Luisiana State University LSU Digital Cmmns LSU Agricultural Experiment Statin Reprts LSU AgCenter 1949 Csts and returns n family-type sugar cane farms in Luisiana, 1946 and 1947 James P. Gaines Fllw this and additinal wrks at: http://digitalcmmns.lsu.edu/agexp Recmmended Citatin Gaines, James P., "Csts and returns n family-type sugar cane farms in Luisiana, 1946 and 1947" (1949). LSU Agricultural Experiment Statin Reprts. 516. http://digitalcmmns.lsu.edu/agexp/516 This Article is brught t yu fr free and pen access by the LSU AgCenter at LSU Digital Cmmns. It has been accepted fr inclusin in LSU Agricultural Experiment Statin Reprts by an authrized administratr f LSU Digital Cmmns. Fr mre infrmatin, please cntact gcste1@lsu.edu.
Luisiana Bulletin N. 438 March 1949 Csts and Returns n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1946 and 1947 By James P. Gaines and J. Nrman Effersn TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ROOM Luisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Cllege Agricultural Experiment Statin W. G. Taggart, Directr
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 7 Prcedure 7 TRENDS IN PRODUCTION, COSTS AND ORGANIZATION, 1938-1947 8 Changes in Vlume f Business and Yields, 1938-1947 8 Trends in Csts, Returns, and Earnings 9 Organizatin Changes ver the 10-Year Perid 10 Tenure and Capital Investment, 1938-1947 11 FARM ORGANIZATION AND EARNINGS, 1938-1947 11 Farm Organizatin, 1946-1947 12 Csts and Returns, 1946-1947 13 MAJOR AND MINOR FACTORS AFFECTING PROFITS ON FAMILY-TYPE SUGAR CANE FARMS 13 Majr Factrs Affecting Farm Prfits 15 Minr Factrs in the Organizatin and Operatin f Family-Type Farms 18 SUMMARY 31 APPENDIX 33
LIST OF TABLES Table page 1. Number and Size f Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms Surveyed in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area, 1938-1947 8 2. Average Csts and Returns per Farm n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 9 3. Csts and Returns per Tn f Cane Sld fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 10 4. Csts and Returns fr Family Farms in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area fr the Ten-Year Perid 1938-1947 12 5. Average Size and Yield and Other Related Infrmatin fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1946-1947 13 6. Csts and Returns fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1946 and 1947, 14 7. Relatin f Size and Yield t Organizatin and Earnings f 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 15 8. Relatin f Specializatin in Cane Prductin t Earnings fr 503 Family Farms in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area, 1946 17 9. Relatin f the Output per Wrker t Earnings fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 18 10. Relatin f Age f Farm Operatrs t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 19 11. Relatin f Age f Farm Operatrs t Farm Earnings When the Influence f Majr Factrs is Reduced, 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 20 12. Relatin f Educatin f Farm Operatrs t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 21 13. Relatin f Educatin f Farm Operatrs t Farm Earnings When the Influence f the Majr Factrs is Reduced, 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 22 14. Relatin f Race t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 23 15. Relatin f Race t Farm Earnings When the Influence f Majr Factrs is Reduced, 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 24
16. Relatin f Tenure t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 25 17. Relatin f Tenure t Farm Earnings fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 26 18. Relatin f Size f the Farm Family t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 27 19. Relatin f Size f the Farm Family t Farm Earnings fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 28 20. Relatin f Degree f Mechanizatin t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 29 21. Relatin f Degree f Farm Mechanizatin t Farm Earnings fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 30 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Table Page 1. Average Csts and Returns per Farm n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 33 2. Csts and Returns per Acre f Cane Grwn n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 33 3. Average Labr Returns t the Operatr frm the Sugar Cane Enterprise fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 34 4. Tenure f Farm Operatrs Surveyed, Family-Type Luisiana Sugar Cane Farms, 1938-1947 34 5. Livestck and Equipment n Family-Type Luisiana Sugar Cane Farms, 1942 and 1946 35 6. Distributin f Capital Investment n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1942, 1945, 1946 and 1947 36 7. Cst f Tractr Wrk n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 36 8. Csts f Operating Farm Trucks n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 37 9. Csts f Operating Farm Autmbiles n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 37
10. Relatin f Size f Farm t Csts and Returns fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana 38 11. Relatin f Yield per Acre f Sugar Cane t Csts and Returns fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana 39 12. Relatin f Output per Wrker t Csts and Returns fr Family- Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana 40 13. Relatin f Prprtin f Crpland in Sugar Cane t Csts and Returns fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana 41 14. Relatin f the Cmbined Effect f Superirity in Size, Yield, Intensity f Cane Enterprise, and Labr Efficiency t Returns frm Farming, Luisiana Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms, 1944 and 1946 42 15. Relatin f Race and Tenure t Farm Earnings and Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 42 16. Relatin f Parish f Residence t Farm Earnings and Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 43
Csts and Returns n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1946 and 1947 By James P. Gaines and ). Nrman Effersn INTRODUCTION In mst years since 1938, the Department f Agricultural Ecnmics f the Luisiana Agricultural Experiment Statin has cnducted detailed farm management and cst studies f family-type sugar cane farms in Luisiana. 1 Extensive and intensive examinatin f this reservir f ecnmic data has resulted in the discvery f many facts f great imprtance t the Luisiana sugar cane industry. Cntinuus study f these farms permits verificatin f facts already discvered, the discvery f ther facts, the bservatin f trends in csts and earnings, and the changes in farm rganizatin and practices that are f significance t the industry. The purpse f this reprt is t reveal trends in earnings, csts, and rganizatin that have becme apparent; present a detailed analysis f the financial status f the farms fr the tw mst recent years, 1946 and 1947; summarize imprtant facts that have been discvered and verified; and present the mst recent facts that have been btained. Prcedure The basic data fr these studies were cllected by the survey methd frm cperating farmers. Each year the same general methds f cllecting and analyzing the data were emplyed in rder t make the results frm year t year directly cmparable. Many f the same farms that were scientifically selected fr the first study in 1938 have been studied in succeeding years. In cases where the riginal cper atrs were nt available, the adjacent farms were included s that cntinuity f the data and size f the sample culd be maintained. Each prducer selected fr the sample was visited by a trained enumeratr wh cllected frm the farmer the detailed results f his previus year's farming peratins, including expenses, receipts, practices, and capital changes. As few f the small farmers keep detailed financial recrds, the infrmatin came largely frm their memries, supplemented by bills and receipts that had been kept. 1 A Farm Management and Cst Study f 500 Family-Sized Farms in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area, 1938 (Luisiana Experiment Statin Bulletin N. 314, February 1940); Csts and Returns frm 453 Family-Sized Sugar Cane Farms in 1940 (Department f Agricultural Ecnmics Mimegraphed Circular N. 25, March 1942); Ecnmic Aspects f Sugar Cane Prductin in Luisiana, 1941 (Dept. f Agricultural Ecnmics Mimegraphed Circular N. 26, June 1942); Csts and Returns n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938 t 1945 (Luisiana Experiment Statin Bulletin N. 420, June 1947); A Study f Majr and Minr Factrs Affecting Management and Returns n Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana (Dept. f Agricultural Ecnmics Mimegraphed Circular N. 86, September 1948). 7
In all years except 1943 and 1944, the farms studied cmprised frm 5 t 10 per cent f the ttal number f farms in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area. The riginal sample was weighted in accrdance with the imprtance f the sugar cane enterprise in each parish s that the data were representative f the area as a whle. TRENDS IN PRODUCTION, COSTS AND ORGANIZATION, 1938-1947 Farm rganizatin and peratin change with technlgical advancements, bilgical discveries, and changing ecnmic cnditins. Changes in farm rganizatin and peratin cause farm csts and farm earnings t vary. Therefre, mst prductin and cst trends can be assciated directly with ecnmic, technlgical, r bilgical develpments. Changes are nt the result f the whims f individual farmers. In examining sugar cane prductin and cst tendencies, and changes in farm rganizatin, the underlying physical and ecnmic causes were sught. Changes in Vlume f Business and Yields, 1938-1947 Frm 1938 t 1944, the average size f the farm business in the sugar cane area varied slightly frm year t year but displayed n tendency t fllw any particular pattern (Table 1). Since 1944, hwever, there is an indicated trend tward small acreages in cane and reduced acreage in ttal crps. The reductin f acres in ttal crps has been greater than that f cane s that there has been a slight increase in the percentage f crpland planted in sugar cane. This trend tward a smaller vlume f business was due apparently t the shrtage f available hired labr during the war years, which caused prducers t reduce acreages in line with the reduced supply f hired labr and familyy labr. 2 Annual variatins in sugar cane yields fllwed n particular pattern (Table 1). When climatic cnditins were favrable, yields were high; cnversely, when climatic cnditins were unfavrable, yields were lw. Over the ten-year perid, average yields were 19 tns f cane per acre. TABLE 1. Number and Size f Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms Surveyed in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area, 1938-1947 Item 1938 1940 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 Number f farms 500 453 467 110 110 508 503 500 Acres f cane per farm 41 35 35 44 42 32 25 26 Ttal acres in crps per farm 86 85 73 91 85 70 54 54 Yield f cane per acre 22 14 17 23 22 23 18 18 Tns f cane sld per farm. 835 460 605 937 841 691 431 435 2 Csts and Returns n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938 t 1945, Luisiana Experiment Statin Bulletin N. 420, June 1947. 8
: 364! Trends in Csts, Returns, and Earnings Csts, returns, and earnings have increased greatly since 1938. This was expected and can be directly related t changes in the general price level. Hwever, the significant pint is nt the amunt but the degree f change and relative variatins f the different cst and return items and measures f incme. Althugh average size f the farm business has declined in recent years, all farm expenses except hired labr and miscellaneus expenses have tended t increase (Table 2). The increases are due t an ecnmic factr general price level. The decrease in hired labr expenses can be attributed partly t the decline in size but mre t a technlgical imprvement the advent f the tractr and increased farm mechanizatin. The percentage f farms having tractr pwer increased frm 17 per cent in 1938 t 50 per cent in 1947. In 1938, hired labr cnstituted 43 per cent f ttal farm expenses, and in 1947, nly 28 per cent. The tremendus increase in machinery csts can be attributed t increased farm mechanizatin. The miscellaneus expenses have declined because they include many incidental items that are assciated with mule farm- TABLE 2. Average Csts and Returns per Farm n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 Item 1938 1940 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 Farm Receipts: Dllars Cane sld fr sugar* 3,075 1,689 3,169 5,407 5,524 4,840 3,273 3,709 Other crps sld 332 234 399 246 662 617 392 460 Livestck & livestck prducts... 81 96 80 70 74 61 64 86 Other incme 164 163 209 177 303 84 117 Ttal receipts 3,488 2,183 3,811 5,932 6,437 5,821 3,813 4,372 Farm Expenses: Hired labr 1,545 1,008 1,202 2,288 2,244 1,797 1,067 1,027 Unpaid labr** 208 215 266 340 312 286 224 339 i Fertilizer 131 140 151 235 280 218 193 226 Feed, seeds, and plants 79 100 108 145 141 97 148 170 Machinery & building csts 280 270 332 445 542 611 687 750 Land rent*** 283 195 354 574 585 585 452 498 Interest*** 410 418 494 669 568 373 406 All ther expenses 633 440 517 497 693 777 270 234 Ttal expenses 3,569 2,786 3,294 5,018 5,466 4,939 3,414 3,650 Incme Labr incme 81 603 517 914 971 882 399 722 Value f farm privileges 321 343 510 530 763 696 537 693 Labr earnings 240 260 1,027 1,444 1,734 1,578 936 1,415 Value f peratr's time 430 550 654 671 1,105 893 770 737 Return t capital 101 735 +227 +737 +535 +557 +2 + 391 Capital investment 8,200 8,360 7,280 9,880 13,380 11,360 7,460 6,927 *Ttal receipts frm cane sld, including gvernment payments. **Value f unpaid family labr at the ging wage rate, nt including the labr f the farm peratr. ***Includes rent at actual cst and interest n wned investment at 5 per cent f the depreciated assets. 9
ing; the trend has been tward fewer mules and mre tractrs. Land rent did nt increase as rapidly r as much as did ther expenses because it is nt affected by changing prices as much. Interest and depreciatin tend t be relatively fixed with regard t general price level and vary with the size f the capital investment. Sugar cane receipts are affected by variatins in size and yield s greatly that n significant pattern can be determined frm the "average per farm" data. Returns per tn f cane sld, hwever, increased 131 per cent frm $3.68 t $8.51 per tn (Table 3). As ttal expenses increased nly 86 per cent ver the crrespnding perid, prfits per tn f cane sld increased cnsiderably. This is a familiar situatin characteristic f agricultural price patterns f past decades. During inflatinary perids agricultural prices rise faster than csts and farmers are relatively prsperus; during price recessins, agricultural prices drp mre rapidly than csts and farmers are nt very prsperus. Preliminary infrmatin fr 1948 shws that sugar cane prices have receded significantly but that csts have remained at very nearly the same level. All available data indicate that sugar cane farmers shuld expect net returns t start declining sn and shuld make future plans with that in mind. 3 Organizatin Changes ver the 10-Year Perid The mst significant change in the capital rganizatin f sugar cane farms has ccurred in the type f pwer emplyed. Only 85 f 500 TABLE 3. Csts and Returns per Tn f Cane Sld fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1JM7 Csts and Returns per Tn Sld 1938 1940 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 Dllars Direct farm expenses 3.44 4.72 4.26 4.22 4.89 5.48 6.01 6.31 Rent and interest _...83 1.33 1.19 1.14 1.46 1.67 1.91 2.07 Ttal farm expenses 4.27 6.05 5.45 5.36 6.35 7.15 7.92 8.38 Receipts frm surces ther than sugar cane.49 1.14 1.06.56 1.06 1.42 1.25 1.53 Net cst f prducing sugar cane. 3.78 4.91 4.39 4.80 5.29 5.73 6.67 6.85 Ttal returns frm cane sld 3.68 3.67 5.24 5.77 6.41 7.00 7.60 8.51 Prfit frm sugar cane t pay peratr fr his labr.10-1.24.85.97 1.12 1.27.93 1.66 Value f farm privileges.38.74.84 Ttal cash and nn-cash prfits.57.88 1.00 1.24 1.59 frm sugar cane.28.50 1.69 1.54 2.00 2.27 2.17 3.25 Value f peratr labr.51 1.20 1.08.72 1.28 1.29 1.79 1.69 Capital investment per tan 9.82 18.17 12.03 10.54 15.90 16.44 16.08 14.77 Tns f cane prduced per farm. 890 521 661 1,005 890 727 464 469 Tns f cane sld per farm 835 460 605 937 861 691 431 435 'Related Csts and Incme data fr the 10-year perid may be fund in the Appendix. 10
farms studied in 1938 had tractrs and tractr equipment as cmpared with 250, r ne-half f farms studied in 1947 (Appendix Table 7). All farms still had mules in 1946, as tractrs are nt practical fr all peratins n small farms. Hwever, mst farms with tractrs had mre mules and mule-drawn equipment than were necessary t take care f incidental jbs. Many farmers reprted that they kept mules and equipment fr sentimental reasns nly. Any farm resurce which is nt used much r is nt necessary shuld be dispsed f because it impairs efficiency, increases csts, and reduces prfits. The number f autmbiles, trucks, and ther livestck remained at the same apprximate level (Appendix Table 6). Tenure and Capital Investment, 1938-1947 There have been sme changes in farm tenure in the area since 1938. Full wners have increased slightly in number, part wners have declined, cash renters have remained at the same level, and share renters have increased in number. Apparentiy many part wners have becme full wners (Appendix Table 4). Average farm capital has drpped smewhat, prbably because f the decline in size f the farm business that has taken place in the past few years (Appendix Table 6). FARM ORGANIZATION AND EARNINGS, 1938-1947 In Table 4, average receipts, expenses, incme, and size fr the farms studied ver the ten-year perid are presented. The data represent a simple average fr the ten years rather than a weighted average. A weighted average wuld tend t veremphasize the results f years when a relatively large number f recrds were used. Over the ten-year perid, receipts frm the sugar cane enterprise cnstituted 86 per cent f ttal farm returns. Sales f ther crps represented 9 per cent and livestck and livestck prduct sales nly 2 per cent f ttal receipts. These data are indicative f the highly specialized nature f farming within the area. Labr expenses, hired and family, made up 45 per cent f ttal farm expenses. Fertilizer purchases cmprised nly 5 per cent and feed and seed nly 3 per cent f ttal farm expenses. The average price received fr cane sld frm 1938 t 1947 was $5.96 per tn. Average annual grss incme amunted t $4,508 per farm, r $6.96 per tn f cane sld. Over the perid, average expenses were $4,049 per farm, r $6.22 per tn f cane sld. Labr incme, which is the return t the peratr fr his labr and management, averaged $459 per farm, r $0.74 per tn f cane sld. the value f prducts used frm the farm fr hme cnsumptin is included as incme, average incme was $1,004, r $1.60 per tn f cane sld. This means that family-type sugar cane farmers had an average cmbined cash and nn-cash incme f $84 per mnth fr the 1938-47 perid. 11 If
17.08 Over the same perid, mney invested in sugar cane farms returned an average f nly 2 per cent annually. At that rate, it wuld take the average family sugar cane farm 50 years t pay fr itself. TABLE 4. Csts and Returns fr Family Farms in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area fr the Ten-Year Perid 1938-1947 Average fr the 10-Year Perid Csts and Returns Per Farm Per Acre f Per Acre Per Tn f all Crps f Cane Cane Sld Dllars Farm Receipts: Cane sld fr sugar* 3 859 51.54 110.35 5.96 Other crps sld 417 5.63 12.05.65 Livestck & livestck prducts... 77 1.03 2.21.12 155 2.02 4.34.23 Ttal receipts 4,508 60.22 128.95 6.96 Farm Expenses: Hired labr 1,554 20.30 43.55 2.33 Unpaid labr** 273 3.69 7.89.43 Fertilizer 196 2.65 5.67.30 Feed, seed, & plants 121 1.69 3.60.19 Machinery & building csts 474 5.44 11.65.63 Land rent*** 438 5.95 12.73.69 Interest*** 468 6.21 13.30.72 All ther expenses 525 7.98..93 Ttal expenses 4,049 53.91 115.47 6.22 Incme t Labr incme 459 6.31 13.48.74 Value f farm privileges _ 545 7.44 15.90.86 Labr earnings 1,004 13.75 29.38 1.60 Value f peratr's time 724 9.80 20.97 1.13 Return t capital 203 2.72 5.81.33 Per cent return t capital 2 Capital investment, dllars 9,231 121 256 14 Acres in all crps 76 1 Acres in cane 36 Tns f cane sld 669 9 19 *Ttal receipts frm cane sld, including gvernment payments. **Value f unpaid family labr at the ging wage rate, nt including the labr f the farm pei'atr. ***Includes land rent at actual cst and interest n wned investment at 5 per ceat f the value f the depreciated assets. Farm Organizatin, 1946-1947 Tables 5 and 6 present average receipts, expenses, incme, and related infrmatin fr 503 family farms studied in 1946 and 500 studied in 1947. Mst f the farms included in the 1946 study were included in the 1947 study, s that the data are directly cmparable. Farms surveved in 1947 were abut the same average size as thse studied in 1946. Farms studied in 1946 had an average f 54 acres in all crps and 25 acres in sugar cane; thse studied in 1947 had 54 acres in 12
crps and 26 acres in cane (Table 5). Yields and per cent crpland in cane were abut the same in bth years. TABLE 5. Average Size and Yield and Other Related Infrmatin fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1946-1947 1946 1947 Number f Farms 503 500 Average farm capital Acres in crps Acres in cane : Tns cane harvested Tns cane sld Tns harvested per acre Tns sld per acre Per cent crpland in cane Per cent wning tractrs Per cent wning autmbiles Per cent wning trucks Per cent white peratrs Per cent Negr peratrs Per cent wners Per cent part wners Per cent cash renters Per cent share renters Per Farm 7,460 54 25 464 431 18.2 17.2 46 45 56 20 72 28 38 16 16 30 Per Farm 6,927 54 26 469 435 18.1 16.8 48 50 60 20 71 29 38 18 18 26 The percentage f farms using tractrs increased frm 45 per cent t 50 per cent ver the ne-year perid a significant increase. There was little difference in the distributin f farms accrding t race and tenure fr the tw years. Csts and Returns, 1946-1947 Althugh vlume f business and yields per acre were abut the same in 1946 and 1947, earnings were cnsiderably higher in the latter year. This can be explained by the fact that frm 1946 t 1947, prices received by sugar cane farmers increased t a greater extent than prices paid by farmers fr materials f prductin. Over the ne-year perid, the price f cane increased 12 per cent, frm $7.60 t $8.51 per tn, while ttal expenses increased nly 7 per cent, frm $7.92 t $8.38 per tn (Table 6). In 1946, farmers realized $399 per farm, r $.93 per tn f cane, as the return fr labr and management; in 1947, labr incme was $722 per farm, r $1.66 per tn f cane sld. Labr earnings, which is the cmbined cash and nn-cash return t labr, amunted t $936 per farm in 1946 and $1,415 in 1947. The net cst f prducing sugar cane in 1946 was $6.67 per tn as cmpared with $6.85 per tn in 1947. MAJOR AND MINOR FACTORS AFFECTING PROFITS ON FAMILY-TYPE SUGAR CANE FARMS Fur elements are needed fr the prductin f agricultural prducts: (1) land, upn which t grw the crp r keep the animal; (2) labr, 13
: 1 1 t perfrm the essential peratins; (3) capital, t purchase the needed materials and service; and (4) management, t rganize and supervise farm peratins. The success f any type f prductin depends upn the efficiency with which these fur factrs are rganized and utilized. TABLE 6. Csts and Returns fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1946 and 1947 1-1946 Average Average Average Average Average Average Csts and per per Acre per Tn per per Acre per Tn Returns Farm Cane Cane Sld Farm Cane Cane Sld Dllars Receipts Sugar cane 3,273 129 7.60 3,709 143 8.51 Other _ 540 21 1.25 663 25 1.53 Ttal 3,813 150 8.85 4,372 168 10.04 1947 Expenses: Fertilizer 193 7.45 226 9.52 Feed and seed 148 6.34 170 6.39 Repairs 78 3.18 80 3.18 Hired labr 1,067 42 2.48 1,027 40 2.36 Family labr 224 9.52 339 13.78 Land rent 452 18 1.05 498 19 1.14 Pwer equipment 302 12.70 300 12 69 T Depreciatin 307 12.71 370 14.85 Interest 373 15.86 406 15.93 Other csts 270 11.63 234 9.54 Ttal 3,414 135 7.92 3,650 140 8.38 Labr incme Farm privileges. Labr earnings... Operatr's labr. Return t capital 399 537 936 770 2.93 1.24 2.17 1.79 722 693 1,415 737 391 28 27 55 28 15 1.66 1.59 3.25 1.69.90 Ttal expenses (inch interest) 3,414 135 7.92 3,650 140 8.38 Misc. incme 540 21 1.25 663 25 1.53 Net csts _ 2,874 114 6.67 2,987 115 6.85 Sugar cane receipts 3,273 129 7.60 3,709 143 8.51 Net return frm cane t pay peratr fr labr & management 399 15.93 722 28 1.66 Studies f sugar cane farms ver the ten-year perid, 1938-1947, have attempted t determine the rganizatin f thse basic elements that leads t greatest success. The studies shw that successful farms have different characteristics frm thse bserved n unsuccessful farms. Thse characteristics are referred t as "factrs affecting prfits" and are discussed in sectins fllwing. Sme f the factrs affecting prfits are ecnmic and sme are physical. The physical factrs include: (1) variety selectin; (2) methds f planting, fertilizing, cultivating, and harvesting; (3) fertilizer selec- 14
: : 1,189 11 tin; and (4) disease and insect cntrl. The physical factrs are studied by the agrnmist, the hrticulturist, the animal husbandryman, etc., and will nt be discussed in this reprt. Only the ecnmic factrs causing ne prducer t have lwer csts and higher returns than anther in the same area and in the same year will be analyzed. In additin t the ecnmic and physical factrs, there are numerus ther factrs that influence farm prfits indirectly. In this reprt the ecnmic factrs clsely related t farm prfits are referred t as "majr factrs," and ther factrs are called "minr factrs." Majr Factrs Affecting Farm Prfits Analysis f the studies made ver the ten-year perid reveal that the majr factrs affecting farm prfits in the sugar cane area are: (1) yield; (2) size f farm business; (3) the degree f specializatin in sugar cane prductin; and (4) labr and equipment efficiency. Yield: Yield is the mst imprtant factr affecting prfits n family sugar cane farms. If yields are lw, prfits will nt be at a maximum, regardless f the magnitude f the ther factrs. Yield is the multiplier that gives effect t size. It csts almst as much t prduce an acre f cane that yields a small tnnage as it des t prduce an acre that yields a large tnnage. Yet the receipts frm the acre with the high rate f prductin will be cnsiderably greater. That extra tnnage will make a significant difference in the earnings f the tw acres f land. The relatinship f yields t farm prfits fr varius years may be bserved in Appendix Table 11. The relatinship f size and yield t farm earnings independently f the influence f each ther is presented in Table 7. TABLE 7. Relatin f Size and Yield t Organizatin and Earnings f 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Grup Size Farm Labr Labr Acres in Cane Sld Number and Yield* Incme Incme Earnings Cane per Acre Farms Dllars Acres Tns N. Small size Lw yield 163 17 436 5 10 89 Medium yield 373 274 689 6 18 37 High yield 372 110 730 6 24 33. Medium size Lw yield 219 454 15 11 71 Medium yield _.. 720 434 957 16 17 69 High yield 1,155 852 1,396 17 24 43. Large size: Lw yield 667 109 673 58 11 39 Medium yield 517 1,158 58 17 59 High yield 2,175 1,348 2,055 53 22 63 Small 9 r less acres in cane. Medium 10 t 24 acres in cane. Large 25 r mre acres in cane. Lw yield less than 16 tns harvested per acre. Medium yield 16 t 20.9 tns harvested per acre. High yield 21 r mre tns harvested per acre. 15
Size: Quite bviusly a large vlume f farm business is essential fr large prfits. Regardless f hw efficiently it is rganized and perated, a very small sugar cane farm cannt return large prfits. Wherever pssible, the farmer shuld cultivate as many acres as is physically pssible with available labr and equipment. Facts available lead t the cnclusin that under Luisiana cnditins, a size f farm f 100 acres in crps, f which 50 acres are sugar cane, is needed t maintain an efficient family-type sugar cane farm. 4 If yields are nt extremely lw, farm earnings increase directly with size. As lng as yields are large enugh fr returns per unit t exceed unit csts, then the larger the size f farm, the larger the prfits. Hwever, when yields are very lw, as in 1940, and unit csts exceed unit returns, then the larger the size, the greater the lsses (Appendix Table 10). Diversity r Specializatin f the Farm Business: In general, a specialized farm is ne that relies n a single surce f incme; a diversified farm is ne that relies n several surces f incme. Few farms are cmpletely specialized r perfectly diversified, s that making a distinctin between diversity and specializatin is a matter f degree. In this reprt, farms which btain mre than 80 per cent f ttal receipts frm ne surce, the sugar cane enterprise, are cnsidered specialized. By that criterin, mst farms in the area must be cnsidered specialized, as sugar cane receipts cnstitute an average f 86 per cent f ttal receipts fr the area as a whle. In mst farming areas, diversificatin is recmmended in rder that the factrs f prductin can be used mre fully and that the risks f depending upn ne surce f incme will be eliminated. Hwever, the many studies cnducted in the Luisiana sugar cane area shw that specializatin is mre prfitable fr all except very small farms (less than IP acres in cane). On medium and large sized farms, the greater the prprtin f crpland in sugar cane, the greater the farm earnings. On small farms, livestck r ther crps prduced alng with sugar cane and during the ff seasn add t farm prfits (Appendix Table 13). In view f the high prductivity f sils and favrable climatic cnditins in the sugar cane area, it is surprising that ne-crp farming is mre prfitable. This unusual phenmenn can be explained largely by tw factrs: (1) the lack f market utlets discurages the prductin f ther crps; and (2) the lack f lw-cst pasturage prevents extensive livestck prductin. The relatinship f specializatin in cane prductin t farm prfits is revealed in Table 8. The effect f size and yield was reduced s that the influence f specializatin alne may be bserved. Because degree f specializatin was related very clsely t size, it was particularly necesi Csts and Returns f Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938 t 1945, Luisiana Experiment Statin Bulletin N. 420, June 1947. 16
sary t reduce the effect f size. Largeness is cnducive t increased specializatin in that it permits the utilizatin f the factrs mre fully and ecnmically. TABLE 8. Relatin f Specializatin in Cane Prductin t Earnings fr 503 Family Farms in the Luisiana Sugar Cane Area, 1946 Grup Size, Yield and Specializatin* Labr Incme Labr Earnings Small, Lw yield, diversified 188 Dllars 34 485 Acres 7 Tns 11 Per Cent 26 N. 129 Small, Lw yield, specialized 305 183 499 11 Small, High yield, diversified 533 278 854 8 Small, High yield, specialized 652 429 879 10 Large, Lw yield, diversified 423 84 493 31 Large, Lw yield, specialized 601 180 705 42 Acres in Cane Large, High yield, diversified 1,098 202 948 31 Large, High yield, specialized 1,861 1,298 1,910 48 e-mail 14 r less acres in cane. Large 15 r mre acres in cane. Lw yield less than 18 tns harvested per acre. High yield 18 tns r mre harvested per acre. Diversified less than 45 per cent f crpland in cane. Specialized 45 per cent r mre f crpland in cane. Cane Sld per Acre 11 23 20 12 13 20 Per Cent Crpland in Cane 55 27 53 36 34 60 Number f Farms Labr and Equipment Efficiency: As shwn earlier, labr is the mst expensive item invlved in the prductin f sugar cane. It lgically fllws that any imprvement in practices r equipment that decreases the csts f perfrming farm peratins will increase farm prfits. Therefre, labr and equipment efficiency is related directly t farm earnings. In general, the greater the utput per wrker, the greater are farm returns. It must be pinted ut that every methd f increasing the utput per man wrking n the farm des nt decrease csts and result in greater earnings. In sme cases the csts f using certain types f equipment may exceed the csts f hand labr required t d the same jb. Fr example, the efficiency f sme small farms was increased by using tractrs (Table 9). The man wrk units accmplished per man n small, lwyield farms increased frm 155 t 367, but labr incme decreased frm $+9 t $ 46 as efficiency increased. The per cent f farms using tractrs 17 26 74 13 32 30 113
332 666 in the same grups increased frm 6 per cent t 48 per cent. Quite bviusly increased efficiency was achieved by mechanizatin which was nt practical n the smaller sized farms (6 t 9 acres in cane). On mprlium and large farms, hwever, mechanizatin increased efficiency and reduced csts. TABLE 9. Relatin f the Output per Wrker t Earnings fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Grup Size, Man Acres Cane Per Cent Number Yield and Labr Farm Labr Labr Wrk in Sld Using f Efficiency* Incme Incme Earnings Units Cane per Tractrs Farms per Man Acre Small, lw yield, Dllars N. Acres Tns % N. lw efficiency... 114 9 413 155 6 12 6 84 Small, lw yield, medium efficiency- 345 196 605 235 8 11 10 48 Small, lw yield, high efficiency 264 46 614 367 9 10 48 23 Small, high yield, lw efficiency.. 152 603 150 7 21 14 28 Small, high yield, medium efficiency.. 652 381 922 242 9 22 16 49 Small, high yield, high efficiency. 322 913 365 10 20 30 10 Large lw yield, lw efficiency.. 366 723 274 174 24 12 38 8 Large, lw yield, medium efficiency.. 443 126 647 250 31 13 55 49 Large, lw yield, high efficiency 756 203 768 377 47 12 87 61 Large, high yield lw efficiency 143 777 174 169 29 20 100 7 Large, high yield, medium efficiency... 1278 687 1271 262 35 21 66 56 Large, high yield, high efficiency 2159 1496 2178 394 52 20 79 80 Small 14 r less acres in cane. Large 15 r mre acres in cane. Lw yield less than 18 tns harvested per acre. High yield 18 r mre tns harvested per acre. Lw Efficiency 199 r less man wrk units per man. Medium efficiency 200 t 299 man wrk units per man. High efficiency 300 r mre man wrk units per man. Minr Factrs in the Organizatin and Operatin f Family-Type Farms The minr factrs invlved in the rganizatin and peratin f family farms analyzed in this sectin are: (1) age f the farm peratr, (2) educatin f the farm peratr, (3) race, (4) tenure, (5) size f the farm family, and (6) degree f farm mechanizatin. Althugh sme f the factrs listed are mre scilgic than ecnmic in character, their influence n the majr ecnmic factrs and n general farm rganizatin is imprtant enugh t demand study. Knwledge f the rle played by these minr factrs in the verall structure will materially aid prgrams designed t imprve general farm rganizatin and peratin. T determine the relatinship f the minr factrs t farm earnings, the influence f the factrs having a majr influence n farm earnings 18
had t be reduced. Because f the expense invlved, it was impractical t attempt t eliminate the influence f all factrs except the nes studied. It was practical, hwever, t cntrl the mre imprtant factrs and apprximate the effect f the ther factrs. As specializatin and efficiency are related very clsely t size, it was necessary t cntrl nly size and yield t btain the desired effect f reducing the influence f the majr factrs. Alng with the relatinship f the minr factrs t farm earnings, the interrelatinship f the minr factrs and majr factrs was analyzed. In mst cases the minr factrs had mre direct bearing n majr factrs than n farm prfits, thus suggesting that an indirect apprach t farm rganizatinal prblems and farm earnings may be effective in sme instances. Age f Farm Operatr: Other things being equal, such as size f farm and yield per acre, yung farmers appear t have the advantage ver the lder aged grups in sugar cane farming. The data in Table 11 reveal that peratrs less than 40 years f age had higher earnings than thse 60 r ver. In the small-farm, lw-yield grup, fr instance, labr earnings averaged $534 fr peratrs less than 40 as cmpared with $282 fr thse 60 years r mre. In the large-farm and high-yield grups labr earnings varied frm $2,173 per farm fr the farmers less than 40 t $1,819 fr thse 60 years ld r lder. This variatin in earnings between the tw age grups can be attributed primarily t the fact that the yunger peratrs are able t d mre wrk themselves and thus hire fewer men. T, they can supervise the wrk f hired hands mre clsely than lder farmers. As evidenced by the greater percentage f yung farmers wning tractrs, the yung peratrs prbably adpt mdern methds mre rapidly than ld peratrs (Tables 10 and 11). TABLE 10. Relatin f Age f Farm Operatrs t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Management Factrs Age f the Farm Operatr 29 r 30 t 40 t 50 t 60 t 70 r less 39 49 59 69 mre Average per Farm Size acres in cane 28 28 24 22 26 24 Yield tns sld per acre 16 17 17 16 18 18 Specializatin per cent crpland in cane _ 55 48 46 42 50 44 Efficiency man wrk units per man 301 305 265 246 254 239 Per cent using tractrs _ 49 51 44 45 39 32 Average farm capital dllars 3,840 5,740 7,000 8,380 9,660 7,720 Years f frmal schling cmpleted _. 5.1 4.4 3.1 2.3 1.8 0.0 Number f farms _ 37 133 123 101 87 22 19
* 5s S 3 IS N O <H«00 N th OS CO CO CM N N w w t> m n c s s m c CO CM CM CO CO CO 1 &< a.3 as O V2 0) U O W) C c t# CM 00 s O CM 00 CM th O CO 00 CO CO CO OS I> O) rh H H 00 s s n a n CO in CM lo CM th CO CM th 00 CM OS CM CO CM t> cm th mm 95 S- a «j S be etf & 3 "d d * * ^ b 2 2 2 0) 43 4> ' > ' > i 000 ESS C/3 Cfl V2 a fcn a; O S bc "S & : "I >i S 1! 16 M S >> >> >> -r i i i u H h. 2 2 2 03 43 43 z z z GOO EES C/3 'SI SI $3 88 43 0) ft a 2 3 -d d Ch <M d d [3 JU.43 '>> * > il Ji A bc bc M 0) <U 03
Educatin f the Farm Operatr: Only 6 per cent f all the peratrs included in the 1946 study cmpleted as much as nine years f frmal schling. The 503 peratrs averaged cmpleting slightly mre than three years, with nearly ne-half, 46 per cent, having had nly tw years r less f frmal educatin. Farm peratrs in the high-educatin grups had much larger farms, btained higher yields, were mre highly specialized, and had greater labr and equipment efficiency (Table 12). When these majr factrs TABLE 12. Relatin f Educatin f Farm Operatrs t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Years f Frmal Schling Management Factrs 2 r 9 r Less 3 t 4 5 t 6 7 t 8 Mre Average per Farm Size - acres in cane 21 22 28 Yield tns sld per acre.. 17 17 17 30 16 53 19 Specializatin per cent crpland in cane 46 46 49 48 50 Efficiency man wrk units per man 260 266 286 266 349 Per cent using tractrs 33 36 57 66 100 Average farm capital dllars 5,840 5,840 8,080 5,880 20,000 were nt cntrlled, the high educatin grups had much larger earnings. But when the earnings f the educated and uneducated peratrs n farms f the same apprximate size and prductivity were cmpared, earnings were abut equal (Table 13). The educatin level was s clsely related t variatins in the majr factrs, hwever, that n distinct cnclusins culd be drawn with respect t the imprtance f educatin t farm success until mre intensive study has been made. Apparently, educatin has an imprtant, althugh indirect, effect n farm earnings and is a medium thrugh which farm management prblems can be apprached and slved. It is imprbable that advantage in the majr factrs can be attributed whlly t the educatin factr. Such advantage may be attributed largely t variatins in the wealth f parents, which als affects the educatinal level f individual peratrs. Race: The nly racial grups in the area are Caucasians and Negres, cmmnly called whites and Negres. Negr peratrs are cncentrated in the Pinte Cupee - West Batn Ruge and the St. Mary - St. Martin areas. The areas in which they are lcated generally are characterized by small farms. The average Negr-perated farm had nly 12 acres in sugar cane and btained yields f 14 tns f cane per acre (Table 14). Farms perated by whites averaged 31 acres f cane and sld 18 tns f cane per acre. Only 20 per cent f the Negr peratrs, as cmpared with 46 per cent f the white peratrs, were full wners. Tw-thirds f the Negr farms were rented. The average value f the white-perated farms was $9,480 and f the Negr-perated farms, $2,400. 21
1*1 3 fe J9 S O T-l "T n M a P ft 3 N N N H SO CN 00 CO CO CO JO a a g U ft m O _i 5 S a s Ph CJ n ^ t ^3 OS c Q ^ CO p c n in th CM A s j«s 5 CO CO ft a a a -a -a a a -a -a «a >7 >> 3? ft J3 a a -a -a >> >> ft,a 5 a a -a s 1 ft!a CO a t a a a *j -a T3 d 2 73 CO *3 tec t-c c3 cfl Li C3 be u 53 tafi
When all factrs were permitted t have their full influence, white peratrs had much larger earnings. If the influence f ther factrs was reduced, there was n relatinship between farm earnings and race (Table 15). Variatins in labr incme and labr earnings accmpanying racial differences are incnsistent and unpredictable when ther factrs such as size and yield are made equal. The mst imprtant pint t be bserved frm this analysis is the very clse relatinship between race and the majr factrs. There is a very great difference in the size and prductivity f white- and Negrperated farms. Prgrams designed t imprve prductin rganizatin and raise the general size and prductivity f family sugar cane farms shuld place particular emphasis n farms perated by Negres. Tenure: Tenure refers t the cnditins under which the land is held. The cmmn frms f tenure are: (1) full wnership; (2) part wnership; (3) cash renting; and (4) share renting. Of the 503 farms included in this study, 195 were wner-perated, 80 were part-wnerperated, 80 were cash renter-perated, and 148 were share renterperated. Farmers wh wn all f the land perated are called "wners." Thse wh wn part f the land perated and rent additinal land are called "part-wners." "Cash renters" are thse wh pay a definite amunt f mney per acre r wh pay a lump sum fr the entire farm. "Share renters" give a specified prprtin f crps as payments fr the use f the land. Of curse, there are sme "share-cash renters" wh pay cash fr land devted t feed crps and give a share f cash crps t the landlrd. Because the share f crps given the landlrd generally cmprises TABLE 14. Relatin f Race t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Management Factrs White Race Average per Farm Size acres in cane 31 12 Yield tns sld per acre 18 14 Specializatin per cent crpland in cane 49 40 Efficiency man wrk units per man 296 209 Per cent using tractrs 59 8 Average farm capital dllars 9,480 2,400 Negr Years f schling cmpleted by peratr 3.5 2.0 Number per farm family.:. 5 5 ; 17 14 Per cent wners i 46 20 Per cent part wners Per cent cash renters 9 33 Per cent share renters 28 33 Number f farms. ' 360 143 the bulk f land rent charges, farms perated under the share-cash leasing agreement are classified as share renter farms in this reprt. Share crppers are practically nn-existent in the sugar cane area. The expenses f the few that were fund were included as hired labr. 23
Cash and share renters furnish all labr, materials, equipment, and pwer and make minr repairs t buildings, fences, and rads. The landlrd furnishes land and buildings and pays fr majr repairs, imprvements, and taxes. Under the share rent agreement, the landlrd smetimes pays part f the fertilizer, feed, and seed expenses, but usually these expenses are brne entirely by the share renter. Generally, the share renter gives nly a prtin f the cane crp in payment fr the use f the farm but in sme cases, the landlrd takes a prtin f feed and ther cash crps, t. The mst typical arrangement is fr the share renter t give ne-furth f the cane crp. Hwever, sme pay ne-third, thers ne-fifth, and still thers ne-sixth. Share renters had the largest farms (Table 16). Share renter farms averaged 34 acres in cane, as cmpared with an average f 31, 23, and 11 acres in cane n part wner, wner, and cash renter farms, respectively. On the ther hand, cash renters were at the greatest disadvantage when the majr factrs were cncerned. Several explanatins fr this great disparity in the rganizatin and management f share and cash renter farms may be advanced, f which the fllwing is prevalent: Present wners f land in the sugar cane area are reluctant t sell r rent n a cash basis land that is s highly prductive that it returns a gd incme when prices are high if rented n a share basis. When the general price level declines, the returns frm share renting will decline, als, and pssibly mre land will be rented n a cash basis. TABLE 16. Relatin f Tenure t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Tenure Management Factrs Part Cash Share Owners Owners Renters Renters Average per Farm Size acres in cane 23 31 11 34 Yield tns sld per acre 17 18 15 16 Specializatin per cent crpland in cane 45 48 35 54 Efficiency man wrk units per man 281 284 198 291 Per cent using tractrs 48 64 14 48 12,800 8,940 1,340 2,980 Number f farms 195 80 80 148 T determine the influence f tenure n farm earnings, the farms were separated int tw grups wners and renters. When the effect f the majr factrs was reduced, the data indicated that renters generally had larger returns t labr and management than wners (Table 17). This results frm the fact that interest and depreciatin expenses chargeable t wner farms exceeded rental charges brne by renters. On family sugar cane farms in 1946, f curse, the financial advantages gained by tenurial status will change frm year t year as the relatinship between 25
i i CO Lft " S3 n t> q as S cj E rt t- bfi be
1 1 1 9 5 7 verhead and rent charges changes. Theretically, renters shuld be at the greatest advantage financially during perids f lw prices because rent tends t vary with the general price level and verhead charges remain relatively stable. Befre develping lng-time cnclusins, additinal studies f actual changes under varius prices cnditins must be made. The fact that this study shws renters t have a financial advantage ver wners des nt suggest that all family sugar cane farmers shuld be renters. There are many advantages cncmitant t private wnership which cannt be measured in dllars and cents. Hwever, it des suggest that many wners f small farms can increase their earnings by renting additinal land needed t make their farming unit mre efficient, but which they are unable t buy. It indicates that it is mre desirable t rent a large farm and invest available cash in equipment than t buy a small unit that is nt large enugh t permit efficient rganizatin and peratin. Size f the Farm Family: By "size f the farm family" is meant the number f persns living n the farm wh are dependent upn the farm fr subsistence. This factr affects farm earnings by increasing r decreasing the family labr supply and, cnsequently, by increasing r reducing farm labr csts. Whether size f family has any bearing depends largely upn the age and sex f children. It is believed that in mst instances family labr varies directly with the s'ze f the family and t make allwances fr age and sex will nly cmplicate the analysis. Cnsequently, n such mdificatins were made. The average farm family in the area had five members and was cmp:ed f a husband, wife, and three children. Only ne majr factr, size f farm, tended t vary with the size f the family unit (Table 18). The smallest families had the smallest farms and the largest families had the largest farms. Farms with medium-sized families were f the same apprximate size. TABLE 18, Relatin f Size f the Farm Family t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Number per Farm Family Management Factrs 2 r 1 Less 3 t 4 t 6 Average per Farm t 8 r Mre Size acres in cane 14 26 26 27 33 Yield tns sld per acre 14 17 18 17 17 Specializatin per cent crpland in cane 41 48 49 47 47 Efficiency man wrk units per man 219 284 284 267 270 Per cent using tractrs 18 48 47 40 67 Average farm capital 2,380 8,795 7,485 6,679 7,174 Number f farms 65 165 132 78 63 27
> 00.s 00 OS W h O th O W M CM CM CM CM O th CM CO CO CO CO s "ft" e2 s q CO 0 t 1^ 00 io CM CO 00 l> w a CO CM L<0 00 T- «D rh O O TH CO TH O G «J Li 0 S as CO 05 in :.. SB CJ CO 50 s s S s s s a SB 2 2 ^5 OJ D 2 2 rj«uo e e c/3 c/3 73 XTa 33
1 Tw Generally, farms with large families tended t have slightly larger earnings than thse with small families. The relatinship between size f the farm family and farm incme was neither cnsistent nr distinct, hwever, and n unqualified cnclusin can be gained frm the data (Table 19). Sme advantage can be gained by fitting the size f the farm unit t the available labr supply; hwever, the data d nt indicate that this practice has been fllwed in the Luisiana sugar cane area. In fixing the size f a unit t utilize family labr fully and efficiently, many things wuld have t be cnsidered, f which the mst imprtant is the type f pwer and equipment t be emplyed. Degree f Mechanizatin: In this study the degree f farm mechanizatin refers t the number f tractrs wned per farm. Of the 503 farms included in this study, 304 had n tractrs, 178 had ne, and 21 had tw r mre. Thrughut the study a very clse relatinship between size f the farm business and degree f mechanizatin was bserved. Table 20 reveals that farms with n tractrs had an average f 13 acres in cane, thse with ne tractr had 38 acres, and thse with tw tractrs r mre had 99 acres in cane. This clse crrelatin indicates that degree f mechanizatin may be a gd measure f size f farm business in the sugar cane area. The devices emplyed t cntrl the influence f size were nt adequate when applied t large mechanized and nn-mechanized grups. Therefre, the data fr thse tw grups were nt cmparable and n cnclusin culd be drawn. In the small-size grups, die effect f size was reduced enugh s that an analysis culd be made. Cmparisn f cst and incme data fr small mechanized and small nn-mechanized grups revealed an inverse relatinship between farm mechanizatin and earnings (Table 21). The relatively large number f small farms (less than 15 acres in cane) using tractrs was very surprising. Even mre surprising was the fact that these same farms kept the same number f mules after buying a tractr. TABLE 20. Relatin f Degree f Mechanizatin t Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Mre j Number f Tractrs r Management Factrs Nne One Average per Farm Size acres in cane, 13 38 99 Yield tns sld per acre _. 17 17 17 Specializatin per «ent crpland in cane... 39 52 52 Efficiency man wrk units per man _ 236 325 338 Average farm capital M 3,740 10,540 35,480 Number f farms _ _ 304 178 21 29
fl tj 5? S 03 u 3 be 3 CO ill «g a Ph tj OS CP O OJ O! TH <M 03 WW rl O ft J <.5 u S is m &.S -9 S S3 c 4* 0) 4) N s * 03 V 2 I I -3 2 T3 it s c/2 s s C/2 s
Obviusly if they had enugh pwer with three mules befre buying the tractr, they did nt need three after buying it. The data clearly indicate that unless a large amunt f custm wrk is dne, small sugar cane farms shuld hire tractr wrk r buy tractrs cperatively. The fixed csts (interest and depreciatin) invlved in wning and perating a tractr are very high. Only by prducing a large vlume and using the tractrs a great number f days can unit csts be reduced t such an extent that a tractr can be emplyed t advantage. Small farms d nt permit this extensive usage. Therefre, n small farms tractr csts exceed hired labr csts and tend t affect prfits adversely. Just what a size a farm must be befre it is prfitable t intrduce varius types f mechanical pwer and equipment cannt be determined frm this study. Hwever, there can be n set rules that will fit all cases. The intrductin f pwer equipment t the farming system must be gverned by many cnsideratins, and the size f the unit will vary with individual cnditins. Certainly mechanical pwer can be used t advantage n large farms, but it appears t be an expensive luxury n small farms that d n custm wrk. SUMMARY 1. Detailed farm management and cst studies f the peratin f familytype sugar cane farms in Luisiana have been cnducted by the Department f Agricultural Ecnmics f the Luisiana Agricultural Experiment Statin fr mst years since 1938. This reprt summarizes the detailed results f this series f studies fr 1946 and 1947 with cmparisns with the earlier perid. 2. Recrds were cllected frm 503 family-type sugar cane farms in 1946 and 500 in 1947. The sample studied represented between 5 and 10 per cent f all family-type sugar cane farmers in Luisiana in the recent 1946-47 perid and is similar in size and cmpsitin t the sample f farms surveyed in the lng-time 1938-45 perid. 3. The average size f the family-type sugar cane farms studied fr the 1946-47 perid was abut 75 acres, including 54 acres in crpland f which 26 acres were planted t sugar cane. Abut 37 per cent f these farms were perated by prducers wh wned their farms; 19 per cent were perated by grwers wh wned part f their land and rented part; 18 per cent were perated by cash renters; and 26 per cent by share renters. 4. The mst significant changes in the rganizatin f family-type sugar cane farms in Luisiana in recent years have been the shift twards smaller perating units maintained primarily with family labr and the change frm mule t tractr farming. The average planted acreage f sugar cane per farm declined frm 41 acres in 1946 t 26 acres in 1947. The number f farms having tractr pwer increased frm 17 per cent t 50 per cent during the same perid. Bth f these changes were caused primarily by increasing hired labr csts during the perid. 31
5. The average labr incme, r cash prfit frm sugar cane prductin t pay the peratr fr his labr, varied frm abut $400 per farm in 1946 t $722 in 1947. Returns were higher in 1947 than in 1946 because f increased prices received fr sugar cane; ttal incme frm sugar cane averaged $8.51 per tn in 1947, which was the highest pint in the recent histry f the sugar cane industry. Prices in 1948, hwever, declined t abut $7.20 per tn. 6. Fr the 10-year perid, 1938 t 1947, these family-type sugar cane farmers prduced sugar cane at an average cst f $115 per acre, r $6.22 per tn f cane sld, nt including the value f the unpaid labr f the farm peratr as a cst. Grss incme fr the perid amunted t $129 per acre, r $6.96 per tn. The average labr incme per year, r the amunt f cash remaining t pay the peratr fr his years wrk n the farm, averaged $459 per farm, $13 per acre f cane prduced, r $0.74 per tn f cane sld. 7. The financial results f this series f studies f family-type sugar cane farms shw that in any given year and under the same climatic cnditins and the same price structure, there are still variatins frm farm t farm in csts, returns, and net prfits. The majr ecnmic factrs influencing net returns were fund t be the size f the farm, the yield f cane per acre, the prprtin f the crpland planted t cane, and the relative efficiency in the use f man labr and equipment. 8. The mre efficient prducers in the area were thse wh maintained a size f farm f abut 100 acres in crps with 50 acres in sugar cane, thse wh btained average yields ver a lng-time perid f 20 tns per acre r mre, the large prducers wh specialized in sugar cane prductin and the small farm prducers wh maintained a diversified farming prgram, and thse wh maintained labr efficiency t the extent f accmplishing 300 days f prductive wrk per man fr the year. 9. In additin t the majr factrs affecting returns, certain minr factrs were als imprtant. The age f the farm peratr was fund t be imprtant, with the yunger farmers btaining greater labr efficiency and btaining higher returns; the level f educatin was imprtant in influencing majr factrs determining prfits; the tenant farmers with fairly large farms made greater earnings than the smaller wner-perated farms; and althugh mechanizatin paid n the larger farms, many f the smaller farms made lw returns when shifting t tractr pwer withut a sufficient vlume f business t justify the change. There was little r n relatinship between the race r clr f the farm peratr r the size returns frm sugar cane farming. f the farm family t 32
5.85 1940 1942 1942 1943 1946 APPENDIX TABLES APPENDIX TABLE 1. Average Csts and Returns per Farm n Family- Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 Csts and Returns per Farm 1938 [ j 1944 1945 1946 1947 Dllars Direct farm expenses 2,876 2,173 2,576 3,950 4,212 3,786 2,589 2,746 Rent and interest 693 613 718 1,068 1,254 1,153 825 904 Ttal farm expenses 3,569 2,786 3,294 5,018 5,466 4,939 3,414 3,650 Receipts frm surces ther than sugar cane 413 494 642 525 913 981 540 663 Net cst f prducing sugar cane 3,156 2,292 2,652 4,493 4,553 3,958 2,874 2,987 Ttal returns frm cane sld 3,075 1,689 3,169 5,407 5,524 4,840 3,273 3,709 Prfit frm sugar cane t pay peratr fr his labr 81 603 517 914 971 882 399 722 Value f farm privileges... 321 343 610 530 763 696 537 693 Ttal cash and nn-cash prfits frm sugar cane 240 260 1,027 1,444 1,734 1,578 936 1,415 Cash return per mnth 7 50 43 76 81 74 33 60 Nn-cash return per mnth 27 29 43 44 64 58 45 58 Ttal return per mnth t pay peratr fr his labr.. 20 21 86 120 145 132 78 118 APPENDIX TABLE 2. Csts and Returns per Acre f Cane Grwn n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 1938 1940 Csts and Returns per Acre 1943 1944 1945 1947 Dll ars Direct farm expenses 70.15 62.09 73.60 89.77 100.29 118.31 102.00 106.00 Rent and interest 16.90 17.51 20.51 24.27 29.86 36.03 33.00 34.00 Ttal farm expenses 87.05 79.60 94.11 114.04 130.15 154.34 135.00 140.00 Receipts frm surces ther than sugar cane 10.07 14.11 18.34 11.93 21.74 30.66 21.00 25.00 Net cst f prducing sugar cane 76.98 65.49 75.77 102.11 108.41 123.68 114.00 115.00 Ttal returns frm cane sld 75.00 48.26 90.54 122.89 131.52 151.25 129.00 143.00 Prfits frm sugar cane t pay peratr fr his labr 1.98 17.23 14.77 20.78 23.11 27.57 15.00 28.00 Value f farm privileges 7.83 9.80 14.57 12.05 18.16 21.75 21.00 27.00 Ttal cash and nn-cash prfits frm sugar cane.... 7.43 29.34 32.83 41.27 49.32 36.00 55.00 Value f peratr labr 10.49 15.71 18.68 15.25 26.31 27.91 30.00 28.00 Net gain ver value f peratr labr 4.64 23.14 10.66 17.58 14.96 21.41 6.00 27.00 Acres f cane per farm 41 35 35 44 42 32 25 26 33
1940 1940 1942 1942 1943 1943 1944 1945 1946~^ APPENDIX TABLE 3. Average Labr Returns t the Operatr frm the Sugar Cane Enterprise fr Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 Csts and Returns 1938 1944 1945 1946 1947 Csts and returns Dllars per farm : Incme frm sugar cane... 3,075 1,689 3,169 5,407 5,524 4,840 3,273 3,709 Net csts 3,156 2,292 2,652 4,493 4,553 3,958 2 874 2 987 Cash prfit t pay farmer fr his labr 81 603 517 914 971 882 399 722 Value f farm privileges... 321 343 510 530 763 696 537 693 Ttal prfit t pay farmer fr his labr 240 260 1,027 1,444 1,734 1,578 936 1,415 Csts and returns per hur: Cash return per hur f labr*.03.24.20.36.38.35.16.28 Nn-cash return per hur f labr*.12.14.20.21.30.27.21.27 Ttal return per hur f labr*.09.10.40.56.68.62.37.55 Farmer's estimate f value per hur f his labr.17.22.26.26.43.35.30.29 Minimum wage rate in the area**.15.15.18.23.25.27.40.40 Based n an are age f 10.1 mnths f 25 wrking days f full-time wrk n the farm as reprted by the farmers surveyed, r a ttal f 2,550 hurs f wrk fr the year. **Average f hurly rate as established by the U. S. Department f Agriculture, fr each year fr cmmn male labr, with harvesting rates weighted at 30 per cent and cultivating rates at 70 per cent. APPENDIX TABLE 4. Tenure f Farm Operatrs Surveyed, Family-Type Luisiana Sugar Cane Farms, 1938-1947 1038 j 1947 Farms in each Number tenure grup: Full wners 165 128 115 29 39 222 195 189 Part wners and renters... 156 155 123 43 29 66 80 93 Cash renters 80 69 110 12 25 106 80 90 Share renters 99 101 119 26 17 113 148 128 Ttal 500 453 467 110 110 507 503 500 Prprtin in p er cent each grup: Full wners 33 28 25 26 35 44 38 38 Part wners and renters... 31 34 26 39 26 13 16 18 Cash renters 16 15 24 11 23 21 16 18 Share renters., 20 23 25 24 16 22 30 26 Ttal» 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 34
: APPENDIX TABLE 5. Livestck and Equipment n Family-Type Luisiana Sugar Cane Farms, 1942 and 1946 1942 1946 Item Prprtin Number Average Prprtin Number Average f all Farms per Farm Value f all Farms per Farm Value Having the Reprting per Having the Reprting per Item the Item Item Item the Item Item Per cent Number Dllars Per cent Number Dllars Livestck Wrkstck 100 4 173 100 3 169 Milk cws 72 4 61 83 2 167 Other cattle - 38 6 44 40 8 36 86 7 113 74 5 183 Chickens 92 82 1 97 66 1 Pwer Equipment: Tractrs 26 lylzvo 45 1 1,474 Trucks 30 558 20 1 711 Autmbiles 60 446 56 1 333 Other Equipment: 16 45 19 A-l %l Disc harrw 44 52 30 87 Feed, grinders 20 25 5 s Fertilizer distri- 26 1 27 33 35 100 1 100 Hist and derrick... 16 1 423 Q 389 100 11 1 36 38 56 20 50 52 15 57 17 57 58 32 64 77 20 66 19 48 16 24 19 Plws, single 100 14 98 15 Riding cultivatrs... 64 68 60 62 Saddles _ 38 17 18 20 Shavers, cane 51 28 26 72 Spike harrws 100 2 a 79 8 Trailers 17 358 Wagns 100 2 115 93 136 Walking cultivatrs 82 1 31 46 29 Wrk gears 100 4 9 98 3 12 35
1945 APPENDIX TABLE 6. Distributin f Capital Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1942, Capital Items 1942 Investment n Family-Type 1945, 1946 and 1947 Average Investment per Farm Owners Renters All Farms 1945 1942 Dllars 1946 1947 Buildings Wrk stck Cattle Other livestck Tractrs Trucks Farm autmbiles Other equipment 5,643 9,299 2,981 2,439 3,428 4,333 1,725 2,052 9,071 13,632 4,706 4,491 747 822 520 644 318 350 155 187 214 232 105 134 1,279 1,404 780 965 915 741 537 860 14 488 662 751 231 213 5 110 143 118 372 250 169 130 187 147 862 1,115 271 770 780 679 2,002 2,438 459 1,498 1,772 1,695 12,352 17,474 1,239 2,463 7,393 6,927 APPENDIX TABLE 7. Cst f Tractr Wrk n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 Csts 1938 1940 1942 1945 1946 1947 Dllars Cst per day f use (9 hurs) : Fuel il and gasline 1.82 1.82 1.85 1.57 1.99 1.75 Lubricating il and grease _.50.28.30.38.34.27 Repairs.19.52.50.85 1.51.85 Other cash csts..37.09.17.28.44.28 Ttal perating expenses 2.88 2.71 2.82 3.08 4.28 3,15 Depreciatin 1.98 1.76.74 1.37 3.52 2.81 Interest.60.45.44.47.88.70 Ttal verhead expenses _ 2.64 2.21 1.18 1.84 4.40 3.51 TOTAL COSTS _ 5.52 4.92 4.00 4.92 8.68 6.66 Operating csts per hur.32.30.31.34.48.35 Overhead csts per hur _.29.25.14.21.49.38 Ttal csts per hur _.61.55.45.55.97.73 Number f tractrs studied 85 101 123 176 226 250 9-hur days f use per tractr 81.9 103.4 148.8 179.4 87.0 107.0 Average value per tractr (dllars) 1,079 939 1,298 1,664 1,474 1,503 36
1940 1942 i 1946 APPENDIX TABLE 8. Csts f Operating Farm Trucks n Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-1947 Csts 1938 [ [ [ 1945 1947 Csts per mile f use: Gasline Oil Repairs _ Tires Insurance License Cents 1.90 1.68 1.96 1.90 1.46 2.39.25.22.26.31.17.30.58.63.74 2.30 2.12 1l.U 8ft.47.22.46 1.58 1.41.87.18.30.26.22.20.12.45.37.16.10 1U Ttal perating csts... 3.83 3.42 3.84 6.46 5.46.5.60 Depreciatin Interest Ttal verhead csts TOTAL COSTS _ Number f trucks studied Miles f use per year Average value per truck (dllars) 1.59 2.80 1.49 1.44 2.91 2.09.32.70.46.56.73.52 1.91 3.50 1.95 2.00 3.64 2.61 5.74 6.92 5.79 8.46 9.10 8.21 78 129 142 121 101 99.. 5,578 4,126 6,056 6,085 4,885 5,712 361 580 558 679 711 596 APPENDIX TABLE 9. Csts f Operating Farm Autmbiles n Family- Type Sugar Cane Farms in Luisiana, 1938-19-47 Csts 1938 1940 1942 1945 1946 1947 CJeais Dllars Csts per mile f use: Gasline., 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.35 1.31 1.67 Oil...'......16.15.12.31.17.25 Repairs.25.35.74 1.46 2.08 1.58 Tires.24.25.15.80.67.49 Insurance.06.10.07.05.05.04 License.16.19.06.06.06.05 Ttal perating csts 2.06 2.23 2.32 4.03 4.34 4.08 Depreciatin.68 1.49 1.44.94 1.36.84 Interest.25.33.42.50.34.21 Ttal verhead csts.93 1.82 1.86 1.44 1.70 1.05 TOTAL COSTS 2.99 4.05 4.18 5.47 6.04 5.13 Number f autmbiles studied 281 270 279 255 282 298 Miles f use per year '7,720 6,332 5,330 5,509 4,917 5,870 Average value per car (dllars) 380 420 446 548 333 247 Per cent f use fr farm 55 48 83 62 64 51 37
I I c O r< t> t> l> Mi CO CO Tfl 00 00 1> in in t> t> (O cm m i> O CO to CO CD CM CO CM CO it) 00 OS O t OS CO O CO CO CM lo OS m rh 00 rh CM rh Tt* O M OS lc ^ OS M rh CM rh CO It) N K) 19 O ih H 00 Tf OS CO O rh SO <# I> ~" CO rh t t -* * CM CO CO OS OS CO 00 CM 00 rj* OS m I> CM l> LO Tt< l> 00 CM 00 CO It) It) O CO CM CM SO m Tf c in It) CM O OS m cm e «S a S O g J J» 2 S 2 a
I CO 00 00 I> (O K) OS la CO 00 <M CO m SS cm t- m th 2 S» w 10 ^ m * s O 4> CM 00 CO CM m s l> I> rh rh >>n c CM CM W rh A 3 n w Is w a ^ 1 5 g M C5 M O ft if! CM C5 CM th i-i m c ft T-i m in * 2 *2 3 ft th 00 00 00 th f) U5 t> "* m N m cm m 3 2 3.a CO «> ft cm m 00 CM CM 00 th 00 t> ft l> rh CM 00 t-h cm m -* 2 in cm CM ft!.0 tj BP «S S 8 Vi $ 3 CM CM rh CM 00 rh 3 cj 00 00 I 2 00 CO 00 O 00 rh in "# 00 rh c m 1 05.2* c S «C a; 3 5? j3.9 > E PS u " ft 45 6 B?3 *%< fa S a fa si a) cs fa H J fai j
CS cm?2 th SO CO CO to OS H h W i W 00 CM lo t> «* m cm t m n t> ri ft CO t rn 9 9 n n» w w t> OS t- CO 00 CO rh cm n m n m «) 13 t in OS i> i> in m t th th r( H th * Tf m t> i> cd *H b 3 ft M n th M< m rt* CO CO CM tn th f OS rh ft >> H 3 O CO rh CM c" CM t rh rh lo t CO CM S i> t TH s m ^ cm O t> O) 00 N (O rh CO CM CO l> 3^ I 85 Cm!C O l() Tf W O I rh CM w O CO CO CO rhcococorh-"* in I CM CM CM 3 c Th c in th M -H ^ 00 CM O CM rh C5 CO 00 rh 50 ^ a c 3 S be jc W2 O g h 9, -a a ft.g h J2 «s w a a S rq t J c «H CL, ft X ft «.«ft cs a w 3 H 55
I I N H 00 CO CO OJ (M IH HI W N N HJ 93 ifl fq cm m c cm m i> th (35 lo 00 CM Tf 25 CO 22 th cm m m i> H* OS n m CQ hmw m m fl a 9 S 00 CO l> c» TH CO CO* S3 c in s i> i> t>i M «O N OS CO th" cn ft 2 u»" CO U as c m CD c t TH N I> CO M ffi 09 O SO CO t> ri ffl N CO OJ t> O OI Cl O) ffl c rt m fl M ffl OS T3 00 CO CM Tj< CD O W MO M h/ in 05 in in fl m th m cm c c th m lo 00 th in CO CD CO cm cm h< m cm H M M Tf t TH CM m CO m TH CM e l m 00 M C5 t> O tn m tt c N H lo C> CO CO c fl $ O a CM O CO l> l> IO ts (35 lo c m c c m CM TH TH CM TH TH CM c m CO CM tn io m i> m th Tt< CO cm m CM CO hi M.s 2 *d.5 a C ft O cc Sh a *!.5 «9 fl Q k. H "*H +> fl Q. Si l2 fi S O s a 03 fa J fa J
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Relatin f the Cmbined Effect f Superirity in Size, Yield, Intensity f Cane Enterprise, and Labr Efficiency t Returns frm Farming, Luisiana Family-Type Sugar Cane Farms, 1944 and 1946 1944 1946 Number Average Number Average f Labr f Labr Farms Incme Farms Incme Number Dllars Number Dllars Belw average in all 4 factrs 23 71 118 24 Abve average in 1 f 4 factrs 34 401 128 125 Abve average in 2 f 4 factrs _ 17 649 104 275 Abve average in 3 f 4 factrs 23 910 98 332 Abve average in all 4 factrs 13 4,642 56 2,146 APPENDIX TABLE 15. Relatin f Race and Tenure t Farm Earnings and Varius Management Factrs fr 503 Family Farms in the Sugar Cane Area f Luisiana, 1946 Acres Cane Per cent Number Race and Tenure Labr Labr in Sld Using f Incme Earnings Cane per Acre Tractrs Farms Dllars Acres Tns Per cent N. Negr wners 52 573 10 15 11 28 Negr part wners 239 607 17 12 15 20 Negr cash renters 312 670 6 15 0 48 Negr share renters 297 661 16 15 13 47 White wners 290 924 25 17 54 167 White part wners 389 1,039 35 20 80 60 White cash renters 555 1,035 17 16 34 32 White share renters 754 1,283 43 16 64 101 42
t> (O tn to «N t r-i CO l> «N Ifi 00 CQ 00 S g 1-1 3 4) O O th n rl fl s O W) es 5 C5 CM 05 00 0) 0).2 a O 3 i I «O S.SB t» d «is 09 M 95 0) g «rt 112 O n.5 fl " C " & O O m u ^5 A U O -M J) t- t» Oh <J C3 CS a, a.