MAY I 963 Alternative Uses for Resources in Part-time Farming In Northeast Texas THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS ' TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. E. PATTERSON, DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Contents Summary ................................................................... ._ 2 Purpose of Report .................................................. .. 3 Framework of Analysis ........................................ .. 4 l Methods of Study ............................................ .- 4 Alternative Farm Enterprises Considered 4 Level of Management and Technology Assumed ................................ .. 4 Production Practices ........................................ .. 5 Prices ................. ... .............................................. .. 5 Situation A—-Farm Operator with Full-time Off-farm Work Opportunities ...................... .. 6 Present Organization ...................................... .. 6 Present Farm Resources and Returns ...... .. 6 Enterprise Combinations Considered .......... .. 6 All Resources Limited to Present Level ........................................ .. 7 Investment Capital Unlimited ................ .. 8 Investment Capital and Operating Capital Unlimited ............ .. 9 Farm Resources Required for Adequate Employment of Available Farm Labor ........................ .. 10 Resources Required To Use Present Off-farm Labor in Farming .............. .. 10 Situation B-Farm Operator with Medium- level Off-farm Work Opportunities .............. .. 11 Present Organization ........................................ ..11 Enterprise Combinations Considered .......... .. 12 All Resources Limited to Present Level.. 12 Investment Capital Unlimited ................ .- 12 Investment Capital and Operating Capital Unlimited ............ .. 13 Employment of Family Labor ............ .. 13 Situation C-Farm Operator with Low-level Off-farm Work Opportunities ...................... .. 14 Present Organization ...................................... .. 14 Enterprise Combinations Considered .......... -. 14 All Resources Limited to Present Level.. 14 Investment Capital Unlimited ................ .. 15 Investment Capital and Operating Capital Unlimited ............ .. 15 Situation D—Farm Operator without Off-farm Work Opportunities ...................... .. 16 Present Organization ...................................... .. 16 Enterprise Combinations Considered .......... .. 17 All Resources Limited to Present Level.. 17 Operating Capital Unlimited .................. -. 18 Investment Capital and Operating Capital Unlimited ............ .. 19 Conclusions and Recommendations .................... .. 19 Definitions of Budget Items ................................ .. 21 Bibliography .......................................................... .. 21 Summarq The accumulation of economic resources represents impor investments to part-time farmers in Northeast Texas. Acc0r' to a 1955 survey, part-time farmers controlled about‘ 40 erc of all farm and lanifresources 1n the area and accounted for m '_ an a 1r org he vaue o arm prucs II at home, the rental value of the dwelling, appreciation in 1 values and rent from mineral rights constituted an impo source of returns from farm investments. Monetary returnsf farm operations, however, constituted only a small part of total income of these part-time farmers. As organized on m part-time farms, enterprise operations were not profitable. An analysis of four representative part-time farming s' ations indicates that greater returns are possible through a organization of the present resources. These returns are :0 by total income standards and would suffice only as a sup mental income. The level of net returns (returns to land, la management and risks) from present resources ranges from low of $417 for one representative situation to a high 0f $ for another typical part-time farm situation. Returns to capital and labor represented by these situat are low. This is emphasized by comparing returns from ren out the land (reserving the dwelling and other buildings H. acres) with returns from other farm plans. In the situat analyzed, renting out would require only $41 operating capital 80 hours of labor, yet it would return incomes of $255 to $408 1 year. These compare favorably with incomes of $417 to from farming operations. On the average part-time farm in the area, the level of =-. used is the most limiting resource in planning for higherf returns from more efficient farm organization. With the higher, yet practical, levels of capital, net returns can be exp to range from $1,000 to more than $1,200. - The labor and land resources available on most part- farms cannot be utilized efficiently without the additional I? relatively high capit'al resources and the assumption of high in addition to different management practices. The represen a farm with most available labor would require about‘ $14,000 av investment capital (excluding the value of land) and $1 operating capital to utilize fully available land and labor. requirements for utilization of available labor and land ‘ch for the representative farm with the least available labor Q be about $9,300 average investment capital and $10,000 ope a capital. The expected net returns under these conditions are$ and $1,600, respectively a The 1955 survey showed considerable unemployment of l? able family labor on many part-time farms in the area. Reo zation of current farm resources would lead to greater effi A and returns, but even less labor would be required for f l operations. Even with the use of higher levels of farm ‘c: _ than available on most part-time farms, the returns to family ‘ from off-farm work activities are greater than those possi any farm activities considered. - Considering the resources on most farms in the area. time off-farm work (a 40-hour-per-week job) by the farm 0- l would not prevent farm reorganization for the greatest r A from farming. This suggests that both part-time andf farmers might find it profitable to work full-time off the if possible. t MAJOR CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AGRICULTURAL " INDUSTRY TODAY is the existence of many l families whose major family income is from rces other than farming. Technological, nomic and social factors have resulted in an ensive rural pattern of living and land utili- ion commonly referred to as part-time farming. Sis report is concerned with resources used in -time farming in a particular area of low- income and low-farm production. The area typical of low-farm income areas throughout - nation. Consequently, the findings and con- i ions of this study probably can be expanded reflect the part-time farming situation of a ader area. PIIRPUSE 0F REPURT l This report is one of a series dealing with - characteristics, economic problems and de- opment potentials of rural families in an im- . tant 24-county area of Northeast Texas (U. S. 1 sus Economic Area XII, sometimes referred as the Northeast Texas sandy lands type-of- ing area). The first report—a broad entation study-—dealt with human and physical ource characteristics, size and distribution , rn of family incomes and specific types of 'ustment problems of rural families in the A subsequent report examined the char- eristics of part-time farmers in the area—their ce and importance in the economy, their em- yment and under-employment characteristics, ‘ the economic returns they currently Were iving from the control or ownership of farm ources? , The principal purpose of the study was to ealyze alternative uses for farm resources under ious conditionsigof part-time farming in the ricultural economists, Economic Research Service, U. S. partment of Agriculture, cooperating With the Texas ;; cultural Experiment Station, Co-llege Station, Texas. uthern, John H. and Hendrix, W. E., Incomes of Rural milies in Northeast Texas, Texas Agricultural Experi- t Station Bul. 940, 1959. rtin, James R. and Southern, John H., Part-time Farm- -_ in Northeast Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment tion Bul. 970, 1961. Alternative llses tor Resources in Part-time Farming in Northeast Texas James R. Martin and John H. Southern’? area. More specifically, answers to the following questions were sought: (1) What level of farm returns could be expected from alternative uses of the farm re- sources currently used in part-time farming? (2) Considering the current level of farm resource use, what specific resources were most restrictive to obtaining greater returns from farming with good farm organization practices? (3) With various farm organization prac- tices, what level of farm returns could be expected from using more resources than those currently available? (4) Could part-time farm family labor cur- rently available for farmwork be utilized ade- quately in farming? (5) Under what conditions would available family labor and land resources become limiting factors to higher farm income? (6) What are the implications of the find- ings for families engaged in part-time farming, the economy of the area and program policies for utilizing and developing resources in the area? The findings of the previous studies indi- cated that part-time farming in the area is im- portant from the standpoint of the number of families, the large amounts of farm resources involved and the accompanying underemployment of labor resources. Furthermore, the accumula- tions of farm resources by part-time farmers represent important investments. As investors these operators receive returns to their resources that are important and perhaps adequate in terms of current interest rates. However, the returns received as a result of farming are insignificant in the total income picture of the families in- volved. In other words, monetary and non- monetary returns in the form of farm perquisites (value of farm products used in the home and rental value of dwelling), value of land appreci- ation, mineral rent income and such, are im- 3 portant to part-time farmers, but these returns do not result from farm enterprise operation or from the sale of farm products. In general, under the present organization of most part-time farms in the area, the returns to farm resources speci- fically used for farm enterprise operations (production and sale of conventional farm prod- ucts) are not profitable. Since this situation exists, the need is apparent for further investi- gation on alternatives that would provide more profitable uses of the farm resources involved in part-time farming. FRAMEWURK 0F ANALYSIS Methods of Study The procedure for analysis included three basic steps: (1) Selection of several farm situations typical of part-time farming in the area, and establishment of representative farm resource levels and labor use conditions for these typical farm situations. (2) Development of budgets (production requirements, costs, product outputs and such) for various feasible enterprises as alternative ways of using resources on part-time farms. (3) Analysis of resource use and returns resulting from most desirable farm organization and conditions suited to the typical part-time farming situations. The first step of the procedure was accom- plished in a study of part-time farming which analyzed primary data obtained by survey records taken in 1956 (TAES Bulletin 970). Part-time farming includes a wide range of situations. Consequently, operators were divided into four groups—Situations A, B, C and D—based on the extent of off-farm work activities. This classifi- cation divided the operators into fairly homo- geneous groups—farm operators and families with similar conditions and adjustment problems. The part-time farm situations examined in this report represent the average resource situations of these four groups of part-time farms. The second step involved the development of enter- prise budgets to establish a framework for the analysis of farm income potentials of part-time farm operators having different sets of produc- tive resources. The data for developing the budgets were obtained from published and un- published research data, and by consultation with production specialists of the Texas Agricultural 4 Experiment Station and Extension Service (see Bibliography) . The budgets represent imput-output relation- ships, costs and returns for enterprise operations presently feasible on part-time farms in the area. They were not developed to set a stajndard for production techniques. The detailed budgets are, presented as a separate appendix to this report. Since every producing unit is different, the budgets as developed probably would not exactly fit any specific situation. In several instances, information necessary to complete the budgets was not available for Northeast Texas. Such data‘. developed in production studies for other areas‘ of Texas and in other states were modified for application to the study area. ‘ The third step-analysis of returns from- alternative uses of part-time farm resources- was accomplished by using a method of produc- tion programming. This involved a mathemati : procedure to describe maximum and condition maximum income possibilities with given combi nations of farm resources.“ Alternative Farm Enterprises Considered In the analyses of farm income possibiliti the following enterprises were considered = alternative uses of part-time farm resour w cow-calf, sheep, swine, broilers, commercial e_ production, turkeys, timber and renting out ~ land. Different levels of inputs were conside for the cow-calf and sheep enterprises, includi high and medium levels of management for ~ proved pasture, tame pasture and woods pastu Feeder pigs and market hog production en 5 prises, and production of broilers on both a no contract and contract basis, were considered, separate enterprises. '- Only budget summaries for the enterp 1; finally included in the farm organization structv of the various situations analyzed are presen in this report (Table 1). (See Definitions Budget Items, page 21) Level of Management and Technology Assu l The level of management assumed in y analysis is one that can be used currently on u} part-time farms in the area. Superior ma f ment abilities or the use of advanced techno were not considered. ' “Many references are available on Linear Program For example, Earl O. Heady and Wilfred Candler, L Programming Methods, Iowa State College Press, " Iowa, 1959. Farm operators should use information on roved practices and advanced production tech- , es to develop their particular farm enterprise vities. New technology constantly is being eloped and used by farmers in the area. The . ets in this report represent only feasible rnative production techniques with average agement and current practices for the various rprises considered. Production Practices ~ Livestock budgets assume that all feed con- Trates are purchased from retail feed dealers. ever, farmers with the necessary machinery equipment should consider the savings pos- q from using some feed concentrates produced he farm. High-level improved pasture assumes seeding :1 recommended grasses and clovers, a high I. of fertilization and adequate weed control. ium-level improved pasture assumes the same Itices with a lower level of fertilizer use. All roved pasture operations such as seeding, lization and mowing are custom hired. A The land-renting enterprise assumes that operator rents out all land except the dwelling h 5 acres of open land under a 10-year lease agreement. Improved fences, pens and storage are assumed adequate for cow-calf operations and should be kept in good repair by the owner. Prices Price data published by the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Serv- ice, Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Austin, Texas, were used to derive most of the input and product prices used to develop the budgets. In some instances, price data from “Agricultural Prices,” published by the Statistical Reporting Service, were used. Average 1960 prices were adjusted to fit local situations and conditions. Many farm operators organize their live- stock enterprises to take advantage of higher seasonal product prices. Some also may be able to purchase input items at lower prices than those assumed in this analysis. These possibilities should not be overlooked by individual farm operators. Such economies, however, were not assumed in the study. The enterprise budgets used represent production conditions feasible to part-time farm operators as a group. A different set of price assumptions would have been used if budgets were designed to represent optimum production techniques. I 1. BUDGET SUMMARIES OF ENTERPRISES INCLUDED IN FARM ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF THE VARIOUS SITUATIONS ANALYZED Resource requirements Annual costs and returns Returns . . Average . Annual Non- investment‘ required expenses expenses —- -— Dollars -— —- Hours Acres -— —- —- -— — Dollars — — —- -— - alt igh-Ievel improved pasture cow 204.00 53.42 15.0 2.22 93.34 39.92 17.44 22.48 ; edium-Ievel improved pasture cow 204.00 43.37 15.0 3.29 90.04 46.67 17.14 29.53 ome pasture cow 204.00 34.40 15.0 8.74 80.64 46.24 16.87 29.37 = ooded pasture cow 204.00 34.40 15.0 27.27 58.59 24.19 16.87 7.32 igh-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 354.97 350.0 10.45 595.67 240.70 120.11 120.59 . ium-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 308.94 350.0 15.63 556.14 247.20 118.73 128.47 dine pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 233.26 350.0 41.52 505.79 272.53 116.46 156.07 I (noncontract) 4 2,181.25 8,525.34 700.0 .20 9,777.60 1,252.26 685.39 566.89 , acre ‘ .ao 1.s 1.0 9.60 s.so 7.22 1.5a nd out motion A 884.26 40.68 80.0 168.0 620.00 579.32 171.04 408.28 tualion B 884.26 40.68 80.0 151.0 555.00 514.32 171.04 343.28 tuation C 884.26 40.68 80.0 140.0 536.00 495.32 171.04 324.28 D 884.26 40.68 80.0 146.0 457.00 426.32 171.04 255.28 tuation i not include the value of land. _' pasture. _ turns to land, labor, risks and management. es tour broods of 5,000 birds each. 4' es that no additional investment capital is needed. "ition to pastureland, each cow-calf unit requires 0.02 acre of openland not in pasture; each 30-ewe unit requires 0.1 acre of openlancl Within the framework of assumptions out- lined, four typical resource situations were analyzed: A. Farm operator with full-time off-farm work opportunities. B. Farm operator with medium-level off- farm work opportunities. C. Farm operator with low-level off-farm work opportunities. D. Farm operator without off-farm Work opportunities. Details of the analyses for the four situations follow. SITUATIUN A--FARM llPERATllR WITH FULL-TIME IIFF-FARM WllRK UPPURTIINITIES Situation A represents the average farm and nonfarm work activities of about 43 percent of all part-time farm operators in the Northeast Texas study area—those who reported full-time off-farm work. Present Organization The farm operator’s principal activity is off- farm work. This is the main source of the fami1y’s income. He regularly commutes to a nearby 40-hour-per-week nonfarm job. In addi- tion, other family members work approximately 45 days per year atvarious off-farm jobs. ' After beginning to work off the farm, the operator continued to operate his farm much in the same way he operated it as a full-time farmer. The result was a sharp decline in net farm in- come. There has been no specific plan for the use of available labor, and the selection of farm production practices has not been made within the framework of the present off-farm work activities. Although relatively small, the farm resources owned by the operator represent a sizable eco- nomic accumulation, and he is interested in ob- taining the greatest economic returns from these investments. Present Farm Resources and Returns The Situation A farm consists of 174 acres —118 acres of open land, 55 acres of wooded land and 1 acre of other land, including the farmstead and garden. Under the present organization, $5,342 is invested in livestock, farm buildings and 6 equipment. Annual cash operating; (operating capital) average about $2,0 Family members work a little 1,000 hours a year on the farm. labor is available but is not used. Oni" of the present activities of all membjers, could furnish about 1,250 hours of ‘labof for farm work. The additional amounl able farm labor over the amount act, represents the equivalent of one perso 30 8-hour days. Preferences of family regarding the use of their labor in farm work, may influence the selecti‘ enterprises. T‘ The net returns to land, family t; management (not including the valu perquisites) resulting from the current}, preceding farm resources, are. low. r of farm perquisites, including the valuj use products, rental value of dwellin land appreciation and mineral rent in‘, sent important returns and have con. difference» between a loss or gain in 1 _ returns. However, perquisites are a"? gardless of the production practices? A farm operations. As used in this m returns to land, labor and managem turns resulting from farm enterpri, and operation. These are the retu t? be considered in selecting farm ._ activities. * Enterprise Combinations Cons: The economic feasibility of vario combinations was analyzed under ff assumptions. " 1. All resources limited to the p Under this assumption income potent’ q enterprise combinations were tested. 2. Investment capital unlimited. prise combinations were tested for in tials under this assumption. “ 3. Investment and operating l limited. Only three enterprise w, proved feasible under this set of ass 4. Sufficient farm resources f; adequate employment of available fa t, 5. Sufficient farm resources l shift all off-farm labor from off-fag: work. ~ The results of these analyses fora assumed conditions follow. Lurces Limited t0 Present Level ith all resources limited to the present several alternative enterprises can be elimi- from consideration because of their capital _ - requirements. Poultry enterprises, for le, require more operating capital than is ble. a single enterprise is selected, a cow-calf rise on medium-level improved pasture re- 71in the largest net returns, about $768. =ble investment capital limits the enterprise units. Other resources available are not completely. This does not imply that m-level improved pasture management is s more profitable than a higher or lower ' On a per acre basis, the returns from the Elf enterprise are greater with the high of improvement, but available investment l limits the enterprise so that only about es out of 118 acres of open land are used. d were the limiting factor, the high-level ved pasture probably would be more profit- _ e farm plan need not involve only one rise. Timber may be included in the plan, though the total average investment capital ‘P: for the cow-calf operation. Timber re- . no additional investment capital, and the resources used in combining cow-calf and ‘g enterprises do not exceed the available _‘ ce limitations. Also, with 26 cow-calf units on medium-level improved pasture and 55 acres of timber, investment capital limits the adding of more cow-calf units to the farm plan. In this case, it is possible to increase net returns by replacing some of these units with alternative enterprises that return more per dollar invested. Several desirable combinations of enterprises adapted to part-time farming which may be estab- lished within the limits of the present level of resources are shown in Table 2. To obtain these results, reorganization and different management would have to be applied to present resources. Plan 1 in Table 2 provides maximum net returns. All investment capital is used, limiting utilization of the other resources. With plan 2, although net returns are only slightly lower, 275 fewer hours of labor are required than with plan 1. Only about 86 acres of open land are used, making the plan somewhat flexible because the additional pasture acreage might be used to hold livestock off the market if it were necessary or advantageous. Plan 3 is similar to plan 1, except that the sheep and beef cow enterprises both utilize medium-level improved pasture. Net re-turns are slightly lower than for plan 1, since production costs for sheep on medium-level im- proved pasture are slightly higher than costs on tame pasture. More lambs could be marketed at higher weights on the high-level improved pasture; however, in this instance these gains would not be enough to offset the additional cost . ENTERPRISE COMBINATION, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, ALL RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, NORTHEAST TEXAS, SITUATION A Size Average . Labor Annual Enterprise of investment oifrgzrllg per ti? wruondjd net enterprise capital P year returns‘ —- —- — Dollars —- —- -— Hours — — Acres — -— Dollars resources 5,342.00 2,055.00 1,254.0 118.0 55 ' -ca|f, medium-level improved pasture 21 cows 4,284.00 910.77 315.0 61.9 0 620.13 p, tame pasture . 30 ewes 1,046.00 213.26 350.0 41.5 0 167.78 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 55 86.90 ' , Total resources used and net returns 5,330.00 1,188.03 747.5 110.6 55 863.10 A‘ -calf, medium-level improved pasture 26 cows 5,304.00 1,127.62 390.0 85.5 0 767.78 “er 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 55 86.90 Total resources used and net returns 5,304.00 1,171.62 472.5 85.5 55 854.68 l‘ -calf, medium-level iriiproved pasture 21 cows 4,284.00 910.00 315.0 61.9 0 620.13 p, medium-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 308.94 350.0 15.6 0 128.47 or 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 55 86.90 Total resources used and net returns 5,330.00 1,263.71 747.5 77.5 55 ~835.50 A tland out 168 acres 884.26 40.68 80.0 113.0 55 408.28 v ber 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 55 86.90 Total resources used and net returns 884.26 84.68 162.5 113.0 55 495.18 ’ ms to land, labor, management and risks. of pasture improvement. This- plan is more flexible than plan 1, and net returns are not significantly lower. Net returns with plan 4 are considerably lower, but capital and labor require- ments are much lower and considerably fewer risks are involved. The various plans, with the resources re- quired and estimated net returns, may be examined in view of various desires on the part of the farm operator. As an example, plan 1 involves more risk than plan 4 because it requires $5,330 average investment capital and $1,188 operating capital. In contrast, plan 4 requires only $884 average investment capital and $85 operating capital. Some operators may consider that the additional net returns from plan 1 ($368) would not justify the risk assumed. Investment‘ Capital Unlimited In planning for the greatest net returns with the present levels of resources, average invest- ment capital is the limiting resource (Table 2, plan 1). It is important, therefore, to examine the possibility of increasing net returns by the use of additional investment capital. When in- vestment capital is increased, other available TABLE 3. resources soon limit production and neti When this point is reached, net retu ,1 be increased by adding more investme." By assuming unlimited investment capi able, it is possible to determine the The four enterprise tions which may be expected to greatest possible net returns when ' other than investment capital are li able level to use. described in Table 3. of high-level 1, Table 2). returns. LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION A, NORTHEAST TEXAS Of the four-enterprise combinatio, results in maximum net returns. T_ nation of enterprises includes 42 cows; improved pasture, 89 I: medium-level improved pasture and ut'7 wooded land for grazing and timbel; $3,200 more investment capital is reqé] under conditions of maximum net ret q all resources are limited to the present Y. Net returns are increas‘ when this additional investment is addf tion of more enterprise units to the plan? by available operating capital and la plan 2, sheep can be brought into . organization without significantly dec ' A 30-ewe unit almost repl ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, AVERAGE INVESTMENT CAPITAL UNLIMITED, O , ~ Size Average . Labor r" Enterprise of investment OBZHiILITQ per m? wloc ‘L, enterprise capital p year — -— -— Dollars — — — Hours — — Acres -. i Available resources Unlimited 2,055.00 1,254.0 110.0 55 * Plan 1 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 27 cows 5,508.00 1,170.99 405.0 88.8 Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 13 cows 2,652.00 694.46 195.0 28.9 Timber 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 Cow-calf, wooded pasture 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30.0 2 Total resources used and net returns 8,568.00 1,978.25 712.5 117.7 Plan 2 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 28 cows 5,712.00 1,214.36 420.0 92.1 Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 6 cows 1,224.00 320.52 90.0 13.3 Sheep, high-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 354.97 350.0 10.4 Timber 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 Cow-calf, wooded pasture 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30.0 ' Total resources used and net returns 8,390.00 2,002.65 972.5 115.8 Plan 3 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 31 cows 6,120.00 1,301.10 450.0 102.0 Sheep, medium-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 308.94 350.0 15.6 Timber 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 Cow-calf, wooded pasture 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30.0 2 Total resources used and net returns 7,574.00 1,722.84 912.5 117.6 Plan 4 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 35 cows 7,150.00 1,517.95 525.0 115.2 Timber 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 Cow-calf, wooded pasture 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30.0 2 Total resources used and net returns 7,558.00 1,630.75 637.5 115.2 ‘Net returns to land, labor, management and risks. “Less than 0.05 acres. 8 afigh-level improved pasture. With the ex- '0n of labor, the resource use for this plan 5i ilar to that for plan 1. Labor requirements, ver, are increased by about 260 hours by _ ion of the sheep enterprise. Plan 3 assumes ium level of improved pasture management _l open land. The investment capital required be almost $1,000 less than under plan 1. tion of plan 4, which includes only beef - and timber, requires less resources, particu- s investment capital and labor, than any of ther plans. This plan requires over $1,000 j investment capital and 75 fewe-r hours of V than plan 1. Yet net returns are only $56 r. (As net returns vary only slightly among the ding plan, personal preference probably d determine the organization selected on s of this type. As an example, with the first lanization of the farm an operator might r: a plan with 26 beef cows on 86 acres of ,ved pasture (plan 2, Table 2) and move ' rd a system with 37 beef cows, medium-level loved pasture on all open land and use of Aland for grazing and timber (plan 4, Table This adjustment could be achieved within atively short period of time. qtment Capital and ting Capital Unlimited With no limit on available investment capital, with other resources limited to the present level, operating capital and land become the resources that limit net returns, (plan 1, Table 3). When higher levels of investment capital are assumed, it may be realistic to consider higher levels of operating capital. However, since under these conditions land is still limited, net returns can be increased only by practices that use rela- tively less land per unit of the enterprise added. Poultry production, which requires large amounts of capital, can now be considered as an alternative. Land resource requirements for this enterprise are relatively low, and labor require- ments are relatively high. Limited labor re- sources prohibit large poultry operations, and when labor is the only limited resource, net returns can be increased by substituting alterna- tive enterprises such as beef cows, which return more per unit of labor. These enterprises, how- ever, have relatively high land resource require- ments and are limited by the acreage of land available. Consequently, net returns are not greatly increased when higher levels of capital resources are available as long as labor and land are limited (Table 4). Under the assumption of unlimited invest- ment and operating capital, and land and labor at present levels, the combination of enterprises shown for plan 1 in Table 4 results in the largest net returns. Capital requirements for this plan are high, and all available family labor is used. So if 4. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET REFURNS, AVERAGE INVESTMENT CAPITAL AND OPERATING CAPITAL a UNLIMITED, LABOR AND LAND RESOURCES LIMITED ro PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION A, NORTHEAST TEXAS . Sh: . Average Operating Labor Open Wooded A11?“ Enlerprlse o _ mveslmenl capital per land land 1 enterprise capital year returns — — —- Dollars — — — Hours — —- Acres — — Dollars le resources Unlimited Unlimited 1,254.0 118.0 55 ‘w-calf, high-level improved pasture 35 cows 7,140.00 1,517.19 525.0 115.2 0 1,033.55 " ilers birds2 1,181.25 8,525.34 700.0 .2 0 566.89 _-* her 19 acres 0 15.20 28.5 0 19 30.02 i; Total resources used and net returns 9,321.25 10,057.73 1,253.5 115.4 19 1,630.46 -calf, high-level improved pasture 48 cows 9,792.00 2,564.16 720.0 106.6 0 1,079.04 i‘ eep, high-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 354.97 350.0 10.5 0 120.59 =» ber 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 55 86.90 “w-calf, wooded pasture 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30.0 “ 54.5 14.64 Total resources used "and net returns 11,246.00 3,031.93 1,182.5 117.1 55 1,301.17 w-calf, high-level improved pasture 53 cows 10,812.00 2,831.26 795.0 117.7 0 1,191.44 i ber 55 acres 0 44.00 82.5 0 55 86.90 ~w-calt, wooded pasture 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30.0 3 54.5 14.64 Total resources used and net returns 11,220.00 2,944.00 907.5 117.7 55 1,292.98 i urns to land, labor, management and risks. proods of 5,000 each. n 0.05 acres. much labor is required that timber utilization is limited to only about 19 of the 55 available acres. The plan is associated with high risks, and one serious mistake in the management of the broiler enterprise might jeopardize capital resources as well as net returns. A slight downward change in the price received for broilers results in a significant decrease in net returns. When poultry production is not considered, plan 2 offers the greatest net returns with un- limited investment and operating capital, and with land and labor limited. Operating capital requirements for this plan are much lower than for plan 1. The investment capital required is somewhat higher and almost all available land and labor resources are used. With the exception of labor, the resource use and expected net re- turns from the combination of enterprises out- lined in plan 3 are much the same as for plan 2. Plan 3, however, is slightly more flexible from the standpoint of labor used. Farm Resources Required for Adequate Employment of Available Farm Labor It is unusual for a farm operator’s only limited resource to be labor. However, if this is assumed to be the case, the farm activity that results in greatest net returns is the enterprise with the highest net return per hour of labor required. Net returns of about $1.97 per hour of labor are possible with a cow-calf organization on medium-level improved pasture. Of all the production alternatives tested (except renting out land)“ this results in the largest net return per hour of labor. (Land renting as an enterprise would return $5.08 per hour of labor. For prac- tical purposes this enterprise was not considered. More than 2,500 acres would be required to em- ploy fully 1,254 hours of labor.) About 83 beef cows on medium-level im- proved pasture would be required to employ fully the 1,254 hours of family lab-or available for farm ' work. This operation would require almost $17,000 average investment capital, about $3,600 ‘ operating capital and 273 acres of open land, 155 acres more than are presently available. (Esti- mated net returns would be almost $2,500. A note of caution is in order at this point. Net returns as used in this report are returns to land, labor, management and risks. Returns to land are included, because most farm operators ‘ in the area have a 100 percent equity in their i‘ farms and any return to land is also a return to them as landowners. If returns to land go to 1U é‘ someone other than the operator, as an i who borrows capital to purchase land, at, net return criterion should be used. wf circumstances, maximum net returns management and risks would be most iii A case in point is the one just; where an additional 155 acres would lie‘; to use all family labor available for fa: Land values are such in this area monetary gain would be possible t W chasing additional land upon which ‘i. available labor. If 155 acres of open l f at $75 per acre are purchased with capital at 5 percent interest, the retu w?‘ must be $3.75 per acre, or a total of 1%,‘ 155 acres. With a cow-calf enterprise olil level improved pasture, net returns to all management and risks are increased , the added acreage. After deducting to land, only $836 is left as net retu 4:’ management and risks. The purchj acres of land at $75 per acre woul $11,625. Amortized annual payments L and principal over a 30-year periodwou to about $750. With returns.of,$83t i of additional; land‘ through purchase ‘ _ capital accumulation rather than a g“, of additional income. These returns are made possible ployment of 720 hours 0-f family'la_ opportunity may exist for employing f- family labor through renting additij land. If open land can be rented at (the price assumed in the land-renting Table 1) the additional 155 acres '1 employ the 720 hours of labor will $800 net to labor, management and ris- this is an adequate return to avail labor depends on the alternative us‘; labor. - 357 With a cow-calf enterprise on hig proved pasture, all available family _ be employed on 185 acres of open q more acres than is available- This however,- would require- almost $171 average icapital investment’ than is "avi A’ more than twice as much operating Resources Required To Use Present Off-farm Labor in Farming ' Few part-time farm operators-ha farm resources to ‘make it profitable; in farming the labor. engaged in off- Returns for family labor used in pfrfj eraged $1.47 per hour for part-time farm ierators in the study area reporting full-time, ef-farm work in 1955. With the exception of nting out land which is excluded for obvious sons, only the beef cow enterprises (cow-calf . , . wooded pasture excluded) would yield (farm) turns greater than $1.47 per hour for the labor ed. This does not mean that the returns to ‘ or with these enterprises exceed $1.47. Net turns shown in the examples include returns land, management and risks, as well as labor. Wever, with the assumption that an increase i net returns of more than $1.47 increases family ome by the same amount, it would be possible th certain levels of farm resources to increase ily income by using off-farm work labor in ; ming. _ The 1,254 hours of family labor assumed to available for farm work are sufficient to care yr about 83 beef cows. If capital and land re- rces were sufficient to accommodate a herd jmore than 83 beef cows, family income could i increased by using all labor in farming now -o in off-farm work. Most part-time farm operators in the area ‘not have sufficient capital and land resources support a herd of 84 beef cows or more. Capital . estments required for a herd of this size would eed the $17,000 average investment capital orted. Land requirements would vary from to 734 acres of open land, depending on the el of pasture improvement assumed. If only the operator worked off the farm l-time, about 1,870 hours of family labor would available for farm work. This amount of labor ld take care of about 124 beef cows requiring T average capital investment of more than ,000 (excluding the value of land) and a imum of 275 acres of open land. It would more profitable, therefore, (in terms of family ome) for the operator to work less than full- yeqoff the farm only when his farm resources eéded these levels. To use all family labor re profitably in farming than in off-farm work uld require an average capital investment of re than $52,000 (for 258 beef cows) and 573 ‘es of open land. ‘ I » Total returns from off-farm work sources raged about $3,800 in 1955 for part-time farm ‘ilies in the area whose- operators reported -time off-farm work. To obtain this level of f returns from farming would require a mini- m of $23,500 average investment capital and 380 acres of open land, or a minimum of 337 acres of open land and about $31,000 average invest- ment capital. On the situation A farm, 3,870 hours of family labor are assumed to be available. This includes family labor used in off-farm work activities. With farm labor limited to this amount, and with all other resources unlimited, none of the production activities considered except beef cows would provide net returns equal to the returns from off-farm work. SITUATION B - - FARM UPERATIIR WITH MEDIUM-LEVEL TIFF-FARM WURK TIPPURTIINITIES Situation B represents another part-time farm situation. It is typical of the 23 percent of all part-time farm families in Northeast Texas whose operators reported that in 1955 they spent more than 100 days but less than full-time in off-farm work. With the exception of labor, the level of available farm resources is lower than those previously considered. Present Organization The situation B farm is a general crop and livestock farm consisting of 106 acres of open land and 50 acres of woodland. Present capital use consists of about $4,505 average capital in- vestment (excluding the value of land) and $1,413 operating capital. Family labor used on the farm averages about 1,246 hours annually. An additional 878 hours of labor is available for farm work, but under the present farm organiza- tion this available labor is not used. Farm opera- tions are not profitable, as the resources are presently being used. The value of farm per- quisites is important, and more than offsets the loss resulting from farm operations. However, the value of farm perquisites does not depend upon the operation of farm enterprises. The operator currently works off the farm about 150 days each year. Other family members work at various off-farm jobs about 40 days annually. The total returns to the family for off-farm work average about $2,100 a year. This is the family’s principal source of income. Most of the farm could be rented to a neigh- boring farmer under a 10-year leasing agreement, with the family retaining 5 acres and the dwell- ing. This lease arrangement nets the owner about $340 annually. Since the family retains the dwelling and 5 acres, the total value of farm perquisites is still available. ll Enterprise Combinations Considered The opportunity to rent out the farm appears an attractive alternative. However, even though leasing would be more profitable than present farm operations, an operator might be reluctant to rent out the farm for such a long period of time. This especially is likely under the condi- tions assumed in situation B, where the operator works off the farm only part-time and needs additional profitable employment. For this reason, estimated returns from alternative farm plans were compared with re- turns from renting. It appeared likely that certain production practices could be profitable with a reorganization made within the framework of present activities and available farm resources. Plans for the various assumed conditions are presented below. All Resources Limited to Present Level With the present level of farm resources, the single enterprise with largest net returns is the cow-calf enterprise on medium-level improved pasture. Investment capital limits this enterprise to a 22-cow unit. The medium-level improved pasture is more profitable than the high-level improved pasture in this instance because invest- ment capital, rather than land, limits the enter- prise to 22 cow units. Greater gains in calf weights are assumed possible on the high-level improved pasture, but the additional weight gains do not offset the higher production costs (operat- ing expenses). TABLE 5. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, ALL RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, s NORTHEAST TEXAS The three farm plans that appear v sirable when farm resources are limit present level are given in Table 5. In‘ which gives maximum net returns, in "A capital is the limiting resource. As a res available farm resources are not utili/ Only about a fifth of the availablei-fal’ Q is used. When sheep are considered, as i, labor requirements increase sharply p‘ mated net returns decrease. Plan 3 (re some land and using some for timber) little capital and labor. Consider this pj capital or labor are limited. Very low involved. " Investment Capital Unlimited With farm resources limited to the”; level, investment capital is a factor-f higher net returns. However, at hig of investment capital, all available 5f capital is used quickly, and this reso becomes a limiting factor (Table 6). "i! investment capital available and with _ sources limited to the present level, p acres of timber and a cow-calf enterp _ medium-level pasture) results in great turns. Operating capital is now thefl resource. A comparison of this plan i‘ in Table 5 indicates that about $1 average investment capital than prese able increases net returns by about $ addition of sheep (plan 2, Table 6) vestment capital requirements slightly, "1 labor requirements and lowers net retup, Size Average . Labor Enterprise of investment ozazragzig per (lazing: w‘: enterprise capital p year — — — Dollars - — -— Hours — — Acres — — Available resources 4,s0s.00 1,413.00 2,124 100.0 s0, Plan 1 " Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 22 cows 4,488.00 954.14 330 72.4 '_ Timber 5O acres 0 40.00 75 0 ' 50 Total resources used and net returns 4,488.00 994.14 405 72.4 50 Plan 2 i Sheep, medium-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 308.94 350 15.6 _ Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 16 cows 3,264.00 693.92 240 52.6 0 Timber 50 acres 0 40.00 75 0 5O '1. Total resources used and net returns 4,310.00 1,042.86 665 68.2 50 f. Plan 3 p, l Rent land out 151 acres 804.26 40.68 a0 101.0 s0 Timber 50 acres 0 40.00 75 0 50 f Total resources used and net returns 884.26 80.68 155 101.0 50 f ‘Net returns to land, labor, management and risks. 12 _BLE 6. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, AVERAGE INVESTMENT CAPITAL UNLIMITED, OTHER RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION B, NORTHEAST TEXAS _ Size _ Average operating Labor open wooded Annual Enterprise of investment . per net . . capital land land 1 enterprise capital year returns —- —— —- Dollars — -— —- Hours —— — Acres — —- Dollars K oilable resources Unlimited 1,413.00 2,124 106.0 5O n 1 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 31 cows 6,324.00 1,344.47 465 102.0 0 915.43 Timber 50 acres 0 40.00 75 0 50 79.00 Total resources used and net returns 6,324.00 1,384.47 540 102.0 50 994.43 in 2 , Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 24 cows 4,896.00 1,040.88 360 79.0 '0 708.72 Sheep, medium-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 308.94 350 15.6 0 128.47 Timber 50 acres 0 40.00 75 0 50 79.00 Total resources used and net returns 5,942.00 1,389.82 785 94.6 50 916.19 treturns to land, labor, management and risks. vestment Capital and crating Capital Unlimited 1 Poultry production, which has high operat- p capital requirements, may be considered as alternative when higher levels of capital re- urces are available. By combining this enter- "se, which has high labor requirements, with ‘beef-cow enterprise, which has relatively high d requirements, maximum use of available or and open land resources is obtained. Net urns can be increased substantially under these q ditions, but capital requirements are large and ks are high (Table 7). With unlimited capital ources the combination of broilers and cows Ian 1, Table 7) results in the largest net re- s. This plan requires so much labor that "_ y 12 of the 50 acres of Woodland can be utilized. "a 1. Plan 2 results in greatest net returns when poultry enterprises are not considered. All avail- able labor and open land is utilized under the plan. Although much less labor is required in plan 3, net returns from this plan are not much lower than those from plan 2. With either of these plans, returns are not significantly higher than those of plan 1, Table 6, for which less resources are required. Employment of Family Labor At the present level of farm resources, the plan resulting in highest net returns uses only a small amount of the family labor available for farm Work (Table 5, plan 1). The use of higher but reasonable levels of investment capital per- mits only a small amount of additional labor to ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, AVERAGE INVESTMENT CAPITAL AND OPERATING CAPITAL UNLIMITED, LABOR AND LAND RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION B, NORTHEAST TEXAS Size Average . Labor Annual Enterprise of investment ozfrntllg per zip“? wzimdded net enterprise capital p year returns‘ I -— -— -— Dollars — -— -— Hours — —- Acres ’-— -— Dollars lable resources Unlimited Unlimited 2,124.0 106.0 50 1 g Itoilers (noncontract) birds2 4,362.50 17,050.68 1,400.0 0.4 0 1,133.78 v ‘Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 47 cows 9,558.00 2,510.74 705.0 104.3 0 1,056.56 ' Timber 12 acres 0 9.60 18.0 0 12 18.96 A Total resources used and net returns 13,950.50 19,571.02 2,123.0 104.7 12 2,209.30 2 I Sheep, high-level improved pasture 150 ewes 5,230.00 1,774.85 1,750.0 52.3 0 602.95 kCow-calf, high-level impfoved pasture 24 cows 4,896.00 1,282.08 360.0 53.3 O 539.52 , Timber I 9 acres 0 7.20 13.5 0 9 14.22 Total resources used and net returns 10,126.00 3,064.13 2,123.5 105.6 9 1,156.69 . 3 Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 47 cows 9,588.00 2,510.74 705.0 104.3 0 1,056.56 i Timber 50 acres 0 40.00 75.0 0 50 79.00 ' Total resources used and net returns 9,588.00 2,550.74 780.0 104.3 50 1,135.56 returns to land, labor, management and risks. 1 broods of 10,000 each. 13 be used effectively (Table 6, plan 1). With present land resources, full utilization of avail- able labor is profitable only with high levels of investment and operating capital (Table 7, plan 1) . This may involve high risks. Expansion of land resources to use available labor at satis- factory returns would require a much higher level of capital than is available. Since more labor is available for farm Work in situation B than in situation A, the level of other farm resources required to utilize the avail- able labor efficiently would be much higher under situation B. With 2,124 hours of labor available (Which does not include labor used in off-farm Work), and With labor the only limited farm resource, greatest returns would result from a livestock operation that included 141 cows. This would require $28,764 average investment capital (excluding the value of land), a minimum of 313 acres of open land, and $7,532 of operating capital. The expected net returns from these resources would be about $3,100. An even higher level of farm resources Would be required to make it profitable to use in farming the labor presently used in off-farm Work. The excessive level of farm resources re- quired prohibits an efficient use of available labor resources in most part-time farm situations simi- lar to situation B. The solution to the problem of labor utilization Would be more off-farm work, Where additional Work Was available. SITllAllllN B - - FARM UPERATUR WITH LBW-LEVEL DFF-FARM WURK UPPURTIINITIES About 11 percent of the part-time farmers in the area Worked off the farm less than 100 days in 1955. Situation C is typical of this. Present Organization The situation C farm consists of 148 acres including 104 acres of open land, mainly pasture. It is assumed that at one time, crops, mostly cotton and vegetables, were the most important source of cash farm income, but that net returns from crops declined and cropland acreage Was decreased gradually. At present only 20 acres are classified as cropland. As crop activities de- creased, livestock units were added in a non- systematic manner. The sale of livestock prod- ucts presently is more important than crop sales, although production has not been planned care- fully. 14 It is assumed that, although off-fa ' opportunities are limited, the operator; about 50 days a year off the farm. Othe“ members Work a total of about 115 daysj farm. The family labor available for A activities is estimated at slightly more t _' hours. All family members spend hours at off-farm work and about 1,0“ at farming activities. Approximately a the available family labor is not used in : activity. The family’s total net money inco little more than $2,000, excluding the Y.‘ farm perquisites. Only about 6 percent income is from farm operations. If ,1 costs, including interest and depreciati charged against cash farm income, Would be negative net returns to land, agement and risks from farm enterpri‘ tions. With this relatively low level of n, money income, and with limited off-fa opportunities, the need for placing labor Y, productive farming activities is apparent; Enterprise Combinations Conside 1' ' The present level of farm capital includes about $4,200 investment capital-f ing the value of land, and less than $1,0_, operating capital. Various farm plans sidered that might be possible with the. farm resources and with higher levels 0_ resources. These plans follow. . AH Resources Limited to Present Level? The single alternative farm enterpr", would result in greatest net returns existing level of farm resources would be q unit cow-calf enterprise on medium- proved pasture. This enterprise would 1i’. 300 hours of labor and about 66 acresf; land. A poultry enterprise is not at: alternative with the present low level ,_ ing capital. A combination of enterprises W0 in greater utilization of available laborif resources and higher net returns. Sev plans would result in profitable farm w; under a reorganization of the farm f, existing level of resources (Table 8);}; _ which includes a combination of beef c” and timber, would result in greatest n, Both investment and operating capital '_ '_ ing resources in this plan. Plan 2, incl beef cows and timber, may be the best - i’ ith existing resources. Net returns are only ightly less than for plan 1, and labor require- ents are less. Plan 1 yields less than $10 more er year in net returns than plan 2 but requires n additional 275 hours of labor. Renting out a land, as in plan 3, reduces net returns by more A an $200. However, this plan involves little . 'sk. With the assumption that the dwelling and acres are retained, a cow-calf unit can be in- uded in the plan, and timber resources can be tilized also. A The net returns, resulting from a farm krganization with the present level of resources re not high. However, such a reorganization on ost part-time farms with similar situations Aould reduce labor requirements from a half to most a third. The desirable effect of lower bor requirements with increased net returns is parent, as no part-time farm operator with mited off-farm work opportunities knows when ore off-farm work may be available. A farm A erator with high levels of available labor and ittle chance of utilizing this labor in any activity her than farming may be wise to reject a farm Han which requires 400 hours less labor and turns $50 less net returns than some alternative an. But if some chance for off-farm employ- ent at more than $1 per hour exists, he may . ' unwise to commit an additional 400 hours of bor for the $50 increase in net returns. pvestment Capital Unlimited With the present level of resources, operating pital as well as investment capital is a limiting resource in planning for highest net returns (plan 1, Table 9). Therefore, only small gains in net returns are possible by using higher levels of investment capital while holding operating capital at the present level. However, this situ- ation offers a good example where a relatively small amount of additional investment capital substitutes for a large amount of labor and also increases net returns slightly. With higher levels of investment capital and other resources limited to present level, the combination of beef cows and timber shown in plan 1 of Table‘ 9 results in greatest net returns. Large additional gains in net re-turns are not possible under these condi- tions, but only $129 more average investment capital than presently available substitutes for 260 hours of labor and increases annual net re- turns by about $20 (plan 1, Table 8 and plan 1, Table 9). Plan 2 of Table 9, which includes sheep as well as beef cows and timber, offers lower net returns with no particular advantage other than, perhaps, diversification. Essentially, the same level of capital is required, with more labor and open land resources. Investment Capital and Operating Capital Unlimited With the present level of available labor and land resources, the use of high levels of capital resources can result in relatively high levels of net income (Table 10). The important question is whether part-time farm operators in similar situations could increase their use of capital to the extent required. With higher levels of capital LE 8. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, ALL RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION C, NORTHEAST TEXAS Size Average opemfing Labor open wooded Annual Enterprise of . investment capital per ‘and land net 1 enterprise capital year returns v -— -— —- Dollars —- -— -— Hours - -— Acres —- —- Dollars ilable resources 4,155.00 949.00 2,048.0 104.0 41 ",1 l- Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 15 cows 3,060.00 650.55 225.0 49.4 0 442.95 A Sheep, tame pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 233.26 350.0 41.5 0 156.07 ' Timber 41 acres 0 32.80 61.5 0 41 64.78 Total resources used and net returns 4,106.00 916.61 636.5 90.9 41 663.80 ~i 2 1, Cow-calf, medium-levellimproved pasture 20 cows 4,080.00 867.40 300.0 65.8 0 590.60 Timber 41 acres 0 32.80 61.5 0 41 64.78 Total resources used and net returns 4.03000 900-20 361-5 65-3 41 655-38 3 Rent land 140 acres 884.26 40.68 80.0 99 41 324.28 f Timber 41 acres 0 32.80 61.5 0 41 64.78 1 Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 2 cows 408.00 106.84 30.0 4.4 0 44.96 Total resources used and net returns 1,292.26 180.32 171.5 103.4 41 434.02 l t returns to land, labor, management and risks. 15 TABLE 9. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, INVESTMENT CAPITAL UNLIMITED, OTHER RESOUR a TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION C, NORTHEAST TEXAS ~* Size Average Labor I» a Enterprise of investment operqtlllgg per lope: wloaird enterprise capital cal" a year an an — — —- Dollars — -— —- Hours -— — Acres — if Available resources Unlimited 949.00 2,048.0 104.0 41 "'3 Plan 1 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 21 cows 4,284.00 910.77 315.0 69.1 0 Timber 41 acres 0 32.80 61.5 0 41 Total resources used and net returns 4,284.00 943.57 376.5 69.1 41 Plan 2 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 16 cows 3,264.00 693.92 240.0 51.8 0 Sheep, tame pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 233.26 350.0 41.5 0 Timber _ 27 acres 0 21.60 _ 40.5 0 27 Total resources used and net returns 4,310.00 948.78 630.5 93.3 27 ‘Net returns to land, labor, management and risks. resources and with labor and land limited to the level presently available, the combination of broilers and cows described in plan 1 results in the maximum net returns possible. In the absence of tested management abilities which Would be required by the various enterprises, the plan should be avoided perhaps. Otherwise, high risks would be associated with such large capital and labor requirements. If the poultry enterprise is not considered as an alternative, the combina- tion of cows, sheep and timber shown in plan 2 results in greatest net returns. Capital require- ments are not too excessive, but labor require- ments are rather high, considering the total level available. The combination of cow-calf and timber enterprises shown in plan 3 offers a good alternative. Capital requirements are not exces- TABLE 10. sive, and the level of labor required is l the amount presently used. snunnon n-rnnm uranium I wnuuur UFF-FARM wnnx urrnnru Situation D represents situations ' _ farm operator has no off-farm work ties, and where more than half of the fa, money income is from nonfarm sources. about 23 percent of all part-time farms in. fell in this category. ation D farm has been farming mosto and that a combination of factors inclu, Present Organization It is assumed that the operator of ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, INVESTMENT CAPITAL AND OPERATING CAPITAL LABOR AND LAND RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION C, NORTHEAST TEXAS k s‘ » Size Average . Labor I Enterprise of investment Ozaaerliittlilg per "21:: wait“ enterprise capital P year — — -— Dollars — —- —- Hours — — Acres — — Available resources Unlimited Unlimited 2,048.0 104.0 41 Plan 1 l _ Broilers (noncontract) birdsz 4,362.50 17,050.68 1,400.0 0.4 0 Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 36 cows 7,344.00 1,923.12 540.0 79.9 0 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 7 cows 1,428.00 303.59 105.0 23.0 . 0 Total resources used and net returns 13,134.50 19,277.39 2,045.0 103.3 0 Plan 2 Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 28 cows 5,712.00 1,495.76 420.0 62.2 0 Sheep, high-level improved pasture 120 ewes 4,184.00 1,419.88 1,400.0 41.8 0 Timber 41 acres 0 32.80 61.5 0 41 Total resources used and net returns 9,896.00 2,948.44 1,881.5 104.0 41 Plan 3 Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 45 cows 9,180.00 2,403.90 675.0 99.9 0 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 1 cow 204.00 43.37 15.0 3.3 0 Timber 41 acres 0 32.80 61.5 0 41 Total resources used and net returns 9,384.00 2,480.07 751.5 103.2 41 ‘Net returns to land, labor, management and risks. “Four broods of 10,000 each. 16 alth problems and lack of experience and train- l g prevents him from working off the farm. All her family members work a total of about 80 wys off the farm at various activities. The farm consists of 147 acres, including l acres of open land and 62 acres of wooded nd. The present total investment in farm build- ~ gs, livestock and equipment is about $3,081. The esent organization includes various crops on out 25 acres and several types of livestock. ross farm sales minus cash farm expenses aver- e about $200. When noncash expenses, interest 1 depreciation are charged as an expense, the t returns to land, family labor, management d risks are negative. The greatest value of e farm to the family has been from farm per- isites. The total family labor available for all tivities is estimated at about 2,100 man hours nually, less than one manwork equivalent. j- s than a third of this amount is currently nt at off-farm work activities by family mem- rs other than the operator. About a third of 7 available labor of all family members, includ- I: the operator, is used for farm work, and ut a third is not utilized. In a monetary sense, . i- family labor presently used in performing '9 Work is unemployed, because the returns 5,; farm enterprise operations have not been ofitable. The family’s total net money income less than $2,100. Enterprise Combinations Considered With the relatively low family income, there is a need for placing family labor presently used in farm work and unemployed labor in profitable activities. In attempting to develop plans that would provide profitable employment for family labor, various production alternatives and possi- bilities were considered, including a complete farm reorganization. All Resources Limited to Present Level If only single enterprises are considered, a cow-calf enterprise on medium-level improved pasture offers greatest net returns. Operating capital limits the enterprise to 10 cows; under these conditions only 33 acres of open land are required. A cow-calf enterprise on tame pasture requires less operating capital and more land per cow unit. The available level of operating capital would allow 13 cows on tame pasture; however, this would require over 113 acres of open land. With only 84 acres of open land available, this enterprise is limited to 9 cows. Since land is not limiting with the cow-calf operation on medium-level improved pasture, a combination of tame and medium-level improved pasture would allow more cow units and increase net returns. Under the present organization of the farm, only $453 operating capital is used. This level of operating capital is definitely a limiting factor. However, several profitable plans may be de- ve-loped within the framework of the present level of resources (Table 11). Plan 1, which 11. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, ALL RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION D, NORTHEAST TEXAS Size Average . Labor Annual Enterprise of investment operghng per open wooded net . . capital land land 1 enterprise capital year returns -— —- —- Dollars -— —- — Hours -— —- Acres —- -— Dollars "Iable resources 3,081.00 453.00 1,520.0 84.0 62 l_ I; Cow-calf, tame pasture I 8 cows 1,632.00 275.20 120.0 69.9 0 234.96 i Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 3 cows 612.00 130.11 45.0 9.9 0 88.59 Timber 59 acres 0 47.20 88.5 0 59 93.22 Total resources used and net returns 2,244.00 452.51 253.5 79.8 59 416.77 1 1 , ‘ IIent land l 141 acres 884.26 40.68 80.0 79 62 255.28 i Timber 62 acres 0 49.60 93.0 0 62 97.96 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 1 cow 204.00 43.37 15.0 3.3 0 29.53 Total resources used and net returns 1,088.26 113.65 188.0 82.3 62 382.77 a Cow-calf, tame pasture 8 cows 1,632.00 275.20 120.0 69.9 0 234.96 * Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 4 cows 816.00 173.48 160.0 13.2 0 118.12 Total resources used and net returns 2,448.00 448.68 180.0 83.1 0 353.08 returns to land, labor, management and risks. 17 includes 11 beef cows and provides for utilization of most of the present timber stand, results in maximum net returns. Because of the low level of operating capital, only 59 of the total 62 acres of timber are utilized in this plan. Plan 2, which includes renting out of land, may be most desir- able. The plan involves l0W risks and requires low levels of capital and labor. Plan 3 includes 12 beef cows on 7O acres of tame pasture and 13 acres of medium-level improved pasture. Any of the above plans would fit well Within the framework of low levels of capital and labor resources. Although resulting net returns are not high, part-time farm families in similar situ- ations probably would profit by considering these plans. Under the conditions assumed for situ- ation D, plan 1 would raise family income by more than 10 percent. With land values in this area approaching $100 per acre, it might appear that net returns of only a little more than $400 to land, labor, management and risks from enterprise operations (as in plan 1) on a 148-acre farm is uneconomical in view of alternative investments possible. A $14,800 investment at a guaranteed 6 percent interest would return almost $900. However, if a part-time farm operator were to liquidate his assets for investment purposes, he would be de- prived of the value of farm perquisites as well as the returns possible from farm operations. In 1955, the average value of farm perquisites on part-time farms in this area was over $1,000. The value of perquisites and expected returns TABLE 12. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, RESOURCES USED AND NET RETURNS, OPERATING CAPITAL UNLIMITED, OTHER RESOURCES; from plan 1, Table 11, would total more A $1,500. This return capitalized at 6 perce equivalent to an investment of $25,000. Operating Capital Unlimited Poultry enterprises, which have high o‘ ing capital requirements, may be conside alternatives for the situation D farm when; levels of operating capital are available. cessful noncontract operations, however, =5 high-level management. An economical uf’ unit also has relatively high labor require‘ In view of these facts, farm activities that if poultry may not be feasible for this pa farm situation. With higher levels of ope capital and with other resources limited to p, V, levels, the combination of broiler and timt prises with renting out of land, shown in of Table 12, will result in maximum net r, Operating capital requirements for this p high relative to the level presently used. f} is not rented out, the most profitable organ' includes 4 cows on medium-level improved. _ l, in place of the land renting enterprise (p Only about 13 acres of open land are M I because of limited investment capital. If acres of unused open land were rented ' returns would increase. _ capital is held to a low level While other re g remain fixed at their present level. labor is required than presently used, an’ about 49 acres of open land are utilized. ment capital limits greater utilization of PGSOUTCQS. TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION D, NORTHEAST TEXAS In plan 3, cf“ Mu i Size Average Labor Wooded _ Enterprise of investment oszraglllg per gaze: ‘and enterprise capital P year — —- — Dollars -— —- — Hours -— — Acres - — Available resources 3,081.00 Unlimited 1,520 84.0 62.0 v Plan 1 ~ Broilers (noncontract) birds2 2,181.25 8,525.34 700 0.2 0 Rent land 141 acres 884.26 40.68 80 79.0 62.0 Timber 62 acres 0 49.60 93 0 62.0 Total resources used and net returns 3,065.51 8,615.62 873 79.2 62.0 Plan 2 Broilers (noncontract) birds’ 2,181.25 8,525.34 700 0.2 0 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 4 cows 816.00 173.48 60 13.2 0 Timber 62 acres 0 49.60 93 0 62.0 Total resources used and net returns 2,997.25 8,748.42 853 13.4 62.0 Plan 3 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 15 cows 3,060.00 650.55 225 49.4 0 Timber 62 acres 0 49.60 93 0 62.0 Total resources used and net returns 3,060.00 700.15 318 49.4 62.0 lNet returns to land, labor, management and risks. aFour broods of 5,000 each. 18 vestment Capital and Aerating Capital Unlimited _ With higher levels of capital resources all ailable labor on this farm can be utilized; how- er, high levels of operating capital are required able 13). When only labor and land are limited ‘ their present levels, plan 1, consisting of non- ntract broilers, some timber and cows and the ting out of 141 acres, results in greatest net ‘ urns. All labor and land are utilized, but pital requirements are high relative to the levels _d on most such farms and in the area. Plan 2, ombination of broiler and cow-calf enterprises, 0 utilizes all available labor, but only 27 acres open land. Net returns are reduced by less s: $100. The plan might be modified to include ting out of land. Although net returns are er in plan 3, capital requirements are reduced i siderably. All land resources are utilized. All ilable labor is not used, but the level of labor yuired is somewhat more than is presently used. ~= 4 would be well suited to a situation where n resources are limited to a lower level. The n requires less labor than presently used. IIIINBIIISIIINS ANII REIIIIMMENIIATIIINS The foregoing analysis leads to the following clusions and recommendations with respect to resource use for greater returns from part-time farm operations in Northeast Texas. (1) Returns from farming can be a good source of supplemental income to part-time farm operators who own land resources and associated capital investments. Even with the present level of farm resources, and within the framework of present off-farm work activities, many of these farms can be more profitably reorganized than at present. (2) With the present level of farm re- sources, investment capital is the most limiting resource in obtaining higher farm returns on most part-time farms in the area. The next most limiting resource is operating capital. Present land and labor resources become limiting only after large capital resources are made available. Even with the usual amount of off-farm work done by part-time farm family members, labor is the least limiting farm resource. (3) Increases in income result when the farm is reorganized with the present level of farm resources. Beyond this, the use of higher levels of capital are profitable and allow greater utilization of available land and labor resources. In general, part-time farm operators should re- organize enterprises so that farm operations fit 13. ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, AVERAGE INVESTMENT CAPITAL AND OPERATING CAPITAL UNLIMITED, LAND AND LABOR RESOURCES LIMITED TO PRESENT LEVEL, SITUATION D, NORTHEAST TEXAS Size Average opemfing Labor open wooded Annual Enterprise of investment capital per land ‘and net I enterprise capital year returns -— - —- Dollars — -— — Hours —- -— Acres —- — Dollars Iable resources Unlimited Unlimited 1,520 84.0 62.0 I _ I Broilers (noncontract) birds2 4,362.50 17,050.68 1,400 0.4 0 1,133.78 Rent land 141 acres 884.26 40.68 80 79.0 62.0 255.28 * Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 2 cows 408.00 160.84 30 4.4 0 44.96 ” Timber 6 acres 0 4.80 9 0 6.0 9.48 Total resources used and net returns 5,653.76 17,203.00 1,519 83.8 62.0 1,443.50 2 ‘ Broilers (noncontract) birds2 4,362.50 17,050.68 1,400 0.4 0 1,133.78 Cow-calf, medium-level improved pasture 8 cows 1,632.00 346.96 120 26.3 0 236.24 Total resources used and net returns 5,994.50 17,397.64 1,520 26.7 0 1,370.02 ' 3 ,_ Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 33 cows 6,732.00 1,762.86 495 73.3 0 741.84 Sheep, high-level improved pasture 30 ewes 1,046.00 354.97 350 10.5 0 120.59 ‘ Cow-calf, wooded pasture i 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30 3 54.5 14.64 Timber ' 62 acres 0 49.60 93 0 62.0 97.96 I Total resources used and net returns 8,186.00 2,236.23 968 83.8 62.0 975.03 4 ‘Cow-calf, high-level improved pasture 37 cows 7,548.00 1,976.54 555 82.1 0 831.76 Cow-calf, wooded pasture 2 cows 408.00 68.80 30 3 54.5 14.64 Timber 62 acres 0 49.60 93 0 62.0 97.96 Total resources used and net returns 7,956.00 2,094.94 678 82.1 62.0 944.36 returns to land, labor, management and risks. broods of 10,000 each. q than .05. 19 into the framework of off-farm work activities. The initial reorganization probably should be accomplished with the present level of capital resources, or with only a moderate increase. In view of the risks involved, any reorganization that requires much more capital than presently available should be a gradual rather than an im- mediate adjustment. This also would permit some capital to be generated internally. (4) With limited investment or operating capital, farm plans that are simple and have relatively low labor requirements are almost as profitable as more complex plans with higher labor requirements. The more complex plans which require more labor call for higher manage- ment abilities and may, therefore, include higher risks. Without tested management abilities, part- time farm operators may be wise to select simple farm plans with low labor requirements when first reorganizing their farm resources. As man- agement abilities develop, further reorganizations can be undertaken that utilize available labor more profitably. If technical assistance is avail- able, the interested operator can develop a long- term growth plan and make systematic changes gradually. Technical assistance is usually avail- able through the- county agricultural agent. Also, production credit associations and the Farmers Home Administration offer technical assistance, as well as credit resources. (5) Where available, timber resources should be utilized with improved management for present stands. With alternative livestock enter- prises available, it appears that new timber stands, which would involve additional capital investments, would be less profitable. In most instances, the timber enterprise was included in the farm plans only because it required no addi- tional capital investment. (6) Net returns from farm operations include net returns to land, labor, management and risks. The returns to land are, in most in- stances, returns to the part-time farm operator as the owner of land. Because of relatively high land values in this area, the opportunity cost of owning land is relatively high, and the returns to land necessarily represent a large proportion of the total net returns from farming. There- fore, the possibilities of increasing family income through farm operations are small, if the returns to land go to someone other than the part-time farm operator. Purchase of additional land, therefore, may not be a profitable way to employ 20 p before an operator could more profitabl available family labor, if the purchase is fi from sources outside the family. I The use of the additional land would i' risks and would require additional capital; family labor and more management. The-e‘ tion to family money income is small uni purchased land is paid for. Part-time... families with relatively low incomes proba.‘ more interested in employing available _ labor to increase family money income t! capital accumulation. Families with high 1 incomes may prefer capital accumulation. l (7) Family labor presently used i) farm work cannot be used more profi farming unless high levels of farm resou available. With the present size limitat most part-time farms, even use of unlimited of capital do not allow more profitable 1 off-farm labor in farm operations. various situations analyzed, a minimum‘? acres of open land would be required befa off-farm labor can be shifted profitably F l ing. A minimum of 277 acres would be less than full-time off the farm. About l would be required to make profitable :1’ family labor. A level of net returns from farmi to the present returns from off-farm wo '1, require a relatively high level of resou ' for full-time farm operators in this area. ; (8) In view of this, full-time fa the area might be wise to evaluate their s’ and consider the possibility of off-farm { (9) The situations analyzed do not high levels of technology or of mane Part-time farm operators who have or velop greater management abilities assumed may obtain higher net returns analysis indicates, but this fact does W the general conclusions and recomme For example, if on the situation A farm‘; returns per unit of a cow-calf enterprise level improved pasture are increased by? cent by use of advanced technology or management, the farm resources requi l level of net returns equal to family in ‘l’ off-farm work activities are reduced. E’ farm income of $2,500, the open land is reduced from 248 to 167 acres. _ assuming that the labor requirements remain the same and only 1,250 hours? are available for farm work, 84 units-i’: roduced before it is profitable to shift family bor from off-farm work to farming. This i umber of units requires 187 acres of open land. l the land resources are fixed, the use of labor ving techniques decreases the labor used in rming and, consequently, leaves more family bor unemployed or available for off-farm work. (10) The income levels of part-time farm- in the area can be raised with a reorganiza- pon of the farm resources presently available. owever, such a reorganization requires less bor in farm activities than currently used. In ‘ way, this is a paradoxical situation, as a suc- sful program designed only to increase farm come substantially increases unemployment. IIEFINITIUNS 0F BUDGET IIEMS _ Capital investment requirements do not in- ude the value of land. Average capital repre- l ts the average investment required by the ecific enterprise. This assumes a straight line preciation for items such as buildings and uipment. For these items the average capital vestment required would be half the total capital _ “new value.” In the case of brood stock, total d average capital requirements are the same, ce the value of these investments is maintained - r an indefinite period. _ Operating capital or cash expenses include e value or cost of various items used in produc- n. These expenses are annual production costs L essary for enterprise operations. Equipment air and taxes are included as cash expenses, - use these costs must be covered if operators p» tinue production over a period of time. Labor requirements represent estimates of ual labor requirements for the various enter- 'ses. The amount of labor required for various [a and units of enterprises varies as much as duction conditions. Labor requirements are infates of requirements under conditions of erage skills and technology. Research data p» various sources were used to estimate labor iuirements. (See bibliography.) Land requirements for the various enter- ‘ses represent annual requirements. Gross receipts are gross product sales or ome resulting from the enterprise. With some rprises, male breeding stock will be sold dur- A. some years. These budgets were simplified including the purchase, depreciation and sale of these items under cash expenses as replacement cost. Returns over cash expenses are simply total receipts minus total cash expenses. This term is comparable to “net money income from farm operations.” Noncash expenses include interest charges and depreciation costs. Interest is a cost of using capital and is, therefore, a cost to the enterprise which uses capital as an item of production. Interest charges are based on the average invest- ment capital and half of the cash expenses, since many of these items do not represent 12-month investments. Depreciation costs assume straight line depreciation. Returns to land, labor, risk and management are returns over cash expenses minus total non- cash expenses. BIBLIUERAPHY Atkinson, R. L., “Feeding Turkeys,” Texas Agricultural Progress, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta., Vol. 6, No. 1, pages 19-22. TAP-180, Jan.-Feb. 1960. Butler, Charles P. and Burch, Thomas A., Production Requirements and Estimated Returns from Selected Crop and Livestock Enterprises in the Piedmont Area, South Carolina Agr. Expt. Sta. AE202, 1960. Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Prices (issued monthly), January-December, 1960. Crouch, E. K. and Jones, J. H., Beef Cattle and Pasture Production in the East Texas Timberlands, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. MP-332, 35 pp., 1959. Department of Animal Husbandry, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Swine Short Course, April 4-5, College Station, Texas, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. MP-428, 31 pp., illus., 1960. Ellis, Theo H. and Partenheimer, Earl J., Costs and Re- turns from Livestock Production in the Limestone Valley Areas of Alabama, Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta., Dec. 1960. Goodwin, John W., Plaxico, James S., and Lagrone, William F., Resource Requirements, Costs and Expected Re- turns; Alternative Crop and Livestock Enterprises; Clay Soils of the Rolling Plains of Southwestern Oklahoma, Okla. Agr. Expt. Sta. P-357, 54 pp., 1960. Gray, James A., Farm Sheep Production in Texas, Tex. Agr. Ext. Serv. B-827, 12 pp. Hale, Fred, Lyman, C. M., and Smith, H. A., Use of Cotton- seed Meal in Swine Rations, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 898, 14 pp., 1958. Hale, Fred, “Feeding the Swine Breeding Herd,” Texas Agricultural Progress, Vol. 6, No. 3, pages 9-10. TAP-191, May-June, 1960. Henderson, H. A. and Atkins, S. W., Costs and Returns from Sheep in Tennessee, Tenn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 306, 20 pp., 1959. Holt, E. C., Johnson, P. R., Buckingham, M., Hutson, H. C., Crouch, J. K., and Wood, J. R., Pasture, Hay and Silage Crops for East Texas, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 893, 26 pp., 1958. Johnson, R. G., and Nodland, T. R., Labor Used in Cattle Feeding, Minn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 451, 16 pp., 1960. 21 Magee, A. C., Fitting Beef Cattle into Central Texas Farm- ing, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 840, 13 pp., 1956._ Magee, A. C., and Rogers, R. H., Financing a Beef Cattle Enterprise on Blackland Farms, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 862, 11 pp., 1957. Magee, A. C., and Rogers, R. H., Combining Livestock With Cash Crops on Blackland Farms, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. MP-376, 11 pp., 1959. Magee, A. C., and Stone, B. H., Production Requirements and Costs, East Texas Laying Flocks, Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Prog. Rep. 2184, 1961. ‘ Martin, James R. and Southern, John H., Part-time Farm- ing in Northeast Texas, Tex. Agr. Exp-t. Sta. Bul. 970, 23 pp., 1961. Prater, T. E. and Jenkins, S. L., Guides for Estimating Return to Labor and Management—Resources Needed for $2,500 Labor—Management Income, Central and East Texas, Tex. Agr. Ext. Serv. MP-380, 27 pp. Prater, T. E. and Maddox, L. A., Guide for Estimating Annual Return to Labor, Management and Capital, Cow-Calf Operation—Central and East Texas, Tex. Agr. Ext. Serv. MP-398, 7 pp. 22 Reynolds, R. R., Fifteen Years of Management Crossett Farm Forestry Forties, Forest S ' Department of Agriculture, Southern F0 Sta. Occasional Paper 130, 27 pp., 1953. Roy, E. P. and Thomas, W. P. Jr., Financing -' and Marketing of Broilers in the South, Grower Phase, Alabama, Arkansas, Geor ana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto ' Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Sta. Southern Cooperative Series Bul. 57, Southern Forest Experiment Station, 1959 at th Forest Experiment Station, Forest Servi ' Department of Agriculture, 77 pp., 1960. Southern, John H. and Hendrix, W. E., Incom Famllies in Northeast Texas, Tex. Agr. Bul. 940, 32 pp., 1959. Stone, B. H., Preliminary Results of an Econo of the Beef ‘Cattle Enterprise in East Te ' ' graphed, 10 pp. Sutherland, Gwyn J., Bishop, C. E., and Hann, An Economic Analysis of Farm and Nonf j- of Resources on Small Farms in the South mont, North Carolina, North Carolina Agr. 97 Tech. Bul. 138, 55 pp., 1959. [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] ,,.\.. i mum sunou O nrs IUIITATIOIIS I nu nus LABORATORIES A ooorrlunm snmous Location oi field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies OPERATION ORGANIZATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service $0610” ,5 kQJQCZPCA ~96 §OHQOPPOW {*5 P09!’ ’ State-wide Reseagrc * 1 The Texas Agricultural Experiment St - is the public agricultural research age oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi I parts oi the AcSM College oi Texas. 3 . IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 13 i matter departments, 3 service departments, 3 regulatory services administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas oi 2O substations and 1O field laboratories. In addition, there are 13 c r- stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison V, U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Tec ~ i, College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch; experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural hom THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 4-50 active research PIOjCCISy in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. these are: Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle Conservation and use of water Dairy cattle Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats Grain crops Swine Cotton and other fiber crops Chickens and turkeys Vegetable crops Animal diseases and par Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fish and game _ Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engin Oil seed crops Farm and ranch busineig Ornamental plants Marketing agricultural --' Brush and weeds Rural home economics Insects Rural agricultural econ " ' Plant diseases 7’ Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS, - I WHYS. the WHENS. the WHERES and the HOW! hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi 1-- I and ranches, and the many industries depending __ or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main St - , and the field units oi the Texas Agricultural i ment Station seek diligently to find solutions to - problems.