Facts relating to the Aori~ cultural Situation in 1034 U.S. Dept, of Auppcultur ■ ' 4 • ?!) Table of Contents UN I VERSn Introduction. .. * * M M .. I. Recent Changes in Agricultural production, Exports prices, and Income. Page 1 2 A. Farm cash income, 1924-1934. Farm production, by commodity groups C. Livestock numbers. D. Domestic consumption.. ’ * E. Agricultural exports,.. F. Farm prices. G. Farm income for the U. S. as a whole H. Farm income by states and regions... 2 4 4 7 11 16 16 31 II. price and Cost Disparities.,, 40 A. ih ices received and paid by farmers,. B. Farm wages and farm taxes.. , ’.’ . C. Farm debts... .. . D. Costs of distribution. E. Land values. III. The Agricultural Outlook for 1935. A. Domest ic demand... . B. Foreign demand. .. ’ C. The outlook for feed crops and livestock... D. The hog outlook.. E. The beef cattle outlook... F. The dairy outlook.’' .. C-. The outlook: for fam la'Dor, equipment, and fertilizer.'.’,'.’!! 17. Dependence of Further Agricultural Recovery or. Balanced i-roauction and on Further Industrial Expansion. A. The farmers share of the national income. B. Factors that limit the recovery in agriculture. 44 44 49 50 53 53 58 58 58 63 63 64 64 66 66 67 UP"* n v OF TiiE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS r. ESTERQ’JEST Table 1 33 “2.1 Co p. 2 List of Tables : • Page Indexes, .of the volume of net agricultural production....'.,.... 5 2 Livestock numbers on farms as of January 1... 8 3 Production of selected farm products consumed in the farm home, 1929-1933 . 10 4. h* Farm, local and total slaughter of livestock in . . . the United States, 1929-1933 . 10 Ul 5 c*> s DC LU I— CO UJ Gross income from farm production, farm value of .experts and ratio;, of exports to production, United States, 1909 to 1933. . 12 VO b rn A. Agricultural exports of the United States. Yearly indices from i909-1910'to 1933-1934, base average 1910-1914 - 100. 13 ^ 7 CN, I Average prices received by farmers in the United States for selected commodities in October 1928-1929 and 1932-1934 and in 5 prewar years . IS 8 Gross income from farm production, United States, 1909-1933 . ..V ... 20 9 Income from farm production, 1924-1933 .. 21 10 Monthly cash income from farm marketings, October 1934 with comparisons ... ........ 22 n Gross income from farm production by groups of commodities, 1929-1933 ...... 24 12 Estimates of operating expenditures for production, 1926-1933 ... 25 13 Cash income, production expense, and cash available after deducting production expenses, 1924-1933 .. 26 14 Gross income, deductions from gross income, and income available for operators* capital, labor, and management, 1924-1933 . 2 1 15 Changes in the value of farm operators* capital used in agricultural production, 1919-1934. .. 29 16 Distribution of income from farm production available for operators* labor, capital, and management, 1924-1933*. 30 17 Value of livestock on farms as of January 1.. 32 \ 928806 IS Page Farm returns 1922-1931» average of reports of owner-operators; for their- own farms, for - • " * calendar year,. 1922-1931, .».••• • • • •>.......... .;.*..., 33 19 Gross-and-cash- income from farm production, "by • , states, 1929, 1932, and 1933 - 7S crops and 13 livestock items (combined). ................ 36 20 Estimated value of 193^ crops by states with comparisons.....38 21 1934 Earm prices by states with comparisons. 4l 22 Earm returns by geographic divisions (based on -••• reports for .larger than average farms.) 1922-1933. 42 23 Index numbers of prices received by farmers and prices paid............ 45 24 Selected indexes of prices, wages, costs of distribution, farm taxes and mortgage interest, 1913-1934.. 46 25 Farm real estate: Index numbers of estimated value per acre, by geographic divisions, March 1, 1934 • -with .comparisons.. ...... 56 26 Agricultural-and industrial production and prices... 73 .!. - ■ List of Charts Figure 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. o * 7. 8 . 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Cash Farm Income from Crops and. Livestock and Income of Industrial Workers, 1924 to Fate .. Farm Income and Factory Payrolls since January 1933 ., Indexes of Net Agricultural Production in the United States . Indexes of Production in Factories Using Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Materials . volume of United States Agricultural Exports . U. S. Exports of Farm Products, 1919-20 to Fate . Index Numbers of Prices Received and Prices Paid by Farmers ... Indexes of Net Agricultural Production, Prices, and Income, United States 1919 to Date . Gross Farm Income and Selected Expenditures, 1909-1933 .■. Selected Farm Expenditures as Percentages of Gross Income, 1909-1933 . Farm Returns, 1922-1933 . Prices Received by Farmers and Prices Paid for Commodities Used in Production, Farm Wages and Farm Taxes, 1910 to Date . Returns Per Acre of Ten -Leading Crops and Taxes, Land Values and Mortgage Debt Per Acre of Farm Real Estate .. Prices Received and Prices, 7fages, Interest, and Taxes Paid by Farmers, 1910 to Date . Retail and Farm Value of Monthly Purchases of 14 Foods Per Family .. Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Production and Freight Rates, Index Numbers, 1910 to Date . Farm Real Estate; Index Numbers of Estimated Value Per Acre, as of March 1, by Geographic Divisions, 1912-1934 .\ oa 17 19 34 47 48 51 52 54 55 Pag© Figure 18. Forced and Voluntary Sales of Farms, 1926-1934, Number Per 1,000 Farms, Years Ending March 15 . 57 19. Farm Bankruptcies and Commercial Failures in the U. S., 1906-1933 .... •..... ' 57a 20. Income of Industrial Workers*-.and Cash Income from Farm Products . 68 21. ■ Index Numbers of Wholesale Prices of Farm and Non- Agri cultural Products, 1798 to Date . 69 22. • Ratios of Prices of Farm Products to Prices of Non-Agricultural Products, 1798 to Date . 70 23. Index Numbers of Wholesale Prices of Farm Products for Two Periods, 1851-1904 and 1905 to Date ....... 72 24. Production of Manufacturers, Factory Employment, and ■Population, United States, 1899 to Date . 74 25. Supply of Farm Labor and Industrial Employment, Index Numbers, for March, 1919 to Date . ?6 26. Business Activity in the United States during Five Prolonged Depressions . 77 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FACTS RELATING TO THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN 19 34 3y L. H. Bean, Economic Adviser, Agricultural Adjustment Administration. The data contained in this exhibit deal with the general agricul¬ tural situation in 1934 and outlook for 1935. They include such items as (1) recent changes in agricultural production, exports, prices and income, (2) changes in agricultural prices and in costs of goods "bought "by farmers, farm wages, farm taxes, mortgage interest payments, and distribution costs, (3) selected items in the Agricultural Outlook for 1935 and (4) the inter¬ dependence between agriculture and industry during the next phase oi general recovery. A considerable portion of the data brought down to date in tnis exhibit was included in a similar erdiibit presented at the hearings on R.R. rates and charges #26,000 May 1933 entitled Facts Relating to tne Agricultural Situation, May 1933. The main facts of this report are: (a) The total volume of agricultural production, partly through the operations of the AAA, "but largely through the unprecedented drought of 1934, has been substantially reduced. (b) The general level of farm, prices, due partly to the various recovery measures and partly to the drought, has nearly doubled since the low point of the spring of 1933. (c) Gross returns from production and sale during 1934 were sub¬ stantially higher than in 1932-33, particularly in the cotton and grain areas. (d) Bart of the increase in gross returns was offset by a 26$ ad¬ vance since March 1933 in prices paid by farmers for goods, and by a mod¬ erate advance in farm wages. There has been some decline in farm taxes and in payments on farm debts, chiefly due to xoreclosuro. (e) Some of the gain in current farm income especially during 1934 represents a reduction in capital assets and therefore a drain on future income. (f) The improvement in farm returns to date is a very small inac¬ tion of the severe decline in the inventory values of farm lands, build- ings, livestock and machinery during the past five years. (g) The agricultural outlook for 1935 is for increased production of crops that suffered severely from the drought in 1934, partly offset "by lower production of livestock and livestock products due to the 1934 feed shortage, emergency slaughter as a result of the drought and the prevailing relatively high feed prices. The general level of farm prices is expected to decline if 1935 growing conditiohs are more nearly normal than in 1934. and gross returns will he maintained at present levels. (h) Foreign demand is expected to he less favorable, foreign competi¬ tion and trade restrictions continuing unabated, and a higher level of domestic demand than at present will he determined largely by such new measures as are yet to he adopted for the general stimulation of construction and the so-called durable goods industries.(i)There exists at present a wide discrepancy between agricultural and industrial production and between agricultural and industrial prices. The gap between the relatively high industrial prices and the low volume of industrial output needs to be narrowed if agricultural returns are to advance and if the disparity between farm and other prices is to be com¬ pletely wiped out. The present agricultural situation and the 1935 prospects call for the removal of such obstacles as now tend to keep the volume of in¬ dustrial prodiiction and employment at their low levels, if farmers are to re¬ ceive their former share of the national income. I. Recent Changes in Agricultural production, Sxports, prices, and Income. A- Farm Cash Income, 1924-1934. The central item in the facts bearing on the fa.rm situation is perhaps the course of farm income, first in relation to the pre-depression level, and secondly in relation to the low levels reached during 1932-33. Figure 1 shows the course of farm cash income from crops and livestock, contrasted with in¬ come of employed workers in factories, nines, .and on the railroads. These two broad streams of income both declined to about 40^ of their pre-depression levels, and have in general shown about the same advance since the spring of 1933. As shown in a l&tor illustration, crop income suffered a much greater decline than income from livestock and livestock products, and consequently has had a sharper recovery during 1933 and 1934. The rise in farm cash income from the low point of the depression is 9hown in figure 2 contrasted with the course of factory payrolls. The first outstanding event in the recovery of 1933 was a sharp, speculative rise in agricultural and other raw material prices. This brought about an advance in farm income preceding the rise in factory payrolls, With the decline in spec¬ ulative activity, farm income, including benefit payments, remained more near¬ ly in line with the volume of factory payrolls and to some extent supporting the latter in periods of declining industrial activity, as in the fall of 1933 and 1934. The 1934 farm cash income it is estimated will total about 6.0 billion dollars, compared with 4,3 billion in 1932 and about 10 billion in the years cash farm Income from crops and Livestock and Income of Industrial Workers, 1924 to date INDEX NUMBERS ( 1924-1929MOO) ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION O tr UJ Q. (M GO <0 IM O' (J a 2 UJ 2 UJ X CO X O z < —I H 1 1 z - u. UJ UI X 8 < CD > UJ H 3 UJ Ik 2 * UJ -J z X -J z o O CO -J — < nr o o cr> X < X u. -g 0. o — * =£ 2 UJ 3 Z UJ o 2 3 UJ X U. _l • < 3 O H H O CO CO 5 o < Z UJ X -J • z uj x <0 UJ — UJ -J o u Q H < -} u > < o O z o X UJ > 3 UJ > X O H -1 — z 0- CO o - > — tc UJ 3 2 u z UJ 3 JA O 2 > o X z 1U 9 UJ o — o CO CO CO X CO CO _l ■ • fo — oc < H < CO < to u u X z © UJ 2 H QC UJ < 2 3 3 0 0 CL z X €*« O CO O i Lf) UJ UI X 6 UJ O z ca o O o UJ X o < z > 1 z — a < J UJ o X 4 a a. 3 3 u * o < z w 2 v~ BL < a. UJ o IA a ui x S U itl •HQ. X - Z 0) < UJ O * X UJ D Z 2 U QC O I CD — O o O Off t- o » o. H O 0. * 2 ib < a < o U O X < _J H UJ X Q H Ul X 3 Ik - z QC O H a- Z 3 _ _ o 2 O «*l UJ O to UJ QC ic QC CD a > Ui O J UJ CO z 0*0- *^co UJ £2 o H < O O'' Q. a. a. <0 k to ^ - uj 3 uj uj a — O > Q 2 >- Z z O J - ^ UJ ac 3 CJ QC - J UJ <0 x < a h x z DC O < 3 a U. 3 tO CL Q. • o H UI QC Z X o UJ J- 3 z o UJ — QC u. UJ UJ O to UJ QC < 2 < UJ o _J DC O o z z — H X >- QC UI > o b- X o to UJ < 3 O z •— <* H CM Z CO O CTv < O UJ CO Z h UI(X - - < 2 — UJ 2 0 Z - - O U_ — to X z o 2 QC O — UJ QC _J «* X Q. _J UJ > QC Q. < > QC O < QC UJ O * 3 _j H QH O _J Z _l Q < < < 3 UI Ik — O > QC Z - O O H O QC QC H CO — C3 Q. 3 CO < 2 H O CO — 3 Z UJ Z O — QC Ol O O UI UI - Z O < < 0- to QC UJ — X 0- CO UJ 2 o tr — uj uj X 3 H O CO Q. - U O O z UJ - C5 O < z QC O CO < z < X < X Farm income and factory Payrolls Since January 1933 ( FIRST QUARTER 1933 * 100 ) > a 1 I o 2 UJ cc a z o z UJ z D z o X UJ A o < u UI h* 03 V) J J CD h- < o X -J l z »-• GC 3 UJ H o l UJ Cl O — cr o o Ui 3 UJ 2 > CC z yfj U UJ < > UJ CC o o CC a. < CL < X UJ QL UJ u UJ X > Q U 1“ cc > CC >3 3 < a uj o CC UJ z> Ui z CJ H o H “5 cc 3 < o O 1- z CD h- < o —> a u. < UJ UJ u. UJ K a 2 a cc > 4- UJ o z Q < • < (A o o < z cc CM UJ z < UJ UJ d cc. — >- 2 X UJ CL > o H (T> z 5 H o o CO CC > —• z CO < — > — UI LL < cn u. H — X 2 — o f- b. h* CO < o O u CO < H o cr> _J CD o — < J 2 UJ cc — < < u. z UJ u. cc UJ u_ < —j 1 - o »- cc cc < cc CD H* H < _l z> CD CD o O -J a D 1- cz < z Q O u — Z 3 CD > a — 1- o o Z UJ z z z O x — z ui UJ O h* — CD I- UJ UJ UJ (0 z z u X UI — — z H z LJ UJ ! — o L X w o J A UJ 1” < UJ o UJ UI (D a UJ o I C3 H a cc H Z CD UJ < - r> X UJ -J CD fT) a: 1- X 5 CO D H o O 22 a a x z UJ z o Z < I UJ < UJ o o 2 X — > o CD o X CO (C O _J CD o Z _J o D £ - o H O • CD 2 cc UJ 2 > Q O CO H cc < UJ H Or < UJ cr < CL > — -J 3 u. CC o D 5 > UJ UJ Ll. 2 cc 3 Z DC CD > O _ < 2 y cr O — O H CD cc UJ -J h CD < UJ O H CD _J u. o CD < Z < X h u. UJ o u. o z cc 2 CD — z UJ z > _» UJ X < h UJ — < < I ? a X cl f- *<. CL r— UJ > H UJ Q CD h- UJ o < < A — — X z I VI 3 cc u. 1- — h- C\J Ui cr D O iT V 4 - of Tqp 4 !nQ 0 Q de rr S i°f' I ’ nrm 0ash i3come iS tius atout 40 $ helow the average ers thlV^'t ’ aS . int0 acoou3t th3 l0TOr level of prices paid by fJL- that 0 ? 1924 W 29 pUrchasl3 S poTOr ° f the 1934 iacome is «*o«t 2^ lower than B —P roduction, by commodity groups* wears v J ? ? general has declined during each of the past three , fi 5 l6Vel reached 13 1931 t0 the l°™st level since 1921. Ia 32 a small cotton crop contributed to the lower volume of output, in 1933 „ s™:r^r P ’ a3d . 13 1934 a Sain a small wheat crop accompanied by the " ‘ ml lest grain crops m two generations and by a small cotton crop. These Changes are shown in Table 1 and fig. 3 . P tual 3etagricultural P ro< tuction tend to understate the ac¬ tual decline in volume. T.ais is due to the fact that for crops they represent for livestock^ 03 WSed *? ** fara 30:ae - rather than total production and - ° ,ivestoclc they represent marketing without regard to whether herds are in lisfwould appear 11 * *”’* ^ actttal votaas of agricultural production 1 . 1934 wo^ll appear auc-a lower were it not for the sharp increase in neat animal^production, (that is, slaughter), due to the drought and tL^carcity ' the hi^pow^f 1 !^/ 0 *! 1 ^ 01 ^ h n0t far tel °' T average a3d 0313 13 ^ de l°w f. 0 pomt 01 1931, it is clear from Table 1 that a hishlv u^bniqac^ aa 3 ° 3 eXlst3 aE " oe tween the major branches of agriculture 9 The volume If and v-etible' 11 S b SS ? S03 Wl11 ^ 0317 aW 42 $ of average, cotton 76$, fruit 21 to~ 35 * ^ a average, and dairy products, seat animals and truck crops bS: a - V T SS ;- C03diti03s 13 1935 will tend to bring about some ? the ‘1 ~f f llV ° 5tock and livestock products will be kept down by . prseat feed shortage (for extent of feed shortage see outloo 1 - report 7 given elsewhere in this exhibit) and crop production ii general wUlIncrease nlso § ^° Wlns C0 ^°ns. The agricultural adjustment programs for 19^5 gpiffiS — S ~ d therefore increases f case of T cotto? 1U The - 19 ? 2 ‘h A 19315 ’ MVa hoe:1 lar S e ll 7 removed except in the ..s of cot.on. i.ne adjustment programs for 1935 are aimed to momd a-a’-st brou-ht^by 0 ?' 08 f OT h 1USeS ' r -- ich Ca3ld follow the relatively p! ioe s brougnt by tne drought, especially if 1S35 weather is more nearly nhVa7 report dialing ** Sectia3 C. Livestock Numbers er than L on e j*^rV'? e i 93 r Ja33ary }■ 1935 will he considerably low- slaughter’f^rChf^it £ ■VV " ere 13 192 & -2 9 = «d hog numbers may be fullv 30$ lowV than last ^I'JTt^T 117 - 1lnTge r ^ Ctl “ S; 13 — o/caVi;. about a fs animal unUs o^ 13 S ?T 63 f ars ‘ Duri3 S tae P ast years the total -imal units on farms ynen considered as grain consumers ranged between 113 5 Table 1. - Indexes of the volume of net agricultural production 1/. (1919-1927 = 100) Year Grains' [ ,•. ■ ; Fruits and veg- n+.p.hl cs Truck craps Meat anlm&Lsr ; i Cotton i i Dairy- • ;Poultry: afid .'Co.t- tj ro duciteirro due t s tonsee d Total 1919 : 101 : 82 71 Jo 81 : 85 91 91 1920 -116 102 86 92 80 : 84 105 97 1921 100 76 74 91 91 : 95 54 87 1922 100 109 101 97' 95 : 98 77 96 1923 97 ■ 108 99 107 103 i 107 80 101 1924 100 106 111 108 .109 j 100 108 . 106 1925 95 .98 115 102 110 ; 104 128 106 1926 93 116 114 103 114 j 111 143. 111 1927 97 104 129. 103 116 : 116 103 106 1928 106 122 124 105 119 : .112 114 111 1929 87 102 141 105 122 : lie 118 109 1930 77 113 141 101 123 : 119 110 107 1931 80 119 132 103 126 « 119 134 112 1932 76 106 137 104 125 ; 116 104 104 1933 54 102 125 112 123 : 116 103 102 1934 est. 42 100 135 124 121 : 107 76 97 Bureau of Agricultural Economics !L/ These indexes are based on estimates of pro ..action for sale and for consumption in the farm home. Production fed to livestock or used for seed is not included. For items included see Table 457 Yearbook of Agriculture 1934. I ndexes of Net Agricultural Production in the United States 1919 ’21 ’23 ’25 ’27 '29 '31 U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE I9'9 '21 ’23 ’25 ’27 '29 ’31 ’33 ’35 « PRELIMINARY NEG.20037 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS The PRODUCTION OF CRAINS HAS TENDED DOWNWARD SINCE 1919 BUT SHARPLY DOWNWARD SINCE 1928. ThE 1932 AN 0 1934 CROPS OF TOBACCO WERE RELATIVELY LOW, AND ALSO THE 1934 COTTON CROP. A SHARPLY INCREASED VOLUME OF MEAT ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN 1934 AND THE RELATIVELY HIGH LEVELS OF OUTPUT OF DAIRY PRODUCTS AND TRUCK CROPS TENDED TO PRODUCE ONLY A MODERATE DECLINE IN THE TOT^L VOLUME OF FARM PRODUCTION. -7- x million and 121 million (see Tabic 2) but at the beginning of 1935 the total not exceed 95 million. The marketings of livestock will necessarily be held down to low volumes as cattle, hog and sheep numbers are built up during 1935 and 1936. D. Domestic Consumption Domestic consumption of farm products throughout this depression has remained relatively stable though on a somewhat lower level than in the years 1927-29. This is particularly true of food products. One illustration of this fact is the course of production in factories processing agricultural products shown in Figure 4. Except for the sharp dip in output in 1932 and the sharp advance in 1933, both due to textile activity, the volume of produc¬ tion of processed farm products has averaged approximately 95$ of the pre-de¬ pression level during the past 4-1/2 years compared with an average of about 110$ in 1929. This is in line with the 13$ reduction in total farm output but in sharp contrast to the great decline in the production of non-agricul¬ tural commodities which fell from a. level of around 130$ of the 1923-25 av¬ erage in 1929 to around 45$ in 1932. Industrial production has increased sub¬ stantially but, as indicated in a later section of this report, a much greater rise in activity in factories processing non-agricultural materials is called for if the advance in agricultural income of the pa,st year and a half is to continue. While the urban consumption of farm products appears to have remained relatively stable during this depression, there has been some increase in the consumption of farm products in the farm home, as is shown in Tables 3 and 4. The consumption of wheat in the farm home has increased from 7 million bushels in 1929 to 16 million bushels in 1933. The consumption of sweetpotatoes, grapes and eggs averaged somewhat higher in the years 1931-1933 than in 1929. Un¬ doubtedly, similar data for other commodities would show increases of the same sort. The slaughter of livestock for consumption on the farm has increased substantially. In the case of cattle and calves, 809 million pounds were slaughtered in 1933 compared with a little less than 500 million pounds in 19 29; 69 million pounds of sheep and lambs slaughtered in 1933 compared with 40 million pounds in 1929; and 3,526,000,000 pounds of hogs slaughtered in 1933 compared with about 3 billion pounds in the years 1929-1930. There has also been an expansion in local slaughter of these three classes of livestock, undoubtedly the result of the general effort on the part of producers and consumers to become self-sufficient and thus avoid purchasing commercially distributed goods where transportation, processing, and other service charges have tended to keep retail prices out of line with the generally reduced in¬ comes of producers and consumers. For the country as a whole, the consumption of food products per capita was practically the same in the period 1930-1933 as for the 14-year period from 1920 through 1933. Taking the per capita consumption for this entire period as 100$ (of such things as cereals, potatoes, sugar, dairy products, fruits and vegetables, meats, eggs, etc.) the per capita consumption in the prosperity period 1923-25 was about 102$ and in the depression period 1930-1933 was prac¬ tically 100$ of the average for the 1*1-year period. In contrast to the consumption of foods the average per capita consump¬ tion of the agricultural raw materials and non-food products such as cotton, wool, hides, flaxseed and tobacco has varied directly with changes in business activity or industrial production. 8 Table 2 ~ LIVESTOC K NUMBERS OH FARMS AS 0? JA NUARY 1 1000 head Total in Horses Mules & Cattle & Sheep & Swine Cows & grain consu & colts Mule Colts Calves Lambs incl. Heifers Heifers ing animal (1) pigs ( 2 ) ( 3 ) (2)(4) units (5) 1926 :16,067 1 5,903 59,977 40,183 52,085 22,311 4,045 113,400 1927 :15,368 5,801 57,528 42,302 55,468 22,159 4,048 114,300 1928 : 14,768 5,647 56,701 45,121 61,772 22,129 4,158 118,300 1929 ;14,203 5,496 57,878 48,249 58,789 22,330 4,404 115,900 1930 •13,684 5,366 59,730 51,383 55,301 22,910 4,700 113,600 1931 i13,169 5,226 60,987 52,599 54,399 23,576 4,775 113,100 1932 j12,621 5,120 62,656 53,155 58,988 24,475 4,685 117,600 1933 ■12,197 5,034 65,552 51,736 61,320 25,277 4,704 120,800 1934 ;11,942 4,931 67,352 51,374 55,976 26,062 4,749 117,200 (1) Including sheep and lambs in feed lots on feed for market (2) Included in "Cattle and Calves." (3) Two years old and over, kept for milk. (4) One to two years old, kept for milk cows. (5) Weights used as follows: horses and colts, 1.14; miles and male colts, 1.14 milk cows, 1.00; other cattle, 0.51; hogs, 0.87; sheep, 0.04 The number of livestock not on farms, i.e. in cities and villages is not included in these estimates. o c o * 1 1 ;— s x. ■■— llllllllil _?-»• ^ i 1 -E J —— 1 ^ ™™ ■ ■*—— r~ / m X * -E ^/*** ^ — -E OB — / V X — i — j llLjiIhIij j / _l < (£ 4 \ * > \ -5 D b D -U cfc* -1 V -E tr o < - 7 - r' s S) _ o z -1 $ D _ - b D O i j ^2 , 2 J^ cc < ry o o •I r i Sj Mi cj ■* -*. - : - m 2 ? ■ fO C\J £ i X m J* iiliiliiln o> 1 1 \l L -h • ••« ' 1 ► r" i -—z J > 4- .* *■ 1 > -> *4 co o> u Ui 3 1 h- 0 UJ Z UJ 1 > Z < uj 1- i_ x — CO fO X < UJ b UJ z 1— >3 £ O »- 0 z < 3 — 0 3 i < z z 0 i O 1— J Id a — _ UI — — — < h 3 1932 5 J a: 3 CO Q t- X H-M > a -> O $ « 0 CM } 3 rn s S 3 Mi r _i < m X CO z id > z a z 3 00 Q Q < in UJ 5 T ri 1- CM UJ CO » < $ P -N CO ! X z UI x >1 3 I93C Hi <3 2 ?I CO h- V CM 0 x UI CO < 0 1 5 ; j _l O’ I- X UI CO i •x % 1 S* ^ 5 UJ — • < 0 or UJ < 3 cr> | > — x CO UI D 1- X 0 z X 0 2 3 3 C\J f\l § 0 5 0 _» cn 5 UI X O cr> ki tr CO UI H X S 0 UI 3 Z z a J 5 fM eg $ i * Jl L' ° ? H -J 1- _J 0 0 CD D O UJ z CD -J Hi ■1 V X < 3 UJ CM — D — £ x s 5 O CO li- CD X 2 D h- — _ Ci O X CO < < o a: 3 H UJ UJ O CD — UJ V- .j CO X 2 UJ »- — CO X 3 UI X D X CO D l- y 2 UI 3 H* UI z 5 O O O X — CO Ul < O > Q UJ X 0 •<3- X— c a — UJ t ui co UI < u X X £ Ui X 1 X X 0 3 z ►— h- 0 H CM • 0 1- a; co co V < 0 > £ CD > CD 1- UI < 1— Ui 0 — CO — — X X — z> s ' 0 js LO co X UI Q 4* fc! « 5 CO UJ X 0. 2 3 I §?3‘ y— > 0 X UI < UJ S 5 0 3 0 f— 2 0 • X u x D UJ X X X CO CO o of | Q i ^ * Q O < X X y- < X < 3 3 < H co 0 O T p 5 5 I X n 5 CO 1_ 0 m ll JV \/ iZ Table 3 -10- Production Of Selpr + o^ -p frm home 1939-1933, a ^ P^^cts consumed in the Item Unit 1929 ■’T- II II .imillion bu... potatoes. . Sweet Potatoes E ggs ." *•*. oiilion 1930 1931: 1932 15 16 16 70 76 64 21 22 21 75 74 '62 206 219 226 8.4 8.6 8.5 1933 j-aoie 4. * arm » local and total slaup^f. 1929-1933? X ’ ° 1Vestock in the United States, Uocal -slaughter Mill ion pou ji ds. Farm slou chter Kogs —^aivns 1929. 1,424 • iiiiiiun po a a 1930. • i 487 1931. 1,428 : 499 1932. i 1,521 576 1933. a 1,715 747 And. lambs 1929. • a a f 1,777 809 1930.. 48 40 1931. • 48 42 1932. ■ 53 53 1933. a b4 68 a • 68 69 1929 . 1930 . 1931 . 1932 . • .. 646 642 755 821 856 3,111 8 0 948 3,079 3,489 Net urodu cti nn M illion p onnrj 12,548 13,101 13,050 13,515 14,169 1,805 2,017 2,128 1,802 1,796 15,574 15,136 16,431 16,179 ,16,3 40 E. Exports ........ ' a;*" ' While the total volume of domestic consumption of farm products has re¬ mained fairly stable, the volume of exports has declined sharply. Before this depression, the farm value of agricultural exports amounted to approximately 1-1/2 billion dollars compared with a total gross income of nearly 12 billion dollars. Between 12 and 15 percent of the total volume of farm production was exported during those years. By 1931, this percentage had declined to 7, and for the season 1933-1934 it had increased to nearly 10$. We are thus exporting in volume about 30$ less than before the depression set in. (See Table 5). rise in commodity prices, the declared value of agricultural exports exclusive of forest products amounted to 787 million dollars during the 1933-34 seasons compared with 590 million dollars during the 1932-33 season. However, there was a decrease in the export volume of a number of leading farm products such as cotton, lard, wheat, wheat flour, fresh apples, and most of the vegetable oils. The volume index stood at 83, the lowest level since 1909-10. Meats and leaf tobacco made the best showing, recording considerable advances in both volume and value. (Agricultural products, exclusive of forest products, made up 39 percent of the value of all exports as against 42 percent during the preceding year. Unmanufactured cotton represented 56 percent of the agri¬ cultural export value, unmanufactured tobacco 13 percent, fruits 10 percent, meats and animal fats 8 percent, and grains and grain products 5 percent.) Annual volume index numbers o f a gricultural exports, 1933-34. Express- ed as an index number, the volume of agricultural exports in 1933-34 based on decades. With cotton excluded the index stood at 65, except for a year ago of unmanufactured cotton were moderately lower but these sales were made at higher prices. the prewar average. Notwithstanding the fact that exports of fruit have grad¬ ually declined since reaching the peak: in 19 30-31 they show a heavier gain over the prewar years than any other group. Exports of livestock and livestock products, which consist largely of cured meat and lard, exceeded the low index of a year ago only by a very small margin and the volume of dairy products ex¬ ported was also the lowest since 1909-10. (See Table 6). The course of all exports for the entire period from 1909 through 1933 is shown in Figure 5 and the trends in exports by major .groups.of commodities for the postwar years are shown in Figure 6. It is clear that we did practi¬ cally no export business in whea.t in 1932 and 1933 and are not likely to ex¬ port any noticeable quantity during the present season in view of the greatly reduced crop. Similarly, our export trade in pork products has also been at the lowest level in years during the past three seasons and in view of the great curtailment in production due to the drought very little will be ex¬ ported during the present season. exports L"rot°?o i ?°° me fr °“ fa ™ Induction, farm value of . to P 1933 • * ex P° rts t0 production, United States, 1909 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 191S. 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 Year ; Gross income • Approximate ; Ratio 1 / ; from j farm value i of exports * p nrm production : of ; to , ----:_ exports ... Production 6,238 6,643 6,372 6,784 6,975 7 , 02 s 7,59 5 S, 914 12,832 15,101 16,935 13 ,5§6 S,927 9,944 • 11 ,o4i 11,337 11,968 11,480 11,616 li,74i h,94i 9,454 6 , 96 s . 5,331 2 / 6,256 11ion dollars 652 890 901 962 1,016 723 1,129 1,4 88 1,725 2,771 3,269 1,960 1,494 1,4 03 1,521 1,792 1,462 1,490 1,539 1,445 1,240 756 489 44l 617 Percent 10 .5 13.4 14.1 14.2 14.6 10.3 15.3 16.7 13.4 18.3 1?.3 14.5- 16.7 14.1 13.8 15 .3 12.2 13.0 13.2 12.3 10.4 8.0 7.0 8.5 9.9 ivision 01 Statistical and Historical Hasearch, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from reports of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce and records of ■^ne Li /ision oi Crop and Livestock Estimates. -/ n ? rop year for cr °P.s; calendar year for livestock and livestock products. 2 / Preliminary. 2 s timate for IQ 33 includes $271,000,000 income from rental and benefit payments. -13- Table 6 AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS OF THE UNITED STATES, Nearly indices from 1909-10 to 1933-34, base average 1910-1914 = 100 Year ended June 30 All com- mo dities All corn- modi ties except . cotton Cotton fiber Grains and products Livestock and livestock products Dairy •products Fruit Tobacco unmanu¬ factured 1909-10.. 78 86 73 82 91 58 76 91 1910-11.. 92 92 91 85 104 93 89 90 1911-12,. 114 100 125 78 115 126 101 97 1912—13.• 110 119 103' 143 97 120 136 107 1913—14., 106 103 108 112 92 103 98 114 1914-15. . 138 189 99 301 126 302 119 89 1915-16.. 118 184 70- 237 164 479 109 113 1916-17,. 118 182 70 217 164 716 101 105 1917—18.• 101 165 53 179 197 975 63 74 1918—19., 145 255 63 272 287 1,287 111 160 1919—20.. 134 207 80 218 185 1,275 122 165 1920-21.. 127 212 64 329 154 524 108 129 1921-82.. 137 218 76 317 153 571 105 118 1922—23•• 112 182 59 246 169 406 121 116 1923-24.. 104 153 67 143 179 451 214 152 1924-25.. 126 167 95 225 140 396 184 110 1925-26.. 106 123 93 117 114 327 211 137 1926-27.. 136 143 131 188 98 288 301 132 1927-28.. 112 138 92 188 98 263 258 125 1928-29.. 117 141 99 174 102 243 372 144 , 1929-30.. 97 117 82 130 104 221 216 153 1930-31.. 90 101 81 104 74 190 337 150 1931-32.. 98 91 103 104 63 123 305 110 1932-33.. 85 64 100 42 63 74 255 102 1933-34.. 83 65 97 34 65 72 248 120 .sion. --->-*- ^vioiuu. Based on dat^x compiled from Foreign Com¬ merce and Navigation of the United States, Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce c one United States, and official records of the Bureau of Foreign.and Domestic Commerce. (/) Ld U) h DC o CL X Ld < DC Lu H- U O CO Q UJ H O > DC 0 < — * A |^0-^ J J- iv A <0 — .0) S ~ o $ - £ ,'V 1 1 1 ** ♦ * \ \ - o o T — — O * L? i % t t 0 m 7—"*, i • « « ~ — < l- 9-JUNE.I9I4 \ll commodities except cotton*. ♦ 1 • 9 * * * - r _ c - X o ^ O) 3 -> 0lS ♦1 1 -J* 0 __ c V — S -A- n X 1- 0 2 2 oc V X O O o 2 o 0- h- X o cc £ Ui O UJ < N « I X u X 0 UJ I— LU CO Ui Z H cc < • < >- t- e o X C/3 CO UJ UJ UJ 2 2 cc > O O - UI to < X UJ ui J- CM u H D LD 00 co u Q 2 cr> 5 to UJ rvj o ac > co UJ to X D 1 u. UJ u i a o] to X H UJ > a to X iZ O') h — X < X o H — UJ -!■ < X a 2 • X 5 u UJ M u UJ to o X X < X UJ < 1- o CL _j X X U CO UJ o < UJ < > X o H X H < < 2 O h UI S < »- C3 co 2 5 U H 5 H U. O > X O < o u O O UI UI o X I UJ CO 2 X UJ 5 2 < UJ I 1— X U ID tO * o o — h- u u. > - < • > o H to to UJ u X o 2 H X Ui L H O UJ h- K CO -J < o UJ < 1— 2 X X UJ D — < H <0 O U.S. Exports of Farm Products, 1919-20 to Date The total volume of exports of farm products has remained APPROXIMATELY 25$ BELOW THE 1924-29 LEVEL AND THE VALUE OF THESE EXPORTS ADVANCED SOMEWHAT DURING 1933 BUT ONLY TO ABOUT 35$ OF THE 1924-29 average values. The volume of cotton exports IN 1933 WAS PRACTICALLY EQUAL TO THE PRE-DEPRESSION AVERAGE BUT ITS VALUE WAS ONLY HALF. THE QUANTITY OF EXPORTS OF PORK HAS SHRUNK TO ABOUT 60 $ AND THE QUANTITY OF WHEAT TO ABOUT 20$ OF THE PRE-DEPRESSION AVERAGES. Figure 6 -Id- F« Prices from thf : ^ U ^/ riCeS general ( fl «- 7 ) W risen to the prewar level Table 7 indict ^ leVeU that Prevailed in the 1932-33 season, nroduetc- f f. c ^ La::i & es that kave taken place in a selected list of farm CX^ SH&? 1828 ««* «• •* *>•" i&zss. ing ooJiUon^in^Q^ °? ™ r P luses ia grains as the result of the poor grow- prices which averaged 3^ 0 f‘tbr^ 1181 d ?‘ oue : lt . adjustment programs in 1934, in October 1974 f-s -i ^ f th preV7ar level m October 1932 advanced to 109$ 51$ of the -prewar ^°^ ton and cott °nseed prices which were down to both of tW 1 l ln October 1932 advanced to 107$ by October 1934. in tothenoneWTfol ° 0rJn0ditieS a part of the advance was due between October °ther recovery measures of 1933 but the additional rise supply created - 00 !^^ ?^°h er 1934 due Vely lar ^ to reductions in In the other commodity ad ^ stne "‘^ programs and partly by the drought, ing largely defender/ & hn PS J th ® prioe aaVa:lces have not been as marked;for-be- thL the corlliWe, dh ^ d °“ sUC aartot - th ^ had Previously declined less tions. ''° dltles dependent also on international demand and exchange condi- 1934 -orice^nf prlces that , prevailed before the depression the October lower*. Tbe other grouns^f° nly 5 ^. d ° wer and coUon and cottonseed prices 27$ cent belo^their lS ifoct^r 1 l t 938. TOre tetTOea 33 “ d 55 p - G. Jam Incone for the tt. r. »<= a Whole duction'^in^ri'p' 1 ' reV * 0 ! 7 rec ®nt changes in total net agricultural pro- ure 8 md/voiT by farners «* 1:1 Sross income is contained in Fig- has been relatively 0 + P ai° uots produced for sale or for farm home consumption come to the\h ly ? ta e 16 00npared with the sharp decline in prices and in in- imately ltyf bel ° 1 j 33 ’ " ? r tlle 1934 season total production is approx- gross income about. 4 ^ P h e i deP ^ SS10:1 leVe1 ' prices approximately 35 $ below and nen^s) ^ °" the Progression level. (Including benefit pay- in 1933 - brou-ht—— rom farm production , 1909-1933. The production of crops sale of livestock 8 h lr - c ° ne of approximately 80$ of the prewar level and the the prewar level h 1 Y? stodlc Products brought a gross return of about 99$ of crops and livestoc^representerirs^rt'^ 3 ’ ^ h tal of gross lncorJe fr0 “ in 1932. (see Table ted 92 ’ 5 ^ of the prewar income compared with 78.9$ tion 4994 t O0O 6 0nn 6 h llllOn . d d :L1 v rS ° f §ross fam lnc °ne from the 1933 produc- invhf am borne n evf Sented ^ ^ ° f pr ° du0ts retai:led for consumption was abou^alf of the 1^%° ° f 5 ' 262 nillioa d °Uars. The latter half of the 1929 figure of 10.4 billion dollars. (See table 9). but some indications^v^^ bt™ 1 ?°° ne fron the 1934 output are not available given in table 10 te ° btalaad from the monthly estimates of farm income ceived from" their n* rV F ° r first 10 months of 1934 farmers re- ea iron their marketings a total of -5.1*5 million dollars compared with in o in o in o i"- in c\j CM (\J «— •— -— Ui cr 3 C5 ir laole 7.- Average prices received By tamers in the United States f or selected commodities in October 1923-9 and <1932-34 and in 5 pre-war years. Coraniodi ty Farm Prices Cotton per lb. Corn per bu. Oats per bn. Barley per bn. Wheat per bn. Bye per bn. Flaxseed per bn. Hay per ton Potatoes per bn. Apples per bn. Cottonseed per Oct.Average Unit 1910-14 1928 Octob er 1929 1932 1933 1934 1928 October, 1934 „ Change from 1932 ton. s per Hogs per cwt. Beef cattle per cwt. Veal calves cwt •' Iambs per cwt* Sheep per cwt. Eggs per dz. Bntter per lb. Wool per lb. Horses, each Chickens, live per lb. cents cents cents cents cents cents cents dollars cents cents dollars dollars 10.9 66.7 38.9 60.2 37.7 73.3 164.8 11.63 64.6 69.2 19.78 7.38 dollars 5.32 dollars dollars dollars cents cents cents 7.03 5.50 4.30 23.9 26.3 17.1 Index Numbers: (revised series) Crain Frni t s Comm.Truck Crops Meat Animals Dai ry Ponltry Cotton & Cottonseed All gronps 18.1 84.7 39.0 55.2 98.7 87.1 198.1 10.60 58.0 99.4 34.08 9.55 17.5 91.9 44.8 54.7 111.5 89.9 300.5 11.07 138.2 137.9 31.40 9.10 6.4 21.6 13.1 18.2 34.6 22.3 87.7 6.54 34.4 57.2 10.45 3.25 9.0 38.8 27.9 40.7 '63.6 62.7 149.0 7.54 74.9 70.3 12.58 4.17 12.5 76.7 50.5 75.5 88.5 75.0 167.1 13.40 49.0 84.4 35.62 Percent Percent -31 7 9 7 29 7o7 -10 -14 -16 4 26 -16 -15 4 5 5.20 -46 795 7255 7285 7315 7l56 7236 7 21 7l04 7 42 7 48 7241 7 60 9.62 8.85 3.91 3.50 3.96 -59 7 1 12.61 11.57 7.50 34.9 45.2 36.0 dollars 138.00 80.00 12.15 10.97 6.83 38.4 44.9 28.6 79.00 4.75 3.95 2.03 22.5 20.2 9.5 57.00 4.84 5.01 2.46 20.8 21.7 23.6 69.00 5.19 4.81 2.52 23.7 24.6 19.3 78.00 -59 -58 -66 -32 —46 -46 - 2 j 9 7 22 7 24 7 5 7 22 7l03 7 37 11.7 22.0 21.5 10.7 9.3 11.8 -46 7 io series) 100 115 128 37 69 109 - 5 7195 94 147 158 83 77 98 -33 7 18 100 226 145 69 123 101 -55 7 46 102 160 150 60 64 74 -54 7 23 102 161 158 81 91 100 -38 7 23 109 171 181 102 93 108 -37 7 6 88 147 141 51 71 107 -27 7no 99 148 149 64 78 100 -32 7 56 ' - V. X. Indexes of Net Agricultural Production, Prices, and Income, United States, 1919 to Date 1 • 1 \ ► % \\ j_ 4.% * * A • 1 • * > \\“ A £ %\ .0 ^ % 5 > — r ^ T 1 £ \ «j — • C 01 — o o II CD CSJ i J5> ^ $ a 8 * g S — CT) * g? <0 Qj l j J ^ ^ $ — .0 cE 1 ^7 • % • L» 1 1 ro CM tn o z X 1 o 1 o 2 h u. > o z o (J cc — o < 1- — UJ o 5: CL CO CO _J < u. UJ UJ Q a: _l LO 1- _l > z b z UJ LO — < — < g o > u. CO _J a: — UJ > UJ z O uj — _j co CT> O — o o O _J uj — o CO o o o o o o 4 " CM o CO <£) -t UJ Table 8.— Gross income from farm production, United States Year Crops Million dollars ivestock and livestocks products Million dollars' Crops and livestock combined Gross income 1910-1914 = 1909 1910 19H 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1913 1919 1Q20 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 192b 1927 192 8 1929. 1930 1931 1932 1933 P- 3,314 3,517 3,536 3,638 3.647 3,700 3,9S5 4,963 7.431 8,119 9.431 6,862 4,488 5,350 5.969 6,170 6,147 5.648 5.817 5,675 5,434 3.818 2,746 2,288 2,874 2,925 3,126 2,836 3,096 3,328 3,328 3,4io 3,947 5 , 4 oi 6,982 7,503 6,704 4 , 44 o 4,594 5,072 5,167 5,820 6,012 5,799 6,066 6,507 5,636 4,222 3,043 3.111 6,238 6,643 6,372 6,784 6,975 7,028 7,395 8,914 12,832 15,101 16,935 13,566 8,927 9,944 n,o4i 11,337 11,96s n,4so 11,616 11,741 11,941 9,454 6,968 5,331 6,256 2/ 91.6 97.2 97.8 101.9 100.8 102.3 110.2 137.3 205.4 224.5 260.7 139-7 124.1 147.9 165.0 170.6 169.9 151.2 160.8 156.9 150.2 105.6 75.9 63.3 79.5 93*0 99-5 90.2 98.5 105*9 105.9 108.5 125*6 171.8 222.1 238.7 213.3 141.3 146.2 161.4 164.4 185-2 191.3 184.5 193*0 207.0 179*3 134.3 9 6.8 99.0 1909-1933 ; Crops > and • livestock 100 92.3 98.3 94.3 100.3 103.2 io 4 .o 109.4 131.9 ‘189-8 223.4 250.5 200.7 132.1 147.1 163.3 167.7 177-0 169.8 171.8 173*7 176.6 139*9 103.1 78.9 p. Preliminary. 1/ Estimates for 1929-33, revised. 2/ Includes $271 million frrm rental and benefit payments. -21 Table! 9* Income from Eann Product ion, 1924-33. Year l/ Gross cash income z! Farm value of products retained for consumption 2/ • s Total gross income 4/ Million Million Million dollars dollars dollars 9,640 1,697 11,337 10,086 1,883 11,968 9,658 1,822 11,480 9,872 x1,744 11,616 9,999 1,742 11,741 10,417 1,524 11,941 8,030 1,424 9,454 5,801 1,167 6,968 4,370 961" 5,331 5/ 5,262 _ 994 5/ 6,256 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 d/ Crop year for crops; calendar year for livestock and livestock products. Cross cash income represents the value of products s.old or available for sale, exclusive. of sales of products to other farmers for use in production, such as livestock and seeds. —/ l!arm products retained for home use on farms where produced, valued at current local prices received "by farmers. 4, The estimates of farm production", 1929 to 1933, have "been revised according to the census of production for 1929, thus causing some change in the estimate of farm income. Estimates for 1924 to 1928 are still subject to revision. A revision in 1929 changes the estimate of cash income from $10,134,000,000 to ( *000,000, the value of farm products retainecL-f or consumption from $1,777,000,000 to $1,524,000,000 and gross Income from $11,911,000,000 to $11,941,000,000. 5/ Preliminary. Estimate for 1933 includes $271,000,000 income from rental and benefit payments. - 22 - c orapar ■isons Source of income • Jan. : 1933 • ~ Sent._ ! 193 ^ Monthly farm income: Total income ... All crons . « Million • dollars : ' 3.403- : 1 . 5^0 Million dollars 3,i*z4 Crains .. 193 T 50s 376 64-9 2,058 848 S35 800 Cotton and cottonseed. Pruits and vegetables. ■All livestock ..... . 44 c i 296 : 522 Meat animals . ; 1,00ji l 7 jr o Dairy products .. 777 Poultry and eggs . : l j 1 : 290 Benof it pay ment s : i 1/ 50 26 Cotton . : Tobacco . .* Corn-hogs . Cattle 2/ . Total . : Total income including benefit j p ayments . > 47-- 1 54 94 15 102 64 Sept. 1933 4, Million dol lars 479 271 60 42 73 20S So ss 24 49 1/. 26 ~i Pci/ments on emergency hog program 01 1988 2 / Purchased in dr0ug7.it areas. Division oi Statistical and Historical Pes 31 3 e-arch. 21 554 Aug. 1934 Million dollars 90S 279 120 30 63 229 92 101 28 1 6 2 3S 26 21 581 Sept 193 4 Million dollars 586 342 77 110 64 244 112 95 30 2 2 47 25 Hl 662 Index numbers 1924-1 Source of income Inc ome fr om mark©tings: Total income, unadjusted. Total income, adjusted . All crops, adjusted ..... All livestock, adjusted. Meat animals, adjusted Dairy products, 11 Poultry and eggs, 11 Income of industrial workers, f adjusted 2/ .I. of income 929 = 100 Division of Statistical and Historical Research, Sept. : July Aug. 1933 ; 193 1 4 .1934 56.5 54.5 60.0 49.5 71.0 62.5 48.0 37-5 68.0 54.5 54.5 56.5 48.5 47.5 48.5 66.5 46.0 65.O 50.5 70.6 53.0 55.0 60.0 53.0 v ~ UUU/V/ i-b b 0.1 iu 1/ 'Adjusted for seasonal variation. 2/ Includes factory and mining employees, adjusted for seasonal variation. Sept. 1934 69.5 60.5 58.0 63.5 59.5 72.0 57.5 55.5 workers, railroad (G, Farm Income for the U.S. as a whole, continued) 4,099 million in the same months of 1933* about thirty percent of the Increase being made up of the greater amount of benefit payments during the first ten months of this year compared with those of the same months last year. Cash income for the month of Oct. alone, totaled J 36 million compared with 620 ih Oct. 1933« Every major group of farm products shows an increase in income for the first- ten months of 1934 and all but the fruit, vegetable and cotton groups likewise show a higher income for Oct. this year than for Oct. last. The poorly distributed potato crop with a large surplus in the northeast is probably responsible for the lower returns for the fruit and vegetable group. The farm situation as it has changed from year to year from 1939 through 193o especially as revealed by estimates of gross income and its distribution ia indicated in Tables 11-16 inclusive. These are taken from the regular an¬ nual estimates of the Department of Agriculture which were released in August 1934 by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Table 11 shows gross income an¬ nually by groups of coinmodi ties. It reveals the much greater decline in gross income between 1929-1932 from the production of crops and the more pronounced recovery in the income from grains, cotton and tobacco, the internationally af¬ fected commodities, than in the income from livestock and livestock products and other commodities that ^re dependent predominantly on domestic purchasing power. The 271 million dollars in benefit payments distributed in connection with tne 1933 production went largely to cotton and wheat... Estimates of operating expenditures for production purposes only are given in Table 12. Current expenditures for such things as feed, seed, fer¬ tilizer, cost of operating farm machinery, ginning, etc., which had been re¬ duced from $2,109,000,000 in 1929 to $1,213,000,000 in 1932 declined somewhat further in 1933. There was, however, some increase in outlay for capital ex¬ penditures such as new machinery, automobiles, and repairs on farm buildings so that tne total operating expenditures for 1933 were only slightly higher than m 1932. The 1932 and 1933 total expenditures were less than half of the expenditures in 1928 and 1929. Tne disposition of cash income for production expenses is indicated in Table 13. Out of a total of $10,417,000,000 in 1929 farmers had available, after deducting production expenses, about $4,876,000,000. Out of their 1932 cash income of $4,370,000,000 their cash balance available for other expendin tures was only $1,453,000,000. While the cash income of 1933 was nearly 900 million dollars greater than in 1932, the cash income available for other than production expenses was about one billion dollars greater. This was due to the fact that cash outlay for hired labor and for interest on farm debt and taxes on farm real estate were lower in 1933 than in 1932 . „ ' The annual returns available for the operators’ labor, capital and management are given in Table 1.4. Of the gross income of $11,941,000,000 in 1929 farm operators after pay lug current production expenses including wages. ~24~ Tatl 6 11. — Gross Income from Farm Production "by Groups of Commodities, 1929-33 Source of income 1929 1930 . 1931 1932 ■ 1933 4 Million dollar's Million dollars Million dollars Million dollars Million dollars Crops: Grains..... Fruits and nuts . Vegetables ..... Sugar crops ..,. Cotton and cottonseed . Tobacco .*. Other crops . .. . 1 ,297 707 1,130 S3 1,329 . 236 , 542 306 567 934 94 751 212 454 433 . 457 726 . .69 . 523 130 74 c' 450 325 609 . . . .69 464 107 ?64 506 376 747 31 6s4 179 301 . . -j ty , . Total crops . 5.434 • 3*212 2.746 2,2 S3 2,874 Livestock and livestock products: / Cattle and calves . Hogs . Sheep and wool .... Poultry and eggs ..... Dairy products . Other ..;. 1,111 1,531 262 1,241 2,323 39 951 1,361 204 1,059 2,031 .30 631 930 153 316 i,6i4 ... . 23 ,. 499 543 106 609 1,260 . . . 21 439 619 153 560 1,263 27 Total livestock . 6.507 5.636 4,222 3.043 3,111 Total crops and livestock. 11,941 -T - 9.454 6 , 9 . 6 s 5,331 5.925 Rental and benefit payments on crops 1... 271 Grand total .. - —j i \ - j i I 6,256 . . . i . 1 --,-„ i 1. Preliminary estimates of rental and “benefit payments made or to be made to far¬ mers for restricting production in 1933 are $ 166 , 791*000 for cotton, $6,200,000 for tobacco, and $98,034,000 for wheat. — 25 — Table 12.- Estimates of Operating Expenditures for Production, 1926-33 Calendar Year 11 cm 1926 1937 1928 1922 1931 D 193: ••. ✓ L 1932 1933 2 / Peed, seed, and fertilizer—' Containers, spray materials and twine Cost of operating tractors, automobilos ,2/and trucks..» Others 4/ Total current expendi¬ ture s c/.j* **.....*•**.« Machinery, tractors, and repairs ......... Automobiles 3/ and trucks.. Repairs on farm buildings.* Total capital expenditures Total operating expend!tu- res £>/• ,, •. * • Mil. dol, 1,093 146 417 291 Mil, dol, 1,101 133 422 243 Mil, dol. 1,191 139 451 257 Mil. dol. 1,228 136 486 259 Mil dol 984 140 ■483 245 . Mil , dol 678 126 •407 233 . Mil • dol 540 99/ 384 190 . Mil. , dol • 486 92 380 196 1,947 1,899 2,038 2,109 1,852 1,443 L, 213 1,154 409 252 282 438 215 284 451 350 278 513 403 . .278 427 250 , 220 ’ 215 151 155 87 80 75 96 108- 105 953 938 1,079 « • r « • * 1,194 ■ 897 521 242 309 y —,— 2,900 2,837 3,117 •3,303 2,749 1,964 1,455 1,463 l/ Not including labor* 2 / Peed costs n,re based upon the censuses of 1925 and 1930; interpolated i or the intercensal years from bhanges in production of commercial feedstuff s, the mar¬ ketings'of home-grown feeds less industrial uses end exports, and changes in the level of prices paid by farmers for feed. The food-cost item is in part offset by that part of the gross income obtained from the sale of feeds finally consum-- ed on the farm which cannot be separated from the total cost of feed. S<.ed expenditures are the difference between the amount paid by farmers for seed and income deri\ r ed by farmers from the sale of seed. . 3 / Includes only 50 percent of the cost of operating the automobile and expend! tures for automobiles* It was assumed that the automobile was used 50 percent of the time by the farm family for purposes other than for production. 4/ Includes., fire insurance on farm buildirgs, ginning, harness and saddlery, horse.-shoeing., irrigation, and grazing. 5/ Only these expenditures for commodities and services which are used up in the same year as purchased. &/ Expenditures for capital equipment which arc used up over a period of years and should not be charged to the operating cost of any one year. They are in¬ cluded hero to show a more complete list of farmers’ cash expend!tupes during thq year* - 26 - Table 13. - Cash Income, Production Expenses, and Cash Available after Deducting Production Expenses, 1924 - 33 * Year Cash income!/ Total operating expendi¬ tures —/ Cash wage s to hired labor !/ Interest , payable 2 / Taxes payable 2 / Total produc¬ tion expenses 6 / Cash available after de¬ ducting production expenses Million Million Million Million Million Million Million dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars 1924 ... 9,640 2,554 865 731 541 4,691 4,949 1925 ... 10,036 2,855 899 723 \ 547 5,024 5,062 1926 ... 9 , 65 s 2,900 932 717 557 5,106 4,552 1927 ... 9,272 2,837 9 l i2 708 577 5,o64 4,808 1928.,. 9,999 3,117 943 702 588 5,355 4,644 1929 ... I0,4iy 3,303 955 682 601 5,541 4,876 1930... 8,030 2,749 809 654 600 4,812 3,218 1931 ... 5,801 1,964 587 626 ‘550- 3,727 2,074 1932. .. 4,370 1.455 380 596 476 2,907 1,463 1933... 5,262 1 , 463 34l 526 407 2,737 2,525 ~ —,pc|i ( wu, wu jl tsjiana ueneiiT, payments oy un Agricultural Adjustment Administation. 2/ See table 12. 3/ Total cash wages paid. 2/ Interest in all bank loans other than real-estate loans and on 90 percent of all mortgage indebtedness, 10 percent of the total mortgage indebtedness being assigned to farm dwellings. 5./ Revised estimate of taxes are based upon a l tudy of real-estate taxes by States. Adjustment is made for personal-property taxes. Real-estate tax is §5 percent and personal property is 15 percent of total. Only 90 percent of total taxes on farm property is included here, 10 percent of the total being assigned to farm dwellings. 6/ The sum of columns 2, 3, 4, and 5 . -27- Table 14. -- Gross Income, Deductions from Gross Income, and Income Available for Operators' Capital, Labor, and Management, 1924-33 Year Gross income from agri¬ cultural produc¬ tion Current expendi¬ tures for pro- duct ion Depre¬ ciation of build¬ ings and equip- inent ^ Expendi¬ tures for wages, in¬ terest , rent, and taxes 3 Bent to non¬ farmer land- ^ lords Total deduc¬ tions Income available for opera¬ tors' labor capital, and man¬ agement Million Million . Million Million Million ■ Million Million dollars dollars . dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars 1924 11,337 1,596 S 5 O 2,165 927 5,53 s . .5,799 1925 11,968' 1,724 896 2,209 1,005 5,234 6,134 1926 11 ', 480 1,816 889 2,256 999 5 , 960 .. .5,520 1927 ■ 11,616 1,775 S 94 2,276 1,034 . 5.979 5,637 192S 11,741 1,904 894 2,287 1,068 6,153 .5,528 1929 11,9*1 1,972 912 2,292 1,110 6,286 .5.655 3.930 9,454 1,737 892 2,066 911 5,606 3,84s 1931 6,96s 1,356 843 1,701 692 4,592 2,376 1932 5,331 1,142 805 1,33s 582 . 3,867 1,464 1933 6,256 1, OSS 762 1,182 597- 3,629 .. .2,627 1. All of the current operating costs indicated in table 4 except 7*5 percent of fertilizer costs, 9*5 percent of feed, 10 percent of binder twine, 15 percent of gi; ning, and 20 percent of fire-insurance costs which are estimated as paid by nonfarm*: landlords. 2. Depreciation of farm buildings and farm equipment is based upon the value of buildings and farm equipment according to the 1919 an( l 1929 census, the amount spent for replacements on buildings and machinery and price changes for farm machinery anc building materials. While the rate of depreciation fluctuates slightly from year t* year, during the last l4 years it has averaged ab>out 5 percent of the value of farm buildings and 21 percent of the value ©f machinery, automobiles, and trucks. 3. Cash wages to hired labor plus an allowance of 25 percent for board and an addi¬ tional 12 1/2 percent of the cash wage*-, to represent perquisites furnished hired labor add domestic hired labor contributing to production. Includes only that por¬ tion of interest payable by farm operators; figured at 75 percent of all interest pa; able on farm-mortgage debt on real estate used in production and interest on all ba. loans, other than real-estate loans. It is assumed that ~[0 percent of all taxes on farm property used in production is paid Dy the farm operator. 4. Paid on 72 percent of all rented farms to nonoperators. - 28 - interest, rent and taxes paid out by farm operators there was a ° f $5,625,000,000 available for the operators' capital and management 0 t. ^ $5,331,000,000 gross income in 1932, there was C'ly a balance o v * * and out of the $6,256,000,000 gross income of 1933 there was a balaa $2,'627,000,000, the greater increase in the balance available for - ■ * erators* labor, capital and management than in gross income --=> other further decline in current expenditures for production as we expenditures. The changes in the value of the farm operators 1 capital us „ i duction are given in Table 15. The value of land ad buildings which ~t- ed to nearly 48 billion dollars in 1929 had declined ^f^ bxlUon dollar* by the beginning of 1933. The slight improvement m tae farm ol ' situation as of'the beginning of 1934 increased tie total value ' d /pgL buildings from 30.3 billion in 1933 to 31.7 billion at ^e beginning of.19.4. The value of all livestock on farms which- amounted to about - / ludl dollars in 1929 declined about 3 billion dollars in ljS ' tde totnd some shrinkage in the value of farm machinery, it is es.ima -■ - value of the operators' capital as disti'-iguished from ne va ue o - ^ property shrank from 43 billion dollars in 1929 to 26 billion In 1933 a.-d billion in 1934 or a net decline of 16 oillicn dollars. These computations are made by the Department of j^gxiculture a for showing income available for capital and nanage^en as a pe * . ^ ^ current value of the operators capital but inventory changes are not taken m te account in computing income, fcus in Table 16 there is v £l™Vnd available for capital and management after allowing or wa^,^ million for unpaid famil? labor of $1,136,000,000 in 19 29 a aeficit of ^ “lUon dollars in 1932 and 366 million dollars in 1933. There is al.o give of the operators net capital after deducting the indebtedness of farm opera¬ tors. The return to capital and management ar a percentage o - ad p 9 / net capital amounted to 3.3/ in 1929. to a deficit of 4. 3> a iu 1933. These percentage computations lose macn o -* p between period of drastic changes in values such as we have had since 1929. ^otween^ 1929 and 1933 the income available for the operators 'P * labor ment fell 54/. The wages allowed to the farm operators was reduced by about 50/ and even with that red-“twn in the allowance^ wages to the farm operator the amount available for capital and ^ 1933 was 67/ lower than in 1929. The indebtedness of farm °P® rat ^ net galn only 23/ frim $9,315,000,000 in 1929 to $7,187,000,000 in 1933. The ne^ g on oauital shown for 1933 should further be considered in conjunction wit. the enormous losses shown in the farmers capital account. in contrast with the 18 billion dollar shrinkage in thef farm lands and buildings between 1930 -419^ atuarfin the value of in- corporations, from ^1 billion in 1930 * 24.6 billion in 1933. The value of capital invested in ti . railroads, for purposes of computing rates of earnings,. cally unchanged. —\ - 29 - Taole 15. Changes in the Value of Farm Operators 1 Capital used in Agricultural Production,!/ 1919-34. Beginning of yeai Value 0 f all land and build¬ ings '2/ Operators 1 land and buildings 3 Live- s to ck 4/ Farm machin¬ ery 5/ Total value of operators' capital Million Million Million Million Million dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars 1919. 54,'659 39,682 8, 815 3,156 51,653 1920 . 66,316 48,145 8,525 3,595 60,265 1921.■. 61,315 44,453 6,413 3,418 54,284 1922. 54,190 39,234 5,104 2,728 47,066 1923. 52,441 37,967 5,400 2,515 45,882 1924. 50,476 36,494 5,117 2, 651 44,262 1925 . 49,468 35,716 5,041 2,680 43,437 1926 . 49,113 35,165 5,403 2,739 43,307 1927 . 47,767 33,962 5,537 2,841 42,340 1928 . 47,670 33,655 6,041 2,850 42,546 1929 . 47,926 33,548 6,578 3,100 43,226 1930 . 47,880 33,277 6,490 3,300 43,067 1931 . 43,798 30,221 4,814 3,200 38,235 1932 . 36,851 25,317 3,500 3,000 31,817 1933 . 30,306 20,760 2,906 2,600 2 6,266 1934 . 31,655 21,684 3,072 2,300 27,056 1_/ Adjusted botu for changes in price level and for changes in the amount of land or other commodities owned by farm operators. 2/ As of Mar. 1* Based on values of all land and buildings in census years. Values in intercensal years derived from index of land values per acre and adjusted for changes in acreage of land in farms. 5/ Percentage of all agricultural land operated by owners or managers plus other land owned by farm operators but farmed by tenants estimated at 72.6$ of total in 1929, 72*2 in 1925, 69.0 in 1930 and 68.5 in 1933. Straight interpolations for intervening years. 4/ Value of all livestock on farms Jan. 1 based on inventory values published by the.Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates in February Crops and Markets, ulus estimated value of poultry, goats, asses and burros, and bees. -/ Value of all farm machinery Jan. 1, including tractors, trucks, and automo¬ biles. ICOlM -30- Table 15. Distribution of Income from Farm Production Available for Operators' Labor, Capital, and Management, 1924-33 Tear Income available for opera¬ tors' capital, labor, and man- agment l/ Do duc- tions for wage of oper- at 0 r s and un¬ paid f ami ly labor 2/ Amount available i for capital and man- agemen t Indebted¬ ness of farm operators 3/ Opera¬ tors' net capital 4/ Return to capital and man¬ agement as per¬ centage of operators' net capital Million Million Million Million Million do liars dollars dollars dollars dollars Percent 1924... 5,799 4,405 1,394 9,873 34,389 4.1 1925... 6,134 4,447 1,687 9,805 33,632 5.0 1926... 5,520 4,534 986 9,748 33,559 2.0 1927... 5,637 4,501 1,136 9,660 32,680 3.5 1928.•. 5,588 4,491 1,097 9,601 32,945 3.3 1929. 6,655 4,519 1,136 9,316 33,911 3.3 1930... 3,848 4,096 - 248 8,948 34,119 - .7 1931... 2,376 3,218 - 842 5/ 8,560 29,675 -2.8 1932... 1,464 2,460 - 996 5/ 8,158 23,659 -4.2 1933••. 2,627 2,261 366 5/ 7,187 19,079 1.9 Decrease 1929-33 3,028 2,258 770 2,128 14,832 Per cent decrease 54 50 67 23 44 / See table 14. / Deduction for wages of operators is computed at a wage equal to hired labor, without board, and family labor is taken as 22 percent additional to the operators' labor. The value of operators' labor here is understated in so iar as hired hands received perquisites in addition to cash and board and it maj be overstated in so far as the operate r' s time is not entirely spent on farm work. 3/ All of bank loan indebtedness other than real-estate loans and that portion of farm-mortgage indebtedness owned by farm operators, except 10 percent which is assigned to the value of the farm dwelling. 4/ Value of operators' capital shown in table 7 less indebtedness. This is an over statement of the value of farmers' net capital used in production, as it includes value of dwellings. According to the 1930 censes the value of dwellings in 1930 was estimated at $6,730,000,000. 5/ Preliminary. , - 31 - / _A funther shrinkage in the value of livestock on farms took place during 1934-/ IT is' estimated that cattle, hogs, sheep and lambs will show an inventory value of about 475 million dollars less on January 1, 1935 than on January 1, 1934. This is expected to be offset by an increase in the value of horses and mules, leaving a net decrease in the value of all livestock on farms of about 300 million dollars. This decrease reflects the fact that the reduction in livestock numbers has not been offset by a comparable increase in prices. In addition to the foregoing estimates of farm income for the country as a whole, the Department of Agriculture secures annually from thousands of owner-opera¬ tors estimates of receipts and cash outlay from which the Department computes a statement on farm returns. The results are given in Table 18 for the years 1922, 1926, and for 1929-33 inclusive. This tabulation shows the same general situation as the estimates of production and expenditures contained in Tables 11-16 inclusive. The averages shown here are, however, for farms larger than average and this fact should be taken into account in interpreting these fig¬ ures. The changing relationships between gross income from farm production and selected expenditures are given in Figures 9 and 10. Farm income is now about at the prewar level and outlays for such items as fertilizer, feed, farm im¬ plements and hired labor are also down to their prewar levels or below, but the outlays for interest, and taxes while they have been reduced noticeably from the high levels of 1929 and 1930 are still about 80$ higher than they were be¬ fore the war. Among the farm costs, these two items have been the most inflex¬ ible, taking the entire postwar period into account, and they now take nearly twice the share of the farmers gross income that they did before the war. H. Farm Income by States and Region s * The decline in farm income between 1929 and 1932 and the improvement in 1933 is shown for each of the states in Table 19. For 1933 there are given also the cash income figures including the 271 million dollars in benefit pay¬ ments distributed by states. It should be noted that in the previous tables the benefit payments were included in the gross income estimates for 1933, whereas in this tabulation they are added to the cash income estimates. Estimates of gross and cash income by states for 1934 are not yet avail-* able, but a suggestion of probable changes in crop income may be obtained from a preliminary estimate of crop values by states for 1934 compared with 1933 and other years. Such a preliminary estimate is contained in Table 20. The 1934 estimates are based largely on the indicated production by states as of October 1 and prices received by farmers as of October 15. These values there¬ fore differ somewhat from the estimates to be published by the Department on the regular basis where December 1 prices and final estimates of production are taken into account. For the country as a whole, the value of the 1934 crops may be approximately 12$ greater than in 1933, but even with that additional improvement over 1933 they will still be about 60$ of the 1929 value. Most of the states show crop values either about the same as in 1933 or somewhat high¬ er. A few states show crop values noticeably below those of 1933, such as Maine, Massacnusetts, Rhode Island and Dew Jerse^ in the east where large potato crops have had ah adverse effect on prices and incomes; and in Missouri, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado in the middle west where crops have been so drastically reduced in volume that the price advances were no^ adequate to maintain the 1933 crop values. The effect of the drought on income -32- Table 17.-- VA LUE OF LIVESTOCK ON EAPMS AS^0? JANUARY 1 . (Million Dollars) - Horses & colts Mule s &. Mule Colts Cattle & Calves Sheep (;1) & Lambs Swine inc. pigs Cows & Heifers (2) (3) 1924 1,136 507 2,116 '292 686 1,113 1925 1,070 491 2,005 372 733 1,089 1925 1,049 481 2,215 421 815 1,221 1927 980 432 2,307 409 953 1 , 3l3 1928 985 451 2,881 461 814 1,625 1929 988 453 3,402 511 761 1,876 1930 956 449 3,386 459 744 1, 897 1931 796 362 2,397 282 618 1,346 1932 674 310 1,666 181 361 968 1933 656 303 1,3.08 150 258 739 1934 . . 793 402 1,231 195 233 706 1935 (estP 886 432 1,023 171 l ! 170 526 Div. Crops and Livestock Estimates, 1924-1934 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) (4) Including sheep and lambs in feed lots on feed for market. Included in "Cattle and Calves. 11 Two years old and over, kept for milk. Estimated from forecast of livestock population as of January , — and price indications according to October 1, 1-34 and 1-33 a price relationships. 33 Table 18.-Farm returns 1922-1931, average of reports of owner- operators for their own farms for calendar year, 1922 - 1931 Item Humber of reports .. Size of farm-acres.. Value of farm real estate, J an. 1♦ Value of farm per¬ sonalty , J an. 1 ... Receipts: Crop sales. Sales of livestock. Sales of livestock products . Miscellaneous other Total •••••••••* Cash Outlay: Hired labor . Livestock bought .. Feed bought . Fertilizer . Seed .v. Taxes on farm property ......... Machinery aid tools Miscellaneous other Tot al •»••«•••». Receipts less cash- outlay . Increase in invent¬ ory of personal property .. Net result . Interest paid . Spent for farm improvements ■ilfllteP-tatgs. 1929 ■ 1930 : 1931 1932 1933 6,094 252 Dell s.; 113,586* i » » • • Value of food pro¬ duced and used on the farm 2/ . Value of family labor including owner 2/ Change in value of real estate during they year (minus sign (-) shows decrease. , 844: ■ 1 i mmrrt m mm r ' 4 816: 660: 454 : - 4 & 331; 204: 175: 57: 43; 1 0 13,475: t 1 11,805: « • 6,228: « a 7,437 i 6,383 6,855 315 : ■ 270: ■ 284* • 249 ; 233 ; 234 Dolls, i Dolls.: Dolls.: Dolls.: Dolls , : Dolls. 13,379 : • 12,090: • 12,009; 1 10,778: • 8,170 : 7,527 0 2,929 • 3,152; 1 3,156! ' a 2,426*: ' 0 1,811 1 , 749 • « • 926 i t l,029i • • • 779* • € % 572i 337 j 523 894 i i 922; ■ 765*; • 471: c 313 ; 296 • 589 • — 3 £L‘ • 681: -32; 635: _ 321 1 482; • 0.4: : 386 : 17 — 386 : 242 i 232 : 73 i 48 1 399: 238: 276: 79* 43; 378: 172: 276: 78: 43: 304-: 102: 184: 55i 34! 185 87 118 39 31 174; 183 : 187: 196: 183; 149 127 123J 130 i 159: lia: 62: 34 44 150: 179 : 1.91: 191: . .16.71. 114 , 139„ 1.25?: 1.473: 1 ,572; 1,452: l i091* 757 807 • a 715: * • • « m 975 i 1 1 4 f 1 « ,097; • « « • • 759i a « 0 4 458; « 4 4 257 415 1 » 1 pop.: t 2 IBP, : f 20i: 4 l 4 i -304: -191 . . 1Q1-- wi— 1 ■! » 1.133 : 1 . pqr: 538: 154: &§L ... 51&— 215 2 0 199: « 199: 4 196: 173 160 1/ ! 128 : 1 125: 221. • 5?j 29 40 j— • ^ *. Non cash estimated items -*v Dolls.:Dolls. : DollsiDolls.: Dolls.: Dolls. 294! 4 4 m 282 ; • 262: a • 242 200; 4 4 161 : 163 0 7161 1 1 1 • 779 : « 0 • a a 772: 0 4 716 608*; 4 • 4 0 443 ; 470 • a -52; J a 4 -27 i -757 4 4 4 4 -1,281; -1,036 i 121 .U 232 . 220 76 134 41 26 Dolls. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, l/ Not reported for 1922. 2 / Averages of farms for which the item was reported Q — t t § u 1 a 1 - o UJ D | 5 n X UJ u co UJ VJ Z o 1 - a If a w i ■ 1 - L> ^ i !-< r i a j ? H--.. i fJ 52 cr> ^ 2 U CO O 5 cr> a; o — If o . «0 o o o Kl 8 !f? 2 < Selected farm Expenditures as Percentages of Gross Income, 1909-1933 V * -J V- * $ 1 r r V CD (O M 00 CO OJ CO 3 1 - ul 2 03 < LkJ X O h- z <\J DC U! I- o 3 - 03 3 CD 5 O o z UJ z ft} <0 - 5 Q < vO z O - X f\l CO ui z o < 3- CD *• Q o z Q. u. x <73 Q U I < j- Ul CL Z H Ul UJ a. - u 3 L 3 X cr o »— 3 < H O CO *S 00 3 u 3- z 2 < CO cr UJ uj — O < o 2 m q a u. z UJ o z < O < > O < s. K z O 3- CO UJ 1 - cr o cr — 5 co CL J CO o ae Ul 2 JQ3 u. rr\ < OL cr — — , — • Q UJ Q UJ 3- z a CD ui 3- Ul CO UJ o < 3 Z x cr — 5 — 3- >- O 3- ui u. cr ui o X UJ o X 3- 3- CD a. 3- Table 19*- -36^ -Gross and Gash Income from Farm Production, by States, 1929, 1932 , and ~ ' Crops and 13 Livestock Items (combined) (in thousands of dollars) Maine. New Hampshire..;.. Vermont . Mass. Rhode Island.. Connecticut. N ew Y 0 rk. New Jersey. Pennsylvania.... Ohio. Indiana. Illinois... 1929 Gross income Michigan. Wi sconsin. Minnesota. Iowa. Missouri. North Dakota. South Dakota. Nebraska. Kansas. Delaware. Maryland. Virginia. West Virginia.... North Carolina.... South Carolina.... Georgia. Florida. Kentucky. Tennessee. Alabama. Mississippi. Arkansas. Louisiana. 102,811 22,794 57,268 87,212 10,615 63,843 424,397 108,138 356,614 4o6,o6o 349,634 574,262 227,627 444,490 458,644 750,887 406,450 211,942 243,793 458,514 460,525 25,327 101,962 218,203 84,171 311.606 157,650 272,454 130,111 37,195 227.606 233,620 286,983 241,133 179,393 1932 1933 (preliminary) Cash income Gross income 90,970 24,395 49,957 79,193 9,478 4o, 64o 17,604 32,943 51,23S 6,739 57, 771 3S.290 378,344 222,11s 100,245 68,637 297,32S 191,988 343,0211 191,637 300,277! 161,250 510,235 271,085 245,963 142,751 395,947 184,094 408,820 195,531 685,701 311,426 333,658 186,361 189,748 78,298 221,984 76,206 419,827 166,905 418,815 168,310 22,320 11,983 86,025 51,074 156,250 101,219 51,629 44,727 231,019 150,134 120,901 73,334 207,489 105,565 117,932 82,529 171,873 113,582 161,l4o 105,57s 168,434 101,296 232,627 102,278 192,159 100,854 148,981 80,930 Cash income Gross income 32,671 14,763 28,237 45,768 5,942 56,043 17,801 32,317 54,612 . 7,369 33,997 40,180 193,576 247,o4o 62,687 72,678 1.58,889 207,283 156,994 216,999 134,525 172,865 234,546 274,855 119,003 159,881 159,407 199,923 169,765 208,736 277,058 306,460 147,649 203,489 67,681 84,496 66,022 73,378 147,688 181,516 Cash income Cash in¬ come , benefit payments and A.AA. slanghtpr 47, 931 14,894 27,200 48,661 ■6,560 47,931 14,896 27,203 48,782 6,832 35,825 35,825 216,699 216,772 67,013 67,024 170,782 171,604 179,605 181,743 145,749 147,639 239,023 241,510 133,210 134,041 171,193 171,760 181,832 183,397 146,291 9,964 41,227 61,766 24,209 171,364 11.705 53,743 116,347 47,326 97,793 226,814 48,452 95,634 64,388 143,369 73,846 77,853 73,444 122,491 270,175 166,106 73,391 63,411 162,022 149,540 9,784 43 , 775 76,210 25,552 270,605 170,084 87,876 68,52s 167,929 173,966 9,894 44,577 767992 25,629 66,671 58,598 68,907 72,610 60,186 125,694 121,852 119,947 113,400 87,081 170,024 177,058 70,417 80,329 101,475 115,276 69,164 69,636 79,920 80,237 84,278 89,207 77,758 91,708 86,302 102,773 84,519 100,972 66,60s 74,217 Contmued- A -37- 38 Table 80 - E STIMATED VALUE OF 1934 CHOPS BY STATES WITH COMP ARISONS ~ New England 1929 1930 1931 Maine 92.0 64.9 ' 36.4 New Hampshire 14.2 14.3 ‘ 11.0 Vermont 30.5 29.4 ‘ 22.7 Massachusetts 50.4 44.5 35.7 Rhode Island 5.2 4.7 4.0 Connecticut 37.4 35.5 25.2 Middle Atlantic New York ” 241.0 226.4 101.7 New Jersey 66.4 49.6 46.1 Pennsylvania 221.0 189.9 148.1 East North Central ° h h 263.3 194.5 163.5 Indiana 222.7 166.4 121.1 Il/inois 422.5 280.7 202.8 * Michigan 193.3 163.3 115.7 Wisconsin 255.8 215.7 138.2 West North Central Minnesota 335.5 249.5 156.2 Iowa 522.4 357,9 208.2 Missouri 253.1 161.4 150.7 No. Dakota 195.9 136.8 56.4 So. Dakota 194.9 130.1 43.6 Nebraska 326.7 243.9 128,8 Kansas 304.9 210.3 160.1 South Atlantic Delaware 17.0 12.9 10.3 Maryland 73.2 47.7 42.6 Virginia 176.6 105.7 100.2 W. Virginia 57.9 34.6 37.8 N. Carolina 290.7 236.7 157.8 So. Carolina 156.1 126.5 81.9 Georgia 268.0 204.7 126.8 Florida 117.9 126.7 92.6 1932 1933 1934 UEstC:^ 1934 as Pet. of . 1933 30.5 50.5 31.3 62 9.4 11.1 12.2 110 21.0 23.0 30.4 132 26.9 34.5 31.3 91 2.9 3.9 3.0 77 19.9 23.1 24.2 4 105 125.7 157.8' 184.3 117 41.8 • 48.0 44.0 92 112.0 143.7 168.6 117 114.2 145.7 195.7 134 100.5 109.5 150 • 6 138 190.9 181.3 238.0 131 104.3 127.2 146.6 115 121.6 144.3 211.2 146 151.8 168.5 199.5 118 234.9 230.5 245.9 107 123.2 144.4 106.3 74 78.8 83.2 54.6 66 68.5 33.1 32.9 99 132.5 147.1 92.2 63 113.1 118.9 135.4 114 8.4 9.6 13.0 135 54.9 40.0 53.7 134 72.7 104.1 141.2 136 27.6 34.4 38.6 112 138.6 230.7 315.0 137 70.1 100.6 126.4 126 99.7 153.0 184.9 121 71.3 68.8 74.0 108 1934 as Pet. of 1929 34 86 100 62 58 65 76 66 76 74 68 56 76 83 59 47 42 28 1 ? 28 44 76 73 80 67 108 81 69 63 39 (Table 20 cont.) 1929 1930 1931 East South Central Kentucky 197.7 113.9 112.5 Tennessee 210.1 135.9 113.0 Alabama 226.6 159.8 11177 Mississippi 278.6 145.4 115.6 West South Central Arkansas 225.4 97.7 116.8 Louisiana 167.4. 111.7 . 87.5 OWL ahoma. 252.3 134.6 112.4 Texas 642.9 445.0 337.8 Mountain Montana 92.5 . 65.3 36.7 Idaho 104.9 76.9 49.5 Wyoming 33.3 28.1 18.0 Colorado 134.7 123.0 ... 61.7 N. Mexico 35.5 21.2 18.6 Arizona 41.8 29.2 . 17.3 Utah 35.2 31.2 21.2 Nevada 8.5 6.6 3.5 Pacific States W ashington 159.0 122.6 80.6 Oregon 97.3 72.6 53.1 California 542.4 424.8 •315.3 United States 8,897 6,432 4,574 3 1934 as 1934 as 1934 Pet. of Pet. of 1932 1933 (Est.) 1933 1929 95.3 111.7 148.8 133 75 97.3 126.4 147.2 116 70 97.5 123.2 174.0 141 77 96.7 121.6 169.5 139 61 93.6 113.2 111.8 99 50 92.6 81.6 103.4 127 62 94.4 .135.6 106.3 78 42 292.8 . .383.8 376.6 98 59 47.5 46.0 65.6 143 71 42.8 57.2 59.5 104 57 15.2 19.4. 19.7 102 59 43.6 . 67.1 56.0 83 — 42 11.7 18.6 . 20.8 112 59 14.0 18.6 24.5 132 59 19.3 21.6 25.6 119 73 3.6 3.5 3.4 97 40 66.5 90.4 96.7 107 61 48.2 . 62.0 60.4 97 62 263.1 305.0 . ; 322.1 106 59 968 4,783 . 5,377 . . 112 60 ( Division of Crop and Livestock Estimate 1919-1933 -4o- • IS to create a great regional maldistribution, while total f»m i , ^ country as a whole is being maintained through higher 1 ““ me f or the volumes, producers of* "hn + Vi j , . ^ prices offsetting lower reai izing^a 0 s^stantial°improvement^i^ 1 T estoc ^ : outside the drought areas are in the drought-stricken areas Mi ? lncorae f at the expense of the producers purposes have served to mitigate the effe^s of/he 0th ° P situation ^ ario £ s *® tates ’ is Vel T much like the price indexes of farm prices for 13 e. During September and October of 1934 at prewar levels'or slightly bett ® S .^ as p^ en ln Table 21) were approximately souri, Utah, and Lw Yo^ st " es Z ** three . states-three being Mis/ cally at the prewar level‘arfni w! ^re prices to Motor practi- and Ohio. The states whose uriop 4 * ’ Okla ^ oma ‘ Michigan, Indiana, Alabama, are South Dakota Minnesota / lnd ^ e f w ^re somewhat above the prewar level indexes would probably f0P ** * than in October 1933^about^/vther ^ of the * e 8tates averaged higher they were still all lower than the net/// 18 ^ 58 Percent (except Uew York) states October 1934 //I than the October levels of 1929. In most of the prices. PriCG l6Vel3 Were betWee » 60-and 70 percent of their 1929 18 are sho/^S ^abZ/L^f// the as a whole in Table on capital as a reward for c^mit/ 6 * 7 re S lons » together with rates earned 1922 through 1933 i.^usive and management for each of the years from the difference bet we/ r • /" ° ? et res-ults s^own for each region represent values, in each lrerthe l 9 ^% a ^enditures plus changes in inventory profitless results of 193? °n rgcres show a noticeable improvement over the are only 6? f 1 tw l Contrasted with 19 29, however, the net restate percent respectively ^ J® St aorth central states; 34 and 39 68$ respectively in tb th e western and south central states; and 46, 56, and stL: "lor S of the owner-operator^f^' =lor ^ Atlantic, and south Atlantic only 39^ of the 1929 level P armers reporting, the 1933 results were 1933 for h ali a operIt^r e f-,™rrs P r tal Y a reward for capital and management in depression rates with U p0rtlH « avera 6 e approximately half of the pre- pr - s o t S ? U1thw ? f ates sh ° w ^« a sharper approach toward rates earned on cap tal foTJIV'f ™ ^ iadiCated in °°^cction with the come from product far ? ers a * drived from the estimates of in- into account the great ing this depression Tn ° tb 1 * 1 Value ^ x u physical volume dur- estate at $12,009;'in lS^only^ris? 0 ^ 13 !^'4*® Valu ° of faIm real as for agriculture as a whole $ ' deollne of atout «» s™® magnitude II. Price and Cost Disparities. agricultural prices been made toward a better balance between Uted at tS bZi/n/fo/iZ/f^tura! costs. The wide disparities which ex- g - S of 1933 have been partly narrowed through a rise in -41- Table SI.— 19?4 F1KK PRICES BY STATES WTH C0M?AEXS0HS(1910-14=1001 IS 29 1930 October 1931 1932 1933 1934 1934 1933 as Pet. 1932 of 1929 Missouri 145.7 117.4 76.8 62.8 69.3 88.9 128 142 61 Illinois 145.0 123.0 72.0 54.0 69.0 98.0 142 181 68 Oklahoma 148.0 94.0 53.0 52'. 0 73.0 100.0 137 192 68 Mi chigan 175.0 136.0 90.0 68.0 83.0 ' 99.0 119 146 57 Utah 148.0 112.0 September 88.0 67.0 78.0 92.0 118 142 62 New York 167.0 142.0 98.0 70.0 94.0 94.0 100 134 56 So.Dakota 150.6 118.7 73.2 54.5 73.9 107.2 145 197 71 Indiana 142.0 125.0 77.0 60.0 70.0 97.0 139 162 68 Alabama 148.0 95.0 58.0 62 .0 70.0 100.0 143 161 68 Ohio 150.0 129.0 82.0 64.0 79.0 99.0 125 155 65 Virginia 154.0 126.0 89.0 75.0 84.0 103.0 123 137 67 Minnesota 145.9 112.2 73.1 54.7 80.5 108.4 135 198 74 Iowa 151.0 — — 1-t 57.0 66.0 104.0 158 182 69 Obtained . from the Department of Economics, of the respective colleges ; of Agriculture in the Several States • . - . ■ -42- Table 22. Farm returns, by &3ographic divisions (based on reports for larger than average farms), 1922 - 1933 Net results 1/ Calendar year United States orth Atlantic . #ast North Central Went North Central South Atlantic South central Western Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 1922 917 858 928 1,235 623 735 986 1923 1,020 1,070 1,030 1,110 240 890 1,310 1924 1,205 1,0^2 1,155 1,654 656 1,059 1,506 1925 1,297 1,352 1,370 1,680 610 824 2,047 1936 1,133 1,166 1,169 1,325 569 973 1,696 192? 1,290 1,333 1,088 1,642 818 980 ■2,179 1928 1,334 1,105 1,170 1,790 639 1,121 2,171 1929 1,298 1,254 1,178 1,634 • 764 987 1,994 1930 538 882 604 595 214 217 868 1931 154 445 202 - 178 215 . 216 242 1932 66 180 lV9 - 90 41 83 178 1933 516 619 542 502 '435 432 738 1933 as percentage of!923 ' 39 : 56 : 46 : 28 : 68 39 : 34 Hate earned on capital as revard for capital and management 2/ Percent Percent Percent Percent Per cent Percent Percent 1922 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.3 4.2 5.0 1.6 1923 2.3 2.9 2.2 1.7 3.3 3.8 2.5 1924 4.0 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.8 6.4 3.5 1925 4.6 5.7 4.6 4.0 3.8 4.4 5.9 1926 3.9 4.1 3.5 2.8 3.5 6.0 4.8 1927 5.1 5.3 3.2 A ^ .r • O 6.5 6»8 7.4 1928 D . 4 3.9 3.9 5.2 4.9 7,5 7.1 1929 c. 2 5.0 4.1 4.7 5.8 6.9 5.8 1930 •.4 2.3 .6 .0 .1 - .3 .8 1931 - 1.9 - 1.1 - 1.7 - 3.9 .9 .2 1.7 1932 - 2.2 - 2.7 - 2.0 - 3.2 - 1.1 - .8 - 2.3 1933 2.3 i.e 2.1 .9 4.7 5.6 2.0 1 / Difference between receipts and expenses plus changes in inventory values. 2/ Net results plus value of food consumed by farm family less value of farm operator 1 s and family labor divided by value 01 farm real estate and personalty. Q Li OC 2 - O X CO I- I Z Li — Z o • < Z LJ < OC X < H 2 W cr cr < o U. 2 a H o o “3 Z < 2 CO OC >- LJ oc X LJ H > O Li Z z — o CO z z < a: D L. f- -1 U < OC z h o Li t- Z Li OC CO Li o a l a: o < y oc a y y 5 H or co o z e a. cr CO Li O CJ oc H- z y — CO oc z CO cr cr» co < — CO y cn z — z — o y — CO X co a: co o y «* cr < CO CL CC < y y y a 0. oc I o < y 1 cr CC y CL LJ co z y y 5 X X O i- K* y L. o O 2 00 E (\S Q h C\J < c y agricultural prices and through a decline in costs but further progress in this direction is still required, partly because the present level of agricultural prices s being sustained by crop shortages and partly because certain costs have not a.s yet declined in proportion to the levels of prices and incomes that are likely to prevail during 1935, and others have increased with the ad¬ vancing farm prices. A. prices Received and Paid by F armers. prices paid by farmers which averaged 152$ of the prewar level in 1929 and had declined to 105$ of the prewar level in October 1932 and have since advanced to 126$ by October 1934. In October 1932 prices received by farmers at 64$ of the prewar level had a purchasing power of only 61$ of the prewar purchasing power. This has increased to 79$ in October 1934 as a result of the general level of farm prices rising to the prewar level. (See Table 23). prices of truck crops, dairy products, a— fruits were in October 1934 practically at their prewar levels and, therefore, had a purchasing power close to that of all farm products, prices of grains, poultry products, and cotton had a purchasing power 7 to 9 percent higher than all products combined, and prices of meat animals remained unusually depressed with a purchasing power of about one-fourth less than the general average, thus reflecting the sharp in¬ crease in slaughter brought about by the drought. B. Farm Wages and Warm Taxes. The recent changes in farm wage rates and hi farm taxes payable as well as changes in ether costs are given in Table 24 and in Figure 12. During 1934 the farm wage rate level was approximately the same as the level of prices re¬ ceived. This was the first year since 1919 when farm wage rates and prices received by farmers had regained their prewar relationship, farm wage rates having been relatively high during all of the postwar years. The farm tax situation has recently shown improvement. Farm taxes pay- ■ able which during the postwar years had been between 225 and 240$ of the pre¬ war level, have declined to approximately 160$ by 1934. A further decrease in taxes of 5 to 10$ seems probable in 1934- levies, with the benefits to farmers from this decrease partially offset by substitute taxes. It is anticipated that the delinquencies of current levies which p.re Payable during the 1934-35 crop marketing season will be fewer, juid payments of old delinquencies greater than during recent years. In certain localities, some tax delinquencies are being accomplished in part by substitution of sales taxes or other sources of revenue and in part by reduction in expenditures. The reduction in taxes per sere of farm real estate is shown in Figure 13. In 1930 taxes per acre in 26 states wer$ approximately 250$ of the prewar rates and in 1934 they were down to approximately 170$ of the prewar rates or a reduction of a little more than 30$. Table 23. INDEX NUMBERS OF P PICES RECEI VED BY FA RMERS AND PRICES PA ID" (ON 5 YEAR BASE'. AUGUST 19Q9 -JULY 19 14-100 ) Ratio- of Index numbers of far m pr ices_;_ Prices paid prices Meat Pai ry Poultry Cotton Truck All by farmers received Year & Ani- Pro- Pro- & Cotton Crops Groups for comrnodi- to price: x / Month Grains Fruits mal s ducts ducts seed 1/ (items) ties bought paid 2/ 1910 104 101 103 99 104 113 102 98 104 1911 96 102 67 95 91 101 — 95 102 93 1912 106 .94 95 102 100 87 — 100 99 101 1913 92 107 . 108 105 101 97 — 101 101 100 1-914 102 SI 112 102 106 85 — 101 100 101 1915 120 82 104 103 101 77 — 98 105 93 1915 126 100 120 109 116 119 — 118 124 95 1917 217 118 174 135 155 187 — 175 149 117 1918 227 172 203 163 186 245 — 202 175 115 1919 233 178 207 186 209 247 — 213 200 106 1920 232 191 174 198 223 248 — — 211 194 109 1921 112 157 109 156 162 101 — 125 150 83 1922 106 174 114 143 141 156 — 132 146 90 1923 113 137 107 159 146 216 — 142 149 95 1924 129 125 110 149 149 212 150 143 150 95 1925 157 172 140 153 163 177 153 156 154 101 1926 131 138 147 152 159 1 op 143 145 153 95 1927 128 144 140 155 144 128 121 139 151- 92 1928 130 176 151 158 153 152 159 149 153 97 1929 120 141 156 167 162 144 149 146 152 96 1930 100 162 133 137 1 OCX -L/.v 102 140 126 144 88 1931 63 98 92 108 100 63 117 87 124 70 1932 44 62 63 83 82 47 102 65 107 61 1933 62 74 60 82 75 64 104 70 109 64 October 1929 128 158 150 158 181 141 145 149 153 97 1930 91 132 123 140 131 75 124 113 142 80 1931 46 88 • 78 112 111 42 143 77 120 64 1932 37 83 60 81 102 51 69 64 105 61 1933 69 77 64 91 93 71 123 78 • 116 67 1934 109 98 74 100 ice 107 101 100 126 79 Div. Statistical & Historical Research 1 j 1924-9 Average for Truck crops is equal to the level of the index for all groups for the sane period. “ 4 ' • • . * 2/ These index numbers are based on retail prices paid by farmers fOr commodities used in living and production, reported quarterly for March, June, September, and December. The indexes for other months are straight interpolations be¬ tween the successive quarterly indexes. Tabl -46- e 24. Selected Indexes of prices, wages, costs of distribution, farm taxes and mortgage interest, 1913-34 1910-1914-100 Prices paid by farmers for commodities used in -_ Prices receiv¬ ed by farmers Living Pro¬ duc¬ tion Living and Produc¬ tion Farm - wage rates Indus¬ trial Wages, ; UnionL Freight . rates ' 3 / Revenue Cost of Farm Mort- per ton distri- Taxes gage mile buting pay- Inter- 3/ food 4/ able est Payable 1913 101 100 102 101 104 102 100 99 104 101 104 1914 101 102 99 100 101 104 100 99 105 102 107 1915 98 107 104 105 102 104 100 99 105 111 112 1916 118 124 124 124 112 108 101 97 110 117 118 1917 175 147 151. 149 140 114 102 98 129 130 130 1918 202 177 174 175 176 132 130 116 159 138 149 1919 213 210 192 200 206 150 132 133 174 174 172 1920 211 222 174 194 239 192 169 144 202 211 204 1921 125 161 141 150 150 197 169 175 190 225 233 1922 132 156 139-= 146 146 186 158 161 175 226 239 1923 142 160 141 149 166 202 158 153 177 230 246 1924 143 159 143 150 166 218 158 153 180 230 246 1925 156 164 147 154 168 226 158 150 185 234 249 1926 145 162 146 153 171 238 158 148 192 234 247 1927 139 159 145 151 170 245 157 148 190 240 243 1928 149 160 148 153 169 245 156 148 190 241 240 1929 146 158 147 152 170 245 156 148 198 243 231 1930 126 148 140 144 152 248 154 146 196 240 221 1931 87 126 122 124 116 247 145 144 178 220 215 1932 65 108 , 107 107 86 216 137 143 153 191 207 1933 70 109 108 109 80 207 133 137 140 163 179 .1934 90 123 124 123 90 5/141 l_/Union wage rates in the United States as of May each year. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2/Average of indexes of freight rates on wheat livestock and cotton, 1913=100. 3/Calendar year. Prior to 1916, year beginning July 1. 4/Farm .Economics, Cornell Agricultural College. 6/Based on first six months reports. Prices Received by Farmers and Prices Paid for Commodities Used in Production, Farm Wages and Farm Taxes, 1910 to Date. y y- \ \ / #* \ £ 8 § j $ to UJ ac UJ z CL ac Z — UJ — Id g z X Q < J- CO at X UJ <0 H L. o o < ac s <0 at «■ 2 UJ X o cr> DC {- — < X >U- Q UJ 2 O • 2 lO < CO o 2 OJ o I- mm cr> r> X — cc o o o 03 ac z a. < Q. — a. o CO < _J — at u < X o > Ol < at at H o -1 CO < UJ Q DC ac o Z UJ < mm < > g ac < UJ 0. ac ac UJ to J- o UJ ac > j D to 8- UJ O a. a in 2 I at — < UJ > V) z — X o UJ H UJ o — X H UJ g 1- D ac OJ u. _J 2 O in o an o o IO G) o JL. UJ 5 H* cr 03 UJ 5 — > o at a WD ns o h* 10 ns o r* lO < CL Z -J — o ns —> — c ac co \ '' \ i K- 3 • ' CO o > H CO a: CO < z < UJ ui CO a UJ LU CO cr 5 UJ * o h o -3- < Ul U CO CO Z (Tv cr — UJ Q. > OL < _J z o co — CO 3 UJ u O i X I UI < H > > H CO UJ u. o » Q o Z <0 cr < C5 — < z 5 cr — co UJ < co CO cr Be o UJ a. -j a: UJ o CJ cr i o •» h* UI CT UJ a. i Ul to »- cr < cr o CT UJ o u. UJ I H UJ a »- CO «* cr co CO 3 z CO z u. cr < o 3 o >- t- H 3 UJ < m CO cr UJ z cr o UJ UJ o — o cr CO < o co CO _» < < UJ a. a; cr UJ a. z UJ o UI UJ a. _ a * 5 < z H -i H — < Z cr CO > < UJ < cr X z I UJ H UJ > C5 CO o Ul UI o cr U. C3 UI o O cc cr 2 < CO i UJ _J cr o i _J < H — UJ o 1- > UJ u CO X o a: — UJ 3 li¬ UJ cr • O V- uj cr u. es — S UJ z 0. cr < CO UJ < UJ cr uj H CO z o cr u UJ — < o •< o — cr cr o UI o 0. u. CL LO CO UJ cr 3 C5 Lu C. Farm Debts Since 19.39 there has probably been a reduction in total farm indebted¬ ness of about 25$. This is in large part due to foreclosure of defaulted mortgages. The total farm mortgage debt alone as owed by farm operators (already shown in Table 16) was about 9.8 billion dollars in 1924-25 and 9.3 billion dollars in 1929. This has now been reduced to about 7.2 billion dol- lars. Mortgage interest payable has therefore declined from about 240-2e0$ of the prewar amount before this depression to 179$ in 1934 (see Table 24). The decline in mortgage debt per acre has been from about 290$ of the prewar level in 1928-30 to about 240$ in 1933—a decline of less than 20$ (see Fig¬ ure 13). The new farm mortgage loans made by the Federal Land Banks and the Land Bank Commissioner during the period from June 1, 1933 through September 30, 1934 amounted to $1,275,000,000, 70$ of which was used for refinancing existing mortgage debt and 20$ to refinance short-term debt and to pay taxes. As a result of these loans, there has been an actual increase in farm mortgage debt but it does not exceed 5$ of the prior indebtedness of the borror/ers. The Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation established early in 1934 is authorized to issue 2 billion dollars of bonds guaranteed as to interest and principle payable by the Federal Government to provide additional funds for making Commissioner loans. Hot more than 600 million dollars of these oonds, however, may be used for making Commissioner loans to supplement the 200 mil¬ lion dollars authorized in 1933 for this purpose. Approximately 52o million dollars of Commissioner loans out of the authorized "total of 800 million dol¬ lars have already been made. During the period May 1933 through September 30, 1934 the Federal Land Banks received applications for about $3,500,000,000 of Federal Land Backhand Commissioner loans from 800,000 applicants. The monthly receipts of applica¬ tions, however, have shown a marked falling off during 1933 and 1934. In Oc¬ tober 1933 there were more than 75,000 applications but since May 1934 the num¬ ber has dropped to less than 25,000 per month. Voluntary local committees for handling ca.ses of burdensome farm debt are now operating in 43 states. These committees provide an informal means of adjusting debt differences between creditors and farm debtors- In all, more than 2500 county committees have been formed, and it is estimated tnat these committees have aided in the adjusting of more than 30,000 farm deot cases involving indebtedness in excess of 200 million dollars. The work of this committee has been an important factor in reducing the number of fore¬ closures. They have attempted to adjust excessive farm debt cases through the scaling down of the indebtedness. In other instances they have kept the fanner on his farm by means of an extension agreement which gives him an opportunity to improve his financial condition. The recent amendments to the E'lhkruptcy Act providing for the appoint¬ ment of debt cancellation commissioners in every agricultural county and for more liberal terms in retaining farm ownership under the jurisdiction -9o- flrri* Jf lkn ^ tcy . laws sholjId also have some effect in reducing the number of orcea dispossessions. As yet, however, the number of farmers availing them- seives of these new bankruptcy privileges has not been significantly large (Agricultural Outlook for 1934-35). y a ge * * H tv, T f 6 e *\ ent t0 whi ? h the hi S her level of prices received by producers he lower level of fixed charges has improved the disparity between farm prices and service charges paid by farmers is shown in Figure 14. The compos- , -f 0 5 ric ?spai by farmers for goods used in production, for wages to hired 1 2 t ®5’ est °P farm de ^ f or taxes on farm real estate'averaged J 6 *' j ° f the prewar lev el in 1928, with prices received by farmers at T f prewar level, the discrepancy between the two amounting to approx¬ imately 100. In 1932 with prices received by farmers at 650 of the prewar eVGl J . a ? d the com P° si 5 e of costs at about 1150 the discrepancy between the two amounted to nearly 440. in 1934 with farm prices averaging 900 of the prewar eve an the composite of costs 1250, the discrepancy was reduced to about f 3. Stated in another way, the average level of farm prices in 1934 should have been about 380 higher in order to have the same exchange value in terms of goods and services as they had before the war. P. Costs of Distribution. In November 1929, fourteen food items produced by farmers in the United ates and sold in.our retail markets throughout the country had a retail value o $2o,80. (See.Figure 15). of this total, farmers received $13.05 and a margin for distribution covering all services such as transportation, process¬ ing and sale, $13.75. in November 1932, the retail value w a s $16.63 or about less. The price received by farmers declined to $5.67 or a reduction o $7.38 and the distribution margin declined to $10.96 or a reduction of $o.79.. Nearly three-fourths of the reduction in retail price represented a reduction in the price to the producer. Had the decline in retail value been shared.equally between farmers and all agencies in distribution in proportion to their respective shares of the consumers dollar in 1929, the farm price in November 1932 would have been around $8.00 instead of $5.67 or about 400 high¬ er. During.the first week of November 1934 the retail value of these 14 selected food items amounted to $19.34 or an increase of $2.71. The price re¬ ceived by.the producer was $7.40 or an increase of $1.73 over November 1932 and the.distribution margin was $11.94 or an increase of 98^. Thus during the period of revival the farmers share of the consumers dollar has advanced more than the distribution margin, but the farmers share of the consumers dol¬ lar W-iicn was nearly 500 in 1929 is still only 380 compared with 340 in Nov¬ ember 1932. The relative stability of distribution costs is also shown in the in¬ dexes contained in Table 24. The cost of distributing food as computed by the Bureau.of Agricultural Economics at Cornell declined from I960 of the prewar level m 1930 to 140yo in 1933. Freight revenue per ton mile declined only slightly from 1460 of the prewar revenue in 1930 to 1370 in 1933 and freight rates on wneat, cotton and livestock declined from 1540 of the prewar rates in 1930 to 1330 in 1933. This decline occurred chiefly in cotton freight prices received, and prices, wages, interest,and TAXES PAID BY FARMERS, 1910 TO DATE INDEX NUMBERS (1910-1914*100) o UJ < < Ul o u ' > o z * X tr Ul P- o Ul UJ < -i tr — ac H ac o p- CL * < O tr 2 o to Ul □ < 3 Ul UJ tr u i Z o X o C3 cc Ul o o H _ o tr tr tr P* < 0. p- CL Ul 0. < u. o (0 > X V/ Ul Ul 2 o -1 5 D X cr tr CO < Ul Ul »- Ui < < a; 2 ac H u. 3 O ID 00 u. Z co o — z in -1 5 to 6 o u 'si Ui 0. ★ 1— Z u in O in o m o m ■ < “ U3 D J O J Q I - U1 H (T to — O => * < Ul (0 co t0 O Z - z H 2 UJ UJ — < tr ac a 2 < P- < Ul z u. — a. o < X Q 2 z o CO O O < to oc < 2 o > p M- CL 2 Q to CL X O -I <■ — x < o o UJ X uj tfc 3 > o Ui ac a to u. Ui UJ 3 Ul o -i o -J O V o to z -1 < < 2 to ac 3 — iT O LO tr Ui > < CO CD Ul H H (0 o o Ui -I UJ < o o * z — UJ o a: tr tr cl cl a. o ui ui z i ac Ul o X a) < < • •I- u. ui o I- CM UJ I— to • to — H CM to CD O — o UJ o o z z < — co to Ul Ul ° - tr p- o. u — < P- > h- > — 2 Z >- z C0 _J Q. ac < CO — UJ UJ co < Ui p- u. P- QC D H UJ O -I < z < 2 — z < .3 > in UJ — Ul z O •m — tr x Ul UJ CC Ui o • s Ul o O X * ac a> p- CO < UJ P- C0 (X CM Ul u. o oc — to a. CD CO to UJ < — < z to z > X Ui Ui o o a z H 2 O Ul Id Ul — h- H OC — QC 1- o ac < ac < CO < «J < CL ld cl a. uj ac ui a. z Q 2 Q Ul > co < Ul — X 3 o — < -1 Q 1- f Retail and Farm Value of Typical Monthly Purchases of 14 Foods Per.Family The relatively stable costs of distribution during a period of PRICE DEPRESSION CAUSES THE BULK OF THE DECLINE IN RETAIL PRICES TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE FARMERS* SHARE OF THE CONSUMER DOLLAR. Figure 15 -63- rates which are now practically at their prewar level* (see Figure 16) * The othe- element in distribution costs shown in Table 24, namely industrial wage lain** decllned relatively less than the prices of farm products. In iy3U in * :LS trial union wage rates were 248$ of the prewar level and 207$ in 1933. Thus m 1933 farm prices averaged 70$ of their prewar; prices paid by armers averaged 109>6; freight rates, revenue .per ton mile and cost of food distribution 133-140$ of their prewar levels; and industrial wages about twice tncir prewar level. The adjustment in these price and cost disparities that took place during 1934 was largely in the nature of a rise in prices received oy farmers from 70>6 of the prewar level in 1933 to 90$ of the prewar level in ■y °4 aJid to about 100 $ toward the end of the year, but part of this farm products was offset by the increase in prices paid by farriers. .a rise m E* Land Values Farm real estate values showed only a slight rise during 1933. This ^ S / n 5 1 r ated by thS index 0f real estate values as of March 1, 1934 averaging values compared with 73$ on March. 1, 1933 and 115$ on March 7 . *. 71115 gain ls the first since 19 20 and is due to the cessation of the declme m farm prices and to the increase in faim incomes in such sections as tne cotton, gyam and flue-cured tobacco areas and also to the improved credit -acidities wnich have tended to remove the pressure for forced liquidation. Another factor has been the lowering of taxes on farm real estate. A feeling 0 greater security among farmers has been brought about by legislation easing m various ways the burden of taxes or the pressure of tax sales or giving some respite against foreclosure. The changes in farm real estate values by regions from 1912 through 1934 vre contained in Figure 17 and in Table 25; and the recent trends in forced and voluntary sales of farms 1926-1934 are contained in Figure 18. The reports for 1933-34 show a considerably higher volume of forced sales per thousand farms nan in 1929 in all areas. The volume of voluntary sales either remained un- c anged.or increased somewhat in the southern states where the improvement in farm prices and farm income was greater than in other areas. ldie cour se of farm bankruptcies over a longer period is indicated in -igure 19, For the crop year 1933-34 farm bankruptcies were higher than in the previous two years, at a level approximately 20 $ lower than"in 1924-26, hie height of the postwar peak and about six times as numerous as the bank¬ ruptcies before the war. III. The Agricultural Outlook for 1935. The Mastic changes which took place in agricultural production and ; a c company! ng changes in prices will affect the agricultural situation dur¬ ing 193o and 1936. In some commodities and in some areas where the drought was most severe, increased production is to be expected. In other commodities, particularly livestock, production will be retarded by the lack of feed supplies created ay the 1934 drought. In order to convey the significance of these re¬ cent changes within agriculture, there are given below extracts from the 1934-35 Agricultural Outlook issued by the Department of Agriculture on November 5 , 1934. PRICES PAID BY FARMERS FOR COMMODITIES USED IN PRODUCTION and Freight rates, index Numbers, 1910 to date » 1 1 1 — T 1 1 - o o •V. r'—.'y .>*yr — — ^ o> Ol^- 1 \ ■v. «J t V - ^ "" f / f 00b I \ i 1 * I s I — 1 1 1 I / :\ — 5 «*> \ 8? i —^ 1 1 — H. __1 * + i * i * B — * \ X 1 \U — f C> o *> : — Qj >r |J s — — _ 1 _ _ J _ _ J _ _ 1 _ I < l > i _1 _ VO 00 ro OJ 00 o 00 00 OJ VO <\J 4 CM CM CM O CM 00 VO x 5 uj 5 I CM o CD Z UJ u £E u CL o CO o VO o. o CM o o o CO 5 * 01 u 2 o z o u < cc 3 3 u cc o < 3 < UJ cc 3 CD O cm —\ o UJ x z o % "k» I CO UJ «o 5 >— fo 5 u. 5 : CO UJ ? 'I <* i Q Z UJ ~J 5 1 1 X 1 O CL Z UJ oc < >- — Q 0 - _l CO < a. h bJ < < H UJ < o -J 0 0 2 «• -1 h UJ - z — Z X CL 1 - z - o co ft < oc UJ 0 2 0 . J UJ O UJ CL •< Z a < <0 < H- UJ X UJ *“ J X o > < o o D < X o O I H ft 1 - z < «0 CO X UJ a UJ a x z > Z O ft < — UJ 1 - -1 Ut CO z J CO UJ o •m o > >< z UJ — CO 1 - < > -1 UJ UJ < J- oc I- X z < < o a 2 UJ z o X o « h oc ft I- uj x It. H H* O z o < - <0 o O It UI z z o c 0 Z H u. — UJ O X J- J- o a o « CO - z D oc UJ UJ < Q 1 - z UJ t < u. J O X Z UJ C 5 » > h — UJ O UJ z UJ J CO J UJ z - cn CO u. X — z Ui 5 < cc A UJ ft CL CO • O ui UJ z UJ z z OC u 2-0 VO UJ Z O o CO o: _j — 2 O CO CC o UJ < z H U. — UJ UJ < > X OC O 2 UJ H »— oc _» h> < UJ i o) u. oc > 111 C 3 < O UJ cc » z z ft CO 3 UJ UJ o UJ < 5 z 2 z 3 I) u. >- z or •< o VO LL o co CL 1- z vO < < o «- u. C5 < UJ >- o z z u. X -I • K z < — 1- UJ UJ UJ Ik z CJ t- > o — z >- < o K a: co 2 — -J 2 a < z z co UJ — < 0. iii — UJ CO H X o I- UI < o^. uS UJ z 2 Z lO 3 Q a — a. Farm real estate: index numbers of estimated value per acre, as of march i, by Geographic divisions. 1912-1934 The improvement in farm prices and farm income during 1933 CHECKED THE DECLINE IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES IN ALL areas. Where incomes and prices were more sharply advanced, FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES SHOWED SOME INCREASE; IN OTHER AREAS THE EFFECT OF THE IMPROVED FARM CONDITIONS WAS TO MAINTAIN REAL ESTATE VALUES AT THE BEGINNING OF 1934 AT THEIR SHARPLY DEPRESSED LEVEL OF 1933. Figure 17 Table 25 . - Farm Real Estate: Index numbers of estimated value per acre, by geographic divisions, March 1, 1934 with comparisons. ( 1912-1914 = 100 percent) Divisions 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 -/ United States. Geographic divisions New England. Middle Atlantic. East North Central... West North Central... South Atlantic . East South Central... West South Central... Mountain. Pacific......»•.....« JJ0 JJO 124 117 116 119 106 89 73 76 i4o 136 161 184 198 199 177 151 156 134 118 132 150 146 149 136 122 151 128 114 121 132 131 142 136 110 147 128 113 111 121 149 139 144 103 144 127 110 101 113 134 130 137 101 142 126 109 100 112 132 129 136 101 142 127 106 96 109 128 128 136 102 142 126 101 87 97 116 117 121 100 l4o ll6 96 73 81 96 97 97 82 118 105 82 62 64 so 79 82 69 96 io4 82 65 67 86 85 88 69 97 Division of Land Economics. —/ 193 ^- figures preliminary, subject to correction. farm bankruptcies and commercial failures in the U.S., 1906-1933 In contrast with the reduction in commercial failures in 1933, farm bankruptcies increased in the 1933-34 crop year. Just as the sharp increase in farm bankruptcies took place DURING THE PERIOD OF 1922-24 RECOVERY, SO THE DELAYED EF¬ FECTS OF THE PRESENT DEPRESSION SHOWED UP IN THE FIRST YEAR OF AGRICULTURAL AND GENERAL IMPROVEMENT. -5*- A. Domestld Demand Profepects For. 1935. » The outlook for domestic demand for farm products in the first half of 1935 , as indicated by the prospects for industrial production and consumers’ income, is for a level slightly higher than the present level, hut probably not greatly different from that of the first half of 1934. The possibility of further improvement in the last half of 1935 depends primarily upon further recovery in the durable goods industries where the decline in employment and production during the depression was most pronounced. Any further expansion of construction either through the medium of federally sponsored projects not now a part of the program or through private construction, would tend to raise the level of industrial activity somewhat higher than seems probable at the present time. E. foreign Demand Prospects for 1935 * The foreign- demand for American Farm products is expected to be less favorable in 1935 than in 1934. A marked reduction in the exports to Germany is expected to result from the severe restrictions on German imports arising from Germany’s adverse foreign-trade balance. Prospects are also less iavorable in France where deflation is still proceeding and in China which has been ad¬ versely affected by fluctuations in foreign-exchange rates. These unfavorable factors appear to outweigh moderate improvement in industrial activity in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan. Trade barriers continue to restrict agri¬ cultural exports. Bilateral trade agreements are increasing, whereoy foreign countries seek to balance their trade individually with other countries. This tendency is unfavorable to the United States, which has an excess ol commodity exports to important agricultural-deficit countries. The tariff-bargaining program of the United States which adheres to tie most favored nation treat¬ ment and is not strictly bilateral is proceeding rapidly but trade agreements with the countries which represent our principal markets for agricultural ex- ■ports may not be concluded in time to be effective during the remainder of the 1934-35 marketing season. 0. The Outlook for Feed Crops and Livestock for 1935. Supplies of feed grains (corn, oats, barley, and grain sorghums) for the 1934-35 feeding season are the smallest since 1881. The marked reduction was due primarily to the drought which reduced yields, although the 1934 acre¬ age of feed grains was reduced 9 percent under that of 1933 and was 10 percent under average (19 27 to 1931). The 1934 hay crop was the smallest in the 16 years for which comparable figures are available. Moreover, the loss of new seedings in the drought area was extensive. Liberal use of low-grade rough- age nay offset a large part of the shortage of hay. prospective 1934-co sup¬ plies of high-protein feeds from domestic processing may be 90 percent of 1933- 34 and only 70 percent of average, but almost the same quantity of wheat by¬ product feeds appear available in 1934-35 as in 1933-34. Larger imports of feed grains and other feedstuffs to supplement the local shortage appear ^prob¬ able, but not in sufficient quantity to reduce materially the shortage of feed. Livestock has been reduced more rapidly this year than in any previous year, and by January 1, 1935, numbers are expected to be only around four-fifths of a year earlier. The reduction was due partly to the Governner, 1 s hog-adjust¬ ment program and partly to the drought of 1934, including natural liquidation -59- relieve tbe^rmSt^? 8 ?^ d the ° attle ~ and sheeji-buying program designed to the eld of the nStrf 10n \, *° tal "" ° f meat “Is °» farms at m!?! V h - P resent y@ar will probably be the smallest in more than 35 veers united States farm income in 1934-35, a measure of farmers' abilityTo nurchase X e slight^ lahger than in 1933-34. While farm i^o'e where! bHenefit p^t “ ^ ^ « meated *here, as els- 1930 afd™f P hav e the f h fe b d f ralnS ia Se P teiI *er were the highest since October re let ive relmt^ * he .^fest since June 1926, largely as a result of greater if f reductions in feed than in livestock. October prices were sliahtlv under those for September. The present high level of feed prices will p!!? ar y e!cepUoL a n: d b th > rOUgh ^ P -ces <* feed grain and ^ nets and i“ n!ese!+ 1S f f al ’ ed . wlth P rlces of livestock and livestock prod! into’the first half of e i9"5° n ? hl ? s tetwean feed ar.a livestock prices continue di scouraa’ed a* l ^ finishin £ of livestock for market will be further uctrm^be’erl'rr P leVel ° f prices ° f livest ock and livestock prod- what the presentee! ^ ° advances apcp this wiP1 tend to reduce some- P mi! * ^ elatlve spread between the prices of the two groups of com- duction will ® malad ^ s ^ ent of livestock numbers to probable feed-grain pro- -S ‘Wonting ^fcan agri- unfavorab^p^p^ • spea ^ n ^> the average farmer’s response to high feed-grain “lion "J d6pleUon of fa ™ feed-grain amd hay reserves, and the following' vp t ° C ^’ 1s i ncre ase materially the feed-grain acreage in Sle! ^in ^heTir 8 -^ 1043 ° f corn -o P s, Program of the A? • n ! h following season was increased. The 1935 corn-hog early feed f d j ustment Administration recognizes the need for upon the producer 5® P rovi ? d ^ *^6 seedinga and places no restriction adjustment of rnr n ° hGse fGGd crops * Ikepprogram contemplates, however, the in r s 0 t l a ? eage in .° rder that ^supplies may not become seriously SS ° f the feedln S requirements for corn next season. crops provide^nr! between cash crops (wheat, cotton, tobacco, etc.) and feed acreage Tn th ^di cat ion of the probable future trend of feed grain and hay from cadh crone, 1 f 921 t0 1926 during which exports, were large, returns The casWron P relatively greater than those from feed grains and hay. during this perihfl^/^T 36 ? compared with the feed-grain and hay acreage clinei f i , and UP t0 1929 • Prom 1926 t0 1921 dae part to the de- ber 3 in Unitefl S ^ d ! rnand /° r CaSh Cr ° PS and in part to incr eased livestock num- grain acreage ^ tates ’ fee ?- cro Ps were relatively more profitable and feed- of the unusilliv Cr n aS ! d TQ^ lG th ® ca f h “ crop acrea S e declined. As the result Values .feed-p-r * ° 10r . 1 feed-grain and hay 1 crops and the accompanying high "ash-cv'oi ^nri G ^ ln P *'; Lce ’ :5 remain relatively high in 1934-35 compared with ent high r-ti'o f-F ^ 1S - S a continuation of the ^end begun in 1931. The pres- dompanied bv - fGGd PriC6s divided ^ cash crops prices) will probably be ac- in 1935 ar / an lnarease la acreage to feed grains and hay. If feed-crop yields than that f 1 ° r better ’ on an acreage as large or slightly larger he ve-ry 1 !° * total feed supplies for the 1935-36 feeding season will 7 ° ln relation to the number of animals to be fed, and feed prices will "be low in relation to prices of livestock and livestock products. This relationship may continue for several years since a re-expansion in livestock population can scarcely he expected before 1936 at the earliest. Demand for Feed. Livestock Numbers; Numbers of livestock on farms have been reduced more rapidly in 1934 than in.any previous year. The cattle-and sheep¬ buying program to meet the feed shortage, the hog-adjustment program, and nat¬ ural liquidation as the result of short supplies and high prices of feed were the principal causes. Livestock numbers, in terms of feed-grain consuming units, made little change from 1928 to 1934 and were fairly large in relation to feed production over most of this period after 1929. Say-consuming units increased steadily during this period. As of January 1, 1928, the number of feed-gr^in units, including chickens, was 139,581,000 and of hay and pasture units 73,288,000. As of January 1, 1934 the feed-grain units were 137,609,000 and the hay and pasture units 80,068,000. As a result of the marked reduction in all species, except norses and mules which decreased only slightly during 1934, the grain units on January 1, 1935 may be about 80 percent and the hay and pasture units about 90 percent of those on January 1, 1934. Cattle numbers on January 1,1935 are expected to be nearly 10,000,000 head smaller than a year earlier, or close to the low point of the present cattle-production cycle. The turning point in milk cows appears to have been reached and numbers may be expected to decrease for several years. An upswing in the cattle-production cycle follow'ing the precipitous decline in numbers this year is not likely to begin before 1936. Because of the short supplies and hign prices of feed, particularly corn, hog production is expected to be on a greatly reduced scale until the spring of 1936 and market supplies of hogs^are likely to continue unusually small until late in that year. With considerable liquidation of sheep now in progress the number of breeding ewes in 1935 will be somewhat smaller than that of recent years, resulting in a de¬ creased lamb production next year. An upswing in sheep numbers, therefore, is hardly likely to occur until alter 1935. Horse numbers on January 1, 1935 will be smaller than a year earlier, but the ra.te of decrease in 1934 will probably be less tnan in 1933. production of poultry this year has been much less than last and the smallest since 1925. Scarcity of feed in many important poultry- producing States will force some further reduction in the number of hens carried through the winter, hut for the country as a whole the reduction from January 1 last year will probably not exceed 10 percent. Feeding Prospects for 1934-35 :- Combining livestock, including poultry, in proportion to their normal grain-consuming requirements there are about 115,449,000 grain-consuming animal units on farms at the start of winter or 81 percent of the number a year earlier. The quantity of feed grains, mill feeds, and concentrates available to carry this number of grain-consuming ani¬ mals until new crops will be available is something less than 1,000 pounds per animal unit, in comparison with 1,230 pounds for 1933-34. The deficiency cnn only be met by restrictions in the feeding of grains, by further liquidation of animals, or by importation of feed. Similarly, combining livestock on farms in proportion to their normal hay-consuming requirements there are about 65,685,- 000 nay-consuming animal units on farms at the start of winter or 9B percent of the number a year ago. The quantity of hay, sorghum forage and silage to carry this number of hay-consuming animals is something less than 2,360 pounds per animal unit, in comparison with 2,700'pounds for 1933 -34. The deficiency can enisle adjusted by greater utilization of corn stover, by further liquidation livestock, or by reductions in the quantities fed. „ ,ath f eed supplies inadequate to provide anything like a normal ration lor the greatly reduced numbers of livestock on farms, numerous adjustments in i.ceding practices are necessary. After allowance is made for the quantity of gram and millfeeds required to winter work animals in fairly serviceable con¬ dition,^ to carry necessary breeding and young stock through to new grass, and maintain.through the winter months perhaps 90 percent of the normal supply 01 mar ket^milk and SO to 85 percent of the usual supply of fresh eggs, it is apparent that the quantity of feed remaining for fattening hogs!, cattle, lambs, poultry, and for the production of milk for butter and cheese, will be very much below the smallest quantity used for these purposes in any other year of record. . / respite the low condition of pasturage and small feed^grain any hay crops, total shipments of stocker and feeder cattle through inspected markets into the orn^Eel^ States, July tnrough September 1934, were much larger than in these months of 1933, and about IS percent larger than the 5-year average (1929-33). To extent these increased shipments will be reflected in enlarged feeding operations this winter is uncertain. A larger—than-usual proportion of the cattle shipped were qtockers, rather than feeders. The number of cattle that W ^H grain finished in the eastern Corn Belt will probably be no larger than last year, but cattle feeding in the drought areas during the next 12 months on a greatly reduced scale. Reports from the Western States indicate uhao cattle feeding in all of these, except possibly California, will be reduced. Prospects of winter range-and-pasture feeds are the poorest on record and western cattle are going into the late fall and winter season in an 'unusually poor con¬ dition. Increases in prices of dairy products will probably cause farmers to re¬ duce the feed of milk cows less drastically than they reduce the feed of meat animals. In the Plains area from the Dakotas to Tex&s, however, the price of butterfat does not seem likely to rise enough to permit local farmers to buy hay and Grain elsewhere and ship it in for milk production. In the eastern Corn Belt, close utilization of straw and fodder will partly offset the short- dairy cows will be fed the better class of roughage will be used more by other classes The low price of cows compared with feed prices number of dairy heifers raised. The ratio of in October 1934 was the lowest in post-war age of hay. Bor the most part, roughage this winter; low-grade of! livestock than dairy cows, will tend to reduce furhter the nutteffat prices to grain prices years and has become increasingly unfavorable since May 1933. The outlook for , 5~j w is for higher prices of dairy products in relation to feed "prices, ° ut a less favorable relationship of dairy products prices to prices of meat animals. The reduction in hog numbers, already under way prior to the drought was accelerated by the extreme feed shortage. The 1934 total pig crop was umirply reduced as a result of the corn-hog adjustment program, unfavorable leading relationship between hog and corn prices, and the short 1934 feed sup- * 62 ^ ' i f '• • * ply. The redaction in hog numbers, hqyeyer, .ha ; s not bfeen so great as the re¬ duction in feed supplies; thus, hogs will be /ed 'io lighter-than-average weight’s in 1934-35. The average weight for the season probably will be the lightest for any year since 1916 at least. The United States hog-corn price ratio, based on farm prices, reached the'unusually low, figure .of 6.3 on A-ug- ust 15, or slightly under the unfavorable rat.ios reached in 191.7 (7.4), 1920 v 7. 1) , and 1924 (6.7) . The United States hog-corn price ratio of October 15, 1^34, was 6.8 while that for Iowa wa,s 7.2# , The long-time average for the same date for the United States is 12*0 and for Iowa 13.6 bushels. With average yields in 1935, corn will become relatively cheaper ,than hogs, and the hog- corn pride ratio during 1935-36 will be average or above average. ■The total number of lambs fed for market this season will probably be considerably smaller than last year or any other recent year. The Corn Belt. States east of the Missouri River, as a whole, will probably feed more lambs this year than last, but there is expected to be a sharp redaction in numbers fed in the western Com Belt and ‘in the Uestern States. , Poultry marketings early in the fall were he,avy and continued market¬ ing and calling toward minimum numbers, of layers may be expected as weather conditions prevent foraging. Pee_ding Frosu ects after 1935 . - Assuming average growing conditions during 193 d, production of both feed grain and hay will be much larger than in 1934 and of feed grains above the 5-year average, 1929-33. Even though the acreage of corn planted in 1935 be held considerably below the 1932 and 1^33 average acreage as a result of the. 1935 corn-hog reduction program, and even though no restrictions are put on the acreage of other feed crops, the k°°al production of feed grains will be large if the season is favorable. In the case of hay, however, there is little possibility of a large crop of grass and legume hays in 1935 since over large parts of the drought areas a large part of the 1934 seedings was killed and the stand on old mead- owo.was much reduced. Because of this situation a large quantity of small grains may be cut for hay, rather than for grain. ^ Hie maladjustment, therefore, between feed supplies and livestock num¬ bers will be largely in relation to feed grains and not hay. Since the num¬ ber of livestock in 1935 will be small-and if the production of feed grains ^f lar S e » a sharp drop in the relative level of feed-grain prices is certain. Uitn feed-grain prices low and meat-animal prices high there will then be a strong inducement to convert grain into meat and into animal products. Since the number of pigs raised in 1935 may be no larger than in 1934 and may be smaller, the possibility of converting additional grain into pork will be limited, to the feeding of hogs to heavier weights. But in the winter of 1935 there will be a marked tendency to increase the number of sows bred to farrow in the spring of 1936. Unless restricted, there will be a very marked in¬ crease in hog production in 1936 and 1937. Relatively low-priced feed grains in the fall of 1935 and in 1936 will also encourage an increased utilization for finishing other kinds of meat an¬ imals and for producing animal products. The number of cattle and lambs fin¬ ished Tor market will increase and the feeding periods, especially for cattle will be longer. Increased quantities of grain will be fed to milk cows. Pail ry .Till be fed a heavier ration to increase egg production and increase the weight of market birds. In general the supply of meat in 1936 and 1937, al- - 6 }- though not large relative to the average of recent years, will "be of "better quality than in 1935, D. The Hog Qutloo . g for 1935.- Commercial slaughter supplies of hogs in the 1934-35 hog-marketing year will be tne smallest in more than 20 years. A ’narked decrease will occur in Doth numbers and average weights of hogs marketed. A reduction in hog produc¬ tion was already under way prior to the summer of 1934 as a result of the very unfavorable relationship between hog prices and corn prices since the middle of 19o3, and the operation of the 1934 com-hog adjustment program. The severe drought and resulting shortage in feed, supplies during the present year will cause the decrease in hog product?on to be even greater than would have oc¬ curred otherwise. ^ the Hog prices in 1934-35 are expected to average materially higher than relatively low levels of prices that prevailed during the last 3 marketing years, largely because of the substantial reduction in slaughter supplies of hogs and other livestock. Consumer demand for hog products has improved con¬ siderably during the present year, and a maintenance of the present level of demand appears probable for 1934-35. Exports, of hog products in the next 12 months will continue relatively small because of import restrictions and the greatly reduced domestic production. A1though hog production in 1934 has been sharply curtailed and per-cap- ita production of hog products in the current marketing year (October 1934 to September 1935) will be the smallest in a half century at least, it is possible that production in 1935 will be further reduced. It now appears probable that the spring pig crop in 1935 will be smaller than that of 1934, and it is hardly probable that the 1935 fall pig crop will be sufficiently large to offset the decrease m the spring pig crop. Thus, a material increase in hog slaughter is improbable before the 1936-37 marketing year. E. The Beef Cattle Outlook for 1935. Tie outlook for the cattle industry has been changed greatly as a re¬ sult of tne drought and the drought-relief measures taken to aid cattle pro¬ ducers. At the beginning of 1935 the estimated number of all cattle on farms was about 10,500,000 head larger than in 1928, the low point of the production cycle. But it is probable that by the beginning of 1935 most of this large increase which occurred from 1928 to 1934 will have been eliminated. This' sharp reduction in a single year has been brought about by the large slaughter of c.attie and calves for Government account, as well as by increased slaughter of cattle and calves for regular commercial use. Marketings and slaughter of cattle and calves in 1935 are .expected to be greatly reduced, with inspected slaughter of the two classes smaller than for more than a decade. In view of the probability of much smaller market sup¬ plies of cattle -and'- other meat animals, cattle prices are likely to average materially higher in 1935 than in the present year. But even though slaughter should be considerable smaller than in 1928 and 1929, it is not likely that prices will reach the levels of those years because of the much lower purchas- - 64 - ing power of consumers. The reduction, in cattle slaughter probably will be much greater in the co.se of cows and heifers than in steers. The decrease in slaughter supplies of all cattle and of well-finished cattle is likely to be most pronounced during the summer and fall months. Although cattle numbers may be reduced about to the 19 28 level by the beginning of 1935, the decrease from a year earlier will vary greatly among areas. In general, numbers will be reduced little, if any, in the areas east of the Mississippi River, but west of the Mississippi there will bo marked de¬ creases. If cattle prices are high relative to feed prices during tne next few years, as seems probable, increases in numbers of cattle can be expected in all areas, but expansion will be greatest in the areas where numbers have been so greatly reduced in 1934. The upswing in c,at tie numbers, however, is not likely to get under way until 1936, since the small calf crop and death losses aoove average expected in 1935 probably will prevent any increase during that year. F. The Dairy Outlook for 1935. The shortage of hay and grain makes the outlook for dairying unfavorable for the current feeding season, prices of hay and grain are now higher in com¬ parison with the price of butterfat than in any previous fall since the drought of 1911, and throughout the winter the price of feed is expected to continue un¬ usually high in comparison with the prices of dairy products. After new grass and new grain are availaT^e next summer, dairymen should benefit for a year or more a return to a more favorable relation of the price of dairy products to the price of grain. A low level of milk production this winter is certain. Each month from November 1933 through August 1934 both total milk production and the quantity of dairy products manufactured have been below production in the sane month of the previous year. Still lower levels of production are expected to prevail during the coming winter and spring. Milk production is likely to continue rather low until the summer of 1936 at least, for until a new corn crop can be harvested the shortage of grain is expected to result in rather light feed¬ ing and in lower-tlian-average milk production per cow unless weather conditions or other factors are unusually favorable. The number of milk cows is now being rapidly reduced, fewer heifers are being raised, and the extensive drought damage suffered by pastures, meadows, and new seedings will tend to restrict expansion of dairying during 1935. The current shift toward having more of the cows freshen on pasture in the spring also decreases the prospects of heavy winter production a year hence. Until new feed crops are available prices of dairy products are likely to average higher than during last season but the possibility of importing butter at prices very little above those now prevailing is expected to prevent any great Increase in the price of butter and will tend to limit increases in the prices of other dairy products. Or. The Outlook for Farm Labor, Equipment, and Fertilizer in 1935 ; The price of commodities and services used in agricultural production probably will average somewhat higher in 1935 than in 1934. The sharp advances percent Tin-H dunese indexes about 34 and 36 of f ' r F ' 1 °ll' ab ° Ve thoae P rev niling In the spring of 1934. prices are hlrvSted 0 w Wl11 T"™ 4 ° ^ relaUvely ^ at least until 193?crons prices nso t; P 1T* expected to be ^er in 1935. p a rm machinery and fertilizer prnh vf a sllsirt advance, prices of equipment, supplies, “ , b ,? er Probably will average about the same during the spring of 1935 as a year earlier, but prices of building materials be slightly {ower duction^nd^or 1- ? 1 l6Vel ° f f iCeS paid by farmers for commodities used in pro- s“tomLfl Q 33 to foo W3eOS advanced from 1° 7 P erc ent of the pre-war average in tober 1 report a per S in September 1934, Para wages, based on the 0 c- tober 1 report, advanced from 86 to 93 during the same period, mainly because durW 1? SUPP l y ° f farra TOrkers available, peed prices rose sharply cropTin C 90 t0 122 ? WlnS t0 . the ******* P 001 * fields of-feed , 111 to 162 Prices "--en a,reas. prices of seed advanced even more sharply from advicitt.1 P fv ° r fam aa0nine f y - fertilizer, and building materials the result of hcrT fl Percent from their September 1933 levels principally as whii e costs of en,Tr e t C ° S s Materials and labor in manufacturing industries, percent of thf 19?ST "T "TOliw rose moderately from 106 to 109 i^c 1934 cvmv-pd e • avcra e e ; All major commodities purchased by farmers dur- iy,i4 s - 10TOd soae i-ncrease in price over their 1933 levels. should ^in 8 U r ply of farm workers available for hire farm workers probably will' bp 3 f e nex year as i\i33d. The demand for hired and prospective increases in c?T a aS t a reSult °^ hi S her total cash incomes crease in the demand for £ produotion * In of the anticipated in¬ higher than in 1934 . * "" ° r ’ a ™-wage rates in 1935 should average ably wilT^CTerage^ower^lurin^the fiiVfi f **^ T * t or bulldin S materials prob- half of 1934. t 0 d^tp w v rt1 * S f J ,rat 6 of next year than in the first ally from the relpMveiv M ? S ? le ^ rices of lvnl °^ have been reduced substanti- iJhetLen^hole^r^d^ 1933 ’ U the “ be fully reflected in L P £ C J S is nalntalned • these reductions will not luub^ i B the ^iLini d famerS until of 1935. Since terials crobablv ^ lddl ^S material used by farmers, the cost of all na- expectodlo^chow tutMttn do ™ 7ard alth °^ k other tailiiag material prices are retail prices'of an c -&nge fron present levels. Further reductions in price nei-ite-nree i 1 b lddlng materials nay occur in the latter half of 1935 if price-nai.itenance proviaions ere modified in present lumber codes. are lik ely to^dvTT Ti ^3 S . fpaf e hb ; prices paid by farmers for fam machinery “wev„ L^lfbf^i!^ ^ 19S5 ' ***»*•.** retail Prices of machinery. for any other group fwa'lS'S^o 19^ SS m lt0m9 d90llaed 1053 than thoee costs w°- P foiled? v,‘ * * 19Z3 ‘ Hi S llor Wa « e ra ies and higher material machinery dur-'r' tbo tT Va "? C0 01 about 9 percent in wholesale prices of fam Kerens, nflT* th \ epri ;« ^ 6a “er of 1934. Retail prices have shown an improved outlook^T Eane P oriod - Tbe industry appears to have an of the co-top" ies ^ T eaced by large production schedules planned by several in d! ' particularly in the manufacture of tractors, and the piok-up cent gre ? ff eq T Pnent - U 13 estinated that sales in 1934 will be 55 per- cent greater than sales in 1933. -66 Fertilizer; Retail prices of mixed fertilizers in the^spring oi 1S35 will probably be about the same as in the spring of 1934. prices of potash salts and tankage will be less, mineral ammo n late a about the same or somewhat lower, but cottonseed meal and superphosphate will be higher tnan a ./ear ear¬ lier. The advance in prices of farm products last year indicates an increase in fertilizer consumption in 19 35. The increase will depend in part on the extent of the modification of present acreage-control measures of the Agri¬ cultural Adjustment Administration. IV. The Farmers Dependence on Further Industrial Esp&usion. Farmers as a group now face three major problems. One is how to re¬ store a prooer balance between the several d ranches of agriculture wnere the widespread drought of 1934 brought about great maladjustments betwoen feed supolies and livestock production, the second is how to restore its foreign trade in farm products and the other is securing a larger share of the nation¬ al income. In both of these problems a rising level of industrial activity, and a rising national income are essential. In the production adjustment problems the removal of obstacles to industrial expansion is vital, for other¬ wise the present higher levels of farm prices become impermanent, and greater restriction measures would be called for. A larger share of the national in¬ come could go to farmers as the national income rises with industrial produc¬ tion, particularly if industrial prices make possible a greater purchasing pow¬ er of farm products in exchange for industrial products. Without a furtner ad¬ vance in the national income, farmers will find it extremely difficult to re¬ gain even their pre-depression share. Under such conditions their snare could only be increased through a diversion of income from the other groups through a more liberal processing tax and benefit payment policy or through a reduction in the various items that constitute the spread between the farmers price and the consumers retail price, The bases for these comments are derived from the following facts. . \ A. The Farmers Share of the National Income. The farmers share of the national income has throughout the postwar per¬ iod been abnormally low. This appears to be usual in periods of generally de¬ clining prices. Over the past seven decades there has been a fairly consistent relationship between the percent of the gainfully occupied population employed in agriculture and the farmers share of the national income. Thus in 1870 when those employed in agriculture constituted 53$ of the total, farmers received 26.5$ of the national income. In 1900 when 36$ were gainfully occupied in ag¬ riculture, agriculture^ share of the national income was 20.0$ and in 1920 when 26$ of the gainfully occupied were in agriculture, their share of the na¬ tional income wa3 about 17$, According to this long-time relationship for decades characterized by relatively high or rising prices, the farmers share of the national income should have heen about 15 to 16$ during the decade prior to 1930. Actually, according to studies of tho Brookings Institute, the agricultural share was about 12.5$ during the years 1921-1925 and 10.7$ during 1926-1929. i - 67 - The? 1936-29 percentages in spite of the industrial prosueritv of that penod was about a third lower than, the longtime relationship indicated In ' thence depressed years of 1880 aud 1890 , the farmers shar^ ^s^llf^laUve- declined^to 7 S w ° ■ show the farmers share of the national income had Payments 1 i S' h ? 1934 may be as much as 8 -<$ without benefit and relief 23« of\ h rL?nf “ Cludl ? e tbose P^nts. Assuming that there are now about incom; *Lfd ™dtr P 7 e i in 1 agrl ? UltUre ’ th ® farmers share ° f national 15^ n-r * * ° to long-time relationship for good years, he about agriculture“nf er r/° r ^ ab0ut 13 *‘ For a bett ^ baCe’between lSst a.third ln * 1Stry ’ the farmers ret ^ns would need to be raised by at l acrordonor^t^ 10 ^ * h ® farmers share of the total income more nearly in 2 billion dl f P ‘tendencies would mean an increase in farm income of about Movement in fo™'< 7 ^ ab ° V ® “ S 1934 level - “ d ab ™t »»(* of an im- P m nt m farm income as was made between 1932 and 1934, B. _ Factox s — That —Limit the ^Recovery in Agriculture deter™ T ° a Very larse ex tent the level of farm income is of Products f y ey ! d 0f 0ther ^oups. This is especially true in the case nets sold chiefly m the domestic markets and less true in the case of snruTrf'T^ 6 pr ^ ces of whlch are determined by international conditions of P^rL ? d T^ d \. 11115 in teriependence is illustrated in Figure 20 (and also anSTliVf and ?L?!“ th * course ot industrial workers incomes is compared D fr ?i 1924 through 1934 with the gross income from three groups of farm products. It IS clear that during the 1924-1929 period the gross returns t, we“e U d^L° d s 7 P ° ultry products, fruits and vegetables and meat animals that fv. raina very largely by the course of industrial workers incomes, but ■ e level o, returns from grains and cotton was being pulled down by a de¬ ne m foreign demand and accumulating surpluses. Since 1932 there has been a ‘P rocovery in income from grains and cotton partly because of the several ^. asures to bring about recovery in these two commodities and partly because prices of international commodities rise much faster during the first phase of L d0 prices that are essentially determined by'domestic demand con- fn.uf* i 6 C ?' lI 5'n Se °f * ncomes 0f mea -t animals, dairy and poultry products and ^ , ve ^ e a Qs as paralleled the course of incomes of domestic consumers, return"*" c re lati on ship is likely to be the controlling factor in the gross returns to producers of these products in the future. 4 . , —- l a tiye^.y hi ^i__ industrial price s. Another limiting factor in agricul- . 1 C £7 er f is the conti ™ied disparity between agricultural and industrial lon ^“ tirne relationships between these are indicated in Figures 21 , ’ -^rffare 21 shows the annual fluctuations in wholesale prices of farm « 0 S J an . non-a ^ricultural products and the extent to which the changes in x rm products differed from those of industrial products is indicated in Figure ; 1910 agricultural prices had attained a relationship to industrial prices jvhich prevailed through the 20-year period, 1910-1930, with''.the excep¬ tion oi the relatively sharper advance in agricultural prices during the war INCOME OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS AND CASH INCOME FROM FARM PRODUCTS 1924-1929 5 100 PERCENT During the prosperity years 1924-1929 the gross income FROM EXPORT CROPS (grains AND COTTON^ DECLINED WHILE IN¬ COME FROM MEAT ANIMALS AND OTHER FARM PRODUCTS PRODUCED LARGELY FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKETS SHARED IN THE STABLE LEVEL OF INCOME OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS. THE INCOME FROM INTERNATION¬ AL PRODUCTS FELL MUCH MORE SHARPLY IN 1930 AND TO A MUCH LOW¬ ER LEVEL IN 1932 THAN DID THE INCOMES FROM OTHER PRODUCTS. Since then, they have shown greater recovery. This has serv¬ ed to stimulate industrial activity and industrial payrolls WHICH IN TURN HAVE INCREASED THE RETURNS ON THE PRODUCTS PRO¬ DUCED LARGELY FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKETS. Figure 20 Index Numbers of Wholesale Prices of Farm and Nonagricultural Products, 1798 to Date _ II V / .1** t .> > A 1 C- i i i m o o — OJ Ratios of Prices of Farm Products to Prices of Nonagricultural Products, 1798 to Date a UJ X z X o < o UJ X — X H X o ac -1 o UJ _J H mm o h* UJ _j (0 > ad to UJ UJ < (5 to * < oc >- u < co > 2 cr> < — QC >- < z < UJ — 2 >• to o I- mm X o H UJ D < a o a o (0 QC UJ z CL o o z —> a < J- oc X < o a u. X z UJ o Lu o O (0 «• o UJ X z 3 H _ » * < UJ o > tr — C3 UJ I C5 * -1 Z < < a 2 X z QC o < O X z UJ • •> CO o UJ a: H X < H UJ z >- QC <0 3 K- ^ K- UJ CO UJ X QC a: H < to < 2 < CL * UJ in • -1 UI CO UJ < x cr» o (0 *- — z UJ < -1 z U. > o — O Q X < * UJ H 2 QC H UJ — < Z X H CL UJ 1- o >- C3 UI H Z z QC < < — QC UJ H 3 X < O »- CM CVJ Ui ad D O iZ 'i - 71 - a nd their relatively sharper decline during the iq?o iqpt j ^ 23 sra-iJ?.ss rise i- - +4 n j Uotrial Products Can be accomplished either through a rise m tne national income or lowering industrial prices and costs. min-i— .tf 106 t ' r ?' l ds l n tT7 ° P °et-war periods. Relative to the per- Wre thecourse ofS prices, it is of some interest to rr . 11 ,v 1 „ . , e . P ric ©s m recent years with the course of -price ^ in of^fri ^ C1 I U Iar ' ? ^ 23. wholesaleTprices tohase ^3^ deo11 ^ ^t^ V ^ e peSlf a i864 r . If p r i“s" in 193d should the,* Smi^Hy £*" pr.ce bonavior during these two periods still more striking y 1:1 to -v-ric-StSf and f i ^ K10C betWOer - the siare of the national income going baltnced^itontton h\° tacT '^ 0V P s is intimately related to the prewat'W rto^tural Sd ndus?ri fu a « Pic,,ltural ^ industrial prices and ag- cos-'i-ig ^ production. The volume of output of factories pri- outm^nff^f?^ products in 1932 w a s only 18* lower in 1929* whereas the lower Vln in S' pr °* e ® 8od industrial raw materials was nearly 60* ' ducto atout 21 * 9 towe/ ""i 1929 l™. 5 * ^ial'pro- tra?? d h h S29 ri 1 9 Slr tS V* * ^ “* ^ ^ ^ is I nearly 40* In prtco^ indu^ri f oduct ? wi f a 1».« of 15* in volume and ( Table 281 It to Moh ? * ? products of 43* in volume and 14* in price. tSala-nd industrial uri 13 that the dl8 P arlt >- between JUcul- nent i- 4-*’ + • , al P f ices wou l d be very largely removed if a sharp improve- trUlhV;duc io^lr UOt b°\ Ber \ t0 40208 Pi**. A sharp increase to tndus- domestio ™rc’to«to!' c °' A P anl ® d ^ substantial re-employment would increase the prices a ennatoP?’ 7e T for farn Products and therefore raise agricultural be stinulai.^ v d b J S ^ crease irL industrial production would undoubtedly also W t'^ 2fLt e nf°- 0n i: \ the lCTel of . industrial prices which wo^ld uots. " increasing tne relative purchasing power of farm prod- is indie'sted^in’Pi°urht/ al i 10rS dnt ° reSt *" a rise agricultural activity to date is oo-trastod wito t " 6 C °r' E0 of industrial production from 1899 industrial f. d *" t “ 9 courso of employment and population. In 1929 of to t m , " r S a l r ! th “ three tiass that of 190 °- A continuation apotox-instol- 3?S nf°^ Sr i°^o ^ 0811 f ° r a VOlUne at the P«««t tine of C, i °; tJle 1900 level. Actually, our recovery of 1933 and 1934 ^ V 0 lu d e 1 - lino Wiit a leVel f ab0Ut 2°** ° f the 1900 ^ei so that to regain tri i a ith our P re ~ d cprcssion trend, we need an increase in indus conW-ue'lrbe ?■ ^ *#' Uatil 8 ^ « expansion takes pl^e! there "ill the Veantimp '.J disparity between agricultural and industrial prices unless in the meantime industrial prices should tend downward. INDEX NUMBERS OF WHOLESALE PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS FOR TWO PERIODS, 1851-1904 AND 1905 TO DATE \ % % O o 4 - « » —^ cr> i O 5 > 1 ---*1 * -4 __ \ «n (M o> ~\ f * v / JV to 2 o CM an "\ > r>e^ V- • \ \r> V c \ ■» » It S* c N — 10 O co 4* — **> 00 CD 00 <0 O r- ro co — m r- cm oo - o — -J < u X UJ z a. UJ — — -I -1 _j -J — o < X UJ a; 2 5 o o UJ j- uj oj kJ tr _j co 00 c < D 00 3 b O o — 1 — _l 3 H* a r) o O CO o o z ft O < 3 < cD Ol • < z in — C0 Li- o UJ — CD 00 a. w H X CT> 00 o 1- u — — cc Mm UJ z o 2 X — z z H < _l — — tt u. o -J < UJ CO co < Q. o a UJ Ul 2 U O to UJ o o « co X cc cc > ri h- 0. a. CO 4 I A Table 26 . - Agricultural and Industrial Products 1929 I 100 . Year Production 1927.. . 1928.. . 1929.. . 1930.. . 1931.. . 1932.. . 1933.. . 1934.. . Agricul¬ tural 1 / 9S 95 100 S7 88 82 93 85 Non- Agr. 2/ 34 93 100 77 58 4l 52 58 Prices Agricul¬ tural 3 _/ 95 101 100 84 62 46 49 61 Non- Agr. 4/ 102 101 100 96 S3 79 78 86 Ratio of Industrial to Agr. Produc¬ tion 3 >/ 86 98 100 89 66 50 57 65 Ratio of Agr. to Industrial Prices 6 / 993 101 100 90 86 58 63 70 1/ Factory Production in industries using agricultural raw materials. T/ oa -p - " " non-agricultural raw materials. 3 ./ ./noiesale prices of farm products* 5 / Col. 2 divided fcy Ll5l? 0mE1 ° ditieS ° ther than food and textile Products. 6 / Col. 3 divided by Col. 4. □: o o o o O o o in o CO OJ CM z X -1 o H < z - 3: 1 a: O H o O D — o x < 1- h~ D o _J O Q »- D D O u. z O Q x o UJ o X 2 cr x Ul > C5 0- -J 1“ o < < < _j -i - x 0. Z < x 2 — — (— UJ UJ o c co I z UJ h* D H D CO co a < 3 Z V X u Q — CD 3 cr z O o — 'sh O z- CO UJ u. — u. cr> H- o • o — < z > o 1-' < h z z — CO — o — a o cr cr — z 2 O UJ 1- — CL < • UJ CO CO x z UJ > UJ o o o 2 o a cr I - 3 2 — CL CO CO J UJ X UJ z o X X -J cr < > < CM CL Q -1 X -j X UJ _J < D UJ _j UJ X D — h- X D O X _J D b. U. 3 H r> a O u. C0 o _ < o X o M lu UJ o o X Z CO — z o — < 2 X — < cr cc 3 H UJ z X co a 1- z — o UJ z o cr < z UJ z UJ — CO CO X t- UJ z < D z 2 X < UJ H — D UJ X X UJ -J X X o X O C5 UJ Ul o > — a UJ UJ X z X x z - o^. UJ oc o — O > z 3 CO LO • CO Ul 5 < co o »- 3 UJ Z CO X CO u UJ X UJ CTi UJ < 0C O > X Ul — X X < < UJ co 1 K U. I o o _ a O 1 ui o UJ _i h Z CO UJ > CTk D UJ X X < — Q O 2 L__ UJ X X Ul 3 ac 2 z — < X UJ Q UJ z CO X UJ < X -J UJ < UJ a lu >- 3 3 X o in O H- 2 — 3 o X UJ o X H co m o X tards further a«riJatural raoverv i, P c^ S • ®T- ° f indu,trial depression re- ?* °f.^ustriaHy unalloyed dSv ua ,^f, n f ^ 6 25 ’ The lar «° ^ol- fams » increasing Were. In toftZSZ ocoa0Qic se ^rity on was acre than 40 # lower than i- 1909 ?v »’ , 19 °5 v * on factor y employment ■the demand for fam labor was aboaf UP ? ly °J tasa lator in relation to recovery in industry in 1934. brought h" 5 J roa ' as in 1929 ' T^e partial People seeking opoortunities iVf^T-f ? t a reduction in the number of problem persists,'there will cint'i^'to IcV? '= a8 . tho cit ? ^employment lag to live off the land, thus incr^si°- . ?*« laPB " of city people seofc- t-10 sane tine decreasing the demand for"? m su P pl - / of farn products and at demand for fam products in the industrial areas. situation to fimprovement in the industrial of industrial activity d^i-^ the prosed J l£We f' '* ich Portrays the course activity in four previous orolo?t-d T d ?Pression contrasted with business of 1933 as steep *, wa^he’i it bXeTl^ ^ «* farmers a no real domestic market for fool J 9 f “ d 137,2 rould still not give time in 1936; or startin' fro? +\i food . a - id industrial products until so?e increase, r.omal Sees * 1934 this rate 7 1937. co..lotions might not ho reached until some time in the rate of Sustrial^reMve^ ;^° s P° ots are «*» intimately bound up with a hot tor balance «** °.n 1 I Business Activity in the U.S. During Five Prolonged Depressions 5 PER CENT f: 100 90 80 120 I I 0 100 90 80 120 I I 0 100 90 80 120 I I 0 100 90 80 120 I I 0 100 *TREND*OR NORMAL ' l6 ' ,7 7 8^9^20^2T^2^3^ l 67 'Z 2 169192 '93 -95 ^96 -97 -93 .33 100 — 90 80 70 60 50 40 V S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTU«e n,| D ,.,„ "“■“*** *««« OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS APPROXIMATELY 40^^ELOW 9 NjRMArw^H A THE CT,V,TY " A8 ST ' LL mestic demand for farm products remains depppU HAT ™ E do " there has been improvement NS depressed although REST ORAT I ON Of BALANCEBEO.NNiRC OF 1933. A »N0 A MORE EQUI TABLE SHARE OF THE NatiZn»i* L PR ‘ CES A N0 COSTS depends upon the removal of obstac/fq i? L ,ncome to Farmers *N0 FURTHER efforts to b«?« !rIS5 L “ to ,N0USTRIA <- REV.VAL sharper expans, on .r °H0us^.i L p R T oouc^ONr ENT * N0 * MUCH Figure 26 THE mm OF THE 3 1935 UNIVERSITY Of ILLINOIS L! pn«ny Of TiiE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS - Pressboard Pamphlet Binder Gaylord Bros., I Makers Syracuse, N. PAT. JAN 21, 1908