southern part of the State, which incidentally has caused an increase in pumping ranging from 15 to 30 percent. For field crops, the official June 1 estimate of wheat production in California for the year is 9,008,000 bushels, compared to 12,118,000 bushels last year. Barley crop for this year, estimated at 630,000 tons, is lower than the average for the past 5 years, which was 669,000 tons, while the hay crop this year is rated at 78 percent of the "normal", and 85 percent of the past 5-year average. The orchard crops this year show the following variations: Compared with last year grapes, prunes, walnuts, and figs indicate an increase in production; the production of peaches, pears, apples, almonds, and olives shows moderate decreases as compared with last year; while apricots and cherries show drastic decreases in production. Specialty crops this year, because of higher prices and moderate supplies, show net returns above last year, although the harvesting of these crops does not require labor in a volume sufficient to affect agricultural unemployment. Citrus fruit in southern California has experienced a serious early drop and from present indications, according to reports from the South, the output next season will not be more than 50 percent of the average. Nineteen hundred and thirty-four agricultural price trends have thus far been anything but even. The California farm price index in February 1934 was 74.8 percent of the July 1910-June 1915 average-an increase of 29.2 percent over February 1933 and 32.4 percent over the all-time low of April 1932. In April the index of prices stood at 68.4 percent of the July 1910-June 1915 average, which was the lowest point reached this year and was a decrease of 8.6 points, or 11.2 percent from the index for March 1934 but was still 21.1 percent above April 1933. In May 1934 the index was 77.8 of the July 1910-June 1915 average, an increase of 9.4 points or 13.7 percent over the index for April 1934, 23.3 percent above the April 1933 index, and 37.7 percent higher than the all-time low in April 1933. THE EFFECT OF THE DEPRESSION ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN CALIFORNIA As is well known, the postwar period was marked by a pronounced decrease of agricultural prices in the country as a whole. The estimates gross income from farm production declined from the highest total of $16,935,000,000 in 1919 to $9,944,000,000 in 1922. From 1923 to 1929 the annual estimates gross income from farm production continued on an even keel, around $11,500,000,000. The decline of agricultural prices, however, was greater than the data on gross income from farm production would indicate, since the volume of production of agricultural commodities from 1919 to 1929 was steadily increasing, as the table below shows: Since 1929 the volume of production, despite a precipitous drop in agricultural prices, did not decline materially, the index being 107 for 1930 and 111 for 1931. But while production of agricultural commodities kept up to the predepression level, the gross income from farm production during the depression declined very markedly, from $11,911,000,000 in 1929 to $9,347,000,000 in 1930, and to $6,920,000,000 in 1931. (See United States Statistical Abstract, 1932, p. 601.) In California also, agricultural production did not show marked decline during the years of depression. If we take some of the more important field crops of the State, we see that production tended to remain pretty much as it was before the depression years. From 1929 to 1933 the value of California's agricultural production, and therefore the farmer's income, has been declining steadily, as the following data on the total farm income in California shows. This decline in the total agricultural income was the inevitable result of the declining agricultural prices for California farm products. This is seen in the following average monthly index of farm prices in California. 1929_ 1930 1931. 1932_ Monthly average index of farm prices in California for all products2 Percent 136. 5 139.5 84.7 69.8 The diminution of the State's agricultural income has been occasioned almost wholly by declining prices rather than decreased production, as the above data clearly indicate. Confronted with a reduced income for his crop, the California farmer was forced to reduce his operating expenses, and this was achieved to an appreciable degree. Like in all other industries, the cost of production in agriculture is distributed between the operating expenses, such as labor, fuel, etc., and fixed charges, such as interest payment, irrigation cost, power cost, and so on. Despite the depression and number of these costs, mainly the so-called "fixed costs", remained practically the same as in the predepression period. This, for example, was true of the power charges for irrigation and other purposes, of agricultural machinery, and interest payments. None of these elements of cost are under farmer's control and he, therefore, had to accept them as they were if he was to stay in business. The only cost that could be changed without much difficulty was the labor cost, and the farmer naturally took advantage of the fact as a means of reducing his costs in the face of declining prices. The shifting of the burden of depression on the agricultural laborer was the road of least resistance, and the ability of many farmers to survive during the trying years was due directly to the large reductions made in the wages of agricultural labor. One example will suffice to indicate what happened in this connection. According to the records of the State employment office at Bakersfield, cotton-picking price for 100 pounds was as follows: 2 Source: Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. University of California. 1 Source: California Journal of Development, State Chamber of Commerce, January 1934. As an average picker can pick approximately 200 pounds per day, the daily earning of the cotton picker in 1929 was $3 and in 1932 was only 80 cents, a decrease of $2.20 or 73% percent. So that the income of the farmer was greatly reduced during 1930, 1931, and 1932; it was the worker's income that suffered most phenomenally during this period. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT IN 1933 After declining steadily for 3 years, the value of California's agricultural production increased during 1933 and exceeded the 1932 total by $36,450,000, or 9.8 percent, although it was still considerably below the 1926-29 average. The total farm income in California in 1933 was $408,395,000, as against $371,965,000 in 1932, while the 1926-32 average was $613,263,000. So that while the total agricultural income in 1933 exceeded the 1932 income by 9.8 percent, it was still 33.4 percent below the 1926-32 average.' The following table compares the agricultural income of 1933 with that of 1932. Agricultural income of California1 (value at the farm) The general improvement in agriculture in 1933 may be traced directly to Government efforts. In this connection the introduction of a new form of production and marketing control under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, passed by Congress in May 1923, has been of vital significance in raising the level of agricultural prices of those commodities for which agreements were established. Agreements affecting production and marketing have been drawn already for many crops, such as clingstone peaches, rice, oranges, grapefruit; while growers of cotton and wheat have benefited from the appreciable rise in the price of commodities which was due, at least in part, to the crop-reduction efforts of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. It was, therefore, not accidental that the largest gains in prices registered by individual commodities were those commodities which were affected directly by the Agricultural Adjustment Act agreements, such as clingstone peaches, which was the only fruit for which a control agreement was completed in time to affect 1933 production and prices, and cotton. A comparison of the farm value of California crops and crop production for 1932 and 1933 shows that the increase in farm income for crops was due largely to increasing of prices for agricultural crops in 1933 as compared with 1932. 1 Farm value of crops and crop production in California, 1932 and 1933 1 1 Source: California Journal of Development, State Chamber of Commerce, January 1934. As the above table shows, the harvested production of the 1933 California fruit and nut crop was 2.4 percent larger than in 1932, while the farm value In other words, for the group was 19.5 percent greater in 1933 than in 1932. for approximately the same amount crop the fruit and nut growers in California received $20,899,000 more for the sale of their products in 1933 than in the previous year. In the fruit group the most outstanding improvement in 1933, as compared with 1932, was in the peach industry. The total earnings for peach growers in 1933 amounted to $9,869,000 which was 147 percent above the farm value for the whole peach crop in 1932. This increase was due to the fact that the average price of both clingstone and freestone peaches in 1933 was almost double that of 1932, while for clingstone peaches alone, which came under the Agricultural Adjustment Act agreement, the aggregate earnings in 1933 were more than triple those of 1932, with approximately $5,731,000 being paid to growers. The next fruit crop to register a substantial increase in 1933 as compared with 1932 was the grape crop. Profiting by the repeal of prohibition, California grape growers received $25,000,000 for their crop in 1933, as compared to $20,785,000 in 1932, or 20.5 percent more. The mean average price per ton to the grower for all grapes produced in California was $16.10 in 1933 as compared to $11.72 per ton in 1932; the largest gain in prices was for wine grapes, the price per ton in 1933 averaging $19.75 as against $12 per ton in 1932, In the field crops, although production in terms of tonnage declined by 6.8 percent in 1933 compared to 1932, the farm value of field crops in 1933 amounted to $106,330,000, which was an increase of approximately $24,555,000, or 30 percent over 1932. Here the most pronounced gain was registered by the cotton industry, as the following tabulation shows: The total value of cotton and cottonseed in 1933 was $12,397,000 as against $5,051,000 in 1932, or 145 percent above the 1932 figure. That the increase was not due to the increased production alone, but also to the increase in the price of cotton and cottonseed received by the farmer is clear from the data on unit prices, as the following tabulation shows: In 1933 the price of cotton was thus 51.4 percent above 1932, while the price of cottonseed per ton brought the farmer 25.5 percent more in 1933 than in 1932. Among the other field crops in California which showed substantial gains in 1933 as compared with 1932 was the sugar-beet crop. In 1933 the sugar-beet crop gave sugar-beet growers $12,544,000 as against $8,528,000 in 1932, or 42.6 percent more, although the 1933 crop was only slightly above the 1932 crop. Truck crops, however, showed a decline both in acreage planted and in total farm value in 1933, as compared with 1932. The amount of vegetables planted 133130-35-23 decreased by 10 percent and the total value of truck crops decreased by 8.2 Among the few exceptions to the general decline in prices of vegetables in The following table shows the value of leading agricultural crops of Cali- The improvement of the economic conditions of California agriculture in Wholesale commodity prices during the depression were declining until TO CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF COTTON PICKERS STRIKE, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, (Ex: San Francisco News, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Exam- |