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 V<ages and Prices paid by Farmers for
Co-'.'-odities Bought, United States 56
Table VII — Deciduous Fruit (excluding figs) -- Gross
Inco.Tes 64
Table VIII -- Deciduous Fruit (excluding figs) -- Cash
Costs Other Than Labor and Taxes 65
Table IX -- Deciduous Fruit (excluding figs) -- Labor
Costs ?6
Table X -- Deciduous Fruit (e -'eluding fifcs) — Costs
AfB+C+D ^'^
Table XI -- Deciduous Fruit (eccluding figs) -- Net Re-
turn over Costs A+B 68
Table XII -- Deciduous Fruit (excluding figs) -- Net Re-
turn over Costs A+B+C+D 69
Table XIII — Figs — Gross Incomes 70
Table XIV — Figs -- Cash Costs Other Than Labor and
Taxes 71
Table XV — Figs — Labor Costs 72
Table XVI -- Fiffs — Costs A*-B*-C+D 73
Table XVII -- Figs -- Net Return over Costs Af B 74
Table XVIII -- Figs -- Net Return over Costs AfB+CtD 75
I
I
I
" *1 • 4. '-
y
Table XLIII — Incone and Ex'^ense — Far-ns Operated by-
Corporations 102
Table XLIV Income and Expense — Bnrley 104
Table XLV — Income and Expense -- Rice 105
Table XLYL -- General Trend of Prices and wages
(1910-1914 = 100) 118
CHARTS
Chart — Land in Class I -- Net Returns per acre over Costs
A and B and Taxes, 1931, 1930, and 1929 Ill
Chart -- Land in Clas-^es II and III -- iviet Returns per acre
over Costs A and B and Taxes, 1951, 1930 and 1929 . . 112
APPEKDICES
Paf^e
Survev Forms Used 226
Basis of Classification Used in Grading Farm Lands
Included in the Economic Stud-r of the Merced Irri-
gation District . , ]_29
Bases Used in Computing Investment and Depreciation .... 144
Price Changes California Farm Products, 1910-32 151
Table I -- Farm Prices of California Farm Products,
1910-1932 153
Table 2 -- Approximate Prices Received by Growers
for Figs Testing Ninety per cent or
Better, 1926-1932 . .' I55
Table 3 -- Prices of F-rm Products, Merced District
(Averages of Prices Shorn by the Survey
Records Taken) ' . . . 156
Chart IV - Dried Apricots and Raisins — California
Prices, 1910-32 I57
Chart V - Almonds and Alfalfa -- California Prices,
1910-32 158
Chart VI - Canning and Elberta Peaches California
Prices, 1910-3 2 I59
Chart VII- Mile and Milk F-.t -- California Prices,
1910-32
Chart VIII-Rice, cotton and V-.rley -- California Prices
1910-3^ ' lei
Agricultural Outlook (See separate publication - California
Agr. Ext. Service, Circular 71, Februans 1933).
Maintenance of Soil Fertility (not included).
Income from Lands TaVen Over by IJerced Irrigation
District (1928 to 1932 inclusive) 162
Table 1 -- Income from Lands Taken Over by Merced
Irrigation District 163
Production Costs per Acre for Certain Tree Crops as Sho-vvn
by Records Assem.bled by the Agricultural Extension Service
University of California Ig4
I
i
r -- Delinquencv on Lands Sa^ipled in the Survey as Compared
to Delinquencv for the Idstrict as a Vv'V.ole . . lyg
J
Conditions in the City of Ferced (not included).
K -- The Fanr Debt Situation in the Merced District as Indi-
cated by Debt Data from the Fnrms Covered in the Survey. . 180
182
Table 1 — 'Mortgage Debt of Farms in Sample
Table 2 — Farms Having no !,:ortg-aR-e or Giving
no Information 2.gy
Table 3 ~ First and Second Mortgage and Chattel
and Bank Loans on Firms in Survey
Sample, 1932 \
Table 4 - C^-anges in Identical Accounts, Atwater
Branch, Bank of America, November 1, 19 PS
to TTovember 1, :932 190
L - Case ^'istories of a Number of F- rms which Illustrate the
hroblem T,n.ere for Various Reasons the Land has not been
li'ell Farmed ....
191
M - Principal causes of Failure to -eet Payments on Irrigation
District Obligations
_ The study here discussed was undertaken by the .liannini Foundation of
Agricultural economics of the University of California at the request of a fact-
finding conmiittee which had been appointed to make arrangements for the develop-
ment of pertinent facts concerning the jistricfs condition, its ability to pay
The members of this fact-finding conimittee are as foil
ows ;
J. S. Cone, Land appraiser, r.ierced, California
Frank Adams, Professor of Irrigation Investigations and
Practice, University of California
M. R. Benedict, Professor of Agricultural Economics,
University of California
"fard Mintum, Fresno
F. P. Nutting, President, American Seedless Raisin
Company, San Francisco
idilo =Lowell, Fresno
H. S. Shaffer, Judge of the Superior Court, .ferced
H. 3. Stoddard, .Jerced, Formerly cashier Merced Security
Savings Bank
In addition to these, Mr. Robert Fullerton, Jr., of Pasadena, aooointed by
a committee reoresenting holders of Merced Irrigation District bonds, has served
as an observer and counsellor, being represented oart of the time, during his
absence in Canada, by .,ir. R. L. Underbill, the observer selected by the same bond-
holders committee to work with Mr. J. S. Cone in the appraisal and classifi-
cation of the land of the District.
Professor Frank Adams was appointed by Dean C. B. Hutchison, jointly with
the writer to represent the College of Agriculture in zhe study covered by this
report. He has participated both in planning and carrying through the study and
in the preparation of this report, but other duties and other studies on .vhich he
has been engaged have prevented him fro.n assuming joint leadership of the study
or joint authorship of this report. His counsel and wide experience with irri-
gation district problems have, however, been of great assistance in many phases
of the study.
Acknowledgment is due to many people for advice and counsel; esoecially to
ifr. iviax Thelen, negotiator for the Merced Irrigation District, to C. f\ Shaw,'
Professor of Soil Technology, University of California, to members of the Board of
Directors of the Merced Irrigation District and to ivir. H. P. Sargent, Secretary of
the District. Special acknowledgment is due for the effective help given on the
field work by the following men: H. B. Stoddard, Y/m. H. Alison, Jr., Paul Arnold
Kenneth Stoddard, John Fiske, v/iiiiam Ledbetter, and Elmer Wood. V'ithout their
conscientious and whole-hearted cooperation it would have been difficult if not
impossible to carry out the study. H. B. Stoddard and Wm. H. Alison, Jr. have
given especially freely of their time and energy in organizing and facilitating
the field mrk, and their wide knowledge of the conditions in the District has
been made available in a very helpful way. a number of specialists at the
University and in the Irrigation Division, Bureau of agricultural Engineering,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, have been consulted from time to time, and have
given freely of factual material and of advice, iviention should also be made of
the sincere effort to provide a dependable and useful record which has been
apparent on the part of the great m.'ijority of farmers visited in the survey.
paying Abilities of Farmers on Lands in the
Merced Irrigation District, California
by
M. R. Benedict
Purposes of the Study-
As indicated by its title, this report presents the results of an
economic study of the Merced Irrigation District. It deals chiefly with the farm
incomes, expenses, and tax-paying abilities of the far.ners and farm lands of that
area. The study was made at the request of the Board of Directors of the District
and of committees representing the landowners and other farmers of the District.
In addition to these, individual bondholders and the bondholders' protective com-
irlttee expressed a desire that such a study be made of the economic condition and
debt-oarrying ability of the District. The occasion for the study was the
current or prospective inability of the District to meet in full its payments of
interest and maturing principal on its bonds.
The District was organized in 1919 and has an outstanding bonded indebted-
ness in excess of sixteen million dollars incurred in the period 1922 to 1926 for
purchase or construction of its irrigation system and related hydroelectric plant.
First default on its bond service payments occurred July 1, 1931 as a result in
part of water shortage and greatly reduced power income, but also as a result of
inability of the lands to meet their irrigation district assessments because of
He very low prices received for farm products. Vifhile the original default, which
0 for bond interest only, had been discharged, other defaults had followed;
1 since there was uncertainty as tc the future financial situation, it was
.le desire of the District, of the landowners, and of the bondholders that an
impartial inquiry be made into the earning power of the lands of the District, or,
expressed differently, into the assessment or tax-paying abilities of the lands.
-3-
.'■..'..-.f'-i ii •t:-.:J'
■.*t '.s^y
\
The recent tremendous changes in the general level of prices, particularly
in the prices at which farmers have had to sell their products, have created un-
precedented problems in connection v/ith debts of all kinds. Naturally such a
situation has created unforeseen difficulties for many of the irrigation district!
of California. These difficulties have been especially prominent in the case of
those districts which carry unusually heavy bonded debts and in which agriculture
has been going through recent and rather rapid changes.
Some understanding of the magnitude of the adjustments with which the
farmers of the United States have been confronted in the past four years may be
gained from the official estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture
as to gross values of farm products in the period from 1929 to 1932. These
figures are as follows:
1929 ^flill, 845, 000,000
1930 9,406,000,000
1931 6,855,000,000
1932 5,240,000,000
Gross incomes from the farms of the United States have, as these figures
indicate, decreased by more than 50 per cent since 1929, and more than
$6,000,000,000 have been lopped off from the purchasing and paying powers of the
farmers of the nation. Similar figures for California alone are as follows:
1929 $712,000,000
1930 587,000,000
1931 439,000,000
1932 figures not available.
It will be seen that the changes in value for the products of California have been
of a similar drastic nature. The data presented later in this report do not
represent, therefore, a situation which is confined to this particular District,
but one which is general both for California and for the United States as a whole.
The impact of such a widespread debacle is, of course, most severe on indivi-
duals and communities that are heavily burdened with debt.
labor, taxes, interest, and rent, have not declined in any like proportion and
taxes and interest have shown very little decline from the high levels of 1929.
Labor costs and rents are the chief items in which significant decreases have
occurred. Estimates from the United Status Department of Agriculture as to the
gross amounts of the first mentioned types of cost; that is, costs (exclusive of
wages, taxes, interest, and rent), have changed in the period 1929 to 1931 as
follo-#s :
1929 *3, 112,000,000
1930 2,777,000,000
1931 2,175,000,000
Stated in another way, some understanding of the change in the farmers*
situation can be arrived at from the official figures on prices paid to farmers.
In 1929 these averaged, for the United States, 138 p«r cent of the prices for
the period from 1909 to 1914. In November, 1932, they had dropped to the seem-
ingly impossible level of 54 per cent of the prices prevailing in the period
1909 to 1914. This has meant that the payment of given dollar values in repaj/-
ment of loans, in interest on debts, in taxes, etc. has involved selling more
than two and one-half times as much of the products grom as was necessary for
the same ourposcs in 1929.
The Merced Irrigation District, one that has be^n formed in a compara-
tively recent period, has the largest aggregate bonded debt of any district in
the state and has a relatively high bonded debt per acre. It has found the
problem of meeting the present situation an extremely difficult one. The possi-
bility of providing for the payments required in connection with the District's
bonds rests largely upon the taxes which can be derived from the farm.s of the
District. This source of income has been supplemented, in the case of the Merced
a portion of the
District, by/re venues from the power produced by its pov/er plant. Even the
income from this source has, however, been greatly lessened by the small flow of
-5-
ly during the year ending September, 1931; As a result of this situation, the
The inean annual flow has been estimated at about 1,000,000 acre feet. The
flow since 1926 has been as follows:
Year
ending
September 30,
1927 .
II
11
11-
It
1928 .
... 984,000 "
tf
ti
ti
It
1929
... 513,000 "
It
It
II
It
1930 ,
It
It
II
It
n
It
It
It
1932
. 1,020,000 "
District found itself unable on July 1, 1931 to meet completely its requirements
for the payment of interest on bonds. V/hile all bond delinquencies have now been
met, up to and including those occurring on July 1, 1932, a situation has devel-
oped as a result of the reduced income of the landowners which is recognized by
bondholders and landowners alike as requiring serious consideration and some re-
arrangement of the obligations of the District. The defaults have continued to
increase in size, and the amounts due and unpaid on January 5, 1933 were:
On bond interest coupons $336,115
On principal of bonds 46,500
Total $382,615
In order that readers of the report may be familiar with the financial set-up,
the obligations outstanding, and the trend in the District's financial status, the
following summary as prepared by Mr. H. P. Sargent, Secretary of the District, is
presented.
Funded Debt, Outstanding, as of December 31, 1932
IVERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1st Issue
1st Division 6% Due Serially 1933-1950 $3,120,000
2nd Division 5^o Due Serially 1951-1953 1,800,000
3rd Division 5-|^ Due Serially 1954-1955 1,320,000
4th Division 6% Due Serially 1956-1962 5,760,000
Total outstanding and Authorized — 1st issue. .$12,000,000
2nd Issue
6% Due Serially 1937-1946 and 1963-1964
Total Outstanding and Authorized $3,250,000
3rd Issue
5^0 Due Serially 1965-1966
Total Outstanding and Authorized $1,000,000
Tctal $16,250,000
p t
■'t
January 2, 1933
1st Division 6% — Due 1933 §60,000
Bonds retired 13 5Q0
Balance due 1933, registered '$46^500
Funded Dett as of January 16, 1933 |il6, 236,500"
STATEMENT OF DELITIQUENT TAX ROLLS OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, January 5, 1933
Exclusive of Penalties and Costs
Year
No. of
asses
ments
Valuation
Rate
Tax roll
Delinquent
last Monday
in June
Per
cent
delin-
quent
Original
number
of tax
sales
Amount
delin-
quent
1/5/33
Number of
sales un-
redeemed
1/5/33
Per cent
delin-
quent
1/5/33
1920-21
1922- 23
1923- 24
1924- 25
1925- 26
1926- 27
1927- 28
1928- 29
1929- 30
1930- 31
1931- 32
1932- 33
3,882
5,524
5,647
5,846
6,200
6,385
6,653
6,845
7,027
7,260
7,462
7,594
$10,148,490
13,734,440
14,209,420
22,260,300
21,473,230
20,995,430
20,636,465
20,686,900
20,279,175
20,246,775
19,159,570
12,873,880
^1.40
2.73
4.75
4.20
7.10
6.30
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.90
5.60
8.90
; 142
374
674
934
1,524
1,321
1,238
1,242
1,216
1,194
1,071
1,148
,078.81
,950.07
,933.53
,932.60
,589.59
,528.56
,187.90
,393.00
,750.50
,585.35
,567.84
,483.04
13,831,
61,601
83,556,
79,706,
126,240,
141,240,
131,139,
118,249.
117,095.
210,596.
401,361.
23
86
15
93
37
53
78
90
64
89
59
9.74
16.43
12.38
8.52
8.27
10.68
10.59
9.51
9.62
17.63
37.40
570
712
646
540
620
707
653
737
752
1,499
2,675
^
1.82
16.70
30.38
64.82
598.00
630.80
576.70
4,901.85
31,241.63
149,820.92
361,899.43
1
4
2
4
8
10
12
66
218
970
2,380
.0012
.0044
.0045
.0069
.0390
.0477
.0465
.3940
2.5600
12.5000
35.7000
$12,084,980.79
1932-33 Roll
1st installment $689,189.03
Paid and deeded (1st inst.) 252,638.50
Delinquent (6Z.Z%) $436,550.53
(Delinquency 6^.6% without considering deeded lands)
Note: The foregoing statistics do not
separately consider property
deeded to llerced Irrigation District,
"STATEii-iENT OF DELINQUENT TAX3S 1932-33
INCLUDING FIRST INSTALLfGNT AND AS
OF J.-iUllARY 12th, 1933
New Delinquents - 1st Installment
1932-33 Tax - 38,793 acres
1 year - 43,199 "
2 years - 21,742 "
3 years - 6,115 "
4 years (not
taken) - 700 acres
District lands - 10,492 acres
Net acres on Assessment Roll 1932-33 - 171,610 acres
Total land delinquent - 110,549 "
■"6 1,061 acres"
The Importance of Prompt and Definite Consideration
of the Problems Arising in Cases of Default
Mr. Wells A. Hutchins of the United States Bureau of Agricultural Engineering
published in 1929 the results of a study of thirty-seven irrigation projects
which had defaulted on their bonds. Mr. Hutchins draws the following conclu-
sions concerning settlements in such cases. These are reproduced here owing to
the fact that they represent one of the few attempts to develop general princi-
ples from the study of a number of cases of this type.
United States Department of Agriculture, Circular No. 72, "Financial
Settlements of Defaulting Irrigation Enterprises."
"Conclusions
"Financial reorganization of defaulting irrigation projects, to be
completely effective, must correct all original causes of failure. Unhealed
sore spots are fairly certain to cause further trouble.
"Prompt reorganization is financially profitable to creditors and
landowners alike, as well as to all other interests dependent upon the stabil-
ity and growth of the community. The longer an inevitable settlement is post-
poned, the harder the task of effecting it properly and the greater the loss to
all parties concerned. Parties indirectly interested can benefit by taking the
lead in effecting negotiations for a settlement promptly after the first default.
"Financial settlements are seldom spontaneous and seldom originate
with the vrater users themselves, but usually require constant pushing by
creditors or by some interested outside agency. Maintenance on the ground of
an agent of the creditors or promoters can be of material help in negotiations
with landowners and is practically indispensible in carrying out the terms of
settlement.
"The bondholders' protective committee should be given absolute
authority to carry through to conclusion such settlement as appears to them
advisable. The larger the percentage of bonds deposited with the committee,
the easier it will be to make an effective adjustment with landowners.
"A complete adjustment requires liquidating or refunding the claims
of all creditors. An obligation not taken care of remains a liability and a
menace so long as not outlawed, and to the extent of its relative importance
will interfere with the successful working out of the plan.
"Creditors who refuse to participate in an adjustment may sometimes
secure full settlement at the expense of consenting creditors, but in doing so
they endanger the chances of successful settlement and may make it impossible
to satisfy their OTivn claims.
"Creditors of a project which has definitely defaulted from some deep-
seated cause had best make up their minds to take a real loss. In any event
they must start out by disregarding the actual amount of indebtedness, and con-
clude by offering settlements based upon annual payments which the lands can
stand, of such character that they will invite acceptance by landowners. A re-
financing plan that ignores this is fatally weak.
"Cooperation between creditors and landowners is essential to the
successful working out of refinancing plans and preservation of the security.
Generally speaking, a settlement can not be forced through regardless of the
attitude of landowners, unless the creditors are prepared to go in and farm
the land themselves or can find a ready supply of new settlers.
"Projects inadequately settled when reorganized must be allowed ample
funds to finance the securing of new settlers and ample time in which to get
them; for with certain outstanding exceptions, there is at present little to en-
courage expectation of an immediate revival of large-scale colonization of irri-
gation projects. Several reorganization plans in course of execution, predi-
cated upon, rapid influx of settlers, are encountering real setbacks, while others
which are drawing mainly from dry-land farming centers are meeting with more or
less success.
"Marketability of liquidating or refunding securities is an important
factor in many refinancing plans, inasmuch as holders of defaulted irrigation
securities generally prefer to take a loss and get out altogether than to accept
new securities of the same project based upon more favorable terms of settlement.
"The blanket-lien theory of many State irrigation-district laws has
failed to protect creditors in serious cases of default, but on the contrary
has contributed heavily to growing demoralization of landomers . Various
measures have been taken in framing reorganization plans to make liability for
the compromised debt individual instead of general, thus protecting paying land-
owners and giving greater assurance of ultimate repayment to creditors.
"Execution of debt-settlement plans involves much expense. Third
parties engaged in promoting such plans for financial profit, therefore, can
not afford to guarantee full performance within a limited time where uncertainty
prevails as to such vital matters as land colonization, markets, and psycho-
logical reactions of landowners ." \/
"United States Department of Agriculture, Circular No. 72, pp. 4-5.
Many valuable suggestions relative to the settlement of problems similar
to the one here under consideration are contained in other parts of the circular
mentioned and will be of interest to many of the readers of this report. In
Appendix M are presented the principal causes of financial difficulties in irri-
gation districts as summarized by Mr. Hutchins . Those which have apparently
been most prominent as causes of difficulty in the Merced District are those
niimbered 8, 5, 10, and 3.
-10'
INITIATION AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PROJECT
Following the first serious financial difficulties of the District which
came to a head in the inability of the District to meet fully the interest due
on its bonds on July 1, 1931, a committee representing a part of the bond-
holders was formed. This committee made certain informal studies of the econ-
omic conditions in the District, and entered into negotiations with the District
in the fall of 1931. It was found impossible to reach an agreement at that
time, and negotiations were dropped for the time being.
As the increasing difficulty of the District in meeting its obligations
became more apparent, various organizations in Merced County, particularly the
County Farm Bureau, urged action looking to an unbiased study of the situation
and to negotiations based on the findings from such a study. As an outgrowth
of this a committee of twenty-seven representing the landowners of the District
was organized. This committee consists of five representatives from each of the
five Divisions of the District and two members at large.
From this committee there was selected an Executive Committee of eight
members. This Executive Committee, after a careful survey of possible negoti-
ators, recommended to the Board of Directors of the District the appointment of
Mr. Max Thelen of San Francisco, a former president of the California Railroad
Commission and a man long experienced in the handling of difficult adjustments
between conflicting interests. Mr. Thelen was accordingly appointed as the
District's negotiator in its arrangements with the committees representing
holders of Merced Irrigation District Bonds.
It was felt rather generally that it v/ould be necessary, if negotiations
were not to be carried on largely in the dark, that there be some careful
marshalling of the facts as to the incomes from the farms and as to the qualities
of the lands of the District.
-//-
Through arrangements made by Mr. Thelen the fact-finding committee above
indicated, composed of widely experienced men both from within and from outside
the District, was appointed.
The bondholders' protective cornmittee was invited to maintain a close
contact with the planning and carrying out of the study. To this end that com-
mittee appointed Mr. Robert Fullerton, Jr. of Pasadena to act as an observer in
connection with the committee's work. r/ir. Fullerton has been represented part
of the time, during his absence in Canada, by Lir. R. L. Underhill, the observer
selected by the bondholders' protective committee to work with Mr. J. S. Cone in
the appraisal and classification of the land of the District.
The land classification, more fully discussed in a later section, is a
parallel activity carried out under the general direction of the fact-finding
committee, and reported separately by Mr. J. S. Cone who made the survey
involved.
-II'
GENERAL TRENDS AND CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT
Before taking up the specific results of the survey, it will perhaps aid
in a clearer understanding of these if a brief sununary of the crops grown and
of the directions of change in these can be presented. Various other general
conditions which bear upon and affect the interpretation of the statistical
summaries are also shown in the pages immediately following.
Statistics of acreage changes for recent years are available for Merced
County in the records of the State-Federal Crop Reporting Service. Those for
the District have been prepared by Mr. Dooley P. Wheeler, County Horticultural
Commissioner of Merced County. The county and District figures would not be
expected to agree except in trend, though the bulk of the intensive crop pro-
duction of the County is within the boundaries of the District. The first two
sources are in the main based upon estimates rather than upon a section by
section survey such as that made by the ditch tenders which has been used in
arriving at the 1932 crop acreages shown in Table III.
Table I indicates the changes in acreage of a number of the most im-
portant horticultural crops of the Merced area as given in the estimates of
the California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service. This source does not report
acreages by subdivisions smaller than counties and the figures shown are there-
fore for Merced County. (See Table I.) However, since the chief development
of croDS of this type is in the Merced Irrigation District, the changes indi-
cated are considered to be representative o f what is occurring in the District
itself. A similar estimate for the District alone as furnished by Mr. Dooley
P. V/heeler, County Horticultural Commissioner of Merced County, is given in
Table II. (See Table II.)
-13-
Table I
Acreage of Merced County Fruit and Nut Crops*
Commodity
Bearing
Non-
bearing
T Q 9 7
1 Q 9 R
1929
1930
1931
1932
IdOC
acres
acres
acres
acre s
acre s
acre s
acres
Almonds
2,730
2,692
2, 305
2,235
2, 265
2, 274
360
Apricots
2,104
2,216
1,513
1, 572
1,485
1,250
0
Figs (except
Kadotas)
7 9 7A
I f c, f ^
R Pic;
7,015
7,382
7,081
7,017
Kadota figs
2,988
2,977
2,069
2,368
2,466
2,458
14
All figs
10,262
11,792
9,084
9,7o0
9,547
9,475
39
Raisin grapes
11,494
11,603
9,175
9,226
9,239
9,224
14
Table grapes
8,385
7,200
6,134
5,902
5,012
4,844
8
Yfine grapes
4, 125
4,984
6 ,044
5, 233
5, 194
5, 137
19
Crt , \J\Jt
CO f I O 1
21,353
20,361
19,445
19,205
Olives
203
232
133
133
143
143
10
Cling peaches
5,346
6,013
5,321
5,116
4,633
4,138
12
Free peaches
3, 100
3,178
3,486
3,748
3,288
3,396
93
All peaches
8,446
9,191
8,807
8,364
7,921
7,534
110
Walnuts
205
322
460
569
749
789
168
* Acreage Estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops 1927 to 1932.
Special Publication No. 117. California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service,
Sacramento, 1932.
Table II
Crop Acreage — Merced Irrigation District, 1928-1932
Crop
Almonds
Apricots - Dry-
Figs - Except Kadotas
Kadota figs - Fresh
All figs
Raisin grapes
Table grapes
V/ine grapes
All grapes
Olives
Cling peaches
Fresh and dry peaches
All peaches
Wa Inut s
Apples
Corn
Citrus fruits
Berries
Chestnuts
Grain
Cotton
Blackeye beans
Grain hay
Alfalfa
Sudan
Sweet potatoes
Truck crops
Tomatoes
Peanuts
Onions
Garlic
All garden crops
(including tomatoes)
Cantaloupes
Other melons
All melons
Rice
Pecans
Persimmons
Plums
Prunes
Nectarines
Silage crops
Acreage
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
£LCr6 s
acre s
acre s
acre s
acre s
2,420
2,400
2,398
2, 398
2,386
**
1,650
1,625
1,237
1,025
**
**
6,654
*♦
2,500
**
♦ *
2,480
**
**
* *
**
9,134
*♦
5,840
6,050
5,990
5,970
5,955
5,340
4,940
4,895
4,439
4,240
5,230
5,120
5,011
3,742
3,650
16,410
16, 110
15,896
14,151
13,845
93
5,374
93
4,800
93
4,600
93
3,378
93
3,050
3,500
3,350
3,520
3, 122
3, 120
8,874
8,150
7,920
6,500
6,170
**
140
140
140
140
12
12
12
12
12
5,000
3,820
4,100
2,971
5,100
10
10
10
10
**
**
**
13
14
**
>c *
**
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, ( <i4
41 , 07<i
49 , 729
Open land
729
6,255
8,964
Pasture
1,388
5,047
29,402
35,837
Ranch
60
60
w
0
OWcJ-lup
xc
XQS7
9 7*7
f 1
VJfH P Q
' - c u, o
<^ 99.7
0 C 1
C 0
Oil
'iOO
H
2,304
1,601
665
4,570
Air port
5
100
105
Buildings
10
10
Camp
4
5
9
Canal
5
5
10
Cemetery
40
40
City dump
10
10
City oroperty
unworked
12
12
County hospital
20
20
Creek
144
67
44
255
Ditches
5
8
13
Excavated
2
2
Golf club
40
40
Gum Grove
130
25
10
165
Home lots
67
70
137
Lake Yosemite
257
257
Nursery stock
48
48
Park, city
320
320
Pottery plant
23
23
Railroad
67
49
17
133
Road
113
77
22
212
Schools
13
92
105
Seiver farm.
140
140
Service station
1
1
Slough
17
2
5
24
Subdivision
122
20
142
Substation
20
2
22
Urban
1,564
736
2,300
" 'arehouse
5
5
10
Type of
"Pa rm i n
operations
Acres in class of land
I
II
III
Total
H continued
Yard
Grand total of
land in
classes
5
5
46,796
51,758
81,108
179,662*
* The total acreage shovm here does not coincide with the total acreage for
the District owing to the fact that acreage in part of the city of Merced, part
of the area around Lake Yosemite, and certain other areas were not included in
the ditch tenders' survey.
*♦ The acreages of unknown crops, weeds, Bermuda grass, waste land, and open
land were classed in F unless the acreage was given in large plots. In this
case it was classed in G.
-10-
, ,r;c.-i-'jsf."-"i^
ii
Table IV
Acres in Various Types of Production, as Shorm by Ditch-tenders'
Survey Coordinated with Cone -Under hi 11 Land Classification
farming
Acres in class of land
I
II
III
Total
3.01*6 S
A
8,872
2,868
1,294
13,034
B
4,457
3,536
1,495
9,488
C
8,659
9,640
5,220
23,519
D
8,734
5,006
1,594
15,354
E
5,355
12,439
26,533
44,427
F**
6,982
9,944
2,635
19,561
1,433
6,724
41,572
49,729
I#
2,304
1,601
665
4,570
Total
46,796
51,758
81,108
179,662
* The total acreage shown here does not coincide with the total acreage for
the District owing to the fact that acreage in part of the city of Merced, part
of Lake Yosemite, and certain other areas were not included in the ditch-tenders'
survey .
** Such items as weeds, Bermuda grass, v/aste land, no crop, unclassified,
bare land, open land, and vacant land were classed in F unless the acreage was
given in large plots. In this case it was classed in G.
y/- H includes urban property and other acreage considered as non-agricultural,
such as: subdivision, home lots, residence, and buildings not on the farm; gum
groves, nursery stock, canals, creeks, ditches, roads and railroads, sloughs,
schools, carnns. Lake Yosemite, cemetery, county hospital, air port, golf club,
substation, park, city dump, service stations, pottery plant and city sewer.
The types of farming operation to v/hich these correspond are;
A — Deciduous
B -- Figs
C — Dairy
D — Vines
E -- Grain and general
F -- Truck
G — Grazing
H — City, villages, and miscellaneous
(It will be noted that this grouping is by specific acreages devoted to
the given crops rather than by farms growing chiefly certain tyoes of croDs as
in the survey. It will also be noted that this includes the acreages in small
farms which are not included in the survey.)
These tables give some little indication of the fact that the District
has not yet reached very definite stability as to the crops grown on specific
pieces of land. For example, some 7,000 to 8,000 acres of Class I land are found
still being used for grain, pasture, and other relatively extensive types of farm-
ing which almost certainly cannot pay the District assessments which would be
assignable to that class of land. On the other hand, rather considerable acreages
of intensive crops are to be found on land graded as No. Ill, all of which almost
certainly is not good enough to warrant the high expenditures per acre which
these intensive crops involve; for example, Class III land includes 527 acres of
almonds, 1,495 acres of figs, 563 acres of peaches, and 1,594 acres of vines.'^
\/lt should be recognized that soil variations occur in very marked degree
in extremely short distances in the Merced District. Certain parts, therefore,
in the acreage classed as No . 1 will be of comparatively low grade and certain
parts of the acreage classed as Wo. Ill will be relatively good. Nevertheless,
the situation in its general aspects is reflected by the table shown.
Some very significant problems are presented by both of these types of
maladjustment, YvThere good land has not been intensively developed, it is almost
certain, under the present procedure for handling District assessments, to pass
into the hands of the District. These extensive crops, which in general are in
competition with non-irrigated crops in various parts of the country, cannot hope
to produce a net amount which will cover the District assessments levied on
Class Hand. If conditions were more prosperous and if reasonable expansion were
in prospect, owners would undoubtedly carry these lands, paying on them for some
years assessments which they would not be yielding at the time, and looking to
future development to reward them for the sacrifice. At the present time the
indications are not favorable to such development on any extensive scale and
neither the cash nor credit which would be needed is available for present de-
velopment of these lands until such time as there is better prospect of prof-
-11-
its. Turning to the intensive crops on Class III land, it is very probable that
VMuch of the land of this type is badly infested vi/ith Johnson and Bermuda
grass, and is not at present in condition for irrigated farming. Such land is
likely to require from one to two years of dry farming with summer plowing to
eradicate weeds and grasses. During such time there will be little income and
some little expense. Under present conditions many of the oi.vners prefer to get
what they can through using it for pasture rather than to go to further expense.
these will, over the next few years, be gradually abandoned and pulled out.
Present competition is so keen in nearly all lines of specialized production, as
well as in general crops, that a product grown on inefficient land or by inef-
ficient growers is likely to be unable to continue to compete. The procedure
under which the first grade land not now highly developed would probably yield
the largest return to the District would be under some classification for assess-
ment purposes which would take into account the use to which the land is put.
The same result might be accomplished by collecting such portion of the District
income as does not come from power or is not required for bond payments through
tolls on water used, thus in part relieving the non-irrigated land. At any rate,
it seems desirable that the possibilities of meeting the problem of payments by
undeveloped land should be thoroughly explored by the District and the landowners.
Clearly there are difficulties in this procedure, and perhaps legal obstacles,
but without some more satisfactory solution it seems likely that this land will
be acquired by the District and will yield what it can pay as rental when devoted
to relatively extensive crops. It may, however, represent a future asset when
times are more prosperous and when it can be resold. It is not likely that the
District would or could profitably undertake to develop it intensively. It would
seem that the only change which is likely to occur in the case of land in Class
III is a change in the direction of more extensive operations, practically a
pasture or grain-raising type of farming, and its earning power for purposes of
District payments can probably best be judged by thinking of it in terms of these
1
!
I
1
1
I
uses. Not all of it, in fact a great deal of it, probably v/ill not make that
shift without in the process passing out of the hands of present owners and
temporarily or more permanently into the hands of the District. It would appear
that where such land has not already passed into the hands of the District an
effort should be made to put it on an assessed basis such that the tax levied
can be carried from the income produced when the land is devoted to relatively
extensive crops. Land of this type already taken over by the District should as
far as possible be organized into units such that it can be used for extensive
types of farming. Considerable areas of it probably do not warrant the expense
of providing water at present prices for the products.
Proportion of Rented and of Owner-operated Farms
For the farms covered in this survey the acreages rented and those operated
by the owners are shown in Table V. In many cases the rented farms are well and
continuously operated, but there are numerous cases, such as those discussed in
the following section, where rented farms are operated in a very haphazard way,
not infrequently being left idle or graving up to weeds.
Problems Arising in the Case of Nonresident Chmership, Partially
Developed Farms, and Inefficient Sizes of Units
In the group of farms from which survey records were taken there was found
to be a significant number of farms owned by nonresidents, purchased in many
cases with rather inadequate knowledge both of the possibilities of the returns
from the farms of the area and of the expenses which would be necessary if the
lands were to be fully developed. In a considerable number of these cases the
plan was to put in funds for some years from sources other than the farms them-
selves and the investment was looked upon as a form of saving, combined with
certain speculative gains from the development of the land. Many of these farms
Ovmer-operated as Compared to Tenant-operated Acreages for the 321 Farms
From 1'Jhich Records V/ere Secured (for the year 1931)
J.ype
of farm
T
II
III
Grand total
Operated
by OYmer
Rented
Total
Operated
by ormer
Rented
Total
Operated
by ovmer
Rented
Total
Operated
by ovmer
Rented
Total
Deciduous
1,816
235
2,051
890
22
912
0
0
0
2,706
257
2,963
Dairy
1,032
74
1,106
2,402
151
2,553
395
0
395
3,829
225
4,054
Truck
656
194
850
1,265
1,494
2,759
245-1-
244
48 9|
2,166i
1,932
4,098|
Figs
569
30
599
600
29
629
0
0
• 0
1,169
59
1,228
Vineyards
1,820
225
2,045
1,096
0
1,096
20
40
60
2,936
265
3,201
General
682
261
943
321
1,403
1,724
778
2,625
3,403
1,781
4,289
6,070
Total
6,575
1,019
7,594
6,574
3,099
9,673
1,438-1
2,909
4, 347-1
14,587i
7,027
21,614-1
are at present very inadequately cared for and in not a few cases are yielding
almost no return. Owners of them have continued for the most part, up to the
present time, to pay the carrying charges on them from funds derived from other
sources. Many of them, however, are unable to continue to do that and possibly
would not even if they were able to, owing to the fact that they do not see very
good prospects of having in the end a value corresponding to v/hat they would have
put in .
The brief narrative statements of specific cases which are presented in
Appendix L are possibly the best means of showing the nature of this problem. It
is a problem that cannot well be reduced to statistical form. Most such farms
fall far down in the submarginal class and cannot reasonably be expected to show
either a return to the owner or any worth while tax yielding ability while
handled as they are at present. Apparently the only way that they can be brought
into a situation such that they will represent real property values and be able
to contribute in an effective way to the income of the District will be through
arrangements such that owners can afford to retain them and such that the acquisi-
tion and settlement of -jhem by local people with adequate knowledge and capital
can proceed. Even then some years will be required for them to come into more
effective production. They are at present in many cases either only partly oper-
ated or in some oases not operated at all. A part of this difficulty is, of
course, due to the unsettled status of the District's affairs. Land in the
District cannot be sold at the present time nor will loaning agencies lend on it,
and tenants with capital to operate at the high costs v/hich are involved in these
intensive types of agriculture are not very generally available. The extension
of credit locally is practically at a standstill. The result is that such lands
are picked up spasmodically by temporary renters who operate them if prices look
encouraging for particular annual crops and let them lie idle if the price out-
look is not sufficiently encouraging. Rather considerable acreages of sweet
.L
potatoes, beans, melons, and grain are grown on lands of this type. In other
'^Farming of this type of course gives rise to serious after problems
through failure to control weeds, over-irrigating, and other practices which
affect adversely the later usefulness and value of the land.
cases lands which have been foreclosed by loaning agencies tend to lie more or
less idle unless these agencies have suitable organizations for administering
them. Only the largest of the holders of foreclosed lands have anything that
approaches suitable administrative arrangement for such handling.
In spite of the problems indicated above, it seems necessary to recognize
that there is need of a tax situation which will force the operation of some of
the farms now lying idle. The principle lying back of the provision for full
taxation on lands not fully developed is that such full taxation will force the
earlier development of these in order that they may carry their taxes. In pros-
perous times and when there is room for expansion in given lines of production,
there is much to be said for that policy. Under present conditions and with the
present outlook as to future supplies and prices, policies should apparently look
to providing a tax high enough to encourage the use of such lands in some moder-
ately intensive type of production, but not high enough to cause the land to be
abandoned to the District. It is only by getting it into production and retain-
ing it in production that it can contribute to the District's income, and it
seems likely that its possible contribution in that way will be greater if it is
in private hands than if it is in the hands of the District.
The lines of development indicated above appear to point to the establish-
ment in a good many cases of somewhat different sizes and types of farm units.
Some of the units as now set up are too small for efficient operation and too
little diversified to make effective use of labor supplies and other resources.
Changes of this type will, however, require some years and in many cases will
involve changes in ownership and the making of new investments of capital.
Another of the serious problems which has grown out of the inadequate oper-
ation of many of the farms and the failure to keep up intensive cultivation on
them has been the mrked increase in the weed problem, especially in the case of
Johnson and Bermuda grass. This has been occurring not only so far as the farms
themselves are concerned, but has been further aggravated by the efforts of the
District to economize on the care of its canals.
Mention should also be made of the serious difficulties arising in certain
areas as a result of seeoage and of alkali conditions. These, however, are taken
into account in the survey made by Mr. Cone and i,lr. Underhill, and are therefore
not further discussed in this report.
Still a further important factor affecting the situation lies in the
marked increase in alfalfa wilt, especially during the period since 1920. This
has resulted both in a reduction of yields and in a shortening of the life of the
alfalfa fields. It is possible that improved technical methods may eventually
aid in overcoming that difficulty.
V'here landovmers have become severely impoverished, even though they may
still be retaining possession of the land, very serious deterioration in orchards
and vineyards is occurring. This represents, of course, a loss both to the
individual and to those who are concerned with the earning abilities of the
District if such plantings are on lands capable of maintaining an efficient type
of production.
Price Levels and Their Relation to Ability to Carry
Tax and Debt Loads
From the introductory section of this report it is sufficiently evident
that one of the major causes of the difficulties in v/hich the Merced Irrigation
District finds itself lies in the unprecedented and catastrophic changes which
have occurred in the prices received by farmers since the time at which the obli-
gations under consideration were undertaken. This inevitably brings up for im-
portant consideration the question as to whether a reversal of this great price
change may again bring about a situation where the District would be able to meet
its obligations in full. Great as the effects of this price change have been, it
is not alone the cause of the difficulty, and a return to the prices of the
period just preceding 1930 would not entirely remove the difficulty with which
the District is confronted. There is considerable evidence even in the income
and expense figures for 1929 that the District was carrying a tax load which bore
crushingly upon its earning ability. The significance of that situation was ob-
scured to a considerable extent by certain invisible sources of income which have
now practically ceased to be a factor in the situation. These invisible sources
of income were payments by non-resident o'jvners of land who had other sources of
income, and payments by resident ovmers out of accumulated savings which they
had at the time the District began to function. Evidence of these large inputs
of outside funds and of savings funds came to the surface repeatedly in the
course of the investigation. A number of typical cases of this type are pre-
sented in Appendix L. Some question may be raised as to whether the District
ever has reached a stage of earning ability such that it could meet out of the
production income of its farms the cost of carrying its bonded indebtedness.
Conditions which have been rather fully described and discussed in earlier re-
ports on the District by various agencies have pointed out the way in which the
District came to have a bonded debt some 30 per cent greater than the original
estimates called for. The burden of this excess of debt over the original esti-
mates has, of course, been aggravated by the fact that the District is compara-
tively young and that it is not fully developed in the intensive way which was
visualized by many of its promoters. Some of the land in the District is poorer
than it was then thought to be and unsuited to either an intensive development or
'21-
a development capable of carrying any considerable expenditure for irrigation
ivorks. Some of the land that was formerly considered suitable for intensive de-
velopment and probably was suited to such improvement has been rendered practi-
cally unusable through seepage and other unforeseen causes.
In addition to the effects growing out of the change in price levels and
the shrinkage of available incomes from outside has been the very jnarked decrease
over certain of these years in the income from power. As a v;hole, hoxvever, the
povrer income is likely to constitute a stabilizing influence in the financial
affairs of the District. Unfortunately, in the period just past the extremely
low power income and the extremely low prices have tended to coincide.
To return to a consideration of the price level problem in relation to the
District's ability to pay, only a brief comment seems suited to the scope of this
report. Very extensive and voluminous studies have been made of the price level.
These studies bring out two types of price relationship which are very important
in the present situation. One is the change in the general level of all prices,
a change resting largely upon the volume of credit and currency in use, the
activity of business, and the speed of turnover of credit and currency. The other
is a relationship of the prices of specific products to each other and to this
general price level. These relationships depend to a very large extent upon the
relative quantities oroduced in the case of these products and on the relation-
ship of these supplies to the demands for them. The latter type of price re-
lationship is somewhat predictable over moderate periods of time. This is es-
pecially true in the case of such crops as tree fruits and the products of vines
where the trend of production can be fairly well established. The course of the
general price level itself is much less predictable. Both types of price change
are important in considering the future prospects of the District.
Probably the best informed opinion among economists specializing in
-30
problems of money and credit leans to the view that the general level of prices
will not rise rapidly and probably cannot be brought up very materially by one
country acting alone. If this presumption is correct, there seems not a very
encouraging prospect of a rapid rise in the general level of prices since such
rise is likely to have to wait upon the development of a much better balanced
world situation and much better international cooperation than we now have. This
does not mean that there are no indications of such a development, but the
achievement of better cooperation among nations is bound to be slow and halting,
with backsets from time to time so that an early and favorable large effect upon
the general price level is hardly to be expected.
If prices are likely to remain at very low levels, further adjustments in
many of the orice relationships of the nation will inevitably occur. Among these
will be a lowering of taxes, a lowering of prices of some of the manufactured
goods which farmers buy, etc. If it seems likely that prices may continue to
show comparatively violent fluctuations, such as have been prevalent in the
period since 1916, logic would appear to point to greater justice in the relations
between the landowners of the District and the holders of its bonds if some con-
tingent basis of payment could be evolved which would provide for larger payments
in case prices rise materially and for smaller payments in case prices are lower.
To effect a permanent settlement upon the basis of present extremely lov/ prices
would, if prices should rise, constitute a great injustice to the owners of bonds.
To effect a permanent settlement upon the basis of expected prices higher than
the present would, if such higher prices did not materialize, result in renewed
defaulting and the reappearance of the problem, probably in an aggravated form
and with a morale on the part of the District inhabitants much less fortunate
than that which appears to prevail at the present time.
Unfortunately, even the prospect of a rather substantial rise in the
general price level does not offer as much encouragement to agricultural products
-31-
as we might vdsh it did. This is due to the ftxct that, while stocks of goods in
industrial lines have been rather generally .rorked down to comparatively low
levels, in agriculture, storage stocks of most of the major products and, what in
this particular industry amounts to the same thing, production capacity is still
very much expanded and is beyond the probable needs even should the industrial
communities regain some measure of prosperity. It is difficult, if not impossi-
ble, to bring about in the agricultural industries an abandonment of the use of
full productive capacity. Their expanded productive capacity operates, therefore,
in much the same way as a continuing excess in storage. Again, there is the
further difficulty that the capacity of society to use foodstuffs, which are the
principal products of agriculture, is quite limited. Beyond certain limits in-
creased supplies are not taken no matter hov; low the price may be. This over-
expanded position on the part of agriculture seems likely, therefore, to keep it
in a relatively unfavorable position even if the general price level should rise
substantially.
The prices of agricultural products are also affected adversely in that a
very large part of this production depends upon foreign markets. Even if the
general level of prices in the United States should rise, it does not necessarily
follow that the prices of the export products \vould be raised materially thereby.
They still v/ould depend upon the purchasing power which other countries could
exert in the United States. Such purchasing ability depends largely upon the
ability of these countries to export goods to the United States. Such development
of purchasing poiver we have undertaken to cut off to a large extent by our efforts
to exclude from this country practically all types of products which they would
exchange for our agricultural products. Other countries faced with the necessity,
if they are to buy American farm products, of sending us gold, have, in a very
large number of cases, established very drastic barriers to the outflow of our
surplus agricultural products in order to protect their own gold supplies and to
-3^-
develop their own industries. Until this situation begins to break down and a
better or less restricted flow of goods internationally is possible, «ve are faced
with the prospect of rather lev prices on agricultural oroducts, of ^vhich a sub-
stantial part moves into export, and we also have a very definite deflationary
tendency in the international credit situation on which our own volume of credit
depends to a large extent. Even where products do not enter much into export
trade, if they are in competition with a large number of products which do depend
upon export markets, there is an immediate tendency for these more sheltered lines
of production to be expanded until they come dovm to a measure of prosperity simi-
lar to that of the export lines. In spite of these unfavorable indications, it is
nevertheless true that any important increase in the general price level would un-
questionably improve materially the District's ability to pay on its obligations.
The considerations indicated above point to a probability that new plant-
ings and further rapid development of land not now highly developed will not
appear sufficiently profitable to cause investors to put in the funds necessary
for large increases in earning power from these sources. The acreage trends shown
in tables I and II do not indicate that such new development is occurring, though
this might be stimulated somewhat by any improvement in the District's financial
status. Not only is this lack of incentive to further investment a factor but
further than that the credit of most of the individuals interviewed in the
District has been exhausted to an extent which makes it practically impossible
for them to undertake any extensive new investments. Apart from this it appears
possible that the District will develop somewhat more slowly than was anticipated
in the early stages of its development. Certain of its lines of production have
been confronted with markets so badly oversupplied that sale of the entire pro-
duction v/as almost impossible. A number of these products move into comparatively
narrow markets which could readily be oversupplied by any considerable expansion
of acreage either in this District or in a number of others which are well suited
-33-
to their production. This may indicate a necessity for the District to look in
the future to developing more largely certain lines of production for v/hich
thet*e is a wider market, as, for example, the products of its dairies. If this
tendency develops, it will probably be faced with a rather extended and somewhat
difficult period of transition requiring some little new investment in the de-
velopment of nev/ types of production and rather unprofitable production in lines
which are undergoing forced declines. Fuller discussions of the outlook in con-
nection v/ith s>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 <?
X XD
00
9 2 A ^P.
CO^ . OD
X OO
An
1 RR
XOO > / 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 . <C 0
OD
Rft
Ob
R9 7X
OC ,10
D X
0 O
oU
bU • y (
9 'Z
oco
77 Q □
/ / . 00
i.O'i
/I t;
40
7R 71
( 0 . / X
9 19
c;9
bU . 4:0
Xob
bo
7/1 9 c;
/4 . 60
1 X R
XOO
ft t;
bO
ftO Rft
by . Ob
OO
Ot)
00 . U^t
OO
Ob
Dy . OO
1 9Q
i^y
1 xn
XOU
AA A9
D4 ,4<i
1 n
AQ
%0
OO .'to
0
bb . 0 (
SX
00
xn
OU
c,7 Q 7
0 ( .y (
9 i^Q
(ooy
Ob
c^'Z 9 c;
DO . c 0
1 c;a
XO'i
XQ
0 y
c; 7 ft 7
0 / . D I
iOD
DO
1 7Q
u X . / y
XO o
du
ft 1 Q c;
bx .y 0
9 c; ft
i2 D O
X 7
0 (
c; c; Oft
00 . Ob
9
OU • uu
1 '^9
XO c
An
ft 1 0^
bx . cO
Q
0
An
4U
c; c; nn
DO . UU
c
0
?7
AR Q
1 n
xw
AP
'i 0
OO . XO
00
DO
AR 1 R
40 . X 0
o o
OD
A'^ 9 1
1 '^A
xo^
AR
'to
t; 7 9 A
1 1 X
X XO
1 Q
xy
A1 nn
4:X . UU
DO
A9 c^7
1 ^A
xo^
oy
00 . 0 X
9nft
<iub
c; X
0 0
X7 RX
Of. OO
O
O
AD
AT 17
^ X • X /
OO
00
t^n A
OU . O'i
19 c;
XcO
9n
c u
X 7 Rn
Of. OU
lO 1
AT
An 7'^
y 0
<oO
A 9 9
9 no
(ouy
1 Q
xy
Xft ftX
Ob . bo
1 XO
xy
AO A9
1 1
X X
AH
AiT ft 9
*£U • OCi
X 9 X
OcO
An
^u
xn xn
OU . OU
11
48
40.62
95
49
39.73
12
98
29,73
66
49
34 .92
206
53
39 .57
93
23
28. 13
132
40
34.62
129
130
39.08
259
36
26.81
209
19
33.68
113
19
37.68
132
40
21.25
154
39
32.56
209
19
36.47
5
27
17.78
133
60
27,85
260
59
33 . 89
66
49
11 .63
129
130
25 . 15
12
98
25 .64
127
27
6.11
260
59
18.64
131
41
18.53
128
62
**
12
98
11.22
66
49
10.20
96
78
**
95
49
11 . 12
127
27
5 . 56
131
41
* *
127
27
B*
o ^
27
260
59
**
Lane
m Clas
S IX
2.65
41
63.73
265
41
77.56
4
133
60.90
i 57
68
51 .13
37
68
63.25
37
68
48 .44
I 295
22
49.05
214
56
62.23
1
382
47.12
i 28
43
42 .65
4
133
57.89
7
41
32.12
32
40
35.15
32
40
43.80
32
40
30.10
31
35
30.46
7
41
36.41
214
56
23.23
214
25 . 79
31
• J kJ
34 71
31
35
18 . 29
1
382
20.88
28
43
33.51
28
43
13.30
24
51
19.06
24
51
29 .20
265
41
3.66
7
41
18.88
1
382
18.25
24
51
0.00
4
133
17.53
295*
22
* *
295
22
**
Land
in Clas.
3 III
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
Schedule members 60, 84, 91 and 130 of land in Class I, which are cash-
rented farins, have not been included.
* Rented for the year specified.
Data inecmiplete -
Table VIII
Farms Growing Mainly Deciduous Fruit (Excluding Figs) 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 r
1931
1930
1929
Cash costs
Cash costs
Cash costs
per acre
Sched-
per acre
Sched-
per acre
u. 1©
(1 r» Y* Q
other than
ule
Acre s
other than
ule
Acres
other than
nuiiiDe 1
labor and
nuiTibe r
labor and
number
labor and
taxes
taxes
taxes
La]
-id in Cla
ss I
20
^66 . 85
1
125
20
<»51.70
2
80
§59 .71
"I 1
X J.
48
37 .06
153
40
45.00
125
20
37.95
0
RO
34.80
2
80
35.69
113
19
32.89
1 1 3
± J. *J
19
33.11
113
19
31,05
153
40
32 .20
JL O 'J
40
31 .30
116
85
30.34
258
37
28.59
C\JiJ
X %J
30.79
209
19
29 .79
95
39
27.90
9
30 .30
83
30
29 .70
3
34
25.76
%
o
34
28 .50
258
37
28.38
136
65
25.57
136
u o
25 .22
3
34
24.44
209
19
25.47
O J
22 .28
11
48
21.65
154
39
22.59
DO
49
20 .00
95
49
21.59
11
48
19 .35
1 1 R
1 ?4
19 .65
136
65
21.06
116
85
18.25
oo
30
17.43
323
40
20.95
129
130
17.38
iCO
17 .42
154
39
20.18
93
23
16.26
36
o u
15 .92
134
45
19.89
83
30
15.47
OCO
15 .55
10
48
15.90
10
48
15.33
49
15.27
212
52
14.83
133
60
15.20
1 n
iU
t o
15 .55
66
49
13.18
8
40
12 .75
Icy
Q
O
14 * 50
129
130
13.18
212
52
11.48
13 .95
8
40
13.15
66
49
10.59
OO
13 . 75
259
36
12.69
134
45
10.98
XO (C
40
12 .90
96
78
11.13
132
40
10.45
52
12 .77
93
23
10.87
323
40
10,12
96
78
12.10
35
56
10.66
35
56
9,18
134
45
12,00
12
98
10.24
259
36
6.94
93
23
11.87
132
40
9,72
206
53
6 .04
131
41
10.56
133
60
9.30
127
27
5.63
1 0
Q R
d o
R RR
206
53
6.79
33
56
133
60
6.18
127
27
6.52
12
98
5.18
127
27
5.70
33
56
5 .07
260
2,96
206
53
5.62
131
41
3.27
5
27
0.59
33
56
5.07
260
59
2.96
131
41
0.34
260
59
4.24 ,
5*
27
» *
128
62
♦ *
5
27
2.00
128
62
**
96
78
Lai
id in Cla
ss II
265
41
23.22
265
41
23.22
265
41
31.80
31
35
17.06
28
43
19.19
7
41
19.98
7
41
12.51
31
35
13.43
28
43
19 .65
32
40
12.05
37
68
11,63
4
133
17.77
4
133
10.87
7
41
9 .34
31
35
li.20
37
68
9 .68
4
133
9.10
214
56
8 .48
1
'Z QO
OOC
D . 1 1
214
56
8.52
1
382
7.71
214
56
6.46
24
51
8.43
32
40
7.40
28
43
4.95
32
40
7.88
37
68
7.10
24
51
3.24
1
382
6.87
24
51
3.24
295
22
**
295*
22
* *
295*
22
* *
Land in Cle
ISS III
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
# Schedule numbers 60, 94, 91 and 130 of land in Class I, which are
cash-rented farms, have not been included.
* Rented for the year specified.
** Data incomplete.
\
■ J
Farms Growing Mainly Deciduous Fruit (Excluding Figs) in the Ueroed Irrigation District on the
Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Labor Costs per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929^
1931
1930
1929
ocnea-
ule
no.
a
u
o
<
Labor costs per acre
Sched-
ule
no.
CO
Q>
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
<ic
■ZD /"A
-o2 . 64
<d 14
56
-2 7.61
A t
41
-59 .27
214
56
-40.21
32
40
-36.12
.1
43
-69.61
4
133
-45.61
7
41
-50.15
31
35
-71.45
7
41
-49.49
28
43
-62.86
265
41
-79.75
31
35
-51.11
31
35
-70.92
295*
22
**
Lai
id in C
Uass III
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
* Rented farms .
*v Data incomplete.
Table XIII
Fig Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of
Land Arranged in Order of Gross Income per Acre for 1931, 1930, and 1929*
1931
1930 1
1929
■
Sched-
Gross
Sched- :
1
Gross
Sched-
Gross
ule
Acres
income
ule ;
Acres
income
ule
Acres
income
number
per acre
number
_
per acre
number
per acre
t
Lane
1
i in Class I
325
18
$213 .33
325
18
$184.17
18
$191.67
14
20
109 . 75
14
20
132.25
bl
50
161.32
25
148
57.78
61
50
124.00
14
20
132 . 75
23
45
41.44
18
19
103.05
16
20
107.55
61
50
34.20
16
20
97.30
18
19
94.74
21
58
31.53
23
45
44.11
25
148
77.72
22
39
30.13
c c
39
43.21
22
39
46. 15
135
41
24.07
25
148
42.40
23
45
44.89
63
53
23.51
21
58
32.90
21
58
25.62
17
58
22.78
63
53
26.70
135
41
17.63
16
20
22.65
135
41
15.68
63
53
15.32
18
19
7.11
17
58
4.22
1 f
58
8.26
•
Lant
i in Class II
20
49
60.61
19
30
88.33
19
30
108.33
19
30
58.33
223
281
1 63.46
223
281
96 .44
223
281
46.02
310'
61
43.85
310
61
74.90
310
61
33.26
312
159
26.20
15
20
20.00
15
20
25.30
15
20
23.25
312
159
**
312
159
11.98
20
49
22.45
20
49
Land in Class III
0
0.00
0
' 0.00
J
0
0.00
* Schedule numbers 285, 62, and 289 which are cash-rented farms have not
been included.
** Data incomplete.
-10-
ii% U*? baa
Table XIV
Fig 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, for 1931, 1930- and 1929*
1931
Sched-
ule
number
14
61
16
23
22
18
25
17
21
135
325
63
15
19
310
312
223
20
Acres
20
50
20
45
39
19
148
58
58
41
18
53
20
30
61
159
281
49
Cash costs
other than
labor and
taxes
$38.65
21.46
10.10
8.51
7.85
7.68
5.97
3.00
2.07
1.90
0.50
0.00
27.85
18.77
14.92
10.97
9.43
2.41
0.00
1930
Sched-
ule
number
Acres
Cash costs
other than
labor and
taxes
Land in Class I
61
14
25
16
18
22
21
23
135
325
17
63
50
20
148
20
19
39
58
45
41
18
58
53
136.32
29.25
15.36
11.45
10.32
10.26
9.14
4.40
3.90
3.44
1.86
0.00
Land in Class II
310
15
312
19
223
20
61
20
159
30
281
49
33.69
27.85
19.90
16.60
9.11
1.43
Land in Class III
0.00
Sched-
ule
number
14
61
18
22
16
25
21
23
135
17
325
63
15
310
19
223
20
312
1929
Acres
20
50
19
39
20
148
58
45
41
58
18
53
20
61
30
281
49
159
Cash costs
other than
labor and
taxes
;*41.45
31.70
10.32
10.26
10.10
9 .47
7.41
4.38
2.46
1.81
0.50
0.00
41.90
36.51
16.77
7.16
1.43
**
0.00
* Schedule numbers 285, 62 and 289, which are cash-rented farms, have not
been included in this table.
*v Data incomplete,
-7/-
t
*
1
i
1
j
i
i
t
\
I
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
Tatle XV
Fig Farms in the Merced Irrigation Listrici- on the Three Classes of Land
Arranged in Order of Lahor Costs per Acre for 1951, 1950, and 1929*
1931
1930
1929
r
!
Sched- 1
Lahor costs ner acre
Sched-
ule no.
Acr e s
Labor costs
per acre
ul6 no.
Acres
Labor costs
per ac
r e
ule no.
1
_ . -1 1
Total
Hired
Fami ly
Boar d
Total
Hired
Board
i u ua X
llXl cu
Fami 1 J
board
Land i
n Class
I
325
18
$71.17
$58.50
$12.67
0.00
61
50 I
143.74
$143.74
0.00
0.00
61
50
f 110.96
110. 96
0.00
0.00
61
50
59.14
59.14
0.00
0.00
18
19
141.52
127.16
14.36
0.00
18
19
73.71
59.21
14,50
0.00
22
39
45.31
8.64
36.67
0.00
16
20
84.16
16. 4C
40.95
0.00
325
18
67.18
49.21
17.74
0.00
t. o
41 . 33
a til
64 • b /
V • UU
325
18
^4. 19
17 74.
O OO
22
39
56 . 00
0.00
56.00
0.00
25
148
34 . 24
1 A O /
04 • CH:
V 0 UU
y) • W
22
39
oc . yjyj
n or
O OO
23
45
54.65
6.11
48.54
0.00
18
19
31.32
in 0
U • '
23
45
n OO
16
20
51 .40
10.45
40.95
0.00
16
20
30 . 10
. OO
. CO
o on
14
20
9^ "^n
0 OO
25
148
36 . 20
36 . 20
0.00
0.00
17
58
J. y • U D
n no
U • V ■
25
148
99
■^1 ??
0 00
V • \J\J
0 .00
17
58
31.51
4.84
26.67
0.00
14
20
24. 95
17.15
7.80
0.00
17
58
29.51
1.66
26.67
n.nc
14
20
27.42
16.50
10.92
0.00
63
53
9.66
9.66
0.00
0.00
63
53
21.89
21 . 89
r\ r\r\
0 . 00
( ? , 1 H ■
135
41
XO mOO
1 O . OO
o.oc
0.00
135
41
7.32
7.32
0.00
0.00
135
41
15.90
15.90
0.00
0.00
21
58
11.21
11.21
0.00
0.00
21
58
6 . 55
6.55
0.00
0.00
21
58
11.21
11.21
0.00
0.00
63
53
10. lb
10. lb
0.00
0.00
Land
in C la s
s 11
15
20
66.00
48.25
8.75
9.00
15
20
70.75
49.50
12.25
9.00
19
30
62 . 17
16.67
45. 50
0 . 00
19
30
47.50
15.00
32.50
0.00
19
30
62.17
16.67
45.50
0.00
15
20
61.25
49.00
12.25
0.00
223
281
45.42
45.42
0.00
0.00
223
281
37.90
57.90
0.00
0.00
223
281
51.91
51.91
0.00
0.00
20
49
27.63
11.71
15.92
0.00
20
49
32 .09
9.80
22.29
0.00
310
61
25.26
25.26
0.00
0.00
310
61
12.93
12.93
0.00
0.00
310
61
27.82
27.83
O.OO
0.00
20
49
20.41
20.41
0.00
0.00
312
159
8.54
8.54
0.00
0.00
312
159
24.46
24.46
0.00
0.00
312
159
**
**
**
Land
in Clas
s III
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
* Schedule numbers 285 of land in Class I, 62 of land in Class II, and 289 of land in Class III, vAich are cash-rented
farms, have not been included in this table.
** Data incomplete.
Table XVI
Fig Farrr.s in the Mex'ced Irrigation District on the Three Classes
of Land Arranged in Order of Costs A-'3*C~D per Acre
for the Yearn 1951, 1^:130, and 1929
1931 1
1930
1929
t
Sched-
Costs
Sched- 1
Costs
bCiieu"'
Costs
ule
Acre s
A-^B*C*D
ule 1
Acres
A+B^-C'-D
Ul6 j
Acres
A-rS^Ci-D
number
per acre
number j
oer acre
liUIIlUo L
!
per acre
^ i
t
1
j
I
j
Land in Class I
14
20
;;^113.05
18
1
19
.J190.78
18
19
^122 . 56
135
41
91.63
16
20
111.65
16
20
104.50
16
20
83.00
14
20
111.02
14
20
100.92
18
19
82.89
135
41
102.68
135
'11
lUO . Ot
23
45
67.53
63
53
99.03
22
39
78.62
22
39
65.74
22
39
78.69
23
45
75.87 1
25
DO . DO
23
45
76.37
25
148
69.33
17
Oo
D J. . \JO
25
148
70.64
17
58
63.25
63
00
17
58
60.79
9 ^
58
34.98
21
Ob
21
58
36.93
30
20 . 79
285*
OU
285*
30
21.16
p. X
0 0
53
15.07
325
lo
325
18
%9'^^
0.0O
18
61
50
**
61
50
D X
50
Land in Class II
15
20
134.75
15
20
136.05
15
20
125.75
19
30
101.33
19
30
109 .60
19
30
110.37
223
281
87.84
223
281
80.10
223
CO X.
20
49
54.90
310
61
I 77.33
310
61
77.41
310
61
43.46
20
49
i o8.39
j 20
49
26.14
62*
29
28.59
' 312
159
! o3.43
I 62*
29
11.00
312
159
28.57
■ 62*
29
1 24.24
312
159
♦ *
Land in Class III
289*
18
1
3.11
289*
! 18
4-
7.44
289*
18
8.00
* Rented farms .
*f Data incomplete.
-73
1
I
i
Table XVII
Fie; Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes
of Land Arranged in Order of Is^et Return per Acre
Over Costs a-B for the Years 1931. 1930, and 1929
1931
Sched-
ule
numbe r
325
14
21
25
135
285*
63
17
23
16
22
18
61
20
62*
310
312
19
223
15
Acres
289*
18
20
58
148
41
30
53
58
45
20
39
19
50
49
29
61
159
50
281
20
Net return
per acre
over costs
A-B
18
«;141.66
46.15
22.91
17.92
14.85
14.76
13.85
-7.69
-8.40
-17.55
-23.02
-31.89
-46.30
30.57
7.58
5.41
-7.53
-7.94
-8.83
-68.55
19^0
Sched-
ule
number
4.33
325
14
285*
16
21
63
135
25
23
22
17
18
61
Acres
Net return
per acre
over costs
A^-B
Land in Class I
223
19
62*
20
310
312
15
18
20
30
20
58
53
41
143
45
39
58
19
50
^108.27
70.78
28.80
28.50
12.56
4.81
-3.88
-4.19
-14.94
-23.05
-25.97
-48.79
-56.06
Land in Class II
231
30
29
49
61
159
20
16.45
9.56
-0.18
-11.06
-17.66
-18.16
-75.35
Land in Class III
Sched-
ule
numbe r
289* I 13
9.78
325
14
16
25
61
285*
18
21
63
135
23
22
17
223
19
310
62*
20
15
312
1929
Acres
289*
18
20
20
148
50
30
19
58
53
41
45
39
58
281
30
61
29
49
20
159
Net return
per acre
over costs
A<-B
18
Hiil23.99
63.88
46.05
32.04
18.66
11.13
8.10
7.00
4.57
-3.47
-14.14
-20.11
-25.07
37.37
29.40
13.13
-2.06
-37.76
-92.15
6.78
* Rented farms.
Data incomplete.
7f-
Table XVIII
Fig Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes
of Land A.rranged in Order of Net Return per Acre
Over Costs A-^B+C-D for the years 1931, 1J30, and 1929
1931
1930
1929
Sched-
ule
numbe r
I
Acres
Net return
per acre
over costs
u J.P <.n
Sched-
ule
nuj Tiber
■
Acres
Met return
per acre
over costs
^^^-B^-C^D
Sched-
ule
numbe r
Acres
Net return
per acre
O V C I OU t)
A^-3*-C^-D
Ls
md in C
lass I
325
18
jpll3.27
325
18
i^f 78 . 82
325
18
^fir0.71
21
58
7.26
14
20
21.23
14
20
28.83
14
20
-3.30
285*
30
7.64
25
148
8.39
285=*-
30
-5.43
21
58
-4.03
16
20
3.05
25
148
-5.88
16
20
-14.35
63
53
0.25
63
53
-7.77
25
148
-28.24
285*
30
-9.60
23
45
-26.09
23
45
-32 .20
21
58
-19 .36
22
39
-35.61
22
39
-35.49
18
19
-27.78
17
58
-38.25
17
58
-56.57
23
45
-31.00
16
20
-60.35
63
53
-72.33
22
39
-32.47
135
41
-67.56
135
41
-87.00
17
58
-54.99
18
19
-75.78
18
19
-87.73
135
41
-85.99
61
50
**
61
Ls
50
md in C
lass II
61
50
* *
20
49
5.71
223
281
-16.64
223
281
6.95
310
61
-10.20
19
30
-21.27
19
30
-2.04
312
159
-16.59
62*
29
-23.21
310
61
-2.51
62*
29
-19.80
312
159
-27.23
62*
29
-11.00
223
281
-41.82
310
61
-33.48
20
49
-32.78
19
30
-43.00
20
49
-35.94
15
20
-105.75
15
20
-109.45
15
20
-112.80
312
159
¥ »
Land in Class III
289*
18
-3.78
289*
i
18
1 _
2.34
289*
18
1.22
*
Rented
farms .
1 II. 1
** Data incomplete.
Dairy Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land
Arranged in Order of Gross Income per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 192^
1931
1930
1929
Schedule
Acres
Gross income
Schedule
Acres
Gross income
Schedule
Acres
Gross income
number
per acre
number
per aore
number
per acre
Land i
n Class I
llev'
25
JllO.57
118^
25
1165.26
39
$136.87
169
19
93.52
169
19
109.15
llSv
23
122.74
171
o*7
Oh? . 1 o
CC\3
9U .OX
169
19
111.21
226
57
56.28
105
181
63.91
50
41
84.29
249
29
48.65
171
59
63.71
226
57
59.84
256
38
47.89
254
61
56.34
65
54
51.49
234
61
45.98
30
41
55.49
176
77
49.39
105
181
43.44
256
58
47.36
271
39
48,07
258
58
41.99
271
59
47.33
105
181
47.62
195
67
38.10
9
58
40.01
9
58
43.22
50
41
36.51
65
54
59.88
258
58
59.05
65
54
30.67
258
38
58.36
234
61
57,61
9
58
29.27
195
67
34.20
195
67
56.63
271
39
28.23
176
77
27.35
187
42
34.86
313
51
26.27
513
51
26.76
513
51
27.39
172
20
21.50
98
79
26.55
256
38
26.51
187
42
19.31
267
59
24.51
227
39
25.28
98
79
17.29
172
20
24.00
98
79
25.15
227
39
14.69
227
39
21.02
267
59
23.46
267
59
14.51
249
29
20.61
172
20
19.00
176
77
13.87
187
42
20.02
97
60
15.83
97
60
10.38
97
60
16.11
188
20
0.00
188
20
7.00
188
20
5.35
249
29
*•
LATifl in
fl ftRfl T T
\j ^ \J £j
53
20
61 .95
46
59
72 .96
228
39
155.12
38
23
50.00
53
20
72 . 25
46
59
87.38 j
46
59
45.08
58
23
62.78
58
23
78.50
137
59
37.76
54
24
57.12
55
20
69.75
182
24
37.50
228
39
52.30
137
59
41.55
74
44
33.18
182
24
51.37
29
78
40.89
235
58
33.13
232
84
49.05
106
24
40.75
48
85
31.76
255
38
47,32
235
38
40.26
54
24
30.79
106
24
44.96
54
24
59.16
252
84
29.39
137
39
39.66
232
64
58.99
29
78
27,82
74
44
37.68
43
66
56.56
233
93
26.87
233
93
56.11
253
93
34.24
228
39
26.58
266
40
29.90
94
80
33.23
144
49
23.28
43
66
29.21
45
107
32.65
266
40
22.65
165
54
26.55
274
568
28.95
248
97
22.63
248
97
26.01
80 ,
39
27.56
274
368
21.62
144
49
25.81
22^
75
26.66
166
54
20.44
94
80
25.56
146
87
21.16
194
39
20.25
45
107
25.12
48
85
19.69
106
24
18.95
274
368
24.60
41
85
18.69
202
46
18.50
80
59
24.51
39
295
18.63
225
75
17.53
48
85
25.50
248
97
17.86
250
60
16.79
239
32
22.47
250
60
17.06
43
66
15.62
29
78
22.55
74
44
16.47
146
87
15.57
202
52
20.28
177
145
13.97
41
85
14.20
41
83
18.71
165
54
13.35
80
59
12.35
250
60
16.58
239
52
9.58
177
145
10.74
146
87
14.80
144
49
8.73
45
107
10.44
39
293
12.88
182
24
6.41
94
80
9.11
177
146
10.68
266
40
**
59
295
8.C5
225
75
1.5S
194
39
239*
*
*
194
59
**
202
♦*
Land in Class III
4d§^
40
40.50
40
47.05
4d^
40
61.05
99
59
17.36
175
103
33.09
173
105
49.15
47
174
16.79
99
59
16.95
47
174
22.45
175
105
14.52
47
174
14.23
100
50
0.00
42
59
2.56
100
50
0.00
99
59
•*
100
50
0.00
42
59
42
59
♦ »
N^Schedule numbers 231 and 302 of land in Class I, 44,224 and 229 of land in Class II, and 101 of
land in Class III, -which are cash-rented farms, have not been included.
^^^Income from -work off the farm constituted a lju-ge part of the gross income of schedule numbers 118
and 40 for the three years and for schedule number 225 for 1929.
» Rented for the year specified.
♦ • Dj^ta incomplete.
Dairy Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land Arran^d
in Order of Cash Costs per Aore Other Than Labor and Taxes, 1931, 1930, and 1929^
1931
1930
192
9
Schedule
Cash costs per
Schedule
Cash costs per
Schedule
Cash costs per
number
Acres
acre other than
number
Acres
aore other than
number
Acres
acre other than
labor and taxes
labor and taxes
labor and taxes
-
Land
in Class I
loy
1 Q
4ao AO
169
19
$58.84
169
19
154.21
ceo
0 (
CO • CI
249
29
48.93
226
57
40.97
249
29
22.41
118
23
31.96
187
42
27.60
258
38
21.03
313
51
21.57
9
58
22.36
105
181
19.62
271
39
21.21
236
38
21.18
97
60
15.42
226
57
19.79
176
77
20.31
195
67
14.94
30
41
19.32
SO
41
19.12
234
61
14.85
105
181
18.34
118
23
18.52
227
39
14.54
234
61
15.39
105
181
17. 72
171
39
14.26
227
39
11.54
234
61
15.13
30
41
13.20
65
34
9.26
227
39
12.18
65
34
12.88
171
39
9.15
65
34
10.85
313
51
11.90
187
42
8.00
313
51
9.41
9
58
11.31
195
67
7.63
188
20
7.80
271
39
11.15
267
59
7.61
238
39
7.39
187
42
9.29
9
58
6.85
171
39
6.85
118
23
8.70
172
20
6.15
195
67
6.33
176
77
7.56
97
60
5.88
97
60
5.92
172
20
7.05
176
77
5.86
267
59
4. 92
267
59
6.34
238
38
5.71
172
20
3.80
188
20
4.20
236
38
5.59
271
39
3.05
236
38
4.08
188
20
4.25
98
79
1.52
98
79
2.33
98
79
1.52
249
29
• *
Land
in Class II
£o
'to • DC
38
23
41.22
182
24
62.92
cv
^7 PA
46
59
27.20
228
39
32.51
10/
ov
28.41
137
39
25.41
137
39
25.18
78
23.36
182
24
21.50
38
23
20.48
ceo
40
20.55
144
49
19.94
46
59
19.75
54
24
19.29
239
32
18.16
144
49
17.04
46
59
19.05
266
40
17.88
239
32
9.69
182
24
18.96
235
36
14.76
54
24
9.67
106
24
15.92
106
24
13.25
41
83
8.56
202
4d
16.15
74
44
12.30
146
87
8.24
144
't9
13.71
228
39
10.59
233
93
8.25
53
20
12.80
41
83
10.53
53
20
8.10
228
39
11.54
233
93
9.30
106
24
7.08
48
85
10.81
177
145
8.23
177
145
7.04
235
38
10.55
53
20
8.15
250
60
e^7
233
93
9.73
54
24
7.00
74
44
6.48
177
145
9.56
250
60
6.40
252
84
6.19
74
44
8.70
165
54
6.37
43
66
5.80
165
54
8.20
29
78
5.18
165
54
5.41
232
84
7.26
232
84
4.94
59
293
5.25
41
83
7.07
45
107
4.88
29
78
5.21
250
60
7.02
146
87
4.06
45
107
4.86
94
80
5.66
48
85
4.06
235
58
4.57
43
66
5.61
39
293
4.00
274
368
4. 27
45
107
5.23
202
32
3.94
48
85
5.89
225
75
4.63
274
368
3.87
225
75
3.00
274
368
4.33
94
80
3.7E
94
80
2.80
146
87
2.91
43
66
3.11
80
39
0.90
39
293
2.84
225
75
2.44
248
97
0.71
80
39
1.79
248
97
2.10
194
59
«•
248
97
1.38
80
39
0.90
266
40
««
239»
32
• »
194
39
202
40
««
Land
in Class III
40
40
11.00
40
40
9.88
40
40
81.60
47
174
9.55
173
103
9.06
47
174
12.22
99
39
8.46
99
39
7,28
173
103
3.51
173
103
2.46
47
174
5.50
100
30
0.00
42
39
0.00
100
50
0.00
42
39
«*
100
50
0.00
42
39
*«
99
39
• »
Schedule numbers 231 and 302 of land in Class I, 229, 224, and 44 of land in Class II, and 101 of land
in Class III, which are cash-rented farms, have not been included.
• Rented for the year specified.
»• Data incomplete.
Dairy Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three
Classes of Land in Order of Labor Costs per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929 U
1931
Sched-
Labor costs
per acre
ule
o
no.
o
■
Total
nlr ea
Boftrd
172
20
$87,75
13.25
184.50
$0.00
249
29
69.83
2.59
67.24
0.00
271
39
63.33
0.00
63.33
0.00
238
38
51.58
0.26
51.32
0.00
169
19
44.95
3.89
41.05
0.00
188
20
40.75
1 .00
oy •uu
w ♦ ' o
234
61
40.00
17,62
CC •CO
97
60
39.00
0.00
39#C0
A AA
195
67
33.75
3,51
30
41
33.06
23.54
a CI
A
267
59
33.05
0.00
33«05
A AA
171
59
31.69
8.36
CO • GO
65
34
28.68
0.00
CO • OO
n on
176
77
25.62
15.49
lU « 10
227
39
23.85
t QC
o.ou
105
181
20.22
0.41
1 .88
9
CQ
19. 71
1.0/
i f • yo
n in
187
A O
19.26
U . 09
LO •Of
n nn
226
0 1
16.84
d . lo
10 • DO
n nn
313
01
15.43
1 C At
n nn
118
23
11.30
0.00
1 1 1A
n nn
236
CO
10.53
lU. Oo
A AA
n nn
98
79
0.00
0.00
A AA
U •Uv
n nn
106
24
65.00
0.00
65.00
0.00
266
40
54.00
9.00
39.00
6.00
54
24
49.38
0,62
48.75
0.00
38
23
47.39
2.17
45.22
0.00
53
20
39.00
0.00
39.00
0.00
146
87
35.86
0.00
35.86
0.00
74
44
35.45
0.00
35.45
0.00
182
24
32.50
0.00
32.50
0.00
46
59
29.75
2.54
26.44
0.76
233
93
27.18
13.90
14.28
0.00
137
39
26.79
1.03
25.77
0.00
228
39
26.41
6.41
20.00
0.00
29
78
26.09
1.92
24,17
0.00
232
84
24.88
8.99
11.61
4.29
48
85
24.88
0.27
24.47
0.14
43
66
23.64
0.00
23.64
0.00
94
80
20.75
1.25
19.50
0.00
235
38
20.53
0.00
20.53
0,00
80
39
20.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
194
39
20.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
248
97
19.79
0.00
16.08
3.71
274
368
19.02
19.02
0.00
0.00
144
49
18.16
1.63
15.92
0.61
202
46
17.39
0.43
16.96
0.00
45
107
17.01
0,00
17.01
0.00
165
54
14.63
0,19
14.44
0.00
41
83
13.01
3,61
9.40
0.00
225
75
11.73
1,33
10.40
0.00
39
293
8.05
0.06
7.99
0.00
177
145
5.90
1.24
4.03
0.62
250
60
**
*•
• *
«•
239*
32
♦
*
V
*
99
39
28.33
0.00
28.33
0.00
173
103
22.72
0.00
22.72
0.00
40
40
20.50
1.00
19.60
0.00
47
174
11.32
4.60
6.72
0.00
42
39
4.62
4.62
0.00
0.00
100
50
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
1930
1929
' o
o
Labor costs
per acre
Sched ■
ule
no.
10
Labor costs
per acri
u
o
<
7"
Total
nirea
s ami i.y
^ -
o
<i
Total
Hired
Family 1
Board
Lan
i in Clai
S8 I
29
$96.73
«2.59
#94.14
$0.00
172
20
$91.00
$0.00
$91.00
to. 00
20
91.00
0.00
91.00
0.00
271
39
88.66
0.00
88.66
0.00
39
88.66
0.00
OO . DO
n nn
238
38
71.85
0.00
71 .85
0.00
38
72.11
0.26
71.85
0.00
169
19
58.52
1.05
57.47
0.00
68.00
10.53
57.47
0.00
188
20
56.90
1.20
64.60
1.10
20
56.85
1.50
54.60
0.75
234
61
0*. v<3
23.36
31.33
0.00
61
54.69
23.36
31.33
0.00
97
60
0%. OL-
0 .00
RA fin
o* .
0.00
60
54.60
0.00
54. 60
0 .00
171
39
OU . I 1
18 .05
32.66
0.00
67
48.12
5.78
42.34
0.00
O '
Aft A7
42.34
0.00
39
47.97
15.31
32.66
0.00
267
59
0 .00
46.27
0.00
59
46.27
0.00
46.27
0.00
226
57
A A 77
4*. 1 I
90 Afi
19.15
3.16
34
40.15
0.00
40.15
0.00
30
41
*tC • OO
?Q ?7
13.31
0.00
41
38.80
22.56
13.31
2.93
65
34
. 1 u
0.00
40.15
o.oc
57
32.66
11.93
19.15
1.58
176
77
OO . 90
1 Q 7S
14.18
0.00
77
32.09
17.91
14.18
0.00
227
39
•^1 ft R
Ol . O 0
3.85
28.00
0.00
39
31.85
3.85
28.00
0.00
9
68
97 ft7
2 .41
25.10
0.36
58
28.01
2.62
26.10
0.29
187
42
9fi 71
cO. 1 1
n 71
26.00
0.00
181
27.21
6.63
18.10
2.48
105
181
CO . f D
18.10
1.99
42
26.81
0.81
26.00
0.00
118
23
9^ 7A
CO . f %
n OO
23.74
0.00
23
23.74
0.00
23.74
0.00
236
38
1 K 7Q
10.
^ R 7Q
0.00
0.00
51
23.51
23.51
0.00
0.00
313
51
fi QA
0.00
0.00
38
18.42
18.42
0.00
0.00
98
79
u .uu
0.00
O.CO
0.00
79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
249
29
**
Lan
d in Cla
ss II
24
91.00
0.00
91.00
0.00
106
24
91.00
0.00
91.00
0.00
40
69.60
9.00
54.60
6.00
54
24
68.67
0.42
68.25
0.00
24
68.67
0.42
68.25
0.00
38
23
63.31
0.00
63.31
0.00
23
66.56
S.26
63.30
0.00
53
20
54.60
0.00
54.60
0.00
20
54.60
0.00
54.60
0.00
146
87
50.20
0.00
50.20
0.00
87
50.20
0.00
50.20
0.00
74
44
49.63
0.00
49.63
0.00
44
49.63
0.00
49.63
0.00
182
24
45.50
0.00
45.50
0.00
24
45.50
0.00
45.50
0.00
137
39
37.11
1.03
36.08
0.00
39
38.77
10.77
28.00
0.00
233
93
36.04
16.05
19.99
0.00
39
37.11
1.03
36.08
0.00
29
78
35.76
1.92
33.84
0.00
93
36.04
16.05
19.99
0.00
48
85
34.89
0.45
34.26
0.18
78
35.76
1.92
33.84
0.00
228
39
34.92
6.92
28.00
0.00
85
34.89
0.45
34.26
0.18
239
32
34.13
0.00
34.13
0.00
66
34.46
1.36
33.10
0.00
43
66
33.10
0.00
^7 in
OOa J.U
n nn
32
34.13
0.00
34.13
0.00
94
80
31.93
1.25
27.30
3.38
32
34.13
0.00
34.13
0.00
232
84
31.85
11.31
16.25
4.29
80
31.93
1.25
27.30
3.38
236
38
28.74
0.00
28.74
0.00
84
31.85
11.31
16.25
4.29
80
39
28.00
0.00
28.00
0.00
38
28.74
0.00
28.74
0.00
46
59
26.65
6.78
18.51
1.36
39
28.00
0.00
28.00
0,00
248
97
26.22
0.00
22.51
3.71
97
26.22
0.00
22.61
3.71
45
107
24.28
0.47
23.81
0.00
59
25.20
5.42
18.61
1.27
144
49
23.72
0.82
22.29
0.61
49
24.43
1.53
22.29
0.61
165
54
20.22
0.00
20.22
0.00
107
24.28
0.47
23.81
0.00
274
368
19.02
19.02
0.00
0.00
54
20.41
0.19
20.22
0.00
41
83
18.58
5.42
13.16
0.00
368
19.02
19.02
0.00
0.00
177
145
17.75
4.30
11.30
2.15
83
17.98
4.82
13.16
0.00
225
75
15.33
16.33
0.00
0.00
75
16.16
1.60
14.66
0.00
39
293
11.26
0.06
11.19
0.00
293
11.62
0.43
11.19
0.00
250
60
4.17
4.17
0.00
0.00
145
8.87
2.16
5.64
1.08
202
32
• »
• *
*»
*•
60
3.33
3.33
0.00
0.00
266
40
• *
**
«*
»»
39
*•
*•
*♦
194
39
**
• *
*•
Land in Cl(
IBS III
39
39.66
0.00
39.66
0.00
173
103
31.81
0.00
31.81
0.00
103
31.81
0.00
31.81
0.00
40
40
28.80
1.50
27.30
0.00
40
28.30
1.00
27.30
0.00
47
174
12.17
2.76
9.41
0.00
174
14.01
4.60
9.41
0.00
100
30
0
0.00
0
0.00
50
0.00
O.CO
0.00
0.00
99
39
*•
• »
39
*♦
*•
»*
*•
42
39
**
• *
Sched
ule
no.
249
172
271
238
169
188
234
97
195
171
267
66
30
226
176
227
9
105
187
118
313
236
98
106
266
54
38
53
146
74
182
228
137
233
29
48
43
202
239
94
232
235
80
248
46
144
45
165
274
41
225
39
177
250
194
99
173
40
47
100
42
• Rented for the year specified.
•• Data incomplete.
1/ Schedule numbers 231 end 302, Land in Class I, 229,224, and 44, Land in Cless II, and 101, Land in Class III,
irtiich are cash-rented farms, have not been included.
1
Dairy 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
1950
192S
Schedule
Costs A+B+C+D
bcneauie
Schedule
Costs A+B+C+D
number
Acres
per acre
number
Acres
number
Acres
per acre
Lan
d in ClJ
n * T
1S8 1
169
19
$146. 78
249
29
$160.90
169
19
$127.15
^ 1 c
20
119.45
169
19
141.78
97
60
119.84
249
29
108.13
172
20
121.90
172
20
118.35
271
39
94.05
271
39
121.40
234
61
104.08
238
38
87.68
234
61
99.08
271
59
105.07
234
61
84.51
238
38
92.79
226
57
99.10
97
60
75.98
30
41
80.12
238
58
92 . 95
226
57
70.25
97
60
79.14
187
42
91 .67
50
41
68.20
118
25
74.48
30
41
78.97
195
67
66.07
171
39
73.43
188
20
lb . 00
171
39
61.92
195
67
72.81
171
59
73.76
66
34
57.17
188
20
71.70
195
67
70.77
227
39
55.71
65
34
67.29
65
34
66.99
105
161
55.34
226
57
66.35
176
77
65.64
188
20
54.70
267
59
65.03
Q
58
63.10
267
59
50.49
105
181
61.62
267
59
62.32
176
77
46.10
187
42
60.62
118
23
60.13
9
58
45.12
227
39
60.00
227
39
59.69
187
42
43.07
9
58
49.65
105
181
55.40
118
23
37.61
176
77
49.57
256
58
53.97
236
38
31.94
313
51
47.02
313
51
18.22
313
51
29.55
236
38
40.60
302*
32
15.94
302»
32
15.84
302*
32
16.06
98
79
10.55
98
79
11.05
98
79
10.55
231*
42
5.93
231*
42
6.17
231*
42
6.76
249
29
• *
Lar
id m CI
ass 11
38
23
105.04
38
23
126.43
182
24
130 . 16
266
40
96.90
137
59
117.84
106
24
108 . 20
106
24
93.41
106
24
116.04
58
23
102 . 17
54
24
83.87
266
40
108.85
54
24
90 . 20
53
20
73.35
54
24
92.66
55
20
84 . 30
182
24
73.20
182
24
89.54
157
59
76.97
137
39
70.74
53
20
84.70
228
59
76.56
194
39
62.97
74
44
74.45
144
49
76 . 20
46
59
61.38
46
59
65.08
146
87
68.04
74
44
55.59
239
32
64.09
74
44
66.15
29
78
54.74
146
87
65.62
46
59
58.69
228
39
48.94
80
39
61.76
259
32
56.87
48
85
48.04
228
39
58.69
29
78
52.49
146
87
47.99
144
49
57.24
48
85
50.50
144
49
45.65
235
38
55.15
232
84
48.93
c oo
93
44.59
29
78
52.60
233
93
48.49
oo
42.68
48
85
51.86
43
66
48.11
232
84
42.10
233
93
51.44
235
38
43.34
202
46
40.17
232
84
47.84
94
80
40.41
43
66
39.56
43
66
46.80
45
107
38.90
54
34.94
202
32
42.59
OKI
59
38 .50
QA.
an
33.00
94
80
41.26
165
54
38.09
9 7 A.
368
31 .77
165
54
59.39
41
85
34.50
39
30.74
45
107
38.89
177
145
33.44
107
30.54
41
83
34.85
248
97
32.59
97
26.88
248
97
54.00
274
568
31 .69
225
75
26.38
274
368
31.12
225
75
25.50
41
83
26.31
225
75
27.99
250
60
22.14
177
145
24.37
177
145
26.07
39
293
20.71
239*
32
22.16
250
60
21.31
229*
59
16.82
224*
38
18.94
39
293
20.37
224*
58
13.49
250
60
18.33
224*
38
17.07
44*
42
13.30
39
293
16.00
229f
39
16.36
266
40
229*
39
15.28
44*
42
8.73
194
39
*•
44*
42
8.21
194
39
202
32
• *
Land in Class III
99
39
39.36
99
39
49.41
40
40
118.30
40
40
39.22
173
103
48.94
175
103
41.20
173
103
33.22
40
40
46.12
47
174
31.72
47
174
28.68
47
174
31.37
100
50
2.25
42
39
5.72
100
50
1.82
99
59
101*
30
3.80
42
39
42
59
**
100
50
1.90
101*
30
101*
1 50
* Rented farms.
♦* Data incomplete.
Dairy Farms In the Meroed Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land
in Order of Net Return per Acre over Costs A + B, 1931, 1930, and 1929
1931
1930
1929
ocn6uUi.o
Acr e s
Acre 8
Net return
Schedule
Acres
Net return
number
per ricro over
per a ore over
nuBiber
per acre over
CQSi'B A ^ D
costs A + B
costs A + B
XXI vXCftD
s I
118 i/
118 y
23
♦90.57
118 i/
23
♦109.57
23
♦80.48
236
38
33.29
226
57
38.36
171
39
79.31
171
39
23.20
302»
32
27.22
302*
32
27.25
302*
32
18.50
98
79
24.83
98
79
23.63
98
79
14.96
236
38
23.55
30
41
22.59
231*
42
13.21
105
181
18.36
231*
42
13.21
106
181
3.59
231»
42
13.21
313
51
11.02
9
58
1.75
171
39
6.59
105
181
5.95
226
67
1.23
9
58
5.17
65
34
0.50
313
51
-1.06
30
41
-2,63
169
19
-1.53
234
61
-8.87
65
34
-9.49
176
77
-4.88
1 A7
XO r
4.9
-9.24
176
77
-10.60
9
58
-7.02
A.^
*tx
-9. 73
234
61
-13.74
236
oo
1 n AA
— lU • DO
1*7 (}
67
-10.59
187
42
-14.79
195
67
-18.27
oo
34
-10.88
169
19
-17.69
227
39
-18.74
77
-19.31
313
51
-18.32
187
42
-19.45
39
-23.69
195
67
-21.54
226
57
-25.89
CO 1
-24.88
227
39
-22.36
267
59
-27.73
coo
oo
-30. 62
267
59
-29.57
234
61
-32.21
1 AO
1 Q
— oo . oo
238
38
-39.46
238
38
-40.19
1 pf)
lOo
CXJ
— o f • yo
97
60
-44.37
271
39
-43 . 64
OA Q
C*ks
Ca
— ^O . DJ7
188
20
-55.76
97
60
-44.69
Q7
An
-44.04
271
39
-62.54
188
20
-64.70
C 1 X.
09
-46. 26
172
20
-73.15
172
20
-75.95
lie
— ( 0 . Ov
249
29
-125.15
249
29
«•
Land
in Class II
229*
39
27.39
229»
39
29.96
228
39
85.89
44*
42
12.60
46
59
20.56
182
24
75.01
55
20
10.15
44*
42
12.60
46
59
41.01
250
60
9.37
232
84
12.27
224. .
38
15.55
48
85
3.94
53
20
9.50
225
75
8.33
224*
38
2.13
250
60
6.55
44*
42
7.81
235
38
2.05
224*
38
3.97
235
38
7.16
248
97
1.46
235
38
3.82
53
20
7.05
225
75
-0.97
228
39
2.94
250
60
6.33
239*
32
-1.25
274
368
1.71
274
368
5.66
274
368
-1.73
165
54
-0.23
45
107
3.51
165
54
-2.39
248
97
-2.31
39
293
2.14
232
84
-2.79
39
293
-2.74
232
84
0.96
39
293
-2.84
45
107
-4.04
29
78
-0.08
46
59
-3.71
80
39
-4.39
80
59
-1.34
177
145
-4.72
177
145
-6.43
94
80
-1.49
41
83
-5.88
233
93
-7.23
43
66
-2.34
144
49
-8.60
43
66
-8.36
38
23
-5.49
233
93
-9.04
41
83
-9.59
233
93
-8.03
80
39
-9.44
94
80
-10.09
41
83
-8.25
74
44
-10.98
182
24
-15.63
248
97
-9.07
228
39
-11.37
48
85
-15.64
177
145
-10.83
45
107
-11.30
225
75
-17.07
165
54
-12.28
43
56
-13.62
202
32
-17.78
137
39
-18.75
182
24
-13.96
54
24
-18.55
48
85
-19.09
202
46
-15.24
144
49
-18.56
144
49
-32.03
94
80
-17.30
29
78
-18.61
239
32
-34.43
137
39
-17.45
137
39
-22.86
146
87
-37.29
29
78
-21.63
74
44
-24.25
54
24
-39.17
146
87
-23.20
239
32
-29.81
74
44
-39.64
194
39
-37.39
146
87
-39.46
106
24
-57.33
54
24
-37.88
38
23
-45.01
229*
39
»•
38
23
-40.91
266
40
-57.58
202
*•
266
40
-51.90
106
24
-59.29
194
39
• •
106
24
-62.96
194
39
• *
266
40
40 i/
Land in Class III
40
9.00
4oy
40
8.87
173
103
14.03
101»
30
2.00
100
50
0.00
100
30
0.00
100
50
0.00
47
174
-5.28
1/
174
-1,95
42
39
-2.06
173
103
-7.78
40 -!/
40
-49.35
47
174
-4.08
99
39
-30.00
42
39
*•
173
103
-10.65
42
39
99
39
99
39
-19.43
101*
SO
«•
101*
30
• Rented farms. Data incomplete.
i/ Income from work off farw constituted e large part of the gross income of schedule numbers
118 and 40 for the three yea'-s and for schedule nurab»r 225 for 1929.
4 t
I
Dairy Farms in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Clasees of Land Arranged
in Order of Net Return per Acre Over Costs A+B+C+D, 1931, 1930, and 1929
1931
1930
1929
Net return per
Net return per
Net return per
Schedule
Acres
acre oyer
Schedule
Acres
acre over
Schedule
Acres
acre over
number
costs A+B+C+D
number
costs A+B+C+D
number
costs A+B+C+D
Li
ind in C
lass I
118*
23
$72.96
118*
23
♦90.78
171
59
$63.11
236
38
15.95
226
57
24.46
n8#
25
62.61
171
39
7.23
98
79
15.80
98
79
14.60
E31*
42
7.04
302*
32
11.16
502*
32
11.51
98
79
6.24
236
38
6.76
315
51
9.17
302*
32
2.66
231*
42
6.45
251*
42
7.28
315
51
-5.28
105
181
2.29
50
41
5.32
105
181
-11.90
9
58
-9.62
105
181
-7.78
226
57
-13.97
171
39
-9.72
65
54
-15.50
9
58
-15.85
313
51
-20.26
169
19
-15.94
187
42
-23.76
176
77
-22.02
176
77
-16.25
65
34
-26.60
30
41
-24.63
9
DO
-19.88
195
67
-27.97
65
34
-27.41
256
OO
-27.66
30
41
-81.69
169
19
-32.63
195
Of
-34.24
176
77
-32.25
195
67
-58.61
227
-34.41
267
59
-55.98
227
39
-38.98
267
CO
Off
-58.86
234
61
-58.53
187
42
-40.60
226
0 1
-59.26
227
39
-41.02
267
59
-40.72
COO
OO
-53.90
238
38
-45.69
234
61
-42.74
C 1 X
0!7
-55.00
188
20
-47 . 70
238
58
-54.45
1 ft*7
lo f
-56.81
169
19
-53.26
97
60
-65.05
fil
O^
-66.47
249
29
-59.48
188
20
-66.35
20
-75.50
97
60
-65.60
271
59
-74.07
± 1 c
20
-99.55
271
39
-65.82
172
20
-97.90
60
-104.01
172
20
-140.55
249
29
-141.59
29
*•
nd in Class n
229*
39
12.93
229*
59
14.41
228
39
76.56
44*
42
6.08
46
59
7.88
46
59
28.69
250
60
-1.54
44*
42
5.56
224*
38
6.24
248
97
-4.26
232
84
1.21
225#
75
1.16
39
293
-7.95
250
60
-4.95
44*
42
0.99
225
75
-9.05
228
59
-6.59
39
295
-2.08
235
38
-9.55
274
368
-6.52
274
368
-2.74
274
368
-10.15
224*
38
-6.55
235
38
-3.08
224*
38
-11.05
39
293
-7.49
250
60
-5.08
53
20
-11.40
235
38
-7.84
45
107
-6.26
41
83
-12.11
248
97
-7.99
94
80
-7.18
232
84
-12.75
53
20
-12.45
232
84
-9.94
239*
32
-13.10
165
54
-12.84
80
39
-10.74
177
145
-13.63
45
107
-13.77
43
66
-11.55
165
54
-14.50
41
83
-15.14
29
78
-11.60
48
85
-16.28
233
93
-15.53
233
93
-14.25
46
59
-16. 30
177
145
-15.39
53
20
-14.55
233
93
-17.72
94
80
-15.70
248
97
-14.75
80
39
-18.39
43
66
-17.59
41
85
-15.81
45
107
-20.10
202
32
-22.31
177
146
-19.47
202
46
-21.87
225
75
-26.46
Oo
CO
ot tit
228
39
-22.36
48
85
-28.56
ICR
loo
CA
D^x
-24.74
144
49
-22.37
29
78
-30.27
A O
4o
OO
-50.81
74
44
-22.41
144
49
-31.45
Lot
TQ
09
-35.44
94
80
-23.89
54
24
-35.54
14 O
O 1
-46.89
43
66
-23.94
74
44
-36.77
239
Oc
-47.49
29
78
-26.92
80
39
-37.25
74
44
-49.68
146
87
-32.42
182
24
-38.17
54
24
-51.04
137
39
-32.98
239
52
-41.62
106
24
-67.45
18?
24
-35.70
146
87
-48.82
144
49
-67.47
194
39
-42.72
38
25
-63.66
182
24
-123.75
54
24
-53.08
106
24
-71.08
229*
59
•*
38
23
-55.04
157
59
-78.18
202
32
266
40
-74.25
266
40
-78.95
194
59
106
24
-74.45
194
39
• *
266
40
• *
Land in Class III
40#
40
1.28
40#
40
0.93
173
103
7.95
101*
30
-1.80
100
50
-1.82
100
30
-2.25
100
50
-1.90
47
174
-12.95
47
174
-9.27
42
39
-3.16
173
105
-15.85
40#
40
-57.25
47
174
-11.89
99
59
-52.46
99
59
• *
173
103
-18.70
42
59
42
39
• *
99
39
-22.00
101*
50
101*
50
• •
# Income from work off farm constituted a large part of the gross income of schedule numbers
118 and 40 for the three years and for schedule number 225 for 1929.
* Rented farms.
*• Data incomplete.
Table XXV
Vineyards in the Merced Irrigation District on the Three Classes of Land
Arranged in Order of Grosn 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
number
per acre
Lan
i
in Clas
s l'
220
20
$132.50
220
20
$165.00
86
20
■il68.75
86
20
125.75
86
20
154.00
220
20
150,00
149
19
106.47
204
34
147.06
150
39
143.10
147
23
101.43
149
19
130.63
208
20
140.00
204
34
100.00
256
68
99.85
147
23
139.96
244
20
88.50
244
20
99.50
108
98
128,46
218
47
74.36
218
47
88.83
149
19
112.53
240
122
65.11
241
35
77.74
320
443
110.56
256
68
60.44
108
98
74.45
218
47
102.87
210
31
58.84
240
122
69.92
241
35
101.14
221
26
57.69
242
35
68.29
244
20
99.50
108
98
57.37
147
23
62.22
245
125
90.29
157
86
52.33
157
86
61.44
240
122
83.99
215
47
51.28
245
125
60.22
256
68
72.79
241
35
49.60
82
59
59 .32
157
86
71.88
112
38
47.92
150
39
58.67
264
130
67.06
150
39
43.31
210
31
55.19
152
223
66.15
82
59
42.37
264
130
54.97
82
59
66.10
264
130
41.57
221
26
54.62
242
35
60.00
242
35
40.29
320
443
50.03
287
76
56.28
315
200
37.46
208
20
50.00
215
47
50.53
320
443
36.52
287
76
44.88
112
38
48.97
245
125
33.65
215
47
42.13
217
46
47.39
152
223
32.39
217
46
38.59
210
31
40.32
217
46
29.24
112
38
34.24
221
26
38.08
219
28
29 .04
152 •
223
34.14
247
21
20.05
158
46
21.52
158
46
20.33
219
28
13.93
287
76
15.11
247
21
19.86
204
34
■ 11.76
247
21
14.67
89
38
14.21
89
38
11.37
89
38
11.24
219
28
-6.10#
158
46
^ *
208
20
**
315
200
315
200
* *
Lan
d
in Clas
S IIv--
318
156
70.17
318
156
106.60
318
156
220.16
246
20
51.65
151
39
74.36
246
20
108.20
151
39
37.97
246
20
64.95
211
29
67.97
211
29
33.41
216
36
46.11
126
39
61.36
275
242
33.28
126
39
42.44
216
36
47.61
126
39
30.20
85
80
36.08
151
39
46.82
92
39
29 .07
92
39
35.89
92
39
38.46
85
80
21.22
324
120
25.88
324
120
37.92
36
38
19 .97
36
38
25.42
85
80
30.06
216
36
19 .28
275
242
23.85
207
220
28.42
324
120
18.33
207
220
21.87
36
38
19.53
123
19
17.11
148
19
7.89
275
242
17.87
207
220
13.59
123
19
**
148
19
6.05
148
19
5.89
211*
29
**
123
19
♦ *
Lan
d
in Clas
s III^
222
20
12.00
222
20
16.50
222
20
9.50
f Schedule numbers 124, 297, 189, 213, 205 of land in Class I, 322 of land
in Class II, and 87 of land in Class HI, which are cash-rented farms, have not
been included.
•.f Minus income due to failure of returns of shipments to ccer freight and
handling charges.
* Rented for the year specified.
** Data incomplete.
Table XXVI
Vineyards in the deroed 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
per acre
other than
labor and
taxes
Sched-
ule
number
Acres
Cash costs
per acre
other than
labor and
taxes
Sched-
ule
number
Acres
204
149
210
221
320
218
240
244
147
241
245
256
242
220
157
215
264
112
108
82
219
86
315
89
150
217
152
158
247
208
287#
246
216
123
92
151
207
324
126
36
85
275
211
148
318#-
222
34
19
31
26
443
47
122
20
23
35
125
68
35
20
86
47
130
38
93
59
28
20
200
38
39
46
223
46
21
20
76
20
36
19
39
39
220
120
39
38
80
242
29
19
156
20
^j80.47
42.42
42.10
33.35
28.59
28.06
26.50
25.90
24.83
24.57
17.73
17.07
16.89
16.35
13.44
12.77
12,66
11.87
10.90
10.54
9.75
7.25
6.89
6.42
4.59
4.52
3.84
1.70
1.00
**
#
20.00
16.53
16.00
13.67
10.18
6.65
6.18
6.10
5.82
3.26
3.19
0.00
0.47
#
Land in Class I"-
204
210
240
149
320
218
244
241
245
112
242
220
264
147
157
86
256
215
108
82
150
152
217
219
89
208
247
221
158
315
287#
34
31
122
19
443
47
20
35
125
38
35
20
130
23
86
20
68
47
98
59
39
223
46
28
38
20
21
26
46
200
76
.^73.79
38.42
33.48
31.89
30.55
29.09
29.00
23.94
23.66
19.21
19.03
18.35
16.72
14.65
14.31
12.00
11.91
11.51
10.72
10.71
7.15
6.24
5.41
4.75
2.95
2.05
1.00
0.69
0.00
#
Land in Class II
246
324
216
151
92
207
85
126
36
275
148
211*
123
20
120
36
39
39
220
80
39
38
242
19
29
19
156
2.25
222
.1/
22.15
21.99
20.36
12.62
10.38
8.30
7.49
6.97
4.08
1.50
0.74
**
* *
7^
Land in Class III
20
2.75
204
240
320
244
149
210
218
241
112
245
220
108
264
242
157
215
82
221
256
147
152
217
86
150
219
247
89
208
168
315
287#
246
151
216
324
92
207
126
85
36
275
148
211
123
318#
222
34
122
443
20
19
31
47
35
38
125
20
98
130
35
86
47
59
26
68
23
223
46
20
39
28
21
38
20
46
200
76
20
39
36
120
39
220
39
80
38
242
19
29
19
156
20
Schedule numbers 124, 297, 189, 213, 205 of land in Class I, 322 of land
in Class II, and 87 of land in Class III, v/hich are cash-rented farms, have not
been included.
* Rented for the year specified.
4- Impossible to separate total cash costs into a and B units.
Data incomplete.
i
• -
Vineyards in the Meroed Irrtgfttlon District on the Three Classes of Land
Arranged in Order of Labor Costs per Aore, 1931, 1930, and 1929 ^
1931
1950
1929
i hed-
'ul
u e
n
Acres
Labor costs
per aore
Sohod-
ule
no.
Acres
Labor
oost s
per aore
Sched-
ule
no.
BQ
U
Labo
r costs
per acr
B
Total
Hired
Family
Board
Total
Hired
Family
Joard
O
«!
Total
Hired
Family
Board
Land
In Class
I
244
20
$105.00
% 7.50
% 97.50
$0.00
244
20
$144.00
$7.50
$136.50
$0.00
244
20
$146.50
$10.00
$136.50
$0.00
204
34
87.06
41.18
45.88
0.00
218
47
106.25
37.23
50.34
18.68
218
47
111.57
42.55
50.34
18.68
218
47
85.11
31.92
35.96
17.23
204
34
105.41
41.18
64.23
0.00
242
35
100.57
48.57
52.00
0.00
242
35
65.71
28.57
37.14
0.00
242
35
94.86
42.86
52.00
0.00
204
34
99.52
35.29
64.23
0.00
210
ox
62.97
13.94
41.94
7.10
241
35
93.92
54.11
59.81
0.00
210
31
84.40
19.25
58.72
6.45
221
26
60.96
38.45
22.50
0.00
210
31
82.56
17.39
58.72
6.45
241
55
72.01
12.20
59.81
0.00
215
47
UU . TfcO
25.53
24.89
0.00
256
68
68.76
20.59
48.17
0.00
112
58
68.00
10.55
57.47
0.00
241
35
49.74
7.03
42.72
0.00
112
38
00 • oo
7 AO
0.00
208
20
67.50
67.50
0.00
0.00
256
68
48.63
14.22
34.41
0.00
149
19
63.16
24.84
38.32
0.00
256
68
67.29
19.12
48.17
0.00
149
19
46.74
19.37
27.37
0.00
215
47
60.38
25.53
U •UU
A7
60.38
25.55
34.86
0.00
112
38
45.00
3.95
41.05
0.00
221
26
58.42
26.92
31.50
0.00
221
26
60.55
28.85
31.50
0.00
■I u f
86
41.40
23.26
18.14
0.00
208
20
55.00
55.00
0.00
0.00
240
122
57.29
57.29
0.00
0.00
320
443
39.51
39.51
0.00
0.00
240
122
51.85
51.85
0.00
0.00
149
19
56.85
18.53
38.32
0.00
86
20
37.75
31.25
6.50
0.00
157
86
50.98
25.58
25.40
0.00
520
445
54.57
54.57
0.00
0.00
240
122
36.51
36.51
0.00
0.00
82
59
50.58
13.56
37.02
0.00
157
86
54.47
29.07
25.40
0.00
219
28
35.29
35.29
0.00
0.00
108
98
48.82
48.82
0.00
0.00
82
59
53.97
16.95
37.02
0.00
220
20
33.50
7.50
26.00
0.00
320
443
47.15
47.15
0.00
0.00
220
20
47.40
11.00
36.40
0.00
315
200
32.87
32.87
0.00
0.00
86
20
46.60
37.50
9.10
0.00
86
20
47.20
38.10
9.10
0.00
108
98
31.04
31.04
0.00
0.00
220
20
46.40
10.00
36.40
0.00
108
98
46.30
46.30
0.00
0.00
147
CO
30.00
18.70
11.30
0.00
245
125
39.85
28.20
11.65
0.00
152
225
46.09
46.09
0.00
0.00
82
59
28.98
2.54
26.44
0.00
219
28
36.43
36.43
0.00
0.00
245
125
42.09
30.44
11.65
0.00
152
223
9ft 79
CO . / c
CO. > 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.
<u
<M
as
o
C^J
CO
<
C\i
-P
Ch
O
o
CM
o
I— 1
a
nt
c
CO
(D
a>
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
<P
w
CD
-P
•H
OS
CD
c-
^
Vi
•P
to
to
CM
0)
■ H
o
CD
r-i
S-.
1
O
0)
+^
C
dJ
cr-
m
m
to
4^
'O
1-1
Csl
OS
OB
00
o
^
^1
CM
OS
r —
c
4)
(U
A
to
^-
CO
U
>>
(D
CM
1—1
as
CO
(D
-P
^
<D
O
r-t
o
+'
1—1
+^
nu
CO
CO
•i-i
CM
1-1
i-.
0)
i
O
C
iH
0)
t-i
o
,C
l-H
1—1
to
•H
pi
c
M
•H
CO
tJ
CM
M
to
U
nt
OS
O
+^
P
o
to
CO
to
a:
OS
e
w
CO
1—1
1-1
as
1-1.
l-^
*
♦
St-
t^
*
o
1—1
00
Oi
«
CM
1-1
■H
Table XXXIV
Grain and General Farms in the Merced Irrigation District
cn the Three Classes of Land Arranged in Order of Costs A-^B-t-C-s-D
per Acre, 1931, 1930, and 1929
1931
1929
o o xit; u.
Costs
_. .
C ^ Vi .-1 ^
Co sts
Sched-
Costs
Acres
A+B+C+D
uIg
Acre s
At-B<-C :-D
ule
Acres
A-i-B'f-C^-D
oer acre
in 1 T Tn r\ Q V
nuinue r
oer acre
number
per acre
— ^
Lane
L in Clas
s I
200
ou
•ip 0 0 . -L D
200
30
s^84.63
30
s!>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
<iU
y . iu
167
48
9.54
161*
20
6.80
317
oU
O .Ob
161*
20
7.15
196*
40
3 .20
167
/ Q
'2 o ^
O .0 1
317
80
5.96
273*
60
1 . 74
155
56
3 . 32
196*
40
3.40
199
20
1.70
102*
iy
3 . 16
199*
20
1.85
181*
209
1.70
196*
40
3.05
181*
209
1.81
278*
23
1.52
238*
38
2.28
273^
60
1.80
184"-
1004
1.48
199
20
1.80
184*
1004
1.54
191*
37
1.30
273*
60
1.75
290*
156
1.40
276*
39
1.28
181*
209
1.67
278*
23
1.39
290*
156
1.25
282*
960
1.52
191>^
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<i
±DD
^ KA
c, 1 1
X J-D
1922
141
197
160
140
152
±'± u
23?
124
1923
147
214
161
142
153
±0D
CrkO
135
1924
143
218
162
143
154
1 66
249
134
1925
151
223
165
149
159
-LD o
1 47
1926
146
229
164
144
156
111
XOD
1927
139
231
161
144
154
1 7A
1928
141
232
162
146
156
c u o
1 39
1929
139
236
160
146
155
1 7A
1 l\J
9 fi7
CO 1
X o o
1930
126
226
151
140
146
IDC,
9
COO
117
X X 1
1931
107
207
129
122
126
116
1932
DO
January-
98
191
118
98
February
97
189
116
60
March
96
189
115
112
114
61
April
96
183
113
94
59
May
94
177
112
56
June
93
174
111
109
110
52
July
94
171
109
87
57
August
95
173
108
59
September
95
177
109
106
108
59
October
94
177
107
84
56
November
93
171
106
54
* United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, "The Agri-
cultural Situation" for January, 1933, pp. 23 and 24.
J/ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Index obtained by dividing the new series
1926=100, by its pre-war average, 1910-1914, 68.5.
^/Average weekly earnings. New York State factories. June, 1914-100.
^ Index of estimate of total taxes paid on all farm property, 1914-100.
-')']-
includes agricultural products, and the orices of non-agricultural commodities
are therefore higher than those indicated for the all-conimodities level. The
level of orices paid by farmers for cormodities used in living and production
had declined by 1930 to 146 per cent of their pre-war level, in 1931 to 1926,
and in November, 1932 had reached a level of 106. Farm wages (for the United
States) had come down by 1930 to a level of 152 per cent of pre-war, in 1931 to
116, and by November, 1932 to 84 per cent. (For the convenience of the reader
page 23 of the agricultural Situation issued by the United States Bureau of agri-
cultural Economics for January, 1933 is reproduced as 'T'able /CLVI . )
Having before us the picture as above presented, the question is, what
can be regarded as a reasonable prospect for the future? The 1932 business on
these farms, while not specifically covered in this survey, is known to have re-
sulted in large operating losses on nearly all of the farms even though District
assessments not be included in the costs. Costs, especially those for labor,
had been lowered in 1932 as compared to 1931. Labor costs were down by as much
as 20 to 25 per cent; other types by smaller percentages; some not at all. But
prices for the principal products of the District, as a weighted average, had
declined in 1932 to more than 30 per cent below the levels of 1931. It seems
reasonable to expect some improvement in orices and some adjustments in costs
which will place the farmer in a better position than that which prevailed in
1932. Prospects for 1933 do not appear materially different from those of 1932.
It would seem reasonable, however, to expect sufficient price improvement and
cost adjustment over a period of years ahead to bring the farmers of the area to
as good a net-earnings position as that of 1931. In view of the considerations
pointed out in discussing the general price situation (pp. 28-34) price advances
materially in excess of that so indicated do not seem probable in the years
immediately ahead, except as extreme and wholly unpredictable developments such
as wars or extensive mionetary changes may occur. If the general view indicated
above be accepted it appears reasonable to think in terms of the 1931 earnings
situation as compared to that of 1929 in arriving at an adjustment of the
District's indebtedness. These are shovm on page 122 and in the figures on pages
111 and 112.
As a further basis of adjustment it is believed that the following general
conclusions from the study are ./arranted:
1. That the farmers of the District whose holdings are principally made up
of Class I land and who had developed their holdings to something near
their full producing capacity would in general have been able to carry
on ^vith the income and tax levels of 1929. The data gathered in this
survey do not, however, disclose a large number of farmers, even on Class
I lands, who have their holdings developed to a high percentage of their
possible productive capacities. Considering the Class I lands as a whole,
/ /<7
they were not, in 1939, earning a net amount sufficient to cover District
assessments, but there apoeared to be sufficient confidence in their
future development to induce inputs of funds (from sources outside the
District, from wages and salaries, and from savings) sufficient to cover
most of the as sess^nents not earned by the lands. The financial histories
of many of the farmers visited in the survey (not reproduced in this re-
port) sho^v considerable amounts of outside funds still being invested in
1929. This is, of course, the usual situation in young districts.
The survey indicates that rather large additional inputs of capital
will be necessary to bring even the Class I lands into the fullest possi-
ble production. Some doubt exists, hor/ever, as to whether the demand for
agricultural products will warrant, even in many years to come, very much
further develooment along the most intensive lines: that is, of plantings
of trees and vines. It seems more likely that further development will^
be along such semi-intensive lines as alfalfa and dairy production and in
the form of better organization and more economical opuration of the farms.
Some doubt exists as to the ability of farmers on Class II lands,
even if such land were fully developed, to carry on successfully on the
basis of the income and tax levels of 1929. It seems clear, however, that,
as to Class III lands, the tax levels of 1929 would be excessive even -dth
the price level of that year.
2. That, in view of the general outlook in agriculture, the needed additions
to improvements, readjustments in sizes of holdings to give more economic
farm units, and changes in types and methods of farming which will give
higher yields are not likely to be rapid even on farms already developed
or in process of development. As to the larger acreages which are still
being extensively farmed, the changes needed to give them an earning
capacity sufficient to oay substantial charges for water are likely to take
place even less rapidly, both because of the present and prospective lack
of demand for more lands for agricultural production and because of the
large capital expenditures necessary for puttin^ these holdings into the
more intensive types of agriculture.
3. That \vhatever the level of prices, the basic factor in the ability of an
irrigation district to pay for water lies in the ability of its lands to
produce income in excess of essential items of cost. The land classifi-
cation by Mr. Cone has given the first segregation of the lands of the
District based on relative earning capacities. I'Tith a classification of
100 per cent representing the tv;o most important soil types of the
District when considered from the standpoint of fertility and range of
crop adaptability, Mr. Cone found that 22 per cent of the entire irrigable
area (38,607 acres) is in Class I, 31 per cent (52,151 acres) in Class II,
and 47 per cent (80,852 acres) in Class III.v' In view of the careful
manner in v/hich the classification '.vas made and the long experience vmich
Mr. Cone has had with the lands of the District and with their relative
productivities, it is believed that the classification sets forth with
reasonable accuracy the character of the land.
^The acreage in each one of the soil |
follows, the land with a percentage clas:
I, 60 to 85 in Class II, and under 60 in
150% 1,246
125 2,045
120 1,776
110 531
100 25,205
90 5,062
85 2,742
80 12,973
75 8,655
70 11,205
65 4,414
;rades was found by ivlr. Cone to be as
ification of 85 up being put in Class
Class III.
60% 14,904
55 510
50 14,459
45 211
40 19,015
35 8,343
30 13,154
25 7,317
20 14,250
15 5,593
Total 171,610
4. That if the farmers of the District are to continue v/ith their present
farming programs and are to be encouraged to gc forv/ard with the improve
ments which are essential for stabilizing their positions, there must be
some substantial reduction in the fixed charges v/hich they are compelled
to pay.
-//'?-
presumably there will be some reduction in the amounts of county
taxes and in certain other relatively rigid types of expense. Interest
payuents on private debts have not been included in the computations
shoi\fn. Where these cannot be met there v;ill be, as in the past, fore-
closures and changes of ownership. This is resulting in a gradual re-
duction in the private debt load and in interest payments on its account,
but will not affect the District assessment situation except in so far
as it may affect adversely the quality of operation of the farms.
The follovi/ing summarization of various phases of the factual material
developed in the survey indicate more fully the bases on which the above
conclusions rest: The results for 19E9 show 54 out of 126 farms (43 per cent)
-110-
on Class I lands with returns less than sufficient to cover their cash expenses
for supplies and labor, their county taxes, and a going rate on the family labor
used. Numerous individual cases encountered showed considerable inputs of money
not earned by the lands. Some.vhat offsetting; this is the fact that some of the
acreage was undeveloped or in process of development and that some of the oper-
ating expense could, therefore, be regarded as capital investment. The earning
situation was also affected by the fact that certain of the crops, particularly
those in Group I suffered from frost in that year. The effects of this should
be
not/completely discounted, however, since it is a condition which tends to recur
in greater or less severity at intervals.
Yath regard to the view that the conditions of 1931 represent a reasonable
expectation for the years immediately ahead, there is, of course, much less of
factual basis to go on. Conditions for 1933 will almost certainly be little
better than those for 1932, unless there should be some major development not
now foreseeable. Conditions beyond that point are predicated largely upon the
course of events that has been characteristic of the later years of previous
major deoressions.
The price changes over the past feiv years for the District's principal
crops will give some perspective as to the present price situation for these
crops. Considering the period 1910-14 as 100, the weighted state average of
prices paid to farmers for the principal crops grown in the District stood at
152 per cent in 1929. By 1930 it had come down to 97.9, and in 1931 to 79.4.
3y 1932 these prices were do\m to 55.2, a level so lov/ that it seems likely to
make forcible curtailment of soirie of the production both within the District and
elsewhere, and possibly thus to operate as a means of improving orices somewhat
but at the cost of reduced volumes. Substantial tonnages both of fruits and of
truck crops in the District went unharvested in 1932 even after the expense of
producing them up to the harvest period had been incurred. It will be noted,
-12 1-
however, that for prices to regain the 1931 levels -.vould require an advance
from 55.2 per cent of the 1910-14 base to 79.4, a genex-al advance of 44 per cent
over the 1932 prices.
If prices do not rise materially costs will undoubtedly be brought
to still lower levels, but probably only slowly, v/ages of farm labor have, in
1932, declined from a rate of 25 cents per hour in 1931 to 20 cents and in many
cases to 15 cents (without board or lodging). It may be questioned, however, if
labor can be secured at these rates ivhen industrial activity revives. Commodi-
ties purchased by farmers for use in production stood at 146 per cent of pre-war
in 1929, and had dropped to 140 in 1930, to 122 in 1931, and to 106 by October,
1932. One can only say that it will require substantial improvement in condi-
tions for them to reach a situation as good as that of 1931, There is little
real evidence on which to base a judgment as to what average they will attain
for the next ten or twenty years.
Charts I, II, and III show graphically the net incomes per acre over
costs A, B, and D, by farms, for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931 arranged in
order of their size from left to right, the lowest being at the left. It will
be seen that the largest variations occur at the two extremes whereas there is
a middle section in which the lines run more nearly parallel. If the upper 25
per cent and the lower 25 per cent are eliminated, we have in the middle 50 per
cent something approximating what the representative farm is doing and what can
reasonably be expected of the bulk of the farmers. The incomes for the middle
50 per cent have accordingly been averaged for each of the years and for each
class of land.
-I2Z'
The declines in income (averages for the middle halves of the arrays)
are as follows:
For Class I lands:
From 1929 to 1930 — ^9.30 per acre
1929 to 1931 — 3.93 " "
For Class II lands:
From 1929 to 1930 — ^4.67 per acre
" 1929 to 1931 — 5.28 " "
For Class III lands:
From 1929 to 1930 ~ ;'t.0.44 per acre
" 1929 to 1931 — 1.14 " "
If depreciation is included the declines in the return over A, B, C, and
D costs are as folio ,vs:
For Class I lands:
From 1929 to 1930 — $6.64 per acre
" 1929 to 1931 — 7.46 " "
For Class II lands:
From 1929 to 1930 — ,^6.06 per acre
" 1929 to 1931 — 6.68 " "
For Class III lands:
From 1929 to 1930 — ^50. 71 per acre
" 1929 to 1931 -- 2.47 " "
Under the assumptions made, depreciation, any returns on the value of the
land, and any requirement of interest necessary to induce farmers to carry on,
must come out of the incom.e allowed for family labor, out of greater savings in
cash expense than those indicated, or must be covered through a higher price basis
than that assumed.
Taking the relationship between net returns over costs A, B, and D, as
shown for Class I lands, the difference between 1929 and 1931 (average for the
middle half of the range) is ;!58.93 per acre. Certain modifications of this
-123-
should be made though their amounts are problematical. One of these is in the
charge for county and school district taxes. The average of these for the Class I
lands in the sample is qi3.93 per acre. Very -widespread efforts are being made to
reduce taxes on prooerty. Accomplishments along this line are slow and often dis-
appointing in amount. It seems not unreasonable, if prices remain at low levels,
to look forward to a do.vnv/ard adjustment of county and school district taxes
which would amount to as much as 25 per cent of the amounts levied in 1931. Pre-
liminary reports from l;ashington indicate that the 1933 tax levies on farm proper-
ty are dom about 20 per cent over the country as a whole. If county taxes are
adjusted dc^vnward by as much as 25 per cent, this will lessen the charge on the
Class I lands by approximately one dollar per acre. Such a possible saving is
contingent, however, upon the state finding ways to bai-ince its budget without
resort to an ad valorem property tax; since any tax on property levied by the
state would offset by so much savings achieved locally.
That the difficulties which have been encountered are not confined to
District affairs is shown by similar heavy delinquencies in county taxes. There
is prospect that some of the schools v/ill have to close early because of lack cf
funds. For example, delinquency in the Cressey School District was 50.8 per cent
on January 1, 1933, that in Farmdale District, 48.8 per cent, in Jordan District
45.1 per cent, and in ¥.rhitmer 28.1 per cent. Others are not so high but still
show disturbingly large delinquencies. There are many evidences that the money
to meet obligations is not available and cannot be raised except as conditions
improve very substantially.
Another consideration which needs to be recognized is that both incomes
and expenses in 1931 were somev/hat affected by water shortage. This is extremely
difficult to allow for because it appears not only in reduced output but in extra
expense for pumping water. The lessened production appears to be largely in
alfalfa since the District's water supply did not run out until the first of July
from which time many of the major crops would be able to develop without addi-
tional water. Reduced yield of this type is partly offset by the fact that 1929
production was somewhat decreased but in a different way and from a different
cause; namely, frost damage. Further consideration will need to be given to this
phase of the problem since the records available from the survey do not afford
very definite information concerning it.
In the case of lands in Class II the charge (average for the middle 50 per
cent) is ,55.28 per acre. These lauds represent for the most part some rhat less
t
settled types of farming than most of those in Class I. They probably face the
necessity for somewhat more extensive readjustments in crops, sizes of unit, etc.
before they will be in settled operation. It would seem logical to apply to
these lands in Class II ratings for purposes of District assessment that would
be approximately in the proportion that the Cone survey gives to these lands as
compared to the lands in Class I.
The lands in Class III may be regarded as little suited to anything but
pasture, rice, and other small grains, and their abilities to pay District assess-
ments can be more definitely ascertained than for either of the other t-m classes.
These abilities are reflected in the summaries shcivn for pasture, barley and rice
lands. Earning powers in these cases are more directly dependent upon prices of
the products than in the other cases, since expense is a less important item.
Rentals from pasture lands are not likely to rise substantially or quickly. Any
sharp increases in the prices for rice and barley would affect rentals for these
lands materially so far as percentage changes are concerned. The lands have good
producing ability for these purposes, but neither type of production can be
carried on and show any substantial return over cash costs at present prices.
For the lands in this class, the decrease in per acre net return between 1929
and 1931 was $1.14 per acre. County and local tax on these lands amounted, in
1931, to about $1,61 cents per acre. If these taxes are modified as discussed
under the section on lands in Class I, the amount of such adjustment would be
about .J .40 per acre. Except in the case of rice the earnings and expenses on
these lands were less affected by the water shortage of 1931 than were those on
Class I lands.
The report here presented will appear, to most readers of it, a very dark
picture. It would be much more satisfactory to the writer if a more cheerful
prospect could be shown. It is necessary, however, to recognize that we are
passing through one of the most widespread and drastic financial readjustments
in the world's history. Obligations assumed by various nations, which at the
time the agreements were made seemed manageable, have since proved to be im-
possible of fulfillment. Mortgage foreclosures by agencies lending on farm
mortgages have assumed wholesale proportions throughout the country, even where
no irrigation enterprises with their attendant high fixed charges have been
undertaken. Such mortgages were in most cases on a basis of 50 per cent or less
of the values of these farms at the time the loans were made. It is now in
nearly all cases impossible to sell the foreclosed farms at anything approaching
the amounts originally loaned on them.
- /26'-
^■^ENDIX — Survey Fortis Used
Name Lega
Farm
1 description of
Number
land
Address
Predominant Soil Type ( Family labor available ( months )_
^IM0» moniins nireu j.d.uui wiiioii
( would be necessary to replace)
Predominant Crop Grown Sex Age
Acres in
Total acreage of
Investment :
Dwellings:
Owners
farm
Date Built
Cost
%
Present Value 1
%
Annual
Depreciation
%
Tenants
Garage
Barns r
Dairy
Milking Shed
Shelter Shed
Calf Barn
Silos
Milk House
Hay ..
Poultry
r
r :
■I :
■
i
\
-.1. .
i
Investment (Con't)
Sheds ;
Fruit
Date Built
Cost
Present Value
Annual
Depreciation
Sulphur
Huller
Machine
Shop
Other Buildings:
Fencing
Water Supply
Equipment
Pumping Plant
Windmills & Tank
Pressure System
Wells:
Domestic
Irrigat ion
Pipe lines:
Remarks :
-111-
!
!
if
1
i
■
■
t
•
...
I
t ;
;• ■ •■—] . 1.
- •-■
• _ ... .
!
i
- - ■•
i
" .
t
Z^'-^'m ."■.^."""'Vr ■'•^ —
t
i
. -. .
i* arm Maoniiicx ^ r
Wasons
No.
Date Bought
Purchase
price
Present
Value
Annual de-
preciation
Plows
Discs
Harrov/s
Scrapers
1
LuibivabOi o
I
r lan ters
Mowers
Rake s
Hay press
Hay loader
Hay sxaCKers
Silage cutter
Spreaders
MilKlnp; rnacnine
Cream separator
Milk cooler
Sterilizer
Miscellaneous
dairy supplies
Spray outiits
Brusn Durnei
TTi ■» T "1 /-I -vi
tiuiier
xieaTjers
.. .
Tank v/ason
Ladders
i
_j — — .
1
- ... ■ *- . 1 '
. — . ... , ^ . * . .
• • <k - -
V
.
i
» , . . .
!
i
(
)
■• 4'
f
i
! ^
■ - .J..—..
Farm Mach.(Con't)
Corn Binder
Drills & Seeders
No.
Date Bought
Purchase
price
Present
Value
Annual de-
preciation
Minor farm equipment:
Lug boxes
Trays
Small Tcols &
Miscellaneous
Power equipment;
Automobiles
Trucks
Tractors
Gas engines
Electric raotors_
Harne s s_
Livestock:
Horses
Mules
Dairy cattle_:
Cov/s, mature
Heifers, 2 yr.
No.
Heifers (6mo-2yr)
C a Ive s
Bulls
Value
1
- ■ - >- -
— ^— 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..
; *
- ♦ <r f
f
.'.J'^-....-..:
! ;
■
V
~ - .. . ^
; ■ ' r
1
*■
■•
i,
: . <
\
.X.
. J* ...
i
:-±r
~ - X-^. 1 ^,rjji^.r:z.'~-^
■r----
-i- ' ■- ■t — V ■
- — •.- -r^tr
■^■^J.Jl-a----^-'=i/--.- i r-^-r^-r: \
V',''
r
.-»-
. - «;*^
1
j . ^ , , ....
*. 1..!.^ _• _• "
.J, .;. j '
i
i ■ . i ' *
APPENDIX G
Inco.ne from Lands Taken Over by the Merced Irrigation District
(1928 to 1932 inclusive)
Table 1 shows acreages of land sold and leased by the District during
the years 1928 to 1932 and the income from them. It will be noted that sales
were substantial in the year 1929, but have been negligible since that time.
The tendency is of course for the poorer and the relatively over-assessed lands
to pass into the hands of the District. Many of these pieces have not yielded
any net return in the last three years. Recently some of the better lands, es-
pecially those not highly developed are being allowed to pass to the District.
It v/ill be noted that the average return on these lands was in 1931 about 65
cents per acre and in 1932 about ■'i?1.10 per acre. (See Table 1 .)
I
Tsble 1
Income from Lands Taken over by the Merced Irrigation District
(Segregated by years)
Year
Acres
Assessed
value
Delinquent
taxes
Sales
price
I'isc .
expense
J ' eTy reuunio
from sales
XliOumt; XL uut
leases
return
1928
1929**
1930
1931
1932
Total
40
2507^^
1337
56
15
1,200*
226,060
30,860
5,600
2,185
t 592.95
82,036.46
13,869.80
1,343.42
628.75
Prope
^? 592.75
49,782.40
7,230.00
1,204.00
550.00
rties sold
<'24,178.01
592 . 75
24,428.38
6,230.00
871.20
250.00
Ji''9 ,498.49
% 592.75
33,926.87
6,230.00
871.20
250.00
3955"!
265 ,905
90,4/1.30
oi) , <3t)y .10
c4:,X rO.UX
■3,9 -Kwy
9 498.49
41 ,870.62
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
Total
210
681
20
4019
5019
23,100
52,025
1,400
387,395
509,105
7,837.64
20,170.34
575.30
126,726.32
133,707.93
Properl
;ies on hand
187.80
1,155.96
2,611.24
2,594.90
3,000.00-^
187.80
1,155.96
2,611.24
2,594.90
3,000.00
9949
973,025
289,017.53
9,549.90
9,549.90
* One parcel not gn.ven.
♦* Acreage of four lots not given.
1 Net return from sales does not exactly equal sales price owing to failure in some cases to make
full payments on piwchases. These balances shown as Bills Receivable on the books of the District.
* Estimate of unsold crops.
APPENDIX H
■ Production Costs per kcre for Certain Tree Crops as Shown by Records Assembled
by the Agricultural Extension Service, University of California
The figures shown in this section have been secured over a number of years
by means of records kept by cooperating farmers and analyzed by the county agri-
cultural agent and the farm management specialists at the Af,ricultural College.
They were brought together for the purpose of studying relative efficiencies in
the production methods of different farmers. The figures shovm are from Stanis-
laus County, a somewhat more fully developed area with probably & more stable
agriculture than that which exists at present in the Merced District. They are
presented here in order that readers of this report may have opportunity to com-
pare the costs shown in this report with those obtained by other methods and in
a different but somewhat similar area.
The costs shovm are somewhat higher than those indicated by the survey of
the Merced District. This is partly due to the placing of higher valuations on
some of the items of cost, particularly labor, to the fact that the figures are
somewhat more complete owing to the more detailed method of securing them, and to
the fact that the figures from the Merced Survey are divided by a somewhat larger
acreage than that which is actually in the particular tree and vine crops, since
the farm is the unit considered rather than the specific acreage in the crop under
consideration. Also the figures shown in this appendix are drawn from a particu-
lar group of cooperating farmers and are not designed to present a cross section
of all the varying cost conditions such as the survey seeks to present.
Costs of Gro\ifing Apricots
y/Final Summary of the Stanislaus County Apricot Enterprise Study Containing
Income and Costs pertaining to the Growing of iioricots in Stanislaus County dur-
ing the Five years 1927-1931, University of California Agricultural Extension
Service. By A, A. Jungcrman and Arthur Shultis.
The tables follo'vinf these are taken from sinular summaries of the costs
of growing almonds and peaches.
The tv/o tables showing cofits of almond production are from the Third
Annual Report and Three-year Summary of iUmond Efficiency Study for Stanislaus
County, 1930. University of California Agricultural Extension Service, pp. 6
and 7. It was compiled by A. A. Jungerman, county agricultural agent for
Stanislaus County, in cooperation with the University's extension specialists
in Farm Management .
The tables showing costs of peach production are of similar origin and
show costs in Stanislaus County for the year 1929.^
"■^^See "Suiranary of the Peach Efficiency Study for Stanislaus County, 1929,"
University of California Extension Service, by a. A. Jungerman.
The costs in this case are only for the year 1929, and do not, of
course, reflect such reductions in costs as have occurred since that time. It
needs to be clearly understood, however, that the costs shown here are not
strictly comoarable to those shown in the Merced survey. The Stanislaus figures
are from a soecific group of farmers, ordinarily the better farmers, and are
computed on the basis of the specific acreages of these crops which are grown
on these farms.
COSTS OF GROV/IN& iPRICOTS
The individual's cost of growing the apricots stands atout third in the
list of main profit-determining factors. The cost per ton is of course determined
by the coat per acre and the yield. By far the greater proportion of the costs
will be present even without any yields, so a study of the fixed costs per acre
should furnish opportunities for cost reduction. Table II which follows presents
the totals for various classes of expense per acre. Since varying amounts of fruit
were dried from year to year the cost of drying is placed last and a comparison of
costs excluding drying is more appropriate. Inspection of these figures shov.'s that
fixed costs per acre have decreased the last few years. The higher total costs for
1929 and 1931 are due to handling larger crops.
Table II.
Summary of All Costs per Acre
.
1927
1
1928
1929
1930
1931
Five
Year
Av.
Cultural Labor Costs
Harvesting and Handling Costs
$ 39.68
35.82
$ 39.11
31.27
$ 38.97
97.08
$ 35.14
29.43
$ 29.62
52.61
$ 36.50
49.24
Total Labor Except Drying
Total Ma-terial Cost
Cash Overhead Cost
75.50
13.07
11.06
70.38
10.48
11.71
136.05
18.84
15.06
64.57
6.64
9.91
82.23
9.98
11.12
85.74
11.81
11.77
Total Cash and Labor Costs
Depreciation
99.63
16.75
92.57
18.31
169.95
23.67
81.12
19.06
103.33
22.99
109.32
20.16
Total Cash, Labor and Depreciation 116.38
Interest on Investment j 38.13
110.88
40.68
193.62
40.70
100.18
38.90
125.32
32.4-2
129.48
38.17
Total All Costs Except Drying j 154.51
Drying Cost (Av. Totals for .Ul ik:res ) 16.40
151.56
29.75
234.32
59.98
139.08
17.41
158.74
74.84
167.65
39.67
Av. Total Costs per Acre
170.91
181.31
294.30
156.49
233.58
207.32
The five-year average is a good indication of vihat the total cost per acre
for growing apricots was over the past five years. With lower prices for everything,
costs in the future should be a little lower than the five-year average shown,
probably as low as 1931 or even lower. However, many of these costs are fixed and
cannot be lov/ered. Each class of expense will be taken up later.
t
* »
- ■•- r- ■
.-i. i ,.-.- v^- ..
LABOR COSTS PER iiCRE
[ ori'.-r 3tR )
The following table shoves the labor cost or value for each operation. The
charge shown consists of the cost of hired labor, the value of the owner's own labor
at the going wage, and the cost or value of horse, tractor or truck power. To the
extent that this item includes the value of operators and family labor as well as
interest and depreciation on horses, tractors, and trucks the labor cost shown is not
actual cash outlay but is considered as such throughout this study.
Tlae cost for each operation shown belo?/ is the average cost of that opera-
tion upon the acreage performing it. Since not all orchards performed every opera-
tion listed, the avei'age totals shown are not the sums of the separate items but are
obtained by dividing the total cost for all operations on all acreage by the number
of acres. The total cost for all operations shows what the cost would be if all
operations were performed at the average costs shown above.
Table IV.
Labor Costs per Acre, Up to Drying
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
5- Year
Av.
Pruning and Brush Disposal
Cover Cropping and Fertilizing
Spraying
Irrigating
Cultivation
Heating
Miscellaneoua
$19.01
.76
5.95
2.80
10.40
1.90
.83
$18.18
1.39
4.77
3.70
8.83
3.24
5.89
$18.69
1.42
4.58
3.19
7.38
4.97
8.39
$21.64
.50
3.58
3.69
7.09
2.04
$14.24
1.79
3.75
3.93
7.49
1.84
1.01
$18.35
1.17
4.55
3.46
8.24
2.80
3.22
Average Total Cultural Costs
39.68
39.11
38.97
35.14
29.62
36.50
lotal Cost for .111 Operations
41.65
45.00
48.62
38.64
34.05
41.79
Thinning
Propping
Picking and Hauling
5.44
1.60
33.47
3.92
2.66
29.86
10.61
8.32
87.72
3.39
.27
28.56
5.19
2.12
47.14
5.71
2,99
45.35
Average Total Labor Costs
75.50
70.38
136.05
64.57
82.23
85.74
Total Jill Operations
82.16
82.44
J
155.27
70.86
88.50
95.84
It will be noticed that 1931 witnesses a lower cost for most operations due
to lower prevailing wage rates. Certain further economies can be effected in most
all of the labor costs since the above figures are averages and many records show
costs considerably lower. A reduction in pruning, spraying, and cultivation costs
c«uld be effected by lower wage rates and by cutting down the quantity of cultiva-
tion.
Attention should be called to the fact that the operator can increase his
net cash income by utilizing to better advantage his own labor so the cost of hired
labor is reduced. Such a change can be made with no decrease in total labor costs
shown, the operator merely securing for himself a larger part of the total labor
costs.
- //. '/
JL\IIEEI.\L COST PER ACRE
[1-1 iriccts )
Costs for each kind of material per acre of orcliard using that material are
shown in Tahle Y. Little opportunity exists for cutting the cost of any of these
items other tlian ordinary care and economy. The heating material costs vary with
the amount of heating necessary. The total material cost for all operations is shown
to represent the expense to the grower if all operations were performed. The average
total represents the average cost per acre for materials to all acres, a great many
of which do not have all the expenses listed.
Table V.
Material Costs per Acre
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
5-Yr.
Av.
Irrigation Tazces or Water Cost
Fertilizers and Cover Crop Seec
Spray Materials
Keating Material
Bracing
Harvesting
Miscellaneous
$ 5.74
I 1.13
6.08
6.18
1.70
.29
$ 5.88
1.28
3.47
2.08
2?83
.59
$ 5.44
3.05
4.18
12.53
5.00
2.77
$ 5.20
.85
2,60
1.36
.86
$ 5.43
1.26
4.83
3.53
.39
1.50
$ 5.54
1.51
4.23
5.14
1.57
1.26
.36
Average Total
13.07
10.48
18.84
6.64
9.98
11.31
Total for All Materials
21.12
16.13
32.97
10.87
16.94
19.61
CASH OVERHEAD COSTS PER ACRE
Cash overhead costs are made up of taxes,- repairs, insurance and other
minor cash expenses, none of which can he materially reduced. General expense is
computed at 5^ of the total lahor and material cost and is included to cover small
unreported items of expense for the apricot orchard.
Table VI.
Cash Overhead Expense per Acre
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
5-Yr.
Av.
General Expense
County Taxes
.iachinery Repair
Compensation Insurance
$ 4.42
6.64
$ 4.04
7.67
$ 7.74
6.39
.93
$ 3.56
5.72
1.15
1.34
$ 4.61
4.95
1.09
2.48
$ 4.87
6.27
1.12
1.58
Average Total
11.06
11.71
15.06
9.91
11.12
11.77
Total for All Expenses
11.05
11.71
15.06
11.77
13.13
13.84
The a.verage investment per acre for each class of investment is shown in
Talile VII. The values shown are present depreciated values rather than original
cost. The tree values were based upon the age of the tree with a cost of trees at
full bearing age of about $350.00 per acre, and $12.00 to $15.00 an acre deprecia-
tion deducted each year in order to have the trees written off at forty years of
age. The other items are obtained from an annual inventory submitted by each grower
with depreciation deducted from original cost at the rate considered most applicable
by the grower.
Table VII.
Average Investment per Acre
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
5-Yr.
Av.
Trees
Improvements
Equipment
Land
$254.70
7.40
13.47
350.00
$283.84
21.83
22.40
349 . 97
$279.25
20.59
28.56
350.00
$268.58
19.13
29.55
330.92
$286.52
14.98
29.33
209.58
$376.50
16.79
24.65
316.09
Total
635.57
678.04
678.40
548.28
540.41
636 . 14
The investment overhead resulting from the investment of capital in the
enterprise is shown in Table VIII. .Depreciation is based upon growers' estimated
life and use of their equipment, while interest is calculated at 6^ of the remaining
value which was shown above in Table VII. Table XXIIT shows a list of equipment, its
original cost and annual depreciation. The only way the grower can reduce these
overhead items is in econonjy in purchase coupled with good care and maintenance,
thus prolonging the life »»f each item.
Table VIII.
Investment Overhead per Acre
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
5-Yr.
Av.
Depreciation on Trees
Depreciation on Iciproveraents
Depreciation on Hquipment
$12.80
.23
3.72
$12.76
1.51
3.94
$16.92
.94
5.81
$12,54
1.11
5.41
$14.85
1.65
6.49
$13.97
1.12
5.07
Total Depreciation
16.75
18.31
23.67
19.06
22.99
20.16
Interest on Value of Trees
Interest on Value of Inprovemer
Interest on Value ef Equipment
Interest on Value of Land
15.88
its .45
.80
21.00
17.03
1.31
1.34
21.00
16.75
1.24
1.71
21.00
16.12
1.15
1.77
19.86
17.19
.90
1.76
12.57
16.59
1.01
1.48
19.09
Total Interest on Investment
38.13
40,68
40.70
38.90
32.42
38.17
Total Investment Overhead
54.88
58.99
64.37
57.96
55.41
58.33
SUIMAEY OF COSTS PER TOU
(a or i cots )
The costs per acre divided by the yield in tons give the costs per ton.
Most charges are determined on an acreage "basis and are not affected hy yield. The
exceptions are thinning, propping, picking, hauling and drying which are determined
on a tonnage hasis and the cost per acre depends on the yield. Table IX shows these
costs where reported along with totals for the different groups of costs. Cultural
costs in 1931 are much lower per ton because tonnage per acre was high.
The total costs before drying are shown so growers who dry fruit will have
this figure to compare with costs of the grower who sells fresh fruit only. The
drying costs shown are made up of labor, materials, and 5^ general expense to cover
incidentals.
The year 1931 shows the lowest cost per ton before drying and per green ton
dried because of the large yield in 1931 and because of lower costs per acre for
many operations. The big problem faced by the apricot grower is to secure these
big yields every year rather than in alternate years.
Table IX.
Summary of Costs per Ton
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
5-Yr.
Av.
Cultural Labor Cost
Thinning, TiTliere Done
Propping
Picking
Hauling
$10.41
1.52
.56
8.22
1.05
$11.62
.82
.32
8.52
1.83
$ 4.34
1.07
.34
9,13
.94
$10.98
1.04
.18
9.25
.50
$ 3.25
.56
.21
4.89
.61
$ 6.39
.80
.26
8.05
.75
Av. Total Labor Cost, Up to
Drying
Total Material Cost per Ton
Cash Overhead
19.81
3.43
2.90
20.91
3.11
3.48
15.16
2.10
1.61
20.18
2.08
3.10
8.97
1.09
1.21
15.02
2.07
2.06
Total Cash and Labor Costs
Depreciation
26.14
4.40
27.50
5.44
18.87
2.64
25.36
5.96
11.27
2.50
19.15
3.53
Total Cash, Labor and Deprec
Interest cn Investment
30.54
10.01
32.94
12.09
21.51
4.53
31.32
12.16
13.77
3.54
22.68
6.68
Total All Costs, Up to Drying
40.55
45.03
25.04
43.48
17.31
29.36
Drying Cost per Green Ton
13.72
13.96
14.21
12.78
9.32
11.08
Total Cost ver Green Ton Dried
54.27
58,99
40.25
56.26
26.63
40.44
...
j •. • . ■ ;
. * . ■■ • -■
1
• • ll
Table IV.
GETJERAL COMPARISON FOR THRES YEARS
LABOR COSTS PER ACRE
3- Year Average
1928
1929
1930
Per Acre
Per Lb.
Pruning ajid Brush Disposal
$5.51
$5.80
$9.79
$6.86
0.6(^
Cover Crop and Fertilizer
1.43
1.72
3.97
3.18
0.0
S-oraying
2.95
3.02
2.15
2.55
0.2
Pest Control
1.35
1.04
.68
1.18
0.0
Cultivation
6.87
5.88
6.69
6.50
0.8
Irrigation
3.76
4.00
4.93
4.25
0.5
Harvesting
11.98
16.87
18.07
15.46
1.8
Hulling
10.72
11.92
13.65
12.03
1.4
Delivering
1.19
1.17
.96
1.09
0.,1
Heating
1.25
• 5 . 76
1.95
2.90 '
Q.l
Miscellaneous
1.20
2.79
1.66
1.79
0.1
Averaif^e Total*
$39.80
$49.25
$55.36
$47.73
e.Orf
Total labor costs have shown an increase each year for the past three
years. This is lqri;'ely due to the incresse in yield and affects such labor items
as harvesting and hulling. The other items remain fairly constant. The pruning
cost is higher in 1930 due to one large operator doing more pruning in 1930 than
he did in 1928 and 1929. Heating costs were higher in 1929 due to heating lahor
that was necessary during the 1929 frost period. Actual labor and material costs
will average approximately $50.00 per acre per year in producing a crop of
almonds of about 800 pounds per acre.
*The average totals given in this and other similar tables are not the
actual sums of the figures in their respective columns. This is because all
the laractices were not performed on all of the acres. Each practice is calculated
on tile basis of thu acreage on which the practice was performed. The totals are
on the average costs for performing these practices, figuring the entire study
as a unit.
■ . . 4
i
— -
TaUe V.
GENERAL CQl^PARISON FOR THREE YEARS
Material Costs Per Acre
..Ir.i.rds)
1928
1929
1930
3-Year Average
Per Acre
Per ho.
Cover Crop sad. Fertilizer
Spraying
Pest Control
Heating
Harvesting
Miscellaneous
$5.64
3.18
1.32
5.64
$4.64
2.23
1.54
5.70
.26
2.70
$4.08
1.97
1.73
.66
.52
1.16
$4.57
2.85
1.56
3.45
.27
1.52
o.u
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
Averaee Total
$3.01
$5.49
$3.98
$4.10
0.3rf
Cash Overhead.
Costs Per Acre
General Expense
Irrigation Taxes
County Taxes
Compensation Insurance
$2.12
5.51
4.98
$3.02
5.63
4.59
.95
$3.26
5.99
4.61
.80
$2.77
5 . rU
4.74
. GO
OAd
U. f
0.6
U.U
Averne's Total
$12.61
$13.95
$14.44
$14.09
1.7af
Fixed Overhead Costs Per
Acre
Int. and Dep. on Trees
Int. a.nd Dep. on Improvement
Int. and Dep. on Sauipment
Int. on Value of Land
$18.48
s 1.72
3.80
13.78
$19.62
1.56
4.21
15.87
$21.64
1.60
3.99
15.52
$19.84
± . D*x
3.99
14,99
2.5(i
0.5
1.9
Total
$37.78
$41.26
$42.75
$40.45
5.U
V.
Total All Costs Per Acre
Total Laber and Material Cos
Total Cash Overhead Costs
Sub-total Cash Costs
Total Fixed Overhead Costs
3ts $42.31
12.61
55.42
37.78
$54.74
. 13.95
' 68.69
41.26
$59.34
14.44
73.78
42.75
$51.83
14.09
65.92
40.46
5.3c^
1.7
8.3
5.1
Grand Total All Costs
$93.20
' $109.95
$116.53
$106.38
13.4df
Tlie above table shows a general comparison of costs over a three-year period.
The average material cost ^^er acre was $4.10. It was highest in 1929 due to the
use of oil for orchard heating. The average cash overhead was $14.09 per acre
which includes both irrigation and county taxes, compensation insurance, and 5^
of material and labor costs for general expense. Total labor and material costs
plus cash overhead costs maice a total cash cost of $65.92 per acre, or 8.3 cents
per pound over the three-year period. Fixed overhead averaged $40.46 per acre or
5.1 cents per pound, making a grand total cost over the three-year period of
$106.38 per acre to produce almonds, or a total cost of 13.4 cents per pound.
1
■ ■■■■■■■
Tablo III.
ULBOE COSTS PSR ACRS FOR 3ACH VARIET:" AIL ORCHARDS
All
Mi dsunmcirs
Phillips
Freestones
Orchards
rruiiing
ip CD. 0*x
$ 20 56
$ 23.60
$ 21.55
Brush Disposal
2.90
2.68
2.23
3.06
2.59
Cover Crop
tS . Ol
9 Q1
3 R9
1.50
3.24
Spraying
o • *±o
6.52
7.29
7.49
I rrieation
4.09
3.62
3.92
4.98
3.96
Cultivation
7.62
7.66
10.05
9.72
8.85
Thinning
18.35
15.45
13.73
15.60
15.13
Bracing
7.86
9.55
7.75
7.64
3.38
Picking
56.11
44.46
30.12
62.57
42.44
Hauling
10.41
12.43
9.61
12.81
11.12
Drying
56.38
56.38
Heating
1.25
1.25
Miscellaneous
4.96
3.47
4.53
5.51
4.35
Average Total
$144.72
$123.15
$105.28
$195.62
$127.74
Average Total
$146.23
$121.46
Except Drying
S144.72
1 $123.15
i $105.28
The labor costs by varieties run consistent as in other years. The
Tuscan variety shows the highest cost on thinnir.(C; and harvesting as "before. Tha
freestone total cost is higher on account of a larger yield per acre and also in-
cludes drying costs.
The average labor cost per acre on an average peach orchard for 1929
is $121.46 per acre. This is slightly less than normal years because of
the smaller thinning costs per acre on all varieties on account of frost in 1929.
<
Ta^ble IV.
MATERIAL COST P3E ACHS JOB. EACH YABISTY AND m OECILIEDS
( Pt 0 T.b S )
Tuscans
Midsummers
Phillies
Freestones
All
Orchards
Irrigation
Fertilizer
Cover Crop
S-Q raying
Bracing
Harvesting
Dryins
$ 4.49
2.00
1.67
6.13
—
5.25
$ 4.60
18.75
5.78
2.77
$ 4.62
2.42
1.70
4.48
4.27
3.80
$ 5.71
2.00
8.09
4.00
5.58
2.88
$ 4.74
3.66
1,77
5.61
3.57
4.61
2.88
Averaf:e Total Cost
$13.94
$13.40
$11.13
$19.16
$13.30
Average Total Cost
ExceiDt Drying
$13 . 94
$13.40
$11.13
$17.04
$13.03 I
In the material costs the highest
varieties for two reasons: first, a larger
"box rental; and second, cost of sulfur used
The total material costs show a t(
sistent with other year's records.
cost is represented by the freestone
tonnage to harvest, causing increased
in drying.
tal of $13.03 per acre which is con-
I
Table VI.
LABOR COSTS PER TON FOR 3ACH VARI3TY AUD ALL ORCHARDS
All
All
Tuscans
MidsuxDiners
FniiilpS
urciicLrcLS
Pruning
$2.50
$1.85
$2.40
§1.81
Brush Disposal
.27
.25
2.23
.23
.20
Cover Crop
.26
.23
3.89
.08
.29
Spraying
.81
.75
.76
.56
.73
Irrigation
.39
.33
.46
.^8
.38
Cultivation
.72
. 69
1.17
. f^:
. ob
Thinning
1.74
1.39
1.60
1.20
1.47
Bracing
.72
.76
.61
.62
• .72
Picking
5.32
4.01
3.52
4.79
4.12
Hauling
.99
1.13
1.12
1.04
1.09
Drying
4.38
4.38
Heating
.07
.07
Miscellaneous
.51
.28
4.53
.36
3.72
Average Total
$13.71
$11.11
$12.30
$14.97
$12.41
Average Total
$11.80
Sxceot Drying
$13.71
$11.11
I $12.30
$11.19
In analyzing the varieties on the cost per ton hasis for lahor costs it
will to seen that thinning nud harvesting costs run higher for Tuscans and Phillips
than other varieties. This is duo to split pits in Tuscans and the gumming occur-
ing in Phillips. These sain3 relations have "been brought out in costs in the other
four years' study. The Phillip harvesting cost is less this year than froeston e ,
which is not so usually, hut the frcostonos in 1929 had a higher porr-ent of split
pits causing higher harvesting costs. The lahor cost per green ton ranged between
$11.11 for ;'id«uEXiero to $13.71 for Tuscans, and an average pf all varieties of
$11.80 per ton.
MATERIAL COST PER TON POR EACH VARIETY AND ALL ORCHARDS
All
Tuscans
Mids-ummers
Phillips
Freestones
Orchards
Irrigation
$ .43
$ .42
$$ •■.6'i
$ .44
$ .46
Fertilizer
.21
1.28
.20
.32
Cover Crop
.15
.43
.11
.19
Spraying
.58
.52
.52
.62
.54
Bracing
.22
.40
.31
.29
Harvesting
.53
.13
.55
.44
.49
Drying
.22
.22
Average Twtal
$1.32
$1.21
$1.30
$1.47
$1.29
Average Total
$1.27
Except Drying
$1.32
$1.21
$1.30
$1.30
The material costs per ton by varieties show very little variation if
figured on the green ton basis .
Tatle VII.
EECOED OF ALL COSTS PEE TOU FOR 3ACH VARIETY AlTD ALL R3C0RDS
Tuscans
Midsummers
Philliias
Freestones
All
Orchards
Total Labor
Total Material
General Expense
County Taxes
ComDsnsation Insurance
$13.71
1.32
.75
.55
.08
$11.11
1.21
.62
.57
.07
$12.30
1.30
.68
.72
.09
$14.97
1.47
.82
.54
.06
$12.41
1.29
.69
.61
.08
Total Cash Overhead
$ 1.38
$ 1.26
$ 1.49
$ 1.42
$ 1.38
Total Cash Costs
$16.41
$13.58
$15.09
$17.86
$15.08
Int . and Dap . on Trees
Int. and Dep. on Improvements
Int. and Dep. on Equipment
Interest on Land
$ 4.12
.41
.77
$ 1.99
$ 3.81
.32
.56
1.89
$ 5.09
.43
.65
2.45
$ 3.08
.19
.35
1.61
$ 4.14
.35
.58
2.04
Average Total All Costs
$23 . 70
$20.16
$23.71
$23.09
$22.19
Average Total All Costs
axcent Drying;
$23.70
$20.16
$23.71
$19.14
$21.55
In analyzing the costs on a per ton basis from a fresh standpoint the
freestones were produced the cheapest at $19.14 per ton. The Midsummers were
next at $20.16, while the Tuscans and Phillips showed practically no difference
at $23.70. Tuscans usually are the most expensive variety to produce, and this
ia again brought out this year, for the average yield of Tuscens per acre in this
study was 10.55 against 8.56 for Phillips, thus cutting down the cost per ton for
Tuscans .
Table IX.
YI3LDS, COSTS AUD RETUHNS FROM lOTIVIDUAL ORCHAEDS
(Peaches)
Serial i
Niamoer
m — !
Tons i
Per Acre i
Total Cost
Per Ton
Retiirn
per Ton
Total Cost j
x^er Acre
rjei/ r^roiii/
^ QT* A T* O
Age OX
Tr66S
26
20.47
$15.11
$62 .46
iTAQ on
ipisuy . 2U
iocQ
4
13
19.72
16.39
71 . 66
02«5 . lb
lUO^ . 1 J
7
1
18.0
10.93
35.00
lyb . rO
cw
4
18.0
25 .73
37.67
y1 O Q AO
42 y . uy
OAO A A
7
16
17.9
17.38 1
62 .77 1
<5li .2b
olc .OJ
7
19
14.59
18 .32
n A AC '
74 . 45 1
ocrt OD
cb r . <oo
Ol^ . "lO
H
o
39
14.23
18.59
71 .11
OC>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
2<Jb .cl
C r D . UD
q
2
12 .40
20.80
4c .3id
ocn cy
COO . O J.
7
25
12 .35
17.29
74.17
OT T QT
210 . DC
rUC . i7 /
18
12.13
21.17
74.56
occ rtA
255 . 74
D4 I .OD
c
12
12.02
21.81
68 .88
O CO T Q
2b2 . ly
ODD . DO
q
32
11.89
19.37
50 .03
OTA OQ
2i5U.2y
AR7 R9
9
5
11.13
25.76
26 . 71
OQC QT
ooD . y 1
in 1 R
lU • xo
9
7
10.82
20.04
68 .09
Ol C QA
oib . y4
m Q QR
12
37
10.70
17.42
76.11
194. yy
Diy . lO
1 q
X7
15
10.17
24.54
75.23
DID . 44
0
22
10.00
18 .87
51 .12
187 . ob
701 RA
OCl . D4
c
D
8
9 .94
24.66
74.08
</4o . Ub
AQT 90
4yi .Cc
7
f
38
9.83
16.98
69.52
165. 85
olb . /c
q
9
9.72
26.05
72 .48
253 . 15
401 . Ic
c
0
34
9.51
19.55
80.35
185 . 9o
D
29
9.48
21.66
72 .40
205 .i5y
/ Ol AT
4ol . vJl
c
D
24
9.23
19.41
79 . 52
1 /y . io
CCA 07
C
u
d7
8 . 14
19.56
75 .20
1 fo . bo
ci I? C7
Ol 1 . OO
7
30
8 . 71
13.69
75 .11
iiy . 1 /
R7A 7Q
?n
Cv/
35
8 . 59
e7 . 73
74. 57
Oyl A QO
<o4u . y<ci
A07 on
C
42
O A A
8 .44
OO (* A
cO . 64
5o . &0
1 QA
i /o . yu
7S1 R?
ool , DC
1 ?
28
O A'7
8 .4o
27. 50
55 . li
OTI ^70
col . /y
OcD . CD
: 11
0.67
21 . 87
7o . yy
1 QA CC
iyu . bts
A9R
'iC O . f D
1 1
J. X
41
8 .18
22.79
70 .00
185.44
7QC OQ
OOD .cy
Q
40
7.93
18.22
69.02
144.48
402 . 55
12
/ .La
oi . oU
1 1 . io
ope AA
ceo . UU
?R1 "SO
cox . 0.7
g
6
7.02
33.55
90.74
235.29
401.27
6
20
5.92
27.33
71.95
161,71
264.14
5
21
4.90
29.94
73.31
144.66
214.41
5
33
4.58
34.31
73.34
157. C7
178.57
7
36
3.40
41.65
67.54
141.65
88.01
6
23
2.87
37.72
79.71
108.40
120.75
3
Av rage
10.29
$22.19
$67.61
$228.33
$457.50
7
Material from all records in the 1929 study is shown in this table. The
orchards ar. arranged in order of yield per acre. The bottom line is an average
of all records and may be used as a yardstick for making individual grower's com-
parisons. Part of the wide variations in per acre costs is due to a drying charge
in the records of freestone varieties.
:.r^'.- v,../ = =..
APPENDIX 1
Delinquency on Lands Sampled in the Survey as Compared
to Delinquency for the District as a "V/hole
In order that some judgment might be reached as to whether the fanning
properties of 20 acres or more reoresent the most serious problem from the stand-
point of delinquency, request was made of Mr. H. P. Sargent, secretary of the
District, for the acreage, assessed value, and District assessment levied as of
1931 for each of the 1,838 farm properties from which the samples were dravra,
together with a record of the acreages delinquent and amounts of tax delinquent
for each of the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932. These were supplied by Mr.
Sargent and are summarized below as compared with the figures for the same items
for the entire District reported earlier in this report.
Assessment Roll — Rural property Only (City and Town Lots out)
Rural Tax and City Tax Segregated
Year
Valuation
Rate
Rural tax
City tax
Total
1928-29
$18,446,320
6.00
1,106, 779. 20
$135,613.80
.^U, 24 2, 39 3. 00
1929-30
18,039,595
6.00
1,082,375.70
134,374.80
1,216,750.50
1930-31
18,006,195
5.90
1,062,365.50
132,219 .85
1,194,585.35
1931-32
16,718,990
5.60
936,263.44
135,304.40
1,071,567.84
Rural tax 91 per cent of Roll.
City tax 9 per cent of Roll.
All rural property All lands in the
Farms of 20 acres and over* in the District District
Acres 74,310.7
""'JoriSSO-ir. . . ^7,912. 241.00 ,18.006.195.00 ^20,243,775.00
Assessment , ^ ,^
levied 1930-31 ^456,745.51 ..1,032,365.50 bl. 194, 5do .o5
Rural Property Subdivided as to Parcels of 20 Acres and Over
and as to Parcels of Less Than 20 Acres
Properties of 20 acres and Rural properties of less
"over (from ;vhich sample than 20 acres and corpor-
was dravvn) ation lands not sampled
Assessment
levied 1931 ,^456, 745.51 ,^605,619 .9 9v
Obtained by calculating assessment on the 1,638 properties and deducting
that froiii the total assessment on rural property.
Delinquencies on farms of 20 acres and over* Delinquencies on all lands
(last Monday in June of each year) in the District (last Monday
in June of each year)
Percentae;es
Acres iimounts of assessments Percentages of assess-
levied in 1931 ments levied
1928- 29 4,106 * 35,917.18 7.86 9.51
1929- 30 11,659| 86,108.32 18.85 9.62
1930- 31 31,816 199,731.32 43.73 17-63
1931- 32 47.468 289,526.46 63.38 37.40
* Not all units of 20 acres and over are included. Properties to which the
District has taken title are omitted. Also, a number of the large corporation
properties and certain smaller orooerties where recent changes in ovmership, or
ovnershio of many pieces made identification of the specific parcel difficult.
The bulk of the properties from v/hich the survey samples were dravvn are included,
however .
It will be seen that the percentages of delinquency on these properties
are substantially heavier than those for the District as a ivhole.
APPENDIX K
The Farm Debt Situation in the Merced District as
Indicated by Debt Data from the Farms Covered in the Survey
This appendix presents a summarization of the mortgage and short-term debt
situation as indicated for the District by the survey schedules taken. Both the
type and amount of loan are indicated, and together with these the extent of de-
linquency on payments as indicated by the statements of the farmers interviewed.
This, however, does not measure the major part of the delinquency since that is
reflected in farms taken over by foreclosure. These represent a very substantial
acreage in the District and involve many thousands of dollars invested by the
lending agencies. The number of farms taken over and now held by lenders and
lending agencies is not less than 250, and is probably substantially greater than
this. Specific study of this has not been made, but the number indicated can be
accounted for in the Icnown holdings of the lending agencies. These represent an
dollars .
investment of not less than a million/ It is impossible at the present time to
determine what losses these take-overs involve for the mortgagors and for the
lenders .
Following the tables there is presented a summarization of the estimates
as to debt for the District as a whole.
Following these is a summarization of the changes in the bank accounts of
identical depositors in the Atwater Branch of the Bank of America as between
November 1, 1928 and November 1, 1932. In interpreting this table it should be
kept in mind that this is in the heart of the oldest and best developed section of
the District, peopled by an extremely conservative, thrifty, and hard-working
group of farmers. It represents unquestionably the best financial situation of
any community in the District and is materially above conditions for almost every
other community in the area.
-1^0-
The heavy shrinkage in the commercial accounts and the apparent beginning
f a decline in savings accounts bring: sharply to the front the question of mean
f securing needed credit for operating the farms of the District. This problem
as in many cases become acute within the past year.
Table 1
fiortgap;e Debt of Farms in Sample
First Mortgages on Real Estate
1
i
Inter—
Extent
Sched "
/Unount
est 1
payments
ule
ACTG S
I'iortgagee
first
Date
Date
rate
Fo r v7ha"t
in
number
mortgcige
given
due
('.or
cent )
contracted
arrears
■—
5
c {
Federal
>il , 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<Rn
o , ODU
1923
1944
O
iay Qoci*or s iiens
None
iO ±
1
c , DUU
1927
1957
D
None
loo
OU
o , uuu
1921
1941
^ t
None
206
53
3 76 7
1929
1945
fi
'i\T n n p
207
220*
63 000*
19 24
1944
a
u
xiiiyJx u V ■ _ x'.i
None
214
56
3,300
1926
1946
6
Pay mort-'age ;
improvements
Current
oayraent
218
20
1,200
1928
1948
7
Land purchase
234
Gl
7,000
Purchase price
None
2d7
59
3,300
1922
1942
6
Purchase ranch
>,'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^