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

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

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 . L J D ^ ^ R Y ^ 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 Nico las Snesarev, A Thes is submitted f o r 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 R E in the Department of AC^NO '^LEDGLiENI. The w r i t e r takes t h i s opportunity of e x p r e s s i n g h i s s i n c e r e thanks and g r a t i t u d e to a l l those who have a s s i s t e d so m a t e r i a l l y in supplying informat ion f o r t h i s t h e s i s . His thanks are due e s -p e c i a l l y to P r o f e s s o r h.R.Hare f o r h i s kind advice and to i''.H.Cle ment, Dean of the F a c u l t y of A g r i c u l t u r e of the U n i v e r s i t y of J r^i t i s h Columbia, who made p o s s i b l e t h i s undertak ing . C 0 f! T E N T S . Pages. Introduct ion 1 - 7 I METHODS OF INVESTIGATION USED l/ Assumptions adopted 7 - 10 2/ S t a t i s t i c a l data used 11 - 13 3/ D i s t r i c t s chosen 13 - 15 4/ method of securing s t a t i s t i c a l data . 16 - 16 3/ .i-etod of determining the degree of p r o f i t a b l e n e s s of the e n t e r p r i s e . . . 17 - IK 6/ Hethod of determining percentages of investments in d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production 18 - 19 7/ d i v i s i o n of farms into s i z e groups . .2 J - 21 II POULT .Y FARMING 22 - 36 I I I 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 i 3 becoming more and more a b u s i n e s s p r o o o s i t i o n . The ownership of even a l^rge s i z e d farm does not in i t s e l f mean economic power to the owner. .Tiat does g i v e t h i s power is an income. Therefore i t i s the income, a c t u a l or p o t e n t i a l , which determines the value of the farm. The c a l l of a p a r t i c u -lar v a l l e y , the l u r e of a c u r t a i n farming l o c a l i t y , doe^ not aeem to be so s trong or to come so f r e q u e n t l y now-a-days a s was the case two g e n e r a t i o n s ago . hy? Because there are few farms complete ly s e l f s u s t a i n i n g a t the present t i m e , and be-cause the say ing t h a t "The bones of our f a t h e r s and g r a n d f a -thers g r e ; on the produce of t h i s s o i l " does not hold true any longer. People do not want to s t - y on t h e i r farms simply be-cause they were born t h e r e . They are w i l l i n g to abandon the farm and to move to a ne^ l o c a l i t y , or to a l t e r t h e i r farms i f saoh a procedure w i l l i n c r e a s e the e f f i c i e n c y of the l a b o r or the invested c n n i t a l . Farmers want t h e i r farms to pay and they have a p e r f e c t r i g h t to expect t h i s and to s t r i v e to a t t a i n i t . Only the people who share the above s t a t e d b e l i e f might be interested in the study t h a t f o l l o w s t h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n . There can be l i t t l e doubt that a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e s are p e c u l i a r l y s u b j e c t to improper c o - o r d i n a t i o n of the economic factory, of production and t h a t economic m i s f i t s are met wi th more f r e q u e n t l y in a g r i c u l t u r e than in i n d u s t r y . Professor of Economics i n the U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota John D. Black w r i t e s : " A farm b u s i n e s s i s p e c u l i a r l y s u b j e c t to m i s -f i t s of c a p a c i t i e s . I t i s l i k e l y t o be e i t h e r too l a r g e or tee small f o r s e v e r a l of the e lements of p r o d u c t i o n . " Much has been w r i t t e n and s a i d about the law o f d iminishing iwtnms i n a g r i c u l t u r e . A g r i c u l t u r e has been cons idered to be at a disadvantage as compared to o ther i n d u s t r i e s . The farmer has been warned a g a i n s t i n v e s t i n g too h e a v i l y i n equipment a id i a labour as the i n c r e a s e d output could mean decreased e f f i c i e n -cy of a l l the i n v e s t e d c a p i t a l . This warning may l a y undue amphasis on the p o s s i b i l i t y of an i n a p p r o p r i a t e apportionment ef labour and equipment i n r e s p e c t to the amount of l a n d . The r e s u l t o f the wrong p o r t i o n i n g of l a b o u r and c a p i t a l t o land i s v e r y d i s a p p o i n t i n g but the r e s u l t o f wrong p o r t i o n i n g of land to equipment or of l a b o u r to equipment i s a l s o v e r y d i s a p p o i n t i n g . The i n t e n t i o n of the w r i t e r of t h i s a r t i c l e i s f a r from being a d e s i r e to c r i t i c i z e the law of d iminishing r e t u r n s . Be r e c o g n i s e s the soundness of the law when a l l the modi fy ing tasumptions are born i n mind. The d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s however when the n e c e s s a r y assumptions are not remembered and when, toneequent ly , the m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t a k e s p l a c e . As a matter ef f a c t the m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law of d iminishing r e t u r n s i s r a t h e r oommon. One hears the opinion expressed t h a t whi le ^ * Production Economics " by John D. B l a c k , P h . D . , New J o r k , Henry Holt and Company, page$67. - 3 -e a s t of production o f an a r t i c l e manufactured i n an i n d u s t -r i a l p l a n t which has adopted an i n t e n s i v e mass product ion s y s -tea tends to he lower than the c o s t of product ion o f the same grt io le manufactured i n an i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t with s m a l l e r o u t -pat, the c o s t of product ion of a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities f o l l o w the law of d iminishing r e t u r n s . This statement i s somewhat spang as the law i s not understood p r o p e r l y ; the assumptions are not remembered and the law i s made a p p l i c a b l e to a g r i c u l t u r e paly, whi le i t i s v a l i d f o r any product ion a c t i v i t y whatsoever . Kereover the f i r s t p a r t of the law i s over looked as i f i t did set e x i s t . * The c o n f u s i o n caused by the above s t a t e d i d e a can be g r e a t iMeed. I t may r e s u l t i n a d e s i r e on the p a r t of a farmer to have more land than i s j u s t i f i e d by the amount of c a p i t a l he oaa i n v e s t i n h i s farm or by the type of farm he i n t e n d s to e s -tabl i sh . The i d e a t h a t i f a farmer has a f i x e d acreage of land can i n c r e a s e the s i z e o f h i s b u s i n e s s only by i n c r e a s i n g the i n t e n s i t y o f c u l t i v a t i o n o f the l a n d , though t r u e , some-times i s a l s o m i s l e a d i n g . I t might be understood from t h i s 3hat an i n c r e a s e i n the s i z e o f the farm b u s i n e s s without the i M i l t y to add new a r e a s of land would always mean decreased e f f i c i e n c y of the c a p i t a l - l a b o u r i n v e s t e d . Such a s u g g e s t i o n a&ght prompt a farmer to " i n s u r e " h i m s e l f a s f a r as the acreage As a summary of the law o f d iminishing r e t u r n s i n a g r i c u l -tare the f o l l o w i n g quotat ion from B . C . T a y l o r i s g i v e n : "In a g r i c u l t u r a l product ion the r e t u r n s to succeeding compo-site u n i t s made up of l a b o r e r s and equipment may be s a i d to f o l -lew the law of i n c r e a s i n g r e t u r n s u n t i l a point has been reached after which the law of d iminishing r e t u r n s per succeeding u n i t eonmences to o p e r a t e . " - 4 -of h i s farm i s concerned. He would l i k e l y t r y t o be on thp ' s a f e * s i d e and to guarantee a " s u f f i c i e n t " amount of land. , i S The tendency t o have more land than i s j u s t i f i e d by the c a p i t a l and labour investment on farms i s p l a i n l y s e e n . The w r i t e r does i , \ ' not presume to say t h a t t h i s tendency i s the r e s u l t of the mis* ! ^ understanding of the law of d iminishing r e t u r n s ; there are mad^ ether economic and s o c i a l reasons f o r t h i s phenomenon. The w r i t e : simply wishes to warn the p o s s i b l e farmer from buying too much ^ land, should he be prompted to do so because of the b e l i e f t h a t ! the land w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y b r i n g him diminishing r e t u r n s en e v e -ry e x t r a u n i t o f c a p i t a l and labour i n v e s t e d per a c r e . This l a s t should happen o n l y , l / i f the point o f investment should be reached a f t e r which the law of d iminishing r e t u r n s per succeeding u n i t commences to eperate; 2/ i f the managerial e f f o r t should remain e x a c t l y equal to the e f f o r t g i v e n to the other combination of the f a c t o r s of produc-tion; 3/ i f there were no opportunity of adopt ing d i f f e r e n t t y p e s or methods of farming; 4/ i f the f a c t o r s of product ion could not be combined i n v a r i -ants r a t i o s . Seldom a l l these " i f s " e x i s t i n r e a l l i f e f o r the a c t u a l farmer. Land i s l e s s s p e c i a l i z e d than most of the elements of pro-duction. An i n d u s t r i a l e n t e r p r i s e i s planned a c c o r d i n g to the v o l u -me o f b u s i n e s s a n t i c i p a t e d and d e s i r e d . None o f the e lements t f product ion i s a c t u a l l y f i x e d and t h e i r r a t i o i s chosen d e -pending on the kind o f the e n t e r p r i s e and on the amount o f i n -vestment decided upon or a v a i l a b l e . I f any element of produc-t ion i s f i x e d - f a c t o r y b u i l d i n g s f o r i n s t a n c e - i t becomes u n -wise to s t a r t planning the o r g a n i s a t i o n by a s s i g n i n g the volume of b u s i n e s s to be handled. The law o f d iminish ing r e t u r n s may i n t e r f e r e wi th the e f f i c i e n c y of p r o d u c t i o n . Even more unwise would i t be to s t a r t a p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t having two or a l l of the f a c t o r s o f product ion f i x e d . The e f f i c i e n c y o f the e n t e r p r i s e i n which the f a c t o r s of product ion have not been co-ordinated i s v e r y p r o b l e m a t i c a l . This i s w e l l understood by manufacturers and they c l o s e l y watch the combination of the f a c t o r s of product ion on t h e i r f a c t o r i e s . Sometimes, due t o var ious c a u s e s , the combination c e a s e s to be e f f i c i e n t (changes i n p r i c e s , the i n v e n t i o n of new manufacturing p r o c e s s e s , an i n -crease i n the amount i n v e s t e d , e t c . ) . When t h i s i s r e c o g n i s e d a r e o r g a n i s a t i o n u e a a l l y t a k e s p l a c e . Why should not farmers do the same? Why should a f a n n e r bo perplexed by the a d v i c e not to i n v e s t on h i s land more l a -b o u r - c a p i t a l u n i t s than the number which has a s i t s l a s t item the u n i t producing an output a t l e a s t equal to an output a v e -rage f o r a l l the prev ious u n i t s i n v e s t e d ? This good a d v i c e presupposes an unvarying combination of the two f a c t o r s of pro-d u c t i c n . Such a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n can d i v e r t the a t t e n t i o n of the Even three - i . e . l a b o r , c a p i t a l , and management. s e t . An o r g a n i z e r o f an i n d u s t r i a l e n t e r p r i s e w a i t s to wi-& f l e x i b l e , adaptable f a c t o r s of p r o d u c t i o n . The f a r -ater i s persuaded more or l e s s t h a t c e r t a i n f a c t o r s of product ion a g r i c u l t u r e are i n f l e x i b l e and t h a t h i s p o l i c y i s to do the H i ' best he can wi th the handicap of having c e r t a i n f a c t o r s beyond § "i h i s c o n t r o l . Sometimes t h i s i s s o , e s p e c i a l l y on the o ld con-^ ^ A farmer may f r e q u e n t l y plan h i s f u t u r e e n t e r p r i s e q u i t e but by no means i s i t a lways s o . Î ^ f e r ^ n t l y fr^m a manufacturer . In many c a s e s a farmer f i r s t i*es land without c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the r e s o u r c e s be a v a i l a b l e f o r the working* of i t . This r e s u l t s i n en i n e f f i c i e n t , sometimes c lumsy, combination of the e lements of product ion. I t i s a u s u a l e x p e r i e n c e i n a g r i c u l t u r e to see the e f f i c i e n c y of product ion hampered by the f a c t of there be ing ajf; a d e f i c i e n t f a c t o r . Therefore the adjustment and c o - o r d i n a t i o n of the f a c t o r s of product ion and the t y p e s of c a p i t a l would W appear to be very important . I t i s not to be presumed t h a t i n a l l i n s t a n c e s r e d i s t r i b u -t ion o f the investment w i l l be the remedy f o r u n p r o f i t a b l e f a r -ming. There are c o n d i t i o n which may make r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n e f -f e c t i v e . I t i s understood that i n many i n s t a n c e s farmers are 9 naable t o r e o r g a n i s e t h e i r e n t e r p r i s e s owing t o market c o n d i -; t i e n s o r , i t may b e , to t h e i r own economic weakness. I t i s assumed t h a t the b e s t combination of the f a c t o r s of roduct ion i s one which y i e l d s the l a r g e s t n e t r e t u r n per d o l l a r Of a l l e lements of product ion i n v e n t e d . This l a r g e s t net r e -turn i s not n e c e s s a r i l y r e a l i z e d , when the product ion i s c a r r i e d en with l a n d , l a b o r and equipment c o - o r d i n a t e d i n such a way a s to o b t a i n the l e a s t c o s t combinat ion. A farmer i s not i n t e r e s t -ed i n low c o s t s a s an end i n themselves . Low c o s t s are means to g e t high p r o f i t s . I f the opportuni ty to o b t a i n s t i l l h i g h e r p r o f i t p r e s e n t s i t s e l f , the f a r m e r , s u r e l y , w i l l be w i l l i n g to accept i t . There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t one combination of the f a c t o r s of product ion may g i v e the s m a l l e s t c o s t s and t h e r e f o r e the g r e a t e s t p r o f i t per u n i t of the r e s u l t a n t p r o d u c t , but a t the same time i t w i l l not r e s u l t i n the g r e a t e s t t o t a l p r o f i t . This can happen when another combination of the f a c t o r s of p r o -duct ion without y i e l d i n g the h i g h e s t p r o f i t per u n i t of product a l l o w s such an i n c r e a s e i n the number of u n i t s produced t h a t the t o t a l p r o f i t i s g r e a t e r than i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e . As an i l l u -s t r a t i o n pure ly imagined f i g u r e s are g i v e n i n the t a b l e below: P r i c e of Cost o f P r o f i t EumberTotal one u n i t , one u n i t . p e r u n i t . u n i t s p r o f i t s L e a s t c o s t combination 90 80 10 200 2000 Higher t o t a l p r o f i t combination % 82 8 270 2160 I t i s to be assumed t h a t the p r i c e s on d i f f e r e n t products and d i f f e r e n t elements of product ion a r e not s u b j e c t to penaa-' tH changes . F l u c t u a t i o n i n p r i c e s may cause f l u c t u a t i o n s i n *yawfly r e t u r n s , whieh are l i a b l e to balance eaoh o t h e r . The permanent changes i n l e v e l s of p r i c e s can make p r e v i o u s l y e f f i -e n t combination of the f a c t o r s of product ion s t r i k i n g l y i n e f -f i c i e n t . In the l a s t case r e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the only remedy. I t i s assumed that the s i z e of an a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e ? i i a determined by the t o t a l investment . The a c r e a g e or the v a l u e Of the land i s net the c r i t e r i o n of the s i z e when d i f f e r e n t t y -pes of farms are compared; n e i t h e r i s a very good measure even when a d j a c e n t farms of the same type are d e a l t w i t h , as p o s s i b -l e surp lus a r e a s may be bare t r a c t s of eubmarginal land wi thout any t a x a b l e v a l u e , or they may be h i g h l y product ive and expen-Í alve f i e l d s l y i n g as a r e a l burden on the e n t e r p r i s e . I t i s not presumed t h a t the t o t a l q u a n t i t a t i v e investment i s whol ly r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the s i n e of an e n t e r p r i s e ; a poorly organised and poor ly managed u n . t may be f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l pur-t poses a s m a l l e r e n t e r p r i s e than the w e l l o r g a n i s e d and w e l l ma-naged u n i t , whi le a t the same time they are equal as jfar as the f t o t a l investment i s concerned. The second e n t e r p r i s e w i l l show ^much b e t t e r r e s u l t s and a l a r g e r output due to i t s a c t i v i t y and w i l l p lay a more prominent p a r t i n the economical l i f e of the d i s t r i c t than the f i r s t . E f f i c i e n c y of o r g a n i z a t i o n and e f f i -c iency of o p e r a t i o n are important f a c t o r s i n measuring the s i z e ) of an e n t e r p r i s e . E f f i c i e n c y of o r g a n i s a t i o n and e f f i c i e n c y of operat ion depend on q u a l i t y and the amount of management i n v e s -ted . This q u a l i t y and t h i s amount r e a l l y should be inc luded in t o t a l investment as one of i t s compound i t e m s . But manage-- 9 -i t i s such an i n t a g i b l e f a c t o r t h a t i t i s u s e l e s s to attempt measure i t wi th any degree of a c c u r a c y i n terms of d o l l a r s ; ther elements of product ion are measured i n such terms. I t i s t h e r e f o r e assumed t h a t the s i z e o f an a g r i c u l t u r a l srpTfise i s determined by the t o t a l farm i n v e s t m e n t . In t o -investment a l l the owned, r e n t e d , and borrowed elements o f product ion, a s w e l l a s labour a r e i n c l u d e d . More p r e c i s e l y , i n the t o t a l investment i s i n c l u d e d the v a l u e of the land ! / the l a b o r 3/ the machinery the l i v e - s t o c k the farm b u i l d i n g s 6/ the f e e d and s u p p l i e s the cash i n v e s t e d the house. A s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t y i s immediately c o n f r o n t e d : how should the land be va lued? In the market p r i c e f o r land the p o t e n t i a l r e a l e s t a t e p r o f i t and the c a p i t a l i z e d e f f i c i e n c y of the present operator are o f t e n i n c l u d e d . No r i g i d r u l e s as to the way of v a l u a t i o n can be g i v e n . Conservat ive p r i c e s f o r the land p l u s the t a x e s paid f o r i t , are entered under the item of land v a l u e . For farms of v a r i o u s t y p e s and s i i e s , and f o r d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s , the elements of product ion must be combined i n d i f -f e r e n t p r o p o r t i o n s . The types of farms which r e q u i r e but l i t t --10-^ land u s u a l l y demand a l a r g e r investment i n l a b o r and e q u i p -n t than the t y p e s of farms which need l a r g e a c r e a g e . An inc-rease i n the s i z e of a farm by an a d d i t i o n to one of the f a c -t o r s of production o f t e n demands a d d i t i o n s to the other f a c t o r s $f p r o d u c t i o n , but not a l l of the elements of product ion should be i n c r e a s e d i n the same p r o p o r t i o n . D i f f e r e n t t y p e s of farming with d i f f e r e n t combinations of erops and l i v e s t o c k demand d i f f e r e n t amounts of investment , d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s are b e s t s u i t e d f o r v a r i e d combinations o f erops and l i v e s t o c k . S o i l , c l i m a t e , p r i c e s and market c o n d i t i o n s determine the most remunerative combination of the f a c t o r s of product ion . These c o n d i t i o n s vary with the d i s t r i c t s , t h e r e f o r e i t i s im-p o s s i b l e to compare farms o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s , or of v a r i e d s i -z e s , or those s i t u a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s . ^ * I t i s p o s s i b l e , though, t o compare a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e farm of one group wi th the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e farm of another i n the same d i s t r i c t when the groups are determined by the s i z e of the farms. L i k e l y a c e r t a i n s i z e may prove b e t t e r s u i t e d f o r a g iven type of farm operated i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t . I n the determinat ion of the s t a t i s t i c a l data t h a t was d f o r forming c e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s as to the b e s t r a t i o s of the f a c t o r s of product ion i n a g r i c u l t u r e , i t proved to be very d i f f i c u l t to choose the d i s t r i c t s which would be c h a r a c t e r i z e d the s i m i l a r i t y of methods of f a r m i n g . The f a c t t h a t the s a -me d i s t r i c t s had farms of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s did not cause much d i f f i c u l t y ; farms could be c l a s s i f i e d according to t h e i r s i z e s a f t p r the data v;aa g a t h e r e d , " i t h the gathered s t a t i s t i c a l ; drt'a proper ly arranged a p o u l t r y farm could be e a s i l y separated frdm a d a i r y farm. But i t would be h a r d l y j u s t i f i a b l e to c l a s s i -fy,' farms more thoroughly by p i c k i n g out the farms which seemed to belong to the same type a s f a r as t h e i r methods of c a r r y i n g On the a g r i c u l t u r a l product ion was concerned. The adoption of such a p r a c t i c e would a l low too much opportuni ty f o r a r b i t r a r y d e c i s i o n s . Probably the d i v i s i o n s would be made according to &he tendency of the s t a t i s t i c a l data to show the i n c l i n a t i o n t o prove s i m i l a r t h i n g s or t o i l l u s t r a t e s i m i l a r p r o n e i p l e s . In d e a l i n g w i t h h i g h l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d t y p e s of farming such a s p o u l t r y f a r m i n g , the d i f f i c u l t y was not e x p e r i e n c e d . P o u l t r y farming i s a s p e c i a l i z e d type of farming which i n order t o ob-atin the b e s t r e s u l t s h a s , more or l e s s , s i m i l a r ways of hand-l i n g the e n t e r p r i s e . T r e e - f r u i t farming a l s o has methods of management uniform enough not to present s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s in summarizing the s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a . -12-Dairy farming on the other hand, shows g r e a t v a r i a t o n i n i t s thods of o r g a n i z a t i o n and msnagesent. Various types of mana-ent n e c e s s i t a t e d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i s a t i o n s . The same d i s t r i c t s ve farms managed by d i f f e r e n t methods. hat i s good f o r one jltype of d a i r y farm may prove to be b; d f o r another type of d a i -ry farm. There i s not v e r y much u n i f o r m i t y about d a i r y farm e n t e r o r i z e s , e s p e c i a l l y when the farm i s l a r g e . Although knowing beforehand that i n d e a l i n g w i t h d a i r y fcrms ¡*t i s impossible to expect to obta in an o r d e r l y and w e l l - d e f i n e d tendency to r e a c t i n a c e r t a i n way on the v a r i a t i o n s i n the o r -d u a t i o n , one can hope, n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h a t c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s - i l l be found t h a t w i l l apply in a g e n e r a l way to a l l the d a i r y -farms of a g iven d i s t r i c t . M a t e r i a l suppl ied by the F a c u l t y of A g r i c u l t u r e of the Uni-v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia formed the s t a t i s t i c a l b a s i s f o r t h i s s tudy . Since 1*?20 the Farm Survey work has been c a r r i e d on by the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e of the above-mentioned Uni-v e r s i t y . Df;iry, f r u i t and p o u l t r y farms of d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s have been included in the Survey. For the purposes of t h i s s t u -dy the data was used concerning: 1/ 68 da iry farms of the Courtenay, Lower F r a a e r , and Upper F r a -Ser V a l l e y d i s t r i c t s ; 2/ 74 t r e e - f r u i t farms of the Okanagan d i s t r i c t , and 3/ 67 p o u l t r y farms of the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y d i s t r i c t , and the Duncan d i s t r i c t on Vancouver I s l a n d . - 1 3 -The o l imcte and s o i l c o n d i t i o n s which p r e v a i l i n the Cour-tenay d i s t r i c t are t y p i c a l of c o n d i t i o n s i n the d a i r y i n g d i s -t r i c t s on Vancouver I s l a n d and on the Gulf I s l a n d . S o i l s vary from a sedimentary d e p o s i t s of the v a l l e y s to a g r a v e l l y g l a c i -a l - d r i f t tyne of s o i l of the uplands . The annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n f l u c t u a t e s around 40 i n c h e s . The summer r a i n f a l l i s l i g h t but i s ample f o r good crop production when proper t i l l a g e i s p r a c t i -ced. A market f o r the mi lk produced i n t h i s area i s provided by the Comox Creamery. This i s a farmers C o - o p e r a t i v e o r g a n i z a -t i o n whieh m&kes b u t t e r and, i c e - c r e a m , and which handles a c e r -t a i n amount of whole m i l k . The c l imate of the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y d i s t r i c t i s very f a -vorable f o r d a i r y f a r m i n g . This d i s t r i c t i n c l u d e s area l o c a t e d near the town of Ladner, i n c o r p o r a t i n g the D e l t a , Lulu and Sea I s l a n d s , and the Hud Bay a r e a . The s o i l i s of a sedimentary o r i g i n formed by d e p o s i t s of the F r a s e r i v e r . I t i s r i c h and h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e . The topography of the land i s f l a t which n e c e s s i t a t e s p r o t e c t i o n from the sea and r i v e r o v e r f l o w , ^he annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n a l s o f l u c t u a t e s around 40 i n c h e s . But the summer r a i n f a l l i s l i g h t as compared to the w i n t e r . The Upper F r a s e r V a l l e y d i s t r i c t i s a d j a c e n t to the Lower Fraser V a l l e y d i s t r i c t . I t extends from C l o v e r d a l e to Rosedale . "he s o i l i s of s i l t and c l a y nature streaked with g r a v e l . The Upland, of which there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e amount, i^. ^ g l a c i a l d r i f t o r i g i n tends toward a g r a v e l y loam. Lost of the d a i -ry farms are l o c a t e d on the lower l a n d , which i s b e t t e r s u i t e d f o r da iry f a n n i n g . The p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s about 40 i n c h e s . The market f o r the mi lk produced both i n the Lower and i n the Upper F r a s e r Val ley d i s t r i c t s i s provided mostly by the F r a s e r V a l l e y Milk Producers A s s o c i a t i o n . This i s a fa imers c o - o p e r a t i v e o r -g a n i z a t i o n , which makes b u t t e r , i c e - c r e a m , condensed m i l k , and which s u p p l i e s with f l u i d milk the c i t y of Vancouver. In g e n e r a l the c l i m a t e , s o i l , and market c o n d i t i o n s are s i -mi lar f o r Courtanay, the Lower F r a s e r and the Upper F r a s e r Va-l l e y d i s t r i c t s . * * I t ..as found t h a t f o r the puroose of t h i s s t u -dy the d a i r y farms of a l l the three d i s t r i c t s could be c o n s i d e r ed as e n j o y i n g s i m i l a r economic and c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s . The c l imate of the Okanagan D i s t r i c t d i f f e r s from the c l i -mate of the F r a s e r 'Val ley. The seasons of the y e a r are more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d ; the summer i s warmer and the w i n t e r i s c o l d e r and l o n g e r . The s o i l v c r i e s from a heavy c l a y i n the v i c i n i t y of Armstrong to a sandy s i l t and g r a v e l y loam a t Vernon and kelowna,.^, The p r e c i p i t a t i o n v a r i e s ; i t i s h e a v i e r a t Armstrong and Lumby than a t Vernon end kalowna. 1 Vernon and kelowna an average annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s about 14 i n c h e s . In t h i s par t of the Okanagan d i s t r i c t i r r i g a t i o n i s used to a c o n s i d e -r a b l e e x t e n t . Joth da iry and f r u i t farms are numerous i n the Okanagan d i s t r i c t . This paper w i l l d e a l w i t a t r e e f r u i t farms o n l y . The n a t u r a l and the n e a r e s t markets f o r the Okanagan f r u i t are Vancouver and tae P r a i r i e P r o v i n c e s . A l l the t r e e - f r u i t farms which supplied the s t a t i s t i c a l data ore l o c a t e d i n the seme d i s t r i c t and have to adapt them-^ the l o s t d i s t r i c t p r a c t i c e s somewhat more i n t e n s i v e methods of d a i r y farming t , a n the othc two. -15-s e l v e s to the saine market c o n d i t i o n s . Poul t ry farms au a. r u l e are h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d e n t e r p r i s e s and t h e i r success and the type of t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n does not denend to any g r e a t e x t e n t on the s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s i n the c l i -matic c o n d i t i o n s snd the s o i l f e r t i l i t y . As f a r as p o u l t r y farming i s concerned, both the Duncan d i s t r i c t on Vancouver Is land and the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y d i s t r i c t may he considered as providing the same opportunity f o r c a r r y i n g on the b u s i n e s s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The market c o n d i t i o n f o r p o u l t r y products i s very much the same in both d i s t r i c t s . I t might be expected that the e f f i c i e n t type of o r g a n i z a t i o n would prove the same f o r the two d i s t r i c t s . The d e t a i l e d information as to the methods of secur ing data by the B r i t i s h Columbia Farm Survey can be found in "Dairy Farming of B r i t i s h Columbia", B u l l e t i n B o . l o 3 by H.R.Hare " T r e e - f r u i t Farming i n B r i t i s h Columbia", B u l l e t i n N0.I05 by F.M.Clement, and "A Survey of Poul try Farms i n B r i t i s h Columbia", B u l l e t i n '70,102 by N . J . R i l e y , E . A . L l o y d , V.S.Asmudson. Short ly the method was as f o l l o w : A f ie ld-man v i s i t e d i n -d i v i d u a l farms and obtained a c o n f i d e n t i a l statement of r e c e i p t s and expenses incurred during the y e a r . Besides t h i s , the f i e l d -man took an inventory of l a n d , b u i l d i n g s , s t o c k , and equipment of the farm. As a r u l e , c o n s e r v a t i v e v a l u a t i o n s were made. Information was secured and recorded each year f o r a number of y e a r s , aid the data concerning each farm was recorded on a form s p e c i a l l y printed f o r t.,e purpose. The accumulated data were then c l a s s i f i e d and tabulated on separate o f f i c e s h e e t s . Thus the systematized data became a v a i l a b l e f o r purposes of r e s e a r c h . So f a r the induct ive method was f o l l o w e d . As the next s t e p , in an attempt to a r r i v e a t c e r t a i n conc lus ions which could become of some value both to the farmer and to the econo-m i s t , the deductive method became j u s t i f i e d . The purpose of t h i s study was, as a l ready mentioned, the de-s i r e to come to c e r t a i n conc lus ions as to the more c o r r e c t r a -t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production - 1 7 -i n a g r i c u l t u r e T ^ I t i s agreed t h a t the degree of success with which the p a r t i c u l a r o r g a n i s a t i o n of an a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e meets i s measured by the net r e t u r n ner d o l l a r of the t o t a l i n -vestment. The most s u c c e s f u l o r g a n i s a t i o n w i l l t h e r e f o r e pro-vide the l a r g e s t net r e t u r n per d o l l a r of the t o t a l investment . In order to a r r i v e a t the n e t r e t u r n per d o l l a r i n v e s t e d , t o t a l expenses are subtracted from t o t a l r e c e i p t s and the r e s u l t ob-tained div ided by the number of d o l l a r s r e p r e s e n t i n g the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the farm e n t e r p r i s e . U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h i s method of comparison i n v o l v e s the d i v i -sion of the farms i n t o too many d i f f e r e n t s i z e - g r o u p s . The f i n e g r a d a t i o n i n s ine would become a n e c e s s i t y as one cannot consider 4% r a t e of r e t u r n per d o l l a r i n v e s t e d i n an e n t e r p r i s e with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n of 3,000 a s denoting the same degree of s u c c e s s when compared wit^ the 4/, r a t e of r e t u r n per d o l l a r inves ted in an e n t e r p r i s e w i t h the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of ( 13 ,000. In order to have the r i g h t to proclaim the same degree of s u c c e s s , the smal ler e n t e r p r i s e haa to show h i g h e r ra te of re turn per d o l l a r i n v e s t e d . Accordingly another method of determining the degree of the p r o f i t a b l e n e s s of the e n t e r p r i s e by the measurement of the am-ount of the o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income was a.donted. The operator labor income r e p r e s e n t s the farm net revenue, l e s s 7", i n t e r e s t on the investment i n l a n d , b u i l d i n g s , machinery, l i v e s t o c k and ^ not a l l of the a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t s of B r i t i s h Columbia were c o n s i d e r e d . Only three types of f a r ing were d e a l t w i t h . I f the c o n c l u s i o n s a r r i v e d a t w i l l prove of some i n t e r e s t , the same method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n may be a p p l i e d to other d i s t r i c t s end f o r other types of farm e n t e r p r i s e s . -18-ed and s u p p l i e s r T h e o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income r e p r e s e n t s the farm o p e r a t o r ' s r e t u r n f o r h i s work and f o r h i s managerial a b i -l i t y . then the i n t e r e s t on investment exceeds the farm net r e -venue, the d i f f e r e n c e becomes a minus o p e r a t o r ' s l i b o r income. The same o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income i n d i c a t e s the same decree of success even when the s i z e s of the farms compared d i f f e r s i g -n i f i c a n t l y . For the smal ler e n t e r p r i s e the same l a b o r income would mean g r e a t e r r a t e of r e t u r n s per d o l l a r i n v e s t e d . Only the p r a c t i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y of d i v i d i n g the farms i n t o many s i z e groups prompted the adoption of the method of measur-ing the p r o f i t a b l i n e s s of the e n t e r p r i s e by i t s o p e r a t o r ' s l a -bor income. The number of the farms u n ' e r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n -.-as not l a r g e enough to make a f i n e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by s i z e s po-s s i b l e . The t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f i r m s placed in the same s i z e group v a r i e d too much. As the f i r s t s tep each one of the 209 farms had to be con-sidered i n d i v i d u a l l y . The t c t s l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , o p e r a t o r ' s l a -bor income, and the percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z e t i o n i n -vested i n l a n d , i n l a b o r , and i n equipment had to be a r r i v e d a t . In order to f i n d out the p e r c e n t a g e s , the a b s o l u t e f i g u r e s r e -presenting the investment in the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion had to be f i r s t c o n s i d e r e d , "he f i g u r e r e s u l t i n g from the sub-t r a c t i o n of the sum of v a l u e s of land plus l a b o r from the v a -lue of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , was considered as the a b s o l u t e Farm Net Revenue i s the d i f f e r e n c e between y r o s s r e c e i p t s and g r o s s expenses . value of the investment i n equipment. As an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the method used, an examole of the c a l c u l a t i o n i s g iven: Poultry farm No.313 has a t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of ",8,379.70 I t s land value plus taxes on land amount to -1*1,843.00. I t s l a -bor expenditure amounts to .'¡¡725.00. The sun of investment i n land plus labor equals ¿2,568.00 (1 ,843.00 + 725.00 = 2 ,568.00) . The l a s t f i g u r e when subtracted from the f i g u r e r e p r e s e n t i n g the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n g i v e s the amount invested in the equip-ment: 8,379.70 - 2,568.00 5 , 8 1 1 . 7 0 . % The percentages of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d in the' d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production can be e a s i l y worked out now: Total c a p i t a l i z a t i o n 8,379.70 100% Investment in land 1 , 8 4 3 . 0 0 . . . . . . 22.0% " " labor 7 2 5 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7% " " e q u i p m e n t . . 5 , 8 1 1 . 7 0 . . . . 69.3% The weakness of t h i s study l i e s in the f a c t that too many d i f f e r e n t items are covered by the same f a c t o r of production -namely, the equipment. In equipment are included the i n v e s t -ments in b u i l d i n g s , i n machinery, in l i v e s t o c k , i n feed and s u p p l i e s , and in cash used f o r current expenses , exc luding the expenses i n l a b o r . D i f f e r e n t farms have d i f f e r e n t shares of t h e i r investment i n equipment represented by l i v e s t o c k , or by machinery, or by b u i l d i n g s , " h i s f a c t does not make the com-parison of the d i f f e r e n c e s of the investment in equipment accu-r a t e . The same percentage of the investment i n equipment may mean d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , however, i t may be considered t h a t the adopted method was the only one p r a c t i c a b l y p o s s i b l e when the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i s d e a l t w i t h . Later on, a s the cont inuat ion of t h i s study an attempt may be made to f i n d out the b e s t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the t o t a l investment in equipment among the d i f f e r e n t items of equipment. -20 t o r ' s l a b o r income f o r the same farm i s $2 ,010.63. The same procedure was f o l l o w e d f o r each of the 209 farms, i t was n e c e s s a r y to know the amount of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n of the farm i n order to be a b l e to c l a s s i f y farms according to t h e i r s i z e s ; i t was n e c e s s a r y to know the amount of the opera-t o r ' s l a b o r income i n order to be a b l e to compare the degree of the p r o f i t a b l e n e s s of the s e p a r a t e farms; and i t as n e c e s s a r y to know the percentages of the t o t a l investment r e p r e s e n t e d by the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion. Shen a l l c-f the 20? farms had t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f i g u r e s t h a t Were needed, the p o u l t r y farms were separated from the d a i r y farms and from the t r e e - f r u i t farms. From now on each of the three type groups.were cons idered i n d i v i d u a l l y . Lach of the type groups was again d i v i d e d i n t o s e v e r a l s i z e groups. Dairy Farms were d i v i d e d i n t o throe s i z e groups: group " I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms wi th the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between ^5,000 and ¡¡,18,000; Oup " I I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between §18,000 and [¡35,000; Sroup " I l l " - i n c l u d l n g farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n b e -tween §33,000 and ^110.000. T r e e - f r u i t Farms were d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r s i z e groups: roup " I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between $3,000 and -¡¡'7,000; Croup " I I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between *7,000 and i l 5 , 0 0 0 ; - 2 1 -Sroup " I I I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms wi th the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between §13,000 and §23,000; Group " 1 7 " - i n c l u d i n g the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between $23,000 and $120,000. P o u l t r y Farms were d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r s i z e groups. Group " I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between $4,000 and $5,530; Group " I I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between $3,530 and §9,000; Group " I I I " - i n c l u d i n g the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between $9,000 and $16,000; Group "IV" - i n c l u d i n g the farms w i t h the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n between $16,000 and $25,0u0. The farms of the d i f f e r e n t s i z e - g r o u p s were never a g a i n grou-ped t o g e t h e r ; each of the s i z e - g r o u p s was d e a l t wi th s e p a r a t e l y . Much care was e x e r c i s e d when l i m i t s of the s i z e groups were de-termined. These l i m i t s were determined more or l e s s a r b i t r a r i -l y , judging by the tendency of the farms to vary i n the.amounts of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n s but l i t t l e . The f i r s t d i v i s i o n according to s i z e proved to be i n c o r r e c t and other s i i e l i m i t s .had to be adopted. As the g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e f o r determining the s i z e l i m i t s was taken the tendency of the farm e n t e r p r i s e s to be the most remunerative when the same o o r t i o n s of t h e i r t o -t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n were i n v e s t e d i n the same f a c t o r s of produc-t i o n . -22-P O U L T R Y F A R H I N G OF B. C. From the f o r e g o i n g i t i s seen that the farms have been c l a -r i f i e d according to d i s t r i c t s , t y p e s , and s i z e s . Each farm 3 p l i e s ' t h e information concerning the amount of i t s o p e r a t o r ' s labor income and concerning the percentages of i t s t o t a l c a p i -t a l i z a t i o n inves ted i n l a n d , l a b o r , and equipment. I t remains to a s c e r t a i n how the e n t e r p r i s e s r e a c t on the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the above percentages . Poul try farms o f f e r i n g the l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y Y^ill be f i r s t considered. Of the t o t a l of 6? farms i t w i l l be seen t h a t f i v e farms f a l l i n t o the f i r s t group, 30 i n t o the second, 21 f a l l i n -to the t h i r d , and 1 1 f a l l i n t o the f o u r t h s i z e - g r o u p . The f i r s t s i z e - g r o u p i s represented by farms which as j e t are i n the process of development. These are r e c e n t l y begun ' farms which had not time enough to develop f u l l y and t o accumu-l a t e needed c a p i t a l . Puch of t h e i r t o t a l investment i s r e p r e s e n -ted by l a b o r , an i n s u f f i c i e n t amount i s represented by equipment, probably too l i t t l e i s inves ted in l i v e s t o c k . Kith t h i s f i r s t s i ze-group of Poultry fa ims t h i s study w i l l begin i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The f i r s t s tep of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e s f i n d i n g out the d i f f e r e n t percentages of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n r e p r e s e t -ed by l a b o r , l a n d , and equipment on the farms wi th the l a r g e s t o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income, on the farms with the small o p e r a t o r ' s -23-bor income, and on the farms with the minus o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r 'income. The farms which have the o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income above +$600.00 w i l l be termed "Above-marginal Farms" ; the farms which have an o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income of from "0" up to +$600.00 w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as "marginal Farms"; and the farms which have a minus o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income w i l l be termed "Submarginal Farms'! The r e s u l t of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s as f o l l o w s : 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 i n a l farms i n the f i r s t group; none of the e n t e r p r i s e s r e a l i s e a.ore than +,¡600.00 o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income. The more s u c c e s s f u l farms have much s m a l l e r shares of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested in l a n d . They have l a r g e r shares i n v e s t e d i n equipment. In order to be able to determine what percentages of the t o -t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n should be i n v e s t e d in l a n d , and whet percen-tages should be i n v e s t e d in l a b o r , and what percentages should be invested in equipment, the farms of t-ne s i :e gro^p w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d according to the percentages of tne investment i n the d i f f e r e n t elements of product ion. The farms are d i v i d e d i n t o This does not mean t h a t they a c t u a l l y are Marginal or Sub-marg ina l . I t should be remembered t h a t 7% r a t e of i n t e r e s t on investment v,as deducted from the f a r m ' s net revenue. Probably 7% r a t e i s too high a r a t e . - 2 4 -sub-groups according to the percentage of the investment in l a n d . A ten percent i n t e r v a l i s adopted, so t h a t i n the f i r s t sub-gro-ip are included the farms which have from 10% to 20% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land; i n the second sub-group are included the farms which have from 20% to 30% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a n d , and so on. Tho farms are then d i v i d e d i n t o sub-groups according to the percentage of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by l a b o r . A two percent i n t e r v a l i s adopted. The farms are f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o sub-groups according to the percentage of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d in e q u i p -ment. A ten percent i n t e r v a l i s here adopted. Bach sub-group becomes a s e p a r a t e item which has to be d e a l t with s e p a r a t e l y . For each sub-group three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are found i n order -l / To a s c e r t a i n the r e l a t i v e importance of the d i f f e r e n t sub-groups the percentages of the number of farms of each sub-group to the t o t a l number of the farms i n the s i z e group are worked out ; the t o t a l number of the farms of the s i z e group i s taken as 100%,- the percentages of the r e s p e c t i v e to each sub-group number of farms i s worked out a c c o r d i n g l y . 2/ To a s c e r t a i n the r e l a t i v e number of f a i l u r e s i n each of the sub-groups, the p e r c e n t a g e s of the number of the sub-marginal farms i n the sub-group to the t o t a l number of the farms in the same sub-group are worked o u t . 3/ To a s c e r t a i n the degree of p r o f i t a b l e n e s s of a c e r t a i n share of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n being i n v e s t e d i n d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s -28-produotion , the average o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income i s worked f o r each of the sub-groups. Here i s the r e s u l t of the procedure: POULTRY SURVEY - 1 ? 2 4 . GROUP " I " . Percentage of Percentage of the investment farms i n the sub-group to i n land the t o t a l No. of farms i n Percentage of submarginai farms to the t o t a l No. of farms i n the the s i z e - g r o u p , same sub-group. Average opera-t o r ' s l a b o r income f o r each sub-group. 10% to 20% 20% to 30% 30% to 40% in l a b o r 9% to 11% 11% to 13% 13% t o 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 f i r s t s i s e group have from 20% to 30% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a n d , l i e farms with l e s s land appear as being b e t t e r o f f ; the farms with more land would seem worse o f f . The tendency to have more land than i s j u s t i f i e d by the a v a i l a b l e equipment can be r e a d i l y seen. The farms which have the l e a s t amount of land have the l a r g e s t o p e r a t o r ' s labor income and they a l s o have fewer f a i l u r e s . The bulk of the farms have from 5J', to 6.J-, of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested in equipment; one h a l f of such farms -26 -sub-marginal . The tendency to be s h o r t of equipment i s t i n l y s e e n . The farms which nave the l a r g e s t share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d by equipment are b e t t e r o f f , a s they have l a r g e r o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income and they a l s o have a smal ler number of sub-marginal farms. I t would appear t h a t the farms of the f i r s t s i z e group Should endeavour to i n c r e a s e t h e i r investment i n equipment. I t has a l r e a d y been mentioned t h a t t h i s group i s represented by the r e c e n t l y s t a r t e d farms. Sooner or l a t e r a l l these farms w i l l move i n t o the second group. The m a j o r i t y of the p o u l t r y farms are l o c a t e d i n the second s i z e group, namely i n the group which i n c l u d e s the farms wi th the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of from (5 ,550.00 to [9,000.00. For the a n a l y s i s of t h i s group the same method was p r a c t i c e d as the method descr ibed when d e a l i n g with the f i r s t s i z e group. As a matter of f a c t , the same method of a n a l y s i s i s c a r r i e d on through out a l l the s t u d y . For the second s i z e group the r e s u l t of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s as f o l l o w s : AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. uROUP " I I " . * Above-marginal farms Marginal f a n a s Sub-marginal farms Land. Labor . Equipment. 20.2% s.y% 70.9% 28.3% 11.9% 5 9 . 8 1 24.2% 7 .2 * 68.6't -27-In the second s i z e group only one sub-marginal farm i s Consequently, the "averages" f o r the sub-marginal farms ^ef the second s i z e group cannot be considered as being s t r i c t l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . I t would be b e t t e r to d i s r e g a r d them e n t i r e l y . The more remunerative poultry farms of the second s i z e group have a much smal ler share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t -e d i n l a n d . They have a g r e a t e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i -z a t i o n invested i n equipment. The d i f f e r e n c e s of the amounts of the investments : in l a b o r do not seem to a f f e c t the a c h i e v e -ments of the e n t e r p r i s e s . Hore d e t a i l e d information can be obtained from the t a b l e which f o l l o w s : POULTRY SURVEY-1924. GROUP " I I " . g Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Average ope-investment the farms i n the submarginai r a t o r ' s l a -sub-group to the farms i n the sub- bor income i n land t o t a l No. of farms group to the t o t a l f o r each i n the s i z e - g r o u p , number of farms i n sub-group. the same sub-group. Less than 10% 10% 10% to 20% 46.7% 20% to 304 26.7% 30% to 40% 10% 40% to 30% 6.6% in labor 7% to y% 63.3% 9 - 11% 20.0% 11% - 13% 10.0% 15% - 17% 3.3% 17% - 1?% 3.4% in equipment 40% - 30% 10.0% 0% - 60% 10.0% ot - 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 + 1 1 7 1 . 9 3 +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 a n a l y s i s o f the investments i n l a b o r the f a c t be noted t h a t , p r o b a b l y , the p o u l t r y farmers of the second ze group should g i v e somewhat more a t t e n t i o n to t h e i r f l o c k s , amoung a l l the farmers 63.3% of them have i n v e s t e d i n l a -from 7% to 9% o f the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of t h e i r e n t e r p i -!S. The n e x t group of the farmers who have a somewhat l a r g e r ^Bhare of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a b o r , namely, from 9% to 11%, r e a l i z e a g r e a t e r o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income. The more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the investment i n the d i f f e r e n t ^factors of product ion f o r the p o u l t r y farms of the second s i z e ¡Lp seem to be around 10% i n l a n d , 10% i n l a b o r , and 80% i n ^equipment. For the t h i r d s i z e group the r e s u l t o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n I s f o l l o w s : AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. GROUP " I I I " . 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 t h i s group there are only two submarginal f a r m s , - c o n s e -quently a v e r a g e s f o r sub-marginal farms are not r e l i a b l e . Comparing the Above-marginal farms with the Sub-marginal the f a c t can be seen aga in t h a t the more p r o f i t a b l e farms have l e s s land and more equipment than have the l e s s p r o f i t a b l e farms. See Table N 1 a t the end.Page 34. -29-# The Above-mar ¡?inal farms have a l i t t l e l a r g e r share of t h e i r t e l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n Invested i n l a b o r . POULTRY SURVEY - 1924. CROUP " I I I " . ^ r e e n t a g e of Percentage of investment f a n a s i n the Percentage of sub-marginal in l a n d . 10% 20% 38% 20% 10% $0% sub-group to farms in sub-the t o t a l No. group to t o t a l o f farms i n the No. of farms i n in labor 3% - 7 % 7% - 9% 9% - 11% 11% - 13% i n equipment 40% - 50% 30% - 6o% 6o% - 70% 70% - 80% s i z e 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-t o r ' s l a b o r in-eome f o r 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 l a r g e s t number of the poul t ry farms of the t h i r d s i z e group have from 20% to 30% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t -ed in l a n d . The farms which have from 10% to 20% of t h e i r t o -t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by land have l a r g e r o p e r a t o r ' s labor income. The d e s i r a b l e thing f o r the t h i r d s i z e group would be the increase of the number of the farms i n i t s f i r s t sub-group. The more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the investment i n the d i -f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production f o r the poul try farms of the t h i r d Size group seem to be around 13% i n l a n d , 10% i n l ^ b o r , and 73% -SO-i n equipment. For the f o u r t h group of the p o u l t r y farms the r e s u l t of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n i s as f o l l o w s : AVERAGE PE.iCENT^GE DISTRIBUTION OF TRE 'TiRËK FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. GROUP " I V " . '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 i t was i n the e a s e of the p r e v i o u s l y cons idered groups, i t can be seen t h a t the most p r o f i t a b l e farms have the s m a l l e s t share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested i n t h e i r land, as compared with the l e s s p r o f i t a b l e farms, which have a much l a r g e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d in l a n d . The l a r e s t share of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the most p r o f i t a b l e farms i s represented by equipment. The l e t s p r o f i t a b l e the farm i s , the l e s s equipment i t h a s . More de-t a i l e d informat ion i s provided by the t a b l e which f o l l o w s : POULTRY SURVEY -1924. GROUP " I V " . Percent of Percentage of investment farms i n the sub-group to i n land t o t a l No. of farms i n the s i z e 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 i n sub-group to t o t a l No. of farms i n the same sub-group. S 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Average o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income f o r each sub-group. +2867.43 +2094.10 + 992.23 + 36I.68 - 396.96 - 63.96 -31-l a b o r . - 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 f o u r t h s i z e group have from ,10% to 20% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a n d . The farms which have l e s s land have l a r g e r one a t o r ' s l a b o r income; the fanns which have more land have smal ler o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r inoome. With the i n c r e a s e of the share of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i -z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n equipment, the o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r inco:ae i n -e r e a s e s . The farms which have l e s s than h a l f of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by equipment have minus o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income. The bulk of the farms have from 5% to 9% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n invested i n l a b o r . This percentage does not seem to be l a r g e enough. The more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the investment i n the three f a c -t o r s of production f o r the p o u l t r y farms of the f o u r t h s i z e group seem to be 10% i n l a n d , 10% i n l a b o r , and 80% i n e q u i p -- 3 2 -Locking e v e r a i l the f o u r -roups of the p o u l t r y farms, i t would appear t h a t there i s no tendency f o r the l a r g e r fanns to r e q u i r e a l a r g e r p o r t i o n of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n to be represented by l a n d . There i s no tendency f o r the l a r g e r farms t o r e q u i r e a smal ler p o r t i o n of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n to be represented by equipment. What i s good f o r the farm of one s i z e , seems to be b e n e f i c i a l f o r the farm of another s i z e . The more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the investment i n the d i f f e r e n t f a c -§ t o r s of production are the same f o r the ¡arms of a l l the s i z e s . These more c o r r e c t r a t i o s a r e - 10% i n l a n d , 10% i n l a b o r , and 80% i n 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 l e s s equipment than i s j u s t i f i e d by the b u s i n e s s . F u r -*; thermore, the bulk of the farmers appear to provide t h e i r e n -t e r p r i s e s wi th somewhat an i n s u f f i c i e n t amount of l a b o r . A l l t h i s amounts to the statement t h a t the p o u l t r y b u s i n e s s of B r i t i s h Columbia has not reached the l i m i t of i n t e n s i t y which would f o r b i d f u r t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n of l a b o r and equipment to the same a r e a s of l a n d . In other words. P o u l t r y of B r i t i s h Columbia has not reached the point of decrea&ing r e t u r n s as j e t . Among the number of the farms of the group which i n c l u d e s the e n t e r p r i s e s wi th the l a r g e s t t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , 18.2% are sub-marginal farms; among the farms of the next s i z e group which Inc ludes the e n t e r p r i s e s with somewhat s m a l l e r t o t a l c a -p i t a l i z a t i o n , the percentage of the sub-marginal farms i s 9.5%; t h i s percentage f o r the s t i l l s m a l l e r s i z e group i s only 3.3%. I t may be concluded t h a t among l a r g e r farms t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r number of f a i l u r e s than among smal ler farms. Bat t h i s does not o f n e c e s s i t y mean the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the s m a l l e r the farm i s the more chances to succeed i t h a s . There i s the l i m i t to the mentioned tendency: the farms of the f i r s t s i z e group, namely the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n under $5,550.00 have 40% of t h e i r t o t a l number a s submarginal farms. I t seems that i n order to a t t a i n an economical s u c c e s s the p o u l t r y e n -t e r p r i s e o f B r i t i s h Columbia should be c a p i t a l i z e d f o r a t l e a s t §5*530.00. - 3 4 -TABLE " I " * P O U L T R Y S U R V E Y . 1 9 2 4 . C a p i t a l i z a t i o n . Number of Bumber of farms. sub-margi-n a l farms. %% of sub-marginal f a r m s . Group " 1 " $ 4,000 - 5,550 3 2 40% Group " 1 1 " $ 3,550 - 9.000 30 1 3.3% Group " H i " § 9,000 -16,000 21 2 9.5% Group "IV" §16,000 -26,800 1 1 2 18.2% AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUC-TION. 1924. Land. Labor . Equipment. G R O U P " 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% G R O U P " I I " . 20.2% 8.9% 28.3% 11.9% 24.2% 7.2% G R O U P " I I I " . 21.0% 7.3% 37.3% 6.3% 16.2% 8.5% G R O U P " I V " . 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. P O U L T R Y S U R V E Y . 1 9 2 4 . Percent of the t o t a l c a p i t a -l i z a t i o n of the farm i n v e s t e d in land 17- - io% 10% - 20% 20% - 30% 30%*-- 40% 40% - 30% 30% - 60% i n equipment 30% -40% - 50% 30% - 6o% 60% - 70% 70% - 80% 80% - 90% Number of farms i n 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 div ided i n t o f o u r s i z e groups. The f i r s t group c o n s i s t s of farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of from §3,000 to $7,000; the second group i n c l u d e s farms w i t h the c a -p i t a l i z a t i o n of from $7,000 to §13,000; the t h i r d group has farms with the c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of from „15,000 to ^25,000; and the f o u r t h group c o n s i s t s of farms with the c a p i t a l i s a t i o n of from (25,000 to ^120,000. In the y e a r 1928 which i s the year under c o n s i d e r a t i o n 16 farms belonged to the f i r s t group, 38 farms belonged to the s e -cond group, 14 farms belonged to the t h i r d group, and s i x farms belonged to the f o u r t h group, TREE-FRUIT SURVEY, 1328. C a p i t a l i z a t i o n . 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 " 1 1 " § 7,000 to $15,000 38 1 1 28.9% Group " I I I " §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% - 3 8 -As compared to the marginal and sub-marginal farms, the above-marginal farms have a l a r g e r share of t h e i r t o t a l i n v e s t -ment represented by land; they i n v e s t a s m a l l e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n l a b o r ; l i t t l e or no v a r i a t i o n of the Investment i n the equipment i s seen* U n f o r t u n a t e l y the value of the t r e e s i s inc luded i n the land v a l u e . This f a c t i s apt to d i s t o r t the p i c t u r e of the d i s t r i b u -t i o n of the t h r e e f a c t o r s of product ion. The orchard i s r e a l l y the equipment of a t r e e - f r u i t f a r m , i n s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t i t cannot be s o l d s e p a r a t e from the l a n d . More t r e e s per acre and i n the ease o f the t r e e s of b e t t e r q u a l i t y a l a r g e r expenditure of c a p i t a l i s made per a c r e . This means the i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of fanning i n the rame sense as when on a p o u l t r y farm the number of the b i r d s per acre and the q u a l i t y of the f l o c k are i n c r e a s -ed and improved. For the f i v e y e a r s of the survey ( 1 ? 2 1 - 1925) b e a r i n g orchard land was valued a t from $700.OJ to $1,000.00 per a c r e . In the same d i s t r i c t (Okanagan) the average land v a -l u e per t i l l a b l e acre was $ 1 5 9 . 1 0 . i ^ * I t i s t rue that the l?nd of the orchard n e c e s s i t a t e s more expenditure f o r i t s improvement than the a r e a of land under g r a i n crops or under p a s t u r e . Orohards need i r r i g a t i o n i n the most of the f r u i t growing d i s t r i c t s of the e s t . C e r t a i n l y the orchards of the Okanagan d i s t r i c t need the improvements, not i n -c l u d i n g the t r e e s themselves . h a t i s the va lue of the t r e e s ? Kfhen and to what e x t e n t the i n c r e a s e of the investment in land i s due to the increased mun-Based on I925 crop-nurvey y e a r . - 3 9 -t * r of c o r e s of land on the farm, and when and to what e x t e n t i s i t due to the increased number of the bearing t r e e s ? Unfortunately f i g u r e s that are a v a i l a b l e do not a l low con-c l u s i o n s to be reached in t h i s connect ion. The w r i t e r w i l l do h i s b e s t with the f i g u r e s t h a t are a t h i s d i s p o s a l . THEE-FRUIT a U R V R Ï - i 9 2 S . GROUP " I " . Percent of Percent of farms the i n v e s t - i n the sub-group ment in l a n d . 301 60% 80% 60% 70% 80% 90% i n labor 10% - 12% 12% - 14% 14t - 16% 16% - 18% 18% - 20?, 20% - 22% 22% - 24% - 26% to the t o t a l Bo. of farms i n the s i z e group. 12.5% 31.3% 30.0% 6*2% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 31.3% 18.7% 12.3% i n 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 t o t a l No. each sub-group, of f a n a s i n 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 + 1 2 3 . 3 1 + 598.62 + 264.96 + 469.62 + 738.27 + 467.34 This t a b l e g i v e s u s more d e t a i l e d information about the r e -a c t i o n of the e n t e r p r i s e s on the v a r i a t i o n s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of product ion. Both the farms which heve from 60% to 70% and the farms which have from 70% to 80% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested i n land are Above-marginal farms, i . e . e i t h e r sub-group r e a l i z e s more than +$600.00 opera-t a r ' 8 l a b o r income. The "60% - 70%" sub-group has a g r e a t e r #voratge o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income (+816.40) as compared with the o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income of the "70% - 8o%" sub-group (+743.34) . And j e t there a r e more farms i n the sab-group which i n c l u d e s the e n t e r p r i s e s with the 70% to 80% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a -t i o n represented by l a n d . There are 31.3% of the farms of the f i r s t s i z e group i n the sub-group which i n c l u d e s the e n t e r p r i -s e s with the 60% t o 7J% o f t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n -ted by land; there are $0% of the farms of the f i r s t s i z e group i n the sub-group which i n c l u d e s the e n t e r p r i s e s wi th the 70% to 80% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by l a n d . I t appears t h a t the t r e e - f r u i t farms of the f i r s t s i z e group would do b e t t e r i f they i n v e s t e d a somewhat s m a l l e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n l a n d . Studying the f i g u r e s which d e a l wi th the investment i n l a -b o r , i t can be p l a i n l y seen t h a t most of the farms were o v e r -burdened i n t h a t r e s p e c t ; p a r t of the share of the c a p i t a l i n -v e s t e d i n l a b o r could be u t i l i z e d t o a g r e a t e r advantage i f i n -v e s t e d i n equipment. However i t must not be f o r g o t t e n t h a t probably the o p e r a t o r of the farm suppl ied most of the l a b o r h imsel f and had no chance to apply h i s work i n other d i r e c t i o n s . In c o n s i d e r i n g the investment i n equipment there i s no d i -f f i c u l t y to see t h a t more equipment would prove advantageous f o r many of the f a r m e r s . 43.75% o f the farms have l e s s than 10% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n equipment, l i e farms which have from 10% t o 20 of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n equipment r e a l i z e a g r e a t e r o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r i n --41-do the fanms which have l e s s than ten percent i n v e s t -i n equipment* For the f i r s t s i z e group of the t r e e - f r u i t farms of the Oka-d i s t r i c t the more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion seem t o be 6 % i n l a n d , i n l a b o r , and 20% i n equipment. The g e n e r a l tendency o f the farms i s t o have somewhat more EanA, more l a b o r , and l e s s equipment* I f the v a l u e of the t r e e s a l s o placed under the item of equipment, the s t a t e d tenden-would appear even more pronounced. According to the t r e e -Lt s u r v e y , i n s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t about 85% of the t o t a l i i p t s of the t r e e - f r u i t farms come from the s a l e s of f r u i t , '43.4% of the area of the farms has nothing to do wi th the f r u i t AVRRAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . G R O U P " I I " - 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 f a r m s , the marginal and the above-marginal farms have more l a n d , l e s s l a b o r , and the same amount of equipment. I t i s a g a i n n e c e s s a r y to emphasize the f a c t t h a t the value Of the t r e e s i s inc luded i n the land v a l u e , whi le from t h i s stu-dy the c o n c l u s i o n i s made t h a t the va lue of the t r e e s should be -42-included in equipment. I t i s necessary a l s o to point o u t , that under nc circumstances should the average f i g u r e s of the t a b l e above be taken as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the a c t u a l percentages of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n s of the Margina l , Sub-marginal, and Above-marginal farms i n v e s t e d i n t h e i r f a c t o r s of product ion. The tendency to have a smal ler or a g r e a t e r share of the t o t a l investment represented by a c e r t a i n f a c t o r of production alone can be shown by the above a v e r a g e s . The more c o r r e c t or the l e s s c o r r e c t percentages of the i n -vestments in the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production may be seen from the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e : T R E E - F R U I T S U R V E Y . G R O U P " 1 1 " . Percentage of investment i n land 40% -^ -6o% -70% -8o% -30% 60% 70% 8o% ?o% i n l a b o r 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 i n the sub-group to the t o t a l S o . of farms in the s i z e - g r o u p . 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-r a t o r ' s l a -Percent of sab-marginal farms to the t o t a l No. bor income of farms in the f o r 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 i n 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 o f the t r e e - f r u i t farms have from 60% to 80% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a n d . The farms which have from 70% to 80% r e a l i z e s m a l l e r o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income than the farms which have from 60% to 7J%, and j e t i t w i l l be seen t h a t the number of the farms i n the "70% - 80%" sub-group i s l a r g e r than the number of the farms i n the "60% - 70*" group. The o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income of the farms T?hich have from 80% to 90% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land i s the l a r g e s t of a l l the sub-groups, but the number of the farms i n t h i s sub-group i s too small (3.3%) to make the f i g u r e r e l i a b l e . In the second group of the t r e e - f r u i t farms 71.0% of the t o t a l number of the farms have l e s s than 20% of t h e i r t o t a l i n -vestment represented by equipment, and j e t the most s u c c e s s f u l farms have from 20% to 30% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s -ted i n equipment. As a whole , the second s i z e group appears to have too much investment i n l a n d . The farmers of t h i s group might do b e t t e r i f they a l lowed a g r e a t e r p o r t i o n of t h e i r t o t a l investment to go i n t o equipment, and a s m a l l e r p o r t i o n of i t to go i n t o l a n d . The most c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion f o r th^ second s i z e group of the t r e e f r u i t farms appears t o be: 63% i n l a n d , 13% i n l a b o r , and 22%" i n equipment. -44-AUERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THESE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION. S R O U P " I I I " . Laad. Labor. Equipment. 3ve-marglnal fa^as 10.4% 16.0% rg inal farms "* ** * ?2.7% 13.3% 14.4% The above-marginal f a n a s have more land than have the sub-marginal farms; the above-marginal farms have l e s s l a b o r , and they have more equipment than the sub-marginal farms. T R ^ E - F R U I T S U R V E Y , G R O U P "3 0% - 90% in l a b o r 4% -6% - 8% 8% - 13% 14% - 16% 2 0% --in equipment 1% - 10% 10% - 20% 20% - 30% Percentage of the investment i n l a n d . Percent of farms Percent of sub- Average ope-i n the sub-group to the t o t a l No. of farms i n the s i z e group. 28.6% 37+1% 14.3% 21.4% 14.3% 28.7% 21.4% 7.1% 2 8 . i 37.3 1 4 . : r a t o r ' s l a -t o the t o t a l No. bor income of farms i n the f o r each same sub-group, sub-group. 50% 23% 33.3% 0% 73*0% 1 2 . 5 i 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 I t w i l l be seen t h a t , a l though the l a r g e s t o p e r a t o r ' s labor income i s r e a l i z e d by the farms which have from 80% to 90% of - 4 5 -t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land , h a l f of the num-ber of these farms are sub-marginal . This sub-group appears to have an organozat ion t h a t seems to be on the whole too r i s k y . The group which i n c l u d e s the farms w i t h from 70^ to 80,L of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by land may be c o n s i d e r -ed as bein^- i n the most s a t i s f a c t o r y p o s i t i o n . The c o r r e c t n e s s of t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s confirmed by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the v a r i -ed investments i n equipment, and i n l a b o r . I t seems t h a t the farms should have a t l e a s t 12 t of t h e i r t o t a l investment represented by l a b o r , and a t l e a s t 13% r e p r e -sented by equipment. 12 + 13 makes 2 7 , and only 73% i s l e f t f o r the share of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n which could be i n v e s t e d i n l a n d . The f a c t must be always borne i n mind t h a t , under t h i s s y s -tem of survey r e c o r d s , the l a r g e r percentage of investment in land may mean a g r e a t e r share of the t o t a l area of the f a r m ' s land under the f a r m ' s o r c h a r d , or i t may mean a b e t t e r orchard with a l a r g e r number of t r e e s per a c r e , or i t ray mean a b ig t r a c k 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 i n a l farms - -Marginal farms 69.4% 12.1% 18.3% Sub-marginal farms 36.9% 13.3% 29.8% —46** As i ê the case' o f the three previous groups, the sab-margi-farms have l e s s land and more l a b o r than have the marginal i s . None of the farms of the f o u r t h s i z e group r e a l i z e d 3re than +$600*00 o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income. As w i l l be seen the t a b l e that f o l l o w s , some of the sub-marginal farms owe t h e i r minus o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income to the e x c e s s i v e investment in the equipment, probably i n the unproductive equipment, such -.as too expensive or o b s o l e t e b u i l d i n g s , e t c . T R E E - F R U I T G R 0 U F Percentage of Percent o f farms the investment i n the sub-group t o the t o t a l No* of farms i n the s i z e group* l a n d . 30% - 40% 40% - 50% 30% - 6o% S U R V E Y , 1728* Percent of sub- Average opera-marginal farms t o r ' s l a b o r to- the t o t a l Bo. income f o r each of farms i n the sub-group. i n l a b o r L 8% - 10' 10% -12% - 14 14% - 16 , 18% - 20% i n equipment 1% - 10% 10% - 20% 20% ? 30% 30% - 40% 40% - 30% 16.?% 16*7% 16.6% 33. S% 16*7% 16*7% 33*3% 16*?% 16*7% 16.6% 16.7% 33.3% 33.4% 16*6% lOi 10( 3% 01 100% 0% )0% 0% 100% 100% -6434.30 -4648.54 + 239*04 + 293.33 -1338*30 -1338.50 + 132.47 -4648*54 + 361 .7? -6434.30 -1338.50 + 293.83 -2304.73 -6454.50 Although few farms e n t e r i n t o the f o u r t h s i z e group, t h i s group g i v e s the same answer to the quest ion as to what c o n s t i -- 4 ? -t n t e s the moat s a t i s f a c t o r y r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of p r o d u c t i o n . The l a r g e s t o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income i s r e a l i z e d by the farms which have from 70% to 80% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested i n l a n d ; which have from 14% to 16% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a b o r , and which have from 10% to 20% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s -ted i n equipment. The b e s t r a t i o s , then, may be s t a t e d a s be ing 70% i n l a n d , 1$% i n l a b o r , and 15% i n equipment. T r e e - f r u i t farms are h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d e n t e r p r i s e s . Con-sequent ly i t i s expected t h a t d i f f e r e n t s i z e groups do not vary much as f a r a s the b e s t methods of t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n are c o n -cerned. At the same time however the l a r g e r farms should show c e r t a i n operat ing and m a t e r i a l expenses f o n a i n g a s m a l l e r por-t i o n of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . Bes ides t h i s , c e r t a i n ma-chinery and c e r t a i n b u i l d i n g s cannot be a s f u l l y u t i l i z e d on a smal ler farm a s they can be u t i l i z e d on a l a r g e r farm; the machi-nery can be used each season f o r a longer period of time on a l a r g e r farm than on a s m a l l e r farm, and so on. The b e s t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production on the t r e e - f r u i t farms of the d i f f e r e n t s i z e s are as f o l l o w s : Land. Labor. Equipment. For Group " I " For Group " I I " For Group " I I I " For Group "IV" 69% 11% 20% 65% 15% 22% 73% 12% 1 5 t 70% 15% 15% These f i g u r e s confirm e i t h e r of the e x p e c t a t i o n s : l / the b e s t r a t i o s o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s o f production do not d i f f e r much w i t h the v a r i a t i o n s of the s i -zes of the t r e e - f r u i t farms; 2/ the l a r g e r farms need a smal ler share o f t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a -l i z a t i o n to be inves ted i n equipment, e x c l u d i n g the t r e e s . Thus l a r g e r farms seem to have a d i s t i n c t advantage over the s m a l l e r farms i n t h a t t h o i r overhead charge of o p e r a t i n g , ma-t e r i a l , and f i x e d expenses can be made s m a l l e r than the o v e r -head charge on a s m a l l e r farm. At the same time however the l a r g e r farms as compared with the s m a l l e r farms have a r e l a t i -v e l y g r e a t e r number of the sub-m-rginal f a r m s , T R E B - F R U I T S U R V E X - 1928. PERCENT OF 3UBHARJINAL FARMS IN DIFFERENT SI'^E GROUPS. The f a c t t h a t among l a r g e r farms there i s a g r e a t e r number of f a i l u r e s than among smal ler farms i s not inherent to the s i -ze of the e n t e r p r i s e . The proper combination of the three f a c -t o r s of production on a l a r g e farm i s l i a b l e to be more e f f i c i -ent than the proper combination of the three f a c t o r s of produc-t i o n on a smal ler farm. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , or f o r t u n a t e l y perhaps, there i s a w e l l def ined tendency f o r the l a r g e r farms to be more l i a b l e to have an improper combination of the three f a c -Group " I " Group " I I " Group " I I I " Group " 1 7 " 12.3% 28.9% 35.7% 30.0% t o r s of product ion. The s m a l l e r farms seem to he mere a b l e to o r g a n i z e t h e i r f a c t o r s o f product ion i n a more remunerative way; the range of the r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i r f a c -t o r s o f product ion i s n e a r e r to the standard r a t i o . The range of the r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the f a c t o r s of production of the l a r g e r fcrrae i s more s c a t t e r e d , has g r e a t e r d e v i a t i o n s , and v a r i e s very muoh from Hie s tandard. In coming back to the t a b l e s d e a l t w i t h p r e v i o u s l y , i t wdl l be seen t h a t the percentage of the f - rms which have more than 80% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land i s For Group " I " 6.2% For Group " I I " 3.3% For Group " I I I " 14.3% For Group "IV" IG.7% The percentage of the farms which have l e s s than of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land i s For Group " I " 12.3% For Group " 1 1 " For Group "IV" 34.4% The percentage of the f a ms which have more than 33% of t h e i r t o t a l investment represented by equipment i s For Group " I " 0% For Group " 1 1 " 5.3% For Group " I I I " 0% For Groun "IV" 50% -50-Tbe range o f the percentages o f the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invented i a land l a as f o l l o w s : For Group " I " ^P to 80.3% (23.4) For Group " I I " 48.4% up to 83.1% ( 3 4 . 1 ) For Group " I I I " 64.1% up to 85.4% ( 2 1 . 3 ) For Group " I ? " 38.2% up to 83,1% (44.9) The range of the percentages i n v e s t e d i n equipment i s as f o l l o w s : For Group " I " ' 2.8% up t o 24.7% ( 2 1 . 9 ) For Group " I I " 7.2% up to 35.6% (28.4) For Group " I I I * 6.6% up to 29.7% ( 2 3 . 1 ) For Group " I V ' 7+9% np to 43.6% ( 3 5 . 7 ) As compared to s m a l l e r f o r m s , a r e l a t i v e l y g r e a t e r number of the l a r g e r farms do not seem to be capable of d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e i r f a c t o r s of production to the b e s t advantage . I t i s a u s u a l exper ience i n a g r i c u l t u r e that the e f f i c i e n c y of produc-t i o n i s hampered by the d e f i c i e n t f a c t o r . In the case of l a r g e s i z e d far-;s , adequate management seems to be the d e f i c i e n t f a c -t o r . The investment i n l a n d , i n l a b o r , and i n equipment seems to i n c r e a s e more r a p i d l y than the investment i n management. The same i n a b i l i t y to d i s t r i b u t e t h e i r f a c t o r s of production i n the most e f f i c i e n t way i s pronounced s t r o n g e r on the p o u l t r y farms of a l a r g e r s i z e a s compared to the p o u l t r y farms of a smal ler s i z e . P o u l t r y a s w e l l as t r e e - f r u i t farming i s a h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d b u s i n e s s . I t s standard type of o r g a n i z a t i o n should be a p p l i c a b l e with b e n e f i t to p r a c t i c a l l y e v e r y farm. I t has —31** been found t h a t the standard d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s Of product ion f o r p o u l t r y farms of B r i t i s h Columbia i s : 10% i n l a n d , 10% i n l a b o r , and 50% i n equipment* The nearer to t h i s standard d i s t r i b u t i o n of the f a c t o r s of product ion the a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the f a c t o r s of product ion approaches , the b e t t e r i t seems to be f o r any p o u l t r y farm. The s m a l l e r the s i x e of a p o u l t r y farm, the s m a l l e r are the d e v i a t i o n s from the s t a n -d a r d s . The spread of the percentages of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land i s t h i s : 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 " I I " from 10% to $0% (40%) For Group " I I I " from 10% to 50% (40%) For Group "IV" from 10% to 60% (30%) The spread of the percentages o f the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested i n equipment i s : For Group " I " from 40% to (40%) For Group " I I * from 40% to 90?. (30%) For Group " I I I " from 40% to H0% (40%) For Group "IV" from 30% to 90% (60%) The inadequacy of the i n c r e a s e of the management i n propor-t i o n to the i n c r e a s e of the investments i n other three f a c t o r s of production i s w e l l R e f i n e d . The f a c t t h a t i n the case of the p o u l t r y farms the s m a l l e s t s i30 group provides the r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e s t number o f sub-marginal f^rms does not c o n t r a d i c t t h i s The d e f i c i e n t f a c t o r o f the p o u l t r y farms of the s i z e gronp i s the equipment, t h i s i s p l a i n l y seen and, i e r e f o r e , the managM&ent cannot p o s s i b l y be blamed f o r the r e -l a t i v e l y l a r g e number of sub-marginal farms dar ing the f i r s t few y e a r s of the farm e x i s t e n c e . Probably the management could be he ld r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the i n a b i l i t y to move the farm from the f i r s t s i z e group i n t o the second. J e t , s u r e l y , a c e r t a i n time ought to be a l lowed f o r such a t a s k . Summarising the i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the t r e e - f r u i t farms of the Okanagan D i s t r i c t , i t may be s a i d t h a t a s a whole the farms should i n c r e a s e the share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n equipment, and they should decrease the share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a n d . As i n the case of the p o u l t r y farm, the t r e e - f r u i t farm of the Okanagan D i s t r i c t has not a s j e t reached the p o i n t of d e c r e a s i n g r e t u r n s . For the t r e e - f r u i t farm o p e r a t o r s there s t i l l r e g a i n s the opportu-n i t y to i n t e n s i f y the u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e i r lend a r e a s . In c o -mmon language the meaning o f t h i s l a s t paragraph amounts to the f o l l o w i n g recomendation: more boxes of a p p l e s should be grown per a c r e , and the q u a l i t y of the bulk of the apple grown should be improved. The above c o n c l u s i o n s were a r r i v e d a t a f t e r a n a l y s i s of the data obtained from the 74 farms under the survey of 1*?28. Though the above descr ibed t e n d e n c i e s of the farms to have more -53-^ t^an they should and t o have l e s s equipment than i s the M a t profitable for them to have seemed t o be w e l l d e f i n e d , the figures did not all follow the g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n of the d a t a . In order t o check on the c o r r e c t n e s s of the conc lus ions a r r i v e d a t , Hie analysis was r e p e a t e d , working with data obtained from the same farms but gathered during the year 1927. The r e s u l t s obtained from the a n a l y s i s of the data of 1927 ere i d e n t i c a l to the r e s u l t s obtained from the data of 1928. In f a c t in some r e s p e c t s the l a t t e r (1927) more c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s the same thing that had been i l l u s t r a t e d by the data of 1928. For i n -s t a n c e , the d e v i a t i o n s from the standard r a t i o s of the d i s t r i -bution of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production on the farms of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s are as f o l l o w s : 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 " I I " from 30% to 80% (30%) from 40'. to 90% (30%) Group " I I I " 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 " I I " from 1% to 40% (40%) from 1% to 40% (4J%) Group " I I I " from 1% to 40% (40%) from 1', to 30t (30*.) Group "IV" from 1% to 30% (50%) from 1% to 50% (30%) , a s the data gathered i n 1<?2? prove the same thing and b r i n g u s to the same c o n c l u s i o n s a s the data gathered i n 1928, i t may be considered t h a t the r e s u l t s of the i n v e s t i g a -t i o n and a n a l y s i s of the f i g u r e s obtained during the survey of 1928 a r e c o r r e c t and v a l i d a s l o n g , as there i s no r a d i c a l and permanent change i n the p r i c e s of the commodities produced or i n the p r i c e s of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion, Tables d e a l i n g wi th the data of 1<?27 are a t the end page 84 . to -58-Tree F r u i t Survey, 1928. C o r r e l a t i o n of the percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n t f farms invested in land and the o p e r a t o r ' s 1 . income. Percentage of the t o t a l c a p i -t a l i z a t i o n i n -vested i n land. Average o p e r a t o r ' s labour income. Number of farms. 30% 40% 50% 80% -50% 60% 70% 80% 90% -6 ,434.30 - 2 , 1 0 1 . 3 2 - 437.63 + 758.42 + 398.56 + 397.79 1 2 5 2 A 36 5 50% Invei 30% 60% 70% ient i n l a n d . 90% - 5 6 -B . C . D A I R Y F A RM I N G. How l e t u s c o n s i d e r the Dairy farms. For the y e a r 1926 there a r e 68 farms d i v i d e d i n t o three s i z e groups . The f i r s t s i z e group i n c l u d e s the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of from .¡¡4,000 to $18,030; the second s i z e group i n c l u d e s the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of between $18,000 to $35,000; and the t h i r d s i z e group i n c l u d e s *the farms with the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n o f between $35,000 t o §110,000. There are 33 farms i n the f i r s t group, 21 farms i n the s e -cond group and there are 14 farms in the t h i r d group. DAIRY FA3HING, 1926. C a p i t a l i z a t i o n . No. of farms. No. of sub- %% of sub-marginal marginal farms. farms. Group " I " 33 3 9.1% Group " 1 1 " 21 3 23.8% Group " I I I " 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 w i t h the marginal and sub-marginal farms, the above-marginal farms have a s m a l l e r share of t h e i r t o t a l i n v e s t -- 5 7 -ment represented by land; they have a g r e a t e r share of t h e i r t o t a l investment represented by equipment; taey have the same share o f t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by 1 b o r . f a c t o r s of product ion corresponding to the above-marginal , mar-g i n a l , and sub-marginal farms show only the tendency of the three k inds of farms to have r e l a t i v e l y more or l e s s i n v e s t e d i n a o e r t a i n f a c t o r of product ion. The a erage percentages corresponding to the above-marginal frrms cannot be considered a s the b e s t to f o l l o w . They are b e t t e r to f o l l o w than the p e r -c e n t a g e s of the other two k inds of f a r m s , but by no means should they be looked upon a s an i d e a l s tandard. The more d e t a i l e d t a b l e below r e v e a l s more a c c u r a t e l y the c o r r e c t p e r c e n t a g e s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of product ion f o r the farms included i n the f i r s t s i z e group. This t a b l e s e t s f o r t h the in format ion which makes i t p o s s i b l e to determine the standard percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of product ion f o r the d a i r y farms of the f i r s t group. When adopted, the standard d i s t r i b u t i o n w i l l probably prove b e n e f i c i a l f o r the dairymen who adopt i t . B A 1 R X S U R V E Y - I926. G R 0 U p " I " . Percent of the Percent of farms Percent of sub- Average ope-investment i n the sub-group marginal farms r a t o r ' s l a -to the t o t a l No. to the t o t a l No. bor income of farms i n the of farms i n the f o r each i n l a n d . s i z e group. same sub-group, sub-group. The average p e r c e n t a g e s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three 20? - 301 30% - 40% 40% - 50% - 6ot b0% - '70% + 610.02 + 1039.43 + 539.15 + 592.26 4- 7 7 1 . 7 3 - 5 8 -i n l a b o r . 3t - 5% 12.1% 0% +1031.61 3% - 7% 30.3% 0% + 716.40 7% - 9% 30.3% 10% + $84.32 ?% - 11% 18.2% 3 3 . + 363.86 11% - 13% 0% 0% - 15% 3.0% 0% + 406.88 13% - 17% 6.1% o% +1235.93 i n 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% 1 8 . 2 t 0% + 933.07 60% - 70% 6.0% 0% + 610.02 For the f i r s t s i z e group the more a c c u r a t e percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land seems to be around 35%. The "30% - 40%" sub-group r e a l i z e s the l a r g e s t average o p e r a t o r ' l a b o r income. The s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t i s t h s t 81.7% of the t o t a l number of the fsrms of the f i r t s i z e group have a much l a r g e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a n d . The t e n -dency to have more land than i s j u s t i f i e d by the t o t a l r e s o u r -c e s of the e n t e r p r i s e i s q u i t e e v i d e n t . In the f i r s t group 75.8% o f the ferms have l e s s than 30% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n represented by equipment. Y e t , farms which i n v e s t from 50% to 60% i n the equipment a r e ab le to g e t a l a r g e r o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r Income than the farms which i n v e s t i n t h e i r equipment l e s s than 50% of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . The tendency to be s h o r t i n equipment i s as p l a i n l y seen as the tendency to have an e x c e s s of l a n d . The g r e a t l y needed equi pment c a p i t a l i s i n v e s t e d i n the unnecessary acreage which be-comes burdensome f o r the e n t e r p r i s e . The two extreme sub-groups are not l a r g e enough to make the averages r e l i a b l e . Up to a c e r t a i n point the farms which have a smal ler share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by l a b o r seem to be a t an advantage when compared to the farms which have a l a r g e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested i n l a b o r . The o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income i n c r e a s e s with the decrease of the i n -vestment i n l a b o r . But then, when the farms have more than % of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n invested i n l a b o r , the tendency r e v e r s e s : the farms which have t h e i r l a b o r investment equal to 14% r e a l i z e a l a r g e r o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income than the farms ?hich have t h e i r investment in l a b o r equal to 12%; the farms with 16% are b e t t e r o f f than the farms with 14%. When c o n s i d e r i n g the investments i n l a b o r , one should be very c a r e f u l indeed. Labor and equipment sometimes mean r e a l l y the same t h i n g . The pay to a h i r e d man who hauls potatoes to the s t a t i o n i s considered a. l a b o r expense, but the nay to a truck owner who hauls the p o t a t o e s u s i n g h i s truck i s c o n s i d e r -ed an equipment expense; a hired man on a binder i s a labor ex-pense, a man hired with a binder i s an equipment expense; the horse-shoeing i s sometimes a l ? b o r expense, but sometimes i t i s an equipment expense - a l l depends on the person who does the shoeing. Probably the s a f e s t nay to f i n d out which percenta/e of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n when i n v e s t e d in l a b o r may be considered the standard percentage , i s by f i n d i n g out the standard percen-tages of the investments i n land and of the investments i n e q u i -pment. 100% minus the sixn of the standard percentages of i n v e s -tments i n land and in equipment may be considered the standard - 6 o -p e r c e n t a e of investment i n l a b o r . The more accurate r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production f o r the d a i r y farms of the f i r s t s i z e group a r e : 35% i n l a n d , 55% i n equipment, and 10% i n l a b o r . The averages f o r the above-margi-nal f a u n s of the same f i r s t group are:46.7% i n l a n d , 44.8% i n equipment, and 8.5% i n l a b o r . THE AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . D A I R Y S U R V E Y , l ? 2 6 . G R O U P " I I " . 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 i n the c a s e o f the f i r s t group, the above-marginal farms of the second group have a smal ler share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a -l i z a t i o n invested i n land; they have a l a r g e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n equipment; and they have a l -most the same share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a b o r . As compared t o the above-marginal farms and to the mar-g i n a l f a r m s , the sub-marginal farms have the most of the land and the l e a s t of the equipment. The r e a c t i o n of the v a r i a t i o n s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the three f a c t o r s of production on the p r o f i t a b l i n e s s of the farm can be observed from the t a b l e t h a t f o l l o w s : -61-D A I R Y S U R V E Y - 1 9 2 6 . G R 0 U P " I I * . Percent o f Percent o f farms Percent o f sub- Average o p e r a t o r ' investment i n the sub-group marginal farms l a b o r income f o r to the t o t a l No. t o the t o t a l No. each sub-group. Of farms i n the of farms i n the i n l a n d . s i z e group. same sub-group. 30% - 40% 40% - 30% 30% - 60% 6 o l - 70% 70% - 80% 9.3% 42.?% 19.1% 19.0% 0% 0% 1 1 . 1 % 30 30% +520.89 +361.84 +732.34 -193.16 - 2 6 7 . 3 1 i n l a b o r . 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 - 2 3 1 . 3 1 i n 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 + 6 1 7 . 9 1 +320.89 The l a r g e s t o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r inoomeis r e a l i z e d by the sub-group which i n c l u d e s farms w i t h the investments i n land o f from 30% to 60% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . A f t e r having s t u d i e d the f i g u r e s c a r e f u l l y one comes t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the p e r -centage of investment i n land f o r t h i s second group of d a i r y farms i s n e a r e r to 30% r a t h e r than t o 60%. '¿hen subdivided i n two p a r t s , the "30% to 60%" sub-gro p g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g r e -s u l t s : Percent of investment O p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r i n land: income: 30% - 55% +949.24 33% - 601 +339.22 - 6 2 -In order to see t h a t the more c o r r e e t percentage i s n e a r e r to 50% than to 60%, i t was not n e c e s s a r y to subdiv ide the sub-group. The t a b l e shows q u i t e c l e a r l y t h a t the farms w i t h the investment i n land s m a l l e r than 50% are much b e t t e r o f f than the farms w i t h the investment i n land g r e a t e r than 60%. As a matter of f a c t the fanns which have more than 60* of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i -t a l i z a t i o n represented by land could not pay 7% r a e of i n t e r e s t on t h e i r c a p i t a l investment - they y i e l d on the average a minus o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r Income. The more a c c u r a t e percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n t o be i n v e s t e d i n land i s approximately 30%. About one h a l f of the farms have more land than t h i s standard p e r c e n t a g e . The l a r g e s t o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income i s r e a l i z e d by the sub-group which i n c l u d e s the fanns with the investment i n equipment of from 40% t o 50%. In the second s i z e group 66.7% of the farms have l e s s than 40% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n equipment. I n s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t according to the f i g u r e s i t seems to be w i s e r to have too much of equipment r a t h e r than t o have too l i t t l e of i t , there a r e more farms which have an i n s u f i c i e n t amount of equipment than there are farms which have an e x c e s s of i t . The l a r g e s t o o e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income 3fas r e a l i z e d by the sub-group which i n c o r p o r a t e s the farms with the s m a l l e s t share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a b o r . This f a c t may be taken as proof that l a b o r saving d e v i c e s when adonted on the d a i r y farms of B r i t i s h Columbia i n c r e a s e the economic e f f i -c i e n c y of the e n t e r p r i s e and, t h e r e f o r e , w e l l j u s t i f y t h e i r - 6 3 -a p p l i e a t i o n . The mare c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion f o r the d a i r y f r m s of the second s i z e group a r e : i n l a n d , 4 % i n equipment, and $.1. i n l a b o r . THE AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . D A I R Y S U R V E Y - 1 9 2 6 . 3 R 0 U P " I I I " . Lsnd. Labor. Equi pment. Above-marginal farms 63.2% 3.2% 29.6% Marginal farms 36.1% 36.9% Sub-marginal f rrms 62.3% 3.1% 32.4% Not l i k e the above-marginal ferms of the two preceding g r o u p s , the above-marginal farms of the t h i r d s i z e group have a g r e a t e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land than have the marginal and the sub-marginal farms. There are two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s of t h i s f a c t . Here are the e x p l a n a -t i o n s : l / For d a i r y farms of l a r g e s i z e a h igh degree of s p e c i a l i z a -t i o n can be p r o f i t a b l e when an e x t e n s i v e method of farming i s p r a c t i c e d ; 2/ In order to be p r o f i t a b l e the h i g h l y i n t e n s i v e d a i r y farms of a l a r g e s i z e f i n d i t i s n e c e s s a r y to have a w e l l developed s i d e l i n e , " h i s means t h a t the l a r g e and h i g h l y i n t e n s i v e d a i -ry farms should 'iot be too s p e c i a l i z e d . Their d a i r y d i v e r s i t y index should not b e , l e t us s f y , above 60 . Such farms should have a secondary p r o j e c t or p r o j e c t s y i e l d i n g a c o n s i d e r a b l e - 6 4 -p a r t of t h e i r t o t a l r e c e i p t s . Sueh secondary p r o j e c t s , cash crops or s ide l i n e s may he s e l e c t e d from a long l i s t and com-p r i s e crops such as p o t a t o e s , peas , c e r e a l s , h a y , or they can be other branches of a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s as the r a i s i n g of pure bred c a t t l e , h o r s e s , p i g s and numerous of o t h e r s . The s i d e l i n e s p r e f e r a b l y should be those which w i l l u t i -l i z e by-products of the d a i r y b u s i n e s s and supply the d a i r y c a t t l e wi th the necessary f e e d . From what has been said i t i s a l r e a d y understood t h a t there are s e v e r a l t y p e s of d a i r y f a r m s , d i f f e r e n t l y organized to s u i t the v a r i o u s methods of c a r r y i n g on the b u s i n e s s . The o p e r a t o r s of l a r g e s i z e d farms are p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to vary i n the me-thods of the management of t h e i r farms and i n the ways of t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n . They f r e q u e n t l y a l t e r t h e i r methods when the changes i n the market c o n d i t i o n s take p l a c e . Consequently the standard d i s t r i b u t i o n of the f a c t o r s of production f o r the d a i -r y farms of the t h i r d s i z e group should be he ld as such only f o r the y e a r s s i m i l a r to the y e a r 1^26. This i s the y e a r which provided the s t a t i s t i c a l data upon which t h i s t r e a t i s e i s based. D A I R Y S U R 7 3 Y - 1926. O R O U P " I I I " . Percent of Percent of farms Percent of sub-investment in the sub-group marginal farms i n l a n d . Avera-;e opera-t o r ' s l a b o r i n -to the t o t a l Bo. to the t o t a l 3 o . come f o r each of farms i n the of farms i n the sub-group, s i z e group. same sub-group. 50?, - 60% 6o% - 70% - 80/, 21.4% 5 7 . l t 21.5% 50.0^ 33.3% + 57.64 -201.48 +445.63 -63** i n l a b o r 42.9% 33.3% 57.3% +728.30 -7&O.I5 +847.98 301,3% 7.1% 0% i n 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 t a b l e 75% i s the more c o r r e c t share of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n to be i n v e s t e d i n land by the d a i r y farm o p e r a t o r s of the t h i r d group. The farms of the t h i r d s i z e group which have a s m a l l e r share of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n represented by lend real ized- a much smal ler o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income. But "75%" i s a somewhat exaggerated p e r c e n t a g e . The e x a g g e r a t i o n i s due to the l a r g e n e s s of the s i z e of the adopted c l a s s i n t e r v a l s . Hone of the farms inc luded i n the survey had more than 72.9% invested i n l a n d . The "70% - 80%" sub-group r e a l l y i s the "70% - 72.9%" sub-group. This l a s t sub-group r e a -l i z e d +443.63 d o l l a r s as the o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income. The "65% - 70%" sub-group ( the upper h a l f o f the "60% - 70%") r e a -l i z e d +949.62 d o l l a r s a s o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income. T h e r e f o r e the more c o r r e c t share o f the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land i s not 73%, but i s c l o s e to 68't.*%* According to the t a b l e the more c o r r e c t share of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n to be i n v e s t e d i n equipment f o r the t h i r d group i s from 20% to 30%. As i n the ease of the investment i n l a n d , the f i g u r e i s somewhat m i s l e a d i n g due to the wide c l a s s i n t e r -The f i g u r e s of 1927 i n d i c a t e t h a t G5% i s the more c o r r e c t . - 6 6 -v a l adopted. The "20% - 30%" sub-group when f u r t h e r subdivided g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s : The more c o r r e c t percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n to be i n v e s t e d i n equipment i s around 28%. The v a r i a t i o n s of the investments i n l a b o r a r e included b e -tween the 3% and 9%. The upper l i m i t seems to be as good a s i s the lower l i m i t . In determining the standard percentage of the investment i n l a b o r i t i s wise to p r a c t i c e the p r e v i o u s l y u s ' d method: The more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of production f o r the d a i r y farms of the t h i r d s i^e group a r e : 68% i n l a n d , 28% i n equipment, and 100% - (68% + 28%) ss 4% i n l a b o r . Dairy farms are not adapted to extremely h igh degree of spe c i a l i z a t i o n . One should not expect to f i n d t h a t the most a c c u -r a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s s i m i l a r f o r a l l d a i r y farms. Dairy farmin d i f f e r s v e r y much i n i t s methods of o r g a n i z a t i o n and management That o r g a n i z a t i o n which i s good f o r one type of a da iry farm may be bad f o r another t y p e . Percent of investment i n equipment 20% - 25% 2$% - 30% O p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income + 443.63 +1808.39 -67-For the d i f f e r e n t s i z e groups of d a i r y farms the more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of pro-duct ion appear to be as f o l l o w s : Land. Labor . Equipment. Group " 1 " 33% 10% 33% Group " 1 1 " 30% 5% 43% Group " I I I " 68% 4% 28% For the above-marginal farms of the d i f f e r e n t s i z e groups the average r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of product ion a r e : Land. Labor. Equipment Group " 1 * 46.7% 8.3% 44.8% Group " 1 1 " 33.2% 3.7% 41.1% Group " I I I " 65.2% 3.2% 29.6% The l a r g e r i s the f a m - the l a r g e r the p o r t i o n of i t s t o t a l c a n i t a l i z a t i o n which should be and i s represented by land; the l a r g e r i s the farm - the smal ler the p o r t i o n of i t s t o t a l c a p i -t a l i z a t i o n which should be and i s r e p r e s e n t e d by l a b o r ; the l a r -ger i s the farm - the s m a l l e r the port ion of i t s t o t a l c a p i t a l i -z a t i o n which should be and i s represented by equipment. These c o n c l u s i o n s i n v o l v e very s e r i o u s consequences. The o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income i s the farm n e t revenue minus 7% i n t e r e s t on investment i n l a n d , b u i l d i n g s , machinery, l i v e -s t o c k , and f e e d and s u p p l i e s . The farms which r e a l i z e " p l u s " o p e -r a t o r ' s l a b o r jncome y i e l d 7% r a t e of i n t e r e s t on t h e i r i n v e s t --68-ment i n l a n d , they y i e l d 7% r a t e o f i n t e r e s t on p r a c t i c a l l y a l l t h e i r investment in equipment, and they y i e l d the wages f o r t h e i r h i r e d and f a m i l y l a b o r . The farms which have the same o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income may be considered as prov id ing the same r a t e of r e t u r n s on the t o -t a l investment of the e n t e r p r i s e ; - o r , the e f f i c i e n c y of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the l a b o r and of the equipment to land may be considered e q u a l , when the e n t e r p r i s e y i e l d s the same o p e r a t o r ' l a b o r Income. THE AVERAGE OPERATOR'S LABOR INCOME OF THE DIFFERENT SITE GROUP D A I R Y S U R V E X -I926. Group " I " +679.38 Group " I I " +329.36 Group " I I I " - 7 .29 With the i n c r e a s e of the s i z e of the farms the average ope-r a t o r ' s l a b o r income f o r the group d e c r e a s e s . I t has been shown, however, t h a t wi th the i n c r e a s e of the s i z e of the farm the l a r g e s t t o t a l p r o f i t combination of i t s f a c t o r s of produc-t i o n demands a s m a l l e r proport ion of the f a r m ' s t o t a l c a p i t a l i -z a t i o n to be represented by equipment and l a b o r . The conc lus ion i s t h i s : to a g iven a g r i c u l t u r a l area more They do not y i e l d i n t e r e s t on t h e i r investments i n l a b o r and in cash f o r c u r r e n t expenses . This i s not s t r i c t l y c o r r e c t , but the mistake i s in f a v o r of the smal ler farms. The same o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income on a smal ler farms means a g r e a t e r r a t e of r e t u r n s per every d o l l a r i n v e s t e d i n the & n t e r o r i s e . 6? l a b o r and mere equipment can be e f f i c i e n t l y applied^ when the a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e s are r e l a t i v e l y small i n s i z e . Consequently , the d i s t r i c t s which have an i d l e surp lus of l a b o r , and the d i s t r i c t s which are anxious to apply e f i c i e n t l y the a c c u -mulated e x c e s s of equipment ( i f such an e x c e s s e x i s t s ) should t r y to make t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e s r e l a t i v e l y small i n s i z e . From the point of view of nn i n d i v i d u a l who i s about to e s -t a b l i s h a new a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e , i t seems to be wise not to undertake an o r g a n i z a t i o n of a l a r g e s i zed farm. There i s more chance f o r s u c c e s s on a r e l a t i v e l y small farm than there i s on a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e farm. When d e a l i n g with h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d types of farming , na-mely with p o u l t r y and with t r e e - f r u i t f a n n i n g , the f a c t t h a t the l a r g e r farms have a l a r g e r percentage of sub-marginal farms was expla ined as an i n a b i l i t y of the o p e r a t o r s of the l a r g e farms to i n c r e a s e t h e i r investments in management i n a needed proport ion wi th the i n c r e a s e s of investments i n l a n d , i n equip-ment, and i n l a b o r . The decreased adequacy of the management D ¿ I R Y F A HR I N G - 1926 . %% of sub-marginal Average f o r the farms, group o p e r a t o r ' i a b o r income. Group " I " Group " I I " Group " I I I 9.1% 2 3.8% 42.9% + 679.38 + 329.36 - 7 . 2 9 with the i n c r e a s e of the s i z e of farm was i l l u s t r a t e d by show-ing t h a t the range of the r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i -f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion on l a r g e r farms i s more s c a t t e r -e d , and has g r e a t e r d e v i a t i o n s from the standard r a t i o s than on the smal ler farms. Such an i l l u s t r a t i o n i s v a l i d only when d e a l i n g with the types of farming which have uniform methods of management and of o r g a n i z a t i o n independent of the s ine of the e n t e r p r i s e . The more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of production are the same f o r the p o u l t r y or t r e e -f r u i t farm of any s i z e . The more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i -but ion of the three f a c t o r s of production are not the same f o r d a i r y farms of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s ; more c o r r e c t method of o r g a n i -z a t i o n f o r a s m a l l e r d a i r y farm i s d i f f e r e n t from the more c o -r r e c t method of o r g a n i z a t i o n of a l a r g e r d a i r y farm. Various methods of o r g a n i z a t i o n do not provide the same o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d e v i a t i o n from the corresponding to each method standard type of o r g a n i z a t i o n ; - on a ranch type of d a i r y fana the s h re of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land cannot vary from 2J% to 7 0 ^ on a small d a i r y farm t h i s i s a p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n . The f r e t t h a t among the l a r g e r d a i r y farms there i s a g r e a -t e r percentage of sub-marginal farms should be e x p l a i n e d i n the same way as i n the case of p o u l t r y and in the case of t r e e - f r u i t farms: i t i s due to the i n c r e a s e d d e f i c i e n c y of management. But the i l l u s t r a t i o n which was s a t i s f a c t o r y when d e a l i n g with two prev ious types of farming cannot be used when d e a l i n g wi th the d a i r y farms. -71-TEE AVERAGE OPERATOR'S LABOR INCOME FOR TEE THREE BEST FARMS OF THE DIFFERENT SIZE GROUPS . DAIRY SURVEY - 192b. Average o p e r a t o r ' s l a b o r income f o r the three best farms. Group " I " +1986.02 Group " I I * +1573.4$ Group " I I I " +1914.08 The farms of the t h i r d s i z e group can be managed i n such a f a s h i o n a s t o y i e l d an income e q u a l i n g t h a t of the farms of both o f the o t h e r groups which on the average proved more s u c -c e s s f u l . There are however more sub-marginal farms i n the th i rd s i z e group than there are i n the second or i n the f i r s t s i z e group. The r e s o u r s e a of the farms of the t h i r d s i z e group when compared to the r e s o u r s e e of the farms o f the second or of the f i r s t s i z e groups are g r e a t e r ae f a r a s the amount of the i n -vestment i n l a n d , i n equipment, and i n l a b o r are concerned. The farms belong to the th i rd group because t h e i r c a p i t a l r e s o u r s e s are g r e a t e r than are the c a p i t a l r e s o u r s e s of the farms of the f i r s t or of the second s i z e group. The amount of the manage-ment i n v e s t e d i n farms of any of the s i z e groups i s alone un-known. The e f f i c i e n c y of product ion i s hampered by tne d e f i c i e -ncy of one or the other f a c t o r . As compared to the farms of a s m a l l e r s i z e , l a r g e r farms do not s u f f e r because of the d e f i c i -e n t amount of l a n d , or o f l a b o r , or of equipment. I t i s the i n e f f i c i e n c y of the c o - o r d i n a t i o n of the three above s t a t e d f e e -t o r s which e r a e t e s the i n e f f i c i e n c y of the production on the -72-l a r g e s i z e d a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e s . The inadequate management i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the i n e f f i c l e n c o - o r d i n a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , r e f e r i n g back to the i n d i v i d u a l farmer who i s about to e s t a b l i s h a new a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e , the g e n e r a l recomendation t h a t there i s more chance f o r success on a smal ler farm presumes t h a t the managerial a b i l i t y of the new o p e r a t o r i s not above the average managerial a b i l i t y of the farmers o f the d i s t r i c t . I f the managerial a b i l i t y of the new operator be above the a v e r a g e , by a l l means l e t him e s t a b l i s h a l a r g e farm. There i s no inherent weaknesses i n the da iry farms of B r i t i s h Columbia even when they approach the l a r g e s t s i z e t h a t has been y e t e s t a b l i s h e d . As the c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s study and, a t the same t i m e , as i t s summary the f o l l o w i n g three statements seem to be approp-r i a t e : l / The tendency t o have more land than i s j u s t i f i e d by the c a -p i t a l Invested on farms i s p l a i n l y s e e n . Farmers of B r i t i s h Columbia should not be a f r a i d to i n v e s t more c a p i t a l per u n i t of land they posses; t h i s i s not l i k e l y to b r i n g them diminish-i n g r e t u r n s on every e x t r a u n i t of c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d . 2/ Among t h e i r number,the l a r g e r farms have a. g r e a t e r percentage of sub-marginal e n t e r p r i s e s than have the smal ler farms. F a r -mers do not seem to be able to i n c r e a s e t h e i r investments i n management correspondingly to the i n c r e a s e d investments i n l a n d , i n l a b o r , and i n equipment. -73-3/ I f the Province d e s i r e s to i n v e s t i n i t s a g r i c u l t u r e e f f i c i -e n t l y as much of l a b o r and of equipment as i t i s p o s s i b l e , i t should adopt the p o l i c y of f a v o u r i n g smal ler a g r i c u l t u r a l u n i t s of p r o d u c t i o n . UBC Scanned by UBC Library -74-D A I R Y S U R V E Y, 1926. G R 0 U P " 1 " . C o r r e l a t i o n of the percentage of the t o t a l investment of the farms represented by land and the o p e r a t o r ' s labour income. a +$2,000.' + §1 ,000. . 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Investment i n l a n d . C o r r e l a t i o n of the percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the farms i n v e s t e d i n equipment and the o p e r a t o r ' s labour income. g +$2,000. o a -H M O n) <D O .,000. 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Investment i n equipment. -78-D A I R Y S U R V E Y, 1926. G R 0 U P " I I " . C o r r e l a t i o n of the percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the farms i n v e s t e d i n land and the o p e r a t o r ' l a b o u r income. p2,000. § 1 , 0 0 0 . §1,000. / 30% 40% 50% 60% ^ — 80% Investment i n l a n d . C o r r e l a t i o n of the p e r c e n t a g e of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the farms i n v e s t e d i n equipment and the opera t o r ' s l a b o u r income. $1,000. 30% 40% 50% 60% Investment i n equipment. $1,000. -76-D A I R Y S U R V E Y , 1926. G R 0 U P " I I I " . C o r r e l a t i o n of the percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the farms i n v e s t e d in land and the o p e r a t o r ' 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 l a n d . -$1 ,000. C o r r e l a t i o n of the percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n /* of the farms i n v e s t e d i n equipment and the ope-/ ^ r a t o r ' s labour income. +§1,000. / ^ / \ ^ / \ S / -^1,000. 2 0% 30;', \ 40% 50% Investment i n equipment. - 7 7 -Tables s i m i l a r to those worked out oil the b a s i s of the r e -cords of the year 1<?2& have been worked out f o r the d a i r y farms of B r i t i s h Columbia u s i n g the f i g u r e s f o r each of the y e a r s 1927, 1928, and 1929. The number of the farms under the survey v a r i e d from year to year s l i g h t l y . D A I R Y S U R V E Y , B. C. -1926 ¿ 3 , j 1927 ! 1728 1<?29 A n -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 a t g o * . ). . !* ^ OC9 Od o O T^t O O O Otg ^(3 tgtw &;a ^ . a ' ^ m s-R-tSa: !.<<=H B ! ! t ) ! ' ! t ' Group " I " 33 3 9.1%33 3 l5.14jo 2 5.0{33 3 9.1% < ! ! Group " I I " 21 3 23.8%2{3 7 30.42.4 10 4 1 . 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 t a b l e s the best r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of production vary s l i g h t l y from year Lo y e a r , but the v a r i a t i o n s are not too g r e a t to negate the con-c l u s i o n s a r r i v e d a t a f t e r having analyzed the f i g u r e s of the 1926. l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s should e x i s t because of f l u c t u a t i o n s in p r i c e s on the farm cocrnodities sold as w e l l as on the com^no-d i t i e s bought. I f the n r i c e s on d i f f e r e n t products and on d i -f f e r e n t elements of production are s u b j e c t to peimanent chanres , the best r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s -78-of product ion a s determined by 1926 w i l l cease bo be c o r r e c t . A i t a s long as the p r i c e s f l u c t u a t e without any marked tendency to s h i f t i n the same d i r e c t i o n , the y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n s i n the b e s t r a t i o s of the f a c t o r s of production w i l l tend to b a l a n c e . As an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the l a s t statement one may use the data provided by the r e c o r d s of the y e a r I929. In B r i t i s h Co-lumbia during the y e a r 1929 the p r i c e s of f i e l d crops rose v e r y markedly: Average p r i c e per bushel of wheat i n I929 was ^1.39 as compared to the f i v e year average p r i c e (1924-1928) which was #1.33; Average pri ' je of o a t s i n 1929 was §0.72 per bushel as compared to the f i v e y e a r average of $0.64; Average p r i c e per c w t . of p o t a t o e s i n 1929 was ; 2 . 6 0 a s compar-ed to f i v e y e a r s average of $ 1 . 3 3 . As the r e s u l t of such a r i s e of p r i c e s of the f i e l d crops i n 1929 the farms, which had a l a r g e q u a n t i t y of crops f o r s a l e , g a i n e d , while the farms which had to buy them became the l o o s e r s . The b e s t r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of product ion during the y e a r 1929 were not i d e n t i c a l with the b e s t r a t i o s of the f a c t o r s of production during the year I926. For the farms of the f i r s t and the second s i z e groups during the I929 i t was more p r o f i t a b l e to have a l a r g e r shart of t h e i r t o -t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n represented by l a n d , a s the f i e l d cro^s grown on t h a t land y i e l d e d a handsome r e t u r n . For the farms of the t h i r d s i z e group i t became more p r o f i t a b l e to have a smal ler percentage of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n to be i n v e s t e d in l a n d . -79-a s t h i s meant more f i e l d crops which y i e l d e d a l a r g e p r o f i t . The l a r g e farms which have too much land belong to the range t y p e . They have not equipment enough to c u l t i v a t e t h e i r lands and they are not engaged i n the growing of the f i e l d crops to a g r e a t e x t e n d . The l a r g e farms which have r e l a t i v e l y l e s s l a n d , have s u f f i c i e n t equipment w i t h which to work t h e i r f i e l d s and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , they b e n e f i t e d from the s a l e of the p o t a t o e s and of the o a t s they grew. The b e s t r a t i o s of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s of production s h i f -ted wi th the s h i f t of the p r i c e s . The p r i c e o f the f i e l d crops dropped during the y e a r 1930, r e t u r n i n g to and even below the 1926 p r i c e l e v e l . The f i g u r e s of the farm survey of 1930 are not a v a i l a b l e a s y e t , but i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to p r e d i c t t i e s h i f t o f the b e s t r a t i o s of the f a c t o r s of product ion i n the oppos i te t o the 1929 y e a r ' s d i r e c t i o n . I t i s imposs ib le to compare farms of d i f f e r e n t t y p e s , or of v a r i e d s i z e s , or s i t u a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s , or those work-i n g under d i f f e r e n t market c o n d i t i o n s . This statement i s par-t i c u l a r l y t rue when d e a l i n g with the farms which have s e v e r a l l i n e s of product ion w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t y of s t r e s s i n g one l i n e during one y e a r and s t r e s s i n g another l i n e during another y e a r . Each y e a r prov ides somewhat d i f f e r e n t market c o n d i t i o n s . As Ion?? a s - p r i o e s f l u c t u a t e about the I92& p r i c e s , the more c o r r e c t r a t i o s of the combination of the three f a c t o r s of product ion may be considered s i m i l a r to those of I926. The f i g u r e s worked out from the s t a t i s t i c a l data obtained during the y e a r s 1 9 2 7 , 1928, and 1929 provide the opportuni ty to observe the changes i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of product ion which took p lace on B r i t i s h Columbia Dairy f a r m s . ' A f t e r having c a r e f u l l y studJed the t a b l e s which d e a l wi th the f i r s t g r o u p . o f the d a i r y farms ( T a b l e s ' 1 6 , 1 7 , and 18) the s i g n i f i c a n t tendency i s n o t i o e d : the farms a d j u s t themselves t o the most e f f i c i e n t c o - o r d i n a t i o n of the f a c t o r s of produc-t i o n . The number of farms r h i c h had too e x c e s s i v e amount of land d e c r e a s e s ; the number of farms which had been low i n equip-ment c a p i t a l d e c r e a s e s as w e l l . In I92& 21.2% of the farms be longing to the f i r s t s i z e group had from 30% t o 60% i n v e s t e d i n land; 13% of the f a ms had from 60 * to 70 ' invested i n l a n d . In the preceding chapter i t was found t h a t about 35% of the t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n i s the optimum percentage of t o t a l c a p i t a l to be represented by l a n d . I t i s seen from the t a b l e 16 t h a t i n 1927 only 9.1% of the farms b e l nging to the f i r s t s i z e grouo had from 30% to 60% i n v e s t e d i n l a n d , and t h a t 9.1% had from 60% to 70% i n v e s t e d i n l a n d . At the same time the number of arms which had from 40% to 50% i n v e s t e d i n land i n c r e a s e s : i n 1926 there were 43.3% i n t h a t sub-group,, i n I927 there were 51 .5? , . The number of farms which have from 30% to 40% investment i n land i n c r e a s e s a s w e l l : i n 1926 there were 12.2% , but i n 1927 there were 24.2%. The f a n n e r s had i n c r e a s e d t h e i r share of i n -vestment i n the l a n d . This process goes on during the f o l l o w i n g year 1928. From the 9.1% of the fauns of the sub-group w i t h - 60%" of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land only 7.5;, are l e f t . The sub-group of the farms which had from 40% to $0% decreased be-cause some of i t s farms moved i n t o the next more r a t i o n a l l y o r -ganized sub-group of the farms which have from 301 t o 40% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i s a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n l a n d . In 1927 the "40% to 30%" sub-group had 51.3% of the f x r n s of the f i r s t s i z e group, i n I928 i t had only 42.5%. On the c o n t r a r y , the number of the farms i n the "30% - 40%" sub-group i n c r e a s e d from 24.2% i n 1927 to 33% i n 1928. The r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n of the fanning b u s i n e s s i s qu i te n o t i c e a b l e . The f i g u r e s d e a l i n g with the equipment of the f i r s t s i z e group of d a i r y f a n s s ( Table 18 ) show a s i m i l a r tendency to r a -t i o n a l i z e . From the sub-group of farms which have from 30% to 40% i n v e s t e d i n equipment some of the farms were moved i n t o the "40% - 50%" sub-group. In I926 there were 18.2% of the farms of the f i r s t s i z e group i n the "30% - 40%" sub-group; in 1927 there there were l e f t only 3.0%. In 1926 there were 48.3% the farms of the f i r s t s i z e group i n the "40% - 50'." sub-group, in 1927 there were 54.5%. In the "50% - 60%" sub-group i n 1926 there were 18.2%, i n 1927 t h i s f i g u r e became 24.3%, and i n 1928 t h i s percentage became 50.0%. In I92S there were l e s s farms i n the "40% - 50%" sub-group because some of them moved i n the next more e f f i c i e n t "50% - 60*." sub-group, and so on. The f i g u r e s i l l u s t r a t e aga in the same tendency of the r a t i o n a -l i z a t i o n of the a g r i c u l t u r a l community. -82-The second group of d a i r y farms ( T a b l e s 1 9 , 20, and 21 ) has the same tendency to r a t i o n a l i z e the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the farms i n the group. The optimum r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of product ion f o r the d a i r y farms of the s e -cond s i z e group were: 30% i n l a n d , 4$% i n equipment, and 5% i n l a b o r . The sub-group of the f a r a s which have from 3J to 6J% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n land increased from 42.9% i n 1926 to 32.4% i n 1929. The sub-group of the farms which had from 401 to 50% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t -ed i n equipment grew as the y e a r s passed: i n 1926 the percentage was 23.8%, i n 1?2? i t was 30.4%, i n 1929 i t was 42.9% (Table 2 1 ) . Both the "20% - 30%" and the "30% - 40%" sub-groups l o s t t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance i n 1929 as compared with the y e a r 1926. The "20' - 30%" sub-group in 1929 had 19.1% of the f i r m s of the second s i z e group, w h i l e i t had 23,8% i n 1926. The "30% - 4o%" sub-group i n 1929 had 23.8% of the farms of the second group, whi le i t had 42.9% i n 1926. The r e l a t i v e number of the poorly organized farms d i m i n i s h e s , and the r e l a t i v e number of the w e l l organized farms i n c r e a s e s . The optimum r a t i o s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three f a c t o r s of product ion f o r the d a i r y farms of the t h i r d s i z e gro p a r e : 68% i n l a n d . 28% i n equipment, and 41 i n l a b o r . The w e l l d e f i n -ed tendency of the f i r s t and of the second s i z e groups of the d a i r y farms to r a t i o n a l i s e t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n i& not to w e l l i n d i c a t e d by the t a b l e s - d e a l i n g with the t h i r d s i z e group of the d' i r y farms ( Tables 22, 23 , and 24 ) . The b e s t "60 '- - ?0%" -85-of investment i n land sub-group had 57*1% of the t o t a l number of the farms of the t h i r d s i z e group i n 1926, i t had only 47.4% i n 1927 , and 32.7% i n 1928. I t i s t rue t h a t i n 192? the percen-tage rose up to 62.5%.^The "70% - 80%" decreased from 21.5% i n 1926 to 6.3% in 1?29. Tiie "40% - 30%" sub-group i n c r e a s e d . The management of farms of the t h i r d s i z e group does not appear to be c o r r e c t a s f a r a s the re-adjustment of t h e i r i n -vestments i s concerned. Instead of d a c r e a s i n the number of the farms wi th the e x c e s s i v e amount of equipment, t h e i r number was i n c r e a s e d . The number of farms which have more than 40% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d in equipment i n c r e a s e d from y e a r to y e a r : i t was 7.2% in 1 5 2 6 , 10.5% i n 1 9 2 7 , 21.1% i n 1928, and 25.Of, in 1929. The o p e r a t o r s of the farms of the t h i r d s i z e group t r y t o i n t e n s i f y t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n , whi le i t seems t h a t t h e i r p o l i c y should be j u s t the opposi te - they should not i n -t e n s i f y t h e i r product ion t o a g r e a t e r degree than having 32% of t h e i r t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n v e s t e d i n equipment and l a b o r . A l l sa id i l l u s t r a t e s aga in the f a c t that the farms of the l a r g e r s i z e s u f f e r more from the l a c k of an adequate management than do the s m a l l e r farms. While o p e r a t o r s of s m a l l e r farms r e -a d j u s t the o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h o i r e n t e r p r i s e s approaching thaLt type which seems to be the boat f o r thorn to a d o p t , the l a r g e r farms are a d j u s t e d more s lowly or adopt an i n c o r r e c t method of r e - a d j u s t m e n t . ^The f i g u r e s of 1929 do not f o l l o w the d i r e c t i o n of the f i -gures of the y e a r s b e f o r e i t ; t h i s may be e x p l a i n e d by the r a -ther d r a s t i c change i n the p r i c e s which made the increased pro-duct ion of f i e l d crops i n B r i t i s h Columbia very p r o f i t a b l e f o r the season in q u e s t i o n . <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 t í ) 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 O t t : 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 o c a -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 O m 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* ae 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 O O S 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 ß l O &< en ^ O O M M ^ ^ E-t t s 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 t f ^ 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 A 4 * -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 ! ^ S A 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 S A 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 f i 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 f t (M " f t r 4 a f -o e 6 43 a 43 B tO a w a o 43 o 3 r-t P t 43 43 43 a t tO sa a CO m t i < 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 f t r 4 a o a B «-t a 43 to &D ^ a * * B t o O 4 3 o 3 P t <M 4 " 43 43 a r -t m ^ ta a M (6 t B t o P< O a o r-t O 43 t ) a a a a o a ) B O O t< ^ 4=¡ f< f t o O a a 44 3 a r-t a <-t r-t P , 4 * O ta s a < n t a * f< o - SA to m ta ^ r-t a o o a E *rt a 43 t o M tO t* $ ** a r-t f - t a a a O 4 3 o 3 o P t +* ^ 43 4 3 4 * a 43 SA O c o O t t o r t to a ^ ta a <0 t y f t ) B t o to A o a o t o i f O 43 -*4 O f - t t o t ) eo c o 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 u m g .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 * t n 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 ! r i 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-S A !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 S A 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 ç a —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 S A --t <0 tO tO 60 S A CO ta r-t i f 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 - n i j o q a i etJoq.aj:ado co! * duo jg-qns acras eqq. ni sminj j o *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 - a i j o q a i 3jjoq.3j:edo * d noj3-qrts emss etR UT stn-mj jo *on fs^oq aqq. oq. stc jaj 'SjcasH-qus jo quoo-ia;; *nun-8j j o *og laqoq.. eqq. oq úuojá-qus etQ. Uï sm^aj jo q.uaoj:aj 'etooo -UI joqui Stjo^ejadf) * d i i o q n s amss eqq ui smiaj j o *0K Inq.oq. aqq. 03. soLtaj *gj:;mn-qns j o q.ueo.iaj ' sa jrs j jo *o..i isq.oq. aqq. oq. duojig-qns aqq. g ui sutruj j o q.uaoj:e¿ ^ *ataoo * duoj3-qus auras aqq. u? stmaj jo *og le^oq. aqq^  oq. stamj 'Sjattí-qus j o qu30j;e,i ^ m j u j jo ' cu Tsqoq. eqq. oq. duojg-qus aqq. ui SKU'uj j o q.t:aa.iej 3 s )-< O 53 œ ) *emoo - u i ,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 j o q.U33<ia,: C-OOJO-^  ^eoj'str-) ' + ! + OMO o to O O to <3-OrWr-)0 r-< C\J t\J <-) -100-O^ O^CMO ' + + + ^ 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 + ' + + O O O O 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 o o c o o .< 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 . o c 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) o p a "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 j o Toqoq. aqq oq -Ki^j^ci-qns jo quaojaj "smj-gj j o ittq.oq euq oq dnoj;g-qns aqq. n i jo 3.uoo¿e¿ - 1 0 2 -*o";oo -te? joqoi Hjjoq.'3j:9do * dnojg-qns atUHs eqq uy sKusj j o *og isqoq eqq oq stcj^j * uS^'suj-qns j o queo-ia,; ' sminj j o *og i^ q.oq. aqq oq di^o.i3-qns aqq n*p ein<raj j o q.ueoj:o¿ .o ^ o \ o x -^ tOtOxO + ! < ' M o ^ o t0c-tr\0 r - i r W O x D <\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 j o queojreri jo *OR mqoq eqq oq dno^S-ans eqq ui stc-aj j o quaoja j *amoo --ai joq^i * dnojEg-q-^s auras aqq u*ç stcjuj j o 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 v i 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 j^c=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 - 1 0 3 -D A I 3 Y SURVEY ATE^UCE PERCENTAGE D I S T R I B U T I O N OF THE THREE TABLE 2 5 FACTO I S OF P 3 0 D U C T I 3 N . ^ GROUP 1 . LANp Y e a ? A b o v e m a r g i n a l M a r s i n a l S a b - m a r t r i n a l 1 9 2 6 4 6 . 7 5 0 . 1 4 7 . 3 1 9 2 7 4 5 . 9 4 0 . 4 5 0 . 3 1 9 2 8 4 1 . 6 4 7 . 2 4 3 . 9 1 9 2 9 4 3 . 1 4 6 . 8 3 9 . 3 LABOR 1 9 2 6 8 . 5 7 . 3 8 . 8 1 9 2 7 8 . 7 8 . 4 1 0 . 0 1 9 2 8 8 . 6 8 . 3 5 . 3 1 9 2 9 8 . 8 6 . 9 9 . 1 EQUIPMENT 1 9 2 6 4 4 . 8 4 2 . 6 4 3 . 9 1 9 2 7 4 6 . 3 5 1 . 2 3 9 . 7 1 9 2 8 4 9 . 8 4 4 . 5 5 0 . 8 1 9 2 9 4 8 . 1 4 6 . 3 5 1 . 6 LAND (230UP 2 1 9 2 6 5 3 . 3 5 3 . 0 3 6 . 0 1 9 2 7 5 7 . 9 5 7 . 2 5 9 . 2 1 3 2 8 t 6 1 . 1 5 7 . 3 1 9 2 9 5 8 . 5 5 7 . 5 4 7 . 2 t A p p R 1 9 2 6 5 . 7 5 . 8 3 . 0 1 9 2 7 5 . 1 5 . 4 6 . 3 1 9 2 8 6 . 1 5 . 2 5 . 9 1 9 29 5 . 6 5 . 5 6 . 2 EQUIPMENT 1 9 2 6 4 1 . 1 3 8 . 2 2 8 . 0 1 9 2 7 3 7 . 0 3 7 . 4 3 4 . 5 1 9 2 8 3 9 . 8 3 3 . 7 3 6 . 8 1 9 29 3 5 . 9 3 7 . 0 4 3 . 6 - 1 0 4 -(?E3UR ,3. LMR 1 9 2 6 6 6 . 2 6 6 . 1 6 2 . 5 1 9 2 7 6 4 . 2 5 9 . 8 6 4 . 9 1 9 2 8 6 3 . 3 6 2 . 4 6 0 . 0 1 9 2 9 5 8 . 6 6 6 . 3 6 7 . 9 ijLaoR 1 9 2 6 5 . 2 7 . 0 5 . 1 1 9 2 7 5 . 7 4 . 5 5 . 1 1 9 2 8 4 . 7 4 . 4 5 . 6 1 9 2 9 5 . 3 4 . 9 4 . 5 1 9 2 6 2 9 . 6 3 6 . 9 3 2 . 4 1 9 2 7 3 0 . 1 3 5 . 7 3 0 . 0 1 9 2 8 3 2 . 0 3 3 . 2 3 4 . 4 1 9 2 9 3 6 . 1 2 8 . 8 2 7 . 6 - 1 0 5 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