Preliminary- Report University of California »' College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California THE MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT An Economic Survey of Farm Incomes, Expenses, and Tax-paying Abilities Ivi. R. Benedict February, 1933 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics I.I \ iv' Y UNIVEkSIT\-. fH- CALIFORNIA DAVIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Purposes of the Study .' 7 District Oblif^ations and Histoi- of Delinauenc les 6 The Importance of Prompt and Definite Consideration of the Problems Arising in Cases of Default 9 Initiation and Orranization of the Pro-ect 21 4 General Trends and Conditions in the District Acreages of the V-.rious Crops in the Uerced District in 1932 by Clashes of Land ^7 Proportion of Rented and of Oivner-operated Farms Problems Arising in the Case of Nonresident Owner- ship, Partially Developed Fsras, and Inefficient Sizes of Units . . . 24 Price Levels and Their Relation to Ability to Carry Tax and Debt Loads " . _ General Plan of the Economic Survey Viewpoint from which the Study is Approached 4 T"peE of E penses and Costs Involved 44 A. Cash operating expanses other than for labor " Ar^ B. Expenses for labor • • • . C. D-preciation on enuipment, plantings and'soil .'*''' 47 D. County taxes ' ' ' ^' ii. Inters- st on investment ... " ' 50 Relative Contractibility and Expansibility, of the Various T^'pes of Costs ... b5 The Por-Acre Incorr.e and Expenses as Shown by Records from 299 Farms in the Merced Irrigation Distr-ict 1929, 1930, and 1931 ... " ' * ' ■ • ' 58 Results of Operations of Corporation Fams in th- Merced Irrigation District, 1929, 1930, 1931 200 b^jmmary of Results from Barley and Rice Gro™ on LarP-er bnits 103 Income from Pasture Lands, 1929, 1930, 1931 208 Probable Ability of Lands in the Merced Irrigation District to Pay District Assessments in the Cominp- Years ' ^ 109 / TABLES Page Table I — Acreage of Merced County Fruit and Nut Crops 14 Table II Crop Acreage -- T.'erced Irrigation District^ 1928- 193£ 15 Table III — Acres in Various T--pes of Production in the J'Terced Irrigation District by Classes of Land (As shown by the di tch- tenders ' survev coordinated with the Cone-Underhi 11 survey) 1^ Table IV -- Acres in Various T^pea of Production, as shown by the Ditch-Tenders' Survey Coordinated vlth Cone-Underhill Land Classification 21 Table V -- Owner-operated as CoMpared to Tenant- operat- ed Acreages for 299 Farms from which Records T/ere Secured (for the year. 1921) 25 Tabic VI -- Fam Vc * ** 12 12 12,600 17,300 21,600 27,113 20,000 12,500 15,600 7,600 3,418 3,560 2,200 4,250 7,200 3,794 2,300 * * 3 960 3 , 459 8,000 16,350 18,000 19,200 18,425 18,600 1,400 1,200 900 1,060 1,625 3,500 3,500 3,800 3,936 5,800 ♦ * 110 120 161 216 350 320 680 687 687 ** ** * * 107 200 81 92 83 95 110 16 14 11 13 10 ** 536 892 956 1,023 200 180 170 27 204 500 580 600 519 172 700 760 770 546 376 8,000 6,850 3,900 645 5,890 ** ** ** 7 7 ** ** *♦ 1 1 ** 105 128 133 106 ** 149 149 149 149 ** 51 51 31 31 150 170 144 129 160 * From tabulations made by Mr. Dooley P. Wheeler, County Horticultural Commissioner of Merced County. ** Figures not available. •15- It will be noted from this that there is some tendency for acreages of most of the plantings to decline, though this tendency is more pronounced in some cases than in others. It is probable that acreage is practically stable on the lands well suited to the particular crops. In various parts of the District there has been some planting on lands not suited to the particular crops of which production was attempted. Y\fhere this has been the case, and in certain cases where complications of ownership, lack of capital, and other hindrances have occurred, plantings tend to be allowed to deteriorate to a point where they must eventually be removed. According to the figures of the California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, acreage of almonds in the County has declined roughly 500 acres, or about 17 per cent since 1927. Acreage of apricots has shown a rapid decline, being in 1932 about 50 per cent of the acreage shown in 1927. Acreage of figs has during this period remained substantially constant, though a moderate decline is shown. Acreage of raisin grapes has declined from 11,494 to 9,224, or about 20 per cent. Table grapes have shown a very large decline, approach- ing close to 50 per cent of the acreage. Wine grapes, on the other hand, have shown some increase, roughly 25 per cent. Olives have never been of much im- Local opinion indicates that wine-grape acreage will decrease m the future. It is stated that a number of the wine-grape vineyards on poor land have been allowed to remain because they are less expensive to handle at harvest time, many of the grapes being sold on the vines or at roadside points. Many of these vineyards have been poorly cared for and their production is said to be decreasing rapidly. portance in the District and are declining to a still less significant position. Clingstone peaches, one of the important crops of the District, have sho\vn a consistent decline in acreage since 1928 and seem likely to show a further de- cline since some acreages are being removed, while the non-bearing acreage is very small. Freestone peaches, on the other hand, seem to have shown a small increase. Walnuts have never been an important crop in the area, but have during this period sho^vn rather substantial increases in acreage and very large percentage increases. Acreages of the Various Crops in the Merced District in 1932 by Classes of Land In order that the nature of the crops grown on the various classes of land might be clearly presented, the 25 ditch tenders in the District v;ere asked to plot by sections and subdivisions of sections the acreages and locations of the crops grown in each of their ditch districts. The land in each section was indi- cated as of classes I, II, or III by Mr. J. S. Cone and Mr. R. L. Underbill as a result of their survey and classification of the lands. The grades indicated "^For description of the bases on v/hich the percentage ratings in the land classification were made see Appendix 3. were as follows: Class I. Land which had been classed by Mr. Gone and Mr. Underbill as 85 oer cent or above. Class II Land assigned ratings from 60 to 80 per cent inclusive. Class III- Lands given ratings less than 60 per cent. The gradings thus made are considerably rougher than the ones made in the Cone -Underbill survey, and therefore in many cases whole sections could be in- cluded in one class. In other cases quarter sections or 40' s could be so in- cluded, llhere the land was extremely variable Mr. Cone and Mr. Underbill have indicated the variations in grade as accurately as the refinement of their survey would permit. This reduces it in some cases to classifications in terms of areas as small as 10 to 20 acres. The acreages thus arrived at were totaled by classes and are presented in Tables III and IV. (See Tables III and IV.) - / 7 - Table III Acres in Various Types of Production in the Merced Irrigation District by Classes of La^id (as shovvn by the ditch-tenders' survey coordinated with the Cone-Underhill survey) Tvoe of Acres in class of land "Pp Y*Tn"i n IT i. m iiLJ-ixc. iU to. J. n T*lC) Y* W "I" "1 n Q i T T TT T A 8,872 2,868 1,294 13,034 Almonds 1,469 622 527 2,618 Apples 5 5 Apricots 924 236 58 1,218 Cherries 15 5 20 Dehydrator 2 2 Olives 7 6 13 Orchard 7 7 Peaches 1 , LOD ODO Pecans 5 5 Plums 4R 10 14 72 Prune s 90 31 20 141 Trees 1,448 779 107 2,334 Walnuts 205 49 254 B 4,457 3,536 1,495 9 ,488 Dry yard 78 10 88 Figs' 4,379 3,526 1,495 9 ,400 C 8,659 9,620 5,220 23,519 Alfalfa 7,471 8,105 2,801 18,377 Alfalfa, seeded 25 25 Alfalfa sudan 8 8 Barley hay 78 78 Cane 2 2 Clovsr 15 15 Corn 803 803 Corral 25 25 Cowpeas 17 17 Dallas grass 10 10 Egyptian corn 225 179 323 727 Grain hay 347 712 428 1,487 Hay 9 5 15 29 Johnson grass 20 20 Oat hay 85 85 Sec grass 24 70 94 Sorghum 10 1 11 Sudan 275 222 152 649 Sunflowers 197 262 598 1,057 u 8, 734 5,006 1, 594 15,334 Vines R 734 5,006 1, 594 15,334 E 5,355 12,439 26 , 633 44,427 Barley 1,174 3,790 6,825 11,789 Cotton 810 1 ,372 101 Grain 3,011 5,060 10,939 19,010 TT-i D" Vt 1 fi n H 8 27 35 Oats 125 225 197 547 Rice 60 5,598 5,658 Rye 25 25 Summer fallow 167 1,768 2,874 4,809 Wheat 68 131 72 271 6,982 9,944 2,635 19,561 Asparagus 10 10 Beans 773 1,005 681 2,459 Beans, blackeye 40 40 Bermuda grass 10 4 55 69 Berries and trees 5 5 Build inji':, farm 12 5 17 Corn 719 1,325 2,044 I i I I : . . . ' t Type of Acres in class of land farming operations I II III Total F continued 1 Ear corn 1 1 Field corn 22 22 Family orchard 7 7 Garden 1,102 311 139 1,552 Garden barley 5 5 Grass 15 15 Grove 30 30 Melons 463 618 252 1,333 No crop 1,102 100 1,202 Open land 1,933 12 1,945 Peanuts 106 25 1 132 1 Plowed land 35 35 Poultry yard 8 8 Pumpkins 5 5 Residence 20 4 24 Sweets 1,689 3,176 1,190 6,055 Sweets & melons 5 5 Tomatoes 10 9 19 Waste 39 39 Weeds 753 1,127 1,880 Yv'illows 1 1 Unknoivn 166 299 137 602 P sk 3k 1 , '±00 b, ( 3veral of the leading products of the Merced District is shown in Appendix E of this report. GENERAL PLAN OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY Most agricultural areas in California present a wide range of soil condi- tions with very abrupt changes from farm to farm and even from field to field on a given farm. This condition is characteristic of the Merced area. As a result vThose interested in a more careful examination of these features will find them rather fully covered in "Soil Survey of the Merced Area, California" issued by the Bureau of Soils, United States Department of Agriculture, 1916. This covers the technical soil variations. (Soil specialists of the University of California and of the United States Department of Agriculture who have re- cently looked over portions of the District agree, however, that the soil sur- vey published in 1916 is not entirely accurate, the portion pertaining to the area* running from around Tuttle to south and west of Merced being in special need of correction.) The economic or income producing abilities of the soil do not necessarily follow technical soil classifications. The land classification mentioned above gives a clearer understanding of the relative value relation- ships. partly of this exceedingly complex soil situation and partly of the methods of settlement used and of the varying interests, financial abilities and so on of those who have developed the farms of the District, there is a wide variety of types and sizes of farms in the District. In many cases the size of the unit is that which seemed to lend itself best to the sales policies of real estate and development companies rather than a type and size of unit which would have been selected by an experienced local farmer or a specialist in farm management. The result of this has been a considerable number of very small units and probably a smaller degree of diversification in lines of production than would prove to be most profitable in the long run. A general survey of the farm types in the District, based largely on the observation and experience of people long resident in the area, indicated that the follov^ing types of farms could be recognized as characteristic of the agri- culture of the District: A. Farms on which the principal enterprise and, in most cases, the principal source of income consists in the production of peaches. -^35 apricots, almonds, walnuts, or sone combination of these. In this District these farms depend for the most part on peach production, the acreages of the other crops mentioned being comparatively small. B. Farms on which fig production constitutes the major enterprise. C. Farms depending primarily on the production of alfalfa and dairy products. These are mostly dairy farms selling little or no hay, but farms which do raise alfalfa for sale have been included with them since dairy farming constitutes, so far as the land is con- cerned, mainly another vmy of selling the hay produced. D. Farms devoted chiefly to grape production. E. Farms devoted chiefly to the production of grain. These are, in many cases, not irrigated. Frequently they lie above the ditches, are too rough to irrigate, or consist of land that has not been developed to a very high stage of intensity. This group, hov/ever, does not include the rice lands which are largely under one control, and are covered in a separate phase of the report since their characteristics are very different from those of the ordinary grain farms . F. Farms characterized by a more diversified group of enterprises, that is, having no one enterprise predominating over all others. G. Grazing lands: These are mainly in the hands of a few large oper- ators and carry rather well established cash rentals. They have, therefore, not been included in the samples drawn but are treated as a unit separately. H. City and village properties, largely nonagricultural in nature. I. Industrial properties, including such things as cement plants, pottery works, railroads, etc. The very small agricultural properties appear to present a somewhat differ- •.t. ft,:C' 'til-. ' ^ ent problem than those which are large enouf^h to be definitely classed as farms or ranches. Many of these smaller properties represent part-time farming ventures or have been purchased by individuals who are not primarily farmers. In such cases there is often some other source of income, and the property is not, or perhaps it is better to say should not be, looked upon as a balanced business and family unit. An attempt to separate these from the properties which are more specifically commercial agricultural enterprises necessarily involves certain arbitrary assumptions except as a detailed analysis of every individual property in the District is made. In many cases subdivisions have been made in xmits of ten acres. There is some little tendency for a property which consists of less than twenty acres to be of ten acres or less in size. The investigators feel that the very small properties, even though used for commercial agriculture, present less of a problem, so far as the purposes of this study are concerned, than do the larger parcels of land. In the first place, many of the ovmers of these depend partly on other sources of income. In the second place, the District tax on these parcels, even though relatively high per acre, does not run into such large suias, and, where farming is the main source of income, not in- frequently applies to a very intensive type of agriculture. It seems likely, therefore, that these properties may be able to carry their proportion of the load if their taxes are not pyramided through widespread delinquency of District and County taxes owed on the larger farms and ranches. The validity of this assumption is examined more fully in a later section. (See Appendix I.) >o/ ^In the cases where these farms are the sole source of income it seems likely they will eventually have to be combined into larger operating imits un- less operated very intensively. It is obvious that no hard and fast line can be drawn between such small properties and the larger ones. It seemed reasonable, however, to include in -37- this class all parcels of less than twenty acres. It is the opinion of the sub- committee which discussed this problem that the most sienificant tax delinquency problems lie in the situation presented W the properties in groups A to G inclu- sive, of those indicated above, and, 'vithin these, in the properties involving twenty acres or more of land. It will be apparent that such a division leaves some fairly distinctive agricultural operations in the group of properties of less than twenty acres and some which are really part-time farming units in the groups of twenty acres or more. Nevertheless, the committee still feels this to be a justifiable basis of division on- which to arrive at a clearer view of the . situation. The ditch tenders of the District reported 1,638 separate pieces of farm land of tventy acres or more, (not including certain large corporation farms which are reported separately) obviously too many to warrant an attempt to get specific individual records from each, especially in the limited time available for this study. It was necessary therefore to settle upon some means of secur- ing a representative sample from these ivhich could be used in estimating the situation for the group as a whole. As a means to this end the descriptions of the different farms as shown by the ditch-tenders' reports -;ere placed on sepa- rate slips of paper, and these vjere sorted into groups A to F inclusive. All slips for a given group were then shuffled in a basket and an agreed number of slips drawn successively to constitute a sample considered repre- sentative of the farms of such group. ^In a few cases where the record of a farm, when actually taken, s?iowed it to belong in some other group than that for which it was dra;m, the record was transferred to such other group for summarization. An agreed number of additional slips was dra^m to serve as alternates for farms for which consistent or satisfactorily complete records could not be obtained. The actual drawings were made jointly by Mr. J. S. Cone, employed by the District to make the land classification, and Mr. R. L. Underbill, the observer employed by the Bondholders Protective Committee. It will be noted that the drawings were strictly according to lot ehd should show all types of farm.s, • the best, the poorest, and the intermediate, about in the proportions in which they occur in the District as a whole. 3$- The numbers of farms falling in each group and the numbers drawn are indicated below: Group No. of farms in class Size of ' sample Number of cL Q Q i L» i. U li ci ± farms drawn A Peaches, apricots, almonds, and walnuts 111 36 CU B Figs 177 36 20 C Dairy and alfalfa 393 60 20 D Vine s 283 60 20 E Grain 221 48 20 F Truck crops and general farming Rice (not drawn) Pasture lands (not drawn) 279 35 139 60 20 1,633 300 120 Field men then visited the farms thus drawn and secured, by the survey method commonly used in Farm Management studies, a record of the expenses, in comes, investments, etc. on these farms. These records covered the farming vsee copy of the question blanks used, attached as Appendix A of this report. operations for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931. Since the field vrark v/as started in the latter part of August, 1932 it was not possible to cover the 1932 business. Some indication of the relation of this to the other years shown is given, how- ever, in a later section. (See Appendix D.) Changes in inventory are not shown. It was felt that showing the financial record -for three years would aid more in giving a clear picture of the situation, and of the changes that have occurred, than to have a very minute record for one year. The records include about as much information as it is practical to secure at one sitting v/ith each of the farmers interviewed. The inventory changes from year to year are comparatively unimportant because of the perishable nature of the orincipal crops grown in the District, and, in so far as they do exist, they are largely taken account of by covering the business of the three years instead of one. There were inevitably certain farms for which records could not be secured. Ovmers had died or lived at great distances; in a few cases the language handicap was so great or the available information so meagre that it was not regarded as usable. In these cases the particular farms v/ere passed, and successively drawn farms from the "additional" list were substituted. Records of County taxes were taken from the County records, and the records of income from dairy products were for the most part secured from the creameries purchasing milk and cream in the District. In all, 299 usable records were secured in addition to the summaries from several of the larger corporation farming organizations. The aim has been throughout to keep in readily understandable form the information on costs and returns. Two alternative procedures were considered; one, to attempt to allocate specific costs per acre to each kind of crop, and to obtain as nearly as possible the value of the product per acre, and to apply these values to the estimated acreages in the District. The other plan consists of taking the total expense of each farm and the total income, and reducing these to the basis of acre values for the acreage on which taxes must be paid. The first procedure has probably been the more usual one in Califonaia studies of this type, but has been somewhat less characteristic of farm management studies in many of the other states. While both v;ays of going about the problem have their advantages, the second has been chosen in this study on the basis of the following considerations: 1. The allocation of soecific costs to each crop on a given farm in- 40- •t'V vo. lives a great deal of arbitrary assignment of given joint costs to the different crops. This gives rise to much difference of opinion as to how much cost should be borne by each specific crop. 2. The farmer is better informed as to total expense; for example, for labor, than he is as to specific amounts of labor chargeable to given crops. The better his knowledge of the items covered, the more accurate is the record that can be secured from him. 3. Non-cash items such as family labor, use of equipment, and so on are not only subject to much controversy as to how they may be allocated among various crops, but to make such allocation is a very time-consuming process running beyond the time limits for which this study was planned. 4. The objective sought, namely the ability of these farms to pay District taxes will, in the opinion of the investigators, be more accurately presented to view by considering each farm's entire expense and total income and reducing these to an acre basis than by looking at the farm business piecemeal in terms of specific crops. This plan of computation leads to a somewhat wider range of costs and returns per acre in each type of farm group than would probably be shown for the specific acreage devoted to the particular crop on which the grouping is based. This is due to the fact that a farm may, for example, be mainly dependent upon peach production for its income, but may include five acres of alfalfa and twenty acres of peaches. Another farm in the same class may have twenty acres of peaches and ten acres of truck crops or grain. Both are primarily peach farms, but the total income, probably chiefly from peaches, will in the two cases show different returns per acre even though the actual income from peaches be the same. On the other hand, the tax must be paid on all of the acres whether in peaches or not. and the summary shown seems therefore to be the truest representation of what the farm can do in meeting its taxes. Records taken by the survey method are based largely on the farmer's re- membrance of his transactions, supported by such book records as he keeps. These frequently are far from complete. It is recognized that some of the records thus secured will be subject to some little error. Past experience with the survey method indicates, however, that such errors tend to be compensating rather than cumulative. The farmer is apt to overlook some of the minor items of income. He is even more likely to overlook minor items of expense. Question blanks are so designed as to raise the question of each type and kind of expense and income so as to bring it up for specific consideration by the farmer. The record as given is, however, the most accurate that can be attained in a business which does not in general maintain complete book records such as corporations are likely to have. The records are, of course, subject to greater inaccuracy for 1929 and 1930 than for 1931 owing to the longer period elapsing since the business of those years was transacted. It must be recognized that the incentives for biased replies are greater in the present case than in ordinary farm management studies. The fieldmen taking the records have, however, labored conscientiously to keep out intentional bias, and in so far as practical, the results have been checked as to their reasonableness and accuracy. A later summarization applies to the acreages in the District, a carefully made estimate of average production and prices which will afford an additional check on the figures secured from farmers of the District. Viewpoint from v/hich the Study is Approached The study covered in this report is designed to present as clearly as possible certain factual information concerning the Merced District and the conditions in it. This, it is hoped, may be helpful to the lando vners of the - fZ- I t I ! I District and tc the holders of the bonds of the District in considering con- structive plans for dealing with the situation and promoting; the best interests of all concerned. In looking at the problems involved, four rather distinct points of view are recognizable. These are as follows: 1. That of the landowners in the District. 2. That of the holders of the District's obligations. 3. That of the holders of obligations given by the individual farmers of the District and of other taxing districts of the area. 4. A public point of view represented by the interests of the state and the county in the achievement of some solution of the District's problems which will provide for the continuation of the operation of the farms of the area and for a minimization of the destruction of wealth and of inequity as among parties of interest. These various points of view have some features in common and some in which they may be more or less directly at odds. It seems certain that none of the interests can be well served by any procedure that does not provide some in- centive that will encourage the active and efficient operation of the farms of the District, since these farms constitute the source from which most of the in- come here under consideration must come. This report attempts to visualize that situation in terms of an assumption that the lands of the District will continue to be operated actively and for the most part by individual farmers. It seeks to set forth as clearly as possible what conditions seem, to be necessary to the maintaining of the wealth production of the farms and it also seeks to develop factual material which will be useful in arriving at an equitable basis for ad- justments among the various interests concerned. The study has of necessity been carried out in as short a period as seemed possible. Because of this some refinement of procedure was omitted which might -f3- I have added to some extent to the accuracy and fullness of detail. The urgency of the problems and the plan to postpone definite negotiations until the information developed by this study had been made available have seemed to warrant crowding the work into this briefer period even at the exoense of some refinement which could otherwise have been included. In addition to this, the fact that somewhat new procedures and the development of the basic principles involved have seemed to be necessary, has complicated the study and some little work still remains to be done in interpreting and organizing the material secured. Types of Expenses and Costs Involved The gross income of the farms of the District is at any given time a rather fixed amount. It depends upon pricss, physical production, the stage of develop- ment, and the skill of the farmers. The first of these is almost wholly beyond the control of the farmers of the area. The second is partly controllable and, on established farms, is usually handled as well as the farmers know how to handle it except for deficiencies in operating practice which result from inadequate working capital or from an unsatisfactory price outlook. Land or orchards not developed to high stages of production can only be brought into higher production with time and with the further investment of capital. The initiation of new in- vestments depends, of course, upon the outlook for profits from such investments. To put the matter rare simply, the total income of the farms of the District can be changed very little at any given time, and, even over a period of time, the uncontrollable changes are likely to be more significant than the controllable ones . Out of this gross income, more or less fixed at given times, must come not only such payments as are made for interest and retirement of bonds but a number of other types of expenditure of varying degrees of urgency. Closer examination of these various types of costs and expenditures will lead to a clearer under- : !>. l-n g!; R ^ standing of what can and ivhat cannot be done in the way of meeting taxes of various kinds. The follov/ing classifications of cost have been made in this survey: A. Cash op erating expenses other than for labor . This group of expenditures represents the actual cash outlay of these farmers for goods purchased. Such items as supplies, repairs, feed, etc. are in- cluded in this classification. In general the prices of such items have remained much higher in proportion to their pre-war levels than those of products which farmers sell. For the United States as a whole, the United States Department of Agriculture gives an index figure in September, 1932 of 106 per cent of the pre- war level in the case of commodities purchased by farmers for use in production. This may be compared to an index of 54, by the same source, for prices of all major farm products sold. The amount of this item of expenses can be reduced by the farmers of the District only in so far as they are able to reduce the amounts of such goods purchased. In the past three years the amounts so purchased have, in the judgment of the investigators, been reduced practically to an absolute minimum. It may be questioned, in fact, whether these farmers have not purchased too little in the way of supplies to maintain the farms of the District in an efficient producing condition. This means that, except as prices of these com- modities decline, practically no reduction in this item of expenses is possible under any conceivable plan of operating the farms of the District. It is true that certain of the large farming corporations have found it possible to make wholesale purchases of farn:i supplies at somev/hat lower figures than the prevail- ing retail prices. The saving thus effected, however, is partly or wholly offset by necessary expenses of administration in handling such arrangements. The ex- penses indicated as Class A must, therefore, be regarded as a first charge against the income of the farms of the District if farming is to be carried on. -/f5- B. Expe nses for labor . The labor used in production is provided in one or both of two ways. Either it is outside labor hired or it is labor supplied by the farm operator and his family. ^Yhere the labor is hired a definite figure for this exoense is usually obtainable and has been shown separate from the value of family labor. A very large part of the labor is, however, supplied by farm operators and their families. The method used to arrive at a figure for this cost has been to secure an estimate of the number of months of hired man labor that would be required to carry on the same operations if the family labor were not available. To the estimate thus obtained the following wage rates have been applied: for 1929 and 1930, 35 cents per hour without board; for 1931, 25 cents per hour: in 1932 the prevailing rate was about 20 cents per hour, although it has been 15 cents in some cases. Labor which can be hired for 15 cents is, however, usually not as efficient as that which the farmers have been accustomed to securing. Yfhere labor is boarded an allowance is made of $1.00 per day for board, room, and washing for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931. The customary charge for this has dropped to 75 cents per day in 1932. The prevailing practice of the area is for laborers to board themselves. The labor rates for hired help are now so low that they constitute practi- cally only a bare living wage and are virtually irreducible if laborers are to continue to work on these farms. Because of this fact it has been assumed that there is no appreciable margin of profit in the charges assigned to farm labor and that any means by y;hich the farms might be operated other than by their present operators would necessitate a similar or larger expenditure. The estimates of amounts of labor which would have to be hired if family labor were not available are, of course, somewhat rough and cannot be reduced to an extremely fine basis. For some operations children or women can do as much as full gro-.m men. The in- vestigators have, however, made every effort to get as clear a picture as possible of the actual equivalent labor necessary if operations were handled by hired help. In most cases the operator and family labor are orobably more effectively used than a similar amomt of hired help would be. in 19 ol The exoense shovm for Class B costs/is therefore regarded as being practi- cally an irreducible minimun if farrain?; operations are to be carried on in any- thing like a normal fashion. Only by drastic changes in type of agriculture and the use of much more extensive farming operations could this be materially reduced. More extensive types of farming would, however, probably reduce rather than in- crease the ability of the land to pay District taxes, tfention should probably be made that it is doubtful if the present operators and their families would con- for 1332 tinue to work at the rates of return indicated/if the usual opportunities for work in other localities and in ■ :her industries were available. During the present deorosFod period they have little opportunity to shift to work which will give them a better return or less arduous work. As conditions improve in non-agricul- tural pursuits, a development which will probably occur earlier than an improve- ment in agriculture, it is hardly to be expected that the operations in the District can be maintained on a basis as low as bhat of 1932. C. Depre ciation on equipment, plantings, and soil . The continued use of equipment, the increasing age of plantings, and the continued cultivation of the soil will involve continuous deductions from certain elements of value existing in the District at a given time. In the normal course of events deductions of this type tend to be offset or more than offset by new investments, new plantings, and by the application of fertilizers. In periods of greatly depressed conditions such expenditures for replacement can be deferred for a time, though failure to make them leads to a progressive using up of capital assets 7;hich are, of course, important to the interests not only of the landowner but of the holder of the District's bonds as well. Such continuous withdrawal of assets over a period of years can, in the course of time, leave an area illy -H-1- equipped for any effective type of production. It has much the same effect as the prosecution of a lone; war has upon a nation. Ono of the serious problems of Ger-mny since the '/ar has been that very one of building up the capital equipment v;hich was brought to a very low level during the war period. A similar situation existed in the case of the American railroads. From the standooint of a continuance of effective production, depreciation presents several pi-oblems. In the first place it is hardly to be expected that improvements and equipment will be maintained unless the income from the lands can be so distributed as to permit an amount to go to the landowners and operators sufficient to cover the depreciation as well as the expenses indicated under A and B, On the other hand, it must be recognized that this is an expense which can, to a considerable extent, be deferred for periods of a few years. It must also be recornized, however, that operators in the District have been proceeding for practically three years nov/ with very little expenditure for the offsetting of such depreciation. Any settlement of the District's problems which looks to dealing .vith ics financial program over a long period of years must inevitably give very careful consideration to some plan which will provide both the means and the inducement for investments of this type to be maintained. If they are not made, the earning ability and with it the tax-paying ability of the District are certain to decline. The above comment brings into consideration a further difficult problem. Provisions which make allowance for replacement of expenditures, but on the basis of a minimum living wage such as was indicated under B above do not necessarily insure that this replacement will be made. If the conditions of payment are such as practically to eliminate any value in the raw land, a factor which is one of the most significant incentives for maintaining the capital investments on the land, it is entirely conceivable that farmers may choose to use for current living some of the income theoretically assigned to replacement of deteriorating investments or oven to transfer income of this tyoe to investments elsewhere, thus causing a grt^ducl ..vithdniv/al of capital from this area. It is impossible to state at this point what sort of arrangement is necessary to provide the incentives needed to offset a tendency of that kind. If it should prove possible to set up a some-rhat flexible basis of cnarvres for meeting bond interest and principal it iniq;ht be possible to gauge this from time to time by careful observation as to whether alantin,.-s and other investments are being maintained. If some rigid plan looking .to a settlement over the whole period of the life of the bonds is contem- plated, orobably the only approach to this problem must be through an allov/ance of income above taxes which will give sufficient value to the raw land to provide an incentive to maintain tht^ structures and plantings on it. As a factual basis for consideration of the matter it has seemed not to appear practical to do other thar. show as clearly as possible -what average annual investment would be necessary over a neriod of y(;ars to offset the depreciation occurring on these farms. This is accordingly shovm in the costs under Class C. Over a period of years the actual deorcciation assignable to new investments varies somewhat according to changes in the costs of comrMditics ourchased and of labor. The bases on which the deoreciations shorm were computed were developed after nuitierous committee meetings with local people, after survey of nearly all available records, and after consultation with various s -ecialista of the College of Agriculture of the University of California. Those /ho are familiar with the problems of computing deoreciation will aopreciate that no depreciation schedules can be set up ivhich v/ill meet with universal approval. The same mac: ine in the hands of different operators and under different farm conditions will havt different periods of life. Buildings with good foundations will last longer than those with poor ones and the life v/ill be affected by the amounts of paint used, and the provision for current repairing. Some plantings with good care will last as much as twice or more the life of others which receive poorer care or \vhich are not on the same i I kind of soil. The figures used in this connection are regarded as representative for the conditions in the -lerced area, but very considerable variations in both directions from them will b - found in iudiviciual cases. The bases used in com- puting investj'ient and depreciation are to be found in Appendix C of this report. D. County taxes. These as shoivn represent the costs of conducting the local government and the schools and county and local road systems. Efforts are being made to bring about reductions in these, and there is little d.ubt that they will be m.odified to some extent. Such adjustments are recognized, however, as being slov/ processes and it is difficult to oredict how much reduction of this kind can be made. Certain counteracting factors are concerned. One of these is the fact that most counties are encountering increased demands for poor relief. Another is the possibility that a continuing serious deficit in state finances might result in a state tax on property which would be added to that for county and local purposes Certain of the county and school expenses cannot be changed except through de- fault since they represent fixed obligations for payments on county and school district bonds. Items of that kind tend to hold the budgets to more uniform amounts than they r/ould be as a result of purely current expenses. E. Interest on investment. Of a still different type is the cost which may be imputed in the form of interest on the investment. So far as investments which have already been m.ade are concerned, these will be continued in use whether they do or do not make a return in the form of interest. Only if return drops below the point of no interest and do.m to a ooint which does not cover necessary current replacements will investments already made tend to bo throvm out of use. On the other hand, the matter of a return on investment or of a lack of return has much to do with the maintenance of production in the District. For fuller consideration invest- -50^ I I I ( I 1 raent may be separated into two types. These correspond roughly to the distinction •which the economist makes het^neen capital in the sense of structures or goods created through the efforts of man, and property v/r.ich is not the result of man's efforts but has been afforded by nature o The buciness man usually thinks in terms of a commercial valuation on these and lumps them both together as capital, but they do not behave the same in circumstances like those here under study. A part of the investment which had been made in the District has been in the form of payment for raw land. This raw land was a natural product and does not have to be replaced. The other type of investment is repre- sented by buildings, machinery, trees and vines, leveling operations, etc. Kxioh of this must sooner or later be reolaced. As in the case of depreciation, such investment will not be made again unless there seems a reasonable possibility of a return of the amounts invested, together with interest on it for the period of its use. Looking to the longer period problem, landovmers must see some possi- bility of covering this item of expense or they are likely to effect a gradual withdrawal of capital in the manner indicated above in the discussion of de- preciation as a cost. For the purpose of this study, a part of the investment put in in the form of human effort and the use of machines may be regarded as in a similar class with the value of the raw land. It is that part v/hich consists of expenditures for the construction of ditches, for the rough leveling of the land, etc. Such expenditures represent sunken investments v;hich cannot be with- drawn and can De largely omitted from consideration in a problem such as that which is at present before the lando\mers and bondholders of the District. Return on valuations given to the rav/ land needs to be considered only to the extent that it is important, as indicated above, to provide an incentive for continuance of production and the maintenance of the capital invested in the District. It is a well laiown fact that basically the valuation given to land is a capitalization ment may be separated into two types. These correspond roughly to the distinction v/hich the economist m8.kes between capital in the sense of structures or goods created through the efforts of man, and property which is not the result of man's efforts but has been afforded by nature. The business man usually thinks in terms of a commercial valuation on these and lumps them both together as capital, but they do not behave the same in circumstances like those here under study. A part of the investment which had been made in the District has been in the form of payment for raw land. This raw land was a natural product and does not have to be replaced. The other type of investment is repre- sented by buildings, machinery, trees and vines, leveling operations, etc. iiuch of this must sooner or later be reolaced. As in the case of depreciation, such investment will not be made again unless there seems a reasonable possibility of a return of the amounts invested, together with interest on ib for the period of its use. Looking to the longer period problem, landowners must see some possi- bility of covering this item of expense or they are likely to effect a gradual withdrawal of caoital in the manner indicated above in the discussion of de- preciation as a cost. For the purpose of this study, a part of the investment put in in the form of human effort and the use of machines may be regarded as in a similar class with the value of the raw land. It is that part ;vhich consists of expenditures for the construction of ditches, for the rough leveling of the land, etc. Such expenditures represent sunken investments v/hich cannot be with- drawn and can De largely omitted from consideration in a problem such as that which is at present before the landowners and bondholders of the District. Return on valuations given to the rav^ land needs to be considered only to the extent that it is important, as indicated above, to provide an incentive for continuance of production and the maintenance of the capital invested in the District. It is a v/ell loiown fact that basically the valuation given to land is a capitalization '51' of the amounts vvhich the buyers of land estimate this land \vill produce over and D above the exoenses of production indicated under A, B, C,/and E above, added to an estimated present value of probable future advances or declines in such capi- talized value of the land. It is not a cost in the same sense that items A, B, D C,/and E are. This valuation of raw land is to a large extent the residuo.l claimant after all other items of expense have been covered. It therefore reacts downward very sharply in times of low income and may rise relatively rapidly if farm income over costs is increasing. It is largely out of the net rent! that D is, the return above costs A, B, C,/and the part of E applying to investments re- quiring replacement, that District taxes can be met over a period of time. In the case of irrigation districts there are rather considerable amounts of non- on withdrawable investment, returns/which can be absorbed in taxes without materially checking production. It will be apparent that tue income v/hich, over a period of years, is assignable to the payment of bond interest and principal is very similar in nature to that v/hich is assignable as an income on the ovmership of the rav/ land. It is true that the irrigation system represents an actual capital investment in the economic sense of the term, but it is also trae that that in- vestment cannot be withdravm and has no value except in its association with the land. It is much like an investment which has been made in a railroad grade or a piece of trackage. It has no use except that for which it \vas intended. District taxes can absorb and continue to absorb all income on mi-'..rginal farms C except th&t necessary to meet the expenses of classes A, B,/and D above and that portion of E which applies to capital v/hich can be v/ithdrawn from the District. Such amounts of residual income apply to the raw land plus the irrigation structures and other non-perishable improvements of the District and such amounts as are left over after District and County taxes are paid will go to the main- tenance of a value in the land of the District. Some further explanation is needed relative to the class of land and the -52 ! I class of farmers to which the above analysis applies. The quality of land in the District varies considerably from unit to unit. Also, the efficiencies and financial abilities of the farmers vary considerably from farm to farm. Taxes on a given quality of land cannot be laid in proportion to the earninp; abilities of the various qualities of farmers on this type of land. Under the constitutional provisions of this country, the taxes and District assessments must be in pro- portion to the valuations placed upon the land. This means that only in the case of the poorer farmers can such a uniform levy against the lands of different farmers be made high enough to absorb all of the net return to land above such D costs as are indicated in A, B, C,/and E. Some of the poorer farmers will always be submarginal farmers. They will not be able to meet any assessment which is likely to be levied and will eventually lose out and be replaced by others. This occurs in all businesses and in all lines of work, P'rom the standpoint of self- interest on the part of the holders of bonds it is not feasible to raise the level of taxation to such an extent that the fafmers displaced will not be re- placed by others at least as capable. Above the level of ability to pay established by the marginal farmers of the District v;ill be a cert^j.in percentage of super-marginal f:xrmers who are able to make somewhat better returns than the marginal farmers - Such better returns will accrue to them in the form of higher returns for their labor and capital than those indicated. This part of the income of the farms cannot be reached by any form of property taxes since to attempt to absorb it would involve either unequal taxation or the raising of the levels of taxes to a point where so many farmers would be displaced that land would be transferred to the District on a wholesale scale and would not find new buyers. The income which the better farmers are able to make in excess of what the marginal farmers are able to make will be used in various v/ays. For one thing, it will probably result in a better content of living than is possible on the basis of returns to family labor indi- cated under B above. For another thing, it constitutes a basis on which a con- siderable part of the private loans of the area can be carried. The lending agency which loans to individuals can make a distinction which is not possible to the taxing agency. A loan can be made to a farmer v/ho is better than the marginal farmer and interest on it may be paid. Loans to marginal farmers or to farmers below the margin certainly cannob and will not be paid. This phase of the problem brings out a very important relationship between the private obligations o^ving by farmers in the District and the public obligations owed by them. It also illus- trates the inexpediency of any attempt to lower in a uniform percentage way the obligations ov/ed to private lending agencies. Such an attempt to louver these uniformly would lessen rather than increase the effectiveness, in terms of the prosperity of the District, of such amounts of loss as the lending agencies are capable of absorbing. They must inevitably take considerable losses on any loans which have been made to marginal or submarginal farmers. It is by using their capacity for absorbtion of losses to meet these losses that the area will best reach a condition of financial stability. To absorb losses in cases of farmers • 5'f - above the margin would lessen their ability to meet the other situations and would not benefit the holders of obligations supported by taxing po-vers, since a property tax cannot reach the income which these better farmers make over and above that made by the narginal farmers. Private lending agencies are undoubted- ly taking very substantial losses on obligations due them. The f\ill amount of such losses is in most cases not yet known even by the lending agencies them- selves since properties acquired by them through foreclosure are taken over on their books at the amounts due them, and the extent of the loss is not measured until the properties are resold. Their losses, however, will come largely from a selective portion of those owing to them and not in the form of a uniform loss on loans due from good and poor farmers alike. It is, of course, necessary to recognize that if prices continue as low as those of 1932 and other conditions are no more favorable, a vei-y large part of the farmers is likely to be at or below the margin even with no payment of District assessments, and obligations owed by them will be of doubtful value whether they be private or public obli- gabions . Relative Gontractibi lity and Expansibility of the Various Types of Costs Brief mention should be made of the probable reaction of the various types of costs previously discussed to changes in the general situation as to prices and business conditions. Class A. Cash operating oxoenses other than for labor. These respond relatively slowly to changes in farm conditions. As will be seen in Table VI they remained relatively constant from 1921 to 1929 at be- tween 150 and 160 per cent of the pre-war average. In 1930 they dropped to 146, in 1931 to 126, and in November, 1932 stood at 106. (The figures arc for the United States as shown by the United States Department of Agriculture in "The i Agricultui-al Situation," December, 1932, oago 21.) Tabic VI Year Fari'i -iVcifres , Unitod State s='' Prices paid by farmers for com- modities bought, United States 1 1921 150 156 1922 146 152 1923 166 153 1924 166 154 1925 168 159 1926 171 156 1927 170 154 1928 169 156 1929 170 155 1930 152 146 1931 116 126 1932 Oct. 84 i _ Nov. 106 =f Ibid. p. 20. Class 3. Labor both hired and that supplied by the farm family. Farm v/agcs tend to reflect more fully changes in farm prosperity than do prices of commodities purchased by farmers. They are affected, hoivevcr, not only by farm prosperity but by activity in other industries as well. In 1921 farm wages, over the United States as a whole, had come down to an index of 150, based on pre-^var wt^ges, and later rose to 171 in 1926 during the period of rela- tively active business in non-farming activities. With the onset of the present depression they have dropped rather rapidly to 152 in 1930, 116 in 1931, and stood in October, 19 32 at 84. Family labor will respond over short periods of time even more com- pletely to changed agricultural conditions; that is, for short periods of time families mtiy continue to carry on at almost no income. Phis, however, cannot be continued for any great lenpth of time, partly because the family resources will -5C not permit and partly because after a few years the families will choose to engage in other than agricultural pursuits rather than to continue to work for little or no return, \ftiile conditions in other industries are extremely de- pressed, such families have little opportunity to shift and are likely to con- tinue to operate the farms possibly even at less than prevailing wage rates until better opportunities present themselves elsewhere. Class C . Depreciation. As already indicated, the cost involved in depreciation both of equip- ment and of plantings may, so far as its effect on production is concerned, shrink to almost nothing for short periods of time in the case of those investments which are already in the farmer's possession. Such is not the case, however, where replacements actually must be made, and, if unfavorable conditions prevail for very many years, such replacements must be made or production must be defi- nitely curtailed. Y/herever replacements are involved, they will have followed approximately the cost changes indicated for commodities bought by farmers and the changes in the cost of farm labor. Class E. Interest charges. These, like depreciation charges, can be omitted for a time provided the farmer owns the capital. V^here he does not own his capital but must pay interest on it this cost must be met, often at relatively higher rates, or the farmer is forced out of business. -51- The Per -Acre Income and Expenses as Shown by Records from 299 Farms in the Merced Irrigation District, 1929, 1930, and 1931 The following tables present information relative to incomes and expenses for each of the six type-groups for which samples viere drawn. These groups are as follows: A. Farms drawing their income chiefly from deciduous fruits (excluding figs). B. Far;as on which the chief source of income is figs. C. Far-ns chiefly engaged in the production of dairy products and alfalfa. D. Farms chiefly devoted to graoe or raisin production. E. Farms devoted mainly to the production of grain and general field crops. F. Truck farms and those having such diverse sources of income that they could not v/ell be classified in any of the other groups. For each of these farm groups the following tables are presented: 1. Farms arranged in order of gross incomes per acre and by classes of land, 1931, 1930, and 1929. 2. Farms arranged in order of cash costs per acre other than labor and taxes, 1931, 1930, and 1929. labor, 3. Farms arranged in order of costs for/ 1931, 1930, and 1929. 4. Farms arranged in order of costs Ai-B-^C*D, 1931, 1930, and 1929. 5. Farms arranged in order of net return per acre over costs AfB, 1931, 1930, and 1929. 6. Farms arranged in order of net return per acre over costs Ai-B+C<-D. 1931, 1930, and 1929. Of the 1,638 farms of 20 acres or more. 111 were classed in Group A, farms i havine; their principal income from deciduous fruits (excludinp; figs). '^^The 1,6.58 farms above mentioned do not include certain of the larger corporation farms nor, exceot in a few instances, the lands which had passed into the hands of the District (about 10,000 acres at the time the survey was started. The total acreage of these 111 farms is 10,319|. The sample shown from these consists of 49 farms or nearly one-half of the total, and includes 2,812 acres of land. Of this sample, 38 farms, or 77.5 per cent, are on land ro.ted as Class I, and the remainder, 22.5 per cent, are on land rated as Class II. None of them is on Class III land. One hundred seventy-seven farms involving 10,125t acres were classified in Group B, farms chiefly devoted to figs. The sample from these includes 21 farms If/ with a total acreage of 1,246;' In the sample, 13 farms, or 62 ner cent, are on Class I land; 7, or 33 per cent, are on Class II land. The sample runs more strongly to Class I and Class II land than does the actual distribution of the fig plantings. '^'This grouD is the one least adequately represented. The survey came at a time when work was very active in the fig orchards, and for various reasons the taking of these records was considerably slowed up, so that it was incomplete ^^,hen the last of those in other groups were in. Rather than delay the summari- zation, the smaller sample was used. It is believed to be fairly representative of the conditions on these farms, though not as large as was planned. In Group C, dairy and alfalfa farms, 393 farms were classified, involving 24,034iJ acres. The sample dravm from those consists of 67 farms vith a total of 4,273 acres. Of these 25, or 37 per cent, are on Class I land;. 35, or 52 per cent, are on Class II land; the remaining 7 farms being on Class III land. Group D, farms devoted orimarily to vineyards, consisted of 283 farms vith a total acreage of 15,074. The sample dra-m consists in this case of 53 farms with a total of 4,104 acres. Of theso 36, or 68 per cent, are on Class I land: 15, or 28 per cent, are on Class IL land; and the remaining 2 are on Class III land. Group E, grain and general farms, consisted of 221 farms with a total of 18,882 acres. The sample drawn from these consists of 49 farms with a total of 6,070 acres. Of these 13, or 266- per cent, are on Class I land; 12, or 24|- per cent are on Class II land; while the bulk of them, 24, or 49 per cent, are on Class III land. The truck farm group, which is less homogeneous than the others, consisted of 279 farms with a total of 12,501 acres. From these a sample of 60 farms was secured consisting of a total of 4,452g- acres. Of these only 14, or 23 1/3 per cent, were on Class I land; the bulk of them, 35, or 53 l/3 per cent, were on Class II land; and 11, or 18 l/3 per cent, were on Class III land. Thirty-five of the farms were devoted chiefly to rice. These are practi- cally all on Class III land, so classified because of its limited adaptability for crops other than rice, and v;ere not sampled. A summarization of results from a considerable acreage of these lands is presented in the latter part of this section. The results from farms operated by several of the larger corporations are also presented separately. These are operated along quite different lines from those prevailing on the majority of the farms and involve large acreages. It was felt, therefore, that to include them with the others would be likely to confuse readers of the report. They are therefore separately summarized. For these corporation farms the records in most cases have been carefully kept by experi- enced bookkeepers. They thus represent a very accurate suirumry of the situation on these farms. The general situation shocm by them is much the same as that -CO- » shown for the farms covered m the survey. They have in most cases able and experienced management and fairly --veil settled operatinp; arrangements. They aoparently have some advantages in buying and selling,, which are partly, or ner- haps even wholly, offset, undtjr prusent conditions, by somewhat higher overhead. Of the costs sho-m the ones on .?hich differences of opinion are most likely bo arise are those involving family labor and depreciation. Family labor is ordinarily more valuable per hour when used for seasonal types of work. Thus dairy farms usually do not show as high a return per hour of labor put in as do cash crop farms, but, since they use labor so continuously through the year, they may yield a higher yearly income than do some of the farms which show a much higher ^er hour income at certain times. For these and various other reasons it is extrem.ely difficult to get a satisfactory basis for evaluating family labor. The rate per hour used may be somev/hat high for farms v/hich, like dairy farms, are heavy and continuous users of labor. If so, this tends to throw more of these farms into the losing group than should be there. This should not, how- ever, disturb in any marked extent relationships between years since the same orocedure is used for the records for each of the three years, but with a lower Der hour rate in 1931. It is also true that even though a farmer put in his time throughout the year there may not be productive work which would be hired for all of the time. On the other hand, the allowance for the full time of a farmer's own labor, which at the 1931 rate is figured at cj)780 for the year, does not aopear to allow more than a living wage at prices prevailing in 1931. It has, in fact, been criticized for being too lov as well as for being too high. It must be recognized that the income assigned to family labor plus any return over costs as shoim must cover not only such part of the farm family living as is not supplied by the farm but also interest which is paid on any funds borrov/ed, any interest return on depreci™ atinf< investment that may be necessary to cause it to be maintained, and any pay- ments that may be made in the form of District assessments. Nevertheless it is Drobably true that farmers will, in case of necessity, operate their farms for considerable lengths of time on lower returns for family labor than those indi- cated. There are certain contributions to the family living which come from the use of the farm home and from the use of supplies produced on the farms. These contributions are not as important in the Merced area as in sections vhere farmers more f?;enerally keeo cows, pif^s, and chickens and where a larger range of homo- grown foods is customarily raised. Depreciation for buildings and equiomeiit is based on values as of recent years. It is possible that replacement costs for these may be some./hat lower in the years iraraediately before us. Many of the farms are lacking in adequate build- ings, but it is not likely that new buildings will be added to any extent in the next few years. The major part of the depreciation charge shown is that on plant- ings of trees, vines, and alfalfa. The bases of computing depreciation on these -•.'ill be found in Appendix C. The valuations and depreciations figured on these have been put as nearly as possible in terms of present costs of replacement, and are in most cases lover than the actual expenditures if the plantings were put in in recent years. Possi- bly the costs of replacement and of new planting will decline somewhat further if price levels stay down. On the other hand, many of the older orchards were brought in on a one or two dollars per acre water charge, as they go out of pro- duction, renewal is likely to be on a more expensive basis than the original planting. ■"■'/hatever may oe the judgment of the individual reader of this report con- cerning these two elements of cost, there will be less disagreement concerning the relationships betveen the conditions in the different years sho-vn Since the procedure in handling these various cost f actc rs has been the same for all of the years, the following tables should afford a dependable picture of the changes in net earnings ^vhich have occurred over this three-year period. In order, how- ever, that the operating expense may be seen in its barest essentials the returns over costs for supplies, labor, and for county taxes are shown. Vfiiile it should not be assumed that these costs cover all expenses necessary for continuing pro- duction, the returns over these items show an earning situation in v/hich very substantial percentages of the farms are operating at a loss. Table VII Farms Growing Mainly Deciduous Fruit (Excluding Figs) in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Gross Income per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Sched- Gross Sched- Gross Sched- Gross ule acres income ule Acres income ule Acres income number per acre number per acre num.be r per acre ■ Lane 1 m bxas S X LCD ' 1 ft 9 c; Cji loo , C.0 1 9 c, 9n ' 9 /I Q In if^ftO . xu 1 n xu AR ^0 *9An An <^CVo . 'iU 19 9 nn 1 1 / o 0 1 H9 xuo • OC 9 c,R Do ■^7 0 / 1 9n X9 Xt^vJ » OC 9 Rn OU 1 XX AR XOO • t:D TIC "1 9/1 1 ni XUX ,00 1 9 Q Xii 0 ft 9 117 7/ XX/ . 1^ lift X xd R c; 00 1X9 7A XOc . TOO o4: . o4 Q 'Z OO •Z A oU 11^ rr'z lib . 10 •7 0 X/l 04 1 90 7ft Xfiy . IK3 o C. oU A 1 loo yi n 4U 11c ^ c lib , ID 9 19 CLC c; 9 Oc Q ft Q X y b . 00 7 O OCO ^ rs 4U 1 o '? 0 'ZA lUb . ^b 1 ? 'Z loo bU oy . 0 / 0 c; Q O / ( i .y b o c Q A oU O'i . to y 0 XQ oy Q Q 9 1 00 , CL Q R y D ( 0 bo . ( o 9 19 li Xi c;9 Q/1 1 7 1 1 X X Att 40 RA 7Q 04 . /y OD b X . Ob y b 7Q ( O Q9 9 Oc . U O < Labor costs p.r acre Sched- ule no. n V Labor costs per acre Total Hired I Family Board Total Hired Family Board O < Total Hired Family Board Lar d in Class l' 110 1^4 *74.34 ♦68.06 1 6.29 10.00 116 85 *122.91 #110.06 $12.86 ♦o.oo 10 48 ♦97.42 ♦29.17 ♦68,25 ♦o.oo 153 40 70.38 55.75 14.62 0.00 113 19 89.05 31.58 57.47 0.00 113 19 91.68 34.21 57,47 0.00 113 19 70.00 28.95 41.05 0.00 10 48 83.87 15.62 68.25 0.00 63 30 76.97 4.17 72,80 0,00 128 62 65.81 53.23 12.58 0.00 83 30 82.80 10.00 72.80 0.00 116 85 76.67 63,82 12.65 0,00 10 48 64.38 15.62 48.75 0.00 125 20 70.50 25.00 45.50 0.00 153 40 74.97 54.50 20.47 0,00 83 30 62.00 AU •UU 0.00 153 40 64.59 44.12 20.47 0.00 258 37 67.86 23,59 44.27 0,00 125 20 52.50 20.00 32.50 0.00 134 45 64.29 19.80 44.49 0.00 125 30 61.75 16,25 45.50 0,00 258 37 48.92 17.30 0.00 258 37 64.00 19.73 44.27 0.00 136 65 60.40 10.00 50,40 0,00 323 40 47.75 25.00 22.75 0.00 209 19 59.32 13.68 43.11 2.55 3 34 56.97 24,85 32.12 0.00 3 34 45.00 22.06 22.94 0.00 136 65 58.86 8.46 50.40 0.00 93 23 56.47 9,00 47.47 0.00 209 19 43.84 10.53 30.79 2.53 154 39 56.92 10.26 46.66 0.00 209 19 55.53 10.53 43.11 1.89 136 65 43.54 7.54 36.00 0.00 323 40 56.85 25.00 31.85 0.00 127 27 53.93 0.00 53.93 0,00 96 78 42.72 32.72 10.00 0.00 206 53 55.56 3.77 51.51 0.28 212 52 52.65 21.15 31.50 0.00 212 52 42.69 20.19 22.50 0.00 212 52 55.54 24.04 31.50 0.00 134 45 52.62 8.13 44.49 0.00 95 49 42.04 21.43 13.27 7.35 93 23 55.38 7.91 47.47 0.00 206 53 52.36 0.57 51.51 0.28 133 60 42.00 33.33 8.67 0.00 127 27 53.93 0.00 53.93 0.00 154 39 51.79 5.13 46,66 0,00 134 45 41.82 10.04 31.78 0.00 3 34 51.97 19.85 32.12 0.00 66 49 49.12 23.16 22.29 3.67 2 80 41.61 41.61 0.00 0.00 2 80 49.42 49.42 0.00 0.00 95 39 46.67 14.10 23.34 9.23 35 56 41.61 23.04 18.57 0.00 95 49 48.38 22.45 18.58 7.35 2 80 45.48 45«48 0.00 0.00 93 23 41.09 1.43 96 78 47.23 33.23 14.00 0.00 8 40 37.92 10.62 27.30 0.00 154 39 39.74 6.41 33,33 0.00 132 40 46.63 12.50 34.13 0.00 133 60 37.14 25.00 12.14 0.00 206 53 39.34 £.00 36.74 0.00 133 60 45.47 33.33 12.14 0.00 35 56 36.71 10.71 26.00 0.00 127 27 38.52 0.00 38.52 0.00 66 49 44.02 18.06 22.29 3.67 132 40 35.38 1.25 34.13 0.00 66 49 37.65 18.06 15.92 3.67 35 56 43.86 17.86 26.00 0.00 129 130 34.79 17.99 16.80 0.00 8 40 29.50 iU .00 ly.ou 0.00 8 40 37.80 10.50 27.30 0.00 11 48 34. t8 6.25 28.43 0.00 152 40 29.38 5.00 24.38 0.00 11 48 37.80 9.37 28.43 0.00 131 41 33.70 7.07 26.63 0.00 11 48 28.65 8.33 20.31 0,00 131 41 34.68 8.05 26,63 0.00 325 40 31.85 0.00 31.85 0.00 129 130 28.36 16.36 12.00 0.00 129 130 34.53 17.73 16.80 0.00 259 36 30.56 30.56 0.00 0.00 259 36 27.94 27.94 0.00 0.00 259 36 30.97 30.97 0.00 0.00 33 56 28.43 8.95 19.50 0.00 151 41 27.56 8.54 19.02 0.00 33 56 28.43 8.93 19.50 0.00 5 27 20.89 20.89 0.00 0.00 S 27 24.96 24.96 0.00 0.00 12 98 22.98 11.84 11.14 0.00 260 59 18.51 0,00 18.51 0.00 SS 56 22.86 8.93 13.93 0.00 260 69 18.51 0.00 18.51 0.00 12 98 17.40 6,26 11.14 0.00 260 59 13.22 0.00 13.22 0.00 128 62 ** • * 128 62 ** * * 12 98 11.80 3.84 7.96 0.00 5» 27 » * • * 96 78 ** ** ** Lai id in Class I I 31 35 52.89 15.74 37.14 0.00 31 35 80.60 26.89 52.00 1.71 31 35 65.11 13.11 52.00 0.00 28 43 47.91 11.63 36.28 0.00 214 56 64.95 45.45 19.50 0.00 7 41 57.71 0.00 57.71 0,00 214 56 42.71 28.79 13.93 0,00 28 43 64.74 13.95 50.79 0.00 32 40 54.60 0.00 54.60 0.00 32 40 42.50 3.50 39.00 0.00 7 41 63.20 5.49 57.71 0.00 28 43 50.79 0.00 50.79 0.00 7 41 41.83 0.61 41.22 0.00 32 40 59.10 4.50 54.60 0.00 214 56 50.21 30.71 19.50 0.00 265 41 37.76 18.73 19.02 0.00 265 41 46.39 19.76 26.63 0.00 265 41 37.61 10.98 26.63 0.00 37 68 31.03 15.00 13.38 0.00 4 133 38.49 37.12 1.37 0.00 57 68 27.85 9.12 18.73 0.00 4 133 28.03 27.05 0.98 0.00 37 68 33.73 15.00 18.73 0.00 1 382 22.25 22.25 0.00 0.00 24 51 22.00 19.43 2.55 0.00 1 382 22.25 22.25 0.00 0.00 24 51 20.24 16.67 3,57 0.00 1 382 21.75 21.75 0.00 0.00 24 51 20.20 16.63 3.57 0.00 295* 22 • • * * • • 295 22 • * ♦ » ** *• 295* 22 *• • * *» ** 4 133 ** »* *• Ui id in Class I ri 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rented for the year specified. Data incomplete. Schedule numbers 60, 84, 91, and 130, Land in Class I, which are cash-rented farms, have not been included. [ I I i I i i r i Table X ?-.rjiis Growing Mainly Deciduous Fruit (Excluding Figs) in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Costs A-^B-C-D per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Sched- ' j Costs 1 Sched- 1 1 Costs Sched- Co sts ule 1 Acres A*3^C-D ule 1 Acres ArB-C^-D ule Acres A-^B-^C'^D number per acre 1 number ■oer acre number i per acre 1 Land in Class I , Cf u 116 85 5^176.13 113 19 ;?150.99 113 19 129.84 83 30 147.70 10 48 132.69 153 40 116.62 113 19 147.31 258 37 124.75 o o 1 14 . 80 125 20 144.60 83 30 122.97 1 xo X t. *± 1 1 n 40 J. d-KJ * 153 40 126.12 153 40 121.75 O ( 10 48 123.25 125 20 121,30 o 1 03 0? 258 37 120.40 2 80 120.80 to 1 09 R'4 209 19 116.95 116 85 118.67 X*7 102 . 74 3 34 106.00 3 34 112.38 J. Cj {J 62 97.31 2 80 103.82 209 19 108.42 1 T -L X 48 9 7. 10 136 65 97.97 136 65 104.20 9 X i> u 80 65 40 94.98 8 7 . 09 84 .90 323 212 134 !^ 52 45 96.08 -1 Rl JO .ox 92.90 92.00 95 154 '^1 39 39 52 23 93.46 83.45 86 02 81.17 39 79 . 58 11 48 89.93 11 48 80.70 ?1 ? 52 78 . 15 95 49 85.45 206 53 72,04 o o 72 .96 127 27 79.52 134 45 71.53 49 7? 206 53 75.98 127 27 70.30 f (J IX* XcJ 93 23 74.73 129 130 69.19 u u 49 69 73 96 78 74.57 66 49 69.06 36 67.03 35 56 72.66 8 40 67.35 1 27 X C ( 27 63.96 132 40 70.80 323 40 67.32 45 63 91 133 60 69.19 133 60 66.57 62 .61 66 49 69.04 35 56 64.05 133 60 62 .48 8 40 67.50 132 40 63.30 129 130 62 .33 259 36 66.97 259 36 60.78 132 40 59 .87 129 130 66.52 5 27 51.15 8 40 59.65 131 41 47.63 33 56 44.64 "SR 79 33 56 46.05 131 41 43.48 5 27 56.44 12 38 39.94 260 59 35,80 131 41 49.97 260 59 35.68 12 98 28.99 33 56 40.50 60* 29 16.38 60* 29 17.03 cow "^1 97 84* 19 16.26 84* 19 16.10 Qfi 9 R AT 130* • 49 12.41 1 30* X (J W ^ 49 12 .36 An* ID . O X 91* 79 9.06 >7 X ' 79 7.31 1 R 9R 5* 27 3.08 Sf .It AQ 19 J.1 12 8 62 ** 78 Q 1 * 11 ^R XX . OO Land in Class II 31 35 81.57 31 35 105.63 7 41 91.39 265 41 80.66 265 41 101.73 31 35 89,72 295 22 70.64 28 43 96.37 265 41 83.41 7 41 68.37 214 56 89 . 84 28 43 82 .91 28 43 67.47 7 41 86.56 32 40 74.55 32 40 67.20 32 40 79.92 214 56 7^ R7 214 56 66,00 4 133 7:^.25 4 133 73.15 4 133 63.14 37 68 65.67 37 68 54.86 37 68 61.07 24 ol 42.63 1 382 42 .33 1 1 382 46.58 1 3 32 41.61 24 51 28.90 24 i 51 i 38.92 295* 22 6.82 29 5* 22 ifif. Land in Cla ss III 0 L 0.00 1 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 * Rented farms. ** D8.ta incomplete. Table XI Farms GroAvias; Mainly Deciduous Fruit (Excluding Figs) in the Merced Irrigation District on tiie Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Net Return per Acre Over Cost s A-t-B. 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 Sched- ule number 3 153 5 125 259 33 323 96 91* 116 60* 212 35 131 130* 128 84* 260 2 134 8 206 93 258 132 12 136 129 83 133 66 11 10 154 127 209 95 113 37 265 24- 1 28 32 4 214 29 5 7 31 Acres 34 40 27 20 33 56 40 78 79 124 29 52 56 41 49 62 19 59 80 45 40 53 23 37 40 98 65 130 30 60 49 48 48 39 27 19 49 19 41 51 382 43 40 133 56 22 41 35 Net return per acre over costs A+B 0 ;;532 .32 20.32 19.00 18,90 18.00 15,28 12.88 8.93 8.86 7.36 6.38 5.02 2.68 2.61 1.94 1.61 1.42 1.18 0.00 -0.95 -2.28 -2,39 -2.96 -7.27 -7.66 -9.45 -16.97 -17.71 -18,46 -20.33 -22.73 -25.09 -26.04 -29.47 -36.07 -40.95 -46.19 -62.69 10.42 2.75 -6.18 -7.58 -10.21 -19,40 -21.37 -23.39 -26 05 -35.46 -39,48 1930 Sched- ule nuTiiber Acres Net return per acre over costs A4-B 0.00 Land in Class I 125 116 258 3 60* J 6 259 33 8 91* 35 212 260 133 153 132 83 130* 323 2 136 12 129 84* 11 131 93 206 154 134 95 10 66 209 127 113 5* 128 20 85 37 34 29 78 36 56 40 79 56 52 59 60 40 40 30 49 40 80 65 98 130 19 48 41 23 53 39 45 49 48 49 19 27 19 27 62 $pl25.90 81.31 27,94 30.34 24.14 23.89 19 .58 17.04 15.42 15.19 15.03 13.80 12.41 7.18 6.15 4.90 4.23 2.41 0.08 -0.32 -6.67 -7.58 -8.63 -13.16 -18.83 -19.42 -21.04 -22,79 -23.59 -26.94 -30,23 -41,62 -47.01 -52.64 -54.89 -82.42 ** 1929 Land in Class II 295* 37 4 24 265 1 214 32 7 28 31 22 68 133 51 41 382 56 40 41 43 35 49 .05 17.89 10.30 0,57 -4.25 -10.87 -11.23 ■23.18 -36.13 -50.42 ■59.32 Land in Class III Sched- ule number 0.00 10 153 3 116 133 35 212 11 2 60^ 84* 134 95 91* 129 33 130* 12 8 5 259 323 136 154 206 132 83 258 209 93 66 127 125 113 131 96 260 128 Acres 1 37 4 24 32 214 7 28 31 265 29 5* 48 40 34 85 60 56 52 48 80 29 19 45 39 79 130 56 49 98 40 27 36 40 65 39 53 40 30 37 19 23 49 27 20 19 41 78 59 62 382 68 133 51 40 56 41 43 35 41 22 Net return oer acre over costs K:-3 ;ifl27.65 78.58 47.02 37.82 37.23 36.84 32.69 30.75 28.26 24.14 21.05 15.11 13.64 12.66 12.25 11.60 7.37 7.15 4.32 -3,70 -10.69 -11.58 -16,11 -16.71 -20.87 -24,58 -34.46 -40.60 -44.37 -44.60 -48.09 -53.45 -62.20 -85.58 ** 17.16 13.49 9.08 ■23.47 ■31.90 -35.46 -45.57 -57.14 -60.03 -65.75 0.00 * Rented farms. ** Data incomplete Table XII Farms Growing Mainly Deciduous B'ruit (Excludinf;; Figs) in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Net i^etum per Acre Over Costs A-B-C^D, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 l.>29 Sched Net return Sched- ' Net return Sched- ■ Net return ■ ule Acres oer acre ule Acres per acre - ule Acres per acre nunibe r over costs numbe r over costs number over costs .i-.-B-i-C^D A-!-B-C-^D L and in Class I 153 40 ^ 5.38 125 20 *103.50 10 48 vl07.71 3 34 2.80 116 85 58.43 153 40 64.00 33 56 2.71 60* 29 7.76 133 60 23.00 91* 79 -2.49 96 78 7.68 35 55 18.68 125 20 -5.05 91* 79 6.13 3 34 17.38 259 36 -5.17 33 56 4.49 116 85 14.07 96 78 -7.37 3 34 0.76 2 80 12.65 323 40 -8.72 258 37 -0.08 212 52 10.81 116 124 -9.05 8 40 -1.13 134 45 7.18 131 41 -9.24 260 59 -1.79 91* 79 5.35 60* 29 -9.41 35 56 -3.11 84* 19 4.95 130* 49 -9.76 259 36 -3.72 60 •> 29 4.11 5 27 -10.48 133 60 -7.24 11 48 4.09 134 45 -11.04 212 52 -8.73 12 98 0.74 93 23 -12.61 130* 49 -9.49 33 56 0.54 260 59 -12.63 132 40 -9.55 130* 49 -4.53 84* 19 -14.53 153 40 -10.37 129 130 -4.77 35 56 -14.92 12 98 -14.30 95 39 -5.25 8 40 -15.80 84* 19 -16.26 8 40 -12.35 206 53 -16.15 323 40 -18.20 154 39 -30.78 12 98 -17.19 2 80 -19.04 5 27 -33.37 212 52 -17.67 136 65 -23.72 259 36 -33.97 2 80 -18.56 129 130 -27.24 136 65 -34.34 132 40 -25.25 131 41 -29.10 206 53 -34.51 133 60 -34.63 93 23 -29 .51 323 40 -37.02 66 49 -34.81 83 30 -30.97 132 40 -42.05 136 65 -35.30 134 45 -34.76 93 23 -53.04 258 37 -35.59 206 53 -36.41 66 49 -57.43 129 130 -38.18 154 39 -40.30 127 27 -34.19 154 39 -47.02 95 49 -45.72 83 30 -65.00 10 48 -49.35 11 48 -49.31 258 37 -68.89 Q'Z 36 60 -56 . 00 66 49 -58 . 84 209 19 -71 . 79 127 27 -55.81 10 48 -65.10 125 20 -83.80 11 48 -56.48 127 27 -73.96 113 19 -109,99 95 49 -61.53 209 19 -80.48 131 41 209 19 -69.05 113 19 -109.63 260 59 113 19 -89.42 5* 27 96 78 128 62 ** 128 62 ** 128 62 * * La nd in C - Uass II 37 68 -9.94 295* 22 42.23 1 382 4.79 COO t: J. 0 / 0 o 0 f D o — o . rtc 24 51 -19.86 24 51 -13.43 4 133 -12.25 28 43 -24.82 4 133 -14.36 24 51 -28.90 1 382 -25.70 1 382 -23.36 32 40 -44.45 32 40 -32.05 265 41 -24.17 214 55 -50.64 o o c 0.00 150 39 34.92 6.92 28.00 0.00 219 28 38.21 38.21 0.00 0.00 264 130 28.56 28.56 0.00 0.00 264 130 34.91 54.91 0.00 0.00 147 23 34.52 18.70 15.82 0.00 245 125 27.44 19.12 8.32 0.00 147 23 34.52 18.70 15.82 0.00 264 130 33.32 33.32 0.00 0.00 217 46 22.39 5.44 16.96 0.00 152 223 33.02 33.02 0.00 0.00 217 46 50.81 / .U f 9^ 74. 150 39 22.31 2.31 20.00 0.00 217 46 30.26 6.52 23.74 0.00 150 39 29.92 1.92 28.00 0.00 158 46 21.15 4,20 16.96 0.00 158 46 27.98 4.24 23.74 0.00 247 21 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 247 21 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.00 247 21 1.24 1.24 0.00 0.00 89 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 158 46 ** • * »* • * cOo 20 »* ** ** *• 200 44 44 44 44 515 200 «« ** »» 287# 76 # # # # 287# 76 # # # # 287# 76 # # # # Land in Clast 1 II 246 20 60.05 8.05 52.00 0.00 246 20 83.10 10.30 72.80 0.00 246 20 79.55 6.75 72.80 0.00 36 38 43.42 2.37 41.05 0.00 36 38 58.79 1.32 67.47 0.00 36 38 58.79 1.52 57.47 0.00 123 19 39.47 5.26 34.21 0.00 92 39 44.62 9.62 55.00 0.00 92 39 45.26 10.26 35.00 0.00 92 39 31.80 6.80 25.00 0.00 151 39 41.80 18.46 23.34 0.00 324 120 38.51 58.51 0.00 0.00 85 80 25.62 1.25 24.38 0.00 85 80 35.38 1.25 34.13 0.00 211 29 56.83 56.85 0.00 0.00 211 29 25.38 25.38 0.00 0.00 126 39 35.05 7.05 28.00 0.00 86 80 34.13 0.00 34.13 0.00 324 120 25.32 25.32 0.00 0.00 216 36 30.83 5.55 25.28 0.00 216 36 53.61 8.53 25.28 0.00 275 242 24.87 21.65 3.22 0.00 324 120 24.85 24.85 0.00 0.00 126 39 28.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 216 36 21.39 0.00 18.06 3.33 207 220 18.54 10.29 8.25 0.00 151 39 26.42 3.08 23.54 0.00 126 39 21.28 1.28 20.00 0.00 148 19 12.58 12.58 0.00 0.00 207 220 18.35 10.10 8.25 0.00 151 39 20.13 3.46 16.67 0.00 275 242 4.71 4.71 0.00 0.00 148 19 12.63 12.63 0.00 0.00 207 220 13.73 7.84 5.89 0.00 211* 29 * * • • 275 242 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148 19 7.42 7.42 0.00 0.00 123 19 • * ** ** ** 123 19 »• • * »• 318# 156 # # # # 318# 156 # # # # 518# 156 # # # # Land in Clasi 1 III 222 20 24.50 5.00 19.50 0.00 222 20 28.05 0.75 27.30 0.00 222 20 27.30 0.00 27.30 0.00 ♦ Rented for the year specified. Data incomplete. # Impossible to separate total cash costs into A and B units. ^ Schedule numbers 189, 205, 124, 215, 297, Land in Class I, 322, Land In Class II, and 87, Land In Class III, ■which are oash-rented farms, have not been included. Table XXVIII Vineyards in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Costs A-3^C+D per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 ■■ — r O ^ 1 fr^ o t- o S V/ b C.n =;t<5 Costs A r» y o c u le Acre s A+B^C<-D ule Acre s A+B+CfD IJ.UIUUt:/X 11 ^AllliJsS 1 per acre numbe r per acre - La] - id in C] .ass I 204 34 i?208.06 - 204 34 ;;;219.94 204 34 ^'^cyjj . (JO 244 20 147.70 244 20 187.60 244 20 ±OC7 . OO 218 47 131.66 218 47 153.02 218 47 210 31 129.61 241 35 141.75 210 31 1 ?R ft! -Lt*D . O -I 149 19 117.63 210 31 136.33 242 35 126 77 221 26 103.62 242 35 130.00 241 35 242 35 98.23 149 19 123.58 149 19 X J. X . C J. 241 35 97.80 240 122 102.98 240 122 ±\j 1 .ex 86 20 92.10 112 38 100.79 112 38 ■1 AC fiC 256 68 85.97 : 256 68 99 .50 256 68 94 04 240 122 80.61 1 215 47 84.77 320 443 147 23 77.70 320 443 84.15 157 86 87 .90 215 47 75.89 157 36 83.85 215 47 112 38 75.50 82 59 78.99 82 59 R? 61 320 443 74.45 245 125 76.72 208 20 RO 8R 157 86 73.22 220 20 76.55 108 98 RO 1 3 220 20 61.60 108 98 75.42 221 26 78 .35 219 28 58.43 86 20 74.05 220 20 77 25 245 125 58.37 147 23 71.91 245 125 7^ 7i I O m *J O 108 98 57.69 221 26 63.35 86 20 fi7 4. R 82 59 57.08 208 20 67.80 264 130 OO • 'iC> 264 130 53.91 264 130 64.46 152 223 315 200 53.28 150 39 62 .46 147 23 150 39 47.00 219 28 54 . 64 219 28 tJ O • X X 152 223 43.13 152 223 49.40 150 39 217 46 37.93 217 46 46.78 2 87 76 X D • O O 205* 88 37.03 158 46 39.04 217 45 158 ^6 33.04 287 76 35.54 24 7 21 19.52 C O I TP. CO • 1 c 17 37 124* 20 10 • 00 89 38 21.00 124* 20 16.55 89 38 17.13 124* 20 17.55 247 21 16.14 213* 40 12.00 247 21 16.14 213* 40 12.88 297* 40 6.65 213* 40 12.68 189* 37 10.54 189* 37 189* 37 10.22 297* 40 5.60 205* 88 * * 297* 40 5.55 205* 88 ♦ * 158 46 * * 208 20 ** 315 200 ** 315 200 • Lai id in C] Lass II 246 20 101.60 318 156 129.93 318 156 X^fx • O'x 123 19 65.10 246 20 122.05 246 20 XXX ■ t:w 92 39 61.38 151 39 71.82 92 39 7n 9 318 156 57.60 92 39 71.46 324 120 36 38 57.65 36 38 69.89 36 ; 38 216 36 52.66 324 120 66.52 216 ' 36 DU . ID 324 120 51.18 216 36 65.91 151 i 39 57.95 151 39 47.97 85 80 56.57 85 1 80 49 , 30 TO/:? AO '^'Z '•iC ♦OO 1 OP. Leo oy 0 0 • U 45.41 85 80 41.98 207 220 34.84 211 29 46 . 34 275 242 ■±1.59 148 19 31.47 207 ' 220 i 34.97 j 211 29 34 ,65 275 242 O /~\ T 'Z iiO . 10 T / ' Q I'iO 1 1 Q 19 j 30.05 207 220 28.38 211* 29 5.79 275 242 15.05 148 19 25.52 322* 460 2.57 322* 460 10.86 1 322* 460 1.90 123 19 ** 123 19 1 1 Lan i in Cl£ iss III ! 222 20 32.35 222 20 36.65 222 20 36.10 i 87* 40 6.35 87* 40 87* 40 ** * Rented farms . "p* Data incomplete. ~$5' Table XXIX Vineyards in the Meroed Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Net Return per Acre Over Costs A-i-B, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Net return Net return Net return Sched- per acre Sched- per acre Sched- DPT SiCtTG ule Acres over costs ule Acres over costs ule Acres number A-fB number A+B numbe r a. ' lj ■ Lar Ld in ClJ iss I 220 20 i.82 .65 220 20 ;5il00.25 86 20 ^j)117.05 86 20 80.75 86 20 95.40 150 39 108.74 147 23 46.60 149 19 35.57 147 23 98.27 297* 40 32.90 256 68 19 . 18 220 20 84.25 149 19 17.31 247 21 17.62 208 o r\ C\J 70.30 150 39 16.41 150 39 16.59 108 98 64.47 108 98 15.43 213* 40 15.00 149 iy 27.16 213* 40 15.00 108 98 14.91 245 IOC 125 26.96 247 21 12.81 297* 40 14.60 320 443 26.06 1 205* 88 7.05 147 23 13.05 297* 40 23.05 89 38 4.82 89 38 11.26 264 130 16.43 82 59 2.84 287 76 11.01 213* 40 15.00 189* 37 j 2.41 264 130 3.34 124*^ 20 14.55 217 46 2.33 217 46 2 .92 247 2 1 14.43 240 122 j 2.10 189* 37 2 .73 152 223 13.84 264 130 0.35 124* 20 1 .75 287 76 10.98 152 223 -0.17 82 59 -1 .97 217 A a 10.68 124* 20 -0.75 245 125 -3 .29 89 'Z D oo 8.84 158 46 -1.33 157 86 -3.86 241 35 3.65 315 200 -2.30 221 26 -4.50 157 86 2.33 157 86 -2.51 152 223 -5.12 82 b9 0.10 256 68 -5.27 208 20 -7.05 256 /? Q DO -2.71 112 38 -8.95 158 46 -7.65 240 TOO -8.51 245 125 -11.52 240 122 -15 .42 215 -22.30 215 47 -11.91 320 443 -27.67 219 n o 28 -27.25 287 76 -12.06 215 47 -29.77 221 26 -31.40 219 28 -16.00 204 34 -32.14 218 47 -36.28 241 35 -24.71 241 35 -40.12 112 38 -41.29 320 443 -31.58 242 ob o o -hfi 77 221 26 -36.62 218 47 -45.51 210 31 -71.91 218 47 -38.81 219 28 -47.28 244 20 -75.65 242 35 -42.31 112 38 -50.34 204 34 -156.59 244 20 -42.40 210 31 -65.78 205'»^ 88 210 31 -46.22 244 20 -73,50 189* 37 204 34 -67.53 205* 88 ** 158 46 208 20 ** 315 200 315 200 La nd in CI ass II 318 156 17.51 151 39 19.95 318 156 80.87 211 29 8.03 275 242 17.64 211 29 31.14 151 39 7.66 211* 29 7.48 126 39 28.21 275 242 5.22 126 39 0.41 275 242 16.68 126 39 2.82 322* 460 -0.69 246 20 11.05 322* 460 0.87 207 220 -4.97 151 39 6.51 148 19 -2.00 21d 36 -5.08 216 36 1.50 207 220 -6.79 148 19 -5.43 207 220 1.45 85 80 -7.67 85 80 -6.78 322* 460 -0.59 324 120 -13.17 318 156 -18.26 85 80 -7.09 92 39 -16.39 92 39 -19.11 148 19 -7.32 216 36 -18.64 324 120 -20.96 324 120 -10.31 246 20 -28.35 36 38 -o7.45 92 39 -15.72 36 38 -29.27 246 20 -40.30 36 38 -42.02 123 19 -38.36 123 19 1 123 19 ** Land in CI ass III 37* ; 40 7.00 222 20 -14.30 222 20 -21.95 222 1 20 _i -14.75 87* 40 87* 1 .... 40 * Rented farms . 'f* Data incomplete. Table TJJi Vineyards in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Net iieturn per Acre Over Costs A-i-3--C*D, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1 ^30 1929 i 1 Net return — 1 Net return Net return Sched- Acre s per acre Sched- oer acre Sched- per acre ule over costs ule Acres over costs ule Acres over costs number ii^-B^C-i-D number i^.-^B-i-C'-D number A-f-B*C-*-D ind in C lass I 220 20 •rfi 70.90 C,CV 2U Q O Ad 'i? 00.40 86 20 «il01.30 86 20 33.65 OD 20 79 .9b 150 39 88.74 297* 40 27.35 O Q "7 lb y . o4 147 23 78.14 147 23 23.73 297* 40 9 .00 220 20 7?;. 75 213* 40 2.32 149 19 7.05 208 20 69.15 108 98 -0.32 247 21 3 . 72 108 98 48.33 247 21 -1.47 i 13* 40 2 . 12 320 443 19.41 150 39 -o .69 256 68 O.o5 297* 40 16.40 189* 37 -7.49 108 98 -0.97 245 125 14.36 217 46 -8.69 150 39 -3 . 79 287 76 9.40 89 38 -9.76 89 38 -6 .11 152 223 3.83 152 223 -10.74 189* 37 -7.49 264 130 3.61 149 19 -11.16 217 46 -8 . 19 213* 40 3.00 158 46 -11.52 loO 217 46 0.63 264 130 -12.34 147 23 -9 .69 247 21 0.53 287 76 -13.61 221 26 -13 . 73 149 19 -1.68 ! 82 59 -14.71 152 O O *7 223 -15.26 124* 20 -3.85 1 240 122 -15.50 124* 20 -15 .80 89 38 -5.76 : 315 200 -15.82 245 125 -lb . 50 157 86 -16.02 124* 20 -17.55 cuo 20 -17.80 82 59 -16.51 205* 88 -20.78 ICO loo A £* 46 -18. 71 241 35 -20.18 157 86 -20.89 82 59 -19 . 67 256 68 -21.25 215 47 -24.61 157 86 -22.41 240 122 -23.22 245 125 -24.72 240 TOO 122 -OO . 06 215 47 -35.00 256 68 -25.53 02U A A *t -o4 • id 221 26 -40.27 112 38 -27.58 cLd A 1 219 28 -41.18 219 28 -29.39 9 T Q 0 Q 218 47 -53.72 320 443 -37.93 242 35 -61.71 112 38 -56.69 221 26 -45 .93 241 oo -64 .01 242 35 -66 . 77 241 35 -48.20 218 47 -64.19 210 31 -86.49 218 47 -57.30 112 38 -66.55 244 20 -90.35 242 35 -57.94 204 34 -72.88 204 34 -197.59 244 20 -59.20 2 10 31 -81 . 14 189* 37 ^ =F 210 31 -70.77 244 20 -88. 10 205* 88 ** 204 34 -108.06 205* 38 ** 158 46 ** 208 20 315 200 ** 315 200 ** T o md in C iass ii 318 156 12.57 O r7 C 275 242 3 .72 318 156 75.82 322* 460 -0.69 151 39 2 .54 211 29 21.63 211 29 -1.24 id 11* on 29 -1 .76 126 39 14.95 275 242 -8.31 T O O J- 322 + 460 -2 .46 275 242 2.82 151 39 -10.00 207 220 -12 .97 322* 460 -2 .64 126 39 -12.13 126 39 -13 .46 246 20 -3.20 207 220 -14.79 216 36 -19.80 207 220 -6 . 55 148 19 -19.63 85 80 -20.49 151 39 -11.13 85 80 -20.76 318 156 -23.33 216 36 -12 .75 92 39 -32.31 148 19 -23.58 85 80 -19.24 324 120 -32.85 92 39 -35.57 148 19 -24.00 216 36 -33.38 324 120 -40.64 324 120 -30.00 36 38 -37.66 36 38 -44.47 92 39 -31.77 123 19 -47.99 246 20 -57.10 36 38 -48.33 246 20 -49.95 123 19 ** 123 19 ** Land in Class III 87* 40 0.65 222 20 -20.15 222 20 -26.60 222 20 -20.35 87* 40 ** 87* 40 ** 1 * Rented farms . ** Data incomplete , Table XXXI Grain and General Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Gross Income Per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 Schedule number 159 200 162 198 34 257 156 319 311 272 192 50 166 178 164 167 314 317 155 199 Acres Gross income per acre 1930 Schedule number lAcres 39 30 22 75 311 40 165 78 243 126 20 101 102 19 40 48 165 80 56 20 ^40.00 24.30 20.45 10.85 4.66 3.70 1.09 3.01 2.58 19.53 12.00 11.15 10.28 8.47 6.98 6.04 3.98 1.25 1.07 0.00 Gross income per acre 1 Land in Glass I 1. 159 200 162 156 34 198 257* 39 30 22 165 311 75 40 :^52.31 44.27 20.00 1.52 0.00 ** ** Land in Class 11''^^ 311 319 243 78 4.21 Land in Class III'-/ 178 272 314 50 167 155 317 166 192 164 199=^ 19 126 166 101 48 56 80 102 20 40 20 47.42 22.78 20.43 14.78 12.50 12.23 8.85 8.47 7.80 ** 1929 Schedule number Acres 200 159 156 34 198 257* 162* 311 319 178 514 50 272 155 192 199 164 166 317 167 30 39 165 311 75 40 22 243 78 19 166 101 126 56 20 20 40 102 80 48 Gross income per acre ^63 . 83 49.72 3.64 ** ** 11.45 49.42 34.31 25.63 21.46 12.84 11.00 0.00 * * ** ^V'Schedule numbers 284, 294, 296, 163, 279, 286 of land in Class I, 160, 197, 254, 36, 183, 281, 190, 301, 280, 277 of land in Class II, and 282, 161, 196, 273, 181, 278, 184, 191, 276, 290, 180, 288, 102 of land in Class III, which are cash-rented farms, have not been included. * Rented for the year specified. ** Data incomplete. -n- Table XXXII Grain and General Farias in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order oi' Cash Costs Per Acre Other Than Labor and Taxes, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 Sched- ule numbe r 200 198 159 34 162 257 156 319 311# 272 178 164 166 314 192 50 167 317 155 199 Acres 30 75 39 311 22 40 165 78 243 126 19 40 102 166 20 101 48 80 56 20 Cash costs per acre other than labor and taxes ;i>12.17 7.95 3.15 3,05 1.55 1.25 * * 0.99 11.94 10.84 12 09 13 15 46 0.94 0.86 0.00 0.00 Sched- ule number 1930 Acres Cash costs per acre other than labor and taxes Land in Class I 200 159 162 34 156 198 257* 30 39 22 311 165 75 40 $29.87 2.26 1.95 1.37 0.12 ** ** Land in Class II 319 311# 78 243 # Land in Class III 178 314 272 167 192 155 166 50 317 164 199* 19 166 126 48 20 56 102 101 80 40 20 12.11 9.64 7.98 5.65 5.15 3.68 3.24 2.40 0.00 Sched- ule number 200 159 156 198 34 257* 162* 319 311# 178 272 314 192 155 50 199 166 317 167 164 1929 ,'icres 30 39 165 75 11 40 22 78 243 19 126 166 20 66 101 20 102 80 48 40 Cash costs per acre other than labor and taxes *14.20 7.26 0.35 14.00 11.35 10.27 5.25 3.86 2.00 0.00 ** * * •^''schedule numbers 284, 294, 296, 163, 279, 286 of land in Class I, 160, 197, 254, 36, 183, 281, 190, 301, 280, 277 of land in Class II, and 282, 161, 196, 273, 181, 278, 184, 191, 276, 290, 180, 288, 102 of land in Class III, which are cash-rented farms, have not been included. Impossible to separate total cash costs into a and B units. * Rented for the year specified. ** Data incomplete. -HI- Table >J(XIII Grain and General Farms in the Merced Irrigfation District on the Three Classes of Land Sched- ule numt er 200 257 34 162 198 159 156 319 31lJ 178 164 50 272 314 166 317 1S2 155 167 199 1931 Acres 30 40 311 n 1 75 39 165 78 243 19 40 101 126 166 102 80 20 . 56 48 20 Labor costs per acre Total $26.00 4.70 4.14 3.55 2.13 0.90 5.13 * * 42.74 19.50 15.45 14.92 9 . 67 6.03 3.10 3.00 1.57 l.ns 0.00 Hired iFnmily $0.00 ,^26.00 0.00 4.70 1.63 3.55 2.00 O.90 5.13 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.79 1.05 5.39 3 . 10 3.00 1.57 1.08 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 * * 41.05 19.50 15.45 13. S3 8.61 0.64 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 O.OC board , o . 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 O.OO *♦ 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 1930 1929 Sched- ule number Acres Labor costs per acre Sched- ule number Acres Labor costs per acre Total Hired Family Board Total Hired Family Board I .and in Class I 200 30 136.40 Oo.oo |36.40 vO.OO 200 30 Ca2,oo $12.00 f, 0.00 fo.oo 162 22 3.64 3.64 0.00 0.00 156 165 1.27 1.27 0.00 0.00 34 311 3.51 O.OO 3.51 0.00 159 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 156 165 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.00 198 75 * * * * ** ** 159 39 1.28 1.28 0,00 0.00 34 311 * * * ¥ * * 198 75 * * ♦ * * * 257* 40 * 257* 40 * * ♦ * 162* 22 + * * * Land in Clans TI 319 78 * * ** ♦ * 319 78 * * * * 31 IJ^ 243 ♦ * ** ♦ * 311='; 243 ♦ ♦ ** ** 1 ^and in Class III 178 19 59.58 2.11 57.47 0.00 178 19 58.52 l.Of 57.47 0.00 272 126 21.88 2 .18 19.50 0.20 314 166 21.97 8.81 13.16 0.00 50 101 21.63 0.00 21.63 0.00 50 101 21.63 O.Of 21.63 0.00 314 166 16.29 3 . 96 12.33 0,00 126 21.30 1.6C 19.50 0.00 166 102 6.78 5.88 0.90 0.00 155 56 5.11 5.11 0.00 O.OC 56 5.11 0.11 O.OO 0.00 192 20 3.00 3.0C 0.00 0.00 317 80 4.50 4.50 0.00 0,00 199 20 0.00 O.OC O.OOl 0.00 192 20 3.00 3.O0 0,00 0.00 164 40 ** *♦ * * ** 167 48 2.-^0 2.00 0,00 O.OO 167 48 * * ** .* * * 164 40 ** * + if * 317 80 ** * * ** ** 199 20 * * 166 102 ** * * * * * * l-H and 1 — I m ) — ! CIS r-1 o rr-i • o W O CO ■P cd CO •H •H <— 1 fj) CM 1—1 o r; C'O •iH pq la •H O l-H C v. l-H > t- 1-1 SS to CM 1—1 +> - 00 •> CO uj 1— 1 m CJ5 CM C CM U •> 00 cc o c-- v< •rjt a: CM c o m o 00 1—1 'XD CM

> (D CM 1—1 as CO (D -P ^ 46 . 69 162 22 34.27 162 22 34.91 162* 22 29,36 198 75 22.85 159 39 21.05 159 39 24.69 159 39 20.25 257* 40 8.45 257* 40 6.85 257 40 13.80 294* 43 6.23 294* 43 6.16 34 O J. X Q 1 R 34 oil 6.81 OU ^ • OU 294* 156 165 4.65 lob A A % 284* R7 \j 1 O • OD lo3* 30 4.60 9 Q/i X 0 1 % QA 163* O • 1 o 284* 57 3.84 O .DO 296* 40 296* 40 3.75 9 lO *L 9r\ 9 ici • r 0 279* 9 fin 286* 71 2 . 54 C OD ^ 1 1 9 /1 Q 286* 71 2 09 279'^- 20 2.40 156 198 75 * ¥ oil Land in Class II 160* 50 11.70 160f 50 12 .02 311 243 14.13 319 78 8.86 311 243 10.98 160^ 50 11.94 19 7v 38 8.32 197* 38 ' 9 .03 197* 38 10.00 oil 243 3.33 254* 104 3 .29 254* 104 3.25 254* 104 3.19 183^- 78 2.99 36* 40 9 PR 78 2.97 '2 J, OD* 40 2.85 183=f 78 ? 9? 36* 40 2 .75 281* 501 2.61 281=^ SOI 190* 20 2.50 190=^ 20 2.50 190* ^0 2 RO 281* 501 2 .49 301* 444 2.14 301* 444 2 1 3 301* 44-4 2.26 280* 61 1.69 280* 61 1 • 85 280* 61 1.79 277* .7 1.15 277* 67 1.21 277* 67 1.16 319 78 319 78 Land in Clas s III 178 1 Q R 7 ^ 9 178 19 87.63 I/O ly Of* o c 00 .05 272 "5^/1 99 272 126 37.89 O "79 126 o9 . b3 164 9Q Q c; 314 166 32.12 6 14 166 37 .53 314 ioD 50 101 27.91 50 101 27.43 50 n m lU 1 9 9 / c; 166 102 11.48 O O O Jr n <^ A y 60 13.63 186 j.^ . oy 192 20 11.15 loo OD 11.17 192 9n y . y u 155 56 11.10 19 2 20 11 . 15 161* 9ri ^ 37 1.32 180* 20 0.80 184* 1004 1.50 276* 39 1.23 288* 38 278* 23 1.43 282* 960 1.03 102* 19 290* 156 1.37 180* 20 0.80 164 40 ^ * 191* 37 1.35 288* 38 ** 317 80 ** 276* 39 1.26 102* 19 * * 167 48 180* 20 0.80 164 40 166 1 102 * * * Rented farms . ** Data incomplete. Table XXXV Grain and General Farir.s in the Merned Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Net Return per Acre Over Costs A-^B, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Net return Net return Net return Sched- per acre Sched- per acre Sched- per acre ule Acres over costs ule Acres over costs ule Acres over costs nuinber number number A + 3 i -in ri Ei C; Q T O O X 159 39 i i;35 95 159 39 ii>48 . 77 159 39 V.42 .46 1 fi? X w tj 22 15 .36 16? 22 14 .41 200 50 37.64 163* 30 6.67 257* 40 11.40 162* 22 23.73 296* 40 2.50 163* 30 10.00 257* 40 11.53 286* 71 1.65 284* 57 9 ,00 163* 30 10.00 294* 43 0.91 286* 71 4.39 286* 71 8.49 198 75 0,77 294* 43 3.44 284* 57 6.32 284* 57 0. 16 296* 40 2 .58 156 165 2.02 279* 20 0.00 279* 20 0.00 296* 40 1 .32 257 40 -2 .25 156 165 -0.09 294'^ 43 1 . 19 34 311 -2.53 34 311 -4. 87 279* 20 0.00 200 30 -13.87 200 30 -22.00 o4 311 156 165 ** 198 75 ** 198 75 ** I in C 1 3. S S I I J. \J%J ^ 78 3 59 ] 9 7* 38 12 .34 2 -30* 61 16.21 277* 67 2.67 183* 78 9.23 183* 78 15.39 280* 61 2.10 281* 501 3.28 197* 38 12 .34 281* 501 1.50 190* 20 2,00 301* 444 8.37 311 243 1.31 280* 61 1.82 281* 501 7 .61 301* 444 1.19 277* 67 1.63 160* 50 7.22 254* 104 0.96 36* 40 1,42 36* 40 5.00 160* 50 0.86 160* 50 0.64 277* 67 4.42 190* 20 0.00 301* 444 0.11 254* 104 4,29 36* 40 0.00 254'<^ 104 -0.24 190* 20 2.70 197* 38 -0.29 311 243 ■ -4,69 311 243 -0.58 319 78 -3 .11 319 78 319 78 »* 1 sort ( 1 in rl X XXi \j X q c o T T T O lD XXX 102* 19 2 1 .05 282* 960 6 . 64 191* 37 9 .76 19? 20 4 .85 167 48 4.85 196* 40 7.15 1 fi7 XVJ 1 48 4 .02 273* 60 4 - 77 155 56 3.88 1 9 "1 ♦ J. *7 X ~ 37 3 41 317 80 4 .35 273* 60 3 .07 1 004 3 ?n 196* 40 3 . 60 192 20 2 .75 60 ? 67 1 55 56 3 .44 50 101 2 .00 290* ? 1 6 • XiJ 180* 20 2 .50 184* 1004 1.98 1 fin* 20 2 .00 184* 1004 1.80 161* 20 1.15 ?n9 1 79 290* 156 1.73 290* 156 0.77 O O 1 71 1 • / X 1 fi 1 * 20 1 . 50 180* 20 0.50 1 QR* 1 QQ* ?0 1 1 5 X • X \J 181* 209 0.11 ? 7fi* 1 81 * X O X ~ 209 75 278* 23 0.00 ? 7R* C/ ( o ^ CO ?3 0.00 276* 39 0.00 199 20 0.00 276* 39 0,00 199 20 0.00 282* 960 -0.22 191* 37 0.00 314 166 -2.08 161=^ 20 -0.35 192 20 -0,35 272 126 -11.18 155 56 -0.50 166 102 -1,54 282'^ 960 -12.50 317 80 -2.71 314 166 -5.50 178 19 -23.11 166 102 -2.84 272 126 -7,08 164 40 ^:* 272 126 -7.34 50 101 -9.24 288* 38 ** 50 \ 101 -7.75 178 19 -24.26 102* 19 * * 314 1 166 -10.82 164 40 * ¥ 167 48 ** 164 40 -19.64 288=^ 38 317 80 ** 178 19 1 -45.11 102* 19 ** 166 102 ** * Rented farms, *+ Data incomplete. ■ Table XXXVI Grain and General Far:iis in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Net Return Per Acre Over Costs A-^-B-t-C-i-D , 1931, 1950, and 1929 Sched- ule numbe r 159 163* 286* 296* 279* 284* 294* 34 257 193 162 200 156 277* 183* 280* 281* 311 301* 254* 190* 36* 319 197* 160* 102* 167 192 191* 184* 180* 273* 290* 181* 288* 282* 276* 278* 199 155 196* 317 166 161* 50 272 314 164 178 1931 Acres 39 30 71 40 20 57 43 311 40 75 22 30 165 67 78 61 501 243 444 104 20 40 78; 38 50 19 48 20 37 1004 20 60 156 209 38 960 39 23 20 56 40 80 102 20 101 126 166 40 19 Net return per acre over costs A+B+C->-D 1930 Sched- ule number 119.75 2.94 -0.44 -0.80 -2.60 -3.70 -4.51 -4.52 -10.10 -12.00 -13.82 -31.86 ** 1.51 0.62 0.31 -0.35 -0.75 -0.87 -1.99 -2.50 -2.75 -5.85 -8.32 -9.80 17.89 2.17 2.10 2.06 1.75 1.20 0.92 0.79 0.17 -0.57 -1.26 -1.26 -1.43 -1,80 -2.25 -2.65 -4.11 -4.61 -9.10 -11.30 -14.69 -19.12 -22.87 -58.85 Acres Net return per acre over costs Ai-BtC4-D Sched- ule number 1929 Acres Land in Class I 159 163* 284* 257* 286* 296* 279* 294* 156 34 162 200 198 39 30 57 40 71 40 20 43 165 311 22 30 75 $31.26 5.40 5.16 3.50 1.85 -1.17 -2.40 -2.79 -3.13 -6.81 -14.91 -40.36 Land in Class II 183* 197* 281* 277* 280* 190* 36* 301* 254* 311 160* 319 78 38 501 67 61 20 40 444 104 243 50 78 6.24 3.60 0.79 0.48 0.13 -0.50 -1.43 -2.03 -3.29 -6.77 -10.36 ** Land in Class TII 282* 273* 167 317 ISO* 155 290* 184* 196* 199* 181* 276* 191* 278* 166 192 161* 314 50 272 178 164 102* 288* 960 60 48 80 20 ■ 56 156 1004 40 20 209 39 37 23 102 20 20 166 101 126 19 40 19 38 5.51 2.i^7 2.96 2.89 1.70 1.13 0.33 0.29 0.20 -0.70 -1.03 -1.23 -1.32 -1.39 -3.01 -3.35 -5.30 -11.69 -13.13 -15,11 -40.21 *♦ ** * * 159 200 286* 163* 257* 284* 156 296* 279* 294* 162* 34 198 280* 183* 301* 281* 277* 197* 36* 254* 190* 311 160* 319 191* 196* 155- 273* 184* 192 180* 290* 276* 2 78* 181* 199 50 314 161* 28^^ 272 178 166 164 102* 288* 317 167 39 30 71 30 40 57 165 40 20 43 22 311 75 61 78 444 501 67 38 40 104 20 243 50 78 37 40 56 60 1004 20 20 156 39 23 209 20 101 166 20 960 126 19 102 40 19 38 80 48 Net return per acre over costs A*B--C+-D ;a>25.03 17.14 S.OO 5.50 5.23 2.48 -0.79 -2.33 -2.75 -4.97 -5.31 ** 14.36 12.47 6.74 5.00 3.21 2.63 2.05 1.28 0.20 -2.68 -3.69 8.46 3.95 1.67 1.33 0.50 -0. 15 -0.30 -0.48 "1.28 -1.52 -1.59 -1.70 -1.80 -3.22 -5.30 -13.63 -18.17 -36.63 ** *f * Rented farms . ** Data incomplete. Table ravii Truck Farms in the Pierced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Gross Inoome per Acre, 1951, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Sched- Gross Sched- Hross Sched- Gro s s ule Acres income ule .Lcres income ule AC res income numbe r per acre number per acre numbe r per acre Land in Class ll 75.* 26 ^^103. 85 75# 26 5^126.77 75Tf 26 .^134.62 193' 20 33.75 193 30 39 .90 193 70 93.75 117 38 24.18 316 260 32 .98 316 260 37.02 110 118 22 ,43 298 60 2d. 67 26 27 34 .81 26 27 21.30 26 27 2o.93 110 118 23.31 316 260 19.90 110 118 25,14 117 38 15 .00 72 21 19 .52 117 38 22 .29 79 34 14 ,71 79 19 5,26 72 21 22.14 51 127 0.00 51 127 0.51 79 34 9 .79 298 60 37.52 298* 60 51 127 0.51 72* 21 * Land in Class 58 26 4:4:. n 71 21 73.10 71 21 96.19 71 21 40,71 58 26 64.92 142 61 42.31 52 50 30,92 55 39 43 .44 52 50 37,36 55 39 30.23 168 53 55.66 168 63 36.04 261 20 27.55 261 20 35.65 55 39 29.90 168 53 2 7,53 142 61 33.15 261 20 24.95 69 286 22.94 69 286 30.05 69 286 24.23 81 39 21.54 52 50 28.84 81 39 24.18 57 30 19.43 81 39 25.62 107 96 16.99 201 20 18,00 252 36 18.08 115 78 13.55 56 20 17.50 115 78 I0.37 145 39 12.82 107 196 17.07 107 196 10,64 119 47 1.60 142 61 1.3.74 59 40 10.28 59 40 0.00 1 4R 39 10.26 58 26 115 78 9,45 251 36 7.19 57 30 * * 119 47 7,87 49 20 5.25 ■iOl 20 59 40 7.76 119 47 1.53 56 20 179 78 6,03 56 20 0.00 179 78 * * 49 20 5.25 57 30 * * 49 20 0 c 0 Ob u . by 9n c \j 251 36 0.58 179 7B 251 36 Land in Class 136 93.03 6# 136 156,62 136 160,75 120 48 38.75 120 48 31.77 120 48 83.58 70 38 15.79 70 38 21,05 70 38 14.08 143 23.5 2.98 143 23^ *♦ 283 61 2.70 283* 61 283'.- 61 143 23. J A Schedule numbers 186, 140, 255, 109 of land in Class I, 263, 185, 237, 139, 73, 262, 68, 170, 291, 121, 300, 122, 253, 27 of land in Class II, and 292, 90, 299, 138, 67, 293 of land in Class III, which are cash-rented farms, have not been included. jf- Farm income, due in part to rather extensive commercial activity, not dependent upon productivity of land. .tented for the year specified. ** Data incomplete . Table :vXa'. Ill Truck Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Cash Costs per Acre Other Than Labor and Taxes, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Sched- ule number acres Cash costs Der acre other than labor and taxes ■ ■ Sched- ule numbe r acres Cash costs per acre other than labor and taxes 1 Sched- ule number Acres Cash costs per acre other than labor and taxes 117 110 26 316 75 72 51 193 79 298* 71 59 261 57 145 69 55 107 58 81 52 179 49 56 119 201 168 251 252 X ± O 142 6-' 120 70 143 283* 38 118 27 260 26 21 127 20 19 60 21 40 20 30 39 236 39 196 26 39 50 76 20 20 47 20 53 26 36 78 61 136 48 38 23-| 61 ^12.58 10.67 8.44 7.27 6.54 5.86 3.50 0.35 0.26 37.14 16.48 13.20 11.76 11.35 9.45 8.56 8.55 8.38 8.02 7.88 7.29 6.50 6.10 4.55 3.40 2.58 2.00 1.80 1.46 59.83 46.00 7.05 5.62 + L 110 117 75 26 316 193 72 79 51 L 71 69 168 59 81 107 58 56 49 179 55 119 261 145 142 52 115 57 251 *J uj 201 L 6 120 70 233* 143 and in ( 118 38 26 27 260 20 21 34 127 60 and in ( 21 286 53 40 39 196 26 20 20 78 39 47 20 39 61 50 78 30 26 3fi 20 and in C 136 48 38 61 23-1 :iass I-^- 5ai.34 9 .58 7.69 6.63 5.38 4.00 3.43 1.76 0.84 f Uass ir^' 27.67 11.75 9.83 9.10 8.62 8.54 6.46 5.75 5.00 4.18 3.87 3.79 2.90 2.56 2.41 1.20 0.47 ** * ^ * * * * lass III-'-' 73.83 11.81 4.29 ** 117 75 26 110 316 19 3 79 51 72* 29 8# 71 168 69 261 107 81 179 59 55 119 145 142 52 115 49 251 252 57 201 56 6^ 120 70 283?;^ 143 38 26 27 118 260 20 34 127 21 60 21 53 286 20 196 39 78 40 39 47 39 61 50 78 20 26 36 30 20 26 20 136 48 38 61 23^- ;#11.95 10.19 6.48 5.86 4.22 2.15 1.47 0.12 -K: // 38.52 29.57 11.13 10.10 9.11 6.69 4.82 3.75 3.74 3.29 1.79 1.57 1.20 0.00 ** * * ** 83.08 14.52 11.00 M * * V Schedule numbers 186, 140, 109, 255 of land in Class I, 253, 263, 27, 237, 170, 185, 300, 122, 262, 68, 73, 121, 291, 139 of land in Class II, and 90, 292, 293, 67, 138, 299 of land in Class III, which are cash-rented farms, have not been included. * Rented for the year specified. 7^ Impossible to separate total cash costs into A and B units. • 0 mers operate a hatchery and do tractor work off the farm. ** Data incomplete. -15- i I I I i i ) I Truck FarmB in the Mereed Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Labor Costs per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Iched M Labor costs per acre Sched Labor costs per acre Sched Labor costs ule ule 10 o ule n «> no. U o < Total Hired Family Board no. o < Total Hired rajnliy Board no. o < Total Hired Lane in Cli iBB 1 79 19 141.05 lo.oo ♦41.05 $0.00 20 $57. 30 12.70 904. OU 193 20 $84.15 $29.55 193 20 39.00 0.00 39.00 117 38 43.37 0.26 0.00 117 38 43.37 0.26 117 38 31.32 0.53 30.79 0.00 75 26 42.00 0.00 0.00 75 26 42,00 0.00 75 26 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 26 27 40.45 0.00 A AA u .uu 26 27 40.45 0.00 26 27 28.89 0.00 28.89 0.00 79 34 32.59 0.47 32.12 0.00 79 34 32.12 0.00 316 260 12.93 9.33 3.00 0.00 316 260 18.59 14.39 4.20 0.00 51 127 17.19 0.00 51 127 12.83 0.55 12.28 0.00 61 127 18.37 1.18 17.19 0.00 316 260 13.36 9.16 110 118 11.27 6.44 3.30 1.53 110 118 12.59 6.44 4.62 1.53 110 118 12.17 6.02 72 21 6.19 0.00 0.00 72 21 7.14 7.14 0.00 0.00 79* cx • * 298* 60 * ♦ * 298# 60 # # # # 298# 60 # # Land in Class II 71 21 132.14 2.14 130.00 0.00 71 21 184.38 2.38 182.00 0.00 71 21 183.90 1.90 56 20 00. OU 0.00 58.50 0.00 56 20 81.90 0.00 81.90 0.00 119 47 72.90 2.13 119 47 53.62 2.55 49.79 1.28 119 47 72.90 2.13 69.71 1.06 261 20 68.25 0.00 261 20 50.50 1.75 48.75 0.00 52 50 68.52 3.00 65.52 0.00 52 50 66.52 1.00 52 50 47.80 1.00 46.80 0.00 261 20 68.25 0.00 68.25 0.00 145 39 56.00 0.00 57 30 45.67 6.67 39.00 0.00 58 26 63.31 10.81 52.50 0.00 55 39 56.00 0.00 201 20 44.25 5.25 39.00 0.00 145 39 56.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 179 78 41.88 9.23 58 26 43.50 6.00 37.50 0.00 55 39 56.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 81 39 28.00 0.00 145 39 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 49 20 54.60 0.00 54.60 0.00 59 40 27.30 0.00 55 39 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 179 78 41.88 9.23 30.34 2.31 168 53 26.67 0.91 49 20 39.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 81 39 28.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 142 61 20.37 2.46 59 40 34.12 0.00 34.12 0.00 59 40 27.50 0.00 27.30 0.00 115 78 14.64 0.64 179 78 22.18 0.51 21.67 0.00 168 53 25.76 0.00 25.76 0.00 107 196 9.47 2.04 81 39 .20.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 142 61 20.37 2.46 17.91 0.00 69 286 8.72 4.90 '.68 53 18.40 0.00 18.40 0.00 115 78 16.64 2.64 14.00 0.00 58 26 ** ** '.42 61 16.07 3.28 12.79 0.00 107 196 10.41 2.98 7.43 0.00 49 20 •• 115 78 12.36 2.36 10.00 0.00 69 286 9.93 6.11 3.82 0.00 56 20 *• • * .07 196 7.96 2.65 5.31 0.00 57 30 • * »* «♦ • * 57 30 «* 69 286 5.14 2.42 2.73 0.00 201 20 ** *» • * 201 20 ♦ » ** 152 36 4.58 4.58 0.00 0.00 252 36 • » ♦* ** 252 36 *• ** !51 26 3.31 3.31 0.00 0.00 251 26 • * *• ** ** 251 26 ** ** Land in Cla ss III .43 zsh 33.19 0.00 33.19 0.00 6 136 40.48 22.88 16.06 1.54 6 136 41.45 23.85 6 136 24.30 11.36 11.47 1.47 70 38 28.74 0.00 28.74 0.00 120 48 31.40 8.65 70 38 20.53 0.00 20.53 0.00 120 48 28.15 5.40 22.75 0.00 70 38 28.74 0.00 .20 48 16.25 0.00 16.25 0.00 143 23| ** *• ** •* 143 25j •* ** :83« 61 * • * * 283* 61 * • • • 283# 61 # # $54.60 43.11 42.00 40.45 32.12 17.19 4.20 4.62 • # 182.00 69.71 68.26 65.52 56.00 56.00 30.34 28.00 27.30 25.76 17.91 14.00 7.43 3.82 »* ** 16.06 22.75 28.74 • * # * Rented for the year specified. ** Data incomplete. # Lnpossible to separate total cash costs into A and B units. 1/ Schedule numbers 186. 140, 109, 255, Land in Class I, 253. 263, 27, 237, 170. 185, 300, 122, 262, 68, 73, 121, 291, 139, Und in Class IIj and 90, 292, 293, 67, 138, 299. Land in Class III. rtiich are cash-rented farms, have not been included. Truck Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Costs A+B+C+D per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Schedule Costs A+B+C+D Schedule Costs A+B+C+D Schedule Costs A+B+C+D nmber Acres per acre nmber Acres per acre number Acres per acre Land in Class I 117 oo 4Ari 1 T 193 20 J74.40 193 20 $99 . 20 193 cyj 01 *70 117 38 69 • 64 117 38 71 .64 79 1 Q ^Ci 4.7 26 27 & 1 70 bl.ro 26 27 59.78 26 97 c 1 AQ A7 298 60 54.62 79 34 40.68 110 lift 79 34 41 . 77 298 60 35.27 316 CO\J tr\ c7 316 260 34.30 51 127 26.03 61 XC 1 9A 7R 110 118 33.07 110 118 25.26 72 CI 9A nA C\J .UU 51 127 28 . 11 316 260 24.63 186* DO O 07 72 21 17.38 186* 60 9.48 140* 9 A CO Q nn 186* 66 9. 79 140* 26 8.12 109*' 7 97 1 mC ( 140* 26 8.42 72* 21 7.05 298* An DU 255* 42 3.52 255* 42 3.57 255* A9 X e;7 109* 90 ♦ ♦ 109* 90 ** 75 26 75 26 * ♦ 75 26 ♦ * Land in Class IT 71 21 193.81 71 21 233.05 71 21 247.43 261 20 75.00 56 20 91.90 261 20 90.00 58 26 73.19 119 47 90.52 119 47 89.66 119 47 71.34 58 26 89.65 52 50 78.42 59 40 69.92 261 20 83.00 55 39 72.59 56 20 68.65 52 50 78.68 168 53 71.32 57 30 66.93 55 39 72.49 145 39 65.56 52 50 64.08 145 39 66.56 179 78 57.61 55 39 60.33 49 20 66.45 59 40 54.55 145 39 59.23 59 40 57.15 81 39 44.41 201 20 54.90 179 78 56.13 142 61 28.37 49 20 52.15 81 39 46.41 107 196 27.04 81 39 37.31 142 61 45.89 69 286 25.96 179 78 36.35 168 53 41.72 115 78 16.54 253* 40 27.80 69 286 30.21 263* 58 9.46 168 RX Oo 07 A c c 1 .40 107 196 28.49 253* 40 8.40 107 196 25.84 115 78 18.97 237* 20 6.45 69 286 22.98 263* 58 9.81 185* 20 6.40 142 61 22.61 73* 28' 8.57 170* 60 5.87 115 78 15.76 253* 40 8.55 500* 58 5.33 58 9.67 237* 20 6.55 121* 863 4.19 c r* 40 8.55 170* 60 6.15 122* 73 4.11 coc 36 8.50 500* 58 5.93 291* 52 3.13 Col 26 7.42 185* 20 4.40 139* 183 2.82 CO 1* 20 5.85 121* 863 4.07 68* 46 2.78 i fU* 60 5.82 122* 73 4.00 73* 28 2.04 loo* 20 5.80 262* 39 3.72 27* 40 *• 300* 58 5.59 291* 52 3.17 58 26 ** Icc* 73 4.22 68* 46 2.96 56 20 *• 262* 39 3.79 139* 183 2.90 57 30 • * 73* 28 3.54 252 36 ** 201 20 *• ici* 863 3.48 251 26 •• 49 20 ** 291* 52 3.10 27* 40 ** 252 36 * * 139* 183 2.87 57 30 ** 251 26 ** 68* 46 2.6S 201 20 ** 262* 39 L and in SlasB III 6 136 100.13 6 136 130.53 6 136 138.16 120 48 65.92 120 48 47.37 120 48 53.04 90* 45 48.11 70 38 40.42 70 38 46.68 143 23i 41.91 283* 61 9.08 283 61 17.41 70 38 35.05 90* 45 7.69 90* 45 7.76 283* 61 10.61 293* 38 4.29 293* 38 4.26 292* 58 3.76 292* 58 3.81 292* 58 3.76 293* 38 3.47 138* 42 3.33 138* 42 3.24 138* 42 3.10 299* 61 2.97 67* 157 3.01 67* 157 2.36 67* 157 2.69 299* 61 2.74 299* 61 1.67 143 25| ** 143 23* • * • Rented farms. ** Data incomplete. Tru(sk Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land in Order of Ket Return per Acre over Costs A + B, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1931 1930 1929 Schedule Acres Net return Schedule Acres Ket return Schedule Acres Net return number per acre over numter per acre over number per acre over costs A + B costs A + B costs A + B Lane I in Cla ss I V5# 26 $67.51 75# 26 ♦77.08 75# 26 182.43 298» 60 15.20 72 21 11.57 72* 21 28.09 186» 66 7.58 186* 66 10.00 140* 26 25.00 72 21 7.47 316 260 9.01 316 260 19.44 109» 90 0.72 140* 26 7.69 255* 42 13.57 110 118 0.49 110 118 1.22 298 60 7.74 140* 26 0.00 255* 42 0.00 193 20 7.45 255* 42 0.00 51 127 -18.70 186* 66 5.91 316 260 -0.30 26 27 -21.15 110 118 5.29 193 20 -5.60 193 20 -21.40 26 27 -12.12 51 127 -15.83 298 60 -22.56 51 127 -17.31 26 27 -16.03 79 34 -24.57 79 54 -18.88 117 38 -19.72 117 58 -30.66 117 38 -40.32 79 19 -36.06 109* 90 109 90 ** Land in Clae s II 262* 39 8.97 263* 58 34.66 263* 58 44.66 69 286 8.55 185* 20 25.00 142 61 20.37 237* 20 7.35 237* 20 14.00 237* 20 14.00 168 53 6.83 142 61 10.37 170* 60 13.16 27* 40 4.95 139* 185 9.95 68* 46 10.87 300* 58 4.31 69 286 8.37 139* 183 9.82 185* 20 1.70 262* 39 7.69 122* 73 8.22 170» 60 1.53 73* 28 7.50 300* 58 8.00 121* 863 1.21 68* 46 7.26 73* 28 6.07 107 196 0.56 168 55 4.75 291* 52 5.81 139* 183 0.53 170* 60 4.06 121* 863 4.51 73* 28 0.28 291* 52 3.96 69 286 4.39 68* 46 0.00 121* 865 3.90 185* 20 0.00 122* 75 0.00 300* 58 1.24 253* 40 -0.38 291* 52 0.00 122* 75 0.99 115 78 -1.09 263* 58 -0.34 253* 40 -0.38 107 196 -1.58 142 61 -0.78 115 78 -3.75 81 39 -10.51 115 73 -4.55 139 183 -4.85 168 53 -23.46 251 26 -4.73 107 196 -8.31 55 59 -29.84 252 36 -5.70 81 39 -11.00 52 SO -30.56 81 39 -6.49 55 39 -16.43 59 40 -31.55 58 26 -7.12 59 40 -26.12 145 39 -44.97 55 39 -18.33 261 20 -35.60 261 20 -55.40 253* 40 -19.88 52 50 -40.88 119 47 -74.60 179 78 -23.45 145 59 -48.30 71 21 -126.24 52 50 -24.76 49 20 -54.35 251 26 ** 201 20 -29.65 119 47 -75.16 252 36 *• 261 20 -36.15 56 20 -87.65 179 78 57 30 -38.00 71 21 -138.95 201 20 • * 49 20 -40.25 57 30 ** 57 30 *• 145 39 -41.36 201 20 • * 49 20 •* 59 40 -42.85 179 78 ** 56 20 ** 56 20 -47.10 27* 40 ** 27* 40 *• 119 47 -50.30 252 56 262* 59 *• 71 21 -128.57 251 26 • * 58 26 • * Land in Cl&s B III 6# 136 8.90 136 42.30 6# 156 58.12 292* 58 5.69 292* 58 10.78 120 48 34.30 138* 42 2.62 90* 45 4.67 67* 38 7.25 90* 45 1.89 299* 61 3.03 90* 45 5.78 299* 61 1.85 138* 42 2.67 292* 58 5.26 67* 38 0.09 67- 38 1.63 29^ 61 2.67 283* 61 0.00 283* 61 0.00 138* 42 0.00 70 38 -11.79 120 48 -8.19 283 61 -5.30 120 48 -23.50 70 38 -11.98 70 38 -25.66 143 234 -35.83 143 23| •• 293* 58 ** 293* 38 293* 38 145 234 4* * Rented farms. *• Data incomplete. # Farm income due in part to rather extensive commercial activity not dependent upon productivity of land. Truck Farns in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Net Return per Acre Over Costs A+B+C+D, 1931, 1930, and 1929 1951 1930 1929 Schedule number Acres Net return per acre over costs A+B+C+D Schedule number Acres Net return per acre over costs A+B+C+D Schedule number Acres Net r eturn per acre over costs A+B+C+D Lane In Cl8 LS8 I 298» 60 t 8.15 298 60 127.95 72* 21 121.52 72 21 -0.48 72 21 4.76 140* 26 16.88 186* 66 -1.39 186* 66 0.21 316 260 12.39 255* 42 -3.57 140* 26 -0.73 255* 42 10.00 109* 90 -6.29 316 260 -1.82 298 60 2.25 140* 26 -8.00 255* 42 -3.52 110 118 -1.95 516 260 -10.67 110 118 -7.93 186* 66 -3.67 110 118 -10.96 51 127 -27.59 193 20 -5.45 193 20 -18.20 79 34 -31.98 26 27 -24.97 51 127 -24.49 193 20 -34.60 79 34 -25.97 26 27 -28.37 26 27 -35.85 51 127 -26.08 117 38 -35.95 117 38 -47.35 117 38 -56.64 79 19 -45.21 109* 90 109* 90 ** 75# 26 ** 75# 26 ** 75# 26 Lane in Class 11 262* 39 5.18 263* 58 25.19 263* 58 35.54 237* 20 4.95 185* 20 20.60 142 61 13.94 168 53 0.36 237* 20 8.46 237* 20 8.55 69 286 -0.04 139* 183 7.07 68* 46 8.09 500* 58 -1.28 73* 28 5.72 170* 60 7.55 73* 28 -1.40 68* 46 4.30 139* 183 7.04 121* 863 -2.27 262* 39 3.97 73* 28 4.39 139* 183 -2.50 291* 52 0.79 122* 73 4.11 185* 20 -2.45 69 286 -0.16 291* 52 2.68 68* 46 -2.63 121* 863 -0.17 300* 58 2.67 291* 52 -3.10 168 53 -1.38 121* 863 0.32 27* 40 -3.60 170* 60 -1.82 69 286 -1.73 170* 60 -4.02 122* 73 -3.01 115 78 -2.99 122* 73 -4.22 300* 58 -4.69 185* 20 -6.40 142 61 -5.87 115 78 -5.60 253* 40 -8.40 116 78 -6.31 253* 40 -8.55 107 196 -10.06 251 26 -6.84 142 61 -12.74 81 39 -20.23 252 36 -7.81 107 196 -17.85 168 53 -38.55 107 196 -8.77 81 39 -20.79 52 50 -41.06 265* 58 -9.67 58 26 -24.73 55 39 -42.69 81 39 -15.77 55 39 -29.05 145 39 -52.74 253* 40 -27.80 59 40 -46.87 59 40 -54.55 58 26 -28.42 261 20 -47.45 261 20 -65.05 55 39 -30.10 52 50 -49.84 119 47 -88.06 179 78 -30.32 145 39 -56.30 71 21 -151.24 52 50 -33.16 49 20 -61.20 179 78 •* 201 20 -36.90 119 47 -88.99 27* 40 ** 49 -46 . 90 20 -91.90 262* 39 261 20 -47.45 71 21 -159.95 252 36 • • 57 30 -47.50 179 78 »• 57 30 • * 145 39 -49.23 27* 40 • * 251 26 • * 56 20 -51.16 57 SO 201 20 ** 59 40 -62.17 201 20 ** 56 20 ** 119 47 -63.47 251 26 • * 49 20 ** 71 21 -153.10 252 36 58 26 Land in Class III 292* 58 1.93 6# 136 26.09 120 48 30.54 299* 61 0.18 292* 58 6.97 6# 136 22.59 138* 42 -0.48 299* 61 0.06 67* 157 4.35 67* 157 -5.14 158* 42 -0.45 299* 61 -0.07 6# 136 -7.10 67* 157 -1.03 292* 58 -0.50 283* 61 -10.61 90* 45 -2.80 90* 45 -1.76 70 38 -19.26 283* 61 -9.08 138* 42 -3.24 120 48 -27.17 120 48 -16.60 285 61 -14.71 143 25i -38.93 70 38 -19.37 70 38 -32.60 90* 45 -43.78 293* 38 293* 38 ** 293* 38 *• 143 234 • * 143 23^ * * * Rented farms. # Farm income due in part to rather extensive commercial activity not dependent upon productivity of land. *• Data incomplete. Results of Operations of Corporation Farms in the Merced Irrigation District, 1929, 1930, 1931 Rather large acreages of land in the Merced District are operated or administered by corporations. In a number of cases these corporate enterprises represent stages in a development and colonization program. In others the acreages involved are lands which have come into the hands of these corporations through the necessity of foreclosing on loans previously made to other parties who viere unable to meet the oayments on them. The corporate operations here summarized do not include all corporation farming operations in the District, but do include nearly all of the important and well-established companies. The total acreages operated (excluding the barley and rice lands) are: for 1929, 8,785, for 1930, 11,100, for 1931, 11,496. The record is reduced to an acre basis and combined in order that the private affairs of the individual companies may not be unduly disclosed. The companies covered in this phase of the study are in nearly all cases recognized as being ably managed and well financed. They represent settled working units which are indicative of what can be expedted from operations under this type of set-up. Most of the lands operated by the companies shown in Table are in the better sections of the District. In nearly all cases the records here sho-.m are accu- rate in a bookkeeping sense since practically all of these companies employ trained and experienced bookkeepers, and their records have in general been made freely available to the investigators. It is a rather generally accepted view among students of farm management that most types of farming can be more effectively carried on by individuals operating something approximating the family size farm than by corporations vi/ith their relatively heavy overhead and lack of intimate contact vith the labor and the minor details of operation. This conclusion does not apply to all conditions I i of farming, and the advantages or disadvantages of corporation farming depend both on the kind of farming to be done and on the organization of the activities and the quality of management. Substantial advantages in buying and in selling are apparent in some cases. These tend to offset certain disadvantages in oper- ations . The results shown by these companies do not seem to lend encouragement to any assumption that the District itself either directly or through intermedi- aries might undertake operation on a large scale of lands coming into its hands. It could not hope to attain the quality and stability of management now in charge of most of these companies, nor could it afford the heavy investments and r*isks of loss which these companies are now carrying. The results actually achieved on lands that have been acquired by the District are shovm in Appendix G. These, of course, hrive tended to be some of the poorer and relatively over-assessed lands of the District, especially in the earlier years. In recent years, however, substantial amounts of relatively good land are coming into the hands of the District. Where organization for operation and supervision has not been developed, considerable acreages of land taken over by mortgagees lie virtually idle. One large lending agency of recognized conservativexiess has taken over on fore- closure in Merced County 1,406 acres, 17 farms in all, chiefly in the Merced Irrigation District, Of this land, practically 1,000 acres are idle and are not farmed in any way. -101- 1 I Table XLIII Income and Expense of Farms in the Merced Irrigation District Farms Operated by Corporations 1929 Farm j identifi- | cation Gross income per acre Cash expense per acre in- ciudinff labor Net return per acre bei'ore taxes Co\inty taxes per acre Ijet return per acre above county taxes C B D A E F .■#139.28 93.86 ^^123.42# 85.84 >^15 . 86 8.02 17.10 2.39 vt) O . / D 5.63 30.73 21.86* 7.55X ** ~ 29.73 1.00 2.46 -1.46 19.55 1.89X ** 2.31 5.66 3.48 2.20 -1.17 3.46 1930 C B D A E F 150.17 39 .48 185.61# 108.72 -35.44 -19.24 7.10 2.39 -42.54 -21.63 (43.79 44.23 -0.44 2.56 ■•3.00 ^ 10.51 6.15X 6.28X 0.76^ ** 5.39 3.26 2.18 3.21 1931 C D 84.15 131.21^!^ -47.06 7.10 -54.16 29.65 44.38 -14.73 2.56 -17.29 B 21.90 26.67 -4.77 2.39 -7.16 A 10.98 14.70 -3.72 3.02 -6.74 E 3.78X 0.32X 3.46 2.21 1.25 F 3.033^ 4/ Costs shown do not include depreciation, interest or general overhead, except in B and C in which cases a charge is made for supervision but none for depreciation or interest. * 17.37 per cent of total gross income is from outside rentals. ^ Lands leased — figure shovm is net to owners before taxes and cost of supervision. :^xpense does not include all operating expenses but only expense to owner. ** Data incomplete. f These figures do not include repair and maintenance ..vhich amount to i.8.35 per acre. -102- Summary of Results from Barley and Rice Grown on Larger Units The grov/ing of these crops represents at the present time a less settled type of farming than those discussed in the preceding sections. These, being annual crops, can be put in whenever operators think there is a prospect of profit in such operations. Production can like.vise be discontinued -vhen it does not appear profitable to operate, especially in the case of those who rent lands from others for the purpose of growing these crops. Owners of these lands are, of course, under considerable pressure, owing to tax charges on them, to keep them in operation if they will yield anything above the costs entailed. Thus some are operated by the owners of the lands and some are leased on shares. In the latter case losses or gains on operations may occur which will not be reflected directly in the returns to the owners of the land and in their abilities to pay. The very low prices of the oast year or two have brought the returns down to a point where operating losses were incurred by the landovmers if they operated the lands and by the lessees if the lands were operated on share lease. Ordin- arily, however, such lands will shov/ some return above operating costs, and can contribute something in the form of District taxes. Records have been secured showing sTjecific costs chargeable to the following acreages of these two crops for the years indicated. Barley. Operated by ovmers Leased Total Year Acres Acres Acres 1929 4,989 — 4,989 1930 441 4,173 4,614 1931 — a, 687 3,687 19,52 4,032 3,570 7.602 Rice ; 1929 6,351 1930 ...... 596 1931 1,876 The results of these operations are shown in tables XLIV and XLV. -103' 1 I ■ • \ I i Table XLIV Incoiae and Expense in Growing Barley in the Merced Irrigation District Operated farms Numbe r of acres Gross income ArB costs per acre Net income per acre above A'-B County taxes above AfB and county taxes Year Yield per acre ( sacks ) ■Weighted average price per cwt . Total income per acre 1929 4,989 4.21 •51.52 •j6.39 .Iil4.90 ;;p-8.51 •31.80 ,:;-10.31 1930 441 10.00 1.00 11.20 9.80 1.40 1.07 0.33 1932 4,032 7.26 0.45 3.51 7.31 -3.80 2.23 -6.03 Leased farms 1930 4,143 12.77 1.00 4.52 0.53* 3.99 1.85 2.14 1931 3,687 6.03 1.22 2.48 0.68* 1.80 1.61 0.19 1932 3,570 10.56 0.46 1.62 0.00* 1.62 0.76 0.86 * Costs to ovmers of land. Do not include lessees' costs of operation. In some years the operators on leased land suffered considerable losses which are not shown in these summaries. Such losses tend, of course, to be reflected later in reduced bids for the use of land. ■ 1 ■ " ■ \ 1 : i i ■: : - „ J.- - ; . , , i, , .;s-;:;';'i ! 1.1:^.^ ; \ L... Table XLV Income and Expenses Rice Lands Merced Irrigation District 1929, 1930, 1931 Item 1929 1930 1931 Acreage 6,351 596 1,876 Rice improvement cost per acre s(;49.04 ^51.04 Net income per acre before tolls and taxes 9.86=" 11.42* 1.33* Tolls per acre 1.20 0.36 0.79 Net income oer acre over tolls 8.66 11.06 0.54 County taxes per acre 0.95 0.95 0.95 Net income per acre over tolls and county taxes 7.71 10.11 -0.41 Interest on improvements per acre (at 6 per cent) 2.63 5.43 2.55 Net income per acre over tolls, county taxes, and interest on improvements 5.08 4.68 -2.96 * To ovmers of lands. -I OS- 1.. The acreages devoted to rice are in general classified in this survey and in the Cone-Underhill survey as falling in Class III. This is due to the fact that the lands suited to rice are not -.veil suited to most other types of produc- tion. Some of the lands are capable, hovrever, of yielding very good croos of rice, and under certain price conditions cun be operated profitably for that purpose. The present and prospective orice situation for rice must, ho'vever, be taken into account in .judging t"ue possibilities for profitable rice production, average prices for paddy rice in the Merced area have changed over the past fev,' years as follov/s : Year Price per c\/t . 1926 sS.ai 1937 1.52* 1928 2.13 1929 2.29 1930 1.85 1931 1.35 1932 .85 * Price of No. 1 rice at Merced v/as ..;ii2.65, but because of damage due to '.vet weather s^l'52 vvas the average price actually received. The price outlook for rice as discussed in the 1932 outlook report of the University of California is given in Appendix S of this report. In considering the possible developments as to rice production the follow- ing aspects of the Tratter require consideration: 1. Land should not be in rice more than half the time. At other times some other crop will ordinarily be grovvn, usually barley or milo, these being among the croos most tolerant of alkali, 2. Much of the rice land has been operated on a one -fourth to one- third share rent. The returns shoivn do not take into account .•/hat were frequently heavy losses on the part of the growers operating these lands on shares. (The oimer ordinarily furnishes the water.) 3. The rice lands have a very hiph alkali content and should be flushed with an extra foot of water above the amounts required to raise tie crop. This costs, at present toll rates, >2 per acre, and, .\ath operators losing on the crop, is usually omitted. This affects the crop adversely and lowers the yields. 4. Growers state that from 2 to 3 cents per pound is needed to make rice growing profitable at present costs, and tax rates on this type of land. Present prices are materially below this. Costs will, however, probably be somevirhat further reduced. 5. Yields run ordinarily 2,500 to 3,000 pounds per acre. On new land they may reach 5,500 pounds. In summary it may be said that when rice growing first came into promi- nence in the District in 1924, 1925, and 1926, it gave great promise as a source of profit on what were otherwise some of the poorest lands of the District. The very disappointing prices of recent years render this an income source of much less promise. The oroduction of rice has also given rise to a number of diffi- cult problems of District operation ov;ing to the seepage injury on adjoining lands. This has led to the zoning out of considerable areas. In these the pro- duction of rice is prohibited. -101- Income From Pasture Lands, 1929, 1930, 1931 In sorting the farms of 20 acres or more into groups, a substantial number was found to consist primarily of pasture land. These were treated as a separate tyoe group, but samples from them were not drawn, and records covering them were not taken. The rental on lands of that type is fairly uniform in given years and rather definitely obtainable as a net cash return for the land before taxes and upkeep. Upkeeo on farms of this type is a manor item. The farms falling in this group included in all 15,087 acres. ^Rentals on land of this kind in the District have averaged about 5^1.50 per acre for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, and for the year 1932-33 about 1.00 per acre Income from these lands before taxes is therefore estimated as follows: 1929 -- i|22, 330.00 1930 — 22,630.00 1931 — 22,630.00 1932 — 15,087.00 iviaterial changes in the prices of cattle would have some effect on these returns, but the rentals tend to remain constant except as rather significant changes in livestock occur. Most of these lands are not well suited for any- thing but grazing. County taxes on these lands average approximately :.58 per acre.* The difference, or :}.42 per acre, represents rather accurately what these lands can be depended upon to contribute in District assessments if held in private ownership. The advantages which these lands can derive from irrigation are rather limited. In some cases the difficulties from alkali are increased by the water rather than mitigated. The lands included in this group are nearly all in Class III. * average of county tax in 1931 on 4,092 acres of land of this type. Probable Ability of Lands in the Merced Irrigation District to Pay District Assessments in the Coming Years The tables oresented in the preceding pages undertake to summarize and present in an understandable .vay the income and exoense situation on a repre- sentative group of farms in the Merced Irrigation District for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931. One of the noticeable aspects of this, as of all studies includ- ing numerous individual farms, is the wide range of conditions and abilities shovm. These farms show nearly all conceivable conditions: farms that are oper- ated in an intensive r/ay -.vith large in outs of labor and expense, farms which either have only part of their acreage operated or possibly are being allov/ed to deteriorate through less than needed care, and, in a few cases, farms which are lying practically idle and show little of either expense or income except those exoense items which go on regardless of whether or not the farm is operated. These conditions are reflected in a viide range of incomes per acre. The efficiencies of the farmers, themselves, like.vise vary a great deal. In some cases high expenditures accompanied by high returns per acre show con- moderate siderable losses. In other cases/incomes and low costs may show some profit. Such differences invariably appear in studios involving many farms, and there is no way in v/hich farms and farmers can be brought to a coiranon level of efficiency, though the gradual settling dovm of an area, the elimination of the less effi- cient operators, and the more general adoption of the better methods and of the more efficient sizes of farm units, usually tends to bring about greater uni- formity in the farming methods, returns, and expenditures. v.Tiile such gradual standardization in methods and improvement in efficiency may well be anticipated over a period of years, it should not be assumed that any procedure or any length of time will make all of the farmers of any aroa as efficient as the best of those in such area. The most that can be hoped for is a gradual improvemunt through education, imitation, and elimination v/hich will bring more of them into the group sho'ving some not incomo ovor costs. This same general obswrvation applies, of course, also to Ivlerced District. In general, the more extreme situations both as to high net incomes per aero and high losses per acre are likely to involve rather abnormal situations which could not be duDlicated over the area as a whole. For example, a few of the higher net incomes per acre are the result of certain types of semi-commercial activity v.'hich these farmers are engaged in and for which there is a limited de- mand. These do not necessarily depend on the quality of the land on which these farmers are located. It is not unusual, therefore, to find some comparatively large income on relatively ::oor land as well as on good land. On the other hand, the extremes in the matter of losses are aot to be due to unusual circumstances. For example, in 1932 certain of the efficient farmers made shipments involving extremely heavy per acre expenses for production and did not receive any net re- turn from the product. This was due to the fact that sales price did not cover freight aad selling charges. Such cases, of course, show a very heavy expense and a very heavy loss per acre. The more representative situation is to be found in the intermediate zo le lying between these extremes, and in general this in- volves the larger number of the farmers and the greater part of the acreage. It renrosents more nearly what can be expected on a fairly widespread scale. In order that this may be more clearly visualized, graphs have been made showing the nmgo of incomes over expenses on individual farms for each of the three years covered in the study. These are presented in charts I, II, and III. The results shown indicate that the financial situation of farmers in the District was not altogether healthy even in 19?,9, though difficulties in the meeting of District assessments had not at that time becoine acute. A clear under- standing of that situation requires consideration of a number of factors. It is -ilO- 60 70 80 NUMBER OF FARMS 140 J AN ARRAY OF NET RETURNS PER ACRE OVER COSTS A AND B AND. TAXES. FOR ALL FARMS ON LAND IN CLASSES E AND IT ,1931,1930 , AND 1929. CLASS JT AVERAGE FOR THE MIDDLE HALF OF THE ARRAY 1931 .-$8.70 1930' -809 1929 ~ - 3.42 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 NUMBER OF FARMS 175 50- clear that the adverse conditions created by the general agricultural depression have been aggravated by the fact that when the depression arrived the District had not yet adjusted itself to the changed conditions arising out of the construc- tion of the irrigation system. V,liile efforts to colonize were active immediately after the organization of the District, many of the new purchasers had not yet be- come well established on the land, much of the land was still held by non-residents, and some of the large holdings which, under normal conditions, would have become subdivided, continued to be devoted to extensive types of farming which could not earn the irrigation charges. The subdivisions made were in many cases not well suited to the most profitable types of operation, the units often were too small, and the lines of production probably not as well diversified as they should be. In interpreting the 1929 figures some consideration needs to be given to the fact that one of the type groups thows a lower volume of production than would be usual for it. This is the group dependent primarily on peach produc- tion. The production of peaches was practically eliminated on many farms by the heavy frosts of that year. On the other hand, those grov/ers who -were able to save their crops received a very high return, the price per ton being one of the highest of recent years. 19;50 was in some respects a more normal year than either 1929 or 1931. It probably represents in production a year somewhat better than the average. It was, however, a year of such unadjusted price conditions that it is a difficult year to use in computations since it represents neither conditions before the break nor anything approaching settled conditions after the break. Costs ;vere still practically at 1929 levels. Prices, on the other hand, had taken very consider- able drops of more than one-third. The depression -/ith its unprecedentedly low prices, together with the various influences which have caused uncertainty as to the ability of the District -113- « to meet these irrigation charges, has made it impossible for many of the land- owners either to develop their lands to a point at which they could be operated efficiently, or to dispose of their farms to others. This is particularly true of many non-resident ovmers vAo bought with a vie;v to investing for a period of years and later taking a more active part in the operation of the farms, and also of those landov-mers who bought with a view to developing and resell- ing. Under present conditions in the District it is not easy to find tenants who are financially able to undertake the operation of farms requiring the heavy cash outlays necessary for the more intensive types of farming. Bank loans for the ordinary tenant are practically unobtainable without some backing other than that of his ovm resources and prospects. This situation accounts for some of the unoperated farms and for a number of those v/hich, even though on fairly good land, are used only for pasture or are allowed to go into weeds, Bermuda grass, or Johnson grass. It is entirely possible that this situation might be considerably improved if a financial outlook for the District could be achieved which would lead to some marketability of its lands even though that be at very low prices. Land would then probably move more quickly into the hands of people suitably located and financially able to operate it efficiently, and thus to increase its earning power. Effective operation will usually be possible only to those living in the District or having v/ell organized supervisory arrangements in the District. If land in the District can again be made marketable it is probable, therefore, that many parcels held by non-residents will gradually be sold into the hands of local people equipped to operate them and in this way sizes of farm unit v;ill gradually become better adapted to the conditions in the District. To describe an existing situation is one thing. To estimate a probable future situation is quite another, especially ivhere prices and price relation- ships are concerned. No one can look into the future v/ith any high degree of certainty, and estimates of the future can be only on the basis of certain as- sumptions. But in a case where commitments for pajnnents extending far into the future are concerned there is no choice but to attempt to foresee probable de- velopments and make some decision with reference to them. In physical matters it is possible in many cases to see ahead for some years with moderate certainty on the basis of certain trends in production, con- sumotion, etc. For example, the curve of population growth over the last hundred years can be plotted, and fairly good estimates can be made of the population of the United States ten years or even twenty or thirty years from now. Or the flow of water in a stream can be measured for a long period of time, and a rather de- pendable estimate of future flows and their fluctuations can be made. But even the trend of the population curve may be altered by a change in immigration laws, a pestilence, or a change in attitudes toward marriage and the bringing of children into the world. In the world of prices the changes are much more unpredictable. Group psychology plays a large part. International movements of gold and the >vays of using gold as a base for credit are extremely important. Far-reaching necessary adjustments to changed conditions in the technique of production, as yet but dimly understood, affect our business and the volume and turnover of credit in -rays which, as wc have only recently seen, cannot be accurately predicted. It is evident that during the period 1923 to 1929 a very large volume of credit and a high level of prices v/a.s maintained in relation to the vrorld's gold supplies. This was due to many factors, too numerous and obscure to go into this report. Among them ms-y be mentioned a much freer flow of international trade than now prevails, heavy lending in foreign countries by investors located in the United States. Considerable use by various countries of the gold exchange standard which does not involve direct convertibility of the country's money into -115- gold but instead convertibility into exchange on a country whose money is ex- changeable for gold. "Yithin this country business activity was proceeding at a rapid pace as various accumulated shortages from the war period were taken care of, new highways were built, and heavy expenditures were made for new factories, homes, etc. Most of these aids to tne maintenance of a larger volume of credit and a higher level of prices have largely disappeared in the past three years along with certain demand and production conditions which either caused or accompanied them. The various nations of the world have developed the hoarding of gold to an almost unprecedented degree thus hampering world trade, by restrict- ing imports on a scale not known to the world since more than a hundred years ago. It seems likely that, barring extreme devaluations of money and widesoread social changes, the level of prices will rise again only with slov/ly and pain- fully developed cooperation among the leading nations of the world, difficult and paralyzing readjustments in production, and the gradual renewal of confidence on the part of the people of the country. The general level of wholesale prices in the United States stood at about •V 145 per cent of the pre-war level during the period 1922 to 1928 inclusive.'/ '1/ ^ See "The Agricultural Situation" issued by the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics, for January, 1933, p. 23. This level has since declined to 93 per cent of the pre-war level (as of November, 1932). During the period 1922-1928, prices paid to farmers for farm products were, of course, at a somewhat loiver level v/ith reference to pre-war prices, their index being about 135 as compared to 145 for wholesale prices of all coiTffliDdities . The index of farm prices has since fallen to 54 (November, 1932) as compared to the above-mentioned 93 for all commodities. The all-commodities index Table XLVI General Trend of Prices and V/ages* (1910-1914»100) Year and month 'Vhole- sale prices of all commodi- ties,!/ Prices uaid by farmers for commodities used in — Farm wages Taxes, Index numbers of farm prices , all groups Industrial wagesx Living rvo Que tion L/ A ^ KJL »X \y tion 1910 103 — — 98 98 98 Q •? 1 03 1911 95 -- 100 103 101 y / J o 1912 101 — — 101 98 100 TAT lUl QQ 1913 102 - - 100 102 100 1 A/1 1U4 1914 99 — 102 99 101 101 1 AA 1915 102 101 107 103 106 1 AO 10 is T A9 1 nn 1916 125 114 125 121 123 ■ lie 1 AA ") 1 7 1917 172 129 148 152 150 1 ^ A 14U T AC X / D 1918 192 160 180 176 178 I lb Llo 9 no 1919 202 185 214 iy iS cUO iOU 192« 225 222 227 175 206 O '2 Q ioo 1921 142 203 165 i4- - — ^— f-- j* — ^ . J . -i '■ . . -H- f i 1 ■! i !"■" «' i •i- -; „; ,.J 'r -i— " t . . , f i • • i 1 i I t rr.-^ -■ ■■ ' 1 ' i 1 : 1 \ 1 i i v,..^. -. -- Jil •■. I Livestock (Con't) Other cattle: lo. 1 Value 1 j Hogs: Sov/s and Boars Feeders Pigs Sheep: Ev/es and rams Lambs Poultry: Chickens Turkeys Other Livestock: Land Improvements: No. Acres Cost per Acre When Done Levelling, ditching, chocking, etc. i — J — J — J -/3 0- Trees (kind) Cost per Acre Vfcen Plant ed '■■ Vines Alxaiia 1 I 1931 1930 1929 Aint . Rate per Unit Total Cost Amt . Rate per Unit Total Cost Ant . RatQ per Unit Total Cost (except M. I.D. ) Automobile & Truck Tn "^inf nno Ci * .» • 1 ! — Compensation Auto & Truck U W 1^ X wlX waXCi O V> a Hay Concentrates Rfinairs • Machinerv Buildings "Penc e s SuDDlies • Pert ilizer Seed Spray Material 1 Dust & Sulphur Rodent Poison Electric power Boxo s - ship ping Sacks Twine Wire 1 1 1 1 1 I I '131- \ ^ . \ . . . \ - ■ ■■ 1 .: r i t i i \ > '• i ( * ■ - -■ r V 1 i M t V . ,\ „ J- .-; ■ ■ ) . . . f . h Expenditures (Con' t) buppilOE ^uon' u; ija.soj.ine 1931 i 1930 i ■ — — 1 1929 i Arat . Rate j per Unit Total 3ost Amt . Ratel per Unit Total Cost Amt . ; 1 Rate per Unit rotai : ■^ost ! ! \ 1 i LiU D . U 1 1 Smudge oil jjauor nireu; Day labor: Special labor: Board of Laborers: ^ lilUIi Liio ) 1 1 f Gov/ Testing Livestock bought Rental on pasture oil Dne I arm. Baling expense Hauling to market ! ii 1, , _. 1 1 1 1 -135- • •- * — 1^ — — - . ! ,. I 1 1 ■ r i i 1 'i , If :t -r f- ' li (■ — , 1 — — "-V"- 7 - • ■■ . ,« . — - --in.! .. i I r, .„...] i it , — ; 1 j ■ i Income : Peaches : Frosh. 1931 1 1930 I 1929 An ! Tntn 1 J. U c^-L Sales Tin 1 1- Val. Val Sales Tin i t Val . Tot Val To tal Sales Unit Val. Tot Val 1 Canning DrTins; Grapes: Table Raisin Juice FiEs : Fresh Canning i Drying Apricots : Frosh Canning Drying Almonds : Nuts Meats Walnuts Olives Prunes Alfalfa 1 Other Hay Cotton 1 1 1 i . . ... • . . . . . } 1 ; • - .. — 4 •• •• . — 1 It ■ • h i • ■■ J V ! •• ■ i i : % ■ ! ili' - •4 ., "T ii J.- . .... • t f - -*i 4 -1 I 1 i,..J 'i 1 • K f 'l j I r i t i' i I .-i i 'i .'i. ..... J i ' i ; i i .4* ^.^^ A ) . J., . J; t • r ......... I Income (Con't) 1931 1930 ; 1929 Ac Total Sales Unit Val. Tot Val AC . TotalJ Sales Unlti Val. Tot' Val Tornl Sales Unit Val. ibt Val Corn I Rice f 1 Oats 1 i 1 Barley 1 i Vi/heat 1 Tomatoes Sw. Potatoes Beans Watermelons Cantaloupes Onions Peppers Livestock & Liv stock products Cows sold Other cattle sold , f J i Hogs 1 i ■ 1 Poultry 1 P i 1 Sheep i Creameries Sold to i * — i Market milk I Mfg. milk 1 i 1 t i 1 i i — Cream t t p i 1 j 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 Eggs 1 ! 1 4 i l| ^ 1 1 1 — 1 — Wool i — 1 \ 1 I i 1 1 1 1 t i i . i ! 1 i i ■135- " 1 •• • % \ 1 ... * ... .. J . ' . .. . ' ' ,'■ i* - \ i f " r i_ .. ., . J... - ■ " "-i- ■ i :i — - -..i..... i t ! . i, .' ...... i t J , i i • * . V r \ \ , j r i i i 1 - 1 . •. . i ... . j , r i lV^.T:'X.:i:'i:^J.rir^-rs-.-!;fje4»*i£.-. I • ! . ■f I ! 19:- 1 1930 1929 j Income from worii 01 1 uiio farm: Operator's family A.C Total Sales Qnit Val. Tot Val Ac Total Sales Unit Val. Tot Val AC . Total Sales Unit Val. Tot Val I Operator' s L- Hired lab- orers Sales , pasturag Misc . Income e i 1 1 1 — i 1 f i -J-:. i i i I Merced Economic Survey Last page_ Other obligations owed by farmer Owed to Amount Date Given Date Due Int. Hate For VThat Contracted Extent pay- ment in Arrears Mortgage debt_ First mortgege Second mortgage_ Third mortgage Chattel mortqa-'e Bank Store Other Amounts borrovjed for current production Prom v/hom, on what security 1929 1930 19S1 District Assessment Assessed Value .. , Land $ Taxes delinquent: ^^Hien delinquent County . District County Assessment Real 3state ) Personal ^_ Amouirt - . .... — . > . — .,A> • ■ 1 I 11 ■ « il 1 njjllll tl. »• T T 'T ' ' ' - - -■- ■ — — ■ 1 :--'.-r_v'3?i 1 1 ■ • Name Description AcreacB A c C! o Q QTnfs -n't" WnynVioY* O G D OilJLO li U i^J LUIIL'O ± 1931 r 1930 ^ 1929 Assessed Value 1931 Tax Levied Delinquency Tax Levied De linquency Tax Levied De linquency R. 3. Imp. Special Fers, Prop. i 1 \ I.I. I. D. TAX i 1 I — •■ — - - • — • — Vi . ■ , r .-.^r,. t 1- >■-•■■ ■i- ~- I- ; ^ \ b 1 ;. : ■ - ir-- ; i r. t i 'T" i: APPENDIX B Basis of Classification Used in Grading Farm Lands Included in the Economic Study of the Merced Irrigation District (As developed by J . S. Cone and R. L. Underhill) Class One — 85 per cent and above . I. Soils showing highest production and largest crop range. A. Land lying along and adjacent to Mariposa and Bear Creeks, and to a much lesser extent along Duck Slough, Owens Creek, Black Rascal Creek, and Merced River. B. The best grades of sandy type soil in the Livingston-Arena- Y/inton districts. C. Loam soils in Tuttle and McSwain districts. II. Chief characteristics of class one: A. Good depth of rooting zone. In general from four to eight feet, but sometimes with occasional small areas of hardpan or heavy clay closer than four feet. B. Freedom from alkali strong enough to be injurious to crops. C. Good drainage with proper care by Ovvners and by Merced Irri- gation District. D. Wide range of crops usually grown in Merced County. E. Soils that will take irrigation wrater readily. F. Good topography. Class Two -- 60 to 80 per cent inclusive — Soils showing fair production and crop range, and generally free from injurious alkali. I. Heavy loam soils, mostly east of an imaginary line, running north and south about three miles west of Merced. A. Depth to hardpan or heavy clay averaging more than three feet but ivith some small areas less than three feet. B. Soils which require extra care in irrigating and very careful leveling on account of imperviousness to water. C. Soils which have been injured to some extent from high -«vater table . D. Generally good topography. -131- E. Crop range more restricted than on soils adjacent to the Creeks. II. Sandy or sandy loam soils in the At^vater-Livingston-Amsterdam areas and in that portion of the Merced Irrigation District north of the Merced River. A. Irrigable, but land so undulating that best results from irri- gation cannot be had. B. Productive sandy land, but with considerable wind hazard. C. Top soil apparently good, but which cements badly from irrigation. D. Heavier grades of sandy loam soil, with hardpan found frequently at from two feet to four feet . E. Lands of wide crop range, but reduced crop yields, because of — 1. Over-cropping in past to a point of considerable soil depletion. 2. Presence of nematodes to such an extent that certain field crops and several of the deciduous fruit trees are seriously affected. 3. High water table. Class Three — under 60 per cent. I. Marginal crop areas, found on practically all boundary areas of the District and in the troughs between streams. Speaking generally, class three is not adapted to irrigated farming on tracts of 80 acres or less. This type is characterized by — A. Heavy, tight and/or shallow soils. B. Light blow sand. C. Alkali to an injurious extent. D. Rough topography. E. Poor drainage. II. Principal soil types in class three. A. Heavj'- clay and adobe soils on eastern boundary, particularly east of Planada. B. Heavy or tight, shallow, undulating areas in the general vicinity of Lake Yosemite. C. Rough land north of Merced River. D. Light blow sand in the southwestern portion of the District. E. Heavy alkaline area in the south part of the District. F Rice land area south of Merced, including land of similar nature, not zoned for rice on account of proximity to improved properties. G. Reddish, hardpan soils east of Cuba. H Heavy, tight soils in the troughs between streams running in 7generally east to west direction through the District. This type of soil frequently carries injurious alkali. III. Adaptability: A. Poor irrigated farming for crops other than rice and grain or forage for pasture. B. Fair to good rice and grain land. C. Pasture from fair to excellent. Dry farming grain land on areas too undulating for practical D irrigation. E. Large acreage dairy farms, where perhaps 25 per cent of the land will raise alfalfa, the balance to be used for natural pasture with Bermuda or Salt Grass. -If I- Table Land Qualities of the Farms froia which Records were Secured (as indicated by the indexes of quality developed by J. S. Cone and R. L. Underhill) Group I (85 and over) Index of land quality 150 150 150 140 125 125 125 125 125 125 120 120 120 120 120 115 115 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Schedule number 2 128 234 135 320 13 110 158 64 11 72 21 131 258 147 221 132 187 285 267 82 124 3 125 188 30 149 204 286 34 136 108 279 25 302 226 193 129 238 236 95 297 218 244 215 152 157 240 Index of land quality 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 chedule number 260 12 264 8 153 169 315 112 219 242 208 154 113 245 93 89 86 189 109 243 227 66 241 255 134 205 10 259 130 150 217 127 171 140 249 186 14 195 26 118 117 33 5 105 79 84 296 294 Index of land quality Schedule number 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 85 85 85 85 85 35 85 85 85 231 91 133 256 247 75 35 162 323 23 22 18 61 313 257 176 220 60 212 210 51 116 172 97 200 17 65 9 163 83 287 206 198 316 98 284 209 213 321 96 271 298 268 63 156 16 159 Group II (60 - 80) inaex oi bcneuuie 1 /H ^\ T inciex ui Index of Schedule land quali'ty nurobe r land Quali'tv number 80 318 75 225 65 73 80 310 75 248 65 194 fin 75 24 65 230 o w u ^ 75 233 65 29 C( O w 75 58 65 144 RO ov 82 75 26 65 76 OVJ 75 59 65 52 32 75 106 65 174 an 211 75 197 65 36 So 31 75 51 65 43 an 7 75 216 65 74 RO 214 75 15 65 170 80 201 75 69 65 51 80 49 75 56 65 80 80 J. C/ 70 280 65 4 RO 295 70 281 65 139 RO 266 70 275 65 224 RO ??9 O t7 70 322 60 177 ov 70 168 60 1 RO ov 9? 70 254 60 324 RD ou ?fi3 U V 70 46 60 319 190 70 237 60 311 80 53 70 203 60 312 80 85 70 141 60 277 80 81 70 265 60 239 RO 119 70 253 60 291 RO 70 185 60 126 80 28 70 54 60 41 80 20 70 202 60 27 RO 38 70 250 60 19 RO 62 70 274 60 151 RO 1 83 70 300 60 142 RO 37 70 107 60 228 RO 94- 70 182 60 232 115 70 44 60 146 207 70 57 60 45 75 121 70 301 60 165 75 148 70 223 60 160 75 179 70 252 60 78 75 71 70 251 60 39 75 145 70 48 60 60 137 262 Group III (under 60) 55 138 50 288 40 161 55 50 50 289 40 184 55 314 50 199 35 143 50 283 50 111 30 282 50 278 45 173 30 47 50 40 40 42 30 276 50 90 40 292 30 181 50 88 40 293 30 184 50 299 40 70 30 317 50 178 40 67 30 180 50 87 40 273 25 155 50 175 . 40 99 25 167 50 164 40 6 20 290 50 196 40 120 20 166 50 192 40 191 50 272 40 222 APPEiroiX c Bases Used in Computing Investment and Depreciation Investment The investment is regarded as being that of January first of each year, that sho.vn by the survey being that of January 1. 1932, exceot for adjustments to allow for purchases or sales of equipment or livestock made during 1932. Changes of this kind in 1932 are very minor. Investment in each of the pre- ceding years is computed by adding the depreciation charged and subtracting the value of purchases made in the year considered. Investment will include the following types of items: 1. Land: The value of raw land is to be left for determination on the basis of the negotiations and on the relationships arrived at in the survey by Mr. Cone and Mr. IJnderhill. 2. Land Improvements . Land improvements are grouped in two classes: (1) Improvements requiring more or less continuous maintenance and eventual replacement. In this class come (a) buildin-s, (b) fencing, (c) leveling, checking, etc. which must be repeated from time to time in the normal course of the farm's operation, (d) expenditures for establishing orchards, vineyards, alfalfa fields, and uipe lines. (2) Improvements which, once made, do not require repetition. In this class are such improvements as the original leveling of rough land. Bases fo r Valuation and Computation of Depreciation The straight line method of depreciation has been used throughout in the case both of plantings and of equipment. Depreciation really occurs according to some more complex form of curve. Ho'.vever, since both plantings and equipment of nearly all ages are to be found in the sample, a depreciation which would account for the total value over the life of the planting or piece of equipment has seomed reasonably in accord with the general facts of the situation and is 1/ much simpler.' Valuations at the time plantings come into bearing are regarded '"^'^In the case of trees of various kinds, more detailed estimates of the rates of decline are to be found in the mimeograDhed reports on the various efficiency studies by the farm management specialists of the University of California. as conservative in all cases. The period over which depreciation is taken is, however, to some extent affected by risk and obsolescence which have proved to be of some importance in the District owing to the fact that it is not yet fully settled dovm as to its -b/pe of production. The dr-oreciation bases and production figures used are based upon \vhat seemed to be tho best obtainable concensus of opinion by well informed people and checked by such official records as could be secured. (The production figures have not been used in this study since actual returns have been used. They are presented merely for such i; terest as they may have for readers of the report.) Among those counseled with concerning these rates were Mr. L. Fluharty and Mr. Arthur Shultis of the Agricultural Extension Service, BerV'.eley: Mr. J. S. Cone, H. B. Stoddard, Vm. H. Alison, Jr., and others at Merced: Mr. V/ard Mnturn and Milo Rowell of Fresno- and Mr. F. P. Nutting of San Francisco. In addition, the records available at the University, the records of the State Federal Crop Re- porting Office, and of some of the merchandising agencies were consulted. Rules Set Up for C omputation of Investment and Depreciation I. Farm Buildings: Use actual cost if available. If not, give approximate age and assume the building to have been built at costs prevailing in 1920--30. For buildings built before 1920, estimate cost to build in period 1920-30 as original cost will ordinarily not be known, (in most of the cases, landOivners were able to give estimates of the values of buildings.) Depreciation on buildings is computed at 4 per cent. If a build- ing is more than 25 years old it is assumed to have become valueless and is not included in the investment, ''.ells and pipe lines: 2^ per cent for denreciation and obsolescence, --indraills and tank houses: 4 Der cent . Fences ; Original cost is computed on the follov/ing bases: For ordinary 4-,vire fence 85 cents per rod new. This includes one gate for each 100 rods, braces, staples, etc. (Materials for construction of such fencing at this date, 9-30-32, cost lO^y cents per rod where 4x5 redwood posts are used. Labor of building is figured to require the additional cents. Some of the fences have only three wires, and a few use lifrhter posts, but the specifications indicated above are the usual ones.) Hog-tight fence consisting usually of woven .vire with two barbed ■vires above is figured at .U.25 per rod, new value. About 10 per cent of all the fencing in the District is estimated to be hog-tight fence. Farm Machinery : (including gasoline engines tmd harness) allow 10 per cent on new valuo . Tractors, automobiles, and trucks, 12g per cent. Electric motors, 5 per cent. Minor Equipment : Sweat boxes, 10 per cent. Trays, etc., 20 per cent. (.Milk pails and cans, small tools, etc. included in annual charge for miscellaneous exoenses.) Orchards : » (a) Peaches; The average peach orchard will carry itself, under usual conditions, in the fifth year. The useful life of the tree is about 15 years. Production gradually increases from the fifth to the ninth the year, is at its peak from the ninth to/fifteenth year, and gradually decreases thereafter. After the t.ventieth year the average orchard no longer pays. A good yield for the 15 years (for Cling peaches) is 6 tons per acre or 90 tons total, and the average grower will make about 5 tons average or 75 tons for the life of the orchard. A survey by the Peach and Fig Growers Association made in 1920 showed average production for the San Joaquin Valley as follor/s: Freestone peaches, 5^ tons; Clingstone oeaches, ih tons. This, how- ever, does not take into account the frost damage of certain years. These figures assume very little fertilizer used which is the usual case in the Merced area. To compute depreciation: Regard inputs to orchards under five years old as capital investment; that is.sho-/ both as expense and in- creased value of the land. For orchards of five years or over, figure cost at five years to be '422d per acre. Charge off one- fifteenth of this each yea.r for the next fifteen years. For purpose of computing value of the trees as a land improvement use cost indi- cated above minus depreciation to date. (b) Apricots: Estimated time required to bring into bearing 5 to 7 years. Productive life 20 years.- For 16 crons out of 20 years, 14 tons of dried fruit would be considered very good. If fresh fruit, for 16 crops, 70 tons. To compute depreciation: Use a cost at 6 years of *250 per acre. Depreciate at rate of one-tv/entieth each year. (c) Grapes r To come inbo bearing takes three years. Can expect a good crop in fourth year. Thompson viney.'d will last 25 years there- after. Average production about one and one-fourth tons dried or five tons green. 1930 regarded as about normal. Malagas and juice grapes will average 4 tons. Yields will run a little higher when prices are higher. To compute depreciation use the follo-.ving formula: Figure value in fourth year at .!?210 per acre. Depreciate at rate of one tv/enty-fifth for each year. Almonds ; Should pay their way in the sixth year and be in full bear- ing in the tenth year. Should have 30 years of productive life. About one crop out of four is lost where orchards are not heated. An average yield over the 23 years v/ould be 700 pounds; on good land 1,000 pounds- on poor land or with poor care 400 pounds; state average yield 300 pounds. Frost hazard is comparatively large. To figure depreciation: Consider orchard in bearing at 6 years and its value at ^250 per acre. Depreciate thereafter at one- thirtieth of this per annum. Figs -- Kadotas: Orchards should carry themselves after the eighth year. About 15 years of be:.:.ring life (may be more). Average crops: Good lands, 3 tons per acre per year. Fair lands, 2 tons per acre per year. Poor lands, ih to 1 ton per acre per year. (May expect 3 or 4 half crop years in the life of the tree.) To figure depreciation figure a value of $420 per acre at eighth year. . Depreciate at rate of one-fifteenth of this each year thereafter, Adriatics: In bearing at tenth year. Productive life thirty years. Average yields in a mature orchard: Good lands, tons per acre per year. Fair lands, 1.;^ tons per acre per year. Poor lands, 1 ton per acre per year, ('■'fith hiffh production, quality is apt to decline; so heavy yielding orchards may not be the best.) Figure value at tenth year at ,525 per acre. Depreciate at rate of one-thirtieth of this per year thereafter. Black Missions : Use same basis of yields as for Adriatics, and depreciate over a period of fifty years. Calimyrnas: The probable future of the Calimryna industry is affected considerably by the disease problem, and the assumptions made here are based on the presumption that the diseases affecting these figs will be brought under control. Estimate of average yields: Gtood land, l'^; tons per acre Fair land, i: to % tons per acre Poor land, f to ^' ton per acre Figure ten years to producing age. Value at that time ^525 per acre. Depreciate at one-t.ventieth of this per year thereafter. (f) -Jalnuts: Will carry themselves in tv/elfth year, but owing to the fact tho.t they permit of considerable intercropping, the net cost at 12 years is considered to be about the same as for peacnes. Figure cost at s?225 per acre. Depreciate at one-fiftieth per year thereafter. (g) Prunes: Cost a little higher than for peaches. Figure costs at ^250 in seventh year. Depreciate at one-thirtieth for each year thereafter. If trees or vines are pulled before full depreciation has been taken deduct remaining balance from investment and shOA7 as a cost under expenses. (h) Alfalfa: In a cycle of eight years can figure on four full crops and one or two part crops., the other two years being those in which other crops are grovm. Assume that the in-between crn-^s carry themselves. Figure cost per acre for establishing; alfalfa ijJig.SO. Charge off one-sixth of this for each year of alfalfa production. Cost of original rough leveling, '422 per acre. Values to be Used: For family labor: 1929 — 35)^ per hour) 1930 — 55^ " " ) without board 1931 — 25izf " " ) 1932 — 20j2^ '' (Some of the poorer quality labor was hired at 15'/ in 1932) ■■■here cost of board is to be deducted use $1.00 per day except in 1932, when charge is -"^b per day. For livestock: Cows: Purebreds l^iSO-OO each Good dairy cows (unregistered, T. 3. -free) 75.00 " Fair dairy cows 50.00 " Poor dairy cows 25.00 " Two year old heifers 30.00 " Six months to 2 year old heifers 15.00 " Calves 5.00 " Bulls -- good 75.00 " Bulls — fair 50.00 " Horses — record-taker's estimate .... Sheep estimated market value S'lfine — estimted market value Chickens 4.00 per dozen APPENDIX D Price Changes California Farm Products, 1910-1932 Table 1 gives the state average prices of the principal products grown in the Merced Irrigation District (with the exception of figs) over the period 1910 to 1932. For figs neither the production data nor the price data are very de- pendable for very many years back. Table 2 gives an estimate of prices for the various varieties of figs since 1926 (as estimated by Mr. D. Ewing, Manager of the Planada Fruit Farms Inc. and filr. Wm. H. Alison, Jr., County Agricultural Agent for Merced County) . In the case of fresh peaches for 1932 the figure of $16 oer ton sho/m as state average is not representative of the prices received in the District where most of the movement was to the eastern markets and encountered disastrous price conditions. Two of the larger shipping agencies handling fresh peaches from the Merced District in 1932 received returns (on shipments totaling more than 200 cars) insufficient to cover freight and selling charges, leaving nothing for the expense of growing the crop. The third shipping agency netted v3.11 per ton on shipments totaling 158 cars . In this case, as in certain others, the state price does not represent accurately the prices received by growers in the District, Price data from the District alone, however, are hardly sufficient to give dependable averages since the range of prices for given products is very wide. Simple averages of the prices shorn by the survey records taken are given in Table 3, however, in order that the readers of the report may be able to compare these with the state figures shov/n. ^Teighted averages of the prices for the principal products of the District, excluding figs, arc as follows (state prices weighted on basis of 1930 relative -151- quantities produced). (1910-14 average = 100) 1929 - 152.9 19 30 - 97.9 1931 - 79.4 1932 - 55.2 -151- Table 1 Farm Prices of California Farm Products, 1910-32* Year Barley Rice Cotton Alfalfa Almonds Raisins Apricots f H T* T d 1 Peaches Peaches Elterta TlilV Milk fat X dol lar s dol lar s dol lar s dollars cents dollars dollars dollars doll ar s dollars cents per 100 per 100 per bale per ton per lb. rev ton per ton per ton per ton per 100 per lb. lbs. lbs. f .o.b. lbs. 1910 1.15 1 .44 66.50 9 . i!( ii . 0 1 AA ^n ? SI 35 3 J. J. i. 1.53 1.67 37.50 9.70 13.4 81 250 44 60 2.61 30,4 1912 1,46 2.02 62.50 11.20 10.7 62 160 24 36 2.75 36.1 1913 1.40 2.22 65.00 11.20 14.3 70 230 30 -- 2.38 36.7 1914 1.14 2.22 35.00 e.60 14.0 73 200 25 33 2.18 31.0 1915 1.19 2.00 56.00 8.60 10.5 77 140 12 iL 1 2.15 c 9 . y Id Lb 1 . 1 V 1 no nri 11 fin 13 8 95 250 29 54 2.22 33.4 1917 2.56 3.89 140.00 17.30 14.1 110 276 35 51 2.56 46.2 1918 2.61 4.22 150.00 17.80 19.3 117 290 50 81 2.95 57.2 1919 3.14 5.93 215.00 18.70 19.5 222 444 88 66 3.13 67.7 1920 2.45 2.69 150.00 20.20 14. 1 252 384 100 oO 0 . 5'-.' c^n p. D f • o 1921 1.27 2 .56 85.00 10.10 13.8 158 300 35 72 2.83 46.8 1922 1.36 2.44 130.00 12.60 14.9 64 380 60 26 2.85 46.6 1923 1.46 2.49 160.00 14.60 11 . 5 49 176 30 39 b , > . O 1924 2.26 3.69 120.00 19.00 14.4 60 264 45 55 2 . bo 'i r . o 1 y 0 78 110.00 14 . 60 19.5 72 540 35 61 2.66 53.8 1926 1.20 2.91 70.00 12.60 16.5 54 380 40 46 2.55 48.2 1927 1.87 2.51 105.00 13.40 15.6 46 280 22.50 64 2.67 50.4 1928 . 1.57 1.96 97.50 15.40 17.5 36 290 20 41 2.65 51.0 1929 1.42 2.33 90.00 17.50 22.3 64 310 68 50 2.68 50.8 1930 .98 1.84 53.50 12.20 10.5 50 204 20 40 2.48 39.2 1931 .96 1.24 32.50 10.10 8.1 60 140 14.50 38 2.06 28.3 1932** .60 .80 34.00 7.50 3.2 40 108 6. 50 16 1.65 21.7 * From computations by Dr. H. J. Stover, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Univ. of Califnrni *♦ Preliminary. Sources of data: (See sheet attached.) Sources of price data; (Table l) Barley: Veight(3d crop-year averages of the monthly prices estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture converted from bushel to hundred- weight basis. Rice: December 1st prices as estimated by the U. S. Department of Agri- culture converted from bushel to hundredweight basis. Cotton: December 1st prices as estimated by the U. S. Department of Agri- culture converted from pound to bale basis. Alfalfa: Weighted crop-year averages of the monthly prices estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1910-13 prices based on prices received by a grower at Modesto as oublished in California 3ul. 521. Almonds: '"/ellman. Prices since 1921 are weighted averages of the prices of six important varieties. Prices prior to 1921 are weighted averages of the prices of four varieties adjusted to an approximate compara- bility with the prices for the years since 1921. Raisins- Shear, Estimated prices paid growers for raisins in the sweat box. Apricots, 'Tellman, Compiled from prices paid by large commercial packers and dried; the California Prune and Apricot Growers' Association. Peaches, '''Vellraan, Compiled from prices oaid by canners prior to 1922 and from canning- prices paid by the California Canning Peach Grov/ers' Association since 1922. Peaches , ^Ibertas ; Milk: Milk fat: 'Vellman, Auction prices at Chicago v/ith deductions made for freight, refrigeration, and commission charges. Packaging and loading charges amounting to from 420 to ^iZ5 per ton have not been deducted. Unweighted annual averages of the monthly prices estimated by the U. G. Department of Agriculture. Prices prior to September, 1923 converted from gallon to hundredweight basis. Unweighted annual averages of the monthly prices estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Prices prior to 1930 based on prices published by Voorhies in table 4o of California 3ul. 514. -/5"f - Table 2 Approximate Prices Received by Growers for Fie;s Testing Ninety Per Cent or Better, 1926-1932* Adriatic Ca limy ma 1 Black Kadota Associ- Out- side Associ- Out- side Associ- ation advance Dried Fre sh Out- side ation advance ation advance Out- side Associ- ation advance Canning No de- mand .06 1927 .02i .05 prior to .01 1928 .04| No crop .05^ 1928** .04 .06 1929 .07 .09 .06 .06| .05 1930 .05 .06-1- .03|- .02 .05 1931 .04 .03 .07 .04 .03 9 Orchard .01 run ? .02^ 1932 .02i •Olir .04| .02g .02 .01 .01^ .01 .01^ '' * From estimates by D. W. Ewing and "um. H. Alison, Jr. ** 1928 first year any sold in state. -15b'- ' *"'''"^'!~3T'»r'" /.-iX-^-'r-jL-i ™ . Table 3 Prices of Farm Products, Merced District (Averages of prices shown by the survey records taken) Year Pigs Kadota Eggs Adriatic Calimyrna Black Dried Fresh Canning 1926 1927 19 28 1929 1930 1931 1932 28 31 23 19 15 .02^ .04^ .07 .05 .04 .02- .05 .09^ .06t .07 ,04-^ • 05>7 .06 .034- .03 .02 .04 .06i .02 .01 .Olr .01 .06 .05 .05 .02-p- .013: .06 Year Rice Peaches Grapes Fresh Canning Drying Table Raisin Juice 1926 1927 192 8 19 29 1930 1931 1932 per cwt . 2.84 2.65 2.13 2.29 1.85 1.35 0.85 30.45 22.55 12.32 57.30 14.15 11.50 177.97 108.28 91.70 25.57 19.99 17.35 28.31 19.95 17.31 Year Figs dried Apricots s Alfalfa Cotton Barley Fresh Dri ed Almond 1929 1930 1931 83.75 63.45 39.50 66.00 43.89 20.00 319.00 160.06 122,68 .215 .107 .070 13,77 12.49 9.04 80.94 43.27 36.00 1.18 0.98 0.95 California Prices of Almonds and Alfalfa, 1910-52 r 1 .: . - ^ . f,... . . f ! f - . 1 _^ . ^ / i -.■ - 1 „;_L. ^ . .. ^ ¥ / . ■.. . ...J 4 ... .77* ■ .... ...-r^..„^^ . - - - * V / : T - 1 — >• ; X?/ 1 ii I li L.,^ ;.. -- --- - '-.^^ t - 4 '« i ■• 4i- •■ - T~ 'i ' n \r 1! _. P ■ i ^— — ■» ^. ; if rj . A i . ;. ... ,- 1 i ■• .*.vh>-. ft. California Prices of Milk and WilV fat, 1910- ....„..._ ■— -i - .- - - ■! • : ■ - -( ( ■ • 1 i - l - -i - -|- J , J t ... , . , 1 ■ ■ i j. ,„ , , . • . ; . i - 4- — % !„ i. :•■ i-- i. .. . „ ■ . L r~ t ■ ...I : ..- .,4n:r::ir.J'! .u' "'" " — - - — z:q:--^:.\ip:r:|:_.-^_:i:- ' - - ; ...J.. ; * - ♦ 1 CA 2b4 . bU Cxi . Oo 9 10 13.86 22.40 78.03 1 fZI ^ AO oiv^ .4y f It: . Oo 7 31 13.28 18.75 73 . 80 1 0>i Q AC 24y .Ob ■771 79 rol . OC 3 12 .95 17.61 40 . 00 OO Q AO 2ioo . uy 0'7Q QQ 7 f 17 12.45 18 .16 72 . 5<3 OOC OT 2il , f-fO 1927 1947 o TtnTTPn VPTTIPTH "h R X 111 M-L V C-tll.^ ii 1^ O ■ None 11 A Q 48 Land D,4UU 1918 1958 None 12 98 i3ank ^ /OA o , 4^U (1925 5|' '^O 1 J (1927 \ ) 16 20 1 , 500 1919 1953 Purchase land None 39 293 10,000 ■un purcnase price U"C . i JOU 43 66 1 , o(JU 1927 1960 5 un purcnase Dj. icy 46 59 4 , bUU 1929 1949 C 0 1 0 pay DK . c 1 . iTiie I • -4^ t. uu 47 50 4,200 30 yr. 5&6 1 yr. 60 29 2,300 1924 1944 5 Improvements Kone I'Z to 0 Q CO 1 , ouu j'ore close.' 0 { 4-) li , uuu Q 1 y i lu , uuu un 1 ciricri vricii uui • ^6 CO 1 , oov 1921 1942 ivUilc Q A oU li , lUU 1919 1949 5i Liduu improvemenbs 2 pa y " iliC IJ. u 0 49 c , 4U0 1923 1943 OS Ranch purchase y6 o QQ n c , oa U 1927 1957 Ranch None lib 7d o . bUU 1927 Long time loan bg Used on other pro perty 117 'Z D OO 1 , UUU crl bs TOO c o Dii D , UUU 1928 ba Imorovements iby 0 /I nn ■C , 4rUU 1928 1964 D Purchase price I\lone 177 145 2,868 1927 5? Improv. and coivs None 194 39 2,350 6 Bal. purchase pr. 1 q AO 1918 1951 dh 5| .DC*. X • jui oridof^ yi • 205 88 4,600 Improvements None 212 52 3,200 1925 1958 Purchase land None 217 46 5 , 000 (1922 (1942 Pay old mortgage None ) ( ( 1956 5^ 64 ) 218 47 3, 800 1926 1947 Pay old mortgage None 239 32 2 , 400 1927 1947 5-Vor6 Purchase land ,)100 243 20 1, 800 1932 1951 ! Purchase land None 272 126 7,000 1924 1958 Op Com Dine mortB;age on ranch Julv . 1932 pavmert JNO • 01 1 Ota 1 farms a ore s 30 1959 ; 107, 826 4 133 Joint 7,000 1926 1946 6 Operating expense None 25 148 Sto ck 12,500 1923 1943 6 Timrovfiments None 29 78 7 onn 1920 1940 c u r Ul CricLoC X CtliL/Il 74 4-4 1924 1944 « Q OO 9 i,'one 2 74 368 1,200 1923 6 ^av former loan None 134 45 5,2 37 1921 1952 Pay off contract ,?4567 136 66 9 , 006 Bal. purchase pr . Fo. of Total farms acres 16 1532 $139,120 1 1 * Mortgage on 960 acres including the 220 listed. Sched- ule number Acres Mortgag;ee Amo un b first mortgage Date ?,iven Date due Inter - est rate ( per cent r For what contracted Sxtent payment s in arrears 10 48 Individu- ;;7,000 1925 6 3al. purchase price 15 20 als and 1,000 1931 1932 6 Improvements 17 29 corpor- 2,900 1930 1931 7 Purchase land 57 30 ations 2,500 1930 1933 7 Bu.l. purchase price 59 40 other 2,000 1931 1932 6 Pay taxes and bills None 75 26 than bks . 3,960 1924 1944 Bal. purchase price 73 39 or in- 1, 700 1930 7 109 55 surance 2, 100 1931 1936 6 Bal. purchase price ,600 35 companies 1,644 1951 1936 6 Bal. purchase price 500 110 57 6,500 1929 1942 6 Purchase price int . 111 39 3,000 Ren . 1933 6 'Purchase land None 1932 112 38 10,000 1928 1931 7 Purchase land 1 year ' s interest 113 19 4,500 1921 7 Land & improv. 2 year's interest 116 127 4,500 1919 7 Purchase land None 119 24 2,000 1928 5 Purchase price 2 year's 122 73 4,000 1927 7 Bal. purchase price interest 126 39 6,000 1922 6 Purchase contract ■■jplSOO 129 130 5,000 1922 1934 7 Purchase land None 146 27 3,300 1914 1932 6 Purchase land 146 40 1,200 1929 6* Purchase land 147 23 4,000 1929 1939 6 Purchase land None 149 19 2,000 1925 1933 7 Improvements None 152 223 2,500 1921 1932 6 Purchase land None 165 54 2,400 7 BiJ.1. ourchase price 166 102 4,000 1922 Forec losed 168 53 2 , 300 1926 1931 6 Purchase land 1 vear 171 39 1,200 4 deed 189 37 1,500 1930 1932 7 To pay off trust/ None 190 20 1,500 Bal. purchase price 200 30 1,000 1930 7 Govs, bills, tsixes 208 10 2,000 1922 Fo r e c lo sSd Purchase land 208 10 1,500 1922 6 Purchase land 209 19 2,000 1922 1933 6 Land & improv. None 210 31 5,000 1928 1933 8 Improvements Int. xvaived 221 26 2,600 1922 1927 7 All 223 281 I 98,000 1926 6 k Purchase 225 40 ' 2,435 1929 1934 7 Land purchase Int .for 225 40 3,000 1929 1933 7 Purchase land 1931-32 229 39 2,000 1930 1933 7 Reduce mortgage rone 235 38 (4,500 Taxes and (2,500 interest 238 38 4,450 1920 ' /hen 6 Purchase land 2 yrs . paid 249 29 3,300 1930 6 Bal. purchase pr . 253 AO 1,400 1931 ■19.54 6 Assumed on purch. None of land 259 36 3, 250 1921 6k Purchase ranch None 261 20 3,680 1923 past 7 Purchase ranch 7 yrs . due 228 39 6,000 1927 1947 5 Purchase land v575 6 136 2,200 1930 1934 7 Ranch None 12 98 11,750 1912 6 Land contract 47 40 1,000 1930 6 Bal. purchase 50 95 175 1929 1939 7 Bal. purchase or. None 70 38 750 1930 6 Bal. purchase pr. 250 143 23'^ 277 1931 1944 7 Purchase land 116 202 46 900 1930 1940 6 Bal. purchase or. 251 26 832 1929 1939 6 Bal. purchase pr. 252 36 576 1929 1939 6 Bal. purchase pr. INo. of farms 51 Total acres 28093- J263,279 I Inter -* 1 Sched- Amount uay me n u s ule Acres Morte;ae;ee O O first Date Date rate For v/hett X Ll number morte'as'e (riven ciue O V* V Q O V O di X cd.r s cent ) 17 58 Life a4,500 1932 1937 7 Purcha.se land 82 39 Insurance 5,000 1928 1938 6-1 3 int -Dav 215 47 Pn in T\\T 5, 700 1926 1933 7 I 'l'-- 0 ne 268 1101 (Four Purchase None 275 242 companies 26,000 1924 1930 7 Purchase & iiiprov. yrs repre- sented in this sample ) No. of To tal farms acres 5 1437 ^41,200 3 34 i'tortgage ^^6,000 1923 1937 7 Improvements 82 20 bank 1,500 1923 1934 ?* Pay old mortc;age None 152 40 4,100 1925 1934 Purchase farm None 244 40 3,500 1922 1934 7 k Improvements 1932 int. 245 125 15,000 1920 1932 7 Pay other mortgage 3 years 246 39 3,500 1920 1936 7i Purchase land None Wo. of To ta 1 farms acres 6 29S •;.33 ,600 7 41 Coiiimer- $3, 179 1931 1932 7 19 30 cial 5,500 1920 7 Purchase land 20 49 Bank 4,000 1929 1933 7 Purchase land None 23 45 1,750 1932 1936 7 Purchase land None 45 107 13,000 1931 7 TiTi'orovfiTnftnt s W V J O J tA _A. ^ 48 85 4,000 1930 7 On purchase 49 20 500 1931 19 32 7 N one 62 29 2 ,470 1931 7 1^1 1 p Vi p op 63 53 4 ,000 1929 7 Pi 1 y nlnti c tf* 64 27 5,000 1936 7 72 21 2, 500 7 85 80 1,000 1927 Ove r *■ 7 One rat ions 90 45 4, 500 1922 due 7 R 1 n* o T yn v t t DXUJio • , j.fiioruv • f ore c losec . 97 60 110 61 5,050 1927 1932 7 Pur oh, 61 acres ^•500 144 49 2,300 192 8 1932 7 Cows and M - 1 • j . ]^ ^ 0 n e Ren. 151 39 6,500 1932 1935 7 154 39 6,244 1928 1929 7 JT CI y u X ' J. X u ta.1 i 164 40 4,100 7 179 78 Foreclosed Jul Y, 1932 185 20 1,135 1922 7 x\t;x xi-iEAiiufc? I cincri r;one 193 20 3,150 1928 7 DccX . purcnase pr . 1 iTlO ' s . 204 34 6,000 1929 1934 7 ^rcnase lanci None 220 20 3,000 1927 1932 7 None 226 57 5,700 1928 Annu- 7 . UI oriel Xo.IiU. 231 42 ally 237 20 1929 1934 7 . uz orici£)fcj xdiiu. 1 year 241 35 5,000 1930 1934 7 iiuurovemenu s r; one 266 40 2,000 1929 7 3uild house 271 39 4,000 1930 7 Refinance balance due on ranch 118 23 2,680 Purchase price None 2 80 3,000 1927 "■■'iTien 7 Land and improv. I'one 24 51 4,800 19. iO oaid 7 ^rchase 1> one 33 56 4,600 1926 1936 8 Purchase 1 year 116 127 14,100 1926 120 48 300 1926 1936 6 Refinance ranch I • ;. , i I ^■^•ofl-'K^r 1 1 Inter- ■ -— — Extent Scbed • itrnoant i est payments ule ,cres .■■orte,ap;ee first Da te Date i rate l-'or ivhat in number mortgage Kiven due ; (per contracted arrears j cent) 198 75 ''.10 000 T 1 i Cattle business 256 88 2 , 500 1927 1932 7 Pay old loan i one j 32 40 7,600 1919 7 Contract of sales 107 21 750 1926 7 Sal. ourchase or. 107 40 1,000 1930 7 3al. ourcnase pr. 6 136 4,000 1931 1935 ; 7 Ran ch ^.2000 I No . of Total farms acres 41 2110 ^166,308 Chattel Mortgages and Ot nor Bank Loans Amount of Inter- ■tixtent Sch8d • ■•'iortgagee mortgage est payments ule Acres or or loan Date Date rate For vhat in numbe r lender given due (per contracted rretirs cent ) 9 •J \J ^2,000 1932 1932 3 Operations 107 196 6,500 Build house, level, taxes 110 118 190 1932 1932 7 Crop mortgage None 112 38 450 1930 1931 7 Operations 1 yr. 6 mo . int 1 ?4 X ui rr ?n 300 1931 1931 8 Pay taxes Overdue Oct . 1931 ^ ± 500 1932 V-'tA X X 7 Taxes 133 60 500 1932 1932 8 Harvest 238 38 350 1932 1932 8 Operations None 164 40 400 Interest & taxes overdue 116 127 13,000 1930 7 Purchase stocks °rin./ 90P. C\J\J 87 1929 Call 8 Purchase co,vs None 29 78 700 1930 7 Purchase cows 46 59 1,825 8 Purchase cattle 3 T.0S int . 47 176 800 19.'^ 1 7 Pi 1 1' r» In c *i P f\ 74 44 1,000 1930 No feed so turned co'.vs over to bank 177 145 1,100 1931 1932 7 Taxes, buy sheep and feed 225 75 620 1932 8 Current expenses Interest 234 61 900 7 27? 563 1932 7 Pay note given to pay M. I. D.tax rt 6,500 1932 7 Operations Q J 400 1929 193? 7 Buy tractor 1 0 100 1932 8 Pay county tax RO 135 Pay water tax u*r 750 1932 XU O Cj 7 Operations 450 1932 1 Q ^ 9 xc? o c 7 Living expenses Qd. ou 200 1930 8 1 "1 1«J ± ^ 1 2,200 1932 Kjci X X 7 Taxes 135 45 700 1932 1932 7 Operations 143 23| 1,750 1930 1930 Deficiency judg- Total ment 153 40 2,000 1932 1932 7 i„ake up losses °ast due 165 54 100 209 19 150 1929 1932 7 Rebuild house yone 212 32 100 1932 1932 8 Harvest 240 205 5,000 1931 1934 7 0 Derations ft one 242 35 200 1932 1932 7 Harvest None No. of Total farms acres 34 2433^ fli52,520 I I Second Mortgages Sched- uie number Acres Mortgagee junouni/ second mortgage Tin (-fi d.U6 Inter- est rate (per cent ) For .vhat contracted Extent payments in arrears 6 136 3y indi- ^25,000 1931 1935 7 .lanch None 16 20 viduals 900 1923 1932 5 Buy town lot None 85 80 or by 4,000 1932 7 Operations None 110 61 corpor- 2,200 1927 1933 6 Purchase land ;-;270 128 62 ations 11,000 1931 1941 7 Purchase land Fone 226 57 other 6,000 1929 6 Refinance loan 208 10 than 1,300 1922 6 Purchase land Fore- banking closed 239 32 corpor- 650 1927 1929 7 Purchase land 2 yrs. ations No. of farms 8 Total acres 458 H31,050 Table 2 List of Those Farms Having No Mortp;age Schedule i Schedule Schedule number Acres numbe r Acres number Acres io 98 79 181 209 C C 121 863 184 1004 9 7 An 123 19 187 42 0 1 O O 125 20 192 20 127 27 197 38 OD 130 49 201 20 o o 23 138 42 203 40 40 139 170 211 29 83 140 26 216 36 A9 141 70 219 28 AA 4? 145 39 222 20 1 07 148 19 224 38 oo ?0 155 56 106 24 0^ 94 156 165 196 40 00 oy 1 R7 X O 1 86 232 84 20 158 46 236 38 58 26 159 39 247 21 65 34 160 OU 9 AA 37 66 49 161 20 250 60 71 21 167 48 254 104 79 19 170 60 255 42 80 39 172 20 257 40 PI D 1 173 103 258 37 83 30 175 29 263 58 84 19 176 77 No. of Total 86 cO 178 19 farms acres 76 5,265 ijl So Df Those Giving No Information 8 40 99 39 213 40 13 Oi- 105 181 227 39 14 9 Pi 136 65 230 20 ?R <^ o 43 142 61 233 93 30 41 162 22 260 59 37 68 163 30 262 03 67 157 174 60 264 130 68 46 180 20 273 158 76 40 183 78 271 39 11 33 191 37 No. of Total 88 38 199 20 89 38 farms acres 32 1,825 Table 3 First and Second Mortgage and Chattel and Bank Loans on Farms in Survey Saraple, 1932 THrnp of mortgage K umber of farms * Number of acres Amount of mortgage Average per farm mortgaged Average per acre mortgaged Average per farm reporting Average per acre reporting First mortgage 148 10,803^ $751,333 Second mortgage 8 458 31,050 First and second 148 10,30Sg 782,383 Hp5,286.37 ^p72.39 41.3,372.34 $47.23 mortgages Chattel mortgages 34 2,483.| 52,520 1,544.71 20.15 226.38 3.17 and bank loans No mortgage 76 5,265 0 *Schedule numbers 116, 208, 225, 146, and 207 which have two mortgages, each on a separate part of the same farm, have been counted in the number of farms column only once. *The 8 farms (458 acres) having second mortgages were counted in the first mortgage group; hence they were not added to number of farms or number of acres for first and second mortgages. I 1—. Rough Estimate of Mortf;,age Loans Outstanding on the 1,463 Farms from which Sample v/as Dra\m If we assume the average debt for the farms on which information as to debts was given to be applicable to the entire 1,463, the following figures give a rough approximation of the total amounts owed by these farms as first mortgages and as second and chattel mortgages. Estimated total of first and second mortgages for the 1,463 farms of 20 acres and over (excluding rice and pasture farms) $4,501,456.00 Estimated total of chattel mortgages and bank loans same farms $302,825.00 It should be recognized that this does not include all loans in the District since loans to owners of small prooerties, store bills, city loans, and certain other types of loans are not included. Recognition also needs to be given to the fact that information of this type is more likely to be incomplete than most of the other kinds of information covered in the survey. On the other hand the farms mortgaged are likely to be somewhat better than the average since lenders tend to be somewhat reluctant to lend on the poorest grades of land. Records relative to mortgage conditions on the grazing and rice lands were not secured; so the acreages used in computing the above totals exclude these. A summary of the debt situation as found is pre- sented in Table 3 . This does not include such for:ns of debt as store bills and various personal loans. Table 4 Changes in Identical Accounts. Atwater Branch, Bank of America, November 1, 1928 to November 1, 1932 (Totals) Checking accounts , 226 Number Number which increased during the period 61 Total of such increases • $12,543.48 Number which decreased during the period 165 Total of such decreases • *130,599.28 Fet decrease ^^194, 548.63 - 7q,492.B5 5^118,055.80 Savings accounts , 435 Numbe r Number which increased during the period 241 Total of such increases ii:59,730.65 Number which decreased during the period 194 Total of such decreases ^pS7,489.54 Net decrease :^243,704.15 - 215,945.26 sf27,758.89 Total of checking and savings accounts, November 1, 1928 . . ,^438,252 .78 „ .1 n M " " November 1, 1932 ... 292,438.09 Decrease il45,814.69 -no- APPEIIDIX L Case Histories of a Number of Farms ^.^'iTiich Illustrate the Problem '.There for Various Reasons the Land Has Wot Been Well Farmed These situations are shown to illustrate the nature of the problems arising in a substantial number of cases -vithin the District which give rise to inadequate opVation and very low returns and to very low costs if taxes are not included. These are not representative cases, but are characteristic of a number of farms which fall in the lo.vest portion of the arrays as to incomes, costs, and net re- turns. It cannot be expected that taxes can be so adjusted that farms thus oper- ated will carry themselves, but, without arrangements which will give some market- ability to the lands of the District and some borrowing power to lando-mers, it seems likely that an increasing number of the farms will fall into this semi- operated condition or will be taken over by the District. Case No. 1 (175) Bought place in 1918 for ^^6,000; all buildings on place. 12 acres had been in alfalfa, but nothing left. lived on place until 1923: was engaged in buying and selling cattle and used place as a feeding lot. 1923 to 1926 place .vas leased to sweet potato growers. 1927 sold place on contract to brother for $4,000, ,#1,000 do.m payment, and took it back in fall of 1930. During these years advanced ^^1,400 for taxes, etc. Place deserted from fall of 1930 to February, 1932. Place rented for $25 per month, but hasn't collected any to date. The alfalfa on the place was planted in 1929. Should be plowed out this fall. Owner has had place listed for |il,500 but would take ^<1,000. Case No. 2 (103) bought the place in June, 1932. No information available. Has been rented by for several years previous to many different tenants. Nothing left on place but 15 acres of 12 year old alfalfa. Buildings in a very poor state of -/9/- / I repair. About 1925 was offered 314,000 for ranch In 1950 he was offered $10,000 all cash for place. He sold it in 1932 subject to about ,?3,000 and one year's taxes of ?500. He received between $300 and >>400 for his equity. Case No. 3 (78) O.vner bought land 7 yearc. ago, 22 acres for ;;pl5,000. It was part of the old Crocker-Huffinan Irrip;ation System. His house burned several years ago. His wife left, and he is now living in a room on the farm by himself. He built a new house for 1^3,000 and rents that to town people. He has done very little with his plum orchard. It has brought practically no returns and he exoects to pull it out next year. His grain produces fairly ./ell, but he has not sold this season's or last season's crops. His hay is baled and stored in his barn. He has on hand about ?,7 tons of good hay. This record is incomplete. Farmer would give no information, but this much was obtained simply in conversation with him. He apparently has no outside income: all labor on the place is done by himself and crop yields are poor. His orchard is in very poor shape. Case No. 4 (76) No one is farming this place this year. The place is gro-m over with weeds. The stand of fig trees is fair, but the trees show neglect. There is a swamp area on this property which would probably embrace 2 acres; the balance of the land is apparently well drained. Case No. 5 (203) Bought ranch in 1920 for -^6,000, |1,500 cash and paid balance of ,4,500 in 1925 expecting to improve for a home- His brother owns adjoining property. Party .vas a building contractor ivorking in Los Angeles and expected to develop this property oat of contracting business. "nYhen the depression slowed up his con- tracting business it made it impossible to improve the ranch and he has never been able even to make the taxes out of this property. Party lives on property belonging to father's estate and is driving a bus. His wife is janitor at one of / ( the schools. He expects to get his father's ranch as his share of the estate and with the money they get from the school jobs they hope to be able to keep their taxes paid. Case No. 6 (141) purchased 70 acres from the Stevinson Corporation in December, 1931, atnd paid $700 all cash. He states that nothing -'/as raised on this land for at least three years prior to his purchase. The s^veet potatoes show a fair stand throughout with prospect of a fairly good crop. The canal broke twice in July and flooded 8 to 9 acres of beans and melons, causing severe damage to both. About 10 acres of the beans will mature for harvest. About 6 acres of land, in two pieces, lie above the canal and cannot be irrigated. •5"- » APPENDIX M Principal Causes of Failure to -Ueet Payments* on Irrigation District Obligations (As summarized by Mr. I'Tells a. Hutchins on the basis of studies made of 37 defaulting irrigation districts)** "The principal reacons why the irrigation projects included in this study failed to meet their obligations were as follows: "(I) Inadequacy of vmter supply for the area included in the project. "(2) Inadequacy of the irrigation system for service of all lands charged with its cost, due mainly to difficulties in financing its completion. "(3) Irrigation charges, found to be unbearable when added to annual costs of land and improvements and living costs, due to overcapitalization, in- flation of costs by 'coot-plus' contracts, unduly brief amortization periods, or 'pyramiding' of district assessments in blanket-liability States. "(4) Heavy exploitation e.nd speculation in providing water and lands for settlers, including dishonest construction. "(5) Inclusion in the project of large proportions of marginal and sub- marginal lands and areas unsuited topographically. "(6) Engineering difficulties, disaster to irrigation -vorks, and unduly heavy maintenance and operation charges. "(7) Lack of properly devised and financed colonization plan; insuf- ficient settlement and development of land; and subsequent abandonment of land by settlers . "(8) Unfavorable farming and marketing conditions. "(9) Water shortages in the first feiv years of the project's life, re- sulting in initial crop failures and consequently failure to meet obligations. "(10) Drainage troubles. * As previously indicated, the causes of difficulty considered to be prominent in the case of the Merced District are those numbered 3, 5, 8, and 10. See Wells A. Hutchins, "Financial Settlements of Defaulting Irrigation Enterprises," United States Department of Agriculture Circular No. 72, Washington, 1929, op. 4 and 5. "(11) Internal troubles, graft, bad government, and broken morale of lando mers . "The specific reasons fall into four principal classes: (l) Engineering mistakes, which in future development should decrease with ^^^^^^^f-^^S technical knowledge and experience, (2) exploitation which the various district and blue- sky" laws are attempting to guard against; (3) colonization ^^^^^^^ '^^jij^ changes in the financial and economic situation, which can not always be foreseen and therefore require a large margin of safety. "Inadequacy of the water supply has been one of the leading causes of default, ^vhile two o'f the projects were wrecked by total failure of their pro- posed'sources of supnly. Insufficient colonization and lack of means of actual settlers to develop their holdings properly, resulting from failure of coloni- zation plans or from lack of properly financed and executed plans, and inability of the lards to carry the charges imposed upon them, constitute the other major causes. Unfavorable farming and marketing conditions accompanying the general agricultural degression following the .orld -rar have been a source of much trouble to going projects, and in other cases have been of local influence because of altitude, distance from markets, and unfortunate crop specializations. "These conditions depend more or less upon each other. For example, overcapitalization has resulted in some cases from excessive promotion profits; in others from overootimism on the part of landowners and mistaken judgment oi investment bankers as to the value of lands when construction is completed; m snil others from inclusion of too much unproductive or badly situated land; and a^ain from bad management in carrying out development plans. In one project a vicious circle was created by failure to complete the distribution^ system with available capital because of unexpectedly heavy reservoir costs, with the result that lack of water caused large areas to go delinquent, which m turn threw the proiect into default and ruined the market for further bonds offered to finance completion of the distribution system. In certain cases abandonment of settled lands has resulted from discouragement over the uphill task of making the lands pay constantly increasing irrigation charges, the net result being inability ol these projects to carry more than a small part of their annual obligations. "Discouragement of landovmers, intensified by pyramiding of district assessments where the lien is blanket in character almost inevitably results from troubles severe enough to cause the project to default. Sven where such troubles do not drive farmers away they often prevent them from bringing much additional land under cultivation or otherwise adding materially to improvements which they feel may soon be lost through tax sales, and it not infrequently leads the wealthier landowners to refuse to pay charges they are well able to pay. in many States lack of statutory authority to eject delinquents from the _ land until long after their first failure to pay taxes, and uncertainty in some instances as to the right to refuse delivery of water for nonpayment of assessments, olten oermit delinquents to harvest several successive crops without paying a cent on the project indebtedness. A defaulting project can offer little inducement to orosoective settlers." - / 'I 5 • 1^