Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An economic analysis of technological progress on diary farms in the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia Walker, Hugh V. Hillary 1962

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1962 A4 W2 E3.pdf [ 2.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0107007.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0107007-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0107007-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0107007-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0107007-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0107007-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0107007-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0107007-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0107007.ris

Full Text

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS ON DAIRY FARMS IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY, BRITISH COLUMBIA by HUGH V. HILLARY WALKER B.S.A., UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, I960  A 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 require/fl^tan^^rtl  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. A p r i l , 1962  ii  ABSTRACT  This study i s based on the hypotheses that t e c h n i c a l advances have increased the e f f i c i e n c y with which factor-inputs are converted into output on dairy farms, and have induced s h i f t s i n the input structure of dairy farms. The method used to t e s t these hypotheses has been to measure changes i n : ( l ) the r e a l savings i n the use of factors during the period ±9k6 to 195UJ and then to make a l i n e a r projection of the trend, which existed during the 1°U6  - ±9%k period, into l 9 6 l ; and (2) the  r e l a t i v e importance of inputs over the period 19U6  to  195A.  Inputs have been divided i n t o seven categories v i z : feed purchased; custom workj labour; cost of operating farm machinery and repairs and maintenance of machinery, equipment and buildings; depreciation; interest on investment;  and miscel-  laneous items. Milk was the onry output considered i n t h i s t h e s i s . E f f i c i e n c y was measured as the r a t i o of t o t a l output to t o t a l input w i t h i n a given year. The r e s u l t s of the study support the hypothesis. They show that s h i f t s had taken place i n the r e l a t i v e importance between labour, and the other factors of production, and that associated with these s h i f t s had been an increase i n o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y between 19I4.6 and 195U  of 20 percent, which i f projected to  would amount to 3h percent.  1961  lii  Thus technological progress had resulted i n gains i n overaxl e f f i c i e n c y , with which inputs were converted into output on dairy farms. The study has also shown the types of adjustments on dairy farms which were necessary i n order to achieve gains i n o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y . I t has aiso been indicated that the dairy farm industry of the Lower Fraser V a l l e y has the p o t e n t i a l i t i e s f o r increasing i t s output of milk i n response to future increases i n demand^ which growth i n population would render necessary.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page INTRODUCTION  1  THEORY AND MEASUREMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS  k  Concept of Technological Progress . . . . . . . . .  k  The Supply Function i n Relation to Technological Progress.  .  .  Method of Measurement  6 10 l6  DATA FOR EMPIRICAL STUDY Source, Method of C o l l e c t i o n , and Nature of Data Sampling Problems and Limitations of Data . . . . .  l6 ±9 23  RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION The Data  23  Analysis  26  Changes i n the Quantity of Different Factors Used  •  32  Changes i n the Relative Importance of Inputs. . . .  35  Conclusion  37  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX  ijO U3  V  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE I  II  IH  I?  V  VI  VII  F a  ge  FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FARMS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF GROSS CURRENT RECEIPTS FROM DAIRY PRODUCTION, LOWER FRASER VALLEY, J-9U6 AND 195U  18  ANNUAL PRODUCTION PER COW, DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, 19±k - i960 AND SAMPLE FARMS l9i|6 AND 195U  27  SINGLE FACTOR RATIOS 1 9 H 6 , 195k AND 196l (PROJECTED) LOWER FRASER VALLEY  29  DISTRIBUTION OF FARM CAPITAL ON l 6 0 DAIRY FARMS IN 19U6 AND $0 DAIRY FARMS IN 195l|, LOWER FRASER VALLEY  30  MEASURES OF CHANGES IN AVERAGE SIZE OF FAR!© 19U6 TO 195U, LOWER FRASER VALLEY  32  INDEX NUMBERS (19U6=100) OF INPUTS PER HIJNDREDWEIGHT OF MILK LOWER FRASER VALLEY, 19U6, 195U, AND I96l (PROJECTED) . . .  33  RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF INPUTS, LOWER FRASER VALLEY, 19l|6 AND 195U  35  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The w r i t e r wishes to express h i s sincere gratitude to Drs. Walton J . Anderson and Joseph J . Richter f o r t h e i r k i n d help and guidance i n the preparation of t h i s t h e s i s . Their suggestions, c r i t i c i s m s and comments are genuinely appreciated. Appreciation i s also expressed to the Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Economics D i v i s i o n , Marketing Service, University of B r i t i s h Columbia} a i d the Dairy Herd Improvement Association f o r t h e i r assistance and f a c i l i t i e s extended i n gathering some of the data f o r t h i s work.  In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study.  I further agree that permission  for extensive copying of t h i s thesis f o r scholarly purposes may granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s  be  representatives.  It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  fi^ri  tu^ord  ,  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. Date  7/4^  q jfc  t  Cj  AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS ON DAIRY FARMS  INTRODUCTION  Economic anaiysis of dairy farm organization may be useful to public boards, which are responsible f o r establishing milk p r i c e s , and to entrepreneurs who make the resource use and production decisions i n the industry. The l a t t e r need the information to a s s i s t i n e f f e c t i n g adjustments i n t h e i r plans I n order to maximise net Income. Since 1920, three economic surveys have been made of the industry. The f i r s t of these was c a r r i e d out i n the Arrow Lakes, Chilliwack, Courtenay, Ladner and Salmon Arm d i s t r i c t s I n the years 1920 - 1921.  1  The aim of t h i s survey was to determine the factors  that contributed to gain or loss on farms i n those areas. I n 19U5 19lt6 a study was made of farms costs, farms organisation, and labour earnings of whole milk producers i n the Lower Fraser Valley.^ This was followed by a s i m i l a r study i n 195k*^ Using the data from the 1  Hare, H.R., "Dairy Farm Survey", B r i t i s h Columbia Agriculture Department B u l l e t i n No. 91, B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture, 1921.  2  ( i ) Anderson, W.J., Farm Organisation and Labour Earnings of Mhole Milk Producers i n the Lower Fraser Valley, 19U6, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 19k$. (ii)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, Dairy Farm Incomes and Cost of Producing Butter f a t i n the Coastal Areas of B r i t i s h Columbia, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, February, 19L7.  3  Campbell, R.H., Dairy Farm Organisation i n the Lower Fraser. V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Economics D i v i s i o n , Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, June, 1957,  2  1951+  study, along with standard input-output data, a management  manual was produced i n 1957  which was designed f o r use by dairy  farmers and extension s t a f f Based on general observation and to some extent from the farm records compiled during these investigations, i t often has been stated that technological progress has r a d i c a l l y changed inputoutput c o e f f i c i e n t s and through those changes the input structure of dairy farms. The three surveys c i t e d above were directed towards recording the state of the industry, but no empirical work has been done to measure the contribution of technological progress to overa l l e f f i c i e n c y or the extent to which I t has s h i f t e d the Input structure of dairy farms. This study therefore i s designed to concentrate, by economic analysis, on the effects of technical change w i t h i n dairy farms and p a r t i c u l a r l y to measure i t s effect upon (1) the o v e r a l l gain i n e f f i c i e n c y , (2) the changes i n the input structure which have been associated with the advance i n p h y s i c a l e f f i c i e n c y of inputs. This study proceeds by reviewing the theory and method relevant to the measurement of technological progress and then examines the source, nature and methdd of c o l l e c t i o n of the data. Consideration i s also given to the sampling problems, and the l i m i t a t i o n s associated with the data, which may a f f e c t the r e s u l t s . The t h e o r e t i c a l k  Menzie, E.L., et a l , Dairy Farm Management Manual, B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture and 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, 1957.  3  model i s then set up, and the s t a t i s t i c a l problems which are inherent i n the model, are then considered. The remainder of the thesis i s devoted to the actual measurements, and the interpretation of the results.  THEORY AND MEASUREMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS  Concept of Technological  Progress  M i l l , the synthesist of c l a s s i c a l economic doctrines, has stated that A l l inventions by which a greater quantity of any commodity can be produced with the same labour, or the same quantity with l e s s labour, or which abridge the process so that the capit a l employed need not be advanced f o r so long a time, lessen the cost of production of the commodity. 1  He, therefore, has envisaged that progress has taken place when l e s s of the factors of production are used to produce a given quantity of goods and services i n the subsequent period as compared to the amount used i n an e a r l i e r period. M i l l also has pointed out that The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of what i s commonly meant by i n d u s t r i a l progress resolve themselves mainly into three, increases i n c a p i t a l , i n crease i n population, and improvements i n production; understanding the l a s t expression, i n i t s widest sense, to include the process of procuring commodities from a distance as w e l l as that of producing them.^ M i l ' s theories were supported, i n part, by George, who i n his writings on the effects of material progress concluded that The changes which constitute or contribute to material progress are three: ( i ) increase i n population; ( i i ) improvements*in the a r t s of production and exchange; and ( i i i ) improvements 1  M i l l , J.S., P r i n c i p l e s of P o l i t i c a l Economy, D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1 9 0 7 , p. U 7 7 .  2  I b i d . , p. 1|89.  5  i n knowledge, education, government, p o l i c y , manners, and morals so f a r as they increase the power of producing wealth.3 He also s a i d that: The e f f e c t of inventions and improvements i n the productive a r t s i s to save labour - that i s , to enable the.same result to be secured with l e s s labour, or a greater r e s u l t with the same labour.^ Later, Boulding defined progress as consisting i n "an improvement i n the e f f i c i e n c y of the use of means to a t t a i n ends". He said too that: Whenever, we discard an o l d method of doing something i n favour of a new method that has proved i t s worth without doubt, then economic progress i s taking place. Economic progress, therefore, means the discovery and applicat i o n of better ways of doing things to s a t i s f y wants.^ Kaldor i n o u t l i n i n g h i s views on technical progress has stated that: A change i n technique ( i n the widest sense of the term, as r e f e r r i n g t o changes i n the methods of production) can be i n i t i a t e d by one or more of three causes: (x) inventions, or "autonomous" improvements} ( i i ) a change i n the r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y of factors, o r i g i nating from the supply side; ( i i i ) a change i n the price of factors, t h e i r r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y remaining the same. The main d i f ference, of course, i s between ( i ) and the 3  George, Henry, Progress and Poverty, Robert Schalkeribach Foundation, New York, 195k, p. 228.  k  I b i d . , p. 2UI4..  5  Boulding, K.E., The Economics of Peace, Prentice H a i l Inc., New York, ±9h5, p. 7U  6  I b i d . , p. 7U.  6  others i . e . the adoption of methods which were not previously known, and the adoption of methods which were not previously p r o f i t able. Only ( l ) can be properly c a l l e d economic progress.7 From the above concepts, technological progress can be defined as a change i n the t e c h n i c a l c o e f f i c i e n t s , which makes i t possible to procure a larger quantity of goods and services with a given quantity of resources. An improvement i n technology i s therefore interpreted to mean using the factors of production so that a smaller amount of resources i s used i n one period than i n a previous period to produce a unit of goods and services. An example to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s concept can be taken from t h i s study. I n 1 9 1 + 6 , dairy farmers i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y used, on the average, L . 3 hours of labour to produce a hundredweight of milk, whereas i n ±95k, they used 2 . 6 hours, a saving of kt) percent in  the use of t h i s factor over an eight year period. During the  same period the outlay on non-labour inputs was reduced by 1 6 percent.  The Supply Function i n Relation t o Technological progress  Heady has stated that the nature of the supply function 7  Kaldor, Nicholas, "A Case Against Technical Progress?", Economica, Volume X l l , Numbers 3 5 - 3 8 , London School of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, 1 9 3 2 , p. 1 8 I 4 . For an elaboration of t h i s argument, see J.R. Hicks, "The Theory of Wages", Peter Smith, New York, ± 9 l + 8 , pp 1 2 1 - 1 3 0 . Also American Economic Association, "Readings i n the Theory of Income D i s t r i b u t i o n " , J . Robinson, "The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Inventions", No. 9, p. 1 7 5 .  7  depends on (1) the nature of the physical production functions i n the relevant supply period, ( 2 ) the nature of the market f o r factors used i n production including, (a) the supply function of a g r i c u l t u r a l resources, and (b) the f l e x i b i l i t y of factor prices, ( 3 ) the structure of the f i r m costs as r e l a t e d to f i x e d and variable outlays, (U) the nature of the firm-household i n t e r relationships including the motivating forces behind the production response to farmers, and ( 5 ) the expectations of farmers.^ Movements along the supply function are c a l l e d changes i n supply. These are r e a l l y short-term phenomena to which the i n dustry adjusts i t s e l f through the p r i c i n g mechanism. D i s t i n c t from these short changes i n supply, are complete movements of the supply function from i t s former p o s i t i o n . These are r e a l l y s h i f t s i n the supply function. The forces i n the long run which cause the supply function to change i t s former p o s i t i o n are independent of, and are d i s t i n c t from those which cause a movement along the supply function. There are three forces which, i n the long run, can cause the supply function to s h i f t outwards and downwards to the r i g h t , ( 1 ) an improvement i n technology i . e . i n the technical c o e f f i c i e n t s , ( 2 ) discovery of new resources, and (3) a decline i n prices of 8  Heady, E.O., Economics of A g r i c u l t u r a l Production and Resource Use. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engiewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1 9 5 7 , Chapter 2 3 , p. 6 7 7 .  8  factors of production. The o v e r a l l effects of these forces on the p o s i t i o n of the supply function are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1. With given technology, resources, and f a c t o r p r i c e s , the supply funct i o n of the industry i n i t i a l l y was SS. With a discovery of new resources or a decline i n f a c t o r prices or an improvement i n technology i n a l a t e r period the supply function has taken up the new p o s i t i o n  S'S'.  Figure 1. E f f e c t s of changes i n technology on the p o s i t i o n of the supply function  our  for  In making t h i s study, the e f f e c t s of new resources and changes i n f a c t o r prices on the p o s i t i o n of the supply function were eliminated, and only the e f f e c t s of technological innovations were evaluated. This means that the study i s r e a l l y concerned with the s h i f t that has taken place i n the production function which i s basic to the supply function. Heady has stated that there are two general properties to  9  technological improvements v i z : 1.  The development of a new production technique such that a greater output i s forthcoming from a given t o t a l input of resources. X  X  X  2. The marginal p h y s i c a l rates of s u b s t i t u t i o n (the e l a s t i c i t y of substitution) are always a l t e r e d i n favour of one factor by s p e c i f i c innovations. In other words the entire production surface i s altered. The production i s increased more f o r some f a c t o r s than f o r others.? The nature of these phenomena are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 2 below  Figure 2. Mature of innovations. (pi  ^a"  1  I n Figure 2(a) the production function I represents a s h i f t induced by technological innovation from production function I I such that with a given resource input ( O X ^ ) output i s increased from OE to OF. 9  I b i d . , pp 802 - 80£.  10  Regarding t h i s type of phenomenon, Heady has pointed out that development of production function I I a f t e r I i s already known could not be considered technological advance where the transformat i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s (rates at which resources are transferred i n products) are known with (or near) certainty. However, i t would q u a l i f y as an improvement under a s i t u a t i o n where uncertainty Is reduced and hence the value of anticipated returns i s increased.- 1  0  In Figure 2(b) B and C are two iso-product functions f o r the same output. B represents the new technique and C represents the o l d technique. The siope of B i s different from that of C and has changed i n the d i r e c t i o n of one factor. The p o s i t i o n of the new contour i s lower and to the l e f t as compared with the o l d technique. Hence, l e s s of one factor ( c a p i t a l i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case) w i l l be required to replace a given amount of labour a f t e r the entrepreneur adopts the new technique. To i l l u s t r a t e , A  G has been held constant under both  techniques which made /A L greater i n the case of the new technique as compared to  c> L i n the old. The slope of B therefore indicates  that the rate of substitution has been increased i n favour of c a p i t a l , and i t s marginal p h y s i c a l productivity has increased r e l a t i v e to that of labour. An example of t h i s phenomenon i s the substitution of machinery f o r labour.  Method of Measurement  The hypotheses i n t h i s study are that technical advances 10  I b i d . , p.  803.  have increased the e f f i c i e n c y with which factor-inputs are converted into output on dairy farms, and have induced s h i f t s i n the input structure of dairy farms. The purpose of t h i s study i s to measure the changes which have occurred. For the main objective of t h i s study, i . e . to measure changes i n the e f f i c i e n c y with which input as a whoxe i s converted into output on dairy farms, measures of aggregate input and output are required. I n order to obtain the measures of inputs the constant d o l l a r method was used. This method involves weighting the inputs of each year by the prices which existed i n the base period. Then the res u l t i n g constant d o l l a r values of a n inputs f o r each year were added to give aggregate input. The measure of output d i d not involve aggregation since one output only was involved i n the analysis; i t was expressed i n i t s physical u n i t (hundredweight of m i l k ) . Inputs consist of physical items such as tons of hay, pounds of f e r t i l i z e r and man hours of labour. In order to aggregate these factors i n a form that i s meaningful, the different physical units of each input must be converted into the same units, i . e . t h e i r dollar value. The aggregate outlay f o r year 1 can then be expressed i n the forms ( P x . Q x ) + (^ .Qx ) + (Px .Qx ) + (Px^.Qx^) + x l  (fx  pi  n  .Qx  21  21  3i  3l  ) + ( f x , .Qx ) + ( f x . O x ) + .... + ( f x .Qx ,) 51 o l 61 71 71 nl nl  where Fx.,... Px refer to the prices of factors X, .... X 11 nl * I n r  i n year 1 and Qx  11  ... .Qx ... are the quantities of X ... .X i n nl I n  year 1. S i m i l a r l y the aggregate outlay f o r year 2 can be obtained from  (1)  12  ( F x . Q x ) + (PX22.QX22) + i2  (PX32.QX32)  i2  (PX^.'QXJ^)  +  +  (2) (Px^Qx^)  +  (• 62 62) F:x  where P x ^ ' • •  iJx n  ,Qx  2  +  (• ^2* 72^ ' " <2s  t  ^ ±2***^ n2  <  x  X  a  +  r  ^  e  +  P l  e  r  ^ n2 ni2x  c e s  ,<3  >  and quanti-  t i e s respectively of f a c t o r s X _....X i n the year 2. J  n  In equations ( i ) and (2) the input aggregation i n each year therefore i s the sum of the quantities of inputs weighted by the current p r i c e s . Since the p r i c e l e v e l s may have changed the aggregates from ( l ) and (2) cannot be compared d i r e c t l y . Thus the prices used should be those o f one year. I n t h i s study inputs f o r each year were weighted by the p r i c e s which existed i n year 1 . In making the calcul a t i o n the outlay f o r each input was divided by i t s p r i c e index f o r year 1 . The p r i c e indexes f o r year 1 are the r a t i o s  1 1 .... f x 11  F x  nl . nl  Thus the expression f o r the aggregate outlay weighted by prices i n year 1 i s given by i x .Qx2 ^ l l ' ^ H  Px .Qx  J  2l  r  2 1  x  i x  Px .Qx  2 1  F  x  31  P  x  31  r x  + -rj  X  kl kl  Px^ .Qx^ 1  P  x  i  5 i  (3)  fXy ^ • QX,^^  6l  " 6 l  Px^.Qx^  3l  F x  J  ^ 1 1 6i  3l  1  +  Px , nl ^nl  F x7 i  P 2  ^ 6 1  ? i  which s i m p l i f i e s  into  (Px^.Qx^) + (Px .Qx ) + 2 i  2 l  (Px3 .Qx3 ) + ( P x ^ . Q x ^ ) + 1  1  (h) (Px^.Qx^j + ( F x The  6 r  Qx  6 l  ) + ( P x ^ . Q x ^ ) +....+ ( ^ . Q x ^ )  expression f o r the aggregate o u t l a y f o r year 2 weighted  by prices e x i s t i n g i n year 1 was determined as follows:The price index f o r year 2 i s the r a t i o  Px PTT ^12 1 2 ..../ . . . n22 • ll "ST X  n  ? x  13  The value of the outlay f o r each input was divided by the index. The expression f o r input X^ i s (Px )(Qx ) l2  F  x  _  l2  i 2  (Fx )(Qx ) l2  (Px )  l2  n  I  =  x  ~^~7  ^ 1 1  which s i m p l i f i e s to the form (Px^.Qx-j^) Proceeding i n t h i s manner with each of the inputs, the expression for the weighted aggregate outlay for year 2 i s given by:( F X j ^ . Q X j ^ ) + (Px _.Qx ) + ( P x . Q x ) + (Pxj^.Qx, ) + 2J  22  3i  32  2  (5) ( P x ^ . Q x ^ ) + ( P x . Q x ) + ( P x ^ . Q x ^ ) + (Px .Qx J 6l  62  nJL  n2  This model was then used to aggregate input f a c t o r s . One of the problems involved i n the use of t h i s model i s the weight period bias which occurs when prices of a given period are used to weight the respective input categories. Lok has shown that the discrepancies among the aggregate input indexes f o r agriculture can be considerable. " From Lok's study J  L  i t was seen that some Items comprising the aggregate index number of inputs w i l l tend to make the Laspeyres index larger than the Paasche index, whereas i n some other cases the opposite effect may occur. Lok notes that The way i n which different weighting a f f e c t s aggregate index numbers i n time series can be shown by a simple i l l u s t r a t i o n . Suppose that a time series consists of four periods, and that the prices of each are used to weight quantities. 11  Lok, S.H., An Enquiry into the Relationship between changes i n o v e r a l l Productivity and Real Net Return per farm, and between changes i n t o t a l output and E-eal Gross Return, Canadian Agriculture, 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 5 7 , Technical Publication, Canada Department of Agriculture, Economics D i v i s i o n , Ottawa, October, 1 9 6 1 .  lU  The four sets of L index numbers and one F index are indicated as follows (the f i r s t subscript of each index number r e f e r s to the period i n time, the second to the period whose prices are used as weights): " " Ferxod  Laspeyres Index Numbers Using D i f ferent Weight .Periods t  t  0  :  t  1  : 2  t  I  I  :  t  I  3  I  00  I II  I  1  I 10  12  13  "t 2  DL" 20  I  "E 22  ^23  30  Si  S  X  02  I  0 t  01  21 I  Faasche Index Numbers  03  00  I  I 11 T  32  I  22  33  1  33  The discrepancies between any two of the constant weight indexes ( a l l indexes having the same base period) can be explained by considering the indexes with weight periods t„ and t ^ . The changes between tp and i n the quantities and p r i c e s of the items that make up the aggregate index determine Hie d i f ference between I , and Ijj_ Although the price weights remained the same f o r periods t and t.,, the quantities between t g and t ^ , and between x„ and to w i l l have changed d i f f e r e n t l y than between tg ana t . Consequently the discrepancies between IJ_Q and I . , between l„ and I , and between I and I 3 I w i l l be d i f f e r e n t . For one period each of the L indexes w i l l have an index number that i s the same as the F index number. For the other periods the L and F index numbers w i l l be different and the discrepancies w i l l vary because i n these cases not only the quantities but also the prices of the items are l i a b l e to change. Q  2  n  l L  3 0  Where discrepancies e x i s t between index numbers which are based on different weight periods, the problem arises as to the selection of the period which provides a set of weights that would form a true aggregation of input. 12  Lok, op. c i t .  pp 38 - 39  15  Prices i n 19U6 were d i s t o r t e d by the e f f e c t s of World War I I but those i n 195U were affected by the Korean War and the post war i n f l a t i o n , and the removal of price controls. Hence 19U6 seemed to be as good a weight period as 195U f o r purposes of the comparisons to be made i n t h i s study.  16  DATA FOR EMPIRICAL STUDY  Source, Method of C o l l e c t i o n and Nature of Data  The empirical data of input and output used i n t h i s study were obtained from the information sheets, compiled from actual farm records taken i n i 9 U 6 and l95>U. The surveys included 2 0 8 farms I n 1 9 U 6 and 6 5 i n 195>U. The sampling technique used i n selecting the farms i s explained by the following extract taken from a report on the 19i+6 survey. ..Data were obtained from the dairy farmers by the survey method. Each farmer co-operating i n the study was personally interviewed by a f i e l d man from the University and every e f f o r t was made to obtain accurate information concerning receipts, expenses, inventories, crop acres and production. This information was recorded i n the f i e l d schedule designed f o r the purpose. Many of the farmers v i s i t e d kept either f u l l or p a r t i a l records r e l a t i v e to expenses and income. Such records were used when available, but when not, the co-operator was asked to make careful estimates of those items required t o complete the f i e l d s chedule. X  X  X  X  In selecting farms to be included i n t h i s study, a very d e f i n i t e attempt was made to choose farms which were representative f o r the areas being studied.1 The same sampling technique was used i n the 19%k survey. Dairy farms i n the Lower Fraser Valley, l i k e a l l other farms are 1  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, Dairy Farm Incomes and Cost of Producing Butterfat i n the Coastal Areas of B r i t i s h Columbia, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 19U7, p. 2.  17  heterogeneous i n regard t o the scale of operation, amounts of r e sources available and the l e v e l of managerial a b i l i t y . I t would seem then, that f o r any p a r t i c u l a r sample of farms to be studied, there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that the d i s t r i b u t i o n w i l l be skewed to either the l e f t or r i g h t depending on the p a r t i c u l a r variable used. Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow have pointed out that two aspects of the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a population are of p a r t i c u l a r importance i n t h e i r e f f e c t on sample design. The f i r s t i s whether or not the population i s h i g h l y skewed, i . e . whether or not a small proportion of the units i n the population account f o r a high proportion of an aggregate or average value being measured. The second aspect which needs t o be considered i s the geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of the population.2 Since the locus of the study i s the Lower Fraser Valley, the second point I.e. the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of the population, does not apply. However, with regard to the problem of skewness Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow have stated as follows! The sampling of farms, business establishments etc., to estimate magnitudes such as aggregate or average production, stock, sales, and employment, or absolute or r e l a t i v e changes i n such magnitude, or sampling f o r certain types o f data f o r i n d i v i d u a l s or f a m i l i e s , such as average or aggregate income where a few i n d i v i d u a l s or units contribute a considerable part of the t o t a l , c a l l s f o r emphasis on sampling procedures that have not been treated i n the preceeding sections of t h i s chapter. In these problems, f o r example, s t r a t i f i cation, and the use of s p e c i a l l i s t s assume esp e c i a l l y important and s i g n i f i c a n t roles.3 The method of sampling i . e . the method of selecting, or choosing the elementary units i n a sample, a c t u a l l y used i n the surveys might be Z  Hansen, M.H., W i l l i a m N. Hurwitz and William G. Madow, Sample Survey Methods and Theory, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York Chapman and H a i l , Limited, London, 1953, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 3, p. 93.  3  I b i d . , p. 102.  18  termed "purposive sampling" rather than random sampling, i n which one chooses a sample which i s "representative" with respect to certain known c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the population. An evaluation of purposive sampling and l i m i t a t i o n s of the data i s included l a t e r i n the study. Since t h i s study was l i m i t e d to measuring the effect of techn i c a l change i n milk production an a r b i t r a r y basis of selection was used to eliminate those farms i n which other sources of income were important. Those farms retained included a x l those that received 75 percent or more of t h e i r gross current receipts from the sale of milk. Using t h i s test 160 farms (77 percent of t o t a l sample) from the 1°U6 survey and $0 farms (77 percent) from the 195U survey were used i n t h i s analysis. Table I shows a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the farms retained i n the study, made on the basis of the percentage of gross current receipts received from dairy production. The purpose i s to note the d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n the l i m i t s set by the 75 percent t e s t .  TABLE I FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FARMS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF GROSS CURRENT RECEIPTS FROM DAIRY PRODUCTION, LOWER FRASER VALLEY, 191+6 AND 195U Class Intervals Percent  Year 19U6  No  195U No  75 - 7 9 80 - 8U  12 19  k k  85 -  25  6  37 67  k 32  160  50  89  90 - 9k 95 - 100 Total  19  Further to Table I , i n 19)46 k l farms, i . e . 25 percent of the  sample, received between 97 and 100 percent of t o t a l receipts  from dairy production. In 195U, 19 farms, i.e. 38 percent of the sample, were one hundred percent dairy producing u n i t s , and 30 farms i . e . 60 percent of the sample were i n the class i n t e r v a l 97 to 100 percent. I n both 19U6 and 195U 8 percent of the farms i n the samples received l e s s than 80 percent of t h e i r gross current receipts from milk production.  Sampling Problems and Limitations of Data  I t was mentioned e a r l i e r that there are some problems i n the nature of the sample which may impose certain l i m i t a t i o n s on the results derived from the measurements to be made i n t h i s study, Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow state that p r e c i s i o n of the results obtained from a sample survey depends not onxy on the size of the sample but also on the other parts of the sample design, i . e . on the way i n which the sample i s selected and the way i n which the estimates are prepared from the sample survey returns.^ They also recommend that f o r a population as skewed as the one under study s t r a t i f i e d random sampling may have been more adequate. The central idea i n selecting a simple random sample and subjecting i t to s t a t i s t i c a l treatment i s to estimate from the sample the population parameters so that inferences can be made about the population. With a population of size N, and from which the sample to be choosen i s size n h  Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow, op. c i t . , p. lw  20  the sample should be chosen such that each of the items "haS  the same  p r o b a b i l i t y of being included and that the p r o b a b i l i t y of s e l e c t i o n i s known, i . e . the p r o b a b i l i t y w i l l be - ~ . Of essence here i s the n f a c t that the surveyor gives up control as to which units are t o be included i n the sample because a sample chosen at random i s one i n which a i l the elements or u n i t s i n the population have the same probab i l i t y of selection. S t r a t i f i e d random sampling i s a special case of simple random sampling i n which the population i s divided into several s t r a t a , and then the p r i n c i p l e s of simple random sampling dm, applied t o each stratum separately. To derive gains from the use of s t r a t i f i e d random sampling, s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the population should result i n s t r a t a which are homogeneous with regard to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to be measured, and there should also be heterogeneity between s t r a t a . Hence the v i r t u e i n using s t r a t i f i c a t i o n f o r a population with highly variable characteristics l i e s i n the increase i n the r e l i a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s . However, the 1 9 U 6 and the 1 9 5 U surveys used a method i n which a d e f i n i t e attempt was made to choose farms that x^rere represent a t i v e of the area to be studied. These surveys made use of what appears t o be "purposive sampling" to choose a sample that i s represent a t i v e of the area with respect to the characteristics to be studied. I t i s obvious that the f i r s t l i m i t a t i o n i n t h i s method of sampling I s that a representative sample could only be as representative as the judgement of the person as to what a representative sample i s . In t h i s connection reference w i n again be made to Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow  21  who advise that r e l i a n c e upon relationships observed i n past experience may be p a r t i c u l a r l y dangerous i n times of important economic or s o c i a l change, yet i t i s i n such times that the need f o r r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s i s most v i t a l . 5 In defence of purposive sampling, however, i t may be stated that t h i s method i s usefux where I t i s necessary to Include a comparatively small number of units i n the sample. Compared with random selection purposive sampling tends to be biased, but the biases probably would be smaller f o r a sample of say one area selected purposively to represent B r i t i s h Columbia, than the random errors would be i n a measurable method that depended on a random selection of a single area. Where, however, the sample i s to include a considerable number of u n i t s , then the bia.ses of the purposively selected samples w i l l often be more serious than the random errors Introduced where random or chance selection rather than purposive selection i s used. The e f f i c i e n c y of any sample design must be considered In the l i g h t of the cost and time involved. Both of these factors undoubtedl y played a part i n the choice of the p a r t i c u l a r sample design. To s t r a t i f y the dairy farm population i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y would be expensive and time consuming. Depending on the p a r t i c u l a r population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to serve as the c r i t e r i o n f o r deciding on s t r a t a l i m i t s , l i s t s and statements would have to be taken c l e a r l y defining each unit with respect to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . This i s a time consuming and expensive task. 5  Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow, op. c i t . , p. 6.  22  Thus having regard to the time factor, the outlay and the other problems involved, those who assemble data may decide against s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and so s a c r i f i c e some r e l i a b i l i t y of the estimates. To terminate the defence of the method of sampling here used, reference w i l l be made to Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow who have stated s i c : I f i t i s important that r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s be obtained, and i f a f a i r i y heavy l o s s may be involved i f the wrong action or decision i s taken as a consequence of having depended on r e s u l t s the actuaxly turn out to have large errors that are considered t o l e r a b l e , then a method f o r which the r i s k of error can be controlled should be used i f possible. On the other hand, i f conditions are such that only f a i r l y rough estimates are required from the sample, and important decisions do not hinge on the r e s u l t s , then only a small sample i s required, and the price t o be paid for using a sample whose accuracy can be measured may not be j u s t i f i e d . Under these conditions I t may be that the biases of lowcost non random method w i l l be considerably l e s s important than the random errors r e s u l t ing from the small size of the sample, and then such methods may be expected to produce r e s u l t s of s u f f i c i e n t r e l i a b i l i t y more economically than would more rigorous a l t e r native methods.^  6 Hansen, Hurwitz, and Madow, Op. c i t . , p. 73.  23  RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION  The Data  Inputs were divided into seven categories, v i z ; - ( i ) feed purchased, ( 2 ) custom work h i r e d , ( 3 ) labour, (k) cost of operating farm machinery, repair and maintenance of machinery, equipment and buildings, ( 5 ) depreciation, ( 6 ) i n t e r e s t on investment, and  (7)  miscellaneous expenses. Feed Purchased - The outlay on t h i s input, which does not -1  Include feed grown on the farms, was determined by dividing the outl a y on purchased feeds by the index of feed prices ^  (J.9I46 =  100),  Custom Work Hired - This item includes the use of machinery and equipment and the labour to operate i t . I t was a small item which was d i f f i c u l t to include elsewhere. The outlay on t h i s input was  ob-  tained by d i v i d i n g the expenditure incurred by the index of farm wage r a t e s .  3  Labour - This Input includes the outlay on h i r e d labour, an In 1 9 5 U hay was purchased u s u a l l y only when a shortage of farmgrown hay was anticipated. Silage as such was not purchased but materials f o r making silage, such as grass, corn pulp, corn stalks and pea vines were purchased on about 2 5 percent of the farms. In a few cases wet Brewer's mash was purchased and fed as a substitute during part of the year. Vide: Campbell, R.H., Dairy Farm Organisation i n the Lower Fraser Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia, Economics D i v i s i o n , Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, June, 1957.  2  Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Prices and Price Indexes 1 9 U 9 - 1 9 5 2 . Queen's P r i n t e r and Controller of Stationery, Uttawa, 1 9 5 u . Volume 23, p. 9 5 .  3  Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services used by farmers, August 1 9 5 6 {1935-1939}, Queen's P r i n t e r and Cont r o l l e r of Stationery, Ottawa, 1 9 5 6 , Volume 1 2 , No. 3, p. 2 .  2k  imputed vaiue to operators' labour, and the value of family labour. The number of man-hours of labour per year was calculated at 3-L20 hours on the basis of a 26 day month and a lO hour day. The monthly wage rate f o r farm labour without board i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n 19U6 was |l05.56^ and $159.00 f o r 195lu^ The annual wage rate f o r farm labour was therefore $1,26? for l9U6 and $1,908 i n l9$k< The outlay on t h i s input was determined by multiplying the t o t a l number of man hours for the year by the annual wage rate and then dividing the current outlay so obtained by the index of farm wage rates. Cost of Operating Farm Machinery, Repair and Maintenance of Machinery, Equipment and Buildings - The value of t h i s input was determined by dividing the expenses incurred i n operating t r a c t o r s , trucks, automobiles, engines and combines by the index of prices of gasol i n e , o i l and grease,^ and adding to t h i s amount the outlay f o r maintenance and repair of farm buildings, machinery and equipment, which had been calculated by dividing the current outlay on these items by the p r i c e index of building material or the price index of farm machinery prices.7 Depreciation - Depreciation on buildings was computed at  k Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , The Canada Year Book  19I48 -  ±9k9,  King's P r i n t e r and Controller of Stationery, l$k9, p.678. 5  The Canada Year Book 1956, Queen's P r i n t e r and Controller of Stationery, 1956, p. 757.  6  Prices and Price Indexes,' X$k9 - 1952,  7  P r i c e Index Numbers of Commodities and Services used by farmers, August, 1956 U935-i939=lOO), op. c i t . ,  op. c i t . , p. 98.  25  5 percent of the replacement cost. Machinery and equipment were c l a s s i f i e d into 2 groups, v i z : ( i ) general equipment and ( 2 )  special  equipment. The l a t t e r included such items as automobiles, trucks and t r a c t o r s . The rate of depreciation on special equipment was 2 k percent of replacement cost while that on general equipment was 1 5 percent of the replacement cost. The expenditure on t h i s input was  de-  termined by dividing the outlay on buixdings by the price index of b u i l d i n g material, and then adding to t h i s amount the outlay on machinery and equipment which had been divided by the price index of farm machinery prices. Interest on investment - The outxay on t h i s input was obtained by taking 5 percent of the operator's average net worth, and then dividing t h i s amount by the Index of i n t e r e s t rates. Miscellaneous Expenses - This Input includes the value of such items as hardware and small t o o l s , taxes, telephone, e l e c t r i c i t y , sprays, germicides, disinfectants, a r t i f i c i a l insemination charges, and other miscellaneous expenditures not s p e c i f i c a x l y c l a s s i f i e d i n the other s i x categories. The value of this input was determined by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l outxay by the p r i c e index of hardware p r i c e s . Thus, the value of Input used on the i n d i v i d u a l farms i n 1 U 6 0  and 1 9 5 U could be added i n current dollars f o r the p a r t i c u l a r year, or the value of input could be found i n constant dollars according to equations k ( i n the case of 19k6) and  ( i n the case of 1 9 5 U ) °n pages  1 2 and l 3 respectively. By dividing output into the aggregate input, the r a t i o of input to output was determined. Another calculation of these r a t i o s was made by aggregating the results from a l l the farms, rather than the average of the ratios calculated f o r the i n d i v i d u a l farms.  26  Analysis  The f i r s t part of the analysis presents some of the gross changes i n the input - output r a t i o s , and i n the f a c t o r - f a c t o r r a t i o s which have occurred from 19I46 to ±95h* The best gross output data available are from the records of the Dairy Herd Improvement Association, which reveal the  changes i n  output per cow f o r the period l 9 i . i l - t o i 9 6 0 as shown i n Table I I . This table shows that, apart f o r the years 1 9 3 6 , 191+8-19k9  and I 9 5 I + - 1 9 5 6 , there has been a steady rate of increase i n the average production of k percent f a t corrected milk per cow over the period i9li|.-1960.  The t o t a l increase i n the average output per cow was 62.k  percent, and the average annual rate was 1 . 3 percent. The average output per cow i n i9k6 was 9 , 1 3 6 pounds of k per cent f a t corrected milk. This average was based on the performance of k98 cows. In i95>k, the average output per cow was 9,?6l. Within t h i s 8-year period the t o t a l increase i n the average output per cow was 6 . 8 percent, and the average annual rate was . 8 percent. In i 9 6 0 , the  the Dairy Herd Improvement Association showed that  average output per cow was 1 0 , 7 9 5 pounds of k percent corrected  milk. The average t o t a l Increase over the period i 9 5 > k - i 9 6 0 was 1 0 . 6 per cent, and the average annual rate was 1.8 percent. This study of the records of the Dairy Herd Improvement Association shows a 1,3 percent average annual rate of increase during the period 1 9 5 V - 1 9 6 0 i n contrast to a . 8 percent rate of annual Increase f o r the period  i9k6-l95k.  The dairy farms studied i n t h i s investigation showed that i n  27  TABLE I I ANNUAL PRODUCTION PER COW, DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, I9lA-l960 AND SAMPLE FARMS I9U6 AND ±95k PRODUCTION FOUR PERCENT MILK FAT FAT CORRECTED MILK Dairy Herd Sample Dairy Herd Sample Dairy Herd Sample Year Improvement Farms Improvement Farms Improvement Farms Association Association Association lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs I9ii|-i9i6  1930  1932-193U 1936 1938  19U0  19U5 19k6~i9U7 19k8  19A9  1950 1951 1952 1953  195k 1955  1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 Source:  6,563 8,oi5 8, n 3 7,857 7,959 8,265 8,606 8,627 8,588 8,623 9,088 9,363 9,382 9,538 9, U77 9,ii38 9,A98 9,759 10,330 10,576 10,600  268 337  3h3  6,757  7,782  338 31+7 362 37k 379 378 375 393 393 kQO U02 398 395 39U  302  322  kok U25  8,700*  k35 137  35U*  6,61*5 8,26i 8,390 8,213 8,389 8,736 9,052 9,136 9,105 9,07k 9,530 9,6k0 9,753 9,81x5 9,761 9,700 9,709 9,96k 10,507 io,755 10,795  7,233  7,9U3  8,790*  {&) For period l 9 l k - l 9 3 U - B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agricu_Lture Settlement Series C i r c u l a r No. 5, p. 8. (b) For period 1936-1960, Reports of the Dairy Herd Improvement Association, vide Appendix f>P-  * These figures are based on a l i n e a r projection of the trend observed i n the Dairy Herd Improvement Association records between the period 195k and i960.  28  l°k6 there were 2909 dairy cows i n the 160 sample farms. These cows produced 2I,OkO,797 pounds of k percent f a t corrected milk, and the average production per cow was 7,233 pounds. I n l95>k there were l 3 l 6 dairy cows which produced I0,k52,988 pounds of k percent f a t corrected milk and the average production per cow was 7,9k3 pounds. The totax increase i n output per cow over t h i s 8-year period was, therefore, 9.8 percent, and the average annual rate was X.2 percent. On the assumption that the annual rate of increase i n the case of the sampxe farms during the period x95k-l960, was the same as the Dairy Herd Improvement Association, a projection of t h i s trend would show an average output per cow of 8,790 pounds of k percent f a t corrected milk i n I960; and a t o t a l increase over the 6-year period of 1O.6 percent. The average annua.i production of k percent f a t corrected mixk per cow f o r I9k6 and 195k  a s  shown i n the records of the Dairy  Herd Improvement Association are higher than the averages f o r the sampxe farms, presumabxy because the production figures from the Dairy Herd Improvement Association are based on herds that do better than the whole population because of being on t e s t , and probabxy because the owners of these herds are better dairymen. I t i s noted, however, that the annual average rate of Increase i n the output per cow during the period 19k6-x95k was O.k percent greater In the case of the sample farms as compared to the records of the Dairy Herd Improvement Association. The reason f o r t h i s greater rate of increase i s that the l e v e l of average output per cow i n l9k6 and 195k i n the case of the records of the Dairy Herd Improvement Association was higher than the l e v e l of average f o r the sample farms.  29  I t i s expected that the rate of increase i n output w i l l be greater at lower l e v e l s than at higher l e v e l s of production. Table I I I shows the changes i n output singxe-factor r a t i o s which are based on the data from the sample farms studied i n t h i s investigation. This table shows that average p h y s i c a l p r o d u c t i v i t y of labour had increased by 59.2 percent over the period I9k6-195k, and that the average annual rate of Increase i n p r o d u c t i v i t y was 7.11percent.  TABLE I I I SINGLE FAGTOR RATIOS 191*6, 195k, AND I96i (PROJECTED) LOWER FRASER VALLEY Uhange 19k6-i95> percent  Output Single Factor Ratios  l?k6 lbs  k percent f a t corrected milk output per cow  7,233  7,9k3  9.8  8,610*  k percent f a t corrected milk output per man year  78,k23  12k, 886  59.2  189,577*  k percent f a t corrected milk output per farm acre  2,083  3,17k  52.k  k,6k0*  Butterfat output per cow  302  6.6  31*0*  322  Projected lbs  * These estimates are based on a l i n e a r projection of the trend observed between the period I9k6-195k.  30  I t i s indicated also that the average milk output per acre has undergone a 52.1+ percent increase over the period x.9h6-L95h', and that the average annual rate of increase i n milk output per acre was 6.6 percent. Table VI shows that feed purchased had changed very l i t t l e i n real terms during the period, and Table V indicates that the increase i n average acreage per farm had been rather i n s i g n i f i c a n t over the period. Hence the increased rate of change i n milk output per farm shows the e f f i c i e n c y of land use which was associated with increased output per cow during the period. The impact of technical progress had changed the amount of c a p i t a l used by the farm and i t s a l l o c a t i o n w i t h i n the farm. Table IV shows that the t o t a l c a p i t a l investment had more than doubled over the period l9k6 to ±951+#  TABLE TV DISTRIBUTION  50  O N i 6 0 D A I R I F A R M S I N l9l+6 A N D 1.95k, L O W E R F R A S E R V A L L E Y Average value Percent Average value Percent per farm of of per farm 19k6 Total Total 1951+  O F FARM  DAIRY  FARMS  Items of Capital Real Estate  CAPITAL  I N  $13,102  67  125,978  63  Livestock  3,808  19  8,321+  il+  Machinery and Equipment  1,899  10  5,883  20  76k  k  1,329  #19,576  100  3 100  Feed and supplies Total Capital  .  fi+1,1+78  This tabxe shows that the Investment i n r e a l estate, l i v e stock, feed and supplies had doubled approximately, whereas investment  31  i n machinery had t r i p l e d . Thus machinery and equipment constituted 10 percent of farm c a p i t a l i n 19k6, and 20 percent i n 195k. Real estate, l i v e s t o c k , feed and supplies declined by k, 5 and 1 percentage points respectively. These changes represent the c a p i t a l readjustment which was necessary to achieve the saving In labour input which was r e a l i z e d . In addition to the changes I n the output single-factor r a t i o s In the amount of c a p i t a l , and i n i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n within the farm, technological progress had also caused changes i n the size of the farms during the period under study. Table Y shows some of the changes which had occurred i n the size o f the average farms i n I9k6 to 195k. This table indicates that there had been an increase i n the output per farm of 59.0 percent during the period 19k6 to 195k. The annual average rate of increase i n output over t h i s 8 year period was therefore, 7«k percent. During the same period the t o t a l increase i n acreage per farm was k.8 percent and the annual average rate was .6 percent. Over the same period the size of the dairy herd had increased by kk percent and the annual average rate of increase was therefore 5.5 percent. These figures show that during the period investigated, associated with a .6 percent average annual increase i n the number of acres per farm plus an average annual increase i n the size of the milking herd of 5*5 percent, there was an average annual increase i n the output per farm of 7»k percent. This phenomenon i s i n d i c a t i v e of the p o t e n t i a l i t i e s that exist f o r possible expansion i n the output of the industry i n response to the future increases i n the demand f o r dairy products i n the Vancouver and surrounding d i s t r i c t s .  32  TABLE V MEASURES OF CHANGES WITHIN FARMS 191+6 TO 195U, LOWER FRASER VALLEY Criterion 19kS I95k p e r farm per farm k percent f a t corrected milk output (lbs)  131,505  209,060  Acres No.  63  66  Cows No.  18  26  Labour earnings  $  899  $ 1,61*0  Gross receipts  t 5,317  $ii,0l+5  Gross outlay  $ 3,915  $ 9,950  Changes i n the Quantity of Different Factors Used  Changes were also made i n the quantities of the various factors used. These are presented i n Table VI. In calculating these input-output r a t i o s , the base year i n the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s p r i c e indexes f o r the various inputs, was s h i f t e d from 1935-1939 to 19U6. This table shows that there had been r e a l savings i n factoruse to the extent of 20 percent between the years 191+6 and 195U. Based on the assumption that the rate of growth i n economic e f f i c i e n c y was the same i n l 9 5 V i 9 6 l as that i n 19I+6-195I+, the r e a l savings i n factoruse i n i 9 6 l has been approximated by a l i n e a r extrapolation of the trend which existed between 19I46 and 195U.  This projection shows a real  savings i n factor-use f o r the period 195U to 1961 of ±k percent, and,  33  TABLE VI INDEX NUMBERS (l°li6=100) OF INPUTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF k PERCENT FAT CORRECTED MILK MEASURED AT 19hS PRICES, LOWER FRASER VALLEY, 191*6, 19gk AND 1961 (PROJECTED) I9k6  INPUT  Input per cwt milk "~  1961  ±95k Index  Input per cwt milk  Index  §  Projected Input per Index cwt milk $  Feed purchased  •73*(.08)  100  .68*(.03)  93  .6k  81;  Custom work  .06*(.pC)k) 100  ,05*(D0k)  83  .Ok  67  l.k7*(.13J  100  .92*(.15)  62  .62  U2  Cost o f operating farm machinery, Rep a i r & maintenance of machinery equipment & buildings  .23*(.Ol)  100  .23*(.Ol)  100  .23  100  Depreciation  .70*(,06)  100  .k9*(.oi)  70  .36  51  Interest on Investment  .7lt*(.08)  100  .69*(.0U)  93  .65  88  Miscellaneous  .6k*(.Ok)  100  .59*(.02)  92  .55  86  L.5Y*(.i8)  100  3.65*(.l6)  80  3.01  66  Labour  Total *(  ) s i g n i f i e s that there i s 95% confidence that the true population mean f o r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s the number outside the bracket ± the number i n the bracket.  therefore, an annual average rate of decrease i n cost of 2.0 percent. This i s an estimate made by using the trends method. I n the absence of empirical data. In order to determine the r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s estimate, i t i s necessary that a survey be undertaken so that data be c o l l e c t e d and analysed, i n order t o obtain the true savings i n factor-use f o r 1961.  The most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t which these tables show i s that the input of most factors per hundredweight of k percent f a t corrected milk  3k  had decreased, but the input represented i n the cost of operating farm machinery, and i n the repair and maintenance of machinery, equipment and buixdings had remained the same. There had been a savings i n labour used to the extent of 3 8 percent between the years I9k6 to l 9 5 k . I f projected t o l ° 6 i ,  I t would mean a saving of 5 8 percent i n labour input.  The decreasing use of labour was made possible by the extent to which machinery and other forms o f c a p i t a l were substituted f o r labour as i n dicated i n Table I ? . A s i g n i f i c a n t change also had occurred i n the input represented by depreciation of buildings, machinery and equipment. Real savings in  the use of t h i s f a c t o r were 3 0 percent between the years I9k6 and  1 9 5 U , which i f projected to 1 9 6 1 would amount to 1*9 percent. S i g n i f i c a n t changes were also made i n the input represented by the cost f o r the use of c a p i t a l i n the Industry. Table IV Indicates that more than twice the amount of c a p i t a l per farm measured i n current d o l l a r s was used i n 1 9 5 1 * as compared to 191*6. There was an increase i n the r e a l porductivity of c a p i t a l i n 1 9 5 1 * over I9k6 which amounted to 7 percent. P r o j e c t i o n of t h i s trend to 1 9 6 1 would make t h i s sum 12 percent. There were savings i n the use of miscellaneous Items amounting to 8 percent over the period 191*6 to 1 9 5 1 * ,  which I f projected to 1 9 6 1  would show a savin: 3 of I k percent. Over the e n t i r e period 1 9 k 6 to 1 9 5 1 * ,  the r e a l savings i n a l l  factors used amounted to 2 0 percent. Projection of t h i s t r e n d to 1 9 6 1 gives r e a l savings of 3 k percent.  35 Changes i n the Relative Importance of Inputs  Technical change had also caused s h i f t s i n the r e l a t i v e amount of each input used, and a small s h i f t occurred i n the order of importance of inputs. Table ¥11 shows t o t a l inputs measured i n constant d o l l a r s and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n among the seven categories of inputs.  TABLE V I I RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF INPUTS, LOWER FRASER VALLEY, 19l|6 AND 195k Inputs  19U6 195k input Percent Input Percent I9U6 of 19k6 of (dollars) t o t a l (dollars) total 153,970  16.0  70,676  18.5  13,00k  1.3  5,092  1.3  309,251  32.1  9.6,267  25.3  k7,366  5x>  2k,5k9  6.k  Depreciation  lk6,802  15.2  50,963  13.3  Interest on Investment  156,602  16.2  72,200  18.9  Miscellaneous Expenses  13k, 930  Ik. 2  62,130  16.3  Total  961,925  100.0  381,877  100.0  Feed Purchased Custom work Labour Cost of operat i n g farm machinery and repair and maintenance of machinery, equipment and buildings  36  The data i n t h i s table indicate that the order of importance had not changed, except that i n 1 9 5 U miscellaneous expenses have displaced depreciation as the fourth most important input f a c t o r . However, changes had occurred i n the r e l a t i v e amount used of each input. The most s i g n i f i c a n t change had been made i n the case of labour, whose share as percent of t o t a l outlay had been decreased by 6.8 percentage points. Ihspite o f t h i s , however, labour had remained the most important single factor of production both as a percentage of t o t a l input and i n the amount of i t used per hundredweight of milk. Less s i g n i f i c a n t changes were made i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o t a l input among the other s i x factors. The proportion of t o t a l input that went to depreciation! had declined by 1.9 percentage points, whereas the share to interest on investment had r i s e n by 2 . 7 percentage points. The proportion that was a l l o t t e d to feed purchased i n creased by 2 . 5 percentage points, and the share to miscellaneous expenses had r i s e n by 2 . 1 percentage points. The proportion spent on the cost of operating farm machinery and repair and maintenance of machinery, equipment and buildings had been increased by l.A percentage points, while the share to custom work had remained unchanged. Although the inputs had a l l maintained t h e i r r e l a t i v e positions, but f o r the exception noted above, small changes were made i n the amounts of each factor used. The use of some factors had i n creased whereas the use of others had decreased. In summary, t h i s analysis has demonstrated that there was a decrease i n the input of most factors per hundredweight of milk, but  37  the input represented i n the cost of operating farm machinery and i n the r e p a i r and maintenance of machinery, equipment and buildings had remained unchanged. The most substantial decrease was i n the case of labour. The decrease i n the amount of labour used per hundredweight of milk had been induced by labour-saving innovations i n dairy farming, which involves the s u b s t i t u t i o n of c a p i t a l f o r labour. F i n a l l y , the analysis has shown that r e a l savings had been made i n input-output conversion i n milk production.  C onclusion  In t h i s investigation, an attempt was made to test and measure the rate at which t e c h n i c a l change has Increased the e f f i c i e n c y with which f a c t o r inputs are converted into output on dairy farms, and to measure also the changes i n the input structure of dairy farms i n the Lower Fraser Valley. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study indicate that s h i f t s have taken place i n the r e l a t i v e importance between labour and the other factors of production, and that associated with these s h i f t s had been an i n crease i n o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y between  l9l|6  and 19 5k of 2 0 percent,  which i f projected to 1 9 6 1 would amount to 3k percent. From t h i s s tudy indications are that the industry has the p o t e n t i a l i t i e s f o r increasing I t s output of milk, i n response to future increases i n demand, which growth In population would render necessary.  38  The annual r a t e of p o p u l a t i o n growth i n the  Vancouver  8 area  Q was i percent d u r i n g t h e 5 y e a r p e r i o d 1956  t o ±960 . The r e y  p o r t of the d y n e Commission had estimated an annual r a t e of popul a t i o n growth i n the Vancouver area o f 3 percent - between the y e a r s -1  0  i960 t o 1970. I t was noted e a r l i e r t h a t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an average annual i n c r e a s e o f .6 percent i n the number of acres p e r farm p l u s an a average annual i n c r e a s e of 5 - 5 percent i n the number o f d a i r y cows p e r farm and an i n c r e a s e i n the average annual output p e r cow o f  1.2  p e r c e n t , t h e r e was an average annual i n c r e a s e i n the m i l k output p e r farm o f 7 . U percent. Hence i f the p o p u l a t i o n grows at the r a t e of 3 percent p e r annum, w i t h an average annual r a t e of i n c r e a s e i n the annual output p e r farm of 7 . U p e r c e n t , the d a i r y i n d u s t r y i n the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y w i l l have v e r y l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n meeting the m i l k requirement of t h e i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n . However, i n t h i s process d a i r y farmers w i l l have the need t o continue making re-adjustments i n resource use. On the b a s i s of the t r e n d noted i n t h i s s t u d y , i t I s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e w i l l continue t o be a steady d e c l i n e i n l a b o u r i n p u t , both as percentage of t o t a l i n p u t and I n the amount used p e r hundredweight  of m i l k .  I n o r d e r to o f f s e t the d e c l i n e i n l a b o u r i n p u t , i t i s 8  This i n c l u d e s the c i t i e s of Hew Westminster, North Vancouver, Hort Coquitlam, f o r t Moody and Vancouver," the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Burnaby, Coquitlam, North Vancouver, Richmond, West Vancouver, and F r a s e r M i l l s , and the unorganized areas. I t does not i n c l u d e the u n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia t r a n s i e n t p o p u l a t i o n .  9  Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Year Book, i960, Queen's P r i n t e r and C o n t r o l l e r of S t a t i o n e r y , i960, pp 1 7 3 - 1 7 5 •  10  Ciyne, J.V., Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Royal Commission on M i l k , P r i n t e r to the Queen's Most E x c e l l e n t Majesty, V i c t o r i a , 1955, p. l8k.  39  anticipated that there w i l l be an increase i n the total amount of capital used i n the form of machinery and equipment, livestock, and to a lesser degree i n real estate. There need hardly be an appreciable increase i n t o t a l acreage per farm. Intensification of land use, i r r i g a t i o n and more e f f i c i e n t f e r t i l i z e r application and rotational system would render unnecessary a substantial increase i n acreage. It i s expected that the average size of the herd w i l l increase, and hence the milk output per farm w i l l continue to r i s e . With better management, there w i l l probably continue to be also a steady increase i n the output per cow which could reach 10,000 to 12,000 pounds of milk per cow by 1970. Along with these re-adjustments in resource use, and the estimated increases i n the physical productivity of labour and c a p i t a l , i t i s anticipated that the industry w i l l effect further real savings i n the use of factor inputs.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A.  BOOKS  Ajves, C. E., Theory of Economic Progress, University of North Carolina rress, Chapel H i l l , ±9kk> Boulding, K.E.,  Inc.,  The Economics of Peace, New l o r k , Prentice H a l l ,  191+5.  George, H., Progress and Poverty, New York, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, l95U. Hansen, H.H., et a l . , Sample Survey Methods and Theory, Volumes I and I I New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London, Chapman & H a l l , Limited, i 9 6 0 . Heady, E.O., Economics of A g r i c u l t u r a l Production and Resource Use, Engiewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, Prentice H a l l Inc., 1 9 5 7 . Hicks, J.R., " D i s t r i b u t i o n and Economic Progress',' The Theory of Wages, New York, Peter Smith, 1914-8, pp. U.2-13U. Leftwich, R.H., The Price System and Resource A l l o c a t i o n , New York, Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1 9 5 8 . Malthas, J.R., An Essay on the P r i n c i p l e s of Population, New York, E.P.j Dutton & Co., Book 2, n.d. Migheil, R.L., and Black, J.D., Interregional Competition i n Agriculture, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Havard University press, 1 9 5 i . Mil,  J.S., P r i n c i p l e s of P o l i t i c a l Economy, Volume 1 1 , D. Appleton and Company, i 9 0 9 .  New York,  Schultz, T.W., Agriculture i n an Unstable Economy, New York, Mac Graw H i l l Book Company, Inc., 191)5. Schultz, T.W.,  The Economic Organisation of Agriculture, New York,  Wheeler, R.G., and Black, J.D., Planning f o r Successful Dairying in New England, Cambridge, Massashusetts, Havard University Press, 1 9 5 5 .  Ill  B.  PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS  Anderson, ¥.J., Farm Organisation and Labour Earnings off Whole Milk Producers i n the Lover Fraser Vaxxey, i°U6, Vancouver, University of B r i t i s h Coxumbia, 191+0 . 1  Campbell, R.H., Dairy Farm Organisation i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Ottawa, Economics D i v i s i o n , Marketing Service, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1957. Canada,  Dominion of S t a t i s t i c s (D.B.S.), The Canada Year Book 19ii.6-I9l4.9, Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r and Controxler of Stationery, 191*9. > The Canada Year Book 1956, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r and Controller of Stationery, 1957. > Price and Price Indexes, 19U9-1952, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r and C o n t r o l l e r of Stationery, 195U. > PPJce Index Numbers of Commodities and Services used by FTrmers, August 1956 (1935-39=100), Volume 12, No. 3, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r and Controller of Stationery,1956.  —'  > 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 , January March, 195U, Ottawa, Queen*s"Printer and Controller of Stationery, 195U. > 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 , January March, "1956. Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r and Controller of S tationery, x956. , The Canada Year Book I960, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r and Controller of Stationery, i960.  Clyne,  J.V., Report of B r i t i s h Columbia Royal Commission on Milk, 195^-1955, V i c t o r i a , P r i n t e r to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, 1955.  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, Dairy Farm Incomes and Cost of Producing Butterfat i n the Coastal Areas of B r i t i s h * Columbia, Vancouver, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 191+7. Hare,  H.R., "Dairy Farm Survey", B r i t i s h Columbia Agriculture B u l l e t i n No. 91, V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture, l 9 2 l .  U2  Kaidor, Nicholas, "A case Against Technical Progress?" Economica Volume XII, Numbers 3 5 ~ 3 6 , London, London School of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, 1932. Lok, SAH., An Enquiry into the Relationship between changes i n Overaid-Productivity and Real Net Return Per Farm and between changes i n Total Output and Real Gross Return, Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 5 7 , Ottawa, Economics D i v i s i o n , Canadian Department of Agriculture, October, 1 9 6 1 . Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of B r i t i s h Columbia, Land for Farming, New Westminister, March, i 9 o 2 . Menzie, E.L., et a l . , Dairy Farm Management Manual, Vancouver, 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 r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture, 1 9 5 7 . Robinson, J . , "The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Inventions" i n American Economic Association^,' Readings i n the Theory of Income D i s t r i b u t i o n , No. 9. 191+8'.  C.  PERIODICALS  Hopkins, J.A., "Technological Development A f f e c t i n g Farm Organisat i o n " , Journa.1 of Farm Economics, The American Farm Economics Association, XXI, (February 1 9 U 9 ) , 1 6 5 . Schultz, T.W., "Changes i n Economic Structure affecting Agriculture Journal of Farm Economics, The American Farm Economics Association, XXVIII'(February 1 9 U 6 ) , 1 9 .  k3  A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X  DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION AND ITS FARMS  The locus f o r t h i s study i s the Lower Fraser Valley, which constitutes the delta of the Fraser River, and extends from Hope to the P a c i f i c Ocean i n an east west d i r e c t i o n . I t Is bounded on the north by the Coastal Mountains and on the south by the State of Washington. The p o l i t i c a l units include the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Delta, Surrey, Sumas, Chilliwack, Richmond, Langley and Matsqui to the south of the r i v e r and P i t t Meadows, Mission, Nicomen, Dewdney, Kent, Maple Ridge and Coquitlam to the north. As a farming area, the Lower Fraser V a l l e y , i s set apart from the remainder of the country by topography, s o i l , climate, h i s tory and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n regard to i t s location with respect to large concentrations of populations. There are approximately 700,000 acres of land i n the region . 1  About 320,000 acres of t h i s amount are cultivated, 200,000 acres of which are i n hay and pasture. Elevation In the region ranges generally from sea-level to some U00 feet. In the v i c i n i t y of Chilliwack and Agassiz, there exist some rock h i l l s , which vary i n height to about 1,000 1  feet. The s o i l s  B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture, Settlement Services C i r c u l a r No. 5, The Fraser Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada, Don McDairinio, P r i n t e r to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, 1953.  16  of the Valley were mapped and c l a s s i f i e d by K e l l e y and Spilsbury^ i n 1939. Much of the upland s o i l i s suitable f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes, but the cost of clearing has impeded i t s adoption f o r farming. The s o i l s of the recent delta, hox^ever are fine textured and f e r t i l e . Several factors influence the climate of the area. The most important ones are the mountains to the north, and the modifying effect of the P a c i f i c Ocean. Comparatively uniform temperatures, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a maritime climate, p r e v a i l throughout the year. 'The difference between the average temperature of the coldest month and the warmest month i s small. The average f o r the coldest'month, January, i s 36°F., and f o r the warmest month, July, 63°F. This gives a v a r i a t i o n of 27°. I n d u s t r i a l expansion i n the c i t i e s has been associated with the rapid urbanisation of some parts of the area. The growth of the c i t i e s has brought a corresponding growth i n the demand f o r farm products. The agriculture of the region has responded by increasing the production of f l u i d milk and other bulky perishable products, which can be produced to advantage i n areas r e l a t i v e l y close to the market. Livestock production primarily dairy and poultry constitutes the source o f over 80 percent of the farm cash income i n the area. The population of the Fraser V a l l e y i n 1956 was estimated to be 750,000 persons comprising 57 percent to 60 percent of the p r o v i n c i a l t o t a l . About 7 percent of these people l i v e d on 9,900 farms, which comprised 38 percent of a l l the farms i n the Province. 2 Kelley, C.C., and Spilsbury, R.H., S o i l Survey of the Lower Fraser Valley, Dominion Department of figricuiture Technical B u l l e t i n 20, 1939.  U6  I t has also been estimated that there were 110,000 head of c a t t l e mostly dairy c a t t l e . The estimated number of milk cows was 56,000, producing upwards of kOO,000,000 pounds of milk annually, about h$ percent of which i s sold as f l u i d milk i n the Vancouver market. About 66 percent of the P r o v i n c i a l t o t a l dairy output i s produced i n the Lower Fraser Valley. The output i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y was valued at $2.5  million.  With regard to dairy-herd improvement work i n the Fraser V a l l e y there are two major agencies which are available to d a i r y farmers v i z : (1) the Dominion Record of Performance f o r pure-bred registered dairy cows, and (2) the Dairy Herd Improvement Association. In any part of the V a l l e y where dairy farming i s engaged i n to any considerable extent, one of these agencies serves the dairy farmers. Tabxe I I indicates that through the f a c i l i t i e s of the Dairy Herd Improvement Association, and with better care and management, dairymen have been successful i n improving the performance of t h e i r herds.  hi  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VICTORIA November 9, 1961 Mr. Hugh V. Walker, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, c/o Faculty of Agriculture, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, VANCOUVER 8, B.C. Dear Mr. Walker: Replying to your request f o r D.H.I.A. annual production figures we are sending you our f u l l annual report f o r the past f i v e years. Unfortunately, these reports f o r previous years are not now available, however, here b r i e f l y are the figures f o r the other years requested: Year 19U5 19k6) 19k7) 19k8 19U9 1950 1951 1952 1953 195k 1955  Completed Periods  l b s Milk  Fat$  l b s . Fat  5,179  8,606  k.3k  31k  11,527  8,627 8,588 8,623 9,088 9,363 9,382 9,538  k.39 k.kO k.35 k.32 k.26 k.26 k.2l k.20 k.l8  379  6,358 6,6k5 7,309 7,k32 8,086 9,530 n,,333 11,278  9,1+77  9,k38  378 375 393 393 kOO k02 398 395  Trusting t h i s Is the information you require. Yours sincerely, H. Johnson (sgd) H. Johnson, Inspector. D. H. I . Services. HJ/djb Enclosures:  5  1+8  BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Livestock Branch) DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT SERVICES ANNUAL SUMMARIZED REPORT FOR 1956 Average ACTUAL production of a l l Dairy Herd Improvement Association Records completed during the year (or which milked 180 days or over) Number of Milking Periods 11,918  Milk l b s  Fat %  9,1*98  U.15  Fat l b s 39k  A f u r t h e r increase of 6kO completed milking periods took place during 1956. This increase of 5.7$ combined with severe Winter k i l l i n g of hay and pasture grasses and exceptionally dry spring weather, contained the p o t e n t i a l for a sharp drop i n average production. However, 1955 production was maintained and, given average weather conditions during the following year, a d e f i n i t e r i s e should take place during 1957. The following figures i l l u s t r a t e the progress that has been made during the past 20 years. 19U6 1936  8627 7857  k.39 k.30  319 338  Of a l l cows at present on test i n D.H.I. Association, 23.2% are purebreds. Their average b u t t e r f a t production i s k05. BREED AVERAGES FOR 1955 % of Total D.H.I, records M i l k lbs Fat % k.2 17.k 1+8.6 19.3 10.5  Ayrshire Guernsey Hoistein Jersey Unclassified (Crossbreds etc)  Fat l b s  l+.H  31+8 388  5.10  383  1+.33  387  8,1+65 8,139 10,987 7,508  k.77 3.69  8,931  U05  100.0 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the number of animals with a l i f e - t i m e production of a minimum of a ton of b u t t e r f a t i s s t e a d i l y r i s i n g , f o r t h i s i s an important factor i n the economical operation of a herd of dairy cows. 191+0  1+17 cows: I9k6 1955  1*98 cows: 1953 — 9l+8 cows. 1312 cows: 1956 1379 cows.  h9  BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Livestock Branch) HAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT SERVICES ANNUAL SUMMARIZED REPORT FOR 1957 Average ACTUAL Production of a l l Dairy Herd Improvement Association Records completed during the year (or which milked 180 days or over) Number of milking periods  Milk l b s  12,01k  9,759  Fat % k.lk  Fat l b s kOh  These f i g u r e s represent a new high for both completed periods and production i n herds on D.H.I, test i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The ten pounds of f a t increase means that approximately 500 dairymen had earnings of around $90,000 more than the cost of the feed needed to secure t h i s increase over l a s t year.. The following figures i l l u s t r a t e the progress that has been made during the past 20 years. 19k6 1936  8,627 7,857  h.39 k.30  379 338  Of a l l cows at present on test i n D.H.I. Associations, 22.7% are purebreds. Their average b u t t e r f a t production i s k l 8 l b s . BREED JiVERAGES FOR 1955 % of Total D.H.I. Records  Milk l b s  Fat %  3.9 l6.2 51.6 18.7 9.6  8,700 8,291 H,l65 7,6k7  k.Ll k.79 3.72 5.1U  Ayrshire Guernsey Holstein Jersey Unclassified (Crossbreds etc.)  F t lbs a  358 397 Li5 393  100.0 I t i s interesting to note that the number of anlrmls with a l i f e - t i m e production of a minimum of a ton of b u t t e r f a t i s steadily r i s i n g , f o r t h i s i s an important factor i n the economical operation of a herd of dairy cows. 19k0 — kl7 cows:  I9k6 — k98 cows:  1955 — 1312 cows:  1957 — lkk8 cows  50  BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Livestock Branch) DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT SERVICES ANNUAL SUMMARIZED REPORT FOR  1958.  Average ACTUAL Production of a i l Dairy Herd Improvement Association Records completed during the year (or which milked 180 days or over) Number of milking periods  Milk l b s  13,075  10,330  Fat %  F t lbs  l+.il  1+25  a  These figures represent a new high f o r both completed periods and production i n herds on D.H.I, test i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The following figures I l l u s t r a t e the progress that has been made during the past 20 years. 191+8 1938  8,627 7,959  U.39 1+.36  379 31+7  23.0 percent of the cows on t e s t i n D.H.I. Associations are purebreds. Their average butterfat production i s k33 l b s . BREED AVERAGES FOR % of Total D.H.I. Records  Milk l b s  3.2 Ayrshire 9,192 8,870 15.0 Guernsey 11,692 51+.5 Holstein 7,936 17.1 Jersey 10.2 U n c l a s s i f i e d (Cros sbreds etc) 9,581+  1958 Fat % lull  F t lbs a  378  U.75  L2l  iu36  1+18  3.73 5.11+  U36 108  100.0  The number of animals with a l i f e - t i m e production of a minimum of a ton of butterfat i s steadily r i s i n g . This i s an important factor i n the economical operation of a herd of dairy cows. 191+0 —  1AL7 cows:  191+6 —  1+98 cows:  1955 1958  — 1312 — 1621  cows: cows  51 BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Livestock Branch) DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT SER,VICES ANNUAL SUMMARIZED REPORT FOR 1959 Average ACTUAL Production of a l l Dairy herd Improvement Association Records completed during the year (which milked i80 days or over). Number of M i l k i n g periods 111,286  Milk l b s 10,576  Fat %  Fat l b s  k . l l 135  These figures represent a new high f o r both completed periods and production i n herds on D.H.I, t e s t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The increase i n milking periods was i , 2 l l a.nd i n production, 2l|6 pounds of milk and 10 pounds of b u t t e r f a t . Butterfat percentage remained constant. The following figures I l l u s t r a t e the progress that has been made during the past 20 years. Milk l b s . Fat % Fat l b s 19U9 8,623 k.35 375 1939 8,292 k.37 363 Pure bred c a t t l e on D.H.I, t e s t have axways outproduced grades u n t i l t h i s year. The foxxowing table could w e l l cause a re-examination of some breeding p o l i c i e s . 3,139 pure breds (22.0$ of t o t a l ) produced an average of k3k l b s of B.F. i l , l l l 7 grades (78.0$ of t o t a l ) produced an average of 1*35 l b s of B.F. BREED AVERAGES FOR 1959 % of t o t a l D.H.I Records TT95TO 3.2 i5.o 5k. 5 17.1 10.2  3.3 13.9 58.0 15.5 9.3  M i l k l b s Fat % Fat lbs  Ayrshire 9,k07 8,920 Guernsey HolsteM ll,87k Jersey 7,833 Unclassified (cross breds etc) 9,937  100.0  (1958) Fat l b s  k.ll k.82 3.76 5.17  387 k30 kk7 k05  378 1x21 k36 k08  k.ko  k37  kl8  (1958) figures shown f o r comparison  The number of animals with a l i f e - t i m e production of a minimum of a ton of butterfat i s steadily r i s i n g . This i s an important factor i n the economical operation of a herd of dairy cows. 19k0 —  ki7 cows:  1958 ~ 1,621 cows:  1959 — 1,780 cows:  52  BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~ (Livestock Branch") DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT SERVICES ANNUAL SUMMARIZED REPORT FORlJEO Average ACTUAL production of a l l Dairy Herd Improvement Association records completed during the year (or which milked l80 days or over). Number of milking periods Ik,665  l b s Milk  Fat %  10,600  k.12  l b s . Fat k37  These figures again represent a new high f o r both completed periods and production i n herds on D.H.I, t e s t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The following figures i l l u s t r a t e the progress that has been made during the past 30 years. 1950 19k0 1930  8,606 8,265 8,015  h.3k% k.38$  37k 362 337  20.6 percent of the cows on t e s t i n D.H.I. Associations t h i s year were purebreds. Their average b u t t e r f a t production was k3l pounds. BREED AVERAGES FOR i960 % of t o t a l D.H.I, records 3.2 13.3 60.7 Ik.2 8.6  Ayrshire Guernsey Hoistein Jersey Unclassified (Crossbreds etc.)  l b s . Milk 9,321 8,918 H,735 7,86k  Fat % k.13 k.8k 3.80 5.21  385 k31 kk6 klO  10,l8l  k.35  kk3  l b s . Fat  The number of animals with a l i f e - t i m e production of a minimum of a ton of butterfat i s s t e a d i l y r i s i n g . This i s an important factor i n the economical operation of a herd of dairy cows. 19kO  —  kl7 cows:  1958  ~  1,621  cows:  i960 — 2,007 cows:  

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.831.1-0107007/manifest

Comment

Related Items