xt7k3j391q71 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7k3j391q71/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1953 journals 013 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.13 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.13 1953 2014 true xt7k3j391q71 section xt7k3j391q71 Progress Report I3 Mov., \95?-'=
ON TRIGG, CALLOWA A D G C
BOTTOMLAND FARMS, 95
i q   ’ ` ·',>»,_, » {.,3 {E,}   J *$/`i“”;`,`(:~;   N t•L_ a`ir "," ,·-I —A·tI      
‘ K _,A‘, a.             --  >*
I _·;·eg;V f     _ ’·‘_f";g{·€,;;·’.T‘gf ..i ‘·V· ~f“‘ fn.     Ig . · ·;,   .   V ,` A i A
‘ __   ‘ "py   jj?@£EZ-     z T 2'·**F?`gQ:',_fl   ni: "`j"»j ' ’.
    . ` ~j·· V , " _i     _V;_fi;     5 . ~` G . _
  `   _' ~\ A · -· 6     i·v;§g‘7€£2*y.1;; I " r g-r" `'V·   _ g     Q Q·’·` V r
    A -..V   ·;;>  r ·   -e=’;;s»"` *    ¤·;    
‘ · 7~       5    -1 .AA;.,. K ./ =A ‘     ¤# €€~#~ ~x?~Zt    
·   ‘ "`;~»f:`¤~;~¤‘~ · ";,‘§r   %}’7.?‘ ~ _ ` _"‘§‘e¤Q V   :».*‘  
. _ ?’%`*»" »-,3 *;. :~? lgj_.  __ ’ ’; ·:· _ _ g, g; ·
'· ·   ., »   :2 ;     2 '· —   Z     Q 1*%,1%
i _ , »q_V ;·Q.."¤1":..»g?_v¤·¤;s” —-·¤:. ‘.___T·,y¥. _· wg, g;”·~ ~_*,H.;§ ·x=.?_§a»;   ·_},_,;·: .: ;j.-.··
  .    I    Q;   k · r ·
  i =»* »     e       -··· ·· · » —
    +1 ·A·· ·=» ·.;;¢¤»?;»< J   .· -   1 ·»·`—·   ,¤>>:¢  ·'e~~i ·   ~ T   ,
    I ,,_`_      x_   V.g·._"· _· ; ,' -_ _ A
    t f   -»_·   ; .»,4   ·
. ’-’ A=f’`. i   ;=¥‘?$ L V    £§Y;§h? iEé —-.‘ ·i T" · 
I   ,v:.        
  ·`', A ei;ii;.;*·i;r;;%'*"="£&f"?*$   `_', '   KE? ‘*` `FTY-‘Z"’C?¥· ,·¥_*·,.¤· :_1:;w:g A   »_ Jie ·’‘;· »a» *3, »·<~Q ‘   rv ·» =r' Q ~¢’—    _r;:‘     A   A ;
{ ·=     '·—=,, ~$%i{{.¢· &4}s?,-·~; »‘a;¤_=;,£s»,’e~;,. tf etmfg w; ;   ug ·· . ,_.—,;;_g . _- .,.—_{· ».,,   _· V
  ~‘=·i¤ '-·‘  ‘ A‘‘*‘ ‘*¢   *¢»·y’i§#‘%%}¥‘¤S*·`i’   ‘*i *  A‘ ·
‘· .Y;·";f·‘ *·‘£—,·‘ , J ’· ‘. ·=§1=·, 'yl K »>i;·._5;‘., ‘   *41 _; s~y=f" , ·*’,  V_ Hy {ja; . = V
 2 gi;       éx.   ·` ’  
~ ;;·.`;:~.   ya     vi}}i:{;‘»vi_;   .;.i§i.V%_;,#"_i~_uj‘· ap;     §T*:_‘.._,,i, . Z};   nf   U . `.
,   ·‘i» .     W3?  -$§i?¤t**"%,$€? ··‘· *   ’* ~  ? 
— ·‘=; ::'K i-. * _;;·; .'_fx‘_£=g, y·_-_; ·.,i_; ’_».,·i;_V_¤7~· ·· ·g·,g*··t.·_ , ‘
  ·,·;3-;·,t     r*.{=F-{V? . if {rt-¤'.;·,.’,¤.i: 4 ·tlpfptlf`»\.#g£%T\i¥&:;;§i{€‘;`§§¥';§xe·ji! ··.;» A * 4 A
‘  _-         »VA"   V _
    r   » X A K    fi 4°_·A ` jgf y  
· . , ‘ · -·.‘··; ,v;`,~ ’· V   · ‘i"·¤—,1,..5V.;.—v ;y—   I V
    _ ‘ V   ` "   , ;Vj·_’Q .·y ‘._V;é_j7;·-,‘_   j   Z~ . , f-,
• ‘ , .. .", _;. _   °*T_ ',» _.·‘ ‘ ’ ‘v .·‘-·,Vga_,1·‘~g;jEr'; T_;j· V· V   ‘»
· ·     ——: t   V ..-. ? "`··yw;'Z~¤t¢JM,—»   - ¤.<» —
    Z   ~··~ i·        
·"‘“·= —»`.·   ‘~ gsi ·_·—··’   r ‘· *1*;,, 2+ A . ··
    . ____ if   gre — H    
“`?¤”€`·*€'Y'?fQ'j`:Q   I`_=j·’j`.f2iw e-. "`"’   ·`’··  `—?°’ , _;_  
Tk:}   ·- Vj,.`~'·‘iT;§,mEi;;Vr.*”v. —     .',gu??.t?"'$v' qi I »  ihf- 4 V Iv `L  
if     `  K/·?" ‘ J   ’“ ’» t     .· i ‘ ·   ‘
¢· · .;-i·, ·*.·j~; ~=,.··n .V g;_V~.»;1‘——     ‘· ~ ·
ji _ ·   2   {  .;:—;··iW§_A;F¥_:_?;r i..   _ wm- _ U   l,
·· -:1. - _   1`j=;2$g*§j»` -=* ’ ·   » · ‘ · —
By Glenn L. Johnson
I
Kentucky Agriculturol Experiment Stotion
University of Kentucky with
Tennessee volley Authority Cooperotmq

 I
·
\
V
\

 SOURCES OF INCOME
ON TRIGG, CALLOWAY, AND GRAVES COUNTY I
BOTTOMLAND FARMS, I95I
Introduction i
As part of a study designed to determine the earning power of investments
and inputs on western Kentucky farms, bottomland farm b\ISin€SScS located ` `
in Trigg, Calloway, and Graves county were studied. Records were secured
from 32. farms located in the Cumberland Piver bottom of Trigg county, from I
Z9 farrns located in the Clarks River bottom of Calloway county, and from
2.8 farms located mainly in the Mayfield Creek bottoms of Graves county.
Trigg county bottoms are subject to seasonal flooding, Calloway bottoms
suffer from wetness and seasonal and intermittent flooding, aggravated by channel
sedimentation in Clarks River and its branches. The sediment which originates
on surrounding uplands, causes the river and its branches to overflow extensively.
Graves county. Mayfield Creek bottoms are less subject to wetness and seasonal
and intermittent flooding, as the channels are freer of sediment than those in
· the Clarks River bottom of Calloway county, Further, because Mayfield Creek
does not experience the seasonal rises characteristic of the Cumberland River,
seasonal flooding is less important there than in Trigg county.
One difference in the farming systenis followed in the three bottomland
areas should be noted, Calloway bottomland farmers are more extensive prov;
ducers of popcorn than are farmers in the Mayfield Creek bottoms of Graves
county, while Trigg county farrriers in the Cumberland bottoms produce virtually
no popcorn,
DATA USED
AND KIND OF ESTIMATES MADE
For each. farm, six different figures were secured;
I i‘ l, _CB‘2_ss ipgorrie, which includes the value of all products produced on the
farm, including the value of those consurned in the home. The rental value
I of the farrri home, however, was not included,
Z. Lanilniiipg were measureld in acres All land was included, whether or not
developed, as i; is difficult to distinguish in a non—arbitrary way between
land capable of being developed for crop or forage production and land
completely unfit for grain or forage production.
3, liabor irgfpjjirts were rrieasured in monitis of labor on the farm per year, the
labor being available for productive use regardless of the efficiency with
which it was used One object of the study was to find out how efficiently
labor was being IJLSCCL As in thc casr of land, the distinction between idle
labor and productively cmployed labor is soxriewhat arbitrary and difficult
to rriakc

 4. The forage—livestock investxrient includes the replacement value of all _
prennial pasture and hay stands, plus residual fertilizer value, plus the
value of the beginning livestock inventory with proportional credits for
livestock sold off the farm, and proportional charges for livestock purchased
during the year.
5. The machinery investment was the current value of the machinery, tools,
and equipment on hand at the beginning of the year, plus proportional additions
and deductions for machinery purchased and sold during the year. Each O
farmer was asked to evaluate separately each item of his machinery. ,
6. Other expenses include the amounts actually paid for annual seeds; gas; oil; I-
fertilizers whose values are consumed in one year; feed and supplies; custom
work; and negative changes in the inventory value of purchased feed, seed; `
and the like. Expenditures on maintenance of land, machinery investments,
and the forage-livestock investment were not included; neither were depreciae- V
" tion charges on these items.   l
From these data, the earning power of each input or investment was com-
puted statistically. Earning power, as used in this report, refers to the increase O
in gross income resulting from the last unit of an input or investment used--
professional economists use the term-"marginal value product"' in referring to _
this quantity. Economists attach particular importance to earning power, be-
cause a farmer or business man logically compares the cost of an extra unit of —
input with its earning power or marginal value product before using more. If
earning power exceeds cost, then use of the input is logically expanded; if earn-
ing power is lower than cost, then use of the input is logically contracted.
Earning power ordinarily decreases as more of an input or investment is used.
Thus, the earning power of the last unit of an input or investment is ordinarily
lower than its average earnings. Computational techniques, employed in pre-
paring this report yield estimates of earning power which change with the amount
of the input used. Thus, the estimates presented in this report are superior to ·
average returns formerly computed by farm management research workers from
"dried apple" sheets, and studied with the thermom€t€Y‘€h&Tl technique-
Still further, the earning power of an input or investment depends upon the
amount of supporting investments or inputs used with it. The computation
methods used in this report also yield estimates of earning power which vary
as supporting investments are varied.
One further point should be made concerning the disadvantages of esti- ` -
mating procedures used in preparing this report. When the amounts of two
different inputs of investments used tend to increase and decrease together
from farm to farm, it is difficult to estimate their separate earning powers.
Also, when two or more distinctly different production processes are involved,
the estimates may apply to a mixture of the different processes, and not be
L; Due to the difficulty of determining correct depreciation rates, because
of varied maintenance expenses, it is thought best to eliminate these
charges. This means that the earning power of machinery, land, and
forage-livestock investments must cover such charges.
-g-

 clearcut for anyone of the processes. As no means of getting around these
difficulties other than the exercise of judgment are available without re-
sampling, these difficulties are handled, as they arise, on a judgment basis.  
TRIGG COUNTY
CUMBERLAND RIVER
BOTTOMS
Bottomland farms in Trigg county, on both sides of the Cumberland
River,are included in the sample. ln all, financial records for the l95l
calendar year were secured on 32 different farm businesses located in this
bottom.
Kinds of Farms
Sampleii
In this report, the word "usual" refers to a geometric average amount.
The geometric average is better than the common average for use in describing
a group of farms, as it is less influenced by the few large farms in the sample.
The usual or geometric amount, as the word "usual" implies, is more similar
A to the ugreat majority" than is the average. The usual Trigg county bottomland
farm was organized as follows:
Land used ——-=———¤ =· ·====—-=~—————-—-—-—-- 185. 5 acres
Labor used——— -—-—-—— =~- ==--—~—-—————·-——— 15. 9 months
Forage-livestock investment ——-=———————— $ 2, 912.
Machinery investment- —¤-—————===—·—-—— $1, 640.
Other expenses ———-—-— =» ———~——-=———————— $1,160.
From these inputs and investments, the usual gross income was $3, 972.
The picture of the farms studied will be somewhat clearer if the variation
among them is described. The lowest gross income was $837, while the highest
was $11, 686. From the standpoint of acreage, the largest farm had 640 acres,
the smallest had 40 acres. A wide range also existed in the amount of labor
used——the smallest amount being 6 months and the largest being 40 months.
. Forage—livestock investments ranged from a low of $209 on one farm to a high
of $16, 876 on another, while machinery investments ran from a low of $129 to a
' high of $7, 344. The range in other expenses was from $203 to $3, 894.
The relationship between the amounts of inputs and investments used, on
one hand, and gross income on the other, explains less of the farm-to-farm
variations in gross incomes than for any of the six other groups of farms
studied. This supports the long—felt conclusion that organizing a Cumberland
River bottom farm is both difficult and risky.
LP Alternative estimating and analytical techniques offer little help, this
being especially true of traditional methods of farm—record analysis.
-3-

 The Earning Power of
Land, Labor and Forage
Live stock Investments (
With 10 more acres of land, an investment of $400 more in seeding,
$1, 000 more in livestock, and a month more of labor, it is estimated that
gross income would have increased by $200 on the usual farm studied. This
is a low return for this combination of inputs and investments. As the use
of these three inputs and investments were interrelated among the farms .
studied, it was somewhat difficult to estimate their separate earning powers.
The raw statistical estimates of their earning powers were as follows: A
land - $. 53 4 $3. 62 an acre; labor $124. + $56 a month; and forage—livestock
investmentst 7. 2 percent Q 17. 2 percent? Some reasons exist for suspecting
that returns to labor are overestimated, and that returns to land inputs and
forage—livestock investments are underestimated. Among these reasons are?
(1) the tendency for the amounts of land and labor, and the amounts of labor -
and forage—livestock investxrients, to change together from farm to farm, and
(2) the fact that the estimated earning power of labor is high and the other two I
are low relative to corresponding estimates on other bottomland farms. Thus, .
. it is concluded that the earning power of land may range from $1 to $8 per acre,
that the earning power of labor may be as low as $60 per month, and that
returns to forage-livestock investments may be somewhat higher than the `
estimated 7 percent. _
The Earning Power of
Machinery _
The usual amount of money invested in machinery was $1, 640.. Its earn-
ing power is estimated at 45 percent { 21. 6. There seenus to be no reason
for suspecting that this figure is biased upward or downward. Apparently, this
amount of machinery on 185 acres is reasonable, rather fully employed, and V
is very important from a timeliness standpoint.
__._-The Earygas-522*-east
Other Expejfs
Expenditures of Trigg county bottomland farmers on gas, oil, annual seeds.
and feeds, fertilizers whose values are consumed in one year, custom work, and
the like, amounted to $1, 160 on the usual farm studied. The earning power of
these expenditures is estimated to have been about $1. 06 per dollar spent. As _
no reasons exist. for suspecting this estimate to be inaccurate, it is concluded 6
that these farmers have done a rather good job of spending money on these
items. Apparently, they spent about every dollar which would return more
than a dollar.
The Question of
size and Effgigggx
The estimates indicate that efficiency does not change greatly as Trigg
county bottomland farms change in size. Some evidence exists that very slight
overall increases in efficiency are associated with an increase in size.
-4-

 CALLOWAY COUNTY
Cl-ARKS RIVER ·
BOTTOMS p
Financial records for the 1951 calendar year were secured for 29 Calloway
bottom-farm businesses., The farms sampled were located in the Clarks River _
bottoms, an area which is subjected to seasonal as well as intermittent flooding
from the Clarks River and its branches. Sedimentation in the channel of the
Clarks River and its branch—streams makes the losses by flooding unusually
severe., This sedimentation problem indicates the necessity of using farming
practices on the surrounding uplands which will prevent erosion and further
channel sedimentation. ·
Because of the extensive flooding which makes it difficult to establish and
maintain forage stands, a large portion of these bottomlands are employed in the
production of row crops, including a considerable acreage of popcorn. Favorable
popcorn yields and prices in 1951 contributed toward making 1951 a good year for
most of the Calloway farm businesses sampled.
Kinds of Farms;
Sampled
1 The farm businesses sampled in the Clark River bottoms showed a considerable
range in inputs and investments. The farms ranged in size from 50 acres to 480
acres. The labor used ranged from 12 to 40 rrionths. Livestock—forage invest-
ments ranged from $406 to $11, 428, and machinery investments from $252 to
$6, 728. Other expenditures used in combination with these investments and
inputs ranged from $160 to $5, 729.
The "usual" Calloway bottomland farnn was organized as follows:
1-.and—·-~·~·=·~ ·=—~ -~ ¤———-— —··-~~ -¤——— ~ —=——¤ ~—123.7acres
Labor————~-~<—·= ==—~———-—=~= ····—·=·=i=·==~ ==—-=—— i 18.2 months
Forage-live stock investment- · —~ —· —=====· -$1, 782
Machinery investment ——~=== ~-~—-·--—»·~~—·=·- $1, 361
Other expenditures-·———-·~~= =~=~~ ··—--—~»-»—$ 915
This usual farm earned a gross income of $4,, 425 (excluding the rental value of
· _ the farm home and the costs of the feeder stock purchased during the year).
Farm to farm variations in the amounts of inputs and investment used ex-
' plained a very large proportion of the farm to farm variations in gross incomes.
In fact, 92. 6 percent of the farm to farm variation in gross income was explained
by farm to farm differences in the use of land, labor, forage—livestock investments,
machinery investrnents and other expenditures. These inputs were measured in
the same way as the Trigg county bottomland farms.
The Earnipg Ppgver of Land,
Labor, For_a_§;_l_i&stock_1_n_w;e_s;Er_ients
'asnd Machinery In¤;ejt_m_ents
The earning power of these four investments, considered as a group, was
relatively high. However, as the farm to farm differences in the amounts of
these four investrnents and inputs tended to be related, it proved difficult
-5-

 to get reliable estimates of their earning powers. The raw statistical compu-
tations indicate that the last acre of land used was earning over $13; the chances . ‘
of an error as large as plus or minus $6. 90, occurring in this estimate in a
given year, are one out of three. Corresponding estimates for the earning
power of the last units of labor, f0rage—livestock investments, and machinery
investments were $47. 89 J- 65. 76 a month; 9., 8 percent + 29. 4 percent; 76. 7 per-
cent 4- 37. 4 percent, respectively. When these estimates are examined in
the l@ht of the interrelationship between the amounts of them used on the farms
studied, it appears reasonable to the author to conclude that the actual earning 5
powers of these four inputs and investments were about as follows:
Land---»—-—.—·» — ——~—·—=——-~— — —·——·~ ¤= ———~—— $7 to $14 per acre
Labor ——--~- —·—·———- ———=——¤-~~~-·~——— =· ¤———— $45 - $75 per month
Forage-livestock investments ———-———=¤= -- 10 - l5 percent
Machinery investments -——-- ·= -——-—- around 55 percent
The Earning Power
of Other Expenditures .
The statistical computations indicate that expenditures on gas, oil,
annual seeds, the value of fertilizers used up in one year, custom work, and
the like, were around $1. 07 per dollar spent. No clearcut reasons exist for _
suspecting a bias in this estimate. Thus, $1. 07 is accepted as an estimate 0f ,
the earning power of other expenditures on bottomland Calloway county farms. Y
The Relationship Between
EEZJEQT1   "
When the 29 farms were studied as a group, considerable evidence
existed that increases in efficiency occur as Calloway bottomland farms are
increased in size. In fact, the estimates indicate that a doubling of the V .
usual farm organization would result in a l18—percent increase in gross
income. As this figure is unusually large, the 29 farms were split into two
groups. A study of the 17 largest among the 29 farms indicates that efficiency
does not continue to increase as size is increased beyond the usual—size farm
of this group. The usual farm among the 17 largest studied had a gross in-
come of $7, 674. It involved 160 acres of land, 21 months of labor, $2, 600 in
forage—livestock investments, $2, 412 in machinery investrnents and $1, 534 ‘
for other expenditures, The indications are that a doubling of this size farm
would result in considerably less than a doubling of gross farm income. In' _ ,
fact, the estimates indicate that a doubling of this farm organization would A
increase the $7. 674 gross income by around 86 percent.
In the study of the 17 largest farms, one item of particular interest l
became apparent. The estimated earning power of the forage—1ivestock I
investment was in the neighborhood of 40 percent. Among the bottomland
farms studied, this is the highest estimated earning power for forage-
livestock investments. It compares favorably with the estimated earning
powers of forage —·livestock investments on the upland farms. In general,
returns to forage-livestock investments have not been as favorable on bottom-
land farms as on upland farms,
-6-

 This estimate raises several questions concerning the handling of forage-
livestock enterprises on bottomland farms. Some of them follow: Is efficiency
in forage—livestock enterprises on bottomland farms closely related to size
of operation? Are bottomland, forage-livestock enterprises being handled ·
properly? Are pasture and hay mixtures, adapted mainly to upland farms,
being used on bottomland farms? Are low returns for forage-livestock invest- .
ments on bottomland farms associated with the difficulty of keeping bottomland
pastures fenced? Though this study does not offer solutions, it suggests that
answers as to why the estimated earning power of forage—livestock investments
for this group of larger Calloway bottom farms was so high, might be very
worthwhile.
GRAVES COUNTY ·· NIAYFIELD ‘
CREEK BOTTOMS
In Graves county, records were taken from 28 bottomland farms located
north and south of Mayfield in the Mayfield Creek bottoms. Compared to the
Clarks Riverbottoms in Calloway, the Mayfield Creek bottoms are better
drained and less subject to overflow, as the channels contain fewer sediment
deposits. And, of course, the smaller Mayfield Creek drainage system is not
_ as subject to seasonal overflow as the Cumberland River bottomland in Trigg
county. _
Kinds of Farms
&‘~}.°li&‘=£¥
In order to ascertain the earning power of land, labor, forage-livestock
investrnents and other expenditures, farms were selected for study, which
varied widely in these respects. The smallest farm contained 47 acres and the
largest contained 585 acres, while the amountndi labor used varied from 12
months to 43. Forage-livestock investments ranged from $1, 390 to $24, 859
on these farms, while machinery investments ranged from $270 to $6, 906; ·
other expenses ranged from $564 to $6,113.
The geometric average or "usual" organization among the farms studied
was as followsi
Land —·~— ·=···--1 ~-~—~--- I- —-———----—~—— —~--»- l47.7acres
Labor————»---=—·—·—· ———~- T-- -~=— ~———-———- —-——————— 18.2 months
’ Forage livestock investment--·»— —·——··~ ¤-—--— $3, 758.
Machinery investment-——·~— -—--- - —---- -=-—- $2, 302
Other expenses —--- -·¤-—-·—-—»-~· »-—-—---——- $1,523
This usual farm was earning a usual gross income of $5, 874.
The Earning Power
g—Land _-
According to the statistical estimates, the last acre of the 147. 7 acres
used on the usual farm was earning $9» 96. Though the chances are one out
of three that an error as large as { $5. 57 might occur in this estimate in a
given year, no reasons appear to gxist for suspecting that this estimate is
either high or low.

 The Earning Power
of Labor, _ -
The last month of the 18, 2 months of labor, used on the usual farm, earned,
$54. 62, it is estimated, with a one—in-three chance of an error as large as -
$57, 58 occurring in this estimate in a given year. The large probable erro;
results from the small range in the amount of labor used on the farms studied,
and a rather close relationship between the amount of labor used and the
amount of other inputs used. Despite this large probable error, no reasons are
apparent for suspecting that the estimated earning power of labor is biased up- I
ward or downward, »
The Earning Power
of F`orage—1ives-tgk Investments .,
The Graves county farms had a relatively large investment in forage and ~
livestock, The estimates indicate that the last dollar of the usual forage-livestock
investment of $3, 758 was earning a return of about 8 percent, with a one-in—three _
chance of an error as large as — 19 percent occurring in this estimate in a given
year. There appears to be sorrTe reason for suspecting that part of the earning
power of the forage—1ivestock investzrient is reflected in the estimated earning
power of other expenses. Therefore, it is concluded that the earning power of `
forage -~1ivestock investments is somewhat higher than the raw estimate of 8 `
percent, ‘
In view of the relatively large forage—1ivest0ck investment, this rate of
return is quite favorable, In fact, it is the most favorable among bottomland
farms studied, with the exception of the 17 large bottomland farms from the
Clarks Piver bottom in Calloway county. The high. earning power of forage- I
livestock investments in the Mayfield bottoms probably results from the fact
that the bottoms are rather well drained and not subject to seasonal flooding _
to as great a degree as are the Clarks Piver and Cumberland River bottoms.
The Earning Power
of Machirleg-·;i——
On the Mayfield Creek bottom farms, the usual investment in machinery
was $2, 302 The last dollar of this investment, it is estimated, was earning `
close to 20 percent annually; the chances of an error as large as — 22 percent
occurring in this estimate in a given year are one in three, As no reasons _
appear to exist for suspecting that this estimate is wrong, it is accepted as the
best available estinuate of the earning power of machinery of these farms.
The Earning Power
§`5£iiE-°i~;_§_E}`§`
In addition to the amounts of land, labor, forage—l1ve stock and machinery
used, the 28 farmers made expenditures on gas. oil, annual seeds, feed, custom
work, and the like. The usual expenditure on such items was $1, 523. The raw
statistical estimate of the earning power of the last dollar so spent is $1. 97, r A
with a one—in-three chance of an error as large 50 cents above or below this
estimate occurring in a given year. As previously noted, some reasons exist
for suspecting that part of the earning power of the forage—1ivestock investment
-8-

 is reflected in the earning power of other expenses. Therefore, it is concluded
that the $1. 97 estimate is high. Despite this bias, however, it appears that
the earning power of other expenditures was considerably higher than dollar
for dollar. It is likely that the better drained bottomland farms of Graves county ’
yielded good returns on current expenditures used in the production of field corn
and popcorn.
Relationship Between
Size and Efficiency
The estimate indicates that efficiency on the Mayfield Creek bottomland
_ farms increases with size. To be more specific, the estimates indicate that ·
a doubling of the usual farm organization would result in a 106 percent increase
in gross income rather than the 100 percent increase, which would be expected
if increases in size did not increase efficiency. This relationship between size
and efficiency is not a normal one in farming; decreases in efficiency ordinarily
occur in large part asa joint result of (1) the problems of change, risk, and
uncertainty faced by farmers, and (2) capacity of farmers to handle or manage
such problems. An upper limit to increases in efficiency probably occurs among
the larger farms in the sample.
. CONTRASTS AND UNIFORMITIES 9
AMONG THE ESTIMATES FROM THE THREE BOTTOM-
LAND SAMPLES
To permit comparisons of the estimates for the three bottomland groups
of farms, these estimates are assembled in the table below. Those statistical
estimates which have been modified on a judgment basis are circled.
Table 1. —-Comparison of Estimates for Three Bottomland Groups of Farms.
Cumberland Clark River, Mayfield Creek
' iver, Trigg Co. Calloway Co,. Graves Cot
Amount Rate Amount Rate Amount Rate
Earned Earned Earned
. _ Land, acres ———— -— —-~— 185. 5. 1 to $8 123. 7 7to$14 147. 7 $9. 96
Labor. months——~~·=e— 15. 9 ·»  to $100 18. 2 45to$75 18. 2 $54. 62
Forage—livestock, dollars $2, 912 7 to 15% $1,, 782 10 to 15% $3,, 758 8 to 15%
Machinery, Dollars ———— $1, 640 45% $1 ,, 361 55% $2, 302 20%
Other expenses, dollars $1,160 $1.06 $915 $1.07 $1,523 .1.40-1.90
cross income-- ----    $2,,972   $4,425   $5, 874
The statistical estinriates interpreted on a Vjudgment basis indicate that in
V 1951 land in the Clarks River and Mayfield Creek bottoms had a higher earning
power than in the Curnberland River bottoms of Trigg county. The higher
earning power of land in the Clarks River bottom as compared to the Trigg
county Cumberland bottoms may be due to the more extensive production of
popcorn in the Clarks River bottom as 1951 was a year of favorable popcorn
yields and prices. The higher earning power of land in the Mayfield Creek
bottoms appears due to better draznage and suitability for cultivation. This
-.g-

 suggests the importance for dredging and controlling sedimentations in the Clarks
River area. It is important to note that forage—livestock investfnents on the up- .
lands surrounding Clarks River had high earning power in 1951./ and that if
I these lands had been farmed in what appears to have been the most profitable
way that year, much of the sedimentation problem would likely have been solved.
The earning power of labor does not appear to have varied among the three
areas studied. This appears to be even more true when account is taken of the
smaller amount of labor used on the Cumberland—bottom, Trigg—county farms.
Forage-livestock investments as handled on these farms do not appear to -
have been particularly profitable in 1951, which was a good forage-livestock
year. In fact, the evidence indicates that returns rarely exceeded 15 percent
in 1951. Observation of isolated, apparently very productive, improved pastures
on bottomland, coupled with some evidence that-high returns were being earned
from forage-livestock investments on the 17 largest Clarks River bottom farms, .
suggests that the problem of getting more profits out of forage-livestock invest-
ments on bottomland farms may be one of improper foragé—livest0ck handling. _
Perhaps the proper fertilization, seeding, pasturing, and harvesting practices
for the we stern Kentucky bottomlands have not been isolated and developed. This
may well be true, as both research and extension have tended to be concentrated
on upland forage-production problems, with little attention being devoted to ‘
bottomland forage-livestock problems.
Machinery investxrients were paying high returns in all three of the bottom-
land areas, this being particularly true in the Clarks River area where favorable
popcorn yields and prices were received. Machinery probably has high earning
on the farms, as (1) the land is well adapted to machine operations, (2) timeliness
is important, due to flooding and wetness, and (3) the farm tends to have row- A
crop acreages sufficiently large to keep the machinery rather fully employed. '
Other expenses appeared to be earning good returns in all three of the _ l
bottomland areas, with returns in the Mayfield Creek area being the highest.
CONTRASTS BETWEEN
EARNINGS ON BOTTOM!-AND AND
UPLAND FARMS _ _
Three previous upland reports have been issued: Progress Report 1, R & M
60 for Marshall county, Progress Report 2, R & M 60 for McCracken county and y
Progress Report 3, R & M 60 for Calloway county. Some rather sharp contrasts A
appear when these reports are compared with the earlier section of this report.
The usual bottomland farm studied was`a larger farm, acreagewise, than
the usual upland farrri, Further, it grossed $4, 654 as compared with $4,186
for the usual upland farrri.
ll See Progress R_eports—Np. 1, Z, and 4
-10-

 On the bottonland farms, returns to machinery tended to be higher than
on upland farms, while returns to forage-livestock investments tended to be ‘
lower., Bottomland farms tend to be (1) adapted to machine operation (2.) sub-
ject to wetness and overflow which makes timeliness important, and (3) have .
row-crop acreages large enough to keep machinery rather fully employed. The
low earning power of forage—livestock investments, as previously noted, may
be due"to production problems, this likelihood being high enough to justify
further investigation of these problemsfby researchers and extension leaders.
Study of bottomland farms in the Trigg county Cumberland bottoms, the ‘
Calloway county Clark River bottoms, and the Mayfield Creek bottoms of Graves
county indicates:
(l) that the problem of sedimentation in the Clarks River bottom is very
important;
(2.) thatireturns to machinery investments are high in all three bottoms;
(3) that returns to forage—livestock investments are relatively low;
(4) as a partial consequence of (2) and (3) above, it is concluded that the
input and investment pattern on the bottomland farms is probably
· about the most profitable one,given the production practices now used.
There is some reason for suspecting that it would be possible to develop
forage-livestock production practices, which would make it profitable to devote
a much larger portion of the bottomlands to