(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

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

is 




Given By 



t 



3^ 



^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^ 



iJ 



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 

of 

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 



m 



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 



Q 

< 

z 

o 

3 

m 
D 

u 

§ 

o 
z 

o 
u 




TI 



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. 

(c) Crop and 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 



IX 



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- 



X 



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 



XI 



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 

49 



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 ^ 

2 



Page 

6 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

8 

11 

12 

12 

13 

14 

15 

15 

15 

16 



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. 



8 



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 

.4 


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 




.6 







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 

.8 


100.0 
62.5 
19.4 
13.1 

3.3 
1.3 

.6 


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 




I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


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. 



10 



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 



11 




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 


18 


East North Central 


35 


West North Central .. .. 


13 


South Atlantic 


6.2 


East South Central 


4.5 


West South Central 


4.3 


Mountain ,. 


3.7 


Pacific 


10.5 







12 



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 


ZO 





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 

.4 


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 



13 



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 

54 

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 

44 

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- 



14 



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 

18 

100 

2 

13 

24 

25 

27 

8 

1 

(Z) 


2S, (ini 
13 

100 


Under 5 

5 to 9 


6 
30 


10 to 14 


32 


15 to 19 


IS 


20 to 29 


12 


30 to 49 


2 


60 to 99 


(Z) 




(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 



15 



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





Major dairy region 






Eastern 










North- 


Ohio- 


Central 






Item 


eastern 


Western 


Michigan- 


Northern 


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 


157 


186 


Cropland har- 












vested., -acres. - 


70 


62 


87 


74 


57 


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 


24 


15 


18 


18 


13 


Animal units 


32 


24 


28 


30 


20 


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 


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 


1 


2 


3 


6 


24 


Percent of total 


(Z) 


1 


1 


3 


14 


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 

62 

4,837 

16 


40,636 

1.4 
.7 
.5 
.2 

66 

3,849 

11 


35,605 

1.3 

]3 
.3 

88 

5, 393 

14 


124, 501 
1.4 

.2 

66 

3,785 

13 


28,001 

1.3 

.5 
. 1 


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


59 

2,307 

10 



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. 



16 



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 


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 


90 


72 


83 


82 


62 


Power grinder 


8 


29 


25 


22 


20 


Electric pig brooder. 


1 


3 


4 


6 


2 


Farni tractors 


89 


86 


95 


94 


91 


Automobiles 


84 


82 


92 


93 


85 


Field forage harvest- 














17 
62 


12 
53 


23 
55 


20 
50 




Motortrucks ..- 


42 


Pickup balers 


35 


33 


34 


18 


17 


Grain combines... . 


13 


27 


50 


21 


14 


Corn pickers 


3 


21 


28 


17 


3 




83 


73 


79 


68 


52 


Electricity 


99 


96 


99 


97 


95 


Television 


59 


56 


66 


40 


22 


Piped running water. 


90 


82 


89 


70 


63 


Home freezer 


50 


51 


54 


42 


34 



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 


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 


100 


100 


100 


100 


Under 25 years 


2 


2 


2 


2 


1 


25 to 34 years 


13 


13 


13 


16 


12 


35 to 44 years 


23 


23 


24 


25 


24 


45 to 54 years 


25 


24 


24 


26 


23 


55 to 64 years. 


21 


21 


21 


20 


22 


65 years and over- 


16 


17 


16 


11 


18 



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 


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 


157 


186 


Cropland harvested 












acres.. 


70 


62 


87 


74 


57 


Total land pastured 












acres.. 


97 


59 


46 


59 


81 


Cropland pastured 












acres. . 


18 


12 


22 


15 


16 


Cropland not har- 












vested and not pas- 












tured acres. 


5 


4 


5 


3 


5 


Total cropland . do . . . 


93 


78 


114 


92 


78 


.\nimal tmits 


32 


24 


28 


30 


20 


Livestock, number- 












All cattle 


38 

24 

53 

1 


27 

15 

96 

6 


32 

18 

88 

6 


32 

18 

109 

13 


24 


Milk cows 


13 




38 


Hogs 


2 




1 


3 


2 


2 


2 


Percent of cropland 












harvested in— 












Corn for all purposes. 


12 


23 


28 


27 


11 


Corn for grain 


1 


17 


19 


14 


4 




12 

74 

2 


29 
45 
3 


31 

35 

6 


32 
38 
3 


21 


All hav 


65 




3 







DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



17 



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 


3 


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. 



18 



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 



19 



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 

13 

39 

16: 

7 



fi.922 



166 
98 



36, 282 
136 



30.500 

2.987 

48 



312 

822 
75 



34.773 



886 
421 



II HI IV 



12, 526 



14, 181 

98 



12,096 
944 
26 

81 

357 

11 



24,668 



7,163 

76 



6,175 

465 

14 

36 

143 

6 



374 
168 



1.30; 



163 

90 



19, 447 



3,809 
50 



3,273 

267 

7 

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 



21 

70 



> 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 


I 


II 


HI 


IV 


V 


VI 




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 


78 


49 


Hired labor.- 


do.... 


664 


7,023 


1.670 


500 


186 


83 


24 


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 


76 


Fertilizer ... 


do--.. 


191 


993 


409 


183 


86 


48 


24 


Lime 


do.... 

do... 


52 


255 
20.117 


109 


52 


24 


12 


11 


Total... 


3.726 


7. 268 


3.566 


1,963 


1,168 


614 


.\verage per crop acre: 
















Machine hire 


do.... 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


2 


1 


Hired labor 


do.... 


7 


26 


11 


5 


3 


2 


1 


Feed 


do.... 


25 


38 


30 


26 


19 


16 


10 


Oas and oil 


do.... 


4 


5 


4 


4 


3 


3 


2 


Fertilizer... 


do.... 


2 


4 


3 


2 


1 


1 


1 


Lime 


do.... 

do.... 


1 


1 


1 


1 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


Total 


40 

1 


75 


,50 


38 


28 


24 


15 



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 



VI 



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 



39 

15 

2.900 



107 



400 
10.29 



3,020 
10.19 



II III IV V VI 



47 



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, 



20 



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 



21 



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 

39 

249 

II 



307 
70 



426 



34, 271 

95 



22,428 
3, 733 
3,750 

102 
560 



30, 713 



3,063 
605 



3,658 



10,648 



13,002 

78 



8,184 
1,267 
1,731 



11,794 



1,008 
200 



1,208 



41, 26f) 



6,918 
63 



4, 647 
696 
605 

51 

344 

13 



6,428 



46, 789 

3,764 
48 

71 



2, fi,M 
417 
232 

28 

197 

8 



174 
46 



20,843 



1.924 
36 



1,387 

244 

74 

15 

98 

5 



1,829 



VI 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


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) 


1 

13 
14 
4 
3 
(Z) 


1 
5 
12 
4 
2 
(Z) 


2 
2 
11 
4 
2 
(Z) 


2 

1 
8 
4 
1 
(Z) 


2 
I 
7 
3 

1 
(Z) 


1 
(Z) 

6 
2 

(Z) 

(Z) 


Total.- do.... 


19 


35 


24 


21 


16 


14 


a 



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-. 



22 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Number of farms — 

Fertilizer: 


124, 501 

66 
3 

34 

2U0 
6.03 

23 

14 

3,649 
5.53 


425 

99 
19 

175 

213 
6.80 

38 

52 

4,153 
4.83 


10, 548 

91 

7 

70 

201 
6.45 

39 

22 

3,934 
5.33 


41, 266 

79 

4 

37 

197 
6.90 

30 

14 

3,631 
5.52 


46, 789 
63 

22 

198 
5.89 

20 

11 

3,468 
.5.82 


20,843 
42 

16 

202 
5.78 

12 

9 

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 


11 


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 



23 



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 

71 

252 

18 



4.785 



647 
57 



30. 716 
120 



23, 219 
2. 521 
1,082 

1.52 

608 

46 



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 



37 

16 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


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 


93 


37 


Hired labor 


...dO-.-- 


370 


4,948 


1,382 


395 


161 


73 


30 


Feed. 


do---- 


1.241 


5. 016 


2.891 


1. 586 


926 


545 


224 


CJas and oil... 


do.-.. 


340 


1.391 


714 


431 


279 


160 


63 


Fertilizer 


do...- 


287 


1,477 


702 


362 


203 


122 


49 


Lime 


do... 

do.-.. 


77 


256 


171 


100 


58 


36 


IB 


Total - - . 


2. 4.54 


13,2.36 


6. 065 


3.049 


1,762 


1,028 


419 


.\verage per crop acre: 
















Machine hire. 


do.... 


2 


1 


1 


2 





o 


I 


Hired labor 


do.... 


5 


19 


9 


4 


9 


9 


1 


Feed 


do.... 


16 


20 


20 


17 


14 


11 




Gas and oil 


do... 


4 


5 


5 


5 


4 


3 


■1 


Fertilizer 


do -.- 


4 


6 


5 


4 


3 


3 


1 


Lime. 


do-- - 

do---. 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


(Z) 


Total 


32 


52 


41 


33 


26 


22 


13 



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 



VI 



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 



53 

12 

3,487 



308 
8.02 



3,132 
8.29 



3,541 



60 
2 



317 
7.56 



2, 856 
6. 78 



24 



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 



25 



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 

62 

202 

18 



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 

66 



9,317 

1,057 

560 

93 
333 

29 



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 

84 

32 
140 



3,168 



566 
67 



632 



1,909 
32 



1,220 

234 

64 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


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 


62 


Hired labor 


do.... 


468 


5,799 


1,124 


347 


126 


66 


16 


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 


64 


Lime 


do..-. 

do.... 


25 
2.517 


160 


54 


24 


12 


7 


2 


Total 


14, 152 


4,841 


2,492 


1,411 


853 


439 


Average per crop acre: 
















Machine hire... 


do.— 


2 


1 


1 


2 


2 


2 


1 


Hited labor 


do.... 


4 


17 


6 


3 


1 


1 


(Z) 


Feed . . 


do.... 


9 


14 


11 


9 


8 


7 


6 


Gas and oil _ 


do.... 


4 


5 


4 


4 


3 


3 


2 


Fertilizer 


do.— 


3 


4 


4 


3 


2 


2 


1 


Lime 


do.... 

do— - 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


CZ) 

16 


(Z) 


Total 


22 


41 


26 


21 


16 


9 



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 



VI 



1,600 

836 
439 

397 

929 



11.400 
12, 667 
1,425 



30 



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 



26 



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 



27 



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 

32 

56 

395 

228 



70 



,017 
152 



7.169 



11 III IV 



12, 496 
64 



8,482 
1,353 
286 
142 
266 
65 

29 



10, 613 



1,408 
474 



3,294 



6,545 
53 



4,877 
760 
150 

25 
139 

22 

13 



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 

36 

10 

42 



VI 



4,005 



831 
19 



675 
141 
12 

5 
■23 

3 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




28.001 


32 


385 


3,294 


9.465 


10,820 


4,005 


Average per farm: 














Machine hne. 


...dollars,. 


89 


178 


128 


134 


109 


74 


43 


Hired labor 


do.... 


113 


4.402 


1,252 


318 


96 


40 


21 


Feed 


do.... 


461 


4,622 


1,708 


947 


533 


303 


102 


Gas and oil 


do.... 


242 


1,449 


748 


443 


276 


184 


96 


Fertilizer 


do.... 


78 


1,061 


511 


206 


88 


.34 


16 


Lime 


do.... 

do.... 


13 


336 


62 


31 


16 





2 


Total 


996 


12, 048 


4,410 


2.079 


1,117 


647 


339 


Average per crop acre: 
















Machine hire 


.do.... 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Hired labor 


do.... 


1 


16 


6 


3 


1 


1 


fZ) 


Feed 


do.... 


6 


16 


9 


8 


6 


5 


4 


Gas and oil 


do..-. 


3 


5 


4 


4 


3 


3 




FertUizer 


do.... 


1 


4 


3 


2 


1 


1 


f/1 


Lime... 


do...- 

do--.. 


(Z) 


1 


(Z) 


(Z) 


CZ) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


Total - 


12 


42 


23 


18 


12 


» 


7 



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 



16 

12 

3,090 
6.84 



II III IV 



32 



20 



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 



16 



231 
6.62 



3,602 
6.21 



21 
1 



216 
6.45 



3,343 
5.40 



28 



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 

54 

68 

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 


73 

66 
37 
53 

78 
69 
80 
49 


18 

29 

48 

7 

34 
56 
56 
26 


35 

34 
20 
45 

25 

5 

21 

31 


23 

1 
fi 
9 

4 
23 

13 


8 

21 
16 
31 

16 

9 
13 


10 

14 

7 
7 

22 

5 
7 
10 


5 


Nashville Ba^in 

GuIfCoastal 


1 
4 


Ozark-Springfield 


1 


Snake River-Utah Valley. . .... 







s 


California Inner VaUey. - - . _ 







7 







DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



29 



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, 

16 

54 

58 

73 

82 

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 


86 

62 
82 

73 
66 
71 

.52 
97 
88 

91 
74 
84 


14 

38 


(lull Coastiil 


18 


Ozark -Springfield 

Ozark-Springfield 


34 

29 


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 

15 


(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 

48 


6,081 

143 

36 

3,126 

11,198 
2,468 
2,065 

15,721 

1.3 
15 
23 


2,730 

143 

26 

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 

44 

5, 185 

22, 233 
4,046 
3, 293 

29, .572 

1.1 

15 
25 


1,101 

183 

32 

107, 035 

102,933 

6,464 

27, 105 

136, 502 

.5.6 
178 
210 


8. 7S3 

104 

36 

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.... 

do.... 

do--. 


1119 

29 

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. 



30 



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 

9 

31 

25 

12 

13 

8 

2 

(Z) 


100 

1 

3 

5 

15 

30 

34 

11 

1 


100 
10 
35 
28 
13 
10 
3 
1 
(Z) 


100 

6 

30 

27 

15 

14 

6 

2 

(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 

1 


139 

138 

1 


198 
198 
(Z) 


150 
149 

1 


245 

243 

2 


548 
548 
(Z) 


273 
273 
(Z) 


288 

283 

S 


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 



31 



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 

68 

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) 

1 

1 


Ozark-Spriiigfleld _ 


1 


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 


14 

8 
8 


14 

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) 



82 

12 

1 

85 
87 

11 

63 
13 



36 

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 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 






Under 25 years... 

25 to 34 years 


3 
15 
23 
23 
21 
15 


1 
9 
23 
24 
23 
20 


1 
19 

26 

31 

15 

8 


1 
12 
22 
26 
24 
15 


1 

13 
26 
25 
21 
14 


2 
16 
32 
27 
16 

8 


1 

17 
28 
27 
18 
9 


1 
12 






45 to 54 years . . 


25 




23 


65 years and over ... 


16 







32 



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... 

do... 

do... 

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 

94 

48 



3« 
25 

e 

129 
1 



Nashville 
Basin (Sub- 
region 64) 



6,681 



143 
36 
33 

4 

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 

44 

12 

5 

61 
43 



Southern 

California 

(Subregion 

116) 



1,101 



183 

32 

28 

5 

65 
124 



239 
178 

1 
24 

2 



(Z) 



California 

Inner Valley 

(Subregion 

116) 



.S, 783 



104 

36 

32 

4 

72 

58 



(Z) 



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



(Z) 



109 
29 
24 
2 

65 
56 



36 
21 

1 
39 

2 



17 

74 

7 



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) 

13 


6,681 

1.3 
.8 
.3 
.2 

66 

2,406 

12 


2,730 

1.5 
.8 
.4 
.3 

39 

4,693 

21 


23,017 

1.3 
.8 
.4 
.1 

53 

1,996 

9 


8,459 

1.1 
.7 
.3 
.1 

66 

4,714 

14 


1,101 

5.6 
.9 
.2 

4.5 

12 

19, 113 

32 


8,783 

1.7 
.8 
.4 
.5 

42 

8,126 

24 


12.321 




1.3 




.7 




.4 




.2 


Average per man-equivalent: 

Cropland, total 

Total sales 

Milk cows 


acres.. 

dollars.. 

number.. 


42 

6,595 

16 



NA Not available. 



DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



33 



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. 



34 



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 



IV 



4,586 



435 
765 
236 
824 
345 
360 
35 
1.586 



1,721 



140 

325 

81 

315 

150 

95 

25 

590 



VI 



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 

53 



II m IV 



,161 
178 
113 
90 
21 



,649 
131 
81 
65 
14 



4,586 

101 

68 

44 

11 



1,721 
82 
44 
30 
10 



VI 



306 
72 
36 
22 
10 



4 

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 

18 



40, 192 



9,161 

7,646 

11,756 
986 
155 

196 

682 

6 



8,649 

6,446 

5,668 
491 
119 

84 

316 

4 



6,686 



4,586 

6,267 

3,019 
319 

67 

44 

151 

3 



3.606 



1,721 
4,423 

!,■ 

182 
34 

30 
77 



1,826 



VI 



306 

2,675 

663 

109 

16 

6 

41 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




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 


63 


Hired labor 


do... 


1.348 


8,182 


1.674 


656 


273 


131 


54 


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 


HI 


61 


Lime 


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


66 


211 


88 


44 


29 


22 


6 


Total 


6,864 


22, 113 


7,427 


3,955 


2,448 


1,385 


816 


Average per crop acre: 
















Machine hire 


do.... 


2 


1 


2 


2 


3 


2 


1 


Hired labor 


do.... 


14 


38 


16 


7 


5 


3 


2 


Feed 


....do.... 


36 


60 


37 


29 


26 


19 


16 


Gas and oil 


do.... 


5 


6 


6 


6 


5 


4 


4 


Fertilizer 


....do... 


6 


7 


6 


5 


3 


3 


1 


Lime 


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


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


(Z) 


Total 


62 


103 


67 


49 


43 


32 


23 



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 



35 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Number of farms - .. . 


26, 073 

88.0 
1 

56 

396 
10 

42.6 

20 

2,351 


1, 651 

91 3 
31 

133 

462 
11 

63.2 

40 

2,303 
8 


9,161 

93.9 
14 

68 

405 
10 

51.8 
21 

2,331 

8 


8,649 

89.8 
8 

44 

360 
10 

39 2 

16 

2,364 
7 


4,586 

80.9 
5 

28 

349 
9 

32.0 
12 

2,508 

7 


1,721 

70.3 
3 

19 

343 

8 

23.5 
14 

2,429 

7 


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.. 


7 



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. 



36 



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 



66 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




6,681 

77 
222 
754 
163 
121 
4 


37 

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


255 

2.56 

1,499 

3,338 

682 

466 

17 


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 


3 

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... 


17 


25 


30 


24 


14 


11 


9 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Number of farms . . 


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

15, 721 
12, 093 

507 

1 

139 
3,979 


37 

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 

1 

122 
3,939 


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

11, 376 

10, 342 

632 

1 

101 
3,276 


1,710 
775 
321 

454 
775 

6,526 

6,526 

816 

4 


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 


77 


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 



37 



100 
41 



204 



404 
9.30 



7,196 
9.95 



II III IV V VI 



87 



285 
6.38 



3.483 
4.33 



82 



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 



13 



259 
6.36 



(Z) 



800 
1.00 



Z Less than 0.6. 



DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



37 



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. 



38 



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 



82 



33,041 

2,775 

489 

54 
392 
181 

109 



II III IV 



431 



14,028 
128 



12, 586 
748 
100 

12 
77 

8 



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 



82 



1,619 

213 

33 



VI 



813 
30 



82 



666 

103 

4 



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 


I 


II 


HI 


IV 


V 


VI 




2,730 


63 


431 


996 


960 


240 


60 






Average per farm; 

Machine hire ..dollars.. 

Hired labor do 

Feed do 

Gas and oil do 

Fertilizer -do 

Lime do 


80 

502 

2,846 

266 

381 

36 


238 

6,458 

10,822 

1,614 

2.763 

197 


163 

1,468 

5,206 

601 

734 

64 


78 

286 

2,969 

226 

332 

38 


48 
99 
1,778 
145 
217 
18 


43 

62 

1,077 

91 

146 

14 


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 


9 

49 

6 

7 


17 

29 

4 

7 


13 

48 
6 

7 


6 

62 

5 


3 

48 
4 
6 


2 

39 

3 

5 


1 

21 

1 

3 


















Total do... 


70 


67 


74 


80 


61 


49 


26 



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 


1 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Number of farms 


63 

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 

12, 282 

614 


60 


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 



39 



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 

nn 

32 
69 
10 



2, 40: 



!88 



34,233 
83 



25, 8.32 
3, 422 
2, 175 

26 

54 

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 

32 



276 



1,771 
31 

68 

1,212 

304 

68 

16 

5I' 



1,672 



6, 330 



19 

68 

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. 



40 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Number of farms . . 


23,017 

90 
84 
1,001 
135 
l.M 
6 


39 

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 

77 

1,266 

187 

216 

8 


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 

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.... 


20 


44 


34 


20 


21 


19 


14 



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 

37 



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 



VI 



6,330 



44 
2 



207 
5.50 



3 
16 



2,826 
4.40 



DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



41 



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. 



42 



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 

24 

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 

93 

121 
140 
38 



U, 660 



1,664 
260 



1,914 



2,235 



,927 
94 



67 



2,819 



3,688 
63 



66 



4,664 
794 

78 

21 
121 
33 



5,728 



1,058 
141 



1,199 



2,432 
491 
48 

14 
71 
13 



561 
47 



1,846 
60 



72 



1,327 

256 

25 



1,669 



157 
20 



807 
36 



611 

116 

5 

3 

16 
5 



44 
3 



47 



' 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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




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 

48 

429 

145 

20 

(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) 


23 

24 

6 

2 


12 
19 
6 
2 


4 
14 
6 
2 


2 
9 
5 

1 


2 
14 
5 
1 
(Z) 


2 

11 
4 
1 














Total do 


25 


65 


39 


26 


17 


22 


18 



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 



VI 

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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




8,459 

38 
3 

216 

23 

280 
9.22 

(Z) 
1 

6 
6 

333 

1.00 


108 

77 
9 

690 

65 

277 
9.13 


766 

68 
6 

386 

38 

321 
10.20 


2,235 

63 
3 

219 

24 

267 
9.09 


2,819 

34 
2 

148 

16 

266 
8.96 


2,010 

19 
1 

106 

14 

215 
7.74 

(Z) 
1 

6 
6 

333 

1.00 


621 


Fertilizer; 
Percent of farms using . 


20 


Tons used per farm reporting 

Cost of fertilizer per farm report- 
ing dollars.. 

Acres upon which used per farm 


1 

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 



43 



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. 



44 



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 


33 


100.0 








1,884 
78 
276 
749 


2.6 
33.3 
74.8 
232.3 


2,589 

285, 860 

731, 417 

2, 606, 997 


13 



102 

61 


.2 




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 


I 


If 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




1,101 

107, 035 
1, 630 

91 

97. 351 

7,782 

19 

58 

162 

13 

6 


974 

119, 305 
1,751 

91 

108. 696 

8,630 

15 

63 

181 

14 

6 


64 

22, 134 
367 

85 

18,884 

2.071 

117 

56 
36 


43 

8,197 
276 

90 

7,390 
721 


20 

3,857 
83 

85 

3,284 
560 


10 

1,740 
48 

44 

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 -. 




13 






Eggs do 






Sheep do 










Other livestock and livestock 
products dollars.. 


18 




















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 


79 

7 








Other crops! do 




72 




Total crops do 


1,643 


1,800 


852 


86 




72 




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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Number of farms 


1,101 

259 

15, 096 

47, 983 

987 

158 

(Z) 


974 

227 

16, 946 

63, 692 

1. 0.53 

168 

(Z) 


54 

416 

1,603 

7,812 

824 

156 


43 

659 

612 

3,827 

217 

43 


20 

29 

126 

1,534 

229 


10 

1,295 

15 

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.... 

..--do... 

--..do-.-- 




Lime 




















Total 

.Average per crop acre: 

Machine hire 

Hired labor 

Feed 

Gas and oil 

Fertilizer 


64,483 

4 

230 

731 

15 

2 

(Z) 


71.986 

3 

249 

786 

15 

2 

(Z) 


10,810 

7 
26 
126 
13 

2 


5,358 

22 

20 

128 

7 

1 


1,917 

1 

3 

33 

5 


2,966 

36 
(Z) 
37 
9 
























Total 


982 


1,055 


174 


178 


42 


82 





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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




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 


10 

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 



45 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




1,101 

14 
18 

80 

460 
13.64 

(Z) 

17 

1,020 
3.39 


974 

13 
22 

89 

490 
14.29 

(Z) 

17 

1,020 
3.39 


54 

43 

4 

60 

177 
7.29 


43 

16 
3 

19 

281 
13.60 


20 


10 




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. 



46 



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 

17 

29 
88 
15 

4 



12, 579 



1,065 
170 



1,235 



56, 723 
239 



45, 464 

4,033 

24 

160 
392 



50, 086 



6,087 
550 



6,637 



II III IV 



15,574 
176 



12, 946 

1,290 

31 

13 
102 
62 



14, 442 



905 
227 



1,132 



', 097 
163 



I, 996 

678 

10 

11 

25 
'4 



6,726 



255 
116 



371 



3,797 
130 



3,190 

408 

14 



1,125 



1, 05i 
113 



1,621 
241 



(Z) 



VI 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


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 


98 


43 


Hired labor 


....do.... 


1,455 


8,573 


1,164 


274 


151 


42 


18 


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 


66 


Fertilizer ..- 


....do.... 


72 


309 


72 


41 


13 


11 


3 


Lime 


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


3 


15 


1 


2 


1 


2 




Total 


6,075 


26, 719 


6,067 


2,814 


1,782 


1,072 


016 


Average per crop acre: 


















Machine hire... 


....do.... 


5 


5 


5 


6 


6 


6 


2 


Hired labor 


....do... 


20 


36 


13 


6 


5 


2 


1 


Feed 


....do... 


60 


62 


42 


43 


42 


45 


23 


Gas and oil... 


....do.... 


8 


8 


7 


8 


8 


8 


3 


Fertilizer 


....do-... 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


(Z) 


Lime 


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


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(Z) 




Total 


84 


112 


68 


65 


61 


62 


29 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




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 

26,426 

695 

1 

181 
5,852 


1,125 
1.953 
1,072 
881 
2,170 

18,819 

23,624 

941 

1 

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 


98 


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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




8,783 

22 
6 

40 

314 
8.22 

1 

28 

2,251 
9.32 


1,088 

42 
14 

89 

326 
8.31 

3 

62 

2,330 
9.26 


2,099 

27 
5 

34 

302 
7.91 

1 

16 

1,021 
4.83 


2,484 

21 
3 

22 

316 
8.76 

1 

20 

2,861 
9.71 


1,832 

16 
2 

16 

266 
7.11 

1 

8 

1,676 
8,70 


1,126 

8 
3 

16 

343 

8.98 

1 

17 

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 



47 



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. 



48 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




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 


86 


63 


46 


Percent of gross sales from dairy 




















91 


84 


87 


87 


79 


74 


76 


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.... 


29 


47 


49 


18 


33 


22 


8 


Poultry products except eggs 


















dollars.. 


21 


18 


40 


21 


18 


12 


4 


Eggs -.- 


uo 


119 


231 


172 


156 


101 


.54 


29 


Sheep 


.....do.... 


15 


83 


16 


20 


7 


10 


2 


Other livestock and 


livestock 
















products 


..dollars., 
and live- 


9 


45 


12 


7 


" 


7 


3 


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 


HI 


109 


45 


18 


Other crops ' 


....do.... 
....do.— 


131 

298 


850 
2,060 


317 


80 


40 


38 


17 


Total crops 


638 


191 


149 


83 


35 



» 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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




12, 321 


372 


2.676 


3,252 


2,564 


2,667 


990 


Average per farm: 


















Machine hire. .. 


-.. dollars. - 


145 


411 


246 


149 


113 


76 


35 


Hired labor 


do.-.. 


543 


5, 804 


1,122 


312 


138 


93 


33 


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 


60 


FertUizer 


do.... 


114 


486 


247 


102 


64 


28 


9 


Lime. 


do.... 

do.-.. 


17 
3,190 


71 


35 


14 


9 


7 


2 


Total- 


16, 066 


6,167 


3,091 


1,700 


975 


645 


Average per crop acre: 














Machine hire...-.-. 


do.... 


3 


2 


3 


a 


3 


3 


2 


Hired labor-- 


do.... 


10 


30 


13 


6 


3 


3 


2 


Feed 


do.... 


38 


42 


45 


41 


28 


23 


24 


Qas and oil 


do.... 


5 


6 


6 


6 


6 


4 


4 


Fertilizer- 


do.... 


2 


2 


a 


2 


2 


1 


1 


Lime 


do.... 

do.... 


(Z) 


(Z) 


(/) 


(Z) 


(Z) 


cz; 


m 


Total- 


68 


82 


70 


57 


41 


34 


33 



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 



VI 



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 



VI 



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 

.2 

143.3 

380.2 
210.5 
177.6 


25.5 

108.9 

.8 

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 

12 

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. 

51 



52 



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 
100.0 


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 


1 


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 

.9 

77.2 

130.6 


14.7 
26.6 
3.6 


12.1 


2.6 








6.6 








3 8 












2.3 

37.1 

6.6 

.7 

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 . — -- - 










4 






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 


.8 




■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 . - - - - 




_j 






2.2 
71.3 
118.0 


.5 






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 


oa 

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 

.2 

.1 


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 




.3 

71.3 

366.3 

.1 

.1 


.6 






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 



53 



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 


Dollars 


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 


I 


II 


in 


IV 


V 


VI 


Norlheastern Dairy Region 
Farms with — 

Under 6 cows 


(Z) 


2 
9 
16 
19 
29 
20 
6 






(Z) 


1 

2^ 
48 
23 

1 


1 
10 
32 
32 
23 
2 
(Z) 


6 
44 
34 

'f 

1 


32 
45 


6to9cows 




(Z) 
(Z) 


1 

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 

4 


(Z) 
(Z) 


100 

3 

23 
35 
34 

4 


100 

1 

22 
47 
22 
8 
1 
(Z) 


100 

7 

66 

29 

6 

1 

(Z) 


100 


Eastern Ohio- Western Pennsylvania Dairy Region 

Farms with— 

Under 5 cows 


5 to 9 cows 




61 


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 

2 


100 
1 


(Z) 
(Z) 


100 

1 
2 
9 

37 

44 

7 


(Z) 

(Z) 


100 

3 
23 
33 
35 

6 


100 

1 

26 

46 

20 

7 

1 


100 

9 
61 
26 

4 

1 


100 
42 


Central Michigan-New York Lake Shore Dairy Region 

Farms with — 

Under 5 cows 


5 to 9 cows 


10 to 14 cows 


4 

4 

6 

31 




15 to 19 cows 


1 


20 to 29 cows 


(Z) 


30 to 49 cows 


50 to 99 cows 






100 cows and over 


















Total 


(Z) 


100 

2 

13 
24 
26 
27 

8 

1 


100 


(Z) 
CZ) 

(Z) 


100 

2 
5 
38 
47 
7 


(Z) 
(Z) 


100 

1 

8 
28 
52 
11 


100 

(Z) 

9 

37 

37 

17 

1 

(Z) 


100 

4 
43 
41 
10 

2 
(Z) 


100 


Northern Lake Dairy Region 
Farms with— 

Under 5 cows. . . 


6 to 9 cows 




55 


10 to 14 cows.. 


4 
5 
1 
20 
56 
14 


13 


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 

2 


100 


100 

1 

3 
3 
18 
35 
29 
10 
1 


(Z) 


100 

1 

11 
27 
48 
12 


100 

1 

9 

42 

33 

14 

1 


100 

4 
46 

40 
9 
1 
(Z) 


100 
30 


Northern Woods Dairy Region 
Under 6 cows 






69 


10 to 14 COWS-. 




g 






1 


20 to 29 cows 


16 
47 
34 
3 


1 


30 to 49 COWS-.. 




50 to 99 cows 






















Total 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 







Z Le-ss than 0.5 percent. 



54 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Subregion 54 
Farms with — 

Under Scows 


9 
31 
25 
12 
13 
8 
2 
(Z) 




2 




1 
5 
30 
28 
28 
8 
(Z) 


3 
41 
42 
9 
6 


30 

57 
10 
2 

1 


5 to 9 cows 




3 

3 

14 

42 

33 

5 

(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 

1 


100 


100 


100 


100 

1 

1 
6 
31 
37 
22 
2 


100 

2 
21 
15 
29 
25 

8 




Subregion 58 
Farms with— 

Under 5 cows... 


100 

10 
40 
30 


5 to 9 cows 








10 to 14 cows _ 






3 

5 

34 

61 

8 


15 to 19 cows 










13 

41 

44 

2 


20 


30 to 49 cows 




50 to 99 cows 


65 
45 




















Total 


100 

10 
35 
28 
13 

10 
3 

1 
(Z) 


100 
13 


100 


100 

I 

2 
12 
22 
42 
19 

2 


100 

2 
12 
39 
26 
19 

2 

(Z) 


100 

5 
43 
35 
13 
4 
(Z) 




Subreitiona 73 and 82 
Under 5 cows 


29 






I 
3 
11 
26 
41 
16 
2 


64 

14 

2 

1 

(Z) 


10 to 14 cows 








20 to 29 cows 

60 to 99 cows.. 


13 

15 
41 

18 


100 cows and over_.. 
















Total... 

Subregion 112 

Farms with— 


100 

6 
30 
27 
16 
14 
6 
2 
fZ) 


100 


100 


100 


100 

1 

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 . 


6 


4 
9 
37 
40 
9 


20 to 29 cows .. 


16 
16 
53 
12 


1 


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 


100 


100 


100 


100 

50 
60 


100 


6 to 9 cows 












10 to 14 cows 




1 




25 
25 
60 








23 
37 






20 to 29 cows 




19 
19 
54 
7 








2 
22 
76 






50 to 99 cows 


40 


























Total . . 


100 

3 
8 
12 
10 
18 
24 
18 
7 


100 


100 
(Z) 


100 

1 

1 

5 

11 

37 

41 

4 

(Z) 


100 

4 

7 

28 

26 

27 

7 

1 


100 

7 
40 
34 
12 

4 

1 




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 

I 

(Z) 
(Z) 

4 
22 


100 

1 

2 

9 

22 

49 


100 

3 

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 








1 

3 

15 

56 

22 


1 


20 to 29 cows 


30 to 49 cows 


1 


50 to 99 cows 


16 (Z) 
1 (Z) 
















Total 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 





Z Less than 0.6 percent. 



t>AlRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



55 



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 

4f 



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 

50 



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 

61 

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 

35 



13, 764 
8,839 



2, 967 
1.958 



1.0 
9 

16 



16.031 
10, 913 



3.414 
1.704 



9. 347 
6. 035 

1,757 
I, 665 

0.9 
7 
10 



3,541 



94 

21 



8.608 
5. 647 



1. 627 
1.234 



72 
23 



11.400 
8, 064 



2, 260 
1,090 



n 



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 

56 

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 

10 



.3 
4.3 



6.3 
50 



6,846 
14 



.5 
3.1 



4.4 

58 



3.1 



4.2 
82 



1,250 
14 



.6 
3.2 



4.5 
80 



7,616 
15 



,8 

.4 

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 

16 

385 

1.4 

.8 
.6 



2.3 
85 



5,433 
13 



24, 658 

1.2 
.8 
.4 
.3 

1.5 
03 

4, 775 

1 



12, 439 



1.2 
.8 
.4 
.3 



63 

4,660 

12 



12, 068 

1.2 
.8 
.4 
.2 

1.4 
86 

5,120 

14 



1.6 

68 



4.324 
14 



3. 29t 



1.4 
.8 



4,091 
13 



1. 1 

62 



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 

8 



.9 
.0 

(Z)' 

.9 
67 

2,121 

9 



1. 1 

.8 
.3 

(Z) 

I. 1 
50 

1,749 

9 



1.2 
.7 
.5 

(Z) 

1.2 
S3 

1,541 

8 



Z Less than 0.5. 



56 



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) 

(Z) 

(Z) 
1 
1 



1 

1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

1 
1 



1 

2 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

1 

1 

1 



1 

2 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

1 

1 



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 

(Z) 

(Z) 

1 
1 



(Z 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

1 

1 



1 

2 
1 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

1 
1 



1 

2 

1 

(Z) 

cz> 

(Z) 

1 
I 
1 



1 

2 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

I 

1 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 
Z) 
(Z) 

1 
1 



1 
1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

1 

1 



1 
1 
1 

(Z) 
Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

1 
1 



1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

1 
1 



71 

44 

2 

7 

(Z) 

3 

4 

69 



1 

1 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

1 

1 



VI 



(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 



03 

47 

27 

1 

3 

1 

1 



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) 


m 


1 


1 


1 


1 


89 


78 


87 


65 


2K 


19 


3 


1 


(i 


2 


4 


2 



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 


I 


n 


III 


rv 


V 


VI 


Northern Woods Dairy Region 

Average number per farm: 


1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

1 

1 

85 
91 
42 

7 
17 

3 
14 
20 
62 


2 
3 
2 

(Z) 

100 
100 
100 
84 
69 
16 
69 
53 
100 


2 

2 

1 

(Z) 

1 

(Z) 

(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 


1 


Tractors... . 


1 




(Z) 
(Z) 


Field forage harvesters 




Cora pickers 




Power feed grinders 




1 


Percent of farms reporting: 
Automobiles 


74 




72 


Motortrucks 


26 


Field forage harvesters 


(Z) 

4 






1 


Grain combmes 


3 
9 




17 







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 



IV 



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 



VI 



100 

1 

4 

8 

16 

24 

47 



100 



4 

10 
18 
24 
44 



100 

1 

2 

6 

12 

26 

66 



100 
2 
6 
9 
16 
31 
37 



100 

1 

4 

10 

17 

29 



DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



57 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


67.521 


1,215 


12,525 


24, 658 


19,447 


7, 965 


1,711 


2IS 


366 


323 


222 


167 


131 


116 


70 


197 


110 


72 


51 


35 


27 


18 


an 


30 


17 


13 


10 


9 


5 


9 


5 


5 


5 


5 


7 


93 


266 


14.'-. 


94 


69 


50 


43 


97 


220 


140 


ino 


76 


60 


49 


12 

1 


16 
2 


14 


12 

I 


9 

1 


6 
1 


6 
2 


12 


11 


13 


12 


10 


8 


10 


74 


72 


70 


73 


79 


82 


.83 


2 


1 


3 


3 


' 


4 


1 


40, 636 


258 


4, 432 


12, 439 


12,911 


7,055 


3,541 


1S3 


466 


243 


172 


133 


115 


94 


62 


198 


122 


76 


51 


35 


21 


12 


50 


19 


14 


10 


9 


7 


4 


7 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


78 


265 


146 


94 


66 


48 


32 


59 


163 


78 


62 


53 


54 


51 


23 


26 


25 


24 


22 


21 


18 


17 


17 


IS 


17 


17 


17 


16 


29 


27 


29 


32 


2.' 


24 


16 


46 


45 


43 


43 


46 


62 


63 


3 


2 


3 


1 


4 


3 


3 


35, 605 


551 


6,926 


12,068 


9,280 


5,175 


1,600 


167 


457 


243 


162 


118 


94 


72 


87 


274 


148 


92 


61 


39 


23 


22 


59 


33 


23 


18 


15 


15 


6 


10 


5 


5 


5 


6 


5 



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' 

58 



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 



43 



21) 
16 
24 

51 
6 



95 
29 

7 



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 




Et 


onomic class of farm 






Total 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Total 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Northeastern Dairy Region 

■Mnmhpr of farms 


67, 521 

38 
24 
24 

1 
53 

1 

1 

40, 636 

27 
16 
15 

6 
96 

3 

35,605 

32 
18 
18 


1,215 

121 

76 
75 

2 

165 

3 

258 

102 
56 
55 

24 
183 

7 
4 

651 

109 

59 
59 


12, 625 

63 
39 
39 

1 

100 

1 

1 

4,432 

52 
29 
29 

12 

187 

3 
2 

6,925 

55 
31 

31 


24,658 

39 
25 
24 

1 

52 

1 
1 

12.439 

32 
19 

18 

7 
123 

3 

2 

12, 008 

33 
19 

19 


19, 447 

26 
16 
16 

1 
31 

1 

(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 

3 

2 

5,176 

15 

8 
8 


1,711 

12 
7 

7 

1 

21 

1 
(Z) 

3,541 

10 
6 
6 

3 

42 

2 

1 

1, 600 

9 
6 
5 


Central Michigan-New York Lake 
Shore Dairy Region — Continued 

Average number per farm— Con. 


6 

SS 

2 

1 

124, 501 

32 
18 
18 

13 
109 

2 
1 

28, 001 

24 
13 
13 

38 

2 

1 


28 
123 

6 

4 

425 

132 
70 
69 

69 

200 

12 

8 

32 

109 
55 
50 

4 
102 

24 
14 


14 
115 

4 
2 

10, 548 

57 
32 
31 

35 

175 

3 

385 

60 
30 
29 

6 
79 

9 
6 


6 
101 

3 
2 

41, 266 

39 

22 

18 
138 

2 
1 

3,294 

12 
22 
21 

4 
62 

4 
2 


3 

75 

1 

1 

46, 789 

27 
15 
15 

9 
96 

1 

1 

9,465 

28 
15 
IS 

3 

42 

2 
1 


55 

I 
(Z) 

20,843 
18 

in 

10 

4 
60 

1 
1 

10,820 

19 
10 
10 

2 
31 

2 
1 






2 




Chickens 4 months old and over.. 


38 








1 




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: 


11 






6 






6 






r, 


All cattle and calves. . 


Chickens 4 months old and over... 


39 








1 




Ewes 1 year old and over 

Northern Woods Dairy Region 

Number of farms - 


1 


Chickens 4 months old and over... 


4,005 




Average number per farm: 
\1I cattle and calves . 




Ewes 1 year old and over 


12 






6 






6 


Number of farms 








1 


.\verage niunber per farm; 
.Ml cattle and calves 


Chickens 4 months old and over... 
Sheep and lambs 


24 


Cows and heifers 


1 




Ewes 1 year old and over 


<■/.) 







1 Less than 0.5. 



58 



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 

1 



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 

1 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

3.24 



245 

7,218 

243 

2 



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 

5 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

4.10 



257 

7,407 

257 



6.5 
6.6 
6.5 



316 

4,858 
314 

1 



10.3 

8.6 

10.3 

60.0 

B.48 



384 

9,468 

384 



2.4 
1.9 
2.4 



414 

7, 560 

410 

4 



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 

1 



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 

1 



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 

1 



27.4 
29.2 
27.3 
51.7 

3.35 



330 
3 



42.8 
40.4 
43.0 
28.2 

4.34 



m 



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 

1 



22.7 

22.0 

22. S 

2.3 

3.35 



253 

7,651 

252 

1 



34.6 
35.4 
34.7 
21.2 

3.31 



184 

5,158 

184 



215 

6,836 

214 

1 



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 

1 



22.0 
24.8 
22.0 
19.7 

3.07 



148 

2,981 

148 

1 



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 

2 



22.8 
26.7 
22.8 
24.0 

3.00 



156 

4,479 

166 



181 

5,852 

180 

1 



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 

1 



18.7 
21.2 
18.6 
30.9 

3.24 



95 

2,122 

95 



2.3 

2.7 
2.3 



118 

3,857 

117 

1 



28.1 
27.7 
26.1 
32.6 

3.06 



172 

6,148 

169 

3 



10.7 
8.7 
24.1 

2.75 



152 

4,496 

152 



148 

4,776 

146 

2 



1.8 
2.1 
1.8 
9.1 

3.10 



165 

5,249 

162 

13 



4.6 
6.0 
4.4 
22.5 

3.14 



VI 



77 

2,708 

74 

3 



5.9 
7.3 

5.7 
49.4 

2.92 



61 

1,040 

61 



0.2 
.2 
.1 



5.87 



81 

2,766 

78 

3 



8.1 

9.0 

7.9 

41.2 

2.93 



116 

4,177 

113 

3 



1.0 
1.3 
1.0 
4.2 



(Z) 



93 

3,185 

97 

1 



.1 
.1 
.1 
.4 



126 

4,144 

106 

20 



1.0 
.6 



3.04 



DAIRY PRODUCERS AND DAIRY PRODUCTION 



59 



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 

1 



100. 

inn.o 

100.0 
100.0 

4.04 



2.51 

B. 298 

249 

2 



1(10.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

3.98 



2i9 

7,281 

256 

3 



100. 
100. 
100. 
100.0 

3.57 



201 

6, .594 

195 

6 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

3.04 



3.07 



405 

8,036 

403 

2 



S.8 
7. 1 
S.9 



423 

9, 110 

420 

3 



3.9 
3.3 
3.9 
3.6 



383 

I, 358 

382 

1 



7.5 
6.5 
7.6 
1.6 



323 

9,772 

327 

3 



2. 1 

2.0 

2.2 

.6 



174 

5,674 

150 

24 


446 

13,282 

445 

1 


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 

1 



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 

3 



19.5 
18.7 
19.9 
6.7 

3.17 



293 

1,327 

276 

17 



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 

1 



39.7 
39.4 
40.0 
13.4 

4.02 



256 

7,294 

255 

1 



35.0 
35.6 
35.2 
16.0 

3.51 



213 

i,987 

208 

5 



43.2 
43.1 
43.6 
30.9 

3.05 



230 

6,796 

218 

11 



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 

4 



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 



3.1 

3.6 

3.1 

27.8 

3.67 



143 

4, 200 

i:i9 

4 



5. S 

6. 7 
.5. 6 

23, 9 

3. 41 



147 

, 973 

136 

12 



3.8 

4.6 

3.5 

32.4 

2.97 



13H 

4,814 

127 

II 



6.6 
6.9 
6.2 
17.5 



1.86 



135 
4,842 

iin 

34 



26.9 
23.5 
20.4 
42.3 

2.79 



89 
2,782 



.3 

.3 

.2 

15.1 

3.20 



82 

3,082 

59 

23 



1. 1 
1.6 

.8 
36. 

2.67 



98 

3,750 

69 

29 



.6 

.7 

.4 

16.6 

2.62 



97 

3,446 

81 

16 



.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 

26 

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 



37 



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 

7S 



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 



46 



2,435 



114 

25 

11,376 
8,042 

1,904 
1,430 

1.1 
11 
16 



240 



75 

1: 

12.282 
8,834 

1,960 
1, 

1.0 
17 
23 



8,988 



153 
26 



5,896 
5,657 

2.0 
36 

68 



176 

87 



68, 676 
44, 676 



6,761 
7,139 



4,257 
3,637 

1.5 
23 
38 



2,236 



121 

55 



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 

60 



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 

55 



93 

46 

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 



43 



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 



61 



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 

12 



1.2 
.8 
.4 
.3 

1.5 

38.8 

4.693 

21 



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 

14 



1,101 



.2 

4.5 

5.6 

11.6 

19,113 

32 



8,783 



.4 

.6 

1.7 

42.4 

8,126 

24 



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 

19 



I.U 
.8 
.2 

4.2 

5.2 

72.1 

7,805 

20 



.6 

.3 

3.1 

4.0 

102.0 

8,558 

17 



108 



1.5 
.9 
.6 

2.1 

3.6 
61.1 



1.1 
.9 
.2 

5.0 

6.1 

11.0 

19, 243 

31 



1.3 
.9 
.4 

2.7 

4.0 

68.9 

14,181 

32 



372 



3.6 

54.2 

10, 093 

23 



255 



1.2 
.9 
.3 

1.2 

2.4 

83,9 

5. 425 

18 



1.2 
.9 
.3 

1.0 

2 2 

50. 6 

6, 376 

24 



.5 
.6 

2.0 

97.8 

6,300 

18 



1.4 
.9 
.5 



2.0 

60.7 

6,782 

16 



.5 
.4 

1.8 

34.2 

12,297 

38 



2,099 



.5 
.4 

1.8 

61.8 

8,652 

30 



1.0 
.7 
.3 
.8 

1.8 

49.1 

8,079 

21 



III 



.4 

.5 

1.7 

76.6 

3,974 

17 



996 



.4 
.2 

1.4 

34.0 

4,869 

22 



1,962 



.5 
.2 

1.6 

88.7 

4,615 

16 



2,235 



1.2 
.8 
.4 
.1 

1.3 

56.0 

6,328 

14 



43 



1.0 
.9 
.1 
.2 

1.2 

25.1 

7,452 

37 



2,484 



.4 
.1 

1.3 

33.6 

5,459 

22 



3,252 



1.0 
.7 
.3 
.4 

1.4 

39.8 

6,444 

17 



IV 



1,396 



1.2 
69.5 



960 



.4 
.1 

1.2 

30.4 

3,230 

19 



5,182 



.4 
.1 

1.3 

68.2 

2,626 

12 



2,819 



1.0 

.7 
.3 



(Z) 



1.0 

54.3 

3,688 

11 



20 



1.1 
.9 
.2 
.1 

1.2 

40.2 

3.857 

18 



1.0 
.7 
.3 



(Z) 



1.0 

27.4 

3,797 

16 



.7 
.6 
.2 
.4 

1.1 

39.3 

3,325 

13 



.3 
.1 

1,1 

50.9 

1, 635 

10 



1.0 
.7 
.3 



CZ) 



1.0 

26.8 

1,971 

17 



(Z) 



1.1 
.7 
.4 



1.1 
53 3 
1,610 



2,010 



CZ) 



.7 

40.7 

2,637 

10 



(Z) 



(Z) 



.4 

72.0 

8,700 

10 



19.7 

2,170 

12 



2,567 



.6 
.4 
.2 
.3 

.9 

33.7 

2,137 

10 



Z Less than 0.5. 



62 



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) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



(Z) 
1 
(NA) 
(NA) 



100 
100 
73 
49 
70 
41 
57 
73 
70 



2 
2 
2 
(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



2 
1 
(Z) 

(Z) 
(Z) 

(NA) 
(NA) 



3 
2 
1 
1 
(Z) 

(NA) 
(NA) 



II III IV 



1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

(NA) 
(NA) 



1 
1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

(NA) 
(NA) 



1 
? 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

(NA) 
(NA) 



1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



1 
1 

1 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



1 
I 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



1 
1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

(NA) 
(NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



1 
1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 

(NA) 
(NA) 



(Z) 
(Z) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 



(Z) 



(NA) 
(NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 



VI 



(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) 



47 

31 

37 

1 

2 

(Z) 



(Z) 



(Z) 

(Z) 

(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 



1 

2 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



94 
45 
74 

in 

9 
(Z) 

1 
15 
90 



1 

1 

I 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(Z) 

(NA) 

(NA) 



87 
85 
63 
11 
13 
(Z) 
8 

12 
82 



100 
100 
95 
54 
48 
5 
42 
27 
95 



1 

2 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



(Z) 
2 
15 



3 
3 

2 
1 

(Z) 

(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) 

(Z) 



[NA) 
(NA) 



1 

r 

(Z) 
(Z) 

"(Z) " 
(NA) 
(NA) 



1 
2 
1 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



III 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 



(NA) 
(NA) 



1 
1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



95 



1 

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) 



50 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 



(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



1 
1 
1 

(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 
(NA) 
(NA) 



83 
84 
69 
4 
8 
(Z) 



3 

6 
(Z) 



(Z) 
(Z) 
(Z) 



(Z) 



(NA) 
(NA) 



1 

1 

1 

(Z) 

(Z) 



(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 


I 


11 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 




100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 




1 

9 






2 
11 


1 
11 


1 

10 


1 




42 


6 




23 


6 


31 


27 


32 


24 


12 




24 


14 


20 


30 


24 


26 


19 




23 


19 


32 


22 


17 


23 


26 




20 


19 


11 


8 


16 


16 


37 




100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 




1 
19 






2 
20 


2 

20 








8 


16 


22 


30 




20 


30 


25 


25 


29 


20 


10 




31 


30 


34 


32 


29 


33 






15 


23 


16 


13 


15 


22 


30 




8 


9 


10 


8 


5 


4 


30 




100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 




1 




(Z) 


2 


1 


1 


I 




12 


21 


18 


17 


17 


13 


6 




22 


8 


27 


31 


28 


23 


13 




26 


44 


31 


26 


29 


27 


21 




24 


3 


16 


18 


18 


23 


31 




16 


26 


8 


6 


8 


13 


27 




100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 




1 
13 






17 


it 


1 
11 


3 




5 


17 




26 


15 


33 


31 


27 


20 


11 




25 


59 


28 


27 


24 


25 


IS 




21 


16 


17 


17 


24 


21 


20 




14 


6 


5 


7 


11 


22 


47 





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 



IV 



60 



100 

1 

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 


I 


n 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


6,681 


37 


25.': 


848 


1. 396 


2,435 


1,710 


143 


7M 


36.S 


227 


166 


114 


76 


36 


259 


102 


69 


46 


25 


14 


33 


223 


93 


53 


38 


25 


17 


4 


38 


3 


4 


3 


4 


3 


73 


520 


198 


125 


86 


55 


34 1 


92 


433 


240 


141 


liii; 


74 


51 


33 


23 


21 


27 


33 


39 


49 


24 


10 


9 


18 


24 


31 


40 


19 


36 


26 


23 


20 


12 


9 


42 


40 


43 


41 


41 


44 


37 


6 


1 


11 


9 


6 


5 


5 


2, 7:io 


63 


431 


996 


96U 


240 


50 


143 


852 


250 


124 


95 


75 


49 


26 


164 


62 


22 


15 


12 


8 


30 


207 


64 


25 


20 


13 


10 


2 


7 


4 


2 


2 


2 


4 


58 


378 


109 


49 


37 


28 


07 


93 


593 


173 


SO 


66 


49 


36 


43 


23 


42 


42 


54 


60 


39 


38 


IS 


35 


3S 


48 


60 


39 


4 
32 


9 
28 


5 
31 


3 
37 


2 

27 






33 


47 


21 


40 


22 


18 


17 


/ 


14 



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 



39 



816 
215 
185 



411 

648 



332 
134 
37 



218 
140 



(Z) 



364 
119 
73 



199 
222 



176 
87 
21 



116 

68 



III 



263 
76 
62 



134 

159 



121 
55 
15 



IV 



,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 

17 



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 

7 



Economic class of farm 



366 
101 

86 



195 
196 



II III IV 



2,576 



167 
47 
38 



2 
(Z) 
15 

74 



3,252 



103 
27 
25 



2 

(Z) 

14 

79 
5 



2 

(Z) 

21 

74 

3 



2,567 



1 
(Z) 

IS 
75 
6 



VI 



11 

97 

3 



40 
10 
6 



18 
19 



1 

1 

14 

83 

2 



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 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


6,681 


37 


265 


848 


1,396 


2,435 


1,710 


25 


166 


86 


48 


30 


17 


10 


16 


102 


62 


30 


18 


11 


6 


15 


95 


43 


28 


18 


10 


6 


7 


49 


19 


13 


8 


5 


3 


58 


54 


113 


71 


01 


66 


45 


5 


70 


16 


8 


6 


3 


1 


4 


48 


11 


7 


6 


2 


1 


2,730 


53 


431 


996 


960 


240 


60 


63 


229 


88 


60 


38 


27 


24 


33 


145 


64 


32 


24 


17 


13 


32 


105 


51 


32 


23 


17 


11 


3 


6 


4 


3 


3 


3 


6 


33 


111 


39 


34 


28 


25 


14 


2 


45 


2 


(Z) 


1 


(Z) 


2 


1 


30 


1 


(Z) 


1 


(Z) 


1 


23,017 


39 


616 


1,962 


5,182 


8,988 


6,330 


23 


150 


69 


45 


28 


19 


12 


13 


83 


40 


25 


16 


11 


7 


12 


67 


36 


23 


15 


10 


7 


4 


33 


10 


7 


5 


3 


2 


53 


101 


93 


75 


64 


60 


38 


1 


89 


3 


2 


1 


1 


(Z) 


1 


6 


2 


1 


1 


1 


(Z) 


8,459 


108 


766 


2,235 


2,819 


2,010 


621 


32 


107 


72 


41 


27 


18 


12 


16 


67 


33 


20 


13 


g 


6 


16 


57 


31 


IS 


12 


S 


6 


2 


6 


3 


2 


2 


2 


1 


44 


94 


60 


6S 


42 


2S 


21 


3 


6 


4 


3 


a 


2 


1 


2 


6 


2 


3 


1 


1 


1 



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 

21 

2 

1 



1,088 



231 
133 
130 

1 

71 

1 

1 



132 
84 
81 

1 

43 

6 

4 



n III IV 



120 
70 
70 



(Z) 



(Z) 



47 
28 
28 

(Z) 

11 

(Z) 

(Z) 



1 
29 
(Z) 



1,832 



31 

18 
18 

1 
25 
(Z) 
(Z) 



1,125 



20 
11 
11 

(Z) 

2; 
(Z) 
(Z) 



2,567 



VI 



(Z) 



(Z) 



9 
6 
5 

1 
21 



(Z) 
(Z) 



Z Less than 0.6.