xt715d8ndj86 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt715d8ndj86/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1971 journals kaes_research_rprts_09 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 9 : December 1971 text Research Report 9 : December 1971 1971 2014 true xt715d8ndj86 section xt715d8ndj86 Minimum Farm Sizes for Given Income Levels in
Two Kentucky Bluegrass Areas
by
Charles M. Cuskaden and James F. Thompson
I
1 RESEARCH REPORT 9 ; March 1971
in cooperation with
Farm Production Economics Division
Economic Research Service
United States Department of Agriculture
University of Kentucky : : College of Agriculture
Agricultural Experiment Station :: Department of Agricultural Economics
» Lexington

 J x
x * a
’

 I TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ...................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ...I................................. iv
V INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1
’ Objcctivc of Study ................................... 1
Study Areas ....................................... 2
A Assumptions ...... . .............................. 2
PROCEDURES .,..................................... 2
PRESENT FARM SIZES ................................... 4
_ MINIMUM FARM SIZES FOR $5,000 LABOR AND MANAGEMENT RETURN ..... 5
ENTERPRISES IN MINIMUM LAND PROGRAMS ..................... 6
AD] USTMENTS TO MINIMUM FARM SIZES ....................... 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................. 9
REFERENCES ........................................ I I
` APPENDIX ......................................... 12
Iii

 LIST OF TABLES
Table N0. Page
1. Farms by Size—Inner and Outer Bluegrass Areas, 1962 ................. 5
2. Estimated Land Acreage, Gross Income and Capital Necessary to Yield $5,000 Retum
to Labor and Management, Two Kentucky Bluegrass Areas ............... 6
3, Enterprise Combinations Yielding Minimum Land Requirements, Two Kentucky
° Bluegrass Areas ..................................... 8
4. Income per Acre and per Hour of Operator Labor, Selected Livestock Enterprises,
Bluegrass Region of Kentucky .............................. 8
5. Adjustments in Farm Numbers Necessary for All Farms to Earn at Least $5,000 Return
to Labor and Management, Two Kentucky Bluegrass Areas .............. 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure N0. Page
1. The Area of Study, Bluegrass Region, Kentucky ................... . 3
iv

 MINIMUM FARM SIZES FOR GIVEN INCOME LEVELS IN
TWO KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS AREAS
by
Charles M. Cuskaden andjames F. Thompson*
INTRODUCTION
Many Kentucky farms do not contain level of return to his labor and management
enough land to enable their operators to earn provides a basis for economic evaluation of
a level of income comparable to that which individual farming situations. It also provides
they could earn on larger farms or in a useful guide to persons faced with choosing
alternative employment. The desire for between farming and other possible uses for
increased incomes can, in the long run, be their labor and management. Such estimates,
_ expected to cause many of the operators of made for different areas, help to locate
small farms to either move to larger farms or regions in which adjustments in farm numbers
to seek nonfarm employment paying them could be expected in the future. They also
more than their labor is earning in farming. A provide a basis for estimating the size of the
i ITIOVCITICYIL of [l`1CSC fZlI`ITlC1'S out OI`21gTlCLll[L1I`€ gdjugtmgnt nggded {O bring abgut a balance
Presnmirblr would leave Snen Small farms between the farm and nonfarm sectors of the
available for combination into larger farms. If Ccmwmy with regard to the use Of labor.
the markets lor farm inputs operate properly,
these adjustments will continue until most
full-time farms are large enough so that their
operators are able to earn labor incomes Obleetrves Or Study
comparable to those which they could earn in
nnnrnrm fe?r5lnYm§nr· Thu; rnc $125 In order to provide the above
lacrcdgcl O u 'UmC_ fums can _€ °"{‘P°°re information, this study was directed toward
to approach some minimum. This minimum . . . . . . .
_ _ two specific objectives. First, it was desired to
will be approximately the least amount of . , .
. . . estimate for different areas of Kentucky the ’
land which would permit an operator and his _ _ t f 1 d h_ h ld _ ld
family to earn a labor income about equal to muilmum &TO?I? O Em W rc Wéu yl?
i what they Could Gurn in nonfarm a given Ileve o income when combined with
employment. appropriate amounts of other inputs. The
` Information concerning the amount of Seeend Obleerwe was YO €Omb1¤€ the F
land necessary for a farmer to earn a given mlmmum {limi $126 1'€Sl1lYS With fh€ present
____ farm size distributions for the different areas
l *Formerly at the University of Kentucky. Research Assistant and Obtain cstiluutcs Of the numbers Of fauns
and Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, respec— vvhich yvguld ligye {O bg Cgmbjngd with Othgys
· tively, and now Assistant Professor of Agricultural Eeo· - _ _· I —'
nomics,UmversityofTennesseeand Professor ofliconomies, ul Qldcr rn bnrrg all {Unis tO at least the
Murray State University, respectively. 1`111111IDLlHl SIZC.
l

 l 2
` Study Areas substantially higher than the 1965 family
. labor and management returns of $2,263 and
This study was made in two areas ofthe SS 3 , 611 on typical, commercial
° Kentucky, Bluegrass region. These are the family-operated, tobacco-livestock farms in
Inner and Outer Bluegrass areas. They are the Inner and Outer Bluegrass respectively
shown in Figure l. There are substantial [1]. For the reasons set forth on earlier pages
differences between these areas in of this report, it seems reasonable to project
topography, soil types, farm sizes and type of farm incomes significantly higher than at
farming [3]. present.
The Inner Bluegrass is the more A high level of managerial ability and an
» productive. It is a gently rolling fertile upland advanced level of technology were assumed.
_ of about 1,700 square miles. Practically the This means that the farm operator is assumed
entire area can be used for harvested crops or to be capable of learning about improved
P pasture. About 41 percent of it is suited to practices and applying them to his situation
row crop production [2]. Tobacco, beef and effectively. It also means that he is capable of
O sheep are the dominant farm enterprises. combining the enterprises on his farm so as to
The Outer Bluegrass is similar except minimize conflicts between them and produce
that the land is more rolling and not as an overall organization which operates
productive. About 80 percent of the area can smoothly This also seems a reasonable
be used for harvested crops and pasture with projection in view of the rate of advance in
about 30 percent suited to row crop technology and the increasing level of
production [2]. Tobacco, dairying and beef education of Kentucky farmers.
production are the main farm-enterprises. Tobacco was priced at 58.8 cents per
pound in all situations studied. Tobacco
acreage allotments were set at 3.2 percent of
Assumptions the farm land in the Inner Bluegrass and 2.4
percent in the Outer Bluegrass   Prices
The soil type, topography and climate assumed for the main input items bought and
characterizing an area are fixed elements of sold by farmers are included in Appendix
the environment within which the area`s farm Tables l and 2.
economy operates; thus, it would not be The farm operator was assumed to spend
realistic to make assumptions which differ full time on the farm. The supply of unpaid
r from reality in these respects. In some other family labor was assumed to be sufficient to
I respects, though, no attempt was made to accomplish all the tasks which require two or
· approximate current conditions. more persons working simultaneously. The
The income level selected was a return of alternative of hiring additional labor was not
$5,000 to the farm family`s labor and considered. It was also assumed that capital
I management. This is much higher than the would be available in unlimited amounts at an
incomes currently being earned by most of interest rate of 5.0 percent for investments in `
the farm families in the Bluegrass region. It is real estate and 6.0 percent for other capital.
PROCEDURES i
The procedures following in this study, programs which would require the minimum
after delineation of the two subareas, amounts of land and (2) the determination of
concerned (1) the estimation of the farming the size of the adjustment which would be

 Y gv ;m“·__ %
   •,*§    
  bx    
   
     $ ?%.‘  z
 {      
» (1* I        *   $   1;
  %   . !      
  gv/·iV‘/-·          
Z; »     ` :   »
§ gc \..\. ».`_`. .

 ; 4
needed to bring all farms in the areas to at obtained for areas considerably smaller than
. least the minimum size. counties and which do approximately
The minimum land programs were coincide with the boundaries of the areas of
estimated by means of linear programming.] interest in this study.
The data required were already available as a Once the farm size distributions and the
by-product of a regional research project minimum farm sizes were obtained for each
. concerning profitable adjustments in the use of the areas, the total amount of land in farms
of farm resources in the southern United of less than the minimum size was computed
States.2 from the farm size distribution. This total was
‘ In order to determine the size of the then divided by the minimum farm size to
needed adjustment in farm numbers, it was obtain the maximum number of farms of the
first necessary to determine the current minimum size which this land area would
distribution of farms by size in each of the support, This number was then added to the
I areas. The U. S. Census of Agriculture was not number of farms in the area which were
suitable for this use since the boundaries of already above the minimum size, The result
the areas do not coincide, even was an estimate of the number of farms of at
A approximately, with the boundaries of least the minimum size which the area could
counties in the areas. The Census data are support without deeeasing the size of any
reported by counties. The farm size data farm. The capital requirements and the
needed were obtained from the county offices enterprises in the optimum programs were
of the U S. Agricultural Stabilization and obtained from the results of the linear
_ Conservation Service. These data could be programming analysis,
PRESENT FARM SIZES
Farm size distributions for the two Bluegrass and, thus, the pressure for farm
Bluegrass Areas were not greatly different enlargement has not been so great.
from each other in 1962. Table 1 shows that The Outer Bluegrass had more farms in
the Inner Bluegrass has more of its farms in the two classes which comprise the 70-139
_ the 10--L9 acre range. This could be partially acre size range. Above 260 acres, the Inner
due to the fact that relatively more of the Bluegrass again has proportionately more
Inner Bluegrass farms are situated near urban farms. In general, the Inner Bluegrass has
centers, and the opportunities for part·time more very small farms and also more very
farming are better. Part-time farms tend to be large farms, while the Outer Bluegrass has
smaller than full-time farms. The difference more medium—size farms (50-219 acres). The
could also be partially due to the fact that Outer Bluegrass has depended more on family
Inner Bluegrass farms have relatively more labor over the years and farm operations have
tobacco allotment than do these in the Outer largely been limited to what could be handled
— by the family with only seasonal hired labor.
A —__;———_ A common practice in the Inner Bluegrass is
, lLincar programming is a method 9fse1eeri¤s_ff<>¤¤ ¤ ¤;¤}bi; for a farm owner to have one or more tenants
tilcp.i°.Zilirliul.i`ii.’})¤l.iZSril$$i §f$llli°.iiiZ`Sliiiltiiiml W whe Pfeduee the eiietted eereege ef wbeeee
" 2 · { ' on a share basis and work for the owner for
This  Regional Project S-42,I"An·Economic Appraisal of hourly Wages when not engaged in tobacco
Farming Adjustment Opportunmes in thm Southern Region
·, t0 Meet Changing Conditions." Work-
 

 5
Table l.—I·`arrns by Size——lnner and Outer Bluegrass Areas, 1962
Size intervals vu g y _ ,hiirer_Bluegrass _ __ Outer Bluegrass
(Acres) Number Percent Number Percent
10-49 1,526 26.65 2,525 21.67
50 69 533 9.30 1,143 9.82
I 70-99 669 ll.67 1,725 14.82
100-139 790 13.79 1,971 16.92
140-179 541 9.44 1,262 10.84
180-219 376 6 57 924 7.93
220-259 291 5 07 586 5.04
260-499 684 ll.94 1,149 9.86
500 and over 319 5.57 361 3.10
Total 5,729 100.00 ll,646 100.00
Average size
ol` farm,
acres 169.8 146.1
‘ MINIMUM I·`Al{\l SIZES FOR $5,000 LABOR AND
i  MANAGEMENT RETURN
» The arnourrt ol airy input necessary to substantially less than that required in the
produce a given level ol` income depends on Outer Bluegrass. The land in the Outer
(I) the productivity oi` that input and (2) the Bluegrass is almost as productive as that in the
availability ol` enterprises which use that input Inner Bluegrass but tobacco allotments are
intensively (that is, enterprises which produce considerably smaller.
r a relatively high income per unit ol` that In terms of the ability of the land to
input). In the case ol` land, the Inner Bluegrass support farm population, the Inner Bluegrass
is the more productive ol` the two areas. The is superior to the Outer. However, the
enterprises lound in each ol` the areas range improvement of technology over the years has
» from very intensive land users (tobacco) to raised the possible output per acre of land to
very extensive land users (pasture) Tobacco such levels that land area may no longer be a _
production, however, is limited by the acreage critical factor. Increasing capital requirements
allotments established under the liederal in agriculture may cause capital availability to
production control program The Inner be fully as important as the supply of land if
· Bluegrass has larger tobacco allotments not more so. The data in Table 2 indicate that .
i relative to farm sizes than the Outer while less land is required in the Inner
L Bluegrass. Thus, both ol` the above 1`actors Bluegrass to produce a given income,
would indicate that rninirnrnn farm sizes considerably more capital is required. The
would be smaller in the Inner Bluegrass. Table explanation for this fact is also found in Table
I 2 shows that this was the ease. The minimum 2 The nonland capital required to produce a
farm size ol` 79 acres |`or the Inner Bluegrass is labor and management return of $5,000 is I

 6
Table 2.—Estimated Land Acreage, Gross Income and Capital Necessary
to Yield $5,000 Return to Labor and Management, Two
Kentucky Bluegrass Areas
 
Inner Outer
Bluegrass Bluegrass
 
1 Minimum farm size, acres S 7900 $5 97.00
Gross income 12,387.00 11,128.00
  Income from tobacco 3,220.00 2,890.00
l Investment in land, dollars 31,600.00 22,019.00
  Nonland capital required 16,390.00 13,777.00
{ Land investment per acre 400.00 227.00
  Gross income per acre 156.80 114.72
1  
  roughly the same in both areas. The required produced only about 78 percent as much
  investment in land, however, differs greatly gross income as the same dollar invested in
  among the areas. Although more land is rrrrrd rrr rrrc Outst Blucgra-$$·
required to produce the $5,000 income in the An$)[h€r rmcrcsrmg fact evrdrirrr fssm
Outer Bluegrass, the required total investment Tilble 2 IS [hm the gTOSS Income requlrrid fst 8
in land is considerably less than in the Inner S;’OOO labgr md management mmm rs about
Bluegrass. Looking at the same facts in   C Smile   both afcasi A clonal- Of gross
income yields 40 cents in labor and
ssstltst Wal} hmcr Bhlcgmss lfmd produces management returns in the Inner Bluegrass as
about 37 percent more income per acre than against 45 CCHIS in the Outer B1u€graSS_3 In
dvss Outst Blustzwss md but is Psissd sbsut stclchttoh, thc gt-occ income from tobacco woo
76 percent ltishsr- Thus. (its 1967) st dvllst slightly thorc thtth ohc fourth of total gross
invested in land in the Inner Bluegrass ingorne in each casa
ENTERPRISES IN MINIMUM LAND PROGRAMS
A farm program which yields a given If the tobacco allotment did not do this,
income with a minimum acreage of land is the labor supply would probably be
also a program which produces more income exhausted before enough tobacco could be l
per acre of land than any other. If there were produced to yield the required income. Thus,
no restrictions on the level of any enterprise, labor imposes an indirect upper limit on the
a minimum land program would include only tobacco enterprise. The above would indicate
one enterprise and it would be the one which that, in each area, minimum land programs
would produce more income per acre than
any other. This, in the Bluegrass region, _ ;——
would b C tObuCCO_ Ilowgygy, uqycugg 3These amounts seem hugh in relation to those actually found
i A-llonncnts iluposc uu uppcr Inuit On thc on Bluegrass farms. This is due to the fact. that the level of
{ technology used tn this study is substantially higher than
l tobacco enterprise. that actually in use on most farms in the Bluegrass, ‘
l t

 7
would include as much tobacco as the acreage The winter feeding system produces less
’ allotment would permit if sufficient labor income per hour of operator labor but more
; were available. ln neither of the areas would a income per acre of land than the deferred
  tobacco enterprise of this size satisfy the feeding plan (Table 4).
  income requirement, other enterprises must The winter feeding system of beef
3 be included to supplement tobacco. production produces less labor and
The best combination of these management return per bushel of corn than
` supplementary enterprises will depend largely does the deferred feeding system. The i
on the amounts of labor available in addition minimum-land programs for the Inner
to those needed for tobacco. If these amounts Bluegrass contain a slightly higher proportion
are small, supplementary enterprises must be of the land in corn and a slightly smaller
labor ftitensive. lf considerable labor is proportion in pasture than do those for the
available for them, the supplementary Outer Bluegrass. Had the livestock program
enterprises will be land z`ntensz`ve, i.e., they for the Inner Bluegrass consisted entirely of
will be those enterprises which produce a deferred fed steers, the pasture supply would
relatively high income per unit of land. The have been exhausted before the grain
fact that the assumed labor supplies were the produced had been profitably used. Thus, it
szmie in both areas (even though the Inner was necessary to handle some of the steers on
Bluegrass had the largest tobacco allotments the winter feeding system in order to
relative to farm size) would indicate that the economize on pasture and use the available
supplementary enterprises in that area would grain.
tend to be more labor intensive than those in The cropping programs in both areas
the Outer Bluegrass. Table 3 shows that this reflect mainly the size of the tobacco
was the case. In the Inner Bluegrass, two allotments, the topography and the feed
systems of beef feeding were included in the needs of the livestock enterprises used. The
optimum program. In addition to the deferred entire tobacco allotment was used in each
feeding plan, which was the only one in the area. The cropping system in the Inner
programs for the Outer Bluegrass, the Inner Bluegrass relied more heavily on com and
Bluegass minimum land program included a alfalfa hay having about one fourth of the
system based on winter feeding for 180 days. total land in each.
ADJUSTMENTS TO MINIMUM FARM SIZES
The size of the adjustment necessary to this respect. The adjustment would be smaller
bring all farms in an area to at least the in the Inner Bluegrass where about 40 percent
minimum size depends partially on the of the farms are below the 79 acres necessary
proportion of the area`s farms which are to earn the $5,000 labor and management c
smaller than the minimum size.4 Table 5 return. The Outer Bluegrass has about 45
shows that the areas are not much different in percent of its farms below the 97-acre
minimum size.
—;~__——— In the adjustment process, the 2,241 _
4The analysis in this section ignores the problemsinvolved in Inner Bluegrass f3·1'lTlS Of less than millimum
Z§fY$S‘?f Z.'“..‘I].l.f`Y.'Ti.`ZZ`ZZ..i’1.'.€.“Qllffllin°`§IL`§,T"Z..L’2§°L Size ~~·<>e1d ueed re be replaced by 1,058
would bc difficult if not impossible to effect such combina farms oi the minimum size, The farms which
tions. Consequently the estimates in this section are the would be Colnbiucd average 38 acres in Size-
absolute maximum numbers of fanns which the areas could
1 support if all farms were at least the minimum size. lll tllC Outer BlLl€gl`&SS, 5,228 farms averaging
1

 8
Table 3.—Enterprise Combinations Yiclding Minimum Land Requirements,
Two Kentucky Bluegrass Areas
 
Inner Outer
Enterprises Bluegrass Bluegrass
 
Crops (acres) ;
Tobacco 2.52 2.32
( Corn 26.7 22.0
  Barley 0.0 0.0
1 Alfalfa 20.8 20.9
  Sudan Grass 3.14 3.7
  Pasture 25.60 27.5
  Livestock (head)
  Steers: fed 180 days 16. 0.
1 deferred fed 51. 55.
`
Table 4.—Income per Acre and per Hour of Operator Labor, Selected
Livestock Enterprises, Bluegrass Region of Kentucky (
 
Return to operator’s
Production requirements labor 8c management
Enterprise Labor Land Per hour of Per acre
(hours) (acres) operator’s of
labor land
 
(dollars)
° Beef feeding:
steer fed 180 days 10.0 0.57 2.04 35.84
steer deferred fed 9.0 1.38 4.35 28.38 ‘
Grade A (dairy cow) 92.0 3.77 1.63 39.77
  `
 
1
l

 9
Table 5.—Adjustrnents in Farm Numbers Necessary for All Farms to Earn at
Least $5,000 Return to Labor and Management, Two Kentucky
( Bluegrass Areas
g  
( Present Farms Percentage
l number oi` Farms possible on Total farms reduction
( Area larms to be adjustable after in farm L
  (1962) adjusted landa adjustment numbers
I Inner Bluegrass
Number ol Farms 5,729 2,241 1,058 4,546 20.6
Farmland (acres) 972,578 83,607 83,582 972,553 —-
Outer Bluegrass
Number of larms 11,646 5,228 2,730 9,148 21.4
Farmland (acres) 1.701,625 264,841 264,810 1,701,594 --
3.-Xdjustable land is that land now in {arms of less than the mrn·mum svze.
51 acres in size would need to be combined to Change
form 2,730 farms ol` the tnirriinum size. This After the adjustment, the Outer
adjustment would cause a reduction in farm Bluegrass would contain about twice as many
numbers of 20.6 and 21.4 percent respectively farms as the Inner Bluegrass which is about
in the Inner and Outer Bluegrass areas. the same proportion as at present. Thus, the
The proportion of the areas` total land relative size of the adjustment would be about
involved in the adjustment would be the 533116 in both area;
considerably smaller than that lor total farms. The farms which are already larger than
In the Inner Bluegrass, only 8.6 percent ol the the minimum, average 255 acres in size in the
land would be involved as contrasted to 15.6 Inner Bluegrass and 224 acres in the Outer
percent for the Outer Bluegrass. The total Bluegrass. This is well above the minimum in
ltutd in the areas would, of course, not both areas,
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
F a rm resources and production the subareas to at least the minimum size.
opportunities in two subareas oi` the The minimum farm size in the Inner
Kentucky Bluegrass region were examined Bluegrass is substantially lower than in the (
with a view to determining   the atnounts ol` Outer Bluegrass. In the Outer Bluegrass the
land necessary to yield $5,000 returns to land presents more management problems,
labor and management when combined with especially in erosion control, and is not
appropriate atnounts ol other inputs and (2) capable of being used as intensively as that in
1 the size ol the adjustment in farm numbers the Inner Bluegrass. Minimum acreages for
  which would be necessary to bring all farms in two—man farms are 79 acres and 97 acres, _

 10
 
  respectively, in the Inner and Outer Bluegrass further pressure on farm product prices.
  areas. In contrast, the necessary investment in P3_r{-{jme farms, in the main, are rather small
I land in the Outer Bluegrass is less than in the and less able to adopt such technological
I i¤¤¢r B1¤<=gr¤SS» duc ¤<> thc fm thm md improvements than me full-time farms. Yet,
values in the Outer Bluegrass are lower than in they must SCH their Products On the same
the _ Inner Blucgrassj N°“la“d Capltfal markets with those farmers who are able to
btiiillililiildlaisms me appmxlmatcly the Same m use such improvements and at the depressed .
Ad. `   b . all r prices brought about by the new technology.
lustment necessary to ring arms _ _ _ _
to at rem the minimum   with two The Cm Of méf*¤€¤¤>*» WW? must be
men would be about the same in both areas. bomc by Paftmmc fm fam1h°s> would
The number of farms would bc reduced by become higher and higher. The role which
2()_5 percent in the lrrrrcr Bluggyass and 2l_4 part-time farms will play in these adjustments
percent in the Outer Bluegrass. must remain in doubt until more is known
The presence of substantial numbers of concerning probable future technological
part-time farms in each of the areas might developments and their effects on costs and
tend to reduce the pressure for farm the willingness of part-time farm families to
enlargement. Such farms can be subsidized by bear the costs of inefficiency. The actions of
income from off-farm jobs should the farm part-time farmers, however, will probably
family be willing to do this in order to be able determine, to a large extent, the nature of the
to live in the country. However, it has been land market in coming years.
shown that, in some areas, part-time farms are Another factor which will play an
not as efficient as full-time farms. Should important role in facilitating or hindering
future technological improvements tend to be adjustments is the degree of availability of
those which require large capital outlays with appropriate financing for land transfers or of
accompanying high fixed cost, this will tend tenure arrangements which will distribute the
to increase the pressure for farm enlargement financial rewards of production among the
to increase production and reduce the fixed productive agents in a manner such as will
cost per ullit of output. This, ill tuI`1°l, will put encourage the optimum use of farm re50uree5_

 • .» ne- · •··r•U• »·••·· . *"" "" "
i
ll
REFERENCES
[l] Economic Reseurcli Service, lj. S. [3] Kurrztker, P.   Soils 0f Kentucky,
l)epurtment ol Agriculture, Costs and Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Ifetzzrzis, (,'onzntercz`u/ Tobacco-Lzivestoc/c Station Circular 67, 1955.
Farms, Bluegrass Area, Kentucky
l·`CR-40, 1966. [4] Thompson, james F. Part-time Farming L
and Resource Pr0ductz`vz`ty in Western
[2] Kentucky Conseryution Needs Kentucky. Bulletin 688, University 0f
Committee, Iiwttuc/cy Sw`! and Water Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
(.`orzst·rz*utzon Needs Incezztory, St;ttion.Lexingt0n,1964.
Agriculturul Experiment Station,
Lexington, 1962.

 12
APPENDIX
Table 1.—Assumed Prices Received by Farmers,
Bluegrass Region, Kentucky
 
Product Unit Price
  I
Crops
Burley Tobaccou cwt. 3 58.80
Wheat bu. 1.25
Livestock and Livestock Products:
Cull Dairy Cows cwt. 15.00
Dairy Calves head 5.00
Surplus Dairy Heifers head 125.00
Grade A Milk cwt. 4.75
Grade C Milk cwt. 3.30
Blend Price for Milkb cwt. 4.25
Market Hogs cwt. 15.00
Feeder Pigs (40 lbs.) head 1 1.00
Boars head 125.00
Cull Sows cwt. 1 1.50
Lambs cwt. 20.00
Wool lb. .51
Cull Ewes head 6.00
Rams head 45.00 i
Feeder Calves (500 lbs.) cwt. 20.37
Feeder Steers (775 lbs.) cwt. 19.40
Feeder Cattle (850 lbs.) cwt. 18.43
Choice Steers (950-1,000 lbs.) cwt. 21.63
Prime Steers (1,050 lbs.) cwt. 22.88
Cull Beef Cows cwt. 15.00
Bulls (Beef) head 400.00
aThis is the base price assumed in this study. In addition, 120 and 140 percent of the base price were used.
bBased on 54 percent Class I utilization. .65($4.75) + .35($3.30) = $4.25. -

 13
APPENDIX—C0ntz'nued
Table 2.—Assumed Prices Paid by Farmers,
Bluegrass Region, Kentucky
 
ltem Unit Price L
 
Seed:
Alfalfa lb. $ .45
Red Clover lb. .45 (
Ladino Clover lb. .65
Korean Lespedeza lb. .14
Bluegrass lb. .80
Orchard Grass lb. .32
Sudan Grass lb. .13
Barley, Certified bu. 2.50
Corn, Certified bu. 10.00
Rye bu. 2.25
Feed:
Wheat Bran cwt. 3.50
16% Da.iry Feed cwt. 3.75
Cottonseed Meal cwt. 4.70
Pig Starter cwt. 5.20
Fertilizer:
Nitrogen lb. .1 1
KQO lb. .043
PZO5 lb. .0675
Limestone, Spread ton 2.75
Livestock:
Boars head 125.00
Bulls (Beef) head 400.00
Rams head 75.00
Eweg head 23.00 ’
Feeder Steers (375 lbs.) cwt. 23.26
Feeder Steers (450 lbs.) cwt. 20.90
Feeder Steers (500 lbs.) cwt. 20.37
Feeder Steers (550 lbs.) cwt. 19.88
Feeder Steers (600 lbs.) cwt. 19.40
Feeder Steers (800 lbs.) cwt. 18.81