Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

In Cooperation with the
Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station

DEPARTMENT BULLETIN No. 1421

Washington, D. C. October, 1926

AN. ECONOMIC STUDY OF IRRIGATED FARMING
IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO

By

BYRON HUNTER, Associate Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and
SAMUEL B. NUCKOLS, Associate Agronomist, Bureau of Plant Industry

Introduction

Scope of the Investigation

The District Studied

Agricaltural Development and Readjustment

Basiness Analysis of the Farms Studied

Cultural Practices and Labor Used per Gperation in Preducing Seven Crops
Cost of Preducing Seven Craps, 1919-1921

Net Returns per Acre from Seven Crops

A Method of Estimating Costs

Summary and Conclusions

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1926

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ES In Cooperation with the
Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station

DEPARTMENT BULLETIN No. 1421

Washington, D. C. Vv October, 1926

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY,
IDAHO

By Byron Hunter, Associate Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, and SAMUEL B. NucxKous, Associate Agronomist, Bureau of Plant
Industry

CONTENTS
Page Page
Introd chigneewe =. sae eee eee ee 1 Cost of producing seven crops, 1919-1921_____ 57
Scope of the investigation_-__.-..------------ A Labor and materials used per acre_______ 58
holdish ctssvudiedias== =e ys ee ae 4 Operating costs per acre_____-_______.___ 58
Agricultural development and readjustment_ 7 ni beres (ih ar ges Bee e eee le Ue 61
Increase in the sales value of real estate ___ 7 Total net cost per acre and per unit of
Changes in Idaho crop prices, 1910-11 to EO CALC hee Ma see. See ee Se SO Bee 62
ODS Aten ac aeemune Hidetne NSLS taba ee 8 WMariatlonsinycost: perm units. 1. e ne 62
Changes in the use ofland, 1913-1924______ 10 Cost per unit on farms having different
Changes in Idaho livestock, butter, and NENG IE oie, SS. oes age ees ne 64
wool prices, 1910-1924. ___________._.-_- 18 @ostiof horse labors2.2a55 2030. ot 67
Changes in production of livestock------ 20 Relation between the average hours of
Summary of project development------- 22 labor performed annually per horse per
Business analysis of the farms studied_______- 22 farm and the cost of direct horse labor
Generalicropiarms s-2 =" ne see 24 OCIS 0 UTisepes Serer a ee Oe CO 68
Dairy and general crop farms________---- 46 Variation in the cost of man labor per
Orchard and general crop farms____-__--_- 49 OUTER ene = ees ae a Nery aE 68
Relative returns from three types of Some other factors that affect costs______ 69
LAVIN Paes on eee ee CS Si 52 Net returns per acre from seven crops_-_-__-_-_- 70
Cultural practices and labor used per oper- A method of estimating costs_________-_______ 72
ation in producing seven crops, 1921______- 53 Summanyzandsconclusions= =). 2222 seases 73
INTRODUCTION

Farmers of southern Idaho are constantly confronting the prob-
lems of what and how much to produce, how to produce it and how
to dispose of the products to advantage. These problems are
especially perplexing in the irrigated districts, because of the wide
range of crops and livestock enterprises from which the farmers
must choose in the organization and management of their farms
and because of the constant changing of the prices of farm products.
The investigation reported in the following pages was undertaken to
obtain data that would be helpful in making these decisions.

The economic importance to Idaho of studies of this character is
indicated by the rapid growth of irrigated farming within the State

This investigation was conducted cooperatively by the Division of Farm Management of the Bureau
of Agricultural Economics and the Office of Sugar Plants of the Bureau of Plant Industry, United States
Department of Agriculture, and the Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station.

The authors wish to thank for their assistance in the collecting of the field data, L. C. Acher, N.S. Wight,
C. C. Taylor, F. H. Shelledy, R. Bristol, R. R. Rowell, L. N. Wilson, W. E. Schmid, A. K. Larson, H. B.
Pingrey, and V. Brothers. The thanks of the authors and the departments making this study are extended
also to the farmers from whom records were obtained and to others who helped to make the study possible
by their hearty cooperation.

96514°—26——1

2, BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

during the last quarter of a century as well as by the possibility of
further growth in the future. In round figures the irrigated area
ot the State increased from 609,000 acres in 1900 to 2,489,000 acres
in 1920 (figs. 1 and 2). Of the total acreage of improved land in

IDAHO
Relief Map

Fic. 1.—A large portion of the State of Idaho is rough and mountainous. Of the total
area of the State, less than 16 per cent was in farms and less than 9 per cent was
improved land in 1919. Ofthe total acreage in farms that year, only 54 per cent was
improved land. (Map from the School of Mines, University of Idaho)

farms, 55 per cent was irrigated in 1920. In addition there still
remain large areas of arid sagebrush land that is well adapted to

puleneed farming, for which water will doubtless be provided in the _
uture.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 3

The information presented herewith should be of special interest
(1) to the farmers of the Twin Falls south side irrigation project,
where the study was made; (2) to the farmers of other irrigated dis-

116°

Fic. 2.—Approximate location and extent of irrigated land. The irrigated districts are located along
the streams where water can be placed on the land most economically. Of the total acreage of
improved land of the State, 55 per cent was irrigated in 1919. (From the Fourteenth Census of the
United States Bureau of the Census)

tricts having soil and climatic conditions similar to those of the
district studied; and (8) to the settlers who undertake to develop

farms in new irrigated districts in the future.

4 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The investigation covered a four-year period, 1919 to 1922 in-
clusive. It included (1) a study of the agricultural development and
readjustments of the Twin Falls south side project, (2) a business
analysis of the farms studied during each of the years 1919-1922,
(3) the cost of producing each of the seven primary crops grown in
1919, 1920, and 1921, and (4) the average cost of keeping work horses
and the cost of horse labor per hour in 1921.

The information was obtained by the survey method. In 1919,
230 farm-survey records were obtained, 216 in 1920, 215 in 1921,
and 87 in 1922. Because of their incompleteness, inaccuracy, or
because of certain unusual features of farm practices or type of farm-
ing, several of the records obtained have not been used. During
the three years that cost of crop production studies were conducted
a total of 233 usable records were obtained for wheat, 184 for alfalfa,
122 for sugar beets, 120 for potatoes, 120 for beans, 97 for red clover
seed, and 30 for alsike cloverseed. In 1921, 151 records were obtained
showing the yearly cost of keeping work horses on these farms.
An attempt was made to obtain records from the same farms each
year so that a continuous study might be made of individual farms,
but this was made impracticable because of the frequent changing
of farm operators and changes in the size of the farms, owing to
sales of farms, leasing of additional land by some operators and the
changing of tenants.

THE DISTRICT STUDIED

The district studied is located in Twin Falls County near the
center of the Twin Falls south side irrigation project (fig. 2). The
farms visited are all within 10 miles of the city of Twin Falls and all
of them are below the high line irrigation canal. The average
elevation of the area is approximately 3,800 feet.

The Twin Falls south side irrigation project as a whole is a very
uniform body of land.t’ In round numbers about 203,000 acres are
under irrigation. The topography varies from nearly level to un-
dulating and gently rolling. In places there are some steep slopes.
Practically the entire project is well drained and but few localities
have become seeped. Probably because of the undulating and slop-
ing nature of the land the furrow system of irrigating has come into
almost universal use.

The soil of the project is also remarkably uniform.? There are
but few types of soil, most of which are silt loams. One of these,
the Portneuf silt loam, occupies from 90 to 95 per cent of the area
of the project. There are two phases of this type—the shallow and
the deep. The deep strongly predominates. The shallow phase
occurs where the solid rock or hardpan is found 8 feet or less below
the surface, and the other where the surface soil is deeper than 3 feet.
This soil is well supplied with lime, potash, and phosphorus. Like
most arid soils, however, it is rather low in organic matter and

vey: Geology and Water Resources of the Snake River Plains of Idaho. ‘ :
? For a discussion of the soils of the district studied see Advance Sheets-Field Operations, Bureau of
Soils, 1921: Soil Survey of the Twin Falls Area, Idaho.

-

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO a

The monthly precipitation for the four years of this study and
the normal monthly precipitation are shown in Figure 3. The dis-
trict has the characteristic inter-mountain type of rainfall—very
dry summers and wet winters. The average monthly precipitation
of July and August is less than 0.5 of an inch and that of June,
September, and October is less than an inch. Table 1 presents the
general climatic conditions of the district. On the average there
are but 76 rainy days (days having at least 0.01 of an inch of pre-
cipitation) durmg the year. Six of these rainy days fall in June,
3 in July, 2 in August, 4 in September, and 5 in October. Fair

NORMAL MONTHLY AND MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT TWIN FALLS, IDAHO

te | a: = INCHES -
1920
2 2
| |
0 0
INCHES INCHES
2 2
4 Bi Norma/
1 I % a jn WA
Joeb--M SAMs Jats As SiO) UN. 'D- ic Mos A a IM eum OL oA tome tOr aN Da

Fic. 3.—This district has the Pacific type of rainfall, dry summers and wet winters. During the
years 1919, 1920, and 1921, the monthly precipitation varied greatly from the normal. (Compiled
from reports of the Weather Bureau)

weather, therefore, usually prevails when most of the crops are being
harvested. In 1920, however, there were 14 rainy days in September,
12 in October, and 12 in November. This caused considerable
damage to the bean crop and the third cutting of alfalfa. The
jength of the frost-free period, as seen from Table 1, is about 129 days.
Because of the variations in the dates of the last killing frost in the
spring and the first in the fall, crops may be damaged by low tem-
perature at either end of the growing season. Occasionally hail
storms sweep across the country and do more or less damage where
they strike.

6 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TasBLE 1.—Climatic conditions, Twin Falls, Idaho, 1913-1922

9 Average
Item 1919 1920 1921, 1922 1913-1932
Maximumi\tempenraturesssen 2 sos ane ee a Dee 101 100 98 101 100
MinimMUMMteM peratwre ss. = = a eee ee =15 —5 —1 =30 —9
Mean annual temperature__.__-.2.----.=-=:-=-=-° Fez 47.4 47.3 48.7 45.8) - 46.0
Mean temperature, Apr. 1 to Sept. 80____------- a De 61.6 59.3 59. 0 60. 8 60. 6
Last killing frost in spring !.__.-------.-----+--.------| June 1]|Jume 1] May 12| May 27| June 2
First killing frost in fall 9... .__.2-2-222.2.-+.-12.-22s.| Oct. 10+) Oct. 16) Sept. 12;| Sept: 29°) Sept..13
Days free of killing frost-__.___--------_---_number-- 131 137 123 125
Rain ys ays 2 hel Geek eee ee eee eee do._.-- 79 89 8i 88 76
IPFeciplianoneA piel svorO Ch roles eee inches-_- 3 63} 5. 99 5. 95 4, 87 5. 03
Precipitation’ totalvannuale a5 = ee doses 8. 53 9. 93 11. 29 9. 41 10. 83

1 No frosts occurred later in the spring than June 2 during 8 of the 10 years.
2 No frosts occurred earlier in the fall than Sept. 13 during 8 of the 10 years.

Compiled fron U. 8. Weather Bureau, Climatological Data, Idaho Section.
The elevation where the weather observations were made is 3,825 feet.

There is a very wide range of productive enterprises admirably
adapted to the district. The principal crops grown are wheat,
alfalfa, red and alsike clover, beans, sugar beets, potatoes, and, during
recent years, corn. Barley and oats are grown in limited quantities
for feed. Many of the small fruits do well, and considerable quanti-
ties of apples and other tree fruits are grown commercially. Head
lettuce was grown in commercial quantities for shipment during 1922
and 1923. Pastures that are properly seeded and managed have a
carrying capacity of at least two cows per acre for five to six months
of the year. The excellent pasturage that may be provided and the
high yields of alfalfa and wheat, and of corn, both for grain and for
silage, make it possible to produce livestock and livestock products
economically.

The whole of southern Idaho tends strongly to crop and livestock
production, but there are no large cities and manufacturing centers
to be fed and farmers must depend largely on distant markets.
Transportation charges therefore play a very important part in deter-
mining what enterprises may be conducted with profit. When the
price of potatoes or of apples is very low, for example, the potato or
apple freight rate differential between Twin Falls and producing
areas located near consuming centers may be sufficient to make it
impossible to market the crop with profit. This was the condition in
1922, when approximately one-third of the potato crop and a con-
siderable portion of the apple crop were never harvested.

All of southern Idaho is served by a single railroad (the Oregon
Short Line) and its branch-line feeders. One of these branches serves
the Twin Falls south side project. It leaves the main road of the
Oregon Short Line at Minidoka, enters the project at its eastern border
and has its terminal at Buhl, near the western border of the project.
Another branch line leaves the Minidoka-Buhl line at Twin Falls and
runs south to Wells, Nev., a distance of 119 miles, thus connecting
with the Southern Pacific Railroad. This gives a direct outlet from
the Twin Falls south side project to the California markets.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 7

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND READJUSTMENT

When the land contained in the Twin Falls south side irrigation
project was opened for homestead entry in 1904, it formed the western
part of Cassia County, Idaho. The project was developed under the
Carey Act and water for irrigation was available in the spring of 1905.
The homesteaders paid the State of Idaho 50 cents per acre for the
raw sagebrush land. They also paid $25 per acre for the construction
of the irrigating system. In addition, they have paid the operating
and maintenance charges, and from time to time assessments have
been made for improvements and for drainage.

A high class. of people settled the project. Some of them had
considerable financial means and were able to build comfortable
homes (fig. 4) before getting any returns from the land. Others
had to provide very modest dwellings in the beginning. Since many
of these modest homes which were built during the early years of the
development of the project are still in use, the character of the farm
dwellings varies widely at present.

See

Fic. 4.—One of the better-equipped farmsteads. Good dwellings are not uncommon but good barns
are somewhat rare because the secant rainfall makes it unnecessary to store hay under shelter

Twin Falls County was organized from the western part of Cassia
County in 1907. In 1900 Cassia County contained 477 farms and
had a population of 3,951. At that time very few of the farms were
located in the western part of the county. By 1910 Twin Falls
County had 1,295 farms and a population of 13,548. In 1920 the
number of farms had increased to 2,746 and the population to 28,398.
Ninety-five per cent of the farms were irrigated in 1919 and the
total acreage under irrigation that year was 261,622 acres. Of this
total the Twin Falls south side irrigation project contained approxi-
mately 203,000 acres. :

INCREASE IN THE SALES VALUE OF REAL ESTATE

Figure 5 shows the sales value of real estate within the district
studied by two-year periods from 1905 to 1922. In taking the sur-
vey records, farmers were asked when they purchased their farms
and the price paid. There were 10 sales in the first two-year period
(1905-6), 17 in the second, 15 in the third, 19 in the fourth, 19 in the
fifth, 30 in the sixth, 62 in the seventh, 59 in the eighth, and 8 in
the ninth.

In the beginning the land was covered with a medium to heavy
growth of sagebrush. Before crops could be raised the land had to

8 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

be cleared and leveled sufficiently to permit of irrigation. Ditches
for delivering the water from the canals to the land also had to be
built. In considering the sales value of the land as shown in Figure
5, it should be remembered that the sales for the earlier years, in the
main, represent land that was but little improved. In some cases
it represents only the relinquishment of the homestead right. The
sales made during the later years generally represent well-developed
land with buildings and a paid-up water right. The increase in land
value, therefore, is partially due to the addition of improvements.

SALES VALUE PER ACRE OF REAL ESTATE FOR TWO-YEAR PERIODS
DOLLARS
R

O
1905-06 ‘07-08 ’09-'10 "M-"1l2 "13-"14 15-16 17-18 "19-20 *2l-22

Fic. 5.—The values of real estate for the earlier years covered by this figure are for raw land or land
that was little improved; for the later years the values usually represent well-developed farm land

CHANGES IN IDAHO CROP PRICES, 1910-11 TO 1923-24

Average prices to producers in Idaho are shown in Table 2 for
wheat, oats, barley, clover seed, and potatoes from 1910-11 to
1923-24; for beans and sugar beets from 1911-12 to 1923-24; and
for alfalfa hay from 1915-16 to 1923-24. Yearly average: prices
were obtained by weighting the average monthly prices for each
year according to the monthly movement of each crop to market.
Figure 6 presents these prices, except for alfalfa hay, in percentages
of base prices. Averages from 1910-11 to 1914-15 are the base
prices used for all crops except beans and sugar beets. For these
two crops, averages from 1911-12 to 1914-15 furnished the base.
Since no prices for alfalfa hay are available prior to 1915-16, alfalfa
is omitted from Figure 6. There probably was some variation
between average prices for the State as a whole and the prices Twin
Falls farmers received, but the data presented in Table 2 and Figure
6 should reflect price conditions at Twin Falls very closely.

TRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO

9

TABLE 2.—Hstimated average prices to producers in Idaho, for specified crops,

1910-11 to 1923-24

|
Year beginning Wheat | Oats per} Barley eee Potatoes} Beans | See eer.
Aug. 1 per bushel] bushel /per bushel bushel |Pe bushel) per bushel Start fonllshortiton
Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
IROL Ih re es ae ee 0. 76 0. 43 0. 55 7. 93 ORT (a oars So Balints per cE. ie ee
TQ Se . 67 43 . 69 8. 72 . 74 2. 60 50 25| tea eee
OID =e ss SALLE . 67 35 . 59 8.11 . 34 Dail ESS yal Rae boy ee
NOIZ=Aa cee Pe ae . 66 36 202 7. 02 . 53 2. 57 BOO Fe ann ele oe
NOP ASN FE en Oe . 80 38 . 53 entil 00 2. 79 To | ee A
Average 1910-11 to
GTA HT Se Sees ail . 39 3 YE 7. 91 . 69 12.67 Te Aas eee nee
IOS 1622225 eee 80 .38 53 Oe 64 2. 99 5. 08 9. 54
1OTG =e ots eee = 1. 30 . 4 70 9. 22 | 1. 38 4. 51 6. 16 15. 62
NOWi—lSta ees == ere 1.88 .79 1. 06 12. 40 80 6. 58 7. 06 Alia, 117
AL GG Ore ok eee we 1. 96 88 1. 30 18. 24 | 81 5. 68 | 10. 00 TE By
STO = 20 Me Sets ae Ee ae 2.10 97 1. 41 25. 50 2.10 4.17 11. 00 24. 26
NOQQ=21EE- Sere ie Lie 3 1. 74 . 68 1. 20 13. 85 87 3. 27 12. 10 11. 36
G2 —O De ea ee eee eS 81 .37 55 9. 51 93 2. 78 | 6. 00 6. 83
O22 23 ease se CA eM 84 . 49 62 9. 93 | 47 3. 18 | 8. 28 10: 11
O23 DAs: aa Sete? 79 . 46 63 Hake 10! | 65 3. 54 Tha 2M! 9. 46

1 Averages 1911-12 to 1914-15.
The yearly prices were obtained by weighting the monthly prices according to the monthly movement

of the respective commodities to market.

Compiled from data of Division, of Crop and Livestock Estimates, Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

INDEX NUMBER OF PRICES TO PRODUCERS IN IDAHO

1910-1914=100 for potatoes
wheat, barley, oats, and
clover seed. :
1911-1914=100 for beans, and
sugar beets.

Year=August-July

Py es
S aoe

yrea

Od

°
i
4
{

! 19-12. $ 1913-14 ! 1915-16 | 1917-18 | 1919-20 | 1921-22 | 1923-24 |
1910-1] 1912-13 © 1914-15 1916-17 1918-19 1920-"2l 1922-23 1924-25

Fic. 6.—The crop year begins August 1. With the exception of potatoes, prices were fairly stable
prior to and including the crop year 1915-16. Since that year price changes have been rather

violent. (Compiled from the reports of the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates)

96514°—26——2

10 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Prices, it is seen from Table 2 and Figure 6, remained fairly stable
from 1910-11 to 1915-16 with the price of potatoes the only excep-
tion. From 1916-17 to 1923-24, on the other hand, prices fluctuated
widely. The price of each crop advanced during the crop year
1916-17. With the exception of potatoes and alfalfa hay the price
of each crop advanced again in 1917-18. There was a very marked
divergence, however, in the rate at which the prices of the respective
crops increased and these violent price changes greatly affected the
agricultural equilibrium of the district and caused marked changes
in the relative acreage devoted to the respective crops. 7

CHANGES IN THE USE OF LAND, 1913-1924

The Twin Falls south side irrigation project has now passed through
20 crop seasons. During this time many shifts have been made in
the relative acreage devoted to the individual crops grown. In old
and well-established farming communities, experience shows what
crop and livestock enterprises are best adapted to local conditions
and what crop yields, on the average, may be expected.

It must be remembered that the district under consideration is -
new and passing through the formative period. In the beginning
the settlers lacked the background of experience. They had to
learn (1) what crop and livestock enterprises are adapted to the
conditions of the project; (2) how to grow each crop under irrigation;
and (3) what products could be disposed of in the available market.
Under these circumstances considerable shifting in the use of land
should be expected. 7 |

Wheat, oats, barley, and alfalfa were the principal crops grown
during the early years of the project. It was customary to grow one
or more small-grain crops in the beginning, the land being leveled
each time a crop was planted. As soon as the land was sufficiently
level to permit the irrigation water to flow fairly uniformly and
not collect in depressions, alfalfa was planted. In a few years so
much altalfa was produced that hay became very cheap and the
growing of other crops soon followed.

No definite information concerning the acreages devoted to the
respective crops and to pasture for the project as a whole is avail-
able prior to 1912, at which time the Twin Falls Canal Co., began
taking a crop and livestock census. The annual reports of these
census enumerations furnish the data presented in Figure 7. The
percentages of the crop and pasture land of the entire project that
has been devoted to the individual crops and to pasture from 1913-—
1924 are shown in Figure 7.

The causes of the changes in the use of land can be pointed out

only in part. Average crop yields for the project are not available
except for the years 1919-1922, inclusive (Table 11); the prices
presented in Table 2 should be considered only as very close approxi-
mations of the prices received by Twin Falls farmers; and cost-of-
production data are available only for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921.
For these reasons no comparison can be made of the net returns per
acre of the respective crops for the years prior to 1919.

In considering the changes in the use of land that have taken
place, it should be kept in mind that each crop frequently serves some
important function in addition to returning a cash value. <A few
examples will assist in making this point clear: (1) The usual method

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 1a

PERCENTAGE OF CROP AND PASTURE ACREAGE DEVOTED TO THE RESPECTIVE CROFS
AND PASTURE.ON THE TWIN FALLS SOUTH SIDE IRRIGATION PROJECT

PER CENT

GARDEN AND OTHER CROPS

SUGAR BEETS

POTATOES

to)

—

ouNnocoounscounocoounoounuoconound

COMMERCIAL ORCHARDS

PASTURE

ouon

20 : SSS STOVER

Ss — — — — — —

OT 7c ar eas pa ann
35

Sead aoe in ALFALFA

> | —f— 2h —

1913. 1914 1915 1916 1917-1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924

Fic. 7.—The percentages of the combined crop and pasture acreage that were devoted to the
respective crops and to pasture during the years 1913-1924 are indicated by the perpendicular
bars and the figures opposite the respective crops. The variations in the prices of farm prod-
ucts, the changing of freight rates, the variations in the losses due to plant diseases and insect
pests, and the competition of other producing areas are some of the factors that have caused
shifts in the relative acreages devoted to tae different crops. (Compiled from the annual
reports of the Twin Falls Canal Co,)

| BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

of getting a stand of alfalfa and clover is to seed, them in the early
spring with wheat, oats, or barley. Obtaining a stand of clover or
alfalfa may be the chief reason for growing the grain crop. (2)
Alfalfa, clover, and beans have the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen,
and for this reason the production of these crops may increase the
yield of subsequent crops very materially. This may be of greater
importance than the cash value of the crops produced. (3) Sugar
beets, potatoes, beans, and corn are row-tilled and it is frequently
necessary to place one of them in the rotation or cropping system in
order to keep weed pests under control.

THE SMALL-GRAIN CROPS

Wheat, oats, and barley require practically the same cultural
operations and there is little difference in their acre cost of pro-
duction. [Each of these crops may be used also as the nurse crop
for starting alfalfa and clover. In other words, they are competitive
crops. For these reasons the changes in the acreages devoted to
these three crops will be discussed as a group.

Wheat.— During the 12-year period, 1913-1924, wheat has occupied
a ereater percentage of the combined crop and pasture land than any
other crop with alfalfa a close second. During the first four years
of this period there was considerable variation in the acreage devoted
to wheat. The wheat acreage was rapidly increased from 1916 to
1918. This rapid increase was doubtless due to the assurance of an
attractive price and the urgent request of the Federal Government
for an increased total production of this crop. From 1918 to 1924
there was a steady decline in the acreage and importance of wheat.
In 1924 only 14 per cent of the combined crop and pasture area
of the project was in wheat, whereas in 1918 there was 43 per cent.

As a feed crop wheat outdistances both oats and barley. When
expressed in pounds per acre the average yields of these crops on the
farms studied in this investigation from 1919 to 1922 were as follows:
Wheat, 2,580 pounds; oats, 1,568 pounds; and barley, 2,064 pounds.
It is apparent, therefore, why wheat has become the prominent small-
grain crop of the project.

Oats.—During the early years of the project, oats were an impor-
tant crop. While the irrigating system was being constructed there
was a demand for considerable horse feed. This provided a local
market for oats. As this local demand diminished and as farmers
became able, through their experience, to compare the yields and
acre values of wheat, oats, and barley, the relative acreage of oats
began to decline. In 1912 approximately 14 per cent of the land in
crops and pasture was in oats and in 1913 but 10 per cent. This
decline continued for several years and since 1918 less than 2 per
cent has been in oats.

Darley.—Barley, like oats, is grown for local consumption. For
this reason it has never become an important crop. In only one
year since 1912 has as much as 5 per cent of the crop and pasture
land been occupied by barley. This was in 1924. The other ex-
treme was 1.6 per cent in 1913 and again in 1921.

ALFALFA

Alfalfa has been a very prominent crop from the beginning of the

agriculture of the project. It is the chief hay and soil-building crop

ee on oe

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 1:

and there has been little change in its relative importance during the
last 10 years. The percentage of the crop and pasture land devoted
to alfalfa has varied from 23 per cent in 1915 to 31 per cent in 1920,

Fic. 8.—A common method of stacking alfalfa hay

and the average for the 12-year period is 27 per cent. The relative
importance of no other crop has changed so little as that of alfalfa.
Common methods of stacking and feeding alfalfa hay are shown in
Figures 8 and 9.

Fic. 9.—A wagonload of hay is thrown into the rack and the animals are allowed to help themselves
CLOVER

As presented in Figure 7, clover includes red, alsike, and white
clover. One cutting of hay (about 1 ton) and a seed crop are ob-
tained from red clover, while alsike clover and white clover are grown
entirely for the seed crop.

14 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The acreage devoted to these three clover crops increased very
rapidly from 1913 to 1916, because it was found that this district is
well adapted to the production of heavy yields of clover seed, and
prices for seed were reasonably good. In 1917 and 1918 there was
a rapid decrease in the clover acreage, owing partly to the desire. to
increase the acreage of wheat, and partly to the difficulty in control-
ling the clover aphis, which became a serious pest. The high prices
of clover seed in 1918 and 1919, it would seem, had some influence
in causing the increase in the clover acreage in 1920 and 1921.

THE ROW-TILLED CROPS

Potatoes, sugar beets, beans, and corn are the row-tilled crops of
the project. These crops are competitive; that is, one crop may
be substituted for any of the others in the rotation and cropping sys-
tems of the project by making minor adjustments in the farm opera-
tions. It is of interest, therefore, to note how the relative acreages
devoted to potatoes, sugar beets, and beans (prior to 1922 corn occu-
pied a very minor position) have seesawed back and forth during the
12-year period, 1913-1924, as shown in Figure 7. These changes may
be considered as the expression of the efforts of farmers to find the
most remunerative crops to grow. The constant changing of prices,
the variations of yields from farm to farm and from year to year
and the differences in their acre cost of production are the chief fac-
tors which have prevented farmers from arriving at a fairly accurate
judgment as to the relative merits of these crops.

Potatoes.—The estimated average price received for potatoes

fluctuated more violently during the 14-year period covered by
Table 2 and Figure 6 than did the price of any of the other crops.
These violent changes in price seem to have been followed by cor-
responding changes in the potato acreage. For example, the esti-
mated price received for the 1912 crop was low and relatively low for
the 1913 and 1914 crops. The potato acreage was materially reduced
in 1915 and againin 1916. The estimated price received for the 1916
crop was extremely high when compared with the prices received for
the other crops and in 1917 the potato acreage was more than doubled.
The price received for the 1917 crop fell to a lower level than that of
any of the other crops and remained at this low level for the crop
erown in 1918.

The average peak price of the 14-year period ($2.10 per bushel)
was reached for the crop grown in 1919. The high price obtained for
this crop seems to have had but little influence on the acreage planted
in 1920, for the increase was slight. It is believed that the extremely
high price of seed potatoes in the spring of 1920 ($3 to $6 per bushel)
deterred many from planting potatoes.

In 1921 the acreage of potatoes was increased nearly 75 per cent
although the average price received for the 1920 crop was relatively
low. ‘The price received for the 1921 crop was high when compared
with the prices received for other crops and in 1922 the potato acre-
age was Increased about 70 per cent. The price received for the
1922 crop dropped to a very low level and the acreage was materially
reduced in both 1923 and 1924.

The irrigation and harvesting of potatoes are shown in Figures 10
and 11.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 15

Sugar beets.—Sugar beets are grown under contract, and prior to
1922, farmers knew definitely at Slateins time what price they were to
receive. The 1922, 1923, and 1924 crops were grown under a sliding-
scale contract, the final price depending on the returns received for
the sugar made from the beet crop. Because the crop was grown

Fic. 10.—Potatoes are irrigated from three to five times during the growing season

under a definite contract, sugar-beet growers (prior to 1922) were
not so much subjected to speculative conditions as were the potato
erowers.

The price received for the 1916 sugar-beet crop was considerably
higher than that received for the previous crop. The price in-

Fic. 11.—Harvesting the potato crop

crease continued each year until 1920 when the peak price of $12.10
per ton (State average) was reached. The price received for the 1921
crop fell to $6 per ton. Under the sliding-scale contract the price
received for the 1922 crop advanced to $8.28 per ton and then dropped
back again to an average of $7.21 per ton for the 1923 crop.

16 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A study of Table 2 and Figure 7 shows there is not the close re-
lation between the price and the acreage of sugar beets that exists
between the potato price and potato acreage. Sugar-beet yields
fluctuate from year to year more widely than do potato yields.
Variation in yield may have even more influence on changes in acre-
age than has variation in price.

In 1915 the average yield of all sugar beets delivered to the sugar
factory at Twin Falls was about 25 per cent above the 10-year
average, 1914-1923. In 1916 and 1917 the acreage devoted to
sugar beets was materially increased. The increase in the price
received for these two crops lagged considerably behind the in-
crease in the price received for all other crops, with the exception of
that received for the 1917 potato crop. The average yield of beets
during these two years was about 1 ton below the 10-year average,
and in 1918 the acreage devoted to sugar beets was reduced a little

Fic. 12.—Four rows of sugar beets are planted and every other row furrowed out for irrigating at the
same operation

more than 50 per cent. The beet acreage then increased from 1919
to 1921. The price received for the 1921 sugar-beet crop dropped
from $12.10 to $6 per ton and the yield to about 70 per cent of the 10-
year average. This made beets a very unprofitable crop and in 1922
the beet acreage was but 26 per cent of the 1921 acreage. High yields
and better prices were obtained in 1922 and 1923 and the acreage
increased again in 1923 and 1924.

The usual method of planting sugar beets is shown in Figure 12.

Beans.— The price of beans began to advance in 1915 and the peak
average price of $6.58 per bushel was for the 1917 crop. At that
price, the cost studies indicate, beans were the most profitable crop
grown in 1917. As a result the acreage occupied by beans in 1918
and 1919 was about double the 1917 acreage. From the high level
attained in 1917, the price of beans gradually declined each year
until an average of $2.78 per bushel was received for the 1921 crop.

Cores ay ns Ha Lt ee

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 17

In response to the drop in price, the acreage also dropped more than
70 per cent from 1919 to 1921. In 1922 the acreage of beans was
more than doubled, the price advanced more than 10 per cent and
the yield obtained was more than 60 per cent above the average
yield of the three preceding years. The high vield and the advance
in price made beans a very popular crop in 1922. The increase in
the acreage in 1923 and 1924 indicates the continued popularity of
the crop. Cultivation of beans is shown in Figure 13.

Corn.—Corn occupied a very minor position in the cropping
system of the project prior to 1922. That year nearly 4 per cent of
the crop and pasture land was in corn and a little more than 9 per
cent was in corn in 1923. In the beginning of the development of
the project, it was generally believed that the climatic conditions
were not suited to the production of corn. <A few, however, persisted
in growing small acreages. As a better knowledge of how to produce

Fic. 13.—Beans are generally cultivated with a four-row beet cultivator

the crop under irrigation was gained and as varieties better adapted
to the climatic conditions were developed, the yield per acre increased.
There is little definite information as to the rate of increase. On
the Boise reclamation project (see annual reports of the Bureau of
Reclamation), 150 miles to the northwest, the average yield of corn
increased from 21 bushels per acre in 1912 to 55 bushels in 1923.
The swing to corn in 1922 and 1923 was due (1) to a greater appre-
ciation of the possibility of growing more feed per acre with corn than
with any other grain crop, and (2) to a greater need for feed because
of the increase of livestock on the project. The acreage grown in
1923 was somewhat in excess of the local need, and in 1924 the crop
was materially reduced. |

Peas.—Field peas occupied 3.5 per cent of the crop and pasture
acreage in 1913. The crop then declined in importance and since
1917 less than 1 per cent of the combined crop and pasture land has
been devoted to this crop.

96514 °—26—_3

18 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

COMMERCIAL ORCHARDS

Commercial orchards, especially apple orchards, were planted
extensively in the beginning of the development of the project.
Unfortunately, too many varieties were planted, some of which were
of inferior quality. By the time the orchards came into bearing,
some of the new varieties had become popular. This made sales
difficult for those having the inferior varieties, except during years
of light production. Many of the orchards were neglected. Some
of them were operated in connection with general farming by men
who would not learn the necessary details of apple growing and

INDEX NUMBERS OF PRICES TO PRODUCERS IN IDAHO

T = “ * Wool
Average of 1910-1914=100 : y ae
2 alee

exe xexex
x

e:

By
°
*
sk
e
&
°
x
e
a
° os

: Butt

oO SSS =" /
| ae = \ eA

Noe

50

ISOs ell fe IA ISG iy Ora 9S s220 SAN ee Cates eee

Fic. 14.—The index numbers in this figure are on the calendar year basis, whereas those in
Figure 6 are on a crop-year basis. Like crop prices, most of the livestock prices fluctuated vio-
lently from 1916 to 1924

marketing. Liven some of the strictly apple farms were neglected.
Up to 1917 most of the marketing was done under the consignment
system and the financial returns were often very unsatisfactory.
The great distance to the principal apple markets makes competition
stiff during years when the crop is heavy in the eastern States.
These are some of the conditions and circumstances which led many
apple growers to become so discouraged that they pulled up their
trees and engaged in general farming. In 1913 approximately 7
per cent of the crop and pasture land was in commercial orchards.
For several years the proportional orchard acreage decreased and
since 1917 less than 2 per cent has been in commercial orchards.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 19

GARDEN AND OTHER CROPS

In Figure 7 the family garden, the family orchard, and a few minor
crops, such as onions and head lettuce, are grouped together under
“Garden and other crops.’’ The figure shows no radical changes in
the proportional acreage devoted to this group from 1913 to 1924.

PASTURE

The permanent pastures of the project are mostly seeded to blue-
grass. Ladino clover, one of the newly introduced pasture crops,
shows promise of replacing some of the blue grass. During the
period covered by Figure 7, the relative acreage devoted to pasture
‘remained fairly constant. In response to the increase in livestock
in 1923 and 1924, the pasture acreage was slightly increased during
these two years. °

CHANGES IN IDAHO LIVESTOCK, BUTTER, AND WOOL PRICES, 1910-1924

Average prices to producers in Idaho are shown in Table 3 for
milk cows, butter, hogs, horses, sheep, and wool for the years 1910 to
1924, inclusive. The yearly prices for milk cows and horses are the
averages of the monthly prices. The yearly prices for the other
commodities were obtained by weighting the monthly prices according
to the monthly movement of each commodity to market. Figure 14
presents these prices in percentages of base prices. The base used for
each commodity is the average of the 1910 to 1914 prices.

TABLE 3.—Average prices to producers in Idaho for milk cows, butter, hogs, horses,
sheep, wool, and beef catile, 1910-1924

: = Beef
Milk Butter | Hogs | Wool Sheep

Year cows per per 100 | ee per per 100 cattle per

per head} pound | pounds | pound | pounds pounds

Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
EQLOEL #2 Pusan | ee Ses 43 0.33 | 7. 96 | 148 | 0.19 4.83 5. 04
eS atans e e e e e 47 29 | 6. 84 | 133 15 4. 06 4. 63
iN Pe ales ie ea Le a RS Sera 58 ol | 6. 72 | 131 17 4.06 SSC
i Vib te ee Oe an ome 2 eee eee eee eee 71 mer foals 128 16 4. 28 6. 06
he 1 See ee eee ee ee Tis . 29 6.95 121 17 4. 50 6.01
Average 1910-1914____._________. 59 31 7.12 | 132 17 4. 35 5. 38
Mth vets ot eel Scere | 72 27 5.97 | 120 22 | 5.38 | 5. 62
thi (Skee Soak ee ee ae eee 70 30 | 7. 59 | 122 27 6. 34 6. 04
wily ES eo ee ee eee ee ae 77 40 13. 45 | 129 7 10. 50 7. 53

TOS 2 eee ee ee SIS S| 84 47 lay sya! 125 57 9. 89 3. 7
Pepe eo Sao ee ee 89 56 15. 21 | 111 46 8. 21 8. 91
C2) Ac eaelt 2 eee Ree 85 59} 1259| . 112 36 7.88 | 7.82
1A ES et oe eee 67 39 8. 05 90 16 4. 57 5. 25
aa AES iia ee | 71 36 8 54 | 7 27 5. 86 5. 27
ia eee eee ee ee 72 43 Z12 | 76 . 39 6. 40 5. 22
Ld 7A se see od Sete Oe ee 67 40 7. 29 64 .39 5. 63 3. 17

———

Compiled from data of Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

The yearly price of milk cows and horses are simple averages of the monthly prices. The yearly prices
for butter, hogs, sheep, wool, and beef cattle were obtained by weighting monthly prices according to the
monthly movement of the respective commodities to market.

There was a general downward trend in the price of horses from
1910 to 1924, the average price being $148 per head in 1910 and $64
in 1924. The price of milk cows advanced nearly 80 per cent from
1910 to 1914; the price of the other commodities (sheep, wool, hogs,
beef cattle, and butter) remained fairly stable during the five-year
base period. During the war period the prices of butter, milk cows,

20 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

horses, and beef cattle remained at a very much lower level than did
crop prices. While the price of hogs rose 116 per cent above the
five-year base average, the prices of the grain crops used for hog feed
rose to a much higher level. Sheep reached their peak price in 1917
and wool in 1918. Each then declined in price during the next four
years. In 1923 the price of wool again rose to an attractive level

and the prices of sheep and lambs advanced considerably in 1922 and

1923.
CHANGES IN PRODUCTION OF LIVESTOCK

The classes of livestock that have been of more or less importance
in the development of the project are dairy and beef cattle, hogs,
sheep, poultry, and horses. Poultry was not included in the livestock
census taken by the Twin Falls Canal Co., and is omitted from this
discussion for that reason. The number of animals of each class
kept per 100 acres of erop and pasture land from 1914 to 1924 is
shown in Figure 15. Prior to 1914 such information is not available.

Horses.—The number of work horses and mules kept per 100 acres
of crop and pasture land increased from 2.6 head in 1914 to 5 head
in 1924. This increase was doubtless due to an increase in the
intensity of farming. The percentage of the crop and. pasture land
devoted to the row-tilled crops (potatoes, sugar beets, beans, and
corn) increased during this period from 6.5 per cent in 1913 to nearly
35 per cent in 1924. The row-tilled crops, it is well known, require
a much greater amount of horse labor than other crops. The com-

bined number of mares, stallions, jacks, and colts, in contrast to ~

the work horses, decreased from 3.4 head per 100 acres of land in
1914 to 0.9 head in 1924. This was owing to the decline in the value
of horses. In other words, the raising of colts became very un-
profitable.

Dairy cattle—The number of dairy cattle per 100 acres of land
slumped suddenly in 1917 and began to increase again about 1920.
By 1922 the number had passed the previous high point reached in
1915. The price of milk cows and butter advanced slowly from 1915
to 1919, whereas crop prices increased rapidly during this time.
As a result there was a decrease in dairy farming and a swing to
crop farming. Dairying began to increase again when the prices
of crops reached low levels.

Beef catitle.—Beef cattle (other cattle) was a very minor enter-
prise that about held its own during the 11 years covered by Figure 15.
Among the beef cattle kept on the project are a number of purebred
herds that are maintained primarily for the production of breeding
stock. Although the price of beef cattle advanced less than 70 per
cent during the period of inflation, as compared with the 1910-1914
average, the number kept per 100 acres of crop and pasture land
remained fairly constant.

Hogs.—The number of hogs per 100 acres of land increased con-
siderably in 1915, decreased slightly in 1916 and precipitously in 1917,
reached the low ebb in 1921, and then made a substantial advance
in 1922 and 1923. The highest price of hogs shown in Table 3 is
$15.37 per 100 pounds in 1918. This is 115 per cent above the
1910-1914 average price. The increase in the price of the grain
crops (wheat, barley, and corn), on which hogs are fattened in the
Twin Falls district, on the other hand, was much greater. The high
average price reached for barley and wheat during this time was

i San

ee, = See nee RST

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 21

ANIMALS PER 100 ACRES OF CROP AND PASTURE LAND, TWIN FALLS SOUTH SIDE IRRIGA-
TION PROJECT

NUMBER

MARES, COLTS; STALLIONS; AND JACKS

WORK HORSES AND MULES

DAIRY CATTLE

40

20

1914 "15 16 17 18 "19 20 vay 22 23 "24

Fic. 15.—The number of each kind of animal kept per 100 acres of crop and pasture land during
the years 1914 to 1924, inclusive, is indicated by the perpendicular bars and the figures opposite the
respective classes of livestock. (Compiled from the annual reports of the Twin Falls Canal Co.)

22 BULLETIN 1421, U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

147 and 195 per cent higher than the 1910-1914 average, respectively,
for barley and wheat. Hence the slump in the hog enterprise in 1917.

Sheep.—A campaign conducted in southern Idaho from 1913 to
1916 to increase farm flocks of sheep is doubtless responsible for
much of the increase in the number per 100 acres during 1915 and
1916. However, many farmers, inexperienced in the management
of sheep, undertook the enterprise on too large a scale and were more
or less unsuccessful. Because of this disadvantage and the excep-
tionally attractive prices of crops, there was a shift from sheep to

cash-crop farming. Figure 15 shows a continuous decrease in sheep

from 1916 to 1922, an increase in 1923, and a slight decrease again
in 1924.

Sheep are excellent scavengers. They glean the fields after the
crops are harvested, and much of the feed consumed is waste material.
When the size of the flock is properly adjusted to the needs of the
farm, sheep, under good management, are one of the most profitable
enterprises for these irrigated farms. Figures 16, 17, and 18 illus-
trate some of the advantages of sheep in this district. — :

SUMMARY OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

In summarizing the development of the project attention is par-
ticularly directed to the following points: 3

1. From the beginning development has been rapid. It is now
a nie over 20 years since water was first turned into the irrigation
ditches.

2. There was much to learn in the beginning. The settlers came
from the North, South, East, and West, and many of them were inex-
perienced in irrigated farming. Little was known of the productive
capacity of the soil under irrigation. The settlers, therefore, had
to learn—very largely from experience—what crops and_ livestock
could be produced and how to produce them. They had to learn,
furthermore, what crops, livestock, and livestock products could
be marketed to advantage.

3. So far as production is concerned, the 20 years of farm experience
has shown that the project is well adapted to a very wide range of
boon. During ae time the yields of practically all crops have

een materially increased. Through competition, as shown in
Figure 7, some crops have been almost eliminated, whereas others
have greatly increased in importance. The changing prices of farm
products, the changing of freight rates, the introduction and increase
of crop and livestock pests, and the wide range of enterprises from
which to choose are some of the factors that have made the selection
of crop and livestock enterprises a very complicated problem.

BUSINESS ANALYSIS OF THE FARMS STUDIED

Because of the newness of the agriculture of the district, the wide
range of crops adapted to the area, and the swing to cash-crop produc-
tion during the four years immediately preceding the first year
covered by this study (1919) very few farmers were found who had
adopted definite crop rotations or cropping systems. In analyzing
the business of the farms from which records were obtained, how-
ever, they were arranged in three groups or types: (1) General crop
_ farms; (2) dairy and general crop farms; and (8) orchard and general
crop farms.

” il lt i ee he el

RRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 23

Fic. 16.—When uncultivated or not pastured, ditch banks produce heavy growths of sweet clover
and other weeds

Fic. 17.—When fenced and seeded to blue grass, ditch banks furnish excellent pasture for a small
flock of sheep

Fig, 18.—When sheep are a prominent farm enterprise, it is usually necessary to keep them on per-
manent pasture during a part of the year

DA BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

As in most good farming communities, some of the farms studied
were operated by owners, some by men who owned part and rented
part of the land they operated, and some by tenants. In the case
of rented farms the capital, receipts, and expenses of the tenants
and landlords were combined. The records were then used on the
owner-farm basis.

GENERAL CROP FARMS

The general crop farms as here classified are those devoted largely
to the production of the field crops common to the district studied
and carrying little productive livestock. They varied in size from
17 to 345 acres in 1919 and from 20 to 240 acres in 1920, 1921, and
1922. The most frequent sizes are 40-acre, 80-acre, and 20-acre,
respectively, in the order named. The smaller farms are generally
located near the towns, and their value per acre was usually estimated
a little higher than that of the larger bicnis:

UTILIZATION OF LAND

Table 4 shows the average size of the general crop farms and how
the farm land was utilized during each of the four years of the study.
During this period the average size of farm varied less than 3 acres,
and the average acreage of tillable land, the crop land, and the land
in pasture changed but little. These shght variations in the size of
the farm are mainly due to the fact that a few farms were dropped
each year and records from others were obtained to replace them.
Table 4 also shows the average acreage devoted to the respective
crops each year. ‘The major crops are listed in the order of their
importance when measured by acres per crop. The acreage devoted
to the several crops varied considerably from year to year. These
variations were far moré striking on the individual farms and reflect
the efforts of farmers to shift to the most profitable crops.

TABLE 4.—Utilization of land on general crop farms 1919-1922

Item 1919 | 1920 1921 | 1922
ces Mee ee
Harms! studied, numbers. 2 = eee ee eee 190 | 178 169 | 67
Acres | Acres Acres | Acres
Size offarms ©. 2< 522s a ee ee ee eee 74. 2 | 72. 2 72.0 74.7
Pillable lands ss 820s ate ee | 67.4 | 66. 0 66.3 | 69. 2
Crop) at Cas fs es ea A a, Soa ae 63. 0 | 61.7 61.4 | 63. 5
idlet\crop land =3422=2 ee ee 40 .3 -5 .0
Cropland Trentediout= = See =0 .0 0 | 2. 0
IPASTUTG ies a Se ee sare ee eee 4.0 4.0 3.9 | 3.7
Pasture not tillable <2. 2.0 1.1 |- 1.0 6
Other dan Gee eee eS aerate ee 4.8 5.1 4.7 4.9
Use of erop land: Acres| P. ct.| Acres| P. ct.| Acres| P. ct.| Acres| P. ct.
WW Gs oe 2 a ge ep er 28.2 | 44.8 | 24.5 | 39.7 | 21.7 | 35.4 | 18.8 29. 6
A fall fam 2 == ne 2 un le Te ree ae gene eee 12.9 | 20.5 | 15.9 | 25.8 | 15.3 | 24.9 | 12.6 19.8
H BY 12) 0 hayek Spel ES Dies SN nen epee ae ee Ce Sk 0, Ox) We 3, 5. OSs | ONGameo. Osc Ome eee)
Potatoes = 3222 Sosa. Os Bees ee ee 25) 40] 27; 44) 46) 75) 80) 12.6
Sugar. beets. cas2e- ee eee ee AT Mok EAL fedetic nO. | Oo a eatee 3.3
Red: clovers-2 ee ee ee ee eee 19h 3207s 224 le 38298) 5 AAS: 8 eeGab 9.6
Alsikesclovers= 2% 24 Sees ee ee of .8 Fi fey oe ei ip 1. 82h 5 dd 1.9
Barley 223 2 ee ae ee ee LeBel 928 ol aS lie ee al penal. -5 .8
Oats Sr BE EE eae ee aera eae a oe Se, .8 TES} 7, it 3 .5 =o .5
COrnse 2 Ss ee eS oF a ai .8 3H 72 21:0 Ba oe ene On fag bat Fs 2.0
Fruif and garden: -—— = Se [932 Qe 17a 2 BP 8G" ee: OM PPL 2.4
O$HEr. GEO DS sac eee ee ee he Bey: 33 5 23 se ath -3 3) ~5

|

' Land occupied by roads, fences, buildings, corrals, canals, ditches, and land not used for pasture or
crop production.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 25

DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK

The number of productive livestock (measured in animal units)
Kept on the general crop farms was very scant. (Table 5.) During
the four years of the study, there was an average of 12 to 13 animal
units per farm. The work stock constituted a little more than one-
third of all the livestock. Cattle, kept mainly to furnish the farm
with butter, cream, and milk, made up almost another third. Al-
though there was a slight increase in the cattle animal units each
year, there were less than five per farm in 1922. Sheep were rarely
found on the small farms. The number of hogs decreased in 1920
and 1921 and then increased in 1922. Few colts were raised in 1919
and the number decreased each year thereafter. The number of
poultry remained about the same throughout the study.

TABLE 5.—Distribution of livestock,! on general crop farms, 1919-1922

Item 1919 1920 1921 1922

Number | Number | Number | Number
SLAG TTS TS Ud Ch1 OG eee ene er SE ee ce ee 190 178 169 67
AINA UTS Cr Tare = eae oo Sle AA he deer os es eee 12.2 12.8 12.5 12.8
TS eS Pe ee ceeetes 4.2 4. 4 | 4.7 4.6
PPerOdUeblye: StOCK = e544 - Ss ee Ree ee a Bh Ree 2 SST 8.0 8.4 7.8 hi
Gaiias 1 29el 391A FE tle ANON ane f 3.8 3.9 4.5 | 4.9
QUE D0e Eo Se ee ae ee ee .O 1.8 1.3 ne
TOS Serene en ret ene ns eae on ee eee eee 1.6 1.4 =f IE
ABTOOGMATES ali GtColtSs eas ers £o- es 2S Es eet ey 1? oD .4 2
JRO ares Ben Et a. Sa ae ee eee eee & .9 .8 .9 aS

1 In order to compare the livestock kept on the different farms, it is necessary to have a standard of com-
parison. The standard here used is the ‘‘Animal unit.”’ It is represented by one mature horse, mule,
cow, or steer. Also by as many smaller animals as require the feed of one of these mature animals. Usually
2 head of young cattle, 2 colts, 5 hogs, 10 pigs, 7 sheep, 14 lambs, or 100 chickens are considered equivalent
to one animal unit.

DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL

Table 6 shows the average capital per farm for the period 1919-
1922. The table also shows the average size of farm and the average
value of real estate per acre. The values of real estate per acre are
intended to represent sales values and are based on estimates of
the farm operators. The average value of real estate per acre dropped
from $373 in 1919 to $250 in 1922. Likewise, the average capital
decreased approximately $10,000 during the same period. This is
a decrease of about 32 per cent in each case. Though land values
reached their highest peak during the first nine months of 1920, the
depression was weil under way before the close of the farm year,
March 1, 1921. For the earning value of real estate from 1919 to
1922, see Table 9.

96514°—26——_4

26

BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 6.—Distribution of capital on general crop farms, 1919-1922

eee ee ee ee

Item 1919 1920 1921 1922
arms studied, numlbers22=2222 sss 22 ee eee 190 178 169 67
Size:of farms, acres/222235~ 822 ee Eee eee eee 74. 2 72. 2 72.0 74.7
Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars

Value of real estate \peracte* = __=- = ee 37 36 262 250
Capital per farm. 1352-23022 Foe oe ee ee 30, 786 29, 543 21, 199 20, 880
Real‘ estates <2 2522222 Ses ot ee Ee Ee ee 27, 657 26, 465 18, 828 18, 681
Land... 22 =2=465 220) os Ss a eee ee 25, 002 23, 784 16, 022 15, 982
Dwelling 222252... 2 Fess 5 eae ae ee a eee 1, 871 1, 875 1, 980 1, 967

Other buildings== 2:22 2-543 ss ae ee ee oe 7 806 826 732
Working capital = 2 See eee 3, 129 3, 078 2, 371 2, 199
Livestock 25. 22202 S216 SAL Ds Se eis Sa eee ee 1, 243 1, 148 1, 025 910
Machinery: 22 s2—0 3 ee ee ee es 761 875 779 699
Heed-and:sup pliess-22 5 == Se eee 456 583 196 214

Other working:capital\!== S22 esse 669 472 371 376

1 Consists mostly of cash to run farm and borrowed capital on short loans.

Of the total average capital about 90 per cent was in real estate
and 10 per cent in working capital. The value of buildings changed
but little during the four years. Land, on the other hand, declined
in value about $9,000 per farm or 36 per cent. The average value
of working capital per farm was about 30 per cent less in 1922 than
in 1919. Although the average value of machinery remained about
the same during the four years, that of livestock, feed, and supplies
and other working capital declined materially.

BUSINESS SUMMARY

Tables 7 and 8 present summaries of the business of the general
crop farms for each of the four years of the study. In Table 7 the
business is summarized in terms of output per farm, input per farm,
and return to capital. Input in this case does not include the use
of capital, one of the chief objects being to arrive at the approximate
net return to the farm capital.

Output per farm.—Output per farm is subdivided into (1) cash out-
put and (2) noncash output. Cash output consists of the amounts
received from the sales of crops, livestock, and livestock products;
also the cash received from other sources, such as labor performed
away from the farm. The sales of crops during the four years of
the study constituted an average of 83 per cent of the cash output,
whereas the combined sales of livestock and livestock products con-
stituted but 14 per cent. It will thus be seen that cash-crop farming
strongly predominated in this group of farms. The total output
per farm was greatest in 1919 and least in 1921.

Wheat was by far the most important crop grown during each of
the four years of the study, when measured i the acreage devoted
to each crop. There was a steady decrease in the acreage of this
crop each year, however. (Table 4.) When measured by cash out-
put the decline of wheat in importance was even more striking, the
average cash sales in 1919 being $1,823 per farm and but $651 in
1922. That year (1922) wheat dropped to second place, while
beans took first rank,

PEEPS! oe es ee RT ey See

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 2U

TaBLE 7—Output per farm, wnput per farm, and return to capital on general crop
farms, 1919-1922

Item | 1919 1920 1921 1922
Harts budied.) RUM Delia ones ol eee Ee tees Od 8 eee re 190 178 169 67
SIZe Ola ACTCS Sees ae Ree ee So ae 74. 2 72. 2 72.0 74.7

Dollars | Dollars Dollars Dollars

Outputaperiarm=—total: sss se5e 5 ke ss ae eee eke 5, 441 4,175 3, 086 3, 762
Gash outputs totals ce en eee es ee Ae 4, 929 3, 759 2, 716 3, 426

NEVA RUST Rc iat ne a Be eA ee lt a em a mee 1, 823 1, 288 716 651
IROTALOCSS Fete = eee Se Se ee eae ye Pa 528 372 591 372

BES CNTR Berne Se a eee ce Oe eae ee 520 326 160 885

Sugar Dectss= = 2 eos ay eT ee 8S A Re Ad 480 657 316 326

Clover (ha yranG:Seed) *2ar 2s. 25 be ee 8 a 296 124 232 372

vlfaltay (nyear GtSCed) sees en Te eee 8 395 194 104 97

ChUIG MOM OS Si - 6 OSEEs oe hh Be ea eee ee ee 174 105 121 56
GLY OSL OG Karte weet t te os ei fe a en 407 388 213 257
IGiVeStOCKe products 22) ees eee eee os ee 213 208 189 215
@CHEMSOULCES 34a s SAS ae he ee Sea Ae 93 97 7 195
Noncashloutput—totales. 20ers sis 18 Sees ee ee es 512 | 416 370 336
SS ES

Family-used perquisites 1_______________--------------- 353 416 370 | 336
Increase in inventories__-____ Fee GR es site AE RP SE We S| eo ae eee ae See see a

Input ? per farm (other than of capital)—total_________________- 3, 217 3, 502 2, 764 2, 660
ash input-—totale. eet i Ls TENGE oe ete EL 2, 219 2, 134 1, 721 | 1, 559
ErodHabor tier tee eke Ty eee 441 352 241 | 210
Contract apo. see: atese = Behe ta he St ae eee 141 176 196 141

RGD AIT S eee Se et ee ee eS ae 78 60 50 52

ICSU IDOM EM be ese 8 eS a eee PS ABUSES 168 140 64 83
Atitomopile fordarm Se. = 2 ee 145 116 134 107

SS COCs DOTS Mise sce eee a ae ree eg eR ge SEE 108 17: 96 105
NackSianGsuwane eet see kote a es AE Le a) ee 74 89 71 118

RTOS Hage e val bey litt ee ee eee eR ae ee 139 144 105 144

PPR OS AOS oe eet UN re OE RSE tS OS a eo Se 312 326 418 331
PriPahlORe Wales es An ee oe Se re Seer oh ee 223 221 144 112
Mivestock DOUSHLa2 = ser ee ee ee 304 206 91 7D
OiherSourcestei ee cakes ea) eer ee ee ei EE me 86 132 111 18

N oncash EV DUE——LO tal Set ee os oe CER ee 998 1, 368 1, 043 1, 101
WIECERCASG.TasIN VEN UOLICS re er ee es ee ee ee 134 182 | 218
Operators 1a be ret ees Lee ath Sera ee ep, et 887 1, 057 784 797
linpaigdtamilys labors 2 cer = ee es eS Ae 111 177 77 86
Return to capital (output less input)___-______________-__-______- 2, 224 673 322 1, 102
Retr bOrcapital spel Combest. ees pe ee 12 28 1.5 Bae

1 “‘Ramily-used perquisites’? as here used differs from ‘‘Family living from the farm’’ (U. S. Dept.
Agr. Bul. 1338) in that here the proportional part of the perquisites used by the farm labor (both hired
and family) was deducted from the total farm furnished perquisites.

2 Input does not include the use of capital, the object being to arrive at the return to capital.

The average cash output of potatoes, beans, and sugar beets (the
three leading row-tilled crops) was $466, $473, and $445, respec-
tively, for the four-year period. The relative importance of these
three crops, however, varied widely during the four years when
judged either by the acreage devoted to each crop or by the cash
output of each. These fluctuations, especially the variations in the
acreage devoted to each crop from year to year, indicate the effort
that farmers made to produce the most profitable crop.

Noneash output consists of two items: Family-used perquisites and
increase in inventories (other than that of real estate). Perquisites
consist of (1) the rent equivalent or use value of the farm dwelling,
and (2) the value of the food products produced and consumed on
the farm. Family-used perquisites equal the total perquisites less
the proportional part used in boarding and housing the farm labor.

28 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The farm labor, in this case, includes the hired labor that was
boarded and the labor performed by members of the farm family
(the operator included). Of the total farm perquisites, family-used
perquisites constitute 63, 70, 59, and 66 per cent, respectively, in
1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922.

The principal items considered in computing the increase and
decrease in inventories were work horses, milk cows, other breeding
stock kept permanently on the farm, feed and supplies, machinery,
and the farm buildings. If the combined value of these items at

the close of the year was greater than at the beginning of the year, |

the difference represented an increase in inventories. If the value
of these items was less at the end of the year than at the beginning,
the difference represented a decrease in inventories. Increases and
decreases in inventories were chiefly caused by purchases, sales, and
deterioration in value due to the year’s usage. In computing changes
in the value of inventories an attempt was made to eliminate the
influence of fluctuating prices except in the case of livestock produced.

Input per farm.—Input per farm is presented in Table 7 under two
subdivisions: (1) cash input and (2) noncash input. Cash input
averaged, during the four years of the study, approximately 63 per
cent of the total input per farm. During these four years the aver-
age cash input decreased from $2,219 in 1919 to $1,559 in 1922. The
principal items of cash input named in the order of their importance
were: Labor, taxes, water, livestock bought, threshing and hulling,
farm use of automobile, seed, and feed.

The noncash input consists of the decrease in inventories (other
than that of real estate), the operator’s labor and unpaid family
labor. The method of arriving at the decrease in inventories was
precisely the same as that used in determining the increase in inven-
tories. There were decreases in inventories during each of the last
three years of the survey. The estimate of the value of the oper-
ator’s labor is intended to cover the expense that would have been
incurred in hiring the services rendered by the operator in running
the farm plus the cost of his board not furnished by the farm. The
value of the unpaid family labor was estimated at going wages.

Return to capital—Return to capital is output per farm less input
(input other than of capital). When measured by this token, 1919
was by far the best year financially for these farmers, 1922 the
second best, and 1921 the poorest. The average net return to
capital per farm dropped from $2,224 in 1919 to $322 in 1921 and
then increased to $1,102 in 1922. The percentage return to capital
follows much the same trend as total return to capital. The aver-
age drop in the percentage return to capital, however, was much
less proportionally than the total return to capital expressed in dol-
lars. This, of course, is due to the fact that the average value of
real estate decreased from $373 per acre in 1919 to $261 and $250,
respectively, in 1921 and 1922. The variation in the financial returns
of these farms during the four years, it is obvious, was due chiefly to
aa in the prices received for the products sold. (Tables 2
and 10. 4

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 29

TABLE 8.—Receipts, expenses, and various incomes on general crop farms, 1919-1922

| l
Item 1919 | 1920) sh, 1920 1922

WARINS SHOMIOG. (UI OR Sa 52 27a nn cE a | 190 | 178 | 169 67
Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
RRECEIDESHDeT Lenin saa ke Le ae Ss eS SS 4, 958 | 3, 625 2, 665 3, 332
IF XNpPeNSes pon tari n= (eho san. eee ol ke eee Ae ee 2, 200 | 2, 314 1, 929 1, 768
anmL ARCOM Ors 22 era PNY 8 deter set ee er 2, 758 | 1,311 736 | 1, 564
intereshionveapital ate7 pericent=5-= = ee ee 2, 155 2, 068 1, 484 1, 462
MENTO GD INOS cent h le | VUES” LY Deen tate Eth 603 | *—757| —748 102
CIV RII OMNIS te en es 5 ee, ens ge eels wi auanen Cae By ie 2, 869 1, 488 813 1, 650
Returmytorcapital,. pet Cont sess ss eS 0 eae ee Sees Ee 6.1 0.9 —0. 2 Bat
} }

The terms used in Table 8 have the same general significance as usually found in published farm survey
literature (See Farmers’ Bulletin 1139). ‘‘Family-used perquisites’’ are included in output per farm in
Table 7, while receipts in Table 8 do not include this item. For this reason Table 7 shows a higher
percentage return to capital than Table 8. Output and input in Table 7 are greater, respectively, than
receipts and expenses in Table8. The returns from livestock are expressed in Table 7 in terms of cash sales
of livestock and livestock products, cash purchases of livestock, and inereased and decreased inventories,
while in making up Table 8 a figure expressing the net return from livestock was used. Hence the differ-
ence between (1) output and receipts and (2) input and expenses in Tables 7 and 8.

The business of the general crop farms is further summarized in
Table 8 in terms of receipts, expenses, and various incomes that the
results of this survey may be more readily compared with the results
of other surveys presented in these terms. Farm income (see also
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department Bulletin 1338, pp. 13,14),
it will be seen, is the average receipts less the average farm expenses.
Labor income is farm income less 7 per cent interest on the aver-
age farmcapital. Seven per cent was used in computing laborincome,
since the average farm mortgage rate for Twin Falls County in 1919
(as shown by the census report) was 7.2 per cent. Family income
(computed on an owner-farm basis) is farm income plus the estimated
value of the unpaid labor of members of the family other than the
farm operator. Family income averaged $2,869 in 1919, $1,488 in
1920, $813 in 1921, and $1,650 in 1922.

If there were no interest and other debts to pay, family income
(computed on an owner-farm basis) represents rather accurately the
average plane upon which these farm families had to live during the
period covered by the study. Family income represents approxi-
mately the average amount that was available per farm family with
which to buy clothing and food, pay debts, make improvements, and
meet the many personal expenses and obligations which come to
every farm family. It should be remembered, however, that family
income varied widely among the individual farms from year to year.
The figures presented here are averages.

VALUE OF REAL ESTATE PER ACRE

Table 9 shows the approximate earning value of real estate per
acre for each of the four years when the net return per acre is capi-
talized at some given percentage. The net return to the farm capital
in Table 9 is carried forward from Table 7. Since capital consists
of real estate and working capital, it is necessary to make a deduc-

30 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

tion for the use of the latter in order to estimate the earning value
of real estate per acre. After allowing 8 per cent for the use of
working capaell each year there remained $26.60, $5.91, $1.83, and
$12.40 per acre, respectively, for the use of real estate in 1919, 1920,
1921, and 1922.

The estimated earning values of real estate per acre, as shown in
Table 9, equal these returns per acre capitalized at 4, 5, 6, and 7 per
cent. Ifit is assumed that capital should earn 4 per cent, the average
earning value of real estate per acre was $665 in 1919, $148 in 1920,
$46 in 1921, and $310 in 1922. But if it is assumed that the capital
should earn 7 per cent (approximately the average rate paid on
mortgages in Twin Falls County in 1919), the average earning value
of real estate per acre was $380, $84, $26, and $177, respectively, in
1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922. |

TABLE 9.—Approximate earning value of real estate per acre on general crop
: farms, 1919-1922

Item | 1919 1920 | 1921 | 1922
arms studied, mim ber ae 22 eater ne a eee ee ees 190 178 | 169 67
Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
Net return! to capital’ tc 2 2003 ee eee 2, 224 673 322 1, 102
Wseiot working capital at: Sper cent =e ae eee 250 246 190 176
INet-return-tomeal estateiz 2 2 Sach ae ee eae ee Se eee eee 1, 974 427 132 926
Net return per acre of real estate: — ss See 26. 60 5. 91 1. 83 12. 40

Earning value of real estate per acre:
Net return per acre capitalized at—

I'OUr Per cCenti=2 2822 sek eae See a eee 665 148 46 310

Five sper cents 22836 2: Se SPs ne ee eee 532 118 37 248
SS IRATE I COT a se ces pe ep 443 98 30 207
Seven pencent 223 4S y te SS se ee een 380 84 26 177

1 Carried forward from Table 7.

A comparison of land values obtained by three methods for the
year 1919 follows. This year is selected because it represents the
peak year of prosperity before the slump in the prices of Fac prod-
ucts. The average acre value of real estate when based on 59 actnal
sales made in 1919 and 1920 was $375 (fig. 5), when based on the
estimates of 190 farm operators $373 (Pable 6), and when based on
the assumption that the investment in real estate should earn 7 per
cent, $380 (Table 9). This is a variation of but $7 per acre in the
values obtained by the three methods. The significance of this
appears below.

The chief factor governing the acre value of farm land, it is said,
is yield or income. By yield is meant the present income per acre
and the anticipated future incomes over a period of years. The fore-
going discussion has shown that the average values of real estate in
1919 based (1) on the sales value, (2) on the estimates of 190 farm
operators, and (3) on the net return per acre capitalized at 7 per cent
were almost identical. It would appear, therefore, that the sales
value and the estimated value of the 190 operators for 1919 were
based entirely upon present income (the incomes of the most pros-
perous years of the boom period), or that future incomes (if con-
sidered at all) were looked upon with a great deal of optimism.
Inability to anticipate and judge the future, it is now easy to see,

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO al

were the ruination of many who went into debt heavily for land at
or near the crest of the period of high prices of farm products.

It is of interest to compare also the acre value of rail estate for the
years 1920, 1921, and 1922 (1) when based on the assumption that the
investment should earn a definite rate of income—4, 5, 6, or 7 per
cent and (2) when based on the estimates of the farm operators
visited in obtaining the farm survey records. Table 9 shows that the
estimated earning value of real estate dropped precipitously in 1920
and 1921 and then made a substantial recovery in 1922. Table 6
shows that the value of real estate based on the estimates of the farm
operators dropped but little in 1920, considerably in 1921, and but little
again in 1922. That is, the changes in the values based on the esti-
mates of the farmers lagged far behind the changes in the computed
earning values. That, of course, is as it should be.

The average percentage returned to the capital of the general crop
farms (Table 7) varied from 7.2 in 1919 to 1.5 in 1921. In addition
to the average yearly variation, there is also a wide variation in the
ae return each year to the capital of the individual farms
(fig. 19).

VARIATION IN THE PERCENTAGE RETURN TO CAPITAL

A few farms each year made very high returns to capital. In 1921
when prices were lowest, 3 per cent of the farms made returns to
capital of 12 per cent or more; in 1919, 1920, and 1922 a few made
returns of 16 percent ormore. In contrast with these highly success-
ful farms, others were just as unsuccessful. Four per cent of all
farms in 1919, 30 per cent in 1920, 42 per cent in 1921, and 20 per
cent in 1922 made minus returns to capital; that is, the input per
farm (other than the use of capital) was greater than the output
The minus returns In some cases were as much as 11 per cent.
The bulk of the farms, the figure shows, hovered about the average
each year, approximately half of them being above and half below
the average.

PRICES RECEIVED FOR CROPS

The prices received for the crops sold during the four years of this
study perhaps had more influence on the financial success of these
farms than any other single factor. Table 10 shows the average
prices received for the principal crops grown from 1919 to 1922.
The general slump in prices began in 1920. The minimum prices
received were reached for some crops in 1921 and for other crops in
1922. The drop in prices, like the advance, was abrupt and uneven.
That is, the prices of some crops dropped much more abruptly than
the prices of others.

TaBLE 10.—Average prices received for designated crops on general crop farms,
1919-1922

Red Alsike
Wheat, Barley, | Alfalfa Sugar | Potatoes,) Beans, pest ae
Oats, per ay, per | beets, per| per 100 per clover clover

DEE bushel [Bos seed, per | seed, per
bushel bushel | short ton|short ton| pounds | pound pound pound

Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars Cents Cents Cents
1. 85 0. 96 1. 36 7.79 1. 78 7. 5 5

iit eee 3 if 1.00 0 45. 39. 5
NG20= Sse 1. 46 -71 5 Hil 7. 35 12. 00 | 1.01 5.9 11.9 22. 9
NO Pies a 81 50 . 59 4. 00 | 1.05 4,1 15.0 15.3
O22 2 Sa 53 - 46 6. 88 8. 39 44 4.3 16. 2 12.9

2261 UT Aeu0s4v4S Ynoge pouleUIOs TOY) pus ‘TZEI UI A[QeIOpIsMOD ‘OZET UT [IIT ING poddorp poyndurod sea yeqydeo 04 uinjol
osvjuedI0d 94} YOGA uo [eydeo UIey OY] JO ON[VA OdVIOAV OUT, “S26 Ul ATIYAI[S 9so1 uOY, puB A[snoydioo1d poddorp syonpoid uraey ysour Jo soojid [ZT PUB OZET SuLIng

6261-6161 “SWHV4 dOYO IVYANAD AHL JO WWLldvVO OL NYNLAY ANVLNAOWAd SHL NI NOILVINVA

2

ina)

i= “1261 UL JSOMOL PUG EI6L Ul Ysoysry SV [v{Ideo OF UANjoI OY} [VlOUNd UY ‘“SUINJoL MO, AIOA OPBUI si0yjJO MOF B OTIYA SUINJoL YSIY oOpeul suIIv] Moy vB IvOA Yyowey—'6L “OT
|

5

S J Piece ae
S

fam aa -

ies

©)

bs WLLIIA).§:« SS y- OF O
a en eS ee

SI mR at alo Pea vy O+ 0
a ! V6

PG

o

fy @ oh +
A

ze cl OF 8
=)

<i 9} OF 2
a

a 2c6l

id 4J8AO pue 9]
a

H (Siiwit ssv19)
a Ov O€ 02 Ol 0 O€ 02 Ol 0 O€ 02 Ol 0 O€ 02 Ol O 4WLidvd OL
fala] WLIdVD OL NYUNLIY GALVNOISAG ONIAVH SNYUVW4 JO LNAD Y3d GANYNLIAY LNAD 43d!

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 33

The rapid and unequal advance in prices just prior to the beginning
of the study in 1919 had greatly disturbed the agricultural equilib-
rium, of the district. At planting time farmers were at a loss to know
which would be the best money-making crops at the end of harvest.
The abrupt and disproportional slump in prices during 1920 and 1921
added much to the confusion. As a result there was considerable
shifting in the acreage devoted to the respective crops (fig. 7 and Table
4) and in the average return to capital in 1920 and 1921.

CROP YIELDS

Where so high a percentage of the total output per farm comes
from the sale of crops (an average of 83 per cent) as was the case with
these general crop farms, the question naturally arises as to what is
the relation between the average yield of all crops per farm and the
percentage return to the farm capital. Figure 20 is designed to show
this relation.

Relation of crop yreld to return to capital.—The farms are arranged
in Figure 20 in four groups according to the average crop yields of
the individual farms, namely, less than 86 per cent, 86 to 99 per cent,
100 to 118 ee cent, and over 113 per cent of the average. “Without
exception the group average percentage return to capital increased
each year as the average yield increased. The average return to the
capital of the group of farms naving the lowest yields (less than 86
per cent of the average) was 3.9 per cent, 0.2 per cent, —1, and 2.5
per cent, respectively, in 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922. In contrast
with this, the return to the capital of the group of farms having the
highest yields (over 113 per cent of the average), was 9.5 per cent in
1919, 4.9 per cent in 1920, 4 per cent in 1921, and 6.2 per cent in 1922.
The average percentage returned to the capital of the group with
low yields for the four years was 1.4 per cent while that of the group
with hign yields was 6.2 per cent. This difference gave the group
with high yields approximately $950 more net return per farm than
was received by the farmers in the group with low yields. The
importance of high yields to the individual farmer is therefore very
evident. Especially is this true in districts like the one under con-
sideration where high yields are not obtained by the use of commercial
fertilizers; that is, where it costs but little more to obtain high yields
than low yields.

TaBLE 11.—Average crop yields per acre on general crop farms, 1919-1922

ates ‘ | 3 : Red clover Aicilea

alfa ugar ota- Nee es
Year Wheat | Corn | Barley | Oats hay Beats nes beans) ————— | Clover

seed

Hay Seed
Short Short Short

Bush. | Bush. | Bush. | Bush. tons tons | 100 lbs.\ Lbs. tons Lbs. | Lbs.
1OTQee eS 38 47 40 45 4.0 9. 09 136 1, 125 eal 285 291
T5210 ae a 40 45 39 46 ATL [ho 12255} 162 1, 209 1.0 250 428
OD Tes 6 aa xe 46 43 40 49 4.1 9. 51 149 1, 151 153 220 331
OOD ee oes 47 59 53 56 4.1 | 17. 75 185 1, 953 ile, 325 245
aes 43 48 43 49 4.1 | 12. 20 153 | 1,360 rer 270 324

96514 °—26——_5

34 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Average yields —A knowledge of average yields is of value in that
it furnishes standards by which the yields obtained on each farm may
be readily judged. With this end in view the average yields of 10
crops are presented in Table 11. These yields are based on harvested
acres and those for alfalfa represent three cuttings of hay. One cut-
ting of hay and a seed crop are generally obtained from red clover,
but alsike clover is grown entirely for the seed crop. The average
yields of some crops varied but little during the four years, while
those of other crops varied considerably. The maximum variations
in the yields of alfalfa, wheat, and oats were 10, 13, and 14 per cent,

RELATION OF CROP YIELD TO PERCENTAGE RETURN TO CAPITAL, 1919-1922

CROP YIELD GROUP PER CENT RETURN TO CAPITAL

PER CENT OF AVERAGE =! 0 | 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10

Under 86

86 — 99
1919
100 — 113

Over 113

Under 86

66 — 99
1920
100 —113

Over 113

Under 86

Sop 99
1921
100 — 113

Over 113

Under 86

86 — 99
1922
100 — 113

Over 1i3

Fic. 20.—The crop yield groups presented in this figure are based on crop index (per cent of
average yields). The average percentage return to capital of the respective farms having different
crop yields is indicated by the heavy horizontal bars and the figures at the top of the chart
Without exception the percentage return to capital increased, though not in the same propor-
tion, as crop. yield increased.

respectively, from the 1919-1922 average. The maximum variation
in the yield of sugar beets, on the other hand, was 46 per cent, that
of beans 42 per cent, and that of alsike clover seed 32 per cent.

From the standpoint of producing feed, a comparison of the aver-
age yields of the four cereal crops is of interest. [Expressed in
hundredweights per acre to the nearest whole number the 1919-1922
average yields are as follows: Corn 27, wheat 26, barley 21, and oats
16. That is, the average yield of corn during the four years of the
survey has been about 100 pounds, 600 pounds, and 1,100 pounds
greater, respectively, than the yields of wheat, barley, and oats.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 35

Variation in crop yrelds.—Figure 20 shows the importance of
obtaining high crop yields. ‘Tables 12 to 17, inclusive, are presented
to show the variation in the yields of each of the seven crops. Wheat
varied in yield from less than 15 bushels to as much as 93 bushels
pes acre; potatoes from 50 hundredweight to 300 hundredweight;

eans from 106 pounds to 3,000 pounds; sugar beets from 1.5 tons
to 22.5 tons; red clover seed from 55 pounds to 720 pounds; and
alfalfa hay from 2 tons to 7.5 tons.

TaBLE 12.—Variation in yield of wheat on general crop farms, 1919-1922

Number of records
Acre yield class limits = Sart
1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1922
Bushels

SONS OY oh Se ES Sr I ae A Ng Ry eo Ll Rae 1 gE Vet Soar
POND OCA eee ined ee eaten seman emera EN etn er aoe 8. a ee ee | te Re 0 OF eee
GENE OA seat a ey pe eee oi Se SE ih Sth Le ace, Nese ene Mall kg oe ete ay 4 6 3
LBB U(r ao ya sa ee lg een | 4 Bile I 16
PANSY, | 0 Bee age ggg ea Gee che a Pe BD EE Lk gee 43 37 | 71 26
SU OI A ere eee eee RAR ee NLU RS a eae eS Ls 79 T7 48 | 15
PRI (BO) BY LR 8 aan aS el ap rae ee ee ae Se 52 50 20 5
TUBS (hoy OL Se See eS TEINS TOR ESS SO ra Ce | 7 6 4 1
SEs Ove 1 A everest cree Ne armag a regis AEA NS Mele eset bien tee tries weal A SS ey | 2 1 i See
stay ell zee vila eS Sp are ar gana ee | TSA |e tee een 66

TABLE 13.—Variation in yield of alfalfa hay on general crop farms, 1919-1922
(three cuttings)

Number of records

Yield per acre class limits

1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1922
Short tons
PRUNE Cie 28 Nice) Aas! Sy ase pa See ee ne ee ane | ad fh [ncaa eee
Ga NLGE eAe ee eee pam a TE eee 6 3 ft aes
U5) AO) Sra ha BO SL le eR lee | 12 15 6 5
AOR HOyfidh 5 Ses ig Co 7 the La se a0 cee Ca a ene Se | 50 45 52 24
Sil seen em Te in ie ee | 68 62 76 38
TEN Ae oe oe Ca ak = ae ye ne | 28 30 28 13
TRAD Bik eee ESBS Sr Tee ee ae 12 5 3 4
ESV AET 5 Soak oe eg 176| 160 167 84
TaBLE 14.—Variation in yield of potatoes on general crop farms, 1919-1922
| Number of records
Yield per acre class limits |
1919 | 1920 | 1921 1922
| —
Hundredweight |
PUTTER, Co Die, eg tee eee ey ee Nearest | 1
DES SEG ak fon es A ES ae eS ee eae a a Be 2 7 | 4 | 4
OLS Gad oot A AEs ae 8 a ee ee eae 9 18 13 | 13
Ca (hi) PQS a eg ale alt leh da Se ama | 17 | 14 | 29 | 15
CRI RE MOA EAT Ras TAIN Aye ire oP eyes ie 33 | 27 37 7
RRM Maori? ois eM ie Ce Fay ee is 12 | 15 14 3
Gn ele nae ae key eeey! et AE ASP eR eT EAL ae S SY 3 Bal? oe nek Syl 5h 4 AAS Le:
aT ie eae ne Mek nn eye der a ae Re 76 | 86 101 43

The foregoing table contains no fields of potatoes of less than 1 acre.

36 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TaBLE 15.—Variation in yield of sugar beets on general crop farms, 1919-1922

Number of records

Yield per acre class limits ===
3 1919 1920 1921 1922

Short tons
91 T0282 ee ee a a oe eee ree | eee ee A eos Sis
WS GO QO 2 ee Eee re a ae ee eee 24 See
1 Gta Fo it pn ae eee RI ee Sie RUN are, yess ee 5 Ui 2
[2 tO V4 5 A cir ee Se a laa i ek ae a mee pes a ee ee 12 19 12
OT Fe Yl Met eae see meant oe Aree aL es ieee NE CRE 2 este eu ES es ee Ne 13 23 18
GCOS ene a as ep er ele 20 15 23
BGO Be eS a ae eS ee 10 6 ia | Soe:
g 8 010 (2) airs pea eam oee Loe EN het ae ee ee el Ce eee ee eee a ee 1 [al PERN oe
5 Dc) 2 1 elec es lee ca OR Sa OAL nen Ae SR oer 8 ie ee a re eo 60 77 69 10

TaBLeE 16.—Variation in yield of beans on general crop farms, 1919-1922

Number of records ~

Yield per acre class limits
1919 1920 1921 1922

Pounds

3°000!t0:3;:500. S522 sas ee oe Sn ee ae ee ee ee | rere en |e eee | ee ae 1
2400: 60:25999 2 2 aS Ba ta ee ge | a ee | 1 5.
AS00602! 399 ss: Be ee ea rn eee 6 Ea 5 18
i 200 FO, LOO = aw se es kena ae oe ee eee 22 27 23 20
GOO GOT, TOO Se aes ea eas Ba ES Se a ee 35 26 12 3
Winder: 600. 2 .20se 6 eset Se 2 ae eee 7. 7 122

Totahes.ts ese ee ee ea ee eee ee 70 63 53 AT

TaBLE 17.—Variation in yield of red clover seed on general crop farms, 1919-1922

Number of records

Yield per acre class limits
1919 1920 1921 1922

Pounds
LOOLCO:. 799 2 = SE a aa ary ae 1G) ssh ee os ee ee
GOD GO'GOD tienes Sein ae pe EB Fe De Rat ye epee ee Ooi eon Sete t Reel ae Se econ, Ae eS
HOO. CO R599 es Deg ae ee a Piel STAD 1 1
AO! COA OG ir a ae re ere ae a SR eS 2 3 5 6
BOO SOO e 2 See eee ae i i Se es 9. 10 13 10
PMO) Ane ee ee eS Wop en ORME Guth Cane ne eM a re ioe a 13 15 23 7
TOO CO LOG 2 SE EN ENE RAE Tes Ae Sap ops go ee a 6 11 27 6
ni 0(6 Cy cia 0, 0 Jeeeeeane aceasta renege Ueenen erent ries oe ee 3 3 5 1

SOME FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CROP YIELDS

Figure 20 shows the effect of high and low crop yields on the per-
centage return to capital, and Tables 12 to 17 make it clear that crop
yields may be materially increased on many of these farms. Table 18
is designed to illustrate concretely how the yield of irrigated field
crops may be affected (1) by the rotation of crops, (2) by the applica-
tion of barnyard manure, and (3) by the introduction of a leguminous
crop into the rotation, |

RE wig ty

(hee oS he

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO ab

The data presented in Table 18 are based on the results obtained
from carefully planned experiments conducted at the Scottsbluff
Experiment Farm, Mitchell, Nebr., from 1912 to 1923. It is believed
that the averages for the last seven years (1917-1923) will more
accurately measure the influence of these three factors on crop yields
than averages for the 12-year period. The conclusion should not be
drawn that precisely the same results would be obtained were these
experiments duplicated in other irrigated districts. It is believed,
however, that very similar results would be obtained in Twin Falls
County, for the soils of the two districts are very similar. The virgin
souls of both districts were well supplied with the essential mineral
elements of plant food and both were low in organic matter and avail-
able nitrogen.

TaBLE 18.—Effect of rotation of crops, barnyard manure, and alfalfa on yield of
irrigated crops at Scottsbluff Experiment Farm, Mitchell, Nebr., 1917-1923

aya Seven-year average yield per acre 1917-1923
tion (s Hotations
Leif HAE LO EONS SES Alfalfa | Pota- Sugar
ber Wheat | Corn hay oee Oats hects
Short Short
Continuous production of each crop on the | Bush: | Bush. | tons Bush. | Bush. | tons
Saas a (leap e oeeraee 13 30 4.9 59 0 8.1
18o|/—=Vwhesat—sugaraneets=_2 = ee et eee PODS Nee ne <M ee 8 bree eek ee 8.9
Daeg NCA UROL Smee eee iene aes ee ee Gye ae o| ae By (a eres -
48 | Wheat-oats—alfalfa—alfalfa_______..____________ Pihc| [eae le Qe Oe |S ane 627 | Pies if
TGs [© OT Oni US Seemann oh ee taro ety ee, Pathe ee reel Yd epee eo | oeeh sews Aba apes oe
SIEM OLN-Oals=Sucal DCCUS ee ee ee ee aXD) ee ere 46 9.8
62 | Corn-oats—beets—alfalfa—alfalfa—alfalfa__________|________ 58 SAN eed te. o 65 14.6
O78 OAS sUCAE RD CCU Swrses en sa eer ae ee Ee oe se tea | ania 52 10.0
230 |e Oats=SuUcar Dee tsn (manne). ee a ee nn ee Se ee eee pSeeumtorasis 64 18. 2
42 | Oats-sugar beets—alfalfa—alfalfa________________ Heh aon ee Reg eee ey PAIN \ ee Ries eee 65 16. 7
On mROLALOGS-SlIParsDCelStee. = eee ee A ee ee | IU gh ee 10.7
Alem Olatoes=sucambee isn Manure) s-wee eae ta een Sea ee ee BS NGO 2 eae ene 16.8
40 | Potatoes-sugar beets—alfalfa—alfalfa____________|___-_____]_--___- 2.2 AGRA 17.9
26H SP OLALOCS- CORES a aeee rails nr Ne See Pl see ey 1 OAS ee een |e ee ie
DARE OLATOCS—O abe S aettedeSre ie a i a he See eS ee 123 AS nies Ses he Be
27 | Potatoes-oats (rye plowed under) ____________- ee ee Rage pS ie, Se 162 OO nares a
D5alseOtaloes-oabse (Manned) zass es eer sd Pid eee eb eee |Lee aac al 190 G25 |S eee =
44 | Potatoes—oats—alfalfa—alfalfa___________________ | oe be ee (SO ae 2.6 226 (o}%e| Pe SA
30 | Potatoes-oats-sugar beets_-______._----_------ ee na lean itcol e en < ee 137 57 9.8
31 | Potatoes-oats-sugar beets (manure) ___________ fee kG Mt epnn fee ees ee 189 7 16.8
60 | Potatces—oats—beets—alfalfa—alfalfa_____________ |e ee | eee ee 3.3 226 68 14.8
61 | Potatoes-oats-beets (manure) - alfalfa - alfalfa - |
DIELS 2 Coase tae oe See a ee Ae ae cep he Sepa cian (are a a4 (ere 3.3 288 73 19.1

Compiled from the 1923 annual report of James A. Holden, Superintendent of the Scottsbluff Experiment
Farm, which is supported cooperatively by the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Office
of Western Irrigation Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture.
Those interested in a further study of these rotations should read Nebraska Experiment Station Bulletin 190
and United States Department of Agriculture Circulars 173 and 289.

Table 18 shows seven-year average yields of crops grown (1)
continuously on the same land and (2) in the respective rotations.
Three of the 2-year and one each of the 3-year and 6-year rotations
received manure once in the rotation period at the rate of 12 tons per
acre. The manure was applied to the beet plat (after the beets were
harvested) of rotation 21 and to the oat stubble of rotations 23, 25,
31, and 61. Rye was sown in the oat stubble of rotation 27 and
plowed under as green manure the following spring.

Effect of rotating crops on crop yields.—Table 18 shows a higher
yield for alfalfa when grown on the same land year after year than
when grown in rotation with other crops. When grown continuously
on the same land the yield was about twice as great as when the

38 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

alfalfa occupied the land two years in a 4-year rotation and about
one and one-half times as great as when the alfalfa occupied the land
three years in a 6-year rotation. The alfalfa in these rotations is
seeded alone in the spring. Troublesome weeds make it necessary
to clip the young alfalfa two or three times and as a consequence little
or no hay is made the first year. This materially reduces the average
yield for the rotation period. The yield of oats was also about 3
bushels less per acre when grown in a 2-year rotation with wheat
than when grown continuously on the same land.

The yield of wheat, corn, potatoes, sugar beets, and oats was
increased in each case, except as noted above, by the rotation of crops —
when compared with the yield of each crop grown continuously on
the same land. The increase in the yield of each crop was striking
in each case, where alfalfa had a place in the rotation (rotations 40,
42,44, 48,60, and 62). The increase was not very great, on the other
hand, in the rotations not containing alfalfa (rotations 16, 18, 20,
22, 24, 26, 28, and 30) with the exception of potatoes. In all cases the
rotation of crops materially increased the yield of this crop.

Table 18 also shows that there is considerable variation in the
influence that the respective crops have on the yield of other crops
in the rotation with which they are grown. For example the average
yields of sugar beets when grown in 2-year rotations were 8.9 tons per
acre when grown with wheat, 10 tons per acre when grown with oats,
and 10.7 tons per acre when grown with potatoes. The yields of oats
were 37, 45, 48, and 52 bushels per acre, respectively, when grown in
2-year rotations with wheat, corn, potatoes, and beets. The yields
of potatoes grown in 2-year rotations were 104 bushels per acre after
corn, 111 bushels after sugar beets, and 123 bushels after oats. A
study of the yields of the crops grown in the alfalfa rotations indicates
that potatoes are by far the best crop to plant on alfalfa sod when
measured by the increase in the yield obtained.

Effect of adding alfalfa to the rotation on crop yrelds.—A comparison
of the yields obtained from (1) rotations 28 and 48, (2) rotations 22.
and 42, (3) rotations 20 and 40, (4) rotations 24 and 44, (5) rotations
32 and 62, and (6) rotations 30 and 60 show the effect on crop yields
of adding alfalfa to the rotation. The addition of two years of alfalfa
(1) to rotation 28 increased the yield of wheat 9 bushels per acre
and that of oats 25 bushels; (2) to rotation 22 increased the yield of
oats 13 bushels per acre and that of sugar beets 6.7 tons; (3) to rota-
tion 20 increased the yield of potatoes 135 bushels per acre, and that
of sugar beets 7.2 tons; and (4) to rotation 24 increased the yield of
potatoes 103 bushels per acre, and that of oats 17 bushels. Likewise
the addition of three years of alfalfa (1) to rotation 32 increased the
yield of corn 22 bushels per acre, that of oats 19 bushels, and that
of sugar beets 4.8 tons; and (2) to rotation 30 increased the yield of
potatoes 125 bushels per acre, that of oats 11 bushels, and that of
sugar beets 5 tons.

Effect of barnyard manure on crop yields——A comparison of the
yields obtained from (1) rotations 22 and 23, (2) rotations 20 and 21,
(3) rotations 24 and 25, and (4) rotations 30 and 31 shows the effect
of the manure applied in these experiments on the yields of the crops
in the respective rotations. The application of 12 tons of manure
per acre once in the rotation period (1) to rotation 23 increased the
average yield of oats 12 bushels per acre and that of sugar beets

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 39

8.2 tons; (2) to rotation 21 increased the yield of potatoes 48 bushels
per acre and that of sugar beets 6.1 tons per acre; (3) to rotation
25 increased the average yield of potatoes 67 bushels per acre, that
of oats 14 bushels; and (4) to rotation 31 increased the average
yield of potatoes 52 bushels per acre, that of oats 17 bushels, and that
of sugar beets 7 tons.

Combined effect of rotation of crops, alfalfa, and manure on crop
yields—The combined influence of rotating crops, adding alfalfa to
the rotation, and the application of 12 tons of manure per acre once
in the rotation period is indicated by a comparison of the yields
obtained when the respective crops were grown continuously on the
same land with the yields obtained in rotation 61. This comparison
shows these three factors increased the yield of potatoes 229 Backer
per acre, that of oats 33 bushels, and that of sugar beets 11 tons.
That is, these three factors increased the yield of potatoes 388 per
cent, that of oats 82 per cent, and that of sugar beets 136 per cent.

Effect of manure on the yield of sugar beets in the district studied —
Table 19 is presented to show that high yields (at least of sugar
beets) can be obtained in the district studied by a liberal use of
barnyard manure. This table shows the yields of sugar beets grown
on four well-manured tracts of land located near the sugar factory
at Twin Falls, Idaho. The footnotes following the table show the
quantities of manure applied.

The following points deserve attention: (1) That beets were grown
continuously on the 10-acre tract for eight years, on the two 6-acre
tracts for six and seven years, and on the 20-acre tract for six years;
(2) that the lowest yield obtained during these years was 14 tons

er acre; and (3) that the average yields of the four tracts ranged
rom 17 to 20 tons per acre. For the four years of the survey (1919—
1922) the average yield of these four tracts of beets was 18.8 tons
per acre; for the same period, the average yield of beets on all of
the farms studied was 12.2 tons per acre. Probably not all of this
difference should be credited to the influence of the manure applied,
for the men who grew these four tracts of beets were far more
skilled in the art af sugar-beet culture than most beet growers and
there may have been some difference in the grade of land used.

TaBLE 19.—Yield in short tons per acre of sugar beets grown continuously on heavily
manured land, near the sugar factory, Twin Falls, Idaho

|

Year 10 acres 1 | 6 acres ? | 6 acres 3 | 20 acres 4

TATG SS Se eS a ee eae ee ee BU. a crn eR A eg oe Reel a EST
ogee eee ene eeetee ewan OT ee 1G a] Aen rss 16:5 6
Lait lS SS a ee 18 20 22° | 14
USL oe Se a ee ee 20 21 18 20
ES ce Soe SS Sp ea eae ae ee 14 16 22 15

De pe bn 2. UE oc et Se ee ee 17 19. 5 16 16. 5
LAL es ee eee ee eee 21 21 22.5 21
1G RRS oS 5k Dae ee Se Be oe ee ee a oe ee eee 20 24 26 22

PARC AG Ona eh eee ea ee Fe se ee i Se 17.4 20. 2 20. 4 | 18.1

1 pare applied at the rate of 15 tons per acre each year except two years when only 5 tons per acre were
applied.

2 Manure applied at the rate of 15 tons per acre.

3 Manure applied at the rate of 12 loads (90 bushels per load) per acre each year.

4 Manure applied at the rate of 10 tons per acre.

The tons of manure applied in each case were estimated, and the water content of the manure doubtless
varied widely. For these reasons, no close comparison can be made as to the quantities of plant food that
were applied to these four tracts of land.

AO BULLETIN. 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Good seed.—Crop yields are frequently affected materially by the
quality of the seed planted. Especially is this true with certain crops
like potatoes and beans where the seed may carry diseases over from
one crop to the next. ‘The significance of this point is illustrated well
by a record of a tenant farm obtained in this study. Eight acres of
potatoes were grown. Under the agreement the tenant and landlord
each were to furnish one-half the seed and receive one-half the crop.
The tenant received the crop produced on 4 acres planted with the
seed he furnished and the landlord, the crop from the other 4 acres
planted with his seed. The tenant’s total crop was 300 hundred-

weight. Of this amount two-thirds rotted because of its diseased

condition and one-third was sold at 80 cents per hundredweight.
The landlord’s total crop was 600 hundredweight, all of which sold at
$1 per hundredweight. Hence, it is evident that the use of poor seed
may reduce the yield, the price received per unit, and the percentage
of the crop that is marketable.

Well-timed performance of cultural operations.—Like men in all other
lines of business, some farmers are good managers and others are not.
Some are able to look ahead, plan their work, and then perform the
various operations at or near the optimum time, that is, when each
operation will accomplish approximately the maximum good. The
results are fields that are reasonably free from weeds, thrifty growing
crops, and high yields produced at low costs. Other farmers, on the
other hand, are a day, a week, or two weeks behind with their work.
The consequences are hampered crops and diminished yields pro-
duced at high costs. There is a best time, each season, for performing
each cultural operation and a best way or method, and the farm
operator—consciously or unconsciously—must decide both as to the
time and the method.

The importance of the well-timed performance of the cultural
operations is strikingly shown by the results of two Nebraska experi-
ments conducted to show the effect of delaying the dates of planting
and thinning sugar beets grown under urigation:

An average of three-years’ tests shows that 20 days of delayed thinning re-
duced the yield more than five tons per acre. . . . Where the beets were planted

four weeks after the land was prepared the yield was 3.73 tons per acre less than
where the planting was made the next day after the land was prepared.!

In summarizing it may be said that this discussion indicates
something of the complexity of the problem of making the best use
of the factors which make for high crop yield and which are largely
under the farmer’s control. Farm experience of the past 20 years
leads unerringly to the conclusion that the rotation of crops, the
application of barnyard manure, the growing of legumes (alfalfa, the
clovers, and beans) in the rotation, the use of good seed, and the well-
timed performance of the cultural operations are all important
factors in the district studied. Because of the absence of experi-
mental data that apply specifically to this district, the results of the
Nebraska experiment are presented to assist the farm operator in
properly evaluating these factors.

1 HOLDEN, J. A. WORK OF THE SCOTTSBLUFF EXPERIMENT FARM, NEBBR., IN 1920 AND 1921. U.S. Dept.
Agr. Cir, 289, pp. 14. 1924.

.
#

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 4]

VARIATION IN VALUE OF FARM-FURNISHED FOOD PER ADULT PERSON

Family-used perquisites during the four years of the study consti-
tuted about 9 per cent of the total ouput of the general crop farms.
These perquisites are made up of the various food items and shelter.
They are items of return from the farm that are often little appre-
ciated and their values vary widely from farm to farm.

It is not easy for farmers to increase materially the value of the
shelter (the use of the dwelling) furnished by the farm. Usually
that would mean the erection of better dwellings which would require
considerable capital. The quantity of food furnished per adult per-
son, on the other hand, may be much or little as the farm operator
- chooses. For this reason the following discussion is confined to the
food furnished by the farm for the use of the family, the shelter
being omitted (fig. 21).

VARIATION IN THE VALUE OF THE FARM FURNISHED FOOD PER ADULT PERSON ON 207

FARMS, 1919
VARIATIONS IN NUMBER OF FARMS -
FOOD PER ADULT Q 10 20 30 4.0 50 60
DOLLARS 3
175 — 199.9
150 — 174.9
125 — 149.9 Z
|
100 — 1249 ‘ =
| | | |
75 — 999
| | | |
50 — 749 S00
|
25 — 49.9
O — 249

Fig. 21.—In computing the number of adult persons per farm, persons under 16 years of age were
considered as equal to two-thirds of an adult and those 16 or over asadults. The numbers in the
upper part of the chart and the bars indicate the number of farms that furnished the designated
values of food per adult person. A few farms furnished very little home-grown food per adult
person, while the amount furnished by a few others was high. The average amount for 207 farms
was about $94 per adult

Of the total value of the farm-furnished food, dairy products were
40 per cent, meats 21 per cent, garden products and potatoes 18 per
cent, eggs 13 per cent, and fruits 8 per cent. The value of the farm
food furnished per adult person averaged $94, and ranged in value from
less than $15 to as much as $195. This wide variation would seem to
indicate that the production of home-grown food may be profitably
increased on many of these farms. It is usually cheaper to raise it
than to buy it. Ifit isnot produced on the farm, the family frequently
does without it. It is by giving special attention to the production
of home-grown foods that some farmers are able to tide over periods
of depression successfully when the prices of farm products are ruin-
ously low.

42 BULLETIN 1421, U. §. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

EFFECT OF SIZE ON ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FARMS

Where the output is derived almost entirely from the sale of crops,
the size of farm materially influences the effectiveness with which
capital and labor can be used in the organization and operation of
farms. The following discussion of this subject is confined to two
size groups, 40-acre and 80-acre farms, because of the frequency with
which these two sizes occur in this district, and it is assumed that the
operators of the 40-acre farms are equally capable of managing 80-acre
farms.

Utilization of land.—The utilization of the farm land of these two
size groups is shown in Table 20. The proportional parts of the total
of these farms that was tillable land or in crops differed so slightly
in the two groups that it can not be said that one group had the
advantage of the other in this respect. They did differ considerably,
however, in the percentage of the total crop acreage that was devoted
to.the respective crops. During the four years the 80-acre farms
devoted an average of 7 per cent more of the crop area to wheat and

6 per cent less to sugar beets than did the 40-acre farms. Although
the percentages of the crop area that were devoted to the other crops
varied considerably from year to year, the averages for the two
groups for the four years are very close together.

TaBLeE 20.—Utilization of land on 40-acre and 80-acre farms, 1919-1922

40-acre farms 80-acre farms
Item
1919 1920 1921 1922 1919 1920 1921 1922
Farms studied, number_-____-_-_-_-- 51 53 S202F |p 4 38 37 33 16
Acres | Acres | Acres | Acres | Acres | Acres | Acres | Acres

SIZCLOMLALINS Soe ee ee ee A0E2) |= 4083 40. 0 40. 0 80. 0 79.9 79. 8 79.5
Pillabletand ses <a ee ees 36.81) san STE 36. 6 36. 8 74. 5 72.6 74.3 72. 4
Crop acreage___.____________- 3441 351) 352] 352| 704| -69.2| 707| 691
idletcropiland == se sae il Pil =| eens area ae Faia) dl pee eee DN ee
PasSturei ink BOs eye Se 9458: 1.9 1.4 1.6 3. 6 3.4 3.4 3.3
Pasture not tilables= =e eee .6 .4 72 PANT AE6 1.6 .9 1.3
Otherdand ds eves se eat EE 2.8 2.8 32 2.8 3.9 Dh 46) 5.8
Crop acreage in: Per cent) Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent

WIN GAT ere oe ea ee eee 43 34 34 22 50 43
AN fala es Se I peed od oe eae 19 22 22 20 20 26 21 20
1S Yern Oh eet geqlbe ae” peel ey code Biren UTE 10 8 5 26 14 9 8 21
IP OLALOCS ope swe ie arene 6 5 8 10 4 5 8 12
Sugar beetsi fs: fete eee 7 12 13 5 4 4 za ae see oe
Clover e245 EEE ae ey: ee ee 6 9 11 8 | 3 6 14 14
Brait and gardén===22. 556. | 4 3 3 4 | 2 2 2 2
Other-crops: = a eee ee 5 7 4 5 | 3 5 z 3

1 Land occupied by roads, fences, buildings, corrals, canals, and ditches. That is, all land not used for
pasture or crop production.

Distribution of livestock.—The kinds of livestock kept on the 40-
acre and 80-acre farms and the number of animal units of each kind
are shown in Table 21. In proportion to size of farm, the 40-acre
farms kept more of each class of livestock (except sheep) than did
the 80-acre farms. The 40-acre farms kept an average of 8.8 animal
units per farm and the 80-acre farms 11.4 units. Of these numbers
3.5 were work animals and 5.3 were productive animals on the 40-
acre farms, whereas 4.6 were work animals and 6.8 were productive

IRRIGATED FARMING IN, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 43

animals on the 80-acre farms. Aside from the work animals, the
livestock on these farms was kept largely to supply the needs of
the farm family. This made it necessary for the 40-acre farms to
keep more productive livestock in proportion to size of farm than
was kept by the 80-acre group.

TABLE 21.—Distribution of livestock on 40-acre and 80-acre farms,! 1919-1922

40-acre farms 80-acre farms
Item
1919 1920 1921 1922 1919 1920 1921 1922
Number| Number| Number| Number| Number, Number, Number Number
BHATIMSSGU CIC C= a aaa ee ere eee 51 53 52 14 38 37 33 | 16
Animal units per farm___.-._..------ Sood | SsCLHLES Duiee MOLON|e er.) 910.81. Umese| ieentas
SVWiOnktstock 21 tie Seas ee 3. 1 3.6 3. 4 4.0 4.8 4.4 4.9 4,4
EProduchivierstockws 62ers eae eal 5. 0 onal 6.0 lee 6. 4 6. 4 tae
Gatehouse fe aie eee, SE 2 A 2.8 3.3 3.6 3.8 3. 6 3.8 4.1 4,7
NEE Pee eee pe ee pe Salvi “8 Ts pay patos, Sally eo 53) ANS 7) ese ee oe
18 Boyes, a a aa a ee a cm crs .8 6 .4 ila® .8 .9 .8 1A,
Minresiandicolisse 24-2 sen .3 2 a2 a2 5 .4 Bon 12
IPOultR ye piphsra ase we Saar 9 | 8 .9 .8 1.0 .8 sea bes iat

1 Tn order to compare the livestock kept on the 40 and 80 acre farms, it is necessary to have a standard
unit of comparison. The standard used is the ‘‘ Animal unit.’’ It consists of a mature horse, mule, cow,
or steer. Also as many smaller animals as require the feed of one of these mature animals. Usually 2 head
“of youre cattle, 2 colts, 5 hogs, 10 pigs, 7 sheep, 14 lambs, or 100 chickens are considered equivalent to one
animal unit.

TABLE 22.—Distribution of capital on 40-acre and 80-acre farms, 1919-1922

40-acre farms | 80-acre farms
Item

1919 1920 1921 1922 1919 1920 1921 1922
Farms studied, number-______-------- BDd. 58 52 14 38 37 33 16
<- Dollars | Dollars | Dollars Dollars Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
Value of real estate per acre___-______ 414 | 398 285 269 364 258 | 243
‘Capital _____ Bees abe ees a 18, 600 | 18,020 | 12,902 | 12,277 | 34,773 |-32, 148 | 23, 104 | 21, 487
> *Realtestateess ss er 16, 652 | 16, 027 | 11, 389 | 10, 750 31, 595 | 29,127 | 20,615 | 19,313
| Df i0 6 lees oo ee eee Oe 14, 523 | 13, 885 9, 200 8, 767 | 28,965 | 26,427 | 17,677 | 16,380
IDwelling=ss-s tees SB _. 1, 604 1, 581 1, 668.) 1, 606 2, 007 1, 977 PP BY ra SY
Opherbuildingss: == 2-.) = 625 561 5217 377 623 723 801 | 746
Working capitals “S220 oe 1, 948 1, 993 1, 513 1, 527 3, 178 3, 021 2,489 | 2,174
EAVIECSEOCK serra ee A 770 739 | 642 644 1, 196 1, 109 992 | 925
Dia chin eryekee 8 oepeh = = ee 517 624 512 516 819 905 863 698
Feed and supplies__________-- 303 386 137 121 413 553 198 | 201
@Other= ssa eee. ewe eh 358 244 222 246 750 454 436 350
Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent| Per cent) Per cent

Cie joys eae a her Be Sec aes 100 100 +} 100 100 ; 100 100 100 100
Benliestaterpaie rs sce! oa 895 | 8891 8831 87.6| 909] 906] 892) 989.9
TET Glioecepeetere 2s RANE Fk Peg 78. 1 THEW (ile 233 71.4 83. 3 82. 2 76.5 76. 2
ID iwnellingaammers Ss nye oe 8.6 8.8 12.9 18} 5.8 6. 2 9.2 10. 2
Other buildings_____________- as Sal 4,1 Sle 1.8 Daz 3.5 3.5
Working capital____/___.__-.---- tet eet | ee ies eo tog te
Dimestock wails Usrio. Tee 4.2 4.1 5.0 ea se! 3.5 4.3 4.3
Widchinery= =a —* ee 2.8 305 4.0 4,2 | P28: 2.8 37 3.3
Feeds and supplies_____------ 1.6 Jel 1.0 Ou 12 17 .9 | 9
@pneree FUE eK 1.9 1.4 17 | 2.0 | Ep 1.4 1.9 | 1.6

44 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Distribution of capital—The distribution of the capital of the two.

size groups of farms into land, buildings, machinery, feed and sup-

plies, and other working capital is shown in Table 22. The chief -

point to be observed in this comparison is the proportion of the
capital required for equipment. During the four-year period the
40-acre farms had averages of 3.5 per cent and 1.6 per cent more of
the total capital tied up in buildings and working capital, respectively,
than had the 80-acre farms. In other words a greater proportion of
the capital of the 80-acre farms was in land that could be used for
producing crops.

Net return to capital— A summary of the business of the 40-acre
and 80-acre farms is presented in Table 23. Attention is epecially
directed to the fact that during each year of the study, net return
to the capital of the 80-acre farms was considerably more than
twice as great as that of the 40-acre farms. The four-year average
for the former group was $1,341 and for the latter $453. The per-
centage return to the capital of the 80-acre group was also much
greater than that returned to the capital of the 40-acre group.
When measured by these tokens, therefore, size of farm appears to
have considerable influence on the efficiency with which farms can
be organized and operated. Some of the reasons appear later.

TABLE 23.—Business summary for £40-acre and 80-acre farms, 1919-1922

40-acre farms 80-acre farms
Item So eae
| 1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1922 | 1919 | 1920 | i921 | 1922
|
Farms studied, number______-______- 51 |} 53 | 52 | 14 | 38 37 33 16
| SS ee ee '

Dollars | Dollars | Dollars \Doliars | Dollars Dollars | Dollars Dollars
Output per farm_______.___-.-.------|__3, 277 |_ 2, 749 |_2,081 | 2,168 | 6,237 | 4,262) 3,291 | 3,827
Cashontputs oe ee ee 2,919 | 2,360| 3,690| 1,834 | 5,688 | 3,717 | 2,913 | 3, 515
== SSS SSS - a
Wi On bs 2s oe ree aes 957 381 | 2,376; 1,580 993 738
NE ECS ae Se 392 883 369 717 175
Beans 22 Seat See ee 306 i 806 | 374 206 1,319
SuPpanbeers ss Sa es 297 | 352 | 443 192 iss
Clover (hay and seed)________ 218 369 | 179 306 566.
Alfalfa (hay and seed)_______- 190 | 234 | 222 ST 120
Offer cropss.n.| ese Seed 75 | 149 | 61 152 56
WGLVESLOCKs a= len ones ee ane 247 | 221 | 206 116 227
Livestock products___________ 161 | 188 | 190 164 | 274
Gihts sources. aes 76 | 60 93 30 | 40
Noncash output_..___-___---.___- 358 | | 549 | 545 | --378 | 312
Family-used perquisites_____-_ 341 | 309 442 378 312
Increase in inventories_______ 17 | 0 | 240 103 0 0
Input per farm (other than capital)-_ 2, 169 | 3,357 | 3, 469 : 2,854 | 2,574
Cashanput=-o.- sear en ae 1, 310 | : 2,339 | 2,165 | 1,806| 1,449
Hired labor... Ve. £8 136 | | 462| 295 : 242 117
Contract labor--_-._.-..-.--- 7 97 | 136 140 67
Repairs --8et. 2 ae 51 87 | 7 64 49
Feed 'bonent——> 4. aye ees 147 | 182 | 98 66 75
Auto for farminsen = ae 131 | 180 | 153 170 124
Seedsbought=2- 2-2 sei =k 82 106 | 200 130 | 108
Sacks'and: twine eae 45 | 104 109 96 | 126.
Threshing and hulling________ 80 174 168 136 | 176
‘Taxes 2 Sate 198 350 336 416 326.
Irrigation water________-___-- 121 | 240 246 160 117
Livestock bought____________ 172 268 220 85 71
Other sources. -_ <2 == - =. | 68 | 89 126 | 101 93
Noncash input___......-------+-- |__ 859 | 985 |_ 1,018 |- 1,304} 1,048 | 1, 125
Decrease in inventories______- 0 0) 0 139 171
Operators labor. 24 23 801 915 | 1,056 | 826 | 861
Unpaid family labor________- 58 | 103 | 248 | 83 | 93
Return to capital (output lessinput)_| 1, 108 2, 880 793 | 437 | 1,253
Return to capital, per cent ___________ 6.0 8.3 25 | 1 5. 8

n
ee er rn

eee eee ee ee ee

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 45

Output and input per acre and return to real estate per acre—A
comparison of the output and input per acre of the two size groups
is presented in Table 24. The average output per acre for the four-year
period, in round figures, was $64 for the 40-acre farms and $55 for
the 80-acre farms, a difference of $9 per acre in favor of the 40-acre
group. The average input per acre tthe than capital) was $53 for
the 40-acre farms and $38 for the 80-acre farms, a difference of $14
per acre in favor of the 80-acre group. The average net return per
acre for the use of capital (output less input), therefore, was approxi-
| ies $5 per acre greater for the 80-acre farms than for the 40-acre

arms.

TABLE 24.—Output per acre, input per acre, and net return to real estate per acre
on 40-acre and S0-acre farms, 1919-1922

Fy
40-acre farms 80-acre farms
Item l ]
1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1922 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 19922
Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls.
Output periacre*=s-22 es pee ses 82 68 ol 54 | 78 53 | 41 48
Input per acre (other than capital) _-) 54 60 49 47 | 42 43 36 32
: is |
Net return to capital per acre_-__-_-- 28 8 2 A 36 | 10 | 5 16
Use of working capital per acre at 8 | |
DETIICEN Geen t 2 a aE Be at es 4 4 3 3 | 3 3 | Md | 2
Net return to real estate per acre____- 24 4 —1 Vilas 7 | 3 14
| es

Table 24 further shows the average net return to real estate per
acre after allowing 8 per cent for the use of working capital. For the
four-year period this was approximately $8 per acre for the 40-acre
farms and $14 per acre for the 80-acre farms, the difference being $6
in favor of the 80-acre farms.

Use of labor—Table 25 presents a comparison of the efficiency
with which labor was used by the two groups of farms. The 40-acre
farms kept an average of 3.5 work animals per farm, whereas the
80-acre farms kept an average of 4.6. That is, with about one and
one-third times as many work animals per farm, the 80-acre farms
produced nearly twice as many acres of crops. In other words, the
80-acre farms handled a little more than 15 acres of crops per work
horse and the 40-acre farms, 10 acres. The larger farms also used
man labor more efficiently than the smaller ones. For each month
of man labor used there were averages of approximately 2.8 crop
acres on the 40-acre farms and 4.2 acres on the 80-acre farms. In
proportion to the crop area, the 40-acre farms produced more sugar
beets and beans than did the 80-acre farms. This, however, is
not sufficient to account for the difference in the crop acres handled
per horse and per month of man labor by the two groups.

TaBLe 25.—The use of man and horse labor on 40-acre and 80-acre farms, 1919-1922

40-acre farms 80-acre farms
Ttem ) |
1919 | 1920 1921 1922 1919 1920 1921 | 1922
a“
Work horses per farm__-_..---------- eso lelesorG Bede == 4-0 4.8 4.4 4.9 | 4,4
Crop acres per work horse_______-_--- ei sltee | 110 10 ‘| 9 15 -}) 16— 14 16 E
Crop acres per month of man labor-_-_-} 3.0 | 2.9 2.7 2.6 | 4.3 | 4.2 4,1 4.2
| | |

46 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Average crop yields —The 40-acre farms obtained the highest
yields off alfalfa hay, sugar beets, beans, and alsike clover; the 80-acre
farms, on the other hand, obtained the highest average yields of
wheat, potatoes, and red clover seed. Using the index of crop
yields as the measuring stick (the comparative yield of all crops),
the 40-acre farms ranked three points above the 80-acre farms.
With respect to crop yields, then, the 40-acre farms had a slight
advantage, which, however, is not sufficient to justify the theory
so often advanced that much better yields and more satisfactory
financial returns would be obtained by reducing the size of the farm,:
the type of farming remaining the same. |

Thus it is evident that the 80-acre farms were organized and
operated more effectively than were the 40-acre farms. The 40-acre
farms had, in round figures, 5 per cent more of the capftal tied up in
buildings and equipment than had the 80-acre farms. A work horse
handled one-half more crop acres on the 80-acre farms than on the
40-acre farms. For each month of man labor used, 2.8 crop acres
were taken care of on the 40-acre farms as compared with 4.2 acres
on the 80-acre farms. The average net return to real estate for the
four-year period was $6.50 per acre greater for the 80-acre farms than
the 40-acre group.

Other things being equal the acreage in each crop is twice as large
on an 80-acre farm as on one of 40 acres. For this reason practically
all field operations can be performed more economically on the former
than on the latter. A few illustrations should suffice to make this
clear.

It requires about the same length of time to repair the hay-making
equipment and get it into action and to assemble a hay-stacking clew
for 10 acres of alfalfa hay as for 20 acres. In general, as much time
is consumed in turning for the cultural operations on a 40-acre farm
as on an 80-acre farm, the time per unit area varying with the size
and shape of the fields, length of rows, etc. The head of water on a -
40-acre farm is only half as large as on an 80-acre farm. Thisenables .
the 80-acre farmer to irrigate about twice as many acres in a given
time as can the 40-acre farmer. Thus the 80-acre farmer can use the
various factors of production to much better advantage than can the
40-acre farmer, the type of farming being the same in each case,

DAIRY AND GENERAL CROP FARMS

The farms classified as ‘‘ Dairy and general crop farms,” in most
cases, produced the general field crops in addition to carrying on the
dairy enterprise. Dairying was an important enterprise on each of
these farms and in a few instances the dairy herd was practically the
only source of income. There was a wide variation in the quality of
the cows, the different herds ranging from grades of low-producing
capacity to well-bred herds of high producers.

The small number of dairy and crop farms found in the district
made a detailed study of the dairy enterprise impracticable. The
district is so well adapted to the production of dairy products and
dairy cattle, however, that the results of the study of the few dairy
farms found is presented to indicate, in a rough way, the possibilities
of this industry in the district and to compare dairy farming with the
two other types. In the discussion that follows this group is here
referred to as ‘‘dairy farms,”

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 47

UTILIZATION OF LAND

In obtaining the records it was necessary to drop some farms and
add others from year to year, hence the variation in the number of
farms during the four years (Table 26). The average size of these
dairy farms was about 77 acres. This is approximately 4 acres larger
than the average of the general crop farms. As would be expected,
these farms had a much hi her percentage of the tillable land in pas-
ture and alfalfa and a much lower percentage in wheat than had the
general crop farms. |

TABLE 26.—Utilization of land on dairy farms, 1919-1922

Item 1919 1920 1921 1922
Farms studied, number_____---_----- (Peace niet Oe ica aS eicetepe ene LG: 10
Acres Acres Acres Acres
Sizetofefanines ates wee tee ee es 78.5 7 77.6 75.5
Tillable land:

@rop acreares]- 22 =e = - 64.4 62.8 57. 5 61. 4
Croprlandsrented outs see 22 22 = aes as ee ee ee 2 1.8 SZ
IPASvuUTe = Sot eb ar ee Sets Sete eo 6. 2 1s 6.9
otal wer kombat eso A oF ieee ies | 69.0 71.0 | 70.0
Pasture not tillable_______________ 2.0 3.7 1.4 1.8
Othemlandh: ss) 2s Sat ees 4.8 4.3 5. 2 ah Uf

Crop acreage in: AGES: |) 25 Gin WO AGED F I2, Gis AGES |) IBGE PANGS IZ, @:
CET Fi, Oe a Ben NO ha A nee Nae ET 13. 2 20 20. 8 33 14.3 25 19. 2 31
PAU fa fetes eek ee: IBS eee ee a 25. 0 39 16. 5 26 23. 8 Al 22. 8 37
TS CANS tee etka eee ee = ae 9.5 15 7.8 12 IL 7 5 7.0 11
IPOtaL OCS aa ee reo Sateen ee .8 1 1.0 2 1.6 3 2.4 4
SUCaTIDECTS se seme me 7.0 1l 3.8 6 4.5 8 ileal 2
OVGEE Host Rs wate etary bee tg ET) 1.9 3 Dee 8 .3 1 .6 1
Barley, and (oatsta= =. se 3.3 5 3. 1 5 2.9 5 2.4 4
OUT ta oan ete ue ae ree 50) 1 1.9 3 4.3 7 3.3 5
Garden and orehard_____________- 2.9 5 F474 4 1.8 3 2.2 4
Other Cropssa ee a eee me (2) als 1 1.3 2 .4 1

i Less than one-half of 1 per cent.

DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK

The different kinds of livestock kept and the number of animal
units of each kind are shown in Table 27. There was an average of
22 dairy cattle animal units per farm during the four years of the
study. This is about five times the number kept on the general
crop farms. This is the only striking difference in the livestock kept
by the three types of farms.

TABLE 27.—Distribution of livestock on dairy farms, 1919-1922

Item 1919 1920 1921 1922
Number | Number | Number | Number

PIE SINISES 1 TR Cee eee nee to tN oer a ee Pe eae Sida alls 16 10
PACT Delia hSE POIs aria a ee es ek Sete 34. 2 27.8 32. 2 29. 2
AUViO:KS SLOG Keeani eines arr Saeic e RS NUN oe eee 4.3 4.2 5.2 | 5uell
TOU MO;SbOCK mare Ae Sipe ss a a | 29.9 | 23. 6 27.0 | 24.1
Cait Hees eet periie t e Pn 25. 6 19. 4 PALS ef 20. 6

SHES |) eens eae eee teint ponies 5 ke Vie en FL EE 56 | -3 Di al

TO Rae een ae as en ee ee See 5 | 1k | 1.6 1.3 2.0

Brood maressand.ecolts. seat a iD | 163 .9 a3

EZ OU y eet ON penta 2 2 tee aL pee ee | 9 1.0 1.0 ial

|

1 In order to compare the livestock kept on the different farms, it is necessary to have a standard of com-
parison. The standard here used is the ‘‘Animal unit.’”’ It is represented by one mature horse, mule,
cow, or steer. Also by as many smaller animals as require the feed of one of these mature animals. Usually
2 head of woe cattle, 2 colts, 5 hogs, 10 pigs, 7 sheep, 14 lambs or 100 chickens are considered equivalent to
one animal unit,

AS BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL

The average values of real estate per acre presented in Table 28
do not differ materially from the corresponding values shown in
Table 6. As would be expected, however, the dairy farms had a
much greater proportion of the total capital invested in feed and
supplies, livestock, machinery, and buildings than had the general
crop farms.

=

TABLE 28.—Distribution of capital on dairy farms, 1919-1922

1919 | 1920 1921

Items

|
iAnmM Ss SEUGied | MUI bere 2 = eee eee ee ee | 8 il 16
; Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
Value of real estate periacre=——==-—— == === = 225 sO aa 06g 283
Average capital perfarmm-o2 255 9) Ssuse Sages era eet 34, 771 33, 549 | 26, 318
Realiestatece s-seb ee ee eee 28, 372 28, 183 21, 960
Pande 2 eo a) eS ee ee QD Mt2 24, 268 18, 582
Dwelling: (2.2222 = 22 ake eee ee ee eee ee 1, 550 | 2, 458 2, 419
Other: buildings 328-22 322 see ee Se eee eee 1, 050 1, 457 959
Working \capitale s 5-2 Se ee 6,399 | _5, 366 4, 358

ee

TGV ViCSUO Cette eet a eee een cn ee ape oper 3, 676 2, 835 2, 650
HIE TG) OT aes Arenas spe ements eat ae ORS ee ee ee Dee 1, 471 1, 389 1, 260
WM ECAS:AN GSU PPE i ee ees ee es a eee 996 903 242
Otherworking capital: a s8 ee eee ees 256 239 206

BUSINESS SUMMARY

A summary of the business of the dairy farms is presented in Table
29. Of the total output, averages of 52, 46, 59, and 54 per cent,
respectively, were derived from the sale of livestock and livestock
products in 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922. Since practically all of the
income from these two sources came from the dairy herd, the type of
farming was rather well balanced between cash crops and the dairy
enterprise.

TABLE 29.—Business summary for dairy farms, 1919-1922

Warms studied, numbers ao so oe ce
SIZesOl farm ACreSse ee et ee ee eee oe a ee are

Outpubiper farm isc Fae Se Se ee a a eee
Cash output_.____- Bere Cet oe Bt LA er Re © Ree te |

Sale livestock products
Other sources

INTON CASH OU tp eres ee ce re loa CO ae ee

Bamilyaperd WISiteseae ae sae ee a cee ee
ImeredsesiniventOpieSs= 2 sa ea a ee eee

input per iar, (Other thaniofi capital) = see eee
@ashi Inputs see Ni se SE ae el ee eR eae eer ee
INoncashin put. s 2eee So ee ere eee ase ee ee

Decrease inventories_
Operator’ silabors=e- 2s Soe ee ae eae eee ee ee
Unpaid family labor

Return-to; Capibalen. tes ee A ee ea
Return to capital, per cent

The total value of the capital used in computing the percentage return to capital is considerably lower
for Sa and 1922 than for 1919 and 1920, chiefly because of the lower value of real estate per acre (See
able 28).

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 49

In 1919 the return to capital was 10.9 per cent; in 1920 it was but
3.7 percent. In 1919 records were obtained from two very successful
farms having high-producing cows. In 1920 it was necessary to
replace both of these farms with others which were much less efficient..
This and the general slump in the prices of farm products caused the
abrupt drop in the percentage return to capital in 1920. During the
last two years of the survey the return to capital increased gradually,
reaching 4.2 per cent in 1921 and 4.6 in 1922, while for the four-year:
period the average was 5.8 per cent.

VARIATION IN HERD AVERAGE VALUE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS PER COW

The herd average value of the dairy products per cow presented in
Table 30 includes the estimated value of the products used on the
farm as well aswhatwassold. There was considerable variation in the:
herd average per cow. ‘This variation was mainly due to three factors:

(1) The price received for the product of the different herds varied
considerably. Some of the milk was sold at retail prices, some at,
wholesale fluid-milk prices, and some on a butterfat basis.

(2) The methods used in feeding the different herds varied widely..
During the pasture season some herds were on excellent pasture for
five to six months and in addition were fed all the alfalfa hay they
would eat and in some instances grain; other herds were fed alfalfa.
hay and run on very closely cropped pasture; other herds were kept.
in dry lots all summer and fed alfalfa hay, some herds receiving grain
in addition to the hay, whereas others received none; some herds.
received corn silage or sugar-beet pulp while others did not.

- (3) The average producing ability per cow of some herds was high
whereas that of other herds was low, so low, in fact, that some of the
farmers would have been better off financially had they kept only
enough cows to supply the family with dairy products. :

TABLE 30.—Variation in herd average value. of dairy products per cow on dairy’
farms, 1919-1922

- 1919 1920 1921 1922

Value of dairy pro- Herd Herd Herd 4 Herd :
ducts per cow Number Number Number Number wf

of farms | 2V°F88° | of farms | 2V°T88° | of farms | 2VET88° | of farms | 2VeTA8E

per cow per cow per cow per cow

Dollars Dollars Dollars § Dollars
WER COTE LOG auneem aaa ee aja ine SS IE es ee 2 64 1 68
HLOOSLG: pl4a9se a. 4 122 4 118 5 115 6 126
STO M1 OO 2e meee nk Se ae De eo 2 164 5 170 2 176
S200 aL 24 ee 1 202 | 2 204 3 225 1 205
S250 200 wee 1 251 2 278 1 72315 | (eens ease (pes oc Ge a
$300 and over_-__-__-_- 2 307 1 Ses seer a [eae i ts al ee

ORCHARD AND GENERAL CROP FARMS

The production of fruit on a commercial scale was an important
enterprise on a limited number of farms each year of the study. The
orchards consisted almost entirely of apples, although there were
some other tree fruits. Most of the orchard farms produced the
field crops common to the district studied in addition to conducting
the orchard enterprise, but the apple was the chief source of income
on a very few farms. The farms having commercial orchards are
here classified as ‘‘Orchard and general crop farms,” the organization
and business summary of which are presented in Tables 31 to 34,

inclusive. This group is here referred to as “orchard farms.”

50 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

UTILIZATION OF LAND

The average size of farm, the acres of tillable land, the crop and

asture areas, and utilization of the crop area are presented in
Table 31. The average size of the orchard farms for the four-year
period was approximately 58 acres. A larger acreage was devoted to
the orchard than to any other enterprise; wheat was second and
alfalfa third. The change in the acreage devoted to the orchard
from year to year was due to the dropping of some farms from the
study and the addition of others.

TaBLE 31.—Utilization of land on orchard farms, 1919-1922

Item 1919 1920 1921 1922
Farms studied, number-_-_______-_---- 9 10 14 10
Acres Acres Acres Acres
Sizerofifaninc se sae eee 62. 2 59. 6 54. 9 | 55. 6
Tillable-lande=sS.a7stS es eee se 59. 4 55. 8 51.2 50.7
ee Ee ee
Crop acreacee nant eee ees 58. 4 54. 6 50.3 38. 4
Cropland rented outs ss Se | SS a a a ee 10.1
IPAS GUC uring ape ena een ee en een 1.0 1.2 .9 222
Pasturemot tillablesssassass eee sen | 14 .3 el
Othemland Sasa se eee eS | 7.45 3.4 3.4 4.2
Crop acreage in: Acres |Percent, Acres |Perceni| Acres |Percent| Acres | Per cent
AAV BNCSTS Ngee RE BY anlar eye te aloes 22 13. 4 25 9.4 19 7.3 19
IA falfa Ant Petes Pee ee 7.4 12 7.3 13 Tl 22 8.0 21
BY ore N a Gy ay eco ines hare aie Morente eae. Pic 1.6 3 | 1.6 3 .9 2 Dat 15
Potatoes eee Le, tae eee eee 1.0 2 | .8 1 2.8 5 3.3 9
Sugaribee tS iste eee ee es 3.0 oil SHO 6 2.0 4 .4 1
WIG Viera nee ere eee ee te ee 1.0 2 2.0 4 ee 15 3.2 8
Orchard’and ‘garden= 2225222 30. 4 52 DAL Uf 40 14.0 28 9.3 24
Othericropses == eu een yale 12 2 4.3 8 PS 5 1.2 3

DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK

These orchard farms kept an average of 9.4 animal units per farm
during the four years of the survey, of which 3.4 was the average of
work animals and 3.6 of cattle. The cattle consisted of both cows and
young animals. Just about enough cows, hogs, and poultry were
kept to supply the needs ot the farm family with dairy products, eggs,
and meat. During the first three years no sheep were found on the
orchard farms. <A few of the farms each year had mares and colts.

TaBLE 32.—Distribution of livestock on orchard farms, 1919-1922

Item 1919 | 1920 1921 1922
Number | Number | Number | Number

Barmsistudied 32-5 ee sie Se ee pei eee ereeee aearee 9 10 14 10
PNpayoon ile oautiey pe Gye Veena. es Se 9.0 8.8 10. 5 9.4
Workistacl nossa Pe hor ea tec ett it hs ear aoe 2.7 3.0 | 4.3. oa
Broductivie;Stockse ss 228 Bai. ie ye og 3 ae ME Se ere cei eee 6.3 5.8 | 6. 2 6.0
G@athles n0t 2 er apne es et Pe eo eng 2.8 | DETe 4.4 sae OY |

Sheep see hee SE eR RAs ES Ne EE a | ae .4

LOR Sek ae ie Reha ic a i ees And ipee 2.3 21 6 sal
Broodsemaresyandicoltss2 tt ae ae ee ee aD) 2 1 .3
Poultry igs She sie Va eee 1 Ld ed a eo Der ie tee cee 1.0 8 alge! 8

1 Tn order to compare the livestock kept on the different farms, it is necessary to have a standard of com-
parison. ‘The standard here used is the ‘‘Animal unit.’’ It is represented by one mature horse, mule,
cow, or steer. Also by as many smaller animals as require the feed of one of these mature animals. Usually
g head of youne cattle, 2 colts, 5 hogs, 10 pigs, 7 sheep, 14 lambs, or 100 chickens are considered equivalent

0 one animal unit. ; A petal sas <

rag

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 51

DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL

As would be expected, the average value of real estate per acre was
considerably higher in this group of farms than in the group of general.
farms or the group of dairy farms. This difference is due to the cost
of developing bearing orchards. Table 33 shows that the average
value of real estate (are estimated sales value) decreased from $533
per acre in 1919 to $275 in 1922. This decrease was due (1) to the
general drop in the value of real estate during this period and (2) to
the decreasing percentage of the farm area that was in orchard from
year to year. In 1919 there was a large apple crop which required
considerable ‘‘ other working capital”’ (cash and credit) to finance the
harvesting and marketing operations. Aside from this the distribu-
tion of the capital is similar to that of the general crop farms.

TaBLE 33.—Distribution of capital on orchard farms, 1919-1922

Item “1919 1920 1921 1922
PR ATITISES EU Gl Gent) EM OTe = eener otettiee tek nett ls eo 9 10 14 10
Dollars | Dollars Dollars; Dollars
iWalueroferealvestate peniache= asa e ee a a 533 439 305 275
IVCrAge Capital npemiabiimes=-saeeee row rnee a a ee 36, 476 28, 390 18, 398 16, 828
| —SSSaSSs

Heat ees ete eens tae ee re ene ee ee 33,167 | 26,149] 16,743 | 15, 287

TUR TENG Lg esa Spi A i Reel aca al UN pe ee Re 28, 989 22, 912 14, 151 12, 747

BD) WellnTa O% = cies RRC ae ele a dns rapt ER ea 3, 200 2, 428 1, 993 2, 212

Others tail itr Gee a ae Se eee Fo 978 809 599 328
VOR onCap bane eas ere tN ee a ese Ne Ee 3, 309 2, 241 1, 655 1, 541
BriveSEGCK aoe tele GER ON a EE Oe ce 674 | 602 476 | SI

IVA CIN iy yt eee ean EE ree eee ig ha Se ee 702 823 636 522
Weedtandrsup Mest. sake «ee we Ne ns ea 239 404 148 157
Otherworkine capitals ta Sa ae ee 1, 694 412 395 281

BUSINESS SUMMARY

The year 1919 was by far the best financially, 1921 was second best,
and 1922 was the poorest (see Table 34). Both 1920 and 1922 were
very unsatisfactory apple years. Generally speaking, the yield was
light and the price received for apples was low both years. This is
shown also by the cash receipts for the sale of fruit. Of the total cash
output, receipts from the sale of fruit were 71 per cent in 1919, 25 per
cent in 1920, 64 per cent in 1921, and 29 per cent in 1922. The return
to capital was 12 per cent, 0.6 per cent, 8.7 per cent, and 0.4 per cent,

. respectively, in 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922.

The district has thoroughly demonstrated that it can produce good
yields of excellent apples and the returns might have been consider-
ably higher if all of the orchards had been properly pruned, sprayed,
aad: irrigated; if the fruit had been thinned sufficiently to get the
desired size of apple; if the apples had been graded more thoroughly;
and if an effective marketing agency had been available for disposing
of the crop. |

Of the important crop enterprises of the district studied, apple
production, it appears, is subject to the greatest fluctuations in net
returns. When the apple crop of the East and Middle West is light,
the Northwestern growers are likely to receive very attractive re-
turns for their apples. With Eastern and Middle Western growers

52 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

striving for better quality at lower costs of production, and with
much lower freight rates in their favor, Northwestern growers must
expect low prices when there is avery heavy production in the East and
Middle West.

TABLE 34.—Business summary for orchard farms, 1919-1922

Item 1919 1920 1921 1922
arms studied. mum ber a= eee ee eee 9 | 10 14 10
Sizeiofiiarm, ACreS 42-252 oe 2 ee ee Se a oe et ee eee 62. 2 59. 6 54.9 55. 6
Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars

Output per ifarm = - 2325 eee a eee ee 9, 469 3, 639 4, 522 2, 246
Cash: outputssc2 2 S24 es S22 see ee San ee ee 8,873 }. 3, 188 4, 073 | 1, 847
Mri ts Gn ainbygap pl eS) ese es eee ee eee ee 6, 326 811 2, 612 528
Other Crops Ee 22s. fe ee Se eee Pe ee 1, 925 1, 727 iLniBy 870
Salelivestock. e21.0.=3). 5x wens Se Se eee 458 296 84 98
SaledivestocksproGUClsssn fees Sat eee ees te eee 137 137 108 178
Other Sources: =. 2685.2 = Be ee 27 217 132 173
INoncash- Out pul ea ee ee 596 451 449 399
Ramily perquisites: <5 as See = ee ee 531 451 449 399
Tn'ereasevin' VENCOLICS#** a= ee | ee Ae ae ee eae GD ii eee | Rie eae on | ee ae
input per farms (other thantok capital) ees a ees 5, 107 | 3, 477 2, 913 2, 321
GFF PanaPeenCie Nas Virani NNN time ede ge seo | 4, 060 | 1,835] 1,831 1, 222
Woncash input 225. oi. ae kee eee ne es | 1,047| 1,642] 1,082 1, 099
MeCrease Inventories = 2 ee eee Se ee ae ee | eee ee 156 206 227
Operators labor 22 Seog en = Se a 883 1, 100 716 765
Unpaid sfamilysiaborm<- 32525 se EE ee eee 164 386 160 107

Return tO Capital® 2.0 ssc ee Oe ee 4, 362 162 1, 609 75 -
Re turnstoicapital-ypericent=—- = 22 ee ee ee 12.0 =6 8.7 —.4

Note.—The total value of the capital used in computing the percentage return to capital is considerably
aS for 1921 and 1922 than for 1919 and 1920. This is due chiefly to the lower value of real estate per acre
Table 33).

RELATIVE RETURNS FROM THREE TYPES OF FARMING

A comparison of the size of farm, value of real estate per acre,
capital per farm, and return to capital of the three types of farming
is presented in Table 35. The dairy farms averaged about 19 acres
larger than the orchard farms and 4 acres larger than the general
crop farms. The average capital of the dairy farms was about $4,000
larger than that of either of the other two groups. During the period
of deflation, the capital of the orchard farms decreased much faster
than that of the dairy or the general crop farms, because of the rapid
drop in the value of the real estate of the orchard group.

For the four-year period, the dairy farms made the highest average
net return to the farm capital, the orchard farms second highest
and the general crop farms the lowest. The orchard farms had one
excellent year (1919), one fairly good year (1921), and two very poor
years. During the whole period the business of the dairy farms was
far more stable than that of the other two groups, because the price
of dairy products did not fluctuate so widely as did the prices of
apples and the general field crops. A number of the farms furnished
the city of Twin Falls with fluid milk. If the industry is expanded
it must be done with the expectation of marketing the product on
some other basis than as fluid (market) milk,

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 53

TaBLE 35.—Comparative returns from three types of farming, 1919-1922

> Dairy | Orchard
General and and
Item crop general | general
farms crop crop
farms farms
Size of farm: ~ Acres Acres Acres
es SNR CS OR Se RR SE BI ENC DD RAN ig = Rte eh a oe 74 7 62
EC) ae Gs ar Se 25 RR Sg at ly Ek 72 77 60
NGPA) Sie ck AK Wh SE Ee = in el ee Be ee eee 72 78 55
O22 eee E58 Are Ne a RA RN eR A GR eee Se ES 75 76 56
Value of real estate per acre: Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
TIO RS ee ac Sei Ue = SiR Oe RC ce A ce © ee pe 373 361 533
O20 See te eee 5 ee Re ee pte tek AE ee oie ere oe 367 366 439
IT DiC sees ras op ge eee A Ss Re oe ee nl ac) een 261 283 | 305
ODD esate tases) Se ee EE ORL DA oe eae aS 250 266 275
Capital per farm:
SOTO) 2 3 aah 0S ams eR I ies a Paar eek Shes A AP 30, 786 34, 771 36, 476
O20 ee een el ae Pte ies Sc ee eee ee , 4 33, 549 | 28, 390
TAO Ue ee TR Eos Co Eee oe) PAN has ce een A ee 7 eee ee 21, 199 26, 318 18, 398
VA SB tad a tec) aS INR eae 3 1 Me tore WE 2 Ricans a SRR TD 1 apha e RM Sr 20, 880 24, 557 16, 828
Return to capital:
TAG MG) sae Ae A Re A RSNSE EO ck Sy RRC Ae 0) TE OO MU ee eee ce eg CP pe 2, 224 3, 785 4, 362
TIP OVS & So Eee eh ee Le ER ie ar” Ai ieee aa Ge er Sie ree ee) See 673 1, 229 162
U1 Nee ae ie ELE ea Rg a ad ee ie Se 322 1, 097 1, 609
PONE i SEE 8 TN 8 Se IER Sg Oe Rp op Aes fae eS ML TIERS ot ae ora ge) Ce 1, 102 1, 129 —75
Returned to capital, per cent:
FOILS espe pt che eg chee ce le ee a Ae ee een en ek BE 2, 10.9 12.0
TOLD) EN ee Pe oa ei SB ES ee Sa RP mr a ee eee Te 258 BE .6
He aot es cena ecnes Sp se Seaare a PO ge a a aa? 16 4,2 8.7
Fe age Dea rh ae ee Pt EAS le me St Re Be 5.3 4.6 —.4
AVerare returnitoicapitals 19191922". See een ee ee 4,1 5.8 bad

CULTURAL PRACTICES AND LABOR USED PER OPERATION IN PRO-
~DUCING SEVEN CROPS, 1921

The cultural practices employed in producing each of the seven
crops in 1921 as well as the average amounts of labor used per opera-
tion are presented in Tables 36 to 42. Column 1 of each of the tables
shows the various operations performed; column 2 the percentage of
the farmers that performed each operation; column 3 the percentage
of the total acreage of each crop covered by the respective operations;
column 4 the times that each operation was performed on the acreage
covered; and columns 5 and 6 the average hours of man and horse
labor expended in performing each operation once over. Since the
cultural practices varied considerably from farm to farm, but fewot
the operations were performed on the total acreage of each crop.

By applyig the rates of labor required to perform the respective
operations, as shown in these tables, to the times each operation is
performed on his farm, a farmer may calculate the hours he used in
the production of an acre of each crop. Then by applying current
rates for man and horse labor, the approximate labor cost per acre
for each may be computed. Furthermore, Tables 36 to 42 are helpful
to those not familiar with the agriculture of the district studied,
since they show at a glance the usual cultural operations performed
in the production of each crop.

54 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 36.—Cultural practices and labor expended per operation in the preduction
of wheat, 1921

Average hours of

: Racer Rasen G. a Bae ES acre
j age o age oO imes once over
Operations total total over
records | acreage ae
Man Horse

@lean:ditcheSs- 2s Be a a 100 97 1.0 1.0 0.1
IVEATIUTG 2 3 ee eee 33 39 1.0 2.4 4.5
Grown alialige 20 Weare a ee ee ates eee 6 8 1.0 ET 7.4
PO Wo ee a a ee eee ee tee om eee 98 93 1.0 4.1 14.2
Disktst! <= es hae Se eee 34 34 1.5 .8 3.4
Elarrow (Spik6) 2 =<) ee a a ee a 99 94 Pe Pe .6 251.
Harrow (spring) -_____- pea, Sian ea CR LY en een 23 30 1.4 ay 2.6
WR Sy Die de a ee 79 81 15) .9 3.2
Blgatocs =e a! rR ae a ee ae ee 17 15 2 .8 3.1
TE ee iat Me gil tae en 28 36 1, & ar 1.9
Fiaulsseed 2 SB eirkte oo ae = ss Ale ee 73 73 1.0 ae, oh
Gleam: seed! Sere Ses Fae de ee ae all See 8 9 1.0 Si et eee
TET GAG SCCd: es oe SP EE EE a oe ee ee eee 94 94 1.0 si2j|_ aoa ee
Drill: seeds. Se. Ss Oe oo Se i es 100 100 1.0 .8 2.8
Gormugate 2222 2 a Be ee ee eee 100 100 1.0 1.0 29k
Trrigate See See Se ee eae ren 100 100 2.6 iS Scib=see eee
Gurbih Cee PSO Re TR Ree 32 Se eee hs el a a eae 84 89 1.0 1.0 3.9
Shock: Wave ea Pee Se eee eee 100 99 1.0 12: Qe} ee ei ee
Stae@k.. = <ct Mah eee oe Oss Se gt ee a eee 18 11 1.0 4.9 4.9
Brau fel 2 eS ee a ee 2 ee eee 89 94 1.0 a2. .4
Shock-threshtere: = 1a Bites roe aie ee eee oe ene 80 80 1.0 4.7 5.6
Staek-Chresht ss «tine ere a oe ere a ae ee 12 11 1.0 | 2::2),\ eee
Contract=thresh20 56 aes” ee Se Ga eee 8 9 | eee \y teee awl oe Ee ee
Earl GOmaT ATG Ge oe i Se a a eee 51 351 1.0 4 Se
Rati tOs SAAT yao ler ee eee aes 49 3 49 1.0 3 .4
Haultrom-coranary: tomarkets = 2 ee 49 3 49 1.0 5 rat

1 Sixteen per cent of the farmers hired their wheat cut and 11 per cent of the acreage harvested was
hired cut.

2 The price paid for contract threshing covered the hauling of the grain from the shock to the thresher.

3 The hauling percentages are based on bushels.

TABLE 37.— Cultural practices and labor expended per operation in the production
of alfalfa hay, 1921

Average hours of

res BROT ae rae ber acre
: age oO age o imes once over
Operations total total over

records | acreage

@lean GieECH CS sae Se a are eee ees 97 99 1.0 ea OC, 0.0
Wanuret:2 pat. ier eee eee. are ese ee ee 1 (1) 1.0 10. 0 10. 0
Remove rash. tit ae ee a at ea ee 7 9 1.0 9 TZ
Renovate: 222. Fas. Be Se ees Bol ie Saeed Se Se 4 9 I inl 1.4 4.1
LALbO Wiebe al eS Iie ae eae 2 2 1.8 1.6 4.7
DF) cea ceca a ie ie pe pet SE ee apelin Cin 1 1 1.0 10 4.0
Seedt ciel Cece ee ep eee aes SEES. eS ee 19 17 1.0 Si 212
Corrugapen te oe ete Baa ae ea ie ee ee pe 89 91 1.0 2 2.5
Irrigatett2 is. oe SEeeaes Stes Se esas eee ee 100! 100 4.3 EO} ae
MiGwe shirStieuttin maa eas ae eee eee © renee 100 100 1.0 1,2 2.4
Rake and! Dune sind = eee oe beet een een send 100 100 det By 1.4
SHOCK: 2 2ec8" 9 ieee SS Tie eee eee Gee aa eee a8 60 53 1.0 1-32:
SEEN Coen Reap = Set ee Wipe eee a Nr SN el te 100 100 1.0 5, 0 5.9
Mow, Second cuttine a5 tits Hote ee i eae 100 100 10 £2 2.4

Vakera nash Chics 2p se ers oe Se 2 ee 100 100 Tesh ma 1.3
SHO Ck pee oA ea ecg rae ee a aaa e Se eee en Gee 60 53 1.0 oh eee
Stick: ful wish: awe Pepe inc ters Wee ee See eR Ee se ce 100 100 1.0 48 5.8
Mow: cboirdsCuitiin pp = ree ee Oo ee ee oe eee ee 100 100 1.0 1.2 2.4
Rake'and! pun ch2 2. ear ee eee eee 100 100 1.1 oie 1.3
Shockoe ou bars ea a aah a er eee ees 9 60 53 1.0 je Oy eee
Stack. 2: be Pare eS caren dae poe a etn eee 100 100 1.0 San 4.4

e

1 Less than one-half of 1 per cent.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO

50

TaBLE 38.—Cultural practices and labor expended per operation in the production

1 Ten acres were abandoned before being irrigated.

Times

over

{
Average hours of

- of sugar beets, 1921

Fercont: | Percent:

; age 0 age oO

Operations total total
records | acreage
ROIOATUGL CHESS Se eae se ey 8 ge en aS ae 96 98
TLCIMOVEILL ASME = renee ae eA ee oo ee 4 2
UTILS Ceeg eer ee ens yeaa ee See 2d ee 2k Le 76 46
OrOnealia iat Wires 8 eh a ee ee ae 20 10
21 Owes eae eee: Be lag eS OS oe eee 100 100
TDW ain or RES Pe pear ee ee nl eg Pee pees ee 50 58
STG] cpt eee ets ae nee aag ee Me SO ae al Sen a ee rd 34 48
PMC eee ee he ae es Sed ek ahs eh I he an eh ae BO A 92 93
ERAT OWE (SURO) eee ct a eae et Pe eee 98 99
PET ETO WES PULTE ees ae ee eae roe ne ee ng eet 28 22
TROY UNE sah 2 eB AON Sages) hoe ieee Deal g Poe ek RGN Cee eee 16 17
COLL ZALC te ear Re rai i ate Se Pete hoe 28 82 84
1 PE TaN geen Ser Ue Oa ly ea pag ot aah Seen AAR ines MESS, 100 * 100
JP2Ey 0} FEW ey ree ees ite aT Sa en SE I ae ec ok Oe Ra Ede er ae 4 1
ROUeaii er plates ee ee ee re een alee 10 17
SHRI N is ek Oe aa ee Be tee eee Re Sem Re yee ROO Ene ees 8 Us
AOstT TG I tee eerie ee ene ieee eee oh Ee RY Corn al gree 100 100
HUET O Wie eee aa eae ot ge ee OSE ead ee 24 41
LIPS NGEN PS) 8 Gas 2 cee Gi Se RES UE oder, Med a Sere ee ee eee EN 100 99
BOCK aN GSU ee ee es ea ee 10 2
PELOC rol T Ste gs tee ee ees ee Be Ped Doe oe TS 20 10
ETIGO SC COT Gl epee toe ares ee ct Se ae 20 8
IGOR UNIT sent eae eae See ee ee Te os es 8 5
a ee ee eat ee a ee Ee Ney ae Sal 84 87
NOD ANG Onda ea eee ee es eee ee ee = 1

TE fetal] oYevey kiCiet sa Fa ae A ee ee ee al ee ee 66 7
BEATA OLCES —- Sit cos eet eng Sn Pee eee a 2 1

eee a ret eed Erma CoC ramus bea ea Pema Fore Een Fh NS Fst et Fm sl ee stm

SOTO COCOCOCONKFWOCTCOKFSDDWNDOOSCOCSO

labor per acre
(once over)

Man Horse

1.0 0.1

.9 1.9

12.4 31.4

5.6 17.8

5.0 16.5

i, % 4.8

aie 2. 4

.9 35

aU Da

eye, 4.3

Auf 1.8

1.0 2.0

1.0 2.0

ay 4.7

| aif 1.4

a1 1.0

1.4 2

iL 2.4

1 9 | ae

S084) eats ees

UN yao: baer a ok

(cs

15s93|- ea ee

4.4 12.9

20° O82 see

6.8 | 7a 3}

3.9 | 7.8

2 Most of the blocking, thinning, hoeing, topping, and loading was done under contract.
3 Twenty-one per cent of the total acreage was hired hauled.

TaBLeE 39.—Cultural practices and labor expended per operation in production

of potatoes, 1921

Operations

ae CSG ieee re ly ye
Harrow (SPELOD Ree ears Sateen ee Sa ie ee

\

Percent-

age of
total
records

Percent-
age of
total

acreage

Average hours of

1 Digging, picking, and grading were partly done by contract labor.

ale i i eo eta tae tee bolle iat
SOSCSCSOSCSCOWHDSDONDOSCOCOOHHEWONOOCOOSO

labor per acre
(once over)

Man Horse

0.8 0.1

.8 ie]

8.5 14. 6

3.6 12.8

Dwell 18. 2

1.0 4.4

.6 2.0

1.0 3.8

.8 2.9

sh Me Th

.8 Ly

(i335 [eae ey tees

ESO oes Seat os

ay 1.4

Jeli 4,8

2.0 3.8

Zhe: | eels Rapala

AeA ee es eS

Lf Zao)

1 f bee. Ss) ee epee et cee

iy Li

4.9 13.3

165 false eee se

4.0 ae

7.0 14.4

4.3 7.3

1 IY tN (Bree FE

Dad 12.6

56 BULLETIN 1421, U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TaBLEeE 40.—Culiural practices and labor expended nee operation in the production
of beans, 1921

Average hours of
Percent aoe = fees es acre
: age oO age O imes nce over
Operations total total over |_
records | acreage
Man Horse
Clean ditches: 2223s 52 ae ae ee ee ee 100 100 1.0 0.9 0.2
IVE QIVUT Oe Se eee = eae et eR ee Ne OR eee en 39 19 1.0 9.1 19.5
Grown alfalig ie: << Se aCe eane abe ee ne peter Ses 5 2 1.0 7.8 22.8
IEFALTOW: \(SDIKC) eo le ee a ee ee ee 100 100 2.6 Ais 2.4
ELarrOw (SDEING) a2 eee ee ee ae tee 34 32 3.5 .9 3.5
4 DIS eee MI fe Aipuniaeeteercer fe nena mae, one ieee Se pe 51 51 1.6 120 4.1
TPT Wi ee ep a RAE ty ee ee a ee he 100 98 1.2 3.8 13.1
NE Vel eee Se So oe ag OE ed oe Ell eee nee eee 56 56 1.0 EO 3.5
BOC) 8 Meera bP le apap ina em wee eR alenipe ote 2 27 27 1.0 at 2.6
COorpugates 6 se so ee Rear ae se Oe ee ee ee 88 80 ie .9 2.0
TETIC AGG. Soe ee et ae en eee 100 100 ; 4.3 ED} y= ae eee
ORGS Se th eee a a ai Cer 51 48 eat .6 2.0
Plan Ge Se a ee Se SE nt Se ec ve re 100 100 1.0 .9 ibal7
Cultivate. 2 se2 aR See l teeee eee 100 100 3.4 laa | OE
BB: Pag me eR yal ah Rin Se ear a Ap ee we 88 82 2, SM po ets Sa
IP weeds 2s. 22 ee ee So ee ee 2 8 1.0 Yd meat-sene pee
FEA) SCOd sae eee ae eee SS Peer en oe eee 2 4 1.0 aD, a5)
CB 1 Facet ha eet ae ee ee 100 100 1.0 ig 3.0
BK OU an a ee So ae Te rein et oe ae 5 1.0 .8 2.4
N83 110 (6) Raeeetes e Ne Si En eiyale G ges EN me 98 96 1.0 4260 ka eee
SGC Rese os ee a ag I a ee lea ee eee ee eee 44 37 1.0 Dae 5.9
ER aa fue) eae ae SD So ne a Ee eee eg ee 61 54 fed .4 .8
Thresh:
ROM held: = 20 sees MEE ET ae hn eee 56 62 1.0 6.4 6.8
rom Staeks 2222 eee 0 a a Oe ee eee 44 38 ib 4.6 .4
automake ttc oo re ae oe ee ey Ce 100 100 1.0 Hes 2.6
Clean formarket== +. 52> pw i a 2 2 iB Osea

TABLE 41.—Cultural practices and labor expended per operation in the production

of red clover seed, 1921

Average hours of

Percent: Berveny 7 labor -per acre
Operations [Recaro taeal = everson
records | acreage ERD Hora
ICM Ove ibraS hs Sess Sri ee eee te eel ee 20 16 1.0 ies 2.3
Clean Git CHES a ees en Se ee eae 96 97 1.0 12 a0
IMEaTTIne = see e eeeee aeee 2 (1) 1.0 3.3 10.0
RCH OV. UC ee a ee Ia ee ee ey ee a 4 3 166) 1.4 3.6
RATT OW 2s os oe Sore = en ee a arene 5 2 1.0 1.4 4.7
IR OGUC ei oe Bee A os Eg) nae eee a eee 2 2 0 oe sl em ee
SE Ec Hoes a ae Soe ares Bh ee: hi! IRR Oe De 16 21 1.0 CUS 2s fase
COEBU LA Te ee eo 98 97 eat 1h 2.4
Trrigate:
Wihhen seceding 45s. ue,, 5 ke re a ne ee 13 19 1.0 A) ee eg ee
EY CLO Dae oe ee ee eo ete 100 100 1.6 <9) |Eaeae
SECC CLO Pee an ee ne oe er = bs rao ae 100 100 1.9 aja poe eB
Hay crop:
AINE Wor ee Na fe a Ne BE Re ce a 96 96 eo 1.0 2.0
Rake = 27s os ete AP es ee nl = eS ee 7 7 1.0 <8 125
Rake an dibunchssteso Eee ee ee ee 86 88 ipl .8 1.6
Shock} ge. 2S eee Se a ee eee 49 41 Heel i 6 |
StackAt Seas Beer a et Phe = | eee 95 94 1.0 4,3 Bok
Seed crop:
oe (bunched ASKCU LE) ore eon cee WC el anesein erie 7 6 1.0 1. 5_ 2.4
Cra tis eR BS in ar ee ee 93 94 1.0 1.4 2.8
foe andibunchi with rakes == 22. eae 24 19 1.0 9 1.6
Raker(nowbunehing) ee ete were ee ee 5 5 1.0 ~F 1.0
Shock) (bunched) with rake) phos see ee ee 9 9 1.0 pO | Sect ee
Shrockal Giro riecwilt Gl Op) see eee es 5 5 1.0 12. | See
Shocks (romeo We) eee ee ee ee ee 64 70 1.0 32 | eee
FUT eRe Uae hak Bee oe, EARN Ve oe oe 9 é 1.0 Sab er 8 a
Stack sesh Bae Ree ere uk. Sere ae ht a ea eee 11 6 1.0 4.6 6.8
Hull:
INTOMUSTAC Ke ee eee ee ee eee See ee 11 6 1.0 2.2 3
OO (ay cd a7) (6 Dena ie peek Fig See ot Yh eee any 89 94 1.0 5a2 5.6
atl hielo ace Sa ae a en ee 87 89 1.0 3 i)
IELa totmarket co ee oe ee Se 98 84 eal 4 29

1 Less than one-half of 1 per cent.
2 Four per cent of the total acreage were either pastured or clipped.

te ae NL ee ee ee tee

See Re th eet

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 57

TaBLe 42.—Cultural practices and labor expended per operation in the production
of alsike clover seed, 1921

Average hours of
Penge: Peay: Ti labor per acre

bea age 0 age o imes ; ae

Seon ens total total over kouce ome!)

records | acreage Man Horne

HRETIO VO; URAS Ones ne ee ra a I eh 21 13 1.0 1.0 16
WlegneGiiGheses= seen a eee a eee Lene keke Se ene 100 100 1.0 ii. il wif.
FERVC TIO WEL Cees ee en en ee SS St Seo oe ee 14 13 1.0 .8 PA
IEG TRRON aes ee Sr eee i ee ec 14 12 1.0 sive 2. 4
@orrugate: fees 2 eae Sa ee eee ee 93 96 1.0 1.2 Poth
IDR e « Sree Rea EE a= Ae ees Sernee, Bee ye 100 100 IAT i IK 0)21 eee eee
CoutriSCed ene me ee nee ee 2 ee ae eee ee 100 100 1.0 2.0 BaD
Shocka(romemower) 22-215. tee 7 gees be eae eee 86 88 1.0 5s ek Bees
TREN chao Sty er ae ee pe eS Pn en ae eee ce 7 1 1.0 1.0 2.0
ELH siromeiel dese se ea Leh. Bees 5 Bede Fhe ah ee ee 100 100 1.0 8.9 8.8
PEL ATS CUES viene och eee ee a Oe eT 3! 93 93 1.0 4 8
PE UMNG HORTA ATE RCE Lee ee aerate ee cee 100 100 1.0 of 1.0

COST OF PRODUCING SEVEN CROPS, 1919-1921

The cost data presented herewith were obtained by the survey
method in connection with the farm business analysis survey. The
cost study covered the years 1919, 1920, and 1921 and included the
seven principal field crops grown on the Twin Falls south side irri-
gation project. The cost data are presented on an owner-farm
basis. So few records were obtained on rented farms that no attempt
was made to compute the cost of production by tenants on these
farms. Because of the necessity of distributing the many joint
costs involved in the operation of each farm more or less arbitrarily
to the respective crop and livestock enterprises, the cost data pre-
sented should be considered only as close approximations.

The acreage of each crop harvested equaled the acreage seeded
each year with the exception of wheat in 1921 and sugar beets in
1920 and 1921. The expense incurred in connection with the aban-
doned acreage was charged to the acreage harvested. The land
values shown in Table 43 are intended to represent the conservative
estimates of the farmers visited. These estimates were based on
neighborhood sales.

TABLE 43.—Numober of records, area seeded and harvested, yield per acre, average
price recewed, and average value of land per acre

Red Alsike

+ Alfalfa Sugar S
Item Wheat z Potatoes | Beans clover clover
hay beets seed seed
Records obtained:
1 os ae ns ee oe Nee 66 48 37 42 44 21 8
OD OSS et ee ee ee 43 37 39 28 35 21 8
OD [ee ete meee eee 124 99 46 50 41 55 14
Acreage seeded:
Te See oe ee ee 1, 921.7 731. 5 728. 5 335. 2 994, 2 234. 5 86.5
G20 Sees ee ee 1, 283. 5 748. 2 686. 2 290. 5 581.8 235.0 ISO
1S ve ens Se Ee ee 3,010.4 | 1, 733. 5 837.9 598. 5 540.5 | » 836.0 180. 5
Acreage harvested:
[ts ia a ee ee ees 15 9217 731. 5 728. 5 335. 2 994. 2 234. 5 86.5
HODOELES eae eet eer 7) 1, 283. 5 748. 2 673. 8 290. 5 581. 8 235. 0 131.5
SA UPA CaS ee See Sh ee 3, 300. 4 733: 5 786. 1 598. 5 540. 5 836. 0 180. 5
Average yield per acre: Bushels | Short tons|Shorttons| 100 lbs. | Pounds | Pounds | Pounds
OO wee meet ats ee See a 41.4 4.3 9.9 140 1, 210 302 316
O20 See har toes a ae Eo 43.3 3.9 13.5 168 1, 273 226 431
iY PH Ras ee Ss eee ee 45. 5 4.0 10.0 151 SUAS 211 353
Average price received per unit:| Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars Cents Cents Cents
OG ee ere ls en ae 1. 85 15. 63 11. 00 Wee ven) 45.6 39. 0
TAS) ge ace 2 a 1. 38 8. 37 12. 00 . 945 By Fi 12.0 22a
OZ emery See Fe ES . 825 4. 80 6. 00 . 935 4.2 15.0 ks}, i
Average value of land per acre: Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
GG hace xe cee ae SL 389 376 414 406 364 382 338
1920 eee ed = see= tay ee Boe 384 | 377 419 407 363 402 416
Oi ee Oe ee 278 | 280 310 289 286 293 287

58 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

LABOR AND MATERIALS USED PER ACRE

The labor used in the production of each crop consisted of three
items: (1) The man labor performed by the farmers, by other mem-
bers of the farm family, and by hired men; (2) the labor performed
by the horse kept on the farm; and (8) the labor (both man and horse)
done under contract or by the job. Contract labor is expressed in
dollars per acre, since reliable estimates of the hours of labor for this
item were not obtained.

The water used is also expressed in dollars per acre. The cost of
water per acre was determined by dividing the cost of water per
farm by the acres irrigated. Since the total cost of water is the same
for all farms of the same size irrespective of the acreage irrigated,
the cost of water per acre varied considerably from farm to farm.

TaBLE 44.—Labor and materials expended per acre in the production of designated .

crops
| | | Red | Alsike
Item Year | Wheat | Alfalfa Sugar | Pota- | peans | clover | clover
hay beets toes Seed ceed

Labor per acre: aman | i9i9 | 22] 382/41] e048] 256| Ie0
Bente 1920 26221) 423048 60.9 | 68.6 50.7| 25.7; 25.8
PaaS Se 2SS SSE STS SSSaaaes {| 1921 74.6) 28.5! 528] 61.41- 467]- 233 91.4

PiRNAN THRO (AES Gnee Gem 1919 42.2 32. 6 93. 9 82.3 50. 0 23. 8 11.5

1920 | 43.7| 323] 1228] B17] 504] 214| 160
Rona Che Sea es cae oe i921 | 463] 310] 1060] 854] 61.3) 225] 177

Dollars | Dollars| Dollars| Dollars|Dollars | Dollars; Dollars
f 19193 Sse ks eee 30. 11 11.19

Contract and job labor____._____- 1920 a6 i)s| (eee as 37.62 | 23.64 0:09: |S2252 we Bie
| 1921 MS So eee Se 26. 50 T6519" |S a eee
Materials per acre: Pounds) Pounds| Pounds| Pounds| Pounds| Pounds| Pounds
1919 98 10.4 15.0 987 62 8.3 6.5
Scedic. Weee a a eee 1920 100 10. 2 1525 950 70 8.1 6.6
1921 104 10.5 17.0| 1,012 65 9. 4 6.3
Number| Number| Number| Number| Number| Number| Number
1919S 2p bo Se a ee ee | eee 124 all 2.0 2.4
SACKSSh eo Toto a oe eee eee 1920 148 ee | Cee ee 160 5e2 22 3.4
1921 1 Lee: i (NSPE aS es eee ge 138 1.4 EW! 2.9

Loads | Loads | Loads | Loads | Loads | Loads | Loads
1919 fay pets wee 3.4 4 {6 Jz. 22S
VETTE =o toe ee 1920 As Serene 5.8 ~5 ds 4s A ee
1921 dt Oa fe eager 5.4 1.0 Pa Peete eg ee

Short | Short | Short | Short | Short | Short | Short

tons tons tons tons tons tons tons

1919 Be) eee Le) Mle ese | | Jeeee eens - 05 . 07 . 05
SO (2) |e eee eed Se Ae AeA: 1920 By U9) eee = Se Ie el ete - 05 . 07 . 06
1921 0432 Seh: BOs ee . 06 - 06 -11

Dollars | Dollars; Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
1919 3. 33 3. 28 4. 06 3. 22 3. 32 3. 28 3. 13
Trrigation water

1921 2. 14 2. 14 2. 27 2. 12 2. 17 2. 14 2. 13

The approximate average cost per acre and per unit of product for
the seven principal crops, with and without interest included as an

a!

1920 3.37-|--3.96 » 3.30'|) 32221) 35354 Sar 3.31 a

item of cost, is shown in Table 45. In this table the cost figures are —

assembled under two headings: ‘‘Operating costs per acre,” and
‘Total net cost per acre and per unit of product.”

OPERATING COSTS PER ACRE

Operating costs are divided into three groups: Labor, materials,
and other operating costs.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 09

LABOR

In 1919 and 1920 the hours of direct man and horse labor (labor
expended directly on the productive farm enterprises) were obtained
only for the seven crops studied. This made it necessary to charge
the respective crops with labor at current rates. Man labor was
charged at 45 cents per hour and horse labor at 20 cents, there being
very little variation in the current rates paid for hired labor during
the two years.

In 1921 the total direct hours of both man and horse labor expended
on all of the productive enterprises were computed for each farm.
The cost of the man and horse labor was then distributed to the re-
spective enterprises in proportion to the hours expended on each.
The total cost of man labor per farm divided by the total hours
of direct man labor per farm gave the cost of a direct hour of man
labor. Since this was usually considerably higher for each farm
than the current rate paid hired labor in the section studied, the
direct man hours were charged to the respective crops at 30 cents
per hour, the current rate. The difference between the actual cost
per hour and 30 cents per hour was treated as an item of overhead.

TaBLe 45.—Summary of cost per acre and per unit for designated crops, 1919-1921

W heat Alfalfa hay Sugar beets Potatoes

Item | |
1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921
Operating cost per acre: Dolls:| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.
Direct man labor______- 10. 89} 11.79) 7.38) 14.94) 18.86) 8.55) 24. 34| 27. 40) 15. 84| 29. 25] 30. 87| 18. 42
Direct horse labor______ 8.44| 8.74 3.34) 6.52! 6.46] 2. 20) 18.78) 24.56) 5.94! 16.46! 16.34] 6.16
Conic labore == een | See 00 | eee RSA le Sp el [Pare 30. 11) 37. 62) 26. 50) 11.19) 23. 64) 16. 19

t |
eT Gallo ee eee oe 19. 33} 20. 83) 10. 72} 21.46] 20. 32} 10. 75)- 73. 23] 89. 58) 48. 28] 56.90} 70. 85} 40. 77
Materials:

Wa bern ae BOO eo TO oA eds 28 |p oa20l 214s ANG ecS30l) 22201 S222) 3222) eon le
Secdé cs Sas 3.43] 3.87; 2.08] .69) .94) 1.10) 2.281 3.10} 3.59] 14.93] 48.10) 12.19
Sacks and twine___-_ .98 75 83 | | eee 0s | eS Nee eee Th | ea 18. 55} 22. 32) 11. 89
(DE) Ls oe oN ie ee oo 46 CeET Nc Ss ml [co rey WR gece | Are ee ca (bs Soe ee eee Ie
Migninres=== sees 32 56 OD ites ses 2 |Ceees 2 4Al 23201 Bie 30 69) ss
Total ___-__-__| 8.39] 9.01) 5.52) 3.99) 4.20) 3.24) 9.18] 9.41] 5.86} 37. 00) 74. 33! 26.20

Other operating costs:
gigas naira pa chakra rary es ee ORG eyes Der iL pee cee |e eater |e epee Fey ee |e oe oe enn | ee

Use of machinery_-_-___ 2.54] 2.20) 2.88} 1.86] 2.54) 1.89) 4.56! 5.37) 5.63) 4.59) 6.56] 6.00
Taxes and insurances__| 4.40) 3.72} 5.48) 4.28! 4.03) 5.77| 4.37) 4.84) 7.76) 4.69} 5.01) 6.46
Overhea@ a= 2a 6.03} 4.99} 5.98} 4.35) 3.75) 5.38) 10.84] 13.15) 8.39} 138.97) 18.14! 11.98
Miscellaneous__________}______ . ol A) | ee ates | ha oe ae | SP Se . 95 sel) 3: 96, 3.42

PP OtAle = rt eee 15. 61) 15. 33] 17. 35} 10. 49] 10. 32) 13. 04) 19. 77| 28. 36; 22. 73) 24. 06) 33. 67, 27. 86

Total operating costs___] 43.33] 45.17] 33.59] 35.94! 34.84) 27. 03/102. 18/122. 35! 76. 87|117. 961187. 85) 94. 83
Crop credits per acre______- 1,63| ° 64| 54) 1.93) Lo2l” .62) 431) 4.981 3.01|.____. 7a e79
Net operating cost per acre!) 41..70} 44. 53] 33. 05) 34.01) 33.82] 26.41) 97. 87)117. 37) 73. 86)117. 96|/177. 07) 94. 04
Interest (use of capital) ____- 28. 55| 27. 89] 20. 69] 27. 25) 27.37) 20. 24) 30.91) 31.97} 24. 51} 30. 59} 31. 53) 22. 66

Total net cost per acre ?____| 70. 25! 72.42] 53. 74] 61. 26} 61. 19) 46. 65/128. 78/149. 34) 98. 37/148. 55/208. 60/116. 70

Short | Short | Short| Short | Short| Short| 100 | 100 | 100

Bus.| Bus.| Bus.| tons | tons | tons | tons | tons | tons | lbs. | lbs. | lbs.
Average yield per acre______ 41.4) 43.3] 45.5! 4.3) 3.9] 4.0) 9.9) 13.5) 10.0) 140) 168} 151
Average cost per unit: |
Net operating cost per |Dolls.| Dolis.| Dolls.| Dolls.| Dolls.|Dolls.|Dolls.| Dolls. Dolls.| Doils.|D olls. Dolls.
WNGNlis Sonne 5 ge ee 1.01; 1.03) .73| 7.91! 8.67] 6.60) 9.89) 8.69, 7.39 . 84, 1.05 . 62
Total net cost per unit_} 1.70} 1.67) 1.18} 14. 25) 15. 69) 11. 56) 13.01) 11.06, 9.84) 1.06) 1.24 .77

|

1 Total operating costs less crop credits.
2 Net operating costs plus interest (at 7 per cent) on the capital involved.

60 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TasLE 45.—Summary of cost per acre and per unit for designated crops, 1919-
1921—Continued

Beans Red clover seed Alsike-clover seed
Item —
1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921
Operating cost per aére: Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls.| Dolls. | Dolls. | Dolls.! Dolls.) Dolls.
Direct manta Os sa a Ae 2 |e ee eet elen 2 | este 6.99 8.10) 11.61 6. 42:
Direct horse labor__.-_-.-22=-=2s==| 10,00) 11.88) 4.26] 4.76) = 4.28 1.77) - 2:30) 3220, 1.56
Contract labors = Seas eet eee eee 09) 223 cose ek oe al moder ts dak Sa pO
tale 2 ee ee Ee oh 29.7 1 34, 79} 18.27) 16.28) 15.84] 8.76) 10.40' 14.81) 7.98
Materials:
Wiateriiceh wes Bees ee eel Spevdie hGH)! Podid By clk shou! = OI Sy GB eter og Tie-
SCCde22 colt Sha oe eee 4. 38 4, 63 2. 70 2.44 3. 26 By 7A 2. 61 2. 84 2. 34
Sacks'and twines =) 22 = . 49 SOW IEE NSO Ik aif) Sti Eve) < diOG) 2 I Se
Pie lces Se he et eee eer ae . 44 . 56 . 61 a (P| Bye . 64 . 50 SGI) GS
IWaTIUTeL =o ee eee eee . 36 De PT on Mee Eee see alt alia Bes eae Be | ;
MNO Gall ake 2 ae ae ee al 8.99] SER 231. C56) see G4e Ou OG) 6509 (20d Sa. Smet OD
Other operating costs: _

’ Threshing and hulling____________ 5. 89| 6. 23| 4.'65|> °° 75.36] ~~ *6: 12) 4259] 75 59|8 10983) 7561
Wisco machinery== aes ee eee 2.84, 3.64) 3.28 1. 48 2.16 i167 . 66] 1.00 1. 22:
Taxes and insurances__.2.-_----- B26) ono W429 4a OO a 4260) os Odi 6 eee ea Oem ya
Overheagh) a.) aia AES eee 6.95) 8280) 9.15) 5522) 4261)" 5.28! 3219) 4525) 45365
MiscellaneouSs sees see Se ec aa ben nese 14 22)olrees . 05 OA |e eb ed . 03 sei!

DOTA eee See ees ee 18.94; 22.11) 21.59} 18.06) 17.54) 17.63) 15.7 21.51) 19.48

Total operating costs__--_-------- 57. 64) 68.13] 46.42) 42.28] 42.04) 33.18) 34.07, 45.10| 34. 48

aC ropiecreditsi pemaches a= =. 2a Dacia s 2 .72| 16.56) 5.69 GOB Si = OM 235

Net operating cost per acre !__________ 54.86) 66.61) 45.70) 25.72) 36.35) 27.95) 32.70) 44.53) 34.13

Interest (use of capital)____----______- 26.95! 27.29) 21.22} 27.62} 29.13) 21.11} 23.95) 29.58] 20.66

MTotalinet cost periacre 22222-1222 81.81) 93.90) 66.92) 53.34) 65.48} 49.06) 56.65) 74.11) 54.79
f Lbs. | Lbs. | Lbs. | Lbs. | Lbs. | Lbs. | Lbs. | Lbs. | Lbs.

Average yield per acre____----._---.__ 1,210) 1,273) 1,175 302 226 211 316 451 353 -

Average cost per unit: Cts. Cis| “Cis: Gis: Cts. Cis. Cts. Cts. Cts.

Net operating cost per unit_______ 4,5 Dee 3.9 Sebo) 16S 1352 )e Oks eel ORS 9.7

Motalineticostsperunib= =e 6.8 7.4 G7 eve CREO CREB EC IER}. TG. &

1 Total operating costs less crop credits.
2 Net operating costs plus interest (at 7 per cent) on the capital involved.

In 1921 the cost of maintaining the work horses was computed for
each farm. (Table 60.) This amount divided by the total hours of
direct horse labor performed per farm gave the cost of an hour of
direct horse labor. The cost of horse labor as thus computed was
usually less for each farm than the current rate paid for hired horse
labor. For this reason, the direct horse labor was charged at the
computed rate. The charges for contract labor represent the amounts
actually paid out for the respective crops.

MATERIALS

The method used in computing the cost of the irrigation water is
explained in the discussion of Table 44. The total value of the seed
used per acre was charged in the case of all annual crops and also red
and alsike clover. Since alfalfa occupies the land for about three
years on the average, one-third of the seed used per acre was charged
to that crop. The manure charge is based on the estimated farm
value per load. Fuel was used only in threshing wheat and hulling
clover seed and beans.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 61

OTHER OPERATING COSTS

The total expense of maintaining the farm machinery (except
interest) was distributed in proportion to the hours of direct horse
labor expended on the respective crop and livestock enterprises.
The automobile expense was first divided between farm use and per-
sonal or family use. In 1919 and 1920 the farm use portion was
distributed in the same manner as the machinery charge. In 1921
the farm-automobile expense was treated as overhead expense. In
distributing taxes and insurance the percentage of the land invest-
ment for each crop to the total farm investment was first deter-
mined. By applying these percentages to the total farm taxes and
insurance, the charge against each crop was ascertained. Crop
insurance was charged direct to the crop insured.

In the operation of every farm there are a number of generai ex-
pense items which, though essential, are not chargeable to any
particular enterprise. These items are grouped under the heading
“overhead.” This group includes such items as materials for re-
pairing fences, buildings, and the irrigating system; the telephone;
and the difference between the value of the labor expended directly
on the crops and other productive enterprises at current rates and
the total value of the labor expended per farm. Detailed cost ac-
counts in other States indicate that the overhead expense for a given
crop is approximately 10 per cent of the cost of labor, material, and
threshing. This rate was used in computing overhead for the seven
crops in 1919 and 1920.

In 1921 the total amount of overhead per farm was computed.
The distribution was made in proportion to the sum of three items
charged to the productive enterprises: (1) The value of the direct
man labor at the current rates; (2) the cost of the direct horse labor
as charged to the productive enterprises; and (3) the cost of the use
of machinery. The miscellaneous items of expense consist almost
entirely of storage charges and the expense of cleaning some of the
crops before being marketed. The sum of the charges for labor, ma-
terials, and other operating costs equals the total operating cost per

acre.
NET OPERATING COST PER ACRE

Net operating cost per acre equals total operating cost less crop
credits. Crop credits consist of the value of such items as the pas-
ture that is available after the crops are harvested, cull potatoes,
cull beans, bean straw, clover straw, one cutting of red-clover hay
and sugar-beet tops. The acre value of the crop credit of red-clover
seed dropped from $16.56 in 1919 to $5.69 in 1920. This accounts
for the increase in the net acre operating cost of producing red-

-elover seed in 1920.
INTEREST CHARGES

The interest charge represents 7 per cent on the capital involved
in the production of each of the seven crops. Since the average rate
paid on farm mortgages in Twin Falls County in 1919 was 7.2 per
cent, 7 per cent was allowed for the use of capital. During each of
_ the three years interest was a substantial part of the net cost of pro-
ducing an acre of each of the seven crops.

62 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TOTAL NET COST PER ACRE AND PER UNIT OF PRODUCT

Net cost per acre is net operating cost per acre plus the interest
charge. Costs were. highest in 1920 for all crops except alfalfa and
lowest in 1921. The rainy harvest season of 1920 increased the acre
cost of several of the crops. The cost of materials used varied most
in the case of potatoes. The potato seed used was valued at $14.93
in 1919, $48.10 in 1920, and $12.19 in 1921. The high value of the
seed used in 1920 was largely responsible for high cost per acre for
potatoes that year. In 1921 the cost of both man and horse labor
was much less than during the two previous years. This and a ma-
terial drop in the value of real estate (which reduced the interest
charge) and a slight drop in the value of the materials used largely
account for the lower total acre cost of each: of the crops in 1921.

Net cost per unit of product is net cost per acre divided by the
average yield per acre. High and low yields materially affect the

cost per unit.
VARIATION IN COST PER UNIT

The data presented in the foregoing tables are averages. Such
figures are likely to give the reader a misconception by causing him
to judge the respective crops on the basis of the averages. As a
matter of fact there were wide variations in the cost of producing
each of the seven crops. The average is merely the “point about
which the individual costs are scattered.”

Tables 46 to 52 are designed to show the variation in the cost of
producing a unit of each of the seven crops for each year of the study
and the average yields of the respective crops on farms falling within
the different cost groups; that is, on farms producing these crops at
different costs. These tables present a wide variation in the cost
of producing a unit of each crop. For example, the cost of produc-

ing wheat during the three years varied from less than 80 cents per ©

bushel to over $3. The variation in the cost per unit for each of
the other crops is equally striking. High average yields, these tables

show, are very uniformly associated with low costs per unit and low
®

average yields with high costs.

TABLE 46.—Variation in the net cost per bushel of producing wheat

1919 1920 1921
Variation in cost per bushel ; Fee.

Number fa il ase | Number axe age | Number See

of records | per acre of records per acre of records per acre

- Dollars Bushels Bushels Bushels
0:60:60: 0.7955 te Fe S58 SBS RD Seb el pe BE RCE |e BR a | Ree ape hk | ee 2 79
SBD VEO QO te a er ee BH ree | a | a rp | 27 51
1KOO ct O ROR eta Se el es Pe do Se Wee 1 51 3 795 30 47
LE QONC OCR S Dire aaa os Bi eee Ses ial ee 10 50 7 47 28 46
Ir4 ONG OMIE5O Seen ee Seen tee ete ee Oe he Oe 9 46 8 48 2 38
TEGO CORL JOR oss See RS ee Er oe eae 16 42 1 44 6 38
TESO TE ORIEG Dhar Reece meer 1 eaten aera Ob Sere 14 38 uf 40 oe, 36
2:00:60) 24519 So eae ee eee Se ete 8 34 3 33 4 28
DZ QZO EE Oi 2d ere pee pe rae ty et — chal Ld Pa 5 31 1 42 2 33
2AODEO' 2:59) ees Ee ee CA ee a ES 1 DY NER 3 ae oo Sal ee <BR 1 30
2460 COPD 7,9 =e es 2 29 1 30; |beeicr es b eee
DSO £0 DOO Bee UAE Se ke REIS MASR RS SNE?) eee 8 eee ae ne 1 93, |S eeae e eee
3/00 and loverie: 62s eek a ay eerie eee ee ie | re 2 16

ee eS ee ee a ee ee

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO

63

TaBLE 47.—Variation in the net cost per ton of producing alfalfa hay

Variation in cost per ton

Dollars

LOR SSO nares 3o ce ee ee Ey Nik ge Se
CST OSCARS 2 2 Wa ae ee 5 Oc
THEA HG yd AG ies ae ee ee i AL a er Ree E
TSAO) TE Vs ea SG 8 ae A Ca eee cen
15S GOs G Oar ie Sa ret Sa Tape ee
IEG; OWLS. eee a le Reh we nr eee 8 ow het!
UCT OAD AOE se teases Oe aL EP ek See ee
PAE Oy LAG je Nope ok Sas BES ere ee Se es eee ey ea
SAT NOV Clee a ee ee eee eae en

1919

1920

Number | “V£t2S¢ | Number

ofrecords

Average
yield
per acre

Short tons

of records per acre
‘Short tons

1 6.0

6 5.8

9 4.8

11 4.6

11 3.8

5 Si

2 RE

3 2

Oo Or

1921

Average
yield
per acre

Number
of records

Short tons

10
28
26
18
6
4
2
2
1

NIN Wo Co CO tire te
SCOCSOHWDONUN

TABLE 48.—Variation in the net cost per ton of producing sugar beets

Variation in cost per short ton

Dollars
Zk AHO) tothe ee © a ee eg had ce: ery ec Ee oe ee
ORE Qu ONO bierenes ese ch Sere ee tesa ee
VTL RCO) TPS ence os Ae aap a Ses ee
VS Ro) SP eS ae SOP O RMS oe Pio eee ete tee
PD EUO RL GO eas peter ee he ee
TUE( OVA En aia es ee eee Bern ee Sere ee
THO FOO) Le ee OI eR ae ee eee
PAT OVA PAG tS ee ae gt ec hee, Se abe ee
DRE ONAL Y ere ee eee EN ee,
PSS OPA Oe ear pee ERLE AE BAZ ee one aN
27 and over

1919

1920

1921

Number | Average | Number | Average | Number “Average

of yield of yield of yield
records | per acre | records | per acre | records | per acre
Short tons Short tons Short tons
5 14.8 6 18.1 14 12. 4
4 15. 0 7 15.7 14 9.3
U 11.0 8 12.3 4 Us
3 9.0 10 ES2 4 655
-8 76 esl SS | Ee Se 2 The
2 Teal 5 Ute 2 5. 6
2 h& 3 GEOE Eieaee se aes ae ee Sate
il Gras | hase =e aaa cog fg [Lee SURE GS ae oe
2 bai} |e Se Fig ae, Pie | Rt OM ee
3 DOM ae eel ee ee 1 3.2
5 1.8

TABLE 49.—Variation in the net cost per hundredweight of producing potatoes

Variation in cost per hundredweight

Doliars
ODOR ONONG 9 eer See ee ee
O27 On OLOtSO et Sean ee eee tr
OS OSC Onl O9 Sa laaae seeks Fe ee OE
1 NOZC ORES ZOE eee had Siae gr Ss Hs ply.
PRS OR Og eed meet a ene ake Pere ee
TSO ROS AGW peers sR eee £} eee ae eee
NE LORU ORR GO ee eee Beas Spee ee
NEOUET ORD: OO eat nie os tina ae 8 hl BP
DRLORGL OV so) meee aera oy See ee a oe
PES ORO 724 Oe et ate tee 8 Se
PENNA OPA eas te Ee TSE ee ee eee

1919 1920 1921
| Number eeveraee Number ue Number axe LL
of records aa acre |ofrecords oer acre |o!records ee ae
100 lbs. 100 ibs 100 Ibs.
1 2G | ee ea eee ee 16 180
12 212 1 246 22 146
11 157 8 208 5 116
a 122 3 204 4 122
5 90 4 148 i 57
LAGS Tei ae BS ChY RS eee ay 184 1 119
2 93 3 LAO Fea tes te ee 2 ee a
Be 66 2 108 1 42
shine te ime! 2 og dest Stripe
1 | 64 2 | 76K) es taetes| eRe ana
1 55 sie iy Enon Mean. ESee ie

64 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 50.—Variation in the net cost per pound of producing beans

1919 1920 1921

Variation in cost per pound Number | Average | Number | Average | Number | Average

of yield of yield of yield
records | per acre | records | per acre | records | per acre

Cenis Pounds Pounds Pounds
7g He 1! ee A ae hare ep ahd ENE es | ee A es 6 1, 981
ASCO TOE Sah Oe A as en ee ee 12 1, 561 6 1, 786 14 1, 355
63605729 se ee ne eee ee 16 1, 201 13 1, 356 6 1, 026
Set O OlO ee eae Sees eee ae ee 10 984 } 9 1, 158 7 758
OSEOSTIRO See Sas Ae a ee 4 743 1 1, 198 2 678
TSG OSU. Oe es eee en See rae 1 506 2 6940) 22227220 | PaSeeges
Te i) WO) sce Hesse ces sees osSen||Sosaseshsalbssssssecs 2 533
IGANG OVELS 222 ae) See eee ee eee 1 270 4 404 4 224

TABLE 51.—Variation in the net cost per pound of producing red-clover seed
j
1919 1920 1921
Matis non nicesu pe none Number | Average | Number | Average | Number | Average
of yield of yield of yield

records | per acre | records | per acre | records | per acre

Cents Pounds Pounds Pounds
ES HOt Ce Fe ae ip eS Sees Se eee 5 493 1 332 9 359
U5 ONZA Oss BRS Se ee ee ee Oe ee eed 8 320 5 342 27 231
DOO OE 2s ne AE a 2 a eee 6 181 9 230 9 159
BOE OAGIO S Rae oe de ee | Oe Ae Sen | eee 3 155 3 149
CGS Ha ers Sa jae ees eee ies ty eG Pcie aap erg Smaart es | PPE 1 116 4 109
HH ubOr G4. Os ea ee eds. a ee ee ee 1 77 1 (O25 es eee
G65;a1d: OVS Se ee Nea eee es ee 1 80 1 44° 3 81

TABLE 52.—Variation in the net cost per pound of producing alsike-clover seed

1919 1920 1921

Variation in cost per pound Number | Average | Number | Average | Number | Average

of yield of yield of yield
records | per acre | records | per pcre records | per acre

Cents Pounds Pounds Pounds
OREO TAS Os ere 2 eo Soe Se aes Sa 1 452 1 625 8 443
TESS Oye CS) apie eee eateries 12k Te ew yeh al Ue ay 5 326 5 468 | 4 324
DOGO DANO es a ee es ARIS ae ee a | nS ee | ee 1 300
OV GTE2D 2 eee nen Pe a ere eee 2 187 2 276 il 141

COST PER UNIT ON FARMS HAVING DIFFERENT YIELDS

The cost records of the seven crops are arranged in Tables 53 to
59 in groups according to yield per acre. These tables show the
variation in the yield of each crop; the number of records falling within
each yield group; and the average cost per unit on the farms having
different yields.

Wheat ranged in yield from as low as 16 bushels per acre to as
much as 93 bushels; alfalfa hay (three cuttings) from 2.2 to 7 tons;
potatoes from 42 to 260 hundredweight; beans from 106 to 2,455
pounds; sugar beets from 1.5 to 22.5 tons; red-clover seed from 55
to 720 pounds; and alsike-clover seed from 141 to 625 pounds.

Low yields go hand in hand with high cost per unit of product and
high yields with low cost per unit. The exceptions are due to the
fact that yield per acre is not always the dominant factor in determin-

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 65

ing cost per unit. The expense involved in the cost of producing any
crop, for example, may be sufficiently high to counteract the effect
of high yield. The importance of obtaining high yields should be
apparent from a study of Tables 46 to 59. The possibility of increas-
ing crop yields on many of the farms studied should also be evident
from a consideration of these tables.

TaBLE 53.—Cost per bushel of producing wheat on farms having different yields

1919 1920 1921
Variation in yield

per acre Num- | Average| Average] Num- | Average} Average} Num- | Average) Average

ber of yield | cost per} ber of yield | cost per} ber of yield | cost per

records | per acre} bushel | records | per acre} bushel | records | per acre| bushel

Bushels Bushels | Doltars ‘| Bushels | Dollars Bushels | Dollars
Ufa eye OAD Se Ee a LS ee Ia nr pee ee el | 1 nS Ae ee ee ee ee 2 16 3. 74
OS OS ZAR mee emer ce a | eee eee | rede NN Sell ne ara 1 23 PLAY: Na a ee nt MN eee Vice
PAB) HO) EO a a spe 4 26 Qe Biy | taped Pea | ecto Ses ee 2 26 2. 07
SOROS 4 Oe ee oe 13 33 2. 08 5 32 1. 98 12 32 1. 65
BOLE OL Oe ae 6 37 1. 87 6 38 1.85 14 7 iL 3¥/
AO 44-9 Shera eee 20 42 1. 76 9 42 1. 64 21 42 Th, 983
A O14 939 a 14 47 152 12 46 1. 59 27 47 toil
HOWEOI D420 = oe ene 6 52 1. 33 4 52 1. 43 27 52 1.07
Pat ORO 950 eee eee 3 56 135 1 57 1. 46 10 56 1.13
GORE Os GARG Meme see ali Ee rec ee ee 2 63 1. 45 ; 4 62 98
GRE ONG ene eemeeeree | eee ave Glenn aw ae Lee Se se S| i 3 67 103
ORG O14. 9 ero PS | ee alae ge eal 2 72 S22) 1 71 . 69
DAM GON Cle ae ete |e oe a aaa eye eS eee 1 93 1.14 t 87 . 76

TABLE 54.—Cost per ton of producing alfalfa hay on farms having different yields.

1919 1920 1921

Variation in yield
per acre Num- |Average|Average| Num- | Average|Average| Num- | Average| Average
ber of yield | cost per| ber of yield | cost per| ber of yield | cost per

records | per acre |short ton| records | per acre |short ton} records | per acre |short ton
Short tons Shorttons| Dollars Shorttons| Dollars Shorttons| Dollars

PAV AOA ee 2, 22 30so 1 2.4 22. 13 2 2a 21. 92
ie OL UOL2- OO Nee = Se 2 Pf 19. 53 3 2.8 22. 24 2 2, 7 19. 94
BE OLLOiG 49h ee at 2 aha 17. 48 9 3. 2 18. 85 15 Sell 15. 06
Sh) U0) Ce ee eee a a 3.6 16. 68 3 3.6 19. 20 8 at 7 11. 09
At OR O;4tA Ge eae 13 ALD |. TB}. BB 8 4,1 14. 32 4] 4.0 11.31
APD Osan 9 eee reso 3 Cty ts RY) 7 4.6 12. 65 10 4.6 10. 63
Pie EON 94 0 ee eee oes i4 5.0 12. 69 6 ls al 12. 69 19 5.0 10. 27
Deo UH 99s See 1 Meet oes eT ELC) | eee ea ee LSS |e Seer 2 6.0 8.77
TLD) WO Be a | bs Pay eee fa ea | Ne mp | PO | AS ela | plo epee (A ee
630260:6;995 23 Zz 6. 0 CO asl | cers rae > eon Nae a cena |e ease ee rs aoe bee Be
AO TUO 4 Oe oe oe 2 7.0 | ORO see raed | eee | SS oe | a SEE 28 Se ee | oe ee

TABLE 55.—Cost per ton of producing sugar beets on farms having different yields

1919 1920 1921
Variation in yield

per acre Num- |Average|Average| Num- |Average|Average| Num- | Average| Average

ber of yield | cost per! ber of yield | cost per} ber of yield | cost per
records | per acre Short ton| records | per acre |short ton! records | per acre |short ton

Short tons Shorttons, Dollars Shorttons| Dollars Short tons| Dollars
ERSTE Gl Tate oem eee at eerie Cee eas LL es al ee I as Bie. oe 2 i, & 46. 25
DATO) Se ee aE ay La ER a pe fae ea) tn nm pe | Ge ce | ee 4 2.6 29. 58
ARUOVO O85 ee beers 3 4.6 25. 42 1 5a 19. 56 3 Owez, 14. 66
GktiO= Qe an 12 71 17. 49 4 6.9 18. 09 9 Ue 12. 54
QO UM ee ea eee 6 9.0 13. 80 4 9.3 14. 27 9 8.8 9.77
ObtovdeO = see = A 5 1153 13. 10 11 11.0 18. 54 9 11.0 9. 14
Ant sd: Ga kee hs 3 13. 4 9. 02 6 13. 2 12 Se 8 Hep al 7. 58
EL Os Oso Se eee se 6 14.9 8.91 5 15.0 10. 31 1 15.8 7. 87
HGGUOM 20 ese Ee 7 16. 2 9. 97 3 16.9 9.13 1 17.6 7. 36
ESCO: Qn beet ode ries | ne Pe a |L e SS ee A 1 18.3 TORO Tp ast ta Le eas te ee
AQ) TDA AD Oe et AS | cng Se | (Sl cee | Eonar 3 20. 6 SEG | Bae ae Sas ol aga iy A
RUN RG mee eas (a We aL wean ohana Le 1 2285 GAT ie aliad stcsens| Ree Sa oe | Rae ae no

66

BULLETIN 1421, U. S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TaBLe 56.—Cost per 100 pounds of producing potatoes on farms having different

yields
1919 1920 1921
Variation in yield
: Average Average Average
per acre Num- | Average Num- | Average Num- | Average
ber of | yield cost per ber of yield cost €r'| ber of yield cost Boe
records | per acre pounds records | per acre pounds records | per acre pounds
100 100 100
100 pounds pounds | Dollars pounds | Dollars pounds | Dollars
25. tOrAO= ee Sale Seok S| oe ee |S ees | sae e ee ee be eee 1 42 2. 04
SOM On AE aes ae 3 60 2.37 1 65 2. 36 1 57 1.40
TS OO OS aee ee 6 86 1. 46 4 88 lg es es pgs ee a ee eS
1 OOkb0EI24 ae eee 8 110 1. 21 6 112 1. 84 13 115 99
1 Q59t O34 Or ee ae ae 7 138 L09 jee Pe | Se ee ae ae ee 9 128 . 86
TO ORGO (AE ee ees 5 163 BOO 4 168 1. 32 11 168 . 68
IU 1H) WOR) Se 4 | 191 aol 3 184 1.32 9 183 . 68
20008224 xen eee 3 | 218 . 83 6 208 - 97 5 206 71
DIRS EO) PHO) ae ek 4 | 231 . 76 4 241 JO4 Nake SOs ee eee
250 \b0)2 714 ee 2 | 26C dria | lee es aI | ae 1 251 . 56

TaBLE 57.—Cost per pound of producing beans on

Variation in yield
per acre

Pounds
Under 300
300 to 499
500 to 699
700 to 899
990 to 1,099
TOO OM 299 ee
1300; COMG49 Oe eee
1500 ton1k699 =
EZOOK ORS 99 aaa
1,900 to 2,099________
2,100 and over

1919
|
Num- | Average! Average
ber of yield | cost per

records | per acre | pound

1920

Num- | Average} Average
ber of yield

records | per acre | pound

Pounds
281
325
568
716

1, 002
1, 196
1, 400
1, 589
1, 779
2, 082
2, 400

_
Ft Or 0 A HS tO et

cost per |

1921

Num-
ber of yield
records | per acre

Pounds
106
375
587
(pBE

1, 030
1, 230
1, 389
1, 639
Wie
2, 011
2, 455

=
MWe NW ORB O1W bo

farms having different yields

Average | Average

cost per
pound

TaBLE 58.—Cost per pound of producing red-clover seed on farms having different

Variation in yield
per acre

Pounds
Under 100
100 to 199
200 to 299
300 to 399
400 to 499
500 to 599
600 to 699
700 to 799

records | per acre | pound

yields
1919 1920
Num- | Average awardee Num- | Average | Average
ber of yield | cost per} ber of yield | cost per

records | per acre| pound

Pounds | Cents
2 79 67
3 136 26
6 248 23
6 326 17
2 423 16
1 | 620 8
1 720 8

Pounds | Cents
2 55 78
7 155 38
8 247 28
Dy 313 24
2 454 18

1921

Num- | Average
ber of yield
| records | per acre

Average

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO

67

TABLE 59.—Cost per pound of producing alsike-clover seed on farms having different

yields
1919 1920 1921
Variation in yield | | " l
per acre Num- | Average |Average| Num- | Average) Average| Num- | Average | Average
ber of yield | cost per| ber of yield | cost per ber of yield | cost per
records | per acre} pound | records | per acre} pound | records | per acre| pound
} ———- —_—_—_——

Pounds Pounds | Cents Pounds} Cents Pounds | Cents
HOORTORI99 3 S2 Fas te 1 154 S48 Bee ee Re Sth ak ene Lief 1 141 28
PANT) TORCH? Ye eter PS Se ol | OS Merge are cy | Seg een na, | PR Sense mere 2 276 26 2 232 17
BOO) TKO GS) aes Se 2 252 20 2, 375 18 4 360 16
400 to 499 Geer 2 5 440 15 2 436 17 4 444 14
SOOKEOsO 9) hme | ree men |e a Soe hall a ee 1 521 16 3 551 14
GOORTO 699 ees Sa ore Sa a ee lee ge 1 625 1 | eS ae] A A | eee ye dd

COST OF HORSE LABOR

The cost of maintaining work horses is one of the important items
of expense in the operation of irrigated farms in southern Idaho.
Furthermore, the.cost per hour of horse labor probably varies as
much from farm to farm as does any other item of expense. ‘This
variation, it appears, is due largely to two factors: The crop enter-
prises of some of the farms studied were so organized as to require a
large amount of horse labor per farm, whereas the organization of
other farms required but little horse labor. In the second place the
number of horses kept on farms of the same size varied widely. For
example, the number of work horses kept per farm varies from two
to six and from two to eight, respectively, on strictly 40-acre and
80-acre farms. Table 60 presents a summary of the study of the
cost of horse labor.

The 151 farms from which the records were obtained varied in
size from 20 to 240 acres and the number of horses kept per farm
from 2 to 12. The average size of farm was 75 acres and the average
number of work horses per farm 4.7. There was an average of 14
crop-acres per work horse.

TaBLEe 60.—Cost of maintaining work horses and cost of direct horse labor per
hour, 1921 }

Number of farms on which horse labor was studied________._.________-- 151
AV ELALeUMMeT OlanGrses Der farm. UC! 28 eo TA eee 4.7
Maria tion imaaumber of horses per farm 6202. Pos o a lls 2 to 12
Revere ea Ste, DETPH OPS Bak at tre Hi) Ge J Ne oe ol ad by: $94
PenAme. ChOM- ACCS. PEE. WOLK NOES. 2.2.6. 5. 85-2 ee 14
Average hours of direct labor per work horse______--_-_-_------_-_-- 703
mveravercustepek horse per year. 2s *. e ee $55. 15
CeCe MERC M@rceCeDel Cale ies Sk ee se ede i 34. 98
AUPE w° | TYE te COS 2 S59 0 oe ep ee a NY Ag 27. 40
WroOveresir wi U OT mONses ot owe fone SNe ee . 10
Grnmecastssbarley, or corn), 273 pounds 29. 2222 22 2 --e 3. 03
a sheke ek MOR hse er ee eee ee eed See PEL 4. 45
CO ES GSTS IE fe se ee he 0 20. 17
LD PESOTU BIS SB COND as es Sl ah ac a O50
Rte isteach yp rey ees ee sree eA 18s bye 3h ee eh OL
Siig cite tin ote Sek ey sory alas OS eer ee yee Joe ee. ee =z) Le BO
LR SPER IVT STEP ISVU Ee 0 (ee eo nn UA - ee an a Se ann ee 1. 95
Gnpenesiea ii Pr CCMiee: aan ee Bae ese Se 6. 58
puerare cashsper nour of direct labore —. 22 2 3 . 078

1 Shelter and labor caring for horses not included, No credit was given the horses for the manure
produced. All averages are weighted

68 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Exclusive of the value of shelter and the labor used in caring for
the work stock, the average maintenance cost per horse for the
farm year, March 1, 1921, to March 1, 1922, was $55.15. Shelter
was asmall item, since most of these farms have cheaply constructed
stables. The chore labor spent on the work animals was carried as
overhead expense in the crop-cost studies. Feed, it is seen, con-
stituted 63 per cent of the average maintenance cost per horse. Of
the total value of the feed consumed per horse per year, alfalfa hay
was 78 per cent, pasture 13 per cent, and grain nearly 9 per cent.
Alfalfa hay, being low in value that year (about $5 per ton), was fed
liberally; that is, at the rate of 5.43 tons per horse. During the
year the horses were on pasture an average of 2.1 months. The
horses worked an average of 703 hours per year, and the average cost

per hour was 7.8 cents.

RELATION BETWEEN THE AVERAGE HOURS OF LABOR PERFORMED ANNUALLY PER
HORSE PER FARM AND THE COST OF DIRECT HORSE LABOR PER HOUR

The average hours of direct labor performed per horse per year on
the different farms varied from 221 to 1,535. The cost of an hour
of direct horse labor on the respective farms also varied from about
4 to 22 cents per hour. Figure 22 is presented to show the relation
of these two variables. From the position of the dots on the chart
the relation, it is seen, is fairly close. In most cases high hours of
labor per horse per year are associated with low costs and low hours
of labor with high costs. In other words, some of the farms were so
organized that the horses were kept busy during much of the spring,
summer, and fall months. On other farms there were too many
horses for the amount of work to be done. The somewhat scattered
positions of the dots on the chart indicate that there were other factors
affecting the cost per hour of labor. Figure 22 indicates very clearly,
however, that the wide variation in the cost of horse labor from farm
to farm is in part responsible for the variation in the cost per acre
and per unit of the seven crops.

VARIATION IN THE COST OF MAN LABOR PER HOUR

Man labor was one of the heavy items of expense included in the
cost of producing each of the seven crops. In 1921 the cost of a
direct hour of man labor was computed for each farm used in the
cost studies by dividing the total cost of man labor per farm by the
total hours of labor expended on the productive enterprises. Figure
23 is presented to show the variation in the cost per hour of man
labor that existed from farm to farm. -

The lowest average cost of direct man labor per farm was 21 cents
per hour and the highest 64 cents. More of the costs fell between
35 and 39 cents, inclusive, than in any other 5-cent group. Figure 23
represents 147 farms. In addition there were 5 other farms having
average costs for man labor ranging from 71 to 94 cents. The wide
variation in the cost of man labor was due to a variety of causes.
Some farms furnished an abundance of man labor, whereas others
did not; some had no more man labor than was needed, whereas
others had too much; some farm operators had the work of the farm
well planned and efficiently directed the labor at their disposal, whereas
others were less successful as managers. As a result of these condi-
aioe the cost of man labor was much higher on some farms than on
others.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 69

SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT AFFECT COSTS

Of the 152 farms used in the cost studies 134 had automobiles.
The automobile charge per crop acre ranged from $1 to $10. The
charge was very generally larger on the small farms than on the
larger ones; that is, the small farm requires about as much running
about with the automobile as the large farm, and per crop acre the
small farm is at a disadvantage.

AVERAGE COST OF DIRECT HORSE LABOR PER HOUR ON I5I FARMS, 1921

~

COST OF

PER HOUR
CENTS

20.0

AVERAGE HOURS OF DIRECT
LABOR PER HORSE PER FARM

W775

15.0

[25

« lew je
.
AVERAGE COST PER HOUR OF
.

DIRECT HORSE LABOR PER FARM

10.0 SS

FfAS

5.0

|

| e . ee . . °o (O°

| Curve fitted freehand fo group averages.

Group averages are indicated by small circles
2.5

I

l

|

| | |
0.0

O 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1500 1,750
AVERAGE ANNUAL HOURS OF LABOR PERFORMED PER HORSE PER FARM

Fic. 22.—By its position on the chart each dot represents (1) the average hours of work performed
annually per horse and (2) the average cost of a direct hour of horse labor on an individual farm
in 1921. The small circles represent group averages having class limits of 100 hours. On some of
the farms studied there were more than twice as many work horses as were needed to do the farm
work. Hence the wide variation in the cost of horse labor per hour

In the cost studies taxes varied from a little less than $2 per crop
acre to as much as $12. The wide variation in taxes was mainly due
ao ee and road districts in which the respective farms were
ocated. :

The interest charged against each of the crops for the use of land
and equipment varied from less than $11 per crop acre to $38.
Interest reflects in a general way the different grades of land. It is
very probable, however, that some of the land was overvalued and
some undervalued.

70 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~

NET RETURNS PER ACRE FROM SEVEN CROPS

Table 61 presents averages of the following items for the seven
crops: Yield per acre, prices received per unit of product sold, gross
acre values, net costs per acre, and net returns per acre. The
average yields, prices received per unit of product, and gross values
per acre for 1922 were obtained from the farm survey records. The
net costs per acre for 1922 were computed by the method outlined in
the discussion of Table 63. The average price received per unit of
product equals the total amount received divided by the amount
sold. Gross value per acre is average yield times average price
received. Net cost per acre includes interest on the estimated capital
involved at 7 per cent and wages for all unpaid labor. Net returns
per acre is gross value per acre less net cost per acre. The minus
signs in Table 61 indicate that the cost per acre was greater than the
gross value.

VARIATION IN THE COST PER HOUR OF DIRECT MAN LABOR ON 147 FARMS, 1921

NUMBER
OF FARMS |

40

'
|

30

20

| ae:

1 I

I ! 3

0 30234) 35-39 2 40-44 455495 50-5 ls5- So mGa oe
COST GROUPS- CENTS PER HOUR

Fic. 23.—Variation in the cost per hour of direct man labor on 147 farms, 1921. The farms here repre-
sented are arranged in 5-cent cost groups (see figures at the bottom of the chart). The figuresat the
left show the number of farms falling within the respective man-hour cost groups. There was 2
very wide variation in the average cost of an hour of direct man labor per farm. At the extreme
left the chart shows four farms on which the cost was between 20 and 24 cents per hour, and at the
extreme right one farm is shown on which the cost was between 60 and 64cents. The35 to 39 cent
cost group contained nearly twice as many farms as any other cost group

20=2hnes=-o

A consideration of wheat in Table 61 should assist in making net
returns per acre clear. This crop made a net return of $7 per acre
in 1919, but in 1920, 1921, and 1922 there were net losses of $12, $17,
and $7 per acre, respectively; that is, the average gross value of
an acre of wheat exceeded the average net costs approximately $7
in 1919, whereas in 1920, 1921, and 1922 the net costs exceeded the
average gross value $12, $17, and $7, respectively.

Table 61 shows a very wide variation in the net returns per acre
of the seven crops during the four years and Table 62 shows how
these crops ranked in the net returns per acre during the same period.
No crop made the highest net return each of the four years; neither
did any crop make the lowest return each year. Potatoes stood first
in 1919 and 1921 and lowest in 1920 and 1922; sugar beets were lowest
in 1919 and 1921, second highest in 1920; and highest in 1922.
Variations in the prices received, the yields obtained from year to
year, and costs per acre are the outstanding factors which contribute

ra

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO 7A

to the variation in the net return per acre of the seven crops during
the four-year period. The data at hand were not sufficient to permit
a study of the effect of crop combinations on costs per acre and per
unit of product.

TABLE 61.—Average net returns per acre of designated crops, 1919-1922 }

: Red- Alsike-
Item Wheat | eee ee Potatoes | Beans | clover clover
y seed seed
|
Average yields per acre: Bushels Short tons) Short sAee TOU pounds Pounds | Pounds | Pounds
] Rt eae 5 See ae an eee 41.4 434 9.9) | 140.1 1, 210 302 | 316
ODO See te eee re ee re 43.3 3:97 13.5 | 167.9 278: 226 | 431
IMP TURS eee Sees Bi ee Eee 45.4 4.0 | 10.0 150. 6 1,175 211 353
1 og OS a et 47.0 4,1 | Ver 2 185. 0 1, 953 | 325 | 245
Average prices received per unit:| Dollars | Dollars | Dollars Dollars Cents | Cents | Cents
GOs Bow neacbet 53 ORS | 1:850°| = 15:68-|/5 <11-005|> |< 1.770 7.0 45.6 | 39.0
Ef Oe Cae ee ee ee ca oa 1. 380 8. 37 12.00 | . 945 5.7 12.0 | 22.3
NODT Sage SETS Se EL See CE - 825 4. 80 6. 00 . 935 4.2 15.0 | Pos
ieee eee ee 830 6. 88 8. 39 | . 440 4.3 16. 2 | 12.9
Average gross values per acre: Dollars | Dollars | Dollars
FOIOR- eres Bae: SE ee rh a es 7 67 109 248 5 138 | 123
1920Ee Reg ee 60 33 162 159 73 27 96
TODA 2S Sa es IEE SEs 37 19 60 141 49 32 53
OOD re tee ok She ee a 39 28 149 te 84 53 32
Average net costs per acre:
pkey nak eek eee 7 61 120= |= 149 82 53 57
LG AU re ete See ne 72 61 149 209 94 65 74
iit Uae ah a ee We 54 47 98 117 67 49 5d
1OQD eee ak ae Ve he he 46 41 91 ome a ST 65 38 44
Average net return per acre: |
Be WE wiles sidan Sere ee oe 7 6 —20 | 99 3 85 66
ODOR eae ee Mire eng er tae —12 —28 13 50 —21 —38 22
PODER ERS TR OLS 48 Tiny OE ae Ee —17 —28 —38 |- wz —18 —17 —2
ise. Sel SU ee ee fh il 58 | —35 19 15 —12

1 Costs for 1922 computed by applying current prices to the data presented in Table 63.
2 Ninety per cent considered marketable and 10 per cent culls.

TaBLE 62.—Rank of designated crops in net return per acre as determined by
cost-of-production study, 1919-1922

Rank |
in net
return 1919 1920 1921 1922
per
acre
ie OLntoese = Alsike clover___...---- (POLatOeS Se ae Sugar beets.
Dal Red ClOVCTS ea a SuearbectS=—- == Alsike clover______--_- Beans.
3 | Alsike clover_________- Wiheate ss 2 soa 2 Wahea anid te Bei ey Red clover.
ARIF Wheatese ee era ars IBeansiet et SOL ea: Red clover. = = W heat.
Drie Alia fap Sie rectors ty IN faliaetes Sse ON Bean sta Seer Se Alsike clover.
Gy sBeanss see Red: clover. ---==——_ =| A ialian = =e ere Alfalfa.
<..|-Sugar beets== 2-22 - IP0tatoese se sae aa ee | Sugar beets= 22 == Potatoes.
cs -

Relative net return per acre, it should be understood, is only one
of the many factors that should be considered in choosing crop
enterprises. High net return per farm is usually obtained from a com-
bination of enterprises that utilize the farm equipment and available
labor to advantage. A single crop or livestock enterprise, however,
may be so remunerative that the combination of enterprises with a
view of fully utilizing the available labor and farm equipment becomes
of secondary importance.

Attention is here directed to the fact that in computing the cost data
presented herewith, each crop was charged with 7 per cent interest
on the capital involved and with going wages for all labor performed.
Under this method of computing costs a farm that broke even, that
is, produced these crops with a zero profit on the average, may be
considered as successful.

2 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A METHOD OF ESTIMATING COSTS

The hours of labor and the quantities of materials used in the
production of an acre of each of the seven crops, averaged for the
three years, 1919-1921, are shown in Table 63. The amounts paid
out for contract labor and job labor were converted into their labor
equivalents by using 45 cents per hour for man labor and 20 cents per
hour for horse labor in 1919 and 1920 and by using 30 cents per hour
for man labor and 12.5 cents per hour for horse labor in 1921. The
hours of labor thus obtained for the contract and job labor plus the
hours of labor shown in Table 44 equal the total hours of direct labor
presented in Table 63. |

Table 63 also shows for each crop what percentage the combined
cost of labor and materials is of the total operating cost, and what
percentage interest on real estate per acre is of the total interest charge.
By applying current prices to the quantities of labor and material
shown in this table, the operating cost of producing an acre of each
of the crops may be estimated very closely for any given year. The
interest charge may be computed in the same way by deciding upon
the value of real estate per acre and the rate of interest to be allowed.

TABLE 63.—Three-year average hours of labor and quantities of materials used per
acre in the production of designated crops, 1919-1921

Red- | Alsike-
Item Wheat ae eueat Toe Beans | clover | clover
seed seed
Direct labor per acre: !
IY Beha I OYoVES laKoybieos ke ee a Dot: 30. 8 131.6 101. 4 SYED, 24.9 21.7
Horse labor, hours saee== sees 44,3 32:0) |e Gul, 1OOV2 a eo eet 22.6 15.1
Material per acre:
SOG pa bee es 2 aetna ners pounds__| 101.0 10. 4 15.8 | 983 65. 7 8. 60 6. 50
A Digit ole eee ses Sk Sere ou ae eee ee ea doz Dries |e ees | eae eer ie . 07 . 02 BOS
Sa CkKGs< Sasa ees eee ss es eee number__ EG fet eee ee eres 141 2. 90 2. 00 2. 90
1b (| eee td ee ire hee ey AS oh tons__ SOA we So. SE ed | eee 05 07 07
INTam UG Sma eae ee kee es ah eee loads_- ' 6:33) eeeee 4.9 .6 133" | 22S eee
Errigation= water 2" 3. 2.058 eee iS a] ee ae, ieee | ee |
Total operating expense represented by labor
and materials at current rates____- per cent__ 60 65 78 78 64 55 50
Total interest charge represented by interest
on real estate per acre_______-__-_- per cent__ 95 97 92 91 94 97 98

1 As here used direct labor includes contract labor, whereas in Table 2 contract labor is expressed in dollars.
* To the value of the materials listed at current rates for the year in question add the cost of water per
acre. ‘The cost of water per acre equals the total cost of water per farm divided by the acres irrigated.

Suppose, for example, that the hours of man and horse labor and
the quantities of materials given in Table 63 for producing an acre ot
wheat when charged at current rates amount to $18 per acre for some
given year. Since Table 63 shows this to be 60 per cent of the total
operating expense, the total operating expense would be $30 per acre.
Suppose further that the value of the land on which the wheat is
erown is $200 per acre and that the interest rate is 7 per cent. The

interest charge per acre for the use of real estate would then be $14. |

Since this is 95 per cent of the total interest charge, the total would
be $14.75 per acre. The total cost of producing an acre of wheat for
the year in question would then equal $30 (the operating cost), plus
$14.75 (the interest charge), or $44.75. This amount, less the value
of the crop credits (the value of the straw and pasture of the stubble
field), should give the net cost per acre about as closely as it is pos-
sible to estimate costs in advance.

pP=guee Pe ee A.

IRRIGATED FARMING IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO lo

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The Twin Falls south side irrigation project is a very uniform body
of land. The topography varies from nearly level to gently rolling.
The average elevation of the project is around 3,700 feet and a little
more than 200,000 acres is under irrigation.

The soil is a very uniform silt loam that is well supplied with lime,
phosphorus, and potash. Like most western arid soils, however, it is
somewhat deficient in organic matter and nitrogen.

The average annual precipitation is about 11 inches. The rainfall
of the summer months is exceptionally scant, and no crops are grown
without irrigation. On the average there are 129 days between the
last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall.

Water was first turned into the irrigating ditches in the spring of
1905. Twenty years of farm experience has shown that so far as
natural resources are concerned the project is well adapted to the
production of a wide range of field crops, fruits, and vegetables as well
as to sheep, hog, cattle, poultry, and dairy farming.

The project is a surplus-producing district and the bulk of the farm
products must be shipped to distant markets. For this reason trans-
portation charges play an important part in determining what enter-
prises can be followed most profitably.

The economic study of irrigated farming in Twin Falls County
reported herewith covered a four-year period, 1919-1922. This was
a very unstable period during which prices of farm products fluctuated
widely. For this reason much of the data presented here must be used
with caution except when applied to the period covered by this study.

The farms studied are located within 10 miles of the city of Twin
Falls. They varied in size from 17 to 345 acres. The most frequent
sizes of farm found are 40-acre, 80-acre, and 20-acre, in the order
named.

Cash crop farming strongly predominated in this district during the
period of the study. Of the total number of farms studied, 87 per
cent were classified as general crop farms, 7 per cent as dairy and
general crop farms, and 6 per cent as orchard and general crop farms.
The orchard and general crop farms carried very little productive
livestock.

Of the three types, the dairy farms made the highest average net
return to capital for the four-year period and the orchard farms, the
second highest. When measured by the percentage return to capital,
the orchard farms ranked highest in 1919 and 1921 and lowest in 1920
and 1922; and the dairy farms highest in- 1920. Dairy farming,
during the four years, was far more stable than either of the other
types; the orchard farming was the least stable.

Size of farm had considerable influence on the economical organiza-
tion and operation of the general crop farms. For example, the 40-
acre group of farms had 5 per cent more of the total capital tied up
in buildings and equipment than had the 80-acre group. One and
one-half times as many crop acres were handled per work horse on the
80-acre farms as on the 40-acre farms. For es month of man labor
used, 4.2 acres of crops were taken care of on the 80-acre farms as com-
vared with 2.8 acres for the 40-acre group. The average crop yield
was slightly higher on the 40-acre farms. The advantage of the
larger farms is reflected, at least in part, by the net return per acre
for the use of real estate. This, for the four-year period, averaged
approximately $14 for the 80-acre farms and $8 for the 40-acre group.

14 BULLETIN 1421, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The percentage return to capital, the yield per acre of each crop
studied, and the cost per acre and per unit of product of producing
these crops varied widely during each year of the study. Each
year some farms were highly successful, whereas others were equally
unsuccessful. High average crop yields per farm are very generally
associated with low cost per unit of product and high percentage
return to capital and low average yields with low return to capital
and high cost per unit of product.

Relatively high crop yields, it appears, may be obtained by giving the
legumes, especially alfalfa, a promineni place in the cropping system,
by a liberal use of barnyard manure, by planting only the best seed,
and by the well-timed performance of the cultural operations. The
percentage of the crop acreage devoted to alfalfa and clover varied
greatly on these farms, the average being around 30 per cent.

If the acreage of alfalfa is increased because of its effect on crop
yields, it will be necessary to feed more range sheep and cattle or to
increase the livestock kept on the farms in order to utilize the addi-
tional hay produced. Farmers who are inexperienced in the handling
of dairy cattle, sheep, or hogs should develop these enterprises
gradually. It is far safer to start with a few cows, a few ewes, or a
few brood sows and gain experience as each enterprise is developed
than to expand these lines suddenly.

In a long-time program it will probably pay to keep approximately
about half of the farm in alfalfa and pasture, feed the hay produced
to livestock, and return the manure to the soil. The alfalfa should
be rotated systematically over the farm, occupying each: piece of
land on which it is sown from three to four years. The pasture
should be changed to a different location every few years.

Considerable freedom can be exercised in the choice of the crops
to be grown on that portion of the farm not devoted to alfalfa and
to pasture. The four row-tilled crops grown in this district (pota-
toes, beans, sugar beets, and corn) all serve much the same purpose
in the crop rotation for cleaning the land. In deciding what to grow,
the choice should be based largely on (1) the anticipated prices that
are likely to prevail when the products are ready for market, (2) the
estimated yields that can be obtained, (3) the labor, materials, and
other items of cost that must be expended in the production of each
crop, (4) the effect that each crop has on the yield of subsequent
crops, and (5) the effect that the growing of each crop has on the
‘distribution and utilization of the available farm labor.

Because money costs’vary considerably from year to year, special
attention was given in this study to the quantities of labor and
materials used in the production of an acre of each of the seven
crops. Since the hours of labor and the quantities of materials
required per acre remain fairly constant, the cost of producing an
acre of each crop may be estimated very closely for any given year
by applying current prices to these quantities (Table 63).

The farmers of this district must choose from some 8 or 10 crops and
the different kinds of livestock in deciding what to produce. This
choice can not be made once for all time. The prices of the various
farm products are changing more or less constantly. These price
changes cause corresponding changesin the relative profitableness of the
different lines of production. Forthisreason the problem of deciding
what and how much to produce comes up for solution year after year.

ORGANIZATION OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

September 14, 1926

seeretary of Agriculture... .1<--22-2.2... W. M. JARDINE.
PAISRUSTOM UH CCRCIOT Yn 2 oe R. W. Dunuap.
Dinectarto; Seventope Works. 2 = 2 ee A. F. Woops.
Director of equlatory Work 2-2. 2.2 .=-2 ~~ WALTER G. CAMPBELL.
Director of Eztension Works ....2222.052 2. C. W. WARBURTON.
ID CCLOr Op UNI ORMaION 225020 oo Se NELSON ANTRIM CRAWFORD.
Director of Personnel and Business Adminis-
LROLUONUE myers Sis ane Napa eh ae OS Fa W. W. STOCKBERGER.

STU ACAIDIE SES ws Se ae na SP R. W. WILLIAMS.
BUCOLhe es Rete et eon CHARLES F. Marvin, Chief.
Bureau of Agricultural Economics_____-_--_ ~~ Luoyp 8. Tenny, Acting Chief.
Buncatop Animal Industry. oo JoHN R. Moutnr, Chief.
BUreii oO, Llane Industty= =< 22. Os Wiiiiam A. Tayuor, Chief.
L AGIROSIE PSE GOS ae a aE W. B. GREELEY, Chief.
IRCA MAO CO REMUSIRY = = ST C. A. Browne, Chief.
UE COM MOPE NO Ul Stamens ke eS Be Mitton WHITNEY, Chief.
BUreaw Of RALOmologya <2 = on L. O. Howarp, Chief.

- Bureau of Biological Survey______-_-____-- E. W. Newson, Chief.
BUT COUN fe leRiDiVerh OOS 8 2 Te ee 2 THomas H. MacDonatp, Chief.
BURCaueo}. HOME PiCONOMUCS 2 =) Sn LouisE STANLEY, Chief.
Bureauof Dairy Indusiry. 2 -=_2 2.2. --- _ C. W. Larson, Chief.
Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory _-__----- F. G. Cottre.uy, Director.
Office. of Ha pervment: Stations. = EK. W. ALLEN, Chief.
Office of Cooperative Extension Work_______- C. B. Smitu, Chief.
IGE is Ce Se SS ESS aS Ta a CLARIBEL R. BarNeEtTT, Librarian.
iederal Horieniiumal Board. 222 --— .. 2 - C. L. Maruatt, Chairman.
Insecticide and Fungicide Board__________- J. K. Haywoop, Chairman.
Packers and Stockyards Administration _____ JoHNn T. Carne III, in Charge.
Grain Futures Administration____-_-----~-- J. W. T. DuvEt, in Charge.

This bulletin is a contribution from

Bureau of Agricultural Economics______--~- Luoyp 8S. Trenny, Acting Chief.
Division of Farm Management and Costs. H. P. Totuery, in Charge.
LE IUCO Oh RIGO naUSeTy 22. 2.2 Lk WiuuiamM A. Tayuor, Chief.
OijectoppuganF tants ss So ee EK. W. BRANDES, in Charge.
75

ADDITIONAL COPIES
OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMENT PRIN1ING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT

15 CENTS PER COPY
V