M.j4 FABM COSTS oWBtTUHNS, 1951 WITH COMPARISONS 20 Types of Commercial Family-Operated Farms in 10 Major Farming Regions ■*. 4ta F.M. 93 FARM COSTS AND RETURNS, 1951 WITH COMPARISONS 20 TYPES OF COMMERCIAL FAMILY- OPERATED FARMS IN 10 MAJOR FARMING REGIONS l/ As In previous years, returns to farm operators in 1951 varied widely throughout the country. For the Nation as a whole, operators* returns recov- ered somewhat from the slump of I9U9-5O (fig. 1). Measured in terms of prewar dollars, the purchasing power of farmers 1 returns last year were still substan- tially below the peak reached in 1947 > although up somewhat from the 1950 level. The purchasing power of these returns in 1951 w as less than in any year since 1941, except for 19*9 and 1950 (fig. 2). On the 20 important types of commercial family- operated farms covered in this report, located in major producing areas in widely scattered locations, average net returns to operators and unpaid members of their families for labor and management varied from an average of about $1,300 on Piedmont cotton farms to about $15,400 on Northern Plains sheep ranches. However, 1951 w as an excep- tional year for sheep ranchers. In that year operators of sheep ranches in the Intermountain and Northern Plains areas received approximately 95 cents per pound for wool; whereas during March, April, and May of this year wool prices averaged about 50 cents per pound. Net returns to operators in 1951 on most types of commercial farms covered in this report were in the general range of $3,000 to $7,000 per farm. The returns for the farms covered in this report run well above the aver- age for all farms, because they are generally larger and to some extent better operated than the average for the Nation. They are commercial family-operated farms of the types most common in the farming areas shown on the inside cover of this report. Small-scale and part-time farms are not included. Neither are the large-scale farms. 1/ Additional information is given in F.M. 55 > "Typical Family-Operated Farms, 1930-1*5, Adjustments, Costs and Returns"; "Farm Costs and Returns, 1945-48, Commercial Family-Operated Farms in 7 Major Farming Regions"; F.M. 71, "Commer- cial Family-Operated Cattle Ranches, Intermountain Region, 1930-47"; Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 544, "Farming in the Bluegrass Area of Kentucky, Operations, Costs and Returns, 1930-48"; University of Wisconsin Re- search Bulletin 166, "Changes in Dairy Farming In Wisconsin, 1930-48"; Agricul- ture Information Bulletin No. 89, "Cotton Farming in the Southern Piedmont Area, Organization, Costs and Returns, 1930-51"; Agriculture Information Bul- letin No. 85, "Commercial Family-Operated Sheep Ranches, Intermountain Region, 1930-50, Organization, Costs and Returns"; Montana Experiment Station Bulletin (in process), "Commercial Family-Operated Sheep Ranches, Range-Livestock Area, Northern Great Plains, I93O-5O"; and Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 86, "Changes in Dairy Farming in the Northeast, I93O-5I". - ? - INCOME OF FARM OPERATORS Gross $ BIL. 30 ^-iiO 20 10 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 ♦INCLUDING GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS, BEGINNING 1933 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC 47545-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Tigur* 1 Farm Operators' REALIZED NET INCOME AND ITS PURCHASING POWER $ E 15 10 5 ' ML. Realized net income ^ - M Ms f Pure) lasina do wer in ^V •*" n 19: 55-39 do Mars 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG 48260-n* BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 7igure 2 - 3 - In contrast with the income figures reported here for various types of commercial family- ope rated farms, the 1951 realized net income per farm in the United States averaged $2,775. It should be noted that the average for all farms includes units operated by croppers and other tenants whereas the esti- mates given here for family- operated units are on an owner- operator basis. Furthermore, the realized net income of farm operators represents the income actually available for family living and saving, and does not include the value of inventory changes. The net farm income from family-operated units, as shown here, includes the value of inventory changes, which represents substantial amounts for some of- the selected types. Production costs, prices received for farm products, crop yields and live- stock outturn are the most important factors in determining operators* returns. In looking at income prospects for 1952, crop yields are one of the most impor- tant variables. If yields in 1952 should prove above average, this would materi- ally affect returns to farmers. In general, in the spring of 1952 the outlook was for farm prices averaging near or slightly lower than in 1951 with costs of production rising. If yields are good in 1952, gross farm income in the United States as a whole may be slightly higher than in 1951 > reflecting a heavier vol- ume of farm marketings. However, the continued rise in production expenses in 1952 may well result in a realized net income to all farm operators about the same as a year ago or perhaps somewhat less. Production expenditures have risen year by year since prewar, and probably will reach a record high in 1952. During the early 1930' s gross returns of many farm operators were not enough to pay production expenses. As a result, the operator and his family re- ceived no return for their labor and management and investment in the farm. During the 11 years from 1930 to 19^0 inclusive, annual returns to operators and families for labor and management averaged around $300 per farm on wheat farms, $500 on Corn Belt farms, $600 on cotton farms, $300 on cattle ranches, and $600 on sheep ranches. Net farm income (return to farm operator and family for labor and manage- ment and to investment) was higher in 1951 than in 1950 on 16 of 20 types of commercial family-operated farms studied (fig. 3 and h) . The four types of farms on which incomes were lower in 1951 than in 1950 were the family-operated cotton farms in the Delta of Mississippi, those in the Black Prairie of Texas and in the southern High Plains, and the winter wheat farms in Kansas (table 1). Volume of farm production also was lower in 1951 than in 1950 on these four types of farms. In addition, it was lower on cash-grain, hog-beef fatten- ing, and hog-beef raising farms in the Corn Belt. Production was higher in 1951 on spring wheat farms in the Northern Plains, on livestock ranches in the Intermountain and northern Great Plains regions, on tobacco farms in Kentucky, and on cotton farms in the southern Piedmont. It was about the same as in 1950 on dairy farms (table 2). - u - NET FARM INCOME, COMMERCIAL FAMILY-OPERATED FARMS, BY TYPE Dairy, Spring Wheat, and Corn Belt Farms $ THOUS. ^EASTERN WISCONSIN -— - WESTERN WISCONSIN = CENTRAL NORTHEASTERN STATES Dairy farms ^~Hog-beef raising ~™ Hog-dairy (CORN BELT) 20 16 ~~ Wheat-corn-livestock ~~ Wheat-small grain t==> Wheat-roughage- livestock " (NORTHERN PLAINS J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 i I 1 1 I L — Cash grain ~—Hog-beef fattening CORN BELT 1930 1940 1950 1930 1940 1950 U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC 48626X BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 3 - 5 - NET FARM INCOME, COMMERCIAL FAMILY-OPERATED FARMS, BY TYPE Tobacco, Cotton, and Winter Wheat Farms, and Livestock Ranches $ THOUS. 8 20 16 12 Tobacco farms (KENTUCKY) Cotton farms SOUTHERN PLAINS BLACK PRAIRIE SOUTHERN PIEDMONT i i ■ i Livestock ranches — NORTHERN PLAINS, SHEEP — — INTERMOUNTAIN REGION, SHEEP <= INTERMOUNTAIN — REGION, CATTLE ^— Winter wheat — —Wheat-grain sorghu (SOUTHERN PLAINS WHEAT FARMS 1930 I I I I I I I 1 1 I ' I I '''■! 1940 1950 1930 1940 1950 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 48627-X BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure h .6- ■ :: o cc U & x p in On o\ -3 O 0? x v. o> r. Pi w NO U-N rH CM O on on CM ^t On CM CM rH t— rH 1/-N-* on on r-r- CM rH 1.21 2.00 1.05 CM t- -* rH rH rH m-H- on cm CM CO CM en ^t en r-t CO -* NO O CM O on on cm ON On in On C\)CO MlfN u-\rH Jt on HhnOnD cm on cm no CM CO CO rH ON On in in On f- O CM CM.* & t- t— on ONNO •x ~ •* •*■ On On in in O Oi J-""-* -* NO r~ -3- 83 t-CM on Q H rnvO CM CM rH rH _* CO NO inCO en 0O IAIA •* •* •* cm on on in CM in CM t— O CO -* CM cm on on CM •H r- O •. *> — CM cm on NO CO no" NO r~ CM -* on r- O CM ^t on cm t- 00 U>NO c\ o on CM r-t 1 *\ ^ r\ J- on in On nOHHVD H t-CO rH OnDMO •k ^ r^ * on on in on H onNO Q m t- t- no CM NO t— O on CM itn o H CO On W on CM OS NO r- H rH rH CM On J* r- m o tn r-t r-t t- r-t r-NO On r~ r-t On no C- CM CM CO CM 00-* t-t ir\ no r- itn o cm m CO CM Ox r- ^ no 00 ONO rH rH O on o itn St— On CM rH t— On t- .'-1 CM rH 0-* t- CO CO 00 NO r* ITN COO IA -* itn On C C is e 3 3 t) U ■P -f-> to C a) «< ta o IS -*NO on ITN inao itn O 8 On q on NO CM t- On ONCO* r-t -* NO ITN on co -* on on o t- r-i cvT-^T NO H c •ri C ' aJ ■P B a 7: M on .* CM r>~\ en NO CO CM NO IfN NO in on oo 00 t- t-^ en cS CM en no O CM J- on CM Li O XI a o a> O XI >. X •o 0) ■a •p ri P. 00 O v< o V CO 3 V c p h O v. V h a) X u a) t-H P 4) C A r« rH OJ . P O & 3 a ■rH o B U-i ■H rH * ■ i rH|f ^ Sh On I CVJ <1> 1 Eh J5| >H P ■h a as O P.-H •p oa u at 3 So" m r. eu p| 5SI. 13 rH " 4) m O P 41 In 3 •a a o m >-i o P ■H fa !^. CVI ro un .* ON CVI CO r-1 rH w h aJ UNCVI rH VO t— o r- o\ 8888 ro On O hO\5\ CVJ rH rH O On I— o b\co CVJ rH H O Q O O O O ft no D 00 O CVI CO CO V£> On COCVI CVI CVI CM CVJ CvJ CM OoSvp CVJ CVJ H CVJ -* OWOCO O 0\ CVI CVJ CVJ H CVJ CVJ O O O Q O O O O On On COCr c - ON O CO rH CVJ rH ON rH CVJ f— On r- rH r-i rA 00 f— CO r- tV t- o o o o rococo vo co un c— un CVJ CVJ CVI CVJ un f— ONH rOrH row Cvl Cvl cvj Cv) oj o3 cvj Cvl CVI CVI CVI CVI CVJ CVI o o o Cvj Cvj cvl UN NO 00 cvi al cvl CVI -H/ CVI CO 81 8888 888 O On ro.* roe— ro r- rocvj coco co H c— r- O O O co ro ro co co VO 00 OnCO J* CVI J* un CVI CVJ CVJ CVJ 8888 covo vo r- CVJ CVJ un o -* CO cvi cvi rovo cvj cvi rOQ CVJ On On CO CO VQ On ITNVfi VO CVJ CVI CVI On Q NO -* VD _* CVI CVJ CVI O O O O O O vo r- t— co O CVI CVI CVI HrlrlH rH t-VOCO rH ro^t cvi r-i r-t rH r-\ vo irvco r^^r^i CONO t-\ 3 33 00 CVI ON O Cv] On un_* rH VO COO f-C0 OOOfH CVI CVI ONCO H rH <-i ^cHrH^ co 8888 888 8 a 8888 HHHH CVI O -* r- o o o o H ro r-i J- J- O rH H CVJ OOVO o un-4- rH CVJ f- COrjO o o o o o o 2T un un o ro CVI C— UN ro r^ H >-i H 8888 r-i H r-t rH t— 00 H CVI CVI ro HriH vo CO O 233 ro in^ 3 33 888 8 coono cvi CO rH O ro •-* H H UNO J- CO O O rooo 8888 rJHrlH On un CO O H CVJ CVJ ro rooo CVI rH 00 UN rH CVI r— t— ro rH rH CVI Ivovo O O o o 3 c? C Vl u tf H ^1 t7 60 £ o at J3 1 I I a to tD a) a) o o o o pt) w M CO co at C! d 4> O O J3 O U -P r< o 3 s d Brj U u at 1) 0) S-. P -P -P a> co a 4> at v 3 W o CD <0 (D D r^ -* UN ■ -o ro c7i t-r- CVI a- 8 88 ^ oo ir\ irs 00 Cvl cvl -*vo rH ro CVI CVI O O O O t~\ UN bO 4) CO !h a •h c at -h COlrH 4)|Pu ■J a P (-« 8 -H- On NO CVJ ^ ri f»i ^ ^ CO •H «) a) c •p <> d c 01 B rl E t> «> rH ■p 4-> c P M at O 5 ■a H 0) Jh Ph a cfi O c ■p o o (H 41 41 CO 213681 O— 52- . 8. Production was lower in 1951 on the Corn Belt farms largely because of the cool wet summer which caused lower yields and poorer quality of corn. Changes in crop yields from 1950 to 1951 appeared to be the main factor causing changes in net production. V/ith minor exceptions, changes In crop yields and changes in net farm production moved together. Prices received for products sold averaged higher in 1951 than in 1950 on all types of farms except cotton farms in the Delta of Mississippi. Cotton is the predom- inant cash crop in that area. Because it is usually harvested and sold early in the season, the rise in cotton prices that took place late in 1951 did not materially raise the average prices received on these farms in 1951 compared with 195° • Prices received ranged from 5 to 10 percent higher on other cotton farms and on some types of wheat farms, and about Uo percent higher on sheep ranches. Average prices received on dairy and Corn Belt farms, cattle ranches, and wheat- grain sorghum farms ranged from 15 to 20 percent higher in 1951 than in 1950 (table 3). Farm costs continued to rise in 1951 on all types of farms. Cash expenditures were higher on all types of farms, and total costs per unit of production were higher on all except the cotton farms in the southern Piedmont. Costs per unit of produc- tion were lower on Piedmont cotton farms, primarily because net production per farm increased more than total costs from 1950 to 1951- Input per unit of production (costs per unit in terms of constant prices and thus a measure of physical efficiency) were lower in 1951 than in 1950 on nine types of farms, and higher on six others. There was no appreciable change on five types of farms. Figures 3 and k indicate that returns to farm operators were relatively high during the last 10 years, particularly to operators who owned their farms. But, to operators who bought farms on credit, returns were a great deal lower. A part or all of the difference between net farm income and return to operator and family for manage- ment and labor would have been required for debt service charges. As a result, the income available to the farm operator and family who bought a farm on credit was re- duced materially below that for a debt- free operator. (Contrast estimates of net farm income and returns to operator and family for labor and management given in figures 5, 7 and 9 and in the tables that follow.) Farm values and total farm investment values have risen to unprecedented highs in recent years. As late as 19*+0 a typical hog-beef fattening farm in the Corn 3elt could have been bought for around $15,500. An additional $5,000 would have been re- quired to buy the machinery, equipment, and livestock. In 1951 the total investment value of such a farm set-up was around $67,000. A typical dairy farm in the central Northeast could have been bought fully equipped for $9,o00 in 1940, but in 1951 it would have required about $2U,000. Cotton farms generally are smaller than most other important types of farms and have much less investment in livestock, machinery, and equipment. In 19^0 it would have taken less than $5,000 to buy an average family- operated cotton farm in the Piedmont compared with more than $13,000 in 1951. These estimates include land and buildings, machinery and equipment, livestock, and year-end value of inventory of feed grains, and roughages. These are average farm investments, and as such do not represent values of new machinery and equipment. It is evident, therefore, that an individual who bought a farm In the last 8 or 10 years has a con- siderable investment. If he is buying on credit he is carrying a debt load of con- siderable proportion. - 9 "Si CO d o u cd I o o -d +> ITN ON r-t O ■P o\ ■C* ,0 Vi 0) a) (4 o cd &, i CO CD H O CD T3 a o m U cu a Pi-H v s CO El d cd a X CO CD CO o DO m a tfl •rl -p S * h H ^0 a> a> h -p -p -p a> oo d cu cd 4) ? w o o o EH a? ! tn o 4) O > P •H 10 H 0) I > d -ri ITN t— ro ro ONI S ro rH rH ro rH r-i 8 CvJnS CM ro Q On CM CM O o H .d 11 CO M +> -P cd cd cu a> a 0) B Ph d o •rl a> co CM rH ro ro OJ NO ro On 8 o •v rH I r- roro On itn ro J- rH NO O ITN ONO t— CM rH On H H CM H H CM ro CM ro] rH|TJ - 10 - Many factors have contributed to higher farm returns in recent years. The use of more fertilizer, new and improved varieties of seeds, improved cropping and live- stock practices, and labor-saving equipment have contributed a great deal. Farmers who have been able to take advantage of these improved practices have increased their volume of output the most (compare fig. 6, 8, andlCl. Except on cotton farms input per unit of output has decreased more on crop farms than on livestock farms (see tables which follow). It is evident from figures 6, 8, andiO that prices received by farmers for prod- ucts sold have increased significantly since 19^0, and that they are one of the biggest factors in increasing farm incomes in recent years. But the cost of living has in- creased also and in terms of current dollars incomes do not buy as many goods and ser- vices as they did 10 or 15 years ago. Prices of items which farmers buy for household and personal living have increased in recent years, and are now the highest on record. During the last k years (19^8-51) they have averaged more than double the prewar 1937- 4l average and in 1951 were nearly 2.2 times the prewar average. When returns to farm operators and families for labor and management are adjusted for higher living costs they are considerably reduced in recent years. Measured in terms of 193Y"^1 dollars, the purchasing power of returns to operators and families on hog-beef fattening farms averaged only $3>*+50 during the 10 years from 19^-2 to 1951 (fig. 5 '■• The purchasing power of returns on these farms reached a peak in 19^8 , and de- spite continued high production and prices received for farm products in recent years they have not yet regained that level. They were highest in 19^6 for Northeast dairy farmers and for Piedmont cotton farmers. Purchasing power of returns to operators and families on Northeast dairy farms averaged only $1,1*70 during the last 10-year period, and on Piedmont cotton farms only $550. A considerable part of the improved income sit- uation on such farms as the hog-beef fattening type has been due to more rapid adoption of improved techniques which has resulted in a larger volume of output than was possible on dairy and cotton farms. C0MPAEIS0N OF 1950 AND 1951 RESULTS Corn Belt Farms In 1951, net farm incomes were higher than in 1950 on four important types of Corn Belt farms. Volume of production generally was about the same or slightly smaller than in 1950 but prices received were sufficiently higher to offset any modest decline in production. Costs continued to rise in 1951* Total costs per unit of production in 1951 averaged 1^ to 30 percent higher than in 1950. Cash expenditures rose from $250 to $UU0 per farm above 1950. Higher prices paid for items used in production were re- sponsible for most of this increase, but cash inputs such as hired labor, equipment, feed and supplies, etc., also were greater in 1951* Total inputs (cash inputs plus operator and family labor and capital) per unit of production were as high or higher in 1951 than in 1950 (tables k and 5). Net farm incomes on cash-grain farms averaged more than $2,200 above 1950. Crop yields were down about k percent from 1950, and net farm production was down about 2 per- cent but prices received averaged 20 percent higher compared with 1950. On the cost side, total inputs were up about 1 percent, whereas cash inputs were about h percent greater - 11 - FARM INCOME, OPERATORS' RETURNS, and OPERATORS' PURCHASING POWER Hog-Beef Fattening Forms, Corn Belt $ THOUS. 0^ J I L J I I I I J L 1930 1935 J I L 1940 1945 1950 1955 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 48410-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 5 PRODUCTION, INPUT PER UNIT OF PRODUCTION, and PRICES RECEIVED Hog-Beef Fattening Farms, Corn Belt % o F 1937-41 250 ^— Prices received for prod, sold I \ j 200 i 1 Volume of production -•-•-» Input per unit of prod. 150 100 ■ i i i 111! ►*• 50 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 48413-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 6 - 12 - FARM INCOME, OPERATORS' RETURNS, and OPERATORS' PURCHASING POWER Dairy Farms, Central Northeast $ THOUS. I ^^ m Net farm income o— -2 1930 I I I I I I I I I | I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I L 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 48689-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 7 PRODUCTION, INPUT PER UNIT OF PRODUCTION, and PRICES RECEIVED D airy Farmi ;, Central Northeast % OF 1937-41 250 — Prices received for prod, sold g^^ ^ g 200 i i Volume of production -•-•-•■ Input per unit of prod. ^^ 150 100 50 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iii. 930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 48688-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 8 - 13 - FARM INCOME, OPERATORS' RETURNS, and OPERATORS' PURCHASING POWER Cotton Forms, Southern Piedmont $ THOUS. Net farm income Return to operator €r family Purchasing power (IN 1937-41 DOLLARS) -1 I I i i i I I i I i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i_ 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 48690-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 9 PRODUCTION, INPUT PER UNIT OF PRODUCTION, and PRICES RECEIVED Cotton Forms, Southern Piedmont % OF 1937-41 300 200 100 Prices received for prod, sold Volume of production Input per unit of prod. 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 48687-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 10 . Ik - than in 1950. Prices paid including wages were up 10 percent over 1950. Amount of hired labor also was slightly greater in 1951. Net production on hog-beef fattening farms was approximately 6 percent lower in 1951 compared with 1950. Corn yields were down to 52 bushels per acre compared with 58 bushels in 1950* Yields of other crops, except hay, also were slightly lower than in 1950. Livestock production, however, was up about 5 percent. Despite lower production on hog-beef fattening farms, the average gross income on these farms was more than $1,900 higher in 1951 than in 1950, largely because prices received were 19 percent high- er. Net farm income also averaged higher in 1951 by nearly $1,1*00. Cost3 continued to rise in 1951 because greater quantities of production goods were bought and higher prices were paid for them. Prices paid averaged 10 percent above 1950. Net production on hog-beef raising farms was lower in 1951 than in the previous year. Livestock production continued to rise but crop production was considerably lower than in 1950. However, with higher prices for farm products net farm income was greater than in 1950, but it rose less than on other types of farms in the Corn Belt. Crop yields and net farm production on hog-dairy farms remained almost unchanged from 1950 to 1951« Total inputs also remained about the same, so that the increase in net farm income from 1950 to 1951 was due almost entirely to the 16-percent rise in prices received for products sold. Prices paid increased only 9 percent. Net farm in- come in 1951 was 23 percent higher than in 1950. Dairy Farms Prices received for products sold on western and eastern Wisconsin dairy farms in 1951 were 22 percent higher than in 1950. Prices paid for items used in production ad- vanced too, but by only 3 "to h percent. As net production remained almost unchanged, these higher prices were responsible for a substantial increase in net farm income on dairy farms in both areas. Dairy farms in the central Northeast are more highly specialized than in Wis- consin, and because milk prices did not rise as much from 1950 to 1951 as did livestock prices, net farm incomes on these Northeast dairy farms rose less than on Wisconsin farms from 1950 to 1951. Net production on Northeast dairy farms in 1951 remained about the same as in 1950 (tables 6 and 7). Tobacco Farms Net production on tobacco-livestock farms in Kentucky was 12 percent higher in 1951 than in 1950. Acreage of tobacco harvested in 1951 averaged 5«5 acres compared with U.9 a year earlier. Tobacco yields were 1,^30 pounds per acre in 1951 compared with 1,2^5 in 1950. However, yields of other crops were lower in 1951- Prices received for tobacco did not follow the rise in the general price level from 1950 to 1951. They remained at about k8. 5 cents per pound. But prices received for other farm products rose by about 7 percent. The increase of 26 percent in net farm income from 1950 to 1951 was the result of greater production of tobacco plus higher prices for products other than tobacco. Largely as the result of greater production (12 percent) in 1951> input per unit of production was 8 percent lower than in 1950. However, there has been little change in this measure of efficiency for most years since 1937"^1, indicating that at least through 1950 tobacco- live stock farms have improved - 15 - efficiency of operations relatively little compared with many other types of farms. In 1951 net farm income on tobacco farms averaged $3,872 compared with $3,082 in 1950, and $1,219 in 1937-M. Cotton Farms Net returns on cotton farms in the southern Piedmont averaged a little more than $2,000 per farm in 1951, an increase of 60 percent over the low returns of 1950. Pro- duction on these cotton farms in 1951 was 28 percent higher than in 1950 • More acres of cotton were harvested in 1951 than in 1950 and yields were considerably higher— «322 pounds per acre compared with 203 pounds in 1950. Both acreage and yield of corn were slightly smaller. Prices received for cotton averaged somewhat lower than for the 1950 crop but prices received for other farm products were higher. Input per unit of production was 22 percent lower than in 1950 but only 11 percent below the 1937-^1 averages. Aside from the exceptionally high yield of cotton in 1951, little change has occurred in either total production or total inputs during the last 10 to 15 years on these farms. Operating expenses rose sharply (2 1 *- percent) from 1950 to 1951* Prices paid for all items used in production were lh percent higher in 1951 than in 1950. In addition, considerably more labor was hired in 1951 to harvest the larger cotton crop. More cash wages were paid in 1951 8Jid the sharecroppers also received more cotton as their share of the larger crop (tables 8 and 9). On the three other types of cotton farms studied net farm incomes averaged 6 to IS percent lower in 1951 than in 1950. This was primarily the result of lower yields of cotton and lower prices for cotton lint and seed. Cotton farms in the Mississippi Delta are the only farms of the 20 types studied on which prices received. for all prod- ucts sold were lower in 1951 than in 1950. The other three types of cotton farms have more diversified sources of income and prices received for most farm products other than cotton were higher in 1951 than in 1950. As a result, the index of prices received for all farm products was higher in 1951 despite the fact that prices received for cotton and cottonseed averaged lower. Wheat Farms - Southern Plains Net farm income on winter wheat farms in 1951 averaged nearly $1,600 less than in 1950. Gross income was about $1,200 smaller and expenses were about $400 greater. Pro- duction was down about 18 percent from 1950. Approximately 62 percent of wheat seeded in the fall of 1950 failed. A large portion of this acreage was planted to grain sor- ghums in the spring of 1951 • Total acreage of crops harvested in 1951 averaged 264 acres compared with 293 acres in 1950. Yields of wheat in 1951 averaged only 1^.6 bushels per harvested acre compared with 17.6 bushels in 1950. Prices received averaged 20 percent higher than in 1950. Production costs continued to rise in 1951 primarily because of a further increase of 8 percent in prices paid. Some additional costs were incurred in seeding grain sor- ghum on land on which wheat had failed. Net farm incomes were nearly 50 percent higher in 1951 than in 1950 on wheat-grain sorghum farms. Acreages of crops harvested, crop yields, and prices received were all higher in 1951 than in 1950. More than half of the winter wheat acreage was plowed up in the spring because of poor yield prospects, but this, acreage, plus additional land, was 3 s^rt <* °° « "? T ■? « « s s; " a s :? a - 5 3 CO VO #H $ 8. J t- -* Q\ s J « 0\ VO |r « a l£ (— tA Ov ON ON o si A s a s ON IT* CO CO « *o Si $^rt ™ *> <^ j . <* *> j . a <* ": "? « ° » S 8 n a K 3 S? ^ 2 d 3 ^ - - .-I CO ON ON OC0. 8 - ° . F S 5 8 a -a 5 ? s e o o 5 u o X m a. * 2 § 1 t. ^ • ■ s s 19 fct ^ >1 ^ >, S tt I on t- co , as NO rH NO CO 0J f 3 d S- 5 1 oo m un "d\ cy >A rH -* NO oj -j- m t- CO cy so no 3 ~S i/\ rO 00 8? & 3 O S a ro CO CO to H 1 On « CM no co e» OJ li> 85 £| a 8 3 H -d- ro 3 8? * 3 O * h t- > i- 3 Boo O « ♦* P, CO 00 -* Cr^Q f-cyo«ooNNO 3 ONCOfOOHCOCOuS n m h r+ « «l hoj co ro co ao Np^t ao co t— co Q «-* t~ -i 2S uNfo^t f-ooooJCNiON corOMHrHH fHOJH § § § I rH OJ UNJONUNH0OUN S-* ^* t-rHC0vOt--C0 H rH rH 0J rH OJ rH 3 5 rH COfOUN*H^ONr--a- NQJ* u^uNUNcor-t^N3■ fo3-HrHrHH I-40J 8888888888 !^un mj- eg ONNO0 poopcr CO Q rHNO NO NOcOf-fOU'NOJ ON? UN ^i M H r-\ rH CM N Q ^N-3t rHOJUNrOt-OJ US t^CO ^t UNVO COrHO COJ-rHHrHrH rHOJtf SON-* ONNOH^t^t-UN OJ t-co rouN\o B -* • rH a a K 1^- 9 r„ B I - - ■. 1 9 m 3 B oj Ch • H a • OJ ' o UN a a 00 si o- CM M #»N 8 •H 10 m • r-t ON % * a S a ■ 3 a ■■ ■■ l\ {a | ■A a OJ & (A UN 09 • 1 8 1 o a ^ s CM 3 o M 9 ■i M S CM K3 m • Ov a >i i 9 On Cg H a « m H m t* , ON p4 r-t m On -* ON o EQ tf o o- o 01 o t- 8 « OJ O o & ^ ft «-( r- r- r- ai rH » s A •-< VO r-t H BO 4 S a. r- M H e3 H -H a 1 on r-l m - OS ■ o GO to Ok • o o a O vo a O a o o Bl UN ■ - kfl P r- r-t ai 2 ■B • J J M g.. .. ■5 *. ON R m J* o\ UN . o UN vo UN Q* t o <*•» o m a .* CO o o S d r-* j ^ t r- rH ai % 9 m OJ n U" r-i C ON *H eo in UN o VO H a ^< rH V r-t u vO Fj vo m eg OJ vO o t- H H r*-i , o m O en 8 O r- o o r- r^- rt in -H 8 -H rj 51 rH 5j) H * s ^ \o u\ ^ ^ r-t B CO en CJ H %c GO -^ d OJ s DQ r- CM •H ro ^-« rH H Ov H OJ H CM H r-t a J ■H ON S in UN un •o r- 00 -* ■o 1^ rH « m UN CM o ^ | UN 0) m CO r-t 8 CO * -3 o. 10 o\ 4 OJ OJ OJ 3 cd UN UN CM *H » g H k, * 5 S <* 3 ITS , .* , UN l/N t^ Ml ■* , O H H O SI H *0 vo , o 10 8 i UN a ft Ov , ** 8 Bl Pi , UN <\ | e j t- t^ CO « «H m CO r-t •H -^ UN 1* ii H O Os i-h ^» OJ H a » .- •- E S $ r- 4 vo un fc- m vo GO -* vo en OJ ^» o CO r- o^ CO O o CO F «*N a St a , ** 8 X rn m a CJ H |> \o as H ON o UN H s Q u^ kfl •-> OJ • ON H OJ ^» m ft H V r-i ? H ft 3 tt ■4 ON O UN m o o>. OJ vo 8 t- GO Cn a J# a ^ 9 it o SI c a a OJ fc i-i un v\ o\ i-4 H H en" ro r^ rt t-i 3 a m •-4 UJ) 0| rn Os .-4 o *> I . 6 u o o o o o A a 8 BJ s •*-> o O o o O ■a . O o O O o o o a I p ft* •o < a T3 m •o •d 3 CO oa a. m V •o T- V ■ pE o ft. ■d ■c •c * 01 fe 6 ^ 8 i ■ 31 i I 1 1 i 8 | a ♦> I t § 9 V. 1 M u % 6 K 9 •-3 • ■ • ■ c 1 fjj * i 9 J 5 a 1 r-t 3 *3 * h 1" O 1 5 a ft. i m « O SI 1 d B | 8 ■ B 1 8 B B 1 *^ o 1 I 1 a • i 51 g • E f « C ■ *- • i h m > I a 1 • i EC 1 1 1 3 s E o at 1 E 3 IS V * | 1 1 E 5 1 ■ > H 8 u ! i ■ * 0J a v. o s *> m V ! J3 1 1 u 1 1 1 • J 5 1 1 ■ 1 5 l E i E o 6 2 £ £ 5 tn 19 ^1 ^ > a a i-HI ON CO rH m rH rH Q rH un| o co Q un c\J on m H m| no tn 3 On (C un oj iHJ Oil H 3jcOrHONt^-*0Jtvj )| VO* r? H 4* <\T CM C- CO] cO R-| on h r- mi I H J- NO UN Oil CO NO C- 4J ml m o SOJ NO CO CO 0\ no m ey O P- NO 0J 4 1 1 I CM O H VO W 41 b H j- H m --t n> r- ro rH 41 m H Q| ml 4 o\ i 4 UN m rH* ONJ CO 4 CO CM NO CO CO P^ H 8o o o o\ m no Q O Q H Q rH p- co un © r- o5 On O m p- CM co it* cv) S 8 § § f 3 | o m \o o? t- un oj o 8 8 8 t^ t- © oil o o? p^ cm p- un oj 4 no m? 35 co o co m m oi vo un cm m rH CM CVJ CM 3 § ON 4 NO CM CO cy no QNl On on ■41 NO Ol m Si ON C0| no" evil .-< m p- \o ^ r- m un o un vo m oj COI CO P— Sco m m o un ON ON © no t- co o m Ovl t- 4 UN rH NO 4 CVJ 41 ON UN t- CO ON u3 J no CVJ ON * CO 4 ON rH £ S 4 CVJ CVJ rH| 4 CVJ ON CO NO 4 f»Sj CO 4 I Ol CVJ 41 CO Cvil r-T CVj| ^ NO NO ON H no m C\l UN| rH 4 UN. ^ - si un m \o o no on co vol H on on no mm ONI I— 4 UN rH m UN ON m 4 $ 3 m r r . ig a '" J si s ir>I J col •H -* OJ CO ON UN CVJ O CM «l s § SI en" h1 ot K 3 $ ON OJ UNl rH 4 m rHl co p- ON| oj p- eg co 3 d 8| £ id 8 ^ p- on| cd 81 m i-Hl ON UNl NO ON 4 NO 5d fl £ <° p: ^ * 5 3 ^O rHl m unI "5 ^ m hi SNO un cm on po m o o M op co m cj m cm h 4 no O i m o 4 P- H 4 3 !ftl § 3 ON NO CO t- CO H 4 w UN roj t- no m .h| I 51 en iH| co m si "> R R gf 3 t- NO O !d 3| 4 rHl t— ON NO •H NO t- NO ON rH 4 UN t- CO ON CO ON UN 4 OJ H Q 3 m CO ONl 4 UN ON • 9 on un mi. 4 ON cy cvj cvj on un m m m co cy cy 4 cy h r- ON CO UNPONO UNO p Ov O M Cvj rommONONUN mmH*-tcycvj hcvi R3h ^^»P1S« CM r-l r-l CM CVJ <-tCNl{G m4 o mNO ^QJONcpco « « a a a si ^ s H 8 8 8 8 t— UN H m qO p- m m CM 4 H H t- CO CO Q -* t- 8 r- 3 On H H CM H Si s 3 3 a a rH H CVJ H 8. 8 8 8 8 8 8 mcy unco 04 p uNcycooN ONm 0J0JNO4 OJONNOVOON ,-immHHCyo] r-tCVJr-4 o 8 X ■ a M HCO UN44NONO QNOQJ 8888888888 rHrHrHi-tHrHrHrHrHrH fOOt-ChpcOQUNrH m NoroCNjtr\^cya\coco H mmHrHCVio] hcvjcnI NO ONp4 r-tO«H CJONO CKroOJ UNt-rHONcomo OJ OJ -H r-* CVJ Ol rH CM OJ noco mNO mNO OJ pounun ^8l2i3cC5l^a8i8 8 8 8 8 ■POOOOOOOOO TJ T. TJ « *3 TJ & s ti a £ 2 S 3 S fe I s O % g >» J 1 g, a g 3 V 6 & 1 1 I V I I 8 f 1 3 3 s O O o a. a. cu - 20 - planted to grain sorghums. With a favorable spring and summer growing season and a good price for grain sorghum, the total value of sorghums produced on these farms was about twice the total value of wheat produced. In 1951 the gross value of grain sorghums averaged $29 &n acre compared with $24 an acre for wheat (tables 10 and 11). Operating expenses on wheat-grain sorghum farms also have continued to rise. These expenses rose from an average of about $3,212 per farm in 19^9 to $3*3^0 in 1950 anrl $3,802 in 1951* Although expenses were considerably higher in 1951 > production also was greater than in 1950* As a result, operating expenses per unit of production were up only 2 percent and total costs per unit of production remained unchanged from 1950 to 1951. Wheat Farms - Northern Plains Net farm income on wheat-corn-livestock farms in the Northern Plains averaged o3,o00 higher per farm in 1951 than in 1950. This higher net income was the result of 10 percent greater acreage of crops harvested, ho percent higher yields and 20 percent higher prices. Net farm production in 1951 w as a third greater than in 1950 ^d pro- duction per man hour was nearly 30 percent greater. With favorable weather in 1951 yields of wheat averaged 16.1 bushels per acre compared with 11.1 in 1950. Total har- vested acreage averaged 288 acres per farm compared with 26l acres in 1950. As a result, crop production was nearly 60 percent higher in 1951 than in 1950. Livestock production, however, was only 7 percent higher (tables 10 and 11) . Total costs also continued to rise in 1951* Cash expenditures per farm averaged $350 higher in 1951 than in 1950. Part of this higher expenditure was for purchase of additional machinery, and for repairs to buildings. After deducting the increase in inventory of machinery and buildings, farm operating expenses were $170 higher in 1951 compared with a year earlier. Net farm income on spring wheat-small grain - livestock farms averaged about $8,100 per farm in 1951. This represents an increase over 1950 of about $l,UO0 per farm. Crop yields in 1951 generally were lower than in 1950. Yields of wheat were slightly higher but yields of most other crops were lower. With a larger acreage of crops har- vested and a slightly larger production of livestock, net production per wheat- small grain-livestock farm continued to rise in 1951* More than 30 percent greater net production plus higher prices in 1951 over 1950 gave operators of wheat- rough age- live stock farms in the Northern Plains a net farm income in 1951 more than 60 percent greater than in 1950. Acreage harvested and crop yields were higher in 1951 than in 1950, but livestock production was lower. Operating expenses were higher in 1951 than in 1950 by $426 per farm. This was an increase of 11 percent over the previous year. Prices paid were about 9 percent higher (tables 12 and 13)- Livestock Ranches In 19^1 Met ranch incomes on sheep ranches in the Northern Plains area averaged $20,155 P^r ranch and in the Intermountain region $19,108 per ranch. They ware tiie highest on record and more than twice as high as those in 1950. Livestock production on these ranches in 1951 v as 25 to 30 percent above that of 1950. In large measure this was because of the favorable pasture season in 1951* Prices received for wool w»re nearly 60 percent higher and prices received for lamb were - 21 - about a third higher in 1951 than in 1950- Frices received for all farm products also were higher in 1951 (tables 12 and 13). Partly because of high prices for livestock, total investment per sheep ranch was higher than investment in any other type of farm. The minimum-sized sheep ranch for economical operation is relatively large, and for that reason there are few small specialized sheep ranches. How- ever, in other types of farming it is possible to have efficient small farms as well as efficient large farms. As a result, the practical range in size of family- operated units is generally wider for Corn Belt, wheat, dairy, cotton and many other types of farms than for sheep ranches. Net returns in 1951 on cattle ranches in the Intermountain region averaged about $13,650 per ranch, or more than 50 percent higher than a year earlier. Except for the sheep ranches, net income on cattle ranches was higher than for any of the other types of farms studied. This higher net income was due to greater production and higher prices for cattle. Net production in 1951 w as 18 percent higher than in 1950, and prices re- ceived were 21 percent higher. Operating expenses also were about 20 percent higher but, because of the larger volume of production, costs per unit of production remained about the same as in 1950. 8 ^1 2 5 S ~ » 3 H a $ - a r- oi ft \o s - a s •* (J S •" fc OJ m CM m ^O ft \e ft i \o 3 . 8, -v p- - a - CD O CO ^a t- O UN J * * § * "? 8 £ o i- d * O • UN ■i. '£» OJ On O Q CO HN CN «4 ■-* r- ft m oi so eo oi \o o o ft r4 f> OI *? *? « ff ^ 8 ^ ° -1 3 * 3 « O H ft OI m r4 vo co e- O r- a t- co .* 5 3.8 ft H ^O ON p a Q VO Q so oi \p o o \p *js -* oi i oj \0 f~ CN I CVJ ft CO »H O O NC UJ oift so h o oi r-t r- oot-cofioi d f-i f\ oi m oi un o o on r— ft oi ft eg UN CI CO 3 * a c ON I- -* UN CO ■* ir» H CO s a 3 3 3 3 S a 8 5' • a a ;? 3 d 3 -* O UN 3 S a s a OJ fl -* Si *" K a f> UN ON r a a - S\ R R S a rt SO O o fl fl fl OOQOQ «J ■O fl fl fl « Cflfl 2 2 2 I § 5 HE r 1 ! I I ! I s & & 8 h S a I I ^ a O M &. 1 5 ytf^oOH^Hdooo b° » I & j j s" S JO • Ml & i : u - o - Si Si ^ a s II i ft ■ 51 8 3 $ 3 f § lift • §j i 3 B S i I ^ J*! s z o 3 at C P, <" - o| 3S ss .* coo7t-w CO H H OJ OJ H co OJ R R r— co co Hvoco t^-s-voojovco ov co 35 cb H r- vo ro u-v co ro h h oJ h h OJ W 0\ (p 4 0\ o\ co oj it. h s * OJ 01 H ON O *T\ OJ VO O t- C" H J v£> O vo O OV r-1 OJ OJ H H ro J* CO-* OJ Q <*"> ON vp co o vp j- o\ r- -* w H H CJ OJ H OJ OJ H H H d £ m co Ov SOv vp Q vo p m «h 8 8 S "- 51 J S 3 S d t-t H H CO gi H « CO iH Ov On CO CO OJ 3 CO O m O OJ OJ i-i rH OJ OJ 8 8 8 H H r4 H H O OOOOOOOO i-t O 3 O t. O ■H -H H J3 4) XI 41 -h a o c P. T) 4) 5 s ■a ^ ore: t* f* a. b. Bi --4 R 5 8 Si K ■4 «5S r-( W 3 51 o o o o o H H m -« g ON a s in H 1 a ■O o o o o t- o\ & ON C. 3 -» s so 3 s M 3 ON O o o o ^ to OJ fO <"0 a s 1 on 3 B 3 a a o o o O H ^ 8 H CJ ■. OS £ 3 a r-l f^ t; •; 8 3 . ft a S «! 8 3.83 o o» o\ 8 S . * 5 *? 8 2 sO On f— SO O OJ OS t/N SO ON r-» -4 CO 3 8 O H Os its r a H Si H CO tM o * o s o o H so* Os 8 H sC H Iff O CO o Os m o i o Os m CO 01 8 g q - o O o O <¥ rt -» OD sD ^ O i^ R 8 Ot rj SO ITS SO a a a 1 O m i/\ .» CM oj oj -a m • • • ITS CO »H CO t-i m evj a " § » 3 ° oi co w m ir\ O <-t r-* rn fS .H K ••' «o 3 * § t~ 'sC O O SO iH ft 8 SO O so d 8 d ^ OK 4 N 01 US -4 H H OI 01 *? 8 o oi jp r- ih q o o o o 01 Os ON SO L « I 3 & a a I j 3 I I 1 b I I 1 * i • t - 8 $ Z i 1 ■ T ^ ft ^ u i 1 -J 5 [ I 3 1 J 1 £ 3 5 3 1 I I I * S I 1 5 I 1! 5 ■ ! i a I i t 1 ; I 1 ^ I U i. 9 i ! • I s a th ^1 t— u> -* -* O ON is s fc a a £ vo oil 0? 5 £ ON m vo a 3 ia m ol « "1 CO] OS t— ir* vo O] cO 1 rn ro -*" 1^ IA Wl IA ^ rj M N -* CM CM O t- OJ -* 3 \ % Sr Ov 0\ cO t- CO ^i « 31 § £ SI 8 J ON J m on m 1 $ a 3 S R Ol H VO CO CO vo on no CM CO VDI ON CO S\ w cm CO « o cm q wn [^ uS evi CO H VO r- cm -d- ^1 rn| 3 81 0\ OJ t- w - 25 - 33 H| 8 & "& S ti en vol vo a a c vo in u-n i ii CO Hi s a a s & I s a 3 S CO CM m J* H CM O VO f- • cO ON on m CM CM ON ON »r\ co vo CO 8 $ m CM § s OJ CO 8 on tTNHHHH Si CM H s a 5 9, a « «, CM ^1 r-l CM CM H H 8 8 8 8 H H H ON ON SO t- VO on o -3 vo 3 § § § HONONCOCJ-* t-H m cmhcovq 3 1 H C^ft 3 3 m ja 1 S 9 •3 -a >» a ! B 8'j -4 >> 3 P, H H s 3 | | •a s i ** ? Q. • ■* 3 o 3 S 5 I go*** s •a o t. o « o tf «« K > ■ I* fa 00 o o 3 3 ^ ** o o § & *-« o *J XI 1 s. g I I « 8 s 3 9 s I 1 o H ft. Cw ■o § U 1 I ! S £tn s a H s a a> s ^1 ^ 1? 8 50 O ON H is Is o *» > a in 3 in a» s ^ un ON 5 R 3 R K 8 OJ 7. in oj a. 5 O O A R O O a H 3, O H % 0> IT* (fl a ■ Co 2 m 3 a so CO \a V0 *H 3 S S rf R O On so on * OJ o o R Si Si O O a d H o> CJ ►" 5 s OJ * % 0* 4 a H H f- Si H H 3 * CM a H | 3, OJ a fc Si •H H § £ r4 5 -J- 1 H oj SO i Si H H a »h cd on so t^ .H O ON f- ON CO -* ON Q t— VO CO SO O SO SO oj co" h r- CD M N SO S 8 S3 * co m .* t— «r» o ^ «n mo so «*t O *H CD O O H $ R a 3 a 3 a « a ° ■""• °H fi. ° H SO ON ^ CD Q SO 8 R a 2 as a o -h <*■* Si o ■* o\ h co so co co 2 a 2 a «> r -< * -. - a a a a 3 "1 oil ir\ m ^1 rH ON SS 3 3 -r~r-'-' Rasiaa" O »Tt ON «H f- •-« f- 3 3 8 * 81 t- 'H CO H -* ^8 a a a ? 8 a R • SS ' a UN OJ Q OJ OJ OJ a N a N « a a r » o+>o OOOOOOO ■ootJ z -e -o -a -a t? -o « « < 5 5 5^53 III- S 2 « s a : 3 t l 1 M u m a. i 1 o I I I I I I & £ S S jl 8; S I S 3 I I 3 S s 1. 1 1 1 a I 1 I a i 3 1 ! 1 1 1 I I I s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! {I S x < Si H Si A.. .. I R 21 * L * -J * 81 O 8\ Oj| ^D UN J d ir\ vol CM © iT\ v^ \A ON CU P C6 CO o On o rH CO 0\ t— CO -* CO rH .* UN ON rH Ol p-1 H vfN UN m COl CO O ON oil m H 00 CO n \o in H CO CM 5 o 1 3 5 « m m a ■* CO 3 f * ON ON m cu m Si P~ £ 1 r\ m II OJ m m a fO t- vo ON j 1 00 * s m] rH* a? ON OJ IS 8 Ol on m m H as OJ R ON H vo H H I s o CO p- co OJ £ 3 ovl oj p- w ol o o in qj j vo* 3 ^ §J § §- U\ 0>J -* UN - si *■ « VO en ml 0\ _* « 5J - .* £ O rH OJ ON rH oi vo m oj 3 -»- « 1 p-i os to oJ oi H ci ml on I s t| m * t- N m o H OJ OJ ON \0 m CO -* rH OJ -*• OJ r-l UN m OJ -^ rH vO 0\ vo 0J H § H 2. t "~ ^ CO -*1 H OJ OJ ON Q Is? 8, « vo rH vol -* OJ vo H M ON co vo o7 CO Oi vo % 3 m o R H rH » p~ O VO p- u\ £ OJ 0J S vo j- .!* IS CO o CO *, en r- o o o « SI OJ p- on CO id m OJ & ON 0J p- O o o ON ON rH rH| ON r| £ m| H 3 oj" s* t- §1 K -»1 CM 0J rH 35 8 vol mm vo J? I § vo O vo P- 8 « 4 rH " VO m t- " ■* g] CO 3 » OJ O f S CO S col HI VO m UN tn vo OJ ro ?l R H CO Si 1 ON CO o 8 vo s o vo C0| ON ON C0I -* ^» OJI P- Ol Ol P- H VO CO iH H rH ^j ,, a a ^ * ^ ml m COl UN rH R 8 81 8 O on o^ m ^t m un H Ol OJ rH H m H m vo p- s- 3 S i; si a 8 H ^ W S * P- ON rH rH P- VO rH 00 & S35S3 OJ p- vo 8 81 t— (— vo OJ t>- W ~ rH OJ ON CO CO id 3 8 8 O O O O OOOOO Xi "O ^ "O I 3 3 1 I I C to JZ- ■r. 4h U O* > rH C -r* a I f 1 f a 311 pup a § I | O «i o V. u > •9 C I i ■^ o « 3 S. ja u a a a ■ 5 3 *• 5 S s s O. -TJ V *a O K IE ■3 rH rH b V i) S. o o 6 u u O t* f- 0- fV. O. # U. S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 0—1952 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SHIP