xt74tm71wm11 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74tm71wm11/data/mets.xml Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1973 journals kaes_research_rprts_14 English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 1 : February 1973 text Research Report 1 : February 1973 1973 2014 true xt74tm71wm11 section xt74tm71wm11 4 lnter—Are¤ Shifts in Burley Tobacco Allotments,
Z l950-7l
` By
U D. Milton Shuffett, Robert E. Barton and Potrick M. Henderson
I
s RESEARCH REPORT l4 : February l973
V University of Kentucky : : College of Agriculture `
_ Agricultural Experiment Station zo: Department of Agricultural Economics
. Lexington
_ l
J x
x * a
’
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ...................................... 3 /
Objectives ........................................ 4
Methods ........................................ 4
The Study Area ..................................... 5
ALLOTMENT SHIFTS UNDER THE PROGRAM ...................... 8
_ Shifts in Allotments and Production by States ..................... 8
I Shifts in Allotments, 12 Representative Areas, 1950-55 ................. 12
Shifts in Allotments, I2 Representative Areas, 1955-60 ................ 14
Shifts in Allotments, 12 Representative Areas, 1960-65 ................ 14
V Shifts in Allotments, 12 Representative Areas, 1965-70 ................ 17
Potential Shifts under Proposed Aereage—Poundage Program ............. 17
Shifts in Burley Quotas, 12 Representative Areas, under Poundage Quota Program, 1971 22
SIJMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................. 27
LITERATURE CITED ................................... 31
1
LIST OF FIGURES
‘ Fig. No. Page 4
1 Geographic Areas Studied to Determine Allotment Shifts Resulting from Burley
~ I Tobacco Program .................................... 6
LIST OF TABLES
_ Table N0.
l 1 Burley Tobacco Acreage Allotments by States, 1940-70 ................ 9
I 2 Proportion of Burley Tobacco Acreage Allotment by States, 1950-70 ......... 10
T 3 Production and Yield of Burley Tobacco, Kentucky and United States, 1950-70 . . . 11
i 4 Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Allotment in 1950 and 1955 and Percentage
j Change in Importance, 12 Representative Areas .................... 13
I 5 Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Allotment in 1955 and 1960 and Percentage
` Y Change in Importance, 12 Representative Areas .................... 15
~ 6 Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Allotment in 1960 and 1965 and Percentage
Change in Importance, 12 Representative Areas .................... 16
7 Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Allotment in 1965 and 1970 and Percentage
Change in Importance, 12 Representative Areas .................... 18
8 Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Acreage Allotment in 1965 and Poundage
Allotment Under Proposed Acreage—Poundage Program 1967, 12 Representative Areas 20
9 Burley Tobacco Allotments, Acreage and Proposed Acreage—Poundage, 1967 ..... 21 1
10 Share of National Burley Tobacco Allotment Held by States, 1966-70 Acreage
Allotment and 1971 Poundage Quota ......................... 24 s
11 Average Yield Per Acre, Burley Tobacco, 1960-70 ................... 25
I 12 Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Allotment in 1970 and 1971 and Percentage
l ’ Change in Importance, 12 Representative Areas .................... 26
s 13 Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Allotment, 12 Representative Areas, 1935-71 . 28 A
I 2
, ' ~ to .».· V
I·C
INTER-AREA SHIFTS IN BURLEY TOBACCO
6 I ALLOTMENTS, 1950-71
By /
D. Milton Shuffett, Robert E. Barton and Patrick M. Henderson*
g INTRODUCTION
10 The geographic distribution of and such shifts were no longer totally related
production of most agricultural commodities to economic forces. In general, all production
11 shifts Collllhuously 0\'Cr time ill response tO control programs that entail allocation Of
technological and other developments production rights based on past history of
affecting the comparative advantage of production tend to be restricted to regional
13 production by areas. Over time, production adjustments in production patterns. At the
tends to shift to those areas that have the same time, program changes and program
greater relative advantage in production from administration often are such that they cause
15 the standpoint ofproduction costs, marketing redistribution of production between areas.
. costs and where the alternatives available to This has been particularly true of the control
the producer favor the production of the programs for burley tobacco. The production
16 commodity. of burley has been controlled throughout the
Prior to production control programs, 1933-71 period with the exception of the
the geographic distribution of burley tobacco crop produced in 1939. Various methods have
18 was established on the basis of economic and been employed in attempts to keep
technological considerations relating to the production in line with market needs,
t production and marketing of the crop. As including poundage quotas, incentive
20 production of the crop increased immediately payments to producers for reducing output,
prior to and after World War I in response to acreage allotments and, finally, poundage
2] expanding market outlets in the manufacture quotas again beginning with the 1971 crop.
of cigarettes, production tended to be Over the history of the program penalities for
concentrated in Central Kentucky, with noncompliance have varied from forfeiture of
Q4 production on a less dense basis throughout incentive payments to heavy cash penalties
much of Kentucky and surrounding states. for the sale of burley produced in excess of
25 With the advent of production control farm quotas. Also, differential treatment of
programs for burley tobacco in 1933, shifts in small and large producers in allotment
production between areas became restricted reductions was a feature of the burley
26 tobacco production control program for
——%___ many years. Likewise, at various times over
"D. Milton Shuffett is Professor of Agricultural Economics, the history of the PrOgraIn¤ Producers were I
University of Kentucky; Robert E. Barton was formerly able to lI]CI`€3S€ production ql10t3S
I l$F°§`fl`d§ZZZ`§`aIL$“£S‘§£Z£i$“Z.“l.f§§§`.SZ“lZS’2'§ZCiiIU.2l P¤>d¤¢i¤g wbacco in °X°°SS °f fh? fum
Economies quota for the purpose of establishing an
3
i
4
j increased “hist0ry Of pr0duCti0H” OH which tobacco program. The burley tobacco control
A Ih€ 1`81'II1 3.1lOtI`I1€I1t Was based. As 21 I`€Sl1l[ of prggrarn was based On acreage allotments
the operation of the burley tobacco control between 1940 and 1970, and throughout the
_ » . program over nearly 40 years the program has period protection against allotment
` c thus been both restrictive in that allotments reductions was given to smaller producers. A
. have been based on historical production and change in the legislation for controlling
0 at the same time conducive to regional production in 1971 shifted the control
i adjustment in production patterns through aspects of the program to pounds rather than
differential adjustments in allotments for acreage, with provisions for gradually
i small and large producers. eliminating the special protection against
_ Thompson [1, 2] in 1952 reported that allotment cuts for small producers. '1`he
E burley allotments had shifted from the more change in the burley program brought sharp
. Y dense areas of production to fringe areas changes in production quotas by regions and
A t under the influence of the government in effect froze allotments for the future
‘ production control program during 1939-50. according to the 1971 distribution.
i The current study brings up—to-date the The findings of the study will be useful
infomiation reported by Thompson and as a means of appraising the effects of the
i analyzes the effect of legislative and burley tobacco program and in providing
‘ administrative programs relating to burley guidelines to policy makers and
j ‘ tobacco during the 1950-71 period on administrators on the impact of programs to
_1 ° y continued shifts in allotments and production agriculture in an area. Particularly in the case
I J between geographic regions. of the burley program it can be illustrated
Y , » The purpose of this study was to trace that a program guaranteeing high prices and
V i production patterns by geographic areas providing special protection to small
. _ during the 1950-71 period and to determine producers tends to fragment the industry into
A those shifts in allotments between areas small units and expand the geographic pattern
. attributable to the production control of production over a wider total area. Also, V
t program in effect. While this aspect of the the findings will illustrate how a program
study is historical in nature, results should change can change production patterns by
prove useful in future modification of the areas abruptly and permanently.
_ burley program and in the operation of
production control programs for other
agricultural commodities by pointing out the Methods
effects of particular policy actions on the
y shifts that occur between producing areas. The methods used in this study are
j largely historical analyses and descriptive in
i that the major objectives of the study was to
Objectives present the changing picture of burley
tobacco production quotas by geographic
The specific objectives of this research areas of the Burley Belt and to relate the
1 1 were first, to determine the changing relative changes to the burley tobacco control
national importance in burley tobacco program and its provisions.
production (percent of National quota) in 12 To retain comparisons with the earlier
e geographic areas of the Burley Belt and, study by Thompson [1], the same geographic
‘ - second, to determine the relationships areas were used to illustrate the changing
t between changing production quotas by geographic pattern of production over the
regions and legislative changes in the burley most recent 20-year period. These areas are
5
wl representative of the different densities of production control-price support program in
its production of burley throughout the burley by analyzing the changes in total
hc eight-state producing area, and together the allotments over this period of years and the
mr illustrative production areas accounted for procedures for allocating allotments among
A approximately one—half of the total U.S. producers along with the characteristics of the
ing production of burley during 1950-70. The different areas to provide reasons for the
rol geographic areas chosen to represent different differential changes in relative importance of K
ian production densities are shown in Fig. l. the areas over time.
.lly Shifts in production were analyzed by Additionally, the potential impact of the
nst state and for the 12 areas chosen to represent acreage—poundage program which was
`he the various characteristics of geographic areas legislatively authorized, but rejected by
rrp of the Burley Belt. The method used for producers in referendums held in 1966 and
ind measuring shifts in production between areas 1967, upon regional patterns of production
LjI`C VWJS [O COITIPBIC, 0VCI` l.llTlC, the I`Cl8[lVC Sh2iI`€ was analyz@d_ Also, [hc regional allocation of
of the national burley allotment allocated to production under the present poundage
ful each of the areas and/or states being program for burley which was started with
the compared. As for comparisons between states, the 1971 crop was determined, Under the
ing both allotted acreage and total pounds of provisions of the new burley program the
nd production were compared in order to show production patterns by areas becomes frozen
to actual production compared with potential in that special provisions for smaller
ase production as indicated by acreage producers will be eliminated and shifts that
ted allotments. have been observed over the past will not
rnd Relative shares of national allotments continue, except for shifts that may occur
aall and production were computed for 5—year due to failure to plant or lease-out allotments.
nto intervals for the l2 representative areas and Such shifts likely willbe minimal.
ern annually by states. County data on allotments
lso, A and production are available only from
·am records in local Agricultural Stabilization and The Study Area
by Conservation Sewice offices, and collection of
data on an annual basis for all of the county The 12 geographic areas chosen for
units would have been both time consuming studying the geographic shifts in allotments
and expensive. At the same time, the data on were:
the 5—year interval basis will provide the Inner Bluegrass—This area is made up of
general nature of change occurring. The the nine Central Kentucky counties of
are earlier study by Thompson made comparisons Bourbon, Bracken, Clark, Fayette, Harrison,
2 in on an annual basis and indicated that little jessamine, Scott, Shelby and Woodford (Fig.
sto year-to-year variation from the general 1). This area is representative of the most y
fl€}' pattern of change occurred during 1933-50. A intensive burley producing area. Average
ihic check on the annual variation about the allotment size in these counties in 1969
the general trend was provided by a comparison ranged from 4.22 acres in Woodford county
trol of shifts on a state basis annually. This to 2.11 in Clark county. The number of
comparison of state data indicated that allotments was approximately the same as the
rlier measuring the shifts by regions on a 5—year number of farms. ·
nhie basis provided valid comparisons and that the Outer Bluegrass—Eight counties were
ging intra-period deviation from the selected as representatives of the Outer
the period-to-period change was minor. Bluegrass area. This area is an intensive burley y
are Shifts in the relative importance of producing area but is more hilly and the soil is
burley among areas was related to the generally less suited to burley production
i
F§’·7E ’*W¥¢*5* =1h"'rw¤
!=.·$':E=’.·§:·%·‘§EiE% g $2%
Fr?!!!¥¥#)$§&l¥¤¤$!€*} ? ?
$'$EE¢§$:§$}§%¤5E!$%§ Eg §
' 1*;, {MQ 5 M"
$7 ; 3 2 S Rm
"¢'·¥¤}%'“ii2·***?¤%é§*§¤$»%4
&%:;··§€··,%»"%&·g¤€;§&~§xw¤=€$# 31;
\{r¤¥1·¤}£¤·'#' '** %#%*’é YM}! EW H s iiii
I YlL¤¤¤Ilé& {2g: b•§·q @1;*; mu
¤I'a!‘I{5"€‘¤ 2* ‘¢4· $'*$€ P"'i" °?»
··1·'=.1;·;;·,-=%$$€;4;=g!:::¤='.·¥-5
§=·'E'{{%'.$%@%%=•{•i ?-$752 $#1 s
Il¤{ g § of
All--¤¤~!:$®• ,,••¤ rl! S z .4 E 2 W
"?!¥'}'i'£%'r¤= JIIJ E 3 3 M
E
'lL§'· an r •'@•r*¤ lin- é yi`!
N|·¤F!•¤ $}E"··°¥ Jian'! ‘? ii
'U1¤q§I"i\ ’i1-U, I`; |*·•·•}.¤ é E EEE
'¤·* édlp PII; Ibn.}- » B
» ¤.n"‘ j · ii|§·q·;...r il 2 “’
. E; g PYO
'¤ 'I '}'¤$*?I¤|| M" 'W I :2 mf
mln}! g.* .¤ ·•;·I§§u¤· U, W 2:;
- .I|_.—$' .·~` 3 3 3 § § wu
|'|m}?• Illayiihl ii l; 23 é an
¤}{;»·&”~!z}II¤;g"“¤` ilrr S ES if L?
*· n bn. ··· v E g
%§?ii§"E·§E5§§s;*;»€·,§ ¤ as ¤
¤..*:!.~.q;•; EE'•'}.¥.1$$ I
7
than in thc Inner B1ucgrH$S rcglon. Allotments Central TcnncSs€c_This area Of
LHC SUfTlCWhZ1[ smaller [hill] in the IHDCT illelrlllcssgc was ygprcscnlcd by the seven
Y; Bluegrass area. ln 1969 the average size of Counljcs Of Jackson, lyliiwii, Azlaury, Smith,
8 allotments in this area ranged from a high of Sumner, Trousdale, and Williamson (lrig_ ly
Q 2.34 acres in Robertson county to a low of The area is level to gently rolling and dark
QQ 1.52 in Pendleton county. The eight counties tobaccos are also produced in this area. The
Z . used to represent the Outer Bluegrass area area is a medium-dense area of production, f
E Z · were Franklin, Grant, Henry, Mercer, and in 1969 the average allotment size ranged
T Montgomery, Owen, Pendleton, and from a high of 1.59 acres per allotment in
gg 3 Robertson (Fig. 1). 'Trousdale county to a low of 0.64 acre in
E 2 . South Central Kentucky-Four counties jackson county.
5 5 Q (Barren, Green, Hart, and Metcalfe) were Eastern Tennessee and Virginia—The
§ ig . selected to represent this area of median density of burley production in this area is
_· _ density of production. Soils in this area are quite low owing to the predominance of
{ less productive for burley tobacco than those subsistence-type farms. Topography is
i` in the Bluegrass Areas and the topography is generally quite rough and most of the burley
rolling. Allotment size in South Central is grown on small plots of botton land along
Kentucky was considerably smaller on the the streams. The counties chosen to represent
. average than in the Bluegrass Area and this area were Lee, Russell, Scott, and
averaged from 1.37 acres per allotment in Washington counties Virginia and the
Hart county to 1.28 in Metcalfe county Tenneseee counties of Claiborne, Cocke,
{ Z among the sample counties chosen to Grainger, Greene, Hamblen, Hancock,
; represent this area. jefferson, johnson, Sullivan, and Washington
Q Daviess, Hancock, Breckinridge Counties (Fig. 1). Allotments are numerous in this area
§ z ¥ of Kentucky—This group of three counties of the Burley Belt but average quite small. ln
: 2 was chosen to represent an area of relatively 1969 the range in allotment size among the
5 Z1 low density of production in Kentucky and selected counties was from a high of 0.82 acre
f, an area where dark tobaccos are also in Greene county Tennessee to a low of 0.50
{ produced. Also, this area of Kentucky is one acre in Sullivan county Tennessee.
`I where the land is level to rolling and grain Eastern Kentucky—This area represented
T production is an important part of by 14 counties is a low density production
gi i commercial agriculture. Burley allotments in area between the Bluegrass Area and extreme
U; 1969 averaged 1.30 acres in Breckinridge eastern Kentucky where burley production is
é county, 1.24 acres in Daviess county and 1.20 sparse. The range in allotment size among
§ acres in Hancock. these 14 counties in 1969 was from 0.92 acre
E Platte County Missouri—'l`his county in Wolfe county to 0.44 in Lee and Lawrence
5 produces about 60 percent of all of the burley counties. .
lgl produced in Missouri and apparently is an Ohio-West Virginia——This area is rough A
: L area particularly suited to burley production. and not well suited to tobacco production
{ Production is relatively dense and in 1969 the except in the valleys. Six counties (two in
§ E county had 564 allotments that averaged 2.55 Ohio and four in West Virginia) were chosen
2 acres each. to represent the area. Generally allotments are
3; A small in this low density area and average '
E { allotment size ranged in 1969 from a high of
S Q 0.62 acre in Gallia county Ohio to a low of
3: é 0.51 acre in Cabell county West Virginia.
1H¢f¢¤ftcr in this report the Inner and Outer Bluegrass e Jackson Pul-Chasc—iTh1s area ui kentucky
Areas together will be referred to as the Bluegrass Area. 1S 3.11 21I'€21 of lOW d€U$ltY Productlon that ls
1 l
8
primarily a general farming area where dark from 1.21 acres in Bartholomew county to
tobacco production predominates. However, 0.41 in Orange county. However, allotments
the tf€I1d in fh€ BICP1 has been aWaY fmm dark are relatively few in number in this area and
_ t0ba€€0· Ballard COUMY was ¢><¢1¤d¢dfr¤m the seven counties selected had only 971
V the jackson Purchase Area for this analysis allotments in 1969.
since it has been a féthcr heavy Prédufcr of Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia—Twelvc
burley- The mw d°“S“Y 0* Production In the counties were selected from the three 5.....5
. remainder of the area can be illustrated by the . . . . . .
. . of Missouri, Ohio, and West Virginia as
relatively small allotments which averaged _ , _
I _ from 0.56 acre in McCracken county to 0.40 representative Pl the Very Spurs? areas Ot
1 acre inMa1,shau county in 1969. burley production (Fig. 1). Farming in the
4 South Central Indi,ma_Scv€n Counties area selected ranges from subsistence farming
. I were used te represerrt this area whjeh in in mountainous areas to commercial farming
P some aspects is Similar to the Jackson in corn and hogs in some of the Missouri area.
‘ Purchase Area of Kentucky except that dark However, burley production is very sparse in
tobacco is not produced in Indiana. lt is, the areas represented by these counties, and
I however, an area of low density of in 1969 the 12 counties in total had only
( production, with allotments which ranged 1,627 allotments, averaging 0.50 acre in size.
Q ALLOTMENT SHIFTS UNDER THE PROGRAM
I Shifts in Allotments and Production 5-year period and it is generally accepted that
. By State there has been less underplanting of
allotments in Kentucky than for the belt as a
I In general, the shift in allotted acreage of whole, due to the fact that allotments are
· burley tobacco since 1950 has continued to larger and production more commercialized.
reflect a decrease in the share of acreage in The result has been that Kentucky’s share of
states with larger allotments and an increasing national production, which declined during
share of the total allotment in states with the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, had
i smaller allotments due to minimum allotment increased by 1970 to about the same
provisions of the program (Tables 1 and 2). proportion as 20 years earlier.
From 1950 to 1970, for example, Kentucky’s Allotment shifts between states have
share of the national burley tobacco generally been away from the states where
A allotment declined from 65.5 to 63.1 percent. allotment averages are high and toward the I
‘ The share of the total burley crop produced states with smaller allotments and less dense
in Kentucky declined by a lesser amount, production. The decline in Kentucky’s share
_ however. Kentucky’s share of U.S. production of the national burley tobacco allotment was 1
of burley was at a record low proportion in offset by increases of 1.53, 0.66, and 0.42 (
( l 1950 mainly due to weather, but in 1970 percentages of national allotment in
. Kentucky produced 68.4 percent of the U.S. Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia,
l output of burley, almost exactly the same respectively, between 1950 and 1970 (Table I
¥ proportion of the total crop as the average for 2). Ohio, on the other hand, declined in terms
» 1949-51 (Table 3). Burley yieldsinKentucky of share of national allotment, but Ohio
s - have increased relative to the remainder of the allotments tend to average about the same in
_ » burley belt, particularly in the most recent size as for the Burley Belt in total.
{ 1
r .
l
9
Table l.——Burley Tobacco Acreage Allotments
to By States, 1940-70
rnts _________________________________________________________________________________
md State
971 Year
Kentucky Tennessee Ohio N. Carolina Va. Indiana Other
flvc -—--—-----------—--—-—---—-—- Thousand Acres -----------------------.--- f
1tes
ug 1950 273.9 84.0 13.9 12.5 14.1 10.6 9.2
{EQ 1951 310.2 94.3 15.5 13.9 15.9 12.0 10.4
qng 1952 312.2 94.8 15.6 14.1 15.9 12.0 10.1
ung
rea. 1 1953 283.8 87.0 14.1 13.1 14.7 11.0 9.0
ein
and 1954 261.7 80.4 13.0 12.3 13.7 10.1 8.3
nh
326 1955 200.3 63.6 10.1 10.1 11.0 7.8 6.4
1956 200.2 63.3 10.0 10.1 11.0 7.8 6.3
1957 200.3 63.2 10.0 10.1 11.0 7.7 6.3
h 1958 200.4 63.3 10.0 10.1 11.0 7.7 6.4
L at
Of 1959 200.6 63.3 10.0 10.2 11.0 7.7 6.3
asa
me 1960 200.7 63.4 10.0 10.2 11.0 7.7 6.4
zed
e of 1961 213.1 67.4 10.6 10.9 11.7 8.2 6.7
dng
had 1962 226.1 71.5 11.2 11.5 12.5 8.7 7.1
anm
1963 226.3 71.6 11.2 11.6 12.5 8.7 7.0
java 1964 204.3 65.1 10.1 10.6 11.4 7.9 6.3
here
the 1965 184.8 59.5 9.1 9.8 10.4 7.2 5.8
ense
hmt 1966 159.4 53.1 8.0 8.8 9.3 6.3 5.0 1
was
042 1967 159.5 53.0 8.0 8.8 9.3 6.3 5.0
m
ink, 1968 159.6 53.0 8.0 8.8 9.3 6.3 5.0
·bk I
;nm 1969 159.4 52.9 7.9 8.8 9.3 6.3 5.2
)h'
1e1g 1970 145.8 49.9 7.4 8.4 8.7 5.9 4.8
. i
10
Table 2.--Proportion of Burley Tobacco Acreage Allotment
By States, 1950-70
State
c Year ""‘"”“'“"“""“'"“"""'"‘”"'””'”"'"”'"`“"""'""”"""""""""_
Kentucky Tennessee Ohio N. Carolina Va. Indiana Other
.-----------------—- — -----——--- Percentage -----——---——-——-————-—————-- -
1950 65.49 20.09 3.31 2.98 3.37 2.54 2.22
A A 1951 65.71 19.97 3.29 2.95 3.36 2.55 2.17
I 1 1952 65.75 19.96 3.28 2.97 3.36 2.53 2.16
l i 1953 65.58 20.10 3.27 3.03 3.39 2.53 2.10
6 1954 65.50 20.11 3.25 3.09 3.43 2.52 2.10
1955 64.76 20.56 3.25 3.27 3.55 2.53 2.0"
‘ 6 t 1956 64.88 20.50 3.24 3.28 3.56 2.52 2.0;
5 { 1957 64.89 20.49 3.23 3.28 3.56 2.51 2.05
A 1958 64.89 20.49 3.23 3.29 3.56 2.51 2.05
1 1959 64.89 20.49 3.23 3.29 3.56 2.51 2.04
1960 64.86 20.49 3.22 3.30 3.57 2.50 2.06
1961 64.83 20.50 3.22 3.31 3.57 2.50 2.06
_ 1962 64.86 20.50 3.22 3.31 3.58 2.50 2.05
1963 64.85 20.50 3.21 3.32 3.58 2.50 2.05
1964 64.71 20.61 3.20 3.35 3.60 2.50 2.02
' 1965 64.47 20.77 3.19 3.41 3.63 2.50 2.05
g 1966 63.79 21.23 3.19 3.53 3.71 2.53 2.01
g 1967 63.81 21.22 3.19 3.53 3.71 2.53 201
_ 1968 63.83 21.22 3.18 3.53 3.71 2.53 2.00
T 1969 63.84 21.20 3.18 3.54 3.72 2.53 1.99
- . 1970 63.12 21.62 3.19 3.64 3.79 2.56 2.09
L
1 1
,}
11
Table 3.--Production and Yield of Burley Tobacco,
Kentucky and United States, 1950-70
Production (million pounds) Yield (pounds)
—— Year
Other Ky. as 8 Ky. as 8
....—. Kentucky U. S. of U. S. Kentucky U. S. of U. S. /
2_22 1950 323.9 578.4 55.99 1,165 1,222 95.3
1951 419.6 618.1 67.89 1,345 1,355 99.3
2 17 1952 434.7 650.1 66.86 1,380 1,403 98.4
· 1953 383.1 564.4 67.88 1,335 1,345 99.3
2_16 1954 452.9 667.6 67.85 1,595 1,586 100.6
1955 304.3 470.0 64.74 1,470 1,513 97.2
2_]n 1956 335.3 506.4 66.22 1,620 1,635 99.1
4 1957 319.8 488.1 65.52 1,560 1,592 98.0
2_1O 1958 300.5 465.5 64.55 1,510 1,567 96.4
1959 322.4 502.3 64.18 1,620 1,669 97.1
2_O5 1960 320.1 484.7 66.04 1,625 1,639 99.1
1961 379.8 580.3 65.44 1,800 1,820 98.9
2_O; 1962 454.7 674.9 67.38 2,030 1,993 101.9
1963 520.8 755.1 68.97 2,325 2,231 104.2
2_05 1964 411.1 619.8 66.32 2,025 2,022 100.1
7 1965 395.3 586.3 67.42 2,160 2,116 102.1
2 O3 1966 405.3 586.7 69.08 2,221 2,437 91.1
` 1967 388.6 558.8 69.67 2,385 2,274 104.9
2 O4 1968 384.5 563.4 68.26 2,465 2,372 103.9
` 1969 406.4 591.4 68.72 2,605 2,488 104.7
2.06 1970 383.4 560.1 68.45 2,700 2,585 104.4
2.06
2.03
2.03
2.02
2.03 4
2.01
2.01
2.00 _
1.99
2.09 .
é
12
T Shifts in Aeyeage Allotments, 12 Increasing the penalty on the sale of
Representative Areas, 1950-1955 tobacco harvested in excess of the farm quota
` from 50 percent for the average price in the
i ( _ The procedure used to analyze the shift preceding year to 75 percent of the preceding A
in allotments for the representative areas year’s average price for that type of tobacco.
( across the eight state burley producing areas The m¤j0f CYYGCIS of [ht? €h¤¤g€$ 111
1 . was to compute the allotment shifts that legislation were generally (1) to eliminate the
T occurred for each of the areas at 5-year profit from producing burley tobacco outside
2 lIlt€1'V3.lS Clllflllg and to ZISSCSS these ullgngd dCI·(g;igc5_ [0 Qliipiiiutc [hg
Sllllls in terms Ol llllelellYlllg P0lleY ellellgeS· provisions whereby over production could be
L Ma-lor Policy Fhafllgee that effected the used for establishing production history for a
y ( 5¤¤5Y 5¤5¤¤5¤5_ 51St¤5¤¤5¤ dwg 1550-55 new allotment or increasing an allotment, and
A Y . dealt mandy Wlth year-toycm changes m (3) reducing the level below which allotments
i total allotments as supply-demand . 4 _ _
E ( ` 1 relationships shifted. Burley allotments were Could not be Cut from 0`7 to 06 Mui _
The substantial downward trend in total
. reduced by 15 percent for the crop year _
1950, were increased by11PcrCcmfOr1951’ allotments from 1950 to 1955—-from 418 to
1 V Wcrc unchzmgcd in 1952, and Wcrc rcduccd 309 thousand acres total~did not appreciably
4 ‘ 1 by 10 percent, 8 Percent, and 25 percent in influence the proportion of the total allotted
( 1953, 1954, and 1955, respectively. Thus an to the 12 representative areas used in this
J _ ’ · allotment that took average increases and study (Table 4). ln 1950 the 12 areas were
1 · I d€€Y€&$€$ from th€ 1950 b¤S€ would have allotted 50.76 percent of the national
? ; = been rcduccd bY a wml Of 31-3 Peleem Ollel allotment compared with 50.43 percent in
i . lllls Pelled Ol llllle (l95O'55)· Allellllellls lll 1955. However, changes in individual areas
I ` total were reduced by Only 26 P°l°e“l· differed substantially during this period. ln
‘ however, owing to (1) provisions for new I I . _ .
. general, the net downward adjustment in
‘ allotments and (2) the fact that allotments of I . ._ . .f d ,11 I t
5 0.7 acre or less were protected from allotment ’*°"‘T5" dullllg lhll llcmd Slll lc " O mm S
. . . relatively from the dense to the less dense
cuts during this period. _
‘ _ Legislation approved for the 1955 burley areas of production. For example, the Inner
3 h . cmp sct up a Spccial rcfcrcndum among Bluegrass (-2.7),Outer Bluegrass (-3.4),South
_ - producers in which program changes were C e ll I Y il l K e ll l ll e li Y ( ‘ 2 · 7 1 ·
3_pp]‘()v(-jd prgducgrg for; D21V1€SS-H3.IlCOCl(-l$f€Cl(lIlf1Clg€ z11`CLlS of
. (1) Reducing the above minimum Kentucky and North Central Tennessee (-0.9)
1 acreage allotments by 25 percent for the 1955 areas lost in shares of national allotments
Q ( burley crop. (Table 4), while all other areas showed
E (2) Reducing the minimum acreage increases. In general, the proportionate share .
] t below whichaproducer’s allotment could not of the national allotment in 1955 was not
~ 1 be cut from 0.7 acre to 0.5 acre but more than 5 percent plus or minus different
( restricting the cut of allotment between 0,5 from that in 1950 except for Platte county
1 i l and 0.7 acre to no more than 0.1 acre per Missouri where the change was 47.5 percent.
A year. However, the absolute change was only from
_ (3) Eliminating the provisions whereby 0.40 to 0.59 percent of the national
T harvested acreage of burley in excess of allotment, and the percentage comparison
V . allotments was taken into account in tends to overstate to some extent the increase l
{ A establishing new and adjusting upward old in the relative share of national allotment held
5 burley allotments. in this county.
[ .
1 ` ·
1 2
1
13
_ Table 4.--Proportion of National Burley Tobacco Allotment in 1950 and 1955
’°i and Percentage Change in Importance, 12 Representative Areas
olu
thc
Hug Representative National Importance Percentage Change
mo. Area 1950 1955 in Importance
in /
thc Inner Bluegrass l3.l8 12.82 -2.7
sidc
the Outer Bluegrass 7.76 7.50 -3.4
l bc
Ord South Central Kentucky 4.87 4.74 -2.7
and Daviess, Hancock and Breckinridge
:"*” Counties Kentucky 2.82 2.72 -3.5
ond Platte County Missouri 0.40 0.59 +47.5
B lo
lbh. East Tennessee and Virginia 9.50 9.59 +0.9
Tfg North Central Tennessee 4.70 4.66 -0.9
us
*°Y° Eastern Kentucky 5.39 5.62 +4.3
unal
m nm Ohio and West Virginia 1.02 1.06 +3.9
Arg? Jackson Purchase, Kentucky 0.63 0.63 0
[ in South Central Indiana 0.20 0.21 +5.0
cms
enw Missouri, Ohio and Virginia
nncr COLmtie$ 0. 28 O. 29 +3.6
auth
7) TOTAL 48.69 48.40 -0.6
is of
‘O9) Source: Computed from Tobacco Acreages Allotted by States and Kinds,
*U“” 1940-70, USDA, ASCS.
»wcd
;ha1‘c .
not
zrcm
unty
tcm.
from
ionul
rison
rcusc
hcld
é
14
Shifts in Acreage Allotments, 12 parks, lakes, and other types of movement of
g Representative Areas, 1955-60 land from agricultural to nonagricultural uses.
, t The total acreage allotted to burley
tobacco increased from 309,326 to 309,376 Shifts in Acreage Allotments, 12
acres during 1955-60, a total of only 50 acres. Representative Areas, 1960-1965
New allotments and minor adjustments in old
` I allotments accounted for the increase as The reduction in total burley tobacco
l s national quotas were essentially unchanged acreage allotted from approximately 475,000
— during this 5-year period (Table 5). to 308,000 acres during the early 1950’s and
; _ The total share of the national the retention of allotments at the lower level
allotments in the 12 representative areas from 1955 through 1960 resulted in improved
‘ E changed very slightly during this period balance between supplies and use of burley to
z I increasing from 50.43 to 50.52 percent of the the point where acreage allotments were
I national total. Likewise, shifts between areas increased by 6 percent in 1961 and by an
. in the relative shares of total allotments in additional 6 percent in 1962. Allotments were
between the 12 representative areas were not unchanged in 196