UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the comparative changes in agricultural productivity of British Columbia and Saskatchewan Lok, Siepko Hendrik 1955

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1955_A4 L6 S6.pdf [ 5.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106358.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106358-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106358-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106358-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106358-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106358-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106358-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106358-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106358.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF THE COMPARATIVE CHANGES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN by SIEPKO HENDRIK LOK THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE i n the Department of AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the standards required from candidates for the degree of MASTER QF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE. Members of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1955 A STUDY OF THE COMPARATIVE CHANGES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY { OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN ABSTRACT The study endeavours to measure the growth i n a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity and the concomitant changes i n the r e l a t i v e contributions of the factors of production for the provinces of B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan over the period 1926 to 1954. Productivity i s defined as the r a t i o of t o t a l output to t o t a l input-^-, both expressed i n physical u n i t s . The inputs were arranged i n ten categories: labour, r e a l estate, livestock, implements and machinery, cost of oper-ating farm machinery, building costs, machinery costs, taxes, f e r t i l i z e r s , and miscellaneous. The outputs were arranged into four categories: . f i e l d crops, li v e s t o c k , forest prod-ucts, and house rent. To f a c i l i t a t e the adding of the i n -dividual inputs and outputs, which occur i n d i f f e r e n t u n i t s , the inputs and outputs are expressed i n d o l l a r values at constant p r i c e s . This i s achieved by defl a t i n g the current d o l l a r values by appropriate price indexes. Since the base period of price indexes i s 1935-39, the inputs are expressed in d o l l a r values at 1935-39 p r i c e s . Thus an index of the 1 Inputs are resources used i n a production process, outputs.are the end products. -2-input values at 1935-39 prices i s analagous to an index of the physical inputs and an index of the output values at 1935-39 prices i s analagous to an index of the physical outputs. The analysis was to a certain extent hampered by the lack of req u i s i t e information and the inconsistencies in some of the published data. Though the degree of t h i s inaccuracy could not be determined, i t i s worth noting that the output index numbers since 1935 were close to the Dom-inion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s Index of Farm Production, derived from physical production data. Both indexes agreed reason-ably well except for those of B r i t i s h Columbia between 1946 and 1954 during which period the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s -t i c s output index numbers were consistently higher. The secular trend i n the productivity r a t i o s was obscured by varying weather and economic conditions. To make comparisons possible, two periods were chosen dur-ing which there were f u l l employment and favourable weather conditions - the years 1926-1928 and 1952-1954. The r e s u l t s indicated that between these two periods the o v e r a l l a g r i -c u l t u r a l productivity i n B r i t i s h Columbia had increased by 17 per cent, and i n Saskatchewan by 33 per cent. The changes in the input structure associated with these changes i n productivity can be summarized as follows: (1) The r e l a t i v e contribution of labour has declined. In both provinces i t dropped from the major input factor to the t h i r d largest input. (2) The r e l a t i v e share of r e a l estate increased i n B r i t i s h Columbia from the second largest to the largest input f a c t o r . In Saskatchewan the r e l a t i v e share of r e a l estate remained the second largest input f a c t o r . (3) The r e l a t i v e share of machinery increased i n both prov-inces. In Saskatchewan i t advanced from t h i r d place i n r e l -ative importance to become the main input item. While the r e l a t i v e share of machinery increased at a more rapid rate i n B r i t i s h Columbia than i n Saskatchewan - i t follows im-mediately a f t e r r e a l estate i n terms of t o t a l input. (4) The remaining input factors are small i n r e l a t i o n to the three mentioned above. Although a considerable increase may take place i n the absolute amounts - as i n the case of f e r t i l i z e r - the effect upon the input structure was small. If the 1952-54 output index numbers for B r i t i s h Columbia were adjusted to those computed by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l have increased by 37 per cent. On the other hand, should the rate of productivity increase i n B r i t i s h Columbia be r e a l l y slower than i n Saskatchewan, the explana-t i o n may l i e i n too rapid an introduction of technological improvements. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer i s indebted to Dr. W. J . Anderson, who offered generous suggestions from his experience and extended invaluable help i n the arrangement of the f i n a l form of the study. Mr. Elmer Menzie was also most he l p f u l , and many informal discussions with him proved very f r u i t f u l . Thanks are extended to the other members of the Master's Committee, Dr. 5. A. Eagles, Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, Dr. C. A. Bowles and Dr. J . W. N e i l l , f or the i r constructive suggestions. The generous co-operation of several mem-bers of the st a f f of the Dominion Bureau of Stat-i s t i c s deserves special mention* Their prompt and helpful r e p l i e s to a l l requests for informa-ti o n did much to complete the data and further the study. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES i v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 I I . MEASUREMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY 4 I I I . METHOD 9 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 21 Index of Inputs Index of Outputs and Output Categories as a Percentage of Total Output Productivity Ratios Input Categories as a Percentage of Total Input Discussion APPENDIX 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY S i i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page IA Index Numbers of A g r i c u l t u r a l Inputs, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 (1926.= 100) ... 22 IB Index Numbers of A g r i c u l t u r a l Inputs, Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 (1926 = 100) 24 II Area in Farms and Percentage Increase i n Farm Land, B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, 1921, 1931, 1941 and 1951 26 IIIA Index Numbers of A g r i c u l t u r a l Outputs, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 (1926 - 100) ... 30 IIIB Index Numbers of A g r i c u l t u r a l Outputs, Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 (1926 = 100) 31 IV Indexes of A g r i c u l t u r a l Output (1935-39 • 100) with Five-Year Moving Averages, B r i t i s h • Columbia and Saskatchewan, 1935-1954 32 VA A g r i c u l t u r a l Output Categories as a Percentage of Total A g r i c u l t u r a l Output, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 36 VB A g r i c u l t u r a l Output Categories as a Percentage of Total A g r i c u l t u r a l Output, Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 37 i v LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page VI A g r i c u l t u r a l Productivity Ratios, B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 (1926 = 1) 3S VII Five-Year Moving Averages of Index Numbers of Totals of Outputs, Inputs and. Productivity of Agriculture, B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskat-chewan, Between 1926-1954 ..' 41 VIII Five-Year Moving Averages of Productivity Index Numbers of Labour, Real Estate and Machinery i n Agriculture, B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, Between 1926-1954 43 IXA A g r i c u l t u r a l Input Categories as a Percentage of Total A g r i c u l t u r a l Input, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 46 IXB A g r i c u l t u r a l Input Categories as a Percentage of Total A g r i c u l t u r a l Input, Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 48 Appendix Tables 1A A g r i c u l t u r a l Labour Force, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 56 v LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page IB A g r i c u l t u r a l Labour Force, Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 57 2 Estimation of Annual Real Estate Input, B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 59 3 Estimation of Annual Livestock Input, B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 ...... 6 l 4 Estimation of Machinery and Implement Inputs, B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 63 5A Values of Inputs at Current Prices, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 65 5B Values of Inputs at Current Prices, Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 66 6 Price Index Numbers of Commodities Used by Farmers i n Western Canada, 1926-1954 (1935-39 - 100) 68 7 Value of Inputs at 1935-39 Prices, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 70 8 Value of Inputs at 1935-39 Prices, Saskat-chewan, 1926-1954 72 9A Values of Outputs at Current Prices, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 74 v i LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 9B Values of Outputs at Current P r i c e s , Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 75 10 Wholesale Price Index Numbers of Farm Outputs in Western Canada, 1926-1954 (1935-39 - 100) 77 11A Value of Output at 1935-39 Prices, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1926-1954 79 11B Value of Output at 1935-39 Prices, Saskatchewan, 1926-1954 SO v i i A STUDY OF THE COMPARATIVE CHANGES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the most remarkable features of the past century i s the success of the natural sciences i n formulat-ing and understanding the "laws of nature," thereby making possible an increase i n the stock of available goods* This increase i n material wealth has come not only because i n -creasing knowledge has led to the use of new resources"'-, but also because i t has enabled more goods to be produced u t i l i z i n g a given amount of resources* The l a t t e r pheno-menon means i n terms of economic theory that the supply curve of goods and services has s h i f t e d to the r i g h t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , these improvements have increased the marginal p r o d u c t i v i t i e s of the factors of production by an amount which depends upon the nature of improvements and upon the e l a s t i c i t y i n which the factors of production can be sub-s t i t u t e d f o r each other. Thus, concurrently with an im-provement i n the effectiveness of the factors of production, 1 "Resources" refers to the tangible factors of pro-duction such as labour, land, raw material and c a p i t a l goods. It i s considered synonymous with "factors of pro-duction" or "inputs." a change i n the input s t r u c t u r e may take p l a c e 1 . Both of these changes are apparent i n a g r i c u l t u r e . P r o d u c t i v i t y 2 has increased over the years i n a l l branches of a g r i c u l t u r e through the i n t r o d u c t i o n of innovations such as labour-saving machinery, improved crop v a r i e t i e s , b e t t e r s o i l management, pest c o n t r o l , and f e r t i l i z e r s which are land saving, and improved l i v e s t o c k and feeding methods. This casual observation r a i s e s the question, by how much has a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y increased and what are the concomitant changes i n the input s t r u c t u r e . A systematic attempt to answer t h i s question f o r Canadian a g r i c u l t u r e was made by Eshete^. His study i n d i c a t e d t h a t from 1926-1952 a g r i c u l t u r a l production increased by 47 per cent and the t o t a l input of f a c t o r s increased by 11 per cent. Consequently h i s study showed th a t a g r i c u l t u r a l pro-d u c t i v i t y ^ - had increased by approximately 36 per cent over 1 Assuming th a t f a c t o r s of production can move f r e e l y (competitive f a c t o r market). 2 Synonymous w i t h o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Cf. Smith, S i r E., Measurement of the E f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Production  U n i t . B r i t i s h I n s t i t u t e of Management, London, 1949. 3 Eshete, H., "Economic Progress and Changes i n the Str u c t u r e of Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , " Master's Thesis, A p r i l 1954, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. ^ Measured as the r a t i o of t o t a l output to t o t a l i n p u t . a period of 26 years. Moreover, the proportion of labour i n the input structure had decreased markedly, the propor-t i o n of land had decreased somewhat, while the proportions of non-land c a p i t a l including f e r t i l i z e r , taxes and the cost of operating farm machinery had a l l increased. A study using a more refined method indicated that Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity had increased by 32 per cent over the same period^. The above studies raised the question, how do d i f f e r e n t regions^ of Canada compare i n t h i s process of a g r i c u l t u r a l development. This study i s an attempt to provide a p a r t i a l answer to that question i n the case of B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan which were selected be-cause of the d i f f e r e n t forms of agr i c u l t u r e which each represents. 1 Anderson, W. J., Unpublished research. 2 The delineation of regions follows the survey sys-tem of the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . CHAPTER I I MEASUREMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY In measuring p r o d u c t i v i t y the resources used i n a productive process are r e f e r r e d to as i n p u t s , w h i l e the end products of t h i s process are termed outputs^. The r a t i o of outputs to inputs ( i n d i v i d u a l or combined), both i n p h y s i c a l u n i t s , i s a measure of p r o d u c t i v i t y . P r o d u c t i v i t y i s o f t e n measured as the r a t i o of output to labour i n p u t , which i s r e f e r r e d to as "labour p r o d u c t i v i t y . " In terms of economic welfare "labour pro-d u c t i v i t y " provides a u s e f u l measure, as i n d i c a t e d by the f o l l o w i n g quotation: "For a given community, higher production i m p l i e s a-higher standard of l i v i n g , but since economic welfare i s the sum of m a t e r i a l production and l e i -sure i n which to enjoy the f r u i t s of production, (labour) p r o d u c t i v i t y i s a f a r b e t t e r index of economic welfare than a c t u a l production."2 I t i s t r u e that new methods of production which are superior t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y can only be introduced i f they 1 Interdepartmental Committee on P r o d u c t i v i t y A n a l y s i s , Concepts and Problems i n the Measurement and A n a l y s i s of  P r o d u c t i v i t y . Report I I , Ottawa, 1954, p. 7. 2 Methods of Labour P r o d u c t i v i t y S t a t i s t i c s , I n t e r -n a t i o n a l Labour O f f i c e , Geneva, 1951, P» !• -4--5-are also economically more e f f i c i e n t . Thus changes i n economic e f f i c i e n c y may be measured by comparing r a t i o s of t o t a l d o l l a r value of output to t o t a l d o l l a r value of inputs, both expressed i n terms of constant prices of the inputs and outputs. I f th i s r a t i o r i s e s , i t implies an increase i n the effectiveness with which the industry uses i t s resources, and t h i s gain i s a part of the process known as economic progress^. In productivity analysis, however, the term "labour productivity" i s misleading 2 because i t not only expresses the e f f i c i e n c y of labour, but i t also includes the contributions of a l l other inputs with which labour i s combined. Thus productivity r a t i o s of a single input show only the proportion between the input and t o t a l output. In time series these r a t i o s reveal the rate at which the input r i s e s or declines i n r e l a t i o n to t o t a l outputs. As such they are useful indicators of certain trends. The ra t i o of output to labour input, f o r example, i s a f a i r l y 1 The terms "economic growth" or "development" and "economic change" are modern synonyms preferred because the term "progress" implies a value judgement extending beyond the scope of economics. 2 To avoid misinterpretation the Bureau of Labour Sta-t i s t i c s , U. S. A., now expresses the r e s u l t s of measurements or productivity i n the form of quantity of work required per unit of production and not vice versa. Cf. Measurement of  Productivity-Methods Used by the Bureau of Labour S t a t i s t i c s  i n the U. S. A., Organization for European Economic Go-operation, Paris, 1955• -6-good measure of the trend i n labour requirements and may be an indicator of the e f f i c i e n c y of labour. S i m i l a r l y the r a t i o of output to machinery input i s a measure of the trend i n machinery investment r e l a t i v e to the trend i n the outputs^. Although i n themselves the i n d i v i d u a l r a t i o s are valuable t o o l s , none of them i s an expression of the productivity which t h i s study endeavours to measure. For a measure of the o v e r a l l productivity the r a t i o of t o t a l outputs to t o t a l inputs i s required. It should be noted that the measures of o v e r a l l productivity include any changes i n s k i l l and attitude to work that may occur as well as the technological changes. Both types of change may be part of a secular pattern of improvement i n the a b i l i t y of agriculture to convert fac-tors of production into products. Measuring changes i n o v e r a l l productivity i n -troduces a problem of measurement that does not exist i f the r e s u l t i s expressed i n terms of one f a c t o r j namely, the problem of adding together inputs which occur i n d i f -ferent physical u n i t s . In an industry such as agri c u l t u r e , 1 Both examples are from Interdepartmental Committee on Productivity Analysis, Op. C i t . , p. 5. which produces a variety of products, the same problem arises i n combining outputs. Some common basis must be found for expressing inputs and outputs so that i t i s possible to add together inputs to obtain a measurement of the t o t a l volume of resources used by the industry, and outputs so as to have a measure of the t o t a l output. This problem can be solved i n a reasonably sat-i s f a c t o r y manner by expressing the inputs and outputs i n money terms at constant prices. The t o t a l input values at constant prices i s a measure of t o t a l physical inputs, and the t o t a l output values at constant prices i s a measure of t o t a l physical output. In time series an index of the values of t o t a l input at constant prices i s analogous to an index of the t o t a l physical inputs; likewise, an index of the values of t o t a l output at constant prices i s analo-gous to an index of the t o t a l physical outputs. With respect to outputs, changes i n quality are not taken into account by t h i s method. Consequently im-provement i n the qual i t y of products i s not re f l e c t e d i n the output value^. Assuming that improvements take place gradually over time, no great error w i l l occur i f year by year comparisons are made. Likewise, the qual i t y of some 1 Interdepartmental Committee on Productivity Analysis, Op. C i t . , p. 14* -8-a g r i c u l t u r a l products can be higher or lower i n certain years as a r e s u l t of adverse weather conditions and epid-emics. For those years the output value as measured i n t h i s way tends to either over or under estimate the t o t a l output^. x Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Index of Farm Pro-duction. 1954. CHAPTER III METHOD Except for labour, the i n d i v i d u a l input and output values at constant prices cannot be obtained d i r e c t l y by multiplying the yearly volume data by the price of one s p e c i f i c year, because volume data are d i f f i c u l t to obtain or lacking completely. However, d o l l a r measures of the volume of input and output may be obtained by de f l a t i n g current d o l l a r values of the various categories of input and output by appropriate price indexes. The data^ were obtained from Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s publications. Since the price indexes have the average value of the 1935-1939 period as t h e i r base period, a l l current values of input and output were de-fl a t e d to values at 1935-1939 p r i c e s . For groups of items the accuracy of t h i s method becomes dependent upon the weighting given to the i n d i v i d u a l items i n the formation of the price index ser i e s . Another problem was that cer-t a i n desired indexes were not available and that substi-tutes had to be used. A shortcoming of some of the data 1 The most recently published data were always used, because of l a t e r adjustments of o r i g i n a l data. -9--10-was the lack of agreement between estimated and census values. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t r e s s i n g i n the three classes of farm c a p i t a l - r e a l estate, livestock and machi-nery. Whenever an inconsistency i n the data of t h i s kind was encountered census data were considered to be more re-l i a b l e than estimates, and whenever i t seemed appropriate the intercensus years were interpolated or estimates ad-justed to conform with census data. The larger the number of classes the more accurate w i l l be the composite input and output f i g u r e s . The extent to which inputs are divided, however, not only depends upon the work involved, but also upon the data a v a i l a b l e . In t h i s study the system of input and output classes used by Dr. Anderson-^- was followed. Accordingly, the inputs were divided into ten categories as follows: (1 (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 (7 labour r e a l estate livestock implements and machinery cost of operating farm machinery building costs machinery costs Unpublished research. - l i -es) taxes (9) f e r t i l i z e r s (10) miscellaneous Output was divided into four groups as follows: (1) f i e l d crops (2) livestock products (3) forest products (4) house rent Different problems arose i n the assembly of data for i n d i v i d u a l inputs or outputs. They are discussed below and the tables showing i n d i v i d u a l computations are to be found i n the Appendix. Inputs Labour: The i d e a l measure of labour input would be yearly labour input measured i n man hours times yearly wages. But labour-time data were not avai l a b l e on a province-wide basis. The closest approximation was obtained from the Dominion Bur-eau of S t a t i s t i c s "labour force" surveys which were inaugu-rated at the end of 1945"1" and by interpolation of census data, both of these express the labour force i n man years. 1 In the publication of t h i s survey, The Labour Force, the p r a i r i e provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, are grouped together. The Saskatchewan data were obtained from the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s by correspondence. -12-The "labour f o r c e " concept r e l a t e s to the "employment s t a t u s during a s p e c i f i c p e r i o d of time, u s u a l l y the week preceding the survey date."1 Thus i t i n c l u d e s "numerous persons whose c h i e f a c t i v i t y during a p e r i o d of one year i s student, home-maker, and r e t i r e d as w e l l as persons never g a i n f u l l y occu-pied but seeking employment, merely because they worked a s p e c i f i c number of hours during the survey week or were a c t u a l l y l o o k i n g f o r work at t h a t t i m e . " 2 P r i o r to 1946 the census data r e f e r r e d to "gain-f u l l y occupied." This concept i n c l u d e s "persons p r e v i o u s l y employed, not a c t u a l l y seeking employment during the survey week and not yet r e t i r e d from g a i n f u l employment."^ I t excludes those o c c a s i o n a l workers who happen to be employed during the survey week. The a r b i t r a r y nature of the "labour f o r c e " concept, however, i s a l e s s s e r i o u s shortcoming than i t may appear. The p r o d u c t i v i t y r a t i o s w i l l be expressed as a r e l a t i v e of the base p e r i o d (1926) and as long as the p r o p o r t i o n of persons i n c l u d e d but not a c t u a l l y employed i n a g r i c u l t u r e changes l i t t l e , t h e inaccuracy w i l l be n e g l i g i b l e . 1 Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Saskatchewan. 1946, Occupations. I n d u s t r i e s . Earnings, Employment and Un-employment . p. x i i . 2 I b i d . 3 I b i d . -13-Another shortcoming of the measure i s the equal weighting of a l l labour u n i t s . However, the effect of f e -male and c h i l d labour receiving less-than-average male help wages i s p a r t l y offset by the higher-than-average wages of the highest paid among the hired farm labour force. Here also the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t on the productivity r a t i o w i l l be small as long as the resultant proportion of those who receive less-than-average pay i s small with respect to the t o t a l labour force and f a i r l y constant from year to year. In the in t e r p o l a t i o n of the census data (Tables 1A and IB) i t was assumed that the hired help i s more mobile than the owner-operators. Thus changes would have taken place more gradually i n between census years i n the number of owner-operators than i n the t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force. Interpolation of the number of owner-operators was, therefore, preferred. The number of owner-operators was i n d i r e c t l y determined f o r the census years by deducting the number of male farm help (the expenses of hired farm labour divided by the average yearly wage) from the t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force. Farm help of each year was added to the number of owner-operators (interpo-lated and census) to give the t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force. Because no labour expenses were available for 1921, -14-the years 1926 to 1931 were interpolated from the t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force census f i g u r e s . The labour force estimates of Saskatchewan for 1946 and 1951 were incompatible with census data. Con-sequently the intercensus figures f o r t h i s province were interpolated from 1931 to 1951. The figures for the years 1952 to 1954 were derived by taking a percentage of the 1951 census value equal to that of the change i n the a g r i -c u l t u r a l labour force estimates. The labour inputs were then expressed i n dol l a r s by multiplying the a g r i c u l t u r a l labour force by the average 1935-1939 yearly wage rate. Capital Investment includes Real Estate, Livestock, Machi-nery and some method must be used to express these inputs as an annual input. This was achieved by (1) d e f l a t i n g the current values of c a p i t a l by the respective price i n -dexes to obtain these values i n constant p r i c e s j and (2) multiplying the values i n constant prices by the rate of interest on farm mortgages times the index of interest rates to obtain the yearly inputs at 1935-1939 p r i c e s . Real Estate - Discrepancies between estimated and census values for r e a l estate necessitated i n t e r p o l a t i o n of the intercensus years between 1926 and 1951 for B r i t i s h Columbia, and between 1926 and 1941, 1946 to 1950 for -15-Saskatchewan. The 1952 and 1953 values were obtained by adjusting the 1951 census value according to the percent-age changes of estimated values. The yearly r e a l estate inputs i n 1935-1939 d o l l a r s are the deflated r e a l estate values m u l t i p l i e d by the rates of interest on farm mortgage loans times the index numbers of interest rates on farm mortgages. Liv e s t o c k l - Discrepancies between estimated and cen-sus values necessitated i n t e r p o l a t i o n (as under " r e a l estate") for the intercensus years f o r B r i t i s h Columbia from 1926 to 1931 and for Saskatchewan from 1926 to 1951. Having made that adjustment the yearly livestock inputs i n 1935-1939 d o l l a r s were determined i n the same manner as for "r e a l estate." Implements and Machinery - Discrepancies between e s t i -mated and census values necessitated i n t e r p o l a t i o n (as under "r e a l estate") of the intercensus years for B r i t i s h Columbia from 1926 to 1951, and f o r Saskatchewan from 1926 to 1931 and from 1946 to 1951. The 1952 and 1953 estimates were determined i n the same manner as the " r e a l estate" values for those years. The yearly inputs i n 1935-1939 1 Includes poultry and animals on fur farms. -16-d o l l a r s were also determined i n the same manner as under "r e a l estate." Cost of Operating Farm Machinery: The combined inputs of operating t r a c t o r s , trucks, automobiles, engines and com-bines at 1935-1939 prices were obtained by d e f l a t i n g the combined current costs by the price index numbers of gaso-l i n e , o i l and grease pertaining to farmers i n Western Canada. Building Costs: Total building costs include the yearly de-preciation of buildings, plus repairs on owned buildings only. The t o t a l building costs were deflated by the price index numbers of building materials used by farmers of West-ern Canada to bring these costs to the 1935-1939 price l e v e l . Machinery Costs: Total machinery costs include the yearly depreciation of machinery plus machinery r e p a i r s . The t o t a l machine costs were deflated by the price index num-bers of farm machinery used by farmers i n Western Canada to bring these costs to the 1935-1939 price l e v e l . Taxes: Total taxes on land and buildings are the taxes on owned land and buildings m u l t i p l i e d by the r a t i o of t o t a l land value to land value of operator owned land-1-. The 1 Derived from data - Ninth Census of Canada, 1951. pp. 1-2, and Census of P r a i r i e Provinces. 1946. p. 241, and interpolations. -17-t o t a l taxes were deflated by the index numbers of the tax rates to obtain input of taxes at 1935-1939 rates. F e r t i l i z e r ; F e r t i l i z e r costs were deflated by the price index numbers of f e r t i l i z e r used by farmers i n Western Canada to get f e r t i l i z e r input at 1935-1939 p r i c e s . Miscellaneous; Total miscellaneous items consist of veter-inary expenses, binder twine, i r r i g a t i o n charges, fence repairs, rope, s a l t , hardware, f r u i t and vegetable supplies ( i . e . pesticides, containers and nursery). Total miscel-laneous was deflated by the price index of hardware used by farmers i n Western Canada to obtain miscellaneous input at 1935-1939 p r i c e s . Outputs F i e l d Crops; The t o t a l income from crops consists of: the cash income from f i e l d crops including Canadian Wheat Board payments, plus income i n kind from f r u i t s , vegetables and honey (valued at the market price the farmer would have re-ceived), plus or minus inventory changes of grains, minus feed and seed expenses. If feed and seed supplies produced i n one province are used i n the same province, double count-ing ( f i r s t as a f i e l d crop and l a t e r i n the form of another crop and animal products) can be prevented by deducting -18-these supplies from the f i e l d crops output. Feed and seed supplies imported into t h i s province (applies p a r t i c u l a r l y to B r i t i s h Columbia) should be counted as an input f o r f i e l d crops and li v e s t o c k . But only the estimates of com-bined home-grown and imported feed and seed supplies are published by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s and data on imports are d i f f i c u l t to obtain. Therefore, instead of adding the imports to the inputs, they could be deducted from the outputs together with the home-grown feed and seed supplies. Again, since figures on feed and seed supplies are not published separately the outputs of f i e l d crops and livestock could not be adjusted separately. It was a r b i t -r a r i l y decided to deduct the t o t a l feed and seed supplies from the f i e l d crops output. The appropriate deflators to bring t h i s output to 1935-1939 prices would have been the index numbers of farm prices of f i e l d crops (Quarterly B u l l e t i n of A g r i c u l -t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s , Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s ) , but these are not reported p r i o r to 1935. As the next best deflators the "Wholesale Price Index Number" of f i e l d crop products i n Western Canada was used. Livestock: The t o t a l income from li v e s t o c k includes cash income from a l l livestock products plus income i n kind from dairy products, poultry, eggs, meats and other products --19-mainly wool (valued at the market price the farmer would have received), plus or minus changes i n the li v e s t o c k inventory. For the same reason mentioned under " f i e l d crops" the "Wholesale Price Index Numbers" of animal prod-ucts i n Western Canada were used to deflate the t o t a l cur-rent value of income from l i v e s t o c k . Forest Products; The t o t a l income from forest products consists of the cash income from the sale of forest prod-ucts plus income i n kind from forest products (valued at the market price the farmer would have received). The t o t a l current values were deflated by the Canadian Wholesale Price Index numbers of Lumber and Timber to obtain the input of forest products at 1935-1939 pri c e s . House Rent: House rents were deflated by an equally weighted combination of the price indexes of building materials and of tax and int e r e s t rates pertaining to farmers i n Western Canada, to obtain house rent inputs i n 1935-1939 pr i c e s . Total Inputt; and Output: Expressed as values at constant prices the inputs and outputs can each be totaled or combined i n desired groups. They are a measure of the physical resources used and end-products obtained. Since t h i s study endeavours to -20-analyse (a) the changes i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity of B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, and (b) the concomi-tant changes that took place i n the input structure, the following tables were prepared: 1. An index of inputs and outputs at 1935-1939 p r i c e s . This table w i l l show the quantity.changes of the inputs and outputs over time. 2. A productivity ^ndex was prepared by c a l c u l a t i n g the r a t i o s of index numbers of t o t a l outputs to index num-bers of the combined inputs. This table w i l l a s s i s t i n tracing changes i n productivity. Similar indexes were prepared by taking labour, r e a l estate and machinery inputs separately. 3. The i n d i v i d u a l inputs and outputs expressed as a per-centage of t h e i r respective yearly t o t a l s . From t h i s table i t i s possible to observe changes i n the r e l a t i v e share or importance of each input and output. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Index of Inputs (See Tables IA and IB) The most s t r i k i n g changes to be observed i n the amounts of inputs used over the period of study are the decrease i n labour and the increases i n machinery and f e r -t i l i z e r . Labour i n B r i t i s h Columbia has decreased more than 50 per cent since 1926 and 60 per cent since 1939, when a g r i c u l t u r a l employment was highest. In Saskatchewan the labour input decreased by 25 per cent over the period 1926-1954 and by 35 per cent since 1936, when a g r i c u l t u r a l employment was highest there. The high labour force f i g -ures during the t h i r t i e s may be explained by the forces of the economic depression which retarded technological pro-gress and even caused labour to migrate back to the farm. The reduction i n labour was made possible by larger investments i n labour-saving machinery. This input increased almost three and a half times i n B r i t i s h Columbia, while i t doubled i n Saskatchewan over the period 1926-1954. It follows that the cost of operating farm machi-nery and machinery costs (depreciation and repairs) also - 2 1 --22-TABLE IA INDEX NUMBERS OF AGRICULTURAL INPUTS BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1926 - 1954 (1926 = 100) Year Labour Real Estate Livestock Implements Machinery Cost Operating Farm Machinery Build: Cost 1926 100 100 100 100 100 100 1927 103 103 102 105 129 124 1928 105 106 105 109 157 125 1929 108 110 107 114 173 131 1930 110 113 110 119 176 135 1931 113 116 112 123 175 163 1932 110 116 135 123 152 157 1933 110 116 143 124 146 144 1934 113 115 119 124 149 133 1935 113 115 118 125 152 130 1936 113 115 134 125 159 122 1937 113 115 125 125 173 105 1938 113 115 128 126 . 184 120 1939 115 115 136 126 191 110 1940 113 114 145 126 200 100 1941 108 114 97 127 207 94 1942 100 121 104 142 218 87 1943 92 127 131 157 230 86 1944 95 133 97 173 245 82 1945 87 141 133 191 259 86 1946 85 149 129 208 294 104 1947 97 153 122 220 325 103 1948 103 161 102 239 396 95 1949 100 166 105 255 460 93 1950 69 175 109 271 551 87 1951 74 182 113 289 670 93 1952 62 179 128 302 740 105 1953 54 169 127 324 809 109 1954 46 177 121 341 828 112 ing -23-TABLE IA (Continued) Machinery Costs Taxes F e r t i l i z e r s Miscel-laneous Total Sub-T o t a l * Sub-To t a l * * 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 103 104 99 108 105 107 113 109 99 134 112 108 108 127 117 104 185 119 112 113 137 114 110 268 112 115 116 138 113 131 211 91 118 125 138 113 141 221 70 115 126 130 114 168 185 79 116 127 128 111 165 223 85 117 124 128 111 158 190 87 116 123 129 111 148 185 91 116 120 132 116 149 252 102 117 118 139 112 141 239 97 117 119 142 117 145 248 104 120 118 146 118 128 255 101 118 114 150 118 122 309 103 113 112 153 134 124 323 104 111 116 167 143 120 425 111 111 120 179 154 128 446 143 115 124 192 143 132 493 162 116 131 197 155 131 578 176 119 140 219 178 176 568 220 133 148 242 182 180 582 204 138 153 274 193 193 523 195 140 159 306 199 218 578 202 128 166 346 185 247 491 200 137 176 388 208 256 560 199 134 177 426 205 267 623 190 130 171 456 212 283 558 196 129 181 470 * Real Estate, Building Costs and Taxes. ** Implements and Machinery, Cost Operating Farm Machinery • - and Machinery Costs. -24-TABLE IB INDEX NUMBERS OF AGRICULTURAL INPUTS SASKATCHEWAN, 1926 - 1954 (1926 = 100) Year Labour Real Estate Livestock Implements Machinery Cost Operating " Farm Machinery Building Costs 1926 100 100 100 100 100 100 1927 101 105 100 103 121 116 1928 103 110 99 105 143 120 1929 105 116 99 108 155 116 1930 106 121 98 101 154 125 1931 108 126 97 113 143 134 1932 110 126 96 105 128 123 1933 111 127 96 100 124 102 1934 112 128 95 90 132 110 1935 114 129 95 83 133 117 1936 115 129 94 78 139 92 1937 112 126 89 75 144 79 1938 109 123 84 67 148 83 1939 106 120 79 65 163 73 1940 104 117 74 62 180 65 1941 99 114 69 76 190 53 1942 96 114 67 73 205 52 1943 93 114 65 70 217 52 1944 89 113 63 66 248 54 1945 88 114 62 71 292 59 1946 86 114 61 110 320 71 1947 86 110 61 119 336 72 1948 83 109 63 131 345 69 1949 80 107 65 142 379 64 1950 80 104 67 152 401 62 1951 78 103 69 164 411 66 1952 77 101 76 172 457 74 1953 72 98 68 189 467 75 1954 75 99 59 210 489 75 -25-TABLE IB (Continued) Machinery m _ .... • Miscel- _ . , Sub- Sub-Costs T a x e s f e r t i l i z e r s l a n e o u s Total T o t a l * T o t a l * * 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 108 102 68 110 106 106 110 118 102 89 108 110 110 121 125 111 79 83 112 115 128 120 117 46 87 111 121 125 97 122 263 55 111 126 111 95 117 821 51 109 124 105 90 122 ' 395 46 108 125 100 .84 126 653 49 108 125 96 83 133 1337 55 109 128 95 77 131 1000 51 108 125 92 74 113 768 40 103 118 90 73 109 868 52 102 115 89 78 114 726 64 102 113 95 77 105 1026 64 100 108 98 78 105 1000 57 98 104 104 90 106 911 89 101 104 113 97 102 795 71 100 103 119 106 95 1116 87 102 102 130 120 91 3084 80 106 102 149-127 96 3353 83 111 105 168 120 99 4832 91 112 103 170 116 105 5742 85 111 103 173 115 102 7421 81 112 100 183 117 100 9742 79 113 98 192 114 105 10163 82 114 99 195 122 105 8984 82 118 98 212 133 111 11326 75 119 98 224 143 109 8289 67 122 98 240 * Real Estate, Building Costs and Taxes. ** Implements and Machinery, Cost Operating Farm Machinery -- and Machinery Costs. - 2 6 -increased, i n B r i t i s h Columbia at a more rapid rate. Con-sequently the increase i n the index of t o t a l implements and machinery since 1926 increased by more than 350 per cent i n B r i t i s h Columbia and by less than 150 per cent i n Saskatchewan. The r e a l estate index i n B r i t i s h Columbia rose i n accordance with the increase i n land i n farms, Table II shows that the area of a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n use i n -creased between 1931 and 1951 by 33 per cent. TABLE II AREA IN FARMS AND PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN FARM LAND BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN 1921, 1931, 1941 and 1951 1 B r i t i s h Columbia Saskatchewan 1921 2,860,593 44,022,907 1931 3,541,541 55,673,460 1941 4,033,570 59,960,927 1951 4,702,274 61,663,195 Percentage increase between 1931 and 1951 33 11 1 Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Ninth Census of Can  ada, 1951. Vol. VI, Part I I . -27-The increase i n t o t a l r e a l estate input over the same period was 56 per cent. Thus the increase i n b u i l d -ing investment accounts for 23 per cent of the t o t a l r e a l estate gain, which i s not unreasonable since buildings comprise about one-third of the t o t a l r e a l estate value. For Saskatchewan the r e a l estate input f e l l by 21 per cent, whereas the area of a g r i c u l t u r a l land (Table II) increased by 11 per cent. The discrepancy can p a r t l y be explained by a decrease i n building requirements r e s u l t ing from the amalgamation of farms and the replacement of animal power by mechanical power - a process which r e f l e c t i t s e l f to some extent i n the 25 per cent drop i n building costs. Nevertheless the r e a l estate inputs of the l a t e r years of the Saskatchewan series seem to have been under-estimated. The increase i n r e a l estate input during the depression years may have been due to an attempt by farmer to increase t h e i r incomes by bringing more land under c u l t i v a t i o n . In view of the necessary interpolations for l i v e stock inputs i n Saskatchewan only census years should be compared. In Saskatchewan a decrease i n li v e s t o c k took place between 1931 and 1946. By 1946 i t had been reduced to 61 per cent of the 1926 input. Since then a small i n -crease took place making the 1951 input 69 per cent of -28- • that f o r 1926. In B r i t i s h Columbia the l i v e s t o c k input decreased a l s o between 1931 and 1941, but the 1941 input amounted to 97 per cent of that f o r 1946. By 1951 t h i s had r i s e n to 113 per cent and s t i l l appears to be r i s i n g . Taxes rose by only a small amount i n Saskatchewan, but went up by 280 per cent i n B r i t i s h Columbia. This cor-responds to the trends i n r e a l estate inputs i n the two provinces. A tremendous percentage increase i n the use of f e r t i l i z e r s took p l a c e . In Saskatchewan the average use over the l a s t f i v e years of the s e r i e s was more than 12000 per cent higher than the average over the f i r s t f i v e years. The average increase i n B r i t i s h Columbia over the same peri o d amounted to s l i g h t l y more than 250 per cent. For a comparison of the changes i n the combined inputs the f i v e - y e a r moving averages are shown i n Table V I I . This s e r i e s i n d i c a t e s an increase of 18 per cent i n the t o t a l inputs f o r B r i t i s h Columbia between the averages of the f i r s t f i v e and the l a s t f i v e years. For Saskatche-wan the increase amounted to only 3*4 per cent. -29-Index of Outputs (See Tables IIIA and IIIB) The output index obtained by d e f l a t i o n showed some discrepancies with the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s index of farm production^. Table IV (columns (a) and (b)) shows that t h i s was p a r t i c u l a r l y true i n the case of B r i t i s h Columbia. As pointed out e a r l i e r (page 18) f i e l d crops and animal products were deflated by indexes pertain-ing to Western Canada. The western price index for f i e l d crops i s greatly influenced by the price of wheat, which makes i t appropriate for.Saskatchewan, but of dubious value for the d e f l a t i o n of f i e l d crops i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Another output index was computed for the years 1935-1954 by d e f l a t i n g the combined values of f i e l d crops and animal products by the price indexes of a g r i c u l t u r a l products of each province plus the deflated values of forest products and rent (from Tables 11A and 11B, Appen-dix ) . These index numbers (Table IV) are somewhat closer to the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s figures, but f o r some 1 Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Index of Farm Pro-duction. F i r s t issue i n 1948, but index starts.with 1935. Base period used was the five-year period 1935-1939. To enable comparison the output index from Table 10 (Appen-dix) was calculated on the same basis. - 3 0 -TABLE IIIA INDEX NUMBERS OF AGRICULTURAL OUTPUTS BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1926 - 1954 (1926 * 100) v F i e l d _ . , , Forest House Total I e a r Crops Livestock Products Rent Output 1926 100 100 100 100 100 1927 91 110 103 122 105 1928 101 121 98 125 114 1929 105 114 96 185 112 1930 152 93 106 133 113 1931 164 110 121 157 130 1932 170 114 122 149 133 1933 189 136 114 151 151 1934 161 109 103 144 127 1935 153 111 107 141 125 1936 132 129 103 140 129 1937 111 116 92 130 114 1938 143 123 97 139 129 1939 213 129 94 133 152 1940 198 133 70 123 149 1941 224 149 63 118 166 1942 205 134 56 112 150 1943 245 159 82 109 178 1944 233 150 85 104 169 1945 215 163 89 107 171 1946 248 153 95 110 176 1947 187 169 96 116 167 1948 193 148 89 106 156 1949 215 142 81 108 159 1950 142 137 86 106 134 1951 92 149 87 102 126 1952 101 I69 88 103 140 1953 160 183 83 107 167 1954 117 197 83 112 162 -31-TABLE IIIB INDEX NUMBERS OF AGRICULTURAL OUTPUTS SASKATCHEWAN, 1926 - 1954 (1926 » 100) v F i e l d + i . Forest House Total l e a r Crops Livestock Products Rent Output 1926 100 100 100 100 100 1927 106 90 97 116 103 1928 117 87 91 121 112 1929 56 99 91 121 66 1930 65 82 106 122 70 1931 27 107 134 127 46 1932 71 94 126 115 77 1933 48 102 119 119 60 1934 46 105 114 120 59 1935 59 108 132 130 71 1936 40 123 118 111 58 1937 6 100 107 103 26 1938 47 82 122 104 56 1939 117 118 116 97 116 1940 96 139 104 91 103 1941 52 163 77 77 72 1942 175 202 70 78 175 1943 55 263 95 76 92 1944 131 266 87 80 152 1945 70 198 88 84 93 1946 88 112 99 87 92 1947 88 166 89 91 101 1948 117 146 80 90 121 1949 124 148 76 84 127 1950 100 130 73 84 104 1951 180 139 70 81 169 1952 212 136 72 81 193 1953 202 128 75 82 184 1954 86 143 74 79 96 TABLE IV INDEXES OF AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT (1935 - 1939 = 100) WITH FIVE-YEAR MOVING AVERAGES BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN, 1935 - 1954 B r i t i s h Columbia Saskatchewan Year D.B.S. Deflation Method Five-Year •Average D.B.S. Deflation Method Five-Year Average I II I II a b c a b c a b c a b c 1935 91 96 94 107 108 112 1936 95 100 96 84 88 90 1937 101 88 95 100 100 100 31 40 34 100 100 100 1938 103 99 105 105 104 103 103 86 83 112 110 109 1939 110 117 110 109 109 108 175 178 181 117 115 115 1940 116 114 108 108 114 110 165 158 158 160 160 159 1941 113 127 122 111 122 113 110 111 117 167 171 172 1942 100 115 106 117 125 115 248 268 258 171 182 177 1943 115 137 118 120 128 118 138 141 144 164 179 170 1944 140 130 119 128 130 120 196 232 208 170 185 171 1945 131 131 124 137 132 124 129 142 124 146 162 146 1946 152 135 131 143 129 126 139 141 121 145 171 150 1947 146 129 129 144 127 127 128 155 135 131 163 141 1948 144 120 125 145 122 125 132 185 160 139 167 144 1949 149 122 125 140 114 122 128 194 165 155 190 162 1950 134 103 117 137 109 117 168 159 140 183 218 185 1951 127 97 113 136 110 116 218 258 212 202 238 200 1952 133 104 106 134 109 116 267 296 249 196 228 194 1953 138 123 121 230 281 232 1954 137 120 123 95 146 136 a. Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Index of Farm Production. 1954» b. " F i e l d Crops" and "Animal Products" deflated separately by index numbers for '.'Western Canada," c. Combined " F i e l d Crops" and "Animal Products" deflated by p r o v i n c i a l index numbers of " A g r i c u l t u r a l Products." -33-year s the discrepancies are s t i l l high. For comparison of secular changes, however, one i s not too concerned with the output of i n d i v i d u a l years. Table IV shows that for Saskatchewan the five-year moving averages of these index numbers agree with those of the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s -t i c s averages. The B r i t i s h Columbia averages are compar-able u n t i l 1945, but a f t e r that the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s figures are consistently higher by about 15 per cent. It was beyond the scope of t h i s study to evalu-ate the merits and l i m i t a t i o n s of each method but i n view of the f a c t that t h i s study i s primarily concerned with secular changes, which makes i t important to maintain a f a i r l y long-time series the calculated rather than the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s output series were used. The important difference between B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan i s the r e l a t i v e l y steady increase of the t o t a l B r i t i s h Columbia output compared to the notable pro-duction fluctuations i n Saskatchewan. These fluctuations are mainly caused by weather conditions which vary greatly from year to year. An a l l time low i n f i e l d crops was recorded i n 1937 when the index dropped to 6 per cent of the base period. On the other hand a record breaking crop was harvested i n 1952. The output of f i e l d crops i n that -34-year was 112 per cent above that of 1926 and 3400 per cent greater than i n 1937• To eliminate to some extent the influence of weather fluctuations and other outside uncertainties, the five-year moving averages are presented for the t o t a l out-puts i n Table VII. They reveal that i n B r i t i s h Columbia the output reached a maximum i n the five-year period cen-tering around 1945, a n increase of 57 per cent over the be-ginning of the period. Following the peak of 1945 i t slowly decreased but has been r i s i n g again i n recent years.! One of the reasons for the increase i n output has been the c u l t i v a t i o n of more farm land. In Saskatchewan a peak i n the outputs occurred around 1944 with an increase of 34 per cent over the begin-ning of the period. Then the output dropped as i n B r i t i s h Columbia, but i t recovered sooner and has been climbing more rapidly since. A comparison of the f i r s t and the l a s t year;., of the averages shows an increase i n t o t a l output of 34 per cent i n B r i t i s h Columbia and of 66 per cent i n Saskatchewan. A; :- large... increase took place i n l i v e s t o c k . This output As pointed out e a r l i e r , these figures may have a downward bias. -35-has almost doubled i n B r i t i s h Columbia since 1926 and rose just over 40 per cent i n Saskatchewan. The output of f o r -est products diminished i n both provinces. House rent came up s l i g h t l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia but declined i n Saskatchewan. Output categories as a percentage of t o t a l output  (Tables VA and VB) - Marked fluctuations i n weather condi-tions make i t d i f f i c u l t to observe trends i n Saskatchewan. The changes i n B r i t i s h Columbia suggest that since the war the livestock output has been growing r e l a t i v e to the t o t a l output, while that of f i e l d crops has been de c l i n i n g . In both provinces forest products and house rent comprised a very small percentage of the t o t a l output. Productivity Ratios (See Table VI) Before examining the changes i n the productivity r a t i o s some important points should be observed. The sud-den fluctuations of these r a t i o s are caused by the varying conditions, including weather, war and depression over which the industry has l i t t l e or no contro l . The low over-a l l r a t i o s ( t o t a l output to t o t a l input) of the t h i r t i e s i n Saskatchewan can be attributed l a r g e l y to the drought years. They are further affected by the economic depres-sion, which retarded the introduction of more e f f e c t i v e - 3 6 -TABLE VA AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT, BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1926 - 1954 Year F i e l d Crops Livestock Forest Products Hous e Rent Total Output 1926 29.9 58.6 4.8 6.7 100 1927 26.1 61.4 4.7 7.8 100 1928 26.3' 62.3 4.1 7.3 100 1929 28.1 59.7 4.1 8.1 100 1930 39.9 47.8 4.5 7.8 100 1931 37.9 49.5 4.5 8.1 100 1932 38.2 50.0 4.4 7.4 100 1933 37.3 52.4 3.6 6.7 100 1934 38.0 50.5 3.9 7.6 100 1935 36.3 52.0 4.1 7.5 100 1936 30.4 58.6 3.8 7.2 100 1937 29.1 59.5 3.8 7.6 100 1938 33.1 56.1 3.6 7.2 100 1939 41.7 49.5 3.0 5.8 100 1940 39.9 52.4 2.2 5.5 100 1941 40.5 52.9 1.8 4.8 100 1942 41.0 52.2 1.8 5.0 100 1943 41.2 52.5 2.2 4.1 100 1944 41.3 52.2 2.4 4.1 100 1945 37.5 55.8 2.5 4.2 100 1946 42.2 51.0 2.6 4.2 100 1947 33.4 59.2 2.8 4.6 100 1948 37.1 55.6 2.8 4.5 100 1949 41.0 52.4 2.5 4.5 100 1950 30.2 61.7 2.9 5.2 100 1951 21.9 69.4 3.3 5.4 100 1952 21.5 70.6 3.0 4.9 100 1953 28.7 64.6 2.4 4.3 100 1954 21.6 71.3 2.5 4.6 100 -37-TABLE VB AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT, SASKATCHEWAN, 1926 - 1954 F i e l d Forest House Total Y e a r Crops Livestock Products Rent Output 1926 78.5 17.0 1927 80.2 14.9 1928 82.1 13.3 1929 66.5 25.6 1930 72.4 19.9 1931 47.3 40.1 1932 72.6 20.7 1933 62.3 28.7 1934 60.7 30.2 1935 65.8 25.9 1936 54.9 36.4 1937 16.7 65.3 1938 66.4 25.0 1939 78.9 17.3 1940 72.9 23.0 1941 56.8 38.5 1942 78.3 19.7 1943 47.4 48.7 1944 67.7 29.9 1945 59.5 36.4 1946 74.8 20.9 1947 68.0 27.9 1948 76.1 20.6 1949 76.4 20.6 1950 74.6 21.8 1951 83.8 14.1 1952 86.2 12.0 1953 86.2 11.9 1954 70.8 25.5 .7 3.8 100 .6 4.3 100 .5 4.1 100 .9 7.0 100 1.0 6.6 100 2.0 10.6 100 1.1 5.7 100 1.3 7.6 100 1.3 7.8 100 1.3 7.0 100 1.4 7.3 100 2.8 15.1 100 1.5 7.1 100 .7 3.2 100 . .7 3.3 100 .7 4.0 100 .3 1.7 100 .7 3.2 100 .4 2.0 100 .6 3.5 100 .7 3.6 100 .6 3.4 100 .4 2.8 100 .4 2.6 100 .5 3.1 100 .3 1.8 100 .3 1.6 100 .3 1.7 100 .5 3.1 100 -38-TABLE VI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY RATIOS BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN, 1926 - 1954 (1926 - 1) Ratio Total Output - Ratio Total Output -Year — Total Input Labour Input  B r i t i s h Columbia Saskatchewan B r i t i s h Columbia Saskatch 1926 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1927 1.00 .97 1.02 1.02 1928 1.06 1.02 1.09 1.09 1929 1.00 .59 1.04 .63 1930 .98 .61 1.03S .66 1931 1.10 .41 1.15 .43 1932 1.16 .71 1.21 .70 1933 1.30 .56 1.37 .54 1934 1.09 .55 1.12 .53 1935 1.08 .65 1.11 .62 1936 1.11 .54 1.14 .50 1937 .97 .25 1.01 .23 1938 1.10 .55 1.14 .51 1939 1.27 1.14 1.32 1.09 1940 1.26 1.03 1.32 .99 1941 1.47 .73 1.54 .73 1942 1.35 1.73 1.50 1.82 1943 1.60 .92 1.93 .99 1944 1.47 1.49 1.77 1.71 1945 1.47 .88 1.96 1.06 1946 1.52 .83 2.07 1.07 1947 1.26 .90 1.72 1.17 1948 1.13 1.14 1.51 1.46 1949 1.14 1.10 1.59 1.59 1950 1.05 .92 1.94 1.30 1951 .92 1.48 1.70 2.17 1952 1.04 1.64 2.17 2.27 1953 1.28 1.55 2.96 2.56 1954 1.26 .79 3.39 1.25 -39-TABLE VI (Continued) Ratio Total Output - Ratio Total Output -Real Estate Input Machinery Input  B r i t i s h a i + v. B r i t i s h a , . u Columbia Saskatchewan Columbia Saskatchewan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .98 .97 .93 .94 1.06 1.02 .90 .93 .99 .57 .82 .52 .97 .58 .82 .56 1.04 .37 .94 .41 1.06 .62 1.02 .73 1.19 .48 1.18 .60 1.02 .47 .99 .61 1.02 .55 .97 .75 1.08 .46 .98 .63 .97 .22 .82 .29 1.08 .49 .91 .63 1.29 1.03 1.04 1.22 1.31 .95 .99 1.05 1.48 .69 1.08 .69 1.29 1.68 .90 1.55 1.48 .89 .99 .77 1.36 1.49 .88 1.17 1.31 .91 .87 .62 1.26 .88 .80 .55 1.13 .98 .69 .59 1.02 1.17 .57 .70 1.00 1.27 .52 .69 .81 1.06 .39 .54 .72 1.71 .32 .87 .79 1.97 .33 .91 .98 1.88 .37 .82 .90 .98 .34 .40 -40-means of production and prevented farm iabour from migrat-ing out of a g r i c u l t u r e . The r a t i o s during the war years, 1940 to 1945, however, are sharply higher. In that period labour was absorbed by the war e f f o r t and the farmers re-ma i n i n g ? presumably worked harder and more e f f e c t i v e l y to boost production - an e f f o r t i n which they were assisted by favourable weather conditions. These fluctuations obscure the secular changes i n productivity to a great extent. An attempt was made to eliminate these fluctuations by computing the five-year moving averages, but they are so large that t h i s objective was only p a r t i a l l y attained. The five-year moving averages, shown i n Table VII, indicate that over the l a s t quarter of a century a considerable increase i n productivity has taken place i n Saskatchewan''", and a more moderate increase i n B r i t i s h Columbia 2. For Saskatchewan the average of the l a s t f i v e years of the series i s 78 per cent higher than the average of the f i r s t f i v e yearsj for B r i t i s h Columbia the increase amounts only to 4 per cent. As can be seen i n the same 1 Since the r e a l estate input i n Saskatchewan may have a downward bias at the end of the s e r i e s , the productivity r a t i o may have an upward bias. 2 As pointed out on page 29 the B. C. t o t a l output may have a downward bias from 1945-1954, which would mean a downward bias i n the productivity r a t i o for that period. -41-TABLE VII FIVE-YEAR MOVING AVERAGES OF INDEX NUMBERS OF TOTALS OF OUTPUTS, INPUTS AND PRODUCTIVITY OF AGRICULTURE BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN, BETWEEN 1926 - 1954 Total Outputs Total Inputs Productivity Year B r i t i s h Saskat- B r i t i s h Saskat- B r i t i s h Saskat-Columbia chewan Columbia chewan Columbia chewan 1928 109 90 108 108 1.01 .83 1929 115 79 112 111 1.03 .71 1930 120 74 114 111 1.05 .67 1931 128 64 115 111 1.11 .58 1932 131 62 116 110 1.13 .56 1933 133 63 116 109 1.15 .58 1934 133 65 116 108 1.15 .60 1935 129 55 116 107 1.11 .51 1936 125 54 117 106 1.07 .51 1937 130 65 117 105 1.11 .62 1938 135 72 117 103 1.15 .70 1939 142 75 117 101 1.21 .74 1940 149 104 116 101 1.28 1.03 1941 159 112 115 100 1.38 1.12 1942 162 119 114 100 1.42 1.19 1943 167 117 113 101 1.48 1.16 1944 169 121 114 104 1.48 1.16 1945 172 106 119 106 1.45 1.00 1946 168 112 124 108 1.35 1.04 1947 166 107 129 110 1.29 .97 1948 158 109 132 112 1.25 .97 1949 148 124 135 112 1.10 1.11 1950 143 143 135 114 1.06 1.25 1951 145 155 134 115 1.08 1.35 1952 146 149 132 117 1.11 1.27 -42-table the reason for th i s difference i s not only a lower increase i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l output i n B r i t i s h Columbia than i n Saskatchewan (23 and 84 per cent respectively be-tween the averages of the f i r s t and l a s t f i v e years of the s e r i e s ) , but i t i s also caused by a higher increase i n i n -puts i n B r i t i s h Columbia than i n Saskatchewan; i n the for-mer the average t o t a l inputs of the l a s t f i v e years i s 18 per cent higher than the average inputs of the f i r s t f i v e years. In Saskatchewan the increase amounted to only 3«4 per cent. The r i s e i n output for B r i t i s h Columbia can be attributed mainly to an increase i n livestock production; i n Saskatchewan i t i s mainly due to an increase i n f i e l d crop products. The larger inputs i n B r i t i s h Columbia are mainly a res u l t of an increase i n r e a l estate, l i v e s t o c k and machinery. Consequently Table VIII shows that the pro-d u c t i v i t y r a t i o s of r e a l estate and machinery i n B r i t i s h Columbia ( i . e . , t o t a l output to r e a l estate input and t o t a l output to machinery input) are below those of Saskatchewan since 1948. In spite of the larger decrease i n labour i n -put i n B r i t i s h Columbia the t o t a l output to labour input r a t i o has increased more i n Saskatchewan. The average of the l a s t f i v e years i s 75 per cent higher than the average over the f i r s t f i v e years i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The corres-ponding increase amounted to 143 per cent i n Saskatchewan. -43-TABLE V I I I FIVE-YEAR MOVING AVERAGES OF PRODUCTIVITY INDEX NUMBERS OF LABOUR, REAL ESTATE AND MACHINERY IN AGRICULTURE BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN, BETWEEN 1926 - 1954* T o t a l Output: T o t a l Output: T o t a l Output: Labour Input Real Estate Input Machinery Input B r i t i s h Columbia Saskat-chewan B r i t i s h Columbia Saskat-chewan B r i t i s h Columbia Saskat' chewan 1928 1.04 .88 1.00 .83 .89 .79 1929 1.07 .77 1.01 .70 .88 .67 1930 1.10 .70 1.02 .63 .90 .63 1931 1.16 .59 1.05 .52 .96 .56 1932 1.18 .57 1.06 .50 .99 .58 1933 : 1.19 .56 1.07 .50 1.02 .62 1934 . 1.19 .58 1.07 .52 1.03 .66 1935 1.15 .48 1.06 .44 .99 .58 1936 1.10 .48 1.03 .44 .93 .58 1937 1.14 .59 1.09 .55 .94 .70 1938 1.19 .66 • 1.15 .63 .95 .76 1939 1.27 .71 1.23 .68 .97 .78 1940 1.36 1.03 1.29 .97 .98 1.03 1941 1.52 1.12 1.37 1.05 1.00 1.06 1942 1.61 1.25 1.38 1.14 .97 1.05 1943 1.74 1.26 1.38 1.13 .94 .96 1944 .1.85 1.33 1.34 1.17 .89 .93 1945 1.89 1.20 1.31 1.03 .85 .74 1946 1.81 1.29 1.22 1.09 .76 .73 1947 1.77 1.27 1.14 1.04 .69 .63 1948 1.77 1*32-. 1.04 1.07 .59 .61 1949 1.69 1.54 .94 1.24 .50 .68 1950 1.78 1.76 .87 1.44 .43 .74 1951 2.07 1.99 .86 1.58 .39 .77 1952 2.43 1.91 .84 1.52 .35 .71 * Derived from Table.VI'... - 4 4 -The high productivity increase i n Saskatchewan s t i l l bears the influence of the drought years and the economic depression of the early t h i r t i e s . It may be more appropriate, therefore, to compare the changes i n produc-t i v i t y between years in which climatic and economic con-ditio n s are approximately the same. In these respects the periods 1926 to 1928 and 1952 to 1954 correspond reasonably well - both were periods of f u l l employment and favourable weather conditions. The increase i n o v e r a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity between these two periods amounted to 17 per cent i n B r i -t i s h Columbia"*" and 33 per cent i n Saskatchewan over the same years. The r a t i o of t o t a l output to r e a l estate input rose i n Saskatchewan by 62 per cent, while i t declined i n B r i t i s h Columbia by 12 per cent. The r a t i o of t o t a l out-put to machinery input declined i n both provinces, but to a much greater extent i n B r i t i s h Columbiaj i n Saskatchewan the index of machine input to t o t a l output of the period 1952 to 1954 amounted to 74 per cent of that f o r 1926 to 1928; i n B r i t i s h Columbia i t was only 37 per cent. On the other hand, the r a t i o of t o t a l output to labour input See footnotes on pages 34 and 40. -45-increased more i n B r i t i s h Columbia. It rose 174 per cent as compared to a 95 per cent increase i n Saskatchewan. Input Categories as a Percentage of Total Input The increase i n productivity as a r e s u l t of tech-nological improvements associated with changes i n the i n -put structure are shown i n Tables IXA and IXB. It can be seen that labour comprises the largest share of the inputs for most of the s e r i e s . Up to 1942 i t formed more than 50 per cent of the t o t a l inputs i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and ap-proximately 35 per cent i n Saskatchewan. After t h i s time the share which labour contributed declined rather r a p i d l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and by 1954 i t had dropped 64 per cent from the 1926 l e v e l . In Saskatchewan the decrease over the same period amounted to 39 per cent. At the same time the r e l a t i v e share of t o t a l machinery inputs increased considerably. In B r i t i s h Col-umbia i t rose from 8 to 30 per cent of the t o t a l inputs -an increase of 275 per cent; in Saskatchewan from 25 per cent to 48 per cent, an increase of 92 per cent. The share of r e a l estate inputs increased also i n B r i t i s h Columbia -from 25 to 36 per cent of the t o t a l , or an increase of 44 per cent. In Saskatchewan, however, the importance of r e a l -46-TABLE IXA AGRICULTURAL INPUT CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INPUT BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1926 - 1954 Year Labour Real Estate Livestock Implements Machinery Cost Operating '. Farm Machinery Bu i l d i i Costs 1926 57.4 18.3 3.1 2.0 3.1 4.0 1927 56.2 18.0 3.0 2.0 3.8 4.8 1928 55.7 17.9 3.0 2.0 4.4 4.7 1929 55.0 17.9 3.0 2.1 4.7 4.7 1930 54.8 18.0 3.0 2.1 4.7 4.7 1931 55.0 18.0 2.9 2.1 4.6 5.6 1932 54.9 18.4 3.6 2.2 4.0 5.5 1933 54.6 18.3 3.8 2.2 3-9 5.0 1934 55.5 18.1 3.2 2.2 3.9 4.6 1935 55.7 18.2 3.2 2.2 4.0 4.5 1936 55.6 18.1 3.6 2.2 4.2 4.2 1937 55.3 18.0 3.3 2.2 4.5 3.6 1938 55.1 17.9 3.4 2.2 4.8 4.1 1939 55.3 17.5 3.5 2.1 4.9 3.7 1940 55.0 17.8 3.8 2.2 5.2 3.4 1941 54.5 18.4 2.6 2.3 5.6 3.3 1942 51.5 19.8 2.9 2.6 6.0 3.2 1943 47.7 20.9 3.7 2.9 6.4 3.1 1944 47.1 21.1 2.6 3.0 6.5 2.9 1945 43.2 22.3 3.6 3.3 6.9 3.0 1946 40.7 22.8 3.4 3.5 7.6 3.5 1947 42.2 21.0 2.8 3.4 7.5 3.1 1948 42.6 21.3 2.3 3.5 8.8 2.8 1949 40.9 21.9 2.3 3.7 10.1 2.7 1950 30.9 24.8 2.6 4.3 13.2 2.7 1951 31.2 24.3 2.5 4.3 15.0 2.7 1952 26.4 24.5 3.0 4.6 16.9 3.2 1953 23.7 23.6 3.0 5.0 19.0 3.4 1954 20.5 25.3 2.9 5.3 19.6 3.5 -47-TABLE IXA (Continued) Machinery Costs Taxes F e r t i l i z e r s Miscel-laneous Total Sub-Tot a l * Sub-Tot a l * * 3.3 3.2 .7 5.1 100 25.5 8.3 3.2 3.1 .7 5.2 100 25.9 9.0 3.3 2.9 .9 5.3 100 25.4 9.2 3.4 2.9 1.2 5.3 100 25.5 10.1 3.2 3.0 1.6 4.9 100 25.7 10.0 3.1 3.5 1.3 3.9 100 27.1 9.8 3.2 3.9 1.3 3.1 100 - 27.7 9.4 3.2 4.6 1.1 3.5 100 27.8 9.2 3.1 4.5 1.3 3.7 100 27.1 9.2 3.1 4.3 1.2 3.8 100 27.0 9.3 3.1 4.0 1.1 .4.0 100 26.3 9.5 3.2 4.0 1.5 4.4 100 25.6 9.9 3.1 3.8 1.4 4.2 100 25.8 10.1 3.2 3.8 1.5 4.4 100 25.1 10.2 3.3 3.4 1.5 4.4 100 24.6 10.6 3.4 3.4 1.9 4.6 100 25.1 11.2 3.9 3.5 2.0 4.7 100 26.5 12.5 4.2 3.4 2.7 5.1 100 27.4 • 13.4 4.3 - 3.5 2.7 6.3 100 27.4 13.9 4.0 3.6 3.0 7.1 100 28.9 14.2 4.2 3.5 3.4 7.5 100 29.8 15.3 4.4 4.2 3.0 8.4 100 28.4 15.2 4.3 4.1 3.0 7.5 100' 28.2 16.6 4.5 4.4 2.6 7.1 100 28.9 18.2 5.0 5.4 3.2 8.0 100 32.9 22.4 4.4. 5.7 2.5 7.4 100 32.8 23.6 5.0 6.0 2.9 7.5 100 33.7 26.5 5.1 6.5 3.3 7.4 100 33.5 29.1 5.3 6.9 3.0 7.7 100 35.7 30.3 ' * Real Estate, Building Costs and Taxes. ** Implements and Machinery, Cost Operating Farm Machinery and Machinery Costs. -48-TABLE IXB AGRICULTURAL INPUT CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INPUT SASKATCHEWAN, 1926 - 1954 Year Labour Real Estate Livestock Implements Machinery Cost Operating Farm Machinery B u i l d i i Costs 1926 34.9 . 20.8 3.6 5.7 5.8 4.1 1927 33.6 20.8 3.4 5.5 6.6 4.5 1928 32.9 20.9 3.2 5.4 7.5 4.4 1929 32.7 21.5 3.1 5.4 7.9 4.2 1930 32.6 22.1 3.1 5.5 7.8 4.5 1931 34.0 23.7 3.1 5.7 7.4 4.9 1932 35.2 24.1 3.2 5.4 6.7 4.6 1933 35.9 24.5 3.2 5.2 6.6 4.3 1934 36.3 24.6 3.2 4.7 7.0 4.1 1935 36.3 24.5 3.1 4.3 7.0 4.3 1936 37.2 25.0 3.1 . 4.1 7.4 3.5 1937 37.8 25.5 3.1 4.1 8.1 3.1 1938 37.4 25.2 3.0 3.7 8.4 3.3 1939 36.3 24.5 2.8 3.6 9.2 2.9 1940 36.2 24.3 2.6 3.5 10.3 2.6 1941 35.2 24.1 2.5 4.4 11.1 2.2 1942 33.2 23.5 2.4 4.1 11.6 2.1 1943 32.4 23.6 2.3 4.0 12.5 2.1 1944 30.5 23.1 2.2 3.7 14.0 2.1 1945 28.9 22.4 2.1 3.8 15.8 2.2 1946 27.1 21.3 2.0 5.6 16.5 2.6 1947 26.9 20.5 2.0 6.0 17.3 2.6 1948 26.0 20.4 2.0 6.7 17.9 2.5 1949 25.1 19.8 2.1 7.1 19.5 2.4 1950 24.6 19.2 2.1 7.6 20.3 2.2 1951 24.0 18.8 2.1 8.1 ' 20.7 2.3 1952 22.8 17.9 2.3 8.2 22.3 2.5 1953 21.2 17.3 2.1 9.0 22.7 2.6 1954 21.3 16.9 1.8 9.7 23.0 2.5 - 4 9 -TABLE IXB (Continued) Machinery-Costs Taxes F e r t i l i z e r s Miscel-laneous Total Sub-Total* Sub-To t a l * * 13.2 6.0 .01 5.9 100 30.9 24.6 13.6 5.9 .01 6.2 100 31.1 25.7 14.3 5.6 .01 5.8 100 31.0 27.1 14.7 6.0 .01 4.4 100 31.7 28.1 13.9 6.2 .004 4.5 100 32.8 27.1 11.6 6.6 .02 2.9 100 35.2 24.7 11.5 6.5 .07 2.8 100 35.1 23.7 11.1 6.8 .04 2.5 100 35.6 22.9 10.3 7.0 .06 2.7 100 35.8 22.0 10.1 - 7.3 .12 3.0 100 36.2 21.3 9.5 7.4 .09 2.8 100 35.9 21.0 9.4 6.6 .07 2.3 v100 35.2 21.6 9.5 6.5 .08 3.0 100 35.0 21.6 10.2 6.8 .07 3.4 100 34.2 23.0 10.2 6.4 .10 3.8 100 33.3 24.0 10.5 6.5 .10 3.4 100 32.8 26.0 11.7 6.3 .09 5.2 100 31.8 27.3 12.7 6.1 .08 4.2 100 31.8 29.1 13.7 5.6 .11 5.0 100 30.8 31.3 14.9 5.2 .29. 4.5 100 29.8 34.5 15.1 5.2 .30 4.4 100 29.1 37.2 14.2 5.4 .43 4.8 100 28.4 37.6 13.8 5.7 .51 4.5 100 28.6 38.3 13.5 5.5 .65 4.3 100 27.7 40.2 13.6 5.4 .85 4.1 100 26.8 41.6 13.2 5.6 .88 4.3 100 26.7 42.0 13.7 5.4 .75 4.1 100 25.8 44.3 14.9 5.6 .94 3.7 100 25.5 46.6 15.5 5.4 .67 3.2 100 24.8 48.2 * Real Estate, Building Costs and Taxes. ** Implements and Machinery, Cost Operating Farm Machinery -• and Machinery Costs. -50-estate i n the input structure declined from 31 to 25 per cent of the t o t a l inputs, a decrease of 19 per cent. The importance of livestock input decreased i n both provinces, while the share of f e r t i l i z e r inputs i n -creased. The proportions of taxes and miscellaneous items increased i n B r i t i s h Columbia but declined i n Saskatchewan. The changes in the order of importance can be summarized as follows: (1) The r e l a t i v e contribution of labour has declined. In both provinces i t dropped from the major input factor to the t h i r d largest input. (2) The r e l a t i v e share of r e a l estate increased i n B r i t i s h Columbia from the second largest to the largest input fac-t o r . In Saskatchewan the r e l a t i v e share of r e a l estate re-mained the second largest input f a c t o r . (3) The r e l a t i v e share of machinery increased i n both provinces. In Saskatchewan i t advanced from t h i r d place in r e l a t i v e importance to become the main input item. While the r e l a t i v e share of machinery increased at a f a s t e r rate i n B r i t i s h Columbia than i n Saskatchewan - i t follows im-mediately a f t e r r e a l estate i n terms of t o t a l input. (4) The remaining input factors are small i n r e l a t i o n to the three mentioned above. Although a considerable increase -51-may take place i n the absolute amounts - as i n the case of f e r t i l i z e r - the effect upon the input structure was small. Discussion The changes i n the productivity r a t i o s and i n the input structure together indicate the effect of technologi-c a l development upon ag r i c u l t u r e . The rates of change and p a r t i c u l a r l y the difference i n the rate of growth of over-a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity between B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan, as demonstrated by t h i s study, should be viewed with caution f o r various reasons. The v a l i d i t y of the method of measurement rests upon the assumption that 1935-1939 market prices and cur-rent quantities provide.an appropriate weighting system for the i n d i v i d u a l inputs and outputs. Such an assumption implies a perfect market during the base period i n which prices were determined by unrestricted operation of the competitive forces of supply and demand and that the r e l a -t i v e price structure i n 1935-1939 has not changed through-out the study period. In many cases, however, p r i c i n g i s determined i n markets which are not f u l l y competitive, and besides, the l i m i t a t i o n s to the perfect nature of the mar-ket are not necessarily the same i n two d i f f e r e n t provinces. -52-Then there i s the lack of the re q u i s i t e informa-t i o n and the shortcomings of the data used, as exemplified by the labour input. Recognition must also be given to the inaccuracies i n the published data which were p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent i n c a p i t a l investment inputs. F i n a l l y , i t must be admitted that the two periods under comparison are only approximately the same with re-spect to weather and economic conditions, which could have a substantial e f f e c t upon productivity. In a r r i v i n g at any conclusions as to the rates of change i n the two provinces one should consider the v a l i d i t y of the e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s approach i n obtaining the index numbers of the combined outputs. By t h i s approach indexes of physical production are derived by weighting indexes of i n d i v i d u a l outputs by production i n a base period which remains con-stant through the years. As was observed i n Table IV the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s output index numbers are i n reasonable agreement with those obtained by the d e f l a t i o n method i n the case of Saskatchewan. Similar agreement was observed i n the case of B r i t i s h Columbia u n t i l the end of the war, aft e r which the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s out-put index numbers were considerably higher. The adoption of the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s output index numbers for the period 1952-1954 ( i . e . , adjusting the output index numbers with the base period 1926 to the -53-Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s output index numbers which have the years 1935-1939 as the base period) increases the average productivity r a t i o for those years from 1.19 to 1.40. Instead of a 17 per cent increase i n a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity i n B r i t i s h Columbia between the periods 1926-192S and 1952-1954, the increase amounts to 37 per cent. Thus i f the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s output index were accepted as the more accurate, the r e s u l t s would point to an increase i n productivity over a period of 25 years which i s approximately the same for both provinces (33 per cent in Saskatchewan), and which comes close to the national estimates of 36 and 32 per cent. On the other hand, i f i t were indeed the case that "productivity i n B r i t i s h Columbia has been growing at a slower rate than i n Saskatchewan, then the explanation may be sought i n the d i f f e r e n t changes i n the input struc-ture between the two provinces. The migration of labour out of agriculture has taken place at a much faster rate i n B r i t i s h Columbia than i n Saskatchewan. This i s asso-ciated with the faster growth of machinery inputs i n B r i -t i s h Columbia. The indications are that a g r i c u l t u r a l labour i s absorbed by outside industries at a greater rate than i n Saskatchewan. This i s not surprising f o r a province which experienced a rapid i n d u s t r i a l expansion since the -54-war. Consequently, a supposedly slower increase i n a g r i -c u l t u r a l productivity i n B r i t i s h Columbia cannot be ex-plained by too high inputs as a resu l t of the lack of a l -ternative employment for a g r i c u l t u r a l workers i n other industries. The productivity r a t i o s of r e a l estate and machinery (Table VI) indicate a greater increase i n the int e n s i t y of land and machine use for Saskatchewan. A smaller increase i n the land productivity of B r i t i s h Col-umbia appears to arise from the u t i l i z a t i o n of less f e r -t i l e s o i l and the slower increase i n the use of f e r t i l i z e r s . The lower productivity of machinery may be explained by an increase i n machinery which i s l a r g e l y r e l a t i v e to the re-maining factors of production. In other words the slower grovrth i n productivity i n B r i t i s h Columbia may be caused by a malallocation of resources which, i n turn, i s the re s u l t of either too fast a migration of a g r i c u l t u r a l labour out of agriculture or too fast an introduction of machinery. The l a t t e r prob-ably means that in B r i t i s h Columbia farmers have not yet attained the f u l l benefits of technological improvements. Considering the d i v e r s i f i e d nature of agriculture i n B r i -t i s h Columbia, the comparatively smaller holdings, and the younger experience i n mechanization i n that province as com-pared to Saskatchewan, t h i s slower development is not surprising. -55-A P P E N D I X TABLE 1 A AGRICULTURAL LABOUR FORCE, BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 5 4 Current Ex-Tear penses Hired Farm Labour Average Year-l y Wage Male Farm Help 0>) . " No. of Labourers Total Agrio. Labour Force (Census! No. of Total A g r i c u l t u r a l Owner- Labour Foroe Operators Estimates Census and — m Igoo I n t e ? o o o a t 9 d -35 39 4 0 4 1 4 2 43 36052 44 35896 43 3 5 7 4 1 43 35585 44 3 5 4 2 ? 44 3 5 2 7 4 44 35118 44 34962 44 34806 45 34651 44 34495 4 2 32619 39 30744 36 28869 37 26994 34 25119 3 3 38 4 0 39 27 29 2 4 21 18 1921 /1926 5391 767 7029 1927 5 6 ? 5 8 0 4 7083 1928 5844 8 0 6 7251 1929 5974 792 7 5 4 3 1930 5842 7 4 1 7 8 8 4 1931 4 7 8 0 633 7 5 5 1 1932 3 5 3 7 467 7 5 7 4 1933 3 4 3 3 4 4 6 7 6 9 7 1934 3750 4 6 2 . 8 1 1 7 1933 4 0 7 5 4 6 5 8 7 6 3 1936 4 1 8 1 4 9 4 8464 1937 4 6 8 0 5 1 3 9123 1938 4900 5 2 2 9387 1 9 3 9 5 1 4 0 5 2 5 9 7 9 0 1 9 4 0 5385 5 6 4 9548 1 9 4 1 4320 612 7 0 5 9 1 9 4 2 5 0 8 4 7 9 2 6 4 1 9 1 9 4 3 5236 972 5 3 8 7 1 9 4 4 8 4 0 7 1 0 8 0 7 7 8 4 1 9 4 5 8 9 5 7 1 2 0 0 7 4 6 4 1 9 4 6 9 8 3 5 1 2 4 8 7 8 8 1 1 9 4 7 1 0 6 6 2 1332 8005 1 9 4 8 1 1 6 2 8 1512 7 6 9 0 1 9 4 9 10105 1 4 8 8 6 7 9 1 1 9 5 0 1 3 8 6 4 1 4 7 6 9 3 9 3 1 9 5 1 12737 1 6 9 2 7523 1 9 5 2 1 7 6 6 3 1 7 7 6 9 9 4 5 1953 17255 1 8 1 2 9523 1954 2 0 6 4 3 1 8 2 4 11317 : 3 5 0 4 0 43603 4 1 5 5 4 2 8 4 4 0 1 VJl ON I TABLE 1 B AGRICULTURAL LABOUR FORCE, SASKATCHEWAN, 1926-1954 Current Ex- Average Year- No. of Total Agrio. No. of Total A g r i c u l t u r a l Tear penses Hired l y Wage Male Labourers Labour Force Owner- Labour Force Farm Labour Farm Help (Census) Operators Estimates Census and A*l (b) # (0) M // // // »•// it (d) Interpolated *6oo ? '600 1 iffffo 1921 1926 31903 678 47054 189 1927 30245 692 43707 192 1928 29471 695 42404 195 1929 28066 685 40972 198 1930 23408 593 39474 - 201 1931 16262 418 38904 204316 165412 204 1932 12748 324 39346 168167 208 1933 11951 305 39184 170921 210 1934 12215 319 38292 173676 212 1?35> 13205 345 38275 176430 215 1936 13193 , 346 38130 217315 179185 217 1 1937 12461 : 344 36224 175083 211 v; 1938 12722 363 35047 17098I 206 " i 3 1939 12600 381 33071 166880 200 1940 14845 444 33434 I62778 196 1941 14830 516 28740 187416 158676 187 1942 17480 660 26485 155997 182 1943 19283 840 22956 153318 176 1944 19360 1032 I8760 150638 169 1945 19748 1104 17888 147959 166 1946 21525 1152 18685 163965 145280 207 163 1947 24334 1224 19881 141687 204 162 1948 23828 1332 27889 138114 193 156 1949 24860 1392 17859 134532 172 152 1950 27392 1344 20381 130949 I67 151 1951 30563 1512 20214 147580 127366 168 148 1952' 33163 1644 21389 165 145 1953 32356 1668 19398 154 136 1954 27628 1620 17054 159 141 -58-TABLES 1 A and 1 B, REFERENCES Without Board 14 years and older, both sezes Intercensus years interpolated 1 9 2 6 - 4 ? : Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s . Part I I , Farm Income. Pp. 7© and 7 4 . 1 9 5 0 - 5 4 : Farm Income. 1 9 5 2 , ' 5 3 and ' 5 4 . 1926-54: Quarterly B u l l e t i n of A g r i c u l t u r a l  S t a t i s t i c s (preceded by Monthly  B u l l e t i n of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s ) . For the period 1940-1954 the average of January, May and August wages was mul t i p l i e d by 12. 1921, 1931, 1941 ana 1951: Census of Canada, 1951. V o l . IV, — Labour Force, Table 2, Pp. 2-5, 2-6. 1936, 1946 (Saskatchewan): Census 1946, P r a i r i e Provinces, Vol. I I , Occupations, Earnings, Employment, etc., Table 1, P. 317. 1946 ( B r i t i s h Columbia): The Labour Force, November 1945 - January 1955. Reference Paper No. 58, Table 1 3 , P . 7 2 . 1946-54 ( B r i t i s h Columbia).: The Labour Force, November 1945-January 1955, Ibid. 1946-54 (Saskatchewan): Correspondence with Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Director of Special Surveys D i v i s i o n , Ottawa. TABLE 2 ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL REAL ESTATE INPUT, BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN, 1926*1954' Estimated(a) fbl Index Land(o) Deflated Interest(d). Real Estate Year Current Values Census Value per Acre Land Values Rate Input B.C. Sask. B.C. Sask. B.C. Sask. B.C. Sask. West.Can. B.C. Sask. 'OOO 1000 'QOO '000 1000 '000 '066 *oo0 1921 - : L 1 7 l 5 4 8 ^ - 206 -1926 148056 1093440 1033687 135 162 : 9-9471 638078 7.8 7759 49770 1927 148 056 1093440 150 169 102710 671299 7 . 3 7498 49005 1928 148056 1093440 152 175 105949 704520 7 . 4 7840 52135 1929 148056 1093440 152 162 109188 737741 7 .5 8189 55331 1930 148056 1093440 128 143 112427 770962 7 . 5 8432 57822 1931 148056 1093440 144581 989144 125 123 115665 804182 7.6 8791 61118 1932 126942 835819 110 104 1154U 807840 7.6 8771 61396 1933 123007 839597 106 104 115163 811498 7 .3 8407 59239 1934 117103 842859 101 104 114913 815156 7 . 1 8159 57876 1935 113239 899606 98 110 114662 818814 7.0 8026 57317 1936 117089 797795 797799 101 97 114411 822473 6.5 7437 53461 1937 113239 797795 98 97 114160 802505 6.0 6850 48150 1938 91815 629838 101 97 113909 782537 6.0 6835 46952 1929 91815 629838 101 7?7 113659 762569 6.0 6820 45754 1940 88755 629838 98 97 113407 742601 6.0 6804 44556 1941 91815 657594 114289 657594 101 91 113157 722631 6 . 0 6789 43358 1942 II8060 704283 105 97 119781 726065 6.0 7187 43564 1943 118060 704283 105 97 126405 726065 5.9 7458 42838 1944 121838 797953 108 110 133030 725412 5.7 7583 41348 1945 127565 845032 113 117 139654 722250 5.7 7960 41168 1946 133305 882140 882140 118 123 146278 717187 5.6 8192 40162 1947 143436 974765 127 136 152902 703739 5.5 8410 38706 1948 151038 1141563 133 156 159526 690291 5.5 8774 37966 1949 160553 1141563 142 156 166151 676843 5.5 9138 37226 1950 166333 1236313 14? 169 172775 663395 5.5 9503 36487 1951 175814 1331509 278068 1182905 155 182 179399 649948 5.6 10046 36397 1952 177748 1379443 157 188 179040 649948 5.7 10205 37047 1953 177748 1379443 167 105 168635 630450 5.7 9612 35936 1954 194291 1346146 172 188 178681 636299 5.7 10185 36269 * Census, Interpolated, Extrapolated. -60-TABLE 2 SOURCES: DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS OTTAWA 1926-50: Quarterly B u l l e t i n of A g r i c u l t u r a l  S t a t i s t i c s (preceded by Monthly  B u l l e t i n of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s ) , In issues 1922-35 under heading "Gross A g r i c u l t u r a l Wealth of Canada by Provinces," since 1936 under "Current Value of Farm Capital i n Canada, by Provinces." 1951-54: Correspondence with Farm Finance Unit, A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n , (1951-53, courtesy of Dr. W. J. Anderson, Depart-ment of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia). 1921, 1931 and 1941 ( B r i t i s h Columbia): Eighth Census of  Canada. 1941. Vol. VIII, Part I I , P. 1593. 1921, 1926, 1931, 1936, 1941 and 1946: (Saskatchewan): Census of the P r a i r i e Provinces. 1946. Vol. IV. p. 241 1951: Ninth Census of Canada. 1951. Vol. VI, Part II, pp. 30-31. Derived from "Average values per acre of occupied farm land," Quarterly B u l l e t i n of A g r i c u l t u r a l  S t a t i s t i c s . Vol. 40, p. 31, Vol. 47, p. 4. 1926-53: Correspondence with Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Prices Section (courtesy of Dr. W. J. Anderson, Department of A g r i -c u l t u r a l Economics, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia.) 1954: Carried forward. TABLE J Year ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL LIVESTOCK INPUT, BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN, 1926-1954. — j s r Census Estimated Current Values JLJL Sask, B.g »o6o' 6 * r r i o e Index . Wholesalelo) Animal Prod, West. Can, Deflated f Livestock Values B.C. Sask. Rate ofId; Interest West.Can. Livestock Input B.C. Sask. W 5 - 3 9 B 1 0 U 1000 '000 •000 •000 138 - - -128 16853 109485 7.8 1315 8540 128 17258 108894 7.3 1260 7949 142 17664 108304 7.4 1307 8014 149 18069 107713 7.5 1355 8078 137 18475 107123 7.5 1386 8034 92 18880 106532 7.6 1435 8096 69 22851 105705 7.6 1737 8034 68 24066 104878 7.3 1757 7656 84 20132 104052 7.1 14 29 7388 93 19885 103225 7.0 1392 7226 92 22488 102398 6.5 1462 6656 106 20978 96984 6.0 1259 5819 105 21494 91570 6.0 1290 5494 . 103 22889 .86155 6.0 1373 5169 1 109 24411 .,807*5.1 6.0 1465 4844 127 16257 75327 6.0 975 4520 150 17522 73382 6.0 1051 4403 171 22115 71438 5.9 1305 4215 176 16420 69493 5.7 936 3961 181 22262 67549 5.7 1269 3850 191 21522 65604 5.6 1205 3674 212 20667 67351 5.5 1137 3704 284 17121 69098 5.5 942 3800 291 17572 70845 5.5 966 3896 318 18276 72592 5.5 1005 3993 381 18750 74339 5.6 1050 4163 308 21593 83567 5.7 1231 47 63 281 21535 74877 5.7 1227 4268 275 20427 65262 5.7 1164 3720 1921 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 23986 28071 35259 37918 31963 19432 15767 I6365 16911 18493 20689 22237 22569 23576 26608 21054 26283 37816 38899 40295 41107 43813 48624 51134 58117 73001 66506 60514 56175 162600 20458 196485 142921 147543 154060 142986 120194 81727 68483 74340 77368 92205 97274 91523 ?8©46l ;.'95606 105456 96248 133939 204551 209888 193043 146393 165552 173936 186541 206102 283329 257389 210404 179470 140141 17370 98009 94206 20646 95665 125303 71473 283233 $ Census , Interpolated, extrapolated - 6 2 -TABLS 3 SOURCES: DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS, OTTAWA. See (a) under Sources Table 2, 'Real Estate*. See (b) under Sources Table 2, 'Real Estate'. 1921: derived from the 'Wholesale Price Index of Animal Products' (Prices and Price Indexes. 1913-1940. 1942, P. 40) by s h i f t i n g the base year (1926) of t h i s series to 1935-39. 1926-1951: Prices and Price Indexes. 1949- 1952. P. 104. 1952-1954: Correspondence, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Ottawa, Prices Section. See (d) under Sources Table 2, 'Real Estate'. TABLE 4-ESTIMATION OF MACHINERY AND IMPLEMENTS INPUTS, BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SASKATCHEWAN, 1?26-1954 Estimated(a) (b) Price Index Deflated Value# Rate of(a) Input Year Current Values Census Farm(c) Mach. & Imp1em. Interest Ma ch.&Implements B.C. Sask. B.C. Sask. Machinery B.C. Sask. West.Can. B.C. Sask. '000 •000 •000 '000 l?35-3?-100 .*000 •000 »000 •000 nl9 21 - - 937? 176676 111 n -> 1926 9379 I 7 6 6 7 6 16?530 ?8 IIOO? 172??0 7.8 85? 13493 1927 9379 176676 :08 11518 177447 7.3 841 12954 1928 9379 176676 ?8 12030 181?04 7.4 8?0 13461 1929 9379 176676 ?8 12541 I8636O 7.5 ?41 13977 1930 9379 176676 97 13053 1?0817 . 7.5 979 14311 1931 12886 185510 12885 185510 95 13564 1?5274 7.6 1031 14841 1932 12446 170611 94 135?6 181501 7.6 1033 13794 1933 11839 158688 92 13627 172487 7.3 995 12592 1934 11283 147264 95 13659 155015 7.1 970 11006 1935 10915 137703 96 136?0 143441 7.0 958 10041 1936 10699 131994 1310?5 98 13722 133770 6.5 892 :86?5 1937 10699 125382 ?7 13753 129260 6.0 825 7756 1 1938 10722 119844 104 13785 115235 6.0 827 6914 £ 193? 10411 115673 103 13816 112304 6.0 829 6738 ' 1940 10082 112615 106 13848 106241 6.0 831 6374 1941 10089 142754 15128 142754 10? 1387? 130967 6.0 833 7858 1942 15471 142812 114 15633 125274 6.0 938 7516 1943: :158?5 142375 117 17388 121688 5.? 1026 7180 1944 15755 135919 118 1?142 115186 5.7 1091 6566 1945 16230 139529 115 208?7 121330 5.7 1191 6916 1946 17131 223463 223463 11? 22651 187784 5.6 1268 10516' 1947 19345 233648 126 24405 206446 5.5 1343 11355 1948 22613 239758 142 26160 225108 5.5 1439 12381 1949 27398 270100 158 27? 14 243769 5.5 1535 13407 1950 32424 313107 166 2?66? 262431 5.5 1632 14434 1951 35184 355042 58760 525644 187 31423 2810?3 5.6 1760 15741 1952 38898 390558 1?6 32??4 295148 5.7 1881 16823 1953 42299 440109 1?8 35822 32887? 5.7 2042 18746 1954 44837 489664 1?? 37708 365421 5.7 2149 20829 $ Census, interpolated, extrapolated. -64-TABLE 4 SOURCES: DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS, OTTAWA (a) See (a) under Sources Table 2, Heal Estate. (b) See (b) under Sources Table 2, Real Estate. (c) 1926-1952: Canada, D.B.S., Labour and Prices D i v i s i o n , Prices and Price Indexes. 1949-1952. P. 98 ( B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan) 195? and 1954: Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services  Used by Farmers. A p r i l , 1955. (d) See (d) under Sources Table 2, Real Estate. -65-TABLE 5 A VALUES OF INPUTS AT CURRENT PRICES BRITISH COLUMBIA Cost Operating Building Machinery F e r t i - M i s c e l -Tear farm Machinery Costs Costs Taxes l i z e r s laneous (a) lb) U) U) (e) (f) 1926 1292 1574 1091 1699 309 1840 1927 1566 1852 1123 1703 307 1956 1928 1795 1985 1189 1706 390 2106 1929 1994 2111 1271 1726 533 2141 1930 2032 1900 1236 1719 732 1971 1931 1893 1976 1198 1738 542 1619 1932 1721 1739 1183 1743 498 1210 1933 1608 1692 1169 1710 425 1277 1934 1706 1617 1174 1655 523 1409 1935 1690 1567 1188 1590 443 1443 1936 1750 1629 1213 1503 444 1534 1937 1814 1579 1255 1593 604 1820 1938 1858 1639 1298 1653 584 1751 1939 1889 1646 1337 1714 601 1830 1940 1952 1596 1386 1569 619 1917 1941 2153 1658 1427 1544 772 198? 1942 2399 1781 1697 1604 806 2179 1943 2564 1824 1864 1655 1051 2351 1944 2722 1949 2024 1940 1103 3013 1945 2854 2095 1832 2119 1218 3402 11946 337 0 2513 2056 2358 1428 3699 1947 3929 2694 2490 3325 1431 4974 1948 5408 3055 2872 3597 1619 5426 1949 6377 3213 3386 4153 1581 5653 1950 7929 3351 3676 4947 1830 5969 1951 9561 4189 3845 5824 1814 6610 1952 IO719 4810 4534 6464 2191 7227 1953 11802 5081 4517 7070 2482 6867 19541 • ;; 12257 5209 4 7 0 1 7898 2369 7079 ' -66-TABLE 5 B VALUES 07 INPUTS AT CURRENT PRICES SASKATCHEWAN Cost Operat ing B u i l d i n g Mach inery F e r t i - M i s c e l -Year Farm Mach inery Cost s Cos t s Taxes l i z e r s l aneous (a) (b) (0) (a) (e) (f> 1926 13622 8913 24949 18247 25 12063 1927 15596 9804 27047 18095 17 13066 1928 17242 10796 29507 18877 21 13277 1929 18847 106277 31146 19733 18 9866 1930 18733 9974 29541 19655 10 10056 1 9 3 1 : 16294 9207 23463 17414 53 6352 1932 15310 7 6 8 1 22776 15468 147 5842 1933 14434 7612 21196 13312 72 4840 1934 7546 20267 13587 121 ;5293 1933 15560 7955 20395 14359 246 6035 1936 16205 6967 19246 14336 190 5604 1937 16002 6696 18174 13057 146 4659 1938 15698 6428 19322 13731 168 6096 1939 16947 6161 20529 14455 139 7394 1940 18544 5894 20833 13836 197 7943 1941 20788 5263 21626 14304 198 7180 1942 23864 5975 25977 14733 180 12316 1943 25498 6267 28758 15070 156 ?87? 1944 29169 7311 31812 15462 218 11978 1945 33906 8071 35057 15631 604 11026 1946 38630 9762 38462 18556 656 11466 1947 42838 IO676 38578 20097 964 13508 19485 4967$ 12585 41892 22661 1265 14830 1949 55428 12744 46160 23510 1776 15471 1950 60891 13647 49431 24520 2443 15324 1951 61893 16763 54361 26727 2973 17801 1952 69878 19098 61111 28330 2783 19401 1953 71959 19920 67127 31582 3572 17651 1954;v 76368 19 818 72662 32759 2788 15834 -67-TABLE 5 SOURCES: DOMINION BUREAU 07 STATISTICS, OTTAWA (a) 1926-48: Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s . Part I I , Farm Income. Pp. 70-71, 74-75. 1949-54: Farm Net Income. 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954. (b) i . Yearly depreciation of buildings: 1926-54: correspondence with D.B.S., A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n (1926-53, courtesy Dr. W. J . Anderson, Department of A g r i c u l -t u r a l Economics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia ) • i i . Repairs, See (a) above. (o) See (b) above. (Note: Farm Net Income. 1952 gives $2406 for the 1950 figure of machinery repairs i n B r i t i s h Columbia. This has been assumed to be a typographical error and |1406 has been considered to be the correct estimate. (d) Taxes on Owned Land and Buildings, see (a) above. (e) See (a) above. (f) See (a) above. TABLE 6 PRICE INDEX NUMBERS OF COMMODITIES USED BY FARMERS IN WESTERN CANADA i ? 5 H 9 a 100 I n t e r e s t Rate Gas, O i l B u i l d i n g Farm Tax F e r t i -Tear Farm Mortgages "Grease M a t e r i a l Mach inery Rate l i z e r Hardware (a) :b(b) (0) (d) (e) ( f ) (ft) 1926 124 123 114 98 157 129 106 1927 116 116 108 98 152 129 104 1928 118 109 115 98 160 121 108 1929 119 110 117 98 153 120 104 1930 119 110 102 97 144 114 101 1931 121 103 88 95 123 107 102 193? 121 108 80 94 114 94 100 1933 116 105 85 92 94 96 93 1934 113 109 88 93 93 98 95 1933 U l 106 87 96 93 97 96 1936 103 105 97 98 94 100 97 1937 95 100 109 97 99 100 103 1938 95 96 99 104 108 102 104 1939 95 94 108 103 109 101 101 1940 95 92 116 106 113 101 109 1941 95 99 128 109 11? 104 111 1942 95 105 148 114 120 104 121 1943 94 106 154 117 127 10? 122 1944 91 106 173 118 140 103 121 1945 90 105 176 115 148 10? 121 1946 88 109 175 119 166 103 121 1947 88 115 189 126 175 105 130 1948 87 130 234 142 185 116 153 1949 87 132 251 158 199 126 I67 1930 87 137 280 166 210 132 170 1931 88 106 327 187 218 154 190 1952 91 138 332 196 233 163 209 1953 91 139 339 198 245 166 2 08 1934 91 141 337 199 258 177 208 -69-TABLE 6 SOURCES: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Ottawa 1926-54: Correspondence with. D.B.S., Prices Section (1926-53 courtesy of Dr* W. J. Anderson, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1926-52: Prices and Price Indexes, 1949-1952. P. 98. " 1953 and 1954: Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services used by  Farmers. A p r i l , 1955. See (b) above. See (c) under Sources, Table 4, 'Machinery and Implements'. 1926-53: Courtesy Dr. W. J . Anderson, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1954: carried forward. See (b) above. See (b) above -70-TABLE 7 VALUE OP INPUTS AT 1935-39 PRICES In Thousands of Dollars BRITISH COLUMBIA Real Live- Implements Cost Operating Building Year Labour Estate stock Machinery Farm Machinery Costs 1926 1?656 6257 1060 6?3 1050 1381 1927 20160 6464 1086 725 1350 1715 1928 20664 6644 1108 754 1647 1726 192? 21168 6882 1139 7?1 1813 1804 1930 21672 7086 1165 823 1847 1863 1?31 22176 7265 1186 852 1838 2245 1932 21672 724? 1436 854 15?4 2174 1?33 21672 7247 1515 858 1531 1??1 1934 22176 7220 1265 858 1565 1837 1?35 22176 7231 1254 863 15?4 1801 1936 22176 7220 1419 866 1667 167? 1?37 22176 7221 1325 868 1814 144? 1938 22176 71?5 1358 871 1?35 1656 1?3? 22680 717? 1445 873 2010 1526 1940 22176 7162 1542 875 20?? 1376 1?41 21168 7146 1026 877 2175 12?5 1942 1?656 7565 1106 ?87 2285 1203 l?43 18144 7?34 1388 10? 1 241? 1184 1944 18648 8333 102? 11?? 2568 1127 1?45 17136 8844 1410 1323 271? 11? 0 1946 16632 9309 136? 1441 30?2 1436 1?47 1?152 9557 12?2 1526 3417 1425 1948 20160 10085 1083 1654 4160 1306 1?4? 1?656 10503 1110 1764 4831 1280 1?50 13608 10923 1155 1876 5788 11?7 1?51 14616 11416 11?3 2000 7030 1281 1?52 120?6 11215 1353 20?0 7767 144? 1?53 10584 10563 1348 2244 84?1 149? 1?54 ?072 11192 127? 2362 86?3 1546 -71-TABLE 7 (cont'd) Machinery F e r t i - Miscel- Sub Totals Sub Tota^ Costs Taxes lize r s laneous Total Real Estate Impl.&Mach, :, 1113 1082 240 1736 34268 8720 2856 1146 1120 238 1881 35885 9299 3221 1213 1066 ?22 1950 37094 9436 3614 1297 1128 444 2059 38525 9814 3901 1274 1194 642 1951 39517 10143 3944 1261 1413 507 1587 40330 10923 3951 1259 1529 530 1210 39507 10952 3707 1271 1819 443 1373 39720 11057 3660 11236 1780 534 1483 39954 10837 3659 1238 1710 457 1503 39827 10742 3695 1238 1599 444 1581 39889 10498 3771 1294 1609 604 1767 40117 10269 3976 1248 1531 573 1684 40227 10382 4054 1298 1572 595 1812 40990 10277 4181 1308 1388 613 1759 40298 = 9926 4282 1309 1320 742 1792 38850 9761 4361 1489 1337 775 1801 38204 10105 4761 1593 1303 1020 1927 38003 10421 5103 1715 1386 1071 2490 39566 10846 5482 1593 1432 1183 2812 39642 11466 5635 1728 1420 1386 3057 40870 12165 6261 1976 1900 1363 3826 45434 12882 6919 2023 1944 1396 3546 47357 13335 7837 2143 2087 1255 3385 48014 13870 8738 2214 2356 1386 3511 44014 14476 9878 2056 2672 1178 3479 46921 15369 11086 2313 2774 1344 3458 45859 15438 12170 2281 2886 1495 3301 44692 14948 13016 2362 3061 1338 3403 44308 15799 13417 # Real Estate plus Building Costs plus Taxes* Implements and Machinery plus Cost of Operating Farm Machinery plus Machinery Costs. - 7 2 -TABLE 8 VALUE 0 ? INPUTS AT 1935-39 PRICES In Thousands of Dol l a r s SASKATCHEWAN Real Live- Implements Cost Operating Building Tear Labour Estate stock Machinery Farm Machinery Costs 1926 67284 40137 6887 10881 11075 7818 1927 68352 42246 6853 11167 13402 9078 1928 69420 44182 6792 11408 15818 9388 1929 70488 46497 6788 11745 17134 9083 1930 71556 48590 6751 12026 17030 9778 1931 72624 50511 6691 12265 15819 10462., 1932 74048 50740 6640 11400 14176 9601 1933 74760 51068 6600 10855 13747 8955 1934 75472 51218 6538 9740 14638 8575 1935 76540 51637 6510 9046 14679 9144 W3$C 77252 51904 6462 8442 15433 7182 1937 75116 50684 6125 8164 16002 6143 1938 73336 49423 5783 7278 16532 6493 1939 71200 48162 5441 7093 18029 5705 1940 69776 4 6 9 0 1 5099 6709 19940 5081 1941 66572 45640 4758 8272 20998 4112 1942 64792 45857 4635 7912 22728 4037 1943 62656 45572 4484 7638 24055 4069 1944 60164 45437 4353 7215 27518 4226 1945 59096 45742 4278 7684 32291 4586 1946.r 058028 45639 4175 11950 • 35440 5547 1947 57672 43984 4209 12903 37250 5649 1948 55536 43639 4368 14231 38212 5378 1949 54112 42789 4478 15410 41991 5077 1950 53756 41939 4590 16591 44446 4874 1951 52688 41368 4741 17888 45510 5126 1952 51620 40710 5234 18692 50636 5752 1953 48416 39490 4690 20600 51769 5876 1954 50196 39856 4088 22889 54162 5881 -73-TABLS 8 (cont.ta) Machinery F e r t i - M i s c e l - Sub Total^ Sub T o t a ^ Costs Taxes l i z e r s laneous Total Real Estate Impl.ft Maeh. 25458 11622 19 11380 192561 59577 47414 27599 11905 13 12563 203178 63229 52168 30109 11798 17 12294 211226 65368 57335 31782 12897 15 :9487 215916 68477 60661 30455 13649 9 9956 219800 72017 59511 24698 14158 50 6227 213505 75131 52782 24230 13568 156 5842 210410 73909 49806 23039 14161 75 5204 208464 74184 47641 21334 14610 124 5572 207&21 74403 45712 21245 15440 254 6286 210781 76221 44970 19639 15251 190 5777 207532 74337 43514 18736 13189 146 4523 198828 70016 42902 18579 12714 165 5862 196165 68630 42389 19931 13261 138 7321 196281 67128 45053 19654 12244 195 7287 192886 64226 46303 19840 12226 190 6468 189076 61978 49110 22789 12278 173 1Q17.9; 195378 62172 53427 24579 11866 151 8098 193168 61507 56272 26959 11044 212 9899 197027 60707 61692 30484 10561 586 9122 204430 60889 70459 32321 11178 637 9476 214391 62364 79711 30617 11484 918 10391 215077 61117 80770 29501 12249 1091 9693 213898 61266 81944 29215 11814 1410 9264 215560 59680 86616 29778 11676 1851 9014 218515 58489 90815 29070 12260 1931 9369 219941 58754 92468 3H79 12159 1707 9283 226972 58621 100507 33903 12891 2152 8486 228273 58257 106272 36514 12697 1575 7613 235471 58434 113565 # Heal Estate plus Building Costs plus Taxes. Implements and Machinery plus Cost of Operating Farm Machinery plus Machinery Costs. -74-TABLS 9 A VALUES OF OUTPUTS AT CURRENT PRICES In Thousands of Do l l a r s BRITISH COLUMBIA F i e l d Forest House Tear Crops Livestock Products Rent (a) (b) (c) (d) 1926 IO364 17704 1268 2016 1927 9512 19392 1268 2350 1928 9637 23827 1288 2522 1929 10214 23387 1288 2693 1930 10258 17528 1201 2469 1931 6721 13933 1154 2590 1932 -6731 10957 1038 2315 1933 8416 12754 1007 2252 1934 8625 12686 1014 2157 1935 9033 14319 1046 2090 1936 9102 16450 1129 2146 1937 10495 16981 1140 2104 1938 10675 17916 1083 2186 1939 11691 18320 1127 2203 1940 11330 20045 931 2124 1941 13138 26243 980 2192 1942 14053 27718 972 2266 1943 20565 37698 1571 2273 1944 23697 36605 1778 2388 1945 24662 40750 1868 2512 1946 32765 40436 2125 2651 1947 25160 49544 2870 2969 1948 26722 58130 3344 3146 1949 29266 57209 3214 3399 1950 19593 60185 3776 3628 1951 12741 78491 4515 3927 1952 13807 71854 4386 4067 1953 19809 71285 3957 4354 1954 12946 75002 3937 4592 -75-TABLE 9 B YALUES OF OUTPUTS AT CURRENT PRICES In Thousands of Dollars SASKATCHEWAN F i e l d Forest House Year Crops Livestock Products Rent (a) (b) (c) (d) 1926 25408? 48074 1677 10748 1927 270533 43472 1610 I I 8 3 8 1928 282979 46602 1572 13052 1929 133086 55363 1604 12866 1930 I 6 7 6 6 3 42253 1590 12091 1931 27528 36980 1711 11190 1932 69213 24299 1411 9471 1933 52215 25938 1394 9524 1934. 59972 33009 1482 9583 1935 86346 (68437 37614 1701 10254 1936 42559 1716 9106 1937 12804 39694 1758 8928 1938 86668 32377 1813 8743 1939 157659 45540 1841 -8555 1940 134237 57051 1858 8360 1941 74990 77766 1571 7613 1942 293462 113993 1608 8338 1943 114129 168650 2410 8493 1944 326314 176063 2382 9786 1943 137977 134480 2426 10510 1946 283101 80634 2922 11234 1947 289712 132038 3493 12414 1948 397784 155902 3946 14189 1949 414781 161881 3974 14189 1950 335638 154776 4220 15368 1931 609835 199213 4769 16559 1952 712216 156975 4720 17143 1953 620065 134748 4688 17739* 1954 234319 147902 4668 17143 -76-TABLE 9 SOURCES: DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS, OTTAWA (a) i . Cash Income -1926-4-8: Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s . Part I I , Farm Income. Reference Paper No. 25, Pp. 40-41 and 44-45. 1949-54: Farm Cash Income. 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954. i i . Income i n kind -1926-48: Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s . Part I I , Farm Income. Reference Paper No. 25, Pp. 53 and 55. 1949-54: Farm Net Income. 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954. i i i . Feed and seed expenses -1926-48: Handbook of A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s . Part I I , Farm Income. Reference Paper No. 25, Pp. 70 and 74. 1949-54: Farm Net Income. 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954. i r . Changes i n inventory -1926-54: Correspondence with D.B.S., A g r i c u l t u r a l D i v i s i o n (courtesy Dr. W. J. Anderson, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. (b) See (a) 1, i i , and i v , above. (c) See (a) 1, and i i , above. 1 (d) See (a) i i above. -77-TABLE 10 WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX NUMBERS OP FARM OUTPUTS IN WESTERN CANADA , 1926-: 1954 (1935-39 r 100) F i e l d Animal Lumber Bldg.Material, Year Products Products and Tax and Timber Interest Rates (a) (b) (c) (d) 1926 147 128 112 128 1927 148 128 109 122. 1928 136 142 116 128 1929 138 149 118 127 1930 96 137 100 118 1931 58 92 84 105 1932 56 69 75 98 1933 63 68 78 95 1934 76 84 87 95 1935 84 93 86 94 1936 98 92 97 98 1937 134 106 110 103 1938 106 105 99 100 1939 78 103 106 105 1940 81 109 118 110 1941 83 127 137 118 1942 97 150 153 128 1943 119 171 170 133 1944 144 176 184 146 1945 I63 181 185 149 1946 187 191 198 153 1947 191 212 263 162 1948 196 284 330 188 1949 193 291 349 200 1950 195 318 388 218 1951 196 381 457 244 1952 194 308 438 251 1953 178 281 419 258 1954 157 275 419 260 -78-TABLS 10 SOURCES: DOMINION BUREAU OTt STATISTICS, OTTAWA 1926-51: Prlees and Price Indexes. 1949-1952. P. 104. 1952-54: Correspondence with D.B.S., Prices Section. See (a) above. 1926-51: Prices and Price Indexes. 1949-1952. P. 32. 1953-54: Prices and Price Indexes, monthly. 1926-52: Prices and Price Indexes. 1949-52. Pp. 95 and 98. 1953-54: Price Index Numbers of Commodities  and Services Used by Farmers. Apri l , 1955. - 7 9 -TABLS 11 A VALUE OF OUTPUT AT 1935-3? PRICES BRITISH COLUMBIA F i e l d Live- Forest House Total Tear Crops stock Products Rent Out put 1?26 7054 13831 1 1 3 2 1575 23592 1927 6427 15150 1163 1926 24666 1?28 7 0 8 6 16780 1110 1970 26946 1929 7401 15696 1092 2120 26309 1?30 10685 12794 1201 2092 26772 1931 1 1 5 8 8 15145 1374 2467 30574 1?32 12020 15735 1384 2 3 5 3 31492 1933 13343 18756 1291 2378 35768 1934 11349 15102 1166 2 2 7 3 29890 1935 10754 15397 1216 2226 29593 1936 9288 1 7 8 8 O 1164 2201 3 0 5 3 3 1937 7832 26020 1036 2043 26931 1938 10071 17063 1094 2186 30414 1939 14988 17786 IO63 2098 35935 1940 13988 18390 789 1931 35098 1941 15829 20664 715 1858 39066 1942 14488 18479 635 1770 35372 1943 17282 22045 924 1709 41960 1944 16456 20798 966 I636 39856 1945 15130 22514 1010 1686 40340 1946 17521 21171 1073 1733 41498 1947 13173 2 3 3 7 0 1091 1833 39467 1948 13634 20468 1 0 1 3 1673 36788 1949 15164 19659 920 1700 37443 1950 10048 18926 973 1664 31611 1951 6501 20601 988 1609 29699 1952 7117 23329 1001 1620 33067 1953 11286 25368 944 1699 39286 1954 8246 2 7 2 7 3 940 1766 38225 -80-TABLS 11 B VALUE 0 3 7 OUTPUT AT 1935-3? PRICES SASKATCHEWAN Field Live- Forest House Total Tear Crops stock Products Rent Output 1926 172848 37558 1497 8397 220300 1927 182793 33963 1477 9703 227936 1928 203073 32818 1355 10197 • 247443 1929 96439 37156 1359 10131 145085 1930 112149 30842 1590 10247 154828 1931 47462 40196 2013 10657 100328 1932 123595 35216 1881 9664 170356 1933 82722 38144 1787 10025 132728 1934 78911 39296 1703 10087 129997 1935 102793 40445 1978 10909 156125 1936 6^9834 46260 1769 9292 127155 1937 9555 37447 1598 8668 57268 1938 81762 30835 1831 8743 123171 1939 202127 44214 1737 8148 256226 1940 165724 52340 1561 7600 227225 1941 90349 61233 1147 6452 159181 1942 302538 75995 1051 6514 386098 1943 95907 98626 1418 6386 202337 1944 226607 100036 1295 6703 334641 1945 121458 74298 1311 7054 204121 1946 151391 42217 1476 7342 202426 1947 151682 62282 1333 7663 222960 1948 202951: 54895 1196 7547 266589 1949 214912 55629 1139 7095 278775 1950 172122 48672 1088 7050 228932 1951 311140 52287 1044 6786 371253 1952 367121 50966 1078 6830 425995 1953 348351 47953 1119 6876 404299 1954 149248 53783 1114 6593 210738 -81-B I B L I O G R A P H Y -82-BIBLIOGRAPHY References Consulted Anderson, W. J., Unpublished research, Univ. of B r i t . Col.: Barton, G. T^ and Cooper, M. R., "Relation of A g r i c u l t u r a l Production to Inputs", The Review of Economics  and S t a t i s t i c s . Vol. XXX, May 1948, p. 117. Burtle, James, "Input-Output Analysis as an Aid to Man-power Policy," International Labour Review, May 1952, pp. 600-625. Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Revised Index of  I n d u s t r i a l Production. 1935-1951. Reference Paper No. 34, pp. 11-35, Ottawa, 1952. Canada, Interdepartmental Committee on Productivity Analysis (Sub-committee of the Interdepartmental Advis-ory Committee on Labour S t a t i s t i c s ) , Concepts  and Problems i n the Measurement and Analysis of  Productivity. Report I I . Ottawa, 1954. Eshete, H., "Economic Progress and Changes i n the Structure . of Canadian Agriculture," Master's Thesis, A p r i l 1954, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Econom-i c s , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Evans, Duane, W., and Siegel, Irving H., "The Meaning of Productivity Indexes," Journal of American  S t a t i s t i c a l Association. Vol. 37, 1942, p. 103. International Labour Of f i c e , Methods of Labour Productivity  S t a t i s t i c s . Geneva, 1951. Maddison, A., "Productivity i n an Expanding Economy," The  Economic Journal. September 1952, p. 587. Organization for European Economic Co-operation, Measure-ment of Productivity - Methods Used by the  Bureau of Labour S t a t i s t i c s i n the U. S. A., Paris, 1955. Schultz, T. W., The Economic Organization of Agriculture. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953. -83-Smith, S i r E., Measurement of the Effectiveness of the Production Unit, B r i t i s h I n s t i t u t e of Manage-ment, London, 1949. Steiner, P. 0., "The Productivity Ratio - Some A n a l y t i c a l Limitations on i t s Use," Review of Economics  and S t a t i s t i c s . Vol. XXXII, November 1950, p. 8. United States, Department of Labour, The Productivity Measurement Program of the Bureau of Labour S t a t i s t i c s . Washington, D. C , 1950. 

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.831.1-0106358/manifest

Comment

Related Items