Full text of "United States census of agriculture: 1954"

Given By

^DEPOSITORY

Vol. Ill - pt. 9 ch. V

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
IN THE UNITED STATES

(A COOPERATIVE REPORT)

Dairy Producers and
Dairy Production

SPECIAL REPORTS

1954

Census
Agriculture

uV^

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BUREAU OF THE CEJ^SUS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

^^ WASHINGTON - 1956

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Eira Taft Benson, Secretary

Agricultural Research Service

Byron T. Shaw, Administrator

U. S. Department of Commerce

Sinclair Weeks, Secretary

Bureau of the Census

Robert W. Burgess, Director

United States

Census

Agriculture:

«oti u ; ii-i.

Volume

SPECIAL REPORTS

Part 9

Farmers and Farm Production in the United States

(A Cooperative Report)

Chapter V

Dairy Producers and
Dairy Production

CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMERS and FARM PRODUCTION •
PRINCIPAL TYPES OF FARMS •

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Robert W. Burgess, Director

AGRICULTURE DIVISION
Ray Hurley, Chief
Wabder B. Jenkins, Assistant Chief

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Byron T. Shaw, Administrator

FARM AND LAND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Sherman E. Johnson, Director

PRODUCTION ECONOMICS RESEARCH BRANCH
Carl P. Heisig, Chief

Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents

JUL 2 5 1957

SUGGESTED IDENTIFICATION

U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture: 1954. Vol. Ill, Special Reports

Part 9, Farmers and Farm Production in the United States.

Chapter V, Dairy Producers and Dairy Production

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C, 1956.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Ptinting Office, Washington 25, D. C.
or any of the Field Offices of the Department of Commerce, Price 45 cents (paper cover)

PREFACE

The purpose of this report is to present an analysis of the characteristics of farmers and farm production
for the most important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The analysis
deals with the relative importance, pattern of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and problems of
adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.

The data given in the various chapters of this report have been derived largely from the special tabula-
tion of data for each type of farm, by economic class, for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The detailed
statistics for each type of farm for the United States and the principal subregions appear in Part 8 of Volume
III of the reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

This cooperative report was prepared under the direction of Ray Hurley, Chief of the Agriculture Divi-
sion of the Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, and Kenneth L. Bachman, Head, Produc-
tion, Income, and Costs Section, Production Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Jackson V. McElveen, Agricultural Economist, Production, Income, and Costs Section, Production
Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, super-
vised a large part of the detailed planning and analysis for the various chapters.

The list of chapters and the persons preparing each chapter are as follows:

Chapter I Wheat Producers and Wheat

Production
A. W. Epp,
University of Nebraska.

Chapter II Cotton Producers and Cotton

Production
Robert B. Glasgow,
Production Economics Research

Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of

Agriculture.

Chapter III Tobacco and Peanut Producers

and Production
R. E. L. Greene,
University of Florida.

Chapter IV Poultry Producers and Poultry

Production
William P. Mortenson,
University of Wisconsin.

Chapter V Dairy Producers and Dairy Pro-
duction
P. E. McNall,
University of Wisconsin.

Chapter VI Western Stock Ranches and Live-
stock Farms
Mont H. Saunderson,
Western Ranching and Lands

Consultant,
Bozeman, Mont.

Chapter VII- Cash-grain and Livestock Pro-
ducers in the Corn Belt

Edwin G. Strand,

Production Economics Research
Branch,

Agricultural Research Service,

United States Department of
Agriculture.

Chapter VIII _ . Part-time Farming
H. G. Halcrow,
University of Connecticut.

Chapter IX Agricultural Producers and Pro-
duction in the United States —
A General View
Jackson V. McElveen,
Production Economics Research

Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.

The editorial work for this report was performed by Caroline B. Sherman, and the preparation of the
statistical tables was supervised by Margaret Wood.

December 1956

UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE: 1954

REPORTS

Volume I. — Counties and State Economic Areas. Statistics for counties include number of farms, acreage, value, and farm operators;
farms by color and tenure of operator; facilities and equipment; use of commercial fertilizer; farm labor; farm expenditures; livestock and
livestock products; specified crops harvested; farms classified by type of farm and by economic class; and value of products sold by source.

Data for State economic areas include farms and farm characteristics by tenure of operator, by type of farm, and by economic class.

Vokmie I is published in 3.3 parts.

Volume II. — General Report. Statistics by Subjects, United States Census of Agriculture, 1954. Summary data and analyses of
the data for States, for Geographic Divisions, and for the United States by subjects.

Volume in. — Special Reports

Part 1. — Multiple-Unit Operations. This report will be similar to
Part 2 of Volume V of the reports for the 1950 Census of Agri-
culture. It will present statistics for approximately 900
counties and State economic areas in 12 Southern States and
Missouri for the number and characteristics of multiple-unit
operations and farms in multiple units.

Part 2. — Ranking Agricultural Counties. This special report will
present statistics for selected items of inventory and agricul-
tural production for the leading counties in the United States.

Part 3. — Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and
U. S. Possessions. These areas were not included in the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The available current data from vari-
ous Government sources will be compiled and pubhshed in
this report.

Part 4. — Agriculture, 1954, a Graphic Summary. This report will
present graphically some of the significant facts regarding
agriculture and agricultural production as revealed by the 1954
Census of Agriculture.

Part 5.- — Farm-Mortgage Debt. This will be a cooperative study
by the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department
of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census. It will present,
by States, data based on the 1954 Census of Agriculture and a
special mail survey conducted in January 1956, on the num-
ber of mortgaged farms, the amount of mortgage debt, and the
amount of debt held by principal lending agencies.

Part 6. — Irrigation in Humid Areas. This cooperative report by
the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census wiU present data ob-
tained by a mail survey of operators of irrigated farms in 28
States on the source of water, method of applying water, num-
ber of pumps used, acres of crops irrigated in 1954 and 1955,
the number of times each crop was irrigated, and the cost of
irrigation equipment and the irrigation system.

Part 7. — Popular Report of the 1954 Census of Agriculture. This
report is planned to be a general, easy -to-read publication for
the general public on the status and broad characteristics of
United States agriculture. It will seek to delineate such as-
pects of agriculture as the geographic distribution and dif-
ferences by size of farm for such items as farm acreage, princi-
pal crops, and important kinds of livestock, farm facilities,
farm equipment, use of fertilizer, soil conservation practices,
farm tenure, and farm income.

Part 8. — Size of Operation by Type of Farm. This will be a coop-
erative special report to be prepared in cooperation with the
Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture. This report will contain data for 119 economic sub-

regions (essentially general type-of-farming areas) showing the
general characteristics for each type of farm by economic class.
It will provide data for a current analysis of the differences
that exist among groups of farms of the same type. It will
furnish statistical basis for a realistic examination of produc-
tion of such commodities as wheat, cotton, and dairy products
in connection with actual or proposed governmental policies
and programs.
Part 9. — Farmers and Farm Production in the United States.
The purpose of this report is to present an analysis of the
characteristics of farmers and farm production for the most
important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census
of Agriculture. The analysis deals with the relative importance,
patterii of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and prob-
lems of adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.
The report was prepared in cooperation with the Agricultural
Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

The list of chapters (published separately only) and title
for each chapter are as follows:

Chapter I — Wheat Producers and Wheat Production
II — Cotton Producers and Cotton Production
III — Tobacco and Peanut Producers and Production
IV — Poultry Producers and Poultry Production

V — Dairy Producers and Dairy Production
VI — Western Stock Ranches and Livestock Farms
VII — Cash-Grain and Livestock Producers in the Corn
Belt
VIII — Part-Time Farming
IX — Agricultural Producers and Production in the
United States — A General View
Part 10. — Use of Fertilizer and lime. The purpose of this report
is to present in one publication most of the detailed data com-
piled for the 1954 Census of Agriculture regarding the use of
fertilizer and lime. The report presents data for counties.
State economic areas, and generalized type-of-farming areas
regarding the quantity used, acreage on which used, and
expenditures for fertiUzer and lime. The Agricultural Research
Service cooperated with the Bureau of the Census in the prep-
aration of this report.
Part 11. — Farmers' Expenditures. This report presents detailed
data on expenditures for a large number of items used for farm
production in 1955, and on the living expenditures of farm
operators' families. The data were collected and compiled
cooperatively by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census.
Part 12. — Methods and Procedures. This report contains an
outhne and a description of the methods and procedures used
in taking and compiling the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

INTRODUCTION

t/2

<:
w

<
u

o
z

o
u
w

m
D

o
z

o
u

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and scope. — American agririilturn is i^xtcfiliiiKlx cli\crM'
nnd is undergoing revolutionary changes. Farnicrs and their
families obtain their income by producing a large variety of
products under a large variety of conditions as well as from sources
other than farming. The organization of production, type of
farming, productivity, income, expenditures, size, and character-
istics of operators of the 4.8 million farms in the United States
vary greatly. Agriculture has been a dynamic, moving, adjusting
part of our economy. Basic changes in farming have been occurring
and will continue to be necessary. Adjustments brought by tech-
nological change, by changing consumer wants, by growth of
population, and by changes in the income of nonfarm people, have
been significant forces in clianging agriculture since World War II.
The transition from war to an approximate peacetime situation
has also made it necessary to reduce the output of soine farm
products. Some of the adjustments in agriculture have not pre-
sented relatively difficult problems as they could be made by the
transfer of resources from the production of one product to another.
Others require substantial shifts in resources and production.

Moreover, a considerable number of farm families, many of whom
are employed full time in agriculture, have relatively low incomes.
Most of these families operate farms that are small when compared
with farms that produce higher incomes. The acreage of land and
the amount of capital controlled by the operators of these small
farms are too small to provide a very high level of income. In
recent years, many farm families on these small farms have made
adjustments by leaving the farm to earn their incomes elsewhere,
by discontinin'ng their farm operations, and by earning more non-
farm income while remaining on the farm or on the place they
farmed formerly.

One objective of this report is to describe and analyze some of
the existing differences and recent adjustments in the major types
of farming and farm production. For important commodities and
groups of farms, the report aims to make available, largely from
the detailed data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture but in a more
concise form, facts regarding the size of farms, capital, labor, and
land resources on farms, amounts and sources of farm income and
expenditures, combinations of crop and livestock enterprises,
adjustment problems, operator characteristics, and variation in use
of resources and in size of farms by areas and for widely differing
production conditions. Those types of farms on which production
of surplus products is important have been emphasized. The
report will provide a facttial basis for a better understanding of
the widespread differences among farms in regard to size, resources,
and income. It will also provide a basis for evaluating the effects
of existing and proposed farm programs on the production and
incomes of major types and classes of farms.

Income from nonfarm sources is important on a large niuuVjer
of farms. About 1.4 million of the 4.8 million farm-operator
families, or about 3 in 10, obtain more income from off -farm sources
than from the sale of agricultural products. More than three-
fourths of a million farm operators live on small-scale part-time
farms and ordinarily are not dependent on farming as the main
source of family income. These part-time farmers have a quite
different relation to adjustments, changes, and farm problems
than do commercial farmers. A description of and facts regarding
these part-time farms and the importance of nonfarm income for
commercial farms are presented in Chapter 8.

I'ixcept for Chapter 8, this report deals with commercial farms
(see economic class of farm). The analysis is limited to the major
types of agricultural production and deals primarily with geo-
graphic areas in which each of the major types of agricultural
production has substantial significance.

Source of data. — Most of the data presented in this report are
from special compilations made for the 1954 Census of Agriculture,
although pertinent data from research findings and surveys of the
V. S. Department of Agriculture, State Agricultural Colleges, and
other agencies have been used to supplement Census data. The
detailed Census data used for this report are contained in Part 8 of
Volume III of the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
Reference should be made to that report for detailed explanations
and definitions and statements regarding the characteristics and
reliability of the data.

Areas for which data are presented. — Data are presented in
this report primarily for selected economic subregions and for the
United States. The boundaries of the 119 subregions used for the
compilation of data on which this report is based are indicated by
the map on page vi. The.se subregions represent primarily general
type-of-farming areas. Many of them extend into two or more
States. (For a more detailed description of economic subregions,
see the pubhcation "Economic Subregions of the United States,
Series Census BAE; No. 19, published cooperatively by the Bureau
of the Census, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, July 1953.)

DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS

Definitions and explanations are given only for some of the more
important items. For more detailed definitions and explanations,
reference can be made to Part 8 of Volume III and to Volume II of
the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

A farm. — For the 1954 Census of Agriculture, places of 3 or
more acres were counted as farms if the annual value of agricultural
products, excUisive of home-garden products, amounted to $150
or more. The agricultural products could have been either for
home use or for sale. Places of less than 3 acres were counted as
farms only if the annual value of sales of agricultural products
amounted to $150 or more. Places for which the value of agricul-
tural products for 1954 was less than these minima because of crop
failure or other unusual conditions, and places operated at the time
of the Census for the first time were counted as farms if normally
they could be expected to produce these minimum quantities of
agricultural products.

All the land under the control of one person or partnership was
included as one farm. Control may have been through ownership,
or through lease, rental, or cropping arrangement.

Farm operator. — A "farm operator" is a person who operates
a farm, either performing the labor himself or directly supervising
it. He may be an owner, a hired manager, or a tenant, renter, or
sharecropper. If he rents land to others or has land cropped for
liim by others, he is listed as the operator of only that land which
he retains. In the case of a partnership, only one partner was
included as the operator. The number of farm operators is con-
sidered the same as the number of farms.

VIII

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Farms reporting or operators reporting. — Figures for farms
reporting or operators reporting, based on a tabulation of all farms,
represent the number of farms, or farm operators, for which the
specified item was reported. For example, if there were 11,922
farms in a subregion and only 11,465 had chickens over 4 months
old on hand, the number of farms reporting chickens would be
11,465. The difference between the total number of farms and the
number of farms reporting an item represents the number of farms
not having that item, provided the inquiry was answered
completely for all farms.

Farms by type. — The classification of commercial farms by
type was made on the basis of the relationship of the value of
sales from a particular source, or sources, to the total value of all
farm products sold from the farm. In some cases, the type of
farm was determined on the basis of the sale of an individual farm
product, such as cotton, or on the basis of the sales of closely re-
lat:ed products, such as dairy products. In other cases, the type
of farm was determined on the basis of sales of a broader group of
products, such as grain crops including corn, sorghums, all small
grains, field peas, field beans, cowpeas, and soybeans. In order to
be classified as a particular type, sales or anticipated sales of a
product or group of products had to represent 50 percent or more
of the total value of products sold.

The types of commercial farms for which data are shown, to-
gether with the product or group of products on which the classi-
fication is based are:

Product or group of products amo^mt-
incj to 60 percent or more of the
Type of farm value of all farm products sold

Cash-grain Corn, sorghum, small grains, field

peas, field beans, cowpeas, and
soybeans.

Cotton Cotton (lint and seed).

Other field-crop Peanuts, Irish potatoes, sweet-
potatoes, tobacco, sugarcane, sug-
ar beets for sugar, and other
miscellaneous crops.

Vegetable Vegetables.

Fruit-and-nut Berries and other small fruits, and

tree fruits, nuts, and grapes.

Dairy Milk and other dairy products.

The criterion of 50 percent of the
total sales was modified in the
case of dairy farms. A farm for
which the value of sales of dairy
products represented less than 50
percent of the total value of farm
products sold was classified as a
dairy farm if —

(a) Milk and other dairy prod-
ucts accounted for 30
percent or more of the
total value of products
sold, and
(6) Milk cows represented 50
percent or more of all
cows, and
(c) Sales of dairy products, to-
gether with the sales
of cattle and calves,
amounted to 50 percent
or more of the total
value of farm products
sold.
Chickens, eggs, turkeys, and other

poultry products.
Cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, goats,
wool, and mohair, provided the
farm did not qualify as a dairy
farm.

Poultry -

Livestock farms other
dairy and poultry.

than

Product or group of products amount-
ing to 50 percent err more of the
Type of farm value of aU farm products sold

General Farms were classified as general

when the value of products from
one source or group of sources
did not represent as much as 50
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold. Separate
figures are given for three kinds
of general farms:

(a) Primarily crop.

(b) Primarily livestock.

Primarily crop farms are those for
which the sale of one of the
following crops or groups of
crops — vegetables, fruits and
nuts, cotton, cash grains, or other
field crops — did not amount to
50 percent or more of the value
of all farm products sold, but
for which the value of sales for
all these groups of crops repre-
sented 70 percent or more of the
value of all farm products sold.

Primarily livestock farms are those
which could not qualify as dairy
farms, poultry farms, or livestock
farms other than dairy and
poultry, but on which the sale
of livestock and poultry and
livestock and poultr}' products
amounted to 70 percent or more
of the value of all farm products
sold.

General crop and livestock farms are
those which could not be classi-
fied as either crop farms or live-
.stock farms, but on which the
sale of all crops amounted to at
least 30 percent but less than 70
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold.

Miscellaneous This group of farms includes those

that had 50 percent or more of
the total value of products ac-
counted for by sale of horticul-
tural products, or sale of horses,
or sale of forest products.

Farms by economic class. — A classification of farms by eco-
nomic class was made for the purpose of segregating groups of
farms that are somewhat alike in their characteristics and size of
operation. This classification was made in order to present an
accurate description of the farms in each class and in order to
provide basic data for an analysis of the organization of agriculture.

The classification of farms by economic class was made on the
basis of three factors; namely, total value of all farm products
sold, number of days the farm operator worked off the farm, and
the relationship of the income received from nonfarm sources bj'
the operator and members of his family to the value of all farm
products sold. Farms operated by institutions, experiment sta-
tions, grazing associations, and communitj' projects were classified
as abnormal, regardless of anj' of the three factors.

For the purpose of determining the code for economic class and
type of farm, it was necessary to obtain the total value of farm
products sold as well as the value of some individual products
sold.

The total value of farm products sold was obtained by adding
the reported or estimated values for all products sold from the
farm. The value of livestock, livestock products except wool and
mohair, vegetables, nursery and greenhouse products, and forest

INTRODUCTION

products was obtained by the enumerator from the farm operator
for each farm. The enumerator also obtained from the farm
operator the quantity sold for corn, sorghums, small grains, hays,
and small fruits. The value of sales for these crops was obtained
by multiplying the quantity sold by State average prices.

The quantity sold was estimated for all other farm products.
The entire quantity produced for wool, mohair, cotton, tobacco,
sugar beets for sugar, sugarcane for sugar, broomcorn, hops, and
mint for oil was estimated as sold. To obtain the value of each
product sold, the quantity sold was multiplied by State average
prices.

In making the classification of farms by economic class, farms
were grouped into two major groups, namely, commercial farms
and other farms. In general, all farms with a value of sales of
farm products amounting to $1,200 or more were classified as
commercial. Farms with a value of sales of $250 to $1,199 were
classified as commercial only if the farm operator worked off the
farm less than 100 days or if the income of the farm operator and
members of his family received from nonfarm sources was less than
the total value of all farm products sold.

land in farms according to use. — Land in farms was classified
according to the use made of it in 1954. The classes of land
are mutually exclusive, i. e., each acre of land was included only
once even though it may have had more than one use during the
year.

The classes referred to in this report are as follows:

Cropland harvested. — This includes land from which crops
were harvested; land from which hay (including wild hay) was
cut; and land in small fruits, orchards, vineyards, nurseries, and
greenhouses. Land from which two or more crops were reported
as harvested was to be counted only once.

Cropland used only for pasture. — In the 1954 Census, the
enumerator's instructions stated that rotation pasture and all
other cropland that was used only for pasture were to be in-
cluded under this class. No further definition of cropland
pastured was given the farm operator or enumerator. Per-
manent open pasture may, therefore, have been included under
this item or under "other pasture," depending on whether the
enumerator or farm operator considered it as cropland.

Cropland not harvested and not pastured. — This item includes
idle cropland, land in soil-improvement crops only, land on
which all crops failed, land seeded to crops for harvest after
1954, and cultivated summer fallow.

In the Western States, this class was subdivided to show
separately the acres of cultivated summer fallow. In these
States, the acreage not in cultivated summer fallow represents
largely crop failure. There are very few counties in the West-
ern States in which there is a large acreage of idle cropland or
in which the growing of soil-improvement crops is an important
use of the land.

In the States other than the Western States, this general
class was subdivided to show separately the acres of idle crop-
land (not used for crops or for pasture in 1954). In these States,
the incidence of crop failure is usually low. It was expected
that the acreage figure that excluded idle land would reflect
the acreage in soil-improvement crops. However, the 1954
crop year was one of low rainfall in many Eastern and Southern
States and, therefore, in these areas the acreage of cropland not
harvested and not pastured includes more land on which all
crops failed than would usually be the case.

Cultivated summer fallow. — This item includes cropland
that was plowed and cultivated but left unseeded for several
months to control weeds and conserve moisture. No land
from which crops were harvested in 1954 was to be included
under this item.

Cropland, total. — This includes cropland harvested, cropland
used only for pasture, and cropland not harvested and not
pastured.

Land pastured, total. — This includes cropland used only for
pasture, woodland pastured, and other pasture (not cropland
and not woodland) .

Woodland, total. — This includes woodland pastured and

woodland not pastured.

Value of land and buildings. — The value to be reported was
the approximate amount for which the land and the buildings on
it would sell.

Off-farm work and other income. — Many farm operators receive
a part of their income from sources other than the sale of farm
products from their farms. The 1954 Agriculture Questionnaire
included several inquiries relating to work off the farm and non-
farm income. These inquiries called for the number of days
worked off the farm by the farm operator ; whether other members
of the operator's family worked off the farm; and whether the
farm operator received income from other sources, such as sale
of products from land rented out, cash rent, boarders, old age
assistance, pensions, veterans' allowances, unemployment com-
pensation, interest, dividends, profits from nonfarm business,
and help from other members of the operator's family. Another
inquiry asked whether the income of the operator and his family
from off-farm work and other sources was greater than the total
value of all agricultural products sold from the farm in 1954.
Off-farm work was to include work at nonfarm jobs, businesses,
or professions, whether performed on the farm premises or else-
where; also, work on someone else's farm for pay or wages. Ex-
change work was not to be included.

Specified facilities and equipment. — Inquiries were made in
1954 to determine the presence or absence of selected items on
each place such as (1) telephone, (2) piped running water, (3)
electricity, (4) television set, (5) home freezer, (6) electric pig
brooder, (7) milking machine, and (8) power feed grinder. Such
facilities or equipment were to be counted even though tem-
porarily out of order. Piped running water was defined as water
piped from a pressure system or by gravity flow from a natural
or artificial source. The enumerator's instructions stated that
pig brooders were to include those heated by an electric heating
element, by an infrared or heat bulb, or by ordinary electric bulbs.
They could be homemade.

The number of selected types of other farm equipment was also
obtained for a sample of farms. The selected kinds of farm
equipment to be reported were (1) grain combines (for harvesting
and threshing grains or seeds in one operation); (2) cornpickers;
(3) pickup balers (stationary ones not to be reported) ; (4) field
forage harvesters (for field chopping of silage and forage crops) ;
(5) motortrucks; (6) wheel tractors (other than garden); (7)
garden tractors; (8) crawler tractors (tracklaying, caterpillar);
(9) automobiles; and (10) artificial ponds, reservoirs, and earth
tanks.

Wheel tractors were to include homemade tractors but were not
to include implements having built-in power units such as self-
propelled combines, powered buck rakes, etc. Pickup and truck-
trailer combinations were to be reported as motortrucks. School
buses were not to be reported, and jeeps and station wagons were
to be included as motortrucks or automobiles, depending on
whether used for hauling farm products or supplies, or as passenger
vehicles.

Farm labor. — The farm-labor inquiries for 1954, called for the
number of persons doing farmwork or chores on the place during
a specified calendar week. Since starting dates of the 1954 enumer-
ation varied by areas or States, the calendar week to which the
farm-labor inquiries related varied also. The calendar week was
September 26-Oetober 2 or October 24-30. States with the
September 26-October2 calendar week were: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New .Jersey, New Mexico,

423022—57-

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States with the October
24-30 calendar week were : Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
lUinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Ohio, South Carohna, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Farmwork was to include any work, chores, or planning necessary
to the operation of the farm or ranch business. Housework,
contract construction work, and labor involved when equipment
was hired (custom work) were not to be included.

The farm-labor information was obtained in three parts:
(1) Operators working, (2) unpaid members of the operator's family
working, and (3) hired persons working. Operators were consid-
ered as working if they worked 1 or more hours; unpaid members
of the operator's family, if they worked 15 or more hours; and
hired persons, if they worked any time during the calendar week
specified. Instructions contained no specifications regarding age
of the persons working.

Regular and seasonal workers. — Hired persons working on
the farm during the specified week were classed as "regular"
workers if the period of actual or expected employment was 150
days or more during the year, and as "seasonal" workers if the
period of actual or expected employment was less than 150 days.
If the period of expected employment was not reported, the
period of employment was estimated for the individual farm
after taking into account such items as the basis of payment,
wage rate, expenditures for labor in 1954, and the type and
other characteristics of the farm.

Specified farm expenditures.— The 1954 Census obtained data
for selected farm expense items in addition to those for fertilizer
and lime. The expenditures were to include the total specified
expenditures for the place whether made by landlord, tenant, or
both.

Expenditures for machine hire were to include any labor in-
cluded in the cost of such machine hire. Machine hire refers to
custom machine work such as tractor hire, threshing, combining,
silo filling, baling, ginning, plowing, and spraying. If part of the
farm products was given as pay for machine hire, the value of the
products traded for this service was to be included in the amount
of expenditures reported. The cost of trucking, freight, and
express was not to be included.

Expenditures for hired labor were to include only cash pay-
ments. Expenditures for housework, custom work, and contract
construction work were not to be included.

Expenditures for feed were to include the expenditures for
pasture, salt, condiments, concentrates, and mineral supplements,
as well as those for grain, hay, and mill feeds. Expenditures for
grinding and mixing feeds were also to be included. Payments
made by a tenant to his landlord for feed grown on the land rented
by the tenant were not to be included.

Expenditures for gasoline and other petroleum fuel and oil were
to include only those used for the farm business. Petroleum
products used for the farmer's automobile for pleasure or used
exclusively in the farm home for heating, cooking, and lighting
were not to be included.

Crops harvested. — The information on crops harvested refers
to the acreage and quantity harvested for the 1954 crop year. An
exception was made for land in fruit orchards and planted nut
trees. In this case, the acreage represents that in both bearing
and nonbearing trees and vines as of October and November 1954.

Hay. — The data for hay includes all kinds of hay except soy-
bean, cowpea, sorghum, and peanut hay.

livestock and poultry. — The data on the number of livestock
and poultry represent the number on hand on the day of enumera-

tion (October-November 1954). The data relating to livestock
products and the number of livestock sold relate to the sales made
during the calendar year 1954.

LABOR RESOURCES

The data for labor resources available represent estimates based
largely on Census data and developed for the purpose of making
comparisons among farms of various size of operations. The
labor resources available are stated in terms of man-equivalents.

To obtain the man-equivalents the total number of farm opera-
tors as reported by the 1954 Census were adjusted for estimated
man-years of work off the farm and for the number of farm opera-
tors 65 years old and over. The farm operator was taken to rep-
resent a full man-equivalent of labor unless he was 65 years or
older or unless he worked at an off-farm job in 1954.

The man-equivalent estimated for farm operators reporting spec-
ified amounts of off -farm work were as follows:

Estimated
Days worked off the farm in 1954 man-equivalent

1-99 days 0. 85

100-199 days . 50

200 days and over . 15

The man-equivalent for farm operators 65 years of age and older
was estimated at 0.5.

Man-equivalents of members of the farm operator's family were
based upon Census data obtained in response to the question
"How many members of your family did 15 or more hours of farm
work on this place the week of September 26-October 2 (or, in
some areas, the week of October 24-30) without receiving cash
wages?" Each family worker was considered as 0.5 man-equiva-
lent. This estimate provides allowance for the somewhat higher
incidence of women, children, and elderly persons in the unpaid
family labor force.

In addition, the number of unpaid family workers who were
reported as working 15 or more hours in the week of September
26-October 2 was adjusted to take account of seasonal changes in
farm employment. Using published and unpublished findings of
the U. S. Department of Agricultiu-e and State Agricultural Col-
leges, and depending largely upon knowledge and experience with
the geographic areas and type of farming, each author deter-
mined the adjustment factor needed to correct the number of
family workers reported for the week of September 26-October 2
to an annual average basis.

Man-equivalents of hired workers are based entirely upon the
expenditure for cash wages and the average wage of permanent
hired laborers as reported in the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

Value of or investment in livestock. — Numbers of specified
livestock and poultry in each subregion were multiplied by a
weighted average value per head. The average values were com-
puted from data compiled for each kind of livestock for the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The total value does not include the value
of goats. (For a description of the method of obtaining the value
of livestock, see Chapter VI of Volume II of the reports for the
1954 Census of Agriculture.)

Value of investment in machinery and equipment. — The data
on value of investment in machinery and equipment were developed
for the purpose of making broad comparisons among types and
economic classes of farms and by subregions. Numbers of specified
machines on farms, as reported by the Census, were multiplied by
estimated average value per machine. Then the total values ob-
tained were adjusted upward to provide for the inclusion of items
of equipment not included in the Census inventory of farm
machinery.

INTRODUCTION

The estimates for average value of specified machines and tlir
proportion of total value of all machinery represented by the
value of these machines were based largely on published and un-
published data from the "Farm Costs and Returns" surveys con-
ducted currently by the Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.' Modifications were made as needed
in the individual chapters on the basis of State and local studies.
The total estimated value of all machinery for all types and
economic classes of farms is approximately equal to the value of
all machinery as estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Value of farm products sold, or gross sales. — Data on the
value of the various farm products sold were obtained for 1954 by
two methods. First, the values of livestock and livestock prod-
ucts sold, except wool and mohair; vegetables harvested for sale;
nursery and greenhouse products; and forest products were
obtained by asking each farm operator the value of sales. Second,
the values of all other farm products sold were computed. For the
most important crops, the quantity sold or to be sold was obtained
for each farm. The entire quantity harvested for cotton and
cottonseed, tobacco, sugar beets for sugar, hops, mint for oil, and
sugarcane for sugar was considered sold. The quantity of minor
crops sold was estimated. The value of sales for each crop was
computed by multiplying the ciuantity sold by State average
prices. In the case of wool and mohair, the value of sales was
computed by multiplying the quantity shorn or clipped by the
State average prices.

Gross sales include the value of all kinds of farm products sold.
The total does not include rental and benefit, soil conservation,
price adjustment. Sugar Act, and similar payments. The total

does include the value of the landlord's share of a crop removed
from a farm operated by a share tenant. In most of the tables,
detailed data are presented for only the more important sources
of gross sales and the total for the individual farm products
or sources will not equal tlie total as the values for the less impor-
tant sources or farm products have been omitted. (For a detailed
statement regarding the reliability and method of obtaining the
valueof farm products sold, reference should be made to Chapter
IX of Volume II of the reports for the 10.54 Census of Agriculture.)

Livestock and livestock products sold. — The value of sales for
livestock and livestock products includes the value of live animals
sold, dairy products sold, poultry and jjoultry products sold, and
the calculated value of wool and mohair. The value of bees,
honey, fur animals, goats, and goat milk is not included.

The value of dairy products includes the value of whole milk and
cream sold, but does not include the value of butter and cheese,
made on the farm, and sold. The value of poultry and products
includes the value of chickens, broilers, chicken eggs, turkeys,
turkey eggs, ducks, geese, and other miscellaneous poultry and
poultry products sold. The value does not include the value
of baby chicks sold.

Crops sold. — Vegetables sold includes the value of all vegetables
harvested for sale, but does not include the value of Irish potatoes
and sweetpotatocs.

The value of all crops sold includes the value of all crops sold
except forest products. The value of field crops sold includes the
value of sales of all crops sold except vegetables, small fruits and
berries, fruits, and nuts.

' Farm Costs and Returns, 1955 (wilh comparisons), ABricultiiro Information Bulletin .\'o. 158, .Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculturo, Juno 1956.

CHAPTER V

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY
PRODUCTION

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Changes characterize the industry _

Expansion is consistent

Marketing problems

Changes in dairy farming

Characteristics of dairy farming..
Location of dairy areas

MAJOR DAIRY REGIONS

General characteristics

Variation in farm characteristics

Size of business

The Northeastern Dairy Region

The Northern Lake Region

Eastern Ohio- Western Pennsylvania Region

Page
5
6
6
7
10
11

14
U
17
18
20
22

MAJOR DAIRY REGIONS— Continued

Central Michigan- Western New York Lake Shore Region-
The Northern Woods Region

SPECIAL DAIRY AREAS

General characteristics

Variations in farm characteristics

The Atlantic Coast Area

The Nashville Basin Area

The Gulf Coast Area

The Ozark-Springfield Area

The Snake River-Utah Valley Area.

The Southern California Area

The California Inner Valley Area . .
The Puget Sound-Coastal Area

Appendix.

Page
24
26

28
29
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47

MAPS AND CHARTS

Page
Index numbers of average yearly prices received by farmers

for milk, cattle, and hogs: 1944-54 6

Dairy farms, number, 1954 7

Dairy farms — increase and decrease in number, 1950-54 7

Average size of farms, 1954 9

Cropland harvested as a percent of all land in farms, 1954.. 9

Hay acreage as a percent of cropland harvested, 1954 10

Corn cut for silage, acreage, 1954 10

Percentage of all farms operated by tenants, 1954 11

Whole milk sold, number of pounds, 1954 12

Value of dairy jiroducts sold, dollars, 1954 13

Cream sold, number of pounds of butterfat, 1954 i:?

Northeastern dairy area 18

Page
Lake dairy area 20

Eastern Ohio- Western Pennsylvania dairy area 22

Central Michigan- Western New York Lake Shore dairy

area 24

Northern Woods dairy area

Atlantic Coastal area

Nashville Basin area

Gulf Coastal area

Ozark Springfield area

Snake River-Utah Valley area.

Southern California area

California Inner Valley area

Puget Sound-Coastal area

26
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47

TEXT TABLES

Table—

1. — Percentage distrilnition of milk by use, for the United States: 1925 to 1955 ^

2. — Milk production and population of the United States: 1924 to 1955

3. — Changes in number of farms having milk cows and number of cows per farm, for the United States: 1910 to 1954

4. — Number of dairy farms by size of farm, for the United States: 1950 and 1954

5. — Percentage distrilnition of milk cows and milk production by size of herd, for the United States: 1954 and 1950

6. — Percentage distribution of dairy farms by economic class of farm, for the United States: 1950 and 1954

7. — Number of milk cows and sale of milk and cream for dairy, commercial, and other farms, for the United States: 1954

8. — Distribution of whole milk sold, by geographic divisions: 1909 to 1954

9. — Distribution of cream and butter sold (milk erniivalent), by geographic divisions: 1909 to 1954

10. — Distribution of milk sold and milk products, for the T'nited States and geographic divisions: 1954

1 1 . — Number and use of resources for all commercial farms and for all dairy farms in the I 'nited States and in selected subregions: 1954.

12. — Number of milk cows on dairy farms by nuijor dairy regions: 1954

13. — Size of dairy farm by major dairy regions: 1954

14. — Milk and cream sales for dairy farms by major dairy regions: 1954

15. Labor force on dairy farms by major dairy regions: 1954

16. — Farm mechanization and_home conveniences on dairy farms, by major dairy regions: 1954 ^

Page

CONTENTS 3
TEXT TABLES— Continued

TnWi- Page

17. — A distribution of operators by age, for dairy farms by major dairy regions: 1954 16

18. — Land, uses of land, and livestock on dairy farms, by major dairy regions: 1954 16

19. — Number of years required for gross income to equal total investment for dairy farms, for major dairy regions: 1954 17

20. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northeastern Dairy Region: 1954 19

21. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northeastern Dairy Region: 1954 19

22. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northeastern Dairy Region: 1954_ 19

23. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for tlie Northeastern Dairy Region: 1954 19

24. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for tire Northern Lal^e Region: 1954 21

25. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northern Lake Region: 1954 21

26. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northern Lake Region: 1954 21

27. — I'se of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northern Lake Region: 1954 22

28. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania Region: 1954__ 23
29. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania Region:

1954 ^ _' '_ 23

30. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania

Region : 1954 23

31. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania Region: 1954, 23
32. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Central Michigan- Western New York Lake Shore

Region : 1954 25

33. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Central Michigan- Western New York Lake

Shore Region : 1954 25

34. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Central Michigan-Western New

York Lake Shore Region: 1954 . 25

35. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Central Michigan-Western New York Lake Shore

Region : 1954 25

36. — Number of farms and number of milk cows in the Northern Woods Region: 1930 to 1954 26

37. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northern Woods Region: 1954 27

38. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northern Woods Region: 1954 27

39. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northern Woods Region: 1954__ 27

40. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Northern Woods Region: 1954 27

41. — Number of commercial farms by type, for special dairy areas: 1954 28

42. — Distribution of milk cows on commercial farms by type of farm, for special dairy areas: 1954 29

43. — Size of dairy farms, by special dairy areas: 1954 29

44. — Distribution of dairy farms by size of herd, for special dairy areas: 1954 30

45. — Milk and cream sold per milk cow on dairy farms, by special dairy areas: 1954 30

46. — Sources of farm income for dairy farms, by special dairy areas: 1954 31

47. — Farm mechanization and home conveniences on dairy farms, by special dairy areas: 1954 31

48. — Distribution of dairy farmers by age, for special dairy areas: 1954 31

49. — Farm organization of dairy farms, by special dairy areas: 1954 32

50. — Sources of labor on dairy farms, by special dairy areas: 1954 32

51. — Milk cows and milk production, for the Atlantic Coast Area: 1954 33

52. — Number of dairy farms by economic class, for the Atlantic Coast Area: 1954 34

53. — Crop acreage per farm on dairy farms, by economic class, for the Atlantic Coast Area: 1954 34

54. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Atlantic Coast Area: 1 954 34

55. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy f?rms, by economic class of farm, for the Atlantic Coast Area: 1954 34

56. — Use of fertilizer and hme on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Atlantic Coast Area: 1954 35

57. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Nashville Basin Area: 1954 36

58. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Nashville Basin Area: 1954 36

59. — Measures of income and eflSciency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Nashville Basin Area: 1954 36

60. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Nashville Basin Area: 1954 36

61. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Gulf Coast Area: 1954 38

62. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Gulf Coast Area: 1954 38

63. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Gulf Coast Area: 1954 38

64. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Gulf Coast Area: 1954 38

65. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Ozark-Springfield Area: 1954 39

66. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Ozark-Springfield Area: 1954 40

.67. — Measures of income ?nd efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Ozark-Springfield Area: 1954 40

4 CONTENTS

TEXT TABLES— Continued

Table— Page

68. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Ozark-Springfield Area: 1954 40

69. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Snake River-Utah Valley Area: 1954 42

70. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Snake River-Utah Valley Area: 1954 42

71. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Snake River-Utah Valley Area:

1954 - 42

72. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Snake River-Utah Valley Area: 1954 42

73. — Number of farms by size of herd and milk and cream sold per farm, for the Southern California Area: 1954 44

74. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Southern California Area: 1954 44

75. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Southern California Area: 1954 44

76. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Southern California Area: 1954 44

77. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Southern California Area: 1954 45

78. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the California Inner Valley Area: 1954 46

79. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the California Inner Valley Area: 1954 46

80. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the California Inner Valley Area: 1954. 46

81. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the California Inner Valley Area: 1954 46

82. — Sources of farm income on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Puget Sound-Coastal Area: 1954 48

83. — Specified farm expenditures on dairy farms, by economic class of farms, for the Puget Sound-Coastal Area: 1954 48

84. — Measures of income and efficiency levels for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Puget Sound-Coastal Area: 1954- . 48

85. — Use of fertilizer and lime on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for the Puget Sound-Coastal Ares: 1954 48

APPENDIX TABLES

Table— Page

1. — Milk production and price support purchases, by program years: 1949 to 1956 51

2. — Cost of dairy products acquired under price supports programs, by years: January 1, 1949, to March 31, 1956 51

3. — Method of disposition of dairy products bought: January 1, 1949, to March 31, 1956 52

4. — Method of disposition of supplies bought, by kind of dairy product, by calendar years: 1949 to 1956 52

5. — Losses of Commodity Credit Corporation through market operations, by kind of dairy product, by program years: 1949 to 1956. 53

6.- — Percent distribution of dairy farms, in each economic class of farm group, by number of milk cows, for major dairy regions: 1954. 53

7. — Percent distribution of dairy farms in each economic class of farm group, by number of milk cows, for special dairy areas: 1954. 54

8. — Measure of size of business for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for major dairy regions: 1954 55

9. — Farm labor force on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for major dairy regions : 1954 55

10. — Farm mechanization and home conveniences on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for major dairy regions: 1954. 56

11.— Distribution of operators of dairy farms in each economic class, by age, for major dairy regions: 1954 56

12. — Land use on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for major dairy regions: 1954 57

13. — Average number of livestock per farm for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for major dairy regions: 1954 57

14. — Average sales of dairy products per cow and distribution of the sales of dairy products, by economic class of farm, for special

dairy areas: 1954 58

15. — Average sales of dairy products per cow and distribution of the sales of dairy products, by economic class of farm, for major dairy

regions: 1954 59

16. — Measure of size of business for dairy farms, by economic class of farm, by special dairy areas: 1954 60

17.- — Farm labor force on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for special dairy areas: 1954 61

18. — Farm mechanization and home conveniences on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for special dairy areas: 1954 62

19. — Distribution of operators of dairy farms in each economic class, by age, for special dairy areas: 1954 63

20. — Land use on dairy farms, by economic class of farm, for special dairy areas : 1954 63

21. — Average number of livestock per farm for dairy farms, by economic clas.s of farm, for special dairy areas: 1954. , 64

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

P. E. McNall
INTRODUCTION

Change is continuous in the dairy industry. During one life-
time it has changed from a family-cow business to a concentrated
and highly specialized industry. This transformation has developed
under a wide range of conditions of production on dairy farms.
Some dairy farms are large and highly mechanized units. Others
still are small. Some dairy farms are highly specialized. Others
have diversified operations. Such variations of conditions are
important and must be given close consideration when appraising
incomes of dairy farmers and prospective changes in dairy
production.

Developments in dairying have not been limited to any one
region or area. Dairying is found in every part of the United
States. Milk is produced from the northernmost States of Maine,
Minnesota, and Washington to Texas and Florida; from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific.

Despite this broad geographic dispersion of production some
regions have developed into well-recognized dairy areas while in
others dairying is secondary to other types of production. Reasons
back of these areas of concentrations are almost as varied as are
the areas themseh'es. Both physical and economic factors
contribute to differences. Climate, soil, topography, markets,
and the possibility of production of other commodities all con-
tribute to the types of production found in different parts of the
country. Moreover, the nationality of the local farmers frequently
brings to an area definite aptitudes, skills, and knowledge, that
partly determine the ultimate type of farming.

Areas now characterized as most important in dairy production
usually have a rolling to hilly topography with somewhat limited
acreages for the growing of cultivated crops and with considerable
acreages that are most useful as pastureland. Soils range from
fair to good biit crop acreages per farm are not large.

CHANGES CHARACTERIZE THE INDUSTRY

The Northeastern Dairy Region is the oldest in the country and
has the longest history. During its early history and well into the
19th century the production of dairy products was essentially for
home consumption. Little milk was produced during the winter.
During the flush spring and early summer seasons milk was
skimmed and churned into butter or was made into cheese.
These were mostly home procedures and the products were stored
away in cellars, caves, or spring houses for winter use. Dairying
was strictly secondary to the production of wheat, beef, sheep, and
horses, the market for which was well established and accessilile.
Partly as a consequence of soil exhaustion with ensuing low yields,
depredations of the weevil, and rising land values, and partly as
a result of industrial development and improved transportation,
the production of wheat deohned and beef cattle and sheep were
largely replaced by milk cows.

Urban communities continued to grow and the demand for milk
so increased that delivery by individual dairymen became no longer
possible. Distances to market became so great that daily trips
could not be made with horse-drawn vehicles. This led to an

intermediary organization which bought the milk from the
individual farmers, bottled it, and later pasteurized it and
distributed it to customers.

Small cheese factories and creameries continued to handle milk
that was not needed for fluid consumption or that was not con-
veniently located for transportation. With the development of
faster means of transportation, and especially as a result of the
development of better methods of handling milk, the so-called
urban milk sheds expanded to meet the demands of the ever-
growing cities. By the close of the century those local process-
ing plants were mostly replaced by points of fluid milk concentra-
tion in order to meet this expanding demand. It was in this way
that the Northeastern Dairy Region developed into a fluid-milk
region \\ith only a small scattering of local processing plants.

Production on many of the farms in the Great Lakes Region
around the close of the 19th century followed the pattern set by
the producers in the northeastern part of the country. Early pro-
duction consisted of wheat, cattle, and horses, which could be
delivered to the market during the slack time of the farmers. The
few head of milk cows which were brought in by early farmers
found plentiful summer feed on the rough meadowland; their num-
bers increased. The small surpluses of summer milk were made
into butter and cheese and stored in cellars or spring houses for
winter use or for sale wherever sales could be made.

In the meantime, the opening of the prairies brought the produc-
tion of vast quantities of wheat, corn, and beef cattle, which so
reduced the prices for these commodities that it was no longer
profitable for the Great Lakes farmers to continue in their produc-
tion. Meanwhile, markets for dairy products were developing.
These farmers found it to their advantage to raise feed crops for
dairy cows rather than to continue in the more extensive type of
production of cash grains and beef. They also found the cooler
and somewhat damp summer climate conducive to the production
of hay which gave feed for winter feeding. The result has been a
continued increase in numbers of dairy cattle in those areas where
they have an advantage over other types of production.

The fluid or market-milk industry necessarily developed only
and concurrently with the growth of large centers of population.
Two factors limited the growth of dairying around these centers —
the perishability of the product and the necessary transportation
to market. As transportation facilities changed from horse-drawn
vehicles over rough dirt roads to fast motor-driven trucks over
smooth hard-surfaced roads the producing areas expanded. Facili-
ties for handling the larger supplies and for meeting the require-
ments of surplus production came into existence. Assembling
centers, refrigeration, and rapid transportation expanded the
market-milk areas from a few miles to a hundred or more.

Other uses for milk and new processes further expanded surplus-
producing areas as plants were placed in the centers of production
rather than near centers of population. Creameries, cheese fac-
tories, condenseries, and dried milk plants were so located as to
take advantage of local production and so reduce the costs of
transportation on bulky products.

423022—57-

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

EXPANSION IS CONSISTENT

Dairying has experienced no phenomenal spurts or disastrous
setbaclis during its development. Its growth has probably been
the most consistent of the major agricultural enterprises. Milk
cow numbers increased gradually from 17,125,000 on hand Jan-
uary 1, 1910, to a maximum of 27,770,000 on the same date in
1945. From that time there has been a gradual decline until on
January 1, 1956, there were only 23,318,000 on hand. The change
from year to year has never exceeded 5 percent whereas the number
of beef cows — or cows other than milk cows — ^has varied nearly
twice as much. Likewise, the production of milk during any one
year has not changed more than 5 percent from the year before,
whereas beef production frequently has changed as much as 10
or 12 percent; during 1953 total beef production was practically
25 percent greater than in 1952.

The greater variation in the yearly production of beef is partly
due to the sale of cull cows from milking herds and partly to the
diverse conditions under which beef cattle are raised and fed.
The beef industry has developed in regions of moi'e variable crop-
growing conditions and in areas of greater economic flexibilit}-
than has dairying. Production conditions in these beef areas are
excellent for the grain crops used in the fattening and finishing
of beef cattle for market or for hog feeding. The individual grain
producer may use either of these classes of livestock for disposing
of his feed supplies depending upon the relative costs of animals
to be fed and prospective prices for livestock when ready for
market; or he may sell the grain as a cash crop.

The result of this interplay of economic situations is a less
variable yearly production of all red meats than is the case of
either beef or pork alone, but a more variable production pattern
than for milk. This situation is reflected in the yearly average

INDEX NUMBERS OF AVERAGE YEARLY PRICES RECEIVED BY
FARMERS FOR MILK, CATTLE, AND HOGS. 1944-1954

(1944-1953=100)

1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950

Source U S DeDorlmenl of Agriculture

1951 1952 1953 I95'5

S4C-I9')

Figure 1.

prices farmers receive for these products (see fig. 1). During the
decade ending in 1953, the average yearly prices received by
farmers either for cattle or for hogs varied more than did the
prices received for milk. A study of prices of dairy products
covering several decades shows that milk prices to farmers do
not go as high as do prices of other agricultural products when
demand is suddenly increased. Neither have they in the past
gone as low as other prices when depressed conditions for agri-
culture prevail. Dairying is one of the most stable of agricultural
enterprises.

MARKETING PROBLEMS

Dairy farming meets unusual problems in the marketing of some
of its products. No suitable substitute has been found for whole
milk as a human food and skim milk products are filling a unique
place in meeting certain nutrition needs. Therefore, the market
for both continues to expand. The situation is different with
butterfat. Other fats and oils compete directly with it in both
cooking and baking and as a spread for bread. Competition has
been so keen that the place of butter in the diet has been greatly
reduced. Although we are using as much edible fats and oils
per capita as before, butterfat accounts for a much smaller frac-
tion of this consumption, and a much smaller proportion of milk
is used for making butter. During 1925 nearly one-half (44 per-
cent) of all milk was used for this purpose (Table 1). Since then
a steady and consistent drop in this use has taken place; during
1955 only 25 percent of all milk was used for butter production —
a decrease of nearly 50 percent.

Table 1. — Percentage Distribution of Milk by Use, for the
United States: 1925 to 1955

Perceut of milk used for—

Year

All
butter

Fluid
con-
sump-
tion

Manufactured
products

Other
uses

Total

Cheese

Other

1926

1930...

1935

44.4
42.2
42.9
40.3

28.2
28.1
24.9

41.1
40.3
40.0
39.2

43.7
45.1
47 2

5.3
6.0
6.1
7.1

9.2
10.1
10.9

6.6
6.8
6.9
9.0

13.9
13.2
13.2

2.6
6.7
4.1
4.4

.5.0
3.5
3.8

100.0
100.0
100.0

1940-

1945

1950

1955 -

100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0

Source: Milk, Farm Production, Disposition and Income.
.\. M. S. 30 (1964-55) .\pril 1956.

1954-65 U. S. D. A.—

. The proportion of milk used for most other purposes has in-
creased during this period. The greatest proportionate increase
has been in the manufactured products of cheese and condensed
and evaporated milk. Milk used for fluid consumption increased
from 41 percent of all milk produced in 1925 to 47 percent in 1955.
Aggregate milk production increased more than one-third during
this period.

The quantity of milk used on farms where produced dropped
from 27 million pounds in 1925 to 15 million in 1955. Nine million
pounds of this decrease is the result of less farm-churned butter;
another 3 million pounds represents the reduction in the consump-
tion of fluid milk and cream by farm famiUes. Tliis decrease in
farm use is accounted for partly by a reduction of one-fourth in the
number of farms during this 30-year period and partly by the farm
family's turning to the use of creamery rather than homemade
butter. Even so, there is now being used on farms where produced
only 310 pounds mOk equivalent per farm family in comparison
with 425 pounds 30 years ago.

A current surplus of milk exists even though there are not so
many milk cows in this country now as in 1924 and population
has increased 46 percent. This is especially striking because the
per capita production of milk during this time decreased from 821
pounds to 742 pounds (Table 2).

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 2. -Milk Production and Population of the United
States: 1924 to 1955

AveraRo
number of
milk eows
on farms '
(thousand)

Population
(tliousand)

Poriula-
tion per
niiliv cow

Millc production

Year

Total
(millions

of
pounds) 1

Per

capita

(pounds)

Per cow
(pounds)

1924

1930

1940

1945-.. ..-

1950.

1955

21,417

22, 218

23, 671

2.5, 033
21,944
21, 232

114,113
123, 077

131, 954

132. 481
150, 697
166, .540

5.3
5.5
6.6

6.3
0.9

7.8

93, 660
102, 984
111,612

120, 628
117,302
123, 554

821
837

845

910
778
742

4,167
4. 5flS
4, 622

4,787
,5,314
5,815

' Source: Dairy Statistics, Statistical Bulletin No. 134, Revised Mav 1950— U. S.
Department of Agriculture.

Current oversuppl.y of dairy products with its ensuing price
problem is created not so much by milk producers as by the change
in consumer habits. The loss of the butter market to date amounts
to an ec}uivalent of 160 pounds of milk per capita.

The Commodity Credit Corporation has bought and disposed of
the equivalent of 32 billion pounds of milk since 1949 in its efforts
to maintain prices of dairy products.'

Further changes in consumer habits are reflected in other dairy
products. Conspicuous increases in per capita consumption of
fluid milk, condensed and evaporated milk, and total cheese and
milk products used in frozen desserts, have taken place since 1924.
The only decrease in the per capita consumption of dairy products,
on the other hand, was in butter, already mentioned. Total
civilian eonsumptioo of dairy products during 1955 was 700
pounds milk equivalent per capita in comparison with 785 pounds
during 1924,

CHANGES IN DAIRY FARMING

The number of farms producing milk and cream is changing with
changing economic conditions. Milk cows were reported on
3,648,000 farms, or 68 percent of all farms, in 1950 (Table 3).
This number had decreased to 2,956,000 farms, or 62 percent of
all farms, 5 years later. Meanwhile, the number of cows increased
from 6 cows per farm in 1950 to 7 in 1954.

Table 3. — Changes in Number of Farms Having Milk Cows
AND Number of Cows per Farm, for the United States:
1910 to 1954

Number of farms

Year

Total

With mUk cows

MUk

cows per

farm

Number

Percent
of total

1910

6, 361, 502
6, 448, 343
6, 288, 648

6, 096, 799
5,382,162
4, 782, 416

5, 140, 869
4,461,296
4, 452, 936

4, 644, 317
3, 648, 257
2, 956, 900

81
69
71

76
68
62

3 3

1920 . . ..

1930 .

1940

1950

5.8
6.9

1954

Dairy farms have decreased in number. In 1949, there were
602,000; in 1954 there were 549,000— a drop of 9 percent. This
is slightly less than the decrease of lOK percent in the total number
of commercial farms during that time (see figs. 2 and 3). Most
of this reduction is in the smaller farms. The remaining dairy
farms averaged 20 cows per farm in 1954 as compared with 16 as

'See Appendix article " Dairy Products and Price Supports."

an average in 1949. The greatest reduction has taken place in
areas that have enjoyed the best prices for dairy products; con-
versely, the areas with the lower prices show less reduction. To
some extent these area differences are associated with alternative
opportunities, both on the farm and off the farm. The Northeast-
ern Dairy Area, where milk i)rices are somewhat higher than in
the Midwest but where off-farm employment opportunities have
been generally good, had a n-duction of 11>^ percent during the
5-year period. On the other hand, the Lake area, where the
prices of dairy products are not so satisfactory as in the East,
showed less than half this rate of redviction — 5J-2 percent.

DAIRY FARMS

NUMBER. 1954

UNfTID STATES TOTAL
548.763

Figure 2.

DAIRY FARMS- INCREASE AND DECREASE

IN NUMBER. 1950 * 1954

Fiijure 3.

When the figures for the Lake Area are given by States the
picture is confusing. Wisconsin showed a reduction of 8 percent
in the number of dairy farms, whereas Minnesota showed less
than two-tenths of 1 percent. Most of the increases in number
of dairy farms are outside the important dairy areas, whereas the
decreases are notably within. These shifts would suggest that
some farmers outside the dairy areas are finding price relation-
ships good enough, compared to alternatives, to justify going into
the production of milk and cream, whereas the number of dairy
farms is decreasing within the dairy belt. That dairying outside
the main dairy areas is mostly secondary to other euterjjrises on
the individual farms may help to explain this situation.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

A particularly important change taking place in dairy farming
is the reduction in the number of very small farms and small herds,
and the increase in the number of the larger units. Dairy farms
with fewer than 50 acres of land have decreased during this 5-year
period from 11 percent of all dairy farms to 9 percent (Table 4).
The percentage of dairy farms with more than 180 acres increased
from 28.9 percent of all dairy farms in 1949 to 33.8 percent in
1954.

Table 4.

-Number of Dairy Farms by Size of Farm, for the
United States: 1950 and 1954

1950

1954

Size of farm

Number
of farms

Percent
distribu-
tion

Number
of farms

Percent

dlstiibu-

tion

Total

602, 093

100.0

648, 767

100.0

6,363
22, 068
37, 562
39, 415

103, 489
120, 905
98, 516
56, 404

37, 926
63, 542
13, 294
2,009

1.1
3.7
6.2
6.5

17.1
20.1
16.4
9.4

6.3

10.6

2.2

6,664
16, 123
28, 087
30, 937

84, 168
105, 291
93, 010
57, 292

38.422
71, 435
15,116
3,222

1.0

3.0

30 to 49 acres - - -

5.1

5.6

15.3

100 to 139 acres

19.2

17,0

180 to 219 acres -

10.4

220 to 259 acres -

7.0

260 to 499 acres

13.0

500 to 999 acres .

2,8

Small herds are decreasing as rapidly as small farms (Table 5).
In 1950, 82 percent of the farms with milk cowa had fewer than 10
cows per herd. By 4 years later this number had been reduced to
78 percent of all farms. Forty-three percent of all milk cows were
on these small farms in 1950, but by 1954 the number was 33 per-
cent. On the other hand, there were 60 percent more farms with
20 or more cows in 1954 than in 1950, and they have 39 percent
of all milk cows in comijarison with 28 percent 4 years earlier.
This kind of change makes for a more effective use of resources
and for better living conditions for those operators who continue
as dairymen.

.\nother comparison of the change in size of farms is brought
out in the classification of dairy farms by economic class. In
1950, 32.8 percent of all dairy farms had gro.ss incomes of less than
$2,500 per farm and 11.9 percent .showed gross incomes in excess
of $10,000 per farm (Table 6). In 1954, the percentage of small-
income farms had decreased to 27.4 percent of all dairy farms,
whereas the number of large-income farms was increased to 16
percent. This type of change can also be beneficial to the remain-
ing dairy farmers.

Table 5. — Percentage Distribution of Milk Cows and
Milk Production by Size of Herd, for the United States:
1954 and 1950

Size of herd (number of milk cows)

Farms with milk cows

Number of milk cows

1954

I960

1964

1960

Total number .

2, 966, 900

3, 648, 257

20, 366, 460

21, 232, 673

Percent distribution

Total ---

100.0
60.9
16.7
14.1

5.1

2.4

100.0
62.5
19.4
13.1

3.3
1.3

100.0
16.3
16.9
27.6

17.0
12 4
9.8

100.0

1 to 4

20.7

6 to 9

22.3

10 to 19

29.6

20 to 29

12.9

30to49

7.9

6.7

Table 6. — Percentage Distribution of Dairy Farms by
Economic Class of Farm, for the United States:
1954 AND 1950

Year

Number
of farms

Percent distribution by economic
class of farm

III

1964 -

648, 767
602, 093

2.1
1.7

13.9
10.2

28.5
25.6

28.0
29.9

18.7
22.2

8.7

1960

10.6

The a\erage size of the dairy farm when measured by total
acres of land in the farm compares favorably with most other
farms of the country (fig. 4). Only wheat farms and ranches are
conspicuously larger. It is only from the standpoint of amount
of harvested cropland that the size appears smaller than many
other tyiJes of farmnig (fig. 5).

The a\ erage dairy farm in both the Lake and the Northeastern
Dairy Areas is between 100 and 199 acres. Most of the counties
in the C'cjrn Belt show the same total acreage per farm. When
the acreage of these farms is e.xpressed as cropland harvested, it
is found that the dairy areas use around 30 percent of their total
farm acreage for this purpose while the Corn Belt uses more than
twice that, or approximately 70 percent.

Total milk equivalent of milk and cream sold from all farms in
1954 was 95,409 million pounds. The sale of cream accounted
for 13 percent of this amount; the remainder was used for fluid-
milk consumption and manufacture (Table 7). Slightly less than
2 percent of the total milk-equivalent sales was from noncommer-
cial farms which had 8 percent of all milk cows. Commercial
farms accounted for the remaining 98 percent. The nondairy
farms within the commercial group had 39 percent of all milk
cows and sold 19 percent of the whole milk sold, and 76 percent of
the cream.

Table 7- — Number of Milk Cows and Sale of Milk and Cream for Dairy, Commercial, and Other Farms, for the United

States: 1954

Item

Dairy farms

United States

All commercial farms

Other farms

Total

Percent

Total

Percent

Total

Percent

Total

Percent

Milk cows

Whole milk sold.... -

Cream sold -

Milk equivalent _._

- Number. .

__ pounds. -

..butterfat. pomids..

pounds. -

10, 748, 440
66, 170, 754, 744

92.591.197
68, 670, 612, 634

62. s
79.8
20.0
72.0

20, 365, 460

82, 915, 775, 259

463, 025. 820

95, 408, 549, 628

100.0
100.
100.0
100.0

18, 671, 093

81, 676, 968. 611

444. 634, 429

93, 697, 698, 123

91.7
98.5
96.0
98.2

1, 694, 367

1,238.806,648

18,391,391

1,710,861,506

8.3
1.6
4.0
1.8

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

AVERAGE SIZE OF FARMS. 1954

(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)

LEGEND

ACRES
I h iMriFR 50 ^^ 500 To 999

tvi'--i 50 TO 99 ^S 1000 TO 2,499

i^lOOT0l99 ^H ESOO AND OVER

5 200 TO 499

• NO FARMS
us DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

MAP NO ^54-044

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Figure 4.

CROPLAND HARVESTED AS A PERCENT OF ALL LAND IN FARMS. 1954

(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)

I I UNDER 10 ESSa 40 TO 59

i^"-?:J 10 TO 19 B^g 60 TO 79

I 20 TO 39 HH 80 AND OVER
»N0 FARMS

us DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

MAP NO fl54 -056

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Figure 5.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

ACREAGE

A PERCENT OF CROPLAND HARVESTED,

(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)

I I UNDER 10

fe'.'>''-1 10 TO 19
W^ 20 TO 39
^3 40 TO 59

* NO FARMS
*-» EXCLUDING SOyBEAN, COWPEA,
PEANUT AND SORGHUM HAY

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

P NO A54-06e

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Figure 6.

CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY FARMING

Dairy farming may be characterized as an industry that can
malvc use of practically any feed crop grown. Whether it be grain
or hay, high-protein feed, or roughage, it can bo utilized l^v milk
cows. Basic to any feeding system with cows is the use of hays,
other roughages, and pasturage. Dairy cows will produce 100
pounds of milk with the quantity of hay required to produce 110
pounds of beef or 125 pounds of mutton. This is accomplished
with less grain than for any other class of livestock except sheep.
The cow converts feed, much of which has a limited market, to a
food product for which the market is almost universal.

In dairying there is also a greater use of family labor than in a
business of similar size in any other livestock venture. This labor
is needed day after day. In this way it may make possible the
"marketing" of family labor which otherwise would remain
unutilized.

The dairy farm produces both milk and meat. A farmer who
raises his own replacements will produce one-half as much beef as
a farmer with the same number of beef cows. In the aggregate,
the sale of these cattle tempers the price of beef but it adds from
10 to 20 percent to the value of sales from the dairy herd.

Another characteristic of dairying is the production of an
essential food for the human family that supplies many of the
minerals and vitamins needed for satisfactory physical develop-
ment. Milk is the most nearly universal food for growing
children.

Dairy cows are ruminants and for high production must have
large quantities of hay and other forages of good quality. One
advantage of the major dairy-producing areas is the adaptability
to hay production of their soil, topography, and climate. In most
of the southern parts of the dairy areas a 3-year rotation of crops

is practiced, of which one-third is hay. Moving north within the
area the growing season becomes cooler and shorter. So corn is
less practical as a part of the cropping system, and increasing
proportion of the cropland is devoted to hay until, in the more
northern parts, four-fifths to nine-tenths or more of the harvested
cropland is used for hay (fig. 6).

Another way of increasing not only the roughage production of
dairy farms but also the feed production per acre is to use the
corn crop for silage rather than for grain. Only a small fraction
of the large acreage of corn in the Corn Belt is cut for silage but a
much larger proportion of a smaller corn acreage is so used in
the dairy area (fig. 7).

CORN CUT FOR SILAGE*

ACREAGE. 1954

Figure 7-

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

PERCENTAGE OF ALL FARMS OPERATED BY TENANTS, 1954

(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)

LEGEND

PERCENT

I I UNDER 20 ISSSfj 60 TO 79

f_J 20 TO 39 ^H eO 4N0 OVER

I'iS'S'l 40 TO 59

JS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Figure 8.

Most dairy farmers are owner-operators (tig. 8). A dairy
farmer with 20 to 30 cows usually finds his net income rather small
to divide between two families. Then too, it is difficult to obtain
renters with the necessary experience to feed and care properly for
a dairy herd that has higher than average production. A third
reason mentioned by some operators is the lack of money or
credit necessary to carry a renter's share of the dairy herd and
feed supply in addition to the machinery needed now for expedi-
tious and effective farm operation. Whatever the reasons, the
fact remains that opportunities for young men to begin farming
as renters in the dairy areas are more limited th;in in sucli areas as
the Corn Belt.

Developing a dairy herd through a breeding program may be a
lifetime business for any dairyman. This is especially true if he
expects to produce his own replacements. Dairy farming is not a
flexible business. The main enterprise — milk production —
cannot easily or quickly be changed.

Dairying requires a higher quality of labor than does the
production of many farm products. Rough treatment or irregular
feeding will reduce production. In some situations even the
presence of strangers in the barn will temporarily reduce the milk
flow.

LOCATION OF DAIRY AREAS

The large numbers of milk cows in the northeastern part of
the country and west of Lake Michigan are first of all the results
of physical features of climate, topography, and soil which make
for a large percentage of the cropland in legumes and grasses.
Milk cows can utilize these feeds more effectively than can most
other classes of livestock. A second factor leading to this con-
centration is the competitive situation which reflects many fac-
tors, including the heavy consuming population in, or close to,
these areas.

In the Great Plains areas and the South there are fewer milk
cows than in many other regions. Pasture conditions, markets,
and production alternatives have not especially favored milk
production in many part of these regions.

The milk equivalent o'f all dairy-product sales has increased
2,U times since 1909, meanwhile milk sold as whole milk has in-
creased fivefold, but sales of cream and butter have decreased to
about one-lialf the quantity sold in 1909. The center of the
whole-milk sales has moved westw'ard from the northeastern to
the north-central parts of the country (Table 8). Sales of whole
milk from the Middle Atlantic geographic division accounted for
nearly 40 percent of all whole-milk sales in 1909; by 1954, this
percentage had dropped to 18. The .slack was taken up by the
geographic divisions to the West and South. The West North
Central Division increased its proportion from V/i percent of
whole-milk sales to 13 percent, while the rest of the West and
South increased its sales from 10.3 percent to 29.2 percent.

Table 8. — Distribution of Whole Milk Sold, by Geographic
Divisions: 1909 to 1954

Item

1909

1919

1929

1939

1949

1954

Whole milk soId__million poands.

Percent sold, by geographic divi-
sions:
Total

16, 680
100.0

21, 752
100.0

38,318
100.0

46,229
100.0

68,529
100.0

81, 319

100.0

9.4
38.7
34.1

7.5
2.2
1.2

1.1

1.6
4.2

8.2
34.7
37.5

5.2
3.2
1.3

1.5

1.0
6.5

6.7
26.2
37.6

7.4
4.3
2.9

3.0
3.0

9.9

6.5
22.8
38.6

7.4
4.5
3.2

3.8
3. 1
10.1

5.0
18.6
37.3

11.8
5.5
4.1

4.0
3.2
10.5

4.8

Middle .litlantic

East North Central

West North Central .. ..

South Atlantic

6.2

East South Central

4.5

West South Central

4.3

Mountain ,.

3.7

Pacific

10.5

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Cream and butter sales remained concentrated in the North
Central States (Table 9). In 1909, approximately two-thirds of
the sale of these products was from this region and by 1954, it
accounted for 85 percent of all sales. Within the region itself
notable changes did take place, however, in that the East North
Central States reduced their proportion of sales from 29.6 percent
of aU sales to 10.1 percent, while the portion marketed by the
West North Central Region increased from 33.6 percent to
74.9 percent.

Percentage figures alone do not tell the story of the changes
that have taken place. Although the New England and the
Middle Atlantic geographic divisions showed decreased percent-
ages in sales of both whole milk and cream during this 45-year
period, they actuaBy increased total milk-equivalent sales around
50 percent, and the North Central States increased their aggre-
gate sales by 2}i times. These figures show that whereas the sale
of whole milk has become more widespread or dispersed over the
Ignited States, sales of cream and butter from farms have become
more concentrated in the Midwest, especially in that part where
dairying is a secondary enterprise on most farms.

The present distribution of the several dairy products empha-
sizes the importance of the East North Central States in the
production of all dairy products, except creamery butter (Table
10).

Most of the butter is found in the West North Central States, as
stated earlier, where there are not many dairy farms and milk
cows are carried as secondary to other livestock or cash-crop enter-
prises. This region also is second in American-type cheese, while
the Middle Atlantic States is second in foreign tj'pes of cheese.

A better picture of the distribution of these products is obtained
by listing the States that take a lead in production. Butter is the
most widely distributed. Of the total production, 21 States
produce appreciable quantities in excess of 1 percent, and the
midwestern States of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin
each produces between 5 and 20 percent.

Outside the general dairy regions, small areas of concentration of
milk cows are found near some of our larger population centers
where economic or regulatory restrictions largely define the areas

of production. Northwestern Washington and northern, central,
and southern California are illustrations of areas where consider-
ations of this nature are important. These areas show up more
conspicuously when considered as centers of fluid-milk production
or as sources of dairy income. They are not as conspicuous as
areas of milk cow concentration or numbers of dairy farms because
practically none of the mOk produced in these special areas is
used to make butter or for other manufacturing purposes (figs.
9 and 10).

There are no distinct milk producing areas, however, where
limits to production are set by climate, soil, or topography, as is
true of such commodities as cotton, peanuts, tobacco, and
wheat. Some milk is produced in areas wherever there is ade-
quate feed. It can be produced on grass or hay alone, or on any
one of many combinations of grains and roughages. Milk produc-
tion will be reduced if cows are exposed to excessive heat or
extreme cold, but they can be protected from these extremes by
suitable shelter or housing. Normal production conditions for
dairy cows are varied and are fairly readily controlled.

WHOLE MILK SOLD

NUMBER OF POUNDS. 1954

Figure 9.

Table 9.- — Distribution of Cream and Butter Sold (Milk Equivalent), by Geographic Divisions: 1909 to 1954

Item

1909

1919

1929

1939

1949

1964

Cream and butter sold _.

21, 719. 622, 813

100.0

6.1

12.6

29.6

33.6
3.6
2.3

3.2
2.0
7.1

25. 338, 498, 676

100.0

3.7

6.2

31.8

36.6
3.4
3.1

3.5
3.9
7.9

35. 887, 863, 909

100.0

1.6

2.6

22.7

48.5
3.3
3.8

6.6
5.5
5.4

30, 130, 700, 650

100.0

0.7

1.7

21,6

.52.2
2.6
3.1

8.0
4.8
.13

15,478,918,639

100.0

0.3

1.3

14.1

68.6
2.1
3.1

4.6
3.8
2.2

12, 385, 171, 660

100.0

0.3

1.3

10.1

74.9
1.9

Percent sold, by geographic divisions:

Total ,. _

New England

East North Central

West North Central

.South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central-.

3 7

Mountain

Piicific

Table 10. — Distribution of Milk Sold and Milk Products, for the United States and Geographic Divisions: 1954

United States

Percent distribution by geographic divisions

item

Pounds

Percent

New
England

Middle
Atlantic

E.N.
Central

W. N.
Central

South
Atlantic

South
Central

Moun-
tain

Pacific

Whole milk sold i-

82,916,775,000

1,448,688,000

1,042,345,000

340, 769, 000

3,729,792,000

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

4.8
.3
.5

2.2
.8

18.0
3.4
3.6

21.7
8.2

35.0
29.9
59.4
,19.2
;i8.2

13.0
50.3
18.2
5.9
11.6

6.2
1.0

8.8
6.1

11.1
4.2

16.0

3.7

4.5
3.6
3.4
4.6

10.6
5.6
3.2

American cheese i _

Other cheese, mostly foreign types i- -.

Condensed and evaporated milli i

7."6"

13.0

' Source: Statistical Bulletin No. 167, 1955, U. S, Department of Agriculture. The uses are not mutually exclusive because some of the whole milk sold from farms was used In
makmg manufactured products.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

VALUE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS SOLD
DOLLARS. 1954

Figure 10.

The conditions tliat can.se one group of farmer.s to sell fluid
milk while another group sells cream or makes cheese must be
considered in addition to the factors that make it possible to
produce milk.

The areas that sell cream are ordinarily farther from consuming
centers. They are no longer found in the central or main milk-
producing areas because of the increased conunercial utilization
of whole milk rather than just the butterfat in the milk (fig. II).
North and South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas
now produce more than 50 percent of the cream sold from farms
and less than one-si.\th of this comes from farms classed as dair_\-
farms. This means that more than five-sixths of the marketed
creatu from these six States is from farms where the production
of milk is secondary to some other crop or livestock enterprise.
Fifteen years ago these six States produced 34 percent of the
milk that was sold as cream or butter.

CREAM SOLO
NUMBER OF POUNDS OF BUTTERFAT. 1954

rv.

Figure 11.

Usually, considerable numbers of pigs or chickens are found on
farms that sell cream. They furnish outlets for the skim milk
left on the farm. Condenseries are ordinarily located in areas
of heavier milk concentration where they have relatively large
supplies of milk currently available and where they can utilize
some of the market-milk surplus.

Cheese factories, mi the other hand, seem to be set more by
the background and habits of local producers than do other phases
of rlairying. (!heese factories are seldom located to make use of
surplus milk from urb.an centers. The making of different types
of foreign cheeses is closely associated with the nationalities that
originate them.

The half million dairy farmers were about average in the use
of resources. They comprised 16.5 percent of all commercial
farms in the United States in 1954 (Table 11). They used but
it percent of all land in farms and slightly more than 1 1 percent
of harvested cropland, but they sold approximately 15 percent of
the value of all farm jiroducls. One-fourth of the sale of all
livestock and livestock ]M-oducts came from these farms as well
as more than four-fifths of all whole milk sales. Only one-fifth
the \ alue of all cream sales was credited to these farms — the other
four-fifths coming from milk cows on other than dairy farms.
Crop sales were very small, amounting to slightly less than 3
percent of all crop sales and 10 percent of total sales from dairy
farms.

The dairy farmers used their pro|)Ortionate share of all farm
labor, as well as about the same proportion of total capital invest-
ment in land, buildings, farm machinery, and livestock. Total
farm real estate values were somewhat less than might have been
expected because of the farm buildings required to house the
dairy cattle and store feed for the herds during the long barn-
feeding period. Total investment in livestock and machinery
was higher than the percentage represented by the lumiber of
farms, and I'eeil purchases were 50 percent higher.

Table 11. — Number and Use of Resources for all Commercial
Farms and for all Dairy Farms in the United States and
IN Selected Subregions: 1954

Farms number. _

.\11 land in farms thousand acres..

Total eiupland- - do

Cropland hai- vested do

Value of all farm ijroduets

sold niillion dollars. .

All crops sold,i total do

All livestock and livestock products sold,

total _ million dollars. .

I lairv iiroducts sold do

Whole nulk sold do....

Cieani .sold .do

MUk cows thousands .

Man-equivalent of labor number. .

Total capital investment million dollars. .

Land and buildin<zs .do

Implements and machinery do

Livestock aii'l pntillry. do

Total specified expenditures-. .- .do

Feed for livestock and poultry do

All com-
mercial
farms

3. 327. 889

1.U32. 493

431.,W5

321., W7

24, 29H
12, 11711

12. 223

3,330

3,077

2.W

18, (JM

4. 891, 935

110,845
85, 7tiS
14.280
10. 497

8. 9011
3. (K2

Dairy farms

548,
97, 228
51, 181
37, 008

3, .583
341

3,242

2, 02:

2. 573

10, 745

789,811

14,611

10. 242

2.485

1,884

1. .594
S99

Per-
cent
of all
com-
mer-
cial
farms

16.5
9.4
11.9
11.5

14.7
2.8

26.5
78.9
83.6
21.3

57.6

16.1

13.2
11.9
17.4
17.9

17.9
24.4

Selected sub-
regions

Total

385. 429
03, 685
33. 664
25. 250

(NA)
CNA)

2,263

1,859

1,815

7,471

558. 820

10, 056
6,663
1,829
1,.564

1,074
606

Per-
cent
of all
dairy
farms

70.2
65. 5
65.8
68.2

(NA)
(NA)

69.8
70.8
70.5
81.5

69.5

70.8

65.1
73.6
83.0

67.4
67.4

NA Not availiable.

1 Includes horticultural and forest products.

• Machine hil'C, hired labor, feed purchased, gasoline ami olher petroleum fuel and
oil, conmiercial fertilizer, and lime.

42302'J — 57-

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

MAJOR DAIRY REGIONS

Clearer understanding of dairy producers and dairj' production
requires tliat considerable attention be given to production con-
ditions in several geographic regions and areas and on farms of
several sizes. Differences in the technical phases of dairying, in
production conditions, levels of income, and the organization of
farms, are related to the size of the farms as well as to physical
and economic features of the area.

The economic subregion is the basic unit for delineating the
production areas. Because of the large number of economic
subregions in which dairy farms predominate, those with some-
what similar physical and natural characteristics are combined,
forming what will be called dairy regions.

The resources included in the study are only a part of those
associated with the dairy industry of the United States. Sixteen
percent of all commercial farms in this country were classed as
dairy farms in 1954 and 385,429 or 70 percent were in areas
covered by the sections analyzing the production situation in the
major dairy regions and special dairy areas. They used 65
percent of the land in farms and 68 percent of the harvested
cropland.

The dairy regions delineated here cover areas that are both
important areas of dairy production and where dairy farms are
a major segment of the agriculture.

The portion of the United States covered by the different dairy
regions and areas includes approximately 90 percent of the 100
counties that have the largest number of milk cows and also high-
est total value of dairy products sold.

Some economic subregions have a fair representation of dairy
farms which, in some circumstances, might be considered dairy
regions but when considered in relation to the total number of
farms within the subregion the proportion becomes rather small.
Economic Subregion 69, for example, has 5 counties among the
100 leading counties in numbers of milk cows. This subregion
has more than 33,000 beef and hog farms, 15,000 dairy farms,
15,000 cash-grain and field-crop farms, and 13,000 general farms.
It has only 1 county among the 100 counties with the largest

Table 12. — Number of Milk Cows on Dairy Farms by Major
Dairy Regions; 1954

IMajOT dairy region

Item

North-
eastern
(Subregions
1,2,6.7,8,
10)

Eastern
Ohio-
Western
Pennsyl-
vania
(Subregions
17, 27, 28,
29, 30)

Central
Michigan-
New York
Lake Shore
(Subregions
9, 49, 60, 64)

Northern

Lake
(Subregions
66, 67, 68, 88)

Northern

Woods

(Subregion

66)

Number of faims

Average number of
milk cows per farm..

Percent distribution
of farms by num-
ber of milk cows:

Total

67, 621
24

100
2
9
16
19
29
20
5
(Z)

40,636
16

100
6
22
28
20
18
6
1
(Z)

35, 605
18

100
4
19
24
19
21
11
2
(Z)

124, 601

100

(Z)

2S, (ini
13

100

Under 5

5 to 9

6
30

10 to 14

15 to 19

20 to 29

30 to 49

60 to 99

(Z)

Z Less than 0.6 percent.

sale of dairy products. This economic subregion is considered
more a part of the cash-grain-livestock region than a dairy area.
There are 20 economic subregions in the Northern Dairy Region
of the United States. This belt contains 54 percent of all dairy
farms in the United States. In 1954, it accounted for nearly
three-fiftlis of the total milk sales as well as more than two-fifths
of all butter sales. It is hoped that a grouping of the 20 economic
subregions into five larger areas will result in a clearer picture of
the dairy industry than can be obtained through a presentation
of the individual subregions (Table 12).

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

The topography of the whole Northern Dairy Region was
transformed by glacial action which left a rolling to rough terrain,
a mixed soil pattern, and a drainage system with some poorly
drained spots intermixed with well-drained localities. Any one
farm may have soils ranging from rather light and subject to
drought, to heavy soils with good water-holding capacities; places
with little or no outlet for surface water to well-drained fields;
small irregular fields to large, well-laid-out fields where the bigger
pieces of machinery can be used effectively; and smooth easily
cultivated fields to fields so full of stones and boulders or so rough
as to be useful only for grazing.

Throughout this Northern Dairy Region there is somewhat less
intense summer heat than in the Corn Belt. It has shorter
growing seasons and colder winters. Average annual precipitation
is around 25 inches in the western part. It increases somewhat
irregularly eastward until 40 inches is recorded from Pennsylvania
eastward. All livestock and practically all feed are placed under
roof during the long winter. The producer's markets range from
an almost completely fluid-milk market in the eastern to butter
or other manufactured dairy products on the western edge of the
belt. As the higher priced dairy markets are in the east, the
surplus production from the western part finds outlets there.

A milking herd is the obvious characteristic common to all
dairy farms. A variety of crops, a goodly supply of pastureland,
and a considerable amount of family labor, are found on dairy
farms of all economic classes. Different secondary or minor
enterprises are found in the different subregions but they seem to
fit into the organization with little special or unusual demands
upon capital or labor.

VARIATION IN FARM CHARACTERISTICS

The smallest herds among the major dairy regions are in the
Northern Woods area. Economic Subregion 66, where the average
herd has 13 milk cows. More than two-thirds of these farms have
fewer than 15 cows and only 14 percent have more than 20 cows.
The Northeastern Dairy Region not only has the most cows per
herd but it has the fewest small herds and the most large ones.
None of the Northern Dairy Regions have as many as one-half
percent of the farms with herds in excess of 100 cows per herd.

The range in total incomes as well as per crop acre in 1954 indi-
cates a wide difference in resources and perhaps in the effectiveness
with which resources are used (Table 13). The Economic Cla.ss I
farms had total incomes averaging from $30,000 to $36,000 for
the different regions or $95 to $136 per acre of cropland.
Economic Class VI, on the other hand, had total incomes ranging
from $750 to $903 per farm or $19 to $23 per crop acre. The
incomes of the other four classes were between these two extremes
both in total income per farm and per crop acre.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 13. — Size of Dairy Farm by Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region

Eastern

North-

Ohio-

Central

Item

eastern

Western

Michigan-

Northern

(Subreglons

Pennsyl-

New York

Lake

Woods

1,2,6,7,8,

vania

Lake Shore

(Subreglons

(Subregion

10)

(Subreglons

17, 27, 28,

29,30)

(Subreglons
9, 49, 50, 64)

65, 67, 68, 88)

66)

Number of farm?

67, 521

40. 636

35,605

124,501

28, 001

Average per farm;

I<aiid in farms

acres. _

21S

153

157

186

Cropland har-

vested., -acres. -

Gross sales

dollars. .

7, 256

5, 389

7,011

5, 299

2,999

Investment in —

Land and build-

ings dollars..

13, 781

1.5, 112

23,136

15, 212

8,959

Machinery.-do

4,889

4, 706

5,897

4,797

3,694

Livestock. -.do

4, 678

3,319

3,759

4,160

2, 735

Total

23,348

23. 137

32, 792

24, 169

15,388

Man -equivalent

1.5,

1.4

1.3

1.4

1.3

Number of —

Milk cows

Animal units

Total investment

per milk cow

dollars..

973

1, 542

1.822

1,343

1, 184

The ditferent levels of income among these dairy area.s can be
accounted for partly by the difference in milk sales per cow as
well as the number of cows per farm (Table 14). Smaller herds
sell less milk per cow whether they are in areas with smaller
average herds or with the larger ones. This holds for every area
and every economic subregion. When farms are grouped by
size — economic class — two things show persistently. The eco-
nomic classes with the lower total incomes have the smaller herds
and sell less milk per cow. It is logical to e.\pect smaller farms
to have consistently smaller herds. It is not necessary, however,
for milk sales per cow to be so much less than for the larger herds.
Good sires and proper feeding can be used in production on
smaller farms.

Table 14. — Milk and Cream Sales for Dairy Farms, by
Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region

Eastern

North-

Ohio-

Central

Item

eastern

Western

Michigan-

Northern

(Subreglons

Pennsyl-

New York

Lake

Woods

1, 2, 6, 7, 8,

vania

Lake Shore

(Subreglons

(Subregion

10)

(Subreglons
17. 27. 28,

(Subreglons
9, 49, 50, 64)

65, 67, 68, 88)

66)

29,30)

Number of farms

67, 521

40, 630

35, 605

124, 501

28, 001

Milk and cream sold

per milk cow:

Total dollars.-

264

251

259

201

174

Whole milk

dollars. .

263

249

256

195

l.TO

Cream do

Percent of total

(Z)

Milk equivalent

pounds.

6,526

C. 298

7,261

6,594

5.674

Price per cwt. (milk

equivalent)

4.05

3.99

3.57

3.05

3. 07

Z Less than 0.5 percent.

The decreased income per cow is the result of lower production
(sales) per cow as well as the result of somewhat lower prices for
milk. The lower price is not the result of selling cream or butter-
fat except in Economic Subregion 66. In this area the three
groups of smaller farms obtain from 12 to 44 percent of total
milk income from the sale of cream. Only in Economic Class VI
of the Lake Dairy Region (Economic Subreglons 65, 67, 68, and
88) did farmers receive as much as 15 percent of total milk sales
from this source. In other subiegions of the dairy belt the small
farms received about the same percentage of the total milk income
from the sale of cream as did the larger farms.

A grouping of dairy farms by economic class is a good measure
of the size of business. The number of cows per herd decrea.ses
with the economic class until, in most subregions, from 70 to 90
percent of all farms in Economic Classes V and VI have fewer
than 15 cows and most of the.se farms have fewer than 10 cows.
These herds are so small that net farm incomes permit only a
modest living.

Most of the dairy herds are on family-size farms where the
farmer and his family do practically all the farmwork. Although
herds are becoming larger over the years, there is little evidence
that the family-size dairy farm is passing out of the picture.
Improved methods of handling both the crop work and the dairy
herds indicate that the so-called family-size herd, even though
larger, will continue to be the typical producing unit.

The man-equivalent of these farms also indicates a family-size
farm (Table 15). Hired labor equivalent to one-half man or
more per year was found on the three classes of farms with the
largest incomes. There was 60 percent more hired labor on farms
in the Northeastern Dairy Region than in other regions, probably
because of more cows. Hired labor exceeds family labor only in
Economic Classes I and II of the major dairy regions.

Table 15. — Labor Force on Dairy Farms by Major Dairy
Regions: 1954

Major dairy region

Item

North-
eastern
(Subreglons
1, 2, 6. 7. 8,
10)

Eastern

Ohio-
Western
Peimsyl-

vania

(Subregions

17, 27. 28,

29,30)

Central
Michigan-
New Y'ork
Lake Shore
(Subregions
9, 49, 50, 64)

Northern

Lake
(Subreglons
65,67,68,88)

Noithern

Woods

(Subregion

66)

Number of farms

Total man-equivalent-

Operator

Unpaid family help. -

67, 521

1.5
.7
.4
.4

4,837

40,636

1.4
.7
.5
.2

3,849

35,605

1.3

]3
.3

5, 393

124, 501
1.4

3,785

28,001

1.3

.5
. 1

Average per man-equiv-
alent:
Total cropland. acres..
Total sales dollars..
Milk cowsnumber.-

2,307

To the extent that farm meclianization is measured by the use
of specified items of farm machinery and home facilities, some
differences are noted among the major dairy regions (Table 16).
Most obvious is the use of fewer pieces of the specified items of
equipment on farms in the Northern Woods Region. Practically
as many farms have automobiles and farm tractors but fewer
have such items as pick-up hay balers, motortrucks, and milking
machines. Almost as many farms are electrified in this area as
in any other of the dairy regions. The lack of comparable net
incomes probably accounts for fewer telejihones, home freezers,
and television sets.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

The lowered need for some of the larger items of farm ma-
chinery may well account for their disappearance from the lists of
machinery on the smaller farms all over the dairy belt. It is much
easier to arrange with a neighbor to have 5 or 10 acres of some crop
harvested than if the field contained 20 or 30 acres. On the other
hand, the number of farms having home conveniences probably is
closely associated with net income of the operator.

Table 16. — Farm Mechanization and Home Conveniences on
Dairy Farms, by Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region

Eastern

North-

Ohio-

Central

Item

eastern

Western

Michigan-

Northern

(Subregions

Pennsyl-

New York

Lake

Woods

1,2,6,7,8,

vania

Lake Shore

(Subregions

(Subregion

10)

(Subregions
17, 27, 28,

(Subregions
9, 49, 50, 64)

65, 67, 68, 88)

66)

29, 30)

Number of farms

67, 621

40, 636

35, 605

124, 501

28, 001

Percent of farms with —

Milking machine

Power grinder

Electric pig brooder.

Farni tractors

Automobiles

Field forage harvest-

17
62

12
53

23
55

20
50

Motortrucks ..-

Pickup balers

Grain combines... .

Corn pickers

Electricity

Television

Piped running water.

Home freezer

There are fewer farm homes with piped running water, home
freezers, and television sets on the smaller farms. The levels of
family income often will not permit their purchase. The preva-
lence of electricity on both small and large farms partly reflects the
Rural Electrification Administration's program to electrify every
farmstead.

The age pattern of dairy-farm operators does not vary greatly
among the diary regions (Table 17). Very few operators under 25
years of age are found in any area of the dairy belt; from 1 to 2
percent is the usual number. The largest number of operators
under 25 years of age within any economic subregion does not
exceed 3 percent. The 25- to 34-years-old group when considered
with these younger men suggests a possible trend away from dairy
farming on the part of the young people.

The Northern Dairy Regions as a whole have more dairy farm
operators over 65 years old than under 35 years, and four times
as many of the older operators as there are of the youngest group.
If more young men do not take up dairying we may expect a
greater reduction in the number of dairy farms tlian has already
taken place. The obvious alternative is for the older operators to
continue farming much beyond the usual retirement age. Most
of the young men who are in dairying are not on the smallest farms,
Economic Classes V and VI, they are on the middle-sized farms
where chances of success are good. The smaller units are mostly
in the hands of older operators.

These figures suggest a continuing reduction in the number of
dairy farms because some of the older men who drop out will not
be replaced by younger men. Larger farms and bigger dairy herds

will doubtless continue to be the tendency so that the industry
will be maintained or expanded even though many of the smaller
farms disappear.

Table 1?.-

-A Distribution of Operators by Age, for Dairy
Farms by Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region

Eastern

North-

Ohio-

Central

Item

eastern

Western

Michigan-

Northern

(Subregions

Peimsyl-

New Y'ork

Lake

Woods

1, 2, 6, 7, 8,

vaiua

Lake Shore

(Subregions

(Subregion

10)

(Subregions
17, 27, 28,

(Subregions
9, 49, 50, 64)

65, 67, 68, 88)

66)

29, 30)

Number of farms

67, 521

40,636

35, 605

124, 501

28,001

Percent distribution

Operators by age;

Total

100

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 64 years.

65 years and over-

The usual cropping patterns of these farms differ from region
to region (Table 18). The cropping systems in each are built
around the three-crop system of hay, corn, and small grain. The
livestock are practically all dairy animals. From 5 to 15 percent
of the aniinal units are hogs, poultry, and sheep; the dairy herd
accounts for the remainder.

Table 18. — Land, Uses of Land, and Livestock on Dairy
Farms, by Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region

Eastern

North-

Ohio-

Central

Item

eastern

Western

Michigan-

Northern

(Subregions

Permsyl-

New York

Lake

Woods

1, 2, 6, 7, 8,

vania

Lake Shore

(Subregions

(Subregion

10)

(Subregions
17,27,28,

(Subregions
9, 49, 50, 64)

65,67,68,88)

66)

29,30)

Number of farms -

67, 521

40, 636

35, 605

124,501

28,001

.\verage per farm:

Land in farms.. acres.

218

153

157

186

Cropland harvested

acres..

Total land pastured

acres..

Cropland pastured

acres. .

Cropland not har-

vested and not pas-

tured acres.

Total cropland . do . . .

114

.\nimal tmits

Livestock, number-

All cattle

109

Milk cows

Hogs

Percent of cropland

harvested in—

Corn for all purposes.

Corn for grain

29
45
3

32
38
3

All hav

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

The dairy farms of Eastern Ohio- Western Pennsylvania and the
Lake Regions have the greatest diversification in hvestock. Each
has around one-seventh of the animal units in poultry and hogs
The Northeastern Dairy and the Northern Woods Regions have
around one-fifteenth of the livestock classes as other livestock;
poultry accounts for most of this. These two regions grow less
corn and small grains and more hay than do the others. The
northeastern dairymen do this as a matter of choice, finding it to
their advantage to ship in the feed grains and raise more hay.
Dairymen in the Northern Woods find their growing season and
summer temperature best suited for growing hay. The dairymen
of the Lake Region have more hogs and poultry than do the
other regions. This is the only region of the dairy belt where
raising pigs is a sizeable business venture.

Practically all dairy-farm operators hope to become owners and
later to clear their farms of debt. This can be done only when
there is a surplus from the farm income above that needed to pay
farm expenses and meet the cost of family living. Differing rule-
of-thumb procedures have been set up in the past to help prospec-
tive purchasers determine the possibility of paying-out once the
farm is bought. One of the simplest of these, though not the
most accurate, is to express the investment cost of the farm in
terms of the yearly gross income. Table 19 shows some of these
relationships for the dairy farms of the various regions of the
Northern Dairy Belt in terms of the 1954 situation.

Table 19. — Number of Ye.ars Required for Gross Income to
Equal Total Investment for Dairy Farms, for Major
Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region

Item

North-
eastern
(Subregions
1, 2. 6. 7, 8,
10)

Eastern

Ohio-
Western
Peimsyl-

vania

(Subregions

17. 27. 28,

29,30)

Central
Michigan-
New Y'ork
Lake Shore
(Subregions
9, 49, 50, 64)

Northern

Lake
(Subregions
65, 67, 68, 88)

Northern

Woods

(Subregion

66)

Number of farms

67, 521

40,636

35,605

124, 501

28,001

Years required for

gross income to equal
investment in—
Land and build-

1.9
3.2

2.S
4.3

.■i.3
4.7

2.9
4.6

Total investment..

5.1

The Central Michigan-Northern New York Lake Shore Region
has the highest real estate value per farm. This area also shows
the most years required for total incomes to equal real estate
values. It compares favorably with the Northern Lake Region,
however, in terms of ratio of income to total investment. The
region with the largest number of years required for gross income
to equal total investment is Economic Subregion 66 which has
both the lowest real estate value and snuillest total farm income.

Unusually small farms must necessarily have larger incomes in
terms of real estate values if there is to be any surplus for payment
of debt. The operators of small farms ordinarily have as many

children as those who operate larger farms and their basic living
costs are usually just as high. On the other hand, operators of
the larger farms can pay-out with a smaller yearly income in
terms of real estate values.

The trend throughout the whole Northern Dairy Belt is defi-
nitely toward fewer and bigger farms and larger herds. For
example, there were only 130,000 farms in Wisconsin in 1954 with
i-ome milk cows in comparison with 143,000 in 1950. The size
of herds during this 4-year period increased from 14 to 17. The
same trend is found in Minnesota where the number of farms w-ith
milk cows decreased from 143,000 to 123,000 and the average
number of cows per farm increased from 9 to 11. In New York,
which may well be called the center of the eastern part of the dairy
belt, the number of farms with milk cows dropped from 85,600
in 1950 to 71,800 in 1954 and the average number of cows per
farm hicreased from 14 to 18. The trend toward fewer farms
and more milk cows per farm may well continue.

Most dairy farms are not large when expressed in terms of
dollars invested or in physical units. The 296,000 dairy farms
in the Northern Dairy Regions show an average real estate value of
apirroximately $15,000 and a total estimated value of $27,000 for
land, buildings, machinery, and livestock. Their productive
capacity in terms of harvested cropland, number of livestock or
man-equivalent, also shows the average farm to be of modest size.
If a dairy farmer averages $100 to+al income per acre of harvested
cropland he is doing well. Income larger than this indicates a
farmer with crop production that is better-than-average or a
highly productive herd, or an especially good market for milk.

SIZE OF BUSINESS

Size of btishiess is important because it affects the income
available for family living and savings. A small volume of busi-
ness, whether it be in dairying, other livestock, or crops, has only
one advantage over larger units — losses are small. By the same
token savings are also small.

Size may be measured in any of several ways. The acreage of
land used for crop production, the number of milk cows on a
dairy farm, or the capital invested in the business, are measures
of size in different situations. Gross faini sales were used in the
1954 Census for grouping farms into economic classes. Six classes
were established with gross farm incomes ranging from $25,000 or
more for Economic Class I to the smallest income group with
$250 to $1,199. Economic Chi-ss VI.

Notable differences are shown among the five major dairy
regions when grouped by economic class. The Northeastern
Dairy Region has the fewest small farms in Economic Classes V
and VI, being 12 and 3 percent, respectively. On the other hand,
53 percent of the farms in the Northern Woods Region are in the
two smallest classes, while less than 2 percent arc in the two
largest cla,sses. The number of farms of the three remaining
major dairy regions are between these two extremes. They have
more farms in the medium-sized groups, Economic Classes III
and IV.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

NORTHEASTERN DAIRY AREA

I DOT « 10.000^00 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLO

Map NO fiSd.SbO

Figure 12.

THE NORTHEASTERN DAIRY REGION
(Economic Subregions 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10)

This region, comprises Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, most
of New York, and parts of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. It
is the oldest dairy region of the United States. The soils are
generally classed as lacking in natural fertility although they
respond well to the use of farmyard manure and commercial
fertilizers. Frequent summer rains, however, make it difficult to
put up hay of the best c|uality. The topography generally is
rolling to hilly so the fields for harvested crops are fairly small
and much land is best suited for pasture.

The region has about two-fifths of the farmland in harvested
crops and one-third in pasture. Occasional small localities are
found where cash crops or poultry are more important sources of
income than dairy. Aroostook County, Maine, is definitely a
potato county with only 7 percent dairy farms. Five counties —
in southern Maine, in New Hampshire, and in Vermont — have
more poultry than dairy farms and in each of these counties the
total sale of poultry products was greater than the sale of milk in
1954. In none of these localities docs the poultry flock compete
seriously with the dairy herd for land. Both types of farms depend
on feeds shipped in from other parts of the country and the
poultry flock uses very little laud. The lake shore country of
western New York has a concentration of fruit and vegetable
farms and much of the resources is represented by these farms.

By and large, however, every part of the Northeastern Dairy
Region is devoted to dairj'ing.

The movement in this area away from the production of other
livestock and cash crops and into the production of milk for fluid
consumption, is explained by the fact that th" whole eastern part
of the country has become highly urbanized. There are so many
milk cows that the local feed supplies can meet only a part of the
requirements even though the production of harvested crops and
grass has been increased through the use of fertilizers. Dairymen
ship in most of the grain and concentrates used. Thus, the size
of business is increased by the purchase of feeds from the Midwest.

The region still produces around one-fifth of the foreign types
of cheese and cream cheeses of the country. One-half of that
produced here is cream cheese. The region produces less than 4
percent of the butter and American types of cheese and about 8
percent of the condensed and evaporated milk. Milk cow num-
bers increased from 1.6 million in 1950 to 1.7 million in 1954
whereas, the number of dairy farms decreased from 75,494 to
67,521. Fewer and larger farms seem to be the trend throughout.
Approximately one-seventh of the whole-milk sales of the United
States are from this region.

The organization of these farms as reflected by income and
expenses shows a great deal of comparability throughout the
region. Maine and New Hampshire — Economic Subregion 1 —
have the smallest farm incomes both per farm and per acre of
total cropland, averaging $6,473 per farm and $80 per acre of
cropland. The largest incomes are in Economic Subregion 4 in
the Hudson River Valley, where the average total value of sales is
$10,632. Every economic subregion of the area shows the extreme
specialization of the dairy farms. Economic Subregion 1 not only
has the smallest average income but it shows slightly more
tendency to diversify its income, with 82 percent of the total
income from the sale of milk, whereas all the other subregions
show from 84 to 88 percent. Crop sales from dairy farms amount
to less than 5 percent in every part of the area. Dairy farmers
in central New York obtained 4.3 percent of their income from
these soiirces while those in northern New York obtained the least,
1.7 percent.

The wide range in size as shown by economic class tabulation
suggests that nearly 15 percent of the dairy farmers of this region
are accepting modest incomes while 20 percent are making good
incomes. Economic Classes I and II. There is little tendency for
the smaller farms to diversify more than the larger except for
those in Economic Class VI. Only 71 percent of the income of
this group is from milk sales in comparison to an average of 86
percent for the other classes. Yet no one enterpii.se other than
sales of cattle accounted for more than a minor part of the other
income. (Tables 20 and 21.)

Feed purchases accounted for three-fifths or more of the specified
expenses for every economic subregion and for most economic
classes of the area. This amounts to $25 per acre of total cropland,
or $97 per cow, and emphasizes the point already made that this
is a feed-deficit region. The producing of this quantity of feed
would require practically double the present cropland. The
range in specified expenses of the different economic classes is as
wide as the range in income.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 20. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Northeastern Dairy
Region: 1954

Economic class of farm

Number of farms .

Gross sales —

Per farm_ dollars.

Per crop acre- - do...

PerccTit of gross sales from dairy

products

Sales per farm:

MUk dollars

Cattle and calves do...

Hogs do...

Po\iltry products except eggs

dollars

Eggs do...

Sheep do...

Other livestock and livestock
product-s dollars

Total, livestock and livestock
products dollars

Field crops do

Other crops " do

Total crops

-do....

Total

67, 621

7,256
78

6,202

498

16:

fi.922

166
98

36, 282
136

30.500

2.987

312

822
75

34.773

886
421

II HI IV

12, 526

14, 181

12,096
944
26

357

24,668

7,163

6,175

465

143

374
168

1.30;

163

19, 447

3,809
50

3,273

267

14
66
3

6.846 3,634

243

126

7, 965

2,005
39

1,657
16-j

1.875

103

11(13
21

645
IDS

4
24

796

> Includes horticultural and forest products.

Table 21. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Northeastern Dairy
Region: 1954

Economic class of farn

Item

Tot.il

67. 521

1,215

12. 625

24,658

19. 447

7,966

1.711

Average per farm;

Machine hire

...dollars..

119

185

149

132

104

Hired labor.-

do....

664

7,023

1.670

500

186

Feed

do-..-

2.332

10. 259

4.398

2.323

1,315

791

431

Gas and oil

do....

368

1.402

633

376

238

146

Fertilizer ...

do--..

191

993

409

183

Lime

do....

do...

255
20.117

109

Total...

3.726

7. 268

3.566

1,963

1,168

614

.\verage per crop acre:

Machine hire

do....

Hired labor

do....

Feed

do....

Oas and oil

do....

Fertilizer...

do....

Lime

do....

(Z)

Total

,50

Z Less than 0.60.

The net incomes are larger than they •would be if the specified
expenses were expanded to include other necessary items and cost
(Table 22). Further, the average income for the area does not
fully reflect the variation in effectiveness in the use of resources.
The dairymen in Economic Subregion 1, with an average net
income of $2,871, have only two-thirds the income of the dair}'-
men in Hudson Valley, Subregion 6, and Centr.il New York,
Economic Subregion 8. To the extent that net income is a
measure of efficiency or effectiveness in the use of resources, the
farmers of these two economic subregions are using to good
advantage the resources at their command. Another indication

of effectiveness in the use of resource.s is the total investment in
terms of gross sales. Economic Class I farmers used a total
investment of .f;22I to obtain $100 income. This ratio was in-
creased with the smaller units until farmers in Economic Class VI
u.sed $1,0.39 of capital investment to obtain $100 total income.

Table 22. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
D.airy Farms, by Economic CL.^ss of Farm, for the North-
eastern Dairy Region: 1954

.\umber of farms

Gross sales per farm dollars.

Specified expenses per farm .do...

Gross sales less specified expenses

per farm dollars.

Gross sales per nian-cquivnlent

Total investment—

Per farm.. ...dollars .

Per man-equivalent do

Per -$100 gross sales do

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream-

Milk sales per cow:
Dollars-

Pounds (milk equivalent)

Emncmic class of farm

Total I

7,256
3. 726

3. 5:i0
4,83

23.348

15,565

320

(Z)

264
6,526

36.282
20, 11

16, t66
6, 846

80,128

15,118

221

(Z)

405
8,036

II III IV

12. 526

14. 181

7,268

6, 913
6. 446

37. 759

17,163

266

(Z)

309
.649

24.658

7,163
3,566

3, .59'
4,775

23, 399

1,5.599

325

(Z)

2.54
6,441

19,447

3, 809
1,953

I. 856
3. 463

16,383

14, 894

431

(Z)

204
,5. 361

7. 965

2.006
1, 15X

84
2, 22S

12. 626

14, 028

631

160
4,361

903

614

1.003

9,347

10, 386

1,039

Z Less tlian 0.5 perct-'Ut.

From three-fifths to three-fourtlis of t hi' farms in the different
economic subregions used fertilizer, the smallest number being
in Northern New York, Economic Subregion 7, while in Economic
Subregions 8 and 10, 77 percent used some fertilizer. Some
fertilizer was ajjplied to 28 percent of the harvested cropland. -

Table 23. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Northeastern Dairy
Region: 1954

Item

Xumber of farms

Fertilizer:

Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting

.\cres upon which used per farm

reporting

-\verage per acre fertilized:

Pounds -

Cost dollars.

Lime:

Percent of farms using

Acres upon which used per farm

reportmg

Average per acre limed:

Pounds

Cost dollars..

Economic class of farm

Total

67, 621

360
9.50

2.900

107

400
10.29

3,020
10.19

II III IV V VI

380
9.83

2.980
9.46

360
9.24

2,900
8.84

19. 44:

360
8.90

2,700
7.84

7, 965

360

8.99

2,700
7.54

1,711

32
1

3
360

15
7

2,600
9.97

The larger farms fertilized a few percentage points more of its
cropland than the smaller farms, but the rate of application was
practically the same for large and small farms. Slightly more than
one-half as many farms used lime as used fertilizer. Nominal
applications of 350 to 400 pounds per acre were used (Table 23) .

^ Including cropland pastureti,

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

LAKE DAIRY AREA

I DOT« 10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLO

MAP NO A54-553

Figure 13.

THE NORTHERN LAKE REGION
(Economic Subregions 65, 67, 68, 88)

Here, as in the Northeastern Dairy Region, are the glacial soils,
shallow and lacking in natural fertility. They probably are
somewhat more fertile than the former and respond to good
cultural practices. Some of the lighter soils ordinarily yield one-
half to three-fourths of the production of the heavier soils. Sum-
mer rainfall and temperatures favor the production of hays and
other roughages, so one-third of the total cropland is used for
the.se purposes. Only the Northern Woods Region and the
Northeastern Dairy Region exceed this proportion, with one-half
or more of the total cropland used for hays.

Within the last generation this area has greatly increased the
quantity of milk marketed as fluid milk but it has not changed the
proportion of its income from dairying. It still has about I he
same proi)ortion of the income from crops, poultry, and other
livestock.

The different market outlets for milk when eomiiared with those
in the Northeastern Dairy Region are shown liy the proportions of
such products as butter and cheese sold from the resijective areas.
The NortluM'u Lake Region produces approxiniatcly twice as nuich
milk as the Northeastern Region. Yet it markets 10 times as
much milk in the form of butter and more than 16 times as much
cheese. Even so, the fluid-milk market is taking a coiitinuou.sly
increasing share of milk production of the area.

Although the averages of these economic subregions show con-
siderable uniformit.v, the number of farms in the two extreme
economic classes varies greatl.y. Economic Subregion 6.5 has the
most large farms, 14 percent, and the fewest small farms, 13 per-
cent. Economic Subregion 88 has only 2 percent large farms and
nearly 40 percent verj' small farms. This difference between the
two subregions is to be expected, since Subregion 6.5 encompasses
most of the eastern Wisconsin industrial concentration with its
better local markets and higher land values, while Subregion 88 is
a border area between the Northern Woods and the more com-
pletely agricultural area to the South.

The usual cropping system of farms in the Northern Lake Region
consists of corn, small grains, and hay. The larger farms grow
more corn and small grains while the smaller farms have a greater
proportion of hay. The change is gradual from the larger to the

smaller farms. A reduction in the portion of the cropland used
for corn from 37 percent for Economic Class I farms to 20 percent
for Class VI farms is accompanied by a smaller change in the total
acreage of small grains and an increase in the hay acreage from
32 to 53 percent of the harvested cropland.

The small farms average 6 to 7 cows per farm in the different
economic subregions while there is a wide range in the number of
cows per herd on the larger farms. Economic Subregion 88 has 46
milk cows per farm on Economic Class I farms; Economic Sub-
region 65 has an average of 75 cows.

The different proportions of various crops are also geographic to
a considerable extent. The southeastern part of the area has a
heavj' concentration of canning crops. Wisconsin has a greater
acreage devoted to canning crops than any other State. These
crops are grown as secondary enterprises on dairy farms. Each
farmer produces only a few acres of canning peas or sweet corn
and this reduces small grain or corn acreages to a like extent.
Potatoes are grown in the eastern part of Subregion 67. A much
larger acreage was grown earlier when the light soils were newly
broken and before the organic matter was reduced. Much
of this acreage is now in a rotation with feed grains and hay
but an increasing number of farms grow potatoes as the important
or only crop. Overhead irrigation from local subsurface sotn-ces
supplies most water for the irrigation of potatoes, although a few of
the operators pump directly from small streams. A large percent-
age of barley used for brewing is raised in the eastern part of the
area, centering around the three important bodies of water — Lake
Winnebago, the Four Lakes, and the Horicon Marsh. Practically
all the rye grown in the area is found on the light soil of Economic
Subregion 67.

Here, as in other dairy areas, the farm depends upon the farm
family for most of its labor force, and since from three-fifths to
four-fifths of all farm work is chore labor — and most of this with
the dairy lierd — the number of milk cows may well determine
the labor used. The amount of family labor available for farm
work remains fairly constant, both among subregions and within
economic classes.

So far as the age of dairy-farm operators is concerned, this area
differs slightly from the three major dairy areas to the east. It has
3 percentage points, 20 percent, more operators under 35 years
old and around 7 ijercentage points, 20 percent, fewer operators
over 55 years. This means that a few more young men are
taking up dairying than in the areas to the east and more of the
older men are dropping out. One interpretation of this situation
is that dairy farming in the Northern Lake Region offers a some-
what better opportunity for young men when expressed in terms
of local alternatives than is true in other major dairy regions.

The modest ini^omes received by most dairymen in this region
is shown by the average total farm income as well as by the in-
come minus specified expenses.

Fifty-eight percent of these dairy farmers have less tlian $5,000
total income per farm and 20 percent have less than .$2,500
(Table 24). The smallest average income among them is in
Economic Subregion 88 where average total value of sales is
$3,533, or only 57 percent of the income received by dairy farmers
of Economic Subregion 65. The net income of $2,342 is more
than half the average net income of Subregion 65, and, if total
rather than specified expenses were subtracted from the total
income, the net would be about half the present figure. The
problem of buying capital items, meeting living expenses, and
laying anything aside for emergencies, is burdensome indeed for
operators with such small incomes. This again is a real problem
with the farmers in Economic Classes IV, V, and VI. The size
tabulation emphasizes the importance of volume of business if
incomes are to be increased.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Tiible 24. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Northern Lake
Region: 1954

Number of farms

Gross sales—

Per farm dollars. _

Per crop acre -do

Percent of gross sales from dairy
products,

Sales per farm:

Milk _ dollars, .

Cattle and calves_ do

Hogs._ .._ do

Poultry products except eggs
dollars. -

Eggs _ _ do

Sheep - do

Other livestock and livestock
products dollai-s. .

Total, livestock and livestock
products dollars. -

Field crops --- _ do

Other crops i do

Total crops, __ do

Economic class of farm

II III IV

124,501

5,279
68

3,603
553
480

249

307
70

426

34, 271

22,428
3, 733
3,750

102
560

30, 713

3,063
605

3,658

10,648

13,002

8,184
1,267
1,731

11,794

1,008
200

1,208

41, 26f)

6,918
63

4, 647
696
605

344

6,428

46, 789

3,764
48

2, fi,M
417
232

197

174
46

20,843

1.924
36

1,387

244

1,829

851
21

(;i3

11,5
21

6
41
4

33
13

I Includes horticultural and forest products.

Specified expenses per farm are less than for any region pre-
vioiLsly described (Table 25). Feed purchases represent around
two-fifths of the specified expenses for eaoli subregion; the quantity
houglit varies from $G per acre of total cropland in Economic
Subregion 88 to $1 1 in Economic Subregion 65. Feed expenses
are less than for any other economic subregion of the dairy belt
except the Northern Woods Region which bought only one-fourth
as much feed as dairymen of the NorthcTii Lake Region. The
size of farms, the types of crops grown, and the degree of mech-
anization are comparable among the economic subregions so
that such items as machine hire, gas and oil for farm work, and
hired labor do not vary much.

Table 25. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms,
BY Economic Class of Farm, for the Northern L.ake
Region: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

Number of farms

124, 501

144
228
881
360
136
18

425

220
4,731
,1, 012
1,574
1,171
95

10, ,548

201
837
2, 021
716
412
45

41, 266

167
270
1,149
447
176
23

46, 789

1,39
109
645
298
84
12

20, 843

100
66
372
182
36
6

4 630

.Average per farm:

Machine hire dollars. -

Hired labor do

Feed do

Oas and oil.. do

Fertilizer do

I/ime do

63
19
186
99
16
3

Total do...

1,766

12,803

4,231

2,231

1,287

751

376

Average per crop acre:

Machine hire do

Hired labor do

Feed do....

Oas and oil do

Fertilizer.. do

Lime .do

2
2
10
4
1
(Z)

13
14
4
3
(Z)

1
5
12
4
2
(Z)

2
2
11
4
2
(Z)

1
8
4
1
(Z)

2
I
7
3

1
(Z)

6
2

(Z)

Total.- do....

Z Less than 0.60.

The net farm income and other measures of efficiency in the
utilization of resources in this region continue to emphasize the
iiilluence of size (Table 26). The small farms unconsciously use
all resources including labor in a prodigal maimer. This probably
can be remedied only by increasing the volume of busine.ss, be-
cau.se it is ordinarily not po,ssible economically to reduce the avail-
able family labor or the capital invested in the farm. Production
of crop and pastureland as well as of livestock can be increased,
however, by some slight expansion in the capital used in the pur-
chase and correct u.se of fertilizers, but more readily by improved
methods of production which may not require more capital but
will require an intense application of best cultural and manage-
ment practices to land, crops, and livestock.

Table 26. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the
Northern Lake Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Gross sales per farm ..dollars-
Specified expenses per farm-do

Gross sales less specified expenses
per farm - dollars.

Oniss sales per man -equivalent

Total investment —

Per farm doUarS-

Per man-equivalent do...

Per $100 gross sales do

Percent of sales of dairy products

from cream

Milk sales per cow:

Dollars

Pounds (milt equivalent)

Economic class of farm

Total

124,501

5, 279
1,766

3,513
3,786

24,169

17,264

456

201
6,594

34,271
12,803

21,468
7, 616

106,600

23, 667

310

323
9,772

II III IV

10,548

13, 002
4,231

8.771
6,616

4s, 308

24, 164

372

261
8,242

41, 261

6,918
2,231

4,687
4,324

29,208

18, 255

423

213
6,987

46, 789

3,764
1,287

2, 477
2,689

19, 754

14,110

620

174
6,867

20, 843

1,924
751

1,173

1,749

13,414

12,195

706

138
4,814

4, 6.30

851
376

476
851

9,694
9,594
1,066

97
3,445

It is not easy to tell from availabli' information just what are
the reasons for the very low income. It is not known whether the
operators of smaller farms patronized condenseries and cheese
factories while the larger farms sold to the higher-])aying fluid milk
markets. Larger farms are better able to comply with the regula-
tions placed on sellers of fluid milk. They are also better able to
send to market a fairly constant supply of milk throughout the
year, whereas the sales of the smaller operators may be quite
variable.

One pertinent situation does show up in these records: the
lower the income the larger is the proportion of cream sold. The
whole area averaged $6 per cow from this source, or 3 percent of
the total income from the sale of both milk and cream.

The highest cream sales were in Economic Subregion 88, where
they constituted 20 percent of the total sales of dairy products.
Economic Subregion 68 received only 4 percent of its dairy income
from cream; the two other subregions sold only token quantities.
Economic Subregion 88 received $2.77 per 100 pounds milk equiv-
alent for all milk sold, compared with $.3.00 for the ea.stern part
of the area.

A somewhat wider price differential is shown for farms grouped
by economic class. The average milk price for Economic Class
VI was $2.81 per 100 poimds and 10 percent of this was from the
sale of cream. The average price increased and the pei'centage
of cream sales decreased with the economic class, until Economic
Class I showed almost no cream sales and an average milk price
of ,%3.31 per 100 pounds.

423022— 5T-.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

If the smaller farms were to use as much fertilizer per acre as
their largest neighbors they would have to buy 50 to 75 percent
more than they did in 1954 (Table 27). The per acre rate of
application was practically the same for all farms although the
larger farms paid a little more per ton which suggests the use of
fertilizers with hi,y.her nutrient content.

Table 27. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms,
By Economic Class of Farm, for the Northern Lake
Region: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

Number of farms —

Fertilizer:

124, 501

66
3

2U0
6.03

3,649
5.53

425

99
19

175

213
6.80

4,153
4.83

10, 548

201
6.45

3,934
5.33

41, 266

197
6.90

3,631
5.52

46, 789
63

198
5.89

3,468
.5.82

20,843
42

202
5.78

3,396
5.64

4,630
23

Tons used per farm reporting

Acres upon which used per farm

1
12

Average per acre fertilized:

207

Cost - - dollars _ -

Lime:

5.90
6

Acres upon which used per farm

Average per acre limed:

2, 643

Cost dollars-.

4.00

One-fourth to one-third more farmers used fertilizer or lime in
the eastern part of the area than in the western part. Of the
farmers in Economic Subregion 67 fertilizer was used by 76 per-
cent; only 48 percent in Economic Subregion 88 used it. This
latter subregion also applied fertilizer to fewer acres although the
rate of application was approximately the same for all subregions.

Farms vary more among the subregions in the intensity of
operation, or in the relation of feed produced to livestock numbers,
than in the proportion of the several classes of livestock main-
tained on individual farms. The number of milk cows, along
with the young stock raised for replacement, constitute by far
the largest proportion of livestock. The presence or absence of
a few more hogs or sheep or even a few hundred head of poultry
scarcely changes the capital and labor requirements on the usual
dairy farm, yet these minor enterprises contribute materially to
income.

Economic Subregion 67, which has the least productive soil?
also has the least livestock per farm. Because of poor yields of
crops it buys more feed than the other subregions. On the other
hand, Economic Subregion 65 has the most intensively operated
farms with the greate.st gross income per acre.

EASTERN OHIO-WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA REGION
(Economic Subregions 17, 27, 28, 29, 30)

The story of the settlement and development of this region
which consists of the western two-thirds of Pennsylvania and the
eastern half of Ohio, along with a little of West Virginia and one
small Kentucky county, is similar to that of the Northeastern
Dairy Region except that it has not gone so strongly into dairying.
The shift from a self-sufficing home economy to a highly specialized
and commercialized production was gradual and practically con-
tinuous until a generation ago. During the last 30 years, however,
the change in production practices and output have been almost
revolutionary. The use of improved seed, better cultural prac-
tices, more selective breeding programs, and a more realistic
interpretation of market needs, has resulted in a greatly enhanced
output per man and higher living standards for the farm families.

EASTERN OHIO-WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA DAIRY AREA

iv»>*t>

DOT=tO,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

MAP N0A54.55I

Figure 14.

There are more livestock farms other than dairy and poultry
in Economic Subregions 29 and 30 than in other subregions of
the region. Economic Subregion 28 has a good distribution of
field crops, other livestock and general farms; and Economic
Subregion 17 replaces other livestock farms with poultry farms.

The region has a varied soil and topographic pattern. Soils
of Northwestern Pennsylvania are derived from sandstones and
are less fertile than the ridge and valley' country in the rougher
parts of the State. The hilly land in the central part of the plateau
gives way to a rolling to fairly level topography along the Ohio
border. This type of topography continues into Northern Ohio
where soils are generally productive. Southeastern Ohio and the
bordering land of West Virginia is nonglaciated, of limestone
origin and has a rolling to rough topography.

The cropping system is fairly well described as a 3-year rotation
of corn, small grains, and hay. Cash crops, mostly field crops,
account for around one-tenth of the sale of farm products from
these dairy farms. Some feed is shipped out to the Northeastern
Dairy Region although the dairy farms within this area have
little, if any, surplus feed. It is farmed less intensively as shown
by fewer milk cows per crop acre and less is spent for specified
expenses. The production of dairy products seems to have
developed in Northeastern Ohio when it was still a part of the
Western Reserve of Connecticut. The Connecticut Yankees
brought in cheesemaking over a century ago and it has consistently
been considered a dairy section since then. It, too, went through
the stage of homemade to factory manufacture of cheese and
butter.

Dairy farming is only one of several, though the most important,
farming enterprises of the region. There are more other livestock
farms in Economic Subregions 29 and 30 than in other of the
subregions while Economic Subregion 28 has a good distribution
of field crops, other livestock, and general farms; Economic
Subregion 17 replaces other hvestock farms with poultry farms.

The dairy farms are considerably more diversified than is true
in the Northeastern Region. They have only 71 percent of the
total income from milk in comparison with 86 percent in the
Northeast (Table 28) . This diversification includes both livestock
and crops. Sales of pigs, poultry, and eggs are relatively important
in ever}' economic subregion, accounting for 7 to 11 percent of
the total income. Crop sales, on the other liand, show a greater
range than do the sales of livestock. Economic Subregion 30
derives 8 percent of the total income of its dairy farms from the
sale of field and cash crops. Economic Subregion 17 gets 14
percent from these sources.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 28. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, bv
Economic Class of Farm, for the Eastern Ohio-Western
Pennsylvania Region: 1954

Item

N'liniber of farms. - --

Gross sales—

Per farm dollars-

Per crop acre _-_do —

I'ercent of gross sales from dairy
products -- ---

Sales per farm:

Milk dollars.

Cattle and calves... do...

Hogs do

Poultry produces except orgs

dollars

Eggs ...do ..

Sheep.. do...

Other livestock and livestock
products.. dollars.

Total, livestock and livestock
products dollars.

Field crops do. . .

Other cropsi do. . .

Total crops do...

Economic class of farm

Total I

40,636

3, sin

435
1R4

252

4.785

647
57

30. 716
120

23, 219
2. 521
1,082

1.52

608

27. 670

2.668
478

II III IV

13. 4.58
92

9. 378
968
.507

240
640
23

11,781

1,522
155

1,677

12, 439

6.990
74

4, 946
516
249

88
350

6,188

802

3.760
.58

:. 725
.321
102

41
160
16

3.378

346
36

382

7, 0.55

1.883
38

1,264
240
64

IS
92
15

154
22

751
23

4i;3
1411

698

I Includes horticultural and forest products.

Specified expenses of the dairy farms are two-thirds tho.se of the
Northeastern Dairy Ilegioii while the income is three-fourths as
much (Table 29). lixpcnses were slightly less than one-half the
total value of sales in comparison with slightly more than one-half
for the Xortheastern Region. Milk sales per cow were less but not
so much was spent for feed. There was a wide range w-ithin the
region both in specified expenses and in feed bought. Economic
Subregion 30, with specified expenses of $1,668 per farm was the
lowest, and $68 feed cost per cow was the second lowest of the
area. At the other extreme was Economic Subregion 17 with
$3,021 expenses per farm and $98 feed bought per cow. Economy
in the use of resources may reduce efficiency.

Table 29. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Cl.ass of Farm, for the Eastern Ohio- Western
Pennsylvania Region: 1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

III

Xrimber of farms

40, 636

258

4 432

12 439

12 911

7 0.55

3 541

-\verage per farm:

Machine hire

---dollars..

139

148

205

175

135

Hired labor

...dO-.--

370

4,948

1,382

395

161

Feed.

do----

1.241

5. 016

2.891

1. 586

926

545

224

CJas and oil...

do.-..

340

1.391

714

431

279

160

Fertilizer

do...-

287

1,477

702

362

203

122

Lime

do...

do.-..

256

171

100

Total - - .

2. 4.54

13,2.36

6. 065

3.049

1,762

1,028

419

.\verage per crop acre:

Machine hire.

do....

Hired labor

do....

Feed

do....

Gas and oil

do...

■1

Fertilizer

do -.-

Lime.

do-- -

do---.

(Z)

Total

Z Less than 0.50.

Sorting by size discloses the smaller farms to be slightly more
diversified than the larger (Table 30). They have less income i)er

farm and per crop acre. Dairy-product sales per cow, both in
dollars and pounds, are so low in Economic Class VI as to raise
the question of whether the operators of these farms are seriously
engaged in dairying. Sales of $82 per cow in comparison with
.$428 for Economic Class I is an extreme range. Approximately
one-third of the small quantity of cream sold from the area is
from the group of sinnllest farms and more than one-fourth of the
total milk sales from these farms is in this form. The sale of
cream may help to account for the low money income per cow
but it will not account for the low milk production unless butterfat
prices are so low as to discourage proper management.

Table 30. Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
D.MRY Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the Eastern
Ohio- Western Pennsylvania Region: 1954

Number of farms

Gross sales per farm -- dollars. .

.Specified expenses per farm . .do

Gross sales less specified expenses
per farm dollars-
Gross sales per man.equivalent.-- . .

Total investment —

Per farm --- dollars.

Per man -equivalent- - -do--.

Per $100 gross sales do. -

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream

Milk sales per cow;

Dollars

Pounds (milk equivalent)

Economic class of farm

Total

40, 636

5,389
2,454

2,935
3,849

23, 137

16, 526

428

251
6,298

30, 716
13,236

17, 480
6,981

80, 978

18,404

264

423
9,110

II III IV

4,432

13,458
6, 065

7,393
6,117

46,358

21, 072

343

(Z)

328
7,718

6, 990
3, 049

3,941
4,660

27,723

18, 482

396

(Z)

6,696

12,911

3.760
1,762

1,1
2.892

19, 143

14, 725

504

213
5,593

1,883
1,028

855
1,883

13,764
13,764

724

143
4,200

761
419

332

761

8,508
8,608
1,064

82
3,082

Z Less than 0.5.

A larger percentage of these farmers are using both lime and
fertilizer than in the Northeastern Area (Table .31). Farmers
of Economic Class I used 400 pounds of fertilizer per acre; those
of the other economic classes used 40 to 100 pounds less per acre
of land treated, and on a smaller acreage. Information is not
available to show what kind or how much fertilizer should be
used. It is probable that the small farms need fertilizer as much
as the larger ones do, yet only two-thirds as many reported buying
any.

Tabic 31, — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Eastern Ohio-Western
Pennsylvania Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Fertilizer:

Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting

Acres upon which used per farm

reporting

Average per acre fertilized:

Founds..

Cost dollars.

Lime:

Percent of farms using.

Acres upon which used per farm

reporting

.Average per acre limed:

Pounds - -.

Cost dollars-

Economic class of farm

40, 636

320
8.23

3,456
8.91

258

38
156

391
9.67

3,180
7.80

II III IV V VI

4,432

80
343

3,568
9.32

12, 439

313

8. 04

3, 495

9. U6

12, 911

305
7.71

3,487

308
8.02

3,132
8.29

3,541

60
2

317
7.56

2, 856
6. 78

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

CENTRAL MICHIGAN-WESTERN NEW YORK LAKE SHORE
DAIRY AREA

I DOT • 10,000.000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

Figure 15.

CENTRAL MICHIGAN-WESTERN NEW YORK LAKE
SHORE REGION

(Economic Subregions 9, 49, 50, 64)

In this region the soils liave a wide range of texture and structure
as well as a mixed topography. The part that borders on Lake
Huron has soils that were developed under poor natural drainage
conditions from heavily timbered, swampy, loam or clay-loam
parent material. They are fairly high in organic matter, lime,
and nitrogen. These with their moisture-retaining capacities
make for productive and durable soils. Some of the more nearly
level stretches are also productive when provided with adequate
drainage. Small grains and hay do well here and the heaviest
concentration of corn in the State is in the counties just north
of the Ohio border. The few sugarbeets grown in the State arc
in this area as is the heaviest concentration of potatoes. Michigan
leads in growing field beans and virtually the whole acreage is
grown on the dark colored, well-drained, heavy loam soils at the
north side of the "Thumb."

The soils of the central part are derived mainly from glacial
till and are usually high in fertility. They stand cultivation where
the land is not on the steeper slopes. Such staple crops as corn,
oats, and hay do well. Mint, onions, and other truck crops are
grown on the more nearly level muck soils.

The western part of the Michigan country has a diverse soil
and topographic pattern. The most commonly found soils are
excessively drained sands, strongly acid, and low in organic
matter. Islands of less porous soil dot this part. They may be
classed as loamy sands and sandy loams and occupy level to rolling
locations. When well handled these soils produce fair yields of
oats and hay, and potato crops are good. Cherry orchards have
been developed on the hillier and sandier soils of the Lake Michi-
gan shore where, because of the proximity of that large body of
water, the climate is moderated.

Although there are more dairy farms than any other single type
in the four economic subregions there is a mixture with other live-
stock and cash crops and some limited localities within the area
are dominated by types other than dairy. The southwestern

corner of Michigan is known for its fruit and truck growing.
Berries, tomatoes, asparagus, and muskmelons are predominant
specialty crops. Apples, peaches, and pears do well. A little
farther east away from the lake shore, sales of hogs and cattle
supplement the sale of dairy products, and a little farther north
along the lake shore, poultry and truck crops are valued sources
of income. Fruit trees and grape vines extend north of the poultry-
truck-crop section in Economic Subregion 50. The three northern
counties of this subregion have very few milk cows.

The metropolitan area in the southeastern part of Kconomic
Subregion 40 offers the best market in the State for dairy and truck
crops and furnishes the most part-time employment. Fluid milk,
poultry, eggs, vegetables, and small fruits are produced for local
market. The Chicagoland market for farm products raised in
Economic Subregion 64 is as good or better than that afforded the
products of Economic Subregion 49. The important sources of
farm income for this lake shore subregion are field crops, fresh
vegetables, and poultry, as well as dairying.

This economic subregion, and Michigan Economic Area 3, are
ordinarily not considered a part of the central Michigan dairj'
country because of a possibly closer relationship to the Northern
Lake Dairy Area and because of a dearth of milk cows. Because
only the dairy farms of the area, and not all types of farms, are
being considered in this connection and because the basic organ-
ization of dairy farms changes little from area to area, it was
thought desirable to include tliese two sections with the rest of
this region.

Economic Subregion 9 on the lake shore of western New York
was placed in this general area because of the similarity of types
of production. This shore is devoted essentially to fruit and vege-
table growing. It is the largest fruit and vegetable locality within
the State of New York. Both the dairy and the fruit enterprises
have been increasing in this subregion durmg the last 25 years,
whereas \egetable and cereal growing have been decreasing.
Fruit growing is concentrated on the fertile deep .soils which are
near enough to Lake Erie to be benefited by the moderating influ-
ence of its water. Grapes are grown on the fringes of the locality.
The whole subregion grows a wide range of crops and livestock
products. Some localities are so .specialized as to justify special
consideration in any presentation covering these commodities.

The dairy farms of the Central Michigan-Western New York
Lake Shore Region have an average total income of $7,000 per
farm which is only $200 less than that of the Northeastern Dairy
Region but nearly $2,000 more than that of the Eastern Ohio-
Western Pemisyh'ania Region. The farms are more diversified,
have a greater acreage of har\'ested crops, and have higher land
values than either of these other regions. Total income for the
subregions within the area is lowest for the dairy farms along the
eastern shore of Lake Michigan, Economic Subregion 50, and
highest for the Western New York Lake Shore, and Economic
Subregion 9. The range is practically 100 percent — from $4,592
to $9,135.

The degree of specialization varies inversely with average
income. Economic Subregions 9 and 64 have the largest average
income and least diversification, while Economic Subregions 49
and 50 with smaller incomes have the greatest diversification.
The two areas with the largest incomes not only are less diversified
but they liave an average of 94 and 104 acres of harvested crop-
land and 23 and 24 milk cows, respectively, as comjjared to 84
and 67 acres of harvested crops and 15 and 13 cows per farm for
the subregions with smaller incomes. Diversification in the two
Michigan subregions is probably the result of local environmental
conditions and per,sonal considerations rather than its favorable
effect on income.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

The income range of the different economic subregions follows
the pattern of the region (Table 32). The total sales as well as
the sales per acre of total cropland show a consistent drop from
the large to the small farms. What diversification there is shows
up more among economic subregions than within the subregions.
The smaller farms within a subregion show little, if any, more
diversification than the larger farms.

Specified expenses of the region are consistently less than of
either of the previously discussed regions when expressed in
terms of income. The ratio of e.xpenses to jaicome in Economic
Subregions 49 and 6-1 is 1 to 3; in Subregions 9 and 50 the ratios
arc 1 to 2.3 and 1 to 2.6, respectively.

Table 32. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Central Michigan-
Western New York Lake Shore Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms-

Gross sales —

Per farm .dollars..

Per crop acre do —

Percent of gross sales from dairy

products

Sales per farm;

Milk dollars..

Cattle and calves do —

Hogs .do

Poultry products except

eggs do —

Eggs.- do....

Sheep do —

Other livestock and livestock

products dollars..

Total, livestock and livestock
products dollars..

Field crops do

Other crops ' do —

Total crops -

.do.

Economic class of farm

Total I

35,605

,011
62

4,650
582
229

202

5,742

1,162
107

1,269

34, 652

101

22. 438
3.254
1,343

147
447
181

27, 850

5,919
883

II III IV

6,925

14, 085
76

9,317

1,057

560

93
333

11, 393

2,496
196

7,168
60

4,805
667
207

57
241
20

5,906

1,170
92

3,800
45

2,635

362

32
140

3,168

566
67

632

1,909
32

1,220

234

1,610

260
39

1,600

19
64

538
117
29

33
2

731

70
36

t Includes horticultural and forest products.

Table 33. — Specified Farm E.xpenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Central Michigan-
Western New York Lake Shore Region: 1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

III

Number of farms

36. 605

551

6,925

12,068

9,286

5,175

1,600

Average per farm:

Machine hire

dollars..

176

252

224

199

162

110

Hired labor

do....

468

5,799

1,124

347

126

Feed

do....

1,062

4,823

1,982

1,101

633

375

204

Gas and oil

do....

439

1, 626

768

464

287

195

101

Fertilizer-

do.-..

347

1,49?

689

357

192

110

Lime

do..-.

do....

25
2.517

160

Total

14, 152

4,841

2,492

1,411

853

439

Average per crop acre:

Machine hire...

do.—

Hited labor

do....

(Z)

Feed . .

do....

Gas and oil _

do....

Fertilizer

do.—

Lime

do....

do— -

(Z)

CZ)

(Z)

Total

Feed bought is again the largest single item of specified expenses
(Table 33). It amounts to $76 per cow for Economic Subregion
9 and about $60 per cow for Economic Subregions 64 and 50. In
Western New- York, Economic Subregion 9 is outstandingly high
on this item as are all the farms in the Northeastern Dairy Region.

Net farm income and other items showing the relation of various
factors to the success of the venture disclose little change from
the standard pattern set by the previously described areas (Table
34). The operators of small farms show less eflfective use of all
resources, whether they be physical or human, than the larger
farmers.

Table 34. — Me.asures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of F.^rm, for the Central
Michigan-Western New York Lake Shore Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms-.

Gross sales per farm. dollars..

Specifiod expenses per farm-do

Gross sales less specified expenses
per farm dollars..

Gross sales per man-equivalent

Total investment —

Per farm dollars..

Per man -equivalent do

Per $100 gross sales. -do

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream

Milk sales per cow;
Dollars ---

Pounds (milk equivalent) .

Economic class of farm

Total

7,011
2,617

4,494

5.:

32, 792

25,225

468

259
,261

34, 652
14, 152

20,500
8,260

113,217

26, 956

326

(Z)

383
9,358

II III IV

6, 925

14,085
4,841

9,244
7,826

55. 999
31,111
397

(Z)

302
8,143

12,068

7,168
2,492

4,676
5,120

33, 703
24,074
468

(Z)

256
7,294

9,286

3,800
1,411

2,389
3,465

22, 274

2oi24«

686

205
6,090

6,175

1,909
853

1,066
2.121

16, (131

17,812

84-4

147
4,973

1,600

836
439

397

929

11.400
12, 667
1,425

3,750

Z Less than 0.50.

Z Less than 0.5 percent.

Nine-tenths of the dairy farms of this region used some ferti-
lizer (Table 35). The quantity applied per acre was only 240
pounds in comparison with around 400 pounds for the two more
eastern dairy regions. The two subregions with the larger farms
bought the larger quantities but only the New York subregion
applied more per acre fertilized. Farmers in this subregion,
on the average, applied 100 pounds more per acre than Subregion
64, and 120 pounds more than was applied by the other subregions.

Table 35. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Central Michigan-
Western New York Lake Shore Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Fertilizer;

Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting

.\cres upon which used per farm

reporting

Average per acre fertilized:

Pounds

Cost dollars..

Lime;

Percent of farms using... --.

-\cres upon which used per farm
reporting

Average per acre limed;

Pounds

Cost -.-dollars..

Economic class of farm

Total

36,605

56
261

3,271
7.13

29
179

328
8.39

3,626
7.96

II III IV V VI

6,925

261
7.36

2,904
6.82

12, 068

241
6.58

3,460
7.27

228
6.13

3,690
7.30

232
6.41

3.894
6.97

1,600

65
2

264
7.41

3,937
9.67

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

NORTHERN WOODS DAIRY AREA

001 = 10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLO

MAP NOA5-1-554

Figure 16.

THE NORTHERN WOODS REGION
(Economic Subregion 66)

The whole Northern Woods Region, usually called the cut-over
lands, has less agricultural development than any of the other
dairy areas. Its varied and irregular topography, short cool
growing seasons, and long cold winters call for hardy individuals
as farmers. On most of tlie farms they must be willing to face
many handicaps to agricultural production if they are to extract
a,- living. Occasional openings of tillable land are found where
one or more large farms have been established. Their operators
are able to make good incomes and have fairly satisfactory living
conditions. Most of the land has broken irregular terrain and a
mixture of fairly heav}' to light soils containing divers impedi-
ments to tillage such as boulders, stones, pot holes, knolls, and
marshy spots. Such acreage must depend for its development on
people who are willing to try to cultivate these rather isolated
pieces of land.

The agricultural history of this region began after the removal
of the forests, when land companies and other owners of large
tracts offered various inducements to obtain settlers. Many
settlers came and were sold small tracts of cleared or partially
cleared land. One or more generations of families toiled and
grubbed to expand cleared acres so as to grow enough for family
needs.

After the initial influx of buyers the number of farms continued
to increase until 1940. At that time, there were 91,740 farms in
the region (Table 36). Since then, the number of farms decreased
to 57,917 in 1954, The size of farms, on the other hand, has been
increasing. The average farm now contains 186 acres with 57
acres of harvested crops and total cropland of 77 acres. Along
with the decrease of 37 percent in the number of farms was a

decrease in number? of milk cows from 486,371 to 415,518 in 1950'
but this was followed by an increase during the next 4 years to
438,582. The net decrease in milk-cow numbers during the
14-year period was 10 percent. The herds became larger, how-
ever, showing an increase from 5.3 cows in 1940 per farm to 7.6 in
1954.

Even with these changes there are still very few large farms in
the area and very many small farms. At present, fewer than 2
percent of all dairy farms are in Economic Classes I and II, and
they have only 4 percent of the milk cows of the area. At the
other extreme, in Economic Classes V and VI, are more than
one-half the dairy farms and they have more tlian one-third of
all the milk cows.

Hay and pastureland dominate the region. From one-half to
nine-tenths of the tillable land in the different counties is used
for this purpose. Growing seasons are too short and cool for corn
to mature, except in the southernmost parts, so most of it is grown
for silage or forage. Cereal crops like oats do well and some root
crops are grown. A second growth of trees has started on land
that was not kept cleared.

Table 36. — Number of Farms and Number of Milk Cows
IN THE Northern Woods Region: 1930 to 1954

Year

Number of
farms

Number of
milk cows

Average
number

of COWS

per farm

1930 - - -

77,603
91, 740
70, 412
57, 917

373, 294
486,371
416, 618
438, 682

4.8

1940

5 3

1950 -- --

5.9

1954 -

7 6

The organization of the dairy farms follows the pattern in the
Northern Lake Region. Whether the farms be large or small the
basic cropping system consists of corn, small grains, and hay.
The proportion of the different crops changes somewhat with the
size of farm. The smaller farms grow relatively less corn and
small grains and more hay than the larger farms. The crops
grown suggest a 6-year rotation for the largest farms and a 7- or
8-year rotation for the smallest. There are 4 to 5 acres of har-
vested cropland per cow with no evident relation to size of farm.
The same holds true for acres harvested and total animal units.
The largest farms. Economic Class I, have 2.4 acres of harvested
cropland per animal unit. The others average approximately 3
acres regardless of size.

The range in the amount of business done by the different
economic classes of farms, like those of other areas, is so great as
to be almost startling (Table 37). Why should the largest farms
have livestock and crop sales of $122 per acre of total cropland,
while the small farms average $19V And why should specified
expenses range from $42 to $7 per acre (Table 38)? A partial
answer has to do with the way in which resources are used. But
why such a range in the use of resources when from two-thirds to
three-fourths of the value of sales is from milk and equal oppor-
tmiity is offered both small and large farmers to improve the dairy
herd through a breeding program, as well as to obtain and learn
to use most effectively a good quality of hay?

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 37- — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Northern Woods
Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms -.

Gross sales —

Per farm .—dollars.

Per crop acre do

Percent of gross soles from dairy

products

Sales per farm:

Milk .dollars..

Cattle and calves do

Hogs do

Poultry products except eggs. do

Eggs ..do....

Sheep do

Other livestock and livestock
products. ...dollars..

Total, livestock and livestock
products dollars..

Field crops do

Other crops" do

Total crops do

Economic class of farm

Total I

28,001

2,999
39

2,183
381
62
16
66
13

2. 739

105
95

36, 118
122

22, 247

si 911

395

228

,017
152

7.169

11 III IV

12, 496
64

8,482
1,353
286
142
266
65

10, 613

1,408
474

3,294

6,545
53

4,877
760
150

25
139

5,992

371
182

553

9,466

3,499
42

2,606
416
71
19
76
16

3.209

170
120

10, 820

1,849
29

1,332

274

4,005

831
19

675
141
12

5
■23

763

1 Includes horticultural and forest products.

Table 38. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Northern Woods
Region: 1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

III

28.001

385

3,294

9.465

10,820

4,005

Average per farm:

Machine hne.

...dollars,.

178

128

134

109

Hired labor

do....

113

4.402

1,252

318

Feed

do....

461

4,622

1,708

947

533

303

102

Gas and oil

do....

242

1,449

748

443

276

184

Fertilizer

do....

1,061

511

206

.34

Lime

do....

336

Total

996

12, 048

4,410

2.079

1,117

647

339

Average per crop acre:

Machine hire

.do....

Hired labor

do....

fZ)

Feed

do....

Gas and oil

do..-.

FertUizer

do....

f/1

Lime...

do...-

do--..

(Z)

CZ)

(Z)

Total -

Z Less than 0.50.

Milk sales per cow show the same trend (Table 39). They
dropped from -$440 to $94 and from 13,282 pomids to 3,718 pounds.
The lower price of cream can account for a part of the price differ-
ence because the smaller farmers sold more than 40 percent of
their milk as cream whereas the larger farms sold not more than
5 or 6 percent.

Average net farm incomes of these operators were a little more
than one-half of those of the Northern Lake Region not because
of the differences between identical economic classes, but because
of the much larger proportion of farmers in Economic Classes V
and VI. Likewise, other factors showing effectiveness in the use

of resources are fairly comparable with other areas within eco-
nomic classes, but averages for the whole region are low. Fully
one-half of the dairy farms are in the two smallest size groups in
comparison with one-fifth for the Northern Lake Region.

Table 39. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the
Northern Woods Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Gross sales per farm dollars..

Specified expenses per farm. do

Gross sales less specified expenses
per farm dollars. .

Gross sales per man-equivalent

Total investment—

Per farm dollars..

Per man-equivalent do

Per $100 gross sales do

Percent of sales of dairy products

from cream

Milk sales per cow:

Dollars.

Pounds (mUk equivalent) .

Economic class of farm

2.999
990

2,003
2,307

15, 388

11,837

513

174
6, 074

H III IV

36,118
12, 048

24, 070
8,209

60, 637

13, 758

108

(Z)

446
13,282

385

12, 495
4.410

8,085
5,433

37, 618

16, 356

301

293
8,327

3,294

6.545
2.079

4.400
4.091

25. 954

16, 221

399

230
6,796

9,405

3,499
1,117

2,382
2,499

10. 944

12, 103

484

179
5,794

10. 820

1.!
047

1.202

1.541

12, 405

10, 388

092

135
4,842

4,005

831
339

492

765

8,008
7,825
1,076

94
3,718

Z Less than 0.5 percent.

Not so many of these farmers used fertilizers as in other areas,
and when used the rates applied were lower (Table 40). Fewer
of the smaller farmers bought fertilizers and they applied less per
acre than their larger neighbors. The soils were derived from
noncalcareous material so that in general a good application of
limestone or marl is beneficial to crop production. Yet only
one-seventh of these farmers reported using any liming material,
and only a few of the smaller farms used any at all. When used,
these smaller farmers made only about half the per acre application
made by the larger farms. The limited use of both fertilizers
and lime may partly accoimt for the relati\'ely low production
reported for the area as a whole.

Table 40. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for The Northern Woods
Region: 1954

Item

Number of farms...

Fertilizer:

Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting

Acres upon which used per farm

reporting

Average per acre fertilized:

Pounds

Cost dollars.

Lime;

Percent of farms using...

Acres upon which used per farm
reporting

Average per acre limed:

Pounds

Cost dollars-

Economic class of farm

Total

28, 001

240
7.08

3,090
6.84

II III IV

290
9.12

6,270
9.07

209
8.16

4, 302
9.12

246
7.32

3,003
6.85

236
6.89

3.039
6.84

10, 820

231
6.62

3,602
6.21

21
1

216
6.45

3,343
5.40

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

SPECIAL DAIRY AREAS

We have seen that the more important dairy areas of the
United States have developed from a background of physical
conditions as well as economic forces and situations. This inter-
play of forces and conditions has resulted in areas that are fairly
definitely delineated. Dairying has also developed well in some
restricted areas, because of special market situations as well as
natural forces.

Concentrations of population do not necessarily take place
within areas of intensive food production. Rather the opposite
is true, especially for certain food products of which the production
of milk for fluid consumption is a conspicuous example. In the
past, the perishability of milk restricted its production to locations
that were relatively close to consuming centers. Even now,
although improved methods of handling fluid milk have so
increased its keeping cjualities that it can be moved hundreds of
miles and still arrive at the consuming centers in the best con-
dition, this is not done in large volume for two reasons.

The first is the cost of transporting milk these longer distances.
Milk must receive expedited service and this transportation is
the highest in price. It is much cheaper per hundredweight to
ship m the 20 or 25 pounds of grain and other concentrates usually
required to produce 100 pounds of milk than it is to ship the 100
pounds of milk. In a few limited areas this margin is so wide that
some dairymen prefer a location at the market. They buy all
of their feed and spend full workmg time with the dairy herd.

A second reason is found in the regulations and restrictions
set up by local health authorities whose primary function is to
assure consumers the highest quality product. These regulations
sometimes are greater deterrents to the shipment of fluid milk
than are transportation and handling costs.

Because of varying economic forces and the administration of
different health regulations these special dairy areas continue to
develop and expand. Since each of the more outstanding special
areas is different in some respects from every other, a brief dis-
cussion of each is in order.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

There are eight smaller areas which have a large enough concen-
tration of dairy farms or milk production to justify individual
description. A considerable range in the proportion of dairy
farms to all commercial farms is found in the different areas
(Table 41).

The Ozark-Springfield area, Subregions 73 and 82, is more
nearly like a major dairy-producing area than any of the others.
Nearly one-half of the commercial farms are dairy farms and they
fairly well blanket these two subregions. One-third of the com-
mercial farms have beef cattle or hogs as the major enterprise
and this makes it easier to add a few milk cows than when cash
crops or poultry is the main source of income. The rolling
topography with large acreages of pastureland encourages live-
stock farming.

Such areas as the Gulf Coastal, Subregion 58, the California
Inner Valley, Subregion 116, and the Southern California area,
Subregion 115, where half or more of the farms are classed as
cash-crop farms will take up dairying more slowly than where
livestock other than dairy predominates. Also, it costs more to
change the cropping system and buOdmgs, as weU as the form of
operating capital to suit dairy farming, than when the system
alreadj' includes other livestock.

Another conspicuous diEference among these subregions is the
proportion of noncommercial farms. A noncommercial farm may
be a part-time, residential, or abnormal farm, and the operator is
not considered a genuine or full-time farm operator. It is fre-
quently held that large numbers of noncommercial farms are
found in areas having much industrial or commercial activity.
Excess capital and energy in these areas find outlets m various
farming ventures which give recreation and pleasure to the
owners.

Table 41. — Number of Commercial Farms by Type, for Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Subregions
included

All farms
(number)

Commercial farms

Percent distribution of commercial farms by type

Speciiil dairy area

Number

Percent
of all
farms

Cotton, cash-
grain, other
field-crop,
fruit-and-nut,
and vegetable

Dairy

Poultry

Other
livestock

General

All other

Atlantic Coast

3,4,5,11,12,

13, 14, 16

73 and 82

112

115

116

118 and 119

103,812

29, 528
36, 092
95, 625

44, 056
34,537
52, 447
82, 169

75,417

19, 437
13,369
51,088

34, 472
23,847
42, 223
40, 189

66
37
53

78
69
80
49

34
56
56
26

34
20
45

1
fi
9

4
23

21
16
31

9
13

7
7

5
7
10

Nashville Ba^in

GuIfCoastal

1
4

Ozark-Springfield

Snake River-Utah Valley. . ....

California Inner VaUey. - - . _

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Tlicse areas do not demonstrate this premise, Tlic fewest
noncommercial farms are in the Inner Valley of California, Sub-
region 116, where population is increasing, industries are growing,
and evidences of prosperous communities are obvious. The same
proportion of noncommercial farms is found in the Intermountain
area, Subregion 112, where irrigation makes for high-value dairy
farms, and where industrial development is limited to the cities
of Boise, Salt Lake City, and Twin Falls. On the other hand, the
largest numbers of noncommercial farms are found in the Puget
Sound and the Gulf Coastal an^as, where there is no more free
capital looking for diversional or recreational outlets than in
other areas

The dairy farms of tliesc sjiccial areas vary greatly in the
amount and jiroportion of tlie area resources used. Tho.se of
Southern California occupy less than 3 percent of both the total
farmland and the cropland of the area. Vet they have 97 percent
of the milk cows and account for 09 percent of the dairy income.

Near the other e-xtreme are the dairy farms of llu- Snake River-
Utah Valley area. Although 2,5 percent of the farms are dairy
farms they occupy only 6 percent of the farmland and 10 percent
of the cropland. They sell only 63 percent of the dairy products
of the area. Dairy farms of the other special areas usually are
found to be between these two extri'UK s in the use of land and in
the sale of dairy products.

It is logical to expect to find most of the milk cows in a dairy
area on dairy farms. This is the situation in all the sjjecial

Table 42. — Distribution of Milk Cows on Commercial
Farms by Type of Farm, for Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area

Subreiiions
included

Total milk

cows on
all commer-
cial farms

Percent of milk
cows on —

Dairy
farms

Other
farms

.\tlantic Coast

3, 4, .5, 11,

12, 13, 14,

73 and 83

112
115
116

118

119

118 and 119

7i>0, 066

158,588
104, 804

277, 124
1 12, 338
389, 462

2,>7, 194
201, 916
413,863

186, tK9
128,307
314,946

62
82

73
66
71

.52
97
88

91
74
84

(lull Coastiil

Ozark -Springfield

Ozark-Springfield

Snake River-Utah Valley

Southern California

California Inner Vallev

48
3
12

Puget Sound-Coastiil

Puget Sound-Coastal

9
26
16

areas. The Intermountain area, Subregion 112, is the only one
where more than 40 percent of milk cows are on nondairy farms
(Table 42). A large part of these are on general or other livestock
farms, while the highly specialized poultry farms have the fewest
milk cows.

VARIATIONS IN FARM CHARACTERISTICS

Figures from ditferent studies indicate that well-organized
d.-iiry farms generally turn over their capital every 2^ to 3 years.
The following tabulation shows some of these relationships for the
s])ecial areas. The commercial nature of the dairy operators in
Southern California is obvious in this comparison.

.\rea and subregion

Total in-
vest-
ment per
milk cow
(dollars)

Percent
of income
tiom all
sources
e.\cept
milk

Years for income to
equal value of
land and build-
ings

Total in-
come

Income
less spec-
ified ex-
penses

Subregions 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 (Atlantic
Coa.st)

Subregion 54 (Nashville BasinJ...

.Subregion 58 (Gulf Coastal)

1,588
1,048

648
1,040
1,971

767
1,382

1,657

(NA)
34
12
30
32
8
18

(N'A)
3.6
2.1
3.2
4.3
1.0
3 1

3.7

(XA)
6.2
5.1

."-^ubregions 73 and 82 (Ozark-Springfleld)...
Subregion 112 (Snake River-t"tah Valley) .--

Subregion 115 (Southern California)

.Subregion 116 (Califoinia Inner Valley)

Subregions 118 and 119 (Puget Sound-

7.3
6,6
2.4
5.6

6.6

NA Not available.

These special areas differ in resources used as well as in income
(Table 43). At the one extreme are the few highly specialized
dairy farms of the Southern California area with their large capital
values, labor force, and income. The concentration of these farms
near and within the Los Angeles metropolitan area has resulted in
fantastic real estate values on a per farm basis. The total invest-
ment of approximately $140,000 per farm is over twice that in the
California Inner Valley and almost four times that in the Puget
Sound-Coastal subregions. Investment in other special areas is
from three-tenths to one-tenth this amount. If the investment is
expressed on a per cow basis, the Los Angeles dairymen have a
smaller investment than is found in any other area except along the
Gulf Coast. Their total investment per cow is less than half that
of the Puget Sound and the Intermountain areas, and only a little
more than one-half of the investment per cow for dairy fanners of
the Inner Vallev of California.

Tabic 43. — Size of Dairy Farms, by Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy aiea

Item

Atlantic
Coast (Sub-
regions 3, 4,
5, 11.12, 13,
14, 16)

Nashville
Ba.sln (Sub-
region 64)

Gulf Coastal
(Subre^^ion

58)

Ozark-
Springfield
(Subregions
73 and 82)

Snake River-

Utali Valley

(Subregion

112)

Southern

California

(Subregion

116)

California

fnner Valley

(Subregion

116)

Puget Sound-
Coaslal (Sub-
regions lis
and 119)

26, 073

152
73
(NA)

27, 274
6, 823
5, .593

39. (WO

1.9
25

6,081

143

3,126

11,198
2,468
2,065

15,721

1.3
15
23

2,730

143

7,040

14, 930
3.007
2.799

20. 736

1.5
32
44

23.017

169

.:J4
2. 595

8. 228
2. 376

1,878
12,482

1.3
12
19

8,469

102

5, 185

22, 233
4,046
3, 293

29, .572

1.1

15
25

1,101

183

107, 035

102,933

6,464

27, 105

136, 502

.5.6
178
210

8. 7S3

104

13.814

43. 375
5. 068
8.231

56, 674

1.7
41
59

12.321

Average per farm;

All land in farms -

Cropland harvested..

.\11 farms products sold

Investment in—

Land and buildings

Machinery

Livestock

Total

acres..

do....

dollars..

do....

do--.

1119

7. 273

26. 873
4,331
3, 593

;i4, 797

Man-equivalent

Milk cows

..number

do.-.-

1.3
21
30

NA Not iiv;iilah!e.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Another comparison that may be made to show the relation
between resources used and income are the number of years of
income required to equal the value of real estate.

To the extent that specified expenses reflect the total expenses
on the dairy farms of these special areas the dairymen of Southern
California are better able to make out on their large real estate
investment than those of other areas with much smaller invest-
ments. The cost of cow turnover every 2 years is not considered
in the expenses, however, and when a reasonable figure is allowed
for this yearly cost the number of years required for the net farm
income to equal the real estate value is increased. It is also po.s-
sible that the wages paid the milkers are nearer $5,000 per year
than the average wage rate of the special area, which is $3,200.
These two adjustments could easily double the number of years
required for the yearly net farm income to equal the value of the
real estate. Even with this type of adjustment, these dairymen
appear to be in much better position to pay out on their farms than
those of other areas.

The size of the milking herd on the dairy farms of the special
areas also varies greatly (Table 44). The smallest herds are in
the Ozark-Springfield area where dairying is more generally
distributed than elsewhere. Nearly one-half of the dairy farms of
this area have fewer than 10 cows per farm and less than 15 percent
have more than 20 cows. Almost one-half of the 51,000 com-
mercial farms are classed as dairy farms.

Both the Nashville Basin and the Snake River-Utah Valley
areas average 15 milk cows per herd with 40 and 36 percent respec-
tively having fewer than 10 cows per herd. The largest herds are
in California, the Inner Valley showing an average of 41 milk cows
per herd while the Southern California area has the unusual
average of 178 cows. The most nearly uniform distribution of
herds among the different size groups is in the Puget Sound-
Coastal area where 28 percent of the herds have fewer than 10
cows per farm and 23 percent have more than 30 cows.

Milk is sold either as whole milk or cream. Census figures show
the amount received for each so that the percentage of the total
milk check received from the sale of each is easily obtained. It is
not possible, however, to show the quantity of whole milk being
used for manufactured products in comparison with that used for
fluid consumption. This diversion of whole milk from fluid con-
sumption to manufactured products affects the price received by
the farmer because manufactured dairy products carry a lower
value for that portion of the whole milk than when used for fluid
consumption. The price is also affected by conditions surrounding
the special area under consideration, some of which may be unique
to that area. These factors and conditions affect the price of milk
in any area. In only one area, Economic Subregions 118 and 119,
does the sale of cream exceed 2 percent of the total milk check
(Table 45).

Table 44. — Distribution of

Dairy Farms by Size of Herd, for Special Dairy

Areas: 1954

Special dairy area

Item

Atlantic
Coast (Sub-
regions 3, 4,
5, 11, 12, 13,
14, 16)

Nashville
Basin (Sub-
region 54)

Gulf Coastal

(Subregion

58)

Ozark-
Springfleld
(Subregions
73 and 82)

Snalfe River-
Utah VaUey
(Subregion
112)

Southern

California

(Subregion

115)

California

Timer Valley

(Subregion

116)

Puget Sound-
Coastal (Sub-
regions 118
and 119)

26,073
25

6. 681
15

2,730
32

23, 017
12

8,459
15

1,101
178

8,783
41

12, 321
21

Percent distribution

Size of herd (number of milli cows);

100
2
10
16
17
27
20
7
1

100

(Z)

100

100
10
35
28
13
10
3
1
(Z)

100

(Z)

100
(Z)
(Z)

1
1
4
3
24
67

100
3
8
12
10
IS
24
18
7

100
9
19
16
12
21
17
S
1

Under 6

6 to 9

10 to 14

15 to 19 --- - - ...

20 to 29

30 to 49

50 to 99

Z 0.5 pei'oont or le.ss.

Table 45. — Milk and Cream Sold per Milk Cow on Dairy Farms, by Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Item

Dairy farms .number..

Milk and cream sold per cow dollars. -

Whole milk .sold per cow do

Cream sold per cow ..do

Milk sold per cow (milk equivalent) ..pounds..

Value of mUk and cream sold pounds, milk equivalent, per
hundred weight dollars..

Special dairy area

Atlantic
Coast (Sub-
regions 3, 4,
5, 11, 12, 13,
14, 16)

Nashville
Basin (Sub-
region 54)

Gulf Coastal

(Subregion

68)

Ozark-
Springfield
(Subregions
73 and 82)

Snake River-
Utah Valley
(Subregion
112)

Southern

California

(Subregion

115)

California

Iimer Valley

(Subregion

116)

Puget Sound-
Coastal (Sub-
regions 118
and 119)

26,073

6.681

2,730

23,017

8,459

1,101

8,783

12, 321

351
350

139

138

198
198
(Z)

150
149

245

243

548
548
(Z)

273
273
(Z)

288

283

7,200

3,979

3,671

4 634

7,218

11,112

7,643

7,031

4.87

3.49

6.39

3.24

3.39

4.93

3.67

4.10

Z Less than 0.60.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

The volume of business as well as the sources of income of these
specified areas reflect the range of conditions under -which the
dairy farmers operate (Table 46). In those areas where alterna-
tive uses are limited to farming operations the productivity of the
soil is a good indication of usual income. Kconomic Subregions 54
or 7.3 and 82 have less productive land than Economic Subregions
58 or 118 and 119. They are more diversified in their farming
operations and have smaller total incomes.

\\ here the location of the dairy farm offers valuable alternative

Table 46. — Sources of Farm Income for Dairy Farms, by
Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Sub-
regions

in-
cluded

Total

income

per

farm

Percent of farm income from —

Special dairy areas

Dairy
prod-
ucts

Poultry

and
poultr>'
prod-"

ucts

Other

livestock
and live-
stock
products

Field
crops

Cash
crops

.Atlantic Coast

Nashville Basiii

Gulf Coastal

3, 4, 5,
11, 12,
13, 14,
10.

.54

73,82

(NA)

.$3. 120
7,040
2, .WS

(NA)

IX
88
70

(NA)

2
1
4

(NA)

19
7
19

(NA)

12
3
6

(NA)

Ozark-Spriiigfleld _

Snake River-UtahVal-
ley

Southern California

California Inner Valley -
Puget Sound-Coastal. .

112

115

116

118,119

5,185

107, 035

13. 814

7,273

68
92
82
85

(Z)
2

8
8

1
8
2

(Z)

1
' 3

Z 0.5 percent or less.
N A Not available.

uses the price of real estate is established more by its use for other
activities than by feed production for a dairy herd. Intensive
agricultural use must follow- if these farms are to pay out. The
so-called dairy farms of the Los Angeles area illustrate how dairy-
men meet this situation. Their income per farm, per cow, and
per acre of land, as well as the real estate value are outstandingly
greater than for any other area.

There is considerable difference in the mechanization of these
farms as shown in the special lists of farm machinery (Table 47).
Subregion 54 has the least mechanization, the two California areas
have the most. The California Inner Valley, Subregion 116, has
the most milking machines, tractors, motortrucks, and auto-
mobiles and just as much field machinery. On the other hand,
the smallest amount of field machinery is found on the dairy
farms in the Southern California area where there is a small
acreage of harvested cropland. The dairymen of these two areas
also have more of the specified home facilities — probably indicating
the relatively large incomes of the groups. The Ozark-Springfield
area, Subregions 73 and 82, has fewer of the facilities for the home
than the other special subregions. They also have fewer cows and
less total farm income.

The number of farm operators under 35 years of age is greatest
in the Gulf Coast and two California areas (Table 48). These
areas also have the fewest operators over 54 years old. In the
discussion of the age of operators in the major dairy areas it was
brought out that there were not enough young farmers in any of
the areas to offset the number of farmers over 54 years. The
three above-mentioned special dairy areas come nearer meeting
this situation than any others. Most of the special areas have
as many or more operators over 64 years old as under 35.

Table 47- — Farm Mechanization and Home Conveniences on Dairy Farms, by Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area

Atlantic
Coast (Sub-
regions 3, 4,
5, 11, 12. 13,
14, 16)

Na.'shville
Basin (Sub-
region 54)

Gulf Coastal

(Subregion

58)

Ozark-
Springfield
(Subregions
73 and 82)

Snake River-
Utah Valley
(Subregion
112)

Southern

California

(Subregion

115)

California

Inner Valley

(Subregion

116)

Puget Sound-
Coastal (Sub-
regions 118
and 119)

Number of farms.

Percent of farms reporting;

Milking machine

Power feed grinder

Electric pig brooder ,

Farm tractors

Automobiles

Field forage harvesters..

Motortrucks

Pick-up balers

Grain combines..-

Com pickers

Telephone

Electricity

Television

Piped water..
Home freezer.

26, 073

2,730

23,017

1,101

(Z)

95
100
79
99
58

92
10
1

79
90

13
74
18
2
1

79
100
63

(Z)

85
87

63
13

97
37

Z 0.6 percent or less.

Table 48. — Distribution

OF Dairy Farmers

BY Age, FOR Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area

Item

Atlantic
Coast (Sub-
regions 3, 4,
5, 11, 12, 13,
14, 16)

NashvUle
Biisin (Sub-
region 64)

Gulf Coastal

(Subregion

58)

Ozark-
Springfleld
(Subregions
73 and 82)

Snake River-
Utah Valley
(Subregion
112)

Southern

California

(Subregion

115)

California

Inner Valley

(Subregion

118)

Puget Sound-
Coastal (Sub-
recions 118
and UU)

26,073

6,681

2,730

23,017

8,459

1,101

8,783

12, 321

Percent distribution

Age groups:
Total

100

Under 25 years...

25 to 34 years

3
15
23
23
21
15

1
9
23
24
23
20

1
19

1
12
22
26
24
15

13
26
25
21
14

2
16
32
27
16

17
28
27
18
9

1
12

45 to 54 years . .

65 years and over ...

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

The cropping systems have some conspicuous differences
(Tablr 49). In all the special western areas, more than half of
the harvisted cropland is in hay. Grains are grown on the re-
maining cropland. Corn either for grain or for silage, is the chief
grain crop in the areas east of the Rookies, whereas wheat or
barley i.s the main cereal in the Snake River-Utah Valley subregion
and small grains, oats and barley, are found along the western
coast. A small quantity of hayland characterizes the dairy farms
of the special areas east of the Rockies.

A common cliaracteristic of all these areas, except Subregions
115 and 116, is the extent of pastureland per farm. In each area
there are from 2 to 10 acres of pastureland per milk cow. Sub-
region 115 has three-fourths of an acre of pasture per cow; Sub-
region 116 shows an average of one and one-half acres. The liigh
price of land in the parts of these two areas with dairy-cow con-
centration prevents its extensive use for pasture. Class by class,
the value of farm land and buildings is equalled only by the value
of dairy farms in the irrigated valleys of Subregion 112. The per
acre value of land and buildings of the dairy farms in the special
areas is generally less than half of the value in the three above
areas. The only livestock on these farms in appreciable numbers
is cattle. Milk cows and cattle raised for replacement are supple-
mented on some farms by a few chickens, a small flock of .sheep,

and possibly a half-dozen hogs. None of these classes of livestock
is large enough in the organization to justify being called an
enterprise.

The labor force per farm is probably the most constant factor
discussed (Table 50). With one exception the average man-
equivalent varied from 1.1 to 1.9, less than one-third being hired
help. The resources used and the work accomplished by the
labor force was greatly different in different areas. Fully two-
thirds of the labor force on a dairy farm is used to feed and care
for the dairy herd. Yet in some of these areas one man-equivalent
was available for each 11 milk cows while in others it cared for
twice as many cows. To some extent, of course, this reflects
differences in the proportion of feed produced on the farm. The
range in value of sales per man-equivalent showed twice this range.
This emphasizes the point frequently made that the dairy farm of
usual .size is too small to utilize its resources effectively, especially
the labor that is available for farmwork. The man-equivalent
dropped almost consistently as size of farm decreased and it was
used much less effectively with decreasing size. When the total
income per man is $2,000 or $3,000 and farm expenses and cost
must be met out of this amount there is little left for increasing
the standards of living.

Table 49. — Farm Organization of Dairy Farms, by Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Item

Number of farms-

Average per farm:

All land in farms -

Cropland harvested

Cropland pastured

Cropland not harvested and not pastured.

.acres.
..do...
..do...
..do...

Total cropland

Total land pastured.

Livestock;

All cattle

Milk cows

Hogs._

Chickens

Sheep.. _

.do...
.do...

.number.

do...

Percent of cropland harvested in:

Com fur all purposes

Corn for grain

Small grains

All hay

Other crops

.percent.
...-do...
....do...
....do...
....do...

Special dairy area

Atlantic
Coast (Sub-
regions 3. 4.
5, 11, 12, 13,
14, 16)

152
73
18
3

3«
25

129
1

Nashville
Basin (Sub-
region 64)

6,681

143
36
33

73
92

Gulf Coastal

(Subregion

68)

2,730

143
26
30

Ozark-
Springlield
(Subregions
73 and 82)

23,017

169
34
32
3

69
118

Snake River-
Utah Valley
(Subregion
112)

8,469

102

61
43

Southern

California

(Subregion

116)

1,101

183

65
124

239
178

1
24

(Z)

California

Inner Valley

(Subregion

116)

.S, 783

104

(Z)

Puget Sound-
Coastal (Sub-
regions 118
and 119)

(Z)

109
29
24
2

65
56

36
21

1
39

Z 0.5 percent or less.

Table 50. — Sources of Labor on Dairy Farms, by Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area

Hem

A tlantic
Coast (Sub-
regions 3, 4,
5, 11, 12, 13,
14, 16)

Nashville
Basin (Sub-
region 64)

Gulf Coastal
(Subregion

58)

Ozark-
Springfield
(Subregions
73 and 82)

Snake Rivei-

Utah VaUey

(Subregion

112)

Southern

California

(Subregion

115)

California

Iimer Valley

(Subregion

116)

Pugct Sound-
Coastal (Sub-
regions 118
and 119)

26,073

1.9
.8
.4
.7

38
(NA)

6,681

1.3
.8
.3
.2

2,406

2,730

1.5
.8
.4
.3

4,693

23,017

1.3
.8
.4
.1

1,996

8,459

1.1
.7
.3
.1

4,714

1,101

5.6
.9
.2

4.5

19, 113

8,783

1.7
.8
.4
.5

8,126

12.321

1.3

Average per man-equivalent:

Cropland, total

Total sales

Milk cows

acres..

dollars..

number..

6,595

NA Not available.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

ATLANTIC COASTAL AREA

MARVLAND

DOT =10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MtLK SOLD

M4P NO 454-505

Figure 17.

THE ATLANTIC COAST AREA

(Economic Subregions 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16)

In .soiiH- respects this is not a special dairy area. Its milk pro-
duction adds materially to the supply for the industrialized urban
East, and its proximity to the Northeastern Dairy Region along
with the variety of the output suggests some special treatment.
Its location makes it assume the role of a transition area, where,
because of its unlimited market for all farm products including
milk, it can continue to increase production. Though milk pro-
duction is a minor part of the food contribution to the industrial
East from this region the sale of 5,2:53 million pounds of whole
milk and cream from the 760,000 milk cows is a real contribution
(Table 5\). Ajiproximately one-third of the commercial farms
are dairy farms. These farms account for 86 percent of all milk
cows, and 90 percent of total milk sales from the area. Less than
1 percent of all milk is sold as cream and 56 percent of this comes
from the few cows on nondairy farms. More than half of this
quantity is sold from Economic Subregion 16 — the subregion that
centers in Adams County in Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Table 51. — Milk Cows and Milk Production, for the
Atlantic Coast Area: 1954

Num-
ber of
farms

Milk-
cows
(mim-
bcr)

Milk and cream sold

Item

Total milk
(pounds)

Whole milk
(pounds)

Milk as
cream

(pounds,
nnlk

equiva-
lent)

All commercial farms. -.

Dairy farms

Percent dairy

75.417

26, 073

34.6

760. 066

655. 910

86.3

5, 232, 6i)4, 847

4. 722, 440, 846

90.2

5, 195, ,587. 473

4. 706, 002, 029

90.6

37,107.374

16,438,816

44 3

The following brief statement without all the detailed ijrodue-
tion figures is ])lanned to show the contribution this region makes
to the general dairy picture. The whole area is e.ssentially in-
dustrial and commercial with a population of 30 million people
in 1950, Although one-fifth of the population of the nation was
here at that time it has only one-eighteenth of the land of the
country and ajiproximately one-half of this land lies within desig-

nated State metropolitan economic areas. It is the most densely
populated area of the United States, having around 600 persons
per square mile. Different forms of manufacturing are the chief
occupation of the urban people.

The farms occupy slightly less than half of the land and use less
than 3/2 percent of the total labor force. Almost every form of
intensely operated agricultural production which leads to a high
degree of s])ecialization is found here. Because of this the term
"mixed farming'' is most appropriate for its agriculture. More
than half of the farms are classed as dairy or poultry farms.
Vegetables, small fruits, tobacco, and other special crop and live-
stock types account for the remaining farms.

Its subregions vary considerably in the proportion of the dif-
ferent types of farms although every economic subregion produces
practically every commodity found in this general region. Within
each subregion are found small areas devoted almost exclusively
to one special enterprise while a neighboring locality with appar-
ently similar so'l, topography, and market possibilities, is used for
a completely different enterprise.

Five of the economic subregions, numbers 4, 1 L 12, 13, and 16,
have a larger proportion of dairy herds than any other type while
poultry farms account for more of the farms in Subregions 3 and 5.
Central New Jersey, Subregion 14, has about the same number of
vegetable, poultry, and dairy farms. In practically every part of
the area employees of industrial or commercial concerns live in
rural communities and commute to work. This results in many
part-time or residential farms whose owners produce some crop or
livestock products for market. They ordinarily consume much
more than they produce so that as long as they are employed these
workers create markets for local produce. Noncommercial oper-
ators account for two-fifths of all farmers.

A statement of the development of agriculture in Connecticut
may well characterize the area. Early records indicate that its
citizens considered theirs a manufacturing State even before 1800,
when nine-tenths of the population depended on agriculture for a
living. Each form of manufacturing of that time was essentially
a home enterpri.se. Gradually farmers who were more proficient
in some activity began specializing in the production of that one
commodity by hiring one or more helpers. These special com-
modities were then exchanged witli neighliors whose developing
specialties were along other lines.

As these home enterprises dev(4oped, factories were IniiU on the
farms or in the nearby villages and the help continued to be re-
cruited from neighboring farms. This meant that early in the
development of the State there were many part-time farmers or,
as they may as well be called, part-time factory workers.

The advent of hard surfaced roads, and especially the coming of
automobiles, resulted in a shift from the more general farming and
crafts to activities that required special buildings and equipment,
as well as trained workers, for more economical operation. A two-
way movement of the population resulted. Many farm people
continued to live in the country, but took part-time or full-time
work in neighboring urban communities, while urban employees
moved to the country and commuted to work. As a result of this
kind of activity, more than one-third of all farmers were classed as
part-time farmers 20 years ago.' This situation has changed
little. In 1954, almost 40 percent of all Connecticut farmers were
noncommercial operators.

Cranberry growing is an important industry in Subregion 3,
while tobacco production in the Connecticut River Valley of
Subregion 4 is one of the high-income crops. The farmland
around New York City is most valuable. It can pay out only by
being used for the most intensive forms of production. Small
acreages used for growing plants and flowers under glass, some
potato growing, and a few poultry farms, illustrate the type of
production adapted to this land.

' Adapted from "Types of Farming and Type-of- Farming .<reas in Connecticut," Bulletin 2I.'i. I. O. Davis. Connecticut State College, Storrs, Connecficiil.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

The most completely agriculturally developed parts of the area
are in Economic Subregions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16.

Most of these farms are of average size. Less than 8 percent
are in the two economic classes with the smallest incomes and only
6 or 7 percent in the class of largest farms. Economic Class I
(Table 52).

Table 52. — Number of Dairy Farms, by Economic Class,
FOR THE Atlantic Coast Area: 1954

Subregion

Atlantic Coast Area

Subregion 3

Subregion 4

Subregion 5

Subregion 11

Subregion 12

Subregion 13

Subregion 14

Subregion 16

Total
dairy
farms

26, 073

1,929
3,948
3,138
2,230
2,547
2,657
556
9,068

Number of farms by economic class

1,651

197
28(i
454

25
127
126

86
350

9,161

616
1,201
1,665

241

925
1,186

305
3,022

III

8,649

511
1,301
692
805
970
880
105
3,385

4,586

435
765
236
824
345
360
35
1.586

1,721

140

325

315

150

590

305

30
70
10
20
30
10

The cropping pattern of the New England part of this area is
considerably different from the southern part. Hay crops
dominate the former, representing nearly six-sevenths of the
harvested acreage and corn occupies about one-seventh. Small
acreages of potatoes, tobacco, and truck crops occupy not more
than one-twentieth of the harvested cropland while practically
no small grains are grown.

The southern part of the area, consisting mainly of farms in
Eastern Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey, has more corn,
some small grain and much less hay in the cropping system than
the northern part of the area. Hay occupies a little over two-
fifths of the harvested crop acreage whereas corn acreage accounts
for about one-third and small grain, especially wheat, is grown
on all but five percent of the remainder. Truck crops and potatoes
use relatively few acres throughout the area, but beoau.se of their
high per-acre value they add materially to the farm income.

The dairy farms of this area grow more hay and corn and
less grain and truck crops than the average of all commercial
farms (Table 53). Their cropping system approximates a 6-year
system of hay for 3 years followed by 2 years of corn and 1 of
small grain. A few acres of cash crops may substitute for any
of these standard crops.

Table 53. — Crop Acreage per Farm on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class, for the Atlantic Coast Area: 1954

Item

Number of farms.,-

Total acres

Cropland, total acres..

Harvested do

Pastured -do

Not harvested and not pastured
acres. .

Crops:

Com do...

All hay. do

Wheat --- do...

All other crops do

Economic class of farm

Total

26, 073
152
94
73
18

1,651

342

214

156

II m IV

,161
178
113
90
21

,649
131
81
65
14

4,586

101

1,721
82
44
30
10

306
72
36
22
10

12
1
5

The average value of farm products sold from all farms of the
area was a little over $8,000 per farm. Approximately two-thirds
of this was from the sale of livestock and livestock products, while
the remaining third was from special and field crops. Less than
one-half percent of all farm sales was from forest products.
Slightly more than one-fourth of all farms are in the New England
part of the area and the income from these farms was about -$500
more per farm than in the southern part. They sold more than
a fourth of all farm products of the area as well as over two-fiftlis
of the small quantity of forest products.

Total livestock sales from the dairy farms show an average of
$10,302 per farm in comparison with a little over half this amount
for all the farms of the area (Table 54). Eighty-six percent of
this was from milk sales, while another seven percent was from
the sale of cows and youngstock. The sale of poultry products,
hogs, and sheep account for less than seven percent of the total
livestock sales. The smaller farms were slightly more diversified
than the larger farms in that they received but three-fourths of
their livestock income from the sale of milk while the largest farms
received seven-eighths. Cream sales throughout the area were
almost nonexistent.

Table 54. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Atlantic Coast Area:
1954

Item

Number of farms

Milk sold per milli cow. .pounds.
Sales per farm:

Milk dollars-

Cattle and calves do...

Hogs do...

Poultry products except eggs
dollars -

Eggs - do...

Sheep do

Other livestock and livestock
products .dollars.

Total, livestock and live-
stock products dollars.

Economic class of farm

Total I n in IV

26, 073

7,200

8,819
805
123

142

403
5

10, 302

1,651

8,831

34, 812

3,574

230

665

977

40, 192

9,161

7,646

11,756
986
155

196

682

8,649

6,446

5,668
491
119

316

6,686

4,586

6,267

3,019
319

151

3.606

1,721
4,423

!,■

182
34

30
77

1,826

306

2,675

663

109

738

Specified farm expenses range from a little more than half the
total livestock income for the largest farms to slightly more than
all livestock income for the smallest farms (Table 55). Feed costs
account for more than half these expenses for all classes except
Class I. Hired labor is the next highest item of expense except
on the smaller farms, where it is replaced by costs of gas and oil.
Both the volume of livestock sales and the size of the specified
expenses emphasize the problem faced by the smaller farmers in
the effective use of resources.

Table 55. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Cl.-^ss of Farm, for the Atlantic Coast Area:
1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

III

26, 073

1,661

9,161

8,649

4,586

1,721

306

Average per farm:

Machine hire

.. dollars. -

193

279

221

192

151

104

Hired labor

do...

1.348

8,182

1.674

656

273

131

Feed

do...-

3, 254

10,687

4, 1.58

2,376

1, 616

840

627

Gas and oil

do...-

510

1,363

633

414

289

177

125

Fertilizer

....do....

483

1,391

653

374

190

Lime

....do...
....do....

211

Total

6,864

22, 113

7,427

3,955

2,448

1,385

816

Average per crop acre:

Machine hire

do....

Hired labor

do....

Feed

....do....

Gas and oil

do....

Fertilizer

....do...

Lime

....do...
....do....

(Z)

Total

103

Z Less than 0.50.

These farmers used more fertilizer than was used on most dairy
farms and more was used on the smaller farms (Table 56). The
rate of application was nearly twice as high as was used in the
northwest and the number using fertilizer was gre.ater than for
most areas. From one-fourth to one-half as many farmers used
lime as used fertilizer and the rate of application of more than
a ton per acre was also more than dairy farmers of other areas
used.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 56. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Atlantic Coast Area:
1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

Number of farms - .. .

26, 073

88.0
1

396
10

42.6

2,351

1, 651

91 3
31

133

462
11

63.2

2,303
8

9,161

93.9
14

405
10

51.8
21

2,331

8,649

89.8
8

360
10

39 2

2,364
7

4,586

80.9
5

349
9

32.0
12

2,508

1,721

70.3
3

343

23.5
14

2,429

305

Fertilizer:
Percent of farms using .

49 2

Tons used per farm reporting

Acres upon which used per farm

2
16

Average per acre fertilized:

299

Tost dollars.

Lime:

11,5

Acres upon which used per farm

Average per acre limed:

2,462

Cost dollars..

THE NASHVILLE BASIN AREA
(Economic Subregion 54)

The Nashville Basin, Subregion 54, is an island of comparatively
fertile soil within a larger stretch of more nigged and less fertile
land. It is small, about 120 miles long and 60 miles wide. The
land is gently undulating to rolling with occasional ridges or broken
sections. These stony ridges along with rough sections at the
outer edges of the basin contain land that is useful mainly for
pasture or woodland.

The soils are residual, of limestone origin, and very fertile.
Nearly nine-tenths of the area is occupied by farms. This makes
it one of the heaviest concentrations of farms in the South. The
farms in general are small, averaging less than 100 acres. Approxi-
mately one-half of the land is cla.ssed as cropland but crops are
harvested from only two-thirds of this acreage.

It is recognized as one of the major dairy areas of the South.
Slightly more than one-third of the commercial farms are so
classed. Another 30 percent are cash-crop farms. Most of the
remaining one-third are livestock other than dairy, or general,
farms. This suggests a varied agriculture where livestock enter-
prises are supplemented with or are in direct competition with
cash crops. Although the sale of livestock products accounts for
more than half the farm income in every part of the area, such cash
crops as tobacco or cotton are important producers of income.

The metropolitan area is in the northern part of the basin
around Nashville, which is the second largest city in the State. It
has experienced a slow but steady growth. The large labor force
is employed in making such products as nylon, cellophane, clothing,
artcraft, furniture, and electrical appliances. Limestone for
building purposes is quarried here.

NASHVILLE BASIN AREA

TENNESSEE

I DOT« 10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

A54-5I3

Figure 18.

%■ Most of the dairy farms are in the southern half of the sub-
region rather than in the counties contiguous to the metropolitan
area. The reason may well be that the earlier cream market
found outlets within the territory and later, when markets for
fluid milk developed, the slightly longer haul made little difference
to the dairymen. Fifteen years ago, for example, there were as
many farmers selling cream in the State as there were selling fluid
milk. In 1054, only one-.seventh as many farmers were selling
cream. During this period fluid-milk sales per farm nearly
doubled, although the number of diiiry farms decreased. In 1949,
there were 7,002 dairy farms in this area. The 1954 figures show
only 6,681 dairy farms or 34 percent of all commercial farms.
Total milk cow numbers increased from 86,500 in 1049 to 90,000
in 1954.

The average size of the dairy farm has increased during the
5-year period between Censuses, from 126 acres with 68 acres total
cropland to 143 total acres with 73 acres of cropland. A direct
comparison of the size of herds by economic class cannot be made
with the 1950 Census.

The 1954 Census of .\griculture shows a gradual decrease in the
average size of herds with decreasing total income. There is an
unusually large number of dairy farms with fewer than 15 milk
cows per herd. Further, more than four-fifths of the farms are in
Economic Classes IV, X, and VI, while only one-twenty-fifth are
in Classes I and II.

Other indications of the size of farms are number of livestock
kept as well as farm real estate value. They had only 23 animal
units per farin and an average of $11,200 farm land and building
\-alue per farm or $82 per acre of land in farms. Nearly two-
thirds of the 6,681 dairy farms had less than $2,500 total value
of farm products sold, and six-sevenths of them sold less than
$5,000 worth of farm produce. This means that the dairy farms
of the area, by and large, have modest incomes of which over
two-thirds is from the sale of milk and cream.

The cropping systems varied considerably with the economic
class. The lower income farms, Economic Classes IV to VI,
planted more corn and less hay and small-grain crops than the
larger farms. The acreage of land pastured seems to depend
more upon physical factors than upon the volume of business.
No economic class showed much variation from the average of
two-thirds of the total farm being used for pasturage.

The livestock organization of these farms showed little differ-
ence between the largest and the smallest. Approximately three-
fifths of the animal units of each economic class were milk cows.
The relative number of hogs on hand at the time the Census was
taken remained the same regardless of the total number of animal
units. Poultry flocks were just enough to meet family demands
for eggs and meat. A flock of 500 birds is too small to be given
the special care required of an income-producing enterprise.
These farms were stocked about the same when expressed in
terms of total cropland per animal unit. Only one economic
class showed as much as 10 percent variation from the average
3.2 :icres of total cropland per animal unit. Harvested cropland
has less significance on dairy farms in the South where winters
are shorter and grazing seasons longer.

The smaller farms had no bigger portion of their income from
the sale of crops than the larger farms (Table 57). .\round one-
eighth of the total value of .sales of the smallest, as well as the
largest, farms w;is from crop sales. This suggests that the larger
farms of this area with dairy cows tend to specialize no more than
do the smaller farms. Ten percent of the livestock income dur-
ing 1954 was from the .sale of hogs in comparison with 5 percent
for the small farms. On the other hand, the smaller farms re-
ceive 25 percent of their livestock income from the sale of cattle
in comparison with only 10 percent on the larger farms.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 57- — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Nashville Basin Area:
1954

Item

Number of farms

Gross sales—

Per farm dollars _ .

Per crop acre do

Percent of gross sales from dairy

products

Sales per farm:

Milk dollars..

Cattle and calves do

Hogs do

Poultry products except eggs

dollars..

Eggs do

Sheep do

Other livestock and hvestock
products dollars.

Total, livestock and live
stock products-. -dollars-
Field crops do.-.

Other crops ' do--.

Total crops do---

Economic class of farm

Total

i,681

3,126
43

2,063
345
1

2,716

388
23

34, 632
67

24, 390
2,469
2,325

226

30. 509

4,111
12

4,123

II III IV

13,019
66

9,284

1,366

931

30
215

161

12, 035

817
167

848

6,756
54

4,833
596
378

17
91
92

6, 034

42
722

1,396

3,476
40

2,169
391
218

534
18

552

2,435

1,799
33

1,056
254
82

7
49
25

1,482

302
15

317

1,710

775
23

476
114
29

3
31
6

663

103

1 Includes horticultural and forest products.

The smaller farm.s were operated less intensively than the larger
dairy farms (Table 58). This shows up both in the input or
specified expense items and in the gross sales per acre of cropland.
Specified expenses dropped from .$25 per acre for the farms of
largest volume to $9 for the smallest, while the gross sales showed
the same general relationship. The largest farms averaged $67
gross sales per crop acre. There was a consistent and continuous
drop in income per acre as farms became smaller. The smallest
farms with only 5 milk cows sold only $23 worth of farm products
per acre of harvested crops during the year.

Table 58. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Nashville Basin Area : 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

6,681

77
222
754
163
121
4

371
4,897
4,207
1,829
1,893
29

255

2.56

1,499

3,338

682

466

848

184
605
1,803
341
280
12

1,396

88
149
746
185
126
7

2,435

46
61)
446
78
64
1

1,710

26
22
218
26
29
(Z)

Average per farm:

Machine hue dollars. -

Hired labor do

Feed do..--

Gas and oil do

Fertilizer do----

Lime do

Total do

1,331

13, 226

6,258

3,225

1,301

701

321

Average per crop acre:
Machine hire..- -do

Hired labor do

Feed do

Gas and oil--- do

Fertilizer do----

Lime ---do

10
2
2
(Z)

9
8
4
4
(Z)

8
17
3
2
(Z)

6
14
3
2
(Z)

2
9
2

1
CZ)

I
8
1
1
(Z)

1
6
1
1
(Z)

Total do...

Z Less than 0. 50.

Although measures of effective use of resources or efficiency are
few and not very conclusive, total value of sales minus the specified
expenses for the different economic classes suggests that operators
in the three lower income classes must have very little money to
meet living costs (Table 59).

Both the value of milk sales per cow and the pounds of milk sold
indicate decreasing effectiveness in use of feed, as well as other
factors contributing to milk production. It is again emphasized
that man labor cannot be ased effectively on the smaller farms.

Table 59. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the Nash-
ville Basin Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

Number of farms . .

6,681
3,126
1,331
1,795
2,405

15, 721
12, 093

507

139
3,979

34,632

13, 226

21,406

6,926

103, 934

20, 787

300

255

13,019

6,258

6,761

6,425

48, 304

20, 127

372

848
6,756
3,226
3,531
3,974

32, 139

18, 905

473

1,396
3,476
1,301
2,176
2,897

17. 798

14,832

509

122
3,939

2,435
1,799
701
1,098
1,635

11, 376

10, 342

632

101
3,276

1,710
775
321

454
775

6,526

816

Gross sales per farm dollars. -

Specified expenses per

farm do

Gross sales less specified ex-
penses per farm do

Gross sales per man-equivalent

Total mvestment—

Per farm dollars. -

Per man-equivalent do

Per $100 gross sales do

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream -

Milk sales per cow:
Dollars

257
7,407

213
4,963

175
4,385

Pounds (milk equivalent)

2,708

Both capital investment and income per man-equivalent show why
this is true.

It is surprising to find in area after area that dairymen in
Economic Clas.ses V and VI are receiving one-third to one-fourth of
the milk and cream income per cow received by those in Classes I
and II. For example, the dairymen in Economic Class VI re-
ceived about one-third of the income per cow received by the Class
I dairymen and they sold only about two-fifths as much milk per
cow. Practically no cream or butterfat was sold by these dairy-
men so that the smaller income per cow was the result both of
lower production per cow and a 60-cent lower price per hundred-
weight of milk.

Approximately two-thirds of the farmers are using some fertilizer
(Table 60). Much is used on the tobacco and cotton crops,
although some may have been used on ordinary field crops. The
cost of fertilizer ranged from $40 to $58 per ton. Since the com-
position of the fertilizer was not given it is not possible to find how
much of this range in cost is the result of the grade of fertilizer
used. Fertilizer can be used on small farms almost as conveniently
as on the larger ones, yet, whereas all of the larger farms used some
fertilizer, only two-fifths of the farms with the smallest total
incomes used any. The cost of liming materials, to the few farmers
who used lime, was from $1.20 to $1.60 per ton but only about
one-tenth as many dairymen used lime as used fertilizer.

Table 60. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Nashville Basin Area:
1954

Number of farms--

Fertilizer:

Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting.. -
-\cres upon which used per farm

reporting

Average per acre fertilized;

Pounds.-

Cost dollars-

Lime:

Percent of farms using

.\cres upon which used per farm

reporting

.\vcrage per acre limed:

Poimds

Cost dollars-.

Economic class of farm

Total I

6,681

268
6.45

3,058
4.38

100
41

204

404
9.30

7,196
9.95

II III IV V VI

285
6.38

3.483
4.33

243
7.00

3.328

4.88

1,396

249
6.74

2,737
4.10

2, 435

273
6. 16

2,514
3.91

1,710

43
2

259
6.36

(Z)

800
1.00

Z Less than 0.6.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

GULF COASTAL AREA

I DOT= 10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

A54.5I4

Figure 19.

THE GULF COAST AREA

(Economic Subregion 58)

The topography of the Gulf Coast area is level to slightly
rolling. The soils range from sandy to loams and are rather
deficient in organic matter. They respond readily to farmyard
manures and commercial fertilizers when moisture conditions are
right. Average annual rainfall of 40 to 44 inches is plentiful but
its distribution throughout the year is irregular and periods of
moisture deficiency occur during the long growing season.

The soil in the western part is the southern termination of the
brown loam soil belt and is good farmland. This is probably
the most desirable part of the area for general agriculture and
around one-third of the land is in farms.

To the east are the clay hills and higher lands which become
flat along the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain. Forests originally
covered much of these two sections and much of the nonfarni
land is still well forested.

South of Lake Ponchartrain the land is mostly s\vam])y and
marshy with very little woods. Only about one-seventh is in
farms. A tew dairy farms and cattle raising are the chief types of
farming in this part.

Much of the area that lies in Mississippi and extending into
southwestern Alabama is not very well suited for growing crops
because of flooding, or soils that are too sandy to hold water,
and some "gumbo" soils w'ith impervious subsoils. One-third of
the land is in farms and one-half of this is wooded. Dairying,
livestock raising, and the growing of tung nuts, pecans, and cotton
all contribute to the small agricultural output. Potatoes harvested
for early northern markets are grown on some of the sandy soils.

Increase in milk cow numbers in Louisiana has been gradual
since 1925 with only one or two exceptions. Since 1950, the
increase has been more rapid. The growth of dairying is the
result partly of increase in local population wliich was greater for
Louisiana during the last 25 years than for the rest of the South,
and partly of a consumer education program especially set up for
younger people.' More jobs and better pay have provided a
greater increase in expendable income for the area during this
time than for the rest of the country. The greatest potential for
increased use of milk is in the lower income group. It is in
this group that the greatest relative increases have occurred.
There is no reason to think aggregate consumption of dairy
products will not increase during the next few decades.

The growth of shipbuilding and paper nulls in Mobile and other
seaport towns along with textile mills, food processing plants,
lumber mills, chemical factories, and petroleum refineries in New
Orleans, has boosted the urban population and increased the
demand for all farm products. New Orleans still dominates as a
seaport.

The standard of living over much of the area is low but has
been increasing during the last 25 years, .\lmost one-half of the
farms are classed as noncommercial; a large majority are on a
subsistence level. Twenty percent of the 13,000 commercial farms
are dairy farms and 26 percent are cotton farms. Some of the
highest priced farmland of the State is in this area.

During the last 5 years there have been seasonal milk surpluses
in this area. Surpluses appear in the spring and sununer when
pasture conditions are good, and no method has been devised to
prevent these surjjluses or to carry them over to the winter when
seasonal milk production is low. Practically all of the milk from
these dairymen is sold as wliole milk.

These farms are not large when expressed in terms of acres of
cropland or of capital invested. More cropland is used for pasture
than for harvested crops. This is an economical way of producing
feed for the dairy herd, especially if the pastured cropland is so
handled as to produce its share of feed for the long growing season.

The cropping .systems were variable among the economic classes.
Corn harvested for either silage or grain was from less than one-
fourth of the harvested cropland on the larger farms to one-half
for the smaller farms. Hay acreage, however, was from one-fourth
to one-fifth of the harve.sted erojjland for every class. Other ero])s
than grain constituted around one-third of the harve.sted cropland
on most farms.

The livestock organization, on the other hand, was rather uni-
form when expressed in terms of the inventoried animals. The
two groups of larger farms had slightly more cropland per cow than
thi' smaller farms. In other words, the farms of these groups were
less intensively operated than the smaller farms. All are much
more heavily stocked than those of the Nashville Basin, having
twic(> as many cows on less land. They have more livestock than
the available cropland will support. Either the feed bills must
be high or production per animal low. Fewer pigs and chickens are
kept, but their decrease does not offset the larger number of cows.

The sale of dairy products accounts for nine-tenths of the total
income of the dairy farms in comparison with only 66 percent from
dairy farms in the Nashville Basin (Table 61). These figures
again show the relatively small jjroportion of income received from
other livestock than dairy. The larger farms were more diversified
in both livestock and crop sales than the smaller farms. All had
relatively large acreages of cash crops.

* Louisiana Rural Economist, Vol. 15, Xo. 1— February 1953. Department of Agriculture Economics, University Station, Baton Rouge, L.i.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

The largest farms have somewhat less income per total crop
acre than the medium-sized farms but much more than the two
groups of smaller farms. Here again, the small farms fail to use
their resources as effectively as the larger farms, and total incomes
are exceedingly small — less than one-third of the income per crop
acre of the group.

Table 61. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Gulf Coast Area:
1954

Item

Number of farms...

Gross sales —

Per farm dollars.

Per crop acre do —

Percent of ^oss sales from dairy
products

Sales per farm:

Milk dollars.

Cattle and calves do...

Hogs do

Poultry products except eggs

dollars.

Eggs do....

Sheep do

Other livestock and livestock
products .dollars..

Total, livestock and live-
stock products dollars..

Field crops do

Other crops ' ...do

Total crops ' do

Economic class of farm

Total I

2,730

7,040
121

6,240
413
43

206
70

270

40, 586
107

33,041

2,775

489

54
392
181

109

II III IV

431

14,028
128

12, 586
748
100

12
77

37,051 13,534

2,967
578

3, .535

330
164

494

996

6,816
141

6,154
344
20

7
60
(Z)

6,676

182
68

960

3,876
104

3,447
270

1,971
72

1,619

213

813
30

666

103

21
1

Z Less than 0.60.

' Ijicludes horticultural and forest products.

The largest expense item is for feed, hired labor comes second
(Table 62). Specified expenses per croj) acre are much lower on
the small than on tlie large farms. The large farms averaged but
$54 expenses per $100 income, whereas the small farms averaged
$83.

Table 62. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Gulf Coast Area:
1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

2,730

431

996

960

240

Average per farm;

Machine hire ..dollars..

Hired labor do

Feed do

Gas and oil do

Fertilizer -do

Lime do

502

2,846

266

381

238

6,458

10,822

1,614

2.763

197

163

1,468

5,206

601

734

286

2,969

226

332

48
99
1,778
145
217
18

1,077

146

12
16
676
30
73
10

Total do....

4,110

21, 982

8,236

3,929

2, 305

1,433

717

Average per crop acre:
Machine hire.. do

Hired labor do

Feed do....

Gas aud oil do

Fertilizer do

Lime. . . do

48
6

48
4
6

Total do...

Net income of these operators is not large. Production and
sales of milk per cow are the lowest for any special dairy area
(Table 63). The average price received per 100 pounds of mOk
is the highest of any area which indicates the type of market
for fluid milk. Practically none is sold as cream. The quantity
of whole milk used for manufactured dairy products is not known
but the price received indicates that very little is used for other
than fluid consumption. Alabama and Louisiana marketed
20 percent of the whole milk as manufactured products in 1954.

Table 63. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the Gulf
Coast Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

2.730
7.040
4, 110
2,930
4,693

20. 7.36

i:;, S24

296

(Z)

198
3,671

III

Number of farms

40. 586

21, 982

18,604

7.805

84, 226

16, 197

207

(Z)

316
4,868

431
14,028
8,236
6,792
6,376

44. 267

20. 121

316

246
4,481

996
6.816
3,929
2,887
4,869

19,097

13.641

281

(Z)

195
3,631

960
3,876
2,305
1,571
3,230

12,711

10, 592

326

(Z)

148
2,981

240
1,971
1,433

538
1,971

12, 282

614

Gross sales per farm dollars-.

Specified expenses per farm

dollars , .
Gross sUes less specified ex-
penses per farm dollars . .

Gross sales per man -equivalent

Total investment —

Per farm dollars. .

Per man -equivalent do

Per $100 gross s.ales- do

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream

813
717
96
739

6,776

6.159

847

Milk sales jjcr cow;
Dollars

96
2,122

Pounds (milk equivalent)

1,040

Z Less than 0,5 percent.

Some fertilizer was used by a larger proportion of the smaller
farms than any other economic subregion, and the rate of appli-
cation of those using fertilizer was higher (Table 64). Most of the
farms used the same rate of application and only the two groups
of farms at the extremes of the economic class showed much varia-
tion from the average.

Table 64. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Gulf Coast Area:
1954

Item

Number of farms

Fertilizer:

Percent of farms using...

Tons used per farm reporting, ,_
Acres upon which used per farm

reporting

Average per acre fertilized;

Pounds

Cost dollars-

Llme:

Percent of farms using , . ,

Acres upon which used per farm

reporting

Average per acre limed:

Pounds

Cost dollars.

Economic class of farm

Total I

2,730

480
10.88

1,978
6.17

619
14.15

2,341
7.10

II III IV V VI

431

481
10.75

2,076
6.41

996

453
10.19

1,667
6.24

960

462
10 48

16
17
2,299

240

468
11.25

2,000
6. 18

335
9.08

10
5

2,000
20.00

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

OZARK SPRINGFIELD- AREA

I DOT =10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

A54-5I2

Figure 20.

THE OZARK-SPRINGFIELD AREA
(Economic Subregions 73 and 82)

The soils here are among the most infertile of the State of
Missouri. Many of them have been "characterized iu a number
of studies as marginal or submarginal for crops." ' The soils in
the eastern part are stony and the topography almost always
hilly, so very little of the land is under the plow. The 1950
Census showed less than half of the land of this part in farms and
the harvested cropland occupied a smaller portion of the total
land than in any other area of the State.

The topography of the central part is not so hilly or rough as
in the eastern part. Some of the land here is fairly smooth but
the soil has a hardpan that makes poor underdrainage. Late
spring plantings are frequently the result and any prolonged
period \\ithout rainfall brings the threat of crop loss. The soils
in the western part are better adapted to crops than those of the
middle or eastern parts. They are fairly deep and friable and
seem well adapted to fruit production.

Normal monthl}* precipitation records show plentiful moisture
for grooving most crops, 40 to 44 inches. With regular rainfall,
temperatures during the growing season are favorable for good
crop production. But the rainfall is seldom normal or regular.
Periods of excessive precipitation are followed by hot dry weather
which makes crops a gamble both on the hardpan soils and on the
stony or sandy soils with highly porous subsoils. In these cir-
cumstances small grains, which mature before the hottest and
driest summer weather, are grown in preference to corn. Sor-
ghums or other hot-weather crops also do well.

The area has about equal acreages of corn and hay. Appro.\i-
mately one-sixth of the harvested cropland is used for each.
More than a fourth of the cropland is used for small grains, while
other crops than these staples use the remaining 40 percent.

There is little difference in the percentage distribution of the
harvested cropland in the economic clas.ses. All had relatively
small acreages of corn and hay. The land seems better suited to
pastures than to most crops and farmers have depended on live-
stock to utihze it. The gradual development of dairying over
other forms of livestock production appears to be based upon the
following considerations.'

1. Water supply is adequate and easily accessible. There are
many running streams and springs throughout the area.

2. Gravel deposits, as well as a plentiful supply of stone, have
made possible well-constructed all-weather roads at relatively
small cost.

3. Dairy farming offers greater income than beef raising and
provides a greater yearly return for family labor.

Xot only are crop productions low but real estate values are
among the lowest in the State. The highest values center in
Green C^ounty where the city of Springfield is located. The high
land values are the result of location and not of better crop
productions.

The varied and adverse conditions uniler which production takes
place shows up in the farm-income figures (Talile 05). Figures
for both total and per crop acres are low in comparison with other
special dairy areas. The average total income of $2,595, or $37
per acre of total cropland, suggests the adverse conditions under
which these farmers work. The income, both total and per acre,
is less on the smaller farms. Even though there is considerable
diversification in crop and livestock production within the area,
the dairy farms are rather highly specialized. From two-thirds to
three-fourths of all income is from the sales of milk and cream,
while the sale of livestock, mostly dairy stock, adds another one-
fifth to tlie income of the dairy farms.

Table 65. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Ozark-Springfield Area:
1954

Item

Xuraber of farms

Gross siiles —

Per farm -..dollars--

Per crop acre -- do

Percent of gross sales from dairy
products

Sales per farm:

Milk- - dollars--

Cattle and calves do

Hogs - do

Poultry products except eggs

dollars..

Eggs_ do

Sheep.. - .do

Other livestock and livestock
products. - - - - .dollars. -

Total, livestock and livestock
products .- dollars..

Field crops do

Other crops ' do

Total crops do

Economic class of farm

Total I

2:i,or

2,595
3

1,81.5
366

32
69
10

2, 40:

!88

34,233
83

25, 8.32
3, 422
2, 175

8.il

32, 375

1,784
74

1,858

II III IV

12,600
63

9,382

1,252

488

228
167
41

11. 572

983
45

1,028

1,962

4, 826
799
29.5

144
14

553
45

5,182

3,414
39

2,340
482
161

29
106
1?

3,138

244

276

1,771
31

1,212

304

5I'

1,672

6, 330

537
133
27

18
17

I Includes horticultural and forest products.

« Types of Farming In Missouri, Hammar, Roth, John.son. Research Bulletin 2S4, Missouri .Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia, Missouri. Those parts of the area that
extend Into Northern Arkansas and Northeast Oklahoma are similar to the bordertog areas in Missouri,

• Marketing Dairy Products in Southwestern Missouri. M. B. Kirtley and C. C. Erwin, Bulletin 667, Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia, Missouri.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Although the total expenses are low for the entire area the
amount spent for feed is relatively large (Table 66). Where
figures from most areas indicate around one-half of the specified
expenses used to buy feed, these farmers used 60 percent for this
purpose and the smaller farmers used proportionately more than
the larger.

Table 66. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Ozark-Springfield Area:
1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

Number of farms . .

23,017

90
84
1,001
135
l.M
6

506
4,672
10..)28
1.195
1,642
67

516

317
938
3, 905
524
722
32

1,962

219
240
2. 203
342
446
16

5,182

129

1,266

187

216

8,988

67
31
778
97
96
4

6, .330

30
18
434
45
39
2

Average per farm:

Machine hire. dollars--

Hired labor. do

Feed... - do...-

Gas and oil-,. do

Fertilizer do

Lime -do —

Total ..do....

1,470

18, 410

6,438

3,465

1,883

1, 073

568

Average per crop acre;

Machine hire.. do

Hired labor do

Feed do

Oas and oil do

Fertilizer do

Lime do

1
14
2
2
(Z)

1
U
25
3
4
(Z)

2
6
20
3
4
(Z)

2
2
16
3
3
(Z)

1
1
15
2
2
(Z)

1
1
13
2
2
(Z)

1
(Z)
11

1
1
(Z)

Total do....

Z Less than 0.50.

T;ible 67. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the Ozark-
Springfield Area: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Gross sales per farm . .dollars. .

Specified expenses per farm

dollars. -

Gross sales less specified expenses

per farm ...do

Gross sales per man-equivalent

Total investment —

Per farm ..dollars..

Per man-equivalent do

Per $100 gross sales do

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream

Milk sales per cow:
Dollars.-

Pounds (milk equivalent)

Economic class of farm

23, 017
2, ,W5
1,470
1,125
1,990

12, 482
9, 602

150
4,634

39
34, 233
18,410
15, 823

8,558

87, 686

21,922

250

II III IV V VI

516
12, 600
6,438
6,162
6,300

38.509

19,284

306

(Z)

261
6,996

1,962
6, 773
3. 46
3,308
4,515

25, 903

17, 269

381

(Z)

211
6,301

5,182
3,414
1.S83
1,531
2,626

15, 410

11,854

453

15:
4,876

1,771
1,073

10. 168
9,244

565

118
3,857

6,330

787
668
219
715

6, 848

6.848

866

81
2.766

Z 0.6 percent or less.

Such measures of effective farming as sales less specified expenses,
total sales per man-ecjuivalent, and dollar or pound milk sales
per cow, all show the less efficient use of resources on the smaller
farms (Table 67). Perhaps this is what should be expected. It
is surprising, however, to find both dollar and pound sales of
milk per cow to be so very little for the smaller farms. Dollar
milk sales per cow from Economic Class VI farms were only one-
fifth (21 percent) of those of Class I farms, while 29 percent as
many pounds per cow were sold.

The sale of cream, accounting for 4 percent of all sales in only
one economic class, does not explain much of the price differ-
ence. Most of it may Vie the result of the kind of markets avail-
able for the smaller farms. If a larger percentage of milk from
small farms is used for manufactured products rather than for
fluid consumption, it could well explain much of the discrepancy.
No figures are currently available to confirm this surmise.

Fewer of the small farms used fertilizer or lime, and only 200
pounds were applied |3er acre compared with 260 pounds for the
larger farms (Table 68). Information is not available to show
whether the lower cost per ton on the smaller farms is the result
of fertilizer of lower test. Lime« costs were slightly higher on the
small farms and the per acre application was less. Here again,
there is no information to indicate the need for fertilizer and lime
on farms of different size.

.-Vre these dairy farms overpriced in terms of production or
farm income? It has been mentioned that one method of obtain-
ing a value for farm real estate is to ascertain the relation of total
farm income to the value of the land and buildings. When judged
by this relationship the dairy farms of this area are valued at
about the average of dairy farms in other areas. The Economic
Class I farms are valued at twice the yearly production. This
ratio increa.ses until it requires about 6 times the yearly produc-
tion to equal the value of Economic Class VI farms.

Table 68. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class OF Farm, for'the Ozark-Springfield Area:
1954

Item

Number of farms

Fertilizer:

Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting

Acres upon which used per farm

reporting

.\verage per acre fertilized:

Pounds

Cost doUars-

Linie:

Percent of farms using

.\cres upon which used per farm

reporting

.\verage per acre limed:

Pomids

Cost .dollars. .

Economic class of farm

Total I

23. 017

67
4

220
6.22

3,956
5.83

230

269
8.71

3,820
5.34

II III IV

22'
6.79

4, !)22
6.69

1,962

229
6.68

4,027
6.30

5,182

213
6.96

3,962
6.06

8,988

217
6.00

4,170
6.36

6,330

44
2

207
5.50

3
16

2,826
4.40

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

SNAKE RIVER-UTAH VALLEY AREA

I DOT

10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

Figure 21.

THE SNAKE RIVER-UTAH VALLEY AREA
(Economic Subregion 112)

This intermouutain subregion, with its mixture of intensive
and extensive farming, brings together several areas of irrigated
agriculture in the high valleys of southern Idaho and northern
Utah and places where dryland farming is necessary. Farms in
the irrigated valleys are relatively small, partly because of the
method of developing the area and partly because large produc-
tions are obtained from irrigated crops and this supplies a good
workload for the family. The nonirrigated lands have larger
farms and a more extensive type of farming.

Most of the soils are waterlaid and show considerable variation
within short distances in texture, depth, and drainage.' Usually

the better, more productive soils are used for cultivated crops;
the poorer soils are used for pastures. Practically all cropland
and much pastureland is rather level, and, with the exception of
a few farms in Morgan County and the Ogden Valley, both crop-
land and pastureland can be irrigated.

The average farm contains 345 acres. This includes 77 acres
of harvested cropland with 26 acres of cropland reported as idle.
Dairy farms are not so large as most other farms of the area.
.•\lthough they constitute one-fourth of the number of farms, they
occupy only 6 percent of the land in farms and control 9 percent
of the total cropland.

Part-time, residential, and abnormal farms comprise one-fifth
of the farms reported in the 1954 Census. Nearly 30 percent of
the commercial farms produce field and cash crops. Another 25
percent are dairy farms. Nearly all farms are irrigated and most
dairy farm concentrations are around the urban centers. Between
40 and 50 percent of the commercial farms in Summit and Wasatch
Counties, east and southeast of Salt Lake City, are dairy farms.

The same proportion holds for Gem C'ounty, Idaho, while in
Ada County, 54 percent are dairy farms. Approximately 21 per-
cent of the dairy farms of the area are in these 4 counties.

Dairying throughout this area is carried on under various con-
ditions. One is the high mountain valleys, as represented by
Summit County, in which dairying competes largely with other
types of livestock for the available forage. Cash crops are either
limited or nonexistent. In most cases, beef cattle are the main
competition for the feed with sheep being less competitive.

.\t the lower elevations dairying under some situations is only
one of several important enterprises. On some occasions, wet
bottomland or relatively unproductive soils suitable only for
grazing are utilized, with the necessary winter feeds being in
competition with cash crops such as sugar beets, potatoes, and
canning vegetables. In nearly all situations dairying is associated
with irrigated farms. Throughout most of this area some dry-
land crops, primarily wheat, are grown. Dairy cattle, however,
are not important on these farms except as the same operator may
have both dry-farm and irrigated farmland.'

The number of milk cows in the area has increased from 224,297
in 1949 to 250,363 in 1954. The number of dairy farms, was also
increased by 476 or 6 percent and the average number of cows
per herd has increased from 12 to 15. The range in the size of
herd follows the pattern of other areas. Very few of the farms in
Economic Class I have fewer than 30 milk cows. At the other
extreme, very few of Class V or VI have more than 20 cows.

These dairy farms receive more than two-thirds of their income
from the sale of dairy products and around one-seventh from
sales of crops (Table 69). The proportion varies little from the
largest to the smallest — the two extremes in size being the most
highly specialized. No one economic class differs much from the
average in its income from other livestock or crops. This holds
also for the specified expenses (Table 70). Total feed purchases
were low. The proportion of feed bought to total expenses showed
greater variation than any other item. The largest farmers bought
the smallest quantity of feed in proportion to all expenses; farmers
of Economic Class VI bought the most.

'"Farm Management Study of farms with dairy enterprises in the Ogden Area.Utah." Geo. T. Blanch, Dee A. Broadbent, Bulletin 308. Utah .Agricultural Experiment Station,
Logan, Utah.

' Letter fiom O, T. Blanch, Head of Department of Agricultural Economics, Utah State College, Logan, Utah, Oct. 15, 1966.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 69. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Snake River'Utah
Valley Area: 1954

Number of farms

Gross sales —

Per farm — dollars.

Per crop acre dO--.

Percent of gross sales from dairy

products

Sales per farm;

Milk dollars-

Cattle and calves dO-..

Hogs do_..

Poultry products except eggs

dollars..

Eggs do._.

Sheep do

Other livestock and livestock
products dollars.

Total, livestock and livestock
products dollars. -

Field crops do

Other crops ' do

Total crops do

Economic class of farm

Total I

8,459

8,186
85

1. 561
630
55

80
20

:.381

712
92

31, 996
146

23, 541

2,751

300

25
184
48

26, 866

4,269
861

II III IV

13, 564
117

9,547

1,695

121
140
38

U, 660

1,664
260

1,914

2,235

,927
94

2,819

3,688
63

4,664
794

21
121
33

5,728

1,058
141

1,199

2,432
491
48

14
71
13

561
47

1,846
60

1,327

256

1,669

157
20

807
36

611

116

16
5

44
3

' Includes horticultural and forest products.

Table 70. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Snake^; River-Utah
Valley Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

8,469

213
331
860
325
82
(Z)

108

512
5,128
5,344
1,346

453

766

447

1,422

2,246

717

263

2,236

271
323
1, 064
419
115

2,819

189
111

541
277
60

2,010

115

429

145

(Z)

621

Average per farm;

Machine hire dollars..

Hired labor do

Feed do

Gas and oil do

Fertilizer do

67
44
240
92
16

Total do....

1,801

12. 783

5,096

2,192

1,168

757

459

Average per crop acre:
Machine hire _. do .

Hiied labor. do

Feed do

Gas and oil do

Fertilizer do

5
14
5
1
(Z)

12
19
6
2

4
14
6
2

2
9
5

2
14
5
1
(Z)

11
4
1

Total do

Z Less than 0.50.

Measures of effectiveness in the use of resources show little
change from the pattern of previously discussed subregions
(Table 71). The total cropland per cow is larger than for most
areas and the total investment per man-equivalent is higher than
for most subregions. The same trend in resource use on smaller
farms is as obvious here as in any subregion and the question of
why this extreme drop-off occurs remains unanswered. The aver-
age price of milk is less on the smaller farms. This is probably
due to smaller and lower paying markets. The sale of cream is
rather negligible in any economic class, the highest being 3 per-
cent of total milk income in Economic Class VI.

Table 71- — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the Snake
River-Utah Valley Area: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Gross sales per farm dollars. .

Specified expenses per farm

dollars..

Gross sales less specified expenses

per farm dollars..

Gross sales per man -equivalent

Total investment —

Per farm dollars..

Per man-equivalent do

Per $100 gross sales do

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream

Milk sales per cow:
Dollars

Pounds (mUk equivalent)

Economic class of farm

Total I

8, 459
5,185
1,801
3,384
4,714

29, 572

26,884

669

245
7,218

108
31, 996
12,783
19, 213

110,855

30, 793

346

414

7,560

II III IV

766
13, 564
5,095
8,469
6,782

58, 575

29,288

431

(Z)

304
8,012

2,236
6,927
2,192
4,735
6,328

36, 454

28,042

528

(Z)

253
7,651

2,819
3,688
1,168
2,520

26,354
25, 354

685

204
6,800

2,010

1,846

767

1,01

16, 416

23,461

912

172
6,148

521
807
459
348
897

11,819

14, 774

1,477

116
4,177

Z Less than 0.5.

Approximately 10 percent of all whole milk is used for fluid con-
sumption. The remaining 90 percent is used in making such prod-
ucts as cheese, evaporated milk, and butter. Factories are large
and efficiently organized, and have the whole West Coast as a
market. Because of their location the dairy farmers receive rela-
tively satisfactory prices for their product. They apparently pre-
fer getting the steady, regulai- prices for milk to raising high-
priced crops that carry a high production risk. Many farmers
produce both; this may help to explain why 48 percent of the milk
cows are not on dairy farms.

Two-fifths of the farmers used some fertilizers (Table 72) but
the rate of application was no higher than for most areas, even
though it has been shown that well-fertilized, irrigated lands will
produce phenomenal yields. A production of 6 tons of alfalfa
per acre is common among the better farmers.

Table 72. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Snake River-Utah
Valley Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

8,459

38
3

216

280
9.22

(Z)
1

6
6

333

1.00

108

77
9

690

277
9.13

766

68
6

386

321
10.20

2,235

63
3

219

267
9.09

2,819

34
2

148

266
8.96

2,010

19
1

106

215
7.74

(Z)
1

6
6

333

1.00

621

Fertilizer;
Percent of farms using .

Tons used per farm reporting

Cost of fertilizer per farm report-
ing dollars..

Acres upon which used per farm

78
11

Average per acre fertilized:

256

Cost dollars..

Lime:

6.83

Cost of Ihne per farm reporting

Cost per ton .do

Average per acre limed:
Poimds

Cost dollars

Z Less than 0.5.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA

I D0T = I0,000P00 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLO

Figure 22.

A 54-509

THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
(Economic Subregion 115)

The West Coast probably has a more diversified pattern of
agricultural production than any other agricultural section of the
United States. Practically every type of farming is found here.
Poultry, dairy, and other livestock farms compete with cash-
grain, vegetable, and fnnt farms for land, capital, and labor.
Some of the most intensive systems of farming are found in the
irrigated valleys where special crops are grown. General live-
stock farming and some ranching takes place where irrigation is
not feasible or not practiced at the present time. Thirty percent
of all farms are classed as special or noncommercial.

The Southern California Economic vSubregion 115 is highly
urbanized. This creates markets for many agricultural com-

modities. Agricultural production is limited to the coastal parts
and the irrigated Imperial Valley. The Mojave Desert occupies
most of the eastern part of the area.

The growing of citrus fruits is the prevailing agricultural activity
and accounts for one-third of all farms, or 43 percent of the com-
mercial farms. Poultry raising, vegetable growing, livestock,
and general farming, each accounts for more farms than does
dairying. These fruit and poultry farms are rather small, aver-
aging less than 40 acres of cropland harvested. Dairy farms
show an average of 32 acres. Where water is available 2 or
more crops a year are grown on the land.

This subregion has a total of 34,537 farms. Only 23,847 are
classed as commercial and 1,101 are dairy farms. One-fourth of
the milk cows of the State are in this subregion, however, and
they account for 30 percent of the milk output.

The dairy farms of Subregion 115 are unusual in that they show
an average of more than 175 milk cows per farm. Slightly more
than 97 percent of all milk cows are on these farms and they
account for 99 percent of the milk sales, both in volume and value
received. In 1950, only 91 percent of all milk cows of the sub-
region were on dairy farms. Figures do not show the percentage
of milk sold from the dairy farms. But indications are that in
1949 these farmers sold a smaller portion of the total milk that
reached the market than in 1954.

The immediate vicinity of Los Ajigeles has four-fifths of the
dairy farms of the subregion and a slightly higher percentage of
dairy cows. Most of the herds in this vicinity are very large,
averaging between 200 and 300 cows. Dry-lot feeding is the
common practice of these dairymen most of whom grow no crops.
They depend on buying alfalfa hay of good quality for most of
their feed. This hay is baled and trucked in from as far away
as the San Joaquin Valley although most of it comes from irri-
gated fields in the Imperial Valley and the vicinity of Riverside.
Relatively small quantities of grain are fed. During the last
few years many of these dairymen have changed from the use of
baled hay to soiling crops as the source of most of the feed. The
crop, principally alfalfa, is cut one afternoon and trucked in to the
milking herd that evening or early the next morning. The herd
thus gets a more palatable feed and of a higher quality even though
the baled hay has been excellent. A few farmers have their own
hay fields which may be several miles from the milking herd.
Their feeding practices are similar to those of farmers who buy
their feed.

The usual milking life of cows in these dry-lot herds is 2 to 3
years and, in most instances, replacements are bought from farm-
ers in other areas who either raise young animals for this purpose
or have current surpluses from their milking herds. Many are
shipped in even from as far away as southern Idaho. Weekly
auctions provide a valuable source of replacement as well as an
outlet for dry cows. They are usually located at the county
seat towns. These auctions are established institutions which
are of great service to both the buyer and the seller of milk cows.
They are probably more useful in selling dry and cull cows than as
a source of good milkers or fresh animals.

The labor force of these farms is more highly organized than in
any other dairy area. The standard workload for the large herds
is 60 cows per man with an extra man for every 5 or 6 men em-
ployed. This permits 1 day a week off for each regular milker.
Practically all milking is by machine; 96 percent of all dairy
farmers report the use of milking machines. All have electricity
and practically all have piped running water and telephones.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Bulk handling of milk has been adopted by all the large pro-
ducers as well as by many of the smaller dairymen. Some
dealers are now requiring all producers to use the bulk method of
handling milk. To buy a large bulk tank may add from $4,000
to $10,000 to the farmer's investment.

Some of these dairymen are organized on an enterprise basis-
They have independent farming units for 2 or more of such
operations as milking herd, fruit or vegetable growing, or more
general farming activities such as raising alfalfa or other field
crops. Any one of these activities can be disposed of without
affecting the operation of others. For example, a farmer may
decide to sell his milking herd of 250 cows and rent the buildings
and equipment to another operator. He will still operate the
fruit ranch and general farm. Later, he may again buy a milking
herd and become a dairyman.

There were 2,987 farms in the area that had one or more milk
cows; ' 1,962 or 66 percent of these farms had fewer than 50
cows per herd and they sold only 1 percent of the milk within the
area (Table 73). On the other hand, the 749 farms, or 25 percent,
with 100 or more cows per farm sold 90 percent of the milk.
The remaining 9 percent of sales of milk was from the 276 farms
with 50 to 99 milk cows per farm. This illustrates the concen-
tration both of milk cows and milk production within the area.

Table 73. — Number of Farms by Size of Herd and Milk
AND Cream Sold per Farm, for the Southern California
Area: 1954

Sizi.' of herd (number of
milk cows)

Number
of farms

Milk

cows per

farm

MUk sold

per farm

(pounds,

mUk

equivalent)

Cream sold
per farm
(pounds
butterfat)

Percent dis-
tribution
of milk
sales

Total

2,987

68.0

730, 394

100.0

1,884
78
276
749

2.6
33.3
74.8
232.3

2,589

285, 860

731, 417

2, 606, 997

102

1.0

50 to 99 milk cowS-

100 or more milk cows

9.3

89.5

Table 74. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Southern California
Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

1,101

107, 035
1, 630

97. 351

7,782

162

974

119, 305
1,751

108. 696

8,630

181

22, 134
367

18,884

2.071

117

56
36

8,197
276

7,390
721

3,857
83

3,284
560

1,740
48

761
907

Gross sales —

Per farm dollars..

Per crop acre -do

Percent of gross sales from dairy

products -

Sales per farm:

Milk dollars..

Cattle and calves do

Hogs do

Poultry products except eggs

dollars -.

Eggs do

Sheep do

Other livestock and livestock
products dollars..

Total, livestock and live-
stock products dollars. -

105, 391

117, 505

21,182

8,111

3,857

1.668

Field crops. -- .do

1,407
236

1,535
265

933
19

Other crops! do

Total crops do

1,643

1,800

852

1 Includes horticultural and forest

produc

ts.

> 1,101 of these farms were dairy farms.

The unusual organization of the dairy farms in this area is
further emphasized by a study of their income and expenses
(Tables 74 and 75). Not only are these herds the largest in the
United States but 89 percent of the farms are concentrated in
Economic Class I. Gross sales of $107,000 per farm or $1,630
per acre of cropland and the extent of cropland or pastureland
per cow show the basic differences between these farms and those
other special areas.

Table 75. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Southern California
Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

Number of farms

1,101

259

15, 096

47, 983

987

158

(Z)

974

227

16, 946

63, 692

1. 0.53

168

(Z)

416

1,603

7,812

824

156

659

612

3,827

217

126

1,534

229

1,295

1,340

315

Average per farm:

Machine hire

Hired labor

Feed

Gas and oil

.-dollars..
....do..-.
....do..-.
..-.do....
....do....
...do....

do....

...-do....

....do...

. ..do....

..--do...

--..do-.--

Lime

Total

.Average per crop acre:

Machine hire

Hired labor

Feed

Gas and oil

Fertilizer

64,483

230

731

(Z)

71.986

249

786

(Z)

10,810

7
26
126
13

5,358

128

1,917

2,966

36
(Z)
37
9

Total

982

1,055

174

178

Z Less than 0.5.

Efficiency in the use of resources shows the same general rela-
tionship as that found in the other special areas even though the
dairy farms are not typical by any ordinary standard (Table 76).
The smaller the farm the less the returns in sales per acre of crop-
land, or per cow. Investment, though large, is less per cow or
man-equivalent on the larger farms. Feed and labor costs are the
outstanding items of expense on the larger farms, but the ex-
pense per cow looks reasonable enough — $270 per cow for feed
and $85 for hired labor.

Table 76. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the South-
ern California Area: 1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

III

1,101
107, 035
64,483
42,552

19,113

136. 502

24, 375

128

(Z)

648
11,112

974
119,305
71, 986
47, 319

19, 243

144,696

23, 720

121

(Z)

668
11,279

54
22, 134
10, 810
11,324

12, 297

131,802

73, 223

596

43
8,197
5,368
2,839

7,452

38, 531

32, 109

470

20
3,857
1,917
1,940

3,857

13,161

10,968

337

1,740

2,965

-1, 225

8,700

41,461

103, 652

2,439

Gross sales per farm dollars..

Specified expenses per farm

dollars..
Gross sales less specified ex-
penses per farm dollars..

Gross sales per man-equivalent

dollars. -

Total investment—

Per farm do

Per man-equivalent do

Per $100 gross sales ...do

Percent of sales of dahy products

Milk sales per cow:
Dollars

271
6,258

184
5,158

166
4,479

162

4,496

Pounds (milk equivalent)

Z Less than 0.6.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Net income, or gross sales less specitied expenses, shows the
importance of size or volume of business in creating savings.
The relationship between size and net income is different from
other dairy areas only in the amount rather than the direction.
A range of more than $46,000 between the small and the large
farms in this area makes any attempt at comparison worth little.
And since there are few farms in any but Economic Class 1, this
results in irregular relationships among the classes which would
not occur if there were more farms in each class. Even so, what
tendency there may be for the various efficiency factors to show a
trend still supports the statement that small farms ordinarily
cannot make as efficient use of the various input items as large
farms.

Only a small proportion of farms in this area use fertilizer.
Farmers in Economic Classes I and II who did use fertilizer
applied more than 400 pounds per acre (Table 77).

Table 77- — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Southern California
Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

1,101

14
18

460
13.64

(Z)

1,020
3.39

974

13
22

490
14.29

(Z)

1,020
3.39

177
7.29

16
3

281
13.60

Fertilizer:
Percent of farms usine

.Veres upon which used per
farm reporting

Average per acre fertilized:

Lime:

-Veres upon which used per

Average per acre limed:
Poimds

Cost dollars--

Z 0.5 percent or less.

THE CALIFORNIA INNER VALLEY AREA
(Economic Subregion 116)

The California Inner Valley, consisting of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin watersheds, has a varied agriculture. The two
valleys have a variety of soils which vary in production from an
intensive irrigated type of agriculture to the most extensive
grazing operation.

In the San Joaquin Valley the more important soils are generally
deep and permeable and neutral to slightly basic, so lime is not
used much as a soil corrective. They are fertile, loamy soils
with a topography well suited to irrigation. Annual rainfall is
less than 10 inches so that all crop production must be under
irrigation.

The more undulating to rolling part of the valley has surface
soils that are usually sandy loams or gritty loams with clay loam
or clay subsoils. They are used primarily for pasture and dry
farming. They are not easily irrigated but where water is avail-
able and wisely managed they will grow grapes and deciduous
and citrus fruits.

The Sacramento Valley has some soils like those of the San
Joaquin Valley which are especially suited for general farming.

CALIFORNIA INNER VALLEY AREA

DOT

10,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

Figure 23.

A54-508

Most of the better agricultural soils are found in the middle of
the valley. They are heavily textured clays or clay loams that
have been deposited by slow-moving streams. They are generally
neutral to slightly acid with some lime in the deeper subsoils,
and are subject to flooding unless protected by levees. Shallow,
fibrous-rooted types of crops do better than such deep-rooted
crops as vineyards or fruit trees.

As a result of the use of irrigation water this subregion has
developed into one of the most important fruit and grape-growing
areas of the United States. Dairying comes second in importance
while such crops as sugar beets, vegetables, cotton and other
special crops add to the variety of production. On lands not
subject to irrigation general livestock farming and ranching are
still practiced.

In these two valleys are 52,000 farms and 10,000 are classed as
noncommercial farms. Of the 42,000 commercial farms 21 percent
are dairy farms. These dairy farms, 78 percent of which are in
the San Joaquin Valley, help to supply the San Francisco metro-
politan area with fluid milk. ">

'" Approximately two-thirds of the fluid-milk supply tor the San Fr.'incisco metropolitan area is from Economic Subregion 116; the remaining one-third Is from the northern part
of Economic Subregion 117 for which no special presentation is made. This central coast area extending 300 mOes from Sonoma and Napa Counties north of San Francisco and south
to San Luis Obispo County is a small part of the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas. Fruit, vegetable, and livestock farming account for most of the agricultural activity
of the subregion, while the poultry industry accoimts for 17 percent of all farms. Only 9 percent of the farms are dairy farms; most of these are in the northern part of the area near
the consuming center. The ranches are in the rougher parts where all moisture for crop and grass growing is from seasonal rains.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Some dry-lot feeding is practiced here but most of the dairy
farms raise some feed crops especially alfalfa and, because of the
long growing season, irrigated pasture provides economical dairy
feed. The usual practice is to raise the young stock for herd
replacement although there is always some buying of young stock
and cows outside the valley.

During 1950, 43 percent of the sales of whole milk was for fluid
consumption. This had increased to 46 percent by 1954. These
farms are second to those of the Southern California area in number
of milk cows per farm, total income, and value of total assets.
No other special dairy area approaches these two California
areas in size of milking herds and in volume of business.

The organization of these farms follows more nearly the usual
combination of enterprises than those of Southern California.

Table 78. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the California Inner
Valley Area: 1954

Number of farms -..

Gross sales—

Per farm dollars. .

Per crop acre- do —

Percent of gross sales from dairy

products

Sales per farm:

Milk dollars-

Cattle and calves do —

Hogs - do —

Poultry products except eggs

dollars -

Eggs do.--

Sheep do

Other livestock and livestock
products dollarS-

Total, livestock and live-
stock products do

Field crops do

Other crops ' do...

Total crops do

Economic class of farm

Total

8,783

13,814
193

11,308

1,118

29
88
15

12, 579

1,065
170

1,235

56, 723
239

45, 464

4,033

160
392

50, 086

6,087
550

6,637

II III IV

15,574
176

12, 946

1,290

13
102
62

14, 442

905
227

1,132

', 097
163

I, 996

678

25
'4

6,726

255
116

371

3,797
130

3,190

408

1,125

1, 05i
113

1,621
241

(Z)

917
43

774
116

4
16

Z Less than 0.50.

1 Includes horticultural and forest products.

Table 79. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the California Inner
Valley Area: 1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

III

Number of farms

8,783

1,088

2,099

2,484

1,832

1,125

155

Average per farm;

Machine hire

..dollars..

374

1,249

434

253

1.50

Hired labor

....do....

1,455

8,573

1,164

274

151

Peed

....do....

3,612

14, 706

3,739

1,873

1,239

775

486

Gas and oil

....do....

559

1.867

657

371

223

144

Fertilizer ..-

....do....

309

Lime

....do....
....do....

Total

6,075

26, 719

6,067

2,814

1,782

1,072

016

Average per crop acre:

Machine hire...

....do....

Hired labor

....do...

Feed

....do...

Gas and oil...

....do....

Fertilizer

....do-...

(Z)

Lime

....do...
....do....

(Z)

Total

112

Z Less than 0,60.

More of them are found in the smaller size groups, Economic
Classes II to IV, with a few even in Economic Class VI.

Average Incomes are much smaller and the incomes of Economic
Class I farms are less than half those of the Southern California
Area. Nearly 10 percent of the total value of sales is from crops.
Other livestock than dairy accounts for about 1 percent. Feed
purchases and hired labor, as in other areas, are the two large
items of specified farm expenses (Tables 78 and 79). The eco-
nomic class array shows the common pattern of reduced returns
on the smaller farms, and both per farm and per unit of production
whether it be per cow, per acre, or per man (Tables 79 and 80).
The choice and use of resources are not as effective on small dairy
farms as on the larger ones.

Table 80. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the Cali-
fornia Inner Valley Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

8,783
13.814
6, 075
7,739
8, 126

56, 674

33, 338

411

(Z)

273
7,043

1,088
66, 723
26, 719
30,004
14, 181

172,358

43, 090

304

(Z)

348
8,729

2,099
15, 574
6,067
9.507
8,652

08, 017

37, 787

436

(Z)

256
7,643

2,484
7,097
2,814
4,283
5,459

39, 851

30, ORb

661

(Z)

215
6,836

1,832
3.797
1,782
2,015
3,797

26,426

695

181
5,852

1,125
1.953
1,072
881
2,170

18,819

23,624

941

148
4,776

Gross sales per farm dollars. -

Specified expenses per farm
dollars -
Gross sales less specified ex-
penses per farm dollars..

Gross sales per man-equivalent

Total investment—

Per farm - _ dollars. .

Per man-equivalent do

Per $100 gross sales .do

Percent of sales of dairy products

917

616

301

1,019

6,838

7,698

760

Milk sales per cow:
Dollars

Pounds (milk equivalent)

3,185

Z 0.5 percent or less.

Fewer farmers report the use of commercial fertilizers than in
any other special area, and those who use it apply fewer pounds
per acre (Table 81). The price would suggest a fertilizer of higher
test than is used in some areas. Practically no lime is used on
these dairj' farms.

Table 81. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the California Inner
Valley Area: 1954

Item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

8,783

22
6

314
8.22

2,251
9.32

1,088

42
14

326
8.31

2,330
9.26

2,099

27
5

302
7.91

1,021
4.83

2,484

21
3

316
8.76

2,861
9.71

1,832

16
2

266
7.11

1,676
8,70

1,126

8
3

343

8.98

2,353
16.82

166

Fertilizer:
Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting

Acres upon which used per farm
reporting

I
10

Average per acre fertilized:
Pounds

253

Cost... dollars. -

Lime:
Percent of farms using

4.47

Acres upon which used per farm

Average per acre limed:
Pounds .. ...

Cost dollars..

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

PUGET SOUND COASTAL AREA

0,000,000 POUNDS
WHOLE MILK SOLD

Figure 24

THE PUGET^SOUND-COASTAL AREA
(Economic Subregions 118 and 119)

Most of the agricultural production of this area is on the alluvial
plains between the mountains and the ocean, and in the river and
mountain valleys. The whole area may be characterized as roll-
ing to mountainous. The plow lands are on the less rolling areas
and the pasture lands spread to and into the more rugged parts.
The western third of Washington and Oregon are included and
Economic Subregion 118 extends down the coast of northwestern
California to Sonoma and Napa Counties. Practicallj' the whole
of the two economic subregions is conditioned climatologically by
the Pacific Ocean. Summers are not so hot or the winters so cold
as in areas to the east. The cool climate with a long growing
season (160 to 240 days) and plentiful rainfall produce good grass
growth and a generally good environment for dairying, even
though the rainfall is not evenly distributed throughout the
summer.

Both economic subregions show considerable diversification and
the proportion of the several types of farms is different in different

parts of the elongated area. In Washington, poultry farms are
second in number to dairy farms. These are followed by fruit
and general farms. In the Oregon part the number of fruit-and-
nut farms exceeds any other type. Dairy, general, other livestock,
and cash-crop farms follow in the order listed, while in north-
western California the number of general farms practically equals
that of the dairy farms with fruit-and-nut farms third. In every
part of the two economic subregions the number of noncommercial
farms exceeds the total of all others.

Most of the milk sales are of whole milk. The milk equivalent
of cream sales is only 6.4 percent in the Washington part. This
proportion drops to 5.2 percent in Oregon, and in northwestern
California the quantity sold drops to around 4.3 percent.

The quantity of whole milk used in manufacturing dairy prod-
ucts is greatest in the California part where 78 percent " of the
milk sold is so used in comparison with 38 percent for all of
California. This part of the area is fairly isolated from fluid-milk
markets. It is mainly forest land with some open spaces available
for crops and grazing near the mouths of rivers along the coast.
The soil here is fertile and grazing conditions are excellent. Dairy-
ing has been an established enterprise for decades but because of
its inaccessibility to fluid milk nuirkets the milk has gone into such
products as cheese, butter, and powdered milk.

The Willamette Valley in western Oregon fairly well char-
acterizes Economic Subregions 118 and 119 within that State.
It is somewhat similar to the San Joaquin Valley, except that
it has more rainfall as well as more irrigated pasture land. It is
more a specialized dairy area and is fairly commercialized. Bulk
handling of milk is now the accepted practice throughout this part
of the two economic subregions.

Outlets for fluid milk are better in this part than in northwestern
California so that less of the whole milk is used in manufactured
products. The figures for the State show that 60 percent of the
milk sold as whole milk and cream was used in manufactured
dairy products, in 1954. That part of the State included in
Economic Subregions 118 and 119 sold 94.8 percent of all milk as
whole milk and 67 percent of this was used in manufactured
products. Butter sales account for two-fifths of the amount,
while the sale of cheese accounts for three-fifths.

The part of the two subregions that supplies the Puget Sound
metropolitan area with dairy products includes 14 counties lying
north of the south tier of counties in Washington. >2 In 1950 this
area represented 14 percent of the farmland of the State, and 50
percent of all farms, 28 percent of the value of all farm products,
and 68 percent of all dairy products were sold from it. The
metropolitan district takes the total production of the area except
in the flush season.

The northern cotmties originally developed as a dairy manu-
facturing territory. The manufacture of butter, cheese, and
mUk powder were the chief outlets for milk. With the increase
in urban population, and especially since bulk handling developed,
most of the production now goes to help supply the fluid-milk
market of Seattle and other nearby cities.

Not so much of the milk in this part is used in manufactured
dairy products as in the other two parts. Nearly 50 percent of
the whole milk and cream sold from farms in the State in 1954,
was used in manufactured dair.y products. In the Washington
part of this area 93.6 percent of the milk was sold as whole milk
and 55.2 percent of this quantity was used in manufactured prod-
ucts. The sales of cream for the two entire economic subregions
was 3.8 percent of all milk sales.

" See Manufactured Dairy Products. Milk Production, Utilization and Prices. Special Publication No. 256, California Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, Calif.
" The county of Kittitas east of the Cascades also supplies the equivalent of 31 million pounds of milk to the urban district.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTON

The general organization of these farms shows little variation
from those previously discussed (Tables 82, 83, and 84). Income
per farm is relatively high and income per crop acre is better than
the usual income of the special dairy areas. Milk income per
cow, as well as the quantity of milk sold per cow, is lower than in
other areas of the west coast. A study of these farms grouped

Table 82. — Sources of Farm Income on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Puget Sound-Coastal
Area: 1954

Economic class of farm

Total

III

12, 321

372

2,576

3,262

2,664

2, 567

990

Gross sales:

Per farm -..

..dollars..

7,273

36, 356

14, 549

7,339

3,600

1,843

786

Per crop acre

.-.do....

133

186

165

137

Percent of gross sales from dairy

Sales per farm;

MUk

..dollars..

6,107

30, 689

12, 616

6.358

2,856

1,373

686

Cattle and calves

....do....

,148

2,890

886

504

387

2,65

102

Hogs

do....

Poultry products except eggs

dollars..

Eggs -.-

119

231

172

156

101

.54

Sheep

.....do....

Other livestock and

livestock

products

..dollars.,
and live-

Total, livestock

stock products.

.. dollars..
...-do—

6,908

33,903

13, 791

7,084

3,409

1,733

733

Field crops

167

1,210

321

109

Other crops '

....do....
....do.—

131

298

850
2,060

317

Total crops

638

191

149

» Includes horticultural and forest products.

Table 83. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Puget Sound-Coastal
Area: 1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

III

12, 321

372

2.676

3,252

2,564

2,667

990

Average per farm:

Machine hire. ..

-.. dollars. -

145

411

246

149

113

Hired labor

do.-..

543

5, 804

1,122

312

138

Feed

do....

2, 086

8,148

4,017

2,226

1,173

660

406

Gas and oil...

do....

285

1,146

501

288

203

111

FertUizer

do....

114

486

247

102

Lime.

do....

do.-..

17
3,190

Total-

16, 066

6,167

3,091

1,700

975

645

Average per crop acre:

Machine hire...-.-.

do....

Hired labor--

do....

Feed

do....

Qas and oil

do....

Fertilizer-

do....

Lime

do....

(Z)

(/)

(Z)

cz;

Total-

Z Less than 0.60.

by economic class repeats the story of other areas. The smaller
the farm the less the operator receives for the use of resources.
Operators of small farms apparently must accept small incomes
and only a few of the amenities of living if they depend altogether
on the farms for their incomes.

Table 84. — Measures of Income and Efficiency Levels for
Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for the Puget
Sound-Coastal Area: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Gross sales per farm dollars..

Specified expenses per farm. do

Gross sales less specified exi:)enses
per farm. dollars..

Gross sales per man-equivalent

Total in vestment per farm. dollars—

Per man-equivalent.- do

Per $100 gross sales. do

Percent of sales of dairy products
from cream

Milk sales per cow:

Dollars

Pounds (milk equivalent)..

Economic class of farm

Total I

7,273
3,190

4,083

6, 596

34,79;
26, 76;

47;

288
7,031

36, 366
16, 066

20,290

10, 093

112,839

31, 344

310

(Z)

377
8,271

II III IV

2,576

14,649
6,16

8,382

8,079

57, 665

32, 031

398

333

7,668

3, 262

7, 3,39
3,091

4,248

6,444

34, 443

24,602

472

281
7,076

2,664

3,600
1,700

1,900

3,326

25, 836

23, 486

718

202
5,617

2,567

1,843
975

868

2, 1.37

20,111

22, 346

1,117

785
646

13.796
15,329
1,724

.16

126
4,144

Z Less than 0.5.

The number of farmers using fertilizers compares favorably
with the Inner Valley of California, but the quantity applied
per acre is less (Table 85) . The rate of application on the treated
land bears little relation to size or economic class, in the use of
either fertilizer or lime.

Table 85. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime on Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for the Puget Sound-Coastal
Area: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Fertilizer-
Percent of farms using

Tons used per farm reporting...
Acres upon which used per farm

reporting

Average per acre fertilized:

Pounds

Cost - ---doUars-

Lime;

Percent of farms using

Acres upon which used per farm
reporting -..

Average per acre limed:

Pounds

Cost dollars-

Economic class of farm

Total 1

12, 321

262
8.86

2,700
13.27

237

8.86

2.380
11.20

II III IV

2,676

273
9,32

3,100
16.03

3,2,52

266
8.62

2, 460
10.92

2,664

276
9.63

2.460
12.79

2, 567

253
8.22

2,620
13.38

15
1

244
6.67

2,480
14.24

APPENDIX

DAIRY PRODUCTS AND PRICE SUPPORTS

The purchase and removal of dairy products from regular
market channels under the program to support prices to producers
for milk and butterfat have been in process since early 1949.
During 1949 the program was carried out under the Agricultural
Act of 1948 which required the support of prices to producers for
milk and butterfat at 90 percent of parity,

Tlie authority for the current program is the Agricultural Act
of 1949 as amended. Title II, Section 201 of the amended Act
provides that "The Secretary is authorized and directed to make
available * * * price support to producers for * * * tung nuts,
honey, milk, butterfat, and the products of milk and butter-
fat. The price of whole milk, butterfat, and the products of
such commodities, respectively, shall be supported at such level
not in excess of 90 per centum nor less than 75 per centum of the
parity price therefore as the Secretary determines necessary in
order to assure an adequate supply. Such price support shall be
provided through loans on, or purchase of, milk and the products
of milk and butterfat, and for the period ending March 31, 1956,
surplus stocks of dairy products owned by the Commodity Credit
Corporation may be disposed of by any methods determined
necessary by the Secretary."

Dairy products acquired under the program have been offered
for sale in domestic and export outlets to the extent possible
without impairing the support program. In addition, Section
416 of the 1949 act, as amended, provides that "in order to prevent
waste of commodities acquired through price-support operations
by the Commodity Credit Corporation before they can be disposed
of in normal domestic channels without impairment of the price-
support program or sold abroad at competitive world prices, the
Commodity Credit Corporation is authorized, on such terms and
under such regulations as the Secretary may deem in the public
interest: (7) to make such commodities available to any Federal
Agency for use in making payment for commodities not produced
in the United States; (3) to barter or exchange such commodities
for strategic or other materials so authorized by law; (3) in the
case of food commodities to donate such commodities to the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and to such State, Federal, or private agency or
agencies as may be designated by the proper State or Federal
authority and approved by the Secretary, for use in the United
States in nonprofit school-lunch programs, in the assistance of
needy persons, and in charitable institutions, including hospitals,
to the extent that needy persons are served; and (4) to donate
any such food commodities in excess of anticipated disposition
under (1), [2), and (3) above to nonprofit voluntary agencies
registered with the Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid of the
Administration or other appropriate Department or agency of the
Federal Government and intergovernmental organizations for use
in the assistance of needy persons outside the United States."
Section 202 of the Act also provides for the Commodity Credit
Corporation to donate dairy products to hospitals of the Veterans'
Administration and to military agencies for their increased use
over and above the normal market purchases.

Total dairy products purchased under the program since early
1949 through March 31, 1956, were equivalent to 32,852,000,000
pounds of milk (Table 1). The amounts purchased each year
ranged about one hundredth of one percent of the total milk
production for the marketing year ending March 31, 1952, to 10
percent in 1953-54. The average yearly purchase was less than
4 percent of the average yearly production. Total quantities
purchased to this date .approximate one-fourth of the total milk
production for 1 year.

Table 1. — Milk Production and Price Support Purchases,
BY Program Years: 1949 to 1956

Milk pro-
duction

Purchaser in million pounds

Total pur-
chases in

Marketing year begin-
ning .\i)r. 1 except as
noted

Butter

Ched-
dar
cheese

Nonfat
dry
milk

Milk
equiva-
lent 1

milk equiv-
alent as

percent ot
total pro-
duction

1949i

1950-5P

Million
pounds
116,103
142,465
114,714
117,050

121,761
121,673
125, 180

114.3

127.9

143.3

380.2
210.5
177.6

25.5

108.9

75.2

456.0
153.4
157.4

326.6

352.7
52.6
210.4

665.9
523.2
623.7

2,541

3,647

3,618

12,164
5,744
5,126

Percent
2.2
2 6

1951-52

(Z)

1952-53

1953-54 . . .

3.1
9.9

1954-55

4.7

1955-56 . - - .

4. 1

Z Less than 0.5.

1 Milk equivalent of butter and cheese purchases, fat solids basis (butter X20 and
cheese XIO). Milk equivalent of nonfat dry milk not included to avoid duplication
with butter.

2 Calendar year.

s Data are for 15 months, Jan. 19.50 to Mar. 31, 1951.

The total cost of these commodities consists of two items — the
purchase price and the carrying charges. The yearly total cost
varied from 9 million dollars for the marketing year ending March
31, 1952, to 453 million dollars in 1954 (Table 2). Practially
one-half of the total cost over the 7 years was for butter bought
while the remaining costs were fairly evenly divided between
the purchases of cheese and nonfat dry milk.

Table 2. — Cost of Dairy Products Acquired Under Price
Supports Programs, by Years: Jan. 1, 1949, to Mar. 31,
1956

Item and period

Total purchases

Carrying
charges

Total cost

By years:

Jan. 1, 1949, to Dec. 31 , 1949.
Jan. 1,19.50, to Mar. 31, 1961.
Apr. 1, 1951, to Mar. 31,1952.
Apr. 1, 1952, to Mar. 31, 1963.

Apr. 1,1953, to Mar. 31, 1954.
Apr. 1, 1954, to Mar. 31, 1966.
Apr. 1, 1966, to Mar. 31, 1956.

Dollars
116.795,646.53
163,158,486.38

8.304,187.03
110,051,769.36

432,697,611.01
387,416,992.22
201,817,946.86

Dollars
7,421,511.68
8, 894, 346. 79

792, 740. 54
1, 337, 474. 97

19,983,351.45
42, 259, 576. 29
45, 353, 343. 94

Dollars
124, 217, 068. 21
162,052,832.17

9, 096, 927. 57
111,389,244.33

462,680,962.46
429, 676, 567. 51
247,171.290.80

Total

1,410,242,639.39

126,042,343.66

1,536,284,883.05

By product purchased (total,

Jan. 1, 1949, to Mar. 31, 1956):

Butter

707, 546, 704, 64

343, 746, 370. 94

352,809.065,51

6,140,398.30

50,175,152.66

37,520,211.58

37,859,015.35

487,964.07

767,721,867.30

Cheese

381,266,682.52

Nonfat dry milk

390, 668, 080. 86

Whey

6, 628, 362. 37

Total

1,410,242,539.39

126,042,343.66

1,536,284,883.05

It is a comparatively simple procedure to buy 3 or 4 percent
of the dairy products of any 1 year. Its utilization in such a
way as not to interfere with the regular flow to market of the
remaining 96 or 97 percent of the products creates a problem
with no simple .solution.

Only limited quantities can usually be sold back to the domestic
market or for commercial export without impairing the current
support program or seriously depressing foreign markets. Dona-
tions or sales at low prices for dome.stic school lunch and welfare
uses, for foreign welfare uses, and for increased military use have
been the major outlets for dairy products acquired under the
supjjort program.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

The various dairy products differed considerably in rate of
utilization through the different outlets. For example, whereas
only 17.7 percent of all butter bought was moved through com-
mercial sales channels, 24.9 percent of all cheese was so disposed of
and 31.8 percent of nonfat dry milk (Table 3). Noncommercial
sales of butter also were relatively small comparcfl to the move-
ment of cheese and nonfat dry milk. On the other hand donations
of butter to both domestic and foreign recipients accounted for
more than one-half of all purchases. The same holds for cheese,
whereas only slightly more than one-third of all nonfat dry milk
was so disposed of.

It is not surprising, rather it is to be expected, that transactions
involving the movement of surplus products wOl show financial
losses. The purchase of surplus products presupposes supplies
in excess of the amounts the market will absorb at specified or
given prices. And unless some production calamity overtakes
the industry or special markets (and prices) develop because
of some other type of calamity, such as war, these products
ultimately must be moved into consumption channels at lower
prices than those at which the commodities were taken off the
market.

Table 3. — Method of Disposition of Dairy Products Bought:
Jan. 1, 1949, to Mar. 31, 1956

Method of disposition

Butter

Cheese

Nonfat dry
milk solids

Total

Percent
100.0

Percent
100

nnmmprnlftl salftq

17.7
4.1
21.7

66.6

24.9
11.6
8.7
64.9

31 8

3 2

The losses experienced in the sale of purchased dairy products
were the lowest in 1951-52, the first full year of the "Korean
Incident" (Table 4). The year of the largest loss was following the
end of the "Korean Incident" when demand for the greater
supplies dropped and market adjustments for producers were
most severe. The total losses in handling surplus dairy products
to the equivalent of nearly 33 billion pounds of milk amount to
slightly more than 25 cents per hundredweight, or about 1 cent
per hundredweight of milk produced.

Table 4. — Method of Disposition of Supplies Bought, by Kind of Dairy Product, By Calendar Years: 1949 to 1956

Method of dispositioa , ':.tT..'. ri r. .

1949

1960

1951

1952

1953

1964

1955

1956

Total'

1949-56
percent
distribu-
tion

i Butter (million pounds)

2.6

13.3'

26.8

3.7
.3

21.4

2.7

0.9

171.4
.3
28 6
43.6
15.0

163.3

91.8

4.3

210.1

426.7

14 9

Salvage - - ,

Commercial sales exports :

1.7
11.4
9.1

36.0

29.7

77.2

130.6

14.7
26.6
3.6

12.1

2.6

6.6

3 8

2.3

37.1

6.6

1.4

60.3

Transfer to sec 32 . - - __ . .-

16.0

■

4 2

71.0
16.1

14 1

41.4

2.7

96.1

178.9

7.9

Transfer to Veterans' Administration . — -- -

36.4
37.9

18.2

28.1

36.9

Total -

17.6

197.3

26.8

118.2

317.9

366.7

110.4

1,163.9

100.0

! _ , i ■ ' " i

Cheddar cheese Cmilllon pounds)

Commercial domestic sales i. -^ -

26.7

7.9

1.1

6.3

119.9
.3

8.7
4.0
6.8
16.0

0.6
3.7

169.2

8.0

80.0

20.1

66.6

3.9

149.8

251.8

22.6

1.1

71.9

■5

10.7

4.1

19.7
1.3

68.0
78.9

2.6

Bee 32 - - -

17.4

29.4
.4

8.9

TT S Armv . - - - -

2.2
71.3
118.0

20.6
8.5

20.0

14.3

32.1

33.6

Total ._-^--i-_-

126.6

8.7

1.1

37.6

282.2

227.0

66.2

749.3

100.0

Hnsold suonlies Mar 31 1956 - *^ ,1

228.2

... '. . ■.'.-^ ' '.\ ■ . '. '[-'. ■;*,.'.'. ■" ". ;

Nonfat dry milk (million pounds)

-..■-,- _;i ••. ;> - ■■ ■*?. -V ■''■■." ^ i

30.8

10.0

2.7

187.1

31.6

17.6

6.9

83.6

19.6
7.4

2.6

4.4

678.3

2.2

142.9

11.6

4.2
.1

66.6
186.3

1.3

16.6
89.0
76.3
16.6

0.4
6.4
26.2

88.0
637.7
125.0
749.0

27.1

71.0

13.2

161.2

846. 8

3.2

23.6

4.6

140.8

20.2

99.2

27.7

1.0

Sec 32 - . - _ - --

16.4

; 4.0

1.4

9.6
6.9

7.6

6.8

29.0
.1

2.6

71.3

366.3

12.4

7L2

11.0
64.6

6.6

Foreign .. , -

79.9
.1

88.6

31.2

Total - -— .—

166.2

?18.2

206.4

62.6

196.1

986.6

633.8

149.6

2, 708. 3

100.0

■ TTnsold stionllGS Mar 31 1956

46.4

1 The difference between the total quantities purchased and the total quantities disposed of after making allowance for stocks In inventory, may bo attributed primarily to the
.fact that purchase contracts provide for a 2 percent tolerance with theresult that the quantities delivered to the 0. C. C. may be somewhat more or less than the contracted,quantltles.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 5. — Losses of Commodity Credit Corporation Through Market Operations, by Kind of Dairy Product, by Program

Years: 1949 to 1956

Program year >

Butter

Cheese

Milk

Whey

Fluid milk

Total losses

1949

Dollars
34,276.417.02
14, 032. 445. 53
2 8.021.61
52, 3 IB. .599. 05
198.183,219.45
70. 797, 421. 09
16, 698, 323. 79

Dollars
6. 132, 692. 48
19, 884, 725. 87
2 11.0S9.84

19. 164, 608, 03
88, 587, 290. 04

20, 054, 670. 04
467, 690. 13

Dollars
29.072,061.02
29.342,176.06
764. 099. 47
30. 827, 953. 20
94. 320. 010. 14
82. 003, 405. 06
36. 421, 754. 61

Dollars

1960-51

03,259.347.46

744. 988. 12

102,309,160.28

1951-52

1952-63

1953-54

1954-55...

3, 169, 478. 53

34, 585, 832. 50
11,122,678.01

210. 610. 807. 22
64, 710, 347. 14

1965-56

Total

386, 295, 404. 42

153, 280, 536. 75

302, 751, 469. 56

3,169,478.53

45,708,411.11

891, 205, 340. 37

1 Calendar year for 1949 and marketing year ending Mar. 31 for other years.
J Gain.

Table 6.^Percent Distribution of Dairy

Farms in Each Economic Class of Farm Group, by Number of Milk Cows, for
Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region and number of milk cows per farm

Percent distribution for each economic class of farm

Total

Norlheastern Dairy Region
Farms with —

Under 6 cows

(Z)

2
9
16
19
29
20
6

(Z)

2^
48
23

1
10
32
32
23
2
(Z)

6
44
34

32
45

6to9cows

(Z)
(Z)

2
21
57
19

10 to 14 cows

(Z)

1
6
15
58
21

13
6
4
1

15 to 19 cows..

20 to 29 cows

30 to 49 cows

50 to 99 cows

100 cows and over...

Total

(Z)

100

6
22
28
20
18
6
1

100

(Z)
(Z)

100

3
12
43
38

(Z)
(Z)

100

23
35
34

100

22
47
22
8
1
(Z)

100

(Z)

100

Eastern Ohio- Western Pennsylvania Dairy Region

Farms with—

Under 5 cows

5 to 9 cows

10 to 14 cows

2
6
4
34
46
9

7
1
(Z)

15 to 19 cows

20 to 29 COWS-.

30 to 49 COWS-..

50 to 99 cows

100 COWS and over

Total

(Z)

100

4
19
24
19
21
11

100
1

(Z)
(Z)

100

1
2
9

(Z)

100

3
23
33
35

100

9
61
26

100
42

Central Michigan-New York Lake Shore Dairy Region

Farms with —

Under 5 cows

5 to 9 cows

10 to 14 cows

15 to 19 cows

20 to 29 cows

(Z)

30 to 49 cows

50 to 99 cows

100 cows and over

Total

(Z)

100

13
24
26
27

100

(Z)
CZ)

(Z)

100

2
5
38
47
7

(Z)
(Z)

100

8
28
52
11

100

(Z)

100

4
43
41
10

2
(Z)

100

Northern Lake Dairy Region
Farms with—

Under 5 cows. . .

6 to 9 cows

10 to 14 cows..

4
5
1
20
56
14

16 to 19 cows..

20 to 29 cows

30 to 49 cows

(Z)

60to99cows

100 cows and over

" ■

(Z)
(Z)

100

6
30
32
18
12

100

3
3
18
35
29
10
1

(Z)

100

11
27
48
12

100

4
46

40
9
1
(Z)

100
30

Northern Woods Dairy Region
Under 6 cows

10 to 14 COWS-.

20 to 29 cows

16
47
34
3

30 to 49 COWS-..

50 to 99 cows

Total

100

Z Le-ss than 0.5 percent.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 7- — Percent Distribution of Dairy Farms in Each Economic Class of Farm Group, by Number of Milk Cows,

FOR Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area and number of milk cows per farm

Percent distribution for each economic class of farm

Total

III

Subregion 54
Farms with —

Under Scows

9
31
25
12
13
8
2
(Z)

1
5
30
28
28
8
(Z)

3
41
42
9
6

57
10
2

5 to 9 cows

(Z)

10 to 14 cows

15 to 19 cows

20 to 29 cows

14
53
29
2

30 to 49 cows

14
43
43

60 to 99 cows

Total

100

1
3

5
15
30
34
11

100

1
6
31
37
22
2

100

2
21
15
29
25

Subregion 58
Farms with—

Under 5 cows...

100

10
40
30

5 to 9 cows

10 to 14 cows _

15 to 19 cows

30 to 49 cows

50 to 99 cows

65
45

Total

100

10
35
28
13

10
3

1
(Z)

100
13

100

2
12
22
42
19

100

2
12
39
26
19

(Z)

100

5
43
35
13
4
(Z)

Subreitiona 73 and 82
Under 5 cows

I
3
11
26
41
16
2

(Z)

10 to 14 cows

20 to 29 cows

60 to 99 cows..

15
41

100 cows and over_..

Total...

Subregion 112

Farms with—

100

6
30
27
16
14
6
2
fZ)

100

31
46
15
6
1

100

10
67
19
3
1
(Z)

100

6 to 9 cows.

4
24
33

32
7
(Z)

47
7

10 to 14 cows

15 to 19 cows .

4
9
37
40
9

20 to 29 cows ..

16
16
53
12

30 to 49 cows

50 to 99 cows

100 cows and over

Total

Subregion 115
Under 6 cows

100

fZ)
fZ)

1
1
4
3
24
67

100

50
60

100

6 to 9 cows

10 to 14 cows

25
25
60

23
37

20 to 29 cows

19
19
54
7

2
22
76

50 to 99 cows

Total . .

100

3
8
12
10
18
24
18
7

100

100
(Z)

100

(Z)

100

7
40
34
12

Subregion 116

Farms with—

29
45
13
3
10

5 to 9 cows

10 to 14 cows .

(Z)
(Z)

43
46
2

15 to 19 cows

20 to 29 cows

30 to 49 cows

4
45
61

60 to 99 cows

100 cows and over...

Total

100

9
19
16
12
21
17
5
1

100
4

100

(Z)
(Z)

4
22

100

19
40
21
14
3
(Z)

100

13
56
24
4
2
1

100

58
37

Subregions llSand 119
Under6cows

6 to 9 cows..

10 to 14 cows

20 to 29 cows

30 to 49 cows

50 to 99 cows

16 (Z)
1 (Z)

Total

100

Z Less than 0.6 percent.

t>AlRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 8. — Measure of Size of Business for Dairy Farms, by
Economic Class of Farm, for Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region and item

Northeastern Dairy Region

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres.

Cropland harvested. do-..

Total invest ment dollars.

Land and buildings do...

Machlnery and equipment

do._.
Livestock. do. . .

Man-equivalent of labor

Number of milk cows

Animal units

Eastern Ohio -Western Pennsyl-
vania Dairy Region

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres.

Cropland harvested.. do...

Total investment dollars.

Land and buildings -.do...

Machinery and equipment

do...
Livestock do...

Man-equivalent of labor...

Number of milk cows

Animal units

Central Michigan-New York
Lake Shore Dairy Region

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres.

Cropland harvested do...

Total investment. dollars

Land and buildings. .do...

Machinery and equipment

do.-
Livestock do...

Man-equivalent of labor

Number of milk cows

Animal units

Northern Lake Dairy Region

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms ...acres.

Cropland harvested- - do. .

Total investment- dollars

Land and buildings do...

Machinery and equipment

do..
Livestock do..

Man-equivalent of labor

Number of milk cows

Animal units

Northern Woods Dairy Region

Number of farms..

.Average per farm:

.\11 land in farms acres

Cropland harvested do..

Total investment dollars

Land and buildings do. .

Machinery and equipment

do..
Livestock do. .

Man-equivalent of labor

Number of milk cows

Animal units

Economic class of farm

Total

67. 621

218
70

23. 348
13.781

4.889
4, 678

l.S
24
32

153
62

23. 13'
15.112

4, 700
3. 319

1.4
15
24

35, 606

157
87

32, 792
23. 136

5.897
3,759

1.3
18
28

124, 501

157
74

24. 169
15. 212

4.
4,160

1.4
18
30

28. 001

186
57

15. 388
8.959

3.694
2,735

1.3
13
20

.5C.5
197

80, 128
61.436

13. 915

14, 778

6.3
75
101

450
198

SO, 978
55, 326

13,619
12. 0.33

4.4

65
88

457
274

113.217
85. 052

14. 996
13. 169

4.2
59
93

483
28:

106, 500
74, 200

14. 429
17, 871

4,6
09
12:.l

461
207

00. 53'
36, 953

ll,47f
12, 108

4.4
60

II III IV V VI 5

323
110

37, 759
22. 342

7. 674
7,743

4,432

243
122

46. 358
31.303

5. 066

6. 400

2.2
29

243

148

55.!
40,588

8,884
6,527

10, 548

240
13:

48. 308
32, 207

8. 20(1
7.895

2.0
31

386

407
147

37.018
22, 513

8,321
6,784

2.3
29
49

24, 058

23. 399
13,731

4. 862
4, 800

1.6
24
33

27, 723
18,154

5. 672
3, 997

1.5
18
29

162
92

33, 703
23,587

6, 234
3,882

1.4
19
29

17(1
89

29, 208
18.412

6, 022
5, 174

1.0
22
3'

3,294

271
94

25. 964
15. 844

5.442
4,668

1.6
21
36

19, 44:

167
61

10, 383
9,530

3, 64*
3,206

1,1
16

133
51

19. 143
12,259

4, 136
2, 749

1.3
13
20

9,286

lis

22, 274
W, 986

4, 705
2,583

1. 1
12
19

46, 789

142
(j:i

19. 751
12.073

4. 24:*
3. 43S

1,4

l.'i
26

203
63

10, 944
9,763

4,073
3,108

1.4
15
23

131
36

12, 626
7,602

2, 780
2,183

0.9
10
16

115

13, 764
8,839

2, 967
1.958

1.0
9

16.031
10, 913

3.414
1.704

9. 347
6. 035

1,757
I, 665

0.9
7
10

3,541

8.608
5. 647

1. 627
1.234

72
23

11.400
8, 064

2, 260
1,090

lie.
43

i:j, 414
8. 102

3,086
2,226

1, 1
10
10

10, .820

102
46

0.9
6

4. 030

9. 694
6.088

2. 133
1.373

1.0
6
10

4.005

117
30

12. 466 8, 008
7, 106 5, 063

3,193
2, 160

2,208
1,337

Table 9. — Farm Labor Force on Dairy Farms, by Economic
Class of Farm, for Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region and item

Northeastern Dairy Region

Kunihcr ui farms

,\vi'rago per farm:
Family labor

Operator

(llhcr

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm..

Crop acres per man-equivalent

\'alue of all farm products sold per

man-equivalent dollai s

Number of milk cows per man-

cfiuivalent

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsyl-
vania Dairy Region

Xumber of farms

Average per farm:

Family labor

( > pcrator ,

Olhcr

Hired labor ,

Man-equivalent per farm...

(>op acres per man-equivalent....
Value of all farm pro(iucts sold per

man-equivalent dollars

Number of milk cows per nian-

eiiuivalen t

Central Michigan-New York Lake
Shore Dairy Region

Xumber of farms

.Average per farm:

Family labor

Operator

other..

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm

Crop acres per man-equivalent.

Value of all farm products sold per

man-equivalent dollars.

Number of milk cows per man-
equivalent

Northern Lake Dairy Region

Xumber of farms

.\verage per farm:

Family labor

Operator

Other..

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm

Crop acres per man-equivalent

Value of all farm products sold per

man-equivalen t dollars.

Number of milk cows per man-

o(iuivaleut

Northern Woods Dairy Region

Xumber of farms

Average per farm:

Family labor.

Operator.

Other

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm

Crop acres per man-equivalent

Value of all farm products sold per

man-equivalent dollars .

Number of milk cows per man-
equivalent

Economic class of farm

Total

1.5
62

4,837
16

1.2
.7
.5
.2

1.4

3.849
11

35, 606

1.0
.7
.3
,3

1.3

S,393
14

1.2

1.4
66

28, 001

1,2
.7
.5
.1

1.3
69

2,307

.3
4.3

6.3
50

6,846
14

.5
3.1

4.4

3.1

4.2
82

1,250
14

.6
3.2

4.5
80

7,616
15

3.2

4.4
68

8,209
11

II III IV

.4
1.0

2.2
66

6,446
IS

4,432

1.3

.8
.5

6, 926

1.8
103

7,825
1

10, 548

.5
.6

2.0
84

6,616

385

1.4

.8
.6

2.3
85

5,433
13

24, 658

1.2
.8
.4
.3

1.5
03

4, 775

12, 439

1.2
.8
.4
.3

4,660

12, 068

1.2
.8
.4
.2

1.4
86

5,120

1.6

4.324
14

3. 29t

1.4
.8

4,091
13

1. 1

3,463
14

12,911

1.3
60

2,892
10

9,286

,455
II

46, 789

1.4
66

1.3
.8
.5

1.4
60

2,499
11

7. 96.',

2 22''
12

1.0
49

1,883

.9
.0

(Z)'

.9
67

2,121

1. 1

.8
.3

(Z)

I. 1
50

1,749

1.2
.7
.5

(Z)

1.2
S3

1,541

Z Less than 0.5.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 10. — Farm Mechanization and Home Conveniences
ON Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Major
Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region and item

Northeastern Dairy Region

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucics

Field forage harvesters

Piclc-up hay balers

Cora pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders __

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles. -_ ..-.

Tractors

Motortrucks _

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines _._

Eastern Ohio- Western Pennsylvania
Dairy Region

Average number per farm:

Automobiles --

Tractors

Motortrucks,

Field forage harvesters..

Piek-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines.

Power feed grinders...

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles. ,..

Tractors.-

Motortrucks,

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Cora pickers, _

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines..

Central Michigan-New York Lake
Shore Dairy Region

Average number per farm:

Automobiles..

Tractors

Motortrucks _

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters..

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Northern Lake Dairy Region

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Cora pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors _

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Economic class of farm

Total

1
1
1

(Z)

(Z)
1
1

1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1

(Z)

3
3
2
1
1

(Z)

(Z)
1
1

94
100
92
66
83
72
74
69
94

97
100
88
76
66
72
63
47
99

II III IV

2
1

(Z)

1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

2
1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1

(Z)

cz>

(Z)

1
I
1

(Z)

(Z)
Z)
(Z)

1
1

1
1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1
1

(Z)
Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1

(Z)
(Z)

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1

(Z)

1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

65
43
26
1
3
2
3
9
12

(Z)
(Z)
Z)
(Z1
(Z)

23
1

4
2

(Z)
(Z)

fZ)

(Z)

(Zl

\'i\

(Z)
(Z)

6
19

Table 10. — Farm Mechanization and Home Conveniences
ON Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Major
Dairy Regions: 1954 — Continued

Major dairy region and item

Economic class of farm

Total

III

Northern Woods Dairy Region

Average number per farm:

(Z)

85
91
42

7
17

3
14
20
62

2
3
2

(Z)

100
100
100
84
69
16
69
53
100

(Z)

1
1

94
97
83
38
60
19
43
39
94

1
2
1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1

92
97
62
24
38
8
31
33
95

1
1
1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1

86
96
47

7
21

2
17
23
80

1
1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

1
1

86
90
35

2
11

1
10
16
60

Tractors... .

(Z)
(Z)

Field forage harvesters

Cora pickers

Power feed grinders

Percent of farms reporting:
Automobiles

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

(Z)

Grain combmes

3
9

Z Less than 0.5.

Table 11. — Distribution of Operators of Dairy Farms in
Each Economic Class, by Age, for Major Dairy Regions:
1954

Major dairy region and age of operator

Northeastern Dairy Region

Total

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

46 to 54 years

55 to 65 years

65 years and over

Eastern Ohio -Western Pennsylvania
Dairy Region

Total-

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years _._

46 to 54 years

56 to 65 years

66 years and over

Central Michigan-New York Lake
Shore Dairy Region

Total

Under 26 years

26 to 34 years

36 to 44 years

46 to 64 years

66 to 66 years __

66 years and over...

Northern Lake Dairy Region

Total...

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years.

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 65 years

65 years and over

Northern Woods Dairy Region

Total

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years _

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 65 years

66 years and over

Percent distribution for each economic class of
farm

Total

100
2
13
23
25
21
16

100
2
13
23
24
21
17

100
2
13
24
24
21
16

100
2
16
26
26
20
11

100
1
12
24
23
22
18

100
1
14
21
30
23
11

100
2

6
25
27
25
16

100

100
1
15
23
25
30
6

100

II III

100
2
14
26
27
20
11

100
2
17
26
26
18
U

100
2
20
27
24
19

100
2
21
30
25
17
5

100
3
16
24
26
20
13

100
2
17
27
24
19
11

100
2
15
27
27
19
10

100
2
20
30
25
16
7

100
2
17
29
23
18
11

100
2
12
21
26
23
17

100
2
13

24
24
22
16

100
2
11
23
24
23
17

100
2
15
26
27
20
10

100
1
13
28
27
20
11

100
1
9
22
23
21
24

100
1

10
21
24
22
22

100
1
8
18
23
26
24

100
1

11
19
26
26
18

100
1

12
25
23

100

10
18
24
44

100

100
2
6
9
16
31
37

100

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 12. — Land Use on Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region and item

Northeastern Dairy Region

Number of farms_

Averatre per farm:

All land in farms acres__

Cropland harvested do

Cropland pastured __do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured acres. .

Total cropland. _ . .do

To t al pasture do

Percent of cropland harvested In:

Corn for all purposes percent__

Ccm for praiu do

Small grains do

All hay . do

Other crops _ _ _ do

Eastern Ohio -Western Pennsyl-
vania Dairy Kegion

Nuniber of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms, _ acres..

Cropland harvested_ do

Cropland pastured _-.do

Cropland not harvested and net
pastured .acres. .

Total cropland do

Total pasture do

Percent of cropland harvested in;

Corn for all purposes percent..

Com for grain do

Small grains , do

A\l hay do

Other crops do

Central Michigan-New York Lalte
Shore Dairy Region

Number of farms...

Averape per farm:

All land in farms acres..

Cropland harvested ...do

Cropland pastured do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured acres. .

Economic class of farm

Total

III

67.521

1,215

12,525

24, 658

19,447

7, 965

1,711

2IS

366

323

222

167

131

116

197

110

266

14.'-.

220

140

ino

16
2

6
1

6
2

.83

40, 636

258

4, 432

12, 439

12,911

7,055

3,541

1S3

466

243

172

133

115

198

122

265

146

163

2.'

35, 605

551

6,926

12,068

9,280

5,175

1,600

167

457

243

162

118

274

148

Major (hliry region and item

Central Michiffan-New York Lake
Shore Dairy Kegion — Continued

Average per farm — Continued

Total cropland acres -

Total pasture do . . .

Percent of cropland harvested in:

Corn for all purposes percent.

Com for grain do__

.^mall grains do . . -

All hay... do...

Other crops do . . .

Northern Lake Dairy Region

Number of farms

-Average per farm;

.Vll land in farms acres.

("■fopland harvested- do

( 'ropland pastured do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured. acres.

Total cropland do

Total pasture do

Percent of cropland harvested in:

Corn for all purposes percent.

Com for gram... do...

Small grains do. . .

.\1I hay do

Other crops... do...

Northern Woods Dairy Region

Xuraber of farms 28,001

Economic class of farm

Total

114
40

124, 501

157
74
15

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres..

Cropland harvested ..do

( ' ropland pastured do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured acres.

Total cropland... do

Total pasture. do

Percent of cropland harvested in:

Corn for all purposes percent.

Corn for grain do...

Small grains do

.Ml hay do...

Other crops do

343
123

483
287
69

361
151

461

20'

298
190

II III IV V VI

186
65

240
137
28

168
74

385

40'
147

195
149

120
46

176

109
63

271
94
25

123
113

46, 789

142
63
12

9,465

203
63
16

116
43

102
46
14

21)
16
24

51
6

95
29

40
44

211
11
26
53
1

117
30
10

44
51

.8
4
14
74
4

Table 13. — Average Number of Livestock per Farm for Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Major

Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region and item

Economic class of farm

Major dairy region and item

onomic class of farm

Total

III

Total

III

Northeastern Dairy Region

■Mnmhpr of farms

67, 521

38
24
24

1
53

40, 636

27
16
15

6
96

35,605

32
18
18

1,215

121

76
75

165

258

102
56
55

24
183

7
4

651

109

59
59

12, 625

63
39
39

100

4,432

52
29
29

187

3
2

6,925

55
31

24,658

39
25
24

1
1

12.439

32
19

7
123

12, 008

33
19

19, 447

26
16
16

1
31

(Z)

12,911

23
13
13

4
74

3
2

9, 286

22
13
12

7,965

18
10
10

1
•>y

1
(Z)

7,055

16
9
9

4
52

5,176

8
8

1,711

12
7

1
(Z)

3,541

10
6
6

1, 600

9
6
5

Central Michigan-New York Lake
Shore Dairy Region — Continued

Average number per farm— Con.

124, 501

32
18
18

13
109

2
1

28, 001

24
13
13

28
123

425

132
70
69

200

109
55
50

4
102

24
14

14
115

4
2

10, 548

57
32
31

175

385

60
30
29

6
79

9
6

6
101

3
2

41, 266

18
138

2
1

3,294

12
22
21

4
62

4
2

46, 789

27
15
15

9
96

9,465

28
15
IS

2
1

I
(Z)

20,843
18

4
60

1
1

10,820

19
10
10

2
31

2
1

Chickens 4 months old and over..

Ewes 1 year old and over

Northern Lake Dairy Region

(Z)

Chickens 4 months old and over...

4,630

Ewes 1 year old and over

Eastern Ohio- Western

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves. .

Chickens 4 months old and over...

Ewes 1 year old and over

Northern Woods Dairy Region

Number of farms -

Chickens 4 months old and over...

4,005

Average number per farm:
\1I cattle and calves .

Ewes 1 year old and over

Number of farms

.\verage niunber per farm;
.Ml cattle and calves

Chickens 4 months old and over...
Sheep and lambs

Cows and heifers

Ewes 1 year old and over

<■/.)

1 Less than 0.5.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 14. — Average Sales of Dairy Products per Cow and Distribution of the Sales of Dairy Products, by Economic Class

OF Farm, for Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area and item

Subregion 54

Dairy products sold per cow, total. _ - -.- dollars

pounds ot milk equivalent

Whole milk... dollars

Cream -- --- ^O--

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products.. vv .,v

pounds of milk

Whole milk dollars

Cream do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold do.,,

Subregion 5S

Dairy products sold per cow, total dollars

poimds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk dollars.

Cream... - do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

,■^11 dairy products -j----,- ,,-

pounds of milk.

Whole milk... --- ...dollars.

Cream do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold .-. do...

Subregions 73 and 82

Dairy products sold per cow, total dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk --- dollars.

Cream do..

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products — -j---,-"^",-,-

pounds of milk.

Whole milk ---- dollars

Cream do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold — -- do...

Subregion 112

Dairy products sold per cow, total dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk --- dollars.

Cream .do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products - dollars.

pounds of milk.

Whole milk ---- - - dollars.

Cream do...

Average value of mUk per cwt. sold - do...

Subregion 115

Dau-y products sold per cow, total dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk --- - dollars.

Cream.. - -do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

.\11 dairy products - j --v'^'',-,-

poundsof milk

Whole mUk... dollars.

Cream. .-. --- do...

Average value of mUk per cwt. sold - do..

Subregion 116

Dairy products sold per cow, total - dollars

pounds of milk equivalent

Whole milk. -. dollars.

Cream do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products -— j— "v ,-,-

pounds of milk

Whole milk --- --- dollars.

Cream... - do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold do...

Subregions 118 and 119

Dairy products sold per cow, total dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk — dollars.

Cream ---- --- do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

AH dairy products - - -s-—..,\-

pounds of milk.

Whole milk. -- - dollars.

Cream ---- --- - do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold — do...

Z Less than 0.6.

Economic class of farm

Total

139

3,979

138

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.49

3,671
198
(Z)

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

5.39

150

4,634

149

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.24

245

7,218

243

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.39

648
11,112

548
(Z)

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

4.93

273
7,643
273
(Z)

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.57

288

7,031

283

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

4.10

257

7,407

257

6.5
6.6
6.5

316

4,858
314

10.3

8.6

10.3

60.0

B.48

384

9,468

384

2.4
1.9
2.4

414

7, 560

410

8.4
5.2
8.4
13.1

5.48

558
11, 279

558
(Z)

98.7
98.4
98.7
100.0

4.95

348
8,729
348
(Z)

49.8
44.7
49.9
10.9

3.99

377

8,271

376

15.0
13.6
16.2
21

4.56

213

4,963

213

17.2
14.0
17.3

246

4,481

246

31.8
31.3
31.9

261

260
1

11.6
10.1
11.7
1.3

3.73

304

8,012

303

24.3
21.7
24.4
13.4

3.79

271

6,258

271

1.0
1. 1
1.0

4.33

256

7,643

255

27.4
29.2
27.3
51.7

3.35

330
3

42.8
40.4
43.0
28.2

4.34

175

4,385

175

29.7
26.1
29.9

3.95

195
3,631
195
(Z)

36.0

36.1

36.0

6.4

1.37

211

6,301

210

22.7

22.0

22. S

2.3

3.35

253

7,651

252

34.6
35.4
34.7
21.2

3.31

184

5,158

184

215

6,836

214

15.0
17.1
15.0
14.9

3.15

281

7,072

279

27.2
28.1
27.4
13.7

3.97

122

3,939

122

22.0
24.8
22.0
19.7

3.07

148

2,981

148

19.4
21.1
19.4
33.6

157

156
1

29.1
29.3
29.1
22.7

3.22

204

6,800

202

22.8
26.7
22.8
24.0

3.00

156

4,479

166

181

5,852

180

5.9
6.8
6.9
13.0

1.09

202

5,617

193

9.6
11.0

9.4
25.6

3.60

101

3,276

100

18.7
21.2
18.6
30.9

3.24

2,122

2.3

2.7
2.3

118

3,857

117

28.1
27.7
26.1
32.6

3.06

172

6,148

169

10.7
8.7
24.1

2.75

152

4,496

152

148

4,776

146

1.8
2.1
1.8
9.1

3.10

165

5,249

162

4.6
6.0
4.4
22.5

3.14

2,708

5.9
7.3

5.7
49.4

2.92

1,040

0.2
.2
.1

5.87

2,766

8.1

9.0

7.9

41.2

2.93

116

4,177

113

1.0
1.3
1.0
4.2

(Z)

3,185

.1
.1
.1
.4

126

4,144

106

1.0
.6

3.04

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 15. — Average Sales of Dairy Products per Cow and Distribution of the Sales of Dairy Products, by Economic Class

OF Farm, for Major Dairy Regions: 1954

Major dairy region and item

Northeastern Dairy Region

Dair>' producf^s sold per cow, total dollars,

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk dollars.

Cream do...

Perc^^nt distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products ._ do...

pounds of milk.

Whole milk dollars.

Cream do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold do...

Eastern Ohio -Western Pennsylvania Dairy Region

Dairy products sold pwr cow, total dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

\\'hole milk _. _ dollars.

Cream. ..do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products do...

pounds of mUk.

Whole milk dollars.

Cream do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold. do. . .

Central Michigan-New York Lake Shore Dairy Region

Dairy products sold per cow, total .dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk do...

Cream do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products do...

pounds of milk.

Whole milk _ dollars.

Cream __ _ do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold do...

Northern Lake Dairy Region

Dairy products sold per cow, total dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole milk _ dollars.

Cream _ do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products _ ...do...

pounds of milk.

Whole milk _ dollars.

Cream do...

Average value of milk per cwt. stild. do...

Northern Woods Dairy Region

Dairy products sold per cow, total dollars.

pounds of milk equivalent.

Whole mi]k__ dollars.

Cream do...

Percent distribution of products sold by economic class:

All dairy products do...

pounds of milk.

Whole milk dollars.

Cream __ do...

Average value of milk per cwt. sold do...

Z Less than O.B.

Economic class of farm

Total

264
6, ,526

100.

inn.o

100.0
100.0

4.04

2.51

B. 298

249

1(10.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.98

2i9

7,281

256

100.
100.
100.
100.0

3.57

201

6, .594

195

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.04

3.07

405

8,036

403

S.8
7. 1
S.9

423

9, 110

420

3.9
3.3
3.9
3.6

383

I, 358

382

7.5
6.5
7.6
1.6

323

9,772

327

2. 1

2.0

2.2

174

5,674

150

446

13,282

445

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
(Z)

309
7,549
.309
CZ)

36.2
3.5.7
36.2

8.8

4.10

32S

7, 71S

327

20. 8
25.2
27.0

302

8,143

301

(Z)

39.0

37.5

39.3

6.3

3.71

261

8, 242

259

19.5
18.7
19.9
6.7

3.17

293

1,327

276

4.7
6.3
5.8
2.2

3.52

254
6,441

254
C/.)

36. 4
37.3
36.4
21.3

3.94

269

1,696

268

39.7
39.4
40.0
13.4

4.02

256

7,294

255

35.0
35.6
35.2
16.0

3.51

213

i,987

208

43.2
43.1
43.6
30.9

3.05

230

6,796

218

23.8
26.2
28.9
9.2

3. 38

204
5,361
204
(Z)

15.2
16.1
15.2
9.3

3.81

213

5, .593

211

22.7
2.3.8
22.7
20. 5

3.81

2U5

6, 090

200

14.2
16.1
14. 1
29.1

3.36

174

5,857

166

28.0
28.6
27.6
40.9

2.97

179

5,794

157

40.
40.1
41.1
34.6

3.08

160

4, 361

1.57

3.1

3.6

3.1

27.8

3.67

143

4, 200

i:i9

5. S

6. 7
.5. 6

23, 9

3. 41

147

, 973

136

3.8

4.6

3.5

32.4

2.97

13H

4,814

127

6.6
6.9
6.2
17.5

1.86

135
4,842

iin

26.9
23.5
20.4
42.3

2.79

89
2,782

15.1

3.20

3,082

1. 1
1.6

.8
36.

2.67

3,750

16.6

2.62

3,446

.6
3.4

94
718
63
41

4.5
3.7
2.5
11.7

2. .54

60 FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 16. — Measure of Size of Business for Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, by Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area and item

Snbregion 54

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms^ _acres.

Cropland harvested do...

Total investment - - _ dollars^

Land and buUdings do^..

Machinery and equipment

do...
Livestock do. . .

Man .equivalent of labor..

Number of milk cows

Animal units -

Subregion .W
Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms...... acres.

Cropland harvested do...

Total investment dollars .

Land and buildings do...

Machinery and equipment

do...
Livestock do. . .

Man -equivalent of labor..

Number of milk cows

.\nimal units

Subregions 73 and 82
Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms.. acres.

Cropland harvested do...

Total investment dollars.

Land and buildings do...

Machinery and equipment

do...
Livestock do...

Man-equivBlent of labor..

Number of milk cows

Animal units

Subregion 112
Number of farms

Average per farm:

AW land in farms .acres.

Cropland harvested -do...

Total investment dollars.

Land and buildings do...

Machinery and equipment

do...
Livestock do . . .

Economic class of farm

Total

6,681

143
36

1.5, 721
11,198

2,468
2, 05.5

1.3
15
23

2,730

143

20, 736
14, 930

3,007
2,799

1.5
32
44

23,017

169
34

12, 482
8,228

2,376

1,878

1.3
12
19

8,459

102
44

29,672
22, 233

4,046
3,293

II HI IV

750
2.59

103. 934
75. 834

14,429
13, 671

5.0
96
161

852
164

84, 225
62, 992

8,894
12, 339

5.2
105
199

816
215

87, 686

9,715
13, 477

108

332
134

1 10. 855
88. 115

12, 073
10, 667

363

102

48, 304
34, 979

6,707
6,618

2.4
43

256
52

44, 287
34, 608

5,178
4.681

2.2
51
73

364
119

38, 569 25, 903 16. 410

64,494 27,117 18,009 10,036

227
09

32. 139
S, 735

4,579
3,825

1.7
28
44

124
22

19, 097
13,529

2,922
2,646

1.4
32
42

263
76

166
46

17, 798
12,513

2,864
2,421

1.2
18
28

96
15

12,711
8,529

2,160
2,032

1.2
23
32

5,182

2,435

114

11,376
8,042

1,904
1,430

1.1
11
16

240

12.282
8,834

1,960
1,

1.0
17
23

8,988

153
26

5,896
5,657

2.0
36

176

68, 676
44, 676

6,761
7,139

4,257
3,637

1.5
23
38

2,236

121

36, 464
27, 619

4,811
4,124

3,054
2,320

1.3
15
25

2,819

25, 354
18, 886

3,722
2,746

2,089
1,694

1.1
10
16

16,416
11,864

2,735
1,817

76
14

6,526
4,681

1,009
836

1.0
6
9

6,775
4,185

1,228
1,362

1.1
11
21

6,330

118
16

10,168 6,848
6,485 4,528

1,315
1, 005

1.0
7
10

621

68
16

11,819

1,924
1,199

Special dairy area and item

Subregion 112 — Continued

.\verage per farm— Continued

Man-equivalent of labor

Number of milk cows.

Animal units _

Subregion 115

Number of farms

.\verage per farm:

.\11 land in farms acres.

Cropland harvested do. . .

Total investment dollars.

Land and buildings do...

Machinery and equipment

do...
Livestock.- do...

Man-equivalent of labor

Number of milk cows

.Vnimal units

Subregion 116

Number of farms...

Average per farm:

.\11 land in farms. ..acres.

Cropland harvested do...

Total investment dollars.

Land and buildings do...

Machinery and equipment

do...
Livestock do . . .

Man-equivalent of labor

Number of milk cows

.\nimal units.. _

Subregions 118 and 119

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres

Cropland harvested do..

Total Investment dollars

Land and buildings do..

Machinery and equipment

do..
Livestock do..

Man-equivalent of labor

Number cf milk cows

Animal units

Economic class of farm

Total

1.1
15
26

183
32

136, 602
102, 933

6,464
27, 105

6.6
178
210

8,783

104
36

56, 674
43, 375

5,068
8,231

1.7

41
69

12, 321

109
29

34, 797
26, 873

4,331
3,593

1.3

21
30

3.6

198
32

144, 695
108, 606

6,767
29, 422

6.1
195
229

346

127

172, 358
134, 250

11,770
26, 338

4.0
131
183

366
101

112, 839
89, 218

10, 700
12, 921

3.6

81
110

2.0
31

131, 802
112, 193

5,797
13, 812

1.8
70
96

2,09S

126
44

68, 017
52, 336

5.770
9,911

1.8
61
70

2,576

1.3
18
32

66
26

38, 631

27, 778

3,625
7,128

1.2
40
54

157
4'

III

2,484

1.0
12
22

13, 161
6,300

1,638
5.323

1.2
21
34

1,832

39, 851 26, 426
30, 451 19, 436

3,981
5,419

1.3

28
38

3,262

103
27

67, 655 34, 443
45, 456 26, 438

6,063
6,146

4,323
3,682

1.4
23
31

3,414
3,575

1.0

18
25

2,664

53
31

41, 461
36, 200

2,667
2,694

.4
5
14

1,126

18, 819
13, 691

2,567

26,835 20,111
19, 500 15, 219

3,704
2,541

3,249
1,643

.9
8
13

5
10

166

28
3

6,838
3,626

2,814 1,868
2,314 1,444

40
10

13, 796
10, 952

1,912
932

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION

Table 17- — Farm Labor Force on Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area jind item

Subregion M
Number uf faiais —

Average per farm:

Family labor _ _

Operator -

Other

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per Tarm ._

Crop acres per man-equivalent _..

Value of all farm products sold per man-equivalent dollars.

Number of milk cows per man-equivalent .-

Subregion 53
Number of farms -

Averape per farm:

Family labor

Operator

Other

Hired labor -

Man-equivalent per farm -

Crop acres per man -equivalent

Value of all farm products sold per man-equivalent -dollars.

Number of milk cows per man -equivalent -

Subregions 73 and 82
Number of farms - —

Average per farm:

Family labor

Operator --_ -

Other -

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm

Crop acres per man-equivalent

Value of all farm products sold per man-equivalent dollars.

Number of milk cows per man-equivalent

Subregion 112
Number of farms

Average per farm:

Family labor _

Operator

Other

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm

Crop acres per man-equivalent

Value of all farm products sold per man-equivalent dollars.

Number of milk cows per man -equivalent

Subregion 115
Number of farms

Average per farm:

Family labor

Operator

Other

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm

Crop acres per man-equivalent

Value of all farm products sold per man-equivalent ..dollars.

Number of milk cows per man-equivalent

Subregion 116
Number of farms

Average per farm:

Family labor

Operator

Other

Hired labor

Man-equivalent per farm

Crop acres per man-equivalent...

Value of all farm products sold per man -equivalent dollars.

Number of milk cows per man-equivalent

Subregions 118 and 119
Number of farms

Average per farm:

Family labor _._

Operator

Other

M Hired labor..-.

Man-equivalent per farm _

Crop acres per man-equivalent

Value of all farm products sold per man-equivalent dollars

Number of milk cows per man-equivalent

Economic class of farm

1.1
.8
.3
.2

1.3

56.2

2,405

1.2
.8
.4
.3

1.5

38.8

4.693

23,017

1.2
.8
.4
.1

1.3

53.1
1,996

8,459

1.0
.7
.3
.1

1.1

65. S

4,714

1,101

4.5

5.6

11.6

19,113

8,783

1.7

42.4

8,126

12, 321

1.1
.7
.4
.2

1.3
42.3

5,595

1.2
.9
.3

3.S

.■i.U

103.4

6. 920

I.U
.8
.2

4.2

5.2

72.1

7,805

3.1

4.0

102.0

8,558

108

1.5
.9
.6

2.1

3.6
61.1

1.1
.9
.2

5.0

6.1

11.0

19, 243

1.3
.9
.4

2.7

4.0

68.9

14,181

372

3.6

54.2

10, 093

255

1.2
.9
.3

1.2

2.4

83,9

5. 425

1.2
.9
.3

1.0

2 2

50. 6

6, 376

.5
.6

2.0

97.8

6,300

1.4
.9
.5

2.0

60.7

6,782

.5
.4

1.8

34.2

12,297

2,099

.5
.4

1.8

61.8

8,652

1.0
.7
.3
.8

1.8

49.1

8,079

III

1.7

76.6

3,974

996

.4
.2

1.4

34.0

4,869

1,962

.5
.2

1.6

88.7

4,615

2,235

1.2
.8
.4
.1

1.3

56.0

6,328

1.0
.9
.1
.2

1.2

25.1

7,452

2,484

.4
.1

1.3

33.6

5,459

3,252

1.0
.7
.3
.4

1.4

39.8

6,444

1,396

1.2
69.5

960

.4
.1

1.2

30.4

3,230

5,182

.4
.1

1.3

68.2

2,626

2,819

1.0

.7
.3

(Z)

1.0

54.3

3,688

1.1
.9
.2
.1

1.2

40.2

3.857

1.0
.7
.3

(Z)

1.0

27.4

3,797

.7
.6
.2
.4

1.1

39.3

3,325

.3
.1

1,1

50.9

1, 635

1.0
.7
.3

CZ)

1.0

26.8

1,971

(Z)

1.1
.7
.4

1.1
53 3
1,610

2,010

CZ)

40.7

2,637

(Z)

72.0

8,700

19.7

2,170

2,567

.6
.4
.2
.3

33.7

2,137

Z Less than 0.5.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTON

Table 18. — Farm Mechanization and Home Conveniences on Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Special Dairy

Areas: 1954

Special dau-y area and item

Subregion 54

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors.

Motortrucks..

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers...

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers. _ .1

Grain combines...

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Subregion 58

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors..

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers _

Corn pickers -..

Graui combines

Power feed grinders -

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors..

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers _

Grain combines..

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Subregions 73 and 82

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motcrtrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers...

Corn pickers

Grain combines -

Power feed grinders ..-

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors.

Motortrucks _

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers _.

Grain combines..

Power feed grinders

Milidng machines

Subregion 112

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Economic class of farm

Total

1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(.NA)
(NA)

1
1
1

CZ)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

(Z)
1
(NA)
(NA)

100
100
73
49
70
41
57
73
70

2
2
2
(Z)

(Z)

(NA)

2
1
(Z)

(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

3
2
1
1
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

II III IV

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

1
1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

1
?
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

1
1

1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

1
I
1

(Z)
(Z)

(Z)

(NA)

1
1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
NA)

(Z)

(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

1
1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)
(Z)

(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

(Z)
J(Z)

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(.NA)

48
16
20

(Z)

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(NU
(NA)

40
30
30

10
40

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

7z')^

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

(NA) (NA)

Special dairy area and item

Subregion 112— Continued

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors.

Motortrucks..

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers.

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines...

Subregion 115

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters...

Pick-up hay balers

i'orn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders _.

Milking machines

Subregion 116

.'Vverage number per farm:

.\utomobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers...

Grain combines.

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors..

Motortrucks _..

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers..

Corn pickers... ..

Grain combines.

Power feed grinders

M ilking machines

Subregions 118 and 119

Average number per farm:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters..

Pick-up hay balers

Com pickers ._

Grain combines

Power feed grinders

Milking machines

Percent of farms reporting:

Automobiles

Tractors

Motortrucks

Field forage harvesters

Pick-up hay balers

Corn pickers

Grain combines

Power feed grinders ,

Milking machines

Economic class of farm

Total

(Z)

(NA)

94
45
74

9
(Z)

1
15
90

(Z)

(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

(Z)

(NA)

87
85
63
11
13
(Z)
8

12
82

100
100
95
54
48
5
42
27
95

2
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

(Z)
2
15

3
3

2
1

(Z)

(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

3
2
1
(Z)

(Z)

(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

97
94
62
48
(Z)
23
22
97

95
99
86
31
36
1
32
36
100

2
1
1

(Z)

[NA)
(NA)

(Z)
(Z)

"(Z) "
(NA)
(NA)

1
2
1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

III

(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

1
1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

;na)
;na)

92
93
69
10
13
(Z)
7
13
97

85
69
5
16
(Z)
15
U

(Z)
(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)

(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

1
1
1

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

83
84
69
4
8
(Z)

6
(Z)

(Z)
(Z)
(Z)

(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

(Z)

(NA)
(NA)

1
1
1

(Z)
(Z)

(Z)
(NA)
(NA)

NA Not available. Z Less than 0.6.

DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 63

Table 19. — Distribution of Operators of Dairy Farms in Each Economic Class, by Age, for Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area and age of operator

Z Less than 0.5.

Subresion 54

Total

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years.

65 to 65 years

65 years and over

Subregion 58

Total

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 65 years

65 years and over

Subregions 73 and 82

Total

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years...

35 to 44 years.

45 to 54 years

65 to 65 years

65 years and over

Subregion 1)2

Total...

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years.

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years _

66 to 65 years

66 years and over...

Percent distribution for each economic class

of farm

Total

III

100

2
11

1
11

100

1
19

2
20

100

(Z)

100

1
13

1
11

Special dairy area and age of operator

Subregion 115
Total

L'uder 25 years

25 to 34 years

36 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 65 years

65 years and over

Subregion 116

Total..

Under 25 years

25 to 34 years.

35 to 44 years

46 to 54 years

56 to 65 years ,

66 years and over

Subregions 118 and 119

Total.

Under 26 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

65 to 66 years

65 years and over

Percent distribution for each economic class
of farm

Total

100

2
17
34

29
12
6

100

II III

100

8
24

26
25
16

Table 20. — Land Use on Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Special Dairy Areas: 1954

Special dairy area and item

Subregion 54

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres..

Cropland harvested .do

Cropland pastured do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured acres..

Total cropland do

Total pasture do

Percent of cropland harvested in —

Corn for all purposes percent.

Corn for grain ..do

Small grains do...

All hay do

Other crops do

Subregion 58

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres.

Cropland harvested -do

Cropland pastured do...

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured.. acres.

Total cropland..
Total pasture...

...do...
...do...

Percent of cropland harvested in —

Corn for all purposes percent.

Corn for grain do...

Small grains do...

All hay do...

Other crops do...

Economic class of farm

Total

III

6,681

25.':

848

1. 396

2,435

1,710

143

36.S

227

166

114

259

102

223

520

198

125

34 1

433

240

141

liii;

2, 7:io

431

996

96U

240

143

852

250

124

164

207

378

109

593

173

4
32

9
28

5
31

3
37

Special daily area and item

Subregions 73 and 82
Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres.

Cropland harvested.. do

Cropland pastured do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured acres.

Total cropland do

Total pasture do

Percent of cropland harvested in —
Com for all purposes percent-
Corn for grain do...

Sniall grains do...

All hay do--.

Other crops do.-

Subregion 112

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres .

Cropland harvested do

Cropland pastured do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured ...acres.

Total cropland..
Total pasture...

.do.
.do.

Percent of cropland harvested in —

Corn for all purposes percent.

Corn for grain do...

Small grains.. do...

.\11 hay do...

Other crops do...

Economic class of farm

Total

169
34
32

69
118

102
44
12

816
215
185

411

648

332
134
37

218
140

(Z)

364
119
73

199
222

176
87
21

116

III

263
76
62

134

159

121
55
15

,182

198
46
37

87
i:i4

153
26
29

5S
112

2,010

64 FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTON

Table 20. — Land Use on Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Special Dairy Areas: 1954 — Continued

Special dairy area and Item

Subregion 115

Number ot farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres..

Cropland harvested do

Cropland pastured.. ..do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured acres..

Total cropland do

Total pasture do

Percent of cropland harvested in —

Corn for all purposes percent..

Corn for grain. do

Small grains do

All hay do

Other crops do

Subregion 116

Number of farms...

Average per farm;

.Vll land in farms acres..

Cropland harvested do

Cropland pastured do

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured ..acres..

Total cropland ...do

Total pasture do

Total

1,101

183
32
28

65
124

7
(Z)
12
66
15

104
36
32

Economic class of farm

198
32
31

68
138

(Z)
14
63

346
127
97

238
190

II III IV

2,099

126
44
40

1,832

1. 125

2S
3
17

21
21

Special dairy area and item

Subregion 116 — Continaed

Percent of cropland harvested i in—

Corn fur all purposes percent.

Corn for grain do...

Small grains do...

All hay do...

Other crops do...

Subregions 118 and 119

Number of farms

Average per farm:

All land in farms acres.

Cropland harvested... do. . .

Cropland pastured do...

Cropland not harvested and not
pastured acres.

Total cropland dn...

Total pasture do...

Percent of cropland harvested in —

Com for all purposes percent.

Corn for grain do...

Small grains do...

All hay do...

Other crops do...

Total

12, 321

109
29
24

2
(Z)
17
74

Economic class of farm

366
101

195
196

II III IV

2,576

167
47
38

2
(Z)
15

3,252

103
27
25

(Z)

79
5

(Z)

2,567

1
(Z)

IS
75
6

40
10
6

18
19

Z Less than 0.5.

• Adds to more than 100 in Class VI due to double cropping.

Table 21. — Average Number of Livestock per Farm for Dairy Farms, by Economic Class of Farm, for Special Dairy

Areas: 1954

Special dairy area and item

Subregion 54

Number of farms

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves

Cows and heifers

Milk cows

Hogs and pigs

Chiclcens 4 months old and over..

Sheep and lambs ,,.

Ewes 1 year old and over

Subregion 58

Number of farms

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves

Cows and heifers

Milk cows

Hogs and pigs

Chickens 4 months old and over,.

Sheep and lambs

Ewes 1 year old and over

Subregions 73 and 82

Number of farms

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves

Cows and heifers

Milk cows

Hogs and pigs

Chickens 4 months old and over..

Sheep and lambs

Ewes 1 year old and over

Subregion 112

Number of farms.

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves

Cows and heifers

Milk cows

Hogs and pigs

Chickens 4 months old and over..

Sheep and lambs

Ewes 1 year old and over

Economic class of farm

Total

III

6,681

265

848

1,396

2,435

1,710

166

102

113

2,730

431

996

960

240

229

145

105

111

(Z)

23,017

616

1,962

5,182

8,988

6,330

150

101

(Z)

8,459

108

766

2,235

2,819

2,010

621

107

Special dairy area and item

Subregion 115
Number of farms.

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves.

Cows and heifers

Milk cows

Hogs and pigs

Chickens 4 months old and over.
Sheep and lambs.

Ewes 1 year old and over

Subregion 116

Number of farms

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves

Cows and heifers

MUk cows

Hogs and pigs

Chickens 4 months old and over.
Sheep and lambs

Ewes 1 year old and over

Subregions 118 and 119

Number of farms

Average number per farm:

All cattle and calves

Cows and heifers.

Milk cows

Hogs and pigs

Chickens 4 months old and over.

Sheep and lambs

Ewes 1 year old and over

Total

239
181
178

1
24

8,783

(Z)
(Z)

12, 321

Economic class of farm

269
198
196

1,088

231
133
130

132
84
81

n III IV

120
70
70

(Z)

47
28
28

(Z)

1
29
(Z)

1,832

18
18

1
25
(Z)
(Z)

1,125

20
11
11

(Z)

2;
(Z)
(Z)

2,567

(Z)

9
6
5

1
21

(Z)
(Z)

Z Less than 0.6.