Ho n^f i ^ 'JUT Division of Agricultural Sciences UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PROJEaiONS RELATING TO CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE IN 1975 Gerald W. Dean Chester O. McCorkle, Jr. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURA L ECONOMICS LIBRARY UMIWtRSlTY OF CALIrOi^NIA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Mimeographed Report No. 234 DAVIS S^R :^1960 iiily 1960 LIdiiaRY FOREWORD Some notion of future developments is needed by those making decisions in agriculture, industry and government. Our purpose is to provide a general picture of California agriculture in 1975, based on definite assumptions as to world conditions, population growth, demand structure, the nature of interregional competition and a host of other conditions. If subsequent events confirm these basic assumptions, our projections will be reasonably accurate. On the other hand, if these underlying assumptions prove unfounded, our picture will be distorted. Many of the assumptions used are necessarily oversimplifications. However, we have attempted to make our assumptions as explicit as possible so that readers may be fully aware of their nature. Economists have been understandably reluctant to hazard estimates of the future— particularly the relatively distant future. The authors are fully aware of the uncertainties of attempting to project future events. We have no new and improved tools of analysis not available to past pro- jectionists—therefore our results are limited by the usual difficulties. We warn the reader to be aware of the unavoidable limitations in projections of this kind. f 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION 1 OBJECTIVES 2 I. THE BASIS OF THE PROJECTIONS 3 General Methodological Considerations and Assumptions 3 Procedures for Projecting Crop and Livestock Production 6 II. THE PROJECTIONS II Crop Projections for California, 1975 11 State production, yield and acreage projections 11 Changes in yields, acreages and location of crop production . . 19 Feed grains 19 Food grains 21 Fruits 23 Vegetables 27 Potatoes 30 Dry edible beans 31 Sugar beets 31 Cotton 32 Tree nuts 33 Livestock Projections for California, 1975 34 Dairy cattle projections 36 Poultry projections 37 Egg production 37 Turkey production 39 Broiler production 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Beef cattle proj'ections 42 Sheep and lamb projections, 45 Hog projections 45 Projected Feed-Livestock Balance in California 47 Projected Land and Water Resources and Agricultural Requirements in California, 1975 55 Land resources. 55 Water resources • 61 Projected Adjustments in Farm Organization and Management in California 66 Changes in levels and combinations of resources on California farms 67 Farm business control and management. ... 80 III. APPENDIX 87 Procedures Underlying California Production and Yield Estimates in Table 2 87 Construction of production measures 87 Projections of California's share of United States production . 88 Construction of 1975 California production indices in Table 2 1C5 Detailed yield projections 111^ LIST OF TABLES Table f§pe 1 United States Output of Major Crops Needed to Meet Projected Demand Requirements for 1975 (1953 = ICQ) 8 2 California 1975 Projection Indexes of Crop Production, Yields Per Acre and Acreages Under Alternative Assumptions of Cali- fornia's 1975 Share of United States Production (1954-57=100) 12 :3 IK' LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3 Projections 1975 Acreages of California Crops Under Two Alternative Assumptions 16 4 Projected 1975 California Dairy Cattle and Dairy Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Projection 36a 5 Projected 1975 California Egg Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison 38 6 Projected 1975 California Turkey Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison 41 7 Projected 1975 California Broiler and Fryer Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison 43 8 Projected 1975 California Beef Cattle Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison 44 9 Projected 1975 California Sheep and Lamb Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison 46 10 Projected 1975 California Hogs Produced and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison 48 11 Estimated Feed Grain-Livestock Balance Sheet, California 1954-1958 and 1975 Projection 49 12 Estimated Hay-Livestock and Pasture and Grazing-Livestock Balance Sheet, California 1954-1957 and 1975 Projectinn ... 52 13 Total Acreage for Crops, Fallow, Hay and Cropland Pasture in California, 1954-1957 and Projected for 1975 5:5 14 Land Resources and Land Conversions in California, Historical and Projected to 1975 57 15 Land Use in California, 1959 and Projected for 1975 by the Soil Conservation Service 60 16 Estimated 1950 Mean Seasonal Requirements for Water in California, by Area (in acre-feet). . 64 17 Average Acreage per Farm in California 68 18 Number of Farms, California 1910-1958 70 19 Productive Expenses of Farm Operators, California 1949-1958 . . 75 20 Monthly Average Number of People Working on California Farms, by Type of Worker 77 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 21 Farm Credit in California 1946-1959 81 22 Relative Importance of Types of Tenure in California 82 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Indexes of Farm Expenses, Output, Prices Received Gross and Net Income, California, 1944-1959 (deflated by wholesale price index, 1947-1949 = 100) 72 APPENDIX TABLES Table A-1 Derivation of 1975 California Projected Production Index (1954-1957=100) Assuming that California Produces the Same Share of Total United States Production in 1975 as in the Base Period 1954-1957 106 A-2 Derivation of 1975 California Projected Production Index (1954-1957=100) Assuming that California Produces a Projected Changed S hare cf Total United States Production in 1975 , . . 108 A-3 State Average 1954-1957 Yields and 1975 Projected Yields for California Crops 112 APPENDIX FIGURES Figure A-1 FEED GRAINS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (produc- tion of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Cotton allotments years 1950 and 1954-1957 omitted in making projection 90 A-2 RICE: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940) 91 A-3 ALL WHEAT: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (produc- tion weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Years 1933- 1936 omitted in making projection 92 •r.r,_b. Figure APPENDIX FIGURES Page A-4 APPLES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947- 1949 average prices after 1940). Year 1945 omitted in making projection 93 A-5 CITRUS FRUITS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (produc- tion of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940) 94 A-6 GRAPES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production (in tons) Produced by California 95 A-7 FRUIT OTHER THAN APPLES; CITRUS AND GRAPES (OMMITTING PERSIMMONS, POMEGRANATES): Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935 -1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940) 96 A-8 TOMATOES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United' States Production Produced by California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940) 97 A-9 GREEN, LEAFY, AND YELLOW VEGETABLES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average pricer after 1940) 98 A-IO OTHER VEGETABLES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940) 99 A-11 POTATOES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). . . . 100 A-12 DRY EDIBLE BEANS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production (in tons) Produced by California 101 APPENDIX FIGURES Figu re Page A-13 SUGAR BEETS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (pro- duction weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940) 102 A-14 COTTON: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Cotton allotment years 1950 and 1954-1957 omitted in making projection . . . 103 A-15 WALNUTS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (in tons). Data for 1956 omitted because of change in basis of reporting for U.S. production 104 SUMMARY Industrialization and population growth have proceeded at a rapid pace in California since 1940. With these and other prominent trends have come changes in the state's agricultural economy. Large blocks of high quality land have been converted to nonagricultural uses; competition for water between agricultural, industrial and human uses has become severe. At the same time, national consumption trends indicate increased demand for fruits, vegetables and other speciality crops grown in California, This study examines these questions concerning the future of California agriculture: What changes in crop and livestock production will take place in California by 1975? Will California's land and water resources permit the types of agricultural expansion indicated? What changes can be expected in the operation, ownership and managment of individual farms? The 1975 projections proceed within specific assumptions regarding future world conditions and the U. S. economy. Important assumptions are (1) a trend toward world peace, (2) a U. S. population of 230 million by 1975, and (3) an increase in real per capita income of 60 percent between 1953 and 1975. Projection methods used combine arithmetic, statistical and judgment elements. California 1975 crop projections are based on (1) a previously estimated demand structure for U. S. farm products, (2) derivation of California's expected 1975 share of U. S. production, ^3) judgment of 1975 yield levels by crop specialists, and (4) derivation of California's 1975 acreage of particular crops. California 1975 projections for milk and eggs are based primarily on projected California population growth to 23.6 million by 1975. Other livestock projections are based primarily on past trends and evaluation of future developments. 1 Quantitative results of the study can be only briefly summarized here. Taking 1954-1957 as the base period from which projections have been made, acreage in cropland is projected to increase about 0.8 million acres by 1975. Cotton is projected to increas e by 0.52 million acres, fruits by 0,35 million acres, feed grains by 0.30 million acres and vege- tables by 0.15 million acres. Food grains are projected to decrease by 0.13 million acres and beans by 0.05 million acres. Double cropping is expected to increase and less cropland is expected to lie idle or in fallow. The 1975 livestock projections are summarized briefly as follows* 40 percent more dairy cows, 60 percent more hens, little changes in numbers of turkeys, broilers and beef cattle, a 10 percent decline in sheep and lambs and nearly a 50 percent decline in hog numbers. Comparison of projected feed grain production with livestock utilization indicates a continued deficit of nearly 1 million tons of feed grains to be met by in- shipments. However, continued large grain shipments might be questioned; inshipment of finished livestock products may be more economic in the long run. Furthermore, the increased acreage of both cotton and feed grains in the San Joaquin Valley may be questioned. If feed grain production falls short of the projected 32 percent increase, an even larger feed grain deficit in California would be indicated. Cattle feeding would seem to be one type of livestock enterprise likely to decline from the projected levels if these conditions develop. The projections indicate a substantial increase in hay inshipments as well as a 4 percent increase in hay acreage to meet 1975 livestock requirements. Pasture and grazing requirements would be increased 8 percent, which would be met on 5 percent fewer pasture acres with a 14 percent increase in range productivity per acre. ii Comparison of the above projections with California's projected land and water base indicates that the above changes are feasible. While an additional 1.2 million acres in Land Use Classes I-IV are projected to be converted to nonagricultural uses by 1975, sufficient Class I-IV acreage remains to nearly meet projected crop recpjirements. Some additional land now in range, dry pasture land and desert is expected to move into the crop- land category to meet the crop acreages projected. The projections of this study compare quite closely with projected 1975 land utilization estimated independently by a recent Soil Conservation Service study. The SCS study estimates an 18 percent increase in irrigated cropland, about equally divided between the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Further water resource development will be required to meet these projected increases in irrigated acreage. Changes in aggregate output and its composition as projected will have an important impact on the organization, management and ownership of individual farms in California. Increases in farm size— both in land per farm and output per farm --are expected to continue to 1975. Shifts to larger farms are expected to increase overall productivity of the resources employed. Capital-labor substitution is expected to continue at an accelerated pace as new and improved machines supplant hand labor in crops v\*iich are at present labor-intensive. Labor inputs in California agri- culture will continue to decline relative to capital inputs, and probably in absolute numbers as well. Production credit will probably increase with the average loan increasing in size. Part-ownership and tenant-specializa- tion in particular crops have increased recently and will probably continue. iii Integration of production with processing, marketing and/or factor supply represents another development finding widespread application in California. An increase in the corporate form of business, particularly on "family" operated farms, is expected in California. Use by management of specialists such as soils technicians, irrigation engineers, etc. as permanent members of the labor force is increasing. Greater dependence on other specialists such as accountants, lawyers and possibly professional farm managers can be expected. iv PROJCTIONS RELATING TO CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE IN 1975^ by Gerald W. Dean^ and Chester 0. McCorkle, JiM INTRODUCTION Tremendous changes have taken place in California since 1940. Popu- lation has nearly tripled. Industrialization has developed at an accelerated pace. With the population and industrial boom have come attendent pressures on the state's agricultural economy. Pressure on land and water resources are among the foremost problems of California agriculture. Urbanization and industrialization in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Centers as well as in other central and southern coastal valleys have removed large blocks of high quality farm land from agricultural use. Land values and taxes in surrounding areas have often been forced to levels unjustified by strictly agricultural pursuits. Human and industrial users of water compete strongly with irrigation in some areas and threaten to make water problems in the future even more critical. Intensified interest' in water- shed management and increased demands for expanded recreational facilities have increased the competition for rangeland and forests. To be more competitive with urban employment, farm labor wage rates have been forced l/ The research project on which this report is based has been financed in part by funds allocated to Project RRF 1813, California's contributing project to Regional Research Project WM-54. 2/ Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Assistant Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, Uni- versity of California, Davis, California. 3/ Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, Uni- versity of California, Davis, California. 2. above levels considered economic by some California farmers, many of whom specialize in crops with extremely high labor requirements. These and other forces have resulted in California farms becoming among the most highly specialized and mechanized in the United States. Yet, certain commodity groups such as fruits and vegetables are still among the highest labor consuming crops in the nation. At the same time the demand for products of California agriculture, particularly those in which California has a unique climatic advantage, have and will likely continue to expand rapidly. In this context, these questions are posed: Will state land and water resources allow California to meet demands for its agricultural products in the future? What changes in cropping patterns and livestock production must be made to satisfy these demands? What implications do these changes have for the operation of individual farms within the state? The only certainty about future California agriculture is that it will be characterized by dynamic change. Yet farmers, businessmen in agri- cultural-related industries, and government officials periodically make decisions based on assumptions, explicit or implicit, about future changes in California agriculture. Clearly these decisions should be based on the best possible information available. It is the hope of the authors that the information contained in this publication may prove useful in decision- making at farm, business and governmental levels. OBJECTIVES This study is designed to provide insights into probable developments in California agriculture by Specifically, the objectives are to make the following projections for California agriculture in 1975: 1/ The year 1975 has no unique significance, but was selected to coincide with the target year for the projections by the United States Department of Agriculture. ^Qlt *n:^ pnori fa- llbVOc ■seed 99dv: 10. the same share of total U. S. crop production in 1975 as its average annual ' share from 1954-1957; (b) that California will produce a changing share of total United States crop production over time, based on a projection of California's historical share of U. S. production. The consequences of these two alternative assumptions are carried through a major portion of the analysis. Given the "required" output of California farm products to meet 1975 demands (as derived above), the remaining steps in making crop projections are as follows; (l) "Most probable" yields of individual California crops in 1975 are estimated by crop production specialists. (2) California total production and yield projections for each crop are combined to estimate California acreages of individual crops required to meet 1975 demands. (3) Probable future shifts in the location of crop production within the state are estimated from past and current trends. California livestock projections for 1975 are derived as follows* (l) Outputs to meet 1975 demand for individual California livestock products are determined. Fluid milk and egg requirements of California in 1975 are assumed to be met by state production. Total state output of turkeys, broilers, beef cattle, sheep and hogs are estimated individually, primarily on the basis of past trends and judgment of future prospects. (2) Produc- tion per animal or bird is projected to 1975 by livestock production specialists. (3) Total production and per animal production are combined to estimate 1975 livestock and poultry numbers. (4) Feed requirements per animal or bird are projected to 1975. (5) Total 1975 livestock feed requirements for California are determined. ,01 ' ■t •,',> i . ;9 T ^ . . i i no I3J ... 13. each crop as in the base period 1954-1957. Projection B, Table 2 assumes that California will produce a share of U. S. production based on a projec- tion of California's historical share; in general, the latter projection shows California producing a "changed share" of U. S. production in 1975 relative to the 1954-1957 base period. Sizable differences in 1975 Cali- fornia output projections arise from the alternative "share" assumptions of Table 2, Obviously, greatest differences occur where California's projected share of U. S. production in 1975 is substantially different from the 1954-1957 share. Persistence in past trends of California's percentage share of total U. S. production lends greater _a priori confidence to the "changed share" assumption. Output projections could be made based on other assumptions such as a "dampened" share."^ However, the output projections in Table 2 should provide two "benchmarks" for analyzing prospective changes in the cropping picture of California over the next 15 years. The 1975 California production of various crops projected in Table 2 can be met by (l) changes in yields per acre and/or (2) changes in acreage. Attention is focused first on changes in yields per acre expected by 1975. It is assumed that changes in yields per acre are more or less "inevitable" and therefore that acreage is the real adjustment variable to allow equation of supply with "requirements." Thus, the alternative production indexes in 1/ See, for examples Hagood, Margaret Jarmen and Jacob S. Siegel, "Projections of the Regional Distribution of the Population of the United States to 1975," Agricultural Economics Research . Vol. 3, No. 2, April 1951, pp. 41-52. Using the methods of Hagood and Siegel, the rate of change in California's share of U. S. production would be assumed to decline linearly to zero by 1975. Such a procedure has appeal as a "point" estimator. How- ever, the two alternative assumptions used in the present study should serve more effectively in "bracketing" or providing upper and lower limits to the estimates. The Hagood and Siegel method would provide estimates intermediate between the alternative estimates provided in this study. A ■•'1 basba •^bem 9d blue- eirfj fli 14. Table 2 are divided by indexes of 1975 projected yields per acre to provide estimates of crop acreages "required" from California to meet 1975 demands^ For example, under the A ("same share") assumption (Table 2), a 3 percent increase in California rice production by 1975 is met by a 40 percent yield increase and with only 74 percent of the 1954-1957 average rice acreage (103 + 140 = 74). A series of meetings with agricultural research scientists at the University of California at Davis were arranged during the fall and winter of 1958-1959, and yield estimates based on their composite judgments were obtained. Specifically, the following questions were asked for each cropi What do you consider the most likely level of state average yield in Cali- were made explicit and are summarized as follows: 1. Yield estimates for 1975 to be based on technology presently known by research workers and new technology expected to be available and broadly adopted by 1975; 2. Price-cost relationships of 1954-1957 assumed to prevail in 1975 (e.g., for the ratio of fertilizer cost to product price to be the same in 1975 as in 1954-1957); \J An implicit assumption here is that tree fruit and nut acreage will be comprised of the same proportions of bearing and nonbearing acreage in 1975 as in 1954-1957. 2/ Yield projections for California for 1975 also were made in 1954-1955 by Barton and Rogers, 0£. c i t . , for their study of United States farm output. Physical scientists of the Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, were primarily responsible for these estimates. The Barton and Rogers study projected two yield levels for each crop: (l) an economic maximum yield level based on full, efficient economic application of avail- able technology under assumed economic conditions; (2) an economic attainable yield level based on yields likely to be realized by 1975 from application of presently available technology. The latter concept more nearly coincides with that used here. The background assumptions for these yield projections 91 15. 3. Target year 1975 assumed to be a "normalized" year, with average weather conditions, no unusual disease problems, etc; 4, No major wars or depression between the present and 1975. Certain implications of these assumptions warrant further discussion. Though research and new technology stimulate an upward shift in yields, the question remains as to the rate at which farmers will adopt new technology. Since California farmers are considered progressive and well-informed, a relatively short "gap" is assumed between development and general adoption of new practices. A second implication involves the shift in location of production within the state. A shift in location usually involves a shift in the quality of resources (e.g., type of soil and climate, dryland to irrigated land, etc.) as well as quantity of resources employed. For yield estimating purposes, the present distribution of crops among soil types and geographic areas was assumed to continue to 1975, unless strong evidence pointed to a shift. Where a definite shift in location was anticipated, the shift was explicitly stated along with the yield projection. In general, the static location assumption probably resulted in underestimates of yields. Table 2 provides only percentage changes in the acreage of California crops. Absolute acreage changes are shown in Table 3, under the two alter- native "share" assumptions. Assuming that California will produce a projected "changed share" of U. S. production over time, projected 1975 total acreage of the crops considered in Table 3 is 7,794,720 acres—an increase of 1,224,882 acres or 19 percent from the 1954-1957 level of \J As pointed out later, location of crops will undoubtedly shift by 1975. However, the question of consistency and comparability of yield estimates among crops dictated the use of the simplifying location assumption. .1 bnfi;. V .0 9q\'J t 'P'® /9 pnoatS 2291.11 .9p bns . • hr>?9t f arc TABLE 3 s 1975 Acreages of California Crops Under Two Alternative Assumpti A: 1975 projected acreage level assuming California produces "same share" of U.S. production as 1954-1957 average B: 1975 projected acreage level assuming California produces a projected "changed share" of U.S. production in 1975 Crop category State 1954-57 average acreage 1975 projected state acreage 1975 projected state acreage index ( 1954-57=100) state acreage 1975 projected state acreage index (1954-57=100) Feed grains 2,487,750 2,786,280 112 2,786,280 112 Food grains Rice Wheat Fruits^ 721,750 329,500 392,250 690,995 243,830 447,165 96 74 114 595,915 289,960 305,955 83 88 78 1,150,590 1,583,527 138 1,500,251 35,277 234 , 159 598,721 632,094 130 131 97 136 143 Apples Citrus Grapes Other Tree nuts-' Walnuts Aimonds 26,929 241,401 440,236 442,024 30,699 410,382 589,916 552,530 144 170 134 125 242,263 141,409 100,854 257,797 142,823 114,974 106 101 114 254,969 139,995 114,974 105 99 114 Vegetables Processed tomatoes Market tomatoes All tomatoes i-cary^gxccn o» yexiow 604,485 119,000 36,425 155,425 OHl ,000 1 n7 ooo 666,990 — 127,449 403,369 136,172 110 — 82 118 127 766,605 — mt 170,968 427,298 168,339 127 — 110 125 157 1 no nnn i Uo , UUU 101,520 94 146,880 136 Dry edible beans 296,000 293,040 99 248,640 84 Sugar beets 187,000 155,210 83 198,220 106 Cotton 772.000 941,840 122 1.296,960 168 Total 6,569,838 7,477.199 114 7,794 ,720 119 a/ Total acreage (bearing + nonbearing). 8'.- -40 17. 6,569,838 acres. Important acreage increases are projected for cotton, fruits (with the exception of citrus), vegetables and feed grains. Acreages of the food grains (rice and wheat), citrus and dry edible beans are projected to decline from 1954-1957 levels. Under the alternative assumption that California will produce the "same share" of U. S. production in 1975 as in 1954-1957, projected total 1975 acreage in Table 3 is 7,477,199 acres, representing an increase of 907,361 acres or 14 percent over the 1954-1957 level. Under this assumption sizable increases in acreage are projected for cotton, fruits (including citrus), vegetables and feed grains. Acreage decreases are projected for food grains, potatoes and sugar beets. Hence, wtiile projected aggregate crop acreage increases under the two alternative "share" assumptions are fairly similar (19 percent and 14 percent), the "product mix" differs significantly. Major differences between the projections arei (l) Wheat acreage in California is projected to decline sharply under the "changed share" assumption compared with a sizable increase under the "same share" assumption. The former appears more reasonable both from the standpoint of the present U. S. wheat surplus situation and from the poor competitive position of wheat relative to other crops in California. (2) Citrus fruit acreage is projected for a 3 percent decline under the "changing share" assumption compared with a 70 percent increase under the "same share" assumption. Again, the former appears more reason- able in light of continued removal of citrus in Southern California with only partial replacement by new plantings in the San Joaquin Valley and the apparent competitive disadvantage of California relative to Florida and other producing areas in citrus fruit for processing. (3) Vegetables and deciduous fruits are projected for considerably sharper increases under 18. the "changed share" assumption. Again, these sharp increases seem realistic in view of the comparative advantage enjoyed by California in the produc- tion of many cf these crops. However, per acre yield projections for vegetable and fruit crops are highly uncertain; the impact of new plantings, mechanical harvest, changes in percentage of crop harvested, and other factors, could markedly influence per acre yields, and hence the acreages projected for 1975. (4) Potato acreage is projected to increase 36 per- cent under the "changed share" assumption compared with a 6 percent decrease under the "same share" assumption. For potatoes, the latter estimate may be more reasonable; the historical seasonal price advantage enjoyed by Cali- fornia early and late spring potatoes is being reduced by improved storage methods allowing high-quality potatoes from other areas to be carried into the spring market. Direct competition from other areas during the spring season also is increasing. (5) Cotton acreage is projected to increase 68 percent under the "changed share" assumption compared with only 22 percent increase under the "same share" assumption. In terms of absolute acreage, the cotton projection represents the major difference between the two alternative "share" assumptions. The relative accuracy of these two projections presumably will depend largely on the future course of governmental cotton controls: If acreage controls continue, the 22 percent increase appears reasonable; if controls are gradually relaxed in a manner allowing a larger proportion of U. S. cotton acreage to be grown in the Southwest, California cotton acreage is likely to change more nearly in line with the 68 percent increase.-^ 1/ For example, the Plan B provision of the Agricultural Act of 1958 allowed producers to increase cotton acreage up to 40 percent of the base allotment. Relatively more acreage was placed under Plan B in the Southwest (including California) than in the Southeast, thereby increasing California's share of the U. S. acreage. While only a temporary measure, this type of legislation would permit a relative shift in cotton acreage to the Southwest in the future. T9C ooiT^ul^" : ;{b<> •)(•'. r.t , Yd baoubst onic ' 3/t) fcftUXUb SfiSJii TUS-i ten/ 3' 02 !e n^PEo? I'uiosafe to emty -82 e 9 tonx 19. In general, the acreage projections based on California producing a "changed share" of total United States production appear more reasonable than those based on the "same share" assumption. Therefore, discussion of changes in yields, acreages and location of production within California by 1975 is based on the "changed share" projections. Changes in yields, acreages an<;i location of crop production The following discussion more fully interprets the yield and acreage projections of Tables 2 and 3 and, further, indicates prospective shifts in the location of crop production within the state. Past trends indicate rather dynamic shifts in the location of particular California crops; current developments indicate further important acreage shifts by 1975.-^ Feed grains .— An 18 percent yield per acre increase is projected for feed grains for 1975 (Table 2). Corn yields are projected to increase 20 percent. The present state average corn yield of 65 bushels per acre (1.82 tons) is considered only a "break even" yield by agronomists. In the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, however, average yields are considerably higher. Corn has become a major crop in California only since cotton acreage allotments in 1954. While much has been learned concerning corn fertiliza- tion, irrigation, and other cultural practices, these improved practices have not been fully adopted. Continued research and more widespread adoption of existing technology are expected to allow the projected 20 percent increase by 1975. Little research has been directed toward adaptation of oats to l/ A summary of past trends in yields, acreages and shifts in production areas of California crops is available in: Dean, Gerald W. and C. 0. McCorkle, Jr., "Trends in Major California Crops," California Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 488, March 1960. ■ "' .liqmvese> "djfirig 9infie'' sriJ no bsasd ©sorii , nfi1*t'" • r- .r^rvf h'^ ?(-j6970 t>i^n' ■ . ,"•■>?''; Si • J r- ■* ■ ■ • ■' -■ {",■ 20, California conditions. Recent and prospective work on adaptation, shatter resistence and disease resistence point toward increases of about 25 percent in per acre yields by 1975. Barley yields have increased co.Dsiderably over the past 15 years, largely attributable to a relative shift from dryland to irrigated land. However, future proportions of acreage located on dryland and irrigated land in California are expected to shift little from the present. Past breeding emphasis has been on quality and marketability (e.g., trying to develop a white barley for export) rather than on increased yields per acre. With breeding materials now available, barley yields are expected to increase about 15 percent from 1954-1957. Scientists foresee yield increases for grain sorghums over the next 10-15 years much like those experienced in corn yields over the past 10-15 years. Grain sorghum hybrids are being rapidly developed for California conditions, with promise of sizable yield increases. A 30 percent yield increase by 1975 is estimated as reasonable. This assumes (1) no share increase in double cropping of milo since this practice can reduce yields sharply, particularly if late planted and (2) a moderate shift of grain sorghums to better soils. The projected 32 percent increase in California feed grain production, coupled with an 18 percent increase in yield per acre (Table 2), leaves a "required" 12 percent increase in feed grain acreage to meet 1975 demand (132 4- 118 = 112).'^ State acreage of feed grains has trended upward steadily since 1935, particularly since cotton acreage allotments in 1954. Since 1953, feed grain acreage has increased in all four major crop- producing areas of the state— the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley, Central Coast and Southern California. This increase has been about equally \J Assumes the same proportions of feed grain components as in 1954-1957. «»fWR.tlKillJjK Vi. ■ tfl xdfiJ9)!t6m fans y? . ,9ldBj on r bs 21. divided between barley, corn and grain sorghum. Assumed relaxation of cotton acreage restrictions by 1975 and competition from higher value crops (mainly fruits and vegetables) probably will limit further expansion of feed grain acreage in the central and southern San Joaquin Valley. However, increases in feed grain acreage are expected in the Sacramento Valley and the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. In these areas, relatively higher corn and grain sorghum yields should improve the competitive position of these crops relative to beans and other alternatives. Feed grain acreages in the irrigated sections of the Central Coast and Southern California are expected to decline over time. In these areas, high water costs, high taxes, climate and proximity to major markets favor production of high-value speciality crops. Feed grains are expected to continue here primarily as rotation crops to combat disease and insect problems. Feed grains and other crops in the rotation also reduce grower risk and often make possible conventional financing for diversified operations containing vegetables. Food grains . — Rice yields are projected to increase 40 percent from the 1954-1957 average. Sharp yield increases already have occurred since 1956, largely due to improved fertilization and weed and insect control. In fact, estimates for 1959 place the state average rice yield per acre in excess of 102 bushels"only 9 percent below the 1975 projection. Future yield increases are expected to arise mainly from four factors: (l) improved weed control, (2) varietal improvements, (3) possible shifts from dirt to plastic levees, and (4) improved fertilization and other management practices. Unpredictable elements in the yield picture include the effects of governmental programs and possible development of a long-grain rice adapted to California. 22. By 1975 rice acreage is projected to decline about 40,000 acres from the 1954-1957 average. While in 1957 California rice acreage was substantially lower than the 1975 projection, harvested acreage approximated the 1975 projection in 1959. Imposition of allotments in 1955 sharply reduced acreage from the 1953 and 1954 peaks. Rice acreage is presently located primarily in the lower Sacramento Valley because of heavy clay soils well adapted to rice and low water costs. Selected areas in the San Joaquin Valley increased rice acreage during the early 1950' s~primarily San Joaquin, Merced and Fresno counties and the Buttonwillow area of Kern County. Much of this rice, however, went on poor soils in the process of leaching out salts in land reclamation of development. No significant shift in location of state rice average is expected by 1975. Well adapted areas of the Sacramento Valley will continue to dominate the rice picture in California. Rice acreage allotments, of course, also tend to "freeze" location of acreage in the present pattern. Crop production scientists project a 5 percent decrease in state average wheat yields per acre by 1975. This projection assumes a continua- tion of the past shift in acreage from irrigated areas (primarily in the San Joaquin Valley) to dryland areas of the state. Corn, milo, beans, alfalfa and other crops tend to outcompete wheat in irrigated areas, while barley continues to replace wheat in many dryland foothill areas. However, dryland areas capable of producing high-protein wheat (e.g., the Carriso Plains) will probably continue to produce for the cereal and milling out- let. A continued relative shift in acreage from the Central Valley to the Central Coast and Southern California is anticipated by 1975. State wheat acreage has declijied steadily over time, the 1975 acreage projection represents a further 22 percent drop from 1954-1957. As with rice, the 1957 acreage was slightly lower than the 1975 projection but harvested acreage in both 1958 and 1959 exceeded the projected level by about 20 percent. '6 woi 23. Acreage trends in rice and wheat in the past 3 or 4 years indicate that the 1975 projection of a 125,000-acre total reduction from the 1954- 1957 level may be too conservative. Greater uncertainty is attached to the rice projection than the wheat projection. At present, California produces almost entirely short-grain rice primarily for export. Development of a high-yielding, long-grain variety for California could substantially increase California rice acreage, government programs permitting. Fruits . — Yield projections for fruits fall into a somewhat different category than those for other crops. New orchards do not come into full bearing for 5-10 years and may be left in production for many years before pulling. Thus, any yield increases due to improved varieties by 1975 must be attributed to present plantings and those taking place in the next 5-10 years. Large yield increases in the past have resulted from factors such as improved disease control, improved irrigation and fertilization manage- ment as well as varietal shifts. Other major factors have been the change in age composition of orchards (i.e., greater maturity of trees allowing increased yields) and shifts in the location of acreage tr better-adapted areas. State average apple yields per acre are projected to increase about 10 percent by 1975 (Table 2). Increased yields result mainly from improved cultural practices and orchard management. Apple acreage, in turn, is projected to increase to 35,277 in 1975— an increase of about 8,000 acres or 30 percent from the 1954-1957 average (Table 3). Apple acreage has remained about steady at 27,000 acres since 1953 as new plantings have about offset pulling of old trees. Apple production is concentrated primarily in the Sebastopol and Watsonville areas of the Central Coast. Climatic conditions 6?»v VTsm fl". 24. favor apples in these areas and recent increases in nonbearing acreage here indicate that the major portion of the 8,000-acre increase projected for 1975 will occur in the Central Coast area. In contrast with the long-run trend, much of the new acreage probably will be devoted to fresh shipping varieties. '^^6 citrus fruit category consits of oranges, lemons, and grapefruit. A 15-20 percent increase in state average orange yields is expected due to (l) shifts to better soils, (2) elimination of poor orchards, (3) tree rejuvination through pruning, etc., and (4) changes to better root stocks on new plantings. An offsetting factor is that the average age nf orange orchards in 1975 may be less than at present due to acreage shifts from Southern California to the San Joaquin Valley. A 10 percent increase in lemnn yields and a 5-10 percent increase in grapefruit yields are projected for 1975; acreage relocation plays a key role in both projections. Total citrus acreage in California in 1975 is projected to decline slightly (3 percent) from the 1954-1957 average (Table 3). However, significant shifts in location of production and in types of citrus fruits grown in California are in prospect. Urbanization pressures in Southern California will result in further puUings of mature citrus orchards, while new plantings of citrus will continue to expand in favorable thermal areas of the San Joaquin Valley. An increasing portion of California's new orange orchards probably will be planted to navels. Florida holds a comparative cost advantage in the production of Valencia oranges for processing, but California should continue to produce Valencias for fresh shipment. Recent increases in the nonbearing acreage of lemons in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties indicate a continuation of the past shift in lemon acreage within Southern 25. California to these two counties. Grapefruit acreage is shifting to the high yielding desert areas. In summary, total citrus acreage is projected to change little in California by 1975, but a larger portion of this acreage will be devoted to navel oranges and lemons, with further shifts in concentra- tion of these acreages to the San Joaquin Valley and Santa Barbara-Ventura counties, respectively. Grape yields in 1975 are projected to increase on an average by one ton (16 percent) from the 1954-1957 average of 6.2 tons. Recent plantings to high-yielding Thompson Seedless on productive soils provide the basis for projected yield increases. Grape acreage for California in 1975 is projected at 598,721 acres, representing an increase of 160,000 acres (36 percent) from the 1954-1957 level (Table 3). The grape industry centers around Fresno in the San Joaquin Valley, extending south to Tulare County and north into San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin Valley is expected to contain the major expansion of grape acreage projected for 1975. Rapid expansion in nonbearing grape acreage in the San Joaquin Valley since 1954, partly as a result of cotton allotments, supports this projection. Acreages in other grape-producing areas (primarily the Central Coast wine grape areas of Sonoma and Napa counties and the Southern California desert valley districts) are expected to remain static or decline further under pressure of urbanization and relatively low yields. The other fruit category consists mainly of deciduous fruits, but also contains subtropical fruits. Yield increases for individual fruit crops were estimated, then combined to provide the aggregate 10 percent yield increase projected for 1975 in Table 2. Most significant yield increases among "other fruits" are expected for prunes, nectarines and plums. '■ « 26. Acreage of "other fruits" (primarily deciduous) is projected to increase 43 percent by 1975— from 442,024 acres to 632,094 acres (Table 3). This projected expansion is already underway. The first period of increasing aggregate "other" fruit acreage in California in almost 30 years has occurred since 1954. The major area of increase is the San Joaquin Valley, although slight increases also are recorded for the Sacramento Valley and Central Coast. As of 1954 the San Joaquin Valley has for the first time supplanted the Central Coast as the major "other fruit" area of the state acreage-wise. Essentially the entire state acreage increase in "other fruit" since 1954 is directly attributable to deciduous fruits, most of which have been planted in the San Joaquin Valley. Fruits showing substantial new plantings in the San Joaquin Valley are apricots, cherries, clingstone peaches, freestone peaches, plums and nectarines. The largest acreage increases percentage-wise by 1975 are expected for nectarines and cherries. However, largest absolute increases in acreage are likely for apricots and freestone peaches. Prune acreage also is apparently nn the upswing—reversing a long time downtrend— mainly from new plantings in the Sacramento Valley from Marysville to Red Bluff. Avocados, located entirely in Southern California, are the only subtropical fruit which indicates a recent uptrend in new plantings. Fig acreage in the San Joaquin Valley probably will continue to decline while acreages of the remaining fruits are expected to remain relatively constant. In summary, a sharply increased concentration of the California fruit industry is expected in the San Joaquin Valley by 1975. Several factors suggest this shift: (l) urbanization in the Central Coast and Southern California areas; (2) relatively higher yields h the Central Valley; (3) concentration of the fruit processing industry (canning, freezing, and • 1 ■ ' ■^r,^ 27. drying) in the Central Valley— primarily in the Modesto-Yuba City-Oakland triangle; and (4) necessity of high value crops on high priced land with high water costs in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Vegetables .— Yields of tomatoes for processing are projected to increase to an average of 25 tons per acre by 1975— an increase of 47 percent over the 17-ton average of 1954-1957 (Table 2). This projection assumes greater concentration of tomato acreage in the hands of efficient producers, many of wtiom already obtain yields in excess of 25 tons per acre. Better soil management, improved labor supervision and more effective control of diseases and insects appear to be the keys to increased yields. Mechanization of the tomato harvest which is nearing the commercial stage might be a deterring factor to increasing yields. Vegetable crop specialists project 1975 market tomato yields of 20 tons per acre— an increase of 163 percent from 7.6 tons per acre in 1954- 1957. This spectacular increase assumes that market tomatoes in 1975 will be grown predominantly on stakes rather than flat as is now prevalent. Increased demand in 1975 also is expected to extend tomato harvest over a longer season, thereby increasing per acre yields. A 10 percent increase in acreage is projected for "all tomatoes" in California for 1975 (Table 3). About three-fourths of the present acreage is devoted to processed tomatoes, the remainder to fresh tomatoes. Roughly the same proportions are projected for 1975. Processing tomato acreage is expected to remain concentrated in the lower Sacramento Valley and northern San Joaquin Valley, particularly in and around the Delta area. High yields, high-quality fruit and location of canneries in this area favor continued aid I pnf, 28. concentration of production here. However, fresh tomato production has shifted in importance from Southern California to the San Joaquin Valley since 1952, While Southern California continues to dominate the early spring market, the San wToaquin Valley has displaced Southern California as the major area in the early summer and early fall seasons. Urbanization pressure in Southern California and higher yields in the San Joaquin Valley have favored relocation of fresh tomato production into the Tulare-Fresno area and the Stockton-Tracy-Patterson area. Increased competition from Mexico in the early spring market probably will further diminish the importance of Southern California fresh tomato production relative to the San Joaquin Valley, Yields of vegetables in the leafy-green and yellow and other categories are expected to increase about 20 percent by 1975."^ Projections of vege- table yields are particularly hazardous, primarily because harvested yields per acre are a function of price. Relatively high prices result in a larger percentage of the crop being harvested, both in terms of proportion of total planted acres harvested and proportion of total production per acre actually harvested. Relatively low prices result in more selective harvesting and lower yields per harvested acre. Thus, projected yield increases are based on "normal" prices and harvesting percentages. Major factors in the pro- jected yield increases are disease control and varietal improvement. The yield increases also recognize the probable shift of substantial vegetable acreages, where seasonally possible, from the coastal valleys to the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere. l/ Included in leafy-green and yellow vegetables are: artichokes, asparagus, lima beans, snap beans, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, carrots, kale, escarole, lettuce, green peas, green peppers, spinach and estimated minor leafy-green and yellow vegetables. Other vegetables include: beets, cauliflower, celery, sweet-corn, cucumbers, eggplant, garlic, onions, shallots and estimated minor vegetables. 29. Acreage of leafygreen and yellow vegetables in California is pro- jected to increase 25 percent (85,000 acres) by 1975} however, acreages and locational shifts of individual crops are highly uncertain. A high degree of substitution in consumption among certain vegetables in this group further complicates individual estimates. Acreage-wise, lettuce and asparagus are the major vegetables in this category, followed by lima beans, broccoli and carrots. Together, these five vegetables constitute 85 per- cent of the leafy-green and yellow vegetable acreage. No prominent loca- tional shifts are apparent from past trends for the category as a whole. In recent years the Central Coast, Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley all have increased acreage slightly. However, important acreage shifts have taken place for some individual crops. The Palo Verde area in Southern California has increased lettuce production relative to the Salinas Valley in the early spring deal because of climatic and shipping cost advantages. Asparagus acreage has shifted drastically from the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley, primarily because of Fusarium wilt in the former area. Carrot acreage has shifted from Southern California to the Central Coast, partly because of competition from Texas in the winter season and partly because of higher yields in the coastal valleys. In the future, leafy-green and yellow vegetable production probably will continue to shift farther from the Southern California metropolitan areas and into other areas of Southern California (Imperial Valley, Palo Verde Valley, Coachella Valley, Oxnard Plain, etc.) and to the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Coast, particularly Salinas Valley, will continue important in summer vegetable pro- duction because of moderate summer temperatures. However, total vegetable acreage in the Central Coast may decline as a result of continued urbanization :<^'i aH' isi.'fctvibr' 30. in the San Francisco Bay area, San Jose and other areas. Acreage of processing vegetables appears certain to increase in the San Joaquin Valley; high yields, long seasons and the existence of established freezers and canners favor expansion in this area. Acreage-wise the other vegetable category is less important in Califr^rnia than leafy-green and yellow vegetables. However, California acreage of other vegetables is projected to increase 57 percent (60,000 acres) by 1975. Again, no major shifts in location of acreage are apparent for the group as a whole. In the past 10 years, sweet corn has become the major vegetable in this group, particularly in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley. Celery production has shifted from Southern Cali- fornia to the Central Coast because of new varieties adapted to colder climates, and higher yields in the coastal valleys. As with leafy-green and yellow vegetables, other vegetable acreage is expected to shift to the Southern California Valleys and the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Coast probably will remain important in summer vegetable production. Potatoes .-- California potatoes include two distinct seasonal and geographic groups— late spring potatoes (mainly in Kern County) and late potatoes (predominantly from the Tulelake district). An overall 19 per- cent increase in potato yields to 300 hundredweight per acre is projected for 1975. Continuation of past uptrends in yields is expected from improved irrigation and soil management practices and better disease and pest control. Again, "normal" price conditions are assumed since harvested yields per acre (particularly of late spring potatoes) depend on market price. Total potato acreage in California is projected tn increase 36 per- cent or about 40,000 acres by 1975 (Table 3). However, recent acreage trends 31. and the long-run outlook fox potatoes indicate this projection may be high. The San Joaquin Valley (primarily Kern and Tulare counties) undoubtedly will continue to dominate the late spring season, although developments in potato storage methods and out-of-state competition may reduce the seasonal advantage historically enjoyed by California "early" potatoes. Late potatoes are likely to continue prominent in the Tulelake district, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area and the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Southern California acreage recently has trended slightly upward, stimu- lated by the potato chipping industry. In summary, no major shifts in location of potato acreage are projected for California for 1975. Dry edible beans .— The state average yield of dry edible beans is projected to reach about 1,500 pounds per acre by 1975 (Table 2). Major factors in the projected 9 percent increase are development of more wilt resistant and mosaic resistant varieties. Research also is proceeding on problems of root rots. State bean acreage is projected to decline about 47,000 acres (16 percent) by 1975 (Table 3). Beans will probably decline moderately in all present growing areas. Root rots have afflicted all areas, worsening the competitive position of beans and causing acreage declines in the Sutter Basin, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area and Salinas Valley. Low per acre returns relative to alternative crops probably will cause further acreage reductions in Southern California by 1975. Dry beans probably will be grown more frequently on a double-cropping basis in the future. Sugar beets . — Average sugar beet yields in California are projected at 25 tons for 1975 (Table 2). Positive factors in the yield picture include possible control of virus yellow and greater fertilization. On L 32. the negative side, increased mechanization in thinning may actually be yield-depressing. Cn the other hand precision planting to stand could eliminate this possibility. Even with higher fertilization and yield rates, sugar content is expected to be maintained at around 15 to 15.5 percent. State sugar beet acreage is projected to remain relatively constant in California between 1954-1957 and 1975~only a 11,000-acre or 6 percent increase is projected (Table 3). Sugar beet acreage is concentrated in three areas: (l) Yolo, Solano and Sacramento counties in the Sacramento Valley plus adjacent San Joaquin County in the San Joaquin Valley; (2) the Central Coast valleys; and (3) Imperial Valley. Little change in this pattern is projected for 1975. Location of sugar beet processors in the present production areas and probable continuation of allotments based on producer "acreage history" are factors stabilizing location of production. Cotton . — The state average cotton yield projection for 1975 is 1,150 pounds of lint per acre, representing a 30 percent increase from the 1954- 1957 level (Table 2). However, yields have risen steadily in the past 4-5 years, with 1959 preliminary estimates at 1,051 pounds of lint per acre. From this level, the 1975 yield projection represents only a 9-10 percent increase. Of course, government acreage restrictions since 1954 have limited cotton primarily to the highest yielding soils on each participa- ting farm. While a gradual relaxation of cotton acreage controls is assumed, yields per acre over the next 15 years are expected to more than maintain the 1959 level. Yield-increasing factors will be improved irrigation, fertilization, harvesting practices and pest controls. Cotton acreage appears to be the largest single uncertain variable in the entire complex of California crop acreage projections for 1975. Furthermore, cotton acreage determines to a large extent the levels of ■H ... ■ ■ :j s- sIIsV nl'upec' 33. certain other crops (particularly feed grains) grown in the San Joaquin Valley. However, even if the projected 68 percent or 525,000 acre increase from the 1954-1957 level takes place by 1975 (Table 3), no substantial shift in location of cotton acreage is expected. If water is available and allotments are relaxed, cotton undoubtedly will again dominate the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, replacing many of the field crops grown in this area as "cotton substitutes" since 1954. Tree nuts .— The important tree nuts in California are walnuts and almonds. Walnut yields are projected to rise gradually from the 1954-1957 average of 0.59 tons per acre to 0.73 tons per acre in 1975 (Table 2). Part of the increase is expected from a continuation of the acreage shift from Southern California to the interior valleys. Other positive factors influencing the 1975 yield picture include; (l) planting of more trees per acre in new orchards; (2) interplanting with early bearing varieties to increase yields in the early life of the orchard; (3) greater average maturity of the orchards by 1975. A possible negative yield-influencing factor is that some new varieties being planted (e.g., the Franquette variety) are relatively low yielding. Walnut acreage in California is projected to remain about constant between 1954-1957 and 1975 (Table 3). Significant shifts in location of production have characterized walnut production in California. Walnuts have shifted out of Southern California due to urbanization and high costs and relocated to the Central Valley and Central Coast. Recent plantings and future acreage increases are expected to be greatest in the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley. Relatively high yields and location of processing facilities around Stockton will encourage concentration of walnut acreage in these areas. 34. Almond yields are projected to increase to 0.55 tons per acre by 1975 — an increase of 0.05 tons over the 1954-1957 state average yield (Table 2). Recent plantings in the San Joaquin Valley have tended toward the higher-yielding new varieties. Also, by 1975, a greater percentage of orchards should be in the peak period of production (approximately 20-25 years old). Almond acreage has shifted to the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys in recent years primarily because of higher yields than in the Central Coast areas. Almond acreage is expected to further concentrate in the Central Valley in the next 15 years. In summary, total acreage of tree nuts in California (walnuts and almonds) is projected to increase 5 percent by 1975 (Table 3). Judging from the rapid rate of new plantings in the Central Valley in the past several years, this may be an underestimate. Livestock Projections for California, 1975 Procedures used in projecting 1975 California livestock production differ markedly from those employed in making crop projections. Crop projections in California have been tied directly to total U. S. demand. Since California is a producer for national markets in fruits, nuts, vegetables and important field crops (e.g., cotton, potatoes, rice, beans and sugar), U. S. demand estimates for 1975 provided the starting point in deriving demand for California crops. However, livestock production in California is not, in general, closely associated with national require- ments. Hence, U. S. demand for livestock in 1975 is not directly relevant for most California livestock projections. 2sq e»d. 35. California is deficit in meat products, at present shipping in approximately 70 percent of the pork, 30 percent of the beef and 32 per- cent of the lamb consumed. In contrast, California produces sufficient fluid milk and nearly enough eggs to meet state consumption. California is expected to continue to meet fresh milk and egg consumption requirements primarily through state production. In the absence of a major technological breakthrough long-distance shipment of bulky perishable items such as fluid milk will continue to be of questionable economic feasibility. There- fore, future fresh milk and egg production are assumed to depend primarily on California population expansion. However, the projections for beef cattle, sheep, hogs, broilers and turkeys cannot be associated directly with either California or U. S. demand. These products are easily shipped between states and, with the exception of turkeys, California's share of total U. S. production is relatively unimportant. The central problem in these products, therefore, is the absence of a suitable objective basis on which production estimates might be made. Consequently, 1975 projections of beef cattle, sheep, hog, broiler and turkey productinn are based on an appraisal and reasoned judgment concerning important factors influencing each. While the resulting estimates are only approximations, they do provide comparison cf projected feed production-livestock consumption balances in California under one plausible set of assumptions. The data presented also provide insight into possible balances under other sets of assumptions. 36. Daily cattle pro,iections The 1975 dairy projections are based on a concurrent study of the dairy industry in the western states by Simmons.^ Assuming a 1975 California population of 23.6 million, Simmons estimates total fluid milk production in California (state fluid milk consumption plus fluid milk export during peak production seasons) at 12,583 million pounds. Average production per cow in California is projected to increase 21 percent to 10,400 pounds by 1975. At this production rate, 1,209,900 cows are required in California to meet 1975 fluid milk needs— an increase in cow numbers cf 40 percent from the 1954-1957 average. Manufactured milk requirements are assumed to be met by out-of-state production in 1975. Details of the projected 1975 California dairy cattle numbers and dairy feed requirements are shown in Table 4. Grain, hay and pasture requirements per animal are extremely difficult to project to 1975. Even accurate estimates of present feeding rates in the state are not available. In brief, a level of concentrate feeding sufficient to produce 10,400 pounds of milk per cow per year under conditions in present Grade A dairies was assumed as the state average requirement for 1975. Compared with other areas, grains comprise a relatively smaller proportion of the total concen- trates fed to dairy cows in California, primarily because of the availability of large volumes of by-product feeds such as cottonseed meal and beet pulp. Some question that 7 pounds of grain per cow per day is sufficient to support average milk production of 10,400 pounds per cow. Several factors \J See; Simmons, Richard L., "Optimum Adjustments of the Dairy Industry of the Western Region to Economic Conditions of 1975," Ph.D. thesis. Uni- versity of California, 1959. Simmons projects per capita consumption of fluid milk, butter, ice cream, etc. to 1975 using methods similar to those employed by Daly in deriving U. S. demand for farm products. ,-,.«. 8 been jilfT 07 t.9i TABLE 4 Projected 1975 California Dairy Cattle and Dairy Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Projection Feed requirements per head per period fed in California. 1975 Type of animal Period fed No. per period per 100 cows a/ No. per period in California projected for 1975 b/ Concen- trate c/ Grain d/ Pasture & Hay e/ grazing e/ Total feed requirements in California projected for 1975 Grain Hay Pasture & grazing 1954-57 average; Cows Bulls Calves( to 3 mo. ) Calves( 3 mo.-l yr. ) Heif ers( 1-2 yrs. ) Heifers(2-2 l/3 yr.) TOTAL 1975 projectioni Cows Bulls Calves( to 3 mo. ) Calves( 3 mo.-l yr. ) Heif ers( 1-2 yrs.) Heifers(2-2 l/3 yr.) TOTAL yr yr. mo. mo, yr. mo. 1 yr. 1 yr. 3 9 1 mo. mo. yr. 4 mo. 100 I' 34 30 28 32 100 1 34 30 28 32 850,250 8,502 289,085 255,075 238,070 272,080 1,209,900 12,098 411,365 362,969 338,771 387,167 tonsi 1.80 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 1.80 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 1.15 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 1.15 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 4.00 1.5 annual ave. 4 4.00 T 1.5 annual ave. 4r AUM's 4.50 5.60 annual ave. I 4.50 tons AUM's 5.60 annual ave. 977,788 0 23,127 20,406 14,284 16,325 3,401,000 T 888,510 total 3,826, 125 t 3,317,104 total 4- 1,051,930 1,391,385 0 32,909 29,038 20,326 23,230 4,289,510 4,839,600 T 1,280,553 total 7,143,229 5,444,550 t 4,780,731 total •i- 1,496,888 6.120,153 1 10,225,281 a/ Based on data from Shultis, Arthur and Gordon, G. E., "California Dairy Farm Management," California Circular 417, revised. Table 4. Data are adjusted assuming a 30 percent replacement rate and net inshipments of 2 year-old bred heifers equal to 4 percent of milk cows, b/ Projection of 1,209,900 cows from Simmons, Richard, "Optimum Adjustments of the Dairy Industry of the Western Region to Economic Conditions of 1975," Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), University of California, 1959. Numbers of other type of dairy animals based on numbers per 100 cows in preceding column, c/ From Shultis and Gordon, cit . , Table 8, assuming 1975 production level per cow of 10,400 pounds of 3.8 percent milk d/ Assumes 7 pounds of grain per head per day for 11 months and no grain the survey schedules throughout California dairy areas, California Milk Contro twelfth month. Estimated by authors from >1 Board data and checked against require- ments for dairy cows in American Feed Manufacturers Association, Estimated Feed Use and Supplies for 1958 , Nov. 1958 e/ Requirements from Hedges, T. R. and Bailey, W. R., "Appraisal of California Agricultural Productive Capacity Attain- able in 1955," Giannini Mimeo, Report. No. 130, June 1952, Appendix Table 12. OJ o 0) 37. support the feasibility of this assumptions (l) A larger proportion of future dairy production in California is expected to concentrate in the San Joaquin Valley, where grain-forage price ratios favor high forage rations. (2) Many operators in the San Joaquin Valley presently are obtain- ing 10,400-pound averages per cow with concentrate mixes containing only 7 pounds of grain per head per day or less. (3) Dairymen are feeding top quality hay to their cows, and (4) further shifts toward drylot dairy operations permit greater attention to the care and health of the animals.-^ Total grain, hay and pasture and grazing requirements for the 1975 projected California dairy industry are computed in Table 4, Along with comparable estimates for beef cattle, poultry, sheep and hogs, the aggregate feed pro- duction-livestock consumption balance in California for 1975 can be projected. Poultry projections The California poultry industry is comprised of three distinct enter- prises: (l) egg production, (2) turkey production, and (3) broiler and fryer production. Separate projections are made for each. Egg production .— During the past 10 years the apparent per capita egg consumption has been about the same for California as for the United States. Therefore, Daly' 1975 projection of 403 eggs per capita for the United States has been adopted as the 1975 California consumption rate (Table 5). Inshipments of shell eggs as a percent of total California egg consumption have decline steadily from 18 percent in 1949 to 7 percent \J Source: Davidson, Jack R. , personal interviews with farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, 1959, (unpublished data), California project 1808. 2/ Daly, "The Long-Run Demand for Farm Products," 0£. cit . midrib .63 C>* TABLE 5 Projected 1975 California Egg Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison Per cap- Total Total No. of Feed grain requirement ita egg California California Eggs layers Per layer Year California population consump- tion egg con- sumption egg produc- tion per laver in Cali- fornia and re- ^ / olacementr-' Total million eqqs million eqqs thousand pounds tons 1954-57 average 13.2 375 b/ 4,950 c/ 4,464 215. 20,762 72 747,432 1975 projection 23.6 403 d/ 9,511 9,511 285 e/ 33,371 72 1,201,364 a/ Source: Poultry Husbandry Department, University of California, Davis. Assumes a ration of 120 pounds of total ration, 60 percent of which is feed grain. b/ Apparent per capita egg consumption. Derived by dividing California production plus inshipments by Cali- fornia population. Exports unknown and assumed small. c/ Composed of California production plus inshipments into the state. Exports unknown and assumed small. d/ Assumes same per capita consumption rate for California as projected for the United States by Daly, 0£. cit. e/ Assumes increase of about 4 eggs per year to 1975. 39. in 1958. Present outshipments of eggs from California are unknown, but apparently are significant only at certain times during the year. With inshipments only 7 percent and trending downward and with small exports, egg production is assumed to approximately equal egg consumption in Cali- fornia in 1975. Egg production per layer is projected to increase from 222 in 1957 to 285 in 1975— an increase of roughly 4 eggs per year— slightly less than the postwar rate of increase. Despite increased production per hen, feed requirements per layer and replacement are projected to remain about constant because of improved feed conversion. Under this set of conditions, the number of layers in California and the corresponding total feed grain requirements each are projected to increase about 60 percent over the 1954-1957 level. The assumption of 403 eggs consumed per capita deserves closer scrutiny. If future research supports preliminary reports regarding the damaging effects of cholesterol, 1975 per capita egg consumption in Cali- fornia, as well as in the United States, might fall well below the 403 projection. Also, if "unknown" egg exports from California are in fact sizable, present California per capita egg consumption apparently is lower than the United States average— a relationship which may well continue to 1975. Either or both of these conditions would lower 1975 projected egg consumption (and egg production) in California. Turkey production . —Calif ornia presently leads all states in turkey production with about 19 percent of United States volume. In contrast to other livestock, California is a substantial exporter of turkeys. Cali- fornia's comparative advantage in turkey production stems primarily from tot* 'i 40. the exceptionally hot dry climate in the San Joaquin Valley favoring low disease incidence and from adequate local feed grain supplies. Over time other areas of the United States are expected to partially overcome these advantages. Hence, for 1975 California is projected to produce sufficient turkeys to meet state consumption needs plus about half the level of present exports. With rapid population expansion in California projected for 1975, turkey production is projected to decline only slightly in absolute numbers, although California's relative share of U. S. production will decline from about 19 percent to 15 percent. California present and projected per capita turkey consumption is assumed the same as that derived by Daly^ for the United States, Other details of the projected 1975 California turkey production and feed require- ments are presented in Table 6. Broiler production .— Broiler production in California has been relatively static since 1951, varying annually in the 150 to 160 million- pound range. During this same period, broiler production elsewhere has doubled (mainly in the Southeast), causing California's share of U. S. production to decline from 6 to 3 percent. California broiler production for 1975 is projected at the 1951-1958 average level of 157.3 million pounds; however, production relative to the U. S. will continue to decline. Considering trucking costs of shipping broilers to California from the Southeast, large-scale aggressive broiler producers in California should continue to compete favorably with inshipments. However, the broiler industry in California is not sufficiently profitable to attract many new broiler operations. Recent construction of new broiler processing facilities in the Los Angeles area may help maintain present production levels in the state. l/ Daly, "The Long-Run Demand for Farm Products," 0£. cit . TABLE 6 Projected 1975 California Turkey Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison Per capita Total Cali- Total Cali- Feed grain reoui Year Cali- fornia popula- tion turkey / consumptionr^ (live weight basis ) fornia turkey consumption ( live weight basis) fornia turkey production ( live weight basis) Average weight per bird raised No. of birds raised in California No. of breeder stock b/ Per turkey raised Per head of breeder stock cj Total millions pounds thousand pounds pounds thousand pounds tons 1954-57 average 13.2 6.0 79,200 222,123 18.7 11,878 865,200 55 d/ 70 356,927 1975 projection 23.6 6.2 146,320 217,781-^ 18.7 11.646 852,000 50 f/ 70 320,970 _a/ Based on U. S. demand estimates by Daly, "The Long-Run Demand for Farm Products," o p. cit . California per capita consumption rates assumed equal to U. S. rates. b/ Based on the relationship between breeder hens and turkeys raised in California during 1954-1957. Assumes tom-hen ratio of 1.5. c/ Source: Poultry Husbandry Department, University of California, Davis. Assumes toms and hens fed 150 days at 0.7 pounds of feed per bird per day (105 pounds). Feed grains are assumed to comprise two-thirds (70 pounds) of the ration. d/ Source: Estimated Feed Use and Supplies for 1958 , American Feed Manufacturers Association, November 1958. Assumes 70 percent of ration is feed grains. e/ Equals projected California consumption (146,320,000 pounds) plus 50 percent of 1954-1957 outshipments from Calif ornia (71,461,000 pounds). f/ Source: Poultry Husbandry Department, University of California, Davis. Assumes 4.5 pounds of feed per pound of selling weight (assuming 7 percent mortality) or 84 pounds of feed per bird. Feed grains are assumed to comprise 60 percent (50 pounds) of the ration. ^ ■so pxesq^; • '?nui6e foi 3i ^PU.'b'T:>'' T'^rF"' o-tfi'"-'^ 42. Table 7 provides details of the 1975 broiler and feed requirement projections for 1975. Feeding efficiency is expected to increase further to 2 pounds of feed per pound of market weight by 1975. Thus, total require- ments are less than at present fox approximately the same number of broilers. Beef cattle pro,iections The beef cattle feed-lot industry expanded rapidly in California in the post-war years, then leveled off about 1955. Most of the cattle finished in the state are fattened in large-scale, efficient establishments. A typical program is to finish nearly three lots of cattle per year, each fed for about 120 days. During the 1955-1958 period about 1,333,000 cattle were finished annually in California feedlots. However, the California beef cow-calf industry has not experienced sufficient expansion to supply the necessary feeders. During the 1955-1958 period annual net inshipments of stocker and feeder cattle into California were 923,000 head, compared with annual calf production in California of only 702,000. Thus, more than half of the stockers and feeders for California feedlots and herd replace- ments presently come from out-of-state. Subject to qualifications mentioned subsequently regarding 1975 feed-livestock balances in California, the 1955-1958 average levels of beef cows and cattle feed in feedlots are projected to continue to 1975.-^ Projections of other classes of beef animals are derived from these base figures (Table 8), Per head and total jy For a discussion of factors tending to affect the growth of cattle feeding in California see: Hopkin, John A., "Cattle Feeding in California," Bank of America, February, 1957. Hopkin concludes that cattle numbers in California seem likely to increase slowly over the next decade, with stockers and feeders in the feedlot and on pasture likely to comprise a higher pro- portion of total cattle than at present. 'di on. 43. TABLE 7 Projected 1975 California Broiler and Fryer Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison Year Pounds of broiler meat produced in California Average weight per broiler Total broilers produced in California ■ ■ Feed qrain requirements Per bird Total 1954-57 average 1975 projection 1000 lbs.' . thousands lbs. tons 155,763 157,308 b/ 3.2 3.3 48,645 47,669 5.3 a/ 4.4 c/ 128,909 104,872 a/ Source; Estimated Feed Use and Supplies for 19 58. American Feed Manufacturer Association, 1958. b/ Projected level equal to 1951-1958 average production in California. c/ Source: Poultry Husbandry Department, University of California, Davis. Assumes feed conversion of 2 pounds feed per pound of market weight or 6.6 pounds feed per bird. Two-thirds of the ration (4,4 pounds) is assumed to be feed grains. I r-, 1 ~ 1 TABLE 8 Projected 1975 California Beef Cattle Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison No. of Feed requirements per head Total feed requirements head in Feed / grains-' Grazing & Feed Grazing 8. Type of animal California Hav^ pasture b/ grains Hav pasture pounds tons AUM's tons AUM's 1954-1957 average: Beef cows, 2 years + 839,250 90 0.70 11.70 37,66 587,475 9,819,225 Cattle fed in feedlots / Heifer replacements, 1-2 yrs. 1,272,250 167,850 1,155 125 0.50 t 1.50 r 734,724 10,491 636,125 4^ 1,908,375 Calves (yearling replacements) 697,000 200 1.50 5.60 69,700 1,554,630 5,801,600 Steers, 1 + wintered Bulls d/ 138,000 60 annual annual 5,805 total total 33,570 250 ave. ave. 4.196 >l/ TOTAL 862,682 2,861,480 17,842,352 1975 projection: 850,000^ 1,333,000^ 170,000 702,000 122,000 Beef cows, 2 years + 90 0.70 11.70 38,250 595,000 9,945,000 Cattle fed in feedlots / Heifer replacements, 1-2 yrs.—' Calves (yearling replacements) Steers, 1 + wintered Bulls d/ TOTAL 1,155 125 200 60 0.50 T 1.50 annual 1.50 5.60 annual 769,808 10,625 70,200 3,660 666,500 T 1,542,000 total 1,999,500 5,756,800 total 34,000 250 ave. ave. 4.250 . k 896.793 2.803.500 17.701,300 a/ Except for requirements of "cattle fed in feedlots," the data are from: Estimated Feed Use and Supplies for 1958 . American Feed Manufacturers Association, November 1958. Feedlot feed requirements fromx Hopkin, John A., Cattle Feeding in California , Bank of America, February 1957. b/ Hay and grazing and pasture requirements from: Hedges, T. R. and Bailey, Warren, 0£. c it . cy Assumes 20 percent replacement rate of beef cows, 2 years and over. jkssumes 1 bull per 25 beef cows, 2 years and over, e/ 1975 projection equal to 1955-1958 average for California. 45. feed grain requirements may be slightly high due to the large proportion of by-product feeds (sugar beet and citrus pulp, almond hulls, culled potatoes, etc.) fed in some feedlots in the state. Range cattle numbers may increase as indicated, though any increase will depend on large measure on the successful adoption of range improvement practices in areas, and on sites, where such improvements are economically sound investments. Competition for grazing areas, particularly at higher elevations, is becoming increasingly keen. Water, recreation and timber interests are particularly active in seeking control of many areas of the state suited to grazing. Sheep and lamb projections Sheep production in California declined after World War II. Since 1948, mature ewe numbers have fluctuated in the 1,300,000 to 1,450,000 range.-^ Over the past decade, California averaged about 1,200,000 lambs raised annually with net inshipments of stockers and feeders of about 330,000 per year. California range pastures undoubtedly will continue to support substantial sheep numbers. However, inshipments for feeding and replacements are expected to decline. Thus, sheep and lamb numbers in California in 1975 are projected to decline moderately (about 10 percent) from the 1948-1958 average. Since no appreciable increase in feeding efficiency is assumed, total feed requirements are projected to decline in proportion to numbers (Table 9). Hog projections Hog production in California has been declining since World War II. California now produces only about one-fifth of the hogs butchered in the state. An important factor in the decline was the required change from raw 1/ Fewer ewes were on farms, January 1, 1959 (1,283,000) than in a year since 1950. TABLE 9 Projected 1975 California Sheep and Lamb Production and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison Number of Feed requirements per head Total feed requirements Type of animal head in Ca 1 if or ma Feed / grains—' Hay^ Grazing & pasture b/ Feed grains Hay Grazing & pasture pounds tons AUM's tons AUM's 1954-1957 averaqe: Ewes, 1 year + Lambs fed (early) Ewe lamb replacements""^ 1,393,500 1,119,000 ^ fOy t uu 200 050 20 100 on 25 0.08 0.08 n no u . uo 0.08 2.35 1.00 2.30 13,935 55,950 2,787 2,501 111,480 89,520 22,296 16,004 3,274,725 1,119,000 o41 ,010 460,115 TOTAL 75,173 239,300 5,494,850 1975 projection: Ewes, 1 year + d/ Lambs fed (early) d/ Ewe lamb replacements Other sheep 1,220,000 948,000 244,000 190,000 20 100 20 25 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 2.35 1.00 2.30 2.30 12,200 47,400 2,440 2,375 97,600 75,840 19,520 15,200 2,867,000 948,000 561,200 437.000 TOTAL 64,415 208,160 4,813,200 a/ Except for requirements for early lambs fed, requirements from: Estimated Feed Use and Supplies for 1958 , American Feed Manufacturer's Association. Requirement for early lambs fed from: Hay and Feed Grains in the West , Western Regional Research Project Bui. 289, November 1957. b/ Source: Hedges, T. R. and Warren Bailey, cit. c/ Assumes a 20 per hundredweight replacements rate for ewes, 1 year and over, d/ 1975 projection based on a 10 percent decline from 1949-1958 average levels. 47. to cooked garbage feeding in the early 1950' s, raising costs and forcing out marginal producers. While nearly half of the hogs now raised in Cali- fornia are still garbage-fed, the importance of garbage feeding is declining. Hog production is projected to CDntinue declining at about the 1945-1958 rate, reaching 300,000 head in 1975 (Table 10). As indicated by increased per head feed grain requirements for 1975, the major portion of this number is assumed to be grain-fed rather than garbage-fed. Total feed grain requirements for hogs are down almost 30 percent. Projected Feed-Livestock Balance in California The foregoing analysis provides the basis for a comparison of feed grain and hay production and pasture and grazing capacity in California with feed requirements of livestock, both in recent years (1954-1957) and projected for 1975. Table 11 summarizes the estimated feed grain produc- tion-livestock requirements balance in California. Only inventories and production are based on reported statistics; feed requirements have been estimated above, while net inshipments have been treated as a residual.-^ Table 11 indicates average annual net inshipments into California during 2/ the 1954-1957 period of 1,107,000 tons of feed gram.-^ Ignoring inventory changes, the average deficit between feed grain production and utilization \J A rough approximation of net inshipments is possible by examining truck inshipments, way-bill statistics and ocean port statistics. However, nc complete record of net inshipments of grain is available. _ 2/ By way of comparison, see: Hay and Feed Grains in the West , op . cit . , which estimates net inshipments of grain into California in 1954 of 1,058,000 tons. 48. TABLE 10 Projected 1975 California Hogs Produced and Feed Requirements with 1954-1957 Comparison Year Total pigs saved in California (spring + fall) Feed grain required a/ Per pig saved Total 1954-1957 average 1975 projection 549,250 300,000 pounds tons 616 b/ 800 c/ 169,169 120,000 a/ Includes feed for breeding herd. b/ Assumes 280 pounds of grain per hundredweight production. Source: Hedges, T. R. and Warren Bailey, 0£. cit . Marketing weights assumed to be 220 pounds. Based on about half of hogs fed in garbage feeding establishments. zj Assumes 400 pounds of grain per hundredweight production. Adjusted downward from 412 pounds from: Estimated Feed Use and Supplies for 1958 , op . cit . Marketing weight assumed to be 200 pounds. Based on negligible percentage of garbage fed hogs . 49. TABLE 11 Estimated Feed Grain-Livestock Balance Sheet, California^ 1954-1958 and 1975 Projection (1,000 tons) Item 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1954-57 1975 Beginning inventory*^^ 665 1,091 1,464 1,010 1,578 1,058 mm c/ Production^ not 4fl6 esxima tea X X C Y 1 678 1 ft'^9 1 Rflfl X , ooo 1 f\OCt maivioua i ly 91 4 970 9Rn ^70 9R4 Hat c no QO Q7 y / 1 HA TOTAL 2,220 2,467 2,448 2,916 2,634 2,513 3,317 d/ Feed utilization^ Dairy 1,033 1,048 1,063 1,077 1,077 1,052 1,497 7R1 1 H f 1 9m Turkeys 304 305 364 440 409 357 321 Broilers 133 129 139 115 127 129 105 Beef cattle 753 906 870 906 915 863 897 Sheep & lambs 76 76 77 74 74 75 64 Hogs 175 181 158 163 175 169 120 TOTAL 3,219 3,390 3,416 3,520 3,558 3,392 4,205 Net inshipments'^ 1,425 1,296 514 1,172 1,129 1,107 888 Ending inventory^ 1,091 1,464 1,010 1,578 1,783 1,286 mm Production—feed utilization -999 -923 -968 -604 -924 -879 -888 a/ This table ignores uses of feed grains for "other purposes," such as barley for malting, etc. b/ From: California Field Crop Statistics , 1944-1957, California Crop & Live- stock Reporting Service, June 1958, and Barley Market Review . Federal-State Market News Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, AMS, San Francisco, June 22, 1959. c/ Frrm: California Field Crop Statistics . 1944-1957, _0£. cit . d/ Estimated from data in Table 2, this bulletin, e/ Estimated in Tables 4 through 10, this bulletin. i/ Computed as residual, taking account of production, feed utilization and inventory change. -fc.caTo'ii -f ^ p [ • f I r ■ > .•0," •J Apr ^ 1. ^' i -silxj-i.; ..,'70-Tq inuoooB Olio's"' 50. during the same period was 879,000 tons. If California feed grain produc- tion increases 32 percent to 3,317,000 tnns as projected, the projected feed grain production-feed utilization deficit vrauld remain about the same in 1975—888,000 tons. The possible effects of several plausible alternative assumptions with respect to livestock-feed grain balance are now examined: (1) The economic feasibility of continued large net inshipments of grain into the state might be questioned; inshipment of finished livestock products rather than feed grains for livestock may be more economic in the long-run. As argued earlier, dairy and egg production probably can outcompete other livestock uses for feed grains because of the nature of the products produced. Thus, feed requirements for this group will be met first. Furthermore, turkey, broiler, sheep and hog numbers all have been projected at seemingly conservative figures: Turkey and broiler production are projected to remain at recent absolute levels but decline relative to the United States, while sheep and hog production are projected to decline both absolutely (about 10 percent and 50 percent, respectively) and relatively. Together with dairy and egg production, these enterprises would consume 3,287,000 tons of feed grains or practically the entire 1975 projected production of 3,317,000 tons. Thus, the beef cattle industry (particularly feedlot finishing) would appear to be vulnerable with respect to feed grain supplies. To maintain present feedlot production would require inshipment of over 50 percent of the feeder cattle and essentially all of the amfie itu^de citsniaT bioii;*^ j ■■^•s^vf\ •on 616 ^^^'Hoisd n.ts. . . j1' 111 5n.i >t fu^ri* •■■?r'1 5 i nub's- c-eiq iu anx ;t(> be^; 51. feed grains required. It is doubtful whether California has any unique advantage in feedlot finishing compared with other areas. The same type of large-scale operations could develop nearer sources of both feeder cattle and major feed grain supplies. However, the California range will continue to support beef cow-calf and feeder steer operations which will provide some "local" animals for fattening. Table 8 indicates a 1975 supply of feeder cattle and replacements from California range approximately half the magnitude required for present feedlot operations. Even with sufficient grain imported to feed out these animals, a substantial decline in the state feedlot industry would be indicated. (2) If cotton acreage expands in the San Joaquin Valley to its former level of about 1.3 million acres as projected in Table 3, a 32 percent increase in state feed grain production is improbable. Under the alternative assumption that California feed grain production remains at the 1954-1957 level of about 2,513,000 tons, the 1975 deficit would increase to about 1,671,000 tons; such a high level of net inshipments seems improbable. Under this set of circumstances, feed grain supplies would likely further restrict state livestock production. Again, beef cattle feeding appears most vulnerable. An additional deterent to cattle feeding in California is the possible adjustment to freight rates favoring inshipments of dressed meat relative to live animals. Table 12 compares hay and pasture and grazing production with live- stock feed utilization in California for the 1954-1957 period and projected for 1975. During the 1954-1957 period average annual net inshipments of ^ ; -91 *<«vff 'rsTi/t^si^ jK/ip vEff •>«»•? c,r»mo-i Cf TABLE 12 Estimated Hay-Livestock and Pasture and Grazing-Livestock Balance Sheet, California 1954-1957 and 1975 Projection (1,000 tons and 1,000 AUM's) 19 54 1955 1956 1957 1954-57 1975 Item Hay Pasture and grazing Hav Pasture and grazing Hay Pasture and grazing Hay Pasture and grazing Hav Pasture and grazing Hav Pasture and grazing tons AUM' s tons AUM's tons AUM's tons AUM's tons AUM's tons AUM's Beginning / inventory-' 1,788 1,689 1,506 1,569 mmtm 1,638 Production^ Alfalfa Grain hay Misc. tame hay Wild hay 5,251 786 314 144 — — — O fHJf 762 320 133 mmm »w 5,42,' 875 357 163 m m 5,382 855 367 164 ±, 5,374 820 340 151 — not estim. indiv. TOTAL Feed utilization^ Milk cows Beef cows Feeder cattle "Other" cat tip and calves e/ 6,495 6,652 ttmmm 6,822 6,768 6,685 8,283c/ 3,336 536 558 2,241 3,753 8,962 1,674 8,366 602 670 2,512 O y oU r 10,062 2,010 9,380 606 646 2,484 1 P/l"7 10,121 1,936 9,274 606 671 2,536 10,132 2,013 9,470 588 636 2,443 9,819 1,908 9,122 A fliin 595 666 2,823 9,945 1,999 10,538 Ewes, 1 yr. + Feeder sheep & lambs Other sheep & lambs 115 90 41 3,377 1,119 1,175 110 89 40 3,243 1,116 1,148 114 91 41 3,339 1,137 1,178 107 88 39 3,140 1,104 1,122 112 90 40 3,275 1,119 1,156 98 76 35 2,867 948 998 . TOTAL 6,917 28,426 7,407 30,766 7,402 30,832 7,511 30,878 7,310 30,225 9,133 32,740 Net inshipments 323 572 643 798 584 850f/ \ MM Ending inventory^ 1,689 1,506 1,569 1,624 1,597 Production- utilization -422 -755 -580 -743 -625 -850 Table 12 continued on next page. 'TJd ■! T-13- *380 114 3*3?' ■ ... • . • - -M2 ■V. {■> (■ -UC6 2P««»; Table 12 continued. a/ Stocks on farms, January 1. From: California Field Crop Statistics , 1944-1957, op . cit . b/ From; California Field Crop Statistics . 1944-1957, 0£. cit . c/ Computed as residual, considering production, feed utilization and estimated net inshipments. d/ Estimated in Tables 4, 8 and 9; this bulletin. e/ Includes bulls, calves, wintered steers and replacement heifers (both dairy and beef) from Tables 4 and 3. iJ Estimated by authors based on 1954-1957 rate. -It isp; 54. hay into Calif oxnia are estimated at 584,000 tons.-^ Hay requirements for livestock in California are projected to increase about 25 percent (from 7,310,000 tons to 9,133,000 tons) between 1954-1957 and 1975. Imports of hay into California, mainly from Arizona, are assumed to increase from 584,000 tons to 850,000 tons by 1975. Thus, state hay production would have to reach 8,283,000 tons (a 24 percent increase) to meet feed requirements in 1975. Average hay yields are expected to increase from 3.36 to about 4.0 tons per acre by 1975, mainly through a continued relative shift to alfalfa and other tame hay. Still, acreage devoted to hay would have to increase about 4 percent or 80,000 acres to meet requirements. Pasture and grazing requirements are projected to increase only about 8 percent (from 30,225,000 to 32,535,000 animal unit months); this increase should be met through continued range improvement even though total acreage grazed may decline slightly. Higher hay requirements relative to pasture require- ments in 1975 reflect increases in dairy cattle compared with beef cattle and sheep. On the basis of the pasture and grazing capacity in California, the state range-livestock industry appears able to approximately maintain present numbers until 1975. Competition for rangeland by recreation and other purposes is expected to be at least offset by brush clearance, fertilization and other forms of range improvement. However, the livestock finishing industries, which rely heavily on feed grains, may be more nearly limited by 1975 to livestock and feed grains raised within California than at present. \J Since data on inshipments are unavailable, inshipments are computed as a residual considering inventories, production and feed utilization. For comparison, see: Hay and Feed Grains in the West , op . cit . . which estimates 1954 net inshipments of hay into California at 159,000 tons. •->,vc Uayboiq-ywl ws^a ,,9Vi.' d anoJ OCO,Ccb 3--' %.oc '• 0.1 -.c.^ m.i;. 9i£-o: r-ij5-?cix4f i. ?. solffi:^ " trie - ■'.ciuotrt^ ^tinj-B-^ sgT?. : ■ of b'"' .-vf '' ro'ito bfts s^Is^'ir ■b vsm rfotrtw nevnx- 55. Projected Land and Water Resources and Agricultural Requirements in California, 1975 Land and water resources constitute the major physical limitations to future crop and livestock production in California. It is necessary, therefore, to compare California's 1975 projected land and water resource base with projected 1975 agricultural demands on these resources. Land resource^ Table 13 summarizes the 1954-1957 state average and 1975 projected acreages for the various crop categories previously estimated in Table 3. For the major crops projected individually in this study the 1975 projec- tion represents about a 1.30 million-acre increase— from 9,015,633 acres to 10,320,515 acres. About 0.52 million acres of this increase is accounted for by cotton alone, 0.35 million acres by fruits, 0.30 by feed grains and 0.15 by vegetables. However, double cropping is expected to increase by about 250,000 acres, making the net acreage increase only about one million acres. The remaining categories of crops in Table 13 are estimated. Cropland idle or fallow is expected to decline with increased irrigation. Irrigated pasture is assumed to remain at the 1954-1957 level, although if cotton and feed grains do not expand to the acreage projected, irrigated pasture might increase. Total projected acreage of "all cropland" is about 14 million acres in 1975 compared with about 13.2 million acres in 1954-1957. The above projections are now compared with land resources of the state available for agriculture in 1975. Table 14 indicates the basic land resources and land converted to nonagricultural purposes in California l/ In this discussion double cropping represents any land which is reported for more than one crop during the year (for example, barley-milo, alfalfa hay-alfalfa seed, intertilled crops in orchards, etc.). . ■"''er'S9o«tn '.'Sf^l^o^iv ■ciirjubci'. ^•1 bsjOstorq rtjiw ssscf noil -.on i«)0. sn,' pni^lrn .e«T3f> 000, Or - 1"-' - ■ '■ no'MIfm fifWdB rf^fv,' bVrsqfn? evpl nl }• r-q!!i 5 .' ' .'on yj ii.; Oft; 56 TABLE 13 Total Acreage Used for Crops, Fallow, Hay and Cropland Pasture in California, 1954-1957 and Projected for 1975 State average Projected state Crop category acreage, / 1954-1957^ acreage, 1975 a/ i Feed grains 1 Food grains 0 4fi7 T^O 721,750 595,915 j Fruits 1 Vegetables i Potatoes 1 , 150,590 604,485 108,000 1 ,500,251 766,605 140, OOO j Dry edible beans ; Sugar beets j Cotton 296,000 187,000 772,000 248,640 198,220 1,296,960 1 Tree nuts Aitaita ^ / ! Grain, tame and wild ^^Y^/ j Miscellaneous vegetables-^ / Miscellaneous field crops*' Total crop acres ^/ Double cropped acres—' 242,263 254,969. / 1 243 OOCp^ 826,500 826,500 70,975 385.320 70,975 385.320 9,015,633 500,000 10,320,515 750.000 Net crop acres Cropland idle or fallow Irrigated pasture c/ ^ / Other cropland for pasture-^ 8,515,633 / 1,885,367-^ 800,750 2.027.958 9,570,515, / 1,700,000*^ 800,750 2.027.958 TOTAL 13.229.708 14.099.223 a/ Crops from "feed grains" through "tree nuts" estimated in Table 3, b/ Estimated in section on "feed-livestock balance." c/ 1975 acreage assumed equal to 1954-1957. d/ Estimated by authors. Double cropped acres include land with two or more crops (e.g., barley-milo, alfalfa hay-alfalfa seed, intertilled crops in orchards). e/ 1954 Census of Agriculture for California. f/ Assumed to decrease by 1975 because of increased irrigation. ■iifeg^VJ^ i-r ■ If mi 'il ^ .■ ■r* ' run 'stun ■ •'.v: bnsi sbi'I srti edtos bee -ori+UR vd '3 ^vb .simoons'' TABLE 14 Land Resources and Land Conversions in California, Historical and Projected to 1971 Total acreage Acreage in H to nonaqricu JC's I-IV converted Ltural uses b/ Projected ac* or LUC's I- IV to be Projected tot. ac. of LUC's I-IV to Projected tot. ac. or LIa_, s I-IV re- maining Percent- age of ac. in LUC s I-IV re- maining Crop reporting district All land Land in LUC's I-IV inclusive Prior to 1942 1942^6 1947-51 1952-55 Total prior to 1955 c/ converted from 1955-1975 be con- verted by 1975 d/ for agr. uses in 1975 for agr. uses in 1975 Central Coast 10,177,280 2,505,713 469,782 22,791 71,641 65,357 629,571 228,179 857,750 1,647,963 65.8 Sacramento V. 7,167,920 2,865,475 205,480 41,700 29,430 35,150 311,760 151,768 463,528 2,401,947 83.8 San Joaquin V. i / , DOji , otyj 247,440 19,320 50,500 49,540 376,800 184,726 561,526 5,565,714 90.8 Southern Calif. 28,996,480 3,674,155 851,770 130,410 97,035 130,155 1,209,370 510,653 1,720,023 1,954,132 53.2 North Coast 5,175,040 92,541 3,931 354 599 1,121 6,345 3,447 9,792 82,749 89.4 North Central 8,544,000 685,300 32,200 2,680 2,070 4,130 41,080 12,681 53,761 631,539 92.2 North East 7,175,680 681,780 22,200 470 2,750 1,120 26,540 6,198 32,738 649,042 95.2 Mountain Area State 15.543.680 929.230 , 107,^25 32.100 9.405 9.350 157.980 72.621 230,601 698.629 75.2 100.343,040 117,561,434 1,939,928 249,825 263,430 295.923 2,759,446 1.170,272 3.929,718 13.631,716 77.6 a/ Data through 1955 are estimates by the Soil Conservation Service. LUC's are Land Use Capability Classifications set up by the XS. LUC's I-IV are classes suited to cultivation with varying degrees of limitations. For more detailed dis- cussion of Land Capability Classifications see: Wohletz, Leonard and Dolder, Edward F., Know California's Landt. State of California Department of Natural Resources and SCS, USDA, February 1952, b/ Includes land converted to both private and public uses. c/ Does not always equal sum of previous four columns because some minor conversions from 1942-1955 not broken down by county or crop reporting district. d/ Assumes same annual rate of conversion as average during 1942-1955 period. .5q dA! 58. prior to 1955 and projected for 1975. About 17.5 million acres in Land Use Classes I-IV are available in California.-^ Prior to 1955, almost 2.8 milli'>n acres of this land had been converted to nonagricultural purposes. At the 1942-1955 annual rate of conversion, an additional 1,2 million acres is projected to be converted by 1975. If so, only 13.6 million acres in Land Use Classes I-IV will remain for agricultural purposes. As indicated by Table 14, conversions will be greatest in Southern California and the Central Coast where almost one-half and one-third of the I-IV land, respectively, is projected for nonagricultural uses by 1975. Thus, the acreage of I-IV land remaining for agricultural purposes in 1975 (13.6 million acres) is slightly less than cropland requirements projected (14.0 million acres). However, additional land now in Land Classes V-VIII (range and dry pasture land as well as some desert land) is expected to move into the cropland category through new irrigation developments. It thus appears that California's land resources are adequate to meet the crop acreages projected. Fortunately, it is possible to compare the overall land use projec- tions of this study with a recent study by the Soil Conservation Service in California. Comparison with these estimates is particularly useful in that completely different projection techniques were used. During 1959 the SCS completed a county -by-county study of soil and water conservation needs in California. Estimates of land in various types of utilization were derived for 1959 and projected to 1975. These estimates evolved from a series of committee meetings of key agricultural people in each county of jy Land Use Capability classes as defined by the Soil Conservation Service in terms of their suitability for cultivation with varying degrees of limitation in use. 'ir-- ' bn&J nl won br--' '^^tr?^ ' ■ • -cdO sm^s. 8P U9VV aii bnsl aiuj-gf. 59. California. County-sub-committees were established to study various phases of the land use inventory and projection for the particular county} final estimates for each county were compiled as a composite analysis and judg- ment of the entire county committee. The county estimates have been reviewed and revised to some extent at the state level but are subject to review and possible further revision both by the state and national Soil and Water Conservations Needs Committees. A summary of the preliminary results of the SCS study are presented in Table 15. The overall changes in cropland acreages by 1975 as projected by the SCS are strikingly close to those derived in this study. The SCS projects an increase in total cropland by 1975 of 5 percent or about 0.6 million acres; the present study projects a total cropland increase of about 7 percent or 0,8 million acres (Table 13).-^ The present study may slightly underestimate yield increases and therefore overestimate "required" cropland acreage in 1975 for two reasons: (1) increases in irrigated cropland acreage are not explicitly introduced into yield projections, yet the SCS study estimates an 18.2 percent increase (approximately 1.5 million acres) in irrigated cropland from 1959 to 1975. (2) Increased yields from shifts in location of acreage are not explicitly included for most crops. The SCS study also provides 1975 projections of land in various use categories for the crop reporting districts of the state (Table 15). The Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley and Southern California are projected to share about equally in increases in irrigated cropland acreage— roughly 421,000, 486,000 and 447,000 acres, respectively. However, the estimated j/ Differences in the base acreage in the two studies is accounted for primarily by slightly different definitions of cropland. •■' ^ E ns ass It'---"- vaeruir 73 I ; ton e TABLE 15 Land Use in California, 1959 and Projected for 1975 by the Soil Conservation Service^ Land cateQorv Year Unit^ Crop reportinq distrir.t State I North Coast II North Central III 111 K _ J- L. North East IV Central Coast V Sacra- mento Vallev VA San Joaquin Vallev VI Mountain Area VIII Southern Cali- fornia Total cropland 1959 1975 acres acres percent 192,197 197,352 102.7 307,476 352,695 114,7 205,939 263,959 128.2 1,576,851 1,424,273 90.3 2,590,628 2,658,219 102.6 5,248,867 5,497,478 104.7 182,895 239,348 130.9 1,944,503 2,226,874 114.5 12,249,356 12,860,198 105.0 Irrigated cropland 1959 1975 acres acres percent 31,657 36,992 116.9 141,373 211,418 149.5 132,018 172,908 131.0 523,435 468,196 89.4 1,360,518 1,781,653 131.0 4,512,573 4,998,677 110.8 84,498 159,031 188.2 1,394,113 1,841,536 132.1 8,180,185 9,670,411 118.2 Nonirrigated cropland 1959 1975 acres acres percent 160,540 160,360 99.9 166,103 141,277 85.1 73,921 91,051 123.2 1,053,416 956,077 90.8 1,230,110 876,566 71.3 736,294 498,801 67.7 98,397 80,317 81.6 550,390 385,338 70.0 4,069,171 3,189,787 78.4 Pasture & range 1959 1975 acres acres percent 426,794 435,794 102.1 420,702 438,221 104.2 1,254,905 1,214,795 96.8 2,431,807 2,396,122 98.5 1,166,417 1,248,968 107.1 4,242,937 3,803,621 89.6 1,238,891 1,376,193 111.1 1,774,093 1,376,435 77,6' 12,956,546 12,290,149 94.9 Forest & woodland 1975 acres acres percent 3,357,622 99.9 2,721,309 99.5 963,750 964,320 100.1 3,845,658 3,720,122 96.7 1,948,814 1,607,455 82.5 2,073,750 1,957,299 94.4 2,541,008 2,292,432 90.2 2,976,310 2,491,369 83.7 19,111,928 93.5 Forest & woodland (with grazing) 1959 1975 acres acres percent 871,169 869,669 99.8 1,378,663 1,413,661 102.5 417,879 427,949 102.4 1,675,606 1,682,961 100.4 1,306,387 992,287 76.0 1,493,738 1,499,248 100.4 1,225,785 1,034,169 84.4 600,710 670,648 111.6 8,969,937 8,590,592 95.8 a/ Preliminary data provided by California Needs Committee on National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs. Subject to review and possible revision by Department Needs Committee. b/ "Percent" refers to 1975 projected acreage as a percentage of 1959 acreage in each case. 6* • - -f- 1 ■ <''8 r- ' ■ ■ ■ ■■ o • \ > 0 J - w J :> • -.^ ; — 1 " ■ ■ ■' "' ,.1.., . , , .. , 1 , — ~H T- ■ >r T 61. increases in Southern California depend on rapid development of desert lands, which may not completely materialize by 1975. Primarily due to loss of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses, irrigated cropland in the Central Coast is projected to decline about 145,000 acres (24 percent) by 1975. Percentage increases in irrigation elsewhere in the state are large, but account for a minor part of the total increase. Nonirrigated cropland is projected to decline in every major area of the state, with a total state decline of about 0,9 million acres (22 percent). The SCS study projects approximately a 5 percent acreage decrease both in pasture and range and in forest and woodland used for grazing (Table 15), The 8 percent increase in pasture requirements for livestock projected earlier (Table 14) would therefore imply a needed 14 percent increase in productivity per acre in grazing land. Range improvement practices such as fertilization, brush clearing, etc. appear capable of providing this level of increased carrying capacity. Water resources Studies by the California Department of Water Resources indicate that California has sufficient water resources to meet foreseeable future needs, even under conditions of essentially complete or "ultimate" develop- ment. Annual average runoff is nearly 71 million acre-feet while state water requirements now are only slightly in excess of 25 million acre-feet. Under "ultimate" development, California water requirements are estimated at about 50,000,000 acre feet— still substantially below total runoff. The question, however, is whether the total water supply can be distributed in location and time to meet these future requirements. Geographically, about 62. 70 percent of the stream flow occurs north of a line drawn roughly through Sacramento, yet nearly 80 percent of present and future water consumption is estimated to be south of this line. Therefore, water must be transferred from north to south. Water also must be stored to regulate flows seasonally and between years. The major stream runoff is in the winter and early spring months following winter precipitation, yet major water use is in the sunaner and fall. In addition, runoff fluctuates greatly between years, ranging in the past from 18,000,000 acre-feet to more than 135,000,000 acre-feet per year. Despite the fact that California presently is utilizing only about one-third of the annual average runoff, there is danger of water shortages in some locations in the near future without further water development. The overdraft on ground water basins is estimated at about 5,000,000 acre-feet per season presently. The west and south side of the San Joaquin Valley, particularly, are in need of supplemental water to reduce overdraft. Southern California will need supplemental water by the 1970' s, or before if the present lawsuit with Arizona reduces California's share of Colorado River water. Salt water intrusion also is becoming a serious problem, particularly in the Delta area and some Coastal areas. These facts suggest the need for expanded water development. In the past, local areas and the Federal Government have been primarily responsible for construction work on the water projects; the State's role was primarily in planning and supervision. In the future, however, the State government will play a key role in water development. The California Department of Water Resources has recently completed the California Water Plan— an engineering and resource study of water resource control, conservation and •Jsw 1- lafii jiienui s^^'Svc Aeunr.r mij ouini-sno ynj Ix !■> ^2 '^Vvi- «iil_,,^d ,3sJ>w ito^n'! . Jira^+n iiiW fcinioii _v ■ . ■ ■ ■■■■■ 63. redistribution to meet future demands, A major feature of this plan is the Feather River project, which would provide water primarily for Southern California through the Orcville Dam, Delta facilities and an aqueduct system. While the State Legislature authorized the Feather River Project in 1951, it was first implemented only in 1956, Full development of the Feather River Project and several other features of the State Water Plan await the decision by California voters in November, 1960 concerning approval of a $1,750,000,000 bond issue. Projection of water supplies available to various agricultural areas of California by 1975 hinges directly on political action at the local. State and Federal level. The importance of these political decisions for California agriculture is emphasized by the fact that agriculture is the major water user in California; irrigation accounted for over 19 million acre-feet, or about 90 percent of consumptive water use in California in 1950, Under complete or "ultimate" development, irrigation use is projected to increase to more than 41,000,000 acre-feet per season— still 80 percent of total use. Table 16 demonstrates the dominance of irrigation in Cali- fornia's total water requirements. Also shown is the importance of the Central Valley, and to a lesser extent the Southern California interior valleys (Colorado Desert area), in the existing pattern of irrigation use. These two areas presently include over three-fourths of the total irrigated land in the state. As stated above, several districts within these major areas are somewhat short on current supplies and are overdrawing subsurface storage to meet needs. The 1975 land use projections made earlier for California suggested a 5-7 percent increase in total cropland and an 18 percent increase in irrigated acreage, mostly in the Central Valley (Table 15). Further water cvps rtnxo- S 691 Dr. Ji\9iixsq Go iJ ? js* rvs I'n? "O^VNefbf" • t bi> '.' 64. TABLE 16 Estimated 1950 Mean Seasonal Requirements for Water in California, by Area (in acre-feet) a/ Hydrographic a X CO jtrriga xea land Farm lots Urban & suDuroan areas Other water service areas npproxima xe tota 1 s North Coastal 488,000 4,200 21,000 4,500 518,000 San Francisco Bay 301,000 b/ 388,000 35,600 725,000 Central Coastal 641,000 6,100 47,000 14,600 709,000 South Coastal 1,020,000 c/ 885,000 2,400 1,907,000 Central Valley 12,700,000 109,000 277,000 105,000 13,190,000 Lahontan 712,000 3,000 12,000 14,000 741,000 Colorado Desert 3.261,000 8,000 23,500 47,900 3,341,000 Approximate Totals 19,120,000 130,000 1,654,000 224,000 21,130,000 a/ Sources State Water Resources Board, Bulletin No. 2, Water Utilization and Requirements of California . Vol. 1, Text p. 226. b/ Included with "Other Water Service Areas." jc/ Included with "Urban and Suburban Areas." ••J*: A' '• r - .. /.'-•..t.^'l . 1 . 000 . '.(^S ^ f ?o a: if 65. development is assumed to provide this level of increase in irrigated agriculture. Two aspects of proposed water development are particularly crucial for agriculture: (l) the pricing of water for irrigation; and (2) acreage limitation features. The growth of irrigated agriculture will depend to a large extent on prices charged to users. Irrigation in Federal Reclamation projects has typically been subsidized in varying degrees by interest-free federal loans and by power revenues. Central Valley Project water for irrigation sells at only about $3.00 per acre-foot. The Bureau of Reclamation proposes a price of $7.50 per acre-foot for the San Luis Project. The price of Feather River water is yet undetermined but cost estimates, including full recovery of capital with interest, have been made by the State Department of Water Resources. This cost may range from under $5.00 per acre-foot in the Sacramento Valley, to $15-$20 in the San Joaquin Valley, to $30-$40 in Southern California. Water to agriculture priced at the latter levels may retard the pace of irrigation development except for selected high value per acre crops in selected areas. A second important and controversial issue involves a limitation on the amount of land for which any one farmer may obtain State water. Federal Reclamation projects provide for a 160-acre limitation (320 acres if held as community property) per farmer. However, farmers may supplement surface water by pumping or may lease additional acreage. Irrigation land which was previously unirrigated increases land values considerably. The Bureau of Reclamation calls this increased value "unearned enrichment," and there- fore requires farmers using Federal water to sell their "excess" acreage at nonspeculative prices (fixed by the Bureau) within 10 years. It is 66. doubtful that the State water program will follow exactly the Federal precedent with regard to acreage limitation per farmer. This issue is particularly relevant with respect to the Feather River project since much of the project's agricultural water will be delivered to the west side of the San Joaquin Valley where extremely large-scale farming is prevalent. A large body of high-quality soil is located in this area, and with develop- ment of a reliable, good quality water supply, would be the area most likely to provide the acreage expansion of fruits, vegetables and cotton (government program permitting) projected earlier. Alternatives to the 160-acre limitation as a means of preventing "undue enrichment" under State water development are being studied. One suggestion would incorporate both water pricing and acreage limitation in a single principle. It is proposed that revenues from Feather River project power sales be used to subsidize water costs for all purposes— agricultural, municipal, and industrial. But, irrigation water to be applied to holdings in excess of 160 acres (320 acres if held as community property) would receive no subsidy. Thus, water would be sold to the larger farms at a price differential approximating the difference between power cost and the market value of power. Projected Adjustments in Farm Organization and Management in California Changes in aggregate output and its composition as projected above will have an important impact nn the organization, management and ownership of individual farms in California. Shifts in acreage and location of particular crops, shifts in the kinds of crops and livestock produced and qej.9vcb:£(*tw fcns ,«5'*'rs sfffi bsisool -J fine vii fsL'p-'!>+ci'\f'.">T' • J ;rr.»': SOT '■■1 o'>"rq . ^n«»fr'-riv »/•■*; pniJn:->«oiq 'to. en ?6 «iaiii»^;3'.ij . ■ :xhuJE pnisd «n> xe#Ew si6*2 'i«bnu "Jn^i ^ * v <■ • »' viuow (Y^^9q''in jnommoa 26 fc. 6i ■ -.-^ 67. changes in technology and methods of production axe included explicitly in the projectiort above. From these projections have been derived estimates of California land and water resource requirements in 1975. Substantial changes were indicateds additional land will be removed from agricultural production and diverted to urban and industrial developments; other land will be developed and brought under irrigation for the first time; some range and pasture land will be converted to cropland; water resources will need further development to meet agricultural, urban and industrial uses. Within this context of highly complex change, the organization and management of individual farms obviously can not and will not remain static. Broadly outlined below are some of the important changes in farm organization and management which are implied by the projections. Many of these changes are observable in well-established trends; others are suggested by recent and current developments. Changes in levels and combinations of resources on California farms Proportions in which resources are combined on California farms have changed significantly in the past decade. These changes can be summarized briefly as the substitution of capital inputs (in the form of land, machinery, fertilizer, chemicals, etc.) for labor inputs. The extent of these changes and the reasons behind them require further examination. Farm size, however measured, has increased steadily in California in the past two decades. Table 17 indicates a substantial increase in average land acreage per farm in every crop reporting district in California between 1940 and 1954. For the state as a v^ole, the acreage per farm increased by one-third— from 230 acres to 307 acres. This change in size is due i bna ,-ono VQ 68. TABLE 17 Average Acreage per Farm in California* Area Years 1940 1945 1950 1954 acres Crop reporting districts 438 454 546 566 II-North Central 514 613 767 847 Ill-North East 1,007 949 1,079 1,165 IV-Central Coast 236 250 267 286 V-Sacramento Valley 323 312 326 350 VA-San Joaquin Valley 215 284 278 293 VI-Mountain Area 422 476 469 581 Vlll-Southern California 117 115 132 192 State 230 252 267 307 a/ Sources California Census of Agriculture . 1940, 1945, 1950, 1954. A8S •-■ ces v^Jfr-V vfooe-!' nsc-AV ~1 69. partly to new land brought under cultivation and partly to a consolidation of existing farms into larger units with a corresponding decline in number of farms, particularly since 1950 (Table 18). Approximately 95 percent of the decrease in farm numbers between 1950 and 1954 took place in farms under 180 acres, 63 percent of the decline came in farms under 30 acres. These declines primarily reflect economic pressure on small farms and consequent size adjustments. Value of product sales is a more realistic measure of farm size than the land input alone. Expressed in constant dollars, the value of product sales per farm in California was $4,908 in 1940, $6,373 in 1945, $6,417 in 1950 and $8,239 in 1954. Again, a significant increase in size of business is indicated. It is also revealing to examine the relationship of farm size to resource efficiency in California. Inefficient resource use concentrates in small farms (those selling less than $5,000 worth of farm products). These farms accounted for 11.4 percent of the farmland in commercial farms, 18.1 percent of the investment in land and buildings, and 22.5 percent of the farm labor, but produced only 6.3 percent of the total value of farm products. By comparison, large farms (sales of $25,000 or more) comprised only 14.2 percent of all commercial farms, accounted for 60.9 percent of the farmland, 48 percent of the value of land and buildings, utilized 44,6 percent of the farm labor, but produced 67.6 percent of total farm sales. Average sales per worker on the small farms was $1,999— on the large farms $9,675.-^ These trends in size are expected to continue, and will probably 1/ Data in this paragraph from: Hopkin, John A., A Study of Farm Size in California . Economics Department, Bank of America, N.T, & S.A., San Francisco, California, (unpublished manuscript), 1957. '.",?;"n>: :« ;.Jbo ■ . lOdsi m-je^ ':• TABLE 18 Number of Farms, California 1910-1951 Year Number of farms Year Number of farms 1910 O ft 88 , 200 1934 '% AC\ ftftft 148,000 1911 89,900 1935 151,000 1912 91 ,600 1936 1 AM MMM 149,000 1913 93,900 1937 148,000 1914 96,000 1938 145,000 1915 98,600 1939 143,000 1916 101,000 1940 141,000 1917 104 , 000 1941 141,000 1918 108,000 1942 139,000 1919 113,000 1943 140,000 1920 118,000 1944 141,000 1921 120,000 1945 « Ji ft ftftft 142,000 1922 123,000 1946 1 ii ft ftftft 142,000 1923 V ^\ ^ MAM 126,000 1947 \ ft ftftft 143,000 1924 130,000 1948 143,000 1925 ^ M ^ M MM 136,000 1949 144,000 1926 139,000 1950 144,000 1927 142,000 1951 ^ ^ ft ftftft 142,000 la's? 1929 145,000 1953 137,000 1930 145,000 1954 136,000 1931 145,000 1955 134,000 1932 145,000 1956 133,000 1933 144,000 1957 132,000 1958 131,000 a[/ Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Number of Farms, by States, (SpSy). r'. 'iit to r " - f ■ . ) ■ • ... 1 ; ■ ■ V ■ i ! nro P C' ! t ; ' -, V '* 1 1 i ( t ) I i • ■ ^' 000, 2^f e^c: 000 Cr- 00ft F^ i ■ . ' Line r • 'OC ■ - • 000, d€. ■ '000, K I 000, EC X :000,S£;i ■ 000, IF' 71. be accompanied by continued increases in resource efficiency. Improved resource utilization has not been introduced explicitly into the above projections and might well lower the resource requirements projected. Farm size increases in California have taken place primarily because of (1) economic pressure for greater efficiency and (2) technological advance, making larger scale farming possible. These two forces are not independent. Technological change in agriculture is ordinarily output increasing, causing larger supplies, lower prices and increased economic pressure for greater resource efficiency, including further technological change. Since 1950, California farmers (along with farmers elsewhere in the United States) have been faced with the consequence of these forces popularly referred to as the "price-cost" squeeze. For example. Figure 1 shows that the "price-cost" squeeze has been steadily tightening in Cali- fornia since about 1952 (preliminary estimates for 1959 and 1960 indicate a continuation of these trends).-^ Production expenses are seen to trend upward sharply since 1950, while prices received by farmers have trended sharply downward over the same period. A 30 percent output expansion since about 1950 has been insufficient t6 offset the "price-cost" squeeze. Thus, net farm income has declined approximately 25 percentage points from the 1951 high; preliminary estimates for 1959 indicate a level slightly below 1958. In summary, price-cost pressure has increased for a decade in Cali- fornia; there is nothing in the general agricultural situation to indicate any reversal in the near future. Price-cost pressure will continue to directly force adjustments in size and efficiency of California farms. jy Price, cost and income figures in Figure 1 have been deflated by the Index of Wholesale Prices to provide a comparison with changes in the general price level in the economy. 3(1* ^9V' -•^mtst yd tq »iifiw ■ c v> " 3 » i. .. .' . s6rf 9r: Prices Received by Farmers t1< if» o r~ 00 o in pa IT) o If) in in in in CO in in Year Figure 1. Indexes of Farm Expenses, Output, Prices Received Gross and Net Income, California, 1944-1959 (deflated by wholesale price index, 1947-1949=100) a/ (footnote^s on next page) 73. Figure 1 footnotes (continued). a/ Wholesale Price Index from U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics . ^ U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency," Statistical Bulletin 233 . U. S, Department of Agriculture, Production Expenses of Farm Operators . by States . AMS-85. §J U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, The farm Income Situation . September issues. ^' Lee, Ivan M., "Annual Index Numbers of Prices Received, Marketings, and Production, All Farm Commodities, and Index Numbers of Acreage of Crops, California, 1910-1955, Giannini Foundation Mimeo Report No. 201, January 1958. Data for 1955-1958 derived by authors. 74. Another force encouraging size expansion in California farms is development of new technology and related capital-labor substitutions. Table 19 itemizes productive expenses of California farm operators for 1948- 1958. While expense data preclude direct comparisons of physical quantities of labor and capital items in various forms used, they do emphasize changing proportions of capital and labor employed. Between 1949 and 1958 "hired labor" expenses increased only 17 percent, while "total current operating expenses" as a group increased 41 percent. "Depreciation and other consumption of farm capital"— providing a rough index of capital investment in farm machinery and equipment— increased 66 percent over the 1949- 1958 period. Hence, capital inputs (current expenses such as feed, fertilizer and livestock as well as machinery and equipment) have been substituted for labor in California agriculture over the past 10 years. Hired labor still is the largest single expense category of Cali- fornia farmers (Table 19). Table 20 indicates the monthly average number of people working on California farms, by type of worker. Since 1955 the total number of workers has declined; the major decline has been in farm family labor, because of fewer farms. Little absolute decline is shown in hired laborers (Table 20), although relative to capital inputs the decline is substantial (Table 19). Labor-intensive crops in which California specializes have not allowed mechanization to the degree accomplished in other crops. The 1975 projections indicate a continuation and expansion in these types of labor-intensive specialty products. With alternative employment opportunities paying wages exceeding those in agriculture, competition for labor has already become severe and will probably become more intense. ui:?si'o9iq»!d" .j'n^oieq it^ .b9S697 3ni qw(" ., «qxa ; J c!ivi eoniS 'w to sqyj «5i(iic|iii>J no pni. • nil J9b arii fijuqn.* ifi^iqss o;t. evitsiai ; ir>li.'-'?0 f!.-»i. • -■ • <»|rfr • ■ • "•..+ ^ •.<<•: • v* ■* iC'- " I" 0 (I* :'V > r>i.'h-- TABLE 19 Productive Expenses of Farm Operators, California 1949-1951 Years Item 1949 1 1950 1 1951 1 1952 1953 1954 1 1955 1 1956 1957 1 1958 millions of dollars Feed Oqo q ^77 1 Off.X '57Q Q T?Q 7 ^Al 7 "547 OH / , O O ( O. / Livestock 114 4 203 9 272.3 175.8 121.0 152.8 127.5 151.0 144.2 221.0 beeci 30.2 25.8 28.3 31.3 31.9 27.5 32.1 28.3 28.2 32.7 47.9 52.4 59.3 64.5 67.1 67.6 69.4 75.8 78.8 83.2 Repairs^ 145.9 149.4 162.8 175.9 176.3 169.8 173.8 168.0 173.2 175.4 d/ Miscellaneous-^ 159.2 170.9 209.1 221.2 228.5 225.5 230.6 261.5 252.5 264.5 e/ Hired labor-' 396.7 368.3 399.0 425.6 437.8 434.2 443.1 466.0 452.1 466.9 Total current operating expenses 1152.6 1264.5 1507.9 1474,2 1387.3 1401.5 1406.2 1512.2 1476.6 1622.3 Depreciation and other . / consumtion of farm capital—^ 109.0 122.9 143.7 153.6 161.0 164.4 168.7 169.6 173.7 181.4 Taxes on farm property 71.1 n,A 83.2 89.8 91.7 95.0 103.5 108.3 112.3 119.9 Interest on farm mortgage debt 20.7 22. A 25.0 28.4 31.6 33.9 36.9 41.2 45.0 49.4 Net rent to nonfarm landlord 61.3 63.7 85.6 84.1 79.4 70.2 69.6 67.3 62.5 62.5 Total productive expenses 1414.6 1550.9 1845.4 1830.1 1751.0 1765.1 1784.9 1898.6 1870.1 2035.5 Index (100) (110) (130) (129) (124) (125) (126) (134) (132) (144) Footnotes continued on next page) Table 19 footnotes (continued). a/ Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Production Expenses of Farm Operators, by States , 1949-1958. October 1959. b/ Includes bulbs, plants and trees, c/ Repairs and maintance of buildings, repairs and operation of motor vehicles and other machinery, and petroleum fuel and oil. d/ Includes short term interest, pesticides, ginning, electricity, telephones, livestock marketing changes (excluding feed and transportation), containers, milk hauling (1949-58), irrigation, grazing, binding materials tolls for sirup, horses and mules, harness and saddlery, blacksmithing and hardware, veterinary services and medicines, net insurance premiums (crop, fire, wind and hail), and miscellaneous dairy, nursery, greenhouse, apairy and other supplies. e/ Includes wages, perquisites and (1951-1958) Social Security taxes paid by employers. _f/ Includes depreciation and accidental damage to farm buildings and depreciation of motor vehicles and other farm machinery and equipment. 77. TABLE 20 Monthly Average Number of People Working on California Farms, by Type of Worker a/ Year workers^ Farmers and unr>aid familv workers Hired year- round Hired temporary- domestic Contract foreign / workers ~^ 1945 381,492 134,583 90,250 120,458 25,817 1946 382,642 134,583 97,342 131,375 17,700 1947 399,583 139,633 103.758 141,500 14,692 1948 393,958 144,667 99,583 141,925 7,783 1949 411,208 151,833 100,833 153,683 4,858 1950 403,883 159,592 104,800 132,017 7,475 1951 416,917 159,550 107,158 131,608 18,600 1952 428,017 163,208 108,258 133,542 23,008 1953 444,958 164,483 115,642 139,350 25,483 1954 459,625 168,342 119,958 142,192 29,133 1955 473,542 169,850 121,158 142,425 40,108 1956 467,375 163,000 119,342 134,842 50,192 1957 464,250 159,342 120,150 132,900 51,858 1958 456,792 157,342 118,842 132,850 47,758 1959 452,740 153,350 119,917 131,858 47,625 a/ From California Annual Farm Labor Reports, 1945-1958. Preliminary estimates for 1959 from unpublished data of State of California Department of Employment. b/ Total for 1945 and 1946 includes prisoners of war and volunteers. c/ Almost entirely Mexican Nationals. 78. The farm operator in California currently requiring large quantities of hired labor will have increasing difficulty meeting his needs. Several alternatives are available to him. First, he can reorganize to employ a relatively constant labor force over the entire year and provide attractive housing, higher salaries and other benefits in order to acquire the quality and quantity of labor desired. A relatively constant hired year-round labor force in California from about 1954-1959 (Table 20) indicates that many farmers are following this alternative. A second alternative is to employ labor-saving equipment and practices, providing the farmer has sufficient capital and size to justify the investment. Technological developments in planting, thinning and harvesting of many labor-intensive crops are becom- ing operational and undoubtedly further improvements will be forthcoming under pressure for mechanization. Already the harvest of many perishable crops, such as asparagus, tomatoes, grapes and some fruit, is nearing the mechanized stage. Cooperating with the engineers, plant breeders and pro- pagationists have been active in producing plants capable of being handled mechanically, and success appears to be near for several crops. Following is a quote concerning trends in mechanization and farming methods in Cali- fornia from the 1957 California Annual Farm Labor Report :-^ "New or improved equipment, devices, materials, and methods continued to appear in experimental trials and demonstrations to foretell future labor saving and improved farming. Uni- versity and college departments of agricultural engineering, along with commodity organizations, equipment companies, and ingenious farmers— all have contributed to the innovations. Working with these forces have been the horticultural specia- lists engaged in development and improved crop varieties and more sturdy plants which can withstand machine thinning, harvesting, sorting, and packing. \J State of California, Department of Employment, Farm Placement Service. California Annual Farm Labor Report 1957. p. 9. For a summary of local mechanization trends in California see: 1958 Calif ornia Annual Farm Labor Report , p. B-9. :: Dn.'.-r ax I sic- n 79. Still in the experimental stages were mechanical developments to harvest asparagus, tomatoes, and grapes, including a machine which can pick up paper trays of raisins, clean and box them. Chemicals were being tried to thin tree fruits. Emerging from the experimental stages were prune and walnut harvesters, and variations in vegetable planting, thinning, and field harvesting, packing and loading equipment adapted for new uses in a wider variety of crops. Proven equipment, with continued improvement of new models, gained wider acceptance and usage by growers of cotton, sugar beets, potatoes, hay and grain and many other crops. Motorized tree squirrels were seen in more orchards during the pruning season, and more growers were providing their pruners with pneumatic cutters, to lighten and speed up the task of pruning of trees and vines. To mechanize the picking of fruits from trees and vines was still a challenge, but labor saving made progress in orchards and vineyards through the use of new containers, fork lifts, and bulk hauling equipment, which reduced the lifting, carrying, and loading of field boxes, and increased worker output and efficiency. There was more widespread use of the tractor-drawn gandola for bulk transporting of wine grapes out of the vineyard. In Tulare County, there was also experimental use of the gondola in the orange and lemon harvests. A Butte County grower tried bulk handling of canning peaches with considerable success. The picked fruit was put into large containers, without any sorting in the orchard. A fork lift conveyed the containers onto a wagon for hauling to the sorting shed." This statement summarizes briefly the tremendous effort underway to mechanize labor-intensive crops in California. It seems safe to conclude that the labor force in California agriculture will continue to decline relative to capital inputs, and possibly in absolute numbers as well. Use of capital as a partial substitute for labor suggests an exami- nation of future agricultural capital requirements in California. With increased intensification in agriculture, greater capital inputs per acre will be required. The past up-trend in use of production credit in 0^ L:- ■;16 . ♦ asniv : ' - . 80. California (Col, 1, Table 21 ) is expected to continue. Loans per farmer will be larger; Table 21 indicates that the number of PCA loans per year has been about constant for the past decade, yet total amount loaned has approximately doubled. Production credit undoubtedly will be available either from primary or secondary sources, though expected shifts toward crops with high variability in net income (vegetables and fruits, for example) will cause lenders to require added security for loans. Sales contracts, grower-processor integration, crop diversification and other means of reducing income variation will be encouraged by lending agencies. Farm business control and management Several developments in California agriculture suggest likely trends in future farm business control and management. These developments include changes in tenancy, contracting for services and outlets, integration of various types, and business organization. Table 22 shows relative changes in farm tenure in California since 1940. Most prominent are increases in the percentage of owners, particularly part-owners, with a corresponding decline in the percentage of tenants. Increases in the percentage of part-ovmers reflect in part the effort of owners to expand operations. Expansion is often possible only through renting additional land, sometimes at considerable distances from the owned property, making the transportation of workers and equipment an additional cost and management problem. Farmers expanding in this fashion often find that the economies of size obtained more than offset the transportation and management problems created. Expansion of farm size through part-ownership appears to be nation-wide, and probably will continue in California. .OR 3!6&iori9v^ ^.r'ioni ^^n v.ti i riev rfpir! ff.-flw sooic ti''^' fn9bgnGri bnc- , Jot,:. . . gn'Aet rriTfi^ nf :9pnBr(5 svi+fil .- • 9.;- ' era's ; o.l iQ ooifiasi ein .itxieqxg isn . r flnen^ bnt j?o.> 81. \ TABLE 21 Farm Credit in California 1946-1959- Nonreal PCA Year farm credit January 1 b/ No, of loans made during yr. Amount of loans made during yr. in $1,000 in $1,000 1946 ■ 4,832 42,031 1947 tmmm 5,552 50,889 1948 160,694 5,944 57,718 1949 218,421 6,333 55,655 ' 1950 191,381 6,544 62,333 1951 296,214 6,768 80,553 1952 297,465 0,776 oD,DDU 1953 300,711 6,446 78,612 ! 1954 265,662 6,598 78,437 ' 1955 246,739 6,318 82,594 i 1956 297,197 6,573 95,343 1957 297,779 6,599 109,538 1958 324,910 6,747 130,155 1959 409,719 MM a^/ Source: Farm Credit in California , Agricultural Commission, American Bankers Association, New York. b/ Before 1952, includes farm production loans from commercial banks, loans from Federal Land Banks and leans from Farmers Home Administration for production and subsistence; after 1952, includes nonreal estate loans by Banks, PCA's and Farmers Home Administration. X (it- J J. 82. TABLE 22 Relative Importance of Types of Tenure in California- Year Percent owners Percent part- owners Percent tenants Percent manaqers 1940 67.6 10.5 19.1 2.8 1945 73.4 10.2 12.3 3.4 1950 73.5 13.4 11.9 1.9 1954 72.2 14.9 11.2 1.6 _a/ Source: California Census of Agriculture . 1940, 1945, 1950, 1954. The percentage of tenant farmers in California has dropped substan- tially since 1940 (Table 22) However, one type of tenancy in California has become more important and may increase. Here the tenant specializes in the production of one or two commodities, leasing land from season to season on a share or cash basis. Most of his investment capital is in machinery and equipment. Other farmers own the land and farm the rotation crops. This permits accumulation and concentration of skills in producing intensively farmed crops and reduces the capital required by the producer. Technical specialists provide assistance either on a fee basis or as a service made available by supply companies or processors. Further speciali- zation in agriculture, both as to types of products and production methods, may lead to increased numbers of tenant farmers and technical consultants of the type described. Integration of production with processing, marketing and/or factor supply represents another development finding widespread application in California. Two types of integration are prevalent. First is the conventional Oi ■ri' sqy.: '■evewo'' id-Jtbi. 1 ... 9i. tfij eeoi/b*! br.s aqcij bamaat viavis oij^jh- a^Juboiq io sec .^s rt^od ^siatiu; . ro noi: 83. contractual arrangement involving the producer and the processor. Second, the producers of a given product organize to operate the required processing facilities and either conduct their own marketing operations or contract with a marketing firm to assume responsibility for sales, advertising, branding, transportation, and other marketing functions. Profit sharing with the marketing agency is common with this type of development. Both types of integration are found in California and will probably continue to expand. Almost all citrus fruit in the state is now handled by cooperative organizations through contracts with growers. Complete processing and marketing services axe available to citrus growers. Tree nuts also are highly integrated through cooperatives which market the bulk of the production of walnuts and almonds. Integrated operations are common in the production, processing and marketing of vegetables and deciduous fruits, particularly in vegetables and fruits for canning and freezing. The U.S.D.A. estimates that about 90 percent of the processing vegetables in the United States are grown by or under contract to processors."^ Grower- owned cooperative canneries for fruit and vegetable processing have been more important recently in California.-^ Although total volume handled by these cooperatives is small relative to state production, the proportion taken by cooperatives has risen sharply during the past several years. Cooperative growers are usually paid on a "pooled" basis influenced by all 1/ U. S. Department of Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 198, Contract Farming and Vertical Integration in Agriculture , Washington, D.C., July 1958, 2/ Hoos, Sidney, "Grower Cooperative Canneries," California Agriculture , Vol. 14, No. 1, January 1960. -.':}'♦ I r>Vf< iUO ISC. ■■yciij s •Tq art:: 'jvijsi > 39 ^'Ui* ■ .siooq' 84. crops handled through the cooperative. While the grower's risk is reduced through an assured outlet, this is somewhat offset by assuming marketing obligations formerly carried by private canneries. Another development in the processing fruit and vegetable area is the use of grower cooperative bargaining associations which bargain with canneries with respect to price and other terms of trade. Processor-grower contracts also have developed for certain field crops. Sugar beets are produced under complex agreements providing incen- tives for high sugar-content beets and relating grower beet price to the price received by the processors for sugar. Processors often furnish seed, and influence production management through trained fieldmen. Consider- able integration also is evident in cotton processing and marketing in California. Private gins and oil mills often supply production credit to growers; cooperative gins, cottonseed oil mills and marketing associa- tions handle a sizable proportion of the cotton business. Nationwide integration is probably more widespread in livestock production than in crop production. The U. S. Department of Agriculture estimates that about 95 percent of the U. S. commercial broiler production is on some type of integrated basis. California's broiler and turkey industry is following this national trend toward integration. The dairy industry in California is highly commercialized, with a major proportion of milk including nearly all of the fresh milk, produced under contract. Vertical integration in beef cattle in California has occurred chiefly in cattle feeding, taking the form of contract or custom feeding. Custom feeding takes primarily two forms— custom feeding for ranchers who do not want to market feeders at a seasonal low and custom feeding for meat packers -1.- ■ , jbo*q yXqque irsJio eii. 7SVi i.- lOXJ 67 85. and chain stores who wish to maintain reliable supplies of beef fed to specifications. Some integrated hog and lamb feeding also is done in the state. Pressure for more extensive integration in California agriculture will continue, both from the retail-processor-supplier sector with which farmers do business, and from farmers themselves. Retailers and processors will press for contracts and other forms of integrated activity in order to maintain volume, continuous supplies and standardized quality. Suppliers will push integration to assure high volume farm sales and crntinuous plant operation. Farmers themselves will continue interest in integration in order to reduce price risk, assure market outlets and to obtain more capital. The next 15 years may also see a marked change in form of farm busi- ness control in California. In particular, there is likely to be a marked increase in the corporate form of business. Both large and small farming corporations now exist in California and others may develop due to corporate advantages in (l) obtaining capital (2) continuity of business and (3) tax flexibility. However, the big increase in corporatinns may be in the "family" corporation, where stock ownership and management is entirely or largely within the control of the individual farmer and his family. Here the advantages of the corporate business are likely to be (l) ease of divi- sion and transfer of property among family members and (2) limited liability of the owners. Federal income tax legislation (1958) for small business corporations largely removed the tax barrier to incorporation of small "family" farms. The other advantages cited may be sufficient to encourage more incorporation as family farming becomes larger, more capitalized and increasingly complex. Ax if ST--. '■•IP. a6'> pr. 3 - ■^0 lOT.tno: .KeJq/uo.. yif: 86. Finally, the increasing size and complexity of California farming will place a greater premium on high-quality farm management. As business becomes more complex the farm manager will have to limit his activity more to major decisions of production organization, capital investment and marketing. The manager will have to rely to a larger extent on specialists in particular areas of the business. Large farms already often hire one or more specialists— such as soils technicians, irrigation engineers, entomologists, plant pathologists, agronomists and nutritionists— as permanent members of the labor and management force. Increasingly, farmers are relying on accountants for record keeping and tax work, on lawyers for legal advice, and other consultants for special assistance. In line with these trends, California agriculture might also see the development of specialists in farm management whose services are purchased much as any other important input in agriculture. However, the widespread use of hired farm managers in complete operation of farms as is found in other sectors of the United States is net expected in California, Professional farm managers here will more likely be used as consultants. axon III. APPENDIX 87. Procedures Underlying California Production and Yield Estimates in Table 2 Construction of production measures The construction of production measures used in this study follows methods outlined by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.-^ For example, the Index of Crop Production used by the U. S. Department of Agriculture is calculated by index-number formula I = ^ X 100 t n E q. p. i=l I refers to the index number in year t. Production of crop i in year t is denoted by q^^; production of crop i in the base (or weight) period is denoted by q^^. Price of crop i in the base period is denoted by p^^^. In this study, formula (l) is used in deriving production indices for the crop categories defined in Tables 2 and 3. For example, an index of feed grain production in year t would be derived as quantities of corn, oats, barley and grain sorghums produced in year t, multiplied by their respective prices in the base period and divided by the price-weighted quantities produced in the base period. Production indices for the food grain, and the fruit and vegetable subcategories are derived by parallel procedures. 1/ U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Major Statistical Series of the U. S. Department of Agriculture— How They are Constructed and Used," Vol. 2, Agricultural Production and Efficiency . Agricultural Handbook No. 118, September 1957, Chapter 3. 88. In this study California production is weighted by average prices received by farmers in the Pacific region; United States production is weighted by average prices received by farmers for the United States. Following U. S. Department of Agriculture procedures, two weight periods are used: average 1947-49 prices are used as weights for 1940 and sub- sequent years; average 1935-39 prices are used as weights for the period prior to 1940.'^ The two series are "spliced" by computing overlapping quantity-price aggregates for 1940 and adjusting the pre-1940 series to 2/ the post-1940 level. Projections of California's share of United States production Two alternative assumptions are made regarding California's projected share of United States agricultural production in 1975: (l) California will produce the same share in 1975 as the average of 1954-57; (2) Cali- fornia will produce a changed share in 1975 based on projections of historical shares. Since "share" projections are made on a crop category basis, the problem of weighting production components again arises. As before, 1947-49 price weights are used for the post-1940 period and 1935-39 price weights are used for the pre-1940 period. Equation 2 defines California's percentage share (S^) of total United States production of a certain type (e.g., feed grains) in year t. Primed terras indicate \J For a partial listing of these price weights see: U. S. Department of Agriculture, ibid . . Tables 17 and 18. 2/ For details cf the "splicing" procedure see: U. S. Department of Agriculture, ibid . , pp. 21-27. of. tot; 6 be?.. q- iiiw SJcnTo i 89. A ^It Pio (2) 2^=-—= X 100 2, ^it Pio 1=1 California data; unprimed terms designate United States data. The historical shares of total United States production produced by California for the various crop categories are shown in Figure A-1 to A-15, The "share" definition of equation (2) is used for all categories which include component crops except for "dry edible beans" (Fig. A-12). The extremely large number of types of dry beans made the price weighting procedure impractical from a data collecting and computational standpoint. Thus, the percentages for dry edible beans are based directly on tonnages produced in California and the United States. The projected "shares" for 1975 in Figures A-1 to A-15 are based on regression equations with percentage share as the dependent variable (Y) and time as the independent variable (T). Simple linear relationships appeared reasonable for all of the crop categories except citrus fruits and potatoes; quadratic functions were used for these crops. The use of a statistically fitted function rather than a free-hand line does not imply greater accuracy in the projections, but merely removes one source of sub- jectivity. Subjective elements in the analysis include selection of the initial year used in developing the regression lines, and omission of "unusual" years. The 1954-1957 average percentages were used in the A ("same share") projections of Table 2 (in text). The 1975 percentage share projected by regression analysis is used in the B ("changed share") projections of Table 2 (in text). However, the "changed share" projections based on J best) 2^/ I-?:"--!: bned- 5 Y = 0. 8485 + 0. 0153 T 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1975 Year Figure A-1. FEED GRAINS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by Cali- fornia (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Cotton allotment years 1950 and 1954-1957 omitted in making projection. 1930 1940 1950 I960 Year 1970 1975 Figure A-Z. RICE: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). 40 Y = 15. 8109 - 0. 1767 T 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1975 Year Figure A-3. ALL WHEAT: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by Califor- nia (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Years 1933-1936 omitted in making projection. 6 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1975 Year Figure A-4. APPLES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Year 1945 omitted in making projection. 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1975 Year ure A-5. CITRUS FRUITS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by- California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). 100 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 Year Figure A-6. GRAPES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production (in tons) Produced California, 60 50 40 30 20 10 Y = 29.9906 + 0.4298 T (^1919 = °) _L 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975 Year Figure A-7. FRUIT OTHER THAN APPLES, CITRUS AND GRAPES (OMMITTING PERSIMMONS, POMEGRANATES): Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). 60 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1975 Year Figure A-8. TOMATOES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by Cali- fornia (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). •>3 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 Year 1970 1975 Figure A-9. GREEN, LEAFY, AND YELLOW VEGETABLES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by_ California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices aifter 1940). 40 T o u 04 30 20 10 Y = 18. 4440 + 0. 2961 T (Ti939 = 0) 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Year 1975 Figure A-10. OTHER VEGETABLES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947- 1949 average prices after 1940). NO 40 Y = 1, 1490 + 0. 5890 T - 0. 0048 T 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1975 Year Figure A-11. POTATOES: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by Cali- fornia (production of individual crops weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Y = 16.6903 + .4789 T (^1933 = °) oJ i 1 I— I I I _J 1920 1930 1940 1950 1^60 1970 197 Year igure A- 13. SUGAR BEETS: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by- California (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975 Year Figure A- 14. COTTON: Historical and Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by California (production weighted by 1935-1939 average prices before 1940 and 1947-1949 average prices after 1940). Cotton allotment years 1950 and 1954-1957 omitted in making projection. O 801— 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975 Year Figure A-15. WALNUTS: Historical zind Projected Percentage of Total United States Production Produced by Cali- ifornia (in tons). Data for 1956 omitted because of change in basis of reporting for U.S. production. 105. regression equations are modified by judgment for cotton and feed grains. Cotton acreage restrictions are assumed to be gradually relaxed over the next 15 years. Therefore, California's percentage of U. S. production in 1975 (15 percent) is assumed to lie midway between the 1954-1957 share (10.88 percent) and the 1975 share projected from historical nonallotment years (18.67 percent). Despite the fact that California's share of U. S. cotton production is projected to expand over the next 15 years, the state's share of U. S. feed grain production is expected to remain at about the 1954-57 average percentage. Since cotton allotments, growers have accumulated experience and knowledge of feed grain production, which should improve the comparative advantage of these crops. Construction of 1975 California production indices in Table 2 Tables A-1 and A-2 summarize the calculations used in obtaining the 1975 production indices reported in Table 2 in the text. The calculations convert Daly's 1975 output projections for the United States (1953 = 100) into 1975 output projections for California (1954-57 = 100). The columns in Tables A-1 and A-2 are defined below. The symbols q and p refer to quantity and price; i refers to the i^'^ commodity in a crop category with n crops; California data are primed; United States data are unprimed; 53, 54-57, 47-49 and 75 refer to years 1953, 1954-1957, 1947-1949 and 1975, respectively. Col. 2 = 1953 United States production weighted by United States average 1947-1949 prices n ^i,53 Pi, 47-49 1=1 ' ' ■:oi • •-.ofislif-ri! 2e jfi- TABLE A-1 Derivation of 1975 California Projected Production Index (1954-1957=100) Assuming that California Produces the Same Share of Total United States Production in 1975 as in the Base Period 1954-1957 a/ Crop ^ category-^ ID. 1953 U. S. production weighted by U.S. average 1947-49 prices 131 1975 U.S. projected production index c/ (1953=100) 111. I5l (6) 1975 U. S. projected production weighted by U.S. average 1947-49 pricesi Calif, percent- age of 1975 U.S. total pro- duction same as 1954-57 average 1975 Calif, projected production weighted by U.S. average III 1954-57 ave. annual Calif, production weighted by Calif, average 1947-49 prices 1947-49 prices (4) X (5) 18} 1975 Calif, projection aroduction index ; 1954-57=100) (6) I (7} . Feed grains Food grains Rice Wheat Fruits Apples Citrus Grapes d/ Other Tree nuts Walnuts f/ Almonds Vegetables Tomatoes Leafy green and yellow Other dollars Potatoes Dry edible bea Sugar beets Cotton 1 6,215,526,000 260,886,000 2,416,526,260 171,662,000 333,905,000 2,690,000 383,453,000 59,200 38,600 193,089,486 477,993,294 279,348,999 571,475,000 16,498,000 134,132,400 _2 19 36 144 1,500 percent 148 (2) X (3) dollars percent 103 89 MM 142 194 164 148 156 143 181 156 144 112 109 111 %J 129 „ 9,198,978,000 268,713,000 2,150,708,371 243,760,000 647,776,000 4,408,117 567,510,440 92,256 55,372 349,491,970 745,669,539 402,262,559 640,052,000 17,982,820 148,886,964 „3,788,Q0S.,000 2.08 19.60 8.38 3.65 36.46 91.35 47.45 90.94 100.00 43.01 37.11 23.59 12.43 24.48 29.59 10.. 88. dollars 191,338,742 52,667,748 18,022,936 8,897,240 236,179,130 4,026,815 269,283,704 83,898 55,372 150,316,496 276,717,966 94,893,738 79,558,464 4,402,194 44,055,653 percent 145,183,750 132 50,950,750 16,670,088 108 / , ioU,DUU 125 120,508,000 196 2,595,000 155 195,290,000 138 67,325 125 44,400 125 90,628,125 166 194,676,448 142 62,329,122 152 71,046,750 112 4,084,000 108 44,999,910 98 ..,^2603 776, 735._ 158, -1 continued on next page -'Tiw>i'qf2 '*0C0 i • • Top ... i i - ■ = -■•■1 i Table A-1 continued. a/ Data from numerous U. S. Department of Agriculture and California nn>p auii Livestock Repox-tir»y Service official publications. b/ Crop categories contain same components as in Table 1, text. c/ Based on 1975 Projection B in Table 1, text. d/ Unit for grapes in tons rather than dollars. e/ Same as 1975 Projection B in Table 1, text. Assumption is that sugar beets will furnish same percentage total sugar supply in 1975 as at present time. f/ Unit for almonds and walnuts is tons (in-shell) rather than dollars. jg/ Unit for dry edible beans is 100 pound bags rather than dollars. 10 bont. 9U qoi TABLE A-2 111 Crop y category^ Feed grains Food grains Rice Wheat Fruits Apples Citrus Grapes d/ Other Tree nuts Walnuts 3/ Almonds 2/ Vegetables Tomatoes Leafy green and yellow Other Potatoes Dry edible beans- Sugar beets Cotton Derivation of 1975 California Projected Production Index (1954-1957=100) Assuming that California Produces a Projected Changed Share of Total United States Production in 1975 a/ 121 1953 U.S. production weighted by U.S. average 1947.49 prices dollars 6,215,526,000 260,886,000 2,416,526,260 171,662,000 333,905,000 2,690,000 383,453,000 mm 59,200 38,600 193,089,486 477,993,294 279,348,999 571,475,000 16,498,000 134,132,400 2,936,441,500 I3L 1975 U.S. projected production index b/ (1953=100) percent 158 103 89 142 194 164 148 156 143 mam 181 156 144 112 109 111 e/ 129 III 1975 U.S. projected production weighted by U.S. average 1947-49 pricesl . (2) X (3) dollars 9,198,978,000 268,713,000 2,150,708,371 243,760,000 647,776,000 4,408,117 567,510,440 92,256 55,372 349,491,970 745,669,539 402,262,559 640,052,000 17,982,820 148,886,964 3,788,009,000 Projected Calif, percentage of 1975 U.S. total production weighted by ave, 1947-49 prices 1975 Calif, projected production weighted by ■U.S. average 1947=49 prices percent 2.08 23.27 5.74 4.20 20.80 92.96 54.05 89.96 100.00 57.84 39.29 29.10 17.93 20.90 37.90 15.00 f/ J7)___. (4) X (5) 1954-57 ave. annual Calif, production weighted by Calif, average 1947-49 prices 1975 Calif, projected aroduction index 1954-57=100) dollars 191,338,742 145;183,750 62,529,515 12,345,066 10,237,920 134,737,408 4,097,786 306,739,393 82,993 55,372 202,146,155 292,973,562 117,058,405 114,761,324 3,758,409 56,431,435 568,201,350 TTabl 50,950,750 16,670,088 7,130,500 120,508,000 2,595,000 195,290,000 67,325 44,400 mm 90,628,125 194,676,448 62,329,122 71,046,750 4,084,000 44,999,910 260,776,735 131 (6) r (7) percent 132 mm 123 74 mm 144 112 158 157 mm 123 125 223 150 188 162 92 125 218 A-2 continued on next page) i ... ; . J * • ■ 00 . •. - - ,.-1 ■ 50 'ijo dl "^ii • ; Tpr i J T ■-. 'B< 1 r * ■9 ■1 *5C r: . 0 53." 5A ' V " ■ ■ i i ■ j . _ i. 1 i Table A-2 continued. a/ Data from numerous U. S. Department of Agriculture and California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service official publications. b/ Crop categories contain same components as in Table 1, text. cJ Based on 1975 Projection B in Table 1, text. d/ Unit for grapes is tons rather than dollars, e/ Same as 1975 Projections B in Table 1, text. Assumption is that sugar beets will furnish same percentage of total sugar supply in 1975 as at present time. f/ California percentage of cotton production set arbitrarily at 15.00 percent— approximately midway between the 1954-1957 average share (10.88 percent), and the projected 1975 share with no allotments (18.67 percent). Assumption is that there will be gradual removal of controls allowing realignment of cotton allotments m favor of the southwest. 2/ Unit for walnuts and almonds is tons (in-shell) rather than dollars, h/ Unit for dry edible beans is 100 pound bags rather than dollars. 110. Col. 3 = 1975 United States projected production index weighted by United States average 1947-1949 prices (1953 United States production = 100) n .^,^i,75 Pi, 47-49 - 1=1 ^^^"■1,53 ''1,47-49 Col. 5 = Projected California percentage of 1975 United States pTcduction weighted by average 1947-1949 prices ^^^^'i,75 P'i, 47-49 .^,^i,75 Pi, 47-49 1=1 Col. 8 .'n S q i=l X 100 Col. 7 = 1954-1957 average California production weighted by California average 1947-1949 prices n 2 q' i=l i, 54-57 ^ i, 47-49 From this data, column 8 is computed as foll».vs: 1. 7) ~n ^ ^i 75 i=l ^''^ Pi, 47-49 n ^ ^i 53 i=l ''^"^ Pi, 47-49 ~n 2 ^i 75 i=l ^'^^ p1, 47-49 n ^ ^'i 75 i=l ^'^^ Pi, 47-49 X 100 n .?/^l,54-.57Pi,47-4 2 qV P' i=l ^ i, 47-49 X 100 = 1975 California projected production index .^ '^'i, 54-57 P'i, 47-49 with components weighted by 1947-1949 average I"* California prices (1954-1957 production = 100). ■3V'. ff" 111. Retailed yi^ld projections Table A-3 provides actual 1954-1957 and 1975 projected California average yields per acre for the major crops and crop categories considered. As a check on consistency, the 1975 yield estimates of Table A-3 (based on estimates of scientists at the University of California) were compared with those of Barton and Rogers.^ In general, the estimates from the two sources were quite consistent. Developments since Barton and Rogers made their estimates in 1954-1955 explain the divergent projections for a few specific crops. For example, recent and prospective developments of hybrid grain sorghum raised the 1975 yield prospects for that crop compared with estimates made in 1954-1955 by Barton and Rogers. Rice and cotton yield projections in the present study also are somewhat higher than those employed by Barton and Rogers. Unfortunately, absence of U, S. Department of Agri- culture 1975 yield projections for fruits and vegetables precludes compari- sons for these crops. l/ Unpublished California 1975 yield estimates used by Barton and Rogers, obtained by private correspondence. :b>i/' tit iU j tiiiliw f,3 hi. ^ ■■■13 j^f,,- 112. TABLE A-3 State Average 1954-1957 Yields and 1975 Projected Yields for California Crops Crop cateaorv Unit OLocc aVc« 1975 projected vield level 1954-1957 yields State ave. 1975 proiected yields Yield index ( 1954-57=100) reeo grams 118 a/ Corn DU • 78.0 120 ua ts JJU • 33 2 41.5 125 Barley bu. 38.1 43.8 115 Grain sorghums bu. 54.0 70.2 130 roou grains mm mm I Rice bu. 79.3 111.0 140 j Wheat bu. 20.9 19.9 95 rruius ^/ hn 41Q MO. 115 tons 6.2 7.2 1 16 Other m 110 Tree nuts — mm Walnuts tons 0.59 0.73 124 j Almonds tons 0.50 0.55 110 i Vegetables c/ .— 11 mm Processed tomatoes M n n tons 1 / . u 25.0 147 waxKcu xoiiiai.oes IrUl la 7.6 20.0 263 All tomatoes mm 203 a/ Leafy green 120 and yellow mm mm Other mm 120 Potatoes c/ cwt. 253 300 119 Dry edible beans lbs. 1382 1500 109 Sugar beets tons 21.1 25.0 118 Cotton lbs. 130 lint 885 1150 a/ Components weighted by 1954-1957 relative value. b/ Yields per bearing acre, c/ Yields per harvested acre. - i f • ■ i I on mm £V.O < - ■ I t ! 3U !