761 V0 4 /M3 P^\"\ A Publication of The College of Agriculture - • ' 5 \ \J UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA J1VERSITY CF CALIFOiNIA DAVIS MAR 1 3 WS3 LJISRAi i / 541 NORTHERN KERN COUNTY COnON- POTATO FARMS Kern County No. 2 OF A SERIES COSTS, RETURNS, AND SCALE OF OPERATIONS CHESTER O. McCORKLE, JR. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. 143 i 953 V /CK'THTEBG^UTS This investigation concerning farm organizations in Northern Kern County has been conducted cooperatively by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, California Agricultural Experiment Station, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Trimble P. Hedges, Associate Professor of .Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, College of Agriculture, Davis, assisted in the collection of field data and in some phases of the analysis. Warren R. Bailey and E. G. Strand, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and George W. Campbell, University of California, Davis, assisted in the collection of field data. NORTHERN KERN COUNTY COT TON- POTATO FARTS 2. Costs, Returns j and Scale of Operation Chester 0. McCorkle, Jr. M This publication is the second in a series dealing with the farm organization and administrative aspects of cottcn-potatc farming in Northern Kern County. The first was devoted primarily to a discussion 2/ cf the purely physical characteristics of this type cf farming.— It is the objective of this renort to point out the influences of scale of operation on resource utilization, production costs and returns to farm operators. Emphasis is placed on the presentation of the physical origins of cost differentials associated with size and the impact of these cost differentials on total farm earnings. Basic physical and economic data including practices, physical inputs, yields, and unit costs of factors of production have been drawn from the p irst publication in this series. The basic data for this study are taken from Production and Marketing administration farm worksheets for !|05> farms in the area and a field survey of I4O cotton-potato farms in Northern Kern County. Seme analysis of these forty farms is included in this report but the bulk of the analysis is based cn nine synthetic farm organizations representing three farm sizes and three organizations developed from the field survey farms. These nine farms are analyzed to determine (1) what scale economies arise in the application cf specific resources such as labor, motive power, irrigation water, and equipment to the production of crops found on typical cotton- potato farms; (2) what are the "capacities" cf these resources, or at what lftvel of utilization can minimum operation costs be expected; and (3) how large are these savings a.s reflected in total farm budgets. No study o? the sociological implications of the findings is included, though their importance is not denied. l/ Chester 0. "'cCcrkle, Jr., is Instructor in Agricultural Economics, Junior Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Junior igricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, College of Agriculture, Davis. 2/ Chester 0. NcCorkle, Jr. and Trimble P.. Hedges, NORTHERN KERN COUNTY COTTON-PGT'TO F^RT'S— l. Organization, Inputs, and Costs, Calif, Agric. Exp. Station, Oiannir.I Foundation of Agricultural Economics T'imeo. Report No. 137, (October 19^2 ). 2. The nine farms include three sizes in each of three types of organization (Table 1). In Organization I the acreage of the three farms of 75, 150, and 300 crop acres respectively is divided equally between cotton, potatoes and alfalfa. The acreage of the three farms in Organization II is planted two-thirds to cotton, and one-sixth each to potatoes and alfalfa. Only cotton and potatoes are included in Organization III, the crop acreage in all three sizes being devoted two- thirds to cotton and one-third to potatoes. These three organizations are typical of those found in the area during the 19h9-$0 period. Organization, Investment and Scale of Operations During the 19li9-50 crop year the two enterprises, cotton and potatoes, occupied over 75 per cent of the cropland on farms of all sizes in the area studied. On farms of less than 80 acres of cropland, these two crops utilized over 90 ner cent of the land (Table 2). As size of farm increases, the percentage of land devoted to cotton in the organization remains approximately fixed. The potato acreage in the organization, however, declines in relative imnortance. A 2 to 1 relationship of cotton to potatoes characterizes the organization for farms of 160 acres and below, with the exception of very small farms where concentration in either potatoes or cotton is typical. Feyond 160 acres, cotton continues to command about two-thirds of the cropland but other enterprises tend to gain in importance at the exoense of the potato enterprise. Physical and economic factors such as equipment capacities, water use, labor requirements, and conditions of contract operations dictate in large part the expansion of any given enterprise. Federal regulations pertaining to planted acreage and history establishment must not be under- estimated as a determinant of expansion or contraction of specific enter- prises in an area and on individual farms. Adherence to the two primary cash crops by operators of small farms is indicative of the relative inflexibility in organization which is characteristic of the small operation. The operator is confined to those enterprises which bring in the greatest net return per unit of the limited resource, this being capital in the form of land in almost all cases. Labor, management, equipment and water resources frequently are available in excess quantities on small farms in this area and are consequently 3fl ■ - SIZE . X c , r °p assggjL 75 150 300 TAJL.J 1 Enterprise Organization of Nine Synthetic Farv.is Organization I Cotton Potatoes XftfiEggJ . jAcresQ 25 25 50 50 100 100 Alfalfa ,(,.:xre.sj_ 25 50 100 \ Organization II I Cotton .(acres ) 50 100 200 4 Potatoes . X^cr esj^acres.) 12 1/2 25 50 Alfalfa 12 1/2 25 50 |Orn;anization III j Cotton I Potatoes . . j.(acres.).{_ _(acresj_ 50 25 100 50 200 100 SIZE . X c , r °p assggjL 75 150 300 TAJL.J 1 Enterprise Organization of Nine Synthetic Farv.is Organization I Cotton Potatoes XftfiEggJ . jAcresQ 25 25 50 50 100 100 Alfalfa ,(,.:xre.sj_ 25 50 100 \ Organization II I Cotton .(acres ) 50 100 200 4 Potatoes . X^cr esj^acres.) 12 1/2 25 50 Alfalfa 12 1/2 25 50 |Orn;anization III j Cotton I Potatoes . . j.(acres.).{_ _(acresj_ 50 25 100 50 200 100 TABLJ 2 r Organization Characteristics of 405 Cotton-Potato Far. s in Northern Kern County;, California, 1949 . Cotton . Potatoes Average Acreage Per cent Average Acreage Per cent per rc.rr.i iteporT/ing OI per Pari' Reporting of Cropland Cropland 0- 29 10.1 57.4 8.1 46.0 30- 59 21.6 61.0 15.1 42.6 60- 89 44* 5 65.8 20.5 30.3 90-119 53.8 57.4 28.8 30.7 120-149 75.1 62.8 35.0 29.3 150-179 107.0 71.5 30.3 20.2 180-239 132.8 69.1 54.1 18.1 240-299 162.2 67.3 ?o.o 24.4 300-399 197.1 65.2 86.5 28 . 6 400-499 301.2 77.5 62.4 16.1 500-699 340.6 64.3 166.6 31.4 700-999 397.8 53.3 184.5 24.7 s 000 and over 1,078.0 67.6 214.7 13.5 TABLJ 2 r Organization Characteristics of 405 Cotton-Potato Far. s in Northern Kern County;, California, 1949 . Cotton . Potatoes Average Acreage Per cent Average Acreage Per cent per rc.rr.i iteporT/ing OI per Pari' Reporting of Cropland Cropland 0- 29 10.1 57.4 8.1 46.0 30- 59 21.6 61.0 15.1 42.6 60- 89 44* 5 65.8 20.5 30.3 90-119 53.8 57.4 28.8 30.7 120-149 75.1 62.8 35.0 29.3 150-179 107.0 71.5 30.3 20.2 180-239 132.8 69.1 54.1 18.1 240-299 162.2 67.3 ?o.o 24.4 300-399 197.1 65.2 86.5 28 . 6 400-499 301.2 77.5 62.4 16.1 500-699 340.6 64.3 166.6 31.4 700-999 397.8 53.3 184.5 24.7 s 000 and over 1,078.0 67.6 214.7 13.5 5. used at less than the optimum rate. jk& farm size increases emphasis shifts to the problems of resource allocation and utilisation as the capacities of specific resources are approached and the actual availability of such important resources as water and labor come into question. To meet these conditions the farm operator tends to diversify his organization adding enterprises which complement or supplement his primary income producers in labor, water, equipment and management resource utilization. Capital in the form of land still remains as a limiting factor to organization but its relative influence declines. Enterprises frequently found on farms devoting the majority of their resources to cotton and potatoes are alfalfa, barley, milo, sugar beets, beans, onions, saf flower, caster beans, and field corn. At least one of the three enterprises, alfalfa, barley, or milo, is included in the organization of farms of greater than 160 acres. Some 80-acre farms will produce alfalfa as a rotation crop but other alternatives are not commonly found, Filo is used as a double crop with potatoes particularly in years when losses on the potato enterprise are incurred. It is recognized that this practice taxes soil and water resources of the farm but in turn provides a means of recouping in-season losses. Changes in farm size thus l^ad to changes in the organization of enterprises. But these organizational shifts are further assisted by the changing pattern of productive resources accompanying increases in scale of operation. Mere and/or larger tractors and matched equipment, more wells, increased labor forces, as well as increased acreage, which accompany an increase in scale result in variation in choice of practices, rates of accomplishment and quantity of inputs. The operator of an 80- acre farm tyoically uses a. wheel tractor of between 20 and 27 horsepower and corresponding equipment. In 19U9, plowing with a 2-way nlow was much more frequently observed on the 80-acre than the 160-acre farm. The l60-acre farm operator typically utilizes a tracklayer of between 25 and 30 horsepower and. a smaller wheel tractor of between 15 and 20 horsepower. This difference in available motive oower, and the equipment types and sizes which are then employed, introduces variation in rates of performance, utilization cf the various resources, and in costs and returns. For example, chiseling with a tracklayer was a much more common means of land preparation on the 160-acre farm, plowing assuming a minor role. Chiseling cn the 80-acre farm was confined to those . sen 6. farms with adequate motive power to pull a chisel. Less variation in these factors is to be found between the 160 and 320-acre farms because the principal difference in resources employed is one of quantity of equipment rather than size of equipment. The 320-acre operator typically requires one 20 to 27 horsepower wheel tractor and corresponding equipment in addition to the motive newer and implements found on the 160-acre farm. The tracklayers found cn 160 and 320-acre farms are used primarily in seedbed preparation, disking, and chiseling. Potato planting and digging are also accomplished with tracklayers, though the digging is often contracted. Wheel tractors find their nrimary use in cultivating the row crops and performing the tasks of cutting and raking alfalfa when this enterprise is present in the organization. Irrigation facilities prevalent on farms of each of the three sizes exhibit some variation in investments reflecting both the differences in depth to water and the operator's preference for rate of supply and evaluation of future underground water availability. The most typical well and pump installation on 80 acres delivers 900 gallons per minute. The pump output on l60-acre farms of this type usually approximates 1600 gallons per minute. The 320-acre farm irrigation system is customarily based on mere than one well, each feeding into the underground system directly cr indirectly through a farm reservoir. The total available water, regardless of the number of individual pumping plants and wells, is usually supplied at a rate of 3000 gallons per minute. f^arm buildings and other structures are a relatively unimportant resource in this production area because rf the climatic conditions, enterprises, and marketing structures prevailing. A dwelling, tractor shed-farm shop combination structure, and in some instances an implement shelter, constitute the typical buildings. T Jith the exception of shop facilities and tractor shelter needs, there is little need for increasing either size cr number of buildings as farm size increases. Labor inputs per unit of product vary more in source of labor than in quantity as farm size changes. The operator of the 80-acre farm represents the labor force on that size of farm with only occasional hired labor required at planting and harvesting time and some contracted labor during the cotton chopping season. On the 160-acre farm with the common enterprise organizations, one man is hired for a period varying I g from seven to nine months , depending on the enterprise ratios in the organization. The 320-acre farm operator often spends the bulk of his time in a managerirl capacity, hiring from one to four laborers during the growing season. Two nearly permanent employees must be supplemented during periods of heavy irrigation, cultivation, and planting times by one or two part-time workers. Beyond 320 acres some reduction in labor inputs per unit of output is anticipated as greater specialization can be introduced. However, an analysis of labor cn farms of greater size becomes difficult because of the presence of vertical integration of the farm business, greater diversification, and the accompanying opportunities for shifting laborers to other than on-farm employment and to complementary and supplementary enterprises. Variation in physical resources at the disposal of the operators of different farm sizes is in turn reflected in investment. Total invest- ment increases as farm size increases. Per acre investment, however, declines xvith increasing scale on farms of the type found in this area. A comparison of investments on the I4O farms comprising the sample indicates that the average total investment on those farms classified as 80-acre farms was *£L,200 as compared with $8U,9UO on the 160-acre farms. Per crop acre investments were %&Jh and $562 respectively (Table 3). Increasing farm size from 80 to 160 acres results in an increase in t^tal investment of approximately 68 per cent. The least increase occurred in farm power units and machinery investment, indicating that about the same equipment is capable of farming the l60-acre farm that is necessary to operate the 80-acre farm. The nine synthesized farms on which subsequent analysis is based 3/ exhibit comparable investment patterns (Table U)»— In this comparison, however, it is possible to evaluate the influence of organization as well as size on the level of investment. The resources included for each of the nine farms are these required to perform the production operations in the manner in which they are typically performed as determined in the farm survey. Farm Organizations I and II in each size p.roup consist of cotton, potatoes and alfalfa and the investments in each size group for 3/ A complete inventory of land, buildings, irrigation systems, and equipment with investment values assigned for each of the nine farms is contained in Appendix Tables 1 through J. Note that the farm dwelling is included in these tables, thus the totals vary slightly from these contained in Table k> tax. 2 3 Comparative Capital Investments with x'ercentace Changes by Groups on 00 one. ISO-Acre Cotton-Potato Farms in northern Kern County, 1949 Fara Size (acres) Land Buildings Jells, Pumps, and Irrigation . .Systems. i Far: . Power Units and iiachine.iy Total Investment Average Crop Acres. Investment per .Crop. Acre. 80 (.24,798 $5,315 Oil, 600 9 8,979 051,200 76.0 160 47,984 6,815 19,024 11,117 84,940 151.3 562 +100$ +93. 5% +17.2% +63.9% +23 . 8% +65.9% +99.1% — XO . O/o Sources; (l) Fan.', interview data from 40 sample farms. (2) Appraisal Department, Danl: of America, Bakersfield, California. CO tax. 2 3 Comparative Capital Investments with x'ercentace Changes by Groups on 00 one. ISO-Acre Cotton-Potato Farms in northern Kern County, 1949 Fara Size (acres) Land Buildings Jells, Pumps, and Irrigation . .Systems. i Far: . Power Units and iiachine.iy Total Investment Average Crop Acres. Investment per .Crop. Acre. 80 (.24,798 $5,315 Oil, 600 9 8,979 051,200 76.0 160 47,984 6,815 19,024 11,117 84,940 151.3 562 +100$ +93. 5% +17.2% +63.9% +23 . 8% +65.9% +99.1% — XO . O/o Sources; (l) Fan.', interview data from 40 sample farms. (2) Appraisal Department, Danl: of America, Bakersfield, California. CO TABLE 4 Comparative Investments in Land, Farm Buildings, Tractors, Farm Equipment and Irrigation Facilities on Three Farm Sizes and Three Organisations 1/ Farm Size and Enterprise Organization Investment Items 80 Acres 160 Acres 320 Acrss I and II III. I aadLH UI $48,000 "Tand II $96,000 . III $96,000 Land $24,000 $24,000 $48,000 Farm Buildings 1,315 1,315 2,315 2,315 3,150 3,150 Tractors 2,490 2,490 4,475 A, 475 6,965 6,965 Farm Equipment 3,186 2,691 3,065 2,570 3,946 3,451 Irrigation Facilities 10,504 10,504 18,737 18,737 35,059 35,059 TOTAL $41,495 $41,495 $76,592 $76,097 $145,120 $144,625 Per Acre of Cropland $ 553 $ 547 $ 511 $ 507 $ 484 $ 482 1/ Less farm duelling hut including farm shop as part of tractor shed. TABLE 4 Comparative Investments in Land, Farm Buildings, Tractors, Farm Equipment and Irrigation Facilities on Three Farm Sizes and Three Organisations 1/ Farm Size and Enterprise Organization Investment Items 80 Acres 160 Acres 320 Acrss I and II III. I aadLH UI $48,000 "Tand II $96,000 . III $96,000 Land $24,000 $24,000 $48,000 Farm Buildings 1,315 1,315 2,315 2,315 3,150 3,150 Tractors 2,490 2,490 4,475 A, 475 6,965 6,965 Farm Equipment 3,186 2,691 3,065 2,570 3,946 3,451 Irrigation Facilities 10,504 10,504 18,737 18,737 35,059 35,059 TOTAL $41,495 $41,495 $76,592 $76,097 $145,120 $144,625 Per Acre of Cropland $ 553 $ 547 $ 511 $ 507 $ 484 $ 482 1/ Less farm duelling hut including farm shop as part of tractor shed. 10. the txjo organizations are identical, ^arm Organization III without alfalfa shows a small decline in investment reflecting the absence of haying equip- ment in the machinery inventory. Investment per acre of cropland declines with increasing scale of operations as before but the rate of decline is reduced as a result of limiting the resources included in each size group to those actually required. The survey revealed that small farmers typically had greater farm power and machinery inventories, and in a few instances larger irrigation pumping plants, than were required to perform the typical operations . Resource Utilization, Operating Costs and Scale of Operation The extent to which the physical resources available to the operator of a given farm are utilized determines in large part the cost of these factors on a per unit of input basis. To illustrate the relationship between utilization, cost and scale of operation, the resources on the nine synthetic farms are analyzed. Strict comparability in organization and size has permitted a separation of the effects of scale and organization on utilization and cost. Farm T ractors . — The computed costs for tractor power on the three sizes of farms and three organizations provide a comparison of size and organization influences on scale (Table 5)»— ' Consider first the net relationship between organization and cost, holding farm size fixed. Costs per hour cf operation for the W-3 tractor on the 80-acre farm decline as the enterprise organization includes more cotton and potatoes at the expense of alfalfa, thus increasing annual use of the tractor. Annual use in hours increases from J4I4I hours to 525 hours while the proportion of alfalfa in the organization declines from one-third to zero. Further increase in annual use would occur if more of the alfalfa acreage werp diverted into cotton rather than potatoes because the per acre motive power requirements are greater for cotton than potatoes. The increase in annual use from hhl hours to 525 hours associated strictly with organization changes results in a decline in per hour operating cost from $1,514 to $1»38. Similar comparisons of organization influence on tractor operating ccsts can be drawn. 4/ Appendix Tables U-6 present costs for each tractor on each farm by component parts including overhead, fuel, oil and lubricants, repairs and servicing. Annual total and per hour rates are included for each cost c omponent . TABLiS 5 Total Annual, Per Acre, and Per Hour Tractor Operating Costs on Nine Farms W-2 W-3 DT-3 "Total Annual Tractor Cost 1 Total Annual Tractor Cost pjer Ac. 8.48 6.66 5.81 Organization and Farm Size Total Annual Cost Hours Oper- ated Cost per Hour Operated Total Annual Cost j | Hours | Oper- 1 ated Cost per Hour Operated Total Annual Cost Hours Oper- I ated I Cost per ! Hour Operated Organization SO Acres 160 Acres 320 Acres I 490.76 633.81 651 959 .75 .66 | $ 678.30 625.77 441 418 0 1.54 1.50 \ ! 574.99 598.48 220 287 2.61 2.09 Hr 678.30 1,065.75 1,858.06 Organization II 80 Acres 160 Acres 320 Acres 545.86 662.97 798.5 1112 .68 .60 721.54 740.85 520.5 646 1.39 1.15 578.54 571.51 230 210 2.52 2.72 721.54 1,124.40 1,975.33 9.02 7.03 6.17 Organization m 80 Acres 160 Acres 320 Acres 522.32 593. S2 735 927 .71 .64 724.01 747.79 525 660 1.38 1.13 602.96 626.42 300 367 2.01 1.71 1 i 724.01 1,125.28 1,963.13 i L 9.05 7.03 6.15 • - ■ * ■ ; ;.i.'q f,e 12. Means of comparing size and cost relationships pre less easily demised because the physical output of tractors of various types and sizes does not vary in strict proportion to cost. For example, the output of a DT-3 tracklayer per dollar of cost is different in quantity and quality from that of a W-3, even when the horsepower ratings of the two tractors may be identical. For this reason, per hour operating costs of "tractor power" for the farm as a whole are not valid comparisons. Tractor costs per acre, while less precise than per hour costs, do provide a basis for comparison. With enterprise ratios fixed in any of the three patterns, per acre tractor costs exhibit significant declines as size increases (Figure 1). An average reduction for the three organizations of 22 per cent in per acre costs of operating tractors accompanies the increase in size from 80 to 160 acres (75 to 150 crop acres). Increasing the size from 160 to 320 acres (350 to 300 crop acres) results in an average reduction of approximately 13 per cent. Whether resulting from a shift in organization or size, in all cases the lowered costs reflect greater annual utilization. To illustrate more clearly the net relation of size to cost, the Organization I enter- prise ratio of one-third cotton, alfalfa and ootatoes has been applied to a series of farm sizes from fJO to 120 crop acres and the tractor costs per hour of operation for a W-3 tractor commuted (Table 6 and Figure 2). Per hour operating costs continue to decline as farm size increases but at a decreasing rate. On the $0 crop-acre farm with an annual utilization of 29h hours, the cost per hcur was $2*03 as compared with $1»17 per hour for the 120 crop-acre farm when the annual use is 705,6 hours. The per hour decrease per crop acre data indicates the rate of decrease in declining costs per hour. The apparent constancy in per hour decrease per crop acre occurring over short ranges in size is because of the discontinuity in the data rather than any inherent characteristic of the size-cost relationship. A similar analysis for a DT-3 tractor on Organization II (two-thirds cotton, one-sixth alfalfa, and one-sixth potatoes) with work proportioned among three tractors as on the 320-acre farm, illustrates the relationship between size of farm, annual utilization, and cost per hour cf operation (Table 7 and Figure 3). The decline from $3*91 per hour for lh0 hours of use per year on the 200 crop-acre farm to $2.13 per hour for 280 hours of use on the l t 00 crop-acre farm represents a cost decrease of 16 per cent >fJ.Jl=.v o T3 HI O CL O O O A nnual use—. Cos >t per hour FN 1 1 i i i i i i i i i 640 in O 3 c c 440 ° o o X - 240 120 Size of farm, crop acres Figure 2. Relationship between Hours of Annual Use and Cost Per Hour of Operation for W-3 Tractors on Farms of Selected Sizes and Given Organization. 4.00 3.50 -o 0> CL o 3.00 3 O 2.50 5 2.00. Annuo 1 use - Cost p er hou • — L i i i 1 310 260 5! O =1 210 % **- o o X 110 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 Size of farm, crop acres Figure 3. Relationship between Hours of Annual Use and Cost Per Hour of Operation for DT-3 Tractors on Farms of Selected Sizes and Given Organization. TABLE 6 Utilization and Operating Costs for W-3 Tractors on Farms of Selected Sizes and Given Organization a/ Size of TPar , m nuui s i/jST. rer I Per Hour Decrease in Crop Acres 1 Total Cost ^ Cper?ted Hour Operated Per Crop Acre 50 0 598.01 29h .0 $ 2.03 $ " 55 61U.0U 323.U 1.90 .026 6o 630.ll 352.8 1.79 .022 65 • 6U6.18 382.2 1.69 .020 70 662.21 101.6 1.61 .016 75 678.30 UU1.0 1.5U .011; 80 69U.50 U70.U 1.1*8 .012 85 710. 2h U99.8 1.1*2 .012 90 726.U5 529.2 1.37 .010 95 7U2.2U 558.6 1.33 .008 100 758.56 . 588.0 1.29 .008 105 771;. 62 61? .1* 1.25 .008 110 790.70 6U6.8 1.22 .006 115 806.72 676.2 1.19 .006 120 - — i — 1 822.80 705.6 — 1 1.17 1 .00U \ a/ The acreage on each farm is divided equally between cotton, ootatoes, and alfalfa, irrespective of farm size (Organization I). 15. TABLE 7 Utilization and Operating Costs for DT-3 Tractors on Farms of Selected Sizes and Given Organization a/ q-)7,p of ffaiTB Annual Hcurs Cost Per Fer Hour Decrease _L.il VjJ. i"i^»X w -_J Tnt.al Ho^t, \_/ V^X CX W <^ VX i Hour Operated ; per Cron Acre 200 fp 5U7.08 lho 1 $ 3.91 $ - 210 519.50 1U7 3.7U .017 220 ^1.99 15U 3.58 .016 230 55U.U3 161 3.hk ♦oali 21*0 556.89 168 3.31 .013 250 559.31 175 3.20 .011 260 561.77 182 3.09 .011 270 56U.22 189 2.99 .010 2R0 566.68 196 2.89 .010 290 569.12 203 2.80 .009 300 571.5U 210 ! 2.72 .008 310 57U.OO 217 2.6U .008 ! 320 576.U5 22U 2.57 .007 330 578.91 231 i 2.50 .007 3ii0 581.33 238 1 2.hh .006 350 583.78 2h5 2.38 .006 360 586.23 252 2.32 .006 j 370 588.68 259 2.27 .005 380 591.12 266 j 2.22 .005 390 593.55 273 2.17 .005 i Uoo i 596.01 280 2.13 1 .001; | „ 1 a/ Acreage on each farm, irrespective of size, is allocated in the following ~~ manner: cotton, two-thirds] alfalfa, one-sixth; potatoes, one-sixth (Organization II). 16. accompanying a two-fold increase in farm size. Again the decreasing rate cf cost reduction as size increases is ?nparent in these data. Farm Equipment . — Similar illustrations of the influence of size and organization on operating costs can be derived from the data on equipment use and cost for each of the nine farms. Annual equipment costs vary more with changes in organization within the size group studied but per acre equipment costs varv significantly with size cf farm (Table 8).- TAELE 8 Annual Total and Per Acre Equipment Costs on Mine Farms Organization and Farm Size Total Cost Per Year Per Acre Organization I 80 Acres $ U23.50 $ 5.29 160 Acres U16.26 2.60 320 Acres S26.51 1.65 Organization II 80 Acres 123.68 5.30 160 Acres H6.55 2.60 320 Acres 526.51 1.65 Organization IJI i 80 Acres 355.68 U.U5 l60 Acres 3U7.U5 2.17 320 Acres 1453.00 L . .,, . Uh2 1 While indicating that total equipment costs vary only slightly with changes in size and moderately with organizational variation this table lacks the desired detail to show relations between size of farm, annual use and cost per hour of operation. Therefore, the utilization of two specific pieces of farm equipment has been analysed for a given organization and range of farm sizes (Table 9 and Figure h) . These equipment items are included in the equipment inventory of each of the nine farms and represent large expense items relative to other farm machinery employed. The rapid rate of decline in per hour operating costs as farm size increases in the initial stages indicates the importance of matching farm size and equipment 5/ Appendix Tables 7-9 contain total annual cost, total annual hours of use and cost per hour of operation for each of the nineteen implements commonly used in this type of farming with prevailing technical production practices. TABLE 9 Costs of Operating 4-Row Lister Planters and 2-Row Potato Planters with Fertilizer Attachment on Farms of Selected Sizes and Given Organization a/ 4-Row Lister Planter Per Hour \ Size of Farm Yearly- Cost per Decrease | in Total Hours Hour Per Crop Crop Acres Cost Operated Operated Acre $53.05 10 $5.30 75 53.76 15 3.58 $ .0688 | 100 54.47 20 2.72 .0344 125 55.18 25 2.21 .0204 1 150 55.89 30 1.86 .0140 175 56.60 35 1.62 .0096 1 200 57.31 40 1.43 .0076 225 58.02 45 1.29 .0056 250 58.73 50 1.17 .0048 275 59.44 55 1.08 .0036 300 60.15 60 1.00 .0032 1 325 60.86 65 .94 .0024 j 350 61.57 70 .88 .0024 — RrliOw_PptAto. Planter and .Jkrtiliz . e J*. Attach j j j Per Hour Yearly | ; Cost per j Decrease Total J Hours Hour Per Crop Cos t j Operated _l.0oe.ra ted . Acre $74.65 75.65 76.65 77.65 78.65 79.65 80.65 81.65 82.65 83.65 84.65 85.65 86.65 9.0 08.29 13.6 5.56 § .1092 18.2 4.21 .0540 23.8 3.26 .0380 27.4 2.87 .0156 32.0 2.49 .0152 36.6 2.20 .0116 41.2 1.98 .0088 45.8 1.80 .0072 50.4 1.66 .0056 55.0 1.54 .0048 59.6 1.44 .0040 64.2 1.35 . .0036 a/ Acreage on each farm allocated as follows; potatoes, one-third (Organization II). cotton, two -thirds j alfalfa, one-third.; - • ■ ■■ \6*rO ^A"? S*8i 1 i t • • 1 10.00 0 I— —i l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Size of farm, crop acres Figure 4. Relationship between Cost of Operation of 4-Row Lister Planters and 2-Row Potato Planters on Farms of Selected Sizes and Given Organization. A I 19. capacity if operating costs ore to approach optimum level. Where such equipment is essential to the production process regardless of size of farm, operators of small farms must be prepared to meet heavy equipment operating expenses, arrange for joint ownership or contract its services. Irrigation Equipment . — Irrigation equipment costs include those costs incurred in pumping and distributing water on the farm. Overhead costs must include overhead on the underground distribution system in addition to the well and pump. Power, lubricants, and repair costs are incurred by the pump primarily, though some repair expense may arise with the well and distribution system. Costs per acre foot of water pumped and delivered decline as farm size increases for any given organization. These costs also decline with any change in organization which expands enterprises which consume greater quantities of water relative to the previous organization, though the size- cost relationship appears more pronounced within the common range of alternative organizations (Table 10 and figure $) . v or example, an increase in farm size from 80 to 320 acres with an organization of one-third alfalfa results in a decline in water cost per acre foot from $7. hi to $6.35.— By varying the organization from that above so that the alfalfa acreage on the 80-acre farm is diverted entirely to cotton, water costs increase from $7, hi to $8.U$. These data illustrate the net effect of scale and organization on per unit water costs. The graphic presentation (Figure 5) further indicates the net relationship of size, organization, utilization and cost. Again the reduction in overhead costs per unit of output represents the greatest source of saving as utilization of the facilities is increased whether from size increase or organization variation. A.n analysis of costs of farm pumping plants and underground irrigation systems associated with different farm sizes (where the differences in farm size are measured in small increments) serves to illustrate the influence of indivisibility of resources on costs. Two characteristics cf the use of irrigation resources and their effects on costs are: (1) the per acre foot cost of delivering water ordinarily declines as farm size increases, regardless of what pumping plant is used in the 6/ Alfalfa requires approximately twice the water needed by cotton and nearly three times that applied to potatoes. 20. TABLE 10 Costs of Irrigation Water Pumped and Delivered for Three Organizations and Three Farm Sizes 80 1 60 j.^i CO ^°o A n r»r> 0 Cost Items Total Host Der* V*-' w v |J Total Tost ner Total Cost ner I ■ Cost : Ac • v oot Cost Ac. Foot Cost . p c . Foot f i ' 1 § < I * 1 1 •1? S 1 Organization I 1 I Overhead 2.95 1,118.19 2.58 2,6U3.07 2. Ill Power 1.03U.02 i 3.77 1,923.98 3.51 3,669.81 3.3U Oil and Grease U6.20 j .17 83.16 .15 155.26 .Hi Repairs 114.3.90 i .52 266.89 •2i9 508.69 .I16 Total 2,033.53 7JA 3,692.22 6.73 6,976.83 6.35 Total Acre Feet I 1 Pumped ; 27k.^ 1 L.098.0 Organization II i j Overhead P09.ll 3.15 l,lil8.19 2.76 2,61*3*07 2.57 Power 3.87 1,855.29 3.60 3,517.22 3.1*5 i Oil and Grease U3.30 ! -17 77.96 .15 1U5.53 ! -a 1 Repairs 13U.86 .52 250.12 .19 176.71 .1*6 , Total 1,982.37 | 7.71 3,601.56 7.00 6,812.53 j 6.62 j Total Acre Feet j Pumped ! 257.25 1 5U.5 1*029.0 ' ! Organ j ifciion ill j 1 j t ! Overhead 809. Ill 3.6U j 1,U18.19' 3.18 2,61*3.07 2.97 ; Poxfer 915.80 : U.12 I, 716.51' 3.86 3,293.99 1 3.71 j Oil and Grease 37.1i5 1 .17 ! 67.U2 . .15 125.86 .11 1 Repairs 116.65 .52 216. 31 • U9 li.12.3l .16 Total 1,879.31 i 8.15 3,lil8.l6 ; 7.68 6,1+75.23 7.28 ; Total Acre Feet ! 1 1 ; i Pumped ! 222.5 Ui5.o 890.0 22. organization, and (2) the ver acre foot costs of water for a farm of given size and organization serviceable by two or more plants of varying sizes nay v^ry significantly depending on which plant is used. These characteristics are exhibited by all resources which are not obtainable 7/ in small divisible units.- Often there is physical necessity for adding a larger pumping plant before the smaller pumping plant's capacity has been reached. Put as scale of operation increases the operating cost of the larger plant usually falls below the minimum for the previous plant if size of farm increases sufficiently to permit near optimum rate cf utilization. This relationship between water costs and annual use of different sizes of irrigation equipment can be illustrated with water costs from the three sizes of pumping plants (Table 11 and Figure 6). The enterprise ratios are fixed as in Organization I. Fann size is varied over a range where substitutability between plants is both physically feasible and representative of actual substitutions which have been found. In each case costs per acre foot decline ?s farm size increases but at a decreasing rate. The rate of decline in cost as farm size increases indicates the range of farm sizes on which the cost of water when delivered by given plants would te considered economical given the cost and price levels. For examnle, the 80-acre plant will deliver water at a cost vrhich declines relatively rabidly as farm size is increased to the maxinum serviceable by that plant size. At the other extreme, the cost of water from the 320-acre plant exhibits a relatively slew rate of decline over a wide range of farm sizes. The particular set of wells and pumps chosen to deliver the total outnut of water for each cf the three sizes influences markedly the level of the cost functions (Figure 6). Since two pumps, one of 700 GPM and the other 900 GPM output, vrere used cn the 160-acre farms the water cost would differ from that based on a single pumping plant delivering 1,600 GFM.- Cn the 320-acre farm where four plants were used, it is probable that a higher cost per acre foot for water prevails than if two 1,500 GFM plants had been used. 7/ Costs per unit may remain constant or increase with increased, use where conditions o p constant or decreasing returns to scale prevail but decreasing costs per unit are tynical for production resources on the farms studied. TABLiS 11 Cost of Pumping and Delivering Irrigation Water on Farms of Selected Sizes with Comparable Organization with Three Sizes of Pumping Plants a/ Size of Farm in Crop Acres 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 Annual Total Cost 01,409.62 1,762.09 2,033.53 2,272.61 2,470.94 Cost per Acre Foot Punped B0_Acrs_Plan_t (9,00 _GPM) I 16~0 Acre PlVnVTloOO ~G?M) ; 320 Acre Plant ,(3,000 GPM) 15.41 9.63 7.41 6.21 5.40 Annual Total Cost 2,912.44 3,188.37 3,451.65 3,692.22 3,905.02 4,104.47 4,303.92 4,503.37 ! Cost per Acre Foot Pumpe d 10.61 8.71 7.54 6.73 6.10 5.61 5.22 A. 92 Annual Total Cost 5,810.78 6,074.17 6,337.58 6,565.81 6,787.85 6,976.83 7,176.97 7,377.12 7,577.27 7,777.41 Cost per Acre Foot Pump ed. a/ Organizations consist of one-third cotton, one-third potatoes, and one- third alfalfa. q bopsr 2U. No evidence of increasing per acre foot coats for wa.ter as size continues to increase with a given plant is available* Cn no farm studied were pumping olants so small in relation to farm size that increasing costs arose because of excessive utilization. Nor wps there evidence of decreased returns from loxv'er yields directly traceable to insufficient water inputs. Rather, larger plants than physically required under present conditions of water availability were commonly found, which led to higher costs resulting from inadequate annual use. Unit Producti on Costs and Scale of Operation Differences in net production costs associated with farm size mav originate in physical production practices, in utilization of factors of production, in factor purchasing advantages or any combination of the three. Variations in practices and factor utilization on farms of different scale have been discussed previously. Sources of advantage in the purchase of factors of oroduction were presented in the first publication in this . 8/ series.— Production costs for cotton and notatoes based on ±9h9 cost-price data have been commuted p or each of the nine farms. Alfalfa oroduction costs have been computed for each farm in the first two organizations but 9 1 were not included in the third organization (^ables 12 through lH).- Prices of inputs as established in previous analysis are aoplied to units of inputs cn a per acre basis to ascertain the total cost per acre. Cost per unit of output is obtained by dividing the per acre yield into per acre cost. The summary cost tables contain only group totals. The six groups are labor, contracted and piece work, motive power, farm equipment, materials and miscellaneous. The costs shown represent direct and indirect expenses of production assuming that there are no idle resources on each of the farms. This 8/ Giannini foundation of Agricultural Economics Himeo. F.eport No. 137 9 1 Apnendix Tables 10 through 1? contain detailed production costs for each farm and enterprise. Slight variation between costs in these tables and those appearing in Mime©;. Reoort No. 137 arise from changes in farm enterprise organization and therefore in annual utilizations Rates for purchased factors such as tractor fuel, repairs, labor, etc. remain unchanged. TABLE 12 Comparative Costs of Producing Cotton Per Acre and Per Bale on Nine Fanas with Selected Organization, 1949 Costs and Prices Cost Groups Labor Contracted and Piece Work a/ Motive Power Farm Equipment Materials Miscellaneous Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Bale (Yield 2.1 bales) Farms Orga nization I, I Or ganization II { Organi za t ion, ,111 _j .80 Acres jl60 Acres , ,320 Acres j80 Acres jl 60 Acres j 320 Acres] SO Acre s! 160* Acres j 320" Acre sj $ 19.04 135.64 13.52 8.99 37.42 21.26 § 17.02 135.64 9.95 4.45 35.25 21.37 235.37 223.68 112.32 106.51 $ 16.42 135.64 9.25 3.14 34.03 21.41 219.89 104.71 0 19.04 !§ 17.02 !§ 16.62 $ 19.04 iO 17.02 \$ 16.52 135.64 I 135.64 j 135.64 12.32 5.35 38.38 9.36 2.59 36.11 21.26 i 21.37 3.74 1.77 34.89 21.41 135.64 12.24 4.93 40.75 135.64 8.74 2.43 38.29 21.26 j 21.38 ! 231.99 i 110.47 222.09 105.76 219.07 j 233.91 j 223.50 104.32 ! 111.39 ! 106.43 I 104.78 135.64 | 7.81 1.63 37.01 21.42 220.03 a/ Includes picking and ginning. to AY TABLE 13 Comparative Costs of Producing Potatoes Fer Acre and Per Bale on Nine Farms with Selected Organization, 194-9 Costs and Prices Farms L/Obl LrXUu.(Jo Organizatior t I i Organization II Organization III 80 Acres j 160 Acres 320 Acres 1 80 Acres 160 Acres 320 Acres 80 Acres 160 Acresj 320 Acres Labor ■ ■ I $ 13.32 | j § 12.74 ] 0 12.48 # 13.32 $ 12.74 $ 12.46 & 13.32 ! ' 0 12.74 1 12.64 i ! I Contracted and Piece Uork a/ 233.30 233.30 233.30 233.30 233.30 233.30 233.30 233.30 I 233.30 ! Motive Power 7.70 8.89 6.92 6.95 8.49 5.30 6.90 7.12 ! 5.68 ; I Farm Equipment 6.65 3.23 ■ l.BB 9.87 4.94 2.79 5.69 2.79 1.59 Materials 159.10 157.40 156.46 159.86 158.08 157.13 161.70 159.78 1 158.78 i Miscellaneous 21.28 21.36 21.35 21.27 21.35 21.34 21,28 21.36 | 21.35 Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Cwt. (Yield 290 Cwt.) 441.35 1.52 436.92 1.51 432.39 i.49 444.57 1.53 438.90 1.51 432.32 1.49 442.19 1.52 i 437.09 j 433.34 1.51 1.49 i i I 1 1 a/ Including shed costs. .. . ...... - . TABLE 14 Comparative Costs of Producing Alfalfa Per Acre and Per Bale on Six Farms with Selected Organization, 1949 Costs and Prices Farms Cost Groups Organization I Organization II 80 Acres; 160 Acres 320 Acres 80 Acres 160 Acres j 320 Acres Labor $ 9.40 $ 9.16 $ 8.98 $ 9.40 0 9.16 0 9.13 Contracted and Piece Work a/ 41.23 41.23 41.23 41.23 41.23 41.23 Motive Power 7.08 3.45 3.22 6.39 3.13 2.92 Farm Equipment 2.65 1.36 .71 5.28 2.70 1.49 Materials 39.12 35.53 33.53 40.71 36.96 34.95 Miscellaneous 30.33 30.32 29.31 30.16 30.39 30.14 Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Ton (Yield 3 1/2 Tons) 1 — 129.81 15.27 121.05 14.24 116.98 13.76 133.17 15.67 123.57 14.54 119.91 14.11 i j a/ Includes baling and roads iding. ■ » 28. assumption is wrranted for resources on the farm sizes and organizations considered, with the exception of the 80-aere farm where the farm operator may not be fully employed. VJhere his time is net fully utilized, the cost data presented tend to understate the actual cost advantages accruing to larger scales of operation. Indirect labor costs, in contrast to direct labor expenses, would be greater on the smaller farms than are shown in these tables. This assumption is relaxed in the final section when total farm earnings pre considered. Both scale of operations and organization influence the level of cotton production costs, though the impact of scale is more pronounced (Table 12). A reduction of approximately $£*0G per bale accompanies an increase in scale from 80 to 160 acres for any of the three organizations. With Organization I the reduction is $U.71 with Organization II and $U.°6 with Organization III. Comparing the 80-acre organizations with those of 320 acres, the reductions are $7.6l, $6.15, and $6.6l respectively for Organizations I through III. The major reduction occurs as size increases from 80 to 160 acres indicating that the 160 acre unit is of adequate size to make efficient use of motive power, farm equipment, and other resources which are to varving degrees indivisible. The differences do not appear large but for the entire production of cotton the savings are sizeable, ^or example, the $0 acres of cotton on the 80-acre farm in Organization III is produced for a total cost of ( *'ll, 695.50— while 50 acres on the 320-acre farm of the same organization cost only * 11, 001. 50, a saving of *69li on 50 acres of the total 200 nlanted on the larger farm. The influence of organization on costs is less pronounced. Increasing the acreage of high cost and high return crops such as cotton and potatoes and decreasing that of alfalfa reduces costs for cotton but not consistently, ^or example, by shifting from Organization I to II which requires a doubling of cotton and a 50 per cent reduction in potato and alfalfa acreage the per bale production cost of cotton declines only $1.85. By omitting the alfalfa and diverting the released alfalfa acreage entirely to potatoes (Organization III) the cotton production cost from Organization I to III falls only $ .93. Other comparisons can be made to illustrate the relationship between organizational changes and cost per unit of output but in all cases included in this study, the impact of scale on production costs overshadows that of organization. 29. An analysis of potato production cost data reveals a similar relationship between scale, organization and production costs (Table 13). Per acre costs, rather than per unit of output costs, are used in these comparisons because the large yields per acre in terms of hundredweights tend to hide actual variations. Per acre costs decline y5»07 on the average for the three organizations as size of farm increases from 80 to 160 acres.. An additional average decline of $10*02 accompanies a further increase in si".e to 320 acres. This pattern of decline in cost as size increases does not duolicate that observed with cotton. A larger relative decline in cotton production costs accompanied the initial increase in size to 160 acres as compared with the change occurring between 160 and 320 acres. In the case of potatoes, the track-laying tractor and the potato planter are relatively more costly to operate than the wheel tractors and lighter equipment used in cotton production. Therefore, the introduction of the tracklayer with its limited use partially offsets the reduction in cost accompanying the increase in size to 160 acres-. The decline in equipment cost reflects primarily the increased use of the one expensive implement, the potato planter. While the influence of scale on potato production costs is more pronounced than that of organization, the latter does affect the level of costs by changing the utilization of resources. For example, potato production costs rise when the potato acreage is reduced by 50 per cent from Organization I to II. The elimination of alfalfa in the organization and the altered pattern of water utilization accompanying this change is largely responsible for an increase in per acre potato production costs though total acreage and potato acreage remain unchanged. Organizations T and III indie -te this relationship for all three farm sizes. Alfalfa is included in only two organizations. This limits the range of observed scale and organization influences on costs bat both are in evidence (Table lU). Production costs per ton decline from *,l5.27 to $13.76 as size increases from 80 to 320 acres given an organization of equal acreages of cotton, potatoes, and alfalfa. Where alfalfa is reduced to one-sixth the total acreage of the farm, costs decline from $15.67 to *llu.ll when farm size increases from 80 to 320 acres. A better utilization of haying and irrigation equipment on the organization with greater alfalfa acreage accounts for the major difference in per acre and per ton costs between Organizations I and II. 30. • The impact of scale is greater than that of organization for all three enterprises examined though both clearly influence the level of production costs. These costs must be considered as guides since other sets of assumptions regarding cost-price levels or enterprise organizations would alter these computed costs. It must also be emphasized that the level of costs for any individual farmer's operation will reflect his equipment, practices, choice of enterprise, organization, method of marketing, financing and a wide range of other factors which in turn reflect in part his individual view toward risk and uncertainty. Vor example, with adequate present and expected capital, a favorable attitude toward increased mechanization, sufficient present and expect ed cotton acreage, an operator might purchase a cotton picking machine which could conceivably lower his cotton production costs by $20 per bale. Total ^arm Ear ni ngs and Scale of Operation Specific operating costs and production costs for each enterprise on farms of varying size and organization have been developed and compared. Sources of savings to the operators of larger farms have been discovered in the acquisition and operation of specific resources. A knowledge of the places in the farm business where costs can be reduced with changes in resource utilization through alteration of organization or increase in scale is highly useful to the individual operator. But, he should be aware of the effects of such changes on total farm expenses and gross and net returns, for cost reductions achieved by means of organizational shifts may result in wide variation in gross and net incomes. This section focuses attention on the total farm earnings of the nine farms analyzed under two sets of assumptions, ^irst, the assumption is maintained as in previous analysis that the farm operator on each farm size is fully employed. Secondly, this assumption is relaxed in the interest of obtaining a more accurate indication of the total impact of scale of operation on earnings. Any farm contains resources which are fixed in quantitv and adaptability. On the smaller farms in this study area, the principal resource in this category appears to be the farm operator himself, specifically as a fixed farm labor supply. The total farm ludget analysis and conventional measures of farm earnings indicate the relationships between scale, organization and 31. earnings (Table %§>\M? Four common measures of earnings are computed for each farm-. Net Farm Income, Labor Income, Management Income (or Profits) and Farm Capital Earrings. Net Fang Income, the basic measure from which the others are derived, is commuted by subtracting from the sum of cash receipts and inventory increases, the sum of cash expenses and depreciation. Cn this type of farm, inventory changes of the kind considered in this calculation are uncommon. Labor Income (more precisely labor and. management income of the farm operator and family) is computed by subtracting from Net Farm Income an estimated charge for the use of the capital invested in the business. An interest rate of $ per cent is used in this study. An earning designed to reflect the residual accruing to the operator for his services as a manager, Management Income, is normally calculated by subtracting from cash receipts plus inventory increases the sum of the following; (1) cash expenses, (2) depreciation, • (3) unpaid operator's labor, (k) unpaid family labor, and ($) interest on investment. In this study no subtraction fcr unpaid family labor was made since the use of family labor was either negligible cr cash payments were made to members of the family for work performed. T? ar m capital earnings is a residual measure cf return on the capital of the farm. It is obtained by subtracting the gross expenses (cash expenses, depreciation, value of unpaid operator's and family labor) from the gross receipts including any inventory increase. Regardless of measure considered, total farm earnings are significantly greater on larger farms. Organization exerts strong influence on level of earnings but the individual operator cannot achieve total earnings on the small farm equal tc those of larger operators by adjusting his organization alone. However, the return cn investment measured in percentage terms 10/ Appendix Tables 18 through 20 present cash expenses and receipts in detail for each cf the nine farms . 1,1/ An explanation of seme of the elements of the comparative measures will assist in interpreting the data presented in this table. Gross receipts and cash receipts are synonymous in this study since inventory increases of products held for sale cn these summer cash crop farms is uncommon. Cash expenses are the product of individual per acre enterprise, costs and acreage, using acreage and per acre costs from the appropriate farms. -Total investment for each farm on which the interest charge is based represents the total investment in all resources for each given farm. Unpaid operator's labor consists of the value cf the labor actually performed by the operator as determined from the calendars of operations. Total unpaid operator's labor is the product of hours devoted to each task and the appropriate rate of pay for each task. TABLE 15 Summary of Farm Budget Analysis and Comparative Earnings for Nine Farms Comparative Measures i Gross Receipts^/ Cash Expenses Depreciation j Gross Expenses Met Farm Income Interest on Investment 5$ Operator's and Fami ly's Labor Income Unpaid Oper- ator's Labor Management Income Net Farm Income Unpaid Oper- ator's Labor Farm Capital Earnings 80 floras ,11 , , .farm Slaa and Organic M 28,337.64 19,459.14 1,016.79 20,475.93 j 19,154.25 0 h -IIL 27,237.78 j 33,012.78 ! 56,675.28 j 54,475.55 18,137.46 ! 22,131.22 i 37,914.59 7,861.71 2,074.75 5,786.96 1,055.78 4,731.18 7,861.71 1,016.79 ! 972.24 23,103.46 9,909.32 8,083.53 2,074.75 6,008.78 1,188.18 4,820.60 8,083.53 1,055.78 I 1,188.18 6,805.93 j 6,895.35 ($ of Investment) 16»4$ ' 16.6$ 2,050.00 7,359.32 785.72 7,073.60 9,909.32 785.72 9,123.60 1,566.13 39,430.72 17,194.56 3,829.60 13,364.96 895.94 12,469.02 17,194.56 895.94 16,298.62 21.3$ 17,724.30 3,829.60 13,894.70 794.16 13,100.54 17,724.30 794.16 16,930.14 22.1$? L 320 Acrps TTT I II I L III : 1 SP JL 66,025.55 1 13 „ 3^0 ^5 > -j — ' — t , v j^j . j j 1108,951.10 '132,051.10 4-? , <-x f • >-l \ 75,054.77 j 69,649.74 85,756.89 1,521.58 ! 2,590.19 2,545.64 44,738.79 77,644.96 ! 72,239.93 88,302.53 21,286.76 35,705.59 36,711.17 /3 0 7/8.^7 3,804.85 7,256.00 7,256.00 7,231.25 17,481.91 28,449.59 29,455.17 36,517.32 toy, /o 676.30 • 768.42 620.28 16,712.15 27,773.29 23,686.75 35,897.04 21,286.76 35,705.59 36,711.17 43,748.57 769.76 I 676.30 768.42 620.28 1 20,517.001 35,029.29 35,942.75 j 43,128.29 27.0$! 24.1$ 24.8$! 29.8$ » ui ^cinx^ci oxuns 3 urganxza-oxon x, cotton x/j, potatoes 1/3, alfalfa 1/ cotton 2/3, potatoes 1/6, alfalfa l/6j Organization III, cotton 2/3, potatoes 1/3.' b/ Synonymous with cash receipts in this study. V_0 K3 > • 3 \ C°! c?sy x-ec ■ 33. indicates that the small operator can raise his returns on his money invested to nearly the level attained by the larger fanners. Reduction of these data to a per crop acre basis facilitates comparison of scale and organization effects on individual farm earnings (Table 16). Significant increases in earnings on a per crop acre basis are indicated with all four measures, ^or example, Management Income which is frequently referred, to as "profit" in this scheme of measurement increases from ^63 to approximately ^92. %0 per acre as farm size increases from 80 to 320 acres with Organization I assumed in both cases (Figure 7). This is an increase of nearly 1+7 per cent. Of equal or greater importance is the fact that the same percentage increase in per acre profit can be attained through organizational change on the 80-acre farm by transferring the alfalfa acreage to cotton. This conclusion and all others are predicated on the 19U9 cost-price relationships, a given technology, and an assumption of fully employed resources at the farm level. Slight alterations in these assumptions would lead to different results. The range of earnings which can be derived from a farm of given size through organizational change is of vital concern to the individual small farm operator with the desire to expand his farm business hut lacking the necessary capital to increase the physical size of his farm through purchase. Capital for additional production expenses must be available if the greater resource-consuming enterprises are to be expanded, but the returns to these production expenditures are relatively greater than the returns accruing to expenditures for purchase of additional physical plant in the form of land and equipment. The possibility of leasing additional land must be recognized but conditions of leasing and bases of rental payment vary so widely that its inclusion is difficult. This does not mean that additional expenditures in l~nd and equipment are uneconomic for the small farmer for such is not the case. Cn the contrary, the smaller farm operator can increase his earnings by either increasing his scale of operations or shifting his limited resources to the more intensive higher cost-higher income enterprises. However, the operator with relatively limited capital may well receive greater returns on his money through the latter course. Again it is desirable to indicate that the assumed level of costs and prices yields these results and other sets of assumptions might alter the findings, at least in degree. TABLE 16 Comparative Earnings per Crop Acre for Mine Farns Farm Size and Organization &/ Comparative == 80 Acres 160 Acres 320 AnrftR Measures i 1 ? _ m I h 9 - 1 III II hi -1 Net Farm Income ■it* 104.82 i 107.78 i 132.12 ! S 114.63 118.16 : » ■ 141.91 o 119.02 1 122.37 145.83 Operator's and Family's Labor Income 77.16 80.12 104.79 89.10 92.63 ! | 116.55 94.83 98; 18 1 j 121.72 ; Management Income 63.08 64.27 94.31 83.13 87.34 111.41 92.58 95.62 j 119.66 Fana Capital Earnings 90.75 91.94 121.65 i 108.66 j 112.87 i 136.78 116.76 119.81 j i 143.76 a/ Constituents of organizations s Organization I, cotton 1/3, potatoes 1/3, alfalfa 1/3; Organization II, cotton 2/3, potatoes 1/6, alfalfa 1/6; Organization III, cotton 2/3, potatoes 1/3. « 140 o o k. o> Q. 10 a o 9) E o o c c cr o c o 120 100 80 60 i tWj_LJ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i _l_L..i, 1 I -1-1,11 100 300 150 200 250 Size of farm, acres Figure 7. Relationship of Scale of Operations and Management Income on Three Systems of Enterprise Organization. 350 36. The assumption of fully employed resources on each farm has teen adhered to in the preceding analysis. Relaxing this assumption by charging the cost of available (and fixed) labor against the farm business for each farm indicates that the advantages accruing to large farms (and disadvantages to smaller farms) have been understated. To illustrate, the ner acre earnings for the three farms of Organization I have been commuted charging the farm business for available labor not actually engaged in productive pursuits on the farm at the prevalent rate of pK9 for the lowest paying task customarily performed by the operator (Table 17). — ' Relatively large reductions occur in the earnings of the 80-acre farm where the greatest amount of "unemployment" for the operator is found to exist. Management income declines approximately 25 per cent when wages are charged against the farm business by the operator when he is not employed in productive pursuits . TABLE 17 Comparative Earnings Per Crop Acre for Three ^arms with Organization I Charging Actual Labor Performed and Labor Available Against the Farm lusiness Size of ^ arm Comparative j 875 " c res j "To Olcres j 320 Acres Earnings Labor jFerf crme r. w x ij ; Labor d! Available r Labcr Performed Labor Available Labor j Labor Performed] Available) « Fan? cement J % 92.58 : $ 89.3U i 1 ! Income ; 663.08 | $1*8.31 i % 83.13 | 78. 5U ' Farm Capital i j j :, 116.76 1 113.52 ! 1 1 ! Earnings i j 90.75 | 75.97 1 i 1 108.66 iou.07 This last portion of the total farm analysis serves only to illustrate the general problem of the influence of less thMI full employment of the fijced labor resource on the farm. Further studv of the value of the farmer's out -ait for the many necessary tasks performed other than actual field work must be conducted in order to more accurately measure the exact "cost" of this employment at tasks yielding lower returns, The above computation might best be viewed as the lower and upper limit of earnings 12/ Eighty cents per hour in all cases for this analysis. No change in Net Farm Income or Operator's and Family's Labcr Income measures occurs with this relaxation of assumptions since unpaid operator's labcr does not enter into the calculation of these measures. 37. since in essence the assumption of no employment other than field tasks was compared with that of full employment of the farm operator as laborer. All farm earnings measures indicate that the greatest per acre advantages develop when increasing from 80 to 160 acres, the increments arising thereafter being significant but considerably smaller. This reflects directly the use made of the factors of production at the disposal of the farm operator, an important part of which is his own l^bcr resource. An institution?! 1 characteristic of American farms is that the farm operator supplies at least some portion of the labor, and, in a large percentage of the cases, the major la K or supply. In these latter instances, a condition of full time employment does not always prevail. It is to this problem that the above analysis is directed and it has served to focus attention on the economic implications of the operator's joint function as owner, manager, and laborer. Summary and Conclusions The scale of operations on cotton-potato farms in Northern Kern County directly affects the utilization of resources, costs of production and returns to the farm operator. Changes in enterprise organization also result in shifts in utilization, costs, and returns. The small operator's need for sufficient income for himself and family necessitates a more strict adhprence to the two primary cash crops, cotton and potatoes. Thus, greater flexibility in enterprise organization appears to accompany increasing scale of operation. M inor differences in production practices and. available resources are found on farms of different sizes. In terms of total investment per crop acre in all resources other than labor, the 80-acre farm with cotton, potatoes, and alfalfa requires an investment of $553, the 160-acre farm |gll, and the 320-acre farm $h p 'h» These observed reductions in investment with increasing farm size reflect the fact that seme required yet expensive resources such as farm equipment can service a range of farm sizes. Utilization of resources can thus be viewed as a function of size though the influence of organization must also be recognized. To illustrate, the cost per hour of operation for a W-3 tractor on a ^O-acre farm with equal acreages of cotton, potatoes, and alfalfa in the organization is $2.03 using l$k9 data. On a 120-acre farm with identical organization, the cost is *1.17 per hour. Annual use varies from 29h hours on the <0-sere farm to 706 hours on the 120-acre farm. Hith two organizations of an 80-acre farm the ¥-3 tractor costs $1*51; per hour to operate where it is used hhl hours and only $1*38 per hour with hours of annual use. Equipment costs and costs for pumoing water exhibit the same relationships. For example, an increase in farm size from 80 to 320 acres with an organization of one-third each of cotton, potatoes, and alfalfa results in a decline in water cost per acre foot from |7, la to ?6.3$. Production costs of specific crops on a per unit of output basis vary with both size and organization. Depending on which of three organizations is selected for analysis, the cost per bale for producing cotton varies between ^112. 32 and f>110*l|7 on the 80-acre farm. For comparable organi- zations on 160-acre farms the cost varies between f 106*51 and $105.76, and on the 320-acre farm the limits are *10ii.78 and $10in32. These are based on a yield of 2.1 bales oer acre, 19U9 costs and production practices. Both potato and alfalfa production costs decline with increasing size of farm. The influence of organization on costs is less pronounced within the range of alternative enterprise organizations considered in this study. Changes in scale and organization provide means of reducing costs on indi-T.dual farms but the impact of these changes on the net farm income must be evaluated before any alteration is undertaken. The analysis of the earnings of the nine farms of three sizes reveals that total farm earnings are significantly greater on larger farms. Organization also exerts strong influence on the net farm income because of its impact on gross receipts. Pti individual farm operator can vary his net income over a significant range with no change in size of farm. It was found that if a farm organization with equal acreages of cotton, potatoes, and alfalfa is of 80 acres in size, a management income of $63 per acre can be expected under 19l;9 cost and price levels. The same organization on 320 acres will yield a management income of $92.50 per acre. But, by transferring the alfalfa acreage to cotton on the 80-acre farm, the same increase in per acre management income can be obtained with no increase in size of farm. |n organizational change on the 320-acre farm to cotton and potatoes alone 39. increases management income to 8 new level on that size also, which precludes the chance for the small farm operator to equate his net returns to those o r the large operator if organizations are comparable. These findings are particularly relevant to the operators of small farms — those of 160 acres and less. Those operators with limited capital resources who desire to expand their incomes may also benefit from the data presented in this report. Additional study of employment of small farm operators at other than field tasks must be undertaken before the costs accruing to small farms because of underemployed resources can be quantified, though the upper and lower limits of these costs have been established. ho* APPENDIX TAPLE 1 Physical Pesources and Investments Required for Three Organizations of an 80 Acre Farm Physical Resources I Organization I~~ I ; TcTaT ment per | Invest- Unit I ment Land, 80 Acres Buildings Dwelling Tractor Shed Shop-Storage Shed Irrigation System 900 G.P.r. iJell and pump | 7,015 Underground Concrete System 3,1+89 i Motive Power $ 300 ! )+,5oo hoo 915 W-3 Tractor r arm Equipment 10' Cultipacker 2 -Row Cultivator 2 -Row Fertilizer Attach. l+-Row Lister li-Row Lister Planter 7' Offset Disk Harrow 2-Row Potato Planter and Fertilizer Attachment 2-16" (2-w?y) Plow 7 ' Power Mower 8' Side Delivery Rake 12' Spike Harrow 2-Row Stalk Cutter 6' Steel Roller TO r "fL IMVr.STITTTT 2,1+90 210 180 75 315 U05 31+1 570 325 180 315 60 95 115 $21^000 5,815 io,5ol+ 2,1+90 Organization II 3,186 Invest- ment lei Unit § 300 li,5oo hoo 915 7,015 3,U89 2,1+90 Total Invest- ment $2l+,000 Organiz at i o_n_II J Invest- Total ment perj Invest- Unit ! ment 300 |2U,0Q0 5,815 10,501+ 2,1*90 l+,5oo hoo 915 7,oi5 3,1+89 5,815 10,501+ 2,1+90 I 2,1+90 210 210 1 180 180 1 75 75 315 315 i 1+05 1+05 i 31+1 31+1 I 570 570 j. i 325 325 180 • 315 60 6o 95 95 H5 3,186 115 2,691 $1+5,995 | §1+5,500 111. APPENDIX TABLE 2 Physical Resources and Investments Required for Three Organizations of a 160 £cre Farm Physical Resources ■ Organization I ■Organization II • Organization Till Invest- ment per Unit Total Invest- ment I Invest- Total ment per; Invest-' Unit ment - Invest-) Total j ment petf Invest-, Unit j ment j 1 J Land, 160 Acres 1 $. 300 $U8,000 $ 300 ||U8,ooo '• | 300 !ftU8,000 ! Buildings ■ 1 i [ ; Dwelling U,500 1 U,5oo ii.,500 • Tractor Shed 750 i 750 i 7^0 1 1 Shop-Storage Shed (equipned)l, 565 6,81$ ' 1,565 j 6,815 : 1,565 1 6,815 ! ■ I Irrigation System ; I { 900 &.P,K. Well and Pump 7,015 \ 7,oi5 j 7,015 ! 1 700 G.P.!". Well and Pump L.600 i U,6oo l 1 j- U,6oo ! i ; Underground Concrete Systen i 7,122 18,737 1 7,122 i 18,737 7,122 , 18,737,1 1 i i ! Fotive Power i ! j j W-2 Tractor l,U85 i l,U85 1 1,U85 DT-3 Tractor 2,990 U,U75 i 2,990 : U,U75 2,990 : U,l75 j Farm Equipment J . i i i ; 1 , 8' Chisel 305 305 305 10 1 Cultipacker 210 210 210 j 2 -Row Cultivator 180 180 [ 180 i ) 2-Row fertilizer Attach. 75 1 75 i 75 1 -3 2-Row Lister 170 170 1 170 U-Row Lister Planter Uo5 I Uo5 i 1 Uo5 i i 7-jj' Offset Disk Harrow 3F-5 385 385 2-Row Potato Flanter and 570 i 570 570 fertilizer attachment i i i j 7' Power M cwer 180 ! 180 i 8' Side Delivery Rake 315 ! 315 i I i 12 • Spike Harrow 60 60 I 6o ! 2-Row Stalk Cutter 95 ! 95 95 6' Steel Roller 115 3,065 ■ 115 : 3,065 115 i 2,570 TOTAL FHr^TT'EHT $81,092 i 181,092 $80,597 A' 3 PENDI? TABLE 3 Physical Resources and Investments Required for Three Organizations of a 320 Acre Farm U2, Physical Resources | Organization I , Organization II Organization III 1 Invest- ment per Unit Total | Invests ment i i Invest- Total ment per Invest- Unit i ment i Invest- Total . ment per Invest- Unit ment \ I 300 Land, 320 ,\cres Buildings Dwelling 6, 000 Tractor Shed | 1,100 Shop-Storage Shed (equipped) 2, 050 Irrig.-tior. System 3-700 O.P.M.Wells and Pimps' 13,800 1-900 G.P.M.Well and Pump' j 7,015 Underground Concrete tll*,2l;l* System j $96,000!$ 300 | $96,000 1 $ 300 j£96,000 9,150 35,059 Motive Power W-2 Tractor W-3 Tractor DT-3 Tractor 2,ii90 2,990 6,965 6,000 1,100 2,050 13*800 7,015 1)4, 2UU 1, U85 2, k90 2,990 9,150 6,000 1,100 2,050 i 13,800 j 7,015 ,059 ' lU,2Hi* 35 ^ 1 9,150 35,059 6,965 1,1*8$ 2,1*90 2,990 6,965 Farm Equipment j «' Chisel 305 305 1 305 10' Cultipacker 210 210 | 210 2-2 Row Cultivators 360 ! 360 ; 360 ! 2-2 Row Fertilizer Attach* 150 ! i5o : 150 ]*-Rcw Lister 315 i 315 315 l*-Row Lister Planter 1*05 j U05 i 1*05 7' Offset Disk Harrow 3l*i ! 31*1 ! 31*1 10' Offset Disk Harrow 525 i 525 : 525 7 ' Power Mower 180 j 180 2 -Row Potato Planter and 570 ; $10 ! 570 Fertilizer Attachment 8' Side Delivery Rake 315 ! 315 ~~~ 12 ' Snike Harrow 60 j 60 1 6o 2- T, ow Stalk Cutter * 95 95 j 6' Steel Roller 115 i 3,91*6 115 j 3 > 91*6 n5 3,1*51 | ^OT'L IT!VE < " , T 1l ' r RU rr j 151, 120 . k P-51,120 150,625 APEEHDIX TABLE 4 Annual Utilization, Total Cost, and Cost Per Hour of Operation for Fam Tractors on the Three Farms of Organization I Farm Tractors Annual and Use Cost Items (hours) W-2 Overhead Fuel Cylinder Oil i Other Oil and Grease Repairs Servicing Total ¥-3 * Overhead Fuel : Cylinder Oil Other Oil and Grease i Repairs • Servicing J Total DT-3 Overhead Fuel Cylinder Oil Other Oil and Grease Repairs Servicing Total 441 80 Acres , Total 'Cost per Annual Hour Cost .Operated 362.73 199.60 29.77 3.25 74.70 678.30 1.54 Annual Use (hours_}_ " 651 220 l6p, Acr.es Total" (Co Annual Cost $216.60 187.26 39.04 4.62 31.19 12,05 490.76 435.40 44.43 24.71 1.56 62.79 6,10 574.99 t per ! Hour Pj^rated_ .75 Annual Use (hours ~ 959 320 Acres. Total Cost per U 418 287 2 ±r 1 Annual . .OP. §A _ 0216.6O 303.93 57.54 6.79 31.19 _17. 76 633.81 362,73 171.83 28.22 2.96 52.29 625.77 435.40 57.98 32.30 2,03 62.79 _ Z*SS 598.48 Hour 0p_erated_ .66 1.50 2.09 APF3S3BIX TABLE 5 Annual Utilization, Total Cost, and. Cost Per Hour of Operation for Farm Tiv.ctor on the Three Panas of Organization II Farm Tractors and Cost Items W-2 Overhead Fuel Cylinder Oil Other Oil and Grease Repairs Servicing Total W-3 Overhead Fuel Oil Annual ' Use Khoursl P.O. Acre A Total Annual Cost I 520.5 Cylinder WJ a Other Oil and Grease j .ie pairs Servicing Total DT-3 Ovei-head Fuel Cylinder Oil Other Oil and Grease Repairs | Servicing Total jCost per Hour Operated. 160 Acres 362.73 235.54 35.ll! 3. S3 74«70 1 ... 9.61 : 721.54 ; Annual Use (hoursj ~ 79SV5 1.39' 230 Total Annual . Cos.V §216.60 229.73 4-7.90 5.66 31.19 _14.78 545,36" 435.40 46.45 25.68 1.63 62,79 6.-J9 573.54 [Cost per Hour jOp e r a t e id 1 I Offset Disk - ■. 125 kubi .Ul 10' Offset Disk 60 1 70.10 1 1.17: 2-Row Potato Planter* 13.75 76.96 5.6o 30_" i 79.20 2.64 55 j 8K.65 1 1.5bj 2-l6'> 2-way Plow 62.5 U6.32 .71 7 ' Power Mower 30 2U.30 .81 60 \2k.Bk Jl 120 1 26.73 i .22! 8' Side Delivery Pake 28 1+2.52 1.52 56 IU3.U7 .78 113 IU6.78 1 • hi! 8' Soike Harrow 6.25 U.76 .76 12.5 ; U.85 .39 30 ! 5.3U ! .181 12 ' Spike Harrow 18.75 7.20 .38 37.5 ! 7.38 .20 75 1 8.01 : .Hi 2 -Row Stalk Cutter ; 20 12.78 ,6b j 50 •13.21 .26 100 iU.21 1 ,ibj 6' Steel Roller J 3.75 13.79 3.68 i 7.5 iibob 1.89 15 i 15,-35 1 1.02 1 Fertilizer Attach.— i 1 35.0 10.05 .29 I 70 •10,25 1 .« 160 ! 22.27 ' ! : | .19: a/ The 320 acre farm in all organizations contains two of each cf these pieces of equipment. APPENDIX T f PLE 9 Annual Utilization, Total Cost, and Cost Per Hour of Oneration for Tarm Equipment on the Three Farms of Organization III 55 Acres 160 Acres 320 Acres Cost Cost Cost. ' Equipment Annual Total Per • Annual' Total Per A nnual ; Total | Per' Use Annual Hour Use Annual Hour Use Annual' Hour (Hours) Cost 1 Cper.; (Hours ) Cost ODer. incurs) i Cost . C'otr. — i % \ 1 « 1 • 1 % $ 1 ' 1 8' Chisel mum on i .1±2 \ lBo ' liO.Vs i .23 : 10' Cultipacker / 2-Row Cultivator-' 15 2U5 27.32 23.35 1.82 i .10 ; foo 28. OU 23.92 .93 .05 \ ^55 I 928 30.03 25.70 . .55 .03' 2 -Row Lister 75 22.70 .30 r~ ■ i U2.06 li-Row Lister 22.5 37.71 1.68 : \ 9h .19 U-Row Lister Planter! 15 5U.31 3.62 30 55.38 ;i.85 j 68 60.15 .88; 7' Offset Disk 75 U0.73 .5U 1 j 226 h5.53 .20 7|' Offset Disk 150 51. Ul 10' Offset Disk ! 63 70.10 l.ll 2-P.ow Potato Planter 27.5 . 76.UU 2.78 1 6o 7a.55 11.31 ' 123 8U.65 .69| 2-l6" 2-way Plow 75 ' U6.32 .62 1 8 ' Spike Harrow 12.5 5.^0 •US ! 25 U.85 .19 i $ Q 5.3h .09^ 12' 'Spike Harrow 22.5 7.20 .32 j U5 7.3 P ! .16 I 89 8,01 .05! 2-Row Stalk Cutter I 20 ! .ft 1 30 15.35 .51 Fertilizer Htach.— 3F.0 10.13 .29 70 10.35 i -15 i | 139 j 22.27 .16: j 1 a/ The 320 acre farm in all organizations contains two of each of these pieces of equipment. I. APPENDIX TABLE 10 Costs of Producing .Cotton on 80, 180, and 320 Acre Farias with Organization I (Yield 2.1 Bales Per Acre) 80 Acres Inputs Labor s Tractor Driver Irrigator General Total Labor Contracted and Piece Works Chopping Hoeing Picking, Hand Dusting, 2X Defoliating Gin: ling Total Contracted Piece Work ilotive Power : W-2 W-3 DT-3 1/2 T Pick-up Truck (miles) Total Motive Power Units of Inputs Cost per Unit of (liour s.). . } _ Input 3.0 12.5 1.3 5.3 6.0 15.0 $1.00 .30 .80 .75 .75 1.54 .00 Total . Cost. _ 0 8.00 10.00 ■ JUK 19.04. 3. So 2.85 95.55 2.40 4.00 26 . 86 135764 j 12.32 ) 13.52 Units of | Inputs | per Acre | _(JipursJ_ 160 Acres j Cost per Unit of Input 7.9 10.1 1.3 5.3 3.8 6.3 1.6 15.0 | §1.00 .80 .75 .75 .75 I ! 2.61 .07 i Units of I Inputs Total : per Acre Cost . . j XhpursJ. _ .3.2.0. Acres. Cost per Unit of i Total Cost 7.90 8.08 I..04 17.02 3.98 2.85 95.55 2.40 4.00 _2o.86 135.64 4.72 4.1<~> is.05 9.95 7.3 10.1 1.3 5.3 3.6 2.5 1.0 15.0 | . Input ! Oi.oo .80 ,66 1.50 2.09 .06 1° ..0 ,75 7.30 8.08 .JUQ4 16.42 I 2.65 i 95.55 I 2.40 t 4.00 ' 26.86 135.64 2.51 I 3.75 2.09 ' 9.25 I Continued** Append!:: Table 10 Contd. 80 Acres 160 Acres Units of • - — • - - • ■ Knits of 1 i Units of 1 • t j 1 ! Inputs 1 Inputs • Cost per Inputs Cost per j Inputs * Cost per 1 per Acre j Unit of Total per Acre Unit of Total j per Jicre Unit of ! Total Ihoursj. ; \ .IlT3Ut Cost (hours ) Inout i_ Cost - 1 .(hoj-yrs). . 1 In rut Cost : Farm Equipments i j- % 1.37 r 1 $ .38 • 5 Bale Cotton Trailer 1.0 $1.37 1.0 0 .70 % .70 | 1.0 $ .38 | 2-Row Stall: Cutter • 4 j 1.27 .51 •5 .53 .26 •5 .14, 1 7 1/2' Offset Disk - _ j — 1.0 .51 .51 ] \J 10' Offset Disk — t _ 1 ** .4 1.75 .70 , 7' Offset Disk 1.0 i .84 .04 - .4 . .30 .12 I ; 2-16" (2-way) 1.0 1 .93 .93 ~ — | 0 ' Chisel m - I"' ' i .63 or- .3o 1 .6 .34 .20 1 i 2-Row Lister *" 1 - m .45 .23 1 1 *** 4-Ilow Lister .3 2.52 .76 - — .3 .70 .21 , I 12 « Spike Harrow .3 i .48 .14 .25 .08 1 .3 .13 .04 ; ' 4-How Lister Planter •3 | 7.29 2.19 .3 3.72 1.12 .3 2.01 • .60 1 ; 10 1 Cultipacker 0.3 | 3.63 1.09 0.3 1.6b • 5o .3 1.00 • 30 ; j 2 -How Cultivator 4*4 j .17 .75 4.4 .09 .40 4.2 .05 *21 1 j 2-Row Fertilizer Attach. .7 ; .5:; t& .7 .30 „.21 .7 • 34 t Total Equipment j ' cc, 4.45 ■ 3.14 i ! iiaterialss j Seed (los.) 30.0 I .06 1.80 30.0 .06 1.80 30.0 .06 l.oO i Water (Acre Feet) 3.2 i 7.41 23.71 3.2 6.73 21.54 3.2 6.35 20.32 ! Fertilizer (lbs.' 325.0 1 .0266 w.64 325.0 .0266 u • Ofy 325.0 .0266 8.64 | Dust (lbs.) 60.0 | ,0545 60.0 .0545 3.27 60.0 .0545 3.27 i Total Materials 1 37.42 35.25 34.03 j Idscellaneous: 1 ' Compensation Insurance I .01 .12 .16 | Taxes • 6.25 6.25 6.25 1 Interest (556 on §300) 1 15.00 15.00 1.5.00 Total iiiscellaneous ! j 21.26 21.37 21.41 Total Cost Per Acre 235.87 223.68 219.89 Total Cost Per Bale 112.32 106.51 104.71 A-VSUDi;; TABES 11 Costs of Producing Cotton on qq, IoO, and 320 Acre Farms with Organization II (Yield 2.1 Jales Per Acre) Inputs Labor : Tractor Driver Irrigator General Total Labor Contracted and Piece Works Chopping Hoeing Picking, Hand Dusting, 2X Defoliating Ginning Total Contracted Piece Work Motive Powers W-2 W-3 DT-3 1/2 T J Units of Inputs Per Acre Xhour aX _ 8.0 12.5 1.3 5.3 3.3 Cost pei- 1 Unit of I Total InDut ; Cost 1 - Li . . _„l6p. Acres Units of i Inputs I Cost per per Acre J Unit of (hours).. 1 _ Input . ick-up Truck (miles Total Ibtive Power 8.0 15.0 $1.00 .8( .0 .75 .75 1.39 .08 9 8.00 i 10.00 ! .X-M | 19.04 3.98 2.85 ! 95.55 2.40 4.00 , _28.86 • 135.64 11.12 1.. 12.32 7.9 10.1 1.3 5.3 3.8 6.3 1.6 15.0 t $1.00 .80 ~80 .75 .75 .68 2.52 .07 Total Cost t 320 Acres 7.90 8.08 1.04 : 17.02 ! . *•. t 3.98 ! 2.85 I 95.55 ; 2.40 ! 4.00 ; 26.86 1 135.64 j 4.28 j 4.03 I 1.05 ! 9.36 Units of Inputs per Acre _(hp_urs_l 7.5 10.1 1.3 5.3 3.8 4.0 2.6 .9 15.0 Cost per Unit of . Jnout^ , $1.00 .80 .CO .75 .75 .60 1.15 2.72 .06 0 Total Cos t_ . 7.50 8.08 J-.04 16.62 3.98 2.85 95.55 2.40 4.00 _26.C6 135 M 2.40 2.99 2,45 8. 74 Continued- Appendix fable 11 Gohtd* 80 Acres . .1 .. lA°. Acr e s_ _ 320 Acres* " : Units of [Units of , Unit s of : - * ] Inputs Inputs Cost per Inputs 1 Cost per Inputs Cost peri per Acre Unit of Total per Acre •Unit of Total :per Acre Unit of Total j (hours ) Input -..Cost. (hoursl, . 1 Input Cost ! (hours) l-U?Jit. . qpflt ... Farm Equipment : $ .19 5 Bale Cotton Trailer 1.0 $ .68 ijj) .Go 1.0 Lf .35 $ .35 1.0 $ .19 2-Ilou Stall: Cutter .4 .64 .26 .5 ; .26 .13 ' .5 .14 .07 ; 7 1/2' Offset Disk - 1.0 1 .41 t .41 10' Offset Disk - - - f .3 1.17 •35 ! 7 1 Offset Disl: 1.0 .67 .67 i - .26 .16 j 2-16 11 (2-iray) 1.0 .74 .74 - - i 8' Chisel - - .6 « .50 .30 .6 .27 .16 : 2-Row Lister - .5 ! .36 - 1 4**Row Lister .3 2.02 .61 — - .3 .56 .17 ' 12 1 Splice Harrow .3 .38 .11 ~3 j .20 .06 .3 .11 .03 4*Bow Lister ,. lanter .3 3.65 1.10 »3 1.86 .56 ! .3 1.00 .30 10' Cultipacker .3 1.81 .54 .3 1 .93 .28 .3 .50 j .15 2-30W Cultivator 4.4 .10 .44- 4.4 i .05 .22 4.3 .03 .13 2 -Row Fertilizer Attach. .7 .29 .20 .7 j .15 .07 ! .06 Total Iquipjasat 5.35 I 2.59 1 1 1.77 Materials.! i 1 Seed (lbs.) 30.0 .06 1.30 30.0 .06 1.80 30.0 .06 1.80 Water (Acre Feet). 3.2 7.71 24.67 3.2 I 7.00 22.40 i 3.2 6.62 21.18 Fertiliser (lbs . ) 325.0 .0266 ft A/ 325.0 • 02&O 8.64 325.0 .0266 8.64 .uust V-L^s • / An n 3.27 60.0 i .0545 , 60.0 .0545 ! Total Materials 38.38 36.11 34". 89 ! Miscellaneous s 1 \ ' Compensation Insurance .01 .12 1 .16 ! Taxes 6.25 1 6.25 f 6.25 j Interest [5% on $300) 15*QP. ! 1 15...00 I ■ 15.00 1 Total Miscellaneous 21.26 l i . 21.37 21.41 j i Total Cost Per Acre 231.99 i 222.09 i 219.07 j Total Cost Per Bale 110.47 1 105.76 1 1 104.32 KJ&SSBLa. TAHfcS 12 Costs of Producing Cotton on 80, loO, and 320 Acre Farias with Organisation III (Yield 2.1 3ales Pea? Acre) Labor s Tractor Driver Irrigator General Total Labor Contracted and Piece -fork: Chopping Hoeing Picking, Hand Dusting, 2X Defoliating Ginning Total Contracted Piece Uork Motive Power; W-2 W»3 PT-3 1/2 T Pick-up Truck (idles) Total iiotive Power 'Units of Inputs Per Acre £hpur sj_ _ SO Ac res i Cost per' : Unit of Total IntTat 1 Cost 160.. Acres, _ Units of r Inputs | Cost peri Per Acre j Unit of j Total J 320 Acres.. (Units of j j ! Inputs I Cost peri L'er Acre j Unit of | 8.0 $1.00 $ 8.00 j 7.9 12.5 .80 10.00 1 10.1 1.3 .80 1.04 1 1.3 19.04 j 5.3 -75 3.98 | 5.3 3.8 .75 2.85 3.8 95.55 J 2 - 40 ] 4.00 j 26.36 | i 135.64 i $1.00 .80 .80 .75 .75 i$ 7.90 1 6. 08 i J-..J14 ! 17.02 l I 3.98 : 2.85 95.55 2.40 4.00 ! 26.8 6 j 13 5*. 64 7,4 10.1 1.3 5.3 3.8 ! $1.00 .30 .30 ,75 .75 i Total J. Cost ... 7.40 ! s : 3 .71 4.47 1 •2 0 .64 2.43 8.0 1.38 | 11.04 2.6 1.13 2.94 1.6 2.01 3.22 | .9 ■ 1.71 1.54 15.0 . 08 i 1.20 15.0 .07 l.Oi 15.0 .06 _*.90 l j 12.24 3.74 7.31 1 JL--Q4 16.52 3.98 1 2.35 1 95-55 2.40 4.00 26,86 ! 135.64 Continued- Ap y&B&ix Table 12 Contd. Farm Equipment* 5 Bale Cotton Trailer 2-."tow Stalk Cutter 7 1/2 1 Offset Disk 10' Offset Disk 7' Offset Disk 2-16" (2-way) 8 1 Chisel 2 --Row Lister 4-ROW Lister 12 « Spike Harrow 4-Row Lister Planter 10 1 Cultipacker 2-Row Cultivator 2-Rou Fertilizer Attach. Total liquipment iaterinls s Seed (lbs.) Water (Acre Feet,. Fertilizer (lbs.) Dust (lbs.) Total Materials i Miscellaneous s Compensation Insurance Taxes Interest (5% on $300) Total ".miscellaneous Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Bale 80 Acres Units of ! Inputs ' Cost per j per Acre j Unit of Oioursl. LjaaaaS-i Total Cost j l60. Acres__. ; Units of ' I Inputs 1 Cost per, 'per Acre Unit of : ! (hou rs,) I Input . J Total Cost i 32&J^£§IL-. ' Units" of T I Inputs j Cost per; I per Acre \ Unit of I (hours ). _ j I Total Cost sP mOO u.ip: lent ; 2»«ow Lister A- tow Lister 7' Offset Dish 7 1/2 1 Offset 8« Chisel 8' Spile Harrow (2-4' 2-16' 1 (2~w..y plow) 2-how ..laiiter qsad Fert. Attach, 2-Bow Cultivator 12' Soike Harrow (3-4 1 Sect.) beet. ; GO Acres U: its" of j Inputs ! Cost per ± er A< re i Unit of .(hours). J_ Jnput 6' Steel Boiler Total :jcpaipnent Materials : Seed, di ped (Cwt.) Water s (Acre feet) Fertilizer (Lis.) Gypsui.:, refined (Tons Dust (Lbs.) Gypsum co. i-ercial (Lbs. Total Materials i j. s c e llaneous s Go- 'pensation Insurance Ta::es latere t {% on 1300) Total Miscellaneous Total Cost Per Acre Cost Per Cwt. 1 j - .3 1 2.02 1.0 .67 - "5 .76 1.0 .74 1.1 5.60 1.0 .10 .3 .38 .3 3.6G 18.0 5.00 2.5 7.71 025. 0 .0266 2.0 12.00 30.0 .0545 500.0 .006 160 Acres Total Co.-t .61 .67 .38 .74 6.16 .10 .11 1.10 9.67 90.00 19 .28 21.94 24.00 1.64 3.00 159.36 Units of Inputs Per Acre (hours.). . .5 1 .02 6.25 15.00 21.27 444.57 1.53 1.0 .6 .5 1.2 1.0 .3 .3 Cost pei Unit of .3o .41 .50 .39 2.64 .05 .20 1.69 18.0 5.00 2.5 7.00 825.0 .0266 2.0 12.00 30.0 .0545 500.0 .006 Total .L .41 .30 .20 3.17 .05 .06 .57 4.94 90.00 17.50 21.94 24/00 I.64 _ 3.00 156.06 .10 6.25 15 .'00 21.35 438.90 1.51 J M Am*aa S»y ; fcy i baits of | Inputs j Cost perl er Acre 1 U'.ii g 01 1 __W ifi'nf. hours). , | 1 . In_7at Cost 56 17 i -L . _L .2S ! ' j C .27 .16 1 .6 .18 .11 1 69 i -L • u . -03 i .11 .03 i • w_y 1 3 1.02 .31 > 2.7S 1 16.0 5.00 i 90.00 ' 2 5 6 6? 16.55 i 8? 5.0 W >-~ y • W . 0266 21*94 : 2 O "1? 00 30.0 .0545 1.64 ! 500.0 .006 3.00 ; 157.13 ! .09 6.25 : 15.00 21.34 432*32 1.49 j appside: tajli 15 Costs of Producing ?otat o ■ 13.32 1 ?" 7/ l 9 . 64 4.50 4-50 4.50 1.20 1.20 1.20 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 AO. 60 40.60 AO. 60 29.00 29.00 29.00 . 145.00 145.00 I45.P.Q1 , 233.30" ! 233.30 233.30 • 2.1 .71 1.49 •1.6 • 04. 1.02 5.0 1.30 6.90 1.4 1.13 1.5G 1 2.G 2.01 5.61 l.G 1.71 3.0G T.Tg 7.12 1 5.60 1 ! Continued- vjt. V3 Appendi:: Table 15 Contd. 80 Acres 160 Acres. 320 Acres • Units 01 1 Units of i Units of i XxljJLLOO j Cost per ; Inputs | Cost per^ Inputs 1 Co^t per j Inputs x Ul nyi. w Unit of \ Total Per Acre Unit of i Total j Per Acre j Unit of Total 1 Input Cost (hours) i Input Cost 1 Inoui.-s) ; Injut Cost J — m • v • — --- — * • • — -} -fern is uxpnenx. • (> ^— xtOW ins bGi .5 j Q .30 ! 0 .15 •• [ .3 1.68 .50 .3 • 45 .14 / 1 Jixseo iJXoii. 1.0 .54 *54 i ] l ' .20 .22 1 —l~ UXISSb IXXSii I - 1 1.0 1 .34 .34 _ — a' UilXSeX ~ j 1 .6 I .42 | .25 .6 .23 " 5 • > .22 • 5 ! ! .19 : .10 c »o .09 .05 aar rH v ir=>r! f flirt ^ 18.0 5.00 90.00 i 18.0 1 5.00 90.00 18.0 5.00 90.00 '/-tor Corp ^pptl 2.5 8.45 21.12 ; 2.5 ! 7.68 19.20 2.5 7,28 18.20 Fertilizer (Lbs.) 825.0 .0266 21.94 1 825.0 .0266 21.94 825.0 .0266 21.94 Gypsum, refined (Tons) 2.0 12.00 24.00 2.0 12.00 24.00 2.0 12.00 24.00 Dust (Lbs. / 30.0 .0545 1.64 i 3C0 .0545 1.64 30.0 .0545 1.64 Gypsum, co: ii.erci-.l (Lbs.) 500.0 .006 3.00 i 500.0 .006 3.00 500V0 .006 3.00 Total iiaterials . 161.70 1 159.78 158.78 Iiiscellaneous i [ Conpensation Insurance .03 .11 .10 Tar.es ! 6.25 1 I 6.25 I 6.25 Interest (5,i «a 0300} 15.00 15.00 15.00 Total : ascellaneous ' 21.28 I i 21.36 21.35 Total Cost Per .lore j 442.19 437.09 433.34 Cost Per Cwt. i 1.52 1.51 i 1.49 t ! Costs of -'roducing &j£$3£2i on 16S» anc; ^ 20 Ac -° Par. s with Organization I (Yield 6 1/2 Tons Per Acre) " " * _ *7" . SO Acres j .2.6.0 Acre.£ Units of | .Units of Inputs Labor : Tractor Driver Irrigator Total Labor Contracted and Pieue Work: .alia j (03.65/T) lioadsidinc (&U20/T) Total Contracted Piece Work Lotivc Powers W-2 W-3 Total Ibtive Power Pam J ioxip^ent ° 7' iiower 8* Side Delivery Bake To Lai J/.uip; '.ent Materials : 'later (Acre Feet) Miscellaneous : Ta::es Interest {$% on 6300) Coiiipensation Insurance Depreciation Stand Total ld.s.,ella:ieous Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Ton Inputs i Cost per i Per Acre j Unit of „ } Lrput . 4.6 6.0 / A 2.4 2.2 5.2: >1.00 .30 1.54 .41 .76 7.41 Inputs ! Cost per Total I Per Acre j Unit of l Cost _ , i .Qipurc. ) I Input m 4.60 i 4*^ j 9.40 \ I 31.03 j 10.20 ! 41.23 i 7.08 ! 7.08 ! .so 1.67 2VS5 9.12 6.25 ; I 15.00 I .01 ! • 30.33 ; ! 129 . 81 : ! 15.27 ; 4.6 5.7 4.6 2.4 5.2C 52,00 .20 .75 .21 .39 >.73 Total J3ps.t ) 4.60 9.16 31.03 10.20 41.23" 1 f.1 .50 1 .86 j 1.36 1 I 35.53 J 6.25 j 15.00 , .04 I ..£..03 ; 30.32 ! 121.05 ! 14.24 ! 320- Acres Units of "i * Inputs Cost per . er Acre I Unit of Qi ; oursJ. . j . Inptrt. .. 4.5 5.6 4.2 .3 2.3 2.2 5. or: £1.00 . 80 .66 1.50 .11 .21 >.35 Tot. a Cost , . 4.50 US. 8.96 31.03 10.20 41.23 2.77 3.22 .25 .71 33.53 6.25 15.00 »0€ 7.9C 29.31 116.93 13.76 &v 5 S3iME ta:.xj 17 Co^ts of Producing Alfalfa on SO, 160, and 320 Acre Fame with Organization II (Yield S 1/2 Tons Per Acre) Inputs Labor : Tractor Driver Irrigator Total Labor Contracted and Piece '.forks Baling (&3.65/T) Roadsiding (61,20/T) Total Contracted Piece Work Motive Powers W-2 W-3 Total Motive Pov/er Far.:. 5S uipnent : 7' Mower 8' Side Delivery Rake Total 3.uipi.?.ent Materials s Water (Acre Feet) Miscellaneous : Ta:ces Interest {5% on $300) Compensation Insurance Depreciation Stand Total Miscellaneous Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Ton 8Q Acres | ISO Acres . Units of I " i Units of i Inputs I Cost per' ; Inputs j Cost per ' Per Acre { Unit of '. Total | Per Acre Unit of 4. 6 6.0 4.6 2.4- 2.2 5.28 $1.00 .60 1.39 .31 1.52 7.71 4.60 | 4ap0 ! 9*40 J 31.03 1 10.20 | 41 ."23 I C I 6.3v 1.94 3.34 5. 26 40.71 6.25 15.00 8.91 i 30.16 ! 133.17 15.67 4.6 5.7 4.6 2.4 2.2 5.26 guao .60 .68 .41 .76 7.00 I „ J20. Acres Units of j j '■ Inputs | Cost per; Total j Per Acre | Unit of j Total Cost. . . j. (hours.). . j . Input j_ Cost , 4.60 9.16 31.03 10.20 41.23 3.13 | f. 13 | «/<-> 1.72 2.70" ; 36.96 i j 6.25 ! 15.00 ! .04 : 9*10 i 30.39 j 123.57 | 14.54 ; 4.7 5.6 4.3 2.3 2.4 I 00 ! .80 i .60 1.15 .41 5.26 ! 6.62 Is? 4.701 ?.l8j 31.03I 10*20 1 41.231 •ok ! S.81j i 30.14; j 119.91 1 14.11 63. APPE'TOIX TAFLE 18 Total Farra Budget Analysis for Organization I Farms Using 19U9 Costs and Prices a/ 80 Acres 160 Acres 320 Acres 1 n 1 Cash :^xpenses 1 j Labor ' •$ i,cUU.oo % 1,91+6.00 $ 3,788.00 | Motive Power: Fuel, Oil, and Grease Repairs and Servicing Taxes and Insurance 232. fO 82.87 2U.90 "3m £0 JU-L . Oc 112.13 UU.75 179.75 I 69.65 i 1 Farm Equipment: Repairs Taxes and Insurance 3U.3U 3U.71 Ul.56 33.50 89.72 U2.31 Irrigation Equipment: D ower Oil and Grease Peoairs Taxes and Insurance l,03u»02 16.20 113.90 135.00 1,923.90 83.16 266.89 230.00 j5,ooy.ui 155.26 508.69 U35.00 Contract and Piece Work 10,25U.25 20,508.50 Ui,oi7.oo Materials 5,891.00 n,Uo9.oo 22,U02.00 Miscellaneous : Compensation Insurance Land Taxes 50c. 00 1,000.00 3i\ • uu 2,000.00 Total Cash Expense 19,U59.H 37,91h.59 75,o5U.77 Cash Receipts Cotton (2.1 Bales/Acre © fclUVBale) Potatoes (290 Cwt/Acre @ |2.l5/Cwt.) Alfalfa (8| Tons/Acre @ f ? 19.00/Ton) Cottonseed (?62# Seed/Pale @ ^55,00/Ton) 7,612.50 ■ 15,587.50 h,037.50 ! l,100.1h 15,225.00 31,175.00 8,075.00 2,200.28 30,U50.00 62,350.00 16,150.00 U,Uoo.55 Total Cash Receipts : 28,337.6ii 56,675.28 113,350.55 b/ Total Investment — ' Total Depreciation Unpaid Operator's Labor , Ui,U95.oo 1,016.79 1,055.78 76,592.00 1,566.13 895. 9h ih5A20.oo 2,590.19 676.30 a/ Organization consists of one-third cotton, cne-third potatoes, cne-third alfalfa. b/ Less farm dwelling. APPENDIX TABLE 19 Total Farm Budget Analysis f|»r Organization II ^arms Using 19U9 Costs and Prices a/ ! 1 1 80 Acres I 160 Acres 320 Acres j ! Cash Expenses 1 j i Labor 1 i 1 £ 1,236.00 | 2,2U9.50 | U,Uo6.oo j Motive Powers j 1 Fuel, Oil and Grease i Repairs and Servicing • Taxes and Insurance 27U.U8 8H.33 21;. 90 115.15 Uh.75 1 ("• 74 16U.66 i 69.65 j Farm Equipment: j Repairs i Taxes and Insurance 3U.71 la. 85 33.50 I 89.72 ! U2.31 : ! Irrigation Equipment: J Power i Oil and Grease ; Repairs Taxes and Insurance 99U.80 U3.30 13U.86 135.00 L 8^5.29 77.96 250.12 230.00 ! > ! 3.51x7.22 1U5.53 U76.71 ; U35.00 ■ j Contract and Piece Work 10,213.63 20,U27.25 Uo,85U.5o ' Materials U,U26.13 8,U87.00 16,582.00 j j Miscellaneous: Compensation Insurance ! Land ^axes .80 500.00 1,000.00 i » L*SJ . 2,000.00 i Total Cash Expense 18,137.U6 35,185.12 69,6U9.7U Cash p eceiDts 1 Cotton (2.1 Bales/Acre | © ?;1U5/Bale) ; 'Potatoes (290 Cwt/Acre 6 $2.1?/Cwt.) alfalfa (8| Tcns/>cre @ 519.00/Ton) : Cottonseed (762# Seed/Bale ® ft??.00/Ton) 15,225.00 7,793.75 2,018.75 2,200.28 30,U50.00 15,587.50 u, 037. 5o h,Uoo.55 00,900. 00 31,175-00 8,075.00 8,801.10 Total Cash Receipts 27,237.78 5U,U75.55 108,951.10 1 : Total Investment^ Total Depreciation i Unpaid Operator's Labor 1,016.79 1, 188.18 76,592.00 1,566.13 79U.I6 1U5, 120.00 , i 2,590.19 I 768. 1;2 i l a/ Organization consists of two-thirds cotton, one-sixth potatoes, one-sixth alfalfa . b/ Less farm dwelling. 65. XPPSSDIX TABLE 20 _ . . trialysis for Organization III ^rms Total -arm ^-^ts and Prices a/ 320 Acres J H ash Expenses Labor i 1 ^otive power: Tfuel, Oil, and Grease Peoairs and Servicing Taxes and Insurance Farm Equipment: Repairs "rn aX es and Insurance irrigation Equipment: ■cower Oil and Grease Repairs Taxes and Insurance Contract and Piece WWft Materials Vi scellanecus: Compensation Insurance Land Taxes Total Cash Expense I Cash r eceipts 1 Cotto n (2.1 Bato^" I @ *^,00/Ton) I • Total Cash Receipts , I Total TJivesttnentr- l Total Depreciation Kfcpaid Operator's Labor 1,285.00 j 2 | 2,339.00 276.86 \ '8U.U2 2U.90 j 357.35 115.93 UU.75 29.63 . 29.76 35.86 28.55 . 915.80 37. U5 116.65 135.00 12,6lU.5c 6,030.00 . 1,716.51 67. U2 216. 3U | 230.OO i 25,229.00 j 11,818.00 U, 568.00 j 767. 5U 185.86 ■ 69.65 79.32 ' 37.36 1.25 500.00 22,131.22 15,225.00 I ■ 15,587.50 2,200.28 33,012.78 Ui, 000. 00 972. 2U 785-72 18.50 I 1,000.00 U3,217.21 30,U5o.oo 31,175.00 U,Uoc.55 66,025.55 76,097.00 1,521.58 769.76 3,293.99 125.86 1 U12.31 s U35.00 5o,U58.oo 23,280.00 • UU.00 j 2,000.00 , 85,-756.89 I 60,900.00 ■ 62,-35o.oo 8, '801. 10 132,051.10 iUU,625.oo . 2,5U5.6U 620.28 I ■ -r^^ToT^-thirds cotton, one-third a/ Organization consist _ (no alfalfa), b/ Less farm dwelling. ^o oatoes