Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />"'"', 4 ~ "1 ') <br />V v .~ J J I..f <br /> <br />per acre in 2020, or 1.3 bushels per year. This compares to a 1.53 bushel <br />per year increase since 1966. <br /> <br />However, total factor productivity is not merely dependent upon chang- <br />es in technology but is also affected by changes in prices. Table 11-1 <br />illustrates farm price considerations for and impact of productivity growth <br />on farm input and output adjustments from 1950 to 1979. <br /> <br />The ratio of prices received to prices paid fell from 137 in 1950 to <br />93 in 1971 (1967=100). This did not provide any aggregate farm sector <br />incentives to increase total input use, and in fact, the input index was 4 <br />points less in 1971 than in 1950 (although it has since risen three <br />points). Nevertheless, productivity increased at an annual compound rate <br />of 2.1 percent per year during thi s period, accounting for the 49 percent <br />increase in total outpllt over the same period. On a per acre basis, pro- <br />ductivity growth al so accounted for about 80 percent of the growth in crop <br />output which increased from 69 in 1950 to 112 in 1971, a 62 percent <br />increase. This indicates that, while most of the adjustment in input use <br />per acre was of the capital-labor and non-land capital-land substitution <br />type, some additional input use per acre did occur, even though total <br />inputs were down. <br /> <br />After 1971, the terms of trade turned generally in favor of the farm pro- <br /> <br /> <br />duction sector as indicated by the increase in the price ratio from 93 in <br /> <br />11-14 <br />