UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR No. 281 J > MEMBER, 1924 The Results of a Survey to Determine the Cost of Producing Beef in California By E. L. ADAMS INTRODUCTION A century and a half of activities centering in the production of beef in California have seen recorded many changes in methods of handling cattle, in breeds, and in details of business and organization. The cattle of Mission days, slender-legged, sharp-nosed, dun or brindle colored, light of weight, deer-like animals of restless, uneasy, suspicious temperament, fleet of foot, lean and tough of carcass, have given way before the introduction of better breeds and better blood-lines; the free, open, untitled ranges of pioneer times have succumbed in the advancement of more intensive farming ; the independent selling by individuals, operating each in his own way, has been replaced by corporation and cooperative methods. A business as it grows and expands tends to develop new problems, and must make readjustments to keep pace with the times. This is constantly true of agriculture in general and of the beef producing business in particular. Today more attention is being paid to the business phases of beef production, and data concerning the financial side of the business are now being sought by those interested in the production, preparation, sale, and consumption of beef. In a belief that more complete knowledge of costs of production is vital as a starting point in gaining a better understanding of the business, for use in organizing, reorganizing and administering a business involving over 1,400,000 head of cattle, worth more than $48,000,000,* members of the California Cattlemen's Association asked the College of Agriculture to conduct a study into the costs of pro- ducing beef animals under California conditions. As a result of this request, data were collected in detail from typical California cattle ranges and ranches to provide a basis for: (1) Presenting actual * See p. 26, "California Crop Report, 1923.'' Special Publication No. 43 of State of California Department of Agriculture. 2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION figures of costs of production; (2) calculating unit cost factors involved in common methods of producing beef, and (3) making sug- gestions that may help individual cattlemen to obtain greater profits. Data were obtained from a gross acreage of 484,283 acres of range, utilized by 15,431 stock cows, 833 bulls, 10,703 calves, 10,007 yearlings, 9850 2-year-olds, 1651 3-year-olds, a total of 32,211 head raised either for sale or for retention as breeding stock. Records, complete enough for tabulating, were obtained from thirty-two ranches located in seventeen counties as follows : No. of cattle No. of cattle County ranches County ranches San Benito 5 Butte 1 San Luis Obispo 2 Tehama 3 Santa Barbara 4 Shasta 3 Ventura 1 Trinity 1 Los Angeles 2 Siskiyou 2 Tulare 1 Modoc 1 Fresno 1 Humboldt 2 Madera 1 Mendocino 1 Yuba 1 This list includes a total of 14 ranges located generally in the southern coast district, two in the northern coast district, eleven in the central valleys, and five in the mountain counties. For purposes of comparison cattle were classified into four groups, each group covering the calendar year from January 1 to December 31. Group No. 1 covered the year in which the calves were born, up to and including December 31. The average age of the calves therefore depended on the time the majority were dropped. If calving occurred in February and March the average age was taken as 10 months; if in April or May, the average age was taken as 8 months. Charges for stock cattle were carried jointly with the calves for the year in which the calves were dropped. Group No. 2, made up of yearlings, covered the second calendar year of the youngster's life, and similarly Group No. 3, consisting of two-year-olds, covered the third calendar year, Group No. 4, composed of three-year-olds, covered any portion of the fourth calendar year for such beef cattle as were carried for more than three years. In collecting data, all cattle purchased for fattening were omitted, attention being confined only to the breeding and rearing of ordinary market cattle under commercial conditions. Purebred cattle raised for sale as breeding stock were not included. In estimating charges, whenever interest had to be included, a rate of 6 per cent was used. Taxes and insurance were for the actual sums paid. CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 3 The inquiry included a description of the ranch under study, its location, shape, acreage, physical condition, equipment, and climatic environment, data concerning methods of handling and costs — of breeding, feeding, rearing, and marketing. Calculation of invest- ment in actual buildings, improvements and equipment was made a part of the study, in addition to a record of all labor costs (human, horse and mechanical), all general expenses, depreciation of equip- ment, interest on operating capital, and credits. Information was also obtained covering costs of marketing, prices obtained, and cattle- men's suggestions as to possible improvements. Four rather distinct methods of raising cattle were practiced by the operators of these thirty-two ranches. A classification is made according to these methods : Class I (Records 1-15) consists of grass fat cattle, raised exclusively under range conditions, on home ranges, occasionally supplemented with summer ranges. These records included ranges under all con- ditions, e.g., southern coast, central valley, and mountain. Class II (Records 16-21) consists of cattle fed a small amount of supplementary feeds during periods when the range Avas short, though generally marketed as grass fat cattle. Such records were obtained from Shasta, Mendocino, San Luis Obispo, and Tehama counties. Class III (Records 22-27) differs from the two preceding classes in that the cattle were generally fed hay, at from y 2 to 1% tons per head, during the cold weather in addition to summer range and some winter range feed. These records were collected in Siskiyou, Modoc, Yuba, and .Humboldt counties. Class IV (Records 28-32) consists of cattle fattened for market on various supplementary feeds, such as hay, beet tops, alfalfa, barley and corn. Records for this group are from Butte and Santa Barbara counties. In assembling the data, costs calculated at the end of the first year of the calf's career included the following: (1) A herd charge, made up of interest on average investment in stock cattle, depreciation, mortality, taxes and insurance. (2) A similar charge was determined for the use of corrals and of equipment, and pro-rated according to amount of use by these calves and stock cattle. (3) Operating costs were made up of labor — manual, management horse, and use of truck and automobile; feeds, supplies, and miscel- laneous expenses. Man labor was recorded in hours of actual labor at the going wage, including the value of board and any other perquisites. Management 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION was determined by estimating the amount of time spent by the operator in purely managerial details, at the going salary scale for operating a similar business, or by prorating the actual rate paid if the operator received a salary. To eliminate the necessity of becoming involved in land values, all feeds contributed by the ranch, whether pasture, hay, concentrates, or others, were charged at farm value, that is, at market price less costs of preparing for sale, delivering, and selling. Purchased feeds were figured at cost delivered to the ranch. Capital invested in herds, ranch buildings, ranch equipment, and improvements in connection with corrals and stock quarters, such as fences, feed racks, water troughs, shelters, and flooring, was handled as an investment. Lands used for pasturage or for the production of feed were not included under investment, because productive land values are difficult to determine. Lands used for producing feed for the ranch were taken into account by a proper sum based on the going rate for pasture and the farm value for all hay, grain, or other feeds produced. No land investments were taken into account other than those in corrals, lanes, building sites, feed lots, and those occupied by stock water facilities. This method eliminated any danger of over- valuing lands, or inclusion of lands valued on a basis other than for strictly agricultural productive use. The value of the feeds produced, taken at farm prices, automatically determines productive land value. The investment charge for lands in corrals, lanes, etc., was made up of the crop rental value for such lands. The reason for this is obvious. If lands regularly rent for $2.50, $3.00, or $4,00 for agri- cultural purposes, yet have a market value of $100 or $150 per acre, interest at 6 per cent, if taken at the market value, would result in an inordinately high charge of $6.00 to $9.00, instead of the actual pay- ments of less than half as much. In the event that new investments were made during the year, such investments were taken into account in accordance with the length of time that they were in use during the period covered by this study, and pro-rated accordingly. Interest was allowed upon the average investment in cattle, in buildings, in corral improvements and in ranch equipment. Interest was also charged upon sums of operating capital required to meet current expenses. The herd investment was determined from the average number of cows and bulls maintained throughout the year at average values as shown by the first and second inventories. This figure therefore reflects any changes in values from such causes as fluctuating markets, CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 5 selling off of old cows, purchase of better stock, introduction of young animals into the breeding herd, or similar changes affecting the selling value of the herd. The sum of these various charges plus a sum to cover interest on operating capital less any credits obtained gave the cost per head for the calendar year involved. Dividing by the weight per head indi- cated the cost per pound. Costs for young cattle during their second year were made up of interest on investment in cattle of this group, taxes, insurance, and proper pro-rata of the charges for use of buildings, corrals and equip- ment, of operating costs, interest on operating capital, less credits. Cost for this second year was then added to the total as found for the first year. For the third and subsequent years costs w T ere similarly figured and added to the cost total already found. Data were obtained by actual records taken from ranch books and from men's actual experiences and estimates. The data were taken for conditions representing as nearly as possible a cross section of the ordinary commercial practices in normal years, with a definite attempt made to eliminate exceptional conditions or unusual data. OUTLINE OF THE STUDY AND FINDINGS Costs of Producing California Beef. — On the basis of cattlemen's estimates and data collected during the period October 15, 1923, to February 1, 1924, the average cost of producing a calf to the end of the calendar year in which it was born amounted to $38, or 8.8 cents per pound. On the same basis at the end o±. the second year, the youngster then being a short two-year-old, the cost amounted to $56.31, or 7.7 cents per pound and at the end of the third calendar year to $80.60 per head, or 7.6 cents per pound. For cattle carried beyond the third calendar year the cost rose to $108.69, or 9 cents per pound. Considerable variations in costs occurred with the different ranches. These variations were traceable to a number of factors such as percentage of calf drop, mortality, average gains in weight per year, investment in equipment, labor expenditures, and estimated costs of management. For instance, the costs of producing calves to the end of the calendar year in which they were born varied from $22.47 to $58.70 for the different ranches, though $38 was the average. On these thirty-two cattle ranches, four produced at a cost per head of less than $30, twelve at from $30 to $40, eleven at from $40 to $50, and five faced costs in excess of $50. The cost to the end of the second year averaging $56.31 ranged from $32.83 to $88.04, with five ranches UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION producing at less than $40, eleven at from $40 to $55, nine at from $55 to $70, while seven cost over $70 per head. The costs to the end of the third year, averaging $80.60, ranged from $44.69 to $118.88. Ten of these thirty-two ranches brought cattle to this stage at a cost per head below $75. It cost $75 to $90 for eleven, and the eleven remaining had costs of over $90 per head. The following table gives the details for all thirty-two ranches with average costs both by the head and by the pound. Cost of Producing California Beef Based on cattlemen's estimates and data collected October 15, 1923-February 1, 1894 Number of head of stock cows (to give idea of size) Net cost per head Net cost per pound Ranch number Calves, end of 1st year Year- lings, end of 2nd year Twos, end of 3rd year Threes, or older Calves, end of 1st year Year- lings, end of 2nd year Twos, end of 3rd year Threes, or older 1 325 250 784 275 150 175 750 1,800 960 1,200 270 225 300 300 300 600 594 1,050 200 140 75 700 310 250 100 110 53 500 1,200 185 700 600 $46.32 46.09 39.75 30.75 45.06 35.68 46.21 33.31 38.16 33.90 26.85 41.00 48.89 58.70 45.32 37.17 37.83 22.47 46.54 55.25 50.95 36.80 34.64 58.26 47.14 54.82 49.74 23.13 42.29 34.62 25.30 39.90 $38.00 $65.15 70.60 53.89 47.27 66.10 54.93 67.22 55.20 48.46 55.07 38.03 66.02 83.41 75.12 65.48 49.70 52.41 32.83 65.88 84.73 78.62 50:21 50.28 78.77 66.59 78.62 88.04 36.88 56.40 36.76 34.96 58.30 $56.31 $87.32 82.65 75.38 62.24 93.10 75.22 89.01 76.90 60.11 71.67 46.84 102.11 116.79 92.58 87.75 66.41 68.62 44.69 98.46 103.86 108.28 71.59 68.47 105.44 90.10 112.56 118.88 61.07 76.83 81.29 50.60 84.17 $80.60 $100.43 10.00c 8.40 9.90 6.80 8.19 7.90 10.26 8.34 7.20 6.78 5.96 9.00 10.80 10.67 10.07 10.92 8.00 5.60 11.63 11.05 12.70 8.65 11.54 14.56 11.78 15.66 12.40 5.18 10.50 * 7.70 7.20 7.98 8.8c 8.68c 8.30 8.30 6.75 8.81 8.45 8.40 6.13 5.80 6.90 5.85 8.80 11.00 10.01 8.71 8.28 6.60 5.10 9.41 12.10 12.10 6.47 7.73 13.12 11.09 10.23 12.60 6.14 7.50 5.00 5.80 7.00 7.7c 8.30c 8.30 6.85 5.65 8.46 8.30 7.41 6.80 5.70 6.00 5.02 10.21 9.70 9.25 7.97 7.37 6.50 4.70 9.84 10.38 11.40 6.98 6.82 11.07 10.60 11.25 11.88 6.10 6.90 7.20 4.80 8.00 7.6c 8.35c 2 3 4 5 6... . 84.45 114.16 102.50 7.30 7 9.20 8 8.54 9 10 11 12 117.06 9.70 13 14 110.93 115.21 76.35 9.64 15 9.21 16 6.61 17 18 19 20 21 22 99.14 105.18 8.26 23 8.76 24 25.. . 114.39 129.52 10.89 26 11.20 27 28 29 30 31 32 $108.69 Totals 15,431 and weighted averages 9c CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 7 Because of the number of cattlemen's estimates entering into this study, some of which are vital in a final analysis, as, for instance, per- centage of calf drop, mortality, and average annual gains, a question naturally arises as to the operator's ability to recall or to estimate closely enough for these compilations, and, as a logical consequence, the fairness of the deductions may be somewhat open to debate. Yet, if this report serves to show the need of keeping more accurate records, and, as well, points the way to the kind of information that can be gleaned from properly kept records, its publication may serve a useful purpose. Notwithstanding the limitations of this particular study, the work, in my opinion, is of value as a study of general conditions, since the final result is fairly accurate. It also illustrates what can be done in the way of finding out costs from properly kept records. FINDINGS These thirty-two ranches possessed a total of 484,283 acres of land, varying from 1750 to 60,000 acres for the individual holding. In some instances, for various reasons, the range was not fully utilized, in others it was supplemented by grazing in national forests, or by other summer pasture. Seventeen of the thirty -two ranches each possessed an acreage in excess of 10,000 acres. In numbers of stock cattle the herds totaled 15,431 cows and 833 bulls, the cow herds ranging from 53 to 1200, twelve herds being in excess of 500 head. Native range was the outstanding feed, this alone serving on eleven ranches for calves, and on twenty ranches for yearlings. Thirteen cattlemen utilized supplementary feeds for their three-year-old cattle, especially in finishing for market. Four cattlemen utilized such feeds for their beef older than three years. The average cost of producing a steer, based on the findings from these thirty-two ranches was as follows : UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Costs During the First Year — Average Age 9 Months Feed Eange $13.07 Supplementary 3.31 Labor Eiders and manual.... 4.63 Management 2.54 Use of saddle horses 1.13 Use of autos and trucks .86 Use of buildings .96 Use of corrals .66 Use of equipment .27 Herd charge 8.66 Minor and miscellaneous charges 3.05 Gross cost per head $39.14 Less credits* 1.14 Net cost first year $38.00 Average weight, 433 pounds. Average cost per pound, 8.8 cents. * Hides, home-used meats, etc. Cost by End of Second Year — Average Age 21 Months Net cost end of first year $38.00 Costs incurred during second year: Feed Eange $6.29 Supplementary 1.58 Labor Eiders and manual 2.66 Management 2.07 Use of saddle horses .64 Use of autos and trucks .55 Use of buildings .53 Use of corrals .40 Use of equipment .14 Herd charge 2.30 Minor and miscellaneous charges 1.65 Gross cost second year $18.81 Less credits .50 Net cost second year $18.31 ■Net cost first year 38.00 Total net costs first and second years $56.31 Average weight second year, 735 pounds. Cost per pound end of second year, 7.7 cents. Circular 281] survey of cost of producing beef in California Cost by End of Third Year — Average Age 33 Months Net cost end of second year $56.31 Costs incurred during third year: Feed Eange $9.56 Supplementary 3.43 Labor Eiders and manual 2.85 Management 1.46 Use of saddle horses .64 Use of autos and trucks .53 Use of buildings .52 Use of corrals .42 Use of equipment .13 Herd charges 3.11 Minor and miscellaneous charges 1.64 Net cost third year (no credits) $24.29 Net cost first and second years 56.31 Net cost end of third year $80.60 Average weight end of third year, 1063 pounds. Average cost per pound, 7.6 cents. Cost to Selling Period, Fourth Year — Average Age 44 Months Net cost end of third year $80.60 Costs incurred during fourth year: Feed Eange $8.71 Supplementary 8.36 Labor Eiders and manual 2.63 Management .91 Use of saddle horses .53 Use of autos and trucks .44 Use of buildings .74 Use of corrals .14 Use of equipment .13 Herd charge 3.22 Minor and miscellaneous charges 2;28 Net cost during fourth year (no credits) $28.09 Net cost first three years 80.60 Total net cost fourth year $108.69 Average weight fourth year, 1202 pounds. Cost per pound, 9c. 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION HANDLING OF CATTLE Ages of Cattle. — The average ages of the different groups of young stock were found to be as follows : End of first calendar year — average 9 months, range 6 to 12 months. End of second calendar year — average 21 months. End of third calendar year — average 33 months. End of fourth calendar year — average 44 months. Approximately one-third of the total calves were 9 months old by the end of the first calendar year. This amounted to twice as many calves as the next highest figure, e.g., 10 months. Age of Marketing. — The earliest age of marketing was reported as being from 26 to 28 months. The longest time that cattle were held was given as being from 40 to 44 months. Cattle sold at the earlier dates were estimated to weigh from 1000 to 1100 pounds. The weight of the older cattle was placed at 1200 pounds. The average age of selling cattle came when they were 33 months old, and reported as weighing about 1000 pounds. This would seem to indicate that cattle- men as a whole realize that beef over three years of age can be pro- duced at a profit only under unusual conditions. Relation of Production Costs to Price. — The average cost per pound for a twenty-one months old beef animal was found to be 7.7 cents, while that of a three-year-old animal was 7.6 cents. The market price of steer beef during the year 1922 ran from 6 to 7 cents, the bulk of the sales being at figures between 6 and 6% cents per pound, while a few cattle sold below 6 cents or above 7 cents. It is therefore evident that there is plenty of room for reduction of costs of production, or increase in price, if costs and receipts are to more nearly balance one another. Breeds of Cattle. — The following breeds were represented on these various ranches : Shorthorns, Heref ords, and Angus. Twelve ranches reported their breeding stock as Herefords, nine as Shorthorns, or else a cross of Shorthorns and Herefords, and two as Angus. Period of Breeding. — Most of the breeding took place during spring and summer — fifteen ranches so reporting. Nine reported spring breeding, five all year, and three summer breeding. Calf Drop. — Wide variation was found in percentages of calf drop, running from a low of 50 per cent on rough, bushy ranges, to 90 per cent under the more favorable conditions of feed and stock, with an CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 11 average for the thirty-two ranches of 67.3 per cent. The higher per- centages usually hold for small ranches where breeding fields are small, and much individual attention is given to stock cattle. Weaning. — Weaning took place either during the late summer months or the early fall months, the more general time being Septem- ber, October, and November, with occasionally some weaning accom- plished as early as July and August or as late as December. Branding and Altering. — The months of April and May were figured as the time for branding and altering, occasionally some summer work was done, and a few ranches practiced branding and altering twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall. Of the thirty-two ranches twenty-one did the branding and altering during either April, May, or June, even though they might follow with a second round-up during the fall. Age of Discarding Cows. — The age of cows discarded as breeding stock ranged from a low of three years of calving to a high of fifteen years. One ranch reported that their cows were discarded anywhere after three to ten calves, while another estimate placed the serviceable age of cows at ten to fifteen years. The bulk of discarding, however, was reported as taking place between the ages of seven and ten years. Average Value per Head. — The average value of herds of stock cows ranged from a low of $30 to a high of $75 per head. The stock cows in only three of the thirty-two ranches were valued at more than $50. Six cattlemen valued their stock cattle at $30, four at $35, eleven at $40, three at $45, five at $50, two at $60, and one at $75. The bulls ranged in value from a low of $50 to a high of $350. Two valued their bulls under $75, four at from $75 to $100, nineteen from $100 to $150 inclusive, and seven at from more than $150 up to $350. The average value placed upon calves ranged from $10 to $30 inclusive. Four ranchers valued their calves at less than $15 at the end of the first calendar year, ten at from $15 to $19 inclusive, nine at from $20 to $24 inclusive, and eight at from $25 to $30 inclusive. The value of yearlings was placed at from a low of $20 to a high of $50 at the end of the second calendar year of the youngsters' growth. Four cattlemen valued this group of cattle at less than $25, fifteen at from $25 to $34 inclusive, eleven at from $35 to $44 inclu- sive, and two at $50. The average value per head for two-year-olds ranged from a low of $30 to a high of $70 (for steers). Heifers, when a distinction between steers and heifers was made, were rated at $10 a head less than steers. 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The average for cattle carried to the end of the third calendar year, e.g. long twos, were mostly valued from $45 to $55, one operator valued this class of cattle at less than $35, sixteen at from $35 to $44 inclusive, ten at from $45 to $54 inclusive, and three at from $55 to $64 inclusive. For the aged beef cattle, values were placed at from $40 to $54 inclusive by eight operators, and at from $55 to $66 inclusive by six operators. Gains. — Weights of calves at the end of the calendar year in which they were born averaged 433 pounds, although a spread was reported by the thirty-two cattlemen of from 300 to 550 pounds. Four cattle- men reported weights of from 300 to 400 pounds, twenty-one of from 400 to 500 pounds, and seven of 500 pounds or more. Weights of cattle sold during the fourth year by twelve cattlemen holding beef to this age averaged 1202 pounds, and ranged from 1050 to 1250 pounds. Number of Balls Used. — Cattlemen reported using from as few as one bull to 40 cows to as high as one bull to 16 cows. The average was one bull to 22 cows, the majority of operators using either four or five bulls per 100 cows. Mortality. — Cattlemen's estimates of the mortality of stock cows ranged from a low of % of 1 per cent to a high of 7% per cent. The average was close to 3 per cent, most men reporting their losses at from 2 to 3 per cent, although enough heifers were usually retained each year to offset the mortality loss. Three ranches reported no death loss among their bulls. The lowest reported loss amounted to % of 1 per cent, the highest figure was 20 per cent. The average amounted to 3.6 per cent, with most cattlemen figuring their mortality of bulls as being between 1 and 2 per cent. Calf mortality ranged from a low of % of 1 per cent (one man reporting no loss) to a high of 8 per cent. The average for the thirty- two ranches amounted to 3.23 per cent with most of the ranches reporting a mortality loss of 4 to 5 per cent. Mortality of youngsters during the second year ranged from y 2 °^ 1 per cent to 7 per cent. Here again one operator reported no mor- tality. Average mortality amounted to 2 per cent, with most of the figures standing at from 1 to 2 per cent. Mortality during the third calendar year (e.g., period from 21 to 33 months), ranged from % of 1 per cent to 5 per cent, with CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 13 two operators reporting no mortality. The average for all reports amounted to 1.4 per cent, with most of the men reporting from 1 to 2 per cent. Mortality of mature beef cattle ranged from a low of 14 of 1 per cent to a high of 5 per cent, with an average of 1.3 per cent. Most operators reported mortality for this group at less than 1 per cent, e.g., either 1/4 or y 2 of 1 per cent. Influence of Methods upon Costs. — Although the number of records in certain of the groups are too few in number to permit drawing final conclusions, yet they show a difference in costs traceable to different methods of raising cattle. The average for each group is given below. Too few records are available for cattle beyond the third year — hence aged steers are ignored in tabulating these particular data. Number Per- of cent- Method of feeding records age of in each calf group drop Range..... 15 70 Range and a little supple- mentary feed 6 67 Range and generous use of hay in winter 6 73 Range: with beef cattle fin- ished on beet tops, hay, barley or similar feeds 5 71 430 7.7 705 6.3 1,075 6.5 UNIT FACTORS To provide a means of measuring the cost of producing beef, as long as practice remains similar to that in use at the time this study was made, a table of unit factors is appended below. By "unit factors ' ' are meant basic items making up complete cost measured in terms of time and quantity rather than in dollars and cents. The unit factors are made up from the following basic data : Number of ranches 32 Gross acreage 484,283 Numbers of cattle : Stock cows 15,431 Bulls : 833 Calves 10,703 Yearlings 10,007 Twos 9,850 Threes or older 1,651 First * year Second A 1 year Third A year Aver, weight end of Aver, cost r Aver, weight end of Aver, cost Aver, weight end of Aver, cost year, lbs. per lb. year, lbs. per lb. year, lbs. per lb. 477 8.7c 792 8.1c 1,076 7.6c 450 10.0 683 8.9 975 8.4 381 12.8 671 10.2 990 9.6 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Table Showing Unit Factors per Head per Year Involved in Eaising Beef Cattle Age of Cattle — Years First year Second Year Third year Fourth year Home ranch — acres 20 63^ 10 7 Riders and manual labor: Average hours 12 7 7 7 Management, average hours 4 2\i 2> l A 1/^ Use of horses, hours 19.2 11.3 12.6 13.8 Use of autos and trucks, miles 9.5 5.9 6.6 5.1 Cost of supplementary feeds $3.87 $1.50 $2.44 $2.98 Use of buildings 96 .53 .52 .74 Use of corrals and improvements .66 .40 .42 .14 Use of equipment 27 .14 .13 .13 Herd charge 8.66 2.30 3.11 3.22 Miscellaneous charges 3.05 1.65 1.64 2.20 Credits 1.14 .50 Average weights end of year, in pounds. 433 735 1,063 1,202 In addition to the home range, eleven ranches utilized other pas- tures (e.g., grazing in National Forest Keserves), while twenty cattle- men fed supplementary feeds. On the basis of home range data, a cow and her calf annually require approximately three times the feed necessary to carry a year- ling and twice the feed needed for a two-year-old. Similarly a year- ling requires approximately 65 per cent of the feed necessary for a two-year-old. This deduction assumes that the feed is of equal quality for all cattle. In actual practice beef animals are commonly given preference over stock cattle in alloting the better feed, so that the spread in acreage needs doubtless is partly traceable to the fact that the cows are obliged to utilize the less desirable feeds. For the unit factors shown above, the costs obtained by this survey were as follows : Riders and manual labor, cost per hour averaged 38.7c Management per hour averaged 70.0c Saddle horses, average cost per hour 52.0c Automobiles and trucks, average cost per mile of use 8.5c The average amounts of investment per head of the different groups of cattle were as follows : Stock cows $41.87 Stock bulls 139.48 Calves 19.35 Yearlings 29.23 Two-year-olds 43.43 Three-year-olds 51.4(5 CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 15 SUGGESTIONS Costs per Pound. — In connection with the collection of cost data an effort was made to obtain suggestions from operators and field men indicating ways in which profits might be increased. The field work was further augmented by a study of the data tables as presented in the foregoing parts of this report. Obviously all forthcoming recommendations are not applicable to every ranch, yet it is believed that all operators can find something of value in the discussion. One of the outstanding results is a possibility of increasing profits by sell- ing at a time when costs are at the lowest stage. The findings illus- trating this point are shown below. The figures of actual costs were : End of Cost per head Cost per pound First year $38.00 8.8c Second year 56.31 7.7c Third year 80.60 7.6c After third year 108.69 9.0c Considering cumulative costs only, it is wise to dispose of all beef before the beginning of the fourth year. Considering the selling price, the wider the spread between the cost and the selling price (when the latter is higher than the former) the more profit is obtainable by sell- ing rather than by holding, provided the capacity of the range be fully utilized. This is discussed more in detail on page 21. Economizing in Feed and Labor. — An idea of the relative impor- tance of the various items entering into the cost of producing beef can be gained by noting the percentages of (1) feed, (2) labor, (3) use of horses, autos, trucks, (4) use of buildings, corrals and equipment, (5) herd charge, (6) minor and miscellaneous charges. These data are set forth immediately below : Cost per head in dollars Percentage of each item Group First Second Third Fourth First Second Third Fourth Feed $16.38 $7.87 $12.99 $17.07 41% 42% 53% 60% Labor 7.17 4.73 4.31 3.54 18 25 18 13 Use of horses, autos and trucks 1.99 1.19 1.17 .97 5 6 5 3 Use of buildings, corrals and equip- ment 1.89 1.07 1.07 1.01 5 6 4 4 Herd charge 8.66 2.30 3.11 3.22 22 12 13 12 Minor and miscel- laneous 3 05 1.65 1.64 2.28 9 9 7 8 $39.14 $18.81 $24.29 $28.09 100 100 100 100 Credits 1.14 .50 Net cost $38.00 $18.31 $24.29 $28.09 16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fortunately economy in feed and labor is easier to accomplish than reduction in fixed charges for use of buildings, corrals, horses, and in herd charges, taxes, insurance and similar items. Feed and labor (including management) constitute 59 per cent of the cost of raising a calf to the end of the first calendar year, while 67 per cent, 71 per cent and 73 per cent respectively are involved in the subsequent second, third and fourth years. Attention to economic and efficient use of feeds and labor offers a means of possible increase in profits. In this connection it is noteworthy that the feed cost mounts in a substantial amount for animals kept beyond the third year. Full utilization of feed is essential. In this study the average acreage per head varied as follows : Variations in number of acres Age of cattle alloted per head First year 4.5 to 46.1 acres per head Second year 3.1 to 16.7 acres per head Third year 2.4 to 21.7 acres per head Fourth year 3.1 to 17.2 acres per head Improving the range may be a means of materially lowering pro- duction costs. This may be accomplished in several ways. Large fields can be cut up by fences to permit the fullest use of all grass. Where fencing is not practicable, cattle may be brought to graze over more range by judicious selection of salting places, and by the devel- opment of watering places, so that cattle will not be required to travel unreasonably long distances to water. Troughs at springs are prefer- able to mud-holes. Fewer cattle of better quality help to increase profits, for they gain weight faster and mature earlier than do the inferior kinds. Rotation grazing and reseeding of overgrazed pastures are sug- gested as means of getting the fullest use of the pasture. Rotation grazing permits natural reseeding with a resulting possible increase of feed greater in quantity than can be gained by continually grazing. It is prudent to provide sufficient reserves of hay, straw or pasture for seasons when natural feed is short so as to avoid most of the heavy losses that come every few years to the unprepared and force the shipping out of cattle to other grazing, purchase of expensive feed, or else require the facing of losses from starvation. Variable conditions under which cattle are handled and differing ideas of cattlemen as to what constitutes satisfactory handling means that the cost per animal may vary over rather wide extremes. Yet when one sets up the average cost per animal, an idea intrudes that perhaps some cattlemen are using too much labor for economic beef CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 17 production, while, conversely, a few may be utilizing too little. This comment arises after studying the individual costs on the 32 ranches under study. The summarized findings in this connection show the following : Use of Eiders and Manual Labor Number of Hours per Head per Year for Different Classes of Cattle Age of cattle Variation in hours Average hours First year 5.2 to 34.6 12 Second year 2.9 to 25.0 7 Third year 2.9 to 24.8 7 Fourth year 2.3 to 18.0 7 The cost in money varied through wide extremes, this variation compared with the group averages is shown below : Cost of Labor per Head per Year for Different Classes of Cattle Age of cattle Variation in cost Average cost First year $1.48 to $15.10 $4.63 Second year 1.08 to 10.88 2.66 Third year 1.03 to 8.36 2.85 Fourth year 1.07 to 6.65 2.63 Obviously economy is attained either by payment of a relatively low scale of wages, by a relatively large working day, or more efficient use of the men's time. The average cost per man hour at the time of making this survey amounted to 38.7 cents. Sometimes economy in man labor is attained by the providing of better equipment (e.g., saddle horses, corrals), by planning a definite feeding programme in advance of the season, or by better organization of the rider, fence, and other crews. The same suggestion holds for management. The findings were : Management Charges Number of Hours Spent in Management per Head per Year for Different Classes of Cattle. Age of cattle Variation in hours Average hours First „'?ar 0.4 to 28.7 4 Second year 0.2 to 14.6 2Vt Third year 0.3 to 14.7 2*4 Fourth year 0.7 to 5.0 iy 2 18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The costs show similar wide variations : Cost of Management in Money per Head per Year for Different Classes of Cattle Age of cattle Variation in costs Average charge First year $.17 to $16.50 $2.54 Second year 07 to 8.38 2.07 Third year 17 to 9.24 1.47 Fourth year 26 to 2.34 .91 The average charge for management based on the thirty-two ranches amounted to 70 cents per hour. Economy in the Use of Horse Labor. — The possibility of more economic use of horse labor is suggested by a study of the following data: Variation in the Use of Horses Hours per Head per Year for Different Classes of Cattle Age of cattle Variation in' hours Average use in hours First year 2.0 to 60.7 19.2 Second year 1.0 to 32.2 11.3 Third year 1.0 to 32.3 12.6 Fourth year 1.0 to 55.0 13.8 Cost of Saddle Horses per Head per Year for Different Classes of Cattle Age of cattle Variation in costs Average costs First year $.14 to -$7.04 $1.13 Second year 10 to 5.30 .64 Third year 10 to 5.43 .64 Fourth year 39 to 2.88 .53 The cost, averaged, for the thirty-two ranches, amounted to 5.2 cents per hour of use. As evidence that different conditions result in varying costs the following table has been prepared by reclassifying certain of the fifteen records covering cattle exclusively raised on the range into two classes, (1) those producing under unusually low costs due to such conditions as low pasture charge, cheap or very efficient use of labor and management, low building charge, high calf drop, low gen- eral expense, low herd depreciation, and (2) those facing unusually high costs traceable to conditions opposite to those just cited, with low calf drop, poor management, and high pasture charge as the out- standing items. Note the difference in costs. CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 19 First year Second year Third year a a a Number Aver. Aver. Aver, of Average cost Average cost Average cost Ranches reporting records weight per lb. weight per lb. weight per lb. Unusually high costs 4 475 lbs. 10.1c 751 lbs. 9.6c 1,075 lbs. 9.3c Unusually low costs 3 492 6.7 742 6.2 1,050 5.6 Average for group.... 15 477 lbs. 8.7c 792 lbs. 8.1c 1,076 lbs. 7.6c Increasing the Percentage of Calf Drop. — The percentage of calf drop, a vital factor in the cattleman's business, may be measured in two ways: first, by reporting cattlemen's beliefs concerning the calf drop that they are getting, and, second, by comparing the calves reported in the course of the survey with the stock cattle. The former method has the disadvantage in that memory may recall the outstand- ing year (good or bad) or reflect a desire to make as good a showing as possible for the business. The comparison with the survey data does not permit a study of cows sold or cows taken in, and hence may not be an accurate index of the business. Yet the findings are inter- esting even though they cannot be considered as strictly accurate. They show a close correspondence between the estimated and the recorded calf drop. Cattlemen's statements of their calf drop ranged from a low of 50 per cent to a high of 90 per cent and averaged for the thirty-two records 67.3 per cent. A comparison of the data set forth in the tabulated records indi- cates 10,703 calves for 15,431 stock cattle, or an average drop of 69 per cent. Both the estimated and compared percentages of calf drop are sufficiently low to indicate the possibility of increasing profits by giving attention to this detail. Reducing Mortality. — A certain percentage of death losses from various causes seems unavoidable. The tabulations of the survey data do not show how serious this factor may be, but cattlemen 's estimates, called for as a part of the data accumulations, are instructive. Esti- mates of the thirty-two cattlemen contributing data have already been set forth in considerable detail, and suggest the desirability of reduc- ing death losses when practical. Improving the Sire Situation. — A noticeable point is the tendency among some ranchers to use bulls that are too high-priced for their performance value, depreciation of these bulls being a very large item, as much as several thousand dollars in some cases. On the whole, though, the average investment in bulls appeared to be low. 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION It may be practical to increase the calf drop in many cases such as by more use of young bulls, more bulls per hundred cows, main- taining cattle in better conditions at all times (through rotation graz- ing and lighter stocking), and closer culling out of poor cows and bulls. Maintaining the Quality of Breeding Cows. — It is believed to be a mistake to breed heifers to calve at younger than 24 months, as these immature heifers are liable to skip the following year. Furthermore calf and cow mortality is reported to be much higher with the younger stuff. Calves, when being weaned, should be given the best pasture obtainable or fed for a month or two, in order to give them a good start in life. A stunted, weak calf is liable to die during the winter, and at any rate cannot make the gains possible with sturdy, well- grown animals. Dehorning. — Many cattlemen think dehorning stock to be a good practice because of better prices obtainable at market time and a belief that dehorned animals are quieter and gain faster than horned ones. Vaccination. — Vaccinating has saved many cattlemen from severe loss from disease and is recommended. Size of Business. — It appears from the data that ranches running a small number of cows are at a disadvantage, in that overhead and operating costs are liable to be higher per head than where the oper- ator runs large numbers. Any number below 300 appear to be at a disadvantage. This condition results in a cost per pound in excess of the 6 to 7 cents cost of producing beef on some of the larger ranches under efficient management, where the overhead and operating charges do not constitute too great a percentage of total cost. Need of Better Bookkeeping. — This study was started with a belief that data would be obtained from cattlemen's books. Such did not prove to be the case. In fact, ignorance of many of the elements of their own business .was rather general on the part of cattlemen. Judging from the data collected, this ignorance extends particularly to such items as (1) percentage of calf drop, (2) percentage of mor- tality in different classes of cattle, (3) average gains in weight from calf to yearling, yearling to two-year-old, and two-year-old to three- year-old, (4) inventories of equipment, especially as they relate to original costs and present values of buildings and fences. Cash income and outgo, labor costs, values of land, feed and cattle, and amounts of feeds utilized were pretty well known. CIRCULAR 281] SURVEY OF COST OF PRODUCING BEEF IN CALIFORNIA 21 Our findings indicate that better bookkeeping (possibly upon some cooperative basis) is vital if cattlemen are to intelligently plan their activities and properly organize their business both in its relation to allied interests and as a unit within itself. Early Selling. — The data indicate that holding beyond the third year is hardly justified. This is shown in the table immediatley follow- ing : Average gain in Cost per Av. cost per lb. of End of Year weight during year year gain during year First 433 lbs. $38.00 8.8c Second 302 lbs. 18.31 6.1c Third 330 lbs. 24.29 7.4c Fourth 139 lbs. 28.09 20.2c This table shows three other items : (1) If we ignore the first year's cost, which is necessarily high, because the cow cost is here assessed against the calf, each succeeding year results in an increasing cost of feeding a beef animal; (2) the gains in weight from the third to the fourth year are relatively small, resulting in a high cost per pound of gain; and (3) the cheapest gains were made during the second year of the life of the animal. Brief Resume. — The outstanding factors which should be con- sidered in attempting to decrease the cost of producing beef cattle as shown by this study are : 1. Economy in using feed, by suitable fencing, judicious grazing, convenient watering places, and sometimes seeding of range. 2. Production of economical supplementary feeds when needed to increase the carrying capacity of the range. 3. Selection of relatively cheap feeds. 4. Economical use of man labor. 5. Discarding surplus horses. 6. Reduction of mortality. 7. Providing sufficient bulls to insure a satisfactory calf drop. 8. Maintaining good, yet not too expensive bulls. 9. Improvement of breeding cows. 10. Care to prevent breeding immature heifers. 11. Selling at an early age, because on an average the cheapest 'gains are made during the first two years. Gains made by cattle raised for beef after three years tend to be expensive gains. 12. Collection of data concerning percentages of (a) calf drop, (b) mortality, and (c) annual gains. 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 13. A better understanding* of investment in land, buildings, equip- ment, and stock cattle, as a basis for determining costs of production. The greatest results will accompany economy in use of feed, labor, and reduction of herd charges — these three constituting the largest single items entering into costs of production. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For substantial assistance in connection with this survey much credit is due to the joint committee from the California Cattlemen's Association and the College of Agriculture, consisting of Messrs. T. H. Ramsay, R. M. Hagen, A. W. Foster, E. W. Newhall, Jr., L. Franken- heimer, R. J. Langlais, H. E. Erdman and R. L. Adams, who, at a meeting on September 25, 1923, rendered valuable assistance in planning the details of the survey. The field work and most of the office calculations were entrusted to Messrs. N. D. Hudson and E. S. Lindauer, who were employed from October 15, 1923, to March 1, 1924, especially to collect, summarize and analyze data. To all these and to the cattlemen and their representatives, who, to make possible this contribution, gave freely and willingly of their time and information, my thanks are gratefully extended. STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BULLETINS No. No. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the 346. Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 347. 261. Melaxuma of the Walnut, "Juglans regia." 348. 262. Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba 349. Compared with Those of California. 263. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. 350. 268. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. 351. 273. Preliminary Report on Kearney Vine- 352. yard Experimental Drain. 275. The Cultivation of Belladonna in Cali- 353. fornia. 354. 276. The Pomegranate. 357. 277. Sudan Grass 278. Grain Sorghums. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 358. 280. Irrigation of Alfalfa in the Sacramento Valley. 359. 283. The Olive Insects of California. 360. 285. The Milk Goat in California. 286. Commercial Fertilizers. 361. 287. Vinegar from Waste Fruits. 294. Bean Culture in California. 362. 298. Seedless Raisin Grapes. 363. 304. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. 364. 310. Plum Pollination. 312. Mariout Barley. 366. 313. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Trees. 317. Selections of Stocks in Citrus Propa- 367. gation. 319. Caprifigs and Caprification. 368. 321. Commercial Production of Grape Syrup. 324. Storage of Perishable Fruit at Freezing 369. Temperatures. 370. 325. Rice Irrigation Measurements and Ex- 371. periments in Sacramento Valley, 1914-1919. 372. 328. Prune Growing in California. 331. Phylloxera-Resistant Stocks. 373. 334. Preliminary Volume Tables for Second- 374. Growth Redwood. 335. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. 375. 336. The Preparation of Nicotine Dust as an Insecticide. 376. 339. The Relative Cost of Making Logs from Small and Large Timber. 377. 340. Control of the Pocket Gopher in Cali- 378. fornia. 343. Cheese Pests and Their Control. 344. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Market- ing of Plums. Almond Pollination. The Control of Red Spiders in Decidu- ous Orchards. Pruning Young Olive Trees. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor Hitches. Agriculture in Cut-over Redwood Lands. California State Dairy Cow Competition. Further Experiments in Plum Pollina- tion. Bovine Infectious Abortion. Results of Rice Experiments in 1922. A Self-mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fungicides. Black Measles, Water Berries, and Related Vine Troubles. Fruit Beverage Investigations. Gum Diseases of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second Growth Redwood. Dust and the Tractor Engine. The Pruning of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of Bunt. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing and Marketing. Methods of Harvesting and Irrigation in Relation to Mouldy Walnuts. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives dur- ing Pickling. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. Browning of Yellow Newtown Apples. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small anti Large Timber. The Cost of Producing Market Milk and Butterfat on 246 California Dairies. Pear Pollination. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern Cali- fornia. Results of Rice Experiments at Cor- tena, 1923. Sun-Drying and Dehydration of Wal- nuts. The Cold Storage of Pears. Studies on the Nutritional Disease of Poultry Caused by Vitamin A De- ficiency. CIRCULARS No. No. 70. Observations on the Status of Corn 155. Growing in California. 157. 87. Alfalfa. 160. 111. The Use of Lime and Gypsum on Cali- 161. fornia Soils. 164. 113. Correspondence Courses in Agriculture. 165. 117. The Selection and Cost of a Small Pumping Plant. 166. 127. House Fumigation. 167. 129. The Control of Citrus Insects. 170. 136. Meliletus indica as a Green-Manure Crop for California. 172. 144. Oidium or Powdery Mildew of the Vine. 173. 151. Feeding and Management of Hogs. 152. Some Observations on the Bulk Hand- 174. ling of Grain in California. 178. 154. Irrigation Practice in Growing Small 179. Fruit in California. Bovine Tuberculosis. Control of the Pear Scab. Lettuce Growing in California. Potatoes in California. Small Fruit Culture in California. Fundamentals of Sugar Beet Culture under California Conditions. The County Farm Bureau. Feeding Stuffs of Minor Importance. Fertilizing California Soils for the 1918 Crop. Wheat Culture. The Construction of the Wood-Hoop Silo. Farm Drainage Methods. The Packing of Apples in California. Factors of Importance in Producing Milk of Low Bacterial Count. CIRCULARS— {Continued) No. 184. 190. 193. 198. 199. 202. 203. 205. 208. 209. 210. 212. 214. 215. 217. 219. 220. 228. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. A Flock of Sheep on the Farm. Agriculture Clubs in California. A Study of Farm Labor in California. Syrup from Sweet Sorghum. Onion Growing in California. County Organizations for Rural Fire Control. Peat as a Manure Substitute. Blackleg. Summary of the Annual Reports of the Farm Advisors of California. The Function of the Farm Bureau. Suggestions to the Settler in California. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. Seed Treatment for the Prevention of Cereal Smuts. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. Methods for Marketing Vegetables in California. The Present Status of Alkali. Unfermented Fruit Juices. Vineyard Irrigation in Arid Climates. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. The Home Vineyard. Harvesting and Handling California Cherries for Eastern Shipment. Artificial Incubation. Winter Injury to Young Walnut Trees during 1921-22. Soil Analysis and Soil and Plant Inter- relations. The Common Hawks and Owls of Cali- fornia from the Standpoint of the Rancher. Directions for the Tanning and Dress- of Furs. The Apricot in California. Harvesting and Handling Apricots and Plums for Eastern Shipment. Harvesting and Handling Pears for Eastern Shipment. Harvesting and Handling Peaches for Eastern Shipment. Poultry Feeding. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice from Citrus Fruits. Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. No. 245. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 275. 276. 277. 278. Vine Pruning Systems. Colonization and Rural Development. Some Common Errors in Vine Pruning and Their Remedies. Replacing Missing Vines. Measurement of Irrigation Water on the Farm. Recommendations Concerning the Com- mon Diseases and Parasites of Poultry in California. Supports for Vines. Vineyard Plans. The Use of Artificial Light to Increase Winter Egg Production. Leguminous Plants as Organic Fertil- izer in California Agriculture. The Control of Wild Morning Glory. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean. Thinning Deciduous Fruits. Pear By-products. A Selected List of References Relating to Irrigation in California. Sewing Grain Sacks. Cabbage Growing in California. Tomato Production in California. Preliminary Essentials to Bovine Tuber- culosis Control. Plant Disease and Pest Control. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard by Means of Simple Tree Records. The Tendency of Tractors to Rise in Front; Causes and Remedies. Inexpensive Lavor-saving Poultry Ap- pliances. An Orchard Brush Burner. A Farm Septic Tank. Brooding Chicks Artificially. California Farm Tenancy and Methods of Leasing. Saving the Gophered Citrus Tree. Marketable California Decorative Greens. Home Canning. Head, Cane, and Cordon Pruning of Vines. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Coun- tries. 12m-ll,'24