Cotton Gin Operating Costs in the San Joaquin Valley of California /72 and 1972/73

Transcription

1 Agricultural Economic Report o. 285 Cotton Gin Operating Costs in the San Joaquin Valley of lifornia /72 and 1972/73 Economic Research Service United States Department of Agriculture

2 TTO GI OPERATIG STS I TE SA JOAQUI VALLEY OF CALIFORIA /12 and 1912/73 by Charles A. Wilmot, Dale L. Shaw, and Betty K. eron. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report o ABSTRACT A comparative study of 41 sample gins in the San Joaquin Valley of lifornia in 1972/73 with the previous season revealed higher overall averages in rated ginning capacities, annual volumes ginned, and in plant capacity utilization. Operating cost averages, per bale, ranged from $16.27 for out-of-pocket to $21.64 for total standardized costs; down $2.59 and $5.3, respectively, from 1971/72. Ginning revenues from all sources combined, for independents and some cooperatives in the sample, were almost identical both seasons. A stepwise multiple linear regression analysis revealed that volume ginned was the most influential factor in determining annual gin operating costs. Keywords: Cotton, ginning, costs, capacity, utilization. PREFACE The objectives of this continuing research in the San Joaquin Valley of lifornia, three major producing areas of Texas, and the Mississippi Delta are to: (1) determine current costs of ginning and observe trends over time, (2) analyze the effects of changes in ginning volumes on operating costs, and (3) consider the possibilities of reducing operating costs through more efficient ginning. Cost records and other information used in preparing these annual reports are mailed in from a sample of gins at the close of each ginning season. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the gin owners, managers, and aountants for their fine cooperation and assistance in this study. Statistical analyses of ginning volumes and cost data were carried out using computer facilities at the University of Arizona. Washington D. C. 225 May 1975 ii

3 TTO GI OPERATIG STS I TE SA JOAQUI VALLEY OF CALIFORIA--1971/72 AD 1972/73 by Charles A. Wilmot, Dale L. Shaw, and Betty K. eron 1/ Commodity Economics Division Economic Research Service ITRODUCTIO This is the second annual report based on a continuing study of cotton gin operating costs in the San Joaquin Valley of lifornia. Findings in this report are based on the same sample of 41 gins included in last year's study. The sample gins 2/ for 1972/73 represented 27 percent of the total ginning capacity and 25 percent of the total ginnings for the area, comparable to the previous season. Size groups by rated hourly capacities for the sample gins, also unchanged, were: Group 1, 8 bales or less; group 2, 9-11 bales; group 3, 12-2 bales; and group 4, 21 bales or more. This report includes ranges and averages in gin rated hourly capacities, annual ginning volumes, rates of gin plant capacity utilization, costs by individual items of input, estimates of itemized operating costs at 7-percent plant capacity utilization, ginning revenues, estimating equations, and other statistical data obtained from regression analyses. Where applicable, comparisons with last year's findings were made to point up changes and to identify indications of developing trends. FIDIGS Ranges in sample gin hourly capacities for each of the size groups and for all gins combined remained unchanged from last year. One firm in group 4 acquired an additional small gin plant following the 1971/72 season. This resulted in higher bale per hour averages for both size group 4 and all sample gins combined. 1/ Wilmot and Shaw are agricultural economists. eron is an economic assistant. 2/ A sample gin is a ginning operation of one or more plants, in one or more locations, operated as a single business.

4 Seasonal volumes were up substantially over last year, ranging from a low of 2,318 bales to a high of 51,498 (table 1). The average volume ginned for all sample gins combined was 1,224 bales. Plant capacity utilization 3/ rates were up an average of 23 to 29 percentage points over last year, reflecting the higher ginning volumes. Total plant investment, excluding land, ranged from $1,483 to $1,84,158 this year compared with $13,483 to $1,769,849 in 1971/72. The weighted average for all sample gins was $49,16, up $16,334 from last year. Table 1--Rated hourly capacities, volumes ginned, and capacity utilization, by size group, in ranges and averages, sample gins, San Joaquin Valley, lifornia, 1971/72 and 1972/73 Rated Gin size : hourly capacity 1/ group by season : Range. Average Annual volume ginned Range. Average. Rate of capacity utilization Range Average Bales Percent /72 Group 1...: Group 2...: Group 3...: Group 4...: Combined /73 Group 1...: Group 2...: Group 3...: Group 4...: Combined / Based on observations in plants operating under normal conditions. Operating Costs Costs are shown by ranges and averages for individual items as well as by out-of-pocket subtotals (excludes depreciation and interest); totals (includes depreciation and interest); and standardized totals (depreciation and interest 3/ Ratio of volume ginned to estimated total seasonal ginning capacity, without seed cotton storage. Based on typical ginning season of 96 operating hours and a sustained seasonal ginning rate capability set at 85 percent of rated capacity. Several of the sample gins stored seed cotton either in the field or on the gin yard. This practice, in effect, extends the ginning season and makes it possible to exceed 1 percent capacity utilization. 2

5 adjusted to compensate for wide variations in rates observed among sample gins). 4/ Comparisons of 1971/72 and 1972/73 Seasons at Existing Rates of Plant pacity Utilization Concurrent with higher ginning volumes in 1972/73, operating costs were down from the prior season. Weighted average costs for all gins combined ranged from $16.27 per bale for out-of-pocket costs to $21.64 per bale for total standardized costs; down $2.59 and $5.3 per bale, respectively, from last year's averages (tables 2 and 3). Reductions in operating costs among individual size groups ranged from $2.15 to $3.82 per bale in out-of-pocket costs, $3.69 to $5.2 per bale in total costs, and $4.37 to $5.38 per bale in total standardized costs. Economies of scale were evident again this year in both out-of-pocket and total costs. Total standardized costs deviated slightly from this expected pattern with costs for size group 3 being a little higher than for size group 2. Comparison of 1971/72 and 1972/73 Seasons at 7-Percent Plant pacity Utilization Results of a 2-year comparison of estimated costs at 7-percent capacity utilization were mixed, with 1972/73 averages for some groups being higher and some lower than those of the season before. In 1972/73 the out-of-pocket cost for all gins combined was $16.94 per bale, up $.14; total cost was $2.19 per bale, up $.1; and total standardized cost was $22.93 per bale, up $.26 (table 4). Ginning Revenues Revenue per bale varies widely among lifornia gins. Independents and a few cooperatives assess the grower a fixed charge per hundredweight of seed cotton for ginning, and purchase the seed which they later sell, usually at a profit. Most cooperatives, on the other hand, make no ginning charge but derive the bulk of their revenues from the sale of the seed which they keep as payment for ginning. During the 1972/73 season, total ginning revenues from all sources for both independents and those cooperatives in the sample which assessed ginning charges averaged $3.86 per bale (table 5). This was a decline of $.2 per bale from the previous season. During both 1971/72 and 1972/73, total revenue exceeded total standardized and total cost averages for each size group. Gin operating profit margins ranged, depending upon the size group and cost type being considered, from $1.81 to $1. per bale in 1971/72 and from $6.99 to $13.49 per bale in 1972/73 (table 6). 4/ -See costing methods in appendix for definition of costs. 3

6 a) '-4 co Q) p. U) U) Cf a) to m % cr--.1-ln I m.-immc'i,-- in Ln -,1 I inr.-r-.11 I.-I-immc'i,- i mm c'o -;-.1- C I I I m in - o m '. '. I -.1- '- in c' I -I cn'.omin-tr---t in Cl) '-a Cl) c'i in I 9in in I -.-Immc'i-I I O 1. m '. % accl).-1 m '. m - m 1-4 I I I' I I I I I I '- m in u".m-,zrmi--inin I C- I -%om I in a' '.o in,-i r-i - - I - in o '. m in '.o -4 ' '. '. Cl) - cn - m '.o in '.o m I I I II I I I I I - It in in --T C14 -a - '-4 '-I % rn in a'. -1- i-i m '-.-I ' It mc C4 m m inc - CC' mc '..-IC'J 'C m c-.ic '. L C") I I I I I I m C' ¼O IT,cK Cl) C14 C) '. m.- '-I '. in O'. Cl) Cl) c'- C,-)' in,-1 -.zr m Lnc' -S... ml.. "Cl 4J U) U)...,-4 - a) C) -, ' O. Q) p. -,- a).. co - I 44 4-I bou).-i -.-4U) a) -.-I-i'---4 I cia) 1-i U) bo-)-,-) a) IJ ) 1-i ) c C.) I-i a) U)W..bap.U) C.i-' cacacaa) -,-I '.,- m a'.c' Cl) - - in.- in.-- ' -4 mc' m - a' oc ''. C4 -,i- c' ',O C'- F-C o:: '- m in -.1 -I -O '..- ' - '.D OC IT -4C - in 1' -I '-I - - '. '. Cl) in C', in I I I I I I U) '. a '. U) IT CV a% I-i minm -.1--zI- i-i,-4 ' '.O '.O a' '. '.O C C', -4 in. - - I in - '.oj. - a) ) -I-I '-'.) I -1 ' -.-) ' '- 1.1 a).i.)a) J 1-W1-i l -i co 4-I 1 P. 4-' o a) 4J ' 4,1 C/) ' CL c p. o i4- -, 1-i -.i,-4 U) a).-) U) a) 1 U) 41 ca 41 co U) 1-i u 1 C -A 4;, ' m -ci U) a) ) P4 ->. P. i<. 4-i p. -b' I-i 'ci 44 ) a).),-) a) P.P. - ( U) P.Eco I ) E i r-i U)a) 4-I 4,1U) 41 I-i O), )- a) 1-i P. 1.iO) '-4 I 4-I ' I a) 4-1 I CI) '- - O'.(l)a) C) - 4-I ' 'W -4 co 'a)u 'bo' 4-) )-.W - P.'C) ) ' U) l-i 4 p a) c l-iu)p.a)4- I-i -' - 4-) p. a) 4I a) ca ca.ouu) 1 -U)4-i --Q) ') 4-l 1. U) ) a)bc - i-i - C) - - p. P.. 41) U)'. -4l-i 1-i (1) C -) l-i ocflbo 4-.) a) -4-J. i-i -i.) ),-4a) -i U) ci i-i U)i -i) - P - P.L11U) a) P.C.) 'EO) UCic)' ".a)l.i (v P 1-i ) -4.--).-) ' ) ' U) r -.I4J a) - '-4 P. ' 4)- - co ::1 '-a) 44JU)) 4JU)a)41 OIDPa) l-ig)41 -U) - -i-i - 4I(D' U' a) C) ' Pa)U) )l-il-i r-.4 -r-, )-I 41--Q - P.E' '.P -i ci ca a) 'tiiju)o p.w'cio '- 444-J 11.i 4-14-I ciw' ObO -U) U) I-i 4I.) b'. -PU) OcOQ) OCI) '' P cju). U)ppb, -.4 U)i-1, -4P. to OU)C)". -1 PU) XU)U) r=: - (1a) cja) a)4-i W)P. U) 34 ) U)U) - E-4 P. U) 4iiIQ a)bo > Q)U) U) 4.) - b-ooi -I, -.- OC)(D -i)-ii4 E- a)i-u U) P. ) > OOE) i - EocaciooP. U. 4-I'd. co I 1-i U)U)WP.Wa)q-i.-l'o -)-)'-lo ca ) U 4)p.p.p. P4-.'--E EE-' ' a) 41 to P - P4,-I i-i > co ) , C,) '1-I1 imi -zrlini'.ol- l.-4 - O - I-) i.)

7 r ) "-I I-) co CID 1). 3 co a), a). 4-i a). El UC- - C,) C4C4C'1 C') - C') Cn Cfl - LI') r- 1 Cfl I u')-d'.o,-4.-i'. 1 it) - - -t L( it '- c')cflc'i.- LI') - O\ - C i c -rc'- I o -IT -IO6'C',-4 C'4Cl) I O-G'C")C")C '. -. Li') - C') C') LI') C I I -:j - Cfl Lfl C) (7 Ci-) \C u,- C) '. C) - '.2 M -1- Lt,- I-I flc Lfl - O C) C - C'I O '. Cfl C C- -t- Cn -rc- It) C'ICflC'I.- oo'.m '.-'.' C I I II II II I C,) '. C-') 'T LI". l I CI 'T C') -1- C-.) C-I CC) LI". zr C'.) IT '. '. IT IT rr4 C4CflC' '. C') Cl) '.'. ) LI". '. C--I '. C") 't ' - '.O- 1 U) C'lLfl C') %D C14 - c".o ' ' C'.) '. C") C') C') ) '. ' C") III II I I I I I.a- -2- o'.lrio'.o'. '. ) I LI') C") -T '. - U') - C') '- -:t,- Ij Ln 1_I ".. 4). 4.1 ) 'C) ' ' 'a). rl a) V. I i-i. a)c) ( 4-1 ca 41 E bu) - V) a).'..14 I C) a) 1.1 bol.ir4,-i a) 4I a) 1-i a) 1.4 bo C) 1-i 4) a)... I- a) '.-1 a) '.O L(') IJ'2.,1 C")C') C') O'.PJ') ) Lt) LrC '. C') I I I Lr'. '. C'1 C'-) C'-) C'.) I '. L t') - -C') C'.) CflC'.I C') C') C')Lf') I - - Lfl'.O '.;: C') It) - C")Cfl C")C') C'.) C'-) C'-) -.)- '. - ' _i 14 -I ' a)4ia) 4) ) 'C)'C) 14a)1-i co 'P.'C) 4.1 O W F-i ' El 1_I 41 (I') CI) -1 'C) 'C). O 4J i a). U d to Cl) a) 1.1 co.61 co 1-i C') C'). co 4-I.,I 4-I ') 41 'C) U a) P. > 1. '.-IOC'C) 1-i 'C) 4.4 ) - 4) a) a).e I a) -,-1 Ili JU) co a) 1-i G) a)oo 4) (1) I 4-I 4)41 IEQ) a) I O. O'.a)(V U -),') ) 4-i 'C) 1 ) C') 1OO 4.1 q '-'.a) P.'C)cJ $41-i 93 l4 41-i 4) c l.ip.a) ' boa) 1l a) ',OC.) 14 C) 'C) 4-J'C). 4) a) - -1 (),4,4.. O. l- a) 1.iI-i co - OEI-i 14 a) 4-1 '.-)a)o 14 ) 41 a)'.-1 U E'.-I4-. 4) --4- a)a)14 C) l-i U)ca4 -'a) co -')'.-I '.-44-ICl)4- a) 4 U 4-1 1Ea) C)UU ".a)1-i a) co.ocjp.,.' E'. 14 a) O 'C) U -o 4 -l4-j a)eo P. 'C) 4,-)d C) '-4U,4-Ia) )JOa)E4-1 W l44) 4.J-,-I.1-I 4)'.)'-'-I a)u'c) W 4)1414 -r'i,-1 14 co U. -.E'C) >'. r. U1.4 '4-14 P.a)'C)O (4.44) oa)'c) 13 -")U) 1-i ODE'.', -IO a) 'C)' ci c). 71 -i-4 ' JP. E.14 U4 CI)4 -I I-i 4 E-.-I UU ()U4)4i Ua) co, Cl),1-I 11 -i-if-i P IC) 4) E 4) U) 41 i-i de..b,c) -i-4 UUU a) -14E )1414') a)4-lu Cl). 4) E1-1 -i-i '.-I OOEI i - EC). C). 1-4'C). I I-I a)p.ua)4-4,-4 Ili O O a) a) a).up.p.l.)j co),e EE11 ' a) 4.1 bo -,-4E-1,-1 41 Q')C,)Ci') E co a)o 4 C) i-i '-- 'OI C'4 I')I -liinl'.i-i C') En 4-J 5

8 p. -O I.1 p. Cl) p. I ' CX). ' I Go Cl) ancnc'.i -1' Ln C'.' U) CX) Cfl Lt) mcnc'., Go It a' an ' Ln r- ' a' -IT C) tni ('4 11; cnc44 o IT IT '. C'4CflC'4r-.' -ri- It) - -2' Go an I Go - ) C'.' I - IanI Cl) IT ' L - Go mcnc'.i -CI- ¼OC a an a' a'c r, C' a' '. I C4 C, I I ' O a Go a'a CA Cl) -.4 "DC' C4 C, I I I '. an I ' C4 I - - C'.' I - - ' C'.' I Cr) -i' IT - trl - '. co an Go it) I '. - - tni a' Go an I.- - an an I It) c-.' an I I Go 1. Go - It) '. Go It) a' a' Cl) - - -i- - - LnI ' Cl) - a' C'.' - 4' LnI C'.' 14 C4 ani'.oan 1; I an I I I - an ' I O Cl ) en -i- '. -Ct '. '. C'.' - I ) a' '. Lfl 1ICn14C'.34 - I a' an.-i I i-i I M -T - i- i- tfl Go an -i- IT - 't a' Go '. tfl LI) LI) - U) '- an an I I an I - I I I C', u-ia... 1 U) -io) a) U).4) W --4 'C,. (3. (3. )4) 1) ) P. 44. W ao I I.-I W( (O4I 'C,'C 1.1 U) d U) 14 '.i U) O) W A I JO) - c '..' Cl) '.4.-1I-1 ) 4i ) '.1 W.'OC).'a) U)a),cbap.U) P. ca to 4-1 CW..-1 W 4J 4J O) U) a) a) 41 Go (3 co r '.1) 'o C) OW U) O) p. C) p..-i 4 OO t3 a) w a).g p. I 'r4 E-4 14-i 4.1( 4) U)W (1 U) '..'4) 1.1'..' I )41 O I 4-I O to r. - ).-1 ') ')) 4-lU) Cl) ca - O) C) -o '..' '.- c l) p.. 4-I U) Q) C4 -ri -I-' (3( 1 IT I-) (L C).p. Oup. 4I4) -l.-1u)) '..'O O).'p..' 1..' o oo Q).,.f I4J 41 U) -ri -4 4-O) q..' p. ca 1 r1'c,ri a) OI-i Wr4, Up. 3 OC, ( I 4-JO-ri C,I -I ) I - ico) 4J 4)) o 41 U3 ' C)C)'C$ 4-1an ))'.I'.l 9 '-,'.-i 41 a)..ap.e-i E O)'.I )4.O coc,o 4-4 4J OO ).-4O) 1) 'C, 4U) OU) ra a) U)OO 4J VP. U).'O.-4. O4U)U).-IG) U) U) 1.i.-1 a) I.' U) U) EOIf-i 4J41C) 4) 44 ' U) U) 4_i, C) C) a) di'c, 4-') Eci c-fl P. 41-ri-rI o a) U) 1-i p. C)P.O U- I p.'..w ))4-.'. 4J)p.p.I 19 fj 41 owu) 4) -)l IlcnI.i-ILnJ I-I

9 Table 5--Average revenue per bale, by item, for gin plants which make direct charges for ginning, sample gins, San Joaquin Valley, lifornia, 1971/72 and 1972/73 Revenue item Ginning charge... Cottonseed margin... Other 1/... Total... Revenue per bale 1971/ /73 Dollars / Includes revenue from sampling, compression, motes, loose cotton, burs, margins on planting seed, and any other miscellaneous income. Table 6--Profit margin per bale, by revenue source, costing method, and gin size group, sample gins, San Joaquin Valley', lifornia, 1971/72 and 1972/73 Year and gin size group 1/ All sources combined 2/ Sources of revenue Ginning charges only Total standardized Total Total standardized Total cost 3/ cost 3/ cost 3/ cost 3/ Dollars /72 Group 1...: Group 2...: Group 3...: Group 4...: Weighted average..; /73 Group Group 2...: Group 3...: Group 4...: Weighted average..; / Rated hourly ginning capacity: Group 1, 8 bales or less; group 2, 9-11 bales; group 3, 12-2 bales; group 4, 21 bales or more. The universe includes all active gins in the study area. 2/ Includes cottonseed margins and revenue from sampling, compression, motes, loose cotton, burg, margins on planting seed, and any other miscellaneous income in addition to ginning charges. 3/ See appendix for costing methods. FA

10 If the margins on seed and all other revenue had been eliminated, however, leaving the ginning charge per hundredweight of seed cotton as the only revenue source, profit margins would have been greatly reduced. For example, in 1971/72 the average ginning charge alone would have been Insufficient to cover costs in all but one case, based on the size group averages under both total standardized and total costs. Size group 4, under total costs, would have shown a profit of $1.82 per bale while the other nine averages considered would have registered losses ranging as high as $6.37 per bale. On the other hand, with the generally higher volumes and resulting lower per bale average operating costs in 1972/73, ginning charges alone would have exceeded costs in all cases but one. Size group 1, under total standardized costs, would have recorded a loss of $1.11 per bale while profit margins among the other size group averages would have ranged from $.49 to $5.39 per bale. Estimating Equations A stepwise, multiple linear regression was run on the weighted sample gin data for both 1971/72 and 1972/73. Multiple regression is a statistical technique for studying the relationship between a dependent and two or more independent variables. Equations resulting from this analysis are useful both in explaining existing relationships and for estimating results using other value combinations for the variables specified. The development of estimating equations was the primary purpose of this analysis. The stepwise regression technique was employed to determine the relative influence of each of the independent variables, as well-as their combined effects, on the dependent variable. Gin plant investment and ginning volumes, generally recognized as the principal factors contributing to the total cost of ginning, were specified as the independent variables and total cost was specified as the dependent variable. Equations were derived based on both total standardized and total costs. They are: Total standardized costs = $32,391 + $.159(I) + $1.33(V) Total costs = $34,15 + $.94898(I) + $1.8587(V) Where: I = total investment in buildings and equipment (in dollars). V = annual volume ginned (in bales). All coefficients were significant at the.1 level. The coefficient of determination (R2), denoting the proportion of the dependent variable explained by the independent variables, was.973 for the total standardized and.96 for the total cost equation (table 7). Volume ginned appeared as the most influential variable, coming in first in the stepwise regressionswith anr2 of.94 in the total standardized and.927 in the total cost equation. The coefficient of variability, which is the standard deviation expressed as a percentage of the mean, was smaller for the total standardized cost equation, at 9.9 percent, compared to 11.9 percent for the total cost equation. This is to be expected since the objective in introducing the standardizing procedure was to reduce the variation in depreciation and Interest rates found in the sample gin data.

11 Table 7--Effects of volume and investment on the coefficient of determination (R2), stepwise multiple regression analysis, sample gins, San Joaquin Valley, lifornia, 1971/72 and 1972/73 Most Individual effect Combined effect Cost types 1/ influential of most Influen- of both variable : tial variable variables (R2) (R2) Total standardized...: volume Total...: volume / See appendix for costing methods. The abilities of these two equations to estimate operating costs were tested by comparing their results, on a per bale basis, with actual cost averages for each size group. The results were very satisfactory. While ranges among size group averages were greater, the estimates compared to actual costs for all groups combined, on a percentage basis, ranged from -.3 to 1.6 percent for total standardized costs and from to.8 percent for total costs, depending upon the year and rate of capacity utilization considered. 5/ 1,.v Tlcoc Gin operating cost estimating equations may be used as guides in determining (1) justifiable capital investment, (2) total volume or ginning revenue required to yield a given return to capital or net profit per bale, and (3) break-even volume. Examples of each, using the total standardized cost equation, follow: (1) Determining justifiable capital investment. Given: Anticipated average ginning volume = 5, bales Anticipated average revenue...= $27. per bale Desired return on investment... = 1 percent Justifiable capital investment... = X Solution (using total standardized cost equation): $32,391 + $.159(X) + $1.33(5,) +.1(X) = $27.(5,) $.259X = $5,959 X = $196,753 5/ The use of these specific equations on other data may not provide the same closeness of fit as observed in these data due to differences in cost structures. We

12 (2) Determining volume necessary to yield 1 percent on investment. Given: Anticipated average revenue = $27. per bale Investment...= $3, ecessary volume...x Solution (using total standardized cost equation): $32,391 + $.159($3,) + $1.33(X) +.1($3,) = $27.(X) $16.67(X) = $11,91 X = 6,64 bales (3) Determining break-even volume. Given: Investment...= $25, Anticipated average revenue = $27. per bale Return on investment... = ecessary volume...= X Solution (using total standardized cost equation): $32,391 + $.159($25,) + $1.33(X) = $27.(X) 16.67X = $72,141 X = 4,328 bales. APPEDIX: METODOLOGY Gins vary widely by type of organization, ownership structure, aounting procedures used, and in many other ways. In analyzing costs reported by sample gins, the uniform allocation procedures described below were used to compensate for some of the differences in aounting procedures. Costs of hauling cottonseed and lint--such as truck drivers' wages, truck depreciation, insurance, road-use taxes, and associated truck-operating costs-- and any other costs not directly related to gin processing were excluded. Cost Allocations Management: Where applicable, Includes salaries, bonuses, commissions, expense allowances, house rent, and personal Insurance policies for owners and managers; bookkeeping and other office salaries, and home office cost (line companies); social security; and workmen's compensatio1 insurance and any other insurance on management and office personnel. 1

13 Depreciation: Includes allowances for depreciation exactly as carried on gin records except for standardized costs. (See standardized sample gin costs below.) Interest: Includes interest exactly as carried on gin records except for standardized costs. (See standardized sample gin costs below.) Insurance: Includes costs for all forms of insurance on gin buildings, equipment, housing furnished management and labor, cotton products, and automotive equipment (except large trucks and trailers). Taxes: Includes all taxes on real property only. Energy: Includes cost of all utilities--electricity, gas, and water--used in ginning and directly related operations. Labor: Includes cost of gin wages, social security, and workmen's compensation and any other insurance on gin labor borne by the gin; plus any rental housing furnished labor (excludes gin repair labor). (See repairs below..) Bagging and ties: Includes actual cost of bagging and ties purchased. Repairs: Includes cost of gin repair wages, social security, and workmen's compensation and other insurance on gin repair labor borne by the gin; plus the cost of repair materials and supplies. Miscellaneous: Includes pickup, tractor, and other automotive expenses; telephone, telegraph, advertising, and promotion costs; legal and audit fees; dues, memberships, and subscriptions; annual meetings and director's fees and expenses; conventions and travel expenses; donations and contributions, cotton losses from fire; sampling, compressing, and related charges; gin and office supply costs; and any other costs not included elsewhere. Costing Methods Sample gin costs: Gin costs which have been subjected to the above allocations are identified in this report as sample gin costs. Standardized sample gin costs: Uniform rates for computing depreciation and interet on investment were used in developing standardized sample gin costs. Depreciation was set at 7 percent of the initial purchase price of capital items carried on the depreciation schedule regardless of age or former method of depreciation. Interest was charged at 8 percent on the estimated average value of the land comprising the gin site and 8 percent on one-half the cost of buildings, machinery, and equipment. Out-of-pocket costs: Sample gin costs from which depreciation and interest have been excluded. 11

14 Cost Adjustments Estimates of ginning costs at other than existing levels of capacity utilization were based on relationships assumed in the development of a series of model gins. See: Zolon. Looney and Charles A. Wilmot, Economic Models for Cotton Ginning. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Econ. Rpt. 214, Oct Weighting In computing weighted averages, the simple weighted average cost per bale for each group was further weighted by its representative proportion of the total rated hourly ginning capacity in the San Joaquin Valley of lifornia. 12

15 UITED STATES DEPARTMET OF AGRICULTURE WASIGTO, D.C. 225 OFFICIAL BUSIESS PEALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $3 POSTAGE AD FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMET OF AGRICULTURE AGR 11 FIRST CLASS r*i MAIL