WSP10974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r--. - c - There is considerable variation in adjusted farm incomes among the types of farms and among eval~tion areas. When both farm type and evaluation area are considered, adjusted farm incomes range from $2,982 on the feeder steer farm in evaluation area E to $5,204 on the dairy farm in evaluation area A. Operator and family labor for all projected farms. averaged 3,400 hours per farm. An allocation of $3,100 for operator and family labor and management would result in an average return per hour for labor of 91 cents. The projected rate for hired farm labor is $1.00 per hour. c Findings Adjusted farm incomes based on the projected budgets with the proposed additional irrigation water would result in an improved agricultural economy on the Smi th Fork project. Weighted average adjusted farm incomes per farm are estimated at $4,010. This amount would be available for family living expenses and for payment of land and irrigation water costs. Direct Agricultural Benefits A primary objective of the analysis is to estimate direct agricultural benefits. These benefits are defined as the value of farm proQuction expected with project development in excess of farm production anticipated without project development, less the value of additional farm inputs or associated costs required. The assumptions on the specific composi tlon and value of addi tional farm inputs or associated costs, as used in this report, are outlined below. A basic assumption is that the national economy will operate at essentially full employment for the period of analysis. Based on this general assumption, alternative employment opportunities would be expected in the national economy for resources used in the development and operation of irrigated farms, including the labor and management skills of farm operators. Also, the projected levels of farm prices received and paid are higher than they would be with a significant amount of unemployment. Because of relatively fixed and enduring local obstacles to economic adjustments, some under-employment of resources may exist for a relatively long period on Smith Fork project farms without additional water. Partly, this means that some increased employment of local resourc~s may'be attributable to additional irrigation water, depending on the present farm size and organization. The estimates of direct agricultural benefits are made on the basis of the budgets presented in the preceeding section. However, in the evaluation of benefits and associated costs, the costs and returns of livestock enterprises are not included. Incomes and costs associated with the nonarable irrigated /1 land and federal and private rangelands are a Iso eliminated. This approach tends to avoid the problem of making proper cost allowances for the different levels of management and different quantities of operator and family labor required for different types of farms and for associated land used in conjunction with project land. - 34 -