', I
Agricultural Economics Series 1
Optimum Farm Organization
and
Aggregate Area Production
Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
OF AUBURN UNIVERSITY
E. V. Smith, Director Auburn, Alabama
In cooperation with
FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS DIVISION
ECONOMICS RESEARCH SERVICE
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
June 1963

Acknowledgement
The study, upon which this publication is based, is part of a Re-
> nal Research Project S-42, "An Economic Appraisal of Farming Adjust-
nent Opportunities in the Southern Region to Meet Changing Conditions."
This Regional Project is financed in part from Research and Marketing Act
funds It is a cooperative effort of the Departments of 
Agricultural
Economics of the following State Agricultural 
Experiment Stations:
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
-Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, and
the Farm Production Economics Division, Economic Research Service, United
States Department of Agriculture. Dr. John W. White, Vice-president for
Agriculture, University of Arkansas, is the administrative advisor, and
Dr. James H. White, University of Arkansas, is chairman of the Regional
Committee,
The Southern Farm Management Research Committee, sponsored by the
Farm Foundation and the Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations, was
helpful in the development of this Regional Project.
The overall purposes of this project are (I) to provide guides to
farmers when choosing among alternative production opportunities,
especially as those opportunities are affected by changes in prices and
technology, and (2) to provide guides to persons engaged in developing
and administering public agricultural programs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
SUI.MA RY p 9 0 0
INTRODUCTION . 0e0 o
AREA OF STIJDY0. 00
PROCEDURE0 .0a0.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
Enterprises Considered
Enterprise Budgets 
a.
Prices .0O0. .
Allotments 0 O
Labor0.
Capital0O0A0.
Representative Farms
OPTIMUM ORGANIZATION FOR]
Small Farm . . 0
Medium Farm .
Large Varm 00
Extra Large Farm 09a
Comparison of Responses
AGGREGATE AREA SUPPLY RESI
Soil Base for Aggregati(
Aggregation Models
Model 1 E119 e ,
0 0 " e "
o m O o "
0 o 0 0
0 0 0 " o
o e o 0 o e
0 0 0 o o
" 0 " e " "
on 0 0 8 
o
s 
o 
o 
" 
0
e 
0 
" 
e 
o
0 
0 
"
o 
e 
a 
o 
o
e 
o 
0 
0 
0
0 
" e
" 
0 
0 
0 
"
0 
o 
e 
" 
e
s 
o 
o 
" 
"
0 
0 
o 
e 
e
o 
" o " "
FAMSo
o e o 
o "
" 
e 
o 
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o a o 0 e
e o o 0e 0 0s0o0o 0 0e0o0o 0 q o 0 0 0
Page
1
3
4
6
7
7
8
10
11
11
16
17
17
18
22
26
31
37
38
38
39
140
14
14
a ? s

Summary
Several representative farm sizes in the Limestone Valley Areas of
Alabama were studied under assumed conditions of estimated free market
prices, no production controls, and improved production technology.
Budgets were prepared for each size of farm and linear programming pro-
cedures were used to select the optimum combination of enterprises.
Three sets of programs were computed. The first set included poultry and
corn buying as alternatives; the second excluded poultry; and the third
excluded both poultry and corn buying. Results indicate the strong com-
petitive position of cotton in the Limestone Valley Areas. Under the
same assumed conditions, more cotton would be produced in these areas than
is now produced in all of Alabama, Corn, hogs, and poultry are cotton's
strongest competitors for-resources. As more labor is added to fixed a-
mounts of land, more poultry enters the optimum programs. If poultry is
excluded as an alternative, then the unused 
labor allows the hog enterprise
to expand if corn purchasing 
is permitted,. Other commodities 
pro-
duced in smaller amounts are oats for grain, alfalfa hay, lespedeza hay,
grain sorghum, and a few beef calves,
For the third alternative which included only land-based enterprises,
the effects of changing product prices were investigated. Cotton prices
were varied plus and minus 20 and 40 per cent from the 26-cent base price.
Prices of other products were varied plus and minus 30 per cent from the
base prices. Weights were developed for each representative farm size
reflecting the number of farms on limestone and similar soils in each
size class. These were used to estimate area production response under
each of the 15 price situations?
2
The results of this analysis further substantiated the strong com-
petitive position of cotton in the Limestone Valleys. With other commodi-
ties at base prices, considerable cotton is produced on the two larger
farm sizes at a price of 20.8 cents, but little is produced on the smaller
farms. At a cotton price of 26 cents, cotton is produced on all sizes
of farms and the total acreage is more than doubled. At 31.2 cents, there
is a further 25 per cent increase in cotton acreage, and essentially all
suitable land in the Limestone Valley Areas is devoted to cotton pro-
duction. When the prices of competing commodities are reduced 30 per cent,
the acreage of cotton is about the same at 15.6 cents as it is with 20.8-
cent cotton and other commodities at base prices. Under these lower price
levels for competing commodities, essentially all suitable land is devoted
to cotton at a price of 20.8 cents or above. With competing commodity
prices at 30 per cent above base, cotton is first produced at 26 cents;
and, even at a price of 36.4 cents, not quite all suitable land is devot-
ed to cotton.
As acreage of cotton increases because of higher prices, there is
always a decrease in corn and hog production. Again oats, alfalfa hay,
lespedeza hay, grain sorghum, and beef cattle are included in the enter-
prise combinations.
OPTIMUM FARM ORGANIZATION and AGGREGATE AREA PRODUCTION,
LIMESTONE VALLEY AREAS, ALABAMA
Po Lo Strickland, Jr. and Earl Jo Partenheimer-...
Introduction
The comparative economic advantage of different areas in the pro-
duction of various farm products changes as farm technology and economic
conditions change
0  
Questions repeatedly raised by farmers and agricul-
tural workers indicate a need for economic information to guide them in
adjusting to technological and economic changes. Some of these questions
concern the relative returns from various enterprises and enterprise com-
binations for particular farm resource situations. Other questions con-
cern the kinds and quantities of resources needed for various enterprises
and enterprise combinations. Answers to these questions should help
public agencies and farm organizations concerned with agricultural pplicy
problems and assist State and Federal agencies in administering agricul-
tural programs,
Adjustments that will pay any one farmer to make depend upon actions
taken by competing farmers. This interpendence of profitable actions
makes it essential to know the nature and extent to which various in-
* The research reported herein was conducted under Alabama Agricul-
tural Experiment Station Project Ala-118. The Alabama project is a con-
tributing project to the Regional Research Project S-L2, "An Economic
Appraisal of Farming Adjustment Opportunities to Meet Changing Conditions
in the Southern Region,"
-- Agricultural Economist, Farm Production Economic Division, Economic
Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture; and Associ-
ate Professor, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn
University, respectively.
dividual adjustments when taken as a whole would affect production, price,
and therefore the ultimate profitability of individual adjustments.
The specific objectives of this study are: (a) To determine the most
profitable combinations of enterprises for several selected resource sit-
uations under a range of product prices, and (b) to determine aggregrate
production for the Limestone Valley Areas of Alabama under these price
and resource situations.
Area of Study
The U. S. Census of Agriculture classifies a nine-county area in
northern Alabama as the Limestone Valley Area. However, soil scientists
classify only part of the soils in these counties as limestone soils or
soils with similar characteristics and yield response. Furthermore,
soil scientists classify soils in several other northern Alabama counties
as limestone or closely related soils. The areas to which this study
applies are the very irregular areas and strips of Limestone Valleys and
flood plains throughout northern Alabama (Figure 1). Soils in these
areas are predominately heavy and topography is largely level to gently
rolling. The soils have greater inherent productivity than most other
soils in the State.
From a sample of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
U. S. Department of Agriculture records, it was estimated that there were
nearly 25,000 farms within the delineated areas (Table I). These farms
were classified into groups according to the amount of open land (crop-
land and open pasture land) on each farm. Since census figures axe for
counties, no estimates were made of the number of farms according to cen-
sus classes by income.
Figure o Map of Alabama 
with shaded areas
showing limestone and 
flood plain
soils as classified by the 
Soil
Conservation Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.
6
Table 1. Estimated Number of Farms, by Size Groups, Acreage and Produc-
tion of Specified Crops and Hog Number on Farms, Limestone
Valley Areas, Alabama, 1960
Item Number
Size of farms:
0 to 9.9 acres of open land .. 
. . 39584
10 to 49.9 acres of open land. . . .. 12,586
50 to 124.9 acres of open land .. . , . . 6,245
125 to :29909 ;acres of open 
land . . . . . .
1,751
300 and over acres of open land.. . , . O , 7)47
Total 24,913
Crops:
Cotton:
Acres harvested . . . . .......... . 261,800
Bales harvested a . . . . . . a . . . . . . . 247,190
Corn for grain:
Acres harvested . . . . . . . . . .... 302,000
Bushels harvested.... . ........ 8,261,000
Hogs on.farms, January 1, 1960 . . . . . . . . . 179,100
Estimated cotton production on these farms in 1959 was 261,800
harvested acres yielding 2)47,190 bales, an average of 472 pounds of
lint per acre. There w~ere 302,000 acres of corn harvested for grain
yielding 8,261,000 bushels, This was an average of 27 bushels per
acre,
7
practicality of making specified adjustments can be gained by classify-
,ing the production into major groups and investigating a representative
situation within each group.
Linear programming techniques were used to determine the optimum com-
binations of enterprises for each representative situation whith selected
alternatives, product prices, and resource situations. These investi-
gations were made for individual farm adjustments without considering
the aggregate effect of such adjustments.
Adjustment opportunities that are profitable for an individual
may become less profitable when a large number of individuals .take the
same action , It is desirable to determine the aggregate effect of the ad-
justment alternatives
0 
The optimum programs for the representative farm
situation were expanded by the percentage of the total acreage in each
representative group and summed for all groups to determine the total
crop production, livestock production, and total resource use for the
area with specified assumptions. Aggregations were made assuming that
all the included land base would be adjusted to the optimum farm organi-
zations, Further aggregations were made assuming that specified por-
tions of the included land base did not adjust to the optimum organizations.
General Assumptions
Enterprises Considered
The enterprises considered for the programming model included cotton,
corn, oats for grain, wheat, grain sorghum, soybeans, lespedeza hay,
alfalfa hay, beef cows, feeder steers, hogs, layers, broilers, and milk
for manufacture. Optimum farm plans that considered all these enter-
prises were computed. Since poultry does not compete for land, additional
8
optimum farm plans were computed with poultry 
enterprises eliminated.
To limit adjustment opportunities to strictly land-based activities, 
a
third set of optimum farm plans were computed with both poultry and corn
buying activities eliminated.
Several enterprises were not considered because of resource or econo-
mic restrictions. Entrance into Grade A dairy production is severely re-
stricted by State milk control laws. Fruit, nut, and vegetable production
were eliminated because of the limited market for these products, and the
closeness of the areas that seem to have resources that are better adapt-
ed to their production. These enterprises could be very profitable for
an individual farmer, but for a large number of farmers to enter these
activities would decrease their profitability.
Enterprise Budgets
General input-output budgets have been previously developed and pub-
lished for the major farming enterprises of the areas for both existing
and improved management practices. -L The budgets for improved manage-
ment practices, assuming the use 6f the best available technology and a
high level of managerial ability, were used in this study. These general
/ Budgets for these enterprises are available in: Partenheimer,
Earl J., and Ellis, Theo H., Costs and Returns from Crop Production in
the Limestone Valley Areas of Alabama, Alao Agri,. Expt. 
Sta, in coopera-
ion with Farm Econ. Res, Div.,Agri. Res. Ser., U. S. Dept. Agri., Auburn
Alabaman, February 1960; Ellis, Theo H., and Partenheimer, Earl J.,
Costs and Returns from Livestock Production in the Limestone Valley Areas
of Alabama, Ala. Agri. Expt. Sta, in cooperation with Farm Econ. Res.
Divo, Agri. Res. Ser., U. S. Dept. Agri., Auburn, Alabama, December 1960;
and Ellis, Theo H., Partenheimer, Earl J., and Goodman, John GL, Costs
and Returns from Poultry Production in the Limestone Valley Areas of
Alabama, Ala. Agri. Expt. Sta, in cooperation with Farm Econ. Res. Div.,
Agri. Res. Sero, U. S. Dept. Agri., Auburn, Alabama, January 1960.
9
budgets we ermodified by using the assured prices for this study and by
using machinery ,coef ficient s fitted to the size of farm under conider-
ation
0
Row cropland that was classified as having poor drainage was con-
sidered as not suitable for cotton production. Eliminating this land
restricted cotton production to 85.7 per cent of the row cropland
Class 1 soils wi.th good management should produce continuous cotton with-
out reduction in yield. Class 2 soils should produce the same yields as
Class 1 soils if planted in a 1-1 rotation
0  
However
9 
if Class 2 soils are
planted in continuous cotton,, there would be some reduction in yield.
Therefore, 41,8 per cent (all Class I and one-half of Class 2) of the
row cropland was programmed with cotton yields of 700 pounds of lint per
acre, The, second half of Class 2 land (29.0 per cent of all row crop-
land) was programmed at 650 pounds of lint per acre. Yields of 5
pounds of lint per acre were used for Class 3 land, which accounted for
14.9 per cent of the row cropland,
For crops other than cotton, the yields used were 65 bushels per
acre for corn; 70 bushels per acre for oats; h5 bushels per acre for
grain .sorghuna94.5 tons less 0.9 ton weather loss per acre for alfalfa;
2 tons less 0,)2 ton weather loss per acre for lespedez a hay; 32 bushels
per acre, for wheat; and 22 bushels per acre for soybeans.o Poultry pro-
dutonrtswr21dznegpehefocaelaes 20dzngs
10
subtracted from production. Market hogs were sold at a weight of 210
pounds and fat calves were sold at 525 pounds. Steers were purchased at
450 pounds and sold at 1,075 pounds less 3.5 per cent shrinkage. In-
cluded in the livestock budgets were 0.~ acre of pasture per sow; 0.978
acre of pasture, hay, and corn silage per steer; 2.28 acres of pasture and
hay per cow in beef cow budgets; and 2.065 acres of pasture, hay, and corn
silage per cow equivalent in dairy budgets. No 
land was double cropped.
Hdgs were the only livestock enterprise considered on the small farms.
Even if all resources on a farm of this size were devoted to the produc-
tion of any of the other livestock enterprises, an efficient 
size opera-
tion could not be attained. Using similar reasoning, no beef cow enter-
prise was allowed on the medium-size farm. 
The large and extra large
farms had enough acreage so that all of the above livestock enterprises
could be considered.
Since some of the open land acreage was specified to be suitable
only for pasture for beef enterprises, this acreage became idle open land
when no such enterprises entered the optimum program. Similarly, other
acreages were specified as usable only for close growing crops. When
such crops were not in the optimum program, this average also became
idle open land. However, in no instance did the optimum program fail to
utilize all the available row cropland so that none of this land was ever
idle.
Prices
The input and base product prices used in the analysis were estimat-
ed to represent assumed prices in a "free" market economy under conditions
11
of full employment. 2/ Specifically, they were the market prices which
would be expected to exist in 1975 if all marketing controls and 
price
supports were removed from agricultural production within the next few
years. Except for labor' the input prices were at or near 1959 levels
(Table 2). Base product prices vary considerably from 1959 levels
(Table 3),
With poultry and/or corn buying activities considered, optimum
programs were computed only. at base prices. With poultry and corn
buying activities not considered, optimum programs were 
computed with
several product prices to determine the effect of price changes on 
farm
organization and aggregate area output. There were five 
cotton prices
used -- base price, plus and minus 20 per cent of base 
price, and plus
and minus L0 per cent of base pricea Three prices were 
used for pro-
ducts from all other included enterprises -base price, plus 
30 per cent
of base price, and minus 30 per cent of base price. 
Programs were com-
puted at each combination 
of these prices.
Allotments
With the assumption of "'free"
' 
market prices as base prices, no pro-
duction control or acreage allotments were used in the 
analysis.
Labor
it was assumed that most productive chores on the farm 
would be per-
formed by resident labor -- the operator or full-time 
hired men. Seasonal
j The base prices were determined cooperatively 
by members of the
S-h2 Technical Committee. This committee is composed 
of representatives
from each of the 12 State Experiment Stations cooperating 
and from the
Econo Res. Sero, U. S. Dept. Agri. The basic price 
assumptions were used
in each cooperating state, but modifications were 
made by each State to
reflect normal transportation and quality differentials.
12
Table 2. Assumed Input Prices Used for Programming,
Areas, Alabama
Limestone Valley
Item Unit Price
Feed and minerals:
Corn . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cottonseed meal. . . .e , s .
Meat and bone scrap (5o%) . . .
Soybean oil meal ., . . . .
Stillbestrol, per steer (in feed)
Salt, loose , . . ., . . .
Salt, mineralized, swine formula
Steamed bone meal . . ., ..
Seed:
Cotton, acid-delinted .. ......
Corn 0 . 0 0 0 . . . . 0 "
Wheat..o.t....0
Soybeans . oa . .0"
Grain sorghum0. a*0"O a " 0
White c lo ve r...... .. ... ... ..
Orchard grass. ......... .
Crimson clover .0
Alfalfa 0 .0." 00 0 " e
Lespedeza, Korean * .0. . .
Hairy vetch .. ."" *00. . ".
Coastal bermuda sprigs .
Fertilizer:
0-16-8 .. e.. a aase.s
0-20-20 .e ." . o . a a . . .. .
0-10-20 plus 50 lbs. borax per ton .
Ammonium nitrate
Pesticides:
Cotton insecticide . . . . .
DDT (10%) . . .0 .0 . .0.0 .0 0 0 0
Karmex ........ . .aa . .a
Post-emergence oil ..... ,..
Phenothiazine .. a. . . .
(Continued)
bu.
cwt.
cwt.
C wt.
hd.
cwt.
cwt.
Cwt.0
$ 1.75
14.00
1.45~
S .10
lb.
lb .
bu.
bu.
bu.
lb.
lb.
lb .
lb.
lb .
lb .
lb .
bu.
$ 0.18
.18
I1.4
3.1l5
h4.00
, 14
.70
.32.
.30
.39
.17
.18
1.00
cut.
.cwtS
c wt.
cwta
Cut
lb.
lb.
gal.
gal.
lb.
$ 2005
1.60
2. 35
1.9
3.60
$ 0.10
075
30
70
of . 0
13
iroc'.).Ass ced fIput 'ritesUsed for Rrograr M1ng
9 
Lrrme tor e
Valley Areas3 Alabama
Tt IUnit Prioce
ic stom woruk0
Picking cotton q 0& 0I 0e 0 lb.olint $0006
Applying Ii ie (i nde$ I e) 00000 ton 
4O
U indi ng and ",a, xing
9  
contr~ate0 00 olt 
0  0 
2
didg id 7ixing
9  
0 y . 0 a a cwt
0  
3
+ Gam: ng cre,0 0 a0 0 0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 bU 
0  
11,
Mixing asupplement a0aOa0a0a0aOaOa0a0a0a0 Cw t 00 0
Picking cor 0 0a a 0 a 0 a 0a0a0a0 acre 5'o 0n
Jomci7b i in ng 00 aOoaaoaO O 00a O acre 6 0 o
"r'1 al.laneos~
Seasonal labor 0 a a a a 0 a a a a a 0 hr0 $ 00910
Hoeing cotton. 00 0 Y a 0 00 0 a0 a 0a0 hr.0 ^o
An O nring ,c Or, includes bagging
anld ties 0 0 0 0 a 0 a0 0 0 a 0 0 0a0a0 bale lhC0
Deoliant 0 0a O Oa Oa0a 0a " 0a 0 0 0a "a 0a 0 lb 0 "07
K c ificial 
breeding 
a0 a0 a0 a0 .
a 0 0 " a 
hd "8 
00 
es, 
-
: lves beef feeder e.oo "0a00 .00.0 Cwt. 20 2
14
Table 3. Assumed Product Prices and Price Variations Used for Program-
ming, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
Product; Unit Base price
" e o~~,
Cotton j.""
Corn..,.
Oats ..
Wheat . .s.
Alfalfa hay
Lespedeza hay
Soybeans .
Grain sorghum
Fat calves
Fat steers."
Cull cows ,
Cull bulls.
Slaughter gilts
Sows a . .
Boars ,.,.
Eggs . .. ,
Broilers (contr
." .a ." cwt
" a" abu.
.a. aa0bu,
" " o o a o " e o . ton
a " 0 0 0 0 0 abu,
" o" a a o ". . . ". , cwt
o a 0 a o 0 a a cwt.
0 0, . , 0 0 0 e a o cwt.
a .. a " o . o cwt,
and barrows . , cwt,
aa a" .. acwt.
. . a aa .cwt,
a " a a a a a , a doz.
-ac t ),.............lb.0
$26.00
1.12
*6L
26.00
23.00
2.00
1.08
1900
20.00
13.50
8.5
15 .00
12 .5
5. 80
.0 25
Variations
?20% & 'ho%
?30%
?30%
?30%
?30%
? 30%
?30%
?30%
?30%
? 30%
?30%
?30%
? 30%
?30%
?30%
None
None
This column shows the product price levels that were used in pro-
gramnming in addition to the base price.
2Cotton seed was sold at $50.?00 per ton regardless of the price
of lint.
l'bI
labor would be hired for such tasks as hoeing cotton, filling fertilizer
distributors,, and hauling hay, All crops were assumed to be mechanically
harvested and on the smaller farms this harvesting was assumed to be
custom hi,"red.0
ihe resident labor supply was calculated inunits of one man year-
ord.The part-time resident labor supply consisted of an operator
wh-o worked full time off the farm and operated the farm after work
hours and on Saturday,, A one-man labor supply consisted of a full-time
owner-operator e The three-man supply was one full-time owner-operator
and two full-time hired men, The monthly distribution for these situa-
tions are presented in Table ) .
Table h,, Montihly fistributiom of Resident Labor for Specified Iabor
Forces, Limestone Valley Areas., Alabama
Month
January 
0
February 0
M.a rch o0
April 900
May 0 0 0
July 0 0 0
August 0 0
Septem'ber.
O tober
0
0
November0
Decemcber
Labor force
Part-time man one man Three men
Ho urs Hours Hours
35206 618
o 30 19L S82
40b~ 239 717
o 39 231 693
O 66 266 798
o 64 257 771
64 257 77'
O 66 266 798
- 64 257 7 71
40hO 239 717
o 33 199 597
O 35 206 618
T otal 0 0o 00 0o. 00 76 2,817 8,451
t
O O
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
? o
0 0
o a
o a
16
Capital
Capital was divided into operating and investment capital. Operating
capital is the money used to purchase items normally used in one production
period, such as fertilizer, feed, seed, and seasonal labor. Investment
capital is the amount of money tied up in resources used for more than one
production period. Examples are machinery, storage facilities, buildings
for livestock, livestock equipment, breeding herds, and land. However,
land was not included in the investment capital figures in this publi-
cation since returns were figured 
as the net returns to resident labor,
management, and land.
Operating capital figures were computed by taking the price of appro-
priate inputs multiplied by the time from use of the input until the re-
turns are received from the enterprise. Time is expressed as a fraction
of a year. For example, $12 worth of nitrogen applied h months before
harvest would add $4 ($12 times 1/3) to operating capital. No additions
were made to operating capital if substantial returns occurred within 30
days after incurring an expense. Thus, harvesting costs were not included
in operating capital. Most cost items for layers were also excluded be-
cause incQme occurs at very short intervals.
Investment capital, as used in this report, is the average value
over the lire of an input, and not a new cost. For example, a fence that
costs $1,000 to build was entered as $~00 of investment capital, since this
is the average value of the fence over its useful life.
Interest at 6 per cent on both operating and investment capital
(other than inve~tment in land) is included as an expense in the optimum
farm plans, regardless of whether the capital is owned or borrowed.
17
Representative Farms
The farms of the areas were classified into five major groups accord-
ing to open land (cropland plus open pasture) on each farm. One of these
groups, 0 - 9.9 acres of open land, was considered as nonfarm rural re-
sidences. They were not considered in the study. For the remaining
farm size groups, a representative farm was chosen for each group
(Table 5). The classifications and representative farms were determined
from a ten per cent sample of the Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service farm records in six Tennessee River Valley countieso
Table 5. Farm Size Groups, Representative Farm Sizes, Limestone Valley
Areas, Alabama
Size group Acreage on
(acres open land) representative farms
Open land Plowable land Row cropland
sacres acres)
Nonfarm (0 to 9.9), . .... 1/ 1/ /
Small (10 to 49.9) . .. . 32 2879 22.2
Medium ( 50 to 124.9) .. , .
80 72.o 55.5
Large (125 to 299,9) o 0 0 . o. 210 190.0 145.7
Extra large (300 and over), . 635 
5 h.)7. 0.7
/ Farms with less than 10 acres considered as rural residences.
Optimumn Organizations for Representative Farms
Individual farm organization is determined by personal preferences
and the availability of resources as well as potential profits. How-
ever, the use in this study of the term "optimum" denotes only profit
maximization. Using the base prices for farm products, optimum programs
were computed for each representative farm~ (1) with poultry and corn
buying for livestock activities considered, (2) with poultry enterprises
excluded, and (3) with poultry and corn buying activities excluded.
18
For the third group, programs were computed with five cotton prices and
three prices of other commodities to show the effect of product price
variations on farm organization.
Small Farm
The representative small farm had 32 acres of open land with 22.2
acres available for cultivation in row crops. The farm was suitable for
a part-time operation with the owner working full time off the farm and
operating the farm enterprises after work and on Saturdays. The farm
was not large enough to provide a reasonable income for a full-time
operator unless large non-land based enterprises were included.
The farm was programmed with a part-time labor supply. A two-plow
tractor and appropriate land preparation and cultivating equipment was
assumed to be owned by the operator. No harvesting equipment was
assumed to be owned by the farm operator. All crops were assumed to be
custom harvested.
When poultry enterprises were considered in the program model, no
poultry entered the optimum combination of enterprises (Table 6). The
program required the purchase of h03 hundredweight of corn and carried
Ssows on the farm. Crops grown on the farm were 11.9 acres of cotton,
5.7 acres of oats, and 9.2 acres of grain sorghum for sale. No corn was
grown for feed. Net return to resident labor, management, and land was
$l,h92. The total investment capital requirement other than land was
$3,200. Total resident labor required was h66 hours. Labor was restrict-
ing in April and July.
When poultry and corn buying were not permitted in the program, the
number of sows in the optimum program was reduced to one. Cotton acreage
was increased to 15.7. Grain for sale included 6.6 acres of oats and 3.8
19
Table 6. Optimum Fare Plans Small Farm, Part-Time Operator- 
Labor Force
Advancedi Technology, Base. Jrices for All Products,; Limestone
Valley Areas, Alabama
Program assumptions
Enterprises UTit .All enterprises :Poultry Joutryan
onsidered corn buying
" osdrd :ecue excluded
Crops:
Cotton (high yield). . . acre 9.3 
9.3 9e3
Cotton (medium yield), 0 acre 2,6 
2.6 6.4
Cotton (low yield) . 0 acre 0.0000 00
Oats ... , 0, 9.o. . acre 5075,7 6.6
Grain sorghum m *ao * acre 912 9.2 3.8
Corn for feed ,o , acre 000 000
Corn purchased *0oao cwt. 402.9 402.9 00
Pasture * s0 0 acre 2.1 2,1
Idle open land . 0. .a acre 3,1 301 
2.9
Sows * *0* *.* .a, , no, 4.2 4.2 10
Cotton sold ,..0, .,, cwtt, 82.1 82.1 106.7
Feed grain sold * . v. cwt. 352.9 
352o9 239o9
Net return to resident
labor, management,
and land . . . . . dol. 1,492 1,492 1,436
Capital:
Investment J 0 . . . dol. 3,200 3,200 2,747
Operating *. * *.* *edol. 711 711
Resident labor used . , hour 466 466 321
Seasonal labor hired . * hour 67 67 76
Resident Labor Distribution for Periods (hours)
Situation :Jana :Mara :Apr.:May:June:July Aug. :Sept. :Oct. :Nov.: Total
:Feb.: o e o e .e ."e ".
All enterprises
considered 86 30 39 46 63 64 47 33 30 28 4.66
Poultry excluded 86 30 39 46 63 64 47 33 30 28 466
20
acres of grain sorghum, and 2.5 acres of corn was grown for feed. The net
return to resident labor, management, and land was $l,h36, a decrease of
$56. Total investment capital requirement 
other than land was $2,77,
a decrease of $x.3. Total resident labor required was 321 hours. Labor
was the restricting resource only in April.
The programming with poultry and corn buying not considered was ex-
panded to determine the effect of variations in product prices on the
optimum organization. The major concern was the effect on cotton pro-
ductiono
With the product price of enterprises competing with cotton at the
assumed base prices, no cotton would be planted at a price of i .6 cents
per pound of lint (Table 7). Some cotton would be planted at 20.8 cents
per pound but not until a price of 31.2 cents per pound would all the
available cotton land be planted.
With the prices of competing enterprises at 30 per cent below base
prices, cotton, corn and hogs were the only enterprises with a positive
return. At a cotton price of 15.6 cents per pound, the optimum pro-
gram has 3.9 acres of cotton, 12.5 acres of corn for feed and 4.8 sows.
At a cotton price of 20.8 cents per pound or above, it would be most
profitable to plant all suitable acreage to cotton with no other enter-
prises on the farm.
With the price of products competing with cotton raised to 30 per
cent above base prices, they competed very effectively with cotton for
the available resources. Cotton was not in the optimum program below
a price of 26 cents per pound. Not until a cotton price of 36.h cents
per pound was reached was all of the suitable land planted to cotton.
21
Table 7, Optinmm Programs, Smail Farm, Part-Time Labor Supply, Specified
Prices for Cotton and for Competing Enterprises, 
Poultry and
Corn Buying Activities Not Considered 
Advanced Technology,
Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
Entepries nitCotton prices (cents per pound of lint
1620 260 31.2 36.)
Competing enterprises
Cotton
Corn for feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Pasture
Idle openland
So ws
Net revenue 
1/
Capital:
Investmentj
Operating
Resident labor
Seasonal labor
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
no,
dol,
dol,
dol.
hr,
Competing enterprises
Cotton acre
Corn for feed acre
Pasture acre
Idle openland acre
Sows no,
Net revenue 1/ dol
Capital:
Investment 2/ dol
Operating dol,
Resident labor hr.
Seasonal labor hr,
Competing enterprises
Cotton acre
Corn for feed acre
Oats acre
Grain sorghum acre
Pasture acre
Idle openland acre
Sows no,
Net revenuelJ dol
Capital:
Investment / dol.
Operating dol,
Resident labor hr.
Seasonal labor hr.
at base prices
13.3
7.6
2.6
805
5o1
1, 070,46 191
3,098.72
5)41.25
L421?5
35o5
4a5
12.1-0
5.7
)4.6
2<.3
2.9
)4s6
155o04
3,1070)42
678x 39
)445e.6
5102
at 30% below base -price
309. 156
12,5 
__
13.2 13,)4
)4.8 
--
232,90 698071
3,126e)42
535,)48
)4oo. 2
36a)4
2,65)4,22
41)4o2 2
237,8
6807
at 30% above base prices
13,0 13,0
506 5.6
5.0 8.0
2.)4 2.)4
3.0 3.0
)4,9449
2,00)4-33 2,00)4.33 29
3,075.9)4
636.85
436,5
x.1 .6
3,075a9)4
636.85
436,5
x.1.6
15.7
2.)4
6.6
3.8
3.1
.9
1,)435.8.4
2,7)46,82
595.36
320,8
7507
18,6
6.8
3.6
3.0
2,0)47.00
2,65)4.22
57L4.69
288.5
82.0
18,6 
18,6
13,)4 13,)4
1,3390)40 1,980,10
2, 65)4,02 2
4l)4.22
23708
68,v7
)4-5
12.0
5.7
)4o6
2.3
'2.9
)496
9150,3)4l
9107,542
678.39
)445 .6
51.2
2, 65)4.22
414.22
237.8
68,7
903
7.9
6.0
1.5
3.1
3.0
2,933)..77
2,953.23
641.01i
392.2
61.8
18,6
6.8
3.6
3.0
2_,687. 70
2,65)4.22
57)4,69
288,5
82.0
18.6
13.)4
2, 620.,80
2,65)4.22
41422
23708
68.7
18.6
6.8
3.6
3.0
2, 831.99
2,65)4,22
57)4090
288.5
82.0
1/ Net return to resident labor, management and land,
2/ Investment capital. does not include the investnent in land.
wt
339
22
These programs indicate that, under the assumed prices, poultry was
not a profitable adjustment alternative on the small farm operated with
a part-time labor supply. At almost any combination of prices, cotton
was a profitable enterprise on these farms, with a corn-hog enterprise
the best alternative to cotton. With capital available to buy corn for
hog feed, raising hogs would add only a few dollars to net revenue.
Medium Farm
The representative medium farm has 80 acres of open land with 5.5
acres suitable for row crops. The farm was operated by a full-time opera-
tor. The assumption was made that there was one three-plow tractor with
two-row planter and cultivator on the farm. Where hay crops were in
the program, a mower, rake and baler were assumed to be owned. All
other crops were assumed to be custom harvested.
When poultry was considered and base prices assumed, 2,120 cage
layers were in the optimum program on the medium farm (Table 8). The
program included 678 hundredweight of purchased corn, 12 sows, 39.3
acres of cotton, 13.9 acres of oats, and 13.2 acres of corn for feed.
Net return to resident labor, management, and land was $7,327 and total
investment capital requirement other than land was $11,37.. The total
labor requirement was 2,25 hours, with labor restricting April and
July.
When poultry was not considered, the optimum program increased the
purchase of corn to 2,216.9 hundredweight and the number of sows to 27.
The acreage of cotton was the same, but oat acreage was reduced to 10.2
and that of corn for feed was reduced to 9. acres. Net return to resi-
dent labor, management, and land was $6,299, a decrease of $1,029; and
investment capital was $7,h17, a reduction of $3,997. Total labor re-
23
Table 8. Optimum Farm Plans, Medium 
Sized Farm.,0ne-&Man Labor Force,
Advanced Technology, Base Prices 
for All Products, Limestone
Valley Areas, Alabama
" Program assumptions
Enterprises . Unit :All enterprises : Poultry Poultry and
consideredcorn buying
e " onsderd : xclded excluded
Poultry:
Caged layers no, 2,120
Crops:
Cotton (high yield) acre 
23.2 23o2 23,2
Cotton (medium yield) acre 
16,1 16.1 16.1
Cotton (low yield) acre 000 
000 00
Oats, acre 
1309 1021
Corn for feed acre 13.2 
9,5l1,8
Corn purchased 
cwt, 678.06 
2,21687-
Pasture acre 6,0l30)4 
2.8
Idle openland acre 7a6 
7.6 7o6
Sows no, 
12.1 2609
Cotton sold cwt, 267,05 
267.05 267.05
Feed grain sold cwt, 
310,64 228.20 346.97
Net return to resident
labor, management,
and land 
dol. 7,327 
6,299 4,275
Capital re uired:
Investment 1 dol. 11,3747,h17 
h,00
Operating dol. 2,4992,924 
1,769
Resident labor used 
hour 2,525,033 
9
Seasonal labor hired hour 181 
178 183
1Investment capital does not include the 
investment in land,
Resident Labor Distribution for Periods (hours)
:Dec : ": : : : .:"
Situation :Jane :Mar, :Apr. :!Maya:Juxie:July:Aug, :Sept. 
:Oct,.:No-v.: Total
24
quirement was 2,033 hours, with labor restricting only in 
July.
When poultry and corn buying were both excluded, there was 
a large
reduction in number of sows and net return to operator. Sows 
were re-
duced to six; cotton acreage was again the same, Oats acreage 
was in-
creased to 15o and acreage of corn for feed was increased to 14.8. 
Net
return to resident labor, management, and land was $),275, 
a decrease of
$2,02 from the program with corn buying permitted, 
and a decrease of
$3,0S2 from the program with poultry 
and corn buying. Total investment
capital requirement was $),001, a decrease of $3,)16 from the program
with corn buying considered, and $7,373 below the program with 
both
poultry and corn buying considered. Total operator 
labor requirement
was 91. hours. Labor was not restricting in any of the periods.
With poultry and corn buying not permitted 
and with enterprises
competing with cotton at base prices, cotton entered the 
optimum pro-
gram at a price of 26 cents per pound of lint (Table 
9). At a cotton
price of 31,2 cents, all of the suitable land 
was planted to cotton,
Again, the corn-hog enterprise was the closest 
competitor with cotton.
When the product prices of competing enterprises were 
reduced to
30 per cent below base price, no cotton was planted at a price 
of 15.6
cents per pound; a corn-hog enterprise was the only 
enterprise in the
optimum program. However, at a price of 20.8 cents 
per pound all suit-
able land was planted to cotton
0
With competing enterprise prices increased to 30 per cent above
base, a corn-hog enterprise with oats planted on the plowable land
made up the optimum program until a cotton price of 36.I cents 
was
reached? At a cotton price of 36.h cents, some but not all suitable
land was planted to cotton.
25
Table 9, Optimum Programs, Medim 
Farn, One-Nan Labor upply, Specified
Prices for Cotton and for Competing 
Enterprises, Poultry and
Corn Buying Activities Not Considered 
Advanced Technolo
Limestone Valley Areas, Aabama
Enterpries Unit o n prices (cents per po~m o i
_________ 15 o 2, 20 312 3
Competing enterprises
Cotton acre
Corn for feed acre
Oats acre
Pasture acre
Idle openland acre
Sows no,
Net revenue 1 dol,
Capital:
Investment 2/ dol,
Operating dol,
Resident labor hr.
Seasonal labor hr.
Competing enterprises
Cotton acre
Corn for feed acre
Pasture acre
Idle openland acre
Sows no,
Net revenue 1/ dol,
Capital:
Investment 2/ dol,
Operating dol,
Resident labor hr
Seasonal labor
Competing enterprises
Cotton acre
Corn for feed acre
Oats acre
Pasture acre
Idle openland acre
Sows no
Net revenue 1/ dol
Capital:
Investment 2/ dol,
Operating dol.
Resident labor hr.
Seasonal. labor hr.
at base prices
~SO, 7
12x1
906
76
19o3
39,951. 90
5,908.50
2,082,88
1,1416.3
97,0
at 30% below
5O,7
9.6
19G7
19.3
96801
5,908,50
1, 851.50 ]
1,375,3
8307
50.7
936
7~6
19.3
2,082.88
970
base prices
702
23,8
2.8
2,00 )13
3,597058
1,397,)40
75206
183.3
at 30%-above base prices
5007 50.
1201 12,1
9o6 9.6
796 7.6
19,3 19.3
7,027,92 7.9027.92
5, 908.50
2,082.8.8
1,1416o3
197x0
5, 908.50
2,082.88
1,1416e3
9700
3903
i14.o8
1 5.5
7a6
56
4,275o39
1,0000,53
1,769m13
913.9
182.9
147x6
7e2
2308
2,8
~ 
bele
3,6)O, 96
3,597,.58
1,397,140 
1 
5 
0
183.3
50.7
1201
9.6
70.6
1903
7,027.92
5908 .50
2,082.88
1,1416x3-
97.0
p ...
147.6
7o2
16.2
7.1
2.8
5,793.77
3,597o58
19706s314
807.8
201.1
14706
_7.2
1.14
23,8
208
59277x79
39597058
19,3970140
75206
183,3
50.7
12.1
9.6
7.6
1903
79027.92
5,908.50
2,082,88
191416.3
970
1/ Net return to resident labor, management and land.
2/ Investment capital does not include the investment in land,.
17.6
7. 2
16.2
701
208
7,1430.60
3,597058
1,7069314
807.8
201 .1
14706
7.2
1.14
23,8
2.8
6,9114062
3,597o58
193970.0
752.6
18303
39,3
14,8
15,5
2.5
7.6
5.6
8,11053
14,000,53
1, 773.76
913c,9
182.9
cJ
II
26
A one-man equivalent labor supply on the medium farm gave excessive
labor for a primary cotton farm. This labor could be utilized very pro-
fitably either in a poultry enterprise or a corn-hog enterprise. If corn
buying for hog feed was permitted, a sizable acreage of cotton and a
large number of sows would be profitable. With corn buying eliminated,
cotton and corn for feed competed for the available row cropland. At
the low cotton prices, corn-hogs was more profitable. Only at the
higher cotton prices did cotton come into the optimum program.
Large Farm
The representative large farm consisted of 210 acres of open land
with 145.7 acres suitable for row crop cultivation. The original inten-
tion was for a two-man labor supply on this farm. However, preliminary
programming at base prices and without poultry enterprises indicated
that the increase in net returns when two men were used over the net re-
turns for one-man labor supply was not sufficient to pay the wages of the
second man. Therefore, the labor supply was limited to one full-time
operator on this farm situation.
The operator was assumed to own one three-plow tractor with four-
row planters and cultivators and another three-plow tractor when enough
cotton was produced to make it profitable to own a one-row cotton picker.
He was assumed also to own a combine, cornpicker, and hay making equip-
ment where needed.
When poultry was considered, $2,360 contract broilers were in
the optimum combination (Table 10). The program also included 15 sows,
63.9 acres of cotton, 31.1 acres of corn for sale, 38.9 acres of corn
for feed, 8.1 acres of alfalfa hay, and h0.6 acres of lespedeza hay.
27
Table 10 Optimum Farm Plans, Large Farm, One-Man Labor Force, Advanced
Technology, Base Prices for All Products, Limestone Valley
Areas, Alabama
0 (D Program assumptions
Q P u ty n'an
Enterprises Unit 0 All enterprises Poultry
considered 0excluded corn buying
excluded
Poultry:
Broilers 
a 0 0 0 o 
no
0 
o2,360 
/lJ
Crops:
Cotton (high yield) 0 acre 6o08 60.8 60,8
Cotton (medium yield) . acre 3,1 000000
Cotton (low ield) 
0 
0 acre 000 000.00
Corn for sale .mt a acre 310llo5ll
Corn for feed . 0 0 acre 
38,9555
Alfalfa hay ac o0. 0are 801 1206 1206
Lespedeza hay 0 0 0 0 acre 4006 3606 3606
Corn purchased .cwt, 000 000 00
Pasture .o 0,, . 0acre 7,4 10.6 10.6
Idle openland 0 0 0 acre 20.0 
22o4.22a4
Sows 0.0.0,0,0 ,, no, 14.8 
21a2 21a2
Cotton sold 0 0, 0 , ct 2 4.6425.6
Feed grain sold e a * 0 cwt, 
1,133.28 419.85 )l9.85
Net return to resident
labor, management and
land o 0 a 0 a dol. 11,683 11,619 11,619
Capital required:
Investment 2/,.a dol . 19,397 15,153 15 
153
Operating 0 . oa. .dol. 4,328 4,265 
4,265
Resident-labor used o hr.o 2,605 2,492 2,9492
Seasonal labor hired 0 h-r. 686 693 
693
1/ Four batches of 13,090 each.
2/ Investment capital does not include the investment in land
0
Resident. Labor Requirement by Periods (hours)
:Dec.: o: ? " a e 
0c
Siuton 0.Na :pr 0MyJueJlyg:e pt" "ct " v eToa
All enterprises
considered 55222 231 25513 2H7 266 211
Poultry excluded 566 l95 204 232 127 257 266 211
239 186 2,60~
239 195 2,492
Poultry and corn
buig xlue 6 l95 204 232 127 257 266 211 239 19S 2, 492
239 231 266 257 257 266 27 239 199 2,817
CJ M qY ~~C FIPT ~ CI~I PI~ LC- VF~I --d~q V / -- V W P-IIP V
Labor available 606
28
No corn was purchased in this program. The net return to resident labor,
management and land was $11,683 and investment capital requirement other
than land was $19,397. The total resident labor requirement was 2,605
hours, and labor was restricting in April, July, August, and October.
When the poultry enterprise was eliminated, still no corn was pur-
chased so that the optimum combination with corn buying or without corn
buying considered were the same. Number of sows was increased to 21,
corn for feed was increased to 55.5 acres, and corn for sale decreased
to 11.5 acres. Cotton acreage was 60,8 acres. Alfalfa hay acreage
increased to 12.6 acres and lespedeza hay decreased to 36.6 acres. Net
return to resident labor, management, and land was $11.619 a decrease
of $64. Investment capital requirement other than land was $15,153, a
decrease of $4,2L44. Total resident labor requirement was 2,492 hours,
with labor restricting in July, August, and October.
With poultry and corn buying not permitted and enterprises competing
with cotton at base prices, some cotton was profitable at a price of 20.8
cents per pound (Table II). Both corn for grain and corn-hog enterprises
were in the optimum program at this cotton price or below. At a cotton
price of 26 cents, the cotton acreage increased but some corn for grain
was still planted. At 31.2-cent cotton, corn for grain and corn-hogs
were not in the optimum program. However, because of lack of labor in
critical periods, the total acreage of cotton planted at this price
did not use all of the suitable cotton lando Since alfalfa and
lespedeza hay did not compete with cotton for labor in these critical
periods, they came into the optimum program .to use the available land.
With competing enterprises at 30 per cent below base prices, most
of the high yielding cotton acreage would be planted at a cotton price
29-
Table 110 Optimum Programns, Large Fam, One-Nan Labor Supply, Specified
Prices for Cotton and for Competing Enterpries, Poultry
and Corn Buying Activities Not 
Considered,-Advanced Technology$
Limestone Valley Areas;, Alabama'..
" Cotton pricers(cents. per pound of lints
Enterprises Unit 15"2~ 6O l2 T T T
Competing enterprises
Cotton acre
Corn for grain acre
Corn for feed acre
Oats acre
Alfalfa hay acre
Lespedeza hay acre
Pasture acre
Idle openland acre
Sows no,
at base prices
3109
77,14
3609
2809
2001
29.;~
Net revenue 1/
Capital:
Investment 2/
Operating
Resident labor hr.
Seasonal labor hr,
dol. a8,1477.31
dol. 11,233.92
dol. 4,224,10
2,4172
589.14
9,62302
14, 921.01
1,651 72.
510.9
11, 619 .149
15s 153o147
4, 2b.09
IS, 076 .11
114,230.82
39692.82
2,491.0 1,80807
692.07 I9 O52 a
187142, 91
114, 230 .82
3,692o82
1, 808.7
1
Competing enterprises at 30% below base prices
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn for feed
Alf if a hay
Pasture
Idle openland
Sows
Net revenue
Capital
Investment 2/
Operating
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
no 0
01,4
2603
606
1008
509
2106
dol. a3,189.66
dolo 13,663,145
dol, 3-,890.07
1?3o1
1407
37.9
61403
6, 251.46
12,695013
3, 259.63
103A9
4108
6140
10309
4108
6103
99908,78 13575,58
12,8014,39
3, 271.97
12,8014039
3, 271 97
Resident labor hr. 2,278,7 1,576.0
155.5 823.8
1,591.7 1,591.7 1,591.7
879.7 879.7 879.7
(Continued)
14307
69,32
3707
3a3
13.2
20.0
26.14
60,8
11.5
5505
12.6
36.6
10.6
22.14
21. 2
103.9
14.8
20.0
103,9
41s8
20,0
10309
4108
61403
17,242,51
12.98014.39
3,271.97
L v L L
30
Table 11 (Continued). Optimum Program, Large Farm One-Nan Labor Supply,
Specified Prices for Cotton. and for Competing Enterprises,
Poultry and Corn Buying Activities Not Considered, Advanced
Technology, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
Enterprises 
Unit 
Cotton prices 
(cents per pound 
of lint)
: 15,6. : 20 a : 26.0 : 31.2 : 
36.o7
Competing enterprises at 30% above base prices
Cotton acre --- 39.8 56.3 87.5
Corn for grain acre 35325.215.6--
Corn for feed acre 75.2 75.2 7109 60.S 22.1
Oats acre 37.1 37.1 37,-
Alfalfa hay acre 2708 2708 2.0 7,53h4O
Lespedeza hay acre -37.6 h2.2
Pasture acre 3h.)434.h 13.7 11.6 1.2
Idle openland acre 20.0 20.9 20.0
Sows no. 28,7 28,7 
27.h 23.1 8.h
Beef cows noo 9.0 
--
Ntrevenue j dole 159,057 098 155057o98 16, 307 011.18,111.69 20, 526.21
Capital:
Investment j dol. 16.9492c88 16,1492,88 14, 853.28 15.9225o99 
l14,736.0)4
Operating dol. 3,803.86 3,803a86 4, 65054 14,3214,]S 
3, 939.36
Resident labor hr.a 2544i3,2 2,1043.2 2, 579 .hx- 2, 552 3 2,lOO .
Seasonal labor hr. 620o 6 620.6 x.92,3 650.9 920
lJNet return to resident labor, management and land.
jInvestment capital does not include the investment in land.
31
of 15.6 cents, Corn for grain and corn-hog enterprises would also be in
the optimum program. At a 20.8-cent cotton price, the high and medium-
yield cotton acreage would be planted. The corn-hog enterprise would go
out of the optimum organization. A small acreage of corn for grain and
alfalfa hay were in the program, At a cotton price of 26 cents or a-
bove, cotton and alfalfa hay were the only enterprises in the optimum
organization.
With competing enterprises at 30 per cent above base prices, cotton
entered the optimum organization at a price of 26 cents per pound. How-
ever, even at a price of 36.h cents per pound, the cotton acreage did
not reach the level planted at this price with competing enterprises
at base prices or below. At a cotton price of 15.6 or 20.8 cents per
pound, beef cows were in the optimum organization.
This farm with one full-time man presented a situation with a limit-
ed labor supply. Therefore, changing the product price of one enterprise
could change the optimum program. Cotton, corn, and hogs competed for
labor in the same periods. Enterprises that did not use labor in these
periods entered the optimum programs to utilize the available land.
Extra Large Farm
The representative extra large farm had 635 acres of open land with
hho0.7 acres of this suitable for row crop cultivation. This farm re-
quired more than one man to operate it. Preliminary programming without
poultry and corn buying and at base prices indicated that a three-man
operation was most practical. The final analysis was made assuming a
three-man equivalent labor supply?
The operator was assumed to have three three-plow tractors with
four-row planters and cultivators. He was also assumed to own a two-
32
row self-propelled cotton picker, a combine, corn pickers, and hay-making
equipment where needed.
With poultry and corn buying both considered in the model, the opti-
mum enterprise combination included 2,170 cage layers but no corn buying
(Table 12). The plan also had 377.7 acres of cotton, 10.1 acres of corn
for sale, 48 acres of corn for feed, 129.1 acres of oats, and 18 sows.
The net return to resident labor, management, and land was $hh,09h 3/ and
total investment capital requirement other than land was $35,602. The
total resident labor requirement was 6,980 hours, with labor restricting
in April, July, and August.
With poultry eliminated, the optimum program included purchases of
1,209 hundredweight of corn and increased the number of sows to 34. The
cotton acreage increased slightly, oats acreage decreased slightly, and
no corn was grown for sale. The net return to resident labor, management,
and land was $43,105, a decrease of $989. Investment capital requirement
other than land was $31,474, a decrease of $4,128. The total resident
labor requirement was 6,L79 hours, with labor restricting only in July.
When poultry and corn buying both were eliminated, much of the poor-
er cotton land was utilized for producing corn for feed and sows were in-
creased to 41. There were 106.3 acres of corn for feed and 123.6 acres
of oats. This program also had 27 brood cows in the optimum plan. The
3/ This figure included returns to all resident labor, including
both the operator and the two full-time hired men. To make the figure a
return to operator labor, management, and land, substract a total of $5,600
to account for cash wages and perquisites for the two full-time hired men.
33
Table 12, Optimum Farm Plans, Extra Large Farm, Three-Man Labor Force,
Advanced Technology, Base Prices for All Products, Limestone
Valley Areas, Alabama
Program assumptions
Enterprises Unit " All enterprises.Poultry
considered "excluded corn buying
Sexcluded
Poultry:
Caged layers . . . . , no. 2,170 0.0 
0.0
Crops:
Cotton (high yield) . . acre 184.0 18)4.0 18hO
Cotton (medium yield. , acre 127.9 127.9 127.9
Cotton (low yield), . acre 65.8 65.8 12.4
Corn for sale . . acre 10.14 0.0 
0.0
Corn for feed .... , acre 48.0 5.6 106.3
Oats . . . . . . acre 129.1 125.3 123.6
Corn purchased . cwt. 0.0 1,208.77 
0.0
Pasture . , .s. . acre 9.2 16.8 
80.8
Idle openland , . . acre 60.6 60.6 
0.0
Sows . . . . . . m . . no. 18.3 
33.5 40.6
Beef cows , . , . ,.,., . no. 0.0 
0.0 27.0
Cotton sold .e...s.e . cwt 2,1497.7 2.9497o7 2,190.37
Feed grain sold o.. . cwt. 3,272.1 2,807.27 
2,767.80
Net return to resident
labor, management, and
land. ......... dol., 14),09) .43,105 42.9569
Capital required :
Investment 1/ . .0 . dol. 35,602 31,14714 38,9231
Operating. . . . dol. 15900)4 149987 14,460
Resident labor used . . hr. 6,980 6,1480 617149
Seasonal labor hired ., hr. 25059 2, 048 2,9041
Investment capital does not include the investment in land.
Resident Labor Requirement by Periods (hours)
Situation : Jan.:Mar.:Apr.: May: June :July:Aug.: Sept.: Oct.:Nov.:Total
All enterprises
considered 1,190447 693 
681 504 771 798 632 688 576 6,980
Poultry excluded 1,0814 40 635 627 44 771 
765 60)4 627 516 6,1479
Poultry & corn buy-
ing excluded 1,227 4356140 653468 771 776 616 627 536 
6,7149
Labor available 1,818 717 693 798 771 771 798 
771 7
71759 8,45
34
net return to resident labor, management, and land was $42,569. This was
only $536 less than in the program with corn buying considered, and $1,525
less than in the program that included poultry and corn buying. Invest-
ment capital requirement other than land was $38,231, an increase of
$6,757 over the program with corn buying considered, and $2,629 above the
program with both poultry and corn buying. The total resident labor re-
quirement was 6,7h9 hours, with labor restricting only in July.
With poultry and corn buying activities eliminated and enterprises
competing with cotton at base prices, cotton entered the optimum program
at a price of 20.8 cents per pound (Table 13). At a price of 31.2 cents
per pound all of the suitable land was planted to cotton. Corn-hogs,
oats, and beef cows were other enterprises in the optimum program with
cotton. At a cotton price of 15.6 cents per pound, no cotton was in
the optimum program Corn for grain and lespedeza hay enterprises were
added and the corn-hog enterprise increased to utilize the land.
With competing enterprises at 30 per cent below base prices, cotton
entered the optimum program at a price of 15.6 cents per pound. At 20.8
cents per pound, all of the suitable cotton land was planted. The corn-
hog enterprise was the only other enterprise in these programs.
With competing enterprises at 30 per cent above base prices, cotton
entered the optimum program at a price of 26 cents per pound. However,
all of the land suitable for cotton was not planted in cotton until a
cotton price of 36.h cents per pound was reached. In the optimum pro-
grams with no cotton planted, corn for grain, and lespedeza hay were
added and the corn-hog enterprise was increased.
Table 13, Optimum Programs, Extra Large Farm. Three-.Man Labor Supply,
Specified Prices for Cotton and for Competing Enterprises,
Poultry and Corn Buying Activities Not Considered, Advanced
Technology, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
Enterprises 
Unit 
d? 
Cotton prices 
(cents-per 
pound oflint
156i 20. : 26. : 312 36.
Competing enterprises at base prices
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn for feed
Oats
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Idle openland
Sows
Beef cows
Net revenue 1/
Capital:
Investment 2/
Operating
Resident labor hr.
Seasonal labor hr.
Competing enterprises
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
no.o
no
0
@
109.8
225.0
112.2
103,5
85,a5
2700
dotla 26,826,38
dol. 36.,165,03
dole 129,373.15
7,338.2
1,8789
-302. 9
1I25.8
121.7
24.0
60.6
48,o
31,456035
31,551, 29
Il,733G21
6,787?8
1,873.7
32..3
106.,3
123.6
80.8
40.6
27 0
429569 26
38, 231,10
14,459 D61
2,041.0
377.7
57,,5
128. 2
3710
21.9
2700
55, 315 024
36,868055
14,186.25
6,086,5
2,171<7
377.7
57,5
128,02
71 .6
21.9
270
68, 303. 28
36,868.55
14 ,186025
6,086,5
2,171.7
at 30% below base prices
Cotton
Corn for feed
Pasture
Idle openland
Sows
Net revenue j:;,dol e
Capital:
Investmentjdol
Operating dol.
Resident labor hr.
Seasonal labor hr.
11,951.16 24,0o8139
319551.29 28,573.59
129 5810 92 11, 850.68
6, 787,8
1, 6663
5, 426 .0
1, 838.6
37,9069.44L
28,573.59
11, 850.68
5,426.0
19838.6
28,539
11,850.68
5,4.26.0
1,838.6
63, 045.52
28,573.59
11,850.68
5,426.0
1,9838.6
(Continued)
acre
acre
acre
acre
no,0
302,9
125.8
24.0
182.3
48. 0
37707
5705
10.9
188,9
21. 9
3 77,07
57e5
10.9
188.9
21.9
377 77
57.5
10.9
188,9
21.9
377,7
5705
10.9
188.9
2109
6 V d L
36.
Table 13 (Continued). Optimum Programs, Extra Large Farm, Three-Man Labor
Supply, Specified Prices for Cotton and for Compet-
ing Enterprises, Poultry and Corn Buying Activities
Not Considered, Advanced Technology, Limestone
Valley Areas, Alabama
Cotton prices(cents per pound of lint)
Enterprises 0Unit 15.6, 
20.e8 26.0 31.2 
36.4
Competing enterprises at 30% above base prices
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn for feed
Oats
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
So ws
Beef cows
Net revenue l
Capital:
Investment
Operating
Resident labor
Seasonal labor
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
no .
no.,
109.8
225.0
112.2
8)4.5
85,8
27.0
dol. 46,799,44
dol. 36,165.03
dol. 12,37)4.65
hr.
hr.
7,338.2
1,878.9
109.8
225.0
112.2
103.5
85 ,.8
27.0
)46, 799.)4
36,165.03
12, 37)4.65
7,338.2
1,878.9
18)4.0
62.3
1-77.5
116.8
9)464
67. 7
27.0
51,873.52
38, 376.37
1)4,21)4.57
7,327.5
1,713.4
324.1
106.3
123.6
81.0
27.0
62,497.62
38, 231.10
1)4,699.30
6,7)48.1
2,0)41.0
377.7
57.5
128.2
71.6
21.9
27.0
7)4,101, 01
36,868.55
1)4,42)4.1)4.
6, 086..5
2,171.7
1/ Net return to resident labor, management and land.
Investment capital :does not include investment in land.
.. o . . .
37
Comparison of Responses for Different Size Groups
On all but the small farm, there was some decrease in net return to
resident labor, management, and land, when poultry enterprises were
eliminated from the enterprises consid:ered. On all but the large farm,
there was a further decrease in net return when corn buying to feed hogs
was eliminated. This decrease was relatively small except in the case
of the medium farm (80 acres of open land). On the medium farm, less
than a third of the labor supply was used, and the excess labor could
be profitably used either in poultry enterprises or in an expanded hog
program in which some feed grain must be purchased. In each of the
other farm situations, the inclusion of poultry in the optimum program
required almost all available labor to be 
used for productive activities.
Since there would be little time available for maintenance and repair, it
was unlikely that the indicated levels of production could be maintained
over a long period of time. Although the net return did decrease when
the poultry and corn buying activities were eliminated, the labor re-
quirement and distribution for the optimum programs without poultry
and corn buying was much more desirable.
In the programming with different combinations of product prices,
cotton and a corn-hog enterprise were the most profitable and most competi-
tive for the limited resources. The major effect of changing product prices
was, in most cases, a change in the proportion of these enterprises in the
optimum program. The major exception to this pattern was on the large
farm where the scarcity of labor would neither permit the maximum acre-
age of cotton nor a large corn-hog enterprise. On this farm enterprises
that were not highly competitive with cotton or corn for labor at critical
periods entered the optimum program at all levels to use the available land.
38
Aggregate Area Supply Response
Optimum enterprise combinations for maximum returns to resident labor,
management, and land have been presented for various combinations of pro-
duct prices and for four representative farm situations. The purpose of
this analysis was to determine feasible adjustment opportunities for the
individual farmer. These individual farm programs were aggregated to deter-
mine the production and resource use for the acres for each price combination.
This required determination of the total acreage of limestone soils in the
area and the number of representative farms this total acreage would accom-
modate.
Soil Base for Aggregation
The acreage and soil capability classes of limestone, flood plain,
and similar soils in northern Alabama were determined from the county
work sheets of the N-2 forms used in the Soil Conservation Service's Soil
and Water Conservation Needs Inventory. For this study, soils in
capability classes I, II, III, and I2V, which were currently 
being used for
cropland or open pasture land, were designated as open land (Table 1l).
Of these, all soils in capability classes I and II were designated row
cropland. Since the Soil Conservation Service recommends a crop sod rota-
tion for capability class III land, one-half of the class IIIe and IIIw
land was designated as row cropland with the other one-half designated as
plowable land suitable only for close growing crops. Class Ills land was
also considered plowable land suitable only for crops other than row crops.
Class IV land was considered as open land suited only to permanent sod.
The total acreages in each classification also are given in Table 1.
39
Table 1)4. Limestone Valley :and"Flood Plains Soils Of Northern Alabama,
by Current Use and Capability Class l and Classification
as Used in Study
Current Use
Class 
. Cropland 
Pasture
(acres) (acres)
I . . e 0 0 0 a llL,925 26,898
Ie . . .0. 0. 543,673 104,022
11w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
hO O 40,859
Ile 0 2399,097 
93,73)4
Illsao0 0 0 0x.25 402, 2168
11W 0 . l 0 156,h67 63,559
Ive 0 :. 0 0 0 O 0 0 ?, 0 0 0 509 26b 9 1
Iv 000s 000279,667 31,9673
Total0 0 0 0 0 S , 215, 72539216
Classification D
used in studyei oa
Open land A a Class I through T cropland and
pasture.1,607,890
Plowable land0 Class I, II, and III cropland
and pasturel154.506
Row cropland . Class I, II, and j- ClassIle
and 111w cropland and pasture 19l15,397
1:Determined from county work 
sheets for the Alabama Soil and
Water Conservation Needs Inventory. The definition of the land
capability *classes are found in Alabama Soil and Water 'Conservation
Needs Inventory published by the State Soil Conservation Committee, 1961.
Aggregation Models
The soil base acreage determined above includes all the limestone
Lo
The land utilized by these excluded situations was eliminated from the
base acreage before determining the area aggregates.
Furthermore; any number of assumptions can be made as to which groups
$? farmers actually would make the specified adjustment. For this analysis,
two such sets of assumptions have been made and for brevity each set is
called a model.
Model One. Model One assumes that all of the farms and acreages not
specifically excluded above will make farming adjustments as specified by
the optimum representative farm programs for their size group.
Model Two. Model Two further assumes that there would be no adjust-
ment on farms and acreages that were classified as Economic Class VI,
part-time or semi-retired farmers in the 1959 Census of Agriculture. The
acreages in these farms not previously excluded were excluded in Model
Two. All other farms would make the adjustment in farm organization as
specified by the optimum representative farm program for their size
group.
Further variations in the aggregate estimates were made by using
two farm size distributions. The 1959 distribution represents the esti-
mated distribution of the various farm size groups and excluded situations
that existed in 1959. Using projected changes in farm sizes, an estimate
was made of the expected farm size distribution for 1975. The estimated
excluded acreage for the two farm size distributions are given in Table l.
After these exclusions were made, the remaining acreage was distribut-
ed to the various size groups according to distributions determined above
(Table 16). The acreage in each size group was then divided by the open
4l
Excluded Acreages of open
Valley Areas, Alabama
Land, by Type of Farm, Limestone
Farm size distribution
Item1
Open land acreage
Dairy farms A. . . .ava oa 5,ooo0 55,ooo
Vegetables, fruits, and nuts . . .
79000 7,000
Nonfarm rural residencies . . e .a. 9,263'16,365
Class : V[part-time and semi-retired
farmers oa..m..0 121,024 121,024
Total: Model One exclusion o* , . 71,265'78,63
Total Model Two exclusion a .?. . . 192,289 199,389
Table 16. Estimated Acreages of Open Land for Aggregation and Maximum
Number of Representative Farms, by Size Groups and by
Aggregation Models, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
Open land acreage Representative farms
Size groups: : Farm size distribution :Farm size distribution
(Openland acreage) 1959 0 197F19 1975
tre)umber)
Model One
Small (10 - 49, 9) . .0o . 3)43',600 216, 000 10, 800 6.9750
Medium (5'o -121.9) ... x,.1499600 170,000 35,620 2,123'
Large (123' - 299.9)9. o.0325',3'00 600, 600 1,3'55O 2, 860
Extra large (300 and over) 4l5,925' 'L2,925' 6553'8553
Total l,3'36, 623' l,5'29,'2' 18,9623' 12,3'90
Model Two
Small (10 - h.99) .v . . 236, 86)4 107,9296 7,)4O2 3,.333
Medium ('o - 12)4.9). . . o o)x37, 440 1579 680 5',),68 1,9971
Large- (123'5 299.9)4;. 4 325', .60 600,9600 1,3'550 2,9860
Extra large (300 and over) )l59,925' 3542, 923' 6553'83'3
Totall,94l35,729 l,)408,35Ol l5,075' 9,039
Table 15,~
42
land acreage on the representative farm for that size group to determine
the number of representative farms for that acreage. These farm numbers
were used to expand the representative farm optimum programs to the area
estimates or aggregates.
The Aggregates
The above assumptions established two aggregating models with six
sets of assumptions for each. With each model, aggregate area production
and resource use can be determined at the five cotton prices for three
sets of prices for enterprises competing with cotton and for two farm
size distributions.
Model One Aggregates. The aggregates for Model One assume full adjust-
ment to the optimum program of all adjustable resources in the area (Appendix
Table 1 through 6). Therefore, cotton production at each price level for
any set of assumptions is an estimate of a point on a normative supply
curve for cotton for that given set of assumptions. These points have
been plotted and the corresponding supply curve drawn for the six sets of
assumptions in Model One (Figure 2). Similarly, a net revenue function
has been plotted for each set of assumptions.
In each case, 
the aggregates 
for the 199 
farm size distribution 
gave
a generally more elastic cotton supply function than the aggregates for
the 1979 farm size distribution. The 1969 farm size distribution has a
higher proportion of acreage in smaller farms and a lower proportion in
the larger farms than the 1979 distributions. The optimum programs indi-
cate a higher percentage of the possible cotton production would be pro-
duced at lower prices on the larger farms than on the smaller farms.
43
Aggregate Cotton Production
Aggregate Net Revenue
Competing En~terprises 
at0 Base Prices
1959 farm size
36.14
31.2
26.0
20.8
lz,.6
1959 farm size
-distribution
1
r
7%-
A
1
Ta
1975 farm
size dis-
tribution
I I 1 I
Competing Enterprises at 30% Below Base
1975 farm size
distribution
1959 farm size
distribution f
I fl If
Prices
1959 farm size
-distribution
/1 
19 75
size
farm
distribution
I d
Competing Enterprises at 30% Above Base Prices
ribution 
4e
S1975 farm size
distribution
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Hundred thousand bales
H
0H
0
0)
a)
Co
Q)
0
0
0
Model I Estimated Aggregate Cotton Production and Aggregate Net
Revenue with a Range of Cotton Prices and Three Prices of Products
from Competing Enterprises, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
1975 farm size
distribution
36.14
31.2
26.0
20.81
1959 farm size 
-/
distributio n i
t4
I
I
1975 farm size*
distribution
0 28 56 814 112 i140 168
Million dollars
36,
26,
201
Figure 2.0
z - - -
u e s u x
-a- - -
4L
Apparently, the comparative advantage of cotton over other enterprises is
greater on the larger farms than on the smaller farms.
Model Two Aggregates. The assumption that part of the resources in
the area would not adjust causes the aggregates under Model Two to become
pseudo-optimum estimates. The estimates for the adjustment-responding
acreage were determined from the optimum programs. The estimates for the
nonadjustment acreage were determined from the 1959 census data and are
for the current organization. It would be possible to add the two esti-
mates of acreage and production to determine total acreage and production.
However, the net revenue, operating capital, investment capital, and
labor used on the nonadjusting farms were indeterminate so that an overall
estimate of these could not be obtainedo Therefore, to make all the esti-
mates compatible, they are presented in two categories. The data in
Table 17 show the current acreage and production of important enterprises
on the nonadjustment responding farms, The Model Two aggregates in
Appendix Tables 7 through 12 are only for the resources that were assum-
ed to make full adjustment.
Similar estimates of supply curves and net revenue functions were
made for the adjusting resources of Model Two as were made for Model One
(Figure 3). These functions have the same general relationships as the
Model One functions
0  
However, both farm size distributions for Model Two
had a smaller proportion of the acreage in the smaller farm group than
did Model One. Thus, the differences between the curves for the 1959 dis-
tribution and the 1975 distribution are less for Model Two than for Model
One,
Table 17. Resources and Production Estimates for Nonrespondent Situa-
tions lJ in Aggregation Model Two, Limestone Valley Areas,
Alabama
Item Unit Quantity
? o acres
acres
* .. .acres
Cotton.ee oeeeoff
Cotton production .e. .
Corno.e.
Corn production ,eo. o.
Small grain . .e.e.,,,.
Small grain production .
Hay .. . . . . .. .e e e e.
Hay production.........
Cows.
Fat calves produced
Market hogs produced e.e6.
acres
500 lb. bales
acres
bushels
acres
bushels, oats equivalent
acres
tons
no
IIIIOno;
400)8no.
Open land,. . ,
Plowable land .
Row cropland,.
121, 024
109,Lx.78
83, 954
1),007
13,111
32,192
821,115
605
21,175
2,9026
2,269
9,330
8,680
73,.)440
1/ Nonrespondent situations are the commercial Class VI, part-time
and semi-retired farms as classified by the U. S., Census of Agriculture.
Aggregate Cotton Production
Aggregate Net. Revenue
Competing Enterprises at
Prices
1959 farm .size
distribution
360.h
31.2E
260
20.8
5.6
36.4l
Competing Enterprises at 30% Below Base Prices
1975 farm size
distribution
19 farm size
distribution
H
0
Ca)
U,
ca
Q)
U)
0
0
0
I LJLL
1939 farm size
distribution
size
I I F
%Above Base Prices
1959 farm size
distribution
II1
l975 farm
size dis-
tribution
I I- I " I I .
02 4 6 81012 0 28 56 841121068
Hundred thousand bales Million dollars
Model II Estimated Cotton Production and Aggregate Net Revenue
for a Range of Cotton Prices and Three Prices of Products of Com-
peting Enterprises, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
46
1975 farm size
distribution
26.0
20.8
l15.61
Competing Enterprises at 30;
1959 farm size
distr?butio
. 1; 975 farm size
-distribution
36.4
31.2
26.0
20.8
Figure .3e
POW k
~I .. I.
a
31a2
APPENIDIX
Appendix Table I. - Model I: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Al
(Advanced Technology - 1959 Farm Size Distribution - Varyin
for Cotton - Base Prices for Other Products)
Item Unit Cotton prices (cents per pound ofli t~
15te2mb 6.U312i6t
Acreage
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn f or feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Alfalf a hay
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Idle open land
Total open land
Sows
Cows
Investment capital
Operating capital
Resident labor available 1/
Resident labor used
Seasonal labor hired
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
no,
no.
dol.
dol.
hrs.
hrs.
hrs.
121, 364
695, 919
198,688
8 2,00
4)4,795
55,3)48
172,764
165,667
1, 536 ,625
265,4.70
17,685
112,4 22,617
32, 20 3, 054
31, 95)4,095
21, 06)4, 987
3,072, 790
31)4,73)4
35,4.95
60)4,193
267, 710
499680
11)4,972
1)4.9,726
1,53b625
Livestock
230, 506
Resources
110, 559, 566
35,892,8)47
31, 95)4,095
21,185, 785
3,117, 268
697,082
17,825
264, 748
239,3)48
41,0)40
19,530
56,730
89,410i
110,.912
1,536,625
100, 65
17,685
100, 677,88)4
32,-.5)4, 333
31, 95)4, 095
16,881,814
4-, 255,9998
876, 830
78, 126
2)48,P455
38, 880
6)4,790
68,g665
57, 576
1033,303
1,5336,9625'
30,080
17, 685
95,090,647
30, 812,1)48
31, 95)4,095
14,4)459 778
5,069,620
876, 830
78,126
2)48, 455
38,)880
68, 665
57,576
103,9303
1,536,625
30,080
17, 685
95, 090,647
30, 812,I7)48
31, 954,095
1)4,4459,778
5,069,620
(Continued)
a00
Appendix Table 1. - Model I (Continued)
Item Unit Cotton prices (cents ,per pound of it
Item Unit.~
15,6 2005 26.0 31.2 3.
Production
Cotton bales ----- 433,207 949,511 1,165,737
Corn for grain bu. 7,888,660 2,307,175 
1,158,625
Corn for feed bu. 45,234,735 39,272,55 17,208,620 5,078,190
Oats bu, 13,908,160 18,739,700 16,754,60 17,391,850
Grain sorghum bu. 3,693,600 2,235,600 1,846,800 1,749,600
Alfalfa hay tons 161,262 18,414 70, 308 233,2443
Lespedeza hay tons 99,626 102,114 123,5971
Market hogs sold no. 
4,114,785 3,572,843 1,559,998 
466,240466,240
Fat calves sold no. 13,2641,6 3241,6
Net return to operator
labor, management,
and land dol, 60,830,615 
66,552,560 81,759,839 110,600,04014,029
Return to land -2/ dol. 15, 366,25 36250 15, 366, 250 15, 366,250 15, 366, 250
Net return to operator labor
and management dol. 45,464,365 51,186, 310 66, 393, 589 95, 233, 79012,401
1/ Includes 10, 800 part-time operators, 7,825 full-time operators, and 
1, 310 full-tiehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5~% per year or $10 per acrepeyar
0
Appendix Table 2. - Model 1: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley 
Areas, Alabama
(Advanced Technology - 1959 Farm Size Distribution - Varying Prices
for Cotton - Prices for Other Products 30 Per Cent Below Base)
I.t .. Cotton prices (cents per pound of lint
Item 
Unit .6 
: 20.826.0 
: 31.2 : 
36.
Acreage
Cotton acres 329,490 875,590 
876,830 876,830 876,830
Corn for grain 
acres 40,765 
7,285-------------
Corn for feed acres 590,063 78,126 
78,126 78,126 78,126
Alfalfa hay acres ------- 58,7.45 64,790 6,790 6, 790
Pasture acres 112,332 15,008 
15,008 15,008 15,008
Idle open land acres 463,.975 501,871 
501,871 01,871 501,871
Total open land acres 1,536,625 1,536,625 536,62 
1,536,625 1,536,62
Livestock
Sows no. 225,226 
30, 080 30,080 30,080 30,080
Resources
Investment capital dol. 108,815,548 87,277,129 87,4h46,)482 87,h446,482 
87466,482
Operating capital dol. 
30,459,380 25,141,586 25,160,713 
2,160,713 25,160,713
Resident labor available 1/ hrs. 31,954,095 31,954,095 
31,954,095 31,954,095 31,954,095
Resident labor used hrs. 
20,029, 340 12,794,682 12,819, 017 12,819,017 
12,819,017
Seasonal labor hired hrs. 2,660,966 4,253, 
279 . 4,339,924 .4,339,924 4,339,924
TContinued)
Appendix Table 2. - Model I (Continued)
Item Unit Cotton prices (cents per pound ofit
l5 6 20.5 2,00 310 23 
T
Production
Cotton bales 4539938 1,16)4,316 l91659736 19165,736 ll6,3
Corn for grain buo 29699,725 4739525 --- ---
Corn for feed buo 38,354,095 5Q8l9 ,078,90 90789190 90789190
Alfalfa hay tons---- 211,1482 2339,2414324 233,21244
Market hogs sold no, 3,491,003 466,2140 466,2140 466,214016620
Net return to operator
labor., management,
and land dol. 17, 061, 767 40604, 352 70, 898, 807 101, 208, 058 ll,7,0
Return to land 2/doll 1,366,250 153366,a250 15,366, 250 15,366,250 l,6,~
Net return to operator labor
and management dol. i9 695, l7 .25, 238,102 559 32, 57 85, 81,808 l6,l26
1/ Includes 10,800 part-time operators, 7,825 full-time operators, and 1,310 full -tiehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acrepeyar
H
Appendix Table 3. - Model 1: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley 
Areas, AlamaP
(Advanced Technology - 1959 Farm Size Distribution - Varying Prices
for Cotton - Prices for Other Products 30 Per Cent Above Base)
Item Unit Cotton prices (cents per po.nd of lint)
IeUnt15,6 
: 20.5 0 26.031.23.
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn for feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Alfalfa hay
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Idle open land
Total open land
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
So ws
Cows
no.
no,
Investment capital
Operating capital
Resident labor available 1/
Resident labor used
Seasonal labor hired
dolo
dol.
hrs.
hrs,
hrs.
126, 944
689,269
259,4.78
86, 400
43, 090
55, 348
200, 984
75, 112
1,9536,625z
262, 070
31,635
115,677,981
32,585,144
31, 954,9095
21, 267, 287
3,187, 030
Acreage
126,944)
689, 269
259,478
86,4.00
4.39090
55 3h8
200, 984.
75,112
1;536,9627
Livestock
262, 070
31,635
Resources
115,677,981
32,585,144)
31, 954-,095
21, 267, 287
3,187,030
230, 810
799866
642, 2)42
264,9036
49,680
3,100
161,859
105,03 2
1,536,625
244, 960
17,685
114, 925,9012
35,551, 278
31, 954,0X95
21,569,668
2,983,442
399, 991
24, 180
533, 655
213, 760
4-5, 360
11, 625
58, 280
141,187
108,587
1, 53 6,625
203, 264
17, 685
113,9742, 309
34,9959,168
31, 954,095
20,571,437
3,558,330
804,765
155,091
244, .9521
38, 880
529,700
58, 836
17,685
98,138, 317
31,731, 271
31, 954,095
15,494,196
4, 7685162
(Continued)
VI
N
Appendix Table 3. - Model 1 (Continued)
I Cotton priceTcets per pound o
Item Unit : 5 -~1
15.620.6 26,0 31. 2 T ?
Production
Cotton bales -323,297 549,81 1
Corn for grain bu. 8,251,360 8,251,360 5919l,290 l,571,700
Corn for feed bu, 44,802,485 44 802,485 41,745,730 34,687,640
Oats bu, 18,163,h60 18,163,460 18,482,520 14,963,200
Grain sorghum bu, 3,892,860 3,892,860 
2,235,600 2,221,200
Alfalfa hay tons 
155,124 155,124 11,160 
41,850
Lespedeza hay tons 99,626 99,626-104,901
Market hogs sold no, 4,062,085 4,062,085 3,796,880 3,150,592 911,
Calves sold no, 23,726 23,726 13,26)4 139,26)4132)
Net return to operator labor,
management, and land dol. 111,469,1l76 111, 469,176 
118, 306, 561 130, 053, 48715,048
Return to land 2/ dol. 15,366 ,250 15,366,250 15, 366,2 0 13620 15, 366,2250
Net return to operator labor
a n 
a a e 
e td 
l 
6 1 2 
2 
6 1 2 
9 6 
1 2 
4 , 3 
1 1 
2 , 8 
,31 
/ I n c 
l u d e s 
1 0 , 8 0 
0 p a r 
t - t i m 
e o p e 
r a t o r 
s ., 7 , 
8 2 5 f 
u l l - t 
i m e o 
p e r a t 
o r s , 
a n d 1 
, 3 1 0 
f u l l -
t e 
h r d 
m n
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acrepeyar
-Jt
Appendix Table 4. - Model I: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Al
(Advanced Technology - 1975 Farm Size Distribution - Varyi
for Cotton - Base Prices for Other Products)
Item 
Unit 
Cotton prices (cents 
per pound of it
Ite___ 15.6 : 20s : 26031.23
Acreage
Cotton acre ------- 414,336 640,652 846,788
Corn for grain acre 185,113 65,494 32,890
Corn for feed acre 611,252. 49
1
4,208 297,266 64,462
Oats acre 227,178 2769063 183,166 189,936
Grain sorghumr acre 51, 300 31,050 25,650 24,300
Alfalfa hay acre 82, 654 9,1438 36,036 119,548
Lespedeza hay 
acre 72,248-104,676 
126,698
Pasture acre 168, 770 94,198 108,050 65,256
Idle open land acre 131,012 144 738 101,139 92,537
Total open land acre 1,529,525 129,95 1,599525 1,529,525
Livestock
Sows no. 233,167 188, 606 113,320 249 .674 2461
Cows no. 23,085 23,085 
23,085 23,085
Resources
Investment capital dol. 105,102,0314 103,181,089 103,068,676 97,735997783,598
Operating capital dol. 30,739, 527 34, 906,123 32,381, 955 
30,195, 839 3,9,3
Resident labor available hrs. 5155 25,156,350 25,156,350 25,156,350 25,156,350
Resident labor used hrs.a 19,0142,116 19,1142, 
0314 17, 001, 323 14,040, 790 1404,9
Seasonal labor hired hrs a 3,737,8914 3,614, 912 4, 625, 
8114 5, 81 i 5847, 791
(Continued)
Appendix Table h. - Model I (Continued)
Item Unit Cotton prices (cents per pound of it
15e.L6 20 0 26.0 31.2 .
Production
Cotton bales ---- 70,2).1 87,38 1,130,568 ll3,6
Corn for grain bu, 12,0323)$ ,257,ll0 2,1379850. -------
Corn for feed bu, 39,731,380 329123,520 19,322, 290 h10,34,190,030
Oats bu, l5,9O2,h160 199,321,410 129,821, 620 13, 295, 520 329
Grain sorghum bu e 2,3Q8,500 153979 250 1915)4, 250 19093.9500 l,3,O
Alfalfa hay tons 2979 55 33,9977 129, 730 x.30,37 ho373
Lespedeza hay tons 1305 046--- 188,h)17 2289 05622O6
Market hogs sold no. 35614,9088 2,923,393 1, 756,)460 38 29 4732,h
Calves sold no, 179,31) l--3--- 179 31h 179 31L
Net return to operator labor,
management, and. land dol. 58,033,)429 65, 839, 699 83,627,582 111,763, 216lhl802
Return to land 2/ dol . 159295, 250 15,295, 250 15,295, 250 15,295, 250 l,9,
Net return to operator labor
and management dol. )42, 738,179 509 ,)4)4h9 68, 332,332 96,h467,966l28277
1/ Includes 6,750 part-time operators, 5,8)40 full-time operators, and 1,710 full-tiehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or 
$10 per acrepr er
\JiL
\-R.
Appendix Table 5. - Model I: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabama
(Advanced Technology - 1975 Farm Size Distribution - Varying Prices
for Cotton - Prices for Other Products 30 Per Cent Below Base)
t Cotton prices (cents peF poud of
Item 1 Unit . 2 26.031
Acreage
Cotton acre 449,468 844, 500 846,788846,78886
Corn for grain acre 75,218 13,442
Corn for feed acre 46,547 64,44462 64,462 64462
Alfalfa hay acre 10----- 108,394 119,548 119,5481,
Pasture acre 88,008 12,295 12,29512,295
Idle open land acre 455, 283 14861432 h86,43214861432
Total open land acre 1,529,525 1,529,525 1,9 529,525 1,529,525
Livestock
Sows no. 176, 228 24,674 24,9674 24,9674 2,7
Resources
Investment capital dol. 99,712,717 86, 299, 334 86, 611,81 61817 86, 611, 817
Operating captial dol. 29,!432, 069 25, 220, 333 25, 255,62 25626 25, 255, 626
Resident labor available 1/ hrs, 2,55 25,156,350 25,156,350 25,156,350 25,156,350
Resident labor used hrs, 17,914,51) '12, 351, 015 12, 395, 917 12, 395917 ,35917
Seasonal labor hired hrs. 3,150,979 14,781,308 4,94118:491,182 4,941,182
(ContiTd
\-R
Appendix Table 5. - Model 1 (Continued)
Item Unit Cotton price Cents per Pound_ F
Itemn Unit-
1 5.6 2005 : T26.0312
Production
Cotton bales 619,351 1,127,936 1,130,568 1130568
Corn for grain bu, ,889,170 873,730 -
Corn for feed bu o 30,000,555 4,190,030 4,190,030h1909003
Alfalfa hay tons ------- 390,218 430,373 
430,373
Market hogs sold no 2,731, 534 382,h847 3822, 447 
3
8
2,h447
Net return to operator labor,
management, and land dol. 189192, 616 42, 665, 833 713;031,h472 l0l,h428, 283 10,2h6
Return to land 2/ dol, 15, 2959,250 15, 295,50 ,25250 15, 295, 250 15, 295, 250
Net return to operator labor
and management dol, 2,897,366 27,370,583 560,078,972 86,133,0331552,6
1/Includes 6, 750 part-time operators, 5,840 full-time operators, and 1,9710 full -tiehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre, Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acrepeyar
Appendix Table 6. - Model 1: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabm
(Advanced Technology - 1975 Farm Size Distribution - Varying Prices
for Cotton - Prices for Other Products 30 Per Cent Above Base)
ItemUnitCotton prices (cent erTJpoud.of TrT
15.66 20I5 26.0 " 31.2
Acreage
Cotton
Corn_ for grain
Corn for feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Alfalfa hay
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Idle open land
Total open land
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
Sows
Cows
no.
no,
Investment capital
Operating capital
Resident labor available 1/
Resident labor used
Seasonal labor hired
dol.
dol.
hrs.
hr s.
hrs.
195,)4o09
602, 93)4
2659550
5)4,OOO0
79,508
72,2)48
223,1h76
363)400
15529.9525
229,5~28
)48, 825
30,18)4,223
259 156, 350
19,217,726
3,868,300
195,)409
602, 93)4
265, 550
79,9508
72,2)48
223,9)476
36,).0O
1,529,525
Livesck
229,5~28
)48, 8 25
Resources
30,18)4, 223
25, x.56, 350
19, 217, 726
3,868,300
301, 523
125, 338
5146, 13)4
271,016
31,O050
S,720
l55,819
92,9925
1,5279,25
208, 310
23,085
108,822, 82
3)4,x)459, 2$54
2, 6,30
3, )2)4, 660
50O,9899
44, 6i6
)42L4,979
171, 890
28,350
21, )450
107,9536
132, 956
96,8)49
1,529,525
162,0)42
23, o81
108,723,787
33, 687,908
25,1i56, 350
18, 7 26, 191
)., 229,90)4
78 2,246
1L43, 818
188, )4)8
2, 300
97,2)40
120,692
79,181
93,600
1,52 9,525
5)4, 6)9
23,085
100,084, 796
31,2)49,02)4
25,z56,350
5,053,606
(Continued
00I
Appendix Table 6. - Model I (Continued)
I Cotton prices(cents per poundol
o 15.6 a 20.0 260 31.2 3
Production
Cotton bales ---- 09--688,0299100688736
Corn for grain bu. 12,701,585 12,701,585 ,l1.6,970 
2.900.9O0-
Corn for feed 
bu . 399190, 710 39,190, 710 35,h989710 
27,623,635
Oats bu, 18,588,500 18,588,500 
18,971,120 129032,300
Grain sorghum bu. 
2,130,000 2o430,000 1,397,250 
1,275,750
Alfalfa hay tons 
286,229 286,229 20,592 77,220
Lespedeza hay tons 130.,o46 
130046 -- 19395657
Market hogs sold no, 3,557,6814 3,5579684 
3,228,805 2,511,6518 6
Calves sold nom 369,619 
36, 619 17, 3l11 7, 17,3
Net return to operator labor,
management., and land dole 1069,76h9,902 106,7614,902 115, 
661, 878 131,150,9 26 l361,3
Return to land 2/ dol. 15, 295,25 25250 15, 295, 250 15, 295, 250 15, 295, 250
Net return to 
operator labor
and management dol 0 91,4693652 
913469.9652 100, 366,628 115, 855, 67613,883
1/ Includes 6, 750 part-time operators, 5,8140 full-time operators, and 1, 710 full-tiehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acre 
e er
Appendix Table 7. - Model 2: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Ala
(Advanced Technology - 1959 Farm Size Distribution - Varyin
for Cotton - Base Prices for Other Products)
Item Unit 
Cotton prices (cents per 
pound oflit
1586 0 20*11 : 26.0 : 3102 3.
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn for feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Alfalfa hay
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Idle open land
Total open land
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
So ws
Cows
no.
no .
Investment capital
Operating capital
Resident labor available 1/
Resident labor used
Seasonal labor hired
dol.
dol.
hrs.
hrs.
hrs.
121, 364
643, 019
196,8g49
56, 255
44, 795
55, 348
162,4.70
135,629
1,41 5, 729
245, 207
17,685
100, 995, 074
30,9047,9-289
29,568,663
19,417,45 2
2,942, 416
Acreage
299, 444
35,4.95
555,711
246,503
34, 049
5,115
105,699
1-33, 715
1,415, 729
Livestock
211, 942,
Resources
99,102,1h6i
33, 271,080
29,568,663
19,456, 359
2, 928,9547
637, 760
17, 825
254, 343
214,565
28,128
19,530
56, 730
87, 625
99,223
1, 415, 729
96,736
17, 685
90, 736, 109
30,162, 392
29,568,663
15,652,822
3,9970969
806, 393
77,032
222, 886
26, 647
64.,7 90
68,665
57.,287
92,029
1, 415, 729
28,655
17, 685
85, 524, 7 75
28, 599, 987
29, 568, 663
13,9342,670
41,760,417
806, 393
77,032
222, 886
26,647
64,790
68,665
57,287
92,029
1,415,9729
28,655
17, 685
85,524,5775
28,599,987
29,568,663
13,34 2,670
4,760,417
Cotue
0
Appendix Table 7,.--.Model 2 (Continued)
I Cotton prices cents per pound o
t15.6 200 26.0o31.23
Production
Cotton 
bales ------ ,711868,879 
l90729439
Corn for grain bu, 7,888,660 2,307,175 1,158,625 -
Corn for feed bu. L.,79
6
, 235 36,121, 215 16,5329295 5,007,080
Oats bu, 13,779,130 17,255,210 15,019,550 
15,602,020
Grain sorghum bu, 2,531,1475 1,532,205 1,265,760 
119 199,115
Alfalfa hay ton 161.,262 
18, Li70, 308 233,2443
Lespedeza hay ton 99,626-l02,1l114123,5971
Market hogs sold no, 3, 800, 709 3, 285,101 1,h499,h1.08 
.11.12 14,
Calves sold no, 13,326h -13-26- 
1352664 13,2264
Net return to operator labor,
management, -anid-land dols 56,592,0h48 62,026,50 7,3,9 0 ,3681 
13,4703
59 7620951276Net return to land 
2/ 
dol 0 11.,15790 
,17290 1,157,290 
1,157, 290 
1157,290
Net return to operator 
labor
and management dol . 42,434,758 1.7,8699,300 
62, 073, 705 88, 606, 391 16,8975
1/ Includes 7,)402 part-tine op'er ators, 7,673 full-tine operators, 
and 1,310 full-tin: iedmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 
5% per year or $10 per acre e er
ON
ON
N)
Appendix Table 8. - Model 2: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Al
(Advanced Technology - 1959 
Farm Size Distribution -
VaryingPrices
for Cotton - Prlics for Other Produts 0PrCn eo ae
Cotton prices(cents per pound o
Item Unit : 15.6 : 0.9 T0 7o :031.23
Acreage
Cotton acre 316,237 805,152 8069392 806,392
Corn for grain acre 40,765 7,285
Corn for feed acre 539, 882 77,032 
77,03277,032
Alfalfa hay acre --- 
58,745 649,79064,79064
Pasture acre 102,718 14, 795 149 795 
14, 795
Idle open land acre 416 127 452,720 452 720452,720
Total open land acre 154155729 1,415,729 1,415,729 17415,729
Livestock
So ws no,0 205, 982 29,55 9655 29,655 29,655
Resources
Investment capital dol, 97, 293, 881' 77,711,257 7,81 77,880,610 77,880,610
Operating capital dol. 28, 358, 391 23,521, 662 23,540,78 50789 23, 540, 789
Resident labor available I/ hrs. 29, 568,66 58663 29,568, 663 29, 568, 663 29, 568, 663
Resident labor used hrs o 18,460,415 11, 872,242 11, 896,57 86577 11, 896,577
Seasonal labor hired hrs. 2,524,556 3,991,975 4,76 4,078,620 4,078,620
(Conti~ T
Appendix Table 8. - Model 2 (Continued)
Ite Unit Cotton pricescents per pound of
ItmsUi 5. 
._.. 20o . 6oTO 
31.23.
Production
Cotton bales 435,242 1,071,013 1,072,39 1,072,439
Corn for grain bu, 2,49 72473 52--,2-
Corn for feed bu, 35,092,330 5,007080 5,O07,080 59007,080
Alfalfa hay ton ------ 211,482 233,244 233,244
Market hogs sold no. 3,192, 721 459,6522 42 459,62
Net return to operator labor,
management, and land dot, 16,123, 174 37, 925, 508 65. 794,100 939 677, 454ll,600
Net return to land 2/ dol
0  
l4,157, 290 L:9157, 290 14,l 7290.. 4, l 79 290 l,~,9
Net return to operator labor
and managenent dol.a l, 9659 884 23,768,218 51.$636,810 79, 5209164 10,372
1/ Includes 7,402 part-time operators, 7,673 full-time operators, and 1,9310 full-timehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acrepeyar
ON
Appendix Table 9. - Model 2: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Alabm
(Advanced Technology - 1959 Farm Size Distribution - Varying Prices
for Cotton - Prices for Other Products 30 Per Cent Above Base)
Item 
Unit 
Cotton prices 
(cents per pound 
of
S20. : 26.0 : 31,2 36.4
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn for feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Alfalf a hay
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Idle open land
Total open land
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acr e
So ws
Cows
no,
no.
Investment capital
Operating capital
Resident labor 
available 1/
Resident labor used
Seasonal labor hired
dol.
dol.
hrs.
hrs.
hrs.
126,94)4
637, 389
238,610
59, 216
)43, 090
55, 348
191 ,370
.. 639762
242, 486
31, 635
104, 327, 845
30,104,530
29,568,663
19,568,.782
3,030,929
Acreage
126,944
637,389
238, 610
59, 216
43,090
55, 348
191.,3 70
6319762
1,415, 729
Livestock
242, x486
31, 635
Resources
104, 327, 845
30,104,530
29,568, 633
19,568, 782
3, 030,929
215,519
79,866
593, 759
242,828
349,049
3,100
152,9584
94,024
1,415,5729
226, 395
17,685
103,467,907
32, 929,511
29,568,633
19, 840, 24.2
2, 794,720
368,9390
24,180
4-99.,105
191.9533
31,088
11,625
58, 280
134,630
96,9898
19415, 729
190,136
17,685
102, 809,141
32,4x64.,418
29, 568,.633
19, 023,463
3,333,590
735,588
152, 844
219, 059
26,647
52, 700
65, 410
68, 718
94,763
1,415)729
57, 985
17, 685
88,511,197
29, 508,149
29,568, 633
14,374,960
4,461,725
Continued)
ON
.Appendix Table 9. - Model 2 (Continued)
I Cotton prices(cents per pound o
It"eem Unitt
ae 1506 2005 2 6 0 31,23
Production
Cotton bales ------- ------- 3019801 5087572
Corn for grain bu, 8,251,360 8,25,360 59l9l,290 l,57l,700
Corn for feed bu, 41,)30,285 
4,4309285 38994,335 32i.82 9
Oats bu, 16,702,700 16,702,700 16,997,960 139 4079 310
Grain sorghum bu, 2, 664,9720 2,66)4,720 1, 329 205 1,398,960 l9
Alfalfa hay tons l55 l24 15,24 11,160 4g8 5018,2
Lespedeza hay tons 99,626 99,626 _- ---- 
10)4990)417,3
Market. hogs sold no, 3.9758933 39 7589533 395099122 2,9)47,10889,6
Calves sold no,0 23,726 23,9726 13,9 26)41,2) 13926)4
Net return to operator labor,
management., and land dol. l03, 590,219 1O3,59O, 219 1099:9310 22)4 l21.051,695.)l9~4~
Net retur n to land 2/ dol, l14 157~9o 457290 1)4,5'77,290 1)4,15.79290 1)4,157, 290
Net return 
to operator 
labor9999
and management dol.. 899)432, 929 89,)432,929 
959,7739 93)4 l06, 8949)405 2,9,6
1/ Includes 7,)402 part-time operators, 7,673 full-time operators, and 1,310
full-time hired men.
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acre peryer
01\
\J1.
Appendix Table 10. - Model 2: Aggregates for Specified Items, Limestone Valley Areas, Alaam
(Advanced Technology - 1975 Farm Size Distribution - Varying Prices
for Cotton -.Base Prices for Other Products)
tmnCotton prices (cents per pound of
ItemUnit 15.6 
20. 
26.0 : 3192
Cotton
Corn for grain.
Corn for feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Alfaif a hay
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Idle open land
Total open land
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
S ows
Cows
no .
no.
Investment capital
Operating capital
Resident labor available 1J
Resident labor used
Seasonal labor hired
dol..
dol.
hrs.
hrs.
hrs.
185, 113
558, 264
225, 314
25,483
82,9654
7 2, 248.
X58, 460
100, 965
1,408,501
21 2, 8 70
23, 085
93, 665, 7 74)
28,~80, 137
22, 765, 860
17, 392,170
3,602,362
Acreage
399, 050
6 ,494
4
45L, 63 7
24, 837
.5,424
9,4.38
84-,906
133,9715
1, 405,501
Livestock
170,008
Resources
91, 715,274
32, 280, 869
22, 765-,860
17,4.10', 221
3,4-26,04.8
58T., 267
3 2, 890
286, 834
158, 358
12,741
36,036
10)4,676
".106, 260
89,4.39
1, 405, 501
109,400o
23,085
93,121, 647
30,044,321
22, 765, 860
,770, 82
4,340, 495
776, 273
164, 342
12,071
119, 548
126,698
64,963
81,7252
1,4b90
24,243
23;085
88, 213,lx85
27, 980, 841
22, 7659 860
12,5936,5354
5,58,268
776, 273
63,354
164,342
12,071
119, 548
126, 698
64, 963.
81,9252
24, 243
23,085
88, 213,1i85
27, 90 4
22, 76, 860
12, 936, 34-
5,53,268
Co ntinued)
OIN
O\
Appendix Table 100 - Model 2 (Continued)
e Cotton prices(cents pound o
Item Unit :2,
ee 15,6 20.5 260031.e2 . 3,
Production
Cotton bales ------- 548,752 794,8217 1,0379163
Corn for grain bu. 1290329345 4,257,110 29137,850----
Corn for feed bu, 36,287,160 28.966,405 18,644,210 4,118,010 4
Oats bu. o 15,771,980 
17,838,590 11,085,060 11,503,940
Grain sorghtu bu, 
1,146,735 694,080 573,345 
543,195
Alfalfa hay ton 
297,554 33,977 129,730 
430,3734
Lespedeza hay ton 130,046 
188,417 2285056
Market hogs sold no, 3,299,485 2635,124 1, 695,700 375,766 375,766
Calves sold no, 17, 314 17,31 17,'314 17, 314
Net return to operator labor,
management, and land dol., 53,788,022 61,306,973 78,091,624 103, 917, 316 13,859
Net return to land 2/ dol., 14,8,1)4,085,010 14,085,010 14, 085, 010 14, 085, 010
Net return to operator labor
and management dol a 39, 703, 012 47, 221, 963 64,006,614 89,832, 306 16,958
1/ Includes 3,353 part-time operators, and 5,686 full-time operators, and 1, 710 full-iehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acrepeyar
ON
ON
Appendix Table 11. - Model 2: Aggregates 
for Specified Items, Limestone Valley 
Areas, A
(Advanced Technology - 1975 Farm Size Distribution - Vary
for Cotton - Prices for Other Products 30 Per Cent BelowB
Item 
Unit :Cotton 
prices(cents per 
pound o
S15.6 20,5 260 o31.23
Acreage
Cotton acre 436,220 773,985 776,273 
776,273
Corn for grain acre 75, 218 13,4)42
Corn for feed acre 
411,277 63,354 63,54 
639354
Alfalfa hay acre ------- 108,394 119,548 119, 5)48
Pasture acre 78,377 12,079 079 
12079 12,079
Idle open land acre )407,409 
)37,2L7 )437,247437,247
Total open land acre 1,406,501,1,406,501 
1,40650 1,40b9301
Livestock
Sows no. 156,951 2)4,243 2)4,2)324)43 
2)4,2)43
Resources
Investment capital dol., 88,182, 360 76, 728, 921 77,O)4l,)405 77, O)l,)405 7,04,5
Operating capital dol. 27, 327, 913 23, 598, 028 23, 633,32 63321 23,633,321
Resident labor available 1J hrs, 22, 765,86 75860 22, 765, 860 22, 765, 860 22, 765, 860
Resident labor used hrs, 16, 373, 238 11,427,08 11,472,210 11, 472,210 1,7,1
Seasonal labor hired hrs. 3,Ol)4,)438 4, 519, 706 4,679,58 469580 4, 679, 580
ConTtinuedT?
Appendix Table 11. - Model 2 (Continued)
Cotton prices''cent er pund ofi
Item : " i 
t o .... 
.. ... ,; p
e l 06 s 2005 26,,0 31.2
Production
Cotton bales 600,661 1,0314,532 1,9037163 1,0379163 1
Corn for grain bu, ,889,170 873,730
Corn for feed bu, 26,733,005 19118,010 1,1189010 1,1189010
Alfalfa hay ton 390,218. h30,373 h309373
Market hogs sold no.0 2,1432,7140 375,7 766 375, 766 375,766
Net return to operator labor,
managenent, and land dol 0 17, 252, 319 39, 983, 679 669 9229,822 939,889,10h1 208.,~
Net return to land 2/ dol 14,085,9010 11)9085900 ,05010 14,085,010 1)4,085,010
Net return to opera or labor
and management dol. 39167,309 25,898,669 52, 8379,812 799,80)4,09)4 1670 4
1/ Includes 3,353 part-time operators, and 5,686 full-time operators,, 
and 1,710 ful-iehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 5% per year or $10 per acre e er
0
Appendix Table 12. - Model 2: Aggregates for Specified Ttems, 
Limestone Valley Areas, A
(Advanced Technology - 197' Farm Size-Distribution - Varyi
for Cotton - Prices for Other Products 30 Per Cent AboveBae
T, Cotton prices (cents per pound of
te nu15 , : 20 G 2600 31.2 3.
Cotton
Corn for grain
Corn f or feed
Oats
Grain sorghum
Alfalfa hay
Lespedeza hay
Pasture
Il.e open land
Total open land
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
So ws
Cows
Investment capital
Operating capital
Resident labor available 1
Resident labor used
Seasonal labor hired
no.
no.
dol,
dol.
hrs.
hrs.
hrs.
S 95 , 409
. 50,966
2 44,663
26, 824,
79,95o8
72,248
213,9845
259038
1,405,01
209, 911
48, 825
100, 050, 018
27, 700, 080
22, 765, 860
17551 6,8 25
3, 712, 047
Acreage
1,,09
550, 966
244, 663
26, 824
79,5~08
72,248
213, 845
25,038
1,405, 501
Livesck
209, 911
48,8 25
Resources
100,9050, 018
27, 700,080
22, 765, 860
17, 516, 825
3,712,047
286, 236
1 259 338
497,5~62
249, 789
I5, .2
5,720
146,9528
81, 904.
1,405,501
189, 712
23, 085
97, 357, 010
31, 834.,000
22, 765,1860
17,927,721
3, 235, 796
469, 307
44,616
390 , 331
.149,-645
14,0J83
2-1,3 0
1079530
126, 38 2
8591b
140d, 501
158'.878
23, 085
97; 781, 756-
31,189, 634.
22, 765, 860
17,175, 7 77
4,005,5031
7139,010
162,962
12,071
97,240
120,9692
78,749
82 ,2
3
8
1 0o 01
53, 786
23,085
90,9.52,329
29,022,930
22, 7659 860
13, 979, 739
5, 134, 885
(Coninued
Appendix Table 12. - Model 2 (Continued)'
t 
Cotton prices (cents 
per pound of
SItem ... 
Unit 
... p .....0.
15620,.20031-2a6.
Production
Cotton bales -4009601 643,800
Corn for grain bu. 12,701,585 12,701,585 8,146,970 2,900,040
Corn for feed bue 35, 812, 790 359 812, 790 32,341,530 25,371,775
Oats bu
0  
17,126,410 17,126,410O 17,485,230 10,475,150
Grain sorghum bu, 1,207,080 1,207,080 694,080 633,735
Alfalfa hay ton 2869 229 286, 229 20,592 77,220
Lespedeza hay ton 130,046, 130,046 193,5651217,24
Market hogs sold no. 3,253,620 3,253,620 2,940,536 
2,462,609 833,68
Calves. sold no,0 36, 619 36, 619 17,-314. 17,34 7314
Net return to operator labor
-managemen t, and land dole 98, 873, 893 98, 873, 893 107,274,635 122,137, 41314,681
Net return to land 2/ dol. 1,051 14,085,010 14,085,010 
14,085,010 14, 085, 010
Net return to operator labor
and management dol. 84, 788, 883 .84,9788, 883 93,189, 625 108, 052, 40312,783
i/ Includes 3,353 part-time operators, and 5,686 full-time operators, 
and 1, 710 full-iehrdmn
2/ Openland valued at $200 per acre. Return to land is 
5% per year or $10 per acrepeyar
H
4