|

Driving directions
Novelty, Knox County
Field Day
*Our next Field Day will be held August 7, 2008
Research
Faculty
Weather
Variety Testing
History
Contact us
Randall Smoot
P.O. Box 126
Novelty, MO 63460
Phone: 660-739-4410
Email: SmootR@missouri.edu
|
The Impact of Livestock Production
A Case Study of Three Missouri Counties
Ann Ulmer
Agricultural Economist |
Ray Massey
Associate Professor |
Two seemingly contradictory economic developments are taking place in Missouri. The number
of cropland acres harvested is declining while the total value of agricultural products sold is
increasing.
The number of acres of cropland in a county normally remains constant or declines. New land
can come into production only if pasture, hay or forest land is converted. Conversion is
uncommon because most productive land has already been identified and is being used to grow
crops. Increasing revenue from a constant or declining number of acres requires that the receipts
per acre increase. Fluctuating crop prices can cause temporary increases in receipts. However, to
sustain increased revenues per acre requires changing to higher valued crops such as horticulture
crops. Widespread adoption of horticulture crops is unlikely given a number of productive and
economic factors.
From where, then, is the increase in the value of agricultural products coming? It comes from
livestock sales! The number of hogs sold in the state has almost doubled and the number of
poultry has increased by almost seven times over the last 15 years. If agricultural receipts are
going to rise, or continue to rise, the most likely driver will be increasing livestock production.
An analysis of county agricultural receipts, and property and sales tax receipts indicates that
increases in livestock production from 1987 to 2002 account for most of the economic growth.
Of the 50 counties that had increased agricultural receipts, only two, Mississippi and Pemiscot,
did not have significant increases in livestock receipts. Livestock production is the most obvious
way to increase agricultural revenues in Missouri.
An analysis of county agricultural receipts, and property and sales tax receipts indicates that
increases in livestock production from 1987 to 2002 account for most of the economic growth.
Of the 50 counties that had increased agricultural receipts, only two, Mississippi and Pemiscot,
did not have significant increases in livestock receipts. Livestock production is the most obvious
way to increase agricultural revenues in Missouri.
The following is a comparison of three Missouri counties, two of which experienced a dramatic
change in agricultural commodities produced. In 1987, Carroll, Pettis and Vernon counties each
had between 1,000 and 1,250 farms on 375,000 to 405,000 acres of land. Each county produced
a relatively diverse set of agricultural products, including crops and livestock. Figure 1 shows the
similarities among the counties in acreage of land farmed and the market value of agricultural
products sold in each county in 1987.
The population in each of the three counties decreased from the 1980 census to the 1990 census,
3 percent in Pettis, 4 percent in Vernon and 11 percent in Carroll. However, between 1990 and
2000, Pettis and Vernon counties experienced an increase in population of 11 percent and 7
percent, respectively. During the same 10 years Carroll County population continued to decrease
but at a slower rate of 4 percent.
Between 1992 and 1997 Pettis County experienced a huge influx in the number of poultry in the
county. The number of hogs in Vernon County increased by almost 13 times during this same
time period. With the increase in animal agriculture in Pettis and Vernon counties, the number of
acres of cropland harvest did not change significantly from 1987 to 2002. The number of farms
in the three counties has remained relatively stable as Pettis County has lost 3 percent of farms
while Carroll County gained 7 percent and Vernon County gained 12 percent.
Figure 1. Market value of crops and livestock sold and acres of farmland in 1987.
Source: Census of Agriculture
The number of head of livestock sold in the three counties changed significantly from 1987 to
2002. The number of cattle sold increased by almost 8 percent in Pettis, 9 percent in Vernon and
16 percent in Carroll over the 15 years. The number of hogs sold decreased by 43 percent in
Carroll and increased by 26 percent in Pettis and 3,496 percent in Vernon. The were only about
34,000 head of hogs sold in Vernon County in 1987 and by 2002 there were over 1.2 million
head sold. There was a similar situation with poultry production in Pettis County. In 1987 none
of the three case study counties reported poultry production. By 2002 Pettis County sold over
19.2 million birds while Carroll and Vernon counties reported no significant poultry sales.
The most apparent change besides the total number of animals was in the market value of
agricultural products sold (Figure 2). The market value of crops in Carroll County has continued
to increase at a relatively steady pace while the value of livestock sold is declining. However, in
Pettis and Vernon counties, the value of crops sold remained relatively stable from 1987 to 2002.
During this same period, the value of livestock sold more than doubled in Pettis County and
almost tripled in Vernon County. The total value of agricultural products sold in these two
counties has increased considerably due primarily to increases in livestock production.
Figure 2. Market value of agricultural products sold 1987-2002.
Source: Census of Agriculture
Increases in agricultural production impact the local economy. This can be observed in local
sales tax collections. Sales tax receipts change due to changes in tax rates or volume of products
and services sold. To observe increases in economic activity (products and services sold), tax
receipts assuming a 1 percent sales tax are used. Figure 3 shows changes in local sales tax
receipts assuming a sales tax of 1 percent. The local sales tax collections have increased by about
100 percent in both Pettis and Vernon counties while increasing only 50 percent in Carroll
County. The impact on tax receipts may also be understated due to current sales tax exemptions
on livestock sales, purchase of animal feeds and medications and use of farm machinery.
Figure 3. Percent change in local sales tax receipts.
Note: Assumes a sales tax rate of 1%.
Source: Economic and Policy Research Center, University of Missouri-Columbia
Conclusion:
With a finite land base, increases in crop production will occur from technological advances.
These changes have been occurring at a steady yet measured pace. Producers looking for options
to add additional income and value to production in order to be able to generate additional
income are likely to find that animal production offers the greatest opportunities.
Animal agriculture added a considerable amount of value to agricultural products sold in Pettis
and Vernon counties. The difference in market value of agricultural products is significant
between the counties with increases in confined animal operation and the county with no
increase in animal agriculture. The value of crop production is increasing in Carroll County but
at a much lower rate than is seen by the two counties with increased animal production.
Comparison of Agricultural Industries in Three Missouri Counties 1987-2002.
| |
Carroll County |
Pettis County |
Vernon County |
| |
1987 |
1992 |
1997 |
2002 |
1987
|
1992 |
1997 |
2002 |
1987 |
1992 |
1997 |
| Number of farms |
1,013 |
919 |
952 |
1,081 |
1,323 |
1,225 |
1,249 |
1,278 |
1,251 |
1,249 |
1,265 |
| Acres of land in farms |
404,480 |
377,000 |
395,657 |
417,080 |
372,422 |
359,434 |
366,132 |
402,390 |
396,638 |
402,202 |
388,549 |
| Average size of farm in acres |
399 |
410 |
416 |
386 |
281 |
293 |
293 |
315 |
317 |
322 |
307 |
| cropland |
237,149 |
228,553 |
241,641 |
246,396 |
173,820 |
182,868 |
184,121 |
207,902 |
166,752 |
177,555 |
176,589 |
| Market value of agricultural products sold ($1,000) |
52,637 |
62,039 |
58,965 |
61,824 |
52,789 |
56,042 |
104,015 |
101,875 |
33,310 |
41,392 |
87,731 |
| Market value of crops sold ($1,000) |
33,871 |
39,243 |
44,512 |
47,082 |
19,029 |
24,666 |
29,268 |
24,350 |
16,304 |
20,228 |
27,607 |
| Market value of livestock sold ($1,000) |
18,766 |
22,795 |
14,453 |
14,742 |
33,760 |
31,376 |
74,746 |
77,525 |
17,006 |
21,164 |
60,124 |
| Percent of operators with principal occupation farming
(1) |
66 |
64 |
56 |
58 |
52 |
52 |
50 |
61 |
54 |
52 |
47 |
| Percent of operators working 200 or more days off farm |
25 |
29 |
33 |
37 |
38 |
37 |
39 |
40 |
36 |
36 |
41 |
| Livestock (numbers) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cattle and calves sold |
19,526 |
19,030 |
18,151 |
22,694 |
31,211 |
30,059 |
31,176 |
33,616 |
27,504 |
29,557 |
27,718 |
| Hogs and pigs sold |
90,892 |
123,009 |
60,596 |
51,648 |
134,311 |
126,399 |
163,085 |
169,634 |
33,716 |
77,414 |
1,003,187 |
| Broilers and other meat-type chickens sold |
(D) |
0 |
(D) |
(D) |
0 |
(D) |
15,897,357 |
19,256,520 |
0 |
(D) |
(D) |
| Crops |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Corn for grain or seed (bushels) |
6,226,712 |
7,693,352 |
6,478,651 |
9,508,574 |
2,742,149 |
3,878,278 |
3,247,695 |
4,209,461 |
1,506,339 |
2,323,022 |
2,560,549 |
| Wheat for grain (bushels) |
395,591 |
1,814,232 |
1,561,622 |
446,863 |
276,614 |
1,369,864 |
1,221,463 |
903,124 |
238,021 |
1,599,069 |
1,133,616 |
| Soybeans for beans (bushels) |
4,691,483 |
4,138,565 |
4,033,032 |
4,862,286 |
2,558,477 |
2,381,858 |
2,525,963 |
2,244,053 |
1,886,722 |
1,588,709 |
2,158,997 |
| County general revenue own sources - taxes (2) |
-- |
(NA) |
635,000 |
1,058,000 |
-- |
1,834,000 |
3,054,000 |
2,935,000 |
-- |
658,000 |
907,000 |
| Local sales tax collection (3) |
-- |
788,000 |
5,186,000 |
1,987,000 |
-- |
896,000 |
7,144,000 |
2,517,000 |
-- |
1,093,000 |
8,374,000 |
Data Source: Census of Agriculture except were noted.
(1) The principal occupation of the operator(s) is the occupation at which an operator spent the majority of his/her time.
(2) Census of Governments.
(3) Sales Tax Receipts Per 1 Percent - Economic and Policy Analysis Research Center, University of Missouri-Columbia.
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms.
2006 Field Day Report
|