Mil

Division of Agriculfurol Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF CAIIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO VALLEY
RICE FARMS

1. Organization, Costs, and Returns

Gordon R. Sitton

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

27
31

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-

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-

■ - •.■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&

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.

^. .;..i'

i.*•i.;. TBI

»>V *

: ';^:s' ^<'^^ *)>M'^

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 ■

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

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

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 ^

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.

101

109

112

109

106

1/ Information obtained from farm interviews over period 1951-1954,

trii ',\'r«.

^9W lOf

,09Q ,VOH ,*30 .^q'_

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,

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

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.

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.

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

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

25,697

6,558

6,51^6

11,881

449'

231

51,131

iOwner&
tenant

9,621^

2k.

10,372

9,279

li^,787

9,036

113

53,098

Tenant
only

Total

10,060

107

31,152

10,1^92

16,522

19,082

337

■87»308_

171

i+5,38l

166

1 1

US, 082 0.17

26, 317

175

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-

Price

cent

Price

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

100

119

203

2*^5

Ammonium svilfate (ton)

100

125

172

180

Wages per day, w/out board

100

288

327

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 .

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

TTn-i +

unit*

191;$

prxcc

19U5

19U6

19U7

19U8

19149
index

1950 ■

index

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

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

' 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

123

i 138

123

.85

115

7.50 '■

1 Alfalfa seed

1 Lbs,

-36

, 100

100

i 5U

61;

\ ,25 ■

Ladino seed

Lbs,

1.25

100

108

120

136

12ii

1 106

100

' '■o

1;2

.53 !

Alfalfa hay

1 Ton

20.00

100

125

115

125

; 90

120

£/

Sugar beets

i Ton

1
1

12,73

: 100

. 99

i 76

^ 75

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

Subsidy payments • , , . a/

P i

P : P

P P

: i
f

Loans and/or purchases

L i

; L

L L i

Acreage allotments ....

A '

■ A

A :

1 . . .

n
\j

WHEAT

1 '

P i P

P P

Loans and/or purchases

L . L

Acreage allotments ....

A :

i
j

1
1

i G

-J-

BARLEY

* 1

Loans and/or purchases

! i

L ,

' L

i L

L L

Production goals

> G

' G

BEAI^

_____

Loans and/or purchases

; L

L T,

Acreage allotments..,.

Production goals ......

GMIN SORGHIJIB

^ — u

Loans and/or purchases

T
J-i

T T '

VETCH Am PE/. SEEDS

1 ■

—

! 1

' ; h

Loans and/or purchases

L '

' L

T
ij

T, \

Production goals

- — !■

G t

bUGAIi BEETS

■ ' ■ ■ — t

P P

p '

P :

P i

P 1

p pi

Acreage allotments....

G '

G i

G ,

LADING CLOVER SEED

Loans and/or purchases

I !

L !

L '■

1 ,
1 ,

Production goals..,,,.

G i

'ALFALFA SEED

' f" i

t—T

— f

— r

— -|— 4

Loans and/or purchases

1 ;

;

L !

Production goals...,,.

_G^

* !

(

G :

G_J

■[

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

Table 8

Acreage and Land Use on h9 Colusa County Farms in 19^0

Total

i Total

j Use 0.

; Total Cropland

Ladino

Idle or

Other

farmland

! cropland

Rice

: IfJheat

Barley

Alfalfa

clover

1 fallow

Acres

Percent

Farms with 30 to 80

acres of

rice

180

152'

260

182

■i-7

200

20 !

liO

1 iiO
1

ii8

100 i

333

233

160

Ikl

U2 j

i 63

100 I

' 80

100 j

31?

280

29 i

i 39

Farms with 113 to 165 i

acres of

rice

1U5

! 137

' 6

! 938

13 :

1 7

• 3ii

231;

; 185

68 ;

1 18

320

' 296

kh '

' 3,220

h •

160

lii5

100 i

156

s 156

100 '

600

! 575

28 i

2li

220

1 202

500

i li70

Farms mih 200 to 32U

acres of

rice

1,275

16 1

i;8

320

; 30k

70 !

6iiO

; 610

320

i 30h

2li

561

! 1;93

1 ^0

763

680

1,280

1,220

1 l47

636

! 607

21+

1,229

1,151

282

; 263

100

516

ii98

1,0^5

: 9U3

325

319

1,037

792

1,235

1,105

39U

377

2,305

: 2,286

111

U22

U02

1,700

1,680

\x2

31;

— continued —

32 c

Table 8 - continued.

Use of Total Cropland

Total

jjaoine

Idle or

Other

farmland

cropland

R"i r»P

WllOcL Kj

DcirjLey

isj-iaxia

clover

fallow

crops

Acres

rorcenX/

Farms with 3hB to 62

acres of

rice

i i

i 19 i

1,100

933

' 15 i

1,700

1,600

6 i

1,730

1,669

. 566

1,600

1,550

I450

U50

100

61iO

630

1,079

! 1

2,185

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

Sutter County

percent of

fields

No crop other than rice

Rice and barley

Rice and wheat

-1 1

Rice and pasture

Rice, wheat and beans

Rice wheat and barley

Rice and clover

Rice and peas

Rice, pasture and barley

Rice and beans

RicG and alfalfa

Rice, barley and milo

Ricej beans and barley

Rice, oats and vetch

Hice and peas-

Incomplete data

100

Source: Data obtained from interviews with farmers.

1-
A

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

113-165

200-324

348-625

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

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

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)

240-279)

280-319)

320-359

19.

360-399)

400-439)

440-479)

1480-519)

1520-559)

i 560-599)

1600-639)

640-679

680-719

720-759

760-799

800+

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-

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,

''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

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

7,000

;

i 700

U20

3,850

Tractor (track)

30 h, p. (T3)

1930

I9UO

1,000

' 100

100 g/
2,000 ~

Truck

1 1/2 ton

1951

3,000

|l,000

1;00

j Truck

1 l/2 ton

1953

3,000

ii,ooo

UOO

2,000

Pick-up

I/Il ton

1952

1,800

600

llOO

1,200 1

flows

10/lU"

19J49

19U9

1,350

; 135

152

- 7U3

U/lii"

19I4O

19I1O

350

35 ;

Disk

20«

19U7

19ii7

1,600

160

-Mx

880 i

Float

12 • X 30'

19U6

125

! 25

75 '

Diker

—

19ii7

19li7

900

, 90

S\x

i;95

Harrow

20 »

19U7

lliO

77 '

Chisel

10 »

19ii9

19U9

750

Ul3 !

Ditcher

6-7'^-

19UU

19Uli

125

68 \

jlandplane

12' X 60'

19U6

1,850

200

110

1,025 1

Dozer

6»

19U0

500

.50

275

Eank-out Wagon

120 sack

19ii8

19li8

1,300

200 '

138 1

750

jSm. S.P. Harvester

12 »

19U8

7,000

700 :

786

3,850 \

Sra, S.P. Harvester

12 »

19i;8

19U8

7,000

700

788

3,850

Machinery Carry-all

19U5

525

288 ;

Grease Wagon

1953

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

1 dollars

b/ ;

n
X

0
c

Tractor (track)

65 DBH(T7)

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

l| T
l} T

Cy UUU

<l, UUU

0 nnn

9 nnn

i i

2,000

Pickup

. 1^200

1 onr\
i,<:UU

X, <:uu

1 pnn

i T

lO/lii"

1 onn
X, tUU

7li9

Plow

7ii2

5/ili"

330

■

33<J

h/ih"

Disk

20'

oou

ouu

fifin

12'

one*

30^

7i'

Float

12' X 30'

. fP

Harrow

20'

r-f rj

f f

Chisel

10'

' ^Xc

Landplane

12' X 60'

T not

T n9t;
ijUi^i)

10' X 60'

190

Ditcher

6-7'

/Co
69

Checker

li95

h95

Dozer

108

275

Tumble Bug Scraper

7-8 »

237

3,850

Sm. S.P, Harvester

12'

3,850

Sm, S.P, Harvester

12'

3,850

Pull Combine

111'

! 3,300

! 750

Bankout Wagon

120 sack

750

II 11

120 sack

750

i 750

II II

120 sack

* 750

Machinery Carry-all

289

296

1 289

Grease Wagon

275

II o

' 275

Farm Shop Equipment

1,000

2,000

i.2,500

Total

io,B8B<!20,li37

!3^,287

a/ Farms with the smaller track-tractor would have an upper limit of approximately
300 acres. Those with the larger size might operate up to U50 acres with only-
minor additions of equipment,

b/ Average investment

Source: Compiled from records obtained by interviews with rice growers.

4^.

Details of Inputs Required in Rice Production Can Be Described Best by Using

Calendars of Operations

The calendar of the operations performed on a farm with 300 acres of rice-
appears in Table 16, The total farm cropland includes 150 acres of first-year
ricc> 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/

Acres

Month

per 1

and

Crew

Equipment

10 hr.

Requirements

Days

Labor re

quired

period

Field

operation

size

dav

Power

Man

availabl e

Operator

Hired ,

Total

Acres

Hours

Days

Hoiirs

Hours

March 11-20

Plowing

-1.

T-7

10/14"

21-31

Plowing

Di skinsT

T-7

20'

ji • ✓

—

Floating

T-7

12' X 30'

April 1-10

Floating

Survey-

Custom

Plowing

T-7

10/l4"

11-20

Plowing

Vi4"

—

Plow contours

T-3

ii50

Float

T-7

12/30'

i 45

" "

21-30

Float

Plow checks

T-7

10/14"

100

Checking

T-7

Checker

,150

Plow borrow

pits

T-7

10/14"

150

Disk — Harrow

T-7

20'— Harrow' 37-5

Disk — Harrow

T-7

20 '--Harrow

, 37.5

Repair checks

T-7

Ditcher

il50

Placing boxes

T-3

Dozer

'200

7.5

Closing checks

T-3

Dozer

,150

Closing checks

1'}

Dozer

150

1&2

Fertilizer

Truck

|120

Fertilizing

Plane -Custom

Table 16 —continued--

Table 16 - Continued.

■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

■

...

150 ;

100

... .... — j

150 i

Seeding

. . •

30 :

• • •

30 !

oeeuJJig

Pla/

ie-cust(

Din

11-31 i

Irrigating

Plow 10/ll»'

C.1\J

• « •

210 i

June 1-30 i

Knock checks

T-7

25 i

Floating

10/lii"

o
J

rXOwxng

T-7

7p .

• • •

Irrigating

120

120 ,

July 1-31

Irrigating

1;5

12li

12ii

Disking

T-7

20 « disk

...

33> :

jjano. pxanxng

T-7

12 » L. Plane 20

Chiseling

T-7

10' Chisel

22.5

67 1

August 1-31

Irrigating

12I4

12li

oept . 1~)U

Drain

* • •

1-2

Open checks

T-3

Dozer

Oct. 1-llt

1-2

Harvesting

S.P.

Sm, Pusher

11.25

106

133

• • •

133

S.P.

Sm. Pusher

11.25

106

133

• • *-

133

T-7

1 bank out

22.50

106

133

• • •

133

1/2T

Trucks

22.50

266

• • 9

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

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,

- 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

April 1-10
April 11-20

April 21-30

Field

2
1

1
2

1
2
1
1-2

1
2
1

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

Fl jw' borrow

pits
Repair checks

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'

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

111

150
30

150
50

120

hi
20

5
25

51;

5
25
5

U7
20

5
25
5

30-

10 hrs. I 20

rented 10
hrs» ope rater

5
15

10
5
5

20
5
5

Day,

Hired jTotal?
Hours''

7
7

U7
20

5
25

5
30

5
15

10
5
5

i 20

i 5
s 25

5I1

5
25

5
30

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

able Operator f Hired

Total

[

|l-2

;i-2

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 '

3 :

July 1-31

1-2

^ i

3 !

: August 1-31

1-2

Sept, 1-31

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 I
I

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

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/

50
16

lys

Hours

115
!ii7

.25

12.5 : 60
22.5 3k

150

11.25

107
107

13li

I3h
13U

100

190

21 i

190

31 ■

26 ^

13U

1.103

13U

191 )

Hours

75
15
100

190

15
hi
62

60
3h

10
10

13ii
13h

13h i

Table 1? —continued—

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

I 70

1 38

^8
^o

1 50

> 20

; 20

i 30

111

j ho

' 17

1 7

150

100

150

50 .

50 !

200 !

150 1

120 1

_^ I

L„.

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

! 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

(i
n

1
1
1

1-2

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

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.' I.' ,1-

Table l8 - Continued.

Crew

May 11-31 i 1-2
June 1-30 I 3

July 1-31

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

T-5

Rent

T-7

T-3

Acres
per
10 hr.
day

Acres

5/iii"
5/ili"

12'

10 « X 60»

37.5
12.5

Rent chisel 22.5

Dozer

Self-propelled

harvester
Self-propelled
harvester

Bankout
wagon

T-5

Two

Ton truck

300

11.25
11.25

Requirements

Power

j Days j

J avail-j Labor required

Man

Hours

30
9h

120
67

106
! 106
106
266

150
30

210

30
91;

120

liO
120

20
10

133
133
133
266

able I Operator Hired

Days

Hours

10 1 100

21 ! 210

9h
120

120

67
12li

26 ! 20

lU i 133

ii,5oo

Total

Hours

150

\ 210

120

12it

120

12ii

133

133 i

133

133 i

133

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

113

1 113

37.5

1 '°

16 "biiO

. liiO

; 7

150

. 7

100

150

ISO

1
I

37.5

120

150

200

150

120

225

[Operator I Hired ^ ^Totalj

March 11-20
March 21-31

April 1-10
April 11-20

April 21-30

Plowing

Disking

T-7

Disking

Floating

T-7

Surveying

Plowing

T-7

Plowing

Flow contours

T-3

Floating

T-7

2
1
1
1
1-2

1-2

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 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

28
i|2
7.5

11.5
7.5
31

5
n

15
15

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'lO

38
12

Hoursi

113
27

33
50

56
8ii
M5

10
23
30
15

62
58

; 15
! 22

I 15
15
38

i-3

7 1."

Table 19 — continued —

Table 19 - Continued.

Acres

Month

Days

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

Flooding

!
1

10
IV

128

188

1-2

Seeding

ELane

-custom

May 11-31

1-2

Irrigating

210

1 210

Knocking

10/iu

^ 18 ^

checks and

T-7

"PI r^a +"1 n CT

and float

Plowing

T-7

lo/iU"

113

June l-ju

37.5

150

1 150

Disking

T-7
J.— /

20' disk

Landplaning

T-7

12 « L. plane

ll3

113

July 1-31

1-2

Irrigating

22.5 ;

155

Chiseling

T-7

10' chisel

100

August 1-31

1-2

Irrigating

155

Sept, 1-30

1-2

Draxning

150

1-2

Opening checks

T-3

Dozer

October 1-20

1-2

Harvesting

Combine

11.25

160

200

S.P.

Combine

11.25

160

200

Banking out

T-3

Bankout

160

200

9 no

T-7

Bankout

wagon

11.25

160

200

Hauling

1|T

Trucks

22.50

1^00

liOO

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
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 )

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

67
20

20
20
80
80

300

Month
and

■

Crew

Equipment

Acres
per
10 hr.

j ' 1

V ' Days

Requirements avail-

Labor req

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"

liiO

lUO'

lUo

lIiO^

March 21-31

1
2

'< 1

; 1

Flowing
Disking
Floating
Floating

1
1
1
1

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

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

lllO

• 10

iiO
lliO
10

Table 2U — continued —

>0
30
17
17
50

\6
67
20

20
i^O
20
80
80

17
50

300
60

-J

Table 20 - Continued.

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

Acres j

Hours

Days

Hc". rs Hours

May 11-31

1-2^

Irrigating

i;20

21 120

120

June 1-3P

■ 1-2

Knoc^ng checks
and Floating
Plowing
Irrigating

1 !
1 i

T-7
T-7

lO/ll"
lO/lli"

20 ■

50
150

50 j

150

2U0 1

50
150

2lO

50
i 150

; 2io

July 1-31

1-2

3
3

Irrigating

Disking

Landplaning

T-7
T-7

20 «

12' X 60'

20 ,

67
1?0

150

218
67

. 150

218
o7
150

August 1-31

1-2

Irrigating
Chiseling

T-7

10' chisel

22.5

134

218
13ii

218
131

! 218
• 131

Sept. 1-30

1-2

±—c.

Draining
upenxng cnecKs

T-5

300

10
20

1-2

Harvesting

91^
91

182

Oct. 1-lii

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
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

.. .

3,047

1,176 , 4,539

Table 20 — continued —

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

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 '

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

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

600 acres

and type
of work

Time

Total
cost

' Time

Total
cost

j Total
Time cost

Time

Total
cost

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

12
months

3,600

Monthly-
Tractor driver

958

months

1,U00

3,Oi;7

months

1,050

Irrigator

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.

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

3.50

.72

2.00

Checking

.27

.78

.38

.10

• 10

.35

Irrigation'

2.62

, 0

6.83

2.13

6.00

Seeding

.3h

Harvesting

Contract

Group II (120-160 A.)

• Tillage

1,77

3.12

.90

0 i

1.70

Checking

.56

3.42

1 'OH

.03

.07

.35

.ko

Irrigation

5.37

9.9i4

<:.0o

U.UU

Seeding

.10

.22

.06

.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

h,92

.93

1.60

1 Checking

.30

iiO

2.21

.02

.ou

.33

.20

Irrigation

3.86

7.08

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

10. U5

;

9.68

Group IV (360-61+0 A.)

•

Tillage

1.57 ^

2.5i+

.ii2

1.60

Checking

.27 ■

,2h

.57

.7li

.08 !

.02

, .25

.25

Irrigation

.05 :

2.17

.07

U.65

.02

1.81

2.7a

Seeding

.09

.03

1 0

.09

Harvesting

.98

l,ii8

1.77

i 2.36

.36 i

.60

.85

1.55

Total tractor & oiher

6.85

! -

- i

7.33

Source: Summarized from farm interview data.

0 I 0<'i.

kO. '-to.

0 ; :^J..

» -

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.<i nf Ownin g and Operating Machinery,

and Custom Services Hired

Materials .— Seed used in each farm size is the most expensive material.

Some farmers may save their own seed from rice that they have grown. At the

other extreme are those who purchase certified seed. For purposes of budgeting

costs, a value of $7 per hundredweight will be used for seed. A rate of seeding

81.

of 160 pounds per acre will be used. This makes an average cost per acre for
seed of $11.20, Table 29 .i/

Application of fertilizer varies from farm to farm and field to field as
discussed above. Rates have increased since 1950. In estimating costs, an
average of 250 pounds per acre of ammonium sulphate— 21-0-0 — at a price of $3.00
per hundredweight of fertilizer will be assumed, giving a cost of $7.50 per acre
of rice.

These are the principal materials used. On some fields spray is used for
killing of weeds and insects. This may be purchased by the farmer or included in
the contract price paid to a commercial applicator.

The other major item purchased is water. The majority of the rice farms

are supplied with water from a system of canals. Water is generally purchased

on a per acre basis. In 1950 rates per acre for rice ranged from $6-15. At that

time a rate of $7 was being charged over a large part of the rice growing area.

Delivered price of water has increased slightly since 1950 and the price of $8.50

per acre will be included under irrigation costs in budgets. Those rice growers

who pump from their own wells, or from the rivers or drainage canals, will have

only the cost of pumping with no charge for the water itself.-^

Inputs of machinery .— The calendar of operations developed for this size of
farm gives a total annual use of 781 hours for the 65 horsepower tracklaying
tractor. This machine is the most important single item of equipment. The

\J The seeding rate varies from 140 to 180 pounds. These large amounts of seed
are considered necessary for broadcasting into the water. No attempt is made
to get tillering of plants, rather a large enough amount of seed is sown to
obtain a thick, heavy stand and get some weed control from crowding.

2/ Farmers interviewed estimated that from 6-12 acre feet of water was being used
according to soils characteristics.

82.

variable costs of operating this tractor-fuel, lubrication, and maintenance-
are summarized in Table 24. Of these costs, maintenance at $ .633 per hour
is the major item, and the total of all variable costs of tractor operation is
$3.44 per acre of rice produced.

Trucks are another major expense. This inventory shows two trucks and one
pickup. The pickup will be driven an estimated 12,500 miles per year and the
two trucks 2,500 miles apiece. This figure would vary greatly depending upon
the location of the farm relative to the assembly area to which the rice is
hauled and also upon the residence of the operator relative to his rice land.
Operating costs for trucks, as summarized in Table 25, add another $1.56 per acre
to total costs.

The self-propelled harvester is a major item of equipment and fuel, lub-
rication, and repairs make up its major operating costs. A repair cost of $15
per day during rice harvest is used in estimating production costs.-^ Costs
of $1.92 per acre in Table 26 are based on 106 hours for each of the two machines
in harvesting 300 acres of rice. To complete the harvest in this time it would
be necessary for each machine to harvest 11.25 acres per day. This is quite
possible in good weather with good rice. The acreage per day would be con-
siderably less when harvesting rice that has lodged or is tough because of wet
weather.

Fixed costs .— The costs discussed in the preceding section have included
only variable costs. That is, the expenses that would be incurred when the
machinery is operating. In addition, there are costs that will be incurred
whether the machinery is used at all, or regardless of the acreage that is covered.
For example, annual depreciation for the 65 horsepower tractor is estimated at $420.

1/ Some growers reported spending as much as $30 per day for rice harvest on some
of the older self-propelled machines. The repair costs on these harvesters is
especially high in years when heavy rains fall during the harvest season.

,e2 aids:

3ii 'to es

TABLE 2k

Physical Inputs and Variable Costs for Operating the 65 DB Horsepower Tractor

Item

(

Unit

Rate of use

Total used

Cost
per unit

Total
Cost

its

Dollars

Diesel fuel

gallons

3.5 gallons
per hour^l'

l|..5 gallons
per hourV

3,i;08.5

.lli

i+77.19

Lubrication grease

pounds

1 pound per
10 hours

78.1

Crankcase oil

quarts

19 per 100
hours

1U8.39

.19

28.19

Oil filter

each

1 per 100
hours

2.50

20.00

Maintenance

per hour

781

.633

ii9U.37

Total variable cost

l,031.1i7

Total variable cost per r

ere of rice pi'oduced

3,hh

Light work

b/ Heavy work

Source; Based on summaries of interview data from farmers, suppliers of petroleum products and
machiner;^^ service agencies.

TABLE 2^

Annual Use and Variable Costs for Operating Trucks

Item

Use
per

year

' Fuel consumption

Cost
per

gallon

Cost

of
fuel

Service per 1.M0 miles

Total

Itiles per^
gaxj-on

lotal

Total

1/2 ton pickup

1 1/2 ton truck
1 1/2 ton truck

|Les

gallons

.26

.26
.26

270.83

81.25
81.25

dollars

25.00

5.00
5.00

380.83^-^

86.25
86.25

12,500

2,500
2,500

0
0

l,0iil.67

312.50
312.50

2.00

2.00
2.00

Total

! Cost per acre of
1 rice

1,666.67

133.33

35.00

ii68.33
1.56

a/ Includes an added |85 toward the cost of replacing tires and ba.ttery. No maintenance other than lubrication
is charged for the trucks because of their low annual mileage,

Sourcei Summrries of interview data from farmers and suppliers of fuels and service.

85.

A further fixed cost of $121 is estimated for such items as batteries, and fan
belts that deteriorate with time, and certain items of lubrication that are per-
formed as a function of time rather than by the amount of use. This gives a
total fixed cost of $5^, or $1,80 per acre of rice. Fixed costs for the self-
propelled combine are much higher. Annual repairs to put these machines in
condition for operation are estimated at $500 per machine, and depreciation is
greater than for the tractor because of a shorter useful life.

Fixed costs for the seven self-propelled equipment items summarized in
Table 2?, total $15.72 per acre of rice or $h,nS for 300 acres. This amount
of fixed cost becomes highly important when we consider a reduction in acreage
from the 300 shown here. In addition to these items, there are depreciation
charges on other machinery of ^,1,012 from Table Ik, page hS. Also personal
property taxes on machinery are estimated at $315 per year, to be paid whether
the machines are operated or not.

Rental an d cQstom services .— The high fixed costs on owned machinery are
an incentive to use rented equipment and custom services, but theee may not alwaye
be available immediately when needed. On this size of farm a complete inventory
haff been assumed in order that all operations may be performed at the proper time.
Only slight use of rented equipment ie made. One 65 horsepower tractor is rented
for use in checking the 150 acres of new rice. A surveyor is paid 50 cents
per acre for surveying; airplane service is paid $1.00 per hundredweight for
seeding and 85 cents per hundredweight for applying the fertilizer. The major
item of custom service is for drying. This operator would pay 30 cents per
hundredweight on the wet weight of rice delivered*to the drier. This would be
an estimated $3,38? or $11,29 per acre. Expenditures for rental of equipment
and custom services to supplement owned equipment are summarized in Table 28,

TABLE 26

Variable Cost for Operating Two Self- Propelled Harvesters 106 Hours on 300 Acres of Rice^

Item

I Rate of
use

' Cost per '

Cost per harvester

Gasoline ! 2.5 gallons

per hour

Lubricating. .
(grease)

Crankcase oil.
Oil filters .

5 pounds per
day

unit

Units
used

Total

Dollars

.26
.15

15 quarts

per 60 hours ,19

1 per 60 f 2.50
hours

Remirs

265,0
66.5

26.5
2.0

Dollars
68.90

9.98

5.0ii
5.00

e ly m n m c

_$I-5 Px^^ . day ;

Cost per hour of operation
Cost per acre of rice harvested
i

199.50
■2TOI2"

2.72

- 8 hour day operation for harvesters; 10 for labor.
Source: Based on interview data collected from farmers.

Total
for two

Dollars
137.80

19.96

10.08
10.00

399.00

S.hh
1.92

87.

TABLE 27

Annual Fixed Costs for Self-Propelled Equipment

Item

Depreci-
ation

Maintenance
and
repairs

License
and
insurance

Total

1 Per acre
' of rice
1 produced

Dollars

65 h.p. Tractor

U20.00

121.08

—

5U1.08

i 1.60

30 h.p. Tractor

5il,9ii

5U.9U

i .18

' 1 Ton Truck

liOO.OO

85.00

U85.00

' 1.62

l| Ton Truck

Uoo.oo

130,00

530,00

; 1-77

li Ton Truck

Uoo.oo

130.00

530.00

1.77

■

b»r, Uombme

500.00

i ii 00

S,P, Combine

787.50

500.00

1,287.50

i ^-^^

Total

$3,195.00

!|1,177.01

$3ii5.00

$h,7l5.01

' $15.72

Cost per acre
of rice
produced

$ 10.65

$ 3.92

$ 1.15

f
I
1

! $ --

i 1

Source: Table ll| and interview data with farmers and service agencies.

TABLE 28

Equipment Rented and Custom Services Hired to Supplement Ovmed Eq\aipraent

Operation [

Equipment

Payment rate

Total cost

Cost per acre
of rice

Dollars ' '

Custom work

Surveying i

—

,50 per acre

75.00^/

1 1
j Seeding j

Airplane

1,00 per cwt.

j U80.00

1.60 j

j Fertilizing !

Airplane

Or' 1

,o5 per cwt.

j 637.50-^

2.12

i Crying

—

,30 per cwt.

i ^/
i 3,386.70^/

11.29

Equipment rental

Che eking

65 HP tractor
and driver

7.00 per ho\ar

' 70.00

.23.

Total cost i

i4,6U9.20

, ffg,

Cost per acre ;

— Only 150 acres surveyed each year.

^ 200 lbs. fertilizer per acre on the 150 acres of rice grown the first year, and 300 lbs. on the
same area at the second year. Average of 250 lbs. per acre.

— Dr;;/ing cost based on weight before drying.
Source X Eased on data from farm interviews.

89.

Summary of the Estimated Gross Expenses for the FarmMth 300 Acres of Rice
Indicate a Total Cost of $2.33 Per Hundredweight

Total fixed costs are equal to $7,127 for the production of rice on 300 acres

and the working of 150 acres of summer fallow. Variable expenses are equal to

117,355, giving a total of $2k,k82 for gross expenses for the year - Table 29.

These costs, including cash expenses and depreciation, equal $81,61 per acre of

rice harvested, or ^2.33 per hundredweight of dry paddy rice assuming a 35 hundred

weight yield.i'^ They do not include the value of the labor supplied by the

operator, interest on investment (other than operating capital), or any charge

for management.

Of the $2ii,l482 total costs, .'$7,127 or 29 percent are fixed costs.

l/ i'hese costs per acre are presented in a different form in Appendix Table 3,
Cultural, harvest, a nd summer fallow costs are itemized by operation to arrive
at total cash and depreciation costs per acre.

90,

TABLE 29

Farm Budget Summary for a Farm Producing 300 Acres of Rice Per Year; Gross Expenses^

Gross expenses

Total

Fixed [Variable
l ft »iii i ■ i

j Sub-
total

Per A&'re

Item

Sub-
total

liars

li^.bor :

Harvest

Other seasonal

State Comp. Ins,

239
hi

.80
.16

ii.06

Materials :
Seed ■
Fertilizer

3,360
2,250

1,217

11.20
7.50

5,610

io, (U

Irrigation:

Ditches (rep, and lepr.)

Water

225

2,550

180

.75

8,50
.60

Field Pnwer:-/

2,955

n Qc'
9.05

T-7 repairs
T-3 repairs
Fuel

Lubrication , /
Depreciation-'

1 100

26
hio

i;9ii
12

512
63

1.98
.21

1.71
.30

l.UO

1,677

5.60

Trucks and Pickups:
Trucks-overhead and fuel
Pickup-overhead and fuel
Depreciation-trucks and pickup

260

1,200

172
381

l.hh
1.55
U.oo

2,098

6.99

Machinery:
Harvesters

repairs
fuel

T 1- • J. •

lubrication
depreciation
Other ma.chinery
repairs
depreciation

1,000

1,575

. 1,012

399
138
ho

295

)4.67

,1x6
.13
5.25

.98

h,h^9

lii.66

Taxes on Machinery:

315 ,

, 1.0$

1.05

Improvements: (shed)
Depreciation
Tax

Maintenance

120
36
50

,hO
.12
.17

206 !

.$9

Table 29 — continued--

(

Table 29 - Continued.

91.

Total I

Per

acre

Gross expenses

Fixed

Variable

Sub-

+otal

Item

OUD —

total

DoUa

Interest on Operating Capital

3it3

3i;3

-111

1.11; i

I.IU

Real Estate;
Taxes e/

653

2.18

jjucK uont-rox

300

l.UU

1.00

uuo uuin dnu, riGnT/3.xs

Seeding
SuT*vpvi np
Checking
Drying
Fertilizing

1^80

75
70
3,387
637

1.60
.

.23

11.29
2.12

I5.ii9

Total-/

U.6i;9

17,355

B1.61

a/ Computed for a farm using 65 drawbar horsepower tracklayer tractor (T-7) as
the principal source of power. A 25 to 30 horsepower tractor (T-3) is used
for light work.

b/ These costs include cash expenses and depreciation. They do not include the
value of the labor supplied by the operator , interest on investment (other
than borrowed operating capital), or any charge for management,

c/ Some repairs— replacement of batteries, etc., are considered as fixed expen-
ses because they are a function of time rather than use. The lubrication
cost is also divided between fixed and variable to cover the practice of
changing oil in such parts as final drives: every six months*

d/ The second tractor (T-3) has bean fully depreciated on many farms. The de-
preciation is all for the larger tractor,

e/ Taxes are computed for 14.95 acres, assuming i;50 acres of cropland plus 10
percent of that acreage as wasteland, ditches, etc.

92.

Gross Expenses on Farms Budgeted Y / ith Different Rice Acreages and Different
Inventories of Equipment Range From 12.21 to $2.57 Per Hundredweight . ^

Constant costs .— Totals for all those costs for inputs that remain constant

for each acre of rice vary in proportion to rice acreage - Table 30. These

include, under the assumptions used here, real estate or taxes on land^ ws-ter —

which is the principal cost in irrigation; all materials— seed and fertilizerj

most of the custom charges — seeding, fertilizing, surveying, and drying,* and
2/

dvck control,— The similarity in costs per acre for the different sizes of
farms is due in large part to this fixity of costs per acre, regardless of the
number of acres operated. Its importance can be emphasized by noticing that for
the 300 acres of rice using a T-7 tractor, these constant costs add up to $146
per acre, or 57 percent of the total of $81,

This may understate the percentage of costs that are constant. In those
instances where the same item of equipment is used on farms of different sizes
and where rates of performance are the same regardless of total acreage covered,
variable costs of operation would be constant. This would be true of the self-
propelled combine used on all five farms budgeted here, and f or tthe variable costs
of operating the T-7 tractor for tillage operations on several farms. In fact,
the cost of tractor power changes approximately in proportion to acreage on these
farms except for the 300 acres with the lighter inventory.

Decreasing costs .— Those costs that do not increase in proportion to acre-
age or output will add less to the cost per hundredweight as output increases.
Costs of improvements to real estate are so treated in Table 30, but this will
not always be true in reality. There was a wide variation in the storage build-
ings found on rice farms. Costs shown here would cover a shop and storage space

1/ Farm budget summaries for the different sizes of rice farms, showing inputs
and prices used are given in Appendix Tables 5, 6 and 7.

2/ Duck control is the most difficult of these costs to estimate. However, the
assumption of changes in proportion to acreage seems realistic. On larger acreages,
access to the. center of large fields becomes more difficult and therefore more
costly.

TABLE 30

Costs of Production on Farms With 1^0, 300, hSO, 600 Acres of Rice

■"I' '

Total

Cost

Gross expenses

150 1

300^/

1;50

600

Dollars

Real estate
i Improvements
! Labor
1 Irrigation

Field power
; Trucks and pickups

1 ICL ^ X 1 JLI l\j i. V

Jfaterials

Operating capital (interest)
Custom charges
1 Duck control
Personal property taxes

327
206
268
1,U77
863
807
2,177
2,805
166

2,731
150
156

653
206
1,362
2,955
l,Uii6
2,097
ii,062
5,610
335
i;,96ii
300
269

653

206
1,217
2,955
1,677
2,097
l4,i;59
5,610

3ii3
i;,6i;9

300

315

981
206
2,70i|
ii,599
2,i;37
2,233

500
6,97ii
i;50
326

1,307
206
8,122
6,360
3,27;
3,667
6,4C7|
11,220'
75U|
11,601'
600 j
U88
i 1-

Total gross expenses d/

1?,133

2ii,259

2U,ii8l

3U,862

5U,003

Cost per acre

Cost per cwt«— '

80,89
2.31

80.86
2.31

81.60
2,33

77.i;7
2.21

90,00
2.57 1

a/ Using a U5 DBHP tractor as principal source of power.

b/ Using a 65 DBHP tractor as principal source of power,

c/ Cost of machinery repairs are given in Appendix Tables U,5,6, 7. Depreciatio-
~ is computed as in TaMe li;,

d/ These include cash expenditures and depreciation. The values of labor and
~ management supplied by the farm operator are not included. Interest on
investment Is not included. Interest on operating expenses during the
season is included for the time from use of the funds until one month after
hai^est. This corresponds to the practice of using short-term production
credit to cover these expenses.

e/ Assuming a yield of 35 cwt, per acre.

Sources Computed from data obtained from interviews with farmers and suppliers
of items used in production.

94.

for most of the machinery. Personal property taxes on machinery provide a better
example. They double between 150 acres and 300 acres with a T-7, indicating
constant costs © 3^' per cwt» but when acreage increases to kSO they drop to 2^
per cwt. With the increased equipment needed for 600 acres these costa are
2,3^ which represents a lower figure than on the 1^0 and 300 acre organizations,
and they would decline further if acreage is expanded beyond 600 with no increase
in equipment and no decrease in yield per acre.

Increasing costs .— Costs of hired labor increase more than in proportion
to acreage or output for the farms shown in Table 30, As acreage and output are
doubled, from 150-300 acres, these labor costs increase approximately five times.
The increase is greater with the same size of tractor than with the larger T-7
which uses more capital in relation to labor. On a per hundredweight basis hired
labor costs compare as follows:

Acres Dollars Per Hundredweight
150 0.05
300 (T-5) 0,13
300 (T-7) 0.12
ii50 0.17
600 0,39

The cost of machinery, other than tractors and trucks, increased as acre-
age increased, but tended to rise and then fall as the fixed costs of repairs and
depreciation were spread over more acres. On 300 acres, machinery costs when
using a T-5 as the principal tractor equalled $l4,062 or 39^ per hundredweight.
For the same acreage and output, ownership and use of the T-7 and associated
inventory incurred costs of tkth^? or 1^2^ per hundredweight. Use of this T-7
and the same inventory to operate 1^50 acres of rice, assuming the same yield per
acre, lowered the cost per hundredweight to 32))t,

Comparison of total costs .— As used here, total costs include cash costs and
depreciation. These are the items that determine what will be left from gross
farm income for the use of the operator. The depreciation charge is the means

95«

of recovering previous investment b3'- chcrging a part of the, original total against
the current year's crop. Costs per hvmdredweight or per rare in Table 30 show no
significant difference between these production costs for farms with 1$0 or 300
acres of rice. Despite the differences in labor, power and other individual cost'
items, there is only a few cents difference in cost per acre, and a spread of
only 2^ per hundredweight of rice produced.

When acreage is expanded from 300 to h^O for the organization with the T-7
tractor, estimated cost per acre drops by $h»13» '^his could be an important
saving. It would make an appreciable difference in income. With rice 0 $it,25
per hundredweight, and assuming no charge in harvesting costs other than drying,
the net return per hundredweight would be ':'3,93. The difference in cost of
s%.13 would then be equivalent to a difference in yield of $h»13/$3»93 or 129
pounds of rough rice per acre.

The most important cost comparison is the difference b etween |90 per acre
for total costs on the fam with 600 acres of rice and the sharply lower values foi
the totals on all other farms. This $90 total represents $2,75 per hundredweight
of rice, the margin between $2.75 per hundredv:eight and $2.21 for the farm with

h$0 acres of rice would mean a difference in net income per acre of $12,60;

35 cwt. 25-12, 21) » $71.^0
35 cwt. (^^14.2542,57) = 56.80

5?12.60

The farm with 300 acres of rice and the T-5 produced rice at a slightly lower
cost than the one with the same acreage and the T-7, It was done with an average
investment of some $2,700 less for equipment. Any adverse conditions at harvest
time or at planting time, however, might increase the cost per hundredweight on
this organization above the costs on the farm idth a T-7, VJith the larger tractor
there would be greater flexibility, and the excess capacity wouJId permit coping
with a shorter time period in the spring or fall.

The decrease in cost, as the same inventory of equipment is used to produce
rice on U50 rather than 300 acres, represents a spreading of fixed costs of equip-
ment over a greater output of rice»

96.

Variation in costs among actual farms ,— The data used here are typical of
those observed in the field in 19^0-1973 for a concentration of farms that had
similar inventories and cropping systems. The costs presented above for this
type of farm have been discussed as "the costs of production" but there were
some extreme cases where costs would have varied greatly from these, even though
acreage and yield were nearly the same. Table 31 shows some of the variations
found on farms producing from 220 to k^O acres of rice in 1950 compared with
values used in determining the "typical costs" for that year.

These indicate the major differences in cash operating costs found on sur-
vey farms of this size that were engaged in the production of only rice. The
range here from ^-6.23 below "typical" to $32.58 above, or $38.71, illustrates
the risk of increased costs that may occur in rice production.

The cost of water is determined independently of any conditions on the
particular farra| it is "given" to the manager as the price he will pay for
water. The increased cost of fertilizer occurred on farms attempting to get aver-
Bge OT better yields on soils or below average fertility. All of the other
items in the column that show higher than typical costs result from adverse
weather or biological problems. All of these are not likely to occur on a
given farm in any one year, but such a combination could happen. If it did, the
farm operator who thought that his cash operating costs were going to be comparable
to those shown above as "typical" might finish the season with this portion of
his costs as much as 50 percent higher than anticipated.

The costs that exceed the "typical" in this tabulation occurred on only
a few farms in 1950, They are so erratic in their occurrence that they were
not "typical" on any given farm that year, in the sense that they would not
usually appear as costs. By the summer of 1953 they were considered more probable
expenditures on most farms visited. Heavier fertilization and more sprays for
insect and weed control, for example, were being used on fields that had been
continuously planted to rice without a nonirrigated year to control pests.

97.

TABLE 31

Range in Selected Cost Items on Rice Farms in 1950

Item

Low

1 rr. ,

' High

Typical

Hired labor
Fertilizer

Application
Water

Spraying weeds
Spraying tadpole shrimp
Luck control

Total
Typical costs
Margin below typical
Margin above typical

$ 2.60
.00
.00
6.00
.00
,00
.00

010.60
11.97
3.81;
11;. 00
3.00
2.50

1.50

^ 3.32 ,
2.66

.85 !

7.00 !

.00

.00
1.00

B.60
11^.83

li;.83

^1U.«3

^-6.23

$32.58

. Source! Interviews with farmers.

To reflect these increases the budgeted costs in Table 29 include increases
from the "typical" costs- found in 1950 for these specific items:

1950 Used here for 300 acres

of rice

Hired labor

1 3.32

$ 1;,06

Fertilizer

2.66

7»50

Application

.85

2.12

Water

7.00

8.50

$13.83

^^22.lB

13.83

Increase

4 6.3^

98.

Comparison of Net Farm Incomes for the Budgeted Farms Shows That Income Does Not

Increase in Proportion to Acreage of Rice

Gross return will be computed using the yield of 35 hundredweight and a price
of $4.25 per hundredweight for dry paddy rice, farm basis at harvest time, to deter-
mine estimated net farm incomes for the different sizes of rice farms being analyzed.

With the calendars of operations and inputs that have been developed, net farm
income for a farm producing 35 hundredweight of rice on 300 acres, using the T-7 and
inventory of equipment associated with it from Table 15, would equal $20,143.

This net farm income as shown in Table 32 is the amount that the farm business

returns to the farm operator in payment for his capital invested in land, equipment,

and other items, his own labor, and his management.-^ It is based on reasonably goo

weather conditions and reasonably good yields. The yields might be exceeded by

several hundredweight in unusually good weather years. On the other hand, they migh-*

not be achieved in years when weather is unusually bad for rice production.-'

Table 32 gives a comparison of net farm income for different sizes of rice
farms. The net income of $20,143 on the 300 acres of rice is more than double that
on the 150 acres because costs increased less than income as the acreage was in-
creased. Doubling of rice acreage from 300 to 600 failed to double net farm income—
the first 300 acres producing a net farm income of $20,143 and the second 300 adding
only $15,247.

The farm with 600 acres of rice shows a net income only $3,288 greater than
that from the farm with 450 acres of rice. Several factors explain this small

Xj This would be the net farm income for an owner-operator. As pointed out above,
two-thirds of the rice growers in 1950 were producing all or part of their rice on
rented land. In that case, the net income would be divided between the landlord
and the tenant.

2/ In 1957, preliminary estimates indicated an average yield per acre for Californi;
of 41 hundredweight per harvested acre. The 1956 yield was 42 hundredweight. These
contrasted with the 1954 yield per acre planted of 24 hundredweight. Agricultural
Marketing Service, Grain Division, Annual Market Summary of California Rice. (San
Francisco, Federal State Market News Service) Nov, 30, 1956,

income gain. In order to increase from h^O to 600 acres of rice the inventory of
equipment had to be expanded by adding another tractor and harvester. This means
a major increase in land working and harvesting capacity, which the 600 acres of
rice was unable to use to capacity. This is partly because growers were cautious
about expecting as much from any given tractor at this acreage as at smaller acre-
ages, 'i'he greater absolute risk of loss in event of equipment failure caused them
to own greater harvester and tractor capacity per acre than growers with smaller
acreages of rice. Growers in this size class also used more labor per acre. They
hired' a full time hired man bj the year and several men by the month. The costs
in Tables 30 and 32 are based on the assumption that the owner-operator will devote
his time entirely to supervision. Cash costs would be lowered if the owner dis-
placed some of the hired labor with his own labor.

With the comparison of net farm incomes shown in this section, one might
question why any operators would be found in this size class. Three reasons
can be cited, (a) Combinations of equipment can be adjusted or acreage can be
expanded for this inventory and thereby lower costs per unit (but not all the
reasons for increased costs can be overcome), (b) During the past 10 years, prices
for rice have been much higher than the ih,2^ used as a probable future price. Th
rise in price from $U.25.,to $$,00 would add ll$,7$0 to the net farm income of the
farm with 600 acres of rice, but only $11,812 to the farm with k$0 acres, (c)
Higher yields explain why some rice growers have been producing on 600 or more
acres. Many such larger growers are farming on soils that give higher average
yields than the 3,500 pounds used here.

Ranges in costs .-- Costs may vaiy from year to year according to weather
conditions,' with adverse conditions a farmer would incur adc^ed costs in an attempt
to maintain yield. In cool years such as 19$h and 1953 many growers would be
forded to incur added expenses for weed or insect spraying, possibly added
fertilizer, added costs of irrigation, and harvesting. Such additions might be

100.

TABLE 32

Comparison of Net Farm Incomes for Different Sizes of Rice Farms

Acres

Quantity-
produced
cwt, a/

Price

Gross
receipts

Gross
expenses d/

Net 1
farm 1
income e/\

150

5,250

ii.25

22,312

12,989

9,323

300^/

10,500

i4.25

Ul4,625

2h,276

20,3U9

300^/

10,500

U.25

UU,625

2[t,i482

20,lli3

15,750

li.25

66,938

3U,836

32,102

600

21,000

U.25

89,250

53,860

35,390

a/ Based on a yield of 35 cwt, of dry paddy rice per acre.

b/ Using a li5 drawbar horsepower tractor and appropriate inventory of
equipment,

c/ Using a 65 drawbar horsepower tractor and appropriate inventory of
equipment,

d/ Using gross expenses from Table 30.

e/ This would be the net ffrra income of an oimer-operrtor. When the rice is
produced by a renter, this amount would be divided between the landlord
and the tenant according to the terms of the lerse. Tenants in 1950 were
realizing from 60 to 70 per cent of the net income.

lOU

as follows:

Weed spraying

Insect spraying or dusiting

Cost of an added 100 # of fertilizer

Cost of draining and rc flooding

If so, the added costs would cause net farm income
rice to shrink from Z^0,1U3 to $l$,9h3 at yield of
of $Ii.25.

Per Acre

$ 3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00

$lii,00 X 300 = $li,200
on the farm with 3 00 acres of

35 hundredweight and a price

102.

The Effects of Changes in Price and Yield on Net Farm Income Can Be Estimated
" from the budget Data

A decline in price would cause gross farm income to be loss at every yield
and, therefore, would cause net farm income to become negative at a higher yield.
Assuming the same price for rice at all levels of yield, the gross returns from
various prices ranging from per hundredweight down to ^3.00 per hundred-

vjeight for dry rice are illustrated by the price lines in Figure 1. Gross returns
can be read directly from the left hand margin of this chart.

The total cost of production as shown in Table 29 is given by TC , The
only change in costs shown here as yialds decrease in the actual cost of drying
rice which declines by 32^ for each hundredweight of yield reduction.i'^ A
reduction in yield from 35 to 2$ hundredweight brings about a reduction of costs
equal to; 10 hundredweight (32?S) per acre or $3.20 (300 acres) >= |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

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

26.2 30 31.5

Yield in cwt per acre

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

Yield in cwt per acre

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

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»

180

1.32

.11

257

T-7

1 Disk

20'

100

1.32

.07

139

T-3

1 Harrow

30'

.96

.01;

T-3

j B-cast

90 power

! Seeder

180 man .96

T-3

• Harrow

30»

, 56

.96

.oU

! Harvest S.P.

: 20

1 225

2.2li

501;

j li|« header !

j Hauling l| ton truck 20
: 1

i 225

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.

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

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

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

! Income from rice, net

20,lii3

20,ll;3 \

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

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

•■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.

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

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

Barley

Rice

Pasture

Rice

Fallow

Rice

Pasture

I Mce_in ;;

nfitrbgenT" Yield
' ; per acre ! per acre
j Pounds b/i Pounds c/

Rice

Clover

Barley '

Pasture

Rice

Barley

Pasture

Rice

Fallow

Rice

Idle

Pasture

Rice

Idle-

Rice

Fallow

Pasture

252

Barley

Barley j

200

Rice

Fallow

Rice

311

Idle

Barley

Clover

180

Rice

Fallow

32U

Rice

Pasture

Rice

Barley

Pasture

Fallow

Rice

Wheat )

Fallow)

Fallow

Rice

Wheat

Pasture

Idle

Fallovr

Rice

Fallow

RicG
Rice )
Rice)
Barley

Clover
Barley

Rice

0
68
d/
33

h2
d/

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.

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

72
3U8
290

1U5
U50
220
h5o
290

80
126

60
75

60
120

•i 1

1 1

* )

1 Rice 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

i Rice

Peas

Rice

I Fallow

Barley '

Barley j

• Rice
!

Milo ;

Barley j

! Fallow

Barley

Rice 1

Rice

Fall

Rice 1

1 Rice

Rice

Rice ) j

j Rice

Rice

Fall )

j Wheat

Wheat

VJheat )

[ Fallow

Fallow

Rice

; Rice

Fallow

Rice

' Rice

Rice

0
h9
0

h2
0
0

h2
25

d/
20-21

69
66

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.

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

Preceding Crops

19^9"

Rice in 1950

Beans

Wheat

Yes

Beans

Wheat

Yes

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Yes

Rice

Beans

Wheat

Yes

Wheat

Beans

Wheat

Yes

Peas

Rice

Peas

Rice

Beans

Wheat

Rice

Beans

Barley

Yes

08eV

O&V

Yes

Idle

Rice

Idle

Rice

Pasture

Pastuare

Rice

Idle

Rice

Idle

Rice

Fallow

Rice

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

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

11.29

• h.Oh
; 1.60
i 2.05
1 11.29

Table 3 — continued —

Table 3 - Continued.

Jash Costs

per acre

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

Miscellaneous costs ~

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

Total cost per acre
Cost per hundredweight

"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

288
85

201
57

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

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

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

16
5

288

; 931

t
(

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 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

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 — ■

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

ii20

! 1,550

i 1,050

i lOli

5,oiiO

! 3,375

i
t

; 3,823

!
i

j 270

750
62

93I1

Table 6 --Continued —

Table 6 - Continued.

130»

Item

Trucks and
Pickup

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

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

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 !

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

288
600

390

170

2,000
1,000

1,575
300

1495
1,5118

488

Table 7 — Continued —

134.

Table - Continued.

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-? 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

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

150

6.66

300

13.3^

1;50

19.98

600

26.6ii

Float

Checker

25.00

150

.166

150

225

37.ii9

300

1.9,98

Chisel

50.00

150

.333

25.00 a/

150

50.00 a/

225

7l;.99

300

99.99

Ditcher

Landplane

25.00

150

.166

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

i 2J4.33

ho, 2k

1;7.15

ffotal repairs

295.06

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.