ECONOMIC TRENDS AND mass m . ' macaw FARM mama‘s ' M3 fetthe Degree 9‘ M. 5.] MucuscAN sun comes J. Harold Deason _ ' .1953- "r'. _ " ' 1:15.515 ‘ signal-Layman: * x 1 'h-w_ ‘y._ t This is to certify that the : thesis entitled "ECONOMIC TRENDS AND CYCLES IN MICHIGAN FARM PRODUCTS” presented by J. Harold Deacon - has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Inter of Science degree mwra Economics Major praysor mam 10. 1953 .‘ 0-169 , .--——.——-n '-.‘___$_ _ _ A M-~—~-'--~w~"~‘ ‘ ' RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in 500E drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date ‘stamped be10w. ECONOMIC TRENDS AND CYCLES IN MICHIGAN FARM PRODUCTS By J. Harold Deason 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 1953 («3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. L. L. Boger. under whose guidance this manuscript was prepared. His critical review of the material and his generous assistance were appreciated at all times. Grateful acknowledgement is also due to Dr. W. D. Baten for his counsel and assistance in the use of certain statistical techniques used in this study. The author is also grateful to other faculty members and to fellow graduate students for numerous suggestions and valuable advice. Finally. thanks are due to Dr. T. K. Cowden and the Agricultural Economics Department for providing an opportunity for students from other areas to study at Michigan State College. The author assumes full responsibility for errors oromissions occurring in this thesis. ‘1 d p. W (h L. C; L“ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . USes of the Information Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition.of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART I. MAJOR MICHIGAN FARM CROPS . . . . . . . . . tD-QUIOINF’P Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Winter Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Buckwheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 All Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Field Beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Sugar Beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Pears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Peaches ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ”plea O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PART II. LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS . All Cattle . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . Beef Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Veal Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stock Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheep and Lambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chickens and Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . Milk Cows . . . -,- . . . . . . . . . . . Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Butter and Butterfat . . . . . . . . . . . PART III. GROUPED PRODUCTS . . . . . . . . Cash Craps and Feed Crains . . . . . . . . Hay and Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poultry Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .'. . . .'. . . . . . . . APPENDIX A - The Use of Analysis of Variance Determining Which Regression Line Best Fits the Data 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 ' O O O O 0 APPENDIX B - Supplementary Tables 7° . . . . APPENDIX c - Equations of Trend Lines . . . . . . in Page 60 6O 64 67 71 77 80 86 9O 97 99 105 111 III 117 119 119 I22 128 151 135 179 Table I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES Tons of Alfalfa Harvested in Michigan . WINTER WHEAT: Fits the Series of Data . CORN: OATS: RYE: Michigan, 1910-1952 0 0 Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 0 O 0 Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 BARLEY: Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 WINTER WHEAT: Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 BUCKWHEAT: O O 0 Use of Analysis of Variance in Determining Which Regression Line Best Prices, Production and Yields, 0 O O O O O 0 ALL HAY: Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 POTATOES: Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 FIELD BEANS: Michigan,.l9lO-l952 SUGAR BEETS: Michigan,.l9lO—l952 Prices, 0 O O O O O 0 Prices, Production and Yields, Production and Yields, PEARS: Prices and Production, Michigan, 1910-1952 PEACHES: Prices and Production, Michigan, 1910-1952 0 O O Page 38 155 156 158 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158 Table XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page APPLES: Prices and Production, Michigan, 1910?}.952 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 160 CATTLE, HOGS, SHEEP, AND MILK COWS: Numbers on Michigan Farms, 1910-1952 . .,. . . . . . 162 BEEF CATTLE, VEAL CALVES, AND HOGS: Prices and Purchasing Power Indices, Muchigan, 1910-1952 e e be e o e e e e e e e o e e e e 164 SHEEP, LAMBS, AND WOOL: Prices and Purchasing Power Indices, Michigan, 1910-1952 . . . . . 166 CHICKENS AND EGGS: Prices and Production, MIChigan, 1910’1952 e e e e e e e e e e e e 168 HULK: Prices, Production, and Production Per Cow, Muchigan, 1910-1952 . . . . . . . . 170 BUTTER AND BUTTERFAT: Prices and Production in MiChigan O O O .0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 172 CASH CROPS AND FEED GRAINS: Acreage, Production, and Yield, Michigan, 1910-1952 . 174 MEAT PRODUCTS AND POULTRY PRODUCTS: Production in Michigan, 1910-1952 . . . . . 176 FERTILIZER: Consumption in Michigan and united States, 1910-1952 e e e e o e e o e e 17? GOVERNMENT PRICE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES IN SELECTED COMMODITIES: Loans or Purchases Made by the Commodity Credit Corporation in United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Figure 1. 5. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 15. 14. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS CORN: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910.1952 O O O . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . CORN: Trends in Production and Yield, 1910-1952 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e e OATS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e e e e e e e e e o e o e e e e OATS: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910.1952 O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O BARLEY: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O BARLEY: Trends in Production and Yields, 191091952 0 o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 WINTER WHEAT: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e e e o e e e e e e e e WINTER WHEAT: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910.1952 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O RYE: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-19520000000eeeeeoeeeee RYE: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910.1952 . C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O BUCKWHEAT: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910.1952 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O BUCKWHEAT: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910.1952 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ALL HAY: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e e e e e e e o e e o 0 ALL HAY: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910‘1952 e e e e e e e e o e e o e e o e e e Page 10 10 15 15 2O 20 24 24 29 29 55 55 56 56 Figure 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 25. 24. 25. 26. 27. 27a. 28. 28a. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) POTATOES: Trends in Prices and Purchasing POWEP,.1910-1952 e e o e e e e e e e e e e e POTATOES: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952 0 0 e e e. e e e e e e e e e e e e e FIELD BEANS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing - Power, 1910-1952 e e e e e e e e e e o e e e FIELD BEANS: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952.e e e e e o e e e e e e e o e e e e SUGAR BEETS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e o e e o o e e e e o e e SUGAR BEETS: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952,e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e PEARS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e e e e e o e o e e e e e e e e PEARS: Trends in Production of Pears, 1910-1952 e e e e e e o e o o e e o o e e e o PEACHES: Trends in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 PEACHES: Trends in Production, 1910-1952 . . . APPLES:' Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910..1952 O 0 O O O 0 O O I O O O O 0 O O O O APPLES: PrOdUCtion, 1910-1952 e e e e e e o 0 ALL CATTLE: Trends in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952 0 e e e e e e o o e o e e e e o e 0 ALL CATTLE: Cycles in Numbers on Farms, 1910‘1952 o e e e o e e e e e o e e o e e e e BEEF CATTLE: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power. 1910-1952 e e e e e e o e o e e o e e BEEF CATTLE: Cycles in Purchasing waer, 1910-1952 e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e Page 40 4O 44 44 47 47 52 52 55 55 58 58 61 61 65 65 Figure 29. 29a. 50. 50a. 51. 51a. 52. 52a. 55. 55a. 34. 34a. 35. 55a. 56. 56a. 37. 57a. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) VEAL CALVES: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power. 1910-1952 e e o e e e e e o e e e e e VEAL CALVES: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910.1952 . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O HOGS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o HOGS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 . HOGS: Trends in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952 . HOGS: Cycles in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952 . STOCK SHEEP: Trends in Numbers on Farms, 191091952. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e STOCK SHEEP: Cycles in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952 e e e e e o o e e e e e e e e e e SHEEP: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910.1952 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O SHEEP: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 LAMBs: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 0 e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e LAMBS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 WOOL:' Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e e o e e o e o e e e e e o e WOOL: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 . WOOL: Trends in Production, 1910-1952 . . . . WOOL: Cycles in Production, 1910-1952 . . . . CHICKENS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing p0W€P,.1910-1952. e e e e e e e e e e e e e CHICKENS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910‘1952 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Page 68 68 72 72 75 75 78 78 81 81 82 82 87 87 89 89 91 91 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure A I Page 58. EGGS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e e e o e o .e e e o e c e e o e 92 58a. EGGS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 . 92 39. CHICKENS AND EGGS: Trends in Production, 1910-1952 e e e .e e o e o e e e e, o e e e e O 95 59a. CHICKENS AND EGGS: Cycles in Production, 19.10-1952 - e e e e e e e o e o e e e e e o o e 95 40. MILK COWS: Trends in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952 e e e o e o e o e e e e e e o e e o 98 40a. MILK COWS: Cycles in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952 e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e o e e 98 41. MILK: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 e e e o e e o o o e e e e e e e e e 100 42. MILK: Trends in Production and Production Per COW, 1924-1952 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 104 45. BUTTER: Trends in Prices, 1910-1952 . . . . . 106 44. BUTTERFAT: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910“].952 e e e e e e e e e e o e e e 106 45. BUTTER: Trends in Production Of Butter, 1922-1952 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o 108 46. CASH CROPS AND FEED GRAINS: Trends in Acreage, 1910.1952 O O C O O O O O O O O O O 113 47. CASH CROPS AND FEED GRAINS: Trends in PI'OdL‘lCtiOIl, 1910‘1952 e e e e o e o o e e e e 113 4a. CASH CROPS AND FEED GRAINS: Trends in Yields, 1910-1952 e e e o e e o o e e e e e o e e e o 116 49. HAY AND POTATOES: Trends in Acreage, 1910-1952 e e .e e e e e e o e e e o e o o o e 118 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure 50. MEAT ANIMALS: Trends in Production, 1910-1952 e e e o o e c o e e e e e 51. POULTRY PRODUCTS: Trends in Production, 1924-1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 120 120 INTRODUCTION zyg,22gg1gn. Significant trends and cycles in prices, production, and yield have occurred in Michigan Agriculture in the past four decades. At present there is no inclusive, up-tO-date report of these movements for Michigan.famm products; and, in view of the present concern Of farmers, marketing personnel, extension personnel and other edu- cators in prices, production, and yields of farm products, it is felt that there is a need for this type Of information. It is the purpose of this thesis to illustrate the significant trends and cycles of the major Michigan.farm products and to analyze their causes and peculiarities. In conjunction with this, it is hoped that by combining certain selected products, adjustments in the production on Michigan.farms can also be illustrated. §§§§_gf_§h§ Information. An analysis of this type may assist marketing personnel in forecasting future adjustments in agriculture. By referring to these move- ments through time it is hoped that they will gain some further perSpective that will guide their projections of current and historical facts into the future. A report of this nature may be of interest to farmers and extension personnel who are planning actual farm 2 Operations. The analysis of cycles of farm products may be helpful as a guide in selecting or adjusting enterprises on a.farm, or for measuring the statistical position.of price and production of already existing enterprises. As an indicator Of past marketing conditions, possible future marketing conditions can be interpreted. Information of this nature would be of assistance to farmers also in determining when to sell their products so as to increase profits. It is hoped that marketing agencies, processors Of agricultural products, manufacturers, as well as anyone who buys or sells Nuchigan farm products can make use of this information. Source: of D§_§. In this study, data were collected for a period of forty-two years, from 1910 to 1952. The annual figures for prices, production, yields, and number of animals during this period were taken.from the reports of the State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan. In deriving purchasing power, the annual prices were deflated by the Index of Prices Paid by Farmers. This Index was prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, and for this study was obtained from the “Agricultural Outlook Charts,“ 1951, published by the same bureau. Methods g£_§roc§dure., In determining trend lines for prices, production and yields of the major Michigan farm.products, two lines were fitted to the data in each case. One of these trend lines was a straight line of the form y - a + bx, which was fitted by the least-squares method. The second trend line was a curved line, or parabola, of the form y - a + bx + cxz. These two lines were then compared in each case by analysis of variance to determine which was the more representative of the data.1 Besides these two methods of representing trend in a time series, there are others which may have proven just as useful. One of these is the 9gponenti§1 trend, which is essentially a linear trend fitted to the logarithms of the data. It may be dangerous to use, however, if the trend is to be projected for long periods in the future. Another type of trend line is the logarithmic or growth guryg, which is used mainly to illustrate the transitional growth or increase in industry between two periods of increasing production. Still another type of trend is the moving gygzggg, Although it possesses many advantages such as simplicity and ‘ 1An example of the statistical technique is given in Appendix A. 4 ease of calculation, it is not used here because it does not adequately reflect the data at the extremes of the series. Because of the disadvantages of these various methods of representing trend it was decided that the straight line trend and the parabola, Offered the greatest possibilities for accurately measuring these series of data. Cycles in prices and production were not evident in the case of farm crops. But for livestock and livestock products where price cycles were apparent, the trend was first removed by deflating the price series using the Index of Prices Paid by Farmers in United States. This deflated price or purchasing power was then converted to an index Of purchasing power using the years 1910-14 as a base period. In the case of production or numbers of animals, trend was removed by expressing the data as a percent of the selected trend. These percentages were then plotted to show the existence of cycles. In time series there are two general types of cycles or oscillations. These are harmonic cycles and autoregressive cycles. Harmonic cycles are characterized by regularity in time, i.e. their peaks and troughs recur at regular intervals. This type of cycle is not as prevalent in agricultural price, production, and yield data as the autoregressive cycle, which is characterized by frequent variations in both length and amplitude. The peaks and troughs of autoregressive cycles do not always occur at regular intervals, however the movements are self-energized and so, can be termed a true cycle.l Definition 91; _T_e_r_m_s; (1) Seculgr Trgng: This is a characteristic of a series Of data which extends consistently throughout a long time period. It represents a gradual long-time upward or downward movement in the data. This study was .confined mainly to trends in prices, purchasing power, production, and yield of the major Michigan farm products. (2) Cygles: Cycles are changes which occur over a number Of years with more or less regular periodicity and which are self energized where one part of the move- ment follows from or is caused by another part.2 A movement that may appear to be a cycle but has no logical explanation for its existence is due to chance, or lFoote, R. J. The Statistical Analysis of Cycles or ,ngillatigns in Time Series. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, washington, 1950. 2Thomson, F. L. and R. J. Foote. ric t r Prices, ed 2, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1952 , p. 114. 6 unexplainable factors and therefore is not predictable. This would not be a true cycle. (5) Purchasing P0wer: Purchasing power represents prices after the effects of prices paid by farmers have been eliminated. It is the ability of that commodity to purchase items commonly used by farmers in the process of production and family living. PART I MAJOR MICHIGAN FARM CROPS Upon.close observation of prices of the major Michigan field cr0ps, namely Corn, Barley, 0ats,‘Winter Wheat, and Rye from 1910-1952, it is evident that their trends and fluctuations about the trend are very similar. This is not altogether unexpected since they are partially substi- tutable as feeds and the markets for each are fairly broad. In all cases there has been a gradual trend towards ’ higher prices which is probably accounted for by the general price rise of recent years, and to a lesser extent, by the actions of the Commodity Credit Corporation to support farm prices. Although the fluctuations Of prices around the trend vary in magnitude, there appears to have been four major periods of rising prices following periods of low prices. These periods of rising prices were from 1917-1919, from 1924-1929, from.l954-l957, and in 1947. The relatively high prices for these crOps from 1917-1919 were due to the generaleprice rise experienced. after World War I and also to the increaseddemand for -.. ,,.‘-~'t“'""-—..,.. ~" n ....~.....~W.-u ' feed required for the increased livestock numbers during this period (See Fig. 27, p. 61). The price rise of 1924-1927 appears to be accounted.for largely by the general business recovery after the price recession of 1921 and also by the short crop years of 1924 and 1927. The rising prices of 1954-1957 possibly were a result of a series of short crOps during this time which caused a shortage of supply on the market, coupled with the in- flationary policies of the New Deal Administration. The last great price rise up to 1947 apparently was a result of WOrld War II with its accompanying general price rise and greater demand for feed to raise the increased numbers of hogs and cattle. Thus far only price movements have been.mentioned to the exclusion of purchasing power, production, and yield trends. In order to better describe these trends, each product will be considered separately and for each product, prices, purchasing power, production, and yield will be discussed in that order. Cogg Prices and Purchasing,£gger, The trend in prices of corn is best represented by the curved trend line which indicates a decrease in corn pricesfrom 1910 to 1925 with a rather strong price rise since then. This gradual decline in corn prices from 1910-1925 may be accounted for partly by four large corn crops in the United States from 1920-1925, which depressed the price considerably when marketed. This period coincided with a general price recession following WOrld War I so that these factors may be largely reaponsible for the downward trend during this period. (See Fig. 1) From 1925 to the present, there was at first a gradual price rise and since 1959 a rather strong upward trend. This upward trend is influenced primarily by the abnormally high prices of World war II, and by the government price support programs since 1955.1 During the entire period, there were two violent downward fluctuations -- in.1951 and in.l958 -- which appear to have been due in part to the concurrent business recessions that struck the country at this timee 1The extent of the government price support programs in maintaining higher corn prices is best illustrated by the annual committments of the Commodity Credit Corporation. See Appendix B, Table XXV. 10 Dollars g Purchasing per bu. I I 1 Power Index 7...... Prices - n 2’50 _' Purchasing Power -—-—- —- ‘ “50 2.00.r “200 1.50 F -4150 A , . , 4 x .. 1 "1“ \ >_,~A \ I ”” 1000 (1’ \( \ I \ I“ 7/ A. ll/‘\ _‘ 100 1.4 \‘;'A ‘yr . .50 ‘ - 5O 0 1 1 l L O 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure l. CORN: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, Production - Yield 100,000 bu. ' l ‘ bu. per acre Production 1000 r Yield ————— -*65-0 850 P ~455.0 1 700 " -. 45.0 550 ,- .‘ A ‘ 55.0 23*44; / I V 400 - V], W 'fl 25- O 250 1 l i J 15.0 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 2. CORN: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952. 11 Comparing prices with purchasing power it is seen that the trend of corn prices was seriously affected by two world wars. The trend of purchasing power indicated an overall decline since 1910, although in recent years purchasing power rose slightly. This general decline in.purchasing power probably was a reflection of changing economic conditions that raised the prices of things farmers usually buy. In general the inflation of two wars, the number and prices of livestock, and the total United States production of corn and other grains, appear to have been the most significant factors affecting corn prices. Prodggtion. The trend of production of corn is best represented by a curved line, which indicates a decrease in production of 15 million bushels of corn in.MHchigan frOm.1910 to 1929, and since then a gradual increase in production of 55 million bushels up to 1952. (See Fig. 2) The most significant factor affecting this initial . downward trend in production.from.1910-1929 appears to have been the reduced acreage of corn. In 1920, 1,781,000 acres of corn were harvested as compared with 1,197,000 acres in 1929. This reduction in acreage of corn harvested apparently was the main factor in lowering production 6 during this period. 12 The following upswing in the trend of production.from 1929 to the present time probably was due to two factors. The first of these was the increased yielddue to the advent of hybrid seed which had come into wide use in Michigan by 1940. This factor, along with a gradual increase in corn acreage accounted for the first part of this upward production trend. ,The second part of the upward trend, since 1945, probably was due to an.unusual increase in acreage which reached a peak of 1,805,000 § acres of corn harvested in 1944. In summary, the more important factors affecting the trend of production of corn have been acreages harvested, the increased yields due to the use of hybrid seed corn, and the high price guargnteed for corn-by the government through arrangements by the Commodity Credit Corporation. zlgld. The trend in the yield of corn.from 1910-1952 was best represented by a slightly curving line. Corn yields experienced a very slight downward trend from 1910 to 1950 reflecting the low yields in a number of years during this period. weather conditions such as a late Spring, drought, and frost undoubtedly played a great part in accounting for the abnormal downward fluctuations in.yield which occurred during this period. (See Fig.2) 15 During the depression, yields remained relatively low. This could have been due to the reduced fertilizer consumption.from 1951 to 1956 (Appendix B, See Table XXIV. p.1rTD, and also to an increasing tendency on the part of farmers to use their own seed during the depression years. The gradual upswing in the trend of corn.yields since the depression appears to have been a reflection of the large number of good corn years since 1957, an increase in the amount of fertilizer used, and an increase in the use of hybrid seed. In summary, trends in the yield of corn have been influenced primarily by the changing fertilizer consumption, * the varying weather conditions, and the advent of hybrid seed corn. 14 Oats 22129.3. and W...Ecm. There was little change in the trend of oat prices from 1910 to 1955, although it was slightly downward. This probably was a result of the depression of the 1950's, and also a result of the shrinking demand for cats as a feed for horses, since the numbers of horses and mules were declining rapidly during this period. Since 1955, the trend has been towards higher prices, which probably was a reflection of the rising general price level during World War II, and the action of the government in supporting the price of cats since 1945.:L Oat prices seemed to be affected by changes in corn prices since the}: two grains can be used to some extent as substitutes in ; livestock rations. For this reason oat prices tend to follow the general trend in corn prices. In general oat prices in.MHchigan have been affected , by the general price level, the number of horses and cattle ; on.farms, the total United States production of cats grown : for sale, and also by the prices of corn and barley. 1 The trend of purchasing power resembles rather closely that of prices. The major difference is that for purchasing 1See Appendix B, Table xxv. 15 Dollars . *Purchasing per bu.l I | ' lPower Index 1 Prices I 1°00¥‘ Purchasing P0wer-—-— —-— /\ "140 .80.— A\ .4 120 ~9100 '- 80 - 60 0 40 l910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 5. OATS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing P0wer, 1910-1952. Production ' Yield 100,000 bu. 9’ I I lbu. per acre 750-— Production -—————- ‘d 50.0 Yield ————— 600 ~ 40.0 , , A , \ A . 450 \rfib‘t’fl - 30.0 . \J\\ , \v/ 500 " -— 20.0 ._ 150 "' ~ 10. 0 O 1, AL 1 I 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 4. OATS: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952. 16 power the influence of prices paid by farmers has been eliminated. Therefore. it shows more clearly the effect of the decreasing numbers of livestock from 1910 to 1935 in causing lower oat prices. The upswing in the trend of purchasing power from.l955 to the present time appears to be accounted for to some extent by the interrelation of oat prices with rising corn prices. The increasing livestock numbers and the higher prices of livestock increased the demand for corn, and probably has been associated with the upward trend in purchasing power of oats. Production. The trend in the production of oats indicates a drop in production between 1910 and 1950 of 11 million bushels. This was a reflection of a slow decline in acreage from 1918 to 1928 followed by a rapid decline from.1928 to 1940. This decline in the acreage of oats was associated with a decrease in the numbers of animals on.farms, and with an increase in the production of certain other field crops, notably, barley and field beans. At the same time that acreage was decreasing, yields were also low; partially accounting for the declining production trend during this period. (See Fig. 4) 17 The rather strong upward trend in production from 1950 to the present appears to have been a product of 1 increasing yields due to new, improved varieties,and the use of fertilizer. Production rather closely followed fluctuations in yields, so that this factor along with a four-fold increase in the use of fertilizer between 1930 and the present time, probably accounted to a considerable extent for the upward trend in production. In summary, the trend of production of oats has been associated with variations in acreage harvested, variations in.yields, and with the increased use of fertilizer. zlglg, The gradual downward trend in yield from 1910 to 1950 was due to the practice of using home grown seed rather than improved varieties from certified stock. This resulted in disease and lodging of oats, which held yields down during this period. (See Fig. 4) Following 1930, there was a gradual upward trend in yield that became increasingly apparent in recent years. These higher yields can be accounted for by several factors. There has been an increased use of certified, improved varieties of seed having more resistance to disease and less tendency to lodge. The introduction of more machinery and the wider use of the tractor has meant that less time 18 is required to get the crop sown. These factors along with substantially increased fertilizer applications during this period appear to have accounted largely for the upward trend in yields during recent years. In summary, yields of oats appear to have been sig- nificantly increased in recent years by the type of,seedw used, the improved cultural practices, and the heavier applications of fertilizer. l9 nglgz gzgggg and Egrchasingyggwgg. The trend in barley prices was similar to those of oats and corn,indicating that these feed grains are influenced by many of the same factors. In the case of barley, as in oats and corn, there was a declining trend in prices from 1910 to 1950. This may be accounted for partially by three large crops in 1918, 1920, and in 1928. This increased supply, combined with a diminished demand for barley (due to declining livestock numbers and the loss of the brewers' market during prohibition) probably was responsible for the declining trend in barley prices during this period. Since 1950, there has been a steadily rising trend in prices. This was largely due to a substantial reduction in barley acreage during this period, which temporarily reduced the supply of feed grains during a time when demand was rising rapidly as a result of increasing cattle numbers. A.second factor of some importance was the action of the government in supporting the price of barley-since 1940, and particularly from 1948 to 1951.1 In summary, the most significant factors affecting the trend in prices of barley appears to have been the lSee Appendix B, Table m. 20 Dollars Purchasing per bu. ' 77 f’ Power Index 2.50 _ Prices —'250 rchasing Power —— _.._ 2.00 - / q 200 f 1.50 —. J 150 A A I\ A ‘ \ / 1000 T‘TJN ‘LA ”\ \\ " -‘ 100 r \\ A \ /’ \ I ’x k \ v' ‘\ b / "K‘l’d/ [\vfix-- .50 e j v :7 — so 0 J 1 l i 0 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 5. BARLEY: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Production Yield 10,000 bu. T I ‘ per acre Production 900p Yield ------ -55.0 " 45.0 J55.0 “25.0 '115.0 ‘ is 5.0 lgio 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 6. HARLEY: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952. 21 prices of other feed grains, the number and prices of livestock, the United States production of barley, the quantities used for commercial purposes, and the price support program of the government. I. The trend inpurchasing power was of the same general nature as the price trend except that there was an initial gradual decline in purchasing power followed by only a slight increase during the war years. (See Fig. 5) The long period of declining purchasing power from 1910 to 1936 probably was a reflection of a lower demand for barley due to reduced animal numbers, and lower animal prices. At the same time, production of barley was rising not only in Michigan, but in the United States. The upward trend in purchasing power since 1936 probably was due to the combination of a declining supply caused by the reduced production, and to an increasing demand for barley as a.feed for the greater numbers of livestock raised during this period and for melting by the brewing industry. Production. The trend in production was closely associated with the number of acres harvested. Acreages were generally high from 1918 to 1942, and very low before and after this period. This would account in large part 22 for the upward trend in production experienced from 1910 to 1934, and the downward trend since that time. In summary, the more important factors affecting the trend in production of barley appear to have been acreages harvested and price of barley. ,Xiglg, The initial downward trend in barley yields reflects several years of low yields, notably 1919, 1921, and 1929, when adverse weather conditions resulted in abnormally low yields of barley; (See Fig. 6) The trend in yields increased substantially since 1930 in Spite of unusually low yields in 1933 and in 1943. An important factor accounting for this increase has apparently been improved varieties of barley and heavier applications of fertilizer since 1934. The use of better seed and greatly improved cultural practices were also important. Probably the more important factors affecting yields have been the weather, the use of improved seed, and the ‘w-_. greater use of fertilizer in the production of barley. ‘— 23 Winter Wheat Prices egg Purghgsing nggg, A.1arge volume of soft winter wheat is consumed domestically so that during years of low production, Michigan soft winter wheat prices are established primarily by factors in the United States. However during years of high production, when more wheat must be put on the world market, Michigan prices are associated to a greater extent with world wheat prices. The basic factor causing price fluctuations was therefore the instability of production in comparison with domestic and foreign demands. \ .The movements of Michigan winter wheat prices followed 1 rather closely the fluctuations in the general price level. This is quite evident upon comparing the purchasing power of wheat with actual wheat prices. The purchasing power series exhibits relatively narrower fluctuations. Although the trend of purchasing power of wheat is represented by a curve, a gradual overall decline is noticeable since 1910. This may possibly be accounted for by the general economic changes during the past few years which raised the index of prices paid relatively more than wheat prices. Although Michigan soft winter wheat prices fluctuated widely during the past 42 years, a very distinct downward D ollars per bu.| 24 l I Purchasing Power Index 2.50 —' Prices , "ZOO Purchasing Power — -- -— - /\\ 2.00 -4150 1.50 “‘100 1.00 -‘ 50 .4 .50 - T o l J 11 l l_ o 1910 ~ 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 7. WINTER WHEAT: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Production 1, Yield 10,000 bu. I ' I lbu. per acre 400 Production —— —35.0 Yield - - - - - / ’ 520 '\ w50.0 “ /'A\ - 2400- I", ‘1.” “25.0 [I \ A ’ ” p "3 \ 1 1600 , A , I / I \ ,l A “‘20. O ' \ .- I \ I y 1,1 1 I ‘ A‘I’Ar’ I \\ J ‘i I .a' \ II \v Y K, ,‘t 800 \, V V ~15.0 x: 0 v' .1 L L 1 10.0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 8. WINTER WHEAT: Trends in Production and 1910-1952. Yields, 25 trend is noticeable from 1910 to 1930. This apparently was associated with high wheat prices during World war I which resulted in a sudden increase in acreage in the early twenties and consequently a flooded wheat market in succeeding years. This excessive supply, when combined with the reduced demand for wheat following World war I, was the important factor causing this initial downward trend in Michigan soft winter wheat prices. (See Fig. 7) The strong upward trend from 1930 to the-present time was marred by two serious downward fluctuations in 1930-31 : and in 1938. One factor which probably influenced this upward tread in prices waa actions taken by the Commodity ”0“"fl H...» , --v-‘ Credit Corporation since 1938 to maintain wheat prices at the prescribed support level.1 These actions were particularly important during the years of the second worldwar and the Korean War. A second factor causing the upward price trend was the result of high demandscaused by World'war II. This is partially reflected in the government price support program which was trying to increase the production of wheat during the early years of W0r1d War II. 1See Appendix B, Table xxv. 26 f In summary, the more prominent factors affecting price { trends in Michigan winter wheat apparently were the United 1 States and the world wheat situations, the general price ; level, and the government price support program. ngdggtigg, Although the trend indicates a steadily rising rate of production of winter wheat in Michigan since 1924, it is only since 1943 that there has been any appreciable upward movement in.production. (See Fig. 8) During the period 1910 to 1943 there was a gradual decline in acreage, which appears to have been offset by an increase in yield. The net result of these two opposing factors was to hold production nearly constant during the entire period. The gradual increase in production shown by the trend line since 1924 was due mainly to the rapid increase in production during and following W0r1d War II. The increased production is a result of a tremendous increase in acreage since 1943, which apparently is due to the high wheat prices of these years. This increase in acreage along with higher yields influenced production considerably. In summary, variation.in acreage, yields, and the government price support program appear to have been the main factors influencing the trend in production of Michigan winter wheat. 27 ‘11g1g. Winter wheat yields experienced a steady increase from 1910 to the present time. This trend was stronger for Michigan than for the United States as a whole. This can be eXplained in part by the fact that the weather in Michigan is less of a limiting factor than it is in the leading wheat states, and as a result yields have been consistently higher and more stable. (See Fig. 8) The upward trend in Michigan yields appear to have been the result of a series of significant factors. The first of these is the greatly increased fertilizer consumption, 1 A.second is the use of more improved especially since 1934. varieties of wheat, which are disease resistant and higher yielding. Also, the increased use of certified seed and improved cultural practices have raised yields considerably. ‘1 1see Appendix B, Table XXIV. 28 Bis. Prices and Purchasing_Power., The price of rye has followed closely the movements in the price of wheat in Michigan. The distinct downward trend from 1910 to 1930 probably was due in large part to the loss of the European export market which purchased 53 percent of the United States rye crop fromfl918 to 1922. This caused an oversupply of rye in United States immediately after this period which depressed rye prices considerably. (See Fig. 9) The rise in the trend of rye prices after 1930 was again closely associated with a similar rise in wheat prices. As with wheat prices, the price of rye was really lower than the trend indicates from 1930 to 1940. However, from 1940 to 1947 the price of rye had risen by six times, thus accounting for the strong upswing in the price trend. The rise in prices during this period was a result of very low acreages and consequently a reduced supply of rye. A second significant factor causing this upswing in price was the government price support program which has been made effective through nonrecourse loans and purchase agreements by the Commodity Credit Corporation.1 1See Appendix B, Table XXV. Dollars 29 l I Purchasing per bu. T I Power Index 2.50- Prices - 250 Purchasing Power —- —--— /; 2.00" / k, -— 200 I ‘1 ,/ ‘ / 1.5q' A ~\' / ‘4 150 / \ j I" ’A. ‘2’"); T\(j%fl /y’\ ‘ \\ , I" \ lo 00 \J, \ \ [IN/A; ;\ ‘. J/ \//j T 100 ‘\ \ j M / \ ,4 _ l, __ ‘- 7—2"; ..- \¥ / , .s V \ 7 x: 5/ - 50 . 4 1 1 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 9. RYE: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Productio‘ I Yield 1,000 bu. I F bu. per acre -— ——1 15000- Production ———————— “30.0 Yield —————— 12000..- /\ - 25. 0 9000 / w20.0 rx , 6000 ‘ A A A , ;,.2<__’_ w 15. o ‘ 4 ,5 1.3—» 1., 7‘“-b:- ‘ ‘\— e—J/a— )u:— 291-27,?!- ‘V/ 500- ,’ ‘ , -10.0 .Ah\v/’\\ , ‘r\\v- , £7 1 l l 5.0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 10. RYE: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952. 30 From the purchasing power series it is evident that other prices have been rather important in magnifying the amplitudes of fluctuations in rye prices, and have thus exaggerated the apparent upward trend in rye prices. The slight downward trend in purchasing power of rye probably was a result of the changing economic conditions which increased prices of other commodities in recent years. In summary, it appears that the decreased supply of rye due to lower production, the loss of the European export market, and the abnormal prices of two World wars have been the most significant factors affecting the price of rye. Production. A very distinct decline in production of rye is quite evident from 1910 to the present time. This strong downward trend was a result of the greatly reduced acreage of rye harvested. Fluctuations and trend in production follows fluctuations and trend in acreage harvested very closely. The initial decline in acreage from.1919 to 1926 probably was a result of the loss cf the European eXport market for rye and the ensuing period of low prices. (See Fig. 10) In summary, the change in acreage of rye harvested in Michigan appears to have been the most significant factor affecting the production of rye. 31 Yield. The trend in yields of rye declined gradually from 1910 to 1930 -- a reflection of abnormally low yields in 1925, 1929 and 1934-35. The trend towards lower yields during this period may have been due to a c0mbination af’ low fertilizer applications, the use of home grown seed, and poor cultural practices. Similarly the upward trend in yield of Michigan rye from.l930 to the present time probably was due to a combination of increased fertilizer applications, the use of improved varieties of seed, and improved cultural practices. xThe trend in yield of rye does not appear to be attributableto any one single factor but is the result of the influence of a combination of all three factors. 32 ckw ea Prices ggd_§grchasingdggweg, Buckwheat is a relatively unimportant crop in Michigan and in United States as a whole. Since the market is narrow,.the price is dependent more upon local production, local demand, and the price of feed and flour crops, rather than.upon the total United States production. Changes in buckwheat production have had less affect on buckwheat prices than production changes of the more important crops have had upon their prices. The trend in buckwheat prices was downward from.19lO to 1930, and upward since then. This trend was influenced primarily by the high prices of two world wars, and the unusually low prices of the depression during the thirties. The slight decline in the trend of purchasing power probably was a result of economic changes which raised the prices of commodities bought in recent years, and as a result lowered the purchasing power of buckwheat. (See Fig. 11) Pro c o . The downward trend in the production of buckwheat has followed a corresponding downward trend in acres harvested.. Buckwheat is a relatively low valued . crop which may be used as a "catch crop” if the intended cr0p happens to be a failure during the Spring. In recent 55 Dollars -Purchasing per bu. I ' [—9 lPowerIndex 2.5CP- Prices -4250 Purchasing Power-— _ - - 2. 00“ - 200 '4 150 {100 .5d ‘1 50 0 1 l L 11 o 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 11. BUCKWHEAT: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Production Yield 1,000 bu. I I —r I bu.4per acre 1000—- Production ___—_—. '- 25.0 Yield-—- ----- . 800 " “ 20.0 V A ,, . 1\ 54f" 600..-/A\ ‘\ /\ V x 3? _7,____ d 15.0 L- -—J—-\«- — #- -‘-/“'v ' 4002. \V/ a 10.0 V 200}- ‘ - 5.0 0 _ I L 1 11 0 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 12. BUCKWHEAT: Trends in Production and Yields, ' 1910-1952. 34 years, climatic conditions have been favorable for the growth of wheat, corn, oats, and barley, and also the price of these crops has been high, so that this factor accounted to some extent for the reduced acreage and also for the declining trend in production of buckwheat. In summary, the more important factors affecting the production.of buckwheat have been the changes in acreage of other more important field crops along with the higher prices and yield of these crops. eliglg, Buckwheat has eXperienced a steady upward trend in.yield since 1910, as have almost all other farm crops. These higher yields are due primarily to the increased applications of fertilizer particularly since 1934. At the same time, cultural practices have been greatly improved with the use of more adequate machinery and the introduction of new techniques. These factors along with better growing conditions during recent years, appear to have accounted in great part for the upward trend in yields of buckwheat. (See Fig. 12) 35 All H22 Prices agg_Purchasigg Pgwer, The strong downward trend in hay prices from 1910 to 1930 was a result of unusually high prices during World War I followed by lower prices from 1922 to 1940. The relatively low prices of the twenties and thirties do not appear to have been a result of increased production but rather a result of a decreased demand for hay. This probably was due mainly to a reduction in the number of horses and mules during this period without any very substantial increase in cattle numbers to offset this reduced demand.for feed. There has been a decided upward trend in hay prices since 1930, but particularly since 1940. These higher prices since 1940 apparently are a reflection of greatly increased cattle numbers which raised the demand for hay. This increased demand compared with only a small increase in production, increased hay prices considerably. The price of hay during this period also appears to have been closely associated with the generally high prices of all farm commodities. A second factor accounting for this upward trend in hay prices was the increased percentage of hay acreage devoted to alfalfa, which is a relatively a... higher valued hay crop. 36 Dollars - Purchasing per ton ' ' I Power Index A 25.00 », , Prices '1 125 /‘ {/\ Purchasing Power-—‘--- 1 ‘ . ‘ * \ 20. 00 ‘g\ l , \fl/ -* 100 ‘ l: A\ \‘ 1'“ / “ . ‘ x} ‘\ ,fl / \ I \ 150 00 \ I \ N" 1"” 4 75 1 ‘1 - H. ‘1‘ I \ VA\""\ ‘ /’ "‘1 1 l I, \\ I :fiv:~‘\’/ 10.00 +— ‘\V,.\ . i' \ ,4.- .. ' " V _ _ I \‘ M :1] \ A 1' 50 \J/ \ \: \ > \/ O L I - l l 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 13. ALL HAY: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Production _ Yield 10,000 tonsr I T’ 7* ‘—]tons per acre 450 _. Production ._ 1.75 Yield ————— 400 1'“ ‘\| ) (K\/\. A“! /l)\\ d 10 50 U ,1 l‘ " \ .1, \\ , \ x; ,\ ,A / \ . V w ’1‘ \.— 1’ 4 ’ ‘a f ’ V ' ' O 550 _ l A .‘I , / ’P I ‘y‘ ,' \V d loavs LV’ . I. \\I ——- “' N ‘ V ‘ l‘\ I a I V \/ 1.— "' r, 1 \ I I I \ ‘ “1 V , ‘ \ ‘o ,‘\ J, 3’1 300 ‘ A V ‘ 1 I \v /—‘K\‘ ‘ I! d 1000 v ‘\ I. / / ‘ ll \ ~ ‘ ~. 1 L1 g, v 200 A 1 1 l l .50 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 14. Trends in Production and Yields, ALL HAY: 37 The trend in purchasing power of hay was downward reflecting larger increases in prices of commodities bought by farmers during recent years. (See Fig. 13) In general, some of the more-important factors influencing the tread in hayprices appears to have been variations in demand for hay as a feed for livestock, the price of certain field craps.which compete with hay for acreage, and the general price level. It may be interesting to note that since most farmers use hay only as feed, they pay little attention to the price of hay, unless it has to be purchased from an outside source. Production. Michigan experienced a slowly increasing trend in production of hay since 1910. This increase in production was largely a result of a correSponding increase in yield. Acreage of hayland changed in accordance with variations in cattle numbers and numbers of horses. However these changes in acreage have been offset in large part by changes in yield so that production has fluctuated within a narrow range about the steadily increasing trend line. .— PM“. ;;§_d. The upward trend in hay yields was due largely to the increased use of fertilizer and to the greatly increased proportion of alfalfa included in the total of all hay (Table I). (See Fig. 14) 38 TABLE I Tons of Alfalfa Harvested in Michigang ‘Percent of Total Year Tons Alfalfa Harvested MHchigan Hgy Tonnage 1920 239,000 7.14 1930 751,000 29.37 1940 2,202,000 54.24 1950 1,962,000 56.13 aCompiledfromreports in Michigan Agricultural Statistics published by the Michigan Cooperative Crop Reporting Services, Lansing, Michigan. 39 wires Prices and Purchasng Poweg- Prices of Michigan potatoes since 1910 have fluctuated widely, largely because of changes in the size of the potato cr0p, and because of the inelastic supply and demand for potatoes. The relatively low acreage utilized permits potato production to be changed rapidly so that under the influence of high or low prices, acreage and production can be appreciably expanded or contracted in one year. The large changes in acreage combined with wide variations in yield caused production 130 fluctuate widely. The effects of these fluctuations in Production were greatly magnified by the inelastic demand for potatoes in causing wide variations of price. The downward trend in prices which existed from 1910 13° 1924 was a result of low potato prices following World Waz- I. These low prices apparently were a result of greatly incI‘eased acreages, which expanded due to the high potato pr ices of World War I. This resulted in a period of over- pr 06110171011 during the early twenties, and together with the price recession in 1921 appears to have been the "103“ $1"gtlilficant factors causing the initial downward trend in prices. 4O Dollars _Purchasing per bu. ‘ Ti 1 1» IPower Index h Prices -1300 2.5Ce- 1; Purchasing Power-— —--— —- / 1 ‘| 11 1 -250 2.005- '1 1 .2 W 1 11 I I I ‘ i lo 5q41 : 1 [1111 1'1 1 /\ /,\‘~\ ' ‘1 200 , u . 1 n‘ ' 'f 1 1 I 4 J c 1 '1 1\ ' 1! ~,/\ - 1 \1 I, I 1 1 1 I 1 \ 1 I ._l l I l | , 1 \ A I 1.00,; 1 1‘ y \ Q \ A I!’ 150 J a. 1 A .‘ \' ' 1 C7/ “\JV'IJr’II’f ’ §‘V1 ‘ 1'VHN- 17w- \1 Jun 1 ' | z' \ 1 1 1 i r 2 /A\ I \1 \ ‘71 1 ,1 V I1 . O I V ‘I 1 1 L... ‘Y 1 1 d 50 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 15. POTATOES: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, Production l r I Yield 100,000 bu. , bu. per acre Production ———-———- ..._._._.. .1. 1 o l1 500~ ' 1'. «a 200 1 1 1 '. ,. / ” 1/ 1 I] 5’ 1“ / _ r ‘ ’l; j \\ /I ‘ I 1 ‘ \ 1 I \" " " .— A /‘ //\\ /1\ A1 Jr” ‘ ”(l-’1 7 \Jl ; I / “ A A .I' L 541.... r / \ __+ EOO+V .3“ IJ“.\'<_.1/__:‘ f- —- TV \1 Il/ \ , \\(/. 1. \\V/ ‘ 100 1'—’ ' I v K V \ r I [J )1 / 1 l 150 '- ‘ V/ "‘1 50 100 1 g 11 1 ~ 0 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 16. POTATOES: Trends in Production and Yields of Potatoes, 1910-1952. 41 Although Michigan potato prices eXperienced a strong: upward trend from 1924 to the present time, higher prices 1 did not begin.until 1940. The higher prices of recent years were in part a reflection of a 60% reduction in . acreage between 1934 and 1950. This caused a decline in production, which when combined with an increasing demand caused by the rising population and high incomes, resulted in higher prices. A second factor that has been.of importance in causing higher potato prices was the actions of the Commodity Credit Corporation since 1943 to maintain potato prices at the government support level. ‘Wide fluctuations in purchasing power indicate that although the general price level has had some influence on potato prices, this influence has not been as pronounced as in the case of many other commodities. The trend in purchasing power exhibited only a very slight upward move- ment during the past 43 years. When compared with the downward movement of purchasing power of most other comp modities, this would indicate that the real price or value. of potatoes remained high, largely as a result of the effects of a higher demand and lower production. In conclusion, potato prices in Michigan.have been affected by the total United States production, by changes in production costs, by the quality of the crop, by changes 42 in the general price level and business conditions, by the governmentprice support program. and by potato prices of other producing states. Production. The downward trend in potato production was due to a corresponding downward trend in acres harvested. Although trend in production and acres harvested was closely associated, the production trend was tempered somewhat by the effect of greatly increased yields since 1948. This reduction in acreage of potatoes was apparently a result of the increasing profitability of production of other cash crops. lipid. The upward trend in potato yields since 1910 was accompanied by progressively reduced fluctuations from year to year. The declining magnitudes of yield fluctuations and the gradual upward trend were probably a result of improved technology and the elimination of marginal growers. The recent yield increase since 1948 appears to have been largely accounted for by improved potato seed, treatment of seed, and the increased use of fertilizer. (See Fig. 16) F Bean gzig§§,gpg Purchasing Powgg. The initial downward trend in prices of field beans from 1910 to 1928 was largely a result of an extended period of low prices from 1920 to 1928 (See Fig. 17). The high prices of World war I caused by heavy demands from the armed forces was followed by a greatly increased acreage of beans in the 19203. The war demand had declined substantially by this time, resulting in a downward trend in prices. The upswing in the trend of bean prices was influenced to a great extent by the higher bean prices since 1942. These higher prices were again.accounted for by the heavy demand for beans by the armed forces during WOrld‘War II. Other factors that probably were of significance in explain- ing this upward trend in bean prices were the stronger demands for beans for canning purposes and the improved business conditions during World War II. The purchasing power of beans exhibited a downward trend which apparently was a reflection of the changing economic conditions which raised the level of prices paid by farmers and in so doing, reduced the purchasing power of beans grown in Michigan. 44 Purchasing Power Index Dollars __l per cwt. 1 '1 moor 11\ Prices 4 22.0 1 Purchasing Power-— -—- 1 1 . 12. oo— .‘ | ‘1 zoo [1 I “.180 -lOO ~J SO 0 I L L J O 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 17. FIELD BEaNS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Production __a ‘Yield 10,000 cwt. 1'? 7— 1 lbs. per acre 600 r— Production —— -* 1300 Y1€ld ------ ,1 5001' f\ A A /fi/ \ [K] '— 1100 1 1“ 1 A " ‘\ I11 ‘ \ I i 1 1‘ LJ1 1 111 I ‘ '1: 1” um—. , ’¥LI\\3LL4,#'- rem) rx /“\ 1111L’AV7’ 1‘\ K/ , , A \ \ 1 //1 \ %1’1\ ’1 T'.)1' ' 1 I I" 11’ 'v'\ I \ .,t’ ,1 \' VP l\’ _ 300 1— I \ ’\’ A1,! 1 \1 "1 11 \J 700 I 1” \\ ,\\ A\ l 11] , ' l I Z \J/ \4 \\ 1’ - ‘ / \ . - 200 \ I Y 500 \J . 100 L L L. L 500 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Trends in Production and Yields, Figure 18. FIELD BEANS: 45 In summary, the price of beans has been affected by the heavy consumption of beans during war years, the production of beans in Michigan and in the United States, and by changing business conditions. gzodgction. The steady upward trend in production.of beans since 1910 corresponded with a similar trend in yields (See Fig. 18). Although variations in acreage probably influenced production to some extent, the fluctu- ations in production were closely associated with year to year changes in yield, so that yield has probably been the more significant factor affecting production of beans. 1131;, Although there has been a strong upward trend in yields since 1910, there have been rather wide year to year fluctuations (See Fig. 18). These apparently were a result of changing growing conditions due to variations in the weather. The general upward trend in yield was caused by several factors, of which the more important have been the increased use of fertilizer since‘1934, the use of improved seed varieties, and the introduction of new cultural practices and more adequate machinery. I, “coffin, 6””:- 46 §ggar Beets Prices and Purchasing m. The movement of sugar beet prices indicates an initial downward trend from.l9lO to 1923, and since that time a strong rise in sugar beet prices (See Fig. 19). The upward movement in prices from 1925-1952 was largely a reflection of changes in the international sugar situation during the years of World , war 11:, Although Cuba is the main source of sugar imports for the United States, the Phillipines exported substantial quantities to this country. During the war with Japan, this source of sugar was eliminated, and even since the war the Phillipines have not regained their pre-war status as exporters to the United States. The ultimate effect has been reduced sugar supplies in United States and hence higher sugar beet prices in.thhigan as well as in the entire country. A second factor that has had some significance in explaining the higher prices of sugar beets in recent years was the indirect affect of theESugar Act ofw1949. ‘This act sets quotas on imports from all foreign countries as a protection.for local producers. At the same time it ,_.._——»-......_.-, ‘\ (v) 47 Dollars Purchasing per 13051, 1 j t Power Index 14.00 - Prices . - 175 Purchasing Power — — - - /V 12.00 h— -— 150 10.00 ~ ; ~ 125 /1 A 1 x , 3 I 8. 00 :- v’\\ A L’ L1 I111\ \ '1 100 '17— - ‘ r A \ : fl _ _. -\_ _ _ .1 1‘ I! L 1 J \/ 6c ‘1 \ I1 \ /’. 1“ I 00 K- W1 V - ,i/\ \ -+ 75 4.00 J l L 1_ 50 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 19. SUGaR BEETS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, Production Yield 1,000 tons T T tons per acre 1:500- Production ‘1 12. 0 Yield — ----- fi\. 120d 1 ’1‘ /’1 10 o a 1"} ’r‘ I] / l/ 0 1‘11, b I \‘ K [L , ( . \ ‘ 1 \. 1 “ -r\"'/"" T .— 90d:1y ‘1 v: _- — .1 111 1 11.1: s :1 V 1‘. :1 .1 8. O 1:1 11 \ .I V 1. ,1 /\ ‘.‘ 6001— 1‘1 11 / \j E ‘1 6.0 500V 1/ J 4. o 0 1 i I J , 2.0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 20. SUGAR BEETS: Trends in Production and Yields, 1910-1952. 48 on the basis of sugar content of their product.1 Consequently certain sugar mills have been paying producers higher prices 5 for their sugar beets on the basis of this government subsidy. In this way the government program of limiting imports and subsidizing local producer markets has resulted in higher sugar beet prices to farmers. The limited fluctuations in purchasing power indicates the great effect that business conditions have had on the price of sugar beets. Because sugar is an internationally ; traded commodity, prices are subject to fluctuations in 1111 business conditions, and these fluctuations are in turn reflected in.movements of sugar beet prices. The slight downward trend of purchasing power appears to have been a result of changing economic conditions that raised prices of things farmers generally buy more than sugar prices. In summary, the more important factors influencing Michigan sugar beet prices have been.foreign supplies and foreign prices, government quotas unimports. Government subsidy payments, and the rise in the general price level since 1940:111 1Production and marketing Association, agicg Progrgmg q: the United States Depagtment of Agriggltggg, United States Department of Agriculture, washington, D. C., Misc. Publication 685, 1948. 49 Prodggtion. Although production of sugar beets by Michigan farmers has fluctuated widely, a downward trend has existed during the past 43 years (See Fig. 20). This downward trend was caused partially by three periods of abnormally low production -- 1916-1917, 1929, and 1943. These wide fluctuations in production were closely associated with corresponding fluctuations in yield and acres harvested. The abnormal increase in production during the depression was a result of a high purchasing power of sugar beets which caused farmers to expand their acreages considerably. The general downward price trend since 1910 appears to have been a result of the fact that Michigan farmers found the production.of other crops more profitable. This was due largely to high costs of production brought about by the amount of labor required to produce sugar beets. This downward trend in production would have been more pronounced if it were not for the subsidies paid to producers by the government. These subsidies along with import tariffs made beet farming a more attractive farming enterprise in Michigan and in United States than it otherwise would have been.1 lWitt, L. W. Recent Devglogments in United States Sggg; Poligigs. Michigan Quarterly Bulletin. Vol. 31, No. 2, 1948, pp. 204-214. 50 Yield. Sugar beet yields varied widely from year to year due to changes in growing conditions. However the slowly increasing average yield since 1910 probably was due to increased fertilizer applications and the use of improved cultural practices (See Fig. 20). Pears Priceg gng,Purchasigg‘£gw§g, The strong upward trend in prices of Michigan pears was largely a result of unusually high prices from 1943 to 1948 (See Fig. 21). Fluctuations of price and the trend of prices since 1934 were associated closely with the production of pears in United States, and to a lesser extent, in Michigan. The downward trend in pear prices from 1910 to 1922 was a result of the lower price levels following WOrld'War I. The low pear prices from 1932 to 1942 were largely explained by corresponding years of high production which increased supplies considerably. The price probably would have been much lower had it not been for the greater demands during this period due to the rapidly increasing personal incomes. The recent upward trend in prices was influenced primarily by the very high prices of 1943 to 1948. A glightly reduced supply coupled with increased war demands and the good business conditions of this period were apparently the primary cause of the upward trend in prices of Michigan pears. The slight upward trend in purchasing power was influenced greatly by very high prices from 1943 to 1948 Dollars 52 Purchasing per bu. 1 1 11 Power Index 1 2.50 —- Prices 1 ,\ w 250 Purchasing Power —-— —- J \‘ 1‘ 1\/\ 1‘ ‘ 2.00" 1.501— ,‘ ' ' .fi 200 I\ ,1! 1 1 /1\ , i v 1 ,g 1 . / / i, \ \1 -*150 ,1 V \ \ , 1\ f, I11 1111 1 1 1.oo- ' \y‘ '1 \ J \‘i .K ______ ___, _ __, ._ AM» k - “"' T 4 100 . - ' --' 1‘ [x \ \ V s I \ p I ‘ \I y I \ _z’/\ ,\ / 1/1 \\ 11 \’1 '1 V I/ V V v 050 1'" ' \J/ ‘1 50 o . L L 1i 1 o 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 21. PEARS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. ProductiO‘ 1,000 bu. 11 1 17 11 1500* /“\ 12001- \ ‘ 90d—_ 1 V i " {1 ‘ 600A 1 ' "1' N 1 300 o_ L L L A 1910 1920 1930 1940 Figure 22._ PEARS: 1950 Trends in Production, 1910-1952. 55 caused primarily by an upward trend in the consumption of fresh.fruits and a slightly reduced supply. Eroggctiog. The strong upward trend in production was due primarily to a period of unusually high production from 1950 to 1943 (See Fig. 22). This period of high production was associated with an increase in the number of pear trees and also with years of favorable weather conditions. The drastic downward fluctuations in production were due almost entirely to low yields when weather conditions such as frost limited production in certain years. In summary, the more important factors affecting production of pears have been changes in the number of pear trees and variations in climatic conditions. 54 Peaches Prices and Purchasing ggwgg. Although no significant trend existed for peach prices, it was evident that year to year fluctuations in prices were associated with corre- aponding-opposite fluctuations in production (See Fig. 23). The changing nature of the weather seriously affected the. annual production of peaches and the quality of the peach crop, which has in turn been reflected in annual price movements. The long downward trend in purchasing power of Michigan peaches was largely a reflection of substantially increased levels of production in recent years. This increased the supply and as a result reduced the real price that fruit growers obtained for their product. The changing economic conditions also raised prices in general so that there has been a decline in the purchasing power of peaches. The very high purchasing power of the war years reflected the increased demand and indicates a real price to farmers that was higher than for most other farm products. Production. Michigan peach production has been characterized by a strong upward trend and by severe annual fluctuations about this trend (See Fig. 24). These 55 Dollars Purchasing per bu. ‘ I T Power Index 5.75—— Prices " 200 Purchasing Power—-—-—- 5. 00 r- ] A 160 / / ’ ’\ x ,q 2 25 L— “I " " A“: / 1‘ 120 o ‘ \ ‘ ‘ ”W A ' I i ‘ \ \\\ I \\ ' l\ // ‘6 f\/ \ \ I i \ .i z! I | r L): ‘\‘X ~ L ~ 4.; i [X , l o 50 r— ," y )L ._ HK . _. 80 (/ y \‘ ' v- "' 11- //~\ 7 ’ l -‘ ‘7 V , i ‘ , / \\ 0 I ' 1 L 1 O 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 25. PEACHES: Trends in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. (no significant trend exists for prices) Production 1,000 bu.| ’ l I F 5000 ~ /' \ - K 4000 +— ‘. J x ; f V E l 3000 ‘ i. ' '1 I; ‘l i ‘ 1' 1 i a zooo . ‘ \g‘ - I I \. 1000 , V /\ /\ a I,‘ 3 LV V L O~ l__ L_ 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 -w-‘ Figure 24. PEACHES: Trends in Production, 1910-1952. 56 wide fluctuations were due primarily to annual variations in weather, which seriously affected growing conditions for peaches. The upward trend in production has been closely associated with the increased number of fruit bearing trees in Michigan. The generally higher prices of peaches during recent years prompted many growers to increase tree plantings. Other factors that have been of importance in increasing production are the introduction of new, higher yielding varieties, and the general improve- ment of cultural practices. 57 les Price: and ngghgging.Poweg. Prices of apples grown in Michigan experienced an upward trend which was influenced primarily by high apple prices from 1943-1948 (See Fig. 25). The upward movement of prices was largely a result of high consumer purchasing power from 1943 to 1948, as compared to the low consumer purchasing power during the depression. The initial period of high apple prices from 1919 to . 1929 was a result of the good business conditions during World War I and the decreased production of apples during the twenties. This was followed by a period of poor apple crops in both the United States and in Michigan. The affect of this reduced supply was to raise apple prices considerably from.l919 to 1929. Prices of Michigan apples rose to a peak of $5.38 per bushel in 1945. This peak was accompanied by generally high apple prices from 1945 to 1948 and an extremely short crop in 1945. In general the more important factors affecting Michigan apple prices have been the annual production in the United States and Michigan, the quality of the apple crops, and disposable consumer income. The trend in purchasing power exhibited a gradual increase caused almost entirely by very high prices from Dollars 58 Purchasing per bu.‘ I ' vii lPower Index 3.75 -' Prices -- 300 Purchasing Power—-—-— I\ | H 3.00 +— ', - 250 i \ \ ’\ 1‘ . 2.25 r- ' 1’, 1‘, 4200 ‘ I I ‘ / ‘\ .1 I i l/ r / 1050 "' Ix , L H -1; #150 \ ' . . \\ \ A I! ’ M I“, , —-..' .4— Pf “u," .75 “W V, L/ x . \ VW L n- I \‘ \I/Z \. \‘ J v A ‘“100 W . O: l l 1 I 50 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 25. APPLES: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Prod naction I 1 F '7' FT 150* ._ A . \ a. i.\ fl “ I) f 4 .. i __ L L L i i 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 26. APPLES: Index of Production, 1910-1952. (no significant trend) 59 1943 to 1946. Apparently the extreme downward fluctuations in production during this period in Michigan and in the United States reduced the supply of apples. This raised the real price of apples considerably and accounts in large part for the existing upward trend in purchasing power. The fact that purchasing power of apples increased rather than decreased as have most other Michigan farm products is rather unusual when it is noted that changing business conditions raised prices of things that a fruit grower usually buy. This apparently was accounted for by the unusually high prices resulting from the shortage of supplies and the increased demand in the mid 'forties. Production. No significant trend was found in the production of apples in Michigan due to the extremely wide fluctuations in production from year to year (See Fig. 26). Apparently annual variations in the weather altered growing conditions to such an extent that the production of apples ‘was seriously affected. Such.factors astrost and drought, Lalong with disease and pests have been of importance in causing these wide fluctuations of production. 60 PART II LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS All Cattle Trends and Cygleg i1; Number pp, Page. The number of all livestock on farms is ultimately limited by the amount of feed which can be produced locally and by the cost of bringing feed and livestock into Michigan.from.other states. Closely associated with changes in the cost of feed, and therefore with the number of cattle on farms, is the price, production, and total revenue derived from the production of many food crops such as wheat, rye, sugar beets, field beans, and potatoes. Although the trend in numbers of cattle on.farms has been.moving upward since 1913, it is only since 1935 that there has been any substantial increase in cattle numbers (See Fig. 27). The increase in the price of cattle since 1936, which has been due to heavy demands for meat during World war II, made cattle raising a very profitable enter- prise. This apparently was important in causing farmers to increase their cattle numbers. In general, it appears that the higher cattle prices accounted for the greater number of cattle on.Mflchigan farms. 61 No. of cattle 1000 I a—J 25:00 .— *4 2000 “ 1500 r /”F'\ 1000 - , “ 500 o i l l L 1910 1920 1930 1940 I950 Figure 27. ALL CATTLE: Trends in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952. Percent ~ 1 l Cf.trsnd_r I T— 125 - "i 100 /\/ ‘ 75f "“ 50g l l l l 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 27a. ALL CATTLE: Cycles in Numbers on Farms, 62 The number of livestock on.farms in Michigan appears to have followed a cycle approximating 10 to 15 years in length during the period 1910 to 1952 (See Fig. 27a). The major peaks that were reached in 1919 and 1944 were- reflections of the greater demand and the generally good business conditions of the past two world wars, in higher prices for cattle. The minor peak in numbers on farms that is noticeable in 1934 may have been due to a tendency on the part of some farmers to increase their cattle numbers so as to maintain their level of income during this period of low prices. The length of the cattle cycle in Michigan was shorter than the 15 year average cycle in cattle numbers for United States as a whole.1 Also the amplitude of these cycles have not had the same consistency that was evident in cycles of all cattle in United States. On observation of these cycles of cattle numbers, there may be some doubt as to whether these are true cycles as defined earlier. A true cycle in numbers of cattle is regularly recurring and self-generating. When cattle prices were declining, producers began to liquidate their herds. As this decline continued, the breeding ‘_ lThomsen and Foote, on. g;§., Fig. 70, pp. 388. 63 stock composed of cows and heifers, were finally reduced to the point that there was a shortage of slaughter receipts. Consequently prices rose again and producers began to build up their herds to take advantage of these higher prices. In building up their herds livestock growers forced prices up still higher until the point was reached where they began to market these large herds. The sudden influx of slaughter receipts forced the price down again and the cycle was repeated. In Michigan it appears that external factors such as the abnormal demands of two world wars have been more important in causing cycles of production of cattle. For this reason it may be quite Justifiable to conclude that these movements in numbers were not true cycles. 64 Beef Cattle ggggd§,ggg_Cygle§ in Prices. The initial downward trend in prices of Michigan beef cattle fromul910 to 1924 appears to have been closely associated with changes in business conditions (See Fig. 28). The low beef prices during the depression, which wanes reflection largely of the low consumer purchasing power and an increase in slaughter receipts as farmers reduced their herds, has apparently been of importance in causing this initial downward trend. The very strong rise in the prices trend since 1924 was due to unusually high beef prices since 1941, which was a reflection primarily of an increased demand. The increased demand arose from the relatively high purchasing power of consumers during these years. This caused a substantial increase in the demand for meat. The purchasing power trend has followed closely the trend in prices of beef cattle. The initial decline in purchasing power from 1910 to 1926 was apparently a result of increased cattle numbers during this period. The strong rise in purchasing power was apparently a result of decreased cattle numbers since 1944 and a substantial increase in the purchasing power of consumers. 65 Dollars I I T* Purchasing per cwt. Power Index 25.00 L— Prices /\/ -— 175 Purchasing Power -— -- X 20.00 _ [,l’ w 150 7 fl 15.00 — p- /’ - 125 / / ,. / / ‘J \\ l’ p. A- 7/ ‘\ ,/ '\\ A / '\:\\./\e///I . ’fl/ ¢ '/ \ 0" ’/ ,'\/\- 5.00 :7 L: ‘- *" “K I," '1 75 \\ I! ‘4 O i I L J O 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 28. BEEF CATTLE: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Percent I of trend I 1 I 125 g .. 100 r " 75‘r’ '- l l L l 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 28a. BEEF CATTLE: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 66 It is evident that beef prices have been influenced primarily by the changing general price level, the purchasing power of consumers and its effect on demand, along with changes in the numbers of cattle on farms. Since 1910 cyclical peaks appear to have existed in 1914, 1929, 1942-43, and at the present time the peak of another cycle is approaching (See Fig. 28a). These cycles are due in large part to a distinct inverse relation between number of cattle on farms in United States and the price of cattle. This was modified to some extent during two wars when abnormal demands and the general business con- ditions took precedent over numbers of animals as a determining factor of beef price cycles. However under normal conditions when prices are high, the number of animals available is characteristically low. Livestock growers build up their herds by maintaining a greater number of breeding stock so as to take advantage of these higher prices. Eventually growers must market these increased numbers of cattle. At this time they find that the suddenly increased slaughter receipts have forced prices down with the breeding stock partially liquidated, short slaughter receipts follow which result in a period of high prices. This cycle, due to the inter- relation of price and farm production, continues as a self-generating, regularly recurring movement. 67 V C ve Trends gag Cycles ig_Prices. The trend of veal calf prices was primarily dependent upon beef cattle prices. Consequently price trends of these two products have been very similar. As with beef prices, veal prices declined from 1910 to 1924, remained at a low level throughout the depression, and rose rapidly in recent years. The initial downward trend from 1910 to 1924 and the extended period of low veal prices during the depression was associated with the low diSposable consumer income of that time, which caused a reduction in demand for these expensive cuts of meat (See Fig. 29). Apparently this reduced demand has been important in causing the initial downward trend. The strong price rise in recent years was influenced by very high veal prices since 1946. These high veal prices apparently were a result of the increased consumer purchasing power, which has raised the demand for these choice cuts of meat. The trend in purchasing power followed, though to a lesser extent, the trend in veal prices (See Fig. 29). Probably the most important factor influencing the purchasing 68 Dollars I I T’ Purchasing per cwt. Power Index w 200 40.00L— Prices Purchasing Power——-——-— “‘175 32.00.. ‘J150 24.00 ‘1125 16.00 -'100 8.00 , -‘ 75 0 I 1‘\1 L 1 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 29. VEAL CALVES: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Percent I I of trend I ' TP 125 e ._ 100 -‘ 75 'n l l L 1L, 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 29a. VEAL CALVES: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. 69 power trend has been disposable consumer income. Demand for veal varies considerably with this factor. Consequently, the low disposable income of consumers during the depression caused the initial decline in purchasing power while the greater diaposable consumer income in the forties caused an increase in the purchasing power of veal calves. In summary, prices of veal calves in Michigan were influenced primarily by consumer purchasing power, and to a lesser extent by the price of beef and the number of cattle on.farms. Because of the dependence of the price of veal calves on the price of beef cattle, cycles in prices of veal closely resembled those of beef cattle; averaging approximately 12-14 years in length. The peaks of these cycles occurred in 1916, 1929, 1942, and apparently the peak of a fourth cycle is now approaching (See Fig. 29a). Following the high veal prices of World war I a period of low veal prices from 1921 to 1925 appears to have been a result of low beef prices and also increased marketings of calves caused by the reduction of cattle numbers during this period. The higher prices from 1925 to 1929 reflect higher beef prices and reduced marketings of calves as livestock growers were building up their herds in response to higher prices. 70 Following the low prices of the depression, the high prices of veal calves from 1936 to 1942 were again a result of reduced marketings of calves as herds were built up as all prices rose. The decline in the price cycle from 1942 to 1946 was associated with increased marketings of cattle as growers again reduced herd sizes. It is evident that throughout the records cycles in prices of veal calves have averaged about 12-14 years in length, maintaining a close association with cycles in beef prices and an inverse relation with numbers of calves going to market. This was a reflection primarily of cycles in the total number of cattle on.farms. 71 Hog; Trends gag Cycles g; figg_Prices. Although the initial downward trend in hog prices appears to be from 1910 to 1925, low prices persisted until 1940 (See Fig. 30). It is the relatively high prices since 1940 that accounts for the strong upward trend in hog prices that has existed in recent years. The initial downward trend from 1910 to 1925 and the generally low prices in subsequent years apparently were a result of a number of factors. The poor business con- ditions and the low level of consumer purchasing power during the depression has had considerable influence in causing low hog prices. Secondly, the eXport market was weakened by the low purchasing power of importers and by the increased competition in the international market from Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands. It has probably been a combination of these factors rather than any single one that accounted for this early downward trend. The strong upward movement in prices of hogs in recent years reflected the good business conditions and the higher consumer purchasing power of World War II. At the same time a rapidly increasing population and the very high prices of beef led to a greatly increased demand 72 Purchasing Doll ars per cwt. I I I Power Index .,_____. 25.00- Prices-w— 1 250 Purchasing Power ————— . 20.00 - -- {300 15.00-— //\\ ,/ '0 1C0 . / R .2 F‘\ ‘ \ A I \\ / *\ \ \ / \\ I \ I 10. 00 a; , \ ,A.\/\ 2,,\ / ,‘ui" 4\\,°\ —1 100 \ I \v A ' \ \ 17" \ V - ‘04-:- —" " \ I m \LJ \‘1/ 5.00-— ‘0, a 50 o L 1 I L 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 - Figure 30. HOGS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, ifirifié‘fidr i » r 150 L- , - 100 .1 50 r _ ' .1 L i_+ ! I 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 30a. HOGS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. 73 for pork which was again reflected in the rising price of hogs. The purchasing power trend of hogs declined rapidly from.l910 to 1934 reflecting in large part the low purchasing power of consumers during the depression years (See Fig. 30a). A second factor of importance may have been the large number of hogs on.farms from 1910 to 1924, which when marketed reduced the real price of hogs. The strong rise in the purchasing power of hogs in recent years apparently was a result of greatly increased demands for pork since 1940 due to both the higher disposable consumer income and the increasing p0pulation. In summary, the more important factors affecting the trend in hog prices were general business conditions, united States supply of hogs, the cost of feed, the change in foreign demand, the increase in population, and the price of substitute meats. Cycles in hog prices in Michigan varied in length from 4-6 years and averaged approximately 5 years (See Fig. 30a). These cycles have been fairly consistent in both amplitude and length, resembling hog price cycles for all United States. Cycles in hog prices appear to have been influenced largely by the cyclical movement of numbers of hogs on 74 farms, which in turn was partly a result of the hog-corn ratio which also moved in cycles.1 The cycles in hog numbers on farms caused alternating periods of high slaughter receipts and low slaughter receipts. Consequently prices of pork have moved in.fair1y regular cycles, inversely related to cycles in hog marketings. ' Egg; g ggd Cyclgs in Egg flgmbggg, The long downward trend in numbers of hogs on.farms from 1910 to 1939 was largely a reflection of the relatively lower hog-corn ratios from 1926 to 1936. This made it more profitable to sell corn directly rather than to convert it into hogs. Similarly, the upward movement in hog numbers since 1936 has been associated with a correSponding period of greater- than-average hog-corn ratios. The rising hog prices of recent years caused farmers to grow more corn and to increase their production of hogs. The cycles in hog numbers were primarily caused by fluctuations in the hog-corn ratio.2 Following periods of high hog-corn ratios, numbers of hogs on farms increased in about 2 to 3 years, and following periods of low hog-corn ratios numbers of hogs on farms decreased in approximately 1Thomson and Foote, Op. cit., Fig. 62, p. 372. snug. No. of hogs 1,000 I I I I lSOOr— __ 1200I-* 1-. / I .1 900 /\V' ;i::~;;7’ _. 600 ”I - 500-— .1 o l n l L 1910 ' 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 31. HOGS: Trends in Numbers on Farms, 1910bl952. Percent _ ‘ I of trend I ' I T 150 I l 50 - _- 1 LL I L 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 31a. HOGS: Cycles in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952. 75 76 2 to 3 years. These decreased hog numbers caused an increase in hog prices relative to corn prices, which was then followed by a period of increasing hog numbers to take advantage of these higher prices. The cycles are not always of the same duration and intensity due to the influence of wars and depressions. Changes in yields, production, and prices of corn result in irregular changes in the hog-corn ratio, and also the varying response of growers to the hog-corn ratio have caused deviations from the normal occurrence of the cycle. 77 Spock Sheep Trgndg gag Cycles ;Q_Ngmbers 9Q_Farms. A distinct downward trend in the number of sheep on Michigan.farms since 1910 is evident (See Fig. 32). Since sheep and cattle compete for range, pasture, and other feeds, the strong upward trend in cattle numbers on farms was accompanied by this long-time decrease in the number of sheep (Fig. 27). Fluctuations in sheep numbers were inversely related to fluctuations in cattle numbers, giving further indication of the inverse relation which existed between the production of cattle and sheep. In recent years the increased consumer purchasing power raised the demand for beef relative to lamb. The resulting increase in beef cattle production has been at the expense of sheep production. At the same time alternative farming opportunities have been.more profitable in Michigan in recent years, resulting in a tendency on the part of farmers to get out of sheep production and into other farming enterprises. Cycles in numbers of sheep on Michigan.farms do not exhibit the same characteristic 7 to 12 year cycles that are evident in numbers of sheep on United States farms (See Fig. 32a). In Michigan, the three peaks in numbers No. of Stock Sheep 78 1, 000 j T j 1800'“ ~ .l 1600 L- \ -' ”IKL, /"/ 800 4COL* f“, -w o l I L 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 32. STOCK SHEEP: Trends in Numbers of Stock Sheep on Farms, 1910-1952. Percent of trend 150 l. ‘ ._ 100 —— .4 ,L _ L 1 L 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 32a. STOCK SHEEP: Cycles in Numbers of Stock Sheep on Farms, 1910-1952. 79 of sheep on farms were 9 to 17 years apart, occurring in 1910, 1920 and in 1937. Again this sheep cycle was closely associated with cycles in numbers of cattle on Michigan farms.l A second factor that may account for these apparent cycles was the variations in consumer demand. Consumption of lamb and mutton is more or less confined to white collar workers in certain regions on the Atlantic coast and Pacific coast. The high income of these white collar workers in the depression gave this class of consumers a relatively high purchasing power during this period as compared with industrial laborers. This increased the demand for lamb and consequently the numbers of stock Vsheep on all farms in United States. Similarly during WOrld war II, the purchasing power of this class of people declined considerably relative to that of industrial laborers and, as a result the demand for lamb and mutton decreased. This reduced demand has been reflected in lower sheep numbers on.farms in recent years. In summary, the more significant factors that have influenced sheep numbers were cycles and trends of cattle numbers on Michigan farms, variations in consumer demand, and the changing number of stock sheep on United States farms. 1The cycle in sheep numbers is not a true cycle that is self-energized. Rather it appears to have been a result of such external factors as cattle numbers and consumer demand. 80 Sheep and ngbg Trgnggpggngycl s inyggice§._ Prices of sheep and lambs declined and remained low from 1910 to 1940, moving upwards since 1940 (See Figs. 33 and 34). These price trends were a result of very low sheep and lamb prices during the depression years which caused the initial downs ward trend, and very high sheep and lamb prices during World war II which caused the strong upward price trend of recent years. The long-time trend of sheep and lamb prices was closely associated with the numbers of sheep on.farms in Michigan and in United States as a whole.1 The great increase in stock sheep numbers during the depression forced sheep and lamb prices down. This factor along with the generally low price level during the depression accounts for the initial downward trend in prices. The sharply rising prices since 1945 wanes result of declining sheep numbers extending from 1933 to 1949. This reduced supply with the accompanying increased consumer purchasing power of recent years have been major factors in accounting for the upturn in the trend of prices. lThomsen, F. L. ri t al c Med. 1, McGraw- Hill, New York (1952), Fig. 79, p. 402. 81 Dollars Purchasing per cwt. I I I Power Index _ Prices _ 5’00 Purchasing Power-———-——- 250 12.00'- '— 200 \\\ / ‘1 ’0‘ M" I A ‘ ”0 \/' \‘/ - v—— - _ ’\.- -— -' "’ >17FJ‘ . v \ »»4 3.001“ ‘ ,x ‘ 50 O I I . I I 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 33. SHEEP: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, l9lO~l952. Percent L of trendI ' ' I r 150 J F. 100- '— 50" _J I I I L 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 33a. SHEEP: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Dollars . T I l per cwt. 30.001— Prices Purchasing Power- '— -'- 24.00 18.00 12.00 6.00 C) l I I I 82 Purchasing Power Index L 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 34. LAMBS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, Percent ‘ of trend F I r 150‘— 100 50L- ! L I 1910 1920 1930 1940 Figure 34a. LAMBS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. 1950 83 The purchasing power of sheep and lambs both experienced an initial decline (See Figs. 35 and 34). The early downward trend in purchasing power of sheep was largely a reflection ‘ of the reduced demand for mutton as a food due to a change in consumption habits from.mutton to lamb. The early decline in purchasing power of lamb was not as severe as that of sheep mainly because of this trend towards consumption of more lamb as compared with mutton. The strong upward trend in purchasing power of sheep in recent years was largely a reflection of an increased demand for such sheep by-products as pelts, lanolin, and tallow during World war II. The gradual increase in the purchasing power of lambs since 1924 appears to have been a result of this change in consumption habits towards more lamb as compared with mutton. In summary, the more important factors affecting the price of sheep and lambs appear to have been the numbers of sheep and lambs on farms, the general business conditions, and the consumption of lamb and mutton. Cycles in purchasing power of sheep and lambs have been rather irregular in magnitude and varied as to length (See Figs. 33a and 34a). This may be due to external influences such as wars and depressions which account for 84 many price changes that are interpreted as cycles. Cycles of sheep and lamb purchasing power in Michigan vary from 6 to 11 years in length and average 8 years in length. Peaks have occurred in 1918, 1926, 1937, 1943, and apparently another peak is approaching at the present time. Besides the influence of wars and depressions, the production of sheep in the United States appears to have been an important factor accounting for cycles in purchasing power. Cyclical movements in numbers and purchasing power are not uniform but they do appear to bear some relationship. When sheep and lamb purchasing power was at a low level, sheepherders tended to liquidate more of their breeding stock. The resulting shortage of supplies in two to four years forced sheep and lamb prices to a higher level again. At this point sheepherders built up their herds, marketing very few of their breeding stock, and in this way maintained these higher prices for two to three years. The heavy production that resulted from this practice was finally let onto the market; the price was again.forced down; and the cycle repeated. This sequence of events was sometimes altered by external factors such as abnormal price fluctuations during wars and a depression, and by disease in sheep and lamb flocks. 85 In general, the more important factors affecting the price cycles of sheep and lamb are the cycles in number on farms in the United States and Michigan, abnormal demands during wars and depressions, and variations in consumption habits. 86 W0 0; Trends gng_Cyg;e§ in Prigeg. Prices of wool in Michigan have experienced a gradual upward trend since 1910 (See Fig. 55). In addition they have been characterized by high prices during the two world wars and the Korean war and low prices during the depression. The price of wool was very high during the first world war because of the great quantities used for military purposes. Prices did not rise proportionately during the second world war because of the introduction of many new synthetic fabrics. The low prices of the depression were a reflection of not only the generally poor business conditions which influenced prices of other products, but also of the increased supply due to large numbers of sheep on,farms. This steady upward trend in wool prices probably was caused by the very high prices in 1950 and 1951. These prices were a reflection not only of good business conditions but also of increased demands for wool for military use in the Korean war and the reduced supply due to low numbers of sheep on farms in the United States and Michigan. Wool prices in Michigan have been influenced by the abnormal demands during were together with the world production of sheep and wool. Cycles in the price of wool were not clearly evident but there were periodic upward movements which averaged 8 years in length and resembled a cycle (See Fig. 35a). Dollars 87 Purchasing per lb. 777 I T | Power Index l.OO-— Prices __, __ 250 Purchasing Power — — — — .aor— -— zoo / \ f_ l \ I \ ,"a — 150 v \ J A \ /\ . \ \,,/ i t M -‘ lOO \KJI.J \‘ —‘ 50 o l 1_ I 1 o 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 55. WOOL : Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, . 1910-l952. Percent of trendl ‘ri I 1 I 150 —’ ‘- lOO '" 50 _' " 1 s 1 1 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 35a. ‘WOOL: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. 88 The cyclical peaks in prices occurred in 1918, 1926, 1936, 1943, and another peak is apparently approaching at the present time. This cycle in wool prices was only partially explained by cycles in numbers of sheep on United States farms producing wool. Other factors such as the world production of sheep and wool, general business conditions, and abnormal demands during wars have all played a part in causing this cyclical-like movement in the purchasing power or real price of wool. Trends gag Cycles in Production. The long-time downward trend in production of wool in Michigan was associated with the steadily decreasing numbers of stock sheep on.Mfichigan farms (See Fig. 36). The decline in wool production of 80percent from 1910 to 1951 corresponds very closely to an 81.8 percent decline in the number of stock sheep on Michigan.farms during a comparable period. This reduction in sheep numbers and wool production was largely explained by alternative farming opportunities which have proved more profitable to Muchigan.farmers in recent years. The apparent cyclical movements in the production of wool were influenced almost entirely by the number of stock sheep on.farms in Michigan. Peaks in these movements were found in 1911, 1918, 1931, and 1957. Since wool is a by- product of sheep production in Michigan, the cyclical-like fluctuations in wool production were caused primarily by cycles in the numbers of sheep. 89 Production 1000 lbs. 4 *7 1 ' ' lEOOOr— ._ \\ 18000 ‘ -— 9000 6000*- 5000 ” O 1 1 L L 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 56. WOOL: Trends in Production of Wool, 1910-1952. Percent I T I oftrendl I l50-— ‘* lOO- ’ -n 50-— - J L 1 1 1910 - 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 36a. WOOL: -Cycles in Production of Wool, 1910-1952. 90 Chicken and Eggs ngg g gag Cycleg ig Prices. Although prices of chickens and eggs have been very noticeably influenced by two world wars and a depression, a steady upward trend was evident from 1910 to 1952 (See Figs. 37 and 38). This upward trend was largely a result of the high chicken and egg prices during World war II. The increased demand for chickens and eggs along with the large purchases of eggs by the government for the military forces during werld war II increased prices substantially. Government programs have been of importance in causing the upward price trend. From 1933 to 1941, government purchases amounting to nearly 2 percent of the United States production of eggs were made in order to improve producer returns. The eggs bought were distributed to low income families or to schools through the.free lunch program. Government purchases of eggs during'World War II for food use in the armed forces increased from 10 million pounds of dried eggs before the war to 300 million pounds of dried eggs after the war. The purchases of eggs by the government in 1944, and 1947 through 1950, also contributed to higher prices for eggs. Although the government has been quite active in supporting the price of eggs, it has done very little to directly support the price of chickens. 91 Cents Purchasing PEE_EE;J [ I I IPower Index Purchasing Power —-— —-_ f// 25.0 L— N - 150 A 20. O L- / / \ j /A\\ l/ \\ A\ _J 125 \ / V \ , L ——-—-—\V«-.-—— r—:— .fl:’——- \ 15.0 n- ’ \ \\ - lCO \‘ A V \ \ 10'0 V \ -1 75 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 37. CHICKENS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Percent f of trend r j I 125 P .l 100 KV/r‘\/_/C‘o/\\¥J " 75 ‘h- A ‘i i 1 .L 1 1910 . 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 37a. CHICKENS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952 92 Cents a l I Purchasing per doz. I I , Price Index Prices '50 ”' Purchasing Power — - — — /-’\ , I" 150 / / - 1‘25 " lOO — 75 v. 10 " 9‘ 50 O l - J J .L 25 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 ' Figure 38. EGGS: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. Percent I I 1* 1 0f trend 125 _ __ 100 __ L i 1 i L 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 38a. EGGS: Cycles in Purchasing Power, 1910-1952. 93 The purchasing power of chickens has been rising gradually since 1910. This appears to have been a reflection of the high consumer purchasing power in recent years which caused a greater demand for chickens,often regarded as a luxury food item. The purchasing power of eggs has trended downwards since 1910 with a leveling-off since 1944. Eggs are almost a standard food item, consequently it is doubtful whether higher consumer purchasing power increased the demand for eggs substantially. As a result economic changes which raised all prices in general apparently caused a decline in the purchasing power of eggs. V The most significant factors affecting prices of chickens and eggs appear to have been changes in consumer purchasing power, and purchasing programs carried out by the government. . Cycles in the purchasing power of chickens and eggs are very obscure and there may be some doubt as to the existence of true cycles. However peaks in purchasing power appear to have been reached in 1912, 1920-22, 1925-26, 1929, 1936, 1938, 1943, 1945, and 1948. There fluctuations varied in length from.2 to 8 years and averaged about 4-5 years. A 94 There has been very little consistency in the length and amplitude of price cycles in chickens and eggs. Changes in the production and supply of chickens and eggs can'be brought about rapidly due to the nature of the poultry enterprise. Such factors as cost of production in relation to prices received from chickens and eggs apparently have prompted many farmers to alter production periodically, and it appears to have been these resulting changes in supply that caused the cyclical-like movements in the real price of chickens and eggs. There has been very little agreement among price analysts as to the existence of a true cycle in prices or purchasing power of eggs in United States.1 Although cycles in chicken and egg prices in Michigan have been highly irregular, they appear to have been caused by internal forces and so can be termed a true cycle. 22299.1 _e_ng Cyclg: in Exodggtiog. Due to the widely fluctuating nature of the number of chickens on farms in Michigan, there does not appear to have been any significant trend (See Fig. 39). The most striking characteristic of this series of annual data has been the decline in numbers of chickens on Michigan farms from 155 million to 102 million between 1944 and 1949. f lThomsen, op. cit., p. 414. 9 No. of Chickens No. of Eggs 100,000 I 1 1,000,000 _ Chickens ._l600 150 Eggs _____ ._\\\\ / I . 130 — '=. 1’ / “1400 ‘2 I . / ‘ ‘x . ‘\ 120 -— \47 \ J/ “1300 A II/ I ‘( . \ 110 — fly: 7 X 41200 .’ \J \I 100 I 1100 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 39. CHICKENS “ND EGGS: Trends in Production, 1910-1952 (no significant trend for chicken numbers) Chicken Nos. Egg Nos. percent I 1 1 Percent of trend 125 __ Chickens . . - 125 100 — ‘ 100 75 r ‘ 75 1 l l 1930 1940 1950 1920 Figure 39a. CHICKENS AND EGGS: Cycles in Production, 1924-1952. 5 96 The trend in production of eggs in Michigan was strongly upwards. Although variations in egg production followed fluctuations in numbers of chickens on.farms, the trend in egg production advanced much more rapidly than numbers of chickens. The greatly increased production of eggs since 1937 was due to the fact that production per bird increased from 121 eggs per hen per year in 1930 to 167 eggs per hen per year in 1950. This increased yield was due to better management practices, more adequate feeding practices, and improved breeds of egg-layers. There was a tendency for chicken numbers and egg production to move in cycles. However the limited data used in this study does not warrant the drawing of definite conclusions. Peaks of production apparently were reached in 1927, 1932-33, 1937, 1943, and in 1946. These cycles varied from 3-5 years in.length and averaged about 5 years. The occurrence of cycles in chicken numbers and egg production were associated with cycles in prices of these products. When prices were high, farmers increased pro- duction, and the marketing of this increased production forced prices down. Later when a shortage of supplies developed, prices rose again, and the cycle was repeated. As a result MUchigan.experienced fairly regular cycles in the production of these poultry products during the years included in this study. 97 Milk Cows Trend; £99. Cyclgg in .Nggbersnganms. Numbers of milk cows on Michigan farms have increased at a rapid rate since 1910 (See Fig. 40). This upward trend in numbers of cows can be accounted for largely by the rapid increase in population which has taken place in Michigan and particularly in the Detroit area since 1910. The resulting increased demand for fluid milk and dairy products raised dairy prices considerably and made dairy farming an increasingly profitable enterprise in Michigan. The profitability of selling fluid milk apparently has caused the rapid increase in.milk cow numbers. The upward trend in numbers of milk cows was modified by slight cyclical fluctuations which corresponded with the cycle in beef cattle numbers in the United States.1 This cycle appears to have been a result of the dual purpose animal kept for the production of both beef and milk, and also a result of the influence of the cycle in beef prices on the culling out of old dairy animals. The more important factors affecting the numbers of milk cows on.farms have been the higher prices of dairy products due to the greater demand from the increasing population, and the prices of beef cattle or cows for beef. _¥ 10:. Thomsen, op. cit., p. 414. 98 No. of Milk Cows l, 000 llOO _. 1000 900 ' 800 T l I T 700 T‘ 600 _ l i J L 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 40. MILK COWS: ' Trends in Numbers on Farms, 1910-1952. Percent, r 1 I l °f m 125 _. .1 100 M ’ '75 - ‘I x l l I L 1910 1920 1950 1940 1950 Figure 40a. MILK COWS: Cycles in Numbers on Farms, 99 Milk. Trends gp Prig§§_agd Purchasing £g1g2,, The price trend of milkin Michigan was characterized by an initial decline in.nilk prices and then a strong rise in prices. Fluctuations about this trend followed closely the move- ments in business conditions (See Fig. 41). Consequently in Michigan, business conditions and consumer purchasing power appear to have significantly influenced the trend in milk prices. Other important factors influencing milk prices may have been the increased per capita consumption of milk and the increased population, which has raised the demand for milk, and as a result, the price of milk. The price of feed also influenced to a certain extent the production of milk, because farmers can expand or contract production according to the relative price of feed and milk by varying the amount of feed per cow.l This has affected the supply and consequently the price of milk. In general the more significant factors affecting the price of milk in Michigan appear to have been consumer purchasing power, the increasing demand due to population increases and higher per capita consumption of milk, and the supply of milk in.Michigan. ______ lThomsen and Foote, Op. cit., p. 422. 100 Dollars I I I Purchasing per cwt. Power Index : Prices V°OO" Purchasing Power-—-—-- ‘"[l75 ll ,/\ . 4.00 r / 4’ - 150 // I J 3.00- ’ I \ /\«1 -*125 /’/\ \‘/ \ l/ \\ /”\ / ’V . \ 1' . / J! \ 20 OO h—~‘/ \ \f/A\\// /“'~ gull-7, I ’ I \ A\ _— l 00 4 ‘ w*———\”’/"v/ V r \x / lo 00 '_ \\ // _..4 75 \/ I o l L I 1 I so 1910 1920 1930 1940 1930 Figure 41. MILK: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1910~1952. 101 The trend of purchasing power was downward from 1910 to 1930, and was due primarily to the reduced purchasing power of consumers during the depression and hence a reduced demand (See Fig. 41). Production continued to increase during this period so that the real price was lowered still further by the oversupply. The upward trend of purchasing power since 1930 appears to have been due partly to the greatly increased purchasing power of consumers following the depression low and partly to the greatly increased demands arising from the rapidly rising papulation. The most significant factors affecting the trend in the purchasing power of milk have been diaposable consumer income, the annual production of milk, and the increasing demand for milk due to both a higher per capita consumption and a rapidly rising population. No significant cycles were evident in the purchasing I power of milk. This is largely a reflection of the fact that milk production, which is the most significant factor causing cycles in prices, can be expanded or contracted by varying feeding practices. Thus the basic cause of cycles in purchasing power of milk, namely production, has been eliminated. j lLorie, J. H. Causes of Annual Fluctuations in the Production 93 Livestock and Livestock roductg, niversity of Chicago 102 Tgends i3 Milk Production (1924-1952). The rising trend of production of milk in Michigan appears to have been a reflection of both greatly increased numbers of milk cows on.farms (Fig. 40) and a steady upward trend in production of milk per cow (Fig. 42). Of these two factors, the increased numbers of milk cows probably accounted for the greater part of this upward trend in production, while increased yields per cow had a lesser effect. Milk production was also affected by the relationship of the price of butterfat to the price of feed. When butterfat prices were high relative to feed prices, dairymen fed more heavily so as to increase production and hence total returns. When the price of butterfat was low relative to feed prices, producers took poorer care of their herds and fed less intensively. There does not appear to have been any evidence of cycles in milk production in Michigan. This is largely a result of the fact that production of milk can be altered by varying the amount of feed per cow, Which as was pointed out above, removes the basic cause of the cycle. Production was influenced primarily by numbers of milk cows on farms and production per animal. 103 Trends _ip gig Production fig}: 991 Q924g952). The steadily rising trend in production of milk per cow has been a result of several factors. Of major importance has been the improved feeding practices of recent years. 'This includes the use of more alfalfa as a roughage, the increased use of grass silage as a pasture supplement, the increased feeding of concentrates, and the improvements in pasture programs. A second factor has been the culling out of poor producers so that the average yield per cow has been higher. The Artificial Breeders Association has also aided in providing higher producing cows so that the average yield has been higher. Probably no single factor can be distinguished as being of major importance as this increase in yield appears to have been a result of a combination of all these factors. Again as in total production of milk, there does not appear to have been any cyclical movement in the production of milk per cow. Fluctuations in yield from year to year have been very limited and somewhat erratic due to the fact that the quantity and quality of feed available varies somewhat from year to year. 104 Milk Production per Cow ‘ Total Milk Production pounds | l ' I ,ooo,ooo lbs. /’ _ . assassin _—:—_-: ,x a 6000-— “5500 5700" “5000 5400 —- *‘4500 5100 — -J4ooo 4800 ; l 3500 1920 ' 1930 1940 1950 Figure 42. MILK: Trends in Production and Production per Cow, 1924-1952. 105 Butter and tterfat Trends in 2.11.0.9; and W £922.92.- The steadily rising trend in the price of Michigan creamery butter was closely associated with changes in business conditions, and also with diaposable consumer income (See Figs. 43 and 44). - Butterfat is the basis upon which cream is usually purchased for butter manufacturing. Consequently variations in prices of these two commodities have been almost identical. The price of butterfat has moved upward largely because of the influence of high butter prices and high fluid milk prices. The trend of butterfat prices appears to have been different from the trend of butter prices only because the data for butterfat is limited to the period 1921 to - 1952 as compared with 1910 to 1952 for butter. This relatively shorter period caused undue emphasis by the depression and thus accounts for the dip in the prices trend during the thirties. If the data had extended over the same period as was available for butter, it is quite possible that prices trend of butter and butterfat 'would have been almost identical. The most important factors affecting the price of butterfat appear to have been butter prices. and milk 106 Dollars T* I I eJPurchasing per lb. Power Index -—‘"—7 .75 —- Prices —4150 Purchasing Power _._ _._ .60 -'l25 .45 ~1loo .30 -‘ 75 .15 *' -I 50 C l l I l ‘25 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 43. BUTTER: Trends in Prices 1910-1952. (no significant trend in purchasing power) Dollars __4Purchasing per lb. I I ' lPower Index 1.00 w' Prices —‘120 Purchasing Power _._.-._ ”‘30 - —- 100 .60 —- -* 80 .40 e- -‘ 60 .10 L 1 1 i ' l 20 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 44. BUTTERFAT: Trends in Prices and Purchasing Power, 1921-1952. 107 prices while factors influencing the price of butter have included a combination of the increased consumer purchasing power, the price of oleomargarine, and loans made through the Commodity Credit Corporation to support butter prices in 1938 and 1939. There has been no significant trend in the purchasing power of butter since 1910. Year to year variations in purchasing power since 1940 were accounted for partially by variations in production. However this relationship was not sufficiently distinct to term.these fluctuations cycles. The annual variations in the purchasing power of butterfat in the limited data available (1921-1952) were again similar to those of butter for the corresponding period, due largely to the interrelations of these products. Although a trend in the real price of butterfat is discernible this appears to have been influenced more by the low consumer purchasing power during the depression. If the data had included the entire period 1910-1952, the trend may have been modified considerably. Tgendg in Prodggpion. The initial upward trend in butter production followed the increase in milk production during these years (See Fig. 45). From 1922 to 1935, the 108 Production . I 10,000 lbs. ‘ l 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 40001- ‘ 5000r 1 ! 1 1920 1950' 1940 1950 Figure 45. CREAMERY BUTTER: Trends in Production, 1922-1952. 109 consumption of fluid milk and cream remained constant.1 The surplus resulting from the increased production of milk and cream was manufactured into butter in response to the high butter prices existing from 1923 to 1929. As a result butter production increased substantially during these years. The sharp downward trend in the production of butter particularly since 1940, has been a result of a combination of several factors. First, the increased fluid milk and cream consumption has reduced the amount of butterfat available for butter production. Not only has there been an increase in per capita consumption of fluid milk, but the milk shed of Detroit has been expanding due to the increase in population. Secondly, the higher price of butter has caused the cheaper product, oleomargarine, to be substituted, thus reducing the market for butter and hence butter production. Thirdly, there has been a movement of the condensary market into former cream markets, which has again caused less butter to be produced. In general, the more important factors affecting the production of butter in Michigan have been the relationship of feed prices to butterfat prices, the substitution of lQuackenbush, G. G. Mglk Utilization Trends in Michiggn. ‘Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin 372. 110 oleomargarine for butter, and the expanding p0pulation's consumption of fluid milk and cream. 111 PART III GROUPED PRODUCTS gash Crapsl and Feég Grgingz Trends ig_Acreage. The acreage of cash crops harvested annually since 1910 has trended slightly downward (See Fig. 46). This decline in acreage was a reflection largely of two significant factors. The higher price offered for these cash crops in recent years and the higher yield obtained from them has allowed Michigan.farmers to maintain or increase their returns from a slightly lower acreage. In addition to this, legislation was passed in 1936 which granted certain acreage payments to farmers if they complied with the soil conservation program in reducing acreages of cash crops and feed grains. It would appear that a combination of these two factors had led to the slight decline in the acreage of cash crops in Michigan. The acreage of feed grains followed a downward trend very similar to that of cash crops (See Fig. 46). This is to be expected since the acreage of feed grains is influenced by the same factors that influence the acreage of cash crops; lIncludes wheat, sugar beets, field beans, and potatoes. ZIncludes corn, oats, and barley. 112 namely, the higher yields which have increased production utilizing fewer acres, the acreage allotment program included in the price support program, and the reduction in acreages induced by the soil conservation program. Besides these factors, the acreage of feed grains moved in accordance with the demand from livestock and hog growers, and with their reapective cycles of numbers on.farms. Eggndgflinhzrggggtign, The production of cash crops in Michigan experienced an upward trend since 1920, influenced primarily by an increase in production of 20 percent since 1935 (See Fig. 47). This increased production was mostly accounted for by two major factors. The introduction of new and improved higher yielding varieties of seed, resistant to disease and lodging has increased production substantially since 1935. The government price support program guaranteed a price for cash craps to farmers such that it made it practical to use greatly increased quantities of fertilizer and to ad0pt more intensive cultivating practices in order to increase production. Although these factors have been of importance in explaining the upward trend of production, the annual fluctuations in the pro- duction of cash crops appear to have been a reflection largely of variations in the Michigan acreage of cash craps. 113 Cash Crops Feed Grains 1,000 acres 1 1 I 1.000 acres Cash Crops —— 2150 1- Feed Grains — — — — — 3600 A [\ 2000 -—5400 1850 -—5200 1700 3000 1550 2800 1 J- 1400 ll. 1 i is 12600 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 46. CASH CROPS AND FEED GRAINS: Trends in Acreage, 1910-1952. Cash Crops Production ‘ Feed Grains Production Index I T 1' I Index 150- Cash Crops.______ - 150 Feed Grains -..-._ I 125 P A I ‘I loos—fl _‘;__,L_‘__“Z[+ «II-- \ Mv., \ 75 // \/F m\,’ V] I ’ -— 75 ./ 50-— ~ 50 25 1 l ! L 25 -. 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 - Figure 47. CASH CROPS AND FEED GRAINS: Trends in Production, 1910-1952. 114 Although the production of feed grains in Michigan experienced an upward trend, this tendency has not been as great in recent years as that of cash craps. As with cash crops, this increase was a result of the introduction of higher yielding varieties (hybrid seed in the case of corn), the increased use of fertilizer, and more intensive cultivating practices. The production of feed grains did not increase as rapidly as that of cash crops because of the higher prices of cash crops in recent years. The high labor costs increased the cost of production of livestock and hogs substantially, thus making it more profitable to produce cash crops which require relatively less labor. This appears to have been a major factor in causing an increase in production though it was less than that for cash crops. Trend§ in Xiglgs, Both cash crops and feed grains showed initial downward trends from 1910 to 1925 and since then rather strong upward trends (See Fig. 48). The trend in yields of cash crops since1925 has risen much faster than has yields of feed grains. The upward movement in yields have been a result of several factors. First. substantially increased applications 115 of fertilizer since 1954 have been important (Table XXIV). Secondly, the introduction of new and improved varieties’ of seed resistant to disease and lodging raised the average; yields. A third factor was the improved cultural practices 1 and more adequate machinery which were of assistance in increasing yields. The erratic annual fluctuations in yield have been a result of varying climatic conditions and disease, which adversely affected yields in certain years. 116 Feed Grains Cash Crops 1 'Yield Index r7 ' Yield Index 150 .—~ Cash Crops ’ q 150 Feed Grains _____ 4 l iesh— ”x/ —125 I. / iv’ 4 l ‘13 fP)1I/ /}\ /\ \ V J‘d \ I 100 LS? \ H“ A ,f \\ /\\ I ’Ir" . \t I, \‘I -T 100 \ ‘- \ . / K p / ‘ “F'“/\V " \ f h/ v V I ~ 75 ‘r- ‘~’ F 75 50 P ‘ 50 25 J L J J 25 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Trends in Yields. 1910-1952. Figure 48. CASH CROPS AND FIELD GRAINS:. 117 Hay and Potatoes1 Trends in_Acregge. The combined acreage of hay and } potatoes has been on a downward trend since 1910, reflecting primarily the lower demands for hay due to reduced livestock 7;. numbers (See Fig. 49). If any distinct competition had 0 existed for available land between these two commodities the fluctuations about the trend would have been fairly narrow, indicating that whenever there was a change in acreage of one of these commodities there was a correSponding Opposite change in the acreage of the other. On the basis of these assumptions, it is evident that if any competition existed between hay and potatoes for available land. it was disrupted at times making the relation rather irregular. There was an indication of some competition.for available land between 1928 and 1948, when fluctuations about the trend were relatively narrow. During these years whenever there was a fluctuation in hay acreage, there was a correSponding fluctuation in the Opposite direction for potatoes. The demand for hay for cattle feed was apparently a major factor causing variations in the acreage of hay. These changes in the acreage of hay seem to have been the determining factors in allocating the available land to hay and potatoes. lThe acreages of hay and potatoes were added together and plotted to determine whether any competition.for available land existed between these two commodities. 118 1 F I 1000 acrefl 5500 t' T\ ,/ j] .»"._\ .— i‘ .\ // F; /\\ 3000 r / \.J vam V"‘\,‘/\\/ \\ x “ LV/ \ /\\\ \ ‘ .— 2500 r 2000 r‘ 1500 L‘ 1 l 1 J 1003910 1920 1950 1940 1950 ' * Y: Trends in Combined Acreage, Figure 49. POTATOES AND HA 1910-1952. 119 iooMa im iMici 1 Although the production of meat animals in Michigan has trended upward since 1910, the most striking character- istic of this index of production has been its close resemblance to the number of all cattle on Michigan.farms (See Fig. 50). The cycle in numbers of all cattle on.farms reached major peaks in 1918 and 1944, and a minor peak in 1934. This has been reflected in the production of all meat animals with very little modification due to cycles in hog numbers and cycles in sheep numbers. The gradual upward trend in the production of meat animals was influenced to a considerable extent by higher purchasing power of consumers. The resulting increased demand for higher quality meats, and, to a lesser extent the government purchases of meat during the war for military purposes, were the most significant factors leading to this upward trend in the production of meat animals. Production of Poultry Products in Michigan? The production of poultry products in Michigan exhibited a strong upward trend from.l924 to 1952, which culminated 1Includes numbers of all cattle, numbers of hogs and numbers of stock sheep on farms in Michigan. ZIncludes numbers of chickens and the production of eggs in Michigan. Index of , Production I 150 — .1 _— u—q — .I 120 1101 100 90 80 1 1 ' l 41 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 50. MEAT ANIMALS: Trends in Production, 19lO-l952. Index of - Production l 17 T I I 150 _ /\ — 120 r / \ ,,~ '- 110 - —— 100 _. \\V/\V// ._ 90 — W a 80 Li _J L i- 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 51. POULTRY PRODUCTS: Trends in Production, 1924-1952. Index of _ Production I ‘ I I I 150 _ ._ 120 1101 100 90 80 11 L, I l 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 50. MEAT ANIMALS: Trends in Production, 1910-1952. Index of - Production | 1T1 I I I 150 F’ /\ .1 120 P” / \ 111 ._ 100 —' \ « / ‘\J/-\M/ 90 —‘ — so 1 1 I 1 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 51. POULTRY PRODUCTS: Trends in Production, 1924-1952. 121 in a peak in production in 1944 (See Fig. 51). This increase in production is a reflection primarily of heavy demands for eggs from the armed forces during World War II, and also government purchasing programs to support the prices of eggs. In supporting prices of eggs, the government indirectly affected the price of chickens also, so that on balance the poultry enterprise has become an increasingly profitable enterprise in Michigan since 1940. The attractiveness of the poultry enterprise induced many producers to increase production of poultry products in recent years. This appears to have been of considerable importance in causing the strong upward trend in the production of poultry products. 122 PART IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Fgctors Affecting gzggg Movements. The trend in prices of Michigan farm products and the fluctuations about this trend have been noticeably influenced by changes in business conditions. Variations in consumer purchasing power due to this factor altered consumer demand for these products during the two world wars and during the depression of the thirties. Prices have been influenced in recent years by the priceflsuppgrt~prggrgms of the government. The first of a series of Acts passed by Congress having an effect on prices of farm products was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1953. This_l§gislation;was intended to reduce acreagas\and thereby production so that the shorter, supply would raise the prices of these products. Of more importance has been the presently existing price support ' program which was to give protection to farmers against violent price dr0ps during the war and postwar reconversion period. This plan supported prices at 90 percent of parity for the basic farm products and any other farm product for which the Secretary of Agriculture desired an increase in 125 production. (The Agricultural Act of 1949 renewed price support activities by the United States Department of Agriculture and introduced additional classifications of farm products to be supported at varying percentages of kw ___7 MIN / parity. The ultimate effect of these government price -‘ "v-Ok". -«- m... ." ,’ supportmprpgrams has been to raise the prices of_manyh MW; Another significant factor influencing prices df farm products has been the annual production in Michigan, and of still more importance, the total United States production. The annual variations in production caused : fluctugtionsgin;thefisupply of farmgprgduqt‘. These 1 variations in turn are reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the prices of farm products, depending 0n the elasticity of dguandmfor that product. In addition to the production of farm products in Michigan and the United States, production and pricesfiof;foreign;£arm~products have been important in certain cases in explaining price movements of commodities entering into international trade. Factors Affecting Prodgction. The production of the various farm products is influenced to a considerable extent by the price of that product during the preceding year. Consequently price has been a major factor influencing ;_ trends and causing cycles of livestock production in Michigan. 124 In the case of livestock and hogs, the ggst,gfifeedfl and other production cost items relative to the prices obtained from these products were important in influencing production trends and production cycles.c£flhen.feed costs were high relative to animal prices, the profitability of this enterprise declined, and consequently many producers reduced their livestock numbers> Similarly, when feed costs were low relative to animal prices, the profitability of the enterprise resulted in an increase in numbers and production. These alternating degrees of profitability led to cycles in the numbers of animals on farms. [The trend and variations in acreage of crops planted, which again reflects price, has also influenced production. Acreage has been altered to a certain extent by the_acreage controlwprogram of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1955, and by the acreage allotment program.under the Agricultural Act of 1949._ Variations in acreage, and also annual fluctuations in yield were of major significance in accounting for trends and fluctuations in Michigan farm craps.production. Factors Affgcting Yielgg. Trends in the yields of Michigan farm products were very noticeably influenced by MW 125 of new farming techniques and the general improvement in farming practices undoubtedly resulted in substantial increases in yield. The introductions of new and improved varieties of seed, resistent to disease and lodging, and the practice of treating seed before planting, have been important in increasing yields. Similarly, in the.case of livestock, improved breeds of animals have led to a better type of animal which is capable of greater production. Associated with this was the increase in the practice of culling poor producers out, leaving only the strong producers. In certain years yield was greatly influenced by climatic conditions. Such uncontrollable factors as late Springs, rains, drought, and frost caused wide annual fluctuations in yield. The general weather conditions over a period of years appears to have influenced trend in yields in certain cases. General Obsegxations. ,Michigan farmers have been producing more cash crops in the past few years. Corn and oats production have both increased substantially, while 1See Appendix B, Table XXIV. 126 the production of barley has apparently declined slightly since 1954. The overall increase in the production of feed grains appears to have been in reaponse to unusually high cattle prices and milk prices since 1940, which made beef farming and dairy farming very profitable in Michigan. While the production of cash crops increased in recent years, it was due primarily to upward movements in the production of winter wheat and field beans. In the case of winter wheat, high prices due partially to the govern- ment price support program, were reSponsible for this increased production. Other important cash crops such as potatoes and sugar beets declined in production during this same period. Fruit production is becoming a very important source of farm income in Michigan. Of the fruit grown in Michigan that was included in this study, peach and pear production have increased strongly, while the production of apples increased only very slowly. (The increased demand for fresh fruit, and improved means of maintaining the quality of fruit while tranSporting over long distances have increased demand considerably, and consequently prices. The profitability of this enterprise prompted many new producers to start production and old producers to expand production. 127 In the case of livestock production in Michigan, there was a strong increase in numbers of all cattle on farms. Although cattle numbers increased rapidly, hog numbers have been increasing only since 1934, and then at a rather slow rate. Stock sheep numbers have been on a steady decline since 1910. Michigan.farmers have apparently been rather erratic in sheep production; periodically getting into and out of this enterprise. In the past few years it is evident that they are again getting out of sheep production. Chicken numbers decreased rapidly while egg production has been on just as rapid an increase. Improved breeds of egg-layers, better feeding practices and management practices probably have been reaponsible for this greatly increased egg production. Milk production.increased in Michigan largely as a result of rapidly rising fluid milk sales, particularly in the Detroit area. The resulting high milk prices, which have been stabilized throughout the year by the base-surplus plan of pricing milk, has been important in increasing production. 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous. Crap Reports of Muchigan, Annual Crop and Livestock Summary. Michigan Department of Agriculture Cooperating with the United States Department of Agriculture, 1910 through 1952. . Anonymous. Agricultural Outlook Charts 1951. ‘United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. 0.. Anonymous. Price Programs of the United States Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Association, Washington, D. C. Miscellaneous Publication 685, 1948. Davis, H. T. The Analysis of Economic Time Sg§i§§.. The . Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, The Principia Press, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana, 1941. Dickinson, E. D. Trends in Michi an ricult e 9 O- 9 unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State College, 1950. Foote, R. J. The Stati tic is of C l o Ogcillatiogg in Time Serieg. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, washington, D. C., 1950. Pearson, r. A. and K. R. Bennet. Statisti 1: o . John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1952. Quackenbush, G. G. Milk Utilization Trends in. Michigan. Michigan State College Agrimultural Experiment Station. Special Bulletin 572. Thomsen, F. L. and R. J. Foote. Agricultgggl £21962. ed. 2. McGraWbHill, New York, 1952 , p. 114. Ulrey, 0. Michigan Farm Prices andCosts 1910-19:54. Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 159, 1954. 129 Wilcox, W. W. and W. W. Cochrane. Economics of Ageriggg Agrigultggg. PTentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1951. Witt, L. W. Recgnt Deve102ment§ in united States Sugar Policies. Michigan Quarterly Bulletin. Vol. 51, No. 2, 1948, pp. 204-214. V APPENDIX A 151 THE USE OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN DETERMINING WHICH REGRESSION LINE BEST FITS THE DATA]- In the study of price, production, and yield of each of the major Michigan farm products, trend was determined in each case by fitting two regression lines to the series of data. One of these lines was a straight line of the form Y - a-+-bX, and the other was a parabola of the form Y . a + bX + cX?’ The problem then was to determine which of these two regression lines best fit the series of data. It was for this purpose that the analysis of variance and the F test of significance were used. The analysis of variance as used here compared the differences in the variances about the two regression lines.2 To test the significance of this difference, the F test was applied to the respective variances that were explained by the two regression lines. By computing a ratio of the variance explained by each of these regression lines to the variance of the residuals, a value of F was obtained. The values of F obtained for both regression lines were then tested for significance by comparison with F tables. lSnedecor, G. W. Statisticgl Methog§,_ed. 4, The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1946. ZVariance is a measure of variation, and it consists of a sum of squares of deviations from the regression line divided by the corresponding degrees of freedom. The degrees of freedom are the number of observations which are free to vary after certain restrictions are imposed. 152 Use of Analysis of Varignce The method employed in using the analysis of variance and the F test of significance will be given for winter wheat in Table II. If the results are to be significant at the 95% level, the value of F must be 4.08. For the parabola about the line the value of F was found to be 10.79. We conclude that the difference that exists between the variance of the parabola and the variance of the line is due to chance in less than 5% of the cases. Therefore the tendency for the relationship to be curvilinear is significant. TABLE II 155 WINTER WHEAT: Use of Analysis of Variance in Determining Which Regression Line Best Fits the Series of Data Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedoma of Deviations Variancef F Residuals 59 b8.56 Parabola about the line 1 c 2.31 Line about the mean 1 d .71 Total 41 e11.38 Computed .241 ‘ 2.31 610.79 .71 h 3.32 aTotal degrees of freedom is N - l. bSum of squares of deviations about the parabola, i.e. sum.of squares of the residual deviations is gum-)2 = £22 - aiY - bZXY - cZXzY. °Sum of squares of deviations of the parabola about the line im-Y' )2 £(Y—Y' )2 - £(Y-Y” )2 aiY'- beY ~ cixzél dSumof squares of deviations of the line about the mean = 200-102 =£(Y§-Y)2 -- [Mama 4» £(Y'-Y')fl eTotal sum of‘squares = i(Y-Y)2 .82-:ufi n fVariance ; §gg of eguares of devietioee Degrees of freedom 154 gComputed F for parabola about the line = Varieece of parebola about the lige Residual variance hComputed F for line about the mean = Variance of line abogt the mega esidual variance APPENDIX B Supplementary Tables 136 TABLE III CORN: Prices, Production, and Yields, Michigan, 1919-1952 Price Purchasing Power8 Yield ____e__11_11_1__.l_1_14__1Year P r B s e 9 0- =100 aw dollars percent 100,000 bushels bushels 1910 .54 89 544 52.0 1911 .67 108 544 52.0 1912 .58 90 540 55.0 1913 .68 104 539 52.0 1914 .72 109 615 55.0 1915 .75 109 545 51.0 1916 1.20 161 446 27.0 1917 1.74 184 576 21.5 1918 1.55 158 462 28.0 1919 1.57 125 602 54.5 1920 .72 55 668 57.5 1921 .60 61 654 57.5 1922 .77 80 575 55.5 1925 .86 84 522 52.5 1924 1.17 114 414 26.5 1925 .72 78 589 58.5 1926 .81 80 480 55.0 1927 .96 94 525 26.0 1928 .95 89 599 51.0 1929 .90 88 299 25.0 1950 .70 72 282 22.0 1951 .57 45 458 29.0 1952 .40 56 540 55.0 1955 .55 80 468 51.0 1954 .81 106 565 25.0 1955 .65 80 617 57.0 1956 1.06 154 585 25.5 1957 .55 66 557 55.0 1958 .48 61 588 57.0 1959 .57 72 599 57.5 1940 .68 86 516 55.0 1941 .81 95 488 52.5 1942 .96 98 697 45.0 1945 1.17 108 529 54.0 1944 1.15 98 578 52.0 1945 1.51 108 619 55.0 1946 1.70 128 505 28.0 137 TABLE III (Continued) Price Purchasing Powera Yield Year Per Bgshel 1910-14:100 Production Per Acre dollars percent 100,000 bushels bushels 1947 2.21 144 447 27.5 1948 1.50 78 671 59.0 1949 1.26 78 859 48.0 1950 1.60 98 610 58.5 1951 1.75 97 691 41.5 1952 1.55 84 852 50.5 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. Tel 138 TABLE IV OATS: Prices, Production, and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 Price Purchasing Power8 Yield Year P e 9 0- ‘ 00 Pro t on P r r dollars percent 100,000 bushels bushels 1910 .56 91 500 55.0 1911 .45 115 445 29.5 1912 .56 88 520 55.0 1915 .40 98 445 29.5 1914 .46 ' 110 508 55.5 1915 .40 95 612 40.0 1916 .55 112 427 50.0 1917 .74 122 566 56.5 1918 .67 95 655 59.4 1919 .82 102 575 24.4 1920 .51 59 617 59.5 1921 .57 59 295 18.5 1922 .41 66 464 51.0 1925 .44 68 451 29.5 1924 .50 76 596 59.8 1925 .41 61 495 50.5 1926 .42 65 466 51.0 1927 .52 81 491 52.0 1928 .44 66 514 55.5 1929 .47 71 555 28.0 1950 .55 56 484 55.0 1951 .25 44 456 50.5 1952 .20 44 585 27.0 1955 .58 85 272 22.5 1954 .49 100 518 24.0 1955 .26 51 471 55.0 1956 .47 95 552 25.5 1957 .55 66 555 28.0 1958 .29 56 455 54.5 1959 .54 68 427 56.4 1940 .52 65 614 45.5 1941 .46 85 459 54.0 1942 .51 85 674 45.0 1945 .84 120 259 21.0 1944 .74 100 451 52.9 1945 .71 95 602 40.0 1946 .81 95 719 45.5 139 TABLE IV (Continued) Price Purchasing Powera Yield Year Peg Beshel 1910~1e=100 Production Per Acye dollars percent 100,000 bushels bushels 1947 1.12 115 582 35.0 1948 .75 68 567 58.5 1949 .68 66 567 56.0 1950 .82 78 545 58.5 1951 .85 75 . 602 40.5 1952 .84 71 508 55.5 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, MUchigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 140 TABLE V BARLEY: Prices, Production and Yields, Michigan, 19lO~1952 Price Purchasing Power8 Yield lee: Per Buses; 1910~15=100 od t 0 dollars percent 10,000 bushels bushels 1910 .65 97 255 25.0 1911 .81 124 194 21.5 1912 .62 91 215 24.5 1915 .61 90 196 25.0 1914 .68 98 225 25.0 1915 .67 96 231 26.5 1916 .88 115 264 22.0 1917 1.59 140 429 26.0 1918 1.05 90 840 28.0 1919 1.24 94 489 16.2 1920 .92 64 617 25.5 1921 .54 52 327 15.0 1922 .63 63 522 23.0 1923 .66 63 269 21.0 1924 .83 78 558 29.4 1925 .69 65 290 22.5 1926 .64 60 352 26.5 1927 .79 75 482 26.5 1928 .71 66 752 28.5 1929 .70 66 458 19.4 1950 .54 54 655 27.5 1951 .59 45 697 26.0 1952 .52 45 621 20.5 1955 .52 72 519 15.5 1954 .71 88 556 20.2 1955 .48 58 518 27.0 1956 .95 112 572 20.0 1957 .59 67 483 25.0 1958 .48 58 504 28.5 1959 .47 57 649 50.2 1940 .45 54 655 54.0 1941 .65 72 652 51.5 1942 .79 78 729 53.0 1945 1.19 105 256 16.5 1944 1.25 102 558 25.6 1945 1.18 95 566 51.0 1946 1.47 106 56.5 504 141 TABLE V (Continued) ___ Price Purchasing Power3 ' Yield Y ar Pe B 3 e1 1910- = 00 oduction P r Acr dollars percent 10,000 bushels bushels 1947 1.95 119 545 50.0 1948 1.55 76 448 52.0 1949 1.05 61 556 28.5 1950 1.20 70 591 54.0 1951 1.20 64 588 54.0 1952 1.20 65 255 29.0 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Enchigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 142 TABLE VI RYE: Prices, Production, and Yields, Nflchigan, 1910-1952 Price Purchasing Powera Yield Y ar P she 9 0-1 = 0 A ProdgeEion Peg Aeye dollars percent 1,000 bushels bushels 1910 .70 100 5764 15.5 1911 .81 114 5400 15.5 1912 .66 90 4440 12.0 1915 .60 82 4940 15.0 1914 .84 114 5056 15.5 1915 .85 115 5400 15.5 1916 1.16 159 5125 12.5 1917 1.17 110 6020 14.0 1918 1.51 121 7420 14.0 1919 1.42 100 12145 15.5 1920 1.48 96 9957 14.7 .1921 .86 78 8112 12.5 1922 .71 65 7776 12.0 1925 .60 55 5155 15.0 1924 .98 85 5550 14.5 1925 .85 72 2512 11.5 1926 .80 69 1952 12.5 1927 .89 78 2152 15.0 1928 .92 79 1920 11.5 1929 .88 76 1652 11.1 1950 .56 51 1911 15.0 1951 .55 55 2187 15.5 1952 .50 58 2100 12.5 1955 .58 74 1576 10.5 1954 .65 75 1582 8.8 1955 .42 47 5078 15.5 1956 .84 94 1495 11.5 1957 .77 82 1550 11.5 1958 .42 47 1404 15.5 1959 .47 55 1515 15.0 1940 .45 49 1160 14.5 1941 .64 68 756 15.5 1942 .67 61 1088 14.5 1945 1.05 85 667 11.5 1944 1.07 82 787 12.7 1945 1.58 101 840 15.0 1946 1.84 124 672 14.0 143 TABLE VI (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 Yield Yea P r B s e 19 0- = 00 Pro ctio dollars percent 1,000 bushels bushels 1947 2.25 151 1120 16.0 1948 ‘ 1.45 78 1280 16.0 1949 1.21 67 950 15.5 1950 1.27 69 870 14.5 1951 1.55 76 868 14.0 1952 1.80 87 650 14.0 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing , Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the.index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 144 TABLE VII WINTER WHEAT: Prices, Production, and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 Price Purchasing Powera Yield a P B h 19 0- I 00 Pro P dollars percent 10,000 bushels bushels 1910 .90 96 1767 19.0 1911 .88 94 1856 18.0 1912 1.00 105 755 10.5 1915 .89 92 1560 16.0 1914 1.15 115 1820 20.0 1915 1.05 104 2071 20.5 1916 1.61 145 1594 17.0 1917 2.06 145 1562 18.0 1918 2.11 127 994 14.0 1919 2.20 117 1922 20.5 1920 1.85 90 1551 15.6 1921 1.11 1448 16.0 1922 1.10 76 1521 15.0 1925 .97 64 1579 17.5 1924 1.42 1875 25.8 1925 1.58 100 1555 17.0 1926 1.21 1650 18.5 1927 1.27 1707 21.5 1928 1.26 1284 16.5 1929 1.12 1557 17.4 1950 .75 1655 25.0 1951 .46 57 1864 26.0 1952 .45 1704 24.0 1955 .80 76 1419 16.5 1954 .88 76 1189 14.2 1955 .79 1879 22.0 1956 1.07 90 1646 20.5 1957 .95 76 1845 18.5 1958 .59 50 1926 21.5 1959 .76 1572 21.5 1940 .77 1805 25.5 1941 1.02 80 1606 22.0 1942 1.24 1512 22.5 1945 1.56 96 1151 17.0 1944 1.52 88 2522 24.6 1945 1.59 88 2701 27.5 1946 2.05 105 2290 26.5 145 TABLE VII (Continued) Price Purchasing Powera Yield leg: Pg; figggg; 1910-14-100 Production Pgr Acrg dollars percent 10,000 bushels ~bushels 1947 2.41 104 2980 25.0 1948 2.07 85 5627 26.0 1949 1.85 76 5502 27.0 1950 2.01 82 2967 26.0 1951 2.20 81 5080 25.0 1952 2.00 75 5640 25.5 Source: Reports of State Agricultural 8tatistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 146 TABLE VIII BUCKWHEAT: Prices, Production, and Yields, Huchigan, 1910~1952 Price Purchasing Powera Yield Egg: Pg: figshg; 1910b14=100 Production P r Acre dollars percent 1,000 bushels Eushels 1910 .64 96 956 15.0 1911 .72 106 904 15.5 1912 .66 94 928 14.5 1915 .70 100 780 15.0 1914 .74 104 826 14.5 1915 .75 105 660 12.0 1916 1.17 146 720 12.0 1917 1.59 155 825 11.0 1918 1.56 150 855 9.0 1919 1.52 112 517 12.6 1920 1.12 75 691 14.1 1921 .77 75 660 15.0 1922 .85 80 744 12.0 -1925 .89 81 575 12.5 1924 1.05 96 665 15.5 1925 .84 74 650 12.5 1926 .78 71 559 15.0 1927 .85 75 485 11.5 1928 .81 75 515 15.5 1929 .85 77 558 9.4 1950 .80 77 142 7.5 1951 .45 51 200 10.0 1952 .57 48 290 14.5 1955 .50 67 275 11.0 1954 .57 70 212 12.5 1955 .47 55 495 15.0 1956 .84 99 250 12.5 1957 .62 68 500 15.0 1958 .48 57 560 15.0 1959 .52 61 575 15.0 1940 .46 54 442 17.0 1941 .65 71 252 14.5 1942 .87 85 591 17.0 1945 1.17 100 800 16.0 1944 .94 75 512 15.5 1945 1.12 86 550 14.0 1946 1.46 105 245 15.5 147 TABLE VIII (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 Yield B - 3100 P P dollars percent 1,000 bushels bushels 1947 1.91 116 741 15.0 1948 1.11 62 551 15.0 1949 .88 51 276 14.5 1950 1.02 58 264 15.5 1951 1.50 67 210 15.0 1952 1.45 74 204 17.0 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Emchigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 148 TABLE IX ALL HAY: Prices, Production, and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 Price Purchasing Power8 Yield Year Per Ton 1910-14-100 Production Per égrg dollars percent 10,000 tons tons 1910 15.60 105 512 1.20 1911 18.00 154 284 1.15 1912 11.70 85 514 1.25 1915 12.60 91 264 1.05 1914 12.20 87 520 1.25 1915 12.50 87 298 1.15 1916 10.90 69 421 1.45 1917 17.70 88 546 1.25 1918 25.20 98 280 1.00 1919 25.50 94 511 1.11 1920 17.10 59 512 1.12 1921 15.50 64 255 .91 1922 10.10 49 577 1.55 1925 14.50 67 525 1.15 1924 11.20 51 555 1.21 1925 16.40 75 217 .82 1926 15.50 61 297 1.10 1927 10.00 46 544 1.25 1928 11.00 50 516 1.22 1929 10.00 46 548 1.29 1950 15.90 67 256 .98 1951 7.80 44 268 1.07 1952 5.40 55 515 1.26 1955 8.10 54 515 1.20 1954 16.90 105 202 .79 1955 6.00 55 565 1.45 1956 9.80 58 500 1.14 1957 7.90 44 545 1.57 1958 6.50 57 564 1.59 1959 7.60 45 547 1.51 1940 6.50 58 406 1.50 1941 12.00 67 551 1.26 1942 10.50 51 598 1.52 1945 14.80 64 405 1.42 1944 18.50 75 590 1.58 1945 15.70 61 425 1.49 1946 17.50 61 546 1.24 149 TABLE IX (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 Yield Year Peg; Ton 1910-145100 Production Pgr Acre dollars percent 10, 000 tons tons 1947 18. 90 58 575 1. 52 1948 21. 40 61 561 1. 57 1949 20. 50 60 556 1.52 1950 20. 70 59 549 1. 59 1951 20.00 52 588 1.54 1952 21. 50 55 554 1. 44 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 150 TABLE.X POTATOES: Prices, Production, and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 Price Purchasing Power8 Yield Ygag Pg: figshel 1910-15-100 Ezggggtion 2g: Agra dollars percent '100,000 bushels bushels 1910 .57 75 555 105 1911 .84 169 504 97 1912 .40 78 555 112 1915 .56 111 268 95 1914 .54 66 545 119 1915 .70 151 175 62 1916 1.94 528 119 44 1917 .88 118 550 105 1918 1.02 116 255 88 1919 2.00 200 242 86 1920 .66 61 557 109 1921 1.04 151 249 76 1922 .44 57 564 106 1925 .59 75 521 110 1924 .45 55 506 125 1925 1.64 196 227 102 1926 1.11 155 257 121 1927 .91 112 221 84 1928 .56 45 514 116 1929 1.54 165 160 71 1950 .89 116 146 65 1951 .52 49 246 92 1952 .27 47 505 104 1955 .75 155 255 75 1954 .29 47 562 112 1955 .55 86 276 87 1956 1.02 161 250 95 1957 .49 75 250 96 1958 .48 77 255 115 1959 .67 108 210 94 1940 .57 90 175 82 1941 .85 126 200 110 1942 1.25 161 166 98 1945 1.55 155 224 105 1944 1.59 171 188 108 1945 1.57 145 180 110 1946 1.22 116 185 125 151 TABLE x (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 Yield Egg; Egg Bgsnel 1910-14:100 Production Per Acrg dollars percent 100,000 bushels bushels 1947 1.72 141 124 105 1948 1.40 106 164 150 1949 1.25 98 172 165 1950 1.98 151 155 180 1951 1.80 126 108 180 1952 2.60 178 104 185 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 152 TABLE XI FIELD BEANS: Prices, Production, and Yields, Michigan, 1910-1952 Price Purchasing Power8 Yield Year 23: Q3}, 19lgzlg=100 Produgtiog Pgr Agra dollars percent 10,000 cwt. pounds 1910 2.95 95 515 750 1911 5.45 108 542 720 1912 5.20 97 400 780 1915 2.85 86 552 690 1914 5.90 116 529 672 1915 5.50 160 255 504 1916 10.50 277 186 596 1917 11.40 258 219 408 1918 7.60 154 270 540 1919 6.70 104 261 828 1920 5.50 50 265 786 1921 4.55 90 220 702 1922 6.10 124 502 660 1925 4.80 92 586 720 1924 5.20 99 415 660 1925 4.15 77 527 810 1926 4.55 85 459 720 1927 5.90 114 506 540 1928 8.00 151 544 660 1929 6.70 128 522 560 1950 4.55 88 290 420 1951 1.80 45 556 560 1952 1.50 41 508 920 1955 2.25 65 414 750 1954 2.75 70 418 661 1955 2.25 56 472 890 1956 6.00 148 274 570 1957 2.55 60 410 910 1958 1.85 46 457 980 1959 2.80 70 486 988 1940 5.50 86 455 760 1941 4.55 106 527 770 1942 4.80 97 528 1050 1945 . 5.90 106 557 870 1944 6.00 101 455 690 1945 6.20 100 298 820 1946 9.60 142 584 740 155 TABLE II (Continued) h— _ Price Purchasing Powera Yield Year 23: Cut, 1910-14-100 Progggtiog Per Acre dollars percent 10,000 cwt. pounds 1947 12.40 158 515 670 1948 7.20 85 444 880 1949 5.90 72 571 1100 1950 6.70 80 599 950 1951 6.60 72 425 1120 1952 7.50 80 591 1150 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. 154 TABLE‘XII SUGAR BEETS: Prices, Production, and Yields, Michigan, 1910~l952 Price Purchasing Power3 Yield Year Peg Tog 1910-148100. fgroduction Per Agzg dollars percent 1,000 tons tons 1910 6.00 108 1208 10.5 1911 5.74 105 1444 9.9 1912 5.69 99 859 6.8 1915 . 5.95 102 955 9.0 1914 5.25 88 857 8.5 1915 5.91 98 998 8.2 1916 6.14 92 544 5.5 1917 8.04 95 525 6.4 1918 10.08 102 890 7.9 1919 12.52 111 1205 9.8 1920 10.09 82 1520 8.8 1921 6.10 69 1155 7.8 1922 7.24 84 692 8.2 1925 9.58 105 818 8.1 1924 8.88 97 966 7.2 1925 7.05 75 969 9.8 1926 7.00 76 795 7.9 1927 7.16 79 705 7.1 1928 7.22 78 452 6.4 1929 7.94 87 500 5.8 1950 8.08 95 515 6.9 1951 6.55 85 581 10.0 1952 5.75 89 1215 10.0 1955 5.81 95 1205 7.8 1954 5.92 86 999 8.5 1955 6.29 89 686 6.0 1956 6.45 91 867 8.8 1957 6.17 82 549 7.2 1958 6.08 86 1005 8.2 1959 5.59 79 1055 8.6 1940 6. 54 89 1082 9.1 1941 7.45 98 1016 10.8 1942 7.49 86 1098 9.8 1945 10.20 105 298 6.2 1944 12.10 116 519 8.8 1945 11.10 102 627 8.0 1946 15.80 116 814 8.6 155 TABLE XII (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 Yield P To 910- 4:100 o u tio P dollars percent 1,000 tons tons 1947 15.50 97 446 6.8 1948 15.50 91 458 8.8 1949 11.60 81 745 9.6 1950 11.70 80 1020 10.4 1951 11.90 74 589 10.9 1952 12.70 77 524 10.7 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Nfichigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. PEARS: Prices and Production, E TABLE XIII Michigan, 1910-1952 Production Price Purchasing Power3 Year Per figsgel 1910b14=100 dollars percent 1,000 bushe1s 1910 ' .95 150 450 1911 .60 80 786 1912 .75 96 486 1915 .92 120 597 1914 .58 74 660 1915 .72 91 588 1916 .65 74 559 1917 1.21 108 490 1918 1.25 95 455 1919 1.80 120 405 1920 .90 55 679 -1921 1.75 149 586 1922 .80 70 721 1925 1.07 88 441 1924 1.10 91 555 1925 1.15 92 596 1926 .80 66 701 1927 1.25 104 564 1928 .95 78 725 1929 1.55 111 400 1950 1.05 92 844 1951 .65 66 689 1952 .45 55 1087 1955 .80 96 812 1954 .65 71 1246 1955 .70 75 1118 1956 .75 82 1295 1957 .70 70 1242 1958 .75 80 1201 1959 .65 70 1119 1940 .80 86 1158 1941 .85 84 1284 1942 1.50 115 1000 1945 2.85 221 578 1944 1.90 157 958 1945 2.50 174 140 1946 2.55 150 696 156 157 TABLE XIII (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 P B el 9 0- 4.100 Productiou dollars percent 1,000 bushels 1947 2.15 118 650 1948 2.55 120 500 1949 1.50 68 1200 1950 1.80 92 812 1951 1.95 91 1055 1952 1.60 74 1056 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. PEACHES: Prices and Production, Michigan, 1910-1952 TABLEIXIV 158 1910 1911 1912 1915 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1925 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1950 1951 1952 1955 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1940 1941 1942 1945 1944 1945 1946 Price dollars 1.39 1.11 1.65 1.50 1.40 .97 1.24 2.00 3.30 3.10 2.30 2.90 1.50 1.75 2.30 2.65 1.00 2.10 1.55 1.80 1.50 .60 .70 1.75 1.75 ..85 1.50 .95 1.30 .70 1.05 .80 2.00 4.13 2.40 2.00 2.00 Purchasing Powera 9 O- '100 percent 102 81 116 ArihEEEHSHUHL- 1,000 bushels 1170 2057 618 1291 989 1760 1587 468 148 448 1177 159 TABLE XIV (Continued) Price Purchasing Power“ P he 9 0-1 =100 W dollars percent 1, 000 bushels 1947 1. 80 54 4500 1948 1. 90 52 5250 1949 ' 1. 20 54 5500 1950 1. 70 47 4800 1951 5. 00 76 728 1952 1. 75 44 5597 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. APPLES: TABLE XV Prices and Production, Inchigan, 1910~1952 1910 1911. 1912 1915 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1925 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1950 1951 1952 1955 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1940 1941 1942 1945 1944 1945 1946 Price dollars .88 Purchasing Power Year 2g: Quangl 19192143100 percent 149 95 Productio 1910~14=100 percent 57.5 107.7 145.2 72.6 157.2 75.1 94.1 57.8 98.9 52.0 154.2 45.5 94.4 88.4 47.7 74.7 77.8 56.5 46.6 65.7 55.5 98.0 57.4 88.5 64.2 85.7 70.0 110.2 58.4 117.4 67.2 85.4 98.6 62.9 77.9 15.5 80.7 160 161 TABLE xv (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 Productionp Year Per Bushel 1910-14-100 1910b14=100 dollars percent percent 1947 1.55 92 68.5 1948 2.20 159 51.6 1949 1.05 69 125.5 1950 1.40 90 74.9 1951 1.40 82 97.0 1952 2.10 185 90.1 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. bAn index of production was used because of the nature of the data. Prior to 1958 total production was reported and after 1954 only commercial production was reported. The index was linked on the period 1954-58 and based upon commercial production beginning with 1954. CATTLE, HOGS, SHEEP, AND MILK COWS: Numbers on Michigan.Farms, 1910-1952 TABLE.XVI Year 1910 1911 1912 1915 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1925 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1950 1951 1952 1955 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1940 1941 1942 1945 1944 1945 1946 No. Cattle on of all No. of F 1,000 1522 1520 1295 1518 1570 1448 1501 1551 1582 1584 1586 1556 1506 1460 1420 1406 1550 1520 1515 1555 1591 1591 1455 1516 1544 1518 1548 1594 1626 1675 1725 1811 1847 1921 2056 2016 1915 Hogs on Farm 1,000 951 1060 1050 1000 1000 1060 1115 1025 975 1055 1106 1060 N0. of Stock Sheep on F 1,000 1714 1885 1696 1442 1197 1055 1000 900 944 970 960 778 752 775 745 850 870 950 1020 1040 .1025 1025 1055 1055 1025 1015 995 975 924 885 885 850 790 758 675 574 488 No. of Milk Cows on Far 1,000 925 969 1018 1059 1080 1058 162 TABLE XVI (Continued) 165 No. of all No. of N0. of Stock No. of Cattle on Hogs on Sheep on Milk Cows on Year F ms F ms F m F 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1947 1858 855 415 1026 1928 1746 716 405 964 1949 1746 759 545 945 1950 1781 855 556 945 1951 1817 902 545 945 1952 1872 956 555 926 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan 164 TABLE XVII BEEF CATTLE, VEAL CALVES, AND HOGS: Prices and Purchasing Power Indices, Michigan, 1910-1952 Mt ls . Ve C e Hess Purchasing Purchasing Purchasing Price Powera Price Powera Price Powera Year Per th. 19;0-14=1OO Per th. 1910-14=1OO Per th, 1910-14:100 dollars percent dollars percent dollars percent 1910 4.79 95 7.02 98 8.48 118 1911 4.47 86 6.50 90 6.27 87 1912 5.05 94 6.87 92 6.75 91 1915 5.97 111 8.17 110 7.77 104 1914 6.41 116 8.55 110 7.64 100 1915 6.00 107 8.02 104 6.52 84 1916 6.51 102 8.80 105 8.52 97 1917 7.76 98 11.25 105 15.77 126 1918 8.86 96 15.52 104 15.81 124 1919 9.52 89 15.01 105 16.59 114 1920 8.52 75 14.02 89 15.42 85 1921 5.85 71 9.46 85 8.07 71 1922 5.71 71 9.26 85 8.88 80 1925 5.98 71 9.85 84 7.45 65 1924 5.68 67 10.10 86 7.57 64 1925 6.28 72 10.99 91 11.15 92 1926 6.71 79 12.02 102 12.02 102 1927 7.29 86 12.59 107 10.05 86 1928 9.55 108 14.19 119 9.19 77 1929 9.24 109 14.44 125 9.89 84 1950 7.51 91 11.46 105 9.14 82 1951 5.18 75 8.28 86 6.26 65 1952 5.95 66 5.76 70 5.75 45 1955 5.56 61 5.58 67 5.70 46 1954 5.65 57 5.74 65 4.44 50 1955 6.05 92 8.79 96 8.95 98 1956 5.52 84 8.87 97 9.52 104 ‘ 1957 6.90 99 9.79 101 9.97 105 1958 6.45 98 9.65 105 8.05 88 1959 6.94 107 9.79 109 6.68 74 1940 7.15 108 10.55 115 5.62 61 1941 8.16 116 11.71 120 9.28 95 1942 10.10 126 14.22 128 15.60 122 1945 11.41 126 15.18 121 15.97 111 1944 10.75 111 14.61 109 15.17 98 165 TABLE.XVII (Continued) Beg; Cgttlg , Vgul Calves ‘ Hogs Purchasing rchasing Purchasing Price Powera Price Powera Price Powera Ygar Pgr th. 1910-14:100 Per th. 1910-14=1OO Per th. 1910-14=100 dollars percent dollars percent dollars percent 1945 12.52 125 14.92 107 14.19 102 1946 15.29 159 16.56 109 17.40 114 1947 18.78 148 24.09 157 24.29 157 1948 21. 86 159 28. 50 148 25. 55 125 1949 20.02 151 27.67 150 18.68 101 1950 22.02 ~ 162 28.78 155 18.56 97 1951 27.59 184 55.15 169 20.57 99 1952 24.40 160 51.40 149 18.10 86 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing , Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States., 166 000.0 000 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.0 00 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.0 00 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.0 00 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.0 00 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 000 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 00 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 00 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 000 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 000 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.00 000 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.0 000 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.0 000 00.0 0000 000.0 00 00. 000 00.0 000 00.0 0000 000.0 00 00. 000 00.0 000 00.0 0000 000.00 000 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.00 00 00. 00 00.0 00 00.0 0000 000.00 000 00. 000 00.0 000 00.0 0000 .090 000.0 0000000 0000000 nn00000 0000000 0800009 0000000 000000000 000u0 .0000 .00 000 000u00-0 00 .000 000 00 000-0000 .030 000 0000 00030.0 000.000 0.000090 0000A 00030.0 000nm 300000.020 0:0 0.000.005 , 050000.0m00. imllooalllfl 0980M. 00000 «mmHIOHmH .fldwfinofia .0003 Ho 000090069000 000.0 600090 00.500 mg020.003.00.00 @000 0000.5 «0003 924 .mmzdn .mmmmm HHH>N may“ 167 .000000 000005 00 000800 0 00 000 00 00 00000 000 00005 00000 000000 000 000000000 00 00050000 00: WVSM00W000000w500 00000002 .0000000 .000000000000 000500500004 00000 00 0000000 «000500 000.0 00 on. 000 . . 000.0 000 00. 000 mm.mm 00 00.0 0000 000.0 . 000 00 00 0000 00 00 000 00.00 . 000 .m 0 . 00 00 00 0000 0 . 0 00 000 00.00 00 00.0 0000 00.0 00 00. 000 00.00 00 00.0 0 000 0 00 00. 000 00.00 . 0 00 000.0 00 . 00 00 0 0000 00000 0mm WW. WNW 00.00 00 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00 00 00 00.0 0000 00.00 . wwwuw mmm MW” wmw 00.00 wm mm.m MWMM 000 .0 000 00 . 000 MW Am...“ 00 00 H 0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.0 mm 00.0 0000 000.0 000 00. 000 00.0 00.0 0000 000.0 . 00 00 n 0000 00 00 00 00.0 . 000.0 . 00 on 0 0000 000 on 000 00.0 . 000.0 0 . 00 00 0 0000 00 on 000 00.0 . 000.0 00 00. 00 00 n 0000 000 00.0 00 00.0 0000 ”m00 omw.0 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000‘ 0000000 0000000 .. :0 no 0 -.0 ”0 oo-u00ao.00 ;o -0 00 n ,u. . -o 00 00 0 0300 00000 000300 00000 000300 00000 . 00000000 qums:_ ‘ 00000000mn ‘ ‘1 0300 l1|lH4 Acosdfiufloov HHH>N_mAmQH 00000000mn 0 m 168 mama mm n.oa mma mm n.m nnma aama mm m.oa ama ¢m m.aa mama mama rm ¢.ma maa aaa m.oa anma oraa ow b.0m baa naa ¢.ma onma fioaa mm n.¢m «ma mna o.¢m mmma omaa om m.mw mna «ma «.mw mama moma rm v.00 dna maa «.am bmma aama mm o.nn moa mma m.mm omma mmaa mm «.m» nn maa «.am mama omaa mm r.am nn 00a m.ma «mma nn mm n.an nn moa a.ma nmma nn om 0.09 nn maa o.ma mmma nn ooa m.¢n nn baa m.om amma nn moa m.m¢ nn doa n.mm omma nn moa n.o¢ nn moa a.¢m mama nn boa o.a¢ nn moa m.am mama nn moa m.¢n nn @oa 0.5a mama nn rm o.mm nn noa ¢.na mama nn ¢m w.am un mm n.aa mama nn mm w.mm nn noa m.aa «ama nn aoa o.mm nn «0a m.aa mama nu «0a m.nm nn mm m.oa mama nn mm m.ma nn mm «.oa aama nn moa m.nm nn moa m.aa oama ooo.ooo.a pawonmm magma ooo.ooa admonmm magma ooauwwnoama .na nmm new» mmmanoama 5%an 538353 c5 33.5 «moon 5% mammfimo NHNWHAM4H 169 .mopmpm mmpanp ma unwanmm up mama amoanq Ho xmcqa map mqams ooayq amsuqm any maapmaumm up mmpaqaoo mm: Heron mzammnonsmm qmmanoaa .wnamzma .nmaoapmapmpm aMHSpasoanmm mumpm no npuoqom ”momsom aoma mm m.a¢ maa mm b.¢m mmma moma mm m.m¢ aaa am o.mm amma mmma mm m.mm maa mm m.¢m omma mmma mm o.m¢ moa boa «.09 m¢ma mmma mm «.om moa maa >.mm mmma bmma om m.r¢ baa moa m.mm >¢ma mema mm m.mm mma maa a.rm mmma mama mm m.o¢ mma mma m.mm mmma rmma am m.mm mma maa m.¢m ¢¢ma mama woa m.mm ada mma m.mm odma mama mm m.am ama maa a.om mmma mmma mm m.¢m mma maa m.ma a¢ma rmma or ¢.ma maa mm r.ma omma mama mm m.ma baa moa m.¢a mmma mmma am m.mm «ma maa m.ma mmma «mma mp b.mm mma maa m.ma rmma omma mm m.mm baa maa m.ma mmma maaa om m.¢m mma maa m.ma mmma m¢ma mm m.ma mma am ¢.aa @mma ooo.ooo.a unoonom mango, ooo.ooa unmonon agave N a awn manmm no ooauwanoama «mam mum nmmM mumsom mnammnonsm moanm anonasz mumzom mdammaonsm moan“ nu ungumww ummmmaQWn Aoogpaoov. Hun mam: 170 TABLE XX MILK: Prices, Production, and Production Per Cow, Michigan, 1910-1952 Price Purchasing Power8 Production Yggz Per 033, 1910-;4=;00 Progggtéog 29; 001 dollars percent 1,000,000 lbs. lbs. 1910 1.44 98 -- -- 1911 1.46 99 -- -- 1912 1.49 98 -- _- 1913 1.57 102 -- -- 1914 1.60 103 -- -- 1915 1.58 99 -- -- 1916 1.67 95 -- -- 1917 2.31 103 -- ~- 1918 3.01 115 -- -- 1919 3.51 118 -- -- 1920 3.40 105 -- -- 1921 2.22 95 -- ~- 1922 2.11 93 -- -- 1923 2.49 104 -- -- 1924 2.17 90 4156 5050 1925 2.26 91 4042 4990 1926 2.30 95 4038 5210 1927 2.38 99 3941 5220 1928 2.39 98 3973 5290 1929 2.42 100 4028 5300 1930 2.10 92 4014 5160 1931 1.53 78 4217 5200 1932 1.10 65 4294 5100 1933 1.18 72 4297 4950 1934 1.46 81 4224 4800 1935 1.63 87 4257 4950 1936 1.83 98 4465 5180 1937 1.98 100 4470 5150 1938 1.72 92 4560 5200 1939 1.66 90 4762 5350 1940 1.81 97 4949 5450 1941 2.18 109 5124 5480 1942 2.56 113 5296 5500 1943 3.20 125 5333 5360 1944 3.32 121 5375 5270 1945 3.27 115 5741 5590 1946 3.92 125 5708 5640 171 TABLE.XX (Continued) Price Purchasing Power8 Production 0 9 O» = 00 Production Pg: Cog dollars percent 1.000.000 lbs. lbs. 1947 4.32 120 5590 5710 1948 4.80 123 5341 5610 1949 3.95 105 5668 5910 1950 3.61 93 5779 5970 1951 4.40 103 5474 6410 1952 4.08 95 5448 6470 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing , Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in United States. BUTTER AND BUTTERFAT: TABLE.XXI 172 Prices and Production in Michigan War Purchasing Purchasing Price Powera Price Powera ear Per Lb. 910-14=100 Production Per Lb. 1910- 4:100 dollars percent 10,000 lbs. dollars percent 1910 .26 104 -- -- ~- 1911 .23 89 -- -- -- 1912 .27 105 -- -- -- 1913 027 105 "‘ "' -- 1914 .26 97 -- -- -- 1915 .26 96 -- -- -- 1916 .29 96 -- -- -- 1917 037 96 "" ." "" 1918 .45 100 -- -- -- 1919 .53 104 -- -- ~- 1920 .56 100 "" "' "' 1921 .38 96 -- .40 62 1922 .36 92 6634 .37 60 1923 .43 104 7168 .45 67 1924 .43 104 7439 .42 62 1925 .44 104 7540 .44 64 1926 .45 108 7204 .43 64 1927 .47 115 6937 .47 71 1928 .48 115 6580 .48 71 1929 .47 112 6343 .46 69 1930 .38 96 6593 .36 57 1931 .28 85 7560 .26 48 1932 .21 73 7861 .19 40 1933 .21 73 7964 .20 43 1934 .25 81 7644 .24 48 1935 .30 92 7744 .29 55 1936 .34 104 8216 .33 64 1937 .35 104 8089 .35 64 1938 .29 88 8676 .28 55 1939 .27 85 9009 .25 48 1940 .30 92 9577 .30 57 1941 .36 104 9031 .36 64 1942 .42 108 7740 .42 67 1943 .50 112 7369 .52 74 1944 .49 104 6418 .53 69 1945 .50 100 5546 .53 67 1946 .63 115 4658 .69 79 173 TABLE XXI (Continued) 4 gngamgzy Butter Bgttggfiat Purchasing Purchasing Price Powera Price Powera Zea: Pp: Lb2 1910-148100 Productiog Per Lb. 1910b14§109 dollars percent 10,000 lbs. dollars percent 1947 .75 119 4793 .71 76 1948 .78 115 4322 .83 76 1949 .64 100 6100 .65 62 1950 .64 96 5891 .65 60 1951 .68 92 4866 .73 62 1952 .67 88 4623 .77 64 Source: Reports of State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing, Michigan aPurchasing power was computed by deflating the annual price using the index of prices paid by farmers in.United States. 174 a.moa m.maa mama m.aaa m.moa aama mama 0 .am b .2. a.moa 1.. .0m 1.. .aoa moma .vama m.am m.mm mmmm m.am m.mm mmma aama m.am ¢.ooa mmma a.mma m.aaa ebma mama a.mm m.mm mmma m.maa m.mm mmma aama m.am a.mm mmmm m.am m.am mora oama m.am a.mm ammm m.am m.mm mama mmma m.aoa m.mm mmoa a.mm a.mm aama mmma m.am a.mm mmmm m.mm m.mm amra mmma a.mm m.am amoa m.aoa m.aoa aama mmma m.moa m.moa mmma m.aoa m.aoa mmma mmma m.moa m.mm araa a.raa m.moa mmma mmma a.mm m.mm mmaa m.aoa m.aaa aama amma m.mm a.aoa mama ¢.am m.mm aama mmma m.mm ¢.mm mama a.mm m.mm mama amma m.maa m.aaa mmma m.mm m.am mmma omma m.mm «.aoa mmma m.aaa m.mm mama mama m.moa m.maa mmma m.mm m.am aama mama a.mm m.am mmma a.mm m.mm mama mama m.mm a.mm araa m.mm m.mm mmma mama m.mm m.moa mmaa m.mm m.mm aama mama m.moa m.moa mmaa m.moa m.aoa aama mama m.mm m.am omma a.mm o.ooa moma aama a .aoa o .aoa bmaa a .mm d .rm mmma mama m.am m.mm omma m.aoa m.moa mmma aama m.moa a.moa mmma m.moa a.moa amma oama nnmonmm pqoonom women a, unmonmq pnmonmm monom oooa ooaueanoama ooau¢anoama ooanaanoama ooaumanoama ommonom 986% mmaoah odoaposmoam mmaoaw oqoaposmoam nmcawmmluuuufil mwmono nude «8733 .5323: . .33» 93 830898 6333 3558 mmma 9,3 808 $3 HHNNWmam860 one: mopapmaon mopnmaob use .mommonom adsnaa an mmpnmaos who: Aooau¢anoama moaaom ommnv mo>apmaon caoawm .ooaudanoama no moanmm camp 6 adams Momma am on copnmpqoo mamkumo>apmaon mopamaos one ..mmman¢mma soak osam» ammo» ommno>m hp mopnmaos one: Aooaumanoama moanom ommnv nobapmaon coauosmonmo .hoanmn man .6986 .qnoo mousaoaan .moopmpom cam «amen caman .mpoop aama» .pmosz Honda: momzaoaam .dmmanoda .mqannma .nmaoapmapmpm amaspazoanmd madam no mpnoqom “monsom a.mma m.maa mmma m.mma m.maa mmma mama m.mma m.mma amma m.maa a.maa dmra aama «.maa m.aaa mmaa a.mda m.aaa aera omma m.mma a.maa maaa m.aaa m.mma mmom mama m.mma a.mma mama a.ama m.mma mwam mama m.mm m.am abrm m.mma a.ama mama mama a.aaa m.maa mama a.maa m.mma amma mama a.maa a.maa «baa m.mma .a.aoa mmma mmma m.mma m.aoa aama m.mma m.mma mama mama a.mm m.mm mamm o.>oa a.am amaa aama m.maa a.ama mmaa m.mma a.mm mmma mmma a.moa a.aoa maoa a.maa m.aoa omma aama a.ama m.aaa maaa m.maa m.mm mmma Odma m.mma m.maa ammm a.mma v.ooa mmma mama m.aaa m.mma mama m.¢ma a.moa mora mama m.mm m.mm mmma m.mma a.moa mmma mama m.mm m.mm mmmm a.moa «.mm mmma mama uqooaom pqoonmn nonom oooa unoonom admonmn nonom oooa .. u. no m- o. u. nonm ”um” 4 00 u. no-ma ooa nanoama ”um- um nuum ”macaw onoaposconm adamaw oaoaposmonm nmdamumldmum, mummuulaumu 335288 H89 m.maa 176 TABLE XXIII MEAT PRODUCTS AND POULTRY PRODUCTS: Production.in NHchigan, 1910-1952 Numbers at Poultry Numbers of Poultry b Meat Animalsa Productionb Meat Animalsa Production Year 1924-283100 1924-28-100 _ Year 1924-28-100 1924-288109 percent percent percent percent 1910 97.9 -- 1932 88.4 103.4 1911 10396 "' 1935 9604 10403 1914 99.0 -- 1936 91.6 97.8 1915 103.3 -- 1937 98.6 103.4 1916 107.1 -- 1938 98.7 103.6 1917 104.4 -- 1939 102.6 97.4 1918 105.0 -- 1940 112.7 102.0 1919 107.4 -- '1941 113.8 106.2 1920 110.0 -- 1942 115.2 112.7 1921 105.1 -- 1943 125.0 120.5 1922 105.2 -- 1944 135.8 134.1 1923 105.3 -- 1945 120.3 124.2 1924 103.2 100.7 1946 114.6 127.2 1925 92.9 95.0 1947 106.9 118.7 1926 89.6 103.1 1948 98.9 113.2 1927 89.8 101.2 1949 100.1 113.7 1928 90.6 100.0 1950 104.1 118.7 1929 87.9 94.8 1951 108.0 118.1 1930 85. 5 94. 9 1952 122. 4 118. 6 1931 82.3 100.2 aIncludes cattle, hogs and shes . Relatives of numbers on farms (base period 1910b14'1003 were weighted by average total value of slaughter receipts from 1937-41. The weighted {glativei were then converted to an index using a base period 24-28= 00. bIncludes chickens and eggs. Relatives of chicken.numbers and egg production (base period 1924-28=100) were weighted by average total value from 1924-1928. The weighted relatives were converted to an index using a base period 1924-28:1000 FERTILIZER: TABLE.XXIV and United Statesa Consumption in Michigan 177 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Units 8 at 1000 tons 5547 6108 5852 6416 7194 5418‘ 5214 6087 6580 6751 7296 4977 5798 c i an° tons Y’ 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 ”1944. 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 ~41952 Iifiiited S t 1000 tons 4545 5110 5794 6534 7222 Mic tons 82,000 80,000 82,000 111,000 125,595 144,500 132,702 .144t811 166,561“‘ 190,025 259,495 240,084 287,858 340,066 352,147 393.274 417,401 443,252 510,826 542,953 605,157 aIncludes sales of commercial fertilizer companies and fertilizer distributed by government agencies. bData taken from Agricultural Statistics, 1952. °1924-1955 Estimated tonnage taken from Agricultural Statistics, 1937. 1935-1952 Compilation by the Soil Science Department, Michigan State College. 178 .mama .moaumapmpm amaspasoanmd Scum comm» madam un ...... a. mom .ma mom oaa.m nu 48a.ma aam.ama aama nu nu mom. m aam.a aom.m www.ma mmm.me sma.mba coma 8mm. 8 uu meo. an mmo.a 4mm.om omo.aa 046.644 mam.moo -m4ma www.mm un moa.aa 4am pam.m 4mm.aa 664.4mn ana.mam m4ma m... ...: . -- m 1.... mm... .4... 1...... am. no u. un uu 4 mm o m mam ma“ nu un pa mem.a 4pm mob.m asm.om m4ma 4omnp 1 un un 44 uu one. ma4uma a4mum4m 44ma .8... . 2.... m... -- mm . m.mm. mmma mm nu uu uu 4mm.a nu mma.w 4am.om omm.ama a4ma . a a a nu . uu nu mam a nu com 6 mam mo mus com 64ma . nu 1 ma uu pom un ama.m one.a>a oua.paa .mamHu. uu m4o.a uu nu nu nu mmw.oaa mam.m4 mama uu mmo. mm nu nu uu uu amm.oa uu aama uu nu un nu uu uu pm uu mama nu uu uu nu uu nn 4am.aa uu mama -- -- -- -- -- -- mm”? .. 3m uu uu.. un nu nu uu m un mam unmaaou yanmaacm unmaaom mamaaom unmaaom mamaaoc unmaaom mnmaaom oooa a. oooa .u_ oooa oooa oooa oooa oooa oooa mmmmmpgw. .noapam, madam hum ammo oanmm anon momma use» mnopmum mopanb ca noaumnonnoo pamoao hpamoaaoo on» ma ecu: mommnongm no mamoa «amasaaozzoo mmaomamm 2a mmHHa>aam< amommmm moamm Hzmazmm>om be mamfla APPENDIX C EQUATIONS FOR TREND LINES (X represents time measured in years since 1910. Y represents various series of data as listed in the Tables of Appendix B.) CORN: Prices Purchasing Power Production Yield OATS: Prices Purchasing Power Production Yields BARLEY: Prices Purchasing Power Production Yields WINTER WHEAT: Prices 4 Purchasing Power Production Yields RYE: Prices Purchasing Power Production Yields MMNM n MMMN h ll MNMN u MMMM n 180 1.0455 - .0401x + .0015):2 120.7924 - 5.0885x + .0675x2 592.2156 - 14.6772X + .4174):2 55.1558 - .4013X + .0156x2 .5799 - .0259x + .0075):2 107.4101 - 5.5555x + .0756):2 551.2857 - 11.8527x . .5010):2 54.8149 - .5514x + .0165x2 ' .9575 - .0587x + .0012):2 110.4402 - 3.7651X + .0815X2 192.5167 . 27.2971x - .5662}:2 24.9180 - .5514x + .0155):2 1.5651 - .0629X + .0018):2 121.6608 - 3.8332X . .0758X2 1812.7188 - 65.2716x . 2.5226x2 15.50 + .234X 1.1551 - .0527x + .0015):2 120.5259 - 4.4917x . .0955):2 6751.05 - 171.85x 14.0500 - .1995x + .0056x2 BUCKWHEAT: Prices Purchasing Production Yields ALL HAY: Prices Purchasing Production Yields POTATOES: Prices Purchasing Production Yields FIELD BEANS: Prices Purchasing Production Yields SUGAR BEETS: Prices Purchasing Production Yields Power Power Power Power Power Y Y Y Y Kit-4MB: 181 1.0786 - .0547x . .00092x3 105.42 - 1.076X 793.3167 - 10.4200X - .0805x2 11.99 - .064x 18.4999 - .8033X + .0204x2 107.4018 - 4.5045X‘+ .0809x2 291.88 4 1.877X 1.10 + .0069x .9746 - .0574x + .0015):2 125.1249 - 1.5785x + .0421):2 512.49 - 5.578x 81.52 + 1.118x' 4.57 + .O307X 124.74 1.078X 286.58 + 4.45X 579.36 + 7.9OX 7.7204 - .1728x + .007ox2 95.617 - .115x' 991.75 - 7.806X 7.84 + .023X PEARS: Prices Purchasing Power Production PEACHES: Prices Purchasing Power Production APPLES: Prices Purchasing Power Production ALL CATTLE: Number on Farms BEEF CATTLE: Prices Purchasing Power VEAL CALVES: Prices Purchasing Power HOGS: Prices Purchasing Power Number on Farms 182 1.0650 - .0356X + .0015):2 87.07 + .517x ‘ significant trend) 100.147 - .955x ' 1069.045 - 42.2108x + 2.9761X2 .626 + .0257x 98.412 + .816X significant trend) 1397.5838 - 1.8616x n .5712):2 8.9925 - .6522x + .0228x2 112.4058 - 4.5575x + .1457x2 12.1158 - .6418x + .0245}:2 111.8977 - 5.0241x + .0987X2 12.0242 - .5257x + .0180X2 111.4501 - 5.5522x + .0861):2 1125.6066 - 22.6778x + .4444):2 SHEEP: Prices Purchasing Power LAMBS: Prices Purchasing Power WOOL: Prices Purchasing Power Production CHICKENS: Prices' Purchasing Power Numbers on Farms EGGS: Prices Purchasing Power Production MILK COWS: Numbers on Farms MILK: Prices Purchasing Power Production ll Y = (no Production per Cow Y== 183 7.2174 - .5205x + .0090x2 122.5754 - 4.1895X n .0851X2 11.0240 - .4808X n .0187}:2 117.5269 - 1.9671x + .0680}:2 .272 + .00415x 1130 53 - 020$ 9195.5911 - 2.6789x.- 5.4120x2 13.15 + .297X 105.15 + .156X significant trend) 51.6106 - .6671x + .0225x3 106.6206 - 1.5024X + .0224}:2 1177.7606 + .4550x + .679OX2 749.94 + 6.246X 2.2712 - .0706x + .0028x2 107.0504 - 1.5693X + .0445x2 3866.9314 + 44.1787x . 1.1748x2 4838.0026 u- 16.5877x + .9967X2 BUTTER: Prices Purchasing Power Production BUTTERFAT: Prices Purchasing Power CASH CROPS: Acreage Production Yield FEED GRAINS: Acreage Production Yield HAY AND POTATOES: Acreage I MEAT ANIMALS: Production. POULTRY PRODUCTS: Production ' 184 .5640 - .0072x + .00054x2 significant trend) 6275.4995 + 288.0512X - 11.9295x2 50.5984 - 5.4867x + .1506):2 65.5841 - 1.2015x n .0483X2 1790.52 - 1.15x 95.416 - .834X + .055x2 115.2 - 5.52x + .111x3 5500.11 - 4.98X 95.84 + .589x 102.9 - 1.241X + .042x3 3058 - 8. 02X 96.65 + .266X 94.22 + .991X HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES HI"! 1| 1| | 31293101024986