xt78sf2m790j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt78sf2m790j/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1972 journals kaes_research_rprts_12 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 : June 1972 text Research Report 1 : June 1972 1972 2014 true xt78sf2m790j section xt78sf2m790j L    ., v Structural Characteristics and Income Levels
 V   `°`'_ __ a of Burley Tobacco Producers *
 }   __‘4_ Q_; ‘ — in Two Kentucky Counties L
 A bv
 `‘- Frederic L. Hoff, John G. Stovall, and Garnett L. Bradford
*  _ RESEARCH RE1>0RT 12 z June 1972
AES;.  { University of Kentucky : : College of Agriculture
  . Agricultural Experiment Station : : Department of Agricultural Economics
—   U Lexington
 1 1

 J x
x * a
’

 A eonranrs
Fw
  INl`ROI)UC'I`ION ...................................... 1
 . PROCEDURE ........................................ 3 V_
i Selection and Description of Study Areas ....................... 3 I
A  Sample ......................................... 3
 p Survey ......................................... 3
  CIIARAC'I`ERlS'I`lCS OF FARM OPERATING UNITS ................... 5
I Land Inventory, Utilization, and Productivity ..................... 5
— Livestock and Poultry (Production) .......................... 5
 _ Labor Utilization .................................... 9
 L Gross Farm Receipts .................................. 13
 ` I)istribution ol Gross Farm Income by Farm Size ................... 13
 ‘ CIIARACIERISTICS OF 'IENURE GROUPS ........................ 16
_ Age of Producers .................................... 16
 _ Education ........................................ 16
 Ci Net Worth ....................................... 16
  Farm Size ........................................ 17
  Labor .......................................... 17
{ Crop—Share Arrangements ................................ 17
 j Full-Owner Operations .............................. 20
  Part-Owner Operations .............................. 20
  Share-Cropper Operations ............................. 20
 i Partnership Operations .............................. 23
2  Family Income ..................................... 23
 Q I)istribution of Respondents into Income Classes .................... 25
  SUMMARY ......................................... 28
 _ REFERENCES ........................................ 30
  APPENDICES ........................................ 31
  in

 LIST OF TABLES
Table N0. Page
1 Distribution of Sample Members by Tenure, Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, 1969 . . 4
2 Average inventory of Land for 180 Farm Units in Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, ’
A 1ientucky,_]uly 1,1969 ................................. 6
3 Land Utilization and Productivity for 180 Farm Units, Bourbon and Metcalfe
· Counties, 1969 ..................................... 7
4 Average Livestock and Poultry Sales by 180 Farm Units, Bourbon and Metcalfe
Counties, 1969 .........,........................... 8
5 Average Farm Labor Utilization for 180 Farm Units, Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties,
1969 .......................................,... 10
6 Regular Farm Labor Utilization by Farm Size for 180 Farm Units, Bourbon and
Metcalfe Counties, 1969 ................................ 11
7 Seasonal Farm Labor Utilization by Farm Size for 180 Farm Units, Bourbon and
Metcalfe Counties, 1969 ................................ 12
8 Average Gross Receipts per Farm from Sale of Farm Products, 180 Farm Units in i
Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, 1969 ..................,...... 14
9 9 Average Gross Receipts per Farm from the Sale of Farm Products by Farm Size, 180
Farm Units in Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, Kentucky, 1969 ............ 15
I 10 Percent of Farms Reporting Source of Labor, Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties,
· Kentucky, 1969 .................................... 18
 i 11 Burley Tobacco Crop-Share Arrangements between Operators and Tenants on 28 Farm
Units Classified as Full—Owner Operations, Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, 1969 . . . 19
12 Burley Tobacco Crop-Share Arrangements between Operators and Landlords on 34 g
Farm Units Classified as Part—Owner Operations, Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, 1969. 21 1
` 13 Burley Tobacco Crop—Share Arrangements between Operators and Landlords on 51
Farm Units Classified as Sliare—Crop Operations, Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, 1969. 22
14 Burley Tobacco Crop—Sliare Arrangements between Partners on 10 Farm Units ·
t Classified as Partnership Operations, Bourbon and Metcalfe Counties, 1969 ...... 24
iv
` 1

   LIST OF FIGURES
Figure N0. Page
1 'l`he study areas (counties), Kentucky, 1969 ...................... 2 I
2 Distribution of operators, landlords, and tenants into selected family income (both /
farm and nonfarm) classes, Bourbon and Metclafe counties, 1969 ........... 26
3 Average net tobacco income as a percent of all family income (both farm and nonfarm)
) for operators, landlords, and tenants classified into family income classes, Bourbon and
I Metcalfe counties, 1969 ................................ 27
 

 STRUCTURAL CHARAC'I`ERISTICS AND INCOME LEVELS OF BURLEY TOBACCO
PRODUCERS IN TWO KENTUCKY COUNTIES
by K
l·`rederic L. lloff, john G. Stovall, and Garnett L. Bradford*
l INTRODUCTION
l Tobacco has been an important authorities. Agronomists have studied yield
  commodity to United States agriculture and variation due to fertilizer rates, plant
[ business since the English colonies were population, varietieg, and other variables,
l sellletl (lufillg llle early part of [llc 17lll Agricultural engineerg have developed new
  century. Cash receipts from farm marketings and better housing facilities to control and
  ol tobacco totaled $1.4 billion in 1970, improve tobacco curing. Yet, there is still a
  ranking fourth among U.S. field crops.1 ln geareity of information about tobaeeo
J Kentucky, lennessee, and in parts of North producing units; the growers, their resources
  Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana burley and income; and about the tenure
i tobacco is an important source of farm arrangements under which burley tobacco is
I income. Burley poundage quotas totaled 555 grown.
million pounds for the 1971 crop. Although several government agencies
. Burley tobacco has been the object of continually collect, summarize. and report I
  considerable research effort over the years, detailed information about burley tobacco
Q much like other major income crops. and the farms that produce it, their definition
  Disease-resistant hybrids have been developed of a farm is not consistent. Moreover. these
  to produce high yields per acre. Low·nicotine agencies are primarily concerned with
  varieties have been bred as a means of reporting aggregate data for counties and
  combating some ofthe tobacco-related health states and provide few statistics at tne
Y problems proclaimed by leading medical farm-firm level which describe linkages be
1 tween the resource inputs of {xm Ci2rETfiTQ`I`5.
p ltuidlords, and other farm workers ;;1ci their
__`i_`_____`-"_` returns.
  *.~\gricultural Economist, Farm Production Economics Divi- TOd&Y’ nlany burlff gtswiri SSCLLDE
sion, Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of lL1li)OI‘ IllI`Ol.1gll CO1`lU`iiCIU3.l .3.I1’.i17.g©KilfIZiS DC L'? .
‘ Agriculture; Agricultural Economist and Southern Field yyyittgn and verbal) vylierelgy   Qjjt;;”*.`.id `
1 Group Hurd, Farm Production Economics Division, Ec0—. panics receive SOHIC Shu? Of lhs Zgblscs. CIC?
i nomic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. _ . . .
  and Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Univer- O1- other COIHPCHSSUOH Inf {Hill? Tfsfiuzfc
  sity of Kentucky, Lexington,Kentucky, respectively. lllpul. Little O1` 110 Sliitiliflfell i.I1iOZ'I'$`lJ.ZlOil li
  I _ _ available which describes the characteristics of
Q United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Re— . . . _ _ _ _ ·
l Search Service, Farm Income Situation, FIS-218, (U. S. thcsc 1ud“ilduulS` the YQSOUICSS lbf} >uppi$`
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,_]uly 1971). L1I1Cl [11C 1l1COI`ll€S Iliff l’€C€l\`€.
l 1  
1 s

 _ 2
For the purpose of formulating public Statistical information describing selected
, policy, it is imperative to know something characteristics of the sample farms are used to
_ about the income level of these tobacco show the similarities and differences which
growers and how that level might be affected exist between the two counties with respect
by new or modifications of existing to farm size, enterprise mix, tenure
government programs, changes in the demand arrangements, and income. ln addition, this ,
for burley tobacco, and other adjustments. In information may provide insight into the I
light of the smoking and health controversy characteristics of a number of other burley ,
T . and threats to abolish the burley tobacco producing regions throughout the Burley Belt. I
» program, policy makers are becoming more A detailed analysis to measure the short- ·
i concerned about the incidence of poverty and long-run income effects resulting from , ,
_ ‘ among families associated with tobacco changes in burley prices and demand is j
. production, the importance of tobacco as a planned in another phase of this study. 'l`he I
. A contributor to family income, and how analysis will utilize linear programming g
adversely tobacco growers might be affected techniques and examine the income effect for ·
as a result of any change bearing on the each of the 180 sample farms where resources
_ production, sale, and demand for burley freed due to adjustments in the burley L
j tobacco. tobacco program can be reallocated to their
. T The purpose of this report is to highest level of return. This analysis should
summarize and contrast tenure arrangements, provide some very useful results to better ,
V resource supplies, and income for several explain the linkages between resource inputs I
1 ' categories of burley growers in two Kentucky and returns for various tenure groups in the ,
counties—Bourbon and Metcalfe (Figure 1). farm sector. I
‘ 1
1
l
{
Uaounrsou V
{_;,MEm..
4. Figure 1.-The Study Areas, Kentucky, 1969.
g r .
I ¤ ti p

 3
PROCEDURE
Selection and Description of Study Areas the two counties. These operators were the
major decision makers on farm units having
Bourbon Co11111Y W¤$ Sclcclcd to headquarters in Bourbon and Metcalfe
Ycbrcschl high lhcomc bb1lcY tobacco counties and producing burley tobacco in r
y i¤6<111¤·¤§ ~s·6¤S- 16 196‘166¤1;>6¤ oo“1“Y 1969. 0,..;:1..1...5 were Ciasirtca into one Or
  1666 ¤6mm¤¤11   113 rw. .c.....€ ....%...1.., according .0
part·ret1rement, and 114 part-time farms. . . . .
_ . . ownership of land included in the farm unit:
The value oi all farm products sold was $13
. . . 1) full- oymer, 2) part- owner, 3)sharecropper,
mill1on——an average of $10,800 per farm. 4 h_ PX {
Nonfarm income of all farm operators and OT   Farmers lp OP?fd_mrS’ ‘ rcqucncl
[hm, families averaged $2,311 pc, farm or distribution and descriptions of these four
. $3,266 for farms reporting nonfarm income. calcgohcs and hohobcfacor calcgoncs arc
1 '1`he 1,235 farms in Bourbon County averaged Prcscmcd 111 Tablc 1-
` 143 acres of land on which an average of 5.44 The 180 Operators Wl10 W€f€ i¤t€1’Vi€W€d
acres of burley tobacco were produced in reported renting land from 120 individual
1964. landlords and 11 estates in 1969. In addition,
M€1€i111`c C0111`11§` 1*115 $€1€€1€d 10 these operators employed 75 nonoperator
1cPYcSch1 a low lhcomc 1>¤r1¤>" tobacco tenants who received a share of the tobacco
producing region. ln 1964 Illetcalfe County income {mm the Samplg {Hm umm Nearly all
wmfmlfd 1’l li Commcféml 5;61"m5» 196 these landlords and nonoperator tenants were
hdlwtllluuuu °lfmb’_ dn 1 pdmiumc contacted personally or by mail, but only 69
farms. Ihe value of all farm products sold was ,,
, . . . landlords and 4/ nonoperator tenants
$:2.8 m1l11on—an average of $3,800 per farm. _ _
. · . consented to an interview.
Noniarm income of all farm operators and
their families averaged $1,682 per farm, or
$2,298 for farms reporting nonfarm income. Survey
The 1.530 farms in Metcalfe County averaged
94 acres of land on which an average of 1,91 Two different types of questionnaires
acres of burley tobacco were produced in were utilized in this study. The primary
1964. questionnaire administered to operators,
provided information related to tenure
Sample arrangements. land and livestock inventory,
labor availability and use, farm buildings and
Data were obtained from 180 randomly equipment, future farm plans, net worth, and
> selected operators of burley tobacco farms in gross family income for 1969. A supplemental 3
schedule was administered to nonoperator
landlords and tenants who received a share of
—i —"—‘ the 1969 burley income. This supplemental
_ schedule secured data related to household
ZUnited States Bureau of Census, Census of Agvicizlture, COD] Osition Inanagcmcnt decisions and
1961 · · · P ’ ·
·, Statistics for the State and Counties, Kentucky. _' . d _ _ . fm TO rams net
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1967), pldctlccs uu cl v;'u‘1Pu% m P g ’
pp. 296-307. worth, and gross family income.
i

   4
TABLE 1
1 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE MEMBERS BY 'FENUIIE, h
BOURBON AND METCALFE COUNTIES, 1969 ,
I
  1
 
1
Tenure Bourbon County Metcalfe County A
A  
(Operators)
Full-Ownersa 26 54
b ,. =
‘ Part-Owners 14 20  I
~ Share—CroppersC 3 5 1 6 ~
d
, Partnerships 4 6
Q Total 79 101
(Nonoperators)
, Landlordse 25 44
‘ V f
Tenants 21 26
I
aIndividuals who were the major decision makers on operating units containing
only personally owned land and having burley acreage in 1969.
blndividuals who were the major decision makers on operating units containing
both personally owned and rented land and having burley acreage in 1969.
Clndividuals who were the major decision makers on operating units containing
only rented land and having burley acreage in 1969.
d
Individuals who were the major decision makers on operating units containing
· jointly owned land and possibly rented land and having burley acreage in 1969.
elndividuals who were not the major decision makers on personally owned land
that was rented to the part owners, share croppers, and partnership operators in
1969, but who received a share of the income from crops grown on this land.
f
Individuals who were not the major decision makers on units operated by full »
’ owners, part owners, share croppers, or partnership operators, but who received  A
· a share of the tobacco income as compensation for their labor.
  j ~
I
rl *   _

 5
CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM OPERATING UNITS
_ Land, livestock, labor, and income 168 percent greater than the 2.04 acres
characteristics of the entire farm operating harvested in Metcalfe County. About 63
units are summarized in the first part of this percent of the tobacco acreage in Bourbon
report. The last section summarizes the County represented rented land with /_
relative amounts of resources supplied by allotments compared with only 33 percent in
operators, landlords, and nonoperator Metcalfe County. Burley tobacco acreage per
tenants. farm operation ranged from 0.12 to 30.56
. For this study, farm operating units were acres in Bourbon County and from 0.47 to
` defined to include all land on which 15.35 acres in Metcalfe County.
agricultural operations were conducted at any Corn was the most important grain crop
time in 1969 under the control or supervision grown in both study areas during 1969 (Table
of one person (full·owner, part—owner, or 3). Approximately 80 percent of the sample
. sharecropper) or partnership. Control may farms in Metcalfe County and 75 percent of
have been exercised through ownership or those in Bourbon County raised corn or corn
management, or through a lease, rental, or silage. More than 19 percent of this corn
cropping arrangement. In addition, each of acreage was harvested as corn silage in
these farms produced burley tobacco during Bourbon County compared with only 8
1969. percent in Metcalfe County. No soybean
production was reported on the sample farms
Land Inventory, Utilization, in either county.
and Productivity A sizeable acreage of legume and grass
hay was harvested as roughage for dairy and
Land resources varied substantially beef operations in both counties. Seventy—five l
between Bourbon and Metcalfe counties. In percent of the Bourbon County sample farms
Bourbon County, 58 percent of the land was and 87 percent of the Metcalfe County farms
acquired through rental and leasing reported the harvest of legume and/or grass
arrangements, whereas in Metcalfe County hay during 1969. A few farms harvested
, nearly 82 percent of the land was owner legume and grass seed from their hay and
operated (Table 2). Sample farms ranged in pastureland.
size from 1.72 to 1,630 acres in Bourbon Production of specialty crops
County and from 4 to 3,561 acres in Metcalfe (cucumbers, peppers, etc.) was limited in both A
County, with an average farm size of 222.12 counties. One Metcalfe County farm reported
A acres and 179.90 acres, respectively. raising cucumbers in 1969 and another
7 According to ASCS data, Bourbon reported the planting of peppers in 1970.
County farm land in 1969 was comprised of Several farms grew cane sorghum for molasses S
90 percent cropland (including rotation in Metcalfe County. I
. pasture), 2 percent woodland, 6 percent
permanent pasture, and 2 percent other (i.e., Livestock and Poultry (Production)
farmstead, lanes, fences, etc.), In contrast,
Metcalfe County farm land was classified as Beef and swine represent the major
only 53 percent cropland, 32 percent livestock enterprises on Bourbon County '
woodland, 14 percent permanent pasture, and sample farms during 1969 (Table 4). Nearly
1 percent other. 41 percent of these farms reported swine sales
The average acreage of burley tobacco and 66 percent reported beef sales, with both _ .
harvested in Bourbon County (5.47 acres) was swine and beef being sold by 34 percent of
- l

  
  >y ·
M
B
E··*
“ z E MA 6
E £ "E ~*
¤6·<=>°’ A
.. mg O6°2 $,0
  E3 —· ~§ <¤° N  
  ; VH; Q ‘T as
- Z *2/ N S`? $2 QH
’ B is Hemi 6. 3 ~
` ·-G MA "’ 5 l»
4-¤ <|** ‘ ‘
E2 G °?=¤ gc? $2 :§
i A °'¤»5 .<¤> gg V Q
Q: `-/'-{Oi -0 <1‘• rg
U `•’©• qa »-• `
H Q 00/* 0
¤~% *3 GOA ¤
A [JJ . mw an »
* E O Nm; ."' ·-·
  § Q ig   VOQOA E 2
` Z .2 ii ·b, vg; $-4
. G $*3 A°°¤\i Tw jg gn
· · m 2 3 acme .<> (Q ¤¤ *
V Mac L! ;.. @*9,.] oo QF/_ ·¤ CI
¤¤¤ 0 ”° ° :1 · ¤¤°“ A Ea H
QQ g cd N ® •-4 {lr
<'.\] `A • QQ V
cu *·* . 00
` pq ,-4 E ,.-5* ic: .‘·"·’ gp
» .4 z. ¤ ma? @**05 ·¤ ‘·· AA.
pq >-*y-4 Q O qqc mc? c~_;>/Og; {Q E
<¤ ¤¤;>4 B ##,..3 Nw V · O ,
F E »—• mi- Ei E1 E
  zé V QCA § ’* Bq
pn Q, _ wg m *Ilcy
un ‘*‘ '
2 2, ·“° $2 E  
,.4 A V A Y-< . `H
hi :3.. gm @00 °'° B ‘
· Q _LO mg; V • ¤»··
co 5 GU; mw e¤»- E > `
"‘ mw  FO QU} 5 m  
. M 17
* E O 2 g ¤ ii ? E- L\“‘*
    5: é '23 T Q 2; ii? €g“‘
1 ·¤ G
E E EB *5 cmg gg
, Q..cc$ Q m0 (D ·-E #4 Q;
,` . @2 gig 2%; ¤¤ Ep g Q Gm
~“ <¤" ~§¤; 2:;, O.2-¤9 ‘SSS
`V 3° F'-·:-* Tim 3 w
  ;:¤¤ QE @$,,0 ¤ ¤® <» *~
` {3 <1> mo ¤>;; ¤ U  I
E cd;_‘ q_{>) E ®._‘ -,.4**-* 1GgL
  Eq; -3.., :.4 pg QQ wg Img
  >pL, Og mA mp ;_‘>
- Lnw (Q ¤>
 CD
(DO >.   »-4 $-4
EO ···,E] ¤> .,_,© ¤.¤
OD WO LY-ez-· O P O
;* gpm ngiij J
mg can CM B
E 45 O uI`1€yv
3
 

 7
TABLE 3
LAND UTILIZATION AND PRODUCTIVITY FOR 180 FARM UNITS,
BOURBON AND METCALFE COUNTIES, 1969
 
Bourbon County Metcalfe County [
7 Crops Land    
Harvcsted Tenure Average Acres Of Average Yield Average Acres of Average Yield
Farms Reporting Per Acre Farms Reporting Per Acre
 
Grain
_1 _ owned 15.00 40.0 bu. 5.33 46.9 bu.
7 Bm "* ‘‘‘‘ rented-in 6.00 80.0 bu. 0.00 0. 0
_ owned 25.67 99.5 bu. 12.18 61.0 bu.
Com ```` rented—in 24. 98 88. 8 bu. 17. 42 57. 7 bu.
. C _ ql C owned 24.78 19.4 ton 9.78 18. 1 ton
Om`1 ag 4 ` ` rented—in 23.75 17.3 ton 15.00 16.7 ton
O t owned 0.00 0.0 5.50 40.9 bu.
Q
H " ``°'` rented—in 0. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 0
\\l1ent .... owned 10. 00 37. 3 bu. 7. 00 27. 5 bu.
rented—in 13. 67 34. 0 bu. 0. 00 0. 0
@1
-3
Q l;_;;;°UGS* owned 17. 08 1. 0 ton 31. 75 1. 8 mn
Q ` ` ` ° rented-in 10. 00 . 8 ton 0. 00 0. 0
E
: All V.   '
§ LG rE1ft;"S· owned 88. 84 2.1 um 27.10 2.1 mn
9 g 6 ' rented—in 48. 43 2. 1 ton 29. 92 2. 4 ton
`E
g Seed ‘
C owned 0.00 0.0 12.00 200.0 lb.
¤> G . 8 d . .
*3 MSS CC rented—in 52. 00 136. 0 lb. 0. 00 0. 0
w _ LQ g S g owned 7.00 100.0 lb. 0.00 0.0
E, gumc God ` rented-in 24. 30 120. 0 lb. 0. 00 0. 0 ·
8
Q Other
¤
E BuI.1€VTObqCCO owned 3.74 2,989.2 lb. 1.63 2,764.7 lb. I
OQ `C ( rented—in 5.43 2,954.6 lb. 1.73 2,956. 11b.
  g

 , 8
TABLE 4
A AVERAGE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY SALES BY 180 FARM UNITS, '
l BOURBON AND METCALFE COUNTIES, 1969 i
1
 
a a j
Bourbon Coimty Metcalfe County
    2
Kmd of Sale Farms Average Quantity Farms Average Quantity J
Reporting So1d/ Farm Reporting Reporting Sold/ Fa rm Reporting
, 9 :
Beef: I
· For Slaughter 19 45 18 9 1
As Feeder Calves 44 38 21 13 '
A For Breeding 9 10 4 7 ‘
A Dairy: (
Milk Cows 1 4 36 3 1
Dairy Calves 6 14 60 9
i ‘ Grade 'A' Milk 2 282,500 lb. 5 281, 000 lb. I
Manufactured Milk 3 51, 167 lb. 61 53,222 lb. 7
` Swine:  
For Slaughter 10 194 15 32
As Feeder Pigs 26 193 14 33 7
For Breeding 2 6 3 10 1
Sheep:
Ewes and Rams 4 51 0 0 1
Lambs 12 106 0 0 I
Wool 13 637 lb. O 0 '
4 Poultry: A
V Eggs 1 30,000 doz. 2 510 doz. _
Broilers 0 O 1 11 , 000 ‘
Turkeys 0 ` 0 1 16,000 ·
 
A aNumbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. l
%   I
2 A
, . K

 9
the farms. About 64 percent of the beef and needed for these enterprises in addition to
72 percent of the hogs were sold as feeders. caring for the tobacco crop.
. Only 25 percent of the study farms in
Metcalfe County reported swine sales, and 33 Labor Utilization
percent reported beef sales.
.; Dairy was the major livestock enterprise Burley tobacco is a labor-intensive crop I,
in Metcalfe County. Sixty percent of the which has unusually high harvesting labor
___ study farms reported manufactured milk sales requirements. When ripe, tobacco plants must
_ and 5 percent indicated grade ‘A’ milk sales in be cut and housed for curing within a few
ntl, 1969 (Table 4). These dairy farms reported days before the quality of the tobacco starts
lftlm average sales of 281,000 pounds of grade ‘A’ deteriorating. Most of the harvesting
t _ milk per farm and 53,222 pounds of operations are performed with manual labor
manufactured milk per farm. Although only 6 owing to a lack of economical mechanized
percent of the Bourbon County farms were harvesting equipment. A scarcity of seasonal
engaged in dairy production, their grade ‘A’ farm labor in many areas forces burley
operations had a slightly larger average milk growers to employ farm labor from several
output per farm than did Metcalfe County available sources. Many operators with small
dairy farms. Manufactured milk production allotments swap or trade labor with
per dairy farm was greater in Metcalfe neighboring growers; holders of larger
County. allotments tend to rely upon hired labor and
No sheep were reported by the 101 share—croppers.
farms in Metcalfe County, but 12 of the 79 In Bourbon County the average total
sample farms in Bourbon County reported labor input of 3,653 hours labor per farm was
lamb production (an average of 106 lambs provided by the operator and his wife, unpaid
sold per farm). family, and regularly paid farm workers `
Several factors affect the livestock (Table 5). These farms hired an additional 7
enterprise mix which predominates in each part-time laborers and traded labor (a
county. Dairy, especially manufactured milk, common practice where hired labor is scarce) ’
seems ideal for the small owner·operated with 2 persons during periods of peak labor
farms characteristic of Metcalfe County. To demand. Metcalfe County labor utilization in
sell manufacturing 1nilk,dairy farmers are not 1969 averaged 3,175 hours per farm in
required to meet all the sanitation standards addition to the 5 part-time hired and 3
established for grade ‘A’ sales. Several cheese part-time swapped workers employed by each
factories and evaporated milk plants are farm.
located in the area to purchase manufactured Utilization of regular and seasonal farm
» milk. Also, the production of such milk labor by farm size (acres) is presented in
provides these farmers with a higher rate of Tables 6 and 7, respectively. The total farm {
return to their limited resources than other labor input (regular paid plus seasonal farm
livestock enterprises. labor) increased with farm size in both
The high percentage of cropland and counties. The average labor input for Bourbon
pastureland per farm in Bourbon County is County farms of 50 acres or less totaled 2,250
suited for beef and swine production. Most of hours regular labor plus 5 part-time workers I
these farms can produce sufficient quantities and increased to 5,400 hours regular labor
of grain and rougliage to support feeder calf and 11 part-time laborers for farms over 250
_ and feeder pig operations. Tobacco tenants acres. Metcalfe County exhibited a similar
can supply most of the labor and management distribution of farm labor to the various farm . (
·t

 10
TABLE 5
AVERAGE FARM LABOR UTILIZATION FOR 180 FARM UNITS,
BOURBON AND METCALFE COUNTIES, 1969
 
  Bourbon County Metcalfe County ’
f L b      P
V TYPE O a Or Average for Average/Farm Average for Average/Farm
, all 79 Farms Reporting all 101 Farms Reporting
P ` (Hours per Year)
_ Operator 1,937 1,937 2,021 2,021
Wife 327 890 291 840 g
Other Unpaid Familtya 397 1 , 206 327 1 , 574
Regular Paid Farm 992 2 , 903 536 2 , 083
Total (All Farms) 3, 653 3, 175
_ Number of Persons Hired
g Part-Time Per Year 7 9 5 7
Number of Persons Swapped U
L Part—Time Per Year 2 4 3 7
 
aOther unpaid family labor includes all labor supplied by members of the operator's
immediate family (excluding operator and wife labor) who do not receive a share of the farm
receipts or wages for labor supplied to the farm.
bRegular paid farm labor includes only labor supplied by individuals who worked l
full-time on the farm and either received a share of the farm receipts or a wage for their
labor input.
CPart—time farm labor includes only labor supplied by individuals who were paid a
wage to work for a few days on the farm during the harvest season.
( .
/ 1   `

 ll
0
IO
N ·-40 IO09 1:000 -+0 0.-4
L, .-40 0-+ 0—1< 0;- 0-1~
Q, —-#0 00 -+0 00 -+0
5 011-4 ¢_~].—< LO'1"
0
0
0
N0 00 00 0.-4 0.-4
I 101-1 @01 ww LOLO wm
,.4 ·-+c¤ 0 00 0 00 /
—_; C; cum .-< Jo;
0
0
rm E 2
r U1 (N
; Ow co.-4 LG mw .
E 2 I-;  1~r.~ mm 1-GG
E Sid; cum 00
E $2:.4
* ·»-A G.)
ca 0.
1 0
'D E0m
"* $-4 10;
430 °'$ ***0 00 0—¢< 00 00 00
O0 B4 IE .-40 00 00 >0 00
0 ;~0 0 0-0 0-:< 00
4 F-Y-4.-4 -4 ... ..-
• 1-11** 01:*:
Sig E
0
*:5
:20 <>
. 0
<}O .-4 00 N0 00 00 00
LD 0*3% 00 ··:*c> »—> vm
__ wm I 00 -00 0 pm 00
Ld pgp; "Q .-40 mm
— a éé 3
U
< )—|
. FF 0
· F (gm 0 -00 .-40 00 00 00
.q... 00 ww 00 0 0.-4
I1 LA l 00 0.-4 N .-4 N0
dB 0 .-:.-4 C\`1*v-4*
5.42.
gz
V   S" ¤¤g 54-¤ 54-w Sm O 5+,
E FCO OG.) OG.) O2 O2 OQ)
QE gv @2 mi Q Q 02 J
Lr-4 ....
Cd ....
<2
*5 .... Q
E $5 • • . . & I
{Id ..¤ . . 3 . E
S `"‘ *—·
LH . . Es . Q
Q) • • Ip Tl
E; · • H cd
H 2; · §` EE
*63 ‘ .. g .
· *—* cu 0 A
CD =4-4 __; bl)
V Q-{ np-( 4J Q) . 4
0 B 0 ns -

 O 12
3
ES
` :> ¤><1·
0 Nm zh
O
I-O
N
I si
1-I j
1-1* E 3 V b
1 gf/3   xx
gp gi N Sw
1 $8 ”`
Eg
ga] g 111
  S zzz T  
» pq 1** ID L1
,4 zm C; N Hm @1,, ,1
Eg   LO f"
an L
F <{Z 111
§.<¤ 5
E§ 3
D é CON N 5*
pj cc
‘§§ M T
11*
<: 1
. Q cd  
2 °°~ "
9:1 **3* gg;
<¤ ,5 0*-* QCD I-(
hq ·¤O .::74 c»‘•-* ¤_g
zu ’-·0 QH ¤
,_q .,..,, ·:4.> :.10 ,.¤’{§
< U] EG) 54-* $-4;) p
2 OG) :34.1
g mz 55% 11
I ` U) · U (I
as · » ii
. (fj °
E E. ‘ li
I-gi ';’j*• . I`(
1 ,.;| E. cu 1 fr
1 1s 2. 1,1.5. E
1 CD g gw as P
i 1 B: gu; 3*; & (*
  · 1 F'   @5.46 E SI
1 ` ~»··~ *1* *5 14
’ OE "~•'°’ e~
i $.4.4.; Om b
· Q4
* Bia *6%
EQ Qs  
, E :: Em
, _ 1 Z Q

 C _ .· 
13
sizes; but for each size category, the total the sale of feeder calves, 39 percent from (
. labor input was less than in Bourbon County. slaughter calves, and the remaining 3 percent
The types of farm labor used by the case from the sale of beef breeding stock (Table  
farms differed between the two counties 8). 1
(Tables 6 and 7). The major types of farm Swine and sheep production were also  
labor employed by the Metcalfe County farms important contributors to gross farm income i V,
were family labor (operator, wife, and other in Bourbon County, where there is an j I
unpaid family labor) and part-time swapped abundance of cropland and pastureland for 1
labor, whereas the Bourbon County farms feed production on most farms. About 41 i
primarily used regular paid labor percent of these farmers reported swine sales  
(share-croppers) and part-time hired labor. ln and 16 percent reported sheep sales. A few  
both counties regular paid (full-time) labor farm; received income from the gale of eggs, V
2 was used more on larger farms than on smaller brgilerg, or turkey;
farms. In Metcalfe County, dairy production
was the major livestock enterprise. Nearly 60
Gross Farm Receipts percent of the 101 sample farms in Metcalfe
County sold manufacturing milk in 1969 and
Total gross farm receipts is a common an additional 5 percent sold grade ‘A’ milk.
C measure of farm size. lt is used here to Receipts from dairy cattle and milk
include total dollar receipts from the sale of accounted for 33.8 percent ($2,693 per farm)
all crop and livestock products by each of their 1969 gross farm income. About 50
' sample farm in 1969. The 1969 total gross percent of the dairy receipts came from the
farm receipts for the sample farms in Bourbon sale of manufacturing milk, 30 percent from
and Metcalfe counties averaged $21,618 and grade ‘A’ milk, and the remaining 20 percent
$7,974 per farm, respectively (Table 8). from milk cows and dairy calves. A
Burley tobacco is the most important
source of farm income in both counties. Distribution of Gross Farm Income
Tobacco receipts averaged $11,422 per farm by Farm Size
in Bourbon County and represented 52.8
percent of the total gross farm receipts from The distribution of total gross farm
all farm product sales. In Metcalfe County, receipts by size of farm (acres) is shown in
47.5 percent of the gross farm receipts Table 9 for Bourbon and Metcalfe counties.
represented burley tobacco sales. In both counties, average gross receipts per
The sale of livestock and poultry farm increased with farm size. ln Bourbon
products provided the 180 study farms with County, receipts ranged from $6,073 on
more than 45 percent of their 1969 total farms of 50 acres or less to nearly $48,770 on
gross farm income. As previously mentioned, farms over 250 acres. The 1969 gross farm (
beef production was the most important income per farm in Metcalfe County was A
livestock enterprise in Bourbon County and considerably less than in Bourbon County,
( represented nearly 30 percent ($6,238 per ranging from only $3,521 on farms of 50 acres
farm) of 1969 gross farm receipts. Nearly 66 or less to $16,275 on farms in excess of 250
percent of these farms reported beef sales acres,
(slaughter cattle, feeder calves, or breeding An examination of the composition of I
stock), and 56 percent of the farms sold farm income for the farms studied in each of
. feeder calves. About 58 percent of the gross the six farm size groups reveals that those
. beef receipts in Bourbon County came from farms in the smallest size class (O-50 acres) _ .
-t

 14
TABLE 8.
AVERAGE GROSS RECEIPTS PER FARM FROM SALE OF FARM PRODUCTS,
180 FARM UNITS IN BOURBON AND METCALFE COUNTIES, 1969
 
Bourbon County Metcalfe County
Farm product Average for Average/ Farm Average for Average/ Farm
  g
(Dollars) 5
I Crops: 5
Burley Tobacco E 3
_ Owned 4,229 7,770 2,466 2,930 LA g
3 Rented 7,193 11,366 1,318 3,413 pa _.
Corn    
· Owned 38 3,000 63 1,054 B E
Rented 45 708 21 425 Q E
Hay 2 55
Owned 5 215 21 428 L *
Rented 71 931 40 50