xt7vhh6c4076 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7vhh6c4076/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1971 journals kaes_research_rprts_08 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 8 : February 1971 text Research Report 8 : February 1971 1971 2014 true xt7vhh6c4076 section xt7vhh6c4076 An Analysis of the Effect of Selected Economic Variables
on the Optimum Location of Burley Tobacco Production
Within the Burley Belt
Verner N. Grise, James F. Thompson, and Fred E. Justus, Jr.
I
Research Report 8 : February `l97`l
in cooperation with
Farm Production Economics Division
Economic Research Service
United States Department of Agriculture

 J x
x * a
’

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ...................................... iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ................................. V
INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1
Purpose and Objectives ................................. 2
Methods and Procedures ................................ 2 ’
The Model ....................................... 5
Components of Model ................................. 6
Management and Technology .............................. 6
Enterprises Considered ................................. 6
Coefficient Assumptions and Derivations ........................ 7
Machinery Cost and Capital Estimates ......................... 7
Livestock Assumptions ................................. 8
Resource and Livestock Production Restraints ..................... 8
RESL*LTS—SEVEN INITIAL SOLUTIONS ......................... 12
An Evaluation of the Optimum Geographical Location of Burley Tobacco under Seven
Different Burley Tobacco Price and Allotment Combinations ............ 12
SUMMARY OF AD_] USTMENTS IN THE NINE REGIONS AT DIFFERENT TOBACCO
PRICE AND ALLOTMENT LEVELS ........................... 18
Net Returns at Seven Alternative Price-Allotment Combinations ............ 18
Marginal Value Products of Limited Resources and Restricted Livestock Activities . . 19
RESIjLTS—SELECTED CHANGES IN VARIABLES INITIAL SOLUTIONS 1 AND 2 . . . 22 I
Purpose and Solution Identification .......................... 22
THE EFFECTS OF THIRTEEN CHANGES IN VARIABLES FROM THOSE INITIALLY
ASSUMED FOR SOLUTIONS I AND 2 ON NET RETURNS TO LAND AND
RESIDENT LABOR AND MANAGEMENT ....................... 33
SUMMARY ......................................... 33 ’
Results .........F............................... 34
Implications ...................................... 35
LITERATURE CITED .................................... 37 _
APPENDICES ........................................ 38 i
iii

 LIST OF TABLES
Table N0. Page
1. Price and Allotment Combinations ........................... 7
2. Land in Farms and Different Potential Uses of Land for Nine Regions of Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia (1964) .......................... 10
3. Estimated Hours of Operator and Family Labor Available for Nine Regions-—Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia .............................. 11 ’
4. Maximum Number of Dairy Cows Allowed for Each of the Nine Regions—Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia .............................. 11
5. Regional Distributions of Burley Tobacco Acreages in Nine Regions of Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia-1966 and Seven Alternate Solutions .......... 13
6. Labor——Land and Capital~Land Ratios for Solution 1, Nine Regions of Kentucky,
Tennessee, turd Virginia .............................. 14
7. Net Returns to Resident Labor and Management and Land for Seven Solutions .... 19
8. )1VP’s of Tobacco Allotment (Nine Regions of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia) . . 20
9. X1VP’s for Cropland (Nine Regions of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia) ....... 20
10. l\lVP`s for Improved Pastureland (Nine Regions of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia) 21
11. Changes in Variables .................................. 23
12. Optimum Tobacco Acreages with Four Price Variations from those Originally Assumed 24
13. Optimum Tobacco Acreages with Four Price Variations from those Originally Assumed 24
14. Optimum Tobacco Acreages with Three Levels and Types of Restriction Variations
from those Originally Assumed .......................... 28
15. Optimum 'Tobacco Acreages with Three Levels and Types of Restriction Variations
from those Originally Assumed .......................... 28
16. Optimum Tobacco Acreages with Five Resource Availability and Wage Changes .... 29 S
17. Optimum Tobacco Acreages with Five Resource Availability and Wage Changes .... 31
18. Net Returns to Resident Labor and Management, and Land in Nine Regions for Two
Initial Solutions and Thirteen Variable Changes from those Initially Assumed . . 34
iv

 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure N0. P38€
1. The Area of Study, Nine Regions of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia ........ 3
v

 AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SELECTED ECONOMIC VARIABLES ON
THE OPTIMUM LOCATION OF BURLEY TOBACCO PRODUCTION WITHIN
THE BURLEY BELT
By I
Verner N. Grise,_]ames F. Thompson and Fred E._]ustus,_]r.*
INTRODUCTION
Burley tobacco provides a major source filter tip cigarettes and these, except for the
of income to many farmers in Kentucky, 100 millimeter brands, contain a smaller
middle and eastern Tennessee, and tobacco column.
southwestern Virginia. ln some counties, up Since 1933, burley tobacco production
lo 60 percent of the gross farm income is has been controlled by Federal regulations
derived from burley tobacco. For such asgjfi administered by the U. S. Department of
important cotnmodity, changes in demand or Agriculture. These regulations have restricted
production have important consequences. acreage; while, at the same time, they have
The demand for burley tobacco has guaranteed prices considerably higher than a
increased almost constantly in the past four free market would establish. The effect has
decades. But, the future demand is uncertain. been to raise the value productivity of
The Surgeon General’s report of 1964, resources used in burley production relative
indicating a relationship between smoking and to the use of the same resources in other
diseases, is already affecting the demand for production activities.
burley tobacco. If additional evidence is The limited acreage and the price
generated, this may have an even greater incentive created by Federal regulations have
effect in the future. Ilowever, even if the resulted in increasing burley tobacco yields,
demand for burley tobacco is not affected, via such things as improved varieties of
future price support and acreage allotment tobacco, increased fertilization, and closer
legislation may not be as favorable as in the spacing of tobacco plants. The continuing
past. Moreover, if price remains high, increase in yields, which has been of a greater
synthetic products may be substituted for magnitude than the increase in demand, has
tobacco. Some substitution is already taking made it necessary to reduce burley acreages
place in that tobacco stems formerly used as several times.
by—products are now being used in cigarettes. Burley tobacco allotments on individual
ln addition, there has been a trend toward farms are based largely on historical acreages
___”_ of burley grown. However, such devices as
*.~\gricultural Economist, Farm Production Economics minimum allotmellt Slzesa n€“` allotments,
Division, Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of and acygaggs lnadg g_y3_j]&b]g fol- [hg (;01·1·(=;(jtjOn i
il’5iSE§'ZL`§Z° t·i§EIIIlZ'1’.aZEI§`fL"`Emilaél"0}J‘Y¥g°ZYZEltu§ af iaaqaiaaa-aat ¤<·>¢‘ aaaaamia ia
Economics, University of Kentucky, now Professor of 1]Q]_[`u]`€—h3_V€ &llOW€d SOIHC (jh2J_1‘1g€$ 11] [IIC
i?$.?£1ZEZ"`til`}iI§}t§L3`I§Qi"l`EIZ`,ZZ}.YL`LY"`{i‘,}§ZT§EEl“" all ¤>gi<>¤a1 diaaibatiaa af bwlay acraasa- Tha .
Kemtteky, t.t·smgttm, Kentucky. federally established distribution of acreages
1

   2
l _ Q ‘ is probably not the most efficient from the Methods and Procedures
I I i standpoint of resource use in the burley belt.
I T ? The probable non-optimal distribution of The Study Area
t   i tobacco acreages, the possibility of changes in
I I   - the demand for burley tobacco, and the Nine regions were delineated for study
I I i . - continuing changes that characterize purposes (Figure l). The nine regions,
    I agriculture create the need for research that composed of l74 counties in three states, are
5   I has as its main objective the evaluation of modifications of Agricultural Census
I       · optimum resource use patterns (maximum subregions. These regions include 88.7
I       regional income). percent of the total United States burley
I     I y tobacco acreage. These regions are identified
I       and described in the following paragraphs.
I i Q Purpose and Objectives
I i i Region 1 (census subregion 44, Tennessee)
I   E I The overall purpose of this publication is
I _ to provide economic information about This region consists of what is generally
y enterprise competitiveness in the burley belt termed the Central Basin of Tennessee. The
. I   I of K€ntl1Clu1‘l€Y stony land. Many of the soils are shallow to
I tobacco prices and allotments, and with bedrock, but on the better soils productivity
` I Z varying assumptions about other pertinent igg@n€]‘3_11yhigh_
I I variables. The results are particularly relevant The Outer Basin is C}i;ii·;iCtgriZgd by rr
for use in evaluations of tobacco programs more hilly outer fringe and a less hilly inner
A ; _ that allow the sale, lease and/or transfer of fringe. The topography of the Outer Basin is
I I allotments. undulating to rolling. Most soils are formed
I The specific objectives of this study are: from phosphatic rocks and productivity is
a. To determine the optimum locational mOder;ite_
I pattern of burley tobacco within the burley
i I belt under alternative tobacco price—allotment Region 2 (twelve subregion 43 counties in
I   combinations. Kentucky and Tennessee, and 4 Ohio Valley
I “ _ b. To determine the effects of varying Counties of Kentucky)
I g ~ assumptions regarding prices of products,
I — levels of different enterprises, and amounts of Most of this region is gently sloping
I labor and land on the distribution of tobacco Karst country with soils derived from
» § i acreage. - limestone rocks of varying degrees of purity.
i { I . 1 c. To determine changes that would Most of the soils are physically well suited to
    ` occur in the optimum farm organization farming. Hagerstown, Decatur, Baxter, and
  within various regions under different burley Dickson silt loams are the important soil
‘ tobacco price and allotment schemes. types. The lower Ohio Valley counties
I I d. To determine the changes in net farm contain considerable Memphis and other
I income in various regions that would result well—drained soils derived from loess. The soils
g   from alternative price and allotment of this region are not acid and are well
I C0mbin21ti0nS- supplied with phosphate.
I
I
I
I
I
Y .
I
. —¤ I I I

     {Eg,.    
i   ¢§*§$,  ig};
1   »%1?%B?s~*¢&+ c
     Qazéwwww ¢•g§!
    "$‘%#’·"·'¥§*‘$}’&$€q
     
i   ta .&4,¢p$‘  Q
» E   5  
1   m y ¢$;•‘§£
  i   *·   gQm§
I § A   E1    
%VE5  

 ? E 4
  _ Region 3 (subregion 37, Kentucky) limestone. The topography is undulating to
l hilly. Dickson, Baxter, Rockcastle, Decatur,
l A l This region is characterized by numerous and Hagerstown are the common soils. Nearly
I 2 areas of undulating to almost level upland, all are low in phosphates, and range from
l . hilly upland, and considerable bottomland. slightly to strongly acid.
l _ Wellston and Tilsit loam, derived from
    sandstone and shale, are the important soil Region 7 (subregion 35, Tennessee)
l   ; types. These soils are generally low in
l i ¤ phosphate and are moderately to strongly The eastern part of this region is largely
) 7 acid. Some of the more nearly level upland characterized by an undulating plateau
) Z j _ and part of the bottomland is poorly drained. dissected by the gorges of streams. The soils,
  L 3 formed chiefly from limestones and cherty
l I B Region 4 (subregion 36, Inner and Outer limestones, are moderately deep to bedrock,
l Bluegrass area of Kentucky) moderate to low in fertility, and internal
  . I drainage moderate to slow due to fragipans.
l The Inner Bluegrass is slightly more The western section of this region is
l productive than the Outer Bluegrass. It is characterized by narrow ridgetops, steep
. ) mainly a gently rolling upland, well known slopes, and narrow valley floors. The soils of
. i for its productive soils derived from the uplands in general are acid and low in
j   phosphatic limestones. The Outer Bluegrass is fertility. However, those on the valley floors
,   g quite similar except that its topography is are productive under good management.
  T more rolling and internal drainage is not as
i ` good. The most important soil types of the Region 8 (subregion 23, Kentucky and
l l Outer Bluegrass are Shelbyville and Lowell silt Tennessee)
,   I loams, which are moderately to strongly acid
* and generally need phosphate fertilizer. This area is characterized by rugged
l terrain. Much of the upland occupies steep
l Region 5 (subregion 36, Intermediate slopes; however, many of the ridges have
i Bluegrass area of Kentucky) rounded summits. Farming is concentrated on
y i ` the summits and bottomland. The surface
* ¤ This is a plateau region characterized by rocks are generally sandstone and shale.
t { _ narrow winding ridges and valleys. The Important soil types are Wellston and Tilsit
` \ hillsides which comprise most of the region silt loams. The land responds well to liming
have slopes ranging from 20 to 30 percent. and phosphatic applications.
I y The soils are generally rocky, which hinders
2 \ . I their usefulness for crop production. The Region 9 (basically subregion 24 of Tennessee
E T topography, small field size and similar land and Virginia)
  ~ R factors greatly increase the cost of crop
4   production in this region. Yields are also low. This region comprises what is known as
'   the Valley of Eastern Tennessee and the
`   ` Region6(subregion 35,Kentucky) Cumberland Plateau. The Valley is mainly
_ l 1 rolling and hilly. The soils, chiefly from
L   The eastern part of the Kentucky section limestone with narrow interbelts from shale,
E R of this region is characterized by a are highly variable in content of rock, depth
    limestone-capped Karst plateau. Elsewhere, it to rock, and other characteristics. Few are
{   is largely a shale country with associated poorly drained. Most of the upland soils are
I
  -i { a

 5
o moderate to low in productivity. Bottom land into six periods of availability and land was
r, soils and terraces are more productive, but divided into three types of potential use.
y limited in extent. Estimates of the availability of labor and land
n The Cumberland Plateau is were made for each of the nine regions and
predominantly steep and rugged. The soils, were included as restraints in the
often rocky on slopes, are formed mainly programming matrix. In addition, maximum
from sandstones and shales and are shallow to levels on livestock enterprises were included
bedrock. These soils are low in fertility. in most of the solutions generated.
yr Each region includes from 1 to 4 A basic assumption of the model is that
u physical divisions based primarily on all farm resources within the nine regions are V
S_ differences in topography, surface rocks, and completely immobile aniong regions except
y soils. lrlad accurate data been available for for the hypothetically mobile "resource"
(_ each physical division, a better breakdown of burley tobacco acreage allotment. A total
Ll] production regions could have been achieved. acreage allotment was specified for the nine
S_ llowever, it is believed that the production regions as a whole. The model distributes the
js regions specified reiiect an acceptable degree acreage allotment among regions so that
tp of homogeneity. returns to the resources of the nine regions
if taken as a whole are maximized.
in It is assumed that the technology
ps The Model employed on all farms within a region is the
same. Each region was treated as if it were
The model used in this study is a one farm. The model, thus, produces directly
nd modified version of the one used by Heady the aggregate activity levels for each of the
and Egbert [1] in estimating the optimal regions.
geographical distribution of grain crops.1 It is The programming matrix consisted of
yd a linear programming spatial equilibrium nine submatrices; one for each production
;p model. The objective function maximized was region. Up to ten crop activities and eight
ac the net returns to land, resident labor and livestock activities were included as
m management for the nine production regions production alternatives for each of the nine
Cc taken as a composite unit. regions. The overall matrix consisted of
c_ The solutions generated by the linear approximately 200 rows, 300 columns, and
dt programming routines included in the model 2,200 elements for most of the solutions
lg specified the optimum location of burley generated.
tobacco and other enterprises among the nine The major variables examined, as
regions under varying conditions. Reliability indicated before, were burley tobacco prices
Cc of solutions is dependent on the data utilized and allotment levels. The effects of different
in developing the different coefficients. The prices and allotment levels on: (1) the
types of data and the manner in which they distribution of burley tobacco production
as were formulated were directly related to both among regions, (2) enterprise mix, (3) the
hc the linear programming assumptions and the resources used, and (4) the returns to resident .
ly specific assumptions used in this study [2]. labor and management, and land were
,m ln this analysis, labor and land were analyzed. The effects of these changes were
[C, limiting resources. Labor supply was divided also later estimated with different
th assumptions about hog prices, beef prices, ·
[rc —;—- labor and land availability, and variations in
uic 1Numera1s within brackets [ ] refer to publications in other resource rcstnctlons and Cntcl-PHSC
"Literature Cited." Z1lt€I’I'l8.T,1V€S.

 s
  6
  Components of the Nigdcl Management mid Technology
  `
) l ’ The time context of this analysis is the An improved lgycl of tcchnologyr and u
` · { i¤'¤€Ym€di¤t€ iéngth of Yun- An &PPYOX1mat€ relatively high level of managerial ability were
) i _ » target date, 1972, was selected in order to be assumed for this study Only tested
E , . _ marc °°““Fte‘“ ‘“ q“a““fY“?g_ the Vallgbleis production practrccs were considered, and the
l   l Pl-lees *“‘d‘“P“t‘f°“lP“t eeefflelems me asc more progressive farmers in each of the
I . . y on 1972 projections, whereas land and labor . . _
l : g t . .. . production regions have already used the
{ 1 g , · availability estimates are based on 1964 data mducmm method cmd tt _n d th umed
l 1   except for two solutions presented in the P _ ld { d °l `l_ lu 1
{ { { latter part Of the analyses. erop yie s, ee 2 conversion ratios, ant
2 · I input—output ratios.
{ 1 ,
{ , j Primary Variables Analyzed
I s 1 . . .
I I g Initially, solutions are generated for Enterprises Considered
) l seven burley tobacco price and allotment
combinations. The base price was assumed to Each yggion Woo Considgycd to now L1
be 74 Gems PCT Pmmd (aPPrOX1matelY the maximum of 18 production alternatives. Crop
. {   ( average 1968 llulley Pfleel md the base alternatives were burley tobacco, corn, wheat,
f { allotment level ls esselltlelly the 1968 level' barley, alfalfa hay, red clover hay, lespedeza
Consequently, the base price-allotment level 1S _ . _ _
~ l . ‘ .. . hay, improved permanent pasture,
’ { I » essentially an equilibrium of burley tobacco .
Z _ . . unimproved permanent pasture, and sudan
{ supply and demand under present conditions. I _ 2 I d 3 s vb el N e de
i Results obtained with this price-allotment gmSS' ll reglOns_ dll wl mus WUI ` be
{ { { eombmatiem are identified as selutien I an alternative. Wheat, soy beans, and tobacco
I _ results. In addition, five other burley tobacco were eensldered Cash CYOPS? thc other CYOPS
) I price-allotment levels were considered and Could be used OHIY for llV€$l0€l* lccd-
{ one price level was considered without Livestock enterprises included were: GradeA
{ allotments (Table 1). As there is a lack of dairying, two beef cow-calf enterprises, two
{ ‘ information about the demand for burley beef-feeder enterprises, market hogs from
I l tobacco, the 9·S$um€d PYlC€ and 3llOtm€m purchased or home-grown pigs, and feeder-pig
{ ‘ _ levels are largely judgments about the demand production
I ) wd Supply forburlev t¤b¤¤¤<>— pasture, hay, and grain sccaca ra
` livestock exce t for corn had to be obtained
; Other Variables Analyzed ’ . P . . l .
_ , from the region in which the livestock were
€ ’   . d d.F th· ·` ·ti`tl··t1··`·
1 e · Changes from those initially derived em uce Ord le melor Per 1; le enllble
{ { , were made in some Of the Variables and are it was assume tiat corn cou bc imported
Q @ included as variations of solutions 1 and 2. from Outslele the Study fllell lll lflele per
{   Solution identifications are thus IA, 1B, etc., bushel
·   { and 2A, 2B, etc. These changes are grouped
I { into the following three categories: (1) price
L   changes, (2) resource availability and cost 1.;.
; changes, and (3) enterprise alternative 2
Q S · · · See Appendix C for the annual crop production costs
i   Cllangcsxspeclflc Changes are d1SCuSS€d’ along associated with the production methods assumed in each of
; { with their effects on the results, later. cnc nine regions.
T l
I i
? {

 7
TABLE 1
PRICE AND ALLOTMENT COMBINATIONS
Solution Identification Price Allotment
cents per pound acres
Solution la .74 187,876 (1966 base)b
Solution 2u .82 150,301 (80 percent of base)
Solution 3 .90 112,726 (60 percent er base) e
Solution 4 .98 75,150 (40 percent of base)
Solution 5 .66 225,451 (120 percent of base)
Solution 6 .58 263,026 (140 percent ofbase)
Solution 7 .42 No allotment restriction
aln addition, several changes are made in other variables and the results evaluated at these two tobacco price allotment combin-
ations. See page 12 for a description of solution 1 and page 14 for a description of solution 2.
bThe burley tobacco acreage allotment in the nine regions included in this study was 221,777 acres in 1966. However, 33,901
acres were located on farms with 0-9 acres or 1,000 acres or more of land and this acreage was excluded from the analysis.
Coefficient Assumptions and Derivations These estimates reflect the relevant crop
mechanization conditions in each region. Two
Crop Assumptions row machinery complexes were assumed for
all regions except region 2. Four row
Crop yields were determined by both equipment was assumed for this region
historical and projective methods. Average because of the more level topography and
crop yields were determined for each larger field sizes.
production region for the period 1961·65, Soil Conservation Service data were used
revised upward to reflect yields the in estimating machinery requirements. For
better—tlian·average farmers of these areas are nine counties believed to be representative of
presently attaining, and then estimates made the nine regions studied, information on
of what can be achieved in the intermediate frequency distributions relative to the types `
length future (1972). of crops, sizes of fields, and the number of
Fertilizer requirements, reflecting major fields was compiled. Using these data and data
soil types and the projected crop yields, were on the capabilities of different machines,
based primarily on recommendations of obtained from the Tennessee Agricultural
agronomists. Use o f spray materials, Experiment Station, the average time required '
inoculants, and other enterprise inputs were per acre for each machine in that county (and
b a s e d o n r e s e ar c h r e p or t s a n d thus for the region) was calculated.
recommendations of production specialists. N e w c o s t s , s alvage value, life ‘
expectancies, fixed ownership costs, and
operating costs of machines were estimated
Machinery Cost and Capital Estimates on the basis of data obtained from machinery
dealers and other sources. Based on an A
Machinery cost and capital requirements assumed level of use for each machine, the
were estimated for each crop enterprise. total cost and capital requirements for each

 · s
l
  8
i machine were calculated, and these allocated january, calves are creep fed, and sold at 500
i _ . among the enterprises in accordance with unit pounds (choice grade) in October. ln the
(   P 0 requirements of enterprises for specific second beef cow enterprise the cows crop
° ; 0 machines. calves injanuary, calves are pastured, roughed
| 0 through the next winter, pastured with grain,
i 0 and sold at 1,000 pounds in September for
  V A Livestock Assumptions slaughter as choice cattle.4 An 80 percent calf
( ; j 5 crop was used in both systems.
(     . Input requirements and feeding
[   efficiency for livestock were based on Beef Feeding Enterprises
i   i   recommendation of animal scientists and
i   0 0 previous research reports. Feed costs were not Two beef-feeding enterprises were
i . 0 I varied among the production regions. considered. Under the first program choice
i . calves were bought in October at 500 pounds,
    5 Grade A Dairy wintered, pastured, put in dry lot around
I 0 june 15, and sold at 1,050 pounds as prime
( The dairy enterprise coefficients are slaughter cattle. In the second program,
0 based on aproduction level of 11,000 pounds choice calves were bought in October at 500
_ i 0 I ‘ of 4 percent fat corrected milk per cow. pounds, wintered, pastured, put in dry lot
i   » Artificial breeding is assumed, with one about August l for 60 days of feeding, and
0 ( yearling heifer and one heifer calf kept as sold as 950 pounds choice cattle slaughter.:)
1 » , herd replacements for every six cows.
  ' Facilities for the herd include a four-stall Prices of Inputs and Outputs for
E milking parlor, bulk tank, and a loafing barn.3 Crops and Livestock
Production of Market Hogs Input and output prices (except for
0 i burley tobacco) are based on prices that could
_ The hogs are sold at 220 pounds. Sixteen reasonably be expected in 1972, the
\ pigs are raised per sow per year; 15 are sold, approximate target date of this study. An
1 ‘ and 1 is saved for replacement. Costs are attempt was made to adjust for seasonal and
i _ p based on a 25-sow herd, multiple farrowing cyclical price variations (Appendix B, Tables
, l _ and an eight-stall farrowing quarters. l and 2).
I i i Buying of Feeder Pigs for Fattening
l . Resource and Livestock Production
l ` i A 0 Pigs are bought at 40 pounds and sold at Restraints
l ¢ g 220 pounds. They are castrated and
l Z ` vaccinated when purchased. Land
i a
g i i Beef Cow-Calf Enterprises The amount of land in farms and average
Y   farm sizes for each region was obtained from
5 E Two beef cow-calf enterprises were the 1964 Agricultural Census reports. Farms
L ( considered. In the first, cows drop calves in
\ I
    \ 3Grade C dairying was excluded as an alternative, because 4This beef cow-calf enterprise did not enter any of the
;   under the improved technology and relatively high level of optimum solutions.
_ ( management assumed in this study, Grade ·A.dairying is 5 l · _ g
,   more profitable, except under extremely limited capital This beef-feeding enterprise did not enter any of the
~   conditions. Unlimited capital is assumed in this analysis. optimum solutions.
. 1 (
` I
L  
 V -|

 9
containing from 0 to 9 acres and over 1,000 estimates were developed from 1964 Census
acres were believed to be less responsive to of Agriculture data. The total number of
the economic factors analyzed and, for that operators residing on farms with from 10 to
reason, were not included. Land in farms 999 acres was enumerated for each region. It
available for given uses was estimate; for each was assumed that each operator was available
region on the basis of Soil Conservation for work 2,950 hours per year on some job.
Service Conservation Needs Inventory data Hours these operators worked off the farm,
and combined with 1964 Agricultural Census according to Census reports, was subtracted
data to arrive at present land use estimates.6 from total hours available for work to obtain
Then, the amount of land was projected to the quantity of operators’ labor available for >
1972. The percentages of cropland, farm use in each region. Other family
pastureland, and other land included in the members were assumed to work one hour for
1972 projections were not changed from the every three worked by the operator.7
1964 estimates. For most of the analysis, hired labor was
It was assumed that burley tobacco, made available at $1.50 per hour from
corn, wheat, barley, soybeans, and sudan grass November 1 to April 30, and at $1.75 per
were restricted to land defined as cropland. hour from May 1 to October 31. Specified
Cropland consisted of all openland in classl percentages of the labor used in harvesting
(based on the Soil Conservation Service hay, as well as used for setting, harvesting,
classification), one-half of the class II and stripping tobacco were hired. Labor could
openland, and one—third of the class III be hired as needed for other crop and
openland. Alfalfa hay, red clover hay, livestock enterprises if profitable to do so.
lespedeza hay, and improved pasture could be Custom operators were available for baling
grown on what is termed improved hay and combining grain.
pastureland (one-half of class II openland, The total resident labor supply was
two-thirds of class Ill openland, and all of divided into six time periods, based primarily
class I\` openland). Ilowever, these crops on the seasonality of farm operations. Due to
could also be grown on cropland if it were the differences in daylight hours and the
profitable to do so. Class VI land could be activities peculiar to particular times of the
used only for uniinproved pasture. year the labor supply was not evenly
Total land in farms and the quantity of distributed throughout the year. Based on
land available for different uses in each previous research and judgments concerning
production region are presented in Table 2. seasonal factors it was assumed that each
full—time resident man-equivalent (2,950
Labor Availability and Use hours per year) the following seasonal labor
distribution prevails: _
j Due to 'the lack of data on the quantity NO\_€mb€r_Janum_\_ 675 hours g
ol labor available in the study regions, labor F€b1_um_y_Apri1 ' 700 hours
·—·-———— l\Iay·_]une 525 hours
A 6The Conservation Needs Inventory breaks the total land     hours C
` into eight different main categories with from one to three Ptugust   hOUI`$
r subcategories included in each main category, based on the S€pt€mb€r_OCtObc1—   hours
characteristics ol the land which affect its potential
agricultural uses. Class I land has few limitations that
restrict its use. Class II land has more limitations and "**' ; ·
_ requires moderate conservation practices. Class III land is 7 ~ _
' characterized by more severe limitations in use than are This estimate was largely based onastudy by W. P. Ranney
Class I and Class II land. Class IV, Class V, and Class VI land   Due to the heterogeneity of farm families, it is very
_ have even more severe limitations in usc, and Class Il and difficult to realistically estimate the labor contributed by
' Class III land are usually considered unsuited to any tillage family members without detailed knowledge of each
crop. member.

 E 10
Q TABLE 2
I
I A LAND IN FARMS AND DIFFERENT POTENTIAL USES OF LAND FOR
`   NINE REGIONS OF KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, AND VIRGINIA (1964);*
I
I  
I   Avvmgc
  ` I ‘ Improved Unimproved Total Land Farm
I - Region Cropland Pasturelandb Pasturelandc in Farmsd Size°
l {  
  ? { 1,000 acres (acres)
I L I 1 620.1 980.1 1,158.4 2,472.9 137.3
I I I 2 1,022.8 2,405.8 2,638.0 3,074.4 138.1
I 3 722.8 2,051.5 2,451.8 3,011.3 133.2
I 4 655.1 1,685.3 2,331.8 2,835.6 144.3
  5 231.7 639.0 707.9 1,579.8 143.6
  I 6 355.3 898.1 1,135.5 1,918.2 107.5
I 7 505.1 1,265.0 1,412.1 2,242.6 118.0
I 8 251.3 620.2 790.1 2,356.4 104.7
  ,