UNITFD STATES DEPARTMTNT OF AGRIC '

Bureau of Agricultural Pc ice'

ECONOMIC ASPFCTS OF PASTU E EN THF LAND-H 1

fIV. OF FL LIB
NTS DEPT.

By C. L. Holmes, Frincipe.l Agriculture! Fcononiet,
In Charge, Division of Fern: Mane ge.nent end C> .

DEPOSITORY

Address, American Society .f Agron
Washington, D. C. , November 22, 1934

Two important factors hcve been responsible for pushing - consider- tion
of pastures to the foreground in l-nd-use planning. The first is the surplus
crop production which has characterized our agriculture in recent years, and
.the second is the conservation of soils :nu other natural resources. The first
of these factors beg-.n to rr.ke itself felt in a tangible way in the depression
of 1.20 and 1921 and became acute with the present depression, culminating in
the Government program to reduce surpluses of the crops in which the problem
was most acute, ond to adjust the acreage cf crops and' the nurib-r of livestock
and the volume of the output of livestock products into a rational relationship
with the existing and potential demand. The second of these factors we have
hrd with us for many years, but it has been singulorly overlooked in popular pt-
t'ention until the present administration embodied it in its comprehensive pro-
gram of conservation end adjustment,

These two factors give ample justification for the importance which I

pasture question has assumed. The issue, on first consideration, seems rea-
sonably clear. We should shift substantial portions cf land from erosive crops
to gross, refit the organization cf farms to this adjusted use of faro" land, rnd
achieve the double objective of reducing the totsl farm output of crops pnd live-
stock to a volume which corresponds to tie demand for their use, and -t the sac
time conserve in perpetuity the nature-given agricultural resources.

Unfortunately this solution moots with other fcrces which involve serious
( iff iculties ond nekes the apparently ..simple solution much more difficult than it
appears upon the surface. One of these forces is the pressure of people >n ft '
land, induced by the largo amount of unemployment in n onagri cultural industries,
which has been occasioned by the depression. Not only has there been a stopping
of 'the normal flow of population from agriculture tc industry, but th r has d -
veioped a back* flow of people from industry to agriculture which constitute.
resistance tc the proposed program, the significance of which seems as yet c nly
pertly realized. More p eple on the land usually means more intensive use,
whereas a greater dominance of* pasture, tends to mean. less intensive use.

There is the further factor of the individual' farmer's interest in the
propose 1 to place a larger proportion of lend in pasture, rnd of his reaction
to this proposal. Whatever the program it must be worked out in the light cf
these twe factors, although at the outset, at least, those factors Been "to be

in opposition t* the considerations that appear to make more pasture rather than
less pasture a rational objective from the point of view cf public policy.

Finding the best ultimate plaoe of pastures in the planning for agricul-
ture must be worked out through a program thai? will reconcile these two nets of
opposing forces. Such reconciliation will re extremely difficult, but there
seems no reason for believing that it cannot be madp. In its working cut, both
agronomists and economists have an important responsibility.

In the following discussion it. is proposed, first, to present information
on the place which pasture now holds in American farm economy; second, to dis-
cuss ways in whieh the use of pasture is involved in the farmer's problem of the
organization and management of his farm; and, third, to pre sent what appears to
be the major points relating to pastures in land-use planning.

The Place of Pastures inAmerican Farming

It will help to place our pasture problems before us to consider some
data on the present place of pasture in American farming and the trends in its
importance, and to compare the place it holds in our farming with its importance
in certain foreign countries.

According to the 193H census, there were in 1920 just a little less than
a billion acres of land in American farms. Of this area approximately 89 per-
cent was in pasture and crop land; the remaining 11 percent was in woods not
pastured, in building sites, and in waste land. £f the land in crops end pas-
ture, 52 percent was pasture, and 48 percent was in crop land. Of the pasture,
only 27 portent was reported as tillable, The remainder was pastured woodland
and oth^r untlllable land used as pasture.

Figure 1 shows 12 regions, as blocked out for purposes of analysis by
the Planning Division of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Figure 2
shows the percentage of all farm land in pasture by these regions. An examine-'
tion of Figure 2 shows important variation in the relative importance of pastur .
The highest percentage of land used for grazing is found in the range region.
The reasons are obvious. Because of the natural conditions which make this vast
territory unfitted for more intensive uses, it has become highly specialized in
the grazing of cattle and sheep, m st of which s re taken to other areas for fin-
ishing en grain and roughage before they are moved to the market. >

The next highest relative position of pasture is found in the Mixed Farm-
ing and Fruit Regions. These represent scattered areas in various parts of the ^
country in which the better lands are used for intensive crops and tin poorer
parts, representing the nv.jor part of the total, as pasture.

The Dairy Region also shows- a relatively high pe<roentage of farm land in
pasture. Here the nature of the land itself is such that a very high proportion
of it in pasture means a higher return than if more were kept in crops. Further,
the dominant farm enterprise, dairy production, utilizes t* advantage a high
proportion of pasture relative to other feeds. Its situation, well to the north
of the. regions more suited for grain and other crop production, its short grow-
ing in, and its ample rainfall, tend to make dairy farming the most profit-
able use of the land.

Pasture is shown to have a rel tively high place so far as acreage is
e mnerned in the Wheat and Snail-Grain Region. This is largely because there is

considerable land in this region v;hi ;h is Tit only for gri ■ • • ap]

in the figures as pasture land, thus bringing up the total to i
tion.

^n the General Farming and Cotton Regions, pasture occupies a fairly hirh
percentage of the land. The reason her ms to be primarily the hirh
age of untillable land that can be used only fir pasture.

The Corn Belt has a relatively lov: proportion nf its total farm land in
pasture. This region is fortunate in having a high percentage of land that is
not 'inly tillable but highly productive in its natural condition. Its climate
favors the growing of large crops of feed grains and a sizable acreage of
and other crops. The highest comparative advantage in the use of this land,
up to the present at least, has been found in putting the; raajrr proportion into
intensive uses.

It will be interesting at this point to compare the position of pasture
in this country with its position in certain groups of foreign countries. Re-
calling the figures of 43 percent in crops and 52 percent in pasture as shown by
the 1929 census for our own country, let us consider first a group 6f countri
characterized by a very high percentage cf farm land in pasture. In the Irish
Free State, for example, crops occupy ^nly*32> percent of the tillable farm land
and pasture *7 percent. In addition, there is a large area of rough, untillable
land which is also used for grazing. In the United Kingdom the "arable" land
represents 37 percent and permanent grass 63 percent of the presumably tillable
area. There is in addition a large extent of untillable land, part of which is
used for the grazing of livestock. New Zealand represents the extreme in the
dominance of pasture. Only 12 percent of the land which has been improved in
that island country is in cr>ps* whereas tame grass pasture Occupies PS percent
and in addition there is almost an equal area in native grasses which is used for
the grazing of livestock.

It has been suggested that the United States should follow the example of
these countries which have apparently found thet their b st economic interest is
served by keeping a very hirh percentage of th< ir land in grass. It is furth* r
pointed out that the trends. in land use in these countries has been toward more
pasture and that, this represents a rational adjustment to depressed conditions in
agriculture.

There are special conditions affecting the adjustments in these foreign
countries, however, which should not be loot sight cf. They all have a marine
tclimate, which tends to give pasture a higher comparative advantage than cro'S.
This is partly for the reason that the production and ripening of grain is less
successful than in the countries with a continental climate such as our c: : n, end
partly .-.that these same climatic conditions are ideally suited to the production
of grass and other pasture crops with an extremely high carrying capacity. In
the competition between these different land uses, therefore, it is net surpris-
ing that pasture has the ascendency.

In the case 'of New Zealand there is the additional factor of long distance
from important o on suming markets, which makes it profitable to concentrate the
products of the land into high-specific-value animal products which reduce the
freight charges to a minimum.

In contrast' with the figures from the countries just listed, we may take
the example of certain European continental countries. According to the la
available, figures from Germany, of the total acreage occupied by crops and pi -
ture 7 if; per- ant are in crops ■ nd «nly 28J- percent in pastures* In France these

figures are *2 percent and. 3? percent, respectively. This situation represents
the remits of a combination cf factors including a, continental climate, a rela-
tively dense rural population which necessitates intensive use of land, and a
type cf farm economy characterized by a very high degrep of self-containment.

Coming back to a consideration of the place of pa: turp in. cur o W n coun-
try, it is worth while to consider the trend in the importance of pasture. Fig-
ures 3 and 4 show geographically thp shifts in the use of land for pasture be-
tween I909 an d 1329, as shown by the county census figures for these 2 years.
Each dot in these maps represents 5,000 acres. Figure 3, showing the areas in
which pasture has decreased, reveals that in only a few scattered areas has there
been any decrease. Most of thin decrease is in the Corn Pelt, notably in north-
western Iowa and adjoining areas, with some scattered decreases in other parts
of the Corn Belt and- the northeastern States. Limited decrease.-, are shewn in
the Panhandle of Texas and in other portions of the Great Plains.

The decreases in the Corn Belt are in those areas favored with the most
highly, productive soil. and most level surface, which give the production of grain
a high comparative advantage. The decreases shewn in the southern Great Plains
represent for the most part the Yreaking up of grazing land for the production
of wheat and cotton in response to factors such as mechanization, which led to
the recent remarkable expansion in cropping in this region.

Figure 4 shews that an increase in pasture acreage has been widespread
and of very substantial proportions. Some, of this increase, to be sure, is nomi-
nal rather than real. Throughout the Great Plains it. represents, for the most
part, the incorporation into actual farms of public land previously u<?ed for gl-as-
ing^ outside the boundaries of farms and hence not reported at all in the earlier
census. As a matter of fact, there was a substantial shift cut of grazing into
crop-growing in this region. On the other hand, the increase shown in the eastern
half of the country represents a real shift from crops to pasture. The causes of
this shift are various. A growing realization of the danger of soil depletion is
one of the most important. Another important one is a real decline in the com-
parative advantage of feed grains, brought about largely by the introduction of
tractor power and the accompanying falling off in the use of feeds in the support
of workstock. Within this 20 years there was a temporary increase in grain pro-

iion induced by the war situation, which was followed by the resumption of the
decline. These changes have been accompanied to some extent by an increase in
the average size of farms and a decrease in the numb*, r of farms but such changes
are not so conspicuous as the major shift from grain to pasture.

The question of whether this progressive shift from crops to pasture in
the eastern part of the United States has been continued since 1929 is hard t«
answer. There has been a substantial reduction in the acreage of all crops,
partly due to drought and more recently to the Government's adjustment program,
available figures do not show conclusively that there has been a correspond-
;■ increase in pasture. The 1935 census will give comprehensive figures by
which the change in pasture over the last 5 years can be measured. It seems
probable that the movement which was so apparent up to 1923 was substantially
slowed up by the 'pressure of the baek-to-the-land movement.

Considering the importance of pasture as a source of feed, ns entirely
accurate figures are available. However, we have been making some careful esta-
tes, the results of which are embodied in Figure 5, which sh*ws the estimated
per- u -,f feed derived from astures, from feed grains, and from hay and
, respectively. 1/ '

J F.3t imat.es made by P. D. Jennings, Agriculturfl Economist, Bureau pi" kgi'icul.-

l raj F.c,:.', I •• .

1
■"■ Referring again to Figure 1, in order to get the. location of th r ;
for which data art: shown in Figure 5, we may .examine the chart for what it r
veals of the relative - importance of pasture as a source of feed.' It is esti-
mated that, for the United States as a whole, 42 percent of all availabl
units are derived frcm pasture.

When we take this up hy regions we find again a wide range of variation.
The Range Region, bee use of the highly specialized grazing enterprise, is the
highest. This represents a regional division of function in the production r 4 .'
cattle and sheep for the market, these animals being mcved frcm the grazing re -
gion into the grain regions to be finished.

The high percentage of feed units derived from pastures in the Cotton
Belt, which is only very incidentally a livestock -producing region, is to he
accounted for largely by the climate which makes possible a long grazing season.

The relatively high percentage of feed derived from pasture in the "Theat
Region is due to the situation already cited, that of a large inter-mixture of
grazing land with crop land.

The Dairy end Truck regions each show 40 percent of the total feed produc-
tion derived from pasture. This relatively high percentage is due to the fact
that pastures, for the most part, are of relatively high auality in these regions
and that dairy production lends itself admirably to the use of pastures.

The region that shows the lowest percentage of the total feed derived
from pasture is the Corn Belt. The reasons here are obvious. The high compara-
tive advantage of grain, caused by favorable soil and climatic conditions, re-
duces the importance of pasture to a relatively low position.

One of the most important considerations determining the r* jc 1 importance
of pasture is its carrying capacity. Figure 2 shov.'s this factor, approximately,
in terms of the acres per animal unit required tc support livestock during th-: 1
normal pasture sec son. The range in carrying caprcity, so expressed, is wide.
In the range country where native grasses are utilized, s.nd where' the rainfall is
extremely low, a maximum acreage is necessary. A reli tively high acreage per
animal unit is found in the Cotton Belt and adjoining regions. This . ef lects
poor quality of pasture, pertly ts a result of lack of care, : nd pertly the poor
adaptability of much of the soil in this area for pasture. These factors are
partly counteracted by the longer grazing season.

The carrying capacity of pastures is seen to be low in Lbs WheatjMixed
Farming , Fruit , and Tobecco Re ions. The reasons are vcriiblo. In the Wheat
Region the quality of pasture land tends to approach the low carrying ce.pceity
of the grazing region.

The highest carrying capacity is to be found in the pastures of the Corn
and the D:.iry Regions. This is explained by a oombimtion of good soil, favor-
able climate, end relatively more careful management of postures. Since pos-
tures in these regions constitute a more important resource in the production of
livestock products?, they receive somewhat mora attention than is char fistic
in some of the other p?:rts of the country.

P*_ sture in Fc nn Economy

Before proceeding to a discussion 'of pastures in 1* nd-uee planning, it
may he well to consider a number of aispVcts of the problem from the point of'
view of the individual .farmer. Emphasis in the phrase, "land-use planning,"
should be upon the word "use."' It is the fa mer who uses the Ind. Planning
should proceed, therefore, with him and his interest as the focal point.

The first, and most patent consideration in the farmer's reaction to thp
us« of pasture, and to proposals for increasing the importance of the place r't-n
holds in farming systems, is the relation rtf pasture to livestock production.
Pasture and hay must obviously be used by livestock if their place in the farm-
ing system is to be economically justified; but the influence of the amount and
kind of pasture on the amount and kinds of livestock and livestock products is
not so obvious. The f aimer must be concerned with getting a maximum utilization
of all his productive resources; that is, he must get as large a net income as
possible, and this means to a considerable extent, the largest gross income. If
a given proportion of his land must, for physical and economic reasons, be used
for pasture, he must determine the kind and amount of livestock which will make
best u;:e of it. This depends partly on the nature of the pasture, and partly on
the relative prices he can get for different classes of livestock and of live-
stock products. It also depends on the relation of his pasture resources to the
oth,jr feeds he can reise, or finds it most profitable to raise.

The importance of these relationships may best be illustrated by a con-
sideration of the geographic distribution of the more important livestock enter-
prises. The dairy industry is largely localized where it is through the ele-
ments of soil, surface, snd climate which make pastures and the production of hsy
end other roughage a more successful and profitable use of his land than a system
of land use involving higher acreage and feed grains and other grain crops. The
farmer must supplement feed from these sources with adeau-:-te amounts of concen-
trates either grown or purchased. The proportion of these vhich he grows himself
is largely determined by physical factors which mrke growing or buying of concen-
trates the more profitable.

Contrasted with this situation in the dairy region is that of the Corn
Belt, where natural conditions of soil, surface, and climate give grain productior
e superior economic advantage. Farmers in these two different regions have ad-
justed their livestock enterprises to these natural conditions, which have all
the essentials of economic forces. The chain of causation tends to run (1) from
the nature of the land and. climate which determines the best utilization of the
land in terms of specific crop and ;.ssture systems and which yield specific pro-
portions of the different feud elements, to (2) the kind of livestock systems
which give the bust economic utilization of these feeds. In areas where natural
con. itions give highest comparative advantage to a system in which carbohydrate

La - tlr t is, corn and similar grains - have a dominant proportion, the produc-
tion of me.' t inimals is dominant. In areas where pastures and legumes give the
best use value to the lend, dairying tends to be domin-nt.

This states the case only as a generalization." There are hundreds of mo-
difying factors both physical £ nd economic. Th-j important point is that the pro
posals to increase pasture in specific areas must be made with due consideration
of those fundamental factors that are so vital to the farmer. This is not to say
thet adjustments cannot and should not be made. Farmers, like ■ 11 other humans,
h-ve much inertie in their makeup. However, they do h< ve a lively and realistic
sense of fi .m economy, born of their close and vitrl relations to farming. They

know th't'thtir interest depends in l-.r. ■

bal: nee between p- sture • nd livestock ■ nd between p- sture ■ nd h- y • rid gr* in in

their land-use systems. Their chief weakness probably Lies in th

recognize and act upon their opportunities to improv< th • productivity of pi s-

ture, end to m- ke its actual competitive power against ©th nd usei

its potential level. Much can probably be done in helpinr farmers to ■•

the opportunity to get a higher utilization of lend through pi sture. improvement ,

effective crop rotations involving pasture, -nd a more effective combination

pasture -nd" rough: ge with grains in their rations for livestock.

The foregoing Leads logically to a cons iderert ion of the relation of pasture
to the income and cost side of the farmer's problem. Much has been said •. nd .
written on the advantage of giving p.-. sture a larger pl r ce in the fr rraing system
bebause it means lower costs of production. It is pointed out thd ■■ ture re-
quires much less labor per feed unit than do grain crops, and for this reason it
has been assumed thet a higher proporti n of pasture in the cropping system would
be to the economic advantage of the farmer because it reduces his costs. This
is an incomplete view of the problem. It is important to consider not only costs
per unit but the total volume of output, because both of these things are factors
in the farmer's gross and net income.

In a consideration sf the cost side of this problem an important distinc-
tion between the two. outstanding classes cf costs in farm production is over-
looked. This is the distinction between fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed
costs are those th: t do not rise *- nd fall, at- least in the immediate period under
consideration, with increases or decreases in the total volume of output. In
farming they are represented by such important elements as the interest on in-
vestment in farm land, interest and depreciation on form buildings and other T c nd
improvements, interest and depreciation on farm equipment, r nd the farmer's own
labor and that of the family to the extent that it e-nnct find reedy employment
outside of the farming business. The variable costs, on the othi.-r hand, ere
those that rise and fall pretty much in proportion to the volume of output. They
are represented by such farming costs as fertilizer, hired labor that can be en-
gaged and released as the demand for labor on the farm is greater or less, and
other elements which are directly connected with the nature and volume of the out-
put of farm products.

The significance of this classification of costs in terms of the question
as to whether it pays to increase or decrease pasture, lies in the fact that the
fixed costs cannot be reduced by reducing the output, whereas the variable costs
can be so reduced. It is a stubborn fact that fixed costs rather than variable
costs dominate in xhe farmer's production. In systems of farming in rtiich live-
stock end livestock products are the principal output, our figures show that thes«
fixed costs constitute approximately 75 percent of the whole. It is obvious,
therefore, that a reduction in totel output of product means rn increase rather
then a decrer.se in the total costs per unit of product; end, so. far as this single
factor is concerned, if a. shift to more pasture means a reduction in the total
output, it means a rise in the cost per unit rather than a fall.

The key to the relationship of these considerations to the former's re-
action to a proposal for more pasture, is the relative productivity of pasturi
as compared with crops. We have no dependable figures on the relative produc-
tivity per acre of lend in pasture as compared with land in feed grains. Under
conditions favorable for the production of alfalfa a higher production of di-
gestible nutrients can be obtained in the form of good alfalfa hay or p»stur->ge
than can be obtained from corn under normal yields. This is not true, however,

of the, average pasture now found on American farms. The great bulk of it is
decidedly Lower in productivity than the grain crops which could be grown on
most of the— tillable lend which is in prsture or might be put in pasture. Cer-
tain retetion pasture crops such as sweet clover , end probably lespedeza, can

compete to edv-. ntege with octs and other smell-grain feed crops on lends that
are : uit ; .ble for such roti.ticn pasture crops. Some of the blue-grass pasture in
the areas of more favorable soil can probably compete on fairly even terms with
these grain crops. However, these high carrying-capacity pastures are the ex-
ception nether than the rule in American farming. If p sture is to occupy a
more import- nt position and t^ke its place as a means of preventing soil erosion
enu the depletion of fertility which now presents such an acute problem, it is
obviously necessary to build up the productivity of pastures. If they cennot be
given a stronger competitive position as compared with grain crops, the proposal
to increase the acreage in pastures will encounter e.lmost hopeless resistance en
the p-rt of farmers.

Those same considerations which have been discussed in terms of costs can
probably be more effectively presented in terms of gross and net income from
farming. A basic principle in private economy is thet of maximum utilization
rf resources. It means that the former's motive in planning the use of his lend,
labor, end equipment is th-t of getting the largest possible income from them.
Too often, it is true, this motive is considered from the point of view of a
short-time return and does not consider adequately the longer time aspects of it.
However,. it is one of the moat stubborn realities in the farming situation. It
refloats the basis of the farmer's thnking in the use of his lend. He insists on
using it in the way v/hich appears to him to promise the maximum income in terms
cf salt i. nd direct household use of products. Since the fixed elements in his
resources so largely dominate, this very lrrgely becomes a matter of maximum
gross income.

There is, to be sure, en import-: nt collective e-spect of this matter in
terms .of the relation of supply end demand of the various farm products as they
affect not only price but total income. The price of the product is one impor-
tant element v/hich the farmer must consider in reaching his objective of maximum
utilization. His consideration of this factor is probably far fr*m adequate be-
ceuse cf his lack of understanding of economic forces. Moreover, he is at a
fundaments 1 disadvantage as sn individual in considering it because his individ-
ual action matters so little in the whole alignment of forces which determine
price. This is probably the most important reason back of the present agricul-
tural adjustment program. However, even with the present machinery of adjust-
ment, or under conditions v/hich may result from a rational evolution of the pre-
sent adjustment efforts, the fanner will still have a major responsibility in
determining the use he makes of the things he has to produce with. It is impor-
tant, therefore, that this fundamental motive in farm economy be given due con-
sideration in the proposals for modifying the present position of pastures in
ricen farming.

Pasturos in Relation to Land Use Planning

Let us now turn our attention to the rn^re specific relations of pastures
to land-use planning. While th^ mere direct -and objective aspect of this rela-
tion is that of the need to save the soil from the damaging affects of erosion,
as well as to build up and preserve an adequate supply of the elements cf
tility, other factors nf at least pqual importance must be kept constantly in
view. The ultimate objective in efforts to conserve natural resources is to

9
strengthen the basis for an adequate standard of living* ' is ii

therefore, to keep in mind that Land is to be c .'

own sake. The first consideration L.i to how any given proposed mi will
affect the economic welfare of the users, both present on f ; future. If, for
example, we art going to have in the future ^crp people on the land :
directly on farming for their economic opportunity, this must be taken into ac-
eount in determining 1 he piece we propose to give to pastures in a farm-land
planning program. The scriptural dictum "man cannot live by broad alone" is
often quoted; it might be proper to observe here that neither can he eat gr-
at all except as it is converted into its appropriate products. The mrre prac-
tical and accurate question is, Can w & utilize the products derivable from an
appreciably higher proportion of pasture in a way to realize maximum benefits
from our lend resources? Can we by this means maintain a production of ell of
the; various agricultural products rationally balanced with the needs of our
people?

These questions imply the importance of a well-rounded consideration of
all of the legitimate objectives and all of the forces and conditions involved
in land -use planning. Difficult as it is to reconcile all of the conflicting
interests end considerations, it is not unreasonable to expect that the motive
of saving the lane and that of realizing an edeourte food supply and an ample
economic opportunity for those engaged in farming ere not antagonistic but can
be harmonized into ultimate realization.

We can probably best got at the concrete phases of the relation of pas-
ture to the need for planning future use of land by e study of the present situa-
tion in certain so-called problem areas. Figure 6 2/ shows the percent---g-. of
the total crop end pasture lend in farms in 31 such areas occupied by (1) in-
tertilled crops, (£) non-intertilled crops, and (?) pastures. The se r.reas ere
all in the eastern and more humid portion of the country.

Inspection of this chtrt shows that the intertilled, end henee more
highly erosive r.rops, have their highest relative importance in the areas of the
Cotton Belt. A peculiarity of the preve iling types of farming systems in the
South is that there is no essentiel relation between the chief crop - cotton -
and livestock. In most ether areas where livestock is grown there are important
supplementary and complementary relations between the crops end the livestock
and hence a more intimate relation between these crops and pasture. This is not
true of cotton, since it is not a feed crop end is not essentially tied up with
the other activities of the farm except as such activities interfere with the
labor demands of the cotton crop. Since cotton must be intertilled and since,
as the chart shows, it is so much more import-. nt than the non-intertilled crops,
there tends to be almost constant use in cotton of the 1-nd best fitted for it.
Ttie pcor^r land is n tun lly releget^d to pesture and there is extremely little
in the way of crop rotation, prrticularly as it involves p< sture. This condition
encour£:..es erosion, augmented to a considereble degree by the fact that the
frost-free season amounts to elnost the entire year, thus giving the L?nd but
little rest from the effects of soil-depleting forces. It is under these condi-
tions that erosion has reached its most advanced stege.

The non-cotton areas shown in the chert heve r very lov; percentage of in-
tertilled crops and a high percentege of pastures. In most of these erees live-
stock constitutes e tie between crops and pastures end tends to minimize the ef-
fect of erssion. In most of -Miest- areas also non-intertilled crops, mostly hay,

2/ Data supplied by 7/. W. Wilcox, Agriculture! Economist, Agriculture 1 Adjust-
ment Administration.

which, in an erosion preventive, exceed intertilled crops in importance. This
means that there is opportunity to keep the int >rtilled crop area in. grass for
a pert of the rotation period, and thus to minimize the effects cf erosion.
This system of farming represents a fairly satisfactory adjustment of the crop-
ping and pasture system to the n ture of the land.

In the Corn Belt areas, as shorn by the chrrt, there tends to be a prac-
tically even distribution between intertilled crops, non-intertilled crops, and
pasture. In this region the winter months are e resting period with reference
to erosion forces Dnd there is the closest sort of relation between the two
classes of crops grown and the pasture. This relation -rises from the impor-
tant livestock enterprises which are themselves built upon the products of the
land. Here, again, r fairly workable adjustment has been achieved.

Going over the different parts cf the country once more for brief com-
ments with reference to points of policy and planning on the matter of pasture in
the cropping systems, it would appear th r t the southern problem is brg.]y that
of preserving an adequate sen ■ ; i' crop 1-nd and cf keeping up its productive
quality; this in the f i ce of the difficulties inherent in the farming system and
the climate which makesthc prevention of erosion very hard. It is probable that
:s time goes on more emphasis will be placed upon pasture, feed crops, -md live-
stock as a regul r r though minor source of farm income in the South. Her/ever,
the natural disadvantages of such n system in this region as compared with the
present specialized livestock ore- s, .together ?;ith the conomic and physical con-
ditions which give cotton its unquestioned ascendency, seem likely to make this
solution of the problem only i p-rti'l one. Something must be cone to preserve
the quality of the best cotter lends, which represent the heart of the agricul-
tural resources of the South. The protective possibilities cf cover crops is an
important element in the solution of this problem and has at least an indirect
bearing upon the pasture problem. However, the. posture problem itself centers
more specifically in the miner developments already referred to, namely, the
growth of feed crops ■ nd pasture to support a limited livestock enterprise. In
this relation pastures can no longer be locked upon merely as a vacation for worn
eut land. The questions of their vegetation end management must be taken up nut
only from. the point of view of resuscitating land fertility but in connection with
their use as a direct source of income through livestock.

Throughout most of the areas in the North, it seems questionable as to
whether any very substantial further movement toward permanently shifting land
from crops to pasture can be economically maintained. The solution of the prob-
lem in most of these areas would seem to be in the direction of preserving from
loss the present crop Isnd without taking it permanently out of crops. This
means, for the most p r rt , a greater attention to effective rotations involving
legumes which will not only contribute to erosion prevention through providing a
larger amount of humus in the soil, but will raise the yields of grain crops so
that the s\me amount, or at least an adequate amount, of grain crops can be
raised upon a more limited i ore age, thus rr king it possible to keep a larger pro-
portion than at-ipresent of the crop land in bo !•},- con serving crops which, in-
cidentally, means enhanced .pasture resources. Inmost areas, provided suitable
soil-building crops can be found, the gain in., yield per acre will be . enough to
compensate for the reduced acreage occasioned by the soil-building crop in the
system.

One of the outstanding needs in this connection is the developmenl
popularization of an Dcid-tol ra I Legume which will function in the ecid-soil
areas in approximately the sane way that sweetclover is coming to function in
the sweet-soil areas. Lespedeza is such a crop, but its present adaptability
places •--. northern limit to its territory som wh< re in the southern half of the
Corn Pelt. At present the greatest hone for this sort of crop in the northern
half of the Cum Belt end in the Dairy Region seems to be sweetclover. But the
necessity of incurring the hoavjr costs involved in lining the lend to -
sweetclover e scf_ crop is :n effective bar to its very wide development , at
least under present economic conditions. Probably no greater contribution to the
preservation of the ..oil of the Middle West, end the improvement of cropping
systems from the point of view of the support of livestock, could be m< d< by the
agronomists than that of discovering, developing, and popularizing e successful
acid-tolerant legume crop which would fit as well into cropping systems on the
acid soils of the Corn Belt rod the Dairy Region as sweetclover does no?' on the
sweet soils.

It has been suggested in many quarters that the increase in pasture l°nd,
which is assumed to be needed in certain hilly sections, particularly of the
southern Corn Belt, and in other areas throughout most of the -^gricultur-1 por-
tions of the country, might be' greatly facilitated by the consolidation of forms,
which is assumed to be needed in o der to provide an ample economic holding un-
der a condition of the less intensive use of land represented by a pasture system.
It seems feasible, from an offhand consideration, to plan for converting con-
siderable areas of hilly farm land, now in relatively small farms, into larger
grazing holdings almost to the exclusion of crop growing. When one goes into
the factors involved in such a proposal, he encounters oh" t will probably be
serious barriers to the successful carrying out of the pirn. In the first place,
with the back-fl^w of population from industry to agriculture, ?ve can ill efford
to reduce the number of farms. Thousands of farm families with recent farm ex-
perience are now living "on roliof" in the cities and towns of our egricultural
regions cecause they have been displaced cither as tenants from the farms of
landlords who had to move back on their farms to make their own living, or
through foreclosure of mortgages in the case of owner operators. Presumably,
many ether thousands of men recently employed in industry, but now out of employ-
ment, who have an agricultural background, are potential competitors fcr the op-
portunity to occupy and run a farm. The c- so must be mrde air-tight to justify
a reduction in the number of ferns under the present conditions. Such justifi-
cation is probably limited to the plainly submarginal situations where the land
is being cleared by the Government to be converted into grazing reserves or con-
solidated holdings for grazing enteritises. This is particularly exemplified by
situ-, tions in the Great Plains and other portions of the grazing region.

Another consideration in connection with the proposed consolidation is
the question uf whether the pasture type of use a/hich is contemplated will sup-
port the investment involved in building up a lergor holding. Assuming thrt the
present systems of use of such ltnd yield a lerg .' current income per acre th*n
this land would yield if used entirely or ractly fcr pasture, we hpve * competi-
tive element which must be faced in considering the new proposal. Lower use must
be accompanied with lower investment p r acre in order to be successful. It
looks as if it wore not possible, in the face of the present competition for
farms, to seale down these values to a pester-- 1 -use-returns basis.

Summing up the considerati as so loosely discussed in the fi re joing,
may condense them into fcur propositions r.s follows:

(1) The first objective in considering the expanded use of pasture is
to Hake a better present and long-tine opportunity for the people on the lend.
This does not mean merely a pi* ce on the lond for those unfit for faraiihgj but
in the long run, if opportunity for industrial employment continues to be lack-
ing, we must look for a higher percentage of our people on farms solely through
the results of less migration frum farms to industry.

(2) The second objective would seem to be to save the land and make it
more productive. This and the first objective, are, in the long run, compatible
end hr.rmonious. Their realization involves conservation of land with the use of
lend.

(3) Contrary to the recent assumption that the service of those whose
life work had been devoted to means of making the fanner more efficient rnd his
lend more productive are now outdated End unneeded, it would seem.' that the pre-
sent situation -nd its demands require more service from those men th r n over be-
fore. Consequently, the agronomists concerned with the development of pastures
and other forage crops have e broader and more important responsibility. T"' •: y
share this responsibility r ith soil specialists, economist's, rnd m-ny ethers
whose services ere needed in meeting the now problem.

(4) Finally, in all of this work there is needed, as the condition of a
successful outcome, a happy balance between vision end good' sense.

nmmmmmmmm

o «*>

+* -a .

DDC E

CO *-<

5)73 £ +J Q) m Q) +J r-<

©ojG-.-ik5j>o303

* 3 th C •«-' a) E

*-. E eo .-( x: w

E <-<

l I

H CM

• to OJ *H

r-H £ X> 3

a> 03 •** c w

>» X> u E o I

U C 0> u

■r- U C 03

03 O OJ *>h
T3 O O

i i T

in to c-

v> v.

^ ^t

o oj

o w

i i

oo o>

d o M eo

O eO o 1

*, X> P C

^n p, o O t-> O

0) +J 40 C

I III

O «H C\J CO

C 00

•H OJ

z
<

l*>

•

«■

CvJ

»N

«0

</>

z
o

<
o

o
z

CO
0.

<
2

D
O

o
-oo

-: *- l ~
^ (0 O

_ ^CO
c "U

- qj <D

C D -^

CO Q" CD

-" Q) 0)
E QC^

iff 2 §

«+- £. w

O (0 ^
Q) CD 0)

do 11 - -c
co = ■*-

"c < o
S o

2
o

>•

•

■

•

»-

3
O
IT
O

0£

—

■i

—

«o

-1

— Ul

CO H

u.
o o

< H
-J <

< *

u o
co ut

• CO

« z
I- o

Z 3

3 2
O

U CO

X uj

H «
u

u. <
o

cr
u. Ul

X CO

> —

cr 3
<

Ul o

Z U

I u.

CM U.

ae co

3 2

o cr

U. HZ

Ul <

»- a.
o <

UJ C

a.
o

■

f .

<r»

C\J

1- z

D —

•■

o *

I o

o a

3 O

or H

z <

1- u

o *

- o

* H

Q. >

-J

CVJ

CO Ul

- o

I ac

H <

»-

— Q

"■

Ul
O H

Ul o

CO >

■

< U|

Ul O

U (0

Ul 2

"•

Q cr

CO u.

« »

-1

< Ul

U. Z

ui h>

a o

CO t-

t- z

D Ul
O 2

™

a co

z -

< -i

-1 CD

o f-

Z CO

te,

- ui

< Ul

ae z

ca t-

• CO

2
P

Ul CO

H Z

— —

2 <

- J
JtL

* x

> pi

en -o

> pi

■

o CO

H m

c z

> H

r »

■*

> o

« r

o o

•

> o

o x

o >

O N

f»l

c -

■o *

•

> n

- r

n >

o z

■>

O Z

pi o

o o

■*

30 X

pi x

> o

CO X

pi >

— n

z o

H -

X Z

> PI

so <

•<

> ■*

—

•

- 30

z c

X •

< —

PI z

H H

PI z

O PI

z
n

3D >

O (0

X H

o» pi

■

• 3D

►

«■»

•

•»

—

n
O

o
o

£
o

"D <D
CD i=

3 y> (n

TJ CO C

od o

I-

Q- "o '•oo a g

CO £ * -

DOOc
CO •-

ft to t:

M- .r H-
O C0±:

<D ( n Q

■00^

c cd
a» ,a>

U Li-
CD
Q_

Z UJ

or i

o K

z
o

Ui _

H ui

z z

^
^

— <

u.
O

UJ o

uj a.

U. 2

3
<

UJ
CC

O u)

UJ »-

O 1-

or —

3 -1

Ifl

CO u.

14
CO
N

o
<

ID
U

>•

CO J

«3

u —

K H

3 <

♦- -1

CO UI

< OS

u. a)
O -1

UJ
U CO

z —

1- >
or <

o I *

a. «o

2 z

CO <

ui z or

> O O

— _

HOP

< UI UJ

j a u

UI Ik

or «
4» x

-J X H

_l H -

< o B

01 X o

K UJ

ui — or

I 9 <

•vj

-J

1- o.

=5
(J

a 2

UI UI o

•<

t- or o

o <

ll.

Z a. to

2 <
1 o

z
u

O 1-

lO J

»-

to UI

UI < CO

3 K Z

O JK

— UI o

■D

U. CO o

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 08921 5239

Percentage of Land in Farms in Intertilled Crops, Other
Crops, and Pasture in Selected Farming Regions

FARMING AREAS

MISS..ALA..GA..SANDY LANDS - -

MISS. BROWN LOAM AREA

ALA.. MISS.. BLACK PRAIRIE

ALA.. GA..S.CAR.. PIEDMONT
ALA., GA., LI ME STONE VALLEYS -

ALABAMA HILLS

RED PLAINS. CENTRAL OKLA..TEX

RED PLAINS. NORTH TEXAS

OKLAHOMA CROSS TIMBERS- --

PINEY WOODS SECTION

BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE
SOUTHERN BLUE RIDGE
CENTRAL PIEDMONT
NORTHERN BLUE RIDGE
EASTERN TENN. VALLEY
SHENANDOAH VALLEY
CUMBERLAND HIGHLANDS
NORTHERN PIEDMONT

CENTRAL PENN.

PITTSBURGH DAIRY

WEST VA. HILLS

EAST OHIO AND WEST VA.-
PENN. GENERAL FARMING -
SOUTHERN LOAM TOBACCO

INDIANA, KENTUCKY

INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO -

K Y., OHIO, TOBACCO

SOUTHWEST WISCONSIN •-

NORTH EAST IOWA

MO. VALLEY LOESS

MO..IOWA AND ILL.-

PERCENT

20 4-0 60 80 I00

U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

INTERTILLED CROPS OTHER CROPS

PASTURE

V///////////////S777T

V/////////AW//////A

V////////A

V//////A

Y/////////////X

V/////////////A

V///////////A

V/A//////AA

W//AW//AAA

V/AW/A

VAAW//A

V////S///A////A//W77AT

^/////// /////// ///// ////A

'////// ////// // //A

WAAAA/AASAAAA/AAA////A>A>//A\

w/a///;/;;;/// / >aaa;a///a>/a/a;aa/Z77Z7X

V////////////////////////A

V///////////////A//AA/A////AA/A//A-

V//////////////A/7777A-

V///////////////777ZT

W///////AW///AT

'///////////////////////A/A

VAAAAAAAAASAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

'AAAAAAAAAA/AAA/AZ7777T

VAA//AA////AAAAAA7777X

NEC 28116

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Figure 6 - Note the high relative position of intertilled crops in
the cotton areas as compared with other areas* note their low posi
ti0n in the hillier areas.