UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
 Bureau of Agricultural Economics 
 
 
 PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM 
 ON LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN THE MIDWEST DAIRY REGION 
 
 Part I. - A Summary of the Studies of Selected Areas 
 
 By 
 
 Sherman E. Johnson. 
 Ronald L. Mighell, and 
 Frank T. Hady 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 January 1940 
 
~r p/ 
 
 fc30.?77 
 
 On 3 f 
 
 VJ 3 
 
 C 6 
 
 ! <H 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 .'IDDAM/I 
 
 THE LjbhftHY OE SfH: 
 
 JUL 141941 
 
 UNIVERSITY Of ILLIffclS 
 
 T~> 
 
 i r< 
 
 3 i V zlU 
 mi} 
 
 FOREWORD 
 
 OFF 
 
 
 AT. DEAN 
 
 (1UKKVKI^MCWESK^S; fWf**' ! 
 
 This is one of several reports originally subiriitted to the Agricul¬ 
 tural Adjustment Administration in June 1937 in response to a request f*r 
 a study of the probable effects of the agricultural conservation program 
 in the midwest dairy region. It is based on studies carried on during 1936 
 and 1937 in cooperation with the Departments of Agricultural Economics and 
 Farm Management of the agricultural experiment stations in Iowa, Minnesota, 
 Wisconsin, and Michigan. Because of the continuing interest in the subject, 
 the original report is now made available in mimeographed form. 
 
 ■ No changes have been made from the text as completed in 1937 except 
 for the insertion of a few comments and footnotes calling attention to im¬ 
 portant occurrences since then. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 
 and subsequent changes in administrative procedure have modified some of 
 the details of the agricultural conservation program, yet in broad outline 
 it remains essentially the same and may be expected to have approximately 
 the same general effects on livestock production in the midwest dairy re¬ 
 gion. It is believed that if the analysis were now to be recast and pre¬ 
 sented in the language of 1939 instead of that of 1937, essentially the 
 same conclusions would be reached. 
 
 The whole report is presented in five separate parts. The first 
 part consists of a general summary for all the areas studied in these four 
 States. There is then a separate part for the selected areas in each of 
 the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 
 
 The authors wish to acknowledge the many helpful suggestions re¬ 
 ceived from the members of the staffs of the cooper ting agricultural 
 experiment stations. They particularly appreciate the constructive criti¬ 
 
 cisms of Professors D#n Anderson of the University of Wisconsin, George A. 
 Pond of the University of Minnesota, Walter Wilcox of the Iowa State College, 
 and E. B. Hill of the Michigan State College. The technical advice contri¬ 
 buted by Einar Jensen of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and T. E. 
 Woodward of the Bureau of Dairy Industry with reference to feeding prob¬ 
 lems has been especially useful. The responsibility for thp conclusions, 
 of course, rests with the authors. 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/probableeffectso01unit 
 
PROBABLE' EFFECTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM 
 ON LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN THE MIDWEST DAIR y REGION A/ 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Sources of Information and Methods of Study .. 1 
 
 Soil Problems, Cropping Practices and Rotations . 4 
 
 Changes in Land Use and Livestock Numbers, 1925-35 .. 5 
 
 Land and Labor Resources .. 9 
 
 Relationships Between Cropping Systems and Livestock 
 
 Systems . 11 
 
 Effect of Crop Changes on the Feed Supply and on 
 
 Feeding Practices and Production . 11 
 
 Estimates of Changes in Feed Supplies, Dairy 
 
 Production and Farm Income . 18 
 
 Factors Affecting the Reliability and Applicability 
 
 of the Estimates .. 22 
 
 Conclusions . 23 
 
 A SUMMARY OF THE STUDIES OF THE SELECTED AREAS 
 
 Sources of Information and Methods of Study 
 
 Adjustments resulting from the agricultural conservation program- 
 will come through decisiona. made by individual farmers in each area. If 
 conservation policy aims at promoting the most efficient permanent type 
 of agriculture for each region - adjustments in line with comparative 
 advantage - the starting point for studying itteffects should be the in¬ 
 dividual farm. From this basis one can build up conclusions with respect 
 to desirable adjustments for specific areas with similar production oppor¬ 
 tunities. Such conclusions with respect to each area should then be inte¬ 
 grated with those for other areas and regions in such a way that final con¬ 
 clusions can be drawn concerning whether the total effect is likely to be 
 a nationally efficient production pattern within the aims of the program. 
 
 1 / Prepared by Sherman E. Johnson, Ronald L. Mighell, and Frank T. Hady. 
 The Departments of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management in the 
 Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan Agricultural Experiment Sta¬ 
 tions cooperated in the collection of data and in some preliminary 
 summarizing as a part of a broader study of interregional competition 
 in the dairy industry. 
 
2 
 
 Diversity of conditions arising both from forces internal to the farm 
 business, such as predetermined sizes of farms, and area differences result¬ 
 ing from variations in natural and institutional factors greatly influence the 
 effects of the conservation program. Doth typos of differences must be rec¬ 
 koned with. It has seemed best, therefore, to treat the problems of each area 
 separately, taking account of the main internal variations end then to bring 
 together the separate results in a summary analysis for all areas. 
 
 In definite blocks within selected townships, records were obtained 
 from all the farmers who were in a position to give the information. Areas 
 were chosen to represent two main types of situations: First, "are s in 
 the transition zone between the Corn Dolt and the Lake States Dairy Region"; 
 second, the "dairy areas in the heart of the Lake States, where there are 
 few, if any, alternatives to d irying as the main enterprise." Areas in 
 northeastern Iowa, southeastern Minnesota, southeastern Wisconsin, nd 
 southeastern Michigan were selected to repr sent the first situ; tion; and 
 areas in east centre 1 Minnesota, northwestern, north central and east cen¬ 
 tral Wisconsin, and west central Michigan to represent the second. 2/ (See 
 fig. 1). 
 
 The analysis and conclusions are based on the following assumptions: 
 
 (l) Continuation of the conservation program approximately on its present 
 plan and scope; (2) no important ch;ngos in technique, either in production 
 or marketing; (.3) no important changes in the area other than those brought 
 about by the program, except for readjustments caused by the recent drought; 
 (4) no effects on the area as the result of application of the program in 
 other areas, except as specifically considered.; (5) no important changes in 
 the general price level now prevailing; (6) somewhat lower livestock prices 
 then those we are now experiencing on account of drought shortage in supplies; 
 (7) a time period of 5 to 6 years. 
 
 With data limited t* the Midwest Dairy Region, the approach in this 
 study has been: First, to examine the changes in land us*., < nd livestock 
 numbers which have taken place in each area since 1920; second, to obtain 
 rs accurate a picture of the: present situation as possible; third, te deter¬ 
 mine if there now exists a definite relationship between the cropping system 
 and the livestock system; fourth, to estimate the effect on the total feed 
 supply of complying with the program; fifth, to estimate the probable effect 
 upon the livestock system (and especially on the d-iry enterprise) of such 
 changes in the feed supplv; and, finally, t# make some estimate of the af¬ 
 fect on farm income of compliance with the program under varying situations. 
 This appro.ch has also involved certain assumptions with respect to the re¬ 
 sults of ch ngus in feeding practices, especially changes in the dairy ration. 
 These .re samm- ri zed under the effects of the program*on feeding practices. 
 
 2/ The 
 
 ma' 
 
 from the records of individual fc rms has been analyzed in 
 
 conjunction with other available data bearing on the problem. These in- 
 
 :riai 
 
 » lu.i 
 
 elude: Fedor*. 1 r nd St; te census reports, data collected by the unit th*. t 
 was then the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates in the Bureau of Agri- 
 cultur 1 Economics, some unpublished dot. in th,, files #f the State experi¬ 
 ment stations which cooperated in the study, published and unpublished 
 material from the regional adjustment and county planning studies, as well 
 as some data copied from the Ae_A work sheets in the townships whore the 
 farm records were secured. 
 
3 
 
 Fig. X — Location of the selected areas. 
 
and Rotations 
 
 - 4 - 
 
 Soil Problems, Cropping Practices, 
 
 As one would naturally expect, the soil problems vary greatly among 
 the areas that we-ro studied. In general, the- Corn Belt transition areas 
 have the dark loam soils typical of the Corn Belt. The areas farther to 
 the north have soils varying all the wav from light sand to heavy clay, 
 but all of them probably contain less natural fertility than those on the 
 border of the Corn Belt. Applications of commercial fertilizer are recom¬ 
 mended by crops and soils specialists for some of the areas, but they are 
 used very infrequently except in the two Michigan areas, and even there 
 not on the majority of the farms. Liming would be beneficial for success¬ 
 ful stands of alfalfa and sweet clover in most of the northeastern Iowa 
 area, in all the Wisconsin areas, in the west central Michigan area, and 
 in some of the east central Minnesota area. Parts of northeastern Iowa 
 and the north central Wisconsin are?, encounter dr- r inage and subsoil diffi¬ 
 culties in their attempts to secure stands of alfalfa. 
 
 Farmers-interviewed wore asked to estimate the acreage on their farms 
 subject to slight, moderate, severe, and no erosion. Table 1 summarizes 
 the results of their estimates. It is apparent that farmers in those areas 
 do not recognize soil erosion as a serious problem. In some instances the 
 problem is perhaps more serious than their replies indicate, since much of 
 the sheet erosion would escape their attention. 
 
 Table 1. - Soil-erosion conditions as reported by farmers in 
 
 the sample areas \J 
 
 
 Percent of tote 
 
 1 land rep 
 
 rted 
 
 Area 
 
 No erosion 
 
 Slight 
 
 Moderate 
 
 Severe 
 
 Corn Belt Transition Areas 
 Northopstern Town . 
 
 53.5 
 
 77.3 
 
 32.2 
 
 13.2 
 
 6.6 
 
 1.1 
 
 Southonstern MirmeRntn . 
 
 16.1 
 
 14.0 
 
 
 Southeastern Michigan . 
 
 84.0 
 
 2.0 
 
 - 
 
 Areas With Few Alternatives 
 
 
 
 
 
 East centra 1 Mi nnosotn . 
 
 80.0 
 
 18.4 
 
 1.0 
 
 0.6 
 
 West central Michigan . 
 
 91.0 
 
 8.0 
 
 1,0 
 
 
 1 / This question was not included in the schedule for the Wisconsin areas. 
 
 There are few' special conservation practices in use at the present 
 time. However, in the- areas needing lime a considerable increase in its 
 application was evident in 1936 as compared with the practice in previous 
 years. Very little attention has been given to methods of improving per¬ 
 manent pastures. Small acreages of green manure crops were plowed under 
 in most areas. 
 
5 
 
 Table 2 shows by areas the percentage of total cultivated land which 
 was in tamo hay and rotation pasture in 1935. In general, the Corn Belt 
 transition areas have relatively more corn than the areas farther to the 
 north. They have a still greater proportion of corn for grain, since in 
 the northern areas most of the corn is used for silage and fodder. The 
 northern areas, on the other hand, have relatively more small grain and, 
 as a group, more tame hay and rotation pasture. 
 
 The next-to-the-last column in table 2 gives for each area the per¬ 
 centage of the cultivated land in tame hay and rotation pasture in 1935. 
 Southeastern Minnesota and northeastern Iowa hive the lowest tame hay and 
 pasture ratio. East central Wisconsin and west central Michigan have the 
 highest. The wide range between the areas with the lowest and highest tame 
 hay and pasture ratios probably reflects differences in natural advantages 
 for soil-depleting versus soil-conserving crops, but may also be due in 
 part to recent drought conditions. But the relative importance of tame 
 grass in the rotation at the present time affects directly the size of the 
 soil-depleting base and consequently the size of the conservation payment, 
 as well as the economy of further shifts toward more grass in the rotation. 
 The last column in table 2 indicates the average tame hay and pasture ratio 
 thst each area would have if a sufficient diversion were made from the 1935 
 acreage of soil-depleting crops to reduce them to 85 percent of the 1936 
 soil-deple ting base. It will be noted that the east central Wisconsin and 
 the west central Michigan areas would then have jver 55 percent of the cul¬ 
 tivated land in tame hay and rotation pasture. It is possible that on some 
 farms in these two areas such an adjustment would leave them unbalanced on 
 corn and small grain. On the other hand, northeastern Iowa and the two 
 Minnesota areas would have about the proportion of legumes and grass to 
 corn and small grain which is recommended by crops and soils specialists. 
 
 Changes in Land Use and Livestock Numbers, 192o-35 
 
 Without doubt the most general and one of the most significant of the 
 changes taking place between 1925 and 1935 has been the expansion of alfalfa 
 acreage. In some areas the upward movement in alfalfa has been accompanied 
 by an increase in all tame hay, but in others it has taken place in the face 
 of declining tame hay acreages. Figures 2 and 3 show the indexes of changes 
 in alfalfa and tame hay acreages from 1925 to 1936, using the 1925 acreage 
 as the base. With the marked increase in alfalfa, the quality of the hay 
 available for use in all these areas has been steadily improving. Likewise, 
 because it probably supplanted other hay which had lower average yields per 
 acre, the quantity has increased, or at least not declined proportionately 
 to acreage reductions in all tame hay. In most of the areas alfalfa produces 
 about one-third more feed nutrients po-r acre than do clover and timothy hay 
 (figs. 2 and 3).. 
 
 Another general change in the areas studied has been the increase in 
 the number pf cows milked. Table 3 shows the U. 8. census data by areas 
 for the years 1924 and 1934 and the percentage of increase. In some areas 
 drought and other causes have decreased the number of cows milked since 
 1934. 
 
Table 2. - Percentage of cultivated land in the selected areas in certain uses in 1935 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 3 
 
 to 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 tj 
 
 -P 
 
 X 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 ci 
 
 co 
 
 P 
 
 © 
 
 
 CO 
 
 cn 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 
 LO 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 LO 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 i> 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 LO 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a, 
 
 •H 
 
 © 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i>» 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 -p 
 
 
 cn 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 to 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 © 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 00 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 E-< 
 
 o 
 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •• 
 
 •% 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 
 •• 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 cl 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 C- 
 
 CM 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 -P 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 LO 
 
 05 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 6 
 
 
 o 
 
 CL, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 «« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ® 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 co 
 
 rH 
 
 
 LO 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 to 
 
 CM • 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 (X, 
 
 
 rH 
 
 S 
 
 >5 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 -P 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 co 
 
 to 
 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CL, 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 •• 
 
 •• 
 
 T3 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 <P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 c- 
 
 C~* 
 
 O 
 
 
 05 
 
 to 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 >» CL, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 C" 
 
 rH 
 
 LO 
 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 p 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 cO 
 
 
 •H 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -P 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 o 
 
 -p 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 05 
 
 C- 
 
 CM 
 
 co 
 
 
 05 
 
 LO 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 © 
 
 S’ 
 
 Pw 
 
 
 9 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 C~- 
 
 
 C*- 
 
 LO 
 
 O 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 •H 
 
 p 
 
 
 f- 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 
 tH- 
 
 c- 
 
 c- 
 
 LO 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 
 •• 
 
 T3 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 at 
 
 
 rH 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 c- 
 
 LO 
 
 to 
 
 C'- 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ci 
 
 
 aj 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 o> 
 
 LO 
 
 
 LO 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 to 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 o 
 
 
 g 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cO 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •• 
 
 *• 
 
 »• 
 
 
 •• 
 
 X 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -P 
 
 
 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 05 
 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 -P 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #• 
 
 
 
 
 «« 
 
 Ch 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ♦ 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ti 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 « 
 
 • 
 
 > 
 
 c 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 cO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *3 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 •H 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 -p 
 
 •H 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 •H 
 
 CO 
 
 •H 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 co 
 
 © 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 p 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 CO 
 
 P 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 © 
 
 O 
 
 •rH 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 xi 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 •H 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 
 •H 
 
 ? 
 
 jg 
 
 £ 
 
 s 
 
 •H 
 
 3 
 
 35 
 
 •H 
 
 jg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 Ch 
 
 rH 
 
 P 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Eh 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 +5 
 
 -P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 co 
 
 co 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 *H 
 
 p 
 
 10 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 o 
 
 £ 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 X 
 
 Xl 
 
 xi 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 -p 
 
 p 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 53 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 W 
 
 53 
 
 53 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 Sources Township totals from N.C.R. 6 listing sheets fcr townships in which farm records were obtained 
 
RCEN 
 
 140 
 
 1 30 
 
 120 
 
 110 
 
 100 
 
 90 
 
 80 
 
 70 
 
 60 
 
 50 
 
 . DEPAI 
 
 7 
 
 IANGES IN ALLTAME H AY AC R E AG ES, 1 9 2 5-3 5 
 
 INDEX NUMBERS ( 1925 = 100 ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ■V 
 
 / 
 
 East C 
 Minm 
 
 V 1 
 
 entral 
 
 3 sota 
 
 
 
 Northeaste 
 
 Iowa 
 
 L. 
 
 / 
 
 rn / / 
 / / 
 
 1 
 
 i X 
 
 y 
 
 j/ 
 
 oo u in Cu5t 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 J 
 
 \ A 
 
 
 /iv /, 
 / 1 AJJ 
 
 '• N \1 
 , ■ \\ 
 
 -'pr ii 
 
 \\/ 
 \V / 
 
 
 \ \\ / 
 
 
 Norther 
 
 y ^ 
 
 \ N 
 
 \ / 
 W 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 
 Wisconsi 
 
 n 
 
 Soi 
 
 VI 
 
 itheastern ^ 
 Wisconsin 
 
 V \ ^ 
 
 Vr\ 
 
 l\V 
 
 
 
 
 
 East Gentral 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 _1_ 
 
 
 _1_ 
 
 _L 
 
 
 25 
 
 1927 
 
 929 
 
 ENT OF AGRICULTURE 
 
 1931 1933 1935 
 
 NEG. 35825 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 
 
 Fig. 2. -- Changes in all tame hay acreages, 1925-35. 
 
RCE! 
 
 900 
 
 800 
 
 700 
 
 600 
 
 500 
 
 400 
 
 300 
 
 200 
 
 100 
 
 0 
 
 5 DEPA 
 
 8 
 
 CHANGES IN ALFALFA ACREAGE, 1925-36 
 
 INDEX NUMBERS (1925 = 100) 
 
 
 / 1,062 * 1.419 * 
 
 Northeastern Iowa 
 
 East Central 
 Minnesota 
 
 / 
 
 Southeast 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Southeastern 
 Wisconsin 
 
 East Central Wisconsin 
 
 25 
 
 1927 1929 1931 1933 
 
 ♦ PERCENTAGE INCREASE HIGH BECAUSE OF SMALL BASE 
 
 1935 
 
 ENT OF AGRICULTURE 
 
 NEG. 35024 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 
 
 Fig. 3. — Changes in alfalfa acreage, 1925-36. 
 
_ Q _ 
 
 V 
 
 Table 3. - Number of cows milked during the years 1924 and 1934 
 
 Area 
 
 1924 
 
 1934 
 
 Percent 
 
 increase 
 
 Corn Belt Transition Areas 
 
 
 
 
 N«rtheastern Towa ... 
 
 376.045 
 
 415 659 
 
 10 
 
 Southeastern Minnesota . 
 
 132.320 
 
 153.960 
 
 17 
 
 Southeastern Wisconsin . 
 
 169.807 
 
 182.598 
 
 8 
 
 Southeastern Michigan . 
 
 110.718 
 
 115,776 
 
 5 
 
 Areas With Few Alternatives 
 
 
 
 East central Minnesota .. 
 
 148,025 
 
 173,814 
 
 18 
 
 Northern Wi scon sin 1/.. 
 
 197,451 
 
 231.978 
 
 18 
 
 East central Wisconsin .. 
 
 165.081 
 
 174.223 
 
 5 
 
 West central Michigan . 
 
 109,117 
 
 112,046 
 
 3 
 
 l/ Northwestern and north central Wisconsin areas combined. 
 
 Other changes of significance in particular areas may be listed as 
 follows: (l) Increases in barley acreage in all Wisconsin areas. This is 
 
 probably largely malting barley. In southeastern Wisconsin the increase 
 was accompanied by a decrease in oats, while in northern Wisconsin there 
 was a simultaneous increase in oats. (2) A decline in hog numbers in east 
 central Minnesota and an increase in hogs in southeastern Minnesota. 
 
 (3) Decreases in land in crops and increases in hay and pasture in both 
 •f the Michigan areas. 
 
 Land and Labor Resources 
 
 In most of the Corn Belt transition areas the average and the medal 
 size of farm is 160 acres with from 100 tc 120 acres of cultivated lan^. 
 Often a considerable part of the 30 to 40 acres of permanent pasture is 
 tillable land. The areas with few alternatives to dairying have much 
 smaller farms. The modal size is most frequently 80 acres, with 35 t* 50 
 acres in crops, and much of the pasture is not readily tillable. Table 4 
 gives a comparison by areas of the land resources per farm. 
 
 In all the areas most of the labor is supplied by the operator and 
 his family. Consequently the amount of labor available and utilized for 
 farm work is often not closely adjusted to the size of the farm and the 
 numbers of livestock kep^. On many farms, especially the larger ones, in 
 the Corn Belt transition areas the labor needs for crops and livestock ex¬ 
 ceed the available family labor, and hence a considerable amount of lc.bor 
 is hired; but the evidence seems to indicate that in the areas with few 
 alternatives to dairying, most of tke farms are so small that they cannot 
 efficiently utilize the available family labor. 
 
Table 4. - Average land resources per farm by areas 
 
 10 
 
 
 rH d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © © 
 
 LO 
 
 LO 
 
 05 
 
 
 1 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 
 p to 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 P P .H 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 
 
 X^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 cm 
 
 
 w d X 
 
 x* 
 
 C" 
 
 
 oo 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 CM 
 
 
 © © o 
 S o ^ 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M *• 
 
 M *• 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iH *H 
 © w 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 c— 
 
 00 
 
 1 
 
 05 
 
 x# 
 
 CO 
 
 P P Pi 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 Q) 
 
 w p o 
 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 xt< 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 Xtf< 
 
 > 
 
 © a o 
 
 MOW 
 
 fH 
 
 rH 
 
 t> 
 
 rH 
 
 05 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 '-p 
 
 ' O f H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ctf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 •• 
 
 •% • • •• 
 
 E 
 
 fl. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 rH *H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 p 
 
 © w 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 1 
 
 rH 
 
 
 iJ l d 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • - 
 
 • 
 
 <J 
 
 P P o 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 C-- 
 
 
 X* 
 
 LO 
 
 
 p d o 
 
 05 
 
 LO 
 
 
 LO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 o © w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 525 O -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !S 
 
 M M •• 
 
 •• M 
 
 
 
 
 • • • • 
 
 M •• M 
 
 x: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 d -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 co 
 
 •H 
 
 1 P w 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 * 
 
 X © 2 
 P P O 
 
 • 
 
 <0 
 
 • 
 
 CVJ 
 
 • 
 
 x* 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 rH 
 
 • 
 
 <0 
 
 w 
 
 P w o 
 
 rH . 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X* 
 
 
 
 O © w 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 5^5 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 r*» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <2 
 
 • • •• *• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH ?1 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 © -R 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 C- 
 
 rH 
 
 
 p p ® 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 CO P © 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 LO 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 3 § g 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 LO 
 
 
 LO 
 
 
 X^ 
 
 rH 
 
 •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d d 
 
 1 P © 
 
 rH 
 
 x*< 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 X* 
 
 c- 
 
 
 X © to 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 •• 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 P P -H 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 3 «X 
 
 X) 
 
 05 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 X* 
 
 rH 
 
 w 
 
 o © o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 h 
 
 'S> © jg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 << 
 
 d 
 
 *H 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 X* 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 c* 
 
 I P W 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 X © d 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 00 
 
 •H 
 
 p p o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 t> 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 -P 
 
 3 # o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o © w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 00 © -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 . El 
 
 M •« •« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 E-i 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 LO 
 
 CM 
 
 LO 
 
 LO 
 
 05 
 
 
 X © w 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 p 
 
 P P © 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X** 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 c~- 
 
 o 
 
 
 2 w d 
 
 LO 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 o © d 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 CO © jrj 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-=4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 i p 
 
 CM 
 
 •* 
 
 o> 
 
 
 CO 
 
 oo 
 
 CM 
 
 xjt 
 
 o 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 p p i 
 
 
 00 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 p w b 
 
 C" 
 
 o 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 O © M 
 52J © 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 rH 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 T3 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • t 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 d 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 rH 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 t3 
 
 • 
 
 P 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 2 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 • 
 
 3 
 
 P 
 
 • 
 
 P 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 • 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 w 
 
 • 
 
 
 s 
 
 © 
 
 
 CO 
 
 5> 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 
 © 
 
 <p 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 •H 
 
 • 
 
 04 
 
 'O 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 O-i 
 
 CL, 
 
 p 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 P 
 
 d 
 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 d 
 
 2 
 
 >1 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 
 ' » 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 XI 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 (0 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 4* 
 
 T5 
 
 rH 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 od 
 
 6H 
 
 «s 
 
 CP 
 
 o 
 
11 
 
 There seems to be ample reason for conducting farming operations in 
 the latter areas on a labor intensive basis in order to realize as large 
 an income as possible from a small amount of cropland per farm. A shift 
 to crops which require less labor would mean that a part «f the labor supply 
 would probably remain unutilized unless the livestock enterprises were •on- 
 ducted more intensively, jy Thus if the conservation program induces a 
 change in crop production such that less labor will be required it would be 
 possible to utilize more labor on the dairy enterprise. If more roughage 
 is produced under the new program this could be supplemented with purchased 
 concentrates and an increased number *f dairy cows could be kept, which of 
 course would mean an increase in dairy production. On the other hand, the 
 crop shift could be made from small grain to alfalfa which would involve 
 the substitution of an intensive soil-conserving crop for a less intensive 
 soil-depleting crop. Such a shift could also be accompanied by an increased 
 use of lime and fertilizer which would result in increased yields of feed 
 crops. 
 
 Relationships Between Cropp ing dysterns a nd Livestock Systems 
 
 That no close or direct relationship between cropping systems and 
 livestock systems is ascertainable is indicated by the comparisons in 
 table 5. Although a relationship appears to exist in some areas it is not 
 consistently in the same direction, and a more detailed study with scatter 
 diagrams reveals that the scatter is extremely wide, 4/ If a definite re¬ 
 lationship between the proportion of the cultivated land in tame grass and 
 the numbers of the different types of livestock could be discovered it would 
 throw considerable light on the possible effects of crop shifting. However, 
 other factors on individual farms are so much more influential that differ¬ 
 ences in the livestock system because of variations in the percentage of 
 tame grass are largely obscured. It should not be inferred from this that 
 additional ha;/ and pasture acreage on the same farms will not be accompanied 
 by changes in livestock numbers. Although it may be granted that there is 
 considerable flexibility in the use of a given feed supply, a general net 
 addition of hay and pasture on all farms is likely to modify the existing 
 feeding pattern. But one cannot safely predict from the present crop and 
 livestock relationships on farms with a relatively large amount of t:-.me 
 grass the changes in livestock systems which are likely to result from 
 crop changes induced by the program. 
 
 Effect of Crop Changes #n the Feed oupply and on Feeding 
 
 Practices end Production 
 
 If we cannot safely roly upon comparisons of present crop and live¬ 
 stock systems for conclusions regarding the effects of the program we have 
 
 3/ In some areas the labor released would probably be shifted into more of 
 Tine special crops such as potatoes, beans, etc. 
 
 4/ In table 5 the sample records were sorted into "high" and "low” groups 
 on the basis of tame grass ratios (percentage of cultivated land in tame hay 
 and rotation pasture). Average conditions in each area determined the defi¬ 
 nition of "low" and "high." Thus in southeastern Minnesota the point of 
 division is 20 percent, while in west central Michigan it is 40 percent. 
 
Table 5. - Livestock numbers per farm as related to percent of cultivated land in tame 
 
 12 - 
 
 
 
 • : 
 
 ..1 *T 
 
 
 
 • V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 . . ( *4 
 
 09 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 1 
 
 
 
 XS 
 
 as 
 
 
 * i 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 c- 
 
 09 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bO d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 •H *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 co 
 
 CM 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 x 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 09 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u ■ 
 
 o 
 
 d' 
 
 
 ra 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■s 
 
 o 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 
 O 
 
 O- 
 
 co 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 £ d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 '• 
 
 ' • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ■» . 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 «• 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •4 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 to 
 
 f 
 
 
 eo 
 
 O LO 
 
 LO 
 
 
 09 
 
 C» 
 
 LO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ho d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 c- 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 r-H LO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 bO 
 
 
 X 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 CM 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C! 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 •H 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 D, 
 
 a, 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 09 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 09 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 £ d 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 LO 
 
 lO 
 
 C" 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 ■e* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ►4 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 LO 
 
 c- 
 
 LO 
 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 to d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 p 
 
 •H *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 C"- 
 
 CO 
 
 fH 
 
 CM 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 pH 
 
 X 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 bo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 © 
 
 XJ 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • . ». 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 xj 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 09 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 09 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 £ d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 O *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 X 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •» 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 CO 
 
 LO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 c- 
 
 CO 
 
 LO 
 
 rH 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 bO d 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 •H *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 rH 
 
 00 
 
 LO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 09 
 
 C- 
 
 CO 
 
 LO 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 © 
 
 w 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 d 
 
 <H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •• H 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 aS 
 
 xs 
 
 p 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CL, 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 09 
 
 
 00 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ? d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 ♦ 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 O »H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 LO 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 c- 
 
 rH 
 
 LO 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -P 
 
 
 
 -d 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 LO 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 w> d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 •H *H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 •<© 
 
 c- 
 
 09 
 
 
 o 
 
 co 
 
 c» 
 
 LO 
 
 C- 
 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 xs 
 
 d 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 •H 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 ai 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 09 
 
 LO 
 
 C"- 
 
 
 00 
 
 rH 
 
 00 
 
 LO 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ d 
 
 aS 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O -H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 C" 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 C" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 )4 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 M 44 
 
 44' 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 , • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 * • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 to 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 as 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 ' • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 •H 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 •H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 p 
 
 •H 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 P 
 
 •H 
 
 to 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 to 
 
 d 
 
 bO 
 
 © 
 
 to 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 •H 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 •H 
 
 g 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 W 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 d 
 
 M 
 
 £ 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 f£ 
 
 u 
 
 £ 
 
 
 •H 
 
 •rH 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 -® 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 Pc* 
 
 rH 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 pH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E-i 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 * 
 
 d 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 d 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f—1 
 
 to 
 
 w 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 •rH 
 
 d 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 aS 
 
 |5 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PQ 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 £ 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 - .. N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 to 
 
 
 £ 
 
 ,d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 ©i 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 0 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 w 
 
 d 
 
 
 ra 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 S3 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 
 W 
 
 S3 
 
 
 M 
 
 ■£ 
 
 
 
Table 6. - Yields per acre of principal crops, by areas, as reported for 1935 on farms studied 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 rH PJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 p so 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 in 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CO 
 
 •S3 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 © 
 
 co 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 & 
 
 © o 
 
 O *H 
 
 00 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 'Mr 4* 
 
 •• 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 rH »H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © © 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CD 
 
 CM 
 
 
 ► 
 
 -P 
 
 P 3 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 •H 
 
 w 
 
 -P O 
 
 m 
 
 CO 
 
 c- 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 -p 
 
 <3 
 
 3 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 O -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 •* M 
 
 
 M •• 
 
 «• 
 
 
 -P 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH *H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 © W 
 
 in 
 
 O 
 
 co 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 p 3 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 fi 
 
 -p 
 
 •p o 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CM 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 3 o 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 Uh 
 
 o 
 
 © CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5Z5 
 
 O *H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Pi *H 
 U w 
 
 m 
 
 00 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 co 
 
 ,3 
 
 © a 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 -P 
 
 -P o 
 
 hi 
 
 O 
 
 C- 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 CO o 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 © w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 Is; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH © 
 © -P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -P 
 
 P O 
 
 00 
 
 C- 
 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -P CO 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 © 
 
 3 © 
 
 
 c- 
 
 c- 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 © 3 
 
 ■H 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 P ©, 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 in 
 
 05 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 ,3 
 
 © bO 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 -P 
 
 ■P *H 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 05 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 3 
 
 © xi 
 
 H< 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 © o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ra 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 © «g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 p 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 3 -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 P W 
 
 CO 
 
 Hi 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 3 
 
 X 
 
 © 3 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 -p 
 
 -P o 
 
 HI 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 •H 
 
 3 
 
 w o 
 
 HI 
 
 H< 
 
 
 
 
 •p 
 
 o 
 
 © w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 CO 
 
 © rH 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 3 -P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Eh 
 
 1 
 
 P O 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 «H 
 
 
 X 
 
 © © 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 -P 
 
 -p 
 
 -P © 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 3 
 
 w 3 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 © 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 co 
 
 © g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ,3 
 
 © © 
 
 co 
 
 CM 
 
 c— 
 
 CO 
 
 Hi 
 
 -p 
 
 -P !* 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 p 
 
 ra o 
 
 m 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 
 o 
 
 © H 
 
 co 
 
 Hi 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 SSJ 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -P 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 m 
 
 on 
 
 EH 
 
 EH 
 
 EH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •• 
 
 •• 
 
 H •« 
 
 •« •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 ,3 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 -P 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 3 
 
 bO 
 
 • 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 •H 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 Eh 
 
 
 
 Cu 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 • 
 
 °8 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 p 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 • 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 <H 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 •» 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 <pi 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 / 
 
- 14 - 
 
 the alternative of tracing more directly the effects of crop shifting on the 
 production of feed nutrients, and estimating the possible effects of changes 
 in the feed supply on livestock production and on farm incomes. As a basis 
 for such estimates the crop and pasture yields, feeding practices and dairy 
 production in the different areas have been studied in considerable detail. 
 
 Table 6 summarizes the 1935 yields for the principal crops in the dif¬ 
 ferent areas. Vvhile in some instances these yields are higher than the 
 county averages computed over a period of years, they reflect fairly well 
 the relationships between the different crops for each area. From these 
 and other available data the total digestible nutrients produced per acre 
 were computed for each feed crop that would be involved in crop shifting. 
 
 Thus a common denominator was obtained for comparing the effect of changes 
 in crop production. Table 7 gives for the principal crops the pounds of 
 total digestible nutrients per acre which were used in the area estimates 
 of changes. 
 
 Table 7. - Total digestible nutrients per acre from principal 
 crops as computed from normal yields and 
 as used in the area estimates l/ 
 
 Area 
 
 Pounds T.D.N. per acre 
 
 Corn 
 
 Oats 
 
 Silage 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 hay 
 
 Clover 
 
 and 
 
 timothy 
 
 hay 
 
 Corn Belt Transition Areas 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Norther, stern Tows ... 
 
 1,625 
 
 799 
 
 3,480 
 
 2,716 
 
 1,277 
 
 Southeastern Minnesota ........ 
 
 1,805 
 
 961 
 
 3,132 
 
 2,314 
 
 1,440 
 
 Southeastern Wi sc on si n .. 
 
 1,896 
 
 984 
 
 2,645 
 
 2,515 
 
 1,536 
 
 Southeastern Mi chi ran . 
 
 1,805 
 
 961 
 
 2,958 
 
 2,012 
 
 1,344 
 
 /reas With Few Alternatives 
 
 
 
 
 
 East cen f r‘1 Mi nne sota ........ 
 
 1,128 
 
 915 
 
 2,088 
 
 2,012 
 
 1,440 
 
 Northwestern Wisconsin ........ 
 
 1,399 
 
 869 
 
 2,332 
 
 2,113 
 
 1,248 
 
 North c ntrr L Wisconsin . 
 
 1,399 
 
 732 
 
 2,610 
 
 2,012 
 
 1,248 
 
 East cennoa] Wisconsin.. 
 
 1,535 
 
 824 
 
 2,610 
 
 2,213 
 
 1,248 
 
 West central Michigan . 
 
 1,219 
 
 572 
 
 1,914 
 
 1,509 
 
 960 
 
 1/ No allowance made for corn stalks, straw, and pasture from hay fields. 
 
 Table 8 gives a frequency distribution of the average production per 
 cow on the farms studied in each area. The figures for northeastern Iowa 
 and all the Wisconsin areas are unduly low because no estimate was available 
 for the quantity used on the farm. In general, the extent of specialization 
 in dairying is reflected in the relative number of f; rms with high or low 
 produetion per cow. One cannot assume that the verb tion in production per 
 cow which is shown in table 8 indicates more than very roughly the produc¬ 
 tive capacity of the cows on the farms studied. Under better conditions of 
 feed and care the results might have been quite different. 
 
15 
 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 <D 
 
 J-4 
 
 © 
 
 A 
 
 * 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 -p 
 
 d 
 
 -p 
 
 co 
 
 3 
 
 >» 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 <D 
 
 d 
 
 cr 
 
 © 
 
 £ 
 
 i 
 
 00 
 
 <D 
 
 rH 
 
 -Q 
 
 a] 
 
 Eh 
 
 rH d 
 
 © crt 
 
 -P d b0| 
 W -P »H 
 
 © d -d 
 
 ^ © o 
 
 ° £ 
 
 ai m 
 u d 
 -P o 
 d o 
 © m 
 
 O H-i 
 
 A 
 
 -P 
 
 d 
 
 £ 
 
 ai 
 
 £ 
 
 d 
 
 © CO 
 O jrt 
 
 d 
 
 d *H 
 d W 
 © d 
 -p o 
 
 CO O 
 
 © © 
 
 * £ 
 
 © 
 
 J3 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 -p 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 © 
 
 •g 
 
 d d 
 d © 
 
 © to 
 
 1^2 
 
 © o 
 
 © ;H 
 
 S 
 
 •• •• 
 
 d 
 
 H 
 CO 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 d 
 © 
 
 -p 
 co 
 © CO 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 d -p 
 d o 
 © w 
 •p © 
 « d 
 aS d 
 
 ©^ 
 
 d 
 d 
 © 
 
 -p £ 
 w o 
 
 © M 
 © 
 
 05 lO tO 00 00 
 rH CM iH 
 
 O rH 
 
 CO CO lO 
 
 CM H< rH 
 
 O rH 
 
 CO C" 
 rH CM 
 
 H rl O 
 
 O H< O H« 
 rH CM 
 
 rH rH O 
 
 CM N ^ ^ 
 ^ ^ H 
 
 O CM rH CM CO CO 
 rH CM CM 
 
 O O 00 O MO 
 
 CM CO CM 
 
 © o O ^ © CM 
 ■M* LO CM 
 
 O C- O CM CM tO 
 CO CO tO rH 
 
 C- 
 
 C» 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 tO 
 
 O 
 
 CM 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 c~- 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 H< 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 00 
 
 Hi 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 t- 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 •• 
 
 
 
 
 M •« •• 
 
 •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <D 
 
 • 
 
 co 
 
 • 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 • 
 
 l A 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 • 
 
 O A 
 
 • 
 
 <H 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 Ol 05 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 X) 
 
 V) 
 
 A, _ 
 
 /"—X 
 
 © 
 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 H< 
 
 05 
 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 d 
 
 £ 
 
 •p 
 
 d 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 © o 
 
 o 
 
 -p 
 
 © 
 
 i i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 © 
 
 to *H 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 © A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 
 d O 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 © d 
 
 © 
 
 > 'O Cd 
 <14 
 
 TO 
 
 \J Includes only the butterfat sold in northeastern Iowa and the Wisconsin areas. For the Minnesota 
 Michigan areas an estimate of the amount uaed on the farms has been added to the sales. 
 
16 
 
 Participation in the conservation program will mean more roughage and 
 less concentrates in the farm feed supply. Such a change is very likely to 
 affect the type of ration fed to dairy cattle. On farms where some grain has 
 been sold, or where a considerable quantity has been fed to other livestock, 
 it is of course possible to make the adjustment without changing the dairy 
 ration. It would also be possible to maintain the present type *f ration by 
 purchase of additional concentrates. But the most likely result 'will be to 
 feed more roughage and less concentrates to the dairy cows. In the more 
 specialized dairy areas most of the roughage and the bulk of the farm grain, 
 as well as some purchased feed, are consumed by the dairy herd. In such 
 areas the major effects of the changes in the feed supply can be expected 
 to fall on the dairy enterprise. The feed going to horses is probably 
 rather inflexible, and the poultry enterprise will probably be carried on 
 much as before. 
 
 In most of tho Corn Belt transition areas, however, hogs are an im¬ 
 portant alternative enterprise. There the relative prices of hogs and dairy 
 products will probably be important factors in determining how the decrease 
 in grain will be divided between the two enterprises. In northeastern Iowa 
 beef cattle are also important en some farms and may share in the effects of 
 the change. The physical change in the feed supply is in the direction of 
 providing increased feed for dairy cows in the form of roughage. 
 
 This raises the question of how far the substitution of high-quality 
 roughage for concentrates can go without lowering the production per cow. 
 Examination of the available evidence leads to the conclusion that if the 
 roughage ration consists largely of alfalfa or good clover hay and silage 
 the concentrates in the ration can be held down to the following limits (for 
 cows weighing from 1,000 to 1,100 pounds) without decreasing production by 
 any appreciable amount. 
 
 Production per cow 
 
 4% Milk 
 (lbs.) 
 
 5,000 
 
 6,250 
 
 7,500 
 
 8,750 
 
 Butterfat 
 
 (lb s.) 
 
 200 
 
 250 
 
 500 
 
 350 
 
 Percent 
 
 of 
 
 T.D.N. 
 
 concentrates 
 
 1 / 
 
 15 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 37 
 
 l/ This is a percentage of the nutrients fed in addition 
 to pasture. Since some supplementary feed must be fed 
 on pasture for satisfactory results, one can probably 
 assume that roughly 70 percent of the nutrients consumed 
 by the cows are fed in addition to pasture. 
 
 If the percentage of concentrates in the ration were reduced much be- 
 lrw the figures indicated in the accompanying tabulation, it seems probable 
 that production per cow would be somewhat lower. If only 10 percent of the 
 ration for a 200-pound cow were concentrates, a 3 to 4 percent drop in pro- 
 
17 
 
 duction could probably be expected. Perhaps a similar percentage drop in 
 production would follow if a 300-pound cow were fed a ration with only 25 
 percent concentrates. 
 
 Since alfalfa and clover are high in protein, increases in these feeds 
 will probably raise the protein content of the ration. Feeding standards 
 show approximately the following protein needs for cows of different produc¬ 
 tive capacities. 
 
 Production per cow 
 
 
 Approximate 
 
 Assumed production 
 
 4% Milk 
 
 
 Approximate 
 
 percent of 
 
 increase 
 
 by raising 
 
 Butterfat 
 
 nutritive 
 
 protein 
 
 protein from 10 per- 
 
 
 
 rati 0 
 
 to T.D.N. 
 
 cent to standard 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs# 
 
 
 Percent 
 
 Lb s. 
 
 Percent 
 
 5,000 
 
 200 
 
 1:7.8 
 
 11.3 
 
 12 
 
 6.0 
 
 6,250 
 
 250 
 
 1:7.6 
 
 11.6 
 
 15 
 
 6.0 
 
 7,500 
 
 300 
 
 1:7.3 
 
 12.0 
 
 20 
 
 6.6 
 
 8,750 
 
 350 
 
 1:7.1 
 
 12.3 
 
 25 
 
 7.1 
 
 Some \ studies indicate that, as a conservative estimate, one could plan 
 on the production increases shown in the last two columns of the .above table 
 if rations containing only 10 percent protein were brought up to the require¬ 
 ments of the feeding standards. In fact, there is considerable evidence to 
 show that production will rise with an increase in protein up to a point con¬ 
 siderably above feeding standard requirements. 
 
 On many farms participation in the conservation program wall mean an 
 actual increase in the feed nutrients available for dairy cows, although the 
 amount of grain food will be much less. The response in dairy production to 
 an increase in nutrients will of course depend upon the level of feeding at 
 the present time in relation to the productive capacity of the cows. It has 
 been estimated that if c.«ws are now being fed below feeding standard require¬ 
 ments an increase in production c.n be expected of 1 pound of butterfat for 
 15 pounds increase in total digestible nutrients. If cows are now fed ap¬ 
 proximately according to the standard, or if additional cows are to be 
 added, only half as much increase has been estimated, n r 1 pound of butter- 
 fat for 30 pounds of total digestible nutrients. These estimates allow for 
 considerable wastage in fees as actually fed on the farm. 5/ 
 
 The utilization of feed obtained from pasture has been estimated at 
 55 percent as much as the nutrients obtained from the same crop if harvested 
 for hay. This allows for -overgrazing, and may be much lower than actually 
 realized under some conditions. 6/ 
 
 5/ For the full discussion of the basis for these estimates see the explana¬ 
 tion at the beginning ^f each of the State reports in this series. 
 
 6/ See U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. No. 194, A Pasture Handbook, pp. 45-46. In this 
 publication an estimate is made of 75 percent utilization under proper 
 grazing conditions. 
 
- 18 
 
 Common observation in the areas studied loads to the conclusion that 
 the cows are more likely to be underfed during the hot weather pasture short¬ 
 age than at any ^ther time. On a large number of farms no supplementary 
 feed is fed during the pasture season. It seems apparent that an increased 
 quantity of roughage could be best utilized to offset the pasture shortage - 
 either by feeding it as hay or by diverting additional land to rotation 
 pasture. Increasing the feed at that time would probably add more to pro¬ 
 duction for a given quantity of the nutrients utilized than if fed in any 
 other way. 
 
 Estimates of Changes in Feed Sup plies, Dairy Producti on, 
 
 ~and Parra' Income'"' 
 
 As farmers hive many alternatives both in kind and degree of partici¬ 
 pation in the conservation program,' and as there is little basis for pre¬ 
 dicting the precise) adjustments they will make, the problem of estimation 
 has been approached from the viewpoint of determining maximum limits for the 
 effects of the program. Three steps are involved: (l) Calculating the pos¬ 
 sible changes in crop production; (2) analyzing the ways of distributing the 
 changed feed supply among the different types of livestock and the resulting 
 changes in their production; (3) estimating the effects of such changes on 
 farm income. Prom the numerous alternatives certain situations have been 
 chosen for estimating purposes. 
 
 The change from corn and small grain to hay and pasture in the Corn 
 Belt transition areas ordinarily provides more feed for cows and less for 
 hogs. As the dairy and hog enterprises are close alternatives, the question 
 arises as to how the decrease in grain will affect the two enterprises. No 
 doubt the relative prices of dairy and hog products will play an important 
 part, but there are other factors that enter into the problem. If the extra 
 hay and pasture is all fed to dairy cows and if there is no compensating re¬ 
 duction of grain in the dairy ration, more cows must probably be added to 
 utilize the feed. But this would involve more additional labor than appears 
 to be available on most farms in these areas, and at the same time less labor 
 than could be readily hired. To continue the hog enterprise much as before 
 and to make all the feed changes in the dairy enterprise would probably in¬ 
 volve fewer adjustments on most farms. Because of the relatively large 
 amount of grain fed to cows at present in some of these areas, and in view 
 of the rather low production per cow, it seems probable that on most farms 
 all the feed substitutions could bo made in the dairy enterprise without 
 any great changes in dairy output. 
 
 In the more specialized dairy areas the major impact will naturally 
 fall on the dairv enterorise. The alternative there will probablv be one of 
 buying grain to replace that which is lost by acreage diversion. 
 
 Table 9 gives percentage changes in total digestible nutrients (esti¬ 
 mated on an area basis) that ’would result from the program on the assumption 
 of full participation and acreage shifts from depleting to conserving crops 
 sufficient to obtain maximum diversion payments. The decreases in depleting 
 crops were divided between corn and small grain approximately in proportion 
 
19 
 
 to their 1935 acreages, and the increases in conserving crops were added to 
 alfalfa and clover and timothy hay approximately in proportion to the 1935 
 acreages of alfalfa and all other tame hay. The estimated changes in feed 
 nutrients vary'from a 1.6 percent decrease in north central Wisconsin to a 
 9.0 percent increase in southeastern Minnesota. It seems significant that 
 the only net decrease was in an area where soil conditions are unfavorable 
 to alfalfa and the calculated shift was therefore largely to clover and 
 timothy hay. 
 
 Table 9. - Area estimates of percentage changes in total 
 digestible nutrients from participation in the pro¬ 
 gram as compared with the 1935 crop pattern 
 
 Percentage 
 change in.T.D.N. 
 
 Corn Belt Transition A reas : 
 
 Northeastern Iowa .4- 2.6 
 
 Southeastern Minnesota'. 4- 9.0 
 
 Southeastern Wisconsin.: f.2,7 
 
 Southeastern Michigan. 4- 5.4 
 
 Areas With Few Alternat ives : 
 
 East central Minnesota .: 4- 6.2 
 
 Northwestern Wisconsin.: 4- 2.7 
 
 North central Wisconsin.: - 1.6 
 
 East central Wisconsin .: f 7.1 
 
 West central Michigan .: 4-7.4 
 
 Simple average all areas 4- 4..6 
 
 More detailed estimates from individual farm data were made for each 
 area, although because of variations in cropping and feeding systems, and 
 some differences in available data, it was not possible to make them in quite 
 
 the same wav for all areas. But from the results of these and the area esti- 
 
 */ 
 
 mates the following conclusions seem justified: (l) If it were possible to 
 shift all the diverted acreage to alfalfa hay the increases in feed nutrients 
 would run from 10 to 20 percent; (2) on the •ther hand, if the diverted acre¬ 
 age were used largely for clover and timothy hay the new feed nutrients would, 
 about balance (or be slightly less than) the total produced with average 
 yields under the 1935 crop program; (3) if the land were utilized largely 
 for clover and timothy pasture, which has a rather low carrying capacity, 
 there would be some net decreases in feed nutrients, but because of chronic 
 pasture shortages the nutrients might be available at a time when they would 
 add the most to the dairy output. 
 
 In the areas with few alternatives, because of the need for intensive 
 use'-'of the cropland, it seems probable that the emphasis will be placed on 
 the kinds of crop shifting that a.re likely to yield the largest farm-raised 
 
20 
 
 feed supply. In the areas where successful stands of alfalfa cannot be ob¬ 
 tained, higher yields of hay can bo secured with more frequent see dings of 
 red clover end alsike, and perhaps by the use of lime end fertilizer. 
 
 The next step was to estimate the effect on the dairy output if all 
 the changes in the feed supply were reflected in the dairy ration. These 
 estimates were made largely- on an individual-farm basis, and conditions in 
 each area, as well as the available data, partly determined the procedure 
 used. In the Minnesota and Michigan areas estimates were made for each ’of 
 the individual farms on which complete crop, feed, and livestock data were 
 available. In northeastern Iowa and the Wisconsin areas attention was cen¬ 
 tered more on the entire area and fewer individual farm estimates were made. 
 In all areas the assumptions used' regarding the effects of substituting 
 roughages for concentrates were those discussed in section F. 
 
 Summarizing the estimates for all farms, they .indicate that in areas 
 such as northeastern Iowa., where the average production per cow is low, the 
 effect on dairy-production of an increased quantity of feed nutrients avail¬ 
 able for dairy cows, and the increased protein content of the roughage would 
 considerably more than offset the effect of loss concentrates; consequently 
 the percentage increase in dairy production would be somewhat greater than 
 the increase in the feed supply.--There-would probably be about 4 or 5 per¬ 
 cent increase in butterfat production. • • 
 
 In areas further advanced in their dciry development, having higher 
 average production per cow, and especially where relatively small quantities 
 of grain are fed to the cows at-present,- tho effect of decreasing the amount 
 of concentrates in the ration‘would be much more important. From the evi¬ 
 dence available it seems that such areas mil be likely to shift tho diverted 
 acreage into relatively intensive uses (such as alfalfa) and. that therefore 
 there will bo some increase in feed nutrients, but a smaller increase (or 
 perhaps no increase) in butterfat production. This would follow because- the 
 influence of reduced concentrate feeding would not be fully offset by the 
 higher protein content of the roughage feed. Here .there would be the alter¬ 
 native of combining the increased quantity of roughage with more purchased 
 concentrates. The economy of such a practice would largely depend upon feed- 
 butterfat price relationships. 
 
 * 
 
 It seems probable that those Minnesota, ‘Wisconsin, ;nd Michigan areas 
 which have an opportunity of shifting a large part of their diverted acreage 
 to alfalfa might increase their butterfat production from 2 to 5 percent as 
 a result of the changes in tho farm feed supply and without increasing tho 
 amount of purchased .feed. • Where alfalfa cannot be grown successfully a 
 slight decrease might be expected. 
 
 Summarizing for all areas, it seems probable that the changes in dairy 
 production directly traceable to the changes in the feed supply induced by 
 the program will be rather small. But the evidence points toward changes in 
 the positive direction, especially in tho Corn Belt transition areas. 
 
 The final step in our anlysis was an attempt to make some estimate of 
 the probable economic gains or losses that farmers would experience from par¬ 
 ticipating in the program. An exact valuation was not possible with the- data 
 
21 
 
 at hand. This is true- partly because' of the difficulty of predicting; the 
 usual effects of economic forces on costs and prices, and partly because wo 
 have no basis for estimating the impact on these areas of the effects of 
 the- program in other areas-. In line with our previous assumptions wo have 
 therefore confined o.ur estimates to the effects within the area. 
 
 Acreage diversions from corn and small gr; in to hay and pasturo will 
 usually involve some .reductions in crop production expenses. Those reduc¬ 
 tions should be credited to the program. If the changed food supply results 
 in an increase in butterfat production without affecting the income from 
 other enterprises, or without offsetting increases in expenses, the value 
 •f this increase should also bo credited. Conversely, there should be a 
 debit for the value of a possible decrease in butterfat production. Conser¬ 
 vation payments, consisting of both diversion and soil building payments, 
 add a considerable amount on the credit side. 
 
 After placing values on the above items in - ccordance with the best 
 information available, and then making estimates for individual farms as 
 well as for entire areas, we conclude that on the average, and considering 
 only the changes within the areas, farmers will show a net gain fr#m full 
 participation in the program. In some areas, they will about break even on 
 their crop and feed adjustments, and can therefore regard their conservation 
 payments as'” net gain. 
 
 The amount of the gain will vary greatly among individual firms with¬ 
 in each area, and between areas. Farmers with a relatively high soil-deplet¬ 
 ing base will gain more than those with a relatively large acreage in soil- 
 conserving crops at the present time. It is obvious that the conservation 
 payments will be larger, but the crop adjustment is also more important on 
 such farms. If, in addition to a high soil-depleting base, a farmer has cows 
 of average productive capacity or lower, he will have greater elasticity in 
 the use of his new feed supply, and therefore will stand to gain more from 
 the program than the farmer with high-producing cows who will probably ex¬ 
 perience lower production per cow if he substitutes roughage for concentrates, 
 The amount of gain from participation can usually be increased by shifting 
 the diverted acreage to -the high-yielding legumes. 
 
 As between areas the possibilities for gain arc the greatest in the 
 areas which now have the largest percentage of the cultivated land in soil- 
 depleting crops, and where the average production per cow is rather low. It 
 follows that the mere specialized dairy are; s, with rather high average pro¬ 
 duction per cow, and with a.relatively large percentage of the land in soil- 
 conserving crops, will gain somewhat less from the program. They would also 
 be more vulnerable to decreases in the prices of dairy products, because 
 they lack alternative enterprises. 
 
22 
 
 F actors Affecting Reliability and Applicability rf 
 
 the Estimates 
 
 Some of the factors determining the reliability and the applicability 
 of the estimates relate to the assumptions that have been made. Others are 
 concerned with the general applicability of the estimates to the situation 
 in the areas under study, and consequently to the actual effects of the pro¬ 
 gram. As there was little basis for forecasting the extent of farmer parti¬ 
 cipation, we have attempted to analyze the effects on the assumption that 
 farmers will participate. i/Vhile such estimates are really in terms of pos¬ 
 sibilities rather than probabilities, and while the effects will be reduced 
 in proport-ion to the extent that some farmers do not participate, and others 
 qualify for only apart of the payments, they should, nevertheless, indicate 
 the direction in which changes may be expected in actual practice. 
 
 The validity of the estimates of change's in feed nutrients rests in 
 large part on whether the yields that actually will be experienced show 
 the same relation between hay and corn and small grain as those used for 
 estimating purposes, ro estimate has been made of the cumulative upward 
 effect of more legumes on subsequent grain yields. It is probable that 
 the tdtal digestible nutrient formula for measuring the feeding value of 
 
 There 
 
 v— o • 
 
 different feeds overvalues roughages as compared with conccntrat 
 is probably also greater waste in feeding roughage feeds. To some extent 
 these discrepancies might be offset by gr e a to r-than-e s tima ted effects of 
 increasing the protein content of the ration, and by some overestimates of 
 the feeding value of some of the feeds replaced, such as .corn fodder. 
 
 The most difficult factors involved in estimating thi effects of the 
 program are the differences among individual farms. To some extent it has 
 been possible to allow for part of them by building up estimates from farm 
 records, but lack of intimate knowledge of the situation and the need for 
 brevity in analysis have made it necessary to ignore some of the individual 
 differences which will surely affect the operation of the program on farms 
 in these areas. 
 
 On tenant-operated farms the tvne of lease introduces 'modifications 
 
 X 1 IS 
 
 in the effects of the program. The uncertainty of short-term tenure acts 
 as an impediment against expansion of the livestock enterprises which re¬ 
 quire much fixed investment; but it is possible that the change in the food 
 pattern mil be even more important on share-rented than on owned farms, be¬ 
 cause the tenant is likely to have all the hay at his disposal. 
 
 Most important of all, the incentive to take specific action in ad¬ 
 justment rests with the farm operator, and with those who influence his 
 decisions. The question of full or partial participation in the program 
 or no participation at all will be decided by them, as well as what utili¬ 
 zation will be made of the diverted acreage. 
 
23 
 
 Conelusions 
 
 From estimate's on individual farms and for the entire areas covered 
 by this study, it* appears that the crop diversion involved in the- program 
 will tend toward a moderate increase rather than a decrease in total feed 
 nutrients. It must be remembered that this estimate is confined to the 
 midwest dairy region and that it does not include the principal Corn Belt 
 areas. It is also confined to the probable effects of the agricultural 
 conservation program on the assumption of rather full participation, and 
 of a shifting from depleting to conserving crops in the proportion that corn 
 and smnll t .gn.in were grown in 1935. ’Introduction of corn allotments with 
 proportionately larger reductions in corn than in small grain may result in 
 net decreases in feed nutrients. Fven though in s«mo areas a small decrease 
 in feed nutrients would result fr«m shifting to lower yielding hays or to 
 pasture with a low carrying capacity, there ’would, of course, still be an 
 increase in hay and pasture (cattle feed). Otter influences such as price 
 changes may also affect production, and of course might offset the effects 
 of the program. 
 
 This change in the feed supply is likely to ^ive some additional 
 emphasis to dairy production, more especially in those Corn Belt transi¬ 
 tion areas which are in the earlier stages of.dairy development. Here the 
 shift toward more roughage also means roughage.of better quality which 
 ■(considering the productive capacity of their cows) will much more than 
 offset the effect on production of tho decrease in the grain supply. In 
 fact, the use of roughages and concentrates in these are:, s is so elastic 
 that probably all the changes in the feed supply could be absorbed by the 
 dairy enterprise, so that there would be no reduction in the amount of 
 grain available for hogs. 
 
 In the more speci; lizod dairy areas tho reduced grain supply is likely 
 to have more important effects. Here nearly.£11 the small quantity of grain 
 produced is fed to the cows, and the productive capacity of the cows is 
 higher; consequently, further substitution of roughage for concentrates is 
 likely to mean lower production per cow on many farms (unless the grain 
 losses are replaced with purchased concentrates). However, considering all 
 farms even in those areas it does not seem probable that dairy production 
 will be reduced, because with the small amount of cropland per farm it is 
 probable thet the shifted acreage will be seeded to high yielding legumes 
 like alfalfa. Then perhaps some of the grain reduction will be made up by 
 purchase of more concentrates - in this event a substantial increase in pro- 
 du c t i on wo u 1 d t a. ke place. 
 
 From the available evidence it seems most probable that in both types 
 of areas the net effect of the program on dairy production will bo rather 
 small during the period under consideration, but in the direction of an in¬ 
 crease, especially in the Corn Bolt transition areas. 
 
 In all areas farmers who have a relatively small percentage of their 
 land in hay and pasture will, on the average, gain the m*st by the program - 
 both from conservation payments and from tho resulting crop and feed adjust¬ 
 ment . 
 
24 
 
 On the whole, the changes that ere likely to result from the program 
 seem to bo in line with the long-term advantage of the areas concerned. The 
 inducement for increasing the acreage in legumes (especially fIf:Ifa) accele¬ 
 rates the present trend in that direction. This is also true of increased 
 specialization in dairying in the Corn Belt transition areas. The evidence 
 is not so clear regarding the limits to the economy of substituting high- 
 quality roughage for concentrates in the dairy ration, especially on farms 
 with cows of high productive capacity. Further stu-dy is needed *n this point. 
 In all the areas that were studied, observation seems to indicate that there 
 is room f«r considerable emphasis On means of pasture improvement. This 
 again requires further study before definite conclusion can be drawn, but it 
 appears that-any influence that the program will have in-this direction will 
 contribute to greater efficiency in dairy production. 
 
 t 
 
 Although this study was confined to a time period #f 5 ^r <r years it 
 seems evident that many of the forces set in motion by the program may show 
 even greater results beyond that period. The influence of '.n increased acre¬ 
 age of legumes on future crop yields, and the increased use of lime and ferti¬ 
 lizer where needed, are likely to hive cumulative effects. The potential re¬ 
 sults of the impetus givwn to such changes in practices are probably large, 
 but they will come as a secondary development, and it is not .possible to mea¬ 
 sure their importance on the basis of the information now available. Further 
 study is needed to determine their possibilities and to estimate how far they 
 will be carried out. It should be noted, however, that they point in the 
 direction of an increased feed supply and therefore toward increased dairy 
 production. A. signific- nt increase in dairy output may le'. d to relatively 
 lower prices for dairy products, unless such increase is offset by increased 
 demand resulting from industrial recovery, increasing population, or stimula¬ 
 tion «f milk consumption among low income groups. Even the result of lower 
 prices may be balanced by gains from increased efficiency. If it is not 
 fully offset in this way the areas with few alternatives will be more ad¬ 
 versely affected than those which can readily shift t* other enterprises. 
 
 It seems rather certain that the most important results of the program 
 in the areas under study wj.ll not become evident during the first 5 or 6 years. 
 They are" likely to come from forces which, though small in their initial ef¬ 
 fects, become cumulative when once bet in motion, or when given an additional 
 stimulus. , . 
 
 • { 
 
 i Hf LJfehAKr OMHt 
 
 JUL 14 1941 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
■ - * *V?V - ' • *7 
 
 -V.