xt7djh3d0j47 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7djh3d0j47/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1973 journals kaes_research_rprts_16 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 16 : April 1973 text Research Report 16 : April 1973 1973 2014 true xt7djh3d0j47 section xt7djh3d0j47  
  A SURVEY OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN KENTUCKY
 
I  Bi
  Fred E. Justus, Jr.
 i •
 ~ RESEARCH REPORT I6 : April l973
  University of Kentucky : : College of Agriculture
 QV Agricultural Experiment Station :·: Department of Agricultural Economics
  Lexington

 r ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report is based in part on research developed from regional research project $-67,
"l·Lvaluation of the Beef Production lndustry in the South." This project is a cooperative effort of
State Agricultural Experiment Stations in l2 Southem states, the Farm Production Economics I
Division of the liconomic Research Service, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The overall objectives of the regional project were (1) to determine various resource i
characteristics and combinations employed in beef production in the South, evaluate selected
operator attributes and appraise adjustment trends that have occurred, (2) to evaluate the micro
and macro economic effects of selected aspects of alternative beef production systems, and (3) to
estimate for selected alternative systems of beef production the relative effects on firm survival
and/or growth of constraints such as forage production risks, price risks, institutional restrictions
and changes in value of assets.
l

 , _
_ Q
b `
§ `
’ a
/ K `.,—.

 CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ......................................... 9
()bjeetiv<· oi` Study ...................................... 10 ,
.·\re;ts U1vSlll(1}' ........................................ 10 L
.·\1‘e;t I ......................................... 10
.·\re;1 2 ......................................... 10
.\1‘e;1 3 ......................................... 12
.\l`l`i1 4 ......................................... 12
S;llI]})11llQ;lll(1 lrrterviewitrg Procedures ............................ 12
Pindittgs <)1»SllI`\`<‘}' ...................................... 13
Number ed l·`;trms in Sttrwey ................................. 13
1{*'\UUI`(`4,'\ on Beef and Non-Beef Farms ........................... 13
9 Inmd Ike on Beet und Non-Beet I·`;rrms ........................... 17
(]}mr;teteristies ol` l·`;xrmers .................................. 19
()t`i`-l·`;t1‘m Iimployment of Farm Operators .......................... 22
Detailed .-\n;tlysis of Beet 1‘1HlCl`])l`1SCS ............................ 22
R(‘ll$UI1< 1_t\l`11.l\`1I1g Beei`C;1ttle ............................... 29
Other Livestock on Beet Farms ............................... 33
Beet (Tow Iinterprise Nluuttgement .............................. 33
Beef Herd XILIHLIQCIDCIN ................................. 33
(Ltlving Dates ...................................... 37
Breeding Prttetices ................................... 37 A
A Beef Breeds ....................................... 40
Registration of Cows .................................. 40
Feedmg Pruetiees .................................... 40
— Cattle vs Lund ..................................... 44
Summary ........................................... 50
4 3
i

 I -
1
X
r '  

 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Number of Farms in Survey, by Area, Type and Size ................ 14
2 Average Acreage per Farm (All Land Operated on Farms Surveyed, by Area, Type
and Size ....................................... 15 T
3 Average Acreage of Cropland and of Open Pasture Land on Farms in Survey, by T
Area, Type and Size ................................. 16
4 Crop Production on Farms: Percent of Farms Reporting and Average Acreage of
Most Important Harvested Crops by Area, 1968 ................... 18
5A Age and Education of Farmers Surveyed, by Type and Size of Farm in Areas 1 and
2, 1968 ....................................... 20
5B Age and Education of Farmers Surveyed, by Type and Size of Farm in Areas 3 and
4, 1968 ....................................... 21
6A Ofl`—Farm Employment by Operators of Beef Farms in 1968 ............ 23
6B Off-Farm Employment by Operators of Non—Beef Farms in 1968 .......... 24
TA Number of Farms Having Stated Kind of Beef Enterprise and Average Size of
Enterprise, Area 1 .... , ............................. 25
TB Number of Farms Having Stated Kind of Beef Enterprise and Average Size of
Enterprise, Area 2 .................................. 26
TC Number of Farms Having Stated Kind of Beef Enterprise and Average Size of
Enterprise, Area 3 .................................. 27
Tl) Number of Farms Having Stated Kind of Beef Enterprise and Average Size of
Enterprise, Area 4 .................................. 28
8 Reasons Reported by Farmers for Having Beef Cattle on their Farms, by Area . . . 30
9 Reported Roles of Beef Cattle in the Farm Business, by Area ............ 32
10A Other Livestock on Beef Farms in Survey: Number of Farms Reporting and Average
Size of Other Livestock Enterprise, Areas 1 and 2 .................. 34
10B Other Livestock on Beef Farms in Survey: Number of Farms Reporting and Average
Size ol` Other Livestock Enterprise, Areas 3 and 4 .................. 35
5
i

 J LIST OF TABLES—C0nt1`nued
` Table Pas;
` 11 Beef Herd Management Characteristics ....................... 35
12 Planned Calving Periods on Farms Surveyed ..................... 35
13 Information About Breeding Practices on Farms in Survey ............. 39
I 14 Information About Beef Breeds on Farms in Survey ................ 41 t
_   15 Percentages of Registered Cows in Beef Herds, by Size of Herd and Area of State . 4,
  ‘ 16 Normal Feeding Practices, Beef Cow Herds in All Kentucky Areas Combined .... 4;
  I r 6

 LIST OF FIGURES
page Figure Page
_ _ 36 1 Areas Delineated for (8-67) Survey - 1969 ....................... 11
_ _ gs 2 Acres of land per animal unit (beef cow equiv.) devoted to roughage-consuming f
livestock on farms in the Bluegrass Area ........................ 46
. . 39 L
3 Acres of land per animal unit (beef cow equiv.) devoted to roughage-consuming
_ _ ij livestock on farms in Mid-Kentucky Area ........................ 47
; _ ;_ J, Acres of land per animal unit (beef cow equiv.) devoted to roughage-consuming
livestock on farms in the Ohio Valley-Pennyroyal Area ................. 48
A i i ii 5 Acres of land per animal unit (beef cow equiv.) devoted to roughage-consuming
livestock on farms in the Purchase Area ........................ 49
7
1

 ‘ -
. }
z ‘ °  

 A SURVEY OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN KENTUCKY
by
 
Fred E. _]ustus,jr.* A
Introduction indicated by the fact that the number of beef
cows in Kentucky doubled in the decade.
The beef production industry is a Estimates show 515,000 beef cows on
complex of different types of production Kentucky farms on   1, 1960 and
processes, different sizes of enterprises, and 1,087,000 for  1. 1970.2 The importance
different roles of the product in the farm of beef production in the state is evident in
business. that 27.9 percent of all cash farm receipts in
Reference to the beef industry is limited 1970 was from cattle and calves.3 Thus, beef
usually to beef cow herds kept for the is second only to tobacco as a source of
purpose of producing beef, beef cow herds Kentucky cash farm receipts.
kept for the purpose of selling breeding stock, There are a number of reasons behind
or various kinds of feeder cattle grazing or this growth and expectation for further
feeding operations. llowever, a considerable growth in the years ahead. The land resources
quantity of beef is produced as a joint in the state are conducive to roughage
product or supplementary product of dairy production, thus providing the potential feed
operations in the form of veal calves, cull supply for a large roughage—oriented livestock
cows and surplus dairy animals. Dairy cow industry. On the demand side, American
numbers declined appreciably during the consumers have shown a strong desire for beef
1960`s, but of the total inventory of cattle on (per capita consumption increased from 85
Kentucky farms as of jan. 1, 1970, 21 pounds in 1960 to 110 pounds in 1970) and a
percent were listed as dairy stock.1 willingness to pay for their meat preference.
Probably the most dynamic development Additionally, Kentucky has a strategically
in Kentucky agriculture during the 1960’s was good g€0gY21Ph1€ location in Y€13ti0¤ to th€
the rapid growth in beef production. With the traditional Corn Belt feed lots and in relation
decline in dairy cattle numbers, it is evident to Midwest and East Coast population
that this growth is in enterprises having beef centers.
as the primary output. Growth was Other states in the South experienced
particularly fast in feeder calf production, as gmwth iii b€€f cattle ¤¤mb€T$ in the Past
*Profcss0r of Agricultural Economics, University of Ken- O
tucky. “Ibz'd.
1I)ata from reports published by the Kentucky Crop and 3Cattle and calves include dairy veal calves and cull and
Livestock Reporting Service. surplus dairy animals.
9
i

 · ` 10
  decade. But, also there was growing concern descriptive summary of the findings of the
. _ ` . l among farm management specialists about the 1969 beef production survey in Kentucky. A
profitableness of beef production on farms in
5 _ the South. Analysis of the farm financial
j I A records revealed many cases in which net Areas of Study
;   income from the beef enterprise was very low,
I ° yet the enterprise has continued to expand. Eighty-three Kentucky counties were
¤ And in some areas the beef industry was included in the study. Thus the entire state,
t i ` developing in a manner different from that with the exception of 33 eastern and 4
  I ` _ which available economic data indicate would metropolitan counties, was included.
  I be most profitable. According to 1964 Census of Agriculture
: A . Out of this concern grew the awareness data, the 37 excluded counties contained only
I Q that more research was needed on the 7.9 percent of the beef cows and 4.3 percent
  I . economics of beef production in the South. of the cattle fed in Kentucky.5
l _ Consequently, personnel of Agricultural The 83 counties were grouped into four
  Experiment Stations in 12 states, the TVA, areas based on land resources, existing types
  and FPED-ERS-USDA developed a regional of farming and other variables (Fig. l).
$ F research project. It is officially known as Area 1.—This area corresponds roughly
. Q . T S—67, “Evaluation of Beef Production in the to the Inner Bluegrass Area, and in this report
l l South," and was formally activated on july 1, is called the Bluegrass Area. The topography
` ; 1968.4 is gently rolling to steep, with burley tobacco
  l and roughage-consuming livestock being the
1   , main farm enterprises. Burley tobacco
  I t i .Objective of Study allotments are large compared with those in
l A I other parts of the state. As the fertile land is ·
A _ A Objective I of the regional project is to: conducive to high roughage yields, beef cattle
. "Determine various resource characteristics production has increased considerably in the
and combinations employed in beef past decade. A substantial number of cattle
production in the South, evaluate selected are fed to stocker or slaughter weights.
y operator attributes and appraise adjustment Area 2.-Area 2 is a large, diverse area
z I trends that have occurred." To accomplish comprised of 46 counties. In this area are all
l this objective each state conducted a survey in or major portions of regions referred to as
1969, which provided a detailed description Eastern Pennyroyal, Knobs, Outer Bluegrass,
  , of beef cattle production——the size of beef and Intermediate Bluegrass. Also included is
J I herds, size and types of farms on which beef part of the Western Coal Fields. Land
E is produced, systems of beef production, resource quality, size of farms, and type of
A systems of grain and roughage production, farming vary greatly within the area. In many
» U production practices and other important localities land is rolling to rough, and farms
management aspects. This report is a are small. Concentrations of medium-sized
, ; dairy farms are located in the area, primarily
A in counties near Louisville. And in still other
'1`_'—_-_-_— localities large farms with major harvested
2 4 _ crop and beef and/or hog enterprises are
I y While beef produced as a part of dairy enterprises is still an
important part of the total beef supply, this study is
~ . concerned only with enterprises which have beef feeder  
animals, beef breeding stock or slaughter cattle as their
. primary output. Unless specifically noted, for the remainder
Q of this report mention of beef cattle, beef production and 5United States Bureau of Census, 1964 United State.: Census
V j beef industry, refer to these types of enterprises. 0fAgr1'culture; Kentucky.
,   1

 1 1
.  .·\
K 1 \_'
11: /‘ \
.1 5 g  
   - ·‘   -· 1   .-». - ··    
   ·       
4     ,_. {  _ *;a%·;iE3;.+ ;.3;4..·.*1g_ -T¤}Zr ·>=,`·’  _.`.f;i=?. Y1;'·F·f;ZPii ,.,
    1*   ‘·v,T,;¤  jp- *+1* -L_;I:_ I     {Ln.
`éY'¥ZZ$£·YjT* Y·'-’*Q'?i;E*'   " Lrg ` ·;*=‘i€`¥;€'¥."';- 'Z?‘r`%Z’%.2$‘ f" 
  Y`?        .:¥l*‘Q;?¤: f
TC   .;:2:- A-Y·E:¥:j$$;4  `*"""·‘ 7];1;;§·§_ Z;£·`}*?;1;-iiz.t»".· ttffigjiii-i;`;$'R
  ;_; r=;.   -· »iee;~»z:z;z,_*·;e:;>;» ,:;2i]i:f; _.:_ ;‘’5¤i·- ·’ n1=f¤.-e¢*.·; ··:¥r— —;.~<·:2< ··.=       ,
5* 'j1:`-LQJJZ *$.;L.;§”~‘.1 ‘ " :"`?‘?i1'.Q;}1 ,_ ?'1€Z<°¢,?€Y‘,i‘* .:2 ,:'·,?r~Tf>e.Ff1Ef€'Z`.' ;?·7‘f··Y»"· '
-1  ».-._‘j;:;,·;;· ‘-·.v gfzj  .1;_.j"   aaa   `'=  ·   °;f‘-—2=»’·’”-‘ “ -:1 ,- . 1--
-    ‘=. 3.r2¤;·._ -   ·, _     "-*1-‘·.~F?·3.
rd. '   .s¥*?;;€=    .;T¤:;=' .2L·l:‘ ···_‘ == z;.'_.::f;?·;;»5jr,··' 1 ;.‘.?'E-j;{;Z_:$\
we ’   ‘  *5; 1§S*J£·`  ?f§?€`€£§¤?;5j§' ··-» 1     %
_/ 2  ‘y·=;   `fl.  ;'_j.Q·€·j:::_“=   C1
1 · • I -,_ j_, ff] ·_‘4'_. .· _.4   .r"f::‘]·_   ‘__ ·;1·._._·.ig_·· n —{ » r_(
1   .       ·_ f;.E· 7.;,:] ._ I;} .—l; :Ty:.' _.~j;. _ -•
; .  fg}  {J2·`_1'jj»?*_.·{ `.j4`_ ·_Zjf_‘*=,· `;j}_‘ ,;'?;'{_ .'., r 1
‘l1l . »i .   > .` 7>`._·;§é~.f;L—.‘ »i·°·.·5f2;—T.L·] ‘ "  :¥·};¥·_ I
· A"-?-‘_`?f.;,#;"? ff.2;I;§·}"1?‘-._ E_*§15¢i`;ZT:1'€,°1? >.
U _       fit · ··~‘ { 11`4jr}f¥·.';;_ 2
>ur .._»;.K _ ·_§;·2·‘:>:? '-   5-+
;··--.1.... I · · ::1,jQZ `1j;;}r_F»v*.7; Z
uc s  -   ; {:3  m
·. _A., 1   · h"??¤= #~
  · ·~
1lv .g 2-;_.,;`» · _ ~.?
1 ' I ‘ `  Z
wrt I - ` 1 * ZL
1} \` ’ g . 6-
’ . gc . .· S
ICO .· _ Q-4
1110 ·   ° ·¤
Q,. ·   , co
;co "\  5265;} 4-*
. ., 7·f,;$5,  · : wr
111 "   zl 3 `
1 is ·"?i‘§·;  1. ·~*
  • G
111c -¤
1110   _ ‘ >~
1 · ' I `   A6
tt n V, . ,_ D
V 3 · +-1
2 , s:
1. _ ‘ O
Im "1 i ‘ 1} >4
· >» . · -
.111 Q) S ~ _ _ 1: C
1 as Z   "
:5 : 1 YI? `
HSS, ` yy i - GS
. · 0
1 IS C _ ~ $4
·r-4 ·;) .v ··'  _ <
amd _¤ _ :
. f qg .· . ·
’ O ·¤   . " 1%
amy 3 ; •*• O
U (Q 1.
HHS C l 5
. co
.Z€C1 H ) _ E we
. p \ § LL.
11`11y 2 1 1
11101* \__,/ · ~ °
W .
stcd 
_ _ ` . .1-/ j
’i1i·‘P=`¥ . ; ·
*-***-1 . E
cnsus   \ a {Q I
.1*1§·E ·• 2
"· 1 .*1 \_.; 'I J
1
; \

 12
i i common. In general, tobacco allotments tend becoming concentrated on fewer farms.
to be small and the land resources, because of Livestock enterprises tend to be small.
n rolling topography, favor pasture and hay
f production.
. ( It would have been desirable to divide Sampling and Interviewing Procedures
. this area into three or more areas for this
` study, but financial resources for survey The sampling technique employed in this
A ( purposes were not adequate to do so (and still study is known as land segment sampling,
1 obtain the number of interviews needed to developed by the Statistical Research Service,
T place confidence in the results). Instead, Area U. S. Department of Agriculture. l)elineated
< A 2 was subdivided into four subregions and the areas of land are drawn as a sample of the
i sampling procedure set up to assure total area and all ftumers who have "farm
i i representation of each. This permitted some headquarters" in these drawn areas are subject
j . cursory studying of variations in beef-feed to be interviewed.
I _ production systems within the area. But for Technically, this technique is not
, this publication, results are presented for the "purely" random sampling; rather, it is
` area as a whole. Area 2 will be referred to as "systematic sampling with a random st;u·t."
1 i Mid-Kentucky. As segments are numbered in the Master
. L t . Area 3.—Area 3 includes Pennyroyal Sample of Agriculture in a serpentine manner,
J L Plains counties along the southern border of this technique probably provides more
A t the state, the Lower Ohio Valley region on uniform coverage than a purely random
    the North, and joined by a portion of the sample of farmers and reduces interviewing
i l Westem Coal Fields. In this publication Area costs.
Q 3 will be called the Pennyroyal-Ohio Valley Farmers were interwiewed in all counties
  A Area. This is the major row-crop producing in Areas I, 3, and 4, and in 13 counties of
, region of the state, with large commercial Area 2. It would have been prohibitively
i farms that are very similar to farms found in expensive to interview in all 46 counties of
I the Corn Belt. Corn and soybeans are the Area 2, so a sampling scheme was developed
· primary cash crops. Livestock enterprises are to assure that farmers were interviewed in at
_ A typically those associated with corn least two counties in each of the four
2 ‘ production (hogs) and supplemental roughage subregions (mentioned earlier).
  I a production (beef cattle). To be classified as a farmer for purposes
i In the Westem Coal Field part of this of this study, and thus be interviewed. a
  . I ‘ area, however, farms are relatively small and farmer had to control (own, rent, or manage)
  i land unproductive. Much of the acreage on 50 or more acres of open land, or had gross
  these farms is in pasture. farm receipts of at least $1,000 in l968. 'l`his
i   I Area 4.—Area 4 will be referred to as the definition is more restrictive than the
i   P Purchase Area, as it includes counties involved definition of a farm used in the 1969 Census
I   ` in the jackson Purchase. The topography of of Agriculture. All farmers in the sample
I   ( ‘ I the area is level to rolling. Farm size varies segments of land were interviewed. A
( i from small in the upland regions to large in comprehensive schedule of questions was
E   the Mississippi bottomland section. Part-time completed on all farms which had 10 or more
  farms are common, as off-farm employment is beef cows (or equivalent in feeder cattle) in
E . readily available (industry, public service, 1968. These are classed as "bcef farms." A
  V tourism). Dark tobacco is still an important much shorter schedule was completed on
I   , , crop, but declining in importance and "non-becl"’ farms. The primary reasons for
 — l
. 1
> ?
` l
, l l

 13
ms.
obtaining data on non-beef farms were (1) to 13 surveyed farms had herds of at least 100
study differences in resources (including the cows.7
human resource) between beef and non-beef The greatest amount of feeding
farms and (2) to analyze their potential as purchased animals to stocker or slaughter
this future beef producers. weights was done in Area 1 (Bluegrass Area). ”
_ On 15 farms in this area feeding of purchased
wig? animals was the only beef enterprise, and on a ‘
Lili Findings of Survey number of other farms there were both a beef _
thc Y V ' h i · cow herd and purchased cattle. l
Um lhe remainder of this report containg As expected, a high proportion of
i the survey findings on 705 Kentucky farms. non-beef farms had less than 100 acres of
ucd lixcept for the first sections, in which open land. There were, however, some very
n comparisons between beef and non-beeffarms large non-beef farms in the survey; making
Lil are shown, the report will center on detailed 300-over acres as the top size class conceals
[ [li data concerning beef farms. this fact.
tr .
rster
‘mli‘ Number of Farms in Survey Resources on Beef and Non-Beef Farms
nore
dtml Table l presents the number of farms A comparison of the land resources on
"img surveyed in each area of Kentucky, by size beef and non-beef farms may be made using
_ and type classification. Areas l and 3 had the the data in Tables 2 and 3. Average farm size
me? highest proportion of beef farms in the (acres owned and rented) by type and size
is Ot survey, 63.2 percent and 65.9 percent of all class is presented in Table 2. In Table 3 is
NCIX farms, respectively. In the other two areas shown the 2i\'€fZ1g€ 3€1'€&g€5 of cropland and
is Oi slightly over one-half of all farms surveyed Open p&SlUf€lZH1d on these farms.
épcd were beef farms. While later sections will be The 3\‘€1‘Hg€ SiZ€ Ot télfm WBS highest ifi
m ul devoted to an in—depth look at the size of beef Area 1 (260.7 acres), followed by Area 3
fom. ’ enterprises and their relationship to the rest (250.6 acres). Farms in the Pennyroyal-Ohio
of the farm business, some comments should Valley Area (Area 3) had the largest amount
loses be made licrc_ of cropland per farm. In the Purchase Area
d’ il Most of the beef cow herds were small, ffiffn size &1\`€f€i§€d €0hSid€T¥1hl$` Smaller th?-h
iugiil considering the enterprise as a source of net in th€ other €iY<‘?&$§ this WBS &$$O€t&t€d with the
  income for the farm family, Considering only common incidence of part—time farming.
thé beef cow herds surveyed, from 38.6 percent Farms in Area 2 were also relatively small A
( (Area 2) to 46.0 percent (Area —l) of the herds and, as much of the area has rolling to rough
{mm were composed of fewer than 20 cows, Only topography, the average acreage of cropland
mplc per farm was only 103.6 acres.
‘ A Beef farms (as defined in this study) had
was more total acres than non-beef farms,
mofc averaging over twice as much land per farm in
e) in
," A
1 on —` _ _—
s for 6 ————-——————· t ,
A total of 745 individuals were interviewed, but data » V
€0llected on 40 were excluded because closer scrutiny 7 l _
revealed that they did not meet the definition of a farm or While there were no herds of 500 or more cows in the
that the data were incomplete or inconsistent. l\lost of the sample, it should not be concluded that none exist in ;
excluded farms would have been in the non-beef category. Kentucky. (
l
  `
I

 14
Q TABLE 1
NUMBER OF FARMS IN SURVEY, BY AREA, TYPE AND SIZEH
_ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
AREA 0F STATE
— SIZE AND TYPE ___._......................................
DESCRIPTION l I 2 3 4
 
Number of Farms
A Beef Farmsb
I No beef cows--only
1 purchased animals 15 7 2 2
V 10-19 cows 29 44 42 40
i 20-49 cows 26 54 57 36
50-99 cows 12 11 6 8
j 4 100-499 cows 2 5 3 3
` 500—over 0 0 O 0
h 1 Total beef farms 84 121 110 89
» I Non-Beef Farmsc
L Less than 50 acres
openland 14 26 ll 13
50-99 acres 16 28 15 18
; »i 100-199 acres 15 28 15 18
h 200-299 acres 2 3 3 7
Q il 300-over 2 3 8 6
. g Total non-beef farms 49 113 57 82
i I _ Total farms in area 133 234 167 171
`  
_ i 3For the purposes of this survey, a farm is a place with at least 50 acres of
‘ I . openland, or with gross farm receipts amounting to at least $1,000 in 1968.
E bTo be classified as a beef farm, the operator had to have 10 or more beef
1 ` cows (or equivalent in feeder cattle) in 1968.
L g p °Size of non-beef farms is based on acres of openland (cropland and open
L 1 pasture land).
  I · ¤
¤ i
, . i

 15
TABLE 2
::: AVERAGE ACREAGE PER FARM (ALL LAND OPERATED) ON FARMS
SURVEYED, BY AREA, TYPE AND SIZE
4   /
_ sm; my TYPE AREA OE STATE
DESCRIPTION '
1 2 3 4
Average Land Per Farm
Z Beef Farms:
40 N0 beef cows--0nly
purchased animals 640.5 517.7 339.0 283.0
36
10-19 beef c0ws 134.5 147.7 185.3 120.2
8
20-49 c0ws 224.5 228.7 277.0 229.2
3
50-99 c0ws 576.7 429.1 444.0 552.5
0
__- 100-499 785.0 1,573.4 1,300.7 783.3
89
500-0ver —— —— —— -—
Beef Farms 331.4 289.8 280.1 229.2
13 N0n—Beef Farms:
18 Less than 50 acres
18 Openland 63.7 64.2 87.0 49.3
7 50-99 acres 97.1 97.4 104.1 94.2
6 100-199 acres 187.7 164.7 150.7 154.8
82 200-299 acres 370.0 353.7 293.0 277.1
171 300-0ver 416.5 384.7 608.1 558.7
.-- A11 non-beef farms 139.5 120.9 193.7 150.0
;;8Of All farms in area 260.7 208.2 250-6 191-2
 
ef
i

 16
1 0 Ln .—L U, ,.4 <·r LO N an l\ 1-1 N ·:r MQ M U7
1 O>_‘ G5 C6 ,.{ 1-1 (\I v-4L·—<
M LL.
X ‘ O·—
LL] .. ,.q [\ O`. -· LJ
OIL]
‘ mt? CD
; · U;) 5.4 pq LO Ln M Q 1 *1* Ln cu M QM LO N
L gm 5 GO M LO M LO r\ Ln .-1 LQ QLD .-L ·-r
g ` Z Ln Ly- MOQ 1 .-1 0.MK\ QQ ·:r 00
- 5 ...4 O0 OO-1Q lh K\NQQLn N 00
= Q.1 .-1 ¥\»0~0Q M (\1Ll`)·-·4 OOQ3 OO l\
, Q § O Ln r—1N K\ C`! .-4 -1M .-1
1 1 _ Lu $.4
I z U U)
1 E LU
i L $-1 L1)
I >._m Ln CTS $-1
— .-1.-4 Ln LD LL. -11
g — s:c<$ E $-4
` · LL] OE V) $-1 U L1-1 CZ
‘ ¤..z 1--1 3 CU CU 0) ·1-1
5 >-LQ Lg; O LL Ul Ln CD
· [-1-L IDN U Ln cnc; Lu L1) :0 Ln
: [-L 3 2 L1-1 Em Ln #1 $-1 1 E
» gp. C,-5 *1-1 Ln lf) O  0 0 {Z1 M
L ‘ 51-L om <1> 3 3 U L1) mcg: M cd ccs 0 LL:
L gg U; U, GJ O O 5-L ::0 LL.<<$cv$ U $-1 7 LL
1 U EQ-Lcd .¤ U U Us LD ,;;.-4 cvs gn 0. cu
Lum M¤>,¤ 0n > ·-L *1-14.1:: 0ncn> -1 -1
, 2 Nm q3q):_) O`. Ou O". *0** O 1-1 L1) cu gn .-1 N O .-1 .-L
I Q 1 1-Q [.1..,55-1 *—‘ LnQ.40~. 1 1 1 -11 -11
:_ L U) ,*5 1 1 1OO ¤¤LnO 1 QQQ
L_ L Q-4@Q_,C>C>C>C>C> 1<1> QQQQ
 L1 Q 1 (DZ ·—1 N LO -4 1.n $:,41 Ln .-1 NM L
:   q) Q
1 5 CQ Z
{ .
1 1
1 I
 L ¤
,1 1

 17
Areas 1 and 2. The beef farms also had more non-beef farms reporting the specific crop and
cropland and open pastureland per farm. This the average acreage per farm of that cr0p.8
was particularly true of open pastureland. Caution should be exercised in examining the
There were, however, dairy farms acreage of specific crops when only a few
(particularly in Area 2) which had sizable farmers produce the crop. ’
acreages of pastureland. Burley tobacco was produced on nearly
As a beef cow herd is a large all farms surveyed in the Bluegrass Area (Area ‘
_ roughage—consuming enterprise, the larger I). The average tobacco allotment on beef
land acreages, particularly of pastureland, on farms in the area was twice as large in 1968 as
beef farms is not surprising. The role that the on non-beef farms (6.0 vs. 3.0 acres). Other
beef cow herd plays in the total farm than burley tobacco, and except on a few
business, however, influences the land acreage dairy farms, there was very little crop
devoted to the beef enterprise. For example, production on non-beef farms in the Bluegrass
on some farms (especially in Area 3) the large Area. The average acreage of cropland on the
farm acreage was not associated with the beef non-beef farms was only 82 acres.
cow enterprise. '1`he major source of income The beef farms in the Bluegrass Area had
on these farms was crop production considerably more cropland and,
(sometimes hogs were very important) and consequently, greater crop production. The
the beef cow herd was only a supplemental acreage of crops other than pasture,however,
enterprise; i.e., the beef cow herd was was not high in relation to the potential.
restricted to land that could not be used for Introduction of non-till systems of com
crop production and sometimes utilized crop production in recent years has probably
residues. Evidence of this role is that beef changed this situation. Indicated silage
farms in Area 3 averaged only 29.5 acres of production was generally located on farms
open pasturelan d. having cattle feeding or dairy enterprises.
Farms on which the beef enterprise Burley tobacco was also very important
involved only purchased animals generally had in the Mid-Kentucky Area (Area 2). While the I
( substantial land resources. This group average allotment size was smaller than in the
included both farms on which the purchased Bluegrass Area, tobacco was produced on
animals were fed to stocker weight and those more than 92 percent of the farms surveyed.
on which the animals were fattened out to Allotments were larger on beef than non-beef
slaughter weight. As shown in Tables 7A-7D, farms (3.0 vs. 1.7 acres per farm).
these enterprises typically involved a The acreage of cropland on non-beef
substantial number of cattle. On farms where farms in Area 2 was quite small and, thus,
cattle were fed to slaughter weights an crop production other than burley tobacco
abundance of grain was needed, whereas and hay was limited. Less than 40 percent of
roughage production was emphasized for the these farms produced corn. The beef farms
stocker enterprises. had more cropland and crop production than
did the non-beef farms. But rolling
topography in major portions of the
Land Use on Beef and l\Iid·Kentucky Area was also evident on the
Non-Beef Farms
Comparisons of the acreage of major
lwfvested crops on beef and non-beef farms BAS ihs €f§>P ¤¢¥€¤E°_$ ¤f°_¢“'°*§S° P°Y féfm ’°P°“i“g°“d “°* _
by area of the state are resented in Table sl. PU farm m gmup’ mdmdual mms mu not add upt? wml
1) acreage of cropland. Cropland devoted to pasture is also
Shown are the percentage of total beef and omitted.
I » ii
E

 18
GS
? O¤>¢1>
; pga;0 1\©t\©© XOI 143Nm LnO¤\1nO¥\ V710 1C>*’$©
1 ` U ..... ..1 1... ...... .1. 1. .1
» ` ¤1—1 $-10 1—1N<1·Nrn LON ONO NN1\c0LnN 0 Lf) 0OLnLn
q)¤1)q_>$.1 1-11-1-1 1-11-1 1-11-eq) N U 1-1
.-¤·r·1 cd N OOQQ i\1—1 0O!\ N1—1Q5¤;.-11.n gy .-1 NW
g §¤\=·LL. @1 no co LD  <: <1:
g L) PUOUD QQOOIDO OO! 1l\r’5Ln QOTLDOXIY"} UUII |Or’)r-4
1 _ <1j muqgggg ..... ..1 1  .... 1. .11 1 
- _ ’ E $-111.) M©·<1·1—11—1 L09 \OU 1-4 1-1
<< LL<·r'{<<
1 _ 1::00 1-1
1 ‘ LL]\O Q-15-1 L
1 I>0~1 00
<£·—1 cs
1 com cn
1 Q·~ nsw-1E 1.nNmv>1\ coco1 1com NNf"5xOlOO M11 1N.-1
; ZU) .-1 @$..1 . . . . . . .1 1. . . . . .1. .11 1. .
1 <<1; 1-11n cd N<1·cor~n1-1 Lnc; @00 -11-1NN 01 N .-1;;
1 LU -·
· ¤<¤¤
O
· ¤.Ln cc
LY-JCL O ¤J¤.>
;‘ Dig Mgbgb OOOOLO NQ1 K\LhOO¤’ 1K\N1:>00.>$-1 t\1-1 1-1 1-11-100 LnL0 Q -1-1M
`·U 1-1 1-1
~  Z u
1 H cc <1.> un
510¤O ON\O¤’>Ln ¤">OLn  LONM1-1N mNLn cocogm roLnNrn0 N N --
‘ Lr.11-1 <1:<·1j 1-1
· Z!-L1 1.1 L
1 OO *4-15-1 O
1 1-1