Division of Agricultural Sciences UNIVERSITY. OF CALIFORNIA COnON QUOTAS AND ALLOTMENTS AND CALIFORNIA FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN 1954 Trimble R. Hedges and Chester O. McCorkle, Jr. An anal/sis of the probable impact of national cotton quotas and acreage allotments on the agriculture of California. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. 161 Ft-b 2 j 1954 LIBRARY January 1954 COTTON QUOTAS AND ALLOTMENTS AND CALIFORNIA FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN 195U 1/ Trimble R» Hedges and ? / Chester 0. McCorkle, Jr.-' I. Introduction Extensive adjustments in the agriculture of all major producing areas must be made in 195U. Acreage allotments and marketing quotas, already- established and approved for wheat and cotton and expected shortly for corn, are the primary cause for such adjustments. In addition to the direct effects on these major crops, the secondary and even more indirect reper- cussions brought about by the individual cotton, wheat, and corn farmer's changes in farm organization will carry the impact of these restriction programs to nearly every commercial farmer in the United States. Both the egg producer in California and the broiler producer in Maryland will be affected by the acreage shift from cotton to milo in the western states. Some California and Arizona cotton farmers will produce vegetable crops which will compete with those grown in the strictly commercial vegetable areas of the United States. These examples could be extended to practically the entire range of California and U.S. farm production. Just how extensive is this diversion program to be undertaken in 195U? If the national allotments remain as announced (wheat, 62 million acres and cotton 17.9 million acres), a total of 23.3 million acres will be transferred from what they produced in 1953 to some alternative use. Cotton acreage to be diverted totals 6.7 million acres and wheat 16,6 million acres. An acreage allotment program for corn has not been announced but this diversion could add several million more acres to the total. A move announced by the Senate 1/ The material in this report served as the basis for Cotton Quotas and Allotments reprinted from California Agriculture 7 (9-12):1953. It is a more complete analysis than appeared in the earlier release, and has been revised according to recent developments concerning 195>U allotments. 2/ Trimble R. Hedges is Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Associate Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, College of Agriculture, Davis. Chester 0. McCorkle, Jr., is Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Asst. Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Asst. Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation, University of Jalifornia, College of Agriculture, Davis. imtftM ■gntsubotq to^sa "Is 1o 9VJ<!2lx§e ©d* nx aifraafcS'afrt'b* 3.vx3a©. + xS' ^t'j59'il£- ^scfoxrp rrtUsiitsm Lns axfism+oXXs a^seio*. .iU&T ffx »bnm etf" t*?w;r t /reco tol. ^/tf'iorf.a bsdoeqxs fitb rrotooo bits Js&flw rrol bsvotqqs bns bodaxlc'srfet. Ibetib ©di ox noxJi 'bbs al. *3E$9Bn j e;/tb£ rfoi/a xo'> &2i.r£,o Ttsmxiq ©dd' ot,-? -i<*qe , s J-ootjrbnx: ©nom move" bns ••fisbnoosa odi t sq:no lotsm ©89dx no 3.X09T1© a^gun-ssl rrioo brie t j£©dw t nc*>t«C' IsKbxvxbni ©rfu \d ix/orfs Jdsiroid saolezvc ttQttoltiwt aa&tii %o Jotqjnl ad* \-rxso XXxw rtobTgsxnsg-xo nrcsT ni 8©j»nsrfr> ©*M- rises' »3ft*s*.5' ba*±4?.?X at nsilc&T&btw ©d od- mst^enq norieisvxr exrid ai ©vxef£o-£x© wed. dai'I, beys astos :inxXXxiir S& t d£©dw) b©oacro/ias as rrxsfrrs-r etn©3i>:!oXx£ Xsnoxdsn: ©dd H *".'*©! sr-stJ. ©d' XxiV, astes fioMIxrrr F.£S lo Xsd-ot s v (aesoe- aoiXJxw Q-.VX nod-dco ot- egsstos. iioJ-^O' .-aa»r avXtfaraadX-s- earoa' oJ* £xXBO ittoiT be^ni*tq©a afosr^xtr? . bsaiVs'f nascf esrt bnc ^S£9X©3 Ttir'Xias^ orii nx bstssqqs nsri* axatXsns 95oXq/no7" ^sJt«9md"0X.i:*r il>."^I $a±nv>0(ton airiSBjqoX'eysb i-«909« orf tnxfe«K>.ons t gBoimonon3 Xsix^XiroxxaA, lb rroaa-glcoT ©^stitsoaeA- «/• aaafteH; e-L-'mitT \£ 9d-siooe.8& bns t xtoi^x^ 3uai«}*z9ca£. «»ri>* rr£- 0 sxttoooc-^ isiyJ-Xx'oitaA ed'BXooe'r.ft t -sc£i*rolxXsO Id v^ia'i^vixiU ^.toi^fifefwo 8 ? ittji'*rc6iO r*i:f no d"aii«caooa X^tJf+Xtfoit?}^ ♦axv^Q t! atirtlivr.xT«3A lo 9j>oXXo.3 Isixiiitoai'isA lo lorioalpfl ^fiGAax'ssA ax' r ^ e ©Xsfr:o5oM .Z tstaadD bus .7i:^OT.ti9q3Kl' »d* nxr -J»*xflrofTOoS Xi%riix;or*taA- »*«8A t 9ot(*on9S3»fi ^oi^filei"-^ \*e..n ni aaxtfrm & bajisvjb Mti bns #rf.+ a/fxe«t.T io.el o(idt ^.Ctfoiq arirf lo eqose rtX ffl»||fljflsft» Xfiiifl^ioq riyirs 1c oi 8$s£cfQ3q aufQXiss, iflap.o'iq QnTBigoTq xtci-e'javXb bns ain-^tioXiB o^seiOB .4j5\;X nx zT.&ir.i3\ bns AtfirsallluO issif-sno oi bsiX^xX oi xX^XI 9^9^ xsT^oiq ifjsaiiaufchs eXni II tsgras/io sicraeib wfrajla89»9n jort blapw siavoa eXxri** -JoBqml srix t«oIi£'rtI ^m;?H l ons9i'5 fod-scta 9ricr ncX agsetoo noiion XAXT^cptf biua 9bXai9vX:il eol.ixu.roo marfiyoa owd 8.ii isbrrU ,88iojj »1Q % ^X oi 000»V: ntoil baasotoax a£;f ai«.^ 9vxx iaeX iQdmsc.9i! no i^.allo nt nox^BXaX^^X no beeprf cisiso'xq bsaniforrxte s'si/iiclxXiiO 1o 3 mm teq OX ixrocffi — asios XsXesxtix a'simotlicD lo OGO t oOT iwiXo oi boiievib bac .-?oJv?o» lo ixro ne^Bi od iaym^- ^BS'joe be-ycaxni Xciod- taofe ^xJ-otT+sst arrtt "^o Jor-qmi: arfi sstCans oi aX toqsq alxli jo 9Soqiaq oriT t boeoqonq oeXfi aX il «3Brjf.j noiioo e'sXmo'UXr.O to \rm6noo9 etii no .neigciq c) ■ lialivvs aevXiBiriaiXfi ^bsicqloXdns BiftSinXexff.ba In eaqyi «»j ix» inxoq •lo noX'-'iaoq arii ty%M&&lStS% t bns ^asa'is ixioial'ixb nx a-reoi/botq nniioo 8\pXX&v baingX-ni msriiooi fcxie Xsiinoo arfi nx ^vXifimeiXfl ne eu MpoiaaviX rfsxXcfadae inara^oIXB lo RoXftBrfooft 9rii lo noxJB/xBlqx?? l^iid A .bxiticIMsQ lo ,bs>bL'IynX eX iaert 3. An evaluation of the cotton acreage allotment problem is necessary to assist producers, bankers, persons selling to and buying from farmers, and those persons advising farmers in making the types of adjustments necessary to meet the impact of these allotments. No specific recommendations are made for any producer. Each individual cotton farmer must decide his own action on the basis of the specific conditions prevailing in his case. Rather than to recommend specific adjustments, this paper is designed to assist the farmer in a logical evaluation of the allotment problem and matters he should consider in making his adjustment decisions. Data for this paper came primarily from published sources of the United States Department of Agriculture, California State Department of Agriculture, and recent research conducted in the San Joaquin Valley on cotton farm organization. Because of the timeliness of the problem the authors have found it necessary to make many estimates. These estimates have been based on all data available, opinions of persons acquainted with specific facets of the problem, and extensive research experience in the cotton areas of both California and other major cotton production areas of the United States. oi *£i?.3?.39crr si adsJDtfonq ih^i^XX* erjcsioe noiicc edf^ lo •ao'xi.si/XBv© nA bos jRisniel noil >Lixv:>'i bos oi gttiXXeB BRoat^q t aie->lfi.ed* t eisoj/fcoiq iefsas Ttasasoen aiaorxiaijt^s ^ e©q\i ortt gniilBjrt ni -K-remtsl gRleivbs sRosinq eaorii 'abcn ois enoiiefcRsrmooei oilxooqa off '.aiRomialXB eeerfi lo iofiqrax ©rfi ieest .oi tvixJoa nwo sir: sbxosb isiiut "sanftfil jioiioo 'Xfttffcivibai: .-rosS. •lootfboiq \j$s tol nsrii isridsS »&eso sxrf ti£ gnxll'svsiq ERoxiibnoo oilinsqa ©rfi lo sissd" ©rfi ije 'iamicl orli isxsas oi figitg-iabb cr teqsq ax/iJ t sirr:>.?X2i»£,i.i;-. oiljtoeqc b«acpjoo9i oi tixione a:i ai4iism br:-. 'noXdotc irreraioXXfl «di lo noX-iiurX^ve .XficxgoX £ nt ' ,2nAj3ir;9b'insmieuGb6 axrf ^nia'cn rri .isbxaaoo b9iinU 9rfi 1c asotx/os berfsxWwq moil ^iismxiq pnao isqsq axrii to% siaioiU Changes ♦ — Statutory law of the United States governs the procedure for establishing cotton acreage allotments and marketing quotas from the national to the individual farm levels. At the end of 19^3 these laws were embodied in a group of statutes passed in 1938 and later years, including the Agricultural Act of 1938, amendments to this Act, and other related statutes. The specific and detailed provisions and implications of these laws are discussed and analyzed below. It appeared highly probable as Congress reconvened on January 7, 19$h, however, that these basic laws and the regulations based upon them concerning cotton acreage allotments will be modified before the 195U cotton marketing quotas and acreage allotments are put into operation. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee announced on the opening day of the session that the Committee had reached "general agreement" on a measure to increase the national cotton acreage allotment on the 195U crop from 17.9 million acres to 21,379,000 acres .-^ California's share in the national acreage allotment will be approxi- mately 936, h08 acres if new legislation of the nature outlined by the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee is passed in time to be effective for the forthcoming 19%k cotton production season. Such an acreage compares with 697,800 for allotments possible under the existing statutes, and an estimated 1,U0U,000 on July 1, 19^3. Such an upward adjustment would assist considerably in lessening the seriousness of the adjustments that California farmers will have to make under the acreage allotment program in 195U. This proposal to modify the governing statutes under which acreage allotments are established and administered is still just a proposal. The necessary bill(s) must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President in short order to permit the changes they authorize to have full effect in 19$li. It also must be understood that legislative changes in the general proposal as outlined at the beginning of the session are likely, and that major alteration is entirely possible. The following analysis and discussion recognizes the uncertainties surrounding this move by the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee to modify the cotton 1/ Wall Street Journal, January 7, 195U, page 3. Congressional action on a bill embodying this' proposal and other features was completed on January 22, and the bill was sent to the President for signature. 32 8910 K noddoO tol eift^ avidalsiaaJ .II airST^o-rT /oi+non snide jlifiM bos jiiamdoIlA badin" add to H&X vto-fii&fid'S — «8es'n3d0 il^V'I b^eooowS iafetU adnamdoi ijiTE adnsuidoEIfi 9>ib9i»6 lioidoo §nxdexlcfj9*38 10 'i aiifba-OQiq arid acpjs^Ds aadsdS arid dA #aXsvsI pt"i:*l Isi/bi vxbrtl arid od isnoldan arid noil acjonp uttlisoPutii aiiix od adnanbaarae t 8^n^r/oxi9a adJ anxn95s9l ni ■^dsir^iartoo Jaiass blirow ^ao.rioiri;ta 9^69106 adJ- lebnx' e^sa j>J evsri IXht aiam.^1 eltnoJiL&Q i&Ai aircairu+axrfcbfi ♦ 4*^1 fll weii^iq *n9,TiiriIlB s^cotob riairiw iebnu &3fuA&9e snxrnevo^ add- ylxbcm oi leaoqoiq aid? edT .I/-2oqoiq s cfaot Hb^s ex baisosxnlxnbfi bns bsdsildr-J-as ans a^narcjclls Xd ban^xa bns eE^*i^ncC) Id asaj/od d*o« yq b&ae£q ad Jaunt (e)Hid Y^p.^aeo'efi avsu of exl'iotifm yadi eesn&xlo ©dd d-xmoq orf 19010 i-iode ni ^nsb/.a?^ &d«t aagflBdo avijj- Itxa&I c^fidi JjOC^ 31 3 bnif sd $wm ozle dl .Jc!^! n.? iaalla LIi/l ais nniaaae sdS to gcJrnnisad arii tis betiil&vQ es I«8oqoiq f.Bi9nag add al gniwoixo'i ?dT »aidI«h.o»q ^(I&ii^m ai ncxJsi9J-Ie ic.{,s« jsnc; bna t Yi- 9 "^-L svOm aid! •jnxbctocitti-e aaiinit iiaorttr add aasxnNoaai noiasuaaib bna eiav.Ifi.rifi co&tod od-j x'iifecMrr oi aa#j>iwoO aixntlnoi-snt. asanas art* $0 aiadmaw ad J yd isdoo bos Iseocpiq aidd - ^niybod-Ta Hid p. xio noiJnx- isnoiaa^isnoO cd drioe aaw Hid ad* bnt. t $S yiatunb no rvadsiqmoa flipl aa-tr'Jael .ertu*ft«gie odl dnsbxsaT;^ odJ 5. allotment for 195U. First, the major effects of the proposed new legislation to be expected if it becomes law are examined so far as specific information is available. Second, the basic framework of statutory law governing agricultural marketing quotas and acreage allotments is summarized and explained in broad outline. Third, these laws are examined and their meaning analyzed in terms of the cotton producing industry at both the national and the California level. This treatment goes as far as it is practicable to go, considering data at hand, in attempting to anticipate all likely alternatives in 19$h under the cotton acreage control program. The analysis cannot be precise in pin-pointing the full effects of the acreage allotment on California farmers for the reason that the final decisions have not been made, and necessary information, therefore, is not available. The procedure followed does underscore the major legal and procedural issues involved. The California cotton acreage allotment will include three elements if existing statutes are modified according to the proposed new legislation. The major portion or the "basic allotment" will be approximately 829, U52 acres representing California's share of the revised national allotment of 21 million acres (raised from the 17.9 millions authorized under existing legislation) . In addition will be the California share of the "national reserve" estimated at 83,956 acres, and her share of the "special pool" estimated at 23,000 acres (Table 1). The total of these three elements, 936, h08 acres represents the allotment to be distributed among the various counties ?nd farmers in California. Estimates have been prepared indicating the county allotments in California based upon the state share of the 21,000,000 acre national allotment (Table 1). Of the 829,152 acres involved, 7l*6,£07 would be allocated initially among counties and 82,9U5 acres would be put into the "state reserve" under existing legislation. The latter amount, plus the elements listed above as national reserve, 83,956 acres, and special pool, 23,000 acres — a total of 189,901 acres — would be used to correct inequities and deal with hardship cases among the farmers in the several cotton counties. The estimates presented here include only the 7U6,507 acres of the basic allotment to be initially distributed. No attempt was made to project how the remaining 189,901 acres will be distributed among counties and farmers if this new proposal becomes law. The estimates are limited in this manner for the reason that the information available is in- adequate to permit reasonably useful judgment on the actual apportioning £»j#Gle.i39l wsn bezoqoia eA& 1o edos$>9 «^ofcsffi eriJ tf f^7 • tot S'n^0oll& no^dsfrtelnX oXlfcoeqa aa 09 bonxmsjee */w ws£. e^raooso" it tl bgiosqxe 9d o'd grtirrtavos wX v?edirdsds lo #tavajRa?'f. pjfcsad add' ^nonsg- .aXcte^xava aX one fassi'isttarxfa ex adnsndoXIs ss^s'toe- fane eajrep gnj: v-sofctetn Xc'iviXuar'SBB gnxnsam. ixarid ens bsrurcaxs sis ewsX aaarid t b%££? ^eniXdi/o fapofcf nx banxaXqxs bn3 la.toxJ-fin grfi ridod da ytfeybni anxoyoo'ic noidoo odd Id ewtsd n£ XgsxXariB t os.o.+ aXdaacdasiq e.r di as ml as. 8*03 rfr.9£.fi39%h eifft •Xav.^X errroxiXsO arid aayxdaxnedXe yXatfiX XXs adeqiroXdrtfi od gnxdqrrtDdtfG ni t fansd ds odefo jmitabiaioo 3d* doratco axav.-TBna sriT .ps-Tgoxq Xoxtnoo e§B9-ios notion &t ; J i9i?m; iS&X nx jS!«Qx$XsO no drramdoXia agsa-jaa tali to- adoollc XXn'r add gfijdn.xoq-ftlq nx se^estq bus. t 9usa\3bniJ- asob li 8«sjs:n9X9 aaidd 9faxrXsnx XXlw dnsndoXXs a^anos noddoo sixrio Ix XsO ..noxdaXa'xgaf wsn faoeoqoig add od 3flib*rooos bstlxbofi: ois .sadtfdede -snMaxxa xxsiBtaxxoiqqB sd" XXiw "dnamjoXXfc oiswi" 9dd.'£C nordicq •lotsm srfT la dnamjoXXB X«flNSfcdsn bssim ax'd-3» sisris s'BxnicxxIeD gnx^nea^iq^T ■ea'jOB ' 3n/J-axx9 Tsfaau ba&xTOddi;* apiXXXxf v*TX add ami basis^) tegs* mitfflpt xS Xsnoidsn' 1 srid lo a-jBria bx/tioIxXbO add atf Xfiw noxixfcoa ni : .*(noiiaXsx3&X •^Xocg XaXoaqs 3 arid lo sisrfe I9rf fao«i t s9?o.6 *a fa9XBffixJss ■"9vi9e«ri t 8J«9f!T9l9 99tri^ 939ni 'xo. £r$o4 «riT .(X BXcfel 1 ) Eifio* 000 4 CS .&r boi-mitvs ewoiiav .©.if* gnome fagj-xrc.'fi.j aife sd* o4 ino^rdoXXa &ti& einsastcai eetos .Bx.TioxxIaC 1 nx aisffiisl fan^ aoMnuoo xtr ^rrafliioXXs Yincuo-.srfi gnj^Boibni: bsiBqoiq nssd 9varf 89Jt?mxi33 Xenoxi&n c-roa OO0 t OO0 t X5 Qfi& to aisda 54B*a arii noqo b9a^d aifirrolXXaO .arf bXi/ow T0«J t ^4V tfc^vXovnx e9ios S^d»^S6 oris 10 -(X aXtfst) cfneiffifheXXa oxni i'ttq sd.bXxiow 397.0a ^!^^S8 fctta. asidtreroo gno«e- yXJcX^J- fcsiBOoXXa Bu£q t drworaa *x.-.-.tiaX orfT .aoi^sXexsoI- pnXdsixs i©bnxr "evaaagn eju^tf" 'aiit Xsioaqe bna t s?70B dc :c ?^^ i$rsfrt&t XBiioxiBft as evcis beteiX 8xn9rr9l9 eri'3 5o9iioo od bsatr od pXup^-er»ios X0?^8£ 'lo Xaiod e«— asioa 000 tiooq Xanana aid nx eiaorisl 9rfd gncps soaaa. qtdeftxsd ddxw Xaat- -bna a^idiapsni T0<^o^T 9iid ^Xnp abx/Xonx aisr! ^sdaseaia. BadjsstxdBd erf? *?.&i3nveo notion saw dq$9dda oK *twd»dUt*X^s±b tXXal-^bd ad od .dnofj4olj s olaad arid- lo*- agio's* SaoiHB.bfdij'dx-ioaxb ad Xliv .a«iB3% XO^^&X 3itt<^Mm -arid wd ioaffcoitq od &bm 9iB eadautiifca adT. , .wsi. ;e«nooad I»eoq<5'»y - wan- alild -It'- ttaenal fen*' aai^ffy^xJ ei aJrfsJAsva noid^jnio'ln'r arid d»fi# .xtoea** add-ne3 lannaa-aidd ni badxnxl' ■gnirtoXdToqqs Xawdpa . add- : pa ■Ja ot H S j frtlt , . 'XwieaK .YX«teao«89*t « dlnriaq od adat^pafea TABLE 1 Estimated 1954. Basic Cotton Acreage Allotments for California Counties; Comparisons Basis Legislation Existing December 31, 1953 and Proposed New Legislation Establishing National Allotment 21,379,000 Acre:: County Merced liadera Fresno Kings Tulare Kern Total San Joaquin Valley Riverside Imperial Total Southern California Others Total California 5 -year average 1954 „ acreage in county cultivation allotment) 37,820 25,720 46,025 66,134 248,24.0 183,841 122,480 85,926 187,380 129,955 165,466 230,700 892,754 636,933 I 13,835 17,380 25,867 40,878 j 39,702 58,258 1,344 933,800 1,470 , 696,6612/1] 63,100 92,320 342,000 183,000 270,500 317,200 ,268,120 25,545 34,500 60,045 2,835 . J&SggQs. Ac reage 1952 1953 52,800 69,600 379,000 168,000 24.6,000 326,300 62,4.00 84,000 380,000 159,000 271,000 j 319,000! 1,275,400 1 1,241, 700 33,000 j 48,000 94,000! 111,000 127,000! 159,000 3,60o| 3,300 1,406,000 j 1,404,000 Proposed California basic allotment under national 21,379,000 acre allotment California's tentative share of "national reserve" California's tentative share of "special pool" * California's proposed total allotment, including basic and reserve allotments Total res e rves and s pecial pool, in additi on to basic allotment average 1951-1953 59,433 81,973 367,000 170,000 262,500 320,833 1,261,740 35,515 79,833 115,348 3,245 1,380,333 1954 allotment 21,379,000 ac re basi s 30,234 52,870 198,451 97,913 149,797 184,429 713,694 11,060 20,679 31,739 1,074 746,507 82*245 829,452^ . 83,956V 23.O OOS/ 936,408 189_2_901 a/ County basic allotments estimated by authors using 829,452 acres as California's share in 21,379,000 acre national allotment outlined by chairman, U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee, on January 7, 1954. V T ota ^ sta J e allotoent would be increased to 936,408 acres and the 106,956 acre difference, present- ing 83,956 acres from the ''national reserve" plus 23,000 acres from the "special pool" together with the 10 per cent "state reserve" of 82,945 acres would be allocated among counties and farmers according to prescribed rules. c/ Compared with total state allotment, including undivided state reserve, of 697,802 acres. mjnt rs,3 i« sy*3AA*0Q0 1*380*333 J*3»f ■ ^5 4 SPA 3J*£B 1 - ■ ■ ■ J t' ' 1 T"**\ * V *\ * " A 1,13 - ,u &m t i • g^^jtf^fog j^f gtraxq C^?**** ?ct,t>crge ^op?^ £©j. (p3^*ftf* 0^I#*W cou4wrs.?ntHja gpafS 7. of these extra acres under the proposed new allotment. The Committee chairman's announcement stated that the larger of two alternative determi- nations might be used in granting hardship increases j (1) 65 per cent of the farmer's average area planted to cotton for the past three years, or (2) UO per cent of his largest area planted in any one of those years. Calculations were made to determine what amount of the 189,901 acres would be required to bring county total acreage to the level of 65 per cent of the average for the past three seasons, 1951-1953. A total of 150,707 acres would be required, which would leave 39,19U acres for meeting the needs of other hardship cases. The partial estimates prepared according to the proposed new basic cotton allotment for California are adequate to demonstrate that the increased acres under this plan would aid appreciably in relieving the impact of the 19$h cotton allotment. The portion of the proposed new allotments estimated here exceed the county allotments announced by the Secretary of Agriculture in December for all counties except those in southern California (Table 1) . All counties would receive additional acres under any formula used for allocating the 189,901 acres not considered in these estimates, while Imperial and Riverside counties might reasonably be expected to receive sharp increases due to the fact that they were later than most of the San Joaquin Valley counties in expanding cotton acreage. Allotments Under Statutes Effective December 31, 1953 .— The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 defined the procedure for determining the marketing quotas for the years 1938 and 1939, for converting the marketing quota into 2/ a national acreage allotment, and for apportioning this allotment.- Two months after the passage of this act an amendment was approved which specified 3/ a minimum allotment for any state and farm,- and provision for a national minimum allotment for any year after 1939 of 10 million acres was added the following year.— ^ 2/ Public, No. U30, 75th Congress, Chapter 30, 3rd Session, approved February 16, 1938. See particularly Title III, Subtitle B, Part IV. 3/ Public, No. U70, 75th Congress, Chapter 107, 3rd Session, approved April 7, 1938. hj Public Resolution, No. 32, 76th Congress, Chapter 376, 1st Session, approved July 26, 1939. 'bsiMlfoMd bri-T. \iit9BS$iaI£& -waft fesadqotq taferu; -.iagfta itifxa g^adl "Jo •\UataJ4b Vvxijeirfstfis *ow* lb tagtaX ari«t bsJaie. insme&nirorias s'naorcxRrib lb Vrtao'isg -56 '(f) "jese-s^wtx cjxrfeb'isri scMna*^ nl beau scf irisinr . enoWan 98*srM \taeq s/ii *$61 noiioo oi batfxrtffo ^ste syotetfs &' J t3:iri!>l adi '.eiB9Y seortt 'lo srto '^fis a* • baineXq *at* ctee^tsi axrf -lo Jrtsrt ?acf jS#*{$) $0 " :o "abasn ar.'-j snijaara i?bl~ aats* avasl bXmv rioxrfw t ba« >i&sXit!>£sZ} ■ : ..ad bXuow 3;vrj»MJ. j • [ arf j lo dosqjitx aXasq wan fcaaoqotq e/!d ocf snxb? 'and jjfixvnxftn nri YX^iooiqc" bis bluow nslo airii .TtQ .'jfie ««nrtiil bna. ?J-fiJa yns tcl j«.i-3j*rull8 RKOtXittn a sn.il &&bbt? saw &9Vaa no.ci".. F i:T Ql »,*63X 3fU«!>XXdl B'^vctc; 1 « .JEST «0t vi efts? t a sitxj-cf^- «ri 8. The Agricultural Act of 19U8 amended several sections of the original legislation but this act was superceded by other legislation prior to its becoming effective.-^ A provision to eliminate the acreage planted to cotton in 19U9 in the computation of cotton allotments for subsequent years was approved early in that year.-^ Prior to the imposition of cotton allotments in 1950, Congress approved substantial changes in the law. It was this legislation which provided the basic definitions of the "national marketing quota," "acreage allotments," and "farm marketing quotas" for cotton, now used by the Secretary of Agriculture in proclaiming 7/ quotas and allotments.- Minor changes, primarily for clarification, were made in the quotas and allotment provisions by the Agricultural Set of 19l;9.- These acts and amendments provide the basis for the quota and allotment system for cotton. The Secretary of Agriculture, while charged with the responsibility of proclaiming and administering quotas and allotments, has little voice in determining when allotments are to be invoked and what the national acreage allotment will be. State and county agencies, likewise, must operate within the specific terms of the law. The following section from the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended is indicative. "Sec. 3U2. Whenever during any calendar year the Secretary determines that the total supply of cotton for the marketing year beginning in such calendar year will exceed the normal supply for such marketing year, the Secretary shall proclaim such fact and a national marketing quota shall be in effect for the crop of cotton produced in the next calendar year. The Secretary shall also determine and specify in such proclamation the amount of the national marketing quota in terms of the number of bales of cotton (standard bales of five hundred pounds gross weight) adequate, together with (1) the estimated carryover at the beginning of the marketing year which begins in the next calendar year and (2) the estimated imports during such marketing year, to make available a normal supply of cotton. The national marketing quota for any year shall be not less than ten 5/ Public Law 897, 80th Congress,. Chapter 827, 2nd Session, approved July 3, 19U8. 6/ Public Law 28, 8lst Congress, Chapter 38, 1st Session, approved March 29, 19h9.-~ 7/ Public Law 272, 8lst Congress, Chapter 518, 1st Session, approved August 29, 19U9. . 8/ Public Law i*39, 8lst Congress, Chapter 792, 1st Session, approved October 31, 19U9. Xaaxsiio - add 'to anoxdo^a XB19V98 bb&l&)fc?8v(l .da A ftB*g0$J#oiA?X nx noddoo notion lo nol^xe^qrtt art? od totVi -.tR©y darfd ni yl/xB© hsyos-yis s<:w .vsX 9rii 'nl s9gn.3rIo Xsidaedfedua bsvctqqs aaa'qmoQ ^-Oc^X ni adnamdoXXs add to enoxdinxlsb r>.?sfid©rfd btVhfvotq rfoiriw noxdsXaxgsX aid*. est* dl ■ j|flid9j'*tsft •jwfel*' btts ^ednJedoXIs «8«e tol • " ajBooop Gtgw l no±iBo.H.ttfl;Xo • 'sol ylxiefrrriG ieagf»rfo tcniM ^i^etaftKtoXXe brrs e*&oup lo Xflrrxi^X.usxtaA add yd affoxa/voto dc»ndoXijs bn«? efidoi/o erid. cd afcar.1 ' brts oj.-.up arfd- «iol aia^d add afcivotq fcdnaMtttreme bns .edos aaad?' ^»S»?J .noddoo •«lpt rosda^a dijantfoXXa ydilicfiecrobeat' ad$'"tfixw bagtsdo aXXdv tSurdXtroXigl lo- yT6da«x9aB ariT aofov eXddXX a fid t cdnarfidoXX;: bOB ssiot/p- sr.iTaJaxn crabs b.ta gninix;£ootq lo fenoddaii-add dsnV bns bsjfovrtJT ad od oib edrramdoXXs oadw gnixixmtc.v+gb qt denra ■ t 9ai*.«93fiX \3eX0no7js ydnx/oo bns adax3 «©d Lltw- dnanAoXF-e atoa nrotl irft&dbae gnxvoXXoX ad? .wbX arid lo emiad oxtxoaqa add- rtirfdXw -ad.qtaq^ • .avidpoihoi ei 'babnams as '3£9,X 1: doA- dnaradeo'toA Xsv^X^oxtsA eX ledqBriO ^aaatsnoO- daX^- t 8S iwj- o.tXdir?! \d ^ •- .PilQI ^^S. d»'CBM bsTOtqne t ttoXaa9o §*£ \MZ toJqexiD .ae^noO dcXft « ST S wbJ oXXdtx 1 ? \T bavoiqqj?. ^oox'aaafi daX' t :>\'T tsdqsdO ' t as^t^noO daX8'. t ^C«i- fo£ ai'Xdu?' \8 » 'i- 1 (r* ; » X ^ *" wdc* d 01 ) 9. million bales or one million bales less than the estimated domestic consumption plus exports of cotton for the marketing year ending in the calendar year in which such quota is proclaimed, whichever is smaller: Provided , That the national marketing quota for 1950 shall be not less than the number of bales required to provide a national acreage allotment of twenty-one million acres. Such proclamation shall be made not later than October V~> of the calendar year in which such determination is made." 9/ Both "normal supply" and "total supply" are defined in subsequent legislation. "The 'normal supply' of cotton for any marketing year shall be the estimated domestic consumption of cotton for the marketing year for which such normal supply is being determined, plus the estimated exports of cotton for such marketing year, plus 30 per centum of the sum of such consumption and exports as an allowance for carry-over." "•Total supply' of cotton for any marketing year shall be the carry-over at the beginning of such marketing year, plus the estimated production of cotton in the United States during the calendar year in which such marketing year begins and the estimated imports of cotton into the United States during such marketing year." 10/ The Secretary is required to estimate certain values such as domestic consumption and exports for the coming marketing year. Legal precedents preclude the Secretary's use of these estimates to evade the intent of Congress. "Normal consumption" was first defined in the basic act as the "yearly average quantity of the commodity produced in the United States that was consumed in the United States during the ten marketing years immediately preceding the marketing year in which such consumption is determined, adjusted for current trends in such consumption."—^ The definition of normal year's exports was also based on a 10-year period with allowance for trend adjustment. 9/ Public Law 272, 8lst Congress, Chapter $18, 1st Session, aoproved August 29, 19U9. 10/ Section hX$ paragraphs (c) and (d) Public Law U39, 8lst Congress, Chapter 792, 1st Session, approved October 31, 19k9. 11/ Section 301 paragraph (b) Title III Public, No. U30, 7£th Congress, Chapter 30, 3rd Session. xcteM'tBrrf sot iol no«ttr>r> lo ajioqxs . Bixlq nox.jgi.iysnao srtasmob Si scfowp doidw nx isciy. usbrtei^o srfx ox.gnibnft "f39Y sri* t fe>|>Jtvotg • *m£Xsnre ei iev&dpirtw t b3m/./?.tnoiq rfj" nedd" "Saol tfori scf 'llsiia Oc^i to** a^oap gniJwtTMt Xsaoxisn s^.=?oio£' X^noirfsn b obtvo'tq oi beixepei st-Iscf lo •xgdmim ■ noli am el oo iq .iDi'2 #89108 noxXXxm 9nc-\-}n:> T A* lo dnsfltfoIXs isbn-aiso - en J lo 51 nado^oGi.asrW -xs-jbX don 9b£ir! &d XXsria V? •".erbfiai ai riax$B&ifcm*i9*9b dotis rioidw at tsey; &nsi'po?duB at bsnixab ^ni "Ylqquc ISv+oj" brts "YXqqua I-ymon" itro3 ' tRB\ '#ili&3tem y.nx ioi naixoo *io '-^[aqxr-a .Isrmon 1 griT" riodtfoo lo ncx^qm/enoo oiie9n:ob' bo.tmx-tac sri* =»d Ilsde ex yXqaua Ismion rfcye rioxrlw aol issy ^nxd-sjiism sd^ io! no? jor> lo* ?J-':oax9 .bstsfntise 9rii 30lq t b9arrrri9ci 9b gniod mu3 odi lo mir-tnso isq 0£ BuXq- t is9Y ^nxc}-93(Tsm rfona 10*1 -tol 90fle>foIIs ns SB aXioqxs bos noi.jq.rxranoo .-{002 lo _ "."tsvr>-YT-' IS;> SniSsjIiBitT dci/e la ^nxnnfrjed Sri* ie tavo-^nso'edt . ad erf* nx ao^ioo 'to noxtfotrboTq be.+ s«ri;Ji2e<-9if;f' eyXa ; t -rs9Y dona rfoxdw nx tss»y isbnai'sa ^Ai gac*s^b aojfi^c bstfxflU ■ lo adncqAti baJ«eraxo36 srfd-bns anigad- *i«py sni jaMTtsm ani^ajfetspi dons gnxitfb |$$s#8 bpJ-xn'J eriJ- odni no^^oo \ox !'*ibsv: i.faeit!ob as dowe zsuIbv irxs^*i90 eimiias oi qeixjupaT- ax i(£isd-97.392 sriT i»>r.ab90r>«acf XsgaJ • ■ .-gaiiBJltwi sateen ad* 10I Kfctoqxs tea «oWga^J8«oo lo tfnsini 9ri* absvs of agtem-xJ-as 9e9i!j lo sexr a'^-teTC^S &rt * obtrXoetc erii sb J$s ate**? etW fix bsrixlab J-auxx air-' "rioii'qau/anot; XennoT!" ..sawtgneiO -'aajs^B bdJ'xnU -Slid - ni beouboiq , ti i ^ 0f "- ;no5 Q ^ t° Yjltst&ssp sgsiovG Yi'j3 ?, i" ' aos©Y '^nitstftsm nad 1 ■a.icf ^nliyfe &s^bX3 ba^inU srio nX bamusnco asw Jfiri* si rioXtffrrrttfarno doi/a rioidw nx is^y ^oii^^isw ed* gjTXbsosiq yXs^ ^Xbancix eriT '—".nox^qnuidnoci doos at ebne«xd- insruo 30I bad-ewt^ («»n4«rrw«o ' box^ieq teoY-OX ? no basso oslc. 3sw a.t?oYTiso beJ^Wso r: • (.losses gnfctaittti s3fii5oT $jS»$$?i) roMcpnifsms ba£ttci#wfa ^^^(oO)S ,(aoaes>a gatJs^aiir 33-^.1) whtoqx*; h^.^niias s 3?-ii2 (S)5? l , !fc>U. ;•- mJU yd bafi^mcu &d fcXi/ow j-narittoXXs Xsnorifin airier lo 9u*n'8 e F BXfl , icl.EXfiO 9/ij gnjfj'jES'xq frierey evil art* tol bsianlq egeft-xos afcta egs-iora site gniiaiftba Yd banra^do i&j-asl egfid'nsutoq *j v/X bsmifiXdciq jinxad 9-ib einmSvIiB te>&'i site -yd tb9x •XBltfoiifsq «*4 "tol rfrremJoiXi? Bf^&sos XaaniJ-an' wte grfX£j^v.rr> aoi-tc+j/t»BKJ3 2irfT ,'n r- sv; svi'i gnxiisowtq &rf4 ogfiait a Xanoxd'sn' ojs^etu tawcXXcS en 9d b'-I^aw 11. AA AA Calif 5U= A Calif ii7,U8, 50-52 5U where: AA c?lif ^ = acreage allotment for California 195k > Calif kly U8, $0-52 - average cotton acreage planted in California (5 years, excluding 1°U9). AA^i- national acreage allotment for 19$k» A U.S. ii7 1±8 I 50- I 72 " avera S e cotton acreage planted in U.S. ' >' ~° (5 years, excluding 19^9). The individual county allotments would be established in similar manner to the state allotment except for a reserve of up to 10 per cent which could be held by the state committee for later adjustments. M county $k= A county k7,kQ,$0-52 M Calif Sk ' - 1 (AA Calif A Calif h7,kB,$0-$2 After the county held up to 1$ per cent of its allotment in reserve for later adjustments, the remainder would be divided among farms. Each cotton farm would have as its allotment base the acreage tilled in the preceding year or in regular rotation excluding from such acreage the acres devoted to the production of wheat, rice, sugar beeta, orchards, and vineyards and the nonirrigated cropland.— ^ The farm allotment would be computed by applying to each farm acreage allotment base (adjusted tilled acreage) the percentage factor obtained by dividing the county acreage allotment, less the county acreage reserve, by the sum of the adjusted tilled acreage on all cotton farms in the county. County reserves are used for correcting inequities at the county and farm level, and for establishing new farm allotments. Computation of the individual farm allotment, interpreting the law strictly, can be expressed as follows: 12/ Public Law 272, 8lst Congress, Chapter £18, 1st Session, approved August 29, 19k9. Section 3kk paragraph (f) (2). E . ■ : ■ Ci 0 ( 10 1 [ - ' ' ' vd Jbsiucrnroo 9<1 blnow tfxi&OTcr->r.J> mrBl urtfJ. wan gflxrfaXXd*ia» ml Lnf. t lovs StiXtfenrre-Jni O t(iow*ollfi rrte'i lBnbivx .. « . - . . ' d t & visas? e^seios {irn'oo srfd- ;irttfoo ai aires! noiioo XXa jawofXol 8R bsaa&iqxe m 12. AA county $h ~ (A/ -c ounty $Q 1 AA farm $h A farm 53 N F=l where : AA farm 5h = 195U farm cotton acreage allotment. A farm 53 = cotton farm's tilled acreage in 1953 (farm acreage allotment base) AA county 5U = count y acre ag e allotment for 195U. N Z A— - total of tilled acreage on all cotton farms in p»i the county (adjusted cropland) Certain additional limitations are imposed on individual farm allotments. First, a minimum allotment for any farm is established. To each farm on which cotton has been planted during any of the previous three years the smaller of the following is allotted: (1) five acres, or (2) the highest number of acres planted to cotton (plus the acres diverted from the production of cotton under any agricultural adjustment or conservation programs) in any year of such three-year period. Secondly, a maximum allotment for any farm is established as follows: if a farm would be allotted an acreage in excess of the largest acreage planted to cotton plus the acreage diverted from the production of cotton under the agricultural adjustment or conservation program during any of the preceding three years, the acreage allotment for such farm shall not exceed the largest acreage planted and diverted in any such year. Other special adjustment provisions are contained in the legislation to allow for new growers, those who do not produce cotton each year, and other special but relatively unimportant cases. If a producer fails to comply with the cotton marketing quota for his farm, he is subject to a penalty on the excess cotton produced at a rate per pound equal to 50 per cent of the parity price per pound.— ^ 13/ Section 3U6 paragraph (a) Public Law 272, 8lst Congress, Chapter 518, 1st Session, approved March 29, 19U9. - ' •. , • ' J ' ' ' ' (tt a/w?! flftltfoo lis no a^ar-to* bsXXr>? lo isSoi - ft 3 T % B$ttW$oLls m-ifil lairiivibrrx no bseoq.ni stb eflcxjctfxmxX J.BJTOx-JxbbB ; ajb*4t#0 ■ • '• • ■ • ' ' ■ ■ ■ .nod ta-lmwn JeanaXrf srii;(S) to t a«ofi ©TJ^'fl) :bsJ.kiXxe el gnivoXi'ox Biii 'to lo nox.+Otfbaiq stit mcit bajiavxb eoi;>r, srfd" airXrq) notooo oi be&taXq b&tob .ypB n± (anBigaicf • noWavxaerpvo to drf <*!£..+ ax to- 8 lemUi'ox'iss ins isbna ffoifctos nnsx \aB io't taanxyXis rawnixe^i r t Ylfwt ^^ti^tfx vii «v?-t :?rff« cfasn/oX is a-tade ii^I to « oaidpxtjflGO « ♦dirsmdoXXs j - - ; '■■ I ■ I neeioB i)3icd arid to Midd^on^ %£-t*»ft cftoada day* tnp*$ *add' wftastbfft c£<&£ od airtwcwts dtf& *irid "d£dd dud gggetda ^inelq feMxfteg d-essX liio'fi mttotsbst jooiob GOO^o" to a§ea*ias . bednaXq taora fcaaasionJ- bfie (xqqxaax^^xM nx 933910a ~h'J |9XirftBEWW vaecaennot dq? oice-- e«»S*da.noddoo nfsdJipa iqrido aidJ gni*6/b fafllqxrti fa^Xs afci'ir-H bfia t da!?'^ ijafj ^SASsi-ie tex.-'^tiXBD rtariw boiioq a goxtob ba'fti/soc -aasdado og*?'tba aaarfT »(C aldef) boitoq a "qohco aid.* sntesj o# drtaiafttjre XavaJ & da baOTaqoxre. a~aw esoinq itoddftt '•te9y-<5^xl to Tfbada A »£asdfe" 3rif.oi*6ig daoi* ai avxdsfnfcdXa aXdVtove'l 910H dava n-ieddisq egaaioa 9dJ" asdaoibn c boitaq I'agnoX £ tavo 8*9»ai!&va 0C9X «**t 9sr>9iw arid to nail^earoiq adc baobrdftfaar. d&saddifo'a SiJf *?Jftta«>Ir adJsQ erf? »(iS sXdsTj aonia barfxioab lead dtrrf -JjoiTao latf .y.i'ise arid ffejyo'jrfJ boiipq "dawdaoq arid 63 fcoi"-!*? 4C^i-»Q£^X odd «o«t a$adf?9o*i«q -adi b^aaotcofti 4 8lta9T. as'-idd dn^oyi daom odd sutlti* -{Xcrr.^ris .bsq'qc*fb aad- iud i'} snxXoob egaddyoaoq add - Jirerini/oidd yltaXogyx agadttaotsq edx f EceoTonx aarf -dasw fedft .aaaaTpftx taioC'jboiq Bxmo"i rXaO od daat'adft't ifeXtroid'X ic • to . a*a ^avowod -^bo^fsq • add jwo'it bad tirf a ^gBS'ioB ari/J '•o'-'daS'O- taq. T •xJ'afe'aft .-aijo-i'toq os ;[ »rid «aawdaff aan eir.'T " v(il aXcfaT:)' daftw fc«a daVwiru'ma aiW«-od -feaJfeda -ackl^I bas daa&ridcoa ba^qaba ax doiriw assatia e\ r xdo^bb.l£CT dcXd3iri o'*sof>r od Jtxiie fea s 'tedrtss^iqaT nadd T^f Rfd' noidocbciq : f'aaM'fi^att'sqi«oo -A *aoidqu!rf)o*rq bistnsdcsm od TABLE 2 1954- Cotton Allotments by States with Comparisons, Basis Legislation Effective December 31, 1953 State Missouri Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas New Mexico Arizona California 505 23 690 1,048 1,298 41 753 1,499 2,382 2,049 876 1,207 9,639 237 401 934 Other States e/ 16 United States j 23,646 5 -year average ! 1953 acrec.ge "Reduction 1954 1954 , ! in cultivation i from 5 Tear average allotment ^/ i , , ._,Ju Ly 1 2/ £ acres j per cent 1/ Reduction 1954 from 1953 thousand acres acres I per cent 391.4 18.3 528.6 786.0 1,005.9 33.1 575.9 1,139.1 1,759.6 1,562.7 634.9 929.2 7,376.9 167.2 288.2 697.8 15.5 17,910.5 113.6 4.7 161.4 262.0 292.1 7.9 177.1 359.9 622.4 486.3 241.1 277.3 2,312.1 69.8 112.8 236.2 .5 5,735.5 123.6 11.7 241.4 294.0 359.1 31.9 329.1 450.9 670.4 322.3 285.1 115.8 223.1 152.8 389.8 706.2 .5 6,707.5 a/ Average acreage in cultivation July 1, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1951, 1952. b/ As announced by the Secretary of Agriculture November 23, 1953, rounded to nearest hundred acres, c/ USDA BAE "Cotton Crop Report as of July 1, 1953." d/ Rounded to nearest per cent. e/ Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, and Nevada. ■ V ! j& yQ 26 742 1,123 1,295 30 thousand 604 33 869 1,283 1,618 51 acres 449 23 601 879 1,054 32 570 19 698 1,075 1,424 63 495 26 753 1,109 1,439 55 515 30 770 1,080 1,365 65 527 26 738 1,085 1,380 53 527 25 740 1,088 1,409 61 Tennessee Alabama Mississippi iix Kansas Louisiana 784. 2,211 2,798 2,4-05 1,268 70/ 1,505 2,379 2,085 838 773 1,637 2,583 2,335 957 845 1,825 2,859 2,616 1,077 644 1,327 2,084 1,728 739 805 1,469 2,463 2,189 949 841 1,556 2,399 1,910 899 905 1,590 2,430 1,885 920 808 1,554 2,447 2,066 917 1,538 2,431 1,995 923 Oklahoma Texas New Mexico Arizona California Other States 1,977 9,982 114 224 401 23 1,155 8,426 157 226 536 15 1,069 8,806 215 282 810 18 1,344 10,988 323 401 963 20 965 7,048 176 280 586 14 1,561 12,407 328 548 1,331 18 1,283 11,756 310 669 1,407 15 1,045 9,600 320 678 1,404 16 1,240 10,360 291 515 1,138 17 1,296 11,254 319 632 1,380 16 United States 27,113 21,500 23,264 27,719 18,629 27,917 26,922 24,618 25,161 26,486 §/ Average acreage harvested rather than planted. H f' - ' ■ /).pJJt©J- gfS^O^ j ! gap }i$%jco ■ f;XC , ST? -"4 ,,.»S t 3 ■ ' I? ; • S3? T»5?0 _ ^ r ,- '■ • T*A§? 802. ■ * ' 8 0S - [ f . . T.'5A8 i • 1 1 J Y3d '■'JJ.SJUTS-- r J Jorfo 7 \ ; ToYq**23 TABLE 4 Cotton Acreage in Cultivation July 1 by Groups of States, 5 -year Averages 1930-1953 Southeast §/ Southwest °/ West W Others §/ Years thou- sand acres per cent of U.S. total thou- sand acres per cent of U.S. total thou- sand acres per cent of U.S. total thou- sand acres per cent of U.S. total thou- sand acres per cent of U.S. total Total acres 1930-1934 9,054 24.2 10,014 26.7 17,828 47.7 489 1.3 2.4. .1 37,408 1935-1939 7,007 24.6 7,791 27.4 12,967 45.4 706 2.4 2.4 .1 28,496 1940-1944 5,511 24.3 6,622 29.3 9,807 43.3 672 2.9 2.0 .1 22,632 1945-1949 4,750 22.1 6,588 30.5 9,311 42.7 1,016 4.5 1.8 • .1 21,683 1950-1953 © 4,626 19.1 6,455 26.7 11,416 46.2 2,009 8.1 1.6 .1 .. - 24,522 a/ Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama. b/ Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana. c/ Texas, Oklahoma. d/ California, Arizona, New Mexico. §J Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Nevada. £/ Four-year average. rco» • • ! • •' . • . • ... • T J.*jj2""To^B .'» " ■ • ■ a* 02* • JO* Oft ; lIlMln lill^i l • V I: • erct.63 — m"> - — - ■■ ' - • •Tt Wait i'TOU 1 17. acreage, therefore, would indicate even a greater share of the cotton production moving westward. To Impose allotments computed on an historical base halts any major locational shift in acreage and production. This is true for cotton allotments as announced in December, 1953 for the 195U crop season (Tables 2 through h) . In California three counties, Fresno, Kern, and Tulare, must absorb two- thirds (66.8 per cent) of the total reduction from the 1953 acreage for the state, Fresno County alone over one-quarter (27.6 per cent) (Table 5). The two southern California counties — Riverside and Imperial — are subject to the greatest percentage loss in acreage. The reduction in these two counties exceeds 63 per cent of the 1953 planted acreage. The use of historical base periods has the same impact on county allotments as was shown for the state allotments. In a state like California, however, where the cotton acreage has expanded in all producing areas, the results of the historical base system of acreage distribution are less striking. A comparison of the reduction in Riverside and Imperial with other California cotton counties best illustrates this point. The first year of expansion in these two counties was 195l when the combined acreage increased from lt,82h in 1950 to 60,0l£ in 1951 (Table 6). By 1953 the combined acreage was 159,000, more than a 250 per cent increase in three years. During the same three years the combined acreage in the San Joaquin Valley rose from 317,200 to 326,300, less than 3 per cent. A similar comparison for the five base average years reveals that San Joaquin Valley cotton acres increased from 533, 050 in 19k7 to l,275,UOO in 1952, and that the average for the base period was 892,750 acres, 30 per cent below the 1952 year (Table 6). For Imperial and Riverside counties the 19^7 acreage was 2,900 compared with 127,000 in 1952. The five-year average was 39,700 acres, 70 per cent below that of 19521 A- five-year base period, therefore, works hardship on individual counties just as it does on states. Fortunately, other factors affect the state allocation among counties. Division among counties on a strict historical base would further aggravate the problem of adjustment facing producers in these areas of recent expansion. Impact of alternative Proposals . — No fewer than eighteen bills which would have amended the legislation governing cotton acreage allotments, were introduced into the House of Representatives, Eighty-third Congress, First Session. Many of these proposals were closely similar but there were two rtoitoc odi 10 eiatfe is.troi'? s nsv© siso.cbnx bXuow v 9iol9i' c't t 0?.69i©£ .bifl«*89W gnivom noiJoifb^i-: lofBai ^ts aiXsrf 9estf iBPiioiexrf ft£ «e bsjnqmoo sifKatfolCfi aaoqr.r oT ■ . - ' ■ . ' ■ esXrtfiT) rsocssa qois »rf-t tol £.?^X t i r dte9oeG fll jrscmronns e 1 ed'nm.+o lis J-siin (WSsXt/T fens t irr?>S t c-na9l^ t eox*rtffoo osirf* simolxXsO rfl ' •»(!!= riairoictf S . ... - • . > . . ■ : . (t:i9o ioq q.TS) i9iis;jp-«no i«vo snoXs ydTUfoD on39i*[ ,9:^8 «rii ioi egssnss si 1 *— -XbxihwiI bos 9bi2i9vj:51— s9x>}ftyou sifrroliiGC (Pl9tl&if09 out arf'f . (c aX'isT) sesxitf n± noi teiibei oriT »f>SB9i9B nx esol a^sinaoisq *ee*B9*sg sriJ- Jasfctfoe »93b9T5b beinsXq Ltava ^bb^ XfioJin-texxi Qd& to a^Jtfaffi d*Jhf XP/i^qtrtT fens ©Meiovli; ni n^id-ccboi 5o nopxisqwod A • •snxM.fcrte ,J3iii ariT *Anioq alia 39^ai*aifl£i *E9(J e.^xim/oo riorftoo sixnoliXsO ieri*io • 9drf fijj&C \S ..(d ©XtfsT) J<&5 ni ^0 K 0b oi C^X ni JS8 t U smt'i beasfficni - . • rttfapftdt» naU 9/tt ni 9366100. feanM/noc srft biboy 9outt eiasa 9rtV gniiKF »31b9T£ iflXifltle A .Anon i*>q £ neit as^X t OOC t 6CC djf OOS t YXC mci*3 9aoi Y.sXX-W X»XXsV nxirpKot, asB aXosvtn eisoy 9§Bi9'/r, sasd s-vx'i 9*1* oosjtxsqino? . ■ - ' « ' ■ . ■ . QC , ' ■ - : ... . • - . ' ■ ' ' t 9iol9ierf1 ^boi-i^q saBd" iasTp-avii *A lSt!9X to is&S vcX^d dneo ieq Of ^?.913b t tX«*«ft«H^ •E9t£.la no ae-^b #i p« *fl^t e9iinuoo Isubivibal no qtilnbifirf 3i[icw gnoiss noxaivi-l .aoxd-nirco §nr»nB ao/^ooXXB aistn utif icslls aiotosH isii.to jft9Xcioiq eriJ o^flvsisgs lorWlul bXx;ow tsssd XsoiioJairf *oini« b no -.^Unrroe »no>aas-:pc9 ^xii;«3al lo 8B9is ?39rii nx BISOiibo'Sq STtioBi ?n9mJa0t' Cjs aXixd naa^dsie nsd-t is'vtex » ^s g . oqoil oyx jymr- tl^ "xc ;hisg.Tff alavf ,-8 J r 1 3 ' . ; ; w*us *5 •cnyH'.-.-? TJJ - - - . * • ■ rest c°« TABL2 6 Cotton Acreage in Cultivation July 1, California by Counties 1947-1953 with Averages for Specified Periods County 1948 1950 J252 mi. Average 1941-43 i — Average .1944-46 Merced liadera Fresno Kings Tulare Kern Total San Joaquin Valley 18 s 000 46,050 139,000 78,000 109,000 143,000 533,050 Riverside j 2,891 Imperial 9 Total Southern California 2,900 Others 50 Total Cali- fornia 1 536,000 acres Average .19.47-42 Average -1251=51 1 I 1 1,11 25,800 65,400 221,000 109,900 168,000 216,000 42,700 71,700 264,000 127,500 200,500 247,000 19,800 42,900 159,200 82,500 118,400 158,300 A? i on 92,320 342,000 183,000 270,500 317,200 otR ai9.t8?W «rii. snort* riot'isi. %ttl atibotq-noiio s i.«ifeIo. • srfi raorr* qosrt:< ieri.7cn.4 .aapcf *X£©y-s»vx1 9ffi '?o ' •*5s?ns'o*faq yr'i-nc -JJbrfxX 6 bn s inemtoXXa -aiaad arii ni seaa-ionx . jnts h?«xove1 • orii t beri r jfi6i .■wo'.'felcoo jnarfisartrja on&aniR .ayxaosrt foXuoo eieia --pie. no.i-t^tfbai evxicS aqnortg m-t-l tanwo^R aaejignql) .bagnario Jon aaw noxisJ.r..tg9X ' .irtoqq»8 XanaxgaTiainx c* via oat Wxjow liririv-Irfaoqq'iq a qolavab oi gfjiy/xi .oi •bsftsvnoDet • ac;n-t«op nariw' v.bss-r Jtsaoqqrto- asiffiortamoa s &yarf oi eaw avxioaic/o stiT ~.noi?.39G taoaaS .8tfi.*fo*. ' ainaraioXIa gnxii/qrics nx 95^ •taa-it-faaTcrfi $sv»o&i daom arii So ©air an*T •bXuow. aix/bsociq ainT .ie&W edi oi euosgfitfnsvr*? :£lrrsIyoxirrfiq ecf bXuow oi asieje noi-Joo bXo arii lo navsis otqiI aatos bnsax'o.-!i ^ t ^6h nala^srii •' ax.-yiotcXeQ .(Y ai'oVT) sl^o'iiXarj bos • t snosi:rcA ^or-rxaM wall t e;$xaT tfbxrioX'? tftxiiag rioss .Jmioma ax.ii 1o inao iaq OY TgXJjppa ij/ocf» abivxb bXuow ssaxaT.bnii inacrioXX-.a a-'airrrtolJE-^sO .ae^e-iani; bXyovr b&FS .asics bnasaredi .$E.S. yXais#£&:o*xqq s siOji? bnaauorii ^X rtavo ttt&w&x bXuow- «nosXrt.\ .Bant a .bnast/orfi^ S.C^.V ipoda oi ■ isam srii ii ina-ni-VIla Xeneiilbba aanaa bfl«a«en\t. t>,84 oaiacaW waif b$^ Bsnos ^ .beiqob*. 9T9W aaed tssjy-asrf/ii. +.T>oa-i arii benxaiftoo Xasoconq aa*d irsa-yve^iffJ- eirii. "lo ooiiai<5(9V rtariionA 3Y moled bacjbarr sgaanoij- aix ©vari bXucw t?5?X ni sisia on imfi /fpiaxyoiC; '. bXuow mlnxvoiQ sxriX .a.taia iarft nx agea'xoe haiaelq S5?X arii So inao naq • •be^aarxoftx . ad bXi/ow gflfepgoXXi ages-toe plzsd Xsnoiicn 944 (X) jg^oe'ilp ovi ay&i oi -a^naaJ-oXXa erfi (S) £ar *aaic*e ?.YX jnortl t aa«ioa noxXXxm 05 tavo oi labxu; Xxsvotq bXxow isriw -revc fcoeBS'joni acf blx/ow sbi'ioX? iqeoxo aaisia Ila aXm.o?XXB0 ►nciiayban. againaortaf no nox.To.tii 391 on rfiiv aaad TS9\:-o9trt: f erti arii. gnXgrr'ja' inafnicIX'i ai^ ux eaioa atom bnsaucx J Y5C 19V0 avx^oof LX-vow ftJLl.I to oaea-ionx na ftiiw t 66^QT ^[nC .a c >ioe bnsairoHi 2.5J Id ... . . .... . • • ■ : ■ ■ ' t tfyjbtiloni Mew znoiioubon mmlnln *xol • - ' | ' • cw r i~^neL eld; ;soq 9ftf ^aisor/'ociq i<£fJxi vxbrtx no aqidabasii *d.J 93iiba*j oi ed ton *fe?X :-u rtox^oifbciq aoJJ-op ni se&a?&£($ vis lo enoieet/o'iaqcn afiarxtarfo scii yjS fcsniliuo i«itt d;!iw bsnssqmu ed "v;6m fseoqo-ra sidT \iTfc~e R^iaf^er npycp o^s^'iise iAtwfjJj pt 3\ i l\5 bei covp scte*rSe j-sa©j.Ae (513 4 OCX) ffCJ.es)* ffftee itoapcnur srapGe f6 Es.p vzjis SJ*3t7*3 ST'3T3'8 1 5S' 4 ".!Sg*i? "•-0 d 1 8d0'3 ■ r 3 o'3o*2 ; Q8Q3;&.jff. • ii3*a l- TPS T 5 TS5*3 ! I j • 5 . JiW G } 1 - ■ bj, r fc t jVji het*- 0^4? 1 i 1 JJ V, • J j ** r" — ^fjBRj^Qcj xS3v ejj*oflWcu^:.i Hf4?p iwjjousrj jyci»e»8.o. e J!3?* 5 . i ? 3 t. 0 *'. ' ^^fXT^fom-. ear ji* Ill* Impact of Allotments Under Various Programs on California Agriculture The 19$h national U.S. cotton acreage allotment of If. 9 million acres, or 27.2 per cent less than the 1953 acreage of 2U.6 million acres was announced on October 9, 1953 by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary had no choice regarding this announcement in view of the specific requirements of pertinent legislation as reviewed and interpreted in previous sections of this paper. It was mandatory that he announce a cotton marketing quota and acreage allotment for 195k} furthermore, the statutes allow him no choice in the size of the U.S. allotment nor in the manner in which it is to be divided among states, counties, and farmers. Slightly over one-third of the farmers, of course, could have prevented this program coming into effect by rejecting the quotas in the December referendum. They did not do so in view of the impact of such refusal upon the level of supports for cotton lint prices. if Such rejection would have meant a drop in support levels from 90 to 50 per cent of parity on the 195U crop. As discussed above, there remains one other means through which the impact of the acre reduction on California and other U.S. farmers may be modified from that dictated by present legislation. It is possible that some of the new proposals now being considered by various congressional committees and farm organizations may be passed in the 2nd session of the 83rd Congress. Any change in the law may be expected to be accompanied by some change in the cotton acre allotment program; either in terms of the total national allotment or the sharing in this national allotment among the several states. Probably any such changes will increase the acreage allotment for U.S. and California farmers. The major portion of the following analysis assumes that the size and mechanics of the acre allotment program will be within the framework of legislation in effect on December 1, 1953. This would require a national allotment of 17.9 million acres and California allotted acreage of 697,800 acres. The impact of such a level of cotton production, representing a reduction of 50 per cent from 1953 acreage, is evaluated in terms of the impact upon production of cotton and alternative crops. A further analysis 1/ Approximately 82 per cent of California growers who voted in the referendum favored acreage controls and allotments. 2/ See pages k to 23 in preceding section. smfiigorr auo.i"£B noxXixm ?,yx lo inaflrioXXs 9339103 flpfrbo ,2»U Xsn^xJan tiZ^l «dT saw agios noIIXxm d.ilS lo agBO-roe tclQX asriJ asaX Jmo «isq S.TS to XtBiaiosZ arfT .QitfJIx/ci-jgA lo f&tfafesS erf* yd f*^X t od moil alavaX dioqqiis til qoib a dnrarn avail bixrow ncidoata*! rfatfo laricto ano aniamsi 9ierid t ffVods bjiseiroaxb a& ,qoio i45,noxasaia.noa b9i.T3qpnooDB 9d od tadosqra ad ya^i waX arid nx egnan'o ijnA .eeaisno) fjx£8 arid lo arid lo eHT3j nx iair&ni 'siwn »ed bnood^ 1o qif**c? s floras moTtV'»«4SKj!»$i» ^oleifttbiq >tao •.tjT.OtfW. 26. operations. An analysis of the impact of cotton allotments on the individual farm is contained in the next section. The range of alternative enterprises which can replace cotton varies among California's counties. The range of choice is affected by natural environment, farm size, grower experience, market availability, and other major factors determining farm organizations. High water costs resulting from relatively low water tables in much of the area in Fresno, Kings, Kern, and Tulare counties will severely limit choice. Operators of small farms must seek high labor-consuming enterprises which will net a relatively high return per acre. They require such crops to market their own fixed labor supply and to obtain sufficient family income to maintain living standards. These factors affecting choice of alternatives are discussed more fully in the following section. Most producers are willing to experiment with new enterprises only on a limited scale. Therefore, the major portion of the released acreage will likely be diverted to enterprises with which the individual operators have had experience. Markets for many of the adapted specialty crops are limited by processor or shipper contract systems. Markets for others can absorb relatively small quantities before farm prices are depressed to unattractive levels. How will the acreage to be released from cotton production in 195U be utilized? No one can predict exactly what enterprises individual farmers will select and in what fashion these will be combined into farm organizations. Sufficient guideposts are available, however, for persons familiar with the agriculture of the area and the variations in organization among individual farms to prepare preliminary estimates of aggregate acreage shifts. These data at least will serve to emphasize the dimensions of the cotton allotment problem. The data presented below are the estimates of the authors alone. The basic assumption underlying these estimates is that the legislation now in existence will determine the national, state, and county allotments in 19$k. Any change in legislation will necessarily change these data, possibly substantially. Specifically, it is assumed that there will not be regulations to limit the freedom of farmers in deciding how to use their diverted acres. It is estimated that grain, alfalfa, and idle or fallow will absorb $1*7,000 acres, or 77 per cent of the land diverted from cotton (Table 9). Specialty crops, oil seeds, and sugar beets s are expected to account for another 86,000 acres— 12 per cent. The remainder will be divided among 9 9.VX^ftOS©JrlB 1Q 1 , ■ . re, . ■ - ' , tax/A f«ol*»w ' - wan rf*xW to3nij-jeq/.a grrilXiw eac. aaaojjfeo ' ' ' ■ ' ' ' met aaoiacj e&l&J&ftntfp XXsfss yfevtJ&ls-T eft»eCf natdsa jex.«sna9.ffts . mb aaoxaq ■ ■ . ■ 9d# ri#xw 'XsxXxns*! enoaaeq aol _ t *e>v3wc ^Xxsvs sas f,*eoqofo.ti''g dnsx: >a XXxw Iwbivibol B-noms KOiiBslra^ao at. e«ox*sxT#v adi bits B?ae lo vwS£no.i.nB It ' ■ - • . crn?mloXXB ffo^oo arii to 3noi.aitsmr.fr. ©-it* - asiaEriqma. o£ airtefi Xw i-soaX is Bisb :3iq B.jKf"> ..eriT . .jnsXdoiq . wvt naid-s.i'axs3l sri*. tari-t at.' se^smiJaa 'tifctfft ani^sXasfsnx/ noi^qjtwa-es T.xestf ftrfT ox aJ-nsrstfoJXB vShCoo bn* ..-acte-fra t X«nox3*a «f* &riiiirt.dcteb XX i'*' sbHS&sJbefc. nx ^riiaaqq ,aJ*b essdi saanio ;#xasae*09ft XXiw nox.+BXaiasX nr. saneri? v-ta ..*15?X 3«cx(f.':iLtrso-i *d Jon XXiw- .s**rf* rfs&J- barta/ae* si ix . ^Xfio^oeqr. . .xL&HncJ*4&i »afjiss .bo*-i9v£b «jcf9rfd- flax; o^.wori anifcioab n.X saflmaj-i "ip ..mobesi'x srW tfixaxXoX : -tfioads XXiw .woXXel. aaaXbi baa ..^IslX-^ *rjx>Bas. tfsrlj fctfsmiaes ai *$ .• .(rdslx»v3 XXs to axa'fXsns noqxr beasd ats avods. bed£j9«9i<$ asiamidas ©r(T--«O^X sri.+ gnXXooa to iXi-'aa-x erid- 3? bns t acl&zdio Xsnoa^q mott ( ee£dsid£da ' bX J-T .atatftow XstuiXi-'oriss bns si9Ti'i£t to a^aai abiw e to anciaiqc jfiaxnaqxa lo exaxXens as riiiw ji5?X tot esJoniiee -eearid stscjbdo pd snidasioini sJtrfT -. STuJlLi oi-^ft * ftviQ%fcIn3 nx ^nxtsaqcs yltasost. X?Q£ ni -bna O^X nl neddoo lo oe-ios 000 t 8X£. to eau add fninrtsdsb of aatf a Jttabn.tr aia^Isru? , j I ' ... KJOI : . ■ ■ . - . • ' ■ . baiscrnroo as aetos 000 1 not bainuooaa YXsvxdooXXoo &&t Irrigated pasture-' +135 + 66 + 18 + 18 + 15 + 15 + 13 + 8 + 5 + 2 -126 - 82 - 17 - Ui - 26 - 6 - 37 - 13 - h - ih Total + 295 -339 Cotton -318 + 6U0 a/ Source: County Agricultural Commissioner Reports for all crops except cotton. Cotton from U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, b/ Barley and wheat. Includes dry and irrigated acreage except for Kern County where only irrigated acreage is included. c/ Reflects Tulare County only. Source: Lee, Ivan M. Cotton Acreage Adjustment , University of California, California Agriculture, vol. 7, no. 6, June, 1953. 9*1 — nxsig * 8 j : - ■ A© to f r *■ f ■ <^ «a , xaA 70'x'J ti^X | bat snr39it3irf silf boa— atUxXB bns y&X-ibo' io r i— bsriaiXdsJ-aa <*9n « bb sis ssgsaioB bsiiwvxb arid ^nxmussB iXuas'i XXiw Btttrfsioa nxsss Y&i*ifd Xfi.icT .(XX eXdi-.T) aqoio geaxfcx "jo sgflsioB C5?X arid ad naMrbbs seonB-tsnx/oTtc drxra -gfcru; ea^o* 000 ;l B?7 t X o* im/oms bXuow -arsis lol 9»«9iob beinaa eiqei— Oc^X nx OOQ^Y. t XrT93seios axfoivs-iq .fasrigxd adT .(XX aXdsT oou) tot edsaticraa 'esorfdixs 9dT .Si^'X lo djarid" i&vo Ba-xos OCO t <|YX xo assa-ioni rte be-xi^vib od W esiojs OCO^XilS .goi-bbs bevxi&b 8i tic 1 ?! at nxea^ to! y-aXisd Xfixi.ti^adue vtn^naiqsi 45^X 101 b^ftmiige dsrit bns b&iioqst sgsaasB E.cSX-;:U9J adT ..sirrxoxxisO ni xiis'is to*! dx/o Y^-fi^ 959310s Xsnrxpn ad* *ievo XBXX9 bed-aiX aqoio XXb no'i egBoio.^ t #vwov la t \-iiri nxBis 1o o^&&toa sdT ♦noidoxifcgi eg«910fl jsd* oj- d"ootdi;a ax ,2no.Uxbnoa lorij'iow yd ba^oaxlt? yXcJ^s-xa ax n^ i-iS^bsH ■'jRB Q'f oji 'i.&.l.tcQ av xJ sni3 -",XA tabnll nx nol^nboTrq hoJi-.i uia?. 3vi*3.fn9il* nodd'oo mot'i bainsvib 9d od f5et»wx?89 astos eriT-*» aX^v^ T Ifiiod ni Boaesioni Jnai-roq/ni snxid cd b9.j-39qx9 3d ysa? eqo^o ffftsl BimcxiXBO 'lotsra rto-1 bfiisnxdao nsod ovari noxdot-lwiq i'sdcid bns abXexY ,xio.tto;;bo"rq 31. TABLE 11 Total California Acreages 19i£-l°53: Selected Field Crops in San Joaquin and Southern Cotton-Growing Areas a/ j Barley Years grain Oats ?rain Grain hay Alfalfa Grain sorghum Field corn Sugar beets Potatoes early Cottor 19UU-1953 average 1915 thousand acres r,$39 1>U86 l;U86 l',S22 l',590 W -175 l',l&2 l',k97 1953 I ,1,557 19514-1953^ '2la 19U6 I9hl 19kB I9k9 1950 1950-19)49^' 19149 1952 19514 d/ 1,798 176 623 '987 100 70 Iho 70 79U 165 771 1^026 l>005 102 6h 101 73 319 190 678 lh$ 67 135 81 359 180 678 1,005 70 62 16U 62 536 185 522 925 116 65 187 80 810 166 600 -962 71 65 l5o 66 931 196 570 1,058 nil 81 219 78 586 30 - 30 - 96 143 16 69 12 - 3ii5 163 513 931 65 69 1U8 149 1,331 170 590 '959 95 78 161 60 liUoo 1,396 175 555 1,026 105 78 I61 82 10 35 '107 h2 16 31 h - 698 185 590 1,133 lh7 9h 195 86 698 a/ Source: Reported Acreages USDA, BAE, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Estimated acreages 195U and changes calculated by authors. b/ Changes in state total acreage. c/ Estimated changes in cotton counties only, no estimate attempted other areas, d/ Estimated state totals with 50 per cent reduction in cotton acreage from 1953. II 3JHAT. ?£^I-'&i?I' aegsstoA zLnrtollLad £b&o! fliifpacV fteS rtx aqoiO hi si! bsdsalaG \'3 a e r »i vV gpsgvre i G-ac J jc 0 err srfiu c 2 farts j h-ck. g ; 16 ••;<.• 2 acrsarf m 33 i .. ,- <. . .... ., ftt#oi I iixsig m • xe«ui OOfiJ ^C t l L i .. i — « 03 - ,i On' sy ■ ! ..• : aa m ■ 05i . ST lid ■ ■ • i ooin] ■ ? T H till W <0I ! VUi Rpf> r ie - CCX^X • esd ITT • & 0^5 &l O r <[I np.I £5?I-a^I ^riivisS gnxiioqgH yfootesviJ bne qoiO t SA« asS'-gro-A. bedioqatf seonrocS \s ^esesiOG l6>fo>t a.frs.fa rt± 3-?gri6iO Vf t&tois isxIto beiqprtG J'd's jj-i'^.Tix^af* on t v;I-ifQ Bsk&cuityo ncjJoO' ni asgnsrio bsv'snix. ^ t £c$I .r.oil 'u^Br/xss rtoJ-too nx noxjotrfaan *n?o tarr 0 and alfalfa up 238,000 tons or about 5 per cent. The increase in grain sorghum is estimated to be less than half what it would be under the 50 per cent cotton acreage cut (Table 12).V li/ The impact of the 27jj P er cent cut compares closely with that to be anticipated from the cut involved in the January 7, 195U proposal by the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for changes in legislation and cotton allotments. ■ ■ ', ■ ■ i . • " • . . • ' I ' • . • . :■■ | • ■ ■ I ■ ■ •: j . . ) noi • •• . • "■ " ' - . ' ■ .'. , rt . . ^ .... . . ■ . _ . . • ;.. pg 89 h • ' - ■ ••" ' : . . ' lite - ' - [g : • • 9X0 ' ... . ■ . j ■ ■ » ... f . ' - : •• ' ■•■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ; ■ ■' ■ ■ •' - , ■ ' , OOO t 8£S qx/ flifi'iis bw ^iffil oViidB #jt»o i=?q 0£ *ro s:-bsa fioi.flJ'ffi |S Jx'CCfe orf bd^BiriiJ-ii9 air myiigiOa cisij ni sistf&ni ariT -tfnac ioq 5 Jiiorfs no -gnoi sgfta-ior, eioJJ-03 ?nan -i&q 0*C5d*O0G [ defoce 1 1 - i ^ 3U. It may be concluded that the probable impact of the cotton acreage reduction program will be to stimulate production of alternative crops ?nd result in marked supply increases. The price impactof these increased supplies will vary widely and depend upon a considerable number of factors. Grain, such as barley, for which a price support program is in effect should undergo relatively less downward pressure on prices as a result of increased supply provided adequate approved storage is available. Such approved storage may not be available in many localities. In such local situations farmers cannot benefit fully, and the effect of price supporting programs will be minimized. Prices may fall relatively sharply under such circumstances. Alfalfa producers are particularly vulnerable. Their product is bulky, which makes it expensive either to store or to transport to other less surfeited markets. A relatively close balance, historically, is maintained between alfalfa production and consumption. An 8 per cent increase probably is adequate to bring a very sharp price repercussion. It is important to note that alfalfa prices in 1953 were sharply lower than for recent previous seasons. It also is worthy of note, relative to a number of the specialty crops, that effective marketing frequently depends upon contracts. It is extremely hazardous, therefore, to plan any substantial acreage of such crops unless the market outlet has been assured. Price Relationships Upon California Major Field Cro ps.— Prices for the more important California field crops trended upward from 19U0 through 1952 with the exception of 19U8 and 19U9 and, for certain crops, 1950 (Table 13). These data indicate that the postwar price-strengthening influences had about exhausted themselves in 19U7. A definite downward trend then began but was interrupted by the price stimulus of the Korean War. This stimulus, in turn, lost its effect by the end of 1952, and 1953 prices again were sharply lower. It should be recognized that accurate measurement of 1953 price levels will not be possible until seasonal averages have been reported. The data presented here are preliminary simple averages of monthly price data calculated by the authors. Even though the 1953 averages are not comparable with the marketing season averages, it will come as no news to farmers that they do show a downward adjustment in farm prices received. These trends are readily recognized when the actual farm prices are converted into relatives for each of which the average prices received by farmers during the years 19U0 to 19hk equals 100 per cent (Table lU). One of the ■ slips bs befcivoiq nnitoo Grid- lo iosqmi o ad* ^ brrc aqoio svxJBniscrXs to noi-Jcuboiq eJpXumx.tB oi 9d IIxw rasi^c jsxXqqifS Jteosoioni aserfJ lo^rsanx eo/iq fii3 riox/a isbnu yXqiarfB ^T&vxJGXei XXal -yjsra zsoirfi .bsvhalnin t -y?iXi;d si ioxrboiq ix9riT *9XdBisnXx;v -"{XiaXi/oxJiaq 8ia aiaouboiq alXslXA Baal laxk+o oi ii-qanaii ci 10 «ioje od> i9rtfX9 9vxBflsqx9 Ji B93l£jit rtoiriv benxatfixsm al ^Xsoiiocrsxrf t 3onaXad gsoXp yXovxiaXsi A .acrajfiam be&tiHus -lfXcfacfoiq ?ss9ioni dnec isq 8 nA .noiJqmx/Bnoo bus noiiouboiq bIXsIXs neswtarf 0$ .*n£oT>qmx ax tfl .noxaaxroiaqsi *niiq qiaxis xiov s gniid oi oiaxxpsba si aucivaiq insoai to"! rtaxid iswoX yXqisrfa ©ibw £5QX ni eooxiq alXslXe isxi* 9ion XiXciosqa ertt lo i9dBn/fl b oi 9viisX9i t eion lo yriiiow al obXb il fliWll 8i II .aiosiinoo abqa abneqeb yXirtAupsix gnxiB^iam BvUoaile isrii t eqoio doirz lo esB«70S Xeicfne.tBcfr.ra ypn nsXq 03 ,9iolei&rfi t ai/obiasBri yXs/nsiixa nrii lox gaoiiq— -.sqoiC bXox? -to r.BM BXtrfoxxX^O noqU aqivfemxicXgfl zol'il Sb 1 .YiiQX xti ea\ . t 2i/Xxurrii8 efri? .iaW nBBioX 9di lo aiiXinaxie 90iiq 9ft J 919W niass sooiiq Z^L bna t Sc]?X lo bn9 art* yd d C5^X lo dxte:i9i£r360in sJsiiJOoa isri^ bssiogoosi ad bJ .bB«'Xoq9t n?9d r-van B9yai?>vB Xano3898 Xi*nx» sXJisaoq s eoiiq xXfttfic." 'io aegeievs aXqinxa vi en XriuX«iq sia J-on 9ie 89SS19V8 tcl^X &rlt .^stfOitJ- navS .aiorf^ifi od - swan on aa smoo XXxw &1 t e9gs r xyva nooBsa §aiJ9i .b9VX300"t B*oi~iq wtel tii Smm^su{,bs iriswrrwob a w< bsJiavnoo 9*is aaoxiq mist Xax/ioa &cii nsxtw b©si:i2oo9i r aianrtsl X'J bsvxeo9T Esoiiq 93£i9va 9fii rioifiw '10 9riJ- lo 9nO ,(>lL aXcfeT) Sneo isq OOX eiBupe 4il?X < f ion XXiw aiavsX eoliq nsn" b9in939tq 6iab 9riT cam erli rtixw 9Xdsisqjrioo TABLE 13 California Seasonal Average Prices Selected Field Crops, 194-0-1953 a/ Barley i Oats { Grain 1 sorghum Field corn Alfalfa hay 1 Grain j hay Sugar 1 beets Potatoes early j 1 Aotton._ 1 cents U.S. index ! prices paid j by farmers dollars per hundredwe 3ight dollars per ton dollars per hundred- j 1910-1914=100 per cent per weight pound 1940 .83 .97 1.09 | 1.55 9.60 8.90 6.91 1.25 11.97 124 1941 1.44 1.56 1.50 1.79 14.70 12.00 8.06 1.08 17.31 132 1942 1.42 1.78 1.70 2.23 19.50 17.30 9.82 2.00 19.19 151 1943 2.29 2.59 2.64 2.55 23.80 20.60 12.61 2.42 20.31 170 1944 2.27 2.5.9 , 2.09 2.43 24.00 22.90 13.18 2.33 20.89 182 1940-1944 average 1.65 1.90 1.80 2.11 18.32 16.34 10.12 1.82 17.93 152 1945 2.17 2.53 2.66 2.54 23.70 22.20 13.46 2.67 22.12 189 1946 2.98 3.16 2.79 3.04 28.40 25.80 13.66 2.08 30.94 207 1947 3.23 3.59 4.18 4.98 24.60 24.40 14.53 2.67 33.31 239 1948 2.71 3.16 2.66 3.11 27.70 27.50 13.21 2.58 31.35 259 1949 2.33 2.62 2.55 2.75 22.50 22.00 13.44 2.25 28.17 250 1950 2.54 2.78 2.64 3.34 19.70 19.30 12.96 1.75 41.25 255 1951 3.15 3.47 3.30 3.88 30.40 28.80 14.11 2.33 39.25 281 1952 3.33 3.56 3.45 3.66 31.50 29.70 14.66 3.92 35.90 287 1953 y 2.72 3.09 3.05 3.41 1 19.88 1.30 32.20 277 a/ Sources? Reported data, USDA, BAE, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service^ estimates, price relatives, and ratios by authors. b/ Simple means of July-October reported prices, calculated by authors. (8T 1 5g i > i"'. • T*80 i }£* : /p'JS ■ ryes : V^s& 7**$ ■ . *T* \ * T ^ *r i**vr ISs. s 1, qoj" 1 [ pss 36. reasons why cotton has attained such a pre-eminent position in California agriculture is evident from these relatives. Cotton since 19^8 has been relatively higher compared with the base period 19UO-19UU than the other main crops in California cotton counties. This price advantage of cotton is particularly evident during the years 1950-1952. Even in 1953, thanks to the support at 90 per cent of parity, cotton still maintains an advantage. This over-all price picture, particularly the relationship between cotton prices and those for other chief California farm products, may be further examined by expressing each of the price relatives as a ratio to the U.S. index number of prices farmers paid—the so-called parity index—also on a 19ii0-19iUi base. This index went up steadily during the period 19UO-1953, the decline being checked only in 19U9 and 1950 which were lower than 19U8, and again in 1953, slightly down from 1952 (see Table lh). When these annual averages for the index of prices paid are divided into the individual annual price relatives it is possible to measure how the price for the individual farm product has changed from the base period as compared with the amount of change in the index of prices paid. Thus, in 1950 alfalfa hay prices show a ratio of .61; to the index of prices paid. This means that the prices-paid index is about 50 per cent higher, compared with the base period (19U0-19U1;), than alfalfa hay. It will be noted also that the ratio for early potato prices to the index of prices paid is slightly lower than that for alfalfa hay. This means that producers of these two commodities in 1950 were seriously disadvantaged in comparison with producers of the other principal California field crops in the cotton counties. The preliminary estimates by the authors for 1953 prices again snow the same general relationships. It is noted, however, that in 1953 cotton prices did not have as sharp an advantage as they previously had enjoyed, compared with other field crops. The rise in cotton prices is substantially the same as that for the index of prices that farmers paid (Table lii) . The 1953 drop in alfalfa hay prices again has put hay producers in a disadvantaged position. The grain growers, on the other hand, in 1953 still are situated relatively favorably, even though their prices are relatively lower than during much of the period from 19i;0 to 1952. There are two other aspects of prices for such California field crops as serve as raw materials for producing meat and livestock products. It is necessary to examine the extent to which the relatively lower prices for these feed nead aid Oceania AoddoD ".aoviislei saerfd raoi? 4nsbxve a| srardXrc-i-xae boxieq sasd - pddoo.i ' ' ' 1 ■ . ' i-tt'tfoxq .aoiiq XXe-isvc atri? csrido to! saodrf bns aspifc noctdoo ■ • .ease liikjX-O&I b cq oeXF.-~-xeb:it t nir.gs bos t 8jJ?X rrsrid iewoX siaw (■ « vod eii/es^m : .3 bib e^oiiq no, bsiscntoo . bevt j /'is a as aco't' ta e ^Xds-iov£'i ^Xo-'xdeXsT: b^ayJia tvis XXida •q sdi torioim jjni.TffL nsrfJ t:swoX ."^Xovfc^eXn rO.rloys to? ascxTq lo sd sagas -radio owd firta rcX bns ipssn -jxiouboiq iol i&jNNMtftl wei as ■vXvtBXsi arid rfoxriw od dnsdxa arit animsxa od TABLE U California Price Relatives and Ratios of Price Relatives to U.S. Index Numbers of Prices Farmers Paid, 1940-1953, (Average 1940-1944=100) 1 | ! 1 1 1 Grain 1 .field , Alfalfa Gram Sugar 1 Potatoes tsarxey Oats sorghum corn hay 1 hay_ 1 beets 1 early Cotton 3S \xyij.u -1944=100) 1940 50 51 60 73 52 54 68 69 68 1941 88 82 83 85 80 73 80 59 97 1942 86 94 94 106 106 106 97 110 107 1943 139 136 147 121 130 126 125 133 113 1944 138 136 116 115 131 140 130 128 117 1945 132 133 148 120 129 136 133 147 123 1946 181 166 155 144 155 158 135 114 173 1947 196 189 232 236 134 183 144 147 186 1948 164 166 148 147 151 168 130 142 175 1949 141 138 142 130 123 135 133 124 157 1950 154 146 147 158 108 118 128 96 230 1951 191 183 183 184 166 176 139 123 219 1952 202 187 192 173 171 182 145 215 200 19?3 165 .163 169 162 108 71 180 jfotiQg.-pf Price .R elatives to U._S v Index .Numbers 1940 .61 .62 |~ .73 .89 1941 1.01 .94 .95 .98 1942 .87 .95 .95 1.07 1943 1.24 1.21 1.31 1.08 1944 1.15 1.13 .97 .96 1945 1.06 1.07 1.19 .97 1946 1.33 1.22 1.13 1.06 1947 1.25 1.20 I.48 1.50 1948 .96 .98 .87 .86 1949 .86 .84 .86 .79 1950 .92 .87 .88 .94 1951 1.03 .99 .99 .99 1952 1.07 .99 1.02 .92 JL252. 1 .91 1 ..90 I .53 _L_ .89 of Prices JFarmer s_ .63 I .66 .92 .84 1.07 1.07 1.16 1.13 1.09 1.17 1.04 1.10 1.14 1.16 .85 1.16 .39 .99 .75 .82 .64 .70 .90 .95 .90 .96 .59 I Paidl: .83 .92 .93 1.12 1.08 1.07 .99 .92 .76 .81 .76 .75 .77 •a40_"19_4i£.100j. .84 .68 1.11 1.19 1.07 1.18 .84 .94 .84 .76 .57 .69 1.14 .J2_ .83 1.11 1.08 1.19 .98 .99 1.27 1.18 1.03 .96 1.37 1.18 1.06 _.9£_ U.S. index prices paid . .by, far mers 82 87 99 112 120 124 136 157 170 164 168 185 189 182 82. 87 99 112 120 124 136 157 170 I64 168 185 189 182 i JOs!J Tovd jets le?A j wi* J* OS dd ! •do *d0 I 1-i rt v ■ J V 1 •3 *AM«Ki •bwiiooJeevil .bnsqfcs «o* sXcf^il^"£<7 ?± a$*R IXlw sgoio .cidw .o* 4fl3*xs> rtiit.ei •Jjoarf-ittttt «*M -no .-tJftfttogn* osXA .floianegx.* dove 39. IV. Effects of Cotton Acreage Allotments on California's Cotton Farmer Reduced net farm incomes for California's cotton farmers will result from transferring cotton acreage to less profitable alternative uses. The data on price relatives presented in the previous section indicate this income reduction to be unavoidable. Some cotton producers are interested in specialty crops which they consider will provide comparable net incomes but price and/or production uncertainty are likely to be high for such alternatives . What producers do with their acreage to be diverted will depend primarily on their estimates of the duration of the acreage restriction program. If they expect controls for only one year then they likely will shift to alternative cash crops with little regard for ultimate use of the products. However, if California cotton farmers anticipate that cotton acreage restriction will continue more or less regularly over a period of several years they will be forced to turn attention to converting feed crops and crop aftermath to higher valued products — meat and livestock products. The impact of acreage allotments on California's cotton farmers will depend on the alternatives available to the individual farmer. The adapta- bility and profitableness of such alternatives vary from area to area and farm to farm because of physical, economic, and institutional factors. Differences in soils, water availability, temperature characteristics, and pests and diseases are the principal physical factors determining what alternatives are profitable. Market availability, expected prices, operator's debt position and available capital are important economic determinants for choosing alternatives. Size of farm, the operator's tenure, and his experience are some of the institutional factors that will be very important forces in shaping specific farm organizations. Any evaluation of the impact of allotments on individual cotton farmers must take into account the variations which exist in the forces determining enterprise choice. One group of factors influencing choice of alternatives is closely related to geography, hence the cotton producing area can be divided into four fairly homogeneous regions. Probable production shifts, the effect of these shifts on use of farm and area resources, and the impact on gross costs and returns, and net returns can be examined in terms of these four regions. mi) F.01I . . • ■ • woe , - . ■ ■ • " . : tfio-tCsvil errs dsom— bJouomq &3»v 101a 10 i 3*^ ■ • 1 ■' sxr ■ . ■ - . . - ■ - ■ . . ...... • • . . . basiftnas fti rtBo *asw*ft* **»a »nB t 3u'i;ro3T bus erfeoo «ac-xg no Uo. Choosing Alternative Enterprises in Four Geographic R egions .— The two northern cotton counties — Merced and Madera — form a unique area. Livestock enterprises have been the foundation of farm organization in these counties for several decades. Crop production is oriented largely to the livestock enterprises with a small acreage devoted to one or at the most two cash crops for additional income. These livestock enterprises were maintained very well during the years of cotton expansion. The production of feed grains, alfalfa, and pasture in these two counties on an estimated 85 per cent of the $1,000 acres to be diverted from cotton in 195k indicates that significant expansion of dairying and feeding operations will take place. Cheaper feed in abundant quantities and the relatively low investments required to enlarge existing livestock enterprises should favor this expansion. While less investment per head of livestock is required for those expanding existing operations the total capital requirement will, nevertheless, be increased. Livestock expansion in 195>U is much more likely to materialize in the Merced-Madera area than in any other of the San Joaquin Valley cotton districts. Cash crop alternatives are not attractive in this two-county area. Feed producing crops — grains, pastures, and alfalfa— are well adapted to the soil, climatic and topographic features of this northern cotton area. Water, while not abundant in all parts of these counties, is available in sufficient quantity and at a cost which will permit expanding these crops. The grains, if irrigated at all, will require less than 2 acre-feet of water; the alfalfa and pasture from U to 7 acre-feet depending primarily on soil type. These requirements compare with approximately 3 acre-feet now applied to cotton. Examining only the shift to crops other than cotton, one might conclude that the diverted land, labor, and capital resources of Madera-Merced cotton farms are to be devoted to less intensive uses and, therefore, that the earnings of these resources may be drastically reduced. This conclusion is not correct, however, since the possibility of expanding livestock enterprises on these farms, in conjunction with greater feed production may well offset any reduction in returns. In some cases it is possible that annual returns to these factors, particularly labor, may be increased significantly over what accrued with a major portion of the farm in cotton. A much broader range of alternative crops is available to farm operators in central and southeastern Fresno County, Tulare County, eastern Kings County, and northern Kern County, but income reductions probably will be as ■ ■392 I ' ' ■ • • ■ . - • .. . ' - " . . ; - . .fiSTB- aoWap nisiiJicrt fc£ricM» asurtsel oiftqsibo'qbj - ' bfts oitpmxxo »J nx 9l'ioi?r!t tb&fi e&bjj ev.refi3.tnx aesl at b£"oOV9b e.nd ad oi bne? apo-jo XXs lo sblaXv riavo/lj-' t Gic,TmrlJ-5J(.<] »babi:oVjs abxw.e.tmr io eaoXlq alds-iovs! ri'ifw bartXdmoo abXoXy, rto^Xoo Xrtaliscxs HJ.cw.betsqnoo aX qo*io sXrfX nariw no^oo gnXiovsl Bsona-fall.xb modal Xan nx npXicu r ;bo-i arfX ■. dari.fr t'j'idla'iariX t 9ldXaeoq al XT. .eqoio rf«so aYXXsmaXlB . a 9XX euro o rreerifr'so ft flg^$*V nXnpcoI, ns3 ?riX lo noxctaoq aXdX fix jnaaeiq ex rfaoJ-eavri antcB ,>(3od-aavXX fytibplonl 'Vbasils aimsl aaori.fr no a/sroo ysto noXenaqxo amoa brrs .WaXciaq© 9d4 bns ?aXXqqira baal ansi-no baaca^oni moil XXxrea-x XX X« XX t oa II •JiooXaevXI risHoidJ yldsXXlo^q Jso.ti befsAtm ad aso baal axd.fr XsriXlsxiad ?rfi lo astfss'Kf frl>DXllib »i isnTsx ae?riX no aax? eoiifoaai la exe^XiJfj* «A ,na?.crfa 8,aaX*iq*sa#Xt9 &£ bns t z2ftlsl 9rifr lo eanxtfeal XAoXa^dq nX noxXsXfev abxw fXdn oX XXxtaai tytt aXXirrl fcrta s^XdsJagav ajs ricue aqotL vrfisXoaqa oX eXHrfS xo BnoXd'XbxJOO ^abxuf t bna e^XXqqt's ^rodsX aXdaXXt nx. 9«aaaos Xe^o* ©rfr lo *^eq leXBai] ns-vh? flft sloXq XXXw ei9ilaXq XsoXnadoam t%ltatot& anXXoob aXaoo arti^nXq bnad aeeXnti" ii^J U2. The nature of the adjustment which must be made by west Fresno, Kings, and southern Kern counties' cotton producers is in sharp contrast to those in both areas previously discussed. Large holdings of leased lands under which the water table has steadily declined complicate the adjustment problem. Profitable alternatives to cotton among the irrigated crops are extremely limited, and income reduction on these farms will likely be marked. Alfalfa, pasture, irrigated grains, and oil crops can not support the costs of pumping water along with other production expenses over a substantial portion of this region. Nonirrigated cash grain, while a poor alternative, is probably the only alternative other than leaving the land idle or summer fallowing. With reduced feed grain prices likely and yields relatively low on the nonirrigated grain lands of the San Joaquin Valley, both gross and net per acre incomes will fall substantially. Producers, even though not burdened with high cash rents or heavy indebtedness, will suffer a loss in income and a much lower return on their invested capital. Livestock will be increased in total numbers in this region but the increases are expected where livestock feeding or dairy operations are already in existence. A general shift to a more extensive type agriculture over the region as a whole will typify the adjustment of the western and southern San Joaquin if cotton allotments are continued. It is in this region that the authors anticipate at least 75,000 acres of idle and fallow land in 195U« Utilization of all resources is expected to decline in nearly direct proportion to the acreage diverted from cotton since nearly all visible alternatives require only limited quantities of labor, capital, and equipment inputs. Some exceptions must be madej a few large operations, limited in number, produce and pack such products as cantaloupes. The southern California cotton counties — Riverside and Imperial — expanded their cotton acreage sharply from 1950 to 1953. Partly because this shift was both recent and abrupt and also because of the climatic conditions in the winter months, the impact of the adjustment on individual producers may not be as severe as on producers north of the Tehachapi, particularly on the west side of the valley. Alfalfa and small grains are expected to replace nearly 50 per cent of the diverted cotton acreage. Such historically important crops as flaxseed, grain sorghums, and the vegetable and melon crops, however, will be important alternatives for individual farmers. lagitl-X i*i lis lo noici-jss.cIr.tU 'Jaartqxupa brm t i£iiqco ««&d$£ 10 -e?i ibtnatfp brdxntxl \Ino . sixjjpo'x asvxisoisdltf nx ^snobtsiaqa (ogffetl wax e- tsbsm sd. Jteimf snobtcsaxa smog MB&igffi .B&quoJ BdiTfis es airjaboiq doira. ^ojsq boa saiibcia t "tsdinirn ' • - ' • • . . nl enoxixbiTOo oldsrtilff ©ltd lo.-aa-mosd seln brw dqmds bne dn.9csi ddpd e^w Tjsra 'Biaoobanq Isdbx^rbar no . ^n^deflfcb* "io *Q*q»i , t pri*nora letaxw add: no xL't&lvzlZ'XBQ ffqadsfidaT arfi lo- ditiofl s-f ^oi/boiq sip as ortovsa- as. s»d don : ' »aiajrrsl Xsi&tv&xxi to! "ga^xjeirrails diradsaqmi ad IXxy < *X9V9M»4 t8qo.ua. U3. An accelerated expansion of livestock on farms in the two southern cotton counties is anticipated, particularly if cotton allotments extend over two or more years. Feed availability, new feeding techniques, and new information on handling cattle in the summer climate should further encourage livestock production on farms in this area where many farmers are experienced in feeding beef cattle. Experience and location will determine to a large extent alternative enterprises that individual producers in the Coachella, Palo Verde, and Imperial Valleys will choose. Reduced net incomes per acre are almost certain except in those areas where double cropping of specialty high value (and, incidentally, high risk) crops can be practiced. Statements concerning resource utilization are particularly difficult with respect to this area for reasons similar to those given for the Tulare, eastern Fresno, and northern Kern County area. Other factors must be considered before final conclusions regarding the impact of cotton allotments on individual farm operations can be reached. Farm Size and Alternative Enterprise Choice . — The range of alternatives available to the farmer operating a cotton farm with a total of 160,320 or more cultivated acres is considerably greater than for the person operating 20 or h0 acres, other things being equal. There are two primary reasons for this difference. First, the operator of the small farm desires to derive an income from his farming operation sufficiently high to maintain his family living standard or at least to minimize any reduction. Secondly, the operator as the major source of labor on that farm, must provide employ- ment in order to market his labor through the products of the farm. If both needs are to be satisfied the operator of the small farm must select alternatives to cotton which (a) promi.se to yield relatively high net returns per acre, and (b) will utilize a large part of his labor. Such a farmer, therefore, will favor intensively cultivated crops rather than barley, alfalfa, and pasture. Idle or fallow land certainly will not be an acceptable alternative for cotton on the small farm. A comparison of the earnings and employment offered by several alternative organizations on a l;0-acre cotton farm with assumed cotton acreage reduction emphasizes the problem of reduced earnings and employment with changes in farm organization. Using adjusted 1953 cost-price relation- ships, typical yields and production practices, three types of organization are compared with a 1953 organization (Table 15). In all three alternatives, cotton acreage has been reduced to 15 acres from the 25 cultivated in 1953 • menxtros owtf..9itt ni swnsl no tfooSaovxI' -lo rtoxensgxa b^jsislerofi hA : ' ■ ' - • ■ ... ■ \. H . . ana-mfii X rfam «Wdw sxdi nx ' am-isT no no-x?o-i/bo*tq slacteevtl sgsiiroert? ' ' i • . . • .' • , • . - ' , si i - •■ . • ■ ■ , . ' ■ ■ ■ • ■ erij r;nibtBj>9i enoxeiflonb? isrixl siolsd bstsbxanoo ©d 'iasm a'toJost terf^h 91 ■ . • ■ ' - . • • >qo ■ -' ' ' ' t^rfcncc^S «xioxckufb9rr \;ns ©sifliJiiia ox J8i?el Jb *rc fe-rsbrtsxa s.-jxvxi" v,ixjnBT sir! idQcCfoSjc ms- fcfts asfs£'7Ta9 bs3"b3'i I'v nt'sidoiQ -Strict g?s i Ktsriofrca noixoi'Ofii s* ;T *9'Xot3 • ■ •.' ..... ' •' ' '• ni b9$«'*HIu$> 3S- U moia -gr-irtB ?r ox beoofoof ci99d acd. 3KB9to* noJJoo TABLE 15 Comparative Employment and Earnings on a Typical 4-0- Acre Cotton Farm vith Alternative Organizations, Adjusted 1953 Cost-Price Relationships 1 ; Gross receipts Annual employment and la- Total Gross Gross . less toL-£Gl'Urns to the miaEaioi returns gross expenses Hours of | Labor returns to the Organization L i. Iisin rfXXw • .''■••■■'"' ni .sgnirrw-a woX ^awa-safees snibi-av® f^' ^Xt'otTlib ?vst3 sortax^aqxa- M0oo . t §e.3xiq*i9jnf»: evriJaiyr&tXQ Ore*- r.oXXoo no BiyiWtat etna iaq To nos^acr-c.o- A etarie boa cfaao no rftfod fnawasi" JfisnaX .^d battel: ra*Xdo r ra ariX easXagrfijm©- laiXiaa T *e asais ad-X To Xi>> ni avrtXiSjan. to vroX y^vr -tartXia bib vjaXiBd feds?, al'Xs'iXa goto aXdX To noiX;: uboiq tad ssruitn avXXXaoq vcrfe . aX'aad "xsgnS . CoX ?Xd;-.T") avqd bXuoo eaax J iqiad , n9 TariXQ »xtl£ld8li&vz tociinov tto abHWjab* mtaT vns no . • ■ • - . . i . ad art talari babi/Joni: 0 b*b^«S orir odviXsaitaXXa" bail' oX. -baasoiq wTsri- sd XXiw ztnunsf-J'&dUr Xoshiva. ai .Xi . t «d»T»qx8 .3£r,«tf mio irarfX ■y^sg- fXXw'XsrfX. noXXoo oX ■ twit c-j? antoe art-i: . rf&tfw- ef- .a^T-fo-lEi-tTsi pnroai' msXdcirr iftBjijd-Rfffcs orfT iabflo bacftXaprooa. ai irna^ aid no etsisayt-q M^XMsrr ■■•iwi.r-'i A' .dneff-"X 'adj - siixaal eri4-. o*--a#/t0raTj6o XiRjunna-iinea to- X«trn«a fwocXY Mlew o* • ^•stinr.a* mai^gaol VI'' t qaxan95^ni^-grix. , xjpc»-baTi'.*'2 r 9b. .■«f-n9*flb" res sXrtsirrvaq aXidW .^ofiaga gnxbn&I ' p.xd :*Xs.'iXm*X ad- oiaiw. n.t>xXi^oq. a ni tort xXXnratr ,eX i^'nwo XaX^-itscf ad>t TABLE 16 Typical Comparative Returns Per Acre for Four Enterprises in the Major Cotton Areas of California by Systems of Tenure; Adjusted 1953 Cost- Price Relationships Area and Tenure Enterprises Cotton a/ Alfalfa b/ Barley c/ Sugar beets d/ Gross re- ceiptsS/ Gross IReceipts ex- • less penses^M expenses Gross re- ceipts^ Gross • Receipts , ex- ' less pens e s£/j expens e s Gross re- ceiptsS/ Gross IReceipts , ex- I less pensesM expenses Gross 1 Gross [Receipts re- j ex- ! less ceiptsS/,penses£{expenses Owner 230 Cash Tenant 230 Share Tenant j 172 (II) East Fresno, Tulare East Kings , Northern Kern Owner 368 Cash Tenant 368 Share Tenant 276 (III) West Fresno, Kings, Southern Kern | Owner 276 Cash Tenant 276 Share Tenant 207 (IV) Riverside, Imperial Owner Cash Tenant Share Tenant 276 276 207 158 211 157 161 206 150 151 191 147 175 211 156 72 19 15 207 162 126 125 85 60 101 65 51 140 140 105 160 160 120 14.0 140 105 120 120 90 92 137 87 109 153 103 110 145 105 93 139 89 48 3 18 51 7 17 30 - 5 27 -19 1 52 45 7 213 1 137 52 90 -38 213 182 39 41 - 2 170 52 51 1 227 141 52 98 -46 227 186 39 170 136 26 21 5 26 58 -32 20 18 2 52 40 12 241 180 52 86 -34 241 226 39 36 3 181 176 76 31 38 86 41 34 61 15 4 a/ Cotton yields: (I) 1.25 bales, b/ Alfalfa yields: (I) 7 tons, (II) 8 tons, (ill) 7 tons, (IV) 6 tons.' |/ Barley yields: (I) 20 cwt.irrig., (II) 20 cwt.irrig., (ill) 10 cwt.dry, (IV) 20 cwt.irrig. d/ Sugar beet yields: (i) 15 tons, (II) 16 tons, (IV) 17 tons. * iS^^/T^* 8 ?f Cr ° P g ° ing to OV ? ier Under terms of share ratals. Shares as follows: Cotton 1/4 in all areas, Alialfa 1/4 111 all areas, Barley 1/4 share in all areas, Sugar beets 1/5 in (I), 1/4 in (II) a nd (IV). 1/ Including all labor charged at going rates and depreciation, rent or taxes, materials, services, and interest, tr- Cash rent V50 per acre except ^40 in (ill). ~J ■rrjjrf-ijit T\t -r 1 937 sn^a* sntjek T\t Bps** T" syj 3n£sr*. j ^. B^r/jqimfi m jbq ov. cwb Bo}ufc fo oMXtex nirqsT. .pexste oj, apsaa (I)' TV T" (IT) ^ (IA}* §\ c^f^ wgg^ (i) t*5? j»t« QftXK|% j (Til) Uf>£ fcp j (I) so c^P'T^T s# * (II) 50 «*$'TW»T*** (III) TO cr..?*cfv *' (I) \i -fcu^» (11) s -rows* (TjI) J. (TA) ? ,-o j»js3* (in) y*3 U-A; t ^ (Fi>. ®?B4? uSmfom (I). H*tp»#-weww»q 1 P.0 ! STT" ; *••• --— - — • 2T . ac j ISO 1 —Jo t Oil >a ] ■MS cc 1 16 . TtJ TV+VN i TTO 1 28 'SSfJ 1 ■ v! T30 • j J \ V i 103 ^ T 830 ! m " d0 \i 1 ■ -• - V ■ ■ §5 ^ ^ [ 1 m' 1 TfeO j 1^5 - 46 31 agreement at the end of one or two seasons and move off the place without severe capital losses. Long-term loans with low annual payments permit the most ready adjustment. A sizeable portion of land area affected by allotments, however, has loans of shorter duration and these credits cover capital improvements as well as land. In such cases the payments are substantial* Operators who have retired their indebtedness during the past few years of relatively high earnings will be less affected by the allotments. For the operator owning his property, the allotment program has unpleasant prospects in terms of earnings for next year or even for four or five years. The threat to survival of his business, however, is relatively minor. Where the cash tenant must pay $30 to $50 for the use of an acre of land, the owner may have a tax bill of %h to $6 which (1) can be deferred for a period with interest payments or (2) can be paid with funds borrowed on the property. Sufficient earnings to meet this expense can be obtained by most farm owners. Other types of indebtedness can complicate the operator's task of adjusting to cotton allotments. Payments on installment loan contracts for farm equipment, buildings, or other improvements may be difficult to meet during periods of reduced earnings. Such loans usually are written for short periods and, therefore, involve relatively high payments. Lending agencies require payments for expensive equipment to be completed long before it becomes unserviceable or obsolete. For example, the purchase contracts for mechanical cotton pickers usually call for one-third down, one-third at the end of the first season of use and one-third at the end of the second season. If purchased at the beginning of a season this could mean retiring an obligation of more than $10,000 in 15 to 18 months. The impact of fixed indebtedness on the financial position of the farm business when earnings vary sharply from year to year can bring financial failure regardless of size. A comparison of gross income, under two levels of yield, with fixed real estate and equipment costs typical of those found on cotton farms of these sizes and the estimated operating expenses typical of the organizations and sizes has been made to illustrate this problem. These data indicate how quickly organization changes from high return to low return crops can reduce the amount of money available to meet fixed costs and family living expenses (Tables 1? through 20). In making these calculations total real estate loans varied from $200 to $170 per acre to be repaid in 10 years with interest at 3§ per cent. Equipment loans were iucriiiiw- aaslq-ad* Vto avom fans ancasas oW to ano "k0 bns erf-i cfrs xn-Mygigs erfx- d-Jtmioq-. EJnaafY;3q X^unns woX rf^w ansoX miax-snaJ .aba'soX Xealcco ai3V9B ^nanjoXLe ftf bej,c£>1'ii* ssis bnsX lo noxrtoq eXdflfcsri#=A .inzaievibz yfr&yi Jaom I^iiqpo. isvoq Bitb&Vy aeerfx fw^e noxJBiifb isxioria la ensol- i*d «3a'va«*irf lo a*2B9\; vol xasq. ad* gnxii/b aaaobaitJebni ixsrix belli si &vsd odw eidxsiaqO .axnafuxoXI* arfX yd b3i09lle aaaX 3d IXxk aynxniGa d§xrf x.Xsvxxsl9i 8£ri- l TiEn? J o'iq -.Jfi'afi.toIIs srid ^vxiaqciq sin' gninwo io.+6i3qo arfx 10^ mo"* 10I nsvs 10 tbot/; jx?n 10I agi'.xniG9 lo ami?x nx ajo^qaoiq xnBsBaXqnxr XXeviifilat ei ,iav9wod n 339flxei/d air 1c Ievxvusz ox xi-sirfx adT .eiin avbl to 'io -n:>fi its. s?-xj 9dx 10 1 0<$ o^ QCl ysq xa;xn inane* de.«o arfx aiarfW .«£onim banaleb 9CJ-.TB9 (I) riciidw d§ o* 4$ lo Xlid xsx £ even v;sm isnwo erf* t bneX bawmod ebxu/f rf*.Ew bxaq f>d ftsa. (S) to axnamrBq Jseiaxni: ri*iw boxiaq a *jcx beorsxdo 3d n£.c.9ensqx9 aid* J?am ox asnxnisa *£»xai:1SJHf8 ,v;Jiaqoiq arfx-nb . s*tyrr/,'0'--'jft£l xaod vd lo )&8* a f ioj<3iaqo. erf.* 9.+eoiXqmoo np.o j-'eonbaidabn/ -lo aaqV I9rix0 sjosixnoo. xisoX " ••tnornXXe^sftt no e&raatyrt" ♦•xnantfcXXe nc-todo ox gofciat/tbfi «j xliraiTtth ad^rn BxAemavo7qmi iedxo .10 t «gflJtbXi#d t jflSwaiirpa Vn*! ibl ngJ-jiw sis YXIsifeL- ensol rfooS. .egnxnifia bsox/b9i' to sboxisq ghiiyb" d^sm • a^nanT^sq dgxd- ylavljeXai avXovrtx t aiol3iadx t bne 'abciiaq xibds 10I baxalqwao sd oj'xtiecvqiirpa avxan^qxa. 10 1 sdse*5*q a-sxx'pei aaXoasgs gnxbrcall aearfstuq «f4: t aXqafixa to*? -" »e$ejppcfd 10 ■ eXdsaox vi«'?.mj sondD9d-.tx -siolsd'anoi: ,nv/ob b'iid.j-srto 10I .XXso ^Ufitfew. eissioiq no.jJor> U^Jk^dM iol : B*9fl*iifloo iata .atW is eitrf^tsflo brte eaw-lo nooBf?a J-aixl "9ri.+ 10 fc«9 arti ' ^8 • brcxi^-«hc bXirot aiu* .;ioas9a. B 10 gninniaad arii' ia •baafido'n/q IT .ttodiftN bnoosa erfi xo .Bdifro.ii 81 od 'SI nx 000tQI$ nsrii 9tcJm lo nox^gx-Xdf as snx'ixisT 0fcm ma'i; 9di To noi^iaoq.dexoflB-Hx -arf* no Bsaxibe*dal«ii baxil lo xoeqmx ariT XBionanxl gnidd /iso laax oj iB9\ moil -^EqiBrie ti 8V ' ssnirntea' oadw etsmizvd aXevaX ow*.. tabiw t 9.TtoDiii aaoig 16 iTOBxicqmon A •a'sia 1c aaaXbiRS^i awIiBl baaal eBori^ lo ■ XBoXqV aJ-aac ^rtswqrups bne- 9j-e^39 If?si bdxxT rfJxw t bXaix Id Xflatqv^ aaanaqxa 3nX *f?T9oo vbajp.-nxi'aa arii bns assxe aaarii lo femifiT kioS^*? *i33idoiq Bin* 8JBiJ--ai;XXx..0vt .'abBiir nesd aeti B9^xa bos anoxissi 00310 arix l'o' o-t nixriai rfgxd.raoi! aas«Brfo nofJusXnsgio y^xclop" Worf ad-aolbfti aeadT f-exili. J3981 ox "eXdsXiflvs- ^atiom lo cfnX'oi»TB 9dJ 'goubbl neo aqcit>' muiei wai saadJ. pnljJ.wt.nl .(^)§ dgnoirfit TI aeXdaT)* aaalfiaqxa'-attXvH TClx-tiBl bits eiabo ox eiofi. isq 0T.X| ox- O0S$ moil bsxisv ansbl 3*3X39 jEaei- Xfitfox s.-ioixsItfolEO .oi9w. anBol StmmtvpZ ..t-nso isq §1 J6 jasi9X,ii rixiw 3139^ CX «i bisoTai arf TABLE 17 Comparative Gross Income, Fixed Cash Expenses, and Net Return for Operating Expenses and Family Incomes 80-Acre Farm by Organization and Yield, Adjusted 1953 Prices and Costs | i j Principal : Principal Gross income land interest' and interest Net for operating and living expenses Estimated oper- ating expenses Net for family living expense and income tax Organization Yield j Level I] Yield Level II on real estate on equipment Yield I 1.1 , xiexo. I II xiexu. I v-i Q 1 a xxexcx Jl dollars I Cotton 2/3 Alfalfa 1/3 18,8041 24,638 1,928 2,497 14,379 20,213 10,078 11,492 4,301 8,721 II Cotton 1/2 Alfalfa 1/4 Potatoes 1/4 20,826 26,044 1,928 2,497 16,401 21,619 16,160 17,620 241 3,999 III Cotton 1/3 Alfalfa 1/3 Potatoes 1/3 20,176 24,606 1,928 2,497 15,751 20,181 17,712 19,179 -1,961 1,002 IV Cotton 1/3 Alfalfa 1/3 (irrig) Barley 2/3 12,675 16,346 1,928 2,497 8,250 11,921 7,631 8,592 619 3,329 V Cotton 1/4 Alfalfa 1/4 Barley (dry) 1/2 9,282 11,980 1,928 2,497 4,857 7,555 5,580 6,280 - 723 1,275 VI Cotton 1/4 Barley (dry) 3/4 6,984 9,205 1,928 2,497 2,559 4,780 4,180 4,540 -1,621 240 •■. - j rysi. joX (gxk) X\S TJ o8C ■ T>5A?. j 4 G°f ■P° u T\\ f X'dSS 5o*xac T o58 TS'AST XA*AT5 m^Tiff xy II C°-P4™ T \s 50*85? se*ow ■ le'voi ST* g TO OAS S* AST | - ■ ... — * — '-ff JUG T '.J 1/ i-; LG 3 TABLE 18 Comparative Gross Income, Fixed Cash Expenses, and Net Return for Operating Expenses and Family Income: 160-Acre Farm by Organization and Yield, Adjusted 1953 Prices and Costs Gross income I ,' Principal {and interest i ' Principal jand interest j Net for operating and living expenses Estimated oper- ating expenses illet for family living expense and income tay Or*P"f37Ti "7,fi "hi nn Yield 1 Yield 1 on real Level I - ! Level Ilj estate on 1 equipment Yield I I Yield II Yield I 1 Yield ! II Yield T j Yield TT dollars I Cotton 2/3 Alfalfa 1/3 37,622 49,298 3,663 4,280 29,679 41,355 19,308 22,242 E 10,371 r " 19,113 II Cotton 1/2 Alfalfa 1/4 Potatoes 1/4. 41,653 52,088 3,663 4,280 33,710 44, 145 31,000 33,960 2,710 10,185 Ill Cotton 1/3 Alfalfa 1/3 ■ Potatoes 1/3 40,377 49,233 3,663 4,280 32,434 41,290 34,047 36,980 - 1,613 4,310 IV Cotton 1/3 * Alfalfa 1/3 (Irrig) Barley 1/3 25,318 32,652 3,663 4,280 17,375 24,709 14,609 16,581 2,766 8,128 V Cotton 1/4 Alfalfa 1/4 Barley (dry) 1/2 18,564 23,959 3,663 4,280 10,621 16,016 10,680 12,770 59 3,246 VI Cotton 1/4 Barley (dry) 3/4 13,968 18,409 , ..1 3,663 J 4,280 6,025 10,466 8,000 8,760 - 1,975 1,706 ■ I AI G°-Pf oi; iVf ■ J A ■ C°?-f' OJ ' A? M S2\3T8 35*«?^ ■ ■ • if 1 *"f>n ?*sso f*S80 : 3*000 ■ 10*920 TS\U0 j * 2^ - • 35*?3? • 33*d90 - j 5 ?n \ f *3T0 T 0*TP? 1 " - r T«i 4 300 ! T0'3A7 T<5*TJ3 r J r — = j |y — -y; — i — Jjp — t" — "i — Tf XTejg .; S&E&l M5 T 5 1 HT: M ' SIS -4 7 °- ; ®? TfAfs^ ^cDSi^'es^rrTW excuse 3* stj - _j, * * - ■ • . 1 ■ V* *a "4 > .-h 1 j ■ ■ . ■ • in cp?&* j\£ i ■ '. - ■ ; j s -. • • ■ TSO'I'SQ ■ • ■ u • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ saT^po 1 " ■ 53. to be repaid in three years and were to bear per cent interest. The size of these loans varied from $7,000 on the 80-acre farm to $2^,000 on the 6h.0-acre farm. Yield level I is based on l-|-bale cotton and comparable yields of other crops. Yield level II involves 2-bale cotton and comparable yields for other crops. Comparing the "net for family living expenses and Income Tax payments", it is evident that for the 80-acre farm, an organization of high return crops is essential in the areas having less than maximum yields if indebtedness of the magnitude assumed is to be retired (Table 17). In the case of the 160- acre farm with high yields, net for living expenses does not fall below 000 per year until dry barley enters the organization (Table 18). With lower yields, the operator of the 160-acre farm is committed to seek alternatives to cotton which will return as near comparable net returns as possible in order to meet his fixed debt payments. The operator of the 320-acre farm with 2-bale cotton and comparable yields for other crops should not see his income fall to a level below which he cannot pay his debts and still have better than $6,000 to maintain himself and his family (Table 19). With yields at the lower level, he may witness difficulty in meeting his obligations. The operator of the 6it0-acre farm would have no difficulties in his financing until three -fourths of his land is in dry-farmed barley and then only if the yields are as low as 1§ bales for cotton and 8 hundredweight for barley (Table 20). It is evident from the information presented thus far that (1) adjust- ments to allotments must be made by all cotton producers, (2) small farm operators, tenants, farm operators with substantial debts, and those producers operating in high cost or low yield areas have peculiar and more serious problems to meet in the adjustment, (3) incomes for all California cotton producers will decline sharply as the proportion of the total acreage on the farm in cotton is reduced to allotment levels. The discussion to this point has been oriented almost exclusively to the place of crops in the adjustment to cotton allotments, little mention being m?de of the possibility for livestock enterprises in the cotton farm organizations of California. The next section of this paper deals exclusively with this problem. erfT, »*eais*fTi *naq t«t -g si rraad -o* ataw.bns etsay .a**rf* ni bisqa-x atf c* no OOO^Si o* rrm-S a-xoB-OB ed* no- OQO j£ me-rS. baxtav enool 9ead* So es.ca ■aldiiscfiioa fens notio? sL&d^l no baaed, ax I Xaval bla.ty ,mtr , ,S a*tae-Q4o ad* aldBueqjnoo fjftfi no**oo .aXsd«.$ aavXo-vni. II lava I bXaiy .aqoio -?ed*o So abX&iv .sqc*io lad.tg tcS afeleXv . ^''BTnsffpjeq xs? ewoonj fens aasnaqxa gfliviX ylisisS. -icS Jan 5 ad* . §rJ:tPCjfnoO . eqcta n'i^43i dgid So noi*r,sinBgT;o ns ..nnsS si?s-Od ads. tox *sri* *nab.iva ei *i lo 38Siib.ed-cf9brtf Si abX9iy mumix&m nsd*. seol gntvsd sss'xs ad* ni Xsivnsaa9 ax . i-Odl ad* So 9880 artt nl t aids!) bsT.r*9t ad o* ai Damuaes ?bu*in§sci arid *eqO'X* t iI,|;. wol^-i II«5i ioa 39ob aannaqxa gttitatC 10I *38t8blaxy d^id dXiw- rmsS. a'ios .. t abiPi\ xpwsI rf*iV> t (8X eXdsT) noxifljirtssno arid a"ra*ne ^al'xad yib. XX*«/ .iB9\ bq**«o o* aavi*Bfm*is Jfaos o* ba**lraioa si nrtsl aioc-Odl ad* Sr 'iod/s'igqo ad* •/•«•£ tabio ol aXdiaeoq ea acncvda-x *an ftia>iaqwoo asan e£ inuJei XXJw doidv .. aled^Si.ridxr; iirtax atos-QSC ad* So to*BT;eqo adT %a*rxai»ryBq -*dab bexiS aiit da-aw ... list oRoaai aid aae *on Maoris eqota tari*o 70S ablaiy ftWfcWjigpo. bna na**oo :. aari* is-Wad avert XXxia bnf. B*&b aid yaq *onneo an rioiriw wcjad Xavel • art*. *s abXaiy rt*iW. ■.(?! ©Xd*T) $U*wa sM..bns SXasmiri niBdsnisr: o*. 000*3$ adT » aacWsgi ido ■ aid aal*?oa. ni y*Iifoi$.Sib 8saa*iw ysra ad »XevaX tsn^I gaiansn^T aid ni aai-UupiSSib 00 avari bli/ow rmai 370b-0x!3 art*. So 7<^e7aqo /Si ylno nari* bns Y«Xisd bamie^YTsb. ni ei brtsl aid "io adJ"iuox-f»9irii ixd-nxr TpX^tad ingiawbaxbnxiri 8 bns aodtfoo ioi eajsd fX as wsl 9tds . abX9iy ad* *( OS aXdBT) ..-ir*B{ftbs (I) *«d* isl eifri* ba-tn^sanq nr-iisan^rri ad* motj. tnafei-wa ai *I .^.jrxB^ .XX^ns (S) j.aiasi-'boiq no.**ca X.U. yd absra «d *aum a*n9flf*r»XXB .o* a*nstfn aead*. bne .a*dsb Xa c*,0B*acfcs d*iw aioj istaqe msl t a*nsna* .^e-joja^qr aiorc. bna iBiXifoaq avfid asais b-Xoiy. wpX to *aoo ri?,iri ni gxtiJBiaqo ea'afw/bo'xq 'fptlmottLsO- 1£& tr»l aamooni (tl) »*nam*sx/tb£ ad* ni Jaem o* enaXdoiq aaoitne a^saiaB Ji&Sfsj ari*v'io noiJieg«nq ad* es yXqiaiia aniXrieo. XXiw aiaoi/Jooiq.nc^dn') *eIavaX -tnaiiH*^! Ib. ni bao;/itai ai nQ**^a ni m-fBl ad* ij<^ o* -£Xf»-¥f:ax/Xox.a- ^aoii'.x-e r>a*naiTi .iead asd *xiioq aid* o* xieiaewaaib ariT n©i*n;aiR eX**iX t e*/vvi.t<'»II , j n^*ioc «* *.na.Tr*ayt,b£ ad* ni aqcta l/> aaalq ad* msl rrp**oo. arid ni e.aaj6tqta*»"]»- XaoJ-as.viX tpl y^iXJfdiaaoq ad* So -ab^m. gnlad aXseb. TsqBq eiri* So ne>i*aoa *xan ariT . -BinmSiXsQ So 8iir>i j-Bsin^io *maXdb-rq aid* d*ivr yleyiex/Xax?" A. V. Role of Livestock in Adjusting to Cotton Acreage Allotments Livestock offers opportunities to some California farmers to replace a portion of the income expected to be lost through cotton acreage allotments in 19$h. The opportunities will be much greater and will extend to many more farmers if cotton allotments are continued over the next several years. It appears highly probable at this time that cotton allotments will be extended at least through 1955 and possibly longer. Assuming that the marketing quota is limited to the 10 million bales announced by the Secretary, and that other factors in the supply and demand situation continue as they have been going for the last 12 months, it is entirely probable that the carryover into the marketing season beginning August 1, 195U will be somewhere around 9 million bales. This would be more than 3 million in excess of the carryover on August 1, 1953, and almost certainly would mean acreage allotments for the 1955 season. Quite possibly even that season would not allow time to work the supplies down enough to eliminate the marketing quotas and acre limitations under legislation in effect on January 1, 1951*. It is highly possible, furthermore, that the 195U crop will not be held to the 10 million bale quota already announced .-^ To the extent that this quota and the related acre allotments are raised, it is increasingly probable that 1955, and even later seasons, will see acreage allotments continuing. These speculations assume no sharp change in the major factors affecting the cotton production and consumption pattern. A major war or a yield-reducing drought over the eastern cotton area would modify or drastically change these conclusions. To the extent that California cotton-producing farmers recognize these possibilities in the over-all cotton situation, they may find it worthwhile to consider seriously adding or expanding existing livestock enterprises on individual farms. It undoubtedly will make a great deal of difference to the individual farmer as to whether he thinks (a) that he will be faced with cotton acre allotments only in 195h or, (b) that they may continue for some 1/ An increase above 10 million bales production in 195U may be expected under any modification of existing legislation to increase the national allotment above 17.9 million acres, assuming reasonably normal weather. ziamSoSSs agasioe noWoo rfj^oirl* Jgol ad bai+oaqxe swo«tt art* *.o noiJaoq a [si- : : . ■ , ' ■ ■ ■ •.• ■ ■" ' " ■ ■ I ; - ' en sioup ^XLftfaMnsr.i ert\f issii ^nlms^zh .13300! ^dxaaoq bna 559-1 rfgi/oiitt ier^S. i.e isrWo tfarft bns t^isisnooS odi \; fairton videnoea9n sj&flufeea ^esioB noXCXxm P.TX svods *n8BE*oiXfi 55. indefinite period. The farmer who already produces livestock can most readily substitute milk or meat earnings for cotton income. Even he usually will face important changes in his farm business setup. The cotton farmer who is not also a livestock man must drastically reorganize his operations. He must increase capital, provide improvements and equipment, obtain livestock, and arrange new market outlets. He usually will have to learn new production technology and hire or train workers accordingly. He certainly must adjust his management policies and practices. Frequently he will have to renegotiate rental contracts, financing arrangements, and other legal relationships. There axe large numbers of farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and the Desert cotton-growing counties who already are growing, or until recently were producing, livestock or livestock products of some kind or another. The San Joaquin Valley as a whole produced 38 per cent of California's commercial milkfat receipts in 1952. Merced, Tulare, and Fresno counties ranked second, fourth, and fifth in the San Joaquin area in this total production. It also is important that an increase in dairy production in the San Joaquin cotton-producing counties would represent reversal of a trend. The number of milk cows trended down sharply from 19k7 to 1953 in Kern, Kings, Merced, and Fresno counties (Table 21). Tulare County experier^ed an 11 per cent reduction during these years while Madera had a k per cent gain. South of the Tehachapi, Imperial County had a 35 per cent decrease, from a much smaller initial number in 19h7, while Riverside showed a 10 per cent gain. The interrelationship of cotton with other crops is suih that cotton has tended to displace feed crops such as hay and irrif.-ated pastures and thus to encourage reduced dairy cattle numbers and production in these counties. Beef cattle numbers, in contrast to the dairy situation, increased in all of the cotton counties except Kern from 19U7 to 1953 (Table 21). Madera arfl Merced counties had 68,000 and 127,000 beef cattle respectively, on that dite. Tulare and Fresno counties had 130,000 and 105,000 while Kern and Kings counties had 12^,000 and Ii6,000 respectively. Beef production is highly important in Imperial and Riverside counties. Imperial had ll;6,000 and Riverside 68,000 beef cattle on January 1, 1953. Detailed data are not available to identify the numbers of cattle involved in breeding herds and in feeding operations, respectively. There is information available, however, to indicate that a substantial proportion of the beef cattle listed here were in feed lots on January 1, 1953. Such cattle on feed probably xllsioib s>'ri ««vS iswooai. rttvi.tQo *o1 3§ni»ns9 taaa to MJOba aiyii-iadiie ^Ihcen ■teaeiat nctfioo edT a'F.snt&ud nrrr.l eid ni Bognsdo j-nscfToami 9oa1 XXiw Vftnoid-'sfsqo aid ©sxn&S'toS'X \XXsv2ias*b team m-m MooieeviX a eels Jo« ax odw ooiasviX nxstdo .chiercqi'ifps boa vtnmivoiqir.i gifcivcicr t Xsixq->o sus^todx .•jaitfn jsli fioi^oifhoiq Wen rrr'BdX "©"i s-vsrf 'H'fH ^sXXaaao ©H ***fr»XicK? .taMiara ti©n a^rtaTiB fans iintbe d-atro yXfii^'xeo ©F .^iartifnooca arahtow ni*** to ©xtri -£joXo»rioed- XXI ' ■ ! . . : [ , . ■ ' ■ • edj bns \;3li'n'V niyp*.oV ffsS ©di iti -a nam's'* ?-o a^exfioun .©gnai ©is ©'.tarfT TjXJaeoe* Xiirw no t ^axwoT^ "©ir.* ybfiviXf odw> aaiirwor? gnxwoig-'ficci./'oo i ©mot lo eioubonq jJooigsviX no-.slooctssviX ^ni^o'ioiq anaw 10 i ' ■■' ssifattoQ oiraeV*! bits t ©neXt;!- - t f>©'r-*:©M • •« Z&I nt s^tjjfcaoafr JaWX-iis XaioTawacc Xa.|oi ai'di ni' set£ riijjpaol naB ©Hi ni dilil turn. t /fchwol e fcaooaa i>©5lnan ni -noiio trfcenq y?Hh ni ^ssstoni as tadi inginoqati aX oaXa il . ,noiioubo7 $b£ ©riJ>Xanevifl ©Xinw t VtiPX ni ••irod'aian Xai^iai t&XXwta doom a worrt t 9s.a9na«,b -tries erpno n^dio ifcffw noiioo lo crirt8ftoi^aX»*rratfTi ©dT .nisg &.n©© n©q 01 3 bawode boa yad ea dous eq'ono- baa'i eoaXaaifc o-t b©b«©.t sad* npi-too tzift ds*ye. ei fans sttf^Bon /rfj- fans zsiu.ii iwfiyOO 9E©flt f roi'j'iabo'irT ■ brta a*9% ©Xxdw COO-^OX-bn* 0CX),0{:X Kan sojimrcrj- occ;yi'3.. bna ; 9i£XyT ..©jttv ai ftolioyboiq *tes3 .yiavlJ-oaqa^t 00' s > t ^;' bna 00C t 5SX bag .zaitsfuoo a^atj? 000, odX bed XsitcqscI '" \t*titujbb' ©bieTOvXfl. bus' l&teoqnil- '0-i.' stna^+toqinX y.Xdsir' eta aiet baXiftfsa- .C5?X \I v-T^ynsI, no sX^fio- l"9tf &W t 6d abXa«s©v±iI bn*-. 3b*ii-d ^nxbsaicf nx baYXowi* sW«o 1» feTcsdjsaK 9d- f yUXnsbi .pd aXsteXXsys ion. ..aXdaXXaVa aoi^aarxblaJt si' ©ledT- •.yXevXioeqaa't j8rtoJUtsToqo g.ftibeax ni bns baieiX ej-tjso H'jd s?di lo noiiioqorrq Xsiinsiaciira P jf?d*. ^aoxbni ot t tovswod yX^^cq b©©^ no aii-tao dotfS . »f.^X t X ^icynsl. «o aioX besl ni aisw »-rfexf TABLE 21 56. Livestock Numbers 19l*7-l°53: California Cotton Growing Counties a/ January 1 All cattle I Milk ) Beef ar.d calves j cows | cattle j Hogs All cattle and calves Milk cows Beef cattle Hogs 19hl 19hQ 19h9 1950 1951 1952 1953 19U7 19hQ 191*9 1950 1951 1952 1953 number number ISkl 128,000 19U8 19U9 1950 110 000 1950 61,000 29,000 28,1*00 10,500 1951 28^000 1952 7U}000 28>300 25,700 1*5,700 3 ',100 2,U00 1953 72,000 1*6,300 172,000 75 i 900 73,600 101,300 70} 000 69,700 67^000 159,000 83,700 i8U,ooo 67,600 65,300 ll6,l*oo 192,000 126,700 16,000 19,000 8,100 5,800 8,000 5,300 7,l*oo 6,200 170,000 ila,ooo ih3i000 137,000 7l*,ooo 61*,ooo 81*, 000 81*,ooo i58,ooo 137,000 172,000 172,000 Kern County 15,900 155,700 13,900 12,500 12,500 125, Uoo 13,000 13,200 129,800 11,900 125,100 Madera County 15,600 58,700 16,600 16,000 16,500 1*9,000 16,500 16> 700 67,300 16,300 67,700 Tulare County U7iUoo 110, 1*00 32,000 1*6,300 1*5,700 U5,700 89,800 1*2,000 U3i700 1*U,100 127,900 18,1*00 1*2,100 129,900 13,U00 Riverside County 55,000 59,000 81*,5oo 79,000 9,600 1*7,000 7,000 6,800 8,200 1*9,000 8,700 9,000 75,5oo 10,600 68,1*00 a/ Source: USDA, BAE, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, IS Ai ■ Kgffjg$ :l.%> ■ & lid-s o J?rA' i 939$ | ■ ■■ ■ , — .'T""*"T J — T f . T- TsT ■ ■ -if^tf. ■ : •;: • j !t>X) t 8Sf f . i ooflioi ■ ■ , i ■ f ■ • ■ 30 ■; ■ : 00 Y» •^'vt ' • ■ : • j 1 . ! ■ i 00I<8>. 00ii t aiJ; .• • - t TZj .: 009 t 8 . ■ . : i .• i ■ ■ • ■ v > ] mi : j ,.„.„ j TOPH • . _-tr*-T. 1 *£0#ris3 ^nid-rocpa aJ^?$yi4?. faas qoiO j^ifi ^ASSKJ 57. numbered as many as hO to 50,000 in the San Joaquin Valley, not considering Kern County. Approximately 100,000 were on feed in Imperial County. Hay Supplies in Ratio to Hay-Consuming Animal Units . — The farmer who does decide to substitute livestock for cotton income should be convinced that by doing so he can increase profit. Such gains can result from more complete or higher return use of land or labor — growing and feeding irrigated pasture or other forage crops, or providing additional profitable work for the farm labor supply. Livestock, again, is a means of converting feed into higher priced goods j meat, milk, or other products. The farmer with limited acreage can use livestock to expand the size of his business and his earnings. In all situations only farmers who manage livest ock efficiently can expect such production to increase net farm earnings. Inefficient managers usually will receive less net income from crops plus livestock than from crops alone. One of the important management problems for farmers who do decide to expand livestock production is how to determine the most profitable means of converting hay and pasture into feed for livestock products. It already has been indicated in a previous section that alfalfa production is expected to increase sharply, and that alfalfa hay prices are expected to be relatively disadvantaged among the principal farm crops affected by the cotton acreage allotments. The meaning of this situation may be better understood by examining trends in the production of hay in relationship to numbers of livestock that consume hay. This was done by determining total hay produced during the period 19UO-1953 and then comparing these totals with the number of hay-consuming animal units during each of these years. The total hay- consuming animal unit for each year results from adding up livestock numbers after appropriate adjustments of the different classes and ages according to the amount of hay consumed. This method is outlined in footnote to the table. The same method was used for each of the years included. The highest ratio of hay to hay-consuming animal units came in 1900, the year of the last previous cotton acreage allotment. There were 2.29 tons of hay per hay- consuming animal unit that year; the supply has varied from 1.9 to 2.0 tons since 1950 (Table 22). It never fell below 2.03 tons per hay-consuming animal unit, however, during the years from 19li3-19h9. It obviously is impossible to know at this date what will be either the production of hay or the number of hay-consuming animal units for 195U. If we assume, however, that alfalfa production will be increased 368,000 tons while the same quantity of other hay is produced and that the same number of hay-consuming animal gfiirrap/enoo ion t YoLTsV ■ n±i>p^oi- ne8 9ifcJ" rt± 000 t 05 o*- Oil as. ^nmi sb bstsdmrn . "v^iujo? ! IfeiTe/jjnl jtr be*?! no ai«w 000^001 ^e^sstS3t)|^6 «^taBO$ ais> T itfp -tararsal 9riTW» gfffiT I^nxrrfr j»nx'rr :t.'annO »^-tf o* clJ-sfl fr ? aaxjyp?, y^-'i" r^ortxvTTOo osf- bisons s&ootfi iciioo icl' atooieavil'. ectxriXv+sdifa oi ybXaeb a,?ob sicoro moil ilifasi nsc saLss rioixE .illoiq easoiorti nao srf os snicb ^p'/ian-i bsJE-gxiix sofck^-VJ" bns grrxwoisi— sodal 10 brteX lo sax; imioi isdgxrf 10 9te£qmoz 10I iteow f!icfi?.t,i:1o"rc XenQx'iihbs snxbivcreq no t sqoto agsicl i9rf-io to aiuir.pq oias: bar! girJievnoo 'lo aaaara s ei t .tls^6 t ?(oc.ts?vxJ[ .vXqoirs *xodj?X. ; ? ml arii bsJjfril' riixv7 lanriel arfT .a^ouboiq T9d.io io ^lly t i69n jafceojj fceoiiq lori^iri .a.^rurrns eir! bits aasxiifiud 3M lo ssrfe art* bnscrxp oi Mtyvias-viX aexf aaO'93e&ir>.s ioeqxa a»o yJ. trw.jojffiB yiooig.9v.c l ajs/tsff! oaw eienrusl ylno sitoxisuixa Xls nl- YXXix»8i/ e?93iscsm ^hsx'stx llenl .asrtfims miel tea gea&tonfc oi aoiioxrJxnq rfoaa .srsoXs eqo-co moil asrti- >!30*aay.tX axxXq aqoio wotl saioonx aaaX 8*tf&aoai Zllw od sbxccb cb crfw eisraielicl ?.RioIa©iq inenegansm irrsitccrrrx sr.i lo enO lo ert&aw . Qld&iilciCi Sbo«? ttdt snimsS&b oi wori ax- aoltftttriboiq iooJeavXX baacpca t-?^- ybjwvtXts il .aioixboiq : jfooJasvil' ioi bosl ociru K'tuiasq bns y£ri gitiiisynao o# be^oaqxs ax acjdoxxbosq. sxIeiXs 4*ri*-nox.i09a zuoiveiq & v,i ti9te.zi.hnl aa9d T&ievXisXsi $d. ot b*tz$qxo- sis aooxiq yfsri sl£al£c tntit bns ^Xqisria ae^eioni aFgf.^iQ^ noiioo artf yd"b»*a«^t* aqoio rcic! .X«qxorrciqv9d^ jsxtome b&^sJnsvhGexb \d[ bouieisboir istted ad-, yecc noxifcx;* t.a axrl.T te gnxnafm srfT .e^ncn-toXXs lo eiadmtxa &t qiffeno'iiail^t. «i "^ari lo nolAoiiboiq erfi nX* efcnsij gaXatniBxa- M§*fbo.iq -^erf-XjSJodt snXfxrmistsb -yd. ■ sisoti s'sw eh'iT aipwaoq ^ootG^vXX •sswfown *di n'iiv aXaio^ ses.ii snxies.-rtoQ .isrid boa r5°£r-0iJvI boiTaq arW gnxiub »Y E ^ I*todf srfT .8i«9Y aaad*- lQ' ft'as9 grtxiub 8#lnu .Xernxna paijnt/srroo'-yBn lo sfisdMUit >l3^.i&9vil. qu gnicbs sn.'Cil aJX.c/391 iss\ rioa? iol ^xnxr XsniftB v>fu^?-n^" gntbioQoa 39?» bos ae^aaXs inaiellib 3rfi lo ain3j"ni3tff,bB 9isx*tqoiqcB t^Ik 9f(j, eJ." sio.ayoo.! rtt beolXim ax. hoiU9ai aiHT vfcwwaxioo -^ri *° *nuoflia srii 03 >1«misifi orfT »*9b0Xonx ai69\- srii lo doss io'i ; bear; bbw boriism amaa erfT ..sXcfei iacX ©riA lo- lua.Y- sni t p^9X nx arrso s^irrff Xam-rns -?nxmtrsnoc-Yfi;i Ov 1, Ysri lo obiei -tjro'' isq- x&ti lo ano* ?S«£ etew 9i9riT **n9i«iv*oXXfi ag^saafi no^oo airoX'vsiq anoi 1 0»S oi 9.X ircll fceti*»v esd vXqaua arl* fUB9Y i?xi>t iixia- Xxyttx.ift gnxTj.'anoo ^nx5 T Tiranoo-\;i3iJ- xeq a/toi. CO^S" i^oXasf. XX&l is-zort J>I ..(^E ofdsT) O^^X. f>onxa ei' vX&wiWc i 1 ! .^;{ r '>r a*sb axri^* && wonM Ov s.Xo'x'aeoqmx ..lavaworf.. 4fimu9SBt sw. ll: .45^X iol 3*jqx& narfw boiisq. sirti artJttfb zsntlnsk Wod3 - ..' ' ' ... ' ■ . • ■ " , ' ':<:■- — - — Lt — u—— Cwyytownw (F-P-PT 6 jparpex-a rruq gtsit&pfeL jn &> warn: r^ohnjp^you: : 5f 62. to conceal the increased dependence on outside supply; numbers on January 1 were higher in ratio to people in 1952 end 1953 than for the four previous years (Table 2h) . Heavy slaughter of California cattle shown for 1952 continued into 1953* however, and it is probable that beef cattle per person, if not state totals, were lower on January 1, 195U. Stocker and feeder inshipments dropped 1j5j000 while slaughter of California cattle increased 307,000 in the first nine months of 1953 as compared with 1952. The increase of inshipments for immediate slaughter was 176,000 during this period. Population will continue to grow faster than beef numbers in California unless there are drastic changes in the pattern of feed production and use for cow and calf herds in the state. This means continued increases in inshipments and more beef cattle feeding. The state has met the demand for increased milk by shifting California milk use from manufacture to the fluid market. California produced 6,036 million pounds of milk and used commercially 5*750 million pounds in 1952 (Table 25). The commercial use represented U96 pounds per person of which 70 per cent was consumed in fluid form (Table 26). The total commercial use represents 2.9 per cent increase over 19U6 when 6l per cent of commercial consumption was used as fluid milk. Milk cow numbers increased in California from 1951 to 1953 but not fast enough to gain on population (Tables 25 and 26). If the shift from manufactured to fluid milk were terminated, an added million persons using fluid milk at the average 1952 rate of 3U8 pounds per person would require over U5>000 additional dairy cows in California. If, as may be expected, the shift from manufactured to fluid use does not cease entirely, and even if fluid milk consumption per person continues to decline slowly, dairy cow numbers still must increase. Demand is developing for more milk, as well as meat, in California. Many farmers both in and out of the cotton areas are concerned abcut what added production of grain and alfalfa from cotton-released acres will do to prices of these substitute crops. Some see a warning in 1953 price patterns, particularly for alfalfa hay. The lower these prices drop, of course, the greater the opportunity for gains from converting grain and alfalfa to meat or livestock products — provided prices of these end products do not decline enough to make such conversion unprofitable. Price relationships in the summer and fall of 1953 indicate that it was as profitable then as during most of the 1930-1952 period to feed livestock, except beef cattle considering only ratios of feed costs to tisa&xoax '*4' IX 3190 ::r?*iq bs J9i «3ftxfr la gdsibs/urti 10I acfnemx'riani' lo ro'f^ oJ- aarixinoo IXiw noxvtelii'qol ;Darif?ilo ox-tesib 9ib siodt tsolctu 8 adi ai afrrSil xIjbo bns wua •ioT liico Igstf e*l©w jbns S"jfHa«qiifBfil m&b 9rii -torn ssrf s^ela «rfT rfu f vi!'*of txrn^m fitoil aetf ■tflx*; jj»80 bna ?tJxi! lb ebcwou fiGX-flim i/Ii nx bsroi nx aw ) o ' •imivtno 3 nooisq •isq ' ncxvrqm »vgb ijx tnsmsG • 9as3u>rci ItrnBffi ijiot: JslinjEm moil Olivia erid II til srtieif anoaisq oojtTXini £9VG nrxUpOT bJl/OW i'TOB'X^C r nsvo has .^eiiins ea<5SO roc vpfieb «^Iwoi8 sr-Jrloab 26 IIOW 38 .Jilim 910III *IOl i9£X?q fftci'f antei 5*15 1° noxis>£/boiq o&bbfl Jsris.' :Jadt r s 92f)rfi to aoolnq oi 6b ;xl no rfgx'orts: •ri, J CON aci.xm e^vxl TABLE 25 California Dairy Cattle Numbers, Milk Production and Utilization? Averages 1930-1939 and Annual Totals 194-0-1953 a/ 1930-1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1943 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 Dairy cattle on farms Januar y J, Milk Production Females 2 years + 1-2 year s Calves All ■ Average 'I number ; cows i milked 664 720 756 786 810 834 859 885 912 866 840 840 832 849 857 thousands Per cow Milk ililkf at 162 181 188 215 228 230 245 220 214 224 216 217 205 233 260 171 190 217 231 237 262 238 236 250 238 240 224 249 278 296 1,053 1,155 1,228 1,301 1,344 1,395 1,413 1,412 1,450 1,398 1,365 1,350 1,354 1,432 1,488 636 705 740 754 757 775 800 825 824 786 780 777 781 790 pounds 6,617 6,940 6,880 6,880 6,900 7,070 7,150 7,110 7,250 7,360 7,520 7,710 7,700 7,640 252 267 265 265 266 272 275 274 283 287 293 301 300 298 Total Milk i Milkfat Milk utilization Manufac- Per cent Market million pounds 4,210 4,893 5,091 5,188 5,223 5,479 5,720 5,866 5,974 5,785 5,866 5,991 6,014 6,036 160 188 196 200 201 211 220 226 233 226 229 234 235 255 1,658 2,083 2,181 2,375 2,709 2,927 3,126 3,382 3,537 3,494 3,609 3,706 3,892 4,031 for jture J_ -P3ariS. e i— - per cent 2 S 298 2,414 2,513 2,433 2,135 2,174 2,230 2,112 2,083 1,948 1,921 1,947 1,787 1,719 41.9 46.3 46.4 49.4 55.9 57.4 58.4 61.6 62.9 64.2 65.3 65.6 68.5 70.1 a/ Sources! Reported Data USDA, BAE, California Annual Livestock Report, California Dairy Industry Statistics for 1952, and previous years. Ratios calculated by authors. b/ Data for 1930-1939 estimated by authors. ON •■TTP freer ■ T*tS5 T*Vv - . ■ ;■ 300 307 MM V m 1 ' 4 JPG 5*Sd$ j _ .. ., , .. . „ uomryga 1 AGCTI.8 - *JT | ■ vi j,F 1 Ik fNW r.ci con ■ I r [ K7TK B£bqri«pfc VAGMr«a3 ja^G-Ta3d «*9 fOW*j IP#*7 3 TdVO-ia?^ w ware TABLE 26 California Dairy Cattle Numbers, Milk Production and Utilization in Ratio to Human Population ; Averages 1930-1939 and Annual Totals 194-0-1953 Dairy cattle on farms January 1 I Females 2 years j 1-2 j * ; years i Calves j All Average number cows milked head Milk produc tion Milk u tilization Total Milk I Llilkf at \ Manuf ac- Mark et I tu re _ pounds 1930-1939 .11 .03 .03 .17 .10 680 26 268 371 1940 .10 .03 .03 .17 .10 708 27 301 349 1941 .10 .02 .03 .17 .10 696 27 298 344 1942 .10 .03 .03 .16 .10 660 25 302 309 1943 .10 .03 .03 .16 .09 620 24 322 254 1944 .09 .03 .03 .16 .09 620 2U 331 24.6 1945 .09 .03 .03 .15 .09 625 24 342 244 1946 .09 .02 .02 .15 .09 614. 24 354 221 1947 .09 .02 .02 .15 .08 606 24 359 211 1948 .08 .02 .02 .14 .08 569 22 344- 192 1949 .08 .02 .02 .13 .07 562 22 346 184- 1950 .08 .02 .02 .13 .07 563 22 348 183 1951 .07 .02 .02 .12 .07 541 21 350 161 1952 .07 .02 .02 .12 .07 522 22 348 148 1953 .07 .02 .02 .12 - ■■ • ... • • im { t-W-7 t ; lot! . KB ' ■ 0? ft 65. livestock and livestock product prices. Comparisons were made by dividing California farm prices of beef cattle, milk and other livestock or products by the annual average farm prices of barley and alfalfa hay. The resultant ratios show how much of these feeds can be bought with 100 pounds of meat or milk, one pound of chicken or one dozen eggs. As compared with postwar years, price relationships were favorable in the period July through October 1953 for feeding barley to produce pork, poultry meat or eggs, but somewhat less favorable for producing beef (Table 27). The highly favorable price ratios for beef cattle in 1950-1952, on the other hand, reflected unusual conditions, and definitely should not be viewed as normal. The price ratios were relatively favorable in July-October 1953 for feeding alfalfa to both dairy cows and beef cattle. It is impossible to know how price relationships in 19$h will differ from those in 1953--much less those of later years. It seems possible that beef cattle and calves should be as high or higher, however, assuming normal weather over the nation. Drought- induced sales have reinforced the regular cyclical liquidation in causing heavy marketings, thus down-pressure on prices, in 1953. It also is likely that alfalfa prices will rule somewhat lower in 195U if acreage is increased as expected. It is doubtful, on the other hand, whether price ratios will continue equally favorable to hogs. Their numbers are at a low point in the cycle, and production probably will increase. All in all, prospects appear favorable for feed-livestock price ratios favoring increased meat and livestock production in California. This is particularly true for feeding pasture and hay during the next several years. There are two distinct methods of converting feed into beef in California. The drylot method has become increasingly important during recent years. The cotton farmer who adds this enterprise essentially is going into a new business. Gains can be obtained at relatively little expense above feed costs by this method under large scale operation if modern endless -conveyor flow equipment is used. Little labor expense in relationship to overhead cost is involved. The investment in plant easily can amount to $0 to 100 thousand dollars, hence the need for large scale operation. The grazing method usually is based on irrigated pasture in the cultivated valleys. Farmers have found that well -managed irrigated pasture alone, or supplemented with small amounts of hay, will produce 350 to h$0 pounds of beef per acre per season at a cost of 15 to 20 cents per pound ttw: -;oc rwrw n^TSCiuoa a.A »e^d opfOQ TO s*Jf$>ii/lo 'to Lfstroq acre t >JXim ic xl^uoiri-j- ylt/t, boXiaq arid ai qIo'sucvjbI 9*»w eqiifeftoi^sJOw- aoitq t Bis*y ' ■ ■■ ' ' ' ' ; ■ ■ •. ■ i iq Qrf* •Xsontoft ?s beweiv -orf d'on KEacrfa yXetifitlsb beta t anoid/xbrtoo X^iraifatr s'Us'Ha gmfjsB'i io'< £59X isooj-sC-^Xvl, nX alds-yovaT: vlgvjt*5lyi siev iblArx won ■ • ■ ■• . ■ . . , . i ... . ■ ■ | • • ; • ■ • . . . . _ . ■ ' '' •.. 1 ; i . II ■ : . SUd ■ ' - 10® ■ •■ ■ . . • : : .... woX S ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ . ' ■ ■ ■ • ■ • . ■ ■ ■ 1 • I 8 ' : . ' ■ v ' - v I ' . ... ' : ...... . . . ... _ . . . ai Y.-fIi'.th!98aQ 92X171-3 Jns> «XrtJ ebbs om* tswisl no,Woo erfT .sissy inso^t ' • ' ' ' BBO ' . ... SI ....... sXsoa ©§x3X -lol fc98ft ef*i9.n ^n.tsift'xs arfT *{joirfAT9I> oijq rTAoa«3CK *joix>x.#-w8 gexjq-ce* Tjp^yt? \S5 |; Td"*?y j tf'JO 3\\? S*83 5 Tci*2G' j 2*dA. 30*10 ! £*! *0c3S . M ao * • T'M •TJO ?T?3 r :ttji; Qf'jqr: v oiJjj?r gain (, 67. at current prices. The pasture plus 3 or h pounds of barley and h to 6 pounds of hay per head per day will produce 500 to 600 pounds of beef at similar costs, starting with 800-pound feeders. The margin between prices of feeder and finished cattle largely will determine if this operation is profitable. Home-grown feed also is used profitably in dairying. Total feed usually will represent at least 50 per cent and may account for 60 per cent or more of the total cost of producing milk on family dairies, about one- third of which can be supplied by irrigated pasture and another third by hay. This would require about two feed acres per cow. Considering July 1953 prices, manufacturing milk sold in the San Joaquin Valley at $3.U7 and could be produced for approximately |3.00 per hundredweight on efficiently- organized dairy farms of economic size. Such production is a means of selling both home-grown feed and farm labor. Home-grown feed alone represents about $1.U0 and labor another 75 cents out of the |3.00 total cost. These cost data are cited as typical of the kind of dairies described, ft wide range in costs exists among individual producers in any given locality, due to variations in size, source and kinds of feed, productivity of cows, investment, organization, managerial efficiency and many other relevant factors. Beef producers should expect shifting price relationships in the future as in the past. They cannot reasonably expect slaughter animal prices at the 1951 levels. They should expect some periods when it will be hard to make any money. A favorable factor for both beef and dairy producers is expected to be relatively plentiful forage and hay. ax. ,noi&W3> t fani/oii-008 -ri*i:v,' gai^ftitfa , i.'JJ-i bos3 nwoig-9ifiO!! : iflcf tniAf TariJ-ons bna axttfesq teiajjinx v,cf boilqqas ?cf xci vXi/t gnxT*jbt3ffoD , wo:> -xsq asncs bsel o*ri iifOrfp ■ siLvpai ■ ■ •' i i sexy- •»' .t>.soito£fti> aa-fixsc. x-o- bnx* «*4 *0 xcofqv-t.sfi fcac oubyiq ec{ bXf/oo. "£ixje-f- bssinsgic. CXs? bxre 0ii.J$ &UQ:p{ bns ©g6t< t arte. aoipna. iarxa nx enox^sxtrv cj [oesai. Joqneo veri? .Jasq srf.-f nx es t.nslq yX9vx4*Xs*i ad c.t bjftifeqxs 68. VI. Conclusions Marketing quotas and acreage allotments, already announced for cotton and wheat crops produced in 195U, require major readjustments by individual farmers in California and other parts of the nation. Cotton producers still have to make these adjustments, since 19$h plantings will not be made for several more months. California farmers, and those in other western states, face particularly serious problems in finding profitable use for diverted acres, and are at a relative disadvantage in this respect compared with cotton producers in the older eastern cotton-growing areas. California cotton growers will be required to divert enough acres to reduce 195>U acreage over 5>0 per cent from 19$3 cotton plantings under legislation effective at the end of 19!>3. This means that over 706,000 acres of cotton land in California will be put to other crop uses or left idle in 19$h, leaving 698,000 acres to be planted to cotton, as compared with 1,U0U,000 acres estimated planted to cotton on July 1, 1953* Arizona, with a 57 per cent cut in prospect, is the only other state with a more severe reduction than California, although New Mexico and Florida, at U8 and k9 per cent respectively, have comparable cuts. In terms of acres, the California reduction is substantially greater than those of the other three high-per cent-cut states combined. Statutory provisions, plus recent production trends, explain the disadvantage of California, the West in general, and Florida under the 1951; cotton marketing quota and acreage allotment program. The laws regulating this program have evolved over a period of years since 1938, and they now are tied quite inflexibly to the historical base approach in establishing allotments. Meanwhile, there has been a steady shift of cotton acreage from the older, lower-yield, and higher-cost areas in the East to the West during the 19U7-1952 period used for the base under the 195U allotment program. Only remedial changes in this legislation can give California relief from the existing inequity represented by her relatively greater acreage cuts than in the East. An increase in the national allotment, of course, could make possible a greater allotment for this state, even though the relative inequity in acreage cuts continues. Fresno, Kern, and Tulare counties in the San Joaquin Valley must absorb U72,000 acres, or 67 per cent of the California cotton acreage reduction in 195>U. The two southern counties, Imperial and Riverside, 69. will have the heaviest percentage cut, equal to 63 per cent of the 1953 planted acreage, but this represents only 101,000 acres. The same reasons explain these differences among California counties as the discrepancies already indicated regarding states. There are no actual reports available as yet to indicate what farmers will do with acres diverted from cotton in California. Estimates have been prepared according to the evidence available, the judgment of experienced agricultural workers, and the record of results from the previous cotton acreage allotment program in 1950. Grain, alfalfa, and idle or fallow land are expected to absorb almost 550,000 acres or 77 per cent of diverted land, with specialty crops and miscellaneous uses taking the remainder. Such an over-all adjustment will bring record acreages of barley and alfalfa, and a postwar record for grain sorghum, plus unusually high acreages for sugar beets and other specialty crops. These results would be quite consistent with the 1950 experience, and inevitably must result in record production of feeds and various other farm products. Thus, barley production may increase as much as 3.7 million bags over 1953, and alfalfa by over 350,000 tons, assuming normal weather conditions under such an acreage adjustment pattern. Downward pressure on prices must accompany a sudden annual increase in production of feeds and other farm products of the dimensions indicated above. It is not possible to predict exactly what such effects will be, but many farmers are apprehensive, and fear serious price declines.- These apprehensive producers include both cotton growers and others who expect competition in other lines of production from diverted cotton acres. Parley prices are somewhat less vulnerable than those for alfalfa, provided acceptable storage is available and farmers thus can avail themselves of price support through loans. California cotton farmers will earn less net income from their farms as a result of the 195U acreage allotment and reduction. This follows because the replacement crops available for most of the diverted cotton acres are less profitable than cotton. There will be exceptions for some farms and for portions of others to the extent that market outlets can be found for specialty crops, but reduced net income appears inescapable for the cotton-growing areas as a whole. 000{<$8 %awb y|cf ells If s. brio, 't&vi *isw-*>oo ibi^x* Sgif s-t&rfi'- bite eSSfrltts .* beBi'#%t fells -iol MtH^F it«i& eJ ipjesh #bti £M0 >rfj" jfc* -9*1 ..d.? 'i« Sh» drf * -Mh b&iOm -fid ||PE7(ifflrf*iiiijfr 70. The amount of net income will vary with choice of enterprises to use the acres taken out of cotton. This choice, in turn, will vary widely among the various cotton farms in different portions of California depending upon a wide range of physical, economic, and institutional factors. Livestock remains relatively important in the Madera-Merced, or northern cotton- growing area in the San Joaquin Valley, and this fact favors the opportunity of farmers to use the expanded feed production effectively. The results should favor substituting grain and forage crops for cotton and to minimize the income -reducing impact of the allotment program. Specialty crops will use more diverted land in the eastern portion of the cotton-growing San Joaquin Valley, and, consequently, grain and roughage will use less. Even though a wider range of alternative crops is possible, sharp income reductions are expected, for the reason that marketing opportunities are limited. Relatively small increases in most of these specialty crops will bring sharp price drops, while, on the other hand, cotton is highly profitable here, and it will take equally profitable crops to equal its earning capacity. It is in the western side of the San Joaquin and in southern Kern County that most of the idle or fallow land is expected as a result of the allotment program. Water costs are such that grain and alfalfa will be relatively unattractive as alternatives to cotton. The relatively few farmers who have established connections for such specialty crops, such as melons, will have special advantages, while many operators will find it more profitable to put much of the diverted acres into dry grain or to leave such land idle or fallow. Alfalfa and small grains are expected to replace about half the diverted acres in the southern counties, Imperial and Riverside, while a wide range of specialty crops also will be important, as will livestock. The sharp increase in cotton acreage is comparatively recent in these counties, and it will be easier for many farmers here to make a major shift to other crops than it will be in areas where cotton has dominated for a longer period. Particularly where double cropping is possible, farmers in this area may be able to minimize net income reduction. Considering size of farm, the operators of extremely small farms will face special problems in making full use of family labor supplies and in obtaining enough earnings to support their families. One result is to narrow the range of possible alternative enterprises, and thus to increase the problems in adjusting to the allotments. Larger farms have somewhat v \rtm at \i li £»3 'id imai vH^lxb hi ljti.nS9 irxamtei we': - 71. more flexibility, but relatively high productivity is important in facilitating adjustments; low yield farms will have difficulty in finding alternative crops that will return a net profit. Their tenure and indebtedness position will affect the success of farmers in adjusting to reduced cotton acres. Full-owners of adequately- sized farms will have the least trouble, while share-tenants of sizeable farms with high yield capabilities in several crops usually will have little difficulty. Cash- tenants, or those owners committed to heavy debt service payments, may find it difficult to obtain enough earnings to meet fixed costs and also to support their families from the farming operations. This problem will be accentuated on relatively small farms and on those of low yield potential. Marked population growth with consequent broadening markets for meat and livestock products are the most encouraging aspects of the entire agricultural production pattern in prospect for California cotton counties. These factors will be of much greater importance if, as is highly likely, 195U is only the first in a series of years during which marketing quotas and acreage allotments are in effect for cotton. California population increased over 1.5 million persons after 1950, and in 1953, totalled over 12 millions. Growth continues, and, therefore, offers important opportunities for economic use of the diverted cotton acres. The major directions in increasing livestock production as farmers shift out of cotton likely will be toward increasing dairying, and finishing out cattle, both relatively intensive operations. Particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, such a shift will mean reversing a trend, inasmuch as cotton itself has tended to displace dairying in this area. Important developments in feeding and finishing cattle also already have occurred both in the southern and San Joaquin counties. Serious problems must be overcome if major expansion in these lines is to occur, favorable price relationships, of course, being essential. Two forces should operate to create more favorable price relationships; the anticipated increases in hay and other feed, and lessening of the flow of cattle to markets as the cyclical liquidation, reinforced by drought conditions in the East, nears completion. Actually, the trend in both livestock numbers and feed production in California has been upward, particularly for hay. The estimated feed 72. production increases in ±95k are far above normal for one year, but do not appear unmanageable over the next several years in terms of the likely increase in human population and the consequent stimulus to livestock production. Naturally, the abnormally high cattle prices and resulting favorable profit opportunities for cattle during 1950 and 1951 cannot be expected to reestablish themselves as a normal pattern. Assuming favorable price relations, farmers expanding livestock operations, and especially those going into such businesses for the first time, still face problems and difficulties. They will require added capital, new production technology and skills, and different market outlets. To meet these needs most farmers will find themselves forced to negotiate new contacts and contractual arrangements with credit, marketing and other service agencies. Both profits and losses are usually found among livestock producers in any given locality, and farmers new in livestock management and production will find that efficiency is the key to profits. jQWbi.iwi'xt&mi, 8tto -161 'XA^WW ««rvv&4 itaitQsa t/dbba vitBpen *itk\r %zfiT -.^MHiofilib tats. msXHfft stial :|{f.t 3 .,fe«r- ! ^93W 6T • jho •. iftttf* : taro » * a f Jx*s - baa Xbol-mAvH ■flbiiowboiq Vaa wan si 6x^3*4 SW-'bsaial -8s»VX*anaiSi ' Jbtfil 'XlXW si-wisl i.8om ebaan ggtiftj '$0ff$0 fifea $o££3 f 9n 8ft5W*a3 b/ts . ^.m^osr H9vX§ ^rfanl '$r*$$J>9iq ••3fflttf*«qf <^ ystf ei tonoXoXl" 1 ? c^rii JbifXl X.5iw rroii'HiEtorra : brtfi