AN EXTENSION METHOD OP FARM MANAGEMENT TRAINING
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
NEAL ROSS CARPENTER, B. S., M. S.
-a-*****
The Ohio State University 1959
Approved by
/I Advil ^Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I should like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. J. Robert
TompkLn for his guidance In the preparation of this manuscript, to my wife, Florentine, for her patience and understanding, to Howard
Showalter, County Agricultural Agent and Lloyd Sharp, Veterans
Instructor, to all the farmer cooperators for their willing coopera tion, to Ruth Haynam who typed this manuscript, and to Louise Swift and Sue Richardson, my secretaries*
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I Introduction ...... 1
II A Description of the Extension Ilethod of 7a m ilanagernent as Taught Since 1 9 5 6 ...... 6
III Review of L i t e r a t u r e ...... 21
IV Applicable Theoretical Concepts...... 26
V Statement of Problem, Procedure Followed and method of S t u d y ...... U2
VI Assumptions and Coefficients used to Determine Optimum Combination of Resources by Linear Programming Procedure...... U9
VII Interpretation of Results...... 72
VIII Conclusions......
App en d i x e s ...... 93
Bibliography ...... 159
Autobiography...... 161
iii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Assumed Hours of Labor Available by Operator and Family Members, by Months, Southeastern Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... $2
2 Net Receipts, Amount of Labor and Capital (Jsed, Per Unit, by Specified Activities in Linear Programming, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955 ...... 55
3 Net Receipts, Amount of Labor and Capital Used, Per Unit, by Specified activities in Linear Programming, Carroll County, Ohio, 1958 56
1; Production Assunption Per Unit of Livestock Used for Linear Programming Coefficients, 1955 and 1958 . . . 58
5 Prices Used for Farm Products in Ohio, 1955 ...... 59
6 Prices Used for Farm Products in Ohio, 1958 ...... 60
7 Estimated Costs Per Unit of Livestock Used in Linear Programming, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955 . . . 61
8 Estimated Costs Per Unit of Livestock Used in Linear Programming, Carroll County, Ohio, 1958 . . . 62 t 9 Estimated Annual Crop Costs Per Acre of Grain Rotation Consisting of .5 Corn, .13 Oats, .37 1/Kheat, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-58 61*
10 Estimated Annual Costs Per Acre of Meadow, 2-Cuttings Per Year, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 65
11 Estimated Annual Costs Per Acre of Meadow, 1 Cutting Plus Rotation Pasture, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 65
12 Estimated Annual Costs Per Acre of Meadow Used For Rotation Pasture Only, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 66
iv LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
13 Investments Per Unit of Livestock Adjustments, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955 69
Hi Investments Per Unit of Livestock Adjustments, Carroll County, Ohio, 1958 70
15 Feed Requirements Used Per Unit of Livestock, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 71
16 Changes in Labor Income for 10 Farms, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955 to 1958 82
v LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Principle of Diminishing R e t u r n s ...... 29
2 Illustration of Elasticities of Demand and Supply . 32
3 Constant Rate of Substitution Relationships.... 35
ii Diminishing Rate of Substitution...... 35
5 Complementary and Competing Substitution...... 35
6 Tangency of Outlay and Iso-product Curves at Optimum Production Point...... 39
7 Results From Changes in Factor Prices...... Ill
8 Model; Resource Use 1955 Il3
9 Model; Resource Use 1 9 5 8 ...... U3
vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Illustration Page
1 Matrix for Program, 1955 Actual Prices...... 7h
2 Matrix for Program, 1958 Actual Prices...... 75
3 Optimum Combination and Family Labor Earnings, Actual Prices, 1955...... 76
h Computation of Labor Income, Actual and on the Basis of Linear Program Solution...... 77
vii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In Southeastern Ohio, soils are relatively unproductive, farm labor
frequently is not fully employed, and farm incomes are loir* Soils and
topography limit farmers' opportunities to increase earnings* But with
better management of land, labor and capital many could achieve higher
incomes*
The purpose of this publication is to develop a methodology for measuring the effectiveness of an Extension farm management program and
to use that methodology to test a specific extension farm management method that has been used in the southeastern Ohio area since 1956*
The situation existing at the beginning of this program will be
described* Past programs will be presented next with the development
and description of the present method being studied* Then the method
ology used and results obtained will be set forth in that order*
Situation in Southeast Ohio in 1951* and 1955
The 1951* Census of Agriculture for Ohio shows that the estimated
gross cash income per farm was only $3,016 for 22 southeastern Ohio
counties* Other farm account studies in the year 1951* and 1955 indi
cated that fifty eight cents of every dollar went to pay cash
1 operating expenses* This left an estimated average net farm income in
the area of $1,267* While this figure does not include the monetary value of farm produced foods or housing, neither does it include such
costs as depreciation and interest on investment* The average annual
income per Ohio industrial worker was $U,U36 in that same period*
The average crop acres per farm in these counties was calculated
to be a little more than forty-nine acres per farm* In the late 1920's many of these farms had a total capital investment of less than $10,000
and some of the farms in 1955 had an investment of four to five times
that amount* Machinery investment per crop acre on many of these farms was twice that of farms in other agricultural areas of the state* Ad
justments in farm organization have not been made in accordance with the amount of added labor saving devices, resulting in a disproportion
ate share of gross receipts being used to pay fixed costs*
In searching for reasons for the low incomes in southeastern Ohio many factors were listed as possible contributors* Farms generally
are too small* The capital available per farm is insufficient to pro vide important improvements in technology* Volume of business is not
large enough to efficiently employ available labor* In some cases, the
farm is not suited to the type of agriculture being practiced* In
addition, the families on many of the farms are poorly equipped for
the competitive struggle in agriculture* Lack of training in the field
of farm management and scarcity of opportunities for off-farm employ ment are also limiting factors* 3
Past Extension Farm Management Programs
Past extension farm management programs have recognized the low level of farm management ability which was apparent from the poor com bination of resources* The major method used to oorrect this in past years has been the comparative farm management approach* Farmers records were brought to the Ohio State University and summarized, then grouped by livestock enterprises* The average of the top quartile, the bottom quartile and of the entire group were then computed and set forth with standards and efficiency measures for each group. A compari son type of farm management analysis was then made for each cooperator and economic reasoning applied to explain possible areas of improvement*
It was possible in this manner to locate weak spots in the farm organi zation, except in thos instances where all farms in the group had exactly the same weakness, such as insufficient volume of business*
The average of the top quartile normally established the standards of production and efficiency that were used during the year for teaching purposes.
These summaries were also used for county wide meetings* Farmers were given a prepared summary corresponding to their type of farming and instructed to fill in the blank column for their own organization*
The farm management specialist injected the use of the various economic principles as he presented the average receipts, expenses and produc tion standards*
Other one-night meetings were conducted in conjunction with the above type of training* The topics were normally dictated by the findings in the comparative farm management program just described.
Generally the topics for the evening were "cutting costs," "barnyard
economics," "keeping farm accounts," "general outlook," and other
pertinent topics.
Why Change Past Method
This type of fara management extension program has contributed
materially to the betterment of agriculture in southeastern Ohio over
the past few decades. It has also been in keeping with the stated
objectives prior to 1956, namely*
(1) to acquaint farmers with the various standards of production
necessary to attain a profitable organization.
(2) to teach farmers a method of analyzing current operations
and making adjustments, where needed, in the farming organization.
The past program, however, had some weaknesses which those of us
in extension desired to correct. One of the main objections was the
lack of specialist knowledge concerning the actual problems of the
group being taught. The meetings were for one night only and for a
two hour period. Teaching a subject for one night did not permit the
specialist to become acquainted with individual farmer problems. A
lack of communication resulted in some instances because many thoughts
were injected into each meeting in an attempt to present a cure for all
possible ills of a fara organization.
Because of the large increase in capital investment and the rapid
influx of technology it was apparent that past methods of £xtension farm management training were inadequate* Costs were rising and farm prices were remaining the seme or falling slightly* As a result, fanners were expressing their interest in detailed plans for the indi vidual farms so they could cope successively with the narrow profit margins*
Past methods of teaching farm management had to be altered if the
Extension program were to help the farmer make a detailed plan for his farm organization* Teaching methods were needed that would provide the farmer a means of adjusting his organization in the absence of
Extension personnel* This method must also provide the farmer An opportunity to learn the basic economic principles of organizing a farm for profit if he were to adjust his organization to meet the ever changing economic conditions* The aim of the farm management Exten sion program in 1956 was to make the needed additions to the past program to include this more precise method of teaching* CHAPTER II
A DESCRIPTION OP THE EXTENSION METHOD OF FARM MANAGEMENT AS TAUGHT SINCE 1956
To develop a better program of farm management extension training, the basic philosophy of the OHIO EXTENSION PROGRAM was used. The Ohio
Extension Guide, page 1, sets forth the following concepts for develop ing the various educational programs
A. Purpose of Extension - To help people help themselves in solving their problems, based on their needs and interests. B. An Extension program is a set of clearly defined educa tional objectives derived from a careful analysis of the situation upon which teaching methods are based. Functions, organisation and procedures used by Extension personnel must arrive at educational objectives based on the analysis of peoples' needs and interests. Since peoples' needs and interests are not isolated or segmented but related, Extension must take a unified approach rather than a segmented approach. Special interest objectives, then, become a part of, and con tribute to, the main objectives.
In line with the Extension Guide concepts above, two objectives were added to those of the older farm management program. These were:
(1) to help fanners develop and execute plans of operation
which would more effectively contend with current and future
economic conditions as measured in terms of profit, and
(2) to teach farmers the basic principles and methods of organ
ising and operating farms for profit
6 7
To accomplish these two objectives fen addition had to be made to the existing Extension farm management program. The remainder of this chapter will present a detailed explanation of the foimation of the method used to accomplish them.
The first class to be Instructed was organized in March of 1956, in Carroll County, Ohio. A consulttee of seven people was selected by the county agent to review the possibilities of the program, offer criticisms and help organize the class. This committee was composed of the following representatives! two fanners, one vocational agri culture teacher, one veterans agriculture teacher, one Soil Conservation farm planner, one field representative of the Production Credit Associa tion and one county supervisor of the Farmers' Home Administration. The county agent and the Farm Management specialist explained the proposed program and asked for suggested improvements, of which several were suggested by the various committee members.
Upon acceptance of the program by the committee all members were permitted to suggest possible farmers who would be interested in such a program or who might be in greatest need of such instruction. After the suggested names were recorded, each committee member selected the farmers he would contact. The program was explained to these farm operators and an invitation to participate was extended to than.
Forty-eight farmers registered interest in attending such a
course, but because facilities and personnel were not available to teach such a large group, twenty-four persons were accepted in the
first class. The vocational agriculture department facilities were selected as most appropriate for teaching the group. The date was then set for the first class and a letter forwarded to each person enrolled, again ex plaining some of the purposes of such a class. (See copy of letter,
Appendix A.)
All committee members attended the series of five classes to par ticipate as resource personnel. The formal instruction, however, was conducted by the county agent, the veterans instructor and the Farm
Management Specialist.
The first class recorded an inventory of resources and a couplets record of all receipts and expenses for the previous year. (See copy cf
Section I, Appendix B.) Many of those enrolled had gathered the nec essary information prior to the first meeting as a result of the explanations given by the committee members. As each page of the various resources were recorded explanations were made as to the need for the information. Methods of analyzing present operations were also stressed.
In this first meeting, most of the teaching was directed toward developing an awareness of the various profitable standards of pro duction and the concepts of fixed and variable costs in the farm organization. Lack of an adequate volume of business was found to be one of the major problems of the group. Thus the fixed costs of most of 1he operators accounted for a large portion of the total farm costs.
In the second class, reorganization of the farm business by the budget technique was started. (See Section II Appendix C.) Each farmer 9 was asked to decide what his land use pattern should be* For exanple,
What crop rotation has he decided to use for his future farm operation?
How many acres of each crop will he have as a yearly average? What yield has he decided to try and obtain* These and other agronomic decisions were considered* In all cases* examples were placed on the blackboard to explain the procedure* Each farmer was cautioned to record only those decisions which he believed to be desirable for his own situation* Discussion was provoked from the audience regarding the possible yields on the major soil types in the area. Experiences of success and failure of different practices were brought forth by the farmers themselves and by members of the committee. No effort was made by the instructors to influence the decisions of the farmers* The primary aim in this first class was to teach the farmers a method of testing farm organizations for profit making ability* It was believed that farmers would not be satisfied with a corrected plan unless they tested their present ideas first*
After planning the agronomy program and estimating the total pro duction* the planning of the livestock system was undertaken. The same teaching procedures were used as in the first step* Such items as replacement numbers* feed levels and proportions of forage* grains and supplements were discussed to aid the farmer in reaching a decision of his own*
After all feed requirements had been estimated* they were compared with the planned production of forages and feed grains* In a majority of cases there was a lack of balance in crops produced and feed 10 requirements. At this point alternative means of correcting this Im balance were presented to the group. Such items as, changes in rotation, increased yields, purchase of shortages, changing livestock patterns, etc., were discussed by the instructors.
In. presenting all the various alternatives for correcting the imbalance between crops and livestock, many of the basic farm manage ment principles were used in helping the farmer reach decisions as to changes he should make in his basic plan. Diminishing returns was one of the first principles set forth. Since most of the group followed almost a set pattern of fertilizer and lime application, feeding patterns, etc., regardless of the cost and returns relationship, this principle was probably developed more extensively than any other single concept. Increasing the level of production as long as the added re turn exceeded added cost, and at the same time recognizing capital restrictions, was a main teaching objective in the second class.
Farmers were instructed to make decisions in light of their own par ticular situations. This concluded the second meeting.
The third meeting was scheduled two weeks later to permit the resource personnel to make a farm visit and prepare to discuss changes and corrections to those plans which were discussed in the first meeting. The farm visit also permitted the instructors to become more familiar with each individual farm and to aid those that had diffi culty in completing the desired amount of work on his budget. It was assumed (and later observations verified) that farmers would respond to 11
individual attention and would more freely discuss their problem and
personal difficulties*
Two or three days prior to each meeting, a reminder was mailed to
each farmer setting forth the date, time, place and objectives of the
next session. He was also told what materials he should bring to the
class.
The first portion of the third meeting involved building require ments for all phases of the fara business except the dwelling itself.
The same teaching procedure of examples, discussion, and farmer deci
sions was employed. The second portion of this meeting dealt with the
labor requirements for each of their programs.
In both instances of buildings and labor, the standards which had
been determined by the various research departments at Ohio State
University were presented and discussed. Recommended labor standards were taught and reasons for a range of labor quantities were set forth.
Each farmer estimated the requirements for buildings and labor that would be necessary to carry out his planned farming program. (See
Section II, pages ii and f>, Appendix C.) His present resources were
then compared with the requirements and surpluses or deficits recorded.
After presenting alternative means of correcting Imbalances such as new
construction, changes in housing methods, and additions of labor saving
devices, the farmers were again asked to formulate their own decisions.
The instructors would then help them insert these corrections on the
next fara visit. 12
In this third meeting, as in prior meetings, the instructor used the technique of presenting principles to be used in decision-making after the fanners learned the extent of their shortages* Explanation of factor-factor'relationships received more attention from the group at this point than at anytime previously. Uost of the group were well aware of the many different means of obtaining production, and that capital was substituting more for labor in recent years than pre-world war II days* Few, however, had considered the over-all importance of the principle, as evidenced by the amount of over-mechanization, under stocking, and under-utilization of family labor resources that existed*
Since capital was normally one of the greatest restrictions, much mnphasis was placed on the allocation of funds with the use of the opportunity cost, or equal marginal returns, principle*
The fourth meeting of the group was designed to estimate receipts and expenses for the farmer's proposed plan* This required the use of
Section III of the workbooks (Appendix D)* Teaching procedures were the same as for all previous meetings*
In this phase of the program the method of estimating future prices became one of the primary problems* Historical data of prices for the various commodities were presented* Outlook information, pre pared by the various agricultural economists, was set forth and discussed as it applied to the local area* Instability in agricultural prices was examined, with its possible effects upon different farm organizations, capital positions, and stage of establishment of selected programs* 13
Suggested prices for budgeting were then presented by the Instructors*
These were Intended to allow for normal risk and uncertainty. Here again, the farmers were cautioned to exercise their own judgment and to use all economic information at their disposal in order to adjust their programs from year to year*
The first step in estimating receipts and expenses was to have each farmer reach a decision concerning the level of production he felt he could reasonably attain. What level of milk production per cow?
What weight feeder calves? How many hogs raised per sow? etc. In some
Instances farmer decisions in this area were not in line with budgeted feed requirements, and corrections had to be made to compensate for this change (Section II, Appendix C).
Marginal concepts were again presented at this point and were well received by the class* Data furnished by the animal and dairy science departments were used to explain the adjustments in feed requirements in accordance with desired production levels. Again farmers were urged to maintain a constant vigil on cost-retum relationships in order to maximize income over the long-run period*
Estimates of cash receipts and expenses for each individual pro gram were then made* In the first class, for simplicity of calculations, some of the fixed and variable costs were estimated by increasing them in proportion to the amount of change between the present organization and the planned program* For example, fuel and oil expenses were in creased by 20 per cent over the operator's previous years expense, provided the major changes planned were basicly more intensive than n* extensive in nature* In those cases involving addition of acres, inputs derived from Ohio fara accounts were used for the inputs of fuel and oil, veterinary services, machinery repair and electricity* Taxes and insurance were also derived on a historical basis from the individual farmer's past records plus one-fifth to cover increase in volume and anticipated price increases*
Other variable expenses such as fertilizer, lime, seeds and plants were estimated in terms of the amounts needed to produce the planned yields* (See Section III, page 3 * Appendix D.) Maintenance appli cations only were considered* Preparatory costs of putting the program into operation were left for the last meeting* Basic budgeting costs for feed purchased, breeding fees, machine hire, milk testing etc* were readily available and presented little difficulty in cost estimation*
Refinements in cost estimation have been made since this first class*
After all cash operating expenses were estimated and an estimate made of the necessary depreciation allowance of present buildings and machinery, plus the appropriate percentage of anticipated additions, the planned farm income was derived* It was explained that the farm income so determined represented a return to labor, capital and manage ment* An attempt was made at this point to incorporate the principles of opportunity costs and to have the farmer review his plan in these terms*
In a majority of the cases, farmers were dissatisfied with the planned income* It was evident that many of the plans would need 15
further reorganization to be satisfactory. The instructors then offered
further suggestions on volume of business and efficiency levels neces
sary, as determined by farm account summaries, to obtain various levels
of farm income* Further individual help was offered to aid the farmers
in estimating other alternatives for their farms* The plan at this
stage was to have farmers with unsatisfactory plans come to the exten
sion office during the two-week interval between the fourth and fifth
meeting and replan their farms in an attempt to reach an optimum plan*
At this stage in the program farmers indicated more willingness to
rely upon the judgment of the instructors than at any previous time* It was difficult to decide whether the farmer was really making decisions
in the light of his own knowledge of the restrictions or was drawing
solely upon the decisions of the instructor. In making all changes
extreme care was taken to be sure that the farmer was aware of the
problems inherent in production intensification and in the control of
esq?anded resources which might become available through various credit
arrangements •
The fifth meeting had as its purpose the estimation of the amount
of capital needed to put each farmer's plan into action, and a discus
sion of the merit of allocating a limited capital resource on the basis
of opportunity returns* At the time of this first class no prepared
form was available and farmer decisions were recorded in any form they
desired* Admittedly, this fifth step was the most difficult in the
stages of the method under study* Very limited information was 16 available in a usable form for estimating the costs of soil improve ments j costs of various building structures etc* Rough estimates were made, however, with the promise of later refinement*
Most of these estimates have since been refined and presented to the group* All the various departments contributed to the development of a Farm and Home Development Workbook which contains a method of determining all the various preparatory costs* At present the workbook
(Section IV, Appendix E) is being used to tabulate the transition costs for the various farm organizations*
Notes were kept by the instructors regarding the problems of each individual farmer* Arrangements were made with the group to have addi tional meetings on such problem areas as forage production, engineering problems, and other operational management areas.
Flans were also made to meet with the group yearly to analyze their farm accounts in terms of their improved plans and to help plan adjust ments in the light of changes in economic conditions during the past year* Throughout the entire method, principles of farm management were explained and examples of how they should be observed in the farm ing operations were cited* As in most educational procedures, the elementary concepts were explained first and more detailed concepts were presented as the farmers became more receptive to the overall program of farm management*
After the completion of the five meetings with this first group of farmers, need for better input data was apparent* The problem was presented to the farmers* They were asked to record their experiences 17 of responses to various fertilizer applications, measures of hay yields in terns of bales harvested per cutting, amounts of various feeds used etc* This was of benefit to the farmer and also afforded those working with farm planning a better source from which to check input-output data used for the various localities. Cooperation on the part of the farmers has been excellent.
Yearly meetings have been conducted with this group and subsequent classes have used the same procedure. Farm account analysis, coupled with outlook, credit, and management meetings on such subjects as partial budgeting of opportunity returns, has been the most frequently taught subjects. Agents and members of the other cooperating agencies < have called upon the farmers as individual management problems have risen. Several requests have been for help in setting up partnerships and land contract arrangements. These requests have been an outgrowth of the program. Some of these were by sons who were arranging to add the home farm to their own. In one case two of the class members formed a partnership to avoid high fixed costs of increased investment in dairy equipment and to make more efficient use of their machinery.
From the experiences of this first class, a small circular was prepared and sent to other counties as a means of introducing the procedure (Appendix F).
In the three and one-half years since the introduction of the method, approximately 600 farm plans of this type have been initiated.
Some of them have been completed on an individual basis and others have 18 been conducted by the county personnel with the county agent doing much of the classroom instruction.
Program Evaluation
It is not the author's purpose here to detract from the value of past programs, but a major criticism is their failure to differentiate the dynamic from the static aspects of management. This made it neces sary to cone forth with a more concrete program which would more adequately set forth the economics of change in farm planning.
Another major advantage of this program over the previous methods is the more adequate treatment of individual farm problems because of a longer time spent with a group. General recommendations without adequate appraisal of a fanner's situation can often be more damaging than constructive. The two-hour one-night meetings tend to treat the various farmers in the audience as if they all had the same training and educational level. This, in many cases, limits the number of fanner participants in the meetings. Mary farmers came once and if they were "lost" in the explanations, never bothered to return to later meetings. As a result Extension farm management teaching only reached a select few. This program avoids that criticism by permitting each individual to work out his own problem. Also by having a sufficient lapse of time between meetings for individual assistence if necessary, farmers are kept at the same degree of completion.
The program also has the advantage of permitting a much more de tailed economic presentation. As problems are encountered within the 19 group it permits an explanation on the basis of an actual problem in the local area. This has proven far more successful than using abstract examples or situations drawn from other areas. In addition, farmers become more precise and more complete in their explanation of personal problems. This contributes greatly to the effectiveness of the recoimnendations of the specialists and agents. For example, a farmer will seldom reveal to a group audience that he carries a maximum debt load or that he has various credit problems. This program has experi enced a large degree of success in obtaining complete financial state ments, as well as knowledge of health, education, and other pertinent personal facts.
From the beginning of this program many of the fanners were faced with many difficulties. After selecting their desired alternative, many found they were in need of considerable extra capital if they were to put the plan into action. This required, in some cases, the improve ment of their credit rating, before they could secure adequate capital to finance needed production inputs.
The basic philosophy of the Farm Management Extension method being evaluated definitely is in harmony with the concepts set forth in the
Ohio Extension Guide, People are taught to evaluate their various farm alternatives and to review their problems systematically in order to avoid costly losses in time and profits.
Educational objectives have been clearly defined and set forth.
The fact that these objectives were based on the needs and interests 20
of the people has been substantiated by the attendance* and continued participation* of the residents of the southeastern Ohio area.
The program conforms to the philosophy of a unified approach in
extension. Many agencies other than the Extension Service have con
tributed to its formulation and presentation. Recognition of these
contributions will be noted throughout this writing.
The writer recognizes that a period longer than three years will
be needed for the farmer to correct many of the difficulties encountered,
but the progress of the group* subsequent to the instruction period*
should indicate a certain success which may well be attributable to the
Extension Farm Management technique outlined in this Chapter. CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Numerous publications have been written concerning the profitable
use of farm management in low-income areas. Some of these state the
major problems in these areas and offer possible means of solving them.
Most of the writings deal with a description of the sociological and
economic aspects of the local income areas in Southern United States
and are not pertinent to this study. A few representative works which
touch upon some aspects of this investigation will be briefly sumnarized.
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 832, "Some
Opportunities for Improving Farm Income in Southeastern Ohio"
attributed low income in the area to relatively unproductive soils,
under employed farm labor, topography limitations and to lack of suffi
cient management to realize an adequate farm income. This publication
lists full-time off-farm work with as much farming as can be carried on with the time remaining, as the most profitable alternative for the
operators labor. Linear programming was used to determine the relative
profitability of the various alternatives. The most profitable farm
enterprise was found to be a dairy herd producing grade A milk, however,
hogs and poultry were the more profitable enterprises if the operator
had less than $ 3 0 0 0 available capital. Beef cattle, sheep and grade B
21 22 milk were also considered but did not come into the optimum livestock programs•
Computations in Research Bulletin 332, indicate $12,000 additional capital was required to increase net income $2000 for farms of all sizes*
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Research Circular U5> "Costs of Producing Beef in Southeastern Ohio, 195kt ”presents detailed in formation on the physical inputs and outputs, dollar costs and returns for different systems of beef production* The findings in this research indicate a net loss of $7*17 per hundredweight of beef pro duced in that year* Price per hundredweight of beef sold was $18*00*
From these results we would not expect beef to come into the optimum livestock program in 1955*
Research Bulletin 822, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station,
"Economics of Improving Hill Land for Beef Production," indicates a beef herd can be profitable under certain conditions in Southeastern
Ohio* This research Indicates a minimum of five hundred acres of hill land and selling the young cattle at slaughter weighs averaging 850 pounds* This data was derived by the budget method using an average price of $21**00 per hundredweight for beef* Since beef cattle prices were considerably above this in 1958, the possibility of beef produc tion coming into the most profitable livestock program was considered, and provisions made for it, in the current study* 23
Unpublished studies, by Donald D* Steward^ concez*nlng "Low Income
Problems of Southeastern Ohio's Farmers" shows that 1*0 per cent of the farm families had a negative net cash Income and that cash expenses exceeded cash income from farming in 1956* Less than one-fourth of the families had a net cash farm income of $1000 or more*
Net cash family income, including income from all sources, averaged approximately $2300 for all farm families* Even then 22per cent of the farm families had net cash family incomes of under $1000*
Preliminary findings in this study indicate the size of farm, the scale of operation and the level of management were inadequate to pro vide a satisfactory return from farming on many farms* Underemployment of labor appeared to be the key to the low-income farm problem in
Southeastern Ohio*
The Extension Division of the College of Agriculture and Home
Economics, University of Kentucky published an evaluation of the
Kentucky Farm and Home Development Program, 1951* One of the purposes of this study was to discover how many changes in faxm and home prac tices had been accomplished by the farm families in the program* This program was centered around farm and home planning* Approximately one- half of their 6l sample families had operated under the plan for more than 2 years* The other half had completed one year and a portion of the second year* This evaluation was based upon the amount of changes made by the 61 farm families* An average of 11*1 changes in farming
^Agricultural Economist, FEKD, Agricultural Research Service, U*S*D*A*, and Department of Agricultural Economics, O.A.E.S* 21* practices per farm was reported* No attempt was made to evaluate the program in dollar gains in income* The study indicated, however, that
considerable progress was made in terns of better farm organization*
Many of the states have reported considerable work in Farm and Home planning* Many of their evaluations have been reviewed* Most of them have used a similar type of evaluation as that used in Kentucky*
A report of the North Central Farm Management Extension Committee
entitled, "Farm and Home Planning in The North Central States, October
191*8," presents a condensed report of farm and home planning activities in these states up to that date. Practically all of the
states reported using some type of farm planning* Kansas was one of
the first, starting in 1931*
Ohio reported that farm management and farm unit schools held during the period 1938-1*1 reached 6,378 fanners in more than 60 of the
88 Ohio counties* These were five-session schools involving four different subject matter specialists covering the Farm Business Program
(type and size of business), the cropping program, the livestock pro
gram, the labor, power and machinery program and the farm financial program* F a m planning booklets or separate sheets were used and part
of the sessions were devoted to working up plans for each of the
operators present, however, the aim was not to get formal plans worked
out but to acquaint farmers with the management techniques.
Various other publications list farm management extension programs
somewhat similar to the method presented in the writing, but the author
cannot find a publication dealing with the measurement of the increase In management effectiveness that has taken place other than the observed
effects as they relate to improved practices.
The staff members of the Division of Extension Research and
Training, Federal Extension Service, United States Department of Agri
culture have published a manual entitled, Evaluation in Extension."
It deals with all phases of research in Extension. Methods of measuring
the progress in the various types of Extension program are set forth in
terns of observed behavior change, random sample analysis and the in
formal type evaluation. This publication is very helpful to the
researcher dealing with the effectiveness of any particular Extension program. CHAPTER IV
APPLICABLE THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
Obviously we could not use technical terminology in our discussion with farmer groups but the following concepts and principles were those which were presented to aid the farmers in the maximisation of profit.
These principles were also taught to the agricultural Extension Agents in the cooperating counties. If our method of doing this has been successful some evidence of their use should be forthcoming from this analysis. This chapter will also serve to define technical terminol ogy used in this writing and avoid detailed explanations each time reference is made to one of the economic principles.
Economics deals with choice between alternatives. This presents a problem only as it deals with limited resources which can be used in a variety of ways. A farmer with a given set of resources at his disposal must make a choice concerning the mixture of these various resources in terms of some goal or end he has in mind. The means or method of com bining these resources in terms of his ends is the basic consideration of economics.
Within a given group of farms, there may be as many different ob jectives as there are farmers in the group. Dictating what these ends should be does not come under the scope of economics. It does deal
26 27 with the question of where conflicts between two or more stated ends will arise, or, if given the ends, it will detemine the means of attaining them. It was the intention of the methods herein evaluated
to aid farmers in the selection of the ways and means of attaining
their desired ends and to bring to light any conflicts that might be
encountered in the event of multiple goals. For example, an individual might select one type of enterprise as the only one with which he de
sired to work. This might be due to many different sociological factors, such as neighbor influence or education and training. Another goal might be a high net farm income. The problem then becomes one of
combining available resources into desired enterprises in such a manner
that the desired income can be obtained. This study assumes this to be the primary goal, but modifications are made in the analysis in those
cases where goal conflicts are known to exist.
To define resources in terms of agricultural economics as they will be used in this study, four separate classifications were usedi Land,
Labor, Capital and Management. It has often been argued that land is only a form of capital, but in the Agricultural industry land is such a large item of production that most Agricultural economists have dis tinguished it as a separate factor. This is primarily for convenience in analysis.
Labor will be the amount of human physical effort used in the pro duction of any given commodity. Capital will include all inputs other
than labor, management, and land. In many instances sufficient value of total capital may be present to obtain a desired objective but the 28 existing physical form of such capital may constitute a basic problem.
"Land" will be synonymous with the word "soil." Management will mean the decision making process.
One of the basic principles first encountered deals with the re lationship between the input of a single variable factor, with the quantity of other resources held constant, and the output of a single product. This principle is commonly referred to as the "Law of dimin ishing returns" or the "Law of non-proportional returns." Earl 0. Heatty- in his book entitled "Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource
Use," page 3U* states the principle as the "Law of Returns," which in volves four separate types of returns, namely, constant returns, increasing returns, increasing-diminishing returns and diminishing returns.
Increasing returns would be characterized in Figure 1 by the line
AB. This situation would be encountered as each additional unit of input x added a greater amount of output y than the preceding unit.
For example, if the first pound of fertilizer added, increased the yield of c o m 10 lbs., the second pound of fertilizer increased the yield an additional 12 lbs. etc. Increasing returns would continue to point b, where each additional pound of fertilizer increased the yield by a constant amount (i.e., each pound added produced lit lbs. of com).
This would then be the point of constant returns (B). Points B to C on the line would be the increasing-diminishing returns section. This simply means that each additional increment of input x increases total 29
c
Input x
Figure 1- Principle of Diminishing Returns 30 output, but the increase is smaller than that added by the preceding increment. Points C thru D represent the portion in which diminishing total returns are experienced. Each additional increment of input x lessens the total yield. This could be, for example, due to a toxic effect after a certain quantity of a given input has been added. In our teaching, the term non-proportional returns has been used to indi cate all four of the stages.
The concept of elasticity of demand or of supply of a product or a resource has importance in production decisions. Elasticity of demand or supply is the percentage change in quantity demanded or supplied per 1 per cent change in the price of the commodity.
Elasticity may be either "arc” or “point*" Arc elasticity is an average elasticity for a segment of a demand (or supply) curve, whereas point elasticity refers to a point only on the curve. It should be noted, however, that a point is nothing more than an infinitely small arc. The following fomulas are applicable to the derivation of elasticity.
Arc E = qi- Point E = g • £ Where Q is quantity, P is price, dq is the infinitesimal change in quantity and dP is the infinitesimal change in price. There are five cases of elasticity) perfectly elastic, elastic, unit elasticity, inelastic and perfectly inelastic* These would apply both to demand and supply* A perfectly elastic demand or supply is one in which an infinitesimally small change in price will cause an infinitely large change in the quantity demanded or supplied* An elastic demand or supply is one in which a given change in price will produce disproportionately greater change in quantity* Unit elasticity of demand or supply is found where a given change in price produces equal proportionate change in the amount demanded or supplied* The numerical value of unit elasticity is 1. algebraically it would be in the case of supply and -1 in the case of demand* A relatively inelastic demand or supply is found in the situation where a given change in price produces a less than proportionate change in quantity* The perfectly inelastic demand or supply is one in which a change in price produces an infinitesimally small change in the quantity* In the following Figure 2 if the demand curve segment D and supply curve segment S each have arc elasticity of unity, then D and S represent elastic segments and D 2 and S 2 are inelastic* The same price and quantity scale is used for all the demand and supply curves shown in Figure 2* The importance of elasticity in resource allocation lies in its effects on incomes and its use in the determination of the marginal productivity of the various production factors* Teaching farmers and agents to be aware of the elasticity principles and their effects upon Figure 2* Illustration of Elasticities of Demand and Supply and Demand of Elasticities of Illustration 2* Figure Price Quantity s s s their fara organization has been one of the teaching objectives of the program being evaluated# The entire economic concept of substitution is pertinent to the program of management training. The rapid increase in technology makes this set of resource allocators most important for the farmer who de sires to maximize income# Dr# J. Robert Tcmpkin, Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., in an address entitled "Response of the Farm Production Unit as a Whole to Prices," given at a Joint meeting of the American Farm Economics Association and the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, Winnipeg, Canada, August, 1953, sets forth the following statements which appropriately summarize some of the objectives of the program being evaluated: "Extension economists would perform a real service to Agriculture if they could simplify and present to farmers in practical form, the three basic maximization principles as follows: 1. Product-product relationships— with resources fixed in quantity, the marginal rate of substitution between products should be equal to the inverse ratio of the prices of the competing products# 2* Factor-factor relationships— in the production of a given amount of product, the marginal rate of substitution between factors should be equal to the inverse ratio of the prices of the factors# 3# Factor-product relationships— this simply combines 1 and 2 above to state: the proper combination of products and factors re quires that the marginal rate of substitution of factors be the same as the marginal rate of substitution of the products#" 3k Iten number 3 above is the relationship most often spoken of in extension work and is usually called the input-output relationship by the Farm Management Extension Specialists. It simply relates the optimum amount of yield or product with the optimum quantities of factors of production such as feed, fertilizer, seed, etc. Product-product relationships are involved in decision-making to determine the amounts of several alternative products to produce. Factor-factor relationships deal with determination of proper com binations of production factors to most efficiently produce a given amount of a product. Three important aspects of product substitution are shown graphic ally in Figures 3» b, and assuming a given amount of factors. In these figures it is assumed that a given amount of factors (or total cost of factors) can be used in producing both products A and B. Figure 3 illustrates a constant rate of substitution in which so many units of product B must be given up as units of factor or factors are used to produce so many units of product A. Thus A and B substitute for each other at a constant rate. In Figure 1* products A and B are also competitive since to pro duce a given amount of product A some production of product B must be given up. It will be noted, however, that the products substitute for each other in a diminishing or non-constant rate. If a small amount of product A, O'N1 for example, were produced a very small increment of B would be sacrificed, M'S'. However if 0*1' quantity of product A were Figure 3. Constant Rate of Rate Constant 3. Figure Product B p p - Relationship! Product A Product Substitution Figure 5/ Complementary and Competing and Complementary 5/ Figure RT Product A Product Substitution C" Figure U. Diminishing Rate of Rate Diminishing U. Figure Product A Product Substitution 35 36 produced it would be necessary to sacrifice P'S’ quantity of Product B. The graph illustrates a diminishing rate of substitution. Figure 5 shows a complementary relationship existing between products A and B up to point F, followed by a competitive relationship after that point. Obviously any amount of product A less than 0"C" would result in less of both products as compared with production 0"Cn. As in the preceding paragraph increases in production of A past point F will be accompanied by successively larger decrements of B. It should be noted that factor-product relationships are very often used as if the function were linear. For example, it is often implied that each additional one hundred pounds of fertilizer will add X number bushels of corn. The intent of this program has been to treat this production function as graphically explained in Figure 1 representing non-proportional returns. Another concept which has been used repeatedly throughout this farm management extension method is that of marginal productivity. Marginal productivity was used to refer to the amount added to product by the addition of the last unit of production factor or factors. Under conditions of unlimited resources, profit maximization on a farm takes place when the inputs of each factor are applied to the various enterprises within the firm until the cost of the last unit of factor is equal to the returns from that factor, and the marginal productivities of all factors have been equated. With the ever-changing nature of agriculture it is necessary to continually adjust inputs 37 according to the cost-price relationships existing between factors and products* In all of the teaching situations experienced however, some of the factors of production were limited* Nevertheless, if capital for example, is limited, a farm manager should still strive to equate the marginal productivities of his factors among the various enterprises by the continued application of the opportunity cost principle* This principle simply states that profits will be greatest if each increment of labor, capital, management, or land is used where it will add the most to returns* One more group of curves essential to the present method includes (1) Iso-product curve, (2) Iso-factor curve and (3) Outlay curve* The word "Iso" in (1) and (2) means "equal." An Iso-product curve is a transformation function indicating the rate of substitution of input resources for each other in producing a given amount of product* For example, the production of one ton of wheat may be accomplished with a small amount of labor and a large amount of capital if all the latest machinery were used, or a large amount of labor and a lesser amount of capital if less machinery were used* Iso-factor or Iso-cost curves are lines connecting various pro duct combinations brought forth from the same amount of resources. Outlay curves are really price or cost relationship lines and are usually linear* Iso-factor curves are generally drawn as concave to the original in the agricultural firm* The fact that a slight degree 38 of complementarity between products exists causes this concavity* Diminishing rates of substitution becomes more pronounced as the curve approaches either axis. The straight line outlay curve assumes con stant slope representing a static relationship between factor costs* Determining the optimum combination of resources within the firm can now be accomplished by use of some of the foregoing concepts* It has been explained that the slope of a transformation curve reveals the rate of substitution existing between the competing elements* Where the slope is identical between two substitution functions the rate of substitution existing must be the same* This identical slope occurs at the point of tangency as two curves are moved toward each other* In Figure 6 this point of tangency occurs at point F as outlay curve AB meets iso-product curve CD* In Figure 6 let us assume that the firm produces a certain product and that curve CD is an iso-product curve representing a given amount of output which can be produced from different combination of two (for simplicity) resources* Curve AB is the line representing the in verse ratio of the costs of factors X and Y. Tangency at point P indicates that optimum resource allocation would be achieved with OS of Y and OF of factor %9 subject to change as factor prices change relatively* Movement along curve CD either above or below point P would mean a factor substitution rate different from the cost rela tionship rate as shown by the slope of AB. From this we can see that the marginal productivities of all the existing factors combined are at the optimum at point P. Figure 6. Tangency of Outlay and Iso-product Curves at Curves Iso-product and Outlay of Tangency 6. Figure Factor Y £ B 0 Optimum Production Point Production Optimum Factor X Factor hO It is evident that when the rate of substitution between the pro duct contour and the outlay contour is equal, we have the formula* “£a . JA MFg r Pb Where and MPg are the marginal productivities of factor A and G respectively, and and Pg are the prices of factor Aand factor B. As the factor prices change so will the slope of AB and thelocation of the point of tangency. Assuming a rise in the price of factor B and a drop in the price of A, the following changes would take place in the combination of X and X used. A'B' would be the new outlay curve, P' would be the new point of tangency, and OE' of factor Y and OF* of factor X would be the best use of resources. To determine the optimum allocation of resources on the sample farms under the prices and costs prevailing in 1955 and 1956> Linear Programming was used. Explanations of this procedure and the assump tions involved will be found in Chapter V and VI. 1*1 ou +> u Cx-i A* Factor X Figure 7. Results From Changes in Factor Prices CHAPTER V STAmiEiJT OF PROBLEM, PROCEDURES FOLLOWED AM) AETKCD OF STUDY The specific question we are setting out to answer is: "Is there ■' * any significant increase in labor income on the fanns being studied that can be attributed to the Extension farm management method as inaugu rated?" Were they, in fact, closer to the optimum use of their resources in 1958 than in 1955, the year previous to this training experience? It is necessary to evaluate the progress made by the farmers who have received the training in order to decide whether this « type of training should be continued* If the results are favorable the progress of the other groups trained by this method, as well as those trained by various other means, can be evaluated and steps taken to im prove procedures where evidence of weakness is apparent. The objectives of this research may be listed as follows: (1) To test the Extension method of farm management training as described in Chapter II, for its effectiveness in increasing the labor income of famer participants (2) To develop a methodology for testing the effectiveness of all Extension farm management methods which have similar objec tives as the method being studied. The model for this study with the appropriate hypothesis can be set forth as shown in Figures 8 and 9. hZ MC -H Quantity Produced Figure 8. Resource Use 1955 a 1 Quantity Produced Figure 9. Resource Use 1958 If q = the optimum position of the farmer in 1955 'with a given set of resources, q' = his optimum position in 1958, a = his actual posi tion in 1955, and a* = his actual position in 1958, the hypothesis would then be that < — 'A* . oq ^ oTqr The assumption could also be made that the farmer might be opera ting to the right of point q and q', but this does not alter our original hypothesis that the distance between his actual point of operation and the optimum solution was greater in 1955 than in 1958, It should be recognized that a determination of the farmer's actual labor income position by standard farm accounting procedures may not represent a true measure of actual labor income in 1958 if this extension program has initiated a number of organization changes on the individual farms. There will be, in some cases, a disproportipnate increase in expenses during the three year period accompanying the increase in gross income. This is due to fulfillment of recommended changes necessary to carry out proposed organizational plans. These expenses would be incurred only once and at the beginning of the re organization period. This would tend to lower the observed labor income in 1958 and thus insure a minimum, rather *than maximum, increase in labor income in 1958 over 1955* This would mean that the benefits of the training program will be expressed conservatively* Farm Selection and Collection of Data All fanns in this study are from Carroll County, Ohio. This area was selected because the first class of this type was initiated there in January of 1956* Many changes and refinements have been made in the methods and materials used since that date but the basic concepts and intentions of the program have changed very little* This area was chosen also because a longer time span could be measured on these farms than on any other group in the Southeastern Ohio area. The author recognizes that many needed changes cannot be made in the short period of three years* It is not the purpose of this study to judge success or failure on the basis of the complete attainment of an optimum use of resources but rather on the relatively nearness to the optimum situa tion in the base year of 1955 and at the end of the three year training period. The original intent of the author in collecting data for ttiis study was to use all of the original twenty-four class members* In fact data was collected from twenty of the group* It soon became apparent that the cost of processing twenty farms, each requiring two computations with IBM equipment, would be too great relative to the amount of added reliability of the last few farms added. It was felt that the 12 farms with the most complete and accurate data would pro vide better information than the entire group of 20 farms. If there were no evidence that progress had been made by one half of the original group, or that the methodology employed could not be used, a larger sample would add very little to the findings. The twelve farms used in this study were selected on the basis of completeness of data* Eighteen of the twenty farms could produce com plete farm records for 1958, but only twelve had complete records for Ii6 the year 1955. Consequently, the 12 farms used were those with complete data for the base year of 1955 as well as adequate 1958 data* The farms selected are representative of the twenty four original class members. Using 1955 as the base year, the selected farms range in size from 32.5 to 180 crop acres. Available capital per selected farm ranged from $2,11*6 to $11*, 61*9 1955* These limits would not change if all twenty-four farms were included. This wide range in size will also afford an opportunity to see possible results in relation to size as well as other factors. Data for this study w&J^ collected in the summer of 1959 by the author with the help of the county agent and veterans agricultural instructor who originally participated in setting up and teaching the class. Cooperation was excellent in all cases. Farmers were first sent a letter explaining that an analysis of the farms would be made and data sheets forwarded to them very soon. Then each cooperator was mailed the forms with a letter of explanation in order that records would be assembled in advance of our visits and reduce the amount of interview time necessary. In all cases, the agent had kept on file a copy of their original Section I inventory book from which we could record in advance part of the desired information. The farmers in this study were visited in July and August of 1959* and the necessary data collected and recorded on a prepared form (Appendix G). Each farmer presented us with his account books for both years, plus his income tax reports, personal tax forms and all tax duplicates. The agent and myself then recorded from these records as much of the information as possible, then upon returning the books to the farm, gathered any missing information, regarding labor, acceptable alternatives, and various other personal data. Very few items in the selected farms were based on memory except quantities sold in some cases. On the twelve faras selected for this study at least 95 per cent of the infomation was frcm actual records, including quantities sold. The author believes that the willingness to cooperate so fully is also an indication of acceptance of such a program as we have outlined here. Standard of Comparison Used To evaluate properly the production changes made by this sample group of faraers, a standard of comparison was necessary. First it was essential to isolate any increase in labor income that might be due to resource accumulation over the three year period. Also, prices for the various products had changed over the three year peiiod and increases in income due to this feature had to be eliminated in order to obtain the increase in income attributable to more effective management. To accomplish this and to set the standard for measuring the increases in labor income attributable to more effective management, linear pro gramming^ was used in the following manner. -*-For a detailed explanation of Linear Programming Procedure see Charnes, A,, Cooper, W. N., and Henderson, John A., An Introduction to Linear Programming, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1953* Two linear programs solutions were computed for each fam, assuming a constant management level. (All assumptions are presented in the following chapter). One solution was based on available resources in 1955, the other on available resources in 1958. The increase in income attributable to changes in all variables except management, was isolated by deducting the 1955 linear program solution from the 1958 solution. Actual prices prevailing in each year were applied to the linear program production assumptions to eliminate the effects of price changes. In this manner price changes, both in terms of receipts and expenses would be reflected in the linear program solution and ultimately be de ducted from the fanners increase in labor income. Next, the fanoers actual gain in labor income was calculated and from this figure was deducted all gains due to change in all factors except management. The residual would be the increase in labor income attributable to increased management effectiveness. The linear program solutions actually represent a foim of budget ing, but by using the linear programming method it is possible to select the ideal combination of resources within the limits of the stated assumptions. If another method were used that would not obtain this ideal, that portion of the labor income assignable to resource accumulation and price changes might be less accurately determined. CHAPTER VI ASSUMPTIONS AND COEFFICIENTS USED TO DETERMINE OPTIMUM COMBINATION OP RESOURCES BY LINEAr PROGRAMMING PROCEDURE Land Use On most of the observed farms in Carroll County an approximation of a U year rotation was in use. Due to field size variation and to erosion problems it is seldom possible to follow a rotation which pro vides an equal acreage of a particular crop from year to year. Some of the farms were using a corn-oats-wheat-meadow-meadow-meadow rotation in order to eliminate fencing problems with rotation grazing. Soil capabilities on the majority of the farms indicate the use of a four year rotation of corn, small grain and two years of meadow as satisfactory to control erosion and to maintain soil productivity. To determine the optimum allocation of resources on these farms the four year rotation was assumed in all cases. The word "optimum" refers to the maximum profit combination obtainable with the assumed amounts of resources available. Two of the farms rented additional land on a $0-50 crop-share basis. Others had land rented on a cash basis. In these cases, the entire re sources, both owned and rented, either on a crop share basis or cash rent, were included in the study. Adjustments of the optimum income to these resources were made by deducting the amount of fixed costs on the h9 50 rented acreage after the optimum had been determined. In the case of crop share rent, a cash value was assigned to the landlords share in order to assure to the resources their total production. The sale value of the rental half-share was used as a fixed cost to the operator. Both a grain rotation column and a meadow rotation were set up in the matrix (Illustrations 1 and 2). This does not alter the assumption of a four year farm rotation since one-half of the cropland was used for grain production and one-half for forage production. The reason for establishing two rotations in such a manner was to r>eimit flexibility of meadow use for hay or pasture according to forage needs. In the case of many small farms, pasture could become limiting before labor and other resources had been used up in the most profitable enterprise, if that enterprise happened to be a large forage consumer. By permitting the meadow land to be used as either hay or pasture it does not eliminate the possibility of pasturing an entire farm and buying all of the hay required if that happened to be the most profitable method of operation. The assumption was made that additional pasture land could not be rented, but that hay could be purchased. This latter assumption was based on results found in a survey of farmer opinions in the Southeast Ohio area and reported by Research Bulletin 832, March 19$9> an Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station publication by Russell 0* Olsen. The survey indicated only twelve per cent of the fanners interviewed stated that improved permanent pasture could be rented. This also coincides with the observations of the writer* 51 The following crop yields were used for both years in deteimining the optimum combination of resources for each individual farm* corn 65 bushels per acre, wheat 25 bushels per acre and oats 55 bushels per acre. Although oats are not as profitable a crop as wheat in the major ity of cases, some oats were necessary because wheat allotments re stricted the wheat acreage to approximately 37 per cent of the grain land. Hay yields, two cuttings per year, 2.8 tons per acre, one cutting, 1.9 tons per acre with 2? animal unit grazing days credited to July rotation pasture. Yields of permanent improved pasture and rotation pasture were based on data in the following publications: Dodd, D. R., Good Pasture, Ohio Extension Bulletin No. 3^5* August 1 951i, and J. H. Sitterley, Rates of Feed Consumption by Livestock, Ohio Extension Bulletin No. 308, January 1958. To maintain the preceding yields annual treatments of fertilizer and lime were used as follows: Corn and wheat fertilized at the rate of 300 lb. per acre of 5-20-20, oats 200 lb* per acre, and meadow at the rate of 200 lb. per acre of 0-20-20 on second year only. Permanent pastures would receive 500 to 600 lbs. every 3 years of an 0-20-0 or its equivalent. Lime would be applied at the rate of one ton per acre every four years. Recommended seeding rates and mixture for the Carroll Co. area were used in all cases. Labor supply for each individual fara was calculated using the data set forth in Table 1. April, June and October were found to be the peak labor requirement periods corresponding to the spring planting, 52 hay making and fall harvest periods. To calculate available labor supply on each farta the hours for each worker on the farm were used ftorn Table 1 and added together for each restricting month* In those cases where an elderly father was present as a co-operator, the opera tor was asked to determine the amount of labor contributed by the father and this was added to operators available labor in each re stricting month* Table 1 Assumed Hours of Labor Available by Operator and Family Members, By Months, Southeastern Ohio, 1955 and 1958* Uonth^ Operator Wife Children January 239 15 70 February 220 10 60 March 2U3 15 67 April 290 30 70 May 297 25 77 June 286 30 22k July 297 25 232 August 297 25 231 September 290 25 98 October 297 30 82 November 230 15 70 December 2U3 15 87 Total 3229 260 1368 1This data assumes 9 working hours per day Monday thru Friday in November to March and 11 hours per day during the simmer months* Saturday 7 hours during summer, $ hours during winter for Saturday Sunday and holidays* Allowance was made by month for the holidays of New Years, July U* Thanksgiving and Christmas. The hours of labor contributed by the wife was determined in the following manner* In collecting the data from the various farms each 53 operator and his wife were asked to estimate the number of hours per day she contributed to the farming operation* The total hours contri buted per year were then calculated and converted to months of labor by dividing by 269 hours which is the assumed average monthly working hours of the operator for 26 working days and it Sundays* The hours for the wife in Table 1 represent a one month basis* The reader will note the distribution of the wife's labor is highest during the summer months* This distribution was based on the assumption that she would contribute more outside work during the peak labor season than during the winter months when the operators labor was often in surplus of that required* In the case of school children twelve years old and over, the hours were determined on the school year basis for the Carroll Co. area* In all cases hours available per farm were adjusted downward from these figures if the operator reported some restricting influence con cerning the individuals involved. In deriving the linear programming solutions "available capital" was considered to consist of value of feed and livestock already on the fara minus any interest and principal payments to be paid on these items during the year plus 70 per cent of expected gross cash receipts for the coming production year minus total farm cash outlay minus six hundred dollars per family member* In this manner we permitted the fanner some reinvestment capital from receipts rather than assume only beginning owned chattel assets as the total available capital. Six hundred dollars were deducted per family member to cover cash family living 5U costs. Much of the food and housing needs were furnished by the farm so this amount was considered sufficient. In addition to the above capital a fund for building possible addi tional housing was established by providing the opportunity to mortgage real estate up to twenty-five per cent of the market price of each farm. This twenty-five per cent of market price was considered to be a conserv ative figure which would not place the operator in too great a risk bearing position. In those cases where the existing real estate mort gage already exceeded this amount, this alternative was not made available. In all cases provision was made to build housing from the farmers available capital, if it were profitable to do so, before mortgaging real estate for construction funds. One of the first steps in linear programming was to determine net income, feed requirement, monthly labor requirement, housing, and the amount of capital required for each activity considered. Net incane for each unit of the various activities was needed to determine the profitability of combining different crop and livestock programs. Monthly labor requirements were necessary to evaluate adequacy of labor supply. Capital requirements had to be computed for each activity because expansion of the various activities often depended upon the amount of additional capital available on each farm. Gross receipts, costs, net income, amount of labor needed in April, June and October, and capital requirements for each activity are shown in Tables 2 and 3 for years 1955 and 1958* TABLE 2 NCI RECEIPTS, Amorrt OF LABOR ARB CAPITAL USEB, PER UBIT, 8» Sp e c if ie s A C TttITIE1 1* L IBCAB PROBRAMHIRB, CARR D ll COBBTY, 0BI8, 1965 6ROBI 9 NET APRIL JSBE OCTOBER Ca p it a l 9 ACT H I TV UNIT Receipts COOT* INCOME Labor Labor Labor NEEBCB Neeocb Neebsb NfCBEO HOB RE MOBR « HOORS D iM r herb 4 Cow $388*08 $126.85 $271*23 10.5 6*2 T*6 $669*66 HORS, 2 LITTER5 Sow 427.86 178.34 251*32 7.09 3*29 6.68 281*31 H M t, SPRIRC LITTER OR IT 5 Sow 238*83 110.13 128.70 7.09 3*28 1.27 230*86 KM«.,FA1L UTTER O .IT 5 Sow 183.13 106.86 86*17 1.27 1*27 6*68 227.00 runt p»«e Saw 145*15 78.66 66.48 4 .62 5*61 4*61 2)0 *09 Beef HERB No* l ' Cow 84*13 30*11 53.32 5 .2 1.2 .8 264*90 BEEF M l** NO* 2 Cow 133.63 52*84 60*68 5 .7 1 *6 3 .3 334*24 Porltrt NIB 5,98 4*J2 1*86 .18 .14 .14 6.19 6**1* ROT*TM*8 Acre 0 . 27.61 -2 8 .3 0 .91 .76 1.67 27.61 M t t llW U II, 2 CBTTIROS ACM 0 * 26.63 -27 *50 0 . 4 . 0 . 26.83 MEABCWtARB I e m i i i 111 ACHE 6 . 20.18 -20 *65 0 . 4 . 0 . 20.19 MtAIOWLARB, NOTATION PAITIH OBIT ACRE 0 . 8.62 - 8*64 0 . 0 . 0 * 8*62 AC *( 0 . 4*63 - 4 .96 0 . 0 . 0 . 4*63 BO* 0 . 1*36 - 1*39 0* 0 . 0 . 1.36 OAT* PVtCHAttO B»* 0 . .73 - .75 0 . 0 . 0* .73 HAY PRRCRASEf TOO 0 . 18.00 -1 8 .4 5 0 . 0 . 0 . 18.00 (S TM FBI LOW)BC TABLE) Tail* 3 NET RECi 1 PTE., Amoidt of Laioa AID CAPITAL USED, PER UNIT, BY Sp e c if ie d a c t m it ie d 1* LIDEAR PROSRAHfltlG, CARROU CODRTT, OHO, 1658 3 * ODD NET a f i i i J i n October CAPITAl 2 ACT IIIT T UR 1T RECE IPTI C o in 1RCCMC Labor LABOR Labor NEEDED NEEDED NfEDED NEEDED HOURS Hours HOUR* O A llr HEAD4 COW 7427.13 * m . i e 8 2 9 6.6 7 1C .5 8*2 7.6 (6 2 8 .5 2 HOtS, 2 LITTER^ Sow 547.90 139.61 358.29 7 .09 3 .2 9 6 .6 8 3 24 .5 9 Hods, Sp m i & Litted O u r® Sow 308.93 117.08 191 .85 7.09 3 .2 9 1 .27 2 TI *23 Hot*, FAll LITTCI 0 » lv 5 Sow 243,83 116.63 127.20 1.2? 1 .27 6 .6 8 2 6 6 .9 4 Feeder P i* » tj Sow 21 l .3 9 84.93 126,46 4 .8 ? 5.61 4.61 2 5 1.3 7 BEEF HERD NO, 1 Cow 120.01 33.91 86.10 5 .2 1.2 .8 2 8 8 .9 3 BEEF HERD NO, 2® Cow 191.61 58.31 133.30 5 .7 1.6 3*3 4 0 0 .0 7 Poult* t HCI 5 .3 2 4 .1 2 1.20 .IS.H .14 5 . IS 9 * A11 ROTATICI9 ACRE 0 . 27.61 -2 8 .3 0 *81 .76 1.67 27.61 rC AIM , 2 C *TTII**1C1 Acn* r>. 2 6 .8 3 -2 7 .5 0 0 . 4 . C. 2 0 .83 MEADOW, 1 CUTVIRD10 ACRE 0 . 20 ,13 -2 0 .6 5 0 . 4 . 0 . 2 0 .16 MEADOW, ROTAT t*D PASTURE 0*LV Acre 0. 8.62 - 8.84 0 . 0 , f . 8 .6 2 IHPROVEO PARTDIE Acre 0 . 4 ,8 3 - * . 8 5 0 . 0 . 0t 4 .8 3 COR* PlRCIASER B u . 0 . 1.13 - 1.21 0 . 0 . 0 1 .18 GATE PURCHASED 8 * . 0 . .69 - .71 0 . 0 , 0 - ,69 HAr PUICMADEC TO* 0 , 20.00 -2 0 .5 0 0 . 0 . 0 20 ,00 E x c u r c ir e fixed lams aid d u il o iis c o i n , ddt iiciutiit cash e x p ir s is , irterebt oa invest- MfRT, *10 EQOIPHEIT DEP*ECt*Tftl. t h is iic l l r e s iivebtmeht valre or the p*oc*crivr tin p h i cash opei IT l i f t IICLIOES ttVESTHEIT I I tm STCrCI REPLACEMENT* AID EOUIPMMT, |T EXClDDE t RlP*ECIATICR COST AID IDTIREIT CNARCEt 01 HYCSTMCRT. 4 MU* SOLD as Grade A . ®MO«S SOLO AT 2 |5 POUR68 EACH. 6 d ID5 BOLD AT 35 PCBNOS. 7e t t r NERD No. 1 - CAITES dole a* 45C PODID FEEDERS . ®BEIF NERD N o. 2 - Ca lv es pattered to SI A lt IT 11 WEIDRT AVERAttNS PC* averade c r a i i acrcade of 48.71 ACRES FDR THE TWELVE All POTERTtAL tlAIIU ID I* fAIMED, F|«IIU 101 (ACM IM tV lD D Al fAIM VAIIID BECAUSE OF VARIATION I* MACHINERY CRARDE AID t lT I H I T 01 IIVEBTHEIT I t l A T t l t TO DBA II ACREADE. &RAII ROTATICB ASIWiEO, 50 PC* CUT COII, 37 PEI c e il WHEAT, 13 If* CUT OAT t. t 0 n « « * I * ro* AVERAtl MEADOW ACItADt OP 48*71 ACICD FOB T il TWELVE FARMS USED, AISIM|t« AH MEADOW ACItADt DIED, DIFFERENCES ID CODTD DCTVCCI T PE THIIC A L T !II*T1*E DIED Of ME ADDWlAlD DTEMD FIOM D|FFCIIIC CD ID OPERATIDD CODTI AID TAIIATICI ID MACNIIIDT A lt IDTCIEDT 01 IITtDTMEHT CH A teit, MACllDElT AID IDTt *E 6T 01 IIVfSTMEIT CIAICC* VARIED PEI FARM ACCO*DID« TC IIM tE I OF MEADOW ACRED. 57 Net inccme for the various activities was computed by subtracting costs from gross receipts* Gross receipts for each unit of livestock were calculated by multiplying physical production by actual prices existing in the years 1955 and 1958. Physical production assumptions were set at levels of reasonably good manager!ent• The standards used were those that have been established by the upper one-half of those farmers from Southeastern Ohio who have sent records to the Ohio State University for summarization* Actual prices of the commodities were used for those periods in which the physical production would have been sold if the farmer were to use either of the various activities beginning the first of each year, 1955 and 1958* Physical production, prices and costs used in the calculations of net income for each activity are shown in Tables i;, 6, 7, and 8 for years 1955 and 1958* Fixed costs such as real estate taxes, regular building and machinery depreciation, interest on investment in regular machinery and building, insurance on machinery and improvements, and fixed capital, are not included in the individual enterprise costs* These fixed costs were not considered in determining the optimum combination of resources but were later deducted in determining the final labor income figure for each farm solution* 58 Table 1* Production Assumption Per Unit of Livestock Used for Linear Programming Coefficients, 1955 and 1958 Produc- Dairy Sow Sow Sow Sew beef Beef tion^- Unit Cow (2-Litter) (Spring (Fall (Feeder Cow Cow Hen for Grade Litter) Litter) Pigs) and (Finished Sale A Calf Beef) Llilk Lb. 9500 --- —------ Veal Lb. 90 ------ Cull Cow Lb. 250 170 170 -- Feeder Calf Lb. -- --- — -- 338 — Fat Cattle Lb. —— ------— -- 683 ___ Hogs Lb. -- 2881 138-; 133d 1*69 -- — -- Cull Sow Lb. -- 200 200 200 200 ___ --- — Cull Hen Dol. ------• 1*0 12 Eggs Dol. ------— -- 3-.81 ^-Gross receipts from this production for 1955 and 1958 - See Table 1*. io Eggs sold per beginning inventory hen. 59 Table 5 Prices Used for F a n Products in Ohio, 1955 Comnodlty Unit Purchase Price Selling Price Per Unit Per Unit Corn Bu. *1.36 *1.21* Oats Bu. .73 .66 Wheat Bu. --- 1.91 Hay Ton 18.00 15.00 Milk (Net) Cart. --- 3.80 Sows Cart. --- 10.00 Market Hogs (2-Litter) Cut. --- lii.15 Market Hogs (1-Litter Spring) Cut. --- 15.80 Market Hogs (1-Litter Fall) Cart. -- 12.50 Feeder Pigs Each -- 9.31* Cull Coes, Dairy Cart. --- 11.00 Cull Coes, Beef Cart. -- 12.00 Beef for Slaughter Cirt. --- 17.25 Beef Feeder Calves Cirt. --- 19.00 Dairy Teal Calves Each --- 20.00 Cull Hens Lb. --- .13 Eggs Dos. --- .37 60 Table 6 Prices Used for Farm Products in Ohio, 1958 Conmodity Unit Purchase Price Selling Price Per Unit Per Unit C o m Bu* *1.19 *1.07 Oats Bu* • 69 .63 Wheat Bu* --- 1.63 Hay Ton 20*00 16.00 Milk (Net) Cirt* --- U. 00 Sows Cirt* --- 12*50 Market Hogs (2-Litter) Cirt* --- 18.50 Market Hogs (1-Litter Spring) Cirt* -- 20.50 Market Hogs (1-Litter Fall) Cirt* -- 15.80 Feeder Figs Each -- 13-91 Cull Cows, Daily Cwt. -- 1U.00 Cull Coirs, Beef Cirt* -- 15.00 Beef for Slaughter Cwt* -- 25.25 Beef Feeder Calves Cirt* --- 28.15 Dairy Teal Calves Each --- 26*00 Cull Hens Lb. --- .13 Eggs Dos* --- .326 TAllt 7 Estimated Co*T* PI* U*IT or LlvttTOc* use* n Linear Programming, Carroll Codnty, Ohio, 1955 I tem DAIfy Sow Sow Sou Sow BEEF BEEF C« t PI* jNtT Cow (2- L i t t e r s ) (Sprins ( fall (feeder COW COW15 HER Lit t e r ) __LITTEr ) p u s ) . fee* g r im i n g an* m u m s 7.32 27.16 15 *02 15*98 4.38 .42 3.80 .03 Protein Snpplemert 25.96 58*00 33,01 35.96 10.76 1.35 12.96 2.70 PWICRANID F i l l ANN MINERAL 4.28 3.66 2.26 2.26 .86 .93 1.33 .04 IP BED* INN 9.00 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 4.00 7,40 .09 VETERINARY AND MEDICINE 5.00 2 *00 1 *00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 .03 BREEDING FEES 6.75 1 .56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.00 1.00 .00 INSNRARCE AND TAXIS E.92 4.68 J*01 4.69 2,84 3.33 4.56 .05 Repairs to Equipment ’6 3.00 7.36 5.33 4.56 6.75 .00 .00 .02 IE CLEANING SUPPLIES 2.50 0 . 0 . 0 . o . .00 .00 .0 ELECTRICITY*6 8.00 2.86 2.88 0 . 2.68 .00 .00 .03 MISCELLANEOUS*7 4.23 32.95 1 8*0 ? 17.69 16.71 3.58 1.70 .35 Equipment Depreciation 18 15.40 21.99 16.50 11.91 17.42 1.50 1. 5C .52 1 9 I nterest 28.47 M .07 1 1.54 11.35 10.50 12.70 16.69 .26 total 126.85 1 76.34 110.13 ICG. 96 78.66 30.81 52.94 4.12 (See Fogtrotis at t i e or the followirc t a i l e ) TABLE I Estimates costs pis 0«it or litistock Uses is List** Piosramhirs, Ca broil Cosntv , Os IS, |M 8 ITIM DAIRY S w Sow Sow SOU BEEf 9EEF Cost Per Ubit cow13 (2-Litters) (Spriro (Fall (FECSER Cow1 Cow'5 HER Litter) Litter) Pits) Feed GRtseise aro MIsibs 7,32 27.18 15.22 15.98 4.38 .42 3.80 •03 PiOTEIS SSPPLEMERT 25.50 94.45 36.45 39.95 11.95 1.35 12.96 2.70 PRRCRASEO FEES ARC KlSERAi 4.34 3.66 2.26 2.26 .86 .93 1.33 .04 eiosiss'8 9.00 J > •0 • 0 .0 4.00 7.40 .09 VETCRIBART ABO MCOICIHC 5.00 2 J )Q 1 .00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 .03 Breebibs Fees 6.75 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 1.00 1 .00 .00 10.02 6.78 4.02 6.68 3.92 4.43 6.36 .05 REPAIRS TO EORIPNEHT** 3.00 7.99 4.78 4.62 6.71 .0 •0 Clearirs Srppliis'9 2.50 .0 j a •0 .0 •0 .0 •0 i c ELLCTIICtTr 8.00 2.R8 2,88 .0 2.88 .0 .0 .03 MISCELLAREORS17 2.99 32.99 13 J32 17.69 18.71 3.83 1.95 .35 EQRIPMEHT OCPRECIATIOH19 15,40 23.19 16.56 12.77 18.62 IJ5C 1.50 .52 Iaterest'* 31.48 16.23 13.56 13.35 12.57 14.45 20.01 .26 total 131.16 139.61 1 1 7*08 116.63 84.93 33.91 58.31 4.12 ,3S**SI A MILS. ,4C*LTES t i l SOLO TSC FIRST FILL At 480 FOSRB F t l t l t '*0*1018 «IC III OTIS MISTCR MS SOLS AS CSOICI CATTlt S IIIIIH 900 POISSS la TSC SICOSS SOMMER. '®TRE COSTS OEVELOPEO FROM RESEARCH 8SLLCTIB 9 3 2 , *SOME OPPORTBO IT IIS FOR iHPROTIRS FARM ISCOMI IS SOOTSIASTIRS 0 *1 0 4 »T ROSSILL 0 * OLSCR, 0 *1 0 ASRICSLTSRAL EtPCRINERT STATI OR, WOOSTfR, 0 * 1 0 . I VllSCILLABEOOS CHASSIS FOR FALL LITTIR ARf RISHER BECAUSE OF TSC SLIOHTLT IRCREAIER HACSIRCRT CRARSCS IB RABLIBS FCCO ABO TRACTOR 0 8 1 . >a0 * SPECIAL COBIPHCBT O S tY . ,90- IRVCSTMEHT IB IIVISTOCI ASS SPECIAL IOSIFMEBT. 63 The net income from all crops produced (See Cj line, Illustrations 1 and 2) is listed as a negative value. Crops returns are reflected in the value of the livestock eating the crops and in the sales of grain and hay. This negative incane represents the cost of production of the indicated unit plus interest on investment for one turnover period of six months. The reader will observe in Illustrations 1 and 2 that columns P261 ^27* an<* P28 represent three different alternative uses of meadow land, namely two-cuttings of hay, one cutting hay and July rotation pasture, and rotation pasture only. As previously explained, this was done in order to permit the use of meadcrwland in the most profitable manner. Obviously, each of these rotations would have a different cost due to the variance in machinery use, fuel and oil and other variable costs. Based upon findings by our own department and the Ohio State University engineering department many of the farms in the group could not profitably own balers, c o m pickers and combines. In view of this, machine hire was charged by custom rates for the Carroll County, Ohio area. Machinery repairs constitute the entire portion of machinery charge in Tables 9t 10, 11, and 12. This charge was based only on the equipment necessary for the grain or meadow alternative under considera tion. No depreciation, interest or taxes on machinery is listed because they are later subtracted from the optimum income as a fixed cost. For an itemized list of all costs used in grain and forage production, see Tables 9* 10, 11, and 12. The reader will observe in Illustration 1 61* and 2, that a slight difference exists between capital draw and net income* This difference is due to interest on investment included in net income but not in capital draw* Table 9 Estimated Annual Crop Costs Per Acre of Grain Rotation Consisting of *5 Corn, *13 Oats, *37 Wheat, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-58 Item Cost Seed $ 2*57 Fertilizer 10.52 Lime 1*1*1 Weed Spray 1.00 Fuel and Oil 2.1*5 i-'achinery Charge 3.30 Machine Hire 6.00 Insurance on Stored Crops .0? to Taxes on Corn and Hay • Electricity^ .02 Interest .6 9 Total $28 *30 20Based on Research Bulletin 832* Russell 0* Olsen, "Some Oppor tunities for Improving Farm Income in Southeastern Ohio," March 1959, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio 65 Table 10 Estimated Annual Costs Per Acre of Meadow, 2-Cuttings Per Year, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-1958 Item Cost Seed 3 2.76 Fertilizer 1. JU7 Lime 1.1a Spray 1.00 Fuel and Oil 2.65 Machine Hire m .30 Insurance on Stored Hay .lii Taxes on Hay January 1 .31 Machinery Charge 2.73 Interest .67 Total $27. Ui Table 11 Estimated Annual Costs Per Acre of Meadow, 1 Cutting Plus Rotation Pasture, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-1958 Item Cost Seed, Fertilizer, Lime and Spray $ 6»6h Fuel and Oil 1.39 Machine Hire 9.10 Insurance .11 Taxes, January 1 .19 Machinery Charge 2.73 Interest .50 Total 20.66 Table 12 Estimated Annual Costs Per Acre of Meadow Used For Rotation 21 Pasture Only, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955-1958 Item Cost Seed, Fertilizer, Lime and Spray $ 6.61* Fuel and Oil .50 Machinery Charge 1.85 Interest .22 Total 9.21 ^The costs in Tables 10, 11, and 12 are shewn here on the basis of the average number of meadow acres for the twelve farms studied. These costs varied for each individual fara dependent upon the number of meadow acres over which the total machinery costs were spread. It was assumed that none of the farms were large enough to require more than one set of equipment. Interest on investment also varied in accordance with machinery costs. Only one system of milk production was considered, that of Grade A milk* It has been the experience of the writer that manufactured milk production does not present as favorable a profit-making alternative as Grade A milk because of the price per hundredweight difference of one dollar or more in most years. Two systems of beef production were considered. One was selling feeder calves the first fall at weights averaginr U50 lbs. The other was feeding the calves over winter and selling as finished beef at 900 lbs* per animal. Four systems of hog production were considered: The two litter system farrowing in March and September; spring hogs only, farrowing in March; fall hogs only, farrowing in September; and a multiple farrowing system of raising feeder pigs to 3$ lbs,, with the sows farrowing in March, June, September and Decanber, Pricing assumptions were based on actual market data gathered by C, C, Bowen, Extension Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University, The assumptions are as follows: The price per pound of feeder pig will be twice the price of one pound of finished pork when fat hogs are selling for 517*00 per hundredweight and up. As the price drops below ;;17«00, the price per pound of feeder pig will be 1,75 times the price of one pound of finished pork. Gross income from poultry was based on a flock producing an average of 181 eggs for sale per opening inventory hen. Egg prices used were actual prices received during the marketing period being studied. Off-farm work was recognized as probably being the most profitable alternative for many of the farm operators but it was used only in those cases where it was acceptable to the operator. Only four of the farmers would consider full-time off-farm work as an acceptable alternative. Two of the farmers did have some part time work available to them because of special skills or training. These were entered with a PD value of 1320 hours representing one-half time off-farm employment, travel included. The hourly return per farmer was computed in terms of his skill or capabilities. For example, one operator was a trained auctioneer and also had a license to sell real estate. The return used in his case represented a wage based upon his previous experiences. 68 Tables 13 and ll* list the capital requirements, as they were com puted, for the additional investment needed to finance one unit of each livestock activity. A large portion of the difference between 1955 capital requirements and 1958 are due to increases in price of the quality of animal listed. Livestock inventories were computed on the following basis for each livestock enterprise: Dairy assumptions: 90 per cent calf crop, 1:5 replacement ratio, and 3 per cent death loss. Beginning inventory would be 1 cow, .2 two-year-old heifer, and .25 heifer calf. Hog assumptions: Low held for four litters, sixteen sows per boar, sow death loss 1:16. Livestock inventory would be; one sow, nine-sixteenth gilt and one-sixteenth boar. Eeef cow-calf assumptions: 90 per cent calf crop, 1*7 replacement ratio and 1/30 death loss. Livestock inventory consisted of one cow; • 11* two-year-old heifer; .11* yearling and proper death loss replacement. Poultry assumptions were based on a flock of five hundred hens with a 12 per cent death loss on hens and a 5 per cent death loss on chi cks. For the various clashes of livestock, feed requirements used were based on several studies conducted by the Agricultural Economics Department, Ohio State University, plus other materials as indicated in footnotes accompanying Table 15. Specific requirements in Table 15 are based on levels of production assumed in this study. 69 Table 13 Investments Per Unit of Livestock Adjustments, Carroll County, Ohio, 195$ Item and Unit Investment Dollars Dairy Herd (Grade A ..iilk)* Livestock Inventory Per Cow $322.7$ Special Daiiy Equipment and i.Iilk House do 21*0.00 Operating Capital22 do 6.80 Total do $69.5$ Hogs, 2 litter sytem: Per Sow Livestock Inventory do 63.99 Special Equipment. Portable Houses do 11*7.18 Operating Capital22 do 69.53 Total 280.70 Hogs, Spring Litter Only: do Livestock Inventory do 63.99 Special Equipment. Portable Houses do 11*7.18 Operating Capital22 do 19.69 Total 230.86 Hogs, Fall Litter Only: do Livestock Inventoxy do 63.99 Special Equipment, Portable Houses do 11*2.00 Operating Capital22 do 21.01 Total 227.00 Hogs, Feeder Pigsi do Livestock Inventory do 63.99 Special Equipment, Portable Houses do 122.19 Operating Capital22 do 23.91 Total 210.09 Beef Herd, Feeder Calves Sold: Per Cow Livestock Inventory do 239.01* Special Equipment2^ do 3.00 Operating Capital22 do 12.1*6 Total 251*. $0 Beef Herd, Calves Fed Out as Choice Cattle Second Year: do Livestock Inventory do 303.17 Special Equipment2^ do $.00 Operating Capital22 do 26.07 Total 331*. 21* Poultry, Laying Flock Per Hen Baby chick do .3$ Housing and Equipment do 3.17 Operating Capital22 do 1.67 Total do $.19 (See footnotes at end of the following table.) Table 11* 70 Investments Per Unit of Livestock Adjustments, ----- * — urn IV, Item and Unit Investment Dairy Herd (Grade A iiilk): Per Cow Dollars Livestock Inventory do $382.50 Special Dairy Equipment and Milk House do 21*0.00 Operating Capital22 do 7.02 Total 629.52 Hogs, 2 Litter System: Per Sow Livestock Inventory do 90.31 Special Equipment, Portable Houses do 159.13 Operating Capital*2 do 75.10 Total do 32 li.59 Hogs, Spring Litter Only: do Livestock Inventory do 90.31 Special Equipment, Portable Houses do 159.18 Operating Capital*2 do 21.71* Total do 271.23 Hogs, Fall Litter Only: do Livestock Inventory do 90.31 Special Equipment, Portable Houses do 15U.00 Operating Capital*2 do 22.63 Total do 266.9k Hogs, Feeder Pigs do Livestock Inventory do 90.31 Special Equipment, Portable Houses do 131*. 19 Operating Capital*2 do 26.37 Total do 251.37 Beef Herd, Feeder Calves Sold: Per Cow Livestock Inventory do 272.1*6 Special Equipment do 3.00 Operating Capital22 do 13.1*7 Total do 288.93 Beef Herd, Calves Fed Out as Choice Cattle Second Year do Livestock Inventory do 367.1*7 Special Equipment^ do 5.00 Operating Capital22 do 27.60 Total do 1*00.07 Poultry, Laying Flock Per Hen Baby Chick do .35 Housing and Equipment do 3.17 Operating Capital22 do 1.67 Total do 5.19 22This item is cash operating expense per unit for one turnover period. A turnover period is one month for dairy and poultry, six months for one-litter and two-litter hogs, four months for feeder pigs, and one year for beef. 23These investments from Hesearch Bulletin 832, Some Opportunities for Improving Farm Income in Southeastern Ohio, Russell 0. Olsen, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio. T m l i 15 F rio REQ HIRE HERTS USER P it (MIT Of LIVESTOCK, 2* CARROLL CORRTY, QNlC, 1955-1968 PRCTEIH GftOVRt hIRERAl M i l or Livestock COIR Oat* Wheat SOFFLE- Fees HAT PAITRRE IHCIVCES MIRT JRRE J t l r SALT Sv. Bo. Bu. L l * . L i t . T0I6 A .U .6.D . A •U .6.G . LtS. Da ir y cow 35 20 — 600 100 <.2 35 36 60 Sow ARP |4 MARKET R06S (98 62 — 1289 0 .1 ll. T (2.1 91,5 Sow ARP 7 IFRIRC MARKET HOOt 109 41 — 729 0 .08 11,7 12.1 56.5 Sow Arp 7 FALL MARKET IM S 119 34 — 799 0 .1 5.4 5.6 56,6 SOW ARP |4 PlOP TO WEARIRR 2 5.4 22 - 239 0 .08 6.03 6.23 2 1.5 BEEF COW ARP FEEOER CALF 4 0 — 30 0 2 .4 7 36 36 45 BEEF COW ARP ILAMBTER ARIRAL 40 0 — 288 0 3.1 35 36 71 HER .54 .15 •26 1 2 .6 0 .0 .05 .05 .4 Sitterley, J.H., •ra tii or m o corismftior it livestock," defarthert or aorichltrial ecoromics a id Rrml Socioioor, Ohio Stati UllVERS ITT, EXTEISIOO e INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS Illustrations 1 and 2 represent the matrixes of individual years 1955 and 1958, They are not the same operator. Two different farms were used to indicate the two ways of handling off-farm employment. In Illustration 1, the operator would not object to the possibility of full time work off—the-farm, and Illustration 2, the farmer would work up to one-half time off-the-farm but would not accept a full time job* Available resources as of January 1, 1955 and 1958 for each of the farmers are shown in the PQ column of the matrixes labeled Illustration 1 and 2. Also appearing in these illustrations are the alternative activities available to the operator. Activities that appeared to have very little likelihood of coming into the optimum solution were disre garded. The resource requirements for each unit of activity also are shown as well as the actual prices received and paid by the operators for com, oats, hay and wheat. Capital requirements per unit is shown under each activity on the "capital” row. Income per unit is shown on the last line of the matrix. Purchased hay and grain are shown with negative incomes in the amount of the purchase price per unit. Income from permanent pasture is reflected in the sale of animals and their products. This was done by internal transfer into the June 72 73 and July rotation pasture line where the livestock activities have access to it. The same principle applied to the grain rotation and the various alternative uses of meadowland. Income from these rotations goes into sales of livestock and crops as the transfer column feeds the various crop products into their respective rows and there they are made available for livestock feed, or the surplus for sale. Direct crediting and withdrawal could have been done, but this device is simpler and equally effective. After the optimum organization was derived for each farm, both for years 1955 and 1958, it was transferred from the IBM computer sheets to a work table^ as shown in Illustration 3« Income per activity unit and resource requirements are also shown in this illustration for those activities appearing most frequently in the optimum solution. Blank areas are left for those activities that appear infrequently so they may be written in. This work table permits the researcher to deter- 2 3 mine the total income, family labor earnings, and the quantity of production factors left unused. %ork table shown for one year only. p Total income at this point represents the addition of incomes from each activity, not including the fixed costs, and is comparable to the operators adjusted gross in Illustration 2*. 3 Family labor earnings represent the dollars of income left for the total hours of labor expanded by the family after all fixed costs have been deducted. lummnu i twin foi PMiur, 1815 icim PMtt* Kill» C yif,f P,I f|( fis h\ p22 p23 p24 f25 p28 p27 p28 p28 PJ0 pJl PS2 p33 PN p« k P31 pJ8 p36 PEtOIICtt uni mumlOOIT 5UCI millmilt Hoot Milmil ROIIMil 80(1 RillMil (ill FOIlT* GlMI 2l»2'l» 111Id Ml*M* Fill,PUN (IT111 Silltill (IIIIff till (IT (IIItill till Ml* Ml* OFF iniimt Of VICTIM 2 Smiii Fin Finn cm c« it (ton* Cit lit Pmt* Put, Com Cm Cmi 0*ti mi mivnu Hmi«Hmi*Fiw ^ i nm fin cm ln» mi mi mi out MiVOK JU I, '55 111* III ACltllTl out 0* 3i Si Si Si > Ci Hu 51, leu leu leu ouiinii MU so 5 CORI 81. 31 lit 109 118 25,1 4 (0 |S4 •182 Odl tv. 20 82 M SI 22 .11 *tt VIU1 M, 3 • 4t FKMtMllil mi so 1 I l HU 101 44 .1 48 .08 2.M 3,1 -2,1 -M Jill ittt.PMT, Mi, 0»T 35 ||,| 11,1 5.1 tjt 31 si ,01 4 JUT ROli Pill Ml* Bit 38 I2,| 10,1 5.8 53 38 38 45 •27 -1 pun punn fell 28 OlFllll ODUM 3830 583 28i 211 227 210 255 33< 5,18 lit 28,7 20,1 ,ts .it 2i02 1,(5 mm urn Hon 280 Hi,5 7,08 7,09 1,27 4.82 5,2 5,7 ,19 445 220 Jill Kin Hill 288 U 3,29 33 13 5,81 1,2 1,1 ,14 3,8 44 44 220 Ocioin Kin HOII 281 14 8.8t 13 8,(8 43 ,1 34 ,|4 9,15 220 Fill. HillIII 54 3, 2138 127 124 40 124 54 45 88 24 Ml. Hllllll 51.F1. 1981 OFF fMH WORK Vlil 1 HU IKM OoiUI 221 251 129 88 884 53 8| 1881 •HIHU 4 -2M34 •WiB*204 -4.95 -I.M IM .tt «,!( It* 1.(12,0213 M IlLlltllTia 2 mill m moimii,1958 *cr<*L Piicii K ill Of P? P, TOP,„ HI Ml Mi"fir»jnarp.?j p.JA p.}{ ’ p S T T l' P-28 M i M9 M l HI p-55 p*M 'MJ MS M l M l MS Pwmhi AflOIIT S im mui km 6011 POM 60M 8fff pm I’ooi* Gnu2 1 Pot, (mi, bit Sill 8ir S tii Bit Sill Sill (io, am, Ok A r illllll III It Of YECTORt 2 SMIio F ill FetiER Com Cm tit poti- Cit Cut Pur, Pm, Cm Con Oiti o»ti hit h»t Wriat ion,6ok, fih PlIOIlCEJ Iittii piii Cur FlTTU* TIN BIT Bit OUT RMI, CM. WORK jii.1,'5; III ACTMIir DMT CM Sn Son Son sw rm Cm 6|l (till ACRE ACRE i d ! Act! 69, 69, 69, 89, IN 701 89, SO,Ft, SO,ft, TUI ( l i l H U l Acre 12,5 7,25 Con 69. 35 199 109 119 25,! 1, «, 5 ,! 4)1 ■1 1 0*TI 8n, 20 62 !| 3! 22 ,15 • 52 •! 1 W ild 6l, ,26 * 67 1 neumah Adi 22,5 1 1 1 mr Til M ,1 JOS ,1 ,06 2,42 3,1 •2,8 •1,9 .1 1 Jill 80t, PUT, 6,9, OK 35 H.2 11,7 5,! 6JJ 35 35 ,05 4 *26 JUT 6(1, p m , Ml Dir 36 12,1 12,1 5,6 8,23 36 36 ,05 •27 -19 -10 Ptm, put A tl! 96 1 capitu 6oil.ii 21336 630 325, 221 262 251 269 !0fl 5,19 192, 25,9 19,3 8,36 1,83 !,ll .69 20 2,02 1,85 ,36 Aflll Lilli HOUR 350 10,5 2,09 2J)9 1,27 !J2 5,2 5,7 ,19 6,6 1 Jill! Ijltl 5091 356 8.2 3,29 3,29 12’ 5il 1,2 1,6 ,1! 5,5 1 OCTSIH H IM 6091 857 2.6 6,68 1,27 6,88 !JI ,8 3,3 ,!! 12,1 I fEIHHT POM* IK S«,CT, !W8 125 12! !0 12! 5! !5 68 2,5 •1 -1 A lllTIO Iil HOMIII SO,FT, 1750 1 Off-Fhm work6091 1320 12 hit Ueo«(Cj)D hui 296,5 35!, 192, 12? 126 66 133 1,25 -i97 «?B,5 -19,9 *6,59 *6,95 -|,2l 1,07-,71 .63-26,5 16 M3-2M.W 19,80 IllMTHTItl 3 Optipih C oniim ici «0 F*riir L*io» E m lul, ACTiU Puctl, IS55 Ocrmn P0 in it ecu Qit> witu hit cuim jm 3*»t jiu phit htuow Arm ui» jut in G:i, m fti, hopmh abi. jiilwow m bi, Tom 8i,"iom TwTftTm * Toth m Toth m lorn l‘i» hi*. Tom hii«Tomhi$» totuS Hit Pp. hit 8«, Bu» hit Ton hit I Hit m hit mkd hit ho«m uiii m h i thoiii h i t hoii* H it hi om it m * tew 30 20 i <,2 S69.66 35 36 i 10,8 U 1,6 125 211,25 POU, 2-ilTTII sow ISP 62 t ,1 260,1 11,1 12,1 l U S 3,29 6,66 120 286,33 ftictl Pill Sow 25,0 22 i ,06 210,1 m s ; i 0,6! 5,61 0,61 50 69,02 Off Pun won you I x i I T » i 16,66 i i 1 1 I 220 220 220 1 X 1 3068 J ill HTI f t , i I i X l I i i i i I t i i I * I X X X I 1 ,66 S in con Si, i ii i X X x i x x i \ 1 I i l I l X X 1 I 1 1 UO Jil l w m i So, ( I x I i x i x i i ) 1 > X I i X X I X I X 1,91 u i i i n 101 ( i * x X i \ x i > X X X X X x I 1 X X x 16,00 x f i l l l l POTlTlOl Hcu x i > > > r I X X X lIT CPU I I I W (CH < i k X X U > i 21 I \ i X I » 11 T -19,96 2«0 (ITTIII MT ACRl i i i 2,8 i i i 1. I i X * 7 k X *26,13 te l, PUT, KIT ACRE \ i A i x OP IS , \ V X X k L X • 8,13 i Pu n , p u t , ACRE \ x > <,83 26 10 1 [ X X X X X : ■ 1,95 Sin QIt i So, 7 x * ,13 « x 1 X I ' 1 K 1 V 1 y • .15 H u m \ t i \ t > i I » 1 X J I X I X X r X puoiitu Lin I > x i i I ’ 1 X IICOH COLIP1I ...... ( 11*60 M\ Lmi, 31PII,, M»Ci,,...... 4 MLY UBOfi m m ...... 4 ILL 1ST RATI OR 4 ConfVTATION OF t. 4 *oii )»cone, Actsai aro cm THE BASIS OF 1 1 H IA * PROORAM SOLSTICR L i r e ** A c t u a l P■OSRAH cash S ales $ iRVEHTORt >• L i resrocK Fe e * CAPITAL F B AC HAIE S L iv e s t o c k C ash E X PtN S f* — ISCLSDIRO TAXES ISTERESr PAID AID INSURANCE t a o j o s t i * gross f Beoirrinr 1 ■v ts T O o r V A L JE l* ''»cmiE«r t s 2 0 % MACRMER'' OCPRCCtATftt f * 6 * 1L * |H * 8 $ St 3* BUILOITS REPAM ? L ** * t $ B% BSILBITO OEPRCCIATIOR ? T OTA L t ? INTEREST OR IXVESTMERT w e t hours F*nikT La sob t Fahilv Labor « $ t T a x is - real e s t a t e * I r s v f r r c e ( B s i L H i a ) *i- -V * perquisites 8 SET LASOR (RCOMf i e 78 The optimum orgard zation, as derived by linear programming, is being presented here.^ Since the programming was used with an assumed constant level of management for the purpose of deriving resource accummulation values and adjustments of price, the combination of re sources determined are not pertinent to the analysis. They were im portant only as they determined the income the operator should have obtained with the resources available in 1955 and 1958 if he had maintained the same level of management, and to account for any changes due to price. Illustration b indicates the method used to derive labor income, both for the actual situation and for the linear program solution. A constant depreciation rate of 22 per cent of the remaining inventory ^For those interested in the combination of resources most frequently- obtained with the assumed level of management presented, the following statements are pertinent. In all cases, wnere off farm was an acceptable alternative, it was the main alternative selected. In some of these instances all hay and grain were sold up to the limit of spring and summer labor available to produce them. A dairy herd producing milk for sale on the grade A milk market was the most profitable livestock enterprise in 1955* There were no cases thut included any of the swine or beef alterna tives in 1955* On two of the farms in 1955 which had less than $3*000 capital, poultry came into the optimum operation rather than the dairy herd. In 1958, feeder pigs and sows with two litters were the most profit able livestock enterprises for the majority of the farms* The beef alternatives, spring and fall hogs on a one litter system and poultry did not come into any optimum organization in 1958* One exception was noted in the various organizations. One farm, with $2U,707 available capital, 11*5 acres of rotation cropland, 102 acres of permanent pasture and 500 hours plus of labor available in each restricting month had 28 dairy cows, 1* sows producing 2 litters each and 5>85 bushels of corn for sale* This would indicate as increased capital and labor became available dairy might be the most profitable enterprise even with the favorable 1958 prices for hogs. value of machinery was used in all cases. All beginning inventory values were established by depreciating the purchase price of each item by the 10 year straight life method from the date of purchase to the beginning of each year being studied. Beginning inventory values of 1 buildings and other improvements were established in the same manner and a constant value of 3 per cent for repair and 6 per cent fbr depre ciation was used in all cases. Interest on investment was charged at the rate of 5 per cent. Family labor was deducted from the operators income on the basis of if .60 per hour in 1955 and $ .75 per hour in 1958. Credit was given the operator for that portion of building and fence repairs he had already paid, also for that portion of interest paid on real estate. The 1955 and 1958 actual labor income and the labor income derived by linear programming was computed for each of the twelve farms by the method shown in Illustration ii. Adjusted gross income, as it will be used in this interpretation, represents total cash receipts plus or minus livestock and feed inventory changes minus livestock purchases minus all cash operating expenses, including all taxes, interest paid and insurance* Criteria Used to Determine Effectiveness of Program The actual increase in labor income in 1958 over 1955 was calcu lated for each of the twelve farms. Inventory change was included in labor income. It should be pointed out that resources inventory in creased on almost all of the units during the three year period. It is to be expected that greater labor income would accrue to the greater factor accumulation* Since measurement of the increase in the level of management was the purpose of this study the two following approaches were added: (l) Increase in efficiency was measured by the per cent which labor income was of adjusted gross income. As the percentage in creases, more of each gross income dollar is returned to the operators labor and management* This percentage was computed for both years. (See Table 16). (2) Linear program solutions for 1955 and 1958, with management assumed constant for the 2 years, would show the labor in come increase attributable to changes other than management over the interim period. Any increase in actual income from 1955 to 1958 ex ceeding the increase shown by linear programming solutions in the same period must therefore be attributable to change in management. Change in management level was presumed to have been caused primarily by the management training program and by increased managerial experience gained by the operator over the 3 year period. Experience normally gained dur ing so short a period is probably responsible for only a minor part of the gain in labor income. Results As the results of this research were summarized ten of the twelve farms showed gains from 1955 to 1958. Two of the farms, however, showed decreased labor income in 1958. In both cases the reasons were non-economic. They were permitted to remain in the study because we were interested in the effect of such disturbances upon actual opera tion, but they are not included in the tables presented. 81 The first of these two farmers was faced with a sudden and drastic reduction in family labor in 1958 due to domestic and sociological factors. This caused a change in farm organization to fit the reduced labor force. The second farmer, needed to completely change his farm organiza tion. Considerable difficulty was encountered in obtaining control of sufficient capital to effect the plan. There was a 2-year delay in compliance by this operator. The labor income comparisons of programming solutions and actual operations for both years studied are shewn in Table 16. Column 3 of Table 16 lists the per cent that actual labor income was of the adjusted gross income in the years 1955 and 1958* In 1955 the average percentage for the group was 26.03 per cent and in 1958 it was ii9.65 per cent. This indicates a substantial increase in resource efficiency over the three year period in terms of proportional returns to the operator. It is, of course, difficult to determine what part of this increase was due to management training received. Column hi of the table lists the gain per farm due to changes in all factors, including changes in cost-price relationships, in the three year period. This was derived by subtracting actual 1955 labor income from actual 1958 labor income. This amounted to $2,697 average gain per farm* In the programming solutions constant management was assumed. Therefore, gain in labor income in 1958 over 1955 in the optimum solu tions must be attributable to changes in all variables except the management factor. The values are shown in Column $ of Table 16. 82 Table 16 Changes in Labor Income for 10 Farms, Carroll County, Ohio, 1955 to 1958 Farm Year Labor Income Total Labor Gain in Gain in Actual Number As Per cent Income Gain Labor Inoome Labor Income Labor of Adjusted., 1955 to Due to Due to Income Gross Income^ 1958 Resource management Per Accumulation Change Year (1 ) (2 ) (3) (1*) (5) (6 ) (7) bollars t)o liars Dollars Dollar 1 1955 10.6 909 1 1958 21.7 2129 26 2103 3038 2 1955 8.0 ----- —— ----- 1*26 2 1958 38. 1* i;02i. 2236 1788 1*1*50 3 1955 28.6 ------2153 3 1958 37.9- 2098 1793 305 1*251 1* 1955 0 ----- — -1228 1* 1958 57. k 5871* 338 5536 1*61*6 5 1955 27.7 ----- —— 621 5 1958 62.2 21*51 - 86 2537 3072 6 1955 1*5*6 — ----- — 1171 6 1958 70.2 2602 1906 696 3773 7 1955 0 — —— -368 7 1958 39.2 3113 135 2978 271*5 8 1955 6.3 ——— 91 8 1958 33.3 1866 1308 558 1957 9 1955 55.2 ------— 3195 9 1958 59.7 1295 933 361 1*1*89 10 1955 78.3 —— ------3089 10 1958 76.5 1520 -565 21*85 1*609 Average per Farm, 1955 26.03 — ------1006 Average per Farm, 1958 1*9.65 2697 762 1935 3703 ^The percentages listed as zero represent negative labor incomes. 83 Subtracting column 5 from column U in the table produces a value which consequently measures only the influence of management changes on labor income. It is these values which are to be used in determining the effectiveness of the extension training method presented in this publication. One possible exception to this could be the return to the factors used in excess of the values charged for each of them in the programming. However, unpublished studies of Central Ohio farming by Dr. J. Robert Tompkin, Agricultural Economist, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, indicate the returns to the factors other than labor and management are slightly less than the values charged for them in this study. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS In Chapter V, page lUi we set forth the hypothesis oa ^ o'a' where oq o'q' q s the optimum production position of the fanner in 1955 with a given set of resources, q 1 = his optimum production position in 1953, a = his actual production position in 1955, and a ’ - his actual production position in 1958. Using labor income as a measure of quantity and substituting our empirical values into the inequality we gets oa ^ o'a' or $ 7^3 $3703 or .U25^ 1.61*6 oq * o' q' $2253 oa is in fact less than o'a' and our hypothesis is supported, oq o 'q1 The results obtained in this study are gratifying insofar as they indicate that time and effort expended on the management training pro gram have been rewarding. The average total gain in labor income per farm over the three year period was $2,697* Of this amount, $1,935 can be attributed mainly to the increased effectiveness of management over the training period. It would be appropriate to evaluate the results in terns of the two specific objectives of this Extension farn management method as stated in Chapter II. The reader will recall that these were: 8h 85 (1 ) to help fanners develop and execute plans of operation which would more effectively contend with current and future economic conditions as measured in terms of profit. (2) to teach farmers the basic principles and methods of or ganizing and operating farms for profit. No attempt has been made to establish a pure profit figure for each operator however the increase of $2,697 in labor income per opera tor would definitely be in the direction intended by the objectives. As stated previously we have determined $1,935 as that share attribut able to increased management effectiveness. It could also be argued that part of the increased income attributable to resource accumulation could also be a result of the extension farm management method. In many cases the extension personnel have been partially responsible for the increased holdings because of their work with agricultural credit agencies in explaining the needs of the farmer and establishing the possibilities of increased incomes for a given operator. It would be impossible to measure this in terms of dollars so no attempt has been made to assign a dollar share of this to the program. Objective number 2 is also supported. The evidence does indicate better organization through the use of the basic principles. The author observed, however, that some of the participants were probably operating in some practices where MOiiR. Fertilizer applications seemed extremely heavy on seme farms but without complete knowledge of the amount of preparatory fertilizer necessary on these farais even this criticism cannot be established* The author recognizes that in sane of the cases part of the in creased income was associated with fuller use of the labor resource. In no case* however, did the amount of available labor used in the programming solution exceed that amount which the operator indicated a willingness to apply. On most faims there was no appreciable increase in labor expended, but rather a matter of making each hour more pro ductive in terms of dollars. Each of the farmer cooperators have indicated that they work about the same hours at present as they did previous to this training experience. Some have even indicated they actually have more free time and their work is not as tiresome as was true prior to this training experience. Most of this is, of course, due to more efficient internal building arrangement, feed storage, and the substitution of capital for labor in handling animal products as well as waste materials. It has been suggested that this program has increased the risk that must be borne by each operator. It is true that risk will certainly accompany increases in borrowed capital, but the author and the representatives of the credit agencies working with the program concur that the total risk has undoubtedly been lessened by the increase in flexibility, the greater return per dollar of resource, and the im proved productivity of the entire farm organization resulting from the increased capital made available to the operator. The credit agencies contend that the superior productive position will permit the operator to "eat better and pay better" and thus shorten the loan period. This faster turnover lessens risks associated with time. 87 The author does not claim this method would work on all farms in the area but it has been effective on the farms studied. The results would make us optimistic concerning future results from this farm management training method. The dollar value of gains attributable to increase in management effectiveness varies from -&361 to $5,536 on the individual farms studied. ^mch of this variation can be accounted for in terms of resource amounts. Increased attention needs to be given to this variation if the method is to be improved. Additional research could indicate why the method has apparently been more effective in some cases and would direct the extension worker to those situations requir ing more effective teaching. Since this is the first attempt to quantify results of an extension farm management method in dollar values in Ohio it cannot be stated to what degree this program is more successful than its predecessors, if any. The author suggests that the methodology be used to measure other types of training and select the one showing the most favorable results in terms of the stated objectives. methodology Contribution The results of this study are favorable enough to warrant addi tional studies in this area. One of the main contributions of this publication is to set forth a methodology that may be used in future studies• Linear programming can make a major contribution in the advancement of extension research related to farm management. A few changes should be made to increase its effectiveness. 88 To improve research on this problem, a larger sample would be desirable, A random sample of farms representing an untrained group, should be studied for the same interval. This second sample would serve as a check for the validity of the gain attributable to resource accumulation and it would also give an indication of any error in the marketing charge for the factors other than labor and management. Greater precision could be introduced into the programming matrixes by using the production coefficients actually obtained on each individual farm for each year involved. To increase accuracy and decrease the time involved in this type of analysis, Section I, Appendix A should be revised in terms of the model set forth in Chapter V, This section should receive increased attention as each new class was started. If this revised section were completed accurately for the year immediately preceding the first year of training one of the major problems of data collection would be solved. In this manner only one extra year of data would need to be gathered in order to evaluate the progress of a given class. This would eliminate the possible difficulty of lost farm records and in crease the accuracy of the base year data. After a period of three or more years some fanners cannot give a complete written record of all data needed. Alternative use of resources could also be increased in setting up the matrix* Permanent pasture, for example, should be considered on the unimproved basis in addition to the improved basis. There is a possibility that in sane enterprises profitable use could be made of 89 the early production of unimproved pasture and then use rotation grazing of meadows rather than use any improved pasture. A silage alternative might also prove profitable on some farms. Unpublished studies by ^r. E. T. Shaudys, Agricultural Economist, Department of agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, indicate that under seme conditions forage requirements for beef-cow herds may be decreased considerably. This might have a bearing on enterprise combination for the part time farmer# As such studies are completed, their findings should be incorporated in the assumptions for the linear program. Another correction should be ,:ade in terms of the labor resource. Actual hours of labor expended in both of the years studied should be accurately tabulated, in addition to the hours available. This would permit an additional measure of the effectiveness of management per hour of labor used. It would also permit the researcher to find those increases that were due solely to an increased number of hours worked beyond the normal work capacity of an individual. This would have to be an addition and not a replacement for the total available hours. A man could conceivably earn a high income per hour worked but not work enough hours to provide a satisfactory total income. For extension teaching purposes, Linear Programming could make a definite contribution by indicating the optimum resource combinations with varying levels of production by enterprise. Dairy cows producing 10, 11, 12,000 lb. of milk, hens producing, 180, 190 and 200 eggs per 90 bird and many other possibilities could be set forth. This would pro vide a basic for presentation of enterpise combinations that would be in harmony with the wide range in enterprise management abilities of class meabers. It is possible as the extension worker develops this linear pro gramming procedure that it can also be used as a method of deriving the optimum farm organization on an individual farm basis. Future research in this area should test the farm plan developed by the method set forth in chapter two using the linear programming solution based on actual production standards and costs as computed by the farmer. If great differences existed in terms of organisation and the time expended to derive the orgaiization, and this difference was in favor of linear programming, consideration should be given to a change in the methods of teaching. Fanners could make a contribution to tlds type of analysis by pro viding the researchers with cost relationships of meadow, grain and pasture production as well as many other cost items of the firm. Many charges are very difficult to estimate because their costs are always included with a number of other costs. If the researcher determined his needs in advance and presented the proper explanation and forms we believe farmer cooperation would be excellent. Inter-agency Cooperation The author does not contend that any one individual or agency is responsible for the progress shown by this group. The method studied 91 brings about a more hamonious effort among all agricultural agencies* The author believes this is one of the main features of the method* Results comparable to those found in this analysis probably would not be found if this agency harmony were absent during the training period. The program promotes awareness of problems common to all agencies. Each agency has the good of the farmer in mind but much duplication of effort is evident where each operates without coordination with the other. Credit agencies are very desirous of having complete profitable plans on their cooperating farms. Since they are present when these plans are worked and the plans are in keeping with their principles, credit can be extended on a sound basis in many cases where it would not be in the absence of such training. Credit agencies were not de signed to develop a farm plan (Farm Security Administration excepted) for each of their cooperators, but by participation of their borrowers in this training method each one can have a plan designed for his own farm. Soil Conservation Service, Vocational Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization Committee and Extension are all designed for a specific purpose. As they cooperate in this extension program the farmer receives the benefit of all agencies and not just one phase of opera tion help as is often the case. Results must depend upon the management training of county agri cultural personnel. The county personnel must be familiar with the 92 pertinent economic concepts, necessary for a thorough understanding of the various profit maximization principles inherent in proper farm organization. If a similar teaching situation were provided as set forth in this publication the author believes favorable results would be obtained. In addition, this study provides a basis for an objective method of evaluating future Extension Farm Management work. N APPENDIX A 93 SAMPLE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION I* AGRI C! L Ti.'PE AND h'HE ECC’.OMICS U. S . Dept, oe Agriculture E n t e r s i p v s e r v i c e The Ohio State univer sity C o u n t y a g e n t , 4 - H C A R R O L L CO. COMM. COOPERATING h o m e D emonstration C a r r o l l t o n , O h i o J a n u a r y A, 1956 SUBJECT s Farm management School Dear Cooperator* YOU HAVE INDICATED YOJR IHTEHEST IH ATTENDING A FARM ^AHAaCMENT SCHOOL TO IE HELO OH JANUARY 15 AHO 29, F e b r u a r y 12 a h o 26, AHO P'APCH It f r o m 8 URTIl 10 tOO P. m . Il THE v o c a t i o n a l ASRICULTURE ROOM IN THE CARNOL.TON HIGH SCHOOL. SOME Of THE T H1184 UC INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH WfNE PARTIALLY E *P LA tHEO TO T ON WHIN YO» WERE YISITEB. IT IS DIFFICULT TO (IPLAIN EVERYTHING IN A LETTER, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, IUT HERE IS A RECAP OF THE THINGS WE EXPECT TO ACCOMPLISH; 1 . T O DETERMINE THE INCOME THAT YOUR FARM WILL PROVIDE AFTER NEEDED CHANGES WHICH YON HAVE IN MINO ARE MADE. 2. IF THE INCOME M O M THE PLANNED FARM IS SiTIiFACTORY, DETERMINE WHAT CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE TO OBTAIN THAT INCOME AND HOW MUCH THESE CHANGES WILL COST. 3. WHAT HEEDS TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY TO GET THE QUICKEST RETU'Y ON THE OOLLARS YOU INVEST. WE REALIZE THAT IHC'MES CANHOT BE RAISED TO THE TOP LIMIT WITHIN ORE YEAR OR TWO. H o w e v e r , w e d o f e e l t h a t •e a r s c a n b f m a d e t h a t it w i l l b e p o s s i b l e t o i n c r e a s e t h e v o l u m e OF BUSINESS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE TO HELP YOU BEAT THE SQUEEZE BY ESTIMATING WHERE EACH OOLLAR INVESTED WILL RETURN YOU THE MOST INCOME YEAR AFTER YEAR. The FIVE SESSIONS ARE hot SEPARATE SESSIONS, BUT EACH ORE WILL BE A CONTINUATION OF THE P'TVIOUS ONE. THE MAST SESSION WILt BE TO 'NTROOUCE THE SCHOOL, DISCUSS WHAT CREDIT a g e n c i e s e n p e c t w .s k f v f r a f a r m e p a s h s f o r o p e r a t i n g c a p i t a l , a n d f o r t o >j t o m a k e a s u r v e y OF YOUR PRESENT FARM SITUATION SO *S TO DETERMINE WHERE THE LIMITATIONS ME, IF A n y , IN YOUR PRESENT FARM PLAN. YOU WILL NEED TO BRING THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS WITH YOU IF YOU HAVf THEM, OR ANV OTHER MATERIALS THAT YOU FEEL WILL HELP YOU GATHER THE F/CTS IH VOU1 PRESENT SITUATION* 1 . F a r m A c c o u n t B o o k 2. L a s t y e a r 's i n c o m e t a n f o r m I040F 3 . f o i l CONSERVATION PLAN IF YOU HAVE ONE 4. Dairy herd record book 5. p e n c i l 6 . A n y o t h e r m a t e r i a l t h a t w i l l i c o f h e l p PA6E 2 F a r m M a h a s e m e h t S c h o o l J a r u a r y 4, |956 EACH OF TOO WILL IE WORKlkS 01 TOUR OWR FARM 8ITUATI0RJ THEREFORE, TOUR MATERIAL WILL St FOR Y O U R OWR USE AR0 ROT SOMEOHE ELSES, AFTER THE SCHOOL IS OVER, IT WILL REQUIRE FOLLOW-W* WORK OH OUR FART IN THE WAY OF PER- J OR AI VISITS TO HELP YOU AS YOU HEED IT* FxTEHSIOR SPECIALISTS IR ALL FIELDS WILL tC AVAI LA RLE TO HELP YOU IF YOU HEED THEM AFTER IETERM|H|HG YOUR HEEDS OH THE f a r m . SOME OF THESE ARE ERfi IHEERIHS, DAIRY, A3R0HOMY SPECIALISTS, ETC, O h : t e s , I a l m o s t f o r o o t — N e a l C a r p e h t e r , f a r m m a r a g e h e r t s p e c i a l i s t , w i l l a s s i s t w i t h THE SCHOOL, AL0RC WITH OTHER LOCAL PERSORHEL* If, FOR S O M E R E A S O H , Y O U ARE IIHABLE TO A T T E R D THIS S C HOOL, W O U L D r OU P L E A S E LET M£ K H O W . H O P I H S TO SEE YOU OH M O H D A Y , JARUARY |5, 1 AM, £ IRCEREL f, HOWARD P. J m OWALTER C o u h t y A g r i c u l t j r m A c e r t *'i 5.S* WE WOULD LIKE TO BECIR EACH SESSIOR PROMPTLY AT 6 P.M., SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE |T IF YOU COULD BE Tw ERE AT THAT Tl-E. APPENDIX B 7 Oats j______, 19 FARM MAhAGEftNT WOapBOOK (a part rf Farm and home Development) S e c t i o n 1 ?! H PRSSEM S tTLATl ' N n a m e { s )______acoress County to w nship ______Telephone Exchange______h o. Roa*______m il e s ______h, S, E, W, OP PREPARED NT HEAL R. Ca NPENTEP, FANM MANAGEMENT SECTION, DEPARTMENT OP Agn ico lthral Eco n o m ic s , in cooperation w it h county Ag e n ts, So il Conservation Se r v ic e , vo c at io n a l agricultune Depa r tm en t s, Agricultural St a r i l h a t ion Co m m it t e e s , Farm S ec ur ity a no Production c r e d it Administration The Oh io State u n iv e r s it y cooperating w ith the U .S . Department of Ao n ic u l t u m Agricultural Ex t e n s io n Se r v ic e , w . b . Woos, Dir e c t o r , Colnmsns, o h id D is t r ib n t e d in furtherance of Acts op May 0 ano jure 29, 1914 Section I - On* Preseht situatior UNO INVENTORY Ac r e s own ACRES CROPLARd c u r e s ______ Acres rerteo__ Acres croplar# rertes______ Total acres operate* T otal cpoplars Nuhser acres of croplar# arequately perces______ Acres of perharert pasture a v a il a b l e Share of crop receives it operator or rertes laho: 1/3, 1/2, 2/5, 3/5. (circle ore) Operato r' s irterest is j o ir t l t owred: Dairy c a t t l e , seef c a t t l e c ho«s , sheep, poultry. ( cir c le ore) FIELD i Y M i l ♦ YEAR Ahalys is DO* 0* * ACRE % CRO* * PER S oil * > Soil LETTED t * ACRE tester * o ^ i. . p t X A h . t I 1 i f 1 • * i < 1 ■ t t 1 ■ ♦ i ■ * i « « t t * I T f * t t i t t l 9 ♦ 1 I 1 # v t f 1 * * « 1 * i t * 1 • * f - - r . — f f * ' i t f t • ♦ r f « f 1 t c f r 1 t I i ■ ♦ « * 1 1 t 1 1 "" 4 PERM* f ' t I f i t PAST, ' t f t WOOD T f ■ T I t LAND * t « r I V i V r i i i OTHER T 1 1 ■ ' f c * T o t a l S e c t i o n l - Ou r p r e s e n t S i t u a t i o n 1CT0, O R DRAW A MAP CF T O U R FARM RELCW. rAF OF FARr S U tta llT I O N S : S h o w PRESENT FIELC A RHANGEHENT , LOCATION OF PERMANENT FENCES, LANES, DVtLtlNCS, NOAOS, FIELD DIVISIONS, OPEN DITCHES, STREAKS, WEILS, WOCC LOTS, IDLE AND WASTE LARS. Letter each field from left to rieht, starting in the upper left-hand ccfner. pants of 0 IVI DC D F I E L D S MAT SC L C T I E N C D A( AND A j. INDICATE ACREASE IN EtCH FIELD AND THE CFCP CROWN IN EACH CURING THE LAST CROPPING CEASON. {VnSOLS; ROAD OR FENCED LANS GRASS WATERWAY ACRES ROTATED LAND WINE FENCE L a k e o n f o n d Field division U Ell ILO ISO WOODS FASTURE Op e n d i t c h Poos DRAINAGE a * WOODS NOT PASTURED WELL OR 3PRIN« W o o d s " RUILOINC3, WASTE T o t a l a c r e a s e MARKET) FIELDS! C r o f l a n d s h a t PASTURE Seen ei I -o«" Present S ituation BUILDING INVENTORT I " THE COLSMN • c a p a c it y " INDICATE THE NSMOER OF UNITS T" AT CORLP IE HOUSE# OR STORE" I " ESC" BRILOINO. « « * NO. OP S R I'S YON • O c r ic iT Bo1 1 # lo t S iz t * C on *IT lew* * Ca pa city * ARE NOW ROUStM » OR t t t OR STCRtRO ' S iR r tN t . . . . . ♦ t 1 0 1 BARRESi » * «« 1 /I « 1 t ------\ r t 1 t Animal sface t , —- "“"T 1 * HAT STORARC i T f l 9 ♦ • Animal space " * t « r f SILO « * Grain S t o r a s e i i I t * CORN CRlS #1 T i » i 1 Corn c R t* f l t * f 4 G r a in f \ * • V 1 9 i GRAIN #2 f i t ' * t POUTRY HORSE r t V - IT . - - - T n ...... 1" • » BROOBER HORSE * 9 I 9 MlLKINt PARLOR t 1 « f % 0 i 1 0 • 1 m il k Horse i P \ t t 1 Farrowino horse 9 9 t V f • 9 * t S heep horse 9 " i • • 1 t f e e o ia s floor t m ac h in e r y S hES • 9 t t 1 9 r J ------^ . i t t • 1 . . _ . r T * ' , t f 0 V •RATE CONOIT ON or M liH N O * AN rollout t N - NEW, 8 - Goon , f - f a m , P - Poor, u - u m Sect k * I - O M Presert S it r a t io k WATER SUPPLY cute* 10 ORE COiVHR) YES NO WATER SOFFIT {WELL - SFRINS - SOTIl) / 7 CD A s io o a te s o f flt for a ll prrfooes at all t im e s CDCD ADEQUATE SUFFLT FOR OWELLIRS AT ALL TIMES CD CD Sho r t »6 i for l iv e s t o c k art tears CD CD CD CD — 7 L/___— !7 L___/ Haul water is oar tears CD CD LIVESTOCK INVENTORY LIVESTOCK PRACTICES AND PERFORMANCE DAIRY COWS NO. P orro e m il* p ro du ce# f t * cow BEEF COWS NO. Nsmseh OF C « U » R A IE fO Oa ir t h e if e r s NO. N U M ft* «1«|0 I f PROVE* RtLL Da ir y calves No. N «M *t* SIRED (V PROVE* IR L l FEEDER CATTLE No. No. my« or rid L s s * OF 3 RAIO 6*000 EWES NO. L « « . op wool/ ewe % LAMR CROP Fecser lamss No. AOS WNER SOI* WT. MRSH SOI* 8 * 00# SOWS No. p is s / l it t e r LITT£R*/vCAR Hoot HA IS EO No. A s t t o t * WT. WNER SOL* HESS AHO PHLLETS No. Eros/ mer $ SOL*/h(R CSICKERS RAISES No. % MORTALITY Do TOO CILL No. NO. NO. NO. S i c tiok 1 • Ok * prirert sitratior MAGHINERY AND POWER OUHE* IT 0 * AVAILABLE TO OPERATOR, AHO COHO IT I OH (*0 0 0 , FAIR, OR POO*). • 9 ft ff t t ITKFI « $121 f COCMTIM, Nct*C»v, ITCH v Size f coi»tn*iif m i n i « f '' 1 ’ t* r i * * * t * I " 1 ' "T VI p ( - "f f • • o w e f ' * "El*»IA« CHTTtC fc < I it « 1 # HARROW % * 1 "B rck RACC * i * F a VI ... . | , * 0 Chitipacker I * "Mow** (tractor) * r 1 1 » 1 * rotary roc t * 1 "HOWE* (h O**0 A \ ~v " - “ l f It WlIOIR i i 1 t If t COITIRATOR (TR*1 * ■HAY LOARER t t « . — ( 1 ■ ■ ■ || ■ ------■ 1 « 1 Crltkator (M o u t)’ * • "Fora*! harvester 1 t t * R * * t ♦ i » Tractor #1 t "BAH* I 1 i -■ ■ , r r 1 . .. - T "" 1 ----- 1 TRACTOR /2 t "BLOWtR t 1 t • • • it • 1 » 0 0 COR* PLAOTIR ft*.): • ' " P otato oioocr TT • » 1 1 V t p CORK FLAITIR (hOROE) i t f t 11 t “ ♦ """ 0 COR* PICKER « ' 1 Barr ctEAiiR • • I i 1 t i * T Cohoirc • " H ilkirq rucRiac 1 t "1 " < ■ 11 1 "'Vi 1 t t 1 1 TABCR r"- "6*LR TARR J 1 . i V t ' ' 1 'Cooler t t ■"¥“ 't ■ 1 - .■»...... ~ 1 --- 1---- -T----- i t . * i « t * f - t ' i t t * i % \ i SECTION I - OtR PRESENT SlTFATIOR 103 FARM CASH RECEIPTS AHP EXPENDITURES FOB LAST YEAR 1 • CASH R C ftl'T S (S e t M W RECRRRS OR TAX RCTRRh ) Estimates Afaqrst A . C lO f SALES S ______ I . LIVESTOCK AHA LIVESTOCK FROOBCT SALES C . LtfHSEK ARO fOACSTRT PRORRCT SALES 0 , AATRORASE BIVISEHSS E . INCOME FROM WORK OFF FARM F . INCOME FROM HOR-FARM INVESTMENTS R• OTHER H . T o t al Ca sh Re c e ip t s 2 - CASH EXPENSES 3 • CASH RECEIPTS LlSS CASH EXPENSES a * cash reht ______4 - CHANGE IN TOTAL INVENTORIES (OtPRECIATIOR, ETC*) 1, HIRES LASOR ______5 - FARM INCOPE «. FVEL ARS O H I t HACK I BERT R IM IR _ _ _ _ 6 - CHANGE FOR USE OF OWNER'S CAPITAL E* MACK IRE AT H | ' t _ 7 - FAMILY LASOR 1NC0TC ( 5 h i hr* 6 ) f « ahto expense ( farm s h a r e ) ______ t . ELECTRIC ITT (FARM SHARE) ______REMARKS H* FERTILIZER _____ I t I I M 1 . L. H* MILS TESTIRR N. LIVESTOCK FRRCHASES 0 * SSILRIM ARR FENCE REPAIR P. 0 . R* TAXES T* IRIRRARCI S . LARS INVESTWNTS V* SRILOIRS AH* FENCE l«1 W* MACHINERY IRVESTHERTS * • Cash ^ | l H * * s I nvestm en ts Ex pe n s es Y# CASH Ex p s s s is ( arr 0 ANR x ) SECTION | - OK PRESENT SlTOATlOR 10 u FAPH tMVESTFENTS LAST YEAR Lars tnri FAAH MACNIREAT ARR EOOIPMERTt FARM BRILRIMtt J«TAL tRVESTHEETt ...... "isavi" ■ * Dollar *♦“ ” ■ ’LUlUitrei • 0OLLAR (W«AT WE OVA) • VALOE *• (WHAT WE owe) • owto f ARB| fARH* f t * t M f I f " 1 I I t Liv e s t o c k 1 * L iv e s to c k loare i 1 ■ ■■ n 11 MACKIRERT. TOMA. BQEIPMERT » As t s n o s il c » 1 n * t t — r ■ - 'ir r tv “ t------rr Tot.v_A»*it» (a) t it TOEAl ASSETS (A) t- TOTAL LlARUITIU (■) NIT WMTI (A HIRBR •) $ Date APPEIDIX C 105 OATit FARM MANAGEMENT WORKBOOK (A Part of Farm arc Home Develorhert) Sectioi tl OUR PLAN PCD CROP ANO LIVESTOCK PROGRAM NAMe ( r ) ARRREI*______ _ C W I H TOWRRHlP TELEMORE EXCHARCE No . Roar ______Ml LEE______N, S, E, V, OF______ Prepare * *T Neal p . Ga rpeh t er , Farm Maraocmert S e c t ic r , Oerartmirt or A«RtCRLlBRAl ECO*OM|CR, IR COORERATIOR WITR CORRTT ARE*!*, SOIL COMERVATIRR SERVICE, VOCATIRRAL AiRICHLTRRE OERARTHERTR, ARRICRLTRRAL STARILIIATIRI Committee * , Farm Se c r r it t ah * Prrrrctirr Cr ed it Armirirtratirr 9ST/&OQ______th e 0*»* State uriterritt cooperatirr wit* the u*S. Oeparthcrt rfarr'icd ARRICRLTRRAL ClTERRIOR SERVICE, W. 6 . WOOD, OlRCCTCR, COLRMRRR, 0*11 O i l T * IIRTIR | | FRRTHERARCC OF ACTR RF MAT 0 AIR J*RI 29, 19)4 NET I t 10* NO. 4 107 IMTRRCTICRO PRO P M I It FlItT, OtTCRHIRR Tit ITII4II I M U or A C M O TOO W I U I4TI I AON T U I rot U M or TOC eotoiM ( 2 ) . NtxTt to cotona (S ) r u « i Tit yiiloo too r u i to mt a i i . T a u t *»« a n rrom- oarilt tic yirlrr too arc row orttiio, oar wrat too plait to ort oa trc avrraci. eotihatr tii yirloo or a u eaoro at trc u t u or raooocTioa YOU ravc oioiiio too w i n ootair or YOUR PARH. (I ROM IT 10 POOSIOLC TO OfT ROCR TltiOt All TRAT TOO HILL PLAR Al ARRROBOT Ni x t , h o l t i p l t tii y i i l r o ria a c r b t i m r r t i i i r h b r a or a c r i r t o o o t a i r t m a l y i r l o o or ORAIR ARO OAT (COtlM 4 )» (If IT If PAOTIRE IRRTROCTIOOR ARt AT TOR ORT TOM OT R A M I.) MULTIPLY TOR TOTAL PROORCTtOR RHORR OOLRMR 4 , T I M M TOR "CORI RORITALCRT* PACTORl, (ilORR 6), TO OORTRRT ALL ORAIR TO ORR OTAROARO. TOR R A M HILL OR TORI POR RAY ROllVALRnO. (Nat oiraor Aeato will or lipt ar nrarrh tirloo arr aorcr. Error hill rot or too laror). Total colomr (6 ) p m orair air oat or l i r m (i) arr (2 )* Trio hill or root plairro pro- RRCTIRO or fiRAIR AIR HAT* U n i t YOO HAT RAVI HORR HRARRU THAR TOR RRRO ARO OR RRORT OR PAOTRRC* COHPLRTR PARR 2 ARO ORTRRHIRR IOH HART RXTRA TORO OP OAT TOO HILL R A M AOOffl TOR AHORRT RRRRRO POR HIITRR PCKRIRC. (PARR 2 , COLOHR 4, OMTOH Lilt). OlTltl TRIO OORPLOO OT TORI PLAIRRO TIRLO PRO A C M OP M Y . PLACR TRRAl RXTRA ACRRO OR LIAR (l), PARI |t POR MCA I OH TTPI PAOTRRR. IT ORORLO RARRT I AIINAL BRIT PRR A C M . See, II - pace I Step N o . 2t Estimating tne f t n u p annual PRoeecrioe op each crop pec notation. Total acres to Est* Aye. Est. total ECO. * Estivates CROP (6rair) Be Pooovcto yiels Per PROS. PER ' 6RAIO PER YEAR ACRE YEAS * EQUIVALENT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) * («) ... • (a) Coro (for orair) ACRES X so. • IV. X 1 *• so. i (b) Oats ACRES X IU. a so. X £ IT • 0, t (c) Barley ACRES X • «. • 0. X .« *9 IU. i T ( r) wheat ( for peep) ACRES X so. sv. X 1*1 •a IV. • (t) WHEAT (fo r sale) ACREI X ____ 00. a SO* i (p) SOYREARt (FOR sale) ACRES X _____so. ■ su. t 1 ■■ ( I ) PLANNED TOTAL BRAIN EQUIVALENT- •O .l TOTAL ACIEC Ttt EST. AYE. £«T. TOTAI * ESTIMATES chop (porare) 8e probvces yieli Pec Proc. pec eqbiv. * hat ______Per year______acre y e a r ______* Eonitalint • («) hay ACRES X T . - T . X 1 » ' T* t ( r ) CORO ( s h a r e ) ACRES X T . T . 1/3 = ' T . I * X t • • (l) OTHER CROPS • ACRES X 1 = ’ T . • *" ' i (2) PLANNED TCTAL HAY EQUIVALENT- Ni m o acres Total Number op NUMBER ACRES PIR REQUIRES TO Animal u nits Crop (P a st o r e ) Pasture Animal That car be tlOIT PER YEAR CAORESO ♦ ( j ) MEAsow TYPE ACIES \ ACKC a • • ( r ) Re s e e o e * Permanent ACRES 2 ACRES CAPACITY ( l ) Tr ea ts * P ermanent ACRES 7 3 ACRES s Ca pa city - (n ) UOIMPROYE* ACRES Y B ACRES CAPACITY (3 ) PLANNED TOTAL PASTURE CARRYING CAPACITY IN ANIMAL U N ITS------A .U . 111 • OCCIM NOW MET ACRES OP EACH TYPE OP PASTORE TOO W ILL IAT(« O lVISE TNEIE ACREI ST TOE NUMBER OP ACRES (CERTER COLUMN) REQUIREB TO AOEQNATELY PASTIRE I ANIMAL Si IT PER VtAO* This W i l l HEAP PIOORE TONS TOTAL PASTORE CARRYIM CAPACITY* BE SURE NEVER TC USE MORE ACRES IN ANY CASE THAN YOU HAVE AVAILABLE ON FARM. INSTRUCTIONS: latd T t b e n n i i o f l i v e s t o c k r w PLAN t o b e e f o n T « apfaofbiati l i r e i n c o l b m n 2. M b i t i f l y » c « b b m e e b or l i v e s t o c k tv Taa b a y , b r a i n in i>»tinin «M l«» r e r a n i m a l , ( te a c o l b h b s 3, i"*ac 7). t X A M p U * la t o o a n a r a a n a 30 b a i b y e « i( taaiar 30 oa n a c (a ), c o l u m n (2). M b l t i f l y 30 b y 3*5 Toaa a b b i « m t 00 oa l i n e (a ) c o l o n s (4), T a ta W ill B| TBC AhOBBT OF MAY BCQBIBCB FOB TBE MlLKIRS COWS BSRINB OBE WINTER, NEXT mnltibly the bbaib BEoaiatB aca b a ib y cow, (32 su.) tim e s 30 baiby cows, taataT tn e t o t a l of 860 as* oa line (a) colons ( 6 )* cobtmbe this frocesure fob ssfplemebt ahs also otncb TYPES OF LIVESTOCK, WMIB FiaiBBEO, ABO COLBMNS 4, 6 ABO 8 TO BETERMIBE TBE TOTAL MAY, OAAIB abb ssfflehcrt atQaiafia fob yobb flabbib livestock on libc (o). Ob libe (a) ibbint total BAY ABB BBAIB BBOBSCEB BY YOBB FLAB, (BEE TOTALS I & 2, BABE l ) . Ktflta oa livestock * YOB FLAB • r c i * JUf * FEB * Grain » FIR * StfFP. TC BE KEBT 1 TO REEF t A virA L « IU* • Anim al * SEC, • Animal < aco. t (2) t (3) • (T) t V («) , 0 ) ...... ’ t ( 5 j i , t 6 ). • 1 EXAMPLEt (r e as) * (to bs)I * {••»*} ' - (lBS.1 • LBS.) t 1 ( a ) Oa ( by cows ._ (30) _ 0 ) (90) * (32) ' !&} ' (600) ' (15000) 1 1 1 r 1 f aiby cows t 4 i 32 {•) O _3,5 _V 500 * 1 1 T Da is y calf r * 7 («} _ J . ' * too 1 1 \ i t t 1 f I * 7 * (•) 2 ' * 100 * f 1 i t « cow 1 f 2*5 t 5 1 * • (') BEEF & CALF 1 t f T 1 1 % f ( 0 BEEF MIEFCB 2 * 7 100 * % > 1 1 X 1 1 t 1 * 38 (•) BEEF CALF 4-8001 275 - » t i i BEEF FATTEN IBB 1 r t 1 r M f f {') 8ows it 2 LITTERS 200/ I BO 1 * 1000 * • 1 f V t Feebeb bobs 2 | 0 f t X t « I » * 1 t 1 t W Ewes ib c l b b ib o * LAMB TO WEAB t 5 0 0 / » * 1.7 ’ 1 t 1 v t 1 t 1 * 1 t i i r f ( 0 Lambs (2 7 / OF b ala) 1 % « t • « ' _ t w Lambs ( beflacemcbt)\ 35 Oj • 'k 0 X i * « t f {-) herb ( l i s b t ) * I f* 15 • t 1 • I f (♦) HERS (BEATY) ‘ I.? 22 ' • V 1 • i * Replacement ( l io b t ) « __ t 21 < w 1 t i * ♦ • « * (0) Replacement ( meaty) • ,12 ' 1 34 f i J > t * f f Bb o ile b 3 / .06 * (•) * 4.5* 'xxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxixxxxxx* * xxxxxxx' ’ xxxxxxxx* (®) Total fees beebeb VxxxxxxxxxxxxVtxxxxxxxxxxx' * xxxxxxx’ 'xxxxxxxx * I t ) AHOBBT AVAILABLE VxxxxxixxxxxxVixxxxxxxxxx' 1 ) * x ix x x x x '2 ) * xxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxx FROM ROTATIOB ^xxxxxxxxxxxxfcxxxxxxxxxxx' * xxxxxxx' 'xxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxx (■) ^BRPLNS OB AHOBBT Stxxxxxxxxxxxx^ixxxxxxxxxx’ 1 xxxxxxx ’xxxxxxxxf TO BE PtIBCBASES xxxxxxxxxxxxAxxxxxxxxxxiP • xxxxxxx* ‘ xxxxxxxx1 IV V 11LJ STEF No* 3 (cootI10«b) PASTURE REQUIREMENTS! AHIHAL »B1“ EOUIFALEBrS III OAUV FASTHBE C0HSBNFTI9B. (NSHOEN OF ANIMALS OF TAB I 90S MSB* THAT WILL CQBBBHE APPROXIMATELY AS MOON FASTHBE AS ONE COW 11 OBI OAT.) PiACC TOSS FLASSEO LirSSTOCR SOHOESB OMOCS COLBHS ( 2 ) * OIFIOC (ACM SOHSft ST TOE NBHSCS I I COLONS ( 3 ) , Place too* answer is colnhs (4)« Wses fisioseo total colons (4) os L is t (A ). f rocs NO. OF EACH t * MO* OF N o , OF ASIHAL (0 VOS FLAS TO t f TO 1*0*1 ONI Units too w il l KEEF t COW 00 PASTURE SATE OS FAOTOSt — .121______J 3J______Li)_____ Oa i s r cows 1*0 A.II, t * ESS . 4 I jL A*ll, Reef cows _L*L A.U, 9 BEEF STEENS A HEIFERS j __L -2*L A.'Jt ' L . (FISC WOOL) ♦ Ewes & Iamos to weah t - i - 6*0 A.U, (COANSE WOOL) Ewes i Lawns to weas 5 * 0 A .U i 12*0 A.U. Hoes • 150 l b s * 1 6 .0 A.U. Sows 0 300 LOS* 5 *0 A .U i PiAt 0 50 IB S . 50.0 A.'J, (A) A.U. A.U. (See total 4, faoe l) SVBFLOS 0* OEFISIT A.U, BE00IN6 REQUIREMENTS! INSTRUCT IONS I T b e FOLLOWISS f i o s r e s a o e t h e f o u s o s o f s t o a w p r o d u c e # f o o e a c h b h s h e l o f ORAIS TOO PLAN TO FNOOBCl; WHEAT; 96 LOB. OF BTBAW FEB BU. YIELD; OATS ABB SABllY, 5 0 LOS. F4B BS.l COBB, SO LBS. FEB OS. MBIT MIT (ACS OF THE ABOTE FIBOSCS TIMES THE SBSSELS OF SACS •RAIS VOS WILL FBOBSCE TO BETERMISE YOBB BEBB IBS SOFFIT. BESS I HO REOHIIIBi DAIRY COWS IB STASCHIOBS, 1900 LBS. FCR TEAS; IS LOOSE RORSIM, 2TtW>,LBS. FEB TEAS. OTHER LI TEST DCS HAT SI estimates at Ore 7oh fer Asinal Unit fib tear, (note: IOO csicstss eosal I Arihal u s i r is TRIB CASE.) total beooibb r e o b h io ...... ______lo b. Amoobt froooceo ...... _ JLOO. 8HRFLSS 0* O IF IC lr ...... ______LOS. •(9 ) 900109 01 101001 194 101 I I 01 J it 40 9014909 101091110 • I 0011919 *100101101 00101101 M000 99111000411 9101 119) *(s ) 000109 01 l l l l t l l l t 1*10 M0 001 IfiO i 19114 • ( * ) 0H0109 01 011191 19114 (*0110101 11110 094 100914 1190H *9110101 10911 004 100914 9111100 I9fl) *(g ) 000199 01 190014 10 114I110U *1 901199 91 4110 91 9114 091 0114 99 0110101 49 1411 0911 40 019000 M l 10114 IJ 2 S tep 4 * Octebmibibs Shbplbs of Shobtaoe of hops n a fob Plabheb U y t n t c » Probham NO. TO * Sm c c Tot At , T o ta l yo« , S l I F l l l KfBO OF LIVESTOCK BE t SQ. Ft. # HAfl f M VIII KEPT P it A lt U L REOHIBEO t AVAILAtLC , D e f i c i t (1) (2) | U) (4). . (s)_. . (6) .. * SO. FT. t D a iry cows ( lo o s e ) f 100-150 6a IKY COW* * " 7 9 - K t (tTAtio with u i i n ) f V * YOORO CATTit ( l* N t) 1 30- 40 t CAtF FEBS f (20) t * * F ees Bbbk S pace ( i o m i ) 1 30" FEE AK|* L i t t MATERHITY FEBS f (00-150 • f IB S . & bp) 64 Sows (350 ~1. • * Beef hobs i ho ( see > t t n ) t______t t BREESIHO Ewes t f 12 , t 1 * 1 * v • Fattcbibb Lambs , t S- 10 , t , ♦ I • t t Lamb n o pcbi * 12- 16 i « Bbbk abb Feibib Space . (2-I5*/abi. ] , ! f * Chicks (Sroosibo) . • i - 2/3 : : : « 1 . * 6BSIIEBS -» .8 — 1 f a # LayCES Liebt * • i , » * MCAIT 9 • 4 * * * S tep S t Oe t e b h ih ib o f i » Stop tot m m nm m foo yobb plahbeo Prooram * No. TO * Cn* FT* * Total t S v i u i t CROP to Be Stores ' BE * r a t Co* FT. Co* Ft * * m « KEPT • UttIT t fttQ tffItt Atailiilc * OCMC IT t 1 4 1 « Shslleb Cobb (bb.) ' . 1 *25 t - f 1 Eab Cobb ( bb. ) * t 2 .5 0 * t M . ,| r • * • Wheat bb rye ( b b .) * ■ «2S t f T T ♦ OATS o i Bariev * • 1.25 * t loro )' T on ' t B 9 * HAY chopper) tor • 1 200 » « b a l e s ) Tor * t 200 - 220 * V I FI trercb) to o • t ~TT'- il 1 SlLABC (IB silo) TOR * t 4 0 - 6 7 • « t 1 1 P " "4 Fresh gbbbbb fe es (co t .)’ f 4 * » INSTRUCT 10WS FOR PAGE S t Ool P tM l, AS l i r i l t l M i l , IS TNt I H M i r OF SIRICTLY PROBBCTIVE W ill ACC QMP L ISHEB 10 0 m oo or At "areraoe* worker or a typical COMMERCIAL FAMILY sizes FARM 10 Ohio* It ASRITIOR ate ROMA FOR EVERY 4 FRORRCTI Ft HOBRS. A FEW FARMERS HOW IICEIO 2600 PFWM* IF TORI IOT ACS excess THIS FISRRC St SRRC TO WATCH TOR A US OH EFFICIENCY* (a) PLACE TSOR HOMRtfl OF ACRtS OR LIVESTOCK 10 CCRTCR COLOUR* (s) MULTIPLY TRESt FISSUES T IM S TRS ROHRS 10 FIRST COLONS. (e) Place arswsr 10 tr.r. colrhr. (0) TOTAL TRIMS COLONS FOR EACH ARIA, FIELD C.OFS, LIVESTOCK, ETC, PLACE TORS TOTALS la summary slock below * SUPT'ARY BLOCK FOR PAGE 5 F i t i o C ro p s ( ptV h ) — — ------r------ppwh L iv esto ck ■ ------— ------pm wh F ro 17 Crops " ------—— ------PMWH Vi s i t a s l c s • pmwh MISCELLAREOhS • — - PMWH TOTAL PPWH ------■■ ■ PMIH ASS 1 /4 OF ASOYC TOTAL FOR MA I RTCRARCE— ■------— PMWH TOTAL PMWH ON THE FARM------— ------— ------— PPWH NEXT, SCTLRHIRC ROW nAHr MOMTHS OF LASOR TOO WILL RAVE AVAILABLE. EXAMPLE: OPERATOR 12 MORTRS, WIFE 2 NORTHS WORK CRTSISE THE HORSE, SOR, 3 MOHTHS fOVALC A TOTAL OF IT NORTHS. O tflS E IT o r 12 EROALS 1 *4 MAR EOKIVALCRT. t o t a l PfVW i MAN EQUIVALENT » PPWH PER MAN TABLE OF PRODUCT IVE MAN WORK HOURS (PMWH) TO PERFORM THE LABOR ON FARM ENTERPRISES IN OHIO PHtfH Aescs T otal Pt-VH Ac ACt T otal I TIH EACH e r e * PMWH *1 T*« each CTC, PMWH 1--- F ic l p C «or» FSDIT C «Q »t C o a t ( fully h c c k a m i i o ) 8 AFFLlt (tCAHINs) ICO Coat til Ate ( f i e l d c s o f ) 12 PEACHES • 90 C ons s i l a g e (s t a y * c a r ) 18 P EA tt ■ eo * Wheat • ( lasd t o r p l o v i t ) 6 PLUM " 50 OATt • * 5 Ch e n s I es • 180 ba flc y • • 6 T iE f FAUITS (MOT SEAN. 20 RVI • * 6 CHAFES (lEA N ISc) 100 S oy >e Att (|k iw i) 8 C hafes (sot s Ea h i m ) 90 Hay , f i AST c d t t i >• A STHAWtCHHIES (SC A IIH S ) 400 Hay , second cuttiac 3 (' )ioo HAY. TNIFt CtJTTtH# 2 300 9 t 6«A |5 SflACE (FEELS €HOf )‘ 6 ' * BLACKttHftlftS 220 • 4 # 9 “T ------1------f * •S hall c s a i n s , if la ho * 1 • TOTAL FOR FRUITS 9 FLOWED, ASD *(4 PtWH * 0 * 9 V » 9 < 9 f * VEtfTAlLta • 1 TOTAL PMWH FOR FIELD CROPS • * • 1 ... ^ f f t * SwtiT cat*, h k t * 30 • f • 9 9 L i t Et T c c t ' f SWECT COftl, t*oc* ’ t m u m f 20 • 9 * LlPA 1EAJS, PAOC* 9 20 • t t 9 D a is y cow 100 * f i • 9 D a isy y o o m s t o c k * 20 * * T c h a t c e i , f h o c . 100 « 9 D a il y s o l i ’ 50 * * CASSASE, FHOC. 90 < f • « * P o t a t o e s 80 9 Beef cow 15 * * 9 Beef y o s s s s t o c s ' 10 * • S usar s e e t i ( nano hast .) 80 « Beef f a t t i h i s s feh cwt. * 3 * * S usan se c t s ( hach HAST .) 50 t t • • * Tobacco 300 t 9 Be e f s o l i * 20 • * VESfTASLES fHISC.] 200 T- Sow ASb TWO L m e Its ’ 30 ’ t 9 9 Mat. nos (to 200 LIS.) ’ 3 * 9 * TOTAL FOR VEGETABLES 9 f • T" 8 t 9 t 9 Ewe o s ham ' 5 * * M iscellaneous U nit, FtettA 2 HC h 1.1 L e s t, 1000 I H . F T . 20 FEHCE F M t l , 100 IS PULLCT tA l i f t •5 MAFLE SYNSF, I SAL. 2 BACMLEt •2 T u k MY *T 10 Be e s , s u e 5 TOTAL PPWH FOR LIVESTOCK F uel woot, cots 10 TOTAL FOR MISCELLANEOUS APPE-IDIX D 115 Date: , 19 FARM MANASEMENT WORKBOOK (A Part of F*«h arc Home Oevelopmirt) SECTICM in ESTIMATED NET INCOME FROM OUR IMPROVED P U N NAME («) ASIRESI_ COSRTV TQWASm IP ______TEIEPHOHE E* c h *»«i ______No, « 0 * »______M i l t * ______N, S, E, W, or______ Prepares st neai r . carpehter, farm maharekert S e c n o R t Oefartmeht or A rricuitirai Ecohohics, is cooperatior with Coohtt Ascats, s o i l Cohservatior Service, vocatioral asricrierre Oepartmehts, asricrlturai SrARiuiArioR Committees, Farmers Pome ahs Prosrctior Cseoit Asmiristaatior II57/7QQ______ The Ohic State UHiTiRiirr coopesatihc with the u»S. Oepartmert or Asricoithre asricvlthral Eaters t oh Service, w , b . Woos, Director, coiomirs, Ohio 0 i s t r issTER is rv rthesarce of Acts of Mat 8 aho jhhc 30, 1 9 (4 REVISIOS NO. 4 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PA6E I t li Section I I you haye listed tm sunder or each type or livestock roa PLAN t o keep a t •o n I FUTURE OATE, ARO ALSO THE ANOUHT OF CROPS YOU WILL HAVE FOA SALE, PA«C I I I DEBtORES TO DITERHIRE THE U N I CASH RECEIPTS TON CAM REASORASLT EXPECT FROM THIS HHHSER OF LtfESTOCK AHO AflOOSTI OF CROPS» FOLLOW THU FHOCEOHKC FOR LIVESTOCK? ( a ) Ei AMIHE COLHMH ( l ) AHO DETERMIHI WHAT VOH WILL • * » ! TO IELL FROM YOUR FLAHRSB PR0ORAN* ( • ) I t COLHMH (2) PLACE THE HOMIER OF ARtHALS YOH WILL HATE FROOHCIIH THE FRQOHCT OH THE UUHIIfl OF AH IHALS THAT WILL HE FOR SALE* (c ) COLHMH ( 3 ) , O ECIIt HOW MUCH FHOOOCTIOR YOU WILL TRt TO RET IH EACH CASE FROM THE ( • ) COLONS (4 ), FILL THIS IH HY MHLTIPLYIHH THE FI40HE IH COLHHM (2) TIMES FISHRE |R COLU.iH ( 3 ) . ( l ) COL OMR (5 ), PLACE THE An OUHT TOO WILL 08 E AT HOME OF EACH ORE* (F) COLOMH (6)* SilTRACT COLHNB (5) AMOHHT FROM COLHWH (4 )* THE REMAIHOE• OOCS IH COLHMH (6 ), THE AMOOHT FOR SALE* (o) COLHMH (7 ), THIS WILL SE THE AVERAOE PRICE TOH THIRR YOH CAH EXPECT OVER THE HIKE FIFE TO TEH YEAR PERIOD FOR EACH PROOUCT. FOR MILK EHTER NET PRICE AFTER HAHLIHO I t DEDUCTED* ( h) COLHMH (8 )* MHLTIPLY COLHMH (7) TIME* COLHMH ( 6 ) . THIS WILL SI THE ESTIMATES CASH SALES OF f*CH SHOBP. TOTAL COLHMH ( 8 ) . Fo l l w approximately t h e s a m e p r o c e d u r e f o r c r o p s . Pe a s c o l s m h h e a d s a d d f i l l ih A"CORD I ROLY* SECTION lit - ESTIMATES RECEIPT! from 01 Step I'o, I] Calculate Exfectin Annual Probliction anb Receipts from Chops, Livestock, arr imiTcc* procucts from your Pmphoteo pirn ExPICTIO ABKHAS PROBNCTICN ANN RECEIPTS FEW LIVESTOCK ANO LIVESTOCK PROOOCTS 1 KO. OF ' P*o~ Total 1 t i 1 Pro- * oucriQ i TOTAL USES t A m * t Price * PROPUCT A/ t PUC IAN « rt* Pp o - ON i FOR • per « Total t AKI»ALEt ANinALl riiCT ico Farms * Sale t UMT * RECEIPTS ( 0 (2) • 0 ) £5) < (6) ( ') • (8) mu rexAMfu] 11 ~ y r • )B,666 ^46,666 4,006 * £4.00 * $9,446 ♦ f f MILK (LBS.) • • t t t Cull Dairy cows (ho.) t t I f OA|H\ CALVES (NO.) * i t • 1 D i l l ’ HEIFER (NO.) * t t 1 1 CVLLT ARO 0 0 NINON * i p 1 1 1 CH ICKt NS (ffO *) ' » t t T Eons ( noz.) * t V t * 6R0IUFS (no.) * t t 1 t Cull Sows (ho.) ' MKT. NOON ( lb s .) ' t * t t t V « • WEAR. PINS (NO.) ' * t * 1 Coll deep caws (no.)' t « * 1 Feener CALlft ( no.) ’ f 1 ♦ 1 fat cattle ( l i t .) • 1 1 COLL Ewes (no.) * »» r 4 * t Feeoer lambs ; row) * fa t LAMBS ( lb s .) ' • » « * 1 WOOL (LBS.) * I f f Others (list) • • t t • TOTAL U'/SSTOCK RECEIPTS------ EOtCTEI A«MAL PROONCTION ARO RECEIPTS FR0HCROP4 ------— — - — ■ -■ — V ■* T monnt AnOORT % A t PRICI PtOBOCT */ ' AnttRT UN IN res ' per ’ Total On Farm ERlt * UNIT * RECEIPTS t » t F ...... CONN CRTS 01 BARIEV WHEAT SOYBEAN* Hat or Straw TOBACCO Others (list) TOTAL CROP RECEIPTS- - a / Riper to Section H , pane 2, $/ Refer to Section H , rase 2 bottom line IMSTRUCTtOMS FOR PAOE 2 : 1 - ESTIMATED CASH RECEIPTS T h is l * merely * summary or Put 2, Carry to tals forward from pace 2 abb place answers (R I . A ARD R. FOR THC H E M € . , l „ ETC* YON MAT NSC PRESENT FIRRRCR OR IRRORE TRIM A OR M R ▼At INCOME FROM THESE SOURCES AR "INSHRARCC* ARAIRRT OVER ESTIMATIRO. The LATTER IS ABVISASLE IS MOOT CASES. 2 - ESTIMATED CASH EXPENSES (lRSTRuCTlRRs) A . CARR RtRT - IRSCRT AMRRRT TOR K i l l AC TRAIL Y FAT, IF RENTIER OR SHARE FMORE TORS CARR EXPENSESAKO PLACE HIRE. s. hirer laior - Estimate amount of extra months of laror tor reer from l a st pare of Section it. c.Fuel aho oil - if oferatin« same acreaoe as present raise cost 0 noie present. 0 . MACHINERY REPAIR - RAISE | / 5 ASOTE PRESENT. IF ARRITIORAL MACHINERY WILL RE PURCHASES (see Section i) and also 2% of new cost. r. Machinery hire - raise present custom rates 10%. p. Arto expense (farm snare) hot less than 24 p e r MILE BRIYER. 0 . El e c t r ic it y ( farm sh ar e) S ame as present holers a r r it io r a l e l e c t r ic eonipm ert is to s r n ser. n . Telephone - sse present telephone e x p e n se. i f J f n . Es t im a t e these or pace 3 . 1 . See rottom l ir e Sec tio n 11 pace 2) e s t im a t e cost of hay, c h a in ahb sr pp le h e h t too most p hoc h are. Arc 101 per o n . of c h a in for c r in c ia c . m. Net chances, ho le s s than *5.00 per cow r a in y , *3.00 per cow (reef), $4.00 per sow , £ 3 .00 per 130 HENS. H . M U N reSTINC - (estimate this sy csihc present rates) o . T h is s n o n ir irclnse c h ic k s , feerer c l a v e s , e t c . pens chrrent rate for rreeriwc f e e s . • . Bn U S IRC ANN FENCE REPAIRS - INCREASE YONN PRESENT FISVRE BY 1 0 -2 0 *. 0 . MISCELLANEONS EXPENSES - IF YON ARE SCSI TONS PRESENT FI1NBE IS COMPLETE »SE I T . IF YOUR ACCORRTI ARC ROT TOO COMPLETE INCREASE THIS ACCOROI BOLT. s . Taxes - iyclnse real estate anb personal tax. Increase present taxes sy l / 5 . t . I nterest ( & & on amount you e s t im a t e yon w il l nave sohrower). N . INSURANCE (RAISE PRESENT FISNRC IN MOST CASES, BE SURE IT IS ABEONATE, v, w, x . Leave these slabs • yon w il l coyer them in vohh oepreciatioh allowance in 4 . yooh PLANNER FARM INCOME WILL SC ON THE LAST LIRE ( 5 ) . IS IT ERONCH TO SATISFY THE STAHOARB OF LIVIRS YOU RES I RE? IF SO, YON ARC BEAST FOR SECTION IT . STEP NO, 2 l T t t f TNI LIVESTOCK ass Crop ENTERPRISE c Otis 11 :o m Psooociso Capacity I . ESTIMATED CASH RECEIPTS Estim ate * Amosst A • LIVESTOCK AN* LIVESTOCK PKOINCT SALES I 1 . CROP SALES f C. LSMSIR AN* FORES TIT PROSNCT SALES f • • PATRONAfiE 01V ISENOS t I* INCOME FROM WORK OFF FARM t F, INCOME FROM NON-FARM INVESTMENTS i «. OTNtl t H . TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS ------XII 2 , ESTIMATED CASH EXPENSES A, CASS KENT « • KIKES LASO* C. FOIL ASO OIL I , MACKIVEKT SEP AIR ■ • MACHINERY H |lt Ft ASTO EIPEKSE (FARM SKA At) « . ELECTA I fiITT (FARM SRASl) n . telephone ( farm SRARE) I# PISTIL I IEA J , LIRE IES • • MILK TESTIS* *• LIVESTOCK FVKCHASES A SREEOIKt FEES P. SOILOIBS ASS FESCE KlPAIK 0. MllCELLAIEOSI EIPISSIS XIII R. CASH VARIABLE EXPENSES* >• TAKES T, INTEREST PA|0 ON BESTS S. INSBRANCE V. LAS* INVESTMENTS w. SNILSIN6 Alt FENCE INF. S. MACK I IERT INVESTMENTS Y. CASH FIXED EXPENSES- - XIV Z . CASH EXPENSES (add R a i i y ) ...... | XV 3 , CASH RECEIPTS LESS CASH EXPENSES------XVI «. CHANGE IN TOTAL IN.ENTORIES XVII (Depreciation, etc.) 5 , YOUR PLANNED FARM INCOME XVI11 Ihstructicwr for Pare 3: I • Fe r t i h i e r Es t im a t e ; A. COLWMH (2) PLACE ACHE* VOW PLAN TO WAVE OP fAC* CROP* B* CCLWHHR (3 - 4 - 5 - 6) la ACTRAL PRACTICE TOR WILL LlRCLT WEE R10 A ARALVSIt FERTILI1ER8 AHO FERTILIZE ACCORSIHS TO ROIL TEST, ART POR CtTIHATIRR PERTIL HER CORTE TOR MAT WIRH TO BEE SOME VARIATIOR OP THE PSLLOWIHR (THERE PIRWRER ARE FOR MRIRTCRAHCC ORLY.) C. TRIR 10THE APPROXIMATE AMSBHTS OP THESE BARIC PERT 11 HE HI REQUIRED TO MAIWTAII PROSBG- TIOR OP EACH OP THE VIELOR LISTER ARR THE PRICE PER 100 LBS * IB 1957* USE PRICER FOR YOKE AREA* (Example ) Amrrrt Appro x * COST PER APPLllS Cost per CROP Y IIIS 100 LBR* PER ACRE ACRE J2)------1*1------r^T CSRW 80 Btt* 6-12-12 $2.65 400 LB. $10*60 WHEAT 40 BR. 3-20-20 4.00 400 LB. 16*00 Oat « SO SB. 6-12-12 2*65 400 LB* 13*60 Meaoow 3*6 T. 0-20-20 3*20 200 L I. 6.40 PASTURE THEATER 0-20- 0 1*80 200 LB* 3*60 AFTER BETCRNIBIM THE COOT PER ACRE POR EACH CROP (BY MRLTIPLVIBR C01HMR A TIMER 5) CALCULATE TOTAL COST FOR EACH CROP (ACRES TIMES COST PER ACRES) AHO PLACE ABRWER |R COLWMH ( 7 ) . TOTAL COLBMW 7 ARO TRABRFER ARSWER TO ITEM ( l ) PARE 2 , 2 . LIME ESTIMATE! FOLLOW I HR TRRCTIORS ABOVE LIME TABLE. TRABRFER TOTAL TO ( ITEM j) PARE 2 . 3 . Seer pw scharss ; A* PLACE ACRES OF EACH CROP IH COLWMH (2 ). s* Place reebirq rate ir crlhmr (3 ). w* PLACE COST PER BHSHEL, ETC. IR COLWMH (4 ). B* OCTERMIRE COST PER ACRE i t HWITIPLVIRO RCEBIHB HATE TIMES COST PER WRIT* E* Total cost w ill re calcrlateb it mrltiplvihr cost per acre timer hhmber op acres op each CROP* NOTE)F or c a s e op f i s r r i h b t h i s s e c t i o h , t he e r r o r w i l l r o t be b r e a t ip * ou b s e £2*10 p e r a c r e POR SEEDCOST PER ACRE OF CORH ARB $5*50 TO S6«00 PER ACRE POR BRASS SEES OH MEABOW OR PABTRRE ACRES TO BE REESES AiHRALLV* p* Total colwmr ( 6 ) to ( item «, pari 2) DETERMINE ANNUAL FERTILIZER* LIME, AHO SEED COtTS FROM YOUR IMPROVER PIAH (MAINTENANCE ONLy) Expected Aihual Fentiuiea NeCP* and Cost (lien t, f*st 5) i t A r a l ye if t C O S T 4 A h o v r t TO * C 0 5 T 9 * NO* OF r TO ff • PER • ic APfiiri • PER * T o t a l C r o p * A c r e s « Of ft * CWT. « PER ACRE t ACRE t C o o t 9 t t t _ * J 2 J . (3) ... (4) (5) (6) UL - i ----- mm%— f ♦ « » t C o r n i 1 t t 9 t t 1 • « O a t s t * t 4 9 4 f • « 9 1 4 w h e a t • » t f 9 4 Sa r l CY 9 ♦ # 9 f t f t 9 t * 1 f*'C A D f W • « f 1 1 Pa s t u r e •« f I t f TOTAL FERTILIZER COST ------* Expected Ahhhal H ue M i d i anl Cost ( itcw j , page b) N O T *: IN GENERAL, ONE TON OF LI*1E (VERY TOON TEARS IS REQUIRED TO MA I NT A (■ THE DESIREN AFTEfl TOUR SOIL IS AT THE OESIREH pN. IN THIS C A tt, ADO TOUR CHOP ACRES AND IMPACTED pasture ACRES TEGETNER AND D lY IIE IT 4 . THIS w il l se the anmbir OF ACRES THAT w il l LIFE EACH TEAR ON THE A YERA6E* -*------1/4 OF 9 9 Total 1 * CROP arr Tons Cost f L ime • t * I mprover PER PER Cost t • « Pasture acres ACRE Tor COLirw (|) X (3) f • » ( 0 (2) ( 3 1 . («) . f ' V ' 9 f 1 8 1 S 1 f * l S eeds to be Purchaser and cost (ITEM Kf PAflC 5) 4 1 9 4 Seeding f J RATE PER COST Cost Ho* op ACRE (s«* PER PC* Total CROP Acres OR LSS ») UNIT ACRE CORT . 1 0 ______- . (2) (_3j . i « l . ; ( s i . f*l. 9 Corn (e x a m p le ) * 10 *21 IN * 9 S I0 * 0 0 /|« * • 12*10 « * 2 f « 9 9 t 1 Corn , Cats , 9 V Wheat t Parley , COYFEANS f BRASS SCCR , PASTURE GRASS SCCR TOTAL SEED COST------T " Grass S eed Example POURS* PER Acte X Cost per Pornr = cost per Acre (T ALFALFA i ' 1 X " " - ...... I W 6 ------6 RRQMEQRASR X 3 2*22 l/ 4 LAS IS 0 CLOVER X *«® 5 •23 T T T / 4 | 5 ^ S APPE\T*IX E 123 Putt 19 FARM MANAGEMENT WORK BOOK (a PABT OF FARM AH* HOtlf DETELOPMEBT) S e c t ior IV SUMMARY OF CHANGES planked NAME(b )______ABORCBB______ ______COBrty ______ TOWBBWM Telcphobe EXCBAMI ______No»_ ROAB MILES______N, S , E , W, Of______ PREPARE* BY Neal r . c abp C BTt R, Fa BP MABAaEHEBT SfCTlO B, OCPARTMEBT of AS R I CltlTlJRA I ECOSOPIICS, IB COOPEBATIOB WI TB COBBTY ABERr*, SOIL COBSERTATIOS SERVICE, v o c a t io b a l Ab r ic b l t b r c Pep a btmc btb , Abbicbltbbal Stabiliiatiob Co m m it t e e s , Farm Se c u r it y arb pr o bb c tic r Cb e b it As b o c ia t io r Tre Orib State Ubiberbity coopebatibb witb tbe u *5» Oeparthert of Asricbltijre ABBICBLTBBAL EITCBBIOB SESTICE, w . 8 * WOOB, OlBECTOB, COLBHBBB, OBIB 0 1BTBI BOTE B IR FUBTHE RAACE OF Acts OF MAY 8 ABO JVRE 29, 1914 S t c n o a IV - S lu m C o m A O H U tT I . Ba s ic Ftariiizea Ap p l i c a t i e a s t (AWALtsu ) css./scat , cott/lOQ# . cost / acbi (abaly sis ) m/ AOt , cost /1 0 0 / , cost / acbi (ANALYSIS______) LB*/ AOt . cost/100#______, cost/acsi ( a ) p op s c a t s X c ost / ac at * Total f {»} a ta w . pA tT aat s c a t s x c m t / a c s i " Total $ fc) attnata pastubc X cost/scats Total U 2* Sa s ic L m Applicatiobi ( all tnpaovce scats) tobs / ac a t x cost / tob ■ c w r / i t u (s) ______inpaovto scats X c o s i/s c a t^ = t o t a l Lint coat J 3* CICABISS sas Rcboyatibo COSTS: f t ) s c a t s to ctesa X cosT/scat^ToTAL Cicsaias Cut f 4 . Ba s ic Sttsiaa Cost pos A cats to sc R t s e t a t S ] ( ib c l b sc s fbcl shb o n ) (O scats X 8.00/scat «Total Stts C*st t Sasas Total a , i , c , i , t, r - - | Nlf Asaoaonr ih p b o y im b t cost------$ l: Sicrioe I o r Co*«8i» Plaques aho Cost* I! tlTEOTOCK PiOOOAMj (ADOITIOIAL coots) I . Ll«t type ( i.e . Oaiay , Beef, e tc.) (a) Wo, BtcEOiao M i k u i X i mici/oaii * t (•) ______No. Replacemeot* x 8 ______ratce/ir it ~ t 2 . Type (c) Ho, Brecoiro Aotmt* X £ price / hoit • I (o) NO. REPLACtntOTS X t Mici/otit * f 3 . T > ft (Q No. Bitmio Aairuio X % Mtct/mm- s ( r ) NO. REPLACEFIEOTS x t mici/iiit: JS_ (o) grass T otal ioyeothert to aooitiooal otoco - - - - — ------I IF TOO Off 101 TO RAISE AU OF TOE AOOYl LOOM 1000, TOO* COOSIOEEATIORO IOOOLO 01 10 Tl OF 100$ OF IOCOME OUOIOO WA|T»0« PCfl|Ot« to IO I( CASIO, aW ITEI, THE MIAIMIT P I N U H H IU REQOIRE A P f llH OF TIRE TO 0(T IT 10 OFEOATlOO; 10 RAIOloe OIPlACEftEflTS WOOLS 00 TOE COST TO OOE RATOEf Thao hatooe laiaoioo a rih a u . StCTioK iV-Suiwutr Of C « » m P u u t i «m Cm to III B>h«m«"K(w STflucTums nceoip (mom r»«i 4, s te n t* 11) (u c iu tE t u n , mik nowis, etc*) I* 8UIUUI SHI ESTHETE# TOTAL COAT- ! 2 , Bu ilo iM ______S______H I E tT i m r t o t«t*i Cost- - - - — - - - - - ...... 3. 8 » m ir«______s u e ______ Esrtr.ATK Toth Cost------* — - - -- — $ 4* B M lsirt ______SHI Eotihatio T i m Coot------. — . — | EctiMTto G « u « Total or a ll ttm u n o inrnovtHEOTi 1?\ S t e n t * lv-S«M iu*r or C*m«EO Plarheo mo Coer* IV m a c h i r c r t m o Po*e* («etF* to h o e 5, Section i, w h e r e too * n e c h e c k e r m e hi h o y item* oieoeo) I ten S u e m o ( mew ok ooeo) COOT IE*T nceoeo- V 0T» none u ii n o cost: ITEM Sue mo CEfcmrnoo COt T »■ 60**0 TCTAL- - - - - $ Summary of Section Iv 1. NET Acnonomy IMPROTEMCNT COST- - - - - 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 2 . AORITIRRAL LIVESTOCK COST ------1 3 . Arritioral bbilmnc Port ------ «. AsoinoNAL Machinery Cost ------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5. OTHER FARM AND NOME IMPROVEMENT COST* - - I VI LIST RELOW THE CHANCE* YON EXPECT TO MAKE FIRST IN ORSER TO CCT THi PROCRAM INTO OPERATION A* FAST A* FOSS I S l f . Item to Chance Amount of t o t a l Change Planner YEAR 130 0 * T I ______, H FARM MANAGEMENT UORKSOOK (A P m OF FAR* A M HOKE OtVtLOPHttT) sccrtot n OUR PURRED CROP AND LIVESTOCK PROGRAM AND ESTIMATED NET INCOME FROM IMPROVED PUN Nah o (ol Atilt— — Ct— TT To— IP TiilPOtM EZCRAt— l i t N—t Mil— N. 8, E, W, OF PNIPA— t tv M I L N, CWPIItll, F*0#l MAIARC— StCTI— , DtPARTMCtT — AOKI— LTRRAl EOOROMI— , It COOPtRATIM WtTR C— RTY AtltTO, SOIL CotRKtVATI — SCRVIRI, V— ATI— AL AOOI— LTOOI Dor At rtf 0 TO, Aori— ltrrai Staoilizatioo Conitim to, Farr — a m arr pr — octior Co coi t Aowiriotoaticr Tat O tio STATR SOIVI— ITT OR— (RATI— VITN TtC U *8« QtPART— — A M t — LTORC A— t— LTORAL ESTttOIM SCO**— , W* D. UO— , ClRICT— , COLONORO, OttO DlOTOIOOTtO It FORTttRAR— OF ACTO OF MAT I ARO J | l | SO, 1014 RtTlOl— NO* 0 131 INOTNNCTIINI POO PAN! It FlNOT ICTMMIIC rn M Tirill TN HIU Mt All Til ITIIU I IIM II IT IMU TM WlU IW I u t l V U I H I U « l OP TK TAOIIM C IW I, NOAH ANA PMAIt, ANN PLACI T il MMIM M TNI APPMPNtATI AIM IN COLNMN (2 ). MMT( IN COLNMN (t) PLACI TNI TtlAM TON PLAN TO NOTAtl* T W II A ll NOT IIM H U IL T TM M U M TON AM MM OITTIM, I NT MAT VON PLAN TN OCT ON TM ATCNANI* CtTIMATI TM T IU M NP Alt CNOPN AT TIC L IT ti NP PNMNCTIM Y^U NAT! NIC INC* VON M ilt NOT A IN ON YOUR PAW* RC NNNI IT IN POM ML! TN NIT ONON T tllM AM TNAT TON MILi PlAI AN AMONCHV PI ON I AM ACSORIINOLT* NUT, MNLTIPIT TM T IU M PIN AMI TIMM TM NNMNCI OP ACNCO TN MTAIN T0TA1 TtCLM NP NOAM AM NAT, (fiOANMN 4)« (NOTCi PaOTMI IMTMOTIOM AM AT TNI NOT TOM OP PAOl I* ) MUTIPIT TNI TOTAi PIOOOOTIM MOM OOiNMN 4, TINCO TNI *0000 INN I TAUNT* PAOTMI, (U n it 5 ), TN ONNTMT 01 I f PT AO MIAOW T IU M ANN ACNII* El PON WlU. NOT I I TM LAMI*) TOTAL NNLNMN ( l ) PON NNAIN AIONAV ON L I01$ ( | ) AM (2 )a TNIO WILL 01 TOON PLAINCO PIOONOTION OP NOAIN A00 NAT* ROTE I YM MAT NAVt MMI Ml A NOW THAN TOO NtCO ANN 01 MONT OP PMTIRI* COMPLITI PAOl 2 AM OITINMIM MM MAIT IXTOA TMO OP NAT TON MILL NAVI AONVI TM AHMIT NCC0I0 PON MINTIR P ttllM * (PAOl 2, NOLNMN 4, OOTTNM l i l t ) . 0 |T |0 | TR|A MRPLNO NT 3 TON* TNI A NO WIN WILL 01 TNI MWOtl NP ANIMAL NHITO OP MIAONM PAOTMC TNI WILL NATl# PLAN! TOM I ANIMAL ONI TO ON LIM ( j ) , PAN! I , PM HCAONW TTPI PAOTMC* 132 Es t i h a t i i d the flashes ah dual production of each crof per rotaticu Rotation ______ YOUR CROP ACRES - O R E* RENTED Total acres to Es t . A*E, E *T . Total ESTIMATED Crop ( ^ r a ih ) Be produce* y ie l d Per PROD. PER EOtt. CHAIN Per year ACM YEA* EQU 1 TALENT (2) . 1 3 ) . 1 4 ) . (5) . (6L_ . — ( a ) Corn ( for o r a ir ) ACRED X DU. DU. X 1 DR. ( b ) Ca t* ACRES X • V. m DU. X & DR. (c) Barley ACRES X ■ U. X DR. X •8 BU. - (o) Wheat ( for fe e d ) ACRED X • V. DR. X l . l DU. ( e ) Wheat ( pcr s a l e ) ACRES X DR a z **• ( f ) Soybeans ( for s a l e ) ACRED X DU. - DU. (1 ) PLANNED TCTAL '.RAIN EQUIVALENT- - DR. 1 Total acres to EST. AYE. Es t • T otal Est ihateo Be Produced YIELD PER Pros, per ECU. hay CROP ( forade) Per year ACRE tear Eq u iv a l ir v ( * ) HAY ACRES XT. ■ T . X 1 = T . ( h) Corr (s il a r e ) ACRED X T. = T . X 1/3 = T . ( i ) Other crops ACRES X T.T. X - T . (2 ) PLANNED TOTAL HAY EQUIVALENT- - - - Number acres Total Nrhden of CROP (Pasture) NOPiSCD ACRED P tD . Required to Arimal urits PARENT PASTURE* Pasture Arimal That tar i i Ur i t P i* Year CARRIED ( j ) MEADOW type ACRES P 1 ACRES (r ) Reseeded Permarirt ACRED ♦ 2 ACRES = capacity ( l ) treated perpiarert ACRES A 3 ACRES - CAPACITY Cm) unihprovc* ACRED A 6 ACRES - CAPACITY ( 3 ) PLANNED TOTAL PASTURE CARRYIN6 CAPACITY IN ANIMAL UNITS- - - - 0» A. U . I l l • OeCIDl HOW NAHT ACRED Of EACH TYPE OF PADTORE TO* W ILL HATE* DIVIDE THEDX ACRID DY THE M M D tt OF ACEfD (CENTER COLCFIR) DEQDIREO TO AOEODATELY PADTVRE I AHJHAL RRIT PER YEAR, TRIE WILL HELP FIOURE YODR TOTAL PADTVRE CARRYIRD CAPACITY. BE SURE NEVER TO USE MORE ACRES IN ANY CASE THAN YOU HAVE AVAILABLE ON FARM. De t e r h i n i v d the m i requirements or y o u r p l a n n e d l i v e s t o c k P r o k a a m I HSTflUCTIOHS: INSERT TitE NUMBER or livestock you PLAh to keep oh the a p p ro p ria te l i r e in column 7^ multiply each number or livestock it the hat, brain *■» supplement reouireo per animal. (sei colnmns 3 , 5 , 4.7} . EXAMPLE: I f to » plah to reep 30 dairy cows, iisert 30 oh lire (a), colhmm (2), Multiply 30 ov 3.5 tons aro ihsert 90 oh lire (a) col ohm ( 4 ) . t h is w i l l re the amount of hay REQUIRES FOR the MILCINO COWS OtfRIMO ONE WINTER. NEXT HDTLMIY THE QRAIR REQUIRE# PER DAIRY COW, (32 BO.) TIMES 30 HA M r cows; INSERT THE TOTAL OF 960 • « . ON LINE (a) COLUMN ( 6 ) , CONTINUE T H I I PROCCOURE FOR SUPPLEMENT AHO ALSO OTHER TYPES OF LIVESTOCK. WHEN FINI THEN, ADO COLUMNS 4, 6 , 8, TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL HAY, ORA IN AND SUPPLEMENT REQUIREN FOR YOUR PLANNED LIVESTOCK OH LIRE ( q ) . OH LIRE (h) INSERT TOTAL MAY AND CHAIN PRODUCED IV YOUR PLAN* (tEE TOTALS I & 2, PA«C I). KINDS OF ' N O . OF EACH * Hay DEO.• Total • GRAM * Tdtal SNPP. Total Livestock • YOU PLAN • PER • HAT • PER » GRAI V PER Sup P. TO IE KEPT * TO KEEP • An im al * RED. • An im a l • REQ « Animal RSQ. (»} (2) (3) » («) • (3) • (6) ( 0 («) r r a # i F : ...... " t (TONS) ( tons) , C*»-) , (su.J (LBS.l (LAS.J Da is y cows , (*) (30) , (3) , (90) ♦ (32) , (960) (500) (15000) t t * t Dair y cows ' (•) * 13,000 l«. - 1.5* * 3 .5 -* * ’ 32 * 500 W t f » i I (c) Da is y cALf f 1 T • 100 ( 0 Dair y heifer , t 2 . . 7 . 100 1 * ( 0 Beep cow w ith * CREEP CALF TO 400 LD ♦ 2 5 ■— t 1 i i i f ( r ) Beef heifer ' .7 ' ' 7 ' too f f f I f « f * 1 [*> Beef calf • 400 LS* GAIN I • .7 - t 38 i 275 • « t ♦ BEEF FATT ENINS ' («) f • t * * • t t ( 0 Sow WITH 15 ’ Pits TO 213 EA, * * 2 00 / ♦ * 130 * 1600 • f * (J) rCCDER MOOS 21 3 / , « , 10 ! too « ♦ T * Ewes inclndiro {*) 1 lams to wearing * 3oo/ ; ' 1.7 * f ( « ( — /•IL / Lambs (27 / of s a i n ) • 1 200/ , 2,1 , ■------♦ 1 I Lambs ( replacement)! 330 / ; (*■■) * « t — 4 £■) hers ( l i j n t ) 4 i s . • — ' .76* 42^ t (°) HENS ( heavy) 6 L S . , t ! pdt 51 t • M Replacement ( i i s h t ) | 16 t ♦ !t • | 4 't ( 0 Replacement ( heavy ) ' f --- . * .12* 26 t t ( 0 BROILER 3 / , t 4.5 (•) 'xxxxxxx* x x x x x x x X X 1 « » • 1 (T) ) *XXXXXXX *2) xxxxxxxxxAxxxxxxxx FROM ROTATION *XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX • •xxxxxxx* xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * V * (») SURPLUS OR AMOUNT ,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ,xxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxx. TO RE PURCHASED .xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ,xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, PASTURE R£QUIR£TCNTSj Animal unit ton 1 ta le n ts in n a in t pa sture consum ption. (Number o f animals o f van ions n inn THAT WILL CONSUME APPROXIMATELT AS MUCH PASTURE AS ONI COW IN ONE SAY,) PLACf TONS PLAINER LIVESTOCK NRMSERS NNBER COLNMN ( 2 ) , BIVIOE EACH NUMBER Br TIE NUMBER IN COLNMN ( 3 ) . PLACE YOUR ANSWER IN COLNMN ( 4 ) . WNEN FINISHES, TOTAL COLUMN (4) ON LINE ( a )* KINO OF LIVESTOCK No. OF EACH NO* OF ANIMALS No* o r a n i m a l s (1) YON PLAN TO T TO EQUAL ONI UNITS YON WILL KEEP COW OR PASTURE HAVE ON PASTURE (2) (3) ( < ) DAIRY COWS * l«0 = A.U. Da i r y h e i f e r s t 2 .0 A.U . BEEF COWS 1.? ■ A.U. .. “ BEEF STEERS & HEIFERS ?*o A.'J. (FINE WOOLl Ew e s & La m b s to w e a r - 6,0 A.U. (c o a r s e w o o l ) Ewes & lambs to wean r *»r0 - A.U. t 12*0 Z A.U. - HOOB « 159 LBS* T 16*0 A.'J. r Sows e 300 LBS* T 5.0 A.U. PISS t 50 LBS* * 50.0 - A.U. ( a ) TOTAL ANIMAL UNITS Y0V PLAN TO KEED ______A.U. ISTUAE CAIRYIRS CAPACITY (SEE TOTIL A .!1. 3, PASE I) ______A.I'. Surplus or De f ic it 9E00IMG HfOUIRgnENTSi INSTRUCTIONS* T he follow ioc f I nures are the pounbs of straw proovceo for each bushel op • RAIN TOO PLAN TO PRODUCEJ WHEAT! 95 LBS OF STRAW pen SO, VIEIBJ OATS ANB BARLEY, 50 IBS* PER SU,| CONN, 60 LBS. PER SU* MULTIPLY EACH OP THE ABOVE FIBNRES TIMES THE BUSHELS OF EACH BRAIN YOB WILL PNOBUCE TO BETERMINE YOUR BEBBINB SUPPLY* 0EOOINB RIQUIRIME NT: DAIRY COWS IN STAN CHIONS, 1,000 LBS. PER YEARJ IN LOOSE HOUSING, 2,000 LBS. PFR YEAS. OTHER LIVESTOCK MAY BE ESTIMATES AT ONE TON PER ANIMAL UNIT PER YEAR, (NOTE: 100 CHICRERS EQUAL I ANIMAL UNIT IN TN|I CASE*) Total bobbins requires B is* Amount proouceb LBS* I DT I U C T I OHS FOR PASS 4* ON PARE 2 VOS SAVE LUTES THE HNMSER OF EACH TYPE OF LIVESTOCK TOO PLAN TO KEEP AT 10*11 PSTHHE OATI, Ato ALSO THE AMOUNT OF CHOPS YOU WILL HAVE FOP SALE. PACE 4 | ( SESUNES TO QETCBtlTtt THE SROSS CASH RECEIPTS VOS CAR REASORAILV EXPECT FROM THU HUMBER OF LIVESTOCK ArO AMOBHTS OF CROPS. Follow t h is procisure for Liv e s t o c k ; Ja J Examine colsmh ( l ) ahs s c t c r m ir i what you w il l have to se l l from your plashes prooram. ( • ) |R COLHMH (2) PLACE THE HHMBIR OP A R M A IS YOU WILL HAVE PROOuclSO THE PROOUCT OR THE RUHSER OF ANIMALS THAT WILL IE FOR SALE. (c ) COtHMS ( 3 ) t SEC IIE HOW MHCH PROOUCT I OH YOU WILL TRY TO SET IE EACH CASE FROM THE VARIOUS TYPES OF LIVESTOCK. (S) COLHMH M ) , FILL THIS IR BY MULTIPLY IHS THE FISURt IE COLUMN (2 ) TIMES FIBERS IR COLUMR ( 3 ) , fl> COLHMH PLACE THE AMOUNT YOU WILL HIE AT HOME OF EACH ORE. ( f) COLHMH ( 6 ) t SUBTRACT COLHMH (5) AMOUNT FACM COLUMR ( 4 ) . THE REMAINDER 8 0ES IN COLUMN (81, THE AttOBHT FOR SALE. (s) Column ( 7 ;, r « u w il l sc the averase p r ic e you t r i m you can expect over the next f iv e TO TEH YEAR PCRIOO FOR EACH PROODCT. FOR MILK ENTER NET PRICE AFTER RAH LI IB II OESUC- TCR. Be CONSERVATIVE ! ( h) Colhmh ( 8 ), m r l t m l y colrmn (7) tim es c o lu m n ( 6 ) . TH U WILL EE THE EITI MATES CASH SALES OF EACH SROUP. TOTAL COLUMN ( 8 ) . Follow THE SAME PROCESVRE FOR CROPS. BE AS COLUMR HEARS ANN FILL IN ACCOR*- I'ULY. Estim a tc B Receipts from obr I mprover plans CALCULATE EXPECTED ANNUAL PRODUCTION AMD RECEIPTS PMDM CROPS, LIVESTOCK AMD LITE* STOCK PAODUCTS THOM TOUM IMPROVED PLAN Rec eipts pmdm Livestock amd livestock prodocts i w . - f l r - * T I P " t t T « T « - ~ 5------1 9 • PRO- « su cm o r 9 TOTAi • USED tAMT. « PRICI 9 Product a / *DUCIH« t FIR 1 P l f « OH IFOR « PCR « TOTRi •Animals * AMiniL 9 DtfCfIftR • Farms •Sale * U *IT t PlCtlFTS « t • « (I) * (2) (3) («) (5) i {6) • (?) (8) I t t t t « 1 f MILK (EXAMPLE) * 24 t 10,000 9 240,000 • 4,000 • 236,000 • |4*00 19.440 4 MILK (LSB,) « • f “ 1 t t CULL OAIDV COWS (MO*) # • 9 1" 9 * * ” T r 1 T 1 ~ r i * 1 D a ir y calved HO* ♦ 1 *T “F ■"i 9 t * D a id v h ic fe r MO. T “7 ~ i t » i Culls and old DIRDS * * t « * 1 * i Cnickers ( no. FOSS DOE*) 8 RD11ERS 5 n r Cull Sows —,---- - — MKT* ROSS (itS.1 ------1---- t -1--- 4 i 4 * 1 ■ * WEAR. Plat (NO*. - nr ■ y ~ C u ll 6ecf cows ■ ■ t ‘ - ■ f • r "IT ' FEEDER CALVES (NO*) t • * i t ” * 1 t Fat cattle (lds*) " 4 * t i t Cull Ewes ( do *) 4 9 * 4 i 4 • * “ "T"'----- > --- V' *■ t FEEDER LAMSS (DO*) -- — j— fat lamds ‘(i d s .) V " - 1 ■ i 1 • * ---- T V - Wool ( l d s *) » *L"' r i * — * ■ “* - t Otners ( l i i t 1) 1 1 r r 111 TOTAL LIVESTOCK RECEIPTS Expected Annual prooocticn add Receipts kkcm crops ' " 1'r'' V ' - 1 ' - ' V ■ V- " ' V r_ r ' “ ■ • * amount # amount * p r ic e ’ * Proovcec i/ * Amodmt Produced * L i e d * rdm * per * T o t a i ♦ * ox Farm *S alt • UNIT * RECEIPTS * t • « i Co r d * « * • • ------1------f------1------1— ...... ------ CATE OR SARUV * ».t» ------f------|------f - .V V------UMEAT — * -|— ------* » t 1- 1---- ‘- fV ....— So tI cams 1 •l"1------■,------,------1------1------HAT CD STRAW * I I * # ------T - ...... T ------1------(------...... TOSACCO * t t * t . ------— ------,------■■-.f------1------J------Otrsr ( m i ) _____* * . t * T6VXL fcROP hfe~CE)PT8-~-~ - - j t / Reter to pasc 2 s / Refer to pace 2 sottom l ir e , Surplus 1 "3 *7 J -> I INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAGE Si I - ESTIMATED CASH RECEIPTS TMlft I t MERELY * SUMMARY OF PARE A, CARRY TOTALS FORWARD FROM PARI A, AND PLACC ARRWCRS IN I , A ANS t . For THE ITEMS C., D., ETC* tor hat use m e s f h t firrres or IGNORE T M * A NO USE THE INCOME FROM THESE SOURCES AS "INSURANCE* ARAINST OVER ESTIMATING. THE LATTER 13 AIT I RASES I I MOST CASES. 2 - ESTIMATED CASH EXPENSES ( I NSTRiCTIORt) a . Cash ren t - in s e rt amount y o n will actuallyray. s . h ires la io r - Estimate amount of extra months of la io r y o u reer times sousrate per MONTH. c. Fuel ano oil - if operating same acrease as present raise cost l/S anove p re se n t. 0. Machinery repah - raise 1/5 aiote present.If anoitisnal machinery will nepurchases (See Section l) ass also 2% of rew c o s t. e. Machinery hire - raise present custom rates IDS. F. ANTO EXPENSE (FASH SHANt) NOT LESS THAN 4# PER MILE OR IYER. s. Electricity (farm shane) same an present unless asoitional electricesuipmert is to se uses i f general L iv e s to c k . Dairy - i t p e n c o w , 2#/c»hcx hwser. i*,j.,k . Estimate these on pare 3. L, (See iottom line pace 2} estimate cost OF NAT. CRAIN a n d supplement yon MUST PURCHASE. LOO 10# PER ON. OF ORAIN FOR SSINOINO. M, NIT CHARGES, RO LESS THAN $5.00 PER COW DAIRY, $3.00 PER COW SEEP, $4,00 PER SOW, *3.00 PER 100 H I M . 1 . MlIN TESTINO - (ESTIMATE THIS SY US I NR PRESENT RATES) s. This snonlo inclose euiccs, feeser calves, etc, plus current rati fornreerins fees, if TOO KEEP A BULL, USE IREfSIHC FEE TO COYER HIS COST. P. SUILNINO ANN FENCE REPAIRS - INCREASE YOUR PRESENT FIGURE NY 10-20*. 0 . Miscellaneous expenses - if yon are sure vsnr presirt fisure is complete use i t . if YOUR ACCOUNTS ARE HOT TOO COMPLETE INCREASE THIS ACCORDINGLY, ! I $ /oaINT COW. S . TAXES - INCLUDE REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL TAX. INCREASE PRESENT TAXIS SY i / 5 . T. INTEREST (0£* OH AMOUNT YON ESTIMATE YON WILL NAVE SORROWED), u . I nsurance (raise present firnre in most cases, re sure it is aressate.) NOTE I In THOSE CASES WHERE YOU WILL SE INCREASING ACREAGES, LIVESTOCK, MACHINERY ETC., RT LARGE AMOUNTS, SEE YOOR COUNTY AGENT FOR MEANS OF ESTIMATING FUEL OIL. REPAIRS, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, TAXES, INTEREST ANN INSURANCE. Deduct a 5* interest charge oi COME TO DETERMINE YOUR LAIOR INCOME. T O T TMf Lll t U O C I ARR CROP ENTERPRISE COMBINATION FOR ITS NIT INCOME PROSUCINC CAPACITY I . ESTIMATED CASH RECEIPTS Estimates Amokrt A. LtTCtTOCR A lt I I T C I T K ( PRODUCT U l l i 8 ______ »• » 0 F SALE* 8 C , LUMBER AMD FORESTRY PRODUCT DALES 8______ 0 , PATRQRACE OIMOCkQS t It INCOME FROM WORM OFF FARM S F. INCOME FROM ROR-FARM IRVISTMCNTS t S. OTHER t A". TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS - 2 . ESTIMATED CASH EXPENSES A, CASH RENT I , MIDIS LASOR C. FREL ARR OH 0 . MACHINERY REPAIR E» MACHIRERY MIRE F • ART 9 EXPENSE (FARM SRAM) « . ELECTRICITY (FARM SHARE) H. TELEPHONE ( FANM SHARE) 1. FERTILIZER J . LIME L , FEES PNRCMASES H. YCTCRIRARIAR SERVICES R. MILK TEST IMS 0 . LI VEST OCR PRRCHASCB L SREESIRC FEES P. BO IIIIM C AID FENCE REPAIR Q . MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES "T7~££Sh"vA'HTXgTT Y x S f k $ l Z - - T ~ i ______It TAXES ______ T . INTEREST PA IB OR RESTS ______ H« I NSNRARCt ______ Y. CASH FIXED EXPENSES------j Z . CASH EXPENSES ( a ir R arr r ) - - - S______ 3 , CASH RECEIPTS LESS CASH EXPENSES------{ 4, CHARGE FOR DEPRECIATION ------f 5 , YCUR PLANNED FARM IN C O M E - - - INSTRUCT!PNS FOR PAS£ 6 I. FERTILIZER tSTIMATE* A, CCLUMN (2 ), PI. ACC * C I I t YOU PLAN TO PAYE OP EACH CP O'. • • Columns (3-4-5-C) |p actual piactic; top w ill lirely use m u analysis fertilizer APS FERT I L I Z E ACCORUIPC TO SOIL TEST, SNT POR E4 T I MATI PS PERT I t t ZER COSTS YOP MAY WISN TO »SC SOME VARIATION OP THE FOLLOWfPC. {TPCSI PISSRCS ARE POR MAINTENANCE only.) C. THIS IS TPE APPROXIMATE AMPNNTS Of THESE FERTILIZERS REQUIRED TO MAIRTAIP PRCD9C- TIOP OP EACH OP THE YIEISS LISTED APR THE PRICE PER 100 L IS . IP 1969* USE PRICES P3* YOPR AREA. (Esam ple) Amuupt CROP a p p r o . Cost per Ap p l ie s Cost per y ie l d ANALVS IN too LCS. per ACRE ACRE (3) W (5 J (*) CORN 80 CD. 5-20-20 f4.00 400 ID. 116.00 Wheat 49 UN. 5-20-20 4,00 400 IS . 16.00 Oats 60 DU. 5-20—20 4.00 300 LS. 12,00 MEADOW 3.5 T . 0-20-20 3.60 200 i s . 7.00 pasture Treated 0 -4 7 - 0 4.00 100 LS. 4.00 AFTER SETERM INI PC THE COST PER ACRE POR EACH CROP («Y MULTIPLYING COLUMN 4 TIMES 6) CALCULATE TOTAL COST POR EACH CROP (ACRES TIMES COST PER ACR(S) APR PLACE ANSWER IP COLUMN ( 7 ) . Total column (7) ans transfer answer to item (») pare 2 . 7, I.ME Estimate: Follow instructions asote lime tails, transfer total to item j, pace 2, 3 . Sees purchases; (a .J Place acres of each crop ip column (2) (s.l PLACE SEES INC RATE IN COLUMN (3) (c • j Place cost per suspel, e t c . ip column (4) ( s . I Determine cost per acre cy holtiplyins seecins rate tim es cost pec u n i t . (e .) Total cost w il l se calculates sy multiplying cost per acre t im e s number op acres op each crop. NOTE; For ease op f ic u s ip o t h is sec t io n , the error w il l p o t re oreat ip you use 22.10 pec acr FOR SECS COST PER ACRE OF CORN ARC $5.60 TO (6 .0 0 PER ACRE FOP CRASS SEEC ON MEADOW OR PASTURE ACRES TO SC SCCCCO ANNUALLY. ABO |A PER ACRE ON OATS, WHEAT APR PARLEY. (f.) Total column ( 6 ) ( 2.) ClETE*M|H€ AHHUAL FCRT t11 €R t tME , ARO SCEO COST* (BOH YOUR IMPROVES PUB (MA|RTERARCE ORLy ) Expected Arrral Fert t iit e r Net be* am i Coat ( I tch i , babe 2) • » C O B T A r o r i t t o « COST ♦ T o t a l • No. BF ♦ TO It • M l BE A RBIIE* 9 PCS * C OB T CROP • AC RIB • USED * CWT B ER A C R E t A C S f « t * • £■) • ( 2 ) 0 ) • <«) (5) (6) (7) w - 'f V C o r a t t 9 9 • c a r r t 9 • 4 9 W h e a t « •* « f Ba r l i y «• 9 t t H c a b o w t f ♦ f 9 p a s t u r e t * • f * t f « f 9 TcTAL FEFTIUZEA 'IKT- - 1 EXPECTS* ANNUAL LIME NICRI ARR COBT (ITEM J, BABE 5) NOTCi III tiEMMAIi OMf TO* Of lint IYCRT FOUR YIARB IS • ,H AFTER YOVR SOIL 1* AT THE t C t l t t O - H * 1 R THIS CASE, ABO TO* A Cl OB ACRES ARR IMPftOVtR BASTRRE ACRES T E t i m i A MS • IV IRC By 4 , EACH YEAR OR TUI AVER ABC* 1/4 OF t 9 T otal C t o r ARD IHBROVER Tor* Cost L ike pasture Acres PER BE* Cost Acre Tor C olrh h ( l ) x (3) ...... 1 * 1 . ■ ■ - . . m ..... - _ _ J ---- . _ (4) _ . t t t Expected Ahrrai S c its to be Purchased arc c c *r (item b. babe 5) 9 t S E C MR * 9 9 9 * t Pa t e p e r 9 C O S T t CO«T 9 « N o * or 9 a c r e {•«.) 9 M R 9 Pl l 9 T o t a l C r o b t A c r i s f OR L B B. ) 9 L* IT 9 ACM 9 COST ( 0 .______, -- 9 _12). . 9 _ m _ . . f-n 9 (5) t (6) C04R (EXAMPLE) t to t •it *». t Jlo«66?ss# 9 * 2 . i o 9 isribdT' CORR 9 9 9 4 4 Oa t * * 9 9 9 9 W h e a t « 4 9 9 9 3 A R L E Y 9 « 4 9 9 S o y i e a b b 9 f 4 9 s r a s i s e e r t 9 9 9 9 p a s t u r e C r a b s S e e * f 9 9 • 9 t o t a i seeo cost------r r G R A S S S E C* E i s w l s POOROS BER ACRE X C o o t Pin p o u n d COSTBER Ac r e 6 Alfalfa $ *50 | 3 * 0 0 6 BROpibrarb •37 2 J 2 f/4 Labicb Cloycr •90 • » TTT/4 TOT lUl YOUR BASIC FUTURE PUN NOTE* M l Till IIIHI FOR* TO ORPMARIZI ALL ITEM Of T O M PLARRtO PROORAH. UOC IT YIARLT TO IMITII Y H I IIIIKIt. Kill IT WITH * WILL RtPT ACCORRT IOOR. I • T O M PLAAAIR NtT FA AH lACOHIl |______ 2* Y M R PtARRIO ARROROHY PRMRAHt (FROn PARE ARR 2 OF PIHR POOR) CROP ACRRR YIILO/a c r I CRITICAL YIARLY BtPPLIItt CORR HAT TO II OTORIO TORO OATO 6RAIR OR* WRIAI or Ba r l i t CWT • h a t FERTILIZER S m e a d o w PAOTRRI Line 3 RCRECRER PAOTRRI ------■ 3. TOOK PLARRIR llVERTOCK PRMRAHt (FROM f ME 2, PI HR ROORf M I C I, TILLOW IOOR) KIRR Of UTIOTOCR MOHAIR PRO#OCT I OR Ar i h a l 4. Cr i c r S i c * iv foo fiinii ihprotihirt * ir h i p r m i i of i m i n i i . n o c r op t r i a rov e PR MR AH OARMOT C O M ARORT WITRORT TRI IRITUL ITPROVEHCATR. FOR A COMP LIT! ARR CORfIRIRTIAL ARRIT OP TORR PARH RURIRESS OORTACT TCRR COR RTF ARfRT POR ERTIMIOR ACCORRTIRA SlRViei. A?PE:.nx f m 2 A POSSIBLE FANh MANAGEMENT PN06NAM SMMITII PBSCCMBI Tl tUIICT A MM MMMIWIT MMIM IN MUIICIIW WITH (T ill W I6IUUH PICiM I I A IHITT I M II . T IP US. I CM TA TT M M N I U V (20 TN 2S) P A N M SB IN TNNN C M I T Y TNAf VNN M i l N M I I »C INTIBMTKI IB CNNPCBATINN IN PLAIN IM Tit II BBSIBIBB* EXPLAIN TN TNIH WNAT HILL It PNISIBTIS, M W TNI PANNNAM WlU II CMSBBTIB, M W TUT NAB IXPtCT TN NUtPIT M M BNCN A PBBSS AM ABN WNAT TNI *PSLLNW NP* A M PBTNM MBIT IBM WILL II IN NILATIBB TN NBCN A PBBCBAM. YBN MAT Will TN *NPNT* PABRCNN NT TBWNBNIPS IN TNI CMBTY TN NIT CMNTY-WlM PANTINIPAT INN M NT All AN BN TIOBI WIN ATTIBB MNNNL WILL BBT NAVE PAN TN BNIVI. TNI BALAAM NP TNIN MATIN IAL WILL II C 0 M t M t l WITB PB NCI BN BIB ABB IXPICTCB BIBBLTB WNICN WILL FNBM TNI BABIN NP TNNB CXPLABATIM TN PABHIBS. T i p »s . 2 PLAN A BIB III NP M I T INNS, PlTl IN NNHSIB, TBAT WILL M L P IACB IMITIBBAL PABMIB BO T M PNLLNWINBt (*) LINT BIS P M S I S T BITBATINB NB T M P A M BN HI BAB BCTCMIBC T M IXTtIT NP NIB MBNBMIB ANN BAN ANALTZB TN NITIBMIM PMNINLt PLACIS THAT MIB M A M IBB «H T M N M I M YIAB* (l) WITB T U B PSCNBNT L A M ( LABNB ABB CAPITAL, M T WNAT CNBLB TNI PANM St P B N N M I M IN NAT, PANTBNI A M M A I N CNNPS, ABB M W NBCN LIVBSTNCK WILL T U B S S P P M T * IB T U B BABB TNI PANMBB WILL H A M M l M NIC IB INN AS TO WNAT TllLBB M IXPICTB TN TNT P M IN C A M C M P . ALL NP TNI NICISINM WILL SI NIB, NOT Wf WILL TIACN WNAT Wl P U L ABC PNACTtCAL ABB PIABIBLI TIBLSB PNN NIB MBA. IB TNIS BTIP T M PABMB WILL A LBN M T I M I M NIB BBILBIM B U M WITB T M PLANBIB IBMBIB NP LITIBTNCB A M ALSO T M LABNB BIBB IBBMBBTB. WK WILL PBMISN A BIHPLIPIIB MIT NON NP MINN THIN* (c) BUT, T M PABMB WILL OtCIN! WNAT LITIBTNCB PBNNBCTINB M Pit LB IB PIABIBLI P M NIM TN MTAIN, A M HNLTIPlY T M N I PBNBNCTIM PINBBIS T I M M TNI NBHBIB NP LlTISTNCK TN NI M P T TN BITCBNIBI M W HBCN WILL BI P M BALI. APPLYIM LNBO-NM PBICIB TN TNIB PNNMCTINN, WI WILL MLP NIM ISTINATt WNAT NI CAN IIPICT P M H BNCN AN NPIBATIM IN TNI WAT NP NNCNN IBCNM. FOLLOW INN THIS, AN IBTIHATI BP IXPINSBS WILL 81 H A M TN MTCBHINt PMSIBLI PANM INCCMI PNOM NBCN A PLAN* (•) IP T M INCCMI NI IB T IMA TIN PNOM BNCN A PBMBNBBI IB WNAT NI WANTS, TNI M I T BTIP IB TN NAVI BIN, WITB C M ML P , BITILNP A PLAN NP W M R THAT WILL NIT NIM TN THAT INCCMI IB AN S N M T A T I M AN PMBINLI* A, S, C, ABB B WMLS SB TNI CMTIBT NP TNI PIVI HMTINCS* IT IB BILIITIB THAT TNIN WILL AIN TNI PABMB IN SBTISMINIBB B U T WNAT NI WANTS A M WNAT TNI NNSTACLBS A M IS M T T I M IT. Hi WILL SI ASLI TN bay, *| NU B TN W M B ON MY ANBNBSHY PBMBA, M NT BA|BY PNOM AM, M *1VI1IWV4 ION M M M t l l 1B1 at M N M W I M MIN NIIMM Mi M MVB4 1VMI9V9M I* U V M II M ' M M M I3IMIII V W AIM U N IV* itMVI9l 41 illHllflW « M Mi * W I M M Mi M U N MVllMlMV Mill 1BMV 1 M t M *911 M l a i M I » M 9 M M I I 11V At *1 a*VB* M M M M 9 I M l M * M i l * 1V«IJ *4*M1 Mi 11 M U I M M M l Ml itMliai lUlllk-lMM V IIIIIW9I I K IBM t*MI« « I M i N M 4 1M 1 M U ItllM 91 UIN11M4 Mi IK 111V I M iMV lt ai IvaiiSA M l I H A *eaatiiete wviMii M i av *S*0*S ac csiaavi a a in i i n i m m i i m m c m m m avba MV14 Mi M awes MIHI1* Mi MliiViC II 101AVMB14BI 91CVC CV M M M M tCMA M V M l * m u m Mil* MiivAiiMee nee evi a i vi bi* iiiouai* mihii* aai m ieeu ' M l l i n i l l l 41 e « M M « 4 M i It M i t M t l M 11I9B11V I MB A M 11V BIMiM AM44S 11 III! • i M i u i eieiv ei eievi aiiivai4M 9 v m m i evn hiimi* mi ivu mv enei aa 11 tv* iva* •Miviaxs an *i»iav a m m o aai Aa u i 9 i i M 9 ava* aav **3*v*v 4a*oiaaaiMt t.avtiitA *it«aad M i i M N M •aaaiiaataiv ivaeiivaiA 4i9i*aa$ a e i i v A B M M O 1103 waa* laaaaaaaa aai tv*eiia4 av tv* h v i n i * v m u iavie aav i n avail ei Aiaaid aa* ai eieva ivtai v m aaea a a a i M m o • n a a n i m i aai aaiaia boa i h h m aai ii aoiivvisuavi 4* laaawv m i aeveaaat *i aviA o v a eaiavie aa iatiw aaeiva aviiuie v 4« u m m i him *1*1*1 w i i m i M i wainai a a a u aiv a* *m i i i m ' i m i i i w i i ieva ei aoaiviia 11 *aavn ai aai* m u m laai eiMvaa via m v h aiaai M i n aav aeaaieia aiaai maivbv n aaaiani a*vai at eiaii i n i * m i a via iiv] *41 niliei •aeiisaaoai h i n 41 a a u v s n a i av iaii h i * m i v m i *aa Mvauv aiivumi ac wiaiAia aav 'him a* eoaaoa a * n 111* imai anw eta miivaba 'jaaviMi mi *uma ii miva aai Mia neae aav a o i i v m a eia izaimv aIiviibva ox lvtaaivu ainai **iai 4*iiiuaivit avi m i n i m i * aiaaiii a.ava* n v i i n aiaiani 1114 ava a* leva aava ai ♦aan* aiMtte aa eiMvaa *i wia m i m aav i n i t M i aaaevaw ai Atveeaaaa aav a m i *ae aiviaxa aav eietMiva* a*4 ttiaian* xaitiv* eia axuvav *i m i ev* h m aa iianaav aai mo a 4 nib *1*3 • a n im i i a iavie *AMO*aaiv e*n ii Imi* a n * aaiai iavie 4*aainiae ei n i l *4iia aaaaa aa aaaan m i wa n t a ei uia ait* t a n a e«eiM*vi aava hu a i i 4aaiai4ui9 aav m u aiiay s **a * 1 4 •aotivziaviai aai at eiMMava* laanaa aai aav mvv4 aax 41 aaiimv Miaaaiaa mo mi aiiieM4 1*1 eaii ai iaiunvavM uav4 ai aaea eaeaiat* ail* eaiaivaaav aiwava m i a m 01 ciiaiiMie m i *iivim ivaai ai n a ei eiai •*taaiiiiae am W c aim m tiawv 'tiA im 'n iiu n aa aim viva w it *i( aavaavr Aa u m m w ataai w m viva atvaaaa i n liiv itiu w t aaaiavv au ai m iriiw w aava aa ‘ a m aav aaviv * » » aav3 • avav aaiiu vaaaaa itw i aa im vvav aw aiaai at aaauavv aa taaaaiaivaa aai u Aiianai aaaw aaitli •i uaaa amvv aai aa iavu iaa ‘vaiutaa itvatiA aa ivu it M vub ivh aaiaavai av aaaii aaiAaviav ai aaaa aa » aav u i u aaaai uaaa vivo •iiaaaa aai «i aaiaavav ai 111 aaauvaaau •waaia aaaiavi aa aaaaiaa aav aiata aaaaa a i aaaaviv aaaaaav ci i t *311 ‘ ta iiia iva at 11 vs • I aai aiiiaa aa aataiitt aavvaav ai naa aav aaviv ‘uvaaoav v aaaa aim aouaaaraaa at •aaaA 111 a aaaaa aava aaa ivai taaavaavvv a im • aavaav *aaaui aaaai aa avaai aaa aaaa liv iiia i *Nvaaaav lvaivva aa aaavi *aaiaiiaa ‘ aaais - i i i i aai ‘ m h i i h hbva aai a» aaiav mba aaaiaav ai aaaa aa aiaaa aaaaaaaav awva aai • bhv am w i aaaaaa v aava aaa aav aa aa aaaaaac aa Ivan aiaavxa awaaa aawava aai ivai iav« aa aiaaaa aiioa aaaaaa iaa ‘aivaaavia aa ai aaaa i»a aaaa aiai "aeutvv iwa ai aaaa b h h ia aaviv aai 119 •ltvaaaav aibivv aa i i i a ivai aaviv iv aataav uavi aaaa h im vaav aai aa a M il a m a aaaa *waai liva aaa aa i m aaaaa aai • amvamv aaavaaa aim iaa aivi aa ava aiai *u aii ilia aiaai aava h im aaa aaaaa aai *a»iaav aaaa aav tatva aavw ai h im aa tatavoav aa avaa asiviaa aa tv #aav aaviv a u avaA aawava aaa aav aa *1 am av aaaim v Aaaaavitiivt av aiavaaai *«ava aa iiiiava v ai aaaa aa avw flat *ii aaavaaa ai avia v iaa ivi aautvv aai vua *aaitivv av aaiav win aaa ai uvaaaav Auoataav aai ivai aaaaa at 11 11 ‘ aivwvxa aai •aaaioa vvva aaa aaaaaav aa aaaailavata aa 11m aaviv ‘ aman Aaaaavvmva v aai*aav h im avia aaa laiaaa aaaivaaaaaa aaa a iba *aiivaaiiiaai aaviaa aa h im aaviv aiaaa ai taaavaa aatna aa aai avail a aiaaa vaiaaa aiaaa Aiaa iiav ova aaaai * mvvj aaaa aavw ava aa aaviv aaa aaivaavoaa aava aai a a im an (aaaiaa aavA taanviaivt—laaaataav aaaaaa as) 1vn-Aaiiaj aav t u t u m v i •aaaaaav av aiaaviv ai aaaaaaaav eaiAanav aai *uvaaaav aaa aaaiaaaa at •aviv n w i t M i aai w awaaa ai aavw aaiA aaaaaa mivva ivaamaav aa taivuiiti •aaaiaaa a*avia Mima aai » aaaii at aaaaaaaav ivbm aaaaavtaataiaaaa aav *avii taeiiiav aaa A# titaivia aa tiaaivav av ‘ aiati aav wvaatav at I aaaaaav vaaa aia *aatiaaaaav lM aaaili tia va a w n avA aitaivay •aatA a. avia aaiaaaa aai ai aaaa via ait 1 aaa v aav alava v av aha •aa aiai aaa aav aaaaiaaa a«avaa aaeuaav a u Mauia aawavv aava tiiiva va aaavaav o u t aava aai aav vva a a u a w aiviv ia i •aaaaviv »va ivai nv aiaivwaa ai ( n v ai aviv) aavaaaaaa vva aaiaaiH ivaamaav av *aivvv aiai ai (a *d *a *v) aaauaaa av aaaw aaaiaaau laatv aai s*rt ll*6 so t * , iviimi i m u c m , ttc. T i n m m mill m i l •< iiiimlii at 0*S*U* cm imiwii mi* f MM IM VMS CVMMTIM TMI lilt 1*11 II FlSRIAir AMI M l I MS H A M M * Til PIRPMMt II Till IS TM PCRMlT fAlMII TM CMMAII TMCIR PISVtSMS TCAI*S BRtlMCM HIT! BTMIR PAINS RARIT 1R0MMM TM M W IRC TM TMRM TM M A M AN I AM IT CMMPARIOSI ARAlVSIR* TMI SMC Cl MR MP THIS TCMTMHI Will MIPIMM MPMM TNI AMIMTR IN TNI TAMIMMS O M I T IIS. IT Mill R H P ARAlTMl* CIRRIIT ARM MP MMRC IRTUIMT TM Til FARMS TRAM TM MA|T MMtll jMlt MR ASSIST MP CACM TRAM PMR RISMITM* Am OPP* Cl Pill Ml IACM BMMPIRATMR Ml CRT A U M M AM AMTAMTAMI* IT MMMlR PIRHIT PI IS MM III TM RIVIIW A MMMPCRATMR*! P R M U M IIPMRI VI St TIMS TMI PARKS AMI MMMlR A ISM SI AM AIM TM PIAM> ■ IM P I T H I MUTISMS AIM ICMIIMTS PMR AMIMTAICC* AIT SSMMIMTIMS TO SITTII TMI PRMMRAH MSS IS SI APPMCIATIS* AS VMM CAI III, PAIN MAIASC- MIST WOMIM Ml IIVMIVIS PIIMAIIlT II TMI SIMIIMIM. FlMN T H A I OS, M T M S PRSMRAHI MMMLR SAVt TM M IRTSlVtS* £ ACM H A M AS A PART MP A P A M NAIARIMCMT PIMRAH, TMI SAMI RISVP M | I T RITIRI POR OMTIMMM, PARK ACeSMITS, AMS PIAMIIM P M TMR CIRRtMT TIAR II VIIM MP MTIMMM AIM ACCOM!TA* A U M RIVIIM TMI MM MIT AIR KAMI MCISIM CM ARSES* APPENDIX G 1U7 COOPERATIVE tXTEHSIO* WORK I I AGRICULTURE ANB HOKE ECONOMICS U*S* DEPARTMENT OF APRlCULTURE E x t e n s i o n S e n t i c e T h e Ohio State u u i m i u i t y C o u n t y A g e n t , 4 - h CARROLL CO» COMM. CUOPERATIIS H OKE D E M O I S T R A T I OH C a r r o l l t o n , O h i o J u n e 24, 1 9 5 9 D e a r C o o f e n a t o n : T h e PURPOSE OF T H U STUSY ll TO SETEHMIHE t h e OVERALL CHANGE* KANE II THE FARMMS OPERA TIONS OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO NAVE PARTi:iPATEO II THE PARK MANA8EMENT PROGRAM II CARROLL COUNTY* ALL NATA WILL IE NIPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. WE WILL USE ANOTHER FARM MANAGEMENT TECNIDSE CALLE* LlVNEAR PNOGRAMNtIG TO SETEIH1 IE WNAT TNI SCST USE OF TOUR RESOURCES WOULD HATE IEER IOTN IN 1955 AN! 1958. WE WILL THAN DETERMINE IF YON WERE CLOSER TO t h e IEST USE II I 955 M II 1958* FROM ALL OF THIS, WE HOPE TO IMPROVE OUR METHODS OF FARM MANAGEMENT AND ALSO TO MEASURE THE SUCCESS SR FAILURE OF PRESENT METHODS. WE WILL REES AS ACCURATE INFORMATION AS POSSI1LE AND APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOUR COOPERA- TISH. WE Nets INVENTORIES FOR BOTH THE SE81NNIIG Of 1955 *10 1958. If TOO HATE COMPLETE FARM ACCOUNTS, THIS WILL SE A SMALL PROBLEM. IF NOT, WE WILL TRY ANO HELP YOU SET THEM AS A C C U R A T E a s P03SI1LI. THESE a r e n e c e s s a r y TO ACCURATELY MEASURE f a r m I N C O M E i i e a c h y e a n . YOUR OEPRECIATION s c h e d u l e w i t h y o u r INCOME TAX FORM IN 1954, 1955, 195 7-58 PLUS ANY FARM ACCOUNTS YOU NATE FOR THOSE TWO YEANS WILL SE A IOOO SOURCE OF INFORMATION. WE HATE FILLED ll ALL THE INFORMATION WE PRESENTLY NAVE A|0 CHECKER II REO, ITEMS OF IN FORMATION WE STILL NEED. WE WlLl TRY TO SE BRIEF IN OUR COLLECTION OF THE SATA. CONS tlENES IN THE EVALUATION, PLEASE WRITE IN ON THE SACK OF OUR BATA FORMS. SMCCHILY, MOWARB P. S h OWALTER County extension Agent, Agriculture N e a l R. C a r p e n t e r F a r m M a n a g e m e n t S p e c i a l i s t ll.1/ HawE Data beeped to complete all ir formatioo applicasle to piooel: 1955 1968 TYPE OF FARhtWG ______ I . SIZE Of FARM A . A c r e s Owoeo______ I . Total______ ?• Cooplabs ______ 3 . Pf*n*«t«T Pastore ______ 4. VOOOLABO ______5# rtlhSTOI t WASTELABD ______ B. Acres Rested I . Total______ 2 * Caoplabo ______ 3 . Pasture______ C. Va lic La■[> ( owreo)______ 0 . V » u t Labo ( rested) I I . A5ROKOMY A. S u m Crop * l . coaa AC. YIELD AC. YIELD 2 . c a ts AC. YIELS AC. YIELD 3 . W heat AC. YIELD AC. YIELD 4 . Sarlet AC. YIELD AC. YIELD 5 . Otber ( s p e c i f t ) AC. yield AC. TIILD 6 . co«a ilitu TOOS Toos Forabe Coops 1 . MEADOW AC. YIELD AC. YIELD 2 . PASTa>t ( t o t a l ) ACRES ACRES A* RlSIEDEt AC. AC. a . treated AC. AC. c. UatnpaovED AC. AC. 3 . GRASS SHADE Toos Toos III. CASH RECEIPTS 1. MIL* 2 . CATTLC «, CUT 3. poultry & meat 4 . E s ss 5* h h S ales (m a r m t ) 6. P it SALES 7. GRAIN s. HAY 9. S traw 10. Small Fr u i t s . . . H . VESET AS LEt It. Custom Re c e ip t s 13. C f f - F a r k WORK 14. r est s a Ro y alties lb. Other ...... TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS IV. CASH EXPENSES i . Cash sent 2 . HUES LAIS* 3 . Fuel & Oi l 4 . machinery REPAIR 5 . m achinery r is e ...... 6 . Auto Expense 7. El e c t r ic it y 8. Tele pr o s i 9 . FERTHUER 10. L i m ...... II. SEESS & PLASTS 12. FfE# PURCHASES 13. veterinarian ser vic es 14. m il k Te s t i m 15. e ilE S IIB & RESIITRATIOM FEES...... 16. 11 TESTOCX purchases I f * Bn ILr in * & Fesce Re p a ir 13. taxes 19. ISTESEST 20. I nsurance ...... 2?. M is c . Expenses 2 2 . Lans I nvestment 2 3 . MACHINERY ARC EQOt'MENT INVISTnfNTS 2 4 . 8«ILBlN«s A Fence I nvestments TOTAL CASH EXPENSES V. ENSIHEERINS I* BOILOlsss A • S i loo ( s u e ) • • m u House (size) c . 0 * CORR CRII (SR.) t. GRMR (|l (id*) F. Barr ( s iz e ) 0 . MACRIOERT Soft (sue) N. ARIHAL SPACS ( S i l t ) 1 . POOLTRI HOOSt (size) J. Broodcr Hoosc (size) > • Broilcr hoosc ( s iz e ) L . Or k ir V I . LABOR ( H o r n s ) I . O rtM T O t 2* win 3. CMi.MII 4 . OiT* WORK OFF FARM 5. K i m L1IU VIII. PROOUCTI'N PER ANIMAL l« MUR FIR COW (lm ) 2* BRTTIRMT T ill 3* E««S PER HIM 4 . % LAPIS CROP 5* % CALF CROP V ltt. CAPITAL t . KCT WOKTK 2 * SOBtCE Of C l t l l T 3 * A s se ts A* Laks 1.b s i i s i n c & F ences c . LIVESTOCK 1.kackinerv & Eo v i k m n t E . S l f f t IES r . Cask a stnen investments TOTAL ASSETS (X. LIABILITIES I • Real Estate montsase 2 . LOANS OB K t C lllt tY 3 . LIVESTOCK LOAM 4 . An t o m o b il e 5 . E l i v a t ok a c c o u n ts 6 . Otkek oests ass tu n TOTAL L IA B IL IT IE S < « 1 0 * * 0 0 N HIM*M 40 M10W0N • ' " net two t noo miomon *S90t( I I *10 S nitl MttMAN ~ ' , »0IM4 «• #10« 11*1*9 1*4 40 1M011M “I I # 1 0 * 1111*0 1*4 M l O W O M * •#1/»0I#4 MO OIOS **10114 40 'Ml 1*101 * I 010* tstosti 40 M10N0N • I •01/101*4 00 llOO/lMOUH 11TMII0M44V ■ — — — — — (■>«■ t N ) 0 1100 MIOUON < . »J338 " ’ , " " OMlN Ml two 40 Ml«ur« lOVMH* MIOt * 0 )4 I3H 40 I»V 0101 0M14I1H 40 MSIUIIN #10 * • • m o M14 1N0I3A 11VMI X0M44V « . 010* SM09 1100 40 M1IWHN « I #10* *lln 40 •**! * . IJUIVO GM Vliea I OlOHOtt MMT11O0 . ’ ilOHO# • Ml SMi OIOS A1I1M **0 40 OMOSltf 1955 1958 Nwtlll OlUill NtMltl DOUiM POULTRYi • * NVftftM M W 8018 * »_____ Nshier cocresals son * * BlCCD OF CRICIEOS * * OOZCRS Of MSS SOLO » » AviaAoc aoMiia in lay las Ftoca » i SHEEPt ' f Houses can twts sou • <______ Nawita lahss sols ■______»_ total LAS, LAWS sots » ' Nome a of rams sols * • U s . OF WOOL SOLI »______»_ No. of ewis saoaa « ______>______ No. of lamss saoaa » i ______ GRAIN, NAY AND SUPPLIES * Bssacis coaa s o u ______•______t_ Sisr els oats sols > t_____ Baa mils wotat or sarley sols * ♦______ OTNia SNA..S (LIST) ' > TOO! OF NAY SOU «______l_ Tons OF STRAW SOLS______J______« MISCILLAREOUS SALES (LIST)______*______. INVENTORY CF LIVESTOCK (one OF TNC«E FOR** FOR E*CR YE*R 1955 *00 lft>8) 8ttt I M t l l GF YfA t Evo o f r « * t * « 9 « 1 t i t 9 9 OH N W ttff f V U » f H N«*IIA t VAL«| M "*"« « V * 9 9 « 0 *i *y C n e 1« i 9 f 9 9 1 • t 9 9 V f * 9 r t 9 f « 9 9 9 11 « I 9 t 9 1 9 9 9 9 9 t t 9 9 9 t 1 f « • 9 * * 9 f 9 t 1 V t t 9 t 1 1 • 9 « 9 f 1 f 9 t t « f 9 t 9 t * • • 9 > • 9 t 9 9 9 t 9 V 9 9 f t t * 9 t f 9 * 9 t s t 9 Beef Cowt « 9 9 *1 9 99 9 9 9 9 f V * * 9 9 » t 9 91 9 • f f 9 1 9 •f« R I TUI V 1 « « t « HE.Ft.Sj „ „ „ M l t M l r t l T ♦ « 9 • 9 " p n ------9 9 f " 9 - * ■ ■ 9* 9 1 t 9 t * 9 9 V 4 «« ♦ 9 V t * * "I iY 4 * t 9 * 1 t i • « « * V 1 ’ * - 9 « 9 f 1 9 1 « f 9 t 9 C*LVtS: • »•!* 1 T | 1 R • 9 9 9 9 9 « f* ♦ f * 9 9 9 * t( ' • 9* f t 9 99 t t t 9 1 t 1 S teers f 9 « 99 9 9f * t* 9 • V • 99 9 1 V * * 9 • BOLLS * * 9 91 * t « 9 9 9 « » t 9 t 1 9 u 9 IV TOTAL CATTLE t« L.A______.11 •___ * INVENTORY Of LIVESTOCK • * ft ft i « BMIMINC OF YlAR 11 * • 4 ft * rmf' ,/|AKt os Nuhscs , VALVl t» Ni«e OR NunttR 9 VALRt ♦ • f t 9 ft HORSES A rtULES i « * t* 9 • ft t » 1 1ft * f 1 9 t « • ft • ft f • • ♦ * 9 ♦ f « « « 9 * * « t 9 ft t * « ft 9 9 * « • t 1 t I 9 t * * • Colts « t ft f t * 9 * t " t t * 9 ft t 4 ftft 9 9 I ft t ft ft • TOTAL HORSES * 4 t 9 9 ft f f ft SHEEP - Ewes ■ ft f 9 1 ft 1 w cm cR t t « f * • 1 - *- - - »* * ft • * V t ft t lA ffM ft * ft ft ft1 ft RApiS ft ft * 9 * t f 9 WOOL ■ . 1 1 . . . ft 9 ft * ft ft ft TOTAL ^ 4 »_ i f ft I ft » « HOGS - Ma ««T t » ft V f ft ft ft ft f « ft SHO*T* 99 9 • ft ft 9 * 9 t t ft PH* 9 9 t t * 1 9 ♦ • »* ft a » D O B S m s « « ft « t ft * * * ft t • GKT* 1 ft ft * t V f « ft *« ft 6 M M t t 1 11 ft f t Y • t ft ft ft *« TOTAL HOGS • t 1 POULTRY - Hess * ft « ** ft ft • t * ft ft PKLIITI R O O tTtt* 11 • 9 ft ft ' "r f O tK f* POSITAV ft t 9 9 ft ft TOTAL POULTRY f t ft ft ...... _ - l ______REAL ESTATE - L*»S « ' A cte* I 11 Acts* ft t t BHIUIMI 1 F lS C I* ' 1 xxxxx " xxxxx TOTAL REAL ESTATE I t t ft I ft INVENTORY OF GRAIN, HAY ANO SUPPLIES <• MllllIH *f YHt ** EM IF YtAt A lto I 1 AftOUKT V V alue " Amount * v a l m C oat f 1 * t t t 11" f 11"" ' • ’ ■ - f * t f p r * • f • * t S ilauc ♦ t t V V V t t 1 t» « 0*T« 11 1 11 l ■ t t p * « Wheat »t t SOYBEAM i p • H U E * t AA i t s f 1 f cv | M 1 I T V V OTHtA flAAIHt (KINA « ) « 4 f » « t * * f 1 * 1 It f t * * n • Alfalfa Hay .. Cl l* * * 1 f i t i S oybean Hay «« • t i < Cloyia hay T imothy Hay V f f i • i ■ II r « t i tftAI* & OTHEA hay t1 f tv • f * 1 t r • Coan Foboea 1 1 • • 1 V * f t 11 • « t « 11 t # r f * * t P«ACHA<(» FCCt t * * tt f ▼ ¥ r • * » * t | FEATILIZIA V 1 1 t It « " "" ” * 1 I t P t 11 * V 1 1 Line t * V t f t * 1 ♦ VP t u f ft 1 f f • It t SUM 1 1 « tt t TOBACCO p f V * * V POTATCI* ' "IT v r — ^ • V V tv • 1 f 1 V * f ♦ t t f P t Aaa lei « t 1 tt t Steam II ■ «k * OtHCA SoFFlfEI » » • t • t V f • 1 p f p t * f • f I « t «« t * t tt 1 «* t tt « 1 « IV V TOTAL 1 1 !* INVENTORY Of MACHINERY ANC TOOLS f f VALUE at VALUE AT t « VALUE AT • value at ERIRRIRC OF Beg in n in g of ( Erb of NO** KISS »Y CAR Err of "N o ,* KIND 'YEAR YEAR YEAR year t year *WAGOR - RUDDER .TllED tt • BRODONT FO. t t 1 * t* I I « WAAOD - STANDARD, t* .E«« CLEARER , « .WACOM B(*< 4 * • t t . JACR8 *CORR HUEIER * f t ■ FEED CART • ' potato flarter* . " ' t " Tt t 'T r ailer • Tt 1 Potato DIOCer ' ft i 'S t a r k c i t m i i * 9 * *• «Potato St r a y , t t « 1 f # • t * , MANURE SCOOP , t # (WEEREA , 1 t • t t » * t JJIUOAifftS a * ,Farm Tractrr . 9 « 1 ' plow* ' * fa r m auto 1 t ♦ 4 • *D HR HARROW ' Far* truck ' f * ' -* t f ’ SMKC-TOOTM * t • harrow ' ' M U COOLER ‘ • t 1 r •Sp r ir r - tootr t •harrow * t I • M ILK. MAC A. , V t * I ' other Dairy I (CULT IfACRE t t f * ' CTEREIIR 9 • ■ t t f .Rotary Hot , t ■ ] WATER HEATER ) 1 t 1 ' cqra b ir o ir 1 brccrer * T t « •GRaIR binder • ’ rORARE HARYEITi • r ,m ■■ ...... 1 " - ' C o n * IRE v t • •Grair d r il l . * HARYELTER t • i 1 T 1 1 ,Mcwirc Machine t 4 • hat baler t •HAY RAKE - • • * 1 t •SIDE OtLIYERT t * 1 FARRIM MILL r ♦ ♦ t S c a l e r * (Hay D r ier t a l * i Electric , *Buck Rake * 1 f MOTORD t ~r t 1 'ELEYATOM AHRCORR * OTHER (l i«t) 1 t 'Hay LORDED t •______11 '______» ______» * 'hay F ork. S t l do ' ' ' n 1 ' * * '. m a n ______:__ :______:______”__:______:___ •______l t , " ' < . ^ » » I H SPREADER . . ______' 1 t * « i 1 t *Li*e Sfrearer SHAtl TOOLS T * 1 *• • f t » « ' t * i 'P eer grinder 1 * * V 1 t 9 * ’ COiH S N IL lta « 1 « 9 * f t « Tl T t v f 'E mrilaoc Cutter f I• a i t t * • 4 • * * 4 9 .CORN PICKER X i t _ r • 1 11 CARRIER FORWARD 1 TOTAL ALL EQUIPMENT * t BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, R. A., Input-Output Data for the Commerical Srrine Enterprise in Ohio, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1957• Blosser, R, H., Economics of Improving Hill Land for Beef Production, Research Bulletin 822, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, November, 1958. Boulding, H. E., Eoonomic Analysis, Rev. Ed. New York. Harper and Brothers, 19k8* Dodd, D* R., Good Pasture, Ohio Extension Bulletin, Bulletin 3L5, August, 195k. Farm Foundation, Farm and Home Planning North Central States, October, i m . Good, C. V., and Scates, D. E., Methods of Research, New York, D. Appleton-Century Co., 195k. Heady, E. 0*, Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use. New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. Heady, E. 0., Production Functions From A Random Sanple of Farms, Journal of Farm Economics. 28:989-lOOii, 19k6. Heady, E. 0., and Jensen, Harold, Farm Management Economics, New York, Prenti®-Hall, Inc., 195k. Olsen, R. 0., Some Opportunities for Improving Farm Income in South eastern Ohio, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, March, 1959* Shaudys, E. T., and Baker, R. H., Farm Custom Rates Paid In Ohio, Ohio State University, 1957* Shaudys, E. T., and Sitterley, J. H., Costs of Producing Beef in South eastern Ohio, 195k, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, May 1957. 159 160 Sitterley, J. H., Measures of Faim Work, Ohio State University and Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, October, 1955. Sitterley, J. H., Rates of Feed Consumption by Livestock, Ohio State University and United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperating Agricultural Extension Service, 1958* Tompkin, J. Robert, Response of the Farm Production Unit as a Whole to Prices, Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. D. A. and Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, an address, joint meeting, American Farm Economics Association, and Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, Winnipeg, Canada, August, 1959. AUTOBIOGRAPHY I, Neal Ross Carpenter, was born In Eelmont County, Ohio, July- 16, 1923* I received my secondary school education in Eeallsville Village High School, Monroe County, Ohio. After attending Ohio State University in the Fall Quarter of 19^2 I was drafted into the Array of the United States. After six months of service I was transferred to Brigham Young University for one year of engineering under the Army Specialized Training Program. I re-entered Ohio State University in the Fall Quarter of 1950 and received my Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture,March, 1953* Also from Ohio State University I received a Master of Science degree in June, 195U. While in residence at Ohio State University I was appointed Extension Fara Management Specialist and have held that position while completing the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. 161