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
<v
E
a>
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 <!!;
L— -
320_ Ap_r e s
.63
2.52
Annual : Total
Use . Animal
(hour s) , Cost
1112
! 0216. 60
I 320.00
I 66.71
I * Ou
31.19
646
210
20.59
662.97
362.73
265.. 66
43.62
4.53
52.29
11.9,7
740.35
435.40
42.41
23.59
1.49
62.79
5.83
571.51
Cost per
Hour
Operated
.60
1.15
2.72
APPENDIX TABLE 6
Annual Utilization, 1;
on
tal Cost, .aid Cost
the Three Ferns of
Per Ucjup of Operation For F<
Organization III
una Tractors
Farm Tractors Annual
and Use
. . Cost Items _ ,(hours)
w-2 ;
Overhead
I Fuel
j Cylinder Oil
Other Oil and Grease j
impairs
Servicing
Total
W-3
Overhead
Fuel
Cylinder Oil
Other Oil and Grease
Repairs
Servicing
Total
i DT-3
j Overhead
■ Fuel
j Cylinder Oil
i Other Oil and Grease
iiepairs
525
I
Servicing
Total
60. Acre s
Total (Cost per
Annual I Hour
. Qostt Operat ed
_ f, 160 Acres
. r a ~i j " ~ ", " * ~;
362.73
237.57
35.42
3.67
74.70
,fi.72
724. CI
1.3:
30(
<l\
Annual j Total jCost per
Use I Annual ! Hour
.Xhpursjj .Cost Operated
735
$216.60
211.60
44. 11 i
5. 20 ;
31.19 !
13.62 i
522,32" ! .71
435.40
60.60
33.72
2.12
62.79
_iU3J
602.9S
J320 Acres
Annual
Use
QapursJ
927 "
660
2.01
367
Total
Annual
. Post
521.6.6O
266.77
55.62
6.57
31.19
JL7.17
593.92
362.73
271.32
44.55
52.29
_12.22
747.79
435.40
74.14
41.29
2.60
62.79
J=P.20
6.42
Cost per
j Hour
{Operated^
.64
1.13
1.71
APPENDIX TAILE 7
Annual Utilization, Total Cost, and Cost Per Hour cf Operation
for ^ arm Equipment on the Three Farms of Organisation I
30 Acres { 160 Acres 320 Acres
i
1
Cost
Cost
Cost
Annual
Use
Total
Annual
Per
Hour
Annual
Use
Total
Annual
Per
Hour
Annuaii Total
Use Annual
Per
Hour
([lours )
Cost
Orier.
(Hours )
Cost
Oper.
(Hours)
Cost
ODer
i
*
Sr
$
%
~"T
8' Chisel
An
oO
37.52
• o3
120
1*0.73
al,
»3i*
10' Cultioacker ,
a /
2«How Cultivator-'
O H OA
3.^3
15
2 r .03
l.oc
30
30.03
± .(JO
135
23.32
.17
c fO
23.oo
.09
520
25.70
• Op
2-Row Lister
50
22 . fO
.U5
li-^ow Lister
15
37. oO
2.52
60
U2.06
.70
h-Row Lister Planter
7.5
5H.68
7.29
15
55.90
3.72
30
60.15
2.0L
7' Offset Disk
5o
1*2. ©5
.81;
150
1*5*53
.30
7|' Offset Disk
100
5i. Ui
.51
10' Offset Disk
Uo
70.10
1.75
2-Row Potato Planter*
27.5
76.61
2.79
60
78.67
1.31
120
81*, 65
.71
2-16" 2 -way plow
50
1*6.32
.93
y —
7 i Power Power
60
21**35
.1*1
119
2U.88
.21
233
26.73
.11
8' Side Delivery Rake 56
1*2.52
.76
112
1*3.51*
.39
221
U6. 78
.21
8 1 Snike Harrow
12.5
U.76
.38
25
U.85
.19
60
5.3U
.09
12 ' S'oike Harrow
Jf
7.20
30
7.38
.25
60
8.01
.1?
2 -Row Stalk Cutter
10
12.78
1.27
25
13.21
.53
5o
14.21
.28
6' Steel Roller ,
7.5
13.79
UBU
15
lU.llt
.91*
30
15.35
.51
fertilizer Attach*—'
■
i i
17.5
1 1
10.12
.58
35
1
10.35
i
,. — 1
.30
70
22.27
.32
1
a/ The 320 acre farm in all organizations contains two of each of these pieces
of eo^ipment.
U7.
APPENDIX TABLE 8
Annual Utilization, Total Cost, and Cost Per Hour of Operation
for Farn Equipment on the Three Farms of Organization II
BO Acres T50 Acres 320 Acres
1
i
Cost
1
j
Cost
j 1
cost;
Equipment
Annual! Total
Per
Annual
| Total
Per
Annual
•Total j
Perj
Use
JS nnual
Hour
Use
| Annual
Hour
Use
! Annual
Hour 1
j,
(Hours)
Cost
Oper.! (Hours)
! Cost
Oper .
(Hours )j Cost !
Operj
8' Chisel
•
~
j 5
75 137.52
r ~T "
•5o
-
150
! 1 !
1 " 1
i J.i.0.73 1
i
i
.27 ;
10' Cultioacker /
a/ i
2 -Row Cultivator—
15
27.20
1.81
30
27.83
.93
60
! 30.03 ;
.50
232.5
23.30
.10
U65
1 23.85
.05
910
125.70 ;
.03i
2 -Row Lister
—
62.5
.22.70
.36
1 i
li-Row Lister
18.75
37.30
2.02
1
• U2.06 ;
Hi
iHtoW Lister Planter
15
5U.68
3.65
30
155.90
1.86
60
! 60.15 j
i.ooi
7' Offset Disk
62.5
U2.02
.67
175
.26
7|> 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
!<L2.78
.6U 1
5o
13.21
i .26
| 98
1U.21
.15!
6' Steel Poller ^,
! 7.5
! 13.79
1.8U
15
1U.1U
> .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
<ns Art
1 n
■ft SW
1 3^
1 0
! & .19 1
.4
.64
.26
.5
' .26
.13
.5
.15
.08
-
1.0
! .34
.34
m
3
1 n
_L . J — L
1 33 i
l.U
• ^4
1
_
• — '
.20
.12 :
1.0
62
6?
6
♦ —
.6
.23
! .14 '
_
!
-
.5
r .30
: 15
!
,.3
1.68
.50
.45
.14
• -5
3
; 16
-05
.3
.09
.03
3
3 62 1
.3
1.85
.56
.3
• OO
.26
.3
1.8?
.55
.3
.93
.28
.3
.55
.16
.10
.a
4.4
• 05
.22
4.1
.03
.12 1
.7
.29
.20
.7
.15
40
.7
.08
.06
4.. /O
™ ■ H — y
1.63
30.0
.06
1.80
30.0
.06
1.80
30. C
.06
1.80
3.2
8.45
27,04
3.2
7.68
24.58
3.2.
7.28
. 23.30 ;
325.0
,0?66
& kl
325.0
i .0266
8 • 64
325.0
.0266
8.64
60.0
.0545
3.27
60.0
.0545
3.27
60.0
.0545
_3.27 ;
40*75
38.29
37.01 ;
1
.01
.13
.17 !
!
6.25
6.25
6.25
I
15*22
il.po
iitPP
■
21.26
21.38
21.4*2 .
!
233.91
223.50
220.03
•
1
111.39
106.43
104.78 £
APPENDIX TABLE 13
Costs of rroducing Potatoes on 8C, 160, and 320 Acre
Fan/is With Organization I
(Yield 290 cwt. Per Acre)
SO Teres. J Acres
! Units of I
Cost per | | Inputs I Cost per
Unit of I Total 'Per Acre 1 Unit of I Total
Units of
Inputs
I Per Acre
Laoor !
Tractor Driver
Irrigator
General
Total Labor
Contracted and riece Work:
Cutting Seed
Dusting
Ilotobe..ting ($3.00/Acre)
Digging
ricking
Hauling ($ ..10/Cwt,)
Shed Costs
Total Contracted Piece Work
Motive Powers
W-2
tf-3
DT-3
Total i'btive Power
(hours) j Input j Cost 1 (hours) { Input j Cost . | (hours) ;
<5
5.0
9.3
1.1
I
5.0
.00
I 5.00 j
4.9
.So
! 7.44 1
8.6
.80
1.2
i 13.32 i
4.50 !
1.20 :
3.00 .
' 10*00
40. So !
29.00 !
145.00 '
233.30" ;
j
2.1
..54
7.70
2.8
1 ~7.~70 i
I $1.00
I .80
.80
Units of
Inputs
Per Acre
4. SO
4« 8
O.. OO
0.4
1.2
12.74
4.50
1.20
3.00
1
10.00
40. so
i
29.00
1
145.00
233". 30"
Cost per
Unit of
_Input__
$1.00
.80
.80
.75
2.61
1.58 j
1
7. ,31 I
8.8? !
1.6
1.4
l.S
.66
1.50
2.09
Continued-
Total j
Co s_t ^
i
\ 4. SO
6.72 j
.56 1
12.48 1
I
4.50 j
1.20 !
3.00 i
10.00 j
40.60
29.00 I
145.00 j
233.30
I..06 ,
2.10 '
3.76
6.92
vn
vn
Appendix Table 13 Contd.
Inputs
i 60 r Acres
; Units of !
Inputs ■ Cost per
; Per Acre j Unit of
(hours) I Jfriffit .
Farm '.ocuip^ents
2-itow Lister
Lister
7 1 Offset 'Disk i
7 1/2 » Off sot Dish
SI Chisel I
S 1 Spike Harrow (2-4 1 sect.) j
2-16" (2 -way plow)
2-how Planter and Fert. Attach,.
2 -Row Cultivator }
12' Spike Harrow (3-4* Sect.) j
6' Steel Roller ;
Total liuipnent j
liaterials: j
Seed 5 dipped (Cwt) !
Water (Acre Feet)
Fertilizer (Lbs.)
Gypsu;.., refined (Tons)
Dust (Lbs.) ■ j
Gypsu:., commercial (Lbs.;
Total iiaterials
Miscellaneous i
Cor.pensation Insurance
Taxes
Interest (5% on $300)
Total hiscellaneous
Total Cost Per Acre
Cost Per Cwt.
.3
1.0
2.52
• 84-
.5 !
.38
1.0
.93
1,1 ,
2.79
1.0 1
.17
•3 |
.48
.3
1. 84
1C.0
5.00
2.5
7.41
325.0
.0266
' '2.0
■ 12.00
30.0
! .0545
500.0
.006
loO Acres,
.76
• 84
.19
.93
3.07
.17
.14
6.65
90.00
18.52
21.94
24.00
1.64
_-3-oo
159. io~
. Units of :
! Inputs : Cost per?
1 Per* Acre Unit of Total
Uhpt pfg) L _fe21i' fc — - .Co st. .
i £■ H .45 $ .22
± ' "~ 3"20" A cres.
"units of
Inputs ; Cost per;
. Per" Acre j Unit of ; Total
. Qy«ys) I 3nPU,t L Cost. . .
.5
l.U
£.1
.0
i .OJ5
K
1 .19
1.2
j 1.31
1.0
! .09
.3
1 .25
.3
};•• .94
1
13.0
1
5.00
2.5
1 6.73
625.0
' .0266
2.0
j 12.00
30.0
! .0545
500.0
1 .006
.51
.33
.10
1.57
.09
.03
• 28
3.23
90.00
16 . 62
21.94
24.OO
l.o4
157.40
.3
1.1
.6
.6
1.2
liO
.3
.3
18.00
2.5
825.0
2.0
30.0
500.0
.70
.30
.34
.09
.71
.05
.13
.51
5.00
6.35
.0266
12.00
.0545
.006
.21
.33 :
|
..20 ;
.05
.65
.05
.04
05
1.83 '
90.00
15.38
21.94
24.00
I.64
3.00
156.46
.03
b . 25
15.00
21.28
.11
6.25
15.00
21.36
.10
6.25
15*00
21.35
' 432.39
1.49
At I 1 ul.i TA3L3 14.
Costs of Producing Potatoes on SC, 160 and 320 Acre
Farms with Organization 11
(Yield 290 Owt. Per Acre)
Inputs
SO Acres
Units" of }
Inputs I Cost perj
Per Acre : Unit of j Total
(hours). _j . Input j. Co^t _
J 1 60 Acres
; Units of •
! Inputs Cost peri
jPer Acre ' Unit of |
(hours,) . j . Jnput,
icre£
Total
Cost
I 2.20
"Units of *
! Inputs ' Cost per
: Per Acre j Unit of
' ,( hpurs_)_ . 1 .. Injut_. .
Total
Cost
Labor :
Tractor Driver
Irrigator
General
Total Labor
Contracted and Piece Work:
Cutting Seed
Dusting
Roto beating
Digging
1 icl:ing
Hauling
Shed Costs
Total Contracted - iece Uork
ibtive Power:
\1-Z
W-3
DT-3
Total Ibtive power
5.0
j H *oo
|$ 5.00
4.9
$1.00
% 4.90
4.7
§1.00
lO 4.70
9.3
I .so
C.6
.80
6.88 '
G.6
.80
6.8'J
1.1
I -.80
• 0<-J
1.2
! .80
_,S£. ;
1.1
.80
13.32
!
;
12,74
; 12,46
;
j -4.50
4.50 '
4.50
i
1.20
i
1.20
1*20
1
3.00
3.00 ;
; 3.00
j 10.00
10.00 ■
j 10.00
! 40.60
40.60 1
40.60
i 29.00
29.00 •
; 29.0
1
i 141,00
145.00 j
145.00
i
| 233.30
i
233.30 •
; 233.30
i
1
2.1
1 .,68
1.43 '\
1.9
.60
! 1.14
5*0
1*39
| 6,95
t
j
2.2
1.15
2.53
.6
2.72
! 1.62.
i
1
| 6.95
1
1
j
3.49 1
1
j 5.30
Continued-
rnerkLb: Table 14 Contd.
Inputs
Jit
Far:. J>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<ffi on G0 S 3.60,
Iferios with Organization III
(Yield 290 Cut. Per Acre)
and 320 Acre
Inputs
Labor s
Tra ctor Driver
Irrigator
General
Total Labor
Contracted and Piece '.Jork:
Cutting See J.
Dttsting
Itotobeating
Digging
Picking
Hauling j
ohed Cos"os
Total Contracted Piece 'Jork
ijotive Power:
T J-2
U-3
DT-3
Total iiotive Power
jo Acres . l60 Acres. j 3.20 Acres.
Units of
TT-p -\- r.\ r\f \
U1J.X \JX |
j
Units of !
1
1
Inputs
Tw yiTh^
1: 1 L-_ UtJ
Cost "Der
Inputs
Cost per
Per Acre
Unit of
Total j
Per .icre ,
Unit of
Total
./er Acre
Unit of
Total |
j^wMrj}. .. .
Input
Cost \
* " * ■ i
.Choursl . j
. Input
Cost
.(.hours). .
Input
Cost !
~1
0 .u
1 \i nn
I
'' . z, nn
4« /
si nn
■JS. .WW
'"j Z.90
A. 8
',.1.00
1
0 4. so
9.3
! • 44
0.0
fin
. ww
8 6
.20
6 GO
-L.-L
GO
.00
1.2
. 00
__.93
1.2
.30
_ 7j>
■
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
<i"~XO ^ifi^wtiy pXUU ^
m 02
.62
!
^•*a\0\* l ii .nXicr anu re j. o » -i o oi^.'^ii«
x.x
2.78
3.06
1~2 !
1.31
1.57
1.2
.69
.83
1.0
.10
.10
1.0
.05
.05
1.0
.03
.03
1?' ftnilrp R r?nu (l-U Sect. ) i
.3
.32
.10
.3
.16 l
.05
.3
.09
.03
.3
1.84
mm
1 .3 !
.94
.iCO
.3
.51
5.69
1
2.79
1
!
1.59
°->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