Total farm returns reflect the full effects of these changes in number of acres, yields, prices, and gross receipts; in total costs; and in management returns per acre. Total farm income under allotment conditions for systems B and C is about half that under preallotment conditions. These changes, however, had more drastic effects on the earnings of system A; they cut total management income by more than two-thirds.

Sharp drops in management income on 160-acre farms in Kern County largely reflect the restrictions on cotton, although reduced profits from potatoes also contribute to the decline. Farm operators have available no other crop of comparable earning capacity to plant on the acres diverted from cotton. This problem is made worse for potato growers because only by reducing the number of acres planted to this crop can they avoid sharp price drops.

Barley in system A showed a net loss under both preallotment and allotment conditions, considering all fixed and variable costs of producing it.

Barley nevertheless was included in system A, because no other crop with a comparably broad market and low water requirement offers better earnings performance for some farms where the cost of water is high and the grade 3 soils are not adapted to economical production of alfalfa and potatoes. Total management incomes on these farms would be greater with barley than without it.

The explanation for this earning effect of barley on some farms lies in a comparison of gross receipts and costs of production. Under allotment conditions, barley grosses 58 dollars, which exceeds variable expenses by 23 dollars. This amount fails to cover all fixed costs by 22 dollars hence the net loss. But the operator would have most of these fixed costs even without barley.

The cut in cotton acreage affects net income relatively more severely for farmers on the grade 3 land, particularly the operators that have relatively high water costs. As we indicated, these operators have fewer alternatives than those with lower water costs and a larger percentage of grades 1 and 2 soils. Even alfalfa seed shifts from a slight profit to losses under allotment normals, leaving only cotton to earn profits under system A.

Considering soils alone, if other conditions were favorable, farmers would have little difficulty in selecting a farming system that would return a relatively high level of profit. Pre-allotment conditions approximated this situation on farms with adequate water supplies under existing price levels. In the late 1940's and early 1950's, these conditions apparently reflected a combination of unusual and temporary circumstances.

Kern County farmers may need to make decisions as to soil-management and cropping systems for some time in the future within a physical and economic context similar to that represented by the estimated allotment normals we use in this analysis. They need to plant somewhat fewer acres of cotton and potatoes than before allotments, and they may face lower prices for them. Some improvement in the profitability of alfalfa hay and a less favorable profit performance by feed grains are indicated also. These conditions favor some expansion in acreage of alfalfa that should both help to support income and contribute to improved soil management.

Both favorable and unfavorable factors may cause future conditions to differ from the estimated norms.

Water costs are rising on most farms. On some farms, both costs and supplies were nearing the critical point in 1956. System A, which includes barley, a crop that has a low water requirement, indicates what this trend means to soil management, crop organization, and farm earnings. Unless additional water can be brought in, or better use can be made of existing supplies, many more farmers will find themselves in similar or even less favorable situations.

As we indicated, barley serves to absorb some of the fixed costs for system A. Operators on larger farms in Kern County and in the western San Joaquin Valley commonly fallow a sizable fraction of their cropland each year. Too high costs or drastically reduced quantities of irrigation water will force farmers on the 160-acre units to follow the practice.

Increases in demand and in prices for farm products would represent the most favorable future development for farmers in Kern County, if they can solve their irrigation problems. For cotton and potatoes, this might take the direction of broader outlets, thus permitting farmers to plant more acres at prices similar to normals we used.

Growers of alfalfa seed, on the other hand, need higher selling prices for profitable operation. Price rises, which may come ultimately as a result of growing population and increased demand for livestock and livestock products, would help producers of alfalfa hay and feed grains also. It would lift these crops into the profitable category. Thus farm operators would have a wider range of choice in making their decisions as to soil management and crop organization.

Soil management has been enhanced by technological advancements of science pertaining to soils, agronomy, forestry, and engineering. The combinations of practices that have been developed and tested for specific kinds of soils to establish their effects on yields, quality of plants, and longtime productivity are the products of research and experience. But conservation of the soil and its fertility is something more than throwing up defensive earthworks against the physical forces that attack land. It means dealing with human resources. Often it pits public against private interest, and shortrun against longtime gains. Economic pressure on farmers must be relieved before farmers can ease the pressure on land. Fortunately, soil management can be designed to fit the needs of individual operators as well as the needs of individual parcels of land.