CHAPTER IX VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS (897)
|
|
|
- Alisha Booth
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CHAPTER IX VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS (897)
2
3 CONTENTS Page CWPARABILITY OF DATA FOR 1949 AND 1954 Introduction Page Proaentation of statistics Val.ue of ram products sold other published data Value of production Dirteranaae in publiebed data FAHM PRODUCTS SOLD, BY SOURCE DEFINITIONS AND FXPLAIIATIONS All crops.., Cotton 906 Period of time covered. 902 Wheat. 906 Actions taken during office proceesing to insure complete reporting of sales Corn,. 906 Products traded,..,, 903 Vegetables aovermnent p<cyments and loans Fruits and nuts 906 Value or sales and production for ro.rms with new operators. o o 903 Horticultural specialties,. 906 Va!l.ue of fal'iil products sold tor inet-i tutional. forms o o 903 Forest products sold Interf8l'lll movement 903 Livestock and pouj.try and their products sold ' Fnrm, products purcbased for resole o o o o o o 903 Cattle and calves, Gross ino.om.e of farm. operators..,. o o o o o o o o o 903 Hogs and pigs ; 907 Methods of obtaining value of ram products sold Sheep and lambs Volue of production. : 904 Dairy products ' L!m1tattons and raliabuity of data on the value of fiu'ill products produced and Chickens o o o 908 sold; 905 Chicken eggs CHARTS Comparison of indexes for total soles of fa:m products and prices received by i'bl'mers, for the United States: 1939 to o o.. o..,.. o. o o o o. o o o o o. 908 Value or farm products sol:d, for the United States: 1939 to FBl'm,fl with lese than $2,500 gross sbles aa a percent of all fazms, Census of o. o o. o o,, o o o o o o o o o o. o o o o Value of all ram products sold, dollars, o o. o o o. o o o o o o o o o o. o o. o o o o o o. o. o. Average value per!'arm of f'am products sold, o o o o. o o o o o. o o o o o o Volue of a.u orops sold as a percent of all fam products sold, o o o. o. o o o o o o o o o o o o Average value of tarm. products sold per aore of all land 1n farm.s, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o. o o o o o o ~:i~: ~~~tsr<?~ils~~%, g6ii1r~6j~;- -j: "~::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Value or vegetables harvested for sol.e I dollars, Value of horticultural specialties sold,. dollars, 1954 :.. Value o1' for~st _p~du~ts E!_C?l~,,.-S_ol~~r!!!, l954o _._. o o o. o o o o o o o o o. o. o, :Value of livestock and livestock products, other than dai:r,:r and poultry sold, d.ollars, 1954 o o o o o ~ o, o o o o o o. o o o, o. Value of d<il.ry protliiotii sold, dollars, -1>34.,... Value of poultry and poultry products sold, dollars, TABL'ES FOR THE UNITED STATFS Page 1954 and and : 914 TABLF.S_FOR GEOCRAPHIC RECIONS, DIVISIONS, AND STATES Table- 1.-Value of all fal'lll products sold, by source; for the United states: 2. -Specified orops-totul value of production for the United States: Table- 3,-V.i:J.ue of form products sold and number of farms, by divisions and States: 1954, 1949, and Value of i'8.l'dl -products sold, by major sources; by divisions and states: 1954, 1949, and 1944 o. o. o o. o.. o. o,, 0 0 o,.,. o,., 0, o o 5.-Value of crops sold, by major gi'qups; by divisions and states: 1954, 1949, and o to 0 0,., 0,, 0,, 0.,,,, 6.-Vnl.ue of livestock and poul.try and their products sold, by major groups; by divisions and states: 1954, 1949, and o 7.-Value of specified farm products sold, by divisions and States: 1954., 8.-Va.lue or production or field crops other than vegetables, fruits, nuts, end hortic\lltural specialties, total and specified crops; by divisions and states: 1954 and ~Unit pr~ces used in computing values for specified items, by divisions and States: 1954 and 1949, Page
4
5 CHAPTER IX.-V ALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS Introduction.-This chapter presents available statistics for the value of sales and value of production of farm products based on data collected in the 1954 Census of Agriculture. For comparative purposes, some data for sales are presented for the Censuses of 1950 and 1945 and for value of production for the Census of The value figures published in this chapter provide a basis for analyzing and evaluating the relative agricultural importance of a specific crop or livestock item or of a particular area of the United States. They present the status as of a given time and, to the extent that historical data are available, they afford a basis for appraising the changes which have taken place over a period of time. Before the data are used, one should have a thorough knowledge of how they were obtained and their limitations. This is particularly true if the data are to be compared with those for previous Censuses or with other series of data relating to agricultural values. The sales data compiled in the Censuses of Agriculture do not represent gross farm income. The term "value of sales", as used in this chapter, is probably as descriptive of Census farm income data as any that can be used. There are several reasons why Census value of sales data might not correspond to cash receipts, as generally thought of. Government payments for rental and benefit, soil conservation, price adjustment, price parity, Sugar Act, and production programs are not incorporated in the Census data for value of sales. For 1954, cash receipts are not included for several items, such as farm sales of butter, buttermilk, cheese, and skim milk; goats and goat milk; bees, honey and wax; home-butchered meat; hides and pelts; rabbits and fur animals; corn and sorghum fodder and silage; grain straw; and the rental of pasture. On the other hand, Census sales data include the landlord's share of a crop removed from a share-rented farm, even though such share was fed by the landlord to livestock on another farm. From the standpoint of the share-tenant farm, some of the production is exchanged for the use of the land. Such exchanged production is considered a sale. Sales data for those farm products for which data were secured were to represent the total movement of agricultural products from farms and ranches. They were to include the landlord's share of crops and livestock sold or to be sold and also his share taken to his own farm for use there. Sales of crops grown on a contract basis, livestock fed on a contract basis, and poultry raised under contract with feed dealers or others were to be reported as sales from the farm. Thus, the total value of sales as shown in this chapter were intended to represent a gross sales figure for all farms regardless of who shared in the sales. The data given in this chapter represent either value of sales or value of production regardless of whether or not the farm operator mad~ a profit. Neither series of data represents net returns. The mstructions provided that the cost of production should not be deducted from the total sales when the value of sales was enumerated. However, in the case of livestock sold, the farm operators probably reported the net amount they received. If trucking, transportation or other marketing costs were paid by the farm operator, he probably reported the value of animals sold after such costs had been deducted. Likewise, in the case of dairy and other livestock and poultry products, farm operators probably reported the net amount received after hauling and other marketing costs had been deducted. Also, in the case of vegetables harvested for sale, marketing costs paid by the farm operator were probably deducted from gross sales when reporting the' value of vegetables sold. The State average prices used in computing both value of sales and value of production were obtained cooperatively by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census. The prices are based on reports provided by a sample of farmers and dealers. The average prices were secured and calculated separately for each State. Value of production data are not available for all crops, livestock, and livestock products. Information on value of production is either incomplete or not available for fruits, nuts, home-used vegetables, horticultural specialties, forest products, livestock, and livestock products. For field crops, it was not feasible to place a value on some of the by-products. For 1954, there is no count of farms reporting any farm products sold. Counts for the number of farms reporting the sale of individual items are usually available. These are published in the tables of this volume in the appropriate chapter. For example, the number of farms reporting sales of the several types of wheat-winter, spring, or durum-may be found in Chapter VII, and the number of farms reporting sales of hogs may be found in Chapter VI. Presentation of statistics.-the tables in this chapter show State, division, region, and United States totals for 1954 for a particular value item and a varying amount of comparable information for previous Census years. The tables also show pertinent derived data, such as average per farm, average price per unit, or percent of United States total. Information for more individual crops is presented in the tables for the United States than in the division and State tables. For value of sales of farm products, the tables show first the total value of all farm products sold. This presentation is followed with sales by major sources, such as crops sold, livestock and poultry and their products sold, and forest products sold. Two subsequent tables show the composition of each of the major sources, such as field crops, vegetables, fruits and nuts, horticultural specialties; dairy products, livestock and livestock products other than dairy and poultry; and poultry and poultry products. Then, sales data are shown separately for many of the individual crop and livestock items. (Information for additional items, by States, may be obtained in the various parts of Volume I.) Table 8 provides the only value of production data, for regions, geographic divisions, and States. In this table, data are shown only for field crops as a group and for a few of the important individual field crops. Value of production data are not available for other groups of agricultural products. In preparing over-all totals for value of production, for presentation in Table 2 of this chapter and in State Table 16 of the various parts of Volume I, it has been necessary to substitute value of sales for value of production for some items. All values are a function of both price and quantity. Since many of the values were computed, the average price per unit is important. The average prices used in obtaining values are, therefore, presented in Table 9 of this chapter. 901
6 902 GENERAL REPORT Established methods of Census data presentation have been followed. The States have been arranged according to geographic divisions. Geographic division totals, regional totals for the North, the South, and the West, and United States totals are shown. Other published data.-in addition to the data. presented in this chapter, dollar values of sales and production, and the number of farms reporting various items of sales and production are available in other chapters of this volume and in other published reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. Data for the quantity sold and for the number of farms reporting sales are not presented in this chapter. Available data are shown in Chapter VI for livestock and livestock products, in Chapter VII for field-crop and vegetable items, and in Chapter VIII for fruits and nuts, horticultural specialties, and forest products. A classification of the farms reporting, based on the quantity sold (in the case of vegetables, dollar sales) is shown, at the State level, in Volume I for many of the principal crops and livestock items. A limited amount of data for the quantity and for value of farm products sold, by source, is given in this volume, by tenure of operator for commercial farms in Chapter X, for farms classified by economic class in Chapter XI, and for commercial farms by type of farm in Chapter XII. County data for the value of farm products sold, by source, appear in the separate State reports, Parts 1 to 33, of Volume I. County figures also are given in Volume I for one or more types of data-farms reporting, amount sold, and dollar sales-for many of the field crops, vegetables, small fruits, horticultural specialties, forest products, milk, cream, animals sold alive, and poultry and poultry products. Statistics on the value of sales for several of the principal crops, livestock and livestock products, and poultry and poultry products are also shown for State economic areas in Volume I. Data are also given in Volume I by State economic areas, for farms reporting, quantity, and value of whole milk and of cream sold, by size of herd; for farms reporting and number of chickens and chicken eggs sold, the value of chicken eggs sold, and for value of other poultry and poultry products, by size of flock.. Differences in published data.-the data presented in this chapter were obtained by a summation of the enumerated or computed values of sales and production for all farms. For corresponding items, the totals shown in this chapter are in agreement with those presented in Chapters VI, VII, and VIII. Differences exist, however, between these totals and the totals shown in Chapters X, XI, and XII, which were obtained by making estimates based on data tabulated for only a sample of farms. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS For a discussion of the definitions that have general application for enumerative procedures, for sampling procedures, and for a statement on the completeness of the Census, attention is directed to the Introduction to this volume. For other more specific definitions and explanations covering crop and livestock items see the text for Chapters VI, VII, and VIII. Period of time covered.-data for both value of sales and value of production, for the 1954 Census, relate to the 1954 production of crops, with a few exceptions. For citrus fruits, olives, and avocados, the data relate to the crop for the season that was harvested from the bloom of Since the Census was taken in the fall of 1954, the market movement for many of the crops had not been completed at the time of the enumeration. In the wheat-producing areas, several months had elapsed since harvest. For corn, soybeans, cotton, and several other crops the harvest was still in progress when the enumeratiol). was beginning. A portion of some crops had been placed under government loan. In anticipation of the fact that the sales year would not be completed, it was necessary to stress, by questionnaire notes and instructions to the enumerator, that the sales should include both the quantities that had been sold and those that would be sold regardless of date of sale. Thus, the sales and production data for crops, with the exception noted for certain fruits, are for the 1954 harvest. Data for sales of livestock and poultry and their products are for the 1954 calendar year. For most of the livestock and poultry items, only data on sales were obtained as no data on production were asked for. For many livestock products, such as milk, cream, and eggs, sales take place almost immediately after production. However, for other products, such as wool and mohair, the sale may be delayed for a considerable length of time after production. For live animals and poultry, the producer has some choice as to when he will market his product. If the time of sale was likely to coincide with the end of the calendar year, it was necessary for the farm operator to decide whether or not to report his imminent marketing as sales for The sales data shown in the tables of this chapter generally represent the values as reported by farm operators for the calendar year 1954 and were to include the estimated amounts that were to be sold before January 1, The exceptions to this general statement are wool and mohair; for these, the data relate to the amount of wool shorn or mohair clipped during the year All of the wool and mohair were considered as sold, so for these products the sales and production data are identical. Thus, the value of sales of wool and mohair is the same as the value of the production during the calendar year 1954, regardless of whether these products were sold in Actions taken during office processing to insure complete reporting of sales.-for both crops and livestock products for which the value of sales were to be obtained from each farm operator, the enumerator was instructed to determine the value for quantities that were still to be sold on the basis of current local market prices. In some instances, sales data were supplied or increased during the office processing of the questionnaires, when it was obvious that the sales had not been reported or were grossly underreported. In the application of the rules for supplying or correcting sales data, liberal provision was first made for feed, seed, and use by the family of the farm operator and hired employees on the farm. All changes were made on the individual questionnaires. Thus, all facts available for a given farm were appraised before a figure was supplied or revised. If the data reported on a particular questionnaire were insufficient to use as a guide, or if the data for many questionnaires filled by one enumerator appeared to be questionable, reference was made to the data on other questionnaires before any changes were made. Several examples of editing procedures affecting quantities sold, value of sales, economic class of farm, and type of farm, are presented in order to indicate the kind of checking and changes made during office processing of the individual questionnaires. (a) Corn, grain' sorghums, oats, barley, emmer, spelt, and proso millet,-if 200 or more bushels of these crops were harvested without entries for bushels sold and there were no rep01;ts for livestock or poultry (on hand, sold, or raised), the en tide quantities harvested minus allowances for seed, were 80 If however there w~re livestock or poultry (on hand, sold, /r ra'ised), the' questionnaire was referred to the technical s~aff e~~ review when the production of corn and other feed grams ceeded 30 times the number (on hand and sold) of cattle, horses, and hogs. The technical staff generally used the following rules for determining the amounts of corn and other feed grams. reqmr ed for feed: (1) 30 bushels for each total cattle on hand and sold (45 bushels for cattle on feed). ld (2) 30 bushels for each horse and mule on hand or so (3) 30 bushels for each 3 hogs and pigs on hand or soldd ld (4) 30 bushels for each 10 sheep and lambs on handd a( n 8? ed) (5) 30 bushels for each 100 poultry on hand and sol or rals
7 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 903 If the unsold quantity, after these calculations and after an allowance of 2 bushels per acre for seed (corn and sorghums excepted), exceeded the feed requirements by more than 100 bushels, or by more than 20 percent, the quantity sold was estimated or the reported quantity sold was revised. (b) Wheat.-If 200 or more bushels were harvested, without an entry for quantity sold, the quantity harvested minus the estimated seed requirement at the rate of 2 bushels per acre harvested was considered as sold. However, an estimate for quantity sold was not made if the computed quantity sold was Jess than 100 bushels. If 1,000 or more bushels of wheat were harvested and Jess than three-fourths of quantity harvested was reported as sold, the quantity sold was calculated by subtracting seed requirements from the quantity harvested. (c) Rice and fl.axseed.-if more than 100 bushels (or Jb. bags or 50 bbl.) were harvested, the entire quantity harvested minus an allowance of 2 bushels per acre for seed was considered sold. (d) Dairy products.-if 5 or more cows were reported as milked the day preceding the enumeration and no dairy products were reported sold, the sales of dairy products were estimated on the basis of surrounding questionnaires, unless the farm had a considerable number of hired laborers. (e) Animals sold.-if no hogs and pigs were reported as sold and there were a total of 2 or more sows farrowing or 10 or more hogs on hand, the questionnaire was referred to the technical staff. No action was taken for only a few such referrals in an Enumerator's District except when the number of sows farrowing totaled 5 or more or the number of hogs on hand, 50 or more. When corrections were considered necessary, sales were entered on the basis of questionnaires for farms of the same type and size of operation or on the basis of a tabulation of data for 10 questionnaires in the same enumeration district or in the same county. If no cattle or calves were reported as sold and 10 or more total cattle or 5 or more cows were on hand, the report was referred to the technical staff. As a basis for deciding whether corrections were required, the technical staff was required to look at other questionnaires in the same enumeration district. If the enumerator had consistently not reported cattle and calves sold a tabulation was made for questionnaires showing cattle and calves sold to obtain a ratio of number sold to number on hand for herds of various sizes separately for beef and dairy cattle. These data were used as a guide for estimating the number and value of cattle and calves sold. If the number of cattle and calves sold was not reported for only an occasional questionnaire no action was required unless 20 or more total cattle or 10 o; more cows were on hand..when the number of animals sold was not reasonably consistent With the number on hand, it was difficult to determine the correctness of the report for the number sold. Most reports of this kind :were accepted unless the amount of feed purchased or other mformation indicated an error in the reporting. Reports showing a large number of animals sold, or a large number on hand and none or a small number of animals sold were verified or corrected on the basis of correspondence. Products traded.-farm products are occasionally traded for goods?r services, such as trading eggs for groceries, trading hay for bahng charges, or trading cottonseed for ginning charges. The value of products traded were to be included in the value of products sold. However, the enumerator was not instructed to ask specifically for information regarding farm products traded. Government payments and loans.-the income from government payments is not included in either value of sales or value of pbroduction. Crops such as corn, wheat, cotton etc. that had cen 1 d,, sea e and placed under government loan were to be rei ~;ted as sold. However, the unit prices applied to these quan- 1u:s.w_ere the same unit prices that were applied to all other q 'tntjties and did not represent the loan value. The average ~~~ values used for such crops as sugar beets and sugarcane were e ~arket price per ton and did not include the government subsidy payments. Value of sales and production for farms with new operators. The value data for both sales and production were related to specific farms, not to the operators. The sales data were to represent the movement of the 1954 farm production from the farm regardless of who operated the farm or who owned the crops or livestock or poultry. When a farm operator left a farm during 1954, and disposed of his crops and livestock before the date of enumeration, the new operator gave the report for the farm. In doing so, the new operator may not have known of the sales of the former operator. For that reason, instructions on the agriculture questionnaire emphasized that the operator presently in charge should include all sales from the place whether made by him or by others. For crops it was usually possible to determine the correctness of the individual report. For livestock sales, however, usually the information was inadequate to provide a basis for making changes. Value of farm products sold for institutional farms.-the determination of the value of production for an institutional farm was no different from that of any other farm. It consisted of multiplying the reported production by the State average price per unit. The reported value of sales for institutional farms often required revision. The products of the farm consumed by inmates or residents of the institution were to be considered as sold. For this type of farm, the value of sales figures were increased if it appeared that they did not include both the actual sales of farm products for the farm, as well as the value of the portion conf'\umed in the institution. The value of products sold, however, was not to include products consumed by livestock on the farm. Interfarm movement.-if the over-all value of sales data are used as a measure of agricultural output, the interfarm movement of farm products tends to inflate the totals. Some feed crops and livestock move between farms. Thus, the same farm product may be reported as sold two or more times. For example, corn may be sold from one farm and fed on another farm. The animals which consumed it may be sold later by the second operator. In this example, the corn would be included in the value of crop sales on one farm and again on another farm in the value of livestock or livestock products sold. If feeder livestock are purchased, it is possible for their sale to be reported by two operators in a given calendar year. The interfarm movement of crops should have no influence on the value of crop production, since the production for each crop was reported only once. Farm products purchased for resale.-the instructions to enumerators stated that items purchased for resale were not to be included in the value of sales. For example, a. dairy farmer might be operating a retail milk route, bottling and delivering not only the production from his own farm but also milk from neighboring farms. In such a. case, the value of sales was to include only the production from the operator's farm. This same type of instruction was applicable to fruits and vegetables if a producer operated a packing or marketing service, for other than his own products. In order to exclude dealer sales of livestock, the procedures provided that sales of animals were to be included only when the animal had been on the farm or ranch or in the feed lot for 30 or more days. This rule was also applied to slaughtering establishments which were also conducting a feeding operation. In processing the questionnaires, the sales figures for such operations were compared with the production or inventory figures. When there was any question as to whether or not the data should be included, letters were written to determine just what the sales and inventory figures represented. Gross income of farm operators.-value of sales, a.s computed from the Census of Agriculture do not reflect gross income of farm operators or even gross farm income. The principal omissions in respect to gross income of farm operators and their families are:
8 904 GENERAL REPORT (a) Farm sales of minor items, such as butter, cheese, skim milk, bees, honey, fodder, silage, grain straw, pasture rental, fur animals, etc.; (b) Monies received from nonfarm sources, such as off-farm work, interest on investments, or pensions; (c) Receipts from boarders and lodgers, government benefit payments, cash rents, and income from businesses conducted on or off the premises; (d) An allowance for the crop or livestock products used by the families of the farm operator and his hired employees; (e) A rental value for the use of family dwellings; and (f) Changes in the.value of farm inventories of crops, livestock, equipment, etc. Methods of obtaining value of farm products sold.-data on the value of farm products sold were obtained for the 1954 Census of Agriculture by two methods: (a) The value of sales for most livestock and poultry and their products, and for vegetables, horticultural specialties, and forest products were enumerated by asking the farm operator to report the value of such products sold for the calendar year. (b) The value of sales for all other farm products was computed by multiplying the enumerated or estimated quantity sold by State average price per unit. For wool and mohair, the quantities produced during the calendar year were enumerated and the value of sales was computed by multiplying the enumerated quantities produced by _the State average prices per unit. Thus, all wool shorn and mohair clipped in the calendar year 1954 were considered to be sold. During the enumeration, farm operators were asked to report the quantity sold and to be sold for most of the important crops such as the grain crops, hay crops, and small fruits and berries. The Composite Questionnaire in the Appendix provides a list for those crops for which the quantity sold was enumerated. The entire quantities harvested for a second group of important crops were considered to be sold. This group included all tree fruits, grapes, and nuts (see exceptions below), cotton, sugar beets, hops, broomcorn, sugarcane for sugar, and tobacco. For these products, the enumerated quantities harvested were multiplied by a State average price per unit to secure the value of sales. (These average prices were also used to compute the value of production.) Fruit disposition data published by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture indicated that in 1954 the quantity harvested for certain crops in some States was not all sold because of quality, price, or grade restrictions under marketing programs. In such instances, the portion of the crop not sold provided no economic return to the grower since it was either destroyed or donated 'to a charitable or relief organization. It was decided that where a significant proportion of the crop was not sold, as indicated by disposition data, the enumerated quantity harvested should be reduced in line with the disposition data in order to provide a value of sales figure that represented the actual situation. The following list shows by States the particular fruits and the percentage of the enumerated quantity harvested that was counted as sold in order to compute the value of sales. Crop and State Estimated percent of the quantltv BOld Peaches California (Clingstone peaches only) Colorado Utah Plums California Prunes California Avocados Florida Tangerines and mandarins Florida Valencia oranges California -----_ Navel oranges California Other oranges California Grapefruit Florida With the exception of these few fruit crops in four States listed above, the value of sales for tree fruits, nuts, and grapes is the same as the value of production. For a third group of crops comprising the major seed crops, soybeans, cowpeas, peanuts, dry field beans, sugarcane and sorghum for sirup, and maple products the quantity sold was calculated on the basis of crop disposition data published by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The published percentages sold for I!l54 were applied to the reported quantities harvested. The estimated quantity sold was multiplied by the State average price per unit to secure the computed value of sales. In the case of Irish potatoes and sweetpotatoes, the quantity sold was estimated after making a per farm allowance for home use by families on the farm. For a fourth group of crops, the quantity sold was estimated on the basis of reports for either the 1954 or the 1950 Censuses of Agriculture. The quantity sold for these items was not always completely reported anj therefore, it was necessary to estimate the quantity sold on the basis of all available data. Except for annual legume hays, the crops in this group were of minor importance and not widely grown. In no instance would their value of sales have any significant effect on the total value of sales for a State, division, region, or for the United States. A complete list of this group of crops is given on page XXIII of the Introduction to Volume I. Value of production.-farmers were not asked for the value of any part of their production. A value of production has been computed for field crops as a group and for the individual field crops. For most other crops, the value sold has been substituted for the value of production in aniving at an over-all total value of production for all crops harvested. For berries and other small fruits, the quantity harvested represents commercial production for sale. The amount harvested was multiplied by the State average price per unit and the resulting dollar figure represents the value of sales. For this group of crops the value of sales was substituted for the value of production in arriving at the total value of production for all crops harvested, as shown in Table 2. The completeness of coverage of farm lands, farm production, and the production of farm products for sale was not significantly different for the 1954 and 1950 Censuses. The value of production shown for several tree fruit, nut, and grape crops is slightly higher than is shown for the value of sales because it was estimated that part of some crops in four States was not sold. No production values have been computed for livestock products and poultry products. When the total production was enumerated, the value of production was computed by multiplying the production by the estimated State price per unit. The calculated value includes the part of the crop consumed on the farm either as food or as feed, the part of the crop used for seed, and the part of ~he crop sold. The State average prices were obtained cooperatively by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Dep~rtment of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census. The pnces are based on reports provided by a sample of farmers and dealers. The same average price was used to compute the value of sales and the value of production. Production data for vegetables harvested have not been enumerated in any Census since 1920, largely because of the di~culty of obtaining reports and of converting, to a common umt, ~he various sizes of containers used for harvesting and market!~~ vegetables. The value data for vegetables relate to cormnermaf production for sale and have been used to represent the valu~ 0 vegetable production. For institutional farms, the instructwns provided that the quantity of vegetables produced on the fa~~ and consumed by inmates or residents was to be considered as so Horticultural specialties include nursery and greenhouse prodd ucts and also flower and vegetable seeds and plants, bulbs, an
9 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 905 mushrooms. The value of these products, in three groupings, was enumerated on the basis of dollars of sales. The quantities harvested were not enumerated because of the difficulty of providing a. common unit of measure. The values of any quantities produced and consumed on the farm where produced were not enumerated and are relatively insignificant in relation to the values of sales. For these products, the value of sales has been used, without adjustment, to represent the value of production. For forest products, quantities cut were enumerated for some of the principal products. The number of cords of firewood and fuelwood cut on farms in the calendar year was obtained for all States. The number of fence posts cut was secured for all States except.arizona and California. The number of board feet of sawlogs and veneer logs cut (including any sold as standing timber) and the cords of pulpwood cut were enumerated for most of the States where these items represent a substantial proportion of the total value of farm forest production. The reported quantity for sawlogs and veneer logs did not differentiate between that which was cut by the farmer and that which was sold as standing timber. The difference in value per thousand board feet, between logs cut and delivered to a mill and timber "on the stump" is substantial. Since data were not available regarding the proportion of sawlogs and veneer logs sold as standing timber, it was impossible to obtain a satisfactory unit value for the cut of sawlogs and veneer logs. Therefore, the value of production of sawlogs and veneer logs was not calculated. No quantities are available for the cut or harvest of piling and poles, bolts, Christmas trees, hewn ties, mine props, bark, and other miscellaneous forest products. Production of maple sugar and sirup was obtained for only nine important producing States. Because the quantities cut or harvested was not obtained for all forest products, it is not possible to calculate an over-all value of production for all forest products. (The tables of Chapter VIII show by States both the quantity and value of production for some forest products.) Limita.tions a.nd reliability of data on the value of farm products produced and sold.-the primary purposes of collecting data in a Census on the'value of production and the value of farm products sold is to furnish data for counties and other local areas to provide a basis for the classification of farms by economic class and type of farm, and to give over-all measures for indicating the variation in the organization and relative importance of agricultural production in various producing areas. The data on the value of farm products sold do not provide a measure of total farm production for sale. They do not indicate total farm income, as they do not include the receipts of farmers for the sale of some products (rental of pasture, sales of butter, cheese, meat, hides, fur animals, goats, etc.) and government payments under various programs. The value of all farm products sold does not include estimates on the ~alue of farm products produced on or sold from places not considered as farms and for farms. and farm land missed by Census enumerators. The value of agricultural products produced on or sold from places not qualifying as farms is probably only a fraction of one percent of the total produced on places qualifying as farms. Estimates made on the basis of a careful check of the enumeration indicated that the farms and farm lands missed by the Census were equal to 5.4 percent of the farm land, 4 percent cropland harvested, and had the equivalent of 3.3 percent of the value of all farm products sold for the farms and farm lands included in the 1954 Census of Agriculture. (For a detailed statement regarding the completeness of the Census, see the Introduction to this volume.) The data on the value of farm products sold are affected by underreporting on the part of farm operators. This under ~.eporting is much more significant in the case of liv.estock and Ivestock products than in the case of crops. In the case of some crops such as vegetables, cotton, and fruits, farm operators pay packaging, processing, and some marketing costs. In such cases, the reported value of such crops sold often represents the amount the farm operators received after the packaging, processing, and marketing costs had been deducted. In the 1950 Census, farm operators were asked to report the value of cotton and fruits and nuts sold. Because farm operators underreported the gross value of sales, largely because ginning, packing, and other costs were deducted from gross sales, the value of the cotton crop was understated by approximately $300 million and the value of fruits and nuts sold by approximately $127 million for The value of these crops sold was computed for 1954 and, hence, the value of sales for 1954 is not subject to underreporting similar to that for In the case of dairy and poultry products, hauling, marketing charges, etc., are often deducted when the farm operator receives payment for his products. In many cases, it appears that the farm operator reported the amount he received after deductions for these costs, and not the amount of gross sales. In the case of livestock, farm operators did not always report all animals sold especially when the animals are owned by the landlord or someone else. Also, when several sales were made during the year, the farm operator may have forgotten one or more of the sales when reporting the number sold during the year. For the 1954 Census, it was necessary for the operator to estimate the number of animals to be sold during the remaining two or three months of the year. Such estimates were subject to considerable error especially for those kinds of livestock with heavy marketings during the winter. In reporting value of animals sold, the Census enumerator often used the current local market prices per head to compute the total value. If these current prices were not representative of prices received during the entire year, then the value of sales may not have been accurately reported. It appears that this procedure affected significantly the reporting of the value of cattle and hogs sold for 1954 when the prices of both cattle and hogs declined during the year. COMPARABILITY OF DATA FOR 1949 AND 1954 Value of farm products sold.-the data on the value of all farm products sold are not fully comparable for 1949 and 1954 because of differences in items included, method of determining sales, and the extent in underreporting of sales. The total value of farm products sold for 1954 does not include values for some minor items, such as the sale of butter, cheese, skim milk; bees, honey; fodder, silage, grain straw; fur animals and their pelts, etc., and receipts from pasture rental. The values for these relatively minor items were included in the 1949 totals. These omitted items would not represent more than one percent of the gross value of sales. \ I The 1954 data also excludes the value of sales of sheep and wobl for 3 States and the value of mohair for 41 States. These additional exceptions introduce no appreciable effect on the com\ parability of the data for the two years., Differences in method of determining sales affected primarily' the comparability of figures on the value of cotton and of fruits and nuts sold. If the same method used in 1954 for determining the ' value of sales had been used for 1949, the value of cotton sold would have been approximately $300 million more and the value of fruits and nuts sold $127 million more than shown for The change in method of determining the sale of crops, largely cotton and fruits and nuts, accounted for an increase between 1949 and 1954 in the value of all crops sold for the United States by about 3.5 percent. The underreporting of the value of livestock sold was greater for 1954 than for It is estimated that if the sales of livestock for 1954 had been as completely reported as for 1949, approximately $600 million would have been added to the value of all livestock and livestock products sold in This estimate is
10 906 GENERAL REPORT equivalent to approximately 5 percent of the value of all livestock and livestock products sold in For the United States, the differences in method of determining value of sales and in underreporting of sales probably affects the comparability of the value of farm products sold for 1949 and 1954 by about 4 percent. However, the effect of these differences on the comparability data for 1949 and 1954 is considerably greater for individual States, geographic divisions, and regions. Value of production.-the value of production data for 1954 are reasonably comparable with figures for prior Censuses. The value of production for crops has been calculated for several Censuses by multiplying the quantities harvested by average prices per unit. The production period covered has been comparable from Census to Census. For most items, the production period has been a crop year. For a few.crops, such as citrus, avocados, and olives, special instructions or the inquiry on the questionnaire has indicated the crop year for which, the data were to relate. The average prices used for computing the value of production have Qeen obtained since 1925 cooperatively by the Bureau of the Census and the United States Department of Agriculture. Some differences in the comparability of value of production of crops arise from differences in the inclusion of items in totals for all crops or for certain groups of crops. The significant differences in items included in the value of production for crops for 1954 and 1949 are indicated by the following data. Total value of production for all crops harvested Value of pasture receipts (mcluded in other field crops harvested) Value of peanuts hogged or grazed Value of tree fruits arid nuts for farms with a total of less than 20 trees and vines :_ t No data obtained for ' Not computed for Estimated $1~ 679,258,631 $16,295,854,995 (1) 15,575,700 34, 138, 323 (2) 3 24, 000, 000 These differences do not affect the totals for all crops by more than one-third of 1 percent. The totals.for a group of crops, or for an individual crop, such as peanuts and the total for a State, may be affected more by the differences indicated above. For livestock and poultry and most livestock and poultry products, the value of production shown for 1954 and 1949 represent the value of livestock and poultry and livestock and poultry produc~s sold as the quantity produced for these farm products was not obtained. The values shown for these items are not fully comparable for 1949 and (For a statement regarding the comparability; see discussion under heading "Value of farm products sold.") FARM PRODUCTS SOLD, BY SOURCE All crops.-the total value of all crops sold-field crops, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and horticultural specialties_:_amounted to $12,222 million for This total was 24.7 percent above the corresponding figure for The total value of all crops sold represented 49.6 percent of the total value of all agricultural products sold in 1954 as compared to 44.5 percent for It is estimated that less than one-fifth of the 24.7 percent increase in the value of crops sold from 1949 to 1954 resulted from the change in the method of determining the value of all crops sold. The change in method of determining the value of crops sold affected primarily the value of cotton and the value of fruit and nut crops sold. Cotton.-Cotton was the most important single crop on the basis of the value of sales. The computed value of sales for 1954 was $2,515 million and represented 10.2 percent of the total value of all agricultural products sold and 20.6 percent of the total value of crops sold. All cotton lint and seed were considered to be sold. The total value of cotton including the value of both lint and seed sold in 1954 was 14.6 percent abov~ that reported for The 1949 total value of the cotton crop, as obtained from farm operators, was $2,194 million whereas the value of production (quantity harvested times an estimated unit price plus the value of the seed) was $2,491 million. A part of the difference between the reported value of sales and the calculated value of production was due to a failure of farm operators to include a value for the cottonseed. Nearly all of the 14.6 percent increase in the value of cotton sold between 1949 and 1954 was the result in the change in the procedure for determining the value of sales. Wheat.-Wheat is the sel)ond moat important crop on the basis of the value of sales. The value of sales for the crop was $1,716 million and represented 7.0 percent of the total value of farm products sold and 14.0 percent of the total value of all crops sold. The quantity of wheat sold represented 88.4 percent of the quantity harvested in 1954 as compared with 84.0 percent in The average value per bushel for the 1954 crop was $2.13 as compared with $1.86 for Corn.-Corn is the third most important single crop item from the standpoint of total value of sales. The 1954 value of the portion sold as grain was $1,449 million and represented 5.9 percent of the total value of sales of all farm products. The 1954 total comprised 11.9 percent of the total value of the sales of all crops. The value of corn sold, as grain, in 1954 was 42.6 percent above the $1,016 million reported for corn and corn products (silage, fodder, etc.) for The percentage of the crop sold was 31.0 in 1949 as compared with 38.6 in The average value per bushel increased from $1.24 in 1949 to $1.44 in The increased value of sales was the result of both a higher percentage of the crop sold and a higher average price per bushel. Vegetab1es.-The total value of vegetables sold in 1954 was $645 million or 6.3 percent above the $607 million reported for The value of vegetables sold was 5.3 percent of the total value of all crops sold for 1954 as compared with 6.2 percent for For 1954, vegetables sold represented 2.6 percent of the total value of all farm products sold as compared with 2.8 percent for Fruits and nuts.-the total value of fruits and nuts sold, for 1954, was calculated to be $1,198 million, or 51.3 percent above the total of $792 million for The 1954 figure represents 9.8 percent of the total value of all crops sold, as compared with 8.1 percent in Nearly one-third of the increase from 19~9 to 1954 in the value of fruits sold was the result of the change m the method of determining the value of fruita and nuts sold and the remainder was the result of increased production and higher prices. For 1949, the value of fruit sold was obtained by asking farm operators for the estimated value sold for all fruits and nuts, including berries and other small fruits. In 1954, the value of sales was computed by multiplying quantity harvested by a State average price per unit. (For a more detailed discussion of the computation of fruit values, see the subhead, "Methods of obtaining value of farm products sold.") Horticultural specialties.-the total value of horticultural specialties sold in 1954 at $454 million, was 15.7 percent above the $392 million reported ' for For 1954, the va 1 ue o f sales rep~esented 3.7 percent of the total value of all crops sold as compared with 4.0 percent for Forest products sold.--,-the value of forest.pro?~cts sold!~ 1954 $130 million was 3. 7 percent below the $135 mtlhon report for ' The value ' represented 0.5 percent o f th e t 0 t a 1 value t of all farm products sold in 1954 as compared with 0.6 perce~ for The value of forest products sold includes only t e value of sales from farm production.
11 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 907 Livestock and poultry and their products sold.-the total value ef sales of livestock and poultry and their products in 1954 was $12,292 million, or 1.5 percent greater than the $12,114 million reported in This total represents 49.9 percent of the total value of all products sold in 1954 as compared with 54.9 in The method for determining the value of livestock and poultry products sold for 1954 was essentially the same as that used for the 1950 Census. For both Censuses, each farm operator was asked to report the quantity and value of the principal kinds of livestock and livestock preducts sold. However, the reporting of the value of livestock and livestock products sold was less complete for the 1954 than the 1950 Census. The 1954 Census was taken during October and November, and it was necessary for the farm operators to estimate sales for November and December.. In the case of cattle and hogs, the value of sales may be understated by 10 to 20 percent because of the underreporting of the number sold and, also, because of the use of approximate market prices at the time of the enumeration for calculating the value of sales. (The market price of cattle and hogs declined in 1954.) Because of differences in underreporting, the value of livestock sold for 1954 is probably understated by 5 to 7 percent in comparison with the value of livestock sold for ;.. more detailed statement regarding the underreporting of cattle and hogs sold is given under cattle and calves and hogs and pigs, Some of the livestock sold from farms move to other farms for further growth or fattening. A considerable number of some kinds of livestock such as cattle and sheep move across State boundaries to farms in other States.. The number and value of animals sold include not only those sold for slaughter but, also, those moving to farms both within and outside of the State. Cattle and calves.-the value of sales of cattle and calves for 1954, $4,283 million, was slightly less than the $4,297 million reported for The 1954 total represents 17.4 percent of the total value of all farm products sold as compared with 19.5 percent for The cattle and calves sold alive totaled 44.4 million head in 1954 as compared with 36.3 million, head sold in The number of cattle and calves sold includes the number sold for further fattening and growth by other farm operators, as well as those sold for slaughter. A comparison of the number of cattle and calves sold with the commercial slaughter is given in the following table Commerolal Co=eroial slaughter 1 slaughter 1 (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) Cattl O~ttle and calves, total ,763 26,049 36,319 28,841 19,671 24,223 25,017 18,476 20,692 18,013 Oalv~ C:::::::::::::::::: 13,222 20, ,746 7,573 15,627 10,828 6,449 I 1 ~~':':;T U.S. Department of Agriculture of comme:w.ss;foe. 1 tionh of all cattle as cattle or Ca.lves by farm operators and by operators s aug ter houses Is not made on a comparable basis. ;~e above data indicate that the calculated inter-farm sales of ca.llt'e an,d calves were about 6.6 million head in 1954 and 7 5 ffil IOU h d ' ea m Some data are available to indicate the feeder general accu. racy o f th ese figures. The mspected. stocker and h d. shipments from public stockyards amounted to cattle ea m wo 1954 an d 4 ' ' ~1~6,000 head in Stocker and feeder ret uld have ongmated on a farm or ranch and would have urned to another farm or ranch for further growth and fattening. Considerable numbers of cattle and calves move to market, especially in the Corn Belt and dairy areas during the last quarter of the year. It was necessary for the farm operator to estimate both the number and value of these animals sold. In computing the value of such animals sold for 1954, Census enumerators were instructed to use the current local market price. Enumerators appear to have used, in many cases, the approximate mar}!:et price at the time of enumeration to calculate the value of animals sold for the entire year. Inasmuch as the market price of cattle declined in 1954, the computing of value of cattle and calve.s sold on the basis of prices in October or November would re.sult in an understatement of the value of cattle sold. Hogs and pigs.-the 1954 Census enumerated value of sales for hogs and pigs was $2,279 million. T~ is 4.4 percent below the $2,385 million reporting for The number of hogs and pigs sold was not completely reported. The number sold was 11.4 percent less than the number slaughtered in commercial establishments in 1954, as shown by the following data: Co=erclal Commercial slaughter 1 slaughter 1 Item Census Census sales Under sales Under Total Federal Total Federal Ins pee-!nspectlon tion Item Census Census sales Under sales Under Total Federal Total Federal In spec-!nspectlon tion (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) Hogs and pigs sold alive. 57,419 64,827 52,894 65,512 64, ~ 1 Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture. Since the data on number of hogs and pigs sold include hogs and pigs sold for further growth and fattening, the number sold from farms should exceed the number slaughtered. It is estimated that the number of hogs anq pigs sold for 1954 is understated by 10 to 20 percent as compared with the number reported as sold for This underreporting of hogs and pigs sold probably resulted largely from the failure of farm operators to accurately estimate or report the number of hogs and pigs to be sold during October, November, and December of In estimating the value of hogs to be sold, Census enumerators were instructed to use the local market price at the time of the enumeration. In many cases, it appears that Census enumerators used the market price to compute the value of hogs and pigs sold during the entire year. As the market price of hogs declined materially during 1954, this method of calculating the value of sales would result in understating the value of hogs even more than the percentage estimated for the number sold. Sheep and la.mbs.-for 1954, the value of sheep and lambs sold was $328 million, or about 3.8 percent below the $341 million for A comparison of the enumerated number of sheep and lambs sold alive with commercial slaughter follows: Commerolal slaughter Commercial slaughter Item Census Census sales Under sales Under Total Federal Total Federal In spec- Ins peetlon t!on (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) Sheep and lambs.. 22,336 15,920 14,148 20,003 13,376 12,136
12 908 GENERAL REPORT From these data, the indicated inter-farm movement of sheep and lambs was 6,416,000 head for 1954 and 6,627,000 head for The total movement across State lines, from producer through stockyards to producer, was estimated by the United States Department of Agriculture as 5, 986,000 for 1954 and 5,963,000 for The total sales shown by the Census include not only sheep and lambs sold for slaughter but also those sold to other farmers as well as those shipped to stockyards for further sale to farm operators for further growth or fattening. Dairy products.-the total value of dairy products (milk and cream) sold, was $3,334 million for 1954, or 8.3 percent above the $3,079 million reported for all dairy products sold, for Sales of milk and cream, in 1954, represented 27.1 percent of the total value of all livestock and poultry and their products sold, and 13.5 percent of the value of all farm products sold. In many cases, the value of dairy products sold as reported by farm operators represented the net amount received after hauling and marketing costs had been deducted. Chickens.-The value of all chickens sold, in 1954 totaled $698 million, or 23.0 percent more than the $568 million reported for Broilers comprised 81.8 percent of the number of all chickens sold in The value of broilers sold comprised 79.9 percent of the value of all chickens sold in No data were obtained regarding the sale of broilers separately from other chickens sold for It was necessary for the farm operators and Census enumerators to estimate the number and value of chickens and broilers sold during the last two or three months of As many farm operators do not keep complete records of the numerous sales of chickens usually made during the ye~tr, the data on the number and value of chickens sold are probably subject to considerable reporting error particularly by the considerable number of farmers not engaged in the specialized production of poultry and poultry products. The accurate enumeration of broiler production and sales js difficult because of the varied arrangements made by farm operators for the production of broilers. The proportion of the production and sale of chickens occurring on specialized poultry and broiler farms is increasing and this change has probably resulted in improvement in the accuracy of the reporting of the production and sale of chickens. Chicken eggs.-the value of sales for chicken eggs in 1954 was $917 million or 9.1 percent below the $1,008 million reported for Data on the quantity and value of chicken eggs sold are subject to considerable reporting errors as many farm operators, especially those not engaged in the specialized production of poultry_ and poultry products do not maintain complete records of the numerous sales made during a calend!j.r year. COMPARISON OF INDEXES FOR TOTAL SALES OF FARM PRODUCTS AND PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS, FOR THE UNITED STATES: 1939 TO 1954 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD, FOR THE UNITED STATES: 1939 TO TOTAL SALES OF FARM PRODUCTS AS SHOWN BY CENSUS {1939= 100) ~ PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS Source: Agriculture Marketing Service, United States Deportment of Agriculture - ALL CROPS SOLD ~ LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS SOLD c==j FOREST PRODUCTS SOLD 54C IS:S. WITH LESS THAN $ 2,500 GROSS SALES AS A PERCENT OF ALL FARMS CENSUS OF 1954 (COUNTY UNIT BASIS) 1tNO LEGEND PERCENT CJ UNOER 10 ~ 40 TO 09 fiitill co TO 19 ~ 60 TO 79 ~ 20 TO ANO OVER FARMS PERCENT
13 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 909 VALUE OF ALL FARM PRODUCTS SOLD DOLLARS UNITED STATES TOTAL $24,644,4 77,087 I DOT = $ 2,000,000 (COUNTY UNIT BASIS) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MAP NO A OF THE CENSUS AVERAGE VALUE PER 'FARM OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD,I954 LEGE NO DOLLARS 0 UNDER 1,300 ~ 5, 400 TO 7, 999 ffiillji,300 TO 1,999-8,000 TO 12,000 ~ 2,000 TO 3,399-13,000 AND OVEP ~ 3,400 TO 5,399 * NO FARMS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UNITED STATES AVERAGE $5,153 MAP NO. A BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
14 910 GENERAL REPORT A PERCENT OF ALL FARM PRODUCTS SOLD, 1954 (COUNTY UNIT BASIS) LEGEND PERCENT D UNDER 20 ~ 60 TO 79 ~ 20 TO AND OVER liii!iijlii40 TO 59 * NO FARMS UNITED. STATES AVERAGE 49.6 PERCENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MAP NO A fjureau OF THE CENSUS AVERAGE VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD PER ACRE OF ALL LAND IN FARMS,I954 (COUNTY UNIT BASIS) LEGEND DOLLARS D UNDER 5-25 TO 49 lillill!s TO 9-50 TO 74 ~ 10 TO AND OVER! TO 24 *NO FARMS UNITED STATES AVERAGE $21.28 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MAP NO. A ~4-329 BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
15 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 911 SOLD LNlED STATES TOTAL $12,221,62~.069 UNITED STATES TOTAL $ 1,198,016,326 SOLO LmED STATES TOTAL $ 645, 095, 047 UNITED STATES TOTAL $453,653,672 1 EI«UUNG 9SI:i All) SWEEf POTATOES LWTEO SlliTES TOTAl. $130,427,709 UNITED STATES TOlliL $ ,422, 157 IJfTEo SlliTES TOTAL SM34,066,214 INTEO STATES TOTAL $1,918,935,878
16 912 GENERAL REPORT TABLE 1.-VALUE OF ALL FARM PRoDUCTS Sow, BY SouRcE; FOR THE UNITED STATES: 1954 AND 1949 Item Value or sales (dollars) Percent of value of production Percent of total Percent All farm products sold, total i ,644,477,087 22,061, 120,389 CROPS All crops sold, total ' , 221, 625,009 9, 802, 844, 913 Field Croos Fieltit~~~~rJt~~;ti~r~~~~g;!;~ ~-: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0, 924,860, 024 8, 012, 064, 994 1, 448, 884, 488 1, 016, 210, , 720, 686 } ' 7, 135, ' ' } , (Z) Grains grown together and threshed or combined as a mixture All wheat threshed or combined' 
18 914 GENERAL REPORT Table 2.-SPECIFIED CROP&-TOTAL VALUE OF PRODUCTION FOR THE UNITED STATES: 1954 AND 1949 [Percent not shown when 1,000 or more] Item Value of production 1 (4<>1lars) ~rcent Percent of total Total all crops harvested. FIELD CROPS Total." all field crops 2, Corn for all purposee 2..,, Sorgh\DD for all purposes, except for sirup ~ Grains grown together and threshed or combined as a mixture All vheat threshed or combined ~ ,. Oats threshed or combined 2 Oats cut for feeding unthreehed.. Barley threshed or combined.... Rye threshed or combined Buckwheat threshed or combine'i." Fla.xaeed threshed or combined., Rice threshed or combined...,.,,.., ~...,... other grains threshed or combined,...,,, Soybeans for all purposes, except PiO:Wed under tor green uanure 1!. Cowpeas for all "P~p~ses, except harvested for green peas or plowed under for green manure Peanuts for. al.l purp,i)8is'2,. All dry t:leld and seed beans harvested f'or beans, except velvetbeans and soybeans All dry field and seed peas harvested for peae, except Auetrian and wild winter peae ~ including grass sil,oge (excluding sorgh\dd and annual legumee), total2 Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures cut tor hay,, Clover, timotey, and mixtures of clover and grasses cut tor bay, ~. Lespedeza cut for hay ~ Oats, wheat, barley, rye, or other sdbll grains cut tor bay Wild hay cut ;, All other hay cut., Grass silage made tram grasses, alfalfa, clover, or adbll grains Field seed crops harvested, total 2.Alfalfa seed harvested;.., Al.aike clover seed barvested Cr:l.mson clover seed harvested , Red clover seed harvested Sveetclover seed harvested Lespedeza seed harvested, other and unspecified clo~r seed harvested =:s::e:e:!r.e~.:.~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Timothy seed harvested.. Vetch seed harvested,... other field seed c~ barv"ested..!. ~-. i~~!:o (=e::d~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::: Su.garoan.e out tor sugar Sugarcane or sorghum for sirup Sugar beets harvested for sugar ~~l:~~o~o::t~:t:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: SWeetpotatoea harvested...,... Broomcorn. harvested Other field orops barvestad4 VEGETABLES Vegetables harvested for sale FRUITS AliD R11l'S. Total value of fruits, including berries and other small!':ruits, and nuts. Berries and Small Fruits Blackberries and dewberries barv'ested for sale Bluebe!-ries barv"eated for sale Cranberries harvested for sale, Raspberries harvested :tor sale Strawharries harvested for sale.. other berries and small r.rui ts ~vested for sale Noncitrue Tree Fruits and Grapes 6.Apples harvested,. Apricots harvested..,... Cb.e:rrtea harvested Gre.pes ll.arveated Peaches harvested Peare harvested..,. Pluma and prunes ha.rvested :i:a::v=:~~~~:::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Olives harvested. All other tree fruits, except citrue, harvested... Nuts 6 Almonds harvested., Pec:;ans, improved and seedling, barvested.. Tung nuts harvested Walnuts, English or Pers:ten, harvested.. Other nuts harvested Citrue Fru1 ts 6 Gre,pefruit harvested. Lemons harvested. L1Jaes barvested Oranges, :I.Dcluding satsumos, tangerines, and mandarins, harvested other citrus fruits harvested '. IIORTICULTURAL SPECIALTIES 18,679,258, ,295,854,995 16,376,018,'716 14,321,684,091 4,287,o82,666 3,823,423, ,057, ,917,131 3l,l98,TI4 51,910,142 l,939,86l,ll9 1,874,371, ' 582,560 7lto,3o8,09Q Ito, 781, ,o8l, ,734,568 26,549,~3 20,236,604 2,210,. 9 4,o65, ,969, ,703, ,345,o63 158,43,,828 52,763,1.63 7,22, ,024, ,315,9~ 14,184,815 18,~,6 137,986,321 3J.86,,749 l37,574,o83 13l,Bl!6,0l7 1.6,844,200 11,1165,7116 2,301,881, 78o 1,883,999,m 1,257,659, ,6ol,ltol 535,602, ,072,m 85,301,Boo 162,2~, u8, 321., ,5,4o7 l49/tl.6,8ti l72,0ti, 730 lll,bl!6,27l l33,llto,584 43,432,957 12,305, ,573, ,203,443 52,1.67,753 43,3lto,9l7 1,999,026 2,535,1.69 2,479,890 3,829,242 24,398,3TI 30,9~7,541 4,669,l8o 7,5 5,169 17,121,439 17,057,440 3,257,557 76,897 3,013,316 1,973,029 1,832,451 3,267,326 6,587,o6l 7,410,098 3,192,782 5,498,807 30,855,08o 33,731,808 2, 5;I,~, 722,624 2,491,296, ,965, ,045,45~ 43,763,310 37,8J.9,8l 6,6o8,241 8,818, ,323, ,593,072 6,556,135 6,330, ,934, ,074,154 68,248,545 83,o60,lo6 9,898, ,428,349 41,226, ,1164, ,095, ,017, TI6 1,204,491, ,055,523 3,366,188 ~,133,503 9,521, 720,~37,883 12,132,366 6, 78,oo8 u,oo4,ol.6 11,309,"762 59,474,074 50,o88,534 4,621,387 3,850, ,522, ' 419,629 17,245,112 12,202,326 43,713,527 32,459, ,218' ,202,178 lo8,62l,528 8o,484,68o 55,133,~5 36,629,023 56,055, 3 36,538,747 7,TI6,44o 4,568,148. 5,104,395 6,272,020 5,056, TI8 4,395,043 51l36,TI8 3,280,888 19,438,962 12,222,622 8,651,441 12,520,661 3,443,388 4,727,538 22,678,073 24,633,766 2,486,119 2,094,342 39,568,979 58,150, ,935,969 52,645,510 2,663, , ,870, ,431, , ,5o8 loo.o loo.o , l O.l O.l l3l.2 (Z) (Z) l.o l (Z) O.l O.l l.l o O.l O.l ~ l.o o.8 l.l O.l o.8 l.o 9(> m m 64.8 O.l (Z) (Z) 61.~ O.l O.l loo. 1~1 1; J..Q<l.& (Z) O.l (Z) (Z) O.l O.l lo (Z) O.l 2()9.8 O.l O.l O.l (Z) (Z) Total value of nursery and greenhouse products, flower and vegetable seeds 453,653, ,097' ll5.7 adil Planfs, fiovers, ana DUibi e01tt NA Not available. Z percent or less. 1Value or sales tor yegetables, berries and o:ther small fruita, and horticultural spac;ialties.. See text.. 2 For these items onl;y, data are shown in division and state Table 8. 'Value of nuts and hay only. 4The totals ror this item re~osent fewer orops then do the totals ror the items of some nome 1n Table 8. '"Receipts from pasture and grazing ~ivileges included for 1949 at $34,138,323; suoh data not available for Data for 1954 represent production for those farms with a total or 20 or more trees and vines. m O.l O.l o.6 o o t~u (Z) r) m ~l O.l o.l o.l 69.1!~l (Z) 72.8 o.l (Z) (Z) o (Z) (Z) ll9.8 (Z) (Z) 352 9
19 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS Table 3.-VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD AND NUMBER OF FARMS, BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954, 1949, AND Region, division, and State Total number of farms Value (dollars) Value of all farm products sold Av,.,.,.ge ~er farm1 (dollars Percat. Percent o! U. S. total {. u.s ,859,169 24,1>14,477, , ,230,627,204,. 5.._ lll The North 2,043,092 2,268,066 2,483,578 12, , 95~ 11,655,872,908 8,536,849,155 6,214 5,139 3, The south 2,316,607 2,652,423 2,881,135 7,025,022,867 6,358,667, 772 4,631,973,605 3,032 2,397 1, The West., 422, , ,456 7i,9~,562,26; 4,036,588, 709 3,061,804,444 11;647 8,743 6, Goo.Ohhi.. or New I!Dgland.. 81, , ' ' , Middle Atlan t :Ia I 063 I 024 5,885 4, ~3 6.6 B.N. Central. 798, , ,797 4,593,6:p.,_~ I 953 2,953,364, , : W,N, Central. 905, ,735 1, ,053,022,254 5, ,093, ' , :L47.9: South Atlontio.. 858, ,998 1,043,475 2,630, ,124, 731,368 1, 734,542,668 "J!'o62 2,216 1, B.S. Central.,.. 789, ,829-1-;~. 501, ,301,223 1,082,221,686 1,952 1,502 1, ' W,S, {lentral. 668, , ,831 2,853,010,134 2,862,635, ,815,209,251 4,270 3, Hountain.. 180, , ,527 1,810, ,458 10,055 8,372 5,026 lll..o Pao1fio , , , , 993' 697' ,828 9, ~ " Row &.,1 Maine , I 5J , ,134 2, ,6 0.6 New Hampshire ,391 18,786 45,338,141 46,499, ,354 4, , ve=t ,043 26,490 86,446,310 86,988, ,409 4,568 2, Maesaolluaette 17,361 22, ,225, ,_~ , ,213 6,091 3, :U7.9' Rhode Island. 2,004 2,598 3, ,118 16_,,379' , Conneotiout ,615 22, , m~~t , , lllmle Allatlor New York.. 105, 7J.4 124, , ,400, ,793,663 6, , New Jersey 22,686 24,838 26, ,032, ,319, ' 639,672 10,669 8, Pennsylvania, , , ,550,713 S4S, 926, I 629 I 689 4,683 3,717 2, Jut No.th Ceatnlr Obio 177, , , ,013, ,681, , ,570 2, , Indiana 153, ,018, ,893, ,204,211 5,899 4,392 2, Illinois.. 175,543' 195, ,239 1, , , ,811,507 8, , Michigan.. 138, , , ,070, , ,270,712 3,924 3,044 2, llieoonein 153, ,881, ,629, , ,163 4,536 3, ~ Weot North Ceatrd r Minnesota 165, , , ' 99~ ,552, ,599 5,955 5,363 3, Iowa, , , ,989,028 1,635,350,322 1,152,402,548 9,537 8,o5o 5, Missouri North Dakota. 201,614 61, , , ,733, ,877, ,490, , , ,121, , ' 823,240 },~ South Dal<ote 62, , ,000,704 6,129 5, ,399' ,406,939 6,974,,477 4, Nebraska.. 100, ,183 lll, ,841, ,641, ,215' 984 8,735 7,255 4, Kansas 120, , , ,339, , ,583, 888 6,677 5,820 4, S..t hlutiar DebliiiU.'e.. Maryland.. D.c. Virginia... 6,297. 7,448 9,296 81,564,849 76,227,871 62,253,322 12,953 6, ,500 36,107 41, ,072, ,157, ;~~ I 095 I 409 3, o.8 o.8 o , ,066 6t~~ 20~344 14, (zl' (Z) ,'6!' '?,35?,528 1:~i 1'~ 110.1' ,906-2~~ ,460, ,627,536. _?,738 1:929 1; !1_ , , , , 711~ ,561, 7J.4 ~!~:~~ ,532 1, ' lll , , , ' 425, ,151,595 ' ,471 2,709 1,893 1, ,543 56,921 61, ,115, , ,180 I 510 8,100 5,949 3, \loot Virginia 136~,";~ 1~~ 1~:~-. 36Jf,:},~~ 3~?.fts:1;;~ North Carolina SOuth Carolina Georgia Florida lut S..t. Ceatrd' Kentucky , ,501 ~~~, c::>lt.. ~uo 417,060, ' 632,941 2, , Alabama Tennessee 176, , , , ,215; , , ' 656,854 ~.541,957 1,739 l: , ~:~~~~~ Misaiseippi. 215, , , , , ,487,801 1,716 2,130 1, , , loot S..th Cerotrlllz Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma.. 145, , ,718,603 2, , ~:~~ 1.7 m:~~~ 309' 790,562 ~~:~:m 177,562,262 ~~31! 1,979 l:;s~~ l.l ;977 11>1,790 1,642,069, ' 385' 664 l, 471,002, ,052, ,261, , ,441 5, , ~:~~~ ' Texas.. ~~g:m ~~:~~ Jlnatrdar Montaoa 33,061 35,085 37,747 Idaho.. 339,481, , , ,268 7,954 5, '1.4 38,740 40,284 41, ,125,790 Wyom:f.ng 281;025, ' 216 8, , , Colorado , ,134, ,835, ,098 9,659 6, , New Mexico 45, ,899, ,447, I ,356 5,261 ' , Al<ieone 23,599 29, ,090, , , , , , Utah 10, , ' 936,809 95,383, ,587 7, Nevada. eifior - 22,826 24,176 26, ,575, ,287 I ,575,634 5,545 5,389 3, ,857 3,110 3,429 33,744,466 34, ,320,527 u,eu ~&ellington 65,175 69, ,045, I 209 I ,453,176 7,764 5,231 4, c~~~i.~:::::: 54,441 59,827 63, , , 079' ,350,398 6, , , ,260, 920,969 1, 741,961,237 1,399,894,412 18, , NA Not l -- - v:l.th available. Z 0.05 percent or less. Based on all t:arme, regardless ot: whether 111\Y sales of arm produote during Census year. For 1954, the number or farms sales~o sales is not available; for 1950 Census (1949), tbere were 360,987!arms whioh reported no soles; for Cenaua of 1945 (1944), there were 531,482 arms which reported no
20 916 GENERAL REPORT Table 4.-VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD, BY MAJOR SOURCES; Crops sold1 Livnstock ond poultry nnd their product.a aoldl Percent of total vo.lue Value (dollars) Percent of u. S. Region, of all farm Percent total Value (dollars) division, produots sold and State , u.. s...1:2j_~?l:, 625,069 9,802,844,913 7,507,597, a ML. 67o B5o 2 The North 4,697,793,792 3,637,037,132 2,655,071, , 962 '948' 108 7,982 '760,000 5,848,52?, The South. 4,591,161,182' 4,004,142,612 3,030,490, ,365,915,889 2,270,61.3,304 1,561,156,941 4 The West 2 '932,670,095 2,161,665,169 1,822,035, ' 963,560,312 1,860,318 '797 1,234,986,59.5 Gee. Db. I 5 N.E.. 169,586, ,398, ,340, '944' ,288, ,039,159 6 M.A 473,164, '929' 699 _: 322,123' ,0.32,56.3,394 1,015,020, ' 702,049 7 E.N.c 1,831,663,619 _1J325 '157,395 ac9, a?s, ' 750' 972,615 2 '706,227,318 2,073,090, N.C 2,223,379,633-1,773,530,623. 1,313,728, ,825,467,516 3,910,22.3,765 2,7?4,695,823 9 s.a.. 1,676,716,715 1,320' 110' 712 1,198,611, '969 ' ' 115, ,991, E.S.C 995,094, ,265, ,292, ' ,304, '758, w.s.c 1,919,350,187 1,867,766,084 1,110,585, ,171, ' 222' ,407, Mt 900,974, ,618, ,302, ,142, ,849, ,301, Pao 2,031,695,973 1,440,046,564 1,342, 732, ? ,058,418, ,469,578 6/f?,684,883 N.E.o 14 Moine.,. 64,071,338 65,5_92,350' 56,956, o.s 70,710,916 55,384,241 )/,I 839 I N.H.. 5,808,069 6,135,358 5,345, ~Z) ,078,507 39,163,146 32,388, Vt 5,130,464 4,632,349 5,682, Z) (Z) ,881,853 78,950,335 60,878, Mass 43,449,402 43,922,735 40,946, ,027,639 90,803,846 72,901, R.I 4, 789,277 4,849,854 4,126, (Z) (Z) ,509,117 11,211,352 10,593, Conn 46,337,496 45,265,769 36,282, , ,736,551 75,775,942 52,438,320!I.A., 20 N.Y~ 202,ooa,64o 160,270, ,128, ,451, ,248, ,818, N.J 94,736,760 72,869,585 69,388, ,147, ' 239 '772 %,114, Pa ,419, ,810, ,605 ' '964' ,532, ,20/t E.N.C. 23 Ohio 368,067, ' 837 ' ,870, ,414, ,333,ooo 368, Ind.. 385,277 ' ,484, ,547, ,659, ,809, ,491, Ill.. 720,3%, ,488, ,124, ,2 784,609, ,881., ,030,853' 26 Mich 253 '722, ,669, ,151, ,029, ,911, ,458,866 2T 1/is.. 104,199,092 80,678,121 58,184, ,259, ,287, '790,465 li.n.c. 28 Minn 348' 126, ,ooo, ,442 ' ' 97~, ,394, ,567, Iowa.. 451,528, ,308,BOB 225,385' ,38S,007,135 1,314,601, ,706, Mo?69' 930, ,299, ,872, ,291, ,005, ,823' N.Dak 256,654,98()_ 265' 856, 9_1_ 252,588' % ,436, '934, ' 149, S.Dak l60,325; ,782, ' 918, i5s ,619, ,516, ,434, Nebr 308,526, ,554, ,483, ,247, ,027, ,674, Kll11B. 428,281, ' 727, ,037, , ,889, '743' ,340,145 S.A.o 35 Del 22,794,691 12,091,418 9,012, ,565,772 63,983,302 53,153, Md 69,056,248 54,413,352 51,362, ,004, ,685 ' D.C 429, , (Z) (Z) 139,810 85,076, , Va 172,165, ,575, '777, ,185, ,518, ,151, w.va 22,05_6,812 12,717,433 13,180, ,724,957 67,173,286 48,285, N.C J 597,88_8, '712' ,464' , ~\f ,446 '972 91,040,465 65,903, S.C ;s37, ,273, ,806 ' ,919,837 40,258,136 24,977, Ga 243 '981' ,383, ,420, ' 747' ,928,857 72,613, Fla 355 '235, ,514, ,286, ,374,604 85,387,366 45,541,763 E.s.c. 44 K;y 255,424', ,462 ' ,027, ,365 ' ,399, ' 122 ' Tenn. 204,809' ,463, ' 558 ' ,886, ,60S, ,379, Ala.. 183,548, ,324, ,981, ' ,605,056 84,745,963 52,352, Miss. 351,311' ,015, ,724, ,917,331 81,551,346 44,903,445 w.s.c. 48 Ark.. 377' 185 ' '742 ' ,783, '713,027 95,627,408 64,176, La 239 '999' ,885, ,143, ,849,818 58,881,963 30,408, Okla. 217,007, ,679 ' ,581, ,092, ,921, ,644, Tex 1,085,157,092.1,134,458, ,077, , ,515, ,792, ,178,039 Mt..' 52 Mont 184,sao, 957 1!4,787, ,~_,. :Q_ '977, ,628, ,187, Idaho 196,684, ,836, ,147, ,889, ,321,394 94,106, yo.. 24,732,212 28,798,917 17,010, ,165,656 92,905,089 65,838, Colo 129,82,3, ,631,509 lob,030, ' 785, ,525 ' ,230, N.Mex 84;423, ,367,825 3't,475, ,517,961 85,189,070 47,353, Ariz 238,690.~23 134,403,282 58,222, ,667,548 68,821,829 36,933, Utah. 36 '981,Q96_ 37 ;:i43~ ,087, DL? ,504,657 92,901/t64 68,427, Nev 5;o58,621 4,449,198 3,092, (Z) (Z) (Z) 28,633,637 29,555,844 20,223,716.Pac.: 60 Wash. 358,565, ' 162, ' 206 ' ,1 142,351, ,466, ,287, Oreg. 195,185, ,739,sao 129,744, ,110, ' 970' ,971, Calif 1,477,944,659 1,064,144, '781, '956, ,032., ,42.5,735 NA Not available. Z percent or lei as. lsales figures do not include data for 7, 588 farms in Census or 1945 which wore unclassified as to type of farm and value of sales. Most of these farms had no sales.
21 BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954, 1949, AND 1944 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 917 Liveatoak and poultry and their products sold 1 -Con'!'~~ued Forest products sold 1 P&roent of total value of nll fnm U. s. total u. s. total produo ta a old 1954 Percent of total Percent of Percent of Percent Value (dollara) value of all farm PeT"oent products sold 1954, ,427 ' ,562,375 78,359, o.s ' 150,055 36,075,776 33,250, , ,945,796 83,881,856 40,326, ,331,858 14,604,743 4,782, i ,646,755 10,018,721 u;258, ,343,243 7,676,031 6,237, ,984,952 12, 763,240 10,395, ,175,105 5,617,784 5,359, ' ,824,437 50,504,840 21,939, , ,632,685 24,730,605 12,170, ,488,674 8,646,411 6,215, ,132,496 2,871,545 1,502, ,199,362 11,733,198 3,280, ; ,758,995 4,538,310 4,600, ,451,565 l,201,405 1,420, ].; ,433,993 3,405,419 3,697, ill.] , , , ,724 23,173 83, (Z) (Z) , , , ,027,668 3,881,826 3,846, , , , ,167,469 3,584,292 2,254, ,531,424 2,510,754 1,525, ,081,924 1,599,360 1,165, , , ,442 (Z) (Z) ioo ,318,220 3,084,101 2,659, ,423,200 4,663,707 4,388, ,893,206 2,157,592 2,850, , , ,47~ (Z) (Z) (Z) ,506,768 2,572,582 1,794, ,782 31,174 84,789 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) , ,312 53,796 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) ,664 58,826 58,511 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) , , ,595 (Z) (Z) (Z) , ,151 88, ,011,816 1,058, ,054 o.s 0.6 o.s (Z) (Z) 500 (Z) (Z) (Z) ,347,469 6,550,253 5,175, ,679,596 2,255,053 1,885, , ,125,069 9,874,357 4,461, ,253,735 5,030,246 1,881, ,696,324 21,839,229 6,439, J ,506,042 3,743,767 1,352, ,864,290 3,199,148 1,482, ,518,570 4,470,294 2,749, ,503,161 9,966,670 4,079, ,746,664 7,094,493 3,859, ,865,913 3,480,631 2,758, ,941,004 1,962,838 1,010, , , , , ,396,412 2,801,741 2,006, l.lt , , , ,551, , , ,8 0.8 o.s 236, ,623 51, O.l , , , ,861 0, o.s , , , , , ,387 o ,008 42,434 86,9 60, : (Z) ,208 1,988 3, (Z) 2, , (Z) (Z) (Z) 59 28;1' ,128,192 3,580, , , ,050,921 6,368, ,633, ,020,249 1,784, , (Z)
22 GENERAL REPORT Table 5.-VALUE OF CROPS SOLD, BY MAJOR GROUPS;..:. Field oropa (other than vegetables, fruita, n~ta.~. and ho~tioultural apeoial~ies) soldl Vegetables eoldl Percent Percent Region, of value Percent of of value division, Value (dollars) or all Percent U. S. total Value (dollars) of all Percent Percent or and State crops sold orops sold u. s. total 195«1 1954' l954; i t9 + I ' ' 1 u..s. ~9,924,860,024 8,012,064,994 5,621,102, ' , 645,095, ,017, ,592, The North.. 4,035,193,2M! 3,083' 924,029 2,157,388, l8'zo ' 400' ,125, ,011,886, ' The Sout.h.. 1.0:30,627,697 3,560,018,754 2,594,319, ' ~79J465,896 '160,34_5,174',161,324,016 3; The West 1,859,039,079 1,368,122, ,395;106' ' 228, ,5«16, ,256, Gee. Dh. 5 N.E 98,456, ,173,100 92,771, ,642,865 12,315,787 20,565, M.A.. 193,241, ,594, ,641, _84,112, ,274,513 89,424, J; E.N.C 1,575,024,659 1,106,749, ,333' ]! ,575,708 71,479,229 80,147, \/,N.C 12,168,470,803 1,716,407,217 1,273,641, : : ,069,048 18,056,448 '16,874, S.A.. fl,229,293,71l? 1,005,333, ' i.j ),J9,697, ' 329' ,964, E.s.c 957,496, ,656, ,481,945 % ,044,050 10,727,140 15,767, ll w.s.c 1, 843' 537,448 1,775,028,096 1,007,,672,092 :% ,724,426 41,288,931 47,592, Mt 807,456, ,828, ' 913' 713 '89-:6 88.8' o 47,972, ,080,322 42,537, Pao 1,051,582, ,293,357 : 471,481,393 ' ,256, ,466, ,719, : N,E.~ 14 Maine,.. 56,036,883 57,977,525 50,394, % ,6 2,404,464 2,838,647 3,261, I, N.H ,510,535 1,925,935 1,628, (Z} 6 :3;!)60 768, , ' Q.J. 16 Vt 2,018,057 2,365,793 3,551, (Z) (zji. 247, , , (z'> (Z) 17 Mess 11,101,070,15,801,626 10,2%, Q.,_2 5,755,414 5,487,530 12,066, o R.I.. 1,928,813 1,502,260 1,666, (zj (Z) 397, , , CODil. 25,861,122 31,599,961 25,2.34, ,173,718 2,417,620 3,231, III.A., 20 N.Y.. 74,634,640 61' 599,_288 49,754, ,199,618 37,154,197 40,889, N.J.. 22,911,143 17,163,687 18,620, ,218,1,07 26,324,569 29,679, Pa 95,695,523 70,831,361 49,265, ,694,962 15,795,747 18,855, E.N.C. 23 Ohio.., 305,196, ' 114, ,626, ,709,179 12,798,025 15,012, Ind.. 357,234, ,%1, ,592,05« , ,589,337 7,941,354 13,638, Ill.. 674,778, ,761, ,141, ,309,656 14,170,396 13,879, Mioh. 168,080, ,578,276 69,003, ,845,285 17,496,918 19,187, 'Z7 \lie.. 69,734,942 48,334,486 28,%9, ,1, ,122,251 19,072,536 18,428, Q W.N.C Minn. 327,236,750 '257,176, ,976,1, ,485,644 10,600,669 6,824, ICN8 : 439,08~.42Jl. 308,391, ,457, ,690,679 2,594,824 3,306, o , Ho 257,632, ' 839' ,683, , ,586,980 2,989,243 4,133, , N.Dak 256,130,%9 265,297, , l-r7j.65..'z \99.8 % ,310 55, ,310 (Z) (Z) 93,1, 44.2 (Z) lz) 32 S.Dak 159,128, , 936' 667 JQ0,252,8l3' ~ , , , (Z) Z) 33 Nebr 305' 710' ,653, ,342, , , , ,1 34 Kane. 423,546, ,111, , 821, ,648 1,0%,034 1,516, i S.A. 35 Del.. 13,511,,965 5,636,315 2,876, ,478,374 3,571,883 3,065, , o Md 47,509,711 36,145,770 28,990, '66, :l:.2.; ,838,366 9,808,008 14,782, D.c.. 1,998 5,647 o:5 (Z) 3,575 88,59~ o.8 (Z) 38 Va 132,062, ,465,11,4 90,518, ,029,343 9,'-58,'-61 10,780, w.va. 7,153,9;!5, _2177,629 4,023, , ,055 1,014, , 51,, ~576,~, ,681, ,796,],_18 % i4:3. ' ,837,132 7,565,081 8,304, ~:t,:::: 174,175, ,438, ,638,271\ ,822,359 7,630,218 8,266, ,, Ga 218' 088' ,320, ,919, J 8,870,902 9,930,111, 9,240, Fla 60,538,930 42,467,280 26,396, ,267,236 59,742,708 42,420, E.s.c. 44!(y 248,83~, ,206, ,62:7, ,252,012 1,284,754 1,774, Tenn. 192,936, ,301, ,510,479 3,288,266 4,955, Ala.. 170,746, ,958,1,06 147,404, ,729,519 3,1t06,000 4,413, Miss 344' 977' ,190, ,699, ,552,040 2,7'-8,120 4,623, w.s.c:. 48 Ark 368,384, ' 133' ' 671' 969, , ,385,048 3,397,564 5,158,1, La 229,398, ,827, ,966, ,061,492 3,223,639 4,958, Okla. 210,976, ' 152, ,090, ,599,776 2,916,008 4,498, t Tex 1,034,777,952 1,073,914, ,943,52: ,678,110 31,751,720 32,976, , lk.. s. 52 Mont. 182' 544' ,938, ,464, ,1, ' , , , (Z) 0.1 S3 Idaho.., 185' 145' ' 027' ' 925' ,5%,951, 3,345,976 3,855, , Wyo.. 23,818,368 28,375,768 16,374, O,J, 486, , , (Z) 55 Colo.,.. 106' 529' ,247,958 84,770, ,728,052 11,443,409 10,735, N.Mex.,, 76,984,362 64,921,109 29,578, ,338,561 2,608,443 2,904, o.4 57 Ariz. 199,225,437 99,504,662 31,029, ,495,199 30,238,168 18,1,95, ;.o 58 Utah. 28,602,253 28,790,541 17,255, ,698,880 1,,610,837 5,321, o.8 59 Nev 4,606,713 4,022,792 2,514, (Z) , ,992 1,17, (Z) Pac.s 60 Wash. 225,699, ,741, ,173, ,048,818 14,866,078 ).4,578, Oreg. 126' 716' ,383,967 76,699, ,949,874 16,738,063 15,092, l Calif 699,166, ' 168' ' 607' ' 257' ,862, ,048, fz?,. NA Not available. Z 0.05 percent or 'lese. of sales. Moat of these farms had no sal.ea. 1Salea figures do not inolude data for 7, 588 farms in Census of 1945 which were unolaaaified as to type of farm ap.d value
23 BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954, 1949, AND 1944 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 919 Value (dollars) : Fruits and nuts sold 1 Hort1c14tural apeaial.ties sold 1 Percent of value Percent Percent of Value (dollars) Percent of value Percent Percent of of all U. s. total of all u. s. total crops sold crops sold 1954 : ,198,016, ,664,538 1,078,642, lll.1 453,653, ,097, ,258, l 206, 165, ,656, ' 030' ,034, ,330, ,641, J.,226, ,747, ,454, ,841,506 76,031,238 38,392, ll ,624, ,260,834 ' 689, 158, ,778,127 76,735,499 55,224, ,1?i~ ,819,953 15,996,729 17,802,054 J ,666,748 30,912,799 18,201, ,847,ll9 51,%6,249 65,275, J l ,963,082 87,ll5,601 49,781, M ; ,264,360 57,196,500 64,053, ,798,892 89,732,290 52,344, ll ,.234,465 7,496,780 5,899,1> , ,605,317 31,570,178 17,313, ,369, ' 003' ,0%, J ,056,331 43,444,113 23,386, ll.l 9 12,703,378 12,056,543 12,567, ,850,390 13, ,475, ,153,528 32,687,236 45,790, ,934,785 18,761,821 9,530,651 l.o ll 32,050,644 15,598,380 28,608, ,494,758 12,111,049 10,242, ll ,573, ,662, ,549, ,283,369 64,624,450 44,982, ' ,885,763 3,004,161 2,000, ,744,228 1,772,017 1,300, ,5 J.4 2,226,561 1,645,969 1,650, ,407,113 1,794,707 1,255, o.s 15 2,440,116 1,335,137 1,473, , , , ,533,563 7,>43,429. 9,854, ,059,355 15,490,150 8,728, , , , (Z) (Z) 2,115,608 2,451,101 1,229, ,386,798 2,510,363 2,432, ,915,858 8,737,825 5,383, J ,416,604 27,031, ,755, ,757,778 34,485,970 20,729, ,088,432 10,160,222 10,576, L3 22,518,778 19,221,107 10,511, ,342,083 >4,774,937 18,943,9) ,686,526 33,408,524 18,540, ll8.8 2> ,949,0?0 9,079,033 11,698, M2.6 ll ,213,085 29,846,592 15,531, ,305,512 4,ll6,699 4,193, >4,147,889 12,465,044 6,123, ,571,087 7,9ll,001 9,077, l.o 24,737,707 23,~645,447 17,025, ,876,054 30,599,568 32,>43, J ,920,949 15,994,307 9,817, &,562, ,490,199 6,939, ,779,262 7,780,900 3,846, ,432 1,099, , ,467,490 8,063,186 3,743, ll , , , {Z) 0.1 9,182,076 8,450,928 4,984, ,556,852 4,076,590 3,035, ll ,159,713 8,394,169 5,020, ,449 24,271 28,278 (Z) {Z) (Z) (Z) 439, , , ,138 57,087 72,931 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) 1,000, , , , , , (Z) (Z) 2,078,741 2,098,234 1,101, ,3?3 1,071, , ,277,552 3,448,042 1,762, %,926 1,010,909 2,161, ,804,426 1,872, , ~ 5,011,422 2,900,242 4,596,551? ,696,749 5,559,332 2,992, ,860 (Z). {Z) 423, ,875 {NA) 98.7 I ,616,213 11,613,080 20,163, ,457,277 6,038,675 3,315,197 ' ,249,135 4,908,065 7,491, ,100,033 2,012, , o.s 39 7,116,552 3,732,060 7,413, ,384,866 3,734,285 1,950, ,943,891 3,637,742 6,>42, "':> ,596,277 1,567, , i 12,607,208 5,270,211 15,259, ,415,393 4,862,921 3,000, ' 827' ,931, ,865, ,601,310 17,373,143 9,603, ? ,646,414 2,367,299 2,039, ,688,590 2,604,510 1,585, ,099,476 3,183,580 3,020, ,263,870 4,690,066 1,832, ,425,607 2,750,898 3,704, ,647,396 5,209,500 1,459, ,531,881 3,754,766.3,803, ,250,534 1,321, , ,%9,775 7,041,514 7,166, ,446,493 1,169, , ,540,954 5,944,746 5,640, ; ,999,100 1,889, , ,623,579 2,725,544 2,736, ,807,382 3,886,275 2,255, so 7,019,220 16,975,432 30,246, ,681,810 11,816,386 5,911, > I 942, , , , , , ,507,486 3,201,619 5,570, o.s 0.4 1,433,936 1,261,802 2,796, ,650 30,?60 49, {Z) (Z) 408, , , ,6l.4,77~ 4,186,050 7,940, o.s 6,951,257 6,754,092 4,584, ,571,507 6,897,268 4,470,454 27,975 1,290,725 1,746, , , , % ,799,186 8,276, ,072, , , ,532,914 4,321, ,~19 1,409,535 1,188, ,670 50, {Z) (Z) 59, , , (Z) (Z) ' 963' ,828,832 87,745, ,647, ,853,598 8,726,063 6,708, ,506,447 31,978, ,962, ,872,017 9,111,403 5,972,fr l 350,327' ,824, ,557,754 46,786,984 32,300,
24 920 GENERAL REPORT Table 6.-VALUE OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY AND THEIR PRODUCTS -- Dairy produots eoldl Percent of total value Region, of a &.lea of 11 veatook Value (do1lara) Percent of U. Peroent s. division, lllld poultry and their total and State products Liveatoak and liveetook produota, othor than dairy nnd pou1 try ao1d 1 Value (dollara) ! l u.s. 3,334,066,274 3,079,131,579 2,531,407, ,039,422,157 '"1,211,258,1.02 4,526,713,862 2 The North 2,275,169,518 2,168,817,097 1,809,435, ,656,091,222 4,702,687,972 3,050,316,906 3 The South 578' 814' 240_ 500, 576; ' 056' ,188,222,751 1,341,330, ,408,388 4 The West 480,082, ' 738' ' 916' ,195,108,184 1,167,240, ' 988' 568 Gee. Dinoioao 5 New England 184,109' ' 023' ,150, ,685,918 40,210,739 23,943,242 6 Middle A tlnntio 603' 689' ,885, ,048, ' 688' ,617, ,053,568 7 E.N: Central 955,260, ,117' ,530, l,5lo,o86,?46 1,499,237,260 1,013,649, W.N. Central ,111, '?90' ,705, ?.8 2,963,629,865 2,986,622,819 1,909,6?0,842 9 South Atlantic 25?, 719,02? 212,135, ,056, ? ? ,59?, ,211, ,002, E.S. Central 146,984, ' 368' ,930, ' 696' ,882, ,4'75, W.s. Central 174,110, ,072, ,068, ' 928' ,236, ,930, Mountain 121,327, ,435,483 87,687' ' 782,870?50' 129' ' 576' 057 "13 Paoif'io 358,755, ' 302' ' 228, ,325, ,110, ,412,511 Nowa..load 14 Maine 24,:J39,~_4 22,070,916 16,826, ,247,986 7,131, , New Hampshire J 9'71 l5,376,n 11,748, ,495,241 3,881,873 "2,-900, Vermont 64,326,786 62,357,973 49,305, ,445,638 10,527,429 6,201, Massachusetts 36,965,529 40,125,337 33,759, ,345,328 10,720,425 5,85?, Rhode Island 6,246,287 6,631,472 6,15?, ,690 1,090, , Connecticut.. 36,063,026 36,461,285 26,353, " ,473,035 6,858,852 3,1,35,8?8 Middle Atbatie: 20 New York 334,322, ,323, ,060, ,836,792 66,500,367 39,190,085 2l New Jersey. 52,384,019 50,146,294 39,824, ,076,916 18,252,594 10,003, Pennsylvania.. 216' 982' ,416, ' 163' ,774,985 91,864,193 53,860,002 &at North Ceatralz 23 Ohio 149' 100, ,221, ,177, ,322, ,462, ,290, Indiana.. 94,153,580 93,910,232 81,979, ,240, ,799' ,314, Illinois 121 J 005' ' 166' ,775, ? ' 640' ,958, Michigan 151,306, ,115, ,700, ,391, ' 581' ' 848' ,868, Wisconsin.. 439' 694' ' 704, ' 897' ,491, ,435, ,327,600 lt~at Nereb.Ceaeral: 28 Minnesota. 198,700, ,440, ' 028' ? ,3 332,400, ,036, ,293,158 29!OW'& 116,714, ' 436' 052" 99,829, , l, 174,824,086 1,077,849, ,251, Missouri... 84,202,959 79,246,261 65,469, ,840, ,419, ,553, North Dokota 27,160,9?3 24,145,132 25,520, ? ,188, ,843,538 73,687, South Dakota... 20,257,493 21,385,915 19,863, ? ,564, ,867,870 lltl,209, Nebraska... 35,922,349 34,047,886 33,105, ,711, , 588' ,160, Kansas 49,152,842 48,089,011 46,889, n.o ,099, ,017, ,514,824 South Atloticz 35 Delaware.. 6,965,369 6,81],,556 4,929, ,028,614 2, 770,526 1,578, Maryland. 55,818,000 47,218,262 32,297, ,355,458 23,931,744 13,248, D.O 96, , J;if.8 (Z) (Z) 41,304 72, Virginia 52,713,587 46,242,771 30,663, ,720,872 77,502,272 45,746, West Virginia. 16,274,635 15,435, ,794, ,816,215 32,897,833 20,774, North 1 Carolina 35,952,487 26,227,191 20,005, ,976,452 35,905,099 20,826,656 4l South Carolina 15,447,855 1f,-I,J,I;889 8,416, ? ,183,052 18,140,926 9,066, Georgia 31,445,630 23,994,112 17,762, ,054,017 50,912,552 27,038, Florida 43,101,464 34,667, ,048, ,462,673 37,108,843 16,652,029!a.t South Ceatral: 44 Kentucky 44,338,709 41,315,508 31,511, ' 846' ' 300,332 88,390, Tennessee.. 49,782,052 45,280,442 34,254, ? i ?9,013,851 98,500,599 60,409, Alabama... 22,323,647 19,439,293 15,433, ,825,927 53, Y 26,259,443 4? Miaaiaa1ppi 30,540,352 25,333,524 17,730, ,009,803 45,477,257 18,415,381 Woot SoatbCtral 48 Arkansas.. 21,849,105 1?,010,67? 15,009, ? ,688,587 48,395,824 31,243, Louisiana 25,329,588 19, 702,?51 12,215, ,740,039 35,256,826 13,691, Oklahoma 35,611,557 36,424,311 38,723, ,361, ,600, ,043,00? 51 Texas. 91,320,203 83,934,326 66,120, ,138, ,983, ,952,059 Maaat in: 52 Montana ,406,?51 11,165,883 10,062, ,836, ' 312' ,960, Idaho 3?,731,469 27,81?,955 28,285, 7? ,654,325 92,369,128 59,238, Wyoming 4, 721,166 4,379,553 4,373, ,286,584 86,624,687 59,565, ,708,366 Colorado. 25,51.7,981 21,800,855 1?,734, o ' 709' ,103,008 40,476,317 " 56 New Mexico?,652,471 6,552,414 4,658, ,353,358 76,384,190 28,159, Arizona 13,098,152 10,872,513 6, 530, ,295,075 55,035,196 35,224, Utah 18,407,437 16,373,071 14,014, ,276, ,960,853 17,241, Nevada 2,761,679 2,473,239 2,028,?8? ,370,772 26,339,528 Pacifie 60 Washington 55,086,169 51,50?,104 48,341, ,365,330 54,773,507 42,452,3?9 61 Oregon 39' 159' 285_ 37,491,549 33,040, ?3,382,753 73,609,145 48,600, California 264,509, ,304, ,847, , 121,.?? ,577' ' 728' ,359,863 NA Not available. Z 0.05 percent or less. lsales figures do not include data for?, 588 farms in Census of which were unclassified as to type of farm o.nd value of sales. Moat of these farms had no sales.
25 SOLD, BY MAJOR GROUPS; BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954, 1949, AND 1944 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 921 Liv 'to'1!< ~!t4.li"!!.bto~lt;aroduots 1 other then dairy and \~oiil'&ry, sold1-continue. Peroent ot total val.ue o anles of 11 veatook Percent Percent of U. s. Value (dollars) and poultry and total their produots Poultry and poultry produots aold1 Percent of total value of sales.of 11 veatock Percent Percent of U. s. and poultry and total their products , ,918,935,878 1,823,332,120 1,_586,_"-9,041./ oo:o l " ,031,687,368 1,111,2"-, ,775, ,878, ,736, ,692, ,369, ,340, ,081, ,149, ,054, ,945, ,185, ,517, ,600, ,625, ,872, ,910, ~ ' 726' ,810, ,319, ,653, ,769, ,931, , ,093,607 52,053,118 56,352, ,5 9, ,131, ,914, ,408, ,032,090 55,284,238 49,038,1"- 5, ,337, , 055, ,043, ,1 41,123,496 26,181,638 13,365, (Z) ,415,295 19,904,895 17,738, "' ,109,429 6,064,933 5,372, ,716,782 39,958,084 33,284, (Z) (Z) (Z) 3,584,140 3,489,40'7 3, 535, ,200,490 32,455,805 22,649, ,292,073 80,424,728 69,568, ,687,004 72,840,884 46,286, , 206, ,251,596 85,745, ,991,245 73,649,715 64,850, ,265,717 70,100,443 58,196, ,963,420 64,760,513 63,407, , ,332,258 41,215,217 38,890, ,073,039 53,146,856 50,565, , ,5 102,874, ,917, ,245, ,468, ,315, ,625, , , ,247,471 60,339,952 66,800, U ,087,276 8,945,641 12,941, ? ,797, ,263,067 24,361, ? ,0 28,613,489 40,391,023 43,408, S ,637,362 39,637,317 45,935,785 6, (Z) (Z) (Z) 48,571,789 54,401,220 46,644, ,830,597 45,535,759 39,531, " (Z) (Z) 2,114 74, (Z) (Z) ,751,369 45,773,786 41,742, ' ,634,107 18,839,585 15,717, ? ,518,033 28,908,175 25,071, ,288,930 10,675,321 7,494, ? l ,248,094 45,022,193 27,813, : ,810,467 13,611,299 8,841, ,180,350 15,783,216 18,220, ? ,090,599 13,827,396 18,715, o , o ,455,482 11,701,941 10,658, ,367,176 10,740,565 8,757, " L , ,175,335 30,220,907 17,924, ,780,191 3,922,386 4,501, ? o ? ,119,277 18,896,851 26,877,859? ,057,102 60,874,245 72,10l-, , 734,182 4,149,767 4,164, ? ,503,846' 6,134,311 6,581, ,157,906 1,900,849 1,899, , , , ,527,742 12,622,108 11,787, , "' ,512,132 2,252,466 2,218, ,274,321 2,914,120 2,243,98I , ,820,775 24,567,540 68,6 19,188, , , , ? (Z) (Z) "- 19~9 19"' 19"' " "' "' "' "' ,8. 53, o ,185, ~t:~:m 28,870,260 ~~:;~6:~~ fo'f l ' 868, ' 999' ' 218' U
26 922 GENERAL REPORT - Field orops sold Table 7.-VALUE OF SPECIFIED FARM PRODUCTS [Peroentagee - are baaed on t 0 tal - Region, AJJ:al a out AJJ:al:fa harvested Barley harvested lll':y field IIXId seed division, Clover IIXId timothy Corn harvested Cotton and beans barvoeted oottonsee(fi Flaxseed herveeted and State ror hay tor Qeed for grain tor beans out rar hay for grain ror grain Dollars Per- Dollars Per- Dollars Par- Dollars Per- Dollars Per- Dollars Per- Dollar a Percant cent cent cent cent cent cent Dollars 1 u.s.. 216,575' ,489, ,865,469 1.~ 133,774, ,' 081,, ,.1,48,88.1,, ,51.1,,722, ,4 2 The Nor~. 75,019, ll,ll9, ,016,792 0,7 48,015,3.1,5 0,4 26,664,8.1,5 0,2 1,296,882, ,019, ,673, The SoutJ>;, 18,018,930 0,3 2,710,569 (Z) 6,101, ,302 (Z) 3,127,312 (Z) 131,,977,260 1,9 1,933,592, ,517,576 (Z) 4 The West1. 123,537,077 2,5 31,,659' ,746, ,633, ,292, ,024,585 0,3 504,ll0,470 10,2 4,325, Gee. DiY.I 5 N.E1. 865, ,376 (Z) (!la.),(iia.).295,632 0,1 3,320, ,218 (Z) 6!NA) M.A'.:t.. 7,286, ,913 (Z) 2,353, ,736,854 0,7 7,003,525 0,5 38,390,381, 2.5 NA) 7 E.N.9..._. 25,210, ,280 (Z) 3,818,153 0,1 29,251,376 0,6 11,230,853 0,2 664,28.1,,249 11,,5 288, ,458 (Z) 8 41,657,878 Q,'7 10,761, ,844, ,731,483 0,1 5,ll0,260 0,1 594,099' ,731, :::i~:-~: 88,500, ,561, ,471 (Z) 2,258, ,205!Z) 1,842, ,986, ,023,119 ll.o 10 l!.s.c.. 1,241, ,447 (Z) 928, Z) 665,635 (Z) 48,786, ,072, (!la.) ll v.s.c'.. 15,216,903 0,5 2,702, ,915, ,876 (Z) 619,620 (Z) 20,204, ,092,496,983 38,3 1,517, M1i'-.. 48,124, ,402, ,801, ,610,915 2,1 1,895,286 0,1 5,733, ,991,670 12,5 276,120 (Z) 13 P&o"'. 75,412, ,257, ,945,279 3,6 47,022,656 1,5 2,397, ,290, ,118, ,049, N.E.I l4 Maine 56,280 (Z) 18.1, (Z) (!la.) 254,681, 0,2 1,294,020 0,9 1,507 (Z)!NA) 1.5 N.H., 87, (IIA.l (IIA.). 6, !Z) 487, ,994 (Z) ;).6 lzi NA) Vt.,. 175, (!la. (!la.) 9,450 Z) 652,820 0,8 6,772 (Z) (!la.) 17 Mass 230, (Z) (!la.) (!la.) 23,112 (Z) 573, ,678 (Z) 18 R.I., 29, (Z) (!la.) (!la.) 283 f~<l 38, ,634 (Z) 19 Conn. 286, (Z) (!la.) (!la.) 1,935 Z) 273, ,633 (Z) M.A. a 20 N.Y.. 3,052, ,949 (Z) 301,178 (Z) 10,638, ,371, ,995,160 0,9 21 N.J.. 975, , ,222 (Z) 419,576 0,2 5,11,5, ~~ 22 Pa 3,258,1.44 0,5 6,726 1,695, ,217 (Z) 3,212, ,249,709 4,5 E.I'I.C.: 23 Ohio. 7,302, ,257 (Z) 524,545 0,1 783 (Z) 3,524, ,648, ,,1, 24 Ind.. 3,2Q?, ,831 (Z) 309,548 (Z) 3,968 (Z) 1,948,11,6. 0,2 11,5,1.94, !NA) 25 Ill.. 5,501, ,381 (Zl 678,912 (Z) 3,483 (Z) 2,169,563 0,1 330,959, ,242 lzi NA) 26 Mich. 4,787,8.1, ,396 (Z 629, ,133, ,195, ,445, ,165 (Z) 27' Vis...,, 4,416, ,415 (Z) 1,675, ,218 (Z) 1,393, ,035, ,3,293 (Z) W.N.C.; 28 Minn. 4,358, ,717 (Z) 22,782,11, ,8.1,9 (Z) 1,043,58.1, 0,1 107,495, ,9 23,030, Iavil.. 4,395,780 0,2 :L4l,089 (Z) 6 (Z) 2,340, ,487,291 11,,1 ~:~~ ~~l 30 Mo 3,502, ,681,,503 0,2 1,139 (Z) 1,195, ,733, ,731, N.Dak.., 1,968, , ,930, ,316 (Z) 59,150!Z) 2,515,672 0,7 50,963, ~2 S,Dak,., 3,364,088 0,8 4,021, ,777, ,290 (Z) 40,890 Z) 50,063, ,,507, Nebr 13,86~, ,058, ,262, ,328, ,800 (Z) 122,872' (!la.) 31, Kane. 10,199, ,515, ,266, ,170 (Z) 231,022 (Z) 20,930, S.A.I 35 Del.. 23,185 (Z) 440 (Z) 106, , ,485, Md 299, (Z) 620, iii 576, ,378, lzi 37 D.c.. (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) (!la.) 38 v!' 770, ,877 (Z) 666, (Z) 469, ,266, ,ll7, (!la.) ~ v.va. 308, czr 76, ,421 (Z) 4,57, ,983, N.c.. ~.. 158,:~ (Z) 195 (Z 496,79~ 0.1 2,079 (Z) 157,387 (Z) 21,242, ,041,801 9.~ 41 s.c.. (!la.) 455 (Z) 217,716 0, ,880 (Z) 2,760, ,753, oa,.l (!la.) 19 (Z) 73,585 (Z) 25 Z) 59,292 (Z) 10,080, ll7,304, Fla.. (' (!la.) (IIA.) 15,000 Z) ('T (!la.) 1,788,539 0,4 4,805, E.s.c 44 ~. 607, ,976 fzl 593,937 0,1 422, ,151,211, 5.5 2,169, Tann. 481,086 0,1 424 Z) 334, ,607 (Z) 10,091, ,622' Ala.. 63,829 (Z) 47 (Z) (!la.) (!la.) 30,730 (Z) 9,026, ,308' Miss 88,597 (Z) (!la.) (!la.)... 37,746 (Z) 6,517, ' 971, w,s.c. 48.Ark.. 752,829 0,2 749 (Z) (!la.) (!la.) 2,583 (Z) 59,277 (Z) 2,290, ,006, La Fl (!la.) 325 (Z) (!la.) (!la.) 761 (Z) 448, ,191, ,8.1,3,176 31,,5 50 Okla. 6,560, ,157, ,793, ,710 (Z) 7,178 (Z) 746,511, ,818, Tex.. 7,903, ,388 (Z) 61, _121;'351' 0,1 72,822 (Z) 104,980 (Z) 13,977, ,,829, '11,517 J Mont, 3,690, ,641,726 0,8 19,361, ,366, , ,060 (Z) 53 Idajlo 11,261, ,398, ,788, ,094,499 5,4 304, ,, W;yo.. 2,858,885 2,5 786, ,231, ,126, , , Colo. 12,127,411, , ,858, ,071,, ,828 0,2 4,361, N.Mex 5,387, , , ,315,8% ,867!Z) 300,372 0,2 59,548, Ariz. 6,896, ,505, ,820,011, , ,419 Z) 275, ,853, , '58 Utsh. 3,61.1,, ,832, ,037, ,634 0,2 52,260 (Z) 101,190 0,1 59 Nev 2,286,883 6,8 48, , ,912 (Z) 123, ,088 (Z) 589;M8 1.7.Pac.: 60 Wash. 5,821, ,679,:3() ,071, ,864,938 1,0 986, ,611,,227. 0,3 61 Oreg. 4,874, , ,946, ,590 0,1 1,045, , Calif 64,716,739 2,9 18,888, ,927, ,896, ,904 (Z) 8,971, ,ll8,8oo ,049, t iii iii Per- cent See footnotes at end at table.
![VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 923 SOLD, BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954 value of farm products sold ] Field craps sold-continued J,espedeza cut Oats harvested Peanuts harvested Red clover bar- Rice harvested](/docs-images/83/87057191/images/27-0.jpg "Rye harvested Sorghum harvested Sa,ybeans harvested tor grain for nuts Irish potatoes vested for seed for grain for grain for grain fc:rr beans for bay Per- Per- Per- Per- Par- Per- Per- Per- Dollars")
27 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 923 SOLD, BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954 value of farm products sold ] Field craps sold-continued J,espedeza cut Oats harvested Peanuts harvested Red clover bar- Rice harvested Rye harvested Sorghum harvested Sa,ybeans harvested tor grain for nuts Irish potatoes vested for seed for grain for grain for grain fc:rr beans for bay Per- Per- Per- Per- Par- Per- Per- Per- Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars DollarS cent Dollars cent aent cent cent cent cent cent ' (Z) Percent O.l ,350 (Z) 187,609, (Z). 177,494, ,973, ,925 (Z) 15,992, ,828, ,123,140 j.5 2 3,823, ,617, ,177, ,592, ,446 (Z) 234,290, ,806,539 (Z) 151,435, ,824, ,074, ,666 (Z) 147,893, ,854, ,697,757 l.l 162,619 (Z) 21,456, ,793 (Z) 4 1,127, ,009, ,604 (Z) 40 (Z) 5 6,638, ,142, ,735 (Z) 655,843 (Z) 2,581 (Z) 2:,120, ' 198,933 (Z) 65,585, ,681, ,628, ,951, ,930 (Z) 391,347, ,417 (Z) 114,259, zi 30,661, ,818, ,925 (Z) 11,385, ,769, ,655, ,584, ,991, ,748, ,019, ,749 (Z) 1,097,696 (Z) 31,880. (Z) 30,022, ,702, ,816, ,562, ,542, ,674 (Z) 8,367, ,843 (Z) 177,989 (Z) 24,920, ,027 (Z) 16,809, ,866, ,030, ,023 (Z) 225,923, ,225, ,881, ,073, ,893 (Z) 65,788, ,102, ,619 (Z) 13,923, ,612 (Z) 12 12,000, ,773 (Z) 82,104, ,751, ,697, ,533, ,181 (Z) 13 1,090, ,027, ,981 (Z) (ij l4 5,578 (Z) 782, ,357 ~Z) 873, i,-049_ 1ii 16 5,920 Z) 2,398, (Z) 17 (NAl 1,390 (Z) 1,812, (Z) 18 (NA 2,825 (Z) 3,115, (Z)!9 2,407, ,046, ,350 (Z) 260,602_ (Z) 1,125 (Z) 117,360 (Z) , ,760, ,102 (Z) 212, (Z) 1,359, ,085, ,335, ,283 (Z) 182,446 (Z) 500 (Z) 642, ,730 (Z) 9,356, ,595, ,324, , ,165 (Z) 63,067, ,272 (Z) 8,819, ,715, ,018, ,365, ,ll6 (Z) 109,ll6, ,931 (Z) 30,461, ,080 (Z) 1,559, ,207, ,121 (Z) 210,822, ,780, ,755, ,925, , (Z) 6,400, ,167, ,381, , ,328 (Z) 1,322 (Z) 1,941, , 29,506, ,876, ,950, (!ia) 1,293, ,699 (Z) 92,523, ,972 (Z) 32,018, ,842 (Z) 945, ,878 (Z) 69,115 (Z) 130,806, ,606 (Z) 5,855, ,484 (Z) 426, '699, , , '56,041, ii 9,303, ,153, ,860 (Z) - 5,219, ,577, ,484, , ,748 (Z) 2,671, ,618, (Z) 9,954, ,556, ,387 (Z) 906, ,027, ,869, ,374 (Z) 5,135, ,473 (Z) 78,170 (Z) 533, ,160, ,218, ,017 (Z) 35,365 (Z) 1,955, ,452 (Z) 247, (Z) 3,659, ,772 (Z) 261, ii 873, ,034 (Z) 264, ,049 (Z) 6,069, ~NA) , , ,149, ,396, ,975 (Z) 337, , 782, , , (Z) 616,219 0.? 28,681 (Z) 17,146 (Z) 793 1ii 23,754 (Z) , ,063,? ,921, ,897, ,212 (Z) 231,038 (Z) 151,560 10,632,067 1: ,567, , ,365, ,396 2,144, (Z) 6,091, ,310, , , zi 179,55? (Z) 3,785,9? ,576, ,752 (Z) 407, :1,3 548, , (Z) 576, ,799 (Z). 531, ,183 (Z) 4,930, , ,189, ,219 (Z) 1,014, ,229 (Z) 177, ,054 (Z) 6,603, , ,214, ,459, ,509, (Z) 71,033 (Z) 2,425, ,405 (Z) 6,037, ,001 (Z) 441, ,232 (Z) 8,367, ,719 (Z) 10,961, ? ' 364, ,961, ,634 (Z) 619, (Z) 76,002, ,603 (Zl 24,633, ,116 (Z) 812, ,630 (Z) 579, ,831 (Z) 70,?36, ,220 (Z 2,822, ,825 (Z) 4,377, ,744, , (Z) 4,759, , ,353 (Z) 64,6sEf,-m 0.3 9,086, ,357, (Z)- ~79,184, ,296,3? ,329 (Z) 51. 1,083, ,396, , ? (Z) 712 (Z) lna) 3,255, ,489, ,734,863 o.8 NA) 114 (Z) 509, ,105, , ,558 (Z) 699, ,718, ,458 (Z) 162,619 (Z) 3,394, , ,549 1ii , ,280, ,028 (Z) 416 (Z) ,344 (Z) 1,929, ,243, ,136 9,066 (Z) ,"378, ?,761 1zi 1,743 (Z) 74, , (Z) 59 ~NA) 3,586,836 0.?... 9,787, ?, ,648 (Z) 4,400 (Z) 60 4,731, ,642, ,209, (Z) 61 3,682, ,773 (Z) 57,674, ,993 (Z) 55,697,? ,524, ,781 1ii 62
28 924 GENERAL REPORT Table 7.-VALUE OF SPECIFIED FARM PRODUCTS rpor 0 ent ageo ore b need on total Field crops sold-continued Fruit sold Dniry producta sold Region, division, Sugar beets Wheat harvested Tobacco Wild grasses out Apples Peaches Cream and State for sugar!'or grain for hey Wholo milk Dollars Dollars Dollars Percent Percent Per- Per- Per- Per- Dollars Per- Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Per- cent cent oent cent cent cent 1 u.. s'. 152,323, ,965,~ , 715,774, ,020,242 (Z) 241,522, ,304, ,539, ,0?3,526, The N'orthl. 34,362, ,626, ,_018' 510' ,069, ,887, ,681, ' 308 ' ,048,861, The South1 176,337 (Z) 909,338, ' 064 ' ,782,418 (Z) 41,889, ,452, ,624, , 189,61t The \West1 117' 784, (Z) 464,198, ,168,218 (Z) 99,744, ,170, ,606, ,1,?5, Geo. Di'Y.t 5 N.E. 1 29,554, ,622, , , ' 195' M.A. 1 11,040, ,627, ,257, ,629, ,202, ,486, E.N.C.1 11,804, ,929, ' 902' ,640 (Z) 31,832, ,004, ,686, ' 573' w.n.c. 1 22,557, ,101,527 (Z) 68:1.,980,490' ,989, ,175, ,319,363 (Z) 196,505, ,606, S.A ' 580' ,796, ,027, ,937, ,380, ,338, E.S.c.1 260,633, ,343, ,150, ,629, ,941, ,043, ll w.s.c ,337 (Z) 124,616 (Z) 186' 925, ,782, ,925 (Z) 2,885, ,302, ' 808' Mt. 1 56,175, ,900, ,731, ,521, ,377, ,589, ,738, Pac ,609, ,298, ,633 (Z) 90,223, ,793, ,017, ' 737, !'I.E;, l4 Maine 1,418, ,572 (Z) 410, ,929, ls N.H ,009, , , ,032, Vt 4,408 (Z) 2,342, (Z) 114, t,2J2, Mass 7,630, ' 4,112, , , ,767, R.I 43 (Z) 289, , ,444 (Z) 6,241, Conn... 21,919, ,449, , ,365 (Z) 36,013, M.A.: 20 N.Y 16,637 (Z) 18,661, ,149, ,338, ,290 O.l 333,368, l N.J... 3,048, ,313, ,382, , ,067, ' 22 Pa 11,023, ,917, ,794, ,907, ,931, '050' E.l'I.C.: 23 Ohio 2,145, ,889, ,032, ,265, ,632, ,180, '920' Ind 5,304 (Z) 6,099, ,372, ,793, , ,586, ,566, Ill.. 187,907 (Z) 9,191 (Z) 86,878, ,812, ,974, ,078, '926'735?.7' 26 Mioh 8,012, ,079, ,867 (Z) 15,324, ,517, ,135, ,170, Wis 1,453, ,931, ,539, ,773 (Z) 2,635, ,317 (Z) 2,704, ' 989 ' II.N.C.: 28 Minn 8,401, ,136 (Z) 18,440, , ,931 (Z) 26 (Z) 52,951,976.J.4 145' 748' IOii& 85,239 (Z) 7,834 (Z) 3,735, ,282 (Z) 76,237 (Z) 62,532, ,181, Mo. 2,016, ,895, ,931 (Z) 1,745, ,001, ,082, ,120, N.Dak 4,398, ,518, ,018, ,022 (Z) 2 (Z) 22,440, , 720, S.Dak 744, ,648, ,305,861 a. J 38,940 (Z) 143 (Z), 14,723,oob 3.4 5,534, Nebr 8,343, ,519, ,098, ,389 (Z) 54,014 (Z) 22,040, ,881, KllilB 584, ,716 (i) 329,222' ,663, , ,477 (Z) 13,733,842 1.? 35,419,ooo 4.4 S.A.: 35 Del ,621, , , ,990 (Z) 6, 960, Md 15,319, ,550, ,079, ,170, , ,435, D.C (N.\.) (N.\.) 38 Va 70,949, ,941, ,628, ,606, ,665, ,048, w.va... 2,058, ,191, ,229, ,460, ,393, ,880, N.C \. 423' 260' ,613, ,234, ,652, , ,462, l S.C 62,132,045 21,.7 3,051, , ,264, , ,286, Ga... 51,561, ,825, , ,550, , ,180, Fla... 23,300, (Z) 14,700 (Z) 18,556 (Z) 43,082, E.S.C.: 44 Ky ' 727' ,650, ,470, ,528 O.l 2,606, ,731, Tenn... 60,668, ,692, ,082, ,704 O.l 759, ,023', Ala 237,314 o.r 382, ,349, ,? ,985,942?.2 47 Miss ,519 (Z) 388,44'6 O.l 237,846 O.l 30,302, II.S.C.: 48 Ark... 15,845 (Z) 114,282 (Z) 376,902 O.l 2,294, ,323, ,525, La ,771 (Z) 7,954 (Z) 106,805 (Z) 90,728 (Z) 25,238, Okla ' 810' ,019, , ,663 (Z) 6,499, ,111, Tex 176,337 1ii ,114, ,085 (Z) 65,317 (Z) 411,110 (Z) 1,388, ,931, Mt.: 8,166, ,120, , ,901 O.l 430 (Z) 3,822, ,584, Mont 18,414, _63,282, , ,639, , ,415, ,315, Idaho.. 5,938,896 4,990,;! , ,876 (Z) 50 (Z) 970, ,?50 1?1tB Wyo ,695, , ,464, ,809, ,272, ,275, Colo. 17,539,727 (Z) 1,192, ,633 (Z) 2,095, , , ?,359, N.Mex 64,200 (Z) 13,035, Utah 6,051, '" 9,661, ,463 O.l 946, ?, , ,959, , , , ,448 (Z) 305, ,456,664?.3 57 Ariz.~ 498,62' ,726 (Z) 141,384 (Z) 101,265 (Z) 62, Nev Pae.: 143,555, ,040 (Z) 72,382, ,486, ,870,65/ ,215, Vaah. 8,303,! l Oreg 4,552, ,145, , ,346, , ,796,21t ,363,01t Calif 48,752, ,596, ' 76,800 (Z) 12,494, ,973, ,350, ' 159,279 NA Not available. z 0.05 percent or less. 1Totals for States for w:llich data are available. ;.!Excludes 30 ;~~~ties in Southell.Bt Missouri. 3Total for 30 ootmties in Southeast Missouri only. ~Iricluded with clover and t:lmothy out for hb.l Separate inquiry not on the questionnaire for e.ll States. 'Included with other ho:y.. Separate inquiry not on questionnaire. ~eludes 123 counties in East Texas. "Excludes 131 counties in West Texne.
29 SOLD, BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 195~Continued value of form products so_l<! J VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 925 Livestock and wool sold Poultry and poultry prodw::ts sold Turkeys, ducks, Calves C ttle Hogs and pigs Horses and mul.ea Sheep and lambs W'ool Chicken eggs Chickens geese, and their eggs Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Dollo.ra Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars cent oent cont cent cent cent cent cent cent ,985, ll3 1386, , l ,253, , , , ,603, , , ,695,022 l.o , l.o 3, , , ,868, ,757, ,896, ,039, ,647, , , ,654 (Z) 66,016, ,276, ,855, ,070, , ,672, ,867, , , ,002, , ,848, ,138, , ,049, ,855, ,079, ,076, ,857, ,8ll, , ,387, ,174,445, ,150, ,071, ,035, ,357, ,154, ,215, ,964, ,689, ,932, ,193, ,006, ,810, ,378, ,954, ,321, ,038, ,763, ,114, ,170, ll,974,85l 0.8 2,634, ,678, , ,527, , ,439, ,087, ,082, ,622, ,119, ,605, ,679, ,846, ll 125' 783, ,488, ,221, ,408, ,855, I ,119, ,968, ,944, l2 46,235, ' 395' ,216, ,876, ,425, ,lll,l ,623; ,900, ,813, , ,385, , , , ,451 o.l 15,318, ,336, ,469, , ,663, , , , , ,831, ,572, ,011, ,145, ,809, , , ,605 O.l 36,607 (Z) 3,966, ,446, , , ,579, ,853, , , ,194 (Z) 18,703, ,305, ,707, , , , ,112 (Z) 13, ,336 (Z) 1, 723, ,524, , , ,229, , ,375 (Z) 63, ,537 (Z) 15,473, ,091., 7/ ,635, ,036, ,463, ,509, , ,740, ,4ll ,888, ,896, ,507, ,416, ,207, ,021,847: , , ,678 (Z) 63,108, ,820, ,757, ,618, ,270, ,141, ,085, ,720, , ,004,463 ll.3 34,618, ,583, ,397, ,725, ,382, , ,709, ,331, ,136, ,1.04, ,749, ,191, ,847, ,585, , ,546, ,572, ,201, ,097, ,966,791 l.o 24 31,079, ,127, ,800, ,618 (Z) 9,975, ,983, ,170, ,733, ,060, ,015, ,436, ,155, , ,127, ,351, ,139, ,363, ,829, ,454, ,750,532 9,0 94,125,101 ll.9 603, ,720, ,738 O.l 31,308, ,558, ,206, ,083, ,317, ,275, , ,625, ,522, ,786, ,346, ,740, ,091, ,423, ,801, ,832 (Z) 23,623, ,.012, ,054, ll,585, ,829,138 l.l 29 51,109, ,084, ,773, ,024 O.l 9,334, ,505, ,lll, ,923, ,212, ,170, ,696, ,304, , ,860, ,870, ,558, ,338, ,190, , ,896, ,074, , ,612, ,256, ,047, ,830, ,920, ,683, ,366, ,778, , ,98?, ,404, ,650, ,940,984 Q.6 4,021, I 68,989, ,602, , 437, , ,027, ,462, ,147, ,189, ,300, , ,249, ,289, ,701 (Z} 37,256 (Z) 10,626 (Z) 3,523, ,930, ,117, ,953, ,742, ,ll0, , , , ,402, ,919, ,508, (N!) (NA} (K.;} (NAf {NA} 37 15,396, ,230, ,068, ,091, ,109, , ,825, ,140, ,785, ,214, ,826, ,847, , ,.965, , ,506, ,876, ,251, ,222, ,816, ,080, ,954 (Z) 423, lll,419 {Z) 17,679, ,602, ,236, ,548, ,.363,1ll ,126, , ,473, ,972, ,843,1$ ,074, ,235, ,466, , ,881,9ll ,581, ,.784, ,138, ,225, ,91.1,ll ,089 (Z) 10,085, ,930, , ,036, ,219, ,222, ,855, ,888, ,623, ,745, ,131, ,303, ,894, ,020, ,709; , ,008, , ,208, ,068, , ,271, ,472, ,248, , , ,770 (Z) 9,207, ,371, , ,835, ,050, ?,933, , , ,242 (Z) 5,517, ,317, , ,319, ,681, ,766, , , ,905 (Z) 5,997, ,835, ,342, ,263, ,180, ,575, ,600 (Z) 412,406 O.l 179, ,714, ,688, , ,235, ,971, ,573, , ,437, , ,580, ,549, ,989, ,971, ,605, ,171, ,052, ,317, ,253, ,312, ,606, ,138, ,862, ,421, ,900, , ,234, ,168, ,559, ll, , ,801, ,807, ,344, , ,482, ,014, ,569, ,265, , ,506, ,041, ,157, , ,828, ,535, , , ll9; ,692, ,218' ,623, , ,986, ,874, ,551, ,.864, ,111, ,205, ,904, ,193, , ,490, ,379, ,580, , , ,316, ,671, , ,255 (Z) -3,131, ,314,983 o;4 2,192, , , ,421, ,246, ,911, , ,766, ,819, ,484,U ,966, ,370, , ,178, , , ,935, ,764, , , , ,147, ,228, ,991, ,955 (Z) 12,762,601 3,779, ,011, ,302, ,474, '7,711,372 5,221, ,886, , ,324,718 9,236, ,373, ,671, ,693, ,936,239 19,003, ,419,731 7,961, l ,409,594 l.l 7, 726, ,650, ,252, ,966,
30 926 GENERAL REPORT Table 8.-VALUE OF PRODUCTION OF FIELD CROPS~THER TH~N VEGETABLES, FRUITS, NUTS, AND Total value of all epecif'ied crops 1 Corn for all purposes Region, Average per Percent of Value (dollars) Percent Percent of Value (dollars) total value of Percent Percent of divi<lion, ram (dollars) U. S. total spooifiad orops U. s. total lldd State u.s 16,3?6~01~,716 1 _ 14,321,684,091 3,424 2, ,287,082,666 3,823,423 ' The North. 8,769,406,562 7,342,122,127 4,292 3, ,634,451,330 3,100,976, The South?. 5,228,107,011 5,076,506,657 2,257 1, ,991, ,897,SOl The West 3 2,378,505,143 1,903,css,307 5,627 4, ,639,809 4C,SSC,l Gee. BiT.: 5 N.E' ~. 205,533, ,546,407 2,510 2, lc ,409,606 12,811, M.A' 619,203, ,481,423 2,407 1, ) ,449, ,991, E.N.C3 3,326,860,223 2,746,852,985 4,165 3, ,630,560 '794 1,358, 564, W.N.C3 4,617,809,323 3,821,241,312 5,101 3, ,830,031,123 1,595,608, S.A3 1, 723,479,606 1,530,684,175 2,006 1, ,109, ,292, E.s.c 1,332,853,900 1,282,026,230 1,688 1, ,028, ,408, w.s.c3 2,171,773,505 2,263 '796,252 3,251 2, ,853, ,195, s ).1 12 Mt3 1,142,685 ' ,075,897 6,347 4, ,989,364 34,878, Pac' 1,235,819, ,979,410 5,092 3, ,650,445 5,671, o.s 0.1 l'i.e.o 14 Maine 83,317,746 89,302,746 3,565 2, o.s , , i.l (Z) 15 (Zl N.H 11,282,864 13,298,006 1, , , (Z); (Z 16 Vt 37,330,833 40,251,627 2,336 2, ,156,877 4,906, Mass 27,430,367 32,957,383 1,580 1, ,009,085 2,560, (Z) R.I 3,655,521 3,688,571 1,824 1, (Z) (Z) 288, , (Z) (Z) 19 Conn 42,516,196 47,048,074 3,3.34 3, ,622,549 2,896, M.A. 20 N.Y 265,136, '701 '752 2,508 1, ,444,332 39,096, l N.J 51,045,788 41,737,725 2,250 1, ,807,824 9,428, Pa 303,021, ,041,946 2,351 1, ,197,651 85,466, ":2 E.N.C., 23 Ohio 631,514, ,623,307 3,566 2, ,137, ,893, s.9 24 Ind 688,446, ,609,804 4,482 3, ,132 ' ,546, Ill 1,180,241,814 1,014,573,490 6,723 5, ,838 ' ,036, Mioh 360,581, ,479,927 2,596 2, ,415,170 96,661, = Wis 466,075, ,566,457 3,035 2, ,036, ,426, W.N.C. 28 Minn 775,314, ,471,985 4,692 3, ,864, ,039, Ia.ra.. 1,236,846,985 1,007,582,126 6,411 4, ,495 ' ,359, Mo 497,287, ,921,546 2,467 1, ).1 137,166, ,354, N.Dak 421,894, ,092,646 6,811 6, ,860,023 25,651, S.Dak 396 '767' ,086,154 6,346. 4, ,141,644 99,142, JJ Nebr 628,621, ,004,367 6,233 4, ,794, ,496, Kans 661,077, ,082,488 5,501 3, ,707,886 77,564, S.A. 35 Del 21,784,881 12,995,014 3,460 1, ,673,715 6,109, Md 97,787(~f 77,624,845 2, c.s 3(~~ 32,947(~~ 25,125, D.c 19, (Z) 7, (Z) 38 Va 242,527, ,307,840 1,778 1, ,410,753 51,282, w.va 53,321,321 46,535, ,514,039 14,878, N.C 700,388, ,5~,273 2J614 2, ,693,918 80,692, s.c 222,569 ' ,631,256 1,792 1, ,434,598 33,042, c.s Ga 302,197, ,395,094 1,826 1, ,265, ,808, l Fla 82,902,421 58,666,134 1,441 1, c.s ,170,064 10,345, tts.c.. 44 Ky 381,3.62, ,091,660 1,971 1, ,653,026 95,710, Tenn 297,049, ,487,832 1,462 1, ,847,349 79,318, Al.a 237,898, ,854,652 1,344 1, ,137,945 58,656, Miss 416,543, ,592,086 1,929 1, ,390,350 48,724, W.S.C. 48 Ark 411,761, ,035,060 2,838 2, ,89\562 27,612, La 266 '783, '777,225 2,401 1, ' 17,623,000 18,223, c.s 50 Okla 291,591, ,409,653 2,451 2, ,355,814 22,912, Tex 1,201,637,109 1,335,574,314 4,102 4, ,980,999 51,447, Mt. 52 Mont 264,381, ,533,010 7,997 5, ,084,780 2,881, Idaho 257,680, ,373,810 6,652 5, ,366,854 2,074, Wyo 53,361,250 58,014,598 4,680 4, ,337,586 1,192, (Z) c.s Colo 186,558, '769,464 4,578 5, ,091,654 22,438, N.Mex 89,275,035 85,452,853 4,237 3,621 ' ,556,793 2,826, ~~l (Z) 57 Ariz 213 '736, ,742,126 22,931 11, , , Utah 62,403,231 62,196,063 2,734 2, ,419,747 2,326, C.l 59 Nev 15,289,768 13,993,973 5,352 4,5CC , , (Z) (Z).Pae.: 60 Waah 270 '779' ,839,063 4,155 2, ,818,485 1,480, c.a (Z) 177,864, ,954,230 3,267 2, ,706,414 1,541, (Z) 61 Oreg Calif 787,175, ,186,117 6,396 4, t 14,125,546 2,648, See footnotes at end of table.
31 VALUE OF FAHM PRODUCTS m HORTICULTURAL SPECIALTIE~ TOTAL AND SPECIFIED CROPS; BY DIVISIONS AND STATES:l954 AND 1949 Sorghum tar all purpoaoo e:mept sl=p Wheat threshed or cambined Percent of Percent of Value ( dolj.ario) total value of specified crops Percent u. s. total specified crops Percent Percent of Value (dollars) total value of Percent u. s. total ,057, ,917, ,939,861,U9 1,874,371,202 u.s ,100,372 63,560, ,165,909,998 1,088,050, ,810, '715, ,162, ,482, ,146,769 31,640, ,788, ,838, al (NA} (RA) (NA} ~NA} (NA} (!la} (HA) 5 88,468 18,726 f j f l f~l 61,708,288 57,025, , ,102 (Z (Z) ,904, ,666, U ;357,523 63,159, ,296, ,358,474 1& ,164,954 2,261, ,733,931 42,850, , ,194,719 3,846, ,870,750 15,673, ,451, ,608 ' ,558, ,958, ,577,666 27,834, ,560, ,937, ,569,103 3,805, ,228, ,901, (HA} (HA} (NA} (NA} (NA} (!la} fna) (HA} (HA) (NA} (NA} (!la} (NA} HA} (Z} iii (NA} ~NA) ~!la} (!la} ~NA} 16.. ~NA} (HA} (llal (NA} NA) NA} (NA} 17.. HA} (HA 'm (NA} (HA} (NA} HA) 19 iii 26,019 4,864 gl ~~l izi ~~l m ~:!l ~:l ~:!l ~NA} ~:} ,308,288 18,5U, o ,120 8, : ,628,363 3,486, ]. 45,329 5,222 (Z} (Z) (Z) (Z} 35,771,637 35,026, , ~Z} (Zl 11, (Z) (Z) 93,116,841 94,362, , ,4U Z) (Z (Z) ,726,747 64,702,361 U , ,148 (Z} (Z} us.o ,184,896 76,528, , (Z} (Z} 1, (Z) (Z} 60,135,420 56,779, '3.0 2b 14,305 8,318 (Z) (Z} (Z) (Z) 2,740,9TI 4,293, , ,142 (Z} (Z) 34.5 U.6 (Z) ,325,272 36,411, ,046, , (Z) ,494,787 13,045, ,691,143 3,196, ,014,231 46,600, , ,113 (Z} (Z) ,424, ,494, ,690,381 1,857, ,854,035 58,789, ,436,601 5,912, o ,345 '763 98,629, ,296,975 51,366, ,837, ,387, , (Z) (Z} 16, (Z} (Z) 1,822,378 1,905, (Z) (Z} 32~~~f 6!4~:~ 29.7 (Z) (Z) 10,279,326 10,461, (NA} (HA) (NA} , , ,426,648 13,147, , (Z} (Z) (Z} (Z) 2,125,494 2,263, ,764, , ,465,218 9,U6, , , ,136,553 5,325,355 3,:!04, , ,289, ,654 2, 751, , (Z) (Z} (NA} (NA} (NA} (NA} (NA} 43 1,255, , ,579,27? 3,403,050 8,306, ,047, ,644,049 7,291~~~? 6,876, ,262, ,892, ,875 (NA} 0.1 (Z) 46 1,143, ,317 (NA} (Z} (NA} (NA} (NA} (Z} 47 3,673,563 1,029, (NA} 528, (Z} , , (NA} (NA} (NA} (NA} (NA} (NA} (NA} 49 21,637,778 17,636, ,910, ,666' ,412, ,649, '63,647, ,763, ,196 40,118 (Z} (Z} (Z) (Z) ,852,040 96,478,& , (Z} (Z) ,536 ~ Z} 68,909,508 62,694, , gl Z} 53 11,662,468 5,747,844 11,931, ,996, ,160, ,594,480 70,710, ,000, ,670, ,490,638 8,975,125 3,700, o , ,289 1,329, , (Z) 0.1 (Z) (Zl (Z) 57 7,275 11,798,068 14,904, (Z) 79.2 (Z} , (Z (Z} , , (Z) (Z} 59 10,841 (Z) (Z} ,069 ' ,580, (Z} ,557,902 1o1 (Z) 55,250,128 43,019,353 3,805, l ,908,734 22,301,
32 928 GENERAL REPORT Table 8.-VALUE OF PRODUCTION OF FIELD CROPS(OTHER THAN VEGETABLES, FRUITS, NUTS, AND Oats threshed or combined Barley threshed or combined Flo.xsced threshed or combined Percent of Percent of Region, total vnlue Value (dollars) Percent of Percent total value Value (dollars) Percent Percent of division, of epeoi- U. s. total of speci- U. s. total Value (dollars) and State fied crops fied crops t lt u.s' I 41/t 2 The NorthJ. 7.~2' 313' ,490, ,941~092 '98' 014' ,914, ,542,276 3 The South3 109,606,951 55,069, ' _g?,427,009 11, 963,022'" ? ,641,805 6,921t,24J 4 The Westl 35,661,919 31,748, ,713, ,756, 't,412,952 18,236,895 Geo. Dh.: 5 N.E3 2,579,227 2, 709, ,215, M.A.' 44,835,875 29,850, ,399,989 6,361, E.N.C3 277' 462' ,814, ,233,855 12,036, ,434 1,039,416 8 W.N.C 3 457,435, ' 115' <!.,307,248 79,401, ' 706' ' 502,860 9 S.A3 43,892,959 20,469, ,849,804 6,561, ; E.s.c3 23,995,118 8,027, l.l 4,938,195 2,654, l.l ll w.s.c3 41,718,874 26,571, ,639,010 2,747, ,641,805 6,924, Mt 3 16,809,765 17,147, ,869,584 53,104, ,977 4,021, Pao3 18,852,154 14,601, , ,134,975 14,215,398 l'i.e.o 14 Maine 2,0l6,53i 2,171, ,553 ~NA) N.H '?i} ~NA) (NAl 40,544 50, (Z) (Z) 1,356 NA) (Z) NA) (NA 16 Vt 389, , (Z) ,983 (NAl (Z) (z) 17 Mass 18 R.I 68,667 45, (Z) (Z) (NA 7,117 4, O.l (Z) (Z) 592 ~NA) (Z) ~NA) 19 Conn (Z) 56,732 50,145 Q.l 0.1 ll3.l 98.8 (Z) (Z) NA) NA). M.A.: 20 N.Y 19,227,265 12,490, ,024, , ~NA) 2l N.J 1,138,301 8~7, O.l , , NA) 22 Pa 24,470,309 16,542, ,445,582 5,097, E.l'I.C. 23 Ohio 35,373,208 28,700, ,352, , O.l Ind 36,303,704 31,112, l, 787, , Q.l Ill 85,546,305 92,951, ,557,311 1,165, (NA') 26 Mich 32,365,334 30,171, :2.1247, 703' 2,626, , ,716 27" Wis 87,874,444 77,879, ' ,288,359 7,229, , ,696 W.N.C.: 28 Miml lll,262, ,174, ? ,925,912 28,737, _ 25,561,000 54,178, Iowa 150' 636' ,484, , , O.l ,"384, Mo 34,926,754 19,412, ,026,793 1,544, N.Dak 28,678,826 17,731, ' ,187,881 26,857, ,407,638 42,937, S.Dak 65,556,977 36,920, ,869,675 13,331, ,737,?96 15,386, Nebr 42,021,326 26,846, ,861,681 4, 971, (iia) 34 Kana 24,352,296 10,544, , 717,933 3,155, ,264 S.A.: 35 Del 274, , (Z) (Z) 346, , O.l 36 Md 2,333, , O.l 3,116, 739 2,241, D.c Va 4,197,632 1,851, ,902,107 2,280, l.l w.va 1,050, , , , N.C 10,638,680 5,329, l.l 0.7 1,888, , s.c 11,824,651 5,833, ,?28 447, Ga 13,038,367 5,634, La ,550 90,896 O.l (Z) O.l (Z) 43 Fla 535,275 65, O.l (Z) E.S.C.: 44 Ky 2,705,042 1,015, Q.l 3,181,590 1,625, Tenn 5,355,004 3,409, , 756,605 1,028, Ala 4,801,390 1,260, (NAl ~NA) (NAl 47 Miss 11,133,682 2,342, (NA NA) (NA W.S.C.o 48 Ark 11,819,627 2,940, ~NA) 95,242 (Z) (Z) 49 La 2,961,881. 1,112, NA) 50 Okla 15,573, , , Tex '11,363, ;969; Q.l ,641,805 6,864,434 Mt.:. 1~;r:J;%~~ ~ S~~~~~j ' ' 52 Mont 4,626,359 3,410, ,516,747 8,905, ~307 ~NA) 53 Idaho 6,219,296 4,573; ,912,203 8, 756, NA) fna) 54. Wyo NA) 1,845, 752 2,254, , 951,043 3,685, Colo ,986,408 18,729, ,376,102 4,609, N.Mex 223, , (Z) (Z) 747, , Ariz 232, ,191 O.l (Z~ (Z) 14,569,491 6,053, ,977 3,130\~~ 58 Utah 1,106, 756 1,502, ,513,360 5, 743, Nev 178, , (Z) (Z) 672, , Pac.: 60 Wash 6,378,351 4,85?, ,907,617 2,935, l Oreg 7,850,159 6,869, ' Calif 14,215,396 4,623,644 2,872, , ,13 ~, 975 ~~:m:~~ 5 ;~8~;m See footnotes at end of table.
33 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 929 HORTICULTURAL SPECIALTIES1 TOTAL AND SPECIFIED CROPS; BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954 AND Continued Flaxseed threshed or combined-continued Soybeone tor all purposes except plowed under for green manure Hay including grabs silage (excluding sorghum and annual legumes) Percent. of Percent of Percent of total value Percent of Val~e (dollars) total value Per- Percent of total value Per- Percent of Percent Value (dollars) of speoi- u. S, total of epeci- cent U. S. total or spec- cent U. s. total ried crops fied crops ified crops _ 0.7 l.o ,024, ,315, ,301,881, 780 1,883,999, ,6 734,494, ,728, ,464, 508,676 1,150,642, (Z) ,484,140 73,586,0~~ ' 094, ,180, , (Z) (Z) 4,672.6 (Z) (Z) 460,278, ,176, ~:l (Z ~l ,481, ,551, ' 310' ,487, ~NA) ~NA) 220 4,132 (Z) (Z) 5.3 (Z) (Z) 87,754,558 91,305, NA) 4,106,460 2,982, ,074, ,122, ,906, ,190, ,369, ,726, NA) ~NA) 43,972,278 25,832, ,717, ,539, NA) NA) 39,218,188 30,994, ,292, ,127, ,293,674 16,758, ,085,461 85,514, (Z) 0.4 i~:~ , (Z) (Z) 1,659.5 (Z) (Z) 256,245, ,484, ' , (Z) (Z) 11,098.1 (Z) (Z) 204,032, ,692, (NA.l 16,640,412 18,958, (NA (ij (ij 17.9 (ij (ii 9,353,814 10,278, (NA.l ~NA) 614 (Z) (Z) 31,181,940 32,405, , ~:l ~NA) (NA NA). 12 (Z) (Z) 14,829,998 14,909, NA) 1,399,529 1,305, ,282 (ij (ii 5.5 (ij (ij 14,348,865 13,448, t' 279, , (Z) (Z) 122,072, ,334,896, NA) ~NA) (HAl (NAl 2,041,021 1,087, ,305,590 12,603, NA) NA) (NA (NA 1,785,492 1,662, ,696' ,183, l:!l!na) ~NA) 67,042,780 41,254, ,236,037 67,853, NA) 115,387,739 68,845, ,944,498 46,688, NA) 221' 646' ,991, ,283,880 74,113, (Z) (Z) 0.2 6,875, 703 2, 751, ,571,555 57,817, (Z) ,528,890 1, 709, ,274, ' 014' : :o ,544,120 28,262, ,865,877 96,675, (HAl ' 528' ,700, ' 003,129 90,386, (NA 60,733,019 36,423, ,074,433 70,081, ,670, , ,105,857 43,939, ,063, , ,700,534 49,575, ~NA) (iia) 9,358, , , ll3,441, ,418, NA) 0.4 5,007,865 7,573, ,178,175 50,649, ~NA) ~NA) 4,136,697 1, 716, ,605,642 1,908, ~NA) NA) NA) ~ NA) 7,417,604 2,219, ,140,783 14,650, NA) NA) _10, (Z) 37 9,845,626 6,093, ,723,018 40,284, (NA.l (HAl 458, , ,337,215 21,843, (NA (NA 15,547,894 10,343, ,015,728 29,398, ~NA) ~NA) (NA.l 4,086,662 2,875, llj643,186 11,237, NA) OS NA) (NA 2,031,693 1,857, ,387,731 8,680, , , (Z) 2,863, , (Z) 43 ~NA) NA) m!l ~NA) (NA.l ~NA) 8,770,947 7,483, ,022,125 46,913, NA) ~:, ~:l 10,900,470 9,410, ,582,263 45,670, c::!l (NA 15,827,783 10,074, ,626,740 16,166, ~:l (NA.l 3, 718,988 4,025, ,061,046 10,376, INA) 27,686,836 14,094, ,798,931 21,182, ~NA) (NAl (NAl (NA.l NA) 4,873,031 2,171, l.o NA) ,704,809 (Z 7,414,187 4.~ (NA (NA (Z) 655, , ,826, ,515, ,105 21,034 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) 39,754,768 30,402, I (iu\) 0.5 ~NA) (Z) (Z) 55,181,040 49,362, (NA.l NA) 79 ~~l (ij cna.i (ii (NA 56,879,304 43,657, !NA). 50 IZ) (Z).26,309,627 23,601, : (NA.l ~Z) Z) 80.3 (Z) (Z) 53,012,539 NA) 46,110, (NA Z) 0.1 (Z) ,938, ,516, , (Z) (Z) 1~l 8!!l ~:l (::!l 1::!l l::!l i:l 15,565,740 9,234, f::!l?:i 25,220,285 22,157, ~:l 12,138,625 10,842, ,400 (Z) (Z) 35,652,386 35,710, (zi cna.i (Z) 39,782,585 37,423, ,781 (Z) (Z) ,597, ,558,
34 930 GENERAL REPORT Table 8.-VALUE OF PRODUCTION OF FIELD CROPS PTHER THAN VEGETABLES, FRUITS, NUTS, AND Field al3ed crops harvested Irish potatoes Cotton o.nd cottonseed Percent of Peooent of Region, Value (dollars) total value Per- Percent of Value (dollars) tota.l value Percent Percent of di vi_s_ion, Of' apeoi- aent u. S. total of speci- U. S. total and lltate fied crops fied crops Value (dollars) u.s., 151,573, ,203, ,934, ,074, ,514,722,624 2,491,2%,684 2 The North'. 56,863,975 66,838, ,861, ,564, ,019,785 72,529,644 3 The South3. 29,191,676 38,491, ,5 53,239, ,174, ,933,592,369 2,097,169,636 4 The West3 ~.. 65,518,261 51,873, ,833,760 il60,335,43? ,110, ,597,404 Gee. Db.: 5 N.E3 50,433 37,072 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) 74,206,465 78,113, M.A3 1,682,316 1,726, o. J ,289,681 66,182, E.ii:c 17,424,407 20,J.SO, ,387,309 47,899, , ,650 8 W.N.C3 3"-. 37,706,819 44,924, ,977,665 54,368, ,731,543 72,224, S.A 8,806,191 13,226, ,892,384 38,306, ,023, ,379, E.s.c3 11,031,576 12,757, ,065,326 13,078, ,072, ,585, w.s.c3 9,353,909, 12,5I57~ 430_ ,281,576 9,788, ,092,4%,983 1,325,204,2]2 12 Mt3 18,861,540 24,881, ,913,912 76,245, ,991, ,048, Pao3.. 46,656,721 26,992, , ,919,848 84,089, ,118, ,548,813 N.E'.: 14 Maine 13,473 25,938 (Z) (Z) 51.9 ~Z) 63,612,903 65,734, % N.H 753 2,587 (Z) (Zl 29.1 Z) 1,055,131 1,800, Vt 28,901 3, (Z) m l~l.... 1,372,750 1,830, Mess 4,900 2,719 (Z) ~Z) 2,770,992 3,548, R.I ,108 (Zl 53.2 Z) (Z) 1,924,516 1,825,% Conn 1,816 1,138 (Z (Z) (Z) (Z) 3,470,173 3,373, M.A., 20 N.Y.l,lll, , JA78,804 31,282, N.J 7,849 19,469 (Z) (Z) 40.3 (Z) (Z) 6,053,23_4 8,715, Pa 562,697 1,067, ,057,643 26,184, E. N.C.: 23 Ohio 3,477,994 3,633, ,193,571 9,544, % Ind 2,837,976 2,198, ,485,036 4,472, Ill. 4,769,952 5/??, ,285 1,653, , , Miah 4,487,564 4,836, ,448,326 17,329, ' Wis 1,850,921 3,756, ,607,091 14,900, % W.N.C.: 28 Minn 5,809,739 5,763, ,441,984 16,834, Iowa 3,817,090 8,609, ,232,794 2,398, Mo 10,265,643 10,284, ,746,543 2,874, ,731,543 72,222, N.Dak 1,571),'\2~ 2,357, ,364,641 19,811, S.Dak 5,607,912_ 4,518, ,430,501 1,882, Nebr 4,375,885 6,071, ,332,141 9,645, Kans 6,260,052 7,319, , , ,415 S.A.: 35 Del 183, , ,176, , Md 808, , ,203,002 2,036, D.c (Z) 38 Va 1,578,893 1,655, ,485,435 9,933, ,117,700 3,032, w.va 75,479 90, (Z) 0.1 2,628,837 2,894,, N.c 2,8%,141 3,323, ,208,959 8,905, ,041,801 74,336, s.c 559,7% 2,004, ,660,018 2,566, ,753,092 88,651, Ga 1,730,823 4,719, ,81:1, 1,223, ,304, ,543, Fla 972, , ,780,659 10,267, ,805,724 2,815,619 E.s.c., 44 Ky 6,194,114 4,766, ,738,056 3,038, ,169,320 1,933, Tenn 2,642,689 3,980, ,899,598 3,611, ,622, ,215, Ala 1,555,503 3,077, ,12~,210 4,763, ,308, ,344, Miss 639, , l,jos;<\62 1,665, ,971, ' 095,061 W.S.C. 48 Ark 1,9%,995 1,241, ,480,040 2,810, ,006, ,949, La 521, , ,022,443 1,279, ,843, ,190, Okla 3,159,062 5,889, ,960 1,101, ,818,060 89,475, Tex 3,676,122 4,909, ,064,133 4,597, ,829, ,588,648 Mt. ~ 52 Mont 3,079,102. 4,497; ,303,453. 3,916, Ida)lo 5,827,334 8,073, ,324,114 39,351, Wyo 1,012,661 1,449, ,373,661 1,758, Colo 1,598,443 2,704, ,033,598 24,114, ~ N.Mex 700, , o;o- 177, , (Z) ,548,810 43,766, Ariz 2,543,836 2,848, ,014,7% 1,917, ,853,412 82,202, Utah 4,041,8% 4,353, r 7 M 2,944,697 4,470, ,.Ua 79,~i 59 Nev 58,076 57, Z) 742, , P.c.' 60 Wash 4,767,701 2,130, l.l ,320,517 14,156, Oreg 19,359,768 18,330, ,407,518 13,?18, Calif 22,529,252 6,531, ,19!1.,813 56,213, ,118, ,548,813 2.:sased NA Not available. z 0.05 percent or lees. 1Total for all field crops including potatoes. Excludes vegetables, fruits,nuts, and horticultural specialties ti 8 on all farms. JTotals for states for which data. are available. 4Figures exclude data for 30 counties in Southeastern Missouri. 'Figures exclude data for 123 ooun e in East Texas. 6Figures exclude data for 131 counties in West Texas. ~
35 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 931 HORTICULTURAL SPECIALTIES1._TOTAL AND SPECIFIED CROPS; BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: l954 AND 1949-Continued cotton and cottonseed-continued Tobacco other field crop harve ted Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of totel. value Percent of Value (dollars) total value Per- Percent of total value Percent Vol.ue (dollars) Percent u. s. totej. of speoi- cent u. s. total. or apeci- u. s. totej. or apeci- Ned crops fied crops tied crops ~ : : ' ' 965' ,045, ,044,280, ,290, ,626 64!, 76,733, ,400' ,450, :-a , 338' ,311, ,525, ,541, ,354' ,299, ! ~5J4,984i_ ,944 2,624,254 _fg:j;;:~ 0-' l-2' 3' ,040, ,527,938 26,264, iii iii 94.6 i?l iii 21,92])_._508 22,530,58=1._ ,013,915 '76' 424,_ ,101,527 2,522,119 (Z) ,880,916 82,137, " ,580, ,474, J25.il 141.:2" ,?36, ,489, '60,633, ,666, _ 17.8 il4.5 u ff 48,513,387 64,204, ? , ,883 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) 342,p4_,9~ 248,_84_7~~ ,577,3?8 120,491,1U 10-: U: ,777, ;808; ~ :-o ,222 1,262; (~r ,225 iii iii 30, , ? (Z- (Z) 15 4,408 11,438 iii (Z) iii (Z) 196, , (Z) ,630,542 11,657, , , (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) 34,940 51, (Z) (Z) ,919,991 27,053, , , (Z) (Z) ,637_ 137,436 (Z) (Z) (Z) 1.4,446,995 18,290,41? 5.4-' ,116,187 4,987, , 11,023,985 12,817, ,964,756 2,987, ,889,561 9,781, ,611,957 5,113,75? 0.? ,099,052 4,866, ' ,526,028 7,504, ? o.8 24 iii iii 94.6 (ij_ iii 9,191 3,314 (Z) (Z) 2??.3?4.1. (Z) (Z) 4,130,392 6,870, ,987,705 46,268, ,931,704 7,880, ,757,833 10,667, ,136 63,491 (Z) (Z) iz) (Z) 15,6C'17,943 23,183, ,834 4,520 (Z) (Z) _Z) (Z) 2,886,550 6,164, ,016,841 2,409, ,894,392 6,517, ,478,349 8,387, ,849 6,841, ,632,434 22,106, izi iii 22,716 44,982 iii ,266,399 8,935, izj iii 557, , (Z) 35 iii 15,319,145 17,233, ,188,941 2,202, (NA (Z) ,949,348 55,120, ,604,949 26,449, ,802., ,610 42~:~~g:~~ 1,098, (Z) ,156, '132-:6 14~:o ,966,921 42,541, ,132,045 '61,263, ,647,524 20,788, i ,561,644 43,380, ,399,646 77,885,487 15; ,300,248 17,518, ,885,022 16,126,228 "2? iii iii ,727, ,026, ,366,033 3,878, ,668,294 51,516, ,079,844 8,402, , , (Z) (Z) (Z) 21,311,010 40,670, ? ,756,500 11,253, ? ,845 15,347 (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) 84,388,842 39,534, ; , ,076 (Z) (Z) (Zl 121,397,395 92,472, ii ? (Z)... (Z 12,399,814 19,022, ? ? ,088 '936 97,817, ,733,794 12,148, ,241,360_ 35,189, ,748,540 12,063, ,201,889 43,354, ,730,552 7,456, :? 63' ? ,582,194 3,050, ? (zi iii ,319, ,831 6,718, , (Z) ,850,~~ 21,985, ,156,469i 18,142, l ,770, ,680,
36 932 GENERAL REPORT Table 9.-UNIT PRICES USF.D IN COMPUTING VALUES FOR SPECIFIED Field crops (dollars) Barley Clovel'- Corn Cotton 8Dd Cowpeao Flaxseed Grain Alfalfa bay Alfalfa seed Beans (dry) Region, sorghum (psr ton) (per bushel) (per (per cvt.) timotey bay (per cottonseed. (per (per division, bushel) (psr ton) bushel) (per bale) bushel) (par bushel) 8Dd state bushel) Lespedeza bay (per ton) Oate (per bushel) ' u.s , _ , , The North , ,64 3 The South f , The West. a Geo. Db.: 5 N,E., i~ "6 M.A ~ , E,N.C , , W.N.C ll , ll ~:~:a ::: , , " w.s.c _ , , Mt 22'"; , , '!,_50 3, ,00 0, Pac ,98 1~ ll N.E.: 14 Maille N.H , ,99 16 Vt.., , , Masa " 15,50 11, R.I ,QQ , ao Conn ~.so :8o , M.A.: 20 N.Y ,77 21 N.J , ,78 22 Pa , , E.I'I.C.: 23 Ohio , , Ind , , Ill , , , Mich , , Wis (Tj !'4.C.: 28 Minn , ,61 29 Iwa Mo ,64 31 N.Dak , ,60 o.ss ~2 S.Dak.., , Nebr , l.ll , Kans , , ,73 0,70 S.A.: o.8o Del , Md _ ,98.Q~5 10, D.c.. 1NA,l_ ' - {NJ\l <iia) Va, 45~ ,SZ , ,82 0,72 39 W.Va , N.C :f:oo s.oo S.C ae o Fla l ,50 0, E.S.C.: 44 Icy,J?,5!J. 27.!> o: ,80 45 Tenn ~ 37.50, "84 10, d "1, Ala.. "38.Sif : , Miss lr.s.c.: 48 Ark ll J.B.OO ' o.so La , so Okla o;% 0,99 6:so 6: n Tex ,ll ,25 0,95 29, Mt.: 52 Mont ,98 0, , Ida)lo l , , Wyo , Colo , N.Mex , , , Ariz , a"o; , , Utah , Nev , Pae.t , Wash Or~g , Calif ~ ,09, , See footnotes at end of table,
37 ITEMS, BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954 AND VALUE OFF ARM PRODUCTS 933 Field crops(dollsrs)-continued ---- Irish Sweet- Soybeans Red clover Rye Sweetolover Tlmotb;y Tobacco llheat Pefllluta Popcorn potatoes, potatoes, Rice for be8.ilb Sugar be.ets1 seed (per seed seed (per (per (per pound) (per pound) (per (per (per bushel) (per owt.) (per (per ion) bushel) (per buehel) (per buehel) pound) bushel) bushel) buehel) bushel) liud bay (per ton) , , , : % % , : i , , o.o i % i:l.i , , , ~ % , J J ,05 J..17 J J..35 J J l J J J.O ,26 J J J..J.O J J.O J l3 J J.O J , ?.io , ' J.O , J ; J J J J J , J..05 J l , , J J J..79 i8.50. J.4.od J J , J l J., J J , ,12 2, J.O ,J J J.,57 1.2l ,64 J , , ,60 (NA.l ,00 8.J.O 9, _(_NA) (NA,- 37 (NA.l ,14 0,11 0,04 o.o J..77 1, , , , , , ? , ,12 0, , , , o.u ,03 1, , , ,59 2, J J.O , ,60 1, , ;o.n : , , , ' , , ,60 0, , ' , I ~06 0, , , , i % , , J J , , ? , ? l l %
38 934 GENERAL REPORT Table 9.-UNIT PRICES USED IN COMPUTING VALUES FOR SPECIFIED Fruit and nuto (do11ara) Chorries Region, Apples (per Crape a Grapefruit Oranges Pea.oheo Pears r80flll8 Stl"awberrios Tung nuts Wa1nuto, Engliab division, (per bushel) pound) (per pound) (per ton) (per ton) (per bushel) (per bushel) por pound) (por quart) (per pound) (por pound) and State ~ ~ ~ ~9 195~ 1% ~ , % % u.s , ~ The North,, , , The South ~ ,32 0, The West ee.. OiY.l 5 N.E ~ , M.A o.u 7 E.N.C , ~ , W.N.C , S.A , , E.s.c w.s.c Mt , Pao o.o ,90 56, !'I.E. 14 Meine , ~ N.H ,05 0, Vt Mass R.I.. " J.JJ.! 0.14!l.M 0, ,20 19 Conn. 2~'io , , M.A. 20 N.Y N.J , Pa , E. N.c. 23 Ohio ,11 0, ,20 24 Ind , , Ill ;! , Mioh ,04.. 1, Via , o w.i'i.c. 28 Minn " o;33 0, Iowa , o: Mo N.Dak o , ;32 S.Dak., o Nebr o.~o o:~o 34 Kana , , , ,0.20 S.A., 35 Del o.u ,20 36 Md , D.C cni.'> cni.'> 38 v~ , w.va o.os N.c ' s.c o:15 o.08 0, " , '54: so (Ni.'> ,10 42 Ga , Fla , , E.s.c. 44 Ky 2.45 ' , , Tenn ~ , Ala , Miss w.s.c 48 Ark La , , ~ Okla , Tex "0, Mt. 52 Mont , Idaho ,14 54 Wyo ~ Colo , , " N.Mex ~ , , Ariz ~ , ~ , Utah , , , Nev.. 2, , Pac.r 60 Wash , , Oreg. 0,16 62 Cali " l.lt , NA Not available. 1 Average prices used. to compute inventory values. The value of so.lea was enumerated. 2Enumerated with dry field and seed pens. 3Doea not inolude government subsidy payments.
39 ITEMS, BY DIVISIONS AND STATES: 1954 AND 1949-Continued VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS 935 Uvestock' (dollars) Poultry' (dollers) Heifers ond B~s, otoera, Ram.a ond Horses, mules, Cows Ewes Lambs l!ae's Plgs heifer ao..lvea and steer cull vee (per head) (per head) wethers ond colts (per head) (per head) (per head) (per head) (per head) (per head) (per head) Chickens (per bird) TUrkeys (per bird) ].9/, , l , ] , U , lll ] , , '/l J.,OS , J.9.5l ] J.O.l ] ] ll , lls,oo l.ss , , , , , ] , lls , , , , , ].,OJ , ? ll lls , ,00 uo.oo 16, , , , , , ll ,67 ll, ] ,47 39, , ,, , , , , ! , , ,00 17.l!t , o.oo , , , , ,63 106, , ,00 190, , ' , , , , , , U , , ,00 81,84' , ' , , , , : 27.65, t
Toward an Outlook for California Agriculture Relevant to GHG Emissions Mitigation. April 30, Daniel A. Sumner
Toward an Outlook for California Agriculture Relevant to GHG Emissions Mitigation April 30, 2013 Daniel A. Sumner University of California Agricultural Issues Center and UC Davis, Agricultural and Resource
Profile and Economic Impacts of Agriculture and Natural Resource Industries in the Suwannee River Basin Counties of Florida
FE622 Profile and Economic Impacts of Agriculture and Natural Resource Industries in the River Basin Counties of Florida M. Rahmani, A.W. Hodges, and W.D. Mulkey University of Florida/Institute of Food
Page 1. USDA s Mandatory Farm Programs CBO s January 2019 Baseline
USDA s Mandatory Farm Programs CBO s January 2019 Baseline Page 1 The federal Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) accounts for a significant portion of mandatory federal spending for agriculture through
California Agriculture 2001: Trends and Issues
California Agriculture 2001: Trends and Issues Daniel A. Sumner Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Davis Director, University of California Agricultural Issues Center The
Livestock Feed Requirements Study
Catalogue no. 23-501-XIE Livestock Feed Requirements Study 1999-2001 Statistics Canada Statistique Canada How to obtain more information Specific inquiries about this product and related statistics or
Farm Sector Income & Finances 2016 Outlook. By Ryan Kuhns and Kevin Patrick March 16, 2016
Farm Sector Income & Finances 2016 Outlook By Ryan Kuhns and Kevin Patrick March 16, 2016 Background The Economic Research Service forecasts the farm sector s income statement and balance sheet Last released
Macro and Agricultural Economic Outlook FCL 2017 Annual Meeting. Tanner Ehmke, Manager Knowledge Exchange Division
Macro and Agricultural Economic Outlook FCL 2017 Annual Meeting Tanner Ehmke, Manager Knowledge Exchange Division Today s presentation Macro Economy Agricultural Economy 2 The Market Cycle (we ve been
Commodity Market Outlook: Corn, Forage, Wheat & Cattle
Commodity Market Outlook: Corn, Forage, Wheat & Cattle Stephen R. Koontz Professor & extension economist Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics Colorado State University Stephen.Koontz@ColoState.Edu
An Agricultural Update
An Agricultural Update May 22, 2018 Indianapolis, IN David Oppedahl Senior Business Economist 312-322-6122 david.oppedahl@chi.frb.org Personal consumption shares 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1950 1960 1970 1980
Outlook for Livestock and Poultry. Michael Jewison World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA
Outlook for Livestock and Poultry Michael Jewison World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum February 20, 2015 About Those Forecasts Everything makes sense in hindsight, a fact
Issues Driving the Outlook for Specialty Crops December 3, 2012
Issues Driving the Outlook for Specialty Crops December 3, 2012 Daniel A. Sumner University of California Agricultural Issues Center, and UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Core
2018 Farm Bill Update and Agricultural Outlook
2018 Farm Bill Update and Agricultural Outlook August 23, 2018 Dr. Scott Brown Agricultural Markets and Policy Division of Applied Social Sciences brownsc@missouri.edu http://amap.missouri.edu 2018 Farm
MARKETING CHANNEL MARKETING CHANNEL MARKETING CHANNEL. Marketing Margin: Marketing Margin: Value added by the food and fiber system, 2001
Value added by the food and fiber system, 2001 Farming Input industries Manufacturing Food processing Nonfoods Distribution Transportation Wholesaling and retailing Food service Total food and fiber system
Catalogue no X. Cattle Statistics
Catalogue no. 23-012-X Cattle Statistics 2009 How to obtain more information For information about this product or the wide range of services and data available from Statistics Canada, visit our website
OUTLOOK FOR US AGRICULTURE. Rob Johansson Acting Chief Economist 19 February 2015
OUTLOOK FOR US AGRICULTURE Rob Johansson Acting Chief Economist 19 February 2015 Fig 1 Next boost to productivity: Big Data? Index: 1948 = 1.0 $million (2006 dollars) 3.0 $12,000 2.5 2.0 $R&D Output Input
Economic Analysis of Farmland Market: An Introduction
Economic Analysis of Farmland Market: An Introduction Dr. Wendong Zhang Assistant Professor of Economics wdzhang@iastate.edu FIN 450X, Feb 17 th, 2017 A Quick Introduction: Dr. Wendong Zhang Grown up in
Agaricus and Specialty Mushroom Number of Growers, Sales, Price, and Value United States: , , and , , ,564
Mushrooms ISSN: 1949-30 Released August 20, 2014, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department Agriculture (USDA). All Mushroom Sales
U.S. Global Position (Imports/Exports) Dermot Hayes Iowa State University
U.S. Global Position (Imports/Exports) Dermot Hayes Iowa State University Overview Recent trade patterns Competitiveness of the US industry China 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980
Presentation from the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum 2017
Presentation from the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum 2017 United States Department of Agriculture 93 rd Annual Agricultural Outlook Forum A New Horizon: The Future of Agriculture February 23-24, 2017
Agaricus and Specialty Mushroom Number of Growers, Sales, Price, and Value United States: , , and , , ,514
Mushrooms ISSN: 1949-30 Released August 20, 2013, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department Agriculture (USDA). All Mushroom Sales
Livestock, Poultry, and Dairy: Situation and Outlook
Livestock, Poultry, and Dairy: Situation and Outlook AAEA Annual Meeting Extension Track August 14, 2012 James G. Robb Director james.robb@lmic.info 29 land Grant Universities: USDA Members: ERS APHIS
colorado.edu/business/brd
colorado.edu/business/brd Big Changes, Unknown Impacts Southwest Business Forum Place cover image here Richard Wobbekind Senior Economist and Associate Dean for Business and Government Relations January
Outlook for the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Sectors in 2011
Outlook for the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Sectors in 2011 Presented By Shayle D. Shagam World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA USDA Outlook Forum Washington, D.C. February 25, 2011 Situation Facing Livestock
Agriculture and the Economy: A View from the Chicago Fed
Agriculture and the Economy: A View from the Chicago Fed March 3, 2016 Riverside, Iowa David Oppedahl Senior Business Economist 312-322-6122 david.oppedahl@chi.frb.org Federal Reserve System Twelve District
Outlook for the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Sectors in 2012 Presented By Shayle D. Shagam World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA
Outlook for the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Sectors in 2012 Presented By Shayle D. Shagam World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA USDA Outlook Forum Washington, D.C. February 24, 2012 Situation Facing Livestock
Iowa Farmland Market Update: What s Ahead?
Iowa Farmland Market Update: What s Ahead? Wendong Zhang Assistant Professor of Economics and Extension Economist wdzhang@iastate.edu 515-294-2536 April 4 th, 2017 The new Mike Duffy since Aug 2015 30
Agaricus and Specialty Mushroom Number of Growers, Sales, Price, and Value United States: , , and , , ,619
Mushrooms ISSN: 1949-1530 Released August 20, 2015, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department Agriculture (USDA). All Mushroom Value
Outlook for U.S. Retail Food Prices and Inflation in 2009
Outlook for U.S. Retail Food Prices and Inflation in 2009 Ephraim Leibtag, PhD Food Markets Branch, Food Economics Division ERS-USDA Presented at the 2009 Agricultural Outlook Forum Global Agriculture
Iowa Land Values. Wendong Zhang Assistant Professor of Economics and Extension Economist
Iowa Land Values Wendong Zhang Assistant Professor of Economics and Extension Economist wdzhang@iastate.edu 515-294-2536 2017 U.S. Bank Ag Summit, Ames, IA, January 10 th, 2017 The new Mike Duffy 30 29
A Primer on Factors Affecting Farmland Values
A Primer on Factors Affecting Farmland Values Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago David Oppedahl Business Economist 312-322-6122 david.oppedahl@chi.frb.org The economy hit bottom in June 2009, with hesitant
Outlook for Hog Profits in 2012
NPB Swine Conference, Sioux Falls, September 29, 2011 Outlook for Hog Profits in 2012 Ron Plain D. Howard Doane Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia http://web.missouri.edu/~plainr/
Cattle Market Outlook & Important Profit Factors for Cattle Producers
Cattle Market Outlook & Important Profit Factors for Cattle Producers Dr. Scott Brown Agricultural Markets and Policy Division of Applied Social Sciences brownsc@missouri.edu http://amap.missouri.edu $
Beef Outlook. Regional Dealer Event. February 9, Dr. Scott Brown Agricultural Markets and Policy Division of Applied Social Sciences
Beef Outlook Regional Dealer Event February 9, 2018 Dr. Scott Brown Agricultural Markets and Policy Division of Applied Social Sciences brownsc@missouri.edu http://amap.missouri.edu $ Per Cwt. MED. & LRG.
Table 3A Major Destinations for California Agricultural Exports, 2012 and ,2 in alphabetical order
Table 3A Major Destinations for California Agricultural Exports, 2012 and 2013 1,2 in alphabetical order Commodities 1 and Destinations Percent of Total by Destination Almonds (1) 2012 2013 European Union
Livestock Market Trends
Livestock Market Trends Farm$mart Agricultural Conference January 18, 2014 John Bancroft Market Strategies Program Lead john.bancroft@ontario.ca 519-271-6974 Today s Discussion 2014 FCC Market Drivers
Economic Analysis of Farmland Market: An Introduction
Economic Analysis of Farmland Market: An Introduction Dr. Wendong Zhang Assistant Professor of Economics wdzhang@iastate.edu FIN 450X, October 4 th, 2017 A Quick Introduction: Dr. Wendong Zhang Grown up
OUTLOOK FOR GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TRADE IMPACTING GRAIN MARKETS
OUTLOOK FOR GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TRADE IMPACTING GRAIN MARKETS SALEEM SHAIK, & FRAYNE OLSON, NDSU &???? OUTLINE General Economic Growth & Trade World regions and U.S. Importance of Agriculture Trade
IOWA 4-H LIVESTOCK JUDGING CONTEST
IOWA 4-H LIVESTOCK JUDGING CONTEST Saturday, August 23, 2014 NEW LOCATION: Hansen Ag Student Learning Center, Ames Complete Details & Info. On-Line Entry: Due August 1 Click Here for online entry form
Catfish Feed Deliveries
Catfish Feed Deliveries ISSN: 1944-9267 Released April 20, 2011, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). March
The University of Georgia
The University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Economic Impacts of Alabama Quail Hunting Prepared by: Archie Flanders and
Agricultural Commodity Outlook: Grain, Forage & Cattle Markets
Agricultural Commodity Outlook: Grain, Forage & Cattle Markets Stephen R. Koontz Professor & extension economist Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics Colorado State University Stephen.Koontz@ColoState.Edu
Livestock and Dairy Market Outlook
Livestock and Dairy Market Outlook August 9, 2018 Missouri Farm Bureau Commodity Conference Dr. Scott Brown Agricultural Markets and Policy Division of Applied Social Sciences brownsc@missouri.edu http://amap.missouri.edu
October 14, University of Missouri Extension
October 14, 2014 University of Missouri Extension Pat Guinan October 14, 2014 A benign growing season for much of Missouri, and the Midwest Missouri Monthly Temperature Departure from Average* April 2014
Producer Price Index - Agriculture (PPI-A) (January March 2001)
Producer Price Index - Agriculture (PPI-A) (January March 2001) Introduction The Producer Price Index-Agriculture (PPI-A) gives a measure of the average change in the selling prices which producers receive
Cattle Market Situation and Outlook: 2015 and Beyond
Cattle Market Situation and Outlook: 2015 and Beyond Derrell S. Peel Breedlove Professor of Agribusiness and Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist Oklahoma State University 2015 Market Setting Global
California Agriculture and Global Challenges: Resources Prices and Prospects 2012 California Ag Summit January 27, 2012
California Agriculture and Global Challenges: Resources Prices and Prospects 2012 California Ag Summit uary 27, 2012 Daniel A. Sumner University of California Agricultural Issues Center Outline and Main
Bent County Demographic Profile
Bent County Demographic Profile Prepared by Southern Colorado Economic Development District 1104 North Main Street Pueblo, CO 81003 719-545-8680 Table of Contents Bent County... 3 Transportation... 4 Population...
Land Values and Chinese Agriculture
Land Values and Chinese Agriculture Wendong Zhang Assistant Professor of Economics and Extension Economist wdzhang@iastate.edu 515-294-2536 2016 Pro-Ag Meetings, Clarinda, IA, December 15 th, 2016 The
Iowa Farmland Market Update: What s Ahead?
Iowa Farmland Market Update: What s Ahead? Wendong Zhang Assistant Professor of Economics and Extension Economist wdzhang@iastate.edu 515-294-2536 Ag Credit School, June 14 th, 2017 The new Mike Duffy
Economic Impact of the Michigan Equine Industry, 2006
Economic Impact of the Michigan Equine Industry, 2006 Summary Animals and operations 155,000 equine animals housed in Michigan on June 1, 2007-86,000 at private residences - 21,000 at breeding farms -
Photo courtesy of Judy Jacobson, Watford City. Cattle Situation and Outlook Ag Lenders Conference
Photo courtesy of Judy Jacobson, Watford City Cattle Situation and Outlook Ag Lenders Conference Tim Petry Livestock Economist www.ndsu.edu/livestockeconomics Oct. 31, 2016 AGL16-Outlook 10-31-2016 TO
Otero County Demographic Profile
Otero County Demographic Profile Prepared by Southern Colorado Economic Development District 1104 North Main Street Pueblo, CO 81003 719-545-8680 Table of Contents Otero County... 3 Transportation... 4
DISTRICT 8 4-H AG PRODUCT ID CONTEST
District Contest Information Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 Time: Heat 1 8:00-8:30 Heat 2 9:30-10:00 am Will be notified by committee to know heat they will be participating in. Location: Registration:
U.S. EXPORTS Dairy Products - by Country, 2009 (pie chart) 69 Dairy Products, 2009 v (bar graph) 70 All Dry Whey, All Dry Whey -
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 II. UTILIZATION A. Dry Milk Products Utilization 1. Nonfat Dry Milk Compilation of Dry Milk Utilization Data 9 Nonfat Dry Milk Overview 10 Nonfat Dry Milk Domestic
Agricultural Commodity Outlook: Grain, Forage & Cattle Markets
Agricultural Commodity Outlook: Grain, Forage & Cattle Markets Stephen R. Koontz Professor & extension economist Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics Colorado State University Stephen.Koontz@ColoState.Edu
Agricultural Trade Office The U.S. Embassy, Seoul
Agricultural Trade Office The U.S. Embassy, Seoul www.atoseoul.com Data Source: Global Trade Atlas (www.gtis.com), CIF Value Basis, This presentation tracks Korea s imports of agricultural products on
Contribution of the Bison Industry to the North Dakota Economy
Agricultural Economics Report No. 442-S June 2000 Contribution of the Bison Industry to the North Dakota Economy Randall S. Sell, Dean A. Bangsund, and F. Larry Leistritz * INTRODUCTION Throughout North
DEKALB COUNTY 4-H BLUE RIBBON LIVESTOCK AUCTION RULES & REGULATIONS
DEKALB COUNTY 4-H BLUE RIBBON LIVESTOCK AUCTION RULES & REGULATIONS OBJECTIVE OF SHOW AND SALE: A. Financially support 4-H and encourage the growth and expansion of livestock projects. B. Train youth in
Commodity Market Outlook: Corn, Forage, Wheat & Cattle
Commodity Market Outlook: Corn, Forage, Wheat & Cattle Stephen R. Koontz Professor & extension economist Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics Colorado State University Stephen.Koontz@ColoState.Edu
BMO Capital Markets 2014 Farm to Market Conference New York, New York. May 21, 2014
0 BMO Capital Markets 2014 Farm to Market Conference New York, New York May 21, 2014 1 Forward Looking Statement Warning This presentation contains forward-looking statements about the business, financial
A comparative study of Australian agricultural household financial positions
A comparative study of Australian agricultural household financial positions Will Chancellor & Shiji Zhao Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences Disclaimer: This presentation
Crowley County Demographic Profile
Crowley County Demographic Profile Prepared by Southern Colorado Economic Development District 1104 North Main Street Pueblo, CO 81003 719-545-8680 Table of Contents Crowley County... 3 Transportation...
Producer Price Index - Agriculture (PPI-A) (April - June 2003)
Producer Price Index - Agriculture (PPI-A) (April - June 20) 1. Introduction The Producer Price Index-Agriculture (PPI-A) gives a measure of the average change in the selling prices which producers receive
THE NEW JERSEY EQUINE INDUSTRY Economic Impact
THE NEW JERSEY EQUINE INDUSTRY 2007 Economic Impact The Rutgers Published Equine by Science Rutgers Center Equine Science Center New Jersey Equine Industry, 2007 Introduction There is a reason the state
2005 Dairy Products Utilization & Production Trends
2005 Dairy Products Utilization & Production Trends DRY MILK PRODUCTS UTILIZATION Compilation of Census Data This 2005 compilation of condensed and dry milks utilization represents the Fifty-eighth annual
Technical change in agriculture :
Technical change in agriculture 1935-85: using Farm Management Survey data from south-west England to explore processes of technical change Paul Brassley, David Harvey, Matt Lobley, and Michael Winter
FUR FARMING APIARY PRODUCTS. RABBITS for MEAT. HORSES and MULES. FISH and SHELLFISH
FACTS and FIGURES on OREGON'S MISCELLANEOUS ANIMALS 1935-1953 FUR FARMING APIARY PRODUCTS GOATS and MOHAIR RABBITS for MEAT HORSES and MULES FISH and SHELLFISH FEDERAL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OREGON
Where s The Beef??? Ruminating On The Cattle Cycle. Gary Brester
Where s The Beef??? Ruminating On The Cattle Cycle Gary Brester Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Economics Montana State University 2012 Animal Nutrition Conference Bozeman, MT April 17, 2012 1 OUTLINE
Agricultural Outlook: Rebalancing U.S. Agriculture
Agricultural Outlook: Rebalancing U.S. Agriculture Michael J. Swanson Ph.D. Agricultural Economist January 2018 2018 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. All rights reserved. For public use. The U.S. Ag Sector renormalizes!
Agricultural Trade Office The U.S. Embassy, Seoul
Agricultural Trade Office The U.S. Embassy, Seoul www.atoseoul.com Data Source: Global Trade Atlas (www.gtis.com), CIF Value Basis, This presentation tracks Korea s imports of agricultural products on
Cattle & Beef Outlook
Cattle & Beef Outlook Glynn Tonsor Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University Overarching Beef Industry Economic Outlook Supplies Peak herd size may extend given 17 returns Demand Key to
BAYFIELD COUNTY 4-H MARKET ANIMAL SALE RULES (Disqualification from sale can be the penalty for rule violation) Approved Janary 28, 2018
BAYFIELD COUNTY 4-H MARKET ANIMAL SALE RULES (Disqualification from sale can be the penalty for rule violation) Approved Janary 28, 2018 1. Sale registration for the 4-H Market Animal Sale for beef, sheep,
Animal Breeding and Training: Livestock
Animal Breeding and Training: Livestock Category Rules This category is for the breeding and training of hogs, boars, goats, sheep, cattle, and other livestock except poultry and equines. Period training
Custer County Demographic Profile
Custer County Demographic Profile Prepared by Southern Colorado Economic Development District 1104 North Main Street Pueblo, CO 81003 719-545-8680 Table of Contents Custer County... 3 Transportation...
Sugar Hill Farm 2013 Newsletter
Sugar Hill Farm 2013 Newsletter Hello from Sugar Hill Farm! It has been a fun and productive year again at the farm on Randy Clark Road! We continued to raise certified organic (Pro-Cert), totally grass-fed
10/18/2015. Outline. Commodity Outlook
Commodity Outlook Stephen R. Koontz Professor & extension economist Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics Colorado State University Stephen.Koontz@ColoState.Edu http://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/koontz
Cattle and Beef Markets: Short and Long Run Challenges and Opportunities
Cattle and Beef Markets: Short and Long Run Challenges and Opportunities Derrell S. Peel Breedlove Professor of Agribusiness and Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist Oklahoma State University Major
Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,
Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 507-S January 2003 Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota, 2001-2002 Dean A. Bangsund and F. Larry Leistritz*
Agaricus and Specialty Mushroom Number of Growers, Sales, Price, and Value United States: , , and
Mushrooms ISSN: 949-530 Released August 2, 208, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department Agriculture (USDA). Record High All Mushroom
Bull Buyer s Guide. $3000 Purchase Price of New Bull Salvage Value of Old Bull (1900 lbs. X 1.10/lb.) $ 910 Net Cost of New Bull
Bull Buyer s Guide Revised by Ted G. Dyer and Ronnie Silcox, Extension Animal Scientists Original manuscript by Dan T. Brown and Ronnie E. Silcox, Extension Animal Scientists Never underestimate the power
OKLAHOMA 4-H/FFA WHEAT SHOW QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM and STATE 4-H/FFA WHEAT SHOW
OKLAHOMA 4-H/FFA WHEAT SHOW QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM and STATE 4-H/FFA WHEAT SHOW Sponsors: Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, Oklahoma Genetics, Inc., Oklahoma State University,
MUR 200 (at CBRD) Signed Certificate of Incorporation MUR 300 USD 9
Start-up Costs Fees payable for the incorporation of a company Private Company MUR 3,000 USD 91 Public Company MUR 13,500 USD 405 Category 1 Global Business (Public) MUR13,500 USD 405 Category 1 Global
Department N: FFA Pre Entry is required, No exceptions:
Department N: FFA Contact person: Kevin Brown Southland High School VoAg. Department 507-582-3568 or cell 507-438-7332 Pre Entry is required, No exceptions: All FFA exhibitors must fill out and send in
2018(?) FARM BILL DISCUSSION
2018(?) FARM BILL DISCUSSION Jonathan Coppess Gardner Agricultural Policy Program ISPFMRA Annual Meeting (February 8, 2018) www.farmdocdaily.illinois.edu www.farmdoc.illinois.edu Part 1. FARM BILL HISTORICAL
Texas Housing Markets: Metropolitan vs. Border Communities. September 22, 2014
Texas Housing Markets: Metropolitan vs. Border Communities Luis Bernardo Torres Ruiz, Ph.D. Research Economist El Paso Branch Dallas Federal Rio Grande Economic Association September 22, 2014 Contents
The Changing Business Climate for Agriculture The Outlook for 2015
The Changing Business Climate for Agriculture The Outlook for 2015 Chris Hurt, Professor of Ag. Economics & Extension Economist James Mintert, Director, Center for Commercial Agriculture Michael Langemeier,
AG OUTLOOK 2019: GROWING LOCALLY, SELLING GLOBALLY
AG OUTLOOK 2019: GROWING LOCALLY, SELLING GLOBALLY http://www.goldenrice.org/ Robert Johansson Chief Economist, USDA Feb 2019 Credit: COURTESY OF NIC BENNER University of Missouri 2 Outline https://finance.yahoo.com/chart
NORMAL VS EARLY AND LATE WEANING: MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TO ENHANCE PROFITABILITY DUE TO TIMING OF MARKETING
NORMAL VS EARLY AND LATE WEANING: MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TO ENHANCE PROFITABILITY DUE TO TIMING OF MARKETING Findlay Pate and Tom Spreen University of Florida, IFAS, Agricultural Research and Education Center,
State of the Ag Economy
State of the Ag Economy June 10, 2017 Chad Hart Associate Professor/Crop Marketing Specialist chart@iastate.edu 515-294-9911 Ag Productivity and Usage Using corn as an example Source: USDA Ag Prices Using
2008 Public Stumpage Price Review and Price Indexes
March 11, 2009 M I N N E S O T A 2008 Public Stumpage Price Review and Price Indexes Highlights In 2008, a total 1.85 million cords of pulpwood and bolts were sold by Minnesota s public agencies including
Beef Cattle Market Update
Beef Cattle Market Update August 8, 2017 Dr. Scott Brown Agricultural Markets and Policy Division of Applied Social Sciences University of Missouri brownsc@missouri.edu http://amap.missouri.edu Twitter
Results from the 2012 Quail Action Plan Landowner Survey
Results from the 2012 Quail Action Plan Landowner Survey By Andrew W Burnett New Jersey DEP Division of Fish & Wildlife Mail Code 501 03 PO Box 420 Trenton 08625 0420 Abstract: A survey was conducted in
GENERAL RABBIT RULES
GENERAL RABBIT RULES 1. All breeding rabbit project animals must be in possession of the exhibitor by June 1 st of the current year. 2. Due to space limitations, an exhibitor is guaranteed only one pen
Economics of Spice Pepper Production in Oklahoma 1
Economics of Spice Pepper Production in Oklahoma 1 Raymond Joe Schatzer and Anita M. Kinsella Department of Agricultural Economics James E. Motes and Brian A. Kahn Department of Horticulture and Landscape
Farm Bill Economics and Expectations
Farm Bill Economics and Expectations Bradley D. Lubben, Ph.D. Extension Associate Professor, Policy Specialist, Faculty Fellow, Rural Futures Institute, and Director, North Central Extension Risk Management
Sample Letters of Good Letters To Use
July 10, 2016 Sample Letters of Good Letters To Use Dear J. J. Smith: This is my sixth year in 4-H. I belong to the 4-H Busy Clovers. I would like to invite you to this year s Clark County Junior Fair
MASENO UNIVERSITY PROCEDURE FOR FARM MANAGEMENT FARM MANAGER
MASENO UNIVERSITY PROCEDURE FOR FARM MANAGEMENT AUTHOR FARM MANAGER AUTHORIZED BY: DVC, PRI ISSUED BY: MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 0.1 DOCUMENT CHANGES # Date Details of Change Authorization
Sidoti & Company, LLC West Coast Road Show. San Francisco, California
Sidoti & Company, LLC West Coast Road Show San Francisco, California February 4, 2015 Forward Looking Statement Warning This presentation contains forward-looking statements about the business, financial
15, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Economic Contribution, Impacts, and Economic Benefits of Deer, Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting in North and South Dakota: Relationship to CRP Lands Dr. John Loomis and Dr. Michelle Haefele in cooperation
National Poll Dorset Conference Alexandra Gartmann, CEO and Managing Director Rural Bank and Rural Finance
National Poll Dorset Conference 2017 Alexandra Gartmann, CEO and Managing Director Rural Bank and Rural Finance Internal Document Only Earth according to geography Earth according to population We need