Arizona Agriculture 1962

Item Type text; Book

Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)

Download date 13/05/2018 10:08:53

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/313887

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Extension Publications

The Extension Publications collections in the UA Campus Repository are comprised of both current and historical agricultural extension documents from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Arizona.

This item is archived to preserve the historical record. This item may contain outdated information and is not intended to be used as current best practice. Current extension publications can be found in both the UA Campus Repository, and on the CALS

http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/ Publications website, If you have questions about any materials from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

pubs@cals.arizona.edu collections, please contact CALS Publications by sending an email to:

the 1961 figure becomes $518 million.

Two relatively small changes havebeen made in Table 1 over that of lastyear. First, only one column is givenfor 1961—that of a gross value figure.Admittedly, this figure includes somedouble counting in the case of hay andfeed grains which are fed in Arizona.It includes in all livestock figures avalue of some animals sold both offranch and off feed, and a value ofanimals shipped in from out-of-state.

On the other hand, there are prod-ucts sold or utilized in large volumewhich are not statistically measurableunder present conditions and whichare not all included in the gross cashreceipts aggregate. Examples of thisare roadside markets, other directfarmer-to-consumer sales, and farmproducts such as milk and eggs usedby farmers on the farm.

Second, minor adjustments havebeen made in some of the 1960 valuefigures due to changes which weremade in the final estimates of receiptspublished after the release of ArizonaAgriculture last year. In accordancewith this policy, 1961 figures aremarked ''preliminary/' This will per-mit small statistical adjustments andwill conform with other statistical re-porting in the state.

Increases in value were made allalong the line with the exception ofvegetables, feed crops, poultry andeggs, sheep, and certain miscellaneous

livestock. Cotton and citrus made not-able gains.

Cotton receipts were up $11.5 mil-lion, or 8 percent, due to higher pricesand higher yields; this despite a reduc-tion of 33,000 harvested acres. Citrusshowed an increase of more than $4million, or a 22 percent gain. It shouldbe noted that grapes, with a value of$2.1 million has this year been in-cluded with the citrus figure.

Other gains were made by cattleand calves, $2.2 million, and dairyabout $1.0 million.

Government payments were upfrom $2.2 million to $4.5 million dueprimarily to the 1961 Feed Grain Pro-gram.

The increasing importance of saf-flower, and the horticultural productsof nursery stock and cut flowers,boosted "Miscellaneous" crops by 20percent.

The decline In vegetable incomewas due mainly to decreased lettuceprices. Potato income was also downeven with an acreage increase. Priceswere down for alfalfa hay whichaccounted for much of the $1.3 mil-lion decline of receipts. Diversion offeed grain acreage cut income in thatsector $.8 million, but which incomeis more than accounted for in the in-creased government payments.

Cotton, cattle, and vegetables ac-counted for 73.7 percent of the totalcrop and livestock value.

Agricultural PricesPrices for agricultural products dur-

ing 1961 were a mixed variation ofincreases and decreases as compared

to a year earlier (see Table 2 af thetop of page 5).

Increased prices were most nptable

buildings per farm, the increase in sizewas even more marked.

Grouping of farms by size indicatesthe expansion taking place in size ofArizona farms. The number of farmsunder 100 acres decreased nearly 50

percent during the 1950's. Those inthe 100 to 259-acre group declined25 percent but the number of farmsabove 500 acres increased. In I960some 20 percent of the farms had1,000 or more acres, compared with13 percent in 1950.

Farm ProgramsThe Federal government's agricul-

tural programs in 1961 directly affectedproducts grown on about two-thirds ofArizona's cropland. Sheep and dairycattle are the only livestock directlyaffected by government 'programs.Major Arizona crops included in gov-ernment programs are: cotton, barley,sorghum grain, corn, and wheat.

Under the Emergency Feed GrainProgram of 1961, Arizona farmers whocomplied with the provisions of theprogram were eligible to receive pay-ments for acres diverted from theproduction of corn and sorghum grain,and to receive support prices for otherdesignated feed grains grown bythem. Those farmers not participatingin the program were not eligible for"diversion" payments or price support•or their feed grains.

Arizona cotton farmers no longerhad the choice of "Plan A or Plan B"for 1961 as they did in 1959 and 1960.Total cotton acreage declined from

434,000 in 1960 to about 401,000acres in 1961. Arizona's 1962 allot-ment for upland cotton is 370,644acres and for extra long staple cottonis 42,433 acres.

Another federal farm program ofimportance to Arizona is the federalmarket milk order, which includesapproximately 97 percent of the milkproduced in the state. Through thisorder the farm price of milk is estab-lished, on a formula basis, for fluid(Class I) and manufacturing (Class II)uses, and all receivers of milk pay auniform price. This program has beenhelpful in stabilizing the Arizona dairyindustry.

In addition to the above govern-ment programs for stabilizing farmprices and income, Arizona farmersand ranchers participated in agricul-tural conservation programs under theConservation Reserve feature of theSoil Bank and in the Agricultural Con-servation Program.

Farm SurplusesThe great majority of production

from Arizona farms and ranchesquicklyfinds its way through commercial chan-

nels to meet market demands. Verylittle goes into stagnant governmentinventories. Although Arizona has pro-

_6 —

vided the nation with approximately1.4 percent of its total crops by valueduring the past half decade, it is re-sponsible for less than an estimated.09 percent of the CCC investment insurplus inventories as of June 30,1961.

Although few Arizona commoditiesare directly affected by farm pro-grams, government handling of sur-pluses produced in other areas isvitally important to the agriculture ofthe state. The current national policyto support agriculture faces threealternatives: (1) cut production, (2)build up increasingly burdensome in-ventories, and (3) find worthwhile andeffective ways to use our expandingagricultural productivity. The "Foodfor Peace" effort attempts the third, in

order to reduce pressure on the othertwo choices. It is possible, however,that production cuts for certain cropswill still be necessary to avoid intoler-able inventory build-ups.

To the extent that genuinely worth-while uses are found for agriculturalcommodities, their costs could becharged to those purposes in the Fed-eral budget instead of to the supportof agriculture. The American peopleshould be aware that this tax moneyis being used to purchase a valuableservice which American agriculturecan provide to advance the foreignpolicy and other purposes of the entirenation. An analysis of this entire sub-ject is begun in Progressive Agricul-ture in Arizona for January, 1962.

LandAn extensive overhaul of the na-

tional land laws is in the mill. In themeantime, no new applications forhomesteading are being accepted. Ofgreatest interest to Arizona agricultureconcerning this action by the Bureauof Land Management is that the BLMis rejecting all applications for home-steads on Federal land in areas whereground water is being mined.

Actually, this BLAA policy is 10 yearsold in Arizona, but has now beengiven official status by the Secretary ofthe Interior and has been extended toall the public land states. According tothe Department, "Henceforth, wher-ever possible, the Department of theInterior will conduct its land manage-ment activities on Federal lands in amanner to promote the conservation

of water supplies In its land disposi-tion programs, the Department willavoid actions which would endangerthe supply of adequate water for exist-,ing users or encourage the unwisedissipation of water reserves."

Another action relating to Federalland in Arizona that is of deep con-cern to some Arizona farmers is thetangled dispute over the status andfate of the "Colorado River squatters."In the spring of 1961, the Departmentof the Interior announced a plan forsettling the long-standing dispute. Theplan included the following require-ments:

1. The squatters will be expectedto sign a disclaimer statement

•7 —

acknowledging Federal owner-ship.

2. Those who do so will be givenpermits to use the lands theynow occupy for approximatelytwo years, subject to acreagelimitations in case of agriculturaluse, if they acknowledge Fed-eral ownership and if they agreeto pay reasonable rent for pastand future use. They will acquireno interest in the land and nopreferential treatment will beaccorded them in the adminis-tration of the program.

This generally worded statementwas given more specific meaning in a"compromise" offered by the Depart-ment of the Interior in June, 1961. Assummarized by the Arizona Farmer-Ranchman (July 1, 1961), the mainstipulations are these:

A key concession is four and ahalf years to pay back rentals, in-stead of two. Determination of backrent, and of the future annual rate,is to be under a complicated for-mula.

The squatters must also repay, infour annual installments, all acreagereserve and other payments theyhave received from the Departmentof Agriculture.

First of all, the squatter must signan application in which he admitsthat the land he occupies belongs tothe U. S.

Professional appraisers will goover every parcel and fix its fairannual rental under present condi-tions. For determining back rent,that figure is to be multiplied by 20;from the result of the multiplication,

$360 will be deducted as an allow-ance for permanent improvements.

As an example, Cohen mentionedthat the appraisers might decide on$25 as a fair rental. This would bemultiplied by 20 giving a total of$500. From $500, $360 would bededucted, leaving $140. The $140would be divided by 20. The result,$7, would be the annual rent, back-ward and forward. (Not $25; that'sjust a figuring point.)

The occupant would be chargedthe full rent for one year back, andhalf-rent for the second year back,making a total of $10.50 that mustbe paid in four yearly installments.At the same time the current rentof $7 would be paid.

Permits are to run for four yearsunless the Department decides thatthe land should be used for someother purpose; then the permitteewill be given 90 days to harvest hiscrops and take off his movable prop-erty. If he is not notified to the con-trary, 90 days before expiration ofhis permit, it is to be automaticallyrenewed for four years. . . .

The squatters are feeling a biteasier, but not completely confidentthat their future is without a cloud.

The last sentence above was pro-phetic, for by August when the firstcontrast applications were mailed tothe first few "squatters," the burden-some requirements became a reality.The occupants of the land, in order toobtain a permit to remain on the landfor four more years (subject to termi-nation on 30 days notice at any timethat the Bureau of Reclamation declaresthat water supplies are inadequate),must have done the following beforeJan. 1, 1962;

Q |

1. Pay rent for the last half of 1961.

2. Pay rent for the entire year of1962.

3. Pay 25% of the amount de-manded as back rent for use prior toApril 20, 1961.

4. Repay 25% of all payments re-ceived from the Department of Agri-culture in the Acreage Reserve andACP programs.

The last requirement has caused themost resentment; the first three have

not been objected to as unreasonable(except as to the appraisal levelsplaced on the land by the governmentappraisers) but are a cause for concernbecause of the financing problem theypresent to the affected farmers.

(For a complete and informativesummary of this whole "incrediblycomplicated squatter" problem, seethe Arizona Farmer-Ranchman forSept. 23, 1961, p. 6.)

WaterDuring the year ending in the spring

of 1961, total water use in Arizonawas 7.2 million acre-feet, the same asthe amount used during the previousyear. However, surface flow diver-sions provided 200,000 acre-feet more(2.7 million acre-feet) and pumpingprovided 200,000 acre-feet less (4.3million acre-feet) than in 1960.

Underground water levels con-tinued generally to recede as they willcontinue to do as long as withdrawalexceeds recharge, an excess which isnow in the neighborhood of 3 millionacre-feet. The greatest declines con-tinue to occur in parts of AAaricopa andPinal counties where about three-fourths of the ground water pumpageoccurs. Lifts in some localities in theseareas appear to be approaching theireconomic limit (approximately 500feet) under conditions of present pricesand technology.1

The Supreme Court of the UnitedStates has not yet issued its ruling in

the Colorado River water suit betweenArizona and California. The recom-mendations of the Special Masterappointed by the Court to conduct thehearings have been in the hands ofthe Court for a year. Final argumentsby the parties relative to the SpecialMaster's recommendations have beenpresented to the Court. It should notbe long before this long-standing issuewill be settled—it is hoped in favor ofthe Arizona contention.

While Arizona has been waiting, theBureau of Reclamation, with $100,000of funds made available by the Legis-lature, has been busy re-examining the15-year-old plans for the Central Ari-zona Project, reconsidering what theypropose and re-estimating costs and

1 Annual Report on Ground Water in Arizona—Spring 1959 to Spring I960. W. F. Hordtet al. Wafer Resources Report No. 7, ArtzonaState Land Dept. and Geological Survey, Uf S.Dept. of the Interior, cooperating.

benefits in the light of current condi-tions. The revised report is now underreview in the Bureau and is scheduledfor early release. If the Supreme Courtrules in favor of Arizona, plans will beready for immediate submission to theCongress for authorization to constructthe Central Arizona Project in order toput to beneficial use whatever addi-tional Colorado River water will, bythe ruling, be made available to Ari-zona.

Useable stored water in Arizonareservoirs at the end of 1961 wasabout two-thirds of the long-termaverage in the San Carlos, about 50percent larger than the long-time aver-age in the Salt and Verde system, andslightly above the long-time averagein the Colorado River reservoirs. Al-though supplies of stored water appearample (except in the San Carlos), theyare materially below their levels of ayear earlier (again, with the exceptionof the San Carlos)—down abouli a

fourth in the Salt-Verde, and about 5percent in Lakes Mead and AAohave

The surface-water supply outlookfor the 1962 irrigation season is goodAbove average runoff during the lasttwo months of 1961 and above aver-age snow cover on the watersheds onJanuary 15 of 1962 indicate a favor-able level of reservoir storage. Snowcover on the Salt River watershed is251 percent of average, 131 percentof average on the Verde, and 380 per-cent of average on the upper Gila. Anadditional favorable factor is the highlevel of soil moisture at the higherelevations which may be expected toproduce desirable ratios of runoff tosnow cover.1

1 Water Supply Outlook for Arizona as ofJanuary 15, 1962. USDA-Sotl ConservationService, Salt River V alley^ Water Users Asso-ciation, and Arizona Agricultural ExperimentStation, cooperating. Issued by the State Con-servationist, Soil Conservation Service, Phoe-nix, and by the President, Salt River ValleyWater Users Association < Phoenix,

Useable Stored Water

Reservoir

San Carlos (Gila)Combined storage, Salt

and VerdeLakes Mead and

AAohave

Dec. 31/61acre-feet

70,040

907,700

19,704,000

Dec. 31,'60acre-feet

569

1,226,000

20,912,000

Lortg-Time Averageacre-feet

105,500 (32 years)

604,000 (51 years)

18,400,000 (26 years)

Agricultural CreditThe agricultural credit situation con-

tinues favorable for Arizona as awhole. Some farmers and ranchers are

overextended, but the majority are ina sound financial position. Amplefunds are available for loans at mod-

— 10-

erate interest rates, and loan paymentdelinquencies and carry-overs continueat a relatively low level.

The general trend toward use ofmore credit is continuing in the state.Over the past five years the annualincrease in the volume of farm realestate loans outstanding has averagedabout 8 percent, a somewhat higherrate of increase than for the 50 UnitedStates as a whole. The increase in useof real estate credit is associated withthe expansion which is going on insize of units, the transfer of propertyfrom "old timers" to operators withless equity, the rise in land values, andthe increase in requirements for work-ing capital. These factors probably willcause a continued increase in use ofreal estate credit in the coming year.

Less complete data available fornonreal estate loans indicates a sub-stantial increase also has occurred inrecent years in use of this type ofcredit, though the upward trend hasbeen somewhat more erratic, and dur-ing the past year, less marked thanearlier. Lending institutions generallyexpect nonreal estate credit require-ments of farmers and ranchers againwill increase during the coming yeardue to a general increase in operatingcosts, an expansion in size of units, theincrease in the extra long staple cottonallotment, and a probable increase inthe number of cattle on feed in Ari-zona.

As we enter the year 1962, thesupply of funds available for agricul-tural loans is fully adequate at interestrates a little lower than a year earlier.However, indications are that as theyear progresses credit will become lessplentiful and its cost will increase.With economic conditions improvingthroughout the country, business willemploy more and more credit, which

will eat into the over-all supply avail-able.

Moreover, if the tempo of businessactivity increases, the Federal ReserveSystem may restrict credit expansionthrough open market operations and/or changes in bank reserve require-ments as a means of restraining expan-sion and stabilizing the economy. Thus,the supply of loan funds available toagriculture may be somewhat reducedfrom present levels, but undoubtedlycredit will be adequate to cover soundcredit requirements of farmers andranchers.

Interest rates on loans likely willincrease during the coming year. De-mand for credit associated with theprobable expansion of business willtend to cause the price of credit toincrease. Moreover, the recent changein Regulation Q which permits banksto pay higher rates on time depositsmay be a factor causing interest ratesto increase slightly.

Success in use of credit depends inlarge measure upon the caliber ofmanagement and the size of business.Capable managers generally havelittle, if any, trouble in meeting theirloan payments, whereas poor oper-ators often have trouble. Size of unitis important since even a capable man-ager has little opportunity for develop-ing an efficient and profitable businesswithout adequate resources with whichto work.

Moreover, deficiencies in size ofunit generally are associated .withinadequate owner equity. This situa-tion generally cannot be rectified byextension of more credit, since theoperator will lack the repayment capac-ity and the risk bearing ability to carrythe added credit load. Ability to repayshould be thoroughly analyzed, Both

— 11 —

tures consumed in Arizona in the yearended June 30, 1959, contained49,438 tons of nitrogen. This com-pares with 19,261 tons of phosphorus(P2Or>) and 1,837 tons of potash (K2O).

On alfalfa, phosphorus is the prin-cipal plant nutrient applied. On othercrops a larger percentage of the acre-age is fertilized with nitrogen thanwith phosphorus, and more pounds ofnitrogen 1han of phosphorus areapplied per fertilized acre. Practicallyno potash is used except on vegetablesand potatoes.

Intensive crops such as vegetables,potatoes, and citrus fruits receive aheavier application of plant food,especially nitrogen, than do field cropssuch as cotton, grain, and hay (Table 3).

Practically all the fertilizer appliedby Arizona farmers is used on irrigatedland. Only 8 percent of the acreageof nonirrigated cropland is estimated

to have been fertilized in 1959—andthat at a very low rate.

Liquid fertilizer is becoming increas-ingly important, particularly as asource of nitrogen. In 1959, approxi-mately 50 percent of the nitrogenapplied on Arizona farms came fromanhydrous ammonia and other liquidfertilizers.

It should be emphasized that thefigures discussed herein represent esti-mates of the actual use of commercialfertilizers by farmers in 1959 and notrecommendations for fertilizer use.Consult your local County AgriculturalAgent for recommendations for a par-ticular situation.

Fertilizer use differs in various loca-tions in the state. The lower the eleva-tion and the longer the growingseason, the more fertilizer is used,generally speaking. On cotton, forexample, the following are estimateddifferences in the use of nitrogen fer-tilizer in various areas:

Group of Counties

Yuma, MohaveMaricopa, PinalPima, Graham, Greenlee, Cochise,

Santa Cruz

State Average

Percentage ofAcreage

Fertilized

95%92%

75%

89%

Lbs. of NitrogenApplied per

Fertilized Acre(average)

165 lbs.120 lbs.

95 lbs.

121 lbs.

Cotton

Arizona's 1961 cotton crop includingboth upland and American Egyptianproduction totaled approximately

825,000 bales. This was a slight dropfrom last year's crop of 849,000 bales,but resulted in an over-all increase in

According to variety test demonstra-tions conducted on test plots by TheUniversity of Arizona, indications arethat the average turnout ranges be-tween 1 and IV2 percent higher.Deltapine is, however, susceptible toVerticillium Wilt.

Arizona Acalas have acquired a finereputation over the years, and industryleaders are anxiously watching for anyadverse effects which this recent influxof the Deltapine variety may have onthe acceptance of Arizona cotton, thestate's most important crop.

Domestic mill users almost unani-mously denounced the impending shiftto Deltapine production In Arizona.Thus far, however, there is little evi-dence that buyers are discountingDeltapine or mixed growths sufficientlyto offset the yield advantage from pro-ducing this variety.

The 1962 state upland cotton acreageallotment including Arizona's share ofthe national reserve has been set at370,644 acres. This represents a cutof 4,055 acres from last year's allot-ment and some 44,000 acres from thetotal allotment available under Plan Bin 1960.

Arizona short staple growers, hav-ing observed the success of the SupimaAssociation in promoting the extra

long staple cotton, have already signedup over 60 percent of the 1962 uplandcrop in the newly organized CottonProducers Institute. Membership is vol-untary, and includes a fee of $1.00 perbale.

American-EgyptianAbout 29,000 bales of American-

Egyptian cotton were produced in Ari-zona as compared to a total of 30,900bales for 1960. This decline In totalproduction was a result of a 500-acrecut In acreage allotments combinedwith a 26-pound decrease in lint yieldper acre.

The Supima Association of Americahas proved most effective, not only insecuring many new markets for Amer-ican-Egyptian cotton, but in promotinglegislation favorable to its relativelysmall group of member-producers.Mainly through the efforts of this asso-ciation the 1962 extra long stapleallotments for Arizona have been in-creased approximately 60 percent toa total of 42,000 acres.

Seed of the new Pima S-2 varietywill be available in quantity for thefirst f\me this year. Claims for S-2 arehigher yielding, faster ginning, andbetter adaptation to machine pickingdue to its shorter growth habits.

HayPrices paid Arizona producers for

alfalfa hay were generally lower in1961 than in 1960.

Salt River Valley prices averaged$23.80 per ton baled in the field, whilegood quality alfalfa sold for $32 perton f.o.b. warehouse in January. Thisprice dropped to $26 by May (Fig. 1at top of page 17).

New crop hay started at $28 to $30in mid-March and settled rapidly to$24 to $25. These prices held untilmid-June when very hot weather be-gan. Prices for summer hay rangedfrom $19 to $21 and recovered to $24to $25 for last-cutting alfalfa duringOctober, November, and December,

In the Yuma area, alfalfa price move-

Seed Crops

Acreage of Bermudagrass harvestedfor the first crop in 1961 was 11,700of which 7,400 acres were commonBermudagrass and 4,300 acres weregiant strains. The second crop totaled7,200 acres, of which 6,600 acres werecommon and 600 acres were giantstrains. Totals for the first and secondcrops represented decreases from ayear earlier—19,300 acres were har-vested compared with 24,300 acresharvested in 1960.

Average Bermudagrass yields wereup to 433 pounds per acre comparedto 352 in I960; consequently, produc-tion did not decrease proportionallywith acreage. Combined production ofthe first and second crops for 1961 was8,352,000 pounds, compared withtotal production of 8,552,000 poundsthe previous year.

Both of these years showed increasesover 1959 and 1958 when productionwas 6,760,000 pounds and 6,975,000pounds, respectively. Common Ber-mudagrass continued to dominate pro-duction in 1961 with 6,088,000 poundscompared to 2,264,000 pounds ofgiant grass seed.

On June 30, 1961, the Crop andLivestock Reporting Service estimateda carryover of old-crop Bermuda seedat 1,715,000 pounds (1,485,000 bydealers and 230,000 by growers)which was much above the 390,000pounds held a year earlier,

Bermudagrass seed prices decreasedfrom 1960. The average equivalentprice to farmers of all seed was $25.50per 100 pounds for the entire 1961crpp. This compares with $30.90 forthe 1960 crop. Growers received$23.00 per hundred pounds unhulled

equivalent for the first crop and $22 00for the second crop of common Ber-mudagrass seed; the giant strainsmoved at $33.00 per hundred and$28.00, respectively. Total value ofthe 1961 crop was $2,131,000.

Alfalfa seed production was up from1960. All indications are that 24,000acres were harvested compared with20,000 In 1960, and a 1950-59 ten-year average of 32,150 acres. Esti-mated average yield for the state was175 pounds per acre, which continuedthe declining trend in yields since theearly nineteen fifties.

Production of alfalfa seed for 1961was 4,200,000 pounds, up from the3,800,000 pounds of last year. Aver-age price was estimated to be $26.50per hundred, a slight increase overthe $25.10 of last year. Total value ofthe 1961 crop was $1,113,000.

Sugar beet seed is another importantseed crop in Arizona. During 1961,4,177,000 pounds were produced on1,283 acres for an average yield of3,257 pounds per acre. A contractprice of $18 per hundred for themonogerm varieties and $16.50 formultigerm was paid. The total value ofthe crop was $748,483.

The new monogerm type has domi-nated production in recent years. Outof 1,228 acres contracted in 1961, allbut 55 were monogerm varieties.

In addition to these major seedtypes, Arizona produces small amountsof range and pasture grasses whichmay become of increasing importancein the future.

Oil Seed CropsThere was a strong revival of interest

in oil producing seeds during the pastyear. Most all the oil seed crops canbe grown in Arizona and provide alogical economic alternative to barleyand cotton. Safflower, flax, soybeans,peanuts, castor beans, and sesamewere harvested in the state during1961, and the outlook is for consider-able growth in acreage for some ofthese in the immediate future.

It was safflower that showed themost expansion, rising from 3,500acres in 1960 to approximately 13,000acres this year. Gila is the predominantvariety, yielding an average of about2,600 pounds per acre. A contractprice of $78 per ton at mill point rep-resented an increase of $4 per tonover the 1960 crop.

The outlook is bright for safflowerin that the market is not in surplus.Both domestic and export demand isstrong due to the wide variety ofusage as a cooking fat and in indus-trial products such as paints and var-nishes.

Castor beans are not living up tothe expectations of several years back.

Less than 500 acres were harvested,a decline over a year ago, but whichseems to represent the trend all overthe United States. Shatter losses inharvesting seemed to be one of thereasons for this decline.

Soybeans are also plagued by har-vesting losses and until new shatter-resistant varieties are introduced forboth these crops they will have alarge barrier to overcome in competingwith more profitable crops.

Approximately 350 acres of flaxwere harvested in Yuma county.Boosters of flax would like to see thisacreage increased. They maintain thatcultural practices, especially properirrigation, hold the secret to higherprofits from this crop. Price of flax wasstrong in 1961, resulting in a substan-tial increase planted for harvest in1962.

Peanuts harvested remained at aboutthe same level as last year—approxi-mately 600 acres. This is a bit belowthe state acreage allotment of about700 acres, all of which is allotted toYuma and Pima counties.

Sugar BeetsEfforts to obtain a sugar beet acre-

age allotment for Arizona continue.Hearings were held in Washington,D. C, in May, 1961, before the Com-mittee on Agriculture of the House ofRepresentatives. The hearings dealtwith the matter of new areas and newgrowers for sugar. At these hearingsthe Governor of Arizona, the Chairmanof the Governor's Sugar Committee,the Dean of the College of Agricultureof The University of Arizona, and

others presented arguments for estab-lishing a sugar beet acreage allotmentfor Arizona.

Additional allotments for domesticproduction of sugar are related to thenational policy the United States fol-lows with reference to Cuban sugar.If a sugar beet acreage allotment weregranted to Arizona, and if a sugar fac-tory or factories were constructed inthis state, Arizona farmers could profit-ably grow sugar beets for sugar.

— 22-

Vegetables and MelonsDuring the vegetable crop year

1959-60, 50,067 cars of vegetablesand melons were shipped from Ari-zona. Of this total, lettuce accountedfor 34,548 cars; cantaloup and othermelons 5,968; all potatoes 2,464;watermelons 2,290; carrots 1,327; andgreen onions 1,676. Thirty-seven dif-ferent produce items were shipped incommercial quantities during the year,manifesting the versatility of the Ari-zona vegetable industry.

The lettuce industry went through arevolution in packaging methods withthe cardboard carton several yearsago. Another major change took placewhen shifts were made to new produc-ing areas in Aguila, Willcox and Eloy-Casa Grande.

Now, in less than a decade, still athird change of wide significance isthreatening to challenge the flexibilityof Arizona lettuce producers. Refer-ence is made to the cellophane wrap-ping of individual lettuce heads atpoint of production. It is too early toconclude what the outcome of thisinnovation will be, but several ques-tions are relevant: Does the customerwant individually - wrapped lettuceheads? Will savings in transportation,waste, and other cost items make itpay? Are premium prices sufficient andwill they continue? And, is wrapping

lettuce better in the field or at a pack-ing shed? One result of this change isthat it permits brand identity of theproduct all the way to the retail pro-duce counter, which was not possiblebefore.

Potato acreage planted increasedagain in 1961 to a record 10,578 acres,which yielded an average equivalentof 225 hundredweight per acre. Totalstate production was 2,385,841 hun-dredweight. Queen Creek led potatoproduction with 5,642 acres; Phoenixhad 2,597; Yuma 1,658; Casa Grande-Eloy 341; and Harquahala 340. Reportsare that Yuma will produce few, if any,potatoes in 1962.

There is an increasing trend towardproducing potatoes for processing.This is a national trend, not just inArizona. Almost half the 1961 cropwas processed and this will increase in1962 from all accounts.

Lettuce acreage totaling 58,318acres was divided as follows: SaltRiver Valley, 31,864 (fall 14,234,spring 17,630); Yuma, 11,238; Aguila9, 191 (fall 4,611, spring 4,580); Will-cox, 6,025 (fall 4,085, spring 1,940).This is a slight increase over the 57,201acres of the 1959-60 season. Salt RiverValley figures include lettuce shippedfrom the Harquahala and Eloy-CasaGrande areas.

Citrus and GrapesShipments of all citrus crops in 1961

exceeded those of a year earlier. Pro-duction in terms of packed boxes isshown in Table 10. Value of produc-tion was also up from 1960. The valueof 1961 production, amounting to

$15.8 million, exceeds that of a yearago by almost four million dollars.

Much of this can be attributed to thecomeback of lemons, the value ofwhich increased from $2,084,000 to$5,404,000. Oranges increased in

— 23 —

Ianeous 544. Estimates by the Agri-cultural Agent in Yuma point out thatby the end of the 1962 fall plantingseason, total citrus acreage will bemore than 18,500 acres. It should benoted that these acreages refer toplanted, not bearing, acreages.

Valencia oranges constitute about95 percent of proposed new plantings.Approximately 50 percent of the citrusacreage in Yuma is absentee owned.

A great advance in citrus handlingbegan during 1961 when an improvedbulk-handling, power-driven loaderwas introduced by the Arizona CitrusGrowers Cooperative. It is estimatedthat trucking labor has been reduced50 percent and gasoline consumptioncut by 20 percent. Much closer controlof picking and handling operations ispermitted with resultant savings.

The 1961-62 citrus crop in Arizonapromises to be a good one with respectto both fruit quality and price. Thelate fall-winter Navel orange crop isreported to be a record crop. A severefreeze in Texas damaged fruit in thatarea and the early market is againstrong.

The Arizona Fruit and VegetableStandardization Service reported thatgrape growers had a successful year,with high prices and good yields foreveryone in the business. This was thefirst year that grapes came under theStandardization Act. Approximately9,200 tons (550 carlot equivalents)were shipped from 1,989 acres. Over80 percent of the acreage is in centralArizona. Total value of the 1961 cropwas $2,123,000 compared w i th$1,856,000 in 1960.

Beef Cattle and Calves1

The gross cash value to Arizonafarmers and ranchers for the periodDecember 1960 to December 1961 isestimated at $147.8 million comparedto $145.6 million for the period De-cember 1959 to December 1960. Cattleand calves shipped into the state fromJuly 1960 through June of 1961 werevalued at $52.3 million. The value ofthe cattle shipped into Arizona a yearearlier was $53.6 million. The net cashvalue (gross value minus value of in-shipments) of cattle sold in Arizonain 1961 was $95.5 million comparedto $92 million for 1960.

The reason for the increase in thegross cash value and the net cashvalue during 1961 was the increase inthe number of cattle marketed out offeedlots. The United States Departmentof Agriculture estimated that 509,000

head of cattle and calves were mar-keted out of the feedlots in Arizonafor December 1960 to December 1961,while 462,000 head were marketedout of Arizona feedlots during the cor-responding period a year earlier.

Outshipments of cattle and calvesout of Arizona during the last monthof 1960 and first eleven months of1961 totaled 656,837 head comparedto 614,540 head a year earlier. Inship-ments of cattle and calves for theperiod July 1960 through June of1961 is estimated to be 454,392—alittle over 11,000 head less than that

xData on number of cattle on feed, inshipmentsand outshipments of cattle and calves, thenumber of beef calves produced in Arizona,and commercial slaughter of cattle and calveswere taken from' reports published by theU. S. Department of Agriculture, StatisticalReporting Service, Phoenix, Arizona,

— 25-

shipped into the state during theperiod July 1959 through June ofI960.1

The fact that there has been a de-crease in the number of cattle andcalves shipped into the state whilethere was an increase in the numbersof cattle marketed out of the feedlotsindicates that more Arizona producedfeeder cattle and calves were fed inArizona during 1961 than \n 1960.

The total commercial slaughter ofcattle for the twelve months endingDecember 1, 1961, increased over thata year earlier, while commercial calfslaughter decreased slightly. Commer-cial cattle slaughter during the periodwas estimated at 176,000 head, or153,366,000 pounds live weight,while commercial slaughter for the

1lnshipments of cattle and calves are laggedfive months due to the cattle staying in thefeedlots from 80 to 210 days. A major portionof the cattle shipped into the state are feederanimals and go directly into Arizona feedlots.

twelve months period ending Decem-ber 1, 1960 totaled 159,800 head, or135,749,000 pounds liveweight.

Commercial calf slaughter was esti-mated at 12,300 head, or a total liveweight of 5,018,000 pounds for theperiod December 1, 1960 to December1, 1961, compared to 12,600 head or6,177,000 pounds of live weight forthe period ending December 1, I960

The value of gain put on in Arizonafeedlots in 1961 is estimated at $42.2million compared to $40.7 million in1960. The 1961 calf crop is valued at$25,7 million, while the 1960 calf cropwas valued at $24.2 million.1 Thevalue of other beef cattle produced onArizona ranges and pastures during1961 is about $27.6 million comparedto $27.1 million for the year earlier.

1 This figure has been reduced from $29.7 mil-lion in Arizona. Agriculture 1961 due to arevision in the estimate of the size of the calfcrop produced in 1960.

Sheep and WoolSheep numbers declined in Arizona

in 1960. There were 450,000 head onfarms and ranches in Arizona on Janu-ary 1, 1961, compared to 454,000head on January 1, 1960. However,the number of hand January 1, 1961,was approximately 38,000 head higherthan the ten-year average (1950-59).

The 1961 Arizona lamb crop is esti-mated at 292,000 head compared to293,000 head in 1960. Wool produc-tion in 1961 was approximately3,243,000 pounds, about 1 percentincrease over the 1960 production of3,204,000 pounds.

Income for sheep and lambs in 1961is estimated at $4,000,000. And theincome from the sale of wool was ap-proximately $1,400,00, or a total cashincome of approximately $5,400,000compared to $5,600,000 for 1960. Thereason for the decrease in income tosheep producers m 1961 was due pri-marily to the decline in price ofslaughter and feeder lambs.

1 Estimates for wool production, she of lambcrop} price of wool, and number of sheep andlambs on Arizona farms and ranches are thesedata published by the U, S. Department ofAgriculture, Statistical Reporting Service>Phoenix, Arizona.

— 26-

DairyArizona dairymen continued to pro-

duce milk in excess of that needed forClass I uses by about 21 percent dur-ing 1961. Dairymen delivered over450.5 million pounds of milk to han-dlers regulated by the Federal MilkMarketing Order. Class I sales ac-counted for 356.4 million pounds andClass II sales were 94.1 million pounds.

Total cash receipts from dairyingamounted to an estimated $26.0 mil-lion during 1961. Of this amount $23.5million was from the sale of milk andmilk products and $2.5 million wasreceived from the sale of dairy animals.

Prices received for milk for 1961were at a little higher level than dur-ing 1960. The average price paidproducers for all milk during 1961averaged $5.08 per hundredweight ascompared to an average of $5.05 perhundredweight during 1960. It shouldbe noted that this price represents theaverage price received for all milksold and not the average blend priceof 3.8 percent milk as has been re-ported in previous years.

Dairymen continued to cull theirherds at a record-breaking pace during1961. The DHIA annual summary for1961 indicates 33.3 percent of thecows left the herds during the year.This high culling rate is a result ofdairymen adjusting herd size and milkproduction in an effort to reduce anever-increasing amount of Class IImilk.

The primary purpose of the Arizonadairy industry is to produce a supplyof milk to satisfy the market for fluidor Class I sales, plus a reserve or sur-plus above Class I sales to insure asufficient supply to meet daily changesin receipts and supplies. The industryis in agreement that the market needsabout 115 percent of Class I sales toinsure an adequate supply of milk.

Arizona dairymen and their market-ing organizations have made someprogress m establishing the mechanicsof making this possible through agree-ments on quota systems, shippingrights, etc. This is also reflected in theutilization percentage norms writteninto the supply-demand provision ofthe Federal Market Order. Productionin excess of these norms during 1961reduced the income received by dairy-men for Class I products by approxi-mately $800,000.

An estimating procedure has beendeveloped by the University DairyExtension Specialist to predict the totalproduction and consumption of milkon the monthly basis. Several sourcesof data are used in this estimating pro-cedure including DHiA records andofficial data on production and salesfrom the Federal Market Administrator.Latest figures from this source indicateproduction at 117 percent to 129 per-cent of Class I needs for 1962. If 115percent of Class I sales is needed in themarket, a surplus of from 2 to 14 per-cent is predicted for this year.

On the national scene, consumershave continued to shift from the useof dairy products rich in fat to thoserich in solids-not-fat. This has beenreflected in a decline in the per capitaconsumption of dairy products, meas-ured in terms of milkfat. On the otherhand, the per capita use of solids-not-fat continued to expand until 1955and then remained relatively stable.

In Arizona, the trend toward the useof more solids-not-fat in milk productshas continued to expand at a veryrapid rate. Figure 2 shows that in Ari-zona the use of packaged whole milkhas remained rather constant, with theexception of seasonal variation, whilethe use of both skim milk and fortifiedskim milk has increased at a tremen-

— 27-