UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

More correct ratios of the distribution of the three factors of production on poultry, tree-fruit, and.. Snesarev, Vladimir Nicolas 1931-06-23

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1931_a4_s6_m6.pdf [ 57.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096742.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096742-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096742-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096742-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096742-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096742-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096742-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096742-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096742.ris

Full Text

! U.B.C. LJD^^RY ^ j CAT. WO. ¿-C3/37. /n^ ! ^cc. N<5! ! MORE CORRECT RATIOS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION ON POULTRY, TREE-FRUIT, AND DAIRY FARMS INBRI-TISH COLUMBIA. by Vladimir Nicolas Snesarev, A Thesis submitted for the Degree of MA S T E R 0 F S u i E f! C E 1 A' A ^ i u u L T U RE in the Department of AC^NO^'LEDGLiENI. The writer takes this opportunity of expressing his sincere thanks and gratitude to all those who have assisted so materially in supplying information for this thesis. His thanks are due es-pecially to Professor h.R.Hare for his kind advice and to i''.H.Cle ment, Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture of the University of J^ri tish Columbia, who made possible this undertaking. C 0 f! TENTS. Pages. Introduction 1 - 7 I METHODS OF INVESTIGATION USED l/ Assumptions adopted 7 - 10 2/ Statistical data used 11 - 13 3/ Districts chosen 13 - 15 4/ method of securing statistical data.16 - 16 3/ .i-etod of determining the degree of profitableness of the enterprise... 17 - IK 6/ Hethod of determining percentages of investments in different factors of production 18 - 19 7/ division of farms into size groups..2 J - 21 II POULT .Y FARMING 22 - 36 III TREE-FRUIT FARMING 37 - 55 IV DAIRY FARMING 56 - 76 V YEARLY CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION 77 - H3 VI APPENDIX H4 -IO5 3 Farming i3 becoming more and more a business prooosition. The ownership of even a l^rge sized farm does not in itself mean economic power to the owner. .Tiat does give this power is an income. Therefore it is the income, actual or potential, which determines the value of the farm. The call of a particu-lar valley, the lure of a curtain farming locality, doe^ not aeem to be so strong or to come so frequently now-a-days as was the case two generations ago. hy? Because there are few farms completely self sustaining at the present time, and be-cause the saying that "The bones of our fathers and grandfa-thers gre; on the produce of this soil" does not hold true any longer. People do not want to st-y on their farms simply be-cause they were born there. They are willing to abandon the farm and to move to a ne^ locality, or to alter their farms if saoh a procedure will increase the efficiency of the labor or the invested cnnital. Farmers want their farms to pay and they have a perfect right to expect this and to strive to attain it. Only the people who share the above stated belief might be interested in the study that follows this introduction. There can be little doubt that agricultural enterprises are peculiarly subject to improper co-ordination of the economic factory, of production and that economic misfits are met with more frequently in agriculture than in industry. Professor of Economics in the University of Minnesota John D. Black writes: " A farm business is peculiarly subject to mis-fits of capacities. It is likely to be either too large or tee small for several of the elements of production." Much has been written and said about the law of diminishing iwtnms in agriculture. Agriculture has been considered to be at a disadvantage as compared to other industries. The farmer has been warned against investing too heavily in equipment a id ia labour as the increased output could mean decreased efficien-cy of all the invested capital. This warning may lay undue amphasis on the possibility of an inappropriate apportionment ef labour and equipment in respect to the amount of land. The result of the wrong portioning of labour and capital to land is very disappointing but the result of wrong portioning of land to equipment or of labour to equipment is also very disappointing. The intention of the writer of this article is far from being a desire to criticize the law of diminishing returns. Be recognises the soundness of the law when all the modifying tasumptions are born in mind. The difficulty arises however when the necessary assumptions are not remembered and when, toneequently, the misinterpretation takes place. As a matter ef fact the misinterpretation of the law of diminishing returns is rather oommon. One hears the opinion expressed that while ^ * Production Economics " by John D. Black, Ph.D., New Jork, Henry Holt and Company, page$67. -3-east of production of an article manufactured in an indust-rial plant which has adopted an intensive mass production sys-tea tends to he lower than the cost of production of the same grtiole manufactured in an industrial plant with smaller out-pat, the cost of production of agricultural commodities follow the law of diminishing returns. This statement is somewhat spang as the law is not understood properly; the assumptions are not remembered and the law is made applicable to agriculture paly, while it is valid for any production activity whatsoever. Kereover the first part of the law is overlooked as if it did set exist.* The confusion caused by the above stated idea can be great iMeed. It may result in a desire on the part of a farmer to have more land than is justified by the amount of capital he oaa invest in his farm or by the type of farm he intends to es-tablish. The idea that if a farmer has a fixed acreage of land can increase the size of his business only by increasing the intensity of cultivation of the land, though true, some-times is also misleading. It might be understood from this 3hat an increase in the size of the farm business without the i Milty to add new areas of land would always mean decreased efficiency of the capital-labour invested. Such a suggestion a&ght prompt a farmer to "insure" himself as far as the acreage As a summary of the law of diminishing returns in agricul-tare the following quotation from B.C.Taylor is given: "In agricultural production the returns to succeeding compo-site units made up of laborers and equipment may be said to fol-lew the law of increasing returns until a point has been reached after which the law of diminishing returns per succeeding unit eonmences to operate." -4-of his farm is concerned. He would likely try to be on thp 'safe* side and to guarantee a "sufficient" amount of land., i S The tendency to have more land than is justified by the capital and labour investment on farms is plainly seen. The writer does i , \ ' not presume to say that this tendency is the result of the mis* ! ^ understanding of the law of diminishing returns; there are mad^ ether economic and social reasons for this phenomenon. The write: simply wishes to warn the possible farmer from buying too much ^ land, should he be prompted to do so because of the belief that! the land will necessarily bring him diminishing returns en eve-ry extra unit of capital and labour invested per acre. This last should happen only, l/ if the point of investment should be reached after which the law of diminishing returns per succeeding unit commences to eperate; 2/ if the managerial effort should remain exactly equal to the effort given to the other combination of the factors of produc-tion; 3/ if there were no opportunity of adopting different types or methods of farming; 4/ if the factors of production could not be combined in vari-ants ratios. Seldom all these "ifs" exist in real life for the actual farmer. Land is less specialized than most of the elements of pro-duction. An industrial enterprise is planned according to the volu-me of business anticipated and desired. None of the elements tf production is actually fixed and their ratio is chosen de-pending on the kind of the enterprise and on the amount of in-vestment decided upon or available. If any element of produc-tion is fixed - factory buildings for instance - it becomes un-wise to start planning the organisation by assigning the volume of business to be handled. The law of diminishing returns may interfere with the efficiency of production. Even more unwise would it be to start a particular industrial plant having two or all of the factors of production fixed. The efficiency of the enterprise in which the factors of production have not been co-ordinated is very problematical. This is well understood by manufacturers and they closely watch the combination of the factors of production on their factories. Sometimes, due to various causes, the combination ceases to be efficient (changes in prices, the invention of new manufacturing processes, an in-crease in the amount invested, etc.). When this is recognised a reorganisation ueaally takes place. Why should not farmers do the same? Why should a fanner bo perplexed by the advice not to invest on his land more la-bour-capital units than the number which has as its last item the unit producing an output at least equal to an output ave-rage for all the previous units invested? This good advice presupposes an unvarying combination of the two factors of pro-ducticn. Such a presupposition can divert the attention of the Even three - i.e. labor, capital, and management. set. An organizer of an industrial enterprise waits to wi-& flexible, adaptable factors of production. The far-ater is persuaded more or less that certain factors of production agriculture are inflexible and that his policy is to do the H i ' best he can with the handicap of having certain factors beyond § "i his control. Sometimes this is so, especially on the old con-^ ^ A farmer may frequently plan his future enterprise quite but by no means is it always so. Î^fer^ntly fr^m a manufacturer. In many cases a farmer first i*es land without careful consideration of the resources be available for the working* of it. This results in en inefficient, sometimes clumsy, combination of the elements of production. It is a usual experience in agriculture to see the efficiency of production hampered by the fact of there being ajf; a deficient factor. Therefore the adjustment and co-ordination of the factors of production and the types of capital would W appear to be very important. It is not to be presumed that in all instances redistribu-tion of the investment will be the remedy for unprofitable far-ming. There are condition which may make redistribution inef-fective. It is understood that in many instances farmers are 9 naable to reorganise their enterprises owing to market condi-; tiens or, it may be, to their own economic weakness. It is assumed that the best combination of the factors of roduction is one which yields the largest net return per dollar Of all elements of production invented. This largest net re-turn is not necessarily realized, when the production is carried en with land, labor and equipment co-ordinated in such a way as to obtain the least cost combination. A farmer is not interest-ed in low costs as an end in themselves. Low costs are means to get high profits. If the opportunity to obtain still higher profit presents itself, the farmer, surely, will be willing to accept it. There is a possibility that one combination of the factors of production may give the smallest costs and therefore the greatest profit per unit of the resultant product, but at the same time it will not result in the greatest total profit. This can happen when another combination of the factors of pro-duction without yielding the highest profit per unit of product allows such an increase in the number of units produced that the total profit is greater than in the first instance. As an illu-stration purely imagined figures are given in the table below: Price of Cost of Profit EumberTotal one unit, one unit.per unit.unitsprofits Least cost combination 90 80 10 200 2000 Higher total profit combination % 82 8 270 2160 It is to be assumed that the prices on different products and different elements of production are not subject to penaa-' tH changes. Fluctuation in prices may cause fluctuations in *yawfly returns, whieh are liable to balance eaoh other. The permanent changes in levels of prices can make previously effi-ent combination of the factors of production strikingly inef-ficient. In the last case reorganization is the only remedy. It is assumed that the size of an agricultural enterprise ? i ia determined by the total investment. The acreage or the value Of the land is net the criterion of the size when different ty-pes of farms are compared; neither is a very good measure even when adjacent farms of the same type are dealt with, as possib-le surplus areas may be bare tracts of eubmarginal land without any taxable value, or they may be highly productive and expen-Í alve fields lying as a real burden on the enterprise. It is not presumed that the total quantitative investment is wholly representative of the sine of an enterprise; a poorly organised and poorly managed un.t may be for all practical pur-t poses a smaller enterprise than the well organised and well ma-naged unit, while at the same time they are equal as jfar as the f total investment is concerned. The second enterprise will show ^much better results and a larger output due to its activity and will play a more prominent part in the economical life of the district than the first. Efficiency of organization and effi-ciency of operation are important factors in measuring the size ) of an enterprise. Efficiency of organisation and efficiency of operation depend on quality and the amount of management inves-ted. This quality and this amount really should be included in total investment as one of its compound items. But manage--9-it is such an intagible factor that it is useless to attempt measure it with any degree of accuracy in terms of dollars; ther elements of production are measured in such terms. It is therefore assumed that the size of an agricultural srpTfise is determined by the total farm investment. In to-investment all the owned, rented, and borrowed elements of production, as well as labour are included. More precisely, in the total investment is included the value of the land !/ the labor 3/ the machinery the live-stock the farm buildings 6/ the feed and supplies the cash invested the house. A serious difficulty is immediately confronted: how should the land be valued? In the market price for land the potential real estate profit and the capitalized efficiency of the present operator are often included. No rigid rules as to the way of valuation can be given. Conservative prices for the land plus the taxes paid for it, are entered under the item of land value. For farms of various types and siies, and for different districts, the elements of production must be combined in dif-ferent proportions. The types of farms which require but litt--10-^ land usually demand a larger investment in labor and equip-nt than the types of farms which need large acreage. An inc-rease in the size of a farm by an addition to one of the fac-tors of production often demands additions to the other factors $f production, but not all of the elements of production should be increased in the same proportion. Different types of farming with different combinations of erops and livestock demand different amounts of investment, different districts are best suited for varied combinations of erops and livestock. Soil, climate, prices and market conditions determine the most remunerative combination of the factors of production. These conditions vary with the districts, therefore it is im-possible to compare farms of different types, or of varied si-zes, or those situated in different districts.^* It is possible, though, to compare a representative farm of one group with the representative farm of another in the same district when the groups are determined by the size of the farms. Likely a certain size may prove better suited for a given type of farm operated in a particular district. In the determination of the statistical data that was d for forming certain conclusions as to the best ratios of the factors of production in agriculture, it proved to be very difficult to choose the districts which would be characterized the similarity of methods of farming. The fact that the sa-me districts had farms of different sizes did not cause much difficulty; farms could be classified according to their sizes aftpr the data v;aa gathered, "ith the gathered statistical ; drt'a properly arranged a poultry farm could be easily separated frdm a dairy farm. But it would be hardly justifiable to classi-fy,' farms more thoroughly by picking out the farms which seemed to belong to the same type as far as their methods of carrying On the agricultural production was concerned. The adoption of such a practice would allow too much opportunity for arbitrary decisions. Probably the divisions would be made according to &he tendency of the statistical data to show the inclination to prove similar things or to illustrate similar proneiples. In dealing with highly industrialized types of farming such as poultry farming, the difficulty was not experienced. Poultry farming is a specialized type of farming which in order to ob-atin the best results has, more or less, similar ways of hand-ling the enterprise. Tree-fruit farming also has methods of management uniform enough not to present serious difficulties in summarizing the statistical data. -12-Dairy farming on the other hand, shows great variaton in its thods of organization and msnagesent. Various types of mana-ent necessitate different organisations. The same districts ve farms managed by different methods. hat is good for one jltype of dairy farm may prove to be b; d for another type of dai-ry farm. There is not very much uniformity about dairy farm enterorizes, especially when the farm is large. Although knowing beforehand that in dealing with dairy fcrms ¡*t is impossible to expect to obtain an orderly and well-defined tendency to react in a certain way on the variations in the or-duation, one can hope, nevertheless, that certain principles -ill be found that will apply in a general way to all the dairy -farms of a given district. Material supplied by the Faculty of Agriculture of the Uni-versity of British Columbia formed the statistical basis for this study. Since 1*?20 the Farm Survey work has been carried on by the Department of Agriculture of the above-mentioned Uni-versity. Df;iry, fruit and poultry farms of different districts have been included in the Survey. For the purposes of this stu-dy the data was used concerning: 1/ 68 dairy farms of the Courtenay, Lower Fraaer, and Upper Fra-Ser Valley districts; 2/ 74 tree-fruit farms of the Okanagan district, and 3/ 67 poultry farms of the Lower Fraser Valley district, and the Duncan district on Vancouver Island. -13-The olimcte and soil conditions which prevail in the Cour-tenay district are typical of conditions in the dairying dis-tricts on Vancouver Island and on the Gulf Island. Soils vary from a sedimentary deposits of the valleys to a gravelly glaci-al-drift tyne of soil of the uplands. The annual precipitation fluctuates around 40 inches. The summer rainfall is light but is ample for good crop production when proper tillage is practi-ced. A market for the milk produced in this area is provided by the Comox Creamery. This is a farmers Co-operative organiza-tion whieh m&kes butter and, ice-cream, and which handles a cer-tain amount of whole milk. The climate of the Lower Fraser Valley district is very fa-vorable for dairy farming. This district includes area located near the town of Ladner, incorporating the Delta, Lulu and Sea Islands, and the Hud Bay area. The soil is of a sedimentary origin formed by deposits of the Fraser iver. It is rich and highly productive. The topography of the land is flat which necessitates protection from the sea and river overflow, ^he annual precipitation also fluctuates around 40 inches. But the summer rainfall is light as compared to the winter. The Upper Fraser Valley district is adjacent to the Lower Fraser Valley district. It extends from Cloverdale to Rosedale. "he soil is of silt and clay nature streaked with gravel. The Upland, of which there is considerable amount, i^. ^ glacial drift origin tends toward a gravely loam. Lost of the dai-ry farms are located on the lower land, which is better suited for dairy fanning. The precipitation is about 40 inches. The market for the milk produced both in the Lower and in the Upper Fraser Valley districts is provided mostly by the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association. This is a faimers co-operative or-ganization, which makes butter, ice-cream, condensed milk, and which supplies with fluid milk the city of Vancouver. In general the climate, soil, and market conditions are si-milar for Courtanay, the Lower Fraser and the Upper Fraser Va-lley districts.** It ..as found that for the puroose of this stu-dy the dairy farms of all the three districts could be consider ed as enjoying similar economic and climatic conditions. The climate of the Okanagan District differs from the cli-mate of the Fraser 'Valley. The seasons of the year are more clearly defined; the summer is warmer and the winter is colder and longer. The soil vcries from a heavy clay in the vicinity of Armstrong to a sandy silt and gravely loam at Vernon and kelowna,.^, The precipitation varies; it is heavier at Armstrong and Lumby than at Vernon end kalowna. 1 Vernon and kelowna an average annual precipitation is about 14 inches. In this part of the Okanagan district irrigation is used to a conside-rable extent. Joth dairy and fruit farms are numerous in the Okanagan district. This paper will deal wita tree fruit farms only. The natural and the nearest markets for the Okanagan fruit are Vancouver and tae Prairie Provinces. All the tree-fruit farms which supplied the statistical data ore located in the seme district and have to adapt them-^ the lost district practices somewhat more intensive methods of dairy farming t,an the othc two. -15-selves to the saine market conditions. Poultry farms au a. rule are highly specialized enterprises and their success and the type of their organization does not denend to any great extent on the slight variations in the cli-matic conditions snd the soil fertility. As far as poultry farming is concerned, both the Duncan district on Vancouver Island and the Lower Fraser Valley district may he considered as providing the same opportunity for carrying on the business under consideration. The market condition for poultry products is very much the same in both districts. It might be expected that the efficient type of organization would prove the same for the two districts. The detailed information as to the methods of securing data by the British Columbia Farm Survey can be found in "Dairy Farming of British Columbia", Bulletin Bo.lo3 by H.R.Hare "Tree-fruit Farming in British Columbia", Bulletin N0.I05 by F.M.Clement, and "A Survey of Poultry Farms in British Columbia", Bulletin '70,102 by N.J.Riley, E.A.Lloyd, V.S.Asmudson. Shortly the method was as follow: A field-man visited in-dividual farms and obtained a confidential statement of receipts and expenses incurred during the year. Besides this, the field-man took an inventory of land, buildings, stock, and equipment of the farm. As a rule, conservative valuations were made. Information was secured and recorded each year for a number of years, aid the data concerning each farm was recorded on a form specially printed for t.,e purpose. The accumulated data were then classified and tabulated on separate office sheets. Thus the systematized data became available for purposes of research. So far the inductive method was followed. As the next step, in an attempt to arrive at certain conclusions which could become of some value both to the farmer and to the econo-mist, the deductive method became justified. The purpose of this study was, as already mentioned, the de-sire to come to certain conclusions as to the more correct ra-tios of the distribution of the different factors of production -17-in agricultureT^It is agreed that the degree of success with which the particular organisation of an agricultural enterprise meets is measured by the net return ner dollar of the total in-vestment. The most succesful organisation will therefore pro-vide the largest net return per dollar of the total investment. In order to arrive at the net return per dollar invested, total expenses are subtracted from total receipts and the result ob-tained divided by the number of dollars representing the total capitalization of the farm enterprise. Unfortunately this method of comparison involves the divi-sion of the farms into too many different size-groups. The fine gradation in sine would become a necessity as one cannot consider 4% rate of return per dollar invested in an enterprise with the total capitalisation of 3,000 as denoting the same degree of success when compared wit^ the 4/, rate of return per dollar invested in an enterprise with the total capitalization of (13,000. In order to have the right to proclaim the same degree of success, the smaller enterprise haa to show higher rate of return per dollar invested. Accordingly another method of determining the degree of the profitableness of the enterprise by the measurement of the am-ount of the operator's labor income was a.donted. The operator labor income represents the farm net revenue, less 7", interest on the investment in land, buildings, machinery, livestock and ^ not all of the agricultural districts of British Columbia were considered. Only three types of far ing were dealt with. If the conclusions arrived at will prove of some interest, the same method of investigation may be applied to other districts end for other types of farm enterprises. -18-ed and suppliesrThe operator's labor income represents the farm operator's return for his work and for his managerial abi-lity. then the interest on investment exceeds the farm net re-venue, the difference becomes a minus operator's libor income. The same operator's labor income indicates the same decree of success even when the sizes of the farms compared differ sig-nificantly. For the smaller enterprise the same labor income would mean greater rate of returns per dollar invested. Only the practical impossibility of dividing the farms into many size groups prompted the adoption of the method of measur-ing the profitabliness of the enterprise by its operator's la-bor income. The number of the farms un'er the consideration -.-as not large enough to make a fine classification by sizes po-ssible. The total capitalization of the different firms placed in the same size group varied too much. As the first step each one of the 209 farms had to be con-sidered individually. The tctsl capitalization, operator's la-bor income, and the percentage of the total capitalizetion in-vested in land, in labor, and in equipment had to be arrived at. In order to find out the percentages, the absolute figures re-presenting the investment in the different factors of production had to be first considered, "he figure resulting from the sub-traction of the sum of values of land plus labor from the va-lue of the total capitalization, was considered as the absolute Farm Net Revenue is the difference between yross receipts and gross expenses. value of the investment in equipment. As an illustration of the method used, an examole of the calculation is given: Poultry farm No.313 has a total capitalization of ",8,379.70 Its land value plus taxes on land amount to -1*1,843.00. Its la-bor expenditure amounts to .'¡¡725.00. The sun of investment in land plus labor equals ¿2,568.00 (1,843.00 + 725.00 = 2,568.00). The last figure when subtracted from the figure representing the total capitalization gives the amount invested in the equip-ment: 8,379.70 - 2,568.00 5,811.70.% The percentages of the total capitalization invested in the' different factors of production can be easily worked out now: Total capitalization 8,379.70 100% Investment in land 1,843.00...... 22.0% " " labor 725.00........... 8.7% " " equipment..5,811.70.... 69.3% The weakness of this study lies in the fact that too many different items are covered by the same factor of production -namely, the equipment. In equipment are included the invest-ments in buildings, in machinery, in livestock, in feed and supplies, and in cash used for current expenses, excluding the expenses in labor. Different farms have different shares of their investment in equipment represented by livestock, or by machinery, or by buildings, "his fact does not make the com-parison of the differences of the investment in equipment accu-rate. The same percentage of the investment in equipment may mean different things, however, it may be considered that the adopted method was the only one practicably possible when the distribution of the total capitalization is dealt with. Later on, as the continuation of this study an attempt may be made to find out the best ratios of the distribution of the total investment in equipment among the different items of equipment. -20 tor's labor income for the same farm is $2,010.63. The same procedure was followed for each of the 209 farms, it was necessary to know the amount of the total capitalisation of the farm in order to be able to classify farms according to their sizes; it was necessary to know the amount of the opera-tor's labor income in order to be able to compare the degree of the profitableness of the separate farms; and it as necessary to know the percentages of the total investment represented by the different factors of production. Shen all c-f the 20? farms had their respective figures that Were needed, the poultry farms were separated from the dairy farms and from the tree-fruit farms. From now on each of the three type groups.were considered individually. Lach of the type groups was again divided into several size groups. Dairy Farms were divided into throe size groups: group "I"- including the farms with the total capitalization between ^5,000 and ¡¡,18,000; Oup "II"-including the farms with the total capitalization between §18,000 and [¡35,000; Sroup "Ill"-includlng farms with the total capitalisation be-tween §33,000 and ^110.000. Tree-fruit Farms were divided into four size groups: roup "I" - including the farms with the total capitalization between $3,000 and -¡¡'7,000; Croup "II" - including the farms with the total capitalization between *7,000 and il5,000; -21-Sroup "III" - including the farms with the total capitalization between §13,000 and §23,000; Group "17" - including the farms with the total capitalization between $23,000 and $120,000. Poultry Farms were divided into four size groups. Group "I" - including the farms with the total capitalization between $4,000 and $5,530; Group "II" - including the farms with the total capitalization between $3,530 and §9,000; Group "III"- including the farms with the total capitalization between $9,000 and $16,000; Group "IV" - including the farms with the total capitalization between $16,000 and $25,0u0. The farms of the different size-groups were never again grou-ped together; each of the size-groups was dealt with separately. Much care was exercised when limits of the size groups were de-termined. These limits were determined more or less arbitrari-ly, judging by the tendency of the farms to vary in the.amounts of their total capitalizations but little. The first division according to size proved to be incorrect and other siie limits .had to be adopted. As the guiding principle for determining the size limits was taken the tendency of the farm enterprises to be the most remunerative when the same oortions of their to-tal capitalization were invested in the same factors of produc-tion. -22-POULTRY F A R H I N G OF B. C. From the foregoing it is seen that the farms have been cla-rified according to districts, types , and sizes. Each farm 3plies'the information concerning the amount of its operator's labor income and concerning the percentages of its total capi-talization invested in land, labor, and equipment. It remains to ascertain how the enterprises react on the differences in the above percentages. Poultry farms offering the least difficulty Y^ill be first considered. Of the total of 6? farms it will be seen that five farms fall into the first group, 30 into the second, 21 fall in-to the third, and 11 fall into the fourth size-group. The first size-group is represented by farms which as jet are in the process of development. These are recently begun ' farms which had not time enough to develop fully and to accumu-late needed capital. Puch of their total investment is represen-ted by labor, an insufficient amount is represented by equipment, probably too little is invested in livestock. Kith this first size-group of Poultry faims this study will begin its investigation. The first step of this investigation requires finding out the different percentages of the total capitalisation represet-ed by labor, land, and equipment on the farms with the largest operator's labor income, on the farms with the small operator's -23-bor income, and on the farms with the minus operator's labor 'income. The farms which have the operator's labor income above +$600.00 will be termed "Above-marginal Farms" ; the farms which have an operator's labor income of from "0" up to +$600.00 will be referred to as "marginal Farms"; and the farms which have a minus operator's labor income will be termed "Submarginal Farms'! The result of the investigation is as follows: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. GROUP "I". Land Labor Equipment Above-marginal farms -Marginal farms 19.8% 13.1% 67.1% Sub-marginal farms 36.8% 12.1% 51.1% There are no Above-mar inal farms in the first group; none of the enterprises realise a.ore than +,¡600.00 operator's labor income. The more successful farms have much smaller shares of their total capitalization invested in land. They have larger shares invested in equipment. In order to be able to determine what percentages of the to-tal capitalization should be invested in land, and whet percen-tages should be invested in labor, and what percentages should be invested in equipment, the farms of t-ne si :e gro^p will be classified according to the percentages of tne investment in the different elements of production. The farms are divided into This does not mean that they actually are Marginal or Sub-marginal. It should be remembered that 7% rate of interest on investment v,as deducted from the farm's net revenue. Probably 7% rate is too high a rate. -24-sub-groups according to the percentage of the investment in land. A ten percent interval is adopted, so that in the first sub-gro-ip are included the farms which have from 10% to 20% of their total capitalization invested in land; in the second sub-group are included the farms which have from 20% to 30% of their total capitalization invested in land, and so on. Tho farms are then divided into sub-groups according to the percentage of their total capitalization represented by labor. A two percent interval is adopted. The farms are further divided into sub-groups according to the percentage of their total capitalization invested in equip-ment. A ten percent interval is here adopted. Bach sub-group becomes a separate item which has to be dealt with separately. For each sub-group three characteristics are found in order -l/ To ascertain the relative importance of the different sub-groups the percentages of the number of farms of each sub-group to the total number of the farms in the size group are worked out; the total number of the farms of the size group is taken as 100%,- the percentages of the respective to each sub-group number of farms is worked out accordingly. 2/ To ascertain the relative number of failures in each of the sub-groups, the percentages of the number of the sub-marginal farms in the sub-group to the total number of the farms in the same sub-group are worked out. 3/ To ascertain the degree of profitableness of a certain share of the total capitalisation being invested in different factors -28-produotion , the average operator's labor income is worked for each of the sub-groups. Here is the result of the procedure: POULTRY SURVEY -1?24. GROUP "I". Percentage of Percentage of the investment farms in the sub-group to in land the total No. of farms in Percentage of submarginai farms to the total No. of farms in the the size-group, same sub-group. Average opera-tor's labor income for each sub-group. 10% to 20% 20% to 30% 30% to 40% in labor 9% to 11% 11% to 13% 13% to 13% in equipment 40% to 30% 30% to 6o% 6o% to 70% 70% to 80% 20% 6o% 2 0% 20% 20% 40% 20% 20% 0% 33.3% 1001 100% 0% 30% 100% 50% ot 0% +432.34 +238.68 - 60.60 - 60.60 +424.34 +210.00 - 60.60 +210.00 + 336.13 +492.34 The bulk of the farms of the first sise group have from 20% to 30% of their total capitalization invested in land, lie farms with less land appear as being better off; the farms with more land would seem worse off. The tendency to have more land than is justified by the available equipment can be readily seen. The farms which have the least amount of land have the largest operator's labor income and they also have fewer failures. The bulk of the farms have from 5J', to 6.J-, of their total capitalization invested in equipment; one half of such farms -26-sub-marginal. The tendency to be short of equipment is tinly seen. The farms which nave the largest share of their total capitalization represented by equipment are better off,as they have larger operator's labor income and they also have a smaller number of sub-marginal farms. It would appear that the farms of the first size group Should endeavour to increase their investment in equipment. It has already been mentioned that this group is represented by the recently started farms. Sooner or later all these farms will move into the second group. The majority of the poultry farms are located in the second size group, namely in the group which includes the farms with the total capitalization of from (5,550.00 to [9,000.00. For the analysis of this group the same method was practiced as the method described when dealing with the first size group. As a matter of fact, the same method of analysis is carried on through out all the study. For the second size group the result of the investigation is as follows: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. uROUP "II". * Above-marginal farms Marginal fanas Sub-marginal farms Land. Labor. Equipment. 20.2% s.y% 70.9% 28.3% 11.9% 59.81 24.2% 7.2 * 68.6't -27-In the second size group only one sub-marginal farm is Consequently, the "averages" for the sub-marginal farms ^ef the second size group cannot be considered as being strictly representative. It would be better to disregard them entirely. The more remunerative poultry farms of the second size group have a much smaller share of their total capitalization invest-ed in land. They have a greater share of their total capitali-zation invested in equipment. The differences of the amounts of the investments:in labor do not seem to affect the achieve-ments of the enterprises. Hore detailed information can be obtained from the table which follows: POULTRY SURVEY-1924. GROUP "II". g Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Average ope-investment the farms in the submarginai rator's la-sub-group to the farms in the sub- bor income in land total No. of farms group to the total for each in the size-group, number of farms in sub-group. the same sub-group. Less than 10% 10% 10% to 20% 46.7% 20% to 304 26.730% to 40% 10% 40% to 30% 6.6% in labor 7% to y% 63.3% 9 - 11% 20.011% - 13% 10.0% 15% - 17% 3.317% - 1?% 3.4% in equipment 40% - 30% 10.0% 0% - 60% 10.0ot - 70% 23.3% 70^ - 80% 46.7^ 80% - 90% 10.0% 0% 0% 12.5% 0% 0% 3.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14.3% 0% 0% +1716.51 +1171.93 +1309.1$ + 754.37 + 834.01 +1338.35 +I323.29 + 589.89 +1191.60 + 16.28 + 612.81 + 929.02 +1002.92 +1482.10 +1722.13 -28-Continning the analysis of the investments in labor the fact be noted that, probably, the poultry farmers of the second ze group should give somewhat more attention to their flocks, amoung all the farmers 63.3% of them have invested in la-from 7% to 9% of the total capitalization of their enterpi-!S. The next group of the farmers who have a somewhat larger ^Bhare of their total capitalization invested in labor, namely, from 9% to 11%, realize a greater operator's labor income. The more correct ratios of the investment in the different ^factors of production for the poultry farms of the second size ¡Lp seem to be around 10% in land, 10% in labor, and 80% in ^equipment. For the third size group the result of the investigation Is follows: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. GROUP "III". Land. Labor. Equipment. Above-marginal farms 21.0% 7.5^ 71.5% --Marginal farms 3?.3% 6.3% 36.2% Sub-marginal farms 16.2% 8.3% 75.3% In this group there are only two submarginal farms,- conse-quently averages for sub-marginal farms are not reliable. Comparing the Above-marginal farms with the Sub-marginal the fact can be seen again that the more profitable farms have less land and more equipment than have the less profitable farms. See Table N 1 at the end.Page 34. -29-# The Above-mar ¡?inal farms have a little larger share of their tel capitalization Invested in labor. POULTRY SURVEY - 1924. CROUP "III". ^reentage of Percentage of investment fanas in the Percentage of sub-marginal in land. 10% 20% 38% 20% 10% $0% sub-group to farms in sub-the total No. group to total of farms in the No. of farms in in labor 3% - 7 % 7% - 9% 9% - 11% 11% - 13% in equipment 40% - 50% 30% - 6o% 6o% - 70% 70% - 80% size group. 38,1% 47.6% 4.8% 9.5% 9.3% 38.1% 33.3% 14.3^ 4.8% 2*3% 38.1% 47.6% the same sub-group. I2.3?" 10.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 28.i 0% 0% 20% s'u opera-tor's labor in-eome for each sub-group. +I547.63 +1416.98 + 445*07 + 295.34 + 332.15 +1602.09 +1152.75 +1562.12 +1230.05 + 304.71 + 3&5.52 +I553.82 +1410.42 The largest number of the poultry farms of the third size group have from 20% to 30% of their total capitalization invest-ed in land. The farms which have from 10% to 20% of their to-tal capitalization represented by land have larger operator's labor income. The desirable thing for the third size group would be the increase of the number of the farms in its first sub-group. The more correct ratios of the investment in the di-fferent factors of production for the poultry farms of the third Size group seem to be around 13% in land, 10% in l^bor, and 73% -SO-in equipment. For the fourth group of the poultry farms the result of the Investigation is as follows: AVERAGE PE.iCENT^GE DISTRIBUTION OF TRE 'TiRËK FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. GROUP "IV". 'Land. Labor. Equipment. Above-marginal farms Marginal farms Sub-marginal farms 17.3% 7.6% 73.1% 33.0% 6.0% 61.0% 48.0% 7*9% 44.1% Just as it was in the ease of the previously considered groups, it can be seen that the most profitable farms have the smallest share of their total capitalization invested in their land, as compared with the less profitable farms, which have a much larger share of their total capitalization invested in land. The lar est share of the total capitalization of the most profitable farms is represented by equipment. The lets profitable the farm is , the less equipment it has. More de-tailed information is provided by the table which follows: POULTRY SURVEY -1924. GROUP "IV". Percent of Percentage of investment farms in the sub-group to in land total No. of farms in the size group. Less than 10% 18.1% 10% - 20% 34.3% 20% - 30% 9.1% 30% - 40% 18.1% 40% - 30% 9.1% 30% - 60% 9.11 Percentage of sub-marginal farms in sub-group to total No. of farms in the same sub-group. S 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Average operator's labor income for each sub-group. +2867.43 +2094.10 + 992.23 + 36I.68 - 396.96 - 63.96 -31-labor. - g - 9% -11% L -13% equipment 30% - 40% 40% - 50% - 60% - 70% - 80% g0% - 90% 9.1% 27.2% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 27.3% 27.2% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% + 955.34 + 606.20 +1854.29 +1866.26 - 63.96 — 396.96 + 935*34 + 380.13 +2050.09 +2653.67 ^ The bulk of the farms of the fourth size group have from ,10% to 20% of their total capitalization invested in land. The farms which have less land have larger one ator's labor income; the fanns which have more land have smaller operator's labor inoome. With the increase of the share of the total capitali-zation invested in equipment, the operator's labor inco:ae in-ereases. The farms which have less than half of their total capitalization represented by equipment have minus operator's labor income. The bulk of the farms have from 5% to 9% of their total capitalisation invested in labor. This percentage does not seem to be large enough. The more correct ratios of the investment in the three fac-tors of production for the poultry farms of the fourth size group seem to be 10% in land, 10% in labor, and 80% in equip--32-Locking ever ail the four -roups of the poultry farms, it would appear that there is no tendency for the larger fanns to require a larger portion of their total capitalization to be represented by land. There is no tendency for the larger farms to require a smaller portion of their total capitalization to be represented by equipment. What is good for the farm of one size , seems to be beneficial for the farm of another size. The more correct ratios of the investment in the different fac-§ tors of production are the same for the ¡arms of all the sizes. These more correct ratios are - 10% in land, 10% in labor, and 80% in equipment. The bulk of the farms appear to have more land than seems to be the most remunerative amount, and the bulk of the farms have less equipment than is justified by the business. Fur-*; thermore, the bulk of the farmers appear to provide their en-terprises with somewhat an insufficient amount of labor. All this amounts to the statement that the poultry business of British Columbia has not reached the limit of intensity which would forbid further application of labor and equipment to the same areas of land. In other words. Poultry of British Columbia has not reached the point of decrea&ing returns as jet. Among the number of the farms of the group which includes the enterprises with the largest total capitalization, 18.2% are sub-marginal farms; among the farms of the next size group which Includes the enterprises with somewhat smaller total ca-pitalization, the percentage of the sub-marginal farms is 9.5%; this percentage for the still smaller size group is only 3.3%. It may be concluded that among larger farms there is a greater number of failures than among smaller farms. Bat this does not of necessity mean the conclusion that the smaller the farm is the more chances to succeed it has. There is the limit to the mentioned tendency: the farms of the first size group, namely the farms with the total capitalisation under $5,550.00 have 40% of their total number as submarginal farms. It seems that in order to attain an economical success the poultry en-terprise of British Columbia should be capitalized for at least §5*530.00. -34-TABLE "I"* POULTRY SURVEY. 1 9 2 4. Capitalization. Number of Bumber of farms. sub-margi-nal farms. %% of sub-marginal farms. Group "1" $ 4,000 - 5,550 3 2 40% Group "11" $ 3,550 - 9.000 30 1 3.3% Group "Hi"§ 9,000 -16,000 21 2 9.5% Group "IV" §16,000 -26,800 11 2 18.2% AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. 1924. Land. Labor. Equipment. GROUP "I". Above-marginal farms Marginal farms Sub-marginal farms Above-marginal farms Marginal farms Sub-marginal farms Above-marginal farms Marginal farms Sub-marginal farms Above-marginal farms Marginal farms Sub-marginal farms 19.8% 13.1% 36.8% , 12.1% GROUP "II". 20.2% 8.9% 28.3% 11.9% 24.2% 7.2% GROUP "III". 21.0% 7.3% 37.3% 6.3% 16.2% 8.5% GROUP "IV". 17.3% 33.0% 48.0% 7.9% 7.6% 6.0% 67.1% 51.1% 59^3% 68.6% 71.5% 36.2% 73.3% 61.0% 44.1% -38-CORRELATION OF THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OF THE FARMS INVESTED IN LAND AND THE OPERATOR'S LABOUR INCOME. POULTRY SURVEY. 1 9 2 4. Percent of the total capita-lization of the farm invested in land 17- - io% 10% - 20% 20% - 30% 30%*-- 40% 40% - 30% 30% - 60% in equipment 30% -40% - 50% 30% - 6o% 60% - 70% 70% - 80% 80% - 90% Number of farms in the sub-group. 22 7 6 1 1 6 8 18 28 6 operator'] labour income. +2+284.38 +1,400.99 +1+273.26 + 646.36 + 300.1? 63.96 - 63.96 + 280.93 + 611.6? +1,163.73 +1,482.02 +2,188,23 37 TREE-FRUIT FARMING. There are 74 farms divided into four size groups. The first group consists of farms with the total capitalization of from §3,000 to $7,000; the second group includes farms with the ca-pitalization of from $7,000 to §13,000; the third group has farms with the capitalization of from „15,000 to ^25,000; and the fourth group consists of farms with the capitalisation of from (25,000 to ^120,000. In the year 1928 which is the year under consideration 16 farms belonged to the first group, 38 farms belonged to the se-cond group, 14 farms belonged to the third group, and six farms belonged to the fourth group, TREE-FRUIT SURVEY, 1328. Capitalization. No.of No.of sub- %% of sub-farms. marg.farms, marg.farms. Group M^t! * 3,000 to $ 7,000 16 2 12.3% Group "11" § 7,000 to $15,000 38 11 28.9% Group "III" §13,000 to ^25,000 14 5 35.7% Group 'tgyn §25,000 to$120,000 6 3 50.0% AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION.GROU?"n Land. Labor. Equipment Above marginal farms 72.8% 14.8% 12.4% Marginal farms 67.1% 21.9% 11.0% Sub-marginal farms 69.1% 17.1% 13.8% -38-As compared to the marginal and sub-marginal farms, the above-marginal farms have a larger share of their total invest-ment represented by land; they invest a smaller share of their total capitalization in labor; little or no variation of the Investment in the equipment is seen* Unfortunately the value of the trees is included in the land value. This fact is apt to distort the picture of the distribu-tion of the three factors of production. The orchard is really the equipment of a tree-fruit farm, inspite of the fact that it cannot be sold separate from the land. More trees per acre and in the ease of the trees of better quality a larger expenditure of capital is made per acre. This means the intensification of fanning in the rame sense as when on a poultry farm the number of the birds per acre and the quality of the flock are increas-ed and improved. For the five years of the survey (1?21 - 1925) bearing orchard land was valued at from $700.OJ to $1,000.00 per acre. In the same district (Okanagan) the average land va-lue per tillable acre was $159.10.i^* It is true that the l?nd of the orchard necessitates more expenditure for its improvement than the area of land under grain crops or under pasture. Orohards need irrigation in the most of the fruit growing districts of the est. Certainly the orchards of the Okanagan district need the improvements, not in-cluding the trees themselves. hat is the value of the trees? Kfhen and to what extent the increase of the investment in land is due to the increased mun-Based on I925 crop-nurvey year. -39-t*r of cores of land on the farm, and when and to what extent is it due to the increased number of the bearing trees? Unfortunately figures that are available do not allow con-clusions to be reached in this connection. The writer will do his best with the figures that are at his disposal. THEE-FRUIT aURVRÏ-i92S. GROUP "I". Percent of Percent of farms the invest- in the sub-group ment in land. 301 60% 80% 60% 70% 80% 90% in labor 10% - 12% 12% - 14% 14t - 16% 16% - 18% 18% - 20?, 20% - 22% 22% - 24% - 26% to the total Bo. of farms in the size group. 12.5% 31.3% 30.0% 6*2% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 31.3% 18.7% 12.3% in equipment H - 10% 10% - 20% 20% - 30% 43.73% 31.23% 23.O % Percent of sub- Average operator marginal farms labor income.for to the total No. each sub-group, of fanas in the same sub-group. 30% 0% 0% 100% 0% 40% 0% 14.3% 0% 25.0% - 309.39 + 816.40 + 743.34 - 461.7H +1264.7? + 869.38 + 868.47 + 123.31 + 598.62 + 264.96 + 469.62 + 738.27 + 467.34 This table gives us more detailed information about the re-action of the enterprises on the variations of the distribution of the three factors of production. Both the farms which heve from 60% to 70% and the farms which have from 70% to 80% of their total capitalization invested in land are Above-marginal farms, i.e. either sub-group realizes more than +$600.00 opera-tar'8 labor income. The "60% - 70%" sub-group has a greater #voratge operator's labor income (+816.40) as compared with the operator's labor income of the "70% - 8o%" sub-group (+743.34). And jet there are more farms in the sab-group which includes the enterprises with the 70% to 80% of their total capitaliza-tion represented by land. There are 31.3% of the farms of the first size group in the sub-group which includes the enterpri-ses with the 60% to 7J% of their total capitalization represen-ted by land; there are $0% of the farms of the first size group in the sub-group which includes the enterprises with the 70% to 80% of their total capitalization represented by land. It appears that the tree-fruit farms of the first size group would do better if they invested a somewhat smaller share of their total capitalization in land. Studying the figures which deal with the investment in la-bor, it can be plainly seen that most of the farms were over-burdened in that respect; part of the share of the capital in-vested in labor could be utilized to a greater advantage if in-vested in equipment. However it must not be forgotten that probably the operator of the farm supplied most of the labor himself and had no chance to apply his work in other directions. In considering the investment in equipment there is no di-fficulty to see that more equipment would prove advantageous for many of the farmers. 43.75% of the farms have less than 10% of their total capitalization invested in equipment, lie farms which have from 10% to 20 of their total capitalization invested in equipment realize a greater operator's labor in--41-do the fanms which have less than ten percent invest-in equipment* For the first size group of the tree-fruit farms of the Oka-district the more correct ratios of the distribution of different factors of production seem to be 6% in land, in labor, and 20% in equipment. The general tendency of the farms is to have somewhat more EanA, more labor, and less equipment* If the value of the trees also placed under the item of equipment, the stated tenden-would appear even more pronounced. According to the tree-Lt survey, in spite of the fact that about 85% of the total iipts of the tree-fruit farms come from the sales of fruit, '43.4% of the area of the farms has nothing to do with the fruit AVRRAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . GROUP "II"- 1%8* Above-marginal farms Marginal f rms Sub-marginal farms Land* Labor* Equipment. 72.3% 12.0% 13.7% 70*2% 11.3% 18*3% 65*7% 16*9% 17.4% As compared with the sub-marginal farms, the marginal and the above-marginal farms have more land, less labor, and the same amount of equipment. It is again necessary to emphasize the fact that the value Of the trees is included in the land value, while from this stu-dy the conclusion is made that the value of the trees should be -42-included in equipment. It is necessary also to point out, that under nc circumstances should the average figures of the table above be taken as representative of the actual percentages of the total capitalizations of the Marginal, Sub-marginal, and Above-marginal farms invested in their factors of production. The tendency to have a smaller or a greater share of the total investment represented by a certain factor of production alone can be shown by the above averages. The more correct or the less correct percentages of the in-vestments in the different factors of production may be seen from the following table: TREE-FRUIT SURVEY. GROUP "11". Percentage of investment in land 40% -^ -6o% -70% -8o% -30% 60% 70% 8o% ?o% in labor 4% - 6% 6% - 8% 8% - 10% 10%-- 12% 12% - 14% 14% - 16% 16* - 18H 18% - 20% 24% - 26% 26% - 28% 33.2% Percent of farms in the sub-group to the total So. of farms in the size-group. 2.6% 3+% 39.3% 47.3% 3.3% 2.6 3-34.2% 13.2% 10.7% 13.8% 2.6% 3.3% 2.6% 3.2% 2.3% Average ope-rator's la-Percent of sab-marginal farms to the total No. bor income of farms in the for each same sub-group. 0% 100% 22Ì2Ì 0% 0% 30% 30 J 20% 0% 100% 100% 100% sub-group. + 443.51 - 954.26 + 839.47 + 584.83 +1273.59 +1080.45 - 361.12 + 650.34 + 800.71 +1370.28 +1129.33 + 445.51 + 838.30 - 648.95 - 731.28 -1241.84 in equipment 3% - 13% 10% - 20% 21+0% 30.0% 23.7% 3.% 33% - 30% 33% - 40% 30% + 174.SL + 733.24 + 968.70 - 110.38 Mast of the tree-fruit farms have from 60% to 80% of their total capitalization invested in land. The farms which have from 70% to 80% realize smaller operator's labor income than the farms which have from 60% to 7J%, and jet it will be seen that the number of the farms in the "70% - 80%" sub-group is larger than the number of the farms in the "60% - 70*" group. The operator's labor income of the farms T?hich have from 80% to 90% of their total capitalisation invested in land is the largest of all the sub-groups, but the number of the farms in this sub-group is too small (3.3%) to make the figure reliable. In the second group of the tree-fruit farms 71.0% of the total number of the farms have less than 20% of their total in-vestment represented by equipment, and jet the most successful farms have from 20% to 30% of their total capitalization inves-ted in equipment. As a whole, the second size group appears to have too much investment in land. The farmers of this group might do better if they allowed a greater portion of their total investment to go into equipment, and a smaller portion of it to go into land. The most correct ratios of the distribution of the different factors of production for th^ second size group of the tree fruit farms appears to be: 63% in land, 13% in labor, and 22%" in equipment. -44-AUERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THESE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION. S R OUP "III". Laad. Labor. Equipment. 3ve-marglnal fa^as 10.4% 16.0% rginal farms "* ** * ?2.7% 13.3% 14.4% The above-marginal fanas have more land than have the sub-marginal farms; the above-marginal farms have less labor, and they have more equipment than the sub-marginal farms. TR^E-FRUIT SURVEY, GROUP "3 0% - 90% in labor 4% -6% - 8% 8% - 13% 14% - 16% 2 0% --in equipment 1% - 10% 10% - 20% 20% - 30% Percentage of the investment in land. Percent of farms Percent of sub- Average ope-in the sub-group to the total No. of farms in the size group. 28.6% 37+1% 14.3% 21.4% 14.3% 28.7% 21.4% 7.1% 28.i 37.3 14.: rator's la-to the total No. bor income of farms in the for each same sub-group, sub-group. 50% 23% 33.3% 0% 73*0% 12.5i 30.0% + 382.05 + 360.87 +1221.02 +1100.79 - 492.26 +1289.60 +1973.91 -2882.02 -3058.81 - 654.64 +1277.05 + 429.80 It will be seen that, although the largest operator's labor income is realized by the farms which have from 80% to 90% of -45-their total capitalization invested in land , half of the num-ber of these farms are sub-marginal. This sub-group appears to have an organozation that seems to be on the whole too risky. The group which includes the farms with from 70^ to 80,L of their total capitalization represented by land may be consider-ed as bein^- in the most satisfactory position. The correctness of this conclusion is confirmed by a consideration of the vari-ed investments in equipment, and in labor. It seems that the farms should have at least 12 t of their total investment represented by labor, and at least 13% repre-sented by equipment. 12 + 13 makes 27, and only 73% is left for the share of the total capitalization which could be invested in land. The fact must be always borne in mind that, under this sys-tem of survey records, the larger percentage of investment in land may mean a greater share of the total area of the farm's land under the farm's orchard, or it may mean a better orchard with a larger number of trees per acre, or it ray mean a big track of land which has nothing to do with the orchard. THE AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ""EREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . G R 0 U P "i?" - 1928. Land. Labor. Equipment. Above-mar inal farms - -Marginal farms 69.4% 12.1% 18.3% Sub-marginal farms 36.9% 13.3% 29.8% —46** As iê the case' of the three previous groups, the sab-margi-farms have less land and more labor than have the marginal is. None of the farms of the fourth size group realized 3re than +$600*00 operator's labor income. As will be seen the table that follows, some of the sub-marginal farms owe their minus operator's labor income to the excessive investment in the equipment, probably in the unproductive equipment, such -.as too expensive or obsolete buildings, etc. TREE -FRUIT G R 0 U F Percentage of Percent of farms the investment in the sub-group to the total No* of farms in the size group* land. 30% - 40% 40% - 50% 30% - 6o% SURVEY, 1728* Percent of sub- Average opera-marginal farms tor's labor to- the total Bo. income for each of farms in the sub-group. in labor L 8% - 10' 10% -12% - 14 14% - 16 , 18% - 20% in equipment 1% - 10% 10% - 20% 20% ? 30% 30% - 40% 40% - 30% 16.?% 16*7% 16.6% 33. S% 16*7% 16*7% 33*3% 16*?% 16*7% 16.6% 16.7% 33.3% 33.4% 16*6% lOi 10( 3% 01 100% 0% )0% 0% 100% 100% -6434.30 -4648.54 + 239*04 + 293.33 -1338*30 -1338.50 + 132.47 -4648*54 + 361.7? -6434.30 -1338.50 + 293.83 -2304.73 -6454.50 Although few farms enter into the fourth size group, this group gives the same answer to the question as to what consti--4?-tntes the moat satisfactory ratios of the distribution of the different factors of production. The largest operator's labor income is realized by the farms which have from 70% to 80% of their total capitalization invested in land; which have from 14% to 16% of their total capitalization invested in labor, and which have from 10% to 20% of their total capitalization inves-ted in equipment. The best ratios, then, may be stated as being 70% in land, 1$% in labor, and 15% in equipment. Tree-fruit farms are highly specialized enterprises. Con-sequently it is expected that different size groups do not vary much as far as the best methods of their organization are con-cerned. At the same time however the larger farms should show certain operating and material expenses fonaing a smaller por-tion of their total capitalization. Besides this, certain ma-chinery and certain buildings cannot be as fully utilized on a smaller farm as they can be utilized on a larger farm; the machi-nery can be used each season for a longer period of time on a larger farm than on a smaller farm, and so on. The best ratios of the distribution of the different factors of production on the tree-fruit farms of the different sizes are as follows: Land. Labor. Equipment. For Group "I" For Group "II" For Group "III" For Group "IV" 69% 11% 20% 65% 15% 22% 73% 12% 15t 70% 15% 15% These figures confirm either of the expectations: l/ the best ratios of the distribution of the different factors of production do not differ much with the variations of the si-zes of the tree-fruit farms; 2/ the larger farms need a smaller share of their total capita-lization to be invested in equipment, excluding the trees. Thus larger farms seem to have a distinct advantage over the smaller farms in that thoir overhead charge of operating , ma-terial, and fixed expenses can be made smaller than the over-head charge on a smaller farm. At the same time however the larger farms as compared with the smaller farms have a relati-vely greater number of the sub-m-rginal farms, T R E B - F RU I T S U R VE X - 1928. PERCENT OF 3UBHARJINAL FARMS IN DIFFERENT SI'^E GROUPS. The fact that among larger farms there is a greater number of failures than among smaller farms is not inherent to the si-ze of the enterprise. The proper combination of the three fac-tors of production on a large farm is liable to be more effici-ent than the proper combination of the three factors of produc-tion on a smaller farm. Unfortunately, or fortunately perhaps, there is a well defined tendency for the larger farms to be more liable to have an improper combination of the three fac-Group "I" Group "II" Group "III" Group "17" 12.3% 28.9% 35.7% 30.0% tors of production. The smaller farms seem to he mere able to organize their factors of production in a more remunerative way; the range of the ratios of the distribution of their fac-tors of production is nearer to the standard ratio. The range of the ratios of the distribution of the factors of production of the larger fcrrae is more scattered, has greater deviations, and varies very muoh from Hie standard. In coming back to the tables dealt with previously, it wdll be seen that the percentage of the f-rms which have more than 80% of their total capitalization invested in land is For Group "I" 6.2% For Group "II" 3.3% For Group "III" 14.3% For Group "IV" IG.7% The percentage of the farms which have less than of their total capitalization invested in land is For Group "I" 12.3% For Group "11" For Group "IV" 34.4% The percentage of the fa ms which have more than 33% of their total investment represented by equipment is For Group "I" 0% For Group "11" 5.3% For Group "III" 0% For Groun "IV" 50% -50-Tbe range of the percentages of the total capitalization invented ia land la as follows: For Group "I" ^P to 80.3% (23.4) For Group "II" 48.4% up to 83.1% (34.1) For Group "III" 64.1% up to 85.4% (21.3) For Group "I?" 38.2% up to 83,1% (44.9) The range of the percentages invested in equipment is as follows: For Group "I" ' 2.8% up to 24.7% (21.9) For Group "II" 7.2% up to 35.6% (28.4) For Group "III* 6.6% up to 29.7% (23.1) For Group "IV' 7+9% np to 43.6% (35.7) As compared to smaller forms, a relatively greater number of the larger farms do not seem to be capable of distributing their factors of production to the best advantage. It is a usual experience in agriculture that the efficiency of produc-tion is hampered by the deficient factor. In the case of large sized far-;s , adequate management seems to be the deficient fac-tor. The investment in land, in labor, and in equipment seems to increase more rapidly than the investment in management. The same inability to distribute their factors of production in the most efficient way is pronounced stronger on the poultry farms of a larger size as compared to the poultry farms of a smaller size. Poultry as well as tree-fruit farming is a highly specialized business. Its standard type of organization should be applicable with benefit to practically every farm. It has —31** been found that the standard distribution of the three factors Of production for poultry farms of British Columbia is: 10% in land, 10% in labor, and 50% in equipment* The nearer to this standard distribution of the factors of production the actual distribution of the factors of production approaches, the better it seems to be for any poultry farm. The smaller the sixe of a poultry farm, the smaller are the deviations from the stan-dards. The spread of the percentages of the total capitalization invested in land is this: P 0 U L T 3 Y F A RM S U R 7 E Y, 1924. For Group "I" from 10% to 40% (30%) For Group "II" from 10% to $0% (40%) For Group "III" from 10% to 50% (40%) For Group "IV" from 10% to 60% (30%) The spread of the percentages of the total capitalization invested in equipment is: For Group "I" from 40% to (40%) For Group "II* from 40% to 90?. (30%) For Group "III" from 40% to H0% (40%) For Group "IV" from 30% to 90% (60%) The inadequacy of the increase of the management in propor-tion to the increase of the investments in other three factors of production is well Refined. The fact that in the case of the poultry farms the smallest si30 group provides the relatively largest number of sub-marginal f^rms does not contradict this The deficient factor of the poultry farms of the size gronp is the equipment, this is plainly seen and, ierefore, the managM&ent cannot possibly be blamed for the re-latively large number of sub-marginal farms daring the first few years of the farm existence. Probably the management could be held responsible for the inability to move the farm from the first size group into the second. Jet, surely, a certain time ought to be allowed for such a task. Summarising the information regarding the tree-fruit farms of the Okanagan District, it may be said that as a whole the farms should increase the share of their total capitalisation invested in equipment, and they should decrease the share of their total capitalization invested in land. As in the case of the poultry farm, the tree-fruit farm of the Okanagan District has not as jet reached the point of decreasing returns. For the tree-fruit farm operators there still regains the opportu-nity to intensify the utilization of their lend areas. In co-mmon language the meaning of this last paragraph amounts to the following recomendation: more boxes of apples should be grown per acre, and the quality of the bulk of the apple grown should be improved. The above conclusions were arrived at after analysis of the data obtained from the 74 farms under the survey of 1*?28. Though the above described tendencies of the farms to have more -53-^ t^an they should and to have less equipment than is the Mat profitable for them to have seemed to be well defined, the figures did not all follow the general direction of the data. In order to check on the correctness of the conclusions arrived at, Hie analysis was repeated, working with data obtained from the same farms but gathered during the year 1927. The results obtained from the analysis of the data of 1927 ere identical to the results obtained from the data of 1928. In fact in some respects the latter (1927) more clearly illustrates the same thing that had been illustrated by the data of 1928. For in-stance, the deviations from the standard ratios of the distri-bution of the different factors of production on the farms of different sizes are as follows: THE RANGE OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL CAPITALIZATION INVEST-ED IN LAND: According to 1927. According to 1928. Group "I" from 50% to 80% (30%) from 30% to 90% (40?,) Group "II" from 30% to 80% (30%) from 40'. to 90% (30%) Group "III" from 30% to 90% (40%) from 60* to 90% (30%) Group "IV" from 40% to 90% (30%) from 3J% to 90% (60^) THE RANGE OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL CAPITALI'^TION INVEST-ED IN EQUIPMENT: Group "I" from 1% to 30% (30%) from 1% to 30% (30%) Group "II" from 1% to 40% (40%) from 1% to 40% (4J%) Group "III" from 1% to 40% (40%) from 1', to 30t (30*.) Group "IV" from 1% to 30% (50%) from 1% to 50% (30%) , as the data gathered in 1<?2? prove the same thing and bring us to the same conclusions as the data gathered in 1928, it may be considered that the results of the investiga-tion and analysis of the figures obtained during the survey of 1928 are correct and valid as long, as there is no radical and permanent change in the prices of the commodities produced or in the prices of the different factors of production, Tables dealing with the data of 1<?27 are at the end page 84.to -58-Tree Fruit Survey, 1928. Correlation of the percentage of the total capitalization tf farms invested in land and the operator's 1.income. Percentage of the total capi-talization in-vested in land. Average operator's labour income. Number of farms. 30% 40% 50% 80% -50% 60% 70% 80% 90% -6,434.30 -2,101.32 - 437.63 + 758.42 + 398.56 + 397.79 1 2 5 2 A 36 5 50% Invei 30% 60% 70% ient in land. 90% -56-B.C. DA I R Y F A RM I N G. How let us consider the Dairy farms. For the year 1926 there are 68 farms divided into three size groups. The first size group includes the farms with the total capitalization of from .¡¡4,000 to $18,030; the second size group includes the farms with the total capitalization of between $18,000 to $35,000; and the third size group includes *the farms with the total capitalization of between $35,000 to §110,000. There are 33 farms in the first group, 21 farms in the se-cond group and there are 14 farms in the third group. DAIRY FA3HING, 1926. Capitalization. No. of farms. No. of sub- %% of sub-marginal marginal farms. farms. Group "I" 33 3 9.1% Group "11" 21 3 23.8% Group "III" 14 6 42.9% THE AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TEE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . G R 0 U P "I*. Above-marginal farms Marginal farms Sub-marginal farms <and. Labor. Equipment 46.7% 8.5% 44.8% cn T'? 7.3% 42.6% 47*3% 3.8% 43.9% As compared with the marginal and sub-marginal farms, the above-marginal farms have a smaller share of their total invest--57-ment represented by land; they have a greater share of their total investment represented by equipment; taey have the same share of their total capitalization represented by 1 bor. factors of production corresponding to the above-marginal, mar-ginal, and sub-marginal farms show only the tendency of the three kinds of farms to have relatively more or less invested in a oertain factor of production. The a erage percentages corresponding to the above-marginal frrms cannot be considered as the best to follow. They are better to follow than the per-centages of the other two kinds of farms, but by no means should they be looked upon as an ideal standard. The more detailed table below reveals more accurately the correct percentages of the distribution of the three factors of production for the farms included in the first size group. This table sets forth the information which makes it possible to determine the standard percentage distribution of the three factors of production for the dairy farms of the first group. When adopted, the standard distribution will probably prove beneficial for the dairymen who adopt it. B A 1 R X S U R VE Y- I926. G R 0 U p "I". Percent of the Percent of farms Percent of sub- Average ope-investment in the sub-group marginal farms rator's la-to the total No. to the total No. bor income of farms in the of farms in the for each in land. size group. same sub-group, sub-group. The average percentages of the distribution of the three 20? - 301 30% - 40% 40% - 50% - 6ot b0% - '70% + 610.02 + 1039.43 + 539.15 + 592.26 4- 771.73 -58-in labor. 3t - 5% 12.1% 0% +1031.61 3% - 7% 30.3% % + 716.40 7% - 9% 30.3% 10%  $84.32 ?% - 11% 18.2% 33.+ 363.86 11% - 13% 0% 0% - 15% 3.0% % + 406.88 13% - 17% 6.1% o% +1235.93 in equipment. 20%.- 30% 9*1% 0% + 894.13 30% - 40% 18.2% 16.7%  538.68 40% - 50% 48.3% 12.5% + 592.15 30% - 63% 18.2t 0%  933.07 60% - 70% 6.0% % + 610.02 For the first size group the more accurate percentage of the total capitalization invested in land seems to be around 35%. The "30% - 40%" sub-group realizes the largest average operator' labor income. The significant fact is thst 81.7% of the total number of the fsrms of the fir t size group have a much larger share of their total capitalization invested inland. The ten-dency to have more land than is justified by the total resour-ces of the enterprise is quite evident. In the first group 75.8% of the ferms have less than 30% of their total capitalisation represented by equipment. Yet, farms which invest from 50% to 60% in the equipment are able to get a larger operator's labor Income than the farms which invest in their equipment less than 50% of the total capitalization. The tendency to be short in equipment is as plainly seen as the tendency to have an excess of land. The greatly needed equi pment capital is invested in the unnecessary acreage which be-comes burdensome for the enterprise. The two extreme sub-groups are not large enough to make the averages reliable. Up to a certain point the farms which have a smaller share of their total capitalization represented by labor seem to be at an advantage when compared to the farms which have a larger share of their total capitalization invested in labor. The operator's labor income increases with the decrease of the in-vestment in labor. But then, when the farms have more than % of their total capitalization invested in labor, the tendency reverses: the farms which have their labor investment equal to 14% realize a larger operator's labor income than the farms ?hich have their investment in labor equal to 12%; the farms with 16% are better off than the farms with 14%. When considering the investments in labor, one should be very careful indeed. Labor and equipment sometimes mean really the same thing. The pay to a hired man who hauls potatoes to the station is considered a. labor expense, but the nay to a truck owner who hauls the potatoes using his truck is consider-ed an equipment expense; a hired man on a binder is a labor ex-pense, a man hired with a binder is an equipment expense; the horse-shoeing is sometimes a l?bor expense, but sometimes it is an equipment expense - all depends on the person who does the shoeing. Probably the safest nay to find out which percenta/e of the total capitalization when invested in labor may be considered the standard percentage, is by finding out the standard percen-tages of the investments in land and of the investments in equi-pment. 100% minus the sixn of the standard percentages of inves-tments in land and in equipment may be considered the standard -6o-percentae of investment in labor. The more accurate ratios of the distribution of the different factors of production for the dairy farms of the first size group are: 35% in land, 55% in equipment, and 10% in labor. The averages for the above-margi-nal fauns of the same first group are:46.7% in land, 44.8% in equipment, and 8.5% in labor. THE AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . DAIRY SURVE Y,l?26. GROUP "II". Land. Labor. Equipment. Above—average farms 53.2% 3.7% 41.1% Marginal farms 56.0% 5+8% SR.2% Sub-marginal farms 66.0% 6.0% 28.0% As in the case of the first group, the above-marginal farms of the second group have a smaller share of their total capita-lization invested in land; they have a larger share of their total capitalization invested in equipment; and they have al-most the same share of their total capitalization invested in labor. As compared to the above-marginal farms and to the mar-ginal farms, the sub-marginal farms have the most of the land and the least of the equipment. The reaction of the variations in the distributions of the three factors of production on the profitabliness of the farm can be observed from the table that follows: -61-D A I R Y S UR VE Y -1926. GR 0 U P "II*. Percent of Percent of farms Percent of sub- Average operator' investment in the sub-group marginal farms labor income for to the total No. to the total No. each sub-group. Of farms in the of farms in the in land. size group. same sub-group. 30% - 40% 40% - 30% 30% - 60% 6ol - 70% 70% - 80% 9.3% 42.?% 19.1% 19.0% 0% 0% 11.1% 30 30% +520.89 +361.84 +732.34 -193.16 -267.31 in labor. 3% - 3% 3% - 7% 7% - % 9% -11% 33.3t 47.6% 9.6% 9.3% 28,6% 20.0% 0% 50.0% +$44.05 +299.09 +290*00 -231.31 in equipment. 20% - 30% 30% - 40% 40% - 30% 30% - 60% 23.8% 42.9% 23.8% 9.3% 60% 22.2% 2% 0% -436.20 +351*70 +617.91 +320.89 The largest operator's labor inoomeis realized by the sub-group which includes farms with the investments in land of from 30% to 60% of their total capitalization. After having studied the figures carefully one comes to the conclusion that the per-centage of investment in land for this second group of dairy farms is nearer to 30% rather than to 60%. '¿hen subdivided in two parts, the "30% to 60%" sub-gro p gives the following re-sults: Percent of investment Operator's labor in land: income: 30% - 55% +949.24 33% - 601 +339.22 -62-In order to see that the more correet percentage is nearer to 50% than to 60%, it was not necessary to subdivide the sub-group. The table shows quite clearly that the farms with the investment in land smaller than 50% are much better off than the farms with the investment in land greater than 60%. As a matter of fact the fanns which have more than 60* of their total capi-talization represented by land could not pay 7% rae of interest on their capital investment - they yield on the average a minus operator's labor Income. The more accurate percentage of the total capitalization to be invested in land is approximately 30%. About one half of the farms have more land than this standard percentage. The largest operator's labor income is realized by the sub-group which includes the fanns with the investment in equipment of from 40% to 50%. In the second size group 66.7% of the farms have less than 40% of their total capitalization invested in equipment. Inspite of the fact that according to the figures it seems to be wiser to have too much of equipment rather than to have too little of it, there are more farms which have an insuficient amount of equipment than there are farms which have an excess of it. The largest ooerator's labor income 3fas realized by the sub-group which incorporates the farms with the smallest share of their total capitalization invested in labor. This fact may be taken as proof that labor saving devices when adonted on the dairy farms of British Columbia increase the economic effi-ciency of the enterprise and, therefore, well justify their -63-applieation. The mare correct ratios of the distribution of the different factors of production for the dairy frms of the second size group are: in land, 4% in equipment, and $.1. in labor. THE AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . DAIRY SURVEY-192 6. 3 R 0 U P "III". Lsnd. Labor. Equi pment. Above-marginal farms 63.2% 3.2% 29.6% Marginal farms 36.1% 36.9% Sub-marginal frrms 62.3% 3.1% 32.4% Not like the above-marginal ferms of the two preceding groups, the above-marginal farms of the third size group have a greater share of their total capitalization invested in land than have the marginal and the sub-marginal farms. There are two possible explanations of this fact. Here are the explana-tions: l/ For dairy farms of large size a high degree of specializa-tion can be profitable when an extensive method of farming is practiced; 2/ In order to be profitable the highly intensive dairy farms of a large size find it is necessary to have a well developed side line, "his means that the large and highly intensive dai-ry farms should 'iot be too specialized. Their dairy diversity index should not be, let us sfy, above 60 . Such farms should have a secondary project or projects yielding a considerable -64-part of their total receipts. Sueh secondary projects, cash crops or side lines may he selected from a long list and com-prise crops such as potatoes, peas, cereals, hay, or they can be other branches of agricultural activities as the raising of pure bred cattle, horses, pigs and numerous of others. The side lines preferably should be those which will uti-lize by-products of the dairy business and supply the dairy cattle with the necessary feed. From what has been said it is already understood that there are several types of dairy farms, differently organized to suit the various methods of carrying on the business. The operators of large sized farms are particularly prone to vary in the me-thods of the management of their farms and in the ways of their organization. They frequently alter their methods when the changes in the market conditions take place. Consequently the standard distribution of the factors of production for the dai-ry farms of the third size group should be held as such only for the years similar to the year 1^26. This is the year which provided the statistical data upon which this treatise is based. D A I R Y S U R 7 3 Y - 1926. ORO U P "III". Percent of Percent of farms Percent of sub-investment in the sub-group marginal farms in land. Avera-;e opera-tor's labor in-to the total Bo. to the total 3o. come for each of farms in the of farms in the sub-group, size group. same sub-group. 50?, - 60% 6o% - 70% - 80/, 21.4% 57.lt 21.5% 50.0^ 33.3% + 57.64 -201.48 +445.63 -63** in labor 42.9% 33.3% 57.3% +728.30 -7&O.I5 +847.98 301,3% 7.1% 0% in equipment 20% - 30-, 30% - 40% 40% - 30% 35,7% 57.1% 7.2% 20% 30% 100% + 990.74 .519.31 -901.24 According to the above table 75% is the more correct share of the total capitalization to be invested in land by the dairy farm operators of the third group. The farms of the third size group which have a smaller share of their total capitalisation represented by lend realized- a much smaller operator's labor income. But "75%" is a somewhat exaggerated percentage. The exaggeration is due to the largeness of the size of the adopted class intervals. Hone of the farms included in the survey had more than 72.9% invested in land. The "70% - 80%" sub-group really is the "70% - 72.9%" sub-group. This last sub-group rea-lized +443.63 dollars as the operator's labor income. The "65% - 70%" sub-group (the upper half of the "60% - 70%") rea-lized +949.62 dollars as operator's labor income. Therefore the more correct share of the total capitalization invested in land is not 73%, but is close to 68't.*%* According to the table the more correct share of the total capitalization to be invested in equipment for the third group is from 20% to 30%. As in the ease of the investment in land, the figure is somewhat misleading due to the wide class inter-The figures of 1927 indicate that G5% is the more correct. -66-val adopted. The "20% - 30%" sub-group when further subdivided gives the following results: The more correct percentage of the total capitalization to be invested in equipment is around 28%. The variations of the investments in labor are included be-tween the 3% and 9%. The upper limit seems to be as good as is the lower limit. In determining the standard percentage of the investment in labor it is wise to practice the previously us'd method: The more correct ratios of the distribution of the three factors of production for the dairy farms of the third si^e group are: 68% in land, 28% in equipment, and 100% - (68% + 28%) ss 4% in labor. Dairy farms are not adapted to extremely high degree of spe cialization. One should not expect to find that the most accu-rate organization is similar for all dairy farms. Dairy farmin differs very much in its methods of organization and management That organization which is good for one type of a dairy farm may be bad for another type. Percent of investment in equipment 20% - 25% 2$% - 30% Operator's labor income + 443.63 +1808.39 -67-For the different size groups of dairy farms the more correct ratios of the distribution of the three factors of pro-duction appear to be as follows: Land. Labor. Equipment. Group "1" 33% 10% 33% Group "11" 30% 5% 43% Group "III" 68% 4% 28% For the above-marginal farms of the different size groups the average ratios of the distribution of the three factors of production are: Land. Labor. Equipment Group "1* 46.7% 8.3% 44.8% Group "11" 33.2% 3.7% 41.1% Group "III" 65.2% 3.2% 29.6% The larger is the fa m - the larger the portion of its total canitalization which should be and is represented by land; the larger is the farm - the smaller the portion of its total capi-talization which should be and is represented by labor; the lar-ger is the farm - the smaller the portion of its total capitali-zation which should be and is represented by equipment. These conclusions involve very serious consequences. The operator's labor income is the farm net revenue minus 7% interest on investment in land, buildings, machinery, live-stock, and feed and supplies. The farms which realize"plus"ope-rator's labor jncome yield 7% rate of interest on their invest--68-ment in land, they yield 7% rate of interest on practically all their investment in equipment, and they yield the wages for their hired and family labor. The farms which have the same operator's labor income may be considered as providing the same rate of returns on the to-tal investment of the enterprise; - or, the efficiency of the application of the labor and of the equipment to land may be considered equal, when the enterprise yields the same operator' labor Income. THE AVERAGE OPERATOR'S LABOR INCOME OF THE DIFFERENT SITE GROUP DAIRY S U R V E X -I926. Group "I" +679.38 Group "II" +329.36 Group "III" - 7.29 With the increase of the size of the farms the average ope-rator's labor income for the group decreases. It has been shown, however, that with the increase of the size of the farm the largest total profit combination of its factors of produc-tion demands a smaller proportion of the farm's total capitali-zation to be represented by equipment and labor. The conclusion is this: to a given agricultural area more They do not yield interest on their investments in labor and in cash for current expenses. This is not strictly correct, but the mistake is in favor of the smaller farms. The same operator's labor income on a smaller farms means a greater rate of returns per every dollar invested in the &nterorise. 6? labor and mere equipment can be efficiently applied^ when the agricultural enterprises are relatively small in size. Consequently, the districts which have an idle surplus of labor, and the districts which are anxious to apply eficiently the accu-mulated excess of equipment (if such an excess exists) should try to make their agricultural enterprises relatively small in size. From the point of view of nn individual who is about to es-tablish a new agricultural enterprise, it seems to be wise not to undertake an organization of a large sized farm. There is more chance for success on a relatively small farm than there is on a relatively large farm. When dealing with highly specialized types of farming, na-mely with poultry and with tree-fruit fanning, the fact that the larger farms have a larger percentage of sub-marginal farms was explained as an inability of the operators of the large farms to increase their investments in management in a needed proportion with the increases of investments in land, in equip-ment, and in labor. The decreased adequacy of the management D¿ I R Y F A HR I N G - 1926 . %% of sub-marginal Average for the farms, group operator' iabor income. Group "I" Group "II" Group "III 9.1% 2 3.8% 42.9% + 679.38 + 329.36 - 7.29 with the increase of the size of farm was illustrated by show-ing that the range of the ratios of the distribution of the di-fferent factors of production on larger farms is more scatter-ed, and has greater deviations from the standard ratios than on the smaller farms. Such an illustration is valid only when dealing with the types of farming which have uniform methods of management and of organization independent of the sine of the enterprise. The more correct ratios of the distribution of the three factors of production are the same for the poultry or tree-fruit farm of any size. The more correct ratios of the distri-bution of the three factors of production are not the same for dairy farms of different sizes; more correct method of organi-zation for a smaller dairy farm is different from the more co-rrect method of organization of a larger dairy farm. Various methods of organization do not provide the same opportunity for deviation from the corresponding to each method standard type of organization;- on a ranch type of dairy fana the sh re of the total capitalization invested in land cannot vary from 2J% to 70^ on a small dairy farm this is a possible variation. The fret that among the larger dairy farms there is a grea-ter percentage of sub-marginal farms should be explained in the same way as in the case of poultry and in the case of tree-fruit farms: it is due to the increased deficiency of management. But the illustration which was satisfactory when dealing with two previous types of farming cannot be used when dealing with the dairy farms. -71-TEE AVERAGE OPERATOR'S LABOR INCOME FOR TEE THREE BEST FARMS OF THE DIFFERENT SIZE GROUPS . DAIRY SURVEY - 192b. Average operator's labor income for the three best farms. Group "I" +1986.02 Group "II* +1573.4$ Group "III" +1914.08 The farms of the third size group can be managed in such a fashion as to yield an income equaling that of the farms of both of the other groups which on the average proved more suc-cessful. There are however more sub-marginal farms in the third size group than there are in the second or in the first size group. The resoursea of the farms of the third size group when compared to the resoursee of the farms of the second or of the first size groups are greater ae far as the amount of the in-vestment in land, in equipment, and in labor are concerned. The farms belong to the third group because their capital resourses are greater than are the capital resourses of the farms of the first or of the second size group. The amount of the manage-ment invested in farms of any of the size groups is alone un-known. The efficiency of production is hampered by tne deficie-ncy of one or the other factor. As compared to the farms of a smaller size, larger farms do not suffer because of the defici-ent amount of land, or of labor, or of equipment. It is the inefficiency of the co-ordination of the three above stated fee-tors which eraetes the inefficiency of the production on the -72-large sized agricultural enterprises. The inadequate management is responsible for the inefficlen co-ordination. Therefore, refering back to the individual farmer who is about to establish a new agricultural enterprise, the general recomendation that there is more chance for success on a smaller farm presumes that the managerial ability of the new operator is not above the average managerial ability of the farmers of the district. If the managerial ability of the new operator be above the average, by all means let him establish a large farm. There is no inherent weaknesses in the dairy farms of British Columbia even when they approach the largest size that has been yet established. As the conclusion of this study and, at the same time, as its summary the following three statements seem to be approp-riate: l/ The tendency to have more land than is justified by the ca-pital Invested on farms is plainly seen. Farmers of British Columbia should not be afraid to invest more capital per unit of land they posses; this is not likely to bring them diminish-ing returns on every extra unit of capital invested. 2/ Among their number,the larger farms have a. greater percentage of sub-marginal enterprises than have the smaller farms. Far-mers do not seem to be able to increase their investments in management correspondingly to the increased investments in land, in labor, and in equipment. -73-3/ If the Province desires to invest in its agriculture effici-ently as much of labor and of equipment as it is possible, it should adopt the policy of favouring smaller agricultural units of production. UBC Scanned by UBC Library -74-D A I R Y S U R VE Y, 1926. G R 0 U P "1". Correlation of the percentage of the total investment of the farms represented by land and the operator's labour income. a +$2,000.' + §1,000.. 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Investment in land. Correlation of the percentage of the total capitalization of the farms invested in equipment and the operator's labour income. g +$2,000. o a -H M O n) <D O .,000. 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Investment in equipment. -78-D A I R Y S U R VE Y, 1926. G R 0 U P "II". Correlation of the percentage of the total capitalization of the farms invested in land and the operator' labour income. p2,000. §1,000. §1,000. / 30% 40% 50% 60% ^— 80% Investment in land. Correlation of the percentage of the total capitalization of the farms invested in equipment and the opera tor's labour income. $1,000. 30% 40% 50% 60% Investment in equipment. $1,000. -76-DA I R Y S UR VE Y , 1926. G R 0 U P "III". Correlation of the percentage of the total capitalization of the farms invested in land and the operator's labour income. +$1,000. o a H m o {6 <P O A / \ § o K) o a3 )L< <0 a. o 8070 Investment in land. -$1,000. Correlation of the percentage of the total capitalization /* of the farms invested in equipment and the ope-/ ^ rator's labour income. +§1,000. / ^ / \ ^ / \ S / -^1,000. 2 0% 30;', \ 40% 50% Investment in equipment. -77-Tables similar to those worked out oil the basis of the re-cords of the year 1<?2& have been worked out for the dairy farms of British Columbia using the figures for each of the years 1927, 1928, and 1929. The number of the farms under the survey varied from year to year slightly. D A I R Y S U R VE Y, B. C. -1926 ¿3, j 1927 ! 1728 1<?29 An -n *t'M Ei'Bt SQ * *! co * *i S E g g s' s s a' 8 J§ & ^ ^ d - K t ^ ^ ?! ) 3 ^ t 4-) a a 9-)3-t O'^ttw a catsu a at g o * . ). . !* ^ OC9 Od o O T^t O O O Otg ^(3 tgtw &;a ^.a ' ^ m s-R-tSa: !.<<=H B ! ! t )  ' ! tGroup "I" 33 3 9.1%33 3 l5.14jo 2 5.0{33 3 9.1% < ! ! Group "II" 21 3 23.8%2{3 7 30.42.4 10 41.7 4 19.1% Group"III" 14 6 42.%1;? 9 47.31{9 9 47.4 ¡L6 2 12.5% ) ! t !  ! ! ! ( ! ' ' According to the tables the best ratios of the distribution of the three factors of production vary slightly from year Lo year, but the variations are not too great to negate the con-clusions arrived at after having analyzed the figures of the 1926. light variations should exist because of fluctuations in prices on the farm cocrnodities sold as well as on the com^no-dities bought. If the nrices on different products and on di-fferent elements of production are subject to peimanent chanres, the best ratios of the distribution of the different factors -78-of production as determined by 1926 will cease bo be correct. Ait as long as the prices fluctuate without any marked tendency to shift in the same direction, the yearly variations in the best ratios of the factors of production will tend to balance. As an illustration of the last statement one may use the data provided by the records of the year I929. In British Co-lumbia during the year 1929 the prices of field crops rose very markedly: Average price per bushel of wheat in I929 was ^1.39 as compared to the five year average price (1924-1928) which was #1.33; Average pri'je of oats in 1929 was §0.72 per bushel as compared to the five year average of $0.64; Average price per cwt. of potatoes in 1929 was ;2.60 as compar-ed to five years average of $1.33. As the result of such a rise of prices of the field crops in 1929 the farms, which had a large quantity of crops for sale, gained, while the farms which had to buy them became the loosers. The best ratios of the distribution of the different factors of production during the year 1929 were not identical with the best ratios of the factors of production during the year I926. For the farms of the first and the second size groups during the I929 it was more profitable to have a larger shart of their to-tal capitalization represented by land, as the field cro^s grown on that land yielded a handsome return. For the farms of the third size group it became more profitable to have a smaller percentage of their total capitalization to be invested in land. -79-as this meant more field crops which yielded a large profit. The large farms which have too much land belong to the range type. They have not equipment enough to cultivate their lands and they are not engaged in the growing of the field crops to a great extend. The large farms which have relatively less land, have sufficient equipment with which to work their fields and, consequently, they benefited from the sale of the potatoes and of the oats they grew. The best ratios of the different factors of production shif-ted with the shift of the prices. The price of the field crops dropped during the year 1930, returning to and even below the 1926 price level. The figures of the farm survey of 1930 are not available as yet, but it is not difficult to predict tie shift of the best ratios of the factors of production in the opposite to the 1929 year's direction. It is impossible to compare farms of different types, or of varied sizes, or situated in different districts, or those work-ing under different market conditions. This statement is par-ticularly true when dealing with the farms which have several lines of production with the possibility of stressing one line during one year and stressing another line during another year. Each year provides somewhat different market conditions. As Ion?? as - prioes fluctuate about the I92& prices, the more correct ratios of the combination of the three factors of production may be considered similar to those of I926. The figures worked out from the statistical data obtained during the years 1927, 1928, and 1929 provide the opportunity to observe the changes in the distribution of the three factors of production which took place on British Columbia Dairy farms. 'After having carefully studJed the tables which deal with the first group.of the dairy farms (Tables'16, 17, and 18) the significant tendency is notioed: the farms adjust themselves to the most efficient co-ordination of the factors of produc-tion. The number of farms rhich had too excessive amount of land decreases; the number of farms which had been low in equip-ment capital decreases as well. In I92& 21.2% of the farms belonging to the first size group had from 30% to 60% invested in land; 13% of the fa ms had from 60 * to 70 ' invested in land. In the preceding chapter it was found that about 35% of the total capitalisation is the optimum percentage of total capital to be represented by land. It is seen from the table 16 that in 1927 only 9.1% of the farms bel nging to the first size grouo had from 30% to 60% invested in land, and that 9.1% had from 60% to 70% invested in land. At the same time the number of arms which had from 40% to 50% invested in land increases: in 1926 there were 43.3% in that sub-group,, in I927 there were 51.5?,. The number of farms which have from 30% to 40% investment in land increases as well: in 1926 there were 12.2% , but in 1927 there were 24.2%. The fanners had increased their share of in-vestment in the land. This process goes on during the following year 1928. From the 9.1% of the fauns of the sub-group with - 60%" of their total capitalization invested in land only 7.5;, are left. The sub-group of the farms which had from 40% to $0% decreased be-cause some of its farms moved into the next more rationally or-ganized sub-group of the farms which have from 301 to 40% of their total capitalisation invested in land. In 1927 the "40% to 30%" sub-group had 51.3% of the fxrns of the first size group, in I928 it had only 42.5%. On the contrary, the number of the farms in the "30% - 40%" sub-group increased from 24.2% in 1927 to 33% in 1928. The rationalisation of the fanning business is quite noticeable. The figures dealing with the equipment of the first size group of dairy fanss ( Table 18 ) show a similar tendency to ra-tionalize. From the sub-group of farms which have from 30% to 40% invested in equipment some of the farms were moved into the "40% - 50%" sub-group. In I926 there were 18.2% of the farms of the first size group in the "30% - 40%" sub-group; in 1927 there there were left only 3.0%. In 1926 there were 48.3% the farms of the first size group in the "40% - 50'." sub-group, in 1927 there were 54.5%. In the "50% - 60%" sub-group in 1926 there were 18.2%, in 1927 this figure became 24.3%, and in 1928 this percentage became 50.0%. In I92S there were less farms in the "40% - 50%" sub-group because some of them moved in the next more efficient "50% - 60*." sub-group, and so on. The figures illustrate again the same tendency of the rationa-lization of the agricultural community. -82-The second group of dairy farms ( Tables 19, 20, and 21 ) has the same tendency to rationalize the organization of the farms in the group. The optimum ratios of the distribution of the three factors of production for the dairy farms of the se-cond size group were: 30% in land, 4$% in equipment, and 5% in labor. The sub-group of the faras which have from 3J to 6J% of their total capitalization invested in land increased from 42.9% in 1926 to 32.4% in 1929. The sub-group of the farms which had from 401 to 50% of their total capitalization invest-ed in equipment grew as the years passed: in 1926 the percentage was 23.8%, in 1?2? it was 30.4%, in 1929 it was 42.9% (Table 21). Both the "20% - 30%" and the "30% - 40%" sub-groups lost their relative importance in 1929 as compared with the year 1926. The "20' - 30%" sub-group in 1929 had 19.1% of the firms of the second size group, while it had 23,8% in 1926. The "30% - 4o%" sub-group in 1929 had 23.8% of the farms of the second group, while it had 42.9% in 1926. The relative number of the poorly organized farms diminishes, and the relative number of the well organized farms increases. The optimum ratios of the distribution of the three factors of production for the dairy farms of the third size gro p are: 68% in land. 28% in equipment, and 41 in labor. The well defin-ed tendency of the first and of the second size groups of the dairy farms to rationalise their organization i& not to well indicated by the tables-dealing with the third size group of the d' iry farms ( Tables 22, 23, and 24 ). The best "60 '- - ?0%" -85-of investment in land sub-group had 57*1% of the total number of the farms of the third size group in 1926, it had only 47.4% in 1927, and 32.7% in 1928. It is true that in 192? the percen-tage rose up to 62.5%.^The "70% - 80%" decreased from 21.5% in 1926 to 6.3% in 1?29. Tiie "40% - 30%" sub-group increased . The management of farms of the third size group does not appear to be correct as far as the re-adjustment of their in-vestments is concerned. Instead of dacreasin the number of the farms with the excessive amount of equipment, their number was increased. The number of farms which have more than 40% of their total capitalization invested in equipment increased from year to year: it was 7.2% in 1526, 10.5% in 1927, 21.1% in 1928, and 25.Of, in 1929. The operators of the farms of the third size group try to intensify their production, while it seems that their policy should be just the opposite - they should not in-tensify their production to a greater degree than having 32% of their total capitalization invested in equipment and labor. All said illustrates again the fact that the farms of the larger size suffer more from the lack of an adequate management than do the smaller farms. While operators of smaller farms re-adjust the organization of thoir enterprises approaching thaLt type which seems to be the boat for thorn to adopt, the larger farms are adjusted more slowly or adopt an incorrect method of re-adjustment. ^The figures of 1929 do not follow the direction of the fi-gures of the years before it; this may be explained by the ra-ther drastic change in the prices which made the increased pro-duction of field crops in British Columbia very profitable for the season in question. <D e a & e o B C0[ tL. Mi Olì t-t r-t! r-t a! C¡ M t^ a: E n! m t^ O M Ol '¿S. r-t ta E ^ CO c9 M <t-t m r-t r-t (g t3 M g ^ a m <n o t-M o is; r-t H) e co M ta Oi tw r-t tw O lASiSAR. tooitr-^ M co LO tí) r-t M M r- M o r-t ^ r-t to ^ to ^ r-t r-t O O O O O O O O O O O O M C- M M r-t tO to w w H ÍT) o w S M H O E-t & M Et fC E-¡ ¡H m M co O CO f) -=f O O to ai) M * - * Ol M r-t MS to co t co en r-t r-t r-t r-t r-t r-t r-t r-t r-t ,-t M O m S A a H C-t OtDO-M] . * * Cl) Mr^r-t r-t) r-t r-t M O t-1 CO Ol r-t r-t r-t M r-t toe-'s)'r-co r-t r-t tO Œ M <-t r-t r-t o to as M r-t tO O f) to O O M r-) r-t r-t co to to ¡o r-t CO r-t M <M *< * o n r-t r-t CD O tO 03 M) r-t < t t r-t M M t^ t ! ) co <-t r-t M M r- to E- -F os ! * * co M E-Ol M O to M Ol tf) M t0 to C-- ta t- to to Oi <-t 13 o M tO Oi ^ si-Oi a t ! ! a r- M O Ol r-t M to to r-t ¡-3 M t- to r- r- f- t- 'O a M t- to ta o r-t Ott: M > m E S g <3 a ts " m ta pt< m Ps H Pc E s E o o o o Et ti P< o o o o r-t ^ ta r-t B M r-t ta ai r-* SI t] ai o o o o si B Pu ai t< &< Si S Pu Ci B ^ c: M P- to tO r-t M § C! ni Pu r-t M to ^ a a s .WfDr-t ai a <3 -w ai r-t Ht ci t, a ... * CÚ r-t -W Ci r-t ^-t r-t M tO ^ r-t ^ ai 60 a ^ M ai &C a *< S Ki g) "d- H g ^C A P te —t Ci p <c -w ai p P V a) a c s s o 3 O > &c B O L. ^ a o > B o ^ -o r< o ^ o > M B o ^ ^ ti t< ^a 6) a ai 3 ai a t* ai O c5 G! -s a M Ü ^ m O -3 S ta c9 S ^ r-1 i-3 M & M Oi M t-< r-< n n tw P & a M ft) o S ^ & ta w w M ft! ts o M -S \ M M M W t a t a <D —< to o <C ) M B M t< <p a tM a a ** o a B <B ) o a cr. (D <-) <c <C B tc -a o &C <B 4* 13 <D # a! o o a +* <t-< 4* 4^ a <3 a) ) 6 to 0) ** ) a A o a o O 4* t) A t a , <D <B O m t so E t* a) t< O +* o a a) w a CL) <a B a t a O <D to t< r-) <B 00 O <c B a 6C R <p a o <e a a o o a ^ 4* 4* a o r-t to <a V t E A O a o o -*-* ** o H A t a , <D ta O t M E M ^ 0) Hi a a! r-4 a &< 4* O M B a o r- ! a ^ o <c m r-< m o c B <r) a 43 t< M ^ B m a) <3 o O a o 4* <w 4* 4* a ! tc (0 V a) ** ! E A o a o <3 4* o ) ) J a to ta o <B # ) 66 B ^ ^ h <8 t-< 8 a r-t a Pt 4^ O <B S H! TR. ) < o a 'O 0) n <6 o W B a 43 o &0 4* a <B a a o .a O a p^ 4^ 4* 4* a o to a V t S A o a o O 4* o t< <B -H o o N <o CO E-tO o <o t-CO + O O M M) O to M CO SO o PS M to + P-M <T< w o CO 4-o to to M M OS o to M m C-O m ¡E! {M et M S3 ¡s M r-¡ fB E-< P C3 M O ti a O M M M {M &t Et R M K CE! At SA M ) a ) 8 t3 <D M ^ tg ^ t< <c a o ta ^ B ¡a B m ë r-t H) m t t) a? o 0 ^ ' m a) a! ^ r-t c -n 4-t o ^ ^ a ni ta 4) ^ t E tC o O o P. o O m 60 ! tC a) 4t 3 < a * M a *t ^ ta <-< ta o M O ta -=j< tO 9 oo M <-< r-t o M ^ tO r-t M M Pt 4* o ta a ta Pu t r-t o tO M <p !0 ta te nO r-t o m H *-t 4^ .o o r-t M <c O a M r-t O <B ta ta O 4* O 4* Pt 4* a 4* O r-t 00 r-t t ta to 00 00 t a tí) Et ^ o ^ **< r-t + 4-< a t t) m m o o <p t M a ^ M o O œ ta s-t ta r-t ta to &t 4* o ta a ta &< ) O a M << ta r-t c ta r-t <-t o <c a *-< ta .o M M o M ^ tD 4* a r-t O r-t ta o .a O a 4? C^ 4* 4* Q co M r-t M {0 ) r- ta tC ca <0 <y tp ^ ! B M sO P< o H o ^ co O +* o 4- + H ) a o <C <rt ta O c ) 60 S o ti 60 .o t< o O m ci in (9 r-t ta r-t Pt 4* o <B 8 ta &< ! "4 0 tt m <a r-t te c- M M) o <p a «-t ta -O r-t h M t* te 4* a M 03 <P tu ta O O a O r-t Pi 4* tt 4" 4* 4* a 4" O S3 M r-t to t O ? B-M m V OO ^ M ) B P< O g o ta O 4<* -rt o ) M r-t - f t) ta c-<B N M O! Ol r-t <*9 c m <-< t- &4 M ä t3 n M M r-t F"' Ei )-t P H ¡3 Cl o Ct. t* &< O M M P3 03 &t -=<! H H M tJ! M ^ ) t e <D O <C M a M -a o O H ci ^ a a t-< a o CD E Hi <M t tO Q M to M e r-t o <!) B -O M O M ^ <B a ^ ß <-t 4* <u a a) O ^ a o S3. ^ M M CK ) os Os <a <0 -d* 3) t S o A o H o T* M O -ft o h 4-) a ) C w m o m t Ë* a t< to JO O ! V M M a a! <-t ai O a B o ^ ^ t M a M 9) m <-4 <B M S3. O a a Ci -O O M m 4* S M M <C O .a O o t-t 4* 4* 4* 4* t) O 4. O S3. M M M ) sO M <3! 3) <0 t< t S O ) O ^ ) ) a a <0 «-< ta o m t ti M R 0 a ^ 3 r-t ai O O &) O ¡a Ci a n< SS. SS. 0) ta r-t <B M O o <o S ai r- M t^ M 4* E <s H) H) o .g O O to O co o 4-t 4* 4* a -tJ <-t SS. S3. O co M M r-t ! M <a H) ta V f-t co <t) t* ) B M (A Pt O a o tO tA O 4* *-< o + 4-) t a 0 <9 to ) o c ) s O h ^ c ai ^ a te <-t ai CL) o <9 B a) ) a M ss. S3. V ta <-< <e O ) <30 o V S w M M <-) ti M S 3) 4* E r-t O H! o ja O a O 4* M 4* 4* 4* a 4* SA S3. <o M CO M r-t a) to h <n ) 3 C a O P) O *-< o <-t O 4* o + t< p- ao a) M M o Os Os >4 r-t r-t a a <B ta o 4) ) SO a *< 60 tL. 4) a 44 a ä r-t R) CLt 4* o ta a a t a V o 3 <3 m <B S M t, <¡j o t< r-t tD ^ ^ E O 3 pi ^ 4* n ^ a ) ? <f t. t g p< o 3 o O 4^ ^ e; h-t ^ t> o n M ùT r-( H <-< P & a M o t* &< Ü O n M. o: E-t M Ci M P3 o ¡o o -sA o M SsS. O M O SA o 'SA o o 4* a a to <c -w ta to O 4) t SO M) M t- 60 tt M e a S4 a a a Ck o M B a <n t< O O h r-t <c o <c a <rt a 43 O to ^ SO ^ C S M M m a a O 43 O a 4* 4* 4* 4* a O ) r-t to a ta <t) r-t f-<C ^ t a to P< O a o M O 4^ -r-t o + t a ! a . f ta tO O 4) so a t< so 43 O 4> a ^ a a <-< a r-t 4* o ta a a Et ) a t< to a; ta <-) 4) P- M O <B S a 4=) h 6aK 4) 4* a tO r-t V a a O 43 O 3 tO P-t 4* 4* 4* 4* a o t* M M a ^ m m to CO 4) ^ ) a to P^ O a o O P* O 4" -w o r-t 4- + ) a t a to ta O 4) ) so E <3* ^ sc ^ ^ o r-t 4ì a a a <-) a PL, 4* o ta a a Po ) to a *< to r-<" g t* r-t 4) o m a -rt a -o to to t. sot* m 4* s to a; a ta O 43 o 3 4^ 4* 4* 4* a M tO M r-t 3 t--M Os M <o <30 M en e .3 ta 8 -e ) M B t< M ^ t. a) <a ^ a Si <-t ai O CL, ** o m B Si 4-t t 3 tu Œ ta H< r-t a; O a) B e) -o to ^ 60 tu B & ai si .3 O 3 to Pi 4^ 4-t 4* 3 - - Ol ) to ai ^ ta te to at ) B p-p< O 3 o M O 4^ o r-t t 3 3 a; ta Oi M o m ) 63 B ^ 43 t< ^ t- M o ai 44 3 ta <-4 ai <-4 M P4 4* o m B ai 44 ) a ^ <B <a r4 <B o o S —' n) ^ 6C ^ v 4* B a at a o .a o a (i, ** ** a < g „ C ^ ) p< o a O -K* -W ) a O <C t M ^O <D 04 44 O p4 +* O M E 3 <-< g ta E ai 44 t a <D " r-t o te a 60 *** 9) (K <3 ai O .3 o 3 On 3 ) ta ta m C ^ ! E Pt O 3 o O --t O 3 o c t 0 {g ^4 a a r-t ai 4* o ta a ta ^t 3 3 ^ V ta t< r-t <H OWE ^ ca ^ &c E e ^ B e ai ta o ^a o 3 p^ 4# 4< 4f 4* 4* a t ai ^ m ) <p m ^ 3 a A o --t o O 4- O 3 3 a) *-t o P ) h¡) m ^ CtC -o ^ B ta 44 3 g ,-t ^ a, 4* O ta a g ai 44 ! 3 ^ M O oca -w ta ^ ttc ^ o 4* a te a! ai o <3 o 3 pt, 4* 44 4* 4* 4* 3 ) $ S w i B P< o 3 o O 4* ^-t t) ai m f3 to to ti* <-t o Ol M o% -y tO tí) <-) ^t M CO to M <-t M oí to e-M CO ^ co g) M to to Ol to fi SP Oü to CO o o to tô M to ? o to M to to tf CO M Ol h w M <3 M M n P a o fr! f^ M W a) n as. M O S3. O SA o co S3, a) S3. TA to t o O ) he 43 ta a <U ai 3 tO r-t m CL, 4* 8 ta a o) ) a 8 <p e ^ ^ 60 K (P ^ C tC O o o t! 4* 4* 4* 4" O ) s s p, o O 4* 0 t a o o O 0 a <p «-< m t) <p t &o a O M 0) a! 44 a ta ri ta O O 4* o ta a ai 44 M ) a Í4 te ta f4 <-) <B <-t M o <p a -4 ta 43 ^ M %4 a tQ te a) ai O 43 O 3 <-t r-t P4 44 4* 4* 4* a tO ! M r^ a) C^ M o ! a O P) O a o O O 4* *-< o r-l CO H a ... - CO a) -w o o M a O ^ ta t< ^ r-t to a) a! 44 a ta <-4 ai Pu 4* o ta a a! 44 ) <D tn r-4 <D g g *g <c st ni o .ct o a pLf 4" 4* 4* 4* o t ta ta t* A o O 4* 4) i E a o -4 o O <p ) t* 6C 0 3 44 3 P4 4* o ta M a r-t <3 a! 44 ! a t< <p <a m omB <w g <9 ^ ^ 4* a e <a a o o g ^ 4* 44 4* 4* 4* o ) a ta w <P K ! a P< o a o O 4* -4 t) H W - - O-<0 -4 m h* t M a 6 ta ja*4 h ^ a 44 3 ca r-t at O O ta a O 44 ) O! ^ a ta $4 <-t te 6* a <a 43 H&h g*a <th a at o o a at+*4i<*4*4*a t ^ H) 0 ^ t a p< o a o O 4* o a) 4) M tj) 00 tO C-O CO M O t<S O M OS CO Os tO M M Os OS Os M O M O tO to o to M M tO M to to ta r-t tO M t-M Os tO M tO O CD O CO M Os SA M SA M M ¡M ë & co M n P 3 & O m t< M W w M et w H cl o m <3 -s n M M M Pt SA M M O O M SA o M TA ta SA oo r-t SA to SA <3 SA Et * C Om O <D t -w E (D y ti 'S ^ r-t n? PL, 4^ o ta o á si e â ^ <t H ^ r-t O <D E -rt " ^ 60 ^ m *B c a) <ü o 43 o 3 p, 4* 4* 4* 4* a S ¡n (p <u ^ t a p, o a o O 4* *-t O a a o te t çn a ^ 60 43 ^ H a? ai a ta r-t a! Pt 4* o ta B ai 4-t ) a ta ^ i-) <t O <D S Ci 43 ^ 60 a? 4* g m m ta o 43 o 3 4^ 4* 4* a t ^ m <9 !< P< O O 4* (D ' a a o --t o ta H ë a <c o m ) )Li 60 a; ta st 3 a rt ta P, 4* O m a Ci S-t ) a ^ <D M t-< ,-] <t) o <B B ai 43 ' ^ <D 4^ a a) c3 O 43 o a Pt 4* s^ ^ a o O o O to r-t co M M os O to 4* SA to tO OS M 00 M íO to r-t c^- "3 r-t t--'O M O SA ty M o o M tí) os 03 tO o to t s m *t ) Pt o a OS) t M ^ 6o 4) !L< V O Sw a a) Pt 4* o -- - . . ai S a) ) a tp ta o <p a tC c3 ta o ^3 O Pi 4* S-< 4* 4? r-t te ta 43 a 4* s a a t ai ^ m <p ** ) a P< O a o O 4* v-t o ) a te o a) 6c 9) <3 P4 o ! a —t ta ë ta <-t ta Btpst a <D ta r-t <B omB -rt ai *t 60 ^ <B 4* s te ta a O 4S o a Pl 4* ^ 4* 4* 4* a e w ta Q) ta ^ t a a, o a o O 4* ^t O ta a> O to co M co o to Ol -sí* Ol er* M p-M N M tO tO to o o <o to SA <-t M t-to M to E-M to to OS M CO M o to to 00 M tm M os w g fr{ C3 C/3 M K t-t P a [Y! o ta M M E-' 'A o o M o te, O M O M o o o sa. t a ) a <C O o 4) ) 6s B ^ o o " 4-t a a r-t a to en 4* O m s a Et t a <p r-t <D o y s a 43 ^ tO )L. 60 4) 4* a c a a O 43 O 3 M tí) Pt 4* <H 4* 4* 4* a O 00 t r-t to a ^ m a 00 o 4) ^ s <o r-t c. O a o M r-t o 4* o <-t ! a t a m ta O M o a ) 60 B *< 60 C3 to a a a a r-t a M to 4* O <a a a â <D tü¡ r-t $ V r-O te B a t< 4) 4* B to S) a a O 43 O a M M P) 4* 4* a to O ! ta a ^ ? 4) t- <o 4) t a co to P< O a O M O^ O 4* —t O r-t ) t a a * s ta 00 o 4? ) 60 B f-t 6C 43 *< t< to <c a 44 3 a r-t a m r-t Pt 4< O ta a a t a ^ <B m ^ r-t a t- O 4) a a ^ se t* <C 43 a O 4) O 43 o 3 tO to Pl +< 4-< 4* 4* 43 a ) M ^ m s P< o C* 4^ <P ) 60 .o ta ta o 4* O 60 H) r-t <a B a m 6 ai S4 ) a o o B V o a o o P^ 4* 4. 4^ 4* m a 4a B a a ) a t< tu C V ^ ! B P< o a o O 4" <rt O a o r-t r.T E-! H' t-4 w ^ g Eá tn M E4 P M 3 M Í3 o %4 c3 -4 M M O fx! 64 M Ë ta o ri M Ot "S3. OS o SS. o CO o CO se. o r-S3. o o tO SS. o to ss. o to ) ci <D O <D CLi 43 o < a M ta <a B a 44 t a V ta OOS 6C tC a) oi -PL, 43 ! Mi !-' m 0) ^ & o f 0) ^ -g o O a e t E a o O 43 -H o a a ta ta o t!D g tM c3 44 ¡3 a) r-t ci Ht 4* o m s ai 4-t . *4 %< r4 <P -4 CS Ci B 0) ÍS ai O ¿3 O B 0, 4s 4" 4" a <M S M E ! S c* ° m e < t ci a * <D <a O te ! 63 B ^ 60 43 K <D CE 44 S g r-4 H) CL, 4" o ta g W 4-t e ta o te S *< tu ^ a; ca ta t4 ^ r-t S) ai 43 m 43 B o o a Pl 43 4l 4* 43 4* a ) ^ ta 4) h p4 O O 43 ) tC a a .r4 O Ó ) a a <c H ta to o a) ! M S tu M 43 t4 to V ta 44 a a) r-t 0) to Pt 43 o ta a a) 44 ta *4 r-t te o o o a —' a) 43 t< (P 43 a o <t) ta ce o o 3 M Pt +3 44 43 43 43 a ) a] <a a) c ^ t a o< o a o CS 43 .w o ta M to M M Os O M tO M M co O to M tO M tO M M M ^ tf) to r-t S3. O to to -y M O M M S3, to M r-to e-co o tû to S3. O to co M to o M CO to -t-C0 M CO O M OS CO M os M O m t=5 t-4 H Ë M M > s M K C3 M) M M &t t-t C t-t & 3 ßl O &< en ^ O O M M ^ ^ E-t ts W o (M H A ) 3 3 te ta o te t t¡3 ti ¡4 t< o <D ta 4* S tu E a) 44 ) 3 tf ^ r4 tu < r4 8 te a <L. aa K 2 ^ ^ t O <t o te o 3 tO 4* 4-t 43 43 a M o <-t t r4 ni K) ^ ) te 'O a) O a B tO A4* -r4 O <-4 3 O O 3 + <H to O a) t B O ^ 43 n <D kT! <w SS r4 o o A 4* O tn a a 44 tí) t 3 *4 ¡o M 4) ta ^ r4 c r-t H a; 8 43 CO !4 &L ^ m 43 B r-4 ! O &-< a) o O O 3 +* 44 43 43 43 a tO o ) <-4 <-t d ta te M C ' B co A o a o <-t o 43 -w O + 3 3 c <rt ta o te ) M E O 4< 43 t. te a o 3 ta r-t g o O ta a a S4 to YS. 3 O <D ta t< r-t a) to C--r4 O <D a -r4 a! tt <B 43 a to 00 o tu 3 a O A O 3 r-t M A 4* 44 4" 43 43 a to O m ) r-t to ta ta <P r- CT) <P t S tO CO A o 3 o SO M 3 O 43 <-t o o ^ <E ta O a? ) ? 43 O m œ 44 3 M r-t ai O O A** o ta S a¡ 44 r-t ) 3 t< o to YS. a ta ^ r4 te CE o te a -t-t a! o -sf t* te ^ a M r4 O & ta ta o .3 o 3 A 4* tw 43 43 43 3 SA co tO tO ) to M Ci ^ W <e r-t M a: )L< ' a Ol CTI A o 3 o to ^ O 4* *-t o M ) , ^ 3 3 <c tn to o <p t ta a tiL 40 fl n< to a) ta 44 3 C) r4 ai O M A 4* O ta a a! 44 < 3 t4 t- i* 4! m t* <-t a: 4 -SA O te a -4 a) 43 to r-t tO t-< M t< <e +* B N M O a) M O o 3 o S-¡ 43 4* 4* 3 P- OS sa. ! to P-O ^ ta <p r4 O e h ) a to O A O 3 o t- r-t o 4* -rt O qL ^ ^ t- CO a) M M te Oí. Oi 6-i r-t <-4 M O m ^ &< h ëj ta M H M Ei & E-t O O o m M O M M M ES H ) a a <B <0 O <3 <D t so g O Se t* E r-t <U 0) <)-< a a r-t a a.** o <n s a <K 's* 3 t< CD <0 M r-t <M r-t M t) V a -H t n< 60 iL. <B 43 ai a O O 43 P< 43 ^ 43 a ^ <-t tO co M ) <a a t< < M co ^ o s to 0) 43 -H O o A O M O ^ a a ta c —t E o 0) < o M r-t a o o S) ai Ss m a r-t A o m E a M 3) <a ti r-t <o r-t M O (D S a 43 t< So to 43 tO ts O <0 M ai o o S 4* Pt 43 <W +3 +3 43 a to M O ) r-t O M ai <P ^ sa E r-t M t o CO A o o CO O 43 -r-t M a a ! 0) ta o 0) ) M a ss 43 ^ <D a: <w ¡3 r-t a P.+* O ta s a a ^ i t <43. ¡a <-t (0 o o w H -<-t a 43 M SO ti <D +3 a 0) ta ai o 43 O a O Pt 43 <K 4" ** 43 a co t ai <-) m C <p < a A o a o Ô 43 <rt o 0 a tD a O tu t 60 a ^ 43 H O ) m ai tu a a r-t a ta a a s-t o ^ m r-t tu ts co o V E a 43 r-t m +3 a to <3 ai O 43 O a o Pt 4* 4-t 4* 43 43 a ss. co <0 ) to r-t ai ^ ta a M <p t B r-t a< o a o M O <w o T . . ) ! 0 EÌ ta O a¡ t 60 F 43 O o Ci ai o a a <-t a P, 43 ta B a ! ^ SA O ta r-t a? C- ^ 'A tD B a 43 r-t O <B ^ <B 43 a to r-t h o O a M O <C a) tw 43 43 4* a Pt SA M <-t ^ ) M Os r-< ai m <p O^ M V ^ ! a o t> A O a O r-t O 43 t-i O r-t +-t* t- co ta M M S 3 SA o o to M tx & M to E4 t-t p & 3 M O 6. tt W M M H ¡3 t-t & t. W 6< S ts. o ¡O O SA o M ta o M SA o SA O r-t O 4* SA t g O V ) t, 60 ¿3 <D to s-t s a) r-< M) Pi 4* o n a at ) a M <c ta O <t¡ B ^ 60 ^t m ta ¡a Pl 4" ^ 4* 4* 4" t< ^ <-t tP m ^ *B g 43 O 3 S s m o Pi 4" O < a m c tL. m 6 <c ta Sn 3 <c <-t <a o m a ta St ) ! a -w t a e o a; <a m 3) B 6o ^ ta t* <-) <D -t tg 40 <B 4* a o 43 o a o o to <C <w 4« 4^ 4* a t s a> P< o O 4* m ) a a o *-< o ) a tB O tP ^ 63 t a ¿H g o g 3 et ri ta 4* O ta B CO a ^ te <" r-t tp O S) H -w W 43 ^ 63 ^ ^ g a ta ta o 43 o 3 Pl 4^ 4* 4* 4* a ) a ^ ta <p <c ^ t a Pt o a o O 4< O ! ! a a s to o c ) 60 6C -o tt E tc to 3 a r-t a 4" O to a a t a ti 4) ta h t-t a? o <c a v-t a 43 63 t* tP a <B ta a O A O 3 ^ 4* ^ 43 4* 4* a t a ^ ta V o ti ) a Pt o a o o 4* *-< o aa CS Os ! tí) M tO M tO O-tO + O to M t- ta . w <0 a M to 00 OS to to ? o CO os M O to to 4 to o E-M O * O M <9 M to t-00 -t. P- h M M SA to o 00 M "F to t? to to / to N os ë }B¡ M M H ßj O U3 E< új E' P H t-4 ^ t3 o &< O M c-M fr* W H M t) r! M P4 t ^ V ta CJ & tû E ht tU 4) a) 4-1 a S ,-t S Pi 4* O ta E a) 44 SS. < o O ^ <M m C O <c E 43 o t< ^ ^ .g a E 43 a¡ m a) O 43 O et P< 44 4* 4* 4" a S3. O to ) d M & ^ !4 t S a? O C 0 P< .r- Ü C t t a 0 ta 0 t 30 p ^ t^O t< te a r-t 3 0 Pi Ci S M 44 V!. ) O ^ r-< tu o e H! ta tO 'O 0 tL< S -W Hi 43 t< M t< 0 4" a ta o <p fi a¡ 0 43 O a r4 4" P4 4* 44 4" 43 43 a SS. o ta sf ! O ta tu ta ce Os <0 t B tO O a 0 M c 4* .4 0 ^ ! , a a m O O 0 a; ) M O 0 tu 53 43 t, R r-t <-t se ta 44 t-t a) P4 4* O ta S ta 44 S3. ) S3. o 0 t4 e- 0 r--ta m ^ r-t W Cs 0 te S 43 tO -.0 o ^ m ti a? 43 S r-t O r-t 4. N a 0 43 0 a 43 P4 4* 44 4* 43 43 a SS. S3. O 0 ^ co O t ta ta 3} 4 ta V 00 co <D tu t B -y to Pl O a 0 ta O 4* t) t 7 ) O < c m ta 0 tp ! M a O M 43 O 0 CS 44 3 & r-t <a r-t p4 4" 0 ta B ta 44 S3. O A t. n* & ta r4 S3. M O m a —¡ C9 43 0 0 %< M t< m 43 8 tO co !0 4* V ca es O 43 0 0 r-t M P; 43 43 43 a 0 S3. 43 O !0 S3. ) O 0 M M t- CO ta a) to ) a ta OS p< 0 a 0 M 0 4* -4 0 ? + t< co co ce M M <B *"4 r-4 e o m ¡-3 & t-t E-t M & > S & E4 M M H p € t-< 3 & ¡3 o a< <3 h O P3 M M 03 tu ^ t? M M PL) i* to SA '-A M SA o SA o SA co t a Qi O M e te ) Q ) t E. <3 E ä a< i* % 3 g g ti m ^ r-t a a s a 43 M ^ a a m g o <c o o PL, <M ** a < a t* m <D ^ A O O 43 to r-t < a a ta o tp t E o O 0 43 )L< r-t a a: a a o tu B a 4-t 4* ! ' a ft (M " ft r4 a f-o e 6 43 a 43 B tO a w a o 43 o 3 r-t Pt 43 43 43 a t tO sa a CO m ti < B sf< P< O a o tO o 43 w O . 7 ) t a * <D ta o te ) M a o ^ ÍÜ 43 L. ti a a s-t 3 a r-t a P, 4* O m B a <H ) a m M ft r4 a oaB «-t a 43 to &D ^ a ** B to O 43 o 3 Pt <M 4" 43 43 a r-t m ^ ta a M (6 t B to P< O a o r-t O 43 t ) a a a a o a ) B O O t< ^ 4=¡ f< ft o O a a 44 3 a r-t a <-t r-t P,4* O ta sa<n t a * f< o- SA to m ta ^ r-t a o o a E *rt a 43 to M tO t* $ ** a r-t f-t a a a O 43 o 3 o Pt +* ^ 43 43 4* a 43 SA O co O t to rt to a ^ ta a <0 ty ft ) B to to A o a o to if O 43 -*4 O f-t to t ) eo co a W M <D CK r-t ! a <B O 4) '., M ) a -a B Ht +* O a 8 -á <s t a tú <D m r-t a; o m B a tO 60 ^ <ti 43 'S <-t o a a o .3 o a P, 43 tw 43 43 a o ! fo a t< a te t a to A O a o O 4* -w o to t a t a ¡o O <t) ) t¡0 o tj !0 & a ^ a <-t a PL, O m a a ! a ^ <b tt <-< <C o Qj a a 43 to ^ so M <c a M) o a a o 43 O a P) 43 4* 43 4* a to ! p-a m a ^ <M ! s o A O a o M O 4* *-t o M i ) a t a <t) ta O <M ) 60 B ^ M ti O <n a ^ a a <-) a P, 4" O m a a ) a O M <-) m to umg .rt a 43 t< ht t< tD 43 a to <c a a o 43 o o ' to Pl +* 4* 43 43 a to t CO Ci m 3 to a ) B <y A o a o M O 43 <rt M + ) a ) a <0 ta o O <p &? g o tf 6L 43 r-t a r-t a Pt 4« o m a a ) a 0) <n ^ r-< s t.<&S a 43 tO ^ 6í.< ^ te 43 H r-t o a a O 43 O a P)4*tn 4" 43 ^ a & < to ta a CO c a to p< o a o to c 43 o r-t t* CO ai M O O .-i >1 M > M & r4 M P O M o t-t ^ -=t¡ ü O (ï) & O M -1 K tu W a n M & M A O &t ÍS5 w ^ fM M A t ! YS. a <P m -SA YS. t) <C t 60 a tO en O o !4 60 -3 ^ to 0) g 44 a ai <-t a A 43 O m B ai 44 t . YS. a t. YS. r-t <D m r-t a M M to o <-4 O <B S -w K) 43 60 ^ 43 a 33 -d* M to O <D O a) o ja O a r-t M M A 43 44 43 43 43 a YS. en tO O) to co m en c-! a) M co to to m 3) tO r- en <33 <P ^ ! B to <-t co A o a o r-t í O 43 ^ o 4 "h t t a <P ta M O t M a YS. YS. fL< 60 Ei o o YS. M tp ai 44 a A r-! Cl r-t c M A 43 O ta B S3 44 ) YS. 0 en & *< r-t <D to to tO o m S -w ai 43 YA 60 <C 43 B O o to r-+3 <P o .a O 3 to to M M A 4* 44 43 43 43 a YA p-..-.,.-...... M p- M O ! to os co ai ^ to OS *4 to co to r4 r4 te <¡4 t a IO C3 O A o a o t r-t rrt o 43 -w o 4- + . ) t S 3 YA <D a! r-t ta p-O tp B ai a YA YS. YS. ti M ^ a t-i o CTs to o <P ai 44 a -r4 a) f-t ^t 43 O M ¡Í3 4-, YS. ) p- a o ta )Lt r-t tp fO M M o o <D B «-I ai 4= YS. 43 Ü4 &Û ^ (D 43 B o 03 O <D ai ci O O a to r-t to M A 4* 44 43 43 a LO o en ) -tp t-a to t- to ^ M <D r-t M tp ^ ) E r- tO to O A o a O 43 o o + +- -*- r4 t H t t< & ai r-t m o <B B ai P YS. YA YS. YA *4 6o a K O <B Œ o M ai 44 O -4 ci A 43 O ta 60 44 ) a t< SA c m t4 !-t tp r-t !-t r-t LO o <D a a 43 YS. t< 60 ^ <0 43 Ë M O) C3 Os o 9) O ai o .a o a <-l r-t 43 A 43 44 43 43 43 a SA r-t os OS OS to t tO os O Ci P- M O tl ta 9 tO to tO to (D *< ! B O to to A o a o r-t o 43 .w V -4- *t*' "4-ta tc e- co os M M M Z S s M o m Pu o 'S H tu w u K! W eu <D ts ^ CU +3 o t. — c3 <-) m S S3 S .<o e 3.r-<a) m {¡û t- ) <-) ^ V ta r4 te O V ^ B -w K¡ 43 43 63 ^ C 43 B <B M a 0 O 3 SS. eu +3 tw 43 43 43 3 to <-< t a) tu ta m te ! S 0 a 0 0 43 -4 0 ) a ¿ <D ai f-t to 0 a> S ta S 63 a K <D ai 44 a -4 a] PU 43 0 ta S3 44 ss. — to ! ri a t4 <c ca r-t <D 0 0 te a 44 Ci 43 43 63 !U te 43 B SS. <e a) Mi O O 3 PU 43 44 43 43 43 a M r4 . — - -t ci t4 ta m te %4 ) S A 0 a 0 0 43 --4 V < ) a ^ ai r4 m O <0 B ai B tu 63 0 t< tu ai 44 ai eu 43 0 ta 60 44 SS. M ) r-4 te ta !U r4 a) 0 0 <e a -4 ai ^ 43 63 ^ te 43 B te ta ai O 43 0 3 SS. PU 43 tu 43 43 43 a r-t r-t - - .... Î4 O O ) (0 ^ a a <D -w o A O O ¡u a) 0 S3. 0 S3. 'US. 0 r4 0 S^. r-t O to r-4 tO tO M to M M to OS Os M to to LO to CO to tO t-4 0 M r-t -sf to r-t 4- ) 4 r-t 4-S3. S3. S3. 0 0 O 0 <-t to S3. to Os M to <0 O M t-co tO -si* to to CO co -¡f 0 r-4 O to M to r4 + r-t 4- r-t + r4 + SS. o SS. o Sìa. o ss. o ^s. <-< to O to r- to to tf CO M to f- to tO CO OS OS ^ 4- + 4-to tc^ OS M M CO M os Os M OS r4 r-4 Os r4 r4 D 1 m r ; SA CTS M > M M & M P 8 o M ti w cü -a] O (M O O M -a) 03 g E! Pi C H ÜE! W t3 M W Pt os r-P-SA !0 SA to to t < a a (D El e at < 60 B 60 <c ai S3 3 a r-< a A 43 ta B a) Y a 9) ta t* r-t tu o V F -w a 43 t< 60 <c -c B <p te ta O 43 3 ) r-t CO a to o CO ^t ta <p to ^ t a <-4 Os <33 A o a o tO CO P- r-& 43 -w o M r-t Os M t t t. . + < a ) a ta E O t 69 V a! S a! r-< t3 P< +* o m 6 a) ^ r-t ) a c o tu ^ M ^ to E a¡ ca si o 43 o 3 P. ** tz¡ S --t ai 43 ^ <D +* ) S CO  o O 4* o Os 'O OS C3 r-t p- to 4< O to Os Os ' a CS to to <0 a o M <o to Ó 4 f ! ) a <c o m 60 ta a t tuta^to Pt 4* ^ < a a? ta <3 <p E ) ^ 60 R 43 <u a s-t a 3 (3, 4" o s-t <a a w t 3 t< <p ta <-) m o 4) B ^t a ^ 60 ^ V 4* B o a) a e 43 o 3 pH 4* M 43 4* 4* Q ) a h n w ^ t A o a O 43 a SA O SA o sa o C3 C3 O to r-t to SA SA SA to to M to Os -ti* Os SA C3 O to SA to p- SA o SA SA SA to to tO p- 'O os Os co r-t ! a SA tO O 60 SA o to C3 O a r-t M M N M ) a StS. %A SA V " h r-t <D tO ta M tO o ça —t g 43 t< 6o ^ <B 4*a p^ Os P-m a a o .a o a to M PL, 4* ^ 43 43 43 Q t Os M M r-t O Os r-t r-t a ^ ta a Os Os tO tO <p ^ ) B Os P- OS O A 0 a 0 M to M ^ O 4° *-) C3 -t- 4- 4 t a SA SA --t <0 tO tO 60 SA CO ta r-t if a r-t M <M r-< SA SA to <a * to M 0 to to tO to to to to tO to 0 r-t M to * nf ^ 00 to a tf M r-t to 0 to tO M 0 +_ to M M tu CO M <y M os - ^ issata *amoo -ni joqai etJoq.aj:ado co! * duo jg-qns acras eqq. ni sminj jo *Oif Ii3q.oq. em oq. smjQj * Jjna-qus jo q.ueoje¿ o o o o o Ì5 'nmj/sj jo * o:; i^q.oq. aqq oq. duojg-qns aqq. ni SŒJ^J JO 3.H60j:9¿ 'etuoo -ai joqai 3jjoq.3j:edo * d noj3-qrts emss etR UT stn-mj jo *on fs^oq aqq. oq. stcjaj 'SjcasH-qus jo quoo-ia;; *nun-8j jo *og laqoq.. eqq. oq úuojá-qus etQ. Uï sm^aj jo q.uaoj:aj 'etooo -UI joqui Stjo^ejadf) * d iioqns amss eqq ui smiaj jo *0K Inq.oq. aqq. 03. soLtaj *gj:;mn-qns jo q.ueo.iaj 'sajrsj jo *o..i isq.oq. aqq. oq. duojig-qns aqq. g ui sutruj jo q.uaoj:e¿ ^ *ataoo * duoj3-qus auras aqq. u? stmaj jo *og le^oq. aqq^ oq. stamj 'Sjattí-qus jo qu30j;e,i ^mjuj jo 'cu Tsqoq. eqq. oq. duojg-qus aqq. ui SKU'uj jo q.t:aa.iej 3 s )-< O 53 œ ) *emoo -ui ,ioq9i *dnoj:3-qns emus OT^ UI SUU3J JO "[3'i.oq. aqq oq ^uijuj *3j:uQ<-qus jo quaaj:a^ SOJ3J jo IBq.oq aqq. oq. duojg-qus aqq s^n.x jo q.U33<ia,: C-OOJO-^ ^eoj'str-) ' + ! + OMO o to O O to <3-OrWr-)0 r-< C\J t\J <-) -100-O^^OCMO ' + + + ^ vO tO r-)Otr\uT\ r-t r-1 r-t tO cr-tr--si-to t—tO 03 + + + + r-tHr-tCO CMO^OC^! -^o CM <\i tO ^E-r-t + + + ' Mor-OMO^O M LfV-O tr\OtOtO C^tOoO'-? W <-1 + ' + + OOOO encoco ä p-< § w t-t S M O E-< M g t H 0 tn c^ ) CU r-t tQ O ur\ : oj cu r-t + ' + + < 0 to 0 t { 0 r) to 0 < <3^-33 OJC^ ! t ! CO to w^o r-< r-< CJ CU + + ' + ) tO CT-tO ) } Otg-CUt-O < to co r-t C^ tO 0 O^OJ ) ) t -¡i-+ + ' + ! CU c-f-l < ! t CU^OC^O t CM H r : 0--r-) OJCO Oj' O o^to t t t tO ur\ E^-0! tOco cu ur\ t ' + + + , t O O oocoo .< CJ¡ 33 C3 CU r-t r 03 CM) r-^ { CM , < ' < + < ) t O < C— ) fw ca m ^-O r-OO o^ cu ru c^t o^ c^ cu cu CJ cu cy-, C^ r-t r-< r-) (H O m -o M ta B t- M to a & M p 03 3 ta 0 t=-m h 65 t-< O t-i a 93 Ei tK M t^ M M Pt St OS St st es O SS. to to st M St w St tu -s!' ) a M to 8 K 60 t, ^ B d t. g g ri <S eu +* 8 M E <3 ! * a ^ 4) " ^ r-t <C O <P E -t H) ^Q ^ 60 E 4! -M H C d <3 o -S O 3 P) 4* 44 4* 4* 4* 3 ) ta ti ta a m h t H P< O 3 O O 4* Vi O 1 T e 3 . oc t 6c a t< tg E te ta 3 ta --t ta p, 4* o ca 8 ta 4i ^ r-t V <H Hi t 4) to a 0 a t* 60 <e 4* a te ta ta o o 3 P4 4* 44 4* 4^ 4* 3 t o) tO 4i 4) %4 ) g p, O 3 O O 4* -w o ) t? 3 3 * 4) "-) M o V t a 60 t4 5 4) ta 44 3 ta r-t ta p4 4* O tn 8 44 ) 3 t< e ta ^ 4) opa "i ta ^ M ^ 0 4* 8 te ta M 3 ^ ^ 3 P4 4* 44 4* 4* 4* 3 ¡a ^ tn 4) ( A O 3 O 4* ^4 ) t 3 3 * o V ) 60 a ^ 60 ^ *i 4; ta 44 3 3 .a ta p4 4* o 8 ^ 44 t ' 3 *4 te ta M r-< <p o m E "i <g 6i< ^ <e a 4) M ta O 43 o 3 PL, 4* 44 4* 4* 4* 3 ) )4 tn 3 3^)8 A O 3 O O 4* O t4 « 3 ^t st st 0 st 0 0 tO 0 st st st to M r-t to 0 tO P- to t-) ao Os r- to os os tO p^ M 0 co M tO M tD Os 0 tO + 4 ? ? -SA st St <-4 tO tO to p^ M M to tO tO r-t St o to to t-o tO p-t St st Os r-t O p- M O tO tO o tf os os tO t P^ o OS O StM tO St st p-0 0 co <0 tO CO r-t St st St Os to Os to < M to tO P-M to to O M to tO to O CO co CO M M M ao P- r-t P- t r-t M 4 + ï St O to St o St o St St <o tO to 0 O to r-t r-t Os Os r-t r-t tO O p-OS < <0 t-4 + <3 t- CO N M M os os Os t-t .'-jpf'. o p-<o M M Os M Cs n-a. o ox èp co o 33 O o o o 'arnoo -WT Jcoq^i s^oq^jado *dnojá-qns enrss aqq. ni sa^Qj jo Toqoq. aqq oq -Ki^j^ci-qns jo quaojaj "smj-gj jo ittq.oq euq oq dnoj;g-qns aqq. ni jo 3.uoo¿e¿ -102-*o";oo -te? joqoi Hjjoq.'3j:9do * dnojg-qns atUHs eqq uy sKusj jo *og isqoq eqq oq stcj^j * uS^'suj-qns jo queo-ia,; 'sminj jo *og i^q.oq. aqq oq di^o.i3-qns aqq n*p ein<raj jo q.ueoj:o¿ .o ^ o\ox -^tOtOxO + ! < ' M o ^ o t0c-tr\0 r-irWOxD <\t r-t *amoo -u? j:oq^i s^oqisjedo * dn.ojrS-q'n.s amas eqq stAMj jo *og Ii?q.oq aqq. oq. smiuj uig^'sm-qns jo queojreri jo *OR mqoq eqq oq dno^S-ans eqq ui stc-aj jo quaojaj *amoo --ai joq^i * dnojEg-q-^s auras aqq u*ç stcjuj jo CM oqq oq suu^j uigjum-qiis jo queoja.i 'sunoj jo inqoq aqq oq daojg-qns aqq ui smj.i'j jo qur'Oja M S O K! O M M r < Y^OXCO <3xOt0co cMtO-^-e-' + + + O* tO O O oto o o tf\Mtf\<-t r-) -t c- r-c-j oj co Lf, H to W -sjr + ' + + O O O tO ^o CM -^f.OC-CM CM CJ <-) 'aiaoa c—C? CM to f-co xC + * + 'dnojí'-q'ns asi-ìs aqq vi jo °iî l^qoq eqq oq smiuj xO jo quaoja,* OxO C xD *smmj jo *0E isq.cq. aqq oq drojá-qns oqq tOco Lf-\ sniJ:3j quaoja^* <-4 W n M S § K] to O M W P) o c-r t < ! t ! CM + CO xO OOO^-tO 0x30 tr\xO f-t ' ' ' + O d O c: C! Lf\ C-Ot-tCO cd^jc=t-. T^c—-3-0 rW ' + + + r-< W [-4 tr-r-{ SO OX u \ o^co C^r-t to CO -!- ' + + Our\t\jO ^ c—st-cot^ to to to ^-O C—CO C\J CM <\l CM Ox OX OX Ox r-) r-t t-t <-] xo t—œ ox CM CM CM CM o - ax ox ox -103-DAI3Y SURVEY ATE^UCE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE TABLE 25 FACTO IS OF P30DUCTI3N. ^ GROUP 1. LANp Yea? Above marginal Marsi nal Sab-martrinal 1926 46.7 50.1 47.3 1927 45.9 40.4 50.3 1928 41.6 47.2 43.9 1929 43.1 46.8 39.3 LABOR 1926 8.5 7.3 8.8 1927 8.7 8.4 10.0 1928 8.6 8.3 5.3 1929 8.8 6.9 9.1 EQUIPMENT 1926 44.8 42.6 43.9 1927 46.3 51.2 39.7 1928 49.8 44.5 50.8 1929 48.1 46.3 51.6 LAND (230UP 2 1926 53.3 53.0 36.0 1927 57.9 57.2 59.2 1328 t 61.1 57.3 1929 58.5 57.5 47.2 tAppR 1926 5.7 5.8 3.0 1927 5.1 5.4 6.3 1928 6.1 5.2 5.9 19 29 5.6 5.5 6. 2 EQUIPMENT 1926 41.1 38.2 28.0 1927 37.0 37.4 34.5 1928 39.8 33.7 36.8 19 29 35.9 37.0 43.6 -104-(?E3UR ,3. LMR 1926 66.2 66.1 62.5 1927 64.2 59.8 64.9 1928 63.3 62.4 60.0 1929 58.6 66.3 67.9 ijLaoR 1926 5.2 7.0 5.1 1927 5.7 4.51928 4.7 4.4 5.6 1929 5.3 4.9 4.5 1926 29.6 36.9 32.4 1927 30.1 35.7 30.0 1928 32.0 33.2 34.4 1929 36.1 28.8 27.6 -105 H M Ss-M !3=< ^ M t-4 xo CM PO ox r-! r-t * CM Ox Ox CM ¡a r-t <-t r-t ! Ëc3 O t-¿3 e! CM Í3CHC-- r-t tr--m f-t r-t C— H M o e cM -W Ox O t— -SA òu<-t r-t to c!xO H co Ox S Sx Ox to CM r-t CM st CM -3- CM - Ox t r-t ¿3 CE ^ SCO m H tu (M O Ox a: ox r-t <n H O f-t <D g H c-ai CM H cr, -ri r-t &0 Cj CM e Ox (M m ox ci CO CM ex S-t H o c-f-< CM r-t ts; CM ox r-t LT\ E— Ox tQ xD M M O -sf tC to M te CM CM to CM r-t CM xO r-t Ox r-) Ox r-t H o O 0 o c O o O 0 O co -H r-t to H c: r-t N -W O O r-t Ci ta ^ +3 43 O O -r) O O n O O ai M c? OD "A r-t to - Mt r-t t-t t-t t-t & & S O O !-) fLl M Ü¡ 

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.831.1-0096742/manifest

Comment

Related Items