University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California APPRAISAL OF CAI.IFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE CAPACITT ATTAINABLE IN 1952 by Trimble R. Hedges and Warren R. Bailey Results of a Cooperative Investigation Conducted in California by the California State Committee on Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity. This Committee Included Representatives of the University of California, the United States Department of Agriculture, and State Agencies. March 19^2 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 126 LIBRARY ^™-l-ECE OF AcyycuLiuw APPRAISAL OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE CAFACITI ATTAINABLE IN 1952 Trimble R. Hedges and Warren R. Bailey Foreword The following report is an outgrowth of the work of the California State Committee on Survey of Agricultural Produc- tive Capacity. These estimates for 1952 were prepared on August 30, 1951 > hy a special subcommittee including chair- men of the various working subcommittees in addition to the several economists and statisticians included in the over-all California committee. 1/ 1/ The special subcommittee included W. R. Bailey, Lowell Clarke, J. P. Conrad, J. P. Fairbank, E. L. Haff, Jr., J. H. MacGillivray, J. T. Moody, E. L. Proebsting, J. F. Wilson, M. Yudelman, Arthur Shultis, Vice-Chairman, and T. R. Hedges, Chairman. Full credit for the actual statistical estimates in the various "forms" goes to this subcommittee. Particular credit is due Lowell Clarke of the California Crop and Livestock Report- ing Service. Responsibility for the written text and the mechanics of the statistical presentation is assumed by the authors listed on the cover. ■AO »K .V» bebi/Ioni ssJJ'..' -. JjsJrosqa'.ertX-. \i ...... . . :":Adtis'i- . ^^^laoO. .!> io ,i9voo artJ- 2. Appra isal of Ag ricultural Productive Capacity, 19522/ This report projects the attainable level and pattern of production in 1952 for fam products in California. The specific objectives in this 1952 report were (1) to prepare the best possible estimates of the acreage and yield of the various crops for 1952, (2) to prepare similar estimates for livestock numbers and production, (3) to base these estimates on the same as- sumptions of over-all demand, availability of production items, and price level and interrelationships made available by the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics as are used by other state committees, and (h) to fol- low such procedure as will facilitate considering and summarizing the Cali- fornia estimates together with similar reports from the other states. The material incorporated in this report should also be consistent with the find- ings of the more elaborate study concerning attainable agricultural productive capacity in 1955 • The estimates prepared and incorporated in this report rep- resent the best collective judgment of the subcommittee which prepared them considering the time available. The factual basis for this report included (a) detailed historical and current estimates prepared by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service plus (b) the instructions and assximptions furnished by the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The price assumptions, among the 2/ The State Committee on Survey of Agricultural Productive Capacity in California was appointed by Director Paid Sharp in June 1951. This Califor- nia committee and similar groups in other states were constituted at the sug- gestion of the Joint Land-Grant College-United States Department of Agriculture Committee on Appraisal of Agricultural Productive Capacity. The primary func- tion of each state committee is to appraise the attainable level of fam pro- duction in 1955 and report to the national committee. Such information is considered vital in the unsettled world situation to insure optimum use of re- sources in time of national emergency. This 1952 report is a by-product of the procedure pointing to the more elaborate 1955 statement. Members of the Cali- fornia committee included: V. S. Asmundson, University of California, Davis; W. R. Bailey, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Berkeley; J. P. Conrad, Uni- versity of California, Davis, Chairman of Crop and Livestock Statistics, Crop Production, and Agronomic Crops subcommittees; R. Bainer, University of Cali- fornia, Davis; H. D. Chapman, University of California, Riverside; L. M. Clarke, California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento; J. P. Fairbank, University of California, Berkeley, Chairman of Labor and Machinery Subcommittee; G. E. Gordon, University of California, Berkeley; C. N. Johnston, University of California, Davis; (Mrs.) Margot W. Lenhart, California Department of Employment, Sacramento; E. G. Linsley, University of California, Berkeley; J. H. MacGillivray, University of California, Davis, Chairman of Truck Crops Subcommittee; J. T. Moody, Production and Marketing Administration, Berkeley; H. P. Olmo, University of California, Davis; E. L. Proebsting, University of California, Davis, Chair- man of Fruit Crops Subcommittee; lU R. Schoonover, University of California, Berkeley; C. E. Scott, University of California, Berkeley; G. A. Scott, Califor- nia Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento; J. F. Wilson, University of California, Davis, Chairman of Livestock Subcommittee; L. R. Wohletz, Soil Conservation Service, Berkeley; M. Yudelraan, University of California, Berkeley, Assistant Secretary; E. L. Haff, Jr., University of California, Davis, Secretary; A. Shultis, University of California, Berkeley, Vice-Chairman; and T. R. Hedges, University of California, Davis, Chairman. 3. latter, were used in projecting tentative California assumed prices (Table 2). It has been hoped originally that there also would be available a considerable body of the analytical material assembled for the 19?5 report. This information did not materialize before the deadline for submitting the 19^2 report, however, and the observations and experience of members of the subcommittee, therefore, were substituted. State Total Changes in Acreage Major acreage changes in field crops ra^ be expected in 1952. The cereal group, in particular, is expected to show important acreage gaiins due to their unusually low levels in 1951 (Table 1). Increases, also, are expected for sugar beets and alfalfa. These crops, too, were reduced sharply in 1951* Irrigated pasture acreage again is expected to expand hy the 5 per cent that has charac- terized each of recent years. The changes in the state total cropping pattern between 1950 and 1951 were considered heavily in estimating the 1952 attainable acreage. Detailed data are shown in Form 1 and are further summarized in a special table (Table 1). Acre- age probably will decrease from 1951 to 1952 for a group of major cash crops. This group, including cotton, rice, tomatoes, beans, and flaxseed, increased 928,500 acres from 1950 to 1951 and in the latter year occupied nearly 2,250,000 acres, a total that is deemed excessive considering available land and water (Figure I). Cotton was responsible for 81 per cent of this acreage shift; planted acres increased over 100 per cent between 1950 and 1951. There also were very important acreage increases for rice and canning tomatoes j the latter almost doubled between the two years. A combination of changes in relative prices and other factors explains the marked 1950 to 1951 shifts in acreage for the crops indicated (Table 1). Cotton, in particular, was very largely affected by the sharply higher level of prices received for the 1950 crop as compared with 19U9 (Table 2). Canning tomato grovrers, also, were stimulated to a considerable extent by the higher contract prices offered for the 1951 crop. Another major factor for cotton and rice was the removal of the Production and Marketing Administration acreage limitations in 1951. The acreage increase for tomatoes again resulted partly from grower reaction to unfavorable harvesting conditions for sugar beets in 1950. Sufficiently detailed data were not available to pin point the exact sources of the acreage shifted into the above-mentioned crops in 1951. Some indications can be had, however, by noting major crops showing decreases. The cereal group 3/ The projected California farm prices for 1952 were based on projected United States farm prices: (1) The percentage change of 1952 United States farm prices from the 19U7- 1950 average was determined for each major commodity. (2) This ratio was multiplied times California 19U7-1950 average farm prices. (3) The resulting California price projection is listed as "average 1952 price." These prices are considered "projected prices" rather than estimates be- cause they are meaningful only in teiros of the over-all national price-affecting forces assumed for 1952. OP' Of?XB . • fdSri IQq 001 19V f> 3910£ 'r.^d":£i ;-juo ; J ,5rix.uuoO >.it6 soil lol at ■ TfiCf • '.V 5BW, ^n: -rtr o+ ssoxtq .ariAl seixiJ ..>'::.r oSKTova" ca bad ail ai -no±.tp9t3^000 acres reduction from the 1950 pattern of crops for the state. Not all this acreage was shifted into the cash crops showing marked increases; con- siderable reduction in the cereal group, particularly, was due to weather con- ditions. It is recognized, nevertheless, that a major percentage of the 6^3*000 acres undoubtedly was shifted to one or another of the cash crops. This fact is important in considering probable field crop acreages in 1952. Aside from dis- placing other crops, cotton gained acreage at the expense of land that may have been fallowed, idle, or pastured during the 19^0 season. It was a matter of con- siderable concern in the San Joaquin Valley area during 1950 to find a use for the land that the acreage limitation program required to be removed from cotton production. Not all of this land was put into major crops. Finally, a consider- able area of newly developed land in the San Joaquin Valley was planted in cotton in 1951. It is estimated that in 1952 approximately 151^,000 acres of land probably vrill be taken out of the major California crops that showed sharp acreage in- creases in 1951 (Table 1). Cotton will absorb most of this reduction, 91,000 acres, with approximately equal total declines of about 20,000 acres each in rice, canning tomatoes, and beans. The percentage reduction for canning tomatoes will be considerably greater than for the other crops, however, because of its relatively smaller total acreage. It is further estimated that the cereal group will show important gains in 1952 which will restore some of the acreage lost by this group in 195l« Plantings are expected to increase 188,000 acres or sharply less than the 262,000 estimated for acres harvested. This expectation reflects the relatively heavy abandonment due to unfavorable weather in the spring of 1951. Sugar beets are expected to increase 16,000 acres, or about 11 per cent, and al- falfa also is expected to regain a part of the acreage lost the preceding year. Cotton acreage is expected to decrease in 1952 largely as an adjustment to some degree of overexpansion in 1951* The absence of such spectacular price rises as that for cotton between the I9U9 and 1950 harvest seasons is considered to be highly important in regulating the 1952 level of acreage for the cash crops. The price assumptions used indi- cate cotton prices of 1952 at about 36 cents a pound or only 1 cent above 1950 (Table 2).U/ It was anticipated, further, that little upward change in price of canned tomatoes, rice, beans, or flaxseed could be expected. The cereal crops and alfalfa, on the other hand, may show more important price increases. The subcommittee also assumed in preparing these estimates that no Production and Marketing Administration acreage limitations will be in effect during 1952 .f/ It was recognized by the subcommittee, on the other hand, that subsidy programs or other direct stimuli could be made highly effective in modifying acreage from the indicated 1952 attainable if such policies are established. No specific h/ Cotton prices rose sharply during the 1951 harvest season largely in re- sponse to progressive reductions in the total production estimates, and at the end of 1951 were approximately at the same level as a year earlier^ Price change, therefore, is not a factor encouraging reduced California cotton acreage in 1952. 5/ No marketing quotas or acreage limitations are in effect in 1952 for major California field crops. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1952 Production Goals . November, .1951 • Bi. .. . exii io -i^fiJ-ofifi to . -i 8i?w TC-CbS'^cfi- ' . T od'ni Bcvr 'ia lis ■^oh .noWor ^aozi . loads JLixw n- JsT) I: . ban .^rton ISO -EX iirods 'jo ,558705 000^61 aas^io ; srre .. . ■ ■ xo 3i ■ .aaoto (izBo en J' '.i.'j i£- io 19 rix . .. . m 5. Acres (Million) Figure I— Field crop acreage in Californiaj 19fo, 19Sl, and estimates of 1952 attainable. (Source: Table 1) 1.5 1.0 .5 Cotton IBM MTERIAIS I I and; i FOODICROPS: Beans Ric4 B^et$ ;Toiiat6es I i Potatoes Canning ; Cottoii B^an^ Eice ; Sugar Beets ! Tomatoes ; ;Potatdes 1.0 .5 lAlfalfa HAY UND forage crops \ Other tame hay o CM O 1-4 O i Wild iay \ O r-l vf\ ; in ; O ^rrigat^d pasture 2.0 1.5 1.0 .5 Barley (grain) Whe^t i O rH rsi ir\ vr\ lA r-\ r-\ o H H ! GRAINS Oats ( grain) o c> Grain hayi Grain i Sorghum \ 1 Corn ; (^rain) O H Oi vri m m CJv O O H (N iTv ir> H rH iH O H CT' H H H TABLE 1 Estimated Shifts in Land Use in California for Major Field Crops 1950 to 1951 and 1951 to 1952 Acreage 1 Acreage Percentage change , TOKO 1 change , change. US6 01 IcUTa XclXlu l^ul 1 Q<=iO ¥r\ ^ Qm lyou oo lyoi aTiT>aina o i e [ lyoi TiO xyOiS lyoi oo xyo^ 1,000 acres per cent Raw Materials and Food Crops Cotton, all upland^/ Planted 586 1, 341 +755 1, 250 - 91 - 7 Rice Planted 240 319 + 79 300 - 19 - 6 Tomatoes (oaiuiing) 76 148 + 72 125 - 23 -16 Beans, dry edible Planted 319 339 + 20 320 - 19 - 6 Flaxseed Planted 60 62 + 2 60 - 2 - 3 Total crops increasing. iyou-oi 1 , ax crops uecreasmg. Oul coo — IVJO + 1 fi 4- 7 + ( Feed Grains Wheat Planted 1 10 / iU u •71 r\ f iU r\ U A U Barley T^T 4-^ A 2, 291 2,0iD is, i « b +xbU J- Q + O Barley for grain Harvested i, oUU 1 A 0/1 i,4y4 -oUb U.OA +lo Oats Planted 602 512 - 90 540 + 28 + 5 wet uo XOi gl clXIl . iTlClX VCfO u\7U 175 + 12 + 8 Grain, cut for hayV^ Harvested 733 696 - 37 700 + 4 + 1 Grain sorghum Planted 142 106 - 36 106 0 0 Sorghum for grain Harvested 136 101 - 35 101 0 0 Com, all Planted 86 69 - 17 69 0 0 Corn for grain Harvested 42 32 - 10 32 0 0 Total : Planted 3,831 3,413 -418 3,601 +188 + 6 Harvested 2,907 2,486 -421 2,748 +262 +11 (Continued on next page.) ) -■h' — - T -1* ■ ''^^ ] - 2» * -t. 1 J 1 \ ' ' w u »^ + ip( i ,- b ■■■■■ d + 1 r V * ■ - re + - SS i + 'A; r, ,, 1 k Table 1 continued. use oi lana iana 1 1 Q50 J. C \J\J 1951 Acreage change 1950 to 1951 1952 attainable Acreage change 1951 to 1952 Percentage change 1951 to 1952 1,000 acres per cent Hay and Forage Crops Alfalfa Other tame hayb/ Wild hay All ha;/ and forage crops Irrigated pasture Planted Planted Planted 1,058 159 177 1,394 682 931 159 186 1,276 702 -127 0 + 9 -118 + 20 960 159 186 1,305 737 +29 0 0 +29 +35 +3 0 0 +2 +5 Total 2,076 1,978 - 98 2,042 +64 +3 a/ Includes minute acreage of American -Egj'-pti an. b/ "Other tame hay" excludes grains cut for hay. Source: Acreage data in Fonn 1. /r.-yes 'i^s.^jni: cnf. 5,01, vj. '■ • r"" ■ ( : t 1 8 8 : : ... , ■ -ISA 1 — j-^- POEM 1 Use of California Farm Land; Estimates of 1952 Attainable, with Comparisonsa/ Use of farm land Acreage Reported for 1950 Reported or estimated for 1951 3' 1952 attainable 4 1 2 acres Com, all Com for grain Com for silage Sorghums, all except sirup All sorghums for grain All sorghums for silage Cotton, all upland Cotton, American Egyptian Saffloiver Castor beans Hops Sugar beets Irish potatoes Late Early- Total Beans, dry edible Tomatoes (canning) Other truck crops Other intertilled crops, total Af3-iii«?tmf>nt for multiple useb/ Total f»roDland used for intertilled crops2/ Oats Barley IlTinter v^heat Spring wheat Oats for grain Barley for grain Grains cut green for hay Planted Planted Hai-vested Planted Hairvested Harvested Planted Planted Harvested Harvested Harvested Planted Planted Planted Planted Planted Planted Planted Planted Planted Harvested Harvested Harvested 86,000 (42,000) (32,000) 142,000 136,000 586,000 500 27,000 2,400 9,400 218,000 (45,000) (78,000) 123,000 319,000 75,500 537,700 137,800 383,300 1,875,000 602,000 2,291,000 710,000 (196,000) (1,800,000) (733,000) 69,000 (32,000) (27,000) 106,000 101,000 1,340,700 300 16,000 20,000 9,400 149,000 (35,000) (49,000) 84,000 339,000 148,000 519,700 105,000 444,100 2,457,000 512,000 2,016,000 710,000 (163,000) (1,494,000) (696,000) 69,000 (32,000) (27,000) 106,000 101,000 1,250,000 300 16,000 20,000 9,400 165,000 (35,000) (49,000) 84,000 320,000 125,000 525,000 110,000 420,000 o in A nc\f\ ZfOI'i, (O'J 540,000 2,176,000 710,000 (175,000) (1,740,000) (700,000) (Continued on next page.) i [ T>]rjmcecr ( J ) 1 j S* ■'. rr -ooo ■0 '-i •{ I i i 1 1 "1 1 ? •V Form 1 continued. Use of farm land Rye for grain Flaxseed Rice Other close-growing crops Adjustment for mviltiple use^/ Total cropland used for close-growing crops Hay, all tame Alfalfa hay Other tame hay Grain hay Grass silage Seeds, hay and cover crop, all Alfalfa Ladino Other Rotation (cropland) past\ire All irrigated pasture Sudan and temporary Total cropland usod for sod cropsS/ Fruit and nuts Fruit and nuts Total cropland used for cropsS/ Summer fallow and idle cropland Total croplandc/ Wild hay Open permanent pasture Woods pastured Woods not pastured Acreage Harvested Planted Planted Harvested Hcorvested Harvested Harvested Harvested Harvested Harvested Harvested Harvested Harvested Bearing Nonbearing Harvested Reported for 1950 2 60,000 240,0-00 3,903,000 1,217,000 (1,058,000) (159,000 (735,000) (217,000) (115,000) (35,000) (67,000) 807,000 (682,000) (125,000) 2,024,000 1,367,600 127,800 9,297,000 1,227,000 10,524,000 177,000 18,500,000 3,300,000 700,000 Reported or estiraated for 1951 _ acres 62,000 319,000 3,619,000 1,090,000 (931,000) a59,000) (696,000) ^220,000) (115,000) (45,000) (60,000) 827,000 (702,000) (125,000) 1,917,000 1,379,570 128,000 9,495,570 1,063,430 10,559,000 186,000 18,500,000 3,300,000 700,000 195E attainable 60,000 306,000 3,792,000 1,119,000 (950,000) (159,000) (700,000) (190,000) (85,000) (45,000) (60,000) 865,000 (740,000) (125,000) 1,984,000 1,375,000 128,000 9,653,700 1,000,000 10,653,700 186,000 18,500,000 3,300,000 700,000 (Continued on next page.) Form 1 continued. Use of fana land 1 Acreage Reported for 1950 Reported or estimated for 1951 1952 attainable Other land in farms Total land in farms Grazing land not in farms Other land not in farms j Total land area t Z~' L 3 4 acres 2,299,000 35,500,000 22,038,950 42,814,970 100,353,920 2,255,000 35,500,000 22,038,950 42,814,970 100,353,920 2,160,300 35,500,000 22,038,950 42,814,970 100,353,920 a/ Prepared August 30, 1951, by Special Subcommittee of California State Committee on Agricultural Productive Capacity. b/ In making the adjustment for multiple use of land by crops in the same group or in two or more groups, the first use in the crop year is considered to be the primary use. c/ Total acres used for crops is less than the sum of the acreages of individual _ crops to the extent that two or more crops were, or will be, planted on, or harvested from, the same land during the year. Source: Reported data are official estimates of the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; other data are estimates of the subcommittee. * Hi I ^ I ■ ' I ■ ■ ■ TABLE 2 Prices Received by California Farmers; Specified Agricultural Commodities During Specified Periods and Assumptions Projected for 1952 Corn (all) Sorghum Cotton (all upland) Sugar beets Potatoes ; Early Late Beans (diy edible) Hops Oats (all) Barley (all) Tfheat Flaxseed Rice Hay (all): Baled mid Alfalfa hay (baled) Seeds : Alfalfa Ladino Asparagus Cantaloupes : Spring Sxamer Units State average 1947 Hundred-.vei ght Hundredwei ght Pound Ton Hundredweight Hundredwei glit Hianur edwei ght Hundredweight HundredvTeight Hundredweight Hundre dwei ght Bushel Hundredweight Ton Ton Ton Bushel Hundredwei ght Ton Carton (70 poxmds) Carton (70 pounds) 4.98 4.68 .33 12.30 2.65 3.08 14.80 63.00 3.59 3.22 3.98 7.00 6.13 24.40 20.70 24.60 13.50 150.00 4.20 3.50 State average 1948 3.10 2.98 .31 11.00 2.65 2.75 9,70 59.00 3.15 2.70 3.60 6.18 4.40 27.20 20.90 27.80 17.60 160,00 186,33 4.55 2.80 State average 1949 2.75 2.86 .28 11.00 2.24 2.67 8,70 58.00 2,78 2,33 3,30 3.94 3.42 22.10 18.60 22.40 16,70 130.00 199,70 3,20 3.20 State average 1950 3,30 2.86 .44 10.90 1.74 2.21 10.80 63.00 2.81 2.29 3.40 3.86 4.40 19.50 17.50 19.70 16.40 120.00 221.59 4.10 3.00 State average 1947-1950 3.53 3.34 .34 11.30 2.32 2.69 10.80 60.70 3.04 2,63 3,56 5,24 4,58 23.30 19.42 23.62 16,05 140,00 202,57 4,01 3,12 State price 195ia/ 3.66 3,20 .44 11.40 2.45 3.00 9,15 3,35 3,00 3.60 4,30 4,60 27,15 27.70 15.00 255.56 4.60 3,20 Index 1952 Average price 1952 108.66 95.59 107.57 90.78 85.27 93.23V 93,06 111,34 107,14 103,90 71,39 108,91 102,25 102.25 102.25 3,83 3.19 ,36 10.25 1.98 2.69b/ 10.05 3,30 2.82 3,69 3,74 4,98 23.82 19.85 24.15 (Continued on next page.) • Cr ■: : OtTLfOU (io home. ) 1 i t L S*80 2* SO £*00 1 -fSO 1 i 1 I S; ■ j • i ■■ -rg a. 1; '-'■■"•^ ' ■ ,LOIT : T9'SC SO'iO jeo*D( Ti'eo "bo- v'-. * T ■'. JSO'OO . Ji*50 i ie*02 ! J9'To , ' ..V J •-.!.; , V \ w ,1 • sy , ■ \ t ♦ I ■ S'Sf ; /■ • * - • ■ ^ • ••12 S'OO ^ ' S'^C \ ■ a2*S-2p\] • ep"*-'! ' [— . ...J 1 ♦s.\ . : J 1 2* JO j •:--oo • ss "93 j ■JJ'^O ■ 1 • ■ » ( TSSO I>- - Table 2 continued. — — — — ■ — 1 State 1 State State State 1 State j State Average i 1 average average average average average price Index price Tln-i -!-<:! ! 1947 ' 1948 1949 1950 1947-1950 19512/ 1952 1952 . — ■ Carrots : ( 1 2.85 Grate (75 Dounds) 1 2.40 5,40 2.70 2.40 3.22 Spring Crate \ 1 O pOUIlUO ) ? 70 3.15 2.55 2.40 2.70 3.75 Fall Crato V / o pounds ) \ ft, yo Cm OD O . cetings, seasonality of inshipments, and other causes. Cattle and calves are increasing in California ^^^f^^ "^^,^^^'0^^^',;^ head on fams, January 1, 1951, represented a gam of 1^^'°°° f ^^J^^J^iJ^^f was the largest inventory since January 19U7 (Form 3). lumbers had declined lach year^rom 19U7 to 1950. Gains during 1950, as compared mth l9U9, accompa- nied a dec'rase in marketings from 1,76U,000 to 1,582 000 -d an increase in m- shLpnents of from 617,000 to 9^3,000 stockers and feeders. Almo ^^^J^^/.f inventory increase was in beef aniraals~52,000 m cattle on leea, j , cows, and 66,000 in other beef cattle. .he suhcommi^t. SLra^^^^f 1a8:oSrorVpT St';vfr'l95r™^^^^^^ of ^^l>O0O f^n,J^^^^^^^ mate regarding 1951 assumes (a) that h^P'"^"^^. J^f^Si fiaughLrof approximate 985,000 head or I8 per cent over 1950, (b) that 1951 ^^^f ^^J^/^^^q California cattle and calves will approximate 1,U5 0,000 or 3 Per cent ^^^er iyi,u, and (c) th at the percentage of calf crop, ^^^^h ^^^^^'J/J^^ff half of ^951 shipments will be proportionate to last year. Data for first half oi 19b 1 support these assumptions. Declines amounted to P^^.'^^f I III in for iBMBdiate slaughter, 6 per cent for California stock killed and 8 pe^ cent for total inspected slaughter. Stockers and feeders shipped m, on the other hand, increased I6 per cent. The big movement in inshipments is yet to come during the l^st half of the year. The early movement probably was augmented by ^^ock from drouth areas of ?exas and New Mexico which will not be available for the fall movement. The -i'j uXj'.jJ a lo 19. FiEure II-Livestock numbers and poultiy Production in California; jjigure IX ^^^^^ ^^^^ estimates of 1952 attainable. (Source: Form 3) ^^^^^^ Numbers (millionsi) 27.5 20.0 12.5 5.0 0 1.0 Hens & Pullets 1 Jan ;(mii;. ions) POUi/TR^ NfllBfiRSj T aNI) PilObllCTiON: Turkeys Raised H i 1-4 ! H UM ITv; U>; oi a^' H; o m o^ .75 .5 .25 i jAbJUAkY 1 numbers; Milk Cows r Cows ! Mulels 1 SowisI [■ iFarb:'owied i Ewes 1 year & over All Sheep & Lambs ! 2.0 1.8 1.6 l.U 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 ,h .2 O H CM ir\ vTN vr\ O C3^ H r-1 H O H O^ H i-l O H in CM O vr\ O (> H H r-< CM O H CM ir> in cy> C3^ i-i iH rH 20. FORM 3 Numbers of California Livestock and Production of Livestock _ and Livestock Products; Estimates of 19^2 Attainable, wxth Gomparisonsa/ Item of livestock and livestock products Unit Reported for 1950 Reported or estimated for 1951 3 1952 attainable U 1 2 000 units On farms, January 1: Horses, mules, and colts Cattle and calves, all Cows kept for milk, 2 years Other cows, 2 years Sheep and lambs, all Ewes, 1 year Hens and pullets Nmber Number Number Number Number Number Number 116 2,709 903 559 1,819 l,3U0 21,3lli nil 2,872 885 597 1,867 1,367 21,Ul4U 112 3,100 885 620 1,900 1,U00 22,500 During year: Sows farrowed, spring Sows farrowed, fall Chickens raised (excluding commercial broilers) Commercial broiler production Turkeys raised Cattle and calves put on feedb/ Sheep and lambs put on f eedb/ Milk cows, average during year Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number 81 OO 28,170 23,U8U 7,035 650 180 813 85 68 32,U56 27,000 8,020 900 215 813 81 66 32,U56 30,000 8,500 900 220 813 Milk produced Eggs produced Wool produced Pound Dozen Pound 6,O2U,O0O 269, U17 15,5U7 6,025,000 270,000 16,02U 6,030,000 270,000 16,300 a/ Prepared August 30, 1951, by Special Subcommittee of California State Committee ~ on Agricultural Productive Capacity. b/ Twelve-month period beginning October 1 of preceding year. Sources: Reported data are official estimates of the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; other data are estimates of the Subcommittee. I ! i .-1, : J. X-^l X8- 21. low. 2' "Cattle put on reed" is not a ^ell-defined =f egcry in ^^""-^J^^f "J^:-- and ranges (Table 3)« production of cattle and calves includes ^^e aggregate of marke^^^^ slaughter, and change in Marketings, xn turn are .ade^up^of slaugh ro^^s^raSirirr-^^^^^ ^-^-^ ^ir fii- ^^age of 751,000, or h2 per cent, was first shipped into the state af s;oct:rra^rfefders whil^ the regaining 1 019,000 -PJ]-"^;^^^^^^^ California's basic beef and dairy herds, ^^-^l^^^^^,^^^^^^^^ 1 0,il5Y lo ..... .^iSfijeij 7Hv S'lsrifrrt'i's r 22 TABLE 3 Estimated Balance Sheet of Cattle and Calves, California, IP^Qa/ January 1, 1950 Calves raised Inship Death loss Marketings OutshipTsiaughterb/ Farm slaughter January 1, 1951 thousands of head Roof* animal R Cattle Calves Total 1,03U 200 1,23U£/ U19 U19 pxo 371 887 26 i;7 52 Ih 66 808 187 995 Ik 28 ii2 1,133 257 1,390£/ Dairy animals Cattle Calves Total 1,181; 291 1,U75£/ 707 707 61 5 66 2h hi 65 5 2 7 282 232 511; h 10 lU l,lli9 333 1,U82£/ All animals Cattle Calves Total 2,2l8c/ U9l£/ 2,709£/ 1,126£/ 1,126£/ 577 376 953£/ U5£/ 67£/ 112£/ 57£/ 16£/ 73c/ 1,090c/ Ul9£/ 1,509£/ l8c/ 38 c/ 56£/ 2,282£/ 590£/ 2,872£/ a/ The reported figures do not account for all numbers in balance sheet form because - only inspected Saughter is reported, and it is known that a considerable n^ber of newborn calves in dairy herds go to rendering plants. The "unbalance" of num- bers in the table is wholly allocated to dairy animals whereas a part correctly should be allocated to uninspected slaughter. b/ Inspected slaughter onlyj uninspected slaughter is not estimated. c/ Reported figures; the further breakdown of these totals are estmates of the "~ subcommittee . sources: Reported data are official estimates of the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics; other data are estimates of the Subcommittee as indicated. ."''1 ■ •. ^ ' t 1 t ! i i \ 00 ses > i i -r- . 1 . i A- . -. ! ■ I X^di ■ 1 .... ;.| • • .. i .1 23. increased them for two or three years. It is perhaps too early to predict mcreasea wieni xux p^n^f^r-n-ia arp definitely on the increase again. Cer- t'L^^^nHr JotS^r^riibf "ar: s?i.ulant= in that direction »:^koation is that Zs, even o£ questionable quality, are being sought ac- tively ty growers. The committee estmated that all sheep and lambs on fams and ranges would increase sStly to 1,900,000 by T^nary 1, ^952, compared with 1,867,000 for S^^rSd thS Se inc^easl would pome largely in breeding ewes (one-year old and over). The ambieulty of the tern "put on feed" is even more pronounoed for sheep and llSbs^" cattle when applied to -estern f^^I o^on.r -re.noT-tPd au compar 167 000 on feed on January 1, 1950, and 165,000 on January 1, ^^^ J^l {f^^ mated number to be put on feed is 21$,000 during 19^1 and 220,000 during lyi,^. Production from California farms and ranges includes the aggregate of mar- ketingsriSo?O008/, fam slaughter, 26,000; and ofthis'nS^ber flocks, therefore, was about 8lU,000. The committee estimated wool production at 1^,300 000 pounds in 19^2 is 276,000 pounds-2- per cent-above 1951. The projected wool clip is proper tionate to the estimated increase in stock sheep. Dairy Cows and Mil k Production . -The number of dairy cows two-years old and over - rrax^s JaSlary 1, IVbl, xs es tmated at 88^,000, the same as for 19U8^and 19k9 (Figure II). This is a reduction of 18,000 from January 1, 1950. Dairy c w inve?SriJs were reduced in 1950 mainly due heavier-than-usu^^^^^^ low producers stimulated by high prices for slaughter cattle. Some min^reduc tion came from a shift of land to cotton m local areas, ^ome of the anmals from such herd dispersals were bought by other daiiy ^^^^^^3""^ duction in dairy cow numbers was not as great as the reduction JJJ^^^^^ff °^ daSies. The nLber milked has remained equal to a year ' . Th^Q^Q^^^^^f estimates that inventories on January 1, 1952, will again be 885,000 head. The reported average number of cows milked in ^^50 was 81^3,000 head as com- pared with 810,000 during 19U9.. The number of cows milked during a year^ when there was no change in inventories, was 91-5 P^^.^^^J^ .H^S aSd ^52 on January 1. The subcommittee assumes this ratio will continue x" 1951 ^^/^^^ and, ?hfrJf ore, estimates that an average of 813,000 cows .vill be milked each year. Milk production per cow has been increasing steadily ^^^J^.J-^^^ when Cali- fornia dai?y cows averaged 6,880 pounds each. Average per cow in was 7^U10 pounds and this high level of production has continued into 1951. Milk proauc ?ion l^r^anuar^ though July 1951 averaged 3,050 pounds per cow, and the total 8/ Includes outshipments and inspected slaughter only. ,'..,7:--, 2U. .as 36,U30,OOO pounds hundredweight stati ^^'^ -^.nlrperijl'IfThf P^'^Ls ^^r^j^^f^ ^^^^^^^^^ - Horses and Mules -The subc„»mttee estimated '"^J """^^JS^'^^i/^f j^^^ decl ine at the rate 5f recent years and »m approximate 112^^0 head X, 1952, compared with llli.OOO on that date in 1951 and 116,000 in lyiu itigu " ChicKens and ^^^.--S^t'ar^eSiS in l7^l'o7Z l.lTlnfrT^ layer during the "rst seven months "^ "51 was slight y^ ^.^^^ ^^^^^ llU as compared with 116 per layer. ""^^ ^gg P egg-feed price ratios months, therefore, is If f^ =Sw;ver»e« accompanfed by increases in fhri^agrraUof fay!' ^Ss'^^^e wJIT^egga higher-'in .uly of 1951 than a year earlier. The egg-feed price -tio is expected to continue at ^^l^l^fyj^tifl rdfra^ri^SraJel: Z^Z Of i-^^^" /^^^^^ iTS^fsVT^s Dansion in 1952. The committee estimates the number of ^^"^^f ^ ^^if^^ °000 iTfZ^ if 1952, at 22,500,000, and egg production for 1951 at 261,333,000 dozen, and for 1952 at 270,000,000 dozen. California's 1951 estimated number of chickens raised, «f Yj^^w^Sre' uaxixoriixd. b X7^u. higher than last year (Figure is currently reported at 32,U56,000, 1^ per cen^ increase in hens and II). This large increase wxll easily permit the P^°Jf 1^3.^" ^g^. chickens pillets for next January. The committee estimates the 1952 number ol cnic raised at the same figure— 32, U56, 000. The phenom..a, growth of the brcij^r industry jn California du^^ing -''^si- World War II is common knowledge. It has '^^^""^".^^rj^^l^ oroduction. Price price ratios coupled with widespread increased J=""2„JJ„P^~tf These im- Ltios are favorable because •^^^^^J^'^^.tT^lCZ^^^- Traduction of =f :t1^:rhigfly°:ttfaftivrS r cSrumer m comparison with those for "red meats," hence the strong demand. The con^ittee estimates commercial broiler ^1%'^%%^'^,^^^^^^^ compared with 23,U8U,000 in 1950. ^he estimate for 1952 xst^^^^^^ 30,000,000. Actually, there is no r^t^°;^i.^f^i%f°^.f ^^J^eStly there are no wh^n commercial broiler production may ^^^f 1^^^. ^^"^^J* ^ indications of any slackening in the growth of this industry. The statements relating to broilers also apply in large -J--- *° ^^^f^'^ An added factor that has ^een ^portant is the^^^^^^^^^ most of the year in contrast to its ^^^^^^^.f ^^^^ for a continued on the other hand, that there is less room in the near lUture lo rapid rate of expansion in turkey production. ' '9/ ^relLninai^ estiiaates set California milk production in 1951 at 7,781 poimds per cow and 60,080,000 pounds hundredweight total. o: •s ad' J .3 ?UCi/ riji.il, be .iiX ilC o.ypj oiiiiJ jbnBd laajo efl^ no. 58 30Cfj3f!tCd'3S ^ u-..a ,:.v3.000tO36^O^ bnjG WOO i«q eoSuoq n.>,..f.nnn. ATnong Ma.ior Eist.ricts of California in 1^$^ Attainable productive C apacity ■!« PoTifnrnia showing sharp and important changes in The three major areas ^'^.^alifornia showing s P ^^^.^ the cropping pattern between ^95° an^^^^J^^^^^^^ed ?he greatest total shift in occur in 1952. The San Joaquin ^^1^^^ . ^JP^^^^^^^q qOO more acres were in cotton acreage between 1950 and 1951. iPP^°^^ti^Z°'aSal?I! potatoes, sugar beets, in 1951 than in 1950. On the other hand barley, J^^f ^^/^.^eage^n fallow, and grain sorghums all showed important d^'^^l^f ^^^^g?. g^rley and alfalfa idle! and pasture also was -^--^.^^^^^^^^^^ acres were showed decreases of well over 100,000 acres ^acn an > ^^^^ .^^ removed from the crops indicated. Some 200 000 ac^es were p /^^^g^derable newly developed land, rotation ^ ^1^°^' /^f ^^^^^.^^^tion Lcilities during the acreage of land was leveled and provided with irriga^^^ ^^^^ ^^^.^^^^ 19U9 and 1950 seasons chiefly through well irrigation, a major portion of this new acreage. The Sacramento Valley also experienced sharp chang^^^^^ tern between 1950 and 1951. It is -txmate^ by the ^-^^f^^^, 1^,3/ 89, 000 in decreased about 19,000 acres while barley ^^^^^^^/J ^,^^^3 19,000 acres, 1951. Rice, on the other hand, increased ^^^i^^^f^^^^^^^ted out above that wiih tomatoes somewhat near the If ^^r amount. It was PO^Je^^ °^ ^^^^ unfavorable weather, P^^^nting the planting of cereal c P , with the increases in rice and dry ^^^ans ^"^^^^ £ 1^50 and relatively improved cidedly unfavorable weather for ^f^Y^^^^f ^^^J^^^/Jesponsible for shifts of these price prospects ^f^^^ll^^,^^^^^^ in the direction S°?hrr95r:;op'paUern"^^^ ^et^en 1951 and 1952 in the Sacramento Valley. J + ^-p Pniifornia south of the Tehachapi Moun- The Imperial Valley and the rest of California ^ou^n tain Range made tremendous increases Percentagewise in cotton ac g P^^^ duction in 1951 compared with 1950. The jwnp in^perial Co^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ than 1,000 to about 38 000 f-^^^^^^J^.'^I roS^fes. It was the consensus of a ninefold increase— from 3,000 to over '^o*^^^^^ chief Iv grain sorghums, was the subcommittee that acreage of ^^^^ acres in the re- reduced about 10,000 acres m Imperial County^nd abou .^^^ ^^^^^^ ,^ mainder of the southern area. Ifech of ^^^J, ^^^^^^ditions already de- cotton; it represented a reduction ^^^Ja acreagfis being reduced in scribed. There is evidence, however, that aHalfa^creag^^ ^^^^^^ Imperial County and the remainder of the southern area, an Sons may occur in 1952. A similar '^^l^JTl^TZo'^^^^ after winter It also should be recognized, ^^fver, that double cropping ^^^^^ crops of vegetables has ^een quite typical of boty^^^^^^^ l^r^^ttee that, adapted areas in southern California. It is the^ju^ continue to be the under the projected level of pnces, cotton quite iiKeiy ^portant field crop south of the Tehachapi Mountains.