r HD^ 9230 Use/ik EXCHANGE An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops in New York A T UK rHE FACUI/TY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY LAURENCE JOSEPH NORTON Published as Bulletin 412 by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N Y., December 1922. ed by the Internet Archive 2007 v iing from An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops in New York A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY LAURENCE JOSEPH NORTON Published as Bulletin 412 by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y., December 1922. • • • • • • ^ S ?23d> U.4T2. December, 1922 '..•,••',;.,:;''.,.';'•',','• ', Bulletin 412 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops in New York I L. J. Norton ■.... Published by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Ithaca, New York CXCMANOK CONTENTS PAGE Methods of investigation 5 Cost of production 5 Items included in cost 6 The canning industry 8 Practices in buying canning crops 10 Peas for the canning factory 12 Agricultural conditions in the areas studied 13 Orleans area 13 Genesee area 14 Steuben area 15 Ontario area 15 Other counties 15 Cost of production 15 Estimating average costs 16 Seed 19 Fertilizer 19 Manure 21 Lime 21 Labor 21 Miscellaneous expenses 23 Interest 23 Use of land 23 Returns 25 Prices paid ' 25 Buying on a graded basis 25 Miscellaneous returns 28 Factors affecting net returns 28 Return per hour of labor..'. > .':.**v.^ » 29 Variations in the cost of producing peas 30 Labor requirements 33 Factors affecting the cost of production of peas 35 Yield per acre 35 Acres of peas per farm 37 Distance to viner 38 Comparison of data obtained by the accounting and survey methods 39 Tomatoes 4° Agricultural conditions in the areas studied 4 2 Orleans area 4 2 Niagara area 4 2 Chautauqua area 43 Cost of production 44 Estimating average costs 45 Plants 47 Fertilizer 48 Manure 49 Lime 50 Labor 5° Miscellaneous expenses 5 2 Interest 5 2 Use of land , 53 Returns 53 Return per hour of labor 55 Variations in the cost of producing tomatoes 56 Labor requirements 57 Factors affecting the cost of production of tomatoes 61 Yield per acre 61 Acres of tomatoes per farm 6 3 Distance to receiving point 65 3 507777 4 sV' '/< v*i j- «-ti : /\ t i Contents Tomatoes (continued): PAGE Comparison of data obtained by the accounting and survey methods 65 Cost of producing tomatoes in other States in 1920 67 New Jersey 67 Ohio . . . . 68 Sweet corn 69 Agricultural conditions in the areas studied 7° Cost of production 7 2 Seed, fertilizer, and manure 7 2 Labor 7 2 Miscellaneous expenses 74 Use of land 74 Returns 74 Miscellaneous returns 75 Labor requirements 75 String beans 77 Lima beans 78 Copy of blank used in survey work 79 AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF THE PRODUCTION OF CANNING CROPS IN NEW YORK 1 L. J. Norton The investigation described herein was conducted for two general pur- poses. The first was to obtain basic information regarding the production and cost of production of the principal crops grown in New York for canning factories. The second was to study some of the factors influencing the economical production of these crops. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION The data on cost of production were collected by the survey and the accounting method. In the survey method a number of the farmers growing the crop under consideration in some of the important centers of production were visited by representatives of the New York State College of Agriculture. Detailed information was obtained from each farmer concerning the methods practiced in growing the crop and the costs of production. A copy of one of the blanks used is shown on pages 79 to 82. In the accounting method, farmers were furnished with blank account books with simple directions as to the records to be kept. In these books the farmers kept a record of all the items of expense incurred on the crop, of all receipts from the crop, and of the hours of human, horse, and tractor labor on the crop. At the end of the season the farmers were visited by a representative of the College of Agriculture, who checked the accounts and obtained the additional information necessary to calculate costs. This method does not entirely eliminate estimating. Such items as land values, rates of application of manure, and the cost of labor per hour, must be estimated. Since the results obtained by the survey method check closely with those obtained by the accounting method (tables 38 and 73, pages 40 and 66, respectively), all cost figures include data obtained by both methods unless otherwise stated. COST OF PRODUCTION The term cost of production, as used in this study, refers to the total expenses incurred directly or indirectly in the production of a crop. In addition to the actual cash outlays, it includes a return to the farmer for his labor, based on the outlay that would be necessary to hire a similar grade of labor, and a six-per-cent return on the investment in land, horses, and machinery used in producing the crop. Risk also should be included as an item of cost. In making comparisons between crops, consideration JAlso presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University, September, 1021, as a thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. Author's acknowledgment. The investigation was conducted under the direction of Professor G. F. Warren. It was made possible thru the cooperation of the New York State College of Agriculture with the New York Canning Crops Cooperative Association. New York growers of canning crops furnished the data on which the study was based. H. S. Mills, of the Department of Vegetable Gardening, assisted in obtaining and summarizing the data. To these and to many others who furnished valuable assistance, the writer is indebted. 6 ' i Bulletin 412 should be given to the relative risks involved. In this study, risk has not been included as a separate item of cost on individual farms, but some allowance for risk has been made by including, in the averages, costs for all farms visited. Some of these farms had partial or complete crop failures. The question of what items should be included in calculating the cost of any product raises certain difficulties. In agriculture the problem is complicated because on most farms a number of products are grown which are interrelated in a general system of farming, and because many enterprises yield two products — wheat and straw, corn and fodder, mutton and wool. The problem is to obtain information by which one enterprise may be compared with another on the same farm, and the same enterprise may be compared on different farms. It is necessary, therefore, that uniform methods be employed. The methods used in this study have followed as closely as possible the principles laid down in the report of the com- mittee appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States to make recommendations concerning methods of procedure in cost-of-pro- duction studies. 2 ITEMS INCLUDED IN COST Seed, plants, and fertilizer were charged at cost. All fertilizer applied in 1920 was charged to the crop of that year. Manure was valued at the farmer's estimate, or, if no estimate was made, at $2 a ton at the barn. To allow for residual value, manure applied to the land that was in canning crops in 1920 was charged to the 1920 crop as follows: of the manure applied in 1920, 40 per cent; of the manure applied in 19 19, 30 per cent; of the manure applied in 19 18, 20 per cent; of the manure applied in 191 7, 10 per cent. Lime was charged at cost. The charge to the 1920 crop was based on the length of the rotation, the cost being distributed over the number of years in the rotation. In most cases 20 per cent of the cost of the appli- cations made during the preceding five years to the land on which the 1920 crop was grown, was charged to the 1920 crop. Labor hauling and spreading manure and lime. The time required to perform these operations was obtained separately. The crop was charged with the same percentage of the cost of labor as of the manure and lime involved. For example, if 40 per cent of the manure was charged to the crop, 40 per cent of the time spent in hauling and spreading it was charged also. Hired labor was charged at cost. Where men were hired by the month, the total cost per month, including the value of board or privileges furnished, was divided by the estimated number of hours worked per month, in most cases 260. Operator's and other family labor was charged at what the farmer esti- mated it would cost to hire labor of the same grade. Horse labor was charged at 24.5 cents per hour on all farms except when teams were hired for special work, such as hauling peas. In such cases horse labor was charged at the price paid. The rate given was the preliminary average of the cost per hour of horse labor in 19 19 on thirty- *U. S. Agr. Dept., Circular 132 (Office of the Secretary), pages 0-15. 1019. An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 7 eight New York farms which cooperated with the New York State College of Agriculture in keeping complete cost accounts of their farm operations. This rate covers all the costs of keeping horses on these farms, among which are charges for interest on the average investment, for depreciation, for the use of buildings, for time spent in taking care of horses, and for the value of home-grown feeds fed to horses. The use of this uniform figure as the cost of horse labor on a particular farm is only approximately accurate, as this cost varies between farms; but it is more nearly accurate when used as the average cost on a group of farms. Use of equipment was charged on all farms at 8.2 cents per hour of horse labor. This figure was the average cost on the cost-account farms for 19 19. The reason for distributing equipment costs, which include machinery and harnesses, on the basis of the hours of horse labor, is that most farm machinery is drawn by horses and the cost varies approximately with the number of horses driven. In 1920 .the cost per hour of horse labor on thirty-three New York farms which kept cost accounts was 21.9 cents. The cost of equipment used on these farms was 9.5 cents per hour of horse labor. It will be noted that the horse-labor rate was lower than the rate used in this study, while the equipment rate was higher. The combined rate per hour for these two items was approximately one cent lower than the rate at which it was charged. The lower horse-labor rate was due to the reduction in the cost of feed during the latter part of the year. The higher equipment cost was due to the general increase in replacement and repair costs which continued in 1920. Use of tractor, if hired, was charged at cost; if not hired, at $1.75 per hour. This figure was estimated, using as a basis the data obtained in a study of the costs of tractor operation for the year 1919. 3 Use of automobile was charged at 10 cents per mile. Use of trucks was charged at cost when hired, or, if not hired, at the rate that would be paid for similar trucks. Interest was charged at 6 per cent per annum on all costs except the charge for use of land and that for seed and plants which were not paid for until the end of the season. Interest was computed from the average date when the costs were incurred, to the date of payment by the canning company. Use of land. Where cash rent was paid for land, the rent paid per acre, plus taxes and other costs which the operator incurred, was used as the charge for use of land. The charge for use of land owned or worked on shares was calculated by multiplying the farmer's estimate of the value of the bare crop land by 8.2 per cent. The farm expenses chargeable to crop land in 19 19 amounted to 8.2 per cent of the value of the crop land on the New York farms keeping cost accounts in that year. This rate included 6 per cent interest on the value of the land, taxes, and all other costs of upkeep. The crop-land costs in 1920 on thirty-three farms on which cost accounts were kept were 8.4 per cent of the value. This figure was not available when the costs were calculated. If the land was double-cropped, the canning crop was charged one-half the annual cost of use of land. » Cornell University Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 405. 1921. 8 Bulletin 412 Some of the methods used have been criticized at various times and by various persons as not being a correct basis of cost. The principal criti- cisms have been concerning the inclusion of a return for operator's labor and for interest on investment, particularly land; and the practices of charging home-grown supplies from one enterprise to another, and credit- ing by-products, at market value and not cost. In considering these criticisms, the purpose for which the cost figures are to be used must be kept in mind. The primary uses of cost figures as here calculated are to compare different enterprises on the same farm, or the same enterprise on different farms or groups of farms, and as a basis for studying the relative efficiency of different methods of production. In order to be useful for these purposes, cost figures must include common ele- ments. If on one farm the operator does all the work and on another all the labor is hired, unless the operator's time is included on the one, the two can- not be compared accurately. Similarly, in the case of land, if one farmer uses land valued at $50, and another land valued at $100, profitable com- parisons cannot be made without including interest on the varying values. Land is often held to be different from other productive factors because its value is determined by the prices of its products and does not determine their prices. This is true, and the same is true of any other factor in production, varying only in the degree to which it can be put to other uses. The value of a factory having one use will depend, after it has been con- structed, on the price at which its product can be sold. But if a factory that has more than one use is being studied to determine to what use it will be put, and if one product involves equipment costing $5000 while another involves equipment costing $10,000, unless returns on this capital are included in the comparison of costs such a comparison is of little value in determining which product should be manufactured. The practices of charging home-grown supplies transferred from one enterprise to another, and crediting by-products at market value instead of at cost, are followed by most manufacturing enterprises having comparable problems when they desire to calculate the cost of a particular product. In order to compare the different enterprises on a farm, the returns must be comparable. If one farm raises oats for horse feed and another farm buys them, the costs of horse labor will not be comparable unless oats are in both cases charged at market value. THE CANNING INDUSTRY The canning industry in New York is based on a large volume of a variety of high-quality products. The climate and soil conditions prevailing in the canning sections of the State are such that a variety of fruits and vege- tables can be economically produced. Canning factories usually are located close to the land which produces the principal crops that are canned. Most of the factories in New York State pack a variety of products. In some cases the area in which the factory is located is not particularly well adapted to raising all the prod- ucts that are canned, but the larger companies, operating a number of plants, have distributed them so that they have one or more plants located in a section well adapted to each crop. An Economic Study of the Production oe Canning Crops 9 Both fruits and vegetables are canned in the State, but in this investigation only the vegetable branch of the industry was considered. The leading vegetables canned are peas, corn, tomatoes, and string beans. Beets, cabbage in the form of sauerkraut, and spinach, are among the other vegetables canned. Climatic and soil conditions determine the regions in which the raw products can be grown most advantageously. There are other factors also, however, which give relative advantages to various sections of the country. The most important of these is the location with reference to markets. New York State is located in the most densely populated part of the United States. In 1920 the combined population of the New England States and New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, was nearly 30 per cent of the total population of the United States. The proportion of the total production of three of the leading kinds of canned goods in these States is given in table 1 : TABLE 1. Population and Proportional Production of Canned Goods in New England, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania Per cent of United States total Population PeasJ CornJ Tomatoes J 29. 8t 29.0 34-4 56.2 ♦Population according to census of ioio. t Population according to census of 1920. JThe data in regard to the packs were obtained from the Almanac of the Canning Industry, published by the Canning Trade, Baltimore, Maryland. The proportion of these three kinds of canned goods packed in these States was less in the period from iqii to 1920 than in the earlier period, from 1906 to 19 10. Measuring total consumption by total population, these States packed just about enough peas and corn to supply their needs and produced a surplus of canned tomatoes. Canners of corn and peas in the States listed have an advantage in having a near-by market for their product, while the tomato canners must ship a part of their pack to more distant markets. The freight rates prevailing during the winter of 1920-21 from various producing centers to various large cities, and the estimated equivalent per ton of fresh tomatoes and green peas, are given in table 2. If a canner of peas in Wisconsin and one in New York, respectively, located so as to have the freight rates shown in table 2, were shipping to New York City, the New York canner would have an advantage over the Wisconsin canner in freight rates on the canned goods amounting to about $15 per ton of shelled peas. When shipping to Pittsburg the New York canner would have an advantage amounting to about $6 per ton of shelled peas. IO Bulletin 412 TABLE 2. Freight Rates on Canned Goods, and Equivalents per Ton of Vegetables To New York from: Oconomowoc, Wisconsin Frankfort, Indiana Rochester, New York. . . Woodstown, New Jersey- Oakland, California t . . . . To Chicago from: Oconomowoc, Wisconsin Frankfort, Indiana Rochester, New York . . . Woodstown, New Jersey- Oakland, California To Pittsburg from. Oconomowoc, Wisconsin Frankfort, Indiana Rochester, New York . . . Woodstown, New Jersey Oakland, California Rates (car- lot) per 100 pounds of canned goods $0.70 0.60 0.315 0.24 1.205 $0.23 0.24 0.44 0.64 1.205 $0.44 o.355 0.30 0.38 1.205 Equivalent per ton Fresh tomatoes* $ 7-20 3-78 2.88 14.46 $2.88 ' 5-28 7.68 14.46 $ 4-26 3.60 4-56 14.46 Green peasf $28 00 12 60 $ 9 20 17 60 $17 60 12 00 * 2000 pounds of fresh tomatoes is considered equivalent to 1200 pounds of canned goods. t 2000 pounds of green peas is considered equivalent to 4000 pounds of canned goods. t The rates from California to New York City were actually less than those given above, because the rate by water from California to New York City was much lower than the rail rate. The ocean rate from the Pacific Coast to New York City was less than the rail rate from middle- western points to New York City. Canning factories located in the more densely populated regions ordi- narily would be expected to have to pay more to get their raw produce because of the higher prices for all kinds of agricultural products in those sections. «So long as the consumption of the region exceeds the production, such factories are able to pay a higher price for the raw product because of the saving on freight. If production exceeds consumption, they will not be able to pay as high a price. However, if a surplus is produced continuously, it is very likely that the region has some special advantage in the growing of the crop which makes production possible at such a price as to enable the local canners to compete with canners with whom they are at a disadvantage as regards freight rates. PRACTICES IN BUYING CANNING CROPS Most of the crops grown for canning factories in New York State are raised under contract. Under the form of contract in common use in the State, the canner agrees to take the total product of a certain number of acres of a crop at a price fixed in the contract. These contracts are usually made in the late winter or early spring. The price to be paid, the price at which seed or plants are to be charged, the dates of payment, An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops ii certain conditions as to quality, and other terms of sale, are specified in the contract. The canners in turn usually sell the canned goods, for delivery when they are packed, to wholesale grocers or other distributors. These are known as " futures." The quantity of " futures " of a given product which a canner sells is usually a certain proportion of a normal yield on the acreage for which he has contracted. In other sections of the country, particularly in Maryland and Delaware, a considerable acreage of tomatoes not under contract is grown. In every community in these sections there are several buyers of tomatoes, and in the fall a competitive price is established. In the vicinity of Rochester and Buffalo in New York, there are market-gardening sections in which tomatoes are grown for the city markets. Some of these tomatoes may be sold to canners .when the market conditions are not good. Such tomatoes, being surplus product from market gardens, can be sold at a lower price than tomatoes grown under contract, all of which have to be sold to a factory at a fixed price. The part of their supply of vegetables which the companies grow on their own farms is, of course, not contracted for. Beans are the principal crop so grown. Farmers ordinarily do not have enough hired labor to grow and harvest this crop satisfactorily. The canning companies that raise beans employ a gang of laborers for hoeing and picking. When beans are grown under contract, the companies usually furnish the pickers. Beets are usually not contracted for but are bought when they are ready to harvest. The price depends on the proportion of the various-sized beets. The greater the proportion of small-sized beets, the more they are worth for canning. Cabbage may be contracted for or bought at the market price in the fall. Spinach, unless grown on the canner 's own farm, is usually bought from truck growers at the prevailing market price. The local monopoly which the factory usually has makes it practically necessary that the price be set before the crop is planted, or at least that the method of arriving at a price be defined. There are advantages and disadvantages to the farmer in this method of sale. He is sure of the price, but he is in no way certain of the total returns he will receive. The profitable years, in the case of contract crops, are years when yields are good. When the yields of crops produced for the open market, such as cabbage and potatoes, are high, low prices usually prevail, but in years of low yields there is usually a compensating increase in the price. There is no such increase in the price of contract crops when the yields are low, and therefore such years are very unprofitable. In order to secure a constant supply of any product^ the price must be high enough to give to a sufficient number of producers returns compa- rable with what they may expect from other crops that work in equally well with their system of farming. Probably the return could be slightly less in the case of a crop the price of which is guaranteed than in the case of crops grown without a price guaranteed, because the uncertainties of price are eliminated. If data were available on the average costs and T2 Bulletin 412 returns from competing crops, the price necessary to maintain production of any crop could be ascertained with a fair degree of accuracy. The return per hour of human labor on the crop under consideration is probably the best measure of whether a price is adequate to maintain production. This should be equal to the returns from competing crops that fit in equally well with the system of farming. The return per hour should be based on the average yield and price over a series of years on the farms under consideration. In any particular year the crop may return either more or less per hour than the average. PEAS FOR THE CANNING FACTORY Peas for canning are grown chiefly in the States bordering the Great Lakes, where the climate is cool. Wisconsin and New York are the two leading States. The area in which peas are canned in New York extends from Oneida County, in the central part of the State, across the northwestern part to Lake Erie and the Niagara River. Peas are grown Fig. 1. location of factories canning peas in new york state Each dot represents the location of a factory where peas are packed, as reported in the Canners' Directory for 1920 m many localities distributed thruout this section of the State, as is shown in figure i. In most of the localities where peas are grown there is a considerable area of fairly deep, well-drained soil, usually well supplied with lime. ^ An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 13 Cost data on the crop were obtained by both the account and survey methods. The location of the four areas in which surveys were made is shown in figure 2. The number of farms on which cost figures on peas were obtained by each method is shown in table 3. 2. LOCATION OF AREAS IN WHICH STUDIES WERE MADE ON THE COST OF PRODUCING PEAS TABLE 3. Farms on Which Cost Figures on Peas Were Obtained in 1920 Area Accounts Records Total Orleans 12 5 14 1 24 64 43 39 49 11 76 48 53 50 35 Genesee Steuben Ontario Other counties Total ." 56 206 262 AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS IN THE AREAS STUDIED Orleans area The principal factory in Orleans County was located at Albion and was operated by the New York Canners, Inc. Peas were raised for this factory over the greater part of central Orleans County. The peas were 14 Bulletin 412 threshed at the factory, and at three outlying viner stations from which the shelled peas were hauled by motor trucks to the factory. These viner stations increased the territory from which the factory could procure peas, because the distance which peas can be hauled economically before being threshed is limited. The viner stations were located, in relation to the factory, 5 miles east, 7 miles north, and 8 miles west, respectively. There were several other smaller factories that packed peas in Orleans County. There is no soil survey of Orleans County, but the soils on which peas are grown would probably be classed chiefly as Ontario loam, silt loam, and fine sandy loam, Lockport stony clay loam, and Dunkirk gravelly sandy loam. The land is, in general, level. This county is located in the Lake Ontario fruit belt, and in the section in which peas are grown, apples are the most important crop. Hay, winter wheat, oats, tomatoes, pears, and peaches are also important, and a great variety of other crops are grown (table 4). TABLE 4. Crops Grown in 1920 on Farms for Which Cost Data on Peas Were Obtained Crop Acres per farm Per cent of total crop acres Orleans Genesee Steuben Ontario Orleans Genesee Steuben Ontario Peas 50 0.6 i-4 34 2-5 1.4 19 2.6 5-7 1.5 0.4 03 14-3 19.6 0.7 II. 5 1.4 8.5 1.9 0.5 4.4 2.9 1.0 "2.6 0.2 7-5 39 03 25- 1 190 5-8 2.9 5-8 0.8 2.2 0.7 0.9 0. 1 9.1 11. 1.2 0. 1 17 5-7 O.I 2.0 34-4 0.6 1. 1 0.2 3-6 1.3 4.2 6.6 1.7 0.9 1-7 " o!o 50 0.4 1.8 14.6 0.2 0.2 16.3 i-S 73 0.4 0.9 6-7 0.8 1.9 4.6 3-4 1.9 2.5 3 5 7-7 2.0 0.6 0.5 193 26.4 0.9 155 1.8 9.8 2.2 0.6 5-1 3 3 1.2 3 03 8.7 4.6 0.4 28.9 21.9 6-7 3-3 7-4 1.0 2^8 0.9 I . I 0. I 11. 9 14.2 1-5 0.2 2.2 7-4 0. 1 2.6 44.1 0.8 1.4 03 4.8 18 5. 7 8.8 2.3 13 2.3 Oats 8 1 6 6 0.5 2.5 194 03 03 Rye Hay Alfalfa 97 0.5 Orchard, not bearing . u 74-2 86.5 77-7 74- 6 100. 100. 100. ■ Total acres in farm. . . | 104.0 123.6 142.8 IOI.3 Genesee area The farms included in the Genesee area are located in Genesee and Monroe Counties. The factory for which they raised peas was located at Bergen and was operated by the Curtice Brothers Company. All the peas were threshed at the factory because there was a sufficiently large acreage of land adapted to peas close enough to the factory to supply its requirements. The acreages grown per farm in this section were rather large, and all the farms that raised any considerable acreage had several varieties. Since the different varieties ripened at different dates, the time in which the peas^ could be harvested in condition suitable for canning was extended and it was possible for the farms to grow larger acreages. An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 15 The topography in this section is level to rolling. The soils on which peas were grown are for the most part Ontario loam and fine sandy loam. This is a general-farming section, in which wheat is the most important crop. Next to wheat and hay, more acres of peas were grown on these farms than any other crop (table 4) . Steuben area The farms in the Steuben area are located in three counties — Steuben, Ontario, and Livingston. The parts of the three counties included in the area have more or less similar conditions. The Steuben Products Company operated four factories in this area, located respectively at Cohocton, Atlanta, and Wayland, in Steuben County, and Naples in Ontario County. A few outlying viner stations were operated. The topography in this area is extremely varied. The farms may be divided into two classes, the hill and the valley. The valleys are nearly level, with steep banks on both sides. The tops of the hills are rolling. The soils in general are light, fairly deep, and not very well supplied with lime. This is a very important potato-producing section. Twelve per cent of the land in crops on the farms visited was in potatoes in 1920. Other cultivated crops are not important. Peas were the second cash crop in importance (table 4). A considerable proportion of the land in this area is in pasture, woods, and waste. The farms are larger than in the other areas, but the acreage of crops grown per farm is about the same. Ontario area All the farms in the Ontario area are located in the eastern part of the county. The company for which the peas were raised, the Geneva Pre- serving Company, had a factory in the city of Geneva. Two viner stations were operated in the territory covered. The topography is level to rolling, and the soils are chiefly Ontario loam and fine sandy loam. Apples, cabbage, and wheat are important cash crops (table 4). Peas were of less importance in this section than in any of the other areas. One of the viner stations was in a new location. Peas were a new crop to most of the farmers and no large acreages were grown. In the future, if the experience of other sections is repeated, some of the growers will probably drop out ; others will put in larger acreages, and the acreage of peas per farm on the farms growing peas will be more comparable to that in the other areas. Other counties The farms which are designated as in " other counties " are located as follows: Niagara County, 2; Wayne County, 10; Ontario County, 6; Seneca County, 4; Cayuga County, 6; Onondaga County, 4; Madison County, 2; Cortland County, 1. On about 60 per cent of these farms, accounts were kept by farmers. These farms probably had higher yields per acre and lower costs per ton than the average of the farms in the sections in which they are located. COST OF PRODUCTION The average cost of producing an acre of peas in 1920 on the 262 farms in all areas in which data were obtained, is given in table 5, and the average cost in each area is given in table 6. i6 Bulletin 412 TABLE 5. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Peas on 262 New York Farms Growing 1468 Acres in 1920 (Average yield per acre, 2246 pounds) Item Seed Fertilizer Manure charged to peas Lime charged to peas Labor growing peas: Human Horse Use of equipment Use of tractor Use of automobile and truck . Miscellaneous growing expenses . Interest on growing costs Use of land Total growing cost . Quantity per acre 4.0 bu. . 164.0 lbs. . 2 . 8 tons . 52.0 lbs. . 15.8 hrs. . 37.5 hrs.. 37.5 hrs.. 0.3 hr... Cost per acre $15-71 2.82 5-66 0.10 6-93 9.18 307 0.61 0.03 0.05 0.61 8-95 $53-72 Per cent of total cost 22.0 3-9 7.8 0.1 96 12.7 4-3 0.8 o. 1 0.8 12.4 74-5 Labor harvesting peas: Human Horse Use of equipment Use of automobile, truck, and tractor Miscellaneous harvesting expenses Interest on harvesting costs Total harvesting cost . Total cost of crop . Value of ensilage . Net cost of shelled peas. 21.8 hrs. 26.2 hrs. 26.2 hrs. $9.10 6-43 2.16 0.17 0.36 0.20 $18.42 $72.14 2-73 $6941 25-5 100. o 3-8 96.2 Shelled peas sold to factory . Price received per ton Cost per ton 123 tons $90.34 $80.44 $61.81 Estimating average costs The yield per acre in 1920 on these farms was somewhat higher than the average yield would be over a period of years. The average yield of canning- factory peas for the State during the past four years has been about 1800 pounds per acre. The yields in tons as reported by the United States Bureau of Crop Estimates were: 1917, 0.7 ton; 1918, 1.1 tons; 1919, 0.8 ton; 1920, 1.0 ton. The gains on a crop in years when the yield per acre is good must be sufficient to offset the losses in years when the yield is poor. The average cost of growing a ton of peas, and the average quantities of the materials necessary to produce a ton of peas if the yield is 1800 pounds per acre, can be estimated. The costs per acre up to harvest are independent of the fluctuation in yield. The most important factors causing variation in yield are the weather and any change in the An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 17 <0 P £ ' •sg i/3« W)(1"tO iflOONO'OOOOl +3 O 3 «i y 5 *"? 00 a) o o c 6 J a M^tNO HNTtNO \OmOO t»oooo >> j) 3 43 a ft [/) C M) 03 03 03 000 Vi v-i u OOOO O t^ t~ N 1/3 M M O 6 6 6 2 «- an 00 l^O ****** °o 3 = "-* 43 i/3t*i/30 NOifOOOOOOi OwO N O O O VJ3 O C * 3 0) Q°< J oi C oj oo^-o to o) 1/1 u u u u N 00 00 rt 03 03 tn u u u S §0 OOOO t^-00 t- •y, '/-+<•> •o o ft : : g w g &*: -ill uo53o c ■ 8 £-5 <» a 03°°"° _,••? ?< o S 00 NNtONICO CO 10000 OnOnO w rh vo Tt- cs © 00 onoo vo mmmmoooo 0000 r-~ r — «— 1 o rhO m tO>0 t^OO on on o 00 MOO O "tO^ "^-vO OOOOfCt^n-^- •^•vO M mO Nm a 1^ CO "^ CO CN .vO oo O vO On cooo H4 HH W M O O N O O co»00 r>. to 1^ ci vo co Onoo O covO O tJ- Th Tf hh HH CJ C« COM HH M N lO On CO m »OOnO Tt- ON »0 IO C* 6 IOO >-« cO iOt>»00 00 O N cOtHOOO "*cO«-« rf lONO Onvo" 00 lO t|- ^J- rj- 1/5 rj- N VO lO tJ- 10 >0 .00 ONO ooioooot CO tHOvO t^.00 On © 32 Bulletin 412 average price received would have covered the cost of producing about 75 per cent of the total crop. In spite of poor yields obtained in 19 19, the acreage of peas grown in 1920 was 16 per cent above the yearly average grown from 191 7 to 1920 (table 24). The acreage figures are from reports of the United States Department of Agriculture. TABLE 24. Acres of Selected Crops Grown in New York State from 1917 to 1920 Peas Oats Potatoes Winter wheat Tomatoes Year Acres Per cent of aver- age I9I7- 1920 Acres Per cent of aver- age 191 7- 1920 ' Acres Per cent f of aver- age I9I7- 1920 Acres Per cent of aver- age 1917- 1920 Acres Per cent of aver- age 1917- 1920 1917 19.283 24,203 22,151 26 , 749 83 105 96 116 1,275,000 1,260,000 1,120,000 1,150,000 106 105 93 96 400 , 000 380,000 363 , 000 370,000 106 100 96 98 430,000 380,000 474,000 460,000 99 87 109 106 8,584 10,986 7,807 9,837 92 1918 1919 1920 118 84 106 Average 23,096 100 1,201,250 100 378,250 100 436 , 000 100 9,304 100 The question was asked of each grower, " If prices and costs are the same as this year [1920], will you grow peas next year? " A summary of the answers to this question among the groups of farmers having different costs, shows that the proportion of growers not planning to grow peas in 192 1 increased as the cost per ton in 1920 increased (table 25). TABLE 25. Cost per Ton in 1920 on 262 Farms, and Number of Farmers not Planning to Grow Peas in 1921 Cost per ton in 1920 Number of farms Number not planning to grow peas in 1921 Per cent of farms in group Less than $40 $ 40-$ 50 . . . 50- 60 60- 70 ... . 70- 80 80-100. . . . 100+ All farms .... 11 40 43 5i 44 36 37 14 o 5 9 18 18 22 38 262 45 17 By the method of calculating costs used in this study, even if a grower failed to receive returns that paid all costs he might still have received some returns for his labor and some interest. The question whether or not he should grow peas depends on whether he has an alternative that would give greater returns. Even if the returns are sufficient to pay a profit above all costs, they may not be as good as could be received from some alternative. In such a case peas would not be grown. An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 33 labor requirements The land is plowed and fitted until a good seedbed is prepared, spring-tooth and disk harrows and rollers being used according to the nature of the soil. The peas are planted with a grain drill. In practically all cases the land is rolled after the peas have been drilled. This is done to firm the soil around the seed, and also to smooth the land as much as possible to facilitate harvesting. The average hours required to perform the various operations are given in table 26. The hours given are not the average time for those doing the work, but were obtained by dividing the total number of hours spent on the operation by the total number of acres. The average hours required for performing a particular operation once may be obtained by dividing the average hours as given, by the number of times the operation was performed. TABLE 26. Average Hours per Acre Required to Perform Various Operations on the Pea Crop on 262 Farms Growing 1468 Acres in 1920 Operation Number of times operation was performed Man hours Horse hours Tractor hours Plowing Harrowing Disking Rolling before drilling Cultipacking Hauling fertilizer Hauling seed Drilling Rolling after drilling Harrowing after drilling Hauling and spreading manure. Hauling and spreading lime Total 1.0 3-5 0.4 1.2 0.2 I.O 1.0 5-7 35 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 1-3 0.8 0.1 23 0.1 14.0 9.8 1.0 1.8 05 0. o. 2. I. o. 4- o. 15-8 37-5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 The methods of fitting in the Orleans, Genesee, and Ontario areas were similar. The man hours per acre were lower, and the horse hours were higher, in the Genesee area than in the other sections (table 27). This was due partly to the practice of driving more horses per man in the Genesee area, thereby increasing the amount of work done per man in a day. Also, larger acreages of peas were grown per farm in the Genesee area, which might be expected to reduce the hours spent per acre. In the Steuben area the land is stcnier than in the other areas and more time was required to plow an acre. After the land was plowed, however, less time was spent to prepare it for drilling. The only tillage that most of the land received was harrowing from two to four times. On a few farms in one locality of this area, peas were planted after potatoes without plowing. The yields on these farms were as good as the average of the region. This was done only on a loose, light soil that had been well tilled the previous year. 34 Bulletin 412 TABLE 27. Average Labor Requirements per Acre Growing Peas on 262 Farms in 1920 Orleans Genesee Steuben Ontario Other counties All farms Man hours per acre .... Horse hours per acre. . . Tractor hours per acre . Acres per farm 17.2 37-8 0.4 5-0 15.0 41-7 0.2 8-5 16.3 35-7 03 5-7 15-9 34-3 0.7 3-6 14.2 34-2 0.4 5 9 15-8 37-5 0.3 5-6 Peas are usually harvested with a mowing machine fitted with some special attachments. Special machines have been designed for harvesting peas, but they are not in general use in New York. The peas, after being cut, are bunched, loaded on hay racks, and drawn to the factory or the viner station. Since they are cut when green, they are bulky and heavy. The variations in the' time required to harvest peas in the different areas are shown in table 28: TABLE 28. Average Labor Requirements per Acre Harvesting Peas on 262 Farms in 1920 Man hours per acre. Horse hours per acre Man hours per ton . . Horse hours per ton . Tons per acre Miles to viner Acres per farm Orleans Genesee Steuben Ontario Other counties 21.4 16.4 29.7 24.2 19.9 25-3 22.3 35-2 28.1 21.2 21.7 14.9 22.6 23.0 16.5 25-7 20.3 26.7 26.8 17.6 1. 00 1 10 1.32 1.05 1 .20 2.3 2.2 23 i-4 13 50 8-5 5-7 3-6 5-9 All farms 21 26 19 23 2 5 8 2 5 4 12 o 6 Variations in the length of time required to harvest, other than those due to differences in efficiency on different farms, may be due to a number of causes. Some of these are: 1. Variations in topography. On land which is fairly level and free from stones, the peas can be harvested more rapidly than on land which is more hilly or stony. 2 . Differences in acreages of peas per farm and in length of haul to the viner. The farmers growing the larger acreages, or whose farms are nearer the viner station, harvest and haul peas in less time than is required by growers with smaller acreages or with longer hauls. 3 . Delay in unloading peas at the factory. At most plants the farmers unload the peas along conveyers which run to the viners. The employees of the factory take care of them after this. At the plants located in the Steuben area, each man waited until his load could be threshed, and then pitched it to the viner directly. In this area the growers estimated that, on the average, about 3.2 hours per acre, or a little less than an hour per load, were lost in waiting to unload. Very few of the farmers in the other areas reported any delays in unloading. An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 35 4. Use of labor-saving attachments. There are two types of attach- ments that are put on an ordinary mowing machine in order that peas may be harvested more efficiently: " lifters," or long guards put on in place of the regular guards at intervals of one foot, which raise the peas so that they can be more easily cut; and " windrowers," or " swat hers," which are curved metal bands fastened to the cutter bar to roll the peas back after they are cut. It is usually necessary to have men follow the machine to roll the peas back as they are being cut, so that they are not run over by the machine the next time around. The windrowers aid in this operation and shorten the time required to harvest peas (table 29). TABLE 29. Type of Machine Used in Harvesting Peas, and Hours per Acre Spent in Harvesting, on Orleans, Genesee, and Steuben Farms in 1920 Type of machine used Number of farms Average distance to viner (miles) Acres of peas per farm Yield of peas per acre (pounds) Hours per acre harvesting peas Man Horse Mowing machine with windrower 69 76 2.0 2.6 8.0 4-7 2,294 2,174 18.4 24.9 24.7 29.7 Mowing machine with- out windrower A number of farmers used an old mowing machine to cut peas. This operation is hard on a mowing machine. On 48 farms out of 228 on which this information was obtained, a mowing machine was used for no other purpose, while on 180 farms the same machine was used that was used in haying. FACTORS AFFECTING THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF PEAS Yield per acre The cost per ton of peas is very closely related to the yield per acre. The effect of the yield on returns is shown in table 30. The costs in detail of producing peas on farms with different yields per acre are given in table 31. TABLE 30. Relation between Yield per Acre and Cost of Production of Peas 262 Farms, 1920* Yield per acre (pounds) Num- ber of farms Average yield per acre (pounds) Average growing cost per acre Increase in growing cost per acre over lowest- yielding group Return or loss per acre above or below cost of harvesting Increase in return per acre above cost of harvesting, over group with lowest yield per acre Less than 1800. 81 101 80 1,492 2,138 2,988 $52 54 54 ""$2" 2 -$ 4 16 48 1800-2500 Over 2500 $20 52 * The correlation coefficient between the yield per acre and the cost per ton was extremely high, being 0.724 ±0.02. 36 TABLE 31, Bulletin 412 Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Peas on Farms with Different Yields per Acre, 1920 Item Yield less than 1800 pounds per acre, 81 farms, 408 acres, averaging 1492 pounds per acre Yield 1800 to 2500 pounds per acre, 101 farms, 564 acres, averaging 2138 pounds per acre Yield over 2500 pounds per acre, 80 farms, 496 acres, averaging 2988 pounds per acre Quantity l per acre Cost per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Seed 4 bu . . . . 139 lbs. . . . 2 . 4 tons . . . 41 lbs. . . . 15.8 hrs 36.7 hrs 36.7 hrs $1578 235 4-72 0.08 7 .04 8.99 301 <->.8o 0.03 0.06 0.62 8.64 4 bu . . . . 161 lbs. . . . 2 . 9 tons . . . 62 lbs. . . . 16. 1 hrs 36.8 hrs 36.8 hrs $15-90 2.80 6.05 O.II 705 9.02 3 02 0.72 0.04 0.02 0.62 9.02 4 bu . . . . 187 lbs 3.0 tons. . . 49 lbs. . . . 15.6 hrs 39.0 hrs 39.0 hrs $15-49 3-23 6.00 0. 10 Labor growing peas: 6.70 955 3-20 0.33 Use of automobile and truck. . . . Miscellaneous growing expenses. . . 0.03 0.07 0.59 9- 13 $52.12 $54-37 $54-42 Labor harvesting peas: 17.4 hrs 21.7 hrs 21 .7 hrs $7-25 532 1.79 0.03 0.22 0.19 22.2 hrs 26.4 hrs 26.4 hrs $9-27 6.46 2. 16 0.12 0.30 0.23 25.1 hrs 29.9 hrs 29.9 hrs $10.43 732 2.45 Use of automobile, truck, and 0-35 0.55 0.19 $14.80 $18.54 $21.29 $66.92 2.05 $72.91 $2.99 $75.71 301 Net cost of shelled peas $64.87 $6992 $72.70 Shelled peas sold to factory . 746 ton. . . $60.72 81.39 1 . 069 tons. . $85.50 7998 1 . 494 tons. . $120.42 80.60 $69.87 19.84 $50.86 17-34 $36.43 14.25 $86.96 $65.41 $48.66 Return per hour of human labor . 1 io.^i $0.83 $1-59 1 The number of farms with yields of less than 1800 pounds per acre was practically the same as the number having yields of 2 500 pounds and more per acre. However, only 40 per cent as many tons were produced on the farms with the lower yields (table 32). TABLE 32. Proportion of Peas Produced on Farms with Different Yields per Acre, 262 Farms, 1920 Yield per acre (pounds) Number of farms Per cent of total farms Number of acres Per cent of total acres Number of tons Per cent of total tons Less than 1800 1800-2500 81 101 80 3i 38 3i 408 564 496 28 38 34 304 603 741 18 37 45 Over 2500 All farms 262 100 1,468 100 1,648 100 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 37 A number of factors influence the yield per acre. Some of these, such as sowing at the proper time, the quality of the seed when the seed is charged to the farmer at a uniform price, and weather conditions, will not influence the cost of production. Other factors, such as the quantity of seed and fertilizer used per acre, will increase the cost. Whether or not any single factor is profitable depends on whether the value of the increased yield is greater than the cost of the practice. Acres of peas per farm Most of the growers raised small acreages of peas (table 33). Peas must be harvested within a limited time, because of the deterioration in quality if they are not cut at the proper stage of growth. The acreage that can be grown per farm may be enlarged by increasing the amount of help available or by extending the period of time in which the peas may be harvested. Additional help may be secured by hiring additional men or teams or by exchanging work with neighbors. The canning companies often furnish men and teams to the larger growers. The current rates are usually charged for these men and teams, but in some cases the charge is only nominal. The period in which peas must be harvested may be lengthened by growing a number of varieties that ripen at different dates, by making several sowings of the same variety, and by not maintaining strict standards as to the quality of the peas when harvested. TABLE 33. Farms Growing Different Acreages of Peas in Each Area in 1920 Acres of peas per farm Orleans Genesee Steuben Ontario Other counties All farms 1 1 17 13 12 10 10 4 2 1 2 2 3 5 4 7 3 3 5 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 5 5 8 13 2 5 2 3 1 5 16 13 4 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 5 8 3 4 1 2 1 1 1 11 2 51 36 34 30 36 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 7 7 9 4 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 2 15 3 3 2 16 22 1 23 1 34 2 Total 76 48 53 5o 35 262 Acres per farm 5-0 8-5 5-7 3-6 59 5-6 While the growers raising small acreages were the most numerous, a comparatively small number of those who raised larger acreages produced a considerable proportion of the total crop (table 34). Ten per cent of 38 Bulletin 412 TABLE 34. Proportion of Peas Produced on Farms Growing Different Acreages, 262 Farms, 1920 Acres of peas per farm Number of farms Per cent of farms Acres of peas Per cent of acres Tons of peas Per cent of tons Less than 6 162 73 27 61.8 27.9 10.3 523 528 417 35-6 36.0 28.4 559 600 489 33-9 6-10 Over 10 36.4 29.7 All farms 262 100. 1,468 100. 1,648 100. the growers raised about 30 per cent of the total crop. The acres grown per farm did not affect the cost per acre before harvest (table 35). How- ever, the cost of harvesting was considerably less on farms growing larger acreages. This was in spite of the fact that these farms had higher yields than the farms in the other groups. Part of this lower cost is due to the larger acreages grown on farms nearer to the viner. The better yield per acre secured on the farms growing the larger acreages was probably one of the chief reasons why peas were so extensively grown. TABLE 35. Relation between Acres of Peas per Farm and Cost of Production, 262 Farms, 1920 Acres of peas per farm Num- ber of farms Aver- age num- ber of acres per farm Average yield per acre (pounds) Cost Grow- ing per acre Harvest- ing Tota Per acre cost Per ton Average distance to viner (miles) Less than 6. . . 6-10 162 73 27 3-2 7.2 15-4 2,136 2,274 2,346 $55 53 54 $21 19 15 $76 72 69 $71 63 59 2-3 2 2 Over 10 1.5 All farms 262 5-6 2,246 $54 $18 $72 $64 2.0 Distance to viner Nearly one-fourth of the peas were grown on farms that were less than one mile from the viner, and only a little over one-fourth on farms three miles or more from the viner (table 36). The ratio between the weight of shelled peas and the weight of peas and vines as they are hauled in to be threshed varies with the variety and the yield per acre. In 1920, with a good yield of peas, the weight of shelled peas was from 15 to 20 per cent of the weight of peas and vines. A ton of peas and vines would be worth $16 if shelled peas were worth 4 cents a pound and the yield of shelled peas were 20 per cent of the weight of peas and vines. A crop that is worth no more than this per ton is too bulky to be hauled far in a busy season. The tendency therefore is to produce peas close to the An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 39 factory or the viner. The nearer the farms were located to the viner, the lower was the cost of harvesting (table 37). TABLE 36. Proportion of Peas Produced on Farms at Different Distances from the Viner, 262 Farms, 1920 Distance to viner (miles) Average distance (miles) Number of farms Per cent of total farms Number of acres Per cent of total acres Number of tons Per cent of total tons Less than 1 I-I .9 2-2 .9 3-3-9 4 and over 0.44 1.28 2.20 3.12 4.70 47 74 61 38 42 179 28.3 23-3 145 16.0 336 -8 402.2 317-3 205.2 206.5 22.9 27.4 21.6 14.0 14. 1 393 472 342 225 216 23.8 28.6 20.8 13-7 131 All farms 2.00 262 100. 1 ,468.0 100. 1,648 100. TABLE 37. Relation between Distance to Viner and Cost of Production of Peas, 262 Farms, 1920 Distance to viner (miles) Average dis- tance (miles) Acres of peas per farm Average yield per acre (pounds) Cost per acre Hours per acre harvesting Charge per Grow- ing Harvest- ing Total Man Horse acre for use of land 0.44 1.28 2.20 312 4-70 7-2 5-4 5.2 5-4 4-9 2,232 2,348 2,156 2,190 2,096 $53 56 54 54 52 $14 18 19 20 23 $67 74 73 74 75 18.3 21.6 21.9 24.1 25-9 196 25 27-9 29.1 26.2 $993 9.42 8.66 8.13 771 1-1.9 2-2.9 3-3 .9 2.00 5-6 2,246 $54 $18 $72 21.8 26.2 $8.95 comparison of data obtained by the accounting and survey METHODS On page 5 it is stated that the data were obtained by two methods — the survey and the accounting. The detailed costs of production for the farms on which the costs were obtained by each method are given in table 38. The average cost per acre was substantially the same in both groups of farms. The average yield per acre was higher on the farms that kept accounts. This made a lower cost per ton. Cost figures obtained exclusively by accounts represent a selected group of farms and do not represent average conditions. Accounts are very useful in cost work, principally because they give the farmer himself more confidence in the figures. However, if the object is to determine average costs, the survey method will give the required information more accurately than will the account method. 40 Bulletin 412 TABLE 38. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Peas in 1920 on Farms on Which Accounts Were Kept on the Crop, and on Farms on Which Cost Figures Were Obtained by the Survey Method Item Seed Fertilizer Manure Lime Labor growing peas: Human (charged to peas) Horse (charged to peas) , Use of equipment Use of tractor Use of automobile and truck. Miscellaneous growing expenses Interest on growing costs , Use of land Total growing cost . Accounts — 56 farms, 348.8 acres, averag- ing 2494 pounds per Quantity per acre 4 bu . . . . $15.60 202 lbs . ... 3.28 2.9 tons. . . 6.16 37 lbs. . . . 0.10 15.8 hrs. 36 . 6 hrs . 36.6 hrs. Cost per acre 6.68 8.97 3.00 0.79 0.07 0.09 0.62 9.04 $54-40 Records — 206 farms, 1 1 19.2 acres, averag- ing 2168 pounds per acre Quantity per acre 4bu. . 152 lbs. . 2.8 tons. 56 lbs. . 15.9 hrs.. 37.8 hrs.. 37.8 hrs.. Cost per acre $15-74 2.68 5-51 0.10 7.01 9.26 3.10 o.55 0.03 0.03 0.61 8-93 $53-55 Labor harvesting peas: Human Horse Use of equipment Use of automobile, truck, and tractor, Miscellaneous harvesting expenses Interest on harvesting costs 23.7 hrs. 26.8 hrs. 26.8 hrs. $10.20 6.58 2.21 0.32 0-34 0.20 21.3 hrs. 26. 1 hrs. 26.1 hrs. Total harvesting cost $19-85 $8.76 6-39 2.14 0.13 o.37 • 0.20 $17 99 Total cost of crop. . . . Miscellaneous receipts . $74-25 2.36 $71.54 2.85 Net cost of shelled peas . $71.89 $68 . 69 Shelled peas sold to factory . Price received per ton 1.247 tons $99-6i 79-88 1 . 084 tons $87.53 80.75 Cost per ton. $57.65 $63.37 TOMATOES The raising of tomatoes on a scale necessary for commercial canning is limited in New York State to those parts of the State having an average growing season between killing frosts of from 160 to 170 days or longer. Outside of the lower Hudson Valley, where tillable land is limited, and Long Island, where land suited for tomato production is utilized for truck crops for sale in cities, the only section having a growing season of this length is a belt extending along Lakes Ontario and Erie (fig. 3). The protection An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 41 Fig. 3. location of factories canning tomatoes, and average length of growing season Each dot represents a factory where tomatoes are packed, as reported in the Canners' Directory for 1920. The lines are drawn thru points having the average length of growing season indicated. (From thesis of R. A. Mordoff, The Climate of New York State and Its Relation to Agriculture) from frost which these lakes give, makes a growing season long enough so that tomatoes can be grown safely. Data on the cost of producing tomatoes were obtained by both the survey and the accounting method in three areas — Orleans County, Niagara County, and Chautauqua and Erie Counties. The last-named section is designated in the following discussion as the Chautauqua area. The location of these areas is shown in figure 4. The number of farms on which cost figures were obtained by each method is given in table 39: TABLE 39. Farms on Which Cost Figures on Tomatoes Were Obtained in 1920 Area Accounts Records Total Orleans 12 6 8 37 37 33 49 Niagara 43 Chautauqua 41 All farms 26 107 J 33 42 Bulletin 412 Fig. 4. location of areas in which studies were made on the cost of producing tomatoes AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS IN THE AREAS STUDIED Orleans area The greater part of the tomatoes grown in Orleans County are taken by local factories, which are situated in all the larger villages. The average number of days between killing frosts is from 160 to 170. This is due to the proximity of Lake Ontario. There is no soil survey of Orleans County, but the soils on which tomatoes are grown would probably be classed chiefly as Ontario loam, silt loam, and fine sandy loam, Lockport stony clay loam, and Dunkirk gravelly sandy loam. The last-named is located along the ridge road. This county is in the Lake Ontario fruit belt. Apples are the most important crop. Hay, winter wheat, pears, and peaches also are important, and a variety of other crops are grown (table 40). Niagara area Tomatoes are grown thruout most of the northern part of Niagara County. There are several factories that pack tomatoes in this county. One of the centers of heaviest production is the township of Wilson. The Niagara Preserving Company operates a factory in the village of Wilson, which is also one of the principal loading points for tomatoes to be shipped An Economic Study of the Production op Canning Crops 43 to the Curtice Brothers Company's plant in Rochester. Most of the farms visited in Niagara County were in this vicinity. The township borders on Lake Ontario. The protection against frost is probably better in this locality than in the Orleans area. The land in this section is nearly level. The soils are chiefly Clyde loam and fine sandy loam, and Dunkirk loam and fine sandy loam. TABLE 40. Crops Grown in 1920 on Farms for Which Cost Data on Tomatoes Were Obtained Crop Acres per farm Orleans Niagara Chautau- qua Per cent of total crop acres Orleans Niagara Chautau- qua Tomatoes Beans Cabbage Corn for grain . . Corn for silage . . Sweet corn Potatoes Garden Buckwheat Oats and barley . Oats Barley Peas Winter wheat . . . Spring wheat . . . Rye Hay Alfalfa Berries Grapes Orchard Nursery stock . . Currants Total crops Total acres in farm 4-5 0.2 I..7 2.9 2.8 1.6 1.2 0.1 03 5-3 2.2 2.6 11. 8 22.0 03 13-7 73-2 101.4 12 57 73 6-5 1.0 0.2 3-5 2-5 0.6 1.6 03 1.2 03 9-4 6.1 0.3 2.4 4.0 3 9 2.1 1.6 0.1 03 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.2 12.7 0.1 2.3 10. O 0.9 i-5 0.1 7.2 3.0 3-6 [6.2 30.2 0.4 18.6 4-7 03 2.6 7-6 6-7 2.5 1.6 1.1 0.4 12.0 0.3 0.8 12.8 21.4 0.9 24-3 58.0 80.0 "•3 1.8 o 6 4 1 2 2 0.4 16.2 2.7 1.4 1-3 03 21.9 0.1 3 9 17-4 1.6 25 0.1 100. o The most important farm enterprise is the production of fruit — partic- ularly apples, peaches, and pears, altho cherries, plums, and grapes also are grown. A few acres of hay, winter wheat, corn for grain or silage, and a variety of truck crops, are raised on each farm (table 40). The most important of the truck crops are tomatoes, cabbage, and sweet corn. The total acreage and crop acres per farm are smaller than on the farms in the Orleans area. Chautauqua area The farms included in the Chautauqua area are located in both Chau- tauqua and Erie Counties, but only a few are in the latter county. The principal tomato-producing section in this area occupies a narrow strip 44 Bulletin 412 of land along Lake Erie, commencing about twenty-five miles southwest of Buffalo and extending thru these two counties into Pennsylvania. A number of factories canning tomatoes and making various tomato products are located in this section, and large quantities of tomatoes are shipped out. The H. J. Heinz Company is the largest buyer of tomatoes in the belt, shipping them to its Pittsburg plant. This region is one of the most important grape-producing sections in the United States. The land slopes back from Lake Erie to some rather steep hills two to six miles from the lake. The air drainage which this topography furnishes, together with the protection furnished by the lake, gives this narrow belt as nearly complete protection against frosts as could be secured in a region located so far north. The topography is level to rolling. The soils are variable. Close to the lake they are principally silt and clay loams, belonging to the Dunkirk series; farther back from the lake there are more gravelly loams of the Dunkirk and Chenango series. Grapes are the most important crop, with tomatoes second in importance on the farms on which cost figures were obtained. Berries of various kinds also are extensively grown on a small number of farms. Hay, oats, and corn are grown for feed, and a variety of other crops are raised to a limited extent (table 40). Aside from the climatic advantages which this section has for tomato production, the work on the tomato crop fits in well with that on the other crops grown. Farmers who have a large acreage of grapes and berries require a large amount of help at certain seasons. The work on tomatoes comes at times when the labor is not busy with these other crops. COST OF PRODUCTION The average cost of producing an acre of tomatoes in 1920 on the 133 farms on which data were obtained, is given in table 41 . The average cost in the different areas is given in table 42. TABLE 41. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Tomatoes on 133 New York Farms Growing 602.2 Acres in 1920 (Average yield per acre ,8.7 tons) Item Quantity per acre Cost per acre Per cent of total cost Plants 3,377 602 lbs. . . 3 tons. . 62 . hrs . . . 61. 1 hrs... 61. 1 hrs.. . 0.7 hr $21.98 13-35 6.23 26.19 14.98 5.01 i-3i 0.46 0.25 2.03 13.60 13-3 8 1 Fertilizer Manure charged to tomatoes 3-8 15-9 9.1 30 8 Labor growing tomatoes: Human Horse Use of equipment Use of tractor Use of automobile and truck 0.3 Miscellaneous growing expenses v . Interest on growing costs Use of land 8-3 Total growing cost $105.39 64.0 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 45 TABLE 41 {continued) Item Quantity per acre Cost per acre Per cent of total cost Labor harvesting tomatoes: Human 102.7 hrs. .. 37. 4 hrs... 37-4hrs... $42.58 9'i5 3.06 3 36 059 0.46 259 5-6 1 8 Use of equipment. . Use of automobile and truck 2 Miscellaneous harvesting expenses 0.4 03 Interest on harvesting costs Total harvesting cost $59 20 36.0 Total cost of crop $164.59 100 Tomatoes disposed of other than to factory 0.08 ton... 8 . 64 tons. . $ 2.47 183.17 Tomatoes sold to factory Total receipts from tomatoes 8.72 tons. . $185.64 Price received per ton $21.29 Cost per ton growing $12.09 6.79 Total cost per ton $18.88 The cost of plants, fertilizer, and manure made up about one-fourth of the total cost; the cost of human labor about two-fifths; and the charge for the use of land about one-twelfth. Nearly two-thirds of the cost was incurred previous to harvesting. With a smaller yield the growing cost would represent a larger proportion of the total cost, as the harvesting cost would be lower. Estimating average costs The average yield was 8.7 tons per acre. This is higher than the average yield on these farms over a period of years. The most important single factor affecting tomato yields is the weather. The season of 1920 was favorable for tomato production. The cool, dry weather during the early part of the season made strong, healthy plants on which the tomatoes set heavily, while the warm weather during the late summer and early fall was very favorable for ripening the crop. The growing season was long. The first killing frost thruout most of the tomato belt did not come until well into November, which allowed all the tomatoes to ripen. The farmers were asked to estimate what they considered an average yield of tomatoes on their farms would be if they were given the same care as in 1920. The answers indicated that an average yield on these farms would be about 7.8 tons per acre. This is a somewhat higher yield than would be indicated by the tons of tomatoes received at some of the factories for the past few years. The estimated cost of producing one tgn of toma- 46 Bulletin 412 TABLE 42. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Tomatoes in 1920 in Different Areas Item On 49 farms in the Orleans area growing 219.4 acres On 43 farms in the Niagara area growing 1 15.3 acres On 41 farms in the Chautauqua area grow- ing 267.5 acres Quantity per acre Cost per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Plants 522.04 958 7.86 27.48 16.88 5-65 0.49 0. 14 0. 14 1-97 10.37 $22.49 12.29 8.47 29.72 1765 591 1.68 0.55 0.53 2.27 10.60 3.310 $21.67 487 lbs 3 . 8 tons . . . 62.3 hrs 68.9 hrs 68.9 hrs. . . . 0.3 hr 475 lbs 4 . 1 tons . . . 67.3 hrs 72.0 hrs 72.0 hrs 1 . hr 750 lbs 1 . 9 tons . . . 59.5 hrs.... 49 . 9 hrs 49.9 hrs. . . . 1.0 hr 16.91 Manure charged to toma- 3-94 Labor growing tomatoes: 23- 61 12.28 Use of equipment 4. 11 1.82 Use of automobile and 0.69 Miscellaneous growing ex- 0.21 Interest on growing costs.. 1.98 1755 Total growing cost . . . $102.60 $112.16 $104. 77 Labor harvesting tomatoes: 96. s hrs 41.8 hrs. . . . 41 .8 hrs $44-ii 10.25 3.43 3-33 121. hrs 50. 1 hrs So. 1 hrs $53 05 12.28 4. n 3.08 1 93 0.70 100. hrs 28 . 2 hrs . . . 28.2 hrs $36.81 6.91 Use of equipment Use of automobile and 231 3-50 Miscellaneous harvesting 0. 50 0.62 0.37 Total harvesting cost. $61.74 $75-15 $50.40 $164.34 $187.31 $155- 17 Tomatoes disposed of other . 04 ton 9-55 tons. . . $ 1.25 209. 14 . 06 ton 9.25 tons. . . $ 1. 17 204.58 0. 10 ton. . . . 7.65 tons. . . $ 3.67 Tomatoes sold to factory. . 153-04 Total receipts from 9-59 tons. . . $210.39 9.31 tons . . . $205-75 7.75 tons... $156.71 $21.94 $22. 10 $10.70 6.44 $12.05 8.07 Total cost per ton $17- 14 $20.12 toes in 1920 if the yield had been 7 tons to the acre, is shown in table 43. This was calculated by the method explained on page 18, where a similar table is given for the pea crop. TABLE 43. Estimated Cost of Producing One Ton of Tomatoes in 1920 with a Yield of 7 Tons per Acre (Based on data from 133 farms) Cost up to harvesting $105 . 39 -5- 7 = $15 . 06 Cost of harvesting 59 . 20 -i- 8 . 72 = 6 . 79 Total cost per ton of tomatoes $21.85 The cost of production varies with changes in the price of the various items of cost. By using the quantities of the various items, the cost with different prices may be estimated. The quantities of the principal . An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 47 items required to produce one ton of tomatoes in 1920 with a yield of 7 tons per acre, are listed in table 44. The method of calculating these quantities is explained on page 18. With 1920 prices the items included made up about 95 per cent of the total cost. TABLE 44. Estimated Quantities of the Principal Items Required to Pro- duce One Ton of Tomatoes in 1920 with a Yield of 7 Tons per Acre * (Based on data from 133 farms) ■ Item Quantity Plants 482 Fertilizer 86 pounds Manure . 4 ton Human labor. 20.7 hrs. Horse labor. . . 13.0 hrs. Use of equipment 13.0 hrs. Use of land ..'... . . 0.14 acre ♦The items included made up 95 psr csnt of the total cost in 192c. Plants With the exception of human and horse labor, the expense for plants was the largest item of cost. The most usual number of plants set per acre was 3000, but the average number was over 3000 (table 45). TABLE 45. Number of Tomato Plants Used per Acre, and Average Cost per Thousand, 133 Farms, 1920 Area Plants, first setting Plants reset Total plants used Average cost per thousand Orleans. . . . Niagara .... Chautauqua All farms . . . 3.455 3-147 3.137 92 61 173 3.547 3.208 3.3io 3.255 122 3.377 $6.21 7.01 6-55 $6.51 Because of the climatic conditions in New York State, tomato plants must be raised under glass. They are usually started in hothouses and hardened in coldframes, and transplanted once. Most of the farmers do not grow their own plants because they do not have the necessary equipment. The plants are for the most part grown by plant growers or by the canning companies, who have greenhouses and the other special equipment needed. There are a few farmers who grow enough plants for their own needs. Among the farmers from whom cost figures were obtained, 1 in the Orleans area, 2 in the Niagara area, and 1 1 in the Chau- tauqua area, used home-grown plants. When furnished by or thru the company, the plants are not paid for in cash but are charged to the farmer's account, the cost being deducted from the first payment due the farmer for tomatoes. When the farmer buys plants from a plant grower, there are usually two prices, the cash 48 Bulletin 412 price and the fall-payment price. The difference in these two prices is usually 50 cents per thousand. This amount would be interest at the rate of i6f per cent a year if the cash price were $6 per thousand and the difference in date of payments were six months. There is, of course, some risk of the grower not being able to collect for the plants in the fall. In calculating costs when growers used their own plants, the plants were charged at the price that would have been paid for plants of a similar quality. No expenses incurred in raising the plants were included in the costs. Fertilizer Fertilizer was an important item in the cost of producing tomatoes. The extent to which fertilizer was used in the different areas is shown in table 46. Of the 133 farms, 123 used fertilizer on tomatoes. The heaviest applications were made in the Chautauqua area. TABLE 46. Use of Fertilizer on Tomatoes in 1920 Area Number of farms using fertilizer on tomatoes Per cent of farms using fertilizer on tomatoes Number of acres on which fertilizer was used Per cent of land in tomatoes which was fertilized Average quantity of fertilizer used per acre fertilized (pounds) Orleans Niagara Chautauqua 46 38 3Q 94 88 95 209.4 101.8 258.2 95 88 97 5ii 538 777 All farms 123 92 569-4 95 637 The kinds and quantities of fertilizer used are shown in table 47. Acid phosphate, which made up about 25 per cent of the total fertilizer, was used more than any other kind. The balance was mainly a variety of kinds of mixed fertilizers. A considerable number of these were fairly high in nitrogen and potash as well as in phosphorus. TABLE 47. Kinds and Quantities of Fertilizer Used on the 123 Farms Using Fertilizer on Tomatoes in 1920 Kind of fertilizer * Number of farms using Acres of tomatoes on which used Total pounds applied Total cost Per cent of total pounds 1- 8- 1 1 11 1 3 1 2 1 1 30 35-0 2.0 7-3 4-0 4.0 4.0 3-0 1 ,067 17.675 800 2,835 1 ,600 1,230 500 750 $ 20.00 346. 17 15.00 67.29 35-20 20.56 10.50 18.00 0.3 4-9 0.2 0.8 0.4 03 0.1 0.2 1- 8- 2 1-8-3 1- 8- 4 I- Q- ^ 1-10- I .5-IO-O 2- 6- 2 * The numbers used to designate the kinds of fertilizer refer to the percentages of the three constituents, nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, in the fertilizer: for example, a 1-8-2 fertilizer contains 1 per cent of nitrogen (N), 8 per cent of phosphoric acid (P S 0»), and 2 per cent of potash (K2O). An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 49 TABLE 47 (continued) Kind of fertilizer Number of farms using Acres of tomatoes on which used Total pounds applied Total cost Per cent of total pounds 2-8-0 2-8-1 2-8-2 2-8-3 2- 8- 4 2-8-5 2- 8-10 2-10- o 2-10- 4 2-12- o 3-8-4 3" 8- 5 • 3- 8-10 3-10- 6 3.5-10-0 4-8-3 4-8-4 4-8-5 4-8-7 5-8-2 6-8-2 0-10- 8 Acid phosphate Bone meal .... Nitrate of soda Ground fish. Hen manure. . . Wood ashes . . . Total 2 2 18 6 8 11 8 17 1 2 2 8 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 25 4 7 1 1 1 4.2 12.0 65-9 21.0 19.0 37-2 47.0 68.0 50 6-5 5-3 44.0 30 5-o 7.0 4.0 18.5 6.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 147-5 9.8 31.2 2.0 2.0 2.2 2,000 6,000 32,185 14.283 7.270 19.755 35.ooo 40,735 500 2,537 2,432 36,150 2,100 2,500 7,000 700 10,200 4,000 6,000 2,100 1,000 1 ,000 88,350 5,334 3,350 2,000 1 ,000 500 37-00 124.50 735 -70 358.50 185.81 543 09 959.00 735 -92 14.00 54.89 73-92 944-74 70.35 78.70 168.00 18.90 302 . 50 104.00 209 . 25 55-12 24.00 28.50 ,270.13 133-85 134.80 in. 00 2500 7-50 0.6 1.7 8-9 3-9 2.0 5-5 97 11. 2 0.1 0-7 0.7 10.0 0.6 0.7 19 0.2 2.8 1.1 1-7 0.6 03 o. 24. 3 2 i-5 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.1 i57t 649.6 362,438 $8,041.39 100. * See note on page 48 for numbers used to designate the kind of fertilizer, t Some of the 123 farms used more than one kind of fertilizer. Manure The total amount of manure applied in each of the three areas, and the rate at which it was applied, are shown in table 48. In the Chautauqua area only about half of the land in tomatoes had been manured since 19 17, but more fertilizer was used per acre there than in the other areas. TABLE 48. Manure Applied from 191 7 to 1920, to Land in Tomatoes in 1920 Area Acres of tomatoes Acres manured Tons of manure applied Tons charged to crop Tons charged to crop per acre of tomatoes Orleans 219.4 "5-3 267.5 187.0 925 132.2 2.580 1.429 1,769 835 470 519 3-8 Niagara 4 1 Chautauqua 1.9 All farms 602.2 411. 7 5.778 1,824 3.0 5o Bulletin 412 The greater part of the manure was applied directly to the tomato crop or to the preceding crop (table 49). If the charge for manure had been calculated by charging to tomatoes 50 per cent of the manure applied to this land in 1920, 30 per cent of the manure applied in 19 19, and 20 per cent of the manure applied in 19 18, 3.4 tons per acre instead of 3 tons would have been charged to the crop. TABLE 49. Applications of Manure, by Years, to Land in Tomatoes in 1920 Year manure was applied Total manure applied Manure charged to crop Tons Per cent Tons Per cent IQ20 2,864 1.487 915 512 49.6 25-7 158 8.9 1 ,140 450 183 5i 62.5 IQIQ 24.7 IOl8 10. IOI7 2.8 Total 5.778 100. 1,824 100. Lime Lime had been used on the land in tomatoes in 1920 on 4 farms in the Orleans area, 1 in the Niagara area, and 3 in the Chautauqua area, during the years 1916 to 1920. The average yield on these 8 farms was 8.6 tons per acre, while the average yield on all farms was 8.7 tons per acre. The cost of lime charged to the crop is included under miscellaneous expenses in the summary of costs. Labor The average rates per hour at which the various classes of labor were charged are given in table 50. The rates for family labor were similar in the different areas, but the rates for hired labor were considerably lower in the Chautauqua area. TABLE 50. Rates per Hour for Different Classes of Labor on Tomatoes, 133 Farms, 1920 Class of labor Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms Growing : Operators Sons over 16 Other family All family Hired men Other hired labor Total hired labor Total growing . $0.48 0-45 0.31 o.45 0-43 o.43 0-43 $0.44 $0.49 0.38 0.30 o.45 0.42 0.36 0.41 $0.44 $0.47 0.46 0-35 0.46 0.36 0.28 o.33 $0.40 $0.48 o.43 0.32 o.45 0.40 0-33 037 $0.42 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops TABLE 50 (continued) 51 Class of labor Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms Harvesting : Operators Sons over 16 Other family All family Hired men Other hired labor . . Total hired labor . . Total harvesting $0.49 0.44 031 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.47 $0.50 0.42 o.34 0-45 039 0.44 0.40 $0.46 0.44 0.36 o-45 037 0.30 0.32 $0.48 0-43 o-33 o.45 0.41 o.37 0.38 $0.46 $0.44 $0.37 $0.42 The proportion of the work done by these different classes of labor is given in table 51. Nearly 75 per cent of all the work on tomatoes on the farms in the Niagara area was done by family labor. The acreages grown in the Niagara area were so small that extra help was not needed. In the other areas it was necessary to hire more help to grow and harvest the crop. A large proportion of the hired help, particularly at harvest, was women, who are included under " Other hired labor." The lower wage rate paid for this class of labor in the Chautauqua area explains the lower cost of total hired labor there. TABLE 51. Proportion of Work on Tomatoes Performed Classes of Labor, 133* Farms, 1920 by Different Class of labor Per cent of work done Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms Growing : Operators Sons over 16 Other f ami ly All family Hired men Other hired labor. . Total hired labor. . Total growing . . . Harvesting : Operators Sons over 16 Other family All family Hired men Other hired labor . . Total hired labor . . Total harvesting 48 4 10 62 28 10 38 56 1.1 8 75 21 4 25 100 100 40 9 5 54 27 19 46 46 7 8 61 26 13 39 100 33 2 11 46 19 35 54 47 8 15 70 22 8 30 100 100 26 7 5 38 15 47 62 34 5 9 48 18 34 52 100 52 Bulletin 412 Miscellaneous expenses The items included under miscellaneous expenses, and the amounts at which they were charged, are given in table 52. A few farmers had sown a cover crop in the fall of 19 19 on the land in tomatoes in 1920. Seed and other costs on the cover crop were charged to the tomato crop. In one locality a group of farmers cooperated with the factory and the New York State College of Agriculture in employing a specialist to study diseases and other problems affecting the production of canning crops, particularly tomatoes. In the Chautauqua area, in addition to wages, the car fare of extra help was sometimes paid by the farmer. In the Niagara area the growers' association received 1 per cent of the returns from the toma- toes of association members for selling the crop. The companies deducted this from the payments to the farmers and paid it to the association. The returns were figured on the prices before the deduction was made, and the 1 per cent was included as a cost. In the Chautauqua area a large proportion of the tomatoes was sold thru an association, which received 60 cents a ton for this service. This was not included in the price when the returns were calculated, and was therefore not included as a cost. A few growers sold tomatoes before the factories opened. Baskets for these were included as a cost. TABLE 52. Miscellaneous Expenses on Tomatoes, 133 Farms, 1920 Item Growing : Hauling fertilizer Cover-crop expenses Spray materials Fellowship fees Car fare of help for setting plants . Lime Total growing . Orleans $1500 3.00 13-47 $31-47 Niagara $ 4.00 3050 25.00 'T62" $61.12 Chau- tauqua $1.00 33-00 13.00 504 5.20 $57-24 Total $ 5.00 78.50 16.00 25.00 504 20.29 $149- 83 Harvesting: Association fees Baskets for early crop . Car fare of pickers $220.18 2.25 $121.91 10.80 $220.18 124.16 10.80 Total harvesting . $222 . 43 $132.71 $355.14 I Interest As previously explained, interest was charged from the average date when the costs were incurred until returns were received for the tomatoes. The dates at which payment was made varied somewhat. Payment was usually made in two installments. The larger companies paid about one month after the tomatoes were delivered. Ordinarily the smaller companies did not pay as promptly as this. Because of the unsatisfactory condition of the canned-tomato market, some of the smaller companies made only partial payments on the contract dates. An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 53 The value of the land on which tomatoes were grown, and the aver- age charge per acre for land operated under various tenures, are given in table 53. The highest land values were in the Chautauqua area. This section has climatic and soil conditions which make it particularly adapted to the production of grapes, tomatoes, and other crops that require protection against frost. The acreage of such land is limited. It there- fore has a high sale value. TABLE 53. Value per Acre and Charges for Use of Land in Tomatoes, 133 Farms, 1920 Area Value per Charges per acre Land owned Land share- rented Land cash- rented All farms Orleans Niagara Chautauqua All farms . . . $130 130 232 $1 16 11.20 19.18 $ 9-54 8.96 16.40 465 6.00 11.50 $10.37 10.60 17-55 $170 $14.92 $10.19 $10.23 $13-60 * Includes only value of land owned or worked on shares. Most of the tomatoes were grown on land operated by owners (table 54). Because of the amount of labor required by the tomato crop, it is not a very satisfactory crop for a tenant. When grown on shares, the land- lord sometimes pays part or all of the cost of the labor of picking. TABLE 54. Proportion of Acres of Tomatoes Grown under Different Tenures, 1920 Per cent of acres of tomatoes grown Tenure Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms Owned 66 29 5 75 23 2 76 4 20 72 Worked on shares 17 11 Cash-rented . Total . . 100 100 100 100 RETURNS The prevailing contract prices for the season of 1920 were $22.50 per ton in the Orleans and Niagara areas and $20 per ton in the Chautauqua area. The tomato crop of 1920 was being harvested just as the business depression was beginning to affect the wholesale price of canned tomatoes. 54 Bulletin 412 The prices of canned tomatoes per dozen by months for the years 19 19 and 1920 are given in table 55: TABLE 55. Prices of Canned Tomatoes per Dozen, by Months, in 1919 and 1920* Month January . . . February . . March April May June July August — September October. . . November December. 1919 1920 $1 * Prices are for No. 3 Standard, f. o. b. Baltimore, as given in the Almanac of the Canning Industry (published by the Canning Trade, Baltimore) for 1920 and for 1021, page 61. The 1920 crop of tomatoes was large all over the United States. As a result a considerable part of the crop in certain sections was not har- vested. Farmers' estimates of the tons per acre of unharvested tomatoes on the farms studied, were: Orleans, 3.49 tons; Niagara, 1.18 tons; Chau- tauqua, 2.64 tons. Jn Niagara County the leading buyer accepted toma- toes up to October 15, the last date at which, according to the contract, deliveries were to be accepted. On farms growing for this company, the estimate of unharvested tomatoes per acre was approximately 1 ton. Even if no attempt had been made to restrict deliveries, some tomatoes would have gone to waste, principally on account of the conflict with the fruit harvest. Companies may cut down deliveries by being extremely particular as to the quality, by restricting deliveries to a certain number of baskets per day, by accepting tomatoes only on certain days each week, by holding back crates, or by shutting down the plant before the tomatoes are all harvested. When the tomatoes cannot be picked as they ripen, they will soften so that they become too poor in quality to be accepted. Some of the companies had contracts limiting the quantity of tomatoes they would accept to 20 baskets, or about 600 pounds per acre, per day. When the crop was as good as in 1920, this quantity allowed for acceptance of only a part of the ripe tomatoes during the heaviest pickings. Toward the end of the season some factories cut the price. This may be done in two ways: by paying a lower price per ton, or by deducting a certain percentage from the weight of the tomatoes as they are drawn in. Where the latter method was followed, the total weight of the toma- toes as delivered to the factory was used in this study in all yield figures. The average price received per ton was therefore lower than the contract price. On the farms studied, very few tomatoes were disposed of other than to the factories (table 56). In the Niagara and Orleans areas the sales An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 55 were merely local, while in the Chautauqua area some tomatoes were sold in near-by cities or shipped to more distant markets. The average price received for the market tomatoes sold in the Chautauqua area was 2.6 cents a pound. This was not the net price, as there were expenses for baskets and other marketing costs. TABLE 56. Pounds of Tomatoes Sold on 133 Farms, 1920 Means of disposal Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua vSold to factory Sold other than to factory 4,189,968 3.36o 2,117,082 2,000 4.093.778 33.278 A larger proportion of the tomatoes would probably have been sold as market tomatoes in years when the market for them was better. In 1919, on 326 farms in the Chautauqua area, 3.7 per cent of the tomatoes sold did not go to the canning companies. 4 Market conditions for canned tomatoes were different in 19 19 (table 55). The canners then accepted all tomatoes that were offered. It is evident that the returns from tomatoes grown for manufacture depend in part on market conditions in the fall, even if the tomatoes are contracted for in advance. When tomatoes that are not contracted for are bought in the fall, as is common in some sections, both the price and the quantity that will be bought will vary with the price. at which the manufactured products can be sold. The size of the crop and of the result- ing pack is, of course, a large factor in the price at which the manufactured products can be sold. If the price paid for contracted tomatoes varied with the price at which the manufactured products could be sold, the restriction of deliveries on the part of the canners and the sales to outside markets by farmers would be less likely to occur. The canner would be protected against losses to which he is exposed when he obligates himself to accept an extremely variable and unknown quantity of tomatoes at a fixed price, to be manufactured into a product the price of which is unknown. When the canner protects himself by selling "futures," he does not incur this risk except on the unsold part of his pack. In years when the production of canned tomatoes is above the average, the risk on the unsold part of a pack must necessarily be considerable. The farmer also would get a higher return for a short crop, as the price per ton under such circumstances would ordinarily be higher than the usual contract price. He would get a smaller return in years when the production was large, but would be assured of a market for his entire crop at some price. Return per hour of labor The return per hour of labor spent on the crop is shown in table 57. These figures are for a year when the yield per acre was better than the average. With a yield per acre of 7 tons, the cost per ton on these farms in 1920 would have been about $21.85 and the return per hour of labor * From unpublished data of survey made by the Department of Vegetable Gardening, Cornell University, 1019. 56 Bulletin 412 would have been about 39 cents (table 43, page 46). This was 3 cents less than the average cost per hour of labor, and was practically the cost per hour of all hired labor. TABLE 57. Return per Hour of Labor on Tomatoes, on 133 Farms in 1920 Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms Return per hour* Cost per hour Profit per hour. . . $0.74 o.45 $0 . 54 0.44 $0.39 0.38 $0.55 0.42 $0.29 $0.10 $0.01 $0.13 * The return per hour is calculated by adding to the profit the cost of labor, and dividing by the total hours worked. Besides the return per hour of labor, there are other factors to be con- sidered in comparing the returns from different enterprises. In the case of the tomato crop, probably the most important of these is competition with other crops for labor. The farmers were asked with what operation the work on the tomato crop conflicted. The most frequent replies were : none, 80; picking peaches, 15; picking apples, 14; sowing wheat, 9; picking pears, 4. Where large acreages of peaches, early apples, or pears are grown, the tomatoes are competing for labor with crops that ordinarily are prof- itable. The acreage of tomatoes grown by farmers with a considerable acreage of these kinds of fruit, is usually so small that the conflict is not serious. These fruits are grown most extensively in the Niagara area, where the acreages of tomatoes per farm were small. Competition for the use of land also must be considered. The rotation in which tomatoes are usually grown is: (1) a cultivated crop; (2) toma- toes; (3) oats; (4) wheat or hay; (5) hay. If tomatoes had not been grown, the crops which the farmers most commonly reported they would have grown were: corn, 25; oats, 8; cabbage, 7; potatoes, 6. Corn and oats ordinarily are not very profitable crops in New York. In 1920, outside of some truck crops such as cucumbers andv melons which some of the growers reported they would have grown, probably none of the crops mentioned would have given as large a return per hour of labor as tomatoes. It is sometimes stated that tomatoes are valuable in the rotation due to their effect on the yield of following crops. Since in New York no crop is so generally grown after tomatoes as is wheat after peas, it was impossible to obtain comparable information as to this effect of tomatoes on the same crop on different farms. The farmers' answers to the question as to what effect they had noticed in the yields of crops following tomatoes were as follows: good, 51; none, 51; bad, 16; no experience, 14. The good effects were generally ascribed to the heavy fertilization given to the tomato crop. VARIATIONS IN THE COST OF PRODUCING TOMATOES The variations in the cost of producing tomatoes on the 133 farms are shown in table 58. Between 75 and 80 per cent of the total tonnage An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 57 was produced at or below a cost of from $21 to $22 a ton. This tonnage was grown by 61 per cent of the producers on 64 per cent of the acreage. TABLE 58. Range of Costs of Producing Tomatoes on 133 Farms in 1920 Cost per ton $10 ir 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26: 27 28 29 30 3i 32 33 34 35 38 40 41 45 47 60 + .... All farms Num- ber of farms 133 Per cent of total farms 2.3 3 0.7 6.0 7-5 6.8 3-8 8.3 90 5-3 4-5 3-8 4-5 5-3 4-5 3-0 1-5 I 15 0.7 0.7 0.7 23 Per cent of farms at this cost or lower 23 5-3 6.0 12.0 19-5 26.3 30.1 38.3 47-4 52.6 57-1 60.9 65-4 70.7 75-2 78.2 79-7 81.2 82.0 84.2 85-7 86.5 88.7 89- 5 91 .7 93-2 94 95-5 96.2 97 o 97-7 100. Acres 170 16.6 2.5 40.0 39 O 46.8 17-8 70.0 37-8 48.5 25-5 23-5 250 37-7 20.5 14- 5 12.0 4.0 2.0 150 70 3 6.5 6.0 7.2 9 2 23 5 3 2 12 602.2 Ml Per cent of total 2.8 2.8 0.4 6.6 6.5 7-8 3 11.6 6-3 8.1 4.2 39 4.2 6.3 34 2.4 2.0 0.7 03 2.5 1.2 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.2 1-5 0.4 3 9 0.8 0.5 0.3 2.0 100. o Per cent of acres at this cost or lower 2.8 5.6 6.0 12.6 19. 1 26.9 29.8 41-5 47-7 55-8 60.0 63 9 68.1 74-3 77-7 80.2 82.1 82.8 83.1 85.6 86.8 873 88.4 89.4 90.6 92.1 92.4 96.3 97-2 97-7 98.O 100. o Tons 319 241 234 415 457 544 241 680 348 394 202 193 174 265 168 97 64 23 13 65 32 14 35 31 41 46 9 55 15 14 5 13 5.247 Per cent of total tons 6.1 4.6 0.6 7-9 8.7 10.4 4.6 130 6.6 7-5 3-8 3-7 3-3 51 3-2 1.8 I. 1 o o o 0.8 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.3 O.I 0.2 Per cent of tons at this cost or lower 6.1 10.7 11. 3 192 27.9 38.3 42.9 55-9 62. s 70.0 73.8 77-5 80.8 859 89.1 90.9 92.2 92.6 92.9 941 94-7 950 95-6 96.2 970 979 98.1 99- 1 99.4 99-7 99-8 100. Yield per acre (tons) 18.8 145 13.6 10.4 II. 7 11. 6 135 97 92 8.1 79 8.2 70 70 8.2 6.7 5-3 5-8 6.5 4-3 4.6 4-7 5 5 5 5 3 2 3 4 2.5 I.I LABOR REQUIREMENTS The time required to perform the various operations on the tomato crop is shown in table 59. The hours given are not the average time for TABLE 59. Average Hours per Acre Required to Perform Various Operations on the Tomato Crop on 133 Farms Growing 602.2 Acres in 1920 Operation Plowing Harrowing: Spring-tooth . Spike- tooth . . Disking Rolling Planking Cultipacking . . . Number of times operation was performed 3 9 o. 1 0.7 i-5 0.2 0.1 Man hours 5-5 Horse hours 11. 5 Tractor hours 0-3 0.2 0.2 Auto- mobile miles Truck hours 5» Bulletin 412 TABLE 59 (continued) Operation Putting in cover crop Hauling fertilizer Applying fertilizer Hauling plants Taking care of plants Hauling water Marking Setting Resetting Returning flats Cultivating : Two-horse One-horse Hoeing Weeding Supervising Hauling and spreading manure Hauling help for setting . . . Summer fallowing Total growing. Harvesting early crop . . Hauling crates Picking for factory Hauling Hauling pickers Returning empty crates, Making extra trips Total harvesting . Number of times operation was performed 2-3 3-3 Man hours o o 3 2 o o 1 18.3 i-5 05 3-4 10.7 4-3 0.7 o. 1 2.5 O. I 62.0 i-5 1.6 79 9 18.9 03 03 0.2 L02.7 Horse hours o. 1 1.2 1-5 3-7 o. 1 1.0 43 0.9 6.8 10.7 5-1 0.2 0.2 2.6 33-9 05 0.2 37-4 Tractor hours 0.7 Auto- mobile miles 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 2.8 0.2 3-3 Truck hours 0.2 o. 1 0.2 2.0 Total labor. [64.7 98.5 0.7 those doing the work, but were obtained by dividing the total number of hours spent on the operation by the total number of acres. The average hours required for performing a particular operation once may be obtained by dividing the average hours as given, by the number of times the oper- ation was performed. The land is plowed and fitted carefully, spring-tooth, spike-tooth, and disk harrows and rollers being most commonly used according to the nature of the soil. Different methods are used in applying fertilizer. The more common of these are with a grain drill and by hand after the plants are set. A method used by a few growers is to drill the fertilizer in the row with a potato planter, which at the same time makes a furrow in which the plants may be set. The time and the cost of performing this operation by these three methods are shown in table 60. The most economical method is with a grain drill. The use of a potato planter usually saves An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 59 marking one way. A few growers who made heavy applications of fertilizer drilled a part and put the remainder in the row with a potato planter. TABLE 60. Hours Required, and Cost of Applying Fertilizer per Acre, by Different Methods, 1920 Method of application Num- ber of farms Average quantity of fertilizer per acre (pounds) Hours per acre applying tertilizer Cost per acre of applying fertilizer* • Man Horse By hand after plants were set Drilled 59 7 497 574 865 5-4 i-4 2-5 50 $2.27 1.44 2.68 In row with potato planter * Labor was charged at the average cost on all farms, 42 cents per hour for man labor, 24.5 cents for horse labor, and 8.2 cents for use of equipment. The plants are most commonly set in checkrows from 3 to 4 feet apart. Hand-setting is the most usual method, altho on some farms a planter is employed. The relative cost of the two methods is shown in table 61. The time required to mark out also is saved when a machine is used. When the plants are set by hand, the rows are usually furrowed out with a cultivator or a shovel plow. TABLE 61. Hours Required, and Cost of Setting by Different Methods, 133 Farms, 1920 Method of setting Number of farms Acres of tomatoes per farm Yield per acre (tons) Hours per acre setting Cost per acre Man Horse setting* By machine By hand 38 95 4.8 4-4 8.4 8.8 12.7 20.7 74 30 $7-75 9.67 * Labor was charged at the average cost on all farms, 42 cents per hour for man labor, 24.5 cents for horse labor, and 8.2 cents for use of equipment. Two-horse cultivators were used to a greater extent than one-horse cultivators. The average time per acre for each cultivation was 1.5 hours when two horses were used and 3.3 hours when one horse was used. At the average labor rates, the cost was about 80 cents per acre less for each cultivation when two horses were used. The time required to perform the various operations in growing tomatoes is combined into four groups in table 62. The man hours per acre were slightly lower in the Chautauqua area than in the Orleans area, and the horse hours were considerably lower. The greater use of tractors in the Chautauqua area accounts for part of this difference. In the Chau- tauqua area, tomatoes are grown on land that requires less fitting than 6o Bulletin 412 in the other areas, the soils in general being lighter. The difference in the quantity of manure used per acre accounts for the variation in the time required to haul and spread manure. The hours in the Niagara area were the highest of the three sections for each group of operations except plowing and fitting, due to the smaller acreages grown. TABLE 62. Hours Required to Perform Various Groups of Operations Growing Tomatoes in the Different Areas in 1920 Hours per acre Operations Orleans Niagara Chautauqua Man Horse Man Horse Man Horse Plowing and fitting* Setting, etc 12.7 27.6 18.9 3-i 31-7 12.9 176 6-7 14-7 29.0 19.9 37 28.7 15 7 20.6 7.0 10.7 28.4 19.0 1-4 19.8 "•3 Cultivating, etc 16.0 Hauling manure 2.8 Total labor for growing 62.3 68.9 673 72.0 59-5 49.8 * In addition to the figures given, tractors were used an average of 0.3 hour per acre in the Orleans area and an average of 1 hour per acre in the Niagara and Chautauqua areas. The crates or baskets for the tomatoes are furnished by the companies. The Heinz Company furnishes a conical-shaped basket holding about five-eighths of a bushel. This is the commonest type of container in the Chautauqua area. The crates generally used in the other areas hold about the same quantity. The time required to pick and haul a ton of tomatoes in the various areas is given in table 63. While the hours per ton were higher in the Chautauqua area than in the Orleans area, the cost per ton was practically the same because of the lower cost of labor per hour. TABLE 63. Average Labor Requirements per Ton Harvesting Tomatoes, on 133 Farms in 1920 Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms Man hours per ton picking 7-6 2.2 3-9 0.2 10. 1 4-4 0.2 $6.44 3-4 10. 2-5 4.6 0.2 13.0 5-4 0.2 $8.07 3-1 10.4 2.0 3-5 0.2 12.9 3-6 0.3 $6.51 2-3 9.2 2 2 Man hours per ton hauling Horse hours per ton hauling 3 9 2 Truck hours per ton hauling Man hours per ton for total harvesting. Horse hours per ton for total harvesting. Truck hours per ton for total harvesting. Cost of harvesting per ton 11. 8 4-3 0.2 $6.79 2.9 Miles to receiving station Estimates of the time lost in waiting at the receiving point to unload tomatoes were obtained, The average length of time lost per acre was estimated to have been 4.2 hours in the Orleans area, 3.2 hours in the An Economic Stjdy of the Production of Canning Crops 6i Niagara area, and 4 hours in the Chautauqua area. This time was included in the length of time spent in hauling. The tonnage of tomatoes which the canning companies were required to handle was above normal and a certain amount of delay was unavoidable. In the Niagara area, where the tomatoes for the most part were delivered at loading stations to be shipped to Rochester, a number of extra trips had to be made to get crates. The hours per acre hauling crates in the Niagara area and the adjoining area, Orleans, with substantially the same yield, were as follows: Niagara. Orleans . Man hours Horse hours Truck hours 4.0 6.2 0.8 1-7 3.2 At the rates at which it was charged, the extra labor spent in the Niagara area amounted to over $3 an acre. FACTORS AFFECTING THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF TOMATOES Yield per acre The yield per acre is probably the most important single factor affecting the cost per ton in the production of tomatoes. The relation between the yield per acre and the profits is shown in table 64. The costs in detail for each yield group are given in table 65. TABLE 64. Relation between Yield of Tomatoes per Acre, and Returns ABOVE THE COST OF HARVESTING, 1 33 FARMS, I92O* Yield per acre (tons) • Num- ber of farms Average yield per acre (tons) Average growing cost per acre Increase in growing cost per acre over lowest- yielding group Return per acre above cost of harvesting Increase in return per acre above cost of harvesting, over group with lowest yield per acref 55 47 3i 5-5 9-4 14-3 $101 104 116 "$3" 15 $ 73 138 219 8-1 1 $ 65 Over 11 146 ♦The correlation coefficient between the yield per acre and the cost per ton was - 0.335 ±0.052. t A small part of this increase was due to the fact that more of the farms in the higher-yielding groups were located in the Orleans and Niagara areas, where a higher price was paid per ton. The growing cost per acre increased only $3 between the farms that had yields of less than 8 tons per acre and those that had yields of from 8 to 1 1 tons per acre. However, there was an increase in the average yield per acre of 3.9 tons, and of $65 in the return per acre above the cost of har- vesting, between those two groups of farms. The increase in the growing cost per acre was only $15 between the lowest- and the highest-yielding group, while the increase in the return above the cost of harvesting amounted to $146 per acre. 62 Bulletin 412 TABLE 65. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Tomatoes on Farms with Different Yields per Acre, 1920 Item Yield less than 8 tons per acre, 55 farms, 256.8 acres, averaging 5.5 tons per acre Yield 8 to 1 1 tons per acre, 47 farms, 224.5 acres, averaging 9.4 tons per acre Yield over 1 1 tons per acre, 31 farms, 120.9 acres, averaging 14.3 tons per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Plants .... $21.69 12.30 4-30 25.82 14.26 4-77 1.66 0.61 0.29 1. 91 13-73 3 , 209 $21.56 14-30 6.22 24.41 14.86 4-97 1. 00 0.22 0.30 2.03 14.46 3-425 600 lbs 4.9 tons. . . 67.0 hrs 68.3 hrs. ... 68.3 hrs.... 0.6 hr $23.34 570 lbs 2 tons 63.2 hrs 58.2 hrs 58.2 hrs 1 . hr 639 lbs 3 . 1 tons 58.0 hrs 60.4 hrs. . . . 60.4 hrs. . . . 0.6 hr 13-83 Manure charged to toma- 10.36 Labor growing tomatoes: 29.92 16. 73 Use of equipment 5- 60 Use of automobile and Miscellaneous growing ex- 11.74 Total growing cost . . . $101.34 $10433 $115.58 Labor harvesting tomatoes: 74-9 hrs.... 25.8 hrs 25.8 hrs $30.31 6-33 2. 12 2.63 0-49 0.37 107.6 hrs 38.9 hrs. . . . 38.9 hrs $43.98 9-54 3-19 3- 76 059 0.53 152.7 hrs 58.9 hrs 58.9 hrs $66 . 1 1 14-43 4-83 4.17 0.81 Use of equipment Use of automobile and Miscellaneous harvesting Interest on harvesting costs 0.85 Total harvesting cost. $42.25 $61.59 $91.20 Total cost of crop $143-59 $165.92 $206.78 Tomatoes disposed of other than to factory Tomatoes sold to factory. . 0. 10 ton. . . 5.38 tons. .. $ 2.98 Hi. 83 . 06 ton .... 938 tons. . . $ 2.03 197-54 . 08 ton . . . 14. 18 tons. . . $ 2.18 308.09 Total receipts from toma- 5 . 48 tons . . . $114.81 9-44 tons. . . $199-57 14. 26 tons. . . $310.27 Price received per ton $20.95 $21. 14 $21 76 Cost per ton growing $18.49 7.71 $11. 06 6.52 $ 8 10 Cost per ton harvesting. . . 6.40 Total cost per ton $26.20 $17.58 $1450 Return per hour of human labor ■•••■: $0.20 $0.62 $0.91 * The estimated tonnage per acre not harvested for the three groups was as follows: with yield less than 8 tons, 3.2 tons; with yield from 8 to 11 tons, 2.2 tons; with yield over 11 tons, 2.5 tons. The average land cost per acre was lower in the highest-yielding group than in the other two groups. A large proportion of the farms in this group were located in the Orleans and Niagara areas (table 66), where the land had a lower value per acre than in the Chautauqua area. Land values are based, not on superiority for producing tomatoes alone, but on advantages for producing a variety of crops. The advantage of a par- ticular location for tomatoes will vary from year to year. When the delivery of the crop was cut down in 1920, the growers on the lighter An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 63 sandy and gravelly soils had a larger proportion of their tomatoes har- vested than did the growers on the silt and clay loam soils. An early frost would operate in the same way. Also, a dry year wou 1 d give the greater advantage to the heavy soils, and a wet year to the lighter soils. The value of land does not represent the advantage that a particular kind of land may have, in any one year. TABLE 66. Farms in Each Area with Different Yields of Tomatoes, 1920 Yield per acre (tons) Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms Less than 8 19 15 15 13 17 13 23 15 3 55 47 3i 8-1 1 Over 11 All farms 49 43 41 133 The proportion of tomatoes produced on farms with different yields per acre is given in table 67. Forty-two per cent of the farms having yields of less than 8 tons of tomatoes per acre produced only 2 7 per cent of the total tonnage of tomatoes. TABLE 67. Proportion of Tomatoes Produced on Farms with Different Yields per Acre, 133 Farms, 1920 Yield per acre (tons) Number of farms Per cent of total farms Number of acres Per cent of total acres Number of tons Per cent of total tons Less than 8 55 47 3i 42 35 23 256.8 224.5 120.9 43 37 20 1 ,406 2,118 1.723 27 40 33 8-1 1 Over 11 All farms 133 100 602.2 100 5.247 100 Some factors have considerable influence on the yield per acre but do not increase the cost of production. Some of these are, setting plants and cultivating at just the right time and in the proper manner, and favor- able weather conditions. Certain other practices increase yields but also increase costs. Whether or not these are profitable depends on whether the value of the increased yield is greater than the cost of the practice. Acres of tomatoes per farm Most of the growers raise small acreages of tomatoes (table 68). In the Niagara area, none of the farmers interviewed grew more than 5 acres. In the Chautauqua area there were a considerable number of growers who had fairly large acreages. While the farmers growing small acreages are more numerous, a com- paratively few who grow larger acreages raise a considerable proportion 6 4 Bulletin 412 TABLE 68. Farms Growing Different Acreages of Tomatoes in Each Area in 1920 Acres of tomatoes per farm Orleans Niagara Chau- tauqua All farms 2 or less . 2.1-3... 3.I-4... 4.1-5... 5.1-6... 6.1-7... 7.1-8... 8.1-9... 10 14 15 18 20 14 IS 6 39 30 23 10 7 8 4 1 3 1 2 3 2 Total 49 43 4i 133 Acres per farm , 4-5 2.7 6-5 4-5 of the total crop (table 69). The 92 farms on which 4 acres or less were grown made up 69 per cent of the total number of farms but grew only 41 per cent of the total tonnage of tomatoes. TABLE 69. Proportion of Tomatoes Produced on Farms Growing Different Acreages, 133 Farms, 1920 Acres of tomatoes per farm Number of farms Per cent of farms Acres of tomatoes Per cent of acres Tons of tomatoes Per cent of tons 4 or less 92 25 16 69 19 12 250.1 143-6 208.5 4i 24 35 2,189 1 ,142 1 ,916 4i 22 4. 1-7 Over 7 37 All farms 133 100 602.2 100 5.247 100 The relation between the acres of tomatoes per farm and the cost of production is shown in table 70. The farms that grew over 7 acres had TABLE 70. Relation between Acres of Tomatoes per Farm and Cost of Production, 133 Farms, 1920 Acres of tomatoes per farm Num- ber of farms Aver- age number of acres per farm Aver- age yield per acre (tons) Grow- ing cost per acre Hours per acre growing Man hours per ton har- vest- ing 1 Har- vest- ing cost per ton Average distance to receiving point (miles) Man Horse 92 25 16 2.7 5-7 130 8.8 8.0 92 $108 103 103 68.0 61.0 55-4 71-5 59-6 49-5 12.3 11. 3 II. 5 $7-59 6.77 5-92 3 5 2.3 2.8 4. 1-7 Over 7 133 4-5 8.7 $105 62.0 61. 1 11. 8 $6.80 3-2 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 65 the highest average yield per acre. The larger acreages were probably grown on land better adapted to tomatoes, and perhaps better methods of production were followed. The man and horse hours per acre growing the crop, and the cost of harvesting a ton, decreased as the acreage in- creased. The difference in the hours per ton harvesting did not account for all the difference in cost. A larger proportion of the picking on the smaller acreages was done by family labor, which was charged at a higher rate than hired labor. Distance to receiving point A considerable proportion of the tomatoes were produced on farms that had to haul the tomatoes four miles or more (table 71). TABLE 71. Proportion of Tomatoes Produced at Different Distances from the Receiving Point, 133 Farms, 1920 Distance from farm to receiving point (miles) Number of farms Per cent of total farms Number of acres Per cent of total acres Number of tons Per cent of total tons Less than 2 34 46 53 25 35 40 158.7 256.8 186.7 26 43 3i 1.365 2,128 1.754 26 2-3 .9 4 1 4 and over 33 All farms 133 100 602.2 100 5.247 100 The expense for hauling increased with the distance (table 72). The land charge decreased. The decrease in the charge for use of land on the most distant group of farms was equal to the increased cost of hauling about 6.5 tons. TABLE 72. Relation between Distance to Receiving Point, Cost of Hauling Tomatoes, and Charge for Use of Land, 133 Farms, 1920 Number of farms Average distance (miles) Yield of tomatoes per acre (tons) Hauling per acre Cost of hauling per ton Charge Distance to receiving point (miles) Man hours Horse hours Cost of truck use per acre for use of land It 53 1. 1 2.7 5-0 8.6 8-3 9.4 17.4 170 22.7 33-4 312 38.1 $0.36 2.35 4.69 $2.15 2.36 2.82 $1513 2-3-9 14- 70 10.80 COMPARISON OF DATA OBTAINED BY THE ACCOUNTING AND SURVEY METHODS The costs per acre are given in detail in table 73 for the farms on which accounts were kept and those on which data were obtained by the survey method. Higher yields were obtained on the farms in the former group. The hours of labor per acre for growing were lower on the farms which 66 Bulletin 412 kept accounts. This is due to a number of causes: larger acreages were grown; a larger number of the farms were located in the Orleans and Chautauqua areas, where the hours per acre were, on the average, lower; tractors and other labor-saving machines were used to a greater extent; the farms were a selected group of farms, on which the general efficiency might be expected to be better. TABLE 73. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Tomatoes in 1920 on Farms on Which Accounts Were Kept on the Crop, and on Farms on Which Cost Figures Were Obtained by the Survey Method Item Accounts — 26 farms, 1 3 1. 8 acres, averaging 10.3 tons per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Records — 107 farms, 470.4 acres, averaging 8.3 tons per acre Quantity per acre Cost per acre Plants Fertilizer Manure charged to tomatoes . . . Labor growing tomatoes : Human Horse Use of equipment Use of tractor Use of automobile and truck. . Miscellaneous growing expenses . Interest on growing costs Use of land 3-435 664 lbs 3 . 6 tons . 51.8 hrs. . 53.2 hrs.. 53.2 hrs.. 1 .0 hr. . . $23 15 21 57 13 03 4 36 1 75 55 29 1 95 13 15 Total growing cost . .103.1 3.36i 584 lbs.. . . 2 . 9 tons 64 . 9 hrs . 63.3 hrs. 63.3 hrs. 0.7 hr. . $21.55 12.89 5-72 27.38 15-53 5.20 1. 18 0.44 0.24 2.06 13-73 .105.92 Labor harvesting tomatoes: Human , Horse Use of equipment Use of automobile and truck Miscellaneous harvesting expenses . Interest on harvesting costs 1 12. 8 hrs. . 34.5 hrs.. 34.5 hrs.. $44-6i 8-45 2.83 5-67 0.65 0.58 [00. o hrs. 38.2 hrs. 38.2 hrs. I.2.02 9-35 3-13 2.71 0.58 0.51 Total harvesting cost $62.79 $58.30 Total cost of crop . $165.90 $164.22 Tomatoes disposed of other than to factory Tomatoes sold to factory 0.08 ton.. 10.26 tons. $ 2.67 218.64 0.08 ton. 8.18 tons. $ 2.41 173-24 Total receipts from tomatoes . :o.34 tons. . $221.31 .26 tons. $175-65 Price received per ton 52 1 . 40 $21.27 Cost per ton growing . . , Cost per ton harvesting $9 97 6.07 $12.82 7.06 Total cost per ton $16.04 $19.88 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 67 cost of producing tomatoes in other states in 1920 New Jersey The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station has obtained informa- tion on the cost of producing tomatoes in southern New Jersey for the years 191 8, 19 19, and 1920. The average costs of growing tomatoes in 1920 in that section are given in table 74. 5 The yield per acre was lower and the cost per ton was higher than in New York. The expense TABLE 74. Cost per Acre of Producing Canning Tomatoes on 205 Farms in New Jersey Growing 2040.25 Acres of Tomatoes in 1920 Item Quantity per acre Cost per acre Cost of hotbed material $ 0. 16 Seed 0.61 Plants 1.338* 28 . 2 lbs 859 lbs 7 . 74 tons .... . 24 ton 3.26 1.04 18.71 16.28 Cover-crop seed Fertilizer! Manure! Limef 0.66 Spray materials 0.81 Labor growing tomatoes : Human . . 57-4 hrs 52.4 hrs 52 . 4 hrs 0.6 hr 21.94 10.61 Horse Use of equipment 3-67 0.92 0-45 0.14 2.00 Use of tractor Use of automobile and truck Insurance Interest. . Use of land 11.30 Total growing cost $92 . 56 Labor harvesting tomatoes : Human 71 .p hrs 28.3 hrs 28.3 hrs 3 -4 hrs $27.16 5-72 1.98 504 0.03 3-13 Horse Use of equipment Use of truck Hauling Baskets. 23 4 Total harvesting cost $43 06 Total cost of crop $135-62 Yield per acre sold 5.74 tons... . 6.07 tons. . . . Yield per acre including unharvested tomatoes Cost per ton growing tomatoes sold $16.13 750 Total cost per ton of tomatoes sold $23 . 63 * This is the number of plants purchased. Plants that were raised are n t Quantity figures are for total applied . Cost figures are for proportion by rotation. ot included, charged, which was influenced New Jersey Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 353:52-53- 192 1. 68 Bulletin 412 for seed and plants was considerably lower in New Jersey, because there tomato plants are grown in the field. The cost of both fertilizer and manure was higher in New Jersey than in New York. The combined expenses for plants, fertilizer, and manure in the two States were about equal. The man and horse hours per acre were lower in New Jersey. Larger acreages were grown per farm. The hours were a little higher than' for New York farms growing over 7 acres (table 70). Ohio Cost figures on tomatoes were obtained in 1920 on 27 farms in Wood County, Ohio, by the Ohio State College of Agriculture. The accounting method was used. The average cost per acre on 26 of these farms is given in table 75 : 6 TABLE 75. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Tomatoes on 26 Ohio Farms Growing 185.7 Acres in 1920 Item Quantity per acre Cost per acre Plants Fertilizer Manure charged to crop Labor growing tomatoes : Human Horse Use of equipment Use of tractor Interest and taxes on land . . . Interest on growing expenses . Total growing cost 2,248 2 . 3 tons . 34hrs. 34hrs. 34hrs. $ 8 2 7 $67 29 Total harvesting cost . $33 46 Total cost of crop . $100 75 Yield per acre delivered Yield per acre including unharvested tomatoes . 6 . 4 tons . 8 . 1 tons . Cost per ton growing tomatoes delivered . . . Cost per ton harvesting tomatoes delivered . $10 5 Total cost per ton of tomatoes delivered , $15-74 An average of 7.1 acres of tomatoes per farm was grown on the Ohio farms. The average yield harvested per acre was lower than on the New York farms, and about the same proportion of the crop was not harvested. Very little fertilizer was used. The manure was charged at from $3 to $4 per ton. The hours of human and horse labor were less than in New York. The costs given were for farmers keeping accounts on the crop, therefore they might be expected to be lower than for average farms. Also, the acreage of tomatoes per farm was fairly large. Tractors were used on 8 Adapted from a mimeographed report by R. F. Taber. An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 69 42 per cent and machine setters on 81 per cent of the farms. Fewer plants and less fertilizer and manure were used per acre than in New York. Less time was required to haul these materials, to set the plants, to apply the fertilizer, and to spread the manure. The majority of the farmers used two-horse cultivators and cultivated only three or four times. More of the growers in New York used one-horse cultivators and cultivated five or six times. The land in this part of Ohio can be prepared for plant- ing in less time than is required on New York farms, because the soil is more easily worked. Natural advantages, such as a more easily worked soil or land capable of producing high yields per acre without heavy applications of fertilizer, are likely to be offset, in part at least, by higher land value. SWEET CORN The most important States in the production of sweet corn for canning are the Middle-Western States of Iowa and Illinois. However, a con- siderable quantity of corn is packed in the Eastern States, particularly in Maryland, Maine, and New York. The high quality of corn grown in a cool climate explains the importance of corn canning in States that are not ordinarily considered as important corn-producing States. The location of the factories canning corn in New York State in 1920 is shown in figure 5. Data on the cost of producing sweet corn were obtained in Fig. 5. location of factories canning sweet corn in new york state Each dot represents the location of a factory where corn is packed, as reported in the Canners' Directory for 1920 7° Bulletin 412 Fig. 6. location of areas in which studies were made on the cost of producing sweet corn three areas — Orleans, Ontario, and Livingston. Accounts were kept on nine farms in Orleans and Genesee Counties; this area is designated as the Orleans area. Cost figures were obtained on twelve farms in north- western Ontario County. Records were obtained by the survey method on thirteen farms located on the Genesee River flats between Geneseo and Mount Morris in Livingston County. The location of these areas is shown in figure 6. AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS IN THE AREAS STUDIED The agricultural conditions in these three sections differ somewhat. The most important crops grown on the farms in the Orleans area were apples, winter wheat, hay, and various crops for canning factories. The most important crops grown in the Ontario area were winter wheat, hay, alfalfa, apples, potatoes, and peas and sweet corn for the canning factory. The topography is rolling, and the soils are principally loams and sandy loams well drained and well supplied with lime. In the Livingston area the most important crops were peas and sweet corn for the canning factory, winter wheat, hay, and beans. This area is located on the level land along the Genesee River. The soil is a silt loam, very deep and productive. Most of this land is subject to over-flow nearly every year. In July of 1 920 a considerable proportion of the land in sweet corn in this area was flooded. An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 71 cfl | r. * 0000000 ■ rfm O -1 JS D 4 M O w a 1 feSfk 1 PO O PO O O «0 3 *£ 3 t>- m n CM CN O ■ ■ c 5 00 PO -r « 00 Joo If a HOH Tf ON PO M C i 6 6 po r- po m • • e ) M ■>t d in 1/-. c N d 5* <*» w» *S *o «| *• M» *«» §i cfl jfr. 3 ,5 : s ee'c»: a c «J N uj^ XXXX 00 s cfl 1_ PO;2 O w r- t- 0\ m c O 5* O CN O rj-t-I-ld ■*PO PO O PO N «-. O m m Tj-rooo ui rl-M l^ POOO 0\- • PO O M c> cfl l. 0r ^: ^ B co ^ $ m po pooo 00 t^ 10 10 11 PO 10 TtUl > 4 d t-^. ^) 9 ^§S8 W M ►I t- CN O w X 2 m y ■c ™ C cfl On CO t-^ £00 •5.5 E IN Tj- 1-1 « 9 c H j. 10 O h • at- m > M M N 01 1 CN CN XT) CN 1-1 PO PO 600 6 acoMM : e > d « s e> o" & <>S ** «£ ** >s, IM> M » ICOO PO N ►" PO O Tt c cfl co-^.2 f NTj-t^ OOOO fOO mo « < 4h d d c 00 I S fjl s C"> CO "C cfl a. c ° ^ C0 4J u CN w M 00 I* CO TJ-00 M Tf f» M Tfr N l-l O «• Mf m <*» " ' CO '. '. '■ '• OS -£" g 3 ' C co co co co CN;2 O OO O PO CO CO CO ■ a 45 M 'la ii^ ^ C rt cfl l_ ooo r» e O 3 CJ o ft 0^ £55~ . po d w is : CO • • s\ 8 : & • cfl • js : CO J3 : 1 : ^' ^ to • CO ! c — 3 is CO ■5 s E p a s a a S CO 1 to i B 3 4J •A S- C a £ J '3 c i C U 5 c 3 « E 3 el ■"3 ■r. st on growing costs land * i 8 CO 1 CO H a CO li ^5 5 1 S c 5 E '3 D "o O I P CO • £ a • _, X co T3 co -*-• e to s l?8 III 3 co cfl cfl W O g O CO Cfl +J co^ co *' i y 1 co CO E cfl J3 13 ,0 s s ■0 0. : 1 i co 3 . O . co . C . JS • "8* Jl Ot3 CO ? p | 8 Q B S5 d V 1 CO "8 d 5 u a > e 4- 1 a M c i w P t> t* go H JSP Cfl tr S3 fca i! H 3 «T3 3 cfl > a o c •ga 15.2 e a 6c !| T3 O d o C0T3 tJ e CO cfl ^8 S- 8 ^ CO d >. 7 2 Bulletin 412 Two products, corn and stalks, are produced by the sweet-corn crop. The economical production of sweet corn requires that the stalks be used by some form of livestock. The Orleans and Ontario areas are not dairy sections. In the Livingston area dairying is more important, an average of twenty dairy cattle per farm being kept. A considerable number of sheep were kept in the Orleans and Ontario areas. The common rotation in which sweet corn is grown on the upland soils in these areas is: (1) corn or some other cultivated crop for one or two years; (2) oats, barley, or peas; (3) wheat; (4) hay for one or two years. On the valley soils sweet corn is often grown on the same field for a number of years in succession. When the land is to be seeded down again, the succession of crops would be as indicated for the upland soils. COST OF PRODUCTION The average cost of producing one acre of sweet corn in 1920 on the farms visited in these three areas, is given in table 76. Seed, fertilizer, and manure Seed was a minor item in the cost of producing sweet corn. It was in all cases furnished by the factory. The usual rate of seeding was a peck to the acre. Fertilizer also was a minor item of cost. Acid phosphate was the fertilizer most generally used. The common rate of application was from 200 to 250 pounds per acre. Manure was a larger item of cost than fertilizer. Neither fertilizer nor manure was used extensively in the Livingston area on the land in sweet corn. This land is naturally very fertile. In all the areas, most of the manure charged to the sweet corn was applied directly to. the 1920 crop. Labor The largest item of cost was labor. The rates at which the various classes of labor were charged in the different regions are given in table 7 7 . The highest rates, both for hired and for family labor, were in the Orleans area. The high wages paid for help in this section during the season of 1920 are indicated by the rate of 50 cents per hour paid for " other hired labor " during harvesting. This wage was paid to women for picking TABLE 77. Rates per Hour for Different Classes of Labor on Sweet Corn IN 1920 Class of labor Orleans Ontario Livingston Growing : Operators Sons over 16. . . . Other family All family Hired men Other hired labor Total hired labor Total growing . $0.48 0.50 0.30 0.48 0-43 0.40 0.42 $0 48 40 47 39 39 $0.45 0.40 0.30 0.43 0.37 0.25 0.31 $0.45 $0.42 $0.33 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 73 TABLE 77 {continued) Class of labor Orleans Ontario Livingston Harvesting : Operators Sons over 16 Other family All family Hired men Other hired labor. Total hired labor . $0.48 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.49 Total harvesting . $0.48 $0.48 0.40 0.19 0.44 0.40 0.40 $0.42 $0.44 0.40 0.30 0-43 0.36 0.24 0.32 $0.35 sweet corn. On the farms on which they were employed, a considerable acreage of sweet corn was not picked because it appeared more profitable to use the available help to harvest tomatoes and apples. The proportion of the work performed by the different classes of labor is given in table 7S. In the Orleans area a larger proportion of the growing work was done by family labor than in the other areas, due to the smaller farms and the fewer acres of crops grown per farm. A larger proportion of the harvesting labor was hired in the Orleans area. Since this was for the most part hand work and came at a very busy season, extra help was necessary. The help included under M Other hired labor " was TABLE 78. Proportion of Work on Sweet Corn Performed by Different Classes of Labor, 1920 Class of labor Growing : Operators Sons over 16 Other family All family Hired men Other hired labor . . Total hired labor . . Total growing . . . Harvesting : Operators Sons over 16 Other family ..!... All family Hired men Other hired labor. . Total hired labor . . Total harvesting Per cent of work done Orleans Ontario Livingston 45 4 1 50 33 17 50 100 33 4 37 4i 22 63 100 30 3 33 67 67 100 27 3 4 34 66 66 13 5 2 20 40 40 80 100 20 7 1 28 46 26 72 100 74 Bulletin 412 the extra labor used to hoe and pick the corn. This class of help was used extensively on the farms in the Livingston area, where large acreages were grown. Miscellaneous expenses In the summary of costs, the expenses of harvesting fodder are omitted and credit is given for the estimated value of sta ks less the cost of harvest- ing. The expenses for twine and for silo filling were therefore not included. The only item left under this heading was the fee collected by the grower's association on the farms in Genesee County included in the Orleans area. Use of land In the Livingston area over 80 per cent of the corn was grown on cash- rented land. The most usual rent paid was $10 per acre in addition to the taxes. The average charge per acre for the use of land was slightly higher in this area than in the Orleans and Ontario areas. RETURNS There are two sources of returns from sweet corn — the corn and the stalks. The principal return, however, is from the corn. There are two bases on which sweet corn is bought in New York State, the unhusked and the husked. When bought on the unhusked basis, the weight of the unhusked corn as drawn from the field is paid for. When bought on the husked basis, the loads as drawn in are weighed. A sample is taken from each load and husked. The percentage that the husked corn from this sample represents of the unhusked corn, is calculated. This percentage is applied to the whole load and the farmer is paid for the calculated weight of husked corn. This method is sometimes called averaging. In the Orleans area the corn was bought on the husked basis. The growers from whom figures were obtained hauled into the factory 263,274 pounds of unhusked corn. They were paid for 199,382 pounds of husked corn. The percentage of husked corn, commonly known as the test, was 75.7. This corn was all of the Evergreen variety. The low yield in the Orleans area was due to the complete failure of corn on two farms, and the fact that a large acreage on another farm was not harvested because of the pressure of other farm work. The average yield of unhusked corn on the harvested acreage was 3.35 tons per acre. The price paid for corn of the Evergreen variety in the Orleans area was $25 per ton of husked corn, which, with a test of 75.7 per cent, was equivalent to a price of $18.92 for unhusked corn. In the Ontario area the prices paid per ton of unhusked corn for the different varieties were -as follows: Evergreen and Hickox, $20; Golden Bantam, $32.50. The average yields per acre of these three varieties in this area in 1920 were: Evergreen, 7646 pounds; Hickox, 7240 pounds; Golden Bantam, 5326 pounds. With these yields and prices, the returns for corn alone from the Golden Bantam were more than the returns from the other two varieties. However, the fodder from the Golden Bantam is usually considered to be worth less per acre. t The average yield per acre and price per ton would vary with the propor- tion of the different varieties in the total acreage. The acreages of the different varieties grown are given in table 79: „ An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 75 ABLE 79. Acres of Different Varieties of Sweet Corn Grown in 1920 Variety Orleans Ontario Livingston Total Evergreen 59-3 30.0 28.0 29.2 92.0 IIO.O 47.0 20.0 31.0 15.0 45.o 28.0 181. 3 Early Crosby IIO.O Country Gentleman 47.0 Hickox 48.0 Howling Mob 31 .0 Golden Bantam 44.2 Early Orange 45.0 Charlevoix 28.0 Total 59-3 87.2 388.0 534.5 Miscellaneous returns The stalks may be used in various ways. Stock may be turned in and the stalks not cut, or the stalks may be cut and fed as dry fodder, or they may be put into silos. At the factories the husks and the cobs are stacked or put into silos. The growers usually have the privilege of buying the resulting ensilage at a cost of $2 or $3 per ton. Where the growers had this privilege, the estimated value of this material above the price paid and the cost of hauling was credited to the crop. The miscellaneous returns represent, therefore, the estimated value of the standing stalks plus the value above cost of the silage obtained from the factory (table 80). The value of stalks was less in the Livingston area because most of the stalks were not harvested until they had been badly frosted. TABLE 80. Miscellaneous Returns per Acre of Sweet Corn IN 1920 Source of return Orleans Ontario Livingston Value of standing stalks $10.40 1.30 $9 .65 1.78 $6.13 3-24 Value of ensilage from factories, above cost to grower Total $11.70 $n.43 $9-37 LABOR REQUIREMENTS The time spent on the various operations on the sweet-corn crop is given in table 81. The land is fitted for sweet corn in much the same manner as for any other cultivated crop. The greater part of the corn in the areas visited was planted with a two-horse corn planter. On several farms, particularly in the Ontario area, the corn was gone over with a weeder before it was cultivated. The average number of cultivations with a two-horse cultivator were: Orleans, 3; Ontario, 4.2; Livingston, 4. In addition to this, some cultivation was done with a one-horse cultivator, the average number of cultivations being: Orleans, 0.2; Ontario, 1.0; Livingston, 0.5. In the Livingston area the corn was practically all 7 6 Bulletin 412 TABLE 81. Average Hours per Acre Required to Perform Various Operations on the Sweet-Corn Crop in 1920 21 farms in the Orleans and Ontario areas 13 farms in the Livingston area Operation Number of times oper- ation was performed Man hours Horse hours Tractor hours Number of times oper- ation was performed Man hours Horse hours Tractor hours 5-4 2.5 0.8 0.7 O.I 0.1 0.4 1-5 0.2 0.7 7-7 1.2 4.4 2. I 13 3 6.2 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.5 0. 1 E.J 15-4 1.2 3-9 0.6 0.6 0.6 3-0 0.2 2.0 0.1 1.0 3 9 0-5 4-3 2.3 0.3 1.6 0. 1 0.1 oV 0.5 5-8 1.0 25-4 0. I 1.0 0.7 10.6 5-8 0.6 3-2 0.3 0. 1 0.8 11. 6 10 0.2 1-7 0.4 32 0.8 1.0 0.1 03 0. 1 Hauling seed and fer- 03 1.0 t Replanting 0.1 Weeding 0.7 3-8 o.S Cultivating: Hoeing Transporting extra help for hoeing Supervising Hauling and spread- ing manure Total 27.8 45-9 1.8 44.1 37-7 0.9 Acres of sweet corn per farm 7.0 29.8 hoed. The land in this section is extremely good grass land, and the grass will grow as well in a cornfield as elsewhere unless measures are taken to keep it out. The time required to perform the various operations was similar in the Orleans and Ontario areas. More man hours per acre were required in the Livingston area because of the hoeing. Other opera- tions were performed in less time in the Livingston area than in the other areas because of the larger acreages grown per farm. The hours required to harvest an acre and a ton of corn, and the cost per ton, are given in table 82 : TABLE 82. Average Labor Requirements Harvesting Sweet Corn and Hauling to Factory in 1920 Orleans Ontario Livingston Yield per acre (tons) * Loads per acre Distance to factory (miles) Man hours per acre harvesting . . Horse hours per acre harvesting . Truck hours per acre harvesting . Man hours per ton harvesting . . . Horse hours per ton harvesting . . Truck hours per ton harvesting. , Cost of harvesting per ton 2 1, 1. 13 10. 6.2 50 $4-78 3 2. 1. 22, 15- 1. 6. 4- o. $4-76 I 8 2 9 20 8 13 7 7 4 8 $4 28 * Tons per acre of unhusked An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 77 STRING BEANS New York State leads in the production of string beans for the canning factory. The factories that, pack beans are distributed thruout the State. The beans are grown for the most part on land operated by the canning companies. At Albion, in Orleans County, however, the canning company contracts with farmers for beans for canning. Accounts on their bean crop were kept by three farmers in this section in 1920. The average cost per acre of producing the crop on these farms in that year is given in table 83. Efficiency in the use of labor on these farms was probably higher than the average. TABLE 83. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of String Beans on 3 Farms in Orleans County, Growing 22 Acres, in 1920 Item Quantity per acre Cost per acre Per cent of total cost Seed 1 . 1 bu 220 lbs 1 . 8 tons 30.6 hrs 40.5 hrs 40-5 hrs 2.7 hrs $ 8.64 3-34 3-68 1318 9.91 3-32 4-74 0.48 10.62 14.3 Fertilizer 5.5 Manure charged to string beans 6.1 Labor growing string beans: Human 22.0 Horse 16.4 Use of equipment 5.5 Use of tractor 7.9 Interest on growing costs 0.8 Use of land 17.6 Total growing cost $57 .91 96. 1 Labor harvesting string beans:* Human 2.1 hrs 4.2 hrs 4.2 hrs $0.95 1.04 o.35 1.6 Horse 1 .7 Use of equipment 0.6 Total harvesting cost $2.34 3-9 Total cost of crop $60.25 100. Returns from crop 2,432 lbs $48.64 Price per ton $40.00 Cost per ton growing $47 63 1.92 Cost per ton harvesting Total cost per ton $49-55 * No labor for picking the crop was included in the cost, as this was paid by the canning company. The farmer was required to haul the beans to the factory. The price paid was 2 cents a pound. The average yield was 2432 pounds per acre. The variety was Refugee Wax. These fields were picked only once. After the first picking, disease developed, which spotted the pods and made them worthless for canning. Much better yields of beans have been obtained on these farms in previous years. Sometimes, after the beans 78 Bulletin 412 suitable for canning are all picked, a crop of ripe beans can be harvested for seed. The disease present in 1920 made this impossible on these farms. LIMA BEANS Lima beans are not grown extensively in New York. In northeastern Genesee County they are grown to be used by the local canning company. Accounts were kept by four farmers in this section on their lima-bean crop in 1920. The average cost of producing one acre of lima beans in 1920 on these farms is given in table 84. Efficiency in the use of man labor on these farms was probably higher than the average. The labor growing lima beans was very similar to that on string beans except that less hoeing was done. The beans were harvested with bean pullers and drawn to the factory, where they were threshed. The roughage was kept by the factory. TABLE 84. Average Cost of Producing an Acre of Lima Beans on 4 Farms in Genesee County, Growing 12 Acres, in 1920 Item Quantity per acre Cost per acre Per cent of total cost Seed . 6 bu 17 lbs 4 . 1 tons .... 23.0 hrs 57-2 hrs 57-2 hrs $ 5-72 0.25 6.92 10-45 14.00 4.69 0.91 10.25 8-3 Fertilizer 0.4 Manure charged to lima beans 10. 1 Labor growing lima beans : Human !5-2 Horse 20.5 Use of equipment 6.8 Interest on growing costs 1.3 Use of land 15.0 Total growing cost $53-19 77.6 Labor harvesting lima beans: Human 15-3 hrs 22.3 hrs 22 . 3 hrs $7.26 5-46 1-83 0.72 0.07 10.5 Horse 8.0 Use of equipment 2.7 Association charges 1.1 Interest on harvesting costs O.I Total harvesting cost $15-34 22.4 Total cost of crop $68.53 IOO. Returns from crop 1 ,290 lbs. . . . $77.41 Price per ton $120.00 Cost per ton growing $82.47 23.78 Cost per ton harvesting Total cost per ton $106.25 An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 79 PEAS FOR THE CANNING FACTORY A blank for determining the cost of production of and cultural data concerning peas for the canning factory. Prepared by the Department of Agricultural Economica and Farm Management, and the Division of Vegetable Gardening (Department of Farm Crops) New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell Univeraity, Ithaca, N. V. Record for year Grower'* nam* Canning factory.- Acres farmed .._ _ County.. . _ Post Office.. Location of viner Acres of peas planted Tabulating No.. at. D.. DiaUnce to viner _ Acres harvested.. Labor on Pus for the Canning Factory Dstes Hours Tractor Ante Track Total Human Family Hired Horse Operation Operator Man Plowing (Depth ) Harrowing— spring tooth (times ) Harrowing— spike tooth (times ) • Disking (times ) Rolling or planking (times ) Hauling fertilizer to farm Hauling fertilizer to 6eld Hauling aeed to farm Hanling aeed to field Getting and applying inoculation Drilling (variety ) Drilling (variety ) Drilling (variety ) Rolling after drilling Hauling and spreading manure (page 2) Hauling and spreading lime (page 2) Total -growing X Rates per hour— growing X Co« of labor growing X Harvesting (variety ) Hauling (trips ) Harvesting (variety ) Hanling (trips ) Harvesting (variety ) Hauling (trips ) Extra tripa to town or factory about pea*. Total— harvesting and marketing ' X Rates per hour— harvesting and marketing X Cost of labor -harvesting and marketing X Total labor on crop X Average length of time lost at viner per load of peas ? Kind of machine used for harvesting peas? Acrss of other crops mown with machine in 1920 ? Value $ Rate of depreciation % Repairs purchased in 1920? , $ 8o Bulletin 412 Returns from Peas for the Canning Factory Variety Grade Lbs. p«ias and vines Lbs. shelled peas Tons of shelled pc.is Price Value Clucks from Company Value Date 1 2 Deduction for bu. seed Total Miscellaneous returns Amount Price Value Disposal of pea vine silage Green Tines fed or *old tons Kind of slock Av'R. No. Tons fed to Pea vine silage fed tons Dairy cattle Pea vine silage sold tons Steers Dry peas bo. Sheep Straw from dry peas tons Lambs fattened Total X X Total fed Pea viae silage purchased tons Charge made by canner per ton ? Average yields Year Acres Yield per acre Notes on variety, soil, weather, etc. 1920 1919 1918 1917 1916 Average Causes of Loss In Yield Description Extent of loss Control mcasu'es Weather tons Insects tons Diseases tons tons Growers experience vrith Varieties Crops 1020 Acres Variety Yield Uniformity of ripening Beans Peas Alaska Tomatoes Sweet Corn Cabbage Potatoes Corn for grain Corn for silage Oats Winter Wheat Hay Orchard Total An Economic Study of the Production of Canning Crops 8i Sotatlon on Land in Pecs for the Canning Factory Year Acres Crop Acres Crop Acres Crop 1921 1920 Soil type Variety Soil tvpe Variety So'l type Variety 1919 1918 1917 Expenses on Peas for the Canning Factory Seed Variety Acres Seed Acres Bn. per acre Bushels Price Value Total Fertilizer Kind Acres Lbs. per acre Pounds Price Value Total Manure Tons per arre Tons Hour* of Labor on Manure %to Crop Tona to Crop Price Value Year Acres Man Horse Truck 1919 1918 1917 Total Lime Kind Tons per acre Tons Hours of Labor on Lime %to Crop Tona to Crop Price Valoe Year Acres Man Horse Truck I