Table 4: Distribution of farms among sales categories
a
|
Census |
Agricultural Revenue from Milk |
Farm Size of Incumbents |
New Entrants | ||
|
Medium (Cohorts 5-9) |
Large (Cohort 10) |
1997 |
2002 | ||
|
90-100% |
35.7 |
448 | |||
|
75-89.9% |
40.0 |
34.2 | |||
|
1992 |
50-74.9% |
24.3 |
21.0 | ||
|
<50% |
0 |
0 | |||
|
90-100% |
38.8 |
475 |
46.0 | ||
|
75-89.9% |
26.8 |
25.3 |
30.8 | ||
|
1997 |
50-74.9% |
16.8 |
14.1 |
23.2 | |
|
<50% |
17.6 |
13.1 |
0 | ||
|
90-100% |
28.1 |
420 |
325 |
44.7 | |
|
75-89.9% |
26.0 |
23.1 |
26.4 |
36.3 | |
|
2002 |
50-74.9% |
12.0 |
10.6 |
11.1 |
19.1 |
|
<50% |
33.9 |
24.3 |
30.0 |
0 | |
a Data source: Agricultural Census (USDA, 1992, 1997, 2002)
28
More intriguing information
1. Bird’s Eye View to Indonesian Mass Conflict Revisiting the Fact of Self-Organized Criticality2. The name is absent
3. CURRENT CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL POLICY
4. The English Examining Boards: Their route from independence to government outsourcing agencies
5. The name is absent
6. Nietzsche, immortality, singularity and eternal recurrence1
7. The economic value of food labels: A lab experiment on safer infant milk formula
8. The name is absent
9. On the Existence of the Moments of the Asymptotic Trace Statistic
10. The name is absent