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 CfflCAGO AGRICULTURAL LETTER March 28, 1952 Tlie decline in reserve stocks of feed grains will not be halted by 1952 harvests unless production is greater than indicated by farmers' March 1 planting intentions. Tot al acreage planted to feed grains may be 1-1/2 million less than in 1951. With reasonably good yields, this acreage would turn out about 121 million tons of feed grains, compared with 114 million last year. However, the USDA goal is for a production of 128 mill ion. Estimated use in the current feeding season is 130 million. The situation is considered serious by the USDA. Secretary Brannan has urged his f ield staff to do everything possible to encourage farmers to expand plantings of feed grains. He has declared that "unless more corn and other feed grains are planted ... we will face a serious situation in our feed grain supplies" which may make it impossible to "maintain the production of meat, eggs, and milk ... needed by our increasing population in a high employment period." The small reduction indicated in acreage of feed grains is due in part to the l imited abandonment of winter wheat this year, which land is commonly reseeded to grain sorghum. Additional factors are the large acreages of pasture and hay maintained for the expanded number of beef cattle and the increased acreage of oats, much of which is used as a nurse crop for the establishment of hay and pasture seedings. Labor shortages and declining commodity prices are important also. However, very little land will be idle. Planting intentions for important crops in District states, as a per cent of 1951 planted acres, are as follows: Illinois ........ Indiana ......... Iowa ............ Michigan ........ Wisconsin ....... Corn Oats Barlel 102 102 102 100 101 100 100 108 101 101 80 105 58 81 80 soibeans 96 96 93 94 90 Hay 99 101 93 97 102 Top hogs dropped below $17.00 on the Chicago market this week, the lowest since April 1950. It still looks like a strong market this summer and fall but little improvement is in prospect until the major portion of the 1951 fall pig crop is marketed. The usual February-March price rise failed to occur this year as marketings from the spring pig crop continued in large volume until hogs from the fall crop started arriving. The early spring pig crop is reduced sharply in Iowa this year. Farmers indicated last fall that they planned an 8 per cent cutback. i.n this state. But farrowings in December through February were 25 per cent below a year earlier. This does not necessarily indicate such a large over-all reduction as only 7.9 per cent of the total spring crop 1m been farrowed in this period in recent years. Nevertheless, if sharply reduced early farr owings are common throughout the western corn belt, where soft corn has been a serious problem, it will provide additional strength to the August and September hog market. In this connection, some professional farm managers recommend purchase of "bargain" feeder pigs and the corn needed to finish them for the late summer market. No. 137 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Ernest T. Baughman Agricultural Economist Research Department F A RM BUSINE SS C O N D I T I O N S, ANNUAL 19 40 - 19 5 1 SUMMARY CALENDAR ITEMS YEARS 195 1 * • 1940 194"i 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 (dol . per bu . ) . . . . . . . . (dol . per _bu . ~. . . . . .. . (dol . per bu . . ....... (dol . per bu . ) , , . . . . . (dol. per cwt. ) . . . . . , , (dol. per cwt.) , .. . . . . (dol. per cwt, ) . . . . . .. (dol. per lb. ) . . .. . .... (dol . per lb.) . . . . . . . .. (dol. per doz . ) . . . . . (dol. per head) . (dol . per m>nth without board) . . . . . (dol. earned per week) 93 97 81 98 100 .92 . 63 .38 1.06 5.80 10. 48 1. 84 . 29 .13 . 18 61 192 147 109 131 128 1. 73 1.16 .72 2. 18 14.7:S 16. 00 3. 19 .50 .26 .38 111 218 161 113 150 139 1.92 1. 50 .82 3.09 l ~.42 19. 32 3.96 .64 .28 ;38 131 256 186 115 189 159 2.6 5 2.05 1.03 3.37 25_2·1 26.22 4.2 6 .72 . 27 .45 151 265 202 110 205 171 2.43 2.03 1.02 3.36 23.27 30 .96 4.87 .80 .31 .47 185 232 195 100 192 170 2.14 1.31 .72 2. 3-9 18.62 26.07 3.94 .62 .26 .45 183 238 199 100 201 172 2.26 1.48 .85 2. 71 18.39 29.68 3.88 .62 . 36 198 281 219 107 223 186 2.46 1.79 , 94 3.05 20.74 35.96 4.61 .70 .26 .48 246 37.50 25.20 101.00 44. 39 lOR .00 43.82 117.00 49.97 122.00 54.14 1,2 1.00 54 .92 121.00 59.33 135.00 M .93 PRODUCTION: Industrial . . , . . . . . .. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . (1935- 39=100) , , . , , , .. Farm rrarketings .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(1935- 39=-100) . 125 112 203 140 170 141 187 146 192 142 176 151 200 142 219 148 78.3 171.9 177 .7 191.0 209.5 206. l 223.2 251.2 9. l 4.3 22.2 12 .2 25.3 14. l 30. l 17. l 30.5 15.7 28.2 13.5 29. l 12.7 33.1 14.9 10.8 44.2 11. l 46.9 11.2 49.7 11. l 51.4 10.8 50.7 10.4 52.5 10.0 53.9 (22.4) (37.6) 46.6 48.7 47.8 48.3 51.8 54.2 (9.4~ (5.0 45 (1 _5.8} (7.3) 278 19.4 11.3 259 23.7 14.7 257 25.6 15.6 253 24 . 9 13.9 257 31. l 17.8 257 35.5 21.6 259 PRICES: Received by farmers .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paid by farrrers . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Parity price ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wholesale, all commodities . . . . . . . . . . . .. Paid by consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wheat, No . 2 hard winter. Chicago . . . . . . . . Corn, No·. 3 yellow, Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . Oats, No,. 3 wnte, Chicago . .. . . . . . . . . . Soybeans, No . 2 yellow, Chicago . . . . . . . . . Hogs, barrows and gilts, Chicaao .. . . . . . . Beef steers, choice ~rode, Chicago 1 ' . . . . . . Milk, wholesale, U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Butterfat, local markets, U. S. . . . . . . . . . . . .... Chickens, local markets, U.S. ..... Eggs, local markets, U. S. . . . .. . . Milk cows, U. S. . . .. . . . Farm labor, U. S,2 . . . ... Factory labor, U. S. ... . .. .. .. .. . . . . ... . .. . . ( 1935- ·39 "'100) (1935- 39-=100) ( 191 0 - 14 "' l 00) (1935- 39 :100) (1935- 39 =100) ..... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ••• 0 ..... :23 INCOME PAYMENTS: Total . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .(bil . of dol . ) . . . . . • . ·Farm: Cash .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (bil . of dol.) . . . . . . Net .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. (bil . of dol.) . . . . . . .. . .. . EMPLOYMENT: 11.6 35.5 Farm . , . . . , . , . . . , . , . . . , . . . .. . , . ,_(mi II ions) .. . . . . . . . Nonagricultural . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . (millions) . . . . . . . . . FINANCIAL: Demand deposit~ weekly reporting memb~r banks a3 ·,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loans, weekly reporting member banks: Total a). ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Commercial, industrial,and agricultu-al a 3 U. S. Government total gross direct debt a . . (bil . of dol . ) . . . . . . . ... (bil. of dol . ) . . . . . . . . . (bil . of dol . ) . . . . . . . . . (bi I. of dol.) . . . . . . . . . a December . 1 Reported as ''good'' prior to January 1951 , 2 Data for 1948 and following years shows "dollars per month with house," 3 Data in parenthesis is far "101 cities" and is not directly comparable with data for 1946-49 for "leading cities , " * Preliminary estimates , Compiled from official sources by the Research Departrrent, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis