Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Three studies in Canadian agriculture : I. Output and input data for Canadian agriculture, 1926-1970.… Danielson, Robert Stephan 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 D35.pdf [ 21.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093511.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093511-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093511-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093511-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093511-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093511-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093511-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093511-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093511.ris

Full Text

T h r e e S t u d i e s i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e : I O u t p u t and I n p u t D a t a f o r C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e , 1926-1970 I I P r o d u c t i v i t y G rowth i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e , 1946-1970 I I I A C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r a l T r a n s f o r m a t i o n F u n c t i o n , 1946-1970: A D u a l A p p r o a c h by R o b e r t S t e p h a n D a n i e l s o n B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1973 A T h e s i s s u b m i t t e d i n P a r t i a l S a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e d e g r e e o f M a s t e r o f A r t s i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E c o n o m i c s We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d : U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M a r c h , 197 5 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s re p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten pe rm i ss ion . Department of ^L&^OI*\<S. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e May 2g .} \f\1S - i i i -ABSTRACT This thesis provides a comprehensive treatment of a g r i c u l t u r e i n Canada as examined from the viewpoint of modern production theory. This theory has i t ' s o r i g i n s i n Hicks (1946) who developed the implications of profit-maximizinj behavior i n the context of a multiple input, multiple output technology. The main body of the thesis i s divided into three major papers. In the f i r s t paper we provide a comprehensive overview of the concepts and methodology which have been employed i n making observations of a g r i c u l t u r a l production during the period 1926-1970. In the second and t h i r d papers of the thesis we apply the previously analysed data base to the problem of measuring the rate of increase i n t o t a l f actor p r o d u c t i v i t y during the post-war period and to estimating the i n t e r n a l structure of a g r i c u l t u r a l production during the post-war period. The second paper i s devoted to measuring the growth i n t o t a l f a c t o r p r o d u c t i v i t y during the post-war period. Two problems are e x p l i c i t l y examined: i ) the c a l c u l a t i o n of r e n t a l prices or user costs f o r durable inputs (see Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s (1967) (1972), Diewert (1972) Section VI "Producer Behavior when Depreciation Rates are Variable", and King (1974)) and ( i i ) the aggregation of the numerous inputs and outputs (see Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s (1972) and Diewert (1974a)). In the t h i r d paper, the data base i s applied to the problem of modeling and estimating e m p i r i c a l l y a multiple-output production function f o r the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Sector. This study not only provides i n s i g h t into the i n t e r n a l structure of production w i t h i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector, but also allows many of the assumptions and implications of the n e o c l a s s i c a l theory of production to be tested e m p i r i c a l l y . - i v -In each of the applications the re s u l t s achieved are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the accounting framework by which the various inputs and outputs are measured and to the way i n which the data has been handled. Thus a major concern i n the applications sections i s with possible ways by which the data and the studies may be improved. - v -T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s P r e f a c e P a p e r I : O u t p u t and I n p u t D a t a f o r C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e , 1926-1970 I n t r o d u c t i o n and Summary p. 1 I C e n s u s and I n t e r c e n s a l D a t a C o l l e c t i o n p. 2 ( 1 . 1 ) C e n s u s E s t i m a t e s p. 3 ( 1 . 2 ) I n t e r c e n s a l E s t i m a t e s p. 5 I I I n p u t C o m m o d i t i e s p. 7 2.1 P r i m a r y I n p u t s : L a b o u r p. 7 (A) A v e r a g e H o u r s Worked p. 7 (B) L a b o u r F o r c e E s t i m a t e s p. 8 2.2 P r i m a r y I n p u t s : C a p i t a l p.10 2.2.1 F i x e d C a p i t a l p.11 I . G e n e r a l P r o b l e m s o f M e a s u r e m e n t p.12 I I . D a t a S o u r c e s and M e t h o d o l o g y p.12 1. G r o s s F i x e d C a p i t a l F o r m a t i o n p.12 (A) C o n s t r u c t i o n p.12 (B) M a c h i n e r y and E q u i p m e n t p.14 2. P r i c e I n d e x e s p.14 (A) C o n s t r u c t i o n p.14 (B) M a c h i n e r y and E q u i p m e n t p.16 (C) C o m m e r c i a l V e h i c l e s p.16 3. A v e r a g e E c o n o m i c L i f e A s s u m p t i o n s .. p.17 (A) C o n s t r u c t i o n p.18 (B) Farm M a c h i n e r y and E q u i p m e n t ... p.18 (C) C o m m e r c i a l V e h i c l e s and A u t o m o b i l e s u s e d f o r Farm B u s i n e s s P u r p o s e s p.19 2.2.2 A g r i c u l t u a l L a nd p.19 2.2.3 I n v e n t o r i e s p.21 2.2.4 Farm M o r t g a g e R a t e s p.22 - v i -I I I n p u t C o m m o d i t i e s ( c o n t i n u e d ) 2.3 I n t e r m e d i a t e I n p u t s p. 23 2.3.1 G r a i n : S o l d C o m m e r c i a l l y and H e l d Back on t h e Farm p. 24 2.3.2 T w i n e p. 25 2.3.3 H a r d w a r e p. 26 2.3.4 F e r t i l i z e r and A g r i c u l t u r a l L i m e p. 26 2.3.5 E l e c t r i c a l E n e r g y p. 27 2.3.6 P e t r o l e u m E n e r g y p. 28 2.4 W e a t h e r I n f l u e n c e s p. 29 I I I O u t p u t C o m m o d i t i e s p. 33 3.1 C r o p P r o d u c t s p. 33 3.1.1 F i e l d C r o p s p. 33 3.1.2 F r u i t and V e g e t a b l e s p. 35 3.1.3 M a p l e P r o d u c t s p. 38 3.1.4 G r a s s and Seed p. 38 3.1.5 T o b a c c o p. 39 3.2 A n i m a l P r o d u c t s p. 39 3.2.1 Farm A n i m a l C o m m o d i t i e s : I n v e n t o r i e s and o u t p u t p. 40 3.2.2 M i l k P r o d u c t s p. 46 3.2.3 P o u l t r y and Egg P r o d u c t s p. 47 3.2.4 Wool and F u r P r o d u c t s p. 48 3.2.5 Honey P r o d u c t s p. 49 IV C o n c l u d i n g Comments p. 51 V A p p e n d i x I : The C e n s u s Q u a l i t y Sample S u r v e y p.52 V I A p p e n d i x I I : Changes i n t h e C o n c e p t o f t h e C e n s u s Farm P- 57 V I I A p p e n d i x I I I : A g r i c u l t u r a l Commodity P r i c e s and Q u a n t i t i e s p. 59 V I I I A p p e n d i x I V ; T e m p e r a t u r e and P r e c i p i t a t i o n D a t a ... p. 136 - v i i -I X F o o t n o t e s p. 162 X B i b l i o g r a p h y p. 155 P a p e r I I : P r o d u c t i v i t y G r o w t h i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e , 1946-1970 I I n t r o d u c t i o n and Summary p. 173 I I I n v e n t o r i e s p. 175 I I I L a b o u r p. 176 IV C a p i t a l p. 176 V Net P r o f i t s i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e p. 179 V I P r o d u c t i v i t y Measurement p. 183 V I I C o n c l u s i o n P- 187 V I I I A p p e n d i x : R e n t a l P r i c e s and Tax R a t e s p. 190 IX F o o t n o t e s p. 194 X R e f e r e n c e s p. 195 P a p e r I I I : A C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r a l T r a n s f o r m a t i o n F u n c t i o n , 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 7 0 : A D u a l A p p r o a c h I I n t r o d u c t i o n and Summary p. 199 I I C o n c e p t s i n P r o d u c t i o n T h e o r y p. 199 2.1 The V a r i a b l e P r o f i t F u n c t i o n p. 199 2.2 E l a s t i c i t i e s o f T e c h n i c a l S u b s t i t u t i o n ... p. 203 2.3 S e p a r a b i l i t y p. 206 I I I The P r o d u c t i o n Framework p. 208 3.1 The A l g e b r a i c Framework p. 208 3.2 The V a r i a b l e s o f t h e M o d e l p. 211 3.3 C o n s t r u c t i n g I n d e x e s o f T e m p e r a t u r e and P r e c i p i t a t i o n P- 212 - v i i i -IV E s t i m a t i o n p. 215 4.1 S t o c h a s t i c A s s u m p t i o n s , E s t i m a t i o n T e c h n i q u e and T e s t s of H y p o t h e s e s p. 215 4.2 T e s t i n g f o r Symmetry p. 217 4.3 S t o c h a s t i c P r o p e r t i e s o f t h e E s t i m a t e d M o d e l p. 218 4.4 E c o n o m i c P r o p e r t i e s o f t h e E s t i m a t e d M o d e l ... p. 219 4.5 I m p o s i n g C o n v e x i t y p. 219 V C o n c l u s i o n s p. 221 V I A p p e n d i x : R e g r e s s i o n R e s u l t s p. 224 T a b l e I : P a r a m e t e r E s t i m a t e s p. 224 T a b l e I I : A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e p. 225 T a b l e I I I : E s t i m a t e d Shadow P r i c e s p. 226 T a b l e I V : ©, C , and Y E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r S e l e c t e d Y e a r s p. 227 T a b l e V: &,M , 1 , and p E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r S e l e c t e d Y e a r s p. 229 T a b l e V I : rJ., (S * b , and T E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r S e l e c t e d Y e a r s p. 233 V I I F o o t n o t e s p. 234 V I I I B i b l i o g r a p h y P- 237 - i x -PREFACE Ag r i c u l t u r e continues to present problems to economic model b u i l d e r s . In the past, these problems have proven to be almost insurmountable. However recent advances i n the economic theory of production have r e s u l t e d i n a very general framework of analysis which i f applied c o r r e c t l y w i l l reduce past problems to manageable l e v e l s . The main purpose of the thesis i s to demonstrate how the modern theory of production approaches the problem of measuring p r o d u c t i v i t y growth and production r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l sector. The l i m i t i n g factor i n each of these studies i s revealed to be the data base being used. Thus much of the t h e s i s i s d i r e c t e d towards the problem of improving the e x i s t i n g data base. The f i r s t paper i s devoted s p e c i f i c a l l y to e x a m i n i n g the data base currently a v a i l a b l e f o r the Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l sector. Much of the text of the paper i s based on unpublished material furnished by W.G. Morris, Assistant Director A g r i c u l t u r e D i v i s i o n , S t a t i s t i c s Canada. The discussion of f i x e d c a p i t a l stocks i n a g r i c u l t u r e i s abstracted from an unpublished S t a t i s t i c s Canada paper. References to other S t a t i s t i c s Canada source documents and publications are made by t h e i r corresponding S t a t i s t i c s Canada catalogue numbers. The author wishes to thank Professor W. Erwin Diewert f o r providing the labour estimates contained i n the tables of t h i s paper. Professor Alan D. Woodland i s also thanked for allowing the author to include the c a p i t a l stocks series i n t h i s study. The author also wishes to g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge the assistance, constructive comments, and support contributed by Professor Diewert, during the development of t h i s paper. I n a d d i t i o n , d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h P r o f e s s o r E.R. Berndt- and w i t h R.H.U. K o h l i h a v e provided many i n s i g h t s i n t o p a r t i c u l a r problems. The t y p i n g of the t h e s i s during the v a r i o u s stages of i t ' s develop-ment has been s k i l l f u l l y accomplished by Maureen Waterman, Rosanna Yeung and Anne-Marie Dussault. I have Soo-Hong Hu to acknowledge f o r the competence, w i t h which the data has been compiled and presented i n the t a b l e s to the paper. Although each of the above has c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the f i n a l product, the author bears f i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r any remaining e r r o r s or omissions. During the past two y e a r s , t h i s research has been p a r t i a l l y supported by Canada C o u n c i l Grant S74-0251 and the Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa. The author wishes to thank both of these agencies w h i l e a b s o l v i n g them from any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the views expressed. - l a -OUTPUT AND INPUT DATA FOR CANADIAN AGRICULTURE 1926-1970 by R o b e r t S. D a n i e l s o n R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t s Group S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g and R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t o f Manpower and I m m i g r a t i o n M a r c h 1975 - l b -TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY p. 1 PART I CENSUS AND INTERCENSAL DATA COLLECTION p. 2 (1.1) Census Estimates p. 3 (1.2) Intercensal Estimates p. 5 II INPUT COMMODITIES p. 7 2.1 Primary Inputs: Labour p. 7 (A) Average Hours Worked p. 7 (B) Labour Force Estimates p. 8 2.2 Primary Inputs: C a p i t a l p. 10 2.2.1 Fixed C a p i t a l p. 11 I. General Problems of Measurement p. 12 I I . Data Sources and Methodology p. 12 1. Gross Fixed C a p i t a l Formation ....p. 12 (A) Construction p. 12 (B) Machinery and Equipment p. 14 2. P r i c e Indexes p. 14 (A) Construction p. 14 (B) Machinery and Equipment p. 16 (C) Commercial Vehicles p. 16 3. Average Economic L i f e Assumptions.p. 17 (A) Construction p. 18 (B) Farm Machinery and Equipment.p. 18 (C) Commercial Vehicles and Automobiles used f o r Farm Business Purposes p. 19 2.2.2 A g r i c u l t u r a l Land p. 19 2.2.3 Inventories p. 21 2.2.4 Farm Mortgage Rates p. 22 - I c -II INPUT COMMODITIES CONTINUED 2.3 Intermediate Inputs p. 23 2.3.1 Grain: Sold Commercially and Held Back on the Farm p. 24 2.3.2 Twine p. 25 2.3.3 Hardware p. 26 2.3.4 F e r t i l i z e r and A g r i c u l t u r a l Lime p. 26 2.3.5 E l e c t r i c a l Energy p. 27 2.3.6 Petroleum Energy p. 28 2.4 Weather Influences p. 29 III OUTPUT COMMODITIES p. 33 3.1 Crop Products p. 33 3.1.1 F i e l d Crops p. 33 3.1.2 F r u i t and Vegetables p. 35 3.1.3 Maple Products p. 38 3.1.4 Grass and Seed p. 38 3.1.5 Tobacco p. 39 3.2 Animal Products p. 39 3.2.1 Farm Animal Commodities: Inventories and Output p. 40 3.2.2 Milk Products p. 46 3.2.3 Poultry and Egg Products p. 47 3.2.4 Wool and Fur Products p. 48 3.2.5 Honey Products p. 49 - I d -IV CONCLUDING COMMENTS p. 51 V APPENDIX I: THE CENSUS QUALITY SAMPLE SURVEY p. 52 VI APPENDIX I I : CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT OF THE CENSUS FARM..p. 57 VII APPENDIX I I I : AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY PRICES AND QUANTITIES p. 59 VIII APPENDIX IV: TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA p. 136 IX FOOTNOTES p.162 X BIBLIOGRAPHY p. 165 - l e -LIST OF TABLES I OUTPUT COMMODITIES 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS 1.1.1 F r u i t s p. 61 1.1.2 Vegetables p. 67 1.1.3 F i e l d Crops p. 75 1.1.4 Other Crops p. 85 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS 1.2.1 Live Animal Outputs p. 88 1.2.2 Animal Products p. 93 1.3 PROPORTIONS 1.3.1 F r u i t and Vegetable Production p. 96 1.3.2 Animal Production p. 97 II INPUT COMMODITIES 2.1 INVENTORIES 2.1.1 Animal Inventories p. 100 2.1.2 Grain Inventories p. 105 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL 2.2.1 Building Structures p. 108 2.2.2 Farm Machinery p . I l l 2.2.3 Passenger Vehicles p. 113 2.2.4 Commercial Vehicles p. 115 2.2.5 A g r i c u l t u r a l Land p. 117 2.2.6 Farm Mortgage Rate p.121 - I f -I I INPUT COMMODITIES CONTINUED 2.3 LABOUR 2.3.1 H i r e d Labour Force p. 122 2.3.2 Diewert Estimates: T o t a l Labour p.123 2.3.3 Average Hours Worked Ber Week i n A g r i c u l t u r e ...p.124 2.4 INTERMEDIATE INPUTS 2.4.1 Energy Inputs p. 125 2.4.2 Crop Inputs p. 126 2.5 WEATHER INFLUENCES' 2.5.1 Temperature p. 131 2.5.2 P r e c i p i t a t i o n p.133 I I I DISAGGREGATE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION OBSERVATIONS p.136 J - l g -INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This paper i s designed to f u l f i l l two purposes. F i r s t , i t provides a comprehensive overview of the concepts and methodology which have been employed i n making observations of a g r i c u l t u r a l production during the period 1926-1970. Second, the paper tabulates disaggregated time series of the various a g r i c u l t u r a l input and output commodities and t h e i r p r i c e s from 1926 to 1970 using a conceptual framework s i m i l a r to that developed by Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s (1967). This framework provides a s u i t a b l e data base f o r the estimation of a g r i c u l t u r a l production functions and p r o d u c t i v i t y . In t h i s framework, the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector i s treated from the viewpoint of modern production theory, which has i t s o r i g i n s i n the work of Hicks (1946), who developed the implications of p r o f i t maximizing behavior i n the context of a multiple input, multiple output technology. Recent developments i n t h i s theory have centered around two t o p i c s : ( i ) the c a l c u l a t i o n of r e n t a l p r i c e s or user costs f o r durable inputs (see Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s (1967), Diewert (1972). Section 6 "Producer Behavior When Depreciation Rates are V a r i a b l e " , and King (1974)) and ( i i ) how to aggregate the m u l t i p l i c i t y of inputs and outputs (see Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s (1972) and Diewert (1974a)). The modern production theory framework requires a complete l i s t i n g of the gross outputs of the farm sector (including production consumed on the farm) as w e l l as of the intermediate and primary inputs used during the production process. The cost of using a durable primary input i s not i t s stock or purchase p r i c e , but rather i t s user or r e n t a l p r i c e . In the present paper we compile the data which i s relevant to the c a l c u l a t i o n of r e n t a l p r i c e s , along with the data on outputs and intermediate inputs. From the viewpoint of production theory the compilation task i s conceptually straightforward, i n p r a c t i c e , however, the compilation of the data has proven -2-to be a major undertaking due p r i m a r i l y to the m u l t i p l i c i t y of a g r i c u l t u r a l outputs and inputs and the wide dispersion of the data among d i f f e r e n t p u blications. Furthermore, the relevant data are frequently not d i r e c t l y a v a i l a b l e , and thus we have had to resort to a number of rather ad hoc assumptions i n order to construct the relevant s e r i e s . The f i r s t s e c tion of the paper contrasts the b a s i c methodology and concepts employed during each Census with those employed during each i n t e r -censal period. The close r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between observations of production made during each Census with those made during each i n t e r c e n s a l period i s demonstrated. This leads to a discussion of the q u a l i t y of the observations obtained during each Census. A more de t a i l e d examination of the Census Sample Quality Survey, which was developed to test f o r possible non-sampling errors occurring i n Census estimates of production i s contained i n Appendix I. The second s e c t i o n of the paper i s devoted to an examination of the methods and assumptions used i n constructing the ser i e s of the primary inputs u t i l i z e d during the production process and also of the intermediate inputs consumed i n the production process during each year. The t h i r d s e ction of the paper examines i n more d e t a i l the surveys employed during each i n t e r c e n s a l period to secure observations of production f o r the various output commodities. The general methods by which these surveys are conducted are examined as are the methods by which estimates are made of changes i n aggregate production and p r i c e s . PART I CENSUS AND INTERCENSAL DATA COLLECTION Estimates of a g r i c u l t u r a l production published f o r the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Sector are the r e s u l t of the combined e f f o r t s of the Census D i v i s i o n and of the A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n , both of S t a t i s t i c s Canada (formerly the Dominion -3-Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s ) . The Census D i v i s i o n provides benchmark observations from which i n t e r c e n s a l changes i n production are estimated and also the sampling frame which i s used during the in t e r c e n s a l mailed questionnaire sample surveys. The A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n provides current estimates of a g r i c u l t u r a l production. Thus the q u a l i t y of the f i n a l estimates depend not only on the r e l i a b i l i t y of the estimates obtained during each census, but also on the r e l i a b i l i t y of the estimates made by the A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n during each i n t e r c e n s a l period. 1.1 Census Estimates; The object during each Canadian Census of Ag r i c u l t u r e i s to gain as complete a p i c t u r e of a g r i c u l t u r a l production as possi b l e . In order to do so during each Census an attempt i s made to reach and enumerate every census farm'*' i n Canada. These farms not only provide the ba s i c u n i t of observation of a g r i c u l t u r a l production i n Canada, but also the aggregate of these farms comprise the population or universe of a l l farms i n Canada from which observations of a g r i c u l t u r a l production are secured during the census and during the i n t e r c e n s a l period immediately following. Due to the comprehensive nature of each Census, the sampling unit used 2 for enumeration purposes i s also defined to be the census farm. The aggregate of a l l those sampling units which are used or which are a v a i l a b l e for enumeration during each Census make up the census sampling frame. For purposes of the Census, t h i s frame which may be described as an accumulation of m a t e r i a l 3 describing the structure of the population of a l l farms i n Canada, i s made up of addressograph plates containing the addresses and names of every farm 4 operator or owner i n Canada. The census sampling frame provides a number of se r v i c e s . During each Census i t i s used f i r s t during the month proceeding the June 1st Census -4-enumeration date to mail census farm schedules to every farm owner or operator i n Canada. The object of th i s procedure i s to allow the farmer s u f f i c i e n t time to f a m i l i a r i z e himself with the forms and to answer those questions which he i s able to p r i o r to the a r r i v a l of the enumerator. This increases the probable accuracy of the responses made while at the same time reducing enumeration costs. The frame i s also used during each Census as a check f o r a complete enumeration of a l l farms i n each enumeration area. During the i n t e r - c e n s a l period, the frame provides the set of addressograph plates used f o r the various mailed questionnaire surveys conducted by the A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada. An attempt to ensure a complete enumeration of the population of census farms i n Canada i s made by d i v i d i n g up the whole of Canada geographically before each Census. The f i r s t d i v i s i o n to be made i s by Federal e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t s and constituencies. These d i s t r i c t s are then furt h e r subdivided into Census enumeration areas, which are established with the a i d of records of e a r l i e r censuses, Municipal records and other sources of information. The boundaries of each enumeration area are established so that they are e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e i n the f i e l d . Whenever possible natural boundaries such as roads or ditches are used to delineate each area. In add i t i o n , each enumerator i s asked to spend some time p r i o r to enumeration acquainting himself with h i s area and with the a g r i c u l t u r a l holdings contained w i t h i n i t . " * F i n a l l y , enumeration areas are clustered by groups of about f i f t e e n into census d i s t r i c t s , each being the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a census supervisor who attempts to ensure that a complete and accurate census i s c a r r i e d out i n each area. As a f i n a l check of the v a l i d i t y of census estimates, Census Qua l i t y Survey checks have been conducted during each Census since the 1956 Census of Agr i c u l t u r e . ^ The purpose of these checks have been to determine the degree -5-by which the aggregate of sampling errors occurring during each census may bias Census estimates of a g r i c u l t u r a l production. The r e s u l t s of these checks have revealed that although there has been some under-enumeration of census farms i n Canada during past censuses, estimates of the rates of u t i l i z a t i o n and of the production of the various a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities are r e l a t i v e l y unbiased. 1.2 Intercensal Estimates; Estimates of a g r i c u l t u r a l production during the inter c e n s a l periods are made by the A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Observations are obtained of the current estimate of crop acreages and production, l i v e s t o c k inventories and outputs, indexes of farm p r i c e s and production, wage r a t e s , farm income and farm expenditure. These estimates are based e s s e n t i a l l y on data c o l l e c t e d during the immediately preceeding census. The census data are used as benchmark observations from which annual changes i n a g r i c u l t u r a l production are projected forward. At the end of each inte r c e n s a l period adjustments are made to bring the annual estimates made during the in t e r c e n s a l period i n l i n e with the estimates made during the census immediately following. Although the same concepts and d e f i n i t i o n s used during the previous census are applied to each immediately following i n t e r c e n s a l period, the methodology employed during the two periods d i f f e r . During each census an attempt i s made to estimate a g r i c u l t u r a l production by having an enumerator personally v i s i t every farm i n Canada. However, during each i n t e r c e n s a l period, mostly due to a lack of funds and time, observations of a g r i c u l t u r a l production are based on mailed questionnaire surveys. Although t h i s type of survey has the advantage of a very low cost per questionnarie returned and of a quick compiling and publishing time. I t suff e r s from non-randomness i n the questionnaires -6-returned due to the non-compulsory nature of the response. In a d d i t i o n the information gathered may be incomplete. The r e s u l t i s that estimates made at the end of each i n t e r c e n s a l period usually vary from the immediately subsequent census f i g u r e s . When t h i s occurs an attempt i s made to r e c o n c i l e the difference. The frame from which samples are drawn during each i n t e r c e n s a l period i s the same set of addressograph plates which are used to mail out farm schedules during the previous census. The A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada, which conducts the i n t e r c e n s a l sample surveys also maintains t h i s frame between censuses. The data c o l l e c t e d during the inte r c e n s a l periods cover a wide range of a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities. The object of the next s e c t i o n i s to discuss the various sources from which observations of these commodities have been secured and also to examine the methodology which has been applied by S t a t i s t i c s Canada during t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n . For convenience the study has been di v i d e d up by the major commodity type. -7-PART II INPUT COMMODITIES 2.1 Primary Inputs: Labour In order to construct a series of the input of labour into the production process, two problems have had to be overcome. F i r s t , the a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force, as measured by the labour survey, i s a measure of a stock of labour and should be corrected to more c l o s e l y measure the actual inflow of labour services into a g r i c u l t u r a l production. Second, a s e r i e s of the gross f a c t o r returns accruing to the a g r i c u l t u r a l labor force i n return f o r services should be developed. An attempt to solve both problems i s made here. However the constructed s e r i e s s t i l l provide only a f i r s t approximation to estimating r e a l labour services i n t o a g r i c u l t u r a l production. Many of the problems remaining to be solved are examined, although not resolved, with the expectation that future researchers w i l l be able to improve on the estimates constructed and provided i n the tables. In order to develop a s e r i e s f o r the inflow of labour services into the a g r i c u l t u r a l production process, estimates of the stock of labour a v a i l a b l e i n a g r i c u l t u r e each year, obtained from the S t a t i s t i c s Canada p u b l i c a t i o n 13-202 and reworked by Diewert (1974b),were converted into a flow of hours contributed yearly to a g r i c u l t u r a l production. A) Average Hours Worked: Estimates of the average number of hours worked per week i n a g r i c u l t u r e were f i r s t obtained. The complete s e r i e s extending from 1926 to 1970 i s a c t u a l l y composed of two d i s t i n c t studies. For the period 1926-1955 a s e r i e s was obtained from Uruquhart and Buckley (1965; p. 105). This series i s acknowledged to be very rough f o r the period p r i o r to the i n i t i a t i o n of the Labour Force Survey i n 1945. Observations made f o r the 1927-1938 -8-period are based e s s e n t i a l l y on a s t r a i g h t - l i n e i n t e r p o l a t i o n between 1926 for which some data was a v a i l a b l e , and 1939 for which observations were made i n connection with the war e f f o r t . However, these estimates have been al t e r e d somewhat s u b j e c t i v e l y to coincide more cl o s e l y with personal estimates made by i n d i v i d u a l s w e l l acquainted with a g r i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s i n Canada. Estimates derived f o r the war years are also often quite s u b j e c t i v e l y a r r i v e d at. However estimates made during the post-war period 1945-1955 are based on estimates derived from the Labour Force Survey and are thus more representive of the actual hours worked each week i n a g r i c u l t u r e . A second s e r i e s , f o r the period 1946-1968, was obtained from the CANSIM (Canadian Socio-Economic Information Management System) data banks ( i d e n t i f i c a t i o n # 613.1.1). This s e r i e s , which i s also based on estimates derived from the Labour Force Survey, was extended to the 1969-1970 period by extrapolation of the twelve year trend between 1957 and 1968. The two s e r i e s overlap during the period 1946-1955, and when compared are found to r e l a t i v e l y consistent, with the diff e r e n c e between the two series never being greater than two percent of the CANSIM estimates. This i s expected since both s e r i e s are based on the Labour Force Survey during t h i s period. During the construction to the average hours worked s e r i e s , i f the two s e r i e s d i f f e r e d , the CANSIM observation was adopted because since i t was the more recent estimate i t was f e l t to be more accurate. The f i n a l s e r i e s i s presented i n table 2.3.3. B) Labour Force Estimates; The labour force s e r i e s c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h i s paper i s a modified version of the published S t a t i s t i c s Canada labour force estimate. A f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of how the s e r i e s was constructed i s presented i n Diewert's work. -9-The primary s t a t i s t i c s used i n constructing the labour s e r v i c e estimates were 1) estimates of the a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force published i n the National Accounts, p u b l i c a t i o n 13-202, 2) estimates of wages, s a l a r i e s and supplementary income accruing to the farm h i r e d labour force, also published i n the National Accounts and 3) estimates of average farm wage rates which are based on a Farm Wage Rate P r i c e Index published i n 62-004 f o r the period 1926-1939 and on estimates of the average wage paid to male h i r e d farm labour during August of each year, published i n various issues of 21-003 f o r the period 1940-1970. The basic problem with the published estimates of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Labour Force i s the underlying i m p l i c i t assumption that the services provided by the labour force i s proportional to the stock of labour. This i s not true i n general due to the non-homogeneity of the labour force. The composition of the labour force i n terms of sex, s k i l l s and i n the proportion of labour provided by the farm owner's family has changed and i s s t i l l changing s i g n i f i g a n t l y over time. Modifications to the published Labour Force s e r i e s were performed i n an attempt to provide a p a r t i a l c o rrection of these problems. The problem of decomposing the labour force into a h i r e d labour p o r t i o n and into a family labour p o r t i o n was f i r s t tackled. Estimates of the farm h i r e d labour force were i m p l i c i t l y estimated by d i v i d i n g estimates of the average wage rate per year into the estimates of income accruing to the h i r e d labour force. With the assumption that at l e a s t part of the increase i n wages over time i s due to improvements i n the services provided, i t was thought that an i m p l i c i t l y derived h i r e d labour force would best r e f l e c t q u a l i t a t i v e changes i n the labour force. There are two q u a l i f i c a t i o n s with respect to the q u a l i t y of these derived labour force estimates which must be considered. F i r s t of a l l the average -10-yearly wage se r i e s i s derived from a monthly average obtained i n August. I t i s assumed that t h i s wage remains constant over the whole year. However August i s a peak-demand period which would imply that the average wages f o r that month would be somewhat higher than the yearly average. The second q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s that we are only considering wages f o r male h i r e d labour. This would tend to bias upwards the estimates of wages accruing to the h i r e d labour force. The degree of t h i s bias would depend on the d i f f e r e n c e between male and female wages and on the proportion of the h i r e d labour force made up by women. The net e f f e c t of these two influences would be that of b i a s i n g up the estimated average yearly wage accruing to the h i r e d labour force and thus biasing down s l i g h t l y the i m p l i c i t l y derived estimates of the h i r e d labour force. The farm family labour force was i m p l i c i t l y c a l c u l a t e d by subtracting the derived h i r e d labour force from the t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force. This estimate was deflated by 20 percent to correct f o r off-farm employment by family members (see Diewert (1974b)for the methodology involved). The f i n a l r e s u l t was added to the estimated h i r e d labour force to obtain the modified estimate of the labour force. I t i s assumed that the average wage rate f o r the h i r e d labour force i s earned e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i m p l i c i t l y by the family i n return for i t s services. Thus the wage rate earned by the h i r e d labour force i s constant over the e n t i r e labour force. The f i n a l derived labour s e r i e s and the estimated average hours worked per week by the a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force are presented i n table 2.3. 2.2 Primary Inputs: C a p i t a l The major types of farm c a p i t a l f o r which estimates have been obtained include f i x e d c a p i t a l , which can be broken down into b u i l d i n g s t r u c t u r e s , farm -11-machinery, passenger vehicles and commercial v e h i c l e s ; a g r i c u l t u r a l land; and inventories. 2.2.1 Fixed C a p i t a l : The estimates of f i x e d c a p i t a l and t h e i r purchase p r i c e s were developed by Woodland (1972) as part of a study of ten Canadian i n d u s t r i e s . This s e r i e s i s based on data furnished by L. David of the National Wealth and C a p i t a l Stocks Section, Business Finance D i v i s i o n , S t a t i s t i c s Canada. These data include an estimated purchase p r i c e index, a gross f i x e d c a p i t a l formation series (computed by S t a t i s t i c s Canada using the 'perpetual inventory' method which assumes 'one hoss shay 1 depreciation) and an estimate of the average economic l i f e f o r each c a p i t a l type: b u i l d i n g s t r u c t u r e s , farm machinery, passenger v e h i c l e s and commercial v e h i c l e s . In each case Woodland has r e -computed the c a p i t a l stock ser i e s (assuming geometric depreciation) as: x, t+1 x,t 2 i»t where fc i s the stock of c a p i t a l type 1 i n period _t, defined to be the end year stock of period t-1, 1927 providing the benchmark stocks. I. i s the i > t gross f i x e d c a p i t a l formation, i n c a p i t a l type 1 during period _t, and d^ i s the rate of obsolescence and depreciation i n c a p i t a l stock 1. The estimated average economic l i f e of each c a p i t a l type, L_ (an estimate which i s required f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of c a p i t a l stocks using the perpetual inventory method) was computed by S t a t i s t i c s Canada as L = 2/d where d i s a geometric rate of depreciation which was e i t h e r c a l c u l a t e d on the basis of benchmark data or assumed to be known. In the next s e c t i o n we consider the methodology employed i n estimating (a) gross f i x e d c a p i t a l formation, (b) p r i c e s of new c a p i t a l goods, and (c) average economic l i f e f o r each f i x e d c a p i t a l type. -12-I. General Problems of Measurement: Measurement of the flows and stocks of fi x e d c a p i t a l employed i n a g r i c u l t u r e i s a d i f f i c u l t task, despite the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a considerable amount of decennial and quinquennial Census data. Most a g r i c u l t u r a l s t a t i s t i c s have focused on various measures r e l a t i n g to production, crop acreages, y i e l d s , etc., with much less a t t e n t i o n paid to investment i n f i x e d c a p i t a l . As a r e s u l t , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to estimate accurately the long ser i e s of annual c a p i t a l formation data required by the perpetual inventory method f o r c a l c u l a t i o n of flows and stocks of f i x e d c a p i t a l . There also e x i s t s some question as to exactly what assets should be included as f i x e d c a p i t a l i n the a g r i c u l t u r e sector. The o v e r a l l program of the c a p i t a l stocks d i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada has been r e s t r i c t e d to date to reproducible fixed c a p i t a l , and to maintain consistency with other sector estimates, the same p r i n c i p l e has been applied to a g r i c u l t u r e . Hence, estimates of flows and stocks of c a p i t a l have been prepared only f o r construction and machinery and equipment. "Construction" includes a l l types of st r u c t u r e s , whether b u i l d i n g or engineering i n nature, with the exception of farm houses. "Machinery and equipment" has been sub-divided into (1) commercial v e h i c l e s , (2) passenger vehicles used f o r farm business purposes, and (3) other farm machinery and equipment. II . Data Sources and Methods: (1) Gross Fixed C a p i t a l Formation: (A) Construction: Estimates of gross f i x e d c a p i t a l formation f o r 1951 to date are those compiled j o i n t l y by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and S t a t i s t i c s Canada (the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s ) . The estimates were -13-obtained d i r e c t l y from the C a p i t a l Expenditures Section of S t a t i s t i c s Canada (SC), and include revisions to published estimates, so that the data presented here w i l l not agree with the figures shown i n Pr i v a t e and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada 1946-1957 ^ and subsequent annual editions of P r i v a t e and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada-Outlook. The revisions for the period 1951-1960 are based on the 1958 Farm Survey, and involve an upward adjustment to the previous estimates of c a p i t a l expenditures on construction. The revisions to the 1951-1960 estimates were extended back to 1942 by applying the average new-revised r a t i o f o r 1951-1958 to the o f f i c i a l estimates 9 published i n Pr i v a t e and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada 1926-1951 (PPI 1926-1951). For the period 1926-1941, estimates of c a p i t a l formation were prepared i n the following manner. The value of b u i l d i n g materials used on farms was obtained from P u b l i c Investment and C a p i t a l Formation (P. I. C. F ) ^ , pages 38 and 39; an allowance f o r the cost of labour used i n converting the materials into structures was then made, based on an assumed 65-35 r e l a t i o n s h i p between materials and labour i n farm construction.''""'' From the estimated t o t a l value of construction thus obtained, estimated new and re p a i r expenditures on farm housing were deducted i n order to a r r i v e at estimates of t o t a l n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l construction. The estimates of new r e s i d e n t i a l construction on farms were taken from R e s i d e n t i a l Real Estate i n Canada, and r e p a i r r e s i d e n t i a l construction was estimated based on the new-repair r e l a t i o n s h i p s (repairs and maintenance as a percentage of t o t a l value of a l l r e s i d e n t i a l construction work c a r r i e d out) shown i n Re s i d e n t i a l Real Estate i n Canada, Table 76. The f i n a l step i n a r r i v i n g at estimates of new non-residential construction f o r 1926-1941 consisted of deducting estimated r e p a i r construction from the t o t a l n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l construction estimates. Non-residential r e p a i r construction expenditures were -14-derived by estimating the annual percentage of repair expenditures to t o t a l construction expenditures. These percentages were obtained by extrapolating 12 an estimate for 1945-46 according to annual aggregate percentages of repairs and maintenance to t o t a l value of a l l r e s i d e n t i a l construction c a r r i e d out as calculated from R e s i d e n t i a l Real Estate i n Canada, Table 76. (B) Machinery and Equipment: Estimates of gross f i x e d c a p i t a l formation i n machinery and equipment i n a g r i c u l t u r e f or 1926 to date are taken from the following sources: 1926-1945: Private and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada, 1926- 1951, Table 10, page 154; the general procedures followed to obtain these estimates are described i n the same p u b l i c a t i o n on pages 219-220; 1946-1957: Pr i v a t e and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada 1946-1957, Table 3, page 13; i n t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n combined estimates are presented f o r a g r i c u l t u r e and f i s h i n g ; the disaggregated ser i e s were obtained from h i s t o r i c a l records underlying the published tables; 1958 to date: annual editions of P r i v a t e and P u b l i c Invest- ment i n Canada-Outlook, and revised estimates (based on the 1966 Census of Agriculture) prepared i n the C a p i t a l Expenditures D i v i s i o n , O f f i c e of Economics, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The machinery and equipment gross f i x e d c a p i t a l formation estimates are sub-divided i n t o three main components: ( i ) farm machinery and equipment ( i i ) commercial v e h i c l e s and ( i i i ) passenger v e h i c l e s used f o r farm business 13 purposes. The component estimates are prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce i n the process of compiling the aggregate estimates published i n the sources described above. (2) P r i c e Indexes: (A) Construction: The d e f l a t o r f o r the construction component i s derived from indexes of farm wage rates and b u i l d i n g materials used by farmers. Since -15-the d e f l a t o r i s derived only from cost indexes of labour and materials inputs, i t can serve only as a proxy f o r the more desirable output p r i c e index. However, the d e f i c i e n c i e s of the input-type d e f l a t o r probably are less serious i n the a g r i c u l t u r e industry than i n most other i n d u s t r i e s , since, due to the type of construction and the construction methods generally employed, the costs of labour and ma t e r i a l inputs more c l o s e l y r e f l e c t the value of the output. The materials p r i c e index used i n the construction component d e f l a t o r from 1913 to 1968 i s the SC Pr i c e s D i v i s i o n index of b u i l d i n g materials used by f a r m e r s . 1 4 (1935-39=100) The labour cost index used i n the construction d e f l a t o r , for the period 1914-1968, i s the SC farm wage rate index (1935-39=100). 1 5 The materials and labour indexes were weighted together i n a 65-35 weighting pattern to derive the construction d e f l a t o r . The s e l e c t i o n of t h i s weighting pattern was quite a r b i t r a r y , since very l i t t l e evidence could be found to ind i c a t e what the weights should be, e i t h e r at a s i n g l e point i n time or over the e n t i r e period f o r which the d e f l a t o r was required, A 75-25 weighting pattern was used i n the estimation of c a p i t a l formation i n R.I.C.F. and P.P.I.  1926-56, but i t was f e l t that t h i s r a t i o was weighted too heavily i n favour of the materials component, since no allowance was made f o r such labour-intensive a c t i v i t i e s as farm improvement work on land c l e a r i n g and drainage systems. Suggested r a t i o s from other sources ranged as high as 60-40, but no supporting data was a v a i l a b l e . Lacking further evidence a 65-35 r a t i o was selected and was used throughout the period. -16-(B) Machinery and Equipment: (a') Farm machinery and equipment, excluding v e h i c l e s : From 1913 to date, the d e f l a t o r i s based on data from the SC Prices D i v i s i o n s e r i e s as described i n "Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers", catalogue number 62-004. The "farm machinery" seri e s (1935-39=100) i s taken as reported f o r the years 1913 to 1938. In 1939, and subsequent years trucks were included i n the published index, and since trucks are not included i n the "farm machinery and equipment" c a p i t a l formation s e r i e s , an adjusted index, exclusive of trucks, was obtained from the Prices D i v i s i o n . A new weighting pattern was adopted i n 1961, and the 1961-base index was l i n k e d to the o l d ser i e s i n that year. The question of whether the domestically-produced and imported portions of c a p i t a l formation should be deflated separately was given c a r e f u l consideration, and i t was concluded that such a procedure would be u n l i k e l y to produce a more accurate constant d o l l a r s e r i e s . This decision was based on the f a c t that the P r i c e s D i v i s i o n s e r i e s , contains p r i c e quotations f o r imported implements and machinery, and because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s of producting an accurate domestic-import s p l i t and a r e l i a b l e d e f l a t o r f o r the import component. (Bi) Passenger vehicles used f o r farm business purposes: For the period 1926 to date, the d e f l a t o r used i s the p r i c e index for "new passenger cars" included i n the Consumer P r i c e Index, catalogue number 62-518. No automobile production was recorded from 1943 to 1945, and for these years the index was derived by s t r a i g h t l i n e i n t e r p o l a t i o n between the 1942 and 1946 estimates. (C) Commercial Vehicles: From 1939 to date, the index used i s the "Farm Truck" index (1935-39=100) prepared by the SC P r i c e D i v i s i o n i n connection -17-with the farm machinery and equipment s e r i e s published i n "Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers". This index was converted to 1949=100 and c a r r i e d back to 1926 using the Consumer P r i c e Index f o r automobiles. (3) Economic L i f e Assumptions: Data on which to base estimates of the average economic l i v e s of the various types of c a p i t a l assets used i n a g r i c u l t u r e are extremely scarce. Very l i t t l e d i r e c t evidence i s a v a i l a b l e , and the sources of information which do e x i s t are e i t h e r out-of-date or too s p e c i f i c to be applied to the broad c a p i t a l asset groupings f o r which data i s published. As a r e s u l t , the estimates which have been adopted must be regarded as tentative and subject to considerable error. In addition, due to the lack of adequate data to support b e t t e r assumptions, i t was necessary to adopt estimates which were held constant over the en t i r e period, a procedure which undoubtedly i s at variance with actual experience. S t i l l further weakness i n the economic l i f e assumption estimates r e s u l t s from the use of a s i n g l e f i x e d retirement age fo r each c a p i t a l s e r i e s , whereas i n f a c t retirements w i l l be d i s t r i b u t e d over a considerable range around the average retirement age. The average economic l i f e estimates adopted for t h i s study are as follows: Construction - 40 years Farm machinery and equipment excluding vehicles - 15 years Automobile used f o r farm business purposes - 6 years Commercial vehicles (trucks) - 10 years The information and assumptions on which these estimates are based i s outlined below. -18-(A) C o n s t r u c t i o n : B u l l e t i n "F", the U.S. Treasury Department Report p r e s e n t i n g estimates of u s e f u l l i v e s of d e p r e c i a b l e p r o p e r t y , provides an estimate of "approximately" 50 years f o r B u i l d i n g s used as "prime producers i n a g r i c u l t u r e " . The Farm Management Manual, pu b l i s h e d by the Nova S c o t i a Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , contains i n f o r m a t i o n suggesting an average l i f e of 30 years f o r farm b u i l d i n g s , and an unpublished c o n t i n u i n g study by the Economics D i v i s i o n of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e of the Government of Saskatchewan e n t i t l e d Change i n Farm Or g a n i z a t i o n i n Saskatchewan contains d e p r e c i a t i o n r a t e s of v a r i o u s types of farm b u i l d i n g s i n d i c a t i n g an average l i f e of 30 to 40 years. Based on t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , and the b e l i e f that the B u l l e t i n "F" estimate i s too h i g h , " ^ an average l i f e of 40 years was s e l e c t e d f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n component. This estimate c o i n c i d e s w i t h the one used i n Output, Labour and C a p i t a l i n the Canadian Economy by Hood and S c o t t , who based t h e i r estimates l a r g e l y on B u l l e t i n "F" and Canadian income tax d e p r e c i a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . (B) Farm Machinery and Equipment (excluding v e h i c l e s ) : The average economic l i f e of 15 years was s e l e c t e d a f t e r examination of the f o l l o w i n g sources: (1) B u l l e t i n "F", which suggests an average of 15 years; 18 (2) Goldsmith, A P e r p e t u a l Inventory of N a t i o n a l Wealth, which provides estimates f o r various types of farm machinery ranging from 5 to 15 years; 19 (3) "Study of D e p r e c i a t i o n of Machinery and Equipment", which l i s t s seven-teen categories of farm machinery and equipment (excluding v e h i c l e s ) , and shows "estimated r e a l average l i f e expectancy" and 1947 domestic disappearance f o r each category; a weighted average of these estimates y i e l d s an average l i f e of 14 years; -19-(4) Service l i f e estimates used by the O f f i c e of Business Economics of the U.S. Department of Commerce i n i t s 1967 c a p i t a l stock tabulations. These estimates are based on U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e a c t u a r i a l studies of stocks of assets held as compared with estimates of o r i g i n a l purchases; the 20 service l i n e s used by the O.B.E i n i t s i n d i v i d u a l equipment s e r i e s averaged approximately 17 year for "farm equipment" and 13 years f o r " t r a c t o r s " . Based on the above sources, an average s e r v i c e l i f e of 15 years was 21 chosen f o r the "farm machinery and equipment (excluding v e h i c l e s ) " s e r i e s . (C) Commercial Vehicles and Automobiles used for Farm Business Purposes; The average economic l i v e s of 10 years f o r commercial vehicles (trucks) and 6 years f o r passenger ve h i c l e s used f o r farm business purposes were chosen a f t e r an examination of e s s e n t i a l l y the same sources used f o r the farm machinery and equipment. B u l l e t i n "F" suggests an average of 5 years f o r passenger vehicles and 4-8 years f o r trucks, while Goldsmith suggests 6 and 10 years, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The "Study of Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment" indicates a range of 5 - 10 years, and a median of 9 years, f or trucks and automobiles used on farms. The 1967 O.B.E. tabulations used estimates ranging from approximately 9-13 years for automobiles, and 10-14 years f o r trucks. 2.2.2 A g r i c u l t u r a l Land: Estimates of f i x e d c a p i t a l i n the form of a g r i c u l t u r a l land acreages are based on census benchmark observations with i n t e r p o l a t i o n being performed to obtain average trends over each i n t e r - c e n s a l period. Censal observations of the various types of improved and unimproved a g r i c u l t u r a l land f o r the period 1921-1951 have been obtained from Table 10 of 21-503; f o r 1966 from the S t a t i s t i c s Canada B u l l e t i n 96-623; and f o r 1971 from pu b l i c a t i o n s 96-729, 96-730, 96-731, 96-732 of the 1971 Census. -20-The estimates of t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land can be broken up into improved and unimproved land. The various forms of improved land include the t o t a l area of a g r i c u l t u r a l land under crops, the area of improved pasture and the area of summerfallow. A g r i c u l t u r a l land under crops include the t o t a l areas of f i e l d crops, f r u i t s , vegetables, nursery and greenhouse products. Improved pasture include a l l land which was used f o r pasture and grazing and which had some improvements made to i t i n recent years. These improvements could include c l e a r i n g of the land, f e r t i l i z i n g and seeding the land, or e s t a b l i s h i n g an i r r i g a t i o n or drainage system on the land. Summerfallow includes land from which no crop was harvested during the census year but which had been c u l t i v a t e d during the year f o r weed con t r o l or f o r moisture conservation or f o r green manure. Unimproved land includes estimates of the area of a g r i c u l t u r a l land devoted to woodland and to "other" unimproved land. Woodland includes estimates of the area of trees planted f o r windbreaks, f o r woodcutting and of trees that have or w i l l have value as timber, firewood or as Christmas trees. "Other" unimproved lands include areas of natural pasture or hay land that had not been c u l t i v a t e d , brush pasture, grazing or wasteland, sloughs, marshy and rocky lands plus any other types of land which had not been previously c l a s s i f i e d . A s e r i e s of average values per acre of a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n Canada has been constructed from a published s e r i e s of the average t o t a l value per acre of farm land plus s t r u c t u r e s . This s e r i e s has been obtained from various issues of 21-003 f o r the period 1926-1955 and from s t a t i s t i c s furnished by S t a t i s t i c s Canada f o r the period 1956-1970. -21-The published estimates of the average values per acre of a g r i c u l t u r a l land represent average market values of occupied farm land, in c l u d i n g farm b u i l d i n g s . These estimates are obtained by mail-questionnaire surveys within each province. The p r o v i n c i a l averages are subject to considerable v a r i a t i o n from values of land within p a r t i c u l a r p r o v i n c i a l l o c a l i t i e s and a l s o , because both improved and unimproved lands are considered the calculated averages tend to be much below values of c u l t i v a t e d lands. In order to determine the average value per acre of farm land separately from that of farm structures use was made of separate estimates of the t o t a l values of farm land and farm buildings i n Canadian a g r i c u l t u r e . These s e r i e s were provided by J.W. Ross of the Farm Income and Prices Sector, A g r i c u l t u r e Sector, S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Observations from the Census years 1921, 1931, 1941 and 1971 and from the 1958 Income and Expenditure Survey were provided. In determining the value per acre, le s s s t r u c t u r e , the proportion of the t o t a l value of farm land to the t o t a l value of farm land plus buildings was calculated. This proportion was inte r p o l a t e d between benchmark observations and used to defl a t e the average values per acre of farm land and bu i l d i n g s . 2.2.3 Inventories; The f i n a l forms of c a p i t a l to be considered are those of l i v e s t o c k , poultry and grain inventories on the farm. Livestock and poultry inventories include i n v e n i - t r i e s include inventories of c a t t l e , hogs, horses, hens and chickens plus other poultry such as turkeys, ducks, and geese and also other revenue-producing animals such as sheep, goats and fur-bearing animals. Grain inventories include estimates of the p r i n c i p l e grains held on farms f o r seed purposes. The discussion of each of these various forms of grain and l i v e -stock inventories i s deferred u n t i l the discussion of the appropriate commodity types. -22-2.2.4 Farm Mortgage Rates Two series were used i n constructing the s e r i e s of farm mortgage rates presented i n Table 2.2.6 of Appendix I I I . The f i r s t s e r i e s , a p r i c e index with base 1935-1939=100 i s of p r e v a i l i n g l e v e l s of mortgage rates i n farm communities f o r the period 1926-1947. Estimates for the period p r i o r to 1944 are obtained from the S t a t i s t i c s Canada p u b l i c a t i o n 62-503A and f o r the 1945-1947 period from catalogue 62-004. The second seri e s used i s of average i n t e r e s t rates charged on f i r s t and second mortgages issued through the Farm Credit Corporation (FCC). Estimates f o r t h i s second seri e s have been obtained from the annual p u b l i c a t i o n , Canadian Farm Loan Board Reports, f o r the period 1937-1960, and from Dr. M.E. Andel, Economic Advisor to the Farm Credit Corporation, f o r the period 1961-1970. The continuous seri e s of farm mortgage rates f or the period 1926-1970 was constructed by l i n k i n g the s e r i e s of FGG mortgage rates to the S t a t i s t i c s Canada p r i c e index s e r i e s i n the year 1945. The constructed series i s representative of the average i n t e r e s t cost to the farmer of most Government mortgage funds. Most Government mortgages are disbursed e i t h e r under the Farm Improvements Loans Act (FILA), the Veterans Land Act, or the P r a i r i e Grains Advance Payments Act. The p r i n c i p l e source of long term (greater than 5 years) loans to farmers has been the Farm Credit Corporation (the Farm Loan Board p r i o r to 1959). Interest rates charged by the FCC are set by the FILA. The p r i n c i p l e source of medium term (greater than 18 months but le s s than 5 years) and of short term (less than 18 months)Iloans have been Canadian Banks and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These loans are made eith e r d i r e c t l y through the FILA or through d i r e c t l y competing pr i v a t e plans. -23-Since the i n t e r e s t charges to farmers are a l l closedly r e l a t e d to the FILA i n t e r e s t charges, which are i d e n t i c a l to those charged by the FCC, the constructed s e r i e s i s f e l t to v a l i d l y represent the r e a l cost of borrowing to Canadian farmers. 2.3 Intermediate Inputs: The intermediate inputs considered i n t h i s study include commercial purchases of feed, seed, f e r t i l i z e r and energy i n the form of e l e c t r i c i t y and petroleum. Also considered are expenditures f o r hardware commodities, b a l i n g and binder twine plus imputed expenditures on grain held back i n the farm f o r seed purposes. In d e r i v i n g these estimates care has been taken to net out i n t r a - s e c t o r a l transfers of commodities and se r v i c e s . Many expenditures have not been considered due to the lack of e i t h e r the p r i c e or the quantity s e r i e s . These seri e s include estimated expenditures on insurance, p e s t i c i d e s , feeder c a t t l e , nursery stock, veteranary, breed a s s o c i a t i o n , l i c e n s e fees and a r t i f i c i a l insemination f o r l i v e s t o c k . However the s e r i e s we have included, based on proportions published i n 62-534, accounts f o r almost 92% of t o t a l intermediate input expense. Estimates of expense f o r each of the above intermediate inputs have been obtained from the Census data banks, s p e c i f i c a l l y matrix 216. Estimates can also be obtained from the S t a t i s t i c s Canada publications 21-511 and 21-003 although i n the l a t t e r source at a somewhat more aggregated l e v e l . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the methodology, concepts and d e f i n i t i o n s employed to a r r i v e at these estimates i s provided i n p u b l i c a t i o n 21-511. P r i c e indexes have been obtained for farm impliments, building^materials, petroleum products, feed, seed, f e r t i l i z e r , twine and hardware. The f i r s t two of these represent p r i c e s f o r c a p i t a l expenditure. For example, the c a l c u l a t i o n -24-of the farm impliment p r i c e index i s derived from estimates of p r i c e s f o r newly purchased farm t r a c t o r s , t i l l i n g and p l a n t i n g equipments, binders, mowers and wagons, a l l of which represent c a p i t a l expenditure. S i m i l a r l y , the b u i l d i n g materials p r i c e index i s based on p r i c e s f o r roofing materials and roofing paper, both of which would be considered be part of depreciation charges to structures. Using the remaining p r i c e indexes, and corresponding expenditure s e r i e s , we are able to c a l c u l a t e corresponding quantity s e r i e s . In a d d i t i o n we present p r i c e and quantity indexes f o r grain held back on the farm f o r seed purposes and f o r e l e c t r i c a l energy u t i l i z e d f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. The discussion of how each seri e s was constructed follows. 2.3.1 Grain: Sold Commercially for Feed and Seed and Held Back on the Farm  fo r Seed Purposes: The expense a t t r i b u t e d to commercial feed and seed purchases as published by S t a t i s t i c s Canada, i s a calculated estimate only of the proportion of the two commodities purchased through commercial channels. Direct inter-farm t r a n s f e r s of grain are thus excluded. Included, however, are purchases of grains which have been shipped from West to East i n Canada, or which have been s o l d to p r a i r i e elevators and l a t e r repurchased by Western farmers. P r i o r to 1941 the annual purchases of commercial grains by farmers were calculated from a supply-disposition balance sheet. Since 1941 these estimates have been based on f r e i g h t assistance shipments of whole grain from West to East, adjusted f o r quantities of these grains used by the feed industry and f o r l o c a l sales out of Western grain elevators. The published estimates of commercial sales of grain f o r feed and seed purposes should not be confused with the estimate of grain held back on the 25-farm f o r seed purposes. In the former case p r i c e indexes have been calculated from p r i c e s observed i n the -market-place. P r i o r to 1942, the p r i c e index f o r commercially sold seed grains i s based on wholesale prices of grains s u i t a b l e f o r seed. A f t e r 1942 the index i s based on r e t a i l p r i c e s , compiled from information contained i n the various advertisements and publications of commercial seed firms. The p r i c e index f o r feed grains i s s i m i l i a r l y based on wholesale p r i c e s f o r the period p r i o r to 1942 and on l o c a l r e t a i l records from that year to the present. Unlike other intermediate inputs, grain held on the farm f o r feed or seed purposes must be treated as inventories. As such, the i m p l i c i t cost to the farmer of using the grain himself f o r feed of seed purposes i s calculated from the farm value of the inventory. The problem i s complicated by the i n t e r -temporal aspect of inventories held on the farm. Depending upon the perspective adopted, inventories can by treated as e i t h e r an input or as an output i n the production process. That i s , inventories measured at the beginning of the period and valued at current period stock'prices form an input into the production process, while sales during the period and end-of-period inventories (which are bought by the farmer for input into the next production period) form the outputs. We do not attempt of c a l c u l a t e the i m p l i c i t cost to the farmer of holding grain inventories but leave t h i s chore to future researchers. However we do present current farm values f o r the grains held back on the farm as inventories. P r i c e and quantity estimates f o r commercial purchases and f o r inventories held f o r seed or feed are presented i n table 2.4.2. 2.3.2 Twine: The commodity "twine" represents expense f o r baler and binder twine. For the period 1926-1955, estimates of farm expense a r i s i n g from -26-purchases of binder twine were calculated by p r o j e c t i n g estimates made during each Census of A g r i c u l t u r e according to changes i n binder twine p r i c e s and to changes i n the area harvested by binder. Information on the consumption of twine per harvested acre were obtained from the Departments of A g r i c u l t u r e i n Canada and i n the United States. Since 1956, these estimates have been based on the amount of binder twine a v a i l a b l e annually f o r domestic use. Estimates of the consumption of baler twine are supplied by commercial dealers and by the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . Estimates of p r i c e s and quantities of twine used i n a g r i c u l t u r a l production are presented i n table 2.4.2. 2.3.3 Hardware: The p r i c e index f o r hardware i s constructed from estimated prices f o r hand impliments, barn supplies, fencing, harness equipment and other miscellaneous impliments. In creating the index, the weight assigned to each of the above impliments i s based on i t s probable l i f e , the numbers of the impliment required by the average farmer, and the r e l a t i v e numbers of farmers using the item. Hardware expenses are measured as the t o t a l of fencing and other hardward expense. In addition to the commodities c i t e d above sundry expenses, such as f o r rope and s a l t , are included. However, these expenses only form a small part of t o t a l hardware expense with the r e s u l t that the derived quantity s e r i e s f o r hardware inputs are not s e r i o u s l y biased. 2.3.4 F e r t i l i z e r : A p r i c e index, a quantity s e r i e s , and an expense seri e s are a l l a v a i l a b l e f o r f e r t i l i z e r . The p r i c e index f o r f e r t i l i z e r i s published i n the S t a t i s t i c s Canada p u b l i c a t i o n 62T004. Estimates of the quantities of f e r t i l i z e r and lime produced i n Canada f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes can be obtained from table 16 of various issues of 46-207. F i n a l l y , estimates of f e r t i l i z e r and lime expense can be obtained from 21-511 and from the Farm Finance section of various issues of 21-062. -27-The constructed p r i c e index and actual prices used i n computing f e r t i l i z e r and lime expense are both based on wholesale f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e s obtained from various f e r t i l i z e r companies. Estimated purchases of f e r t i l i z e r and lime are based on o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s of s a l e of f e r t i l i z e r f o r other than manufacturing purposes. The existence of the above three separate series suggest that there are two possible ways by which a p r i c e and a quantity s e r i e s f o r f e r t i l i z e r could be developed. We could divide the quantities of f e r t i l i z e r and lime into the t o t a l expense and i n d i r e c t l y derive a p r i c e s e r i e s , or we could i n d i r e c t l y derive the quantity ser i e s by d i v i d i n g the p r i c e index into estimated t o t a l expense. The former method i m p l i c i t l y assumes that the p r i c e of lime i s the same as that of f e r t i l i z e r . This would not be true i n general, and since the p r i c e index f o r f e r t i l i z e r and lime was constructed with t h i s e x p l i c i t l y taken into account, the l a t t e r method was used to i n d i r e c t l y estimate a quantity ser i e s of f e r t i l i z e r use i n a g r i c u l t u r e . The f i n a l s e r i e s are presented i n table 2.4.2. 2.3.5 E l e c t r i c a l energy: Estimates of farm expense and consumption of e l e c t r i c i t y has been compiled by S t a t i s t i c s Canada only f o r the period follow-ing the year 1941. S t a t i s t i c s of e l e c t r i c a l service and of expense for the period 1941-1950 are published i n various issues of the Canada Yearbook, 11-202. For the years 1951-1952 estimates have been obtained from the 1953 and 1954 issues of 57-202; f o r the years 1953 to 1957 they have been obtained from the 1960 supplement to 21-503. For the years 1958 to 1964 estimates have been obtained from the 1964 supplement to 57-202 while f o r the years 1965 to 1970 they are obtained from various issues of 57-202. -28-Th e t o t a l expenditure by farm users f o r e l e c t r i c a l energy i s derived from each Census of A g r i c u l t u r e and from o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s regarding the value of c e n t r a l e l e c t r i c power supplied by farm users. Quantities of kilowatt hours provided f o r r u r a l areas are estimated by ce n t r a l e l e c t r i c s t a t i o n s . These estimates areviquite rough due to the f a c t that they are made at the power s t a t i o n and not at the farm. Thus e l e c t r i c a l power l o s t i n t r a n s i t i o n from the power s t a t i o n to the farm would wrongly be included with that estimated to have been consumed on the farm. This would tend to r e s u l t i n an upward bias during the early postwar years of the estimates of e l e c t r i c i t y consumed on the farm. At the same time, due to decreased t r a n s i t i o n losses over time as the e f f i c i e n c y of transporting e l e c t r i c a l energy has been improved, the rate of increase of e l e c t r i c a l energy at the farm would tend to be biased downwards. These biases working together, would r e s u l t i n estimates of e l e c t r i c a l consumption which could d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from actual rates, and since the p r i c e s e r i e s f o r e l e c t r i c i t y i s i n d i r e c t l y derived by d i v i d i n g the quantity ser i e s i n t o the expense s e r i e s , i t also would be severely biased. Thus l i t t l e confidence can be placed i n the seri e s we have constructed and which we are presenting i n table 2.4.1. 2.3.6 Petroleum Energy: O f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s of petroleum expense, a v a i l a b l e for the period 1951-1970, have been obtained from the CANSIM data banks, matrix 216. A p r i c e index f o r petroleum products f o r the period 1926-1970 has been obtained from p u b l i c a t i o n 62-004. This p r i c e index i s derived as the weighted average of p r i c e s f o r gasoline, motor c i l , kerosene, and grease. P r i c e s f o r the f i r s t three items were derived from r e t a i l o u t l e t s i n the major Canadian c i t i e s . U n t i l 1942, prices f o r grease had been c o l l e c t e d from mail order catalogues. Following 1942 they have been c o l l e c t e d from r e t a i l e r s i n farm d i s t r i b u t i n g centers. -29-The published ser i e s of petroleum expenses have been extended back to 1946, allowing f o r econometric and other analyses of production f o r the e n t i r e post-war period. In order to extend the s e r i e s , an estimate of r e s i d u a l expenses a f t e r machinery r e p a i r expenses had been subtracted from t o t a l machinery expense was calculated. The r e s i d u a l , which i s complete f o r the period 1926-1970, consists of petroleum expenses plus other miscellaneous expenses such as those f o r l i c e n s e and insurance. The proportion of petroleum expenses to t h i s r e s i d u a l was then c a l c u l a t e d f or the years 1951-1970. The l o n g - l i n e trend f o r t h i s proportion was then c a l c u l a t e d by ordinary least-squares regression and used to d e f l a t e the r e s i d u a l s e r i e s f o r the period 1946-1950. 2.4 vvWeather Influence: Climate plays a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n determining the i n t e n s i t y and pattern of a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y . However the e f f e c t of c l i m a t i c f a c t o r s , such as r a i n f a l l and p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s not independent of other f a c t o r s , such as s o i l consistency, plant cover, and land management. In order to c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f y and measure t h i s i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p i t i s important that one develops a t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound and s t a t i s t i c a l l y unbiased index of the influence of weather. The data provided i n table 2.5 represents aggregate temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n observations f o r Canada. These observations, which are presented for the s i x months, May through October and f o r the thirty-one year period 1940-1970, form the input basic to the construction of any index of weather. In ad d i t i o n to these aggregate measures, appendix vvTII.'contains tabled disaggregate temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n data f o r each of twenty-five experimental stations spanning the major crop growing areas of Canada. -30-Observations of temperatures and p r e c i p i t a t i o n are provided only f o r a s i x month period due f i r s t to the necessity of reducing the volume of data involved and second to the r e l a t i v e unimportance of climate during the winter months. The months f o r which data have been c o l l e c t e d comprise the p r i n c i p a l p l a n t i n g , growing and harvesting period f o r the major f r u i t s , vegetables and grain crops i n Canada. Although we are ignoring the ef f e c t s of weather on a g r i c u l t u r e during a major part of the year, a f t e r consultation with members of the Ag r i c u l t u r e D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada i t was decided that the e f f e c t s of climate on winter and ea r l y spring crops was not s i g n i f i c a n t enough to warrant c o l l e c t i o n of weather observations f o r the winter months. Observations of data have not been provided f o r the period p r i o r to 1940 due to changes which have occurred and which have made observations made i n the p r i o r period somewhat uncomparable with those made i n the post-1940 period. For the post-1940 period, observations of p r e c i p i t a t i o n and temperature have been made by.twenty-five government experimental farms, spanning the major a g r i c u l t u r a l areas of Canada except f o r the province of Newfoundland. The dispersion of experimental farms within the remaining provinces i s as follows: 1 s t a t i o n i n P.E.I., 1 i n N.B., 4 i n Quebec, 4 i n Ontario, 2 i n Manitoba 3 i n Sask., 5 i n Alb e r t a , and 3 i n B.C. In the period p r i o r to 1940 both the absolute number of experimental farms within each province and the l o c a l i t i e s of these experimental farms were al t e r e d almost from year to year. For example, i n the period 1940 to 1943, three stations were i n existence which did not e x i s t a f t e r 1944. In the post-war period, one experimental farm, at Fort V e r m i l l i o n i n Alberta, did not e x i s t p r i o r to 1944. In t h i s case, the temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n -31-observations f o r the year 1944 were assumed to hold constant over the period 1940-1944. In a l l cases, when observations for any one year were found to be missing, observations of temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n f or the preceeding year were assumed to hold constant over both years. Aggregation of the c o l l e c t e d observations of weather has been done i n two stages. Aggregation was f i r s t performed within each province and then across provinces. A t h i r d stage would be to aggregate across months but due to the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of t h i s t h i r d aggregation i t was l e f t undone and up to the d i s c r e t i o n of future researchers. The theory of aggregation i n production would suggest that the weight assigned to each weather s t a t i o n and to each province during aggregation Be i n some way r e l a t e d to i t s proportion i n the t o t a l value of a g r i c u l t u r a l production. However the c a l c u l a t i o n of such weights would only be possible at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . Instead i t was decided that the weights to be used would be of the proportions to t o t a l acreages of c u l t i v a t e d a g r i c u l t u r a l land contributed by each area. This would be a p l a u s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to the former weighting method i n that one would expect the impact of weather to be greatest on those areas having the greatest amount of c u l t i v a b l e a g r i c u l t u r e land. The process by which weights were constructed within each province i s as follows. F i r s t the weather stations i n each province were located on maps. These weather stations were then located w i t h i n t h e i r respective census t r a c t s . I t was assumed that the weather measured by each weather s t a t i o n was uniform throughout t h i s census t r a c t and i n the immediately surrounding and adjacent census t r a c t s . The t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land areas enclosed by these census tr a c t s were then used to create the weights used i n aggregating weather and p r e c i p i t a t i o n data within each province. -32-Although by t h i s method only a f r a c t i o n of t o t a l land area within each province i s a c t u a l l y considered i n constructing these weights, most of the major a g r i c u l t u r a l areas are considered. Areas of a g r i c u l t u r a l land within each census t r a c t were only calculated f o r the years 1961-1971. Proportions for the period p r i o r to 1961 are the same as those computed from the 1961 Census. Only these two censuses are used because for p r i o r censuses the delin e a t i o n of census t r a c t s i s such that r e l a t i v e sizes and geographical areas are no longer consistent with those of the l a t t e r two censuses with the r e s u l t that a ser i e s of proportions calculated from data provided by e a r l i e r censuses would be inconsistent with proportions calculated from the l a t t e r . Aggregation across provinces has been done using the proportion contained within each province, of the t o t a l area of census farms under crops. This area includes estimates of a g r i c u l t u r a l land used i n the c u l t i v a t i o n of f i e l d crops, f r u i t s , vegetables and nursery crops. Estimated areas f o r the 1941 through to the 1961 census have been obtained from table II of the H i s t o r i c a l Section of the 1961 census. Estimated areas for 1971 have been obtained from the 1971 census. The f i n a l r e s u l t of t h i s aggregation i s presented table 2.5 as weighted average temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n observations for Canada. Estimates of p r e c i p i t a t i o n are presented i n terms of inches. In order to convert to the metric system one need only note that 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters. S i m i l a r l y temperatures are expressed i n degrees Fahrenheit. In order to convert to the Centegrade s c a l e , one should note that Centigrade = (Fahrenheit-32) / 1.8. -33-PART I I I OUTPUT COMMODITIES: 3.1 Crop Products Crop production c o n t r i b u t e s to about one h a l f of the t o t a l value of a g r i c u l t u r a l production i n Canada. The types of commodities produced i n c l u d e those of f i e l d crops, f r u i t s and vegetables, maple products, f i b e r f l a x and c l o v e r and grass seed. In t h i s s e c t i o n we examine the methods employed to c o l l e c t data f o r each of these commodities. 3.1.1 F i e l d Crops: S t a t i s t i c s of f i e l d crop production and values have been obtained from 21-507, f o r the p e r i o d 1926-1962, and from the F i e l d Crop s e c t i o n of va r i o u s i s s u e s of 21-003 f o r the p e r i o d 1963-1970. During the i n t e r c e n s a l p e r i o d , annual estimates of f i e l d crop production are obtained by means of mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e sample surveys. A f i r s t set of questionnaires i s sent out to every l i s t e d farm on the addressograph frame made up from the previous Census. The response r a t e to t h i s survey, conducted on June 1st of each year, i s about 20 percent. The method used i n t h i s survey to p r o j e c t production changes forward from the previous census benchmark observation i s that of using p a i r e d samples to estimate the p a i r e d change r a t i o of production. By t h i s method returned questionnaires are s t r a t i f i e d on a crop d i s t r i c t or county b a s i s . The p a i r e d returns f o r farms w i t h i n each area are compared w i t h estimates of acreages p l a n t e d to each crop which are based on the estimated percentage change i n p l a n t e d acres from the previous year. I f the estimate d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the r e s u l t of the p a i r e d sample, the estimated percentage change i n p l a n t i n g i s r e v i s e d . -34-A second set of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , sent out l a t e r i n the season, around August o r September, a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g has been completed, requests i n f o r m a t i o n on the y i e l d s obtained per acre of the d i f f e r e n t f i e l d crops. This second batch of questionnaires i s sent out to a sm a l l e r sample of f i e l d crop producers. The acreage y i e l d f i g u r e s obtained from t h i s second survey are then a p p l i e d to the p r e v i o u s l y derived acreages p l a n t e d to each type of f i e l d crop to o b t a i n estimates of crop production. In a d d i t i o n to these two surveys, three a d d i t i o n a l i n q u i r i e s are made each year to secure i n f o r m a t i o n on stocks of the major grains being h e l d a t the farm l e v e l as i n v e n t o r i e s and f o r seed purposes. The estimates provided by the above surveys on crop production and i n v e n t o r i e s are checked by a d d i t i o n a l data on g r a i n movements, obtained y e a r l y from v a r i o u s g r a i n e l e v a t o r s and g r a i n crushers. This data, c o l l e c t e d by the Canadian Grain Commissioners a l s o allows f o r the es t i m a t i o n of the volumes marketed of each of the grains and of the marketing patterns of each. For most crops, p r i c e estimates are obtained from the va r i o u s g r a i n p r o c e s s i n g companies and marketing agencies. These p r i c e s , i n conj u n c t i o n w i t h the estimated production of each crop are then used to determine the value of each crop. However f i n a l estimates of value are made only a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h o f f i c i a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l s t a t i s t i c s i n each province and a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g such f a c t o r s as q u a l i t y and grade. I t should be remembered that the estimates of the value of the various f i e l d crops do not represent cash income r e c e i v e d from s a l e s . I n some cases, such as that of Fodder Corn which i s almost completely consumed on the farm as feed f o r l i v e s t o c k , the value of the f i e l d crop may be considerably greater -35-than the cash income r e c e i v e d from s a l e s . In such cases, the value of the crop i s determined by applying the p r i c e r e c e i v e d per u n i t of the q u a n t i t i e s marketed commercially to the e n t i r e p r oduction of the crop to give i t s estimated value. This may create a b i a s i n the estimated value of the crop i f the imputed value of the crop i s greater than i t a c t u a l l y would be i f the e n t i r e production of the crop were marketed. Thus, the average farm p r i c e r e c e i v e d f o r a crop during any p a r t i c u l a r year may not r e f l e c t e x a c t l y the value of the crop. One may f i n d that f o r a given average p r i c e per u n i t of output, a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of the crop may be h e l d over on the farm. Quantity and p r i c e s e r i e s f o r each f i e l d crop output are found i n Table 1.1.3. P r i c e and Quantity s e r i e s f o r grains h e l d back as inventory and f o r feed and seed purposes are presented i n Table 2.1.1. and Table 2.4.2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . 3.1.2 F r u i t and Vegetables: P u b l i s h e d estimates of the production and value of f r u i t s and vegetables grown f o r commercial f r e s h s a l e and f o r p r o c e s s i n g have been obtained f o r the p e r i o d 1926-1966 from p u b l i c a t i o n 21-502 and f o r the p e r i o d 1967-1970 from the " F r u i t and Vegetable P r o d u c t i o n " s e c t i o n of v a r i o u s issues of 21-003. With the exception of B r i t i s h Columbia and O n t a r i o , estimates of f r u i t s and vegetables produced f o r f r e s h s a l e are obtained from two q u e s t i o n n a i r e surveys conducted y e a r l y during each i n t e r c e n s a l p e r i o d . These questionnaires are sent out to every farm which reported growing f r u i t and vegetable crops during the immediately preceeding Census. The f i r s t batch of questionnaires mailed out i n J u l y i s designed to provide i n f o r m a t i o n of acreages p l a n t e d to each of the various crops. The second, mailed towards the end of the year, provides i n f o r m a t i o n of y i e l d s and p r i c e s . -36-Generally i t i s necessary to make some adjustments to the sample estimates on the advice of p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s due to s t a t i s t i c a l problems created by the small number of returns as f a r any one crop i s concerned. In Ontario and B r i t i s h Columbia for f r u i t and vegetable s t a t i s t i c s , and i n the Maritimes f o r f r u i t s t a t i s t i c s , estimates of production and value of the di f f e r e n t crops are based on recommendations made by s t a t i s t i c s committees composed of P r o v i n c i a l and Federal f r u i t and vegetable inspectors and representatives of the extension s e r v i c e , as w e l l as P r o v i n c i a l and Federal s t a t i s t i c a l o f f i c e r s . Data on the main processing vegetables intended to be contracted, acreages contracted, and acreages planted and harvested under contract as w e l l as the tonnage purchased, are reported by the processing industry, with reports being made of a l l processing p l a n t s . Estimates of the yearly production of processing f r u i t are based on reports of crop conditions as at the middle or l a t e r part of September. Pre-harvest forecasts of production are made from a random sampling of farms, with counts being made of immature f r u i t on trees. In the Maritime Provinces, Quebec, Manitoba and A l b e r t a , the r e s u l t s of these surveys form the basis of estimates of annual f r u i t and vegetable production with the f i n a l figures being prepared i n consultation with representatives of the Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Departments of Ag r i c u l t u r e . The Quebec Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s and the Manitoba Department of Agri c u l t u r e prepare the estimates for those provinces while i n Ontario, estimates for most crops are prepared by the Ontario F r u i t and Vegetable S t a t i s t i c s Committee. In B.C., these estimates are compiled by the p r o v i n c i a l Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . There are two problems which are involved i n estimating the gross annual production of f r u i t s and vegetables presented i n the Tables. The f i r s t problem -37-i s that, while s t a t i s t i c s of f r u i t production have been c o l l e c t e d since 1926, s t a t i s t i c s r e l a t i n g to the production of the various types of vegetable outputs were not formally c o l l e c t e d u n t i l 1940. Estimates of vegetable production f o r the f i f t e e n year period p r i o r to 1940 are based on a l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n of observations of vegetable quantities and values obtained from the 1921 Census and from the 1931 Census. The second problem i n estimating the gross annual production of f r u i t s and vegetables i n Canada i s that the published estimates obtained of vegetable and f r u i t production are only f o r the commercial output of each commodity. A large proportion of the t o t a l crop of each i s consumed on the farm or sold independently by i n d i v i d u a l farmers and i s not e x p l i c i t l y accounted f o r . In addition the vegetables f o r which s t a t i s t i c s are c o l l e c t e d form only a part of the e n t i r e range of vegetables produced by the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l sector i n any one year. In an attempt to solve t h i s second problem, a more reasonable estimate of the production and value of f r u i t and vegetables i s derived by blowing up the estimated commercially grown production figures by the proportion of f r u i t and vegetable cash income plus income i n kind accruing to farms i n r a t i o to the t o t a l value of commercially grown f r u i t s and vegetables. This proportion was calculated and used to "blow up" each o r i g i n a l l y derived quantity ser i e s f o r each of the twenty-seven types of f r u i t and vegetable being considered i n t h i s paper. Estimates of cash income and income i n kind accruing to farmers were obtained from the p u b l i c a t i o n s , SC-21-511 and SC-21-003. The proportion i s generally quite high due to the r e s t r i c t e d range of commercially grown vegetables f o r which estimates of production are made and by the large proportion of the value of f r u i t and vegetable production received -38-as income i n kind by the farmer. The new quantity series.and o r i g i n a l p r i c e s e r i e s are included i n Tables 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. The proportion by which the quantity s e r i e s was i n f l a t e d i s presented i n Table 1.3.1. 3.1.3 Maple Products: Observations of the production and value of maple products have, for the period 1926-1932, been obtained from various issues of 21-003. Observations made during the period 1933-1970 have been taken from 22-204. Intercensal estimates of maple sugar and syrup production are based on mailed questionnaires questionnaires sent out at the end of each season to a l l farmers who reported producing maple products during the most recent Census. Estimates of the change i n production are then based on the period change r a t i o of the numbers of buckets hung from the previous season and on the y i e l d per o bucket. Data from the main processors and purchasers are also obtained to a s s i s t with the assessment of the sample survey method, and also to provide information on the p r i c e s received f o r maple products during each year. 3.1.4 Grass and Seed Products: S t a t i s t i c s of grass and legume seed production and value for the period 1926-1941 have been obtained from the 1941 issue of 21-003. For the period 1942-1970 data has been obtained from various issues of 21-003. Data for grass and seed products are supplied by the Plant Products D i v i s i o n of the Canadian Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . This department compiles data on purchases and inventories of forage seeds from a monthly census survey of some s i x t y major seed processing firms i n Canada. Seed grains for which s t a t i s t i c s are gathered include a l f a l f a , clover, timothy and various types of forage grass. -39-Th e estimates of grass and feed products d i f f e r from the feed and seed s e r i e s developed e a r l i e r and presented i n Table 2.4.2. The e a r l i e r estimates were of unprocessed seed grains which had i n f a c t been adjusted f o r q u a n t i t i e s of seed used by the seed i n d u s t r y . The l a t t e r estimates are of seed grains which have been processed i n the n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r and then r e s o l d to the a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r . 3?1.5 Tobacco Products: S t a t i s t i c s of tobacco production and value have been ob'fainecl from v a r i o u s i s s u e s of 21-003, for. the p e r i o d 1926-1931, and f o r the p e r i o d 1936-1970 from 22-205. In a d d i t i o n to the questionnaires mailed each year to a l l farmers who were l i s t e d as growing tobacco during the previous Census, i n t e r c e n s a l data on tobacco production and value are obtained from the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ' s Experimental Farm S e r v i c e , the p r i n c i p l e tobacco marketing a s s o c i a t i o n s and co-operatives, and from the v a r i o u s companies which pack and manufacture tobacco products. 3.2 Animal Outputs The importance of animal commodities i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l p r oduction process a r i s e not only from t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to gross a g r i c u l t u r a l production as outputs of v a r i o u s types, but a l s o from t h e i r input i n t o the production f u n c t i o n as a c a p i t a l investment i n the form of i n v e n t o r i e s . O f f i c i a l l i v e s t o c k s t a t i s t i c s are gathered from v a r i o u s sources; by each Census of A g r i c u l t u r e , and during each i n t e r c e n s a l p e r i o d by the A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada which conducts a number of m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e sample surveys y e a r l y i n co-operation w i t h the various s t a t i s t i c a l o f f i c e s of the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l Department's of A g r i c u l t u r e . -40-The published s t a t i s t i c s of farm l i v e output of l i v e s t o c k are presented i n the form of supply-disposition sheets. Schematically the breakdown of the published data f o r each type of l i v e s t o c k i s as follows: T o t a l Supply = Total D i s p o s i t i o n Farm Output + Live Imports = Live Exports + Slaughter I \ Inspected + Uninspected I \ Farm Slaughter + Other t X For own use + Sold as meat In addition to these s e r i e s , a d d i t i o n a l s e r i e s are published each year of the t o t a l weight of meat producted from the slaughter of each type of l i v e s t o c k , and of the weighted average p r i c e received by the farmer at p u b l i c stockyards per each one-hundred dressed weight unit of each type of slaughtered l i v e s t o c k . 3.2.1 Farm Live Animal Commodities: Inventories and Production: Estimates of the output, value and farm inventories of each of c a t t l e , calves, milk coes, sheep, lambs, hogs and horses have, for the period 1926-1965, been obtained from 21-508, while for the period 1966-1970 estimates have been obtained from the "Livestock and Dairying" section of various issues of 21-003. Data pe r t a i n i n g to the stocks of l i v e s t o c k on farms as w e l l as of the l i v e sales of each type of l i v e s t o c k , and of sales of animal commodity outputs such as milk and wool are c o l l e c t e d during each i n t e r c e n s a l period by a questionnaire system s i m i l a r to the one employed i n making observations of crop production. During each mailed questionnaire sample survey, questions r e l a t e to l i v e s t o c k on the farm during the previous year. Returns received from these surveys are generally corrected upwards s l i g h t l y to compensate for -41-probable memory bias downward i n the farm estimates. In addition to these immediate corrections, returns c o l l e c t e d during e a r l i e r i n t e r c e n s a l periods are adjusted upwards to account f o r the improved coverage of farm outputs, marketings and of meat processing during each i n t e r c e n s a l period. Three major surveys, i n a d d i t i o n to a number of smaller ones, are conducted yearly i n order to estimate the production and inventories of animals on farms. A semi-annual l i v e s t o c k survey i s conducted on June 1st and December 1st of each year. The object of t h i s survey i s to place a questionnaire i n the hands of every farmer i n Canada, the names and addresses of whom being obtained from the addressograph frame of a l l farms developed during the previous Census. The response the semi-annual l i v e s t o c k survey has three purposes: (a) to a r r i v e at intercensus June 1st and December 1st estimates of l i v e s t o c k inventory numbers, (b) to a r r i v e at estimates of farm output, and (c) to forecast future trends i n production and marketings. The p r i n c i p a l method of estimating f o r l i v e s t o c k inventories and output changes and thus f o r a r r i v i n g at current estimates of each i s the period-change r a t i o method. Reports currently received from each farm are compared with reports previously received from the same farm. The r a t i o of change f o r each l i v e s t o c k type i s estimated, and when imposed on the estimated inventories or outputs of the previous period provide the means by which changes i n aggregate production and i n inventories can be estimated. The use of t h i s method requires o f f i c i a l estimates from which sample estimates of change can be projected. These beginning and ending benchmarks are provided by each Census of A g r i c u l t u r e . When as quite often happens, i n t e r c e n s a l estimates -42-are c a r r i e d forward to the next census year and do not agree w i t h the ending Census benchmark, they are r e v i s e d so t h a t they are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the long-run s e r i e s estimated by each Census. The semi-annual survey provides estimates of farm i n v e n t o r i e s , p r oduction and d i s p o s i t i o n of l i v e s t o c k . These estimates are then used to draw up a s u p p l y - d i s p o s i t i o n balance sheet every s i x months which provides i n f o r m a t i o n on farm i n v e n t o r i e s and output of the v a r i o u s types of l i v e s t o c k . The general method of e s t i m a t i n g the flow of l i v e s t o c k i n v e n t o r i e s on farms i s by the balance-sheet approach. By t h i s method, f o r each c l a s s or type of l i v e s t o c k , beginning i n v e n t o r i e s on farms plus b i r t h s l e s s deaths, minus the i n v e n t o r i e s at the end of the p e r i o d , equals the estimated t o t a l output of l i v e s t o c k during the year. This estimate of t o t a l output i s correc t e d f o r farm k i l l , f o r own use and f o r s a l e , l e a v i n g a t o t a l of o f f - f a r m l i v e s a l e s from which commercial marketings, as estimated by the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , are subtracted. The remainder of l i v e s a l e s c o n s i s t s of uninspected sla u g h t e r and a r e s i d u a l , e s s e n t i a l l y due to accumulated sampling e r r o r s . The q u a r t e r l y hoq survey i s the second major l i v e s t o c k survey conducted by the Canadian Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . This i s a s p e c i a l survey conducted by the Canadian Department of A g r i c u l t u r e w i t h farm schedules being mailed out to about 5 percent of those farmers r e p o r t i n g hogs on t h e i r farms during the previous Census. The response r a t e to the survey i s around 75 percent. Sampling i s done by a systematic random process, thus a l l areas of the country and a l l s i z e s of o peration are represented i n the sample. The frame used i s continuously kept up-to-date w i t h new names being chosen f o r i n c l u s i o n as respondants drop out. Questions i n t h i s survey deal w i t h inventory numbers, -43-farrowings i n the l a s t quarter, and expected farrowings i n the coining quarter. The main sample change i n d i c a t i o n i s again the paired change r a t i o , with the r e s u l t s from the quarterly hog survey being integrated with those of the semi-annual l i v e s t o c k survey. The t h i r d major survey conducted i s the slaughter survey. This survey d i f f e r s from the quarterly hog survey and from the semi-annual l i v e s t o c k survey i n that i t i s not based on a sample, but i s a census type survey. The slaughter survey i s an annual survey of slaughter i n l i v e s t o c k e s t a b l i s h -ments not under fed e r a l inspection, with schedules being mailed to as many of these establishments as are l i s t e d by the Marketing Service of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e and by p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s . This frame may d i f f e r from the actual population of such establishments due to i t s extremely rapid rate of d e t e r i o r a t i o n . Of those l i v e s t o c k slaughter establishments which are l i s t e d , a 100 percent response i s attempted. The r e s u l t s of the slaughter survey are not published, but they have two purposes. They are used i n the estimation of t o t a l l i v e s t o c k uninspected slaughterings, and they become part of the l i v e s t o c k supply and d i s p o s i t i o n balance sheets, providing output data as w e l l as functioning as a check on the inventory estimates of each type of l i v e s t o c k . S t a t i s t i c s of the inspected slaughter of l i v e s t o c k are c o l l e c t e d d a i l y by the Health of Animals D i v i s i o n of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . These estimates are published on a weekly, monthly, and on a cumulative basis f o r each year. Federal inspection i s compulsory f o r a l l meats destined f o r i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l , or i n t e r n a t i o n a l export and import trade. C a t t l e slaughtered f o r meat to be sold within the province i n which i t i s produced may or may not -44-be f e d e r a l l y Inspected, depending on whether or not the s e r v i c e has been requested by the meat p l a n t . For those p l a n t s which are inspected, a l l animals e n t e r i n g the r e g i s t e r e d p l a n t s are inspected before and a f t e r s l a u g h t e r , during storage, and again when the slaughtered carcass leaves the p l a n t . The annual production of l i v e animal outputs can be measured e i t h e r as numbers of head of c a t t l e s o l d l i v e o f f the farm, or by the t o t a l weight of dressed meat produced a n n u a l l y . Of these two measures, the l a t t e r w i l l r e f l e c t changes i n the output of l i v e s t o c k from farms each year more a c c u r a t e l y than a measurement of output by a c t u a l numbers. The weight of l i v e s t o c k w i l l vary each year w i t h changes i n feed c o n d i t i o n s and i n the p r i c e s r e c e i v e d from stockyards f o r saughtered l i v e s t o c k . Output measured by weight r a t h e r than by numbers of head w i l l a l s o r e v e a l long-run trends i n the q u a l i t y of the l i v e s t o c k produced r e s u l t i n g from changes i n production p r a c t i c e s , the employment of new techniques, and from t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n . The q u a n t i t y s e r i e s of the output of l i v e s t o c k on farms expressed i n terms of t o t a l weight was c a l c u l a t e d as: AMQW.t = L. t *AMQH.t where t=1926,...,1970 and i ^ represents one of the four types of output, AMQW^ represents the farm output of l i v e s t o c k type 1 i n p e r i o d jt expressed i n terms of weight, AMQH^t i s the output of l i v e s t o c k i ^ i n p e r i o d _t measured i n numbers, and L_^t i s the r a t i o of the t o t a l output of slaughtered meat to the t o t a l number of l i v e s t o c k slaughtered f o r each type i ^ i n p e r i o d Jt. This procedure was a l s o a p p l i e d to the measure of the number of l i v e s t o c k on farms. The p r i c e r e c e i v e d per u n i t of l i v e s t o c k s o l d o f f the farm d i f f e r s from the value per head of each type of l i v e s t o c k h e l d on the farm as i n v e n t o r i e s . -45-This dif f e r e n c e e x i s t s because of differences i n the methods by which l i v e -stock held f o r inventories and sold as outputs are valued and also by differences i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of each type of l i v e s t o c k . The p r i c e paid to the farmer f o r l i v e s t o c k sold l i v e o f f farms represents the commercial value of the l i v e s t o c k . Also, those l i v e s t o c k sold are usually i n prime condition and thus have a higher value per head. However, the value per unit of l i v e s t o c k held on the farm as inventories i s based on the value of each type of l i v e s t o c k as an input i n a production process. Thus the inventory •value of l i v e s t o c k may be based i n part on i t s value i n producing c e r t a i n animal products, such as milk or wool, and also on i t s value as breeding stock i n the generation of better s t r a i n s of l i v e s t o c k . The values of l i v e s t o c k as outputs and as inventories w i l l also d i f f e r because a l l ages and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of each type of l i v e s t o c k are considered when the average value per head of l i v e s t o c k held on the farm as inventories i s estimated, whereas l i v e s t o c k sold f o r slaughter are usually within a s p e c i f i c age range. Differences i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system applied to animal outputs and to animal inventories also cause the values of each to d i f f e r . The l i v e output of l i v e s t o c k i s classed by four types: calves, c a t t l e , sheep and lambs, and hogs. However, there are f i v e classes of animals considered i n estimating animal inventories on farms. Animal inventories are classed as e i t h e r milk cows, other c a t t l e , hogs, sheep and lambs, or as horses. Estimates of l i v e animal output and of corresponding p r i c e s , are presented i n Table 1.2.1. Estimates of animal inventories on farms are presented i n Table 2.2.2. In each case farm output and inventory of each type of animal i s measured by weight. In order to reconvert back to measurement of the number of head of each type of l i v e s t o c k , a s e r i e s of output of meat per head i s needed. This ser i e s i s provided i n Table 2.3.2. -46-3.2.2 Milk Products: S t a t i s t i c s of milk production and value have been obtained from 21-513 f o r the period 1926-1968, and f o r the period 1969-1970, from the "Livestock, Poultry, and Livestock Products" section of various issues of 21-003. S t a t i s t i c s of milk production and u t i l i z a t i o n are c o l l e c t e d by the A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada, through co-operative arrangements with the P r o v i n c i a l Milk Boards and Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , the Quebec Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s and various Federal Departments. The A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada compiles and e d i t s information on milk production and value which are compiled from census data and from a number of i n t e r c e n s a l mailed questionnaire sample surveys. Total milk production estimates are made monthly, being estimated as the aggregate of a l l types of u t i l i z e d milk. These types include estimates of the milk equivalent of dairy factory production, of the milk equivalent of farm-made butter, of milk used i n farm households, of whole milk fed to farm l i v e s t o c k , and of milk and the milk-equivalent of cream sold to consumers as f l u i d s a l e s . These estimates are based on a monthly census type mailed questionnaire survey of dairy f a c t o r i e s . The milk equivalent of each of butter, cheese, concentrated milk products and i c e cream mix are calculated by using the appropriate conversion f a c t o r . In addition to t h i s survey, another census type survey i s conducted monthly of a l l known d a i r i e s and producer-distributors to estimate u t i l i z a t i o n of milk and cream o f f farms as f l u i d sales and a mailed questionnaire sample survey i s used to estimate, by monthly p a i r i n g s , milk u t i l i z e d on the farms where produced. The farm value of t o t a l milk production, based on p r i c e figures c o l l e c t e d by the P r i c e s D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada, i s calculated monthly. These -47-prices are average weighted farm unit values of milk le s s haulage rates ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) . The t o t a l value of milk i s estimated as the t o t a l cash receipts received by the farmer and income i n kind received from consumption of milk by the farm family and by l i v e s t o c k . Published ser i e s on milk production include estimates of farm-home consumed milk and of milk fed on farms. The seri e s presented i n Table 1.2.2 i s that of the t o t a l output of milk le s s that fed to l i v e s t o c k on farms. 3.2.3 Poultry and Egg Products: S t a t i s t i c s of poultry and egg production and value f o r the period 1939-1955, have been obtained from the "Livestock and Dairying" section of various early p u blications of 21-003. S t a t i s t i c s f o r the period p r i o r to 1931 are l a r g e l y unavailable. For the period 1955-1970 s t a t i s t i c s have been obtained from various issues of 23-202. S t a t i s t i c s of the numbers and average values per head of inventories for each of the four types of poultry are obtainable on an annual basis from various issues of the S t a t i s t i c s Canada p u b l i c a t i o n , 21-003 for the period 1926 to 1972. Revised quantity figures f o r the years 1926 to 1946 are presented on page 179 of the 1947 p u b l i c a t i o n of 21-003. Prices and quantities of poultry held on farms as inventories are presented f o r the e n t i r e period 1926-1970. Estimates of the production, d i s p o s i t i o n , and farm value of the t o t a l farm output of poultry and eggs are based on monthly mailed questionnaire sample surveys. The sample frame which i s used consists of a core of egg producers representing about 1 percent of a l l egg producers i n Canada. A d d i t i o n a l estimates of production and of the inventories of poultry on farms are compiled during each semi-annual l i v e s t o c k survey, with information on marketing and p r i c e s being provided by the Market Branch of the Canadian Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . -48-The estimate of the eggs consumed on the farm are a l s o d e r i v e d by mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e survey methods. Eggs eaten on the farm are valued at two cents l e s s per dozen than those s o l d on the assumption that farm people tend to keep cracked and s m a l l e r eggs f o r t h e i r own use and s e l l those which w i l l make a higher grade. Quantity and p r i c e s e r i e s f o r eggs and p o u l t r y produced by the a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r are i n Table 1.2.2. I n v e n t o r i e s of p o u l t r y on farms are presented i n Table 2.1.1. 3.2.4 Wool and Fur-P-roducts,: For the p e r i o d 1926-1965 estimates of wool production have been obtained from 21-508, w h i l e estimates f o r the 1966-1970 p e r i o d have been obtained from the 1971 i s s u e of 23-203. Estimates of f u r production and value have been obtained from v a r i o u s issues of 21-003. The production of wool i n the various provinces i s estimated by a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e survey conducted at the end of June by the A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada. A schedule i s mailed to a l l farmers who reported sheep on t h e i r farms during the previous Census. The vo l u n t a r y r a t e of r e t u r n to t h i s survey i s approximately 15 percent. The same methods, such as p a i r e d samples and change r a t i o s , are employed i n a r r i v i n g at production estimates as are employed i n the other sample surveys examined. The estimates derived from t h i s survey, together w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n on sheep numbers on farms obtained from the semi-annual survey of l i v e s t o c k are then used to a r r i v e at the production estimates. The P r i c e D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada c o l l e c t s p r i c e f i g u r e s of wool from the Canada Wool Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n . The estimated p r i c e per u n i t of wool produced in c l u d e s Government d e f i c i e n c y payments. The pub l i s h e d p r i c e and q u a n t i t y s e r i e s of wool production are found i n Table 2.2.2. -49-S t a t i s t i c s c o l l e c t e d of fur production include estimates of the supply and d i s p o s i t i o n of fur-bearing animals on fur farms and of the number and value of p e l t s produced. These estimates are obtained during annual censuses of the fur industry which have been conducted since 1919. The l i s t of addresses of fur farm operations which make up the sample frame during each survey are obtained from p r o v i n c i a l Departments of A g r i c u l t u r e which provide a complete mailing l i s t based on l i c e n s e s issued to fur farmers. The derived p r i c e and quantity of output for each of the output of fur p e l t s and l i v e f u r -bearing animals from fur farms are found i n Tables 1.2.2 and 1.2.1 respect-i v e l y . 3.2.5 Honey Products: S t a t i s t i c s of the production and value of honey product have been c o l l e c t e d from various issues of 23-209. Estimates of honey production are secured through three questionnaires mailed out to a l l beekeepers i n Canada, who by law must r e g i s t e r with the p r o v i n c i a l A p i a r i s t i n each of the p r o v i n c i a l Departments of A g r i c u l t u r e . The f i r s t of these questionnaires, mailed out i n J u l y , i s designed to obtain information on the number of colonies of bees that have been established at J u l y 1st i n each year. The second set of questionnaires, sent out i n September i s designed to determine the y i e l d per colony during the past season. Aggregat y i e l d s are determined by the r e s u l t s of the second survey, used i n conjunction with those of the f i r s t survey. The t h i r d survey, conducted towards the end of each year, i s designed to provide further information on y i e l d s and on p r i c e s , based on returns obtained from beekeepers and from various co-operative i n each province. The returns to these surveys, from about 50 percent of the population of beekeepers, are s t r a t i f i e d according to the s i z e of the operation. Estimates -50-made of changes i n the number of bee colonies each year are based on paired-sample change-ratio techniques applied to the la r g e r operation. P r i o r to the p u b l i c a t i o n of the s t a t i s t i c a l estimates of honey production, they are revised somewhat to account f o r facotrs which may have been neglected during the surveys. For example, production estimates may be revised s l i g h t l y to account f o r the r e g i s t r a t i o n of new beekeepers following the July survey, and the prices received by beekeepers f o r honey produced may be revised as new information i s received from honey producers and co-operatives. The p r i c e and quantity s e r i e s f o r honey are found i n Table 1.2.2. -51-PART IV CONCLUDING COMMENTS: At the very l e a s t the study j u s t concluded has revealed the complexity of the o r g a n i z a t i o n needed to secure observations of production f o r the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Sector and to ensure that these observations are re p r e s e n t a t i v e of a c t u a l production r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t has shown how c l o s e l y r e l a t e d i n t e r - c e n s a l observations of production are to those made during each Census. I t has a l s o revealed the ambiqui t i e s i n v o l v e d i n making some observations and i n c o n s t r u c t i n g some s e r i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of the measurement of the various inputs u t i l i z e d i n the production process. On a more t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , t h i s study provides an e x c e l l e n t data base f o r t e s t i n g e m p i r i c a l l y many of the assumptions and i m p l i c a t i o n s of the neo-c l a s s i c a l theory of production. -52-PART V APPENDIX I; THE CENSUS QUALITY SAMPLE SURVEY Attempts are made during each Census to determine the proportion of deviations of i n d i v i d u a l estimates which can be a t t r i b u t e d to sampling error. However, an equally important need during each Census, i s that of determining the degree to which the aggregate of these sampling errors may bias Census estimates of population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The differe n c e between the average estimated by the sample and the actual average of the population i s termed a non-sampling err o r or bia s . The s i z e of t h i s e r r o r , unlike sampling er r o r s , cannot o r d i n a r i l y be determined by an analysis of the Census data, what i s needed i s a comparison of the Census estimates with other independently derived estimates. P r i o r to the 1956 Census, although p a r t i a l checks had been made of possible biases contained i n c e r t a i n estimates derived from each Census, no e f f o r t had been made by means of a f i e l d check to measure the o v e r - a l l q u a l i t y of the derived estimates. For example, the q u a l i t y of estimates of the number of l i v e s t o c k sold o f f the farm f o r slaughter purposes would have been established by comparisons made with figures derived of actu a l marketings of l i v e s t o c k obtained from the Market Information Section of the Canadian Department of Agr i c u l t u r e . The f i r s t r e a l e f f o r t made to determine the degree and sources of non-sampling error occurring during the Census was made during the 1951 Census. However t h i s study was r e s t r i c t e d to an examination of the non-sampling error occurring i n the estimates of the a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force as estimated during the 1951 Census and when compared with estimates derived from the Labour Force Survey. -53-During the study, two types of comparisons were made. F i r s t , matched documents obtained from the Census and from the Labour Force Survey were compared to in d i c a t e the degree of divergence i n answer to the same question by a matched group of respondents, and also to determine the degree, i f any, of underenumeration by the Census. Second, samples of the matched documents i n which major differences occurred were re-enumerated to determine the reasons f o r the d i f f e r e n c e , whether due to questions being misunderstood, or whether due to inef f e c t i v e n e s s on the part of one or the other enumeration force. A comparison of the two surveys revealed that 36 percent of those matched i n d i v i d u a l s enumerated during the Labour Force Survey as " r e t i r e d or volunt-a r i l y i d l e " , were enumerated i n the Census as being i n other labour force catagories. S i m i l a r l y , of those matched i n d i v i d u a l s who had been enumerated as r e t i r e d or v o l u n t a r i l y i d l e by the Census, 40.3 percent gave a d i f f e r e n t response to the Labour Force Survey. The pos s i b l e reasons f o r the discrepancies i n these and other questions were given to be the r e s u l t of the differences i n understanding and a p p l i c a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n s by the enumerator, and by the differences i n the dates of act u a l enumeration f o r each survey. The r e s u l t s of th i s f i r s t intensive examination of the estimates obtained during the Census, although not allowing for the correcting or adjusting of estimates, did expose the possible sources of e r r o r , and the r e l a t i v e importance of the discrepancies occurring i n the estimation of the labour input into a g r i c u l t u r e . During the 1951-1956 i n t e r c e n s a l period, a master frame con s i s t i n g of land area segments was developed f o r the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Sector, with the purpose being that of providing a frame from which a sample could be drawn to measure, pos s i b l e non-sampling errors occurring during the 1956 Census. -54-The advantages of using a frame made up of area segments include those of a frame which does not deteriorate as quickly as would a l i s t i n g of farm addresses, easy i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of areas by maps, reduced t r a v e l costs, and the a b i l i t y to use improved sampling techniques such as s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and multi-stage sampling, (see Holmes, 1956). The sampling units to be included i n each Quality Check are selected from an ordered l i s t i n g of r u r a l area segments developed p r i o r to the 1956 Census. These units are then s t r a t i f i e d by the type of farming within each area segment, by the geographical contiguity, or s c a t t e r i n g , of the farms within each segment, and by the s i z e of the farms contained i n each segment. A given area segment i s c l a s s i f i e d as belonging to one type-of-farming 22 stratum i f at l e a s t 70 percent of the commercial farms contained within the segment received 51 percent or more of t h e i r t o t a l farm income from the p a r t i c u l a r stratum product-type. The geographic s c a t t e r i n g of area segments and of the farms wi t h i n them i s an important s t r a t i f i c a t i o n because those areas which are i n close proximity to each other tend to belong to the same product-type stratum, while farms which are c l o s e l y grouped i n each segment tend to be more a l i k e i n t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than geographically dispersed farms. The s i z e of the farms contained i n each segment must also be considered because an extremely large farm, or one of an unusual type, may bias estimates of production secured from that area segment. Unusual farms are thus usually deleted from the sample of farms enumerated. The sampling rate of area segments during each Quality Check Sample Survey i s about 0.7 percent with estimates of a g r i c u l t u r a l production i n each segment being secured by enumerating those farms contained i n the segment. These -55-estimates are then matched with Census data obtained from the same area. In* addi t i o n to checking the v a l i d i t y of the estimates derived during the Census, t h i s method also checks f o r possible under-enumeration of farms:>in each area by the Census. A d e s c r i p t i o n of the major findings of the 1956 Census Quality Check Sample Survey i s provided by Uruquhart and Buckley (1965: p. 340-341). The general f i n d i n g was that, f o r most of the items selected to be checked the sample survey estimate d i f f e r e d from the Census t o t a l by a margin within the range of that which could be a t t r i b u t a b l e to sampling error. However there was evidence that there had occurred some under-enumeration i n the number of farms during the Census. In f a c t , although the estimates of t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l acreage do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the sample survey estimate of the t o t a l number of farms i n Canada was 7.6 percent greater thann the Census estimate. This diff e r e n c e was explained to be due to difference i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of the d e f i n i t i o n of a census farm between the Census and the Quality Check Survey. Part of the problem was also a t t r i b u t e d to problems r e l a t e d to the a p p l i c a t i o n of the headquarters r u l e during the Census. The 1961 Census Quality Check revealed that Census estimates of the number of farms, t o t a l farm area and the q u a l i t y mix of land were a l l within a 95 percent Confidence I n t e r v a l of the d i f f e r e n c e which could be a t t r i b u t e d s o l e l y to sampling error. During t h i s Census, an evaluation was made of the Quality Check i t s e l f which revealed that c e r t a i n problems r e l a t e d to the ident-i f i c a t i o n of segment boundaries and with asso c i a t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l holdings with one segment resulted from imperfections i n the Canadian Land Survey system. Other problems were found to r e s u l t from imperfect system of h i r i n g , t r a i n i n g and supervising the enumeration f i e l d s t a f f . -56-The 1966 Census Quality Check again revealed that the estimate of aggregate land acreage and usage i n Canada were w e l l within the region which could be a t t r i b u t e d to sampling e r r o r alone. However, the check revealed some under-enumeration of farms i n Canada which could not be a t t r i b u t e d s o l e l y to sampling e r r o r s . -57-APPENDIX I I : CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT OF THE CENSUS FARM During the p e r i o d 1921-1941, a census farm was defined as: " . . . a l l l and l o c a t e d i n one m u n i c i p a l i t y which i s d i r e c t l y farmed by one person conducting a g r i c u l t u r a l o p e r a t i o n s , e i t h e r by h i s own labour or w i t h the a s s i s t a n c e of members of h i s household or of h i r e d employers. I t may c o n s i s t of a s i n g l e t r a c t of land or of a number of separate t r a c t s h e l d under d i f f e r e n t tenures. I n order to be reported as a farm such land must be of one acre or more i n extent and have produced i n the previous year a g r i c u l t u r a l products to the value of $50.00 or more".23 The use of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n counting as separate farms those p a r t s of a g r i c u l t u r a l holdings l y i n g o u t s ide of the enumeration area i n which the farm headquarters were l o c a t e d . P r i o r to the 1951 Census, i n order to reduce the b i a s created by over-counting the estimated number of farm holdings i n Canada, the d e f i n i t i o n of farm was a l t e r e d . Thus f o r the 1951 Census, a farm was defined to be: "...a h o l d i n g on which a g r i c u l t u r a l operations were being c a r r i e d out and which was greater than or equal to three acres i n s i z e of l e s s than three acres but greater than or equal to one acre i n s i z e and producing during the previous year a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities valued at greater than $250.00''.1Lr This was a s t r i c t e r d e f i n i t i o n than the one a p p l i e d during the p e r i o d p r i o r to 1951. F i r s t of a l l , the minimum s i z e and production r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed on each census farm became more s t r i n g e n t . This reduced g r e a t l y the number of marginal farming operations which had been enumerated during previous Censuses. At the same time, whereas i n previous censuses a g r i c u l t u r a l holdings composed of s e v e r a l p a r t s l o c a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s had been enumerated as separate h o l d i n g s , during the 1951 Census, the complete farm was recorded as one u n i t i n the enumeration area w i t h i n which i t s farm headquarters was l o c a t e d . -58-These two changes resu l t e d i n the accenting of the estimated rate of actual decrease of the number of census farms during the 1941-1951 i n t e r -censal period. A comparison was made during the 1951 Census of the estimated rate of decrease when the 1941 d e f i n i t i o n was applied to the 1951 data and when the 1951 d e f i n i t i o n was applied. The study showed that about 50 percent of the estimated decrease i n the number of farms i n Canada during the i n t e r -censal period was due to the reduction i n the d u p l i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n holdings and i n the increased r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed on census farms. The c r i t e r i a used to define a census farm was again changed f o r the 1961 Census, f o r which a census farm was defined to be: "... a s i n g l e t r a c t of land or a number of separate t r a c t s , held under the same or d i f f e r e n t tenures but operate as one unit the t o t a l area being greater than or equal to one acre i n s i z e and with sales of a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities of at l e a s t $50.00 during the past 12 months". 2 5 The e f f e c t of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n a l change was that of further r e s t r i c t i n g the c r i t e r i a d e f i n i n g a census farm. Unlike the c r i t e r i a applied to p r i o r Censuses, a minimum value of a g r i c u l t u r a l production was required f o r a l l si z e s of a g r i c u l t u r a l holdings i n order f o r them to be classed as census farms. -59-APPENDIX I I I : AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY PRICES AND QUANTITIES The tables presented below contain p r i c e and quantity indices f o r the major types of commodities produced and consumed by the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Sector f o r the period 1926-1970. For convenience output p r i c e s and input (stock) p r i c e s are normalized i n 1961 with the p r i c e and quantity indices constructed so that f o r each year p r i c e m u l t i p l i e d by quantity equals the value of commodity. However estimates of f i x e d c a p i t a l are not normalized but are presented i n units of $1,000,000. For the other commodities, at the base of each commodity p r i c e and quantity s e r i e s i s presented the p r i c e of the commodity i n 1961 and the relevant unit of measure. Thus i n 1961 the quantity of strawberries i s l i s t e d i n Table 1.1.1 as 7003.602 and the p r i c e i s l i s t e d as 1000. This means that the value of the strawberry crop i n 1961 was $7,003,602. In order to reconvert back to o r i g i n a l p r i c e s and o r i g i n a l units of output we need to use the fac t that the 1961 p r i c e per ton of strawberries, as presented at the base of Table 1.1.1, i s $351,421. -60-TABLE I OUTPUT COMMODITIES -61-TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS TABLE 1.1.1 FRUITS STRAWBERRIES RASPBERRIES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 4639.053 611.452 2842.102 498.669 1927 4907.688 570.927 2661.254 544.152 1928 4814.056 521.900 2148.185 602.021 1929 6048.928 527.201 2309.357 658.454 1930 5204.739 587.448 2635.093 760.450 1931 6780.836 442.613 2984.019 566.762 1932 7411.889 297.787 2944.658 405.161 1933 7018.734 386.042 2126.973 488.366 1934 8054.508 427.386 2562.013 527.574 1935 10927.262 353.544 3522.498 492.540 1936 8754.638 398.424 2717.613 479.624 19 37 10616.083 389.588 4235.791 424.744 1938 10686.180 340.603 5274.301 346.775 1939 13450.131 307.491 5726.006 360.125 1940 13602.099 307.014 6301.711 393.590 1941 11578.879 385.113 4262.609 546.951 1942 7754.540 495.335 4493.446 691.503 1943 6956.877 903.237 4963.916 1027.268 1944 4678.313 905.790 5279.693 934.702 1945 7961.633 1070.997 6899.154 929.163 1946 7816.346 1075.275 6944.633 887.023 1947 12312.478 868.376 10289.041 824.464 1948 15526.385 838.9 18 8478.224 724. 116 1949 13474.505 862.673 6365.402 828.723 1950 14372.254 1023.252 7156.751 865.608 1951 12656.350 929.862 6629.784 982.241 1952 15181.157 793.022 5881.367 863.993 1953 13175.398 957.197 7293.383 988.363 1954 12366.189 1049.170 6704.585 881.934 1955 10442.652 1112.852 6621.836 824.034 1956 8105.883 993. 110 3376.022 1353.638 1957 6763.686 958.703 6040.897 878.590 1958 7850.685 947.989 4575.216 820.442 1959 6946.881 947.122 4312.141 900.721 1960 7857.881 963.370 4279.919 963.952 1961 7003.602 1000.000 3354.211 1000.000 1962 7641.061 1017.237 3830.936 1044.174 1963 7264.482 1034.952 4470.978 1 120.874 1964 9001.410 1089.674 4719.294 1008.964 1965 4973.484 1379.284 4760.530 1170.384 1966 9143.214 1217.366 4940.836 1009,392 1967 10900.671 1088.449 5488.519 855.591 1968 8236.559 1483.639 5038.664 879.522 1969 7875.433 1294.471 4018.592 1575.905 1970 9206.990 1301.687 3197.616 1325.282 1961 PRICE= 351.421 /TON 386.811 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -62-TABLE 1.1.1 FRUITS PLUMS PEARS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 1527.885 604.266 1168.982 834.820 1927 1057.810 828.734 1289.152 949.727 1928 1846.280 568.952 940.021 873.824 1929 1134.576 914.942 1330.852 891.052 1930 1179.042 558.939 1818.005 662.813 1931 1045.519 387.567 1449.151 555.681 1932 914.762 386.253 1300.602 363.398 19 33 839.653 456.552 1615.457 512.871 1934 1020.857 619.622 1646.079 637.086 1935 1134.471 546.501 1781.068 640.990 1936 754.570 615.533 1834.673 653.409 1937 933.743 602.249 1974.414 650.459 1938 1159.140 576.356 2763.135 496.777 19 39 1265.610 467.489 2622.881 546.559 1940 1124. 116 614.312 2788.162 586.213 1941 2350.924 705.179 3 099.550 739.823 1942 1530.981 898.915 2952.141 903.891 1943 1490.625 1431.269 2518.375 1093.167 1944 2140.840 1181.793 3453.677 1069.273 1945 2152.955 1201.600 2566.043 1255.839 1946 3340.889 845.375 3782. 122 960.609 1947 3414.386 681.178 4087.580 906.741 1948 2845.825 1098.509 3230.551 1076.953 1949 3831.755 534.331 4732.513 925.135 1950 2846.279 778.637 3956.889 1034.735 1951 3128.028 574.781 5345.820 870. 167 1952 3860.259 530.133 5419.591 866.694 1953 3207.268 768.626 5932.247 880.570 1954 2940.665 942.128 4999.902 848.347 1955 3485.186 602.568 6233.886 813.492 1956 2204.857 771.542 5580.597 970.627 1957 2171.872 768.541 4052.742 958.256 1958 1992.405 847.270 4514.874 935.060 1959 1883. 13'6 759.4 53 3741.577 846.959 1960 1340.803 955.097 4362.818 1011.906 1961 1663.869 1000.000 4104.741 1000.000 1962 1353.969 973.469 4616.601 961.180 1963 1953.138 941.984 4546.960 1128.386 1964 1794.837 806.070 5185. 318 939.253 1965 1393.856 1100.848 2837.854 1190.074 1966 1624.008 1160.066 5470. 199 979.391 1967 1384.188 1332.614 4970.755 1308.732 1968 1043.668 1695.605 4444.866 1424.114 19 69 894.844 1725.040 2882.270 1432.787 1970 1070.006 1870.580 4535.045 1419.953 1961 PRICE= 86.9896 /TON 83.9810 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -63-TABLE 1.1.1 FRUITS LOGANBERRIES PEACHES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 675.116 521.825 1045.855 1219.614 1927 408.392 511.736 1392.885 1384.885 1928 329.619 590.350 2268.678 912.378 19 29 396.144 593.308 2600.847 1153.569 1930 440.033 618.213 3168.338 705.022 1931 505.837 390.349 3547.680 606.903 1932 482.870 294.592 3206.909 482.206 1933 340.756 294.351 3032.830 624.291 1934 538.427 333.892 2055.711 1025.943 1935 505.337 359.490 3107.248 654.373 1936 317.786 392.830 2510.222 1035.575 1937 405.809 454.110 4115.130 678.188 1938 589.411 442.857 4262.840 641.872 1939 554.279 293.983 6542.798 521.523 1940 675.584 302.415 5964.125 657.372 1941 563.398 400.930 6911.768 819.358 1942 504.544 569.957 8117.884 816.594 19 43 342.676 840.752 2587.048 1513.247 1944 423.663 851.252 6781.120 1230.277 1945 409.119 697.059 6923.471 1324.563 1946 429.840 890.181 8818.643 1055.950 19 47 394.723 1000.764 7353.201 966.985 1948 611.331 1027.206 7449.583 1 144.266 19 49 258.868 938.234 9299.030 1000.072 1950 361.859 1000.661 5785.365 1038.369 1951 254.858 1198.879 8084.178 1029.473 1952 340.732 918.641 12542.333 813.764 1953 461.008 841.403 12363.335 882.786 1954 276.617 1106.016 9939.799 989.505 1955 337.108 1038.2 74 12304.006 978.859 1956 73.736 1364.671 6869.233 1211.696 1957 259.421 1095.040 10726.653 1022.814 1958 174.924 1083.054 9337.663 872.278 1959 235.562 1090.923 8017.693 948.312 1960 200.697 1072.228 6768.022 1197. 113 1961 221.055 1000.000 8834.254 1000.000 1962 181.223 931.179 6259.685 1181.267 1963 259.818 1140.694 6607.938 1346. 116 1964 184.735 1157.011 7674.530 1308.498 1965 174.631 1220.978 4423.905 1586.781 1966 234.849 1269.748 5717.952 1642.765 1967 301.400 1188.146 4827.674 2017.361 1 968 277.353 1194.088 5278.469 2122. 118 1969 210.305 1411.086 4600.616 2421.612 1970 214.734 1453.361 5671.645 2136.689 1961 PRICE= 277.408 /TON 86.8163 /TON -64-TABLE 1.1 CHOP OUTPUTS TABLE 1.1.1 FRUITS GRAPES CHERRIES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 2465.632 591.232 2315.276 506.325 1927 3243.258 788.082 2271.966 639.017 1928 6039.626 788.367 2641.860 546.232 1929 4555.924 788.294 2439.336 623.369 1930 4190.020 630.498 2808.878 540.849 1931 4467.633 321.288 2138.388 460.081 1932 3848.336 282.198 2511.100 304.561 19 33 2950.773 304.063 1929.012 367.536 1934 4086.539 402.041 1978.907 469.372 1935 3616.624 307.833 2113.425 438.459 1936 2396.995 370.688 2068.144 426.967 1937 5211.552 406.097 1753.061 555.945 1938 3328.237 428.882 2314.681 514.164 1939 5472.405 325.414 2635.604 426.157 1940 5466.228 387.965 1989.340 614.151 1941 4825.358 523.288 3961.808 719.308 1942 7097.990 489.852 3847.865 770.155 1943 5137.058 635.249 2302.559 1263.505 1944 5682.407 770.669 2968.692 1183.214 1945 6823.028 759.207 2732.984 1284.965 1946 6470.543 925.081 3613.776 1036.285 1947 7547.629 952.756 3411.431 1 153.807 1948 5702.231 875.193 4327.747 1232.462 1949 5534.354 774.928 5921.938 1129.308 1950 12085.274 639.489 4433.133 1016.080 1951 9344.657 625.696 4930.248 954.054 1952 8693.200 695.514 5663.565 739. 112 1953 8045.948 855.539 5004.837 1045.709 1954 8516.727 870.568 6414.666 1007.173 19 55 9453.922 753.350 8493.429 810.995 1956 7733.381 808,451 4170.240 945.144 19 57 6206.286 805.140 6043 .149 1052.865 1958 76 20.310 902.992 6058.827 871.793 1959 5979.640 948.274 3850.430 915. 147 1960 7581.023 853.141 3400.556 1249.717 1961 5724.930 1000.000 6234.548 1000.000 1962 5996.210 1010.375 4588.380 1100.830 19 63 6950.224 1059.411 5461.888 1141.382 1964 7497.572 991.188 8127.276 1004.234 1965 8117.291 850.564 4928.796 937.045 1966 7856.334 1018.551 4842.611 1381.852 1967 9474.771 1026.335 7550.605 1341.037 1968 7723.099 1227.567 4641. 146 1730.640 1969 7993.621 1437.556 5336.363 1143.989 1970 9008.787 1495.764 4653.901 1334.318 1961 PRICE= 101.483 /TON 226.442 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -65-TABLE 1.1.1 FRUITS APPLES BLUEBERRIES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 25178.788 776.133 0.0 0.0 1927 22304.900 868.474 0.0 0.0 1928 23946.843 817.915 0.0 0.0 1929 31171.416 619.029 0.0 0.0 1930 28632.725 756.386 0.0 0.0 1931 28125.334 537.524 0.0 0.0 19 32 26681.160 437.811 0.0 0.0 19 33 33373.638 453.818 0.0 0.0 1934 32745.231 506.263 0.0 0.0 1935 31449.051 614.476 0.0 0.0 1936 30910.438 573.129 0.0 0.0 19 37 40235.726 516.650 0.0 0.0 1938 39925.812 575.550 0.0 0.0 1939 44479. 147 441.014 0.0 0.0 1940 36714.354 488.531 0.0 0.0 1941 30213.858 632.269 0.0 0.0 1942 33861.488 793.553 0.0 0.0 1943 33809.724 936.460 0.0 0.0 1944 45823.999 915.795 0.0 0,0 1945 21724.266 1205.552 0.0 0.0 1946 51018.692 782.144 0.0 0.0 1947 43965.121 790.125 0.0 0.0 1948 36513.734 904.658 0.0 0.0 1949 53990.012 512.563 0.0 0.0 1950 49256.657 552.098 0.0 0.0 1951 39514.702 730.793 0.0 0.0 1952 33342.229 1033. 3 10 5032.189 1332.214 1953 32264.540 1072.729 3769.918 1743.935 1954 38250.459 886.984 6052.345 1063.723 1955 52576.514 406.536 4973.354 1062.774 1956 32948.587 925.308 2866.0 12 1517.012 1957 38522.352 826.064 2449.487 1359.994 1958 33584.648 620.051 2323.426 1439.120 1959 30271.458 797.893 3242.905 1167. 126 1960 27502.907 1111.110 261 1.91 1 1204.499 1961 30546.622 1000.000 2413.073 1000.000 1962 35884.303 999.525 2351.453 990.024 1963 41283.643 964.280 3101.545 1156. 195 1964 34605.289 1124.629 2600.927 1711.501 1965 39562.074 994.461 2323.940 2406.239 1966 37138.470 1079.099 4782.887 1763.151 1967 41221.457 1198.434 4245.675 1091.091 1968 35055.343 1424.144 1990.231 1918.366 1969 37852.064 1038.332 3611.442 1686.937 1970 33324.803 1122.804 3542.620 2128.150 1961 PEICE= 62.0813 /TON 201.838 /TON TABLE 1.1 CHOP OUTPUTS -66-TABLE 1.1.1 FRUITS CRANBERRIES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 1928 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 19 30 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 1932 0.0 0.0 1933 0.0 0.0 1934 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 1936 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 1938 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 0.0 0.0 1941 0.0 0.0 1942 0.0 0.0 1943 0.0 0.0 1944 0.0 0.0 1945 0.0 0.0 1946 0.0 0.0 1947 0.0 0.0 1948 0.0 0.0 1949 0.0 0.0 19 50 0.0 0.0 1951 0.0 0.0 1952 0.0 0.0 1953 0.0 0.0 1954 0.0 0.0 1955 0.0 0.0 1956 0.0 0.0 1957 0.0 0.0 1958 17.229 902.666 1959 138.647 936.817 1960 108.301 975.213 1961 141.634 1000.000 1962 100.693 926.821 1963 204.396 1048.263 1964 190.953 1106.398 1965 292.349 1046.246 1966 337.249 1075.286 1967 502.063 1049.720 1968 575.754 1130.901 1969 531.072 1103.495 1970 1081.337 820.385 1961 PRICE= 297.222 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -67-TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES TURNIPS TOMATOES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 1649.346 930.193 14888.219 424.415 1927 1782.977 879.238 15825.510 387.465 1928 1864.848 829.430 16807.544 359.627 1929 1870.576 780.731 19521.572 337.900 1930 1898.577 733.105 23308.919 320.471 1931 2004.122 686.516 20639.182 320.523 1932 2008.062 640.930 18162.226 320.577 1933 1967.729 596.316 16113.709 320.631 19 34 2046.594 552.644 19277.871 320.688 1935 2111.223 509.882 19057.385 320.745 1936 1981.094 468.004 20722.984 320.804 19 37 2129.627 426.982 21167.063 320.865 1938 2194.209 386.791 20069.954 320.927 1939 2122.498 347.404 21044.901 320.991 1940 2131.969 308.799 21865.249 321.057 1941 2305.839 501.224 30456.373 403.213 1942 2270.396 648.698 24573.403 468.325 1943 2214.153 907.057 18723.131 632.705 1944 2362.203 617.688 32150.073 498.379 1945 2203.277 772.255 23405.555 545.247 1946 1983.189 686.541 34842.395 552.248 1947 1963.642 1174.029 25680.113 611.768 1948 2187.979 824.814 43724.719 610.820 1949 911.638 1715.456 26110.676 594.261 1950 2181.758 832.326 24298.786 631.985 1951 2142.433 896.709 33963.930 721.405 1952 1984.672 964.738 36701.824 833. 198 1953 2088.603 1035. 336 2931 1.0 10 766.144 19 54 2043.163 1108.679 24508.751 797.140 1955 1972.299 1185.866 31281. 220 697.436 1956 1937.274 1266.720 26279.648 791.669 1957 1929.531 1351.498 24827.675 818.846 1958 2251.006 997.196 26110.285 971.471 1959 2042.270 1358.657 23507.110 976.457 1960 2218.479 1247.742 26092.640 964.678 1961 3295.616 1000.000 23750.831 1000.000 1962 1978.604 1731.253 25179.515 978.429 19 63 2052.120 1678.362 20322.894 1078.781 1964 2469.102 1457.897 21747.415 1069.527 1965 2430.724 1424.289 25998.622 1052.489 19 66 2204.296 2322.276 20184.403 1214.324 1967 2492.008 1618.868 25323.778 635.978 1968 2553.741 1283.046 20993.276 1260.868 1969 1763.465 2991.002 16275.289 1386.525 1970 2240.747 1609.496 21186.824 1421.698 1961 PRICE= 21.5009 /TON 45.5573 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -68-TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES PEAS SPINACH y EAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 2678.834 544.729 434.550 505.359 1927 2760.339 538.740 461.083 466.159 1928 2861.901 533.973 489.035 436.533 1929 3260.824 530.087 567.405 413.354 1930 3832.912 526.859 676.914 394.726 1931 3543.114 491.820 666.229 379.428 1932 3252.444 458.851 646.551 366.640 1933 3007.953 427.773 628.441 355.791 19 34 3748.690 398.430 819.081 346.471 1935 3857.983 370.679 877.884 338.378 1936 4364.928 344.394 1030.664 331.285 1937 4636.424 319.462 1 132.477 325.017 1938 4569.343 295.782 1151 .387 319.439 1939 4977.864 273.261 1290.894 314.442 19 40 5371.031 251.816 1430.426 309.940 1941 5120.733 246.552 1441.545 352.564 1942 6965.748 330.802 1326.267 356.213 1943 4329.841 430.549 940.585 558.555 1944 7774.055 393.138 954.651 543.535 1945 6922.035 445.536 1 109.085 835.676 1946 9072.194 421.558 1345.718 624.975 1947 6942.190 524.892 1434.731 814.751 1948 9497.349 443.126 1095.279 829.735 1949 5767.722 423.316 1209.825 718.493 1950 7012.437 526.009 1486.249 683.932 1951 9594.651 659.869 1402. 892 564.492 1952 7356.175 678.655 1143.746 803.691 1953 8910.565 662.921 1125.397 820.565 1954 7894.506 644.462 1098.845 795.736 1955 10928.331 693.275 1184.959 743.422 1956 9186.516 594.801 1107.097 890.047 1957 12228.322 623.054 877.048 1026.022 19 58 6320.364 962.328 692.550 1182.014 1959 5951.448 991.252 869.129 1075.040 1960 6320.946 970.998 744.797 1125.580 1961 5771.258 1000.000 688.315 1000.000 1962 7808.214 948.962 631 .070 984.535 1963 7079.791 993.449 639.010 897.485 1964 8145.704 1000.293 705.153 1002.199 1965 10145.340 788.371 656.415 1163.958 1966 7549.230 633.180 636.853 1202.338 1967 7312.996 1034.253 399.242 1262.523 1968 10503.004 989.282 541 .653 888.307 1969 7340.640 1034.959 340.909 1020.451 1970 7768.325 1047.219 410.820 1752.620 1961 PRICE= 95.0160 /TON 90.2934 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -69-TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES ONIONS LETTUCE YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 4817.682 421.444 816 .002 740.476 1927 4532.617 413.038 808.560 739.929 1928 4343.099 405.107 811 .675 739.462 1929 4617.646 397.612 900.083 739.057 1930 5104.744 390.518 1033.848 738.704 1931 4604.487 424.282 1000.692 712.290 1932 4128.021 457.618 957.474 689.518 1933 3731.648 490.535 919.390 669.684 1934 4549.329 523.040 1185.679 652.254 1935 4583.391 555.142 1259.064 636.814 1936 5080.025 586.847 1466.103 623.044 1937 5289.580 618.162 1599.202 610.685 1938 5113.427 649.096 1615.295 599.532 1939 5467.375 679.655 1800.354 589.417 1940 5793.163 709.845 1984.313 580.200 1941 5753.180 739.674 2045.855 571.767 1942 6414.899 587.716 1925.881 567.214 1943 6169.012 799.123 2766.242 552.066 1944 9035.130 477.156 2816.712 515.416 1945 9133.518 729.291 3382.585 673.263 1946 9156.148 608.023 3212.814 632.038 1947 9795.060 636.826 3608.139 732.855 19 48 11128.027 618.810 3900.174 603.034 1949 10106.588 687.012 5351.881 511. 144 1950 12417.124 381.380 4858.413 390. 161 1951 8598.677 697.866 5719.633 557.461 1952 8724.132 1016.182 5142.701 798.563 1953 10078.716 393.459 4466.616 875.481 1954 7750.559 662.767 5862.320 543.464 1955 8628.558 462.385 4331.827 610.537 1956 7039.942 553.670 3602.725 844.762 1957 7343.075 526.951 3083. 454 1048.331 1958 5907.963 895.012 4270.803 1070.265 1959 7282.383 677.567 2925.516 1279.426 1960 8521.911 604.338 3595.896 969.254 1961 7596.608 1000.000 2873.716 1000.000 1962 10848.282 737.003 3375.439 1004.800 1963 12261.127 603.563 2800.628 1257.977 1964 9916.357 689.615 2846.979 1190.807 1965 13645.281 480.311 2947.527 1107.901 1966 9691.831 1064.495 2460.030 1716.048 1967 11293.991 838.281 3080.436 1658.237 1968 12554.638 602.745 3188.845 1190.242 1969 10487.362 1073.374 2641.739 1483.004 1970 11655.115 600.686 2978.629 1277.516 1961 PRICE= 74.4126 /TON 80.7513 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -70-TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES CUCUMBERS CORN YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 2127.996 473.997 2981.017 695.524 1927 2121.598 461.347 3079.464 661.666 1928 2140.938 450.653 3199.164 634.834 1929 2384.836 441.494 3651.039 613.045 1930 2749.996 433.561 4297.382 594.999 1931 2257.800 434.935 3797.888 551.790 19 32 1827.039 436.586 3335.532 507.342 1933 1475.650 438.608 2953.344 461.602 1934 1587.167 441.141 3525.953 414.513 1935 1388.287 444.406 3478.199 366.013 1936 1308.001 448.776 3773.907 316.038 1937 1124.671 454.924 3846.096 264.521 19 38 860.635 464.216 3638.295 211.389 1939 680.878 479.887 3805.930 156.563 1940 470.916 511.943 3944.570 99.963 1941 1257.724 397.679 7025.327 129.185 1942 924.582 521.069 4553.588 220.212 1943 758. 101 •8 29.6 20 3082.426 435.568 19 44 1491.595 819.106 4841.519 299.480 1945 888.91 1 907.461 4248.741 237.800 1946 1434.441 862.312 4921.265 292. 145 1947 1492.964 805.921 4156.679 335.042 19 48 1392.177 878.317 6598.661 336.625 1949 1451.359 885.171 1061 1.010 407.992 1950 1047.187 968.607 6830.736 284.211 1951 1895.785 910.010 6599.136 496.078 1952 2278.728 915.455 7804.953 506.376 1953 2006.631 938.073 6003. 110 438.860 1954 1400.049 982.004 6695.422 546.075 1955 1672.715 902.818 7810.130 477.858 1956 1269.396 919.834 6248.471 547.840 1957 1692.354 992.558 8512.680 511.137 1958 1803.639 990.031 6951.659 918.053 1959 2627.331 912.722 6679.667 989.192 1960 2217.892 1077.405 7320.750 871.028 1961 3462.755 1000.000 8607.910 1000.000 1962 2555.073 1042.218 8878.356 989.372 1963 3466.783 1025.134 6976.503 1091.466 1964 3834.313 1113.918 8060.757 1051.605 1965 2977.805 1131.586 8588.689 994.654 1966 4714.342 1270.428 9663.239 893.082 1967 4295.740 1253.910 9368.585 1148. 169 1968 5508.388 1309.106 10361.024 1100. 180 1969 5841.199 1368.942 8240.719 1138.287 1970 6638.890 1185.215 9486.436 1113.228 1961 PRICE= 71.7381 /TON 33.5082 /TON -71-TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES CELERY CAULIFLOWER YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 1081.988 907.662 796.798 721.917 1927 1031.935 886.662 829,759 713.814 1928 1001.416 867.364 867.483 707.483 1929 1077.408 849.568 995.084 702.401 1930 1204.337 833.107 1176.188 698.231 1931 1166.813 860.887 109 2.972 683.766 1932 1117.328 884.794 1008.240 670.292 1933 1073.645 905.586 936.751 657.712 1934 1385.473 923.834 1172.497 645.940 1935 1472.032 939.978 1211.607 634.899 1936 1714.932 954.362 1376.094 624.524 1937 1871.444 967.259 1467.005 614,757 1938 1891.025 978.889 1450.759 605.545 1939 2108.432 989.428 1585.622 596.843 1940 2324.630 999.025 1716.161 588.608 1941 2397.446 1007.800 1739.693 580.806 1942 2410.316 1093.910 1654.440 765.243 1943 2493.536 1569.241 2357.587 646.959 1944 2785.284 1293.499 2467.439 615.220 1945 2584.786 1308.990 3071.631 633.987 1946 2047.740 1023.090 2703.644 482.729 1947 2278.930 1407.042 2345.210 656.568 1948 2472.477 1380.334 3347.584 676.362 1949 3429.305 878.472 3584.219 616.409 19 50 2650.143 930.919 3275.952 582.625 19 51 2513.957 909.477 2515.499 618.892 1952 2462.966 1094.714 2255.178 693. 102 1953 5962.467 331.223 3008.776 509.793 1954 2507.997 661.139 2367.622 569.523 1955 2639.937 761.234 2332.176 541.296 19 56 2066.351 853.579 2289.143 619.554 1957 1939.140 778.888 1993.667 665.542 1958 1541.607 1433.443 1998.632 1015. 113 1959 1444.972 1182.088 1736.105 1071.546 1960 1238.857 1192.477 1962.464 1050.128 1961 1460,022 1000.000 1773.735 1000.000 1962 1313.305 1233.342 2130.351 1000.361 1963 1387,778 1098.307 2310.797 1088.232 1964 1205.067 1262.083 2050.932 981.923 1965 1309.060 974.374 2338.910 1042.939 1966 1180.281 1752.495 2028.439 1234.002 1967 1191.609 1680.666 2476.538 1267.022 1968 1315.638 1072.461 2122.761 1232.230 1969 1120.332 1678.343 2613.130 1357.523 1970 1344.591 1133.112 2857.778 1293.275 1961 PRICE= 48.1617 /TON 98.3125 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -72-TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES CARROTS CABBAGES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 1389.745 580.436 1997.149 898. 168 1927 1409.249 572. 173 1949.009 869.097 19 28 1442.298 565.401 1930.828 843.522 1929 1625.882 559.749 2116.496 820.848 1930 1894.083 554.962 2406.319 800.608 1931 1674.992 562.940 2180.627 777.094 1932 1472.036 571.137 1963.941 754.091 1933 1304.244 579.561 1783.362 731.583 1934 1558.191 588.221 2183.764 709.553 1935 1538. 179 597.129 2209.698 687.987 19 36 1670.171 606.293 2459.619 666.870 1937 1703.400 615.727 2571.864 646.189 1938 1612.617 625.442 2496.519 625.929 1939 1688.270 635.451 2680.206 606.079 19 40 1751.213 645.766 2851.305 586.625 1941 1702.178 656.403 2842.803 567.557 1942 2066. 193 684.142 2894.055 611.032 1943 4553.580 456.950 5714.605 550.617 1944 4646.417 370.268 5296.782 452.642 1945 5366.865 384.106 7162.924 463.541 1946 5085.514 365.772 5958.720 318.529 1947 5397.655 561.205 4630.713 847.829 1948 6164.342 485.307 6203.455 515.257 1949 5507.264 505.233 4948.358 551.104 1950 8280.042 326.669 6188.881 452.555 1951 5863.997 549.408 4726.325 716.837 1952 5458.092 607.960 4566.659 618.617 1953 6097.051 553.848 4302.384 505.707 1954 5475.855 542.847 4145.833 542.076 1955 6352.719 529.295 3920.177 482.035 1956 6599.453 544.308 4692.542 435.347 1957 6418.347 697.716 3929.759 671.251 1958 6989.635 1028.159 4632.545 1035.521 1959 6725.342 1049.966 3268.466 1015.278 1960 7927.353 1037.197 3425.415 970.087 1961 7698.536 1000.000 3468.047 1000.000 1962 9246.526 1013.716 3003.027 1054.908 1963 9373.198 10 33.169 3872.779 1008.438 1964 9198.999 962.045 3445.165 984.045 1965 8083.938 774.632 3713. 323 1148.064 1966 11268.183 676.059 3540.009 1322.443 1967 10165.569 1328.008 3727.453 1303.327 1968 10263.441 754.957 3745.325 1175.899 1969 10451.275 1167.394 3525.320 1577.120 1970 12025.448 893.817 3853.262 1437.782 1961 PRICE= 42.3734 /TON 40.8163 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS - 7 3 -TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES BEETS BEANS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 590.111 705.063 749.836 814.415 1927 627.304 644.237 846.137 726.456 1928 666.266 598.417 937.926 666.646 1929 773.883 562.659 1124.992 623.337 1930 924.053 533.976 1377.358 590.528 1931 838.056 503.601 1247.479 537.078 1932 755.370 473.934 1122 .906 484.732 1933 686.441 444.949 1019.115 433.4 56 1934 841.190 416.624 1247.276 383.217 1935 851.804 388.935 1261.444 333.985 19 36 948.824 361.863 1403.413 285.730 1937 992.820 335.387 1466.738 238.422 1938 964.396 309.486 1423.085 192.034 1939 1036.050 284.143 1527.071 146.540 1940 1102.915 259.340 1623.805 101.914 1941 921.484 534.033 1988.938 100.388 1942 961.841 615.427 2310.535 114.762 1943 1211.221 632.748 1861.836 269.029 1944 1673.278 380.479 2928.692 148.273 1945 1455.134 529.152 2797.655 201.687 1946 1822.821 484.257 3444.023 202.952 1947 1825.775 547.523 3511.957 261.688 1948 1917.129 565.590 2778.917 212.640 1949 2048.290 608.484 2165.758 254.785 1950 2955.356 444.330 3448.737 284.624 1951 2413.954 528.684 3483.857 310.242 1952 2214.753 538.483 3572.401 329.957 1953 2460.042 458.626 4818.310 263.170 1954 2217.902 508,343 3531 .326 302.694 1955 2242.783 588.296 3247.500 351.188 1956 2404.047 501.490 3500.410 445.846 1957 2298.356 518.967 4221.662 1141.846 19 58 1556.782 1018.967 3635.084 1098.362 1959 1761.490 932.416 2488.018 1057.011 1960 1385.073 1040.857 2703.127 1009.032 1961 1526.206 1000.000 3388.629 1000.000 1962 1720.335 961.598 3801.526 1044.518 1963 1557.096 902.248 4831.466 958.641 1964 1659.381 795.926 5768.289 970.056 1965 1344.604 842.900 5890.934 901.203 1966 1380.262 877.911 6366.996 558.448 1967 1297.667 982.009 6872.735 896.410 1968 1626.560 827.503 5466.873 1013.176 1969 1381.291 1020.947 5112. 159 1044.160 1970 1453.321 970.559 5869.298 997.303 1961 PRICE= 47.0401 /TON 94.8886 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -74-TABLE 1.1.2 VEGETABLES ASPARAGUS PARSNIPS Y EAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 1090.244 389.286 356.844 552.261 1927 1261.132 342.710 365.337 517.144 1928 1421.206 312.320 376.828 488.859 1929 1724.864 290.928 427.543 465.590 19 30 2130.541 275.054 500.784 446. 111 1931 1901.909 289.342 445.190 432.551 1932 1687.538 303.745 393.352 418.768 1933 1509.825 318.264 350.432 404.755 1934 1821.783 332.901 421.019 390.508 1935 1816.647 347.656 418.003 376.019 1936 1992.934 362.532 456.544 361.284 1937 2054.002 377.529 468.431 346.295 19 38 1965.412 392.650 446.200 331.047 1939 2080.134 407.895 470.081 315.531 1940 2181.763 423.267 490.759 299.742 1941 2309.308 459.378 481.534 473.279 1942 2226.407 497.360 637.420 518.523 1943 2436.686 550.998 622.211 916.990 1944 2534.790 570.563 770.013 592.620 1945 2462.599 585.640 804.547 893.747 1946 1660.378 675.380 903.437 587.075 1947 1871.784 789.252 709.848 999.413 1948 1918.132 945.546 737.103 859.871 1949 2143.020 945.451 748.686 811.017 1950 2175.147 996.819 750.283 671.592 1951 2414.560 963.272 653.572 826.869 19 52 2209.950 1023.727 732.721 894.932 1953 2483.886 1036.071 665.003 891.228 1954 2219.554 1015.929 616.102 950.242 1955 2679.819 968.566 651.304 875.538 1956 2722.451 1020.970 651 .114 906.849 1957 2383.315 992.050 503.749 1008.761 1958 19 27.883 978.296 542.148 1113.538 1959 1918. 175 936.343 527.271 1107.198 1960 1739.316 984.469 575.786 1024.914 1961 1749.907 1000.000 630.073 1000.000 1962 1738.409 1021.463 632.113 991.001 1963 1586.482 1056.983 604.675 1084.242 1964 1349.268 1118.043 427.015 1 186. 265 1965 1407.638 1127.938 636.538 1172.389 1966 1312.061 1190.304 506.557 1257.174 1967 1297.958 1273.306 394.216 1309.471 1968 1172.494 1355.815 579.691 1312.939 1969 1258.446 1409.927 421.479 1357.884 1970 1368.317 1411.586 361.901 1398.779 1961 PRICE= 378.146 /TON 72.3514 /TON TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -75-TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS CORNFODDER TAME HAY YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 24290.882 902.033 251939.907 785.669 1927 19194.666 826.248 305206.934 677. 543 1928 19833.046 866.913 289545.678 671. 145 1929 17972.007 848.429 276150.771 752. 399 19 30 18805.146 911.275 281918.240 641. 715 1931 15602.429 731.978 248954.578 500. 320 19 32 15461.769 508.318 239498.430 467. 050 1933 16895.418 606.285 204674.799 564. 939 19 34 20639.135 761.553 195406.211 758. 157 1935 22061.964 613.679 250376.907 490. 723 1936 16922.468 624.769 246469.408 502. 239 1937 21250.4 65 569.316 236591.251 4 86. 884 1938 23874.313 519.409 247876.108 487. 524 1939 24420.722 560.074 242952.659 539. 987 1940 22478.534 543.438 260364.475 548. 944 1941 20466.015 698.707 225822.184 790. 787 1942 21261.285 711.645 286450.938 680. 742 1943 19503.036 744.917 299923.995 709. 533 1944 20563.395 717.191 264475.164 811. 900 1945 16576.228 756.008 301377.585 780. 550 1946 17977.417 767.098 248188.708 824. 696 1947 16738.528 918.669 272024.452 988. 484 19 48 21277.515 1040.665 275056.671 1021. 113 1949 22446.074 1160.813 210692. 347 1256. 558 19 50 25518.952 994.455 231855.362 1161. 868 1951 19805.996 922. 366 315569.621 973. 129 1952 20996.195 844.732 308223.523 906. 590 1953 19589.596 872.458 312834.372 879. 719 1954 16478.848 890.943 314444.261 894. 434 1955 18588.747 961. 183 315507.101 962. 892 1956 18664.487 885.397 307207.573 985. 285 1957 19503.036 872.458 299986.515 982. 726 1958 20303.715 866.913 280152.050 1003. 199 1959 21331.615 874.307 314194.181 961 . 612 1960 17977.417 868.761 337529.766 944.338 1961 21932.124 1000.000 353941.262 1000. 000 1962 25881.421 1011.091 353863.112 1020. 473 1963 26963.421 1044.362 365398.049 1049. 264 1964 31724.217 1088.725 337139.016 1189. 379 1965 32519.487 1162.662 334278.726 1332. 053 1966 35938.604 1234.751 407145.768 1152.911 1967 39644.451 1245.841 396767.451 1142. 674 1968 42738.969 1225.508 360021.330 1183.622 1969 45763.157 1219.963 399768.410 1166. 986 1970 51373.323 1225.508 441797.470 1195. 777 1961 PRICE= 5410.00 /1000 TONS 15630.0 /1000 TONS TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -76-TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS SUGAR BEETS FIELD ROOTS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 6670.038 501.904 28813.233 711. 401 1927 4858.099 593.298 31372.913 551. 069 1928 5488.338 550.647 36694.351 564. 133 1929 4805.579 511.805 30514.073 624. 703 1930 6131.708 523.229 34589.352 525.534 1931 5724.678 465.346 24737.954 327. 791 1932 6643.778 466.108 31810.753 316. 508 1933 5803.458 479.055 29 150.0 33 399. 050 1934 5422.688 429.550 34117.832 371. 734 1935 6026.668 415.080 29554.193 378. 860 19 36 7300.278 443.260 32164.393 416. 271 1937 5540.858 449.352 30547.753 385. 392 19 38 6538.738 502.666 32130.713 395. 487 1 939 7694.178 590.252 31726. 553 445. 368 1940 10832.247 517.898 32854.832 377. 078 1941 9348.557 578.065 21252.075 531. 473 1942 9401.077 644.326 21403.635 551. 069 1943 6223.618 799.696 22161.435 733. 967 1944 7431.578 844.631 19433.355 839. 074 1945 8127.468 808.073 13573.037 988. 717 1946 9663.677 952.019 14886.557 888. 361 1947 7956.778 1092. 155 11080.717 1087. 292 1948 8258.768 1113.481 11350.157 1138. 955 1949 11278.667 1041.889 9177.798 1445. 962 19 50 14653.076 1249.048 10407.118 1115. 796 1951 12670.446 1139.376 8857.838 1358. 076 1952 13431.986 1153.846 8453.678 1001. 187 1953 11816.996 1020.564 8234.758 898. 456 1954 13182.516 918.507 7628.518 981. 591 1955 12880.526 1022.087 7527.478 1321. 259 1956 1 1725.087 1319.877 7156.998 1261. 877 1 957 13839.016 1008.378 5910.839 13 63. 610 1958 17397.245 1102.056 6702.318 1191. 211 1959 16281.195 973.343 5641.399 1232. 779 1960 14429.866 1093.679 4412.079 1270. 190 1961 14521.776 1000.000 4849.919 1000. 000 1962 14521.776 1447.068 4597.319 1318. 290 1963 17292.205 1396.801 4563.639 1318.883 1964 17042.735 1120.335 4681.519 1279. 691 1965 14994.456 1271.134 3721.639 1418. 646 1966 15322.705 1249.048 3283.799 1489. 311 1967 14193.526 1271.897 2879.639 1557. 601 1968 14416.736 1312.262 2845.959 1590. 855 1969 14154.136 1339.680 2155.519 1976. 247 1970 12040.206 814.928 2121.840 1948. 931 1961 PRICE= 13130.0 /1000 TONS 16840.0 /1000 TONS -77-TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS POTATOES FLAXSEED YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 65711.777 1050.000 19903.397 487. 952 1927 65041.177 835.714 16218.198 466. 867 1928 70272.975 578.571 11998.478 478. 915 1929 55901.981 1135.714 6839. 199 716. 867 1930 67537.376 592.857 16829.078 283. 132 1931 73226.974 307.143 8183.799 237. 952 1932 55182.381 450.000 9027.079 186. 747 1933 59842.979 550.000 2098.240 361. 446 1934 67332.977 357.143 3021.200 346. 385 1935 54137.981 571.429 5534.439 358.434 1936 55459.581 814.285 5959.399 433.735 1937 59565.779 450.000 2573.000 445. 783 1938 50313.182 657.143 4179.879 340. 361 1939 50945.982 807. 142 6786.079 424. 699 1940 59219.979 600.000 10122.679 322.289 1941 51854.582 892.857 22509.597 379. 518 1942 55595.381 1078.571 51360.392 599. 398 1943 55928.580 1278.572 61194.231 647. 590 1944 61861.778 1085.714 29488.236 759. 036 1945 44617.984 1600.000 20666.997 753. 012 1946 58458.380 1214.286 22489.677 900. 602 1947 53223.781 1564.286 45889.033 1578. 312 1948 62152.978 1171.428 61250.671 1147. 590 1949 59471.979 1078.571 7443.439 996. 988 1950 61354.979 885.714 16463.878 1045. 181 1951 41899.185 2414.286 31466.955 1174. 699 1952 51742.582 2007.143 38711.194 951. 807 1953 58524.180 942.857 32363. 355 734. 940 1954 45028. 184 1728.571 36513.355 765. 060 19 55 56267.380 1264.286 63046.791 834. 337 1956 59254.979 1250.000 116170.103 771 . 084 1957 61241.579 1235.714 63760.591 762. 048 1958 55453.981 1228.571 74175.429 789. 157 1959 49859.583 1971.429 57074.112 921 . 687 1960 59774.379 1421.429 74935.709 828. 313 1961 61751.178 1000.000 48066.953 1000. 000 1962 65629.177 1121.429 53335.792 921. 687 1963 64485.378 1228.571 70105. 110 876. 506 19 64 66266.177 2064.286 67412.590 885. 542 1965 64100.378 1850.000 96864.306 816. 265 1966 76550.573 1064.286 73106.389 819. 277 1967 65440.177 1300.000 31134.955 927. 711 1968 74036.174 1164.285 55331.112 867. 470 1969 72602.575 1614.286 91459.347 774. 096 1970 77193.173 1500.000 162454.216 683. 735 1961 PRICE= 1400.00 /1000 CWT 3320.00 /1000 BU TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -78-TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS DRY BEANS DRY PEAS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 4523.999 676.923 5849.698 788.289 1927 4044.299 594.872 6204.898 797.297 1928 4562.999 915.385 5612.158 833.333 1929 5814.899 846.154 4395.599 927.928 1930 5612.099 582.051 5263.618 662. 162 1931 5085.599 184.615 3039.179 382.883 19 32 4449.899 141.026 3369.959 382.883 1933 3474.900 253.846 3056.939 450.451 1934 3174.600 341.026 3369.959 472.973 1935 4527.899 374.3 59 3587.519 490.991 1936 3416.400 523.077 2728.379 729.730 1937 5054.399 315.385 2663.999 756.757 1938 6072.299 284.615 3030.299 698.198 1939 5955.299 528.205 2901.539 810.811 1940 5760.299 471.795 3008.099 882.883 1941 6438.899 435.897 2624.039 896.397 1942 5132.399 402.564 3092.459 941.441 1943 4711.199 561.538 2977.019 977.477 1944 4722.899 648.718 2197.799 1117. 117 1945 4286.099 651.282 2963.699 1234.235 1946 5319.599 766.667 4539.899 1297.297 1947 5019.299 1397.435 3458.759 1247.748 19 48 5592.599 1056.409 2590.739 1247.748 1949 6232.199 846.154 1713.839 1148.649 1950 4621.499 1230.768 1447.440 1261.261 1951 4793.099 1074.358 1669.439 1265.766 1952 5054.399 1130.768 2122.319 1234.235 1953 4601.999 1058.973 2914.859 918.919 1954 3946.800 1282.051 2433.119 1103.604 1955 4738.499 1076.922 2262.179 1148.649 19 56 4469.399 979.487 4033.739 896.397 1957 4266.599 874.359 2999.219 914.414 1958 4769.699 938.462 2484.179 981.982 1959 4504.499 976.923 2255.519 977.477 1960 3880.500 987.179 2484.179 950.451 1961 5167.499 1000.000 2308.799 1000.000 1962 5557.499 1076.922 1822.619 1027.027 1963 5982.599 1107.691 2319.899 1058.559 1964 8022.299 1087.179 3827.279 923.423 1965 8579.999 1123.076 2945.939 918.919 1966 11434.799 1051.281 2428.679 1103.604 1967 5596.499 1382.050 2475.299 1090.090 1968 6321.899 1279.486 2268.839 1094.595 1969 7608.899 1076.922 2841.599 972.973 1970 7242.299 1456.409 3620.819 932.433 1961 PRICE= 3900.00 /1000 BU 2220.00 /1000 BU TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -79-TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS BUCKWHEAT GRAIN CORN YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 11265.473 763.158 9453.722 826.447 1927 12414.592 780.702 5157.016 818.182 19 28 12424.852 815.790 6341.605 925.620 1929 11935.792 824.562 6271.425 876.033 19 30 12429.412 570.176 7049.454 719.009 1931 7885.375 438.597 6593. 285 347.108 19 32 9603.354 377.193 6118.965 371.901 1933 9670.614 438.597 6115.335 487.603 19 34 9843.894 464.912 8225.573 537.190 1935 9061.854 447.368 9400.482 371.901 1936 9799.434 622.807 7360.424 578.513 1937 8829.294 631.579 6548.515 528.926 1938 8070.055 508.772 9304.892 388.430 1939 7806.715 526.316 9797.362 454.546 1940 7628.875 500.000 8416.753 454.546 1941 4718.457 596.491 16543.107 595.042 1942 5077.557 622.807 17773.676 652.893 1943 6086.456 701.755 9672.732 719.009 1944 5380.797 728.070 14490.948 818. 182 1945 4913.397 745.614 12868.340 859.505 1946 4509.837 850.878 13318.459 876.033 1947 4765.197 1017.544 8333.263 1545.456 1948 3556.798 1078.948 15363.358 1090.910 1949 3016.438 1078.948 16896.426 1066.116 1950 3349.318 1157.895 17064.616 1322.315 1951 3445.078 1184.211 19238.984 1479.340 1952 3258.118 1140.351 25643.509 1190.083 1953 4072.077 921.052 27936.457 1115.703 1954 2810.098 956.140 30118.086 1198.348 1955 2756.518 1052.632 43025. 145 876.033 1956 3621.778 1008.772 33654.913 991.736 1957 2521.678 938.597 35725.221 975.207 1958 2281.139 921.052 36039.821 1000.000 1959 1631.339 929.825 37396,230 958.678 1960 1802.339 982.4 57 31579.765 1016.529 1961 1387.379 1000.000 35341.651 1000.000 1962 1312.139 1096.492 40412.757 1057.852 1963 1364.579 1114.035 43782.605 1132.232 1964 1452.359 964.912 63936.348 1099.174 1965 1012.319 991.228 71992.522 1074.380 1966 1326.959 1201.755 80256.815 1214.876 1967 2270.879 1350.878 89640.358 1041.323 1968 1568.639 1298.246 98213.201 1024.794 1969 1932.299 1333.334 88845.388 1082.645 1970 3229.618 1210.526 122119.151 1107.438 1961 PRICE= 1140.00 /1000 BU 1210.00 /1000 BU TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -80-TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS MIXED GRAIN RYE YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 30148.742 741.573 13031.524 766.355 1927 33483.571 808.989 16660.962 738.318 1928 34825.690 797.753 15641.253 785.047 1929 31821.051 853.933 14081.194 186.916 1930 39405.629 483.146 23559.249 261 . 682 1931 35093.580 415.730 5694.537 252.336 1932 34742.030 370.786 9062.896 355.140 1 9 33 29378.002 449.438 4469.388 457.944 1934 33754.131 460.674 5035.418 252.336 1935 35186.140 404.494 10278.415 654.206 19 36 29938.702 629.213 4580.668 672.897 1937 32154.801 573.034 6174.967 271.028 19 38 34853.280 438.202 11757.155 392.523 1939 39224.069 483. 146 16378.483 308.411 1940 38388.359 438.202 14973.573 411.215 1941 40607.129 606.741 11919.795 439.252 1942 54792.835 584.270 25880.078 897. 196 1943 26757.843 707.865 6849.067 897.196 1944 43563.708 662.921 9073.596 1392.524 1945 35948.870 719. 101 6258.427 2093.459 1946 42389.798 741.573 9326.116 3093.459 1947 26895.793 1044.944 14584.093 1224.299 19 48 47773.407 1089.888 29447.457 1140.187 1949 42997.668 1101.124 10906.505 1233.645 1950 55925.805 1123.596 13915.344 1457.944 1951 61795.353 1146.067 18849. 111 1289.719 1952 57008.044 1089.888 25706.738 76 6.355 1953 60286.803 955.056 30864.136 859.813 1954 56647.594 943.820 13708.834 859.813 1955 58976.724 943.820 14808.793 934.580 1956 59290.004 943.820 9024.376 822.430 1957 55881.305 842.697 8974.086 822.430 19 58 56813.134 921.348 8251 .836 831.776 1959 55738.015 910. 112 9026.516 813.084 1960 52452.136 932.584 10936.465 813.084 1961 54565.885 1000.000 6975.327 1000.000 1962 64327.402 988.764 13108.564 990.654 1963 62957.693 955.056 14723.193 1112.150 1964 63324.373 966.292 13209.144 971.963 1965 71911.090 988.764 19082.371 981.308 1966 72484.250 1044.944 18425.392 1018.691 1967 68020.011 1056.180 12819.664 1018.691 1968 76185.759 955.056 13962.424 962.617 1969 77737.919 910. 112 17647.502 831.776 1970 87729.946 943.820 23996.879 794.393 1961 PRICE= 890.000 /1000 BU 1070.00 /1000 BU TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -81-TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS BARLEY OATS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 104965 .252 495.238 287562.000 640.000 1927 101784 .805 628.572 329784.750 680.000 1928 143210 .417 533.334 339114.750 626.666 1929 107428 .550 561.905 212128.500 786.666 19 30 141917 .868 190.476 317361.000 320.000 19 31 70752 .084 247.619 246208.500 320.000 1932 84811 .571 219.048 293670.750 253.333 1933 66526 .888 285.714 230608.500 346.666 1934 66929 .038 447.619 240840.000 426.666 1935 88173 .668 276.191 295761.000 320.000 1936 75518 .030 657.143 203833.500 573.333 1937 87280 .119 485.715 201331.500 573.333 1938 107354 .000 266.667 278536.500 320.000 1939 108304 .249 323.810 288305.250 400.000 1940 109468 .698 304.762 285394.500 373.333 1941 115920 .942 409.524 229539.000 546.666 1942 268838 .600 438.095 481116.000 520.000 1943 218783 .047 628.572 346175.250 773.333 1944 196692 .117 714.286 355533.000 720.000 1945 156231 .455 638.096 263425.500 706.666 1946 154194 .457 733.334 270645.000 760.000 1 947 146880 .163 1047.619 202642.500 1080.000 1948 159894 .901 914.286 258978.750 933.333 1949 123946 .085 1247.620 228446.250 1053.333 1950 175869 .586 1076.191 301326.000 1040.000 1951 257706 .510 1047.619 370414.500 1013.333 19 52 306150 .315 1009.524 353337.750 89 3.333 1953 275226 .794 819.048 310478.250 840.000 1954 183955 .629 847.620 229800.750 893.333 1955 26 3656 .855 828.572 299588.250 893.333 1956 310867 .961 752.381 350637.750 773.333 1957 226807 . 139 723.8 10 237684.000 813.333 1958 249701 .318 733.334 259298.250 853.333 1959 226425 .989 704.762 258156.750 920.000 1960 203146 .461 761.905 298878.750 906.666 1961 118271 .890 1000.000 212973.750 1000.000 1962 174165 .438 895.239 369457.500 893.333 1963 232296 .534 895.239 334407.750 826.666 1964 176885.985 952.382 260254.500 920.000 1965 229214 .787 980.953 299987.250 973.333 1966 316296 .456 1000.000 281008.500 986.666 1967 261094 .857 828.572 228133.500 960.000 1968 341641 .332 771.429 271887.000 800.000 1969 397301 .780 628.572 278540.250 786.666 1970 436488 .794 676.191 275887.500 693.333 1961 PRICE= 1050.00 /1000 BU 750.000 /1000 BU -82-TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS TABLE 1,1.3 FIELD CROPS WHEAT SOYBEANS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 700273.622 633.721 0.0 0.0 1927 825023.449 581.396 0.0 0.0 1928 974768.305 465.116 0.0 0.0 1929 519770.019 610.465 0.0 0.0 19 30 723555.532 284.884 0.0 0.0 1931 552678.765 220.930 0.0 0.0 1932 762064.596 203.488 0.0 0.0 1933 484854.034 284.884 0.0 0.0 1934 474460.078 354.651 0.0 0.0 1935 484927.994 354.651 0.0 0.0 1936 377054.799 546.512 0.0 0.0 1937 309961.068 593.023 0.0 0.0 1938 619216.936 343.023 0.0 0.0 1939 895471.179 313.953 0.0 0.0 1940 929126.404 331.395 0.0 0.0 1941 541300.970 354.651 488.250 0.0 1942 956434.833 447.674 1962.000 768.889 1943 485688.233 656.976 1282.500 800.000 19 44 713557.176 720.930 1532.250 888.889 1945 544070.168 936.047 1899.000 844.444 1946 707953.419 930.233 2412.000 982.222 1947 582230.072 941.861 2497.500 1360.000 1948 656030.081 959.302 4104.000 1022.222 1949 629567.892 936.047 5872.500 1004.444 1950 802362.458 895.349 7476.750 1133.333 1951 952325.754 901.163 8649.000 1222.222 1952 1207393.046 924.418 9288.000 1133.333 1953 1090548.336 773.256 1 1279. 250 1088.889 1954 571007.077 720.930 10750.500 1066.666 1955 892985.780 796.512 13484.250 928.888 1956 985628.380 726.744 11927.250 955.555 1957 675476.392 744. 186 14643.000 866.667 1958 684692.148 767.442 14960.250 835.555 1959 765532.114 767.442 15363.000 831. 111 1960 891611.500 912.791 11252.250 902.222 1961 487437.472 1000.000 14919.750 1000.000 1962 972805.786 965.117 14868.000 1102.222 1963 1244419.470 1011.628 11254.500 1244.444 1964 1033248.280 924.418 15696.000 1275.555 1965 1116988.164 976.744 18067.500 1200.000 1966 1423020.754 1023.256 20277.000 1333.333 1967 1019821.966 947.674 18204.750 1191.111 1968 1 117731.204 779.070 20310.750 1084.444 1969 1 176954.219 738.372 17244.000 1080.000 1970 1086212.217 720.930 23366.250 1217.778 1961 PRICE= 1720.00 /1000 BU 2250.00 /1000 BU - 8 3 -TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS MUSTARD SEED RAPESEED Y EAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1927 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1928 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1929 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 19 30 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1931 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1932 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1933 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1934 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1935 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1936 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1937 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 19 38 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1939 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 19 40 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1941 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1942 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 1943 0 .0 0. 0 79.920 1666. 667 1944 0 .0 0. 0 220.320 1666. 667 1945 0 .0 0. 0 302. 400 1666. 667 1946 0 .0 0. 0 466.920 1666. 667 1947 0 .0 0. 0 788.400 1666. 667 1948 0 .0 0. 0 2303.999 1666. 667 1949 0 .0 0, 0 612.000 1388. 889 19 50 0 .0 0. 0 4.320 1055. 556 1951 633 .132 0. 0 216.000 972. 222 1952 808 .164 0. 0 500.400 944. 444 1953 685 .692 1388. 889 883.800 1000. 000 1954 968 .184 1222. 222 1040.400 916. 667 1955 1787 .687 1250. 000 2804.759 972. 222 1956 4798 .798 1055. 556 10793.515 972. 222 19 57 2560 .031 972. 222 15590.081 888. 889 1958 2530 .511 972. 222 13971.594 694. 444 1959 1769 .183 1055. 556 6407.997 1111. 111 1960 2077 .739 1055. 556 20015.991 916. 667 1961 1349 .999 1000. 000 20195.991 1000. 000 1962 1803 .599 1111. 111 5273.998 1138. 889 1963 3869 .998 1138. 889 15767.993 1388. 889 1964 1789 . 199 1111. 111 23813.990 1527. 778 1965 4417 . 198 1305. 556 40319.983 1611. 111 1966 5954 .397 1305. 556 46439.980 1388. 889 1967 5396 .398 1416. 667 44459.981 1055. 556 1968 16883 .993 1250. 000 34919.985 1027. 778 1969 9287 .996 1000. 000 60119.974 1277. 778 1970 6764 .397 833. 333 129959.945 1277. 778 1961 PRICE= 36.0000 /1000 LB 36.0000 /1000 LB TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -84-TABLE 1.1.3 FIELD CROPS SUNFLOWER SEED YEAR QUANTITY PRICE 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 1928 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 1930 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 1932 0.0 0.0 19 33 0.0 0.0 19311 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 1936 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 1938 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 0.0 0.0 1941 0.0 0.0 1942 0.0 0.0 1943 233.508 1136.364 1944 374.000 1136.364 1945 127.864 1136.364 1946 572.000 1136.364 1947 704.000 1363.636 1948 1020.800 1363.636 1949 1122.000 863.636 1950 434.720 886.364 1951 331.760 840.909 1952 83.600 1090.909 1953 272.140 977.273 1954 655.600 909.09 1 1955 715.000 954.545 1956 772.464 977.273 19 57 528.000 1022.727 1958 973.500 1181.818 1959 1423.840 795.454 1960 1284.800 977.273 1961 1060.708 1000.000 1962 763.840 1204.546 1963 1752.871 1022.727 1964 1359.600 1113.636 1965 1285.900 1340.909 1966 1442.759 1363.636 1967 1584.439 1022.727 1968 1089.000 1136.364 1969 1495.999 1250.000 1970 2435.399 1318.182 1961 PRICE= 44.0000 /1000 LB -85-TABLE 1.1 CBOP OUTPUTS TABLE 1.1 .« l OTHER CROPS TOBACCO MAPLE PRODUCTS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 14479.549 509.684 9698.685 505.017 1927 22017.214 407.817 12371.737 398.893 1928 21076.324 323.206 12091.815 461 .800 1929 14960.794 408.000 13183.903 464.051 1930 18444.044 388.364 1 1855.262 442.926 1931 25744.100 275.986 7222.760 478.626 1932 27120.019 227.802 9604.063 281.756 19 33 22557.233 289.264 7262.186 283.661 1934 19458.276 370.948 9197.980 330.616 19 35 27864.994 387.834 11453.121 307.514 1936 23166.073 404.643 11614.766 319.765 1937 36215.450 473.279 6595.894 340.363 1938 49444.667 395.654 13014.373 295.827 19 39 54103.903 359.383 10230.929 336.626 1940 32160.031 344.714 12217.977 344.492 1941 47312.218 408.732 8973.254 396.957 1942 45059.710 478.010 12817.245 523.981 1943 34713.946 565.939 9063.933 634.382 1944 52955.043 585.440 12182. 494 743.444 1945 46388.911 660.071 6032.109 745.510 1946 71023.334 696.559 8452.837 743.182 1947 53594.024 698.958 15466.642 914.161 1948 63611.256 790.300 9438.476 904,913 1949 70237.669 789.505 9797.248 931.384 1950 60430.919 848.770 11760.641 904.372 1951 77256.412 857.055 9103.359 939.763 1952 70186.932 809.224 13680.665 889.942 19 53 69921.193 852.631 7680.097 951.290 1954 92814.493 838.102 9548.867 1155.948 1955 67735.998 851.615 8795.840 1237.176 1956 81349.507 934.965 10554.219 941.424 1957 82818.862 948.926 12355.966 837.005 1958 991 13.378 904.045 9797.248 861.466 1959 85350.171 1059.201 9296.544 1018.443 1960 107585.402 1066.120 10432.000 1000.000 1961 105351.982 1000.000 10432.000 1000.000 1962 101989.295 940.334 11121.947 984.899 1963 101043.382 896.971 11003.670 1036. 109 1964 77066.527 1078.523 6978.322 1087.653 1965 84835.771 1251.807 8914.116 1103. 194 1966 117639.807 1394.332 12746.279 1142.137 1967 107047.392 1354.288 9899.755 1129.320 1968 109916.275 1399.310 10668.553 820.355 1969 124312.436 1310.609 7762.890 1165.416 1970 111451.437 1282.307 6773. 309 1296.707 1961 PRICE= 502.344 /1000 LB 3942.55 /1000 GAL -86-TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS TABLE 1.1.4 OTHER CROPS FLAX TOW IN BUSHELS FLAX SEED IN TONS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 2075.000 53.614 48300.000 2.COO 1927 4260.000 50.000 36080.000 3.000 1928 6880.000 50.058 41280.000 4.000 1929 4500.000 52.500 32970.000 4.750 1930 6086.000 45.000 62232.000 1.554 1931 3019.000 40.000 35870.000 1.500 1932 3552.000 27.017 35945.000 1.562 1933 3055.000 31.500 30546.000 2. 135 1934 4361.000 26.244 41755.000 3.072 1935 5950.000 27.269 37200.000 3.839 1936 3094.000 25.000 31210.000 3.402 19 37 2654.000 30.000 39535.000 1.017 1938 2246.000 38.736 77992.000 2.433 1939 2230.000 40.000 63216.000 3.887 1940 1027.000 63.875 81300.000 4.255 1941 755.000 50.000 137930.000 3.500 1942 4050.000 332.741 195915.000 2.245 19 43 3122.000 330.045 157957.000 4.000 1944 2455.000 300.000 122487.000 4. 106 1945 2178.000 229.890 68747.000 4.999 1946 433.000 300.231 81000.000 5.000 19 47 515.000 299.029 50000.000 6.000 1948 850.000 300.000 50000.000 5.500 1949 551.000 192.377 35800.000 5. 000 1950 250.000 584.000 25000.000 5. 320 1951 985.000 294.416 42000.000 5.000 1952 500.000 220.000 35000.000 4.514 1953 193.000 196.891 25000.000 2.720 1954 148.000 243.243 7000.000 3.571 1955 190.000 200.000 10000.000 3.600 1956 156.000 320.513 8000.000 2.375 1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1958 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1959 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1960 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1961 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1962 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 63 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1964 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1965 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1967 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1968 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1970 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE 1.1 CROP OUTPUTS -87-TABLE 1.1.4 OTHER CROPS FLAX FIBRE IN TONS GRASS SEED YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 0.0 0.0 3915.595 1301.718 1927 0.0 0.0 3862.260 994,495 1928 0.0 0.0 2251.593 1244.008 1929 0.0 0.0 2092.624 899.349 1930 0.0 0.0 1936.891 1063.044 1931 13.000 307.692 2636.072 496.952 1932 100.000 180.000 1425.936 481.789 1933 0.0 0.0 1710.864 667.499 1934 23.000 313.043 946.309 836.936 1935 45.000 360.000 3582.121 472.346 1936 318.000 359.490 2757.241 780.853 1937 684.000 309.766 3073.497 762.975 1938 1331.000 181.705 4830,446 620.025 1939 2040.000 448.088 3887.245 726.993 1940 2989.000 439.963 3205.022 698.279 1941 5500.000 472.273 4890.513 647.376 1942 1479.000 821.008 5258.421 666.550 1943 1249.000 752.602 6729.278 1045.432 1944 1070.000 158.878 7470.272 1110.267 1945 960.000 1000.000 7391.694 1196.884 1946 460.000 700.000 7559.466 1414.121 1947 411 .000 798.053 6756.722 1331.563 1948 1000.000 800.000 11970.352 1816.070 1949 452.000 544.248 7050.065 1882.252 1950 223.000 663.677 9737.141 1412.016 1951 345.000 718.841 7774.748 1475.803 19 52 235.000 578.723 10499.755 1049.644 1953 140.000 414.286 9859.346 969.131 1954 73.000 547.945 9297.127 1366.013 1955 70.000 557.143 10361.757 866.069 1956 98.000 561.224 7416.678 1443.638 1957 0.0 0.0 8560.922 912.752 1958 0.0 0.0 10428.943 1182.287 1959 0.0 0.0 10267.385 1044.180 1960 0.0 0.0 12278.194 720.383 1961 0.0 0.0 11574.999 1000.000 1962 0.0 0.0 9437.067 1076.606 1963 0.0 0.0 10216.121 1426.667 1964 0.0 0.0 10622.348 968.430 1965 0.0 0.0 10936.144 1508.667 1966 0.0 0.0 1 1129.937 1017.346 1967 0.0 0.0 8851.805 837.908 1968 0.0 0.0 9679.275 932.508 1969 0.0 0.0 8687.399 912.011 1970 0.0 0.0 11615.389 953.132 1961 PRICE= 129. 454 /1000 LB -88-TABLE 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS TABLE 1.2.1 L I V E ANIMAL OUTPUT MUTTON AND LAMB VEAL YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 7890.622 663.636 19140.838 302.575 1927 9079.666 639.394 21529.029 334. 764 1928 8806.102 672.727 20639.027 399. 142 1929 9458.680 6 18.182 21565.377 414. 163 19 30 9985.515 472.727 23429.346 339. 056 1931 10235.445 387.879 20698.515 231. 760 1932 9883.599 290.909 20876.367 171. 674 1933 10478.969 324.242 22712.129 160. 944 1934 10912.151 339.394 26455.782 175. 966 19 35 10432.635 372.727 25160.128 208. 155 1936 10373.937 412.121 27535.474 223. 176 19 37 9966.485 445.454 32240.979 242. 489 1938 10031.147 433.939 27964.208 261. 803 1939 9972.391 486.667 28916.523 278. 970 1940 8683.118 501.212 30138.694 311. 159 1941 8420.373 589.697 ' 30234.020 360. 086 1942 8453.744 663.636 31693.794 468. 241 1943 8694.801 653.9 39 29974.575 523. 176 1944 9819.795 603.030 29638.560 435. 622 1945 11321.485 639.394 34304.630 465. 665 1946 10505.067 715.151 31788.173 525. 751 1947 9887.292 729.091 30214.565 541. 631 1948 7648.024 1029.091 32309.147 757. 940 1949 6709.051 1172.121 31922.469 851 . 073 1950 5927.586 1449.090 30318.818 1045. 493 1951 4632.574 1795.151 25440.893 1401. 287 1952 4912.694 1296.969 23460.743 952. 790 1953 4918.098 1151.515 28891.650 787. 554 1954 5039.383 1063.636 3 0765.173 736. 052 1955 5394.288 1003.030 31446.727 748. 927 1956 5414.537 1030.303 32671.840 731. 760 1957 5584.990 1063.636 36569.578 759. 657 1958 5455.728 1103.030 34102.051 1021. 459 1959 5450.998 1060.606 31210.232 1021. 459 1960 5212.953 1027.273 31862.078 965. 666 1961 5685.979 1000.000 33417.308 1000. 000 1962 5417.081 1042.424 3 8014.280 1103.004 1 9 63 5222.054 1103.030 32725.634 1032. 189 1964 5008.891 1172.727 35508.919 920. 601 1965 4277.261 1284.848 44824.589 916. 309 1966 3642.712 1366.666 40140.010 1135. 193 1967 3537.431 1327.272 38078.573 1184. 549 1968 3431.384 1463.636 36092.540 1199. 570 1969 3138.680 1660.605 28694.241 1450. 643 1970 2615.742 1690.908 28559.509 1519. 313 1961 PRICE= 165.000 /1000 LB 233.000 /1000 LB TABLE 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS -89-TABLE ! 1.2.1 L I V E ANIMAL OUTPUT BEEF PORK I EAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 120567. 480 264.000 157044.527 498.032 1927 128179. 195 306.667 158773.028 391.732 1928 115622. 051 402.667 155519.718 385.827 1929 115510. 488 392.000 151400.569 440.945 1930 93558. 047 338.667 134908.623 437.008 1931 97176. 961 229.333 142746.442 246.063 1932 92100. 715 192.000 158686.351 155.512 1933 98981. 227 160.000 159351.958 196.850 19 34 111112. 980 165.333 161569.202 303.150 1935 121515. 387 197.333 143723.024 316.929 19 36 136456. 957 184.000 166677.332 312.992 1937 135398. 262 221.333 174621.640 326.772 1938 131043. 621 232.000 149313.420 364.961 1939 133452. 609 272.000 158902.886 340.158 1940 134180. 074 304.000 219788.417 431. 102 1941 153000. 574 356.800 284187.832 505.906 1942 155800. 605 447.467 317902.514 591.732 1943 153690. 574 504.533 357806.158 637.795 1944 177896. 906 525.333 385193.193 655.512 1945 221115. 375 480.000 287391.279 675.197 1946 207936. 375 533.333 226488.475 740.157 1947 181073. 543 582.400 248427.069 838.976 1948 209990. 813 810.133 219492.095 1142.913 1949 196050. 059 864.000 214766.886 1169.291 1950 185935. 195 1129.067 222412.824 1122.834 1951 168360. 516 1505.065 222761.852 1274.015 1952 163376. 895 1066.667 264029.523 986.220 1953 192637.383 816.000 20 2926.044 1149.606 1954 210126. 750 770.667 202868.831 1147.637 1955 212480. 813 794.667 225738.318 905.512 1956 224586. 188 760.000 224065.491 952.756 1957 261754. 688 781. 333 207930.779 1129.921 1958 273209. 813 1024.000 247535.482 1042.125 1959 237261. 563 1083.733 314506.026 865.748 1960 253994. 063 986.667 251157.616 873.228 1961 280763. 875 1000.000 248553.609 1000.000 1962 274243. 875 1114.666 250232.612 1062.992 1963 283271. 250 1077.333 249279.271 1029.527 1964 307692.375 984.000 269377.603 994.095 1965 364504. 313 984.000 255902.272 1220.473 1966 358379. 438 1162.666 258045.618 1340.551 1967 340544. 063 1240.000 300741.770 1124.015 1968 366747. 750 1237.333 300745.580 1133.858 1969 349383. 750 1421.332 288723.001 13 65.826 1970 345066. 188 1485.332 340288.798 1185.039 1961 PRICE= 187.500 /1000 LB 254.000 /1000 LB -90-I ABLE 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS TABLE 1.2 .1 L I V E ANIMAL OUTPUT FOWL AND CHICKEN TURKEY Y EAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 12765.968 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1927 12784.454 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1928 13607.055 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1929 14965.240 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1930 15206.798 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1931 16071.371 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1932 18871.670 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1933 23277.456 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1934 29330.452 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1935 33831.163 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1936 35392.688 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1937 34361.998 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1938 34241.840 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1939 35401.181 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1940 36501.816 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1941 49278.524 0.0 11438.422 0. 0 1942 55714.966 0.0 13062.452 0. 0 1943 57923.231 0.0 9652.699 0. 0 19 44 64830.303 0.0 10756.534 0. 0 1945 62312.534 0.0 10774.252 0. 0 1946 59356.856 1131.242 9925.840 1059. 658 1947 63902.284 1102.934 12591.216 1215. 847 1948 53936.364 1259.484 11308.613 1518. 046 1949 61326.557 1345.388 13676.050 1371. 156 1950 57900.749 1352.901 13046.347 1501. 110 1951 71003.660 1881.014 14080.608 1705. 537 1952 81440.451 1660.758 19326.656 1434. 288 1953 77287.234 1695.480 17660. 110 1483. 003 1954 80026.586 1519.669 26208.324 1294. 703 1955 73024.600 1886.418 21765.599 1607. 491 19 56 77167.329 1480.639 28978.711 1395. 956 1957 78772.084 1342.480 29396. 153 1273. 602 1958 88933.059 1304.857 34734.961 1250. 959 1959 91227.768 1118.464 42070.796 1042. 814 1960 89414.473 1138.618 34672.154 1178. 525 1961 104014.967 1000.000 46327.991 1000. 000 1962 102797.428 1094.103 47398.652 1007. 539 1963 115593.389 1095.209 47128.732 1035. 398 1964 123643.831 993.151 52324.533 1100. 650 1965 128681.088 1061.476 60006.943 1071, 609 1966 142023.627 1137.994 68648.247 1079. 124 1967 149570.465 1048.295 66880.561 1041, 169 1968 149726.822 1077.649 64539.861 1061. 406 1969 171561.632 1056.349 65108. 366 1076. 083 1970 187511.850 990.294 72571.427 1008. 965 1961 PRICE=0.249804 / LB 0.322100 / LB -91-TABLE 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS TABLE 1.2.1 L I V E ANIMAL OUTPUT GOOSE DUCK YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1927 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1928 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1929 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 19 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1931 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1932 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1933 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1934 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1935 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 19 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1937 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1938 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1939 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1940 0.0 0.0 0,0 0. 0 1941 2267.736 0.0 1279.678 0. 0 1942 2422.378 0.0 1678.181 0. 0 1943 2276.612 0.0 1540.753 0. 0 1944 2071.106 0.0 1467.012 0. 0 1945 2376.293 0.0 1667.008 0. 0 1946 2076.909 579.708 1356.027 387. 898 1947 2201.169 714.620 1318.039 465. 085 1948 1489.407 1178.993 847.656 864. 737 1949 1607.522 1035.133 854.733 1479. 995 19 50 1503.404 1480.640 1017.858 1319. 437 1951 1450.832 1373.005 882. 293 1697. 849 1952 1614.350 1072.258 1595.501 975. 242 1953 1693.548 1062.857 1480.792 977. 855 19 54 1184.903 955.352 1497.179 862. 288 1955 938.432 1333.074 1082.661 1210. 905 1956 922.388 1176.294 1074.468 1093. 565 1957 865.379 1092.007 1050.260 1073. 068 1958 949.698 1094.032 1289.734 1077. 742 1959 939. 115 974.321 1372.786 1000. 884 1960 956.184 1086.611 1523.994 1094. 49 3 1961 1005.000 1000.000 1505.000 1000. 000 1962 1000.562 1025.424 1630.882 1055. 257 1963 1041.186 1029.596 1588.052 1028. 933 1964 1127.894 1018.713 1866.632 1099. 842 1965 1225.185 1048.005 1885.998 1040. 828 1966 1244.302 1057.621 1910.951 611. 737 1967 1276.732 1061.303 1844.658 1143. 301 1968 1264.102 1006.248 ,1932.552 1081. 989 1969 1158.618 1176.402 1825.664 1323. 902 1970 1249.764 1133.814 2023.053 1329. 179 1961 PRICE=0.341372 / LB 0.372433 / LB TABLE 1.2 -92-ANIMAL OUTPUTS TABLE 1.2.1 L I V E ANIMAL OUTPUT FURRED ANIMALS BY HEAD YEAR QUANTITY PRICE 1926 15015 .000 153. 074 1927 17378 .000 152. 615 1928 26379 .000 145. 473 1929 35422 .000 126. 333 1930 24500 .000 74. 634 1931 9623 .000 51. 128 1932 7216 .000 33. 702 19 33 9409 .000 37. 673 1934 13839 .000 41. 408 1935 14526 .000 44. 708 1936 21429 .000 38. 769 19 37 25202 .000 40. 905 1938 25436 .000 28. 702 1939 21780 .000 27. 393 1940 17313 .000 32. 0 39 1941 20390 .000 38. 394 1942 10896 .000 38. 261 1943 15188 .000 58. 424 1944 18999 .000 60. 068 1945 30187 .000 58. 088 1946 40637 .000 61. 511 1947 28160 .000 48. 827 1948 17530 .000 45. 036 1949 13484 .000 53. 373 1950 14571 .000 66. 742 1951 17424 .000 56. 254 1952 16962 .000 51. 525 1953 17362 .000 62. 454 1954 21159 .000 62. 821 1955 23241 .000 47. 841 1956 28708 .000 37. 280 1957 0 .0 0. 0 1958 0 .0 0. 0 1959 0 .0 0. 0 1960 0 .0 0. 0 1961 0 .0 0. 0 1962 0 .0 0. 0 1963 0 .0 0. 0 1964 0 .0 0. 0 1965 0 .0 0. 0 1966 0 .0 0. 0 1967 0 .0 0. 0 1968 0 .0 0. 0 1969 0 .0 0. 0 1970 0 .0 0. 0 TABLE 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS -93-TABLE 1.2.2 ANIMAL PRODUCTS EGGS MILK YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 84558.958 782.862 423405.412 381. 292 1927 90335.917 886.801 405777.844 403. 1 94 1928 95897.091 880.558 399291.852 419. 783 1929 80872.789 779.298 389937.611 422. 237 1930 82033.745 757.006 410705.619 363. 202 1931 84577.148 476.618 450554.658 310. 213 1932 81841.501 364.485 439797.728 257. 512 19 33 79270.991 347.883 442520.250 261. 403 1934 79634.080 432.654 454091.809 269. 815 1935 79729.667 473.638 457854.808 277. 079 19 36 78286.586 520.855 475236.325 290. 788 1937 78268.396 491.642 497057.095 294. 403 19 38 76112.692 534.116 495844.185 312.140 1939 79086.594 518.887 477683.732 303. 330 1940 83931.935 547.277 496536.276 308. 394 1941 87082.030 598.080 516648.137 399. 454 1942 99957.405 813.396 515661.891 526. 759 1943 112360.194 892.718 518481.407 579. 611 1944 128738.766 825.392 517832.550 620. 845 1945 133376.883 891.384 494597.214 658. 812 1946 115404.716 991 .995 501234.997 687. 874 1947 133285.576 1014.738 483779.455 807. 988 1948 127033.178 1231.048 4 8764 8.152 955.818 1949 112167.950 1192.408 468398.678 904. 566 1950 108845.583 1069.542 467477.126 845. 962 1951 107321.895 1427.099 480698.241 934. 209 1952 118379.331 1100.267 503209.972 903. 757 1953 122486.368 1304.684 518277.679 909. 172 1954 136014.803 1056.539 518277.679 930. 516 1955 132850.084 1149.438 531051.812 930. 107 1956 144204.981 1166.644 531234.300 943.868 1957 156878.124 1002.791 535248.032 973. 391 1958 157447.010 1036.062 555287.030 1001. 103 1959 159871.642 976.064 553456.117 1030. 631 1960 155366.920 992.431 557596.032 1019. 476 1961 153339.973 1000.000 576219.868 1000. 000 1962 154709.223 985.700 577569.677 1004. 573 1963 148814.564 1076.359 579134.650 1019.170 1964 155399.733 916.810 581440.636 1055. 308 1965 153849.296 1017.905 576769.846 1 103. 346 1966 148660.483 1200.231 577287.650 1121. 586 1967 157710.232 988.534 572097.046 1203. 766 1968 161565.461 1060.802 576922.674 1232. 042 1969 168073.234 1206.230 587913.683 1263. 241 1970 176782.721 1050.447 574312.541 1289. 724 1961 PRICE= 356.668 /1000 DOZ 31.4201 /1000 LB -94-TABLE 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS TABLE 1.2.2 ANIMAL PRODUCTS HONEY WOOL YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 3278.840 768.565 3235.917 739.821 1927 3900.990 738.787 3435.435 714.611 1928 3732.060 684.876 3704.510 831.959 1929 3889.739 572.789 3868.030 669.592 1930 5081.311 497.116 3904.944 356.471 1931 5259.980 478.709 4141.376 253.539 1932 4401.732 461.864 4221 .000 168.680 1933 4246.405 531.508 3961.077 335.262 1934 4544.466 566.623 3946.129 311. 191 1935 4502.821 519.230 3857.352 366.313 1936 5363.084 526.376 3819.828 464.157 1937 3895.280 555.544 3749.051 504.394 1938 6365.912 480.214 3660.885 382.694 1939 4845.549 562.784 3587.972 442.590 1940 4737.911 640.578 3695.968 602.819 1941 5578.528 708.251 3476.010 728.709 1942 4710.036 855.407 3700.239 838.054 1943 66 31.565 960.708 3799.083 891.268 1944 6089.513 949.994 3920.503 896.823 1945 5544.775 1021.682 3695.968 913.157 1946 4025.923 1069.817 3362.828 914.409 1947 6226.202 1503.324 2983.316 918.776 1948 7580.826 1270.442 2400.625 947.253 1949 5286.344 810.012 2105.924 959.198 1950 4760.749 934.307 1907.626 1799.619 1951 6869.510 981.002 1738.920 2432.544 1952 5244.195 933.794 1913.422 1231.301 1953 4430.447 964.237 1881.085 1263.632 1954 3333.246 1062.928 1913.422 1237.050 1955 4203.249 1088.920 1907.626 1 157.459 1956 4075.796 1128.369 1880.780 1237.784 1957 5382.059 1144.358 1818.545 1356.579 1958 4619.359 1043.218 1863.085 784.720 1959 5294.068 1077.810 1908.541 889.161 1960 5411.110 996.838 1419.508 1255.364 1961 5887.000 1000.000 1882.000 1000.000 1962 5157.380 1034.828 1796.274 1056.631 1 963 7076.557 1105.057 1628.789 1250.008 1964 6156.346 1121.932 1552.215 1330.356 1965 8254.528 1103.273 1377.713 1 164.248 1966 7472.852 1086.466 1187.042 1197.936 1967 7384.190 1096.126 1146.467 841.716 1968 5603.884 1132.607 1060.436 709.142 1969 8952.243 1040.075 1057.080 734.097 1970 8570.893 1018.097 1054.945 651.219 1961 PRICE= 167.922 /1000 LB 305.074 /1000 LB I ABLE 1.2 ANIMAL OUTPUTS -95-TABLE 1.2.2 ANIHAL PRODUCTS FDR PELTS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE 1926 249.946 4905.276 1927 437.369 4945.517 1928 445.664 5360.593 19 29 553.699 4162.751 1930 1122.356 2758.724 1931 1925.798 1594.902 1932 1961.496 1553.216 1933 1942.173 1911.489 1934 1984.187 1998.809 1935 2497.158 1950.616 1936 3121.067 1829.001 1937 3755.831 1538.806 1938 5003.377 1149.772 1939 6045.838 860.870 1940 6080.626 922.336 1941 4413.055 1087.566 1942 7606.805 885.931 1943 5907.627 1516.457 1944 5000.963 1647.855 1945 5847.619 1757.377 1946 4922.153 1378.397 1947 10947.713 1070.314 1948 9175.808 868.648 1949 10414.205 844.572 1950 9432.792 1148.705 1951 9583.520 1191.426 1952 9988.673 1027.257 1953 9165.128 1112.651 1954 9906.206 1309.742 1955 1 1501 .903 1382.579 1956 14583.602 1060.881 1957 13629.620 1131.823 1958 14353.485 1121.227 1959 15404.025 1222.121 1960 18577.629 1000.128 1961 18611.376 1000.000 1962 18966.465 1042.868 1963 20331.236 1090.930 1964 20712.760 1030.115 1965 23743.830 1201.778 1966 26472.983 858.655 1967 28719.703 801.847 1968 24397.382 939.615 1969 26025.801 725.481 1970 21963.080 854.791 1961 PRICE= 14.4527 / PELT - 9 6 -TABLE 1.3 PROPORTIONS TABLE 1.3.1 FROIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTION PROPORTION: TOTAL T-O—C0 H M—V-A-L-YEAS QUANTITY 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1.399 1 .389 1 .406 1 .341 1 .514 1 .471 1 .334 1 .263 1 .457 1 .403 1 .435 1 .580 1 .479 1 .500 1.592 1 .548 1 .487 1 .499 1 .509 1 .577 1 .560 1 .551 1 .592 1 .659 1 .678 1 .489 1 .552 1 .631 1 .495 1 .541 1 .484 1 .425 1 .308 1.250 1 .238 1 .255 1 .209 1.208 1 .150 1.191 1 .208 1.257 1.197 1. 170 1 .162 - 9 7 -TABLE 1.3 PROPORTIONS TABLE 1.3.2 ANIMAL PRODUCTION OUTPUT PER HEAD IN LBS OUTPUT PER HEAD IN LBS YEAR SHEEP CALVES 1926 41 .093 105.999 1927 43.065 108.069 1928 41.060 103.000 1929 41.006 107.000 1930 42.029 119.000 1931 41.000 109.000 1932 41.000 109.000 1933 41.000 107.000 1934 43.000 114.000 1935 39.197 87.985 1936 39.815 90.948 19 37 39.292 87.695 1938 39.952 83.444 19 39 40.834 86.648 1940 40.992 86.493 1941 43.469 94.826 1942 42.971 98.419 1943 42.873 107.098 1944 42.380 101.617 1945 43.480 103.596 1946 44.912 102. 172 1947 44.997 100.704 1948 42.787 101.010 1949 44.274 104.045 1950 43.319 99.483 1951 45.586 103.900 1952 44.155 103.900 1953 42.893 106.200 1954 42.790 105.160 1955 44.001 103.916 1956 43.433 104.919 1957 45.186 109.027 1958 44.768 105.402 1959 45.065 110.322 1960 44.277 115.766 1961 45.577 117.619 1962 44.052 122.413 1963 46.552 120.851 1964 45.597 122. 262 1965 44.789 124.793 1966 45.786 125.218 1967 45.630 126.453 1968 45.451 121.627 1969 45.868 119.113 1970 44.306 117.915 - 98 -TABLE 1.3 PROPORTIONS TABLE 1.3.2 ANIMAL PRODUCTION OUTPUT PER HEAD IN LBS OUTPUT PER HEAD IN LBS YEAR CATTLE HOGS 1926 514.239 136.600 1927 510.227 134.500 1928 493.137 133.318 1929 502.047 136.100 1930 514.218 133.600 1931 513.105 134.300 1932 509.020 132.800 1933 500.000 133.500 1934 494.000 137.400 1935 467.086 119.943 19 36 463.607 119.879 1937 445.756 118.131 1938 460. 166 121.012 1939 460.380 122.011 1940 458.794 119.462 1941 477.558 122.283 1942 492.582 129.021 1943 497.985 134.999 1944 491.572 131.631 1945 475.939 129.792 1946 478.200 129.937 1947 476.478 132. 105 1948 469.404 128.968 1949 468.354 130.721 1950 470.715 128.880 1951 493.500 129.800 1952 503.408 129.000 19 53 496.296 128.500 1954 485.522 129.500 1955 486.485 128.056 1956 435.892 128.600 1957 495.870 130.000 1958 501.145 130.401 1959 516.339 128.101 1960 513.308 126.600 1961 519.050 128.525 1962 518.562 127.910 1963 531.167 128.706 1964 536.112 127.778 1965 519.612 126.897 1966 534.935 128.550 1967 542.373 128.948 1968 538.593 127.934 1969 553.528 129.952 1970 570.110 131.593 -99-T ABLE II INPUT COMMODITIES -100-IABLE 2.1 INVENTORIES TABLE 2.1.1 ANIMAL INVENTORIES FOWL AND CHICKEN TURKEY YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 44766.878 1000.000 8379.419 680. 751 1927 45775.785 1044.444 7301.639 723. 005 19 28 48798.877 1077.778 7974.719 741. 784 1929 53800.182 1055.555 9218.638 631. 455 1930 54435.582 911.111 9001.379 542. 253 1931 55149.274 666.667 9469.978 441. 314 19 32 53729.982 555.556 10381.618 26 2. 911 1933 49238.984 588.889 10598.878 276. 995 1934 49535.983 611.111 10671.298 295. 775 1935 47284.184 722.222 8370.899 441. 314 1936 48956.384 700.000 9286.798 415. 493 1937 47011.477 766.667 9469.978 446. 009 19 38 46498.477 755.555 1004 0.818 443. 662 1939 50174.076 777.778 12507.358 413. 145 1940 51312.583 811.111 13010.038 462.441 1941 53094.582 922.222 13653.298 495. 305 1942 59911.180 1055.555 17730.117 563. 380 1943 63296.979 1388.888 12584.038 666. 667 1944 71769.576 944.444 14671.438 471. 831 1945 69740.070 966.667 14449.918 502. 347 1946 69221.670 1066.667 11237.878 556. 338 1947 75522.575 1155.556 13487.158 647. 887 1948 62710.179 1155.556 8801.159 774. 648 1949 62127.872 1266.666 11442.358 769. 953 19 50 55322.074 1222.222 10901.338 769. 953 1951 64004.379 1288.888 11493.478 699. 531 1952 55558.781 1266.666 13491.418 661. 972 1953 56663.981 1311.111 11139.898 617. 371 1954 60848.073 1155.556 14334.898 586. 854 1955 55840.474 1100.000 13960.018 572. 770 1956 60781.473 1077.778 20320.197 629. 108 1957 64113.271 1022.222 22330.916 553. 990 1958 68156.977 1066.667 26228.816 605. 634 1959 66158.978 1022.222 32214.115 577. 465 1960 61915.472 988.889 26314.016 995. 305 1961 63701.979 1000.000 32789.215 1000. 000 1962 58423.473 1022.222 28320.475 988. 263 1963 59876.980 10 22.222 28000.975 1042. 254 1964 61762.472 1011.111 27822.055 1072.770 1965 60695.980 1000.000 32401.555 1046. 948 1966 67701.577 1066.667 38203.674 1063.380 1967 72091.776 11 11. 111 37309.074 1072. 770 1968 69183.870 1288.888 35174.814 1100. 939 1969 74942.068 1511. 110 36031.074 1192. 488 1970 83265.265 1388.888 39865.073 1147. 887 1961 PRICE=0.900000 /HEAD 4.26000 /HEAD TABLE 2.1 INVENTORIES -101-TABLE 2.1.1 ANIMAL INVENTORIES GEESE DUCKS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 2585.340 691.824 1297 .769 646.409 1927 2569.440 691.824 1272.429 651.934 1928 2585.340 710.692 1314.059 679.558 1929 2661.659 663.522 1435.329 635.359 1930 2687.099 578.616 1254.329 574.586 1931 2863.359 481.132 1357.499 469.613 1932 2922.419 327.044 1428.089 359. 116 1933 2874.719 333.333 1433.519 348.066 1934 2722.079 342.767 1299.579 364.641 1935 2559.900 433.962 1171.069 441.989 1936 2505.840 427.673 1181.929 441.989 1937 2518.560 452.830 1158.399 469.613 19 38 2248.260 455.975 1087.809 475.138 1939 2162.400 459. 1 19 1109.529 480.663 1940 2133.780 487.421 1113.149 502.763 1941 2067.000 509.434 1124.009 546.962 1942 2117.880 496.855 1451 .619 530.387 1943 1863.480 490.566 1247.089 524.862 1944 2063.820 484.277 1457.049 480.663 1945 2003.400 506.289 1460.669 513.812 1946 1876.200 550.314 1256.139 569.061 1947 1710.840 603.773 1169.259 574.586 1948 1170.240 738.993 847.079 734.807 1949 1348.320 776.729 937.579 756.906 1950 1173.420 820.754 885.089 779.006 1951 1221.120 899.371 845.269 767.956 1952 1227.480 751.572 899.569 718.232 1953 1233.840 726.415 883.279 729.282 19 54 1163.880 704.403 886.899 668.508 1955 1135.260 676.100 968.349 640.884 1956 1036.680 713.836 760.199 668.508 1957 938.100 720.126 713.139 651.934 1958 1011.240 764.151 758.389 696.133 1959 979.440 751.572 733.049 690.608 1960 941.280 968.554 689.609 983.426 1961 839.520 1000.000 707.709 1000.000 1962 899.940 971.698 693.229 1000.000 1963 982.620 1028.302 680.559 1044.199 1964 931.740 1047.170 689.609 1027.624 1965 903.120 1028.302 722.189 1071.824 1966 1078.020 1100.629 742.099 1116.023 1967 1068.480 1106.9 18 718.569 1138. 122 1968 1093.920 1176.100 729.429 1232.045 1969 1090.740 1226.415 729.429 1331.492 1970 1147.980 1238.994 749.339 1342.542 1961 PRICE= 3.18000 /HEAD 1.81000 /HEAD TABLE 2.1 INVENTORIES -102-TABLE 2.1.1 ANIMAL INVENTORIES SHEEP AND LAMBS MILCH COWS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 38265.327 739.405 604915.946 289. 951 1927 42059.463 705.561 615448.774 333. 620 1928 42263.739 740.006 574203.279 413. 164 1929 45209.422 740.986 581662.662 414. 286 1930 47552.644 506.057 650921.500 293.041 1931 48941.376 370.545 621854.313 260. 280 1932 48630.694 222.329 662428.334 173. 519 1933 44623.334 296.437 668013.513 171. 239 1934 46573.924 282.647 744698.531 150. 355 1935 41589.963 387.594 571775.929 235. 118 19 36 41394.655 381.571 585496.088 240. 454 1937 39712.210 386.657 570337.072 269. 595 1938 40064.032 456.320 526600.675 283.327 1939 39121.123 520.869 539631.702 313. 781 1940 38948.072 518.870 534134.185 348. 508 1941 40629.571 419.399 581741.758 330. 349 1942 42031.324 494.964 601786.562 420. 382 1943 43840.395 779.577 656486.059 562. 915 1944 44814.034 716.963 630624.920 570. 012 1945 43386.940 628.945 636419.154 559. 125 1946 41268.749 676.541 602433.398 636. 335 1947 36504.677 742.781 581169.472 680. 827 1948 28867.902 923.170 573705.648 789. 943 1949 25834.408 960.8 11 569821.571 880. 512 1950 22511.747 1262.541 524975.815 1039. 714 1951 21919.118 1733.008 522619.102 1416. 475 19 52 22292.188 1513.893 528422.854 1200. 300 1953 22473.899 1416.754 554130.770 940. 564 1954 23012.204 1278.154 555025.574 809. 353 19 55 23602.015 1173.9 19 553988.967 830.411 1956 23099.995 1119.312 560933.166 794. 307 1957 24116.789 1143. 145 571451.084 780. 648 1958 23957.128 1221.699 539981.291 1026. 191 1959 23780.292 1078.799 55150 3.247 1076. 856 1960 23337.121 1097.975 580708.323 1016. 004 1961 23082.387 1000.000 59440 1.623 1 000. 000 1962 20942.347 1034.624 608489.559 980. 155 1963 20488.059 1044.337 587438.285 983. 036 1964 19013. 110 1066.196 588500.588 952. 353 1965 16633.978 1085.42 6 590127.563 923. 571 19 66 15099.020 1260.889 566504.175 1038. 439 1967 14374.672 1265.199 570806.575 1149. 825 1968 13262.920 1337.020 538321.324 1 239 . 185 1969 13266.157 1523.621 520748.81 1 1379. 4 59 1970 13010.957 1714.499 508927.917 1438. 587 1961 PRICE= 329.113 /1000 LB 1691 .90 /1 000 LB - 1 0 3 -TABLB 2.1 INVENTORIES TABLE 2.1.1 ANIMAL INVENTORIES OTHER CATTLE HOGS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 515221. 230 267.436 115623.347 557. 564 1927 487395. 486 339.097 121020.114 495. 485 1928 462741. 963 413.822 118044.254 535. 586 19 29 487180. 669 415.314 115727.137 559. 612 1930 516129. 415 301.956 104820.712 534. 453 1931 532140. 871 181.566 132589.458 248. 111 1932 568646. 551 148.162 130268.100 179. 224 1933 593284. 069 150.835 108071.837 320. 912 1934 580040. 445 152.667 107826.548 346. 448 1935 540331. 663 208.953 91956 .728 476. 245 1936 525020. 786 220.090 104011.923 436. 793 1937 509526. 875 248.809 99519.056 483.551 1938 493843. 168 260.299 89652.320 511. 373 1939 487016. 343 317.995 111843.252 546. 203 1940 489165. 420 357.773 150611.381 478. 163 1941 526502. 419 260.109 156149.109 350. 349 1942 566050. 482 306.213 184514.139 405. 841 1943 617271. 951 454.336 210214.090 564. 174 1944 651097. 258 442.213 187743.915 650. 938 1945 643801. 351 475.381 135335.023 733. 510 1946 613228. 513 510. 242 116734.710 732. 692 1947 609409. 134 577.260 137545.369 864.806 1948 595388. 740 708.822 106896.794 1 144. 211 1949 570514. 088 833.550 122253.177 1238. 108 1950 554290. 745 1008.438 118366.890 1255. 795 1951 599587. 262 1420.343 133985.276 1393. 587 1952 697400. 239 1128.009 147096.073 996. 320 1953 751936.840 929.642 107132.485 1148. 374 1954 771565. 482 794.939 120736.998 1323. 298 1955 817017. 082 820.722 129109.929 1040. 840 1956 859623. 309 776.073 127807.974 888. 373 1957 912706. 003 787.296 129936.246 1171. 740 1958 899320. 59 5 991.466 162456.211 1277. 652 1959 941910. 367 1048.209 175423.106 966. 156 1960 968515. 506 993.900 134827.310 940. 009 1961 1046782. 117 1000.000 143884.692 1000. 000 1962 1066918.386 1052.270 133835.099 1042. 026 1963 1136476. 885 1060.708 140888.205 1035.581 1964 1225176. 010 1042.649 152111.607 1005. 849 1965 1225730. 523 1015.994 137193.283 1050. 346 1966 1230238. 535 1111.288 145854.541 1333. 081 1967 1235459. 300 1186.022 162857.363 1181. 304 1968 1207936. 734 1202.583 152707.695 1041. 834 1969 1248206. 116 1442.634 157574.167 1355. 323 1970 1348237. 822 1424.019 195888.270 1338. 426 1961 PRICE= 225.412 /1000 LB 210.075 /1000 LB -104-TABLE 2.1 INVENTORIES TABLE 2.1.1 ANIMAL INVENTORIES HORSES YEAR QUANTITY PRICE 1926 447591.512 539.081 1927 439068.496 570.737 1928 434806.988 565.290 1929 434673.816 520.038 19 30 424952.251 454.343 1931 414697.997 494.545 1932 410702.834 344.561 1933 395920.728 388.176 1934 388596.261 430.704 1935 387664.056 485.423 19 36 383269.376 540.064 1937 378874.696 539.255 19 38 368886.786 530.327 1939 367688.237 505.273 1940 370218.508 474,576 1941 371417.057 496.587 19 42 366756.032 515.939 1943 355170.057 605.918 1944 341986.017 569.435 1945 316683.313 523.383 1946 284455.659 555.358 1947 257954.406 576.679 1948 238244.932 575.744 1949 218668.629 560.867 1950 199225.499 516.661 1951 173656.451 542.047 1952 157009.935 603.911 1953 140496.592 605.894 1954 122118.839 597.197 1955 110799.208 684.725 1956 104140.602 714.265 1957 96150.274 763.357 1958 88026.775 830.247 1959 79636.931 912.893 1960 73511.013 983.852 1961 68050.956 1000.000 1962 63656.276 1041.4 52 1963 60193.801 1056.935 1964 57397.186 1086.690 1965 53668.366 1092.636 1966 51537.612 1112.798 1967 49273.686 1193.882 1968 47941.965 1209.337 1969 45411.695 1250.206 1970 43280.941 1245.767 1961 PRICE= 133172. /1000 HEAD TABLE 2.1 INVENTORIES -105-TABLE 2.1.2 GRAIN INVENTORIES FLAXSEED RYE YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 41.250 672.727 83.520 885.058 1927 27.500 589,091 44.370 885.058 1928 16.500 563.636 108.750 977.012 1929 13.750 578.182 80.910 908.046 1930 11.000 865.455 144.420 965.517 1931 99.000 341.818 1221.479 229.885 1932 19.250 287.273 127.020 321.839 1933 49.500 225,455 135.720 310.345 19 34 8.250 436.364 32.190 436.782 1935 11.000 418.182 67.860 563.218 1936 209.000 432.727 235.770 310.345 1937 27.500 523.637 67.860 804.598 19 38 5.500 538.182 67.860 827.586 1939 134.750 410.909 330.600 333.333 1940 74.250 512,727 538.530 482.759 1941 41.250 389.09 1 400.200 379.310 1942 60.500 458.182 176.610 505.747 1943 1083.499 723.636 5294.818 540.230 1944 2265.998 781.818 908.280 1103.448 1945 2073.499 916.364 439.350 1103.448 1946 1768.249 909.091 220.110 1712.643 1947 1212.749 1087.273 243.600 2574.714 1948 811.249 1905.456 240.120 3804.598 1949 525.250 1385.455 3642.688 1505.746 1950 294.250 1203.637 983.970 1402.299 1951 566.500 1261.819 739.500 1517.241 1952 2340.248 1418.183 1762.619 1793. 103 1953 5040.747 1149.091 3919.348 1586.207 1954 5340.496 887.273 13754.694 942.529 1955 4614.497 923.637 10118.095 1057.471 1956 2557.498 1007.273 8312.846 1057.471 1957 4179.997 930.909 8386.796 1149.426 1958 2557.498 920.000 5246.098 1011.494 1959 4179.997 952.728 3427.798 1011,494 1960 2089.999 1112.728 3305.998 1022.989 1961 3877.497 1000.000 2261.999 1000.000 1962 3629.997 1207.273 1035.300 1229.885 1963 2227.498 1112.728 478.500 1218.391 1964 3574.998 1058.182 1435.499 1367.815 1965 2749.998 1069.092 1652.999 1195.403 1966 6049.996 985.455 2087.999 1206.896 1967 4124.997 1025.455 1913.999 1252.873 1968 1649.999 1120.001 1652.999 1252.873 1969 2199.998 1047.273 4349.998 1183.908 1970 1649.999 934.546 4088.998 1022.989 1961 PRICE= 2.75000 / BU 0.870000 / BU -106-TABLE 2.1 INVENTORIES TABLE 2.1.2 GRAIN INVENTORIES BARLEY OATS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 1950.399 662.500 18281.112 617.647 1927 1771. 199 650.000 11663.355 705.882 1928 1325.600 825.000 13984.874 750.000 1929 2551.999 700.000 18005.032 691.176 19 30 2439.999 737.500 8173.596 867.647 1931 14094.395 250.000 35770.704 352.941 1932 2781.599 325.000 15519.628 352.941 1933 2481.599 287.500 18836.666 279.412 1934 1471.199 375.000 13146.429 382.353 1935 1617.599 587.500 13648.269 470.588 1936 3359.199 362.500 21206.471 352.941 1937 1180.800 862.500 10357.075 632.353 19 38 2542.399 637.500 10961.595 632.353 1939 5877.598 350.000 26964.708 352.941 19 40 5659.998 425.000 27051.063 441.177 1941 5203.998 400.000 25229.349 411.765 1942 4089.598 537.500 16437.627 602.941 1943 33051.188 575.000 80514.684 573.529 1944 18703.187 825.000 47207.614 852.941 1945 14255.188 937.500 44080.975 794. 118 1946 11107.196 837.500 34739.139 779.412 1947 13193.595 962.500 35744.864 838.235 1948 13898.388 1375.000 25563.223 1191.177 1949 14785.594 1200.000 32886.820 1029.412 1950 9059.197 1637.499 22833.704 1161.765 1951 14283.195 1412.500 40446.382 1147.059 1952 17180.794 1375.000 39328.463 1117.647 1953 30587.982 1325.000 61648.773 985.294 19 54 77447.971 1075.000 66129.971 926.471 1955 33847.987 1112.500 36311.984 985.294 1956 40371.978 1087.500 48415.979 985.294 1957 64783.976 987.500 106827.953 852.941 1958 45999.983 950.000 74799.967 897.059 1959 47999.982 962.500 61879.973 941.176 1960 55999.979 925.000 54399.976 1014.706 1961 48079.982 1000.000 63715.972 1000.000 1962 21023.992 1312.499 38691.983 1 102.941 1963 23159.991 1175.000 62831.972 985.294 1964 47999.982 1175.000 87583.961 911.765 1965 28639.989 1250.000 61675.973 1014.706 1966 . 26399.990 1287.500 61879.973 1073.529 1967 53599.980 1312.499 55079.976 1088.235 1968 57039.979 1087.500 37399.983 1058.824 1969, 110799.958 1025.000 64259.972 882.353 1970 97599.963 837.500 83639.963 867.647 1961 PRICE=0.800000 / BU 0.680000 / BU TABLE 2.1 INVENTORIES -107-TABLE 2.1.2 GRAIN INVENTORIES WHEAT YEAR QUANTITY PRICE 1926 6259.585 783.440 1927 6694.474 694.268 1928 6572.015 636.943 1929 8818.683 509.554 1930 8361.813 668.790 1931 30550.592 312.102 1932 11768.710 242.038 1933 19373.784 222.930 1934 13710.799 312. 102 1935 12341.760 388.535 1936 8666.393 388.535 1937 6278.425 598.726 1938 7945.763 649.682 19 39 7350.734 375.796 1940 27138.998 343.949 1941 21915.612 363.057 1942 16400.206 388.535 1943 298624.730 490.446 1944 84577.387 719.745 1945 44980.463 789.809 1946 42708.662 1025.478 1947 40801.126 1019.109 1948 61484.289 1031.847 19 49 68174.041 1050.955 1950 19450.714 1025.478 1951 34948.171 980.892 1952 30241.315 987.261 1953 147133.998 1012.739 1954 364019.899 847.134 1955 216432.158 789.809 1956 320601.572 872.611 1957 507360.478 796.178 1958 378212.687 815.287 1959 265329.780 840.764 1960 225608.813 840.764 1961 268391.278 1000.000 1962 92896.823 1095.541 1963 101578.916 1057.325 1964 189404.643 1108.280 1965 171286.858 1012.739 1966 156999.870 1070.064 1967 321849.734 1121.019 1968 370519.693 1038.217 1969 584353.416 853.503 1970 852069.694 808.918 1961 PRICE= 1.57000 / BU -108-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.1 BUILDING STRUCTURES YEAR PRICE INVESTM] 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 0.321 96.226 1928 0.332 104.395 1929 0.334 94.170 1930 0.292 69.461 1931 0.244 52.532 1932 0.210 40.982 1933 0.215 31.556 1934 0.223 40.317 1935 0.226 44.238 1936 0.250 49.600 1937 0.277 49.737 1938 0.260 53.492 1939 0.282 57.510 1940 0.311 62.468 1941 0.355 69.593 1942 0.426 51.402 1943 0.476 47.054 1944 0.515 62.853 1945 0.534 76.520 1946 0.546 114.517 1947 0.586 123.910 1948 0.679 134.046 1949 0.704 164.721 1950 0.735 154.922 1951 0.846 157.477 1952 0.880 145.639 1953 0.891 172. 197 1954 0.884 158,294 1955 0.887 150.9 12 1956 0.922 160.442 1957 0.954 139.276 1958 0.960 153.982 1959 0.984 167.615 1960 0.999 165.618 1961 1.000 167.300 1962 1 .010 182.205 1963 1 .042 180.667 1964 1.105 176.121 1965 1. 164 176.878 1966 1 .244 195.391 1967 1 .322 191.754 1968 1 .433 176.053 1969 1.625 152.895 1970 1 .628 139.053 -109-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.1 BUILDING STRUCTURES YEAR DEPRECIATION CAPITAL STOCK 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 82.953 1659.067 1928 83.617 1672.340 1929 84.656 1693.118 1930 85.132 1702.632 1931 84.348 1686.962 1932 82.757 1655.146 1933 80.668 1613.370 1934 78.213 1564.257 1935 76.318 1526.361 1936 74.714 1494.281 1937 73.458 1469.166 1938 72.272 1445.445 1939 71.333 1426.665 1940 70.642 1412.842 1941 70.233 1404.667 1942 70.201 1404.027 1943 69.261 1385.228 1944 68.151 1363.021 1945 67.886 1357.722 1946 68.318 1366.355 1947 70.628 1412.555 1948 73.292 1465.836 1949 76.330 1526.591 1950 80.749 1614.982 1951 84.458 1689.155 1952 88.109 1762.174 1953 90.985 1819.705 1954 95.046 1900.916 1955 98.208 1964.164 1956 100.843 2016.867 1957 103.823 2076.466 19 58 105.596 2111.918 1959 108.015 2160.305 1960 110.995 2219.905 1961 113.726 2274.526 1962 116.405 2328.100 1963 119.695 2393.901 1964 122.744 2454.872 1965 125.412 2508.250 1966 127.986 2559.715 1967 131.356 2627.120 1968 134.376 2687.517 1969 136.460 2729.195 1970 137.281 2745.630 -110-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.2 FASH MACHINERY YEAR PRICE INVESTM 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 0.389 164.685 1928 0.389 221.296 1929 0.389 169.832 19 30 0.386 137.217 1931 0.378 39.687 1932 0.374 42.735 1933 0.367 21.816 1934 0.377 47.774 1935 0.380 47.327 19 36 0.390 64.647 1937 0.387 101.951 1938 0.415 111.167 1939 0.413 104.381 1940 0.423 142.560 1941 0.436 150.685 1942 0.463 137.932 1943 0.463 81.378 1944 0.464 147.702 1945 0.449 181.494 1946 0.457 222.660 1947 0.476 318.076 19 48 0.512 406.181 1949 0.592 4 51.713 1950 0.623 432.038 1951 0.707 409.844 1952 0.741 418.291 1953 0.746 396.325 1954 0 .752 243.235 1955 0.757 255.184 1956 0.793 271.367 1957 0 .847 230.656 19 58 0.899 249.363 1959 0.950 290.846 1960 0.967 292.430 1961 1 .000 262.899 1962 1 .032 299.906 1963 1 .059 350.251 1964 1 .084 387.779 1965 1 .108 429.263 1966 1.145 465.794 1967 1 .181 467.970 19 68 1 .213 398.839 1969 1.255 352.585 1970 1 .305 297.220 -111-TftBLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.2 FARM MACHINERY YEAR DEPRECIATION CAPITAL STOCK 19 26 0.0 0.0 1927 134.582 1009.366 19 28 138.596 1039.470 1929 149.623 1122.169 19 30 152.317 1142,377 1931 150.304 1127.277 1932 135.555 1016.660 1933 123.179 923.840 19 34 109.664 822,477 1935 101.412 760.588 1936 94.200 706.503 1937 90.260 676.949 1938 91.819 688.640 1939 94.399 707.989 1940 95.729 717.971 1941 101.973 764.801 1942 108.468 813.512 1943 112.397 842.976 1944 108.261 811 .957 1945 113.520 851.397 1946 122.583 919.372 1947 135.926 1019.448 1948 160 .213 1201.598 1949 193.009 1447.566 1950 227.503 1706.271 1951 254.774 1910.807 1952 275.450 2065.877 1953 294.495 2208.718 19 54 308.073 2310.548 1955 299.427 2245.710 1956 293.528 2201.466 1957 290.573 2179.305 1958 282.584 2119.386 1959 278.155 2086.164 1960 279.847 2098.855 1961 281.524 2111.438 1962 279.041 2092.813 1963 281.823 2113.677 1964 290.947 2182.105 1965 303.857 2278.937 1966 320.578 2404.342 1967 339.940 2549.557 1968 357.011 2677.586 1969 362.588 2719.415 1970 361.254 2709.412 -112-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.3 PASSENGER VEHICLES YEAR PRICE INVESTMENT 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 0 .332 62. 100 1928 0.346 76.832 1929 0.367 75.720 19 30 0.360 43.901 1931 0.332 25.323 1932 0.354 16.372 1933 0.350 17.131 1934 0.370 25.650 1935 0.385 30.401 1936 0.384 34.631 1937 0.378 40.253 1938 0.416 32.912 1939 0.408 30.866 19 40 0.437 31.565 1941 0.508 24.997 1942 0.547 4.756 1943 0.552 0. 181 1944 0.558 0.538 1945 0.564 1.065 1946 0.569 20.729 1947 0.662 40.494 1948 0.755 34.294 1949 0.805 44.215 1950 0.812 66.290 1951 0.929 58. 118 1952 0.948 60.202 1953 0.932 74.649 1954 0.936 62.154 1955 0.868 81.571 1956 0.876 89.954 1957 0.964 58.313 1958 0.979 55.972 1959 1 .023 57.068 1960 1 .031 54.629 1961 1.000 52,400 1962 0.985 59.361 1963 0.985 65.449 1964 0.957 71.136 1965 0.950 76.204 1966 0.932 82.120 1967 0.948 77.348 1968 0.965 80.176 1969 0.972 79.748 1970 0.988 63.062 -113-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.3 PASSENGER VEHICLES YEAR DEPRECIATION CAPITAL STOCK 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 39. 162 117.487 1928 46.808 140.425 1929 56.816 170.449 1930 63.118 189.353 1931 56.712 170.136 1932 46.249 138.747 1933 36.290 108.870 19 34 29.904 89.711 1935 28.486 85.457 19 36 29.124 87.372 1937 30.960 92.879 1938 34.057 102.172 1939 33.676 101.027 1940 32.739 98.218 1941 32.348 97.044 1942 29.898 89.693 1943 21.517 64.551 1944 14.405 43.215 1945 9.783 29.348 1946 6.877 20.630 1947 11 .494 34.483 19 48 21.161 63.482 1949 25.538 76.616 19 50 31.764 95.292 1951 43.273 129.818 1952 48.221 144.663 19 53 52.215 156.644 1954 59.693 179.079 1955 60.513 181.539 1956 67.533 202.598 1 957 75.006 225.0 1 9 » . 1958 69.442 208.326 1959 64.952 194.856 19 60 62.324 186.972 1961 59.759 179.277 1962 57.306 171 .918 1963 57.991 173.973 1964 60.477 181.431 1965 64.030 192.090 1966 68.088 204.264 1967 72.765 218.296 1968 74.293 222.879 1969 76.254 228.763 1970 77.419 232.256 -114-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.4 COMMERCIAL VEHICLES YEAR PRICE INVESTM 19 26 0.0 0.0 1927 0.289 13.826 1928 0.302 11.913 1929 0.320 20.298 19 30 0.321 9.973 1931 0.289 11.407 1932 0.309 5.173 1933 0.305 4.911 1934 0.323 9.584 1935 0.336 14.001 19 36 0.335 17.012 1937 0.330 24.857 19 38 0.363 20.914 1939 0.356 20.488 1940 0.359 23.642 1941 0.367 31.585 1942 0.367 12.274 1943 0.406 3.695 1944 0.430 8.609 1945 0.423 18.189 1946 0.454 42.488 1947 0.504 69.265 1948 0.564 72.994 1949 0,644 76.670 1950 0.656 94.219 1951 0.733 99.236 1952 0.763 103.293 1953 0.767 96.511 1954 0,765 64.460 1955 0.764 73.151 1956 0.841 92.217 1957 0.897 79.216 1958 0.938 71 .205 1959 0.955 81.943 1960 0.995 75.240 1961 1 .000 66.300 1962 1.013 73.900 1963 1 .014 86.277 1964 1.036 96.132 1965 1 .046 111.144 1966 1 .061 132.961 1967 1 .076 137.821 1968 1 .131 136.021 1969 1 .149 148.154 1970 1 .193 128.873 -115-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.4 COMMERCIAL VEHICLES YEAR DEPRECIATION CAPITAL STOCK 19 26 0.0 0.0 1927 5.834 29.170 1928 7.432 37.162 1929 8.329 41.643 1930 10.722 53.612 1931 10.572 52.863 19 32 10.739 53.697 1933 9.626 48.131 1934 8.683 43.416 1935 8.863 44.317 19 36 9.891 49.455 1937 11.315 56.576 19 38 14.023 70.118 1939 15.401 77.008 1940 16.419 82.094 1941 17.863 89.317 1942 20.608 103.039 1943 18.941 94.705 1944 15.892 79.460 1945 14.435 72.177 1946 15.186 75.931 1947 20.646 103.233 1948 30.370 151.851 1949 38.895 194.475 1950 46.450 232.250 1951 56.004 280.018 1952 64.650 323.250 1953 72.379 361.892 1954 77.205 386.025 1955 74.656 373.280 1956 74.355 371.775 1 957 77.927 389.637 1958 78.185 390.925 1959 76.789 383.944 1960 77.820 389.098 1961 77.304 386.518 1962 75.103 375.514 1963 74.862 374.311 1964 77.145 385.726 1965 80.942 404.712 1966 86.983 434.914 1967 96.178 480.892 1968 104.507 522.534 1969 110.810 554.049 1970 118.279 591.393 - 1 1 6 -TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.5 AGRICULTURAL LAND IMPROVED ACREAGE IMPROVED ACREAGE YEAR CROP SUM.FALLOW 1926 54186992 .000 14504000.000 1927 55017584 .000 15004589.000 1928 55848176 .000 15505191.000 1929 56678784 .000 16005789.000 1930 57509376 .000 16506390.000 1931 58340000 .000 17006992.000 1932 58134000 .000 17659792.000 1933 57928000 .000 18312592.000 1934 57722000 .000 18965392.000 1935 57516000.000 19618176.000 1936 57310000 .000 20270992.000 19 37 57104000 .000 20923792.000 1938 56898000 .000 21576576.000 1939 56692000.000 22229376.000 1940 56486000 .000 22882176.000 1941 56280000 .000 23534976.000 1942 56873184 .000 23384688.000 1943 57466384 .000 23234384.000 1944 58059600 .000 23084080.000 19 45 58652784 .000 22933776.000 1946 59246000 .000 22783488.000 1947 59839184.000 22633184.000 1948 60432384 .000 22482880.000 1949 61025584 .000 22332576.000 1950 61618784 .000 22182288.000 1951 62212000 .000 22032000.000 1952 62358384 .000 22549584.000 1953 62504784 .000 23067184.000 1954 62651184 .000 23584784.000 1955 62797584 .000 24102384.000 1956 62943984 .000 24620000.000 1957 62842384 .000 25345584.000 1958 62740784 .000 26071184,000 19 59 62639184.000 26796784.000 1960 62537584 .000 27522384.000 1961 62436000 .000 28247984.000 1962 63759392 .000 27724784.000 1963 65082800 .000 27201584.000 1964 66406176 .000 26678384.000 1965 67729552 .000 26155184.000 1966 69052928 .000 25632000.000 1967 68993744 .000 25853776.000 1968 68934560 .000 26075584.000 1969 68875360 .000 26297376.000 1970 68816176 .000 26519184.000 TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL -117-TABLE 2.2.5 AGRICULTURAL LAND IMPROVED ACREAGE YEAR PASTURE 1926 7807000.000 1927 7848000.000 1928 7889000.000 1929 7930000.000 1930 7971000.000 1931 8012000.000 1932 8061097.000 1933 8110199.000 1934 8159296.000 1935 8208398.000 1936 8257500.000 1937 8306597.000 1938 8355699.000 1939 8404796.000 1940 8453898.000 1941 8503000.000 1942 8653199.000 1943 8803398.000 1944 8953597.000 1945 9103796.000 1946 9254000.000 1947 9404199.000 1948 9554398.000 1949 9704597.000 1950 9854796.000 1951 10005000.000 1952 10015589.000 1953 10026191.000 1954 10036789.000 1955 10047390.000 1956 10058000.000 1957 10096000.000 1958 10134000.000 1959 10172000.000 1960 10210000.000 1961 10248000.000 1962 10386789.000 1963 10525589.000 1964 10664390.000 1965 10803191.000 1966 10942000.000 1967 11280000.000 1968 11618000.000 1969 11956000.000 1970 12294000.000 -118-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.5 AGRICULTURAL LAND UNIMPROVED ACREAGE UNIMPROVED ACREAGE YEAR WOODED OTHER 1926 25208000 .000 48550000.000 1927 25495376 .000 48988000.000 19 28 25782784 .000 49426000.000 1929 26070176 .000 49864000.000 1930 26357584 .000 50302000.000 1931 26644976 .000 50740000.000 1932 26207088.000 51632000.000 1933 25769184 .000 52524000.000 1934 25331280 .000 53416000.000 1935 24893376 .000 54308000.000 1936 24455488 .000 55200000.000 19 37 24017584 .000 56092000.000 1938 23579680 .000 56984000.000 1939 23141776 .000 57876000.000 1940 22703888 .000 58768000.000 1941 22266000.000 59660000.000 1942 22317376 .000 59134992.000 1943 22368784 .000 58610000.000 1944 22420176 .000 58084992.000 1945 22471584 .000 57560000.000 19 46 22522992 .000 57034992,000 1947 22574384 .000 56510000.000 1948 22625776 .000 55984992.000 1949 22677184 .000 55460000.000 1950 22728576 .000 54934992.000 1951 22779984.000 54409984.000 1952 22132176 .000 54338176.000 1953 21484384 .000 54266384.000 1954 20836576 .000 54194576.000 1955 20188784 .000 54122784.000 1956 19540976 .000 54050976.000 1957 19082176 .000 53620784.000 1958 18623376 .000 53190576.000 1959 18164576 .000 52760384.000 1960 17705776 .000 52330176.000 1961 17246976 .000 51899984.000 1962 16634390 .000 51877376.000 1963 16021789 .000 51854784.000 1964 15409191 .000 51 832176.000 1965 14796589 .000 51809584.000 1966 14183988 .000 51786992.000 1967 13647789 .000 51424000.000 1968 13111589 .000 51060992.000 1969 12575390 .000 50698000.000 19 70 12039191.000 50334992.000 TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL - 1 1 9 -TABLE 2.2.5 AGRICULTURAL LAUD TOTAL ACREAGE YEAR ACREAGE VALUE/A( 1926 150255984.000 16.335 1927 152353536.000 17.187 1928 154451136.000 17.597 19 29 156548736.000 17.534 1930 158646336.000 15.510 1931 160743968.000 13.873 1932 161693968.000 12.025 1933 162643968.000 12.159 1934 163593968.000 11.781 1935 164543936.000 12.427 1936 165493968.000 12.560 1937 166443968.000 12.694 1938 167393952.000 12.828 1939 168343936.000 13.502 1940 169293952.000 13.096 1941 170243968.000 13.781 1942 170363424.000 14.583 1943 170482944.000 15.975 1944 170602432.000 17.406 1945 170721936.000 17.696 1946 170841472.000 19.185 1947 170960944.000 21.322 1948 171080416.000 24.135 1949 171199936.000 25.141 1950 171319424.000 27.442 1951 171438960.000 30.448 1952 171393904.000 31.560 1953 171348912.000 34.025 1954 171303904.000 33.841 1955 171258912.000 35.697 1956 171213936.000 38.288 1957 170986928.000 39.525 1958 170759920.000 40.586 1959 170532928.000 41 .623 1960 170305920.000 42.636 1961 170078944.000 44 .306 1962 170382720.000 45.264 1963 170686528.000 48.207 1964 170990304.000 53.0 80 1965 171294080.000 59.172 1966 171597904.000 65.142 1967 171199296.000 71.637 1968 170800720.000 76.720 1969 170402112.000 77.262 1970 170003536.000 72.134 -120-TABLE 2.2 FIXED CAPITAL TABLE 2.2.6 FARM MORTGAGE RATE YEAR QUANTITY 1926 0.061 1927 0.059 1928 0.060 1929 0.060 1930 0.060 1931 0.060 1932 0.061 1933 0.059 1934 0.058 1935 0.056 1936 0.053 1937 0.051 1938 0.049 1939 0.049 1940 0.048 1941 0.048 1942 0.048 1943 0.047 1944 0.047 1945 0.046 1946 0.045 1947 0.045 1948 0.045 1949 0.045 1950 0.045 1951 0.045 1952 0.050 1953 0.050 1954 0.050 1955 0.050 1956 0.050 1957 0.042 1958 0.042 1959 0.054 1960 0.052 1961 0.050 1962 0.050 1963 0.050 1964 0.050 1965 0.050 1966 0.051 1967 0.052 1968 0.053 1969 0.056 1970 0.059 TABLE 2.3 LABOUR -121-TABLE 2.3.1 PAID LABOUR YEAR LAB.FORCE LAB.INCOME 1926 295999.094 369.409 1927 289493.620 381.944 1928 291119.988 380.603 1929 291119.988 370.74 5 1930 291119.988 328.450 1931 287867.251 247.826 1932 289493.620 186.781 19 33 300878.200 153.603 1934 297625.463 185.030 1935 304130.938 197.925 19 36 307383.675 212.645 1937 310636.412 231 .696 1938 310636.412 236.818 1939 300878.200 250.082 1940 291119.988 308.597 1941 282988.145 376.076 1942 273229.933 483.184 1943 265098.090 626.718 1944 248834.403 656.988 1945 247208.035 728.551 1 946 239076.192 740.822 1947 193537.869 720.322 1948 216307.030 766.745 1949 230944.348 756.353 1950 180526.920 792.362 1951 161010.496 895.525 1952 180526.920 955.179 1953 183779.657 960.045 1954 196790.607 907.171 1955 172395.077 878.995 1956 167515.971 964.676 1957 159384.128 954.284 1958 161010.496 945.854 1959 180526.920 1003.180 1960 180526.920 989.590 1961 344790.154 1000.000 1962 177274.183 1084.932 1963 167515.971 1281.992 1964 159384.128 1322.981 1965 170768.708 1379.930 1966 157757.759 1513.374 1967 161010.496 1554.266 1968 161010.496 1642.864 1969 154505.022 1738.685 1970 161010.496 1637.171 1961 PRICE= 1626.37 /1 LABOUR YEAR TABLE 2.3 LABOUR -122-TABLE 2.3.2 DIEWERT ESTIMATE YEAR LAB.SERVICE LAB. INCOME 1926 1688277 .804 369.409 1927 1729439 .763 381.944 1928 1757476 .732 380.603 1929 1761220 .633 370.745 1930 1671880 .755 328.450 1931 1644778 .834 247.826 1932 1674508 .853 186.781 19 33 1712808 .517 153.60 3 1934 1728428 .162 185.030 1935 1756658 .669 197.925 19 36 1782719 .600 212.645 1937 1808245 .456 231.696 1938 1833581 .027 236.818 1939 1856966 .582 250.082 1940 1802902 .835 308.597 1941 1638476 .656 376.076 1942 1521659 .580 4 83.184 1943 1442907 .354 626.718 1944 1510892 .817 656.988 1945 1518724 .087 728.551 1946 1575625 .542 740.822 1947 1496206 .708 720.322 1948 1460530 .991 766.745 1949 1444800 .550 756.353 1950 1361255 .415 792.362 1951 1257491 .876 895.525 1952 1195654 .087 955.179 1953 1152483.452 960.045 1954 1142354 .733 907.171 1955 1102609 .231 878.995 1956 1047055 .730 964.676 1957 1010052 .693 954.284 19.58 972166 .536 945.854 1959 947567 .711 1003.180 1960 928063 .994 989.590 1961 925813 . 506 1000.000 1962 881979 .312 1084.932 1963 881223 .357 1281.992 1964 855502 .031 1322.981 1965 809549 .188 1379.930 1966 741989 .733 1513.374 1967 761457 .366 1554.266 1968 743938 .123 1642.864 1969 728999 .824 1738.685 1970 698726 .598 1637.171 1961 PRICE= 1626.37 /1 LABOUR YEAR -123-IA B L E 2.3 LABOUR TABLE 2.3.3 AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER WEEK YEAR QUANTITY 1926 64.380 1927 63.840 1928 63.230 1929 62.900 1930 62.410 1931 61.910 1932 61.280 1933 61.020 1934 60.510 1935 59.950 1936 59.290 1937 58.920 1938 58.420 1939 59.450 1940 60.530 1941 61 .950 1942 63.290 1943 62.810 1944 62.160 1945 58.380 1946 54.290 19 47 52.410 1948 52.620 1949 53.200 1950 51.990 1951 52.760 1952 53.040 1953 54.310 1954 54.880 1955 55.200 1956 55.400 1957 54.740 1958 53.850 1959 53.710 1960 53.520 1961 52.710 1962 52.160 1963 51.480 1964 50.500 1965 50.180 1966 51.210 1967 50.270 1968 48.870 1969 47.780 1970 47.240 -124-TABLE 2.4 INTERMEDIATE INPUTS TABLE 2.4.1 ENERGY INPUTS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ELECTRICAL POWER YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 0.0 815.974 0.0 0. 0 1927 0.0 754.633 0.0 0. 0 1928 0.0 720.767 0.0 0. 0 1929 0.0 725.240 0.0 0.0 19 30 0.0 725.879 0.0 0. 0 1931 0.0 671.566 0.0 0. 0 1932 0.0 694.569 0.0 0. 0 1933 0.0 674.121 0.0 0. 0 1934 0.0 691.374 0.0 0. 0 1935 0.0 671.566 0.0 0. 0 1936 0.0 649.840 0.0 0. 0 1937 0.0 637.061 0.0 0. 0 1938 0.0 622.364 0.0 0. 0 1939 0.0 614.697 0.0 0. 0 1940 0.0 619.808 0.0 0. 0 1941 0.0 716.294 0.0 0. 0 1942 0.0 732.268 0.0 0. 0 1943 0.0 732.907 0.0 0. 0 1944 0.0 732.907 3142.008 1251. 429 1945 0.0 730.990 3781.016 1148. 368 1946 135469.321 750.160 4939.750 1057. 138 1947 166244.770 789.776 6110.652 1046. 860 1948 174687.161 892.652 7799.377 1085. 856 1949 214261.938 890.735 9399.934 1086. 710 1950 235948.924 935.463 12547.266 1140. 965 1951 2645651.026 953.355 14993.255 1199. 405 1952 269064.634 955.911 17606.298 1170. 944 1953 280008.521 961.022 19904.756 1237. 040 1954 294268.330 977.636 23492.328 1219. 036 19 55 313255.065 969.329 26475.172 1198. 821 19 56 327501.885 974.441 30539.574 1142. 354 1957 331196.223 990.415 33315.395 1106. 4 85 1958 332300.174 997.444 36909.789 1097. 053 1959 334426.226 996.166 4219 1.775 1064. 970 1960 336260.563 990.415 45030.958 1038. 396 1961 328547.774 1000.000 49561.988 1000. 000 1962 316845.018 1008.307 53554.581 957. 434 1963 322151.150 1006.390 52074.376 915. 440 1964 325545.948 1021.725 53768.040 871. 484 1965 332923.983 1020.447 60026.287 834. 967 1966 333518.370 1040.895 64688.040 813.009 1967 345683.427 1072.204 71338.648 793. 679 1968 348425.150 1120.959 75689.301 798. 184 1969 351219.614 1164.856 82530.229 799. 125 1970 336794.228 1187.221 78677.640 829. 433 1961 PRICE= 156.500 /PRICE INDEX 21.3844 /1000 KW HOURS -125-TABLE 2.4 INTERMEDIATE INPUTS TABLE 2.4.2 CROP INPUTS F E R T I L I Z E R COMMERCIAL SALE OF GRAINS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 1926 206737 .582 664.954 96554.097 648. 455 1927 255001 . 104 664.954 93575.748 694, 111 1928 309001 .239 620.247 101803.842 686. 231 1929 363453 .625 615.622 95055.977 670. 089 1930 547841.981 586.331 110380.492 502. 507 1931 517368 .012 549.332 107286.455 351. 927 1932 374595 .642 480.473 89435.193 346. 530 1933 339086 .787 490.750 80006.104 349. 873 1934 386130 .362 504.625 81052.975 452. 457 1935 439171 .897 498.458 87917.300 445. 055 1936 476375 .524 504.625 97515.681 467. 453 1937 585283 .020 521.069 99308.281 612. 064 1938 621421 .795 530.832 115576.450 479. 440 1939 665271 .205 514.902 144473.645 383. 925 1940 651031 . 156 546.249 147100.912 392.091 1941 575732 .441 589.414 143378.221 477. 339 19 42 685090 .825 625.899 200264.827 544. 868 1943 882784 .178 580.164 279511.029 586. 656 1944 948520 .444 580.164 271965.035 603.372 1945 1016137 .324 580.164 282172. 584 617. 221 1946 1070866 .236 595.067 330441.564 622. 140 1947 1075108 .322 620.761 366562.789 720.378 1948 1007474 .122 679.342 281400.354 1001. 576 1949 1042549 .019 726. 105 266273.608 1006. 017 1950 1025923 .758 758.993 242961.601 1107. 837 1951 907920 .464 864.851 258753.579 1072. 019 1952 823163 .216 950.154 263722.820 1057. 166 1953 889232 .054 935.766 241382.592 1023. 736 1954 875661 .429 939.3 63 276273.232 969. 913 1955 855073 .333 931.141 270676.240 1017. 909 1956 868521 .750 929.085 324052.240 985. 291 1957 860984 .892 942.446 307075.325 966. 426 1958 920478 .780 949.640 373983.777 912. 938 1959 948417 .695 966.598 373534.426 959. 501 1960 942190 .301 1001.028 362623.327 969. 101 1961 1087720 .931 1000.000 357427.945 1000. 000 1962 1151415 .259 995.889 363013.630 1102. 536 1963 1221400 .422 1035.971 395404.155 1095. 420 1964 1404854 .309 1047.276 428731.700 1069. 822 1965 1474054 .844 1094.039 457315.725 1077. 224 1966 1708220 .711 1130.524 487724.165 1115.335 1967 1847596 .143 1187.050 506564.232 1176. 083 1968 1861862 .074 1238.078 478437.932 1165.944 1969 1709586 .414 1120.915 530187.810 1106. 275 1970 1667673 .857 1128.983 568259.921 1077. 893 1961 PRICE= 194.600 /PRICE INDEX 209.390 /PRICE INDEX -126-TABLE 2.4 INTERMEDIATE INPUTS TABLE 2.4.2 CROP INPUTS SEED GRAIN INV:FLAXSEED SEED GRAIN INV: RYE YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 654.500 672.727 970.050 885.058 1927 519.750 589.091 1095.329 885.058 1928 525.250 563.636 1294.559 977.012 1929 800.249 578.182 1889.639 908.046 1930 863.499 865.455 1014.420 965.517 1931 624.250 341.818 1010.070 229.885 19 32 335.500 287.273 761.250 321.839 1933 310.750 225.455 958.740 310.345 1934 294.250 436.364 938.730 436.782 1935 643.500 418.182 829. 110 563.218 1936 332.750 432.727 1166.669 310.345 1937 305.250 523.637 967.440 804.598 1938 305.250 538.182 1438.109 827.586 19 39 423.500 410.909 1051.830 333.333 1940 627.000 512.727 1217.999 482.759 1941 2177.998 389.09 1 1391.999 379.310 1942 4267.997 458.182 593.340 505.747 1943 2073.499 723.636 659.460 540.230 1944 1567.499 781.818 501.120 1103.448 1945 1372.249 916.364 696.870 11C3.448 1946 3360.498 909.091 1112.729 1712.643 1947 3236.748 1087.273 1999.259 2574.714 1948 503.250 1905.456 1156.229 3804.598 1949 863.499 1385.455 1151.009 1505.746 1950 1792.999 1203.637 1095.329 1402.299 1951 1847.999 1261.819 1278.899 1517.241 1952 1556.499 1418.183 1503.359 1793.103 1953 1916.749 1149.091 871.740 1586.207 1954 3283.498 887.273 786.480 942.529 1955 5026.997 923.637 589.860 1057.471 1956 5747.496 1007.273 581 .160 1057.471 1957 4394.497 930.909 542.880 1149.426 1958 3954.497 920.000 544.620 1011.494 1959 4729.997 952.728 523.740 1011.494 1960 3423.748 1112.728 557.670 1022.989 1961 2345.748 1000.000 644.670 1000.000 1962 2807.748 1207.273 692.520 1229.885 1963 3280.748 1112.728 703.830 1218.391 1964 3830.747 1058.182 783.000 1367.815 1965 3495.248 1069.092 709.050 1195.403 1966 2034.999 985.4 55 756.900 1206.896 1967 2518.998 1025.455 668.160 1252.873 1968 4336.747 1120.001 926.550 1252.873 1969 5813.496 1047.273 1005.720 1183.908 1970 3321.998 934.546 1080.540 1022.989 1961 PRICE= 2.75000 /BU 0.870000 /BU -127-TABLE 2.4 INTERMEDIATE INPUTS TABLE 2.4.2 CROP INPUTS SEED GRAIN INV:BARLEY SEED GRAIN INV:0ATS YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 5608.798 662.500 22507.990 617.647 1927 7808.797 650.000 22331.865 705.882 1928 9480.796 825.000 21215.305 750.000 1929 8893.597 700.000 22539.945 691.176 1930 6029.598 737.500 21881.030 867.647 1931 6011.998 250.000 22352.265 352.941 1932 5852.798 325.000 22998.950 352.941 1933 5779.998 287.500 23342.344 279.412 1934 6219.198 375.000 23963.864 382.353 1935 7091.997 587.500 2230 1.270 470.588 19 36 6930.397 362.500 22182.265 352.941 1937 7126.397 862.500 22116.310 632.353 1938 6955.997 637.500 21742.985 632.353 1939 5943.198 350.000 19037.946 352.941 19 40 7599.997 425.000 20393.191 441. 177 1941 9599.996 400.000 21759.990 411.765 1942 11211.196 537.500 22634.470 602.941 1943 9973.596 575.000 22193.830 573.529 1944 9851.196 825.000 21637.590 852.941 1945 8476.797 937.500 19127.032 794.118 1946 10092.796 837.500 17524.267 779.412 1947 8672.797 962.500 18293. 352 838.235 1948 8039.197 1375.000 18852.986 1191. 177 1949 9082.397 1200.000 19191.626 1029.412 1950 10875.196 1637.499 20265.351 1161.765 1951 11366.396 1412.500 18512.312 1147.059 1952 12048.795 1375.000 16494.747 1117.647 1953 10632.796 1325.0 00 17019.032 985.294 1954 13223.195 1075.000 18347.066 926.471 1955 11203. 196 1112.500 18781.592 985.294 1956 12383.195 1087.500 17995.512 985.294 1957 12560.795 987.500 17921.387 852.941 1958 11043.996 950.000 18466.072 897.059 1959 10627.996 962.500 18985.592 941.176 1960 7395.197 925.000 18435.466 1014.706 1961 6903.997 1000.000 1863 1.992 1000.000 1962 8231.197 1312.499 16436.267 1 102.941 1963 7346.397 1175.000 15357.788 985.294 1964 8059.197 1175.000 14900.153 911.765 1965 9803.196 1250.000 14217.434 1014.706 1966 10610.396 1287.500 13419.114 1073.529 1967 11613.596 1312.499 13780.874 1088.235 1968 12506.395 1087.500 13817.594 1058.824 1969 12845.595 1025.000 12671. 1 14 882.353 1970 19079.186 837.500 12370.555 867.647 1961 PRICE=0.800000 /BU 0.680000 /BU -128-TABLE 2.4 INTERMEDIATE INPUTS TABLE 2.4 .2 CROP INPUTS SEED GRAIN INVrWHEAT TWINE YEAR QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE 19 26 61708.786 783.440 19770.872 765.975 1927 66266.505 694.268 21947.448 710.788 1928 69387.663 636.943 23663.594 614. 108 1929 68406.401 509.554 14527.525 621.992 1930 61499.989 668.790 19875.963 651.037 1931 57912.529 312.102 13941.946 571.369 1932 50674.835 242.038 18572.951 363.485 1933 47070. 118 222.930 13275.425 342.739 1934 50781.595 312.102 13663.551 435.685 1935 52574.534 388.535 15565.960 363.485 1936 53555.796 388.535 11684.198 418.257 1937 51780. 115 598.726 1 1608. 318 441.494 1938 54168.095 649.682 16479.354 453.112 1939 56895.170 375.796 18462.965 389.212 1940 49641.776 343.949 18562.739 487.967 1941 42389.965 363.057 14730.744 524.481 1942 34511.711 388.535 14694.517 524.481 1943 47099.961 490.446 1290 2.271 524.481 1944 46021.359 719.745 14940.475 524.481 1945 51489.677 789.809 14721.211 524.481 1946 52048.597 1025.478 13024.296 524.481 1947 51770.695 1019.109 9859.478 938.589 19 48 58708.531 1031.847 8799.778 1219.917 1949 57394.430 1050.955 8819.794 1264.315 1950 40695.924 1025.478 8998.681 1236.515 1951 57108.690 980.892 8690.809 1512.862 1952 58311.309 987.261 8103.606 1911.618 1953 56419.473 10 12.739 9163.211 1459.750 1954 50456.618 847.134 9090.379 1295.435 1955 50756.475 789.809 10181.962 1040.664 1956 47300.921 872.611 11917.113 1113.693 19 57 46617.959 796.178 14078.623 928.216 1958 51273.018 815.287 12842.919 928.216 1959 51337.375 840.764 14568.895 909.129 1960 56402.191 840.764 14984.423 938.174 1961 59595.568 1000.000 16338.987 1000.000 1962 61363.387 1095.541 16274.926 976.348 1963 66071.825 1057.325 18977.967 1115.767 1964 62880.005 1108.280 18234.843 1395.021 1965 66004.303 1012.739 14332.447 1238.588 1966 63358.868 1070.064 16434.332 1126.970 1967 61873.649 1121.019 17572.530 1104.564 1968 52430.094 1038.217 14613.484 1048.963 1969 26328.878 853.503 10445.190 1076.763 1970 40636.264 808.918 16182.834 1110.373 1961 PRICE= 1.57000 /BU 241.000 /PRICE INDEX -129-TABLE 2.4 INTERMEDIATE INPUTS TABLE 2.4.2 CROP INPUTS HARDWARE V YEAR QUANTITY PRICE 1926 54093.958 429.752 1927 59488.516 423.140 1928 60301.787 433.884 1929 61401.843 420.248 1930 56364. 190 413.223 1931 44205.006 412.397 1932 36935.311 412.397 1933 36410.821 388.017 1934 40193.931 392.149 19 35 41674.699 398.347 1936 43352.258 399.587 1937 46152.501 417.355 1938 44061.167 430.992 1939 48633.424 419.835 1940 45946.967 454.132 1941 49980.336 475.207 1942 56697.711 499.174 1943 63471.836 498.347 1944 71072.859 495.041 1945 73608.142 492.975 1946 77053.753 507.438 19 47 77680.412 565.702 1948 70479.067 658.678 1949 68470.830 685.V24 1950 65637.357 706.198 1951 58848.032 837.190 1952 60559.683 837.603 1953 59313.277 837.6 03 1954 - 59541.347 833.471 1955 64339.118 827.273 1956 65749.283 867.355 1957 152672.733 926.033 1958 62637.631 956.198 1959 65997.817 965.289 19 60^ 65478.469 989.256 1961 69684 .989 1000.000 1962 ^ , 70381.662 10 21.488 19 63 73610.350 1029.339 1964 76044.507 1051.240 1965 77674.664 1099.586 1966 80547.114 1142.561 1967 81455.173 1194.215 1968 79074.831 1264.587 19 69 80580.177 1260.744 1970 95396.355 1252.479 1961 PRICE= 242.000 /PRICE INDEX -130-TABLE 2.5 WEATHER INFLUENCES TABLE 2.5.1 TEMPERATURE: FARENHEIT YEAR MAY JUNE 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 1928 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 1930 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 19 32 0.0 0.0 1933 0.0 0.0 1934 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 1936 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 1938 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 56.207 61.644 1941 55.278 64.315 1942 52.944 61.209 1943 52.976 59.811 1944 57.285 61 .557 1945 49.066 58.857 1946 51.793 60.821 1947 50.832 60.593 1948 54.977 63.765 1949 55.451 63.0 14 1950 51.691 61.526 1951 55.391 58.017 1952 53.804 61.716 1953 52.472 61.483 1954 50.780 60.109 1955 52.482 62.042 1956 52.884 63.984 1957 55.010 61.463 1958 56.986 60.388 1959 51.238 62.768 1960 53.737 61 .395 1961 54.057 67.361 1962 53.368 64.159 1963 51.901 63.266 1964 54.556 62.102 1965 53.049 60.009 1966 53.673 61.379 1967 50.219 61.928 1968 52.253 61.596 1969 54.077 60.653 1970 53.317 67.802 -131-TABLE 2.5 WEATHER INFLUENCES TABLE 2.5.1 TEMPERATURE: FARENHEIT YEAR JULY AUGUST 19 26 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 1928 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 1930 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 1932 0.0 0.0 1933 0.0 0.0 19 34 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 1936 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 1938 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 68.049 65.120 1941 70.816 65.440 1942 66.951 64.353 1943 68.233 63.890 1944 67.043 65.449 1945 67.854 66.340 1946 68.952 63.814 1947 70.600 66.209 1948 68.220 66.455 1949 67.913 68.550 1950 66.232 62.407 1951 66.748 62. 176 1952 66.797 64.350 1953 66.812 66.841 1954 67.042 63.462 1955 68.678 66.683 1956 66.142 65.286 1957 63.276 63. 356 1958 67.851 68.743 1959 69.433 64.814 1960 69.634 66.317 1961 68.849 70.343 1962 65.041 64.666 1963 68.993 66.390 1964 69.641 63.439 1965 67.431 66.329 1966 67.752 63.962 1967 68.394 68.051 1968 67.652 62.597 1969 66. 199 69.068 1970 69.919 68.088 -132-TABLE 2.5 WEATHER INFLUENCES TABLE 2.5.1 TEMPERATURE: FARENHEIT YEAR SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 19 26 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 19 28 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 1930 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 1932 0.0 0.0 1933 0.0 0.0 1934 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 1936 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 19 38 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 59.987 45.387 1941 53.760 45.151 1942 55.362 45.576 1943 55.527 47.088 1944 57.491 48.775 1945 53.731 44.000 1946 56.429 42.819 1947 55.277 49.430 1948 59.136 45.961 1949 56.332 43.029 1950 56.121 43.402 1951 53.508 39.545 1952 58.049 44.577 1953 56.731 49.185 1954 54.645 44 .968 1955 54.283 45.139 1956 54.087 45.167 1957 56.707 40.674 19 58 55.985 46.181 1959 54.799 39.843 1960 58.023 45.904 1961 53.371 43.906 1962 55.512 47.921 1963 59.675 52.075 1964 52.185 46.737 1965 48.680 47.818 1966 58.743 43 .545 1967 61.684 43.695 1968 57.147 45.450 1 969 57.122 38.948 1970 55.721 43.896 -133-TABLE 2.5 WEATHER INFLUENCES TABLE 2.5.2 PRECIPITATION: INCHES YEAR MAY JUNE 19 26 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 1928 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 1930 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 19 32 0.0 0.0 1933 0.0 0.0 1934 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 1936 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 1938 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 2.146 2.981 1941 2.324 2.959 1942 2. 187 4.233 1943 2.835 3. 116 1944 3.064 3.207 1945 2.52 8 2.709 1946 1 .652 2.946 1947 2. 138 3.70 3 1948 2.160 2.346 1949 2.366 1.894 19 50 1 .507 3.202 1951 1 .834 2.687 19 52 2.074 4.077 1953 2.520 3.921 1954 2.506 3.749 19 55 2.586 2.554 1956 1 .787 3.736 19 57 1 .224 3.010 1958 1 .281 2.255 1959 1 .787 3.490 1960 2.272 2.861 1961 1 .724 2. 102 1962 2.340 2.693 1963 1.791 3.493 1964 2.319 2.771 1965 2.705 3.583 1966 1.136 3.055 1967 1.520 1.940 1968 1 .921 2.452 1969 1.831 2. 226 1970 1 .822 5.216 -134-TABLE 2.5 WEATHER INFLUENCES TABLE 2.5.2 PRECIPITATION: INCHES YEAR JULY AUGUST 19 26 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 19 28 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 1930 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 1932 0.0 0.0 1933 0.0 0.0 1934 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 1936 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 19 38 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 2.620 1.379 1941 2.726 2.521 1942 3.311 2,363 1943 2.569 3.188 1944 3.558 2.418 1945 1 .935 2. 176 1946 2.412 2.797 1947 2.135 2.859 1948 3.254 1.876 1949 3.026 2.024 1950 3.252 2.356 1951 2.715 3. 146 1952 2.616 3.030 1953 2.547 1.598 1954 2.633 4.153 19 55 3.369 1.665 1956 2.538 2.371 1957 3.161 2.774 1958 2.609 2.191 1959 1 .887 2.763 1960 1.801 2.402 1961 2.123 1. 345 1962 3,226 2.439 1963 3.141 1.993 1964 2.302 3.488 1965 2.457 3.424 1966 2.828 2.712 19 67 1 .665 1.80 1 1968 2.675 3.227 1969 3.307 1.356 1970 2.604 1.194 -135-TABLE 2.5 WEATHER INFLUENCES TABLE 2.5.2 PRECIPITATION: INCHES YEAR SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 1926 0.0 0.0 1927 0.0 0.0 19 28 0.0 0.0 1929 0.0 0.0 1930 0.0 0.0 1931 0.0 0.0 19 32 0.0 0.0 1933 0.0 0.0 1934 0.0 0.0 1935 0.0 0.0 19 36 0.0 0.0 1937 0.0 0.0 1938 0.0 0.0 1939 0.0 0.0 1940 1.694 1.534 1941 2.224 1.774 1942 2.366 1.592 1943 1 .079 2.030 1944 2.264 1 .023 1945 3.420 1.742 1946 2.078 1 .839 1947 2.450 0.859 1948 0.940 0.945 1949 1.611 1.783 1950 1 .235 1 .680 1951 1.963 1.778 1952 1 .678 1 .004 1953 1 .799 0.9 14 1954 3.186 1.806 1955 1.920 1.679 19 56 1 .436 1 .528 1957 1 .850 2.031 1958 1 .888 1.022 1959 2.172 2.591 1960 1 .181 1.064 1961 1 .675 1. 295 1962 1.700 1 .854 1963 1 .485 1.378 1964 2.179 0.673 1965 2.765 1. 183 1966 1.108 1.156 1967 1 .588 1. 156 1968 2.253 1 .294 1969 2.259 1.698 1970 1.894 1.655 [ECUTION TERMINATED -136-APPENDIX V I I I DISAGGREGATE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e contains disaggregated temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n data f o r tw e n t y - f i v e experimental farms. The s e r i e s are complete f o r the p e r i o d 1940-1970. However, whenever a s p e c i f i c observation i s mi s s i n g i t i s given a value of zero. SUMMERLAND, B.C. H ft) TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AU G. SEPT. OCT. 19 40 59.0 67.5 72. 0 68.7 65.1 52.7 2.2 0.2 0.6 0. 2 0.8 1.9 1 941 57.0 64.0 73. 0 69.0 56.0 49.0 1.9 2.6 1 .7 1 .7 2.4 0.5 19 42 56.0 62.0 71. 0 71 .0 62.0 50.0 2.4 1.3 2.2 0. 2 0.0 0.6 1943 54.0 62.0 71. 0 68.0 61.0 49..0 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.1 1.2 1944 57.0 65.0 71.0 67.0 62.0 50.0 1.9 0.8 0.5 0. 7 1.6 0.4 1945 57.0 62.0 70. 0 70.0 57.0 49.0 1.5 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.9 3.7 1946 60.0 6 0 i 0 69. 0 68.0 60.0 45.0 0.9 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.9 1. 1 1947 60.0 62.0 68. 0 66.0 61.0 49.0 0.1 2.7 1.8 0.4 0.9 1.2 1948 55.0 67.0 60. 0 64.0 58.0 46.0 1.8 2.6 1.9 3.0 0.7 0.2 1949 60.0 62.0 67. 0 67.0 60.0 45.0 0.6 0.8 1 .3 1.1 0.7 0.4 1950 55.0 65.0 70. 0 68.0 .63.0 47.0 0.4 0.8 2. 5 0.9 0.6 1.8 1951 59.0 64.0 71. 0 69.0 62. 0 48.0 1.1 0.7 1 .4 1.3 0.2 2.5 1952 58.0 61.0 69.0 69.0 63.0 54.0 0.8 2.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0. 1 1953 5 7.0 60.0 69. 0 67.0 60.0 50.0 0.9 1.8 0.4 2.4 0.3 0.8 19 54 57.0 59.0 66. 0 65.0 58.0 46.0 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.3 0.1 1955 5 1.0 63.0 63. 0 67.0 60.0 47.0 0.8 1.2 1.4 0.0 1.3 1.2 19 56 59.0 61.0 58.0 70.0 61 .0 47.0 0.2 2.4 1.3 0.9 0.3 1.2 1957 61.0 64.0 66. 0 64.0 62.0 45.0 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.5 1958 64.0 69.0 75. 0 74 .0 59.0 49.0 0.6 1.2 0.5 0. 2 0.7 1.9 1959 53.0 62.0 70. 0 65.0 57.0 47.0 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.5 1.5 1.1 1960 54.0 64.0 75. 0 67.0 58.0 50.0 1.4 0.3 0.0 1. 2 0.4 0.4 1961 56.0 68.0 71.0 72.0 57.0 46.0 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.3 1962 49.0 62.0 69.0 0.0 59.0 48.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.9 0.6 0.9 1963 47.0 64.0 66. 0 69.0 64.0 52.0 2.3 1.9 0.9 0.8 2.0 1.0 1964 0.0 63.0 69. 0 64 .0 56.0- 49.0 0.2 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.5 0.3 1965 56.0 65.0 72. 0 70.0 O.'O 53.0 1.2 0.7 0.5 2.3 0.0 0. 1 1966 57.0 61.0 67.0 67.0 62.0 49.0 0.4 1. 1 1.5 1.6 0.7 0.7 1967 55.0 67.0 70. 0 75.0 66.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 1968 55.0 62.0 71. 0 65.0 59.0 47.0 1.3 2. 2 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.3 1969 59.0 70.0 68. 0 67.0 59.0 46.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.1 1.8 0.8 1970. 56.0 68.0 72. 0 70.0 55.0 46.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.6 o CO ft) <JQ 00 H CD 00 CO CD CD l-i ft) It c H CD ft) 3 CL >Tl i-i CD O H> 13 H-rt ft) rt H> O O w CO CD H $ rt H-O CO CO I SAANICHTON,B.C. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 56,4 61.4 62. 0 63. 5 59.8 53.0 1.4 0.2 1.5 0.4 1.9 3.9 1941 54.0 58.0 66. 0 62.0 55.0 51.0 2.0 0.7 0. 1 1.8 2.4 2.7 1942 53.0 58.0 64. 0 64.0 57.0 51.0 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.4 1943 51.0 58.0 61.0 61 .0 59.0 51 .0 1.6 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.2 4.7 1944 53.0 59.0 63. 0 61.0 60.0 53.0 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.4 1.2 3.2 1945 55.0 .57.0 62. 0 61 .0 55.0 50.0 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.6 2.3 3.2 1946 56,0 57.0 62. 0 62.0 56.0 48.0 0.4 3.4 1 .0 0.2 0.6 2.3 1947 55.0 59.0 62. 0 60.0 57.0 49.0 0.2 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.9 5.8 1948 52,0 60.0 60. 0 61.0 55.0 49.0 4.0 1.8 1.8 2.8 1.8 1.8 1949 55.0 57.0 60.0 59.0 59.0 48.0 0.7 1.3 1.0 0. 8 0.9 2. 3 1950 50.0 59.0 62. 0 61.0 57.0 48.0 0.5 0.3 1 .3 2.2 0.5 5.3 1951 54.0 60.0 63. 0 61 .0 59.0 50.0 1.3 0. 1 0. 1 0.7 2.1 4.9 1952 53.0 55.0 63. 0 62.0 59.0 53.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.2 1.2 1953 53.0 58.0 61.0 62.0 58.0 51.0 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.5 3.0 1.6 1954 54.0 55.0 58. 0 59.0 57.0 49.0 0.4 1.4 0.6 2.2 1.2 1.9 19 55 49.0 56.0 58.0 60.0 56.0 48.0 0.7 2.7 1.6 0.0 0.6 4.2 1956 56.0 55.0 62. 0 61.0 56.0 48.0 0.5 2.9 0.2 1.7 2.6 4.2 1957 56.0 58.0 59. 0 60.0 60.0 50.0 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.4 2.8 1958 58.0 62.0 67. 0 64.0 58.0 51.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.0 2.9 1959 52.0 58.0 63. 0 61 .0 55.0 50.0 1.2 1.7 0.7 0. 5 3.3 2.9 1960 52.0 57.0 70. 0 63.0 58.0 52.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 3,3 1961 53.0 62.0 67. 0 67.0 57.0 50.0 1.7 0. 3 0.8 1. 1 0.5 3.0 1962 51.0 57.0 61. 0 65.0 58.0 51.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.3 1.5 3.7 1963 55.0 59.0 60. 0 62.0 61 .0 52.0 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.4 0.7 3. 1 1964 55.0 58.0 60. 0 61.0 56.0 51.0 0.4 1.4 1 .3 1.3 2.2 1.2 1965 50.0 58.0 63. 0 62.0 56.0 52 .0 0.0 0.3 0.3 2. 2 1.2 3.2 1966 53.0 57.0 59. 0 62.0 58.0 49.0 1.1 1.0 2.0 0.8 1.4 4.5 1967 53.0 61.0 63. 0 66.0 60.0 0.0 . 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 2. 1 0.0 1968 54.0 57.0 64. 0 61.0 57.0 49.0 1.4 1.5 0.6 . 2.2 1.7 4.1 1969 55.0 62.0 62. 0 60.0 57.0 50.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0. 6 3.0 2.0 1970 52.0 60.0 61. 0 61.0 55.0 49. 0 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.1 2.4 1.2 AGASSIZ, B.C. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AU G. SEPT. OCT. 1940 58.5 61.7 63. 7 65.1 64.4 54.3 3.6 1.0 2.7 2. 3 1.9 7.7 1941 56.0 59. 0 69. 0 65.0 57.0 52.0 5.7 2.7 0.5 3.2 10.0 8.2 1942 56.0 59.0 68. 0 68.0 61 .0 53.0 2.0 4.3 2.5 0.4 1.2 4.5 1943 53.0 60.0 64. 0 6 2.0 63.0 63.0 3.8 2.8 3 .2 2.0 2.8 7.5 1944 55.0 61.0 65.0 63 .0 62.0 57.0 4.7 2.4 2. 1 2. 3 3.2 5.3 1945 57.0 . 59.0 64. 0 65.0 57.0 52.0 2.7 1.7 1.1 0.9 5.9 11.5 1946 59.0 59.0 64. 0 65.0 59.0 48.0 0.4 4.0 1.5 1. 3 2.2 5.7 1947 5 9.0 60. 0 63. 0 63.0 60.0 52.0 1.1 4.4 1 .8 0.7 2.3 14. 1 1948 54.0 65.0 64.0 64 .0 59.0 52.0 3.5 2. 1 2.9 5. 7 3.7 4.9 1949 59.0 59.0 62. 0 64.0 63.0 49.0 i . 8 3.5 2.5 1.7 3.1 5.8 1950 52.0 62.0 64. 0 65.0 59.0 49.0 5.1 1.6 1.4 3. 8 2.8 7.5 1951 56.0 62.0 65. 0 64.0 63.0 51.0 4.6 0.7 0.4 1.0 2.5 8.0 1952 56.0 58.0 64.0 65.0 62.0 56.0 2.7 4.8 0.8 2. 1 1.5 2.5 1953 56.0 57.0 64. 0 64.0 59.0 53.0 2.1 3.2 2.9 2.0 9.0 9.9 1954 56.0 55.0 60. 0 60.0 60.0 51.0 1.5 4.3 1.9 4.0 2.9 6.0 1955 50.0 59.0 61. 0 62.0 59.0 50.0 7. 1 3.6 3.3 0.4 1.9 12.3 1956 59.0 57.0 68.0 65.0 58.0 50.0 1.5 7.4 0.6 2. 5 7.7 12.3 1957 59.0 61.0 61. 0 62.0 64.0 51.0 1.5 2.5 3.6 2.8 1.3 3.4 1958 60.0 66.0 71. 0 67.0 59.0 52.0 1.6 1.1 0.3 2.0 4.7 8.3 1959 54.0 61.0 65. 0 61,0 57.0 51.0 3.1 4.9 2.3 3.0 7.3 8. 1 1960 53.0 59.0 66. 0 62.0 60.0 53.0 6.8 2. 1 0.0 4. 3 3.8 7.7 1961 56.0 64.0 68. 0 68.0 57.0 49. 0 4.3 1.2 0.9 2.8 3.4 8.8 1962 52.0 59.0 63. 0 60.0 60.0 53 .0 3.3 2.3 2. 2 4. 7 3.6 4. 1 1963 56.0 59.0 62. 0 66.0 63.0 53.0 1.7 2.9 3.6 3.7 2.6 7.3 19 64 51.0 58.0 62. 0 62.0 57.0 54.0 3.7 ' 4.1 2.4 4. 7 6.1 5.2 1965 52.0 60.0 66. 0 65.0 53.0 54. 0 3.9 0.5 0.4 3.4 1.6 8. 1 1966 55.0 58.0 62. 0 64 .0 61 .0 50.0 3.8 2. 3 3.0 1.5 2.7 9.0 1967 55.0 64.0 64. 0 68.0 62.0 0.0 3.2 2.5 1 .4 0.5 4.7 0.0 19 68 57.0 60.0 68. 0 63 .0 59.0 4 9.0 3.3 6.2 2. 2 3. 7 4.9 8.7 1969 59.0 65.0 63. 0 62.0 59.0 52.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 2.4 9.3 3.1 1970 54.0 64.0 64.0 63.0 57.0 50.5 0.9 1.4 3.5 0.6 5.7 4.0 MANYBERRIES , ft IT A. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 56.2 61.9 67. 4 59. 1 62.4 49.0 1.4 1.8 1 .9 0.4 0.4 1.4 1941 54.0 62.0 71. 0 69.0 50.0 44.0 1.6 3.6 0.5 1. 1 1.8 0. 1 1942 50.0 55.0 66. 0 64.0 55.0 43.0 3.8 5.9 1.5 0.4 0.6 1.2 1943 48.0 57.0 67.0 65.0 53.0 48.0 1.1 1.7 0.9 1.7 0.2 0. 1 1944 51.0 58.0 67. 0 63.0 57.0 51.0 1.5 2.4 2.4 1.0 0.5 0.2 1945 49.0 57.0 68. 0 67.0 51 .0 46.0 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.4 2.4 0.3 1946 50.0 59.0 69. 0 64.0 54.0 38.0 1.3 3.6 2.2 0.3 1.8 1.9 1947 52.0 58.0 72. 0 66.0 54.0 48.0 0.8 2.4 0.3 1.5 1.8 0. 1 1948 53.0 61.0 66. 0 68.0 59.0 45.0 1.6 1.7 1.6 0. 1 0.4 0.3 1949 56.0 61.0 66. 0 70.0 56.0 39.0 1.8 0.8 1.7 1. 1 0. 1 1.7 1950 50.0 58.0 66. 0 63.0 56.0 42.0 0.6 3.2 1 .2 1.2 0.1 0.9 1951 53.0 55.0 67.0 61 .0 50.0 37.0 1.3 3.9 0.4 3.9 1. 1 1.8 1952 52.0 59.0 63. 0 64.0 56.0 45.0 1.9 1.3 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.0 1953 48.0 57.0 66. 0 66.0 56.0 50.0 2.7 2.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.0 1954 49.0 56.0 68. 0 64.0 54.0 4 5.0 1.0 5.5 0.8 3.1 2.3 0.2 19 55 47.0 59.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 3.3 1.2 4.5 0. 0 0.0 0.3 1956 52.0 62.0 66. 0 64.0 55.0 46.0 1.1 3.3 3.4 2.0 0.5 0.3 1957 56.0 59.0 69.0 63.0 56.0 37.0 0.1 3.0 0.3 2.6 0.9 2.2 1958 59.0 58.0 64. 0 70.0 56.0 46.0 1.4 2.0 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 1959 47.0 62.0 68.0 63 .0 52.0 39.0 1.2 3.2 0.2 1. 3 0.9 0.6 1960 5 1.0 60.0 72. 0 64. 0 57.0 47.0 2.1 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.1 1961 54.0 68.0 68. 0 72 .0 49.0 43.0 1.4 0.6 0.6 0. 6 1.0 0.7 1962 51.0 62.0 64. 0 62.0 54.0 48.0 2.2 3.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.9 1963 52.0 61.0 68.0 68.0 63.0 51.0 1.0 2.7 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.7 1964 53.0 60.0 69. 0 63.0 50.0 47.0 1.6 2.3 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.0 1965 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 1966 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1967 47.0 57.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1968 0.0 0.0 65. 0 61.0 54.0 42.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.1 2.0 0.3 1969 54.0 59.0 66. 0 69.0 58.0 35.0 0.3 1.9 1. 1 0.4 0.5 1.2 1970 53.0 65.0 68. 0 67.0 52.0 39. 3 0.6 5.5 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 LETHBRIDGE, ALTA. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JU LY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 50.3 58.6 59.9 68.3 59.0 49.8 1.3 1.3 1.7 0.3 1.6 1.4 1941 52.0 60.0 68. 0 62.0 49.0 44.0 2.0 2.7 4.1 1.8 2.8 0.3 1942 49.0 55.0 64. 0 62.0 54.0 46.0 4.6 4.3 3. 2 1.0 1.5 0.2 1943 48.0 54.0 65. 0 63.0 53.0 46.0 1.3 0.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 1.1 1944 54.0 57.0 65.0 61 .0 55.0 51.0 1.5 1.8 2.9 1.7 1.1 0.0 1945 47.0 55.0 66. 0 64.0 50.0 47.0 3.2 3.5 1 .2 0.9 3.3 0.4 1946 50.0 57.0 67. 0 62.0 54 .0 38.0 2.2 4.4 1.8 1.5 2.0 4.4 1947 52.0 58.0 67. 0 61.0 52.0 47.0 0.6 4.2 0.3 2.8 3.5 1.0 1948 51.0 59.0 63. 0 63.0 55.0 47.0 4.2 6. 1 2.0 0. 1 0.0 0.5 1949 53.0 57.0 64. 0 65.0 55.0 39.0 3.7 1.3 1 .0 0.5 0.6 2.5 1950 49.0 57.0 6.3. 0 61.0 55.0 42.0 0.9 1.3 1.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1951 52.0 52.0 64. 0 58.0 49.0 36.0 1.3 6.3 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.5 1952 .52.0 57.0 62.0 61 .0 57.0 48.0 1.7 2.5 2.0 2. 6 0.4 0.3 1953 49.0 56.0 64. 0 64.0 55.0 50.0 0.9 8.2 0.6 0.3 0.9 0. 1 1954 51.0 55.0 64. 0 60.0 52 .0 44 .0 1.0 2.2 0.8 5.0 3.7 0. 1 1 955 46.0 59.0 63. 0 63.0 52.0 45.0 5.1 1.5 3.9 0.2 0.9 0.7 1956 52.0 59.0 64. 0 62.0 54.0 45.0 1.3 3.4 2.9 2. 5 1.5 0.7 1957 54.0 58.0 65. 0 60.0 56.0 36.0 0.7 3.8 0.6 0.3 1 .3 3.0 1958 58.0 58.0 62. 0 66.0 55.0 48.0 1.4 3. 1 2.9 1. 1 1. 1 0.3 1959 47.0 61.0 67. 0 62.0 52.0 43.0 2.5 3.9 0.6 2.9 0.8 1.0 1960 50.0 60.0 72. 0 63 .0 57.0 48.0 1.9 1.7 0.2 2.0 0. 1 0.7 1961 52.0 66.0 66. 0 67.0 48.0 43.0 2.0 1.4 2.1 0.6 2.4 2. 1 1962 51.0 60.0 62.0 65.0 54.0 48.0 1.0 2. 2 1.7 0.3 1.5 0.3 1963 51.0 59.0 64. 0 64.0 61.0 50.0 0.4 6.9 2.5 1.8 1.1 1.1 1964 53.0 59.0 65.0 60.0 49.0 50.0 3.5 2.8 0.6 0. 5 2.4 0.3 1965 50.0 57.0 65. 0 64.0 43.0 51.0 1.9 5.8 2.3 2.1 2.8 0.0 1966 53.0 57.0 63. 0 60.0 58.0 45.0 2.5 5.5 3.8 2. 4 0.6 1.1 1967 47.0 57.0 66. 0 66.0 63.0 0.0 2.3 3.2 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.0 1968 49.0 58.0 63. 0 59.0 54.0 44.0 1.7 2.8 0.7 1.9 3.8 0.7 1969 54.0 58.0 62. 0 65.0 56.0 37.0 1.3 5.0 1 .4 0.1 0.7 0.6 1970 53.0 64.0 68. 0 66.0 52.0 42.3 1.3 3.4 0.6 0. 6 1.5 0.4 LACOMBE,AITA TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 55.3 56.8 62. 6 55. 3 55. 8 44. 1 1.9 1.8 2.8 0.4 0.7 1.5 1941 50.0 60.0 66. 0 61 .0 46.0 43.0 1.9 6.2 1.9 3. 1 1.4 0.8 1942 4 9.0 55.0 63. 0 60.0 51.0 41.0 2. 1 5.3 4.5 2.7 1.3 0.4 1943 46.0 52.0 61. 0 49.0 52.0 43.0 1.6 3. 1 2. 1 3. 6 0.6 0.9 1944 53.0 56. 0 60. 0 59.0 53.0 4 8.0 4.4 5.0 6.1 1.9 2.9 0.0 1945 48.0 54.0 62. 0 60.0 49.0 41.0 2. 1 2.6 3.0 4. 6 2.7 1.0 1946 49.0 56.0 64. 0 59.0 51.0 39.0 1.1 5.8 2.2 2.1 1.9 0.6 1947 49.0 56.0 65. 0 57.0 50.0 43.0 2.3 3.5 1. 4 4. 3 2.3 1.0 1948 53.0 60.0 62. 0 59.0 51.0 43.0 2.7 1.8 4.4 1.9 1.0 0.4 1949 52.0 56.0 61.0 61 .0 52.0 37.0 0.7 0.9 5.5 2. 7 0.3 0.9 1950 47.0 58. 0 61. 0 57.0 52.0 36.0 0.3 2.4 2.7 1.5 1.0 2.0 1951 51.0 52.0 61.0 56.0 47.0 32 .0 3.4 1.0 3.7 2.0 0.8 1.4 1952 52.0 57.0 62. 0 58.0 53.0 44.0 1.9 6.2 2.5 2.5 1.3 0.7 1953 49.0 55.0 60. 0 60.0 52.0 46.0 2.8 4.6 3.9 3. 3 0.8 0. 1 1954 47.0 54.0 61.0 57.0 49.0 40.0 3.2 3.9 1 .7 7.5 1.2 0.4 1955 47.0 52.0 62.0 59.0 49.0 40.0 1.7 2.6 3. 2 0. 8 3.6 1.0 1956 52.0 56.0 62. 0 60.0 50.0 40.0 0.3 5.3 2.6 2.8 1.4 1.0 1957 52.0 56.0 61.0 56.0 0.0 33.0 1.1 2.5 1.2 2. 3 0.0 2.0 1958 55.0 57.0 62. 0 71.0 51.0 44.0 2.1 3.8 1 .0 0.8 2.0 0. 1 1959 47.0 56.0 63. 0 55.0 48.0 37.0 1.3 2.8 3.0 2.0 1.1 1.2 1960 48.0 55.0 64. 0 58.0 51.0 43.0 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.5 1.0 0.9 1961 52.0 64.0 63. 0 64.0 47.0 37.0 2.2 1.0 3.0 1.2 0.9 1.1 1962 49.0 58.0 59. 0 63.0 52.0 45.0 2.0 3.5 2.5 2.0 2.1 0.6 1963 48.0 58.0 62. 0 60.0 57.0 46.0 1.5 2. 3 5.9 1. 6 0.8 0.9 1964 5 1.0 57. 0 63. 0 58.0 47.0 44.0 2.7 2.5 1.9 3.4 3.0 0.4 19 65 49.0 56.0 63. 0 62.0 42.0 46.0 3.9 4.6 2.7 2. 4 1.8 0. 1 1966 52.0 55.0 61.0 58.0 55.0 40.0 0.9 1.2 3.2 2.6 0.8 0.9 1967 48.0 56.0 62. 0 64 .0 59.0 0.0 0.8 2.6 1,9 1.8 0.0 0.0 1968 4 9.0 56. 0 61.0 56.0 50.0 40.0 0.5 2.8 4.4 3.1 2.2 1.1 1969 51.0 57.0 59. 0 60.0 51 .0 35.0 0.9 1.5 3,8 1.4 3.7 1.0 1970 50.0 63.0 6 3. 0 61.0 49.0 38.4 0.9 7.1 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 FORT VERMILION, ALTA. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JU LY AU G. SEPT. OCT 1940 54.0 59.0 61.0 59.0 49.0 37.0 0.5 0.7 2. 1 1.2 0.6 1 • 1 1941 54.0 59.0 61. 0 59.0 49.0 37.0 0.5 0.7 2.1 1.2 0.6 1*1 1942 , 54.0 59.0 61.0 59.0 49.0 37.0 0.5 0.7 2. 1 1. 2 0.6 . • * * 1943 54.0 59.0 61.0 59.0 49.0 37.0 0.5 0.7 2.1 1.2 0.6 1 • 1 1944 54.0 59.0 61.0 59.0 49.0 37.0 0.5 0.7 2. 1 1.2 0.6 1 • 1 1945 4 6.0 59.0 62. 0 59.0 46.0 37.0 0.4 2.1 0.7 0.3 1.3 0.3 1946 48.0 57.0. 61.0 59.0 47.0 33.0 1.4 0.5 4.2 1.7 0.8 0.6 1947 48.0 57.0 63. 0 54.0 46.0 38.0 1.8 2.3 0.8 1.5 0.5 0.6 1948 55.0 61.0 64. 0' 60.0 51.0 39.0 0.5 1.9 2.2 1.0 2.2 0.4 1949 48.0 54.0 61. 0 59.0 51.0 31.0 2.9 2.3 2.2 4.0 1.5 0.8 1950 50.0 0.0 63. 0 53.0 52.0 30.0 1.8 0.0, 0.8 2. 8 0.6 0.7 1951 48.0 53.0 60. 0 57.0 47.0 28.0 3.8 1.6 3.2 2.1 0.3 0.9 1952 53.0 56.0 60.0 56.0 47.0 38.0 0.7 4. 1 2.4 3. 3 1.6 0.4 1953 50.0 55.0 59. 0 61.0 48.0 38.0 0.4 2.6 3.1 0.9 1.8 1.0 1954 49.0 59.0 61.0 60.0 48.0 36.0 0.5 0.7 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.2 1955 47.0 59.0 61.0 56.0 47.0 32.0 0.9 1.2 3.3 2.6 1.2 0.4 1956 52.0 0.0 61. 0 57.0 44.0 32.0 0.6 0.0 2.6 1. 2 2.5 0.4 1957 4 7.0 53.0 58. 0 57.0 50.0 30.0 0.7 2.0 5.5 3.2 0.2 2.9 1958 55.0 56.0 62. 0 61 .0 47.0 37.0 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.0 1. 1 0.8 1959 45.0 55.0 63. 0 54.0 47.0 31.0 1.3 1.2 1 .3 2.4 0.3 0.5 1960 49.0 56.0 62.0 60.0 50.0 34.0 1.2 1.9 2.8 3. 0 1.4 0.2 1961 50.0 64.0 65. 0 62.0 44.0 31.0 0.6 0.2 1 .5 0.8 1.7 2.6 1962 47.0 58.0 60.0 59.0 49.0 39.0 1.9 5.0 4.3 1.9 1.6 1.2 1963 48.0 58.0 64. 0 61.0 52.0 41.0 1.4 0.8 3.4 1.3 2.6 0.6 1964 50.0 60.0 64. 0 58.0 45.0 40.0 2.4 0.5 2.5 3. 5 0.9 0.7 1965 50.0 58.0 64. 0 60.0 41.0 38.0 0.3 0.8 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 1966 52.0 56.0 61.0 58.0 51 .0 32.0 0.2 0.9 3.4 1. 1 0.6 2. 1 1967 49.0 56.0 62. 0 62.0 53.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 5.9 1.3 2.2 0.0 1968 49.0 0.0 59.0 56.0 46.0 36.0 0.8 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 1969 49.0 56.0 61. 0 58.0 47.0 33.0 1.7 0.6 1 .2 0.9 0.9 0.2 1970 50.0 61 .0 62.0 60.0 46.0 34.2 2.2 1. 1 1. 1 2. 1 1.2 0.9 BEAVERLODGE,AIT A TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. 1940 51.2 55. 4 60. 5 60.8 1941 48.0 60.0 65. 0 58.0 1942 52.0 57.0 63. 0 40.0 1943 46.0 54.0 59. 0 57.0 1944 51.0 57.0 61. 0 59.0 1945 49.0 55.0 61. 0 62.0 1946 52.0 56.0 60. 0 59.0 1947 49.0 55.0 59. 0 53.0 1948 53.0 61.0 60. 0 57.0 1949 49.0 54.0 59. 0 58.0 1950 48.0 61.0 60. 0 55.0 1951 49.0 54.0 59. 0 56.0 1952 5 1.0 55.0 60. 0 52.0 1953 51.0 54.0 58. 0 58.0 1954 48.0 54.0 59. 0 57.0 1955 46.0 58.0 60.0 57.0 1956 49.0 55.0 61. 0 60.0 1957 50.0 55.0 57.0 56.0 1958 53.0 58.0 62. 0 60.0 1959 46.0 54.0 61. 0 53.0 1960 45.0 54.0 63. 0 58.0 1961 50.0 60.0 61.0 62.0 1962 47.0 56.0 59. 0 59.0 1963 47.0 56.0 60. 0 60.0 1964 51.0 56.0 58. 0 55.0 1965 47.0 55.0 61. 0 61 .0 1966 50.0 52.0 58. 0 56.0 1967 48.0 56.0 60.0 63.0 1968 47.0 53.0 59. 0 55.0 1969 50.0 57.0 58. 0 56.0 1970 48.0- 59.0 60. 0 60.0 SEPT. OCT. 56. 3 44.0 52.0 52.0 53.0 49.0 51.0 49.0 51.0 52.0 55.0 48.0 51.0 49.0 49.0 48.0 48.0 54.0 48.0 48.0 51.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 43.0 52,0 56.0 48.0 47.0 48.0 0.0 42.0 4 3.0 42.0 47.0 41.0 38.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 35.0 33.0 45.0 44.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 33.0 42.0 36.0 42.0 38.0 42.0 43,0 44.0 43.0 38.0 0.0 38.0 37.0 39.9 MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1.0 1.3 2.8 0.7 0.5 0.0 2.2 2.8 4.6 3. 2 4.0 1.2 2.3 2.9 1 .0 2.2 1.3 0.3 3.4 3. 3 2.3 2.7 0.6 0.5 1.1 2.3 1 .4 1.0 2.9 0.5 1.5 1.9 0.6 0.4 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.5 1 .3 0.9 1.6 0.4 1.5 1.2 5.6 2. 2 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 3.9 4.0 1.6 0.5 1.7 2. 1 1.8 2. 1 0.9 0.9 2.2 0.6 2.4 2.2 0.9 0.7 2.1 1. 1 8.2 1.9 1.2 2.3 0.4 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.6 2. 1 0.7 1.3 0.4 2.0 2.5 1 .4 3.4 2.1 0.9 2. 1 0.8 5.3 0. 2 1.3 1.8 0.3 4.8 2.1 1.8 1.1 1.8 1.3 2.5 3.9 4.4 0.2 4.7 1.1 2.9 0.4 1.6 2.6 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.4 2. 7 0.9 2. 1 4.8 6.0 0.5 1.9 0.5 1.1 1.4 3.8 2.6 1.0 1.9 0.7 1.7 1.5 3.8 2.2 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.0 3.0 6.6 5.5 5. 0 1.7 0.7 1.3 5.2 3.4 5.4 1.3 0.8 0.8 1.2 3.3 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.4 0. 8 1.2 0.0 1.9 3.5 0.8 3.1 1 .6 0.9 0.6 2.0 0.9 1.6 4.9 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.6 0.6 0.4 I SWIFT CURRENT,SASK. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR HAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 57. 3 59.6 66.7 63 .9 59.5 48.0 1941 54. 0 62.0 70. 0 65.0 49.0 43.0 19 42 48. 0 57.0 64. 0 62.0 52.0 42.0 1943 60. 0 55.0 68. 0 63.0 53.0 46.0 1944 55. 0 58.0 64. 0 61 .0 55.0 50.0 1945 47. 0 56.0 67. 0 65.0 49.0 43.0 1946 49. 0 59.0 70. 0 61 .0 53.0 38.0 1947 49. 0 57,0 71. 0 64.0 52.0 47.0 1948 54. 0 62.0 66.0 65.0 57.0 45.0 1949 55. 0 60.0 65. 0 67.0 54.0 39. 0 1950 49. 0 58.0 63. 0 59.0 53.0 41.0 1951 54. 0 53.0 64. 0 59.0 49.0 35.0 1952 51. 0 57.0 61.0 62.0 56.0 43.0 1953 48. 0 58.0 64. 0 65.0 55.0 48.0 1954 48. 0 55.0 66.0 61 .0 52.0 42.0 1955 49. 0 59.0 65. 0 64.0 51.0 44.0 1956 52. 0 62.0 64. 0 63 .0 53.0 44.0 1957 55. 0 59.0 67. 0 62.0 55.0 38.0 1958 57. 0 58.0 0. 0 67.0 53.0 44.0 1959 47. 0 61.0 66. 0 63.0 51.0 36.0 1960 51. 0 58.0 69. 0 64.0 56.0 44 .0 1961 53. 0 67. 0 67. 0 70.0 48.0 41.0 1962 51. 0 62.0 63. 0 57.0 53.0 47.0 1963 50. 0 60.0 67. 0 66.0 61.0 51.0 1964 48. 0 59.0 69. 0 63 .0 49.0 46.0 1965 50. 0 50.0 66. 0 65.0 43.0 48.0 1966 54. 0 58.0 65. 0 61.0 59.0 42.0 1967 48. 0 57.0 67. 0 67.0 60.0 0.0 1968 50. 0 59.0 66. 0 60.0 54.0 43 .0 1969 51. 0 57.0 62. 0 68.0 56.0 33.0 1970 49. 0 65.0 66.0 65.0 52.0 39.0 MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT 0.8 2.8 1.5 0. 1 1.5 0.7 0.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.9 0. 1 0.7 6.6 1.9 2. 6 1.7 1. 1 1.8 1.5 1 .0 3.4 1.0 2.1 4.4 2.0 4.4 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.3 2.5 2.5 0.6 0.4 2. 2 2.3 3. 1 1.3 0.7 1.0 2.7 0.4 1.8 1.7 0.4 0.7 1.5 2.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.8 1.9 0.9 0.7 1.5 1.0 2.9 3.6 1.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 3.4 1.1 3.2 2.7 1.1 2.1 4. 1 2.4 2.0 1.2 0.2 2.4 3.8 0.5 0.5 2.1 0.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 2.8 2.7 0.4 2.6 1.7 4.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 1.2 3.6 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.1 1.8 2.7 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.6 1.0 0.0 2. 3 0.9 0.4 0.8 5.9 1 .4 0.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 3. 1 1.6 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.3 2. 2 3.2 1.3 1.0 1.4 1.4 5.2 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 3.2 0.8 1.8 2.9 0. 1 2.4 4.6 1.9 4.2 3.1 0. 1 0.8 4.4 1.4 1. 9 0. 1 0.7 1.4 0.6 0.2 1.0 2.2 0.0 1.0 1. 1 0.6 2. 2 2. 1 0.5 0.9 1.2 3.2 0.1 0.6 2.4 0.9 7.3 1. 1 0.4 1.3 1.0 I SCOTT,SASK. TEMPERATURE PEEC IP IT AT ION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AO G. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG . SEPT. OCT. 1940 54.9 56. 3 62. 6 61.3 56.9 42.9 1.8 2.5 2.1 0.5 0.5 1.8 1941 50.0 60.0 68. 0 62.0 46.0 40.0 4.0 1.1 0.8 2. 3 1.2 0.3 1942 47.0 56.0 62. 0 62.0 49.0 40.0 1.1 3.6 3.7 1.5 1.6 0.6 1943 46.0 54.0 64.0 60.0 51 .0 44.0 2.9 1.5 2.8 2. 3 0.8 1.7 1944 53.0 57.0 61. 0 0.0 52.0 45.0 3.4 2.8 4.0 0.0 1.1 0. 1 19 45 44.0 55.0 64. 0 61.0 46.0 40.0 0.6 1. 1 1.4 1.7 1.9 0.3 1946 47.0 54.0 64. 0 59.0 50.0 35.0 1.3 1.8 0.9 4.3 0.6 1.7 1947 47.0 57.0 67. 0 59.0 49.0 43 .0 0.5 1.9 1.7 2.9 2.6 0.8 1948 53.0 62.0 65. 0 62.0 54.0 41.0 0.2 1.0 3.0 0.8 0.1 0. 1 1949 53.0 58.0 63. 0 66.0 54.0 36.0 2.9 1.7 2. 3 1. 6 1.0 0.4 1950 48.0 59. 0 64. 0 59.0 52.0 37.0 0.4 3.7 3.3 1.3 1.3 2.4 1951 52.0 52.0 61.0 57.0 48.0 32.0 2.3 0.7 4.2 2. 2 1.0 0.9 1952 51.0 56. 0 60. 0 59.0 53.0 39.0 2.2 4.2 2.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 1953 50.0 57.0 62. 0 63.0 52.0 44.0 1.9 1.0 2.3 1.5 0.3 0.2 1954 47.0 54.0 62. 0 58.0 50.0 40.0 1.6 2.4 3.0 6.2 2.8 0.4 1955 48.0 57.0 . 62. 0 58.0 48.0 39.0 0.9 4. 1 2.6 0.5 1.5 0.3 1956 5 1.0 60.0 61. 0 60.0 49.0 39.0 0.6 2.9 1 .2 1.0 1.2 0.3 1957 52.0 56.0 64.0 58.0 52.0 34 .0 0.3 1.8 1.7 3.4 1.0 1.6 1958 54.0 56.0 0. 0 64.0 51.0 41.0 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.1 1959 46.0 58.0 66. 0 54.0 47.0 34.0 0.7 2.7 1.0 2.5 1.7 1.5 1960 49.0 56.0 67. 0 63.0 53.0 42.0 1.3 1.7 1.8 2.1 0.4 0.4 1961 52.0 64.0 63. 0 67.0 45.0 37.0 0.9 3.4 1.7 0. 1 0.3 1.0 1962 49.0 61.0 61.0 64.0 52.0 44.0 1.3 2.4 1 .9 2.2 1.8 0.0 1963 49.0 59.0 65. 0 63.0 57.0 47.0 1.3 3.4 3. 1 1.2 0.6 0.8 1964 52.0 58.0 66. 0 60.0 46.0 4 2.0 1.5 0.8 1.1 3.2 2.8 0.7 19 65 49.0 58.0 65. 0 63.0 42.0 44.0 1.7 4.3 0.9 2. 8 0.7 0.1 1966 53.0 56.0 62. 0 60.0 56.0 38.0 0.3 2.9 3.0 1.9 0.3 0.3 1967 48.0 56.0 64. 0 64 .0 59.0 0.0 1.3 1.9 2.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 1968 49.0 59.0 63. 0 57.0 52.0 39.0 1.3 1.1 3.3 3.6 2.2 0.8 1969 50.0 56.0 61.0 64.0 51 .0 32.0 1.6 0.9 3. 1 0.5 2.9 1.5 1970 49.0 64.0 64. 0 62.0 50.0 37. 3 0.7 9.6 2.1 • 0.4 0.1 1.1 INDIAN HEAD,SASK. TEMPERATU RE PRECIPITATION Y EAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. 1940 55.6 59.4 66.5 66 .2 1941 54.0 62.0 68. 0 64.0 1942 48.0 57.0 63. 0 62.0 1943 46.0 56.0 67. 0 64.0 1944 56.0 58.0 65. 0 62.0 1945 4 5.0 55.0 65. 0 63.0 1946 49.0 58.0 67. 0 60.0 1947 47.0 58.0 69. 0 64.0 1948 53.0 61.0 65.0 65.0 1949 53.0 59.0 63. 0 68.0 1950 4 8.0 57.0 63. 0 60.0 1951 53.0 55.0 64. 0 59.0 1952 53.0 58.0 62. 0 62 .0 1953 48.0 59.0 64. 0 64,0 1954 45.0 56.0 64. 0 60.0 1955 50.0 59.0 64. 0 64.0 1956 50.0 63.0 62. 0 62.0 1957 54 .0 57.0 68. 0 61.0 1958 55.0 60.0 64. 0 66.0 1959 48.0 61.0 67. 0 64.0 1960 52.0 58.0 68. 0 65 .0 1961 52.0 67.0 68. 0 71.0 1962 49.0 63.0 63. 0 61 .0 1963 49.0 60. 0 67. 0 66.0 1964 53.0 59.0 68. 0 61 .0 1965 49.0 61.0 66. 0 65.0 1966 50.0 60.0 67.0 62.0 1967 49.0 60.0 66. 0 65.0 1968 50.0 59.0 65. 0 59.0 1969 5 1.0 55.0 63. 0 68.0 1970 47.0 66.0 67. 0 65.0 SEPT. OCT. 59.7 51.0 51 .0 52.0 53.0 49.0 52.0 51.0 58.0 52.0 54.0 49.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 51 .0 53.0 53.0 50.0 56.0 49.0 53.0 59.0 50.0 43.0 58.0 61.0 55.0 55.0 52.0 47.6 41.0 44 .0 46.0 46.0 41.0 37.0 47.0 43.0 37.0 42.0 36.0 41.0 47.0 41.0 42.0 42.0 37.0 43.0 34.0 44.0 41.0 46.0 51.0 44.0 46.0 41.0 0.0 41.0 34.0 40.1 MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1.3 2.4 2.4 0.2 1.7 3.2 1.9 2.6 3.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.7 5.0 2.6 4.4 0.6 0.2 1. 6 2.5 1 .4 1.1 0.7 1.3 3.3 3. 1 1.6 2. 8 0.3 0.3 1.1 3.3 0.9 1.2 2.2 0.8 1.1 2.6 4. 3 2. 8 2.5 1.1 0.8 7.6 0.9 1.9 1.9 0. 1 1.4 2.8 1. 2 2.6 0.4 0. 1 2.7 1.3 3.0 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.4 3.3 2.7 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.4 3.6 0.7 2.8 2.6 2.2 0.5 3.8 2.6 4.9 1.5 0.3 2.9 6.3 3.0 0.8 1.6 1.7 2.3 4.9 5. 1 3. 2 4.2 0.3 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.2 1.2 0.9 2.5 3.6 2.0 0.7 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.8 1 .8 4.0 0.3 0,8 0.3 0.5 1.7 2. 1 1.0 0. 1 0.5 5.0 0.9 1.7 4.8 2.0 1.6 2.4 0.3 1. 1 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.7 1.1 3. 1 2. 2 1.3 3. 0 0.5 1.0 2.1 3.9 3.5 1.4 1.7 0.9 2.7 2.4 2.0 2. 1 1.2 0.2 4.9 3.8 1 .5 1.3 3.3 0.0 0.7 3.7 2. 1 3. 1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.8 0.0 1.3 0.8 1.0 5. 2 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.1 2.3 0.9 1.7 2.4 3.4 2.4 3. 1 0.8 2.3 2.8 •c-I HORDED,HAN. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AD G. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG . SEPT. OCT. 1940 53.4 61.8 70. 1 65.7 61.9 49. 1 1.6 2.7 4.8 3.7 2.2 1.0 1941 58.0 63.0 72. 0 67.0 55.0 44.0 3.3 2.9 1.0 1.5 6.6 2.0 1942 50.0 62.0 67. 0 66.0 53.0 47.0 3.4 1.8 3.9 1.9 0.8 0.4 1943 50.0 60.0 72. 0 66.0 55.0 48.0 2.9 2.5 2.2 4. 4 0.7 0.3 1944 57.0 61.0 68. 0 65.0 57.0 48.0 2.0 4.7 2.2 7.2 1.3 0.4 1945 45.0 60.0 68. 0 67.0 53.0 43.0 2.4 2. 1 3. 2 1.7 3.5 0.4 1946 50.0 62.0 68. 0 66.0 55.0 41.0 0.9 1.9 3.2 1.8 2.9 2.7 1947 48.0 61.0 71. 0 67.0 55.0 49.0 0.3 4.7 1.4 7. 2 1.6 1.6 1948 55.0 63.0 69. 0 67.0 63.0 47.0 2.6 1.8 5.7 0.9 0.2 0.7 1949 54.0 64.0 69. 0 71 .0 55.0 43.0 2.5 2.0 2.2 1.7 0.8 4.6 1950 49.0 60.0 65. 0 60.0 58.0 45.0 5.1 3.6 3.5 0.8 2.7 1.0 1951 57.0 60.0 67. 0 62.0 51 .0 40.0 0.3 2. 1 1. 1 6. 1 2.3 0.6 1952 54.0 64.0 68. 0 64.0 60.0 43,0 0.4 4.1 2.1 2.5 0.4 0.2 19 53 52.0 62.0 68. 0 69.0 55.0 51.0 4.5 4.2 3.6 2. 4 1.5 1.2 1954 50.0 61.0 69. 0 64.0 53.0 44,0 2.4 4.5 1.6 2.1 3.9 1.3 1955 55.0 64.0 71.0 70.0 55.0 46.0 1.7 4.4 2.6 0. 8 2.4 1.6 1956 49.0 67.0 65. 0 66.0 52.0 46.0 2.5 2.5 4.1 5.2 0.5 1.6 1957 0.0 59.0 71.0 65.0 54.0 45.0 0.0 4.0 5.5 2. 9 2.3 1.0 1 958 55.0 59.0 66. 0 0.0 56.0 45.0 0.3 2. 1 3.9 0.0 1.5 0.3 1959 50.0 63.0 70. 0 69.0 54.0 35.0 4.6 2.0 1.9 3.6 1.9 4.4 1960 54.0 63.0 70. 0 68.0 59.0 45.0 1.3 2.1 1 .2 3.7 0.5 1.6 19 61 52.0 68.0 68.0 73.0 52.0 45.0 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.3 3.6 0.5 1962 52.0 65.0 65. 0 64.0 54.0 48.0 8.4 2.1 4.2 3.0 0.6 1.1 1963 •51.0 66.0 70. 0 68.0 60.0 57.0 2.9 6.0 5.5 2. 1 0.5 1.4 1964 57.0 64.0 70. 0 61.0 54.0 47.0 1.3 4.9 3.2 3.6 2.2 0.3 1965 51.0 63.0 66. 0 65 .0 47.0 46.0 4.3 1.4 2.5 3. 4 3.2 0.8 1966 49.0 64. 0 71. 0 65.0 59.0 44.0 0.7 1.5 5.6 3.2 . 0.3 1.2 1967 48.0 62.0 68. 0 66 .0 62.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 1. 4 0.5 0.0 1968 50.0 62.0 67. 0 61.0 57.0 45.0 6.0 2.9 5.4 7.3 3.0 1.1 19 69 54.0 56.0 67. 0 72 .0 58.0 38.0 1.4 3.7 2. 1 1.0 1.9 1.0 1970 50.0 68.0 71. 0 68.0 57.0 44.8 4.1 4.5 4.9 1.3 2.8 0.7 BRANDON, HAN. TEMPERATURE .PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JU LY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 52.3 59.7 68.5 65.9 59.7 46.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 1941 55.0 64.0 69. 0 64.0 52.0 41.0 2.7 3.2 3.0 2.1 4.8 0.8 1942 49.0 59.0 64. 0 63 .0 52.0 44.0 1.6 1.7 3. 1 3. 2 1.4 0.3 1943 47.0 57.0 69. 0 64.0 53.0 46.0 . 3.7 2.4 2.4 1.5 0.8 0.6 1944 56.0 59.0 65. 0 62.0 54.0 45.0 3.7 6.6 2.9 3. 5 1.8 0.3 1945 45.0 56.0 65. 0 63.0 50.0 40.0 1.5 3.7 1 .8 0.7 1.8 1.1 1946 50.0 60.0 67. 0 62.0 54.0 37.0 0.8 3.4 3.7 2.4 1.7 1.3 1947 46.0 59.0 69. 0 67.0 52.0 49.0 0.6 4.8 1 .4 3.5 0.8 0.9 1948 53.0 62.0 67. 0 65.0 61 .0 44.0 1.3 2.5 2.9 2. 5 0.1 1.3 1949 54.0 61.0 66. 0 69.0 53.0 39.0 5.2 1.5 4.1 0.8 0.9 2.0 1950 48.0 58.0 64. 0 61 .0 55.0 44.0 3.1 5.2 5. 1 2.0 1.2 0.8 1951 55.0 56.0 66. 0 61.0 51.0 38.0 0.5 1.6 0.4 4.1 1.3 1.0 1952 52.0 61.0 65. 0 65.0 56.0 40.0 0.4 5.4 1.8 5.0 0.5 0.0 1953 51.0 61.0 66. 0 66.0 54.0 48.0 2.6 8.1 3.5 1.4 1 .4 1.0 1954 47.0 59.0 67. 0 64.0 52.0 42.0 1.4 5.6 1.5 1.5 5. 1 0.8 1955 54.0 62.0 69. 0 68.0 53.0 42.0 2.5 4.4 3.4 2.5 2.2 0.6 1956 50.0 67.0 65. 0 64 .0 51 .0 42.0 1.3 6.2 4.3 1.8 0.4 0.6 1957 54.0 58.0 71. 0 63.0 53.0 42.0 1.1 3.5 3.9 5.4 0.7 0.9 1958 54.0 58.0 64. 0 65.0 54.0 44 .0 0.1 1.3 2. 1 1.9 1.0 1.3 1959 49.0 62.0 67. 0 65.0 52.0 33.0 3.4 1/3 2.1 1.8 5.1 4.7 1960 53.0 61.0 70. 0 66.0 55.0 42.0 4.7 1.2 0.5 3.6 0.9 0.4 1961 52.0 66.0 68. 0 70.0 50.0 43.0 1.0 0.3 2.8 0.1 3.5 0.2 1962 50.0 64.0 64.0 66.0 52.0 45.0 4.4 2.7 2. 1 5. 4 0.4 1.6 1963 49.0 63.0 69. 0 66.0 58.0 53.0 1.9 4.1 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.0 1964 55.0 60.0 68.0 62.0 51 .0 44.0 3.6 3. 1 3.0 5. 1 1. 1 0. 1 1965 51.0 62.0 65. 0 63.0 45.0 45. 0 4.0 1.8 5.0 2.2 4'. 4 0.1 1966 48.0 62.0 70. 0 63.0 56.0 41.6 1.2 2.8 0.7 2.9 0.3 0.5 1967 48.0 60.0 66. 0 64.0 61.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 1 .4 1.0 0.3 0.0 1968 49.0 60.0 65. 0 60.0 55.0 42.0 1.7 2.5 4.2 5. 2 1.7 1. 1 1969 50.0 54.0 64. 0 69.0 54.0 36.0 1.1 3.1 3.7 4.0 1.5 0.9 1970 49.0 66.0 68. 0 65.0 54.0 40.5 1.4 3. 1 5.4 1. 1 3.3 1.2 OTTAWA,CNT. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 54.9 61.9 67. 5 66.4 58. 3 43.2 4.2 2.5 2.8 1.4 1.1 1.6 19 41 56.0 67.0 70. 0 64 .0 59.0 45.0 2.5 1.2 2.8 2. 6 1.3 5.6 1942 57.0 65.0 68. 0 66.0 57.0 47.0 2.8 2.0 2.3 2.9 6.5 2.4 19 43 54.0 66.0 69.0 65.0 55.0 47.0 4.6 5.7 2.2 9.0 1.7 4.3 1944 60.0 65.0 71.0 70.0 59.0 39.0 1.2 2.3 2.4 1.1 3.7 2.3 1945 50.0 62.0 68. 0 66.0 59.0 45.0 5.4 2.9 2.9 4.9 6.0 3.0 1946 52.0 53.0 68. 0 64.0 60.0 49.0 2.9 4.8 2.9 4.3 3.3 4.9 1947 50.0 63.0 69. 0 71 .0 58.0 54.0 5.4 4. 1 5. 1 1. 2 4.7 0.6 1948 54.0 63.0 69. 0 69.0 61.0 46.0 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.8 1.2 2.8 1949 55.0 68.0 71.0 70.0 56.0 51.0 1.9 2.4 2.8 3.9 3.6 1.5 1950 55.0 64,0 68. 0 64.0 55.0 48.0 2.6 2.4 5.7 4.0 1.4 2.0 1951 57.0 63,0 69. 0 64 .0 58.0 48.0 2.1 3.5 2. 3 3.0 3.2 1.9 1952 53.0 65.0 71.0 67.0 60.0 43.0 5.2 3.5 4.4 5.3 2.2 1.5 1953 56.0 65.0 70. 0 68.0 58.0 49.0 2.0 2.7 1.9 2. 8 4.4 1.4 1954 56.0 65.0 66. 0 64.0 56.0 49.0 2.0 2.7 1 .6 4.1 4.9 2.4 1955 58.0 67.0 74. 0 72.0 58.0 49.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 3. 3 2.2 6.8 1956 49.0 64.0 65. 0 65.0 54.0 49.0 3.9 3.0 3.5 5.9 0.8 1.4 1957 53.0 66.0 68. 0 64 .0 59.0 47.0 1.8 5.7 1.5 0. 5 4.6 2. 7 1958 51,0 58.0 68. 0 66.0 58.0 46.0 1.4 2.6 6.1 3.6 4.2 2.2 1959 57.0 66.0 71.0 72 .0 62.0 45.0 1.1 1.5 3.5 4. 2 4.1 3.5 1960 60.0 64.0 67. 0 67.0 60.0 47.0 4.2 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.9 2.6 1961 52.0 62.0 69. 0 67.0 64.0 51.0 2.4 3.4 4.0 3. 1 1.2 1.5 1962 58.0 65.0 65. 0 65.0 57.0 46.0 1.7 3.1 4.4 3.3 3.3 4.5 1963 53.0 67.0 70.0 63 .0 54.0 53.0 2.6 1.5 3.2 3. 1 4.8 2.7 1964 58.0 64.0 71. 0 63.0 57.0 45.0 2.2 1.8 4.7 2.8 2.1 1.0 1965 58.0 64.0 65. 0 65.0 59.0 46.0 1.2 0.8 2. 3 5. 5 3.4 4. 1 1966 51.0 66.0 70. 0 67.0 56.0 47.0 2.4- 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.3 1.4 1967 49.0 67.0 69. 0 67.0 59.0 0.0 2.3 5.3 3. 1 3. 1 4.6 0.0 1968 54.0 53.0 70. 0 65.0 63.0 63.0 2.1 4.9 3.1 2.3 3.6 3.6 1969 52.0 63.0 68. 0 70.0 58.0 46.0 3.5 3.0 3.9 2. 6 1.1 1.7 1970 54.0 65.0 70. 0 69.0 59.0 50. 3 2.5 0.9 4.2 1.9 4.1 3.2 K APUSKAS IN G,ONT. TEMPERATU RE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 45.3 54.9 64.5 67.1 53.9 39.2 4.4 4.0 1. 1 2. 3 2.5 0.8 1941 50.0 60.0 66. 0 56.0 54.0 39.0 2.1 3.9 3.2 5.2 5.6 3.4 19 42 47.0 62.0 60. 0 61 .0 49.0 41.0 2.9 1.1 4. 1 2. 0 5.2 3.5 1943 48.0 56.0 65. 0 60.0 50.0 41.0 1.4 4.3 3.6 2.5 0.7 1.0 1944 51.0 58.0 65. 0 63 .0 53.0 54.0 2. 1 2.3 2.8 2. 8 2.9 0.0 1945 42.0 55.0 61.0 62.0 51.0 38.0 7.7 2.0 2.5 3.2 3.0 1.7 1946 43.0 56.0 62. 0 58.0 54.0 45.0 3.8 2.7 1.8 2.9 3.6 2,5 1947 40.0 56.0 0. 0 68.0 0.0 53.0 2.7 2.9 3.8 2.0 2.4 0.8 1948 44.0 57.0 64. 0 61 .0 56.0 44.0 3.0 1.6 4.8 5. 7 1.0 1.7 1949 47.0 62.0 66. 0 62.0 60.0 44.0 1.5 2.7 1.9 3.4 4.6 2.1 19 50 4 6.0 53.0 61. 0 56.0 49.0 42,0 3.8 5. 1 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 1951 52.0 57.0 61. 0 58.0 50.0 39.0 0.9 3.7 3.1 0.5 2.3 4.1 1952 48.0 57.0 65. 0 62.0 54.0 36.0 3.5 3.0 5.4 2. 3 2.9 3.0 1953 46.0 57.0 64. 0 64.0 50.0 44.0 2.8 2.5 1.7 2.5 5.6 0.4 1954 44.0 61.0 60. 0 58.0 49.0 40.0 2.1 4.3 3.4 2.4 4.9 4.7 1955 50.0 65.0 68. 0 64.0 51.0 43.0 3.5 1.9 1.6 2.8 2.3 4.9 1956 40.0 59.0 57. 0 59.0 46.0 43.0 4.2 2.8 2.5 2. 5 2.0 4.9 1957 46.0 58.0 62. 0 59.0 51.0 42.0 1.5 4.2 1 .5 1.2 3.8 1.2 1958 43.0 53.0 62. 0 59.0 53.0 40.0 2.4 2.5 2.4 7.0 2.9 2.4 1959 50.0 59.0 67. 0 62.0 53.0 35.0 4.3 0.9 2.8 4.7 3.3 4.6 1960 50.0 58.0 61. 0 63.0 51.0 40.0 1.9 2.0 2.4 4. 2 2.2 3. 1 1961 43.0 54.0 62. 0 61.0 54.0 41.0 3.8 3.5 5.2 4.8 5.4 2.8 1962 51.0 57.0 61. 0 67.0 50.0 43.0 6.8 2.1 5.0 6. 5 4.8 1.5 1963 44.0 59.0 64. 0 56.0 49.0 49.0 2.4 3.2 4.9 3.2 1.8 2. 1 1964 52.0 54.0 63. 0 55.0 50.0 39.0 5.4 5.5 4.6 6. 3 2.8 2.4 1965 50.0 55.0 56. 0 55.0 48.0 39.0 4.4 2.0 3.5 1.9 5.5 2.5 1966 42.0 59.0 64. 0 57.0 51 .0 38.0 1.5 2.8 4. 3 5. 5 3.5 7.0 1967 42.0 52.0 61. 0 59.0 53.0 0.0 1.3 4.2 3.6 3.5 0.7 0.0 1968 48.0 56.0 60. 0 58.0 55.0 44.0 0.3 5. 1 8.0 1.9 5.3 5.4 1969 44.0 52.0 62. 0 64.0 49.0 36.0 2.5 3.6 6.3 5.6 3.6 4.6 1970 43.0 57.0 65. 0 62,0 52.0 46.2 3.3 2.7 2.6 3. 7 3.5 1.6 HARROW,CNT. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 56.6 68. 4 72. 6 67.8 62. 2 53. 1 2.5 5.8 4.0 3.9 1.6 2.2 1941 62.0 70.0 74. 0 70.0 67.0 56.0 2.8 4.5 2.3 3. 5 1.7 4.4 1942 60.0 69.0 74. 0 70.0 63.0 54. 0 4.4 2.7 3.6 2.7 2.2 2.5 19 43 56.0 72.0 73. 0 72 .0 62.0 51.0 6.1 3.5 4.3 0.7 1.3 1.4 1944 63.0 68.0 74. 0 75. 0 66,0 '54.0 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.8 0.0 1945 53.0 56.0 71.0 72 .0 64.0 51.0 4.2 5. 1 1.9 1.4 5.8 3.2 1946 57.0 68.0 74. 0 69.0 67.0 59.0 3.2 2.2 0.5 1.5 0.7 2. 1 1947 56.0 67.0 72.0 77.0 67.0 61 .0 3.9 2.9 1.3 5. 6 1.8 1.5 1948 56.0 68.0 74. 0 71.0 66.0 50.0 4.0 4.4 6.2 3.0 2.0 1.6 1949 61.0 73.0 75. 0 72.0 60.0 58.0 2.4 3.9 3.6 2. 5 3. 1 2.8 1950 58.0 68.0 70. 0 70.0 63.0 56.0 1.3 3.0 2.2 3.1 1.2 2,9 1951 60.0 67.0 73. 0 69.0 62.0 55.0 2.0 3.8 1.7 3. 2 1.4 3.0 1952 57.0 72.0 76. 0 71.0 65.0 49.0 2.9 1.2 1.8 1.9 2.8 0.6 1953 59.0 71.0 73. 0 73.0 65.0 56.0 1.8 2.2 0.9 2. 2 1.7 0.9 1954 55.0 71.0 71.0 70.0 66.0 54.0 1.2 1.8 1.6 3.2 1.5 6.4 19 55 60.0 66.0 76. 0 74 .0 64.0 54.0 2.3 1.9 1.7 2.9 2.3 3. 8 1956 55.0 67.0 70. 0 70.0 60.0 54.0 4.5 4.1 1.7 5.7 0.9 3.8 19 57 55.0 67.0 71. 0 68.0 61 .0 48.0 2.2 3.8 7.7 3. 2 4.9 3.6 1958 56.0 62.0 70. 0 68.0 62.0 53.0 2.9 2.9 4.2 2.9 2.1 1.2 19 59 59.0 68.0 72. 0 74 .0 66.0 51.0 3.0 1.3 3.5 4. 3 2.7 5.6 1960 56.0 66.0 60. 0 71.0 66.0 53.0 3.0 5.2 2.1 1.7 0.8 1.5 1961 54.0 66.0 72.0 71 .0 68.0 55.0 2.3 2.7 1.9 3. 1 3.6 T. 0 1962 64.0 69. 0 69. 0 59.0 61.0 54.0 1.4 2.0 6.1 3.4 2.7 2.3 1963 56.0 68.0 72. 0 67.0 51 .0 59.0 2.0 2.2 1.5 3.5 1.5 1.8 1964 6 1 .0 67. 0 73. 0 67.0 57.0 49.0 2.1 1.7 0.0 4.8 1 .0 0.3 1965 62.0 66.0 69.0 68.0 65.0 50.0 2.7 2.2 1.8 4. 7 3.3 3.0 1966 53.0 69.0 73. 0 69.0 61.0 51.0 1.8 3.0 6.2 4.4 3.1 1.4 1967 52.0 71.0 69. 0 68.0 60.0 0.0 1.9 2.5 2.6 1.3 2.2 0.0 1968 55.0 67.0 71. 0 71.0 66.0 54.0 6.9 3.9 4.9 1.7 1.4 1.1 1969 57.0 63.0 71.0 72.0 63.0 51 .0 5.5 3.8 8.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 1970 59.0 67.0 71. 0 71.0 65.0 53.9 2.9 3.3 4.9 0.8 1.9 2.2 DELHI, ONT. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JU LY AU G. SEPT. OCT. 1940 54.1 65.0 70. 0 62.7 59.2 46.7 5.6 5.6 1.3 3.0 2.6 1.7 1941 58.0 67.0 71. 0 66.0 64.0 52.0 3.3 2.1 . 4.5 1.6 1.1 4.1 1942 57.0 66.0 69. 0 68.0 60.0 49.0 4.4 1.7 ( 7.9 1. 3 4.8 5.3 1943 54.0 69.0 70. 0 68.0 59.0 48.0 5.9 5.2 4.1 5.1 0.9 2.5 1944 61.0 67.0 70.0 70.0 61 .0 49.0 3.7 2.5 1.7 4.8 5.7 0.4 1945 50.0 62.0 68. 0 69.0 62.0 48.0 5.0 6.2 2.6 1.7 6.2 5.2 1946 54.0 64.0 69.0 65.0 63.0 55.0 3.1 2.6 1.9 2.5 2.5 3.7 1947 53.0 64. 0 69. 0 74.0 63.0 57.0 4.7 5.1 4.7 2.0 4.4 0.6 1948 53.0 64.0 71.0 69.0 65.0 4 8.0 4.1 3.8 1.3 1. 2 1.4 2.7 1949 57.0 70.0 74. 0 70.0 58.0 55.0 3. 1 1.1 3.7 3.0 4.3 3.1 1950 55.0 64.0 66.0 66.0 58.0 52.0 1.2 2.6 4.4 3.9 1.5 2.6 1951 58.0 66.0 70. 0 67.0 69.0 52.0 2.9 3.1 4.1 1.9 2.8 3.4 1952 53.0 67.0 73. 0 67.0 62.0 46.0 3.3 1. 1 3. 2 5.6 4.6 1.2 1953 54.0 66.0 69. 0 69.0 61.0 52.0 2.9 1.4 3.6 1.8 2.3 1.0 1954 53.0 67.0 68. 0 66.0 61 .0 53.0 0.9 2.7 1.8 4. 3 2.8 9.5 1955 54.0 65. 0 75. 0 73.0 60.0 52.0 4.6 1.2 2.9 3.8 2.4 7.4 1956 52.0 65.0 68.0 69.0 57.0 52.0 4.2 1.4 2.9 6. 8 3.3 7.4 1957 54.0 67.0 68. 0 65.0 60.0 48.0 3.9 4.7 3.2 5.5 5.2 2.4 1958 54.0 60.0 70. 0 67.0 61 .0 51.0 1.9 4.2 2. 3 2. 1 3.4 1. 1 1959 58.0 66. 0 71. 0 74.0 65.0 50.0 4.1 0.9 2.0 6.2 2.6 4.3 1960 55.0 64.0 66. 0 67.0 63.0 49.0 3.5 3.7 1.8 2.7 0.7 2. 1 1961 52.0 62.0 68. 0 67.0 65.0 52.0 3.0 3.6 2.0 5.8 2.3 0.4 1962 60.0 65.0 67. 0 70.0 57.0 51.0 0.9 2.4 2.0 2. 1 3.1 4. 1 1963 52.0 64.0 69. 0 64.0 56.0 55.0 2.7 1.1 4.0 3.3 1.3 2.7 1964 58.0 65.0 72. 0 64.0 61.0 47.0 2.6 1.5 3.4 10. 2 0.8 1.4 1965 59.0 64.0 65. 0 66.0 65,0 48.0 1.3 1.6 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.6 1966 51.0 66.0 71.0 67.0 58.0 48.0 1.2 3.5 1.7 2.0 4.7 1.7 1967 49.0 70.0 67. 0 65.0 58.0 0.0 3.5 5.0 1.8 3.3 2.8 0.0 1968 51.0 64.0' 68. 0 68.0 64.0 52.0 3.0 6.4 1.6 3.0 3.9 2.7 1969 55.0 63.0 70. 0 70.0 61.0 49.0 5.4 3.0 3.5 0.3 1.1 3.0 1970 57.0 65.0 70.0 69.0 62.0 52.6 1.6 2. 1 5.2 1.3 3.0 4.4 STE-ANNE-DE-LA-POCATIERl:, P. Q. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 47.7 56. 7 66. 1 64.7 55. 1 41.7 3.5 6.5 2.1 3.2 3.1 2.5 1941 51.0 59.0 67.0 61 .0 55.0 44.0 1.4 5.9 3. 2 4. 3 7.4 4.3 1942 54.0 61.0 65. 0 65.0 57.0 47.0 2.0 7.1 2.2 1.5 3.9 3.3 1943 47.0 59.0 66. 0 62.0 55.0 49.0 2.4 3.7 2.9 5. 2 1.7 7. 1 1944 53.0 61.0 65. 0 67,0 58.0 43.0 1.2 2.7 5.5 3.6 3.9 3.6 1945 48.0 59.0 66. 0 65.0 57.0 43.0 4.1 2.6 5.6 3. 1 6.5 3.0 1946 50.0 60.0 64. 0 63.0 59.0 49.0 2.5 1.8 3.1 4.0 6.4 2.1 1947 45.0 57.0 68. 0 66.0 55.0 51.0 6.5 2.9 5.9 2. 1 4.1 0.7 1948 50.0 59.0 66. 0 65.0 58.0 45.0 4.9 2.0 2.7 3.7 2.7 4. 1 1949 50.0 64.0 68. 0 65.0 56.0 49.0 3.5 3.9 3.7 4.0 2.6 2.0 1950 53.0 61.0 67. 0 63.0 54,0 45.0 1.8 5.1 2.9 1.8 2.4 2.8 1951 52.0 60.0 65. 0 63 .0 57.0 46.0 2.1 4.3 6.8 3. 1 1.3 3.4 1952 50.0 61.0 71.0 66.0 57.0 41.0 2.5 4.6 4.9 4.0 1.9 6.5 1953 50.0 61.0 65. 0 62 .0 55.0 45.0 2.0 2.6 4.2 1.8 4.2 1.9 1954 49.0 59.0 63. 0 61.0 55.0 45.0 6.0 6.4 4.1 6.5 6.0 2.6 1955 51.0 62.0 67. 0 66.0 54.0 44.0 2.5 1.7 4.7 3. 4 3.6 1.4 1956 45.0 59.0 62. 0 61.0 52.0 44.0 2.0 3.4 2.3 2.5 2.8 1.4 1957 50.0 58.0 64. 0 61 .0 56.0 47.0 1.6 5.9 4.8 1. 1 6.6 2.6 1958 4 9.0 55.0 65. 0 63.0 56.0 42.0 1.9 5.8 5.7 7.8 2.6 2.7 1959 52.0 58.0 70. 0 61 .0 57.0 43 .0 0.8 5.0 3.8 5. 7 3.3 3. 1 1960 52.0 61.0 65. 0 66.0 56.0 44.0 2.2 4.6 3.0 2.0 3.1 1.9 1961 4 8.0 60.0 65.0 64 .0 58.0 47.0 2. 1 5.3 2. 3 3. 1 3.0 1.3 1962 50.0 62.0 60. 0 66.0 53.0 44. 0 3.1 2.5 6.1 1.9 4.6 4. 1 19 63 51.0 63.0 67. 0 60.0 52.0 50.0 1.9 1.2 4.4 3. 8 3.8 3.2 1964 53.0 59.0 63. 0 61,0 54.0 42.0 1.9 4.7 5.0 2.0 0.7 2.9 1965 49.0 0.0 62. 0 62.0 54.0 42.0 2.4 0.0 2. 2 4. 1 3.6 3.4 1966 48.0 61.0 67. 0 63,0 53.0 45.0 2.0 3.3 2.6 3.1 4.7 2.6 1967 44.0 62.0 68. 0 65.0 55.0 0.0 3.0 4.4 3. 1 8. 4 .2.9 0.0 1 968 49.0 58.0 66. 0 60.0 59.0 48.0 1.7 2.4 v2.6 2.0 3.3 1.8 1969 48.0 60.0 63. 0 67.0 52.0 43.0 2.5 1.3 2.9 2.9 5.4 1.7 1970 5 0.0 61.0 69. 0 65.0 53.0 46. 9 4.5 3.0 2.9 3.5 5,1 3.3 NORMAN DIN,P.Q. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG . SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 19 40 47.3 55.7 63.3 70.3 52.9 38.1 3.7 3.7 2.2 5. 2 3.0 1.8 1941 50,0 60.0 65. 0 57.0 52.0 39.0 0.5 3.1 5.2 3.1 4.6 3.1 1942 52.0 61.0 61.0 61 .0 52.0 42.0 1.8 4.0 3.3 1. 8 3.9 2.7 1943 46.0 57.0 64. 0 59.0 51.0 44.0 3.8 4.6 5.6 5.7 1.5 3.8 1944 50.0 58.0 63.0 64 .0 55.0 39.0 3.7 2. 1 3.9 2. 7 5.5 2.9 1945 47.0 57.0 63. 0 61.0 51.0 38.0 3.1 1.9 3.3 2.2 4.5 2.5 19 46 45.0 56.0 60. 0 59.0 54.0 43.0 2.7 3.4 3.8 2.0 4.8 3.1 1947 40.0 57.0 65. 0 64.0 49.0 47. 0 2.8 3.5 5.0 2.7 4.5 1.3 1948 48.0 56.0 63. 0 62.0 55.0 41.0 2.1 3.1 3.7 1.9 2.4 1.3 1949 46.0 61.0 64. 0 62.0 52.0 44.0 1.9 6.6 2.6 2.2 3.6 1.9 1950 50.0 55.0 62. 0 58;0 49.0 41.0 1.7 6.7 4.0 2. 6 1. 1 3.0 1951 51.0 56.0 61. 0 59.0 52.0 42.0 1.1 1.7 1.9 2.9 3.3 3.9 1952 49.0 59.0 67.0 62.0 52.0 37.0 3.5 4.3 5. 3 3.5 3.6 1.5 1953 49.0 59.0 62. 0 61.0 53.0 42.0 1.0 1.6 4.2 0.5 3.8 0.5 1954 47.0 60.0 61.0 60.0 50.0 41.0 4.8 3.2 2.7 3. 4 3.2 1.3 1955 50.0 62.0 65. 0 62.0 49.0 41.0 2.5 1.5 4.4 3.2 4.7 2.6 19.56 40.0 0.0 58. 0 57.0 47.0 41.0 2.3 0.0 5.5 3. 4 3.8 2.6 1957 46.0 0.0 61. 0 56.0 52.0 42.0 2.0 0.0 5.1 3.1 5.9 2.3 1958 45.0 53.0 62. 0 58.0 52.0 40.0 2.5 3.6 4.6 4. 1 4.2 1.9 1959 4 9.0 57. 0 66. 0 61.0 54.0 39.0 2.0 4.5 5.8 4.5 3.4 1.8 1960 54.0 58.0 59. 0 60.0 51 .0 39.0 3.2 3.3 5.2 2. 1 2.8 1.3 1961 4 5.0 56.0 62. 0 61.0 57.0 43.0 1.4 3.7 3.5 4.5 3.1 0.5 1962 48.0 60.0 59.0 64 .0 51 .0 41.0 4.7 1.6 6. 1 1. 5 3.6 2.2 1963 4 7.0 61.0 65. 0 57.0 48.0 46.0 1.5 1.2 4.2 3.5 2.8 2.8 1964 49.0 55.0 63. 0 57.0 49.0 38.0 3.2 5.5 3.4 3.3 2.3 1.2 1965 46.0 60.0 56. 0 57.0 49.0 38.0 4.3 1.5 5.7 6.0 3.9 4.2 1966 45.0 59.0 63. 0 59.0 50.0 41.0 1.9 3.9 2.3 5.4 6.5 2.6 1967 4 1.0 61.0 64. 0 62.0 52.0 0.0 2.2 1.3 2.3 3.9 3.0 0.0 1968 48.0 58.0 62.0 56.0 56.0 51.0 0.5 1.8 3.4 3.7 1.5 2.7 1969 44.0 57.0 62. 0 63.0 49.0 39.0 2.2 2.2 4.8 3.2 3.8 2.2 1970 47.0 58.0 66. 0 63 .0 50.0 42.3 2.0 3.9 8.6 2. 6 5.2 1.0 LEHHOXVII-LE, P. Q. TEMPERATURE . PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG . SEPT. OCT. 1940 55.0 60.9 66. 7 63.5 55. 8 41.3 3.1 4.1 4.9 2.6 2.9 2.7 1941 53.0 63.0 68. 0 61 .0 57.0 43.0 2.6 3.2 3.9 1.8 2.5 3. 8 1942 58.0 63.0 66. 0 63.0 56.0 46.0 2.8 7.9 2.9 2.9 4.3 4.4 1943 51.0 62.0 66. 0 63 .0 54.0 45.0 2.4 9.3 5.6 3. 6 2.2 4.3 1944 57.0 62.0 67. 0 68.0 58.0 44.0 1.9 3.4 5.4 1.5 6.1 2.0 1945 50.0 62.0 67. 0 65.0 59.0 42.0 6.7 2.5 5.4 1.7 6.5 4.2 1946 52.0- 62.0 66. 0 62.0 58.0 ° 48.0 3.7 4.3 2.7 4.6 4.0 3.2 1947 51.0 61 .0 70.0 70.0 58.0 50.0 6. 1 4.9 5.0 0.9 3.5 1.3 1948 52.0 61.0 68. 0 67.0 57.0 43.0 4.8 2.4 2.2 4.1 0.4 1.7 1949 54.0 67.0 70. 0 68.0 56.0 49.0 2.7 1.7 5. 1 3. 1 2.6 3.6 1950 54.0 64.0 67. 0 64.0 53.0 46.0 1.5 3.8 2.5 6.7 2.3 3.2 1951 54.0 62.0 68. 0 63.0 56.0 47.0 2.1 2.9 3.8 3. 8 2.6 2. 1 1952 50.0 65.0 72. 0 65.0 59.0 43.0 4.1 5.9 1 .4 3.4 3.4 4.3 19 53 55.0 64.0 68.0 64 .0 57.0 47.0 3.7 3.5 5. 2 2.3 2.2 3.4 1954 5 1.0 62.0 64. 0 61.0 54.0 48.0 3.6 7.6 3.5 4.1 5.5 6.2 1955 56.0 64.0 71. 0 68.0 55.0 47.0 3.4 3.0 2. 3 5. 3 1.9 2.6 1956 48.0 63.0 64. 0 64.0 54.0 47.0 3.5 2.4 4.3 3.6 3.8 2.6 1957 53.0 66.0 66.0 61 .0 58.0 46.0 3.2 3.6 6. 1 1. 9 4.7 2.8 1958 51.0 58.0 67. 0 65.0 57.0 45.0 1.7 3.6 5.6 4.2 3.8 5.8 1959 55.0 62.0 70.0 69.0 60.0 45.0 2.2 5.0 1.1 6.4 2. 1 5.4 1960 5 9.0 62.0 65. 0 64.0 58.0 44.0 4.5 5.1 4.9 1.7 4.5 3.2 1961 51.0 61.0 67. 0 64 .0 64.0 49.0 4.3 6. 1 4.4 3.0 2.1 2.3 1962 53.0 62.0 62. 0 62.0 55.0 45.0 2.4 3.2 5.6 3.3 2.3 7.6 1963 51.0 63.0 69.0 61.0 52.0 51.0 3.5 2. 1 4. 1 3.5 3. 1 3.4 1964 56.0 61.0 69. 0 61.0 54.0 45.0 2.5 1.3 0.0 3.4 1.3 3.2 1965 54.0 63.0 63. 0 65.0 58.0 45.0 1.5 2. 1 3.7 5.0 4.3 6.7 1966 50.0 62.0 66. 0 64.0 54.0 45.0 3.0 3.8 4.5 4.7 3.2 1.9 1967 46.0 65.0 68. 0 65.0 57.0 0.0 3.5 3.3 3.9 6. 3 2.3 0.0 1968 52.0 60.0 68. 0 62.0 60.0 49.0 3.5 2.9 3.9 1.5 3.2 2.8 1969 50.0 62.0 66. 0 67.0 57.0 45.0 5. 1 5.0 4.5 4.6 3.0 2.4 1970 54.0 62.0 69. 0 66.0 58.0 49.9 4.8 4.8 2.2 4.8 4.6 1.9 L * ASSOMPTION,P.Q. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 53.8 61.3 68.6 61 .1 58.3 43.1 2.4 3.3 4.4 3. 8 2.2 1.4 1941 55.0 66.0 70. 0 64.0 58.0 44.0 2.8 1.6 4.2 2.4 1.9 4.9 1942 59.0 65.0 67. 0 65.0 59.0 48.0 3.6 2. 1 3.2 1.5 4.5 2.9 1943 54.0 64.0 55. 0 65.0 56.0 46.0 3.6 7.1 4.4 3.0 1.4 4.4 1944 59.0 64.0 69. 0 70.0 60.0 45.0 1.7 4. 1 2. 1 1.7 4.9 1.7 1945 52.0 62.0 68. 0 68.0 60.0 44.0 7.0 2.9 4.1 4.2 6.0 4.7 1946 52.0 64.0 67. 0 64 .0 61 .0 49.0 3.7 2.0 2.4 3.4 5.2 3.4 1947 50.0 62.0 71. 0 71.0 58.0 53.0 4.1 3.6 5.7 1.7 5.2 1.3 1948 53.0 62.0 69.0 67.0 61 .0 46.0 2.2 3.0 3.0 2. 6 0.9 2.6 1949 54.0 67.0 71.0 70.0 57.0 51.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 5.5 1.5 1950 55.0 64.0 69. 0 64.0 54.0 48.0 2.2 4.5 2.8 5. 5 2.8 2.7 1951 56.0 63.0 68. 0 64.0 57.0 47.0 1.7 3.2 2.9 3.9 2.7 2.3 1952 52.0 65.0 72. 0 67.0 59.0 44.0 4.2 2. 1 4.6 6.9 6.0 3.8 1953 56.0 65.0 70. 0 67.0 58.0 48.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 1.4 2.8 1.2 1954 53.0 64.0 66. 0 64 .0 56.0 49.0 4.2 3.3 2.8 4.5 6.2 3.5 1955 58.0 66.0 73. 0 71.0 56.0 48.0 4.0 2.5 1.3 3.8 1.9 3.4 1956 49.0 63.0 65. 0 66.0 54.0 48.0 3.8 2.9 3.7 3.0 3.6 3.4 1957 54.0 66.0 67. 0 63.0 58.0 47.0 1.8 7.8 5.2 0.9 5.5 2.8 1958 51.0 58.0 68.0 65.0 58.0 46.0 2.2 3.7 4.7 4.6 5.2 4.0 1959 57.0 64.0 70. 0 69.0 61.0 45.0 1.4 4.1 2.4 6.6 2.0 4.0 1960 60.0 64.0 66. 0 66.0 59.0 46.0 3.5 3.0 3.4 2.4 3.0 4.6 1961 51.0 62.0 68. 0 66.0 63.0 49.0 2.3 4.9 3.9 4.4 0.8 2.1 1962 56.0 65.0 64. 0 65.0 55.0 45.0 1.4 2.4 4. 3 1.6 2.8 5. 1 1963 52.0 65.0 70. 0 62.0 53.0 52.0 2.6 1.4 2.4 3.6 5.3 2.9 1964 56.0 63.0 69. 0 62.0 55.0 44 .0 2.7 1.1 5.0 3. 2 0.9 1.6 1965 55.0 63.0 64. 0 65.0 59.0 45.0 2.1 1.3 2.6 5.3 3.5 4.6 1966 51.0 64.0 68. 0 66.0 55.0 46.0 2.1 3.5 1.4 4.9 2.4 1.7 1967 47.0 65.0 70. 0 66.0 58.0 0.0 2.2 3.2 3.4 2.4 2.0 0.0 19 68 52.0 60.0 68. 0 62.0 62.0 50.0 1.4 3.4 3. 5 2.0 1.5 3.6 1969 51.0 63.0 68. 0 68.0 56.0 45.0 4.5 3.2 2.8 3.8 3.0 2.2 1970 53.0 64.0 71. 0 67.0 57.0 49.6 2.4 1.7 2.0 2. 6 5.2 4.6 FREDRICTON , N. B. TEMPERATURE PBICIP IT AT ION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 52.0 59. 3 66. 9 64.4 56. 3 4 1.5 3.7 3.9 2.5 3.8 7.9 1.6 1941 51.0 60.0 67. 0 61 .0 55.0 44 .0 3.0 1.7 5. 2 5. 5 1.9 4.4 1942 55.0 63.0 65. 0 65.0 59,0 47.0 1.9 2.8 2.1 2.0 2.9 2.9 1943 50.0 59.0 67.0 63 .0 56.0 47.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 5. 8 4.3 6.2 1944 5 5.0 60.0 67. 0 68.0 58.0 46.0 2.1 5.2 3.6 1.9 5,9 4.6 1945 48.0 59.0 66.0 65.0 57.0 23.0 8.6 4.9 2. 1 0.9 4.2 5.7 1946 5 1.0 61.0 64. 0 65.0 59.0 48.0 3.3 1.4 1 .5 2.5 2.8 2. 1 1947 49.0 57.0 70. 0 65.0 57.0 50.0 3.7 5.7 6.4 3.8 3.6 0.4 1948 51.0 58.0 68. 0 67.0 58.0 46.0 5.5 2.5 4.5 2.7 1.8 2.9 1949 51.0 63.0 68. 0 66.0 56.0 48.0 3.2 2.3 2. 1 2. 6 8.0 2.3 1950 53,0 60.0 65. 0 63.0 53.0 45.0 1.0 5.9 3.4 3.3 0.7 3.8 1951 52.0 59.0 67.0 65.0 59.0 47.0 3.6 3.5 6.6 4.4 2.9 3.5 1952 50.0 62.0 71.0 67.0 58.0 45.0 3.5 5.9 2.1 2.8 2.7 4.7 1953 52.0 61 .0 67. 0 64 .0 59.0 47.0 3.1 2. 2 7. 1 1.8 3.6 4.0 1954 50.0 60.0 63. 0 63.0 55.0 48.0 4.2 6.4 3.8 5.2 5.8 6.9 1955 51.0 60.0 69.0 66.0 55.0 46.0 3.9 1.9 2.0 4. 1 1.9 1.3 1956 46.0 61.0 64. 0 61.0 53.0 46.0 4.4 3.6 2.4 3.6 2.6 1.3 1957 52.0 62.0 64. 0 63 .0 58.0 48.0 2.9 3.6 4. 1 2.9 4.5 1.2 1958 0.0 0.0 66. 0 64.0 56.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 3.7 1.8 4.6 1959 54.0 57.0 68. 0 64 .0 58.0 46.0 1.5 4.5 3. 1 5. 1 4.0 5.5 1960 56.0 62.0 65. 0 66.0 57.0 44.0 5.2 2.6 4.4 0.7 2.8 4.0 1961 50.0 61.0 66.0 65.0 62.0 49.0 8.9 3.9 3.0 2. 1 3.8 4.9 1962 50.0 60.0 60. 0 65.0 55.0 45.0 1.8 2.1 5.0 4.4 3.8 3.8 1963 50.0 61 .0 68. 0 61 .0 53.0 49.0 2.4 2. 1 3.6 3. 5 5.3 3.9 1964 52.0 59.0 66. 0 61.0 53.0 45.0 1.9 2.6 1.8 4.4 2.6 2.9 1965 50.0 62.0 65.0 65.0 56,0 44 .0 2.2 1.9 1.9 4. 6 1.6 3.2 1966 50.0 61.0 65. 0 65.0 54.0 45. 0 2.3 2.3 3.4 1.2 4.1 2.9 1967 44.0 62.0 69. 0 66.0 57.0 0.0 5.7 3.3 2.8 3. 4 6. 1 0.0 1968 49.0 59.0 68. 0 62.0 59.0 50.0 1.6 3.3 1 .9 2.2 1.2 4.3 1969 50.0 63.0 64. 0 66.0 57.0 45.0 2.4 2.0 4.7 2.6 4.8 2. 1 1970 5 1.0 61.0 68. 0 66.0 55.0 4 8.3 4.1 3.4 3.1 7.1 3.1 3.9 NAPPAN,N.S. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JUL Y AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 19 40 50.9 55.7 64. 8 61 .7 57.2 42.1 2.8 2. 1 3.4 1.2 9.7 2.4 1941 48.0 56.0 65. 0 61.0 54.0 44.0 4.4 1.4 3.6 4.6 1 .9 4.6 1942 53.0 60.0 64. 0 63.0 59.0 48.0 2.0 0.9 3. 2 1.7 10.7 5.6 1943 48.0 55.0 65. 0 62.0 57.0 48.0 4.8 4.9 4.7 3.3 3.6 3.6 1944 53.0 58.0 65.0 67.0 59.0 46.0 0.8 3.7 1.2 3.6 3.6 4.3 1945 47.0 56.0 66. 0 64.0 56.0 45.0 5.4 3.9 2.1 1.5 2.5 5.6 1946 50.0 58.0 63. 0 63.0 58.0 48.0 2.6 1.2 1.5 4.0 2.0 2.6 1947 50.0 56.0 70. 0 64.0 59.0 49.0 3.5 3.2 2.5 2.4 4.4 1.1 1948 49.0 56.0 65. 0 65.0 57.0 47.0 4.3 2.8 2.5 3.6 2.4 3.4 1949 4 9.0 60. 0 66. 0 65.0 57,0 48.0 2.5 3.1 1 .4 3.4 5.7 1.7 1950 50.0 58.0 64. 0 63.0 53.0 46.0 1.0 2. 1 3.4 6. 7 0.7 1.9 1951 49.0 57.0 65. 0 64.0 58.0 48.0 5.4 2.3 3.4 7.4 4.5 1.4 1952 47.0 59.0 69. 0 65.0 57.0 47.0 2.9 1.6 1.2 4.5 2.0 1.8 1953 49.0 59.0 64. 0 62.0 59.0 48. 0 2.4 1.9 3.2 5.8 4.1 5.2 1954 49.0 60.0 63. 0 61 .0 56.0 49.0 2.7 4.0 1.7 2. 6 1.4 3.4 1955 48.0 58.0 64. 0 63.0 55.0 46.0 1.8 1.2 2.0 2.8 1.6 2.2 1956 45.0 59.0 62.0 61 .0 53.0 46.0 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.9 2.2 1957 49.0 59.0 62. 0 61.0 57.0 47.0 1.9 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.3 1.7 1958 48.0 55.0 63. 0 63 .0 55.0 44.0 2.4 3.9 3.8 5. 1 5.7 3.3 1959 50.0 56.0 66. 0 64.0 58.0 47.0 2.4 4.8 1.8 3.3 3.2 7.8 1960 53.0 60.0 64. 0 65.0 57.0 45.0 1.5 3.9 2.7 0. 2 2.6 2.8 1961 49.0 59.0 63. 0 64.0 62.0 50.0 4.9 4.5 1 .0 2.8 2.2 7.5 1962 47.0 57.0 59. 0 63.0 55.0 4 7.0 0.6 3.3 6. 1 4.9 4.4 3.3 - 1963 49.0 57.0 67. 0 61.0 53.0 49.0 3.3 1.8 4.4 3.7 3.9 3.7 1964 49.0 56.0 64. 0 60.0 54.0 47.0 2.3 2.7 4. 1 5.0 2.8 3.5 1965 48.0 58.0 63. 0 63.0 55.0 46.0 1.3 1.3 1.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 1966 48.0 58.0 63. 0 63.0 53.0 47.0 3.1 1.9 2.9 1.2 3.0 0.0 1967 44.0 58.0 67. 0 66.0 57.0 0.0 6.4 4.1 2.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 1968 46.0 56.0 65. 0 61 .0 59.0 51.0 1.6 7. 1 0.7 1. 1 1.9 €.3 1969 48.0 60.0 63. 0 64.0 57.0 45.0 3.4 2.6 2.5 2.4 4.4 2.5 1970 51.0 59.0 67. 0 65.0 55.0 48.8 2.8 3.3 4.6 6.9 3.3 5.8 KENTVILIE,N.S. TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 51.4 58. 1 66. 3 63. 3 59.0 44.0 2.5 2.8 2.2 1.7 6.7 2.7 1941 49.0 58.0 67. 0 62 .0 56.0 47.0 5.8 2.6 2. 2 3. 8 2.0 5. 1 1942 54.0 60.0 67. 0 66.0 61.0 49.0 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.1 10.6 5.9 1943 49.0 51.0 66. 0 63.0 58.0 50.0 4.1 4.6 5. 5 6. 6 2.7 4. 1 1944 54.0 60.0 67. 0 69.0 59.0 48.0 0.2 2.9 2.3 3.0 3.3 6.7 19 45 5.0.0 57.0 67. 0 66.0 60.0 47.0 7.7 6.3 1.5 2. 2 1.8 5.8 1946 52.0 59.0 64. 0 66.0 59.0 49.0 2.6 1.0 1.9 3.6 2.9 2.5 1947 52.0 57.0 71 . 0 66.0 59.0 51.0 4.3 3.7 4.3 0.9 4.7 0.4 1948 50.0 57.0 66. 0 66.0 57.0 47.0 6.7 3.7 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.3 1949 50.0 62.0 69. 0 67.0 58.0 50.0 2.5 2.4 0.5 4. 5 3.5 1.4 1950 4 9.0 59.0 61.0 63.0 53.0 47.0 0.9 2.7 3.0 6.3 1.7 2.4 1951 51.0 58.0 67. 0 65.0 59.0 48.0 3.3 1. 2 2.9 4.8 3.7 1.5 1952 48.0 60.0 69. 0 66.0 57.0 47.0 2.4 2.2 1.6 5.2 2.5 1.4 1953 53.0 60.0 66.0 63.0 59.0 49.0 2.9 1.5 3.0 5.0 3.8 3.6 1954 48.0 61.0 64. 0 62.0 57.0 50.0 2.6 2.9 1.7 3.7 1.5 4. 1 1955 51.0 60.0 67.0 67.0 56.0 48.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 3.9 2. 2 1.6 1956 4 6.0 61.0 63. 0 61.0 55.0 48.0 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.8 1.6 1957 50.0 61.0 64. 0 63 .0 59.0 49.0 2.1 1.6 1.7 3. 1 3.0 2.2 1958 51.0 57.0 66. 0 66.0 57.0 46.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 4.9 5.5 2.7 1959 52.0 58.0 68. 0 65.0 60.0 48.0 2.1 6.4 2.4 3. 6 3.7 9.9 1960 56.0 63.0 68. 0 67.0 59.0 47.0 v 2.4 2.7 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.3 1961 51.0 62.0 65. 0 66.0 62.0 52.0 -5.2 5. 1 1.0 4.0 2.4 7. 1 1962 50.0 60.0 61.0 62.0 57.0 49.0 1.0 3.1 5.1 0.0 6.4 3.5 1963 51.0 61.0 69. 0 63 .0 55.0 51.0 2.6 1.7 2.3 3.5 3.7 3. 1 1964 52.0 59.0 66. 0 62.0 56.0 49.0 2.2 2.2 2.7 5.2 3.6 3.0 1965 49.0 60.0 66. 0 66.0 57.0 47.0 1 .9 3. 1 1.6 2.6 0.6 3.9 1966 50.0 61.0 66. 0 66.0 56.0 49.0 3.7 1.7 2.1 1.3 3.2 5.9 19 67 46.0 62.0 70.0 68.0 59.0 0.0 6.0 1.4 1 4.3 3. 2 3.8 0.0 1968 49.0 58.0 69. 0 63.0 61.0 53.0 2.5 4.9 0.8 1.4 2.7 7.5 1969 50.0 62.0 65. 0 67.0 59.0 47.0 3.2 1.4 2.0 2. 6 4. 1 2.6 1970 53.0 62.0 68. 0 67.0 57.0 50.7 3.3 2.7 4.0 5.1 3.3 5.3 CHARLOTT ETOWN, P . E . I . TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1940 49.7 57.1 67. 6 64.8 59.2 44 .7 4.9' 2.8 3. 3 1.8 8. 1 3.4 1941 47.0 57.0 67. 0 61.0 54.0 46.0 5.8 4.3 • 5.4 4.8 3.4 6.0 1942 53.0 61.0 67. 0 66 .0 61 .0 50.0 1.7 0.8 4.3 3.4 12.4 5.0 1943 48.0 55.0 66. 0 65.0 60.0 51.0 5.3 4.9 3.7 3.2 4.9 4.5 1944 53.0 59.0 66. 0 69.0 61 .0 45.0 1.1 5. 1 1.9 2.6 3.4 1.2 1945 48.0 56.0 67. 0 68.0 60.0 47.0 5.4 3.5 1 .5 1.6 3.3 6.1 1946 50.0 60.0 65. 0 65.0 ^1 .0 51 .0 3.4 1.5 2.6 4. 1 2.6 3.3 1947 50.0 57.0 72. 0 66.0 59.0 51.0 5.8 5.2 2.6 1.3 4.7 1.2 1948 49.0 57.0 66.0 67.0 59.0 50.0 3.5 3. 1 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.2 1949 49.0 60.0 68. 0 66.0 59.0 50.0 2.0 2.8 1.7 4.2 4.5 2.3 1950 50.0 60.0 66. 0 65.0 55.0 47.0 1.0 2.4 3.2 6.9 1.1 2.4 1951 50.0 57.0 68. 0 65.0 60.0 48.0 4.7 3.1 5.8 7.1 2.2 1.6 1952 47.0 59.0 69. 0 66.0 58.0 48.0 3.0 3.9 2. 5 3. 3 1.5 3.4 1953 47.0 59.0 66. 0 64.0 60.0 48.0 2.9 1.3 4.0 4.8 3.3 4.9 1954 48.0 60.0 67. 0 63.0 57.0 49.0 3.0 1.6 4.5 2. 6 2.4 3.4 1 955 49.0 59.0 66. 0 66.0 57.0 . 48.0 3.1 2.0 2.5 3.2 3.4 3.0 1956 45.0 59.0 63. 0 63 .0 56.0 48.0 3.8 2.9 2.9 1.5 2.3 3.0 1957 48.0 59.0 64. 0 64.0 58.0 49.0 2.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 2.9 3.1 1958 49.0 56.0 65. 0. 66.0 57.0 46.0 1.7 2.5 3.7 5. 3 6.0 3.2 1959 5 1.0 57.0 69. 0 64.0 60.0 48.0 1.7 4.2 1.9 2.9 2.3 6.4 1960 54.0 62.0 67. 0 68.0 59.0 46.0 1.4 2.9 2.0 0.9 3.4 2.6 1961 48.0 60.0 65. 0 66.0 62.0 51.0 4.1 4.6 0.9 1.5 3.1 5.2 1962 46.0 57.0 59. 0 64.0 56.0 47.0 1.4 3. 2 5.6 5.9 4.8 4. 1 1963 49.0 57.0 67. 0 63.0 55.0 50.0 3.7 1.8 3.6 4.1 5.0 4.2 1964 49.0 56.0 65. 0 62.0 55.0 46.0 2.4 2. 2 2.3 2. 4 3. 1 2.0 1965 47.0 58.0 66. 0 65.0 56.0 46.0 1.7 0.9 1.5 3.2 1.1 4.8 1966 48.0 59.0 66. 0 65 .0 56 .0 49.0 3.2 3. 3 2.0 1.8 4.1 5.7 1967 4 3.0 60. 0 69. 0 68.0 58.0 0.0 6.7 5.7 2.3 4.1 3.0 0.0 1968 47.0 55.0 67. 0 61 .0 60.0 50.0 1.1 5. 1 0.5 3.9 2.7 * 3 1969 4 6.0 62.0 64. 0 65.0 58.0 46.0 2.6 3.5 4.1 2.1 4.7 2.4 1970 50.0 60.0 67.0 66.0 55.0 49.8 3.5 3.9 2.6 5.6 3.5 4.5 -162-VI I FOOTNOTES 1. A census farm i s an a g r i c u l t u r a l h o l d i n g i n Canada which meets the current Census c r i t e r i a determining the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sampling u n i t to be used f o r Census enumeration. Changing the c r i t e r i a d e f i n i n g the census farm i n e f f e c t a l t e r s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the b a s i c sampling u n i t and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the frame from which Census observations are drawn. Appendix I I considers the major changes which have been made w i t h respect to the d e f i n i t i o n of the census farm and the major r e s u l t s of these changes. 2. Although the sampling u n i t here i s defined to be i d e n t i c a l to the b a s i c u n i t of o b s e r v a t i o n , conceptually the two u n i t s are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . The u n i t of observation provides the n a t u r a l u n i t of measurement. In the case of a g r i c u l t u r e , the farm provides t h i s b a s i c u n i t by which production may be measured. The sampling u n i t however i s a s p e c i f i e d amount of m a t e r i a l which can conveniently be taken from the p o p u l a t i o n at one time. The two main d i f f e r e n c e s between the two concepts are f i r s t , that the sampling u n i t need not n e c e s s a r i l y be the n a t u r a l u n i t of observation and second, that u n l i k e the b a s i c u n i t of observation each sampling u n i t must be defined r i g o u r o u s l y so that each u n i t can be e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d under p r a c t i c a l working c o n d i t i o n s . 3. The s i z e of the frame and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s described w i t h i n i t may be changed a c c o r d i n g l y as the purpose f o r which i t i s to be used i s changed. For example, during the i n t e r c e n s a l p e r i o d s , estimates made of a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduction are u s u a l l y derived from s t r a t i f i e d samples of farms. That i s only those farms which are re l e v a n t to the immediate study are sampled. As a second example, the frame set up f o r the Census of A g r i c u l t u r e Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l Survey i s composed of area segments of land r a t h e r than a l i s t i n g of names or addresses. In each case, the sample frame employed i s that one which best meets the needs of the p a r t i c u l a r type of survey. 4. P r i o r to the 1956 Census, the l i s t of r u r a l holdings to which census farm schedules were mailed was secured from the Fede r a l Post O f f i c e Department's r u r a l m a i l d e l i v e r y l i s t . However the 1956 and f o l l o w i n g Censuses have r e l i e d on a master l i s t of addressograph p l a t e s which were prepared during the 1951-1956 i n t e r c e n s a l p e r i o d f o r the addresses of farm holdings i n Canada. In order to o f f s e t the r a p i d d e t e r i o r a t i o n of t h i s frame as the s t r u c t u r e of the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Sector changes, the A g r i c u l t u r e D i v i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada, which maintains the frame up-dates the l i s t w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d during the i n t e r c e n s a l sample surveys regarding changes i n farm ownership. 5. A study completed during the 1951 Census r e s u l t e d i n the extension o f the four-day t r a i n i n g p e r i o d o r i g i n a l l y a l l o c a t e d to enumeration t r a i n i n g . During the 1961 Census, i n a d d i t i o n to the four-day t r a i n i n g p e r i o d , a half-day ground i n the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s and concepts i n v o l v e d i n each Census was i n i t i a t e d . A l s o , f o l l o w i n g the f i r s t day of o f f i c i a l enumeration, a ha l f - d a y review of p r i n c i p l e s and b a s i c problems was i n i t i a t e d . Another -163-study completed during the 1961 Census r e s u l t e d i n a more i n t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g of the census commissioner f o r c e . This increased t r a i n i n g i n b a s i c d u t i e s and f u n c t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n a more e f f i c i e n t f o r c e of census commissioners. 6. A more complete d i s c u s s i o n of the methodology employed during each Census Q u a l i t y Survey Check as w e l l as of the major r e s u l t s obtained from each i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix I . 7. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1959. 8. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, annual. 9. Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, 1951. 10. " P u b l i c Investment and C a p i t a l Formation - a Study of P u b l i c and P r i v a t e Investment Outlay, Canada 1926-1941", Dominion-Provincial Conference on R e c o n s t r u c t i o n , Ottawa, 1945. The P.I.C.F. estimates are based on data on purchases of b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s by farmers i n 1940, as obtained from the 1941 Census. The 1940 value was e x t r a p o l a t e d f o r other years based on a weighted index of net farm income and r e t a i l s a l e s by lumber and b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s companies. The estimates are broken down between b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s used f o r new and replacement c o n s t r u c t i o n , and f o r r e p a i r s and maintenance c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t was decided not to use the new/ r e p a i r breakdown as estimated i n P.I.C.F., s i n c e , based on new/repair b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s expenditures data from the 1946 Census of the P r a i r i e Provinces and from aggregate data i n R e s i d e n t i a l Real E s t a t e i n Canada, ( F i r e s t o n e , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1951), i t would appear that the r a t i o of new to r e p a i r expenditures i n P.I.C.F. breakdown been used, the trend of the r e s u l t i n g gross f i x e d c a p i t a l formation estimates would have been e s s e n t i a l l y the same, and the l e v e l s only s l i g h t l y higher. 11. I n P.I.C.F. and PPI 1926-1951, a 75-25 r e l a t i o n s h i p was assumed. The 63-35 r a t i o was chosen i n s t e a d because the former was f e l t to be too h e a v i l y weighted i n terms of m a t e r i a l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r engineering type c o n s t r u c t i o n , s i n c e no allowance i s made f o r "farm improvement work on land c l e a r i n g , drainage and other such items" (P.I.C.F., p. 105). The 65-35 r a t i o a l s o conforms to the weights used i n Non-Residential B u i l d i n g  M a t e r i a l s P r i c e Index 1936-1952 (cat. No. 62-506). 12. The estimate used i s based on data, taken from the 1946 Census of the P r a i r i e P r o v i n c e s , which show that farm expenditures on b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r r e p a i r c o n s t r u c t i o n amounted to 43.2 percent of t o t a l expenditures f o r b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s . I t can be argued that t h i s percentage might be higher than normal because i t i n c l u d e s a p e r i o d at the end of the war y e a r s , but i t i s e q u a l l y l i k e l y that r e p a i r expenditures were p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y h i g h during most of the t h i r t i e s and the e a r l y war ye a r s , which i s most of the 1926-1941 p e r i o d f o r which the data are being e x t r a p o l a t e d . -164-13. For the farm machinery and equipment component, the PPI 1926-1956 estimates are approximately 5-10 percent lower than s i m i l a r estimates presented i n P.I.C.F. 1926-1941 f o r the 1926-1941 period (and by Buckley i n CFC 1896-1930 for the 1926-1930 period). No explanation f o r the difference i n the estimates could be found, and seri e s underlying the PPI 1926-1956 estimates was used. 14. Described i n P r i c e Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by  Farmers 1913-1948, catalogue no. 21-503 op. c i t . Data f o r years subsequent to 1948 obtained from Pr i c e s and P r i c e Indexes 1949-1952, and P r i c e Index  Number of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers, Cat. No. 62-004. 15. Described i n P r i c e Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by  Farmers, 1913-1948, Cat. No. 62-503. Data f o r years subsequent to 1948 obtained from Pr i c e s and P r i c e Indexes 1949-1952, Table 12, page 96, and from Pr i c e s and P r i c e Indexes (monthly), Cat. No. 62-002. 16. " B u l l e t i n "F" Tables of Useful Lives of Depreciable Property", (Revised, 1941) United States Treasurey Department, Internal Revenue Service. 17. In i t s 1967 and 1968 c a p i t a l stock tabulations, the O f f i c e of Business Economics of the U.S. Department of Commerce reduced the B u l l e t i n "F" service l i f e to as low as 38 years f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l structures. 18. R.W. Goldsmith, "A Perpetual Inventory of National Wealth", i n Studies i n  Income and Wealth, Vol. 14, Proceedings of the Conference on Research i n Tncome and Wealth, New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1951. 19. "Study of Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment Containing Estimates of Domestic Disappearance and Average L i f e Expected", (un-published) Department of Trade and Commerce, September, 1949. The farm machinery and equipment estimates i n t h i s study are based l a r g e l y on the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e report "Average Length of L i f e of Farm Machines (Eastern Canada)" and on B u l l e t i n "F". 20. The O.B.E. i n i t s 1967 tabulations used a retirement pattern (Winfrey 5-3) which d i s t r i b u t e d retirements over a period of years, rather than at the average service l i f e . 21. Compared to an average of 13 years used by Hood and Scott i n Output, Labour and C a p i t a l ^ i n the Canadian Economy. 22. A commercial farm i s a census farm reporting sales of a g r i c u l t u r a l products with a value of at l e a s t $1,200 during the previous twelve months. 23. See the "Administration Report of the "Dominion S t a t i s t i c i a n " , Eighth Census of Canada, 1941, p. 39. 24. See the "Administration Report" Ninth Census Canada, 1951, p. 39. 25. See Uruguhart and Buckley (1965, p. 340). -165-BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Auer, L. (1969), "Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i v i t y " , S t a f f Study 24, Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, Dec. 1969. 2. Canada, "Fixed C a p i t a l Flows and Stocks - A g r i c u l t u r e " ( u n p u b l i s h e d paper), Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . 3. Canada, " P r i v a t e and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada, 1926-1951", Department of Trade and Commerce, October, 1951. 4. Canada, "Study of D e p r e c i a t i o n of Machinery and Equipment Containing Estimates of Value of Domestic Disappearance and Average L i f e Expected", (unpublished paper). Department of Trade and Commerce, September, 1949. 5. C e n t r a l Housing and Mortgage Corporation, N a t i o n a l Housing S t a t i s t i c s , Annual from 1956. 6. Diewert, W.E. (1973), " A p p l i c a t i o n s of D u a l i t y Theory", Department of Manpower and Immigration, October,,1973. 7. Diewert, W.E. (1974a), "Homogeneous Weak S e p a r a b i l i t y and Exact Index Numbers", Tech. Report No. 12, IMSSS, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , January 1974. 8. Diewert, W.E. (1974b), "Employment Industry by Occupation and Occupational Wage Estimates f o r Canada, 1926-1972", Department of Manpower and Immigration, November, 1974. 9. Diewert, W.E. (1972), "Walras Theory of C a p i t a l Formation and the Exi s t e n c e of a Temporary E q u i l i b r i u m " , Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa, 1972. 10. F u r n i s s , I.E. (1964), " P r o d u c t i v i t y i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , 1935-1960: a Quarter Century of Change", Canadian J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 12:2141-53, 1964. 11. Goldsmith, R.W. (1951), "A Pe r p e t u a l Inventory of N a t i o n a l Wealth", i n Studies i n Income and Wealth, V o l . 14, Proceedings of the Conference on Research i n Income and Wealth, New York, N.B.E.R., 1951. 12. Graham, J.E. (1964), "Some Problems Encountered i n Sampling from the Master Frame of Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e " , C.J.A.E. V o l . X I I No. 2, 1964, 29-40. 13. Graham, J.E., and Muirhead, R.C. (1968), " E v a l u a t i n g the 1966 A g r i c u l t u r a l Census'', C.J.A.E. V o l . XVI, 1968, 45-53. 14. G r i l i c h e s , Z. (1963), "Measuring Inputs i n A g r i c u l t u r e : a C r i t i c a l Survey", J o u r n a l of Farm Economics, 42:1411-27, 1963. 15. Hendricks, Walter A. (1956), The Mathematical Theory of Sampling. New Brunswick, N.J.: The Scarecrow P r e s s , 1956. -166-16. H i c k s , J.R. (1946), Value and C a p i t a l , 2nd e d i t i o n , Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s , 1946. 17. Holmes, Al a n D. (1956), "A Master Frame of Area Samples of A g r i c u l t u r e : I t s Usefulness f o r C o l l e c t i n g of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s " , C.J.A.E. V o l . IV, No. 1, 1956, 16-29. 18. Hood, W.L. and S c o t t , A.P. (1957), "Output, Labour and C a p i t a l i n the Canadian Economy", A Study f o r the Royal Commission on Canadian Economic Prospects ( H u l l , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957). 19. Jorgenson, D.W. and G r i l i c h e s , Z. (1972), "Issues i n growth Accounting: A Reply to Edward F. Denison", Survey of Current Business, 55:5, P a r t I I , 65-94. 20. Jorgenson, D.W. and G r i l i c h e s , Z. (1967), "The Explanation of P r o d u c t i v i t y Change", Review of Economic S t u d i e s , 34:249-83, J u l y , 1967. 21. K i n g , M.A. (1974), "Taxation and the Cost of C a p i t a l " , Review of Economic  St u d i e s , 41:21-35, January, 1974. 22. Lok, Siepko H. (1961), An Enquiry i n t o the R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Changes  i n O v e r a l l P r o d u c t i v i t y and Real Net Return per Farm, and between Changes  i n T o t a l Output and Real Gross Return, Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , 1926-1957. Economics D i v i s i o n , Canadian Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , T e c h n i c a l P u b l i c -a t i o n 61/13. Ottawa, 1961. 23> Mackenzie, W. (1962), "The Impact of Technological Change on the E f f i c i e n c y of P r oduction i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e " , Canadian J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l  Economics, 10, No. 1: 41-53, 1962. 24. Mackenzie, W. (1963), "Regional Changes i n Income, Terms of Trade and P r o d u c t i v i t y w i t h i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e " , Canadian J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l  Economics, 11, No. 2:41-51, 1963. 25. Mackenzie, W. (1961), "The Terms of Trade, P r o d u c t i v i t y and Income of Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e " , Canadian J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 9, No. 2:1-13, 1961. 26. Morganstern, Oskar (1963), On the Accuracy of Economic Observations. 2nd e d i t i o n , P r i n c e t o n , N.J., P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. 27. S t a t i s t i c s Canada: " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report of the Dominion S t a t i s t i c i a n " , Seventh Census of Canada, 1931 (Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1934). 28. S t a t i s t i c s Canada: " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report of the Dominion S t a t i s t i c i a n " , E i g h t h Census of Canada, 1941 (Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1945). 29. S t a t i s t i c s Canada: " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report, "Ninth: Census of Canada", 1951, "Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1955). -167-30. S t a t i s t i c s Canada: " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report of the 1961 Census", (Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1965). 31. United S t a t e s , " B u l l e t i n 'F': Tables of U s e f u l L i v e s of Depreciable P r o p e r t y " , (Revised 1942) United States Treasury Department, I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e s . 32. Uruquhart, M.C. , and Buckley, D.A.H. (1965), H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s of  Canada. Toronto, The MacMillan Company of Canada L t d . , 1965. 33. Woodland, A.D. (1972), "The C o n s t r u c t i o n of P r i c e and Quantity Components of'Inputs For Canadian I n d u s t r i e s , 1927-1969", Research S e c t i o n , Program Development S e r v i c e , Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa, 1972. -168-DATA SOURCES Canada, S t a t i s t i c s Canada (formerly the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s ) , Ottawa: The Queen's P r i n t e r Catalogue Number T i t l e 11-202 Canada Yearbook. 13-201 System of N a t i o n a l Ac count s-^National Income and Expenditure Accounts 13-522 Fi x e d C a p i t a l Flows and Stocks, Manufacturing, Canada 1926-1960: Methodology, February, 1967 21-003 Q u a r t e r l y B u l l e t i n of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s 21-205 P r i v a t e and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada -Outlook 21-503 Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s , P a r t I I I : Trends i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e . 21-507 Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s , P a r t I : F i e l d Crops 21-508 Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s , P a r t V I : L i v e s t o c k and Animal Products 1871-1965. 21-511 Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s , Part I I , Farm Income 21-512 Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s , P a r t V, Vegetables and F r u i t s : Acreage, Production and Value of Vegetables 1940-1966; Production and Value of F r u i t s 1926-1967. 21- 513 Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s , P a r t V I I , Dairy S t a t i s t i c s 1920-1968. 22- 204 Pr o d u c t i o n and Value of Maple Products. 22- 205 Leaf Tobacco Acreage, P r o d u c t i o n and Value. 23- 202 Pr o d u c t i o n of P o u l t r y and Eggs 23-203 L i v e s t o c k and Animal Products S t a t i s t i c s . 23-205 Wool Pr o d u c t i o n and Supply. -169-23-208 23-209 46-207 57-202 61- 504 62- 002 62-004 62-503 62-506 62-518 71-001 96-623 (1966 Census) 96-729 (1971 Census) 96-730 96-731 96-732 Report on Fur Farms. Production and Value Estimate of Honey. F e r t i l i z e r Trade. E l e c t r i c Power S t a t i s t i c s , V o l . I I , Annual S t a t i s t i c s . P r i v a t e and P u b l i c Investment i n Canada, 1946-1957. P r i c e s and P r i c e Indexes Farm Input P r i c e Indexes, 1961=100. P r i c e Index Number of Commodities and Se r v i c e s , used by Farmers, 1913-1948. P r i c e Indexes of Non-Residential B u i l d i n g M a t e r i a l s , 1935-1952. The Consumer P r i c e Index f o r Canada, 1949= 100: R e v i s i o n Based on 1957 Expenditures. Labour Force. Census Farms by S i z e , Area and Use of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land f o r Provinces and Countries. A g r i c u l t u r a l Data f o r Census Farms C l a s s i f i e d by Economic C l a s s : A t l a n t i c P rovinces. A g r i c u l t u r a l Data f o r Census Farms C l a s s i f i e d by Economic C l a s s : Quebec. A g r i c u l t u r a l Data f o r Census Farms C l a s s i f i e d by Economic C l a s s : Ontario. A g r i c u l t u r a l Data f o r Census Farms C l a s s i f i e d by Economic C l a s s : Western Pro v i n c e s . NOTE: Page 170 does not e x i s t . - 171 -P r o d u c t i v i t y G r o w t h i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e 1 946^1970 by R o b e r t S. D a n i e l s o n R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t s Group S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g and R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t o f Manpower and I m m i g r a t i o n M a r c h 1975 - 172 -P r o d u c t i v i t y G r o w t h i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e By R o b e r t D a n i e l s o n I I n t r o d u c t i o n and Summary I I I n v e n t o r i e s I I I L a b o u r IV . C a p i t a l V Net P r o f i t s i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e VI P r o d u c t i v i t y M easurement VI I- C o n c l u s i o n V I I I A p p e n d i x : R e n t a l P r i c e s and Tax R a t e s IX F o o t n o t e s X R e f e r e n c e s - 173 -I . I n t r o d u c t i o n and Summary There are a number of p o s s i b l e approaches to measuring growth i n product-i v i t y . The p a r t i c u l a r approach taken i n t h i s study i s one which adopts the frame of reference of the producer. The approach taken r e q u i r e s a complete l i s t i n g of a l l outputs and inputs i n v o l v e d i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l production process where each input or output measure should as much as p o s s i b l e r e f l e c t the flow nature of production. For example the cost of using a durable primary input f o r one production p e r i o d (here taken to be one year) should not be i t s stock or purchase p r i c e but r a t h e r the one p e r i o d user or r e n t a l p r i c e . S i m i l i a r l y , we should use as our measure of labour s e r v i c e s , not estimates of the stock of farm labour (measured i n man-years) but r a t h e r a c t u a l man-hours u t i l i z e d i n production during each year. As a r e s u l t of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , before a p p l y i n g the e x i s t i n g data base to the problem of measuring p r o d u c t i v i t y growth i n a g r i c u l t u r e , i t has been subjected to a number of m o d i f i c a t i o n s . Some m o d i f i c a t i o n s , such as measuring labour i n p u t by man-hours and l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y i n v e n t o r i e s and outputs by weight have been discussed i n Danielson [1975a]. Here we are more concerned w i t h the way i n which the commodities l i s t e d i n our previous paper are modified when f i t t e d i n t o the production framework as viewed by the producer. Since v a r i a b l e i n p u t s and outputs are not modified our major concern i n s e c t i o n s two through four i s w i t h the treatment of farm i n v e n t o r i e s , farm labour and f a r m c c a p i t a l . In s e c t i o n f i v e we develop ' the p r o f i t maximizing problem as viewed by the a g r i c u l t u r a l producer during each production p e r i o d and a l s o t e s t an i m p l i c a t i o n of constant returns to s c a l e production under competitive c o n d i t i o n s , that the value of output i n each production p e r i o d equals the returns accruing to the f a c t o r s of production. - : i 7 4 -In section s i x we develop the theory and framework used i n measuring the rate of growth i n a g r i c u l t u r a l f a c t o r p r o d u c t i v i t y . The r e s u l t of the study suggests that unmeasured growth i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y has occured at an average rate of 1.97% per annum i n the post-war period. A number of a l t e r n a t i v e procedures f o r reducing t h i s unmeasured r e s i d u a l are also discussed. The conclusion to the paper i s devoted to analysing the factors which induce growth and development and relate them to the framework applied i n the study. - 175 I I . I n v e n t o r i e s U n l i k e o t h e r , f i x e d , forms of c a p i t a l , i n v e n t o r i e s of crops and l i v e s t o c k are subject to v a r i a b l e r a t e s of d e p r e c i a t i o n over time. This r a t e i s determined by v a r i o u s t e c h n o l o g i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l , and economic v a r i a b l e s and can be i m p l i c i t l y determined from the accounting equation: c i t ( 1 + A i t } E X i t + C i t + i <*> where G\ i s the beginning of p e r i o d t stock of inventory i X i s the v a r i a b l e r a t e of d e p r e c i a t i o n [ i m p l i c i t l y defined] X. i s a measure of the volume of i n v e n t o r i e s i l o s t to f i n a l s a l e s or consumption during p e r i o d t C^ t +^ i s the beginning of p e r i o d t+1 stock of inventory i W i t h i n the framework of the modern theory of p r o d u c t i o n , equation (1) can be i n t e r p r e t e d as f o l l o w s : we assume that i n v e n t o r i e s form an input i n t o the production process at the beginning of each p e r i o d . During the p e r i o d i n v e n t o r i e s c o n t r i b u t e to f i n a l s a l e s and consumption as w e l l as to production. At the end of the current production p e r i o d remaining i n v e n t o r i e s are t r e a t e d as outputs which are purchased ( i m p l i c i t l y ) by producers to be used as inputs i n t o the immediately f o l l o w i n g production p e r i o d . This framework has been o u t l i n e d by Diewert [1972; s e c t i o n 6 ] , but the b a s i c idea i s due to Hicks [1946]. In order to decide on a production p l a n during the current p e r i o d the producer must, at the beginning of the p e r i o d , discount by the current market borrowing r a t e , the p r i c e he expects to r e c e i v e f o r output of i n v e n t o r i e s at the end of the p e r i o d . A l s o , s i n c e i n v e n t o r i e s on the farm are i n c l u d e d as a t f o r m of farm income and taxed a c c o r d i n g l y , stock p r i c e s must be f u r t h e r discounted by the p r o p o r t i o n expected to be taxed. - r.7-6,. -I f we assume s t a t i c expectations and p r e f i x inventory inputs w i t h a negative s i g n and inventory outputs w i t h a p o s i t i v e s i g n , we get the f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the i - t h inventory at the beginning of p e r i o d t w h e r e t h e r e l a t i v e p r o f i t a b i l i t y o f i n v e n t o r i e s as an i n p u t r a t h e r t h a n as an o u t p u t i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e p r e v a i l i n g m o r t g a g e r a t e . Input -C. t P i t / < 1 - U t ) Output + C i t + 1 P i t / [ ( 1 " V ( 1 + r t ) ] where i s the beginning of production p e r i o d t stock p r i c e of inventory i U i s the average farm income tax r a t e i n p e r i o d t r i s the farm mortgage r a t e i n p e r i o d t I I I . Labour A major pa r t of the Danielson [1975a] study d e a l t w i t h the c o n s t r u c t i o n of s e r i e s f o r h i r e d labour and f o r f a m i l y labour. During the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the two s e r i e s , the same money wage had been imputed to each. However from the producers vantage p o i n t , d i f f e r e n c e s i n t a x a t i o n allowances, as revealed i n the "Farmer's and Fisherman's Tax Guide""'" cause the r e a l wage p a i d to f a m i l y labour to be greater than that p a i d to h i r e d labour. The reason f o r the discrepancy i s that although farmers are able to deduct wages and s a l a r i e s p a i d out to h i r e d labour f o r t a x a t i o n purposes they are unable to do so f o r t h e i r own labour income. Thus i f we l e t W represent the money wage p a i d to a g r i c u l t u r a l labour, then the r e a l wage acc r u i n g to f a m i l y labour w i l l be W Q = W/(1-U ) which i s greater than the r e a l wage p a i d to h i r e d l a b o u r , W = W. t H IV. C a p i t a l C a p i t a l i n a g r i c u l t u r e may be d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e types: farm machinery, passenger v e h i c l e s , commercial v e h i c l e s , s t r u c t u r e s and a g r i c u l t u r a l land. - 17 7 -Each type d i f f e r s i n the s e r v i c e i t p r o v i d e s , i n i t s d u r a b i l i t y and i n the treatment r e c e i v e d from t a x a t i o n a u t h o r i t i e s . The l a t t e r two dimensions enter i n t o the c a l c u l a t i o n of the one p e r i o d user cost f o r c a p i t a l . The r e n t a l or user cost to the producer represents the present value of purchasing one u n i t of a c a p i t a l good at the beginning of the production p e r i o d at the current stock p r i c e , of using the c a p i t a l good during the production p e r i o d and thereby i n c u r r i n g some d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n the c a p i t a l good, and of s e l l i n g the p a r t remaining of the c a p i t a l at the beginning of the next p e r i o d f o r the expected stock p r i c e . The c a l c u l a t e d r e n t a l p r i c e w i l l d i f f e r from the stock p r i c e (which represents the discounted present value of a l l f u t u r e s e r v i c e s expected from the durable) and i s a f u n c t i o n o f : ( i ) the r a t e of net de t e r i o r a t i o n ; , and obsolescence, ( i i ) the r a t e of expected c a p i t a l gain or l o s s ( i i i ) the discount f a c t o r used to compute present v a l u e s , 2 and ( i v ) the tax s t r u c t u r e as i t r e l a t e s to the durable. I f we assumes ( i ) taxes do not enter i n t o the c a l c u l a t i o n of r e n t a l p r i c e s and ( i i ) there are no t r a n s a c t i o n s c o s t s , then denoting to be the current stock p r i c e per u n i t of c a p i t a l good i i n p e r i o d t , to be the stock p r i c e expected i n the f o l l o w i n g p e r i o d , (1 - S ^ ) to be the p r o p o r t i o n remaining of the c a p i t a l good a f t e r 5 d e t e r i o r a t i o n and absolesence has taken place and (l+r f c) to be the discount f a c t o r used i n c a l c u l a t i n g present v a l u e s , we can t h c a l c u l a t e the one p e r i o d r e n t a l p r i c e R f o r the s e r v i c e s of the i c a p i t a l good as: l - o \ (3) By rearranging (3) we o b t a i n the f o l l o w i n g expression (Q. t - R i t ) ( l + r t ) - ( 1 - 6 . ) Q. (4) - 17 8 -The l e f t - h a n d s i d e of t h i s e q u a l i t y represents the r e t u r n on the i n v e s t -ment p o r t i o n of a durable good w h i l e the right-hand s i d e represents the expected costs of using the durable one p e r i o d . The i n c o r p o r a t i o n of tax incidence i n t o the r e n t a l formula complicates i t somewhat. The accounting r e l a t i o n s h i p which we now wish to s a t i s f y i s that investment income net of personal income tax payments must equal a f t e r -p r o p e r t y - t a x c a p i t a l r e n t a l c o s t s . By assuming s t a t i c expectations and given the incidence of t a x a t i o n as revealed i n the "Farmer's and Fisherman's Tax Guide", we can r e w r i t e equation (3) as: tt-V R i t - * i E ^ * t - u t ( V i + r t + V ] } Q i t K i t ( 5 ) where :tJ i s U i s the average personal income tax r a t e i n p e r i o d t r i s the farm mortgage r a t e i n p e r i o d t x i s the average property t a x a t t r i b u t a b l e to c a p i t a l i n p e r i o d t v^ 6" i s the p r o p o r t i o n of d e p r e c i a t i o n deductable from income taxes a i s the p r o p o r t i o n of e q u i t y i n farm c a p i t a l The l e f t hand s i d e of formula (5) i s d e f l a t e d by the p r o p o r t i o n payable as personal income taxes. On the r i g h t hand s i d e of formula (5) we have added a measure of payable t a x , net of allowances. In g e n e r a l , the p r o p o r t i o n of payable taxes to t o t a l taxes w i l l d i f f e r f o r each c a p i t a l type depending on d e p r e c i a t i o n allowances. The way that the t a x a t i o n parameters enter i n t o the r e n t a l formula have been determined by examining the "Farmer's and Fls;herman's Tax Guide". I t i s worth n o t i n g that i n equation (5) i n t e r e s t p a i d i n a g r i c u l t u r e on non-e q u i t y c a p i t a l i s deductable f o r t a x a t i o n purposes. This i s not true i n general. A l s o , we f i n d that the t o t a l costs of t a x a t i o n to the producer i n c l u d e not only the i n i t i a l payment of taxable income, but a l s o i n t e r e s t on the money borrowed ( e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y ) to f i n a n c e the tax payment. - 179 -A d e s c r i p t i o n of the exact values which are taken by the parameters i n equation (5) i s contained i n the appendix to t h i s paper. The appendix a l s o t a b l e s the primary sources-and methods used during t h e - c o n s t r u c t i o n of eth'e ^ c a l c u l a t e d r e n t a l p r i c e f o r each c a p i t a l type, t ' 'comprehensive description V. Net P r o f i t s i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e I t i s now p o s s i b l e to e x p l i c i t l y d e r i v e the one-period p r o f i t maximizing problem as viewed by the farmer. In what f o l l o w s we r e t a i n the n o t a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d , and, i n a d d i t i o n , define q u a n t i t y and p r i c e vectors f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l outputs other than outputs of i n v e n t o r i e s (Y, P^) and f o r i n t e r -mediate inputs ( I , and adopt the convention of s u b s c r i p t i n g p r i c e s and q u a n t i t i e s of p e r i o d t+1 as seen from p e r i o d t by "+1". The problem as viewed by the producer i s that of maximizing expected p r o f i t s during the current production p e r i o d subject to the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the current s t a t e of technology. P r o f i t s , rH, f o r the p e r i o d are determined as f o l l o w s : n = py y + % r > c + i - ^ 8 - - p i 1 - .y^i -<^r><W +XV K i T T T 5 T - 5 m (6) -P C - U{P Y +(Y^TT) PC T - WE**:?* I+- (1-Eaivr6+ *] (<l+a) }r*X] Q.K.-P1 C} c y '1 * r . i + l . H - -x I i . , l l -x i x x x c J " - • x=x i = l This expression can be rearranged and s i m p l i f i e d by assuming s t a t i c expectations to give: n - Ci-u) (P* Y + ( ( 1 _ u ) P ( c 1 + r ) ) T c + 1 - WLH - L Q - P^ I - ( ^ ) T c 5 , r+6 (7) " Z (-JZ^) <-itr+ X - U [v 6 + (1-a) r + X]) Q K } i = l - 180 -Given the modified data base and the o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n represented by equation (7) and assuming t h a t farmers are e f f i c i e n t producers constrained by a constant returns to s c a l e technology, one can- p e r f o r m a non-parametric t e s t of the hypothesis t h a t farmers are motivated by p r o f i t maximizing behavior. The t e s t , o r i g i n a l l y suggested by Hanoch and R o t h s c h i l d [1970], i s performed as f o l l o w s : we denote the v e c t o r of I+J output plus input p r i c e s i n i , i=1926, i T i i i 1970, as P = (P P j . + ^ , . . . , and the v e c t o r of corresponding output plus input q u a n t i t i e s as X 1^ = *(X*,..., X^, X^ ^TJ-T^ where the J- _L I T J . I T J input q u a n t i t i e s are p r e f i x e d w i t h negative s i g n s . We normalize the v e c t o r X 1 by d i v i d i n g each of i t ' s elements by the t o t a l q u a n t i t y of the f i x e d f a c t o r i n year i , and denote the normalized v e c t o r of q u a n t i t i e s as Z1,ly. Then p r o f i t maximization i n the context of a constant returns to s c a l e technology i m p l i e s : P 1 ^ 1 - P l TZ^ ^ 0 f o r a l l i ± j where i , j = 1926 1970. Random v a r i a t i o n i n the s i g n of t h i s r e l a t i o n w i l l imply that the p r o f i t maximizing assumption i s not supported by the data. Systematic v a r i a t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n , s t i l l assuming e f f i c i e n t p r o d u c t i o n , w i l l imply that the production p o s s i b i l i t i e s set has expanded over time due to unmeasured inc r e a s e s i n f a c t o r p r o d u c t i v i t y . In the a p p l i c a t i o n of the t e s t to the a g r i c u l t u r a l data base constructed by Danielson [1975a], the s i g n of the r e l a t i o n proved not to be subject to random v a r i a t i o n . However i t d i d prove to be subject to a strong systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p , w i t h the r e s i d u a l s tending to be negative f o r j < i and p o s i t i v e f o r j > i and growing l a r g e r along w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e between the periods i and j , thus suggesting systematic increases i n unmeasured f a c t o r i n p u t o r i n f a c t o r p r o d u c t i v i t y . - T8-1 -I t i s a l s o of i n t e r e s t to determine i f the income flow i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n , represented by equation ( 7 ) , balances. The t e s t suggested by Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s [1967] [1972], i s whether the sum t o t a l of income returned to the f a c t o r s of production f o r s e r v i c e s c o n t r i b u t e d i s equal to the value o f the commodities produced. I n the t e s t as o r i g i n a l l y a p p l i e d by Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s , a r a t e of r e t u r n to c a p i t a l was imputed which a u t o m a t i c a l l y s a t i s f i e d the accounting i d e n t i t y . In t h i s study a s e r v i c e p r i c e has been d i r e c t l y determined f o r each c a p i t a l type using exogenously determined r a t e s of r e t u r n . Thus the r e s u l t s achieved w i l l i n f a c t provide a much stronger t e s t of the data base and of the t h e o r e t i c a l framework being used. The r e s u l t of the t e s t are presented i n 3 Table I below. TABLE I : A g r i c u l t u r e Values i n B i l l i o n s of D o l l a r s . YEAR OUTPUT VALUE INPUT VALUE PROPORTION 1946 2.839 2.547 1.115 1947 3.031 2.621 1.157 1948 3.473 2.870 1.210 1949 3.128 2.924 1.070 1950 3.449 2.860 1.206 1951 4.100 3.218 1.274 1952 4.338 3.399 1.276 1953 4.120 * 3.567 1.155 1954 3.257 3.696 .881 1955 3.807 3.395 1.124 1956 4.180 3.746 1.116 1957 3.624 3.952 1 .917 1958 3.789 3.768 1.005 1959 3.819 3.888 .982 1960 4.118 3.895 - 1.057 1961 3.613 4.220 .856 1962 4.401 3.961 1.111 1963 4.946 4.323 1.144 1964 4.639 4.675 .992 1965 5.171 4.791 1.079 1966 6.082 5.077 ,1.198 1967 5.413 5.748 .942 1968 5.703 5.958 .957 1969 6.134 7.858 .781 1970 6.233 6.488 .961 - -182 -Considering the disaggregated nature of the data i n v o l v e d (107 separate s e r i e s ) and that the val u e s of outputs and inputs are determined s o l e l y by market t r a n s a c t i o n s , the two v a l u e s are remarkably c l o s e . Two things i n p a r t i c u l a r , however, are revealed by examining the r a t i o of output value to input value. F i r s t of a l l , the measured value of output tends i n general to be greater than the value of in p u t . This would imply that some inputs i n t o production are not inc l u d e d . One i n f l u e n c e i n p a r t i c u l a r , c l i m a t e , has not been i n c l u d e d . Although i t would be p o s s i b l e to make an ex post adjustment f o r the i n f l u e n c e of c l i m a t e on output, such an adjustment would 4 be biased. Aabepter-rmeasure would be to i n c l u d e the impact of weather e x p l i c i t l y as another input i n t o production. However i n order to do so we would have to o b t a i n a measure of the shadow costs imposed on production by c l i m a t i c f a c t o r s . The second t h i n g to note about the r a t i o of output value to input value i s that during times of r e c e s s i o n [1954, 1957, 1961] and during times of poor market co n d i t i o n s and poor c l i m a t i c conditions[1967-1970] the value of measured input exceeds the value of measured output. This r e s u l t suggests that much remains to be done before c o r r e c t measures of the u t i l i z a t i o n or s e r v i c e r a t e s provided by the v a r i o u s i n p u t s i n t o p r oduction are obtained. These r e s u l t s and the r e s u l t s of the non-parametric t e s t f o r p r o f i t maximizing behavior suggest that t e c h n i c a l , change or "exogenous" p r o d u c t i v i t y growth may be an important f a c t o r i n Canadian a g r i c u l t u r e . In t h e 1 f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n we attempt to provide a measure of t h i s p r o d u c t i v i t y growth. -)- 18;3 -VI. Productivity Measurement Subject to the qualifications mentioned i n section five, we are now in a position to measure the growth in total factor productivity in agriculture. Our maintained hypothesis in this study is that i f a l l inputs and outputs are correctly measured, production is subject to constant returns and growth in output is perfectly explained by growth in inputs. Unfortunately, limit-ations in the data base w i l l result in variance from the ideal of„ constant returns. The result, as stated by Star [1973], is that: "...residual [growth] is a measure of our ignorance, an indicator: that t e l l s how far we are from the ideal. Any difference between the growth in measured output and the growth in measured inputs is due to our ignorance, to our ina b i l i t y to measure some of the variables correctly, and to the d i f f i c u l t y in quantifying some of the variables". [p. 2] For purposes of this study we adhere to the usual neo-classical assumption of an underlying production poss i b i l i t i e s set which relates a l l outputs to inputs. We assume competitiveness in a l l markets and a well-behaved profit maximizing equilibrium in which marginal rates of technological substitution between a l l commodities are equal to corresponding price ratios. As in the conceptual framework developed by Jorgenson and Griliches [1967] [1972], we assume that the production po s s i b i l i t i e s set can be represented by a trans-formation function which is separable between variable inputs and outputs (see Diewert [1974a; pp 25-26]) and where technological progress acts to shift outwards and in a parellel fashion the isoquants of the transformation function. In the original Jorgenson and Griliches a r t i c l e , a discrete approximation to the Divisia index had been used to aggregate input and output quantities. The index used has since been shown by Diewert [1974a] to be exact"* for the - 1-84 -transcendental l o g a r i t h m i c transformation f u n c t i o n . In t h i s study the F i s h e r i d e a l q u a n t i t y index i s used to aggregate input and output q u a n t i t i e s . The F i s h e r index, l i k e the d i s c r e t e approximation to the D i v i s i a employed by Jorgenson and G r i l i c h e s , i s a s u p e r l a t i v e index, being exact f o r a t r a n s -formation f u n c t i o n which i s capable of p r o v i d i n g a second-order approximation to an a r b i t r a r y twice d i f f e r e n t i a b l e l i n e a r homogeneous trans f o r m a t i o n f u n c t i o n . We denote base p e r i o d q u a n t i t i e s and p r i c e s as X°^= (X°, X°, X°) 1 z m and P°^ = (P°,..., P°) and s i m i l i a r l y denote comparison p e r i o d q u a n t i t i e s and p r i c e s as X"*" and P"*". Then the F i s h e r i d e a l q u a n t i t y index i s a f u n c t i o n of p r i c e s and q u a n t i t i e s i n the two periods which we express as Q_(P"'", P°; x\ X°). r We are i n t e r e s t e d i n the p e r i o d to p e r i o d growth i n t o t a l p r o d u c t i v i t y hence the base and comparison periods w i l l correspond to successive years and the constructed F i s h e r index w i l l be a chain index. Given these d e f i n i t i o n s , Diewert [1974a] has shown that the f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n holds: 1/2 IT 1 oT 1 1 CWP 1, P ° ;x i X°) = [ P X P n T X 1 = where f ( X ) = ( X T A X ) 1 / 2 (6) F p l T x o poT x o f ( x 0 ) In other words, the F i s h e r i d e a l q u a n t i t y index, which i s a geometric mean of a Paasche and of a Laspeyres q u a n t i t y index, i s exact f o r the homo-geneous q u a d r a t i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f u n c t i o n (Diewert (1974a)) which i s capable of p r o v i d i n g a second-order approximation to an a r b i t r a r y twice d i f f e r e n t i a b l e l i n e a r homogeneous trans f o r m a t i o n f u n c t i o n . The homogeneous qua d r a t i c f u n c t i o n can be reduced to a L e o n t i e f technology and to a l i n e a r technology as s p e c i a l cases (Diewert (1974a)); the former i m p l y i n g zero s u b s t i t u t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s , the l a t t e r i n f i n i t e s u b s t i t u t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s . This extremely u s e f u l property minimizes p o s s i b l e c o n s t r a i n t s which may be imposed on the data base by the aggregating f u n c t i o n . Thus the index provides an e x c e l l e n t measure of p r o d u c t i v i t y growth over time. -.185 -We denote the Index o f change i n outputs during p e r i o d t as Q and denote the corresponding index o f change i n inputs as where the normal-i z a t i o n Q"*" = 1 and 1^ " = 1 i s imposed. The p e r i o d of study extends from 1946 when t = l to 1970 when t=25. The growth i n t o t a l input p r o d u c t i v i t y , T during p e r i o d t-1 i s determined as: ( l + T t ) t _ : L = Q t / I t t-1 25 (7) t t t t The three s e r i e s Q , I , and Q / I are presented i n Table I I below. TABLE I I : Results of P r o d u c t i v i t y Study. YEAR OUTPUT QUANTITY(Q) INPUT -QUANTITY (I) RATIO(Q/I) 1946 1.000 1.000 1.000 1947 .944 .968 .976 1948 1.019 .946 1.077 1949 .901 .979 .921 1950 1.015 .915 1.109 1951 1.122 .930 1.207 1952 1.288 .930 1.386 1953 1.326 -.985 1.347 1954 1.080 1.098 .984 1955 1.269 1.019 1.245 1956 1.417 1.060 1.336 1957 1.234 1.139 1.083 1958 1.241 1.069 1.161 1959 1.243 1.036 1.199 1960 1.309 i : o i 6 : 1.289 1961 1.091 1.069 1.021 1962 1.316 .941 1.398 1963 1.472 , . 958 1.536 1964 1.372 .998 1.374 1965 1.462 -.988 1.480 1966 1.678 1.991 1.694 1967 1.536 1.060 1.449 1968 1.704 1.058 1.612 1969 1.845 1.113 1.657 1970 1.861 1.154 1.613 In order to determine the annual r a t e of p r o d u c t i v i t y growth, i n a g r i c u l t u r e , a transformation to natural logs is performed on (7) and a regression is performed on the resulting model: . jInCQVl*) = (t-l)k + £fc t=l,:i.',25 (8) - i .8 :6> -w h e r e k = & n ( . l + T ) a n d e t i s a n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d e r r o r t e r m a s s u m e d t o h a v e t h e c l a s s i c a l , p r o p e r t i e s . F r o m t h e r e g r e s s i o n o f (.8) w e o b t a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t : i - n ( Q t / l t ) = ( t - 1 ) ( . 0 1 9 7 ) R 2 = . 6 4 5 (9) ( S E = . 0 0 1 5 6 ) D . W . = 1 . 8 8 7 w h e r e w e c o m p u t e = e ' ^ ^ - 1 = . 0 1 9 7 3 . In s i i m T h u s i - ^ w e f i n d t h a t o v e r t h e p o s t - w a r p e r i o d , u n m e a s u r e d p r o d u c t i v i t y h a s i n c r e a s e d a t t h e a v e r a g e r a t e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 . 9 7 % p e r a n n u m . T h i s m e a s u r e i s n o t e x a c t d u e t o f l u x u a t i o n s i n p r o d u c t i v i t y i n y e a r s w h e r e m a r k e t c o n d i t i o n s o r w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s h a v e b e e n p o o r . T h e r e s u l t o b t a i n e d , h o w e v e r , i s n o t e x c e s s i v e a n d m a y b e f u r t h e r r e d u c e d b y i n c r e a s i n g t h e n u m b e r o f m e a s u r e d d i m e n s i o n s i n t h e v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y a n d b y a t t e m p t i n g t o q u a n t i f y t h o s e i n p u t s i n t o a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n w h i c h h a v e n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d 6 i n t h i s s t u d y . T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f w a y s i n w h i c h a d d i t i o n a l d i m e n s i o n s i n m e a s u r e d v a r i a b l e i n p u t s m a y b e q u a n t i f i e d . I t s h o u l d b e p o s s i b l e f o r e x a m p l e t o c o r r e c t c a p i t a l i n p u t s f o r u t i l i z a t i o n r a t e s . H o w e v e r i f a l l o t h e r f a c t o r i n p u t s w e r e m e a s u r e d c o r r e c t l y t h i s c o r r e c t i o n w o u l d b e u n n e c e s s a r y s i n c e c h a n g e s f i n t t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f c a p i t a l w i l l r e s u l t i n c h a n g e s i n t h e d e r i v e d d e m a n d s f o r c o m p l e m e n t a r y i n p u t s s u c h a s e n e r g y . F u r t h e r e x t e n s i o n s c a n - r a l s o b e m a d e i n m e a s u r i n g t h e g r o w t h o f ; e m b o d i e d c a p i t a l i n t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o u r f o r c e r e s u l t i n g f r o m i n c r e a s e s i n a g e , t r a i n i n g a n d e d u c a t i o n l e v e l s . A t t h e s a m e t i m e i t m a y b e p o s s i b l e t o q u a n t i f y t h e q u a l i t y c h a n g e s i n l a b o u r i n p u t r e s u l t i n g f r o m s t r u c t u r a l c h a n g e s i n t h e m a l e / f e m a l e a n d f a m i l y / h i r e d c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s o f t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o u r f o r c e . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e i m p r o v e m e n t s i n e x i s t i n g i n p u t s , e x t e n s i o n s c o u l d b e m a d e b y i n t r o d u c i n g o t h e r , a t t h i s t i m e u n m e a s u r e d , i n p u t s i n t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s . F o r e x a m p l e m a n y i n t e r -m e d i a t e i n p u t s h a v e n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s t u d y d u e t o t h e l a c k o f s u f f i c i e n t 18 7 -p r i c e or quantity data. Another extension would be to e x p l i c i t l y include weather as another input i n t o a g r i c u l t u r a l production. This p o s s i b i l i t y i s a r e s u l t of recent advances i n the theory of production, most notably i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of d u a l i t y theory to the problem of econometrically estimating production r e l a t i o n s h i p s , which have resu l t e d i n the p o s s i b i l i t y that the shadow pr i c e s of the major environmental constraints, temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n , may be i m p l i c i t l y estimated. 7 7 VII.Co Conclusion Although the above extensions w i l l probably reduce the unmeasured dimension of p r o d u c t i v i t y growth they s t i l l do not explain what factors a c t u a l l y induce growth i n p r o d u c t i v i t y over time. Nor do they explain s h i f t s i n factor shares over time. In general i t i s d i f f i c u l t to separate the causes from the r e s u l t s of economic growth since both are dynamically intertwined over time. However i t i s p o s s i b l e to separate out the purely exogenous inducements to increase C ' f a c t o r p r o d u c t i v i t y from the endogenous inducements and effects.'' Generally the c e n t r a l r o l e i n the process of growth and development i s played by the entrepreneur who i s assumed to be motivated by the desire to maximize p r o f i t s . In addition to normal p r o f i t s , quasi-rents may be returned to the entrepreneur as a return f o r h i s a b i l i t i e s i n recognizing and adopting eit h e r e x i s t i n g knowledge or newly developed knowledge i n such a way as to increase productive e f f i c i e n c y r e l a t i v e to that of h i s competitors. Thus pure p r o f i t s or economic rents may be regarded as a return to the entrepreneur, f o r innovation, the s i z e of the return being dependant upon h i s innovative s k i l l s and i n h i s a b i l i t y to work wit h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l frameworks imposed by - -188 -society and within the constraints imposed by the e x i s t i n g state of technology. Given the framework outlined above there are a number of pos s i b l e ways by which growth and development may be induced. One way would be to broaden and deepen the e x i s t i n g stock of knowledge. This would imply that research and development has an important r o l e i n inducing p r o d u c t i v i t y growth by making a v a i l a b l e to the entrepreneur an in c r e a s i n g l y broadening stock of know-ledge. AnotherxequalTy important r o l e i s that of educating the entrepreneur to recognize and apply the a v a i l a b l e knowledge. In the long run the e f f e c t s of increasing research and development and of increasing educational l e v e l s w i l l be that of increasing the pure stock of knowledge a v a i l a b l e to society and of increasing t h i s stock of knowledge which has been embodied.in labour, c a p i t a l and i n intermediate inputs through the innovation s k i l l s of the entrepreneur. In the short run gains i n e f f i c i e n c y may be r e a l i z e d by society as a whole by relax i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework binding the entrepreneur. R i g i d and i n f l e x i b l e i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l hamper the rate of innovation. Three ways i n which e f f i c i e n c y can be gained through i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes are, f i r s t , by introducing i n s t i t u t i o n s such as marketing boards, which i f properly used w i l l increase the e f f i c i e n c y of the actual production process; second, by expanding the market f or a g r i c u l t u r a l products to the external sector; and t h i r d , by easing possible i n s t i t u t i o n a l b a r r i e r s to e f f i c i e n t a l l o c a t i o n of the factors of production i n a g r i c u l t u r e . Of course even i f the i n s t i t u t i o n a l b a r r i e r s to entrepreneural a b i l i t y were removed, the b a r r i e r s imposed by the e x i s t i n g state of technology would remain. Thus expected p r o f i t s rmust be constrained by the set of f e a s i b l e production p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The r e s u l t i n g optimization problem states that the ---1.8 9 -trade-off's between expected market revenues and costs must be equated with the t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y determined trade-offs between produced commodities and factors of production. Thus i n order to understand how t e c h n i c a l innovation may influence the future course of p r o d u c t i v i t y 'growth, we must know what the technological trade-off are i n production, a task which we w i l l attempt i n a future paper. The present paper i s concluded with a data appendix which tables the various r e n t a l prices and draws on the information contained i n Danielson [1975a]. - 190 APPENDIX:' ' RENTAL PRICES AND TAX RATES TABLE I: TAX RATES. YEAR PROPERTY TAX INCOME 1 1946 .01003 .0403 1947 .01015 .0606 1948 .01038 .0705 1949 .01127 .0502 1950 . OHIO .0359 1951 .01076 .0632 1952 .01117 .0741 1953 .01106 .0648 1954 .01182 .0374 1955 .01149 .0323 1956 .01126 .0447 1967 .01131 .0377 1958' .01124 .0500 1959 .01118 .0540 1960 .01128 .0564 1961 .01117 .0617 1962 .01120 .0713 1963 .01093 .0765 1964 .01019 .0859 1965 .00952 .0903 1966 .00907 .0932 1967 .00871 .1040 1968 .00855 .0993 1969 .00883 .0945 1970 .00937 .0924 - -l-9'l- -TABLE I I : . RENTAL PRICES.* MACHINERY YEAR BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT VEHICLES PASSENGER VEHICLES COMMERCIAL LAND 1946 56858 84501 217483 113253 56484 1947 61196 88615 255778 126351 56758 1948 71457 95804 293945 142252 57589 1949 74059 110431 310114 161683 57457 1950 76642 115198 309698 163542 56503 1951 89171 132280 360358 184433 57662 1952 93559 139638 370899 193263 58712 1953 98218 142891 365252 193300 62823 1954 96727 142872 361220 194194 61936 1955 96415 143119 333402 193338 61222 1956 100595 150451 338864 213710 61631 1957 103730 160257 371200 227274 61189 1958 98299 165266 375197 233222 54563 1959 100903 174893 393069 237876 54720 1960 113203 187724 404156 256965 65998 1961 112134 193196 392426 257447 64793 1962 111553 198201 387614 260082 63035 1963 115157 203639 388652 26054,9 63073 1964 121827 208527 379117 266428 62866 1965 127823 212868 376686 268837 62422 1966 136158 219660 369603 272452 62104 1967 146271 228303 378950 277927 s 63306 1968 159185 234756 385259 292323 63817 1969 182001 243639 387494 297632 64803 1970 187265 256934 395687 311744 67916 * values are based on stock p r i c e s which have been normalized to equal 1,000,000 i n 1961. - 19-2 -Sources and General Comments Average Per s o n a l Income Tax (U"t) Source: Various i s s u e s of Taxation S t a t i s t i c s , Department of N a t i o n a l Revenue, Taxation D i v i s i o n , Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, Canada. Co n s t r u c t i o n : B a s i c data - ( i ) number of taxable returns from farmers ( i i ) number of non-taxable returns from farmers ( i i i ) assessed taxable income ( i v ) t o t a l payable taxes ( i ) plus ( i i ) equals t o t a l returns (T) then iii * i i y l + Oil * 0 = u T ( i i i ) T U t Average Property Tax Rate (X f c) (HandDc-^ >i A g i i ^ . LUL. ; •'srL. : " .. Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, p u b l i c a t i o n number 21-511 (Handbook of A g r i c . S t a t . : P a r t IT) and v a r i o u s i s s u e s of 21-003. (Quarterly B u i . of A g r i c . S t a t . ) . C o n s t r u c t i o n : C a l c u l a t e d as the r a t i o of t o t a l taxes payable on a g r i c u l t u r a l land and s t r u c t u r e s to t h e i r t o t a l v a l u e . P r o p o r t i o n of E q u i t y i n F i x e d C a p i t a l (a) Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, p u b l i c a t i o n number 21-506 (.1958 Farm Survey, t a b l e s 4-5). C a l c u l a t i o n : C a l c u l a t e d a s [ l - (Farm Indebtedness/Total Value of Farm C a p i t a l ) ] a i s assumed to be constant over a l l years and f o r a l l types of c a p i t a l a = .921 i n 1958, t h e r e f o r e (1-a) - .079. - 193 -D e t e r i o r a t i o n and Obsolescence (<5^ ) Source: Woodland [1972; p. 19] Construction: Described i n Danielson [1975a] along with the construction of c a p i t a l stocks <S. = .05 f o r farm structures l = .3333 f o r passenger v e h i c l e s = .1333 f o r farm machinery = .20 for commercial ve h i c l e s = .00 f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l land Depreciation Allowable f o r Taxation Purposes (v^^^) Source: Farmer's and Fisherman's Tax Guide, Revenue Canada, Taxation D i v i s i o n , Ottawa. v . 5 . = .05 f o r farm structures x x = .15 for passenger ve h i c l e s = .10 for farm machinery = .15 f o r commercial v e h i c l e s = .00 f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l land "Farmer's and Fisherman's Tax Guide", Department of National Revenue, Taxation D i v i s i o n , Ottawa, Annual. Diewert [1972] has developed the concept of the r e n t a l p r i c e within the Hicks [1946] temporary equilibrium framework of production. King [1974] introduces personal income tax and property taxes and shows how they are r e l a t e d i n the r e n t a l formula. The calculated values i n the table do not correspond exactly to a f t e r personal income tax values. In order to c a l c u l a t e the true values of outputs and inputs we would have to d e f l a t e each by (1-U ) where U i s the average personal income tax rate (see equation (7)'). An example of such an ex post c o r r e c t i o n i s provided i n Auer [1969]. The index i s calculated r e s i d u a l l y and hence the factors i n f l u e n c i n g i t are not i d e n t i f i e d . An index number i s exact i f (see Diewert [1974a; p. 11]) i t provides an e r r o r l e s s measure of changesfdr. an aggregator function. We can predict that further disaggregation w i l l reduce the unexplained r e s i d u a l i f i n re-aggregating, the greater weights are assigned to the f a s t e s t growing inputs. (see Star [1973; p. 8]). Much of the following discussion i s based on N a d i r i [1970], Kennedy and T h i r l w a l l [1973] and The F i f t h Annual Review of The Economic Council;' of Canada. - 195 -BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Auer, L. (1969, "Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i v i t y " , S t a f f Study 24, Economic Council of Canada, Dec. 2. Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, National Housing S t a t i s t i c s , Annual from 1956. 3. Danielson, R.S., (1975a), "Output and Input Data f o r Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , 1926-1970", Research Branch, Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa. Forthcoming. 4. Diewert, W.E. (1973), "Applications of Duality Theory", Department of Manpower and Immigration, October. 5. Diewert, W.E. (1974a), "Homogeneous Weak Se p a r a b i l i t y and Exact Index Numbers", Tech. Report No. 12, IMSSS, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , January. 6. Diewert, W.E. (1974b), "Employment Industry by Occupation and Occupational Wage Estimates f o r Canada, 1926-1972", Department of Manpower and Immigration, November. 7. Diewert, W.E. (1972), "Walras Theory of C a p i t a l Formation and the Existence of a Temporary Equilibrium", Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa. 8. Economic Councils; of Canada (1968), "The Challenge of Growth and Change", F i f t h Annual Review, Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, September. 9. Furniss, I.F. (1964), "Productivity i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , 1935-1960: a Quarter Century of Change", Canadian Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 12:2141-53. 10. G r i l i c h e s , Z. , (1963), "Estimate of the Aggregate A g r i c u l t u r a l Production Function from^Cross-Sectional Data", Journal of Farm Economics (Proceedings Issue) Vol. XLV, May. 11. G r i l i c h e s , Z. (1963), "Measuring Inputs i n Agr i c u l t u r e : A C r i t i c a l Survey", Journal of Farm Economics, 42:1411-27, 1963. 12. G r i l i c h e s , Z., (1963), "The Sources of Measured P r o d u c t i v i t y Growth: United States A g r i c u l t u r e , 1940-60", Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, 71, No. 4, August. 331-346. 13. Hanoch, G., and Rothschild, M., (1972), "Testing the Assumptions of Production Theory: A Non-Parametric Approach", Journal of P o l i t i c a l  Economy, 80, 256-275. 14. Hicks, J.R. (1946), Value and C a p i t a l , 2nd e d i t i o n , Oxford: Clarendon Press. - 196 -15. Jorgenson, D.W. and Griliches, Z. (1972), "Issues in Growth Accounting: A Reply to Edward F. Denison", Survey of Current Business, 55:5, part II, 65-94. 16. Jorgenson, D.W. and Griliches, Z. (1967), "The Explanation of Product-i v i t y Change", Review of Economic Studies, 34:249-83, July. 17. Kennedy, C , and Thirlwall, A.P. (1973), "Technical Progress", in Surveys  of Applied Economics Vol. I, London, The MacMillan Press. 18. King, M.A. (1974), "Taxation and the Cost of Capital", Review of Economic  Studies, 41:21-35, January. 19. Lok, Siepko H. (1961), An Enquiry into the Relationships Between Changes  in Overall Productivity and Real Net Return per Farm, and between Changes  in Total Output and Real Gross Return, Canadian Agriculture, 1926-1957. Economics Division, Canadian Department of Agriculture, Technical Publication 61/13. Ottawa. 20. Mackenzie, W. (1962), "The Impact of Technological Change on the Efficiency of Production in Canadian Agriculture", Canadian Journal of Agricultural  Economics, 10, No. 1: 41-53. 21. Mackenzie, W. (1963), "Regional Changes in Income, Terms of Trade and Productivity within Canadian Agriculture", Canadian Journal of Agricultural  Economics, 11, No. 2:41-51. 22. Mackenzie, W. (1961), "The Terms of Trade, Productivity and Income of Canadian Agriculture", Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 9, No. 2:1-13. 23. Nadiri, M.I., (1970), "Some Approaches to the Theory and Measurement of Total Factor Productivity: A Survey", Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. VIII No. 3, September. 24. Star, S., (1973), "Accounting for the Growth of Output", Department of Economics, Southern Methodist University, Working Paper # 3, January. - 197 -A C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r a l T r a n s f o r m a t i o n F u n c t i o n 1946-1970: A D u a l A p p r o a c h by R o b e r t S. D a n i e l s o n R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t s Group S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g and R e s e a r c h Department of Manpower and I m m i g r a t i o n March 1975 - 1 9 8 -TABLE OF CONTENTS I I n t r o d u c t i o n and Summary I I Concepts i n Pro d u c t i o n Theory 2.1 The V a r i a b l e P r o f i t Function 2.2 E l a s t i c i t i e s of Te c h n i c a l S u b s t i t u t i o n 2.3 S e p a r a b i l i t y I I I The Production Framework 3.1 The A l g e b r a i c Framework 3.2 The V a r i a b l e s of the Model 3.3 C o n s t r u c t i n g Indexes of Temperature and P r e c i p i t a t i o n IV E s t i m a t i o n 4.1 S t o c h a s t i c Assumptions, E s t i m a t i o n Technique and Tests, of Hypotheses 4.2 T e s t i n g f o r Symmetry 4.3 S t o c h a s t i c P r o p e r t i e s of the Estimated Model 4.4 Economic P r o p e r t i e s of the Estimated Model 4.5 Imposing Convexity V Conclusions VI Appendix: Regression R e s u l t s - w.-.t - I t - , u a t l T l i i t e S T a b j . e I i : i u i a . i . y s^s> of Vaiiance I i H«t"in>8. en S t i a i - : - r_:i,bS _ . net •• . n?. - - J J.*, Table v> ...s t> -n.d " E l a s t i c . . V I I Footnotes V I I I B i b l i o g r a p h y * - . T i l l f o i S ted "''..« - 198a -L I S T OF TABLES T a b l e I : P a r a m e t e r E s t i m a t e s T a b l e I I : A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e T a b l e I I I : E s t i m a t e d Shadow P r i c e s T a b l e IV: 0, a , and E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r S e l e c t e d Y e a r s T a b l e V: e , u , n , and p E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r S e l e c t e d Y e a r s T a b l e V I : a , 3, 5 , and T E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r S e l e c t e d Y e a r s - 199 -I. Introduction and Summary. In t h i s paper we are concerned with demonstrating the techniques and the problems involved i n estimating a multiple-output production r e l a t i o n -ship f o r the Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l sector. We do not attempt to estimate the function d i r e c t l y but instead estimate i t s dual function, the va r i a b l e p r o f i t function. In the second section of the paper the concept of the p r o f i t function i s introduced and the conditions under which i t i s well-behavied are presented. The major b e n e f i t i n using the var i a b l e p r o f i t function to estimate production p o s s i b i l i t i e s i s revealed i n Ho t e l l i n g ' s Lemma. Section I I I introduces the algebraic framework which i s used to approximate the p r o f i t function and discusses the construction of the c l i m a t i c v a r i a b l e s included i n the study. In Section IV the modeling techniques of the study are discussed. S t a t i s t i c a l tests are performed f o r symmetry and convexity of the estimated parameters of the model. A method of imposing convexity i s also discussed. In the conclusion to the paper we re j e c t the hypothesis that producers i n a g r i c u l t u r e maximize p r o f i t subject to an aggregate production trans-formation function. However the conclusion i s q u a l i f i e d to be subject to probable errors e x i s t i n g i n the data and i n the assumptions made with respect to producer behavior and the state of technology. II. Concepts i n Production Theory. (2.1) The P r o f i t Function W.E. Diewert [1974b] and others"*" have proven that given c e r t a i n assumptions, production can be characterized equally w e l l through conditions imposed on - 200 -the production transformation f u n c t i o n , or on the l a t t e r f u n c t i o n ' s dual -r e l a t i o n s h i p , the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n . In t h i s paper we attempt to c h a r a c t e r i z e production v i a the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n . The v a l i d i t y of using the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n to model production p o s s i b i l i t i e s i s based on the b e h a v i o r a l assumption that producers are p r o f i t maximizers. In a d d i t i o n to t h i s c e n t r a l assumption, f o r s i m p l i c i t y we assume that a l l f a c t o r and commodity markets are competitive. Given the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n r e l a t e s maximum p r o f i t s achieved during each production p e r i o d to v a r i a b l e input and output p r i c e s and to a subset of "-• inputs which are h e l d f i x e d . I f there are J f i x e d inputs and I v a r i a b l e inputs and outputs, the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n can be w r i t t e n i m p l i c i t l y T as """(p; v) = 0 where P = (P^ P^ .) i s an I dimensional v e c t o r of T v a r i a b l e input and output p r i c e s , and v = ( v ^ , . . . , V j ) i s a J - dimensional v e c t o r of f i x e d i n p u t s . Thus the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n i s a s i n g l e - v a l u e d f u n c t i o n of p r i c e s and f i x e d f a c t o r endowments. As developed by Diewert [1974b] the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n i s a neo-c l a s s i c a l concept r e l a t e d to the a c t i v i t i e s a n a l y s i s approach to production. W i t h i n the t h e o r e t i c a l framework of t h i s approach a l l v a r i a b l e commodities appearing w i t h i n the production process are considered to be p o t e n t i a l outputs. Inputs are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from outputs by being p r e f i x e d w i t h negative s i g n s . I f i t becomes p r o f i t a b l e to the producer, an input i n t o production during one p e r i o d may become an output from pr o d u c t i o n during 2 the next. The p r o f i t f u n c t i o n as developed by Gorman [1968] and Diewert [1974b] 3 must s a t i s f y a number of c o n d i t i o n s . These can be summarized as f o l l o w s : - -2 01 -(i) the p r o f i t function i s non-negative and bounded above f o r given f i x e d inputs i . e . (a) ir(p; v) ^  0 for every p » 0^. and v _< jOy ~ T (b) T(p; v) _^  p b(v) f o r a l l p » O^  where the vector b(v) depends on v. ( i i ) the p r o f i t function i s subject to constant returns i n a l l p r i c e s and i n a l l f i x e d commodities i . e . f o r every X X > 0 , i r ( X p : X v ) = X X Tr(p; v) p v p v p v ( i i i ) the p r o f i t function i s continuous i n prices and i n fi x e d commodities and further, i s convex i n prices given f i x e d inputs and concave i n fi x e d inputs given p r i c e s . i . e . f o r a l l 0 <_ X <_ 1, p 2 » 0^ and v 2 <_ 0j (a) TT(X P ; L + (1-X) p 2 ; v) < V ( P j S v ) + (1-X) i r ^ ; v) (b) ir(p; X V ] L +(1-X) v 2 ) >_ X^(p; v±) + (1-X) TT (p; v 2> Conditions ( i ) impose r e g u l a r i t y conditions on the p r o f i t functions which are consistent with p r o f i t motivated constrained production. Conditions ( i i ) impose constant returns to scale when f i x e d inputs are allowed to vary i n addition to the var i a b l e inputs and outputs. Conditions ( i i i ) ensure that the p r o f i t function i s w e l l behaved f o r small changes i n r e l a t i v e p r i c e s and has a well-defined maximum as an entremum for each given vector of pr i c e s and f i x e d inputs. The advantage i n u t i l i z i n g the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t function to estimate e m p i r i c a l l y production p o s s i b i l i t i e s i s revealed i n the following lemma: - 202 -H o t e l l i n g ' s lemma (Gorman (1968) and Diewert (1973)): I f a v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n ir(p; v) s a t i s f i e s the three c o n d i t i o n s l i s t e d above and i n a d d i t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t i a b l e w i t h respect to v a r i a b l e commodity p r i c e s then: A A A A ir(p : v;)= u(p ;-Vv) (1) where Vp TT (p ; v ) i s the I-dimensional gradient v e c t o r of p a r t i a l d e r i v a t i v e s of the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n w i t h respect to p r i c e s at the p r o f i t maximizing * A v e c t o r s of p r i c e s p and f i x e d i n p u t s v , and where TI i s the I dimensional v e c t o r of corresponding p r o f i t maximizing d e r i v e d net supply q u a n t i t i e s . The i th element of id i s p o s i t i v e i f i t i s a net output or negative i f i t i s a net input. I f we assume f u r t h e r that the v e c t o r Vj of f i x e d inputs i s a c t u a l l y v a r i a b l e and that the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t i a b l e w i t h respect to v , * 5 then f o r w >> _0 we are able to show tha t : V v TT(P*; v*) = -w* (2) * * where ir (p ; v ) i s the J - dimensional gradient v e c t o r of the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n * A taken w i t h respect to the elements of y and w-, i s the v e c t o r of shadow p r i c e s or imputed costs imposed on production by the corresponding elements of v. R e l a t i o n (1) i s extremely u s e f u l f o r the econometric a p p l i c a t i o n of production theory. We need only p o s t u l a t e an a l e b r a i c f u n c t i o n a l form f o r the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n which i s d i f f e r e n t i a b l e w i t h respect to v a r i a b l e p r i c e s and d i f f e r e n t i a t e to o b t a i n a system of net supply f u n c t i o n s . The assumption of p r o f i t maximization "buys" increased degrees of freedom i n the econometric e s t i m a t i o n of the production r e l a t i o n s h i p . I f we have a d d i t i o n a l estimates of the returns to f i x e d f a c t o r s , we may use the r e l a t i o n s (1) and (2) to d e r i v e the parameters of the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n . ^ I f we do not have estimates- o f t h e - 203. -r e t u r n to f i x e d f a c t o r s , we may impute a shadow r e t u r n using r e l a t i o n s (2) and the accounting property which under competitive c o n d i t i o n s equates the value of output w i t h the value of input during each production p e r i o d . Thus returns to the f i x e d f a c t o r s are r e s i d u a l l y computed to be equal to net revenues during each p e r i o d . (2.2) E l a s t i c i t i e s of S u b s t i t u t i o n 7 R.G.D. A l l e n [1933] has shown that the H i c k s - A l l e n e l a s t i c i t y of s u b s t i t u t i o n between f a c t o r s i and j i n the production r e l a t i o n s h i p F ( X ^ , . . , X N ) can be expressed as: i i V h i F i j i where f. = 8 f ( X . X )/3X. and f . . = 9 2 f ( X . , . . . , X ) / 3 X . 3 X . and where l 1 n l i j 1 n i j 0 f. . . . f 1 n f l f l l * f l n f f ,. . . f n n l nn and I F . . I i s the i-1 t h c o - f a c t o r of the bordered h e s s i a n F . i ] J The concept of the e l a s t i c i t y of s u b s t i t u t i o n has been extended by Uzawa [1964] to the cost f u n c t i o n dual of the production f u n c t i o n . I n terms of the cost f u n c t i o n he was able to show th a t the e l a s t i c i t y of s u b s t i t u t i o n between inputs i and j could be expressed as: F|=det - 204 -C. . C - 3 J i , j = l , . . . , n 3 c. c. 1 J 2 where C. = 9C(w)/8w. and C.. = 8 C(w-,...,w )/3w.3w.. l l i j 1 n l j In h i s survey paper, Diewert [1974b] extended the concept to the g v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n by d e f i n i n g the f o l l o w i n g three e l a s t i c i t i e s : (a) An e l a s t i c i t y of transformation between v a r i a b l e commodities i and h: - "IT TT . . ih = 1 1 TT . TT, i h where Tr = 3TT(P ; v J/Sp^ i = l , . . . , I 2 * * and T r i h = 3 u(p ; v )/3p 1 3p h i , h = l , . . . , I (b) An e l a s t i c i t y of s u b s t i t u t i o n between f i x e d inputs j and k: TT TT fc a = i k T T . T T , . * A where TT. = 3n(p ; v )/3v;; j = l , . . . , J 2 A A and ffj.fc = 8 ^(P 5 v 3V j_ j , k = l , . . . , J (c) An e l a s t i c i t y of i n t e n s i t y between v a r i a b l e commodity i and f i x e d input TT TT . . . = — i = 1 1 1 1 TT. TT. ' ' 1 J 1 - 1 J A A A A where T T^ = 3TT(P ; v )/3p^, TT_. = 3TT(P ; v )/ 3v^ 2_ * * v , and T T.. = 3O>TT(P ; v )Z'3p. 3v; ; i j r ' r i j The 0... , a . T r and i i . . e l a s t i c i t i e s are not constrained over time or i n i h ' j K r i j Oj absolute value. These e l a s t i c i t i e s measure the s u b s t i t u t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s between the commodities produced and u t i l i z e d during the production process. - 2 05 -The three e l a s t i c i t i e s provide u n i t f r e e l o c a l measures of the response of v a r i a b l e outputs or inputs and rents imputed to f i x e d f a c t o r s to changes i n p r i c e s of v a r i a b l e outputs or inputs and changes i n q u a n t i t i e s of f i x e d f a c t o r s . They are perhaps most e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t e d as normalized ord i n a r y e l a s t i c i t i e s , where the n o r m a l i z a t i o n s have been chosen so that the Hicks-Samuelson symmetry co n d i t i o n s imposed by maximizing behavior are preserved. The estimates obtained f o r the above e l a s t i c i t i e s provide i n s i g h t i n t o the s u b s t i t u t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s between commodities i n production. However perhaps of more immediate use to the p o l i c y maker are estimates of the non-normalized e l a s t i c i t i e s between f i x e d and v a r i a b l e commodities. The non-normalized e l a s t i c i t i e s provide i n s i g h t i n t o the e f f e c t s of changes i n r e l a t i v e p r i c e s when account i s taken of the r e l a t i v e shares i n net revenue made up by the various f i x e d and v a r i a b l e commodities. The f o l l o w i n g non-normalized e l a s t i c i t i e s may be defined: ( i ) A p r i c e e l a s t i c i t y between v a r i a b l e commodities i and h which measures the r a t e of response of the net supply of commodity i r e l a t i v e to r a t e of p r i c e change of v a r i a b l e commodity h: = i __h , . , i h 3p, u. » > » h l ( i i ) An i n v e r s e p r i c e e l a s t i c i t y between f i x e d inputs j and k, measuring the response r a t e of the shadow cost of f i x e d input j r e l a t i v e to a r a t e of change i n endowment of f i x e d f a c t o r k: 3 w. x^ j k Sxj^ Wj izity or rsspcxise ' : ;;?£ the net supply - 2 0 6 -( i i i ) An e l a s t i c i t y or response r a t e of the net supply of commodity i r e l a t i v e to the r a t e of change i n endowment of f i x e d f a c t o r j : 3u ± x. n i j = ~3xT ' u. 1 = 1 1 J = 1»---» J J i ( i v ) An e l a s t i c i t y of response of the imputed (or shadow) p r i c e of f i x e d input j to a change i n p r i c e of v a r i a b l e commodity i : 3w. p. P . . = ,, -1 • — i = l I 3 1 9P, w. J -1=1 T The f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s h o l d between the normalized e l a s t i c i t i e s of t e c h n o l o g i c a l s u b s t i t u t i o n and the non-normalized e l a s t i c i t i e s : " ^ ^ ( i ) e u • e i h / s h = E h i / S i ( i i i ) ,±. = n . . / v . = p . . / S i where S, = p . u . / i r and V. = w.^c./ir. I n other words the normalized e l a s t i c i t i i l l J 3 3 are simply non-normalized e l a s t i c i t i e s d i v i d e d by the appropriate share i n net revenue. (2.3) S e p a r a b i l i t y The v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n Tr(p; -x) has been p r e v i o u s l y defined to be a s i n g l e valued f u n c t i o n o f a set of I v a r i a b l e commodity p r i c e s , and of a set of J f i x e d commodity endowments. We now p a r t i t i o n the I + J element set of v a r i a b l e and f i x e d commodities i n t o r mutually e x c l u s i v e and exhaustive subsets, N = [N^,... ,N ], a;ecording+tpoa.parfiit.io-nwR,;.\wher.e .-in 7-'^ . p>rM»euiUafiN.e= N U N where N = [N^,...,!^], N = [N .^^ .,... , 1 T ] and x j • P.' . •. P- - »*"'V N (\N ={0}. We now define l e s - 207 -z. 1 / „I 'p. p. e N 1 I . x. x. e N and d e fine the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n to be separable w i t h respect to the p a r t i t i o n R i f 9T T/9Z . 3 The p r o f i t f u n c t i o n i s weakly separable i f (1) holds f o r a l l z^, z^ e N G , z, it N s = l , . . . , r and i t i s s t r o n g l y separable i f (1) holds f o r a l l K. .. ;j S z. e N z. e N z, i N U N s , t = l , . . . , r i s j t k s tz The c o n d i t i o n f o r s e p a r a b i l i t y can be r e w r i t t e n upon d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g (1), as: —^— —^— =0 or as T T . T T . , - T T . T T . , = 0 (2) T T . . i i k i j k 33 J 2 where TT . = 9TT/9Z. and T T . , = 9 T T / 9 Z . 3z, 3 3 Jk 3 k M u l t i p l y i n g through (2) by ir/ir-n' TT . TT , we o b t a i n 3 1 K ^ i k _ 7 7 TT . TT, T T . TT^ ' i k j k (3) T h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s expressed by (2) or (3) may be used to t e s t s t a t i s t i c a l l y f o r s e p a r a b i l i t y between the various f i x e d and v a r i a b l e commodities of production. U n f o r t u n a t e l y the meaningfulhesss. of such a t e s t i s diminished by the f a c t that the same c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the s e p a r a b i l i t y hypothesis may r e s u l t from two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t p a r t i t i o n s . For example, suppose we wish to t e s t f o r s e p a r a b i l i t y between two commodities I and m from a l l other commodities. The same c o n s t r a i n t s w i l l be compatable w i t h a p a r t i t i o n having r=I + J - 1 subsets, %. and m being elements of the same subset, or a p a r t i t i o n - 2 08 -having r=2 subsets, w i t h I and m being elements of one subset, the remaining commodities being elements of the other. In a d d i t i o n to t h i s problem, Blackorb.y, R u s s e l l and Primont [1975] have r e c e n t l y shown that the c o n s t r a i n t s which are used to impose or to t e s t f o r s e p a r a b i l i t y may impose stronger s e p a r a b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s on the model thann one would l i k e . For example, a l i n e a r s e p a r a b i l i t y c o n s t r a i n t imposed on the Generalized L e o n t i e f production framework [Diewert (1973)], w i l l i m p l i c i t l y impose strong s e p a r a b i l i t y between the p a r t i t i o n e d v a r i a b l e s of the model, the commodities w i t h i n each p a r t i t i o n being r e l a t e d by a Generalized L e o n t i e f production framework. A n o n - l i n e a r s e p a r a b i l i t y c o n s t r a i n t w i l l impose weak s e p a r a b i l i t y between p a r t i t i o n s but w i l l i m p l i c i t l y impose the c o n s t r a i n t that the commodities w i t h i n each p a r t i t i o n are r e l a t e d by a s t r i c t l y L e o n t i e f production r e l a t i o n s h i p ; i . e one having zero s u b s t i t u t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s . I I I . The Pr o d u c t i o n Framework. One t h e o r e t i c a l r e s u l t obtained from p a r t I I i s that knowledge of the second d e r i v a t i v e s of the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n are s u f f i c i e n t to determine sub-s t i t u t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s w i t h i n the production framework and a l s o to determine various p r i c e e l a s t i c i t i e s . I n t h i s s e c t i o n we s p e c i f y a framework f o r the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n which can provide a second order l o c a l approximation to an a r b i t r a r y twice d i f f e r e n t i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e a l l o w s f o r the e m p i r i c a l e s t i m a t i o n of the e l a s t i c i t i e s between the f i x e d and v a r i a b l e commodities of production. (3.1) A l g e b r a i c Framework The fun&tionalwform whicheweaus'eehassbeenssuggfest'ed^byrDiewert [1973]. t t l i n e a r i n i t s parameters so that modified l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n techniques can - 209 -be used f o r e s t i m a t i o n purposes. Before e m p i r i c a l l y e s t i m a t i n g the frame-work i t has been modified by i n t r o d u c i n g an index of p r o d u c t i v i t y g r o w t h . ^ We assume that t e c h n o l o g i c a l progress has acted to r e l a x the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the endowments of f i x e d f a c t o r s . . By i n c r e a s i n g the production p o s s i b i l i t i e s s e t , t e c h n o l o g i c a l change has an impact on shadow p r i c e s and on the net s u p p l i e s of the v a r i a b l e commodities. We assume f o r convenience that the e f f e c t i v e r a t e of growth i n p r o d u c t i v i t y over time can be approximated by the n a t u r a l l o g a r i t h m of a simple time trend. With the i n t r o d u c t i o n of an index of t e c h n o l o g i c a l change, the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n i s w r i t t e n i n general as a f u n c t i o n of I v a r i a b l e input and output commodity p r i c e s , J f i x e d f a c t o r endowments, and technology. We w r i t e the f u n c t i o n to be estimated as: tfCpjxjt) = X .l± a ± hftp£ + i V2h)k x. + ± £ l j £ l c i j P . x . + I J J ^ ^ I J (3) .Z. E, b M p.x.2x,2 + . 1 . .En Y..p.x. (Jin t ) i = l j = l k=l j k i j k. i = l 3=1 1 1 * 1 3 whereaa., = a,'.; b., - b, . ; a. . = 0 i = l , . . . , I ; b, .=0 j = l , . . . , J . i h h i ' j k k j i i j j H o t e l l i n g ' s Lemma may be a p p l i e d to (1) to o b t a i n the f o l l o w i n g system of v a r i a b l e net supply f u n c t i o n s : 1 J 2 . u. ( P ; x ; t ) = WBp. = ^ fa a.^ihv. + %ph). p.x. + .E. c. .x. + . I , . Z. b M x? x? + .E. y . . ( k t ) x. i = l , . . . ,1 j = l i j j j = l k=l j k J K j = l i i J The shadow p r i c e or rent imputed to the j * " * 1 f i x e d f a c t o r may be obtained by d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the v a r i a b l e p r o f i t f u n c t i o n w i t h respect to the j 1 " * 1 f i x e d f a c t o r . The f o l l o w i n g system of equations i s obtained: - 210 -I I I w. (p ;x;t) - 3rr/3x. = h £ l a . h ( % p 2 + ^ p 2 ) 3 * + ^ C y p . + I J I ' i y i W ) J p i + i S i ^ i i ( £ n t ) p i J=I,...,J The following second-order derivatives are also needed to determine the various e l a s t i c i t i e s between v a r i a b l e inputs and outputs and f i x e d f a c t o r s : E . 2 2 2 J ^ h S i a i h ( ^ i + ^h> P h ^ i - j ) h / i 3/ J h a i h ( % P 2 + % p 2 ) " 2 P i P h C j ^ Xj) h * i h,i=l,...,I (6) J * -3/? 1 A.2 ) k?*j 3 TT ' • J J k , j = l , . . . , J (7) 2 1 J r r ~ = h£i a i h ^ i + * * h > " \ + c i j + k = i V V x i ) h P i ( 8 ) 3p. 3x i I + y.^ £n t i = l , . . . , I j = l , . . . , J We also define the following derivatives taken with respect to the index of technological change: ft ' <jii A ^ i i p i V / e ( 9 ) i 2 (.\ P ±) 3 7 7 = — 3=1,...,J (10) 3x f 3t t J J .2 (y.. .Z. x.) - — 1 1 -1=1 -1 1=1,...,I (11) 3p. 3t t l - 2 1 1 -and the f o l l o w i n g e l a s t i c i t i e s which describe the ra t e s of response of shadow p r i c e s and net output s u p p l i e s to a change i n p r o d u c t i v i t y growth: j t TT TT . i t i t TT . Tf 1 t j - l , . . . , J (12) i = l , . . . , I (13) : j t . 3w4 t J t 4--. j = l J (14) 3t w. 3 3 U i t i t 3t u. l 1=1.,,,.I (15) 12 where 3 . = ct. /V and T_ = <5;: /V.. j t j t t i t ^ i t j (3.2) The V a r i a b l e s of the Model The framework we have developed has been estimated w i t h seven v a r i a b l e net supply q u a n t i t i e s and three f i x e d input commodities. There are three v a r i a b l e outputs - crops, l i v e animal output, and animal products as w e l l as four v a r i a b l e inputs - op e r a t i n g c a p i t a l , l abour, intermediate i n p u t s , and energy. The three f i x e d f a c t o r s i n c l u d e an index of temperature, measured i n degrees Fahrenheit an index of p r e c i p i t a t i o n measured i n in c h e s , and an index of a g r i c u l t u r a l land and s t r u c t u r e s measured i n u n i t s of $ 1,000,000 1961 d o l l a r s . Quantity indexes have been constructed f o r each commodity type. P r i c e indexes have only been constructed f o r the v a r i a b l e commodities. The major conventions u s u a l l y adopted i n the modern theory of production are adopted f o r purposes of t h i s study. One r e s u l t i s that during aggregation the weights assigned to the v a r i o u s durables have been determined by r e n t a l p r i c e s r a t h e r - 212 -than by stock p r i c e s . The weights assigned to non-durables are determined by market p r i c e s . A l s o , inputs of animal and crop i n v e n t o r i e s have been inc l u d e d w i t h intermediate i n p u t s . Outputs of crop i n v e n t o r i e s at the end of the production p e r i o d have been aggregated w i t h f r u i t , vegetable and f i e l d crop outputs w h i l e the output of animal i n v e n t o r i e s have been aggregated w i t h l i v e animal output. In a d d i t i o n the these conventions, indexes of temperature and of p r e c i p i t a t i o n , the major c l i m a t i c f a c t o r s determining the l e v e l of a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n , have been constructed and i n c l u d e d i n the production study. Before examining the e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s obtained from our estimated model we w i l l examine b r i e f l y the r a t i o n a l e f o r i n c l u d i n g an index of weather and the method by which the indexes of temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n were constructed. (3.3) C o n s t r u c t i n g Indexes of Temperature and P r e c i p i t a t i o n I t i s w e l l known that the p r o d u c t i v i t y of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to c l i m a t i c v a r i a b l e s i n a d d i t i o n to s o i l v a r i a b l e s . C l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s not only c o n s t r a i n the production p o s s i b i l i t i e s set by d i c t a t i n g which crops can f e a s i b l y be grown but a l s o are mainly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r much of the y e a r l y f l u c t u a t i o n s i n the output of these crops. Although the importance of climate i s c l e a r l y recognized, the c o r r e c t measure of i t s i n f l u e n c e i s almost impossible due to the many f a c t o r s w i t h which i t i s i n t e r r e l a t e d . The best measure of climate., would be an index of e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n , or water need, of p l a n t s . However such an index would have to i n c o r p o r a t e such v a r i a b l e s as the consistency of s o i l and i t ' s a b i l i t y to h o l d moisture, the type of p l a n t cover or crop, the amount of d a y l i g h t , minimum and maximum temperatures and the amount of p r e c i p i t a t i o n . The c o n s t r u c t i o n of such an index i s a major undertaking, i f not i m p o s s i b l e , t h e r e f o r e we attempt to construct an a l t e r n a t i v e much s i m p l e r , but s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y unbiased measure of c l i m a t e . - 213 -We construct two indexes, one a weighted average of temperatures i n the major a g r i c u l t u r a l areas of Canada and the second, an unweighted average of p r e c i p i t a t i o n l e v e l s i n Canada. The second index i s simply the aggregate of monthly average p r e c i p i t a t i o n l e v e l s . We do not attempt to weight the influence of p r e c i p i t a t i o n across months, assuming that the influence of r a i n f a l l , c e t e r i s peribus, remains constant over the growing period. We assume instead that temperatures provide the major constraining influence i n a g r i c u l t u r a l crop production. j In order to derive an unbiased index of the influence of temperature, average temperatures f o r each month, weighted by the months proportion i n t o t a l degree-days f o r the s i x month growing period, May through October, were aggregated. The weighting measure, the number of degree days i n each month, provides an approximation to the cummulative growing period during the month. The concept of the degree day i s r e l a t i v e l y simple. One degree day r e s u l t s for each degree that the mean temperature of the day i s above 42 degrees Fahrenheit. No degree days are counted when the mean d a i l y temperature i s below 42 degrees. This temperature i s taken as the break-off point i n measuring degree days because the growth rate of crops comes almost to a s t a n d - s t i l l when minimum d a i l y temperatures f a l l below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. An average temperature spread of 10 degrees during the day r e s u l t s i n an average maximum temperature of 42 degrees. Thus a mean temperature of 42 degrees Farenheit i s used to denote the s t a r t and end of the growing period. By counting one degree day for each degree the d a i l y average exceeds 42 degrees Fahrenheit we attempt to combine the length of the growing period with mean d a i l y temperature. Serious weaknesses s t i l l remaining with t h i s index, however, are that i t does not account f o r day length or f o r hours of di r e c t sunlight. - 214' -Estimates of the average number of degree days i n each month and f o r each province i n Canada are t a b l e d by Aston [1969]. The average f o r each month and province i s based on a f i f t e e n year average, over the p e r i o d 1953 to 1967. Values f o r each year are based on a c t u a l d a i l y observations made by 150 s t a t i o n s i n 100 areas spanning Canada. In summary, the eleven v a r i a b l e s , i n c l u d i n g the indexes of temperature and r a i n f a l l , which u l t i m a t e l y enter the estimated production r e l a t i o n s h i p are as f o l l o w s : (1) Crop Outputs (C) - i n c l u d i n g f i e l d crop outputs, f r u i t outputs, vegetable outputs and crop i n v e n t o r y outputs. (2) L i v e Animal Outputs (A) - i n c l u d i n g p o u l t r y , duck, goose, turkey, v e a l , beef, lamb, and pork outputs plus animal inventory outputs. (3) Animal Products (P) - i n c l u d i n g outputs of eggs and m i l k plus miscellaneous animal outputs such as wool production. (4) Operating C a p i t a l (0) - i n c l u d i n g stocks of farm machinary and equipment, automobiles [used f o r farm purposes], and farm t r u c k s . (5) Labour (L) - i n c l u d i n g estimates of f a m i l y labour and h i r e d labour s e r v i c e s . (6) Intermediate Inputs (I) - i n c l u d i n g inputs of commercially purchased g r a i n , twine, hardware, f e r t i l i z e r p l u s inventory i n p u t s of crops and l i v e s t o c k . (7) Energy (E) - i n c l u d i n g purchases of e l e c t r i c i t y and of petroleum - 215 -(8) Temperature (T) - s i x month unweighted average. (9) P r e c i p i t a t i o n (R) - s i x month average, weighted by degree-days. (10) Land and.-Structures (S) - i n u n i t s of 1,000,000 1961 d o l l a r s . (11) T e c h n o l o g i c a l Change (t) - the n a t u r a l l o g of a simple time trend. A comprehensive d e s c r i p t i o n of the data base used to c o n s t r u c t the v a r i a b l e s of the model i s provided by Danielson [1975a]. An examination of the major conventions adopted i n order to measure the productive s e r v i c e s s u p p l i e d by c a p i t a l , labour and i n v e n t o r i e s i s provided by Danielson [1975b]. In what f o l l o w s , the v a r i a b l e s above w i l l be r e f e r e d to by number or by corresponding bracketed l e t t e r s . A l s o , a c i r c u m f l e x over a parameter or v a r i a b l e denotes that i t i s an estimate obtained by l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n techniques. IV. E s t i m a t i o n . ( 4.1) S t o c h a s t i c Assumptions, E s t i m a t i o n Techniques and Tests of Hypotheses The estimated model i s comprised of a system of seven derived net supply equations. The seven equations making up the system are recognized to be i n t e r r e l a t e d . Thus the s t o c h a s t i c disturbances f o r the system are assumed to have been drawn from a s e p t - v a r i a t e p o p u l a t i o n having zero e x p e c t a t i o n and a constant covariance m a t r i x (fi). The s t o c h a s t i c assumptions can be w r i t t e n as: E [ e t ] = 0 T f E [ E e ] = £2 s=t s,t=l,...,T I 0 s * t when e i s the stacked r e s i d u a l e r r o r s of the model at time t . These s t o c h a s t i c assumptions are equivalent to assuming that any d e v i a t i o n s i n the estimated p r o f i t maximizing net supply q u a n t i t i e s are random. 2T6 -Consistent estimates of the parameters of the model were obtained by r e s t r i c t e d g e n e r a l i z e d l e a s t squares. The program used, U.B.C. R.L.S. [1974] obtained the p r e l i m i n a r y estimates by A i k t i n ' s [1935] two stage procedure, f i r s t o b t a i n i n g g e n e r a l i z e d l e a s t squares estimates and then minimizing the r e s u l t i n g r e s i d u a l s of the system subject to the r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed.' Consistant and e f f i c i e n t estimates of the parameters were obtained by f u l l i n f o r m a t i o n maximum l i k e l i h o o d , using the estimates obtained by A i k t i n ' s proceedure as s t a r t i n g values of the parameters. The program used, FIML, i s developed by Chapman and F a i r [1972] and i s based on Chow and F a i r [1971]. Estimates are obtained by maximizing the l i k e l i h o o d f u n c t i o n of the system of equations w i t h respect to the parameters of the model and w i t h respect to the covariance m a t r i x of the r e s i d u a l s subject to the c o n s t r a i n t s of the model. The convergence technique i s Newton's method of i t e r a t i o n s . Convergence i n the study i s achieved when the maximum change i n any parameter?' -4 between two i t e r a t i o n s i s l e s s than 10 Hypothesis t e s t i n g may be c a r r i e d out usin g the l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o t e s t or by using the F - t e s t . The former, described i n T h e i l [1971; 98-100, 396-397] i n v o l v e s t a k i n g the r a t i o of the l i k e l i h o o d f u n c t i o n maximized under the n u l l hypothesis to the l i k e l i h o o d f u n c t i o n maximized under the a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis. Minus two times t h i s r a t i o i s a s y m p t o t i c a l l y Chi-square d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h degrees of freedom equal to the a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r a i n t r e q u i r e d by the n u l l hypothesis. A t e s t using the F - s t a t i s t i c would be equivalent to one performed using the l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o t e s t under the assumptions of f u l l i n f o r m a t i o n maximum l i k e l i h o o d . The two t e s t s are r e l a t e d i n that the F- t e s t takes the r a t i o o f the Chi-square r e s u l t obtained a s y m p t o t i c a l l y by - 217 -the l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o t e s t to the Chi-square r e s u l t obtained by an unconstrained maximum l i k e l i h o o d r e g r e s s i o n . The F - t e s t i s d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h d i s t r i b u t i o n parameters being the number of c o n s t r a i n t s imposed i n the r e s t r i c t e d model and the degrees of freedom i n the unconstrained model. (4.2) T e s t i n g f o r Symmetry R e j e c t i o n of the symmetry c o n d i t i o n i m p l i e s that the derived net supply equations of our model are not i n t e g r a b l e i n t o a p r o f i t f u n c t i o n . Thus a t e s t f o r symmetry i n the parameters of the system of d e r i v e d equations i s i n f a c t a t e s t f o r the e x i s t a n c e of a p r o f i t f u n c t i o n and, i n d i r e c t l y , f o r the existance of an aggregate production f u n c t i o n . In t e s t i n g f o r symmetry, we impose 39 symmetry c o n s t r a i n t s of the form a_j^ = a ^ i,h=l,...,7 L/h and b 4 ^ = l e a v i n g 52 independant para-meters to estimate. Thus are 84 degrees of freedom i n the system. We wish to t e s t the n u l l hypothesis that the parameters of our system are symmetric. The t e s t employed i s F i s h e r ' s F - t e s t which i s an approximate t e s t given the two-stage Aikte n ' s e s t i m a t i o n procedure'.- The F s t a t i s t i c obtained from the constrained r e g r e s s i o n has a value equal to 4.255. The o c r i t i c a l v a l u e , given 39 c o n s t r a i n t s and 84 degrees of freedom and .05 l e v e l of confidence i s 1.54. Our c o n c l u s i o n , given our r e s u l t s , must be to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis. This r e s u l t i s r a t h e r d i s a p p o i n t i n g , i n that i t suggests that c o n d i t i o n a l upon the v a l i d i t y of our data and model s p e c i f i c a t i o n , we cannot accept the hypothesis that there e x i s t s an aggregate p r o f i t f u n c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e a corresponding aggregate production f u n c t i o n f o r the Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r . At t h i s p o i n t , we f o r c e symmetry and keep i t as a maintained hypothesis i n order to estimate the parameters of the model. - 218 -(4.3) Stochastic Properties of the Estimated Model The r e s u l t s of an equation by equation analysis of variance f o r the estimated system of seven equations constrained f o r symmetry are presented i n Table II of the Appendix. We wish to test f i r s t f o r the existence of s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n . The test employed i s the modified Von-Neumann Ratio. Each equation has twenty-five observations and th i r t e e n parameters to estimate. The one-tailed test f o r p o s i t i v e autocorrelation with twelve degrees of freedom and 95% l e v e l of confidence y i e l d s a Von-Neumann r a t i o of 1.060. S i m i l a r l y , the one-tailed test f o r negative autocorrelation y i e l d s a Von-Neumann r a t i o of 2.97. The calculated Durban Watson s t a t i s t i c for each equation f a l l s within the region between the two c r i t i c a l r a t i o s . Thus we do not r e j e c t the hypothesis of zero autocorrelation. Within each equation most of the cr o s s - r e l a t i o n s h i p parameters between various r e l a t i v e prices and endowments are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero. This r e s u l t suggests that r e l a t i v e prices and endowments play a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n determining r e l a t i v e net output quantities supplied i n a g r i c u l t u r e . In summary we conclude that the estimated model s a t i s f a c t o r i l y achieves the "nice" properties we would l i k e i t to have, both with respect to stochastic properties and with respect to explanatory power. The regression r e s u l t s are tabled i n an appendix, section VI. - 219 -(4.4) Economic P r o p e r t i e s of the Estimated Model Unf o r t u n a t e l y , the estimated parameters of our system do not meet a l l the c o n d i t i o n s which have been imposed on the framework by economic theory. There are three c o n d i t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n part I which we would l i k e the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n to have. The f i r s t c o n d i t i o n , n o n - n e g a t i v i t y and boundedness of p r o f i t s i s s a t i s f i e d by the constructed data base. The second assumption, of constant returns i n p r i c e s and i n f i x e d f a c t o r s are imposed a_ p r i o r i on the framework and i s c a r r i e d as a maintained hypothesis during e s t i m a t i o n . The t h i r d c o n d i t i o n , that the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n be convex i n p r i c e s and concave i n f i x e d f a c t o r endowments, i s c r u c i a l to the assumption of p r o f i t maximizing 13 behavior i n a g r i c u l t u r e . The necessary and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r convexity i n p r i c e s i s that the Hessian m a t r i x of p a r t i a l d e r i v a t i v e s of the 2 p r o f i t f u n c t i o n w i t h respect to v a r i a b l e p r i c e s , [rr., ] _ = [9 rr/Sp.Bp, ] T _ r i h I x l l h I x l i , h = l , . . . , I , be p o s i t i v e s e m i d e f i n i t e . S i m i l i a r l y , the necessary and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r concavity i n f i x e d f a c t o r endowments i s that the Hessian m a t r i x , 2 l4r '•TTjk^JxJ = [9 TT/9X, SXRIJXJ j»k=l,...,J be negative semidef i n i t e . The t e s t performed on the model i n v o l v e d computing the eigenvalues f o r each Hessian and v e r i f y i n g t h e i r n o n - n e g a t i v i t y ( f o r convexity) or non-15 p o s i t i v i t y ( f o r c o n c a v i t y ) . The r e s u l t of the t e s t proved to be d i s a p p o i n t i n g . Neither p r i c e s nor f i x e d f a c t o r s were found to s a t i s f y the appropriate r e g u l a r i t y condition."*"^ (4.5) Imposing Convexity I t i s p o s s i b l e to impose e i t h e r convexity or concavity c o n s t r a i n t s on the parameters of the model. The method has been suggested by Lau [1974] and uses the f a c t that any p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e Hessian m a t r i x may be decomposed i n t o p r i m i t i v e matrices by the Cholesky decomposition. - 2 2 0 -The method i s as f o l l o w s : i f the m a t r i x of second order p a r t i a l d e r i v a t i v e s taken w i t h respect to p r i c e s , [Tr-Q1] s ay» ^ s p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e ( a f t e r dropping the l a s t row and column of the o r i g i n a l m a t r i x ) , then the I - l by I - l m a t r i x can be expressed i n terms of the elements of a lower t r i a n g u l a r m a t r i x L and a diagonal m a t r i x D w i t h p o s i t i v e elements. The f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p holds: ^ i h ] = ^ D l / ) l h ] i,h=l,...,1-1 (1) I f we impose r e l a t i o n (1) l o c a l l y f o r the base year 1961, then s i n c e i n t h i s year p r i c e s are normalized to equal 1, the Hessian [ T r^] c a n be w r i t t e n as (dropping the 7th row and column): ^ i h ] = * < j - i V h=2 a l h -a 12 -a 21 h=l a 2 h h^2 -a 31 -a 32 a 6 1 S62 -a. 13 -a 23 which by p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e n e s s , can be expressed as: -a 16 -a 26 7 h=l a6h h^6 LDL D 11 L 2 1 D 1 1 L 3 1 D 1 1 L 2 1 D 1 1 L 2 1 L 2 1 D 1 1 + D 2 2 L 3 1 L 2 1 D 1 1 + L 3 2 D 2 2 L 61 D 11 L 6 1 L 2 1 D 1 1 + L 6 2 D 2 2 • L 6 1 D 1 1 L 6 1 L 2 1 D 1 1 + L 6 2 D 2 2 ' L 6 l 5 l l t i - + i 6 5 6 5 5 + D 6 6 - 221 -Thus, i n order to impose convexity l o c a l l y ( f o r the base y e a r ) , we T simply equate the elements of ['"'.QJ w i t h the corresponding elements of LDL . The system of equations i n then re-estimated, having s u b s t i t u t e d the elements T of LDL f o r the corresponding parameters i n t 7 1'.^-'' I f necessary one can * 2 -a l s o impose the c o n s t r a i n t D.. = D. . •-. - ^  i = l , . . . , I - l to ensure that the c 11 i x ' elements of D are non-negative as i s r e q u i r e d f o r p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e n e s s . Since each main diagonal element of the Hessian m a t r i x f o r the p r o f i t f u n c t i o n i s not independent of the elements of the corresponding row, we ob t a i n estimates of the diagonal elements i n terms of the o f f - d i a g o n a l elements of each row which i n t u r n are expressed i n terms of the o f f - d i a g o n a l T elements of LDL / The major problem a s s o c i a t e d w i t h imposing convexity i s that the c o n s t r a i n t s being imposed on the parameters are n o n - l i n e a r . I n l a r g e systems of equations, using current n o n - l i n e a r e s t i m a t i n g techniques and programs, these non-l i n e a r i t i e s w i l l r e s u l t i n unstable parameter estimates and poor r e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s . V. Conclusions. The f a i l u r e of the model to pass the t e s t s f o r symmetry and f o r convexity would suggest that the hypothesis that farmers i n Canadians a g r i -c u l t u r e maximize p r o f i t s subject to an aggregate t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f u n c t i o n must be r e j e c t e d . This c o n c l u s i o n however, i s c o n d i t i o n a l given p o s s i b l e e r r o r s of m i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n a r i s i n g from the data base being used, from the v a r i a b l e s constructed f o r the study, and from the s i m p l i s t i c assumptions made w i t h respect to the dynamics of production and expectations formation. Ah attempt to c o r r e c t f o r these e r r o r s by e x p l o r i n g more e x t e n s i v e l y the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the n e o - c l a s s i c a l theory of production may r e s u l t i n more s a t i s f y i n g r e s u l t s . 2 2 2 -When considering the data base which has been compiled, f o r example, one should consider whether i t i s i n fac t representative of ac t u a l a g r i -c u l t u r a l production r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The two e a r l i e r papers by Danielson ((1975a, 1975b)) were devoted to t h i s question. Some possible suggestions f o r reducing the errors a r i s i n g from the data base used have been made i n these studies and include: 1) Attempting to provide better estimates of actual u t i l i z a t i o n rates of the primary factors i n production. This need i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n a g r i c u l t u r e which i s subject to considerable c y c l i c a l behavior due both to seasonal and market conditions. 2) Attempting to measure the growth i n knowledge embodied within the labour force due to increases i n education and i n experience. An attempt may also be made to measure changes i n the q u a l i t y of the labour force a r i s i n g from changes i n i t ' s structure over time, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to male and female employment and i n the employment of family and h i r e d labour. Errors i n the model may also r e s u l t i f the variables included i n the study, have not been disaggregated enough. One may f o r example be j u s t i f i e d i n disaggregating the constructed variables of the model further on a geo-graphical b a s i s , f o r example by separating out f r u i t and vegetable production from that of graincrops, since the two types of crops may be assumed to be produced separably, since each i s produced i n separate regions under d i f f e r e n t c l i m a t i c conditions. In any case one could argue f o r the necessity of d i s -aggregating the indexes of temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n further on a regional basis. - 223 -The s t a t i c nature of the model and erros i n our assumptions about the manner i n which t e c h n i c a l change i n t e r a c t s w i t h the technology may a l s o have created m i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n e r r o r s . The s t a t i c nature of the model r e s u l t s from our assumption that producers make production plans based on s t a t i c expectations and a one-period planning h o r i z o n . We are thus i g n o r i n g the i n t e r - t e m p o r a l nature of the production flow and of production planning and thus a l s o the e f f e c t s of u n d e r t a i n t y and expec-t a t i o n s on f u t u r e production. Although there e x i s t s a great deal of u n c e r t a i n t y about the dynamics of expectations formation, the s t a t i c nature of the model may be r e l a x e d by a l l o w i n g the expected p r i c e to vary from the a c t u a l p r i c e over the production p e r i o d . A d d i t i o n a l e r r o r s may r e s u l t from the use of average tax rates i n computing r e n t a l p r i c e s f o r farm durables i n s t e a d of marginal tax rates as would be suggested by economic theory and from the assumption i m p l i c i t l y b u i l t i n t o the model that farmers are aware of weather co n d i t i o n s which w i l l p r e v a i l during the production p e r i o d . This second source of e r r o r s may be reduced by a l l o w i n g expected weather c o n d i t i o n s to vary from those experienced during each production p e r i o d . In c o n c l u s i o n , we hope that f u t u r e researchers w i l l b e n e f i t from our p r e l i m i n a r y e x p l o r a t i o n s of the Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r . - 224 -VI. Appendix: Regression R e s u l t s . TABLE I : Parameter Estimates ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses), LAMETER COEFFICIENT PARAMETER COEFFICIENT YCC -1.6733 (-.983) a i E -.1691 (1.204) aCA -1.2045 (-3.179) YEiE -.1250 (-1.108) acp - .3695 (-1.960) CCT -47.55 (-.801) aco -6.8074 (-7.137) CCR 29.21 (.671) aCL - .6571 (-1.542) ccs 17.26 (1.437) a c i 1.2320 (4.428) c AT -6.13 (-.241) aCE - .6034 (-3.147) °AR 12.77 (1.081) YAA .5152 (1.982) CAS -6.70 (-2.267) aAP .3393 (2.869) -20.25 (-.821) aA0 2.0860 (4.739) CPR 12.49 (1.146) aAL -1.2845 (-7.313) CPS -5.36 (-2.068) a A I .0609 (.281) C0T -50.68 (-1.45) aAE .1727 (1.527) C0R -3.90 (- -176) YPP .2841 (2.6) cos 1.17 (.194) ^0 .3041 (.985) °LT -52.58 (-1.986) ^ L .0914 (1.245) °LR 9.77 (.716) Hi .5029 (3.69) CLS -11.72 (-3.39) ^E -.0842 (-.7) C I T -22.48 (-.89) Yoo .3063 (.368) C I R 20.67 (1.83) a0L .5206 (1.427) c i s -2.96 (-1.09) a o i -1.9553 (-4.861) c ET -10.80 (-.441) a0E 1.0640 (3.206) CER 17.43 (1.632) YLL 2.4357 (6.53) CES -5.20 (-2.110) "LI .9261 (6.63) bTR -38.46 (-2.97) \ E -.5263 (-7.07) bTS 11.04 (1.45) Y I I -.7011 (-3.393) bRS 9.21 (2.84) - 2 2 5 -TABLE I I : Analysis of Variance. Eqn*#iTFJiS. R F - r a t i o D.W. 1 .794 3.271 1.654 2 .920 9.710 1.314 3 .958 19.075 1.526 4 .811 3.637 1.747 5 .962 21.327 1.805 6 .963 22.146 1.599 7 .967 25.135 1.784 - 22 6 -TABLE I I I : Shadow P r i c e s . YEAR TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION LAMB AND STI 1946 -78.69 -33.98 9.30 1947 -88.44 -37.70 10.74 1948 -77.94 -55.81 9.98 1949 -82.63 -45.74 10.45 1950 ' -78.96 ^ - 2 7 . 8 3 9.46 1951 -83.76 ^-T9r50 9.83 1952 -90.46 -24.69 9.90 1953 -78.36 -29.65 8.60 1954 -88.53 - 2.42 9.09 1955 -70.96 -19.77 8.04 1956 -71.54 -17.63 7.76 1957 -71.031 -12.49 7.63 1958 -60.27 -30.67 7.19 1959 -79.02 - 9.97 8.35 1960 -68.45 -27.42 7.86 1961 -67.04 -40.25 8.09 1962 -85.51 - 7.27 8.92 1963 -88.13 -17.51 9.10 1964 -90.86 - 3.56 8.99 1965 -103.1 11.29 9.95 1966 -83.26 - 6.43 8.70 1967 -72.26 -26.85 7.71 1968 -92.06 9.23 8.34 1969 -81.89 2.60 7.67 ,19 7 0,. . -91.54 - 2.26 8.56 * i n $1,000,000 - 227 -TABLE IV: 9 , cr and * E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r Selected Years. ELASTICITY e cc e CA e CP e CD 6 CL e c i e CE V 0 AP 0 AL 9 A I 0 AE 0 PP e PO 0 OL 0 PI 0 PE 6 00 0 OL 0 01 e OE 0 LL 9 LI 0 LE 0 II 0 IE 0 EE a TT a TR a TS 1947 1958 1963 1970 AVERAGE -.620 -.305 -.603 -;'291 -.451 .245 .132 .245 .097 .192 .095 .046 .099 .044 .074 -1.981 -.544 -1.143 -.373 -1.004 -.058 -.052 -.096 -.044 -.066 .415 .239 .389 .160 .341 -.609 -.150 -.331 -.150 -.289 .003 .055 .055 .045 .040 1.509 .512 1.024 .329 .872 -.281 -.319 -.559 -.329 -.390 .052 .037 .056 .023 .049 .410 .138 .275 .126 .233 .451 .349 .849 .443 .575 .265 .085 .197 .070 .162 .024 .026 .052 .033 .035 .513 .348 .614 .276 .511 -.245 -.076 -.178 -.089 -.144 -5.686 -.822 -1.870 -?362 -2.055 -.173 093 -.187 -.077 -.141 2.567 .851 1.494 .476 1.456 -3.774 -.592 -1.401 -.500 -1.382 -.110 -.180 -.254 -.197 -.188 -.365 -.404 -.632 -.329 -.477 .564 .296 .622 .367 .442 1.122 .677 .913 .284 .969 .706 .232 .419 .189 .403 -2.705 -.266 -.717 -.182 ^.814 -.068 T.189 -.224 -.155 0.166 -.783 -1.623 -4.696 -25.337 -2.541 -.119 -.250 -.347 -.262 -.254 - 228 -TABLE IV: (cont'd) ELASTICITY 1947 1958 CTRR 1.969 3.458 °RS -.488 -.969 a s s -.137 -.251 *CT .232 .160 ^AT .090 -.225 *PT .052 -.037 *0T -.596 -.302 *LT -.147 -.219 flT *ET -.219 -.107 .110 .271 *CR .078 .005 *AR .020 .093 *0R .082 .100 *0R -.689 -.374 *LR . .025 .021 *IR .213 .100 ^ER .124 -.054 *CS .319 .216 *AS -.068 -.009 *PS .070 .110 *OS -.230 -.069 *LS .048 -.002 *IS .212 .130 Til .-. VES • .679 .307 1963 1970 AVERAGE 20.458 763.098 95.937 -3.186 -18.66 -1.620 -.398 -.324 -.284 .235 .119 .191 -.293 -.204 -.224 -.051 -.081 -.029 -.465 -.184 -.408 -.261 -.085 -.186 -.074 -.031 -.112 .381 .295 .279 .008 -.465 .015 .101 .828 .080 .165 1.207 .108 -1.679 -5.26 -1.008 -.197 -3.93 .005 .295 1.812 .267 .384 1.563 .157 .411 .225 .300 .032 .130 .024 .221 .262 .167 -.274 -.077 -.177 -.281 -.653 -.165 .044 .037 .069 .561 .201 .428 - 22 9 -TABLE V: e, u, n and p E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r Selected Years. ELASTICITY £CC ECA eCP eco £CL e C I £CE £AC £AA £AP £A0 £AL E A I £AE £PC EPA EPP £P0 £PL E P I EPE eoc E0A £0P eoo £0L £ 0 I £0E ELC £LA ELP 1947 1958 1963 1970 AVERAGE -1.432 -1.185 -1.212 -.998 -1.209 .220 .179 .174 .145 .183 .0726 .054 .053 .044 .056 1.109 .945 .980 .813 .967 .109 .094 .100 .071 .095 -.190 -.176 -.179 -.148 -.182 .112 .089 .084 .072 .090 .567 .513 .492 .331 .518 .003 .074 .039 .066 .044 -.153 -.161 -.141 -.125 -.152 -.845 -.890 -.877 -.717 -.873 .527 .573 .583 .526 .567 -.024 -.027 -.026 -.021 -.027 -.076 -.082 -.070 -.061 -.076 .219 .179 .200 .150 .197 -.179 -.185 -.189 -.184 -.190 .344 .412 .449 .449 .429 -.148 -.148 -.169 -.152 -.159 -.045 T.046 -.054 -.053 -.050 -.235 -.257 -.282 -.253 -.274 .045 .045 .045 .043 .046 -4.579 -2.115 -2.30 -1.278 -2.622 1.35 .695 .726 .792 .827 .202 .101 .104 .071 .120 3.184 1.429 1.602 .788 1.817 .325 .166 .195 .124 .204 -1.181 -.627 -.687 -.437 -.762 .695 .351 .358 .240 .415 -.135 -.203 -.193 -.151 -.179 -.252 -.433 -.397 -.492 -.383 .018 .031 .028 .033 .027 - 230 -TABLE V: (cont'd) ELASTICITY £LO £ L L E L I £LE E I C £ I A £ I P £IO E I L £ I I E I E £EC EEA eEP £EO EEL E E I EEE ^TR WTS VRR yRS yST ySR yss 'CT nAT nPT 1947 1958 1963 1970 AVERAGE .097 .161 .160 .168 .146 .207 .323 .265 .316 .270 .168 .298 .290 .303 .269 -.104 -.176 -.154 -.176 -.150 .959 .930 .783 .549 .912 .047 .050 .040 .034 .047 .391 .411 .325 .279 .387 -1.440 -1.479 -1.280 -1.038 -1.416 .686 .724 .659 .526 .698 -.516 -.499 -.419 -.261 -.499 -.130 -.138 -.107 -.091 -.128 -1.408 -.582 -.665 -.515 -.750 .368 .187 .195 .188 .222 -.187 -.090 -.094 -.090 -.108 2.113 1.029 1.201 1.089 1.268 -1.060 -.530 -.628 -.586 -.647 0.324 -.171 -.192 4.174 •^.210 .498 .158 .183 .088 .255 .528 1.146 .862 .943 .864 .584 .896 .755 .855 .781 -1.112 -2.042 -1.617 -1.798 -1.644 6.037 9.810 18.111 153.76 17.167 -1.470 -1.909 -3.288 -25.740 -3.311 -4.568 -7.902 -14.823 -128.021 -13.856 .917 1.513 1.340 1.590 1.326 .365 .535 .512 .629 .511 -1.287 -2.048 -1.852 -2.219 -1.837 -1.792 .970 -.907 -.724 -1.051 .698 1.359 1.132 1.240 1.156 -.407 .225 .198 .491 .108 - 231 -TABLE V: (cont'd) ELASTICITY 1947 1958 n0T 4.596 1.826 nLT 1.134 1.322 n I T 1.690 .644 nET -.849 -1.643 ^CR -.058 -.001 ^AR -.054 -.051 nPR -.061 -.055 n0R .514 .207 nLR -.018 -.012 n I R -.159 -.556 nER -.093 .030 n c s 2.987 1.760 nAS -.643 -.075 nPS -.662 .898 n os -2.154 -..569 nLS .449 -.019 n i s 1.989 1.063 nES 6.352 2.51 PCT .537 .624 PAT -.081 -.305 P p T .040 -.044 P0T .334 .525 PLT .277 .393 P I T .101 .079 PET -.020 -.161 PCR .181 .002 PAR .018 .126 PPR . 062 .118 POR .386 .651 1963 1970 AVERAGE 1.795 1.113 2.255 1.007 .515 1.015 .289 .189 .683 -1.472 -1.789 -1.441 -.001 .016 -.005 -.016 -.028 -.025 -.027 -.041 -.035 .070 .177 .288 .032 .132 .005 -.048 -.061 -.086 -.062 -.053 -r.051 1.911 1.540 2.005 .147 .892 .062 1.027 1.797 1.047 -1.275 -.527 -1.158 -1.309 -4.480 -.862 .204 .254 .563 2.608 1.377 2.924 .473 i409 .516 -.208 -.306 -.220 -.027 -.082 -.023 .399 .400 .412 .272 .136 .275 .034 .029 .056 -.097 -.142 -.100 .017 -1.595 -.022 .072 1.239 .046 lu 088 11.223 .067 1.440 11.465 1.246 232 -TABLE V: ( c o n t ' d ) ELASTICITY 1947 1958 1963 1970 AVERAGE P L R P I R P E R P C S P A S P P S P 0 S P L S P I S P E S .046 - . 0 3 8 .205 6.276 - . 0 7 1 .098 - . 0 7 4 - . 1 3 6 - 1 . 6 6 7 - . 2 2 7 .023 .032 - . 0 9 8 - . 7 5 2 - . 1 0 4 .739 .839 .827 .769 .809 .062 - . 0 1 3 .0224 .194 .022 .054 .130 .117 .205 .128 .129 .121 .235 .167 .177 .090 .004 .293 1.044 .212 .098 - . 0 9 6 - . 0 2 0 - . 0 3 4 - . 0 4 1 .125 - . 1 8 3 - . 1 4 3 - . 0 9 7 - . 1 4 1 - 233- -TABLE VI: a 3 T and <5 E l a s t i c i t i e s f o r Selected Years. ELASTICITY 1947 1958 1963 1970 AVERAGE a .003 -.019 -.021 -.039 -.017 o_ -.008 -.036 -.105 -1.576 -.073 Rt a s t 6 C t .466 .289 .293 .230 .314 6 A .903 1.005 .877 .785 .946 6 p 1.156 1.120 1.147 1.108 1.160 6 -.393 -.667 -.750 -1.081 -.677 6 -1.500 -1.636 -1.380 -1.111 -1.584 S_ -4.488 -2.219 -2.288 -2.166 -2.623 Et JTt 3Rt 3 S t T A t T P t T 0 t 963 .021 .027 .154 .203 .416 -.012 -.013 .020 -.012 -.027 -.026 -.101 -.501 .095 .111 .195 .133 -2.622 -.334 -.452 -.118 1.565 .358 .417 .123 1.105 .220 .301 .096 -1.330 -.138 -.205 -.043 -3.218 -1.123 -1.684 -.803 3.537 .793 .892 .238 1.887 .192 .264 .083 ,169 -.015 -.058 .137 TR. -.452 -.118 • -.739 .617 .420 -.351 TT -1.697 t 1.474 T .479 Et - 234 -VII. Footnotes. 1. Diewert [1974b] provides an excellent h i s t o r i c a l survey of the t h e o r e t i c a l developments i n the concept of the p r o f i t function. 2. One example which immediately comes to mind i s the input of the farm operators own labour which may be used as an input into h i s own production process or as an output to be used by other farmers as an input also7 may be an input or an output depending on whether the farmer r a i s e s c a t t l e or not. 3. The following notation i s adopted: x > 0„ means that each element of the N-dimensioned vector x i s N non-negative x » 0^ means that each element of x i s s t r i c t l y p o s i t i v e x > 0„ means that each element of x i s non-negative but x £ 0„. Also: I P b (v) = p^ b^(v)'; the inner product of the vectors p and b (a function of the vector v) , V 7r(p; V) i s the gradient vector of f i r s t order p a r t i a l d e r i v a t i v e s of the function TT. 4. The condition that the function be convex., i n prices i s a gen e r a l i z a t i o n of the c l a s s i c a l assumption of increasing marginal rates of s u b s t i t u t i o n . This condition ensures that an extrenum of the p r o f i t function with respect to pr i c e s i s a well-defined maximum. S i m i l i a r l y , concavity i n f i x e d f a c t ors ensures that the extremum of the p r o f i t function with respect to f i x e d factors i s a well-defined maximum (since f i x e d factors are p r e f i x e d with a minus sign and minus a concave function i s a convex function). 5. Where w i s a given vector of f i x e d input prices s a t i s f y i n g the r e l a t i o n -ship - w*T v = Tr(p; v ) ; i e "rents" to the f i x e d factors ensure that net p r o f i t i s zero, a condition r e s u l t i n g from the assumption of perfect competition and constant returns to scale. _T T 6. Note that by the adding up property of our model, p u = -w v = TT SO that not a l l I net supply quantities and J f i x e d factors can be independent. Thus f o r estimation purposes one of the I+J derived equations must be dropped. 7. We adopt the notation used i n K o h l i [1974]. 8. These e l a s t i c i t i e s have the properties of invariance to s c a l i n g and symmetry. - 23 5 -9. Diewert [1974b] has shown that the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s must be s a t i s f i e d i f the technology s a t i s f i e s the p o s t u l a t e d c o n d i t i o n s : ( i ) the symmetric matri x of e l a s t i c i t i e s of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n [ ^ j ^ T x I m u s t be p o s i t i v e s e m i - d e f i n i t e w i t h rank at most equal to I - l and w i t h 0 . . > 0 i = l , . . . , I . i i — ( i i ) the symmetric matri x of e l a s t i c i t i e s of s u b s t i t u t i o n t a j j ^ j x j m u s t be negative s e m i - d e f i n i t e w i t h rank at most equal to J - l and w i t h oV- < 0 1=1,...,J. 3>3 — 10. The proof, f o r the case of v a r i a b l e commodities i s as f o l l o w s : 3u. 9u^ Pj, . _ * " i h _ 77 = ^ - g p t - P T * £ i h = f i h i h " P h TT . TT, U. U, - U. U, —EL U, p, S, i h i h i h p i h h h a l s o 6 ^ = E ^ / S ^ s i n c e by Youngs Theorem T T ^ = " n^f" T ^ E P r o ° f f ° r the other e l a s t i c i t i e s i s s i m i l a r . 11. This i s n e c e s s i t a t e d by the r e s u l t s noted i n Danielson [1975b] which show that p r o d u c t i v i t y i n a g r i c u l t u r e has grown s t e a d i l y at the average r a t e of 1.97% per annum s i n c e 1946. 12. The proof f o r g. i s f o l l o w s : Sw^f • TT- -TPr . —TT S t " " * J * ' -• 3 t - _ 3t _ j t = _ J _ t TT. TT W.W^ w. W t t V 3 t j t w3 t t the proof that T. = 6 . /V. i s s i m i l a r , i t i t j : i c i s P„ s - . K=i3 a n a IN. J . . . ' . l e v c J I . .dies 13. A c t u a l l y i f farmers are p r o f i t maximizers and f i x e d endowments are r e a l l y f i x e d , then one would expect convexity i n p r i c e s but concavity only i n those f i x e d f a c t o r s over which the farmer i s able to exert some i n f l u e n c e . A f o u r t h , monotonicity c o n d i t i o n , which has not been mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , i s i m p l i e d by H o t e l l i n g ' s Lemma. The c o n d i t i o n i s that the i t h estimated net supply q u a n t i t y should be p o s i t i v e i f i t i s an output, negative i f i t i s an i n p u t , where the s i g n of the i t h q u a n t i t y i s i n v a r i e n t . These co n d i t i o n s are s a t i s f i e d by the estimated model. On the other hand, estimated shadow costs need be p o s i t i v e only f o r those f i n a l f a c t o r s over which the farmer has some i n f l u e n c e . - 236 -14% A l t e r n a t i v e l y , one could t e s t the matrix of e l a s t i c i t i e s of transformation [ 0 . , ] f o r p o s i t i v e semi-definiteness and the matrix of e l a s t i c i t i e s of l h transformation l" 0"^] f ° r negative semi-def i n i t e n e s s . 15. Although we would expect most eigenvalues to be non-zero, at l e a s t one must equal zero due to the constant returns assumptions imposed on the p r o f i t function. 1&J. Only four eigenvalues s a t i s f y the conditions for convexity i n p r i c e s and only two eigenvalues s a t i s f y the conditions f o r concavity i n endowments, although as we mentioned i n footnote 14, we cannot expect to f i n d concavity i n the weather v a r i a b l e s since the farmer has no c o n t r o l over the weather. - 2 37 -V I I I . B i b l i o g r a p h y . A i t k e n , A.C. [1935], "On Least Squares and L i n e a r Combination of Observations". Proceedings of the Royal S o c i e t y of Edinburgh, 55, pp. 42-48. A l l e n , R5.Gf.-DD, [1938], Mathematical A n a l y s i s f o r Economists, London: MacMillan. Aston, D., [1969], "Growing Degree-Day Normals above 42°F. Based on the P e r i o d 1953-1967", Climatology D i v i s i o n , M e t e o r o l o g i c a l Branch, Department of Transport, C.D.S. #3-69, June 11. Berndt, E.R. and L.R. Christensen, [1973], "The I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e of F u n c t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s : S e p a r a b i l i t y , S u b s t i t u t i o n and Aggregation", Review of Economic Studies 40, J u l y , 403-410. Berndt, E.R., and L.R. Christensen, (1974), "Testing f o r the Existence of a Consistent Aggregate Index of Labour Inputs", American Economic  Review, June 1974, pp. 391-404. Binswanger, H.P., [1973], "A Cost Function Approach to the Measurement of E l a s t i c i t i e s of Fac t o r Demand and E l a s t i c i t i e s of S u b s t i t u t i o n " , Paper, prepared f o r the j o i n t AAEA-ES Session of the Winter Meetings, December. Blackorby, C., D. Primont and E.R. R u s s e l l , [1975], "On the F l e x i b i l i t y of F l e x i b l e F u n c t i o n a l Forms", D i s c u s s i o n Paper No. 75-02, Department of Economics, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, January. Chapman, D.R. and R.C. F a i r , [1972], " F u l l - I n f o r m a t i o n Maximum L i k e l i h o o d Program: User's Guide, "Research Memorandum No. 137, Econometric Research Program, P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y . Chow, G.C., and R.C. F a i r , [1971], "Maximum L i k e l i h o o d E s t i m a t i o n of L i n e a r Equation Systems w i t h Autoregressive R e s i d u a l s " , Research Memorandum No. 118, Econometric Research Program, P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y . Christensen, L.R., D.W. Jorgenson and L . J . Lau, [1971], "Conjugate D u a l i t y and the Transcendental Logarithmic Production F u n c t i o n " , Econometrica 39, pp. 255-256. Christensen, L.R., D.W. Jorgenson, and L . J . Lau [1973], "Transcendental Logarithmic Production F r o n t i e r s " , The Review of Economics and  S t a t i s t i c s 55, 28-45. - 2 3 8 -Danielson, R.S. [1975a], "Output and Input Data f o r Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , 1926-1970, "Research Branch, Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa, Forthcoming. Danielson, R.S., [1975b], "Productivity Growth i n Ag r i c u l t u r e , 1946-1970", Research Branch, Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa, Forthcoming. Diewert, W.E. [1971], "An Ap p l i c a t i o n of the Shephard Duality Theorem: A Generalized Leontief Production Function, "Journal of P o l i t i c a l  Economy, May/June 1971, pp. 481-507. Diewert, W.E. [1972], "Walras Theory of C a p i t a l Formation and the Existence of a Temporary Equilibrium", Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa. Diewert, W.E. [1973], "Functional Forms for P r o f i t and Transformation Functions", Journal of Economic Theory, 6, pp. 284-316. Diewert, W.E. [1974a], "Homogeneous Weak Se p a r a b i l i t y and Exact Index Numbers", Tech. Report No. 12, IMSSS, Stanford Un i v e r s i t y , January. Diewert, W.E. [1974b], "Applications of Duality Theory", i n Fro n t i e r s of Quantitative Economics. Vol. I I . , ed. M.D. I n t r i l i g a t o r and D.A. Kendrick, Amsterdam: North-Holland. Diewert, W.E. [1974c], "Employment Industry by Occupation and Occupational Wage Estimates f o r Canada, 1926-1972", Department of Manpower arid Immigration, November. Gorman, W.M., [1968], "Measuring the Quantities of Fixed Factors", i n Value  C a p i t a l and Growth: Papers i n Honour of S i r John Hicks, ed. J.V. Wolfe, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. G r i l i c h e s , Z. [1963], "Measuring Inputs i n A g r i c u l t u r e : a C r i t i c a l Survey", Journal of Farm Economics, 42: 1411-27. Hanoch, G. and Rothschild, M. [1972], "Testing the Assumptions of Production Theory: A Non-Parametric Approach", Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, 80, pp 256-275. Heady, E.O., and J.L. D i l l o n [1961], A g r i c u l t u r a l Production Functions, Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y Press. Hicks, J.R. [1946], Value and C a p i t a l , 2nd e d i t i o n , Oxford: Clarendon Press. H o t e l l i n g , H., [1932], "Edgeworth's Taxation Paradox and the Nature of Demand and Supply Functions, "Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, 40, pp 577-616. - 239 -Johnston, J . [1972], Econometric Methods. New York: McGrow-Hill. Jorgenson, D.W. and G r i l i c h e s , Z. [1972], "Issues i n growth Accounting: A Reply to Edward F. Denison", Survey of Current Business, 55:5, p a r t I I , 65-94. Jorgenson, D.W. and G r i l i c h e s , Z. [1967], "The Ex p l a n a t i o n of P r o d u c t i v i t y Change", Review of Economic S t u d i e s , 34:249-83, J u l y . Kennedy, C. and A.P. T h i r l w a l l [1973], "Technical Progress", i n Surveys of  Ap p l i e d Economics V o l . I , London, The MacMillan P r e s s . King, M.A. [1974], "Taxation and the Cost of C a p i t a l " , Review of Economic  Stu d i e s, 41:21-35, January. K o h l i , R.H.U. [1974], " D u a l i t y and Foreign Trade: Canada's Demand f o r Imports and Supply of Exports", Department of Economics, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Working Paper No. 6, December. Lau, L . J . , [1974a], " A p p l i c a t i o n of D u a l i t y Theory: A Comment", i n F r o n t i e r s  of Q u a n t i t a t i v e Economics, V o l . I I , ed. M.D. I n t r i l i g a t o r and D.A. Kendrick, Amsterdam: Norths-Holland. Lau, L . J . , [1974b], "Econometrics of Mon o t o n i c i t y , Convexity and Quasi-convexity", T e c h n i c a l Report No. 123, IMSS, Stanford. N a d i r i , M.I., [1970], "Some Approaches to the Theory and Measurement of T o t a l Factor P r o d u c t i v i t y : A Survey", J o u r n a l of Economic  L i t e r a t u r e , 40, September. Samuelson, P.A., [1953-54], " P r i c e s of Factors and Goods i n General E q u i l i b r i u m " , Review of Economic S t u d i e s , 21: 1-20. Shephard, R.W., [1953], Cost and Pro d u c t i o n Functions, P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . S t a r , S., [1973], "Accounting f o r the Growth of Output", Department of Economics, Southern Methodist U n i v e r s i t y , Working Paper No. 2, January. T h e i l , H. [1971], P r i n c i p l e s of Econometrics New York: John Wiley & Sons. U.B.C. [1974], R e s t r i c t e d Least Squares E s t i m a t i o n Program, K e i t h Wales author, S t a t i s t i c a l Center, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, November. Uzawa, H., [1962], "Production Functions w i t h Constant E l a s t i c i t i e s of S u b s t i t u t i o n " , Review of Economic Studies ,-.October, pp 291-299. - 24'0 -Woodland, A.D., [1972], "Factor Demand Functions f o r Canadian I n d u s t r i e s , 1946-1969", Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa. Woodland, A.D., [1972], "The Co n s t r u c t i o n of P r i c e and Quantity Components of Inputs f o r Canadian I n d u s t r i e s , 1927-1969", Research S e c t i o n , Program Development S e r v i c e , Department of Manpower and Immigration, Ottawa. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093511/manifest

Comment

Related Items