l ° P ° ° k
... The Re 3tlV€ os1t1on of Kentue y Farm
V Ms ,
  Income Compared Wrth Rest of U.S.
ik Total cash receipts here are the cash rincome from farming. Crop production was Y
. Wy about   Of national lngh 1rr Kentucky rn. 1936 as compared with thc U. S.
I . _ l`he upward trend lll 1`t‘l21Il\'C·1llCOl]]€ during 1924-38
"`” 3gl'1Cllltlll‘21I lllC0lll€ was primarily due to a relatrve increase in irrcornc
lyk- from crops. although relative livestock irrcorne in-
-1 1;}-1). :\llLTON SHUFFETT and PAUL JUSTICE C1`t‘t1St‘(l slightly     Blll'lC}’ }_)l'0(lllCtl()1l \V;1S lll- .-
Ark Many changes have occurred in agricultural in- PERcw___L___
‘ come during tl1e past SO years in both Kentucky and
»»-I the United States. Total income has increased, owing N ·/°"°°5 1
[Ny to expanding total orrtput and improvement in prices. -
Income changes have varied widely by commodity 2·'
`- groups as consumer demands have shifted. This re- _ _
p port compares Kentucky agricultural income with that *-B  `\`
i *7* of thc nation to furnish information on the relative :, ;·._,.-—_ fg ," "~_ ,»
,.1, income position of Kentucky farmers as agriculture ·.¤ I `r_ { `·.,·' `·.'1L.Vm,c,. "‘·,·'
l1as changed through nrechanization and other tech- -·' `g l/A
'"` nological developments. 1.2 "
gg Kenmws Shure  
ile K€l]tllCk}I‘S Shall` of total Cash 1`°C°l1)tS {1.0111 1:2111]]   2.—(l2lSIl ]`C(`CIl)[S I.l`()I]l I.iIl`lIl I]Iill`I(C[II]L;S of (TOPS EIINI
in rnarketirrgs trended upward from an average of 1.53 liyfcsrorrk. kt-rrtneky as percent of Uni1edLStatcs, 1924-57.
' I *7 percent of the U. S. total during 1924-28 to an aver-
;1.·1.s age of 1.85 percent during 1937-41 (Fig. 1). Since Ci-easing during this period, and hnrley was favored
y. hy a str·orrg demand owing to increased orrtlets in
T, '°ER°E"Tj blended cigarettes. \Vheat prodrrction i11 the state
· 2*3 reached a lorrgtirne low in the late 192(Ys and increased
`__} thereafter. Also. beef cattle numbers were low i11
2·° Kentucky drrring the early 192(Ys relative to the U. S.. I
•·+. and a build-up i11 cattle numbers resulted in relatively
LWN 'J rrror·e income from this source.
Q M 1 Cash Receipts, 'I947-SI
I   (lash receipts from farming wer·e high in Kentucky
ll"` B25 mo M5 Wigan M5 S50 @55 as compared with the rratiorr during 1947-51. ln-
 ·;, Fig l__-Fowl (mh receipts [mm [mm “m.kmngS_ Kew creases in income fr·om beef cattle and hogs aecorrrrted
imiq- M 1,0,1-c,,, .,r Umm; siuim 192.;.5; for the favorable income drrriug these years. Beef
A'} cattle prices were very favorable during 1947-51. The
T, 1941 no trend has been apparent in Kentucky cash U.   was at a low point i11 the beef cattle cycle. while
receipts relative to the national total. although short- Kentucky cattle numbers were lriglr. The sanre cyclical
e """ rrrrr variations have occurred, owing to weather- con- phenomenon occrrrred for hogs so that hotlr beef
-,..4 ditions. livestock prodrrction cycles. and other such cattle and hog numbers i11 Kentucky were at peak
factors. Kentucky cash receipts averaged 1.84 percent highs for the 35-year period relative to the United
’*` of the total for the country during 1953-57, States. The result was a sharp increase in the per-
gs, The upward trend in relative cash receipts for centage ofthe nation`s livestock income received by
Kentucky agriculture reached a peak ir1 19:38 when Kentucky farmers.
_. `U Kentucky farmers received a record 2.04 percent of .·\fter 1951 hog nurnhers in Kentucky declined
qt
Q K1·ix’1‘t1<2ky Frxnxr Asn ll()\i|·C S(ill·ZN(Yl·]-—lT.·\l.l. 1958 S)
’ ( •