(hcM\^^*>

i-

sil JSisi.

I

< \

^

A

)

i JaL

J

J

D

1^.

E

I

SL

#■■

A'

<r

M

I

SUCCESS t

'HxCf /

:,XZ?

t- U fi S' £ I

"•^.' *vV'' ' " ° 41- 1

I?. I'

,' GRANT

■> it' ■■ ' ■ .-A^./^c-T'^l/'i;

>Vs / f 1 ""OEMS I '_/

W^-^' -; ir

y / OSAMI ^ ^

\l\ !

J 5 /

eC&NS PURCHASE

I

1

J

'1

T

i

iio

Station Bulletin 468

June 1960

Agricultural Experiment Station

University of New Hampshire

Dunrham, New Hampshire

This Bulletin cover is a map of

COOS COUNTY
NEW HAMPSHIRE

taken from a State map

PREPARED BY THE

New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways
Planning and Economics Division

IN COOPERATION WITH THE

Department of Commerce
Bureau of Public Roads

1958

LEGEND

-— «-— State Line

— —— — —— County Line

Town Line i

® Stote Copitol <

O Population over 10,000 '

® Population over 1,000 '

o Population under 1,000 '

=1*3^ = United States Numbered Highway

16

-t t-H — I — (— t-

Divided Higtiways
Portland Cement
Bituminous Concrete
Bituminous Macadom
Surface Treated Gravel
Gravel

Less than Gravel
Town Roads Class S

Stote Highwoy Numbered System z = = = = = = = ^ = =: Town Roads Closs 311

Railrood Forest Highways

Compact Area

Interchange

JL

ir

The Impact of the Federal Soil Bank Program

on the Economy of Coos County

New Hampshire 1956 - 1959

By

Richard A. Andrews and George E. Frick

Department of Agricultural Economics

Agricultural Experiment Station

University of New Hampshire

Durham, New Hampshire

an(

Farm Economics Research Division

Agricultural Research Service

United States Department of Agriculture

with cooperation of

New Hampshire and Coos County

Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Committee

United States Department of Agriculture

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The appraisal of the Soil Bank made in this study covers the impact of
the Conservation Reserve Program during its first four years of operation
in Coos County, New Hampshire. The Program for 1960 had not been re-
leased by the United States Department of Agriculture at the time data
were gathered for this study. At time of publication, however, the enroll-
ment in the 1960 Program was about 1,000 acres of cropland in Coos
County. A preliminary appraisal of the agricultural units enrolled in the
1960 Program indicates little need for change in the final conclusions
concerning the impact of the Program on the economy of Coos County,
although it did raise the proportion of the county cropland enrolled from
17 to 20 percent. Thus, the factual data as well as the conclusions of the
study generally apply to five years of operation of the Soil Bank Pro-
gram in Coos County.

The New Hampshire State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Committee in recognizing the need for an economic study of the Soil Bank
Program made it possible for the Coos County Agricultural Stabilization
concerning the impact of the Program on the economy of Coos County,
Committee provided office records of participators in the Soil Bank and
carried out the enumeration of a field survey under the direction of Mr.
Norman Craggy. The analysis and interpretation of data are, however,
the responsibility of the authors.

The authors wish to thank W. F. Henry, Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of New Hampshire, and C. W. Crickman, Farm
Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, for their
critical appraisal of the manuscript. The authors also wish to thank H,
L. Scheibel, Mrs. R. M. Batchelder, and Mrs. R. C. Slanetz for their hand-
ling of graphics, typing, and data. Errors in fact or judgment are of course^
the responsibility of the authors.

CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgements 2

Summary 4

Problem 6

Scope and Objectives 6

Source and Method of Analysis 7

The Soil Bank Program 7

The Coos County Farm Setting Since 1920 9

Changes in Employment of Farm Resources 11

Number of Units Enrolled 11

Cropland on Enrolled Units 14

Machinery on Enrolled Units 19

Buildings, Labor on Enrolled Units 20

Summary of Resources Enrolled in Soil Bank 20

Effect of Soil Bank on the Economy 23

Gross Farm Income Estimates 23

Method of Analysis 24

Comparative Income Estimates 24

Discussion of the Models 26

Income Flow in the Local Economy 27

Income Flow Within the County 29

Expenditure Patterns 29

Non-participating Farmers 30

Hay Purchases 30

Economies in Marketing 34

Farm Transfer and Expansion 36

Other Economic Effects of the Soil Bank Program 36

Town Tax Problems 36

Long-term Land Use 37

Long-run Social Costs 37

Conclusions 38

Attainment of Program Objectives 38

Impact of Program on the Economy of the Area 39

Impact of Program on the Resource Use Efficiency 39

Future Aplication to New England Agriculture 40

Appendix Tables 1-12 41-51

3

SUMMARY

The Soil Bank

The Conservation Reserve Program under the Soil Bank Act is designed
to help adjust farm production to market demands and to promote con-
servation of soil, water, forest, and wildlife resources.

Participants in the Program agree to keep a specified acreage of land
out of production of farm crops for 3 to 10 years. They also agree to
protect the soil with vegetative cover, which includes trees.

Agriculture in Coos County

The number of farms has decreased by half in the last 30 years. Acres
of cropland and numbers of cows have also dropped. Milk production —
the main farm product — however, has stayed about the same. Larger
farms with better cows and land make up present-day agriculture.

Resources Enrolled in the Soil Bank

Many part-time farmers and owners of unorganized units found the
Conservation Reserve Program more profitable than selling standing hay.
Some dairy and other types of farms are enrolled also. For the first 4
years of the Program — through 1959 — a total of 129 landowners
signed up 5,204 acres. Allowing for historical downward trends and re-
source quality, the estimated net effect of the Program is a reduction of
4,350 acres of cropland and the equivalent of 195 cows.

One hundred and twenty whole farm units were enrolled in the Program.
Twenty-six were classified as commercial farms, and this included 4 poultry
farms that continued operations. The rest of the units were part-time or
completely unorganized farm units that sold only hay. Forty-eight of the
whole units were selling only hay as far back as 1940. There were no farm
buildings on 53 and no dwellings on 37 whole units.

Impact of Soil Bank on Agriculture

The Conservation Reserve Program reduced cropland by 17 percent
and milk production by about 3 percent.

Gross income to participants has changed very little because of the Pro-
gram. Income in the form of Conservation Reserve payments compensates
for the loss of earnings from crop production. But the expenditure pattern
of participants has changed. Expenditures for farm operating goods and
services have decreased. Thus the purchase of more consumer goods is
anticipated.

Historical trends were hastened because of the large number of small
or uneconomic holdings that were enrolled, which speeded up the trends
in land abandonment. But the costs of nonparticipating farmers and po-
tential farmers have increased because putting land in the Soil Bank has
decreased local hay supplies and the number of acres or farms available
for renting or buying for enlargement of many farms too small for efficient
operation.

Changing land use has also been facilitated. More than half the enrolled
acreage of croplarid was converted to forest land without the long period
of unproductiveness associated with natural forest reproduction.

Other Impacts of the Program

In several towns, the tax base will be reduced by enrollment in the Con-
servation Reserve. However, only 4 towns in the county have more than
15 percent of their valuation represented by agricultural properties.

The cost of local governments may be reduced as many enrolled farms
are at ends of roads and on the poorer roads. Snow plowing and school
transportation are the main cost-reduction possibilities.

Conchisions

The Conservation Reserve Program has not changed total agricultural
production in the county significantly. Only a few commercial farms are
enrolled in the Program. Most of the acreage came from uneconomic units.

Total income to the county remains about the same. The expenditure
of the income will change, with more spent on consumer goods and less
on farm supplies and services.

Nonparticipating farmers face increased costs through a reduction in
sources of supplemental hay for feed and of land for expanding farm size.
Costs of marketing and other services will not be affected.

The Program has eased the transition of some people and many acres
of land out of agriculture. Desirable forest stands were established and
conservation of resources is enhanced.

The Impact of the Federal Soil Bank Program on the
Economy of Coos County, New Hampsh-re. 1956-59

By Richard A. Andrews and George E. Frick^

PROBLEM

The placement of 17 percent of Coos County cropland in the 1956-59
Soil Bank Programs by 129 landowners has created interest and concern
about the impact of the programs on other farmers in the county and on
the local economy. Dealers handling farm equipment and supplies are con-
cerned as to how their volumes of business will be affected with the fewer
farmers to serve. Other merchants, business people, and service workers
are concerned about the demand for their goods and services. Nonpartici-
pating farmers face a possible loss of source of local feed supplies and
a loss of market facilities or higher marketing costs due to a reduced
volume.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this report is to appraise the impact of participation
in the Soil Bank Program in 1956-59 upon the economy of Coos County.
It recognizes that the Soil Bank Program is only one of many forces at
work causing changes in the local economy. Specific attention was given
t(p the agricultural portion of the economy. However, other segments of
the economy were analyzed to establish a basis for interpreting the im-
pact of the Soil Bank Program on the changing economy.

Where several major forces, either singularly or jointly, were influencing
the activity level of the farm economy, the boundaries of the study were
broadened to include them in the analysis. Three major objectives formed
the basis of the study:

First was the end or goal of the Soil Bank Program to reduce agri-
cultural production and promote conservation of the Nation's land resources.
Since 1920, the number of farms, the number of livestock, and the acreage
of cropland have declined. A continuation of these trends would have been
expected during the 1956-59 period. Therefore, the objective was to de-
termine the net effect of the Program on agricultural production and land
conservation considering the changing agricultural economy.

Second is the impact of the Soil Bank Program on the economy of the
county. The objectives here were to appraise the changes in land use and
income flows associated with the Program with respect to the income
position of nonparticipating farmers as well as members of the nonfarm
economy.

1 Assistant Agricultural Economist, New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station,
and Agricultural Economist, Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research
Service, USDA, respectively.

Third is the very general question of the optimum use of productive
resources. This objective was to determine whether the Soil Bank Program
has encouraged a more efficient use of farm resources. That is, whether
agricultural production has moved to the "best" land closest to assembly
points, keeping the "best" buildings and the "best" machinery and cows.
Improved resource efficiency is important, it is only with this optimum
pattern that desired production can be obtained with the least human
effort.

SOURCE AND NATURE OF DATA AND
METHOD OF ANALYSIS

A complete enumeration of Coos County farms done in 1940 provided
the benchmark for this study. ^ This enumeration identified each farmer
in the County, location of operation and size of unit in terms of cow
numbers, poultry numbers or acres of potatoes, other crops or enterprises.
Using the 1940 study as a base comparison, local Community Committee-
men of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service were asked
to identify the agricultural units as shown in 1940 and to determine whether
the unit in 1959 was still operated as an independent unit. If the unit was
still operating independently in 1959, the owner, size of operation in terms
of livestock, and acres of cropland were reported. However, if the unit
was not operated as an independent unit in 1959, the Community Com-
mitteemen identified the last farm operator, the year in which operation
ceased, the present cropland use, and the ownership arrangement.

Data on Soil Bank Cooperators were obtained from the Coos County
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Office, and the local Communi-
ty Committeemen. These data indicated the extent of cooperation and
described the farm in terms of land productivity, planned land use, his-
torical land use, the quality and quantity of nonland resources, and planned
employment of these resources.

Resources, as well as number of productive units of livestock or crops
on participating and nonenrolled units, are added. From the summation,
the amount of resources enrolled and the effects of the disposal of the
nonland resources released on the local fann economy is appraised by the
type of resource. Trend and budget analysis is employed to approximate
the changes resulting from participation in the Soil Bank Program.

THE SOIL BANK PROGRAM

The Soil Bank Program was initiated late in 1956 to reduce production
of surplus farm commodities throughout the nation and to promote con-
servation of the nation's land resources. The Program as established is
in two parts: The Acreage Reserve Program and the Conservation Re-
serve Program.

The Acreage Reserve Program was designed to reduce production of
the allotment crops. These crops are wheat, cotton, corn, rice, and most
types of tobacco. This part of the Program was not applicable to Coos
County.

- Woodworth, H. C. and Holmes, J. C, unpublished material, Dept. of Agr. Econ.,
Univ. of New Hampshire, 1941.

The Conservation Reserve Program is a long-term measure designed
to help adjust farm production to market demands and to increase the
conservation of soil, water, forest, and wildlife resources. This part of
the Program is applicable to Coos County. When reference is made in
this report to the Soil Bank Program we refer to this part of the Program.

Persons who enroll in the Conservation Reserve Program enter into con-
tracts of 3 to 10 years duration. The enrollee agrees to keep a designated
area of cropland out of production for the duration of the contract and
to provide for soil protection with permanent vegetative cover. The Fed-
eral government assists cooperators by sharing the cost of establishing
conservation practices in addition to making annual payments during the
period of the contract. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASC) of the U. S. Department of Agriculture is the agency re-
sponsible for the functioning of the Program.

When the Program began in the fall of 1956, annual rental payment
rates were $3 per acre for hayland and $10 per acre for land in row crops,
and grain. Participation in the Program was slight. Major changes in the
rental rate and qualifications for participation were incorporated in the
1959 Program. The bulk of the land units enrolled in the Program qualified
under the 1959 Program. The rate structure for land as outlined in the
1959 Conservation Reserve Program is as follows:^

a. The basic State rate for New Hampshire has been established
as $13 per acre.

b. On the basis of land productivity the State ASC committee has
established average per-acre rates for the counties as follows:

Belknap $13.00 Hillsboro $12.00

Carroll 11.50 Merrimack 12.50

Cheshire 13.00 Rockingham 12.00

Coos 14.50 Strafford 12.00

Grafton 14.50 Sullivan 12.50

c. The county ASC committees will establish a maximum annual
payment rate per acre for all land offered for the program.
These individual farm maximum rates may vary from 50 percent
below to 150 percent above the county average, primarily on
the basis of relative productivity, rental rates and agricultural
land values. Upper limits of no more than 20 percent of the
value of the land, and $25 per acre have been established.

(1) The regular maximum payment rate for a farm may be
earned by putting into the conservation reserve land which
has been growing row crops and small grain.

(2) A lower rate of per-acre payment, 50 percent of the regu-
lar maximum rate for the farm, may be earned by putting
in land diverted from hay.

(3) Under the incentive plan to get all cropland on individual
farms in the program, farmers who put all their eligible

3 "General Provision of the 1959 New Hampshire Conservation Reserve Program and
List of Approved Practices", Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Office, Durham,
New Hampshire, August, 1958.

8

land in the conservation reserve will earn the full regular
rate plus a 10 percent bonus for all their eligible acres.
If the individual farm's regular rate was $14, the 10 per-
cent increase would bring the applicable rate to $15.40
per acre. To earn this rate the contract period must not
be less than 5 years.

(4) On farms where only part of the eligible land is put in
the reserve, the annual rental rate will be lower if the
land designated for the reserve is below the average for
the farm in productivity.

The definition of a "Farm" and "Cropland" as outlined in the 1959
Program are as follows:^

1. "Farm" means all adjacent or nearby farm or range land under
the same ownership which is operated by one person, including
also:

a. Any other adjacent or nearby farm land which the county
committee determines is operated by the same person as
part of the same unit in producing livestock, or with re-
spect to the rotation of crops and with workstock, machin-
ery, and labor substantially separate from that for any other
land.

b. Any field-rented tract (whether operated by the same or
another person) which, together with any other land in-
cluded in the farm, constitutes a unit with respect to the
rotation of crops.

A farm shall be regarded as located in the county in which the
principal dwelling is situated. If there is no dwelling thereon,
it shall be regarded as located in the county in which the major
portion of the farm is located.

2. "Cropland" means farm land which was tilled or was in regu-
lar crop rotation during the year immediately preceding the first
year of the contract period, including also land which was estab-
lished in permanent vegetative cover, (other than trees) since
1953, and which was classified as cropland at the time of seeding.

THE COOS COUNTY FARM SETTING SINCE 1920

The bulk of the Coos County agricultural plant was inherited from
previous generations by the farmers of the 1920's. It was a legacy well
suited to early nineteen-hundred conditions for a prosperous agriculture.
Many barns, 100 feet long or longer, housed sizable dairy herds and pro-
vided storage for abundant hay crops. Horses were the source of farm
power. They and their equipment were well adapted to the rolling hills.
A moderately stony or small field was not an uneconomic unit for horse-
drawn equipment and hand production methods.

^ See Footnote 3, op. cit.

Many subsistence farms were on the scene in 1920 and surplus labor on
these farms was an excellent source of manpower for the few 40- and 50-
cow farms found in small numbers. The Colebrook area was more fortu-
nate than dairy areas to the south or in the Androscoggin River Valley.
Colebrook farms were larger, the fields freer of rocks and the climate and
soil better adapted to dairying. Small hill farms were still very common
in the Lancaster, Jefferson, Whitefield, and Dalton areas.

The majority of the commercial dairy operations were small according
to today's conditions. Many herds contained from 3 to 10 cows. Small
volumes coupled with less favorable prices and better off-farm employment
opportunities encouraged many rural families to give up farming. Farm
numbers, cow numbers and harvested cropland declined in the late 1920's
as adjustment to new conditions were made (Table 1).

Table 1. IVumber of farms, milk cows and acreage of cropland,
Coos County, New Hampshire, 1925-54*

Item

Census year

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1954

1356

11224

1214
11123

1289

1136
9111

1171
8678

917
7575

670

7951

Number of farms

Number of milk cows

Acres of cropland and

cropland pasture 70814 61408 55413 60900 51139 46605 35204

* Agricultural Census, Bu. of the Census, U. S. Dept. of Commerce.

The conditions of the 1930's and 1940's interrupted and postponed ad-
justments in farming. Nonfarm job opportunities vanished during the eco-
nomic depression of the 1930's. Rural people were held on farms and some
urban dwellers moved to subsistence-type farms. Instead of a decline in
farm numbers which amounted to about 28 farms per year in the late
1920's, farm numbers increased an average of 15 per year during the
early 1930's. The very favorable price conditions that existed during the
early 1940's also tended to maintain the number of operating farms.

Production methods and farm equipment changed drastically between
the 1920's and the 1940's. Tractor power replaced horse power and rubber
tires permitted over-the-road travel for most equipment. The changes in
technology enabled the farm family to operate on a much larger scale.
As increased supplies of equipment became available at the end of World
War II, farmers who were unable to adjust to the "new age" of mechan-
ization gave up farming and relinquished use of their cropland to those
who could make or continue the change in mechanization.

Farm numbers dropped sharply from 1945-50. The Korean War momen-
tarily stabilized dairy farm numbers but the pressure of postwar prices
caused a further decline in farm numbers and acreage of cropland har-
vested.

The potato enterprise is the only other enterprise that competes with
dairying for use of the cropland in Coos County. Historically, most of the
dairy farms had small acreages of potatoes for sale as a cash crop.
However, as potato equipment became more specialized and costly, pro-
duction shifted to larger specialized units. A few large commercial potato

10

growers still operate in the County, but they use only a small percentage
of the available cropland.

The general picture of the County's agriculture has been one of a re-
duction in use of land resources, in numbers of men employed and in
number of cows. Increases in efficiency and the use of such capital items
as machinery and fertilizer have compensated for these reductions and
production of milk has remained relatively stable.

The retirement of cropland lags the retirement of labor and cows out
of this dairy economy. Typically, when a farm ceases operation as an
operating unit, the land remains in production and either is rented for
a small fee or is merely used by a neighboring farm operator. Hay is
harvested until it no longer returns a yield greater than the cost of har-
vesting. Then most frequently the land is grazed. Natural reproduction
of forest trees begins to occur along the wooded edges of the fields. Event-
ually the fields revert to their natural state of forest cover.

It is within this setting of a declining land use economy, with farm
operations based on many acres of cropland operated at low intensity,
often by nonowners, that the Soil Bank Program should be appraised.

CHANGES IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF FARM RESOURCES
DUE TO THE SOIL BANK PROGRAM

The impact of the Soil Bank Program on the farm economy can be
measured either in terms of farm numbers, resources and products in-
\olved, or in terms of farm income and farm expenses. Because both types
of measures are meaningful, both are analyzed. As a point of departure,
the resources involved in the Program are discussed first. When possible,
trends in resource use are analyzed to better define the net effect of the
Program.

Number of LInits Enrolled

Participants in the Program in Coos County signed a total of 129 con-
tracts. Of these. 120 were for the complete rural unit while 9 were for
some part of a rural unit. Table 2 shows a classification of the Soil Bank
cooperators. It shows the level of cooperation, whether whole or part units
were enrolled, and the type of unit in terms of organization and amount
of farming activity. ^

These classifications sort the more commercial type of farm unit from
the part-time farms and establish the number of rural residences or rural
land holdings. Table 2 also shows the organization status as of 1940 and
1955 of the units enrolled in the Program. This gives some insight into
the type of resource that was attracted to the Soil Bank Program.

Table 2 indicates that few commercial farm operations at the time of
enrollment are included among the Soil Bank units. Of the 120 whole
units, only 26, or 22 percent, could be classified as having 4 or more

5 The organized unit was considered to be one whose owner manages the cultural
practices of the land and uses this resource and some other farm resource for producing
livestock or crops for sale or home use in addition to hay which might be sold standing.
The unorganized unit was considered to be one whose owner is only a land owner
and rents the land or sells hay standing.

11

•c

«

•<

A

fa

«

ft

e

*<

•p4

a

a

«M

0

«

A

>%

*<

e

M

-o

V

a

Irt

Irt

"S

ON

>-

fH

•^

V

■B

?

S

b

n

fi

0 ©

w

rf

«<H

ON

0

p— 1

V

«^

J

£

• P4

*ri

X

C5

H

Cf;

s

h

A

0

4-1

K

es

u

«

^

A

V

O

0

Z

w

«t

^

►.

^

fl

s

OS

s

CQ

0

f-M

u

•Mrt

0

<ri

0

«4-l

0

0 u

es

u

V

0

M

H

a

a
.2

u
o
cu
o
o

V

>

^

<§

e

IH

ca

o

^

^

tfl

S

o

(U

y

iJ

«*

D
J

-a

N
'3
bO

o

c

'S

03

CO 4->

^

O

o

o

a

nj

o
H

o

o

OS

00

ON 00
CO

CO

0\
CO

I— I CO

lO "1

rH o vo in t- m ON

LO

00

CO

00

t- o

CO

IM

03

VO I

ON t^

o
o

o

CSl

CO

VO
ir-

es

C<1CNI

CS CO

CO ON
CNl

ON LO
CO

00

CM

++

VO
Cvl

ON

(N

LO
CO

es ON

i-HUO

■># I-H
rH t-.

c

OJ

o

U

«
O
O

o

o
o

•-a

4-1 4-» il)

C C S -r-i N
aj n) (U r! "i

cn ° S2 O

4-1 .^

I 1 'fH

ca 4-> o ^

ca-t; ca.N §

•^ c W) .. g

3 ca b <«
w bD g 3^

o

>;

"3

o

ca •^ I

ON

lO fc>-

ON

^ .. . -^

4-» _^ *-» rt)

3 3 3-r3 N

ca-S ca.N 3

£; ,.S; 3 bD

3 » 3 ca g

o •- o

^

t4

o

V

w

3

o

en
<U

IH

V

-3

o

(U

s

o

si

3

-3

a,

3

ca

-a

en

3

ca

ca

cfi

-3

^.s

en

«^

'u

aj 3

en

tn ca

3 -^
-^ to

l-l
0

and
sold

3

OJ

-O 4J

3^

en

^

4j bC

en

4-»

■51

3

OJ

;h

>« j:

O O

-3

o ^

•:2 >>

3

Oj
t4

o ca

c

2-=

»

(^o

0

4>-t

'rt

T3

2 3

3

3 O

4_» "^H

^

T— 4 ■*-*

3^

ca

a; nj

^

•

-S a

'b

"B

.1-1

p

T3

en

3

aj 1)

to

■ 1-4

0

ca 3

d

3

IH

• i-«

ca <i}

B S

o

(U

3

3
03

s-«

0

rt

S ^-

D

,_-,

S o

o

en
0

'3

en ca

^

3

O eo

• rH

Is

3
0

-a

3

M-l

rS

(D

3 en

en

-3

O
.2 g

4t>

"S

'$

3 O

s

tn

s

3

'T2

}-t

-a o

a In

■3

03

&

■3 2

bD

0

4-*

^3

bD— 1

3

0

0 bH

0,

c

u

<D .S

0)

3

■^ 2

-3

0

^-S

H

fe

* 0

-1—

++

^

3.

12

cows or their equivalent in terms of other livestock or crops at time of
contract. Only 9 of the units that had less than 4 cows at time of con-
tract could be classified as organized units. These units correspond to
part-time farms. The largest grouping of cooperators were classified as
unorganized units with less than 4 cows. There were eighty-five of these
units, 71 percent of the units enrolled in the Program. Of these 85 un-
organized units, 71 could he classified as unorganized in 1955 and 30
as far back as 1940.

The survey of independent operations in Coos County indicated that
there Avere 631 rural units in 1959 (Table 3). This total included the
120 whole units enrolled in the Soil Bank Program, 309 units with 4 or
or more cows or their equivalent, and 202 rural units with less than 4
cows or their equivalent. Of the 202 less than commercial sized units, 112
were classified as organized and 90 as unorganized.

Table 3. Number and proportion of rural units in various categories,
pre- and post-Soil Bank Program, Coos County, New Hampshire

Total

With 4 or
more cows

or
equivalent

Less than 4 cows or
equivalent

Soil Bank

Item

Organized

Unarganized

cooperators*

Pre-Soil Bank:
Number

631
100

631
100

0

335
53

309
49

26

121
19

112
18

9

175
28

90
14

85

0

Percent

Post-Soil Bank:
Number

0

120

Percent

Difference:
Number

19
120

* Excludes 9 part farm Soil Bank cooperators since they are included in some other
rural unit classification.

Table 3 shows a comparison of the number of units in the several
categories as they appeared after the three years of Soil Bank enroll-
ment, and an estimate of the agricultural units as they would have been
classified prior to enrollment, had enrollment occurred in one year. The
Program reduced the units with 4 or more cows or their equivalent from
53 to 49 percent of the total units. Of the organized units with less than
4 cows, the Program changed their relative importance from 19 to 18
percent. The unorganized units with less than 4 cows were the most num-
erous participants in the Program and their importance decreased from
28 to 14 percent of all units. Soil Bank units accounted for 19 percent
of the total units. Since such a large proportion of the Soil Bank enroll-
ments were unorganized farm units, little effect on agricultural output
might be expected from the Program.

The comparison of pre-Soil Bank and post-Soil Bank numbers and pro-
portions of rural units in Table 3 was based on the assumption that there
would have been no change in the farm economy had there been no Soil
Bank Program. This assumption is not valid. Historically, commercial
farm operations have declined in number and expansion of farm oper-

13

ation by remaining farmers has not taken up all the cropland released.
Unorganized units have been disappearing with the cropland reverting to
woods. A realistic view of the effect of the Program must include current
trends.

Since dairying is the predominant enterprise in the County, trends in
the dairy farm sector represent dominant trends in the area. From 1940
to 1959, the number of herds dropped from 746 to 345, an average of
about 21 herds per year (Appendix Table 2). If only herds with 4 or
more cows are considered, the average herd loss over the 19-year span
was 17 herds per year. This rate of decline parallels closely the rate de-
termined from Agricultural Census farm numbers for the period 1949-54, ^
Commercial dairy farm units declined by 88 over the 5-year period. The
average decline is 18 commercial units per year.

By assuming that an annual decline of 18 farms (with 4 or more cows
or equivalent) would occur during the time span of the Program, it is
possible to appraise its net effect on commercial type units. Twenty-four
cf the 26 units with 4 or more cows or equivalent were enrolled in the
1959 Program (Appendix Table 3). In addition to these operations, 6
other farms ceased operation but did not enroll in the Program. This
makes a total of 30 farms which either stopped or underwent abrupt
changes in operation in 1959. Four of the 24 enrolled farms were poultry
farms, which continued operation after enrollment, and 2 were cattle oper-
ations, which continued operation on a modified scale after enrollment.
Two other cooperators changed farms. If 18 farms normally would be
expected to stop operation each year, the maximum net effect of the Pro-
gram in reducing commercial farm numbers would be 12 commercial-type
units. But the probability that just 18 farmers would cease operation in
any one year is exceedingly small. During many of the years over which
the trend was established, at times no or very few farmers would have
ceased operations, and during other select years, large numbers (50 or
more) would have ceased operations. There is insufficient information for
stating more definitely the number of farms that would have ceased oper-
ations during 1956-59 in absence of the Programs. It is clear that the
effect of the Program on farm numbers is something less than the 24
commercial units enrolled. The best available evidence indicates it to be
about 10 commercial sized units.

Cropland on Enrolled Units

Roughly 17 percent, or 5,204 acres, of Coos County cropland was en-
rolled in the Program (Appendix Tables 4 and 5). Of this acreage, 76
acres were enrolled by operators as parts of units, 1,889 as whole units
by farmers operating on a commercial basis, and 3,239 acres as whole
units by other landowners. As with rural units discussed in the preced-
ing section, the bulk of the cropland was enrolled in the 1959 Program.
About 75 percent of the cropland and 75 percent of the farm units were
enrolled in 1959.

The effect of the Program on land employed in farm production can be
pictured as in Figure 1, which showed changes in acreage of cropland

^ See 1950 Agricultural Census and 1954 Agricultural Census, Bu. of the Census
U. S. Dept. of Commerce.

14

from 1939 to 1954 and projections to 1959 with and without ejffects of
Soil Bank. Acres are plotted on a logarithmic scale so the slope of the
line expresses the rate of change. Assuming that the 1949 to 1954 rate
of decline in cropland harvested and cropland pasture was representative
of what would have happened between 1955 and 1959 had there been no
Soil Bank Program (line B), then it would appear that the Program had
little or no effect on cropland used for agricultural production. This is
demonstrated graphically by the lower broken line B in Figure 1 con-
necting the 1954 Census acreage data with the estimated acres of crop-
land in Coos County aside from the acreage in the Program in 1959.

Other rates of decline also can be used for appraising the effect of the
Program on cropland acreage. Assuming the 1944-49 period rather than
1949-54 period as the tvpical rate of decline, conclusions as to the effect
of the Program would be considerably different, as the Program would
then appear to be very effective in reducing acreage of cropland. This is
demonstrated in Figure 1 when the 1954 acreage of cropland reported

Figure 1. Changes in total cropland acres, 1939-54, and projections
to 1959, Coos County, New Hampshire*

70,000
60,000

o

in

O

iO

o

TJ-

'd-

lO

ID

yj

en

Q)

a>

(Tt

o>

YEAR

A. Connects the 1954 Census acre total with the 1959 acre total constructed from
the town property lists of cropland including those acres that went into the
Conservation Reserve.

B. This line is an extension of the same rate of change that occurred between 1949
and 1954 and connects the 1954 Census acre total with the constructed 1959 acre
total minus the acres that went into the Conservation Reserve.

* Data 1939-54 from Agricultural Census, Bu. of Censua, U. S. Dept. of Commerce;
and 1959 data estimated from farm survey.

15

by the Census is connected with the estimated 1959 acreage including
land enrolled in the Program (line A). On close inspection, this line
expresses the same rate of change in cropland acreage that was experi-
enced between 1944 and 1949.

The difference between the two cropland observations in 1959 is the
5,204 acres enrolled in the Soil Bank. Both observed points thus are re-
lated to the 1954 Census acreage by a rate of change in cropland which
has been experienced in the last 1^2 decades. This points out how the
Program could be considered as 100 percent effective or as 100 percent
ineffective as a reducer of cropland employed in farm production.

However, in making an appraisal of the Program's effect on cropland,
it should be remembered that 1,889 acres were enrolled by farmers oper-
ating on a commercial basis and 228 acres by fanners operating on less
than a commercial basis. Although these independent farm operations might
have ceased without the Program, crops produced from the land would
have been harvested by an organized unit. In addition, 1,548 acres in un-
organized units were rented by dairymen and woodsmen prior to the lands
being enrolled in the Program. Most of these acres also would have con-
tinued to be harvested even though little or no return was received from
them. (Table 4).

Table 4. Cropland enrolled in Soil Bank, estimated expected usual
abandonment and added acreage idled due to the Program by type of unit

Actual acres Estimated acres Estimated acres
enrolled in expected to be attributable,

Item Soil Bank abandoned Soil Bank

Part units 76 50 26

Whole units:

Organized • —
4 or more cows
or equivalent 1,889 0 1,889

Less than 4 cows

or equivalent 228 0 228

Unorganized units —
Rented or under lease
before Soil Bank 1,548 100 1,448

Speculative or woodlot
holdings and hay sold
or cut for open market .... 1,463 700 763

Total 5,204 850 4,354

The largest loss in cropland in lieu of the Program would have been
from the 1,463 acres enrolled by owners of unorganized units who did not
rent their land to a dairyman or woodsman prior to enrolling it. Owner-
ship of these lands varied and the purpose for which they were held
varied equally. Many of these land owners had purchased the cropland
as parts of units with their primary interest in gaining title to woodlots.
Other land owners had purchased land specifically for enrolling it in the
Soil Bank Program. Essentially, the hay crop on this land was cut in

16

speculation of sale. Some of this land would have gone out of production
had there been no Program.

A close inspection of individual Program cooperators indicates that the
amount of land that would have reverted to brush by the summer of 1959
had there been no Program is about 850 acres. As shown in Table 4, it
was estimated that the Soil Bank Program accounted for about 4,350
acres of cropland which would have remained in production at least through
1959 had there been no Program. The plausibility of this conclusion is
supported by the trend comparison pictured in Figure 2. The sum of the
remaining cropland not in the Soil Bank plus the 4,350 acres taken out
of production by the Soil Bank almost falls on the 1939-59 trend in crop-
land as reported by the various Census of Agriculture.

Figure 2. Long-run trend in cropland and projection,
1939-1975, Coos County*

70,000

60,000 -

50,000 -

40,000 -

UJ

o:
o

50,000 -

20,000 -

10,000 -

YEAR

* Data 1939-54 from Agricultural Census, Bu. of Census, U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
and 1959 data estimated from Farm Survey. Trend fitted by method of least squares.
Log. Y=4.867 — .076X, where Y equals acres and X equals time.

17

Livestock on Enrolled Units

A total of 418 milk cows were on units enrolled in the Program. How-
ever, this does not mean that 418 cows were removed from the County.
Thirty-five cows were retained on enrolled farms and drylot fed, and 37
were moved to some other farmstead (Table 5). A total of 81 cows in-
Table 5. Number of cows on Soil Bank units, disposition of cows
and estimated number removed due to tlie Program,
Coos County, New Hampshire

Total number of cows on Soil Bank Units 418

Still owned 35

Changed farms 37

Total 72

Corrected number of cows on enrolled units 346

Expected decline due to non-Soil Bank forces 151

Number of cows removed from production due to the Soil Bank Program 195

volved in the Program were sold as replacements to other farmers in the
County. These replaced stock normally sold as replacements to local dairy-
men, and therefore would represent a net loss. Including the cows sold
to dealers and other local farmers, the maximum net impact in terms
of cow removals is estimated to be 346.

Sizable year-to-year fluctuations in cow numbers are experienced by the
County, and it is within this framework that the changes in cow numbers
attributable to the Soil Bank should be appraised. The trend in cow num-
bers should be considered also, as they reached their peak in 1920 and
the trend has since declined at a fairly constant rate.

The 1939-59 trend in cow numbers is shown graphically in Figure 3.
Cow numbers increased in 1952, 1953 and 1954, but since then have de-
creased. The expansion of cow numbers is traceable to the farmers' re-
sponse to the more favorable price relationships that occurred during the
Korean War.

The long-time trend in cow numbers and the downward trend in farm
numbers suggests that some number less than the 346 cows removed on
enrolled units represents the net effect of the Soil Bank on cow numbers.
Each enrolled farm unit was examined carefully in order to estimate the
net effect of the Program on cow numbers. Including all types of units
that had cows at time of enrollment, it is estimated that the Program was
responsible for a reduction of 195 cows.

While the Soil Bank Program influenced cow numbers in the County,
the magnitude of the change was not particularly large when compared
with year-to-year changes experienced in the 1950's. The expansion in
cow numbers from 1952 to 1953 amounted to 649, three times the change
attributable to the Program. Between 1955 and 1956, cow numbers were
reduced by 307 cows, somewhat more than the number attributable to

18

Figure 3. Long-run trend in eow numbers and projection,
1939-1975, Coos County*

9000

8000

en

I 7000

o

6000

5000-

I I ) I I I I I I I I I

I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

T

■ ■ ■ '

o-j-

O

in

o

in

o

^

m

m

«)

0)

<T»

<D

0^

in

CO

O

N.

in

N.

YEAR

* Data 1939-58 from town tax record?, 1959 data estimated from Farm Survey. Trend
fitted by methods of least squares. Y=8567.13 — 76.03X, where Y equals cow numbers
and X equals time, r=:.76, S=397.

the Soil Bank. Thus annual fluctuations in response to general economic
conditions were at least as severe in changing cow numbers as was the
Program.

Machinery on Enrolled Units

Thirty-seven of the 120 whole unit Soil Bank cooperators reported farm
machinery of some sort (Appendix Table 6). This machinery varied in
type from horse-drawn and virtually unusable pieces to high-capacity items
of recent vintage. In order to get a meaningful idea of the volume of ma-
chinery involved, tractor numbers were analyzed on an age basis. Employ-
ing a useful life expectancy of 16 years, the estimated new tractor life
of the 34 tractors on Soil Bank units was 18 medium-sized tractors. When
no obsolescence is assumed on these tractors, the equivalent of 18 new
tractors would be released from farm production. This is roughly three-
fourths of one year's tractor replacements on the farms remaining in pro-
duction in the County. As discussed previously, farm numbers and acreage
of cropland have been declining. The same type of situation would pre-

19

vail with machinery in that not all of the equipment idled on enrolled
Soil Bank units could be attributed to the Program. A study of individual
units enrolled indicates that the net effect of the Program on tractor num-
bers was to free the equivalent of 12 new tractors for use by remaining
agricultural units.

*o'

Buildings on Enrolled Units

A total of 67 units of the 120 whole unit cooperators had some kind of
farm buildings (Appendix Table 6). Some 38 buildings were barns 30 by
60 feet or larger. Many of the barns were in poor repair and bordered on
obsolescence. In order to appraise farm buildings, the following crude
guides were used: repairs made in the last 5 or 10 years; type of floor
material in the cow tieup portion of the barn. About 70 percent of the
farm buildings were found to have received no improvements in the stable
area to conform to modern technology. The measure of repairs made dur-
ing the last decade gives some indication as to the intentions of operators
with regard to future agricultural production using their building capacity.
About 30 percent of the buildings on units idled received some repairs
during the last 10 years and only 16 percent had any repairs completed
during the last 5 years. These measures are very crude but they do indi-
cate that most of these buildings did not meet current standards of efficient
operation and low-cost production of milk.

Not all the whole units enrolled reported a dwelling. Only 80 homes
were reported on the 120 whole units. Of the 80 homes reported, 78 per
cent were used as year-round homes and 22 percent as part-time or sum-
mer residences.

Labor on Enrolled Units

Persons of all occupations were cooperators in the Soil Bank Program.
Besides farmers, local businessmen, ministers, doctors, undertakers, and
town administrators are included. Even though 120 whole units were en-
rolled, relatively few workers were released to the labor market. Among
the 26 commercial units enrolled, 10 operators had nonfarm jobs before
enrollment (Table 6). After enrollment in the Program, the net effect was
to increase the number of persons seeking nonfarm work by four. In an
area where nonfarm employment exceeds 10,000 persons, this amount of
labor released is negligible (Appendix Table 7).

Summary of Resources Enrolled in the Soil Bank

Several things are demonstrated by the preceding analysis of the re-
sources enrolled in the Program and the agricultural trends that have
characterized production in Coos County. First, forces other than the Soil
Bank have had equally as great and probably a greater impact on the use
of resources as has the Soil Bank. Second, many of the resources involved
on units enrolled in the Program are of relatively poor quality. Because of
this, one would expect the operators of these units to be ready to accept
a less intensive agricultural use or complete abandonment from agricultural
use. Third, many parcels of the land resource and its product, hay, re-
ceived little or no income before the Program. Land rents or payments for
hay were nominal or nonexistent for many of the smaller holdings that

20

ffualified for the Program. Specifically, the following concise estimates can
he made of the resources enrolled in the Soil Bank in the period 1956-59.

Table 6. Present and pre-Soil Bank employment status and number of

persons seeking non-farm employment from 26 wliole units

with 4 or more cows or equivalent enrolled in the Program

PRESENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Units

Retired or widowed 8

Changed farm, still farming, cattle dealer 8

Painter, carpenter, plumber 3

Mill work (including saw mill) 3

Junk dealer 1

Odd jobs 3

Total 26

PRE-SOIL BANK EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Number with non-farm jobs 10

Number without non-farm jobs 16

Total 26

CHANGE IN LABOR FORCE

Number seeking non-farm jobs not previously working in agriculture* 4

* Net figure after adjustments for combination of non-farm work and retirement.

Unit Numbers. A total of 120 whole units and 9 part-units were enrolled
in the Soil Bank. Of the 120 whole units enrolled, only 26 could be classed
as commercial units, and even then, 10 of the operators of these units
held nonfarm jobs before enrolling. Most of the units enrolled were oper-
ated as part-time farms or merely held as rural properties selling hay.
Many were not actively farmed as complete units as far back as 1940.
Financially, the Program was a better alternative for owners of these lands
than renting to farmers in the area at little or even no return. Seventy-nine
percent of the whole units enrolled were these noncommercial type rural
units. Many of these rural units would probably still be producing hay for
sale or be used by local farmers if there had been no Program.

It is more difficult to estimate how many of the 26 commercial-type units
enrolled in the Program would still be in operation as farms had there been
no Program. During the last few decades, the annual attrition rate in
farms has averaged about 18 per year. The fact that several of the oper-
ators who enrolled retired upon joining the Program would indicate that
at least some of the operators would have left agriculture, although the
farms as such might have continued with new managers. From a careful
study of farm records and trends in the area, it is estimated that the Pro-
gram removed about 10 farms that would otherwise still be in operation.

Cropland. A total of 5,204 acres were enrolled in the Program. This is
17 percent of the cropland in the County. Of the whole farms enrolled,
the total acreage amounted to 5,128 acres. Sixty-three percent of this

21

acreage was on holdings generally classed as noncommercial farms. As
pointed out in the section on farm numbers, many of the smaller holdings
with the lower levels of land productivity change gradually from cropland
into woods. Eventually, the cost of harvesting the hay crop exceeds the
value of the hay, and the land remains idle. Had there been no Soil Bank
Program, it is estimated that 850 acres of land in this category would
have been abandoned for cropland use during the period the Program was
in operation. The cropland on the more commercial type of unit whether
enrolled in the Soil Bank or normally idled would have stayed in the agri-
cultural system of the County because of its relative level of productivity.
The net effect of the Program in terms of cropland idled and removed
from production is estimated to be about 4,350 acres.

Livestock. While 418 cows were on units enrolled in the Soil Bank, this
number does not represent the net cow removals associated with the Pro-
gram. Seventy-two cows remained in farmer ownership after the units were
enrolled. This leaves a net of 346 cows which were essentially eliminated
from production by the Soil Bank. However, as with land and farm num-
bers, economic forces have caused a downward trend in cow numbers in
the County. This would modify the estimate of the effect of the Program
on cow numbers. An examination of each farm unit enrolled in the Pro-
gram was made to estimate the true net effect of the Program on cow
numbers. Taking into account the animals that would have left produc-
tion had there been no Soil Bank Program, 195 cows were estimated to
have been removed from the County because of the Program.

Machinery. Only 37 of the 120 whole unit Soil Bank Cooperators re-
ported farm machinery of any type. The machines reported varied con-
siderably in both age and usability. Some equipment was of horse-drawn
vintage and had little resale value while some was relatively new. Tractor
numbers adjusted for age of a 16-year life was used as an indicator of
machinery released by the Program. Taking into account the individual
farms that would have stopped production had there been no Soil Bank
Program, it was estimated that the Program freed for sale the equiva-
lent of 12 new tractors.

Buildings. Of the 120 whole units enrolled, 67 had farm buildings of
some kind and 80 had dwelling houses. About 78 percent of the dwellings
were used year-round. While the dwelling has some importance in terms
of an agricultural resource, when the farm buildings are destroyed by fire
or other cause it has often meant the cessation of farming on individual units.
Historically, this has been the case, and almost half of the units enrolled
had no farm buildings. Of the buildings on units enrolled, many were in
rather poor repair and technologically obsolete. For these reasons and the
fact that buildings generally must be associated with particular land hold-
ings, no economic values or inferences can be obtained from the build-
ings idled by the Program.

Labor. As shown elsewhere, most of the units enrolled in the Program
were not full-time commercial farms. Of the 26 units with reasonably
full-time employment, 10 persons had nonfarm jobs before enrollment.
Others remained in agricultural work and the net effect of the Program
was to increase the persons seeking nonfarm work by four. This is con-
sidered to be a negligible effect on the resource pattern of the County.

22

EFFECT OF THE SOIL BANK ON THE ECONOMY

The effect of the Soil Bank Program on the economy of Coos County
can be determined by measuring the Program's effect on gross farm in-
come, income flow, change in expenditure pattern, and nonparticipating
farmer's incomes and costs of production.

GROSS FARM INCOME ESTIMATES

The effect of the Program on farm income is analyzed by comparing the
income expectation from land resources enrolled in the Program with an
estimate of income that might have been derived from these resources
had they not been enrolled in the Program.

Economic theory suggests that operators of individual units would im-
prove their net income by enrolling their land resources in the Program
and hence explains why operators enrolled. Preliminary budgeting con-
firms this hypothesis. This, coupled with the fact that the Program has
been put into operation, reduces the areas for study to the effect on the
remaining farm economy and on the local nonfarm economy, which in-
cludes the agencies that serve agriculture.

Future income from the land resource enrolled in the Program is pre-
dicted from data furnished by the State Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. The land resource enrolled in the Program as of
July 1, 1959, is assumed to be held under contract until the contract ex-
pires. The estimates take into account the extension of income flow from
the 1956-59 Program through 1972. Ten-year contracts involving tree-
planting operations may be extended if trees are not available for planting.

Predicting what the future income flow from enrolled resources in-
volved in enrolled units might have been in the absence of the Program
is more difficult. Predicting income for the year 1959 can be done with
some degree of accuracy, given a realistic set of basic assumptions. Pre-
dicting income for any ensuing year is impossible because of the many
forces that modify prices and farm production decisions. The income pre-
diction for resources on enrolled units in the absence of the Soil Bank Pro-
gram is presented as an indication of income flow over the entire 10 to 12
year period and not as a prediction of income in any specific year. It is
based essentiaUy on the assumptions that current trends continue over the
next decade.

Method of Analysis

To facilitate the analysis, two models of agricultural resource use and
output and therefore income projections are developed. These models
represent likely extremes in resource use and provide precise enough
answers to permit some analysis of the Program's impact on the farm
economy.

The assumptions common to both levels of analysis are:

Prices. Prices typical in the last few years are assumed to continue
through 1972. As with other assumptions, these prices may not truly repre-
sent those which will occur regularly. However, they are consistent in that
the prices paid-prices received ratio is that which is anticipated.

23

Production output and input rates. Specific production rates used to
determine quantities of agricultural output are shown in Appendix Table
8. Possible changes in technology that would influence rates of output over
the period studied are largely ignored. Milk production per cow is the
exception in that it is assumed that an average annual increase of 110
pounds per cow would be experienced. This annual increase in production
per cow has occurred rather consistently over the last several years. Part
of this increase has been attributed to changes in input qualities. How-
ever, it is felt that most of the increase is due to quality improvements
in livestock rather than input changes. Also, the cows in the enrolled
resources were at a low enough production level to participate easily in
such a low average annual increase. With stable price relationships, crop
yields are not assumed to be increased. Furthermore, it is felt that tech-
nology will have little effect on crop yields in the short time span involved.

The assumptions that differ for the two levels of analysis are:

Quantity of resources. The basic difference in computing the two levels
of income is quantity of resources assumed to remain in production over
the period of analysis. For the low-income estimate, resources removed by
the Soil Bank are assumed to be completely idled from production by the
year of expiration of the 1959 extended contracts, even though they had
not been enrolled in the Program. The actual output-producing resources
of cows and cropland were assumed to decline or be idled by a constant
amount each year. Thus by 1972, production from the resources is assumed
to have stopped. Essentially this analysis assumes that the resources in-
volved were inferior to resources not enrolled in the Soil Bank. For the
high income estimate, resources estimated to have been taken out of
production by the Program are assumed to be idled from agricultural use
at the same rate as expected for all other County resources, as shown in
Figures 2 and 3. This is saying that the resources enrolled in the Pro-
gram are equal in quality to comparable remaining resources in the Coun-
ty. The exact quantities of resources used in both levels of analysis are
shown in Appendix Tables 9 and 10.

Comparative Income Estimates

High Income Model. The high gross income expected to have been earned
by resources idled by enrollment indicates the largest loss in farm income
to the Coos County farm economy. This income loss-Soil Bank compari-
son is shown in Table 7. It is estimated that in 1959, these resources*
would have earned $117,480 gross income for the Coos County farm econ-
omy if there had been no Program. This gross income was foregone to
obtain $94,000 gross income from Soil Bank payments for a net loss in
gross income of something less than $25,000. In the remaining 13 years
cf the contract, $1,203,915 gross income would be foregone from idling
resources from farm production for $917,000 of Soil Bank payments. The
loss in gross income over the 13 years is slightly greater than an average
of $22,000 per year.

The hay that was produced on Soil Bank farms and sold locally repre-
sents no loss in income to the County. These sales effect expenditure
patterns and costs of the remaining farmers and is considered in a later
section. Agricultural Conservation Program payments are expected to re-

24

Table 7. High gross agricultural iucoine expected to be earned

bv resources idled by the Soil Bank Program, compared to

Soil Bank payments, 1959 and 1960-72

Without prog

ram

With program

Price

Item

Unit

Quantity

per unit

Returns

Item

Returns

1959

Soil Bank

Milk

cwt.

13.460

$ 4.50

$ 60,570

Payments

Cull cows

no.

56

150.00

8.400

Incentive

$ 82.000

Calves

no.

79

10.00

790

Practice

12.000

Hav

a

ton

2,386

20.00

47.720

b

ton

1.860

5.00

«

ACP

acre

4.350

4.00

*

-

$117,480

$ 94.00U

1960-1972

Milk

cwt.

151,379

$ 4.50

$681,205

Soil Bank

Cull cows

no.

582

150.00

87.300

Payments

Calves

no.

823

10.00

8.230

Incentive

$869,000

Hay

a

ton

21,359

20.00

427.180

Practice

48.000

b

ton

16,667

5.00

«

ACP

acre

40.172

4.00

*

-

$1,203,915

$917,000

* Represents no change in income flow into the County. Hay sales are inter-farm
transactions within the County. Agricultural Conservation payments are determined
institutionally and do not necessarily change in total for the County.

main the same as they were before the Program because of the way in
which payments are determined and distributed. A.C.P. appropriations
made by the Congress are divided among the states on the basis of farm
resources and conservation needs. State committees divide the funds among
counties on a similar base with volume of applications for practice pay-
ments as an indication of Conservation needs. Farmers in Coos County
have consistently applied for more A.C.P. assistance with conservation
practices than funds were available to support. Remaining farmers are
thus in a position to obtain larger payments over the ensuing years, as
there are fewer operators to share the limited funds.

Low Income Model. The low gross income expected to have been earned
by resources idled by enrollment, if they had not been enrolled, indicates
the smallest loss in farm income due to the Soil Bank (Table 8). The
effect of the Program on 1959 farm income under these assumptions are
the same as those for the high expected income. However, over the re-
maining contract period, under the low-income estimate, $731,885 income
is foregone by enrolling the land resource in the Soil Bank Program for
the $917,000 Soil Bank payments. Gross income is then expected to in-
crease by an average of about $14,000 per year if the assumptions that
underlie the low estimate properly describes economic conditions in the
following years.

25

Table 8. Low gross agricultural income expected to be earned

by resources idled by the Soil Bank Program, compared to

Soil Bank Payments, 19S9 and 1960-72

Without prog]

ram

With prog

ram

Price

Item

Unit

Quantity

per unit

Returns

Item

Returns

1959

Soil Bank

Millc

cwt.

13,460

$ 4.50

1 60,570

Payments

Cull cows

no.

56

150.00

8,400

Incentive

$82,000

Calves

no.

79

10.00

790

Practice

12,000

Hav

a ton

2.386

20.00

47,720

b ton

1,860

5.00

*

ACP

acre

4,350

1.00

, *

$117,480

$ 94,000

cwt.

86,736

4.50

1960-1972

Soil Bank

Milk

$390,315

Cull cows

; no.

337

150.00

50,550

Payments

Calves

no.

474

10.00

4,740

Incentive

$869,000

Hay

a ton

14,314

20.00

286,280

Practice

48,000

b ton

11.157

5.00

*

ACP

acre

26,100

1.00

*

$731,885

$917,000

* Represents no change in income flow into the County. Hay sales are inter-farm
transactions within the County. Agricultural Conservation payments are determined
institutionally and do not necessarily change in total for the County.

Discussion of the Models

The high- and low-income estimates refer to synthesized anticipated in-
comes from resources involved on units now enrolled in the Soil Bank.
This assumes also that these resources had not been enrolled in the Soil
Bank and that economic forces were allowed to influence resource use and
output. The high estiinate assumes resources enrolled were average for
the County and the low estimate assumes that resources were substantial-
ly below average for the County. A careful examination of the resources
enrolled in the Program and discussed earlier in this study indicates that
as a group the enrolled resources could not be considered above the aver-
age quality. This conclusion is drawn, even though some resources were
of highest quality.

The comparison of gross income potentials indicates that gross farm in-
come would fall by slightly less than $25,000 for the year 1959 because of
enrollment in the Program. In the following years, gross farm income is
estimated to average either $22,000 less or $14,000 more per year then
it would have had there been no Program.

26

The differences in gross agricultural income between the models is not
particularly significant if viewed in the proper perspective. With an aver-
age range of from —$22,000 to +$14,000, the gross difference between
models is only $36,000. This difference of $36,000 is equivalent to a change
m the average annual price of milk of about 8V2 cents per hundred-weight
for the producing herds of the County. Or, this amount of income is equiva-
lent to the income from about 100 cows. Hence, the Soil Bank participation
does not seem to have affected appreciably gross agricultural income to
the County.

INCOME FLOW IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY

The Coos County economy is basically an isolated one. The County is
bordered on the east, south, and west by mountains and rough terrain.
It is bordered on the north by Canada. Farming is carried on in valleys
of the Connecticut River, the Androscoggin River, tributaries of these two
rivers, on rolling hills of the famed Colebrook area, and on rolling and
sometimes rocky hills around Lancaster. Recreation and wood industries
are the basis for the nonfarm economy. Although people living in parts
of Maine, Vermont, Canada and other parts of New Hampshire use towns
in Coos County as a market area, the contribution of these other areas to
the County economy is not great because of the sparse population.

Output for local use is confined to a modest amount of wood and food
products, and to personal, retail, and recreational services. Demand in the
area can be broken down into two parts: Demand for goods and services
produced in the area, and demand for goods and services produced out-
side the area. Supply in the area can likewise be broken into two parts:
Supply of goods and services for local demand; and supply of goods and
services for consumption elsewhere. A reduction in the latter means a re-
duction of the income flow into the area. A reduction of income flow
into the area would also mean a reduction in demand for local production.

Income Flow Model

Assume that a dairyman produces a dollar's worth less milk (Table
9). This means that he has one dollar less to spend. Suppose further, that
he decides to spend one dollar less for coffee for the family. Obviously
no coffee beans are produced in the area. But the services that bring the
coffee into the area, store it, and transfer it to the farmer are produced
in the area. The price of these services is called the retail markup. Let us
assume that this markup is 30 percent. Thus the demand for goods and
services produced in the area falls by an amount equal to 30 cents and
the fall in demand for goods produced outside the area equals 70 cents.
The 30 cents received by the grocer for his service represents income to
him, and the reduction in the farmer's expenditure means a 30-cent loss
in income to the grocer. The grocer must curtail his expenditures by 30
cents. Assume now that the grocer cuts 30 cents from his expenditure
for shoes and that the markup on shoes is also 30 percent. The expendi-
ture for the local service of providing shoes falls by an amount equal
to 9 cents, and the expenditure for shoes produced outside the area falls
by an amount equal to 21 cents. This process continues until the expendi-
tures for goods produced outside the area equals the $1.00 lost bv the
dairyman. The loss in outflow of dollars then equals the loss in inflow of

27

s
S

ft

-^ 0

!8 a
s 0
o

0
V in

C5 «

2 5

%H 0

at

s "

h — "

« 0

0

s -r

•" 0

o

0 _

0 s

^ .2

S '^

— Ml

a «

« 0

5

o

i;

Hi

O -3

" 5

2 SB
O .^

s

d

o ti

7= a

o

o

o

On f-

00 LH _

^ o o

o o o

o
o

o
c

CO CO lC

^ ■sc --^ <^ c::
CA (=: (^ c^ c^

O

t^ CC Csl

O O !» o o
cc c c ~ o

c

z

t-

cc

o

C^

(M

o

o^

CYt

c

C

c

^

o
o

o
o

o o

- 03

is

o o o

o O fO

O Cvl O cc
C C Q ■*

(rq cc rf uT

1)

lU

its

o
o

O

c
«l
m
C
at
u

C

i2

MH 3

c a.

cfi

G
X

o
o

3

a.

in

c

O

O CA.

c
c

o

c
ca

t5

X

o
I-
D-

<

J5

ra

5

P -^

*^

c

!U

o

;-<

*-•

(U

o

O

, .

O

c

1 — 1

<u

o

-C

o

D

ca

a,

o

u

o

Q.

CO

CI,

ca

r/)

ca

-C

3

o

3

V

3 .

O

o

?

U

cfi

<u

S '

— 1

ca

o

a

o

-o ■

-c

a;

c

o

ca

3

-a

4-t

o

c

M

<u

D,

o

^

Oi

c«

o

Oj

O

o

">

cq

IV

ifj

u

ca

c

J

ca

'x

o

f«

^

-TS

a.

o

a

o

ca

bC

^

t-i

_o

o

t-4-H

^

^

-T3

C

c«

ca

s

s

.■S

-o

>-.

OJ

c

tn

3

O

o

a.

O

.S

-3

o

*~

t.*-*

rt

tV

4-1

ca

t-H

0)

en

>

<U

ca

s

3

-3

c/)

£

trj

<

bO

^.

'id

^

28

dollars coming into the area. However, the flow of dollars within the
area is reduced by $1.43.

Income Flow within the County

The change in the inflow of income into the County is essentially the net
change in gross farm income. The estimated change in gross farm income
for both the high and low resource use estimates for the year 1959 is
$23,480. The final impact of this reduction in gross farm income will
depend on the demand for local goods and services. If this demand is 30
percent of total demand in the area, and all income is spent in the area,
then the income flow within the area will be reduced by $1.43 for each
dollar lost in gross farm income for a total reduction of $33,600 due to
the Soil Bank for the 1959 year. The loss in income to owners of nonfarm
resources is estimated to be about $10,000 as the effect of the change in
gross farm income spreads with each transaction throughout the economy.
If the complete loss in income were to be absorbed by a few individuals
]n the nonfarm economy, the loss of $10,000 would amount to the annual
wage of about 3 workers.^

For the remaining years covered by Soil Bank contracts, the amount
of income loss for the high use resource estimate would remain the same
as in 1959. But with the low resource use estimate conditions would differ.
In this case, income to providers of local services would be increased by
about $6,000 annually, equivalent to the creation of two additional jobs.
However, not all money is spent in the area. Many purchases are made
from mail order houses, and some income is saved and invested outside
the area. Hence, the effect of the Soil Bank on the local economy would
appear to be something less than the 3 job equivalents estimated for 1959.

The same conclusions would hold for the high resource estimate over
the lifetime of the current contracts. If some of the change in gross income
is not spent in the area, the increase for the low resource use estimate prob-
ably would not reach the level of $6,000 per year over the life of the Pro-
gram. Further, if the demand for local services was something less than
30 percent of total demand, the impact would be less. The effect of the
Program on income flow within the area, even when liberally computed,
appears to be negligible.

Expenditure Patterns

In a previous section, two agricultural resource use models were de-
veloped to show the impact of the Program on gross farm income. For the
high resource use model, the immediate income loss is estimated to be
about $23,000, while the average annual decrease in income from 1960-
72, was estimated to be about $22,000 below the level that would ha^^e
existed had there been no Program. For the low resource use model, gross
income would have declined during 1959 by the same amount as w^ith
the high income model. However, for the longer time period, it was esti-
mated that the Program would have increased the gross income attribut-
able to the enrofled resources by about $14,000 per year. The important
conclusion was that the difference in income resulting from the Soil Bank

"^ However, it would be anticipated that the income effect would be spread out over
individuals who provide services in the County.

29

Program is small when compared with possible changes in gross income
for the County caused by changes in prices or cow numbers.

The change in farm expenditures also appears to be greater in magni-
tude than the changes in gross farm income. These changes are approxi-
mated in Table 10. For both the high- and low-income models and for
both short- and long-run conditions, expenditures for living expenses or
savings would increase substantially because of the Program. Naturally,
with gross income relatively the same with or without the Program, and
with no need for expenditures for operating and new capital goods, a
shift in expenditure pattern from production goods to consumption goods
would occur.

As shown in Table 10, expenditures for remaining farmers resulting
largely from purchases of hay will increase under Soil Bank conditions but
will not compensate for the large reduction in operating expenses associ-
ated with enrolled farms. Capital expenditures decline somewhat with the
impact of the Program but require some outlay for real estate debt pay-
ments.

With the change in the income expenditure pattern anticipated with
the Program, agricultural dealers and providers of agricultural services
to farmers would feel a decline in gross income. However, providers of
consumer goods and services would benefit considerably by the shift of
agricultural units into the Soil Bank.

*D"

In 1959. Expenditures for both the low and the high resource use models
are predicted to be the same in 1959. Expenditures for production goods
v/ould decline by $33,800, and this decline would be noticeable by local
suppliers of agricultural production goods. Because of Soil Bank enroll-
ment, expenditures of Soil Bank Cooperators for consumption goods would
increase by $37,000 or by about 2 and ^/o times the pre-Program amount.

In the Long Run. With the high resource use model, consumption ex-
penditures would increase an average of about $23,000 annually from
1960-72. Farm operating cost expenditures would drop about the same
amount on a yearly basis. This estimate includes the increased costs
associated with the remaining farmers. Capital expenditures, which would
be largely for debt retirement or real estate, would be down by about
$13,000 per year.

With the low resource use model, long-run living expenditures would in-
crease an average of about $33,000 per year above what they would have
been had there been no Program. Operating expenses would have shown
a negligible drop of about $4,000 annually. In other words, if the low
resource use model closely fits the true resource structure, dealers who
provide agricultural production goods and services would experience little
1 eduction in gross income caused by the Soil Bank enrollment.

NONPARTICIPATING FARMERS

Hay Purchases

The major impact of the Program on nonparticipating farmers is in
the influence it has on the hay supply. Many dairy operators supplement
the hay supply produced on their own land. Often a neighboring field is
rented or a stand of hay purchased. A close inspection of several towns
indicates that a considerable amount of hayland formerly rented by dairy-

30

•'■"V

C
C
<

CS

h

o
s

CS

CQ

o

-T3
C
<D
O.
X
(U

(M

o

OS

0

3

0

s
o

o
is

HI

a

s

V

s

u

V

bp

IS

CS
H

Ui

3

-3
a

On

LO

OS

5

■SCQ

3 C
O nJ

-cm

■c^

tc

-i^

,— t

-J- c

CO

o

:5pS

H

^^

CA)

^-«

3 C

o^

^m

!C

■SCQ

^

3 3

o w

-am

o
Q

o
Q

tn
^'

CO

o
Q

o
Q

o
Q

o

o

o

o

o

o

r— 1

1 1

o

1— 1

CO

1 1

fO"

ro

CS

CS

F-H

+

1

1

o

o o

o

o

C2

o o

o

o

so

so !M

CO

■*

1 — 1

CO OS

CM

LO

>*

(M 1— 1

^

o

o

vq

1

1

e-i

'

'

ro

+

O

o o

o

o

OS

LO

OS

o

o

LO

o
o

CM

o"
o

fO

+

o
o
o

— H
LO

o o
o o

LO CO

lO o

LO 1—1

o o
o o
o o,

so o"

O LO

CO es

o
o

00

LO'

so

o

o

so
Os"
OS
CM

o

o
o

so"

LO
LO

o
o

o
o
r^

o

o
o
o_

o"

o
o

CO

o o
o o

co^co

o
o

so

o
o

CM

cm" CO
CM CO
t^ r-l

LO
LO

CO

C3
CM

o
o
o
r— '

CO
+

o
o

LO

o

so

o

o

LO

CO
CM

o o
o o

LO r— I

CO 00
CM CM

o o
o o

LO OS

O '^

C^ r-H

o
o

00

CO
CO

o
o

so

o

o

LO

CO

o

I— I o

LO

CO

o
o

LO

CO
CM

CO

o
o

CO

o

o

so

esi

+

o
o
o

1— r

LO

o
o

so

o
o
o

CO

+

o
o

LO

o
o

LO

CO
CSl

CO CM
CM --*

o o
o o

CO c^

CO so
CO

o
o

CM

co'

o
o

o
o

CO

o
o

■*^

so
CO

o o

o o

O l-H

■^ r-l

o
o

LO
lO

o
o
^,

so

o

o o
o o

O^co

so"t^

O so

CO r— (

o o
o o

I— I CO

OS Os"
CO CO

2 ^

2 '='

CO O
CO

o

o

o

rf-

cd

CM

LO

o
o

CO

CO
CO

o
o

o o

o o

LO 1— t

CO 03
CM CM

o

LO

o o
o o

LO Os

o"tj<"
C~- I— I

8

LO

CO

o
o

LO

o
o
o
o"

o
o

LO

CO
CM

c/l

<" S c

. - 3 ca

■^ "J 7; "-s^

4) tfi a, h£
p c X c br
3 n. ■" .5

J C I- o <u

K JO

C3

o

V

4"^
U) — ^

^ - S =J2

3 S 5 -42

t« C fcD

X -

5 <u c

1-1 b£ ca

"Zl 3

M 2'5

ca
o

o.
ca

o c

O 5J

. s ^ o u

b.C ^'
h4 JC

C3

'a

c«

CJ

.-t-l (fi

o -o
o

4-1 o
C bC

^ o
o

CM "C

o

QJ >-^

1"^

3

-a

CD C
c/j <D

M-l

©o

CM

c/)

'in "W

>^ c

3 ^

X

. C3

3 C

o

o
o

*j o

3 o

O 3

ro 1^

o o

■^ c

3 ^

ca o

3 (D

3 o,

ca

o —

D

3

s

o
o
ca

'a.

3

o

-3
3
ca

bC

.5
-3

3

-3

*J CS

C-C
ID O

S '-
ca

3

3
-3 ca

3
(D

ca x

bC

3

3 .3

ID ca

as cTf

_Q O
' ' CJ

2 bD

"3 "5

ID ca

? 3.

o

U5 O

(D C

ca Q

"3 _

o
in bO 'Zl

•^

.5

o 3

^^

c

">

CO o

o

I-l

3,"

CM

£

"""I

«%

tH

^ (D

03

O

D. D.

C->

.-f-l

ID

o

3

3
ID

cx

"i CO

3 3

o

ca

O

t/3

^ "=

-3

3
ID
D.
X

w

(ft

«

13

£

o
o

o ca

*

-i- ++

33

men is now in the Soil Bank. In the three towns of Colebrook, Columbia
and Stewartstown, there were only 450 acres of land for rent in 1959.
where as in 1958 there were 1,113 acres.

The loss of this hay is especially important because many fields were
close to the renting farm. With this land in the Soil Bank, if the dairy-
men continue to rent, they must travel longer distances to obtain hay.
Figure 4 shows the various rural units by type of operation and location
within the townships of Colebrook and Columbia, New Hampshire. This
figure graphically locates the Soil Bank cooperators as well as the po-
tential renters or hayland. It can be seen that while the Program has
laken many units that were on the "ends" of the road, it has also reduced
the units that could supply "nearby" hay.

There are two other alternatives for obtaining hay supplies. First, some
dairymen could obtain the supply from their own land by increased fer-
tilization. Second, hay could be purchased on the market from other areas.
However, if we assume that dairy farm forage programs were in balance
before the Soil Bank, it follows that the hay supply lost in the Program
can be replaced only at a greater cost to remaining dairymen. This in-
creased cost to the remaining dairymen is an intangible cost to estimate.
The two gross income models developed in a preceding section give us
some indication of the quantities of hay the enrolled cropland was ex-
pected to produce for local use. In Tables 7 and 8, the hay lost to re-
maining farmers is estimated to be 1,860 tons for 1959. For succeeding
vears, the estimate is 16,667 tons under the high-resource use estimate
and 11,157 tons under the low-resource use estimate. The cost of this hay
is commonly S5.00 per ton, paid to the owner of the land resource, plus
about S8.00 per ton out-of-pocket cost of harvesting and storing the hay.^
Assuming that hay is purchased at -120.00 per ton, the increased cost of
remaining dairymen who buy hay becomes $7.00 per ton. Thus the in-
creased cost of hay to remaining dairymen would be about $13,000 for
the year 1959. For the remaining years of the analysis, the cost of hay
would be $116,700 under the high-resource use estimate and $78,100 under
the low-resource use estimate.

Economies in Marketing

Another problem affecting the remaining farmers is the availability of
marketing facilities and services, and the cost of these services. Firms that
service farms achieve certain economies of scale of operation as their
volumes increase. This is the case whether the firms provide only goods
to farms or whether they provide a combination of goods and services
or merely services. Extensive land placement in the Soil Bank could mean
a reduction in volume great enough to cause increased costs and lower
net prices for items sold by farmers and higher net prices for items pur-
chased by farmers.

The charges for retail services, machinery repair services, and the like
are important to dairymen. However, in view of the number of firms in-

S These costs vary tremendously. "Rent" goes from no charge to $20.00 per acre,
and the rent assumed here approximates the modal. Similar differences exist with
operating costs. The $8.00 employed in the analysis approximates the mode and does
not include return to family labor, management, or depreciation because each represent
income to the farm family.

34

volved, the structure of these firms, the alternatives and the relative im-
portance of agriculture to the overall economy, a change in demand for
these services may mean some adjustment in firm reorganization with
only infinitely small changes in the prices of the services. The major
marketing cost affected is connected with milk hauling, and the analysis
IS restricted to possible changes in the economies associated v^^ith milk
assembly. Towns of 200 or more cows were selected for preliminary an-
alysis. As shown in Table 11, density of production was measured in teniis

Table 11. Cows per mile of road for town with a total of 200 or more cows,
and Coos County, New Hampshire, 1959*

Area

Cow numbe

rs

Cows per

mile of road

Total

Herds with

Herds with

Herds with

all

less than

more than

All

more than

herds

16 cows

16 cows

herds

16 cows

271

55

216

21.5

17.1

295

11

284

17.2

16.5

1284

90

1194

34.6

32.2

519

34

485

25.3

23.6

675

106

569

26.0

21.9

202

47

155

13.9

10.7

266

23

243

12.4

11.3

839

222

617

30.0

22.0

554

132

422

26.4

20.1

283

47

236

13.8

11.5

308

40

268

13.4

11.7

5496

807

4689

22.7

19.4

6039

1032

5007

7.4

6.1

ClarksviUe

Pittsburg

Colebrook

Columbia

Stewartstown

Stratford

Northumberland

Lancaster

Jefferson

Whitefield

Milan

11 towns ....
Coos County ....

* Road mileage based on road classes I, II, IV and V as established by the State
Highway Department.

of the relationship of milk cows per mile of road. Comparing the cows
per mile of road in the several towns with the County average gives some
relative picture of the importance of dairying in these towns. On the
basis of all cows in each township, the several towns averaged 22.7 cows
per mile of road.

To do a more precise study of the effect of Soil Bank enrollment on
density of production and hence marketing costs, the towns of Colebrook
and Columbia were selected for further study. These towns have 1,976
acres enrolled in the Program, which is the largest amount for any two
towns in the State. On a township basis, they have 19 and 27 percent re-
spectively of their cropland enrolled in the Program. If marketing costs
for milk were to change, it would be expected to be evident in these two
townships. Minimum mileage inilk hauling routes were established for
both pre- and post-Soil Bank conditions, assuming no duplication of routes
by different dealers. Other restrictions for this inodel included every- other-
day pickup of milk and a bulk tank truck of 1,500-gallon capacity. As
would be expected, the analysis of route pickup miles results in a lower
ratio of cows per mile than the previous analysis relating miles of town
roads to cows. This is the case because of the outgoing and incoming
travel associated with pickup routes. There is no difference in the number

35

of cows per mile of route. For this minimum distance transportation model,
density was 13.5 cows per mile for both pre- and post-Soil Bank condi-
tions. It could be concluded that with the anticipated institutional change
to bulk milk handling, the Soil Bank Program will not influence milk
hauling charges in the two towns with the largest acreages enrolled in
the Program.

'o'

Farm Transfer and Expansion

A third way in which the Soil Bank Program affects agriculture in an
area is its influence on farm expansion, farm transfers, and beginning
farmers. Some farmers reach retirement age each year and the farm
ownership must be transferred for operations to continue. Several Soil
Bank cooperators were shown to have retired when they placed their
farms in the Bank. In the pre-Soil Bank era, some farm transfers were
not made immediately and the resources were so downgraded in quality
that they will never be used again as an independent unit or at all in
agricultural production. In light of this, some cooperators who ceased
operations and placed their land holdings in the Soil Bank did not neces-
sarily interfere with the transfer of farms. Interference occurs, however,
when an alternative farm is removed from consideration by a prospective
farmer seeking a farm to purchase. Also, the price of farms up for sale
is bid higher than the price would be in the absence of the Soil Bank
Program because there are fewer farms for the same number of pro-
spective farmers to bid for.

Farmers interested in expanding size of operation by adding land are
also influenced by the Program and by the above reasons. These operators
pre bidding for a smaller amount of land. Profit-maximizing land owners
would not sell their land now for less than the discounted yield in Soil
Bank payments plus the discounted prospective price of the land at the
end of the contract period.

The net result then appears to be higher prices for farms and farm land
due to the land owner being placed in the better bartering position, caus-
ing fewer new farming starts by prospective farmers and fewer expansion
possibilities for operating farmers. However available knowledge and data,
do not permit appraisal of the quantitative effects of the Program on farm
expansion and new farming starts.

OTHER ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE SOIL BANK PROGRAM

The previous discussion dealt with the more obvious economic effects
of the Program on the County economy. Other impacts of the Program
should be considered. Although they are less tangible, they are important
to the long-run welfare of the people of the County.

Town Tax Problems

The effect of the Program on the individual town tax structure is via
the tax base, with the magnitude depending on the method of determining
the assessed valuation. Towns differ so greatly in the way values on proper-
ty are established that it is impossible to appraise quantitatively the impact
of the Soil Bank land enrollment on the town tax position. The land and

36

buildings remain on enrolled units. Only cows have been lost for immedi-
ate purposes of taxation.-' Some land enrolled in the Program might be
defined as cropland for the next few years. However, over 54 percent of
the total enrollment is scheduled to be planted to trees and must eventual-
ly be classed as woodland. When forest land and cropland are valued at
different rates, a change in the town tax base is inevitable.

The loss in property valuation will be felt most in the four towns that
had more than 15 percent of their total valuation allocated to agricultural
properties. Colebrook and Columbia have as much as 18 and 25 percent
of their assessed valuations in agriculture when enumerated in 1957 (Ap-
pendix Table 11). The fact that these two towns enrolled the highest actual
acreages and the highest percentages of their own cropland in the Pro-
gram, would indicate that they would be most likely to have tax problems
cvSsociated with the Program.

The majority of the towns in the County should have only minor tax-
base problems arising from enrollment of cropland in the Program. This
is based on the fact that so many towns have very low proportions of their
tax bases in agricultural properties.

Long-term Land Use

At the time of Program enrollment, the intention of the owners of 54
percent of the cropland was to plant the land to trees (Appendix Table 12).
Most of this land would have reverted to brush in the next decade or two
and eventually to forest land had there been no Program. If reforestation
is allowed to occur by natural processes, foresters estimate that it would
take as long as 20 years for the more valuable species to become estab-
lished even as seedlings. While the actual time for reforestation on a
natural seeding basis will vary by size of field and surrounding tree cover,
it is obvious that the time period needed for desirable stands is much longer
with natural seeding than with planting. Reforestation under the Program
was faster and with species of greater potential value. This aspect is a
long-run social gain to compensate society in part for its investment in
land retirement and tree-planting incentive payments. Essentially, societv
exchanged from $65 to $155 per acre investment and some production of
hay for about 10 to 20 years growth of more desirable forest species. ^"^
Where milk is a surplus commodity, the hay from these acres could be
assigned no monetary value to society.

Long-run Social Costs

The effect of the Program on long-run social costs can be partly en-
visioned from a study of Figure 4, which shows the location of agricultural
units in the towns of Colebrook and Columbia. Many of the Soil Bank
units are located at the ends of roads and on the poorer roads. With the
agricultural resources on these units being abandoned, there is a possi-
bility of reducing the cost of maintaining town roads and school bus
transportation. It may not involve an actual reduction in mileage but only

^ Farm machinery is not a taxable property in New Hampshire.

I*' Ahhough some stands may be used for Christmas trees, what is cut on this planted
acreage is not cut on existing forest land.

37

a reclassification to seasonal roads thereby eliminating the plowing of snow.
The number of families with children living on the rural fringes would
be reduced. School bus transportation is a costly public service which
could be reduced by participation in the Program. ^

CONCLUSIONS

The Conservation Reserve Program in Coos County, New Hampshire
was appraised on four bases: (1) Attainment of Program objectives of a
1 eduction in production of crops for which there is a surplus, and increased
conservation of natural resources; (2) Impact on the economy; (3) Effect
on the efficiency with which resources are utilized; and (4) Future appli-
cation to New England agriculture.

The conclusions are applicable to the type of agriculture exemplified by
Coos County, New Hampshire. They must be thought of in terms of this
context and that the Program has been in operation only four years.
However, Coos County is typical of many farming communities in New
England,

Attainment of Program Objectives

The study demonstrates that the Conservation Reserve Program did not
contribute a great deal toward the objective of reducing agricultural pro-
duction. About 17 percent of the country's cropland was enrolled in the
Program, but milk production was reduced only 3 percent and hay pro-
duction by a modest amount. The achievement of increased conservation
of soil, water, forest and wildlife resources was the most successful aspect
of the Program.

The reason production was not greatly affected was apparent and prob-
ably was predictable at the time the Program started. Payments were not
high enough to attract most operators of organized units, but they were
very attractive to owners of unorganized units. In order to attract or-
ganized dairy units, incentive payments must be high enough to divert
all the resources employed in the production process on the farm, the
productive values of which in a particular organized unit generally are
greater than their sale values as component parts. Besides the basic land
components these resources include livestock, buildings, and equipment.
In some instances, dairy farmers enrolled in the Program because the
discounted expected income from the farm was considerably lower than
the discounted expected income from Conservation Reserve payments, plus
wages or other income made possible by the shift from farming. These
situations were reinforced by a large number of unorganized units with
relatively little expected current or future agricultural earnings.

11 Some local governments have placed qualified rural units in the Soil Bank with
the intention of reducing total public expenditures. It can be shown that for many
rural towns it would be profitable to purchase rural residences, permitting reclassifica-
tion of roads, reduced school bus transportation, and snow plowing, as well as some
maintenance costs. Frequently the public service costs of isolated residences far exceeds
^ax payments from these units.

38

Impact of the Program on the Economy of the Area

The more noticeable changes in the Coos County economy relating to
the operation of the Program are:

1. Gross income to the agricultural resources of the county and gross
income to all resources of the county do not appear to be appreci-
ably changed by the Program. Based on estimates of possible future
income, the Conservation Reserve and practice payments appear to
compensate for most of the expected loss of agricultural income from
enrolled cropland and complementary resources.

2. The Program induced a change in expenditure patterns influencing
different segments of the nonagricultural economy. By shifting re-
sources out of agricultural production, the Program decreased the
expenditures for farm operation. However, since total income re-
mained about the same, a shift to the purchase of more consumer
goods is anticipated.

3. The costs of nonparticipating farmers were increased through a de-
crease in the number of rural units available for addition to or-
ganized units through renting or purchasing and for producing hay
for sale.

Impact of the Program on Resource Use Efficiency

The more important changes in resource use efficiency attributable to
the Program are:

1. Historical trends were hastened. A large number of small or un-
economic holdings and operations were enrolled in the Program,
thereby speeding up the trends in land and farm adjustment.

2. A major change in land use was facilitated. Cropland being, or
soon to be, abandoned was converted to forest land without the
long period of unproductiveness associated with natural forest re-
production.

3. Relocation of rural people and retirement of labor resources from
agriculture was accelerated and eased. Low-income and underem-
ployed agricultural landowners were provided a way to obtain an
income from their land without tying up their labor and other re-
sources in its operation. These landowners were essentially disin-
vesting in their rural capital.

4. In attaining these changes in resource use, the Program did much
to encourage a more efficient use of farm resources. The goals of
the Program were to reduce the production of crops for which there
is a surplus and promote conservation of natural resources, so in-
complete attainment of the efficiency goal is to be expected. How-
ever, in the total appraisal of a program such as the Consen^ation
Reserve, a comparison of results should be made against a theo-
retical optimum resource use pattern. H the program had operated
in such a way that the theoretical optimum resource use pattern was
obtained, then no acreage under contract would be of greater pro-

39

ductivity than that still in production. As it happened, trees were
planted on some fields of greater productivity than some land par-
cels remaining in production. On the other hand, the general con-
clusion is that the Program did tend to concentrate the remaining
agricultural production on the more productive resources and in that
way it enhanced efficiency.

Future Application to New England Agriculture

The Conservation Reserve Program is the only current national pro-
gram that has contributed materially toward solution of the problems of
readjustment of people and land use in New England. Many parts of New
England are confronted with large numbers of undersized farm units that
have no possibility for expansion and with farms that are low in pro-
ductivity and poorly located with respect to assembly points, main high-
ways, and major farm communities. Considerable social benefit could be
gained in New England by continuance of the Program for a number of
years if the emphasis were primarily on the objective of facilitating re-
source conservation through resource adjustment.

To enable the Program to function more efficiently in the adjustment of
resource use, some modifications in the Program might be made with re-
spect to the selection of resources to be withdrawn from agricultural pro-
duction and to having planted to trees some acreage that is of greater
productivity than nearby acreage still in cultivation. To increase the
efficiency of the resource reallocation aspects of the Program, the follow-
ing Program modifications might be made:

1. Permit town governments to buy farms and enroll them in the Pro-
gram.

2. Empower a local committee to give preference to the applications
from farmers whose acreages are low in productivity and poorly
located with respect to assembly points, main highways, and major
farm communities.

3. Empower a local committee to prevent planting of trees on tracts of
land of high productive capacity and of economic size for cropping
purposes.

40

Appendix Table 1.
Area grouping of Townships in Coos County, New Hampshire

Area number Townships included in the area*

Pittsburg

1 Clarksville

Stewartstown

2 Colebrook

Columbia

Stratford

3 Northumberland

Stark

Lancaster
Jeflferson

4 Whitefield

Dalton

Dummer

5 Milan

Berlin

Carroll

Errol

Gorham

6 Randolph

Shelbourne
MiUsfield

* Townships not listed do not have cropland.

41

Appendix Figure 1. Coos County by areas

42

»
On

in

ON

s

O

ON

o

O
O

.a

X

13

h

o
w

.14

S

8

C8

es

u
S5

S
O

S
in

V

H

s
a.

On
in

On

ON

^...^

s

3

2

o o

CO

O o

u

as

v
o

V

Ph

fOO^ONiOMOTiJvocOfOi-H I

cs vd r-^ ^ CO ■*■ 00 I— < csi >-! Lo

r^^oo\t-^0'*ONa3r—icsivo
"'!iE:2>'^'*'OONr-ooo

I— (^TfONCOOOl-O^r— I'OCO

o
o

ON

CO

o

in

<u

c«

^

-a

S"^

3

J3

Z

V

M

C8

4-4

C

03

aj »*-!

o o

O

ii

*-)

«

Oh

CV] r^ O LO 0\ Od ■^ LO ^ Tj-' r^
C^J r— ( I— ( I— I

o

o

\ClONNO-*"*OLOC!OT}<'rJi
r^mcOinCOCOi— IrH rn

LO

in
■<*

CO

ID

^3 o

n

bC

C8

C

<-t-i

ca

o

o

o

■u

CL,

u

(U

^

«

s

-4-t

-a

3

5r

o

(U

j3

C^C^jOONvpCMi-HCOOO'*

Tj'COinvOCO'O'^'cOi— H f-H

(N CM r— I 1—1

O'O-#,-HC0r-H00i— l-jfO

Tf'cocor^oocor— ICO

COCOOCOr— ILOCOCO
I— I CS I— I I— I

COlO^lOtJi^cOi-hcoOco

OnnOi— iOvd<Ni— 5i— <
I— I CO (N ■— I

CO
I— (
00

ON

o

o
o

4)

.a

OOCMOCOOOCOOOOMOC^I
■^ C^ ^ t^ r* 1-H I— I

I— I CM 1—1

^

t^

OLOomoLooino S

COi--lr--ICMCMCOCO'*TtLn

I— <i— iCMCMCOcO'^^iO

o

0)
bC
cS

<

>
a

o

s

o

a
o
o

W

to

3

<;

s

lU

a,

Q

ID

s

-o
a

3

3
O.

(S
3

u

>

u

3

U "^

. c

;-! c]

-a ON

in

On

o

o

c
o

ca

5-5
u s

O a)

Q ^

43

Appendix Table 3. Type of operation of Soil Bank cooperators
at time of contract, related to year of enrollment, Coos County

Item

Level of cooperation and type of unit at time of contract

Whole units

With 4 or Less than Part
Total more cows or 4 cows or units
equivalent equivalent

All
units

Total units:

Number 120 26 94

Percent 100 100

1957 Contracts:

Number 6 0 6

Percent 5 0

1958 Contracts:

Number 19 2 17

Percent 16 8

1959 Contracts:

Number 95 24 71

Percent 79 92

100 100

45

18

76

33

22

129

100

10

22

97

17

75

44

c
0

S

u

*

3

irt

On

IK

1— 1

B

ft

Ik

*•

-r

e

c

s

©

'ft

u

0

•r

V

s

a

•o

ft

s

•pN

eS^

in

c
"ft

S
0

H

0

!>^

.4

C

«<i

0

0

•pN

«

V

^ft

be

h

h

w

a

CS

ft

-C-:4

V

s

n

^ g

.a

S

ft
ft

'S

re c

en

-t—

s

s

o

o

re

•<*

S-i

3

c

1-

re

_^

^

y^

0)

N

C

OJ

re

'""'

bC

-2

^

o
c

^

ID
bE„

re cs

c o

ID '^

o 5

re

o
<

lU

« re c £

H o ^ S

D *-* c i:

7\ —re

Ph

E

3

Q.

o

o
o

.^
c
re
CO

o
en

ID

bj)
re

re

c

c/j

o

c

o

S

ID

o

*-*-i

*-

re

^

Oh

o

c

re

IX

^

ID

U3

tn

<

ID

u

s:

OJ

■^

ja

^

bX)

3

re

re

c

c«

4-»
g

o

O

O

re

<

E

c
o

o ^ i-o I— I (M CO o^ op "*

r<- CO l^ (M CO i-i^ CO ■^ O
1— I \0 C^l

O
CM

T^ eg CC CO CO
CM 1-H

o\-*r-i— ivoocooioooco
r-i— icoovooNcoiJOcoot^

Cvlrri— ICMi— 1 C^^rHl— 1

00
CO
p— 1
CO

CO

vo •* Cv vO <^0 CO 1 1.0 Tj> vO 1 c
CM C<) 1 CM

(-^

u- 1 CO o c t^ lo I 1 o o o o CM i.o I in o o lo CO

00 l'^'— <oOi-HTji I lirtt^COuO'— iCM IcOl— iCNOI-
I— ICMC<1 1— II— li— li-H'>S< 1— I CMC-a

CM

CO ICM'^C^i— ICM I |^CC^■)t^TtC^rH IC^ICMCOCOO
I 1— I i I 1— I I r-i a\

CMI>J=^03'-'^|— '"J^O-^OCMOC^-iCMCOr-t^COO CO
t-^00C0t^vCcO'*'*3^00l^vOt^LOl— lOt^^sO ^

oo-^t^rf'^^oor— icMr^'Tf'OCLOor-ooLO cm

l—^0^L0rt■OO^L0'*>CCM00c:'LC00'O^^t^O00Tf r-i

coi— lor-o^cMi— ii — ' cc^^ocr-co coooolo

1 — ^^J-i— I ^HCOi — I CMi — ii — I

CM

r~-CM'S'CMCM>C-^'*CM'*l-OVO'#OCMr-ICCr^'tLO o>

I— IL.CCM CO^f— 11— If— I COr— I^HO

CO

00^1— ii— !«>■. CMr— "-D I coocMcoLrt I voL.O'^mi^ r~-

f—l Tj-r-lCMl 1— II— I 1— IIlOi— 1

LO>-Ot~-'*CMcOONO mcOLOLiOO lo^ccOOOco

CO'— i'#r^i— ioloon I O'^oovof- I cooNOvt^co c>

1— I Tj- Tj" r— I CM I— I CO

CM

COi— I'^LTii— lON^t^ |COCOO>CMa\ |t~-COf~-i-r5LOCM

CMCMO<r^'*«*^vO'-(rJ'ON'— ii— I
I— I >— ICM CMfC i—ii— It— <CMi— I

1—1 CO LC 1—1 00 \D
Tji CM 1— I CM I— I

COOOvO'^i-^CO'S'COcOLOCMO ICOOOCMCMCOTfi

CMCMONCO'^COr-H Tpi— iCOCMOn IcO'^COi— iOOO

1— It^ 1—1 CM^OCMLOr— I 1— Ii— ICOCO CM

1—1 LO

CMCOCOOvCMCOCM^-iOOt^r^O''* |CM\000\VOO\
1— I — H I— I t— I I I— I CM

;5 H ul OJ 3 ii

fli re —I o Q re t-i *-t w
I MUUUUQQWO

5 E

£++ re

5 !-i fc

3 (-1 O

c
o

-a
c
re

0)

-9 br.

;: c >-

tn 3 3 -^ c

" re - ii e — "S

i^jSzeL,psJ75cnc/)yj

c

3

c

OJ

:^CJ0^

^

"re

_>

'3

cr

u

>

o ^

" o

IH

O 1-

^-w

Jl-S

Cm U

O OJ -t3

>-^ > ID

" c-a

^ S^

> o

-S s-s

o£2

C "1j

_ _ y=

4— »

O ^ tn

C

-a c ^

re "-^

0

•T3 15

M

aj _^ ^

V

0

t/- 0 ^

kiH

:=o 0

I— 1

. t/1

Hi

c
re

— 0

^

tn L_

to

tn

0 T3 jg

03

HOHh-1

45

ON

es

.a

o

CD
V

.si

4-1

e

cs

S

cs

h
S

u

a

V

h
U

es

■8
&
«

IS*

O
h
U

S

O

o

03

"2 i2

.a-s
§2

-a
"c

o ^
^ o

^

c

ID
O

to

O
<

4)

C
O

>->
O
03

tn

o

bD >r (D

2 G b£

C 3 03

S o aJ

o o h

lO

.a
cs

H

.a
z

o

o

'^
c

03

J3

^

O.
O

o
u

a

o3

o

en

to

V

(1
u

bl) i"
O "

u o

to

o
<

SB £r 4)

iS c bt

C 3 03

S O J^

o o h

Oh

O

r- LO oo t^ CO

00 >— ' !N

O
O

I— I 03 LO 0\ O 03 r^

"* CO LO C<l LO O CO

O vO ^ ^~" ^ O CO

CO ■— I ■* CO iM ■— t ■-<

O O <N O ^
CS Csl rH CO I— I

o
o

o o LO CO o 00

o lo t~^ o o t^

rf Tt c<i CO cs LO cs

cs cs

a\

LO 00 vo o

1— I es o

cs ""^

cs 1— I I— ( cs I— I

•5*" LO VO -^ LO

O^ \0 i — I ^ CO

I— I CO CO LO r-H

LO

r^ r^ o CS cs CS

r— ( I— I •^ rH f-H

CS

r-H
LO
I— I

CS

o
o

3
bC

r^ OS r^ "-H Os Q CO

I— I t-~- CO O l~~- OS 0\
tJ< r-H cs OS cs cs CO

cs

•tJ" lo OS OS r-

Tf r-l c— I

o

o
o

cs CO cs 00 so CO 'T?

cs LO CO CO \0 CO o

cs CO Os OS CO cs cs

cs lO

a

3
o

u

I— I cs CO •^ lO vO

c

u

o.

a

<!::

-a

a

03

to

1— (

4-t

S

43

JJ

3

at

03

>

•3

cr

><

«

3
u

o
o

a

o

<

4-»

1)

4)

4-J

to

IH

v

cd

>

v

a

Sh

o

<;

o

to

4)

-3

o,
o

o

M-l

o

-a

3

.2

a

4-1

^

a

o

o

o

■4-1

to

to

4>

>

-o

1— '

03

iH

4)

Sh

j3

o

■»-»

tu,

o

46

Appendix Table 6. Machinery and buildings on whole units
enrolled in the Soil Bank by area, 1959

Area"

Number of units

With With farm With Without No

machinery buildings dwelling dwelling report

Number
whole units

1 12 2 2

2 16 24 26 20

3 11 15 17 5

4 5 13 23 6

5 2 8 7 3

6 2 5 5 1

County 37 67 80 37

5

46
23
30
10
6

120

* For a description of the Area see Appendix Table 1 and Appendix Figure 1.

Appendix Table 7. Economic characteristics of the Coos County

population by sex, 1950*

Item

Number
Number Percentage of Percentage

of males

Total

of total females of total Number Percent

Total population 14

years and over .... 13,352

Labor force 10,308

employed 9,401

unemployed 907

Agriculture 1,012

Construction 587

Forestry! 42

Manufacturing 4,486

Transportation 416

Wholesale and

retail trade 1,186

Services, business,

lodging, etc 729

Services,

professional 303

Other 640

50.1

13,284

49.9

26,636

100.0

100.0

3,241

100.0

13,549

100.0

91.2

3,101

95.7

12,502

92.3

8.8

140

4.3

1,047

7.7

10.8

36

1.2

1.048

8.4

6.2

14

.5

601

4.8

.5

—

—

42

.3

47.7

1,036

33.4

5,522

44.2

4.4

22

.7

438

3.5

12.6

574

18.5

1,760

14.1

7.8

533

17.2

1,262

10.1

3.2

603

19.4

906

7.2

6.8

283

9.1

923

7.4

* 1950 U. S. Census of Population, Bu. of the Census, U. S. Dept. of Commerce.
t Does not include logging.

47

1;

0

U

S^

r/i

ifi

0

ON

0

-H

O

61)

^

M

• ^

h

S

s

■r

0

• PN

H

«

s

T3

Ui

0

0

h

u

ftpM

«

^

^

h

M

3

CS

fl

^^

u

0

CD

CS

V

_C

X

V

0

u>

#^

fM

.-

X

S

y

CS

S

^

.a

CO

• PN

.-

CS

2

C8

>^

H

*«

V

X

v

•PM

h

n3

•p4

V

»

A

<

c
o

s

ca

6

o

U

o

<-*-(

o

o

C^

en

vd

'S

^

>>

"3

O o

O o

3 ^

CO >

IH O

;-! 3
bC C
P C

cd

Ph

O bD
"^ CS

u

^ >

CS

3

0^

z

bD

C

C3s ON .

i-H lO M

ON ca

"— I 1— I D

<= >^

c sT ^

o o «->

^ u en

C 3 o

^ « -^^

-< ttr-l

u ;::i

3 ca
Z

-a

o

U
4J

LO

ca

c
o

LO
ON

ca
>-.

LO

CO

*-•-« _r5 ^^ >- C TI 3

•-■ > o. — ■—

'" -a S j: -

■^ u -t; ? -r; 3

ca —

bC i^ 5J

o

LO

ON

o

a

ca
>^

<-> C

-3
« bD

> S

2'^

ca

(U

>

<

ON

3

tn

'3 *

^HV:a s 3

>. o

ID

'S 3

ca

— W3

a; .3
3 3

3 u

^2

■^ o

,. b£

™ ?3 u. ca

^H rn ,— ^ 1 '

S «t-

2=

o
c^

>-3
ca ■"

ca

o _

o
12 ?- '

ca

ca
>

ca

-Z LO

JJ bD 1*. ^ ■^ li ca

" .5 ca =*

ca p>.

ca

^ -3

ID

bD^

>- _ P 3

> 1-' S _3 D

ca ^ at; ^
ij O ^^ t"^

a

2

=0 -3 3 t-

0) ca oj

o g tn -t;

ca q_) ca *r

D

— ^ ^

^ .^ "3 ca
bD C 3

"5 .t: csj

<U G I — I

a, CO - -s

3

S t;
u .-.

O -3

ca a g
-3 u o

0 «

bD _ "
oj 3
SI <Li

1 ^ J ^

"" 3
-3 O

3
3

ca

43-

-3 " 2

0) bD 3 3

o •-

en

" _ 1)
O *j 3
bD ♦^ 2

3 „,

1) r-

S o

a 3

3 ■- 3

u u "

a a "^

bD r- rj

ca

.5 -5 a " ^ 2 a

ID

bD •_■

en

■n ca

en l>
ca

S,

en i2 -a

(u .3;
'-< 3

>> It

a in *j C"'

<u 5

3

o

o

aj .

O !h

J3

3 S .2

■30-3

o
o

In
a;

>

03 I— H •!—(

c

O

.2-3
*-' 3

S^
3 .

3 u

o D
o J3

3 ^

.-. ca

4-1
-o o

rN *.Lj • —

O

LO

CO

en

O OJ

-. _ O

o!S en

ca 3

> en 3

3

'5'S. o

.S ^

<V '-n t^

5 aj ^ S

Jl5 en ca

S 3

=^ s

^33

> <J.

2 o-s
3 ■"

en 2 ^

3 2

-2 P

3
O

en

U ID
bD >

"*< ca

en

•J 3

o £0

oj ca X "^
N 2 3 "^

•S ^2 °<^- 2
■^ - 1^ »^ 2 2"

bD n) ^. 1) 3 •;
M^-*- o^ ;n 3
■"Sjo^^oca— 3a

b^

>-» en

3

-T3
>

>
3

lU r-J

a =3 ^

a , 0 •-
^ ti "^ 4i

3 '^ -3
3 > .IT-Q

3 ■:5 ,ii

^JZ 4)

i — ^ lU 5 -"

ca 1)

a

o -a

OJ

-a 1)
3 "-"

^^

-a 3
13 g"

(TnI

o .

^ S

'.-I en
>• 'O

>

bD

ca >^

53 ■«

S

ca

2 >- • =

ca

fj ca
a

t-' lu ca

~Z o

ID 3
a aJ

-a -

<, LO

o

3 3

ca 3-3
3 en ca
^^ en >

ca 3

a

H

3 G

S ca

aJ la
bD S
ca

ca

bC^

— . u

O bD
LO ca

S 3

o

en

aj u
'-I -3
ca

en

3
lU

■3 <— ca B
u o ■I-' aj

en Q rri

2 in ■"

pa D

^.2.2c^S-3cr5^JS

3 >.^
c ca

OJ

a

ca

s
^

ca

4,

>

CB

'3

>

ca

ca

ca
-3

3

3 .
3 -o

O LO

CJ CTv
en

£ ■

3 w

-3
3 5;

O i_

OJ

>

a
S

to W

S 5

§^

3

V

c

O t.

q; II-

ca^
ca ^

5

48

Appendix Table 9. Predicted decline in cropland and cows

had they not been enrolled in the Soil Bank Program,

assuming quality of resources were equal to the average of the County

^e3.r Cow numbers Cropland acres

1959 195* 4350*

1960 193t 4200t

1961 191 4050

1962 189 3910

1963 187 3770

1964 185 3660

1965 183 3500

1966 181 3380

1967 179 3260

1968 177 3130

1969 175 3030

1970 173 2910

1971 171 2810

1972 169 2710

* Estimated on Ijasis of farm survey and previous analysis.

_ tAU extrapolated data based on trends computed in Figure 1 and 2. One of the
miportant assumptions made is that the resources enrolled in the Soil Bank are as
economically productive as operating resources in County agriculture.

Appendix Table 10. Predicted decline in cropland and cows

had they not been enrolled in the Soil Bank Program,

assuming quality of resources below average of the County

Year Cow numbers Cropland acres

1959 195* 4350*

1960 180t 4015t

1961 165 3681

1962 150 3346

1963 135 3012

1964 120 2677

1965 105 2342

1966 90 2008

1967 75 1673

1968 60 1338

1969 4.5 1004

1970 30 669

1971 15 335

1972 0 0

* Estimated on basis of farm survey and previous analysis.

t All extrapolated data based on the assumption that cow numbers and cropland
acres enrolled in the Soil Bank would have completely left production by 1972.

49

u
0

h

en
iS

A

s

u
tn

-3

d)

o

tn

CO

tfi

■g

o
en 'u

3 (D

ft «

o .i:

ft i»
ft

<» ."7
a) 2

c H

n

.2 s

Is

J

1}

C

.2

CO

o

•^ tn .3

ta a ^

o *- c

S

V

ft
ft

•S 3
tn CL

W o

3

o
>->

a.

t-^cocoi— icqc>r--;r~;'*i-Hi-;oocqOfOf--;'*cqt~-;eq i— <

rOM303cr3r-^t--^odtOr-HC-ivdc^c6<Nt^CJLOOr-HT}'CO CO

ID

p

Tj; esi •<# '^

T* LO

"*

r-- f— t

1 ^^ 1

1 '^ 1

1 "^

v6

oici ' oi

CO' LO

VO

>o

' CO '

2

1 "^

bO

OJ

lO

l-H lO

lO

1—1

■*

CO

a

CL,

u

3

o

CS

3
C

tn

(M

1 00 CO (M LO

1 \o CO

VO

1 ^ CSl

1 'S* 1

1 ^ 1

1 '*

ca

o

CO

LO

\Ci ' — '

(M CS

^

1 CO

! c^i 1

1 o 1

1 o

g

o

t--_^

l-H <*

O

l-H

VO

\o

^H

o

'o

vo"

CO

esf

co"

f— i

-a

1 — t

CM

^ 2 O^CMC<lrfO^OO'*LOCS10^0cOO^OLOO^r~-r^e^l■^

S !2 r^OscOi— icOCO'*0\LOCOOLOvO'^cor^cO'0\Oi-H'— I

S J2 0'S'CM^Hco'*T}<'OLOoocot^co'^Tj>v£)co\oc^chTj<

_r'o co" ci CM Lo" i-Hi-T CM

■^ -O I— I

CM

CO

CO

a

1> CMi— iOno^t— ;'*opa\.-Hr-;CO'^TS;cocO_LqCMpr5< t---

ti cJcocot^vdoNLOi— 5cooco"cocmcmcmo6'*'o6cmcocm' co

aj|>- r— ICMp— ll— ILOr— I CO^

O £ 1— ILOOCOCOVOr— ■^'O'-HLCCOCOSDOOO'S'r-HCOCOVO

O ts t^'*cOOCOiOCMOCOvO^'^COp— ir-t~-vOCOcO00CM

0;r5 CO CM 1-Hi— icOLOi— iCM-rf ^, "^

rH O l-H r— 1

ON

c
o

4-1

3 i-Hr-Ha\r--cMvo<>ONrHp'5;copt~-;vqi-Hpi--;'r?cqcq r-^

qO 'ost^LOOLCi— i "i— ioN^CO^ ^(Or-HVOCMcd CO

IH p— Ir— iCMi— I r— li— 1 1— ICM

tn
O 1^

O « CMCMt--!— I _

OP^i — I VO"— ICMVOCM

--^-2 "^

\OLOONCOCMC-~COONt^CMLOr— lOOOCOON
CMVOCMi— I TjiLO-^OCO LO'^OOnOCM

>— 1 1— I \0 1— I 1— I CM 1—1

LO

cm"

ID

E

3

CMOnvOi— iLOf— lCOvOt--CMCOOCMCOCMCOOOcOCOOt— o

cOOnvOlOi— lCOO^CMLOO■^>OO^O^vO•*OO^l-0^00 VO

oscoi— lO'^LOi— 'CMoooi— ir-'^^i— icMcoooo>oi— I on

CM

CO

e •— ' <« tl 3
.5 O _;^ -Q G

-a

3
CS

(— 1

?3 3 J3 -3

b£-5

3

SmT^I^-^

3

o -^
In "p '^.
t< o '^

'-' rt^ ^

aj O

o

mUCJCJUQQW O hi, 1-1 ^ZfL,WcAjCAic/^cn^<

-^ *- C ^ 3 rt-,

•i r'" I

On
lO
ON

3
o

f^ 'a

LO 3

ON 3

^ s

3"

o «
tn V

I-

BO
o -^
CJ >

3Q

3 3

D. ca
o

-s ^
> s

aj -3
Q 3

o

3f^

ca
n

3 2
3 .

J2K

4-1

CAlLO

0\

ON g

01

a-1 ■ —

go:;

e Co

■|a:

Ceo
_, a.

'^ s

■U3 o
tn tn

o

O c^3
O

* -1^ ++ «»

•"S^tu

^^

50

ON

V)

4i^

a

H

S

C8

• M

K

^rf

S

B

0

«^

£

>s

§

C
S

60

B

0

«M

"O

<»

V

0

w

0

£

u

A

•^

«

h

0)

cs

u

V

C9

>%

>^

V

,4

^

*ri

tJ

V

u

m
B

1

C

•w

V

C

iS

V

UD

"a

C3

0

V

h

h

<J

CS

la

«4

1— 1

^

b

V

e2

>

s

"C

K

V

C

s
&

a

a

a

-<5!

■0

s

cs

3

-a

c
c

c

ca

I— (

Ph

'3

C o

O ^
1- o

OJ
Oh

13
ID

s

O

c
-3

O

Hi

>.

to

to
o

0)

CO 2
53 o cd

&4

03
0)
Si

a

o

U

03
O

o

o

O 4)
as

C

« ^ o

4)

Oh

S
ID
U
ki
U
Oh

IH

o

<:

<1

»H

o

CO

lU
li
O

eo r-- 1— I o

<N rt •^ ■*

2 cq 1-H o LO CO CO

JH LO 0\ (N ON 00 ■*■

« VO -rP t^ lO T* 1— I

■< 1— I O Cv] rt I— I ,— 1

VO O csi CO OS O
CnJ 00 t^ lO LO vO

\q r-; CO vq '^ LO

VO CO O CO t--^ CO

LO o i—H c-q r-H r--.

t^ !>■ LO Cq i-H

00
o

CO
CM

■* o

■* CM

lO

ON

LO

ON
CO
CM

VO

LO
ON

CO 00 ■<* CO r^ CO

I— I ■r}< so o LO (-^

CM CM O LO so 00

CM CO On CO CO CM
CM

o o LO
CO csi lo

t-H CO LO

LO

ON

LO

o

p o

LO ^'

CO

CO

CO 00 CO I— t t^ CO

I— ! 1-^ CM CO Lo' t-'

CM LO CO CO so CO

CM CO On OS CO
CM

CM

LO

o
o

CM

LO

B
3

o

u

3

c

a

D.

<;

-a
c

03

03

-o
c
t)

a
a

CO

03

1}

-3

3
O

a;

-3

O

I— ' CM CO Tf LO so

51