Production output and input rates. Specific production rates used to 

 determine quantities of agricultural output are shown in Appendix Table 

 8. Possible changes in technology that would influence rates of output over 

 the period studied are largely ignored. Milk production per cow is the 

 exception in that it is assumed that an average annual increase of 110 

 pounds per cow would be experienced. This annual increase in production 

 per cow has occurred rather consistently over the last several years. Part 

 of this increase has been attributed to changes in input qualities. How- 

 ever, it is felt that most of the increase is due to quality improvements 

 in livestock rather than input changes. Also, the cows in the enrolled 

 resources were at a low enough production level to participate easily in 

 such a low average annual increase. With stable price relationships, crop 

 yields are not assumed to be increased. Furthermore, it is felt that tech- 

 nology will have little effect on crop yields in the short time span involved. 



The assumptions that differ for the two levels of analysis are: 



Quantity of resources. The basic difference in computing the two levels 

 of income is quantity of resources assumed to remain in production over 

 the period of analysis. For the low-income estimate, resources removed by 

 the Soil Bank are assumed to be completely idled from production by the 

 year of expiration of the 1959 extended contracts, even though they had 

 not been enrolled in the Program. The actual output-producing resources 

 of cows and cropland were assumed to decline or be idled by a constant 

 amount each year. Thus by 1972, production from the resources is assumed 

 to have stopped. Essentially this analysis assumes that the resources in- 

 volved were inferior to resources not enrolled in the Soil Bank. For the 

 high income estimate, resources estimated to have been taken out of 

 production by the Program are assumed to be idled from agricultural use 

 at the same rate as expected for all other County resources, as shown in 

 Figures 2 and 3. This is saying that the resources enrolled in the Pro- 

 gram are equal in quality to comparable remaining resources in the Coun- 

 ty. The exact quantities of resources used in both levels of analysis are 

 shown in Appendix Tables 9 and 10. 



Comparative Income Estimates 



High Income Model. The high gross income expected to have been earned 

 by resources idled by enrollment indicates the largest loss in farm income 

 to the Coos County farm economy. This income loss-Soil Bank compari- 

 son is shown in Table 7. It is estimated that in 1959, these resources* 

 would have earned $117,480 gross income for the Coos County farm econ- 

 omy if there had been no Program. This gross income was foregone to 

 obtain $94,000 gross income from Soil Bank payments for a net loss in 

 gross income of something less than $25,000. In the remaining 13 years 

 cf the contract, $1,203,915 gross income would be foregone from idling 

 resources from farm production for $917,000 of Soil Bank payments. The 

 loss in gross income over the 13 years is slightly greater than an average 

 of $22,000 per year. 



The hay that was produced on Soil Bank farms and sold locally repre- 

 sents no loss in income to the County. These sales effect expenditure 

 patterns and costs of the remaining farmers and is considered in a later 

 section. Agricultural Conservation Program payments are expected to re- 



24 



