—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, November 6,1971
18
Labor
Real Estate
Mechanical power
unery
Fertilizer and Lime
Feed, Seed and
Livestock purchase
Taxes and interest
Other
Farm Productivity Levels
The rate of output per unit of
input has remained about the
same since 1963. However,
this could change quickly
with the introduction of new
technology to come.
When an industry has been
showing gains in productivity for
a number of years, statistics that
indicate otherwise will raise
some eyebrows ... and a lot of
questions. Both reactions are
stirred by the recent trend in U.S
agriculture’s productivity.
After heading upward for more
than a decade, the productivity
index in the early 1960’s began to
lose thrust. For the sixties as a
whole, the gain was small by
comparison to the phenomenal
rises during most of the forties
and fifties
The productivity index
measures total agricultural
output per unit of all inputs used
in production or charged to the
farming industry. When output
and input advance at the same
rate, the index stands still.
In many years during the 1960’s
the productivity index did go up
reaching record peaks twice.
However, a review of the
decade’s performance showed
productivity rose by only 3
percent, versus 26 percent in
1950-60 and 18 percent in 1940-50.
Production itself went up over
13 percent in the decade of the
1960’5.50, the lack of buoyancy in
the productivity index suggests
no immediate threat to our
capacity to produce farm
products Actually, total output
could jump sharply and quickly
by increasing the acreage in
crops.
In 1970, farmers used 336
million acres for crops, 50 million
fewer than in 1949. Most of the 50
million acres went into govern
ment diversion programs. Much
of this land could quickly return
to production at little added cost.
Also, the Nation has a quarter
billion acres of land in uses other
than crops that is considered
suitable for cultivation. If there
were the economic incentives to
do so, a large part of this acreage
could also be brought into;
production.
Is the letup in productivity
gains only temporary? No one
knows for sure. But a similar
question might have been asked
back in the late 1940’5, when the
productivity index showed the
same sluggishness as in the last
Penn Manor Play Set
Penn Manor High School and
the Senior Classs are presenting
the play “Up The Down Stair
case” at 8 p.m. November 19 and
20 in the High School Auditorium
in Millersville. Admission is $1
for adults and 50 cents for
students.
The Chantint Mix of Farm Inputs*
half of the 1960’5. The index
resumed its skyward course
around 1952.
Generally, technological
developments spark productivity
increases. Major ones—like the
transition from horses to trac
tors, and from open-pollenated to
hybrid com—have repercussions
lasting for decades.
The 1960’s did not usher in
major scientific breakthroughs
for agriculture, although there
continued a steady stream of
improved farming method. These
acted to buttress the index.
However, in any one year, un
favorable weather or disease
infestation may cause produc
tivity to sag. Such was the case in
1970, when drought in part of the
Com Belt and Southern com leaf
blight in much of the rest of that
region resulted in a 2-percent
decline in the index.
There are several explanations
for the slowdown in the 1960’s that
have to do with certain struc
tural changes spurred by the
new technology. One explanation
related to economies of scale.
As the size of a farm operation
increases, at first the costs per
unit of output go down. At some
1970
, labor on U S farms has dropped sharply lut
te of decline has been tapenni in recent years,
is the volume of most inputs boufht from the
o economy has been nsiny steadily Total input
lout as fast as total output, thus th* productivity
which measures output per unit of input
4 to level off in 1953-70
croups as percents of all inputs
In the process of growth, many
farms became of such size that
output per unit of input did not
increase as fast as it had when
these farms first began to employ
modern machinery, hybrid
seeds, fertilizers, pesticies, etc.
Some farms in the 1960’s had
approached the point of least-cost
production.
Other farms kept on growing
past the point of least-cost
production. By producing more
units they were able to take a
lower profit per unit and still
have a larger total income. These
farms tended to hold down the
1955
point, the least-cost level of
production is reached. This level
varies by type of farm, and with
the technology available to
farmers at any one point in time.
Obviously, it takes a bigger
field or a bigger hen house to
efficiently use modern equip
ment. With the advent of
sophisticated machinery—four
and six-row equipment and the
rest—farmers expanded. Since
World War 11, the average farm
size has grown from 195 acres to
about 390. Meanwhile, numbers
of farms were cut by more than
half to around 2.9 million.
Index
(1940 = 100)
170
•*
100 Cu
1940
USDA Analyzes Wh
average increase in the scale with present technology, th<
productivity index of all farms, point of least-cost productioi
Even though many farms have could shift again wit)
achieved maximum economies of technological break-throughs
Wenger Implement, Inc. Landis Bros. Inc.
The Buck 284-4141 Lancaster 393-390 C
Productivity; The 30-year Record
Total Output
Total Input
o*
1950
LANCO BEDDING
FOR
POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK
Shavings Bagged, Bulk, Blown-in.
Call for information
Phone 285-4506
John Deere 38 Forage
Harvester is unmatched...
any way you
size it up
Add up the facts that corn attachments
have exclusive rubber gathering belts
for plug-free feeding; that changing
crop attachments is the fastest and
easiest around; that the cylinder
cutterhead boasts 6 spiraled knives; that
there's a built-in knife sharpener;
that re-cutter screens are available, and
you'll see why it's unmatched. See
us soon. Credit's available.
Shotzberger's
Elm ’ 665-2141
M. S. Yearsley & Sons
West Chester 696-2990
.•C-'
Productivity
(Output per
Unit of Input)
' ,-ar
's_ . ‘
1960
Notice! JDCP
Finance charges waived on for
age harvesters with com heads
until Sept. 1, 1972.
1970