Mil Division of Agriculfurol Sciences UNIVERSITY OF CAIIFORNIA SACRAMENTO VALLEY RICE FARMS 1. Organization, Costs, and Returns Gordon R. Sitton i CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. 207 July 1958 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report of rice production on fr.rms in the Sacramento Valley resulted from a study by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, California Agricultural Experiment Station and the Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultiu-al Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture* Trimble R. Hedges, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, and Warren R. Bailey, Assistant Head, Western Field Research Section of the Farm Economics Research Division, participated in outlining and developing the project outline and plana. Professor Hedges and George W, Campbell j formerly Research Assistant in the Department of Agricultural Economics assisted in collecting field data from rice growers, We are indebted to farmers and representatives of many business firms who gave informations and data for this investigation. We particularly thank the California Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee for providing data from their files necessary for establishing lists of rice growers from which a sample could be selected, and the California Agricultural Extension Service for aid in this survey » The credit for the statistical and clerical work goes to the personnel in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Davis. Gordon R, Sitton -i- CONTENTS iii. Tables vi. Appendix Tables vii. Figures viii. Here Are the Highlights 1. Sacramento Valley Rice Farms 12. Land Use in the Sacramento Valley and Organization of Individual Farms is Greatly Affected by Economic Determinants That are External to the Individual Farm Businesses 30. The Organization of the Farm Businesses That Have Been Developed For the Production of Rice Reflects the Adaptations of Sacramento Valley Conditions to the Peculiar Requirements of Rice Culture 41. The Details of Organization and Operation Differ for Rice Farms That are Typical of Different Acreage Groups 104. Barley and Rice are Commonly Produced on the Same Farm 115. Summary and Conclusions -ii- TABLES Table 1. Average Length of Growing Season for 42 Fields of Caloro Rice, 1950 Table 2, Distribution of Growers and Acreages of Rice in 1950 Among Farmers Producing Rice on Owned Land Only, on Rented Land Only, and on Both Owned and Rented Land in the Five Principal Rice Growing Counties Table 3. Average Prices Paid for Selected Items Used in Production, 1935-1939, 1945, and 1952, and Percentages of 1935-1939 Averages Table 4, Estimated Average Prices Per Hundredweight Received by California Producers for Rough Rice, Season Beginning October 1, 1931-1955 Table 5. Average Prices Received in 1945 and 1954 for Selected Agricultural Commodities in Colusa County and Percentage Each Average Yearly Price 1946-1954 is of the 1945 Price Table 6, Action Programs of the United States Department of Agriculture Applying to the Principal Crops Grown in the Sacramento Valley by Years, 1933-1954 Table 7. Loan Rates for U. S. No. 1 Pearl Rice and Average Market Prices Received by California Growers, 1948-1955 Table 8. Acreage and Land Use on 49 Colusa County Farms in 1950 Table 9. Cropping History From 1947-1950 for Fields on Sample Farms That Grew Rice in 1950 Table 10, Percentage of Total Colusa County Cropland in Principal Crops, 1947-1954 Table 11. Changes From the 1947-1949 Averages to 1954 in Percent of Total Cropland Devoted to Rice and Principal Alternative Crops in Six Counties Table 12. Percent of Colusa County Rice Farmers Owning Livestock or Renting Pasture, 1950 Table 13. Acres of Rice Per Farm for 681 Farms in the Five Principal Rice Growing Counties, 1950 Table 14. Equipment Inventory, Estimated Life, and Average Investment For a Farm Fully Equipped to Produce 300 Acres of Rice Page 10 14 17 21 22 24 27 31 34 37 37 38 40 43 -iii- • .vAnO br, ..•iA»«?.y..' TABLES Page Table 15. Typical Inventories of Equipment for Farms Operating 150, 300, 450, and 600 Acres of Rice Per Year 48 Table 16. Calendar of Operations, 300 Acres Rice and 150 Acres Summer Fallow; 150 Acres First Year, 150 Acres Second Year Rice. (Tractors include a T-7 and a T-3 for bulldozer operation) 50 Table 17, Calendar of Operations, 150 Acres Rice and 75 Acres Summer Fallow: 75 Acres First Year, 75 Acres Second Year Rice. (One T-5 tractor) 59 Table 18, Calendar of Operations, 300 Acres Rice and 150 Acres Summer Fallow; 150 Acres First Year, 150 Acres Second Year Rice. (Tractors include a T-5 and a T-3) 62 Table 19. Calendar of Operations for 450 Acres of Rice and 225 Acres of Summer Fallow. (Tractors include a T-7, a T-3 for bull- dozer operation) 65 Table QO, Calendar of Operations, 600 Acres Rice and 300 Acres Summer Fallow; 300 First Year, 300 Second Year Rice. (Tractors include a T-7 and a T-5) 67 Table 21. Labor Inputs on 300 Acres Rice and 150 Acres Summer Fallow; 150 Acres First Year, 150 Acres Second Year Rice. (Operator uses 65 DB horsepower tractor as the principal source of power, and performs a maximum number of the jobs) 72 Table 22. Estimated Amounts and Cost of Labor Used, Terms of Hiring, on Typical 150, 300, 450, and 600 Acre Rice Farms 75 Table 23. Physical Inputs of Labor Per Acre of Rice on 53 Colusa and Sutter County Farms, 1950 76 Table 24. Physical Inputs and Variable Costs for Operating the 65 Horsepower Tractor 83 Table 25. Annual Use and Variable Costs for Operating Trucks 84 Table 26. Variable Costs for Operating Two Self-Propelled Harvesters 106 Hours on 300 Acres of Rice 86 Table 27. Annual Fixed Costs for Self-Propelled Equipment 87 Table 28. Equipment Rented and Custom Services Hired to Supplement Owned Equipment 88 -iv- I 3 r,. ...... '■ ■■■ ■<■: •. ■ - ■ • .f- y TABLES Pages Table 29. Farm Budget Summary for a Farm Producing 300 Acres of Rice Per Year; Gross Expenses 90 Table 30. Costs of Production on Farms With 150, 300, 450, 600 Acres of Rice 93 Table 31, Range in Selected Cost Items on Rice Farms in 1950 97 Table 32. Comparison of Net Farm Income for Different Sizes of Rice Farms 100 Table 33. Variable Costs for Producing 450 Acres of Barley Using a 65 Drawbar Horsepower Tractor as the Principal Source of Power 105 Table 34. Farm Cost Summary and Per Acre Costs for 450 Acres of Barley; Per Acre Costs for 300 Acres of Rice 106 Table 35, Net Farm Incomes From 450 Acres of Barley, and From 300 Acres of Rice Plus 150 Acres of Barley 111 Table 36. Net Farm Incomes From 300 Acres of Rice, 150 Barley, and 150 Summer Fallow, and From 400 Acres of Rice With 200 Summer Fallow 113 -V- -1 APPENDIX TABLES Pages Table 1, Soil Types, Area, Preceding Crops, Nitrogen Applied, and Rice Yield Per Acre in 1950 for 53 Colusa County Fields 119 Table 2, Field Area Preceding Crops, Nitrogen Applied on Green Manure Crop, and Rice Yield Per Acre in 1950 for 18 Sutter County Fields 121 Table 3. Estimated Costs Per Acre for Producing 300 Acres of Rice; Owner-operator with a Complete Inventory of Owned Equipment 122 Table 4. Farm Budget Summary Worksheet; Fixed and Variable Costs, 150 Acres of Rice VJith 75 Acres of Summer Fallow 124 Table 5. Farm Budget Summary, 300 Acres Rice With 150 Acres Summer Fallow (Tractors include T-5 and T-3) 126 Table 6. Farm Budget Summary Worksheet, Fixed and Variable Costs, 450 Acres Rice With 225 Acres of Summer Fallow 129 Table 7. Farm Budget Summary Worksheet; Fixed and Variable Costs 600 Acres of Rice With 300 Acres of Summer Fallow 132 Table 8. Annual Machinery Repair Costs, Excluding Tractors, Trucks, and Harvesters; 150, 300, 450 and 600 Acre Rice Farms 135 -vi- 1-^ ; «n";f7' 'J -» .-, -i» ■ FIGURES Pages Figure 1. Price and Yield Changes and Net Farm Income; Owner- operator Farm With 300 Acres of Rice 102A Figure 2, Net Farm Income at Two Different Cost Levels; Farm With 200 Acres of Rice and a 65 DBH Tractor 103A -vii- SACRAMENTO VALLEY RICE FARMS No. 1. Organization, Costs, and Returns HERE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FINDINGS} PECULIAR IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RICE cause farmers to grow this crop primarily on soils that have defects for other uses - See pages 1-3 AN ABUNDANCE OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION and favorable temperature conditions have encouraged rice culture in the Sacramento Valley - See pages 4-7 or 13, 54-57 RICE VARIETIES ADAPTABLE TO SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONDITIONS have aided in the adaptation of cultural practices - See pages 10-11 SMALL GRAINS HAVE DOMINATED the history of crop production in the area - See pages 12, 31-34 MACHINERY AND CULTURAL PRACTICES HAVE BEEN ADAPTED to the soil conditions and to the high cost of labor - See pages 12-14, 16-17, 52-54, 81-87, TWO THIRDS OF THE RICE GROWERS WERE TENAMTS who invested their capital in the heavy equipment required and specialized in rice production on leased land - See pages 13-15 SINCE 1933 ALL THE MAJOR CROPS IN THE RICE AREA have been affected by Federal laws dealing with the support of commodity prices, acreage allotments, subsidy payments, and production goals - See pages 23-29 NO CROP BUT RICE for many growers - See pages 30-34, 36, 39, 41 LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISES HAVE NOT BEEN COMJWON on Sacramento Valley Rice Farms See page 38 ACRES OF RICE was one of the most important determinants of organization of farms studied - See pages 39-40, 46-48, 57, 71-74,92 AVERAGE VALUE OF EQUIPMENT for farms with from 150 to 600 acres of rice ranged from $10,900 to $36,300 - See pages 46-48 LARGE Af/X)UNTS OF OPERATING CAPITAL are required for rice production. Cash costs for producing rice on 300 acres are over $70 per acre - See pages 80, 82-91 -viii- v. ■ - •.■A,.:^ - ■ ■ ... v .... rr.^^ -i ■ ' , HERE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FINDINGS! LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF THE COSTS of production are fixed costs - See pages 89-91 ECONOMIES OF SCALE exist with any given inventory of equipment, but costs of production may be higher for the farm with 600 acres of rice than for those with smaller acreages because of the need for hiring more regular laborers and a tendency to own more equipment per acre - See pages 46-48 , 72-75 , 92-101 THERE IS A RISK THAT COSTS WILL RISE by as much as one-third In years when weather conditions require the use of an abnormal amount of pesticides or greatly increased inputs of machinery and labor - See pages 4, 99-102, 103 BARLEY, THE MOST PROBABLE ALTERNATIVE CROP, returns a much lower income per acre than rice - See pages 104-111 -ix- 00 bs> nolio '■J 'JiVi& 1. SACRAMENTO VALLEY RICE FARMS No. 1. Organization, Costs, and Returns ^ Gordon R. Sitton ^ PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS OF RICE PRODUCTION DIFFER FROM THOSE FOR OTHER CROPS Cultural practices used in rice production are similar in many respects to those for other small grains. They differ in that rice must be grown under unique conditions of irrigation. "Irrigation" for all other crops means to moisten the soil. Rice is not grown in moist soil but in a flooded pond where water stands several inches above the ground for three to five months. The irrigation requirements of rice mean that this crop has different soil and water requirements from the other grains. Economical rice production requires: 1. Soils that are relatively impervious so that the amount of water lost by percolation will be minimized. 2. Large amounts of low cost water. 3. Drainage conditions that will permit drying the fields sufficiently to allow the preparation of a seedbed and satisfactory harvest conditions. Rice may be economically grown on soils that will not satisfactorily produce other crops because: 1. Good winter drainage is not required. 2. Good drainage during the growing season is not required. 3. The fine texture of clay soil is a benefit rather than a detriment. l/ This report is the first in a series based on detailed investigations of the organization and operations of rice farms in the Sacramento Valley during the period 1950-1954, and supplemented by more recent data. This research comes under California Agricultural Experiment Station Project No. 1258 and is partially supported by the Farm Economics Research Division, U.S.D.A. 2/ Gordon R. Sitton was formerly Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Assistant Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and Assistant Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, College of Agriculture, Davis. 1 ^. .;..i' i.*•i.;. TBI »>V * : ';^:s' ^<'^^ *)>M'^ 2. 4. Rice can tolerate more alkaline or saline soil, and the soil may be improved by the leaching of salts during rice production, 5, Weeds that would compete with other crops are killed by the standing water. Soils Us ed for Rice Growing in the Sacramento Valley are Primarily Those With Defects for Other Uses The Sacramento Valley has approximately 950,000 acres of clay type soils with restricted or poor drainage. Large areas of these poorly drained soils have their productivity reduced further by the presence of harmful concentrations of alkali or other salts. Not all of these clay soil areas are cultivated. Some are used for noncultivated pasture only. Some are in wildlife refuges, A large fraction of the "heavy" soil area is farmed, however, and rice is the principal crop grown. Important soil series ,— Approximately 450,000 acres of the clay and clay adobe soils are in the Sacramento, Stockton and Willows Series— the major rice growing soils. In addition, large acreages of the Gridley, Landlow, Marvin, Genevra, Colusa and other series are or have been used for rice production. Location and origin of soils .— All of the soils on the floor of the Sacramento Valley have been deposited by flood waters. The Sacramento River has built up a flood plain of recently deposited sandy and sandy loam soil. During the past centuries the overflow of the river has spilled into troughs of lower elevation running parallel to the raised river bed. Streams draining from the foothills along the Valley have added flood waters to the basins caused by river overflow. Waters trapped in these low basin areas deposited fine particles to form the large areas of flat clay soil existing today, A system of levees and drainage channels now prevents the annual flooding of the basin areas, but the two important soil defects, poor .'I veil •p[3 ns J 61 jr.' or. V6fl 10 -'ii< csi. ■^n ifft no aJHc (id* f IA--.r f .fr-^ * r: '"^ ■ :>Bc 9riT ,e Tyj»w vu'-'i' i^tBw boc ' ,•3 VBI: r; v; •- n f ■ 3. drainage and harmful salt concentrations, remain as a result of the alternate flooding and drying of the basins in past years. Drainage is hindered by flat topography and the slope of the land from the river flood plains to the bottoms of the basins. Natural land divisions , — Soil on which rice is grown may be grouped according to their location within three major natural land divisions, 1. Alluvial fan and flood plain soils lie adjacent to the Sacramento River, its tributary streams, and the sloughs that carried flood waters out of the river. These are the most recent soils. They are for the most part deep permeable, well-drained, coarse-textured soils that are adapted to economic production of a wide range of crops. Soils in this group have not been widely used for pro- ducing rice except where overwash phases of these coarse-textured soils are underlain with clay type basin soils at depths that make orchard planting and deep-rooted field crops uneconomical, 2. Basin soils lie in the bottom of the troughs. They are fine- textured, poorly-drained soils and large areas are used only for production of pasture or rice. Some have a wider range of use, but all are more limited in use than either the more recently formed soils along the waterways or the older soils along the foothills, 3. Terrace soils lie between the rolling land of the foothills and the flat basins. They are the remains of older valley fill or drainage fans of streams from the foothill areas. Characteristics of these soils are more variable than either the basin or recent flood plain soils. Crop uses range from nonirrigated pasture and grain to rice or irrigated forage crops. :! span IF 03 Jfiaofec^ {1 h f-r-xr . +1^:; ooL't i ifeivuj •■ *(rd fi Tfivlfl 1600 «bSiU81 00 9^^^ 00 Y? V iJIlfc oi nib k. Rainfall and Temperature Influence the Organization of Rice Farms, and the Nature and Timing of Cultural Operations^ Amount of rainfall . —The annual average rainfall in inches per season at seven stations in the rice farming area of the Sacramento Valley for T''- years of record is as follows: Sacramento * . . l6.79 Willows .... 16.614- Davie I6.72 Hamilton City. ,19.69 Woodland. ... n.kh Chico 24.2? Colusa 15 '95 Tiie amount of moisture available from this rainfall in most years is barely adequate for dry farming of small grains. In years of slight rainfall it has proved inadequate for all nonirrigated crops. Fluctuations in amount of rainfall .— Rainfall varies erratically from year to year and in seasonal distribution. For the Colusa weather station, which is in approximately the center of the area geographically, recordings for the 2l^-year period 1930-195^ show a low of 6.38 inches in 1939 and a high of 30.i^3 inches in 19i^l. Other stations also show wide variations. Monthly distribution of rainfall . —For a 74-year period the average precipitation recorded at the Colusa station in inches per month was as follows; January.... 3. 09 April .1.10 JUly 0.01 October. .. .0. 69 February. ..2.89 May 0.57 August 0,01 November. . .1.62 March. .... .2.19 June 0,27 September. .0.28 December... 3. 23 Actual rainfall in any given year fluctuates widely around these averages. During the 24-year period 1930-1954, January rainfall recorded at Colusa varied from less than ^ inch to more than 7.5 inches. The lack of rain- fall in the svmmer months forces farmers to irrigate rice and other crops grown during this dry period. 17 Data on climate given in the following section are taken from the appropriate annual and monthly issues of: U. S. Weather Bureau, Climatological Data, California , XXXIII-LX (Washington). m 'xaq, nJL au £03 5. Distribution within Important months ,-- 'Distribution during the periods when seedbed preparation or harvest operations for rice are being carried out is of vital concern. March rainfall at Colusa was less than 0,5 inches in 3 of the 1930-1954 years. At the other extreme, 7 of these 24 years had more than 3 inches of rainfall during the month of March, Weather records show that in 8 of the 24 years, or 1 year in 3, less than 0,25 of an inch of rain fell during the last ten days of March. Six of the same 24 years, or 1 in 4, had over 1.5 inches during this critical ten- day period. In 8 of the 24 years, more than 0«5 inches of rain fell in a single 24-hour period. Rains of this magnitude in March and April drench the hard-to-drain clay soils and interrupt or delay field operations. Farmers producing rice on the poorly-drained basin soils reported that they do not plan to begin preparation of a seedbed for rice during the month of March and in wet years not until the latter half of April, Those farmers producing rice on better drained soils are able to begin operations at an earlier date. During the harvest season, heavy rains may cause the loss of rice through shattering, lodging, or abandonment. Rains delay harvest and make operations more difficult and costly by wetting the rice and by keeping the fields muddy. The long-run average for October at the Colusa station is 0.69 inches. Fluctuations in rainfall during the three ten-day periods in the month for the 24 years 1930-1954 were as follows: The rainfall during the third of these periods is likely to fall in heavy storms. Six of the 24 years had recordings of 0,75 inches or more in a single 0,25 inches or more 0,75 inches or more Number of years occurring out of 24 October 1-10 11-20 21-31 3 1 7 1 7 6 ..neon- • \> i.. ^ i i 0 i- J js ^ 6. 24 hours between October 21-31, and 5 years had 1 inch or more in 24 hours between these dates. Temperature .--Temperature is seldom a limiting factor in production of the common field crops. Temperature at specific times during the year, however, can be a critical factor in rice production. During May and June, lower than normal temperatures slow the growth of the rice plant. One result is a longer growing season. This may be overcome by higher than normal temperatures in mid and late summer. Another result is a weaker rice seedling that is less able to compete with weed and insect pests. Irrigation costs will be increased if it becomes necessary to alter practices, for example to completely drain a field in cool weather in order to stimulate growth of the rice plants. This normally leads to added costs of weed control also, because the weeds as well as the rice may be stimulated by draining,'^ Long-run temperature records at Colusa show the following in degrees Fahrenhe it > Average maximum Average minimum Highest Lowest Temperature and pollination of rice ,— A second and normally more critical period of temperature-growth relationships occurs between mid-August and mid- September when the self-pollinating rice plants flower. Any field of rice can be expected to complete flowering and pollination within approximately a one-week period when temperatures are above 55° Fahrenheit, If minimum temperatures fall below 50° Fahrenheit at the time Jan. Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun. July Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec. 53 59 65 71 79 88 94 92 84 75 64 54 38 40 43 46 51 57 60 58 54 48 41 37 74 78 88 93 101 109 112 109 106 99 84 74 19 23 26 29 32 38 48 49 41 31 24 18 1/ Information obtained from farm interviews over period 1951-1954, trii ',\'r«. ^9W lOf ,09Q ,VOH ,*30 .^q'_ 7. of flowering the pollen tubes may fail to form and rice flowers are not fertilized, consequently no rice kernel develops. Growers commonly refer to this condition as "straighthead" or "blighting." A difference of a few days in the planting date of a field can make the difference between a good yield or no yield if the flowering dates coincide with a period of low temperatures.-^ Late planting, or retarded growth from cool weather or excess nitrogen fertilization, may delay flowering until summer temperatures fall below the critical point. Temperatures below 50° F, for only a few hours will cause flowers in bloom at the time to be sterile, A period of prolonged low tem- peratures during mid-summer will affect many fields. This occurred in 1954, causing substantial acreages to be abandoned because yields promised to be too low to cover costs of harvesting. Temperature and harvest ,— Temperatures in September and October affect the ease of harvesting and the quality of the rice. The speed with which fields dry after draining is affected by temperatures during this time; a dry field is easier and less costly to harvest. Moisture content of maturing rice kernels also drops faster when air temperatures are high. Generally, rice is not combined until moisture content drops to 25 per cent or below. Cool moist weather retards the drop in kernel moisture, and, if prolonged, may delay harvest until after the onset of fall rains. Too high temperature at harvest time, in contrast, may dry unharvested rice too fast. Checking of the kernels, which is likely to result, increases the number of kernels broken in milling and lowers the price received for the rice. Acceleration of harvesting appears to be the only way to offset this potential loss. l/ Davis, Loren L. California Rice Production, California Agricultural Extension Service Circular 163. Berkeley, 1950, 8. Farmers Growing Rice in the Sacramento Valley Have Organized Their Farms and Adapted Their Operations to Control Adverse Biological Conditions and Realize the Benefits of Favorable Ones Adverse biological conditions .— Weeds and insects are the principal adverse biological factors. Control has been accomplished by alternating crops and by use of chemicals. Submerging land for rice gives good control of weeds such as morning glory that normally must have reasonably dry soil. Control of some water-loving weeds also is accomplished by leaving the land idle for a season between rice crops to dry the soil thoroughly or using it for crops such as barley that do not usually require irrigation. Some broad leafed water-loving weeds have been controlled by spraying with weed-killing chemicals. Careful management of the water level at planting time has permitted continuous cropping to rice on some fields during the past five to ten years, in spite of the danger of increased competition from water grass— the most prevalent weed pest. Insects . — Harmful effects of the major insect pests are generally controlled by spraying or dusting with poisonous chemicals. Incidence of these pests varies, and treatment is based on conditions in individual fields. Economical treatments are available for all insect pests that seriously attack rice. In some years weather conditions increase the cost of controlling pests. Unu- sually cool temperatures in May favors a build-up in the population of the rice leaf miner ( Hydrellia griseola vos. scapularis Loew) to the point where stands in many field may be threatened. The control involves draining of the fields, spraying with a solution of dieldrin or heptachlor and reflcoding to the normal level. Muskrats . — Muskrats have been spreading over the rice producing area during the past l5 years. These small aquatic rodents burrow into levees and ditch banks. The resulting leaks or breaks drain fields and require costly repairs. Stands 9. of rice and other crops are damaged from lack of irrigation water. Shooting and trapping have failed to halt the increase of these pests. To prevent more costly damage from breaks, growers rebuild levees oftener than would be necessary if they were not weakened by muskrat burrows. Ducks and other wild waterfowl . --Wild fowl are a serious menace to ripening rice crops, and at certain times to irrigated pastures. The Sacramento Valley is a major north-south flyway for migratory waterfowl. The arrival of large numbers of birds in the rice growing area in September and October coincides with the maturing and harvesting period for rice. Growers attempt to protect their rice by scaring away flocks of ducks that alight in their fields and by paying pilots to herd large flocks away from rice fields with airplanes. Good drainage and even stands that reduce the area of open water make rice fields less attractive to feeding ducks and geese. Favorable biological factors . — The availability of well adapted varieties is the most favorable biological factor affecting rice farming in the Sacramento Valley, Soil and weather conditions that permit the use of green manure crops and the complementary relationships between rice and legume crops have been used by • some growers to good advantage. The most important variety .-- Caloro, the most widely grown California rice variety, is a short grain type. It is well adapted to all of the rice growing sections of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and yields well under a wide range of conditions, Caloro generally matures in about 150-155 days after planting. It has the de-^irable characteristic of shortening its growing season when planted late. For k2 fields of Caloro on survey farms in 1950, the average of elapsed time from seeding to the beginning of harvest, as shown in Table 1, was l6l days,i'^ ■V It is possible that in some cases, at least, the fiexd may nave been '•nr.''" one or more days befort combining begaiu 10. TABLE 1 Average Length of Growing Season For k2 Fields of Caloro Rice, 1950 Average of elapsed time from seeding Greatest elapsed time — field seeded April 6 Shortest elapsed time --field seeded May 20 Fields seeded April 20-24 Fields seeded May 5-9 Fields seeded May 15-20 Days isr 178 1U3 159-172 1U8-166 11*3-153 Source: Compiled from records obtained in interviews with farmers. Correlation of data on planting date with elapsed days from seeding to harvest for the 42 fields summarized in Table 1 indicates that for every day that seeding was delayed during the usual planting season, the elapsed time needed to mature a crop was shortened by approximately 0.6 days.i^ Planting date is only one of many factors affecting elapsed time from seed- ing to harvest. Another iniportant variable that can be controlled to a certain extent is the fertility of the soil. Higher fertility tends to lengthen growing season. Drainage date also is important; some growers interviewed hastened maturity by draining fields during August. 1/ The estimating equation for growing time required is = I80.O2O - .587 (X) when equals estimated days from seeding to harvest and X is the number of days after March 3I before seeding. With 1950 weather conditions growing time required for plantings on May 1 and May 20 would be as follows: Y s 6.0 days and r a .kk. Estimated Estimated Planting date growing time date to begin harvest -days May 1 162 October 9 May 20 I50 October 17 /5 Xiif-. ■Jrr Short grovd-ng season variety , — When fields are planted late in May another short-grain variety, Colusa, may be used because it has a shorter grovdng season than Caloro, Its usual season is 135-liiO days from planting — and is not shortened by late planting. Some farmers have preferred Colusa in recent years for planting on very fertile land where it is more likely than Caloro to mature. Only 3 of 75 growers interviewed used this variety in 1950 even though it was first introduced in 1917. There has been more interest in it in years since 1950 as old clover fields have been planted to rice, but difficulties in obtaining Colusa seed and lower yields under normal conditions have caused most growers to plant Caloro, A medium grain variety .— Calif ornia acreage of Calrose, a medium grain variety, increased during the period covered by this study. Eight of the 75 grow- ers interviewed had grown this variety on part or all of their acreage in 1950. This is a relatively new variety, having been grown commercially for the first time in 19it8. By 195U, the estima.ted acreage of Calrose in the five principal Sacramento rice growing counties had increased to 13^737.^ Calrose has yeilded as well as Caloro* It matures evenly, adjusts growing season to date of planting, and is as easy to harvest. Its price premimum of 25^ or more per hunderdweight over the short-grain varieties has been offset somewhat, however, by the inconvenience of securing drying and storage facilities that would not mix the two classes. Handling services have been increased since 1950 and growers expressed intentions to grow relatively more of the medium-grain rice 2/ m the future,-' i7 ~~~~~~ Rice Acreage in the United States, 195U , The Rice Millers Association, New Orleans, 195U» .All of these varieties have been developed and tested at the Eiggs Rice Field Station. Improved seed and experimental results on cultural practices have been available from this station. Varieties grown in other rice growing areas are being tested continually, but have not proved to be as well adapted as Caloro, Colusa and Calrose, The long and medivun grain varieties grown in the Giilf Coastal states yield less than these three. I 1 12» LAND USE IN THE SACIiAMENTO VALLEY AND ORGANIZATION OF INDIVIDUAL FAEIS IS GREATLY AFFLCTED BY EGONOmC DETE 1311 NA NTS THAT ARE EXTERNAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL FARM BUSINESSES Small Grains have Dominated the History of Crop Production in the Area Throughout the history of farming in the Sacramento Valley small grain farmr- ing and permanent pasture have been the principal land use, with wheat and barley the. principal -nonifriga ted small grai-n crops. Rice was successfully introduced into the area in 1912» Big increases in demand caused by World VJar I led to a rapid expansion in rice acreage. Since 1920 acreage devoted to the three crops, rice, wheat and barley have fluctuated, but their combined acreage has been equal to approximately 80 per cent of all crop- land harvested. Since 19^0 saf flower— an annual oil producing plant— has replaced the nonirrigated cereals on five to ten per cent of the cropland.-''^ Other crops of importance ,— Alfalfa, sugar beets, and irrigated pasture have been other major users of land, but no other single crop approaches rice, wheat, or barley in acreage planted. Fruit and nut crops compete for the deep friable soils adjacent to the rivers and sloughs. Special Machinery and Services Required in Rice Production Have Been Cfeveloned in the Sacramento Valley Airplane operator are hired on a contract basis for seeding, fertilizing or application of spray material to rice and other crops, while special surface- operating rice machinery also is available for rent. Rice dryers, both commerci- ally ovmed and farmer owned, provide drying and storage space. A farmer who does not operate a sufficient acreage to justify owning special machine, may contract to have the necessary job performed for him. Service and maintenance facilities are commercially -.vailable for all farm machinery. y Data from Annual Agricultural Crop Reports , prepared annually by the Agricultural Commissioners of the Sacramento Valley counties. L 13, The acreage reduction forced by allotments beginning in 1955 makes it even easier for an individual farm operator to secure hired or contract equipment at the time when needed. This reduction may eventually make available secondhand machinery which may be obtained at a price well below that for items purchased new. The long history of production of the principal crops in the area also assures that full technical information is readily available through the Agricultural Extension Service and through the field service agencies of many commercial con- ^ cams. Some experimentation is done within the counties by the College of Agricul- ture Extension Service and by the Agricultural Experiment Station personnel from the University of California at Davis, In addition, the United States Department of Agriculture Rice Field Station at Biggs, California, is in constant touch with the latest cultural problems of the area. Availability of irrigation water .— Although summer rainfall provides little moisture for rice production in the Sacramento Valley, large quantities of irriga- tion water are available. Runoff water from winter rain and snows in the water- sheds draining into the Valley are stored naturally or in man-made dams for summer use. Publicly organized irrigation districts supply irrigation water and collect and remove drainage water. For water taken from the canals for use on his farm the landowner pays a charge plus a share in upkeep and maintenance of installations. Farmers who are not supplied by irrigation districts may pump water directly from the Sc?.cramento or other rivers, from a drainage canal, or from wells drilled on their own property. The public flood control and water supply systems relieve the farmer of protecting or supplying his own farm. This system provides over-all coordination of water management. Land tenure .—Specialized knowledge and machinery are required for growing the principal field crops in the area. Producers of rice, sugar beets, and other L 14. crops may, therefore, invest their capital in operating equipment rather than in land, and lease land from large landholders or from other farmers who cannot or do not wish to invest in the specialized equipment required for production of these crops. Many farmers prefer to lease a part of their acreage to a specialist , 1/ rather than personally undertake the investment and risk required in production. TABLE 2 Distribution of Growers and Acreages of Rice in 1950 Among Farmers Producing Rice on Owned Land Only, on Rented Land Only and on Both Owned and Rented Land in the Five Principal Rice Growing Counties. No. Acreage No. Acreage No. . Acreage; No.i Acreage No. Acreage No. Acreage Ovmer only 96 25,697 35 6,558 3h 6,51^6 62 11,881 k 449' 231 51,131 iOwner& tenant 25 9,621^ 2k. 10,372 22 9,279 31 li^,787 11 9,036 113 53,098 Tenant only Total 50 10,060 107 31,152 61 10,1^92 82 16,522 37 19,082 337 ■87»308_ 171 i+5,38l 166 1 1 US, 082 0.17 26, 317 175 52 28,567 681 191,537 Total Source: Compiled from records obtained from the offices of the Secretaries of County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC} Committees. In the five principal rice growing counties in 1950, Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yolo, 231 - or 33 per cent - of the growers of rice were operating on owned land only. Forty-nine per cent of the growers were producing rice on leased land only. The remaining I8 per cent of the growers were producing rice on leased land as well as on land they owned. Data on number of growers by type of tenure and acreage for each type are shown in Table 2. The importance of tenancy in rice production is further eiophasized by the fact that the 23I owners average 221 acres of rice per farm compared with 260 1/ Information obtained in interviews with farm owners and tenants. 15. acres for 337 tenants. The largest average acreage per farm, kjO, occurred in the group of 113 growers \riio produced rice on leased as well as on owned land. Prices Paid for Items Used in Production Have Increased Greatly in Re cent Years Land . —Land prices have increased greatly in the Sacramento Valley during the past twenty years. During the period 1950-1953 buyers paid from $200 to $300 per acre for producing rice land that may have sold for as little as $15 per acre in the early 1930 's. The difference represented partly in inflated price of land but also the improvements in the form of better drainage, lev- elling, and leaching of salts that have occurred as the land has been developed and used in rice production. Some of the more adaptable soils used in rice production have sold for as much as $450 per acret Rent paid for land used in rice production has ranged upward from $5 to $10 per acre cash rent to one-third or more of the crop produced. In recent years conditions tied to some share-rental leases, such as requirements for land levelling or improved drainage, have raised the rent above one -third of the crop. The increase in land rental has caused some tenants to attempt to purchase land on their own. This tendency has been discouraged by the increase in price of land, but many rice growers have purchased land since 1950. Continued favorable prices for rice have permitted tenanta, after building up an extensive inventory of operating equipment, to invest earned capital in land. The favor- able prices for agricultural products, on the other hand, have also caused landowners to retain their land rather than offer it to the market at the prices prevailing. Labor availability and wages paid . —Wages per day in the state of Calif omit have increased rapidly. The 1952 average wage paid was 327 per cent of that paid during the period 1935-1939, Table 3. Of all the commodities and invest- ment goods required in farm production in the Sacramento Valley, labor has shown the greatest increase in cost per unit. In general, the quality of the 1/ Information obtained from farmers, county Agricioltural Stabilization and Conservation Committee personnel and real estate brokers. 16. labor required in rice production has increased with increased mechaniza- tion and the actual wages paid may have increased more than the 32? per cent average for the state as a whole. During the rice harvest, the period of greatest hired labor needs, wages paid range from $12 to $25 per day. As a result of the shortage of trained sack sewers and the high wages required to obtain any one for this job, nearly all growers have changed to bulk handling of rice and other grains. In addition, self-propelled harvesters, automatic balers, and mechanical sugar beet machinery have fvirther reduced the need for seasonal hired labor. Farmers interviewed gave both shortage of labor and high wage rates as reasons for in- vesting in labor saving equipment. Capital .— The prices paid for machinery and other capital items used in production have also increased but to a lesser degree than those for labor and land. Prices paid for wheel tractors in 1952 were 189 per cent of the 1935- 1939 figure. Combines have risen to 203 per cent, tillage machinery to 21^4- 251 per cent. Because of the increase in wages, farmers attempted to obtain larger tractors and other equipment and provide more of the labor required in production of the major crops. Change in availability of labor also caused them to switch to machinery that would permit them to hire a smaller number of better trained workers for use in production. Fertilizer and other supplies .— Of the items used in production, fuels increased in price the least during this period with gasoline going up by 39 per cent and'ftiesel fuel slightly more. The price of ammonium svaphate increased by 80 per cent between 1935-1939 and 1952. 17. TABLE 3 Average Prices Paid for Selected Items Used in Production, 1935-1939, 19^5 and 1952, and Percentages of 1935-1939 Averages 1935- •39^/ 19'l5^ 1950^/ 1952^/ Per- Per- Per- Per- Price cent cent cent cent Price Dollars Dollars Crawler tractor, 3 plow 1,500 100 138 233 Wheel tractor, 20-29 h.p. 1,060 100 113 173 189 1,990 1 1/2 ton truck 918 100 166 223 25k 2,330 Combine 12' cut 1,670 100 120 175 203 3,^+00 Plow tractor, 3 bottom 156 100 116 208 233 363 Spiketooth harrow, section 11 100 119 203 2*^5 28 Ammonium svilfate (ton) 37 100 125 172 180 67 Wages per day, w/out board 3 100 288 288 327 11 Cents Cents Gasoline (gallons) 19.2 100 103 136 139 26.6 Distillate (gallons) a.k 100 108 183 185 15.6 a/ All data are national averages except ainmonitm sulfate and wages which are averages for California. Prices 1935-1939 and base for calculating index for 19i^5 taken from: Agricultural Prices . (Washington: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, March 29, 1950). pp. 3^-35. b/ Prices for I950 and 1952 obtained from monthly issues of Agricultural Prices . c/ These prices for items may be lower than those paid for items used in rice production, e.g., the combined price of $3,i*00 listed does not include: (1) the cost of bulk handling equipment for rice which is more ejqjensive than sacking equipment, (2) replacements of rubber tires with tracks for operation in mud, and (3) general strengthening of structural members. Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Wage Rates by States, Revised, 1910-19^^8 , (Washington, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, January 1951) P- 73* Bureau of Agricultviral Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Labor , (V/ashington: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agricvilture, January 195I to October 1952). 18* For Much of the Potential Production of the Sacramento Valley the Markets Lie Outside of the Valley The principal markets for many of the crops adapted to physical conditions in the Sacramento Valley lie outside of the Valley and for some such as rice, lie outside of the continental limits of the Ifeited States. This distance from the markets is offset by the low cost transportation available to the area. The navigable Sacramento River and railway lines provide means for moving the bulky products, such as grain, to nearby seaports. Grass and legume aeeds move into interstate commerce by way of rail lines. In addition, the area is served by modern highways which permit movement of many farm products to nearby metropolitan areas and seaports by trucks. The area has adequate gravel and hard surface roads over which farm products can easily be hauled to the public transportation systems. Grain drying and storage plants, beet dumps, and seed processing houses are located on the highways, the two rail lines, and the river within easy reach of the farms. Prior to World War II the principal markets for California rice were the off-shore territories of Ifewaii and Puerto Rico. During the marketing years 1935-36 to 1938-39 shipment of milled head rice to these two markets varied from 66 to 81 per cent of the total supplies available for shipment from Cali- fornia farms. As late as 1941-42, 70 per cent of the production went to these markets. During the war years distribution was affected by shipments involving the armed services and other Federal agencies so that percentage figures do not give the true picture of what happened in those years. In the 1945-46 season hi per cent of total supplies was shipped to the Hawaii and Puerto Rico markets and this figure Increased until 1950-5I when 58 per cent went into these channel! With the greatly increased supply available in 1951-52, only 35 per cent went to these two markets although the absolute quantity shipped was greater than in all but the previous two seasons.^ 17 For detailed information on the distribution of California grown rice see the annual releases: Agricultural Marketing Service, Grain Division, Annual Market Si ,immar Y nf California Rice (San Francisco: Federal State Market News Service, November I956 and earlier years.) 19. The decline in percentage of California supplies going to these off-shore territories reflects the great increase in total supplies available rather than a decrease in total shipments. The territorial markets are highly important outlets but larger amounts, both absolutely and relatively, have been going into export markets in recent years. Exports of California grown rice were 3,635,000 hundredweight in 1951-52, compared with an average of 873,000 in the preceding ten years. The very signif: cant aspect of this export situation lies in the fact that 3,283,000 hundred- weight, or 90 per cent of the total amount exported, went to one country, Japan. These changes in the production and distribution of California rice have been taking place since the war in the Far East severed the main trade routes Tiear the close of 1941. World rice production fell but has since regained its original level. Total demand for rice, however, has increased with increased population and rice growers find Japan in a market of increased and lasting importance."^ This increased importance of the export markets means that California growers will be influenced more by production in the other principal exporting areas and also by the availability of dollar exchange to Japan and other importing countries.^ 1/ Ibid . 2/ For an analysis of export markets for U. S. rice and changes in marketing that have taken place, see: Mehren, G. L. and Nicholas Thuroczy, The Market for United States Rice: Foreign . Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta., Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Mimeo. Report No. 163, March 1954. 20. Prices Received for Rice By California Growers Have Fluctuated Greatly as a Result of the Changed Conditions of Supply and Demand Table k shows estimated average prices received for rice crops produced from 1931 to 1955. During the last half of the 1931 crop year prices went as low as 56 cents per hundredweight with an average for the season of $ .89. From this low they recovered to a five year, 1935-1939> average of $1.36. Prices received for rice increased greatly with the increased demand during World War II. With price control in force the average prices received ranged from $3.20 to $3.67 during the wartime years. With removal of price control average prices received soared to $U.8o for the 19^6 crop season. The highest postwar price received was in 1952 when the season average prices; received rose to $6.25 or 459 per cent of that received during the 1935-1939 period. The lowest post- war price, $3.^2 was received in 19^9, but priced- declined again after the 1952 season. The estimated season's average price for 1957 crop rice is $4.50 per hundredweight.—'^ The high prices immediately following World War II permitted rice growers to make the adjustments in capital investment necessary to offset the relatively greater increase in the cost of labor and the decreased availability of suitable labor. Lower prices in 19^9 and 1950 caused rice growers to expect that the period of very high prices had ended. The advent of hostilities in Korea brought continued unrest in other parts of the Orient, however, and caused prices to rise above their 19lj-9-50 levels. During this period of continued high prices, rice growers continued to improve their inventories of equipment and their land. Many adjustments were made that would not have been possible with lower prices.^ / 1/ California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Field Cr ops 1957 Annual Summary , December 27, 1957. 2/ Based on personal observations, interviews with farmers, and data from U. S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Market Summary for California Rice . J 21. TABLE k Estimated Average Prices Per Hundredweight Received by Cali- fornia Producers for Rough Rice, Season Beginning October 1 1931-1955 Crop year Price Crop year Price 1931-32 $ .89 1943-44 % 3.64 1932-33 .91 1944-45 3.67 1 eft 194-5- 46 3.64 193^-35 1.49 1946-i+7 4.80 1935-36 1.1+9 1947-48 6.13 1936-37 l.i+7 1948-49 4.40 1937-38 1.29 1949.50 3.i+2 1938-39 1.2h 1950-51 4.54 1939-to 1.31 19bl-52 ^.95 19^-i^l 1.53 1952-53 6.25 19'4-1-U2 3.20 1953-5*+ 5.38 19^^2-1^3 3.^9 195*+- 55 4.70 1955-56 4.50 a/ a/ Preliminary Source: Agricultural Marketing Service, Grain Division, Annual Market Summary of California Rice , (San Francisco: Federal State Market News Service) November 30, 19 56, For the most part, the prices received for other crops have advanced less since World War II than the prices received for rice. To document this point, Table 5 presents data on prices received for selected commodities in Colusa County, the principal rice growing coiuity throughout this period. The prices for the principal alternative crops, barley and wheat, advanced after 1945 but only in 19^6 and 1949 did they show an equal to or greater increase than rice. Prices received for rice in IS^I were more than twice those received in 1945 according to data published by the County Agricultural Commissioner. By 1954 prices received for rice were still 138 per cent of the 1945 price but prices received for barley had slipped to only 96 per cent of prices in the earlier year. Of the other principal crops grown, both alfalfa seed and ladino clover seed have shown a marked decrease in price since 1945. These decreases or relatively smaller increases in the price of other commo ties have been a further influence causing farmers to increase their production of rice. TABLE 5 Average Prices Received in 19U5 and for Selected Agricultural Commodities in Colusa County and Percentage Each Average Yearly Price 19U6-195U is of the 19hB Price o oiTiinouXT/y i TTn-i + unit* 191;$ prxcc 19U5 19U6 19U7 19U8 19149 index 1950 ■ index L 1951 • index 1952 index 1953 , index : 1951; index 1951;' ; price _4 > dollars per cent ; dollar^ 1 -) Cwt. 3-25 100 126 203 1U2 137 , 1U6 185 156 , 138 1;.50 1 Lwt. 100 126 lUi 122 102 113 lUl 135 110 96 2,20 j 2.57 100 132 116 136 126 136 , ihh iliU 13U 132 3.U0 i ^ Oats Cwt, 2,30 100 130 1U8 II4I 130 130 ' 152 150 135 102 2.35 ! 1 Milo t ' Cwt, 2,3U 100 118 182 -1 -I 0 118 112 |118 139 132 111 T T T 111 i Fink beans Cwt, 6.65 100 180 210 1U2 109 |l28 117 15U 135 113 7.50 1 ! Sudan seed i Cwt. 6.50 100 108 108 97 123 i 138 123 123 .85 115 7.50 '■ 1 Alfalfa seed 1 Lbs, -36 , 100 100 67 83 69 i 5U 1 58 61 61; 69 \ ,25 ■ Ladino seed i Lbs, 1.25 100 108 120 136 12ii 1 106 100 ' '■o 29 1;2 .53 ! Alfalfa hay 1 Ton 20.00 100 125 115 115 125 ; 90 120 120 £/ a/ Sugar beets i Ton 1 1 12,73 : 100 86 . 99 53 55 i 76 1 77 ^ 75 75 78 9.95 : ' 1 a/ Data not available ♦ Source ; Annual -"Agricultural Reports, and Annual Reports Crop Statistics, County, Department of Agriculture » Colusa, California, 191;5-1951;. 23. Since 1933 All of ^ the Jfejor Crops Gro^^nl in the Rice Area Have Bsen Affected by Federal Laws D'ealing With ^ the Support of Commodity Prices, Acreage Allotments, Subsidy Payments, and Production Goals Among the most important economic determinants of farm organization are the action programs of governmental agencies which by the force of law can impinge directly upon the organization and management of a farm. Both rice and wheat have been eligible for mandatory support through subsidy payments, nonrecourse loans, or purchase agreements because of a designation as "basic crops"' under the agricultural laws of the past twenty years. Sugar beets have been grown under agreements allowing for subsidy payments during this entire period. Prices of other commodities have been supported under legislation permitting but not requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to render support. Incentives and restrictions under whic these and other crops have been produced since 1933 are listed in T.able 6. In general, farmers received subsidies in the form of lirect payments during the first half of this period and by support of market prices during the second half. Nonrecourse loans or purchase agreements have been available from the Commodity Credit Corporation to producers of rice, wheat, barley, beans grain sorghums, hay and pasture seeds— primarily ladino clover and alfalfa— and winter cover crop seeds. These have had the dual effect of (l) guaranteeing the farmer the support price for his crops, and (?) permitting him to borrow against his produc (placed in suitable storage) while holding it in expectation of a higher price but Tfdth the option of redeeming or surrendering title in full settlement of loan. Rice support activities. — Support prices were available throughout the period 19Ul to 195?^ but in many of those years there was little activity because of general market conditions. In fact, in 1913, 19U1| and 19ii6, although the legal framework was available, support prices for rice were not announced because market prices were well above what the support level would have been. There also was little support activity during the first two years after the close of hostilities in World War II because of the high demand for rice in export markets. For 191^8, TABLE 6 Action Programs of the United States Dapar+inent of Agriculture Applying to the Principal Crops Grown in the Sacramento Valley, by Years, 1933-195U Sym- . Crop Years VJhen Program Was Active Commodity and Program bol !«33 ,'3U '35 '36 ,»37 • '3B '39 'UO 'Ul 'U3 ■ 'Uh 'ii5 'U? 'Ii9 '^1 '^3 !'5Ii RICE -? i i Subsidy payments • , , . a/ P i P : P P P P P P P p P P : i f Loans and/or purchases L i 1 L L L ; L L L L L L L L L L L i Acreage allotments .... A ' ■ A A A A A : A A A A G 1 1 . . . G G G Q n \j WHEAT I 1 ' P P i P P P P P P P P P P Loans and/or purchases L 1 L L L L L L L T, L T Xj L L L L L . L Acreage allotments .... A 1 A A A : A A i j A A Q i Q 0 1 1 G ! G G G G i G G -J- i I i I I T J I I I I I BARLEY * 1 \ Loans and/or purchases L \ ! i L , L ' L L L L i L L L L L L L L L Production goals G > G G G G ' G G BEAI^ _____ i Loans and/or purchases L L L L L L L L L L ; L L T, Acreage allotments..,. A 1 A Production goals ...... G G G G G G j GMIN SORGHIJIB 1 ! ^ — u Loans and/or purchases L L L L L L L L XJ T, T XJ T J-i T T ' G t G n n. n VJ n. / VETCH Am PE/. SEEDS 1 ^ 1 ■ — ! 1 ' ; h Loans and/or purchases L L ' L ' L L L L L L L L L T ij T, T, \ Production goals G i t - — !■ 1 G G t G n bUGAIi BEETS i ■ ' ■ ■ — t P iP p P P P P p ' P P P P : P i P p P P p P 1 P 1 p pi Acreage allotments.... A 'A A ;A A A i G i G ' G i G , G G LADING CLOVER SEED 1 ! i 1 1 i Loans and/or purchases L I ! i L L ! L L L L L '■ 1 , 1 , Production goals..,,,. G ! ! G i G G G i 'ALFALFA SEED ' f" i t—T — f — r 71 — -|— 4 Loans and/or purchases L i ! 1 ; ; Li l! L L L L L L L ! Production goals...,,. _G^ * ! ( ^ ! i G : G G_J i i ■[ Table 6 - continued. a/ Nonrecourse loans for the purpose of holding commodities off the market, purchase agreements, and direct purchases made to reduce the supply available for commercial markets. Source: U.S. Department of Agric\ilt\u:e, Report of the Administrator of the Agric\iltural Adjustment Administration , (Washington, 1933-1953)- U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agriciiltural Adjustment Administration, California State Office, Annual Report, A. A. A. (or P.M. A.) Farm Programs , (Berkeley, 1939-1952). U. S. Department of Agriculture, Commodity Stablization Service, C.C.C. Price Support Statistical Handbook (Washington, November 1953)* 26. Commodity Credit loans were made on 347 hundredweight only but purchase agreements on 937,000 hundredweight of California rice resulted in net acquisitions by the Commodity Credit Corporation of 600,000 hundredweight of rough rice. Acquisitions during the 1949 crop year were much greater. With an increase of world supplies available and market prices the lowest since prewar, loan and purchase agreements were negotiated on over 46 per cent of the 1949 California crop. About one third of this amount was eventually acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation in the form of milled rice. Although loans and purchasing agreements were not actually negotiated in other years, the existing legislation assured growers that even if normal market channels would not absorb the entire production except at very low prices the Federal govern ment would buy an unlimited quantity at a certain minimum price. The Commodity Credit Corporation would support the price by loans or purchase agreements.-^ Loan rates. —The relationship of loan rates for U. S. No. 1 California Pearl Rice— testing 48 pounds milled head and 70 pounds total milled rice placed in acceptable storage with charges paid up till April 1— and the average price per hundred pounds received by California producers.^ Market prices fell below loan rates early in the 1954 marketing year. Growers placed 3,441,753, or approximately one third of the crop, under loan and purchase agreements. With prices advancing later in the season, all of the loans were paid off and no rice was tendered to the C.C.C.^ Market prices did not recover for tht 1955 crop as in 1954, however, and approximately one fifth of the crop was turned over to the Commodity Credit Corporation in price support activities.^ 1/ Data on price support activities are taken from the pertinent years issue of Agricultural Marketing Service, Grain Division, Annual Market Summary of California Rice . San Francisco, Federal-State Market News Service, 1933-1955. 2/ The 15th of each month calculated as a simple average to obtain these prices. 3/ Annual Market Summary . October 1955. 4/ Annual Market Summary . November 1956. ileum li-xiu , . ' v .; 0 '. '\5 J. 1 ■ . 27. TABLE 7 Loan Rates for U. S. Wo. 1 Pearl Rice and Average Market Prices Received by California Growers, 19^8-1955 Marketing year Loan rate Season average price received 1948 $ 3.58 $ k.ko 19^+9 3'k2 1950 I+.IO k.3k 1951 4.61 k.93 1952 k.Jl 5.95 1953 k.36 5.10 195^+ k.66 4.70 1955 h.38 Preliminary Source: Agricultural Marketing Service, Grain Division, Annual Market Summary of California Rice , San Francisco, 19^^-1956 . Growers used the machinery for price support in 195*+ and 1955 and its effect on the market can be readily seen. Growers, as well as bankers and other business- men interviewed during the course of this study, stressed the fact that the presence of price support machinery was having a significant influence on the organization and operation of the rice growing farms even in those years when market prices exceeded loan rates. Many operators could remember personally the drop in prices following World War I.^ After World War II, the presence of the Commodity Credit Corporation to take over rice at loan rates, in case market prices collapsed, insured dealers in land, supplies, machinery, and short-term capital against the serious losses certain to result from a precipitous rice price decline. This assurance of a floor under prices permitted and enco\iraged growers to purchase the necessary equipment for expanding rice output at favorable post war prices. Support on other crops . — Wheat has been supported continuously and large stocks have been acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation. Other feed and 1/ Average prices received in January I920 were $6.67 per hundredweight. By January I921 they had fallen to $2.00. Annual Market Summary , November I956. 28. forage crops have also been supported. Among these, ladino clover seed has made the greatest use of price supports. Average prices received by Colusa' County- growers reached a high of $1.70 in 19^8 from which they declined to $1.00 in 1950; support prices were discontinued after the 1952 crop, and the average price received in 1953 was only 36 cents. With this price decline following the remova of support, ladino clover seed declined from its position as the highest paying alternative to rice on many soils in the Sacramento Valley. Acreage allotments . --In conjunction with the price support activities, both wheat and rice have been subject to acreage allotments in recent years. Rice, wheat, and beans were all under allotment in 1950, allotments returned for wheat in 195^1- and for rice in 1955, forced reduction in the acreage devoted to these crops caused alterations in farm organization and land use. The impact of acreage allotments will be analyzed in a later publication in this series. Other programs . --In addition to the price support and acreage allotment programs, most of the crops grown in the rice area had designated production goals during the years 19k2 to 19^7 to guide their production (Table 6). These and subsidy payments that had been made earlier, and which have been continued for sugar beets, are generally incentive programs designed to improve the lot of the farmers producing the various crops. Price support programs have also tended to increase output of the several crops involved. Acreage allotments now becoming more prominent have the opposite effect. One other Federal program under the title of "Agricultural Conservation' has also tended to increase production. Under this program, directed by a state committee and administered by local farmers within each county, farmers have been encouraged by subsidy payments to carry out certain practices that have tended to increase productivity. In the rice growing area improvement in water management, such as reorganization of farm drainage systems, construction of 17 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration Cali- fornia State Office, Annual Report of A. A. A. (or P.M. A.) Farm Programs , Berkeley, 1939.1952. Colusa County Agricultural Commissioner, Annual Crop Statistics Reports of Colusa County , 19'<-5-195^. ■■.^3.l.'t -■■'n-;-f.-^o'*r; 29L. irrigation structures, as well as improved drainage, has been carried out. Part of the cost of establishing or improving permanent pasture and eradication and control of perennial noxious weeds has also been borne by the Federal program. Improvement in land levelling has been one of the major developments under this program. 30. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE FARIVI BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF RICE REFLECTS THE ADAPTATIONS OF SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONDITIONS TO THE PECULIAR REQUIREMENTS OF RICE CULTURE Cropping systems on farms growing rice have been influenced by all of the determinants discussed above - soils, climate, biological problems, economic conditions and government programs. On specific farms, the crops grown range from rice, only, to definite rotations of rice and other crops, or combinations of rice and other crops on the same farm but not on the same fields. In Colusa CoTonty, selected for study because conditions were typical of most rice growing areas of the Sacramento Valley, farms that grew rice in 1950 can be readily classified into those growing rice only, those growing rice and grain only, and those growing rice plus grain and other crops as usual practice. The acreage of total farmland and total cropland and the percentage distribution among the crops grown in 1950 on U9 sample farms selected from Colusa County are shown in Table 8. Of these k9 farms, 9 or about 20 per cent produced no crop other than rice and a least 2 more would have been in this class except for diversion to comply with acreage allotments. Twenty-one, or approximately h3 per cent of the farms, produced rice and one or more of the other small grains with barley predominating. Fourteen, or 29 percent, produced rice and other grains plus some other crop, usually alfalfa or ladino clover. Three farms, or approxi- mately 6 per cent, produced rice and alfalfa or ladino clover but no other grains . Other crops included pasture crops other than ladino clover, oats and vetch, barley and vetch, milo and stindan grass for seed. Land use and acres of rice . — Those farms with less than 80 acres of rice tended to devote a greater percentage of total cropland to perennial legumes than farms with larger acreages of rice. As shown in Table 8, 60 per cent of the smaller rice farms had significant acreages of alfalfa and/or ladino clover. By comparison only kO per cent of the farms with rice acreage 31 Table 8 Acreage and Land Use on h9 Colusa County Farms in 19^0 Total i Total j Use 0. ; Total Cropland I Ladino Idle or Other farmland ! cropland Rice : IfJheat Barley Alfalfa clover 1 fallow Acres Percent 1 Farms with 30 to 80 i t acres of rice I 180 152' 20 1 i 13 51 13 260 182 16 ! 31 10 73 69 56 ■i-7 25 i 200 200 20 ! liO 1 iiO 1 ii8 hs 100 i 333 233 21 79 160 Ikl U2 j 15 25 13 f 75 i 63 100 I ' 80 80 100 j 1 31? 280 29 i 32 i 39 Farms with 113 to 165 i acres of rice 1 1U5 ! 137 83 ' 6 1 11 ! 938 13 : 1 7 15 • 3ii 20 231; ; 185 68 ; lU 1 18 320 ' 296 kh ' 20 35 ' 3,220 h • 90 6 160 lii5 100 i 156 s 156 100 ' 600 ! 575 28 i 2li 21 9 18 220 1 202 82 10 8 500 i li70 35 21 Farms mih 200 to 32U acres of rice 1,275 16 1 i;8 16 20 320 ; 30k 70 ! 30 6iiO ; 610 36 6U 320 i 30h 76 2li 561 ! 1;93 50 1 ^0 763 680 37 2 61 1,280 1,220 21 1 l47 21 11 636 ! 607 h3 33 21+ 1,229 1,151 23 10 55 11 22 282 ; 263 100 516 ii98 56 10 29 1,0^5 : 9U3 29 h 8 h9 9 325 319 87 13 1,037 792 37 33 31 1,235 1,105 27 2h 8 kl 39U 377 80 20 2,305 : 2,286 111 1 65 5 2 9 U22 U02 77 23 1,700 1,680 19 5 \x2 31; — continued — 32 c Table 8 - continued. Use of Total Cropland Total Total jjaoine Idle or Other farmland cropland R"i r»P WllOcL Kj DcirjLey isj-iaxia clover fallow crops Acres rorcenX/ i Farms with 3hB to 62 < i acres of rice t i i 81 i 19 i 1,100 933 39 6 26 13 ' 15 i 1,700 1,600 23 50 2 19 6 i 1,730 1,669 25 U2 33 . 566 73 27 1,600 1,550 29 6 10 1 I450 U50 100 1 61iO 630 72 2 3 23 i 1,079 U8 52 15 ! 1 2,185 2,185 29 51 Source: Computed from data obtained in interviews with farmers. 33. falling between II3-I65 or 3^^8-625 acres, devoted acreage to those legume crops. The lowest incidence of clover and alfalfa - 21 per cent of the farms - was found on the farms with between 200 and 324 acres of rice. This allocation of land to crops other than annual grains was due largely to the type of soils found on the farms. Farms with no perennial legumes were generally those that lay in the trough with no well drained soil. The smaller and larger rice farms that had more land devoted to these legumes were so situated that they had deep well drained as well as basin soils. On some farms, ladino clover and rice had been grown on the same fields but generally they were on separate fields with different soil characteristics. Cropping history by fields . — The range of crops sometimes grown on the fields used for rice is illustrated in Ifeible 9. In Colusa County, 50 per cent of the fields growing rice in 1950 bad been used for no crop other than rice during the period 1947-1950. Some of these were on farms that, grew no crop other than rice. In other cases, these fields were used exclusively for rice, either continuously or with fallow years, and other fields on the same farm were used for other crops but never for rice. Barley was the most common alternative crop grown on rice fields. Barley and/or wheat had been grown on 39 per cent of Colusa County rice fields dur- ing the preceding three years. The only definite cropping systems combining rice with other crops in Colusa County involved only cereals. The most common was rice-rice-fallow-barley. These same cropping patterns were found on farms in other coxinties. In Sutter County fewer rice fields were being used for production of rice only. Wheat instead of barley was the principal alternative among the other cereals. The most significant difference between Sutter County and other areas was the rotation of rice-wheat and beans fo\ind on 21 per cent of the Sutter County fields surveyed. Sutter County rice growers made less use of the perennial legumes - alfalfa and clover - but relatively greater use of annual legumes - beans, peas and vetch. TABLE 9 Cropping History From 19ii7-1950 For Fields on Sample Farms That Grew Rice in 1950 Colusa County 1 Sutter County percent of percent of fields fields No crop other than rice 50 28 Rice and barley 22 7 Rice and wheat 8 -1 1 Rice and pasture 6 h Rice, wheat and beans 21 Rice wheat and barley 2 0 Rice and clover 2 0 Rice and peas 1 0 Rice, pasture and barley 1 0 Rice and beans 1 0 RicG and alfalfa 1 0 Rice, barley and milo 1 0 Ricej beans and barley 0 h Rice, oats and vetch 0 h Hice and peas- 0 h Incomplete data 0 Ih 100 100 Source: Data obtained from interviews with farmers. i 1- A 1^ 35. In Spite of the Use of One Vciriety on Most of the Acreage^ Larg;e Areas of Single ^oil Types, and a Small Number of Alternative Crops, the Average Yield Per Acre on Different Fdce Fields in the Sacramento Valley Shows a Wide Variation .l/ Yields in Colusa '^ounty t— On 79 fields producing rice in 19^0 on hO survey farms in Colusa County, average yields range from 1,635 to 7,310 pounds of dry paddy rice per acre planted. Cropping dequence, amount cf fertilizer used, the timing of operations, and characteristics of the soil were the most important items affecting yields. Heavy applications of commercial fertilizer were associated with favorable yields on fields that had been used for rice every year for four or more years including the 1900 crop. Applications of from k9 to 8ii pounds of N per acre, with an average of 60 pounds, were used to produce from 2,531 to Lt,9l6 pounds per planted acre with an average of 3,896 pounds. Yields in Sutter County . — Rice growers in the Sutter basin of Sutter County relied on rotations including beans or vetches, or the use of green manure crops, rather than commercial fertilizer. Thus they obtained yields of 3,500 to 6,800 pounds without the use of commercial nitrogen fertilizers. In Sutter Counijj fields are classified according to location in the Sutter Basin where the rotations normally include rice -beans -and wheat, and location elsewhere in the county, where the cropping systems are more like those in Colusa County, In the eastern portion of Sutter County rice fields are summer fallowed or used for oats and vetch for one or more years between rice crops, (Appendix Table 2). Although rice yields per acre in Sutter County average higher than in Colusa county for years when rice is groim, the highest yields reported were on fields that were not used for more than one rice crop in four years. Over a 1/ Data on soil type, size of field, cropping history, fertilization, and yield in 1950, for survey farms in two major rice growing counties, Colusa and Sutter, are presented in appendix Tables 1 and 2, 36. period of four years fields in Colusa County would produce from 2 to 4 crops. Thus their aggregate production would exceed that of the similar areas in Sutter County even though annual yields are smaller in Colusa. The highest yields reported for Sutter County were on fields where a green manure crop of vetch, beans, or peas was plowed under prior to a rice crop. Significant Changes in Land Use on Rice Farms Have Been Made Since 19^0 Between 1950 and 1955, saf flower has been added to the list of alternative crops. When grown in a rice rotation it has been used instead of barley, wheat, or fallow. A more important change has been the more continuous use of land for rice. Barley has been dropped from rice-rice-fallow -barley systems on many farms and on others rice has been grown every year with no break, even for fallow, between rice crops. The percentage of total cropland devoted to principal crops in Colusa County during the period I9I17 -19^+9 and the years 1953 and 195** are shown in Table 10. Rice acreage increased steadily after the allotment year 1950 until it covered 29.3 percent of cropland in the county in 193^' This increase represented 12. k percent of the total cropland, as shown in Table 11. Increased barley acreage during 1954 reflected good weather conditions and increased plantings in nonirrigated sections of the co\inty. In all Sacramento Valley Counties where rice is produced the percentage of total cropland planted to rice increased significantly between 19k7-19k9 and 195^ (Table ll). Rice, however, was the only major crop to show a significant increase in acreage during the period in all counties. Wheat showed a universal decrease, due to acreage allotments. Rice acreage also declined in 1955, of course, after the imposition of allotments. . - ^"^^ -^.^ -.a ■ • -. . ^ . . ■■ . 37. TABLE 10 Perdentage of Total Colusa County Cropland in Principal Crops, 19h7~19Sh Average 19U7-19U9 1950 19^3 1951; 1 per cent Rice 16.9 I IU.8 25.5 1 \ 29.3 * Barley 23.7 17.2 i i Safflower 0.0 \ 0,0 3.3 1 3.1 1 Wheat 3.3 j 3.7 0.9 ! 2.2 1 Idle and fallow ii3.8 1 hh,0 U2.0 i 1 25.2 1 Source: Computed from Amual-Ccop._SiajJ^ticaJB-epox.t5_. o£^ C Colusa, California, mimeographed t-eport of County Agricultural Commissioner, 19U7-195U. TABLE 11 Changes from the 19U7-19U9 Averages to 1951; in Percent of Total Cropland Devoted to Rice and Principal Alternative Crops in Six Counties Change in % of cropland devoted to County Rice Barley Safflower Wheat Colusa +12.U ' +5*7 +3,1 -1.1 Butte +16,U 1 +U.2 +0.2 ! "h.h Glenn + 5.8 ! -8.8 +1,8 ; -1.0 Sacramento + 3.6 ^ -2.U +0.1 j -0.9 Sutter +10.2 1 +1.2 +1.0 : -0,1 Yolo + 5.2 i +3.0 i -1.6 Yuba +13.3 i -1.7 ! i +0.1 , -i;.5 Source: Computed from Annual Agricultural Crop Reports published annually by Agricultural Commissioners of the respective counties. 38. Livestock Enterprises Have Not Been Common on Sacramento Valley Rice Farms In 1950, only 18 percent of the survey farms In Colusa County included owned livestock, while another 22 percent rented pasture to livestock men. As shown in Table 12, more of the smaller rice growers tended to have livestock. This followed from the greater tendency to produce forage crops on these than on the larger farms. The group with the predominantly heavy soils and little production of other than cereal crops, made the least use of livestock to market their crops. Livestock were found on 21 percent of these farms compared with 70 percent on the group of farms with 30-80 acres of rice. There was a greater tendency to rent out pasture on the larger rice farms because of the greater acreage of fall sown grain crops. The relatively small number of rice growing farmers owning livestock indicates a lack of experience in handling stock on these farms. Under conditions in 1950, there was no established demand for greater forage production. After 1950, the increased production of cereal grains at the expense of decreased legume production did not encourage increased livestock ownership. TABLE 12 Percent of Colusa County Rice Farmers Owning Livestock or Renting Pasture, 1950 Percent of farms Percent of farms Rice Acreaqe ownina livestock ! rentina pasture acres % % 30-80 40 30 113-165 20 20 200-324 5 16 348-625 10 30 Source: Compiled from data obtained in farmer interviews. • J .'ii 39. Acres of Rice Per Farm Proved to be One of the Most Important Determinants of Farm Organization on the Farm Studied. With few exceptions, rice was the principal cash crop on all farms where it was grown. On those farms with rice and grain combinations, the other grains used the same labor and machinery resources used by the rice. Income from these other enterprises was considered supplemental to that from the rice enterprise. Data on rice acreage on individual farms in 1950 indicated definite concen- trations of farms within certain ranges of rice acreages. Table 13, giving the distribution of rice acreages on 691 farms, shows such concentrations in the following classes.-^ Acres Farms 40-79 90 120-159 96 200-320 147 360-640 100 The sample of farms chosen for study was stratified to obtain data for 2/ typical farms in these four groups.-' Significant differences between the organi- zation of farms in these groups will serve as the basis for development of at least one typical farm organization for each group in later sections. Ten farms with more than 640 acres in rice were visited to obtain informatioi on characteristics of these larger businesses. They were found to be so dissimila that no attempt will be made in this publication to analyze them. No one descrip- tion could be called "typical" of this group, as can be done for the smaller farms. j/ The average ranges of these class groupings are widened to account for the effects of acreage allotments in 1950. Since rice growers had different percent- age reductions in acreage because of differences in the timing of their increases in the base period, growers with similar capacity for production were spread over a wider range in acreage. 2/ Data in Table 8, pages 31 and 32^ are grouped according to this stratification. 0'-' -«-rOi'Q-<^':'Si.:'>l,. , 40. TABLE 13 Acres of Rice Per Farm for 681 Farms in the Five Principal Rice Growing Counties, 1950 Group number I II III IV Acres of rice in 1950 Number of farms a/ 14-39 40-79) 9U 1 OV— ± X 7 76^ '120-I59j 96 ( 160-199 JlL. - 200-239) 53 240-279) 47 280-319) 47 320-359 19. 360-399) 19 400-439) 23 440-479) 14 1480-519) 14 1520-559) 11 i 560-599) 13 1600-639) 6 640-679 10 680-719 7 720-759 5 760-799 6 800+ 34 681 jl/ Farm as used here means the total farming operations of a farm operator or operating partnership. Source: Compiled from unpublished data obtained from county Agricultural Stabi- lization and Conservation Committee offices, Production and Marketing Administration, in Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yolo Counties. 41. THE DETAILS OF ORGANIZATION AND OPER^.TION DIFFER FOR RICE FARMS TEIAT ARE TYPICAL OF DIFFERENT ACREAGE GROUPS The organizations typical for farmers with different acreages of cropland and rice will be examined in detail in this report. The manner in which the principal alternative, tarley, fits into these farm businesses will be included, but consideration of other alternatives wilLbia reserved for a later report. Acreage and machinery .— Although acreage of cropland on the Colusa County farms studied ranged fr-om I46 to 3,22oi^acres of rice per farm tended to concen- 2/ trate within certain ranges.-' S+udy of the cropping s ystems and the inventories of equipment on these farms indicates a close relationship between the acreage of rice and the size of tractor and inventory of related equipment. Farm organizations built around the important size groups and inventories of equip- ment most likely to be found on farms with these acreages will be synthesized and used to demonstrate required inputs. Rather than use average horse power and average sizee of equipment that might not exist, analysis in this report will be based on inventories of the actual manufactured sizes of equipment found on the different farms. Budgets and supporting data will be presented for farms with 1^0, 300, li50, and 600 acres of rice. The Organization of a Farm With 300 Acres of Rice Can be Taken as Typical of Farms in an Important Size Group Farmland and cropland , — The organization costs and returns for a common size of business built around an annual production on 300 acres of rice will be developed in detail. Assuming a cropping sequence of rice-rice-summer fallow-rice, this farm in order to have 300 acres of rice, would have a total of 450 acres of cropland. The typical farm of this type would have in addition to the 3OO acres of land 1/ Table 8, pages 31 and" 32. 2/ Table 13, page 40, ! 1 ''42. actually in rice some waste land including land not yet drained for fanning, land in road or canal right of ways, etc. Farms visited had as much as one third of their total farmland in these noncropland uses. To allow for the costs of owning some noncropland, the budgets developed below will be based on a total acreage equal to cropland plus ten per cent of cropland. For example, a farm averaging 300 acres of rice will have that acreage plus I50 acres in summer fallow and acres of land not being farmed. A typical inventory of equipment . --A typical inventory of equipment for a fully equipped farm operating 300 acres of rice on k^O acres of cropland is shown in Table ik. The most important items of equipment in this inventory are the tractors and the hairvesters. The inventory is built around a 65 -drawbar-horsepower tracklaying tractor (T-7) assumed to have been piirchased new and to have a life of 15 years. In addition there is the smaller, older tractor that is used for odd jobs, Transpor tation is provided by two l|--2 ton trucks and one ^-ton pickup. The plows, discs, floats, harrow, chisel, and landplane are similar to the items that might be found on any irrigated crop farm. A checker and ditcher are added to take care of the task of building and repairing rice levees. TABLE 14 Equipment Inventory, Estim?ted Life, and Average Investment for a Farm Fully Equipped to Produce 300 Acres of Rice r- ■ 1 Estimated Annual Year Year Years of Price Salvage Fixed Average Itsm Size New a/ Acquired b/ Life Paid c/ 1 Valuf d/ 1 Deprec, e/ Value f/ - Tractor (track) 65 h,p. (T?) 19it8 • 19li9 15 7,000 ; i 700 U20 3,850 Tractor (track) 30 h, p. (T3) 1930 I9UO 10 1,000 ' 100 100 g/ 2,000 ~ Truck 1 1/2 ton 1951 1951 5 3,000 |l,000 1;00 j Truck 1 l/2 ton 1953 1953 5 3,000 ii,ooo UOO 2,000 Pick-up I/Il ton 1952 1952 3 1,800 600 llOO 1,200 1 flows 10/lU" 19J49 19U9 8 1,350 ; 135 152 - 7U3 U/lii" 19I4O 19I1O 8 350 35 35 ; Disk 20« 19U7 19ii7 10 1,600 160 -Mx 880 i Float 12 • X 30' 19U6 19U6 15 125 ! 25 7 75 ' Diker — 19ii7 19li7 15 900 , 90 S\x i;95 Harrow 20 » 19U7 19U7 15 lliO ^\ 8 77 ' Chisel 10 » 19ii9 19U9 8 750 75 8U Ul3 ! Ditcher 6-7'^- 19UU 19Uli 15 125 12 8 68 \ jlandplane 12' X 60' 19U6 19U6 15 1,850 200 110 1,025 1 Dozer 6» 19U0 15 500 .50 30 275 Eank-out Wagon 120 sack 19ii8 19li8 8 1,300 200 ' 138 1 750 jSm. S.P. Harvester 12 » 19U8 19U8 8 7,000 700 : 786 3,850 \ Sra, S.P. Harvester 12 » 19i;8 19U8 8 7,000 700 788 3,850 Machinery Carry-all 19U5 19U5 15 525 52 288 ; Grease Wagon 1953 1953 10 500 275 ; Farm Shop Equip. 2,000 so 1 200 , 2,000 h/| Total i i U,208 2U,2i;9 Table 14 —continued— Table 14 —continued. a/ Year new is based on the most frequent year new for these items appearing on the inventories of farms of this size for which records were obtained. These data were obtained in 19^1 and 19^2 and rechecked in 1953 with a smaller sample of operators. They would reflect the changes that occurred in equipment purchase through 195ii, the last year before acreage allotments were reiraposed. b/ Because of the great variations in conditions and price of itains purchased from previous users, only the smaller tractor and dozer are listed here as used equipment. These items were typically old equipment on this size of farm. ^^^^ ^^^^^ items, the policy varied from purchase of all new to all used equipment, c/ This is the most frequent price paid for each item in the "year acquired" listed. These prices, therefore, include typical extras, such as wide tracks on tractors. d/ Estimated at 10^ of new price. During the period of this study salvage values were sharply higher because of the inflation that occurred in the price of new items after the original date of purchase. e/ Computed on a straight line basis. New price less salvage value divided by years of life. f/ Average value over the life of the investment. l/2 Knew price-salvage value)+ salvage valuej g/ For items that are in use beyond the estimated years of life from time of purchase, the salvage value is included as the average investment, h/ It is assumed that an annual expenditure of $200 will maintain the average value of the shop equipment. Source: Compiled from records obtained in farm interviews. 45. The two self -propelled harvesters are stock model manufactured machines that have been modified to stand the rigors of rice harvest. They use a smaller header than would bt the case for other small grain. In addition they have been placed on tracks rather than rubber tires and will have equipment for bulk handling of rice. These machines represent one-fourth or more of the total investment in machinery and have a shorter expected life than the tractors. The bankout wagon, on tracks and with a bulk bed, will carry the rice from the harvesters to the trucks which must wait on roads or dry ground. For service, a rice farm of this type would have a grease wagon normally construct- ed in the home shop for servicing the tractor and equipment, A figure of $2,000 has been added for farm shop equipment. Some machinery repair and some con- struction is normally done by rice growers jn their own shops-;^ Value of equipment . — The inventory shown here would have an average value over the life of the equipment of .t'2l|.,2[i9. This is based on the life and new cost of equipment found on rice farms between 1950 and 1953. In very few cases one would find a rice farm on wliich all the equipment had been purchased in a single year or even over a two or three year period. In these cases where inven- tories are built up over a very short period some of the equipment would be pur- chased new and some would be purchased used from other rice growers. If the inventory of equipment shown in Table Ik had been purchased new at prices that prevailed in the rice growing area in 195U the total investment required would have been $h9,B00. The manner and extent to which rice growers have lowered their necessary investment in equipment by use of old machines, either repaired or purchased from other growers, will be examined in detail in a later report in this series* ^ Those farms that customarily ■ build major items of machinery may have $10,000 toSL5,000 invested in shop equipment. ! 0 ;• ■( ' 46. Equipment Requirements for Farms with iSO, 300, k^O, and 600 Acres of Rice Differ Significantly Inventories of equipment typical of those found on well-equipped rice farms of different acreages arc shown in Table 15. 1$0 acres of rice . —Farms producing 1^0 acres of rice, column 1, would have much less owned equipment than the 300-acre unit previously discussed. The major source of power would be a h$ horsepower tractor, no trucks except a pickup would be owned. The plow, disc, flot, and harrow would be part of the ovmed inventory' j chisel, landplane, and checker would not be owned because it would not be feasible to pull them with this smaller tractor, or to make the investment for an operation including only this acreage of rice, A smaller ditcher and scraper would replace the checker and the dozer blades. Only one harvester would be owned, and the farmer would probably owi his own bankout wagon although it is possible that this service would be hired. Those items of e quipment not available in the owned inventory would be hired from other farmers, or custom operators would be hired to come in with larger tractors and perform the services. 300 acres of rice .— -A grower might attempt to operate acreages of rice up to 300 acres with a tractor no larger than the h5-drawbar horsepower found typical for smaller acreages. If so, he would make greater use of a second tractor. Other than these items, his inventory, column 2, Table 15l»would be much like that found on a farm operating 300 acres with a T-7 tractor, (column h, Table 15). The plow, disc, and float would be smaller than those purchased for use with a 65 horsepower tractor. The harvest equipment would be the same as on the other inventory. The farm with this inventory built around the it5 horse- power tractor would have an upper limit of approximately 300 acres of rice or leas that could be operated" successfully. With the 65 horsepower tractor, on the other hand, the upper limit for this inventory of equipment could be as much as ii50 acres. 47.- h50 acres of rice. <"To expand from 300 acres to U$0 acres with a 65 horsepower tractor would require very few additions to the inventory, if any (column k) Table 15). A most probable one would be the addition of another bankout i\Tagon, particularly, if the added acreage meant that larger fields were being operated and, therefore, greater distances would be traversed to reach the edge of the field, 600 acres of rice , — ^When acreage is expanded beyond kSO acres, one 6$ horsepower tractor provides insufficient power, and other items of equipment are also inadequate. The inventory shown in Table 1$, column uses both a 65-and a iiS-drawbar horsepower tractor as well as the smaller one for odd jobs. A third truck has been added as well as the necessary tillage equipment, plow, disc, etc., to be used by the second major tractor, A third combine is added, in this case a pull combine rather than a self-propelled machine, since added tractors are available for harvest, With the third combine a third bankout wagon is added. This farm, like the 300- and U50-acre units, has a machinery carry-all for moving equipment from field to field or along the roads. The average value of the inventories of equipment from Table 1$ are estimated to be as follows: Average value • • Acreage equipment of rice inventory 150 $ 10,888 300 20,ii37 300 2i;,2U9 hSO 2U,997 600 36,287 In all cases these average values represent the total for the inventory that is obtained by adding together the estimated salvage value for every item of equipment plus one-half of the value of every item minus its salvage value. 48. TABLE '15 lypical Inventories of Equipment for Farms Operating 150, 300, kSO, and 600 Acres of Rice Per Year Acres of Rice T*!" cm Size 150 ! 300 a/ 300 1^50 ; 600 t 1 dollars b/ ; n X 0 c 1 Tractor (track) 65 DBH(T7) 1 J 3 opu II 11 k$ DBH(T5) , df ouu 2 6iiO II II 30 DBH(T3) J.UU JLUU 1 nn xuu Truck 0 r\r\r\ Cy\J\J\J UUU , UUU 0 nnn c , UUU II l| T l} T Cy UUU 150 acres of second-year rice, and 150 acres being summer fallowed for production of rice in the following year. This calendar shows in detail the input of Irbor, power, and equipment used in performing the different operations, and the time at which these operations are likely to be performed. Data for this calendar were developed from the results of interviews with rice growers* Detailed accounts are taken of the chronological order of the practices followed, and the acres per day covered by equipment used. From analysis of the interview schedules, typical operations and inputs were established. Tractors and other equipment shown under "power" and "machinery size" correspond to those listed in the inventory given in Table lU, This calendar and others in later sections, therefore, represent standards of typical inputs for the size of farms chosen. Although data on inputs and income are also to be given for farms with 1^0, hSO, and 600 acres of rice, the farm with 300 acres will be presented in greater detail for purposes of explanation. On a farm of this size the operator will attampt to perform as much of the labor as possible. The operations to be performed on each l50-acre field and the size of equipment from the inventory discussed above, together mth the acres that can be performed in a 10-hour day, establish the power and man-labor requirements for performing the practices. Ten-day time periods are ased in planning the work. The "days available" within these time periods depends upon the weather and whether work is done on Sundays and holidays. During critical seasons, such as the spring work season and the harvest season, operators typically consider that every day with favorable weather is a work day. TABLE 16 Calendar of Operations, 300 Acres Rice and I50 Acres Sujumer Fallow; I50 Acres First Year, I50 Acres Second Year Rice (Tractors include a T-7 and a T-3 for bulldozer operation) a/ 1 r 1 1 Acres 1 1 Month 1 per 1 i and Crew Equipment 10 hr. Requirements Days Labor re quired period Field operation size dav Power Man availabl e Operator Hired , Total 1 Acres Hours Days Hoiirs Hours March 11-20 1 Plowing 1 -1. T-7 10/14" 20 75 75 7 70 "~ 70 21-31 1 Plowing 7 5 -- 5 2 Di skinsT T-7 20' ji • ✓ 40 40 40 — 40 Floating 1 T-7 12' X 30' 45 33 33 25 __ 25 April 1-10 Floating 7 8 8 1 Survey- -- Custom 2 Plowing 1 T-7 10/l4" 94 94 62 62 11-20 Plowing Vi4" 1 33 — 32 1 Plow contours 1 T-3 ii50 10 10 10 -- 10 2 Float 1 T-7 12/30' i 45 33 33 28 " " 28 21-30 Float i 10 5 5 1 Plow checks 1 T-7 10/14" 100 15 15 15 15 1 Checking 2 T-7 Checker ,150 20 20 10 10 20 1 Plow borrow pits 1 T-7 10/14" 150 10 10 10 10 1 Disk — Harrow 1 T-7 20'— Harrow' 37-5 40 40 40 ko 2 Disk — Harrow 1 T-7 20 '--Harrow , 37.5 40 40 40 ko 2 Repair checks ^ T-7 Ditcher il50 1 10 10 10 10 1 Placing boxes 2 T-3 Dozer '200 7.5 15 7.5 7.5 15 1 Closing checks 1 T-3 Dozer ,150 10 10 10 10 2 Closing checks 1 1'} Dozer 150 10 10 10 10 1&2 Fertilizer 1 Truck |120 25 25 25 25 Fertilizing Plane -Custom i Table 16 —continued-- Table 16 - Continued. 1 ! ■n-UI t:o Month per 1 and 1 Crew Equipment 10 hr.i Requirements Days Labor required period j riej.u ' upero-XiXon Man rower size day Power 1 Man .Operator Hired ^ -L OT/d.X Hours 1 Da VQ i xJCLY o ' Hours 1 nours ' May 1-10 J?looding ■ 2 ... 150 ; 10 50 100 ... .... — j 150 i 1 Seeding 1 . . • 30 : 30 • • • 30 ! i t 1 oeeuJJig Pla/ ie-cust( Din j 1 1 1 t 11-31 i Irrigating j ! Plow 10/ll»' 60 ! i 21 C.1\J • « • 210 i June 1-30 i 3 Knock checks 1 T-7 25 25 i 25 25 i Floating 10/lii" o J rXOwxng 1 T-7 20 75 7p . 75 • • • i Irrigating 30 120 120 , 1 July 1-31 Irrigating 1;5 31 12li 12ii 3 Disking 1 T-7 20 « disk 33 33 33 ... 33> : 3 jjano. pxanxng 1 T-7 12 » L. Plane 20 75 75 75 3 Chiseling 1 T-7 10' Chisel 22.5 67 67 6? w. 67 1 August 1-31 Irrigating 31 12I4 12li oept . 1~)U Drain 1 * • • 20 26 20 20 1-2 Open checks 1 T-3 Dozer 10 10 10 10 Oct. 1-llt 1-2 Harvesting 1 S.P. Sm, Pusher 11.25 106 133 133 • • • 133 1 S.P. Sm. Pusher 11.25 106 133 • • *- 133 133 1 T-7 1 bank out 22.50 106 133 • • • 133 133 2 1/2T Trucks 22.50 266 266 • • 9 266 266 Total i,. l,li51i 755 2,209 a/ The T-7 tractor ranges from 6O-69 Drawbar Horsepower, averages 65 DBHP. The T-3 has 30 DBHP. Sourcet Con^^iled from data obtained in farm interviews. 52. The operate 's own equipment is used whenever possible. For surveying, fertilizing, and seeding, custom services are obtained. Timing of cultural operations . —In years with the "normal" amount of rain- fall in February and March, plowing of fields in preparation for seeding rice typically does not start until mid-March. In wet years and on poorly drained fieldsthe first spring work may be delayed vmtil April. The plowed fields are allowed to stand from 2 to 4 weeks to dry the surface soil.i'^ Other tillage practices and preparation of the fields for irrigation are completed in time to permit seeding during the first 10 days of May whenever possible. Bad weather, or not enough equipment to work a given acreage, delayed seeding as late as June 1 on some farms studied. After completion of rice seeding, equipment and labor are used for tending irrigation and working of sxunmer fallowed fields until time to begin harvest operations in September or October. Field work generally ends with completion of rice harvest. Sequence of cultural operations . —Calendar of Operations, Table l6 shows the dovetailing of three different sequences on three fields - field 1 producing rice after being summer fallowed the preceding season, field 2 producing rice for the second year in succession, and field 3 being svmimer fallowed following two successive years of rice production. Spring work in this calendar begins in mid-march with the plowing of the field that was fallowed the previous summer.'^ The sequence of operations used here asstmies that the field was not prepared for irrigation the preceding season.- 17 Better aeration of the surface soil and weed control were given by farmers as reasons for this practice. 2/ If the season has been warm and wet, this first plowing may be preceded by a disking to turn down volunteer plant growth, but this is not usually required on fallowed ground - unless a former crop has been grown. Fields with stubble from a preceding crop - field. 2 may be disked before plowing. 3/ Some growers build levees during the fallow year. Others delay these oper- ations until after the field has been plowed and partly worked during the first year of rice growing. Use of either time sequence would not change the total of inputs shown on this calendar since either field 1 would be checked .up for irrigation in the spring or field 3 would be checked up during the summer as part of the fallowing operations. ^ ■ as 3ax£i^s?. . •101 sqi-x . ■ s ,0X9 ri ^iI03S9•a -;ci,7.t.i>o-y , ; . , . . -i>^.'ic 53. After plowing, it is flo-.ted or dragged to smooth it and permit easier surveying.- Working First or Second Year Rice Fields ,— One of the major differences between seedbed preparation on the field that was in rice the preceding year and the field that was summer fallovred lies in the fact that the farmer still 2/ has the levees that were used for water control the previous year«-^ In effect, this means that the field is divided into many smaller fields for working. The effect of this is illustrated by the difference in acres per day plowed in fields 1 and 2 in Table l6. When the field can be treated as one of 1^0 acres the T-7 tractor-based on records of actual plowing collected from farmers - can be expected typically to plow 20 acres per 10 hour day. The same equipment working in field 2 cut into from 5 to 1^ smaller "fields" by the levees, can be e:Q5ected to average only l6 acres per 10 hour day. Preparation for Irrigation. — The rice plant is grown with the roots and the lower parts of the leaves and stems continually submerged during most of its growing season. This requires that the fields must be prepared to hold the de- sired amount of water for a period of several months. Checking operations on a field involve preparation of the system of levees that will confine water within its borders but permit a flow from the high to the low corner of the field which will give water circulation within each check as well as maintain the desired depth of water. Surveying the lines for the levees may be done by the farmer himself or a hired agent, '''he latter is more typical and is assumed here. These lines or On soils badly infested with water grass, some growers do not iloat or drag in the spring. Resulting compaction tends to bring moisture to the surface and sprout grass seeds ahead of the rice. Twenty-two of the 53 fields for which complete inputs were obtained were floated or dragged in 1950. By comparison, U6 of the 53 fields were plowed in the spring, U5 were disked one or more times and 29 were harrowed, 2/ - Water is held on the rice fields by levees which are usually constructed on the contour of the land. A rice field is completely enclosed by a levee of three to four feet elevation. The field is divided int6 compartments or "checks" varying in size according to the slope of the land. There is normally a differ- ence of two or three-tenths of a foot in elevation between checks. Water enters the field at the highest end and passes from one check to another through boxes or gates set in the levees. 54. contours are marked on the ground with a light tractor and plow. "Plowing checks" means plowing two ways along the contour lines to throw up a back furrow of loose soil. "Checking" - the actual construction of the levee la daae vlth a feeavy drag that is shaped like a V. This machine drawn by two or more crawler tractors • typically with 65 horsepower or more - draws in the loose soil and releases it through the narrow end of the V to leave a levee or ridge of soil that may be as high as 2k inches and as wide as 5 to 7 feet at its base. The "borrow pits" - the strips from which soil is collected for building the ridge are partly filled by making a round with a heavy tractor and plow. To close the syFteiB f or holding water the ends of levees crossing and dividing the field must be joined to the levee that serves as the outside border. This is normally done with a dozer blade on a tractor or a tractor-mounted scraper. The same tool is used to cut openings in the levees to permit insertion of "boxes" used to control the flow of water from the high into the lower check. Repairing checks .— The sequence of checking operations on a field that has been in rice the preceding year - field 2 - normally required only repairing weakened portions of levees that have already held water for one year's crop. This can normally be done with a ditcher or other machines requiring less power than the checker used for new levees. Fertilizing . —The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers increased during the course of this study. In 1950, 27 of the 53 fields for which detailed inputs were analyzed received synthetic nitrogen applications. Farmers interviewed in 1952-1954 indicated an increased use of fertilizer. Fertilizer was applied by broadcasting from an airplane or by drills or broad cast seeders on the ground. Airplane application is assumed in calendars used her X? Some farmers with large tractors and large fields prefer to plow down the levees as the first operation so they can plow the entire field without inter- ference. After plowing and other operations that can be more economically done >athout the levees, the levees are rebuilt. In contrast, operations with tract- ors of 30-45 horsepower can more easily farm within the confines of the Ifvees and may only repair, not rebuild levees between rice crops, even over periods of 5 to 10 years. • lot t ;'0 55. Flooding and seeding ^— When seedbeds have been worked and irrigation water is availably fields are flooded as quickly as they can be covered to a depth of 12 inches or more. Seeding is done by airplanes, broadcasting seed rice into newly flooded fields. Only two of the 75 rice growers interviewed used a drill to seed rice in 1950. Irrigating . —After seeding, water is normally held at depths up to 12 inches for periods of 18-21 days. This retards the emergence of water grass. During this period of deep water, constant vigilance is necessary to keep the levees in repair and forestall breaks - especially in windy weather. At the end of this period, fields are drained to give the rice seedlings a better start, and then the water level is raised gradually as the plants grow.— ^ After the stand has been established, fields are patrolled periodically to assure that the proper water level is being maintained and to watch for da m age to the levees by muskrats or other pests, that might cause levees to break and drain part or all of the field. Draining and opening checks . — In late August or early September fields are drained. Checks are opened with a dozer or a shovel to permit rapid and complete drainage that will facilitate drying of soils to support harvest equipment. Sumrrer f a 1 1 ow operations. — When rice has been seeded on fields 1 and 2, summer fallow operations are started on field 3- Old levees or checks are broken down with a plow, dozer, or grader. Operations listed here after knocking down old checks include plowing, disking, land planing, and chiseling. In some cases the disking is omitted and l/ Some variations of this pattern have developed in recent years. Because water weeds may outgrow rice on the drained fields, a constant level of 6 to 8 inches of water may be maintained from the time of flooding. w i*aaa%ia».» • • .'-•..i^x'iA,-. 'vj-n+X , ■ 56. not all fields zre chiseled. Again this list assumes that all probable operations are covered. The land planirtgl smooths the remains of old levees' and borrow pits and over a period of years accomplishes some leveling of minor irregularities. Chiseling breaks up hard pans resulting from farming operations and leaves the field rough and loose to permit drying which tends to kill the rhizomes and roots of water-loving plants. Have sting . — In the fall, when fields are dry and moisture content of the rice kernels has dropped to 2$% or below, combining is started. The inventory of equipment used here for 300 acres of rice assumes two self-propelled combines.i^ Rice is havilcd from the fields in a tractor drawn bank-out wagon, mounted on tracks or large tubber tires and, therefore, capable of traversing the fields and carrying the rice to trucks waiting on dry ground. In this calendar, the use of self -propelled combines ftees the T-7 - 65 horsepower - tractor to pull the wagon. If this tractor were used for pulling a combine, another large tractor would probably be hired to perform this job. 1/ "Small -pus her" is used to designate commercially manufactured machines offered for sale by suppliers of other farm machinery. A large "pusher" or self-propelled combine such as those made by growers or especially built for rice harvesting would represent an investment of 5 to 7 times that in these small ma.chincs but would be capable of harvesting up to 3-1; times as much grain per day in good weather and being able to operate in heavy rice or wet conditions that might stop the smaller machines. Z.f Z 57% Comparison of Calendars for Different Size of Farms Shovs Similar Practices : but Differ as in the Amount of Services Hired , The practices performed on smaller and larger farms are essentially the same as those on a farm with 300 acres of rice. Calendars of operations for farmers with 150, hSO and 600 acres of rice in a rice -rice -fallow sequence are given in Tables 17, 19, and 20. In addition. Table 18 presents a calendar for a farm with 300 acres of rice, but with an alternative inventory of equipment based on a T-$ - [|5 horsepower - tractor. The similarities in practices on all of these calendars reflect this finding in analyzing rice production on the 75 farms studied. Although there were some differences in the operations on farms analyzed, they were more closely correlatec with size of tractor used than with rice acreage. 150 ac r es of rice ,— The smaller tractor used on farms averaging 1^0 acres of rice could not accomplish as much work per day as the T-7. In spite of this it was easier for the operator to have all of his rice seeding completed during the period May 1-10 than for the one operating 300 acres of rice. There waa only one 10 day period in the spring, March 11-20, when the 7 days available were fully utilized in field operations. (Table 17). The remainder of the available time in each period was free time for other work or represented Sundays and holidays, A larger tractor would free even more timej a smaller one would cause the operator to use more of the time available. In comparison, the operator vdth 300 acres of rice and a T-7 tractor, Table 16, used all the days available for field work in every period from March 11 until his fields were ready for seeding. The operator on the smaller acreage had more chance of seeding his rice by the time planned, even if he experienced more bad weather or time lost in breakdowns than was allowed for in the calendar. For the larger acreage, with all available time for field work allotted, an above normal amount of bad weather or breakdown would mean a delay in seeding. 58. 300 acres of rice with a smaller tractor . — By adding a smaller tractor with equipment - T-3, 30 horsepower - and using it in field operations with its complement of equipment, the operator can operate up to 300 acres of rice with a T-5 as his largest tractor. This situation is presented in Table l8, using the inventory of equipment from Table 15, page 50. The farm operator is requir- ed to work every available day until the rice is seeded and the water is lowered three weeks later. Hired labor is used for the second tractor and for other jobs to a much greater extent than on either the farm with 150 acres of rice or the fan with 300 acres of rice and the larger tractor. 450 acres of rice with a T-7 tractor . --An even tighter relationship existp on those farms where the T-7 tractor and the inventory of equipment suitable for 300 acres of rice is used to operate k'yO acres and the accompanying 225 acres of fallow land. These operators, as illustrated in the calendar of operations. Table 19, do not attempt to "get by" by cutting out some practices but make greater use of hired labor. Unlike the 300 acres with a T-5 where the smaller T-3 was used to supplement the field work, this larger operator is. more likely to perform field work at night so that both the operator and the hired man are using the larger tractor. Even under this arrangement there is little free time prior to seeding. Any delay or a slower rate of operation at night than in day time would delay seeding beyond the dates deteimned by the other calendars above. 600 acres of rice . — Those farms producing rice on more acres than can be handled by a T-7 tractor typically showed great increases in inventory of equip- ment and use of hired labor. As shown in Table 20, for 600 acres of rice, two major tractors, a T-7 and a T-5 are used. Both are used for major field work, such as plowing and in addition the calendar drawn here assumes night work in order to have the rice seeded by early May. Even this combination allows little free time prior to seeding. ttw BiM ■''''•p.' bei'- , . .. . ■ , ^ ...... I.. , - TABLE 17 Calendar of Operations, 1^0 Acres Rice and 75 Acres Summer Fallow: 75 Acres First Year, 75 Acres Second Year Rice - (One T-5 tractor) Month 'and period .March 11-20 ; March 21-31 i t April 1-10 April 11-20 April 21-30 Field 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1-2 1 2 1 1 2 1-2 Crew Operation Plowing Disking Disking Floating Man i Stirvey (custom) Plowing Plow contours • 1 Float 1 Plow checks 1 Harrow 1 'Checking ?T-7, Drive a/ Fl jw' borrow pits Repair checks 1 1 Closing checks I 1 Closing checks! 1 Fertilizer I 1 Power ^-5 T-5 Placing boxes j 2 I T-5 T-5 T-5 1 JT Equipment size 1 T-5 5/lil" 1 T-5 i 12' i • 1 '; T-5 ! 12' M ; T-5 i 12' X 30' ■ji I T-5 i ' T-5 I : T-5 ! I T-5 T-5 i T-5 5/iU" 5/11;" 12» X 30' 5/1)4" 20' a/ Checker-' Acres 1-2 Fertilizing (Airplane-custOTi) 5/1I4" 150 Martin Ditcher 6-7' 50 Tumble bug scraper 75 T.B, Scraper 150 T,B, Scraper j 150 Truck and ^1 drive r-/t Acres per ID hr, day Requ iremen ts Power I Man Hours Days avail- ; able : Operator Hour Labor requir ed 16 30 30 30 111 150 30 150 50 75 120 hi 20 5 25 51; 5 25 5 30 U7 20 5 25 5U 5 25 5 30- 10 hrs. I 20 rented 10 hrs» ope rater 5 15 10 5 5 5 15 20 5 5 Day, Hired jTotal? Hours'' 7 7 7 7 10 U7 20 5 25 5 25 5 30 10 5 15 10 5 5 10 4^ i 20 i 5 s 25 5I1 5 25 5 30 20 5 15 20 5 5 Table 17 — Continued — Table 1? - Continued. Month and period Field Operation Crew Man I Power Equipment size Acres per 10 hr. day- Requirements Power ; Days •avail- .. Labor required Ifon f able Operator f Hired Total [ |l-2 ;i-2 l j Flooding ! Seeding Acres Hours 2 * 1 1 It 1-2 May 1-10 1-2 May 11-31 il-2 June 1-30 1-2 ' i 3 : July 1-31 1-2 ^ i 3 ! 3 : August 1-31 1-2 Sept, 1-31 1-2 1-2 October 1-lU 1-2 Seeding ( airplane-cilstom) Irrigating Irrigating [Truck and j driver b/ Irrigating Knock checks and float Plowing Irrigating Disking Landplane Chisel Irrigating Drain Open checks Harvesting Total 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-5 'Float and , 5/iU" j 5/iii" jl2« ilO' X 60' , / llandplane— ' > T-7S/ aO' chiselS^ i T-5 iT.B. Scraper S.P. Sm Pusher T-5 1 iT Bankout W, Truck and driver b/ 20 50 16 30 lys Hours 115 !ii7 .25 12.5 : 60 22.5 3k 150 11.25 10 107 107 13li I3h 13U 28 15 1 100 10 100 190 21 i 190 60 30 60 15 15 U7 1 hi AO 31 25 25 60 1 1 60 3h 3h 62 31 ■ 62 10 26 ^ 10 10 - 10 13U Ih 13U hi 1.103 13U 191 ) Hours 75 15 100 190 60 15 hi 62 25 60 3h 62 10 10 13ii 13h 13h i Table 1? —continued— s Table 17 - Continued. a/ Custom hired T-7, checker, and driver to use viith owned T-5 in checking. b/ Custom hired truck (1 J ton) = ^^2.00/ton for rice fertilizer and seed hauled from c/ Custom hired 10' x 60' landplane. $1.00 per hour. d/ Custom hired T-7 and chisel, pays fuel and repairs cost. TABLE 18 Calendar of Operations, 300 Acres Rice and 1^0 Acres Simmer Fallow: 1$0 Acres First Year, 1^0 Acres Second Year Rice, (Tractors include a T-5 and a T-3) Month I and i Period [ Field j Operation Gre w Man I Power Equipment size Acres per Days 10 hr. i Requirements avail- i Labor Required day ! Power Man able Operator Hired ! Total Acres ; Hours Days Hours ! Hours 16 70 70 7 ! I 70 70 10 1 38 38 1 jO ^8 ^o 30 1 50 50 7 50 50 30 > 20 20 ; 20 20 30 30 30 7 i 30 30 111 ho ho j j ho ho 10 70 70 i 70 70 Hi 17 17 7 ' 17 1 7 30 50 50 50 50 150 10 10 10 10 150 10 10 10 10 100 15 15 30 150 10 10 10 10 50 . 60 60 30 30 60 50 ! 30 30 30 30 200 ! 8 16 16 16 150 1 10 10 10 10 120 1 1 _^ I 13 13 L„. 13 13 March 11-20 Iferch 21-31 : April 1-10 April 11-20 April 21-30^ 2 1 1 1 2 2 2' 1 1 1 ;i-2 ' 2 i ! 1 I- 2 I I- 2 ;l-2 Plowing Disking Floating Floating j Survey (custom Plowing Plowing Floating Plow contours Plow checks Checking a/ Plow borrow pits Harrowing b/ Repair checks { Placing boxes j Closing checks I Fertilizer 1 1 (i n 1 1 1 1 2 1 1-2 1 1 1 T-5 T-3 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-3 T-5 T-5 T-3 T-5 ('T-5 ) rent f T-7, l^iver T-5 T-5 T-5 T-3 T-3 Truck 5/iii" h/ih" 12' 12' X 30' 12' X 30» 5/iii" Vili" 5/11;" 12' X 30' l;/li;" 5/11+" Rent checker 5/iU" 20' Ditcher Dozer Dozer Jj'ertilizing (Pl'anc-ciistom) Table 18 — continutcd— 1 .,1.' I.' ,1- S9 Table l8 - Continued. Crew May 11-31 i 1-2 June 1-30 I 3 July 1-31 3 1-2 1-2 3 3 3 Aug. 1-31 ; 1-2 Sept. 1-30 I 1-J2 ; 1-2 Oct. 1-lh 11-2 Flooding Seeding 2 1 Power Equipment size Seeding (plane -custom) Irrigating Knocking checks - floating Plowing Irrigating Irrigating Disking Landplane / Chiseling^' Irrigating Drain. Open checks Harvesting Bankout Hauling Total 1 2 1 1 T-5 1 T-5 1 1 1 T-5 1 T-5 1 Rent T-7 1 1 T-3 Acres per 10 hr. day Acres 5/iii" 5/ili" 12' 10 « X 60» 50 16 37.5 12.5 Rent chisel 22.5 Dozer Self-propelled harvester Self-propelled harvester Bankout wagon T-5 Two 1| Ton truck 300 11.25 11.25 Requirements Power j Days j J avail-j Labor required Man Hours 30 9h ho 120 67 10 106 ! 106 106 266 150 30 210 30 91; 120 liO 120 67 20 10 133 133 133 266 able I Operator Hired Days Hours 10 1 100 21 ! 210 30 31 31 3a 9h 120 60 ho 120 67 12li 26 ! 20 i lU i 133 ii,5oo Total Hours 50 150 30 \ 210 i i 30 9h 120 6h 12it 120 67 12ii 20 xU i t ! 133 133 i 133 133 i 133 266 266 863 2,378 Table 18 —continued— I ; Table 18 - Continued. a/ Custom hires a checker, T-7 and driver at the rate of $10.00 per hour. b/ Hires man for 30 hours of night work (harrowing), following floating on fields 1-2. £/ Custom hires T-7 at $3.50 per hour, pays fuel and field repairs and furnishes a driver. TABLE 19 ; CaLlcndar of Operations for h^O Acres of Rice and 225 Acres of Summer Fallow. (Tractors inclxide - T-7, and a T-3 for bulldozer operation.) Month and period Field Crew Operation \ Vian j Power Equipment size Acres per 10 hr. Requirements Days 4/: day [Power 1 Man Acres Hours Davs 20 113 1 113 7 37.5 60 60 7 50 1 '° 16 "biiO . liiO ; 7 150 15 15 50 i 50 . 7 100 23 23 150 15 ! ISO 15 1 I 37.5 120 120 10 150 15 200 11 n 150 15 15 150 15 15 120 38 225 [Operator I Hired ^ ^Totalj March 11-20 March 21-31 April 1-10 April 11-20 April 21-30 1 1 Plowing i 2 Disking T-7 2 Disking 1 Floating 1 T-7 1 Surveying 2 Plowing 1 T-7 2 Plowing 1 Flow contours 1 T-3 2 Floating 1 T-7 2 1 1 1 1-2 1-2 2 1 1 2 1-2 1-2 Floating Plowing checks 1 Checking 1 Plowing borrovgj 1 Disking pits and harrowing Disking and harrowing Repairing checks Placing boxes Closing checks Closing checks Fertilizing Fertilizing Flooding T-7 T-7 ! T-7 T-7 lO/lii" plow 20' disk 12x30' float Custom ; lO/lU" li/Hi" 12' x30' float i i 1^1^" b/ ' Checkei^' I lO/U" ! 20' disk and harrow T-7 ■ Ditcher T-3 T-3 T-3 Plane ' Dozer Dozer Dozer Truck custom Hours 56.5 13.5 16.5 25 28 i|2 7.5 20 5 11.5 7.5 31 29 5 n 15 15 25 56.5 13.5 16.5 1 25 '28 'h2 I 7.5 :20 5 '11.5 1 15 7.5 31 29 I i ■ I'lO 11 38 12 Hoursi 113 27 33 50 56 8ii M5 ho 10 23 30 15 62 58 ; 15 ! 22 I 15 15 38 i-3 7 1." Table 19 — continued — Table 19 - Continued. Acres 1 Month Days a/ and Crew J— fv^ U J . fJilt^ 11 \J 10 hr. Requirements avai 1- Labor required-' Field Operation Man Power size day • f — ^ Power I Man able Operator Hired Total Acres, Hours Days Hours Hours Flooding ! 1 1 Uo 10 IV 60 128 188 1-2 Seeding 1 1 UO Seeding ELane -custom i May 11-31 1-2 Irrigating r 21 210 1 210 Knocking 1 10/iu 38 38 ^ 18 ^ checks and 1 T-7 An "PI r^a +"1 n CT and float 1 3 Plowing 1 T-7 lo/iU" 30 113 113 113 113 June l-ju 37.5 60 30 150 60 1 150 3 Disking T-7 J.— / 20' disk 60 60 "3 Landplaning 1 T-7 12 « L. plane 20 ll3 113 73 Uo 113 July 1-31 1-2 Irrigating 22.5 ; 31 155 155 3 Chiseling T-7 10' chisel 100 100 100 August 1-31 1-2 Irrigating 31 155 155 Sept, 1-30 1-2 Draxning 1 150 20 20 1-2 Opening checks 1 T-3 Dozer 30 30 30 30 October 1-20 1-2 Harvesting X Combine 11.25 160 200 200 200 1 S.P. Combine 11.25 160 200 200 200 Banking out 1 T-3 Bankout 160 200 200 9 no 1 T-7 Bankout wagon 11.25 160 200 200 200 Hauling 2 1|T Trucks 22.50 1^00 liOO Uoo Uoo Total 1,557 1,758 3,330 a/ Hires man for March 10 through June 9th and again for 1 month at harvest to run one of the combines. Custom hires a T-7 and driver to help pull the checker. • TABLE 20 Calendar of Operations, 600 Acres Rice and 300 Acres Summer Fallow: (Tractors include a T-7 and a T-5) 300 First Year, 300 Second Year Rice April 11-20 April 21-30 May 1-10 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1-2 1-2 1-2 Survey- Plowing Floating Plow Contours Plow checks Checking c/ Plow Bor, Pits Disk Harrow Disk Harrow Repair checks Placing Boxes Closing checks Closing checks Fertilizer- Flooding Seeding Seeding Custom 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 T-5 T-7 T-5 T-5 T-7 T-5 T-7 T-7 T-7 T-5 T-5 T-5 5/ili" 12« X 30» 5/iU" Checker 20' 20 » Ditcher Dozer Dozer Dozer Truck i lii I 150 : 150 150 150 I 37.5 37.5 150 200 180 180 120 ( custom-air )lane ) 45 67 20 20 20 20 80 80 20 15 17 17 50 hS ! 67 ! 20 1 20 * 20 i 20 80 80 20 30 17 17 i 50 I 300 60 10 10 h$ 67 20 20 20 80 80 20 300 Month and 1 ■ 1 ! Crew Equipment Acres per 10 hr. j ' 1 V ' Days Requirements avail- Labor req 1 iireyj period Field — — — — Operation Ifen Power size day- Power Man Operator Hired; Total Acres Hours Days Hours ' Hours Iferch 11-20 1 1 Plowing T-7 lO/lU" 20 liiO lUO' 7 lUo i lIiO^ March 21-31 1 2 '< 1 ; 1 Flowing Disking Floating Floating 1 1 1 1 T-5 T-7 T-5 T-7 5/iU" 20' 12' X 30« 12' X 30' 16 37.5 30 1;5 13 60 17 -30 13 80 ' 17 30 7 13 80 , 17 : 30 13 80 17 JO April 1-10 ' 1 , 2 i 2 Floating Ploidng Plowing 1 1 1 T-5 T-7 T-5 12' X 30' 10/lit" 5/ili" 30 16 lli iiO li;0 10 iiO lliO 10 7 lllO Uo • 10 iiO lliO 10 20 Table 2U — continued — >0 30 17 17 50 60 \6 67 20 20 i^O 20 80 80 20 17 17 50 300 60 -J Table 20 - Continued. 1 Acres f ■ ! Month f and Crew Equipment per 1 / 10 hr. (Requirements^ Days ivail- Labor required— '''i period Field Operation Man t Power size day jPower Man able ^Operator'' Hired^ Total i Acres j t Hours Days Hc". rs Hours May 11-31 1-2^ Irrigating 1 i;20 21 120 120 June 1-3P 3 3 ■ 1-2 Knoc^ng checks and Floating Plowing Irrigating 1 1 ! 1 i T-7 T-7 lO/ll" lO/lli" 60 20 ■ 50 150 50 j 150 2U0 1 50 50 150 2lO 50 i 150 ; 2io July 1-31 1-2 3 3 Irrigating Disking Landplaning 1 T-7 T-7 20 « 12' X 60' U5 20 , 67 1?0 67 150 31 218 67 . 150 218 o7 150 August 1-31 1-2 3 Irrigating Chiseling T-7 10' chisel 22.5 134 218 13ii 31 218 131 ! 218 • 131 Sept. 1-30 1-2 ±—c. Draining upenxng cnecKs I T-5 300 20 10 20 26 10 20 10 20 1-2 Harvesting 91^ 91 182 Oct. 1-lii 1 1 2 T-7 T,7- T-5 T-3./ T-5^/ T-7g/ 3-l| S.P. Pusher S.P, Pusher 16' pull combine 11.25 11. 2^ 15.0 iiU llii 228 111 111 Ill 228 228 1-2 Banking out Banking out Banking out Banking out Hauling 1 1 1 1 1 3 16' pull combine B.O, Wagon B.O. Wagon B.O. Wagon B. 0, Wagon: T. Trucks 15.0 ' 91 91 91 91 3i|2 111 111 111 312 111 228 111 111 111 111 91 91 312 312 Total X .. . 3,047 1,176 , 4,539 Table 20 — continued — 00 Table 20 - Continued. a/ Night work is performed during rush seasons, b/ Labor crew consists of one year around hired man. A tractor driver hired for two months March 11 through May 10 and for a month at harvest and an irrigator who is employed from May 1 through September I4, Other help is hired as needed. Hours of employees hired by the month are recorded under column entitled "regular." Hours listed in the "hired" column are persons employed by the hour. The operator spends full time managing the business. c/ Custom hires one T-7 and operator to help with the checking operation, d/ Combine harvesters are expected to have 8 hours running time during a 10 hour working day, e/ Custom hires one I6 foot pull type combine plus a T-7 and driver for s'?125 per day, f/ Custom hires one T-5 and driver for pulling a bankout wagon at $32 per day, £/ Custom hires one bankout wagon, T-7 and driver for $45 per day. This size of operation also typically uses much more harvesting equipment and labor than the smaller ones. Typically the tvio self-propelled combines used for 300 and hSO acres will be supplemented with a larger combine pulled by the T-7 or by a large self-propelled machine. There was also a greater tendency to hire further equipment and rush the hervest to completion. On the smaller acreages the operators tried to complete their harvest without hiring additional equipment and men. This calendar, Table 20, assumes that another pull combine plus its tractor and two bank-out wagons plus tractors would be hired. This hiring of harvesting equipment was typical of these larger operations. 71. The Inventory of Tractors and Allied Equipment Determines the Amount of Hired Labor NeedGd and the fcrm of Hiring On a farm with 300 acres of rice « — The operator who is using a T-7 tractor on 300 acres of rice is able to provide almost all of the labor required for seedbed preparation and for irrigation. The operator's labor input from Table 21 may be summarized as follows ; Item Amount Tractor driving 6I4.3 hours Other labor 8II hours Total for operator lykSk hours If this l"bor is valued at the same rate per hour as would have been necessary to hire some one to do it the value of the operator's unpaid labor vrauld be as follows: ^ Value Tractor driving I qq^ n,^ Other labor 1,010.00 Total all unpaid labor $1,813.75 Total value per acre of rice $ 6,0k Hired labor ,— If this operator had a regular hired man he would be a local person hired by the day when deeded. It is estimated that 9 days or 90 hours of tractor driving would be required during seedbed preparation and the building of levees. Another tractor driver would be hired for 133 hours to drive a tractor on a bankout wagon at harvest time. For nontractor labor, 8 hours of placing boxes, 25 hours for fertilizing, and 100 hours for flooding would be used. At harvest time a skilled operator would be hired for 133 hours on the self-propelled combine and tvro truck drivers would be required for a total of 266 hours. This would give a total of 755 hours of hired labor used, compared with l,h$h hours supplied by the operator. Hired labor would cost $1,182 Including all charges, the total hired labor cost per care of rice would equal TABLE 21 Labor Inputs on 300 Acres Rice and I50 Acres Summer Fallow: 150 Acres First Year, 150 Acres Second Year Rice. (Operator used 65 DB horsepower tractor as the principal source of power, and performs a maximum number of the jobs.) Operation Per forme d b y ope rat or Tractor , Other j operator ■ labor ' Value Rate per hour Tractor operator Hired labor I Other 1 labor Value Hoitrs Hours Dollars Dollars Hovurs Hours Dollars Seedbed preparation Irrigation preparation Fertilizing Flooding Seeding Summer fallow Irrigating Draining Harvesting Self-propelled combine Banking out Hauling 315.00 43.00 275.00 1 10.00 ' i i i 50.00 30.00 578.00 20.00 133.00 393.75 53.75 50.00 30.00 343.75 578.00 12.50 20.00 332.00 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.00 Rate per day 25.00 15.00 15.00 40.00 50.00 133.00 8.00 25.00 100.00 133.00 266.00 50.00 62.50 8.00 31.25 100.00 332.50 199.50 399.00 Total tractor Total other 643.00 811.00 803.75 1,010.00 223.00 532.00 312.00 870.75 Total all 1,454.00 1,813.75 755.00 l,i82.75 I + State Compensation Insiirance (@ $4-00 per $100 of hired labor) Total labor cost 4.85 ! 6.04 Total per acre of rice Sour c e : Table I6. 2.52 47.32 1,230.07 4.10 jyc... OJO ' CO Comparison of labor inputs ,— Tho estimated amounts of labor used, including both the operators and hired labor, and the pattern of hiring on typical farms of different sizes are shown in Table 22. The farm producing rice on 300 acres with a T-7 tractor usee labor valued at |9.96 per acre which is the lowest dollar input for labor of the several sizes of farms that have been described above. Labor costs are $11.18 per acre and $10. 6U per acre, respectively, on the farm producing 150 acres of rice and the farm with 300 acres of rice using a T-5 tractor. These are slightly higher than for 300 acres with the T-7 because of the slower rates of performance with the smaller tractors. On these three farms, labor is hired by the day, mostly at harvest time. On farms with larger rice acreages the cost per acre for labor is higher primarily because the operator hires semi -permanent or permanent full-time hired labor at a monthly cost in order to assure himself of a labor supply when needed, and is unable to employ all labor fully. The hours of labor used per acre are essentially the same, 7.36, 7.1;0 and 7.55 - for the farms with 300, hSO and 600 acres of rice. But the method of hiring tands to make the cost per acre higher on the larger farms. On the farm with kSO acres of rice a tractor driver is hired for three months in the spring and summer and one month at harvest time. A monthly wage of $350 is allowed for this work. On the farm with 600 acres of rice one man is hired on an annual basis at $300 per month and another is hired for two months in the spring and one month at harvest time at a monthly wage of $350, On this size of farm the operator is listed as performing none of the actual labor but is free to devote his entire time to management. This is true of some farm operators interviewed. In other cases the operator actually performs some or all of the irrigation and operates a self-propelled combine at harvest because he likes to do so. The labor cost of $13,02 per acre on the farm with 600 acres of rice is the highest for any of the five situations presented. This relatively greater cost is especially important because it is entirely for hired l^bor, and therefore a 't 74, cash cost, while the opera.toi's labor on the smller farms represents an opportun- ity cost, and is actually a return to the operator rather than a cash outlay. Using cost of hired labor only, the .'|13»02 per acre on the largest farm should be compared with the following: k$0 acres T-7 300 " 3.9U T-5 300 " U,37 150 1.72 TABLE 22 Estimated Amounts and Cost of Labor Used, Terms of Hiring, on Typical 150, 300, i450 and 600 Acre Rice Farms Hiring period 150 acres I T-5 300 acres 1 T-7 300 ficres il50 acres 1 600 acres and type of work Time Total cost ' Time Total cost j Total Time cost Time Total cost r Time Total cost Hours Dfi i 1 ar«i Ly\^ X X o X o Hours DoTTa Ts Hours 1 Dollars Hours Dollar^ \ Hours UO±±3.TS Hired labor Annually f 12 months 3,600 Monthly- Tractor driver 958 h months 1,U00 3,Oi;7 3 months 1,050 Irrigator 1 u+ months l,2ii0 j Daily or Hourly fjn VP <^ + I id i. V C O U Other seasonal 131; 57 201.00 57.00 532 331 931.00 379.00 532 0 0 T 223 931.00 251.75 800 1,200 912 1 26ii 1,596 32h Total hired Per acre or rice \ 191 ' 1.27 25».00 1.72 ■ 863 , ■3.23 1,310,00 " ■•It.37 75^ 2.51 1,1«2.75 3.9h 1,?^B ' 3.91 2,600 5.VB U,223 7.03 7,810 13.02 Operator Unpaid labor Summer fallow Others 181 922 226.25 1,192.00 , 351 l,lli9 U38.75 l,Ui;U.OO 275 1,179 3U3.75 l,li70.00 173 l,38ii 216.25 1,783.75 Total Per acre of rice 1,103 7.35 l,UB.25 ^ 9.ii6 1,500 5.10 1,882.75 6.18 l,Wl i;.85 1,813.75 6. Oh 1,557 3.i;6 2,000.00] h,hh Hired and Unpaid Labor Total Per acre 1,29U 8.62 i ' 1,676.25 11.18 ; 2,363 7.87 ! 3,192.75 10.61; 2,209 7.36 2,996.50 9.98 3,315 7.37 i|,600.00 10.22 1,223 7.03 7,810 13.02 Source: From calendars of operations and budgets. CP 76. TABLE 23 Physical Inputs of Labor Per Acre of Rice on 53 Colusa and Sutter County Farms, 1950 Group and Operations Average . Hours Per Acre High . Low Tvnical 1 Other Tractor Other ^ ircicx-or [ utner Tractor Group I (30-80 A.) j other Tillage operations 1.73 U 3.50 0 .72 0 2.00 0' Checking .27 .78 .38 .10 • 10 .35 .35 Irrigation' 0 2.62 , 0 6.83 0 2.13 0 6.00 Seeding 0 .3h _ _ Harvesting - _ 1 Contract Group II (120-160 A.) • Tillage 1,77 0 3.12 0 .90 0 i 1.70 0 Checking .56 3.42 1 'OH .03 .07 .35 .ko Irrigation 0 5.37 0 9.9i4 U <:.0o U.UU Seeding 0 .10 0 .22 0 .06 0 .07 TT J. • Harvesting 1.36 2.76 2.20 ii.08 .33 1.29 1.50 2.50 Total tractor & other - 12.59 - (2I4.83) - (U,76) 10.52 jGroup 111(220-330 A.) Tillage 1.63 0 h,92 0 .93 0 1.60 0 1 Checking .30 iiO 7? 2.21 .02 .ou .33 .20 Irrigation 0 3.86 0 7.08 0 « 0 3.55 Seeding .23 .20 .27 .1+0 .18 . .oa .20 nu.rvfc5oj.ng 1.29 1 2.5U 3.31 6.U2 .38 ' .86 1.30 2.50 Total tractor & other 1 10. U5 ; 9.68 Group IV (360-61+0 A.) i j • Tillage 1.57 ^ 0 2.5i+ 0 .ii2 0 1.60 0 Checking .27 ■ ,2h .57 .7li .08 ! .02 , .25 .25 Irrigation .05 : 2.17 .07 U.65 .02 1.81 0 2.7a Seeding 0 .09 0 0 .03 1 0 .09 Harvesting .98 l,ii8 1.77 i 2.36 .36 i .60 .85 1.55 Total tractor & oiher j 6.85 ! - - i 7.33 Source: Summarized from farm interview data. 0 I 0<'i. kO. '-to. 0 ; :^J.. t » - 77. Summary of Physi cal I nputs of Labor Per A ^ cre of Rice on Farms Studied Shpws a Wide Rajpqe The calendars of operations and tables of lalor inputs developed thus far have been based on specific inventories of equipment, specific acreages, and typical inputs. Data showing actual inputs on rice fields in 1950 will serve to illustrate the range of inputs on actual farms and show how the "typical" inputs from the calendars compare with those compiled from the field records. Data on actual inputs are summarized in Table 23» This table represents the summary of hours of farm labor used per acre in production of harvesting of the 1950 crop on 53 rice farms. The farms are grouped according to size of rice acreage on the farm in that year. Group I had 30 to 80 acres of rice j Group II from 120 to 160 acres, Group III from 220 to 330 acres and Group IV from 360 to 6U0 acres. Some of these farms also had other crops in that year but no account is taken of that fact in this table of inputs of labor on the rice fields. The operations performed during the year are divided into five categories as follows; (l) till&g.e operations, including the seedbed preparation and fertilization; (2) checking operations which typically included surveying, the plowing of contours and checks, checking, plowing pits, closing checks and placing boxes; (3) irrigation operations which included flooding, tending of the irrigation during the summer, and draining; (k) seeding operations, which typically included labor actually provided by the farmer for soaking seed or providing a flagman for guiding airplanes in seeding - in two cases the rice was seeded by surface machinery rather than by plane; (5) harvesting, which included the labor required for operating combines and tractors for banking out the rice and, in most cases, for truck drivers to move the rice from the fields to an assembly point. Four different measures of inputs per acre are given for each category of operations. These summarize the totals used by the individual farms in performing 78. the operations. For example, the average of 1,73 hours per acre of tractor driver labor used for tillage operations in Group I is a simple arithmetic average of the hours of labor performed by the farmer or his hired employees in these operations on individual farms. The typical input of 2,00 hours per acre for the same group and category of operations is more representative of the group. It gives the best single estimate of inputs for farms this size and was obtained by considering those farms that did not appear to have either abnormally high or abnormally low inputs in this category. The range from .73 to 3,50 hours per acre shows the lowest and the highest inputs on individual farms. Labor of custom equipment operators, such as airplane pilots is not included in these totals, but where a large amount of the work in a category not typically performed by custom operators was hired for a particular farm, observations from that farm were not used in the averages and totals that would be affected. Harvesting labor is not included in the summary for the Group I farms because contract harvesting is typical in this group. In the classifying the labor of tractor drivers and other workers, tractor labor includes operators of self-propelled bankout wagons but not operators of self-propelled combines or trucks. Other labor is primarily for irrigation but also includes harvester and truck operation, placing of boxes, surveying and other jobs that require a small amount of nontractor labor. One important omission from the table is the labor involved in herding migratory waterfowl away from the fields. Time reported on this item was too variable to summarize. The variations in inputs for the different operations, for example the range from ,90 to 3.12 hours per acre for tillage in Group II, are caused by different physical conditions such as drainage, variations in practices from farm to farm, and different combinations of tractors and equipment. The sums of the average labor inputs for each type of operation are equal to 12,59 hours for Group II, 10,ii5 hours for Group III, and 6.85 hours for 79. Group IV. These arc the inputs that would be found on a single farm that had inputs for tillage equal to the average for its group, inputs for checking equal to the average for its group, and so on through the different operations. The sums of the labor inputs for typical inputs are more useful because they are not influenced as much by unusually high or low farms. Typical inputs were equal to 10.52 hours for Group II farms, 9.68 hours for Group III farms and 7.33 hours for Group IV farms. Totals are not computed for the high and low columns. These totals wo\ild be misleading, because no one farm was high or low in all of the items listed and the totaling of these extremes exaggerates the range. The range from high to low, which would be 2h.Q to k,l6 hours in the 120-160 acre group is exagger- ated in both directions by combining all the high inputs or all the low ones. This exaggeration does not exist in totaling the average or typical c olumns. Although these farms are stratified according to rice acreage, and there would appear to be a decrease in labor inputs as the rice acreage is increased from that of Group I or II to Group IV, it should be stressed that organization of the individual farm may be far more important in determining the amount of labor needed than the actual acreage on the farm. For example, comparing Groups II and IV, one sees that in harvesting labor the low of 1,29 hours for Group II is well below the high of 2.36 hours for Group IV. This fact pre- vents us from saying that it takes less labor per acre to harvest on the larger farm than it does on the smaller farm. We can say that average harvesting labor inputs are lower on the larger farm, and that the large farm typically has lower labor requirements than the smaller farm. Comparison with calendars . — The typical inputs in the 120-160 acre group of farms - Table 23, total 10.52 hours of labor per acre. The total from the calendar of operations for the 150 acre farm as summarized in Table 22, is 9.73» The difference is mostly in harvest labor whore the typical for the field 80. data is ii,00 hours compared with 2.68 for the synthetic data. Higher inputs in field data were caused primarily by the practice of handling rice in sacks, rather than in 'bulk, on 7 of the 11 farms of this size for which data were obtained in 1950. This required 1 or 2 more men per combine and more labor to load the bank sacks. Bulk handling has been assumed in the calendar of opera- tions used in analyses because it has become almost universal since 1950. Variations between the computed 7.93 hours for the 300 acres with the T-5 and 7.36 for the 300 acres with the T-7 in Table 22 and the 9.68 hours for the 220-330 acre group Table 23, also reflect this change in harvesting practices They also reflect some lowering of inputs per acre because the 300 acre figure ia above the average size for the 220-330 acre group. Of all groups, the synthetic data from the 600 acre rice farm with 7,55 hours per acre and the 360-6iiO acre group figure of 7.33 hours per acre- are closest. Harvest inputs were more nearly the same here. Sack handling was not as widely used in the larger group of actual farms. Only 2 of 12 studied used sacks in 1950. Other Inputs and Costs for a Farm With 300 Acres of Rice and a 65 D.B.H.P. Tractor Include Materials Needed. Cc,^f.= |960 for the farm illustrated in Figure 1. A range in yield from 2^ to 35 hundredweight can occur merely because of weather conditions, or because of differences in conditions from farm to farm or field to field. These physical differences are great enough that this range in yield may occur even with the same inputs. There might be some difference in the cost of harvesting, banking out, and hauling with the lower quantity of rice. No attempt is made here to measure the decrease in total cost from such possible 2/ decreases in handling charges,-' The increased costs of l^lU.OO associated with more spraying, fertilizing, and added costs of irrigation are shown by the total cost line TC^, For dif- ferent farms of which this organization, inventory, and inputs would be typical, costs should lie somewhere between TC^ and TC^ in any given year. At a price of $U,fi5 per hundredweight and a yield of 3,500 pounds of dry 37.63 cwt. of undried rice per acre x 1.30 » $0.32 per cwt. oi dried rice, 35 cwt. of dried rice There is also the possibility that the harvesting of the lower yield might be more costly if it is the result of adverse weather conditions at harvest time. 102A Figure 1. Price and yield changes and net farm income; owner-operotor farm with 300 acres of rice Total receipts or total costs (Dollars) 50,000 r*V 40,000 30,000 — 20,000 44,625 Price per cwt (Dollars) 4.25 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 TC|j Total costs TC Total costs a 25 26.2 30 31.5 Yield in cwt per acre 35 Net farm income eauals total receipts minus total costs. The upper cost level, TCj,, reflects higher costs for spraying weeds and intects, fertilization and irrigation and harvest. These cost increases are not uncommon, but ore not universal. Weather conditions that lower the yield are likely to cause farmers to incur some or all of them in any particular year. Source: Computed (rom Table 32. ■ 103. rice per acre the net income estimated from the chart would be iiU,625-2i|,ii80 or 20,114.5 the same amount shown in Table 32. With a price of $3.00 per hundredweight total costs would exceed total receipts and net farm income would be negative at yields below approximately 3*1^0 pounds per acre or 2,620 pounds per acre with the higher or lower cost schedules respectively. The intersections of the cost lines and the price lines represent break even points in the sense that with these yields and prices costs and deprecia- tion would be covered but nothing would remain to compensate the operator for his interest on his investment, labor or management. The e&timatfed net returns from production of rice on 300 acres with varia- tions in price received and in yield are shown in Figure 2. The readings in dollars on the lefthand scale of this chart are equivalent to the distances between the price lines and the total cost line, TG^ and TC^, shown in Figure 1. The variations in net income shown in Figure 2 may be demonstrated as follows: Total Net Income Price of Price of Yield of 2500 per acre I $ 3.50 cost curve TC^ 8,300 2,700 » II TC^ U,100 -1,500 n It 3500 TC^ 20,100 12,200 TC^ 12,200 8,000 These lines are straight because it is assumed that this farmer is operating within that range where he is not over taxing his equipment or other facilities. He is able to earn as much above variable costs idth any 1 acre of rice as with the prededing one. Net income from 300 acres of rice for two levels of costs can be read directly from the fi.g.ure. For any of the synthetic organizations that have been budgeted, net farm income for any given yield can be computed as follows: Acres of rice (price per hu;.drcdweight x yield per acre) - acres of rice / cost per acre from Table 30- 32^ ( 33 hundredweight-yield per acre^i At a price of $i|.25 and a yield of 25 cwt, per acre, het income would be as follows 300 (|i;.25 X 25) -3Co;$8i,6o - 320 (35-25)] ^ 18,355 103 A Figure 2. Net farm income dt two different cost levels; farm with 200 acres of rice ond a 65 fc. DBH tractor ^ Idx:.) 20,000 p20,100 " Not form Income ot TCa cost IbvoI. Not form Incomo at TC|, cost level. 15,000 12,200 3.50 10,000 5,000 -2,000 2,700 2 25 / 30 Yield in cwt per acre 35 3.50 Changes in yields, prices, and costs all have important effects on net form incomes. C. ...... (rnm Tnklo . "104. BARLEY AND ItTCE ARE COMMONLY PRODUCED ON THE SAME FARM •Cropping histories discussed above shewed that barley is the alternative crop most likely to be grown on the srme farm with rice. This might be accom- plished by reducing rice acreage and grovang barley on the same fields or by maintaining the same rice acreage and cropping sequence vrith fallow while grow- ing barley on additional cropland, . Requirements for Barley Production .— Typical inputs and costs will be developed for a farm vrith hSO acres of cropland that has 300 acres of rice on a rice -rice -fallow system. If the entire acreage of cropland were used for barley under ccntlnucus cropping with no fallow this farm could produce barley on h$0 acres every year. The major differences then between rice and barley production would result from the fact that barley is not irrigated and the entire acreage could be devoted to barley every year with no summer fallow. Except for the equipment used in the preparation of land for irrigation of rice, the same machinery is used for the two crops. Elimination of the ditcher, land plane, do^er and checker from the inventory of required equipment is probable because irrigation is not required. The bank out wagons may be eliminated because barley harvest is accomplished during the dry season and trucks can drive into the fields to receive the grain directly from the harvesters. This reduced inventory of equipment would h?.ve an average investment of !;>;21,785 compared with f^2h,2h9 for the 300 acres of rice and 150 acres of summer fallow, A further reduction might be accomplished by replacing one of the self-propelled combines with a pull-typ( machine « Timing of Inputs .— Preparation of the seedbed for barley woidd be done in the summer and early fall prior to the start of rice harvest. Seeding would be done in October or November after rice harvest for fall so\m barley, or in Ipril or May for spring sown barley. 105. TABLE 33 Variable Costs for Producing k$0 Acres of Barley, Using a 65 Drawbar Horsepower Tractor as the Principal Source of Power a/ Operation | Rate per Total ^ Cost per hour Total h/ Equip- tlO hour Equip- Variable ;Tractor-^ ment 1 j size clay c/ hours Tractor cost ! acres dollars j T-7 Disk 20» 1 ii5 100 1.32 .07 1 139 T-7 1 Plow 10/lli» 25 180 1.32 .11 257 T-7 1 Disk 20' U5 100 1.32 .07 139 T-3 1 Harrow 30' 80 56 .96 .01; 56 T-3 j B-cast 90 power ! Seeder 50 180 man .96 - 86 T-3 • Harrow 30» 80 , 56 .96 .oU 56 ! Harvest S.P. : 20 1 225 2.2li 501; j li|« header ! j Hauling l| ton truck 20 : 1 i 225 MM Variable machinery costs (other than trucks) Variable costs of operating trucks e/ Seed ~ Hired labor (90 hours seeding, 225 hours hauling) Total variable costs Operator is assumed to perform all the labor except for one man to help 90 hours with broadcast seeding, and one truck driver at harvest time. Only labor applied directly to the crop is listed here. The operator would put in much more time readying and repariing machinery, etc. V Only crawler tractors are assumed. Some operators wuld use a wheel trrctor instead of the T-3. Details of tractor costs are shown in Table 21; . c/ Based on rates obtained from farm jnterviews, d/ Based on budget data developed from farm interviews, e/ Assumes an annual mileage of 7,500 for the pickup, and 2,500 for the larger truck. Costs of operating trucks are based on data in Table 25. 106. TABLE 3h Farm Cost Siunmary and Per Acre Costs for k^O Acres of Barleyj Per Acre Costs for 300 Acres of Rice Item ' k$0 acres of barley Per acre of barley j Per acre of ] rice Fixed variable Land Real estate Improvements Labor Other Tractors Trucks Machinery Irrigation riaterials Int. on production credit Custom charges Personal prop, tax Msccllaneous $ 653 - 206 — k28 570 69h 1,015 26k 1,922 51^3 - 1,350 179 M an mmam 1.U5 .95 2.81 2.8I4 5.U7 3.00 .UO ^ 2.18 ! .69 U.06 5.60 6.99 li;.86 9.85 18.70 l.lU I5.h9 1.05 1.00 Total Total fixed & variable costs Less depreciation $li,5l;5 ^^3^279 7,82U 2,762 17.38 6.13 J 81.60 1U.U2 Total cash costs $5,062 — — - $11.25 ' ' $67.18 107 Inputs and variable costs ^ — The practices used, rates of performance, hours required and variable costs of producing barley under these conditions are pre- sented in Table 33. Seed is the greatest single cost, at |)1,350, followed by the costs of machinery operation, ^1,237. Hired labor is much less important than on a rice farm, since the operator can perform all of the labor except at seeding and harvest time. The classification of fixed and variable costs, and a comparison of rice and barley costs are shown in Table 3h* Comparison with rice costs ,— The total cost per acre of producing a barley crop, $17.38, equals only 21 percent of approximately one-fifth of the cost of producing a rice crop. Another important difference lies in the relative pro- portion of fixed and variable costs. For barley production, fixed costs account for 58^ of the total costs with only variable. For rice production on this same acreage according to d^ta in Table 29, only 29 percent of the costs are fixed, or unvarying with output. This smaller cash outlay per acre for barley, both absolutely and relatively, is further illustrated by the comparison of total cash costs— costs other than depreciation which latter is a bookkeeping cost not involving a cash outlay in a particular year. The total cash cost per acre of barley is $11,25. The cash cost per acre for rice on a farm of comparable acreage using a rice -rice -fallow sequence would be ^)67.l8 - more than five times as great. Production of rice rather than barley, therefore, required risking more money per acre, but per- . haps even more important, it requires the producer to obtain more capital for use in growing rice. Growing barley on additional land ,— Before comparing incomes from rice and barley production, two other production situations should be considered. Many rice growers interviewed were attempting to obtain more land in order to in- crease acreage devoted to barley production, without having to reduce rice acre- age. Two alternatives for a farm with ii50 acres of cropland have been presented - 10&. (1) 300 acres of rice with ISO acres of summer fallow and (2) kSO acres of barley. The rice grower who succeeds in obtaining more cropland for barley produc- tion may be in one of two situations. First, the added cropland may be used for nothing but barley with the rice-rice-fallow sequence continuing on hSO acres. Or tho new land may be integrated into the cropping system so that a sequence of rice -rice -fallow-barley will be used on both the new and original fields. Additional land used for barley only . — ^Where additional cropland is used for barley only, the calendar of operations on the rice and summer fallow fields will not be changed. The only competition for the operator's labor will come at barley harvest time. No change in the inventory of equipment will be needed. One of the major advantages to the bvsiness will come from using the same equip- ment to operate an additional 1^0 acres of cropland. Inputs per rcre will be identical with those where hSO acres of barley are grown. Variable costs there- fore should be equal to one-third of those in Table 33, or $1,093. Fixed costs will change by the amount of taxes on the additional 1^0 acres of cropland. Assuming an assessed valuation of ;ii;33 per acre and tax rate of ^^U.OO per $100 of assessed value, this would mean an added $196, Additional land used for rice and barley. — When the additional land can be used for rice, and the cropping sequence becomes rice-rice-fallow-barley, the greatest advantage results. Not only do the two crops supplement each other by making more use of the same inventory of equipment, but the summer fallow opera- t ions ■ following the rice crop partially prepare the seedbed for barley. The addition ^-f another 1^0 acres of cropland to the li^O adds 1^0 of barley harvest in the summer and 150 acres of barley seeding in the early winter to the rice and fallow operations. The calendar of operations for the rice-fallow organization, Table 16, page 52, showed that the field to be fallowed received the following operations: 109. Knocking checks Plowing I^isking Land planing Chiseling To complete preparation of a seedbed after these operations, one disking following the first fall rains should be sufficient. This disking, plus seeding and harrowing, would be the only work necessary to seed barley on summer fallow ground. Using the input rates from Table 33 for hSO acres of barley, the following inputs and variable costs would be required: Disk with T-7 3h hours @ $1.39 IU7.26 B-cast seeder with T-3 30 hours @ »96 28.80 Harrow with T-3 19 hours © 1.00 19.00 Harvester 7^ hours ® 2,2U 168.00 Trucks 75 hours @ 1.17 Ql .1^ $350. «l Tb this would be added seed at a cost of $U50 and Uh3 for hired labor making a total cash outlay of $9^3.81 incurred in the production of barley on the additional 150 acres in ri)tation with rice. no. Income From Barley Production Is Much Lower Than Income From Rice Production Yields .-- Barley grown in rotation with rice might benefit from fertilizer applied to rice. In some cases, soils used for production of rice were more productive than the nonirrigated land used for production of only barley or other nonirrigated crops. This was not universally true because some fields used for rice production viere so water-logged in the winter time that yields of barley were reduced to zero. In view of those variations a yield of IS cwt. per acre will be used in determining net income from barley in each of the croppin; situations. Price, — price of 52,25 per hundredweight of barley or $U5 per ton will be used in initial calculations of gross income. Net income , — Comparison of net farm incomes from hSO acres of barley or from 300 acres of rice and 1^0 acres of barley are shown in Table 35. Net income from 150 acres of barley - ^3,772 or ^3,921 - in addition to 3 00 acres of rice, is more than one-half the net income earned by planting the entire i;5C acres to barley. This illustrates the advantage to be gained by obtaining additional land to make better use of the equipment necessary for production of rice. The difference between the two barley-rice combinations $3>921-3,772, or $lh% represents the advantage to the barley enterprise of using some of the summer fallow operations to reduce barley seedbed preparation. This difference is not great relative to the total income because the more expensive summer fallow opera- tions are charged to the rice enterprise in either case and because only tractor and machinery costs are included. It is assumed that the operators unpaid labor will be able to perform the summer work. Seeding barley into summer fallow ground would save the operator 112 hours of trector driving labor valued at $lhO if hired. TABLE 35 Net Farm Incomes from ^50 Acres of Barley, and from 300 Acres of Rice Plus 150 Acres of Barley ! 1 Item 1 , acres of barley t 300 acres a/ rice plus 150 barley 300 acres b/ 1 rice plus ' l50 barley j Income from barley Gross income Fixed costs Variable costs 515,118 it,5U5 3,279 •5 5,063 198 1,093 S 5,063 198 9Uh i Net Income 7,36ii 3,772 3,921 1 ! Income from rice, net 20,lii3 20,ll;3 \ i 1 1 Net farm income j Pace plus barley 1 — $ 7,361; $ 23,915 1 1 $2U,06U a/ When the 150 acres of additional cropland is used for barley only. b/ VJhen the 150 acres of additional cropland is suitable for rice pro- *" duction and barley is seeded following fallow operations in a rice- rice -fallow-bar ley cropping system. 112» Use of the Additional Cropland for Rice is a More Profitable Alternative W hen Excess Machinery Capacity and Average Allotment's Will Permit it . The greater net return per acre from rice than from barley leads to the question whether an additional 1^0 acres of cropland should be used for barley or for enlarging the rice enterprise.i'^ Whether this question could be entertainet would depend on the availability of equipment or existence of excess equipment in the inventory. For the inventory of equipment built around a T-5 or US horse- power tractor, as used above, additional rice acreage would not be practicable with out obtaining additional tractor power. On the other hand the T_7 tractor on 300 acres of rice, as described above, wovld be adequate to handle the expansion of rice acreage, A comparison of net farm incomes from 300 acres of rice and 1^0 acres each of barley and summer fallow, with i|00 acres of rice and 200 of summer fallow appears in Table 36, By producing rice on an additional 100 acres, and fallow- ing an additional 50 to maintain the rice -rice -fallow system, net income could be increased by $U,739 beyond the rice-barley income of 52li,06ii. To achieve this greater income, variable costs would be increased by |li,783 and fixed costs by $198. This represents an added return of ;;i>l,95 and an increase in net income of 95^ for every *1 risked in increased costs. The greatest risk would be from reduced yields on the added 100 acres of rice : 35 hundredweight (150 acres) = 5,250 hundredweight Every hundredweight less than this amount would reduce net income by $Ii.25 - drying charge of 32^ = $3.93. The increased income of $U,739 would therefore be equal to i^U,739 i 13.93 or 1,205 hundredweight of rice. This quantity divided by 100 acres equals 12 hundredweight per acre on the additional acreage, the drop that would eliminate the advantage in growing rice rather than barley. 1/ Under present conditions this question is unlikely to arise because of restrictions on rice acreage. It was a pertinent question however during the period of this study and will be examined briefly here. The substitution be- tween rice and barley under acreage allotments will be examined in a later publication in this series. 113. TABLE 36 Net Farm Incomes From 300 Acres of Rice, 150 Barley, and 150 Summer Fallow, and From 400 Acres of Rice With 200 Summer Fallow Item 300 acres rice 150 acres barley 150 acres summer fallow 400 acres rice 200 acres summer fallow Gross receipts from rice '^v/ Gross receipts from barley Total receipts Variable costs rice Variable costs barley Total variable costs Fixed costs rice Fixed costs barley Total fixed costs c/ Total costs Net farm income Doll ars ,D<<:D 5.063 49,688 17,355 944 59,500 23,082 18,299 7,127 198 23,082 7,615 7,325 25.624 24,064 7,615 30.697 28,803 a/ Rice yield of 3,500 pounds per acre is used with an average sale price of $4.25 per hundredweight. b/ Barley yield of 1,500 pounds per acre is used with an average sale price of $2.25 per hundredweight. c/ Summer fallow costs are included in rice costs. Source: Computed from farm interview data. fj t ., ."-.1 I •■so' rriGi-" e"^- 114. Again, 1,205 cwt, - ItOO acres «= 3 hundredweight per acre of rice, the drop in yield on entire acreage that would eliminate the advantage ingrowing rice rather than barley on the added cropland. This yield decline might occur if an inventory of equipment adequate to operate 300 acres of rice and 150 acres of barley proved inadequate to operate liOO acres of rice. 115. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FnnnGrs in the Sacramento Valley have combined poorly drained soils, an abundance of low cost water for irrigation, flat terrain, and a favorable climate in developing a highly mi^chanizcd rice culture. Restricted on poor drainage, winter flooding, or concentrations of salts and alkali, limit the use of large acreages in the valley to crops that can with- stand such conditions. Rice which grows during the summer heat and must be grown in submerged fields can tolerate these soil characteristics that would be serious defects for other crops. The California rice industry is based on varieties adapted from short-grain types originating in Japan. Long-grain types do not yield as well with the summer temperature conditions found in the Sacramento Valley. Use of the short- grain varieties tends to limit the outlets for California rice in the domestic market and in those overseas markets that prefer other types. Heavy rains that delay seed bed preparation in Iforch ■'>nd April or interfere with harvesting in October and November greatly increase the risk of abnormally high costs on below average yields. Varieties and cxiltural practices developed at the Biggs Rice Field Station permit grounds to adjust to these conditions. Production costs are sometimes increased to as much as one third above normal by treatment required to combat serious infestations of weeds, insects, or migratory water fowl. The heavy investment in machinery and annual operating costs required in rice production has tended to encourage a high rate of tenancy in the area. In the five principal rice growing counties in 1950 - Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yolo - only 33 per cent of the growers of rice limited their operations to owned land. By comparison, k9 percent were producing all of their rice on leased land. The owner-operators averaged 221 acrds of ricej tenant operations averaged 260 acres of riccj growers who produced rice on both owned and leased land averaged 470 acres. ;.:r - lie. VJith few exceptions, leases were based on crop-share rentalj this divides the risk of yield and price fluctuations between landlord and tenant. Prices received for rice and other principal c rops in the area jumped sharply after 19h^, The price of rice has tended to be higher in relation to 19ii5 than those other crops since that date. Since 1933 all of the major field crops in the rice growing area have been affected by Federal laws dealing with the support of commodity prices, acreage allotments, subsidy payments, and production goals. Price support programs have tended to increase output of the crops supported, Acreage allotments in 1950 and since 1955 have decreased acreages of rice. Of the h9 farms studied in Colusa Coxinty, 20 percent grew no crop other than rice. Forty-three percent grew rice and one or more of the other small grains - with barley predominating in a rice-rice-idle-barley sequence. Twenty-nine per cent grew rice and another grain plus a third crop-usually a legume forage crop. Some fields were used for rice exclusively. Other fields on the farm were used for other crops, if any were grown. Fifty percent of the fields used for rice on survey fanns in Colusa County in 1950 had been used for no crop other than rice during the period 19i4.7-1950, In Sutter County only 28 percent of the fields had been used for rice only during this period. Wheat instead of barley was the principal alternative among the other cereals. A rotation of rice-wheat-beans was being followed on 21 percent of the Sutter County fields studied. Fields that had been in rice for at least four years received an average application of 60 pounds of Nittfogen per acre. Yields ranged from 2,531 to 1^,916 pounds per planted acre with an average of 3j096 pounds. In Sutter County where legumes were used in the rotation or as green manure, yields of from 3,500 to 6,800 pounds were obtained without the use of commercial nitrogen fertilizers applied to the rice crop. I k 117. Livestock enterprises have not been common on Sacramento Valley rice farms. In 19^0, owned livestock appeared on only l8 percent of the survey farms in Colusa County. Another 22 percent rented pasture to livestock men. Acreage of rice per farm varied greatly. On the 681 farms that grew rice in the five counties in 1950 there were 50 that had less than hO acres of rice and 3h that had over 800 acres. In the over-all distribution of rice acreage on these farms there were significant concentrations between: UO to 80 acres; 120 to 160 acres; and 360 to 6itO acres. There were significant differences in the organization of typical farms within these different groups. For purposes of comparison input-output data and machinery requirements are shown for farms typical of those with 150, 300, hSO and 600 acres of rice when following a rice-rice-fallow cropping sequence on rice fields. Based on items found on farms in 1950 and 1953, the estimated average invest- ment in tractors and machinery on these farms is as follows: Acres of rice planted Investment 150 10,900 300 20,U50 ^50 25,000 600 36,300 These investments represent the summation of the average investment over the life of the individual items, using prices being paid from 1950-1953. A farm having all new equipment would have at least twice these investments while one with older equipment or major items purchased used would have less invested. •The cultural practices performed on farms with different rice acreages were essentially the same. There were differences in the amount of services hired. Differences in operations were more closely correlated with the size of the principal tractor used on the farm than with rice acrerge. Operators with more than U50 acres of rice tend to use more hardest equip- ment owned or hired to shorten the harvest season. On the smaller acreages the operators tried to finish their harvest without b eing forced to hire additional equipment and men. 118. With the equipment being used on typical farms, labor inputs per acre were as follows: Acres of rice Man hours per acre 150 with a hS H.P, Tractor 8.62 300 vath a h$ H.P. Tractor 7.8? 300 with a 65 H.P. Tractor 7.36 k$0 with a 65 H.P. Tractor 7.37 600 acres with a 5 & ^5 H.P. Tractors 7.03 The tractlaying tractors and self-propelled combines, especially adapted for traversing the muddy fields were the principal equipment investment items. By 1950, a high percentage of the rice was handled entirely in bulk rather than in sacks and was artificially dried. The trend toward this type of handling has continued. Estimated costs of producing rice, exclusive of interest on investment and the operator's labor, ranged from $2,21 to $2,57 per hundredweight approximately 30 percent of those costs were fixed costs. Variations in weather and the increase of insect and weed pests and inter- farm differences in soil characteristics can increase costs for individual farms as much as SO percent above "typical" in years of adverse conditions. Because of the tendency to hire a higher proportion of the labor, net farm incomes for the larger farms budgeted did not increase in proportion to increase in rice acreage. Barley, the most widely grown alternative to rice, could be expected to return approximately one-third as much net-income as rice \dth barley selling at C.2,25 and rice at SI;, 25 per hundredweight. 119 APPENDIX TABLE 1 Soil Types, Area, Preceding Crops, Nitrogen Applied, and Rice Yield Per Acre in 19^0 for 53 Colusa Coiinty Fields Soil type- Willows clay slightly alkaline Willows clay moderately alkaline Area of Field Willows clay strongly alkaline Margin Clay Loam Marvin Silty Clay Loam Marvin Clay Acres 39 165 81; 55 80 126 1U5 60 fo U6 169 80 Qo\ 279 152 lli9 200 53 30 12 278 180 338 9h 263 Pre ce ding crops l9i;7 , l9l'5" Rice Clover Barley Pasture Rice Pasture Barley Fallovj Fallow Rice Fallow Rice Rice Rice Barley Rice Rice Pasture Rice Rice Fallow Rice Rice Pasture I Mce_in ;; nfitrbgenT" Yield ' ; per acre ! per acre j Pounds b/i Pounds c/ Rice Clover Barley ' Pasture Rice Barley Barley Barley Barley Pasture Rice Rice Rice Rice Rice Fallow Rice Idle Pasture Rice Idle- Rice Fallow Fallow Pasture 252 Barley Barley j 200 Rice Fallow 78 Rice Rice 311 Idle Barley 16 Clover Clover 180 Rice Fallow 32U Rice Rice Rice Pasture Rice Rice Rice Barley Barley Pasture Fallow Rice Wheat ) Fallow) Fallow Rice Rice Wheat Pasture Idle Idle Fallovr Rice Rice Fallow RicG Rice ) Rice) Barley Clover Barley Rice 8U 0 0 0 68 d/ 33 0 0 h2 d/ 63 38 75 d/ ^3 d/ d/ II2 63 d/ "0 U2 U2 h9 19 0 0 h,9l6 U,711 U,085 ii,000 3,875 3,U00 3,391 2,500 e/ 2,200 e/ 5,Uii8 U,700 U,200 li,l85 U,oio U,ooo 3,760 3,750 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,129 3,0)40 2,900 2,8U5 2,800 3,925 2,531 2,500 7,315 3,500 3,5Ui; Table 1 --continued — 120. Table 1 - Continued. a/ Soil type^ Preceding crops Rice in 1950 Nitrogen 19U7 1 19W Per acre Dollarsb/ Yield per acre Dollarsc/ 5,800 3,896 3,823 • 3,500 3,U92 ■ 3,18a 5 2,700 g/ : 2,500" : i li,000 > li,000 j 3,li5o ; 3,200 I 2,7U8 ! 5,000 i 3,100 5,000 5,000 3,667 Ifervin clay slightly alkaline Sacramento clay Hillgate clay loam Genevra clay Vfyers clay Acres 110 35 200 102 63 72 3U8 290 20 1U5 U50 220 h5o 290 80 126 60 75 60 120 30 •i 1 1 1 * ) 1 Rice 1 1 ! Barley , i 1 xdie ! nice ; Rice j itxce r axxow 1 i MW. j Rice 1 Fallow Rice ' 1 Rice . 1 Id-Le Rice i Rice \ Fallow Fallow ! ' RicG Barley Idle i ( j i ~ i mtmm xtice t i Rice Peas Rice I Fallow Barley ' Barley j • Rice ! Milo ; Barley j ! Fallow Barley Rice 1 Rice Fall 1 Rice 1 1 Rice Rice Rice ) j j Rice Rice Fall ) j Wheat Wheat VJheat ) i [ Fallow Fallow Rice ; Rice Fallow Rice ' Rice Rice Rice 0 h9 0 h9 ho h2 0 0 h9 h2 25 h2 ^ 69 d/ 20-21 69 66 53 a/ A field was classed as a single soil type if 85^ or more was of one " type. In many cases field boundaries were coincident with natural boundaries which also divided soil types. b/ Figure given is total pounds of actual nitrogen, c/ Pounds of dry paddy rice, d/ Amoimt of fertilizer applied in 1950 not known. e/ Yields in these fields were affected by late seeding and difficulty with irrigation. Some seeded acreage was abandoned, f/ 150? on 180 acres. 3'^0# on 270 acres. g/ This piece suffered from improper irrigation. The balance of the field yielded 5,800. Source* Data collected in interviews with rice growers. 1 121. TABLE 2 Field Area Preceding Crops, Nitrogen Applied on Green Manure Crop, and Rice Yield Per Acre in 1950 for l8 Sutter County Fields Area of iField On farms in the Sutter / Basin area-' On farms not in the Suttei Basin areas Acres 156 l'^5 Ikl 150 Iko 13h Ikl 160 75 k6 13h 120 20 60 160 62 80 IW Preceding Crops 19^9" Rice in 1950 Beans Beans Wheat 0 Yes Beans Beans Wheat 0 Yes Wheat Rice Wheat 0 Yes Rice Beans Wheat 0 Yes Wheat Wheat Beans 38 No Wheat Wheat Wheat 0 Yes Peas Rice Peas 0 No Rice Beans Wheat 0 No Rice Beans Barley 30 Yes 08eV O&V O&V 0 Yes Idle Rice Idle 0 No Rice Rice Rice 31 No Rice Rice Rice 53 No Pasture Pasture Pastuare 0 No Rice Rice Rice 63 No Idle Rice Idle 0 Mo Rice Rice No Fallow Rice Rice 0 Yes Nitrogen j per acre j Dollars b/ Green Man- ure crop t Yield Dollars c/ 6,100 6,100 6,020 5,000 4,800 4,800 3,500 2,300 6,800 5,000 4,907 4,549./ 4,284^) ^^,063./ 3,500i/ 2,2872/ a/ An area rather than a soil type distinction is used in this county. The soil types would not be fully comparable with those for Colusa County becaus of the 35 years intervening between soil surveys available for the two counties. b/ Figure given is total pounds of actual nitrogen, c/ Pounds of dry paddy rice. d/ Amount of fertilizer applied in I95O not known. e/ Approximately one-half of this 20 acres blanked out and produced no rice. The 10 acres that were dried up and mowed in mid-summer then reflooded yielded over 80 hundredweight per acre. f/ The first 46 acres harvested yielded 5,000# per acre. After a heavy wind storm, the entire field averaged only 3,5007f per acre. g/ This field did not yield well because of improper irrigation during the summer. Source: Data collected in interviews with rice growers. TABLE 3 Estimated Costs Per Acre for Producing 300 Acres of fiice; Owner-operator with a Complete Inventory of Owned Equipment a/ Operation, Crew, and Equipment Hours per acre Cash costs per acre |Tractor j Labor Ciiltural costs Plow: man, tractor, 10-lU" plow .56 Disk: man, tractor, 20' disk .13 Float: man, tractor, 12' x 30' float ,22 Sxirvey: custom • Plow contours: man, tractor, h/lh" plow I ,03 Plow checks: man, tractor, 10/l4" plow j ,05 Check:man, tractor (l man, tractor hired) ,03 Plow borrow pits : man, tractor ID-lU" plow' ,03 j Disk and harrow:man, tractor, disk and harrow, 27 j and I equip. Contract I'feterials cash cost Depr, I on equip. Cost per acre Repair checks : man, tractor, ditcher Place boxes: man, tractor, dozer Close checks: man, tractor, dozer Fertilize, plane and truck Flood Seed; plane, man Irrigate Drain and open checks Bird control: man and plane Tot^.l cultural cost .03 .02 .07 .08 .50 .10 1.93 .10 .70 .16 .28 .OU .06 .OU .oU .3h .Oil .02 .09 .12 .50 .10 1.93 .12 lianreBt costs Combine : 2 men. .90 .31 .05 .08 .Ik .05 .56 .05 .03 .10 .03 .15 .50 .23 ! 2.13 1.60 1.00 j 7.50^ i ii.2o£/ I 8.50d/ 1.60 .ho .59 .50 .09 ,lh .hi .09 .90 .09 .05 .19 9.78 .50 12.90 10.U3 .27 1.00 2.69 . 5.ht \ 27.20 139.93 .62 .20 .15 .00 .06 .18 .03 .hh .Oh ,02 .06 .lii ! .08 j 1 2.02 2.22 .60 .7h .50 .09 .20 .59 .12 1.3U .13 .07 .25 9.92 .50 12.90 10.U3 .35 1.00 ii:9r 2 self-propelled Bankout: man, tractor, bankout wagon Haul to mail, ij ton truck (2) Dry: at 30 cents wet weight Tota-l harvest cost .hh .hh .89 1.10 .66 ; i.3h TJo 2.9h .9h .71 I 11.29 11.29 • h.Oh ; 1.60 i 2.05 1 11.29 Table 3 — continued — Table 3 - Continued. Jash Costs per acre j Total ' Hours 1 per 1 acres ' Trac tor i and 1 Contract Materials Total 1 cash cost Depr, on equip. Cost per acre SuiTimer fallow costs ! Dollars Knock check, man, tractor,10-lU" plow j Disk: man, tractor, 20' disk Chisel :man, tractor, 10' chisel ! Landplane jman, tractor, 12' plane .33 .U .22 .25 .la .lit .28 .31 .53 .20 .50 ,h9 .9U i .3li .78 .80 .37 .17 M .52 1.31 .51 j 1.19 1 1.32 j Tot^ Slimmer fallovr cost l.li; 1.72 2.86 l.i;7 ii.33 Total B.B2 9.00 16.75 ^ 27^20 61.77 1 Miscellaneous costs ~ I Aruiuax overnauj. ox narvesuers c au ■^/^uyj 3.33 Re?J. estate taxes \JH OHkJ^ cLUKJ. OliC yj. Overhead on irrig, boxes and ditches Depreciation & taxes on shop equip,, machinery carryall and grease wagon Overhead and operating costs of pickup Interest on borrowed operating capital Total miscellaneous 2.18 /in .69 1.35 1.01 2,6D l.lli" • - 12.30 12.30 Total cost per acre Cost per hundredweight 1 "7i;.07 ; 87.99 e/ i 2,51 " a/ Based on a rice -rice-fallow cropping system, and a yield of 3,500 weight of dry paddy rice per acre, with a 65 draw- bar horsepower tractor as the principal source of power, b/ Cost of Ammonium Sulfate?-200 pounds per acre applied on 150 acres of rice following summer fallow and 300 pounds per acre on 150 acres of rice following rice at a price per ton of 160,00 c/ Cost of 160 pounds of seed per acre on 300 acres— at a price for seed of ^^7.00 per hundredweight. d/ Cost per a'crc of water g g/ These costs cover all the labor. The cost per acre shown in table 29, page 93 does not include the value of the operator's l;^bor at '^6,Ch per acre. 124. TABLE 4 Farm Budget Summary V/orkshectj Fixed and Variable Costs, 1^0 Acres of Rice With 75 Acres of Summer Fallov; a/ Item Labor Materials Irrigation Computation Costs |Fixe d ( Var iable Dollars < Dollars Field Power Pickup Machinery- Harvest labor 13h hours at 1,50 Other seasonal 57 hours at 1,00 State Compensation Insvirance k% of gross wages Seed 160 pounds per acre 150 acres at $7,00 cwt. Fertilizer 250 pounds per acre 150 acres at 3.00 cwt Ditches (repair and replacement) 225 acres at ,50 Water 150 acres at 8,50 Irrigation boxes (replacement) replace 1/3 of total boxes each year at lit, 50 per box with ,k boxes per acre T-5 Annual fixed repairs Fuel (378 hours at ,h9 a/ ^152 hours at ,28 b/ Fixed lubrication Variable lubrication 530 hours at Repairs 530 hours at ,li22 Depreciation Pickups Taxes ^^50 and license $35 Fuel 10,000 miles at 12 miles per gallon X ,26 per gallon Lubrication 10 lubs at ^2,00 per lub Annual maintenance Depreciation d/ Harvester one self propelled Repairs Fixed repairs Field repairs 13, U days at 15.00 Fuel 107 hours at ,65 Lubrication 107 hours at .19 Depreciation 6/ Other Machinery" Repairs on other machinery e/ Depreciation on other machinery d/ Taxes on machinery f/y/^g^ New Cost $16,725 x-^ X ^fh*00 per ^100 value x 66^ 16,725 X .35 X ,Oii X ,66 ^,06 112 75 16 288 85 201 57 10 1,680 i 1,125 1,275 90 228 32 22U 462 156 • 217 20 85 400!, 500 I 201 i 70 16 ■ 20 788 120 Table 4 --continued — 125 Table h - Continued. Improvements Shed ! Depreciation |i;i,800 value with IS years I j life expectancy 1 i Tax 2% of value of building i I Repairs annual fixed cost | jlnterest on ! Money borrowed every two weeks during the [ 'Operating production period beginning March lh» ^Capital Principal and interest paid November l5. | iTaxes on ^Assessed value per acre = |'>33.00 iReal Estate jTax rate = SIi.OO per every tjlOO of assessed: I i value ' { 122^ acres cropland plus 10^ for waste land I ! and farmstead = 2hl .S acres, 2h7,S x , , 33 X .OU = $326.70 ! iDuck Control : Average costs of ^#1.00 per acre Seeding 160 pounds per acre at 1,00 cwt • Fertilizing 2^0 pounds per acre at .8^ per cwt Drying S,6hS cwt at .30 i Hauling seed 12 ton at 2.00 Hauling Fertilizer l8,7$ ton at 2.00 Haul rice to dryer 28.2 tons at 2,00 Checking T-7 checker and operator 10 hours at 10.00 Chiseling 3h hours at 3.50 hour Surveying 7$ acres at .$0 Rented T-7 (costs for fuel and repair) I for chiseling Fuel 3h hours at ,63 I Repairs 3h hours at ,633 ^Landplane Rental 60 hours at 1,00 ~ [ Costs j Fixed 'Variable Dollars Dollars iCustom and 'Rental ;Sub totals i Total Expenses g/ 120 : 36 i 50 327 166 150 2kO l,69U 21; 38 56 100 119 38 22 60 ,x. 8.702 12,133 a/ Per hour and per acre rates used were derived from farm interview data. Input is summarized on Table 17, page 59» hi/ Heavy work, c/ Light work. d/ Source of depreciation figures for equipment shown on Table 14, page 43, e/ Source of machinery repair figures shown on Appendix Table 8, f/ New value of machinery figures shown on Table 14, page 43, 2/ Total expenses are for a rice production of 35 cwt. per acre (dry weight). 126. TABLE 5 Farm Budget Summary, 300 Acres 9ice V^ith / 150 Acres Summer Fallow (Tractors Include T-5 and T-3) ^ Item Computation Dollars ixed^^axTaBIe DolTars JLabor I Harvest lator? Other labor: 133 hours at 2,50 399 hours at 1.50 13 hours at 1,^0 166 hours at 1,25 152 hours at 1,00 332.50 598.50 931.00 19.50 207.50 152.00 379.00 State Compensation Insurance at \\% of gross wages paid Materials j Seed-Rice 160 pounds per acre at 7.00 per cwt. Fertilizer 250 pounds per acre lat 3.00 per cwt- Irrigation Ditches (repair and replacement) ii50 acres at .50 Water 300 acres at 8.50 per acre Irrigation boxes (replacement) replace 1/3 of total boxes each year at [t.50 per box, with .1; boxes per acre j Field Power! Repairs T-'^-Fixed Annual repairs j j Fixed repairs, 797 hours at .1)22 T-3-F-'xed annual repairs Fixed repairs--l[t6 hours at .25 Field repairs on rented T-7 67 hours at .633 Fuel T-5-626 hours (heavy) at .1^9 166 hours (light) at .28 T-3-136 hours (heavy) at l.Ol^ 10 hours (light) at .78 T-7 (rented) 67 hours (heavy) at ,63 Lubrication T-5-Fixed lub Variable lub-792 hours at .06 T-3 -Fixed lub Variable lub-lii6 hours at .05 Depreciation b/ T-5 (no depreciation on T-3) 306. 7ii I6.a8 llil.l+ii 7.80 i|2.21 5iiU. 67 225 75 50 16 5 288 ; 931 » i t ( i I 379 i I 52 , 3,360 : 2,250 2,550 180 33i+ 36 ii2 5ii5 ii8 7 Table 5 — Continued— Table 5 - Continued. 127. Item Computation Cost Truel- Fixed Variable Dollars license, $1^0 Insurance on Machinery Taxes on Machinery Two ton- each truck Fuel and service -2, 500 miles per each truck at 8 miles per gallon at .26 per gallon, plus 2,00 per 1,000 miles for servicing Pickups-License $50, Insurance $3^ Fuel and service -12, 500 miles at 12 mileff per gallon at .26 per gallon, I plus 2.00 per 1,000 miles for servicing, j TireF, batteries and. miscellaneous-^85 ' Depreciation b/ Trucks |;i|00 each, pickup I ~ lUoo I I Harvesters (two) j Fixed repairs -$500 each I Field repairs -26. 6 days at per day : Fuel-212 hours at .65 Lubrication-212 hours at ,19 Depreciation b/ 787.50 each j Other machinery Repairs c/ for 300 acres with T_5, Tr.3, power Depreciation b/ New Cost of Machinery d/ $28,790,00 Tax Formula 260 85 1,200 1,000 I 1,575 6i;2 28',790X'-I2l X $i .00 per 100 of value X 2/3 Improvements Shed Depreciation V alue of building $1,800 15 years life expectancy Tax = 2% of value of building Maintenance -fixed yearly cost 269 120 36 50 172 295 85 399 138 i;0 268 Interest on ; Money obtained every two weeks to pay Operating i expenses for that period. Interest is at i 6% for the time borrowed. Principal and •interest are paid on Nov. 15. Money is I borrowed from March 15 until the end of I harvest, Capital Taxes on Assessed value per acre = $33.00 Real Estate , Tax rate = Ifh.OO per every $100 assessed value i U50 acres crop land plus 10^ waste land = ii95 acres. 653 335 Table 5 —Continued — ■ r 128, Table 5 - Continued. Item j Computation > , Cost i Fixed iVariable Dnl 1 arc Duck Control Average cost of 1.00 per acre Custom and Seeding-l60 pounds per acre at l.OO/cwt. Rental Fertilizing-250 pounds per acre at .85/cwt. 1 Checking-l5 hours at $10.00 per hour Chiseling hours at 3 .50 per hour Surveying-150 acres at ,50 per acre Drying Total Total Fixed and variable 1 300 U80 638 150 23I4 75 3,387 17,710 2U,259 1 a/ Acre rates used were derived from farm interview data. Inputs are summarized on Table 18, page 62., b/ -Source of depreciation figures for equipment shown on Table lii, page 43, c/ Machinery repair figures shown in Appendix table 8. 4/ New Value of equipment shown in Table Ik, page 43, 129. TABLE 6 Farm Budget Summary Worksheet, Fixed and Variable Costs, 1^50 Acres Eice With 225 Acres of Summer Fallow a/ Item Computation Dollars Cost Pixed [Variable Dollars Labor Ifeterials Irrigation Field Power Harvest labor 800 hours at 1,50 Regular hired man 1 month 1,200.00 ,00 350.00 1,550.00 other labor Hired man 3 months at 356 per month State Compensation Insurance at h% of gross wages paid Seed-Rice 160 pounds per acre at 7.00 cwt. Fertilizer 250 pounds per acre at 3,00 cwt. Ditcher (repair and replacement) 675 acres at .75 Water ii50 ackres at 8,50 Irrigation boxes (replacement) ,h box per acre on ii50 acres cost $U.50 per box average life 3 years Repairs T-7 Fixed annual repairs Field repairs 1185 hours at ,633 T-3 Fixed annual repairs Field repairs 2k6 hours at ,25 Fuel T-7 1025 hours heavy work at .63 b/1 160 hours light work at .h9 oj T-3 71 hours heavy work a+l.Oii b/ 175 hours light work at ,78 c/ Fixed lubrication charge '~ T-7 and T»3 Lubrication T-7 1185 hours at .07 T-3 2ii6 hours at ,05 615,75 78.iiO 73.8I4 136.50 "930^ Depreciation d/ T-7 Fixed depreciation T-3 No depreciation i|20.00 ii20.00 506 100 50 26 ii20 ! 1,550 i 1,050 I i lOli 5,oiiO ! 3,375 i i t ; 3,823 ! i j 270 I I 750 62 93I1 95 Table 6 --Continued — Table 6 - Continued. 130» Item Trucks and Pickup i Machinery- Taxes on Ifechinery TiBprovements Computation Dollars Truck-License $90, Insurance thO each truck Fuel and Service each truck 36OO miles 8 miles per gallon $0.26 per gallon plus $2.CX) service charge per 1000 miles Pickup License $B0, Insurance 835 Fuel and service-15,000 miles 12 miles per gallon. Gasoline ^0.26 per gallon. Service charge 2,00 per 1000 miles. Tires, batteries and miscellaneous repairs -$85 Depreciation d/ Pickup $kOO trucks $hOO each Harvesters Repairs fixed $^00 each Repairs field 20 days at 15.00 Fuel 320 hours at .65 Lubrication 320 hours at .19 Depreciation d/ $787,50 Other machinery Repairs other machinery for k$0 acres rice c/ Depreciation d/ other machinery Depreciation on machinery for 300 acres of rice 1,012.00 Depreciation on bankout wagon added j 138.00 Depreciation on machinery for Ii50 acres of rice Fixed V'ariable Dollars 260 85 1,200 1,000 1,575 New cost of machinery for 3OO acre rice e/ New cost of bankout wagon added for ii50 acres rice Value of trucks already taxed Taxable value Tax formula 35,315 X M x $h,00 per 0100 value x ^''t - tax 1,150.00 Ui, 815,00 1^300.00 U3,115.00 7,800,00 35,315.00 35,315 X .35 X .Oh X .66 ^^326 Shed Depreciation value of building f^l800 15 years life expectancy Tax = 2% value of building Maintenance fixed yearly cost 1,150 326 120 36 50 2kQ hho 600 208 61 hh3 Table 6 — continued-- Table 6 - Continued. 131. Item Interest on Operating Capital Computation Taxes on Real Estate Duck Control Custom tad Rental Money obtained every two weeks to pay expenses for that period. Interest at 6% was paid for time money was used. Interest and principal is paid on November 15 for money borrowed each two week period from March 15. A total of |18, 818.42 was used during this period Assessed valuation of land per acre Tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation 675 acres cropland plus 10 per cent allowed for roadways, waste land and farmstead 7ii3 acres x 33 x .Oii $980.76 Average cost of $1,00 per acre of rice Seeding 720 cwt. seed at 1.00 Surveying 225 acres at .50 Checking T-7 and operator 15 hours at 7,00 Drying 16,931 cwt. rice at .30 Fertilizing 1,125 cwt. at .85 Sub total Total Expenses g/ Dollars Fixcd jVariable Cost Dollars 500 33.00 ii.oo 981 1^50 720 113 105 5,080 956 7, ^gg:^ 26, 9 80 ■fit 1 7^ Computed for 35 cwt per acre rice yield a/ Per hour and per acre rates used were derived from farm interview data. Inputs are summarized on Table 19. b/ Heavy work c/ Light work d/ Source of depreciation of figures for equipment shown on Table li;, page 43. e/ Source of yearly repairs costs. Appendix Table 8. f/ New value of equipment shown on Table lU, page 43, g/ Expenses are for a rice production of 35 cwt. per acre ~ (dry weight). ( < i ! 4; 132. TABLE 7 Farm Budget Summary Worksheetj Fixed and Variable Costs 600 Acres of Rice With 300 Acres of Summer Fallow Item Computation Dollars Cost P^ixed IVariabie Dollars Labor Materials Irrigation Pleld Power Harvest labor 228 hours at 2,^0 681i hours at 1,$0 Other labor 139 hours at 1,25 75 hours at 1,00 jo hours at 1,50 Annual-one man 12 months at 300.00 Monthly-Tractor driver 3 months at 350.00 Irrigator-ii months and 1; days at 300.00 State Compensation Insurance at k% of gross wages Seed-l60 pounds per acre at 7«00 per cwt- Fertilizer-250 pounds per acre at 3,00 per cwt. Ditches (repair and replacement) 900 acres at 1,00 Water 600 acres at 8,50 Repair Irrigation Boxes ,k boxes per acre Replace 1/3 per year. Cost 4.50 per box T7-Annual (fixed) repairs -Field (variable) repairs-1299 hours at ,633 T5-Annual (fixed) repairs -Field (variable) repairs-3ii5 hours at ,U22 T3-Annual (fixed) repairs -Field (variable) repairs-91 hours at .25 F\iel-T7 1139 hours at ,63 b/ 160 hours at ,h9 £/ 219 hours at ,1^9 b/ 126 hours at ,28 c/ 91 hours at ,78 900 100 75 50 -T5 -T3 717.57 78, UO 107,31 35.28 70 ,98 1,0097^ -i- Table 7 --Continued-- Table 7 - Continued. 133. Item Computation Dollars „ Cost FlxedW ariable Dollars Trucks jPickups and kachinery Lubrication Fixed lubrication costs per T?, T5, and T3 T7-1299 hours at .07 T$- 3kS hours at .06 T3- 91 hours at .05 Depreciation d/ T3 none T? Trucks -if ton (3) License $90, Insurance $iiO on each Fuel and Service for 3 trucks-10,000 miles at 8 miles per gallon at I. 263 Lubrication every 1,000 miles at $2.00 Pickup-I ton (2) License $50, Insurance $35 on each Fuel and service for 2 pickups -25, 000 miles at 12 miles per gallon at |,26 plus lubrication every 1,000 miles at $2,00 plus $170 for maintenance Depreciation-3 trucks and two pickups at $U00 each Harvesters- 2 self propelled fixed repairs- I500 each Field (variable repairs) 22,8 days at 15.00 Fuel 182 hours at .65 Lubrication l82 hours at ,19 Depreciation |787,50 on each Harvester- 1 pull type plus 1 rented Annual repairs Field (variable) repairs 22,8 days at 15.00 Fuel 182 hours at .65 Lubrication 91 hours at ,l6 Depreciation Other machinery Repairs on other machinery d/ Depreciation Taxes on Machinery ^ Total Cost $52,240 x x $4.00 per $100 X 2/3 90.93 20,70 116.18 la 288 600 390 170 2,000 1,000 1,575 300 1495 1,5118 488 Table 7 — Continued — 134. Table - Continued. 1 Cost Item Computation jDoll; jrs Tixed [Variable Dollars ImprovementE Shed - value ^^1800 Depreciation on 1$ years life Taxes - 2% of value Maintenance 120 36 50 Interest on Operating Capital Money borrowed every two weeks beginning March lii. Interest, 6^, Prdxicipal and interest paid Nov, lii 75a Real Estate Taxes Assessed value of land, :>33.00 per acre. Tax rate - $1^.00 per $100 assessed value, 900 acres cropland plus 10$ for road\^ays, wasteland and farmstead. 990 acres x 33 X ,0h = $1,306.80 1,307 Duck Control Average of 1,00 per acre for 600 acrcs 600 Custom 31 d aental Harvest; T7, Driver, Pull combine-ll,ii days at 125.00 T7, Driver, Bankout wagon-ll.U days at U5.00 T5, Driver - 11. U at 32,00 Checking - T7, Driver, 20 hours at 7.00 Surveying - 300 acres at .50 Seeding l60 pounds per acre at 1,00 per cwt. Fertilizing 250 pounds per acre at .85 per cwt. Drying 22,578 cwt. at ,30 per cwt. I.I425 365 lUo 150 960 1,275 6,773 Sub total / Total Expenses^ Ii2,li70 4,003 . a/ Per hour and per acre rates used were derived from faa?n;. interview data, Inputs are summarized on Table 20, page 67. b/ Heavy work, c/ Light work, d/ Source of other machinery repair figures on Appendix Table 8. e/ Expenses are for a production of 35 cwt of dry rice per acre. J- TABLE 8 Annual Machinery Repair- Costs, Excluding Tractors, Trucks, and Harvesters j 150, 300, hSO and 60O Acre Rice Farms 600 acres of rice using a 300 acres using l50 acres using 300 acres using hSO acres using T-7 and a T-5 a T-7 tractor a T-5 tractor a T-5 tractor a T-? tractor tractor Annual Acres Per Acres Annual Acres Annual Acres Annual Acres Annual Machinery repairs use acre use repairs use repairs use repairs use repairs 1 TT r m iT Pm Dollars Dollars DpiJ ar^ Plow 50.00 ■ ii5o .Lll 225 25.00 ii5o 50.00 675 7li.99 900 99.99 Disk ho. 00 600 .066 300 19.98 600 39.96 900 59.9i4 1200 79.92 Harrow 13.32 300 M 150 6.66 300 13.3^ 1;50 19.98 600 26.6ii Float a/ Checker 25.00 150 .166 75 a/ 150 225 37.ii9 300 1.9,98 Chisel 50.00 150 .333 75 25.00 a/ 150 50.00 a/ 225 7l;.99 300 99.99 Ditcher Landplane 25.00 150 .166 a/ 150 2U.99 225 37.19 300 19.98 Bankout Wagon 65.00 300 .216 150 32.1^9 300 61;. 98 Ii5o 97.I47 300 b/ 61,98 26«.2l4 1 1.11 109.13 ' >3.25 T|02.35 ^'i i;71.ii8 ■telus 10^ 2/ 26.82 10.91 1 i 2J4.33 ho, 2k 1;7.15 ffotal repairs 295.06 i 120.0li 1267.58 Ui|2.59 518.63 a/ Equipment is custom hired for these operations. Pay for repairs on hired chisel but not on hired landplane. b/ Does not pay for repairs on hired bankout wcgon, c/ Ten percent extrr. reprir cost is included to cover reprirs to smr-ll itemstoo numerous to mention.