gallondeep-wellpump, 10-hp. motor 700.00 700.00 700.00 700 00 Total irrigation system 1,260 00 270.00 1,890.00 270 00 1,890.00 2,220.00 2 550 00 Field-power investment: Horses and harness 270 00 Tractor, 10 to 15 db. hp. 1,200.00 800.00 200 00 1,200.00 800.00 200.00 1,200 00 Truck, VA-ton, stake body 800.00 Housing for above 200.00 200 00 400 00 Total field-power investment Tillage equipment: Plow, 12-inch, walking 470 00 20 00 65 00 100.00 20.00 470.00 20 00 65 00 100.00 20.00 2,200 00 2,200 00 2,670 00 200 00 200.00 90 00 16.00 200.00 200 00 90.00 16.00 200 00 Cultivator and furrower 200 00 Harrow 90 00 Other equipment, ridger, drag, etc. 16 00 Total tillage equipment 205.00 35.00 125 00 15 00 70 00 20.00 205 00 70 00 250.00 30.00 70 00 25 00 506.00 70 00 250 00 30 00 12.00 25.00 506 00 105.00 375 00 45.00 12.00 30 00 506 00 Miscellaneous equipment: Ladders, 14 feet, at $7.00 each . .. 140 00 Lug boxes at $0.25 each 500 00 Picking bags at $3.00 each . 60 00 Wagon or sled 70 00 Miscellaneous small tools 30 00 Total miscellaneous equipment Grand total investment 265.00 9,090 00 445 00 16,190.00 387.00 18,163 00 567.00 24,913.00 800.00 32 186 00 * This table shows the original cost upon which standard-equipment overhead costs are based. As acreage increases the total investment necessary increases less rapidly, and thus results in a lower invest- ment per acre in larger orchards. 1933] Bartlett Pear Orchard Management 45 TABLE 22 Standard Investment per Acre and Interest and Depreciation Charges for a Mature Pear Orchard* Items Average investment per acre:t Land Trees at H of $400 Housing for equipment Irrigation system Tillage tools Spray rig Props and braces Ladders, lugs, etc Subtotal Horses and harness Tractor Truck Housing for field power. Total investment Interest per acre at 6 per cent on the average value of: Land Trees Housing for equipment Irrigation system Tillage tools Spray rig Props and braces Ladders, lugs, etc Size of unit and field power used nterest.. Totjil Interest on field-power equipment and housing (in labor cost) Depreciation: Trees Housing for equipment.. Irrigation system Tillage tools Spray rig Props and braces Ladders, lugs, etc Total depreciati Depreciation on field-power equipment and housing (in labor cost) 10 acres with 2 horses dollars 200.00 200.00 10.00 63.00 10.25 25.00 9.50 13.25 531.00 13.50 10.00 554.50 12.00 12.00 0.60 3.78 0.62 1.50 0.56 0.80 31.86 1.41 10.00 50 7.08 1.03 3.33 0.95 2.65 25.54 2.30 20 acres with 2 dollars 200.00 200.00 7.50 47.25 5.13 12.50 9.50 11.13 493.01 6 75 5.00 504.76 12 00 12.00 0.45 2.84 0.31 0.75 0.56 0.67 29.58 0.70 10.00 0.38 5.45 0.93 1.67 0.95 2.41 21.79 1.15 20 acres 30 acres with truck with truck and tractor and tractor dollars 200.00 200.00 7.50 47.25 12.65 12.50 9.50 9 68 499.08 30 00 20.00 5.00 554. 12.00 12.00 0.45 2.84 0.76 0.75 0.56 0.58 29.94 .30 10.00 0.38 5.45 1.45 1.67 0.95 2.29 22. 10 25 dollars 200.00 200 00 5.83 37.00 8.43 8.33 9.50 8.62 477 71 20 00 13 33 3 33 514.37 2 20 40 acres with 2 horses, truck, and tractor 20.36 6.83 dollars 200.00 200 00 5.00 31.88 6.33 6.25 9.50 10.00 468.96 3.83 15 00 10.00 5.00 502.79 12.00 12.00 0.30 1.91 0.38 0.38 0.56 0.60 28.13 2.03 10.00 10.00 0.29 25 4.45 4.06 1.32 0.99 1.11 1.04 0.95 0.95 2.24 2.27 .56 5.95 * Investment overhead per acre for different-sized and equipped pear orchards is shown in the above table. As the orchard unit becomes larger, the equipment overhead costs are reduced because some items, such as tillage equipment and spray rig, are capable of serving additional acreage. t The average investment per acre, except for land, is computed as half the original cost because during the life of each item values decrease annually from original cost to zero. 46 California Agricultural Extension Service [Cm. 78 TABLE 23 Standard Labor Kequirements and Costs for a Twenty- Year-Old Bartlett Pear Orchard with a Yield of 10 Tons per Acre* Man labor 2-horse team 10-15 hp. tractor IJ^-ton truck Hours per acre Total cost per acret Cost per ton Dollars Pruning, 108 trees at H hour Brush disposal, large brush only Planting covercrop by hand Hauling and distributing fertilizer.. Blight control Drainage, hand work Dormant spray Three spring sprays Furrowing for irrigation twice Irrigating, 3 times, 15 acre-inches Cultivation Permanent bracing Miscellaneous 54 2 10 2.0 20.0 10 4. 13 1 12. 4. 3. 2. Total cultural labor cost Propping, tying, hauling props Picking 10 tons at 11 hours per ton Hauling out of orchard Hauling to packing house 120 3 110 6 6.0 Total labor cost. 245.0 10 2.0 2 2 11.8 1.6 4 17 4 12 4 2 5.4 5.4 2 2 10 6 9 13 50 0.75 25 2.20 5 50 0.25 1.65 4.95 1 80 3 00 6 30 0.75 0.50 41.40 1 15 27.50 3.35 6.60 80 00 Irrigation water, power to pump 15 acre-inches, 40-foot lift.. Fertilizers, barnyard manure Covercrop seed Dormant-spray material Other spray material Blight control, bracing, and miscellaneous materials Total material cost. General expense, 5 per cent of labor and material cost. Taxes, county, on land, trees, and equipment Machinery and equipment repairs Compensation insurance on hired labor Total cash overhead cost Total cash costs Depreciation on trees Depreciation on buildings, well, pipe, pump, and equipment.. Total cash and depreciation costs. Interest on investment in trees, $200 at 6 per cent... Interest on value of improvements and equipment.. Interest on value of land, $200 an acre 3 00 1.50 2 00 4.80 6 20 2.10 19.60 5.00 7.50 1.00 1.40 14 80 114.40 10.00 9.56 133.96 12.00 4 13 12.00 Total all costs 162 * This table presents a complete standard of costs suited to a well-managed orchard enterprise of about 40 acres, in which all types of field-power equipment are available at a reasonably low cost. t Labor costs per acre are computed at the following rates per hour: man labor, $0.25; 2-horse team, $0.25; 10 to 15-drawbar-hp. tractor, $1.25; VA-ton truck, $0.85. 16m-ll,'33