332 READINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



of fruits and nuts. The quantity of small fruits decreased during 

 the decade 7.9 per cent, while the value increased 19.8 per cent. 

 The quantity of orchard fruits increased 1,8 per cent, while the 

 value increased 68.2 per cent. Grapes increased 97.6 per cent in 

 quantity but only 56.3 per cent in value. This item, however, 

 needs explanation before it can be accepted. At the census of 

 1900 the farmers were instructed to report the value of grapes in 

 their natural form whenever they were disposed of in that form ; 

 but whenever they were disposed of in the form of dried grapes 

 or raisins, or in the form of wine or grape juice, the reported value 

 should be the value of the finished product rather than of the raw 

 material. At the census of 19 10 the farmers were instructed to 

 report in all cases the value of the grapes in their original form. 

 The increase in the quantity of nuts produced was 55.7 per cent, 

 whereas the increase in tTie value was 128.1 per cent. 



Even if we went no further than this, there could no longer be 

 doubt that the extraordinary increase in the total value of farm 

 crops between 1899 and 1909 is attributable to higher prices 

 rather than to larger quantities of the individual kinds of farm 

 products. I do not wish, however, to stop at this point. I believe 

 that it is possible to make an easy and almost exact calculation 

 showing the extent to which the change in value of farm products 

 is due to change in quantity produced and the extent to which 

 it is due to the change in price. It is true that we cannot add 

 together the quantities of cereals, hay and forage, tobacco, cotton, 

 fruit, and therefore we cannot get the consolidated quantity by 

 any process of weighting the units of measure. But it is possible 

 to secure the average value per unit in 1899 for the individual 

 crops for which both quantity produced and value were reported 

 at both censuses. Having secured the average value per unit in 

 1899 we may multiply this into the quantity of the crop produced 

 in 1909. In this way we shall secure the total value which would 

 have been reported for each individual crop in 1909 if the aver- 

 age value per unit had remained the same as ten years earlier. In 

 making this study it is necessary to eliminate certain crops, inas- 

 much as the values were not reported separately for a few minor 

 crops in 1899, and further because quantities were not reported 



