THE UNIVERSITY
OF ILLINOIS
LIBRARY
cop. 2-
NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee tor
each Lost Book is $50.00.
The person charging this material is responsible for
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn
on or before the Latest Date stamped below.
Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli-
nary action and may result in dismissal from the University.
To renew call Te I e p h o n e Center, 333-8400
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
MB 05m
L161— O-1096
Prices of Illinois
Farm Products
1931-1934
By L. J. NORTON and
T. R. HEDGES
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Bulletin 422
CONTENTS
FAG
TRENDS IN PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1921 TO 1934
Price Trends of Farm Products as a Group '
Grains
Livestock li
Livestock and Poultry Products 1'
Miscellaneous Products 2(
Changes in Prices in Different Sections 2-
COMPARISON OF PRICES OF INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS, 1931-1933
AND 1934 2£
Relative Position of Different Products, 1931-1933 28
Relative Positions in 1934 36
Range and Variations in September Prices of Individual Products From
1930 to 1934 38
PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS COMPARED WITH PRICES OF
GOODS BOUGHT BY FARMERS, 1931-1933 AND 1934 44
CHANGES IN PRODUCTION ON ILLINOIS FARMS 48
Changes in Crop Production, 1920 to 1934 48
Changes in Livestock Numbers, 1921-1929 and 1931-1933 51
CHANGES IN EXPORTS OF IMPORTANT ILLINOIS FARM
PRODUCTS IN RECENT YEARS 54
Exports of Lard and Pork 56
Exports of Wheat and Flour 57
REASONS FOR THE GENERAL PRICE RISE, 1933-1934 59
Effects of Monetary Policy on Prices 60
OUTLOOK FOR PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS DURING NEXT
FEW YEARS 63
Probable Price-Level for Farm Products 63
Probable Changes in Relative Positions of Prices of Individual Products 64
SUMMARY 65
APPENDIX.. 69
The analyses of prices of Illinois farm products in 1931-
1934, and the forecasts of probable price trends, presented in
this bulletin, were made in late 1934 and early 1935.
Urbana, Illinois December, 1935
Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made
by or sponsored by the Experiment Station
Prices of Illinois^Farm Products
From 1931 to 1934
By L. J. NORTON and T. R. HEDGES*
OME of the most extreme and rapid price changes ever experi-
enced by Illinois farmers occurred during the years 1931 to
1934. While in 1930 prices for Illinois farm products were de-
clining, they still averaged 25 percent above the prewar level (1910-
1914). By the first quarter of 1933, when the low point in the 1931-
1934 period was reached, they had declined to about half the prewar
level. At the end of 1934, however, only twenty-one months later, in-
creases had occurred which brought them back to approximately the
1910-1914 plane, or to 80 percent of the 1930 average. Thus in three
years prices of Illinois farm products declined more than half, and
within two years more they had recovered about three- fourths of their
losses.
In an earlier bulletin dealing with Illinois farm-product prices2
the statement was made that "there are some indications that 1930
conditions reflect the beginning of a new period during which the
general level of prices will be lower than for the preceding nine-year
period." In the same study it was pointed out that "examinations of
declines during other periods when the price trend was downward
shows that only a small part of the decline is typically recovered in the
upward swing of reaction from the decline." The behavior of prices,
not only of farm products but of commodities in general, during 1931-
1934 has borne out these statements.
Two important factors in recent price changes, factors which were
not taken into consideration when forecasts of price conditions were
made in 1930, were the change in monetary policy adopted by the
federal government in 1933 and the severe drouth of 1934. Both
factors operated to raise prices of farm products in manners de-
scribed in detail in subsequent parts of this bulletin. Just how much
effect the monetary change will have on future prices remains a ques-
tion, altho the level will undoubtedly be substantially higher than it
would have been had there been no such change.
'L. J. NORTON, formerly Assistant Chief in Agricultural Economics; and
T. R. HEDGES, formerly Assistant in Farm Management, Department of Agri-
cultural Economics.
'Norton, L. J. Prices of Illinois farm products in 1930. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bui. 365, 1931.
3
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
TRENDS IN PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS,
1921 TO 1934
Altho the present study deals primarily with changes in price rela-
tionships during the period from 1931 to 1934, the graphs herein pre-
sented on price trends go back as far as 1921 in order that a setting
or basis of comparison for the later changes may be provided. The
graphs are not carried back before 1921 because price developments
since that date stand out more clearly when they are not overshadowed
by the extraordinary price changes which occurred during the first
postwar deflation, that of 1920-1921. A period of fourteen years is
long enough to be interesting in itself, particularly when it includes
as many unusual price changes as the period from 1921 to 1934.
All graphs representing price trends show quarterly averages of
actual prices obtaining in Illinois farming communities on the 15th
day of each month, as compiled by the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural
Economics.
PRICE TRENDS OF FARM PRODUCTS AS A GROUP
Changes in the general price-level of twenty Illinois farm products1
by quarterly intervals from 1921 to 1934 are shown in Fig. 1.
I I
ALL FARM PRODUCTS
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935
FIG. 1. — ILLINOIS FARM PRICE INDEX, QUARTERLY, 1921-1934
'The price indexes represented in Figs. 1 to 25 were computed by the
Illinois-U. S. Crop Reporting Service. A. J. Surratt, Agricultural Statistician
in charge.
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
In general the prices of Illinois farm products during 1921-1929
held successively to two levels, the first extending from 1921 to the
middle of 1924 and the other from 1925 to 1929. In the later period
the price index declined from 1925 to the end of the first quarter of
1927, and then worked upward until 1929. From late 1929 until the
first quarter of 1933 the trend was steadily downward, broken only by
one slight upturn in the third quarter of 1932. At the end of the
period of decline, prices averaged just about one-third of what they
had been in 1929.
The upturn in prices during 1933 and 1934 passed thru two phases,
an initial rise following the beginning of recovery in 1933, which
brought the average up to about 70 percent of 1910-1914 levels, and
a second rise beginning in the third quarter of 1934 as a result of the
reduction in supplies caused by the drouth. That it required a stimu-
lant as severe as the drouth of 1934 to bring price averages back to
prewar levels is indicative of the strength of the forces which must
be overcome if 1930-1933 price declines are to be regained in full.
GRAINS
Corn. Corn prices maintained a high and fairly stable level from
mid- 1927 to mid- 1929. In 1930, in spite of a short crop, corn prices
weakened, starting a downward trend (Fig. 2) that continued until the
first quarter of 1933. As a part of the economic recovery that began
in 1933, corn prices advanced rapidly. Early in the following winter
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 2. — CORN: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
BULLETIN No. 422
[Decembi
the government began to lend 45 cents a bushel on corn stored in seal<
farm cribs, a policy which operated to maintain prices around th
level until the drouth of 1934 cut the corn crop and caused furth<
price rises.
It should be noted that the price of 40 to 45 cents a bushel, whic
was established before the drouth, was not much over half the 1921
1929 average. With the development of higher prices for livestocl
especially for hogs, which will no doubt take place when employmer
and general business activity become more nearly normal, corn price
will probably become established at higher figures than the predrout
level even tho much more liberal supplies of corn are available thai
during a drouth year such as 1934. The fact that the high prices pre
vailing at the end of 1934 accompanied a very short crop should not b<
lost sight of, however, by anyone who is attempting to forecast th«
normal level of corn prices over the next few years.
Oats. Oats prices began to display signs of weakness in lat<
1929 and declined steadily "until the first quarter of 1933. Since 193^
the trend has been upward (Fig. 3). Prior to the drouth and th<
severe chinch bug infestation of 1934, a level of 30 to 35 cents i
bushel had been reached.
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 3. — OATS: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
With the decline in numbers of horses practically checked and
some increase likely to occur within a few years, oats prices will
probably be relatively higher than corn prices during the next few
years compared with 1921-1929 averages.
Wheat. Despite one definite rise early in 1928 and a few minor
1935}
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
partial recoveries, the general trend of wheat prices was downward
from the high point reached in early 1925 to the low of late 1932
(Fig. 4). Following the general price decline that occurred late in
1929, wheat prices declined steadily until the middle of 1931 in spite
of various attempts at stabilization by the Federal Farm Board. For
about a year, in 1931 and 1932, the price was stable at a very low
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 4. — WHEAT: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
level. In the second quarter of 1933 wheat prices advanced, with the
other grains, to a level of about 80 cents a bushel, or to about two-
thirds of the prewar average. Even the very short wheat crop of 1934
did not cause a substantial rise in the price of wheat.
On account of difficulties in connection with exportation, the low
world price-level, and the probable necessity of using a larger portion
of the domestic wheat crop for feed than formerly, it is likely that
over the next few years wheat will be cheaper in relation to the other
cereals when comparisons are made with 1921-1929 prices. The level
of wheat prices prevailing in other parts of the world acts as a check
upon wheat-price advances in the United States, because if the do-
mestic price goes sufficiently high, wheat will be imported over the
barrier imposed by the duty of 42 cents a bushel. Further advance in
the level of wheat prices in the United States now depends on further
rise in the world level of wheat prices.
8
BULLETIN No. 422
[December
Barley. Prices of barley during the base period (1921-1929)
were quite erratic, with peaks occurring early in 1925 and the first hall
of 1928 (Fig. 5). After 1929 the general trend was similar to that
of other grains — downward to 1933 and then upward — altho barley
prices were relatively lower than other grain prices in 1929 and did
not decline as rapidly as other grains in 1930 on account of a short
crop. By the middle of 1934 barley prices were above the 1921-1929
level as a result of increased demand and of reduced production
caused by the drouth and chinch bugs.
1921 "22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '20 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 5. — BARLEY: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
Because of the increased demand for barley by the brewing in-
dustry, barley prices during the next few years will probably average
higher than prices of other cereals in relation to 1921-1929 prices.
Rye. Rye prices in general increased slightly from 1922 to 1929
(Fig. 6). In late 1929 a decline began that continued until the low
level of 1931-1932 was reached. Early in 1933 rye prices turned up,
along with other cereals, and have fluctuated between 55 and 70 cents a
bushel since the third quarter of 1933 in spite of a crop in 1934 so short
that some rye was imported over a 15 -cent import duty.
Cowpeas. Prices of cowpeas went thru two cycles from 1921 to
1929 (Fig. 7). Altho the trend was downward from the first quarter
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
140
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 6. — RYE: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
of 1929 until late 1932, the sharpest decline occurred during 1931. In
the first quarter of 1933 the price turned upward, but the rise was er-
ratic and by the end of 1934 cowpea prices were only about 50 per-
cent of the 1921-1929 average. This failure of cowpea prices to rise
with prices of other grains during 1934 may be accounted for by the
favorable weather conditions in the cowpea-producing sections and
the resulting above-average crop in 1934. There is no commercial
400
350
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '29 '30 '31 "31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 7. — COWPEAS: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
10
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
market for cowpeas except for seed, and consequently the demand
for them depends on farm incomes in areas where cowpeas are com-
monly grown.
Soybeans. The general trend in soybean prices was downward
from 1921 to the low levels of 1931-1932, and then upward during
1933 and 1934 (Fig. 8). A fairly regular seasonal variation in prices is
evident. The downward trend from 1921 to 1930 reflects the increasing
production that occurred during those years and the growing tendency
350
300
/• 192 1 -1929 AVERAGE =204.0
50
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 8. — SOYBEANS: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
for the demand to come from commercial processors rather than from
seed purchasers. After the sharp decline from 1929 to 1931, the price-
level reached was but little more than one-eighth of the 1921-1929
average. Early in 1932 a rise began, but gains were erratic, and for
the last quarter of 1934 the average was not quite 50 percent of 1921-
1929 prices.
Compared with 1921-1929 averages, prices of soybeans will prob-
ably continue to average low, because of increased production. In
comparison with prices of other cereals, however, prices of soybeans
are likely to hold a reasonably favorable position, especially if present
reduced cotton acreages, resulting in lower supplies of and supporting
higher prices for oil and meal, are maintained.
LIVESTOCK
Hogs. Hog prices were, in general, fairly high and stable '"rom
late 1924 to mid-1930, with peaks of $12.53 and $12.66 per hundred-
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
11
weight in the third quarters ;of 1925 and 1926, respectively, following
the short corn crop of 1924 (Fig. 9). The downward readjustment
from these peak prices began in the summer of 1926, just as it is likely
to begin in 1936 following the short corn crop of 1934 and the short
hog supplies of 1935.
The great decline in hog prices began in mid- 1930. This decline
did not reach a point at which prices could level off until early in 1932.
The low point ($3.02) came in the fourth quarter of 1932. The long
continuance of this low level, which lasted with fluctuations to the sum-
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '3O '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 9.— HOGS: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
mer of 1934, may be explained partly by the occurrence of an ex-
tremely low level of consumer incomes at the time that the peak of
the hog cycle made necessary the liquidation of excess numbers of
hogs. Moreover the devaluation of the dollar did not act immediately
to raise the price of hogs as it did of grains, because the market for
pork is largely domestic and hog prices must be steadily tested against
consumer incomes, which, in turn, did not rise quickly in response to
the devaluated dollar. And, furthermore, the immediate effect of the
processing tax on hogs, levied at the beginning of the marketing season
of 1933-34 to finance the program of the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, was to reduce the market price of hogs.
Because of drastically reduced hog production, the trend of hog
prices in 1935 will be upward. After 1935, assuming normal crop con-
ditions, the hog price-level will depend primarily on the degree of re-
covery in domestic demand, altho the quantity of supplies, as affected
by control programs and exports, will be an influencing factor.
12
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
Beef Cattle. Prices of beef cattle during the period 1921 to 1933
went thru a complete cycle from low to low (Fig. 10). After the peak
prices of about $11 per hundredweight in 1928-1929, the trend was
steadily downward to the low of $4.25 per hundredweight in 1933, a
decline reflecting both the downward cyclical movement in cattle prices
and the general decline in commodity prices after 1929. The cattle
12
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 10. — BEEF CATTLE: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS
FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
price-cycle was shortened (i.e., the duration of downward movement
was reduced) by the general upturn in commodity prices and the
drouth of 1934, which led to a great reduction in numbers of cattle.1
The cyclical movement of prices and numbers of beef cattle will
undoubtedly be repeated. During the next few years the trend should
be upward, if the liquidation which occurred in 1934 was sufficiently
complete to make further liquidation unnecessary.
Milk Cows. Prices of milk cows followed the same great cycle
as prices of beef cattle, with an upward trend from late 1921 to late
1929 (Fig. 11), and a steady decline from a level of around $100 a
head at the peak to an average of about $35 a head in 1933. Stability
was achieved at the lower level in the first quarter of 1933. With the
rise in feed prices in 1933, dairying became less profitable, and a period
'Total government purchases of cattle in the drouth areas up to November
22, 1934, amounted to 7.3 million head.
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
13
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 "33 '34 1935
FIG. 11. — MILK Cows: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
of liquidation of dairy cows set in. As long as this liquidation con-
tinues, prices of milk cows will lag, but the rise in basic beef-cattle
values will tend to support and raise prices of milk cows.
Veal Calves. Prices of veal calves went thru a cycle similar to
that of beef cattle and milk cow prices, with a peak of about $14 per
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 12. — VEAL CALVES : QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS
FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
14
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
hundredweight in 1929 (Fig. 12). The low point ($5 per hundred-
weight) was reached in 1932, but at the end of 1934 no appreciable
upturn had occurred. This lag reflects the wholly domestic nature of
the demand for veal, and the effects of continued liquidation in the
dairy industry.
The cyclical movement of prices of veal calves may be expected to
be repeated in conjunction with the next cycle in cattle prices.
Sheep. Sheep prices moved steadily upward from 1921 to 1924
and maintained a fairly stable level until 1929, except for a dip in
1926, at about $6.50 per hundredweight (Fig. 13). A sharp decline
began in 1929 and carried sheep prices to a low of $1.98 in the fourth
quarter of 1932. After 1932 a moderate increase in sheep prices oc-
curred, not all of which was maintained to the end of 1934.
i
i
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 13.— SHEEP: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
With a large decrease in numbers of sheep in 1934, and prices of
lambs and wool higher than the low levels of 1932, the trend in sheep
prices should be upward during the next few years. With 1921-1929
prices as a basis of comparison, however, sheep may be expected to
be relatively lower in price than other kinds of livestock because from
1921 to 1929 they were relatively high.
Lambs. Prices of lambs followed a course similar to that taken
by sheep prices during the period under discussion — upward from 1921
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
15
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 14. — LAMBS: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
to 1924, more or less stable at a level of about $12.50 per hundred-
weight from 1925 to 1929, sharply downward from early 1928 to about
$4.50 per hundredweight in the last quarter of 1932, and only moder-
ately upward since then (Fig. 14).
Because lamb prices also were relatively high during the base
period, lambs as well as sheep are likely to be relatively lower in price
than other domestic animals when average prices in 1921-1929 are
taken as a standard.
Horses. Prices of horses were at a low but fairly stable level,
during the base period (Fig. 15). Reflecting the general decline in
commodity prices, horse prices dropped from about $85 a head in
the middle of 1930 to an average of $60 at the end of 1932, a decrease
60
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 15.— HORSES: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
16
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
that was moderate compared with the average of all farm products.
Upon the general rise in commodity prices in 1933, horse prices turned
upward, and by the end of 1934 were again at 1921-1929 averages.
Because of reduced numbers of horses, prices for them will prob-
ably be high in relation to other farm products for a number of years
when 1921-1929 averages are taken as a standard. But on a prewar
(1910-1914) price basis they are likely to be relatively low because of
a permanent reduction in demand.
LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCTS
Milk. During the base period the price of milk on Illinois farms
was quite stable at about $2.36 per hundredweight (Fig. 16). From
.f 1921-1929 AVERAGE '2.36
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '20 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 16. — MILK: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
the last quarter of 1929, however, to the first of 1933 milk prices de-
clined steadily, with only two very brief seasonal upturns. Moderate
improvement has occurred since 1933, partly as a result of scarcity of
feed and reduced production because of the drouth of 1934.
In keeping with expectation, milk prices have lagged behind prices
of grain in the rise since 1933 because grain prices were directly
affected by short crops and the devaluation of the dollar. Milk prices
must be tested constantly against the ability of consumers to buy ; and
this ability was increased only indirectly by the devaluation and not
at all by the drouth.
Butterfat. From 1922 to early 1929 the trend in butterfat prices
was steadily upward, tho at a somewhat irregular rate on account of
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
17
the usual seasonal fluctuations and the minor business depression of
1924 (Fig. 17). In the general price decline of 1929-1933, the down-
turn came early in butter fat prices because they are highly sensitive to
consumer income and form an excellent indicator of business trends.
The decline was steady, except for a brief seasonal upturn in 1931,
dropping from 47 cents a pound in early 1929 to one-third of that price
at the beginning of 1932. Since early 1932, when the low point was
reached, the trend has been gradually but definitely upward.
1921 "22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 17. — BUTTERFAT: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
Continued improvement, however, depends on increased consumer
income in the United States and a higher level of butter prices in
foreign countries. World economic conditions have stimulated butter
production and tended to concentrate surplus supplies in a few markets,
thereby depressing the price in world market centers. Despite a tariff
of 14 cents a pound on butter, low foreign price-levels will check a rise
in domestic butter prices even tho consumers' incomes improve suffici-
ently to justify the higher price.
Chickens. Two cycles in chicken prices occurred during the
base period, one in 1921-1926 and the other in 1926-1929 (Fig. 18).
In 1929, when the decline of the current depression began, the price
of live chickens was at a rather high level. The decline continued with
but slight interruptions caused by seasonal changes, until late 1933.
18
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
The recovery since 1933 has been quite moderate. Chicken prices
have been held down by the liquidation that has taken place in poultry
flocks as a result of the rapid increase in feed prices, a situation that
is to be expected in the early stages of a period of price recovery. Once
this period of liquidation is over, somewhat better chicken prices may
192t -22
'31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 18. — LIVE CHICKENS : QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS
FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
be expected, altho advances will be moderate until general consumer
incomes increase more than they have up to the first of 1935.
Eggs. Egg prices are marked by wide seasonal fluctuations
(Fig. 19). Since 1927, however, there has been a marked reduction in
the price spread between the second and fourth quarters, with the late
spring prices higher than formerly in relation to early winter prices.
This narrowing of the price spread probably reflects a change in the
methods used by poultrymen, many of whom are placing more empha-
sis than formerly on late fall and winter egg production, with the result
that available supplies at those seasons are increased. There has been
a steady decline in seasonal price peaks since 1925.
The general decline in egg prices began in 1929 and continued
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
19
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '26 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 19. — EGGS: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
until the second quarter of 1932. Since then the trend has been very
moderately upward. Altho the temporary influence of shortened pro-
duction may strengthen egg prices, substantial recovery will not come
until general economic conditions favor better prices for all of the
animal foodstuffs, that is, until better employment conditions improve
consumer incomes.
Wool. Wool, which represents the industrial raw materials
better than any other Illinois farm product, recovered in price early in
the 1921-1923 period and maintained a rather high level at an average
of about 35 cents a pound from 1923 to 1928 (Fig. 20), but entered
the great 1929-1932 price decline earlier than most farm products,
falling precipitously from the high point of 43 cents a pound in the
third quarter of 1928 to about one- fourth of the peak value in 1932.
With the upturn in late 1932, wool prices increased sharply, the in-
crease being about threefold in 1933; but upon the cessation of the
textile boom of 1933, they began to drop back. It may be asked
whether stability at about 70 percent of the 1921-1929 average sug-
gests the level of prices which may be expected during the next period
of business activity. Upon a basis of the price developments of 1922-
1923, the best answer would be that the stability reached in 1934 indi-
cates the lower range of such a level.
20
BULLETIN No. 422
[December
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 "33 '34 1935
FIG. 20. — WOOL: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
Because of increased wool production from a larger number of
sheep in the United States, wool prices during the next few years are
likely to be relatively lower than prices of the general run of farm
products if 1921-1929 price averages are taken as standard.
MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS
Hay. Altho hay prices fluctuated widely from 1921 to 1932, the
general trend was downward, with the rate of decrease somewhat more
rapid after 1930 (Fig. 21). Hay prices ranged during this period
from $18.50 a ton in January, 1921, to $12.40 a ton in the fourth
quarter of 1930. By the fourth quarter of 1932 the price had dropped
to $5 a ton.
The decline during the earlier part of this period reflects decreas-
ing demand for hay, caused by a decrease in livestock numbers. The
average acreage of hay harvested in Illinois in 1930-1932 was only
79 percent of the average for 1920-1928, and average production was
only 83 percent. A sharp increase in prices beginning in the first
quarter of 1933, caused by shorter crops and higher feed prices, car-
ried the price up to $14.50 a ton at the end of 1934.
In view of the probable upward trend in production of hay within
the state if AAA programs are continued, the future level of hay
prices will probably be rather low, even in relation to 1921-1929
averages. Declines in hay prices, however, are of minor importance
J9J5]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
21
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '26 '29 "30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 21. — HAY: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
to most Illinois farmers, for most of the hay produced is fed on the
farm where it is grown and feeding value is not affected by price.
Clover Hay. Prices of clover hay have followed practically the
same trend as prices of hay in general (Fig. 22). The decline from
1921 '22 '23
'31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 22. — CLOVER HAY: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS
FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
22
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
1921 to 1929 was not quite so clearly marked in legume hay prices as
in the average of prices of all kinds of hay, but the same general
fluctuations are clearly evident. An important factor in maintaining
the market value of clover hay in relation to nonlegume hay during
the base period was the increasing proportion of the hay supply that
was used for feeding animals other than work animals.
Red Clover Seed. The price of red clover seed has apparently
gone thru a long cycle since 1921, during which price changes have
been quite abrupt (Fig. 23). The trend was upward from 1921 until
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '28 '27 '28 '29 '30
•32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 23. — CLOVER SEED: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS
FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
the peak price of nearly $24 a bushel was reached in 1927, and down-
ward from 1927 to the low of only $4.25 a bushel in late 1932. Be-
ginning with 1933 a definite rise brought the price up to around $11.50
a bushel at the end of 1934.
During the next few years, except upon occasions of very short
crops, prices of clover seed may be expected to be relatively lower
than prices of other Illinois farm products when comparisons are
based on 1921-1929 averages, because of the very high average of
clover seed prices during the base period.
Potatoes. Potato prices are very erratic owing to wide varia-
tions in production coupled with the perishable nature of the crop and
the fact that the demand for it is rather inflexible because of fixed
food habits. This characteristic is well illustrated by the extremely
high prices that obtained in late 1925 and early 1926 following the
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
23
unusually small crop of 1925 (Fig. 24). After this peak, potato prices
declined sharply as a result of progressively larger crops stimulated
by the high prices of 1925-1926 and culminating in the bumper crop of
1928. A downward trend began in the second quarter of 1930 and
continued until the end of 1932. The upturn in 1933, following a
short crop, was very sharp, and prices rose above their 1921-1929
300
1921 "22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 24.— POTATOES: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
350
300
250H-I--
tt 200
in
150
100
1921 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 1935
FIG. 25. — APPLES: QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ILLINOIS FARM PRICE, 1921-1934
24 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
average in mid-1933. The 1934 crop was rather large, and at the end
of 1934 prices were down around 75 cents a bushel.
Potato prices may be expected to be erratic in the future. Lower
labor costs may lower the price in relation to other farm products when
comparisons are based on 1921-1929 averages.
Apples. The price of apples dropped early in the depression
from the 1921-1929 average of $1.72 a bushel at the beginning of 1931
to a low of 60 cents a bushel during the harvest season of the same
year (Fig. 25). Each season from 1932 to 1934 the farm price rose in
the second quarter of the year to a peak higher than that of the year
before. This rise reflects shorter commercial crops each year, as well
as the general recovery in prices beginning in 1933.
CHANGES IN PRICES IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS
The prices and price trends given in the foregoing discussion are
averages for the state as a whole rather than for any particular lo-
cality. Variations among prices prevailing in different sections of
the state might be expected in view of varying local conditions, such
as differences in distances to market or in local demand. There are
rather striking indications, however, that declines in prices of the
various commodities during the past five years (1930-1934) were fairly
uniform in all sections of the state, and that, where variations in
amounts of price declines did occur, the larger decreases in price were
usually in those districts where prices had been relatively high. There
are also some indications of price adjustments among the districts, as,
for example, the decline of wheat prices in the western and south-
western parts of the state, and the rise of hog prices in the eastern part
of the state.
Averages of prices prevailing in different districts of the state for
the five years (1925-1929) before the price decline occurred, and for
five years (1930-1934) during and after the decline, are shown in
Table 1. For the period 1925-1929, price variations among the differ-
ent sections of the state were reported in considerable detail in Bulletin
363 of this Station. The purpose of including here some of the facts
presented in the former study is to provide a basis upon which to
point out variations which have occurred in the extent of change in
the different districts as a result of the general price decline.
The counties included in the various districts are shown in Fig. 26.
Corn. Differences between 1925-1929 averages of corn prices
and 1930-1934 averages were quite uniform among the various dis-
tricts, except that they were somewhat smaller in the northeastern dis-
1935}
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
25
TABLE 1. — AVERAGE FARM PRICES OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS IN CROP-
REPORTING DISTRICTS OF ILLINOIS, 1925-1929 AND 1930-1934,
AND PRICE DECREASES BETWEEN PERIODS*
District
Price
De-
crease
Price
De-
crease
Price
De-
crease
1925-
1929
1930-
1934
1925-
1929
1930-
1934
1925-
1929
1930-
1934
CORN (bushel)
OATS (bushel)
WHEAT (bushel)
1. Northwest
$ .81
.80
.81
.80
.78
.78
.81
.83
.84
$ .46
.47
.46
.46
.45
.44
.46
.48
.49
$ .35
.33
.35
.34
.33
.34
.35
.35
.35
$ .40
.44
.41
.43
.40
.39
.44
.49
.49
$ .27
.29
.27
.28
.26
.26
.27
.32
.31
$ .13
.15
.14
.15
.14
.13
.17
.17
.18
$1.26
1.28
1.32
1.34
1.27
1.25
1.31
1.40
1.38
$ .66
.68
.66
.66
.64
.64
.65
.69
.68
$ .60
.60
.66
.68
.63
.61
.66
.71
.70
3. Northeast
4. West
4a. West-southwest
5. Central
6. East
6a. East-southeast
7. Southwest
9 Southeast
HOGS
(100 pounds)
BEEF CATTLE
(100 pounds)
VEAL CALVES
(100 pounds)
1. Northwest
$10.40
10.48
10.67
10.64
10.61
10.30
10.39
10.40
10.36
$5.37
5.36
5.47
5.47
5.42
5.30
5.41
5.37
5.25
35.03
5.12
5.20
5.17
5.19
5.00
4.98
5.03
5.11
$9.88
9.69
9.88
9.24
9.35
8.85
8.16
7.52
7.81
$6.50
6.46
5.89
6.07
6.31
5.93
5.73
5.01
4.87
$3.38
3.23
3.99
3.17
3.04
2.92
2.43
2.51
2.94
$12.00
12.01
11.44
11.76
12.05
11.76
11.44
11.85
10.76
$7.18
7.09
6.64
6.84
7.00
7.02
6.64
6.94
6.40
$4.82
4.92
4.80
4.92
5.05
4.74
4.80
4.91
4.36
3. Northeast
4 West
4a. West-southwest
5. Central
6. East
6a. East-southeast
7. Southwest
9. Southeast
LAMBS
(100 pounds)
MILK COWS
(head)
HORSES
(head)
1. Northwest
$12.98.
13.00
12.19
12.71
12.53
12.49
12.07
11.90
11.56
36.59
6.82
6.45
6.73
6.61
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.06
$6.39
6.18
5.74
5.98
5.92
6.09
5.67
5.50
5.50
$ 90
107
76
83
82
81
72
71
64
$52
65
43
47
47
45
43
42
37
$38
42
33
36
35
36
29
29
27
$99
96
86
73
99
96
71
78
70
$81
89
73
63
81
79
70
73
62
$18
7
13
10
18
17
1
5
8
3. Northeast
4. West
4a. West-southwest
5. Central
6. East
6a. East-southeast
7. Southwest
9. Southeast
BUTTERFAT
(pound)
EGGS
(dozen)
CHICKENS
(pound)
1. Northwest
$ .44
.45
.42
.42
.43
.43
.42
.40
.40
$ .25
.25
.23
.23
.23
.23
.22
.22
.21
$ .19
.20
.19
.19
.20
.20
.20
.18
.19
$ .31
.35
.30
.30
.32
.32
.30
.30
.30
$, .18
.21
.16
.16
.18
.18
.17
.17
.16
$ .13
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.13
.13
.14
$, .22
.23
.20
.21
.22
.22
.21
.21
.21
$ .13
.15
.12
.12
.13
.13
.12
.12
.12
$ .09
.08
.08
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
3. Northeast
4. West
4a. West-southwest. . . .
5. Central
6. East
6a. East-southeast
7. Southwest
HAY, ALL KINDS
(ton)
CLOVER HAY
(ton)
1. Northwest
$12.99
14.86
12.02
12.82
15.53
15.96
10.59
14.62
11.58
$ 8.88
10.94
7.69
8.68
9.76
10.00
7.65
10.00
8.09
$ 4.11
3.92
4.33
4.14
5.77
5.96
2.94
4.62
3.49
$13.51
15.64
13.62
14.35
15.45
14.59
13.15
16.48
14.90
$ 9.72
12.59
9.22
10.31
10.69
10.20
9.63
11.38
10.07
$ 3.79
3.05
4.40
4.04
4.76
4.39
3.52
5.10
4.83
3. Northeast
4. West
4a. West-southwest
5. Central
6. East
6a. East-southeast
7. Southwest
9. Southeast . .
•Averages of unpublished data compiled by the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates,
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
26
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
trict (Chicago dairy area) and in the central district. The price de-
clines ranged from 33 to 35 cents a bushel, with a decline of 35 cents
common to five districts.
FIG. 26. — LOCATION OF ILLINOIS CROP REPORTING DISTRICTS
These are the districts for which prices are shown in Table 1.
Oats. Declines in oats prices were somewhat larger in the dis-
tricts where they averaged highest during both periods — in the north-
eastern district and the four southern districts. There was thus a
tendency toward more nearly uniform oats prices in different parts of
the state during the period 1930-1934.
Wheat. Wheat prices likewise were more nearly uniform over
the state during the later period. Declines were largest in the sections
where wheat prices were higher in the earlier period, that is, in the
western and southern sections of the state. The maximum variation
in wheat prices among the different districts was 5 cents in 1930-1934
and 15 cents in 1925-1929. This more nearly uniform price over the
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 27
state reflects the disappearance of or decline in the premiums paid for
the softer wheats grown in the western and southern counties.
Hogs. Again there was a tendency toward more nearly uniform
prices among the various districts. Somewhat .smaller declines in hog
prices were registered in sections where averages were lower in 1925-
1929 than in sections where they were higher. Hog prices continued
to be somewhat higher, however, in the important hog-producing sec-
tions in western, west-southwestern, and central Illinois, even tho
prices in the east and east-southeastern districts rose relatively. In
the latter districts a considerable development of local livestock mar-
kets moving hogs to various eastern markets may have been a factor
in raising the price of hogs in relation to prices prevailing in the
western part of the state.
Beef Cattle. Declines in prices of beef cattle were larger in the
northern and western parts of the state, where the average prices of
beef cattle are higher. The western district dropped from first rank
(on a basis of average prices paid for beef cattle) to sixth among
the districts. The variation in amount of change among the different
districts may perhaps be accounted .for in part by a change in quality
of animals upon which prices were quoted. One of the reasons for
differences in average prices for cattle among the districts at any given
time is the difference in type and quality of cattle in the various
districts.
Veal Calves. Decreases in prices of veal calves were quite uni-
form among the districts.
Lambs. Decreases in price were somewhat larger in the north-
ern part of the state where prices of lambs were highest.
Milk Cows. Decreases in dollars per head for milk cows were
largest in the two northern districts, but on a percentage basis the
declines were much the same in the north and south. Average prices
of milk cows in the different districts maintained the same relative po-
sitions in the two periods, largely because of differences in quality of
cows and in proximity to fluid-milk markets.
Horses. An interesting feature of horse prices in the various
districts was the small decline in the southern part of the state. The
small decline there possibly reflects an increased local demand for
horses as a result of a greater interest in farming in the areas of com-
paratively low land values. The largest declines occurred in those
districts in which relatively higher prices for horses prevailed in the
earlier period — in the northwestern, central, and eastern districts.
28 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
Butterfat. Declines in butterfat prices were nearly uniform
among all districts.
Eggs. Declines in egg prices also were nearly uniform among
the districts.
Chickens. Declines in prices of chickens were quite uniform.
Hay (All Kinds). The largest declines in hay prices occurred
in the eastern and central areas where the highest averages prevailed
in 1925-1929. The smallest declines occurred in the east-southeast,
where prices averaged lowest in 1925-1929. Possibly the quality and
kind of hay reported in this district changed between these two periods.
These price changes brought about greater uniformity in hay prices
among the different districts.
Hay (Clover). Decreases in prices of clover hay were largest in
the two southern, the eastern, central, and western districts. The
average price was highest in 1930-1934 in the northeastern district (the
Chicago dairy area) and in the southwestern district, part of which
lies in the St. Louis dairy area.
COMPARISON OF PRICES OF INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS,
1931-1933 AND 1934
In the preceding section the general price trends of various Illinois
farm products, and variations in prices prevailing in different parts of
the state, were reviewed. All of these products had a tendency to
decline in price from 1929 thru 1932, and with a few exceptions to
recover after the early part of 1933. In all cases the decline has been
checked.
In this section is presented the relative positions, according to
prices, of the different Illinois farm products for the period 1931-1933
(including two years of decline and one of recovery) and for 1934.
The average price of these products was 86 percent of the 1910-1914
average in 1931, 58 percent in 1932, and 63 percent in 1933.
RELATIVE POSITIONS OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, 1931-1933
A general decline in prices of all commodities is evidence of the
operation of some common force, rather than of particular forces
affecting various commodities individually. This is particularly true,
so far as farm products are concerned, when price declines for indi-
vidual products are fairly uniform in all sections of the state. The
common force operating during 1931-1932 was primarily the increase
in the value of gold in relation to commodities. This was caused pri-
79J5] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 29
marily by monetary readjustments made by the various countries en-
deavoring to place their currencies back on the gold standard, which
they had abandoned during the war of 1914-1918. This monetary insta-
bility caused a decline in the general price-level in all countries of the
world which were on the gold standard. The difficulties created by
the severity of the decline, and the general depression and financial
panic which ensued, forced prices lower than probably was necessary
to offset the monetary readjustments. The point is that it was a
common factor that caused the decline, rather than particular factors
affecting the supply of and demand for individual products.
The extent of the price decline, however, varied among different
products. The amount of the price decline of any single commodity
reflects the collective effect of all influences acting upon that com-
modity— the common force previously mentioned and all of the partic-
ular forces peculiar to that individual commodity.
In the following comparisons the price of each commodity is ex-
pressed as a percentage of the 1921-1929 average price of that com-
modity. The relative position of any price is always influenced by its
position during the base period, regardless of what base is selected.
If the price was relatively high in the base period, the relative price
for other periods is low, and vice versa. In the 1921-1929 period
horses, hay, barley, and oats were cheap in relation to prewar (1910-
1914) averages, and lambs, chickens, potatoes, apples, wool, red
clover seed, and butter were high.1 Consequently, when prices during
subsequent periods are compared with prices during the base period
1921-1929, commodities in the first group (horses, hay, etc.), which
were relatively cheap in 1921-1929, are usually found to be relatively
higher in price than commodities in the second group (lambs, chickens,
etc.), which were relatively high during 1921-1929. This difficulty
would occur with any base period which might be chosen. The use
of a base period nine years long, however, tends to reduce the differ-
ences, since the longer the period the greater the likelihood that it will
include periods both of high and of low prices.
The positions in 1931-1933 and in 1934 of the various farm prod-
ucts, grouped by classes, are shown in Fig. 27.
Grains. The grains were relatively cheaper than other commod-
ities in 1931-1933, the median of the group being 44 percent of 1921-
1929 prices. The medians for the livestock group were 59 percent,
for the livestock and poultry products group, 50 percent, and for the
miscellaneous group, 58 percent.
'111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 363, p. 518.
30
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
Compared with 1921-1929 prices, prices of feed grains were highest,
bread grains second, and legumes lowest.
Barley stood at the top of the grain group during the period from
1931 to 1933, with an average price that was 59 percent of 1921-1929
1934 (12 MONTHS)
D 2O 40 SO 80
BARLEY
OATS
CORN
RYE
WHEAT
COWPEAS
SOYBEANS
LIVESTOCK
HORSES
BEEF CATTLE
MILK COWS
VEAL CALVES
LAMBS
HOGS
ANIMAL
PRODUCTS
MILK
CHICKENS
EGGS
BUTTERFAT
WOOL
MISCELL-
ANEOUS
POTATOES
APPLES
HAY
CLOVER SEED
23 ILL. FARM
PRODUCTS
FIG. 27. — COMPARATIVE FARM PRICES RECEIVED FOR DIFFERENT ILLINOIS
FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1933 AND 1934
During the period 1931-1933 the prices of grains, as compared with 1921-
1929 prices, had declined more than the prices of other groups of farm products.
In 1934 the decline had been checked, and prices of all the farm products except
hogs, beef cattle, milk cows, veal calves, and chickens were higher. The different
products changed their relative price positions considerably in 1934 as compared
with 1931-1933. Recovery was most marked in crops. Livestock and livestock
products lagged behind.
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 31
averages. Oats were second, with a price averaging 50 percent of the
1921-1929 base. In general these two grains maintained these positions
thruout the period: barley ranked first in each of the three years, and
oats second in two. Both were very cheap in the base period, judged
by prewar standards.
Corn held third position among the grains over the period of three
years, with a price averaging 45 percent of 1921-1929 averages, but
was fifth in both of the last two years.
Rye and wheat were fourth and fifth for the three-year period,
averaging respectively 44 and 43 percent of the 1921-1929 base. In the
last two years rye occupied third position and wheat fourth.
At the bottom of the list were the two legume crops, cowpeas and
soybeans, with average prices that were 38 and 30 percent respectively
of the 1921-1929 averages. Soybeans ranked seventh each year. In
part, this low relative position of soybeans reflects a relatively high
position during the base period. Soybeans were then a new crop and,
especially in the early years of the base period, were marketed largely
as seed for the increasing acreage of an expanding enterprise. The
low position in 1931-1933 also reflects the effect of expanding produc-
tion at a time when marketing outlets were still in the process of
development.
Changes in Production of Grains, and Other Factors Related to
Grain Prices. Under modern marketing conditions prices of the
principal grains are determined from hour to hour by the interplay of
supply and demand as expressed thru transactions on the principal
produce exchanges. These prices are easily obtainable and generally
known. Consequently, when transportation and communication fa-
cilities are not disrupted, the price of a given grade of grain in one
locality seldom varies by more than the transportation and handling
differential from the price of the corresponding grade of grain in an-
other locality.
It is because of this sensitivity of grain prices that it is necessary
to consider the factors affecting prices of grains in the United States
as a whole when analyzing the factors responsible for prices of grains
in Illinois. Production is obviously one of the most important of such
factors. The average annual production of grains in the United States
in 1930-1932 and 1920-1928 are shown in Table 2. In general, the
production of barley, wheat, and soybeans during the later period in-
creased, whereas oats, corn, and rye production declined.
The United States barley crop, relatively highest in price among
the cereals (see page 30), averaged 41 percent larger in 1930-1932
32
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
than in 1920-1928. The favorable price position of barley at a time
when production was relatively high indicates an increased demand for
it in relation to other cereals, an increase in demand which can be
largely explained by the increased activity in the brewing industry,
which uses large quantities of barley. Exports of barley dropped
from an average of 30 million bushels annually in 1920-1929 to about
7 million bushels annually in 1930-1932. The demand for barley
was strong enough to maintain a relatively high price position with-
out heavy exports.
TABLE 2. — CHANGES IN AVERAGE ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF Six CROPS IN THE
UNITED STATES, 1920-1928 AND 1930-1932-
Crop
Average bushels
per year
1920-1928
Average bushels
per year
1930-1932
Ratio of second
period to first
Corn
millions
2 321.2
millions
2 156.6
percl.
92.9
Oats
1 250.4
1 216.5
97.3
Wheat
822.1
855.3
104.1
Barley
190
268.1
141.1
Rye
56.4
39.7
70.0
Soybeans
6.6b
13.6
206.1
•U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook. 1934. *>Data for 1924-1928 only.
The production of corn and oats, the two major feed grains, aver-
aged lower in 1930-1932 than in 1920-1928. Corn production declined
7 percent and oats production 3 percent. In the later period the corn
crop was very short one year, large another, average the third. The
three oat crops were about average. Exports of corn in some years
of the base period were quite large, with the net exports averaging
52 million bushels (nine-year period July 1, 1920, to June 30, 1929),
compared with net exports of only about 5 million bushels a year in
1930-1932. Exports of oats averaged 17 million bushels and 4 million
bushels respectively in the two periods. In the disposal of the total
supply of both corn and oats, however, exports are an insignificant
item.
Two of the wheat crops during the period from 1930 to 1932 were
larger than average, and the third was only slightly smaller than
average. Consequently the average annual production of wheat in the
United States was 4 percent larger in 1930-1932 than in 1920-1928.
In relation to the human population of the United States, the domestic
wheat supply diminished, for the population is estimated to have in-
creased 10.8 millions, or 9 percent, between the mid-points of 1920-
1928 and 1930-1932. It is thus obvious that the slight increase in
domestic wheat production did not cause the relatively low price of
1935} PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 33
wheat. The cause was rather the decline in export demand. Average
net exports of wheat, including the wheat equivalent of exported
flour, declined from an average of 200 million bushels a year in the
nine-year period from July 1, 1920, to June 30, 1929, to an average
of 89 million bushels in the three-year period beginning July 1, 1930
(see page 58). Inasmuch as wheat production declined only slightly
in relation to the increase in population, the decline in wheat exports
caused the accumulation of a carryover which, on June 30, 1933,
amounted to approximately 400 million bushels. Average annual wheat
production by all countries (except Russia and China) in the period
1930-1932 showed an increase of about 430 million bushels, or 13
percent, over that of the period 1920-1928 — an average yearly increase
of about 2 percent between the midpoints of the two periods. Russia
exported an average of about 90 million bushels a year during the later
period, compared with a negligible amount during the years immedi-
ately after the war. As a result of the changes in world wheat produc-
tion and consumption, the accumulated world stocks of wheat increased
heavily, and the largest concentration was in the United States. The
peak of this accumulation occurred in 1933.
The damming back of wheat in the United States was accompanied
by a decline in the domestic price of wheat relative to the prices of
other cereals. Wheat dropped to the status of a feed grain in many
sections of the country. The estimated quantity fed on the farms of
producers increased from an average of 43 million bushels a year for
the period 1920-1928 to 150 million bushels in 1933.
Average annual production of rye in the United States in 1930-
1932 was only 70 percent as large as in 1920-1928. The relatively low
price of this grain, therefore, was not caused by high production.
Exports of rye in 1930-1932 averaged less than half a million bushels
a year, while they averaged 30 million bushels a year in the earlier
period. The 16-million-bushel reduction in the average annual pro-
duction of rye was thus only about half enough to offset the decline in
exports, and the forcing of the remainder into other uses tended to
lower the relative price of rye. Because of short crops in 1934, how-
ever, some rye was imported into the United States. Average annual
production of rye in all countries (except Russia and China) in 1930-
1932 showed an increase of 97 million bushels, or about 2 percent a
year, over that of 1920-1928.
Estimates of soybean production in the United States go back only
to the 1924 crop. The average crop from 1930 to 1932 was twice as
large as from 1924 to 1928. This increase in volume of production,
34 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
changing soybeans from a crop largely disposed of as seed to one
which went in considerable part to mills for conversion into oil and
meal, accounts for the lower relative position of soybean prices. This
adjustment is natural, and is common to all new crops which achieve
commercial importance.
Livestock. During the period 1931-1933 average prices of
horses (80 percent of 1921-1929 prices) were highest of the livestock
prices as compared with prices during the base period 1921-1929. In
each of the three years horses ranked either first or second in price.
The relatively high horse prices in 1931-1933 are explained (1) by
the relatively low price of horses during the base period as compared
with prewar prices, and (2) by the increasing scarcity of horses in
1931-1933 in relation to demand. From a long-time standpoint, de-
mand for horses is much reduced compared with that which pre-
vailed in the pre-tractor and pre-automobile era.
Beef-cattle prices, which during 1931-1933 were 67 percent of 1921-
1929 prices, held second place among livestock prices. In each of the
three years beef cattle ranked either first or second. As the beef-cattle
industry was in the expanding phase of its cycle in this period, there
was a tendency for prices to be maintained until it became necessary
for stockmen to increase their marketings, which occurred in 1933.
Milk cows ranked third in price position, averaging 60 percent of
1921-1929 prices for the three-year period, and also being in third
place in each of the three years. In general the trend of prices of milk
cows tends to follow basic beef-cattle prices.
Prices of veal calves held fourth position, averaging 59 percent of
1921-1929 prices for the three-year period, and occupying fourth rank
in each of the three years. Correlation with cattle prices is obvious.
Lambs, at prices averaging 50 percent of 1921-1929 prices, ranked
fifth in the livestock group. That, judged by prewar prices, lambs
were rather high in the base period, would partially account for their
relatively low position during 1931-1933. The relatively low position
may be further explained ( 1 ) by an increased supply during a period
of liquidation in the sheep-industry cycle ; (2) by the circumstance that
demand for lamb meat — a semi-luxury type of meat — was probably
more adversely affected by the depression than the demand for some
other classes of meat ; and (3) by low wool prices exerting a depressing
influence on lamb prices.
Hogs ranked sixth among the livestock in 1931-1933, their prices
averaging 48 percent of 1921-1929 prices, and holding sixth place two
years and fifth one year. The relative price (48 percent) was close
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 35
to that of Corn (45 percent) during this period. The relatively low
hog prices in 1931-1933 were largely the result of (1) a steady decline
in the domestic consumer income — the chief factor in the situation,
and (2) weak export markets for lard.
Sheep held lowest place among the livestock in 1931-1933, their
prices averaging only 42 percent of the 1921-1929 base. Low prices
for lambs, combined with still lower prices for wool, explain the rela-
tively low prices for sheep.
Livestock and Poultry Products. The relative positions occu-
pied by the five livestock and poultry products during the three-year
period 1931-1933, when 1931-33 prices are expressed as percentages of
1921-1929 prices, were, from highest to lowest, milk, chickens, eggs,
butt erf at, and wool. These products were, on the whole, relatively
cheaper than livestock probably because they were all, compared with
prewar prices, high during the base period.
Milk ranked either first or second in price during each year of the
three-year period and averaged 62 percent of 1921-1929 prices. It was
relatively higher than any of the grains and was exceeded only by
horses and beef cattle in the animal group. That milk was consider-
ably higher in price, relatively, than butterfat may be explained by the
fact that the method of marketing milk tends to hold up its price and
there is a more stable demand for milk for such uses as food for
children. Declining rates of consumption indicate that the price of
milk was held too high in relation to other foods by means of or-
ganized marketing methods.
Chickens in 1931-1933 ranked second among the five livestock
products, prices for them averaging 57 percent of 1921-1929 prices.
During the base period the price of chickens was rather high compared
with prewar standards. In 1933, chickens dropped to fifth place as a
result of increased marketings caused partly by the rapid rise in grain
prices.
Egg prices in 1931-1933 averaged 50 percent of 1921-1929 prices,
giving eggs third rank among the five products here considered. They
were relatively about 15 percent higher than the average of corn and
wheat prices.
Butterfat prices in 1931-1933 averaged 49 percent of 1921-1929
prices, giving this commodity fourth place among the five products.
This relatively low position was largely the result of two factors.
First, consumer incomes were low. Butterfat prices reflect very closely
changes in consumer incomes, as the market price of butter is fixed
36 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
daily, and the product may be held in storage for only comparatively
short periods of time. Second, the butter market, during this period,
absorbed large surpluses from the fluid-milk industry. Butter is al-
ways the safety valve of the dairy industry, absorbing surpluses
which cannot be disposed of as fluid milk or otherwise. In times of
slack general demand and lagging fluid-milk prices, a relatively large
part of the total milk supply must be diverted to butter manufacture.
Wool, at prices averaging 45 percent of 1921-1929 prices in 1931-
1933, ranked fifth among the five products in 1931 and 1932 and first in
1933. This low position during the first two years reflects the slack
demand which might be anticipated in a period of severe business de-
pression when consumers postpone the purchase of woolen clothes.
Furthermore supplies of wool were relatively larger during these years
than in the base period. The jump in the price and rank of wool (a
staple product with an international market) in 1933 was to be ex-
pected upon the adoption of governmental policies permitting the dol-
lar to decline in value. A period of increased activity in the woolen
industry began in the second quarter of 1933 as the prospects for
higher prices were more generally recognized. The adoption of a
system of controlled marketing of wool, the production of which had
been financed by governmentally capitalized institutions, probably had
something to do with timing the change in prices of wool, but it was
not a basic cause of the change.
Miscellaneous Products. The four items included in this group,
ranked in the order of their relative prices for the three-year period
1931-1933, were potatoes, apples, hay, and red clover seed.
Potatoes were relatively highest in price in 1931 and 1933, and
were in second place in 1932. Hay shared first place with potatoes
in 1931, and held third place in 1932 and 1933. Apples, ranking
fourth in 1931, first in 1932, and second in 1933, showed more varia-
tion than any of the other miscellaneous products. Clover seed, the
demand for which arises from the value of clover as a hay crop and
as a soil builder, held third position in 1931 and fourth in 1932 and
1933.
RELATIVE POSITIONS IN 1934
All Illinois farm products except hogs, beef cattle, milk cows, veal
calves, and chickens averaged higher in price during 1934 than during
the three preceding years (1931-1933). The different commodities
changed their relative price positions considerably in 1934 compared
with the earlier period, owing to serious drouth, forced liquidation of
cattle, and completion of the process of monetary devaluation to 59
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 37
percent of the old parity. Recovery was most marked in crops. Live-
stock and livestock products lagged behind.
The price changes discussed in this section will be made clear by
reference to Fig. 27. The 1934 prices, as well as the 1931-1933 price
averages, are expressed in percentage of 1921-1929 prices. The differ-
ences pointed out are thus differences in relationship to the common
base. Furthermore it should be kept in mind that 1934 prices are
not compared with prices that occurred in the low point of the de-
pression, but with the average of the three years that included most of
the period of rapid price decline as well as the bottom.
Grains. No change occurred in the relative positions of the
grains in 1934 compared with 1931-1933. The feed grains retained
the leading positions, with barley at the top, oats second, and corn
third. The bread grains were next, and the two legume crops were
lowest. Price increases for the different grains ranged from 13 to 49
points. The unweighted average increase was 30 points.
Livestock. The changes in the relative price positions of the
different kinds of livestock between 1931-1933 and 1934 were: (1) a
rise in prices of lambs and sheep in relation to cattle; and (2) a drop
in the relative price of hogs, which put them in the lowest place.
The changes in cattle and sheep prices represent cyclical changes.
The cattle cycle was in the liquidating phase in 1934, and increasing
marketings lowered cattle prices in relation to other commodities. The
sheep cycle had, on the other hand, gone thru the liquidating stage,
and sheep prices were turning upward. The sharp rise in the relative
price of wool, which was due chiefly to the fact that wool prices are
rather immediately affected by monetary devaluation, also helped the
position of lambs and sheep. Hog prices lagged because the large
supplies caused by the large corn crop of 1932 were being marketed
until the middle of the year, and because the processing tax tended to
hold down hog prices in the early part of the year.
Price changes for the different kinds of livestock ranged from a de-
cline of 11 points for milk cows to a rise of 20 points for horses. The
unweighted average increase was 2 points.
Livestock and Poultry Products. Wool in 1934 occupied, in-
stead of fifth rank as in 1931-1933, first place among the five products
here considered. This change, which occurred in 1933, was, as stated
previously, an illustration of the elevating effect of monetary devalua-
tion on the price of a staple commodity, the price of which is closely
linked to foreign markets.
Another change in the group was in the relative price of chickens,
38 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
which dropped to last place, a change which had already taken place in
1933, and which reflects the effect of liquidation of breeding stock
when costs (feed prices) rise sharply as in 1933. Feed prices rose
largely in response to monetary devaluation, and thus the immediate
effect of monetary change was to hurt the position of the poultry in-
dustry. When poultry numbers are reduced in response to the less
favorable prices, however, a part of this disadvantage will disappear,
but prices of all the domestically consumed foods will of necessity be
held down in spite of increased feed costs until internal purchasing
power (total wages, etc.) rise sufficiently to enable the market to ab-
sorb the normal supply at an increased price.
Price changes in this group ranged from a decline of 3 points for
poultry to a rise of 26 points for wool. The unweighted average
increase was 7 points.
Miscellaneous Products. All the miscellaneous products were
higher in 1934 than in 1931-1933. The unweighted average increase
was 19 points. Potatoes and hay exchanged relative positions, and the
new order became hay, apples, potatoes, and red clover seed.
RANGE AND VARIATIONS IN SEPTEMBER PRICES OF INDI-
VIDUAL PRODUCTS FROM 1930 TO 1934
The method used in presenting data on prices of twenty-four Illi-
nois farm products in the foregoing section served primarily to show
the average position of individual products in small groups of similar
products. Only the average relative positions were shown, because
comparisons were made between averages of prices extending over
several years.
In this section are presented data showing the distribution or
range in prices of twrenty-one Illinois farm products, and variations of
prices of individual products from the average, during each year from
1930 to 1934. As in the preceding section, however, relative prices
(percentages of average prices during the base period, 1921-1929) are
used instead of the actual prices in dollars and cents. Furthermore
the price used as a basis of comparison in each year is not an average
for the year, but is the price during the month of September.
Analysis of the groups into which the September relative prices
fall indicates that there are definite tendencies for certain classes of
items to fall or rise together in periods of price decline or recovery
(Table 3 and Fig. 28). These tendencies are obscured, however, by
the effects of variations in the size of crops from year to year and
the influence of production cycles on the price position of certain
J955]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
39
TABLE 3. — SEPTEMBER PRICE INDEXES OF TWENTY-ONE ILLINOIS FARM
PRODUCTS, 1930 TO 19348
(Average of September prices in 1921-1929 = 100)
Products
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
Apples
108.9
44.4
56.4
76.6
89.0
Barley
91.7
58.3
38.3
81.7
121 6
Beef cattle
102.2
74.2
66.9
56.0
72.0
Butterfat
94.6
66.5
43.5
46.0
59.0
Chickens
88.3
76.7
53.4
44.2
62.0
92 1
56 8
38 4
42 2
67 0
Corn
109.9
44.4
27.2
50.6
91.0
Eggs. .
77.2
57.0
51.7
45.0
67.4
Hay .
98.5
63.0
42.8
53.3
111.0
Hogs
98.8
55.9
38.9
38.4
63.0
Horses
87.1
75.3
75 3
87.0
105.0
Lambs
71.4
51.9
43.6
55.6
55.0
Milk
99 6
81 9
59 7
59.7
66.4
Milk cows
97.2
70.4
53.5
49.3
52.0
Oats
94.4
44.4
30.6
83.3
133.0
Potatoes
99.2
63.5
37.3
134.9
79.0
Rye
68.2
37.6
32.9
76.5
95.0
Sheep
71.3
42 4
35 7
40.7
41.0
Veal calves
93.7
71.9
51.9
51.9
58.0
Wheat
68.1
31.9
35.3
63.8
81.8
Wool
62.9
41 9
26.9
71.8
63.0
•Basic data obtained from Illinois — U. S. Crop Reporting Service.
classes of livestock and livestock products. A tendency for grain
prices to decrease more than livestock (except hog) prices, and for
milk prices to hold up well thru the period of price decline, may be
isolated. On the whole, however, divergencies from the general trend,
either downward or upward, resulting in a grouping of items, reflect
the combined effect of random or particular influences affecting indi-
vidual products and separate classes of products, rather than a general
influence dividing the commodities into two fairly exclusive groups
which would tend to continue thruout the periods of decline and rise.
In general it is evident from Fig. 28 that ( 1 ) some force operated
to depress prices generally from 1930 to 1932; (2) another force
operated toward a general rise in prices from 1932 to 1934; (3) there
was a tendency for two distinct groups to form on the decline, possibly
indicating some force or forces operating to cause a disparity among
different groups of commodities; and (4) the force causing disparity
on the decline also operated in the first year of recovery, but tended
to disappear in the second, altho a wide dispersion of items developed,
indicating a variety of forces operating.
Distribution of Prices in 1930. In the distribution of the relative
i
prices of the twenty-one Illinois farm products in 1930, there was a
pronounced concentration of items (nearly half) in a group in which
prices ranged from 90 to 100 percent of 1921-1929 averages (Fig. 28).
This concentration might indicate that there was some common force
40
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
operating to reduce Illinois farm-product prices about 5 percent below
the 1921-1929 average. There was, however, in addition to the con-
centration at 90-100, a tendency toward formation of a second group
centered at 70 percent of 1921-1929 averages, in which were included
six items, or nearly one-third of the total.
The major forces responsible for the division of the relative prices
FREQUENCIES
140
'20
wlOO
0 60
a.
40
20
100
290
•
o>
M
»80
§70
60
to*
gg*
[»nM
iir M*'
T
UK <or M.I M
*• tM i« U*
ftV-
S
*'«**
«*«
*>£l«
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
QUARTERLY AVERAGES FOR
PRICE RELATIVES
5 50
DC
30
y^^ /«/>/» Jt/if ocr
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
FIG. 28. — QUARTERLY AVERAGES OF RELATIVE PRICES OF TWENTY-ONE
ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1930-1934, AND FREQUENCY DISTRI-
BUTION SHOWING SEPTEMBER POSITIONS OF RELATIVE
PRICES OF INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS
Certain classes of items show definite tendencies to decline together when
prices are falling, and to rise together when prices are recovering. During the
period of decline from 1930 to 1932 grain prices declined more than livestock
(except hog) prices. Milk prices held up well during the period of decline.
When prices were rising in 1933 and 1934, prices of grains rose higher, rela-
tively, and more rapidly than prices of livestock.
J9J5] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 41
into two groups in September, 1930, were: (1) the dry summer, which
had shortened supplies and increased prices of spring-sown crops and
of forage; (2) the natural lag in prices of dairy products; (3) the
cycles operating in the cattle and sheep industries ; and (4) the weak
statistical position of the bread grains due to declining exports and
accumulation of surpluses. The effect of the dry summer would be
expected to be an entirely temporary factor; and with normal crop
production in ensuing years, crop prices might be expected to feel
the full force of the factors making for lower prices in this period.
The relatively low-price group of products in 1930 included wheat,
rye, sheep, lambs, wool, and eggs — that is, the two bread cereals, sheep
and sheep products, and eggs. The character of the items in this
group indicates the operation of several depressing factors rather than
one. Wheat prices, which toppled to low levels early in the depression,
had since 1926 followed a general downward trend in the face of de-
creasing exports and increasing stocks. Rye prices, sympathetic with
wheat, were forced down by similar conditions. Prices of sheep and
of lambs and wool were lowered from the comparatively high 1921-
1929 levels largely because the sheep-production cycle had reached the
point where marketings were being increased. Egg prices likewise
were at a low point in their cycle. A variety of influences, therefore,
operated to determine the composition of this low-price group.
The relatively high-price group of products in 1930 included ten
items whose prices ranged from 90 to 100 percent of 1921-1929 aver-
ages— crops (oats, barley, and hay), livestock (hogs, milk cows, and
veal calves), livestock products (milk and butterfat), and two mis-
cellaneous products (potatoes and clover seed). Crop prices (except
prices of wheat and rye) were relatively high in 1930 on account of
short production during a dry summer. Corn, altho not in this group,
was higher rather than in the lower group with the bread grains. The
favorable position of the dairy group reflected a tendency for the
prices of these products to lag behind the general movement of prices
in a period of falling incomes and falling prices. Cattle prices were
relatively high largely because the cattle industry was in the expand-
ing-number phase of its cycle and marketings were reduced.
Distribution of Prices in 1931. By September, 1931, prices of all
twenty-one products showed marked decline, and the tendency to
divide into two groups was more pronounced than in the preceding
year (Fig. 28). One group of five items centered at 75 percent of
1921-1929 averages, 20 points below the point of concentration of
the high group in the previous year; and the other group, including
42 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
ten items, centered at 45 to 55 percent of the 1921-1929 averages, also
20 points below the concentration point of the second group a year
earlier. Some common force was evidently operating to lower all
prices in 1931, but indications of forces operating to cause different
amounts of change among specific commodities are to be noted.
The relatively low-price group of ten products in 1931 included five
fruit and field crops (apples, clover seed, barley, corn, and oats) and
five livestock items (hogs, sheep, lambs, wool, and eggs). Wheat
and rye were even lower. Abundant field crops in 1931 brought the
full weight of the price-depressing influence on the crops as a class.
The high group of products in 1931 included five items — beef
cattle, milk cows, veal calves, horses, and chickens.
The effects of the cattle and sheep cycles are evident in this group-
ing. The cattle cycle was still in the expanding-number - higher-price
phase, and the sheep cycle still in the increased-marketings - lower-
price phase. The tendency for fluid-milk prices to lag in periods of
price change is also noticeable. Butter fat prices were below the high
group but higher than the low group. Hog prices, as usual, followed
the grains, but were not quite as low. Horse prices were moving
upward in their cycle, the reduction in numbers having caught up with
the reduced demand.
The tendency for crops to be cheaper than most of the livestock
products in the low-price periods was clearly evident after the effect
of the short 1930 crops in maintaining prices was eliminated. This
tendency is perhaps the only general influence, among the various
forces causing division of the products into groups, which can be
detected by an analysis of the 1931 relative prices.
Distribution of Prices in 1932. In 1932 the two groups of prod-
ucts mentioned above came nearer together, with two points of con-
centration centering at 35 and at 55 percent of 1921-1929 averages,
and including eight and six items respectively (Fig. 28). While some
forces were still working toward separation of these products into two
groups, they apparently were weakening before the common tendency
toward lower prices as the trough of the low-price movement was
approached.
Crop prices in 1932 were still in the low-price group. Abundant
crops in that year reinforced the tendency toward low prices for crops
which occurs in periods of falling prices. Hogs and sheep likewise
were still in the low group. Wool, however, had fallen below this
group, reflecting both the effect of depression on a raw material and the
increased-marketing stage of the sheep-production cycle. The higher-
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 43
price group included milk (which still held up in the face of the gen-
erally low price-level), two items from the cattle group, and poultry
and eggs. The latter apparently had moved into a higher cyclical price
position. The sheep and cattle cycles and the tendency toward cheap
grain prices continued to be important forces causing division of the
products into two groups.
Distribution of Prices in 1933. In 1933 the price trend was re-
versed, and prices rose. There were again two points of concentration,
one group of products centering at 45 to 55 and the other at 75 to 85
percent of 1921-1929 averages (Fig. 28) — from 10 to 30 points above
the points of concentration of the two groups during the previous year.
The low-priced group included a considerable diversity of products:
the three items in the cattle group, sheep and lambs, milk and butterfat,
chickens and eggs, corn and hay. In the formation of this group the
position of cattle was weakened (as compared with 1932) and that of
sheep strengthened by cyclical influences. The dry season contributed
to the strengthening of corn and hay prices.
The high-price group also included a diverse distribution of com-
modities— oats, barley, rye (wheat was in an intermediate position),
apples, horses, and wool. The influence of short crops and the effects
of the monetary policy on prices of staple and export products are
noticeable in this grouping. The high position of potatoes (135 per-
cent of 1921-1929) reflects the small crop of 1933.
Distribution of Prices in 1934. In 1934 the formation of two
groups of products, noticed in each of the three years after 1930,
failed to occur, the influences toward dispersion overcoming the ten-
dencies toward grouping (Fig. 28). One modal group of ten lower-
price products was formed, however, with prices ranging from 50 to
70 percent of 1921-1929 averages. Prices of all but three products
rose (Table 3). Products in the price ranges above the modal group
extended in a long tail upward to rather high values. The oats price,
at the top, was 133 percent of the 1921-1929 average. The wide dis-
persion of prices in 1 934 — wider than in any other year — indicates
that the economic situation was very unsettled. The various commodi-
ties reacted very differently to the extraordinary circumstances which
prevailed.
In the formation of the modal group (at 60 to 70 percent of 1921-
1929 averages) and the next lower group, the livestock products came
together and held a better balance than had existed among this class of
prices since before 1930. The two groups included hogs, milk and
butterfat, lambs and wool, chickens and eggs, and veal calves and milk
44 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
cows. Beef-cattle prices were just above these two groups, and sheep
prices were just below. The grouping of the livestock prices resulted
from the combined effects of the upward movement on the general
level of prices and the cyclical movement of different items within
the group.
The prices of the relatively high-price commodities in 1934 ranged
from 80 to 140 percent of 1921-1929 averages, and included the cereal
crops, hay, horses, and apples. The effects of short crops and the
cyclical scarcity of horses are apparent.
PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS COMPARED WITH
PRICES OF GOODS BOUGHT BY FARMERS,
1931-1933 AND 1934
The best indexes of prices of goods bought by farmers are those
calculated and reported quarterly on a 1910-1914 base by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture from information collected from a large
number of rural merchants thruout the country. For presentation here
these indexes have been recalculated on a postwar base of prices pre-
vailing from 1921 to 1929.
During this postwar base period, prices of Illinois farm products
averaged 32 percent above the average prices during the prewar period
from 1910 to 1914, the cost of goods used in farm operation averaged
44 percent above, the cost of goods used in the farm home averaged
60 percent above, and the two groups of purchased goods averaged
53 percent above the prewar base.
Thus the purchasing power of farm products was lower during the
postwar base period than during the prewar period. Given quantities
of Illinois farm products in 1921-1929 purchased 92 percent as many
goods used in farm operation as in 1910-1914, and 83 percent as many
goods used in the farm home. Or, stated in another way, 16 percent
more farm products were required in 1921-1929 than in 1910-1914 to
purchase given quantities of goods of both classes used by farmers.
Consequently, when 1921-1929 prices are used as a basis of compari-
son for 1931-1934 prices, the ratios between prices of farm products
and of goods bought by farmers are less unfavorable to farm products
than they would be if 1910-1914 prices were used as a standard of
comparison. Prices during 1921-1929 are used as a base, however,
because by their use a more realistic picture of current changes is
secured. Price relationships in the immediate future will probably be
more like those of 1921-1929 than like those of 1910-1914.
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
45
Changes in Purchasing Power of Farm Products, 1931-1933.
Indexes of the prices of various kinds of goods purchased for use on
the farm and in the farm home are given in Fig. 29 for the three-year
period 1931-1933. These indexes may be compared with the indexes
of the prices of farm products in the same period, shown in Fig. 27,
page 30. Reference to these two graphs will show that during 1931-
1933 prices of Illinois farm products averaged 52 percent of the 1921-
1929 base; whereas prices of items used in production averaged 78
ITEM
ITEMS USED ON FARM
FARM MACHINERY
BUILDING MAT. (FARM)
FERTILIZER
EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES
SEED
FEED
AVERAGE
ITEMS USED IN HOME
BUILDING MAT.(HOUSE)
OPERATING EXPENSE
FURNITURE & FURNISH
CLOTHING
FOOD
AVERAGE
ILLINOIS FARM
PRODUCTS SOLD
FIG. 29. — RELATIVE PRICES OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF ITEMS USED ON
FARMS AND BY FARM FAMILIES, 1931-1933 AND 1934
Altho prices of Illinois farm products were higher in the first nine months
of 1934 than in 1931-1933, only a slightly better adjustment between prices of
farm products and of goods purchased was attained.
percent and prices of items used in the home averaged 71 percent of
the 1921-1929 base. It therefore took 50 percent more farm products
to buy given quantities of goods used in production, and 37 percent
more to buy given quantities of goods used in the home, than during
the base period. Because of such unfavorable ratios, smaller quantities
of goods were purchased by farmers, and purchases were largely con-
fined to those classes of goods for which adjustments in price had been
made.
Goods of farm origin were the cheapest of the purchased goods
used by farmers in 1931-1933, and goods of industrial origin were the
46 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
most expensive. Feed averaged 60 percent of the 1921-1929 base;
seed, 70 percent; food, 65 percent; clothing, 69 percent. All these
items are closely related to prices of farm products. At the other ex-
treme were farm machinery, with prices averaging 94 percent of the
1921-1929 base; building materials for the farm, averaging 82 percent;
and building materials for the home, averaging 83 percent. If an
analysis were made of the sales of these higher priced items, it would
be found that they were quite small to farmers in these years.
The average cost in 1931-1933 of all purchased goods used on
the farm was, as stated above, 78 percent, and of all purchased goods
used in the farm home 71 percent of the 1921-1929 base. Of the 24
farm products considered in this study, only one (horses) had a high
enough price (80 percent of 1921-1929 averages) to maintain its buy-
ing power at parity. In other words, the farm prices of all but one of
the 24 farm products were relatively cheaper than the goods purchased
by farmers.
The relative importance to farmers of the different items purchased
by them varies according to the type of farming in which they are
engaged. For example, machinery costs are relatively more important
to farmers engaged in grain production than to those engaged in dairy-
ing, and feed costs are of more immediate concern to stockmen than
to grain farmers. Farm machinery prices averaged 94 percent of
1921-1929 prices in 1931-1933, whereas corn prices averaged only
45 percent. Consequently, more than twice as much corn was required
in the later period than in the earlier to buy the needed farm ma-
chinery. As a result the farm-machinery industry stagnated for want
of sales. On the other hand, milk prices in 1931-1933 averaged 62 per-
cent and feed prices 60 percent of 1921-1929 averages, and it was thus
possible for dairymen to purchase the usual supplies of feed even
tho milk prices were reduced.
Such maladjustments are apparently inevitable in a period of
severe price decline and, of course, tend to sharpen the difficulties
then experienced, for they lead to further reduction in sales of the
higher priced goods ; which in turn leads to increased unemployment,
reduced demands for farm products, and lower prices. More flexible
prices for certain classes of manufactured goods at such times would
operate to maintain sales and check declines in prices of farm products.
Changes in Purchasing Power of Farm Products in 1934. The
price of almost every group of farm and home supplies in the first nine
months of 1934 was higher than the average price in 1931-1933
(Fig. 29). The prices of farm products also were higher, yet only a
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 47
slightly better adjustment between prices of farm products and goods
purchased was attained. Farm products prices averaged 60 percent of
1921-1929 averages; prices of goods purchased for use on farms
averaged 85 percent ; and prices of goods purchased for use in farm
homes averaged 76 percent. For the purchase of given quantities of
goods used on farms and in farm homes, 42 and 27 percent, respec-
tively, more farm products were required in 1934 than in 1921-1929;
whereas 50 and 37 percent, respectively, more products were required
in 1931-1933 than in 1921-1929.
The largest increases in prices of goods bought for use on farms
in 1934 were recorded in the lower-price groups, which were of agri-
cultural origin. The feed index was 28 percent higher in the first nine
months of 1934 than in 1931-1933; the seed index, 14 percent higher;
the food index, 11 percent higher; and the clothing index, 6 percent
higher. Farm machinery and the home-operating-expenses group (in-
cluding fuel, cleaning materials, and automobile fuel and supplies)
were only 1 percent higher. Prices of furniture and furnishings, the
one group which was lower than in 1931-1933, reflects the behavior
of a class of goods made largely for the domestic trade, in the early
stages of a period when incomes are still low and prices of indispen-
sable items (such as food) are rising.
Price increases in one group — building materials — were apparently
too rapid and too large to be supported by prevailing conditions. Prices
for building materials for farm houses were 12 percent higher in the
first nine months of 1934 than in 1931-1933. Compared with 1932,
the low point, the rise was 16 percent. When farmers had little or no
surplus income available for buildings, a price-level of 93 percent of
1921-1929 averages for building materials, with farm products aver-
aging only 60 percent of 1921-1929 prices, did not tend to expand
building activity. That a mistake was recognized by the building in-
dustry is indicated by the decline which took place in the building-
materal index during 1934. For the first six months prices of building
material averaged 94 percent of the 1921-1929 base, and for the second
six months, about 91 percent.
By December, 1934, prices of Illinois farm products, chiefly because
of low production, had risen to 80 percent of 1921-1929 averages;
prices of items used in production, to 91 percent; while prices of
items used in the home remained at 76 percent. Prices of both groups
of cost items combined stood at 82 percent. This represents a sub-
stantial improvement in the relative position of farm-product prices
compared with prices of products used on the farm. Only 12 per-
48
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
cent more farm products than in 1921-1929 were required to purchase
the same quantities of goods used in production; and the same quan-
tities of goods used in the home could actually be purchased with
6 percent less farm products than in 1921-1929. Only 2 percent more
farm products were required to purchase given quantities of the goods
of both classes used by farmers.
CHANGES IN PRODUCTION ON ILLINOIS FARMS
Changes in the volume in which various crops and kinds of live-
stock are produced are both a cause for and a result of price changes.
During the period 1931-1934 several important changes from the
1920-1928 period occurred in the production of crops and livestock on
Illinois farms.
CHANGES IN CROP PRODUCTION, 1920 TO 1934
Changes in the total acreage and total production of crops on Illi-
nois farms over the fifteen-year period from 1920 to 1934 are presented
from two standpoints: first, as differences in average annual acreage
and average annual production between the earlier and later periods
in the fifteen years (Table 4) ; and, second, as differences in the actual
annual production of the various crops (Fig. 30). The first method
of presentation shows the general trend ; the second shows, in addition
to the general trend, variations from year to year. In general, total
acreages of Illinois crops were reduced, during the later period, indi-
cating a tendency to pasture more land or to allow it to lie idle.
TABLE 4. — AVERAGE ANNUAL ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF NINE
CROPS IN ILLINOIS, 1920-1928 AND 1930-1932*
Acres of crop
Total production
Average
per year
1920-1928
Average
per year
1930-1932
Ratio of sec-
ond period
to first
Average
bushels
per year
1920-1928
Average
bushels
per year
1930-1932
Ratio of sec-
ond period
to first
Corn
thousands
9 053
4 355
3 283
2 620
305
180
140
97
52
29
thousands
9 243
4 353
2 376
1 863
319
241
56
334
51
29
perct.
102
100
72
71
105
134
40
344
98
100
millions
324.1
141.3
(4.1>>)
42.8
9.2
2.2
1.3
.4
(7.1«)
millions
328.3
153.2
(2.8b)
35.7
9.3
".8
6.1
.5
(8.1=)
perct.
101
108
68
83
101
'36
469
125
114
Oats
Hay (tame) . . .
Wheat
Barley
Alfalfa.. .
Rye
Soybeans
Cowpeas
Broomcorn
•Basic data obtained from Illinois — U. S. Crop Reporting Service. bMillions of tons.
'Thousands of tons.
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
49
Corn. Corn acreage was fairly stable from 1920 to 1934, differ-
ences in acre-yields being largely responsible for the variations in
production from year to year (Fig. 30). Three of the five crops from
1930 to 1934 were short (1930, 1933, and 1934), and two were bumper
400
300
200
100
« 0
I200
D
ID
S 100
z
° 0
d 50
2
25
.CORN.
"in
H
in iiiiminii
SOYBEANS.
-••••••I
mm
FIG. 30. — PRODUCTION OF LEADING CROPS IN ILLINOIS
YEARLY FROM 1920 TO 1934
The particularly noticeable features of this graph are the increase in the
production of soybeans, the decreases in the production of hay and barley, the
variation in production from year to year, and the sharp decrease in production
of most of the crops in 1933 and 1934. The large decrease in these latter years
was the result of (1) reduction in acreage because of AAA programs and
drouth, and (2) lower acre-yields because of drouth and chinch bugs.
crops (1931 and 1932). The large 1931 and 1932 crops, occurring
during the period of rapidly declining prices, reinforced the tendency
toward lower corn prices. The short crops of 1933 and 1934 have been
one of the causes of the higher prices which have prevailed since the
summer of 1933. The effects of these crops upon corn-price trends,
50 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
however, should not be overestimated, for corn prices began to rise
before the short crop of 1933 was in evidence ; and, in 1930, corn prices
declined in spite of the short crop of that year. As an average of the
two periods, 1920-1928 and 1930-1932, slight increases of 2 percent in
annual corn acreage and 1 percent in annual corn production occurred
(Table 4).
Oats. Production of oats in Illinois has gone thru three cycles
since 1920, with peak production in 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932
(Fig. 30). These cycles represent chiefly variations in yield per acre.
The oat crops of 1930 to 1932 were average or better than average,
whereas those of 1933 and 1934 were the shortest of the fifteen-year
period. The average annual oats acreage during the periods 1920-1928
and 1930-1932 were the same, but the average annual production of
oats in the later period increased 8 percent over the earlier period
(Table 4).
Wheat. Production of wheat since 1920 has been rather irregu-
lar, with the general trend about stable since the wartime scale of
production was reduced in 1923 (Fig. 30). The crop was large in
1931 as a result of high acre-yields. Acreages were reduced in 1932
and 1933, and production was smaller. The average annual acreage of
wheat harvested was 29 percent lower during the period 1930-1932
than during 1920-1928, tho production was reduced only about 17
percent, because of the high acre-yields in 1931 (Table 4). The earlier
period included several of the post-war years, when wheat acreage
was still influenced by wartime expansion. Illinois has a large acreage
which can be planted to wheat when wheat prices become attractive.
Barley. Barley crops increased rapidly from 1921 to 1928, and
then became stable, at a lower level than that of 1928, until 1932
(Fig. 30). In 1933 and 1934 the barley crops were very short be-
cause of drouth and chinch bug damage. The average annual acreage
of barley during 1930-1932 was about 5 percent larger than during
1920-1928, but production was only 1 percent larger (Table 4).
Rye. Average annual acreages and production of rye were about
60 percent lower during 1930-1932 than during 1920-1928 (Table 4),
as a result of liquidation of wartime increases. A similar trend in
spring-wheat production indicates a general reduction in commercial
grain farming in the livestock areas in the northern part of the state.
Soybeans. Soybean production expanded steadily from 1920 to
1931, decreased somewhat in 1932 and 1933, and then increased again,
reaching a new high of nearly 10 million bushels in 1934 (Fig. 30).
Relatively low prices were probably a cause of the decreases in 1932
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 51
and 1933. The expansion in 1934 was the result partly of the AAA
program and partly of increased planting of soybeans (one of the
crops immune to chinch bug attack) because of the severity of chinch
bug damage to cereal crops. Average annual acreage and production
of soybeans, excluding soybeans for hay, were almost four and five
times, respectively, as large during 1930-1932 as during 1920-1928
(Table 4). In 1930-1932 soybeans harvested as seed ranked fifth
among the grains in total acres utilized.
Cowpeas and Broomcorn. Average annual acreages both of
cowpeas and broomcorn wrere approximately the same during 1920-
1928 and 1930-1932, but production of both averaged higher because
of larger acre-yields (Table 4).
Hay. The trend of hay production was steadily downward from
1927 to 1930 (Fig. 30), but was fairly stable from 1931 thru 1934.
In 1933 and 1934 the dry seasons reduced acre-yields. Average an-
nual production and acreage of hay were about 30 percent less during
1930-1932 than during 1920-1928 (Table 4)— a change brought about
by reduced acreages of clover, timothy, and such hays as red top,
for the acreage of alfalfa increased 34 percent, and the acreage of
annual legume hay (soybeans and cowpeas) increased 73 percent
between the two periods. Lower hay-acreage totals reflect reduced
numbers of hay-consuming animals on farms within the state, as well
as a continual adjustment to the loss of commercial markets for
hay as a result of declines in numbers of work animals in cities and on
farms thruout the country.
CHANGES IN LIVESTOCK NUMBERS, 1921-1929 AND 1931-1933
In general, there were fewer animals on Illinois farms in 1931-1933
than in 1921-1928. Numbers of cattle, especially of dairy cows and
heifers, increased somewhat, but such gains were more than offset
by declines in the number of work animals (Table 5 and Fig. 31). The
decrease in number of hay-eating animals, calculated on the basis of
"animal units" (one "animal unit" may be considered as the equiva-
lent of the hay-eating capacity of 1 horse or mule, 1 head of cattle,
or 7 head of sheep), amounted to 6 percent in the later period, — a
decrease which was in part the cause of the downward trend in hay
prices described above.
All of the changes in livestock numbers in Illinois closely parallel
changes occurring thruout the nation. Apparently the forces affecting
livestock farming in Illinois have been about the same as those affect-
ing livestock farming over the country as a whole.
52
BULLETIN No. 422
{December,
Horses and Mules. Numbers of work animals have declined
steadily since 1920 (Fig. 31), continuing a decline which began in
1913 and was caused by adjustment to the adoption of mechanical
power on many farms. There were approximately 75 percent as many
horses and mules on Illinois farms in 1931-1933 as in 1921-1929
(Table 5). But the trend in the last few years indicates that the turn-
ing point in numbers of horses and mules is not far away. The de-
crease between January 1, 1933, and January 1, 1934, is estimated to
have been only 17,000 head, whereas the average annual decrease for
TABLE 5. — AVERAGE NUMBER OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS ON ILLINOIS FARMS,
1921-1929 AND 1931-1933*
Species
Number
1921-1929
(Jan. 1)
Number
1931-1933
(Jan. 1)
Ratio of second
period to first
Horses
thousands
1 037
thousands
773
perct.
75
Mules
162
129
80
Total, horses and mules
1 199
902
75
All cattle and calves
2 308
2 384
103
Dairy cows and heifers
1 017
1 089
107
Sheep and lambs '
623
737
118
Swine
4 960
4 952
100
Units, hay-eating animals'*
3 596
3 391
94
•Basic data obtained from Illinois — U. S. Crop Reporting Service. blt is considered
that 1 horse, 1 mule, 1 head of cattle, and 7 sheep comprise equivalent units among hay-
eating animals.
the previous five years was 32,000 head. In view of an increased in-
terest in colt production, it is likely that within two or three years
there will be an increase in total numbers of work animals. Now that
the adjustment to mechanical power on Illinois farms is apparently
about completed, we may expect the numbers of work animals to in-
crease and decrease in long cycles. After the turning point is reached,
larger numbers of work animals will bring about an increased demand
for feed crops, both hay and grain, and will draw "some of the available
feed supplies away from meat and milk production.
Cattle (All Classes). Cattle numbers went thru a long cycle dur-
ing the period from 1920 to 1934, decreasing from 1920 to 1928 by
nearly one- fourth, and increasing from 1928 to 1933 by approximately
the same amount (Fig. 31). The average number of cattle and calves
on Illinois farms during 1931-1933 was 3 percent larger than during
1921-1929 (Table 5). Since the number of cattle in the United States
reached a peak in 1934, at least for the current cycle, and, conse-
quently, fewer cattle will be available for feeding during the immedi-
ate future, it is probable that cattle numbers in Illinois also have
reached a temporary high point. Should AAA programs result in re-
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
53
duced grain and larger hay acreages, however, there will likely be
further increases in breeding-cattle numbers. Probably after a tempo-
rary period of stability, coinciding with a period of decline in cattle
numbers in the United States as a whole, cattle numbers will increase
again in Illinois. These long cycles in numbers may be expected to
continue in the future.
Milk Cows and Heifers. Milk cow and heifer numbers remained
rather stable during the period of declining cattle numbers from 1920
to 1928, but increased somewhat during the period from 1929 to 1934
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Q 0
HI
I
a 5 000
O
^4000
03000
I
2000
1000
0
1000
500
CATTLE AND CALVES
(ALL CLASSES)
I LI II I LLUJJJ
I ill 1 iiil I i i ill i
IKhjvlILK COWS AND HEIFERS"
|i!i Mil h«tl hii] !••< bui kill Biif ' fiifi
liiiliiiniiniiliitiiiriiii
H
II
II
HORSES, MULES AND COLTS
II Ml
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111
1920 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 26 27 '2d '29 30 31 '32 33 34 1935
FIG. 31. — CHANGES IN NUMBERS OF DIFFERENT KINDS
OF ANIMALS IN ILLINOIS, 1920 TO 1935
Work animals declined in numbers steadily from 1920 onwards, but the
trend in the last few years indicates that the turning point is not far away.
Numbers of hogs and of cattle of all classes passed thru the cycles character-
istic of those industries. Numbers of milk cows and heifers remained fairly
stable up to 1930, but increased somewhat from 1930 to 1934. All these changes
in livestock numbers in Illinois closely parallel changes occurring thruout the
nation.
54 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
(Fig. 31). There were 7 percent more milk cows and heifers on
Illinois farms in 1931-1933 than in 1921-1928. (Table 5)— an increase
which largely accounts for the increase of 3 percent in numbers of
all classes of cattle. After a temporary period of decline caused by
higher grain prices, the number of milk cows is likely to be stabilized
or to increase moderately, especially if AAA programs lead to reduced
grain acreages.
Hogs. Hog numbers have gone thru the cycles characteristic
of that industry. Low points came in 1922, 1926, 1930-1931, and will
come again in all probability in 1935-1936 (Fig. 31). In spite of these
recurrent cycles, caused basically by fluctuations in the corn crop, the
number of hogs in the state is indicated to be rather well stabilized.
Average numbers of hogs on Illinois farms during 1931-1933 were
approximately the same as during 1921-1929 (Table 5). Unless there
is a permanent reduction in the corn acreage as a consequence of AAA
programs, the number of hogs at the end of a given year can be ex-
pected to be slightly under 5 million head. The number of hogs on
hand at the beginning of each year during this period does not seem
to have been affected much by the downward trend in numbers of
horses, nor by the long cyclical decline and increase in cattle numbers,
which might be presumed to have altered the supplies of feed available
for hog production.
Sheep. Changes in numbers of sheep are not shown in Fig. 31,
because of their minor importance in Illinois. Sheep numbers declined
during the years from 1920 to 1923, increased rather sharply between
1923 and 1927, fell off again in 1928, increased from 1928 to 1932, and
have since declined. The average number in Illinois during 1931-1933
was 18 percent larger than during 1921-1929 (Table 5). Aside from
the decline in 1928, the movements in numbers of sheep in Illinois
during these years parallel the changes in numbers of sheep in the
country as a whole and probably reflect variations in supplies of lambs
available for feeding.
CHANGES IN EXPORTS OF IMPORTANT ILLINOIS
FARM PRODUCTS IN RECENT YEARS
In the analysis of prices of Illinois farm products in foregoing
portions of this bulletin, consideration of market demand has been
limited primarily to the domestic market. It is well, however, to con-
sider also the effects of foreign trade on prices of farm products.
The United States, because of the extensiveness of the country, the
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 55
variety of resources and climate, and the vigorous development of
agricultural and industrial resources, is an important producer both
of agricultural and of industrial products — a fact which creates a
peculiar situation so far as trade with foreign countries is concerned.
Surpluses of products, both agricultural and industrial, are accumu-
lated for export ; or capacity exists to produce such surpluses.
But if a nation sells, it must also buy. In the long run, foreign
nations can pay for American goods only with goods or services. Since
the United States became a creditor nation as the result of huge sales
at high prices to foreign nations during the war, the problem of dis-
posing of American surpluses has become more difficult. The United
States now needs to import goods in order to collect interest on debts
owed to her. Temporarily the difficulty may be avoided by making
large loans to foreign countries, as was done during the period from
1924 to 1928, but permanent adjustment cannot be attained in that
manner.
Because of the above conditions it is difficult for the United States
to export anything except that which is so efficiently produced that its
purchase is very attractive to foreigners. Such items are cotton, the
production of which under relatively favorable conditions is so well
organized in the United States, and automobiles, in the mass manu-
facture of which America has led the world. Products which can be
domestically produced by other nations, or for which substitutes can
be found without too much sacrifice are not imported to any large
extent by those nations. As a matter of policy rather than from eco-
nomic necessity, the United States follows the same procedure: by
levying duties on most products which may be imported, this country
effectively reduces imports of all goods which can be produced do-
mestically without too great sacrifice. American imports of agricultural
products are confined chiefly to such raw materials as rubber, sugar,
coffee, silk, wool, and hides.
As a combined result of the conditions just discussed and the
steady increase in domestic population and little or no expansion of
agricultural production in the last decade, exports of corn-belt products
have been materially reduced in volume. The export market conse-
quently has become progressively less important as a physical outlet
for American agricultural surpluses, altho world prices are important,
because they set minimum and maximum levels for domestic prices.
For example, a ceiling for wheat prices in the United States was fixed
by the low world wheat price-level plus the import duty in 1933 and
1934 (pages 32-33). It is likely that in the future the attention given
56
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
to foreign markets by corn-belt farmers will be centered in the prevail-
ing level of foreign prices rather than in the availability of foreign
markets as actual outlets for corn-belt products, except lard.
EXPORTS OF LARD AND PORK
Average annual exports of lard in 1931-1934 declined below the
average for the postwar years 1921-1924; and exports of bacon, hams,
and shoulders fell below the average not only of 1921-1924, but of
1910-1914 as well (Fig. 32).
AVERAGE ILLINOIS FARM
PRICE OF HOGS
AVERAGE U.S. EXPORTS
LARD
BACON. HAMS&
SHOULDERS
YEARS
DOLLARS PER CWT.
024 6 6 10
MILLIONS OF LBS.
0 400 800
MILLIONS OF LBS.
0 400 600
1910-1914
1921-1924
1925-1930
1931-1934
7.44
7.86
4.44
474
10'23 ____
550
349
636
300
100?
FIG. 32. — ILLINOIS FARM PRICE OF HOGS AND UNITED STATES EXPORTS
OF SWINE PRODUCTS BY PERIODS, 1910 TO 1934
Low prices for hogs in 1931-1934 were evidently a result of causes other
than diminishing exports, for exports of swine products decreased not only in
1931-1934 under the preceding period but in 1925-1930 as well, whereas hog
prices increased in 1925-1930. According to the trend herein indicated, exports
of hog products other than lard will probably become an insignificant item in
American export trade.
But the low hog prices of 1931-1934 cannot logically be explained
as a result of diminished exports, for exports of lard and pork products
also declined in 1925-1930 as compared with the preceding four years,
while farm prices of hogs in Illinois were one-third higher in 1925-
1930 than in the previous period. With an inverse relationship be-
tween exports and prices in one period, and a positive relationship in
another, it is obviously absurd to conclude that declining exports
caused the low prices of hogs in 1931-1934. It would be as logical to
say that the higher hog prices prevailing in 1925-1930 were caused by
reduced exports, as to say that the lower hog prices of 1931-1934
were so caused.
Average annual exports both of lard and of the pork products
1935] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 57
during the period from 1921 to 1924 were approximately twice the
average volume of exports of those products in 1910-1914. This in-
crease in exports of lard and pork reflects (1) the expansion in hog
production in the United States following the series of large corn
crops from 1919 to 1923, and (2) the scarcity of meats and fats
in European countries during the period just after the war, when
European agriculture was still disordered. After the short corn crop
of 1924, hog production was reduced and exports of lard and pork
products fell off. European agriculture was being restored, but an im-
portant factor in this decline in exports was a rather stable production
of hogs, combined with an increasing population in the United States.
During the five-year period of high hog prices, 1925-1930, average
exports of lard were approximately 80 percent larger than in 1910-
1914, while exports of bacon, hams, and shoulders were about 15
percent below prewar averages. The percentage decreases in exports
in 1925-1930 from the previous four-year period, were just about
equal to the percentage increase in population in the United States.
JPer-capita consumption of lard and pork was practically the same in
the two periods.
In the third postwar period, 1931-1934, exports of lard and pork
products fell off again, exports of lard still remaining about one-sixth
larger than before the war but exports of the meat products amount-
ing to less than one third of the prewar average. This shrinkage un-
doubtedly reflects expansion of foreign sources of supply; but it
merely continues a trend which has been going on for a long time,
and which was interrupted by the war.
In view of these trends, exports of pork products other than lard
will probably become an insignificant item in American export trade,
while exports of lard, altho in diminishing volume, will continue to be
important. Lard is a by-product of the meat industry, and like other
by-products will continue to be produced and sold for what it will
bring. Hog prices will probably more and more reflect the ability
of the home market to buy pork. The level at which hog prices
will prevail will depend upon the level at which the home market will
absorb existing supplies.
EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR
Recent trends in exports of various grains were mentioned above
in the section on "Comparison of Prices of Individual Farm Products"
(pages 32-33), where it was pointed out that average annual exports
of barley declined from 30 million bushels in 1920-1929 to 7 million
58
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
bushels in 1930-1932, exports of corn from 52 million bushels to 5
million bushels, exports of oats from 17 million bushels to 4 million
bushels, exports of rye from 30 million bushels to .5 million bushels,
and exports of wheat from 200 million bushels to 89 million bushels.
From the standpoint of exportation wheat is the most important
of the grains, and for that reason is given more detailed consideration
here. It is the most commonly grown of the grains; the actual volume
of exports is larger and more consistent than the other grains; and the
ratio of exports to total production is higher.
Exports of wheat, including the flour equivalent, were expanded
during the war, but have declined at a rapid rate since 1924 (Table 6).
TABLE 6. — UNITED STATES EXPORTS OF WHEAT, 1920-1928 AND 1930-1932"
Year
Exports,
thousands of
bushels
Year
Exports,
thousands of
bushels
1920. ..
312 625
1930
112 435
1921
265 590
1931
123 774
1922
205 079
1932
32 284
1923
131 892
1924
254 695
1925
92 669
1926
205 994
1927
190 578
1928
142 301
Total 1920-1928
1 801 423
Total 1930-1932
268 493
Annual average
200 158
Annual average
89 498
•Basic data obtained from U. S. Department of Agriculture.
In 1921-1924 they averaged nearly two and a half times as large
as in 1910-1914 (Fig. 33) — an increase reflecting wartime disturbances
to European wheat production. United States wheat production had
been expanded to meet this demand. In 1924, however, acreages
planted to wheat in Illinois were sharply reduced. Exports as well
as production fell off during the 1924-1930 period, and in general
the trend was downward. The average volume of wheat exported
was more than 50 percent larger, however, than during the pre-war
period. In 1931-1934 the decline in wheat exports continued. The
average for those years was 70 percent of the prewar average ; but in
three of the four years (1932, 1933, and 1934), exports were below
the average of 70 percent.
The decline in wheat exports from 1924 to 1934 may be explained
by (1) increased production of wheat in foreign countries; (2) re-
strictions on imports by a number of foreign countries; and (3) a level
of wheat prices in the United States above that in the free world
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
59
markets. The accumulation of wheat as a result of diminished exports
was an important cause of the low wheat price in relation to other
commodities in 1931-1933.
AVERAGE ILLINOIS FARM PRICES OF WHEAT
AVERAGE U.S. EXPORTS
YEARS
CENTS PER BUSHEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
MILLIONS OF BUSHELS
O 40 80 120 16O 20O 24O
1910-1914
1921-1924
1925-1930
1931-1934
92
112
126
61
i | i | i
' 1 ' 1 '
107
252
169
•H
i , ...:•-,.: I
1
\
70
mji
FIG. 33. — AVERAGE ILLINOIS FARM PRICE OF WHEAT AND AVERAGE
UNITED STATES EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR BY
PERIODS, 1910 TO 1934
The large expansion of wheat exports in 1921-1924 over 1910-1914 reflected
wartime disturbance to production of wheat in Europe. The steady decline since
that period is a result of (1) increased production of wheat in foreign coun-
tries, (2) restrictions on imports by some foreign .countries, and (3) a level of
wheat prices in the United States above that in free world markets, even tho
low in relation to other products and other periods. The low price of wheat in
the United States in 1931-1934 was in part caused by the accumulation of wheat
resulting from diminished exports.
The accumulated supply of wheat in the United States began to
disappear only when the great drouth of 1933 and 1934 shortened
wheat crops to quantities below domestic requirements for food and
seed. In normal growing seasons United States wheat crops are above
these requirements. If production of wheat is continued at the normal
level, either exports must expand or heavy feeding of wheat must be
continued. Under such conditions wheat prices may be expected to
be low in relation to prices of other farm products.
REASONS FOR THE GENERAL PRICE RISE, 1933-1934
The marked advance in prices during 1933 and 1934 was divided,
so far as the prices of Illinois farm products are concerned, into two
parts, the first occurring in the second and third quarters of 1933,
and the second largely in the third and fourth quarters of 1934
(Fig. 1, page 4). Definite price advances such as this result only
"rom special causes. The special causes in 1933-1934 were (1) the
60 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
monetary policy pursued by the United States Government, and
(2) the severe drouth of 1934.
EFFECTS OF MONETARY POLICY ON PRICES
The first part of the price rise, that of mid-1933, and particularly
the rise of grain prices, was unquestionably caused in large measure
by the monetary policy adopted by the new Administration in the
spring of 1933. The essential feature of this policy was the deprecia-
tion of the dollar in relation to gold. When this process was completed
in January, 1934, the gold content of the dollar had been reduced
41 percent. Before the depreciation of the dollar, the United States
Treasury purchased gold at $20.67 an ounce; after the process was
completed, the price was $35.00 an ounce.
In the first quarter of 1934, by which time the devaluation had been
completed, the price of Illinois farm products averaged 47 percent
higher, and the price of gold 68 percent higher than a year earlier
(Table 7). Thus the full amount of the depreciation was not reflected
in the index measuring the prices of Illinois farm products as a group.
The products whose prices were most directly affected were grains
and wool. Prices of livestock and livestock products other than wool
did not rise as much. Corn prices were 178 percent higher than a
year earlier, wheat 100 percent higher, wool 160 percent higher, butter-
fat 25 percent higher. The price of beef cattle, on the other hand, was
only 9 percent higher, prices both of hogs and milk were 20 percent
higher, and the price of lambs was 52 percent higher.
Devaluation immediately relieved the position of Illinois grain
farmers. Prices of grain rose by somewhat greater amounts, however,
than can be accounted for by the direct effects of devaluation. The
reasons for the additional rise were: (1) grain prices, in common
with other staples, before the rise had fallen to unduly low levels be-
cause of the momentum attained by the general liquidation and con-
version of assets into currency and gold; and (2) after the rise began,
speculative influences, as usually happens when a rise of this nature
occurs, carried prices up too far and made necessary a period of re-
adjustment. The initial period of speculation in the grain markets
culminated in July, 1933, and was followed by recessions. Contrary to
the usual seasonal trend, wheat was cheaper in the last quarter of
1933 than in the third quarter. Another reason for the appearance of
larger rises in prices, when measured by percentages of a given base
price, than can readily be accounted for by devaluation of the dollar,
arises from the fact that effects of devaluation tend to be measured
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
61
TABLE 7. — CHANGES IN THE PRICE OF GOLD IN THE UNITED STATES AND OF SOME
IMPORTANT ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1933-1934
(Prices in January- March, 1933 = 100)
Period
Price
Index
Price
Index
Price
Index
Price
Index
Price
Index
GOLD"
(ounce)
ILLINOIS^
FARM
PRODUCTS
CORN
(bushel)
WHEAT
(bushel)
HOGS
(100 pounds)
1933
{20.67
23.68
29.82
33.05
34.77
35.00
35.00
35.00
100.0
114.6
144.2
159.9
168.2
169.3
169.3
169.3
(index)*
(36.9)
(46.8)
(54.4)
(51.8)
(54.4)
(57.0)
(69.6)
(76.2)
100.0
126.8
147.4
140.4
147.4
154.4
188.6
206.5
$.15
.32
.46
.36
.42
.45
.65
.78
100.0
213.3
304.7
238.0
278.0
302.0
435.4
520.0
$.39
.60
.82
.74
.78
.79
.90
.92
100.0
153.8
210.3
189.7
200.0
202.6
230.8
235.8
{3.07
3.93
3.98
3.73
3.67
3.48
5.13
5.23
100.0
128.0
129.6
121.5
119.5
113.4
167.1
170.3
Apr. -June
July-Sept
Oct.-Dec
1934
Jan. -Mar
July-Sept
Oct.-Dec
BUTTERFAT
(pound)
MILK
(100 pounds)
BEEF
CATTLE
(100 pounds)
LAMBS
(100 pounds)
WOOL
(pound)
1933
{.16
.18
.19
.18
.20
.21
.23
.25
100.0
112.5
118.8
112.5
125.0
131.0
143.8
156.2
{1.12
1.17
1.35
1.42
1.35
1.35
1.58
1.60
100.0
104.5
120.5
126.8
120.5
120.5
141.1
142.9
$4.05
4.48
4.60
4.25
4.40
5.13
5.53
5.33
100.0
110.6
113.6
104.9
108.6
126.7
136.5
131.6
{4.67
5.42
6.03
5.43
7.10
7.53
6.23
5.77
100.0
116.1
129.1
116.3
152.0
161.2
133.4
123.5
{.10
.20
.24
.25
.26
.25
.22
.20
100
200
240
253
260
247
222
200
July-Sept
Oct.-Dec.
1934
Jan. -Mar
Apr.-June
July-Sept
Oct.-Dec
•Prices of gold from January, 1933, to August, 1933, were obtained from "Survey of Current
Business." Prices from September, 1933, to September, 1934, were obtained from "The Annalist."
bBased on 1921-1929 prices.
at market centers, • whereas Illinois farm prices are interior prices.
Suppose a commodity at market centers was worth 30 cents before and
50 cents after devaluation. The increase would have been 662/3 percent.
At a country point from which it would cost 10 cents to move the com-
modity to market, the corresponding prices would have been 20 cents
and 40 cents, and the rise would have been 100 percent instead of
662/3 percent.
The sharp increases in prices of grain and wool upon the devalua-
tion of the dollar were to be expected. Grain and wool markets are
international, and because gold is used in the settlement of balances
between countries, the gold content of the dollar directly affects the
prices of such products. When the number of dollars which can be
purchased with a given amount of gold increases, prices of those
commodities which are traded on international commodity exchanges
immediately rise by a roughly equivalent amount.
Prices of such products, on the other hand, as have wholly or
62 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
almost wholly a domestic market (as is true, by and large, of meat and
milk) are not so directly affected by changes in the price of gold.
Foreigners cannot invest readily, if at all, in such commodities. More-
over, as such products must be bought largely in the home market
by consumers whose incomes change only gradually as a result of
dollar devaluation, efforts to raise prices meet the stubborn resistance
of consumer demand. Consequently, prices of such products are af-
fected, in the short run, very little by the cheaper dollars.
The immediate effect of dollar devaluation may in fact be to de-
press instead of to raise the prices of certain classes of commodities,
the market for which is wholly domestic. Higher grain prices make
livestock production less profitable and lead to liquidation, which
further depresses market prices while it is going on. After the process
is completed, the smaller numbers of livestock bring higher prices.
Because of these conditions there is no reason to suppose that
prices of purely domestic products such as milk or beef will rise in
proportion to the degree of currency devaluation unless the higher
prices for staple commodities stimulate business activity to such a
degree that domestic incomes rise in proportion to the degree of de-
valuation. Should this stimulation of trade and increase in purchasing
power of domestic incomes occur, a tendency toward higher prices for
the domestically consumed farm products will follow. In a country
as large as the United States and with as complicated a price struc-
ture, such effects must necessarily be slow. The success of the policy
of dollar devaluation depends, however, on whether it restores a well-
balanced and substantially higher price-level than that of early 1933.
Such a balance would require higher prices for such essentially do-
mestic commodities as hogs and milk than had been achieved at the
time the revaluation was completed early in 1934.
Fairly short grain crops in the United States in 1933 tended to
sustain prices. Drouth conditions, which began to be serious early in
the crop season of 1934 and became worse as the season advanced,
created the basis for the second rise in farm prices — that in the third
quarter of 1934. Which commodities were most affected by this rise?
Between the second and third quarters of 1934 the average price
of corn rose nearly one-third, and the price of hogs nearly one-half
(Table 7). Wheat prices, on the other hand, increased less than one-
sixth, and milk and butterfat prices a little less than one-fifth.
It is clear, however, that the reduced supply of feedstuff s, par-
ticularly corn, will, as a result of the drouth, be followed by reduced
supplies of and higher prices for livestock, particularly hogs.
J9J5] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 63
That the reduction programs of the Agricultural Adjustment Ad-
ministration played a minor part in the price rise of 1934 is evident,
because: (1) the total reduction in corn acreage in 1934 was only
about 10 percent below the 1933 figures, whereas the crop was finally
estimated to be 41 percent smaller; (2) the "contracted acres" were
released for other uses as the drouth developed and produced con-
siderable feed; and (3) even tho hogs were materially reduced in
number by the program, the actual reductions outran the reductions
required. Some other force (namely, feed shortage) than the AAA
program was operating to reduce hog numbers. Had hogs been more
numerous, they could not have been fattened, because there was not
enough feed available.
A price rise caused by a drouth obviously is not as permanent as
a rise caused by revaluation of the dollar. The drouth of 1934 will
extend its influence for some time, however, for reductions in live-
stock numbers caused by short feed supplies cannot be replaced over-
night. This situation will tend to hold up the average level of farm
prices. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that high prices resulting
from the drouth are temporary. Livestock numbers will come back
with great rapidity once feed is available, particularly if livestock
prices are favorable in relation to feed prices, as is certain to be the
case under the circumstances.
The only part of the price rise which can be looked upon as per-
manent is the rise from about 50 percent of 1910-1914 averages in the
first quarter of 1933, to a level slightly less than 75 percent of 1910-
1914 averages which obtained from the third quarter of 1933 to the
second quarter of 1934. Further permanent recovery above that level
depends on expansion of consumer incomes in this country thru general
economic recovery or a rise in the world level of prices, or both.
OUTLOOK FOR PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS DURING
NEXT FEW YEARS
PROBABLE PRICE-LEVEL FOR FARM PRODUCTS
In view of the effects on prices of the drouth of 1934, of the
monetary policy which depreciated the dollar 41 percent by early 1934,
of the relative positions and the trends in prices of the various farm
products during the period from 1931 to 1934 — what reasonable pre-
dictions or forecasts can be made regarding prices of Illinois farm
products during the next few years? In general, during 1934, grains
have been high and livestock low. Will the higher prices for crops
64 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
pull up the prices of livestock, or will the livestock prices pull the
crops back down?
In the short run, that is, during 1935, the scarcity of crops will re-
duce livestock supplies and cause higher prices both for livestock and
livestock products. With reduced numbers of livestock and more
abundant crops, the relatively higher level of crop prices will tend to
disappear. In the long run, unless the initial influence (monetary
devaluation) which made for higher crop prices spreads its influence
so as to increase domestic buying power generally, crop prices must
fall back into line with the livestock prices. The final solution of this
problem depends on the level to which the whole price structure will
tend to adjust itself following the changes in the monetary structure.
PROBABLE CHANGES IN RELATIVE POSITIONS OF PRICES
OF INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS
Regardless of the average level attained by prices of farm products,
the question as to the relative position of the different items during
the next few years is worth considering.
The relative position of prices of different products may shift in
response to such temporary and more or less unpredictable occur-
rences as changes in production or demand. Because of the extremely
low level to which production fell in 1934, it may be assumed that
crops, if production is normal, will be cheaper in relation to livestock
in the latter part of 1935. But this is a short-run influence. In the
long run the relative positions of prices shift because of: (1) cyclical
changes which are only semipermanent; (2) permanent changes in
demand; (3) permanent changes in relative costs, which lead to per-
manent changes in the relative volumes in which various products are
produced.
When all these factors are taken into consideration, the following
tentative conclusions as to future changes in price positions held by the
more important Illinois farm products in 1931-1934 may be drawn:
Barley — higher, because of improved demand.
Oats — higher; probable improved demand as a result of probable
increases in numbers of horses.
Corn — lower, until consumer demand for hogs is restored.
Wheat and rye — lower, because of declines in exports, low world
price-levels, and the necessity of using domestic surpluses as feed.
Soybeans — lower than in 1921-1929, on account of the high base
in 1921-1929 but relatively better than in 1931-1933.
1935} PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 65
Butterfat — lower until consumer demand gets back to normal, then
about the same.
Poultry and eggs — lower until consumer demand gets back to
normal, then about the same.
Horses and mules — will remain high in relation to prices of other
livestock, because of their relative scarcity. Within a few years, how-
ever, the increased breeding stimulated by these attractive prices will
oversupply the reduced demand for horses and mules.
Cattle — will tend to be restored to a relatively high price. The
drouth of 1934 made necessary a huge reduction in cattle numbers,
which shortened the liquidation stage of the cattle cycle. During 1934
the estimated number of cattle in the country was reduced 7,623,000
head, to a total of 60,667,000, which brought the number back to the
1931 figure. This reduction will tend to restore cattle to a relatively
high price. Because of slower liquidation, prices of dairy cows will
be relatively cheaper, but the high level of cattle prices in general will
pull them up.
Hogs — cannot be predicted. Cycles in hog production and prices
are so short that no predictions can be made for long periods. In the
short run, 1935 and 1936 hogs will be relatively high because of ex-
treme scarcity. After that they will drop to a lower position. Over the
long run, hogs will occupy about the same relative price position as
corn.
Sheep — relatively higher. Reduction in numbers of sheep over the
last two years, and enforced liquidation in 1934 as a result of the
drouth, has brought the number of sheep in the country, according to
January 1, 1935, estimates, down to 49,766 million head, or back to
the 1929 level. This reduction will tend to maintain a relatively higher
level for sheep and lamb prices, when compared with prices of other
farm products, than was maintained in 1931-1933.
SUMMARY
1. The tendency for prices of all Illinois farm products to decline
from 1929 to early 1933, and then to rise from mid- 1933 to the end
of 1934, indicates a common force operating first to depress and then
to raise all prices. The decline carried the average down to about 50
percent of 1910-1914 prices for the first quarter of 1933, and the
ensuing rise brought the average back to approximately the 1910-1914
level at the end of 1934. The rise was divided into two parts; the
66 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
first part was completed by the end of the third quarter of 1933, and
brought the average up to about 70-75 percent of 1910-1914; the
second began in the third quarter of 1934 and brought the average up
approximately to the prewar average.
2. The first of the two rises reflected the reaction of markets for
staple Illinois products to various policies of the new administration,
particularly the monetary policy which reduced by 41 percent the gold
content of the dollar. In this rise, prices of animal products lagged,
for the cheapening of the dollar does not have as direct an effect on
the prices of such commodities as it does on the prices of grains. The
full effect of the gold devaluation policy will not be registered in prices
of animal products unless the rise in the prices of staples stimulates
business activity and causes consumer income to increase to a degree
correponding to the currency devaluation.
3. The second rise in the prices of Illinois farm commodities was
the result principally of a shortage of supplies, such shortage being
caused principally by the drouth, the effect of which will of course
be only temporary. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration's
reduction programs also had very direct effect.
4. Analysis of the range of the prices of the various Illinois farm
products in successive Septembers from 1930-1934 suggests that the
rather definite division of the prices into relatively high and relatively
low price groups resulted, not from any common cause, but merely
from the chance operation of various influences. The tendency for
the prices of all items to move down and up together is evidence of
some common cause operating first to depress prices and then to raise
the level; and the division into groups composed of different items
from year to year is evidence of particular influences pulling the dif-
ferent items by varying amounts away from the general average.
5. Prices of the grains from 1931 to 1933 were, in relation to 1921-
1929 prices, the lowest, on the average, of any Illinois farm com-
modity prices; prices of livestock products were next, and prices of
livestock were the highest. The average (median) prices of seven
grains during this period was 44 percent of 1921-1929 prices; five
livestock and poultry products averaged 50 percent; and seven classes
of livestock averaged 59 percent. The rank of the various farm com-
modities from highest to lowest with respect to prices in 1931-1933
compared with prices in 1921-1929 were as follows: Among the
grains barley ranked highest, then oats, corn, rye, wheat, cowpeas, and
soybeans. Among the livestock horses ranked highest, then beef cattle,
milk cows, veal calves, lambs, hogs, and sheep. Among the animal
J9J5] PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934 67
products milk ranked highest, then chickens, eggs, butterfat, and wool.
In spite of the general rise of prices in 1934, the order of the products
in the groups did not change greatly from that just stated.
6. All the rise that can be expected in staple products such as the
grains, as a result of the gold devaluation policy, occurred by early
1934. The rise in the general price-level, as measured by the index
of wholesale prices of all commodities, was only 30 percent as great
as it would have been had it reflected the full degree of gold de-
valuation. Had devaluation been fully reflected in commodity prices
it would have raised the average about 70 percent, that is, from 60
percent of the 1926 level to 102 percent. One of the most important
questions now facing Illinois farmers is the extent to which prices
of animal products that have not been directly affected by gold de-
valuation will be affected as the forces let loose by the upturn in the
general price-level generates increased business activity, employment,
etc., and the height to which the general price average will rise.
7. Irrespective of what the price-level may be during the next few
years, barley and horses, because of increased demand for them, are
likely to be higher in relation to 1921-1929 prices than are other Illinois
farm commodities. Wheat, soybeans, and lambs are likely to be rela-
tively lower. Until there is a greater increase in consumer income than
has so far developed, prices of hogs, corn, butterfat, and the poultry
products are likely to be relatively cheap except in periods of very
short supply. .
8. The chief differences in the acreages devoted to the various
Illinois farm crops in 1930-1932 compared with 1920-1928, that may
have been made in response to changed price relationships, were re-
ductions in rye (60 percent), wheat (29 percent), hay (28 percent),
and increases in barley (5 percent) and soybeans (244 percent).
Changes in livestock numbers, which were largely in response to price
relationships, closely paralleled changes in livestock numbers in the
United States as a whole. On January 1 of the years 1931-1933, as an
average, there were 25 percent fewer horses and mules, 18 percent
more sheep and lambs, 3 percent more cattle, and 7 percent more dairy
cows and heifers than on January 1, 1921-1929.
9. During the three-year period 1931-1933 prices of Illinois farm
products averaged 51 percent of prices prevailing in 1921-1929; prices
of goods bought by farmers for use in farm operation averaged 78
percent, and prices of goods bought for use in farm homes averaged
71 percent. It therefore required 50 percent more farm products to
buy given quantities of goods used in production, and 36 percent more
68 BULLETIN No. 422 [December,
to buy given quantities of goods used in the home, than in the base
period. Supplies which were of farm origin were relatively cheaper
than those of industrial origin. This gap was partially closed by the
relatively greater rise in prices of farm products than in prices of
farm supplies in the latter part of 1933 and in 1934. From the low
point in 1931-1933 to the end of 1934 prices of farm products had
increased by about 121 percent and prices of farm supplies by about
25 percent. There still was required, however, in 1934 about 2 per-
cent more Illinois farm products to buy a given quantity of farm sup-
plies than was required in 1921-1929, and 19 percent more than in
1910-1914.
.7935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
69
APPENDIX
TABLE 8. — MONTHLY ILLINOIS PRICES OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS,
1931-1934, AND INDEX NUMBERS OF PRICES
(1921-1929 = 100)
Month
1921-
1929
price
1931
1932
1933
Price
Index
No.
Price
Index
No.
Price
Index
No.
1934
Price
Index
No.
APPLES (bushel)
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September .
October
November .
December. .
Year. .
January. . .
February. .
March.... ,
April
May ,
June ,
July
August
September.
October. . . .
November .
December.
Year. .
January. . .
February. •
March
April
May
June
July
August
September.
October
November .
December. .
Year..
$1.78
1.86
1.94
2.08
2.01
2.31
1.63
1.27
1.24
1.37
1.50
1.66
1.72
$ .64
.65
.66
.66
.67
.67
.65
.62
.60
.59
.59
.62
.63
$7.45
January. . .
February. .
March
April ,
May ,
June ,
July
August
September.
October. . . ,
November .
December.
Year..
.33
.67
.66
.90
.96
.99
8.13
8.22
8.07
7.90
7.88
7.85
$ .438
.418
.424
.408
.373
.360
.362
.370
.391
.410
.428
.442
.402
$1.50
84.3 $ .65 36.5
1.55
83.3 .70 37.6
1.65
85.1 .75 38.7
1.70
81.7 .95 45.7
1.85
92.0 1.05 52.2
1.75
75.8 1.05 45.4
.85
52.1 .90 55.2
.65
51.2 .70 55.1
.55
44.4 .70 56.4
.55
40.1 .70 51.1
.50
33.3 .80 53.3
.60
36.1 1.00 60.2
1.14
63.3 .83 49.0
BARLEY (bushel)
$ .50
78.1 $ .40 62.5
.48
73.8 .41 63.1
.47
71.2 .43 65.2
.46
69.7 .43 65.2
.46
68.7 .38 56.7
.42
62.7 .34 50.7
.39
60.0 .28 43.1
.33
53.2 .25 40.3
.35
58.3 .23 38.3
.37
62.7 .22 37.3
.39
66.1 .24 40.7
.41
66.1 .24 38.7
.419
65.9 .321 50.2
BEEF CATTLE (head)
$7.20
96.6 $5.40 72.5
7.00
95.5 4.80 65.5
6.90
90.0 5.00 65.2
6.80
88.8 5.10 66.6
6.40
81.0 4.60 58.2
6.10
76.6 4.70 59.0
6.10
76.3 5.70 71.3
6.20
76.3 5.50 67.6
6.10
74.2 5.50 66.9
6.10
75.6 5.10 63.2
6.10
77.2 4.90 62.0
5.50
69.8 4.30 54.6
6.38
81.5 5.05 64.4
BUTTERFAT (pound)
$ .25
57.1 $ .22 50.2
.23
55.0 .19 45.5
.26
61.3 .19 44.8
.25
61.3 .17 41.7
.19
50.9 .15 40.2
.19
52.8 .14 38.9
.20
55.2 .14 38.7
.23
62.2 .17 46.0
.26
66.5 .17 43.5
.30
73.2 .17 41.5
.28
65.4 .17 39.7
.26
58.8 .20 45.2
.242
60.0 .173 43.0
$1.10
61.7
1.15
61.8
1.00
51.5
1.25
60.1
1.20
59.7
1.20
51.9
.80
49.1
.90
70.9
.95
76.6
.95
69.3
1.05
70.0
1.15
69.3
1.06
62.7
$ .23
35.9
.23
35.4
.23
34.8
.30
45.5
.41
61.2
.39
58.2
.55
84.6
.44
71.0
.49
81.7
.46
78.0
.47
79.7
.44
71.0
.387
61.4
$3.95
53.0
4.05
55.3
4.15
54.1
4.15
54.2
4.65
58.9
4.65
58.4
4.60
57.6
4.60
56.6
4.60
56.0
4.60
57.0
4.30
54.4
3.85
48.8
4.35
55.4
$ .19
43.4
.16
38.3
.14
33.0
.16
39.2
.20
53.6
.19
52.8
.23
63.5
.17
45.9
.18
46.0
.19
46.3
.19
44.4
.16
36.2
.18
45.2
CHICKENS (pound)
$1.30
1.45
1.55
1.70
1.75
1.60
1.20
.95
1.10
1.05
1.10
1.25
1.33
$ .50
.53
.54
.54
.53
.66
.66
.73
.73
.84
.85
.87
73.0
78.0
81.4
81.7
87.1
69.3
73.6
74.8
89.0
76.6
73.3
75.3
77.8
78.1
81.5
81.8
81.8
79.1
98.5
101.5
117.8
121.6
142.4
144.1
140.3
.665 105.7
$4.10
55.0
4.50
61.4
4.60
60.0
4.70
61.4
5.30
67.1
5.40
67.8
5.40
67.7
5.30
65.3
5.90
72.0
5.60
69.4
5.20
65.8
5.20
66.0
5.10
64.9
$ .15
34.2
.21
50.2
.23
54.2
.20
49.0
.21
56.3
.22
61.1
.21
58.0
.24
64.9
.23
59.0
.23
56.1
.26
60.7
.27
61.1
.222
55.4
January. . . .
. .. $ .201
$ .16
79
,6
$ .131
6S
.2
$ .085
42.3
$ .089
44.2
February. . .
.206
.147
71
.4
.127
61
.7
.092
44.7
.099
48.0
March
.212
.158
74
.5
.127
SQ
.9
.085
40.1
.106
49.5
April
.220
.162
7^
.6
.125
56
.8
.093
42.3
.108
49.1
May. .
.218
.147
67
.4
.115
53
.8
.097
44.5
.11
50.4
June
.211
.154
7S
0
.107
so
.7
.094
44.5
.11
52.1
July
.217
.153
70
.5
.115
ss
.0
.101
46.5
.117
53.9
August
.210
.167
7')
.5
.115
S4
.8
.094
44.8
.118
56.2
September. .
October
.206
.197
.158
.13
76
66
.7
.0
.11
.096
53
4S
.4
.7
.091
.083
44.2
42.1
.131
.115
62.0
58.4
November. .
December. . .
.189
.187
.135
.128
71
6S
.4
.4
.092
.082
48
41
.7
.9
.077
.074
40.7
39.6
.114
.114
60.3
61.0
Year
.200
.15
72
,7
.112
54
.1
.089
43.0
.111
53.7
70
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
TABLE 8. — MONTHLY ILLINOIS PRICES OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS,
1931-1934, AND INDEX NUMBERS OF PRICES — Continued
Month
1921-
1931
1932
1933
1934
1929 "
price
Price
Index
No.
Price IJj^
Price '«£«
Price Ij^x
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September.
October
November .
December. ,
Year..
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September .
October. . . .
November .
December..
Year
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September .
October....
November .
December.,
Year. .
January. . .
February. .
March.
April
May
June ,
July
August
September .
October...,
November .
December. ,
Year
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September .
October. . . .
November .
December. ,
Year. .
.515.62
. 15.71
. 15.48
. 15.16
. 15.26
. 14.54
. 13.44
. 12.77
. 13.32
. 13.38
. 13.50
. 14.29
. 14.37
.515.24
. 15.64
. 16.32
. 16.37
. 16.17
. 15.47
. 15.06
. 13.88
. 13.03
. 13.16
. 13.77
. 14.46
. 14.88
. $ .67
.69
.69
.70
.74
.78
.81
.83
.81
.74
.67
.68
.73
. $2.16
. 2.28
. 2.46
. 2.49
. 2.60
. 2.76
. 2.68
. 2.56
. 2.09
. 1.90
. 1.84
. 1.96
. 2.31
. $ .393
.308
.226
.220
.223
.218
.229
.246
.298
.351
.438
.471
.30
514.60
13.70
13.60
13.10
13.20
11.30
9.30
9.30
9.10
9.00
9.40
9.40
11.25
CLOVER HAY (ton)
93.5
87.2
87.8
86.4
86.5
77.7
69.2
72.8
68.3
67.3
69.6
65.7
77.7
59.70
8.80
8.80
8.40
8.20
7.20
6.30
6.30
6.10
5.70
6.50
6.10
7.34
62.1
56.0
56.8
55.4
53.7
49.5
46.9
49.1
45.8
42.6
48.1
42.7
50.7
J12.60
12.30
11.70
11.00
11.50
11.80
11.40
9.50
7.40
6.60
6.90
7.60
10.02
5 .59
.56
.53
.52
.51
.49
.49
.46
.36
.27
.30
.27
.45
51.80
1.80
1.75
1.75
1.90
1.90
1.60
1.50
1.00
.70
.55
.60
1.40
5 .22
.12
.17
.16
.12
.13
.13
.16
.17
.21
.26
.24
.17
CLOVER SEED (RED) (bushel)
82.6
57.50
49.2
78.6
7.60
48.6
71.7
7.90
48.4
67.2
8.00
48.9
71.1
8.10
50.1
76.3
8.10
52.4
75.7
6.10
40.5
68.4
5.40
38.9
56.8
5.00
38.4
50.1
4.30
32.7
50.1
4.40
32.0
52.6
4.40
30.4
66.8
6.40
42.5
CORN (bushel)
88.0
$ .27
40.3
81.2
.26
37.7
76.8
.25
36.2
74.3
.24
34.3
68.9
.23
31.1
62.8
.22
28.2
60.5
.23
28.4
55.4
.23
27.7
44.4
.22
27.2
36.5
.17
23.0
44.8
.16
24.0
39.7
.14
20.6
61.6
.22
30.0
COWPEAS (bushel)
83
79
71
70
73
69
60
59
48
37
30
31
59
56.1
39.0
74.3
71.8
55.2
59.6
55.5
64.6
57.0
59.8
59.4
51.0
58.6
27
27
26
22
20
19
18
18
21
20
20
20
22
$ .59
.62
.65
.56
.51
.53
.48
.46
.43
.38
.37
.39
.50
EGGS (dozen)
$ .15 38.2
.12 39.0
.087
.092
.099
.092
.104
.133
.154
.211
.258
.294
.149
38.5
41.8
44.4
42.2
45.4
55.7
51.7
60.1
58.9
62.4
48.2
70
20
80
00
50
10
60
10
50
00
00
00
21
50
60
70
10
20
30
00
90
50
20
60
90
29
.15
.15
.15
.24
.36
.36
.53
.43
.41
.31
.37
.39
.32
.40
.41
.44
.47
.86
.96
.06
.06
.95
.72
.72
.72
.73
.199
.101
.087
.092
.111
.084
.109
.108
.134
.186
.229
.21
.137
36.5
39.5
37.5
39.5
42.6
41.9
49.1
63.4
63.8
67.3
66.7
63.0
50.9
29.5
29.4
28.8
31.2
32.2
34.2
39.8
42.5
42.2
39.5
40.7
40.8
35.9
22.4
21.7
21.7
34.3
48.6
46.2
65.4
51.8
50.6
41.9
55.7
57.4
43.1
19
18
18
19
33
35
40
41
45
38
39
37
32
50.6
32.8
38.5
41.8
49.8
38.5
47.6
43.9
45.0
53.0
52.3
44.6
44.9
5 9.10
10.10
10.90
11.40
11.80
12.80
12.40
14.60
15.80
15.70
16.20
16.70
13.12
56.20
.00
.60
6.70
6.70
7.30
7.40
8.50
10.10
11.05
11.80
12.50
8.57
I
41
42
.42
.42
.43
.51
.54
.68
.74
.73
.74
.88
.58
$ .88
1.17
1.20
1.40
1.39
1.40
1.37
1.31
.89
.96
1.04
1.13
1.18
5 .19
.148
.135
.13
.128
.118
.118
.151
.201
.207
.268
.263
.171
58.3
64.3
70.4
75.2
77.3
88.0
92.3
114.3
118.6
117.3
120.0
115.9
92.7
40.7
44.8
46.6
40.9
41.4
47.2
49.1
61.3
67.0
83.6
85.7
86.4
57.9
61.2
60.9
60.9
60.0
58.1
65.4
66.7
81.9
91.0
98.6
110.5
129.4
78.7
41
51
49
56
53
51
51
51
43
50
56
58
51
48.3
48.0
59.7
59.1
57.3
54.1
51.5
61.4
67.4
59.0
61.2
55.8
56.9
1935]
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
71
TABLE 8. — MONTHLY ILLINOIS PRICES OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS,
1931-1934, AND INDEX NUMBERS OF PRICES — Continued
Month
1921-
1931
1932
1933
1934
price
TJ_. Index
Fnce No.
Price INJ)CX
Price l^
Price l$g*
January. . .
February . .
March ,
April
May ,
June
July
August
September .
October. . . ,
November .
December. .
Year. .
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August. . . .
September .
October
November .
December..
Year. .
January. . .
February. •
March
April
May
June
July
August. . . .
September .
October
November .
December..
Year. .
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August. . . .
September .
October
November .
December. ,
Year
.514.47
. 14.32
. 14.35
. 14.21
. 14.37
. 13.92
. 13.24
. 12.30
. 12.39
. 12.45
. 12.91
. 13.12
. 13.52
.$ 8.66
. 9.08
. 9.71
. 9.42
. 9.30
. 9.02
. 9.64
. 10.00
. 10.02
. 9.62
. 8.69
. 8.34
. 9.29
.$83
. 87
. 89
. 89
. 89
. 88
. 88
. 87
. 85
. 84
. 83
. 80
. 86
.$11.17
. 11.24
. 11.57
. 11.57
. 11.83
. 11.90
. 11.29
. 10.68
. 10.79
. 10.61
. 10.62
. 11.03
. 11.19
$12.80
12.00
11.10
11.10
11.50
10.30
8.60
8.20
7.80
7.40
7.90
7.70
9.70
88.5
83.8
77.4
78.1
80.0
74.0
64.9
66.7
63.0
59.4
61.2
58.7
71.3
HAY (Ion)
$7.50 51.8
6.80
.90
6.50
6.20
5.40
5.30
5.30
5.30
4.90
4.95
5.10
5.85
47.5
48.1
45.7
43.1
38.8
40.0
43.1
42.8
39.4
39.5
38.9
43.2
HOGS (100 pounds)
$7.40
85.4
$3.80
43.9
7.10
78.2
3.60
39.6
7.20
74.2
4.20
43.3
7.10
75.4
3.70
39.3
6.60
71.0
3.00
32.3
5.90
65.4
3.00
33.3
6.60
68.5
4.50
46.7
6.70
67.0
4.30
43.0
5.60
55.9
3.90
38.9
4.90
50.9
3.25
33.8
4.40
50.6
3.10
35.7
3.70
44.4
2.70
32.4
6.10
65.6
3.59
38.5
HORSES (head)
$71.00
85.5
$66.00
79.5
71.00
81.6
68.00
78.2
75.00
84.3
71.00
79.8
72.00
.80.9
70.00
78.7
71.00
79.8
65.00
73.0
70.00
79.5
65.00
73.9
66.00
75.0
67.00
75.0
64.00
73.6
66.00
73.6
64.00
75.3
64.00
75.3
63.00
75.0
59.00
70.2
61.00
73.5
62.00
74.7
61.00
76.2
60.00
75.0
67.41
78.4
65.25
75.6
$7.20
7.50
64.4
66.7
7.60
65.7
7.80
67.4
7.60
64.2
7.10
59.7
6.60
58.4
6.10
57.1
5.60
51.9
5.50
51.8
5.10
48.0
4.80
43.5
6.54
58.2
LAMBS (100 pounds)
$4.80
20
60
70
20
00
20
4.80
4.70
4.55
4.60
4.55
4.99
43.0
46.3
48.4
49.3
44.0
42.0
46.1
44.9
43.6
42.9
43.3
41.2
44.6
$5.20
5.20
4.80
4.95
5.20
5.40
5.60
6.90
6.60
6.70
7.40
7.50
5.95
$2.70
3.10
3.40
3.35
4.30
4.15
4.15
3.95
3.85
4.50
3.85
2.85
3.68
$65.00
69.00
72.00
76.00
79.00
76.00
81.00
77.00
74.00
72.00
71.00
73.00
73.75
$4.60
.70
.70
4.95
5.40
5.90
6.10
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.40
5.40
5.39
35.9
36.3
33.4
34.8
36.2
38.8
42.3
56.1
53.3
53.8
57.3
57.2
44.6
31.2
34.1
35.0
35.6
46.2
46.0
43.0
39.5
38.4
46.8
44.3
34.2
39.5
78.3
79.3
80.9
85.4
88.8
86.4
92.0
88.5
87.0
85.7
85.5
91.2
85.8
41.2
41.8
40.6
42.8
45.6
49.6
54.0
56.2
55.6
51.8
50.8
49.0
48.2
MILK (100 pounds)
$7.90
8.50
8.90
9.90
10.30
11.20
12.00
13.10
13.80
13.90
14.60
14.80
11.58
$3.05
4.00
3.95
3.65
4.20
4.90
6.30
5.30
5.10
5.30
4.38
$76.00
89.00
90.00
89.00
91.00
86.00
82.00
84.00
89.00
86.00
87.00
87.00
86.30
$6.20
.50
.60
.50
7.81
7.30
6.70
6.10
5.90
5.60
5.70
6.00
6.66
54.6
59.4
62.0
69.7
71.7
80.4
90.6
106.5
111.0
111.6
113.1
112.8
86.95
35.2
44.0
40.7
38.2
34.4
40.5
43.6
49.0
63.0
55.1
58.7
63.5
47.2
91.6
100.4
101.1
100.0
102.2
97.7
93.2
96.6
105.0
101.2
104.8
108.8
100.2
55.5
66.7
65.7
64.8
66.0
61.3
59.3
57.1
55.0
52.8
53.7
54.4
59.4
$2
,38
$1 85
77.7
$1
4S
60.9
$1.10
46.2
$1.30
54.6
February. . . .
. . 2
,31
1.80
77.9
1
4S
62.8
1.10
47.6
1.30
56.3
March
. . 2,
,26
1.80
79.7
1
40
62.0
1.10
48.7
1.35
59.7
April
. . 2
.19
1.75
79.9
1
^S
61.7
1.10
50.3
1.30
59.4
May
. . 2
06
1.65
80.1
1
W
63.1
1.15
55.8
1.30
63.1
June
. . 2
.01
1.65
82.1
1
?S
62.2
1.20
59.7
1.40
69.7
July
. . 2
.19
1.80
82.2
1
W
59.4
1.30
59.4
1.45
66.2
August ....
. . 2
,26
1.80
79.7
1
w
57.5
1.30
57.5
1.50
66.4
September. . .
October ....
. . 2
. . 2
.26
,30
1.85
1.90
81.9
82.6
1
1
.30
^S
59.7
58.7
1.30
1.35
59.7
58.7
1.50
1.55
66.4
67.4
November. . .
December
. . 2
. . 2
.34
.34
1.85
1.75
79.1
74.8
1
1
.35
1S
57.7
49.2
1.45
1.40
62.0
59.8
1.55
1.65
66.2
70.5
Year
. . 2
.22
1.80
81.1
1
.35
60.8
1.25
56.3
1.45
65.3
72
BULLETIN No. 422
[December,
TABLE 8. — MONTHLY ILLINOIS PRICES OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS,
1931-1934, AND INDEX NUMBERS OF PRICES— Continued
1921-
1931 1932 1933
1934
Month 1929 •
price
Price ^ Price ^ Price !jg
* Price l^
January $70
February 71
March 73
April 71
May 72
June 72
July 72
August 71
September 71
October 72
November 72
December 73
Year 72
January $
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Year..
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.39
.36
.36
.38
.38
.40
.40
January
. . $1.30
February .
.. 1.32
March
.. 1.30
April . .
.. 1.35
May. .
.. 1.34
June
. . 1.46
July
.. 1.62
August
. 1.36
September. . .
October
.. 1.26
.. 1.21
November. . .
December. . . .
Year. .
.. 1.26
.. 1.30
1.34
January $ .92
February .
March
April
May
June ,
July
August
September
October
November
December ,
Year..
.94
.94
.92
.92
.90
.88
.86
.85
.86
.87
.87
.89
$65.00
61.00
61.00
59.00
59.00
54.00
55.00
52.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
46.00
55.17
$ .29
.29
.28
.28
.26
.23
.20
.15
.16
.16
.20
.19
.22
$1.20
.10
.10
.25
.10
.10
.95
.85
.80
.70
.65
.65
.95
$ .49
.44
.41
.37
.40
.35
.30
.30
.32
.32
.40
.37
.37
MILK COWS (head)
92.9
85.9
83.6
83.1
81.9
75.0
76.4
73.2
70.4
69.4
69.4
63.0
77.0
69.0
69.0
66.7
66.7
61.9
54.8
52.6
41.7
44.4
42.1
52.6
47.5
55.8
$43.00
42.00
40.00
39.00
40.00
37.00
38.00
37.00
38.00
36.00
36.00
35.00
38.42
61.4
59.2
54.8
54.9
55.6
51.4
52.8
52.1
53.5
50.0
50.0
47.9
53.6
OATS (bushel)
$ .19
.19
.is
.IX
.17
.16
.14
.12
.11
.10
.11
.11
.15
45.2
45.2
42.9
42.9
40.5
38.1
35.9
33.3
30.6
26.3
28.9
27.5
36.4
POTATOES (bushel)
92.3
$ .65
50.0
83.3
.65
49.2
84.6
.65
50.0
92.6
.65
48.1
82.1
.65
48.5
75.3
.75
51.4
58.6
.70
43.2
62.1
.55
40.4
63.5
.47
37.3
57.8
.46
38.0
51.6
.48
38.1
50.0
.50
38.5
71.2
.60
44.4
RYE (bushel)
53.2
$ .38
41.3
46.8
.37
39.4
43.6
.40
42.6
40.2
.39
42.4
43.5
.31
33.7
38.9
.30
33.3
34.1
.26
29.5
34.9
.28
32.6
37.6
.28
32.9
37.2
.27
31.4
46.0
.27
31.0
42.5
.26
29.9
41.5
.31
35.0
534.00
34.00
34.00
35.00
36.00
38.00
40.00
36.00
35.00
35.00
33.00
32.00
35.17
* .11
.11
.11
.15
.20
.22
.38
.29
.30
.25
.29
.30
.23
$ .50
.50
.55
.55
.60
.75
1.70
1.80
1.70
1.05
.90
.95
.96
$ .26
.26
.28
.34
.43
.46
.85
.61
.65
.57
.57
.55
.49
48.6
47.9
46.6
49.3
50.0
52.8
55.6
50.7
49.3
48.6
44.8
43.8
49.0
26.2
26.2
47.6
52.4
97.4
80.6
83.3
65.7
76.4
75.0
57.7
38.5
37.9
42.3
40.7
44.8
51.4
104.9
132.4
134.9
86.8
71.4
73.1
71.6
28.3
27.7
29.8
37.0
46.7
51.1
96.6
70.9
76.5
66.3
65.6
63.2
55.0
SHEEP (100 pounds)
$33.00
35.00
36.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
32.00
37.00
36.00
38.00
35.00
35.17
$.56
.56
.56
.55
.56
.60
.62
.75
.81
.78
.70
.73
.65
47.1
49.3
49.3
49.3
48.6
48.6
48.6
45.1
52.0
50.0
52.8
47.9
49.05
.31
73.8
.32
76.2
.32
76.2
.30
71.4
.30
71.4
.38
90.5
.38
97.4
.43
119.4
.48
133.0
.46
121.1
.48
126.3
.51
127.5
.39
98.7
1.00
76.9
.15
87.1
.30
100.0
.20
88.9
.00
82.1
.05
71.9
.10
67.9
.00
73.5
.00
79.0
.85
70.2
.65
51.6
.65
50.0
1.00
74.9
60.9
59.6
59.6
59.8
60.9
66.7
70.4
87.2
95.0
90.7
80.5
83.9
72.9
January
$6 07
$3 80
62 6
$2 60
42 8
$1 95
32 1
$2 95
48 6
February. . . .
.. 6.26
3.80
60.7
2.60
41.5
2 05
32 7
3 70
59 1
March
6 54
4 10
62 7
2 80
42 8
2 10
32 1
3 55
54 3
April . . ,
. . 6 . 70
3.90
58 1
3 00
44 8
2 10
31 3
3 55
53 0
May
6 38
3 70
58 0
2 20
34 5
2 40
37 6
3 25
50 9
June. . . .
. . 5.64
2.50
44.3
2.10
37 2
2 25
39 9
2 65
47 0
July
.. 5.62
2 60
46 3
2 30
40 9
2 40
42 8
2 40
42 7
August
5 58
2 40
43 0
2 10
37 6
2 60
46 6
2 40
43 0
September. . .
October. .
.. 5.89
5 69
2.50
2 50
42.4
43 9
2.10
2 10
35.7
36 9
2.40
2 40
40.7
42 2
2.40
2 40
41.0
41 3
November. . .
December
Year
.. 5.60
.. 5.87
.. 5.98
2.60
2.40
3.07
37.5
40.9
50.0
1.90
1.95
2.31
33.9
33.2
38.5
2.30
2.60
2.30
41.1
44.3
38.6
2.45
2.80
2.88
43.8
47.7
47.7
19351
PRICES OF ILLINOIS FARM PRODUCTS, 1931-1934
73
TABLE 8. — MONTHLY ILLINOIS PRICES OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS,
1931-1932, AND INDEX NUMBERS OF PRICES — Concluded
1921-
Month 1929 '
price
1931 1932 1933
1934
Price X6* Price 'NO^ Price 'NO
Price l$^
January $1.93
February 2.02
SOYBEANS (bushel)
March 2
April
May
June.
July.
17
2.16
2.31
2.49
.50
August 2.12
September 1 . 76
October 1.59
November 1 . 48
December 1.72
Year 2.02
January $10.37
February 10.73
March 10.70
April 9.91
May 9.79
June 9 . 90
July 10.02
August 10.34
September 10.99
October 10.92
November 10.21
December 10.06
Year 10.34
January $1.32
February. ..... 1.34
March 1.32
April 1 . 26
May 1.29
June 1.24
July 1.17
August 1.16
September 1 . 16
October 1.18
November 1.18
December 1.22
Year 1.24
$1.25
1.20
1.20
1.10
1.10
.95
.80
.55
.40
.30
.35
.35
.80
65
59
55
51
48
38
32
26
23
19
24
20
38
$ .34
.37
.40
.40
.41
.41
.39
.36
.39
.40
.40
.38
.39
18
18
18
18
18
16
16
17
22
25
27
22
20
$ .39
.39
.41
.48
.82
.90
.95
.86
.78
.59
.63
.66
.66
20
19
19
22
35
36
38
40
44
37
42
38
32
VEAL CALVES
(100 pounds)
$9.40
90.6
$6.40
61.7
$4.45
42.9
9.10
84.8
6.60
61.5
5.40
50.3
8.00
74.8
6.50
60.7
5.40
50.5
7.60
76.7
5.50
55.5
4.50
45.4
7.40
75.6
4.80
49.0
4.95
50.6
7.40
74.7
4.90
49.5
4.90
49.5
7.10
70.8
5.30
52.9
5.10
50.9
7.40
71.6
5.30
51.2
5.40
52.2
7.90
71.9
5.70
51.9
5.70
51.9
7.40
67.8
5.30
48.5
5.40
49.4
6.50
63.6
5.00
49.0
5.40
52.9
6.10
60.6
4.45
44.2
4.45
44.2
7.61
73.6
5.48
53.0
5.09
49.2
WHEAT (bushel)
$ .68
51.5
$ .44
33.3
$ .38
28.8
.67
50.0
.44
32.8
.38
28.4
.66
50.0
.45
34.1
.40
30.3
.67
53.2
.46
36.5
.49
38.9
.66
51 T2
.43
33.3
.67
51.9
.56
45.2
.40
32.3
.65
52.4
.39
33.3
.37
31.6
.93
79.5
.37
31.9
.41
35.3
.80
69.0
.37
31.9
.41
35.3
.74
63.8
.37
31.3
.39
33.0
.70
59.3
.49
41.5
.37
31.4
.77
65.3
.44
36.1
.36
29.5
.75
61.5
.53
42.3
.41
33.2
.64
52.4
WOOL (pound)
$ .73
.93
.98
1.17
1.07
1.33
1.52
.88
.75
.75
.80
1.05
1.00
38
46
45
54
46
53
61
42
43
47.2
54.1
61
49.2
$4.90 47.2
5.70
53.1
5.60
52.3
5.40
54.5
5.40
55.2
5.10
51.5
4.95
49.4
5.00
48.4
6.40
58.0
6.10
54.9
5.70
55.8
5.30
52.7
5.46
52.8
$ .76
57.5
.79
58.9
.78
59.1
.75
59.5
.75
58.1
.86
69.4
.82
70.0
.93
80.2
.95
81.8
.91
77.1
.91
77.1
.94
77.0
.85
68.8
. $ .317
$ .19
59.9
$ .13
41.0
$ .10
31.5
$ .25
78.8
February. . . .
.320
.18
56.2
.14
43.8
.10
31.2
.26
81.2
March
.322
.18
55.9
.12
37.3
.10
31.0
.27
83.8
April
.317
.16
50.5
.11
34.7
.10
31.5
.27
85.2
May
June
.321
.332
.14
.13
43.6
39.2
.09
.08
28.0
24.1
.17
.23
53.0
69.3
.24
.23
74.8
69.3
July
.332
.13
39.2
.08
24.1
.23
69.3
.23
69.3
.327
.14
42 8
09
27.5
.24
73.4
.22
67.3
September. . . .
October
.334
.330
.14
14
41.9
42 4
.09
09
26.9
27.3
.24
.25
71.8
75.8
.21
.21
63.0
63.6
November. . . .
December
Year
.343
.343
.33
.14
.13
.15
40.8
37.9
45.9
.09
.09
.10
26.2
26.2
30.6
.26
.25
.19
75.8
72.8
57.2
.20
.19
.23
58.3
55.4
70.8
The figures given in this table are based on data obtained from the Illinois — U. S.
Crop Reporting Service.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11