I. LMEEERAPRY . A a M CULLEGEOF TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION C. H. McDOWELL, ACTING DIRECTOR, College Station, Texas BULLETIN N0. s76 ' NOVEMBER 1945 INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS A. C. MAGEE AND C. A. BONNEN Division of Farm and Ranch Economics AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS GIBB GILCHRIST, President D27-1245-5M-L1 8O i I d‘ The war resulted in a large increase in both the demand for and in the price \~f United States rice. Texas growers have responded by expanding the harvested acreage from 291,000 in 1940 to 396,000 in 1943. A similar ex- 5 pansion was reported for the nation as a whole. The present favorable position of United States rice in the world market is largely due to the fact that the most important rice producing and exporting a cou =tries of the world have been over-run by the Japanese and consequently * the large quantities of rice usually obtained from ‘these sources must now be , obtained elsewhere. When peace is restored throughout the world, the countries that were large exporters of rice before the war can be expected to compete again for world rice markets. Prospects are that United States rice will be less in demand when the Asiatic crop comes back on the world market. This suggests that Texas farmers 1; will need to ad_iust their production methods to meet lower prices if they are to continue production at or near present levels and at the same time realize ‘I- a profit. The purpose of this Bulletin is to assist farmers in determining the adjust- ments to be made. It deals with production and production requirements, with the effect of changes in production practices, and in turn with.the probable ¥ effect of these changes on earnings. n» 04w w. _ Basic information obtained by means of a detailed survey of 66 rice growers is used in a budget analysis to estimate the effect on income of such factors as size of farm, variations in price, type of lease, variations in yield, systems of farming, and method of harvesting. Thus the direction which adjustments h’ should take in order to obtain maximum returns are indicated. Attention is directed to the following conclusions: i 1. An annual rice crop of 400 acres is more profitable than either an average- 1 sized crop of 282 acres or a small ISO-acre crop. 2. Larger earnings were obtained by tenant farmers under cash rent than F. é ' under share-crop rent. E 3. A yield of about l0 barrels per acre pays the expenses of making a rice \ crop but leaves the operator nothing for his labor and management. Yields E must be kept above this level to insure profitable production. B 4. The “rice-cattle” system of farming is more profitable than the “rice” system but requires considerably more capital. t ‘ 5. Land values were high relative to cash rental rates and it was more Y profitable to lease for cash than to own land used for rice and beef cattle pro- F duction. Q 6. Farm earnings are increased by combine harvestinggand artificial drying as compared to the old method of binding and threshing. Combining reduces arvesting costs and results in less waste in harvesting. 2390'?2 CONTENTS v_ F Pagej Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ Topography, Soils, and Native Vegetation . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irrigation Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '; Land Tenure and Lease Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Systems of Farming Associated with Rice Production. . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_ . Normal Production and Production Requirements of Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Production.....' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Normal Requirements of Seed and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Usual Practices in the Production of Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rice Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ‘ Usual Field Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Labor and Power Requirements for Rice Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 t‘ Preharvest Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 r Harvesting Requirements with Binders and Thresher-s. . : . . . . . . . 1 i Combine Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Artificial Drying of Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Production and Production Requirements of Beef Cattle on Rice Farms. . 2 Farm Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Cost of Tractor Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Power Costs for Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Cost of Combine Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . af Optimum Rice Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Overhead Farm Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Land and Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Machinery and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 Influence I of Certain Factors on Income as a Basis for Planning Farm a Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ; Influence of Size of Farm and Variations in Prices on Earnings . . . . . . 3 Effect of Type of Lease on Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’ Relationship of Yields to Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3r Systems of Farming as Related to Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . Effect of Tenure on Income of Rice-Cattle Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Method of Harvesting to Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘i s j 'LET1N NO. s76 , NOVEMBER, 1945 INFORMATION BASIC T0 ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 5A. C. MAGEE, Economist in Farm Management, and C. A. BONNEN, * Research Specialist in Farm Management Division of Farm and Ranch Economics O exas has ranked second among rice producing‘ states for the past several ~ and had more than one-fourth of the nation’s rice acreage in 1943. _ Rice l1 uction in Texas is confined to that part of the Coastal Prairie situated _. een the Sabine and Guadalupe Rivers. (Sub-areas 18b and 18c, Bulletin , A Description of the Agriculture and Type-of-Farming Areas in Texas, ‘ 68.) ice was grown in Texas to a small extent without irrigation, perhaps as a as 1863, but the crop did not become of commercial importance until Yadvent of irrigation more than 30 years later in the locality of Beaumont, __ .1 Rapid expansion followed and a total of 303,000 acres was harvested 1;‘ 913. (See Table 1.) The 1913 crop was the largest harvested in the state '~ to 1941. he war resulted in a large increase in the demand for rice and a rapid rise rice. In Texas the average seasonal price received by farmers for rough was $2.80 per barrel for the 1939 crop, $3.03 in 1940, $5.25 in 1941, $5.69‘ 942, and $6.84 in 1943. In response to Wartime demand, Texas growers "nded rice production from 291,000 acres harvested in 1940 to a record 96,000 acres in 1943. This increase of 36 percent was in line with the g nsion in rice production reported for the nation as a whole. ‘he present favorable economic position of rice in the United States is due to the fact that the most important rice producing and exporting tries of the world have been over-run by the Japanese, and consequently i" large quantities of rice usually obtained from these sources must now be ‘a “ned elsewhere. This suggests that the end of fighting in Europe will not ge the supply situation for rice, that the demand may even increase; but ‘in peace is restored throughout the world the countries that were large irters of rice before the war may be expected to compete again for world a markets. lost of the nations which consume large quantities of rice are relatively income countries and buy rice on a price basis with little regard for quality. j; grown in Burma, Siam, Indo-China, and other large exporting countries T: ally of the cheap, low quality types. Consequently the southern United is rice, which is largely of high quality, long-grained types, will be less in ilizers for Rice in Texas, E. B. Reynolds and R. H. Wyche, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. ‘June 1929. 6 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT’ STATION Table LT Acreage harvested, yield per acre, total production, price per bushel, and total farm value of rice in Texas, 190431944 ~ Total Estimated Harvested Yield production price per bu.. Total farm Year acreage per acre 1 ,000 Dec. 1 valuel 1 ,OO0 Bushelsz bushels Dollars $1,000 1904 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 234 35.5 8,314 .66 5,487 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 214 31.0 6,649 1.00 6,649 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 234 36.0 8,429 .90 7,586 1907 284 32.0 9,088 .85 7,725 1908 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 34.5 9,143 .83 7,588 1909 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 291 34.0 9,894 .78 a , 1 1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 265 33.0 8,738 .68 5,942 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 238 34.3 8,174 .80 6,539 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 266 35.5 , .94 8,863 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 303 32.0 9,696 .86 8,339 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 240 33.8 8,102 .92 7,454 . 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 260 30.5 7,930 .89 7,058 K 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 235 45.0 10,575 .86 9,095 1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 230 30.0 ,210 2.00 12,429 1 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 245 32.0 7,840 1.97 15,445 , 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 218 32.0 6,998 2.80 19,594 I 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 281 34.0 9,554 1.23 11,942 1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 166 36.1 5,993 1.01 6,053 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 191 31.2 5,959 .90 5,363 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 145 40.0 5,800 1.13 6,670 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151 40.0 6,040 1.2) 7,550 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 39.8 6,209 1.49 9,251 1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 169 40.5 6,844 1.10 7,528 1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 165 48.2 7,953 .86 ' 6,840 1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 162 50.1 8,116 .88 7,142 1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - 144 48.8 7,027 1.03 7,238 1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 192 53.6 10,291 .79 8,130 1931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205 51.7 10 598 .61 6,465 1932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 186 49.0 9,114 .40 3,646 1933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148 49.6 7,341 .81 5,946 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148 49.8 7,370 .833 6,117 1935 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167 52.0 8,684 .76 6,600 1936 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 52.0 10 608 .87 9,229 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 250 52.0 13,000 .71 9,230 1938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 268 51.0 , .69 9.431 1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 269 56.4 15,172 .78 11,834 1940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 291 57.2 16,645 .84 13,982 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 305 38.0 11,590 1.46 16,921 1942 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 370 43.0 15,910 1.70 27,047 1943 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 43.0 16,684 1.904 38,372 1944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 392 49.0 19,208 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lValue = Production X Price. _ YStandard. weight for rough rice is 45 pounds per bushel. _ ~3Prices_prior to 1934 as o Dee. 1. Prices for 1934 and following years are seasonal average prices. - ~4Preliminary. demand when the Asiatic rice crop comes back on the world market. Whenl that time comes, the present large production of rice in the United States will likely be more than sufiicient for available markets. It is impossible to forecast accurately the postwar outlook for rice becau -of the many factors involved. Indications, however, are that farmers wi need to adjust their production methods to meet lower prices if they are t continue production at or near present levels and at the same time realiz a profit. The information contained in this report should be helpful to growers i determining thezadjustments to be made. It deals with production and pr‘ INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 7 iiction requirements, with the effect of changes in production practices, and fl turn with the probable effect of these changes on farm income. This study is based on data obtained in 1941 from 66 representative rice "owers in Wharton, Matagorda, and Colorado Counties. This survey in- uded: an inventory of the farm business, land use, crop and livestock organ- ‘on, production and disposal, amounts and costs of hired labor, details ncerning farm power, and input requirements for rice and beef cattle pro- uction. Rice yields were obtained for the period 1931-40, inclusive, on farms lpresentative of the common soil situations in the area. 1 ~Following harvest of the 1943 crop, data were obtained from 44 growers lative to the use of combines for rice harvest. Data were also secured from operators of rice drying plants. This was done in cooperation with the vision of Agricultural Engineering. DESCRIPTION OF AREA p w‘ >~ '31; Topographic, Soils, and Native Vegetation \ i. The topography of the area is generally smooth. The elevation increases "bout one foot per mile inland from the Gulf of Mexico. This gradual slope d ovides the surface drainage necessary for rice production and at the same fme permits irrigation with a minimum number of levees. l Rice can be grown successfully on all Coast Prairie soils to which water can made available except on alluvium, marshland, and loose sands. A sub- l that is slowly permeable to water prevents rapid under drainage and facili- tes holding water on the land during the period the crop is flooded. For the purpose of this report the soils commonly utilized for rice production y be divided into two groups: (1) Dark-colored heavy soils and (2) light- lored sandy soils. The dark-colored heavy soils are chiefly of the Lake harles series which occupy the main body of the smooth fiat prairie. These ils usually have slow surface drainage, are deep and fertile, and have a heavy bsoil slowly permeable to water. Though very hard when dry, the soil "terial pulverizes readily when tilled in a slightly moist condition.’ Crowley y is of local importance for rice in the eastern part of the area. Lake Charles Crowley soils are well suited to growing rice, and due to their greater ‘Yatural fertility can be used for this crop more intensely than the light-colored dy soils. Some areas of heavy soils of the Edna series occur in close asso- tion with the dark-colored heavy soils, but are less suited for rice owing ‘i, very slow drainage, both from the surface and internally, lower productive opacity," and ‘dense compact physical character causing difficult cultivation. .1‘. has been estimated that 75 percent of the Texas rice acreage is grown on ark-colored heavy soils. . f The principal light-colored sandy soils utilized for rice production‘ are of“ _e Hockley-Katy group and occur mainly in the upper or interior portion f; iThe Soils of Texar", W. T. Carter, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 431, July 1931. . _ 8 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of the area. However, small bodies of these soils are found throughout all portions of the Coast Prairie. The sandy topsoil grades abruptly into clay subsoils that are so dense that water passes through the material very slowly. Although the surface is undulating in places, rice production is confined to the nearly fiat soils. Here drainage is usually slow. Soils of the Hockley-Katy series are low in organic matter and natural fertility. The area consists mostly of open prairies except along stream bottoms which are usually heavily wooded. Originally the Coast Prairie was covered with a heavy growth of grass, consisting mainly of coarse bunch grasses, largely of species of Andropogon, Panicum, Paspalum, Sporobolus, and others of similar character. Many native grass pastures have been so heavily grazed - as to reduce the stands, and on a large number of these Bermuda, Dallis, and carpet grasses have been introduced, providing pasturage of increased value.“ Bermuda grass is commonly found in most rice farm pastures. Irrigation Water Rice is grown entirely under irrigation in Texas. Both surface and under- ground water are utilized. Irrigation water is taken from the lower courses of the Sabine, Neches, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, and Lavaca Rivers and from other Coastal streams and from wells. Water is pumped from the streams and flows through canals to the fields. Canal companies provide a large part of the water used to irrigate rice. These companies operate large pumping plants in connection with a system of canals and furnish water at a fixed rate per acre. Some small, privately-owned plants furnish water for a relatively small rice acreage. Well irrigation has been used, largely in Wharton, Jackson, Harris, and Waller Counties, to grow about 40,000 acres of rice. A high percentage of the land in the area is adapted to rice production. Water, however, is the limiting factor. In 1943 it was estimated that water resources were sufficient for an annual rice crop of 476,000 acres! This would be 80,000 acres more rice than was reported for 1943. No increase was con- sidered feasible for those portions of the area supplied with water pumped from the Neches and Sabine Rivers without further development of water facilities. It was considered possible to increase the rice acreage along the Colorado and Brazos Rivers. In the latter case, use could be made of water stored in the Possum Kingdom Reservoir. An estimated 50,000 acres of rice could be developed in Victoria and Calhoun Counties by installing pumping equipment and canals to utilize water from the Guadalupe River. “The amount of water required for irrigating rice depends on several factors: (1) The individual user of water, (2) the nature of the soil, and (3) the amount and distribution of rainfall. More water is required in years of light rainfall than in years of heavy rainfall. In general, however, about 24 inches of water is used in an average season in the rice-growing region of Texas.“ 3Pasture Improvement in the Gulf Coast Prairie of Texas, R. H» Stansel, E.‘ B. Reynolds, and J. H. Jones, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 570, Jan. 1939. 4Unpublished report of the State Water Utilization Technician of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 5Fertilizers for Rice in Texas, E. B. Reynolds and R. H. Wyche, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bu]. 398, June 1929. t‘ ‘INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 9 Climate fA long growing season with fairly high seasonal temperatures is favorable i rice production. ‘ The average annual rainfall at Beaumont was 54.89 inches ' shown in Table 2. Rainfall becomes lighter to the west and“ southwest - indicated by the average yearly precipitation of 46.74 inches recorded at fgleton. Heavy rainfall and high humidity during the growing season p? favorable from the standpoint of rice irrigation but heavy rainfall during @ harvest season, August through November, adds greatly to weather damage. ‘other weather hazard is the occasional hurricane which blows in from the ' ulf of Mexico during some harvest seasons. Such storms may cause heavy image to rice in the shock and also may cause severe lodging of unharvested Ace. Y The area has an average frost-free period of approximately 270 days. Late- aturing varieties have ample time to ripen. .. fble 2. Average monthly and annual rainfall at Beaumont and Angleton in Coastal Prairie V‘ Area, 31-year period, 1914-1944, inclusive Average precipitation, inches Monthly * Station — " Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual ‘umont. 4.74 3.70 3.85 3.98 5.66 4.57 5.63 5.19 4.42 3.44 4.17 5.52 54.89 >let0n.. 3.54 2.88 3.26 2.94 3.77 3.85 5.28 4.22 4.91 3.77 3.69 4.65 46.74 LAND TENURE AND LEASE ARRANGEMENTS ‘.51’ Land usually remains idle for a period ranging from two to four years after ‘f crop of rice. This practice results in extensive use of land resources and relatively large units of land being associated with rice production. Use _» this type of rotation has led to a combination of beef cattle and rice farming 'th cattle utilizing the grazing on the lands not in rice. The rapidity with hich grasses become re-established following a rice crop greatly facilitates __'s combination. Although rice and beef cattle use the same land in rotation, w se enterprises may or may not be under the management of the same operator. . ‘Rice farmers included in the survey operated a total of 71,397 acres. Sixty- one percent of the acreage was rented for cash, 13 percent was share-rented, ‘1- 18 percent was owned. 1 A relatively large proportion of land in the Coastal Prairie is owned by non- idents. It is most common for non-resident-owned rice and grazing land 4 be leased on a long-time basis by canal companies, by rice farmers, or by gydividuals primarily interested in ranching. Farm organization is influenced f land tenure to the extent that tenure affects the control of grazing resources, jpecially during years rice land is not in cultivation. It frequently occurs 5?- ranchmen lease part of their holdings each year to rice growers but retain 10 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION all grazing rights during years the land is not planted to rice. In some instances the ranchman reserves the right to graze rice stubble and to utilize the straw. The rice farmer usually pays cash rent for the acreage in rice under this type of arrangement. In 1940 the most common cash rental rate was $3 per acre. During 1943 and 1944 cash rentals for land seeded to rice varied from $3 to $5 per acre. Growers who farm with this arrangement do not maintain beef herds unless they own or lease other land for grazing. The cost of a grazing lease varies but an annual rental of 50 to 60 cents per acre was common during the period 1940-1943. ' Canal or water companies generally own or have long-time leases on a con- siderable proportion of the rice land served by their respective system of canals. Such land is rented out largely by these companies to individual growers on a share basis. The most common type of share-rental agreement provides that the water company furnish the land, water, and seed and receive one-half of the rice crop as rent. With a share lease of this kind the tenant does not have the grazing rights during years between rice crops. Such growers do not maintain a beef cattle enterprise unless they control additional grazing land. In general, farmers whose tenure includes the use of pasture associated with the rice-pasture rotation maintain beef cattle. Very few rice growers own all the land operated. Even so, nearly 76 percent ' of those who combined beef cattle with rice production owned a part of the acreage operated as compared to only 24 percent of those who did not maintain beef herds. SYSTEMS OF FARMING ASSOCIATED WITH RICE PRODUCTION The previous discussion suggests that rice growers tend to follow two general systems of farming, namely: (1) Specialized rice production, and (2) a com- bination of rice and beef production. In the first case rice is the only im- portant source of income and is herein called the “rice system”. Both rice and beef cattle are major enterprises with the second type of farm organization which is designated as the “rice-cattle system”. Average land and livestock organization of farms in each of the common systems is shown in Table 3. There was little difference in the average rice acreage for the two systems of farming. Differences in the area in pasture and in the number of beef cows maintained were the most significant distinctions between the land and live- stock organization of the two groups. The rice system farms averaged only 72 acres in pasture and 4 beef cows as compared to 1,666 acres of pasture and 208 beef cows for rice-cattle farms. About one-third of the latter group raised feed crops (corn and sorghums), which were utilized largely as feed for beef cattle. Only 4 rice system farmers reported feed crops and the acreages were small. Horse stock consisted mostly of saddle animals used in looking after cattle and in riding over rice fields. Differences in the average number of horses and mules associated with the two systems of farming largely reflect the use made of saddle animals in connection with the cattle enterprise. E i rented all the land operated and all but one of these lived in town. INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 11 Table 3. Average land and livestock organization for the principal systems of farming——l940 _ Rice- Items Rice cattle system system Number Number Number of farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 29 Land organization: Acres in ricc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 282.5 290.6 Acres in feed crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .7 33. 1 Acres in pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , 72.4 1665.8 Acres in farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 8.5 Total acres operated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 358.9 1999.0 Livestock organization: Beef cows per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 208 Horses and mules per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . . . .6 6.6 Dairy cows per farm . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 1.7 Hogs for meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 .6 Chicken hens per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 59 In general, beef cattle is the only important livestock enterprise maintained in connection with rice production. The dairy cows, hogs, and chickens maintained are kept primarily for home use. In a few instances surplus eggs and dairy products are sold. On the average, farmers who combine rice and beef cattle also keep more of the other classes of livestock than do rice system farmers. Some rice system farmers who have a small acreage of grass land prefer to rent out such land rather than bother with a few beef cows. As shown in Table 4, only 8 ricesystem farmers kept beef cows. These herds averaged 19 cows each as compared to 208 cows per rice-cattle farm. Rice system farmers with beef cows usually own a small acreage of pasture. All rice-cattle farmers kept saddle horses, and in a few cases work animals were maintained for feed hauling and other work associated with the cattle enterprise. These farmers averaged 6.6 horses and mules compared with 2 saddle horses per farm for the 13 rice system farmers having horse stock. Of the 37 rice system farms, 30 percent maintained dairy cows, 11 percent had meat hogs, and 35 percent kept chickens. The same classes of livestock were maintained on 41 percent, 24 percent, and 66 percent, respectively, of the rice-cattle farms. The rice system of farming is characterized by tenant operators who rent land for a single year. They pay cash rent or a share of the crop. ' Often such leases do not include the use of any buildings and as a result relatively few of . these growers live on the farm. Furthermore, the land farmed one year may ; vbe several miles from the land farmed the next year. Twenty-six, or 70 percent, of the rice system farmers included in the study Residence on the farm was associated with ownership of land as 9 of the 11 rice system farmers who owned a part or all of the land operated lived on the ‘farm. Of those who resided on the farm, all had one or more milk cows, all but one kept 12 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 4. Residence of operator, farmers reporting livestock, average number of livestock per farm reporting, and tenure of rice and pasture land _ Rice-cattle Items Rice system farms system farms Number Percent Number Percent Number of farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 100 29 100 Farmers with residence on farm . . . . . . . . . . .. 1O 27 19 65.5 Farmers with residence in town . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 73 10 34.5 Number of farmers maintaining: ° Beef cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 8 21.6 29 100 Horses and mules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 35.1 29 100 Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 29.7 12 41.4 Meat hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10.8 ' 7 24.1 Chicken hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 35.1 19 65. Average number per farm reporting: Beef cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . . 208 . . . . . . . . . . Horses and mules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 . . . . . . . . . . Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . Meat ho s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.5 . . . . . . . . .. 2.4 . . . . . . . . .. Chicken ens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . . 90 . . . . . . . . . . Farmers owning all land operated (1940) . . . . . 2 5.4 1 3.4 Farmers owning part of land operated. . . . . . . . 9 24.3 22 75.9 Average acres in rice: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282. 5 100 290. 6 100 Owned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.8 7 30 10.3 Cash lease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113.7 40.3 143.2 49.3 Share lease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149.0 52.7 117 4 40.4 Average acres in pasture: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 100 1665 8 100 Owne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.8 77.1 317 5 19 Cash lease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.6 22.9 1348 3 81 chickens, and three had meat hogs. In contrast, only one of the 27 rice system farmers who lived in town had a milk cow, four kept chickens, and one had hogs. Compared to rice system farmers, a much larger percentage of rice-cattle operators owned land. Twenty-three, or nearly 80 percent, of the rice-cattle farmers own at least part of the acreage operated. Others who combine a cattle enterprise with rice growing had a cash lease on pasture land. Approximately two-thirds of the rice-cattle farmers lived on the farm and those who lived in town usually kept a hired hand on the farm to care for the beef herd. With the exception of beef cattle and horse stock, livestock were limited almost entirely to operators with farm residence. The rice system of farming has the disadvantage of depending on a single crop for the farm income. Wide variations in income are likely to occur because of variations both in the yield and in the price of rice. Farmers using this system are more mobile than those who combine rice and beef cattle in their farming operations. For this reason the rice system is popular with tenants who are not permanently located. Such a system requires the minimum investment inimprovements, equipment, and livestock. The rice-cattle system is more diversified than the rice system because beef cattle as well as rice is a major source of income. As a result, farm income is less affected by fluctuations in the yield and price of rice than is the case with the. rice system. The more diversified system provides better distribu- TINFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 18 i1 of income throughout the year which in turn reduces the need for credit. gintaining beef cattle requires a greater number of skills on the part of the irator than does a system that includes only rice production. 5i ombining a beef cattle enterprise with rice farming necessitates the control V, afgreater amount of land and a large increase in the investment in livestock 7 compared to specialized rice production. Rice-cattle farms also have more it estment in improvements and equipment than do rice farms. ‘r 7‘ 1 NORMAL PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS < OF RICE 1A consideration of the normal production and production requirements Aimportant to an understanding of the problems of rice farming. Data iclude normal yields, requirements of seed and materials, kind of equipment and hours of man labor and tractor work. i» l Production Rice yields were obtained from growers in Wharton County who farmed k heavy land and from farmers in Colorado and Wharton Counties on light ndy soils. These data were for the period 1931-40, inclusive, and are sum- “arized in Table 5. For comparison, the yields reported by the Division of '1 iculturaLStatistics, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, for the state as a hole are also shown. iiThe 10-year average yield on dark heavy soils was 13.66 barrels per acre. § ields varied from approximately 12 barrels in 1936 to more than 15 barrels y 1940. At the same time, year-to-year variations on light sandy soils ranged f’ om an average of 11.56 barrels per acre in 1933 to 16.82 barrels in 1-939. the 10-year average for these soils was 14.34 barrels per acre. The higher ble 5. Average rice yields on selected farms by soil groups and estimated state average yields, 1931-1940, inclusive Y Yields of rough rice in barrels per acre ear . Dark heavy Light sandy State soils - soils average! 931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 59 14.45 14 36 932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 47 13.35 13 61 933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 72 11.56 13 78 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 O9 13.45 13 83 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 42 13.11 14 44 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 03 14.93 14 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 35 16.33 14 44 938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 14 14.00 14 17 ~' 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 59 16.82 15 67 T ' 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 15 15.38 15 89 ‘ail-year average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.66 14.34 14.58 i lRice yields as reported by the Division of Agr. Statis., Bur. Agr. Econ., reduced from bushels 1.0 a per barrel basis. A barrel of rice equals 3.6 bushels- or 162 pounds. 14 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION yield indicated for sandy soil is partly due to a greater proportion of new land being included on the sandy land farms for which yields were obtained. It was also significant that rice was not seeded as frequently on sandy land as on dark heavy land. It was generally considered that the dark heavy soils were more productive than were light sandy soils. Yields are good on sandy land for the first few rice crops but a relatively long idle period is necessary between crops if yields are to be maintained. Normal Requirements of Seed and Materials The usual quantities of seed, twine, and other materials used in rice produc- tion are shown in Table 6. Normal seeding rates vary from about one-half barrel per acre for growers using drills to three-fourths barrel for growers using end-gate seeders. An average of approximately one-fourth of the plant- ing seed was purchased. Normally about 4 pounds of binder twine are used per acre. The number of sacks purchased varied according to yields. Canal companies supply irrigation water for the greater part of the Texas rice acreage. Before the crop is started the grower contracts for this service at a fiat rate per acre irrigated. In 1940 the usual rate was $9 per acre. Recently, some companies have charged extra for flushing and in some cases an extra charge was made for the acreage planted to late-maturing varieties. Table 6. Normal requirements of seed and materials Rice Items production Number of farms in sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 Seed per acrc:_ Planted with end-gate seeder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 120 Planted with drill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 85 Proportion 0f seed purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(%) 26 Binder twine used per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 4.2 Sacks purchased per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (No.) 13 Sack twine used per acr_e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) .13 Usual per acre cost of irrigation water supplied by Canal Company. . . .(dollars) 9.00 Usual Practices in the Production of Rice Forty-two percent of the growers planted two varieties and 37 percent planted three varieties of rice. In all cases the two or more varieties seeded had different maturity dates. By growing two or more varieties having dif- ferent maturity dates, the operator can spread harvesting operations over a much longer period than is possible when one variety is grown. This practice greatly increases the acreage that can be harvested with a single set of equip- ment. r __¢.;_....m..~ ' .._..,...__¢_.~ .....____i.._...i.__._.__.__..__._..i. INFORMATION BASIC T0 ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 15 Rice Varieties _ _, arly varieties most extensively seeded were Early Prolific, Zenith, Edith, ‘W Lady Wright. Early Prolific and Zenith are medium- and the other two long-grain types. Farmers reported Blue Rose, Nira, and Fortuna as “e most commonly grown varieties of medium-late maturity. Of these, ue Rose is a medium- and Nira and Fortuna are long-grain types. Rexoro, long slender-grain type, was the only late-maturing rice grown extensively. f, short-grained rice was grown on the farms studied. More recently Texas ftna has become an important late-maturing variety. Cultural practices are similar for all varieties. Medium-late and late- turing varieties, however, require a longer period of flooding than do those it mature early in the season. -Under certain conditions, Blue Rose and ly P.olific require additional drainings because of susceptibility to “straight- (1.9: Usual Field Operations 5, In most cases it is necessary to clean out old ditches and do some drainage rk in preparation for a rice crop. Seed-bed preparation normally consists ”_ plowing, harrowing, and disking. Floating is also important in the locality pound Beaumont. On sandy soils a 5- or 6-foot one-way is commonly used plowing, but on the heavy soils a 3- or 4-bottom moldboard plow is used. '. owing is done during the fall or winter. Four to six weeks after plowing dy land is disked and later harrowed. Heavy soils are harrowed first and den disked. A large proportion of the farmers use an 8- to 10-foot tandem 1. Preparing the seed-bed for rice. The common type of tractor pulling a 5-section spring-tooth barrow. ' - 16 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAE EXPERIMENT STATION for disking but some 18- to 20-foot single disks are used. About 50 percent of the growers farming heavy land harrow the seed-bed a second time after disking. Both spring-tooth and heavy spike-tooth harrows are used. Levees are built or rebuilt previous to seeding and are sometimes reworked after seeding. Usually it is not necessary to re-run lines for levees on lands that previously have been cropped to rice. Rice land seeded by drilling is not usually flushed after seeding as is the case when seed are broadcast. Drilling is the common practice on sandy lands as flushing causes the soil to crust. It is also the common practice on the dark heavy lands which are irrigated from wells and on a majority of farms in the locality of Beaumont. On the other dark heavy lands served by a canal company, the seed are usually broadcasted with an end-gate seeder. A large part of the rice crop is normally planted between March 25 and May 1. Generally one irrigation is given about four weeks after the plants emerge, the time depending on the amount of rainfall. Water is held on the crop a few days and drained off and the surface permitted to dry one or two times. Thereafter water is applied and held on the land for the remainder of the season. Ricelfields are drained to permit them to dry before harvesting. Harvesting of early-maturing varieties of rice usually commences about August 10, but later varieties are not ready to cut until the last half of September or the first two weeks in October. Prior to 1941 practically all rice was cut with a binder and shocked by hand. After curing in the shock for ten days to two weeks, the grain was threshed with stationary threshers and trucked to the mill or warehouse in sacks. Peak requirements for labor in rice pro- duction occur during the critical and comparatively short optimum harvest period. Harvest labor has been expensive and difficult to obtain during the war period. To meet this problem farmers have shifted as rapidly as possible to the use of combine harvesters and to the artificial drying of rice. By so doing they have not only reduced the need for labor but also have avoided some of the losses normally resulting from weather damage and from shattering. Indications are that this method of harvesting will completely replace the old method as rapidly as the necessary machines and materials are available. Labor and Power Requirements for Rice Production The labor and power required previous to harvest varies with differences in soil and type of irrigation, but these factors have little effect on harvesting operations. On the other hand, labor and power requirements during harvest are greatly affected by the method of harvesting. Consequently, labor and power needs prior to harvest are discussed separately from the requirements for harvesting operations. Preharvest Requirements The farms for which crop practices were obtained are grouped according to general soil type and to source of water for irrigation. The normal preharvest .- . QNFORMATION BASIC T0 ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 17 d l and power used by each group are shown in Table 7. In general, labor ower requirements were lower on light sandy soils than on heavy soils. “gpractice of flat breaking heavy land with a moldboard plow requires more than does one-Waying of sandy soils. The heavy soils are also more lt to pulverize and require more harrowing and disking than does sandy ' . A drilled crop does not usually need to be flushed to insure germination. ‘le 7. Labor and power required per acre for preharvest operations in growing rice Canal irrigationl ' Well irrigation? Heavy Light sandy soils soils Heavy soils Light sandy soils Operations Hours per acre l Trac- Trac- Trac- Pump Trac- Pump Man tor Man tor Man tor engine Man tor engine ‘bed preparation: ‘Plow: Flat break. . . . .92 .92 . . . . . . . . . .'. . .92 .92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " One-way..... . . . . . . . . . . .. .63 .63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .63 .63 . . . . .. 0w . . . . . . . . . . . .. .38 .38 .24 .24 .38 .38 . . . . .. .24 .24 . . . . .. k . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .40 .40 .34 .34 .40 .40 . . . . .. .34 .34...'... glevees &drain ditches .70 .35 .70 .35 .70 .35 . . . . . . .70 .35 . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .21 .21 .29 .29 . . . . .. .21 .21 . . . . .. ‘f1! levees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .07 .07 . . . . . . .08 .08 . . . . . . ' ‘ w, end-gate seeder. .26 . 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;arrow after seeding. .22 .22 . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i anddrain . . . . . . .. 5.90 . . . . .. 5.20 . . . . .. 10.10 . . . . .. 5.30 10.00 . . . . .. 5.00‘ Lpreharvest . . . . . . . .. 8.78 2.40 7.40 1.85 12.86 2.41 5.80 12.20 1.85 5.00 ace water furnished by a water company at a fixed charge per acre of rice. . nderground water pumped from a well 0r wells located on the farm. Farmers using welE I tlon do not pay the per acre charge for water that 1s incurred 1n the case of canal irrigation- f 1' harvest requirements for crops irrigated with surface water obtained a canal system include a total of 8.78 hours of man labor and 2.4 hours ctor work per acre of rice on heavy land as compared to 7.4 and 1.85 j, , respectively, of man and tractor work with light sandy soil. Both labor power requirements are somewhat greater on farms using well irrigation. 'tional power is needed to operate a pump, approximating 5 hours per" of rice. The operation of pump and pump motor also requires extra labor. "fiacre requirements with well irrigation include 12.86 hours of man labor 2.41 hours of tractor Work on heavy soils. For sandy soils 12.20 and hours, respectively, of man and tractor work arerequired. _¢_ arvesting is the critical operation in rice production. Peak labor require- "ts occur during the comparatively short optimum harvest‘ period. It is rtant that rice be harvested as soon as possible after maturity in order 'nimize the hazards of inclement weather and losses to birds. Harvesting Requirements With Binders "and Threshers crew of_7 men and 1 tractor can cut and shock an average of 16 acres 0f hresh an average of 3.1 acres per hour. A crew of 28 men and 5 tractors fin a 10-hour day. A crew of 24 men and 11 horse-drawn bundle wagons , 18 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 8. Labor and lpower required for harvesting rice by binding and threshing Unit crew Hours per acre " Operations hIan Horse Tractor Truck Man Horse Tractor Truck Bind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 . . . . . .. 1 . . . . . .. 1.26 . . . . . .. .63 . . . . . .. Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thresh: Using tractor wagons . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . 8.12 . . . . . . . 1.45 . . . . . . . Using horse-drawn bundle wagons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 22 1 . . . . . . . 7.68 7.04 .32 . . . . . . . Haul to market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Harvest total: With tractor wagons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.73 . . . . . . . 2.08 .40 With bundle wagons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.29 7.04 .95 .40 is common when tractor-drawn wagons are used to haul bundles to the thresher. 1 The rate of performance by this type of crew is 3.4 acres per hour. The labor * and power requirements for the binder-thresher method of rice harvest are shown in Table 8. With this method more than 13 hours of labor and .40..’ hour of truck work were required to harvest an acre of rice and deliver the i’ grain to a warehouse. or mill. Tractor work varied from .95 hour per acre. when horse-drawn bundle wagons were used during threshing to 2.08 hours withgtractor wagons. ‘ Each grower plans to thresh as soon as practical after the crop is put in the I shock in order to reduce the risk of weather damage. The greater part of the. laborers used for shocking and threshing are employed only as needed for these IFig. 2. Binding is the first harvesting operation when rice is bound, shocked, and thresh-_ (Photograph furnished by Texas Agricultural Extension Service.) i. I INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 19 operations. Timely harvesting ‘of the crop is dependent on an ample supply of man-power and is greatly aifected by major changes in the number of avail- able workers. ~ ' Harvesting and threshing are being replaced as rapidly as possible by com- ning and artificial drying. The use of. combines reduces manpower require- ents and is a necessary step to complete the mechanization of rice production. Combine Harvesting Combines used to harvest rice may be grouped in two general classes. First the self-propelled type of which the 14-foot cut is the most common size; pond is the smaller pull-type machine equipped with an auxiliary engine. I the latter case the common rice farm tractor is used to pull the combine. e combine is tended by the man who drives the tractor. Machines of this . o - used for rice harvesting in 1943 were either the 6-foot or the 7-foot cut. Combined rice is largely handled in bulk but some is sacked. For bulk g dling, wagons or carts are used to transport rice from the combine to the _ge of the field or to the nearest road. Here it is transferred to a truck and ken to the drier. The transfer of rice from wagon to truck is accomplished the use of augers driven from the power take-off of the tractor which pulls - wagon, or by means of other special loading equipment. It is sometimes sible to effect a saving by unloading rice from the combine tank directly .- I.“ the trucks. It is necessary for growers to truck rough rice to a car, mill, warehouse after drying when driers are not located on the railroad. gRice growers find it very much to their advantage to work together and pool eir equipment and labor when harvesting with combines. Two, three, or Harvesting is accomplished with one operation when rice is combined. In 1943. ‘ growers using l4-foot self-propelled combines used about 20 percent of the labor needed to harvest by binding, shocking, and threshing. , i. a 20 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table_'_9. Labor and power required for rice harvesting and drying, using 14-foot. self-propelled combines, ‘ and handling in bulk Unit crew Hours per acre Operations Com- Com- Man Tractor Truck bine Man Tractor Truck bine Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Haul out of field . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 ,56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haul, field to drier . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . .56 . . . . . . . .56 . . . . . . . Drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haul, drier to market . . . . . . . . ._ 1 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . .32 . . . _ . . . .32 . . . . . . . Total, harvesting and drying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.65 .56 .88 . 56 more combines are frequently operated together in a field as a part of a single harvesting crew. The advantages of timeliness and efficiency in the use of tractors, trucks, and manpower are apparent and this practice greatly simplifies the problem of drying and handling the rice of different growers at the drier. It is possible for two or three farmers owning combines to harvest their entire acreage with the regular labor force normally maintained throughout the year. The labor and farm power required for rice harvesting and drying, assuming the use of a 14-foot, self-propelled combine, and handling in bulk, are shown in Table 9. A field crew of 6 men operating two self-propelled combines, two trucks, and two tractors pulling bulk wagons harvested an average of 27 acres per day, and delivered the rough rice to the drier. One additional truck was required to haul dried rice to market. Handled in this way rice was harvested, dried, and delivered to market with an average of 2.65 man hours per acre. This was less than one-fourth the labor required for binding, shocking, and threshing. ‘ \ Combined rice is usually handled in bulk. Wagons or carts are used to transport i rice from the combine to the edge of the field or to the nearest road. Here the grain . is transferred to a truck by means of tractor-driven augers and then taken to the drier. INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 21 Two of the 6- or 7-foot pull-type combines were usually operated together the same field. When handling the grain in bulk, most growers used two u with tractors and bulk wagons to move the grain from the combines to a ck. The distance from the field to the drier determined whether one or 0 trucks were needed for hauling to the drier. A majority of those with ull-type combines used one truck for two machines. Handled in this way, I field crew of 5 men with two combines, four tractors, and one truck harvested average of 18.4 acres of rice per day and hauled it to the driers. As shown 1 Table'10, an average of 3.09 man hours were required per acre to combine, I , and deliver the crop to market. fable l0. Labor and power required for rice harvesting and drying, using 6- and 7-foot pull- f type combines and handling in bulk Unit crew Hoursper acre Operations » Com- Com- Man Tractor Truck bine Man Tractor Truck bine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 2 2 .83 .83 83 ul out of field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . . . . . . . .83 .83 . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ul, field to drier . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 1 46 . . . . . . . 46 . . . . . . . ~13 'ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ul, drier to market . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 1 32 . . . . . . . .32 . . . . . . . , otal, harvesting and drying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O9 1.66 * 78 83 Rather than handle in bulk, some operators of pull-type machines sack rice the combine. One man drives the tractor and operates the combine and a icond person sacks the rice and sews the sacks. Two men are also used to ck sacked grain to the drier. The most common field crew for handling cked rice consists of 4 men operating 2 pull-type combines, 2 men hauling om the combine to the truck, and 2 men trucking to the drier. This crew I 8 men can be reduced to 5 when the grain is handled in bulk. As shown in Table 11, an average of approximately 4.5 hours of labor was g ~- per acre to harvest and dry sacked rice. This was 1.4 hours more man abor per acre than was needed to handle bulk rice with the same size and type 1- combine. Special wagon and truck ‘beds are not necessary when rice is cked but the cost of sacks is more than the added expense incurred for bulk andling. Fable 11. Labor and power required for rice harvesting and drying. using 6- and ‘I-foot pull- r type combines and handling in sacks Unit crew Hours per acre Operations Com- Com- Man Tractor Truck bine Man Tractor Truck bine ‘ mbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 21 . . . . . .. 2 1.66 .83 . . . . . .. s3 ulout of field . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .94 .47 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. auhfieldtodrier . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 . . . . . .. 1 . . . . . .. .92 .46 . . . . . .. "II ng.._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .. ~55 aul, drier to market . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . .32 . . . . . . . .32 . . . ~ . . . 7 otal, harvesting and drying... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.49 1.20 1s .83 22 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT ‘STATION Artificial Drying of Rice g To 1nsure safe storage combined rice normally must be dried. Artificial drying and bulk storage are essential to complete mechanization of rice har- vesting. The capacity of the drying plants in use during 1944 was estimated to be about 40 percent of the 1944 crop. Fig. 5. Mechanical rice drying plant._ Combined rice normally must be dried to insure safe storage. A large part of the rice artificially dried in Texas is custom dried. Rough rice of high moisture content can be successfully dried with mechanical driers if the proper procedure is followed.“ Current methods used in drying rice differ from those used in drying other grains. Lower temperatures are used and the rice is usually given a series of successive dryings between which there are periods of rest, during which the moisture content in the kernels tends to become equalized. The total hours of daily operation of the drying plant caused more variation in the labor requirements than did the size of the drying unit. In most in- stances 2 or 3 men made up the drying crew. These men were more highly skilled than the average hired laborer. According to data obtained in 1943, an average of .65 hour of man labor is required per acre to dry rice. This was based on an average yield of 13.55 barrels per acre. Drying plants operated during 1943 had an average capacity of 43,000 barrels per season, an amount which is about equal to the production from 10 or 12 farms of average size. Operators of privately owned plants usually d1d as fiHarvesting and Drying Rough Rice in Texas, A. C. Magee and W. E. McCune, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Progress Report 880, Feb. 1.944. INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 23 much drying for their neighbors as facilities permitted. Consequently, a large part of the rice artificially dried on farms was custom dried. Present indications are that a large proportion of growers will depend on custom drying in the future. PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE ON RICE FARMS Beef production is the only livestock enterprise of major importance carried on in connection with rice farming. The Coastal Prairie Area is adapted to cattle raising and supports the most dense population of range cattle (one animal unit per 8 acres of range) of any important grazing area in the state. g Abundant rainfall, a warm humid climate, and poor drainage provide breed- ing places for many types of animal parasites. Flies and mosquitoes abound. Fresh water snails, secondary host of the liver fluke, which is one of the most common and most injurious internal parasites of cattle in the Coastal Prairie, are often abundant in and adjacent to the small ponds commonly in pastures. = g In order to do well, cattle must have a high degree of resistance to these and other parasites. As a whole, the cattle found in the area are of lower grade than animals of the western range areas and are of mixed breeding with a large percentage A having Brahman blood. Purebred bulls of Brahman, Hereford, and Short- horn breeds have been used to improve the hardy native cattle. Herds of breeding cows rather than stocker and feeder steers predominate in the Coastal Prairie Area. The common practice is to sell slaughter calves at 6 to 8 months of age. Rice growers included in the survey sold their calves at an average liveweight of 336 pounds. As shown in Table 12, the 29 rice-cattle farms maintained an average of 208 beef cows from which a 66 percent calf crop was obtained. Total average calf production amounted to 258 pounds liveweight per mother cow, of which 75 percent was marketed and the remainder kept for herd replacement. Death losses of breeding cows averaged 4 percent annually. An average of 12.5 per- cent of the cow herd was marketed in 1940. The winter maintenance of cattle is a problem since the prairie grasses be- come less nutritious after frost and rot rather than cure during the Winter. Sudden periods of freezing weather with strong north winds occur occasionally during the winter months. These cold periods are especially severe when accompanied by rain that freezes as it falls and covers the ground and vegeta- tion with a thin coat of ice. During these storms many cattle on the open prairie may die from exposure and lack of feed. During the winter it is a common practice to move cattle from the open prairie to Wooded areas along streams where fairly good protection from sudden northers is found. Cattle have access to some form of grazing practically the entire year. Under favorable conditions very little supplemental feeding is done during the winter, but with unfavorable conditions it may be necessary to feed the entire breeding 24 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 12. Average production and normal requirements of beef cattle on rice farms Rice-cattle _ Items system farms Number of farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Cows per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Percent calf _crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Calf production per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 258 Calf production _markete_d per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 194 Norrrlral groductlon requirements per cow: ' ee : Concentrates: Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(lbs.) 35 Cottonseed meal or cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) = 35 Rice mill feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 5 Rou hage: orghum hay or bundles or the equivalent as silage . . . . . . . (lbs.) 120 Johnson grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 20 Prairie hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(lbs.) 10 _ R108 straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 6O Minerals: Bone meal.’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(lbs.) 2.3 alt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lbs.) 2.7 Pasture:_ v _ Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . (days) 284 R106 fields and straw stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (days) 52 ~ Man labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(hours) 7 r5 Miscellaneous cash costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(dollars) .26 herd. In general, a low level of nutrition is maintained during the winter. Light rather than heavy feeding is the rule since breeding animals are fed primarily to avoid death losses. The most common practice for the farms studied was to feed 50 percent of the cow herd for a period of 50 to 75 days. Thin cows and cows with calves received most of the supplemental feed. It was also common practice to feed the bulls. Feeding practices varied greatly from farm to farm. In some cases only roughage is fed, in other cases concentrates are fed to supplement native pas- tures, and in still other cases both concentrates and roughage are fed. A high proportion of those interviewed used cottonseed meal or cake, either alone or in combination with corn or rice mill feeds. Farmers who raise corn feed most of it to cattle but those who grow no corn depend largely on cottonseed meal or cake and rice mill feeds for concentrates. The normal feed requirements per mother cow kept during the year are shown in Table 12 and consist of 75 pounds of concentrates and approximately 200 pounds of hay, bundles and straw, or the equivalent in silage. Rice straw included in these figures was usually baled and did not include straw utilized by cattle which had free access to straw stacks after harvest. Since it was the usual practice to feed only about 50 percent of the cow herd, the animals that were fed received an average of 2 to 3 pounds of concentrates and 5 to 8 pounds of roughage daily during the feeding period in addition to whatever pasture was available. More than half of the operators pastured rice fields after harvest and obtained about 100 days grazing for their cattle from second growth rice and from straw stacks. Forzthe entire group of 29 farms, grazing of rice fields averaged 52 days per cow. \ INFORMATION BASIC T0 ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 25 Sixteen of the 29 herds received salt and about 20 percent of the cattle was given bone meal. Bone meal was fed to compensate for the low phosphouous V ontent of the pasture grasses and to prevent the disease known as creeps. ice-cattle farmers spent 7 1/2 hours per mother cow looking after the beef erd. Stock dip, medicine, vaccine, and other miscellaneous cash costs aver- k ged 26 cents per cow. About one-third of the rice-cattle farmers raised the grain and roughages d to the beef herd during the winter and the remainder depended on pur- ased feeds. Feed production on rice farms is hindered by the fact that feed ops require labor and power when farmers are busy with the rice crop and o because most rice growers are equipped to grow broadcast crops only. he difliculties encountered in curing and storing roughages discouraged their reduction. Trench silos have been used to some extent but this method __ feed storage has not been satisfactory in many cases. Unless placed on a ll-drained location, the silo becomes partially filled with water, making it if‘ _cult to handle the ensilage at feeding time. FARM POWER arm power is a very important consideration with an enterprise as highly anized as is rice production. Rice farming entails much heavy field work _ t is accomplished through the use of large grain type tractors: Various ds of power units are used for pumping on farms on which well irrigation “practiced. The introduction of combine harvesters has added to the amount id variety of power needed. A large majority of the growers have pick-up cks and many are equipped with one and one-half ton farm trucks. A dis- j: ion of power costs and related questions follows. Cost of Tractor Work he number of tractors used per farm varied with the acreage of rice but at _ 't two tractors were considered necessary. Detailed information concerning ‘u power was obtained for 65 farms on which there was a total of 171 ctors. These farms averaged 283.6 acres in rice, or 108 acres per tractor. requirements for tractor operation per farm and per tractor together with i ating costs as of 1940 are shown in Table 13. frowers estimated an average depreciated value of $682 per tractor, or a ll per farm value of $1,794. Gasoline was the predominating fuel, but fill amounts of kerosene and other tractor fuels were used in some cases. gricating oil was changed at regular intervals and. oil was added between “Ages when necessary. On the average, approximately 2,900 gallons of 2,50 gallons of lubricating oil, and 50 pounds of grease were used per tractor ccomplish 700 hours of work. Total costs amounted to a little more than f! per tractor for fuel, oil, and grease. This was about $2.35 per acre of 26 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 13. Cost of tractor work per farm, per tractor, and per day, 1940 Items Per farm Per tractor Acres in rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 283.6 108 Number of tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 2.63 1 Average value of tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1,794 $682 Hours tractor work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,850 700 Value Value Amount dollars Amount dollars Fuel: Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (gallons) 6,960 541 .67 2,646 205.90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (gallons) 663 42.74 252 16.24 Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (gallons) 128 69.78 49 26.53 Grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(pounds) 129 15.96 49 6.06 Total cost fuel, oil and grease . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670.15 . . . . . . . . . 254.73 Other costs: _ Labor repairing tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.10 . . . . . . . . . 19.02 Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247.08 . . . . . . . . . 93.92 Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107.64 . . . . . . . . . 40.92 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365.38 . . . . . . . . . 138.89 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.47 . . . . . . . .. 7.02. Total other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788.67 . . . . . . . . . 299.77 Total, all costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,458.82 . . . . . . . . . 554.50 Total cost per 10-hour day’s work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.92 Farmers overhaul‘ their own tractors and replace broken and worn parts- That work in rice fields is hard on equipment is indicated by the fact that repair parts averaged $93.92 per tractor. Costs other than fuel, oil, and grease amounted -to nearly $300 per tractor, and the total of all costs averaged $7.92 per 10-hour day of tractor work. Power Costs for Pumping Data were obtained from 15 farmers relative to the requirements and costs. of power used in pumping irrigation water from wells. Gas engines, Diesel engines, and electric motors were used for this purpose. As shown in Table 14, the per acre power cost of pumping water in 1940 averaged $5.22 for eight farms with gas engines, $4.15 for four farms using Diesel engines, and $7.79 for three farms with electric motors. Gas engines and electric motors had the advantage of low average investment as comparedfl to Diesel power. ‘On the other hand, per acre fuel costs averaged relatively low for those farms using Diesels. a Cost of Combine Work Self-propelled combines used during 1943 were equipped with an 85-horse- power gasoline engine which provided power to operate the combine thresher, and also to propel the machine in the field. The data obtained on the operation of 22 combines of this type are summarized in column one of Table 15. An average of 614 acres of rice was combined at a cost of $188.50 per combine INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS Table 14. Power costs of pumping water with well irrigation of rice, 1940 Items Gas engines Diesel engines Electric motors ' umber of farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 4 3 cres in rice per farm. . . . . . .. 128.9 306.0 156.8 umber wells per farm . . . . . . . . .. 1.12 1 cres rice watered per well... . . . . 114.6 153.0 156.8 f vex-age value of power unit l (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 267.00 1 ,665.00 250. 00 Cost Cost Cost Amount dollars Amount dollars Amount dollars per well: oline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (gallons) 1,532 124.85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distillate & kerosene . . (gallon!) 5,467 323. 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'esel fue . . . . . . . . . . . . . (gallons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,445 319.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ectricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 186 . 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(gallons) 101 45.09 90 41.43‘ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (pounds) 18 2.36 8 .93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' - cost fuel, oil, and grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495.86 . . . . . . . . . 361.41 . ; . . . . . . . 1,186.83 costs per we : pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.61 . . . . . . . .. 75.00 . . . . . . . .. 3.67 terest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.02 . . . . . . . . . 99.90 . . . . . . . . . 15. 0O = reciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55. 19 . . . . . . . . . 99. 13 . . . . . . . . . 16.67 other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.82 . . . . . . . . . _274.03 . . . . . . . . . 35.34 l all costs per well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.68 . . . . . . . . . 635 44 . . . . . . . . . 1,222. 17 costs per acre irrigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.22 . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . 7.79 Table 15. Cost of combine work, 1943 With 14-foot With 6- or 7- . Items self-propelled foot pull-type combine combinel er of combines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 3 er combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,720 $1 ,154 arvested per combine . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . 614 303 work per combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 326 255 Cost Cost Amount dollars Amount dollars _ g with_combine and combine engine: rGasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (gallons) 1 ,223 154.05 401 53 .02 ‘Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (gallons) ~ 17 12.19 13 8. 14 ‘1 Grease . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (pounds) 215 22.26 73 7. 13 Total cost fuel, oil, and grease for combine engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188.50 . . . . . . . . . 68.29 costs associated with combining: ‘s b0l‘_l‘6p3l!‘lI1g combine. L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.50 . . . . . . . . . 54.50 >Comb1ne repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269.41 . . . . . . . . . 74.44 snterest p_er combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.20 . . . . . . . . . ' 69.24 f preciation per combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711 .53 . . . . . . . . . 318.38 ractor power to pull combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 .96 tal other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,236 64 . . . . . . . . . 718 52 ‘ cost of combine work . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,425.14 . . . . . . . . . 786.81 _f~pci- hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.37 . . . . . . . . . 3.09 per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.32 . . . . . . . .. 2.60 - combines were equipped with auxiliary engines. 27 2s BULLETIN N0. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION for fuel, oil, and grease, or a per acre cost of about 31 cents. This, however, amounted to less than 15 percent of the total cost of combine work. Repairs, interest, and depreciation‘ made up nearly 85 percent of this cost. The total cost of ‘operating a self-propelled combine averaged $4.37 per hour, or $2.32 per acre. Self-propelled combines are a relatively new development in the farm ma- chinery field. It is expected that interest on investment, repairs, and depre- ciation will decrease as improvements are made and as quantity production of these machines is attained. Some progressihas already been made toward reducing initial costs. The per hour and per acre costs for 6- or 7-foot pull-type combines were $3.09 and $2.60, respectively. The cost of fuel, oil, and grease for operating the engine plus the cost of tractor power necessary to pull the machine was considerably greater than similar costs with self-propelled equipment. The pull-type machines were of lighter construction and were more subject to breakdowns than self-propelled combines. The smaller machines required about 65 percent more repair labor as compared with the self-propelled com- bines. This is an important consideration when purchasing a combine as it is important that loss of time due to breakdowns be kept to a minimum during the critical harvest period. The importance of timeliness in performing field work makes it desirable that farmers own all the power and equipment used in rice farming. It is especially important that harvesting be done at the optimum time in order to reduce the losses from weather and other causes. For this reason, growers with a relatively small rice acreage who harvest by the old method of binding and threshing, own a thresher rather than resort to the use of custom threshing even though they need the machine only a few days during the season. a Power and equipment costs were high in many instances where land re- sources were far short of the acreage necessary to utilize the available power A and equipment to capacity. These growers may reduce costs by increasing their operations to the optimum acreage to allow use of power and equipment at near capacity level. OPTIMUM RICE ACREAGE The relatively short period of time during which a field of rice must be har- l vested if losses are to be avoided is the main consideration in determining the a optimum rice acreage that can be harvested with one set of harvesting equip- ment. Early rice may be ready for harvest by August 10, but late-maturing varieties do not usually ripen until about October 10 to 15. The optimum: harvest period is very short if the entire crop consists of a single variety but ' growers usually avoid this difficulty by seeding early-, midseason-, and late- . maturing varieties. In computing optimum rice acreages, it is assumed that such practices are followed. INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 29 The acreage that can be handled satisfactorily per season with a threshing machine provides the basis for an optimum rice acreage on farms that bind, shock, and thresh the crop. With combine harvesting the optimum size crop is based onthe seasonal capacity of the common- combine units. It was cus- tomary for two or more farmers to work together when rice was combine- of this practice. The optimum acreages shown in Table 16 are based on the usual rates of performance with common types of harvesting equipment and upon an esti- mated optimum length of harvesting period of 27 days in case of binding and threshing and 30 days for combining. r Calculated in this way, 400 acres is the optimum rice acreage for farms equipped with binders and threshers. The optimum acreage capacity of 14- '_ foot self-propelled and 6- or 7-foot pull-type combines are calculated to be 400 and 200 acres, respectively. Table l6. Optimum rice acreages for diflerent sizes and types of harvesting equipment Items Acres of rice i‘ Farms harvesting with: Binders and thrcsher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 400 14-foot self-propelled combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 400 6- or 7-foot pull-type combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 OVERHEAD FARM EXPENSE The investment in land, improvements, machinery, and equipment, and the l depreciation and repair expense connected with these items are factors to be considered in planning the operation of a rice farm. The amount of the in- A vestment, rates of depreciation, and repair expense were computed from data 1 g secured from the farms studied and are adaptable to other farms in the area. Land and Improvements A Grower estimates of the value of land without improvements varied from $15 to $30 per acre in 1940. On the average, however, the estimated value Q.‘ Iwas approximately $20 per acre. a V Improvements on the farms studied included such items as housing for Z laborers, barns, stock sheds, corrals, machine shops, tractor sheds, garages, fencing, and water systems. The average estimated depreciated value of l improvements (without residence) on the farms studied were as follows: Rice system farms: H Well irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,550 Canal irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 800 l ’ harvested. The optimum acreages for combining were calculated on the basis 30 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Rice-cattle system farms: Well irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,900 Canal irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,950 The annual estimated rate of depreciation was 5.8 percent of the depreciated value of improvements for rice system farms and 6.8 percent for rice-cattle system units. Due t0 climatic conditions, fences depreciate more rapidly than do other farm improvements. Because of the greater amount of fencing, rice-cattle farms had a higher rate of depreciation for improvements than did rice system farms. ' Normal repairs amounted to 5 percent of the depreciated value of improve- ments. Machinery and Equipment A large amount of expensive equipment is used by rice growers. The de- preciated value of farm equipment in 1941 varied from an average of about $4,500 for rice system farms to $5,600 for rice-cattle units. These amounts are approximately 50 percent of the cost new. The average cost of new tractors used by farmers was $1,385. Tractor repairs for the year amounted to 7 percent of the cost new and depreciation was estimated at 10 percent of the purchase price. The tractors included in the survey were used an average of 70 days per year. Pick-up trucks were used by the majority of rice producers and had an estimated life of between 4 and 5 years. The average cost new of a pick-up was $765. Annual cost of repairs and tires averaged 9 percent of the cost new and depreciation 22.5 percent. Pick-up trucks were run an average of 16,000 miles per year. Fifty percent of the rice system farmers and 60 percent of rice-cattle system operators owned farm trucks that were driven an average of 8,000 miles per year. The one and one-half ton size predominated and the cost new averaged $955. Yearly depreciation was estimated at 17 percent and repair and tire costs were 7 percent of the cost new. The average grower who harvested rice by binding and threshing was equipped with two binders and a thresher. The cost new of this equipment was: Binder, per machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$ 425 Thresher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,400 Binders were estimated to depreciate annually at the rate of 12 percent of the cost new and threshers at 7 percent. Based on first costs, binder repairs per year amounted to 16 percent and thresher repairs to 3.5 percent. Numerous other machinery such as plows, disks, harrows, drills or seeders, graders, levee pushes, and wagons are standard equipment on rice farms. Most growers are equipped to make the major part of their machinery repairs. Rice- cattle system farmers have additional equipment incident to feed production and the beef enterprise. The costs new of other equipment were as follows: INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 31 Rice system farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$ 2,500 Rice-cattle system farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,875 The estimated annual rate of depreciation of other machinery and equipment amounted to 9 percent of the cost new, While annual repairs were 8.5 percent. The average costs of a new self-propelled combine during 1943 was $3,750. Operators also spent an average of $290 making changes to better adapt these machines to rice field conditions. Combines included in the study harvested more than 600 acres of rice per machine in 1943, or more than double the acreage of the average grower. Under these conditions depreciation was estimated at 17 percent of the cost new and repairs at 7 percent. It was expected that combines of this type would give 10 to 12 years of service if used to harvest no more than the average grower’s own rice crop. It must be remembered that rice growers had used combines for only one or two crops and their esti- mates of depreciation were based on expectations rather than on experiences covering the life of the combine. There are indications that self-propelled combines will be less expensive in the future. During 1944 a limited number of 12-foot self-propelled machines Were available to rice growers at prices ranging from $3,300 to $3,350 per machine. Pull-type combines were purchased new at an average cost of $1,270 per machine and owners incurred costs of $210 per combine adapting these machines to rice harvesting. In 1943 pull-type machines on the farms studied cut an average of 300 acres. Under these conditions, growers estimated the life of the pull-type combine in use during 1943 to be 5 years. Repairs for these combines amounted to 5 percent of the cost new. INFLUENCE OF CERTAIN FACTORS ON INCOME AS A BASIS FOR "PLANNING FARM ADJUSTMENTS ’ The reader's attention has been called to some adjustments that have been taking place in rice production and in farming methods during the war period. It has also been pointed out that when the Asiatic crop comes back on the world market there will be need for increased efiiciency if production is to be maintained at a profitable level. This suggests that successful farm operation depends on well-made plans for the future. The records of past performance, however, play an important part, that of providing dependable information on what can be expected from the farm under conditions similar to those of the recent past. Estimates of the effects of newly adopted technical methods must be taken into account. Furthermore, prospects for change in price relationships must be considered. Recorded facts have significance only as they help us to anticipate future developments. Thus the whole process of farm business planning must be forward looking. The relative advantage of each alternative needs to be considered. This type of farm planning is termed budgeting. Basic information pertaining to production and production requirements 32 BULLETIN NO. 6'76, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 17. Prices of items purchased and products sold _ _ 1 940 1 943 Commodlty g Unit prices prices Dollars Dollars Items purchased: Wages without board: Previous to harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hour .20 .50 During harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hour .25 .60 Rice seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barrel 3.50 8.00 Binder twine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pound .10 .12 Sack twine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pound .50 1 .00 Sacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hundred 11 .00 23.00 Feed: Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ton 30.00 53.00 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bushel .45 1 .18 Rice bran . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ton 14.00 32.00 Cane hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ton 10.00 20.00 Prairie hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ton 8.00 15.00 Johnson grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ton 8.00 15.00 Bone meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cwt. 2.25 4.00 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cwt. .85 .85 Tractor operation: Gasoline (less tax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gallon .08 .10 Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gallon .06 .07 Lube oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. f Gallon .60 .60 Grease._. . . . . . . . . . .._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Pound .12 .12 Truck and pick-up operation: Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gallon .15 .16 Lube oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gallon .75 .75 Grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pound . 12 ' . 12 Combine operation: Gasoline (less tax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gallon .11 .12 Lube oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gallon .75 .75 Grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pound .12 .12 Contract trucking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barrel .08 .16 Irrigation water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acre 9.00 10. 00 Drying rough rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Barrel .20 .50 Cash land rent: Land in rice . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acre 3.0 5.00 Pasture land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acre .50 .60 Products sold: Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barrel 3.03 6. 84 Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cwt. 7.75 12.30 Cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cwt. 5. 50 8.75 has been presented in the preceding section. This information is herein used in a budget analysis to closely approximate the efiect on income of such factors as size of farm, variations in prices, types of lease, variations in yield, systems of farming, and method of harvesting. Because of the amount of detail, all budgets are shown in summary form. In these budgets typical crop and livestock organizations are used and canal irrigation is assumed in each case. The 10-year average yield reported for the state and average labor and power requirements with dark heavy soils are used for rice and normal feed and labor requirements and production are assumed for livestock. Average values are used in calculating the farm in- . vestment. The operating costs of tractors, pick-up type trucks, and one and one-half ton trucks are based on average figures as are also the amounts of seed and other materials used, depreciation rates and repairs on improvements and equipment, prices of products sold, and materials and services purchased. Interest on investment is calculated at 5 percent for real estate and 6 percent for all other. In all budgets it is assumed that, in addition to the labor of the operator, 86 days of family labor are also available. This was. the average INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 33 amount contributed by the operator’s family in 1940. Any labor required above that furnished by the operator and his family is assumed to be hired. Except when otherwise indicated, it is assumed that rice is harvested by binding and threshing and that rough rice is delivered to the warehouse or market in sacks. Growers supplied a large part of the price data shown in Table 17. In addi- tion to that obtained from farmers, price information was also secured from feed dealers, implement dealers, warehouse operators, and others who supply materials and services to rice growers. Two price situations are used to in- dicate the probable effect of wide variations in price relationships on income. Prices prevailing in 1940 are used to represent relatively low or prewar prices and those experienced in 1943 to reflect relatively high or wartime prices. Influence of Size of Farm and Variations in Prices on Earnings The 37 rice system farms studied averaged 282 acres seeded to rice. The rice crop on the 19 farms of less than average size ranged from 80 to 272 acres and averaged 180 acres. The average rice acreage for the remaining farms approximated the optimum for farms harvesting with binders and threshers, or about 400 acres. The influence of size of farm on income is herein illustrated by comparing the estimated earnings of a small rice system farm, one of average size, and another of optimum size. The typical situation in which rice system farmers Table 18. Budget summaries for rice system farms of three sizes. 1940 and 1943 prices 1940 price situation 1943 price situation Items Small Average Optimum Small Average Optimum size size size size size size Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Land organization: Acres in rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 282 400 180 282 "400 Total acres operated . . . . . . . 180 282 400 180 282 400 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Operator's farm investment: Total. 3,691 4,495 5,192 3,691 4,495 5,192 Farm expenses: Total . . . . . . . . . . . 4,795 7 ,517 1O ,729 7 ,031 11,309 16,266 Crop expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,489 3,797 5,371 3 ,422 5,164 7 ,229 Machinery and equipment. . . . . 1,077 1,650 2,318 1,186 1,818 2 ,556 Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 1,188 1,800 1,493 2,881 4,371 Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 846 1 ,2OO 900 1 , 410 2 ,OOO Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 36 4O 30 36 40 Total sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,042 12,340 - 17,201 18,153 27,856 38,831 Products used in home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . Gross farm income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,042 12,340 17 ,201 18,153 27,856 38,831 " Total farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,795 7,517 10,729 7,031 r 11,309 16,266 - Unpaid family labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 172 172 430 430 430 '_ Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907 1,042 1,181 907 1 ,042 1,181 Total deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,874 8,731 12,083 - 8,367 12,781 17,877 i Returns to capital and operators g‘ labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,168 3,609 5,119 9,786 15,075 20,954 Interest on investmentl . . . . . . . . . . 221 270 " 312 221 270 312 f» Labor and management wage.. . .. 1,947 3,339 4,807 9,565 14,805 20,642 16 per cent of investment in machinery and equipment. Ps1PWWwPw 'w'w— ~ 34 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION lease all land operated for cash, live in town, and maintain no livestock is assumed. Budget summaries for the three units of different size are shown in Table 18. The farm investment of the cash tenant is comprised entirely of machinery and equipment. The investment for the small unit was $3,691. Such a unit would require two tractors, a thresher, a pick-up type of truck, and a large part of the other equipment needed on the larger farms. Farms of this size are not usually equipped with a farm truck and the practice is to hire grain trucked to warehouse or market. Nevertheless the investment in machinery and equipment was $205 per acre of rice as compared to $159 and $130, re- spectively, for the average size and the optimum size crop. Three tractors, a pick-up type truck, a farm truck, two binders, and a thresher would be included in the equipment found on most farms of average size. A fourth tractor was added to the equipment inventory in preparing the budget for the optimum size farm. At 1940 prices, estimated sales are $8,042 for the small unit, $12,340 for the average size unit, and $17,201 for the large unit. These differences are due entirely to the larger amount of rice sold from the larger farms since the same yield per acre is used in all cases. * The estimated total expense for a 400-acre rice crop ($11,199 in 1940) is considerably greater than for a 282-acre crop ($7,635) or a 180-acre crop ($4,795). Many of the expense items such as water, land rent, seed, binder twine, sacks, and tractor fuel are directly in proportion to the acreage of rice. The hired labor expense per acre of rice, however, is highest for the optimum size farm and lowest for the small size farm. The operator of a small rice farm can do a relatively large proportion of the preharvest work himself and thus effect some saving in hired labor. Total deductions include family labor and the decrease in inventory in addition to cash expenses. Unpaid family labor, contributed largely by school age boys, is commonly used when available to supplement the labor force. The average number of days of unpaid family labor reported for the farms studied was converted to man-equivalent days and valued at current wage rates without board. The decrease in inventory represents normal deprecia- tion on machinery and equipment. The return to capital and operator’s labor (obtained by subtracting the total deductions from gross farm income) is the amount left as joint payment for the operator’s labor and management and for the use of the capital invested in the farm business. Calculated on the basis of 1940 prices, the returns to capital and operator’s labor for the small, the average, and the optimum rice farms were $2,168, $3,609, and $5,119, respectively. This return is some- times called net farm income. Assuming that 6 percent of the farm invest- ment (which includes only machinery and equipment in these cases) is adequate compensation for its use, the remainder is the amount received by the operator for his labor and managerial ability. At 1940 prices, the estimated labor and management wage for an optimum INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 35 l5size farm is $4,807, or more than double the $1,947 estimated for the 180-acre ‘A farm. Compared with the average size farm, there is a difference of $1,468 favor of the optimum. In general, farm earnings increase with size of farm der price relationships that prevailed during 1940. ‘ Expanding operations to approximate the optimum acreage is one alternative growers operating small or average size farms. This adjustment entails ithe use of additional machinery and an increase ifi total operating expenses. Increasing the size of farm will permit such farmers to make more complete of their operating capital and has the benefit of increased efficiency which js reflected in earnings. The size of farm may be increased by land purchase or by renting additional ,'_~ opland. Generally speaking, rice growers would use the latter method. i n either case he competes with other growers for land already developed or to developed. Although there is still some undeveloped land in the area that W within reach of available sources of irrigation water, opportunities for en- ging individual rice farms in this way are limited. Consequently an increase size for a large number of farms would necessitate that numerous small fw- be combined into fewer farms of larger size. Management will, no _ubt, play an important part in deciding which farmers are able to make nges in size of farms. The more successful operators will be in the best =4» ition to obtain control of the land necessary to adjust the size of farm upward. The advantages of larger size tends to be greater during periods of relatively gh farm prices and to be less during periods of relatively low prices. As .9 e general price level rises, the prices of various materials and services used production such as cash rent, water charges, fuel and oil for tractors and cks, repairs, and taxes tend to rise less rapidly than the price of rice. Be- of this lag a period of rapidly rising prices is favorable to the grower. g 1943 the price of rough rice was more than double the 1940 price. During period of 1940 to 1943, inclusive, rice prices increased more rapidly than did duction costs. This resulted in a price situation in 1943 which was very Jvorable to rice production. I As shown in Table 18, a labor and management wage of $4,807 is estimated _.» an optimum sized rice system farm with 1940 prices. Assuming the same vel of production in 1943, estimated earnings for this acreage are $20,642. this case an increase of approximately 125 percent in the ‘price of rough rice ulted in an estimated increase of more than 300 percent in the labor and ' agement-wage of the operator. Estimated earnings for; small sized and _raged sized rice farms show a similar rate of increase between these two J15 S, 7‘ Rice is among the basic commodities which have been assured support prices “v90 percent of parity for two full crop years following the end of the war. present parity price for rice is about $5 per barrel. Assuming no change lithe prices of the cost factors in the parity formula, a support price of about p50 per barrel can be expected for this two-year transition period.’ Assuming uisiana Rural Economist, November 1944, p. 2. 36 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION no change in the law, the parity price will be lowered and the support price will be decreased accordingly as prices paid by farmers decrease. The price of cost items also tends to go down more slowly than do rice prices during a period of price decline. This is an important factor to be considered and emphasizes the importance of efficient operation in event the price of rice declines during the period following World War II. \ Effect of Type of Lease on Earnings A very high proportion of the land seeded to rice on the cooperating farms is leased. Two types of leases are in common use, namely: cash lease and share lease. In the first case the grower‘ pays a stipulated amount of cash per acre for the use of the land devoted to rice. The grower owns the machinery used in making the _crop and furnishes labor, planting seed, irrigation water, and bears all other expenses for materials and services required to produce and market the crop. Three dollars per acre was the usual cash rental rate for land seeded to rice at the time the study was made. The rental rate tends to remain the same from year to year except in case of extreme variations in the price of rice. In 1943, $5 per acre was a common cash rental for rice land, notwithstand- ing some growers were renting at a lower rate. Generally speaking, adjustments in the cash rental rate tend to lag somewhat behind changes in rice prices. The most common share rental agreement provides that the landlord furnish the land, the water, and the planting seed, and receive one-half of the crop as rent. The grower is responsible for all other costs of operation. The land- lord pays his share of any storage and selling costs. A comparison of estimated earnings for an optimum rice acreage leased for cash and on the share basis is shown in Table 19. Rice, of course, would be the only source of income. All rice sales are credited to the operator in each instance. In the case of share rent operations the value of the landlord’s share of the crop was entered as expense to the grower. At 1940 prices the total farm expenses, assuming share rent, was estimated to be $13,890 as compared with a total of $10,729 assuming cash rent. Since the landlord furnishes irrigation water and seed and pays a share of the storage and selling charges, growers with share leases have much lower operating expenses than do operators with cashleases. This advantage is more than offset, however, by the difference in rent paid to the landlord. The estimated labor and management wage of a cash rent operator was $4,807 at 1940 prices or more than double the $2,116 for a share rent operator. At 1943 prices the labor and management wage for these same situations would be $20,642 and $9,482, respectively. The landlord shares the risk of making the crop by furnishing the land, water, and seed, and to this extent insures the grower against loss in case of crop failure. The operator, however, pays a very high price for such insurance. Less operating capital is required to finance a rice crop with a share lease than when land is rented for cash. For this reason share leases are attractive INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 37 l 19. Budget summaries involving two common types of lease arrangement, 1940 and 1943 prices 1940 price situation 1943 price situation Rice land _ Rice land _ Items rented Rice land rented Rice land for share rented for share " rented of crop for cash of crop for cash = organization: . Acres in rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 400 400 400 otal acres operated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 400 400 400 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars or’-s farm investment: Total . . . . . . . . . 5 , 192 5 , 192 5 , 192 5, 192 . expenses: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,890 10,729 ' 28,486 16,266 Crop expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897 5,371 1 ,574 7,299 Machinery and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,318 I 2,318 2,556 2,556 Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,800 1 ,800 4,371 w 4,371 ’ t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8,835 1,200 19,945 2,000 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 40 '40 40 q _ sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17,671 17,201 39,891 38,831 .i cts used in home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is farm income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,671 17,201 39,891 38,831 ‘ farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,890 10,729 28,486 16,266 d family labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 172 430 430 “ iation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,18 1,181 1, 81 1,181 deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,243 12,083 30,097 17,877 s to capital and 0perator’s labor. _. . . . . 2,428 5, 119 9,794 20,954 t on investmentl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 312 312 312 and management wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 116 4,807 9,482 20,642 "per cent of investment in machinery and equipment. owers who lack operating capital and are not financially able to withstand vy loss because of crop failure 0r low yields. With either 1940 or 1943 4 relationships, it would be very much to the advantage of growers to w the additional capital necessary to pay cash rent rather than to lease land on the usual crop share basis. Relationship of Yields to Income ij- highly specialized nature of rice farming tends to maximize the effect "ations in yield on income. Data.in Table 5 indicate that average yields significantly from year t0 year. Yield data for individual farms show V greater variation. For example, the rice yields obtained in 1940 on the Aarms included in this study averaged 15.9 barrels per acre. ' Yields on “dual farms, however, ranged from 10 barrels to 23.7 barrels per acre. e‘ ltions in yield resulted in proportionately greater variations in earnings. _ ‘mated earnings for an optimum size rice system farm, assuming the v e yield and the highest and the lowest yields obtained on cooperating in 1940, are shown in Table 20. In all cases 1940 price levels and the g of land for cash are assumed. y minor variations in total expenses result from variations in yield. Water ‘ -~ cash rent, machinery expenses, seed, labor, and taxes make up a large f the total cost of producing rice, and these expenses are incurred regard- 38 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 20. Budget summaries for difierent yields of rice, 1940 prices 1940 price situation Items IO-barrel 15.9- 23.7- . per barrel _per barrel per ' acre yield acre yield acre yield _ _ Acres Acres Acres Land organization: Acres in rice. . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘400 400 400 Total acres operated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 400 400 _ Dollars Dollars Dollars Operator’s farm investment: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,192 5,192 , Farm expenses: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10,173 10,889 11,836 Crop expenses... . . z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,815 5,531 6,478 M_ach1nery and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2,318 2,318 2,318 Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 800 1 , 800 1 , 800 Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 200 1 , 200 1 , 200 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 40 4O Total sales . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ,650 18,801 28,255 Products used in home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gross farm income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ,650 18,801 28,255 Total_ farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 173 10,889 11 ,836 Unpaid family labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 172 172 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 181 1 ,181 1 , 181 Total deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ,526 12,242 13,189 Returns to capital and operator’s labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 6,559 15,066 Interest on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 312 312 Labor and management wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —188 6,247 14,754 less of the yield obtained. Items such as storage and marketing costs and the expense of hauling grain to warehouse or market are the principal expenses directly associated with yields. The latter items are a small part of the total costs. Total cash expenses for the 10-barrel crop are $10,173 as compared to $10,889 in the case of the 15.9-barrel yield and $11,836'with a 23.7-barrel yield. In general, a yield of approximately 10 barrels per acre is necessary to break even on a rice crop at 1940 prices. Such a yield (see column 1) would pay all expenses of making the crop but would not leave the operator anything for his labor or management and would lack $188 of returning 6 percent interest onlithe investment in machinery and equipment. Although variations in yields have little effect on total costs, they do affect per unit costs and this in turn results in wide variations in earnings. As shown in Table 20, an average yield of 15.9 barrels would be accompanied by a labor and management Wage of $6,247 as compared with a return of $14,754 from the highest yield of 23.7 barrels. The latter yield is 49 percent above the average while the earnings are 136 percent greater. Unit costs can be kept low by maintaining yields at a high level. Yields drop rapidly on land seeded continuiusly to rice. This difficulty has been. partially overcome by using the common rice-grassrrotation. This rotation involves one year of rice with two to four years of grass. The rotation tends“ to be shorter on the heavy dark soils than on the light sandy soils. During a period of favorable rice prices there is always the urge to reduce the length of time rice land is in pasture and to seed a crop after one or two- INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 39 of grazing. As commonly practiced, such a procedure invariably results v er yields than is obtained with a longer rest period. With present methods, pur- to five-year rice-pasture rotation is necessary if yields are to be main- at a profitable level on old rice land. In some cases an even longer "ition is needed. . ‘ll - erally speaking, land suitable for rice is abundant relative to available w of irrigation water. As a result, rice farmers have been extravagant eir use of land. Since land was plentiful the simplest procedure has been fallow nature three or four years to recondition the soil after each rice crop. ‘rough drainage, plowing or other cultivation to aerate the soil, and seeding ‘romote an early, grass cover are practices that hasten the reconditioning I; e soil for a subsequent rice crop. ‘other means of maintaining yields is through the use of commercial fertil- f. The most extensive use of fertilizer has been in the territory around _f- ont and in the locality of Katy. To date very little fertilizer has been * on rice in the western part of the area. ts conducted by the Agricultural Experiment Substation at Beaumont that it is profitable to apply fertilizer to rice in that part of the area. Q results as a whole show that a good practice on the principal rice soils E- area is to apply a combination of fertilizer carrying 20 pounds of nitrogen H20 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre. Such a combination would be lied in 100 pounds each of sulphate of ammonia and 20 percent super- hate and should be applied with the seed at- Planting time.” At 1940 ‘ this amount of fertilizer cost $3.45 per acre. An increase in production ut 1 1/2 barrels per acre was necessary to pay this added cost. '11 another means of maintaining yields is through improvement in varieties. " varieties are being developed and tested continuously at the Beaumont A tion. The results are available to all farmers and should be helpful h. - ping them informed as to high yielding and bettergadapted varieties. Systems of Farming as Related to Income has been shown that the rice system and the rice-cattle systems are the of farm organization commonly used by rice growers. Rice is the only rtant source of farm income from the rice system as contrasted with the ttle system where both rice and beef cattle are major enterprises. The I t summaries in Table 21 show the estimated income for each system of g- t cash lease arrangement was selected as typical of each system of farming. 940 land seeded to rice was rented for $3 "per acre and grass land for 50 P per acre (see Table 17), but in 1943 the corresponding rental rates were d 60 cents per acre, respectively. In the budget summaries shown in 21, rice is the only crop grown in either system of farming. An optimum frice crop of 400 acres is used in each instance. In the case of the rice- “ as Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 602, Fertilizers for Rice in Texas. 40 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 21. Budget summaries of rice system and rice-cattle7system farms. 1940 and 1943 prices 1940 price situation 1943 price situation Items Rice Rice-cattle Rice Rice-cattle system system system system _ _ Acres Acres Acres Acres Land organizationi Acres in rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 400 400 400 400 Acres in pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,690 . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,690 Acres in farmstead . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . 10 Total acres operated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 2,100 400 2,100 _ _ Number Number Number Number Livestock organization: Beef cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 210 . . . . . . . . . . 210 Horses and mules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ‘ . . . . . . . . . . 7 Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2 Chickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 . . . . . . . . . . 90 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Operlaltoris farm investment: Total . . . . . . . . . 5, 192 15,839 5,192 21,264 and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improvements (excl. residence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Machinery and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,192 5,894 5, 192 5,894 Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,945 . . . . . . . . . . 15,370 Farm sales; Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 17,201 21 .597 38,831 45,782 Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17,201 17,201 38,831 38,831 Beef cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,260 . . . . . . . . . . 6,765 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . . 186 Farm expenses: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10,729 12,662 16,266 19,207 Improvements (excl. residence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crop expenses... . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5,371 5,371 7,299 7,299 M_achinery and equlpment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.31s 2,353 2.556 2,591 Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,800 1 ,948 4,371 4,741 Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,200 2,050 2,000 3,020 Livestock expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,407 Taxes . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 149 40 14 Total sales. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,201 21 ,597 38,831 45,782 Products used in the home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . . 18 Gross farm income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,201 21 ,746 38,831 45,970 Total farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10,729 12,662 16,266 19,207 Unpaid family labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 172 172 430 430 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 181 1 ,25l 1 , 181 1 ,25l Total deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,082 14,085 17.877 20,888 Returns to capital and operator’s labor. . .. . . . 5,119 ,661 20,954 25,082 Interest on investmentl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 950 31 1 , 156 l ‘w Labor and management wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,807 6,711 20,642 23,926 lReal estate at 5 percent, other investments at 6 percent. cattle system, it is assumed that the grazing resources associated with rice production are utilized by the grower. Approximately 76 percent of the land included in the study is suitable for rice production. On this basis a farm l unit totalling approximately 2,100 acres would provide for a 400-acre rice crop each year with the usual rotation of one year in rice and three years in ' grass. The 1,690 acres of pasture land would provide grazing for 210 beef cows. A typical livestock organization for such a farm would include 7 horses, 2 dairy cows, and 90 chickens in addition to the above mentioned beef cows. a Dairy and poultry products are produced primarily for home use. The rice system is attractive to growers with limited capital. An average value of the machinery and equipment needed to handle a 400-acre rice crop is $5,200. An additional investment in livestock of about $10,000 at 1940 , prices and $15,000 at 1943 prices is required for the rice-cattle system. INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 41 ;he advantage of combinng the rice and beef cattle enterprises is partially by a larger cash rental and the expenses incurred in connection with "beef enterprise. The estimated labor and management wage for the rice- e system is, however, $1,900 above that estimated for the rice system at -_ that prevailed during 1940. At 1943 prices the difference is nearly 00 in favor of the rice-cattle system. Compared with a rice farm, the f. attle system is more diversified, gives a greater return t0 labor and manage- i_ , and provides a somewhat better distribution of income during the year. niermore, income on rice-cattle farms is less affected by crop failure- or by ations in the price of rice. ;_ Effect of Tenure on Income of Rice-Cattle Farms ‘uch of the land utilized for rice production is owned by non-residents Adv-by individuals not engaged in agriculture. Many landowners are chiefly rned with developing the mineral resources. The owner frequently i" s a greater return from mineral leases than from crop and grazing rentals. Vlpossibility of mineral development tends to keep the price of land above .alue for agricultural production. Rental rates for agricultural uses on [other hand are fairly closely- related to the returns obtained from rice and ‘cattle. indication of the influence of tenure on income may be obtained by iaring the estimated earnings from cash tenant-operated and owner- ted rice-cattle units. In the first situation, 1,700 acres of pasture and of Farming as Related to Income.” The operator-owned farm is fed to be identical in size and in crop and livestock organization to the A h Here again, 1940 and 1943 price relationships are used. A summary analysis is shown in Table 22. l average value of rice land (without improvements) in 1940 was esti- 6- by cooperating farmers to be $20 per acre. Recent studies of the trend W» prices during World War II indicate considerable increase in the selling land used for rice production. Based on these studies, a value of $30 re without improvements is assumed for 1943. ‘f; capital outlay for machinery and equipment and for livestock is assumed “the same regardless of type of tenure. The real estate investment of the perator is approximately $45,000 at 1940 prices and nearly $66,000 at prices. Of course, tenant farmers have no real estate investment. Farm fond gross farm income are the same for both-owner and tenant. Repairs upkeep on improvements and real estate taxes are expenses of the owner curred by the tenant. These items, however, are more than offset by h rent paid by the tenant. _culated on the basis of 1940 prices, the returns to capital and operator’s 7for the owner-operated and the tenant-operated farm are $8,899 and i», respectively. After interest is deducted for the investment in farm “cres of rice land are rented for cash as in the case described above under 1 42 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 22. Budget summaries of owner-operated and cash tenant-operated rice-cattle farms, 1940 and 1943 prices 1940 price situation 1943 price situation Items Cash Cash . Owner- tenant- Owner- tenant- operated operated operated operated _ Acres Acres Acres Acres Land organization: Acres in rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 400 400 400 Acres in pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,69O 1 ,690 1 .690 1 ,690 Acres in farmstead. . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O 10 10 10 Total acres operated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 _ Number Number Number Number Livestock organization: Beef cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 210 210 210 Horses and mules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 7 7 Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 2 Chickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 90 “ 90 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Operator’s farm investment: Total . . . . . . . . . 60,789 15,839 87 .214 21 ,264 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,000 . . . . . . . . . . 63.000 . . . . . . . . . . Improvements (excl. residence) . . .. . . . . . . ,950 . . . . . . . . . . ‘ 2.950 . . . . . . . . . . Machinery and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,894 5,894 5.894 5,894 Livestock 9 , 945 9 , 945 1 5.370 1 5 , 370 Farm sales: 21 ,597 45.782 45,782 Rice . . . . . . . . . . 17,201 38.831 38,831 Beef cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260- 4,260 6,765 6,765 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 136 186 6 Farm expenses: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11,233 12,662 16 908 19,207 Improvements (excl. residence) . . . . . . . . . . 201 . . . . . . . . . . 301 . . . . . . . . . . Crop expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,371 5,371 7 .299 7,299 Machinery and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,353 2,353 .591 2,091 Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 948 1 ,948 4 , 741 4, 741 Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,050 . . . . . . . . . . 3,020 Livestock expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 791 1 ,407 1 ,407 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569 149 56 149 Total sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ,597 21,597 45,782 40,782 Products used in the home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 149 18 18 Gross farm income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ,746 21 ,746 45,970 45,970 Total farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,233 12,662 16,908 19,207 Unpaid family labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 172 430 43 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,453 1 ,251 1 ,453 1 ,251 Total deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . 12.849 14,085 18,791 20,888 Returns to capital and operator’s labor. . .. . . . 8,899 ,661 2/ . 179 25,082 Interest on lnvestment‘! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,227 950 ,60 1 , 15 Labor and management wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,672 6,711 22 ,576 23,926 lReal estate at 5 percent, other investments at 6 percent. real estate at 5 percent and for all other farm investments at 6~percent, the owner-operator has an estimated labor and management wage of $5,672 com- pared with $6,711 in the case of the cash tenant. This analysis indicates that the rice-cattle system is profitable for both owner-operators and cash tenants under the conditions assumed. It also. indicates that at rates prevailing during 1940, land prices are high relative to cash rent and that it is more profitable to lease for cash than to own land used exclusively for rice-cattle production. The labor and management wage of an owner-operator andra cash tenant would have been approximately the same had an interest rate of 2.75 percent been deducted for the investment in land and improvements. Earnings in 1940 would have returned 5 percent interest on a land value of approximately $12 per acre and at the same time INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 43 would have provided the owner-operator the same labor and management wage as was obtained by the cash tenant-operator. At 1943 prices the estimated labor and management wage was $22,576 and $23,926, respectively, for the owner-operator and for the cash tenant. This was a difference of $1,350 in favor of renting for cash. In other words, it was more profitable in 1943 for rice-cattle farmers to lease rice land for $5 per acre and pasture land for 6O cents per acre than to buy the land at $30 per acre. The labor and management wage of the owner-operator and the cash tenant would have been the same had an interest rate of 3.2 percent instead of 5 per- cent been deducted for the investment in real estate. It would also have been the same with interest at 5 percent and land at $20 per acre. Relationship 0f Method of Harvesting to Income The peak demand for labor in rice production occurs at harvest time. The importance of labor in the cost of harvesting has created a great deal of interest in labor saving practices. A significant development during the war period has been the substitution of combine harvesting and artificial drying of rice for binding and threshing. The use of rice combines and rice driers is not an entirely new practice in Texas. As early as 1929 a few large combines were brought in from the Wheat ' belt. In 1930 a drier was installed and operated at Nome, Texas, but its lack of capacity and bulk storage facilities limited its use. Combine harvesting did not gain favor at that time and the reasons are apparent. First, the com- bines were not well designed for rice harvestinga Second, with the combine method the grain must be artificially dried, a practice about which very little was known at that time. Third, cheap farm labor was available in abundance. The present combines and driers are, however, satisfactorily reducing labor and power requirements. Combine operators generally agree that less grain is lost in the field when rice is combined than when cut with a binder and threshed. The growers contacted estimated that combining reduced the waste in harvesting by an average of 1.5 barrels per acre. They point out that losses due to lodging and to adverse weather are reduced and less grain is lost by shattering and by bird damage. The results of an appraisal of the effect of combine harvestingon income assuming the prewar price situation of 1940 and wartime price relationships such as existed during 1943 are shown in Table 23. A rice system-unit of optimum size operating under a cash lease is also assumed. It is estimated that two of the 6- or 7-foot pull-type combines or one 12- or 14-foot self-pro- '? pelled combine is needed to harvest the optimum crop of 400 acres. It is f assumed that combined rice would be handled in bulk and that grain harvested I by the old method would be sacked. Since no prices for drying in 1940 are available, it was estimated that 20 cents per barrel was a reasonable charge 1 for rice drying at that price level. Estimated earnings are shown for harvesting by the old method of binding and threshing and with both self-propelled and i pull-type combines. 44 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 23. Budget summaries for dilferent methods of harvesting rice, 1940 and 1943 prices 1940 price situation 1943 price situation Method of harvesting Items _ 12-14- ' 12-14- ' Binder foot 6—7-foot Binder foot 6—7-foot and self- pull- and self- pull- thresher propelled type thresher propelled type combine combine combine combine Land organization: Acres in rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 400 400 400 400 400 Total acres operated . . . . . . . .. 400 400 400 400 400 400 Operator’s farm investment: Total. 5,192 6,109 5,714 5,192 6,109 5,714 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improvements (excl. residence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Machinery and equipment. . . . . 5 ,192 6 ,109 5,714 5,192 6 ,109 5 ,714 Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farm expenses: Total . . . . . . . . . . . 10,729 9 ,885 9 ,967 \ 16,266 14,963 15,140 Improvements (excl. residence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . Crop expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,371 5,482 5 ,482 7,299 8,546 8,546 Machinery and equipment. . . . 2,318 2,456 2,513 2,556 2 .650 2,769 Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,800 702 727 4,371 1,722 1,780 Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,200 1 ,200 1 ,200 2,000 2,000 2,000 Livestock expenses . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 45 45 40 45 . . . . . . . . . Total sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,201 19,159 19,159 38,831 43 ,249 43,249 Products used in the home. . . Gross farm income . . . . . . . . . Total farm expenses . . . . . . Unpaid family labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 172 172 430 430 430 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 1 , 181 1 ,741 1 ,768 1 , 181 1,741 1 ,768 Total deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ,O83 11 ,798 11 ,907 17 ,877 17 , 134 17 ,338 Returns to capital and operator’s labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5,119 7,359 7,252 20,954 26.115 25,911 Interest on investmentl . . . . . . . . . . 312 367 343 312 367 343 Labor and management wage . . . . . . 4,807 6,992 6,909 20,642 25 ,748 25,568 lReal estate at 5 percent, other investments at 6 percent. Compared to binding and threshing, combine harvesting entails an increase in the equipment investment of from $500 to $900, depending on the type of combine used. The cost of operating binders and threshers is eliminated with combine harvesting but drying charges and operation of the combine are added cost items. Combine operators save the cost of sacks by handling rice in bulk.. The greatest saving in expense, however, resulting from combine harvesting is the reduction in cost ofiharvesting labor. For each type of com- bine, this saving is approximately $1,100 at 1940 prices and $2,600 at 1943 prices. Total farm expenses are estimated to be approximately $750 to $850 less at 1940 prices and $1,125 to $1,300 less at 1943 prices, depending on the type of combine used. At 1940 prices the estimated returns to the operator’s labor and management are $6,992 and $6,909, respectively, when self-propelled and pull-type combines are used compared with $4,807 for harvesting by binding and threshing. The difierence is even more striking at prices prevailing in 1943 when harvesting labor was very expensive. At 1943 prices the difference in the estimated return to labor and management is approximately $5,000 in favor of combine “J ‘sHT'-"qw'»:~;'"i ‘wrrrrvwiu this study follows: INFORMATION BASIC TO ADJUSTMENTS IN RICE PRODUCTION” IN TEXAS 45 harvesting. Combining gives the farmer better control of harvesting oper- ations by making him less dependent on seasonal labor. A large part of the increase in earnings resulting from the use of combines is due to the elimination of a large part of the waste normally accompanying binding and threshing. Any delay in the harvesting of mature rice tends to increase the waste. Losses are likely to occur in both production and in quality when ripe grain remains uncut or when bundles remain in the shock for long periods. Combine harvestingis not delayed as long following heavy rains as is binding or threshing. It is not feasible to bind rice while water stands in the field and a good job of threshing cannot lg done with wet bundles. When rice heads are dry, however, the crop can be combined even though water may be standing in the field. This is a great advantage during harvest seasons when frequent rains delaybinding and threshing. Rice that is combined is safe from hurricane or other weather damage as soon as it reaches the drier. On the other hand a crop that is cut with a binder is subject to this type of damage for a period of 10 days to two weeks while curing in the shock previous to threshing. The likelihood of heavy loss due to a hurricane is reduced to the extent that combining shortens the time required to get ripened grain under cover. Many of the combines now in use were not designed for rice harvesting, and - the expense incurred by growers in converting them for use in rice fields added materially to the investment. As machinery manufacturers adapt harvesting equipment to the needs of the rice farmer, it is expected that such costs will A be eliminated and that in general the machines will give better service. CONCLUSIONS The estimated effect on income of certain alternatives open to rice farmers indicates the direction which adjustments should take in order to obtain max- imum returns. A brief appraisal of alternative adjustments as indicated by 1. In general, farm income increases with size of farm. Increasing the size of farm is a profitable alternative for farmers growing less than the optimum sized rice crop of 400 acres. 2. Larger earnings were obtained by tenant farmers who paid cash rent than by those paying share rent. In case of crop failure, the share tenant is partially insured against loss because the landlord shares the risk by furnishing land, water, and seed. The risk taken by the landlord is not, however, in proportion to the normal amount of rent received. 3. A yield of about 10 barrels per acre would pay the expenses incurred in making a rice crop but would leave the operator nothing for his labor and management. Yields must be maintained above this level to insure profitable production. Yields are adversely affected by shortening the interval between rice crops. As commonly practiced, it is necessary that rice land be_ in pasture j for 3 or 4 years between rice crops if profitable yields are to be obtained. Re- O 46 BULLETIN NO. 676, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION conditioning of rice land may be speeded up by thorough drainage, aerating the soil, and seeding t0 obtain an early stand of grass after each ricecrop. In some parts of the area the use of commercial fertilizer has been profitable. Production is also increased by planting high yielding varieties“ 4. The rice-cattle system is more profitable than is the rice system. With the former type of organization there was a somewhat better distribution of income throughout the year and earnings are less affected by crop failure or fluctuations in the price of rice. The change from a rice system to a rice-cattle type of organization would result in a large increase in the total investment. It is also necessary that the oflerator obtain control of grazing land in addition to the acreage seeded to rice. _ 5. Land values are high relative to cash rental rates. It is more profitable to lease for cash than to own land. 6. Farm earnings are increased by combine harvesting and artificial drying as compared to the old method of binding and threshing. Harvesting costs are reduced as well as are losses due to lodging, shattering, adverse weather, and birds.