SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF INCREASING P'ICKLING CUCUMEER YIELDS IN MICHIGAN F Thai: for th- 00an of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Noel W. Stuckman 1959 ,YH'ZEIQ [‘1’ L181 .1 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from —5——. your record. FINES win be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. 4 'ir I I} gr? ., V 0 m 4mm OMB ECQNCMIC ASPECTS OF INCREASING PICKLING CUCUMBER YIELDS IN MICHIGAN By Noel W. Stuckman AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of.Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied ' Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1959 Approved W 11 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is threefold: (l) to determine the relationship of picker earnings and grower net returns to the bushel yield per acre of pickling cucumbers grown in Michigan.in 1958 (2) to estimate the average hourly earnings received by Mexican.Nationals harvesting pickling cucumbers in.Michigan and (3) to eval- uate the Worker Yield Return.Formula (WYRF) proposed and generally followed by the industry and accepted by the United States Department of Labor in determining the rate of reimbursement for Mexican Nationals picking "pickles" in Michigan in 1958. The prime hypothesis of this study was that the level of both picker hourly earnings and grower net returns per acre were directly related to the level of the bushel yield per acre. The relationship between low picker earn- ings and low yields was generally known imprecisely to many members of the industry and served as a basis for the establishment of the 1958 WYRF. The Michigan "pickle" crop is harvested entirely by hand. The annual harvest labor force consists primarily (60-70 percent) of Mexican.Nationals brought in to sup~ plement a shortage of domestic workers willing to pick pickling cucumbers. Low earnings by some Nationals in 111 previous years was the principal reason for introducing the WYRF in 1958. The purpose of this wage formula was to increase earnings to pickers harvesting low yielding fields, but it was not, however, designed as a minimum wage guarantee. The study was based on the pickling cucumber enter- prises of 79 growers and the 1,105 Mexican Nationals who were employed on these farms some time during the 1958 season, As an unbiased estimate of the conditions pre- sent in the Michigan pickling cucumber industry was needed, growers were selected on.an area random sample basis to eliminate any tendency to study only certain types of grow- ers or only growers selling to certain processors. The sample growers were contracted with 15 different processors and marketed their cropithrough 25 receiving stations. As a result of this study, it was estimated that the average hourly earnings of Nationals employed in.pick- ing pickling cucumbers in Michigan was 78 cents for the summer of 1958. Although 31.6 percent of the workers earned 90 cents or more per hour, 30.2 percent of them received an average of less than 70 cents per hour. ‘Sample growers, as well as the pickers under their employ, received meager earnings from low yielding fields. The average yield per acre for the sample was 215 bushels. iv Pickers who harvested fields yielding less than 200 bushels an acre earned less than 70 cents per hour on the average, while the growers that produced these same low yields failed to meet the costs incurred, including a land use charge. The level of worker earnings and grower returns increased simultaneously with increasing bushel yield per acre. Recommendations were made to the industry to correct the defficiencies of the WYRF. Two primary changes in the formula recommended were (1) Place the WYRF on a dollar yield per acre basis and (2) Increase the standards in the WYRF. It was also recommended that educational programs be carried out to help all groups within the industry to meet the higher standards. Over the years ahead, the United States Department of Labor will make Nationals available for picking ”pickles" in.Michigan only if these workers can earn satisfactory wages. Under the 1958 pickling cucumber price level and worker crop share payment plan, low wages were due primarily to low yields: therefore the grower must continue to increase yields in order to maintain a supply of Mexican National labor in the future. SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF INCREASING PICKLING CUCUMEER YIELDS IN MICHIGAN By Noel W. Stuckman A THESIS submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan.State University of Agriculture and.Applied Science in.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1959 vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation_ to all those who made the completion of this thesis possible. The author is particularly grateful to his major professor, Dr. Glenn.L. Johnson, under whose guidance and direction this study was made. Special thanks are due Dru Dale E. Hathaway, who assumed the chairmanship responsibility for the final stages of this thesis after the original chairman.began his sab- batical leave. Dr. Stanley K. Ries of the Horticulture Department made helpful suggestions toward the research and the writing of this thesis . Appreciation is also expressed to the National Pickle Packers Association.and the National Pickle Growers Associa- tion for their cooperation and financial assistance to the study. Thanks are also due the Department of Agricultural Economics, Dr. L.L. Boger, Head, for the financial assistance via a graduate assistantship. The author assumes full responsibility for the con- tent of this thesis. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. 0 o o o o o o o o I o o o o o o o Pickling Cucumber Production in the United States and Michigan . . . . . . . . . . Yields and Production Trends. . . . . Nature of Pickling Cucumber Production. . WYRF and the Pickling Cucumber Industry . The Problem Investigated. . . . . . . . II RESEARCH METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1958 Michigan Pickle Industry Survey. Survey Sample Design. . . . . . . . . Collection of the Data. . . . . . Tabulation and Analysis of Data . . . III ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF YIELD LEVELS . . . . Characteristics of the Sample Farms . . . . Relationship of Picker Earnings and Grower Returns to Bushel Yield Per Acre. . . . Earnings Per Hour. . . . . . . . Distribution of Worker Earnings. . . Grower Net Returns . . ' . Nature of Costs in Pickling Cucumber Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industry Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . IV PRESENTING SOME OF THE RESUDTS OF THE 1958 MICHIGAN PICKLE INDUSTRY SURVEY IN POPULAR FORM. 0 C C O C Q O O O O O O O O O O O C . Michigaanickling Cucumbers-The Grower, the Picker, and the WYRF. . . . . . . . Introduction, . . . . . . . . . The Processor , . . . . . . . . . The Grower. . . . . . . . . . The Picker. . . . . . Yields Per Acre and the Future of Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . Source of the Information . . . . . . . Production Under the 1958 WYRF. . . . . The Importance of Increasing Yields . . . 0 cf. 0 o o o :3” 0 (Do 0 o o 0 viii ' O O O 0 PAGE CHAPTER _ PAGE What Does a High Yield Cost? . . . . . . . 63 What Does It Cost to Grow an Acre of PICkleS? C O O O O O O O O _. O O O O O O 66 Pre-Harvest Costs Per Acre. . . . . . . 66 Harvesting Costs Per Acre . . . . . . . 67’ Harvesting Costs Per Bushel . . . . . . 68 Why Control Insects and Diseases?. . . . . 72 Fertilizer and Yields. . . . . . . . . . 73 Does Row Spacing Affect Yield? . . . . . . 75 What About Varieties?. . . . . . . . 77 What Grades of "Pickles" Yield the . Highest Returns? . . . . 78 Should the Grower Supervise the Pickers? 81 Does Grower Experience Produce High Yields 85 Does the Successful_Grower Have _ Off-Farm.Employment? . . . . . . . . . . 85 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 APPENDIX A Questionnaires Used in Grower Interviews . 89 APPENDIX B Daily Record of Worker Hours Forms Completed by Sample Growers. . . . . . . 105 APPENDIX C Record of Costs of Pickling Cucumber Production Forms Completed by Sample ,Growers. . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . 116 ix TABLE l. 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES PAGE Counties Producing Over 1,000 Acres of Pickling- Cucumbers and Cucumbers, Michigan, 1954. . . . . 4 Acres, Number of Farms, and Average Acres Per Farm, PiCkling Cucumbers and Cucumbers, MIChigan, 1920-1954 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 Processing Cucumber Acreage, Yield, Production and Value, Michigan, 1950-1958 . . . . . . . . . 7 1958 Worker Yield Return Formula . . . . . . . . 13 Farm Size of Pickling Cucumber Enterprise Related to Bushel Yield Per Acre and Worker Hourly Earnings, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . . . 31 Kinds of Growers and Farms Included in the Sample 32 Points of Comparability in the Studies of the 1958 Pickle Harvest by Michigan State University Bureau of Employment Security, and the National Pickle Growers Association . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Hourly Earnings of Pickers and Net Returns Per Acre as Related to Bushel Yield Per Acre of Pickling Cucumbers, Michigan, 1958 . . . . . . . 35 Number of Workers With Different Season Average Hourly Earnings, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . . . 39 Gross Returns, Costs, and Net Returns _ (Including Rent) Related to Per Acre Yield of Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . 42 Average Hourly Earnings of Mexican Nationals, By Value of Pickling Cucumbers Produced Per Acre, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . . . . . . . . 44 Kinds of Growers and Farms Included in the Sample, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . . . . . . . 58 1958 Worker Yield Return Formula . . . . . . . . 60 TABLE PAGE 13. 1959 Worker Yield Return Formula. . . . . . . . 61 14. Hourly Earnings of Pickers and Net Returns Per Acre as Related to Bushel Yield Per Acre of Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . 62 15. Breakdown of Average Pre-harvest Costs Per Acre of Growing Pickling Cucumbers, Southern mcmgan, 1958. o O O 0 O. O O O o o o o o o o o 68 16. Harvesting Costs Per Acre, Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958 . °.° . . . . . . . . . 69 17. Harvesting Costs Per Bushel, Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . . . . . 7O 18. Types of Weather Damage Related to Yields of Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . 71 19. Applications of Insecticides and Fungicides Related to Yielnger Acre and Net Returns Per Acre from Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 20. Type of Insecticide and Fungicide Applied Related to Yield Per Acre of Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . . 73 21. Pickling Cucumber Yield Per Acre and Net Returns to Grower Related to Total Pounds of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Applied, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 22. Pickling Cucumber Yield Per Acre Related to Number and Methods of Application, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 23. Pickling Cucumber Yields Related to Spacing Between Rows, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . . . . 77 2A. Yields Per Acre of Three Cucumber Varieties, Southern Michigan, 1958 , , , , , , , , , , , , 79 xi TABLE . PAGE 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Dollar Value Per Bushel, Hourly Earnings of Pickers, and Net Returns Per Acre by Proportions of Pickling Cucumbers Under 1 1/2 Inches in Diameter, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . 80 Average Hourly Earnings of Mexican Nationals and Net Returns Related to Grower Supervision, Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . 82 Average Hourly Earnings of Mexican National Harvesting Pickling Cucumbers, By Amount of Supervision from Labor Association and Yields, Southern Michigan, 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 The Influence of Late Labor Placement and/or Poor Labor Supervision (as Reflected in the Proportion of 3's and 4's in the First Picking) on Yield Per Acre, Net Returns Per Acre, and Hourly Earnings of Mexican Nationals, Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . . . . . . 84 Yields and Net Returns Related to Years of Experience of Growers in Producing Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . . . . . . 86 0ff-farm.Employment Related to Yields and Returns, Pickling Cucumbers, Southern Michigan, 1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 xii FIGURE 1. LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Location of the Leading Pickling Cucumber Producing Counties in Michigan, 1954. . . . 3 Map Showing Sample Townships and the Location, By Townships, of Growers Included in the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Gross Returns, Total Noneland Cost, Picking Cost and Non-Picking Cost Related to Bushel Yield Per Acre . . . . . . . . . . . 64 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Pickling Cucumber Production in the United States and Michigan The farm value of pickling cucumbers grown in the United States averages nearly $20 million.annua11y. Three states produce over 50 percent of the total national crop, with production usually concentrated in certain geograph- ical areas within these states. Michigan, Wisconsin.and North Carolina accounted for 56 percent of the 1957 and 1958 annual acreage. Michigan annually surpasses both. of the two other leading states in acreage, production, and value of production. In.1958, Michigan's share of the United States pickling cucumber crop was 24 percent of the acreage, 28 percent of the production, and 26 percent of the dollar value of production. Pickling cucumbers can be grown in nearly all of the areas of Michiganis Lower Peninsula. The principle production area is located in the central sector of the Lower Peninsula and consists of a two-county wide band of counties running from Oceans County and Muskegon County on the west to Bay County and Sanilac County in the thumb area on the east. Production is less concentrated in the southwestern Michigan with Ottawa, Allegan and Van.Buren the leading counties in that area. Smaller production areas are scattered throughout Southern Michigant (Figure 1) According to the most recent Michigan.Agricu1tura1 Census which was taken for the 1954 crop year, Montcalm County had the largest acreage of pickling cucumbers with 2,492 harvested acres. (Table 1) This county also ranked first with 11 acres of "pickles" per farm'but fourth in the number of growers with 225. Saginaw County and Oceans County cone tained the second and third largest "pickle" acreages with 1,608 acres and 1,577 acres, respectively. These figures contain commercial cucumber acreage in addition to pickling cucumber acreage, but the number of acres of cucumbers that are included is extremely small. Yields and Production Trends _ Prior to the early 1940's, most of the Michigan pickling cucumber crop was grown in the family farm “pickle patch" which averaged about 1 acre.(Tab1e 2) "Pickles" were generally grown as a speculative crop on the poorer soils and smaller fields on the farm. The cost incurred prior to harvesting the crop was relatively low, and most of the effort in producing a crop was involved in picking. Picking the crop utilized the farm family labor during the slack work period following haymaking and grain harvest and MICHIGAN andsover - 999 - 749 - 499 - 249 o I a I ' ’ . r o. ' ' ' I . I . a #- FIGURE 1 Location of the Leadi ng Pickli Cucumber Produci Counties in Michigan, 1954. ng n8 SOURCE: Census of 195A' United States 0 ~ Part IV, Pp. 126-131: ensus of Agriculture, Vol.I, Table 1 - Counties Producing Over 1,000 acres of Pickling Cucumbers and Cucumbers, Michigan, 1954 \ ”1 County Number of Growers. Acres Montcalm - , 225 2,492 Saginaw ‘ 315 1,608 Oceans 379 1, 577 Sanilac 212 1,456 Ottawa ‘ 212 1:377 Bay ' 253 1,280 Gratiot 7 144 1,122 SEurce: Specified Crops Harvested; census of 1954, United States Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1, Part IV, pp. 126-131. preceeding fall harvest. During World War II, a large portion of the farm family labor found more profitable employment in.defense industry or was taken into military service. Many farmers who continued to grow pickling cucumbers during the war years and the immediate post-war years relied on the employ- ment of off-farm labor to harvest the crop. Agricultural labor, both migrant and local domestic farm workers, was readily available during the "pickle" harvest season.which coincided with the slack employment period after completion of sugar beet field work and prior to the fall harvest of fruits and vegetables. By 1950 the average acreage per farm had risen to 2.9 compared to 1.3 in 1940., Total state acreage had also Table 2—Acres, Number of Farms, and Average Acres Per Farm, Pickling Cucumbers and Cucumbers, Michigan, 1920-1954 Year Number Acres ~ Average Acres of Farms Per Farm 1920 11,813 10,351 0.9 1930 11,217 11,157 1.0 1940 7,692 10,297 1.3 1950 9:909 27.786 2.9 1954 - 6,050 23,623 3.9 Source: Specified Crops Harvested; Census of 1920 to 1954, United States Census of Agriculture: 1954, Vol.1, Part VI,p.33. increased during those ten years by 170 percent. The trend away from the family ”pickle” patch and towards larger acreage per farm increased at a greater rate during the 1951— 1954 period than during the 40's. In four years the average acreage per farm had increased from 2.9 in 1950 to 3.9 in 1954. Prices to the growers had fallen during that time, which further reduced the attractiveness of the family _ "pickle patch" as a means of converting labor into cash. Lower prices reduced picker earnings and domestic labor preferred the more profitable employment in other types of agricultural work. An.increasing proportion of the annual crop was being picked by contracted Mexican.Nationals who accepted the strenuous work at comparatively low wages. Growers increased acreage both in an attempt to realize economies of scale and to have a sizable acreage to obtain Mexican.Nationals. Comparative data for the years after 1954 is not available, but the relative position of acreage and grower numbers in 1958 indicates the trend toward larger average acreage per farm has continued. In 1950 the average yield per acre of pickling cu- cumbers in Michigan.was 30 bushels; less than half of the average annual yield of 65 bushels per acre for previous years. Although the 1950 yield was abnormally low due to the damage caused by the fungus disease, scab (cadosporium cucu—merinum), yields have increased each year since 1950 and reached an unprecedented high for Michigan of 147 bushels in 1958. (Table 3) The greatest increase in average yields were realized in the four years from 1955 to 1958 with yield increases over the preceding year of 16 bushels in 1955, 19 bushels in 1957, and 22 bushels in 1958. Varieties resistant to the scab and mosaic diseases were released in 1951, and their increased acceptance and use during the following years has contributed substantially to the increase in yields. Fewer growers, using more pro- ductive methods, encompassing improved management techniques, better cultural practices, and planting on more fertile soils combined with larger acreages per farm account for most of the increase in average acre yield. Table 3-Processing cucumber Acreage, Yield, Production and Value, Michigan, 1950-1958 Acres Yield Production. Average Price. value of Year Harvested PeguAcre 000 bu. grgegegvggfbgu. prgiuggéen 1950 33,600 30 1,008 2.20 2,218 1951 44,800 64 2,867 1.65 4,730 1952 45,800 77 3,527 1.50 5,290 1953 39,700 85 3,374 1955 5,230 1954 36,200 86 3,621 1.35 4,203 1955 35,500 102 3,785 1.20 4,345 1956 35,800 106 3,795 1.25 4,744 1957 38,700 125 4,838 1.20 5,806 1958 28,200 147 4,145 1.20 4,974 _—-;__ Source: Michigan.Agricultural Statistics, Michigan.Department of Agriculture, July 1957, p. 31. Nature of Pickling Cucumber Production The Michigan pickling cucumber-industry is composed of three separate but interdependent segments. Each of these groups - the processors, the growers and the pickers — have an important function within the industry. They involve the entire procedure by which pickling cucumbers are grown, harvested, marketed and processed into pickles and related products. Companies that process pickling cucumbers, including buying and salting firms which produce brine stock for resale to other pickle packers, are commonly referred to as pickle processors. According to a May 1959 listing of Michigan pickle packers and salters,1forty-five companies had a total of 109 salting and receiving stations located in the state.. Twenty-eight processors operated plants in Michigan in 1958. The other seventeen companies either sold green or brine stock to the inrstate processors or operated their processing plants in other states. The processor contracts acreage with growers located near its established receiving stations in the "pickle” production areas. The price schedules for the various grade sizes are determined by company policy and specified in the contract made prior to planting. The grower delivers the crop every picking day in the harvest season to the receiv— ing station where the "pickles" are graded, weighed, and then either salted or shipped as green stock to the processing plants. The grower agrees to sell the entire production on the contracted acreage to the company at the contract price lRevised List of Michigan Pickle Packers and Salters, May 1959, compiled by S.K. Ries, Department of Horti- culture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan and grade. very few growers will accept the risks of selling pickling cucumbers on the open market: therefore, practically all of the Michigan production is grown.under contract. Most processors have field men.who provide production information such as fertilizer_recommendations, disease and insect control practices, etc., but the manage- ment of the growing cucumber crop is largely the responsi- bility of the grower. A few of the more progressive pro- cessors require their growers to follow company recommended practices as this allows the processor to have a greater assurance of obtaining the desired quantity and quality of crop. Harvesting is accomplished entirely by hand picking as an efficient mechanical picker has not yet been develop- ed. A mechanical pickling cucumber harvester is in the development stage, but replacement of hand pickers by mechanical ones is still a few years away.2 Until large numbers of the perfected machines become available, the grower must continue to employ manual labor. Few domestic workers, both local and migrant, are willing to do the strenuous physical work involved in 2 . V . VA Progress Report on the Development of a Mechanical Cucumber Harvester" by B.A. Stout and S.K. Ries, guarterly Bulletin V01. 41, No. 3, February 1959, pp. 99’718 o 10 picking pickling cucumbers. _Annua11y the Bureau of Em- ployment Security of the U.S. Department of Labor certifies approximately 10,000 employment opportunities in harvesting the Michigan “pickle" crop and as having an.insufficient number of domestic workers available. Mexican agri- cultural workers are obtained to supplement the shortage of domestic labor under the provisions of Public Law 78, an agreement between the United States and Mexico which permits and regulates the employment of Mexican laborers in this country. In 1958, 9,600 Mexican Nationals harvested "pickles" in the state, and they comprised nearly 65 per- cent of the total labor force employed in the pickling cucumber harvest. Mexican National Pickers are provided to the individual grower through the grower labor employment association established by the company with which the grower contracts. The labor association contracts the workers at reception centers on the Mexican.border or re-contracts Nationals already employed within the country. The workers are contracted normally for the six-week harvest season and transported by the labor association to the grower‘s farm. Growers pay for the procurement and service by the labor association and are charged either a flat fee per worker or a percent of the gross returns on the crop. 11 Most companies deduct three percent of the total crop value, which usually amounts to six percent of the grower's share. Nationals generally pick throughout the entire 4 to 7 week season on one grower's farm or on the farms of grow- ers holding membership in the same labor association and located within a small area. Workers are provided living quarters and cooking facilities on the grower's farm or live in company operated worker camps and are transported by the company to the fields to pick. Public Law 78 Specifies the minimum acceptable housing standards. Representatives of the Bureau.of Employment Security inspect worker living quarters and enforce the regulations. The most common method of worker wage payment is on the crop share basis. Each worker receives a percentage share, traditionally 50 percent of the market value of the quantity of pickling cucumbers he picks. Incentive payment plans appear extremely important in obtaining high production, careful handling of vines, and clean pickings. The picker has a responsibility in seeing that the vines continue to produce in order to assure himself of a sufficient season-long production from which to earn a wage. The WYRF and the Pickling Cucumber Industry The Worker Yield Return Formula (hereafter termed 12 WYRF) was proposed by the National Pickle Growers Associa- tion and accepted by the Bureau of Employment Security of the U.S. Department of Labor as a fair and Just method of payment to pickling cucumber harvest workers in.Michp igan during the 1958 harvest season. The formula applied to the payment of both Mexican.Nationals and domestic workers_who picked "pickles" on the farms of the grower members. The WYRF was a method of payment to provide a better opportunity for pickers to attain reasonable earns ings on a seasonal basis. The formula was not designed as a minimum wage guarantee as the individual worker's earnings still re- mained largely dependent upon the size and amount of "pickles” he harvested. Under the WYRF, pickers were paid not less than 50 percent of the value of the crop provided yields were at least 120 bushels per acre. (Table 4) Workers picking fields yielding less than 120 bushels per acre were paid a proportion of the value of the crop based on a sliding scale inversely related to the bushel yield. A maximum of 70 percent of the value of the crop was received by pickers who harvested extremely poor fields yielding 91 bushels per acre or less. Determination of whether the workers were entitled to a share exceeding 50 percent was made on the 35th 13 Table 4-1958 Worker Yield Return Formula Bushels per Acre Workers share value of crop 120 or more Not less than 50 percent 119-109 " “ ' 55 ' 108-100 ” " ' 60 " 99-91 " " ' 65 ' 91 or less ” ' ' 70 ' consecutive calendar day following the date of the first picking in each field. Acreage of each field was based on a measurement by a company representative taken on.the 35th day. It was assumed that the field at the end of five weeks had produced 5/6 of its total production for the season. Therefore, seasonal yield calculations were based on the yield after five weeks of production. Each field had to produce 100 bushels per acre by the end of the first five weeks (at least an average of 20 bushels per week) to meet the criteria of 120 bushels per acre for a six—week harvest season. In cases in.which fields were abandoned before 35 days had elapsed, the production of that field up to the date of abandonment was determined and the worker paid in proportion to the scale he would have received under the WYRF had the production continued to the 35th day. 14 The Prdblem Investigated For a few years prior to and including 1957, the wages of some Mexican.Nationals employed in harvesting Michigan.pickling cucumbers were low enough to cause con- cern on the part of the Bureau of Employment Security. An unpublished research study Obtained from processor records of 1957 Mexican.National earnings indicated that an unsatisfactory number of Nationals received average hourly wages below the 70 cent hourly wage rate being paid to agricultural labor in Michigan. The U.S. Depart- ment of Labor, basing its actions on the survey results, indicated to the Michigan pickling cucumber industry that growers in the state would not be certified for the employment of Nationals during the 1958 pickle harvest un- less the industry made an effort to eliminate unsatis- factory wages. Members of the industry knew that a relationship existed between yields and picker earnings, that pickers who harvested high yielding fields generally received sustantially higher wages than.workers who picked low yielding fields. With this relationship in.mind, the 1958 WYRF was drawn.up by the National Pickle Growers Associationt Avoiding a minimum wage guarantee and re- taining the incentive payment plan was deemed necessary 15 by the industry to preserve picker responsibility in the production of the crop. In designing the WYRF, the 1957 average yield of 120 bushels per acre reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the United States was accepted as the minimum standard for the traditional 50 percent share for the picker. Growers producing less than average yields generally found pickling cucumbers unprofitable. Many of these grow— ers related the unprofitability of their "pickle" enter- prise to price levels which did not allow sufficient gross returns from low yields, while other growers realized that meager net returns resulted from inadequate yields. The poorer growers were forced to increase yields or discon- tinue production, and the processors in turn.offered the vacated contract acreage to the ever-present supply of farmers willing to contract pickling cucumbers. The dual relationship of picker earnings and grower net returns to yield was readily observed by members of the industry in that picker and grower dissatisfaction were often combined on low producing fields while high yields generally found both parties content with their respective monetary returns. Based on the success of high yielding fields at the existing price level, the key to a large portion of the problem of unsatisfactory returns to the 16 grower and picker was unmistakenly yield and the factors that determine yield level. The results of the 1958 pickling cucumber harvest season played a primary role in determining the future of the Michigan pickle industry. Processors, grower labor associations, the Bureau of Employment Security, and many growers were concerned with the effect the WYRF would have on the industry segments during and after it's first year. The failure of the growers to increase yield and/or the fail- ure of the WYRF in its design and purpose of increasing picker earnings from low yielding fields could, in the absence of a mechanical picker, endanger the future supply of Mexican National workers. Rising non-farm incomes in Michigan will continue to increase the net returns to growers required to main, tain pickling cucumber production. Rising nonrfarm wage rates will probably increase the minimum level of hourly earnings for Nationals which will be acceptable to the governments involved and to labor organizations. Further, economic conditions are steadily improving in Mexico which, in turn, will eventually increase the minimum wage for which Nationals will be willing to harvest pickling cucumbers in the United States. CHAPTER II RESEARCH METHODS The 1958 Michigan Pickle Industry Survey In the spring of 1958, officials of the National Pickle Packers Association.(the national trade organiza- tion of pickle processors) and the National Pickle Growers Association (the national organization of labor associa- tions and their grower members) presented the Mexican National wage problem to the Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan.State University with a request for a research study of the industry. These associations pledged full cooperation.and provided financial assistance with a contribution of funds which in the end amounted to about one-third of the total cost of the research. The 1958 Michigan Pickle Industry Survey had as its primary objectives (1) the estimation of the average hourly earnings received by Mexican.Nationals harvesting pickling cucumbers in southern.Michigan in 1958 and (2) an evaluation of the Worker Yield Return Formula. Cone cerning the first objective, particular attention was given to Nationals receiving a wage of less than 70 cents per hour. Worker employment conditions such as yield level of the field harvested, worker supervision and 17 18 placement, and other factors which determine the yield and earnings, along with the personal characteristics of the workers having low wages, were investigated. An evaluation of the WYRF was needed to determine how well it fulfilled its purpose of raising the level of picker wages for workers harvesting low yielding fields. The adequacy of the level for normal 50 percent picker crop share along with the feasibility of the sliding scale and other aspects of the WYRF were considered. Particular attention.was to be given to possible ways of correcting defficiencies in the operation of the formula. Survey Sample Design The determination of the conditions present in the Michigan pickle industry required unbiased estimates of 1958 industry conditions. Obtaining accurate data on the entire universe of Michigan "pickle" growers, processors, and Mexican.National workers was neither economically feasible with the funds available nor physically possible for available research personnel. The National Pickle Packers Association (NPPA) and the National Pickle Growers Association (NPGA) provided information on each of its members as to the number of Nationals expected, acreage, and location of receiving 19 stations. Names_and addresses of growers, individual contract acreage, and number of Nationals per individual grower were normally confidential with each.NPGA member company but such information could have been obtained through the members. However, not all processors em- ploying Mexican.Nationals were members of the NPPA and NPGA. Therefore, a sample drawn only from members might not fulfill the universality condition. Another approach to estimating the conditions with- in.the industry, with particular respect to the Mexican National labor force, would be to draw a sample from the universe of Nationals employed. The Michigan.Employment Security Commission maintains records of all Nationals em- ployed in Michigan. The Commission could not fulfill a request for information identifying applicants, employers or employing establishments. The divulgence of such in- formation.was not in.conformance with the provisions of the Nagner-Payser Act under which they were operating. Total numbers of Nationals employed in the various districts served by Employment Security Commission.branch offices were released periodically through Commission reports. Random sampling on an area basis was chosen as the best method of obtaining an accurate estimate in the ab- sence of a complete list of growers and Nationals. The 20 location.and scope of Mexican.National employment was dee termined from the Employment Security Commission sources. All district branch offices in Southern Michigan reported, Nationals being employed except the Pontiac branch office. The area served by this office was eliminated from the study on.the basis of being devoid of Mexican National laborers. Counties in the Pontiac district were Lenawee, Macomb, Monroe, Washtenaw, Oakland and Wayne. The southern one-half of the Lower Peninsula was designated as the sample area in order to reduce the geo- graphical sc0pe and also because of the relatively few numbers of "pickle" growers and Nationals employed in the northern counties. The sample area was confined to all counties south of and including the tier of counties from Bay through Muskegon (corresponding roughly to an imaginary Bay City to Muskegon line). All counties in Southern Mich- igan except those omitted in the south-east section were included in.the sample area, making for a total of 34 counties (See Fig. 2). All townships within the sample area were numbered and given equal probabilities of being selected. Farmers in a random sample of these townships were interviewed sequentially, by counties, until an adequate number of sample growers and workers were obtained. Each township drawn.was visited by one of four survey workers over a 2 1/2 week 20a .§5§§8.E§S£S§ 38 «and... :38»... no: Ba. BE HERE Sea 358» .22 a EH «.3 of Mason» gauge 30 o . 33 033: wan-«Ba .333 c.3330 «so . 3063qu .3332 «35398 n o cum-5.3, Aug 3.32:8» 3on i a. 328.33— 335: wanna—Ala _ _ 14m 30.8.3 on :33 33353 018a 3... 933 21 period in.July. The sample township was thoroughly invest- igated as to the presence of pickling cucumber growers living within.the township. When growers were discovered, they were personally contacted to determine if they employed Mexican Nationals. Growers who employed Mexican National labor to harvest pickling cucumbers were asked to cooperate in the study. Because of some apparently justified complaints from the Bay City area that the random sample was not representative of the area, Frazer Township in Bay County was adjudged to be representative and was included in the sample on a non- random basis. Five sample growers selling to three different processors were selected from this township. Subsequent experience with these growers' data confirmed the original judgement as to the township‘s representativeness and its data was included throughout the entire study. The results from the study apply to all pickling cu- cumbers growers employing Mexican.National labor in Southern Michigan rather than being restricted to some smaller universe such as only growers who have contracted with process- ors who are members of the NPPA and/or NPGA. The sample townships included 83 pickling cucumber growers who employed Mexican Nationals, 79 of whom furnished some usable data. Ferris township, Montcalm County provided 22 the largest number of sample growers, 17, while six dif- ferent counties contained only one sample grower. Slightly over 1100 different Mexican Nationals were employed on these sample farms during the 1958 season. These nationals worked about 160,000 hours harvesting about 269,000 bushels of pickling cucumbers. The 79 sample grow- ers marketed over $190,000 worth of pickles through twenty- five receiving stations to fifteen different processors, thirteen of which were members of the NPGA and fourteen of which were members of the NPPA. Collection of the Data Growers residing in the sample townships were asked to cooperate with survey workers on the initial contact. Upon obtaining the growers interest and cooperation, he was interviewed to determine characteristics of the farm, the grower‘s pro-harvest knowledge of and attitudes toward WYRF, his cultural practices, and his expected practices in the use of labor to harvest pickling cucumbers. Forms to record the amounts of various production factors used (see . Appendices A,B, and C) and the costs incurred in the growing, harvesting and marketing his ”pickle" crop were left with the grower after explaining to him how to record the in? formation on the forms. Forms were given to the growers on 23 which they recorded the hours spent daily by their workers. At least eight hours per day for each day of a six-day work , week were accounted for in recording the hours spent at work, sick, loafing, resting, refusing to work, not working due to weather, and with work unavailable. Nearly all of the sample growers were contacted per- sonally during mid-harvest season (August) to ascertain the condition of the cost and hours records being kept by the growers Encouragement was given to all growers, especially the growers who were not maintaining current records. They were urged to bring all records up to date and maintain.them on a daily basis. Contacting the growers provided them with an opportunity to ask questions concerning difficulties ens countered in filling out the forms and resulted in more accurate and usable data. Upon completion of the "pickle" harvest season grower record forms were picked up at the farm and a final inter- view taken. For each field, yield in pounds and returns for each grade of pickling cucumbers sold by the grower were obtained from the processor records. Daily weight slips for each field and for every worker or group of workers were made available by all but one of the companies. These forms, along with worker earnings statements for all workers on the sample farms, were microfilmed at the company offices. The 24 worker earnings statements indicated for each individual worker his daily and weekly total earnings. Also these forms provided company records of hours working and not work- ing with reasons why the picker was not working. The hours reported on company earnings statements were not in all cases identical or similar recorded by the growers. In fact, five receiving station operators did not ask growers or workers to furnish daily hours, yet hours were entered on company records. Where discrepencies arose between.company and_ grower recorded hours, it was decided, grower by grower, which set of hours was most accurate and therefore should be used in computing average hourly earnings. Tabulation and Analysis of Data The microfilmed company records, along with the grower questionnaire, record of hours, and cost records, provided the bulk of the data utilized in the study. 'Worker earning statements were a standard form provided by the NPGA, while the weight slips varied in form and composition of informa— tion from company to company. The variance in company weight slips was a matter of degree of information recorded, as all company weight slips provided at least the same type of basic information needed in the study. Daily weight slips were made out by the weight—master at the company receiving stations upon delivery of the pickling cucumbers by the grower. After each worker's 25 (or group of workers) picking was weighed, the weights and value of each grade was recorded along with the grower's name and field number, worker's name and/or number, totals of weight and value, and the share due the worker. Delivery was accomplished at least once each picking day. If the picker worked in more than one field during the day, a weight slip was made out for each picking in each of the different fields. The worker earnings statements were compiled individ- ually for each worker and encompassed a two-week employment period. This record provided a complete identification of the worker and his earnings. Places where he had worked, whether he worked individually or as a member of a group, daily disposition of hours, rate of pay, earnings, and WYRF adjustments, all identified by date, grower, and field number, were entered on the worker earnings statement. Company records were also utilized in obtaining ins formation concerning grower expenses, yields and returns. Some processors offered very few services to their contract growers and kept only limited records on their growers, whereas other companies provided extensive services and had detailed records on their transactions with their growers. Charges assessed the growers for services and materials provided, measured acreage and abandonment by date, seed variety, and field ratings exemplify the types of information 26 obtained from the various company records. The data from all sources were transferred to Inter-. national Business Machine cards for tabulation and analysis. A basic data card was punched for each worker's daily pick- ing in a sample grower's field. If a worker picked in more than one sample field during one day, then a correSponding number of cards were punched to allow summation of data on a field basis. The daily weight slips provided weights and values of the pickles picked by grade size, and contain- ed the gross pay earned by the worker for picking them. The company recorded disposition of hours was entered from the worker earning statements. The grower recorded disposition of hours was obtained from the completed grower record or estimated from a grower interview schedule and other sources of information available. The basic data cards had recorded on them the weight and value of the pickles picked by grade, gross pay of the picker, rate of pay, hours recorded of the grower, and hours recorded by the company. Each card was identified by date, worker, field, grower, and company. Because of the variations in size and number of pickling cucumber grades between companies, it was necessary to adopt standard grades for use in the study. A majority of the companies were using nearly identical grade sizes, therefore this most common grade size distribution was 27 accepted as a standard. Company records were interpolated and/or extropolated to the standard grades with a series of computational devices involving the proportions of pickling cucumbers of sizes varying 1/16 of an inch at a time. The conversion to standard grades did not involve the bushel yields, worker earnings, or computations other than the size distribution of the crop. The basic data cards were first summarized by field and date to check for errors. The errors encountered were corrected by reference to the raw data. Sorting and summarizing the cards by grower and field provided total production, gross returns, labor‘s share of crop, and worker hours on both a per field and per grower basis for the season. The summation of the cards for each individual worker and date yielded quantity picked, the value and share of the crop harvested, and the hours disposi- tion from which gross pay and earnings per hour were calcu— lated on a daily, weekly, and seasonal basis according to the procedure by which the cards were sorted. Weekly and season summary cards were punched for individual workers from the basic data cards. Relationships between the primary dependent variables of yield, worker earnings and gross and net returns per acre and the factors which influenced these variables was determined 28 through cross tabulation of grower data cards. Information from the grower schedules pertaining to various management practices, characteristics of the grower and the farm, and levels of inputs were coded and punched onto grower cards along with picking costs and other production costs in- curred by the grower in producing the crop. CHAPTER III ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF YIELD LEVELS Characteristics of the Sample Farms The seventy-nine pickling cucumber producing farms investigated in the study were selected randomly to obtain an unbiased estimate of the conditions present in the Mich- igan pickle industry. The primary objectives of the study were the estimations of hourly earnings received by Mexican Nationals in harvesting the crop and an evaluation of the WYRF. Therefore, due to limited funds and personnel with which to conduct the study, the sample was limited to pickling cucumbers producers who employed Nationals for harvest labor. In 1958 approximately 70 percent of the pickling cucumber crop was picked by Nationals, with the remainder being harvested by domestic workers and indigenous farm labor. The sample drawn represents the major portion of the industry, but may not be representative of the entire industry which includes growers employing or utilizing labor other than.Nationals. Pickling cucumber acreage harvested on the sample farms ranged from.3 to 62 acres. The average acreage of “pickles" per farm measured 15.8 acres. No evidence of a functional relationship between the size of the "pickle" enterprise and yield or picker earnings existed for the 29 30 farms studied.(see Table 31) Most growers contend that it is difficult for the average grower to realize economy of scale in pickling cucumber production. Very little specialized equipment is required as the crop can.be pro- duced with general farm equipment. Besides company control, of contract acreage size and individual farm crop rotations, the resultant increase in the number of pickers required with.an.increase in.acreage is a primary factor in determine ing growers from increasing acreage. Employing more pickers necessitates additional housing and food procurement and may create prOblems that are not usually encountered with a small number of pickers. The 215.2 average bushel yield per acre harvested on the sample farms was 71.2 bushels larger than the 1958 Michigan.average yield of 144 bushels an acre reported by the Michigan Crop Reporting Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The average price_per bushel received by the sample growers was 96.3 cents, which was considerably less than the Michigan Crop Reporting Service estimate of $1.20 per bushel. The crop reporting service based its estimates on information regarding the total of industry, including the very small producers and the portion of the crop sild commercially for home processing. The yield and price per bushel were substantiated 31 TABLE 4a-FARM SIZE OF PICKLING CUCUMBER ENTERPRISE RELATED TO BUSHEL YIELD PER ACRE AND WORKER HOURLY EARNINGS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Harvested Number Bushel_Yield Worker Acres of Pickling of Per Acre Average Cucumbers Farms Hourly Per Farm Earnings 5 or_less 5 207 $.65 6-10.9 23 238 .75 11-15.9 20 227 .79 16-20.9 10 266 .84 21—25.9 5 151 .66 26-30.9 4 240 .83 31 or more 6 234 .72 by two independent studies of 1958 wage and yield data in the Michigan pickle industry. The NPGA accumulated data on 8,826 workers and the fields on which they picked from 18 member labor employment associations. The Bureau of Employ- ment Security of the United States Department of Labor conducted a survey in which they sampled wage and yield information from the records of 35 labor employment associa- tions. The study by the Bureau of Employment Security indicated that for their sample the yield per acre was 211.5 bushels for the season, which is comparatively close to 215.2 bushels. The NPGA estimate was lower at 172 bushels per acre.(see table 6) The sample growers in this study received an average price per bushel of 96.3 cents compared to 99 cents per bushel 32 TABLE S-KINDS OF GROWERS AND FARMS INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE Characteristics 7 Value Number of growers 79' Average acres of pickling cucumbers harvested 15.8 Percentage of grades by weight _ . Standard 1's (less than 1 1/16 inches in diameter)15.8 Standard 2's (1 1/16 to 1 1/2 inches in diameter) 36.6 Standard 3's (1 1/2 to 2 inches in diameter) 37.7 Standard 4's (over 2 inches in diameter) 9.9 Average bushel yield per acre 215.2 Average price per bushel .96.3 Dollar value of pickling cucumbers per acre 203.53 as harvested by a sample of 863 pickers in the Bureau of Employment Security study. The NPGA did not report an average price per bushel. As a result of this study, it is estimated that the average hourly earnings of Nationals engaged in harvesting pickling cucumbers in Michigan.was 78 cents per hour. The hourly data used in computing the average hourly earnings were the "best" hourly data discussed Chapter I. The average is weighed according to the number of hours worked by each worker. The two previously mentioned studies used only company recorded hours to compute average hourly earnings. Both studies produced hourly wage figures which were remarkably close to 78 cents. The NPGA study indicated hourly earnings 33 m.mm II it m.om moo: pom mpaoo on swap mmoa - waa>aoooa mnoxnoz paoonmm mam. Ham.o wen.o mm. mwaasnmo Samson owmaobd II mm. II mmm. “mamaaoevamsmsn mom ooaam II II mm.wom mm.momAmanHoovoaom mom osamb mono m.m I: m . LI m.m_ Apawaos he entomomv: .02 as u- s.nm Assmao: an_esoohodvm .oz H.om um I: warn Apnwaoz an paoonomvm .oz as u- m.ma insane: an psoonodva .oz soapaomonm compo was Hes m\a Ham mam Anaosnshvohoo and eaoaa mmm.m mom I: moaH . mnoxhos mo ampssz mammoamso 0H machoamso mm mammoamso mm newsman ow was: wsaaoaasm soapwaoommw whosonw memo mm pmaam sommom hpamho>fisb aopH 0Hx0fim Hmsoapmz paasoow pace 0H am no smoasm opmpm sdeSOHz ZOHBHZD madam Z¢0HEUH2 Mm Emm>m4m mHMUHm mmmH mmB mo mMHQDBm Mme szweHAHm¢m4szU mo mBzHOmlm mflfldfi 34 of 78.9 cents. The Bureau of Employment Security arrived at two hourly earnings figures -— 77.6 cents for the entire season and 81.1 cents for the first 35 days. These and other points of comparability are noted in table 6. Relationship of Picker Earnings and Grower Returns to Bushel Yield Per Acre The bushel yield per acre pr0ved to be closely related to and indicative of the levels of returns to the growers and the earnings of pickers in the growers fields. The value of the crop increases as the yield increases since the total value is the pounds harvested of each grade multiplied by the respective price per grade. In some instances bushel yields composed of abnormal grade size distributions did not conform to the proportional increase in value with an increase in bushel yield. But as the 1958 WYRF was based on.a bushel yield per acre, the re- lationships between picker earnings and grower net returns was investigated on a bushel basis. Earnings Per Houg The picker's wages were dependent to a large extent on the yield of the field they harvested.(see Table 7) The worker's physical ability, age and desire to earn a high wage has some bearing on the earnings he receives, 35 TABLE 7-HOURLY EARNINGS OF PICKERS AND NET RETURNS PER ACRE AS RELATED TO BUSHEL YIELD PER ACRE OF PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Bushel Yield Number of Average Hourly ' Net Returns to Per Acre Growers Earnings Growers Per Acre of Nationals To Cover Land Charges and Risk *7 80-119 11 s .70 s - 5.25 120-199 27 .67 11.82 200-299 19 .80 38.65 400-449 3 1.01 113.00 but nevertheless the field which he picks must have a productive capacity of a magnitude that will allow the picker to harvest a sufficient amount of a combination of the higher value grades to enable him to earn a satis- factory wage. Nationals who harvested fields that yielded less than 120 bushels per acre earned an average of 70 cents per hour. Of the eleven growers that produced yields that did not, reach the 120 bushel mark for the entire harvest season, four growers had fields which did not average twenty bushels per week. The pickers harvesting these fields were eligible for wage adjustments under the WYRF. Three growers actually paid such adjustments, while the processor with which the other one was contracted did not deduct wage adjustments or make WYRF payments to the workers involved. The "pickle” 36 crops of six producers met the twenty bushel per week criteria of the formula, but did not attain 120 bushels on a seasonal basis due to the abandonment of the fields prior to the duration of six weeks. Yields of between 120 and 199 bushels per acre produced average earnings of 67 cents per hour, which was less than the 70 cents per hour earned from picking fields yielding less than 120 bushels. The WYRF wage adjustments and the abandonment of poor fields in the lower yield category prevented earnings from dropping to an extremely low level. Conversely, the WYRF may have contributed to the unsatisfactory wage level of 67 cents for yields from 120 to 199 bushels per acre. A number of the 27 growers pro- ducing yields in that range marketed large cucumbers to meet the bushelage criteria of the WYRF. Some growers whose yields, if picked with normal size distribution, would have been so low as to cause WYRF adjustments, prevented this from happening by consciously increasing the proportion of large sizes picked. The growers whose yields averaged between 120 and 200 bushels per acre and who sold to companies which bought number 4's produced an average of_15.6 percent 4's while several growers exceeded 25 percent. On the other hand, growers whose yields averaged over 200 bushels per acre and who also sold to 37 companies buying 4's averaged only 12.3 percent 4's. Nationals_harvesting yields of over 200 bushels per acre averaged 85.5 cents per hour. Average hourly earnings increased with each succeedingly higher yield level over, the 200 bushel level. Mexican.Nationals, on the average, earned 80 cents per hour when harvesting yields from 200 to 299 bushels per acre. Average_hourly earnings on.300 to 399 bushel an acre fields was 90 cents per hour. Yields of 400 or more bushels an acre provided the opportunity for workers to average $1.01 an hour. Distribution of WOrker Earnings Although the average hourly earnings received by all Nationals in the study was 78 cents per hour, 30.2 percent of the Nationals received an average hourly wage of less than 70 cents. This estimate is based on the distribution of the earnings of men working at least 50 hours on the sample farms. The earnings of 852 workers on.which complete earnings and hours data were available were studied in.detai1, and of this sample of workers, 286 were employed on at_1east one, of the sample farms for less than 50 hours during the season. Because these workers were brought in.from nonssample farms for short periods, often for only a day or less, their season average hourly earnings varied more than the season averages for workers employed for longer periods. The 38 variance in earnings of the men employed for short periods is exemplified by the $2.70 per hour earned in a few hours by one worker and the less than 35 cents an hour average earned by eleven men, which was the lowest average paid to a worker employed for more than 50 hours. Also 15 workers who worked less than 50 hours averaged more per hour than -any man.working over 50 hours. Therefore, a minimum of 50 hours of employment was selected as a basis for the estimation of the distribution of earnings. Grower Net Retupns The bushel yield per acre primarily determined gross returns per acre, and in turn, the net returns realized by the grower for each acre of pickling cucumbers which he produced. Growers who produced yields of less than 200 bushels per acre received low earnings or net losses corre- sponding to the similar low level of earnings to the pickers who harvested these same low yields. (Table 7) Nearly forty percent (37.8) of the sample growers failed to net $20 per acre to cover the use of their land and to compensate them for laying out an average of $59.33 per acre exclusive of picking costs. Fields yielding under 120 bushels per acre did not provide sufficient returns to enable the grower to meet the costs incurred in growing and harvesting the crop.(Table 9) 39 TABLE 8-NUMBER OF WORKERS WITH DIFFERENT SEASON AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS, 852 MEXICAN NATIONALS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 —__ Season.Average Nationals Working Hourly Earnings on Samplg:Farms Less than_50 Hours : Over 50 hpgr§_ Cents Number Percent Number Percent Less than 25 4 1.3 -- ' 25-29 7 2.4 -- 30-34 -- -- 35—39 1 .3 4 .7 40-4“ 17 5 .9 -- . 45-49 26 9,1 12 2.1 50-54 8 3.0 36 6.2 55-59 11 3,9 18 3.1 60-64 23 8.0 44 7.6 65-69 16 5.6 60 10.4 70-74 27 9.4 64 11.1 75-79 26 9.1 57 9.9 80-84 18 6,3 49 8.5 85-89 12 4.2 50 8.7 90-94 22 7.7 25 4.3 95-99 15 5.2 no 790 100-104 19 6.7 30 5.2 105-109 3 1.0 . 47 8.2 110-114 7 2.5 18 3.1 115-119 3 1.0 11 1.9 120-124 3 1,0 2 .3 125-129 3 1.0 8 1.4 130-134 1 .3 _- 135-139 -- _ -- 140-144 -- 1 .2 145-149 3 1.0 -- 150-154 -- -_ 155-159 2 97 '- 160-164 -- _ -- 165-169 4 1.4 -- 170-174 2 97 -- 175-179 -- g -- 180-184 2 ,7 -- Over 185 1 .3 -- 270 1 .3 Totals 286 57g 40 Yields between 120 and 199 bushels per acre gave positive net returns on the average, but such returns were small enough_so as to be erased when a charge for land use is in- cluded. A rent for the use of the land was not included in the cost analysis due to the difficulty of making an accurate appraisal of the value of the land on each of the sample farms. A fairly representative figure for rent per acre would be based on 5 percent of the value of the land, or about $20 an acre for most of the sample farms. Growers with yields of 200 or more bushels per acre had average net returns exceeding $20 per acre, therefore realizing returns above all costs of production, harvesting and marketing the crop. Three growers producing exception- ally high yields of over 400 bushels per acre averaged a net return of $112.50, excluding a cost for land. Nature of Costs in Pickling Cucumber Producpign, Seventy-two of the sample growers furnished usable data on the costs incurred in the growing, harvesting, and market- ing of their pickling cucumber crop. The sample growers were asked to record all cash expenses and hours of labor for all factors of production of the crop on the expense record forms (See Appendix C). Costs incurred before harvest are incurred regardless of the size of the crop whereas harvesting costs vary almost 41 directly with yield. Total cost was therefore divided into picking costs and non-picking costs to investigate the re- lationship of each with the various levels of yield. The picking cost is primarily the share of the crop . that goes to the pickers as payment for harvesting the crop. As the share of the crop to the pickers is at least 50 percent of value of crop they pick, this cost measured in an acre basis is always at least 50 percent of the gross returns per acre. (table 9) This table indicates the direct relation- ship of gross returns per acre (dollar yield) and bushel yield per acre. Therefore, picking cost per acre increases at a constant rate with increases in both bushel and dollar yield per acre. Picking cost also exceeds the non-picking costs for all levels of yield except the very low yields of 90 bushels per acre and less. The largest share of the non-picking costs are inr curred before harvest and constitute the cost of productive factors, which are some of the essential determinates of the yield level. Grower management and labor supervision are important in producing a high yield, but it is evident (from table 9) that the use of yield boosting practices, although increasing the cost of production, results in a greater increase in yield per acre, and in turn, greater net returns per acre. Growers who produced yields of less than 200 42 TABLE 9-GROSS RETURNS, COSTS, AND NET RETURNS (INCLUDING RENT) RELATED TO PER ACRE YIELD OF PICKLING CUCUMEERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Yield Gross Total Cost Picking NoanickingNet Returns to Per Acre Returns (except Cost Cost Cover Land Per Acre rent) Charges and Risk Per Acre Bushels Dollars Dollars per acre Dollars Less than _ p . , 91 69.00 81.50 39.00 42.50 ~12,5O 91-99 87.66 102.00 52.65 49.35 ~23.34 100-119 109.14 108.42 62.85 45.57 .72 120-159 135.81 129.31 77.25 52.06 9.50 160-199 168.85 151.71 87.29 64.42 17.14 200-249 212.78 178.78 115.71 63.07 34.00 250-299 246,00 196,50 126.00 70.50 49.50 300.349 321925 245925 175925 70900 76900 350-399 358.20 288.80 178.80 110.00 69.40 400-499 387.00 274.50 199.50 75.00 112.50 bushels had an average of $48.32 per acre non-picking costs, while growers having yields over 200 bushels averaged $72.63 to grow a crop. The study of costs_is continued in more detail in Chapter IV in the section, What Does It Cost to Grow an.Acre of “Pickles"? where cost analysis is made on the basis of harvest and preeharvesting costs per acre and harvesting cost per bushel. Industry Recommendations After evaluating the WYRF on the basis of research re- 43 sults in view of values deemed important, recommendations were made to the industry to correct the defficiencies of the formula.3 The two primary changes in the WYRF recommended were a) Place the WYRF on a dollar yield per acre basis and b) Increase the standards in the WYRF.) It was also recommended that an.educational program be carried out by the NPPA and NPGA in cooperation.with the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service to help farmers meet the higher standards . As the dollar value of the cr0p per acre reflects both yield per acre and quality, it is even more closely related to average hourly earnings than.bushel yield per acre(tab1e 10).. A criteria based on.poundage alone, which does not consider crop value, is unrealistic due to fluctuations in bushel values from year to year, within.the same year from field to field, and within the same field from picking to picking. The average price per bushel was 96.3 cents for the entire sample, with the average price per bushel varying among growers from a low of 48 cents to a high of $1.34. Increasing bushel yield to meet the minimum standard 3AnEvaluation of the Worker Yield Return Formula For the Michigan Pickle Industry, With Recommendations for the Industry, by L. Gallardo, D. Hathaway, G. Johnson and N. Stuckman, Agricultural Economics Mimeo No. 745, Michigan State University, January 24, 1959. 44 TABLE 10-AVERAGE HOURLY'EARNINGS OF MEXICAN NATIONALS, BY VALUE OF PICKLING CUCUMBERS PRODUCED PER ACRE, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Dollar Value of Number of ' Average Hourly Production Growers Earnings of Nationals Less than 120 14 $ ,62 121-200 29 .70 201-300 13 .86 301-400 15 .93 401-450 2 . .88 of l20 bushels per acre was, in some instances, accomplished by delaying pickings until a sizable proportion of the pick- ing was composed of the large fruit which, in.turn, increased bushel yield but decreased total dollar returns. Some processors purchased large, unusable "pickles” at low rates in order to meet bushelage criteria, then dumped the fruit. The intent of the WYRF was circumvented by such practices, thereby preventing the formula from increasing the average hourly earnings of the Nationals. Placing the WYRF on a dollar basis would have the advantage of eliminating the inefficiency resulting from increasing bushel yields through the production and marketing of the larger, lower value cucumbers. 45 An increase in the bushel standard of the WYRF in 1958 to 200 bushels (or to $192.60 per acre based on the average of 96.3¢ per'bushel) would have eliminated all seasonal average hourly earnings below 70¢ per hour for individual workers. Increasing the standard to a level in the vicinity of 200 bushels per acre would have imposed severe hardships upon growers with low yields. Such growers were already receiving either meager or negative net returns without the additional cost of adjustment under the WYRF. An.increase in penalties would have further reduced the already un- satisfactory returns from such production. Converting the bushel yield requirement per acre to a crop value requirement per acre would be, in general, advantageous to both picker and grower. But raising wages by regulation through an.increase in the formula standard would be less satisfactory to all concerned than treatment of the basic causes of low earnings, primary of which is low yields. Nearly all causes of low picker earnings result- ing from'both grower and processor management and super- visory practices can.be eliminated. Reliance on educational programs is preferable to regulation; but the relatively slower rate of acceptance and putting into practice inform- ation presented through educational means, compared to immediate forced action resulting from regulation, make 46 regulations preferable when considering the time element in increasing worker wages. Recommendations made to the industry encompassed both an increase in the WYRF standard and educational programs to be directed towards growers, processors, and labor associations serving as a partial alternative to higher formula standards. The last chapter of this thesis, Michigan Picking Cucumbers - the Grower, the Picker and the WYRF, is a partial fulfillment by the Michigan.Agricultural Experiment Station of its obligation in the grower educational program. Recommending the retention of the WYRF for the 1959 harvest season and/or an increase in the minimum yield level for the 50 percent worker share involves non-Pareto better welfare adjustments. Income is taken from low producing growers in.the form of WYRF penalties and given to the workers resulting in an increase in their income. As growers with low yields are already receiving poor returns when com- pared an an industry-wide basis, these growers may prefer to discontinue pickling cucumber production in preference to increasing yield (and in turn income) or to giving a greater share of returns to the pickers. Such grower action was partially responsible for the decrease of total state acreage in 1958. . During the first year of the WYRF, Michigan pickling 4? cucumber acreage decreased 27 percent from the 1957 level, but total production was reduced only 14 percent. Although many processors voluntarily reduced acreage by not contract- ing with growers known to have low yields and in turn relied on increased yields from the better growers, a substantial portion of the acreage decline was due to grower reluctance to employ workers under the formula. . .The imposition of the WYRF on the industry has, in effect, brought on.another production control to add to the informal controls that have characterized the pickle industry. The processors have controlled production through acreage and price contracts. Each processor bases its total annual contract acreage on the quantity of "pickles" needed to fill its expected demand. Contract prices have generally been set at levels low enough to permit grower returns to be only high enough to assure the growers willingness to contract. Contract prices paid by all processors vary only slightly from processor to processor, thereby eliminating any poSsibility of a grower increasing returns through con- tracting with another company. With the growers facing pos- sible increased costs through.WYRF penalties and with prices remaining at levels which allow only meager returns to low producing growers without the WYRF, the formula takes the form of a production control although its original purpose was not designed as such. 48 When a grower discontinues "pickle" production, either voluntarily because of WYRF adjustments or involuntarily through inability to secure a contract, his number of possible farm enterprises is reduced by one. With.acreage allotments and other government controls limiting production of crops such as wheat and sugar beets, the grower will realize a decline in income if alternative crops yielding at least the return received from "pickle" production of pickling cucumbers, are not available to plant on the acreage formerly employed in the production of pickling cucumbers. Furthermore, the grower may be_satisfied with annual returns from low levels of production. The grower may feel that a Change in cultural and management practices would not be profitable or worth the effort when such changes would require an alteration of his farm organization. Justification of WYRF intent and use lies primarily within the problem of maintaining an annual supply of Mexican Nationals to harvest the crop on a state-wide basis. Low picker wages earned on low yielding fields endangers the en- tire supply of these workers. Since a majority of the growers have yield levels which allow pickers to earn satisfactory wages, allowing some growers to continue to produce low yields without picker wage adjustments jeopardizes the necessary sup- ply of Mexican National pickers not only to the inefficient 49 producers but to the growers that are providing satisfactory wages as well. The consequences of the loss of the Mexican National labor force in the absence of a mechanical picker would require major adjustments within the industry. In- dications are that production costs will increase with increased labor costs, and in the absence of contract price increases, will in turn eliminate the low producing growers. CHAPTER IV PRESENTING SOME OF THE RESULTS OF THE 1958 MICHIGAN PICKLE INDUSTRY SURVEY IN POPULAR FORM In this chapter the results of the study are presented as a popular—type report designed primarily for pickling cucumber growers and for industry members concerned with grower-processor relations and picker labor supervision and allocation. The publication was part of the industry-wide educational program utilizing the results of the study and adopted by the USDL, NPPA, NPGA and industry agreement. Expediency of the dissemination of the information presented in this publication was important in that the re- sults of the research on the 1958 season were to be made avail- able to the growers prior to pickling cucumber planting time in the Spring of 1959. Normally many months elapse between the submittance of a manuscript and the final publication of a Cooperative Extension Service bulletin. Therefore the report was entered as an article in the August 1959 Quarterly Bulletin of the Michigan.Agricultural Experiment Station. The article was pre-printed in May 1959 and was distributed by the Cooperative Extension Service as part of the grower education program. The report of necessity contains repetition of the material presented elsewhere in this thesis. In addition, 50 51 the 1959 WYRF is presented. Following the recommendations made to the USDL and the industry as related in Chapter III, the 1959 formula was based on a dollar value per acre and the standard of the WYRF increased. Other aSpects of the formula remained nearly identical as in the 1958 formula. The publication stresses the possible serious impli- cations of low picker wages and indicates to the grower his part in alleviating the conditions that give rise to low picker earnings. The relationships between the levels of inputs, amount of supervision, various cultural practices, and other factors of production and the resultant yield levels and earnings to pickers and/or growers are presented. The article in itself serves as a summary to this thesis as well as being a popular-type research publication. CHAPTER IV MICHIGAN PICKLING CUCUMBERS —- THE GROWER, THE PICKER AND THE WYRF ‘ Introduction Michigan.produces more pickling cucumbers than.any other state in.the United States. Pickling cucumbers are important to the three segments of the Michigan.pickle industry——the processor, the grower and the picker. These groups each have an equally important function.within.the industry and constitute the procedure by which pickling cucumbers are grown, harvested, marketed, and processed into pickles and related products. The Procesgor _ Pickle processing companies pay nearly $5 million each year for pickling cucumbers grown.by Michigan.farm- ers. Practically all of the 4.1 million bushels produced in.1958 were grown.under contract. Each company contracts with individual farmers to purchase the crop grown on.a specified number of acres at the contract price per grade. Delivery by the grower is made throughout the picking season.to a company receiving station.located.near the grower's farm. The labor employment association.for each company provides a labor force to growers who employ pickers. 52 53 The Grower Michigan growers produced over 28 percent of the total United States production of processing cucumbers in 1958. Production in the state has remained fairly constant during the past four years. The state average yield per acre in 1958 was 147 bushels which compares with 125 bushels in 1957 and 106 bushels in 1956, an increase of around 20 bushels per year. The rate of increase has been highsince 1950 when the average was only 30 bushels per acre. Fewer growers using more productive methods on larger acreages per farm account for most of the increase in average acre yield. Improved management techniques, disease resistant varieties, better cultural practices, and planting on more fertile soils have increased the productivity of each acre. Growers who produce high yields tend to use proper management on all aspects of their "pickle“ enterprise, whereas growers producing low yields usually employ poor or incomplete management practices. Therefore, it is difficult to isolate the effect of any one practice from the influence of other practices on the production of high yields. The Picks; Harvesting is done entirely by hand picking as an 54 efficient mechanical harvester has not yet been developed. Annually, nearly 65 percent of the labor force employed in harvesting the Michigan pickling cucumber crop is made up of Mexican Nationals. In 1958, 9 ,600 of these agri- cultural workers picked "pickles" in Michigan. Few do- mestic workers are willing to do the strenuous physical work involved in picking. These Mexicans are contracted under the provisions of Public Law 78, an agreement beWeen the United States and Mexico regulating the employment of Mexican agricultural workers in this country. The most common method of worker wage payment is on the crop share basis . Each worker receives a percentage share, traditionally 50 percent of the sale value of the quantity he picks. Variations above the 50 percent picker- 50 percent grower share occur. An example would be 100 percent to the pickers for the first picking as payment for vine training done during picking. Pickers work individually or in small groups. Nationals generally pick throughout the entire seasonon the same farm or on farms located within a small area. LivIng quarters are provided either on the farm or in company operated worker camps. Minimum acceptable housing standards are specified in Public Law 78. Yields Per Acre and the Future of the Industry 55 Whether or'nct growers continue to increase yields will play a larger part in.determining the future of the Michigan pickle industry. Although increases in yield per acre have been.1arge over the past few years, further in- creases are necessary for two reasons: 1) To keep picker earnings at levels which guarantee the continuance of’an.annual supply of Mexican National pickers. 2) To increase the profits received by growers and in.turn make it possible for growers to centinue raising pickling cucumbers. Workers picking fields which yield less than 200 bushels per acre generally make unsatisfactory wages. Similarly, growers producing less than.200 bushels per acre receive meager returns. 1 Low picker earnings endanger future supplies of Mexican Nationals. Rising non-farm wage rates in.Michigan will probably continue to increase the minimum level of hourly earnings_which will be acceptable to the two govern- ments. Further, economic conditions are steadily improving in Mexico. This, in, turn, will reduce unemployment and . low wage rates there, the two primary reasons why Mexican laborers seek work in.this country. Source of the Information .— . 56 The information presented in this article is taken from the results of a survey of the Michigan pickling cu- cumber industry by the Michigan.Agricultural Experiment Station in.l958 in cooperation with the National Pickle Packers Association.(the national organization of pickle processor and buyers) and the National Pickle Growers Association (the national organization of labor associa- tions and their members). These contracting and.buying companies provided grower yield and returns data and picker earnings information from their records. One of the main.Objects of the survey was to estimate the average hourly earnings received by Mexican.Nationals picking pickling cucumbers in.Michigan. Low earnings by some Mexican.Nationals in previous years was a principal reason.for introducing the Worker Yield Return.Formula (WYRF) In 1958. The purpose of this wage formula was to increase earnings to pickers harvesting low yielding fields but was not, however, a minimum wage guarantee. The causes of unsatisfactory wages were thought to be due in.part to low yielding fields and unable or un-, willing pickers. The causes of low earnings investigated were (a) characteristics of the picker and (b) character-_ istics of the grower and his pickling cucumber enterprise. Labor association picker supervision and allocation was also studied as to its effect on earnings. 57 As an.unbiased estimate of the conditions present in the Michigan pickling cucumber industry was needed, a random sample was used to select the sample growers and pickers. This method eliminated any tendency to study only certain types of growers or only growers selling to certain.companies. Townships were drawn at random from the principal production area in.Michigant This area includes all counties south of the Bay through Muskegon tier of counties except six southeastern.counties in the vicinity of Detroit. One township in.Bay County represent- ative of that area was included on a non-random'basis. The sample townships included 83 farmers who grew pickling cucumbers which.were harvested by Mexican.Nation- als. Seventy-nine of the farmers furnished some usable data for the final tabulations. Around 1,100 different Nationals were employed on these farms at some time during the 1958 season. The farmers involved sold over $190,000 worth of pickling cucumbers to 15 companies through 25 receiving stations. Farmers in.the sample provided information regard- ing the cultural practices used in producing pickling cu- cumbers, costs of production, their practices concerning the use of labor, and their attitudes towards conditions existing on their farms and in the industry. Most of the 58 growers provided records of the hours spent by their pick— ers at work or not working and the reasons why they were not workIng. .A choice of company recorded or grower re- corded hours was made, grower by grower, as to the hours that would be used in.calculating hourly earnings as used in this article. TABLE ll—rKINDS OF GRONERS AND FARMS INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 3: Characteristics value Number of farms.............................. 79 Average acres of pickling cucumbers harvested 15.8 Average price'per bushel..................... 96.393 Average yield, bushels per acre.............. 215.2 Dollar value of pickling cucumbers per acre.. $203.53 Production Under the 1958 WOrker Yield Return.Formula (WYRF) As a result of this study, it was estimated that the average hourly earnings of Nationals harvesting pickling cucumbers in.Michigan was 78 cents per hour for the summer of 1958. Nearly one-third (30.2 percent) of these workers received an average of less than 70 cents an.hour. Not onlydid many pickers receive low earnings, but a fairly large portion.of the sample growers received unsatisfactory returns for producing a ”pickle” crop. Almost 40 percent (37.8) of the growers failed to net $20 an acre. Low earn- 59 ings to both picker and grower were found to be due primari- ly to low yields. The relationship between picker earnings and yield served as a basis for the earlier establishment of the 1958 'Worker Yield Return.Formula. This relationship was generally known.to many members of the industry but was more precisely established by the survey. The 1958 Worker Yield Return Formula was part of the agreement between the Bureau of Employment Security and the National Pickle Growers Association.regarding the employment and payment of both.Nationals and domestic workers who pick "pickles" on the farms of the grower members. Under the WYRF, pickers were paid according to the past practice of sharing in.not less than 50 percent of the value of the crop provided yields were at least 120 bushels per acre. Bushel yield records were maintained on all fields. ‘Workers pick- ing fieldsyielding less than 120 bushels per acre were paid a proportion of the value of the crop based on a scale of the bushel yield (Tablelz). Any balance due the worker above 50 percent was paid at the end of the season. A mechanical pickling cucumber harvester is in.the developmental stage. Agricultural engineers are constantly trying to perfect experimental machines, but replacement of hand pickers by mechanical ones is still a few years away. 60 TABLE 12—1958 WORKER YIELD RETURN FORMULA Bushels per acre Workers share value of crop ;_‘ __.__ 120 or more............. Not less than 50 percent 119-10900000000000000099 ' . a . 108-100.0009000000000090 . . 99‘- 920000000000000000. I ' . 65 . 9101.13880000000000000 . ' . 7o . a O\ O 8 Until large numbers of these machines become available, the grower must continue to employ manual labor. wage formulas regulating payment of pickers will probably continue as long as low yielding fields are being grown.and picker crap share payment methods are used. “The ‘HOrker‘Yield Return Formula was changed from a bushel yield per acre basis to a dollar yield per acre standard for the 1959 season (Table 13). The dollar value of the crop reflects both.yield and quality, and it is even.more closely related to average hourly earnings than.bushel yield. The Importance of Increasing Yields The bushel yield per acre provides a fairly reliable indicator of the returns to growers and the earnings of pickers in.the grower's field. The value of the crop in- creases as the yield increases due to the fact that the total value is the pounds of each grade multiplied by the respective 61 TABLE 13—1959 WORKER HELD RETURN FORMULA Dollars per acre Workers share(value of crop) 147 or more............ Not less than 50 percent 145-1u60000000000000000 . 51 l“3-1M_................ ' ' I 52 . 141-142,..............o . . . 53 . J'39-'1-l'l’00000000000000000 . .- . 54 ' 137-1389000000000000009 . ' ' 55 . 135-136900000000000000g . ' . 56 . 133-134,..............9 . . . 57 C 131-132................ ' ' ' 58 ' 129-1309000000000000009 . . . 59 . 127-128................ ' ' ' 60 ' 125-1269000000000000000 I I . 61 . 123-1240000000000000000 . . I. 62 . 121-1220000000000000009 ' . . 63 . 119-1200000000000000000 I ' . 64 . 118 or less............ ' S ' 65 ' price per grade and added together in.a season total. Assuming that the pickers receive at least 50 percent of the value of the crop, 50 percent or less is left to the grower to meet his cash expenses, provide a return for his labor, yield a return on his investment in land and machinery and provide a netcprofit high enough to compensate him for the risk involved. The pickers' wages are dependent to a large extent on the yield of the field they harvest(see Table 14). The worker's physical ability and desire to same high wage has some bearing on the earnings he does receive, nevertheless there must be pickles available often enough and in such 62 quantity that he is able to harvest a sufficient amount of a combination of the higher value grades to allow him to make a satisfactory wage. TABLE l4——HOURLY’EARNINGS OF PICKERS AND NET RETURNS PER.ACRE AS RELATED TO BUSHEL YIELD PER ACRE OF PICKLING GUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19 58 _‘_ LL . Average hourly Net returns to Yield per acre earnings of growers per acre .. . .Nationals to cover land ' charges and risk 80-119.....;.... .70 ~5;25 120-1999000009000 .67 11082 200‘2999-90909999 980 38965 300-3990000000000 090 730u6 Ll00.4990000000000 1001 113000 Fields yielding under 120 bushels peracre do not provide enough returns to the grower to meet his out-of-the- pocket expenses. In 1958, pickers in such fields received 70¢ per hour compared to an.industry average of 78¢ per hour; actually their wages were prevented from.dropping lower“by wage adjustments under the WYRF. Earnings on.fields that yielded 120-199 were even lower as no wage adjustments were paid while yields were too low to provide satisfactory incomes to either pickers or growers. Yields over 200, bushels permitted workers to earn higher than.average wages —.- 63 while returns to the grower become high enough to cover land charges and risk. Yields of 300 or more bushels per acre show all growers receiving a satisfactory return and picker wages considerably above average. What Does a High Yield Cost? Dollar yield increases with bushel yield. High dollar returns are the direct result of the grower's use , of cultural and management practices which increase yield. More time, labor, and management are put in by the growers who produce yields of 250 bushels and over compared to those growers having low yielding fields. Larger quanti- . ties of fertilizer, insecticides, fungicides, hoeing labor, and other cash expenses increase the cost of production as more of these yield-boosting inputs are used, Does it pay the grower to invest more time and money into his pickling cucumber crap? The following graph (Fig. 3) indicates the relation- ship of gross returns and costs for five levels of bushel yields as produced by 70 growers in.the survey. All figures are on.a per acre basis. The black bars represent the dollar returns which increase constantly as the bushel yield increases. The bar immediately to the left of each gross returns bar indicates the total non-land cost. A charge for the use of the land was not included due to the difficulty of making an accurate appraisal of the value of the land on each of the sample farms. Still further, each total non-land cost bar is broken down into two types of costs. The plain white section in- dicates the picking cost or the share of the crop that goes N_, , ......... =E:E=E=S:E:I~'::E:. ............. """ Total Cost (Non-land) E23222 Pleing Cost Non-Picking Cost :::::: ...... “‘7-7’2‘. 533333 :::::: ............... nnnnnn .................. ...... ............... oooooo 000000000000 000000 ooooooooooooooooooooooo ....................... 000000 '''''''''''''' . ' ' . . . lllllllll IIIIIIIII I‘D-I'l-o'l.s'u.-. .I.O.I.I.I.I.I.l'l. .................. . n 0 o u s e.- s u . 0 0 0 '''''''''''''''' I O -.-.-:~:-:-:-:-:-: .................. .-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:- .................. ......... ............... :-:-:!:-:-:3:=:-.- :.’-""-3:- ' 3 - "r. " .-:-.~ / l.-. . ‘ ‘ :J:D:- 0'.- ‘ b . .- . ,r- y - -‘ _“.A ,_ . .. 5:1: . 1.93:5}: " ‘ ' ' e11“ - :.~"":::::::=: .-: ’ . v / / -' : -. F5} . / . o .:.:.:::.: "$3535: / :SE$"'.‘..<~' // 3 — 30 ‘ " / Essa: . 52.4.5225 . .. l I. .. ..'...-.- I fl‘:'l . .I‘. /’ ‘ I . I‘l‘" . l ’ T - . . eo-ue l20~l99 200-299 300 399 400-499 ‘ ~ 1 55555555351533355 Bushel Yield per Acre FIG. 3 GROSS RETURNS, TOTAL NON-LAND COST, PICKING COST AND NON-PICKING COST RELATED TO BUSHEL YIELD PER ACRE. 65 to the pickers as payment for harvesting the crop. This cost is at least 50 percent of the value of the gross re- turns as the worker's share is never less than 50 percent. Also for each bushel yield level the picking cost is over 50 percent of the total cost and ranges from 55 percent of the cost of producing a crop of 80-119 bushels to 78 percent of the cost of raising and harvesting a 400-500 bushel crop. The use of yield-boosting practices, although in- creasing the cost of production, results in.a greater in- crease in dollar yield per acre. The lower section.of each cost bar represents all costs other than picking expense and a charge for land use. The increase in this cost from.one bushel yield level to the next higher yield level is less than.the resulting increase in.gross returns. The 400-499 bushel yield level is an exception to the trend as non- picking costs reported by the three growers included in.this level were lower than the non-picking costs in the previous level. Cost data from only three growers may not be representative of industry-wide costs incurred in.producing yields of over 400 bushels per acre. The net return to cover land charges and risk is the difference in height of the two bars. Fields having a yield of less than 120 bushels per acre resulted in a loss of $5.25 per acre. Higher yields gave positive net returns, 66 but only fields producing over 200 bushels per acre had a sufficiently high net return for the grower to be able to cover a charge for land and to compensate him for the risk involved in producing the crop. What Does It Cost To Grow an.Acre of Pickles? Cost and net returns vary from year to year, from area to area, and more particularly from farm to farm. Average nonland costs per acre can indicate probable costs. Seventy-two of the sample growers furnished usable data on the costs incurred in the production, picking, and marketing of their pickle crop. Total cost per acre is nbt a good measure of costs for purposes of comparison. Costs incurred before harvest are incurred regardless of the size of the crop whereas harvesting costs vary almost directly with yield. Therefore, cost calculations were made on the basis of a) Pro-harvest costs per acre b) Harvesting costs per acre, and c) Harvesting cost per bushel Pro-Harvest Costs Per Acr_e_ The costs incurred before the harvest reflect the practices employed by the grower. Plowing, seedbed 67 preparation, seeding, cultivation, hoeing, and fertilizer . application.were practiced by all sample growers; where as, 48 applied insecticides and fungicides and only eight irrigated. Labor cost is included in each respective cost item to which it is applicable. Hoeing cost is entirely labor. A charge for power and machine use composed of fuel, oil, taxes, repairs, and depreciation is included in all cost items to which a tractor and equipment apply. Pro-harvest costs do not include the cost for land use. Growers should not overlook a charge for land use in a complete cost analysis. Soils, farm size and set-up differed greatly from farm to farm in.the sample. Not enough information.on the land value of each farm was ob- tained to permit accurate calculation of a land cost figure. Harvestggg Costs Per.Acre The dollar share of the crop going to the pickers comprises a major portion of harvesting costs and is an important part of the total cost of production. Picker wages and other costs respective to labor use made up 82 percent of total harvesting cost per acre. Hauling cost comprises the marketing aSpect of the harvesting operation. The cost incurred in loading the pickling cucumbers in the field, transporting to the receiv- ing station, and unloading at the company buying facilities 68 TABLE 15—BREAKDOWN OF AVERAGE PRE-HARVEST COSTS PER.ACRE OF GROWING PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Item . Dollar cost Plowing and seedbed preparation........ 4.38 PlantIng............................... 2.06 Seed(average 1.9 lbs. per acre)........ 2,30 cultivation000000000000000:000000.00990 7.68 Hoeing....,............................ 10,11 Insect and disease control............. 6,14 Fertilizer............................. 13.63 Irrigation............................. 13.03 TOta1000000000009.0000000000000 59033 was 10 percent of the per acre harvesting costs. The harvesting costs listed in Table 16 are average per acre costs. They are based on estimates for 1,100 harvested acres producing an average yield of 215 bushels per acre. As harvesting costs vary with yield, these average costs approximate those incurred in.harvesting a 215 bushel per acre yield. Harvestipg Cost Per Bushel. It is also advantageous to analyze harvesting costs on.a basis of cost per bushel rather than cost per acre as harvesting costs vary almost directly with yield. wage share of the crop to the picker comprised 77 percent of the harvesting cost per bushel. 69 TABLE 16--HARVESTING COSTS PER ACRE, PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Item . Dollar cost Labor "age Shareo00000000000000000000. $102060 Labor procurement and service......... 5.75 Hauling0000000000000000090000000000000 1291‘s Picking equipment....... .......... .... 1.20 PLOKGI‘ n68d8 and housing00 0000000 00000 2051‘ Tata100000000000000000000000000 $121.05}; The wage adjustment under the WYRF is a harvesting cost which is not included in the following table(Table l?) but which will apply to those growers producing less than 3147 per acre in 1959. The additional share due the picker over the usual 50 percent grower-50 percent picker crop share varies inversely with yield; that is, cost increases as dollar yields fall below 8147. What Risk Must the Grower Take? When.the grower contracts and plants his crop of pickling cucumbers, he accepts the risk of producing a poor crop or even the possibility of a complete crop fail- ure. Low yields usually are the result of improper manage- ment by the grower, but certain.conditions beyond his control 70 TABLE l7——-HARVESTING COST PER BUSHEL, PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 #:- Item Cents Labor wage share.......,...,....,.... 50.4 Labor procurement and service......., 02,9 HaulingCOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.09.09.090990099 05-05 Picking equipment.................... 05.5 Picker’needs and housing............. 01.2 T0t310000000000000000000000000 6505¢ also determine yields. Weather varies from year to year, and along with unexpected storms, hail, flood, frosts, and drought, makes yields uncertain. Risk due to weather conditions can not be entirely eliminated but certain weather risks can be reduced by the grower. The danger of flood loss can.be lessened by not planting on fields that tend to flood during heavy rains, and by not planting on light soils with a low water holding capacity unless irrigation.is to be used. Planting should be late enough to avoid spring frosts, but early enough to allow harvesting to be completed before the first frost in the fall. Yield and profit expectations should not be based on ideal weather conditions. A 'bad' year may reduce yield per acre through.no fault of the grower to the level where 71 TABLE 18—TYPES OF WEATHER DAMAGE RELATED TO NET RETURNS TO GROWERS, PICKLING CUCUMEERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Weather Number of Net returns damage growers to cover land charges and risk H811............ 3 $‘25985 F100d00000o00000 5 -3950 ‘Drought......... l9 21.30 None............ 36 44.40 the WYRF will come into effect. Wage adjustments under the WYRF increase the cost of producing a low dollar yield and tend to further reduce the meager net returns from such yields. Total state acreage of pickling cucumbers dropped 10,000 acres the first year of the WYRF. Some growers were not willing to contract “pickles“ and accept the risk of a low yield. Companies tended to limit contracting only with growers who consistently produced average or above average yields. Also, the processors planned on higher yields per acre and reduced acreage accordingly. Many growers are too concerned with risks which they have no control over and forget that through proper manage- ment a large number of risks can be eliminated. The follow- ing sections of this article indicate the part that good 72 cultural practices have in achieving profitable yields. Why Control Insects and.Diseases? Growers who had no insect and disease control program also had low yielding fields (Table 19). Thirty-six percent of the growers did not apply insecticides or fungicides either by dusting or spraying, and their average yield per acre was 148 bushels compared to the overall average of 215 bushels per acre. Twenty-three percent of the growers made one application of either spray or dust and averaged 202 bushels per acre. Fields where two applications were made averaged 282 bushels while fields that had three appli- cations of dust, spray, or combinations of both dust and spray averaged 315 bushels per acre. Grower's fields having disease and insect problems requiring four applications for control averaged only 276 bushels per acre. Only 3 percent of the growers were included in this 276 bushel aver- age, therefore this figure may not be representative of the industry. The type of insecticide and fungicide applied is more important than.the number of applications. Fields having from 1 to 3 applications of dieldrin.and a fungicide (either copper or ziram) produced the greatest average yield per acre of 279 bushels. Where 1 to,3 applications 73 TABLE 19——APPLICATIONS OF INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES RELATED TO YIELD PER ACRE AND NET RETURNS PER.ACRE FROM PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 A ____ 3"— Number of Percent BuShel yield Net returns applications of growers per acre per acre None,,.........,, 36 148 8 7.70 one-0999009900990 23 202 20.30 T'°09999999909°09 2]- 282 51935 Three000000000000 15 315 72.95 FOM0000000000000 3 276 65.00 of dieldrin only was sprayed or dusted on, the fields yielded an.average of 251 bushels per acre. Growers who used in- secticides and fungicides other than dieldrin.and_copper or ziram produced an.average of 194 bushels per acre. TABLE 20——TYPE OF INSECTICIDE AND FUNGICIDE APPLIED RELATED TO YIELD PER ACRE OF PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Type of material Number of Bushel yield growers per acre Dieldrin eniy'(1-3 appli- cations)............,... l3 251 Dieldrin and fungicide _, (copper and ziram)...... 20 279 Other types of material.. 24 194 Fertilizer and Yields Pickling cucumbers were grown successfully by sample farmers 74 on.clay, silt, and sandy loam soils. The highest yields per acre were produced on dark loams. Factors other than soil texture and natural soil fertility were more important than soil type alone. Primary among factors which influenced yield was the application of fertilizer. , Growers who applied large quantities of commercial fertilizer produced higher yields per acre than growers using relatively small amounts. Yields were directly related to the total pounds of the chemical elements nitrogen, phOSphorus and potassium applied (Table 21). The application levels shown in the table should not be mistakenly understood as the weight of commercial fertilizer applied. As an example, 12-12-12 contains 36 pounds of the three common fertilizer elements per 100 pounds of fertilizer. Growers applying 100 pounds or less harvested only 175 bushels per acre. 'In comparison, fields on which over 300 pounds were used produced an average of 326 bushel an acre. Net returns to the grower increased accordingly as larger quantities of fertilizer were applied. Yields were related to the number of applications as well as to total pounds applied (Table 22). Considering only the number and method of applications, bushel yield responded to spreading applications over a longer time period and a more thorough mixing of fertilizer and soil. Growers who broadcasted, sideplaced with planter, and 75 TABLE 21—-PICKLING CUCUMBER YIELD PER ACRE AND NET RETURNS TO GROWER RELATED TO TOTAL POUNDS OF NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS, AND POTASSIUM APPLIED, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Pounds of N, P, and K Number of Bushel yield Net returns growers per acre per acre O-100............;.. 26 175 $15.00 101-200............... 26 201 25.00 201“300000000000000000 12 309 65040 301-400............... 3 326 75.85 sidedressed during cultivation averaged 308 bushels an acre. Growers using two methods had averages between 200 and 300 bushels per acre; while the averages for one method were under 200 bushels per acre. These average yields were partially influenced by somewhat large quantities applied when two and three types of applications were employed. Fertilizer recommendations should be based on soil tests. Multiple regression analysis of the quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied by the sample growers in- dicated a reaponse in yield to the amount of phosphorus used. Yield response to nitrogen and potassium was dependent on the conditions on each sample farm and could not be determined for the sample as a whole. Does Row Spacing Affect Yield? Yields of over 280 bushels per acre were produced on 76 TABLE 22——PICKLING CUCUMBER YIELD PER ACRE RELATED TO NUMBER AND METHODS OF APPLICATION, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Number Method Number of Yield per growers acre 1 Sidedress only........ 4 167 Planter only.......... 33 178 Planter and broadcast. 7 235 2 Planter and Sidedress. 11 248 Broadcast and sidedress........... 5 296 3 Planter, brOadcaSt and sidedress........... 8 308 fields with 36-inch, 42-inch, 48-inch and 56-inch row spacing. Six growers produced over 350 bushels per acre using 56-inch spacing. None of the fields having a distance between.rows greater than 56 inches.produced outstanding yields. Sixty- five percent of the growers planted their pickling cucumbers in rows ranging from 48 to 56 inches between rows. These growers' fields averaged 223 bushels per acre (Table 23). Three growers planted their fields in 36-inch rows from which an average of 298 bushels per acre were harvested. Vine training problems require more attention from both picker and grower when rows are spaced as narrow as 36 inches. Seventeen.growers used common row crop Spacing 38-, 40- and 42-inch rows to produce yields averaging 172 bushels. A large degree of variation in yields among these fields accounts 77 TABLE 23——PICKLING CUCUMBER YIELDS RELATED TO SPACING BETWEEN ROWS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Row spacing Number of Bushel yield (inches) growers per acre 36............ 3 298 38’u2900000099 17 172 48-56......... 47 223 60-70......... 5 185 for the average of 172. Factors other than the distance between.rows had a greater effect on the yields of many fields than row spacing alone. What About varieties? One reason for the increase in pickling cucumber yields per acre in.Michigan.during the past eight years is due to the introduction and use of disease resistant varieties. varieties resistant to the common diseases like scab (or spot rot), a fungus, and mosaic, a virus, have been.developed and are a- vailable on a commercial scale. The grower under contract. with a pickling cucumber purchasing company is required to plant the seed provided by the company. Each company bases its choice of variety on the local disease situation and the characteristics of the variety including shape, color, and processing quality. 78 Wisconsin.SR-6 was the most common variety grown.by the sample growers. This variety is scab resistant and produces a desirable quality cucumber, but SR—6 is not mosaic resistant. All cases of partial or whole abandonment of fields due to mosaic were on fields planted to SR-6. The low (180 bushels) averaged yield per acre harvested_resulted in part from the damage caused by mosaic (Table 24). varieties having SMR included in their name indicates both scab and mosaic resistance. Wisconsin SMR-lZ is a recently developed variety which is resistant to both scab and mosaic. SMR-lZ was grown.by nine farmers compared to the 54 growers who planted SR-6. A comparison of yields indicates that fields planted to SMR-lz yielded 47 bushels per acre more than fields planted to SR-6. variety M-57 was distributed by one of the 15 companies included in the sample to its contract growers. This variety appeared to be both scab and mosaic resistant. Twelve growers that planted M-57 harvested an average of 347 bushels per acre. In.addition, these growers also employed better cultural and management practices. What Grades of "Pickles" Yield the Highest Returns? Many growers wonder what grades of pickling cucumbers they should have their pickers pick. Should they pick only 79 TABLE 24-—-YIELDS PER ACRE OF THREE CUCUMBER VARIETIES, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 #— Variety Number of Marketable yield growers (bushels per acre) Wisconsin SR-6.... 54 180, Wisconsin SMR-12.. 9 22? M-5700000000000000 12 34'? the larger size and get a greater number of bushels which I have a comparatively low value per pound, or should the vines be picked often.and cleanly to assure getting a large propor- tion of the small fruit which has a high value per pound? Table 25 clearly indicates that the optimum proportion of the various grades is to have between 50 and 60 percent of the crop be cucumbers under 1 1/2 inches in diameter. Usually these are grades 1 and 2 for most of the contracting companies in Michigan'but differ as each company has its own respective number of grades and grade size. The contract states the diameter measurement for each grade, and the grower can determine what grade numbers are less than or larger than 1 1/2 inches in diameter from his company contract. The dollar value per bushel is directly related to the proportions of the smaller, higher value cucumbers with the larger, low value cucumbers (Table 15). When 71 to 80 per- cent Of the weight of a bushel of cucumbers is composed of pickles under 1 1/2 inches in diameter, the average value of 80 TABLE 25-—-DOLLAR VALUE PER BUSHEL, HOURLY EARNINGS 0F PICKERS, AND NET RETURNS PER ACRE BY PROPORTIONS OF PICKLING CUCUMBERS UNDER 1 1/2 INCHES IN DIAMETER, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Cucumbers Value Hourly Net returns 1 1/2 inches and under per earnings per acre bushel of pickers Percent of weight ,, Dollars Dollars Dollars 30-40,..........,.... 96 958 5 #1“500000000000000900 985 971 1” 51-60,...,.,......,., 1.01 .87 53 61-70................ 1.16 .78 35 71-800000000000000... 1030 063 29 that bushel is $1.30. But picking for the highest dollar value per bushel does not result in the highest picker wage or the highest net return per acre for the grower. 'Where 30 to 40 percent of the cucumbers are of the samller size, the value per bushel is only 64 cents and returns to both picker and grower are unsatisfactory. Midway between these two extremes lies an optimum proportion where 51 to 60 percent of the weight of the crop is cucumbers 1 1/2 inches and under. The value per bushel is only slightly above average at $1.01 but the (hourly earnings of the picker is highest at 87 cents and also the net returns per acre are the greatest at $53.00. The pickers should be instructed or be shown that it is to their benefit to pick at this optimum proportion. The number of pickers per field often controls the size propor- tion being harvested. Too few pickers results in a large 81 quantity of big cucumbers as the pickers are unable to pick the vines often enough. Too many pickers can result in.a large proportion of small pickles due to over-picking unless the length of time between pickings is regulated. Proper allocation of workers by the labor association and regulation of pickings by the grower may be necessary to insure the desired grade composition of the crop. Should the Grower Supervise the Pickers? Supervision of the pickers is important as most of the Mexican.Nationals brought in each year are inexperienced in picking pickling cucumbers. Eighty-two percent of the Nationals interviewed in the survey indicated that they had no previous experience picking "pickles” in the United States. Only 2 percent had been.employed in harvesting "pickles" for more than one season. Proper supervision of the pickers by both the grower and the company labor association field men results in higher hourly earnings and net returns per acre when compared to improper supervision or no supervision at all. Cooperative supervision by the grower and the field man.was practiced on many fields and attempts to separate the effects of each proved too difficult to accomplish. 82 Growers who knew the capabilities of each picker, examined the fields at least daily, made corrections for improper picking procedures, and took an interest in the welfare of the_pickers were the groWers with the higher yield- ing fields and, in turn, the most profit per acre. Properly supervised pickers made satisfactory hourly wages on the average. Table 26 shows the degrees of supervision as practiced by 59 growers. TABLE 26——AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF MEXICAN NATIONALS AND NET RETURNS RELATED TO GROWER SUPERVISION, PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Hourly Net returns to grower Supervision earnings per acre to cover of pickers land charges and risk Very little or no i . BupeI'VISIOn......oooo. $052 $32.50 Partial supervision...,, .76 29.30 Crew leader or field man made corrections....., .89 21.90 Large degree of supervision........... .81 43.45 Most company labor associations provide field men to oversee the placement and activities of the pickers. Usually these representatives can speak Spanish and are able to make corrections easier than.the grower when.language is a problem in supervision. The amount of attention which can'be given each farm by the field man is largely determined by the size 83 of the area he travels and the number of fields and workers within.the area. Company field men did a larger amount of supervising on fields where the pickers received a comparatively better wage and yields were relatively higher as indicated in the following table. TABLE 27h—AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF MEXICAN NATIONALS HARVESTING PICKLING CUCUMBERS, BY AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION FROM LABOR ASSOCIATION AND YIELDS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Factors Jointly influencing hourly earnings Hourly - earnings ' . Per acre yield, 0f Nationals, Amount and kind of . supervision bushels @113” Frequent VigitSQSooeooooooogoO 323 S91 Few VisitSOOOOOOOOOOOC0.00.... 200 .83 No field man.supervision...... 179 965 Used company hired crew leaderooooo.....o........o.. 236 .85 The placement of labor in the field for the first pick- ing before the accumulation of many large cucumbers on the vines benefits both the grower and the pickers over the entire harvest season. Proper supervision.of the pickers during the first picking must include making sure that all large cucumbers are picked from the vines to bring about faster growth and set of small fruit. Fields on which the first picking was composed by weight of between 71 to 100 percent of standard 3's and A's (cucumbers over 1 1/2 inches in diameter) yielded a net return of only $5.50 per acre and provided an opportunity for the pickers_to earn only an average wage of 70 cents per hour (Table 28). TABLE ze—ATHE INFLUENCE OF LATE LABOR PLACEMENT AND/OR POOR LABOR SUPERVISION (AS REFLECTED IN THE PROPORTION OF 3's AND 4's IN THE FIRST PICKING) ON YIELD PER ACRE, NET RETURNS PER ACRE, AND HOURLY'EARNINGS OF MEXICAN NATIONALS, PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Net returns to Hourly 3's and 4's Yield grower to cover earnings of in lst picking per acre land charges and Nationals risk per acre Percent of weight_ Bushels Dollars Dollars o-3o.,.......... 282 56.95 .990 31-70............ 208 37.15 .77 71-100........... 203 5.50 .70 First pickings containing 30 percent or less standard 3's and 4's (or 70 percent and over standard 1's and 2‘s) were taken from fields that averaged the growers a net return of $56.95 and the pickers an hourly wage of 90 cents. Between the two extreme levels of the proportion.of large cucumbers in the first picking were the fields where 31 to 70 percent of the cucumbers harvested were over 1 l/2 inches in.diameter. Grower net returns averaged $37.15 and picker earnings averaged 77 cents on these fields. 85 Does Grower Experience Produce High Yields? Farmers who grew pickling cucumbers during the years prior to 1957 and 1958 usually produced better yields than the first and second year growers (Table 19). Nine growers in the sample raised pickles for the first time in 1958. These inexperienced growers averaged only 152 bushels per acre giving them an average net return per acre of $14.15. Seventeen second years growers used their one year's ex- perience to be more productive and efficient. Each of their acres yielded an average net return of $39.65 from an.average of 161 bushels. Growers having 3 to 5 years' previous experience averaged 225 bushels per acre but were surpassed by growers with 5 to 9 years who produced an average of 239 bushels per acre. The nine growers who had the most experience as measured by years (10 or more) did no better than the first year growers. An.explanation as to why these growers only averaged 152 bushels per acre could be the reluctance of the older growers to adopt new cultural and management practices. Does the Successful Grower Have Off-Farm Employment? In general, high yields are proportional to the amount of time and management put in the planting, growing, harvesting, and marketing the pickling cucumber crop by the 86 TABLE 29——YIELDS AND NET RETURNS RELATED TO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF GROWERS IN PRODUCING PICKLING CUCUMBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Years of experience Numbe;bof Bushel yield Net return growers per acre per acre lSt year0900009ooeooo 9 152 $1u915 2nd year.,........... 17 161 39965 3-5 years............ 27 225 26.90 5-9 yearSQooooooooooe l3 239 52.10 10 or more years..... 9 152 10-65 farm operator (Table 30). Proper managerial decisions are more difficult to make when the grower spends time and effort in employment off the farm. The part-time farmer is not able to supervise personally the pickers or'do extra work TABLE 30——OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT RELATED TO YIELDS AND RETURNS, PICKLING CUCUNBERS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1958 Extent of off-farm employment Number of Bushel Net growers yield return per acre per acre f No Off-farm employment....... 34 255 $45925 Part time——3 months or less,. 8 215 35.65 Part time h-ll months........ 13 171 17.90 Full time——12 months......... 20 165 9.25 in.the pickle field while he is absent from the farm. A few exceptions do exist where part—time farmers consistently produce high yield pickling cucumber crops. 87 Summary The Michigan.pickle industry is composed of three segments—~the grower, the picker, and the processor. The processors have well established plants and buying facilities within the state. Sufficient acreage is available for the production of pickling cucumbers. Harvest labor consists primarily of Mexican.Nationals brought in allually to supplement a shortage of domestic workers. Over the years ahead, the United States Department of Labor will make Nationals available for picking "pickles" in Michigan.only if these pickers can earn satisfactory wages. Unsatisfactory wages are due primarily to low yields; therefore, the grower has the largest share of the responsi- bility as to the level of picker earnings. The Worker Yield Return Formula provides a larger share of the crop to pick- ers harvesting very low yielding fields. Growers must continue to increase yields per acre to keep picker earnings at levels which will assure the continuance of an annual supply of Mexican.National pickers. Growers also receive meager net returns when yields are low. Increasing yields result in increased net returns to growers as well as higher picker earnings. The efficiency with which the grower employs his labor, uses cultural practices, the soil, picking labor, and carries out his marketing procedures is reflected in the amount of net return received. 88 The key to successful ”pickle“_growing is proper management on the part of the growers. Information on correct cultural practices is available through the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and the company field representative, but decisions to use and timing depends on one perscm——the grower. Growers who produce high yields and receive high net returns per acre employ better manage- ment practices. APPENDIX A Questionnaires Used in Grower Interviews 89 9O MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PICKLE GROWER SURVEY 1958 Date Interview Ember Name of grower Address of grower Location of farm Pickle acreage contracted with Salting station to which you deliver pickles 1. Now first of all, how many acres, all together do you own? . are you renting this year? (IF "ANY") this year how many ' (I? "All!” How many of these are of these are you actually are you actually using as: using as; _ crapland and rotation pasture croplancLand rotationpasture permanent pasteur permanent pasture ' rent out or put on share - remainder _________ remainder 2. Is this a company operated farm? ( ) yes ( ) no 3. What do you consider to be the principle enterprise of your farm operation? (1) Dairy .. (5) Pickle (2) Livestock (6) Fruit craps (3) Grain (7) Truck craps (4) General. (3) Other (118B) 91 A. What proportion of your total income in 1958 will come from: Your farm Operation 7. 31001 Other income sources I Pickles grown on your farm 1 of total farm income. 5. Are you employed in other lines of work than your farm operation? ( ) yes ( ) no If yes, then a. How many months of the year? months 1:. Type of employment fi A - I c. Location of employment __ d. Distance from your farm miles 6. Name of organization through which you plan to obtain Mexican nationals for harvesting your pickles . 7. What type of wage agreement do you plan to use for payment“ to pickers? a. Worker Yield Return Formals A, b. Total receipts divided 502 to the grower and 502 to the picker regardless of yield. c. Other (1) Explain m w- as” 8. no you have a working knowledge of the worker Yield Return lore-Ila? ( ) yes ( ) no ( ) Have only heard of it If yes, please esplain it I.“ I. or I _ a.- Ihe‘flbrker Yield Return Formula.might possibly work to the benefit of the picker, the grower, or the processor. a. Is it to the advantage of the picker? If yes. how b. Is it to the advantage of the grower? If yes, how c. Is it to the advantage of the processor? If yes, how 93 10. in your opinion, can the picker. the grower, or the processor manipulate his Operations to use the Worker Yield Return For-Ala to his one: personal and financial advantage! ( )‘ yes ( ) no ( ) Has given no thought to the idea I! answered yes, briefly state how Operations could be manipulated under the Parmla by the: . a . Picker b. Grower A h w. T.’ r c . Processor buysr 11. match of the following best describes the practice you anticipate will prevail so your farm this sessorfl a. All your workers will pool their production. b. Host of your workers will pool their production. c. liost of your workers will work as individuals. d. All of your workers will work as individuals. e. You do not know what the practice will be. Interview completed by A ‘ , -u. 91+ Variety “ A Date seeded , Row spacing I W Average distance between plants in row Soil type _ ‘ ’ W _ Do you plan to irrigate your pickle, field (s) ( .) yes ( ) no 81!: at “Old . acres (calculated from nap on back) a. It more than one field, then: Field - .... m acres riald ... I - acres Field ... acres History 9; mg 1956 crop m Fertilizer, kind amt: per acre ~ Bow applied? Yield of crop 1957 crop Fertiliser, kind M In amt. per acre Dow applied? A Yield of crap 1958 crop giggle; Pro-planting Fertiliser‘kind p amt. per acre amt . per acre Dow applied? Kind of cover crap during winter (1957-58) Cover crOp fertiliser, kind Amt. How placed? *Do not include fertiliser that was applied with the plantar, side-dressed with cultivator, was sprayed on, or us put on with irrigation as these anwnts are to be recorded on the record sheet that will be left with the farmer. ms - PG Sched #2 95 Grower W _ Date Interview Number V W Pickle Company L a“ Farm Location Rec'g. Sta. _ 1. what type of pickle pickers have you ever employed? 2. a. Mexican nationals; when W .7. b. Migrant domestic; when c. Local domestic; when t Ll This is first year to grow pickles Do you employ fern workers for other jobs than picking pickles? ( ) yes ( ) no If 'yes', then: a. l‘or what type of work 1:. Huber employed W What type of pickle harvester do you prefer? a. Mexican nationals b. Migrant domestic c . Local domestic ~— Why? L who determined the number of pickers that you received this year to harvest your pickles? a. Company field man . Station manager . The grower Don‘t know LLL e . Other 4 r 9. Did you receive enough pickers to adequately harvest your crap? . Too many 96 . Adequate most of the time c. Adequate except at the peak of the season . Started picking too late in the season Quit picking before all the amp was harvested f. Never enough pickers g . Other , , 4 How many acres per picker do you consider to be the right number to use on your farm? L 1 __V What problems were encountered with the use of Mexican nationals on your form this year? ‘5 f. L m ._,_ Do you feel the pickers used the Worker Yield Return Formla to their financial and personal advantage? ( ) yes ( ) no ( ) Don't know If 'yes', then explain how w _._A__. What opinions do you have of the Worker Yield Return Formula as to its advantages and disadvantages to the grower, the picker, and the buyer? Grower : Advantages 10. 11. 12. 13. Disadvantages ; A l ' v 9 7 A. A A; Picker: Advantages “ 7,7 fiv ——r‘ W Disadvantages Buyer: Adv-stages .t w J Disadvantages A A. i - _. vv Were you required to keep track of the workers hours for the pickle company? ( ) yen ( ) no If "no". jump to question 16 how often did you report hours to the company? a. Daily (every day that pickles were delivered) b. Several tines a week c . weekly d 0 Se 1 am How did you determine what time the workers went to work? 4 V V V wfi... how did you determine what time the workers quit work? 98 14. ‘How did you determine how'much time the workers took for lunch? 15. Did you deduct hours for loafing? ( ) yea ( ) no If "yes", how did you estimate them? 16. Who supervised the pickers in the field? a. Grower I. w Company field nan b. . No individual was responsible for supervision as the workers were on their own “c d. Crew leader ,(Explaln _‘ V v' e. Other 17. Supervision - describe here the supervisory practices of the grower ‘_T 18. 19. 99 Hould you raise pickles next year if you could not get Hexican nationals to harvest the crop? 6. Will you contract ()yeo' l E Yes No Would still grow pickles but will cut acreage Other plant more acres of pickles next year if you can get a larger buyer and] or harvest contract? ( ) no ( ) Not planning to raise pickles next year 20. 21. 22. 23. 100 Question 11 (b) Did the caspany always record exactly the sale number of hours that you reported? C. 338 b. no(up1d.n) Os Dm't “I“ Did your workers help load the pickles on the truck or trailer in which they were hauled to the receiving station? .__..7°' no a. If yes, how many workers usually helped? b. How much time was normally taken for a single loading? c. How easy loadings were on the average accomplished in a single day? Did any of your workers usually accompany you. when delivering pickles to the pickle station? ..__7°‘ no a. If no, how many workers? __ b. How long did a round trip normally take? __ o. How many round trips were on the average made in a single day? __ d. Did these workers usually help unload the pickles at the pickle station? yes 00 a. How such time at the pickle station was normally spent waiting to unload? Did your report of hours to the pickle cunpany include the time the workers spent loading pickles and delivering than to the pickle station? yes, loading and delivering only loading only delivering 101 21;. Did the record of hours you kept for us include the times the workers epmt loading pickles and delivering them to the pickle station? ___yes, loading and delivering _____only loading _____cnly delivering neither a. If any answer other than "neither", how did you record that tine? *— 25. Did any of your workers at my time do work for you other than pick, load, or deliver pickles? J 110 a. If yes, describe the work, including number of works rs , their identity, dates, and time so spent. b. was the tine spent on these Jobs included in either the report to the pickle company or to us? company ____160 neither c. If reported, how? 26. Did any workers other than your regular crew pick your fields at ease time? $8 110 a. If yes, describe, including the number of workers, their identity, the identity of the fields, dates, and time so want. 102 1. How many years have you been raising pickles? years this was the first year (unit questions 2 through h) 2. In previous years, have you sold pickles to companies other than to the company with which you were contracted this year? (____) 398 (___) no If "yes", list companies, years, and reasons for change of companies. 3. (a) What was the yield per acre of your 1957 pickle crop? _____bu. ("actual or ___estinated) ____Doesn't know _____high? (b) Do you consider this yield to be aveiéage for your farm? it. Did you try to increase your pickle yield per acre this year over last year? (_______) no - Why? (a )yes-Why? ______a. To meet the 120 bu. standard of the Worker Yield Return Formula ______b. To increase income from the pickle enterprise ‘ If “yes", what practices did you use to increase yield per acre? a. Decreased row width b. Decreased distance between plants in the row 0. Planted a higher yielding variety d. Planted on more productive land . Planted earlier in the season .99...‘-'~ ~~ . .- .. - A~ . - e c o 1.. c. a . . ‘ a r . .a .. . . .- . . , . 7 , . r . .- ., - . . p . -. . .7 _ . . n ‘ t — ‘ a --r _ ' -. ...- an- ; a s . . . . , r 7-. .— ‘.- . .A g u... . . s . _. - v n.-—- . - a — . , ., -.. . ..- -- . - .. , . .— > -»o .. ._-. ‘ ‘I‘ u ’ .. , l'-' . . .. . . ‘ L v. . , . s . . , o ‘ o . - -o A _ ‘ n r. c ,A . . v _ - g . . , . . .7 - . .. . . . O .. I e, .- -. - - 1 u n - -- i~ ... ,-m,-. u. .. , . .A.. .. A- , .. - - , . . ,,l . l a '. —A. A ---;-.- .‘4 .-. '-. - o’A . . ~ ‘ i» .,. 'rs .- .. . . . u g . s . . I! ‘ , . v , n ,. . ‘ 1, s ‘9‘ . . 103 Increased amount of fertilizer applied Increased number of fertilizer applications Practiced better weed control Irrigaticm Increased use of insecticides and fungicides Other Other Other c. 2. Diseases 8. Productigg [actors Field number Striped beetle 104 Amount of Damage Spotted cucumber beetle Other Bacterial Wilt Angular leaf spot Alternaria disease Scab Anthracnose Powdery mildew ilosaic Other 3. Rainfall and.Tenperature Growing season until picking First half of harvest season Second half of harvest seas 4. Acts of God gaingall W $051, Adsguate or Excessive} SColdI Normal or Hot, Whgg 5. Flood Hail Wind Drought Frost Adequate Excessive (soil does not hold‘moisture) Needs tile Needs Open ditches Cannot be drained properly 105 APPENDIX B Daily Record of Worker Hours Forms Completed by Sample Growers 5. 106 Instructions for Daily Record of Hours An accurate report of how the‘flexican national spends his work day is very important for the success of this survey. The grower's cosperation in keeping the record will be most sincerely appreciated. The field number is the same number that appears on the Grower‘s Report of Field Production The worker's number is the one that appears on his individual work contract. Total hours for each worker on any one day must be the same as for every other worker on the same day and must not be less than 8 hours, except when workers are transferred to other fields or other growers. If a worker is transferred to another field or grower during a work day, please indicate by a note on the record sheet, e.g., "transferred at end of 4th hour of work day." If a worker is transferred to another field or grower at the end of a work day. please enter his name and number on the following day’s record with note after his named. "transferred at end of last work day." If the record sheet does not offer a suitable description of the disposition of a worker's hours, please describe how those hours were used on the back of the sheet. .Any comment the grower may be inclined to make regarding his experience during ' the day with his workers is invited on the back of the record sheet. r 1 U / g. a 0 .4} 3 a. i E: . 1| ¢ ‘t. a: i r $ - { 8.333110fi Hours actually spent picking pickles a: 1 Doing other work 1 8: author .‘2'. a ' "‘ $5 ‘ 316k fl gua'i “w g ”5" E :35 1 60 5H k on- no- H '