AlB—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, July 25,1981 Len-Lyn Farm’s (Continued from Page Al) The results for the annual show are as follows: Junior Calf 1. Daniel Landis, Lancaster; 2. Philip Rutt, Quarryville; 3. Kenneth and Jere Skiles, Narvon; 4. Neal Crouse, Stevens; 5. Paul Welk, Peach Bottom. Intermediate Calf 1. Todd Reed, Denver; 2. Penn- Spnngs Farm, Elizabethtown; 3. Kenneth Long, Elizabethtown; 4. Scott Shertzer, MiUersville; 5. Donald Welk, Jr., Strasburg. Senior Calf 1. Robert Barley, Conestoga, Reserve Junior Champion; 2. Rhelda Royer, Lancaster; 3. Sheila Frey, Willow Street; 4. Jeffrey Welk, Strasburg; 5. R. Steven Kauffman, Elizabethtown. Junior Yearling 1. Penn Springs Farm; 2. Leonard Stoltzfus, Gap; 3. Judy Zimmerman, Ephrata; 4. Fultonway Farms; 5. Thomas Barley, Conestoga. U.S. farm productivity rises from era to era WASHINGTON, D.C. - The American farmer’s - knack of squeezing the most out ot agricultural resources has quadrupled the annual rate ot productivity growth in the two centuries since the United States became a nation. The annual productivity growth The total productivity index has rate-a measure ot the rate ot gained steadily since 1950-though change in the tarm sector’s total the rate ot increase has slowed at “Today, the growth of agricultural productivity is governed by the sciences genetics chemistry, biology and by management output relative to its level ot production mputs-rose trom 0.4 percent a year after the American Revolution to about 1.6 percent a year m the 1970’5. While the prodigious output ot American agriculture is hardly a secret, Kenneth R. Farrell, ad ministrator of USDA’S Economics and Statistics Service, reports that productivity growth has ac celerated throughout the four major epochs ot U.S. agricultural technology: • In the “hand power” period of 1775-1870, productivity grew at an average annual rate ot 0.4 percent. • It grew 0.5 percent per year in the 1870-1920 "horsepower” epoch. • During the 1925-1945 “mechanical power” era, it gamed 1.2 percent per year. • me "science power” era ot 1945-1980 saw gams of 1.6 percednt per year. “Today, the growth ot agricultural productivity is governed by the sciences genetics, chemistry, biology-and by management,” Farrell says. In a world that is growing more dependent on U.S. tarmers tor tood, American farm productivity improvement is vital. Since most mputs-land, labor, capital, and management-are limited, tar mers must wring increasingly more production trom them to meet mternational demand. The rate ot productivity increase is one indicator ot just how suc cessful farmers are in getting the most out ot inputs. Farrell finds that, despite some problems, the histone upward trend in productivity continued through the 1970’5. “There has been a slight slowdown ot productivity growth over the last three decades,” he says, "but this has been rather strongly influenced by such factors Senior Yearling 1. Paul Horning, Junior Champion; 2. Harold Witmer, Manheun, 3. J.M. Frey; 4. Melissa Eckman, Peach Bottom; 5. David Landis. Junior Get of Sire , 1. Paul Horning, Sire: Jemim. Futurity Class 1. Robert Kauffman; 2. Joyce Stoltzfus Blank; 3. P. Robert Wenger, Quarryville; 4. Galen Crouse; 5. P. Robert Wenger. Dry Cow Three and Four Year Old 1. Sheila Frey; 2. P. Robert Wenger; 3. Kenneth and Jere Skiles; 4. D. Ray and Linda Geissmger, New Holland. Dry Cow Five Years and Older 1. J.M. Frey; 2. John Frey; 3. Nathan Stoltzfus; 4. D. Ray and Linda Geissmger; 5. Russel Kline, Denver. Junior Two Year Old 1. Rhelda Royer, Best Udder; 2. John and Susan Howard, Willow as the 1970 corn blight and the 1980 drought.” One way ot gauging tarm productivity, Farrell notes, is by using an index which compares the ratio ot the index ot total tarm output with the index ot total tarm inputs used. times-except tor lapses m 1975 (high input costs) and 1980 (drought). However, despite solid overall growth, productivity gams vary trom commodity to commodity and region to region. And this is a major drawback to using the overall productivity growth rate as the only indicator: It measures only broad aggregates, missing sigmticant variations among individual commodities and states. Beet productivity, tor example, tared poorly durmg the 1970’s as u There has been a slight slowdown of productivity growth over the last three decades , but this has been rather strongly influenced by such factors as the 1970 com blight and the 1980 drought teed prices sharply increased and the calving iate tell below 90 percent each year trom 197 a to 1979. But overall livestock and poultry productivity climbed 1.1 percent a year, due to strong gains in poultry and dairy. These gains reflected improved feeding efficiency, larger pig litters, more efficient labor use, selective breeding, hog and poultry confinement operations, and other improvements. However, the ' impressive gams for the livestock sector as a whole otter little benefit to consumers who prefer beef to pork and poultry. Similarly, national productivity Mi eel,