~55‘ b/Ju/lelin 2/3 Iu/q 1955 ' Tenure and Mechanization of ' the Cotton Harvest, ' Texas High Plains in cooperation with the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS SUMMARY Cotton farmers 0n the High Plains 0f Texas are unable to rely on either all handpulling 0r all ma- a chine-stripping. Handpulling depends 0n the timely appearance of an adequate supply of migratory workers who will stay through the season. Machine-stripping depends on a frost early enough to per- mit harvesting over a period of 4 or 5 weeks. The advantage of one method over the other may shift from season to season, depending on such factors as the size of the labor supply and level of wage rates for handpulling, yield of cotton, particularly on nonirrigated land, and date of the first killing frost. An additional set of factors affects the method of harvest that the individual farmer will use. These include the presence on the farm of workers skilled in handling machine operations, whether; he is willing to risk waiting until he can machine-strip and whether he owns or rents his farm. In 1951 and 1952, 8 percent 0f the farmers handpulled their entire crop; in 1951, 8 percent ma- chine-stripped their entire corp and in 1952, 16 percent did so. The remainder handpulled part of I their crop, then stripped the balance. In 1951, a severe labor shortage was anticipated but failed to ma-g terialize; in- 1952, the labor supply was adequate as expected. Handpulling rates in 1951 ranged from o‘ $1.50 to $2.00 per hundred pounds of seed cotton; in 1952, the range was $1.50 to $1.75. The first kill-" ing frost in 1951 occurred October 31. In 1952, the first killing frost was on October 7. In 1951, irri-‘i gated cotton yielded .98 bale per acre; nonirrigated cotton, .27 bale. In 1952, irrigated cotton yielded. .83 bale per acre and nonirrigated cotton, .17 bale. ' The plentiful supply of labor and lower wage rates in 1952 reduced the economic advantage of strip-i ping. The early first frost in 1952 permitted farmers to machine-harvest their entire crop, or to handl it as they wished. The first frost in 1951 came after a large part of the crop had been handpulled. Light yields in 1952 made machine-harvesting relatively expensive, yet handworkers would have been unabl; to make subsistence wages in much of the nonirrigated cotton. ‘I Tenancy appeared in both the 1951 and 1952 surveys as an obstacle to the use of mechanized meth, ods, more so in 1951. The basic effect of tenancy evolves from the customary share-rental arrange ments in the area. Returns from a share-rented farm are divided between two parties. If either wan I ' to be certain of his money he will put on pressure to expedite the harvest. The pressure in favor o a early handharvesting is greatly reduced, however, if machine operations can begin early in the seaso" Landlords seriously object to machine-harvesting because it may result in grade losses and reduc their returns, while a saving in harvesting costs accrues only to the tenants. Recent analyses indicat ~ however, that grade losses are a matter of time of harvesting rather than of method. 1 The influence of tenancy on mechanization varies from year to year, depending on such fact0‘_ as the date when machine-harvesting can be started; the yield of the crop, particularly on nonirrig . ted acreages, and the proportion of irrigated and nonirrigated acreage farmed by tenants. ‘ Tenants stripped 26 percent of their cotton in 1951 and 41 percent in 1952; owners stripped -.; . and 45 percent of their cotton, respectively. The 1952 season indicates the proportion of machine-harvesting that tenants are likely to use wh’ they are under minimum pressure as to method of harvest. This proportion is approximately the sa" as that for owner-operators. ~ The 1951 season shows the effect of tenancy in a year when the frost comes late. Landlords f come anxious over grade losses and encourage tenants to handharvest. Tenants with small resour, also may prefer not to risk waiting to harvest by machine. ‘ Seasonal factors also influence the selection of harvesting methods by owner-operators, but t’. are better able to make their choice according to the economic advantage of one method over anoth; Farmers generally regard stripping as a method for the final clean-up rather than for the ent harvest. These atttitudes do not vary greatly with tenure groups. The method used by tenants mi be made to correspond more closely to their preferences if the economic disadvantages to landlords '. changed by revisions in rental contracts. These should afford protection to landlords in years of l frosts and consequent grade losses. Strippers in the High Plains were not put to maximum use in 1951 and 1952. If ginning facili g were adequate to handle all stripped cotton with little delay, strippers could be used nearer to t, capacity and farmers might be able to place more reliance on machine methods. = Present harvesting methods call for two distinct labor forces. Handpulling is done largely q seasonal workers who come into the area in crews from South and East Texas. Machine-harves operations are largely done by the farm family and regular hired workers. Sufficient employ must be provided for the hand workers to keep them coming in year after year. This necessarily, duces the extent of machine-harvesting. ” l ' Workers skilled in the operation and maintenance of mechanical equipment are of increasing portance. Yet the movement of such workers away from High Plains farms in 1951 and_1952 heavy despite special profit-sharing arrangements designed to hold them. ~ Tenure and ZVIee/oanization of the Cotton Hem/est, T exm H 1g]? Plaim WILLIAM G. ADKINS and WILLIAM H. METZLER* A SURVEY OF LABOR USE ON COTTON FARMS ON THE High Plains in 1951 indicated that manpower re- quirements had been greatly reduced through the use of mechanized harvesting equipment} Forty percent of the cotton crop in the sample counties, Lubbock and Crosby, was harvested mechanically in that year. The other 60 percent was handpull- ed by an estimated 58,000 workers. The use of mechanized equipment varied significantly, how- ever, from farm to farm and particularly with the tenure status of the farm operator. Full owners harvested more than two-thirds of their cotton by machine while tenants machine-harvested only one-fourth. This difference pointed to the need for a more intensive study of tenure aspects of cotton harvesting on the High Plains, especially to determine whether rental agreements or some other aspect of the tenure relationship restricted the use of mechanized methods in the harvest. THE 1951 AND 1952 SURVEYS The 1951 survey was designed to check the efficiency of manpower use in the tight labor situation that accompanied the conflict in Korea. It was made on the High Plains, which exempli- fied a labor-deficit area in which any sizable man- power deficiency might affect farm production. This survey indicated the importance of mechan- ized harvest equipment in reducing manpower l needs. It pointed up the important role that the 1 farm family and regular hired workers play on mechanized cotton farms. The results also point- ed to the land tenure system as an apparent cause ;_ for less machine-harvesting and consequently for a- less effective use of available manpower. . The major objective of the resurvey made during the 1952 season was to recheck the rela- igtionship between tenure status and mechaniza- tion of the harvest, and to ascertain whether ten- 7 ancy acted as a hindrance to the adoption of me- - chanized methods. The resurvey would also check the other significant factors that enter into the decision to harvest mechanically or by hand meth- ods. ‘*Respectively, associate professor, Department of Agricul- e tural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural Ex- ’ periment Station; and labor economist, Production Eco- nomics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. S1“Cotton and Manpower, Texas High Plains,” Joe R. Moth- eral, William H. Metzler and Louis J. Ducoff, Bulletin .5762, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 1953. The same farmers who had reported in 1951 were called on again in 1952 to obtain comparable results for the two seasons. Several factors af- fected the comparability of results of the 1951 and 1952 surveys. Returns were obtained in 1952 from only 294 of the 324 farmers who had re- ported in 1951. A few of the 1951 respondents had moved outside the survey area; others had lost their crops entirely because of adverse weath- er. A few more were away on business or could not be contacted for other reasons. Some farmers came under a different classi- fication in 1952 than they had in 1951. Two ten- C O N T E N T S Page Summary ___________________________________________________________ __ 2 Introduction ...................................................... __ 3 The 1951 and 1952 Surveys __________________________ __ 3 The 1951 and 1952 Seasons ___________________________ __ 4 Changes in Harvesting Methods, 1951 to 1952 ................................................. __ 5 Tenure and Methods of Harvest _________________ ,_ 5 Farmers’ Explanations for 1951 Harvest Patterns ............................ .. 6 Preferences as to Method of Harvest ......................................... .. 6 Reasons for Preferences ___________________ __ 7 Types Planted ....................................... ._ 8 Rental Arrangements ......................... .. 8 Irrigation and Yields as Factors in the Method of Harvest ..................................... ._ 9 Wage Rates as Factors in the Method of Harvest .............. ___________________ __ 10 Wage Rates, 1951 and 1952 ............. ._ 10 Labor Supply Aspects ................................... ._ 11 Source of Hand Labor ....................... __ 11 Labor Turnover ___________________________________ __ 11 Extension of Tenure Rights to Regular Farm Workers ............................ __ 12 Other Factors that Affect the Method of Harvest ..................................... ._ 12 Relationship of Tenancy to Other Factors .............................................. __ 12 Method of Sampling ....................................... __ 13 Acknowledgments ........................................... __ 14 Appendix ........................................................... .. 14 ants had become owners. Three full owners had rented land, so that in 1952 they were classified as part owners. The largest number of changes came because farmers increased their cotton acre- ages. In 1951, 27 percent of the farmers inter- viewed had less than 125 acres in cotton; in 1952 only 19 percent had less than that number (Table 1). The proportion of farmers who had medium- size acreages (125 to 249 acres) and large acre- ages (more than 250) each increased by 4 per- cent. Changes in size of farm operations were gen- erally in the direction of larger acreages in cotton. Cotton was highly profitable and, in addition, some farmers desired to build up a large acreage base in view of probable acreage allotments in fu- ture seasons. Sometimes this meant a reduction in land in grain sorghum, wheat or other crops; at other times it meant adding additional land to the farm or even moving to a different farm. Eleven of the operators contacted in 1951 were on different farms in 1952, 11 more had rented- in additional acres and 3 had bought more land. THE 1951 AND 1952 SEASONS Growing conditions on the High Plains vary from year to year, with changes in rainfall, in the blowout of crops and other weather factors. Harvesting methods must be adapted to yields, the size of the harvest labor force and the level of handpulling rates. The use of machine meth- ods also depends on the date of the first frost and the capacity of the local gins. Yields on the High Plains were good in 1951 but a severe labor shortage was anticipated. The Armed Forces and defense industries had taken many seasonal and regular workers out of the farm labor force. Furthermore, Texas farmers TABLE 1. CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE FARMS. LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1951-52 Number of {arms Percent of farms 1951 1952 1951 1952 — - Number — — — — Percent — — Farms reporting 324 294 100 100 Tenure of operator Full owners 97 99 30 34 Fczrt owners 78 47 24 16 Tenants and others 149 148 46 50 Size of cotton operation Large (250 acre and over) 110 113 34 98 Medium (125-249 acre) 126 125 39 43 Small (Under 125 acre) 88 56 27 19 Irrigationl None 96 74 3U 25 Up to hall 39 27 l0 9 Over half 119 75 37 26 All 76 118 23 40 lFigures relate to irrigation oi harvested cottonland. No re- cord was obtained on the irrigation of all acres planted or acreage abandoned. Abandonment oi nonirrigated acre- ages was not unusual in 1952. 4 had increased their cotton planting 75 percent ‘ over the previous year. The routes of migratory ‘ handharvesting crews lead first to South, then to . Central Texas and finally north to the High F Plains. Farmers on the Plains anticipated that only a trickle of the usual stream of harvest work- _ ers would arrive in time to handpull their cotton. . Many prepared to use artificial defoliants if an _ early frost did not defoliate their cotton. The anticipated labor shortage failed to de- ,1 velop. Drouth had resulted in light yields of cot- _ ton in all producing areas between the Lower Rio Grande Valley and the High Plains. Many farm-J ers on the High Plains, still apprehensive about‘ the labor supply, raised their picking rates dur- ing the season to attract and hold handpullin crews. . A second important aspect of the harvestf situation is the-weather. A killing frost or ’ series of light frosts is necessary to deaden th leaves and permit efficient stripper operatio About 10 days after such a frost, farmers cal begin to change from handsnapping to machin‘ harvesting. The average date for such a fros is November 4, but in some years it does not 0 l i cur until late in the month. In such years, col weather is likely to hamper farmers in comple a ing the harvest, and grade and price losses a, severe. In 1951, the first killing frost occurrf, on October 31 and strippers were in the fields b' November 10. The major problem was lack o, ginning capacity to handle all the cotton broug in from the strippers. So the season was fav" able and the harvest was practically complete r December 10. » The 1952 season followed a significantly ; ferent pattern. Plantings were heavier than 1951, but growing conditions were less favorab Yields across the State were expected to be r low normal; on the High Plains they were ex ted to be down by at least 20 percent. As a 1 sult, farmers had less concern about the adequ, of the labor supply. Doubts were still further‘ layed by increased facilities for bringing impo a labor onto the High Plains. The relatively ple ful supply of labor kept wage rates below i; of 1951. ‘Y The heavy frost of October 7 permitted , chine-harvesting to begin by the middle of tober. A frost that early in the season -' that High Plains farmers would be able to ha their entire crop by hand or by machine as wished. Their choice, however, was affected the fact that handsnappers were already at " in some fields, and that some farmers had alr made work commitments with crews for the p vest season, or at least for the first time the field. No doubt some tenants were co _' ted to landlords to handpull all or part of the 1 Irrigation also must be considered in an amination of 1951 and 1952 data. Much of th creased planting in 1952 was on marginal no ,1 gated land, which would yield a profitable return ~ only if rainfall was favorable. Actually, some of s this marginal acreage was abandoned because of the dry season and. only 16 percent of the 1952 ‘ crop was obtained from nonirrigated land. In 1951, moisture conditions were more favorable f‘ and more of the crop—27 percent—was from non- l irrigated acreages. CHANGES IN HARVESTING METHODS, 1951 TO 1952 Analyses of machine-harvesting costs for 1947, 1948 and 1949 indicated that machine-har- vesting of the entire crop, ordinarily had an eco- nomic advantage over handharvesting? Grade losses were more than offset by reduced harvest- ing costs; It was pointed out, however, that this economic advantage varied with several factors. Among these were the level of wage rates for handsnapping, the yield per acre of cotton and the size of a farm’s cotton acreage. These fac- tors may cause the economy of machine-harvest- ing to vary sharply from year to year. High Plains farmers in 1952 were in a posi- tion to weigh the economies of stripping versus handharvesting and to select the method that would yield the highest return. Their decision was neither to handharvest their entire crop nor to harvest it all by machine. Instead, most farm- jprs chose to go over all their good acreage by hand ind then to strip it by machine on the second time W61‘ the field. Acreages with light yields Were stripped by machine the first time over. ., Forty-two percent of all bales harvested were machine-harvested in 1952, as compared with 40 grcent the year before (Table 2). Yet since the ,1 op was lighter in 1952, fewer bales were strip- than in the previous year. Eight percent of ‘e farm operators handpulled all their cotton in f: conomics of Mechanical Cotton Harvesting in the High lains Cotton Area of Texas,” M. N. Williamson, Jr., Q. Morgan and Ralph H. Rogers, Bulletin 735, Texas Ag- 'cultural Experiment Station. 1951. both 1951 and 1952, but 16 percent stripped all their cotton in 1952, as compared with 8 percent in 1951. The percentage of farmers who com- bined handpulling with stripping, therefore was 84 percent in 1951 and 76 percent in 1952. The most striking shift in harvesting meth- ods was that full owners cut back on machine- harvesting while tenants increased their use of machines. Full owners machine-harvested only 45 percent of their cotton, as compared with 68 percent in 1951. Tenants machine-harvested 41 percent of their cotton, as compared with 26 per- cent in 1951. More strippers were in use on the sample farms in 1952 than had been used in 1951—241 as compared with 230-—but fewer bales were har- vested per stripper--65 as compared with 83 (Table 3). Apparently little effort was made to use strip- pers to their potential. In the 1952 season, they were used for an average of about 18 days. Count- ing use on the home farm only, one-fourth of the strippers were used for less than 10 days and one- third more for less than 20 days. Fewer than 10 percent were used for more than 30 days during the season. In other words, strippers were used by most farmers for cleanup work rather than to harvest the bulk of their crop. Use of strippers off the home farm was com- mon. Twenty-eight percent of the farmers used their strippers on one or more farms other than their own. The fact that only 16 percent of all bales stripped were from other than the home farms indicates that these jobs ordinarily were not large. TENURE AND METHODS OF HARVEST The fact that in 1951 owner-operators on the High Plains machine-harvested between two and three times as much of their cotton as did ten- ants stamps tenancy as a major obstacle to mech- anization of the harvest in the area. In that A LE 2. METHOD OF HARVESTING COTTON. BY IRRIGATION, SIZE OF FARM AND TENURE OF OPERATOR. SAMPLE 1 FARMS. LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1951-52 . _ _ Total Proportion of bales 1> grehm farm farm; Handpulled Handpulled VI 5116- 19111119 19911111119 first time second time Harvested ‘ over over by machine 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 1952 — — Number — — — — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — - 324 294 51 46 9 12 4O 42 type of land 195 193 52 47 9 13 39 40 mrrigated 129 101 49 40 9 4 42 56 ze oi tarm 1 10 1 13 52 45 13 12 35 43 126 125 36 48 7 1 1 57 41 88 56 78 41 6 13 16 46 owners 97 99 26 43 6 12 68 45 » owners 78 47 57 44 13 13 3U 43 149 148 64 48 10 1 1 26 41 TABLE 3. USE OF MACHINE-STRIPPERS IN THE COTTON HARVEST. SAMPLE FARMS. LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1951-52 Item 1951 1952 1951 1952 — — — Number — — — — — — Percent — — — Total farms surveyed 324 294 10D 100 Farms with strippers 218 226 67 77 Farms on which work with strippers was done 296 270 91 92 All work 28 46 9 16 Part oi it 263 224 83 76 None 28 24 8 8 Total strippers on sample farms 244 249 100 100 Strippers used 230 241 92 97 Farmers who used strippers on other farms 6O 63 28 28 Number other farms used on 90 89 Farmers who used strippers on One other iarm 43 46 20 2D Two other farms 12 13 6 6 Three or more iarms 5 4 2 2 Total bales harvested on home iarm with strippers 18.703 16.015 100 100 With own strippers 17.168 13,567 92 85 With custom strippers 1.535 2.448 8 15 Average number bales harvested per stripper 83 65 On home farms 75 56 On other farms 8 - 9 Average number of days on which each stripper was used 1 13-4 Days on home farm 1 16-5 Average bales harvested per stripper per day 1 3.5 lData ior 1951 not available. year, owners took advantage of a favorable eco- nomic margin associated with machine-harvest- ing. In contrast t0 tenants, they were in a posi- tion to use a stripper without clearing the decis- ion with another party and to buy a stripper with the knowledge that they would be able to use the machine if in the future stripping appeared to be profitable. The following year, the same group of own- ers and tenants machine-harvested approximately equal proportions of their cotton, which indicates that the relationship of tenancy to mechanization varies. In some years, tenancy appears to have litttle restrictive effect on the use of machine methods. The various factors that enter into a farmer’s choice of harvesting methods were ex- amined to discover these elements in this rela- tionship. These factors include tenure, yields, wage rates, labor supplies and weather. Fanners‘ Explanations for 1951 Harvest Patterns In 1951 owners machine-harvested a great deal more cotton than tenants. When the High Plains farmers were asked why this had occurred, 8'6 percent replied that landlords were likely to object to machine-harvesting. Fourteen percent gave other reasons, such as reluctance of tenants to invest in strippers and the belief that tenants need the money from the crop at an earlier date than do owners. One-third of the farmers gave no reason why they thought landlords might object to stripping; one-fifth said that landlords object to field and grade losses; 17 percent said the landlords objec- ted because they made less money if cotton was stripped; 10 percent said that landlords want their money as early as possible. Other reasons given 6 were that a tenant might not strip because hei would be charged more rent, landlords preferred“ to sell on an early market and some landlords felt < that stripping was harmful to the land. There were no significant differences between reasons. given by the various tenure groups. Preferences as to Method of Harvest Each operator in the sample was asked what _ harvesting method he preferred, assuming he had. a freedom of choice. The answers indicated con- siderable resistance to increased use of machine-- harvesting. Of the farmers, 62 percent preferred- to handpull all or part of the cotton acreage oncevi or more and then strip (Table 4). These opera- tors said the present stripper is designed for “scrapping” operations, and under normal cir- cumstances should be used for this purpose only. Another 16 percent preferred to handpull the en-g tire crop. Twenty-two percent would strip the; entire crop. Not included in these percentages)“ are 28 farmers who said they would choose the. most profitable method in any year. 1 Full owners expressed a preference for handi‘ pulling significantly more often than other tenj ure groups, with 22 percent making this choice; Only 13 percent of the tenants preferred hand, pulling. Tenants were more likely to prefer ta machine-harvest the entire crop than were own- ers and part owners. Slightly more than one- fourth of the tenants had this preference, as co pared with 22 and 12 percent of the owners w part owners, respectively. Table 4 compares the overall preference p q tern with the overall pattern of actual n; ,- used, but does not measure the success of indi a iduals in carrying out their preferred meth ; LE 4. METHOD OF HARVESTING PREFERRED AS COMPARED WITH METHOD ACTUALLY USED, . _ BY TENURE, LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUN- TIES, 1952 inure, expressed _ ‘(arena and All Method of harvestmgl thod actually operators ‘Handpull Handpull. Strip entire ‘ d entire crop than strip crop i; — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — f operators T Preferred 10o 1s s2 22 ; Used lUU 8 76 16 v owners ‘ Preferred lUU 22 56 22 . Used lUU 13 67 20 owners ‘ Preferred lUU 14 74 12 - Uged lUU 5 77 18 '- ants Preferred lUU l3 61 26 Used 100 6 14 only-eight farmers stated only that they preferred the profitable combination of methods in any year; three _these handpulled only, two stripped their entire crop and _ rest used a combination of methods. - patterns of preference and of actual use were ilar. Comparatively small proportions of the ~ ers preferred either handpulling only or strip- p»; only, and relatively few actually used each hod. Operators tended to prefer both hand- ing and stripping, and in each tenure group i. e farmers used this method than actually pre- i ed it. Of the owners, 56 percent preferred ndpull and then strip, while 67 percent used ' method. Eighty percent of the tenants hand- ed and then stripped, although only 61 per- would freely have chosen this method. >- Of the tenants, 26 percent preferred to strip r entire crop, but they were the least likely rry out this practice. The proportions of ers who preferred to use stripping only and actually did so varied only slightly. _ Farmers who preferred to use handharvest- nd stripping in combination were highly suc- ’ ul in following their preferences. Of the ifarmers who preferred this combination, 87 nt used it. Most of the remaining 13 per- machine-harvested all of their crop. The re groups differed little in the proportions 5 used their preferred method of handharvest- "and then stripping. Farmers who preferred either handpulling y, or stripping only had little success in carry- ‘tut their preferences. Forty percent of each T harvested according to their usual prefer- l’ Owners were slightly more likely to carry heir preferences than were part owners and t8. ns for Preferences Reasons given by farmers in support of their rences show disagreement as to the most table method. Most of the reasons given associated with higher profits. Some farm- ers simply wished to avoid labor problems; others were concerned with risk and harm to the land. Forty percent of the farmers who expressed a preference for handpulling their entire crop most often contended that a better grade would result (Table 5). These farmers also gave better price in the early market, the avoidance of storm risk and reduction of waste as reasons for prefer- ring to handpull the entire crop. Reasons for preferring to handpull first and then strip were similar to those for handpulling alone. Farmers who would prefer to machine- harvest some of their cotton, however, appeared to regard stripping as an effective “clean-up” method for low-yielding fields and for scrapping acreages already handpulled. They felt that the combination of handharvesting and stripping had the basic advantages of each method. Farmers who preferred to strip the entire crop said that the advantages of this method out- weighed the advantages of handpulling. Specif- ically, 46 percent thought that avoiding labor problems was an important reason for their pref- erence. Thirty-six percent said that the method was most profitable and, similarly, 39 percent gave a “cheaper harvest” as their reason. “To get cotton out of the field early” was often given as a reason for handpulling. This reason has many implications. A farmer may wish to minimize the risk of weather losses, he may want to take advantage of the higher prices ordinarily associated with an early market or he may be acting in response to a landlord’s wishes TABLE 5. REASONS FOR PREFERENCE AS TO METHOD OF HARVESTING COTTON, OPERATORS OF SAMPLE FARMS, LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1952 Farmers with each preferencel Handpull Handpull Strip Reasons for preference All entire then entire farmers crop strip crop Number — — — Percent — — — All farmers giving reasons? 282 lUU lUU lUU lUU Better grade 99 35 4U 44 U Better price in early market 47 l7 2U 21 U Less waste 52 18 28 22 0 Get cotton out of field early 29 1U 10 14 U More profit 42 15 8 1U 36 Cheaper harvest 54 19 U 17 39 Avoid labor problems 3U ll U 2 46 Other reasons3 39 14 33 13 12 ‘Percentages do not total lUU because some farmers gave more than one reason. 2Twelve farmers gave no reasons for their preference. 3Other reasons were that stripping hurts land, given by five farmers,- that landlords influenced decision, given by four farmers. Some farmers said that weather, the quantity and quality of the crop, the variety of cotton preferred and other similar facts affected their harvesting preference. for early harvesting. But there is another as- pect of this desire to harvest early. Many farm- ers prefer to have their money in their pockets as soon as possible. The crop still in the field is regarded as a “bird in the bush.” Many farmers and others familiar with the High Plains believe that this preference for early money is a most important reason for the continued large volume of handpulling. Types Planted The three broad types of cotton the High Plains farmers may plant are: open boll, which usually has longer staple and higher grade but is highly susceptible to storm damage; “storm- proof,” which has lower grade and shorter staple than open-boll but whose bolls remain almost closed, giving it protection against storm losses; and storm-resistant, whose characteristics fall between the stormproof and open-boll types. No distinction is made between stormproof and storm- resistant types in this study since farmers gener- ally place them in the same class. The type of cotton planted influences the method of harvesting. Open-boll types usually are handpulled at least one time over because of the risk of storm damage if harvesting is delayed until machine-harvesting can begin. Stormproof and storm-resistant types may be handharvested, but the farmer may wait for machine-harvesting with some assurance that losses from storms will be relatively small. Farmers of the High Plains, aware of these conditions of risk, fit their harvesting method to the varieties planted. Only 6 percent of the op- erators in the sample who planted all open-boll types stripped their entire crop. This proportion probably would have been even lower had not the very early frost allowed stripping at an early date. There also is the possibility that some open-boll types planted on nonirrigated land were machine- harvested because of poor yields. Twenty-five percent of those operators who planted all storm- proof or storm-resistant types stripped the entire crop. Four percent of the farmers with all storm- proof cotton handpulled their entire crop, as com- pared with 26 percent of the farmers with open- boll types only. Open-boll types were planted on about 22 per- cent of the cotton acreage of the sample farms in 1952 (Table 6). Part owners planted the largest proportion of open-boll cotton, 26 percent. There was no difference between proportions planted by owners and tenants; each tenure class had about 21 percent of its cotton acreage in open-boll types. Within tenure classes, size groups varied consider- ably in the type planted. Thirty-five percent of the acreages of owners of small farms and part owners of medium-size farms were planted to open-boll types while other tenure-size groups had much smaller proportions of open-boll cotton. These differences, however, were observed for relatively small acreages, and they may have been more closely related‘ to irrigation than to tenure 8 TABLE 6. COTTON ACREAGE PLANTED TO OPEN ‘ STORMPROOF TYPES ON SAMPLE FARMS, -. SIZE OF FARM AND TENURE OF OPERAT LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1952 Total cotton Type ot cotton Tenure and farm size acreage Open-boll Stormpr‘ Acres — — Percent — — A All tarms 72.658 22 78 l" Full owners 19,338 21 79 j. Large iarms 10,120 18 82 . Medium tarms 6,385 19 81 a Small farms 2,833 35 65 Part owners 15,915 26 74 Large farms 12,970 24 7B a Medium farms 2,713 35 65 i Small farms 232 0 100 l. Tenants and others 37,305 21 79; Large farms 22,552 24 76 Medium farms 13,102 14 86 K 75 Small farms 1,651 25 status. (Open-boll types are planted more 0f ; on irrigated than on nonirrigated lands.) i" Rental Arrangements l} If tenancy remains as an obstacle to incr ed use of machine-harvesting, a part of the ca must lie in the rental arrangement. It is beli ed generally that some alterations must be m, 1n customary rental arrangements before ten can gain additional freedom of choice as to _ vesting methods. Alterations are necessary A cause the landlord may receive less total when cotton is machine-harvested. (The =1; ages of machine-harvesting were stated by '1' liamson, Morgan and Rogers in their previo cited bulletin: “Owner-operators retain full vantage of the lower costs effected by mac use. On rented farms, the tenant benefited the landlord did not. Returns to landlords w, ing the study, excluding housing costs for mi ' labor, averaged $3 to $4 less per bale when ton was harvested mechanically.”) A pro alteration is that the tenant pay one-third l on cotton that is machine-harvested. This = gestion is impracticable because the economic; vantage of machine-harvesting is seldom 1f enough to allow an additional rent payme _, one-third over one-fourth. Assuming a val I $150 for a bale of cotton, a rent payment of, third would be $12.50 in excess of rent pa :7 of one-fourth. Thus, the labor saving to the‘. ant would need to exceed $12.50 a bale befo 1 could consider harvesting by machine. i Another proposal is that the tenant pa,‘ ginning costs on machine-harvested cottoni s, of the customary three-fourths. The reason’ that the fourth of the cost of ginning paid by the landlord approximates the lan i part of the loss of grade, staple, yield and market advantages when cotton is machin vested. l7 Detailed information on rental arrange .4 was not obtained in 1951. In 1952, howevj was found that relatively few tenants paid =1 ne-third rent on cotton or all of the ginning costs Table 7). Ninety percent of the tenants paid } e-fourth rent, 6 percent paid cash rent and 1 ircent paid one-third rent. Four percent were effect sharecroppers ; they received 50 percent 1r less of the crop. , Thirty-one of the rental agreements, or 13 rcent, called for payment of all ginning costs. “ teen of these, however, were cash tenants; us only 16, or about 7 percent, of the share ten- A ts paid all ginning costs. (About 85 percent of y, e share-tenants harvested at least a part of i. eir crop with a stripper.) The 1951 experience suggested that the free- ' m of choice of tenants as to method of harvest as restricted somewhat by previous agreements . th landlords as to types of cotton to be planted d method of harvesting to be used. However, 52 rental arrangements seldom included such “ecise agreements. Only 3 percent of the land- ; ds specified the type of cotton that the ten- should plant. (Specification of an open-boll e practically precludes machine-harvest as rm damage may occur before the cotton is dy for stripping.) About 11 percent of the landlords restricted e method of harvesting through explicit agree- ,nt with the tenant. Few of these, however, de- nded the use of handharvesting only. Most uired that the cotton be pulled at least one e over by hand. Although few landlords and {nants had specific agreements as to method of esting, many tenants reported that they were are their landlord preferred handpulling the st time over. A fairly large number of tenants were re- Jed to their landlords; this relationship may ac- j nt for some of the freedom of choice tenants ared to have. However, perhaps because of tited observations, there was little relationship I een type of landlord and nature of rental "g eements. IRRIGATION AND YIELDS AS FACTORS IN THE METHOD OF HARVEST Cost per bale for machine-harvesting cotton increases rapidly with lower yields. This can be observed from the comparative cost data compil- ed by Williamson, Morgan and Rogers for 1947, 1948 and 1949: COST PER BALE OF BALES PER ACRE MACHINE-HARVESTING Non- Non- Irrigated irrigated Irrigated irrigated land land land land 1947 0.95 0.44 $4.70 $ 7.85 1948 .80 .21 5.25 15.95 1949 .98 .61 4.90 6.90 These data apply to cost of stripping when there has been no previous pulling. Costs per bale for snapping are considerably higher. The authors calculated that it was advan- tageous for the farmers to machine-harvest all their cotton in the 2 good years, 1947 and 1949, but that handharvesting was more economical in the lean year, 1948. These data cannot be fitted directly to the years 1951-52, but they will serve as a rough yardstick. Average yields for these 2 years were: BALES PER ACRE Irrigated land Nonirrigated land 1951 0.98 0.27 1952 .83 .17 On the basis of yield, it appears doubtful that machine-harvesting had any advantage over hand- harvesting on nonirrigated land in 1951 and on either irrigated or nonirrigated land in 1952. Yet the method used cannot be based always on eco- nomic advantage. Data were compiled for 1952 on the proportion of the cotton on irrigated and on nonirrigated land that had been harvested by machine. Fifty-six percent of the cotton from ‘*1 7. RENTAL ARRANGEMENTS BY SHARE OR RENT PAID. LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES. 1952 Rental rate Rental A11 rental Cash 1/4 oi v, oi 1/2 oi arrangement agreements only crop crop crop Otherl 4 — — — — — — —— Number ———————— 237 15 212 5 2 ‘e oi ginning costs paid ~- tenant All 31 15 15 1 2 199 197 1 1 ; 2 2 l], 5 U 0 5 a oi understanding n varieties? Yes 7 5 1 1 i. No 228 15 205 3 4 1 "' method oi harvest v Yes 27 24 1 1 1 p. No 210 15 188 2 4 1 i- tenant paid one-iourth oi handpulled cotton and one-third oi machine-harvested cotton. . - tenants did not answer in regard to an understanding on varieties. TABLE 8. RELATIONSHIP OF IRRIGATION TO TENURE AND TO METHOD OF HARVESTING COTTON, LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1952 of and bales from tenure each type All Hand- Machine- O; land methods harvested harvested — — — — ——Percent—————— All bales 100 100 57 43 From irrigated land 84 100 60 40 Full ownersl 90 100 57 43 Tenants 82 100 63 37 From nonirrigated land 16 100 44 56 Full owners 10 100 39 61 Tenants 18 100 41 59 n lData are not shown separately for part owners. Eighty-two percent of their bales were from nonirrigated land. nonirrigated land had been harvested by machine, as compared with 40 percent from irrigated land (Table 8). Apparently many farmers went into their low-yielding fields with strippers Without trying t0 handpull. As tenants had a considerable acreage in nonirrigated cotton, they" may have been forced by circumstances to use machine methods in 1952. WAGE RATES AS FACTORS IN THE METHOD OF HARVEST The level of wage rates for handpulling has been a significant factor in promoting or delay- ing the adoption of machine harvesting. An abundant supply of labor at low wage rates in the 1930’s delayed the trend toward mechaniza- tion. As handpulling rates mounted in the last ‘decade, farmers reduced costs by changing over to machine methods. In recent years, however, Wage rates have begun to decline and farmers again are weighing the costs of one method against the other. Wage Rates, 1951 and 1952 Wage rates for the major seasonal opera- tions in cotton dropped from 1951 to 1952. The most common rate for chopping cotton in both seasons was 60 or 65 cents an hour. In 1951, how- TABLE 9. STARTING RATES FOR PULLING COTTON AND CHANGES DURING THE SEASON, SAMPLE FARMS, LUBBO AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1951 AND 1952 ever, 28 percent of the farmers paid above this i rate, as compared with only 11 percent in 1952. Beginning rates for cotton pulling in 19511 varied widely from farm to farm. Thirty-seven * percent of the farmers paid $1.75 per hundred- a weight of seed cotton, but 32 percent paid $1.50 A or less and 29 percent paid $2.00 or more ‘(Table I 9). Forty-four percent of the farmers paid $1.50, < the most common beginning rate for 1952. But i 35 percent paid $1.75 and 14 percent paid $2.00 ; or more. Fifty percent of the farmers raised rates in 1951. These increases might be associated with , a shortage of labor or the need to raise rates s when a crew moves on to fields having lighter; yields of cotton. Increases in rates were less numerous in 1952 despite the light yields. Only L 32 percent of the farmers raised their rates. In 1952, 13 percent of the farmers loweredf their rates in the season, as compared with onlyf 4 percent in 1951. Many farmers who paid $1.75 or more at the beginning of the 1952 harvest low-l ered their rates during the season. l I Pulling rates did not vary greatly with ten-é; ure of the operator or with size of the cotton o I eration (Appendix, Table A), but they differe materially on the basis of irrigation. Forty per,‘ cent of the farmers on nonirrigated or mainl . nonirrigated ‘farms paid $2 per hundred or abov for handpulling, as compared with only 6 percen of those farmers on completely or largely irri gated farms. But rates on 48 percent of the irri. gated farms were below $1.75, as compared Wit only 25 percent of the nonirrigated farms. ' The change in rates means that the econom‘ advantage of machine-harvesting declined co siderably from 1951 to 1952. The decline w, even more than that from the years 1947, 19 and 1949. which were used by Williamson, M0 gan and Rogers as a basis for their concluson The most common rates were approximately: Year First time over Second 1947 $2.25 $2.50 1948 1.75-2.00 2.00-2.25 1949 2.35 2.00 1951 1.75 1.75-2.00 1952 1.50-1.75 1.50-1.75 Proportion of farmers who Started at Paid starting rate Increased from Decreased from ? Starting rate indicated rate all seasonl starting rate starting rate ' § 1951 I 1952 1951 I 1952 1951 I 1952 1951 I 19521 - — — — ~ — — — — — — — ——Percent——-—-—---——--———, All farmers 100 100 46 50 32 4 13 A, $1.25 - 1.352 2 7 0 31 100 63 0 6 1.50 - 1.65 32 44 24 50 76 43 0 6 i: 1.75 - 1.85 37 35 53 51 45 23 2 25 .1 2.00 - 2.10 26 13 64 87 22 _ 3 13 7 ~ 2.25 and up 3 1 86 100 14 0 0 0 -, lMost increases and decreases were in terms of 25-cent intervals. A few were of 5 and 10 cents, a few were of 50 cents j one was of $1.00. 2Although these figures are given as a range, all except a few farmers paid the first rate mentioned. 10 l , Data for the second time over in 1951 and p 1952 are estimates on the basis of wage increases a madeduring the harvest season. A drop of 25 to 3O percent in handpulling grates can be effective in persuading farmers to . handpull, especially when there are handworkers in the area who are willing to work at the lower . rates. Williamson, Morgan and Rogers supplied fig- ures on handpulling rates which would be com- petitive with machine costs. These apply to the ispecial conditions of the 1948 season but they may be used here for comparative purposes. Competitive handpullin g rate Actual rate _ ' 1948 1952 Nonirrigated cotton j First time over $2.05 $1..75-2.00 . Subsequent pulling 2.31 ‘gated cotton First time over 1.48 1.50-1.75 f Subsequent pulling 1.69 No rates were obtained specifically, for “sub- lequent pulling” under “actual rate,” but they ould tend in the direction of the higher of the o rates given for the 1952 season. a The data indicate no extensive economic ad- antage of one method as over the other. Farm- , s could choose their method on the basis of con- enience, preference or circumstances of partic- ar tracts of land. LABOR SUPPLY ASPECTS Labor is a key item in the cotton harvest on e High Plains, regardless of the method of har- sting. Farmers have habitually expressed con- rn over the supply of handharvesters. They irned in the recent periods of military emer- _ncy, however, that capable machine operators Are even more vital to their farming operations. 1 The 1951 and 1952 surveys indicate remark- ly similar patterns of labor use (Appendix, ble B). Two distinct labor forces are used in - cotton harvest on the High Plains. Hand- lling is performed by hired ‘seasonal workers, st of whom are brought to the area in crews. hine-harvesting is largely a farm family or : lar hired labor operation. Evidently, High Plains farmers try to main- tain both types of labor force. In a season with a late frost, machines would be at a disadvantage and handpullers would be essential. Yet the flow of handworkers can be kept coming only if a de- pendable proportion of the job is reserved for them even in those seasons when the entire har- vest could be handled by machine. This practice necessarily limits the extent of machine-harvest- ing. Source of Hand Labor Seasonal migration of workers to the cotton harvest in the High Plains is well established. Yet the numbers that come and the time of their arrival depend on seasonal and crop factors, which makes reliance on them uncertain. Time of har- vest, earnings per day and similar factors at the locations in which they work before coming to the High Plains all play a part in their seasonal movement. The sources of harvest labor in 1951 and 1952 were similar. Approximately four-fifths of the workers were Latin-Americans, largely from South Texas; 10 percent were Negroes, some of whom came from East Texas and others from Lubbock; and a small percentage were Anglo- Americans, who also moved in from South Texas" (Appendix, Table C). In 1952, farm operators found it less neces- sary to recruit harvest workers than in 1951. Forty-five percent of the crews they hired came to their farms looking for work (Appendix, Table D). Thirty-eight percent of the crews were ob- tained in this way in 1951. These figures do not include 17 percent of the crews which had con- tinuing arrangements with farmers from year to year. The easier labor situation in 1952 is reflected in the fact that only 13 percent of the farmers gave lack of labor as a problem in 1952, as com- pared with 93 percent in 1951. Labor Turnover Loss of regular farm workers was ascertain- ed for the entire period, June 1950 to June 1953 (Table 10). A total of 77 left the sample farms in these 3 years, almost twice as many in the sec- ond part of the period as in the first. Forty-two . farm family workers also left the sample farms. Their movement was heaviest in the early part LE l0. NUMBER OF FAMILY AND REGULAR HIRED WORKERS WHO LEFT COTTON FARMS, IUNE 1950’ TO FEBRUARY ‘ 1952 AND MARCH 1952 TO IUNE 1953. LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES Total number of f _ k . on ‘or leaving wor ers leaving Members of farm operators family Regular hired workers ,_ Other reasons 7 14 Iune 1950- March 1952- Iune 1950- lVIarch 1952- Iune 1950- March 1952- Feb. 1952 Iune 1953 Feb. 1952 Iune 1953 Feb. 1952 Iune 1953 ; — — — — — — — Number — — — — — — — — - .workers leaving 52 ’ 67 27 25 17 To go into Armed Forces 27 11 7 5 2U 6 ; To go into noniarm iobs 10 28 5 18 5 10 l To take job on other farm 8 13 8 13 U U _ To farm ior self 0 1 D 1 U 0 ” 7 e 1s o 1 ll of the period, and most of them went into the Armed Forces. Movement to nonfarm employment is of par- ticular significance because ordinarily it means a permanent loss of skilled farm workers. Only 10 of the regular farm workers went into non- farm jobs in the early part of the period but 28 did in the latter part. Movement of farm family workers to nonfarm work also increased. Turnovers of handpulling crews is a problem particularly on farms with light yields. Yet it was less common in 1952 than in 1951. In 1951, approximately one-third of the crews left before their jobs were complete and in 1952 only one- fifth did so. Possibly farmers did not want to keep their handworkers as long as usual in 1952 because of the early frost. EXTENSION OF TENURE RIGHTS TO REGULAR FARM WORKERS As the use of machine methods calls for work- ers who are skilled in the maintenance and opera- tion of the machines, farmers have devised spe- cial methods to keep such workers. One method common on the High Plains is to give them a share of the crop in addition to their regular cash wages. Persons who were paid in this way were regarded as regular hired workers rather than as sharecroppers. Yet enough of the sharecropper arrangement had been borrowed to stimulate a special interest in the operation of the farm bus- iness and to get the worker to stay through the entire crop season. Of 187 regular hired farm workers on whom reports were obtained, half were paid on a strict- ly cash basis. Uusually their pay was by the hour, but pay on a daily or monthly basis also was common. The most frequent rate of pay on an hourly basis was 60 cents; on a daily basis, $6; on a monthly basis, $150. These workers also frequently received housing and other perquis- ites. The other half of the regular farm workers received some share of the crop in addition to their cash wages. The cash wages these workers received usually were somewhat lower than if they hadr been paid in cash alone. This usually was on a monthly basis of around $100, but some workers were paid on an hourly, daily or weekly basis. In addition, they received a share of the proceeds of a given acreage of land. The shares varied so greatly that no common pattern can be presented. Typical shares were: 100 percent of the cotton from 5 to 25 acres. 75 percent of the cotton from 10 to 50 acres and 50 percent of the cotton from 2O to 100 acres. In general, workers paid their shares of cash costs of producing cot- ton on these acreages. A few workers received no cash wage; they were paid in a share of the crop only. They were regarded by the operators as hired workers, how- ever, rather than as sharecroppers. 12 Even though, in practice, such workers not tenants but workers who receive a bonus i’ kind, they have some tenure rights in a certa' acreage for the balance of the crop season. Thi hybrid type of arrangement increases labor costs However, it appears to be especially well adapt to mechanized High Plains cotton farms, on whic there is a special need for capable and dependabl regular farm workers. OTHER FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE ' METHOD OF HARVEST Size of operation is an important factor . r fecting the use of mechanical methods. Sm, operators machine-harvested only 16 percent v. their cotton in 1951, but in 1952 they had t highest proportion of machine-harvested—46 pe cent (Table 2). Small operators had most of thel" cotton handpulled before frost in 1951. Appa ently their lack of resources caused them to wa to make sure of a return. In 1952, they cou machine-harvest and still be sure of their retur Lack of ginning capacity also acts as a li 1. iting factor on machine-harvesting. Ginning .-~ pacity is approximately one-third of the capaci j of the strippers in these two counties?’ Yet would not be practicable financially for ginnef to step up ginning capacity to handle the outpl from all strippers in the area. Farmers disli to pile their seed cotton in the fields but this commonly done in the machine-harvesting peri Other farmers operate their strippers only as th” are able to get their trailers back from the gi " Some said they hauled their cotton as much , 65 or 70 miles to get it ginned and get their tray ers back in the field. Several of these factors point to the impo ' ance of the time element. Probably the most '9 portant effects are the losses in grade and , price as the season advances. Studies indica that loss in grade is a matter of time and i weather rather than of method of harvestii Cotton drops approximately 1 grade in quali for each 4 weeks it is left in the fieldx‘ farmers want to take advantage of high. ear, season grades and-prices. Probably this is y important to small operators, to tenants and landlords than it is to larger operators and, those who do not need to share their proce with someone else. ‘ . RELATIONSHIP OF TENANCY TO OTHER FACTORS To sum up the relationships between tena and other factors involved in the use of mach‘ methods, it is likely that owners stripped a sm‘, 3“Storing of Seed Cotton As an Aid to More Efficent _ ning and Marketing,” J. M. Ward, W. E. Paulson and? L. Jones, Bulletin 765, Texas. Agricultural Experi Station. 1953. “Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton as Affected by V etal Characteristics and Other Factors,” H. P. Smith} T. Killough, D. L. Jones and M. H. Byrom, Bulletin 1 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 1939. ' oportion of their cotton in 1952 for at least three asons. First, it was evident Well before the 52 harvest began that workers would be rela- yely plentiful, as cotton yields were light along e migratory labor routes that led to the High gins. The plentiful labor supply materialized, ‘d owners were in a position to exercise their 1 ferences as to harvest method. Seventy-eight “rcent of the owners expressed the preference n handharvest all or part of the crop if labor is ailable.” (Eighty percent of the owners fol- ‘wed this practice.) , Secondly, the supply of labor was relatively ntiful, wage rates were lower in 1952 than in 1. Costs of stripping remained about the same tended upward. Thus, the economic advantage - stripping was greatly reduced, and owners likely to reduce their use of strippers. A third reason for the reduction in stripping ‘ owners may lie in the early maturity of the lds in 1952. The October 7 frost halted the turing process of the cotton plants. Fairly ly in the cotton harvest season bolls quit grow- ;; and began to open. Owners were still exer- ing their preference to handharvest at least a of their crop. This operation may have re- ted in the handharvesting of a greater part of total‘ yield than it would have if the frost had ‘e on the average date of November 4 and the , on had matured later. In other words, the ;]dharvest operation in 1952 left a smaller part Flthe crop to be stripped than was the case in ;» 1. ' Tenants were affected by the same factors 'ch led owner-operators to strip less cotton in I‘ than in 1951. But the unusually early kill- frost which resulted in owners stripping less n may have brought about more stripping by nts. Stripping which comes later in the sea- ' presents three major obstacles to its use by nts. It causes landlords to wait longer for 'r rent, to lose the price advantage associated h early marketing and to stand to lose grade, le and yield through prolonged exposure of cotton to weather. The early frost of 1952 f itted stripping at about the same time hand- pping was getting well underway. Tenants, Y did not have these objections, were free to p more cotton. a The economic advantage of stripping, how- , was still positive in 1952 for many fields ‘- for many operators. Those tenants who had 1e extra freedom of decision took advantage a is positive margin. If the economic advant- __ had be greater, they might have wanted to Oven more stripping. '_The reactions of tenants to a favorable sup- 30f labor was probably much like that of own- perators. Seventy-four percent of the tenants rally preferred to handharvest at least a part heir crop. In 1952, 86 percent followed this practice. If harvest workers had been less plen- tiful, tenants probably would have preferred to use strippers more. An additional characteristic of the 1952 sea- son tended to bring about increased use of strip- pers by tenants. Yields from nonirrigated cot- tonland dropped from 0.27 bale per acre in 1951 to 0.17 bale in 1952. Much nonirrigated cotton was too poor to harvest by hand and was stripped or abandoned. This factor tended to increase stripping by both owners and‘ tenants. Owners stripped 61 percent of their nonirrigated cotton and tenants 59 percent. Tenants, however, had 50 percent of their total cotton acreage on non- irrigated land, while only 41 percent of the own- er-operators’ cotton was nonirrigated. Low yields on nonirrigated land had more effect on the har- vest practices of tenants than on those of owners. Tenants may have increased their use of strippers for reasons that could not be ascertain- ed adequately in two brief surveys. It is likely that a portion of the lag in harvesting methods associated with tenure is disappearing. Land- lords probably are becoming more tolerant of ma- chine-harvesting, at least as a clean-up or scrap- ping device, or landlords may now realize that... grade is not always lowered by machine-harvest- ing. Tenants and landlords may have adopted lease revisions which provide that landlords are to be compensated for whatever losses they may incur when tenants choose to strip their cotton. This possibility is not borne out by information obtained on 1952 rental arrangements, but com- pensation or other revisions could have been pro- vided for in “informal” agreements. METHOD OF SAMPLING Area sampling was used as the basis for se- lecting the farmers interviewed in the 1951 sur- vey. According to the master sample of agricul- ture, there were 626 sample segments in Lubbock and Crosby counties. From these, a geographi- cally stratified random sample of 96 segments was selected. All cotton producers with farm head- quarters inside these segments were included in the sample. The sampling rate, therefore, was 15.3 percent. In 1951, schedules were obtained for 324 of a total of 372 farms identified in the sample seg- ments. In 1952, an effort was made to obtain a report from each farmer who had been interview- ed the previous year. Reports were obtained from 294, or 91 percent, of the 1951 respondents. Nonrespondents included those who had moved outside the sample counties, those who had pro- duced no cotton in 1952 because of adverse weath- er and those who still had holdings in the sample area but who could not be located. Some of the data for 1951 were expanded into area totals. No attempt was made to ex- pand the 1952 data. l3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are indebted to Joe R. Motheral tural Experiment Station, for his valuable ass of the Production Economics Research Branch, ance in the technical phases of the punch- 1 Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department operation for this project, and to Buis T. In ~- of Agriculture, for initiating the 1952 followup and E. Lee Langsford, Production Economics i, survey and for his review of the data; to R. L. search Branch, Agricultural Research Service, _, Smith, Jr., statistical supervisor, Texas Agricul- assistance in the analysis. . APPENDIX TABLE A. COTTON-PULLING RATES PAID FOR THE GREATEST PART OF SEASON AS RELATED TO IRRIGA'1'ION. p OF FARM AND TENURE, SAMPLE FARMS, LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1952 ' All Percentage oi iarmers who paid designated rate ior greatest i‘ Irrigation. size oi iarm, tenure farmers part oi season A" i 1.25 - 1.35 1.50 - 1.65 1.75 - 1.85 2.00 - 2.10 and —- — -— — — -- — — Percent — — — — — — — 7 All iarms 100 3 39 43 15 By irrigation Mostly irrigated 100 3 45 46 6 Mostly dryland 100 0 25 34 41 Acres in cotton Large 100 4 39 41 16 Medium 100 _ 1 44 43 12 Small 100 3 29 47 21 Tenure Owners 100 4 35 45 16 Tenants 100 2 43 41 l4 TABLE B. PERCENTAGE OF COTTON OPERATIONS PERFORMED BY SPECIFIED TYPES OF LABOR. SAMPLE F A LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1951-52 f Percentage oi operation performed by each type oi labor Operation and type All iarms Small iarms Medium iarms Large iarmlf, oi labor used 19511 19522 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 — — — — — — — — — — — ——Percent —~———-—————-- Cultivating 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Operator and family 59 61 85 80 74 78 49 Regular hired labor 32 37 4 18 19 21 42 Local seasonal 8" 2 9 2 5 1 9 Other 1 2 2 0 Hoeing and chopping 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Operator and iamily 9 ll 29 33 15 16 4 Regular hired labor 11 14 1 11 9 14 13 Local seasonal 39 34 48 27 38 37 38 Migratory 41 41 22 29 38 33 45 Handpulling 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Operator and iamily 2 1 9 12 1 2 1 Regular hired labor 3 6 2 5 2 2 4 Local seasonal 13 12 25 14 14 13 11 Migratory 82 81 64 69 83 83 84 Stripper operation 1003 100 100 100 100 100 100 Operator and iamily 46 48 50 54 48 60 45 Regular hired labor 25 29 2 8 12 13 34 Local seasonal 16 6 20 12 22 5 13 Migratory 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 Exchange 1 6 2 0 Custom l0 15 19 25 14 19 7 lAverages weighted by average size oi iarm in each size group: small, 77.8 acres in cotton: medium, 178.7 acres in: and large, 477.6 acres in cotton. Percentages are shown as a total oi each operation, exclusive oi iarms on specific operation was not periormed. On 1 percent oi the sample iarms there was no hoeing or chopping; on 9' no handpulling; and on 9 percent no machine-stripping. Cultivating was done on all iarms. _ - ZPercentages weighted by average size oi iarm in each size group: small, 84.1 acres: medium, 178.4 acres; large. 40 3Less than 1 percent oi stripping operation was done by exchange. Most oi this occurred on medium-size iarms. sidered in percentages. ’ “Less than 0.5 oi 1 percent. 14 ABLE C. PERCENTAGE OF HARVEST CREW WORKERS FROM SELECTED HOME BASE AREAS, BY TYPE OF WORKER. 1 LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES, 1951-521 -Home base All workers? Anglo-American Latin-American Negro Others 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 1952 ; — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — —- — — — fl bases 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU Lubbock 8 5 8 7 4 3 4U 16 U U Other places on High Plains 5 8 11 2U 5 8 5 1U U U A East Texas 7 7 38 4 2 2 36 51 U 5 ._T South Texas 67 68 27 54 78 8U 9 6 U 0 ;~ Elsewhere in Texas 3 3 2 11 3 2 7 14 U U § Other states 1 1 7 U 1 3 U 1 0 5 1 Outside U. S. 2 3 U U 0 U U U 93 9U . Don't know 7 5 7 4 7 5 3 2 7 U , centage o1 workers of each type 1UU 1UU 4 8 83 79 11 1U 2 3 lies only to crews in handpulling. 1952. 6.837 crew workers were employed on the sample farms; 553 were Anglo-Americans, 5,383 were Latin-Americans, 682 g re Negroes and 219 were “other." including Mexican Nationals. l_ s than 0.5 of 1 percent. i“ D. METHOD OF OBTAINING COTTON-PULLING CREWS, SAMPLE FARMS. LUBBOCK AND CROSBY COUNTIES. 1951-52 Crews by size of farm ‘ Type of crew A od ol recruitment and year All Anglo- Latin- 1 crews Small Medium Large American American Negro —— — — — — — — Percent — — —- — — — — — ; crews 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU 1UU ffCrew came to farm-1951 38 38 41 35 43 38 43 5* 1952 45 47 48 42 51 44 48 ‘A Operator located crew-1951 38 41 36 38 39 38 37 l ' 1952 30 33 33 28 27 31 33 Continued arrangement from A previous year—l95l 17 18 13 22 15 18 18 1952 17 7 15 21 9 18 15 i Other crews—l951 7 3 1U 5 3 6 2 A 1952 8 13 4 9 13 7 4 15 State-wide Research c, The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station is the public agricultural research agency“ oi the State of Texas, and is one of ninej Location of field research units in Texas main- ta" d b the T xas Ag‘ ult ral Ex ‘m t - ‘ sthiion dim coopzrating iilgeniiies pen en parts oi the Texas AtSM College System . IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subject-matter departments, 2 se: departments, 3 regulatory services and the administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural . of Texas are 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 cooperating stations o, by other agencies, including the Texas Forest Service, the Game and Fish Commission of Texas, the Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technological College and the King Ranch. y‘ experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. RESEARCH BY THE TEXAS STATION is organized by programs and projects. A program of research r sents a coordinated effort to solve the many problems relating to a common objective or situation. A Search project represents the procedures for attacking a specific problem within a program. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 550 active research projects, grouped in 25 programs whi clude all phases of agriculture in Texas. Among these are: conservation and improvement of soils; servation and use of water in agriculture; grasses and legumes for pastures, ranges, hay, conservatio improvement of soils; grain crops; cotton and ot-her fiber crops; vegetable crops; citrus and other vi cal fruits; fruits and nuts; oil seed crops-other than cotton; ornamental plants—including turf; brus: weeds; insects; plant diseases; beef cattle; dairy cattle; sheep and goats; swine; chickens and turkeys mal diseases and parasites; fish and game on farms and ranches; farm and ranch engineering; far ranch business; marketing agricultural products; rural home economics; and rural agricultural econ Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central services. RESEARCH RESULTS are carried to Texas farm and ranch owners and homemakers by specialists and i agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.