EFFECTS OR THE ”AGE SUPPOR’J‘ PROGRAM . I ON PRODUCTKD“ ’ PRACTICES ON MICHIGAN FARMS {NI 1959 Thai: .for the Dawn! a? M; S}. WCHIGAN STATS. CORE/GB Carl. Wesley Sinner 195 '1: This is to certify that the thesis entitled 1 ~ EFFECTS OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM ; ; : ‘~ ~ ON PRODUCTION PRACTICES ON MICHIGAN FARMS IN ' I . . ‘j 1950 i ' ', ~ : presented by ,. A Carl Wesley Staser Lv K ‘ f ~ 2 has been accepted towards fulfillment ,‘ “ A ’_ .‘ of the requirements for : __ - . . M.S. degree in Agricultural Economics ' ' p . / MI H ' .9'53‘. ,_' Major professor _ Ur———' I. .e h- s‘A J5 ‘.‘ o. O t. _ ". \.rl,:-. ‘ r ._‘ ..- . .7.~‘ , '.. ""v-'-.:‘tt_'_ u' . . ‘ s ' ngp,;’g.,g3 . ' " v " -' .. - ' > f . ._ , M ‘ ‘ . . )- 7,“ p) ~r“ ' '1. , s . '1 " 2' ." '3'»- . ~J ‘l i. 3 '3 Y»- T‘ Hf. " ._ : L7. "";' . I“. A sf.._.~“‘ ?J_ " I. .- ‘ a H ‘ :3,‘ 1% ”k? 4&1’1‘. Eff? " x ‘ ‘ ‘ , ‘ J .1 ' . “ “5'. 63$ aw v “7 . ‘ "4 -. 3"}: rr—T‘.\ - u ' o I < s {*3 . ’ -J . .‘ 8".» ‘ > r‘I‘r ‘5 ‘v‘ ',.v5'-”."' "7 fifl .'#i u . ._ - 'L “ . . _ \, - x . .‘ hr. , ""f—t .-' t . . - ‘:-'~ \ ‘V t .. ’1‘ ‘ '5 s" m r , 5‘31».- . ‘ f. I n’p A h b’: u ‘ a u l . ‘ '. - s -_ , A n ' V , § c ) ‘ _~ .‘n‘ - n 5'. o , . . '. s . .I‘ "_ ‘ ‘ o , ' . - ". - 3 '5'.I_ ‘5 -r, n . v . I ,,'. ‘ ' u. ‘ .- ' o t f ', '. I . s ' "\ . . _ v v . ,I . 1-. s u " x .2 ‘ .. - . I. § . , . I . , . i A ’ ‘ . .I' v i ‘ - ' .~ ‘ w v. . s '. x .- l . '. F '. '- ' , ..I -‘ ,- . _ ~ . .- n 2~ ‘ . 3-, J w -‘ ‘ an, 4 ‘ifit - {1. . R ‘ i t 717’?“ , '. ,7. v”? ‘ é-‘jtfrf'. . {{5}}; ’5“; ’ . ‘1" 4 xi. ,>_;.l~"-So {:9 V.’-' , ,1. I-"" s' .R ." ~; I ’1‘? ”“334 fl "<3{4‘3{{A‘",l_ ”by . ' V ..*> V v v. , huh: I“ EFFECTS OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM ON PRODUCTION FRACTICES ON MICHIGAN FARMS IN 1959 by Carl Wesley Steeer All ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Hichigen State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in girth]. fulfillment at the requirements In the degree of MASTER OF SJDMCB Dopertmen‘b of Agricultural Economics Year 1951 Approved TH m l.§-‘:‘£~;e'l'f'. e? THE :RLCR 53. WE”? mews on mmmm mmmm m VICKI?” FAR??? IR 1950 by gm male; Pteaer Ml A EF'IE’A ST The purpose or this study is to determine the effect c! the price support program on production practices used on Hichigen terse in 1950. This study covers a random sample of 505 fame of 10 acres a more located in the cmmial taming area of southern Eichigen, plus an additional 73 potato farm in Roz-steals county. The interviews were made during July, August, end September of 1950. The govermen'e attempts to control production ere believed to A being about changes ca prcxheticn practices on farms. Acreage anot- nente eere placed a) potatoes, meat, beans and can in 1950. Gu- pliance with acreage allot-ants use required to be eligible for price suppa'ts. The purpose ct this study is to shes: the effects of screage allotments md price suppa-ts specifically as fertilisation and acre- age or the cmtrcned crops. The support printer 1950 sets relatively high and, at planting timetthecrcpe studied. seemedtcheeshizhcrhigherthan the expected open sarket price. Therein-e, there we a wine incentive to tuners for staying under their acreage snotmmte. Since acreage use in effect rationed, it was expected that farmers would attempt to enh- etitute espital n the ton of. fertiliser for and; u:- retimed no- tr e! prehetice. 268309 The results of this study show that tenors planning to use price suppa'ts in 1950 "dueed acreage and increased fertilisation with the inpcrtsnt exception or those in the potato study. The potato farmers planning to see price supports had not reduced acreage. This is be- lieved to be due to the manner in which acreage allotnents are handled in the court]. - Famers not planting to use price suppa'te made any nicer outages in sewage and fertilisatim with the single empties! d the bean tern- ers who increased acreage 95 percent. A The rsrners intentionally under acreage allctnents had "(heed acreage sicnificmtly and increased fertilisation. Farmers over allot- rents had increased acreage and made little or no change in pcnmh of fertiliser used per acre. The results or the potato study deserve epseisl attsntion. Fam- ere using price supports increased fertilisation 10:6 pocnb per acre while the control group of term not using price supports in either 19119 wfiSOnadeless thanaonepereent increase inpoancbaeedper acre. Potato fan-ere intentimally under acreage allotnente decreased acreage 10 percent and increased fertilisation 10 percent. Yarns acci-I mun: under allotnents increased it. rate a: applicaticst in 123 pounds. “mile the ferns under allotments were greatly increasing terti- lissticn, tame over sllctnents increased acreage 11 percent and decreased fertilisation 1 percent. Both of these changes were significant at the cm percent level. 5-1.- .-a‘ EFFECTS OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM ON PRODUCTION PRACTICES ON MICHIGAN FARMS IN 1950 by Carl Wesley Staser A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and.Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of ' MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1951 o C ( r — - I . ‘ -' v ‘ .7 __ ., ~ g \ , N L fln‘”-mH —. - — I-» ‘- h-‘fi - —‘ -g--.‘ — > — ‘ - 5 c. I" ' . . ~. ,' . i. " -‘ r '_‘ . ‘. # u‘LWA. Ha ~n to Hath-u! :x'~._wt‘.:':. ’C i:<‘r‘:‘,.. 9r : c... -‘3-...-. g; . . . .. ---..~ souu;ov :a.1 q! fine fiT‘flUOITRn E: ex 110. Twin . ‘ - r ' '\ ' ; - o _____, . ._ , . f ”w“; , . , . 1:. N...“ f. r.‘ .«. -9 ‘, I _: 1' ‘. J, g «L3 * “5"..4..- -‘ t. A J»? .."\ ..4. J .‘ .x l‘ .. O A ‘ v - . ‘ f - ., . i _ . _~. _ , V’l.i‘.(‘ I '0- 0:1! lI-I"A o. J (In f‘ntN‘rPn'W' ”2 - ,- . flr—V ,— ‘HI— v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is greatly indebted to the many'members of theIMichigan State College Department of Agriculture and.friends whose guidance and help have been major factors in.making the completion of this thesis possible. Special appreciation is due Professor L. H. (Hi) Brown, who watched the final phases of the project closely and directed the writing. Appreciation is also expressed to Professor E. E. Peterson, who directed the over-all study; to Dr. L. WZ‘Witt, and to Dr. T. K. Cowden for his support and confidence in the author. The author is greatly indebted to the Hoyt C. Reed family, es- pecially to Mrs. Reed, who typed the entire thesis. Any omissions or errors in this manuscript are to be credited to the author. CHAPTER I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS DITRODUCTION ....0.00.0.0.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...... Purpose ............................................ Hypotheses ......................................... History ............................................ Timing of the Study ................................ Methodology ........................................ CHANGES IN POTATO FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN -B 'Farms According to Use of Price Supports and Compliance with Acreage Allotments in 1950 ............................ FARMS GROUPED BY INTENDED USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS ....... General Information ................................ Change in Potato Acreage ........................... Use of Commercial Fertilizer ....................... Change in Levels of Fertilization .................. Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used ............. Use of Barnyard Manure ............................. Use of Green Manure ................................ FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS ... General Information ................................ Change in Potato Acreage ........................... U39 Of commerCial Fertilizer ooooooooooooooooooooooo Change in Levels of Fertilization .................. PAGE 18 19 20 22 2h 25 27 27 28 30 32 32 3h 36 ' Q . .. a o y n a 4 g r . . O 0 .. .. o u 0 o o . .. ~ 7 n . - . - u n I i . . p 9 n g r . .. I , I I CHAPTER III. Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used ............ Use of Barnyard Manure............................. USB or Plow-under crops 0.00.0000........OOOOOOO... SUBWY 000......OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000... CHANGES IN WHEAT FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN --By Farms According to Use of Price Supports and Compliance with acreage allotments in 1950 ...................... FARMS GROUPED BY INTENDED USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS ...... General Information ............................... Change in Acreage ................................. Use of Commercial Fertilizer ...................... Change in Analysis of Fertilizer Used ............. Change in Levels of Fertilization ................. Use of Barnyard Manure ............................ Use of Green Manure ............................... FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS... General Information ............................... Change in Acreage ................................. Use of Commercial Fertilizer ...................... Change in Levels of Fertilization ................. use Of Barnya-I‘d Mantra .........OOOOOOOO0.00.0.0... Use of PlonkUnder Crops ........................... SUM’TARY .0.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...0.0.0.0000... ii Page 36 36 39 39 hi h2 1.3 1.3 h6 h6 h? h? h? 50 So 50 53 I I . O r b O . n o r e v _ n o a . O V a v u p . v c o I ~ y n r s v a . O Q 0 I . u o t o . o . a I I Q I O I I c a . c . o a I n, I I u c. . r O l c O . o t I I D c - O I . o a g a ,1. ..4 {Miran CHAPTER V. CHANGES IN BEAN FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN -B 'Farms According to Use of Price Supports and Compliance with Acreage Allotments in 1950 ...................... FARMS GROUPED BY INTENDED USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS ...... General Information ................................ Change in Bean Acreage ............................. Use of Commercial Fertilizer ....................... Change in Levels of Fertilization .................. Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used ............. Use of Barnyard Manure ............................. Use of Green Manure ................................ FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS... General Information ............................... Change in Bean Acreage ............................ Use of Commercial Fertilizer....................... Change in Levels of Fertilization.................. Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used ............ Use of Barnyard Manure ............................ Use of PloweUnder CrOps ........................... SUI‘fl‘iIA-RY 0.00.0.0.........OIOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOCOOOOOOC CHANGES IN CORN FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN -B ’Farms According to Compliance with.Acreage Allotments in 1950 ......OOOOOOOOOOOOO..0O....OOOOOOOOOOCOCOOIOOO... iii Page 58 59 62 65 67 67 67 69 69 71 72 7h 7h 7h 77 77 79 ..llll‘l'lul Iv CHAPTER Page FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS.. 80 General Information ............................... 80 Change in Corn Acreage ............................ 82 Use of Commercial Fertilizer ...................... 82 Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used ............ 8h Change in Levels of Fertilization ................. 8h Use of Barnyard Manure ............................ 8h Use of PlowsUnder Crops ........................... 87 SUMMARY ............................................. 87 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................. 89 APPENDIX A The Questionnaire and worksheet.......... 96 APPENDIX B Tonnage of Different Grades of Fertilizer 801d in MiChigan in 1950 0000000000....00 109 BIBLIOGRAPI-{Y ...0..0000......OOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000...... 113 1. 2. 3. h. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Index of Total Pounds of Fertilizer and Units of Plant Food Used in Michigan, l9h9 to 1950 ................... Indexes of Price Received (Michigan), Prices Paid (United States), and the Purchasing Power of Michigan Farm Products, by Months, l9h5 to Date ................ Average Mid-Month Prices for Beans and Potatoes Received by Farmers, Michigan, l9h5 to Date ..................... Average Mid-Month Prices for Wheat and Corn Received by Farmers, Michigan, 19h5 to Date ........................ Percent of Acreage in Potatoes Fertilized at Various Levels in l9h9 and 1950 -By Use of Price Supports 1950. Use of Barnyard Manure and Plow-Under Crops in Potato Fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, by Use of Price Supports in 1950 0.00.00.00.0000000000......0000000000.0.0.000... Percent of Acreage in Potatoes Fertilized at Various Levels in l9h9 and l950.According to Compliance with Potato Acreage Allotments ............ ..... ............. Use of Barnyard Manure and Plow-Under CrOps in Petato Fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, by Groups According to compliance with POtatO Acreage AllOtmentS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Percent of Acreage in Wheat Fertilized at Various Levels in l9h9 and 1950, By Use of Price Supports in 1950...... Use of Barnyard Manure and.PlowaUnder Crops in Wheat Fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, by Use of Price Supports in 1950 ......000000000.0.0...0......00....0000..0.0.00. Percent of Acreage in Wheat Fertilized at Various Levels in l9h9 and 1950, According to Compliance with'Wheat Acreage AllOtHlent/S 0000000000000000.0000000000000000000. Use of Barnyard Manure and PlonaUnder Crops in Wheat Fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, by Groups According to Compliance with Wheat Acreage Allotments ............... 12 13 26 29 37 38 h8 A9 55 56 . :- 11...."143 FIGURE 13. 16. 17. 18. Percent of Acreage in Beans Fertilized at Various Levels in l9h9 and 1950, By Use of Price Supports in 1950 ...... Use of Barnyard Manure and PlowéUnder crops in Bean Fertilization in 19h9 and 1950, by Use of Price Supports in 1950 .....0...00..0...........0....00......00000000... Percent of Acreage in Beans Fertilized at Various Levels in l9h9 and 1950, According to Compliance with Bean Acreage AllOtments 00000000000000000000000000000.000.0000 Use of Barnyard Manure and PIOWAUnder Crops in Bean Fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, by Groups According to Compliance with Bean Acreage Allotments ................. Percent of Acreage in Corn.Fertilized at Various Levels in l9h9 and 1950, According to Compliance with Corn Acreage Allotments 00000000o.oooooooooooooooooooooooocoo. Use of Barnyard.Manure and PlowAUnder Crops in Corn Fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, According to Compliance With Corn Acreage AllOtments 000.000.000.0000000000000000 vi. PAGE 68 75 76 85 86 l I I 0 D V H . I 0 I . , . . 0 I . _ — Q C I I D I I I t I l I I o I I I O -Iilif. _l, 11 I 7.04.1 WT“? ... pv' I. II. III. V. VI. VII. VIII. X. XI. XII. XIII. LIST OF TABLES ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS FOR l950-CROP CORN, WHEAT, DRY EDIBLE BEANS, AND POTATOES, AS OF APRIL 1950, AND 191.9 PLANTED ACREAGE, UNITED STATES 000000000000000000000000000000000 GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING POTATOES-— BY USE OF PRICE SUPmRTS 00000000000000.00000000000000000000 POTATO ACREAGE AND COMMERCIAL FERTILIZATION IN 19119 AND 1950 AND CHANGES OCCURRING FROM 19h9 TO 1950 --BY USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS 00000000000000.000000000000000000000... GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING POTATOES -—BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS ...................... POTATO ACREAGE AND COMMERCIAL FERT ILIZATION IN 19h9 AND 1950 AND CHANGES OCCURRING FROM 19h9 To 1950 «BY COM- PLIANCE WITH ACREAC‘IE ALIDTIVENTS 0.000000.000000000000000. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING WHEAT --BY USE OF RICE SUPPORTS ...0.0.0..........O................ WHEAT ACREAGE AND COINFERCIAI. FERTILDZATION IN 19h9 AND 1950 AND CHANGES OCCURRING FROM 19h9 To 1950 ~31! USE OF RICE SUPmRTS 00000000000000000000000000000000000000. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING WHEAT -BY COMPLIAIJCE WITH ACRE‘IAGE ALIDTMENTS ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHEAT ACREAGE AND COWERCIAL FERTILIZATION IN 1919 AND 1950 AND CHANGES OCCURRING FROM 19h9 To 1950 -BI COM- PLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING BEANS i-BY USEPF‘PRICE SUPmRTS ......0.........0.....0............ BEAN ACREAGE AND COMMERCIAL FERTILIZATION IN 19h9 and 1950 AND CHANGES OCCURRING FROM 1919 to 1950 ass-BI USE OF PRICE SUPmRTS 000000000000000000000000000000000.0000. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING BEANS -BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS ...................... BEAN ACREAGE AND COMMERCIAL FERTILIZATION IN 19h9 AND 1950 AND CHANGES OCCURRING FROM 19h9 to 1950 —-BY’COM— HIIANCE WITH ACREAGE MENTS .00....CC...0.0.0.0...000 vii 17 21 23 33 35 M: 115 51 52 61 63 70 73 1k II IDA \|.|AI I|\ .D' .. , 1, 33,. I... TABLE XIV. XVI. XVII. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING CORN --BY COM- PLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ILLIJOTIVIENTS ......OOOOOOOOOCOOOO.... CORN ACREAGE AND COR-NERO IAL FERT ILIZAT ION IN 19119 AND 1950 AND CHANGES OCCURRINC FROM 1919 to 1950 —BI COU— PLIANCE WITH ACREAGE MILOTIENTS ..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. CHANGES IN ACREAGE AND FERTILIZATION OF POTATOES, WHEAT, BEANS, AND CORN IN MICHIGAN BY GROUPS ACCORDING TO USE OF PRICE SUPmRTS IN 1950.00.00.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOC.. CHANGES IN ACREAGE AND FERTILIZATION OF POTATOES, WHEAT BEANS, AND CORN IN MICHIGAN BY GROUPS ACCORDING TO COM- PLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS IN 1950 ................ PAGE 81 83 93 93 FOREWORD This study is one of three segments of the research project entitled "Farmers' Responses and Adjustments to Production Control and Price Support Programs in Michigan." The project deals with farmers' knowledge of, and attitudes toward federal price support legislation, as well as farmers' behavior in the presence ofthe ex— isting price support program. It was made by the Agricultural Economics Department of Michigan State College, in cooperation with the Production and Marketing Administration of the United States Department of Agiculture during the summer of 1950. The first portion of the project entitled 'Participation in the Federal Price Support Program by Michigan Farmers“ was written by Darwin G. Kettering, and deals in detail with the methodology used and also serves as an over-all summary. The third portion is now being compiled and edited by Philip A. Wright. His study deals with farmers' attitudes and beliefs with regard to the price support program. EFFECTS OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM ON PRODUCTION PRACTICES ON MICHIGAN FARMS IN 1950 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose The government's attempts to control production are believed to bring about changes in production practices used on farms. It would be valuable to know the effects that governmental controls have had and what can‘be expected of attempts to control agricultural output in the future. The purpose of this study is to Show the effects of the price support and production control programs on acreage and fertilization practices on potatoes, wheat, beans, and corn in Michi- gan in 1950. It is hoped that this study will be of practical value to those ‘who make, teach, or administer agricultural policy and.may in the long run, be of benefit to the general public. Hypotheses The belief has been shared by many that governmental attempts to control production by semidvoluntary acreage reduction has been, or will be, to a certain extent, offset by the use of improved pro- - 2 duction practices. It was suspected that farmers raising controlled crops under acreage allotments, and.using price supports would sub- stitute capital and/or labor for land. If this did occur, acreage of specified crops might be reduced without any appreciable decrease in total production. The term I'improved production practices" identifies those prac- tices that increase production per acre, or decrease cost per unit of Output, or both, so as to increase the net returns to the farmer. When crop acreage is rationed]' improved production practices are likely to be thought of primarily as those which will increase production per acre. Among the important practices that are used to intensify production are: ‘1. Use of more fertilizer 2. Planting hybrid or certified seed 3. Using best adapted varieties h. Improved crop rotations 5. Using improved.methods for seedbed preparation and.tillage 6. Planting rows closer together and plants closer in the rows 7. Use of insecticides and.weed killers 8. Use of hormones 9. Irrigation 10. Use of more labor (which is involved in some improved practices) 1. "Crop acreage control is a form of rationing of the productive agents available to the farm." Schultz, T.W} and.Brownlee, 0.H., Effects of Crop Acreage Control Features of A.A.A. on Feed Production in 11 M13- 'west States (Ames, Iowa State COIlege, April, 19h27. Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 298, p.675. - 3 In addition to these, increased average outputs per acre can also be brought about by using the best land available for the restricted crop or crops.2 This study is limited to the changes in the use of commercial fertilizers, barnyard manure, and.plowaunder crops from l9h9 to 1950 by farms grouped according to compliance with acreage allotments in 1950, and stated intentions for using price supports in 1950. The hypotheses for this study are: that farms using price sup- ports and.complying with acreage allotments are using more fertilizer than farms not using price supports and not complying with acreage allotments; and that farms using price supports and complying with acreage allotments made greater increases in average amounts of fer- tilizer used per acre from l9h9 to 1950 than farms that did not. Companion hypotheses for the study are: that farms using price sup- ports and complying with acreage allotments reduced acreage of con- trolled crops; and, farms not using price supports and not complyb ing with acreage allotments either maintained or increased the acreage of controlled.crops. History Acreage allotments were placed on potatoes, corn, wheat, and dry field beans3 in 1950. To qualify for price supports on the 1950 pro- '23 Schultz and Brownlee, op.cit., p.676 3' Acreage allotments were also in effect for rice and marketing quotas, based on acreage allotments, were in effect on cotton, peanuts, and tobacco. Potatoes, corn, wheat, and beans were the only restricted crops grown in Michigan and are the crops to be treated in this study. -u I I duction of any one of these crops, a farmer had to stay within his al- ; lotment, i.e., to plant only the number of acres alloted to his farm 5 or less. This was the first year that acreage allotments had.been i used since l9h3. The history of attempts to control agricultural production stems back to WOrld War I. Prices and demand for farm products had skyrock- eted during the war only to collapse in 1920. Congress was huntingfhr legislation to help agricultural prices along the road to recovery. The Congress and the President could not see eye to eye on a program. Finally, in 1929, the Agricultural Marketing Act established the Fedp eral Farm Board. The stated purpose of the Farm.Board was to develop orderly marketing procedure and to purchase surpluses which were de- pressing prices. Instead of solving the problem.of low prices and surpluses, the Farm.Board waS'wiped out by continued accumulation of surpluses and falling prices as the depression grew worse. It had attempted to support the price of a few selected commodities while the general price level was falling. I The lesson learned from the experience of the Federal Famm Board was that prices cannot be pegged without control of production. Ac- cordingly, the Agricultural.Adjustment Act of 1933 contained provisions for adjusting production by means of acreage restrictions and for establishing parity prices. The continuation of large surpluses, plus repeal of parts of the original Agricultural.Adjustment Act led to the Agricultural.AdJustment Act of 1938 which.provided for marketing quotas to make possible production control.h Despite the effort of the A.A.A. to control acreage, stocks of corn, wheat, and cotton, were at record levels at the outbreak of the world war II. By the use of better production practices, farmp ers appreciably increased yields per acre. Total output was well 5 maintained despite curtailment of acreage planted. / Concurrent with the development of government price support andf acreage control programs there has been a trend toward greater use i of fertilizer in Michigan (Figure 1). This increase in fertilizer i use has resulted from several forces. Education has been a major factor. Michigan State College through its Extension staff has an- couraged the use of more fertilizer and higher analysis fertilizers (Appendix B).6 Higher prices received for farm products relative to the price of fertilizer has made the use of more fertilizer profitable. The price support program, due to its affect on prices, has been a factor in the use of more fertilizer. A major hypothesis of this thesis is that acreage allotments, which were reinstated as a part of h. Congressional Record of the 79 Congress, 2nd Session, Report No. 2728, August 6, l9h6. S. Lonijun Effects of Price-maintenance Policy for Agricultural Products, Committee on Agricultural Policy,IAssociation of Land Erant Colleges and Universities, April, 19h7. 6. As this is being written, Paul.Rood, Soils Extension Specialist at Michigan State College, is carrying on a project to get as many wheat growers as possible to plant a strip of 10 drill widths around one field with 500 pounds of fertilizer per acre. This is over twice the average rate found to be used for wheat in this Standyo .39 IMAG— -‘7 the price support program in 1950, will have caused farmers wanting to use price supports to have reduced acreage. Also, that farmers who reduce acreage will have increased fertilization significantly 'while other farmers made little change. The trend towards use of greater amounts of fertilizer must be kept in mind throughout this study. It is not assumed that all change in fertilization is due to the price support program and acreage allotments. However, control groups are used for each crop. Changes in fertilization will be pointed out on a relative basis. Timing of the Study The original planning for the project of which this study is a part was done during the Spring of 1950. Agricultural prices had reached an all-time high in l9h8 (Figure 2). The whole economy was going into a slight recession which had some promise of becoming ser- ious. The memory of the agricultural price collapse that followed WOrld war I still lingered in the minds of farm leaders and they ‘wouldn't let Congress forget what had happened. There is just enough agricultural fundamentalism in Congress and just enough votes in the farm pepulation to attain price supports for agricultural commodities at 60 to 90 percent of parity based on 1910 to l9lh price relation- ships. In many cases these supports are towards the t0p end of the range. Thus, relatively high levels were established for support prices. By relatively high level is meant a price which would bring onto the f‘g: . ‘ ."v- ”11' rvvpflvl f! I u -‘ . c As}; ‘ -9 market more goods than normally would be consumed at that price. In other words, high levels of support prices result in surpluses and storage stocks that can be absorbed only tflz'the artificial demands created by‘a wartime atmosphere. In times of war or a high state of military preparedness, high support price levels may actually help to holi prices down'by en- couraging greater production. This will be the situation in this country for the next few years and high support levels may not be objectionable. However, peace in reality may return and when it does the existing support price levels are going to be too high unless there is a change in the trend of Agricultural Price Policy. It is for this period of readjustment that must eventually come that this project is expected to be of value. It is one thing to establish relatively high support prices and it is another thing to keep them effective. No price can be support- ed indefinitely at a level above the normal market price unless there is control over either consumption or production or both. It is now a recognized fact that production controls go hand in hand with high price supports. The prospects of surpluses and.even greater decreases in agri- cultural prices had motivated the Secretary of Agriculture to es- tablish acreage allotmentsfor 1950 for potatoes, wheat, beans, and corn (Figure 2). What would be the reaction of the farmer in this situation? Farmers are economic men. They too are guided by the in- visible hand that points the way to greater profits. Given proper - 10 advice or past experiences that have conditioned their reactions to do so, they will attempt to maximize profits. The following advice was given to farmers by Michigan State College in January 1950.7 “Is it good business, from.the standpoint of the individual farmer, to stay within the wheat acreage allotment? According to present indications most farmers believed the answer to be 'yes' when they sowed wheat last fall. As long as the announced support price appears to be considerably above the anticipated market price for the next season it will be good business to com- ply on acreage. Unfavorable weather, an expanded world market, or monetary inflation could raise market price and.render the sup- port ineffective, but these factors cannot be accurately predicted at planting time. "Assuming that corn acreage will be allotted, should a farmer plan to reduce corn acreage in 1950? The answer here is not clear cut as in the case of wheat. Michigan farmers, for the most part, do not sell corn. Many actually buy corn in addition to their own crop. To them a support price on corn only means higher feed cost." I 000000... "In planning 1950 corn acreage, carefully consider the outlook for corn prices next fall. Corn will disappear rather rapidly dur- ing the next several months through livestock. The numbers of cattle and hogs on feed are high. The dairy product-feed.ratio is favorable, and is encouraging heavy grain consumption in that enter- prise. If there should be an average or below average corn crop in 1950 there is a chance that the market price of corn will approach the support price. If this happens there would be little advantage in staying within an acreage allotment." Many farmers did comply with acreage allotments in order to be eligible for price supports. The price supports levels were expected to be as high or higher than the free market price. Thus 1950 appeared to be an ideal time to test the effect of acre- age allotments and the price support program on production practices. 7. Quoted from."Farming Under Current Controls," by L.H. Brown in Michigan Farm Economics, Michigan State College Extension Service Dept. ofllgricultural Economics, No. 85-Supplement, East Lansing January 1950. - ll Farmers had the choice of ignoring acreage allotments and risking the Open market price, or complying with acreage allotments and having a high guaranteed support price to rely upon. This was the setting as the survey was being planned and as the schedule was being prepared. However, in June 1950, the Korean affair brought this country in- to limited warfare. Agricultural prices started upward (Figure 2). Not only did the trend in agricultural prices reverse’itself but the likelihood was that prices farmers received would be as high or higher than the price support levels. This was the situation when the inter- views were taken from July 15 to September 15, 1950. The farmers' plans and decisions as to acreage and.fertilization, in most cases, were already made and could not be changed. However, many farmers who had used price supports in 19h9 and logically could have been expected to use them again in 1950, providing they were eligible to do so, stated.that they did not intend to use them. The most common reason given for this change was the difference in price wasn't expected to be great enough to warrant the extra trouble. Some 'were even expecting higher prices on the open market than the guaran- teed governmentprices. (Figures 3 and h). The outbreak of fighting, with the resultant change in demand for agricultural commodities, did not invalidate this study. It did, however, force changes in methodology used in determining the effect of the price support program on fertilization. Methodology The over-all project of which this study is a segment, "Farmers' Responses and Adjustments to Production Control and Price Support Programs in Michigan," covered 578 farms. These farms were located in Lenawee, St.Joseph, Eaton, Livingston, Salinac, Saginaw, and Mont- calm counties. This sample was randomly selected to represent the commercial corn, wheat, beans, and.potato producing farms of 70 acres or more in the commercial farming areas of southern Michigan. The methodology used for the over-all project is described in detail by Darwin Kettering in the first segment of this project. The data used in this study came from the first 7 pages of the schedule that was developed and.used for the over-all project (Appendix A). General information available included size of farm, acres owned, acres rented, estimated production of each crap in 19h9, and average amounts of crops usually sold. Data that helped give a complete picture of the fertilization on each farm included the followh ing: a map of the farm with all fields numbered, number of acres in each field, crops grown on each field in l9h9 and 1950, pounds of come mercial fertilizer used on each field, analysis of fertilizers used on each field, fields covered with barnyard.manure, crOps preceded by plowaunder crOps, and tons of commercial fertilizer purchased. In~ formation pertaining to the farmer's participation in the price support program was also gathered and included the following: the manner in 8. Kettering, Darwin 0. Participation in theIFederal Price Support Prpgram.by Michigan Farmerp, unpublished thesis for the Degree of M.S. Michigan State College, East Lansing, August 1951. - 15 which each crop was disposed of in 19h9, reasons for using or not us- ing price supports in 19h9, changes in use of price supports from 19h9 to 1950, reasons for the changes, acreage allotments for each crop, actual acreage of alloted crops, and.reasons for being over or under allotment on each crop. It was believed that pounds per acre was not completely accurate as a measure of commercial fertilizer used since fertilizers vary greatly in analysis. Therefore the analysis of the fertilizers used ‘was collected along with the pounds per acre data. With information on fertilizer analysis as well as pounds of fertilizer used per acre, the changes in fertilization for each crop could.be accurately measured. Two groupings were used to determine the effect of the price sup- port program on acreage and fertilization practices for each crop. The farms were first grouped according to intended use of price supports in in 1950: Group.A. Farms whose operators were planning to use price supports for the particular crop in 1950. Group B. Farms whose operators had used price supports for the particular crop in 19h9 but were not planning, at the time the survey was taken, to use them in 1950. Group C. Farms whose Operators had not used price supports for the particular crop in 19h9 and were not planning to use them in 1950. ~16 A number of these farmers in Group B had made their original planting and fertilization decisions with the intention of using price supports. However, the sudden.rise in agricultural prices 0 brought about by the Korean War and defense mObilization effort had caused them to decide not to use price supports in 1950. They were expecting open market prices to be as high or higher than the support levels. The farms were next grouped according to compliance with acreage allotments in 1950: Group 1. Farms under acreage allotments intentionally. Group 2. Farms under acreage allotments accidentally. Group 3. Farms over acreage allotments. The farmers had given various reasons for complying or not complying with allotments. Those who said that they were under their allot- ments in order to be eligible for price supports or to go along with the government program were placed in Group 1. Placed in Group 2 were those farms whose Operators claimed that compliance was due to size of field, amount usually planted in the rotation, or that the allotments happened to be as large as they had intended.p1anting in 1950. Farms over allotments for any reason were grouped together in Group 3. In the following chapters these groupS'will be used to measure the effect of the price support program.and acreage allotments on acre- age and fertilization practices on Michigan farms for potatoes, wheat, - 17 beans, and corn in 1950. Acreage was to be reduced in 1950 (Table I). Did farmers who intended to use price supports in 1950 reduce acreage and did farms are who reduced acreage increase fertilization? These are the ques- tions that this study will attempt to answer; TABLE I. ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS FOR 1950-CROP CORN, WHEAT, DRY EDIBLE BEANS, AND POTATOES, AS F APRIL 1950, AND 19149 PLANTED ACREAGES, UNITED STATES l9h9 1950-crop Percent Commodity planted acreage Reduction acreage allotment Requested Acres Acres Corn 57,579,000 (a)h6,2h6,973 20 ‘Wheat 8h,931,000 68,9hh,099 19 Dry edible beans (b) 1,900,000 (c) 20 Potatoes l,2h2,200 (d) 1,137,800 8.h (a) Commercial area only (b) All classes (c) 80 percent of 19h9 planted acreages of eligible classes. (d) Commercial acreage only (3 acres or more per farm). 9. Price Programslgf the United States Department of Agriculture Agriculture Information Bulletin.No.13. Production and Marketing Administration United States Department of Agriculture, April, 1950. CHAPTER II CHANGES IN POTATO FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN By Farms According to Use of Price Supports and Compliance 'with.Acreage Allotments in 1950 The purpose of this phase of the study is to determine the effect Of price supports and acreage allotments on the fertilization Of pota- toes. It will be shown that reducing acreage does not necessarily mean reducing production. ,An original assumption for this study was that farms using price supports in 1950 would have reduced acreage to comply with allotments. The first hypothesis to be proven is that farms planning to use price supports have increased fertilization in order to intensify production and thus substitute capital for land. The second portion of this potato study is based on the assumption that farms inp tentionally'under acreage allotments have complied with them in order to be eligible for price supports. The hypothesis to be proven is that farms intentionally under acreage allotments have increased fertiliza- tion and are using more fertilizer than farms not complying with acre- age allotments. The Department Of Agriculture has probably received more criticism and adverse publicity from the price support program on Irish potatoes than on any other phase of its support activity. Newspapers and maga- zines, many of which were unfriendly towards the administration, have pointed up the "potato scandal“ as a prime example of bureaucratic mis- management. The buying and dumping: of surplus potatoes has been treated -18- - 19 with almost as much vigor as the killing of little pigs during early Agriculture Adjustment Administration days. United States Department of Agriculture may be the victim of cir- cunstance. It seems to be caught between the support price levels passed by a politically minded Congress, that bring! onto the market excess production in periocb of peace, and the ability of potato farmers to increase production per acre when acreage allotments are imposed. If the hypotheses stated above are true, a ten percent reduction in acreage allotments will not necessarily bring about a ten percent re- duction in total production. This study will show that farms under acreage allotments and whose operators were planning to use price sup- ports, increased the use of fertilizer and have, at least in part, Off- set the original purpose of reduced acreage allotments. FARMS GROUPED BY INTENDED USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS 0f the 578 farms visited in this survey, 95 raised potatoes com- merciallymin both 19149 and 1950. In order to show the effect of the governmental price program the 95 farms were divided into three groups according to their intended use of price supports: Group A. Farms whose Operators planned to use price supports for their 1950 potato crops. Group B. Farms whose Operators had used price supports for pota- toes in 19149 but were not planning to use them in 1950. Group 0. Farms whose Operators had not used price supports for potatoes in 1949 and were not planning to use them in 1950. 10. These farms raised potatoes to sell. -20 It was expected that farms in Group A would have reduced acreage and increased fertilization. Group C was expected to show little change. Operators of many of the farms in Group B had originallyplanned to use price supports but had changed their minds after the change in market outlook which followed the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. Therefore, Group B was expected to show changes similar to those of Group A. General Information There were 27 farmers who planned to use price supports in 1950 (Group A). Twenty-three had used price supports in 19149 and four had not (Table II). A total of 15 Operators had used price supports in 19149 but were not planning to use them in 1950 (Group B). This group in- cluded some of the larger operators who believed that the free market price would be as high or higher than the support price for potatoes. The Operators of 53 farms had not used price supports either year and served as the control group for this study (Group C). Changes in their fertilization practices would have to be attributed to causes other than the acreage allotment and price support program. It will be noted that the average size of farm in Groups A and B was clearly larger than the average size of farm in Group C. This is consistent with the findings of Darwin Ketteringll in his over-all sum- mary of this survey which show a definite correlation between size Of farm and use of price supports. Considerably more potatoes were grown and sold by the farmers of Groups A and B (Table II). Thus any differ- 11. Kettering, Darrin G. op. cit. TABLE II. GENERAL IN POTATOES -21.. FOH'ZATIC‘N FOR THE FARMS RAISING -- BY USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS GROUP A GROUP B GROUP 0 Number Of farms 2? 15 53 Average size of farms 187.96 205.83 15b.b7 Average bushels 0% potatoes produced in 19h9 h,089.50 10,h23.10 2,8h3.87 Average bushgls of potatoes usually sold” 3,111.25 9,h80.80 2,811.5h These are the averages Of farms for which estimates of both the l9h9 production and amounts usually sold were available. They represent 20 farms in Group A, 13 farms in Group B, and 39 farms in Group C. -22 ential in price would.have been of greater financial importance to them than to the operators Of the farms in Group 0. Change in Potato Acreage An assumption for this study was that with the coming of acreage allotments farms using price supports would be forced to reduce their acreage. Actually, however, there was little change between the aver- age acreage grown in 19h9 and 1950 by the three groups (Table III). There was practically no variation in the acreage of Groups A and C. In Group B one farmfincreased his potato acreage from.20 acres in 19h9 to 66 acres in 1950. This increase of h6 acres is greater than the total over-all increase of the group. The other farms averaged about the same as in 19h9. Thus the original assumption that Group A would have reduced acreage in 1950 was not borne out by the data collected. The explanation may lie in the manner in which acreage allotments are handled by the County‘Ph & M.A. offices. Montcalm County was granted total acreage allotments in 1950 amounting to approximately 90 percent of its 19h9 potato acreage. Those operators wishing to plant more potatoes than their original allotment could appeal for a larger allotment. If the appeals were approved they could have been granted an increase. These extra acres would have come from the unused portion of the county‘s allotment. In other words, the PL&.M.A. is working for the benefit of the farmers and is trying to be as reasonable and.help— ful as possible to the producers. The general impression received while taking interviews was that few'big potato producers in Montcalm County actually would have been forced to reduce acreage in 1950. In -23- a mm.o+ po.ow mm.mm ~H.Ho oo.~w am.~m mm.H4 ~m.wm cm.- nouadaahou Huaouoasoo uo .ahb you moans owahobd om.oo o~.moa aw.woa sm.HH+ am.aaw :o.oma om.ch mm.mow mo.w~d poneaaauou once had evens amended No.0. om.o~m ma.~om Hm.wHo ma.:o~ m:.omo om.oa. Hm.~m~ 4:.Hmn ponaadouou / once use unseen amassed m~.mu wo.om ~m.mm m4.:o 00.00H a~.mm mH.4¢ po.mm oa.4m oouaaaahou done no uncouom soapeufiaapuom go ovum..m 53 $4” 3.4m mmém mafia 3.3 Bode .28 .335 34. more 8:3 8.? omfim 853 as. $.43 so; see .23 was oumouod..4 $3. 3 ms 43. ma .2 mm}? Z 8 c.3328 moans canon no noose: mm mm ma ma mm pm canon as hopes: Hosea 1mmwmeu . . . oucanu mmwunu notched omma mama coouom ommH mama vouched ommH mama o macaw m mbomd .4 maomc mamammbm MUHmm m0 mm: an an ommH 0» mama moan OZHMMDDOO mmozqmu 92¢ ommH Q24 mama 2H 20HH¢NHAHsmmm_A vs poudafiuuom moopdpom a“ swooped mo poooaom .m shaman Hosea eoem 00H om om on op pm eoeseecsoa owuooos mo pcoouom om on h ON OH . AA. a 4 liq 1 .--.-. .HA+,.u.3 . 9.2. ........... omma Agnew uonpwo wummmuwummwwnfl.mnvnmucnn ......... wppoomom wean: pozv ..H .vnx.wwn.xum ”H .v mama o Abomu - 25 - omma Awesommom oz 09 A” mphoamow 80am mofiwownov .a-AAA ....... . .. ... m.mH m emcee . .. . A ;e.fa.tml. e; . , :.sA:.. ;.A OOH . .u. . H . .woewmnwwhaxme ”a... . . ...... acme! gripe. omma Ampaommom ..Hm . .u my“ . .... . .. .A VW....A.. .sm..\.. .21. 156.4. TN... «A... vs... 0W5. OD. wgfigdflmv . . . .11 . J . . . quuén.v.... A!” ...). Jew"... a... o a, 4% DHDOMWU r d ...m... A- H ”monk.”mensweaea. t as U see assoc: a smell -27 of plant food per acre; medium, 100 to 199 units; and high, 200 'units or more. If these figures were converted to pounds of 3-12-12 fer- tilizer, which contains 27 units per hundredweight, the three levels 'would be 0 to 370 pounds, 371 to 7h0 pounds and over 7h0 pounds per acre. In this case 3-12-12 is used as standard since it was most commonly used and the average units per hundredweight of all fertili- zers used approximately 27. The fact is recognized that a farm.using 2—12-6 would have to apply from 500 to 1,000 pounds to fall in the medium range as defined at 100 to 200 units of plant food. Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used The average units of plant food per hundredweight of commercial fertilizer used in l9h9 and 1950 by each of these three groups was also computed (Table III). These figures show almost no variation from 19h9 to 1950 and very little difference between the avaages of the three groups. It is interesting to note, however, that fertilizers of higher analysis are being used on potatoes than are being used on corn, wheat, or beans. Use of Barpyard.Manure Data were also gathered pertaining to the use of barnyard.manure and ploWdunder crops for potato fertilization. The potato farmers studied used extensively these means of increasing soil fertility. Barnyard.manure was used primarily for the fertilization of potatoes on the farms in this study. Approximately 60 percent of the total potato acreage was covered in l9h9 and approximately 55 percent - 28 received barnyard manure in 1950 (Figure 6). Group C led in the use of barnyard manure by covering 69 percent of its total potato acreage in each of the years covered by this study. Group A followed with 68.5 percent in 19h9 and 60 percent in 1950. Group B was able to cover only 52.55 percent of its potato acreage in 19h9 and 32.9h percent in 1950 because it had.less barnyard.manure available as well as more acres to cover per farm}2 It should be noted that no attempt was made to determine the tons Of barnyard manure used per acre. The results presented here indicate that farms not using price supports covered a slightly higher percentage of their potato acreage with barnyard manure than farms using price supports. Use of Green Manure Many of the potato farmers were using plowaunder crops. These plow-under crops, or as they are commonly called, green manure crops, are raised to be turned.under ih.order to add.organic matter to the soil. When legumes are used, nitrogen is taken from.the air and.placed in the soil in an available form for the potato crop and other crops that follow in the rotation. The farms in Group B made up for their lack of barnyard.manure by using more green manure crops. Eightyhone percent of the potato acre- age of this group was preceded by a plowaunder crop in l9h9 and 58 percent in 1950. Group A used green manure crops for approximately - 12. The largest potato farmer in this group hauls manure from the commercial duck raising farms at Alma. -29.. ) r gsao Hunter? iryg SO 1 wupr memes mu 0 no+uL4 N .19 ( 31 m ) OOS Pluto 0.. r5 B 809 gtpl Wnrp .lou OgPSO/ “R n D. in GOUOO/ hsnl C ( 6 lMuom)O f. s 1..th Wnprl n O mnem9 8 nuninunuLu ( 89 O 1 t .NfiuudfluuflflumfluunfithbSt.v$!.l&&t£3|ii3!ifl3|flr .mafltR3IncNiR3lKrShJNhRMEESQEENHKSQSEIIEEQI hc3aE3lEaiiQHeEaliISEESQSERtifihiiSIQSQSIWI I..- .IILIIIIIII! .90. . k h. 51.“. --‘~‘~§§ ‘. .‘ufifl‘ .9. ‘.‘.Q. h... bubs-1. .‘u‘. ‘k““§‘§-‘~§‘~§-‘~§"~.‘.‘~.‘¥3 51.51.“ 3.51.3... bib-(III. ... t. , ...-Q. Q‘hiu» tfl‘khfighhhhfik kmf&%t§§~“§.‘k‘§ 1 IIIIII'IIII' ...-IIIII'II: «omnfi‘hw‘ufih ..$...%..§n&0fifimoh.h¢.. ......hmu... .. .... QNRUS.‘.¥.. PQ‘Q‘hth .Ihxksfigah‘kvakmt:§ikflfiwafl has. injects-fittfiauutnfiuocuuuvrc 43:3..h“: “ll ...“... ......mnfitsu: -§--hhckwskfikfikh‘%§%§.§hfi1nfi<fii ut‘“-‘~‘.fi1h.tfi§#4.“.“h‘hfihak‘g. . I .l‘laé II!!!.’I' 1.!flfln ‘Hllll‘jlli‘- ii... .WRINN‘R‘RIIAVIMQ “fisflRsflWhVIhquQSFHWR .....w . NINI‘IIRIQIAwafih. Rh... t... h... n... athtaswswe. ..w. Removes .135..th NINA... to»... was... «......Wt 9...“... .... .... tatsmfifis... A... Newt...“ :fi'IlltggiIfiixu age covered _ 'with burn- yard manure 60 r Percent of potato acre- ; r . O O 0 v9 2 1 age preced- A ed by a ploweunder potato acre- crop Percent of sUse of barnyard manure and plowhunder crops in potato fertilization in Figure 6. 19h9 and 1950, by use of price supports in 1950. - 30 half of its potato acreage in both 19h9 and.l950. Group C, which appar- ently used the most barnyard manure, ranked lowest in the use of plow- under crops. No estimate was made Of the tons of green manure or of the percent of the stands that were plowed.under on the various farms. The only data collected were acres of potatoes which were preceded by plowaunder crops. FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The major difference in the agricultural price support program.for potatoes in 1950 from that of 19h9 was the use of acreage allotments. To have been eligible for price supports on his 1950 potato crop, a farmer must have complied with his acreage allotment, 1.6. to have planted acreage under or equal to the allotment for the tract or tracts of land that he operated. The next step in this study was to compare the fertilization of farmers who complied with acreage allotments with those who did not. Eightybfive of the original 95 commercial potato growers stated defin- _ itely that they were either under or over their respective acreage allotments. Fiftybnine farmers were under while 26 were over their alloted acreage. Operators of farms that were under allotments gave different reasons for complying. Thirty farmers stated that they were under acreage allotments in order to qualify for price supports or to go along with the government program. Twentybnine farmers gave such reasons as: the acreage allotment just happened to fit their rotation; - 31 the size of field to be planted happened to be under the allotment; the acreage allotment was larger than they had planned to plant; and mere coincidence. These two groups were handled separately and are referred to in the remainder Of this study as Group 1, those under their allotments intentionally, and Group 2, those under their allot- ments accidentally. The groups that were finally arrived at to fur- ther test the effect of the changed price support program on fertili- zation, therefore, were as follows: Group 1. Potato growers who were under their allotments intentionally. Group 2. Potato growers who were under their allotments accidentally. Group 3. Potato growers who were over their acreage allotment s . Farmers intentionally under allotments (Group 1) were assumed to have reduced acreage. The original hypothesis for the study was that this group would have increased fertilization to offset reduced acre- age. The farmers over acreage allotments, Group 3, were not expected to change fertilization. As far'as they were concerned, land for pota- toes was not rationed by allotments. Since the farms in Group 2 were under their allotments, a reduction in average acreage was anticipated. The average change in fertilization for the farms under allotments accidentally (Group 2) was expected to be between the changes made by Groups 1 and 3. -32 General Information There were 30 farms under allotments intentionally (Group 1), 29 farms under allotments accidentally (Group 2), and 26 farms over allotments (Group 3). The average size of farms in the three groups differed only about 11 percent. Group 1 averaged 183 acres per farm while Group 3 averaged 163 acres. Group 2 fell about half way in be- tween these two groups, averaging 175 acres per farm.(Tab1e IV). Each farmer had been asked the approximate number of bushels of potatoes produced in 19h9 and.the average bushels of potatoes usually sold. The 2h farms in Group 1 for which this information was recorded, pro- duced 3,h58 bushels in 19h9 and.usually sold approximately 3,680 bushels. This indicates that their 19h9 potato crop was smaller than usual}3 The farms in Group 3 produced about the same amount of pota- toes as Group 1. The eighteen farms giving this information produced an average of 3,887 bushels per farm in 19h9 and usually sold about 3,hl7 bushels. Group 2, with more acreage in potatoes, had averaged 6,662 bushels produced in 19h9 and usually sold on the average of about 6,000 bushels per farm. Change in Potato Acreage Definite changes were made in the number of acres grown by each group from 19h9 to 1950. Farms under allotments intentionally (Group 1) 13.Farmers usually have a number of bushels of culls that are not sold due to imperfections of some kind. The average bushels of potatoes usually sold, therefore, would be somewhat less than the average number of bushels usually produced. Thus, the average number usually‘ sold does not represent the average total production. - 33 - TABLE IN. GENERAL HIFOFG'IATION FOR THE FAPE~€S RAISING POTA- TOES --BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLUFI~IENTS GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 Number of farms 30 29 26 Average size of farms 183.12 175ohl 163.27 Average bushels of potatoes produced in 19h9 * 3,h57.92 6,662.00 3,886.72 Average bushels of potatoes usually sold * 3,682.29 5,986.00 3,hl6.67 * These are the averages of farms for which estimates of both the 19h9 production and amounts usually sold were available. They represent 2h farms in Group 1, 2S farms in Group 2, and 18 farms in Group 3 - 3h decreased total acreage by 10.3 percent. At the same time, farms ‘whose operators had.claimed to be under allotments accidentally, in- creased acreage 8.5 percent. The farms exceeding acreage allotments (Group 3) jumped total potato acreage 16.7 percent. Apparently the farmers who intentionally complied with government allotments reduced their acreage of potatoes by the amount that the Secretary of Agri- culture requested. The obvious question was, how could those in Group 2 be under their allotments and still increase potato acreage in 1950? As stated earlier in this thesis it is the opinion of the writer that the acreage allotments for potatoes could have been shuffled in such a manner as to defeat the original purpose of the program.1h It may have been that the historical data on which the al- lotments were based allowed these farms more acreage in 1950 than they grew in l9h9. It is difficult to believe, however, that a farm growing 20 acres of potatoes in 19h? 'would have had an average high enough to warrant an allotment of 66 acres in 1950. According to the survey data this happened on one of the farms in Group 2.15 Use of Commercial Fertilizer There were major changes in the amounts of fertilizer used by farms under acreage allotments (Groups 1 and 2). Farms under allotments ac- cidentally (Group 2) stepped up the average rate of fertilization 128 lhoThe original purpose of acreage allotments was to help stabilize prices by reducing acreage which was expected to reduce production. liAllotments are made to ownership tracts by the P. 8:. ILA. office. The farm mentioned here had rented.land both years. There is a possibi- lity that different fields could have been rented in 1950 than in 19h9. If so, these different rented acres may have received much more total acreage in allotments, although this seems highly improbable. -35- 8.6.. 8.5 Hméw 26. 2.5 8.3 2.? mm?“ 2.0... have got-:8 no .....8 you Buns amused 8.1... 8.5a 935 8.3. 233... afloa— omJa. Rama 3&2 confidence 98: non 3.25 3325 3.0.. $.96 3.4mm 8.3. 5.0? i.eao “N61. S63 $3.3. cafidfiou . 0.8.- .Hoa cussed omens: amt? 3.8 3.3 34. 8.3 3.3 3.? 3.3 3.3 333.23 no.8 no penance Saaafldfioe no 3am .m :3: 2:: 3.3 .36“ 2:2 9:: 88.6 8.8. .935 3.3.. 8.63 8.03 .mmé. $.03 2.2m $6? 8&3 86$ some :8. H38. annoyed .4 26. a mm 8.6 8 8 RA. mm mm tfiflfiou _ «53 85o no 9352 8 on mm mm on on and no teas. H33 ..lmdflafi 03.26 omega 9888 IR? «an $82..“ 83” Q3 “quote omma 3% n .505 _ N .503 a gene mg mg E moan—”Ago Hm .... omma 0». mama 5mm wing—Goo 95246 g ommfi Un- mdmd a ZOHHHNHfiammm Sago a: Quad oadaom .> an. -36 pounds and Group 1 raised its average 61 pounds per acre (Table V). It is significant that during the same period farm over allotments (Group 3) decreased average fertilizer used per acre by 141 pounds. This supports the original hypothesis that farmers complying with acre- age allotments will tend to apply more fertilizer in order to compen- sate for reduced acreage. Change in Levels of Fertilization The data for the units of plant food used per acre by the various groups show approximately the same results as the pounds per acre data. There was a very definite shift in the units of plant food used per acre by farms under allotments. Groups 1 and 2 greatly increased the percent of acres receiving the high level of fertilization while Group 3 showed little change (Figure 7). Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used There was no significant change in the average units of plant food per hundredweight in any of these groups. The average strength of fer- tilizers used mas about that of 3-12-12 or 27 units per hundredweight. Use of Barnyard Manure In the use of barnyard manure Group 1 led the way. The farms in this group covered from two-thirds to three-fourths of the total acre- age while Group 3 used barnyard manure on 60.65 percent in 19149 and 52.91 percent in 1950. The potato acreage of the farms in Group 2 re- ceived the least barnyard manure as approximately 50 percent of the acres were covered (Figure 8). -31- .uobo wad mpfiss com Inwfia cud «magma mma op OOH .Ssficos «oped pom ooom pagan mo mpfins mm on o IBOAI 3285024 owdouofi opapom fin: monadamsoo op wzwchoog omma was 0:9“ 5. ...maoboq msoahdb pd congaphom mmopapom aw. mwdoho¢ Mo vnoohom ...I. 9393., HmeH scam pd cmuwanpuom mmdouod no pnmoumm OOH om ow ON 00 om 0: on om OH J a 4d 144 . 14 4 L41 4 d! 4d ommI AmpcmEuOHHd owdmuod Lmbov I4. :. mamI m mnemo I . I . I I I . I . ..... I . . . ..... ...I. . . .W. . «MIMIWJHuIlIIUIS ...T NARI». WINJ.I.umwn.II..I. .I.I.~........ 6...»... If ...h. f/ . . . ...I. ..I......I...........I.......... ........ ..........I. . I . . . I ..W. ..uHX. W‘gffih I.)~HIMH.M1WU. nUaCfW InuIIII HM..." rmtuaIHIiHuwfi; ommfl AhHHdpgmcdoos ............ . . . . I . . I I I . . . . .L.P.IILII.I...... .. ..M...\..HI.M\$ .fiu III". <.. y mf...w..n.Ir..«L. .ILI,.. .II IFPIT ... 5.1.; o .I. I mpcmSpoaad mwdmuod amocbv . . ....... .. . . . .....4: .. ....... .4..4.H.H......_..... saga”? II I meH m mbomu ... I. .............. . .......... .. ... ...IIL.L.L...L..wr.I.r. .L. . . T. ..I....IM. .aIInaqucIImam» -JIVIII. ,..,...Im..I...I.r.m_.I..I..I..I....... L . I 4L4 ..INIIIIIM «WMMIIIHMIII MWMIMIAMIIMI.“..I.INII.MWIII.~.IVIIWII. ommfi Ahaaacgpnmucfi . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...... ".... I. II exam. ......“an II: II ”...4.. .I... ...I. . ... ..I....IBAII..In....I.I..... . L III? ..I. .3 I; If ... a _ WPGOEDIOHHd QMGQHOG hmflcpv j H.H.M.H....I_........Imam...............”.H..IH.H.U...._....._.H.H.H......M..I._.U....U..... ..... .I I... III . 32 I. I505 I . I . . I . ..... I I . ...I....II... ................. . . I ....... ..4.th I .I.I.. L. rWuI. alun III-”Iqw. 1...}.me I ..)4....h UL. ... — szm ts- . to . . t o I o . I Q I I ... ‘ s: . .33 I ..‘\.I .s. I I ...... . : ...I.. . .\ _ ... \ . n a I. .c .I . v I . . . ..I n. I- I . .... - 4 O . O 1 II o I . h h \ ~ . o I. 9" I I .. I . < \D- r . I‘ I n I I I v » I . y . . I r a . . ... fi . a D: .. . C. I I. I 'A l I. . I l . I I II 5 n I I I. I. . c -. Cl.o . I l . I . , . I a. . I K O l I a.‘. . .o . I. t I I I. l . I n I ‘0 I I V. . . . _ I I \ . . ll |\c ‘\\ . D I § ‘ .1 ¢ .I . D . , .. - I n I \ . I Q \ IrI ‘.)\'..Q I.. .... .7 C. I. o ‘ ‘ v.. I . ‘ .. . . I . n . . . u. . u a A I \ o O I . I .. ‘ . I s v. ......L... . u» . can .. u 4 I‘ a. O 5 , .. . . I . u\. Ii~ J}. I: .. . .a V — vi 1. < . o . ~ u o . I. u a. I 1 on . . A t .c I v _ . . I a . . I. ...I. ~ . I ,. \. . .4 .‘ l. p . o 0 IV. . b I I ‘ 1 l o. l I. I I r. I u . I . A‘ .a Q . p . I . 0.! . u ....t. . n I ..I.‘. n... .. . . . . I .I I o I I o. I .I I .. o D .. v. . do I O .-.. I . I a , o I. 0 I . . I I u _ l . . . l u . I .o‘ I -33.. GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 (Under (Under allotments - allotments (over intentionally) accidentally allotments) 19h9 1950 19119 1950 1915) 19m Percent of ' " 'fi potato acre- §£$ age covered _ $2 with barn- § at “o" :. ht? ': '. g:- y r manure ”pm .hg “I t. z: f! .'O L. "‘ ':3 ' ‘i! ‘:‘ ‘:‘I'-‘ :r'.‘.‘ b. '1 ' g. :3- 60 x ”mm ‘. . :.' 3':‘ s -. Ln '3 . . h “ ' ':.' \ i , l 'n 3;: ,: :..i “a .‘1 P" ..I .:5 g :u L. :;' 0' {:E‘I i D :o‘ .;: I- ‘h . ' . :3 “I. so '" 3': :5 :i 33:35 .: hi {9‘ ,. I' ' | I . _ ' . I 'r: "1 :-‘ -. 5; I'i‘ art's-u: :' I' " c 1 o .\ I . ‘n. duh ”an '.' ' H: " ‘ 3: ”‘9. ~:. ' ' :. 5 :1" n ... .l l.| . ':. .'; I“ I: I ..': ....T'...” I: I: E}. '- i-' " 'I f. :I' -. Q, ’. - j, d .‘ ‘ :l: .2 3.. - ..: q: t: . . :‘l . . ..I.. ...‘K‘ ' ‘ . ‘ ‘. ‘ - .I I. I a... I‘. b 1'. ‘ ‘ ~:. :3 “' q '; ~:‘ " ‘- :::.:.::‘e: ‘:: .1 ;.' . I ‘:: .':: I ': g ‘I: \‘I.' 0:! . . .;' q? -: . - ‘h \ I: '3.“ .I . z‘:':-.' a“: "t: E: ' 'fi; -- I - 5.. '.. '_ :'. 5.. . .5 .I' 11":- P1 .' ,II :_ ”'3. oh... '31 ‘ . ' I-' ‘l: .u‘ .I I . I :3: ' '_o:'::: I" it: '-; ‘.' ._ .i: H; . -.-_::_' ... I a: g ;, q: . . '. ... g: -I‘ 3:: :-I' E:-‘ ':.‘-:: 3’” :3“ :-: “E =-. is 5‘! $3.2: * -:: .': :.' -. in :1. '.3; ‘ 5;“ *2 .I- a. '1: :.' ::- 'i: =: . I .. .I: I ‘ I .. . :0 .-‘. ‘. D '.- "0 ‘0 I" ': .‘ :I' |' :. -;: 3 ;;. -::. -;:.. t... ::: ‘.; .3 :3 3;: :.= .; :. :-I ‘- 5 .'i :-'= $15: 'i: -I' ‘3 .;.' ': ‘= :I' 3:. -: J Hrt §¥t ‘93 zfififi ihfi .0: ... 0". ‘I: ::‘ . 3. ‘ ' ‘- '.t- - . -. .: . . -. - L. -: ‘. -. :=- ‘- t- =-: r- =-- ' ;. 0:. ... 0 3‘ ‘:.6. ':u ... :I :1: .: :.l E“. ... :. 't: .:: - J: :'. .3: I: he :‘:: :-: :z: |:. ‘_. Sh ‘:- c :-I :3; p :I' 3- . :f- ‘:=- ':-'. :;. =-: -: :.‘ .9: .'-: -:: .‘2 ;. Viz-'1‘- ‘-' .'3 :-‘: :.‘ :i- 5:. -: :2‘ 't .--;. -: '2. '13.‘: _' :. '3' u: 3: :- “.7- ‘-: , :-; 1:1 2:; '-: - 4‘,._-,. .. I _.‘.,- .;._;; o.. ., ‘.;.: ' .I :1 ‘ " ' :' I .t 2 " '0'. ' . :0 9:: ~:“ ‘:' I : '5 | .: «...: :- _: ‘--: :' '. ‘. . .. v .:.'0.‘. I'.:_. '. In I: . ' .~_ ... .: . L ~:. ‘ . ... . . .z. I‘- ,a' ~ I b ‘I- ‘ 0' . I: .. I ., . .I I .. u' . "'l'.- "h" .‘-'.'. .‘t- n': 0.' r c P. I': :‘: .2. ::-’ $:'. :': ' : :7. :t‘ v: ... . :3- .q .4 Eh. :3: c# .:, .'. :_ >~ q. .'. :1 “- ;. .- v; - ' -:. 3": '. : Ffia‘: . ' --. -:2 ' . ' -3.'- -;, fit ;. '2- '-; . .. 2:; '. I- 3: '1: -.' :3' "; - '-: :: -:':'1:-, - . . “.5 . -: fig! 2:: r” =-: - =-. w. 1;: J :z- 2‘ ::. :=:' .s.' ' “'2‘ a ' .‘i r .4: -:: v- i::- E 4 :z: :z; :- ' :3.’ :g ' :1~ '1' g .'I P‘ ‘g. a ‘ . sq :-, :z- '-\-»' ’ :- -:. L-r . 3: .3: _ Percent of potato acre- age preceded by a plow- under crop 60- SO; h0*' .I'. :::: 3O ----- ’sa'”. ‘ 20F” %#:¢: ‘1. 31 . $.35. ' '1 c I ."o 9555’?- 1' _ a .- . . :- ‘1‘1‘ " 7‘95 ’_ 5, ,1 vi 0 ' t' l I l ’ W31". cuff: cf .I— ., ..— 4\ - 5:! $15. 1"". ,5 . IV 10 ‘ .,_~_, . "a i . 4r ,- . n '1', “a '. 0'. K .polqi. .‘ 'g'w. .- ' Zing.- . ' aw; .‘r ’."..'.' {gt-33- F5314}: L".'.‘)-,l.2 . {.I‘ ”.5. I: .. ...IJ 4%.? ...”;u:,.~ ' -f'-.~" : t" "'4? “ . .'- tk‘ Figure 8. Use of barnyard manure and plow~under crops in potato fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, by groups according to compliance with potato acreage allotments. -39 The potato farmers interviewed used barnyard manure mostly for potatoes. On the majority of the farms visited, barnyard manure was spread primarily on corn ground. Use of FloriUnder Crops Green manure crops preceded approximately 50 to 60 percent of all potato acreage in both 19h9 and 1950 (Figure 8). There was no signi- ficant variation by groups. It should be noted that plowing under green manure crops for over 50 percent of planted potato acreage is adding considerably to the soil fertility and.productivity of the relatively light soils of Montcalm county. SUMMARY The results of this study were as expected for fertilization but very much different than anticipated as far as acreage planted was concerned. Potato farmers who were planning to use price supports in 1950 stepped.up fertilization about 18 percent. Their total acreage was the same as in 19b9. The farmers who had used price supports in l9h9 but were not, at the time of the interviews, planning to use them.in 1950, increased fertilization 12 percent. This group increased pota- to acreage 9 percent. The control group of farms not using price supports either year made no change in fertilization and increased acreage only 2 percent. -ho The farms under acreage allotments intentionally,had decreased acreage by 10 percent as requested.by the Secretary of Agriculture. These farms used 1. percent more fertilizer in 1950 than in 19h9. This was the type of attempted substitution of capital for land anticipated in a major hypothesis in this study. The farms that were said to be under their allotments accident- ally;will leave real doubt in the minds of those who read this report since they increased acreage 8.55 percent. No absolute proof can'be given as such, but it is believed that the manner in which the acre- age allotments are handled permits the farms geared.for potato pro- duction to keep on producing without acreage reduction. 0n the farms that planted potatoes in excess of allotments, the fertilization and acreage changes were almost exactly opposite to those on farms intentionally under allotments. Farms over allotments increased acreage 17 percent and, at the same time, decreased the application of commercial fertilizer by“? percent. Both of these changes were proven to be statistically significant. The final results from the first portion of this study show that farms using price supports on potatoes in 1950 increased fertilization significantly but failed to reduce acreage. Farms not using price supports either year, the control group, made no change in either ferti- lization or acreage. The results of the second portion of this study were that farms intentionally under potato allotments in 1950 increased fertilization and decreased acreage. Those farms over allotments decreased fertili- zation and increased total potato acreage. CHAPTER III CHANGES IN WHEAT FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN By'Farme According to Use of Price Supports and Compliance with Acreage Allotments in 1950 Although Michigan is not a major wheat producing state wheat is an important cash crOp for many Michigan farmers. In 1950 one-third of the total cash receipt from the sale of field crops came from 'wheat.16 More farmers sell wheat than any other cash crop grown in Michigan and therefore have an interest in what happens to its price. “Wheat has many supplementary and complementary relationships with other crops in rotations used on Michigan farms. In rotations where wheat follows early harvested row crops such as beans, silage corn, or soy beans, the wheat can be sewn with a minimum of tillage Operations. In a rotation with late harvested.row creps like corn for grain, or sugar beets, oats follow the row crOp and wheat often follows oats.. If a farmer wishes to break up a sod for reseeding he can often plow early, summer fallow, sow wheat, and reseed the followb ing spring. Wheat can either be sold or fed to livestock thus giving some flexibility to the choice of enterprise combinations. Most of the decisions on production practices to be followed for wheat are made prior to planting time. Since all wheat grown in Michigan is winter wheat, the 1950 wheat crop was planted in the fall of 19h9. This was far ahead of the outbreak of fighting in Korea and 16. Michigan Price Report Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S.D.A. Lansing, August, 1951. -h1- -h2 the rise of agricultural prices (Figure 2). Some spring top dressing of wheat is practiced but it can be assumed that practically all of the commercial fertilizer that was applied to the 1950 wheat crop was applied at the time of planting. It was believed that changes in the acreage and fertilization of wheat from l9h9 to 1950 would show effects of the price support pro- gram on production practices used on Michigan farms. This phase of the study will be devoted to the analysis of these changes. FARMS GROUPED BY INTENDED USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS In order to measure possible changes in production practices brought about by the price support program, the farms raising wheat ‘were first grouped according to intended use of price supports for wheat in 1950. Group A. Farms whose operators planned to use price supports for their 1950 wheat crops. Group B. Farms whose Operators had used price supports for ‘wheat in l9h9 but were not planning to use them in 1950. Group C. Farms whose operators had not used price supports for wheat in l9h9 and were not planning to use them in 1950. There were 333 farms in the survey that had grown wheat in both l9h9 and 1950. Of this number, 271 usually sold wheat, and 52 fed all - h3 wheat produced to livestock. Only farms that usually sold wheat were included in this phase of the study. General Information A great difference was noted in the use of price supports for wheat as compared with potatoes. Only 8 percent planned to use price supports in 1950 (Group.A). .About 13 percent of the farms were chang- ing from supports to no supports (Group B), and the remaining 79 per- cent'which did not use price supports either year comprised Group C. The farms in Groups A and C averaged about the same size, while those in Group B were considerably larger (Table VI). Either the larger operators were not interested in cutting acreage in 1950 to qualify for price supports, or the expected difference in price, after the outbreak of war in Korea, did not seem to justify the extra trouble of getting price supports. The larger producers in each of these studies seemed to be more conscious of changes in prices, etc. Change in Acreage (The Korean affair could not have affected wheat acreage planted in the fall of l9h9. This is important, as there were major changes in acreage planted. Group A reduced acreage about 16 percent and Group B reduced acreage approximately 13 percent. These were signi- ficant changes. At the same time, Group 0 showed no change between acreage grown in 19h9 and 1950 (Table VII). - uh - TABLE VI, GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE FARNS RAISIEG WHEAT -- BY USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS GROUP A GROUP B GROUP C Number of farms 23 3h 91h Average size of farms 188.17 252.96 180.12 Average bushels of wheat ' produced in 19h9* 785.h7 ‘ 1036.50 592.29 Average bushels of wheat usually 8016* 580026 789014? (459005 4 These are averages of farms for which estimates of both the 19h9 production and amounts usually sold were available. The repre- sent 19 farms in Group A, 26 farms in Group B, and 189 farms in Grmp Co - hS - odomo mm.4w m~.mw HH.m+ :~.om a:.mm a~.~e no.0“ 0H.am A nonwfiwopou Hedonossoo no .930 .39 935. 03583 no.4. m~.mm ” Ha.am No.0: mo.om oo.wm mw.HH. am.ow gm.:m eouaanacom once you made: omwaopd sm.o- am.mam w;.sam om.s- mm.mom «n.0mm coo.m. no.umm sm.sww eouaaastou ,7,» t tar ones can mucsoa owwem>< «5.0: mm.mm mm.mm mm.ma hm.mm oc.mm «0.0a mm.;m am.mw wouwaaauom mono mo pcopcmm cogauadnfioh Ho oaam om , ~w.aw em.aw wm.mw m~.4n 4H.mm m4.~m macaw cocoa mwauope mass- o~.amm4 oa.mams em.mau o~.mooa oa.o;HH mo.ma: om.wmm oo.amo macaw moses Hence mmmmmmwr< HH.o- man man mm.n. mm s an 00.0 a“ «a scam: ussacnmwawwmmmw as“ saw an an nu ma segue no tones: Haves immense {omensu o no memommbm MDHE .8 amp Mmll 0mm." 03. meH EOE 05 $5000 $0256 93 ommfi use mama 2H EHegHQHEm 30%,.200 Eé. mgmrgd 94mg .55 SEE. - h6 Use of Commercial Fertilizer The changes in fertilization were not as striking as for pota- toes. However, there were changes that must be recognized (Table VII). Of the 23 farms planning to use price supports (Group A), 22 used fertilizer both years. Of the total wheat acreage 90 percent was fertilized in l9h9 as compared.with 95 percent in 1950. This group used 8 pounds or h percent more fertilizer as well as 8 percent higher analysis fertilizers. This made a total increase of 12 per- cent over the level of fertilization used in l9h9. The farms changing from supports to no supports (Group B), used 10 pounds less fertilizer per acre on the average, but due to the use of stronger fertilizers, made no change in units of plant food per acre. In the group not using price supports either year (Group C) the 185 farms that used commercial fertilizer in 19h9 averaged 216 pounds per acre fertilized which was almost identical with the 215 pounds per acre used by 183 farms in 1950. Although there was no significant change in pounds per acre, there was an increase in units of plant food accounted for by the use of fertilizers with higher analyses. Change in.Analysis of Fertilizers Used All three groups used fertilizers with higher analyses in 1950 than.in l9h9 (Table VII). Much more 3-12-12 was used and less 2-12-6. Nineteen-fifty was the first year that more 3412412‘was sold in Michi— gan than 2-12-6. (Appendix B). - A? Change in Levels of Fertilization There was a definite shift in the levels of fertilization by Group A. This was partially due to a 5 percent larger portion of the total wheat acreage getting some fertilizer (Figure 9). Little change was noted in Groups B and C. The three levels established for this comparison were: low, 0 to hh units of plant food per acre; medium, hS to 7h units; and high, 75 units and over. Use of Barnyard Manure Farmers did not usually use manure on wheat ground. Less than 20 percent of the total wheat acreage was covered in either 19h9 or 1950 (Figure 10). Group C used slightly more manure in l9h9 than the other two groups. Group A covered less acreage than Groups B and.C in 1950. Use of Green Manure Less than 10% of the total wheat acreage of the farms in this survey was preceded by a plow-under crop (Figure 10). Group A in- creased the acres of green manure used from.h percent in l9h9 to 12 percent in 1950. Groups B and C showed little change. The total acres of green.nenure used are so small that the changes lack sigi- ficance. Wheat must be planted in the fall in Michigan and green manure crops have not been used extensively ahead of the wheat crop in many rotations. .hobo was news: m5 swag as. .mwwqo JP on m: .Esfipoa «once you poom vcdfia mo mews: J: 0» o .3oq* ommfl SH mppommsm cowem no ow: hm ommfl was meH as *maobou meowhd> pd ponwawpuom Pdosa.:w owaouo: mo paoonom .m chowdm Hobog Scam pd poneawpnom owdono4.mo Pcoouom OOH om on 2. oo cm 3 om om S . J] a 1 _ a] . 4| . _ mqmfi fleas» hoarse l L: mpuoamcm wawmm pozv 4... ......................... 1i! ........ L 0mm; o .595 . no he . _ .............................. Ca} .......... w wJOH Awppommsm on 09 ................................................. .. WPMORQSW #:0on wCHWQJSOv 1 ....................... .....L ...... mfifiafifwm......wfl.. ommfl m abomm 4..L....... .L.......... ............... 2........ «name... .21.“. 53L... .:.s£&£umwwmobwwm2wmmu ..... ..wfi at. OJOH Amphommsm —cu ....................... xx:.gw.w ....... .n ............. we» .oofiem amp op wcflenwamv 4| ................... . .......... rink. ~ ... ... .rflkflmt 4...: .DOmU _.....H.H.H.H.H..xewe“.anal.”..H....H..H.H.H....M....0......” .... a; 82 a _|L_ 33 season Tag :fi 5. a fig - ‘GROUP A GROUP B GROUP C (Planning (Changing from (Not using to use price supports to supports supports) no supports) either year) 19H9 1950 19h9 1950 19h9 1950 Percent of A wheat acre- age covered — . m with barn- yard manure 60 _ . 50 v to - -* 30 - a 20 - - _ If": $3 . qr:- *a‘h -. e1: fig}: 10 - it; 53%;: it». w ~ is t a: a; eat it iga. r..s Percent of . wheat acre- age preced- .4 ed by a ploweunder cro - P 60 _. . 50 " ‘T to "‘ ' 50 '2 l 20 L - 10 - " . - 1% E Figure 10. Use of barnyard manure and plow-under crops in wheat fertilization in 19h9 and 1950, by use of price supports in 1950. - 50 FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The second portion of this study deals‘with acreage allotments and their effect on wheat acreage on fertilization. The farmers were grouped as follows: Group 1. Wheat growers who were under their allotments intentionally. Group 2. 'Wheat growers who were under their allotments accidentally. Group 3. 'Wheat growers who were over their acreage allotments. General Information Of the 271 farms that usually sold wheat 255 were definitely known to be either under or over their allotments. (Table VIII). About hO percent, 109 farms, were under allotments, and about 60 percent, 150 farms,'were over allotments. Of those that had complied, 38 were under allotments intentionally (Group 1) and 67 accidentally (Group 2). The farms in Group 1 averaged 229 acres in size, those in Group 2, 169 acres, and in Group 3, 192 acres. Groups 1 and 3 usually sold about 30 percent more wheat than Group 2. Change in Acreage There were major changes in the acres grown by the three groups from l9h9 to 1950. Group 1 reduced acreage 11 percent and Group 2 re- duced acreage 12 percent (Table IX). The farms in Group 2 increased acreage 7 percent. None of these groups decreased acreage by as much as the 19 percent which was the reduction requested.by the Secretary - 51 - TABLE VIII. GENERAL INFCRKATION FOR THE FARMS RAISING WHEAT --- BY COI'TLIAI-ICE W 1TH ACREAGE ALLOI‘T-ENTS GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 Number of farms 38 67 150 Average size of farms 228.63 168.52 192.h2 Average bushels of wheat ' produced in 19h9* 680.03 51L.02 726.63 Average bushels of wheat usually sold* 513.h3 392.82 570.56 '* These are averages of farms for which estimates of both the l9h9 production and amounts usually sold were available. 32 farms in Group 1, 55 farms in Group 2, The represent and 133 farms in Group 3. - 52 - i 2.31 oméw 2.3 «do. smfiw 3.8 3.07 mmém 5:3 833.23 decadence». no .930 pea Baa: emote: 8.4. ome 8.3 $.06. 3.0m Rafi $37 3.8 mmém eofiaflemm when Mom means owunobd 48.6.. +3.8“ 3.8“ nw.«. i..~ww mafia“ and... 5..me 8.4mm eofififiou once non ocean omeuobd mmooc 86m owomw 3.0. omenm mHJm $.04 3.5 5.5m “6359.8.“ mono no ecoonom Savanwfiphoh no 3am .m mm.am em.mm ao.oa ma.a~ ow.mu Hm.c« geese cocoa omecmpa .86.. 3.35 o«.momm 3.st 2.3.: 8&3." £33.. om.mmm 8.39“ cream 83a H309 ammug .4 $4.. em.” «9“ 3.4. we 3 no.0. an mm cmfiflfidm m5»: 25mm no 909532 03“ 03 we no on on 383 no e395: dupe“. oufimb gene oflano .828 are $3 88%: amp 3% .....BRL omfi S3 m. deems « goes a «.85 mfinmébqqd. madame... EH3 mo?dH.Hnm.Hoo amt... OMmH op mama avg 0&5508 ragga an? 0mmH and mama“ a firH .3. NHHH 95m .HeHomrnamoo mad mo on m: .ecapoe “once you poem pdwam mo moans J: on o .30Aa apnoEpOHH< oweeho< phone.mpw§.oocmaamfioo op wcwcnoeo< .ommH one mfima cw *mHoboA msofiua> as nonwaaphom peo::.cw owwouo4 mo encouom . 2 98»: debug seem as couwawpeem oweouo< mo Pnoouom 00H om om ow om om 0: 0m ll . J 4 a II". M #1 . - . .4 ...... rrfilub, .. .AWI-14J41 0.0.0000...- ..... 00.000.000.00..- ...ooooco...o ............. ...-on. ...oo-oo-oooooioonoo. .O o. ..... Jul nocLJLLdlqd‘(1i ...-cocoogo-o. .9... . ....o.. I ..OooOoOOo 0-OQOOOOOFOOQOLOOEQOoo . a ...... A 9......- . ..... .... I ........o.... ‘1 ll‘dddl. ommfl “mafiaveepwooe mpceEpoaae owwohoa keocbv ..... .0... OLPOOD.0 .- oh” WR‘RJ mjmfi N Abomu ...-...... .... .Aolo‘o..o..a+ml ....ao-c....ooo.oooo... - g . o ....... .A to Pugs: 95\».‘Z. j I‘LQ.‘ omma Ahaaeeoaecovce . «...-o .....co.................. ............oo..oo.oe...oeo co. .0 ... . o...o.«v.\.£DM... “\HM\H&R%MM%¢ JAN... V............................... . .......o........o.......... ....... .... ... ......o \OpthvaLWA‘Vfiflhkhdflntifl mpgmngHHm mwamoHOd Amonbv . .. ........ .H....H.H.....H.“.H.H. .. game. 22 H some .... ... .................. co . co. co... LIP” «.... fiumfi’i 05' ...I.": I“ All ’IL WM :3 T“. 5.3.: E .3 E l... Percent of wheat acre- age covered with barn- yard manure 60 50 ho 30 - 20 10 Percent of wheat acre- age preceded by a plowa under crop 60 50 ho 30 20 10 Figure 12. -56- ‘» GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 (Under (Under allotments allotments (Over intentionally) accidentally) allotments) 191.9 1950 19249 1950 +919 1950 g E! I.“ 1" . '..°." ."' “ 30.=0“1'£‘£ we' '.fi".¢':"a’i’.§.’-'.v.‘.". . .. O 0. 4 g ‘9' ‘11:»: .95.- .-. “9‘ 5.1.3.; Use of barnyard manure and plow~under crops in wheat fertilization in l9h9 and 1950, by groups according to compliance with wheat acreage allotments. -'57 SMART The farms that'were planning to use price supports reduced acreage 16 percent and increased the-average amount of units of plant food used per acre 18 percent. Farms changing to no supports decreased acreage 13 percent but showed little change in fertiliza- tion. Farms not using price supports either year held acreage constant and used the same amounts of fertilizer in terms of pounds in 1950 as were used in l9h9. However, the use of fertilizers of higher analyses gave this group a small increase in units of plant food used per acre. Very little barnyard manure or green.manure 'was used on wheat. In the second half of the wheat study there were only minor differences in the amounts of fertilizer used by each group. How. ever, farms under allotments intentionallx,and those under allot- ments accidentall$,decreased acreage 11 percent and 12 percent respectively'while farms over allotments increased total wheat acre- age 7 percent from 19h? to 1950. The farms planning to use price supports have decreased acre- age and increased fertilization while farms not using price supports made little change. This supports the original hypothesis of the study. ‘When the farms were sorted according to compliance with acreage allotments the evidence appeared less conclusive but the tendency was in the same direction. CHAPTER IV CHANGES IN BEAN FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN By Farms According to Use of Price Supports and.Compliance with.Acreage Allotments in 1950 The purpose of this phase of the study is to determine the effect of price supports and acreage allotments on the fertilization of beans. Price supports for dry beans were not mandatory under the Agricultural Act of 19h9. However, Secretary Brennan saw fit to include them under the protection that price supports afford to producers. Effective operation of any price support program requires a prac- tical balance between supplies and requirements. The alldtime record crop of 20 million bags in 19h9 put a large supply of beans in storage. It was estimated that a carryhover of 10,150,000 bags would be on hand on September 1, 1950, when the 1950 crOp started rolling to market. It was deemed necessary to reduce production in order to shrink this tremendous carryhcver of beans. Since the price mechanismeas not allowed.to function freely, it was necessary to reduce production by reducing acreage. Therefore, acreage allotments were placed on bean growers allowing approximately 80 percent of their normal acreage. "With the price-support-acreage-allotment program in effect, and assuming good cOOperation by producers and average yields, the 1950 crop will likely total around 13,000,000 bags, cleaned basis. Adding the estimated carrybover as of September 1, 1950, of 10,150,000 bags, and probable imports of 50,000 bags in 1950-51, gives a total supply of 23,200,000 bags for the year ending SepteMber 1, 1951. -58- -59 "Domestic disappearance and exports for this same period are estimated as 15,500,000 bags, which would leave a carry-over of 7,700,000 bags on September 1, 1951. This reserve is probably more than would be necessary to stabilize supplies at the contem- plated levels of production and consumption. But experience has proved that dry bean yields may fluctuate considerably from year to year, and the size of the 1950 crop could vary substantially from the estimate." 17 The 1950 crop did vary substantially from the estimate. Instead of 13,000,000 bags of beans, approximtely 15,128,000 bags were pro- duced in 1950le8 However, this was a 21; percent decrease from the 191.9 crop of 19,890,000 bags. The national acreage also decreased 19 per- cengg which was almost the exact reduction, 20 percent, requested by the Secretary of Agriculture. FARMS GROUPED BY INTENDED USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS One hundred seventy of the 578 farmers in this over-all survey grew beans in both 19149 and 1950. In order to measure the effect of the governmental price support program on changes in fertilization the 170 farms were divided into three groups according to intended use of price supports: 17. Dry Edible Bean ngram for 1950, Production and Marketing Admin- istrationfUnitef States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C. March, 1950. 18. Crop Production, Crop Reporting Board of the Bureau of Agricultur- EI Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. 0. August 10, 1951. l9. Crop Production, (Annual Summary), Crop Reporting Board, Bureau RAgicfltwal Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. December, 1950. -6O Group.A. Farms whose operators planned to use price supports for their 1950 been crops. Group B. Farms whose Operators had used price supports in 19h9 but were not planning to use them.in 1950. Group C. Farms whose Operators had not used price supports for beans in 19h9 and were not planning to use them in 1950. The farms in.Group.A'were expected to have reduced acreage and increased fertilization. Group B, because of the number of operators in this group who had originally planned to use price supports, was expected to react similarly to Group A. Little change in fertilization was foreseen for Group C. General Information Fortyhtwo of the 170 farms were planning to use price supports in 1950 (Group.A). Thirtybfour had.used supports in 19h9 but were not planning to use them in 1950, (Group B), and 9h farms, 56 percent, did not use price supports either year and.fe11 into Group C (Table X). There was little variation in average size of farm of the three groups. However, the groups did vary in average bushels of beans usually sold. Group A led with 3h0 bushels, Group B was second with 305, while the farmers in Group C sold an average of 26h bushels. This would indicate that the larger bean producers are taking greater cognizance of the price support program. All three groups indicated that a larger than average crop had been harvested in l9h9. On a national basis, the l9h9 bean crop was the largest ever harvested in this country. Many of the _ 61 - TABLE X. GRIEPAL INF GREAT ION FOR THE FA. ”18 1'51?le BER‘IS -- BY USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS GROUP A GROUP B ‘ GROUP C Number of farms 1;? 3h 91; Average size of farms 168.60 175.00 165.30 Average bushels of beans produced in 19u9 * h51.56 h01.5h 325.55 Average bushels of beans usually sold * 3no.3h 3oh.6h 263.85 *‘These are averages of farms for which estimates of both the 19h9 production and amounts usually sold were available. They repre- sent 32 farms in Group A, 31 farms in Group B, and 65 farms in Group C. - 62 farmers were pessimistic about the outlook for the 1950 crop.20 Changes in Bean.Acreage Farms whose Operators were planning to use price supports were expected to have reduced acreages. Those in Group A of the bean study did cut acreage but only by 6 percent (Table XI). The farms that were changing from supports to no supports increased acreage 5 percent. Some of these were believed to have refused to reduce acreage and when compliance with acreage allotments was made a prerequisite for price supports they left the program. The 9h farms in Group C are the ones that seemingly threw awrench into the production control program. The Operators who did not use price supports either year increased produc- tion 25 percent over l9h9. The total acreage increase of this group ‘was seven times greater than the total acreage decrease of the 3h farms planning to use price supports (Group A). As was stated in the potato study, the present price support pro- gram tends to hold prices up for all producers by taking a quantity of 20. Just prior to the time that the survey was taken in Sanilac and Saginaw counties, the bean growers had taken a terrible beating by' heavy rains and flash floods. The following was printed in the Annual Summary of Crgp Production in December, 1950: "In Michigan, a sharp decrease of 19 percent in the harvested acreage occurred, and the yield was down from 1,100 pounds in 19h9 to 950 this year. Production is estimated at 3,312,000 bags compared with 5,502,000'bags in 19h9. The crOp was planted a little earlier than.usua1, and.the favorable weather which followed resulted in rapid development of the crop. However, beginning in late July, frequent rains, continuing on to the end of the season, drowned out many whole fields and caused such severe damage to others that growers did not consider them worth harvesting." -63.. mm.mc mu.mm mo.m+ aw.mm Am.a+ 4w.mm nesfiAHonow Hewonmisoo MO .930 pom mowed owmmo>< 0:.wn 0:.mm HH.~H+ :4.om Hm.me OH.mm ponwaflonmh once use some: mmmnm>¢ so.su e~.eea om.mma mm.m. mm.mma. am.o. oo.esfl seasonsnmo upon you momnon emmhmb< m~.m. am.as ©4.m. ma.ma om.o. Hm.os emuseaonmo none no pcmonmm cowpwufiafienmm we seem .m .. m:.mH mm.ou HO.HN czoam menus emnhm>¢ mm.mm4 NJ.AAmH mw.:4 oo.am© mm.ml H4.mmm macaw memos Hmpoe ommoao< .« 2.5.. mi. 8.0 pm 3&6. mm nonfifinom mamas msamm mo noosez am an m: msumm mo posses Hopes ..wwnemzu go go opossum mama wcmonem mama scoonom omma IL. 0 as. m moose 4 gnome memommbm MUme mo mms wmll omma 0» mdma 33mm fiAHmmDooQ mflmndmo 03¢ ommfl new mnmfl RH usHyquJHBmum admamexiju mad mpmnmnd x mm .HN mmde - oh the total production off the market. Thus, when farmers see their neighbors cutting production to go along with the government's cone trol program, it is not uncommon for them to increase their own acreage. Changes in the Use of Commercial Fertilizer The expected results were that farms planning to use price sup- ports had increased the use of commercial fertilizer in 1950 while farms not using price supports would have made little change in fertilization. The farms planning to use price supports, (Group.A), used more fertilizer than the other farms in the study (Table XI). This group also increased the average pounds of fertilizer used per acre from 161 pounds in l9h9 to 171 pounds in 1950. .A significant 11 pound in- crease in pounds of fertilizer used per acre was made by Group B. These two increases occurred while Group C, which had a 25 percent increase in acreage, decreased the rate of fertilization by'5 percent. This change lacked significance. 0f greater importance were the changes in units of plant food used per acre. Group B used fertilizers that averaged 8 percent higher analysis in 1950 than those used.in 19h9. Thus the average units per acre for this group, which was also affected.by the increased pounds per acre, jumped 17 percent. Group.A used only slightly higher analyb sis fertilizers in 1950, but this change multiplied by the 10 pound increase per acre accounted for an 8.5 percent increase in average units -65 per acre. The farmers in Group C were using fertilizers of higher analysis. Many of the potato farmers in this study grow beans as an additional cash crop but do not use price supports as much as the bean growners of the Saginaw valley and Sanilac County. However, they buy fertilizers of higher analysis for their potatoes and use these same kinds of fertilizer on their beans. Changes in Levels of Fertilization The increases in rates Of fertilization made by farms planning to use price supports and those that had used price supports in l9h9 are shown graphically in Figure 513 . In order to show these changes three relative levels Of fertilization were established for beans. These three levels were measured.in units of plant food used per acre. Less than 12 units per acre was classified as low; from.12 to 35 units as medium; and 36 units or over as high. These levels interpreted into pounds would be from O to 59, 60 to 179, and 180 pounds and over of 2-12-6. If 3-12-12 were being used, the levels would be divided at hh pounds and.l33 pounds per acre. These two analyses were most commonly used on beans on the farms studied. Almost half of the 1950 acreage grown by Group A received 36 or more active units per acre. Approximately 7 percent of the acreage receiving medium amounts Of fertilizer in 191.9 were shifted to the higher level 11'. 1950. The shift made by Group B, although less apparent, proved to be statisti- cally significant as previously mentioned. Group C appears in Figure 13. to have increased fertilization'but the average had actually fallen - 66b .Aobo on: means on .ewne eds ..pnes mm op ma .eeneoa .etes ted eeeo cease a. some: HH o» 0 ..ea. ommH cw ephommnm oownm mo omb.hm .omma one meH cw *mflobog msoaunb an oouwaaphoh modem cw owoonod mo enoonom Hobon seem so wouwawvhoh ownou0¢.mo pnoohom cow om om ON on om on . . ll .LLLi 11) (1111(1iil‘14-1I “‘.u‘é .0....0...0....c.o.0.0.0...0.0.00..— '00...00000..... 0.0.. ... r...0..0..0.00.....0...00.0.....fir .......... 0tP..lop .EP. ‘1’, .0.000.000....000-00.0.0.....aw 0 .000...... ..... 0.0 ..... 0.0. .mH enemas Anne» nonpao mpnoamom mafia: #ozv o abomw 0 .LbiFP~O aim BOA 1....“ abnoofi Ampnoamsm on op uphoamsm scam wnwwnnnov m abomo Awesommsm ocwnm on: op weannoamv d Abomw - 67 Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used Group B increased the use of higher analysis fertilizers in 1950 and averaged 2h.6 units per hundredweight of commercial fertilizer as compared with 22.7 units in l9h9. This increased amount, however, was approximately the same as already was being used by the other two groups 0 Use of Barnyard Manure There was little change from l9h9 to 1950 in percent of acreage covered with barnyard.manure (Figure 1h). Farms planning to use price supports covered about 2h percent, farms changing to and supports, 29 percent; and farms not using price supports, approximately 13 percent. In the latter case, many of the farmers were growing potatoes and most of their manure was used on potato ground. The results indicate no change in use of barnyard manure on beans as a result of the price support program. Use of Green Manure Less than one quarter of the bean ground was preceded by green manure crops (Figure 1h). Changes were noted, however. Group A in. creased from 22 to 28, the percent of been acreage receiving plowh under crops, and.Group C moved.upward from 1h to 19 percent. Group B dropped from 33 percent to 23 percent. -53.. GROUP A GROUP B GROUP C (Planning (Changing from (Not using to use price supports t0 supports supports) no supports) either year) 19b9 1950 19h9 1950 19h9 1950 Percent of I bean acre- age covered u with barn- ard manure 60 L- E 50 - ‘ " ’40 ‘ " L - 50 :3..:." ”UN- -“ "' EEIIW’ - ,fin. Vii 7" 9535‘s: 55513;: 20 - 33‘“. :3533 3:335 " at“ ~§t: §Ufi ‘82:“ 5:51;? 10 ‘ 3‘s 3‘1: 3% 3io' ’5‘ s. 3! ‘W i 1t3t- tkfi ti? hi5 33¢ at. the had Percent of bean acre- . age preceded “ ~ by a plow- undcr crop i 60 " 50 ‘ “ no ‘ 30 20 10 Figure 1h. Use of barnyard manure and plowuundcr crops in bcan fertilization in 19h9 and 1950, by use of price supports in 1950. - 69 FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS Bean acreage allotments were in effect in 1950 following the record.crop of l9h9. It was expected that farms going along with acreage allotments intentionally, i.e., in order to be eligible for price supports, would have reduced acreage and.increased.rate. of fertilization. In order to test the effect of acreage allotments the farmers were divided into three groups: Group 1. Bean growers who were under their allotments intentionally. Group 2. Bean growers who were under their allotments accidentally. Group 3. Bean growers who were over their acreage allotments. General Information A total of 157 of the original 170 bean growers in this study knew their 1950 allotments. They also gave their reasons for being under or over the prescribed acreage for their farms. This permitted the division of these 157 farms into the three groups described above (Table XII). Thirtybone farms were under allotments in order to get price supports or go along with the government program (Group 1). Twentybfive farmers were said to be under allotments by mere coinci- dence or due to no special planning (Group 2). The big majority of the farms, 101, had planted acreage in excess of their allotments (Group 3). TABLE XII. GENERAL BEFORE-EAT Ion FOR THE mars RAISING BEANS -- BY composes WITH ACREAGE ALLCTI~E1~ITS GROUP 1 GROUP ? GROUP 3 Number of farms 31 25 .101 Average size of farms 185.71 195.56 160.h8 Average bushels of beans produced in l9h9“ h7S.96 380.88 37h.92 Average bushels of beans usually sold* 381.25 262.65 275.h3 * These are averages of farms for which estimates of both the 19h9 production and anounts usually sold were available. They repre- sent 2h farms in Group 1, 17 farms in Group 2, and 72 farms in GI‘OUP 30 - 71 The average size of farms in the three groups showed that those under allotments (Groups 1 and 2) averaged considerably Larger than the farms over allotments. There is a definite tendency for the larger farms to be making more use of the price support provisions of the agricultural program than smaller farms. The average production figures for l9h9'were: Group A, h76 bush- els; Group B, 381 bushels; and Group C, 375 bushels. All three groups indicated that their l9h9 production.was approximately one-third greater than the amount of beans normally sold. Changes in Bean Acreage The farms that intentionally went along with the production con- trol program, (Group 1) decreased acreage by 9 percent. Group 2, those farms under allotments accidentally, went even further reducing their acreage by 23 percent. The total reduction of these two groups, howb ever, was more than offset by the 30 percent increase in total bean acreage by the 101 farms in Group 3. Many students of price control programs had feared this type of reaction on the part of farmers. It ‘was thought that some would reduce acreage in order to receive a guar- anteed price that might be higher than the expected open market price. The manner in which the government is forced to maintain the price of beans and other grains by law makes it possible for farmers to ignore allotments, increase acreage and sell this increased production on the Open market which is indirectly supported by the government. This inp ‘direct support comes by way of the government's legal.responsibility to buy the grain from those producers who went along with the program. - 72 This, of course, is a strong argument for direct payments. Use of Commercial Fertilizer The farms complying with acreage allotments were expected to have used more fertilizer per acre in 1950 than in l9h9 and also to have used more fertilizer per acre than farms over allotments. The farms over allotments were expected to have little change in fertilization. Farms under allotments intentionally (Group 1) increased the rate of fertilization from 128 to 153 pounds per acre (Table XIII). This was a 25 pound or 19 percent increase. They fertilized a 6 percent smaller portion of their total bean acreage, however, and used fertili- zers that averaged 6 percent weaker than those used in 19h9. Theactual increase in fertilization, as measured by units of plant food per acre fertilized, was 12 percent. Farms under allotments accidentally (Group 2) increased by 13 per- cent the portion of total acres fertilized but used 15.5 percent less fertilizer per acre. This group led.in pounds per acre both years but dropped.from an average of 198 pounds in 19h9 to 167 pounds in 1950. This 31 pound decrease and.the use of 5 percent weaker fertilizer ac- counted for a 19 percent drOp in active units per acre fertilized. Farms over allotments (Group 3) did not react as expected. This groups had increased acreage 30 percent and little change was antici- pated in fertilization. The rate of application averaged lh3 pounds per acre in l9h9 and 151 pounds in.1950. This 5 percent increase multi- plied by a surprising 10.6 percent increase in strength of fertilizer used, gave Group 3 a large gain of 16 percent in units of plant food -73.. l... \u 1. Evan. '\ same use omma 02¢ meme rH 5 SSH. emu ._ amp ommuamoo 9,3. woenewua. ”Qmm . 5.3. mm...“ anm 9?? 8.4“ 8.8 one a 5.3 3.8 332th 33853 no 3.3a hoe spas: oweeobd mw.ma. mo.em mw.am mm.mH- mo.H; mo.Hm m~.HH. ma.wm «m.an moudaupuom 0.8m pom waded 03.354 0H.m+ mm.omH ma.m:H mm.mau mg.~ma mw.mmH Hm.mao mo.mma mm.ema seawaapcmu ones use messed $33.4 mm}? 3.2. 3.2. 00.2.. $12. 3.8 .361 3.2. no.2. €5.39»: gene we €80qu Swpouudpcom mo 3am .m 9.2 4.1.5 6.3 8.5 $4... 8.4“ :38» notes amuse 3.0? 00.3w“ mnemm: mm. m: 36.3 3.04m mm.mu 2.65 omofl. neon» mouse H509 03984 .< mea a 2. ow.m4 ow ma mmi? 4m mm 33.398...“ on m5. m3 meson no 33832 HOH SH mw mm Hm Hm aspen no sense: Hope“. .Jwfieso omwenu owceso wcooco ommH mesa cocoon cmmH mmMHlnwmwwmwn. omen mmmwli _ m .505 a .538 H goes wpréwnmgnnq Mmaumoa HE Monaqamfio LE .... ommH op mama 30mm camwdpooo .HHHN mama. - 7h per acre fertilized. Change in Levels of Fertilization The actual levels of fertilization used by the groups, measured in terms of units of plant food, show increases for Groups 1.and 3 and a decrease for Group 2 (Figure 15). Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used The units of plant food per hundredweight of commercial fertilizer used varied considerably in allthree groups from.19h9 to 1950 (Table XIII). It is difficult to know whether the changes in analysis of fertilizers used should be attributed to intentional planning on the part of farmers or to the fertilizer manufacturers and distributors who have recently been pushing the sale of fertilizers of higher analy- ses. Regardless of where the credit may lie, the crepe benefit from increased units of plant food per hundredweight and.the cost per unit of plant food is less when stronger fertilizers are used.21 Use of Barnyard.Manure Farms raising'beans under acreage allotments intentionally (Group 1) used.more barnyard manure than Groups 2 and 3 (Figure 16). This group also increased the percent of acres covered from 21 to 27. Groups 2 and 3 both showed slight decreases in 1950. Farms under allotments acciden~ tally (Group 2) covered 16 percent of their bean acreage in 19h9 and 1h percent in 1950. Group 3 covered about 20 percent in 19h9 and 16 percent in 1950. 21. Michigan State College has been encouraging the manufacture and.use of stronger fertilizers because of the greater economy to the farm’- er and saving of labor. - 75 - .uobo one mpwos 0m .gwfi: one “means mm op NH..ESHooE «once com @009 pcofim mo mafia: Ha as o .309* mpsoeuoafld.owooaod.nsom spa: oocofiamsoo op wcwonooo< .ommH one meH cw *wHoboq msowao> pd oouwawpcpm mcoom cw owsoao< mo vcoonom .mH ohswfim Hoboq poem pa woufiafipuom swooped mo pcoohom OOH om om ob oo om 0: on om 0H J! .1 a u a d . n . 1.. Ir) _ , ommfl Ampcospoaao oweouoo nobov _ mama m seems — omma Amfiaopsoofioow wpsospoaae owsocos goocpv ...i... ........ make...»,..flru....rfi¢w 2». “(wakxueuxu skim... m 0H N Abomo ............ ........ ...Vw... WWMEM catfifiwsxs .flz. “mm“vhlmw J ........... ........W.1“q......1.l.4.l.<.ll..l 1.53 5.751.... \. «n3... . n . .fpsaxoausaupsagpsa.:..:.. wemmasvl.sem.swwwswss olmfi Asseseoapeopes - ..... .:L--.22.». . ..z ..s.... #4 .iv . meoEPOflHo smashes poocbv fl 1 i .......H.U.m ....... w sow... . a»; meme H some ........... ..... ..... . . n . a . m _ Boa Tb; Eddofim .MWM nswm - 76 - GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 5 (Under (Under allotments allotments (Over intentionally) accidentally) allotments) 19h9 1950 19h9 1950 19h9 1950 Percent of Bean acre- age covered - « with barn- yard manure 60 p .- 50 r .- ho - - 30 " _ '- :W k :- 5,‘ .4 20 ER . ,: :H“ am t (W {err W! a' «at iii: ‘mil I. . . ‘ifl '3th !‘~‘ 10 "‘ &. .vi :a?- 2‘. — a at“ it“. Eyh' Percent of been acreage preceded by - - a plow-under crop 60 " -_ 50 f- . .- 30 p- .o 20 “' 10 b Figure 16 Use of barnyard manure and ploweunder crops in bean fertilization in 19h9 and 1950, by groups according to compliance with bean acreage allotments. . - 77 Use of Plothnder Crops There were definite variations in the use of plowaunder crops by the three groups (Figure 16). Group 1 increased the percent of acre- age preceded by a green manure crop from.2h to 35. Group 2 used this means of fertilization for 9 percent of its total acreage both years. Group 3, farms over allotments, decreased acreage preceded.by green manure crops from 2h percent in l9h9 to 20 percent in 1950. Thus Group 1 made substantially greater use of ploweunder crops in 1950 than in l9h9 and used more green manure than Groups 2 and 3 in 1950. SUMMARY Acreage allotments were placed on beans in 1950 after an all- time record.crop in l9h9. Farms had to be under their bean allotments to be eligible for price supports. The first portion of the bean study, which attempted.to show'the effect of intended.use of price supports on fertilization, resulted in the following conclusions. Farms planning to use price supports re- duced acreage 6 percent and increased the rate of fertilization 6 per- cent. Farms changing from supports to no supports increased acreage 6 percent and raised fertilization 8 percent. The farms that used no support either year increased planted acreage 25 percent and decreased fertilization 5 percent. The second portion of the study, which attempted to measure the effects of compliance with acreage allotments on fertilization, brought forth these results. Farms intentionally under allotments reduced - 78 acreage 9 percent and increased the rate of fertilization 19 percent. They also made greater use of barnyard.manure and plowaunder crops. Farms accidentally under allotments decreased acreage 23 percent and decreased the rate of fertilization 15.5 percent. Farms over allot- ments increased acreage 30 percent, increased pounds per acre 5 per- cent, and used higher analysis fertilizer. The results indicate that farms intentionally reducing acreage have attempted to substitute capital in the form of fertilizer for land. Thus a reduction in acreage by farms planning to use price sup- ports probably did.not result in an equal percentage decrease in pro- duction. CHAPTER V CHANGES IN CORN FERTILIZATION IN MICHIGAN By Farms According to Compliance with Acreage Allotments in 1950 Corn was the most important crop grown on the farms in this study. In most cases it was used for feed on the farms where it was produced. Of the 578 farms visited, 519 greW'corn in 1950. Only'hB of this num- ber usually sold corn. Thus 90 percent of the farms grew corn but only about 10 percent of those raising corn usually had corn to sell. The Production.and Marketing Administration has seen fit to in- clude most of the southern Michigan counties in the commercial corn growing area of the nation. All of the counties in this study except Sanilac had acreage allotments in 1950. However, farmers who fed their corn were not forced to reduce acreage nor was there any special incentive for them to do so. This phase of the study is limited to the farms that usually sold corn. The reason for this is that it was believed that only these would have been affected by the price support program. This is not entirely true since stabilizing of the price of corn at a level above the normal market price in the long run might encourage Michigan farm- ers to grow a larger share of the corn they need for feed. However, this would not be reflected by changes in fertilization during one year of acreage allotments. The changes in corn fertilization by farms according to intended - 79 _ - 80 use of price supports were not measured. Only 7 farmers in this study were planning to use price supports in 1950 (Group A). Nine of the I48 operators who usually sold corn had used price supports in 191:9. Four of these were not planning to use supports in 1950. Thus, 1; farms fell into Group B. The remaining 37 farmers did not use price sup- ports either year (Group C). The first two groups were too small to give significance to changes in acreage or fertilization. FARMS GROUPED BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The farms were grouped to compare changes in fertilization made by those under acreage allotments in 1950 with those farms over corn acreage allotments. Nineteen farmers had complied and 29 had not. Only 3 farms were under corn allotments intentionally, according to the data collected in the study. These were included with the 16 that complied by coincidence.22 It is believed that changes in acre- age and fertilization shown can not be attributed to the price sup- port program since 16 of the 19 farms under allotments claimed to have complied by accident. General Information Farms under allotments usually sold an average of 1,177 bushels of corn while the other group marketed an average of 1,006 bushels per year (Table XIV). Corn yields in Michigan were exceptionally 22. Separate groups had been made for farms under allotments inten- tionally and those under allotments accidentally in the potato, wheat, and bean studies. -31- TABLE XIV. GENERAL INFCEEIAT ION FOR THE FARMS RAISING CORN BY COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLCTNENTS FARMS UNDER ACRE- AGE ALLOTMENTS FARMS OVER ACRE- AGE .ALLOTMENTS Number of farms Average size of farms Average bushels of corn produced in 19L9 * Average bushels of corn usuallu sold * l9 113.hh 181h033 1177.00 81.71 20h50?0 1005.60 * These are the averages of farms for which estimates of both the l9h9 production and amounts usually'sold were available. They represent 15 of the farms under acreage allotments, and 20 of the farms over acreage allotments. - 82 high in l9h9 and the farms in this study were well above their normal production. However, most of these farms fed part of their corn to livestock and the average bushels produced in 19h9 cannot be com- pared directly with the average amounts of corn usually sold. Changes in Corn.Acreage Farms under allotments decreased corn acreage 23 percent while farms over allotments increased acreage 10 percent (Table XV). Changes were expected since the first group included all those farms making important acreage decreases by definition. Farms making large in- creases had to fall into the group of farms over allotments unless their historical averages of corn acreage were considerably higher than their 19h9 planted acreages. The total corn acreage for the h8 farms showed little change. A total of l,h32 acres were planted in l9h9, and 1,39h acres in 1950. This was a h8 acre decrease, or about 3 percent less than the l9h9 acreage. Use of Commercial Fertilizer The farms under allotments had fertilized only 36 percent of their corn acreage in 19h9 (Table XV). In 1950, the same group fertilized 51 percent. No explanation was found for the large portion of the acre- age not fertilized. 0n farms over allotments, 8h percent of the acreage received commercial fertilizer in 19h9 and 88 percent in 1950. The farms over allotments also used more fertilizer per acre both years. The average rate varied only 3 one-hundredths of a pound, from 159.66 in l9h9 to 159.69 in 1950. The other group put on 15 more pounds per acre - 83 - .51.. 44‘: J arm-Q‘s. maiprflt. _ P kw rum c rJ r\._ man). 0 c 0.... 4E mama Mira 04.2 mm 4.... mod mung: mAMdh mh.x+ ww.mw mm.nu mw.m+ 00.Nm m0.mw thnHHde ow Hmuo.~ nice we .pso nod mead: ommno>< on.4§ ~0.Ha ma.mm 04.mH+ mz.om .m.mm Umstwuhom when use mafia: ommcopd m0.04 dw.QMH wo.\mH mw.mH+ em.gmH mm.mHH noanHouou whom are moaned o.upo>¢ au.m. oo.em no.3o No.04. ea.om ao.o. emsaassamo moo. so ocmopmm sow H:.pcom mo comm .m mm.mm ow.mN mH.mm MH.Om cream mohom smeared Hm.m+ 0m.mam oo.mmm wo.mmu 03.03: om.m~m cream monoo Hmpoe swooped .4 as.4. mm em oa.m. NH AH smuaasoomu mean: sense Go posses mm mm mH mH show we needed Honey «meson mmwmno .r pomonom ommH mamH scooped ommH mamH 1‘ ’4] .1 mF_.DFr\.r..-.P.H A111. ’48... (.Lr .fc.» ones mnameoa 15H; 0 m.« omaa one s OH 2H ngaamHaHusaa saS 1):.«H4nfi 50 mm ..I OmmH ou mama 33mm bstxouuQ )1 d 1141.... I .u .3 _ t. .... 334 mmdlmo¢ -mmDQ .>M mqm4e -8h in 1950 but had used only 120 pounds per acre in l9h9. Change in Analysis of Fertilizers Used Both groups used fertilizers of higher analysis in 1950. This accounted for part of the 15 percent increase in average units of plant food used per acre by farms under acreage allotments, and for all of the 5 percent increase on farms over allotments. Change in Levels of Fertilization The shifts in levels of fertilization support the data given above for increases in the amount of plant food used.by both groups (Figure 17). A large portion of the acreage on farms under acreage allotments had received no fertilizer. Therefore three levels of fertilization used are: law, no fertilizer; medium, from 1 to 200 pounds of 2-12-6, or 1 to lhO pounds of 3-12-12, or equivalent amounts of other fertilizers; high, over 200 pounds of 2-12-6, or over lhO pounds of 3-12-12, or any amount of other fertilizers that contain hO or more units of plant food. Use of Barnyard.Manure A larger percentage of the corn acreage received manure than wheat or beans, but not as much as potatoes. There was little differ- ence in the percent of acreage covered'by the two groups in 19h9. However, farms under allotments had reduced acreage 23 percent, and by applying about the same amount of manure, increased from.28 per- cent to h2 percent the portion of corn land covered'with barnyard manure (Figure 18). Operators of farms over acreage allotments - 85 - ..Hobo was mpwcs OJ 5an one mmpHcs an op H .8339: “choc .89 600% ”3on .Ho means on «son... mPQOHHpOHHHH owdahod 30¢ £35 consHHmEoo op 950.8004 .ommH was 0:2 H3.” *mHoboH 33.35 pm 60.3332 ch00 2H oweoaos mo pcooaom .PH 0.5me HoboH scum pa wouwHHpaom owcoaoia. .Ho pcooaom \ 00H 00 om op co om o: On om oH 1| H H m . _ .. _ H . 4 wwwwwwmummm..mmmm..wwmum”wwwwm 3E .1 ...... -..... ........... .. mPQoEPOHHH. f oweoaoHH hobo mash . munuuumnmuuumuunuuuuuunnnuuuuhunuhe. a...” . .. .x ...m... cuolzwwmwfifl.§&wwfii 0mm...” ............. ...........,...._..3FM§.1 . . . . .. .435... H I . .-u. .i..unuu-n...u.u...u.m1m1mn.-Mww.\ . _: Hurrvvxw...“um.%%ww¥ m3; mpcoEpOHHHH smacked. hope...» munch .....- - mi” 309 mm: FBHvos - 86 _ Farms Under Farms Over Acreage Allotments Acreage Allotments 19149 1950 1919 1950 Percent of corn acreage covered with - - barnyard manure 60 r “ 50 ~ ' ~ ho _ 7;: " §§§ iii: 7‘3“ 30 “ fiat; “i ' .. ‘.k qt” EQ at” h‘q Qfi fih‘ Q“ 20 “ std fihk *‘g “ ‘dm' ht‘ §§~ HQ flak §~‘ NH [fifig \§§ fi‘t '§%‘ § § :3 a a '1‘?) 2‘5 ‘ +¥ Q Percent of corn acreage preceded by' _ - a plowhunder crop 60 - 1 50 L .J to * " 30 “ ,J 20 r’ Y'wq I ~ gic‘ qt 3:? 10 “ “2 , , I, ‘34? ’3 Figure 18. Use of barnyard manure and plowaunder crops in corn fertilization in 19h9 and 1950, according to compliance with corn acreage allotments. - 87 covered 2h percent of their corn land in l9h9 and 3h percent in 1950. Use of PlowaUnder Crops There was little difference between the two groups in the percent of acres preceded'by a ploweunder crop. The figures for farms under acreage allotments show an increase from 15 percent in l9h9 to 30 per- cent in 1950. An almost identical change on farms over allotments shows 18 percent of the l9h9 corn land receiving a green manure crop as compared with 31 percent of the 1950 corn Land. SUMMARY Corn was grown on 519 of the S78 farms in the study} Only h8 farms usually had corn to sell. Only 3 farmers were under acreage allotments intentionally. Therefore, it is believed that changes shown in acreage and fertilization of corn can not be attributed to the price support program. Farms under allotments decreased corn acreage 23 percent while farms over allotments had increased acreage 10 percent. Farms under allotments also increased the average rate of fertilization in 1950 while those exceeding allotments made no change in pounds per acre. Both groups used fertilizers of higher analyses in 1950. It should be noted that farms over allotments used more fertilizer per acre and also used.it on a much higher percentage of their corn land in both 19h9 and 1950. - 88 There was little difference in the use of barnyard.manure and green manure crops by the two groups. Both made greater use of these two means of fertilization in 1950 than in l9h9. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The government's attempts to control producggon are believed to bring about changes in production practices on farms. Acreage allotments were placed on potatoes, wheat, beans and corn in 1950. This was the first time allotments had.been used since 19h3. Comp pliance with acreage allotments was required to be eligible for price supports. The purpose of this study is to show the effects of the price support and production control programs on acreage and fertilization practices on potatoes, wheat, beans, and.eornzh1 Michigan in 1950. The hypotheses for this study are: that farms using price supports and complying with acreage allotments are using more fertilizer than farms not using price supports and not complying with acreage allotments; and,that farms using price supports and complying with acreage allotments made greater increases in aver— age amounts of fertilizer used per acre from l9h9 to 1950 than farms that did not. Companion hypotheses for the study are: that farms using price supports and complying with acreage allotments reduced acreage of controlled crops; and, farms not using price supports and not complying'with acreage allotments either main- tained or increased the acreage of controlled crops. The support prices for 1950 were relatively high and, at -89- - 9O planting time of the cr0ps studied, seemed to be as high or higher than the expected open market price. Therefore there was a price incentive to farmers for staying under their acreage allotments. Some farmers reduced acreage intentionally in order to have the price insurance that price supports provide or to tan: advantage of a higher price. Since acreage was in effect rationed, it was expected that farmers would attempt to substitute capital in the form of fertilizer for land, the rationed factor of production. The memory of the agricultural price collapse that followed Werld War I still lingered in the minds of farm leaders and they wouldn't let Congress forget what had happened. The flexible price supports of the Agricultural Act of l9h8 had been replaced ‘ with the relatively high support levels of the Agricultural Act of l9h9. With decreased demand for agricultural commodities followb ing the end of World'war II,prices naturally began to fall. Stor- age stocks increased and harmful surpluses were feared. The Secretary of Agriculture had set acreage allotments for 1950 as a barrier against surplus accumulation. The original planning for the project of which this study is a part was done during the Spring of 1950. ‘Agricultural prices had reached an all-time high in l9h8. The whole economy was going into a slight recession which had some promise of becoming serious. - 91 However, in June 1950, the Korean affair brought this country into limited warfare. Agricultural prices started upward. Not only did the trend in agricultural prices reverse itself but the likeli- hood was that prices farmers received would be as high or higher than the price support levels. This was the situation when the interviews were taken from July 15 to September 15, 1950. The farmers' plans and decisions as to acreage and fertiliza- tion,in most cases, were already made and could not be changed. Therefore, the outbreak of fighting, with the resultant change in demand for agricultural commodities, did not invalidate this study. It did, however, force changes in methodology used in determining the effect of the price support program on fertilization. In order to measure the effect of the price support program two groupingS'were used. The farms were first divided according to intended use of price supports: Group A. Farms whose operators were planning to use price supports for the particular crop in 1950. Group B. Farms whose operators had used price supports for the particular crop in 19h9 but were not planning,‘ at the time the survey was taken, to use them in 1950. Group C. Farms whose operators had not used price supports for the particular crop in 19h9 and were not planning to use them in 1950. -92 Changes made in acreage and fertilization were tabulated and aver- ages were established for the groups. The second division which was used to further test the effect of the price support program on production practices was based on compliance with acreage a1- lotments: Group 1. Farms under acreage allotments intentionally. Group 2. Farms under acreage allotments accidentally. Group 3. Farms over acreage allotments. It was expected that farms planning to use price supports and those complying with acreage allotments intentionally3would have reduced acreage and increased fertilization (Groups.A and 1). The farms not using price supports and those over allotments were expected to make little change in fertilization while maintaining or increasing acreage (Groups C and 3). The changes on farms that had used price supports in l9h9 but were not planning to use them in 1950 (Group B) and farms under allotments accidentally (Group 2) were expected to lie between those mentioned above for the other groups. These assumptions were proven to be generally true. In the preceding chapters the groups described above are used to measure the effect of the price support program and acreage a1- lotments on acreage and fertilization practices on Michigan farms for potatoes, wheat, beans, and.oorn in 1950. - 93 The results of these individual crop studies are brought to- gether here in order to summarize and compare the changes found in acreage and fertilization. TABLE XVI. CHANGES IN ACREAGE AND FERTILIZATION OF POTATOES, WHEA BEANS, AND CORN IN MICHIGAN BY GROUPS ACCORDING TO USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS IN 1950. GROUP.A GROUP 23 GROUP C CROP Planning to use Changing from sup- Not using supporhs price supports ports to no sup. either year Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Acre. lbs units Acre. lbs units Acre. lbs units q Potatoes 0 +17 +19 +9 +12 +12 +2 +1 +1 Wheat -16 +h +12 -13 -5 O O -1 +3 Beans -6 +6 +9 +5 +8 +17 +25 -5 —7 TABLE XVII. CHANGES IN ACREAGE AND FERTILIZATION OF POTATOES, WHEAT BEANS, AND CORN IN MICHIGAN BY GROUPS ACCORDING TO COM4 PLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALIOTMENTS IN 1950 GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 ‘ CR P Under Acreage al— Under Acreage Over acreage 0 lotments inten- Allotments allotments tionally accidentally Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Acre. lbs units Acre. lbs units Acre. lbs. units Potatoes ~10 +10 +13 +9 ' +20 +20 +17 -7 -8 Wheat -11 -s .5 -21 .2 .u' .7 O ..5 Beans -9 +19 +12 -23 -16 ~19 +30 +5 +16 Corn - - - -23 112 715 710 0 +5 -9h Summaries for the individual crop studies are given at the end of each chapter. Farms planning to use price supports in 1950 reduced acreage and increased fertilization with the important exception of those in the potato study. The potato farms that were to use price supports in 1950 had not reduced acreage. The manner in which potato allot- ments are handled in the counties permitted the potato producers in the study to get price supports without being forced to reduce acre- age if they were really geared to produce potatoes. , gifted Farms not using price supports either year varIEduwith the crops. The potato farmers in this category made little change in either fertilization or acreage and.the same was true for the wheat farmers. The bean growers increased acreage 25 percent and decreased units of plant food used per acre 7 percent. The results support the hypothesis that farms using price supports made greater increases in average amounts of fertilizer used per acre from 19h9 to 1950. All of the groups of farms that were under acreage allotments intentionallygreduced acreage significantly and increased fertiliza- tion. The fertilization increases were highly significant for pota— toes and beans. Farms over acreage allotments had increased acreage 30 percent for beans, 17 percent for potatoes, 10 percent for corn, and 7 percent for wheat. Practically no change occurred in pounds of fertilizer -95 used per acre for the farms over acreage allotments that grew wheat and corn. However, the bean farms increased fertilization signifi- cantly while the potato farms decreased.fertilization significantly. The results of the corn and bean study strongly support the hypothesis that farms complying with acreage allotments made greater 3 increases in average amounts of fertilizer used per acre from l9h9 to 1950. In the case of the wheat study, although the results were not conclusive they followed the general trend. The data compiled on the use of barnyard manure and.plow-under crops show: no censistent changes towards either an increase in the use of these two means of fertilization by farms under allotments, farms over allotments, farms planning to use price supports, or farms not planning to use price supports. Higher analysis fertilizers were being used in 1950 than l9h9 on the crops studied. This accounted for a portion of many of the gains in average units of plant food per acre. The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that governmental attempts to control production of agricultural commodities by using acreage allotments will be offset, at least in part, by the use of improved production practices. N _ We" If‘fl'~.-‘hfim '. ~ 7 APPENDIX A The Questionnaire and Worksheet ./ Michigan State College Agr. Econ; Dept. Aug., 1950 (Rev. 2) ‘and S. R. S. . FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY All information in this schedule is strictly confidential and under the control of the Agricultural Economics Department of Michigan State College. Names of persons interviewed in this survey will not be made pdblic in any way. ‘ County Township 1 Tract number Interviewer Dates 2f Calls and Interview Call . Call Interview completed Number Date Time of day Yes No 1. fl 2. 3. We're making a special farm management survey in several counties in Michigan this summer. 'We're particularly interested in crOps grown on Michigan farms, in the use and sale of crops, and in farmers' ideas about price supports fer farm products. - 'We're talking with some of the farmers in County this week. ‘We pick out the farms to be visited by chance and talk with the operators. First I need some information about the size of your farm. 1. HOW many acres do you farm altogether whether owned or rented? (If less than 70 acres, terminate the interview) 2. How many acres do you own? (If the answers to question 1 and 2 are the same, omit question 3.) ' 3. How many acres do you rent? a. Is all of this rented from the same owner? b. What is the name of the owner and number of acres rented from each owner? (1) Name Acres (2) Name Acres (3) Name Acres (See separate instructions for method of deciding'whether or not to complete the interview.) 1. “2“ Tract No. SECTION I New I would like to sketch a map of your farm.to help us get a better picture of your cropping and 30113 programs. (Assign a number to each field for reference in getting land use and soils data. Use farmer's numbering system if he has one. Indicate acreage and 1950 crOp for each field and transfer to page 3.) 9d -3- Tract No. * 2. Land Use and Soil Treatment (Complete the table below fer each field) a. b. On this field No. 'where you have corn, did you apply commercial fertil- izer this year? How much per acre? 'What analysis? 'What did you raise on that field last year? Did you use commercial fertilizer? Haw much? 'What analysis? (Repeat for each field in corn, then proceed to other row crops, to wheat and small grains, and to hay and tillable pasture.) . ‘Which of these fields did you put manure on this year? Which did you put it on last year? Did you have a plow-under crop on any of these fields this year? Last year? On these fields in non-tillable pasture, did you apply any commercial fer~ tilizer or manure? (Check to be sure that every field on the map is accounted fer.) 1950 Cro and Sgil Treatment f 1249 Croo and 3911 Treatment Field Acres comm. Fart. M P10?! comm. Fat. No. Cr°P Lbs./ An 1 an“ CrOP Lbs./l Man“ P10" Till. 1L_~ E Total xxxx xxx xxx xxx ’ xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx 5 xxx Other lytél xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx I_xxx c. new many tons of commercial fertilizer did you buy in 1950? in 19b9? d. HOW many acres of wheat do you intend to plant this fall? w. I ‘ u o . u a ‘ . a -- ll . . ... . .. ~ v ‘ ---‘- u...‘ C n u a 0 o A . 4_ .-. .* , o a 0. . n ‘ mu - . ..7 . \ 1 u a . ‘ n , v v n n . -‘ n .o .- —_—._Il—- c-___ 1. 2. 99 r u’“ Tract No. SECTION II We are also interested in what Michigan farmers did with some of their crops last year. and to what extent they use government price supports. a. b. C. d. 90 f. 3. How many bushels of corn did you harvest in l9h9? (1) (If any land was rented) what was the landlord's share? Did you.sign a purchase agreement with P. & M. A. (A. A. A.) for any of your 19h9 corn crop? For how many bushels? (1) Did you.store it on your farm or in commercial storage? (2) How much did you deliver to the government? (3) (If all under purchase agreement was gp§_delivered to the government) what did you do with the rest of it? (a) HOw much did you sell on the Open market or to other farmers? (b) How much do you have on hand which you.intend to sell or deliver to the government? (c) How much was or will be fed to livestock? Did you.put any of your 1949 corn crOp in approved storage and get a loan on it under the P. & M. A. program? ch much did you store? (1) Did you store it on your farm or in commercial storage? (2) Is it still in storage? (3) Delivered to the government? (4) Loan repaid and crop sold? Did you.sell any of your 19A9 corn on the market or to other farmers which was not under purchase agreement or loan? How much did you sell? Do you have any on hand now which you are planning to sell? How much? Do you.usually sell some corn in most years? (1) (If yes) About how many bushels per year would your sales average? How much corn did you feed to livestock? Gould you.tell me what the landlord did with his share? (1) Did he use a.purchase agreement? (2) Loan and storage? (3) Did he sell it outright? (u) Was it fed on this place? (Repeat for wheat. oats. barley, rye. dry field beans. soybeans, and potatoes i§,rgi§ed gp,thi§ fggm ig,;9h2.) Now we would like to know something about what you intend to do with some of your 1950 craps. b. C. d. g. Do you intend to use a.P. & M. A. purchase agreement for your 1950 (corn) crop? (1) Will you store it on your farm or in commercial storage? Do you plan to get a loan on any of your 1950 (corn) cr0p through.P. & M.A.? (1) Will you store it on your farm or in commercial storage? Do you intend to sell any of your 1950 corn crop on the Open market or to other farmers? Do you intend to feed any of your corn? (Rapeat for wheat, oats, barley. rye, dry field beans, soybeans. and Potatoes if. r_a___.180d on this term in ME) 190 " 5 “ Tract No. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS 1 AHD 2 Item w 1 l9b9 Actual (2 _l950 Intepded EL. Amount harvested xxx xxx xxx xxx (1) Landl'ds share __ xxx xxx xxx xxx Overstoxis sham 1:. Durchase agreement ’ (1) Where stored (2) Del. to gov't (3) (8.) Sold outright w xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) On hand 4 xxx xxx xxx xxx (0) Fed to livest'k xxx xxx xxx xxx 0. Loan and storage (1) Where stored ‘ L#‘ (2) Still in storage xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) D61. to gov't m m xxx xxx (4) Repaid and sold xxx xxx xxx xxx <1. Outright sale ' ' e. To be sold ‘k xxx xxx xxx XXX f. Usually sells “w xxx xxx xxx XXX (1) Average xxx xxx xxx xxx g. Fed to livestock Landlord's share =============1=======E============h=====dfi=====1=======4 h. (1) Purchase agreement XXX XXX XXX xxx (2) Loan and storage t xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) Outright sale ~ xxx xxx xxx xxx (h) Fed to livestock *7 E i ' xxx x xxx t xxx xxx . u.. e s . O I . . t I 1 . ..I.. . O ; In: . . n a . r a . . n . I. . its. I u e r . . O . . . . . .. I _ I t . , . . . a . ‘Q . a .. u _ .4 VI 1 . . '0‘ D e .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . D a . ... . II" [..I. x 6 " Tract No. 3. Some farmers use the P. & M. A, purchase agreements or loan and storage pro» grams and others don't. We'd like to know some of the reasons for this. (Ask the following questions for gggg of the crops listed on page 5.) (1) I notice that you.put (didn't put) your 1949 corn cr0p under a.purchase agreement (and/or under loan and storage). Why did you decide to handle your crOp that way? (2) What other reasons? Did Crop Did not Reasons 4. (For all creps listed in question 1 and 2 for both l9h9 and 1950. check to deg a termine whether disposal intentions for 1950 are different than actual disposal in l9h9 in the use of purchase agreement, loan and storage. outright sale, no sales at all, or in any combination of these. For each difference noted. ask the questions below.) a. In handling your corn crop. I see that last year you.(speci§y '&2_pgagr tiges) and that this year you.intend to (spgcifiz '§Q_prgctice§). I would be interested in knowing why you are making this change. Crap: Change: Reason: Crep: Change: Reason: 5. In general. which price support plan would you prefer, the purchase agreement or the loan and storage program? (1) Purchase agreement 1 ) (3) neither ( ) (2) Loan and storage ( ) (14.) Don't know (. ) Why? x_ 6. 7. l. 2. 3. -7- Tract No. The County P. & M. A. Office has set up acreage allotments in 1950 for most farms that grow certain craps. 'What acreage allotment did you receive for corn? For wheat? For beans? Fer potatoes? (Record reply under question 7) (Check p. 3 to see if within allotment on each controlled crop grown and ask:) 'Would you mind telling me why you stayed (did not stay) within your allotment on corn? Allot. Actual Reasons w or‘w not Acres Acres hy by Crop Section III Where do you get most of your information about the price support program and how it operates? Free response Follow pp (1) Township committeemen . . . ( (2) County P. &:M. A. employees (3) Other farmers o o o o o o o (b) County agricultural agent . . (5) Radio . . . . . . C . . C C (6) Newspapers . . . . . . . . (7) Farm magazines . . . . . . (8) Other (specify) 0 O . . . . . . . . . . . . O o 0 0 0 O O C . . . . . . . I . O O O 0 O o O 0 g 0 O C O O . . O . (For each source not mentioned as a free response ask:) Do information from ? (Record response in follow-up ..() ..() ..() ..() ..() ..() ..() you get any column) 'What do you understand to be the reason why there is a price support program for some farm crepe? How do you.personally feel about it? Do you think that a price is needed, or not? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) Why do you feel that way? support program 5. 8. 9. 10. 103 - 8 . Tract Re. What do you.understand to be the relation, if any. between support price and parity? ‘ What do you.understand to be the reason for acreage allotments on such crepe as corn and wheat? How do you.feel about it personally? Do you.think that acreage allotments are necessary, or not? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) DK ( ) Why do you feel that way? We've been talking about the price support and acreage allotment program as it Operates over the whole country. Now let's come back to your local situation. How do you.feel about the way the program is Operating in this county? we sometimes hear peeple talking about using marketing quotas in connection with price support programs. Would you mind telling me Just what the term "marketing quota" means to you? (Omit 9 if answer to 8 is “don't know") wa do you feel about it personally? Do you feel that marketing quotas should ever be set up, or not? Yes ( ) No ( ) UK ( ) Why do you.feel that way? Have you heard of the "Brennan Plan"? Yes ( ) No ( ) (If yes) How do you feel about it? _ 9 _ Tract No. SECTION IV Now I'd like to get your comments on some situations dealing with farmers and the price support pregram. l. 2. 3. Mr. Brown usually grows about 20 acres of wheat. He was notified that his 1950 wheat allotment would be 16 acres. He stayed within this allotment because he thought he might want to use the purchase agreement or loan~and~storage program. mr. Brown tried to get as high a yield as he could on the 16 acres of wheat that he was allotted. He got the best seed he could find. fertilized heavily. and sowed his wheat on the best 16 acres on the farm. A.friend commented that it seemed to him such practices would result in a bigger cut in wheat acreage this fall if most farmers did the same thing as Brown. Do you think Brown was justified in his actions even though it would mean bigger cuts in acreage allotments this fall? _._A_ Mr. Stone ordinarily raises about enough corn to feed his livestock. Last fall he found that he could.get a government loan of $1.40 a bushel on his corn. Since Mr. Stone had plenty of good storage space. he saw a.chance to make some extra money by taking advantage of the loan and storage program. He put his gntire crap in storage with a loan of $1.h0 a bushel on it and bought corn for livestock feed at 90 cents a bushel from neighbors who did not have approved storage. He was thus able to make 50 cents a.bushel on his own corn which he would otherwise have fed to his livestock. What do you think of Mr. Stone's actions? A group of farmers were discussing price support programs at a meeting on agri~ cultural policy. _Mr. Smith was speaking: "I am in favor of the general idea of a price support program for farmers which would keep their incomes from falling too far. I think. however, that the present program is unfair to us farmers here in Michigan. we don't grew very many acres of these seacalled'basic crops. It's the big fellows further west who ought to have their acreage allotments out. not us. They're the ones who really cause the surplus." What do you think of Mr. Smith's statement? 5. — 10 — Tract Ho. Mr. Black had been doing a lot of thinking about the whole price support problem and its relation to farmers' income. One day he was talking with a neighbor about it and said. "There‘s a lot of talk about security these days and it's high time farmers had a little of it. They ought to be entitled to have a floor under their prices so their incomes wouldn't fall too far and plunge the whole country into a depression. The way I see it a farmer ought to be guaranteed 90% of parity on everything he sells so his buying power will never fall too far ban hind that of the city man. I'd go for that idea even if it meant acreage allot— ments. production controls on livestock. marketing quotas or any other kind of regulations to make it work." a. What do you.think of Mr. Black‘s statement that there should be a floor under farm.prices? b. What do you think of Mr. Black's idea that a farmer should receive 90% of parity? c. How far‘would.you go in agreeing with Mr. Black that farmers ought to have more security even if it means more acreage allotments. production controls and marketing quotas? Two farmers were talking about ways to keep farm.prices and incomes from falling too low. Both men agreed that the present plan of price supports for such crepe ‘ as corn and.wheat worked fairly well. that is. having farmers arrange purchase agreements or loans~and~storage with.P. & M. A. - They didn't agree. however. on how perishables like butter and eggs should.be supported. One of the farmers. Mr. Benson. said he favored the present method in which the government buys direct from processors and stores the products in order to hold prices up. Mr. Wood. on the other hand. said that he favored a plan under which farmers would sell all their perishable products like eggs for whatever they would bring. If these prices were so low that farm incomes would be below parity. then the government would make direct payments to farmers in order to bring their incomes up. (1) As you see it. what are the advantagpsof Mr. Benson's suggestion that our government continue its present plan of buying direct from processors and storing perishables? What are the disadvantages? 106 -ll- Tract No. (2) Have you ever heard of Wood's idea that our government would allow perishable products to sell for whatever they would bring and then pay farmers direct, if necessary, to bring their incomes up? 1) Yes ( ) 3) No ( 2) Yes, Brennan plan ( ) h) Don't know ( ) (a) What do you feel are the advantages of such a plan? (b) Disadvantages? (c) In general, which of the two ideas for handling perishable products do you prefer? ‘ 1) Purchase from processors ( ) 2) Direct payments to farmers ( ) 3) Don't.know ( ) SECTION V 'We have just a few more questions to ask you. They have to do with general informa— tion about the farm and about you so that we can divide the responses people give according to the ages of farms and so on. 1. First, would you mind telling me how old you are? (1) Less than 30 ( ) (h) 50 - S9 ( ) (2) 3o - 39 ( ) (S) 60 and over ( ) (3) to - 1.9 (“ ) HOW many years have you been farming on your own? (1) Less than S ( ) (5) 20 - 29 ( ) (2) S - 9 ( ) (6) 30 - 39 ( ) (3) 10 - lb ( ) (7) to and over ( ) (b) 15 - 19 ( ) 'What was the last grade or year you completed in school? (1) No schooling ( ) '(5) Some high school ( ) (2) 1 - h years grammar ( (6) Completed high school ( ) (3) 5 - 7 years grammar ( ) (7) Some college ( ) (h) Completed grammar ( ) (8) Completed college ( ) Have you ever taken a short course in agriculture? (1) Yes, college ( ) (2) Yes, Vet. Adm. ( ) (3) N0 ( ) Are you a member of the Michigan Farm Bureau? (1) Yes ( ) (2) No ("' ) The Grange? (1) Yes (____) (2) N0 (____) 7. 10. ll. 12. -12- ' 107 DO you.remember for certain whether or not you voted in the 19h8 Presidential Election? (1) Yes, voted ( ) (3; Me, too young to vote ( ) (2) NO, didn't vote ( ) (h uncertain ( ) In general, which political party did you favor in the Presidential ElectiOn of 19t8? (1) Republican ( ) (3) Other (specify) ( ) (2) Democratic ( ) (h) Uncertain ( ) Now to complete the picture of your farm organization, we need to know how many livestock you have. HOw many dairy cows did you have on hand January'l, 1950? (1) Dairy cows? (6; Sows? - (2) Beef cows? (7 Pigs? (3) Feeder cattle? (8) Hens? (h) Ewes? (9) Other (specify) (5) Feeder lambs? Have you bought any corn for livestock feed since last October 1? wa many bushels? Other grain? (Specify) Corn Do you feel that you have adequate storage for your corn? Did you build any new storage for corn in the past two years, either permanent or temporary? Do you plan to build any additional storage for corn in 1950, either permanent or temporary? (Repeat for wheat, other small grain, beans, and potatoes if grown on this farm in 1950.) Adequate Built past 2 yrs. Plans to build Yes No Maybe Perm. Temp. No Perm. Ramp. Maybe No Corn ‘Wheat Other sm.gr. Beans Potatoes (If owner or part-owner)‘WOuld you.mind telling me if you own your farm free and clear or if you still have some indebtedness? Free ( Debt ( ) ____) Finally, so that we may check our records and also send you acopy of our report would you mind giving us your name and address? Worksheet 2 Farm Mo. P&MA.Study Size of farm July 1951 M.S.O.. Ag. Econ. Dept. Acres owned C.W}S. Copied by Acres rented Corn Wheat Beans Potatoes 1950 19m; 195011919 1950 1919 1950 me (From Page 3) l. Raised on Farm 2. Total Fields 3. Total Acres a. Commercial Fertilizer ¢____.r-..___ a. Acres H .. ...... 1...... b. Percent of crop c. Pounds per acre d3 Analysis e. Active units per cwt. f. Active units per acre 5. Barn Yard Manure a. Acres covered b. Percent of cr0p 6. Plow'Under a. Acres Lb. Percent of crop (From Page 5) 7. Total Production 8. Pur. Agrmt. or Loan & S. 9. Usually Sells .1. Question 3 (page 6) -2. Qpestion.7 (page 7) -3. Remarks: APPENDIX B Tonnage of Different Grades of Fertilizer Sold in Michigan in 1950 109 ooo.ooa taboos. tare? mam.m ma.aa 000.0 a moo.o mm 000.0 a seo.o mam mam.o meo.m soo.o om mso.o mam amm.o mem.a oao.o mm mao.o mm 000.0 a eso.o :mm mao.o mo mmo.o mos mo:.o mao.m moo.o m: mom.a ooo.m ama.o mam mmo.o ops Nao.o mm woo.o m mse.o aom.m moo.o as mos.o oom.m >se.o mam.m moo.o m moo.o om: aoo.o a mao.o mm mmo.o mas gases aoroa so a za:z-- .......... -. :eHHwa mzoa anteedm map can“ popes poo op memos omega ouom-o no moor oma.> one .o-ma-o smm.sm mash ommww .osmanoaz on superfluomao moor www.0am co stoop endow o moses o.oa .nowpmhpwficwsod mqflpmxhsz_pom GOHpOSpoam asympmm map as oopSQHapmwp so moor osa.m .o-ma-o so moor osw.m ooeoo oo.oasoom Amm>.mmsv Honor one o9 mow.mw mepomooom causes use mmm.w macromaaoomfiz H serum ooosnoe mm AIZt< H Hooflamm mwa cooaooz mqua mvssmmoam room om mmsxqmu Odom wma ooesopm «Home ecom mbaxa wearers UOHAQ mm assuage mo Moaom H Oponmasm seam 3mm mpsnoHSm mmeosmosz Hm opanHSm hmamoo ems oasocoso emm.a sommasmzv ms mAmozvoo was; mozsmz mam mozoz mmm sow How a: aOm Hug a mauosama amo.m oa-oa-oa 0: mtmuoa wao.m , a-puoa mem.a w-m-m w szmsm mmm s-oaum s mumum . om-om-m we oa-oaum wsflamm ..I.."ll"!!! . ill)! .. . . 32—13.... .. ...: .. moanmmeoo nonwaflpamm an ooppflepsm mpaommm.aoam madmo mZOB ommaaoo madam cmww£OHz Mo Pumawhmmmm moomwow Hwom hp cmeQBoo QmQH 2H aonmon 2H qum mMNHqHBmmm mo mmadmw 92mmmmmHa mo mw.H coo.m mmm.m ses.ma mmo.w mmp.m mem.o How.m m omw.m oma.o Nam om pom ems.m mao.>a mem.m ase.sa >ao.o mm o oo sma.o mam - new moo.o as u as moo.a mem.m omm.m mam.m Hem.e mos.mm omm.sa mew.am mma.o mow mam mom Hma.mm aoe.ssa emm.mm so~.~w moo.o mos cos we mew.a mma.m mes.a oas.w wmm.m mae.mm s>>.HH mam.om ems.o ame.m mea.a mam.a mmm.mm ems.~aa Nmm.mm smm.>> mma.m www.ma Hmm.m mom.m mm~.o wmm.m moo.a mem.m mam.o esm.m . eem.m «No.0 Has - Had ems.o moa.m owe mmo.a eam.m acm.aa Hao.m was.m mme.o mma.m mam mee.a mmm.o soa.a . soa.a mam.o m~>.m Ham mmm.a mmo.o mos - mos smo.o was mm mm moo.o we or .- mmo.o mam . mam emm.m omm.sa ma~.m Oma.sa sem.m 0mm.ma maa.m swa.oa gases aeooa Haas museum co a “mom.. .omao one: as mtoaum mazsm-a ma-ma-s muwans assets wtmats s-ma-s oauoass w-oats mansm-m mtma-m math-m marmaum sm-mum ma-m-m mtwaum museum m-maum omuomto oaaomuo maumauo sa-sa-o >-:H-o masmauo omzoauo omtoato emumto ctmsuo cums-o ctwmto cummuo ouomuo ctwauo ....:11.22.21.322: ............:...:..3. .... ...I.}: 13.1.3111! ......izzi... . 1.12.: .. ., 1950 Fertilizer Report - Page 2 Total tonnage of mixed goods h38,87h Tonnage of superphOSphates 31,7h8 Percentage of total tonnage composed of grades or ratios recommended by Soil Science Department 95.72h% Percentage of mixed goods containing 20% or more plant food 99.998% Percentage for l9h3- 99.52 l9h7- 100.00 19hh- 99.98 19h8- 100.00 l9h5- 100.00 l9h9- 100.00 19h6- 100.00 Total number of grades containing two or more plant food elements 37 Number of grades sold in l9h9 and not sold in 1950 (grades dropped) 1 Number of grades not sold in l9h9 but sold in 1950 (grades added) 9 Increase over last year's total sales - 69,128 tons or 16.16% Percentage of total sales made up of 10 grades - 8h.hh6% Order of 10 Best Sellers 1. 3-12-12 3. 3-18-9 5. 0-20-0 7. 0-20-20 9. u-16-16 2. 2-12-6 h. 2-16-8 6. h-12-8 8. 0-18-0 10. 0-12-12 Grade drOpped from list of "Ten Best Sellers" was 3-9-18. Grade added to list was h-l6-l6. Grades Added to List of Total Sales Grades DrOpped 0-16-16 h-10-10 8-61&‘ 2-12-12 3-9-27 5-20-20 10-8-6 h-lO-6 6-8-6 lS-hO-ls Grades and Ratios on the "Recommended" List 0-12-12 O-lh-Y 2-12-6 h-lE-h Superphosphates and carriers 0-1h-1h 0-20-10 3-9-18 h-16-8 of nitrogen and potash. Also 0-20-20 0-9-27 3-12-12 6-12-6 8-8-8 for experimental 0-10-20 2-16-8 h-l2-8 lO-6-h purposes as well as special garden and turf fertilizers. There were 15 tons of borax and 107 tons of manganese sulphate reported as having been sold in mixed fertilizers. These are included in the summary along with those reported as materials. The miscellaneous tonnage consisted largely of small quantities of such material as sludges, liquids, pills, and unusual grades which could not be listed without re— vealing their identity or the identity of the reporters. The increase in total tons this year was partly due to the fact that sales reports were requested from several companies that had not heretofore reported. Only 52% of these companies responded and their sales amounted to only 3.93% of the total sales. J-LJ. .0000000:_00 00000000000 0000 000.m00 00 00000 00000 0 000.0 000 000 000 0-00-0 090.80 0.0008 000003.30 00.00.3050 003 ova-.0 .0308 ...-000 0c «0030 000.0 m .i n OHIOH-n 00000 .00000000000000 00000000z_0 0000000000 0000000 000.0 00 - 00 0-00-0 00p 00 00000000000 0-00-0 00 000» 000.m0 000 0-00-0 000.0 000 mom 000 00-00-0 00 0000 000.0 00000 00 000000 0000.0000 00000 000 00 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00-00-0 000.0 000.m 000 000.0 0-00-0 .000.“ 003 00 00.0.00 0000.000 30 03.000000 003000000 030.0 Han -- .30 0.6.7.0 0000 005.000.» 000.00 900.090 .00 0.003050 000.... 000 009-3 ...-.05 000%.. @0080. moo-N 9.0.3 mum-7.0 0000 000000 00000000 00 00000 000000 000 000000 0000* 000.0 000 - 000 0-00-0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00-00-m 000.000 000.0m. .00m.00 0000000000 m00.0 000.00 000.0 000.00 0-00-m 000.000 000.000 000.0m0 0000.000 00000 000.0 00m 000 000 00-00-m 000.0 000 - 00m 000000 000.00 m00.00 000.00 000.m0 00-00-m 00m.0 000.0 000 000 000000000 0000 000.m 000.m0 000.0 000.00 00-0-m 000.0 m00 - m00 0000000 .0000 0000 000.0 000.0m 000.m0 00m.00 0-00-0 000.0 000 00 000 0000000 00000 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0-00-0 000.0 0 - 0 000.0000 00m.0 05.0 000.0 00.0 00-00-0 000.0 00 0 00 00000 000.00 0m0.000 000.00 000.00 0-00-0 000.0 00 - 00 00000000 000000002 000.0 00m.00 000.0 000.0 00-00-0 000.0 00 - 00 00000000 000000 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00-00-0 000.0 0 - 0 00000000 00000000 00m.0 000.0 000 000.0 00-00-0 m00.0 00m 00 00m 00000000 0mn.0 000.0 000 000.0 0-00-0 000.0 2.0.0 00m 00.0 00000005 000.0 000.00 000.0 000.0 00000 000.0 000.0 000.0 >00.m mmz0mz 000.0 000 - 000 0m-00-0 000.0 000.0 000 000 0202 00m.0 m0m.0 m0 00m.0 00-00-0 000.0 000 000 000 000 000 000.0 000.0 000 000.0 00-0-0 000.0 00 00 - 000 000 000.0 000 00 000 0-00-0 000.0 000 - 000 00-00-00 000.0 000 000 00 0-0m-0 000.0 000.m 0m0 000.0 0-0-00 000.0 000.00 000.m 000.00 0-00-0 000.0 000.0 0m 000.0 0-0-0 000.0 000.m0 000.0 000.00 0-00-0 00009 00000 0000 000000 00000 00000 0000 000000 00 0 0200 00000 00 0 mzoe mn400 00000090000 000003.0000 .00. cmvvaapsm 00.009000 50.000. 000.0000 33.0.. now-“no.0: no 9000500009 09808 How an 0000000000 9.60 2H 2.33on 20 Bow EHAHE ho mum-9:8 EEG no @5209 (632h) O 0 .. \ a ....- O .. .... .. .r . .0 . .0... .. . , I u . - r . 0. .I I. u D I . , \ .1- u -,. o Total tonnage of mixed goods 385,608 Tonnage of superphosphates 29,725 Percentage of total tonnage composed of grades or ratios recommended by Soil Science Department 95.22l% Percentage of mixed goods containing 20% or more plant food 100.00 Percentage for l9h3 - 99.52 l9h6 - 100 l9hh - 99.98 19h? - 100 l9u5 - 100 l9h8 - 100 Total number of grades containing two or more plant food elements - 29 Number of grades sold in l9h8 and not sold in l9h9 (grades dropped) 2 Number of grades not sold in l9h8 but sold in l9h9 (grades added) h Increase over last year's total sales (tons) 27,851 or 6.98% Percentage of total sales made up of 10 grades 86.397 Order of 10 Best Sellers 1. 2-12-6 2. 2-16-8 5. 0-20-0 7. 0-18-0 9. 0-20-20 2. 3-12-12 #- 3-18-9 6. 3-9-18 8. u-l2-8 10. 0-12-12 Grade dropped from list of "10 best sellers" was 0-9-27. Grade added to list was 3-18-9. Grades Added to List of Total Sales Grades Dropped O-lh-lh 3-2h-l2 h~l6~l6 5-10-10 3-12-8 8-16-8 Grades and Ratios on the "Recommended" List 0-12-12 O-lh-7 2-12-6 h-l6-h Superphosphates and carriers of O-lh-lh 0-20-10 3-9-18 h-16-8 nitrogen and potash. Also 8-8-8 0-20-20 0-9-27 3-12-12 6-12-6 for experimental purposes only, 0-10-20 2-16-8 h-12-8 lO-6-h as well as special garden and turf fertilizers. 13 tons of manganese sulphate and 39 tons of borax were reported as having been sold in mixed fertilizers. These are included in the summary along with those reported as materials. (632h) 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, Lauren.H., "Farming Under Current Controls," Michigan State Col— lege Extension Service, Department of Agricultural Economics, No. 85 - Supplement, East Lansing, January, 1950. Committee on Agricultural Policy, LongeRun Effects of Priceéfiaintenangg Poliqy for Agricultural Products, Association SY'Land Grant Colleges and Universities, April, l9h7. Congressional Record of the 79th Congress, Second Session, Report No. 2728, August 6, l9h6. Cowden, T. K., "Current Trends in Agricultural Policy," Journal 2§,Farm Economics, Proceedings Number, Vol. XXXI, No. h, November, l9h9. Crop Reporting Board of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Crop Egg: duction, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D. 0., August 10, 1951. Crop Reporting Board of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Crop Egg: duction (Annual Summary), U. 5. Department of Agriculture, wash- ington 25, D. 0., December, 1950. Kettering, Darwin G., Participation'ig thg Federal Price Support Proggam by Michigan Farmers, unpublished thesis for the Master of Science Degree, Michigan State College, East Lansing, August, 1951. Mauch, Arthur, "New Farm Price Support Program.(Agricultural Act of l9h9)" Michigag Farm Economics, Michigan State College Extension Service, Department of Agricultural Economics, East Lansing, Mich- igan, No. 85 - Supplement, January, 1950. Peterson, E. E., "Acreage Allotments and Farming in 1950," Michigan Farm Economics, Michigan State College Extension Service, Department of AgricfiIEural Economics, East Lansing, Michigan, No. 88, April, 1950. Production and marketing Administration, Dry Edible Bean Program for 1950, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Hashington 25:_D. 0., March, 1950. partment pg Agriculture, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricul- ture Information Bulletin No. 13, April, 1950. Schultz, Theodore'W. and O. H. Brownlee, Effects 9; Crop Acreage Control Features Einééé 23 Feed Production ig Eleven Midwestern States, Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Bulletin 298, April, 19h2. Schultz, Theodore'W}, Aggiculture in fig unstable Econo , New York: Mc- Graweflill Book Company, Inc., l9h5. ‘I.. 1 I 1 f '1 I. ’4', {all Al I .‘I ll at- L MICHIG I III N STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES II ILIIIII Iflllllill 1293 03 75 3 14 A I III 3