The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO AGRICULTURAL LETTER February 1, 1952 The market movement of high moisture corn has let up a bit with some trade interests interpreting this as an indication that the peak has passed. There is some question, however, whether this is true. Warm weather may well bring heavy marketings and temporary price weakness. Fa.rm management specialists recommend that corn which will not keep into the summer should be marketed promptly so as to avoid further spoilage and possibly glutted markets later. Feeding livestock is still the best use for soft corn, according to results of experimental work conducted at Midwest colleges. A report from the South Dakota Station indicates that high moisture corn is utilized best by matpre cattle, followed in order by 1e.mbs , pigs, and steer calves. The corn was also used successfully in dairy and poultry rations. The feeding value, of course, is less than for he.rd corn due to the higher moisture content . Total grain stocks are generally below those of a year ago, as indicated by recent USDA estimates (amounts in million bushels): January 1 1 1952 January 1 1 1951 Per Cent Change Wheat 856 1,002 -14 Rye 16 18 -11 Corn 2,384 2,611 -9 Oats 910 941 -3 Barley 244 203 -17 Sorghum grain 149 213 -30 Soybeans 220 232 -5 Flaxseed 28 -28 39 ............... ................. ................ ................ .............. ....... ............ ............ Wheat exports continue at a high level; a total of 213 million bushels was shipped 1951. This was nearly double the year-ago volume. Exports for the full crop year may total 400 million bushels . Prospects for a large 1952 production of winter wheat, however, _indicate that adequate supplies will be available, and have resulted in a step-up in acreage goals for feed grains. The Commodity Credit Corporation had about 2 billion dollars invested in price support loans and inventories on December 31, 1951. Farmers put more wheat and flaxseed but less corn and other grains under price support in the last half of 1951 than in the corresponding period a year ago-a total of 257 million bushels of grain and related commodities, I compared with 307 million. A record crop of turkeys is in prospect for 1952, 11 per cent more than last year. The USDA estimate, based on reports of growers' plans, is for more than 59 million birds, half again as many as the 1944-48 average. in the last half of Farm product prices decreased 2 per cent from mid-December to mid-January, reflectprices for eggs, turkeys, cotton, meat animals, and citrus fruits. Prices averaged 105 per cent of parity, compared with 107 a month earlier and 110 a year ago. Details I are reported on the back of this Letter. Two useful publications recently released are Conservation Problems and Achieve• ~ts on Selected Midwestern Farms (all Midwest agricultural colleges) and Better Crops and ~omes from Sandy Soils (University of 'Wisconsin). The latter points out that more than ~ne-fifth of Wisconsin's land area is of this type and that "crop yields on this land can e doubled and trebled through better management of soil, crops, and water." Iing lower 129 lo· for FRASER Digitized https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (over) Ernest T . Baughman Agricultural Economist Research Department Farm Product Prices January 15, 1952 Commodity Wheat, per bu. . ................ . Rye, per bu. . .................. . Corn, per bu . . ................. . Oats, per bu. . ................. . Barley, per bu . . ............... . Sorghum grains, per cwt ........ . Hay, all baled, per ton ........ . Cotton, per lb. . ............... . Soybeans, per bu. . ............. . Flaxseed, per bu . . ............. . Petatoes , per bu . . ............. . Beans, dry edible, per cwt ..... . Apples, per bu ................. . Hogs, per cwt . . ................ . Beef cattle, per cwt ........... . Veel calves, per cwt ........... . Sheep, per cwt . . ............... . Lambs, per c'W't . . ............... . Butterfat, in cream, per lb .... . Milk, wholes~le, per cwt ....... . Chickens, live, per lb ......... . Turkeys, live, per lb .......... . Eggs, per doz. . ................ . Wool, per lb. . ................. . SOURCE: Prices Received by Farmers $2.20 1.71 1.68 0.94 1.42 2.54 25.50 0.39 2.78 4.02 2.07 7.94 2.33 17.40 27.20 31.50 13.40 28.20 0.80 5.16 0.25 0.37 o.41 Effective Parity Price Price as Percentage of Parity $2.45 1.69 90 1.78 0.94 1.45 2.85 94 99 98 89 0.34 113 2.87 4.74 1.73 9.18 2.84 21.50 21.10 23.70 23.20 0.77 4.82 0.31 120 86 82 81 129 133 122 100 101 82 81 0.51 0.61 0.60 102 Buree.u of Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER