Distribution of

the VARIETIES

and CLASSES

WHEAT

intlie

UNITED STATES

in 1954

AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK NO. 108

flED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
..,^::''a'Ê0!Êi!:m..

4»

la

Distribution of

the VARIETIES

and CLASSES

of WHEAT

in the

UNITED STATES

in 1954

^^^^^^$fflÊÊ0^^^

By S. C. SALMON and L. p. REITZ

Field Crops Research Branch

Asn'cultural Research Service

AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK NO. 108

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ^

Varietal-snrvey methods 2

Wheat acreage of the United States 3

Estimated acreage of varieties ^

Hard red winter wheat varieties 5

Hard red spring wheat varieties 10

Soft red winter wheat varieties 13

White and club wheat varieties 1^

Durum wheat varieties 18

Shifts in acreages of varieties 19

Assessing the value of new varieties 20

Distribution of market classes of wheat 22

WASHINGTON, D. C. ISSUED JANUARY 195T

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office

Washington 25, D. C. - Price 30 cents
Distribution of the

VARIETIES and CLASSES

of WHEAT in the

UNITED STATES in 1954

By S. C. SALMON and L. P. REITZ, principal agronomists, Field Crops Research Branch,

Agricultural Research Service ^

INTRODUCTION

Wheat varieties grown in the

United States are continually changing in importance and distribution

because of the development and release of improved strains by State

and Federal agricultural experiment

stations and by private breeders,

and because of the suitability of certain varieties to meet current needs

on farms and in the market. Varietal surveys furnish a historical record of these changes and serve as a

basis for further wheat improvement. Principally for these reasons,

a wheat varietal survey has been

made by the United States Department of Agriculture at 5-year intervals since 1919.^

^ The writers wish to express their appreciation to the agricultural statisticians

of the Field Crop Statistics Branch who

participated in collecting the basic information for this report; to C. E. Burkhead, head, Field Crop Statistics Branch,

Agricultural Marketing Service, for cooperation in preparing and compiling the

questionnaires; and to Mrs. Helen Huber

and Mrs. Charlotte Singleton, Field Crops

Research Branch, ARS, for assistance in

making the calculations and assembling

the data.

This bulletin presents the estimated acreages as determined from

2 CLARK, J. A., MARTIN, J. H., and

BALL, C. R. CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICAN

WHEAT VARIETIES. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept.

Bui. 1074, 238 pp., illus. 1922.

MARTIN, J. H., QUISENBERRY,

K. S., and others, DISTRIBUTION OF THE

CLASSES AND VARIETIES OF WHEAT IN THE

UNITED STATES. U. S. Dept. AgT. Dept.

Bul. 1498, 68 pp., illus. 1929.

and QUISENBERRY, K. S. DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIETIES AND CLASSES

OF WHEAT IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1929.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 283, 75 pp., iUus.

1933.

and QUISENBERRY, K. S. DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIETIES AND CLASSES

OF WHEAT IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1934

U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 424, 68 pp., illus.

1937.

and QUISENBERRY, K. S. DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIETIES AND CLASSES

OF WHEAT IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1939.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 634, 75 pp., illus.

1942.

and QUISENBERRY, K. S. DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIETIES AND CLASSES

OF WHEAT IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1944.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 761, 80 pp., illus.

1948.

and BAYLES, B. B. DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIETIES AND CLASSES OF

WHEAT IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1949.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 861, 71 pp., illus.

1951
AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICTJLTTJRÜJ

the eighth survey, that for the crop

year 1954. The estimated acreages

by varieties and by market classes

were computed from the seeded

acreages of wheat by crop-reporting

districts, as estimated by the Field

Crop Statistics Branch, Agricultural

Marketing Service. This is the

fourth survey for which seeded acreages were available. The surveys

before 1939 were based upon harvested acreages as reported by the

regular and special agricultural census, except in 1934, when seeded

wheat acreages, as estimated by the

former Bureau of Agricultural Economics, were used for some of the

important wheat-producing States,

where abandonment was heavy because of drought. The wheat acreages used in this bulletin are the

preliminary estimates of the Crop

Reporting Board.

VARIETAL-SURVEY METHODS

The survey methods were similar

to those reported for 1949. Questionnaires were sent from the State

offices of the Field Crop Statistics

Branch to crop correspondents of

the United States Department of

Agriculture. The form of the questionnaires was the same as for the

1949 survey in which the varieties

known to be grown most extensively

in each region were grouped by

classes and listed alphabetically,

leaving space under each class for

writing in the names of varieties not

listed. The grower was asked to

indicate the number of acres of

each variety seeded on his farm for

the 1954 harvest. Growers also

were asked to indicate the acres

harvested, but harvested acreage

data are not included in this report.

Questionnaires were sent to wheat

growers in all States for which the

Field Crop Statistics Branch estimated wheat acreages in 1954.

Approximately 100,000 questionnaires were sent out, and about

43,000 usable questionnaires were

returned. The 43,000 questionnaires on which this survey is based

represents about 3.8 percent of the

total number of wheat growers in

the United States. They reported

a total of 3,285,239 acres of wheat,

which was about 5.3 percent of the

area used for wheat in 1954.

Acreages reported under synonymous names were recorded under

the standard name recognized by

the United States Department of

Agriculture. AU except the newest

varieties, and a very few others, are

described in TechnicalBulletin 1083.^

Some readers realize that farmers

do not always use the correct variety

name and that a sample survey covering only 5.3 percent of the wheat

acreage cannot be expected to be

entirely accurate. Inaccuracies

probably are greatest for varieties

grown on very small acreages and

may be substantially different from

those reported herein. For example,

much of the reported acreage of

Turkey in Washington is beüeved

by local authorities actually to be

Rio. Likewise, authorities in CaUfornia have expressed the belief that

the acreage of Galgalos in California

is substantially less than the acreage reported herein, and that much

of the reported acreage of Federation actually is White Federation.

Despite these discrepancies, itseems

better to report the results of the

survey rather than to substitute in

certain cases estimates of acreages

arrived at by a different method.

Some farmers listed varieties

3 BATLES, B. B., and CLARK, J. A.

CLASSIFICATION OF WHEAT VARIETIES

GROWN IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1949.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bui. 1083, 173 pp.,

illus. 1954.
DISTKIBUTION «"tíF WHEAT IN 1954

under local names that could not be

identified, or reported the acreage

as "just wheat.'' These are listed

in the table as ^^Variety not reported.''

In order to determine the percentage that each variety was of the

total acreage of wheat reported in a

crop-reporting district, the reported

acreage for each variety was divided

by the total acreage of wheat reported on usable questionnaires for

that district. The estimated acreage

of each variety in the district was

then calculated from the total acreage of wheat seeded in the district,

as estimated by the Crop Reporting

Board. All varieties in each commercial class were then totaled for

each district. State, and the United

States, to arrive at the class acreMaps were made showing the

acreage distribution of all wheat of

the different classes and of varieties

grown on more than 200,000 acres

in 1954, and for some additional

varieties in which there is a special

interest. Each dot represents 5,000

acres on the total-wheat map and

the market class maps and 2,000

acres on the variety maps. These

maps are based on acreages in each

crop-reporting district. Acreages in

each county were also taken into

account, but the dots on a county

basis are not exactly proportional in

every case.

In 1919, 1924, 1929, 1934, 1939,

1944, 1949, and 1954, 139, 152, 190,

213, 208, 216, 199, and 203 distinct

varieties, respectively, were reported. In 1954, 40 varieties were reported that did not appear in 1949,

and 36 varieties that were grown in

1949 were not reported in 1954.

WHEAT ACREAGE OF THE UNITED STATES

The total seeded area in wheat in

the United States in 1954 was

61,971,000 acres, which is about

23,000,000 acres less than in 1949;

a reduction of 27.0 percent. This

reduction in acreage was due to

wheat allotments made under the

Agricultural Adjustment Act of

1935, as amended, which provided

for a maximum of 62,000,000 acres

in 1954. The deciine was general

in all sections, ranging from 20.6

and 20.7 percent, respectively, in

the Western and the North Atlantic

States, to 36.4 percent in the South

Atlantic States. The decline in

acreage in the North Central States

was 27.5 percent and in the South

Central States 32.3 percent. A map

showing the distribution of all wheat

in 1954 is shown in figure 1.

ESTIMATED ACREAGE OF VARIETIES OF WHEAT

The estimated acreage in 1954

and m 1949 of each variety and the

percentage of the total wheat area

in each State occupied by each variety m 1954 and in 1949 are shown

by States in table 1. The table includes also the percentage occupied

by each of these varieties in surveys

conducted previous to 1949. Acreages for which the variety was not

indicated and presumably not known

are included as ^Variety not reported." In contrast with earlier

reports, known varieties reported

in surveys previous to 1949 but not

grown either in 1949 or in 1954 are

not included in this latter category.

As a consequence the totals of the

various columns previous to 1949 do

not add up to 100 percent in all

cases. This means among other

things that the percentages for the

category 'Variety not reported" are

comparable from year to year and
AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

FIGURE 1.—Distribution of the total wheat acreage seeded in the United States in

1954. Each dot represents 5,000 acres. Estimated area, 61,971,000 acres.

from State to State and provide a

fair index of the ^Variety consciousness of farmers in various States

and at various times. The discrepancies between the totals in each

column and 100 percent indicate the

extent to which known varieties

grown previous to 1949 have disappeared.

The total acreages of each variety

for the entire United States in 1949

and in 1954 and the percentage of

each for each survey (1919 to 1954)

are shown in table 2. The three

principal varieties in each State in

1954 are listed in table 3, and all

varieties of which there were 1 million acres or more in the entire

United States are listed in table 4.

This latter table also includes a like

list for each survey previous to 1954.

The acreages of each variety of

each of the five market classes and

of club wheat in 1954 and the percentage of each variety based on the

total acreage of each class for each

survey year from 1919 to 1954 are

given in tables 5 to 10.

Figure 2 shows the crop reporting districts of the United States.

The leading variety of wheat in

the United States hi 1954 (tables 2

and 4) was Pawnee (6,798,140 acres)

with Wichita (6,640,353 acres) a

close second. Others of which there

were 1 million or more acres are

Triumph (3,971,486), Lee

(3,838,783), Comanche (2,866,253),

Thatcher (2,537,260), Rushmore

(2,014,586), Vigo (1,820,003), Cheyenne (1,690,629), Thorne

(1,639,883), Westar (1,611,366),

Mida (1,558,770), Elmar

(1,416,969), Nebred (1,268,532),

RedChief (1,248,190), Turkey

(1,209,230), Kiowa (1,112,588), and

Mmdum (1,108,131).

Of these 18 varieties, 1 is a durum,

1 a white wheat important only in

the Pacific Northwest, 2 are soft red

winter, 4 hard red spring, and 10

are hard red winter wheats. All but

2—Turkey and Mindima—are relatively new varieties, having been

grown by farmers less than 25 years

at the time of the 1954 survey.
DIBTEIBUTIÖN OF WHEAT IN 1954

FiGUKE 2.—Crop reporting districts in the United States in 1954.

Pawnee, the leading variety in 1954,

was first grown by farmers in 1942;

and Wichita, the second in importance, in 1944. Ehnar, Kiowa, and

Lee were first grown by farmers in

1949, 1950, and 1951, respectively.

Figures showing distribution of different varieties of wheat are listed

in this bulletin according to acreages

within each class, without regard to

reference in text; each dot represents 2,000 acres.

The fist of 18 varieties (table 4),

each comprising a million acres or

more, compares with 19 in 1949.

Had the acreage of all wheat in 1954

been equal to that in 1949 and assuming the same percentage of each

variety, 4 additional varieties, or a

total of 22, would be included in this

list. Considering the data of table

4 as a whole, there is a tendency

since 1919 for more varieties to be

grown on a million or more acres

each. This seems to have been accompanied not by a reduction in the

total number of varieties, as might

be expected, but rather to a leveling

off of the acreage of leading varieties. From 1919 to 1929 the 2 leading varieties (Turkey and Marquis)

accounted for more than 45 percent

of the United States wheat acreage,

and their acreage dropped to 38 percent in 1934. The 2 leading varieties in 1939 (Turkey and BlackhuU)

accounted for 32.5 percent, in 1934

(Turkey and Tenmarq) for 26 percent, in 1949 (Pawnee and Comanche) for 20 percent, and in 1954

(Pawnee and Wichita) for 22 percent of the total wheat acreage. In

most cases the changes in varieties

have affected several States or large

areas rather than single States

(table 1).

Hard Red Winter Wheat Varieties

The acreage of Pawnee in the

United States declined from 13.09

to 10.97 percent, or a total decline

of about 4,300,000 acres, principally in Kansas and Oklahoma but

also in Texas, Iowa, and Colorado.

In lUinois the acreage increased

from 32.1 percent of the State total

in 1949 to^57.9 percent in 1954. It
AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AliKluUijiuxtjn

FIGURE 3.—Distribution of Pawnee in 1954. 6,798,140 acres.

2,000 acres.

is the leading variety (table 3) in

Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa,

and Illinois (fig. 3).

Wichita, for example, increased

from 9.4 percent of the Kansas

acreage in 1949 to 24.3 percent in

1954; from 12.8 to 45.3 percent in

Colorado, from 4.9 to 19.0 percent

in Oklahoma, and 7.9 to 26.3 percent in Texas. It is the leading

variety in Texas and Colorado (table 3), the second most important

variety in Oklahoma and Kansas,

the fifth most important variety in

Nebraska and New Mexico. Although relatively non-winter-hardy,

nevertheless it is grown in Nebraska

and occasionally in South Dakota

(fig. 4). Without doubt, its early

maturity, with its accompanying

relatively high yield in the absence

of severe winterkilling, is the principal characteristic responsible for

the spread of Wichita.

Triumph is another very popular

new hard red winter wheat. This,

like Wichita, is very early maturing

Each dot represents

FIGURE 4.—Wichita. 6,640,353 acres.

and owes much of its popularity to

that fact. It is one of the few widely

grown varieties developed by a pri-
DISTEIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954

FIGURE 5.—Triumph. 3,971,486 acres.

vate plant breeder, Joseph Danne of

El Reno, Okla., who first distributed

it in 1940. It is now the leading

variety in Oklahoma and the third

most important variety in Texas

and Kentucky. It is also an important variety in Kansas and accounts for nearly 4 percent of the

wheat acreage in Missouri (fig. 5).

Another important and relatively

new hard red winter variety is Comanche (fig. 6). It declined from 6.98

percent to 4.63 percent of the total

acreage, mostly in Kansas and Colorado. This may be regarded as imfortunate from some points of view,

since Comanche is one of the best

in quaUty among the hard red

winter wheat varieties.

Other varieties of hard red winter

wheat that merit special mention are

Cheyenne, Westar, Nebred, and

Kiowa, which have distributions as

shown in figuras 7, 8, 9, and 12.

Cheyenne and Nebred are grown

principally in Nebraska, ranking

second and third, respectively, in

acreage in that State. Nebred also

is relatively important in Wyoming

391831—57 2

and is the most important variety of

winter wheat in South Dakota.

Roughly 60 percent of the Cheyenne

acreage is in Nebraska, but it is

important also in Colorado and Wyoming and scattered acreages occur

in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,

and Texas. Both Cheyenne and

FiGUBE 6.—Comanche. 2,866,253 acres.
AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

FIGURE 7.—Cheyenne. 1,690,629 acres.

—, \ A \

\ X" •..• •• f \

\y

^ñv^^^^m-l2áí¿:'.-.'.^MÍi,r-

' : }>{^R'' -

a

r^—'—

;.: JvJiife^'-^A'' • / J

. i

,:f^ /

M j}5^

~\i^

State. A considerable acreage is

found also in Oklahoma, and scattered acreages are in Kansas, Illinois,

and New Mexico. Since 1949 it has

about held its own in proportionate

acreage. Kiowa was first distributed in 1950, and about 85 percent

IFiGURE 9.—Nebred. 1,268,532 acres.

FIGURE 8.—Westar. 1,611,366 acres.

Nebred are winter-hardy, but both

are very susceptible to most of the

races of leaf and stem rust that generally are present in the area. Their

relative importance has changed but

little since 1949.

Westar, distributed in 1944, is primarily a Texas variety, about 60

percent of the acreage being in that FIGURE 10.—RedChief. 1,248,190 acres.

1

• • • • 1

• • • (.

1 - ^--v^^^
DISTRIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 9

¿/7 A \.S~^T~~\-A"^^""Vw P^^

^-if^'-'^'--^^^ \

\l \

-i 1 f%

V \

\ /'

7 ^. r^-iä-^-h ~

^

^

L4

^^•• f ¿;

<l ^

\ ?vN^

/ '?' '' '-U„ \ ( \^

Í V^^Y 1AV<X \VJ

FIGURE 11.—Turkey. 1,209,230 acres.

of the acreage is in central and western Kansas, with scattered acreages

in other dryland areas. Distribution of several other varieties of

hard red winter wheat is shown in

figures 10 to 21.

The new variety Ponca possesses

a high degree of resistance to hcssian

fly and to certain races of leaf rust.

Much of the acreage of this variety

is in eastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma.

The acreage of all varieties of

hard red winter in 1954 and the proportion of each expressed as a percentage of all hard red winter wheat

for aU survey years are given in

table 5. The principal items of interest in this table are the great

increase in Wichita from 6.6 percent

of all hard red winter wheat in 1949

to 19.2 percent in 1954, and the decrease in the proportion of Pawnee,

Comanche, Turkey, Tenmarq,

BlackhuU, and Early BlackhuU.

Pawnee is still the leading variety

FiGUBE 12.—Kiowa. 1,112,588 acres.
10 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

FIGURE 16.—Ponca. 447,570 acres.

E

FIGURE 13.—Bluejacket. 954,468 acres

FIGURE 14.—Yogo. 883,884 acres.

FIGURE 15.—Tenmarq. 609,434 acres.

FIGURE 17.—Blackhull. 432,677 acres.

of this class but by only a slight

margin over Wichita. There has

been also a slight increase in the

proportion of Nebred, RedChief,

Bluejacket, and Yogo. The marked

increase in the new variety Kiowa

was noted above.

Hard Red Sprins Wheat Varieties

The acreage of all varieties of hard

red spring wheat in 1954 and the

proportion of each expressed as a

percentage of all hard red spring

wheat in each survey year from 1919

to 1954 are given in table 6. Four

varieties—Lee, Thatcher, Rushmore, and Mida—account for more

than 75 percent of the hard red
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 11

FIGURE 20.—Early BlackhuU. 220,372

acres.

FIGURE 18.—Wasatch. 400,899 acres.

FIGURE 19.—Karmont. 339,210 acres.

spring wheat acreage in 1954 (figs.

22-25). Two of them, Lee and

Rushmore, are new varieties distributed to farmers in 1951 and

1949, respectively. Lee was the

most extensively grown variety in

North Dakota and in Minnesota

and second in South Dakota in 1954

(table 3, fig. 22). Rushmore was

the leading variety in South Dakota

and second in Minnesota.

Rescue about held its own from

1949 to 1954, being grown principally in the wheat stem sawfly infested areas of Montana and North

Dakota (fig. 26). As would be exFiGURE 21.—Chiefkan. 216,242 acres.

iXP^'^^^T^'^mi ^i^

i \ ' « 1

/T^/:•:*.'; ■■X

rv^r^\

\

/ / • ^

FIGURE 22.—Lee. 3,838,783 acres.
12 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

FIGURE 27.—Ceres. 621,883 acres.

FIGURE 24.—Rushmore. 2,014,586 acres

FIGURE 25.—Mida. 1,558,910 acres. FIGURE 28.—Rival. 480,423 acres.
DISTEIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 13

pected, there has been a decline in

acreage of many of the older varieties, especially Mida, Rival, Cadet,

Marquis, Pilot, Ceres, Regent, and

Newthatch. Distribution maps for

the other more important hard red

spring wheat varieties appear as figures 27 to 30.

FIGURE 29.—Cadet. 263,900 acres.

FIGURE 30.—Marquis. 237,236 acres.

Soff Red Winter Wheat Varieties

Two soft red winter wheats,

Thome and Vigo, were grown over a

million acres each in 1954 (tables

4 and 7). Thorne was first distributed to farmers in 1937, increased

rapidly to nearly 3,500,000 acres in

1949, or about 4 percent of the total

acreage, but has since declined to

about 2.7 percent (table 2). It is

g'own extensively throughout the

Eastern States (fig. 32). In 1954

Thome was the leading variety (table 3) in New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and

West Virginia, second in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and third in

Indiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. Vigo is of more recent origin,

having been first grown by farmers

in 1946. It has increased rapidly

since 1949 and is now grown principally in Indiana and Missouri but

also on considerable acreages in

Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee (fig. 31). Vigo is the most

extensively grown variety in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee,

second in Illinois and Missouri, and

third in Arkansas.

' \ /

,^ )n ??^^*:;:*;;.'.-

- • ' \

...'.'T ' ili^BS-.*.> J

w^Ki '.'-'...-waci:,)rSjrW! . •>'

'\^

FIGURE 31.—Vigo. 1,820,003 acres.

[ FIGUREI32.—Thorne. 1,639,883 acres.

Some additional varieties of soft

red winter wheat are worthy of mention. Two new varieties, Seneca

and Butler, were developed by the

Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, which also produced Thorne.

Increase of Seneca and Butler probably accounts for the decline of

Thorne since 1949. Seneca is now
14 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

the leading variety (fig. 33) and Butler the third most important wheat

variety (fig. 34) in Ohio.

Royal was first distributed to

farmers in 1947 and PennoU in 1951,

Royal was the third most important

FiGUKE 33.—Seneca. 949,072 acres.

FIGURE 34.—Butler. 395,570 acres.

' • • y r-î—- V .• ^:* •

FIGURE 36.—Royal. 165,436 acres.

FIGURE 37.—Pennoll. 157,017 acres.

FIGURE 35.—Chancellor. 187,183 acres.

FIGURE 38.--Atlas 66. 143,772 acres.

variety in Illinois m 1954 (fig. 36),

and Pennoll was the second most

important in Pennsylvania and third

in New Jersey (fig. 37). Figures 31

to 40 show the distribution of other

important soft red winter varieties

in 1954.
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 15

FIGURE 39.—Atlas 50. 104,864 acres.

FIGURE 40.—Fairfield. 105,930 acres.

White and Club Wheat Varieties

Only one variety of white wheat

was grown on a million or more acres

in 1954 (table 8). This is Elmar,

first distributed to farmers in 1949.

It was the leading variety in both

Washington and Oregon in 1954 (fig.

41). The popularity of Elmar is due

largely to its resistance to the races

of bunt prevailing in the Pacific

Northwest at the time it was released, combined with the desirable

agronomic and quality characteristics of Elgin from which Elmar

was principally derived froin backcrossing. It may not retain this

popularity long, since races of bunt

to which it is susceptible are now

generally present in the area. The

second most important variety of

white wheat is Yorkwin, which is

grown principally in New York and

391831—57 3

Michigan (fig. 42). Yorkwin was

distributed to farmers in 1936, increased to a maximum acreage in

1949 when it accounted for 17.2 percent of the white wheat acreage, and

then declined to 14.2 percent in 1954.

This decrease seems to have been

largely due to the new variety Genesee, which was the leading variety

in New York m 1954 (fig. 49).

The Brevor variety was first distributed to farmers in Washington

in 1949 and was grown on 4.5 percent of the white wheat acreage in

1954 (fig. 47). Brevor is resistant

to more races of bunt than is any

other commercial white variety, and

it has a short stiff nonlodging straw.

There has been a marked decline in

the acreage of Elgin (Alicel), Federation, Rex, White Federation 38,

FIGURE 41.—Elmar. 1,416,969 acres.

FIGURE 42.—Yorkwin. 734,300 acres.
16 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Baart 38, Hymar, and Orfed. The

decline of Federation probably is

even greater than shown, since in

some States, California in particular,

FIGURE 43.—Baart.

FIGURE 44.—Elgin. 277,451 acres.

FIGURE 46.—Federation. 248,971 acres.

most of the Federation reported

actually is White Federation. Distribution maps for other leading

white wheat varieties in 1954 appear

as figures 41 to 52.

AH club wheats grown commercially have white grain and are included with the white wheats of

table 8. The acreage of each variety

in 1954 and the proportion of each

expressed as a percentage of all club

wheats for each survey year are

shown in table 9. Elmar is the lead-
DISTHIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 17

FIGURE 47.—Brevor. 234,194 acres.

FIGURE 48.—Lemhi. 195,105 acres.

FIGURE 50.—Ramona 44. 161,456 acres.

FIGURE 49.—Genesee. 175,284 acres.

FIGURE 51.—Rex. 154,878 acres.

ing variety, accounting for nearly 80

percent of the acreage of all club

wheats in 1954. Elgin (Alicel) is

second with less than 16 percent of

the total acreage. No others account for as much as 3 percent. The

proportion of all varieties except

Elmar has declined—^most of them

to a marked degree since 1949—as

a result of the marked increase of

Elmar. The production of club
18 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

verely by race 15B of stem rust. It

seems likely that the slightly later

matvirity of Stewart and Carleton,

which subjects them to greater damage from race 15B, is the principal

FIGURE 52.—Golden. 154,346 acres.

wheats is limited

Northwest.

to the Pacific

Durum Wheat Varieties

Table 10 gives the acreage of

durum wheat in 1954 and the proportion of the total acreage of durum

accounted for by each variety m

each of the variety surveys from

1919 to 1954. The outstanding

changes shown by this table are the

marked increased percentage of Mindum, a modest increase in Vernum,

a decrease in the acreages of Stewart,

Carleton, and Kubanka, and the disappearance of Pentad. Mindum is

a relatively old variety, having been

first distributed to farmers in 1917.

The acreage of Mindum in 1954 is

only slightly greater than in 1949

(fig. 53), its marked increase percentagewise being a reflection of the

decrease in the acreage of all other

durum wheats. All durum varieties

including Mindum are damaged seFiGURE 53.—Mindum. 1,108,131 acres.

FIGURE 54.—Stewart. 253,624 acres.
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 19

reason for their decline. Also Carle- tends to have weak straw and is

ton is deficient in tillering ability diflGicult to thresh. Distribution of

and relative yields, and Stewart Stewart for 1954 is given in figure 54.

SHIFTS IN ACREAGES OF VARIETIES

The marked increases in the acreage of many new varieties as mentioned above mean a corresponding

percentage reduction in the acreage

of old varieties. Hence, a full appreciation of increase in new varieties

cannot easily be attained without

some attention to them.

Of the 139 varieties reported in

the 1919 survey, less than 50 were

reported as being grown in 1954,

and only 3 of these—Baart, Marquis, and Turkey—were grown on as

much as 100,000 acres. The estimated acreage of Turkey in 1954

was 1,209,230 acres, or less than 2

percent of the total acreage. In 1919

the acreage of Turkey was estimated

at 29.6 percent of the acreage in the

United States, or 21,588,300 acres.

The acreage of Marquis in 1954 was

estimated at 237,236 acres, or 0.38

percent of the crop as compared to

19.02 percent, or 11,786,000 acres in

1929. The estimate for Baart covered 305,571 acres in 1954, or 0.49

percent, as compared with 1.39 percent of the total acreage in 1939.

Several other varieties, such as

Haynes Bluestem and Red Fife,

which comprised almost the entire

hard red spring wheat crop in the

early 1900's, completely disappeared

by 1954. Many other wheats that

were important during various periods between 1900 and 1954 have

nearly or completely disappeared or

are important only in relatively

small areas. Such, for example, are

the once well-known varieties, Fulcaster, Fultz, Fulhio, Hybrid 128,

Hymar, Kanred, Kubanka, Leap,

Mediterranean, Nebraska 60, Nittany, Pacific Bluestem, Pentad,

Poole, Red May, Red Rock, Red

Wave, Ridit, and Trumbull. Probably without exception, they have

given way to superior varieties,

varieties better adapted to the areas

where they are grown, more resistant to disease and insect pests, and

of better quality for the most part.

Other varieties, though less important than formerly, nevertheless

play an important role in the economy of certain areas. Outstanding

among such varieties is Thatcher.

This variety was first distributed in

1934, and, because of its outstanding resistance to the then prevaiHng

races of stem rust, Thatcher increased to the point where it was the

leading variety of hard red spring

wheat in 1939. In that year it accounted for 5,524,631 acres, or 41.6

percent of the hard red spring wheat

acreage. In 1954 it was the leading

variety in Montana, but had nearly

disappeared in Minnesota and South

Dakota and eastern North Dakota.

Susceptibility to leaf rust and to

stem rust race 15B are primarily

responsible for the disappearance of

Thatcher from the more humid eastern part of the spring wheat area.

Relatively early maturity, good

straw, and general adaptabihty to

the more arid western section, as

reflected in relatively high yields,

appear to be responsible for its success in Montana.

Ceres is now grown on only about

one-fourth as many acres as Thatcher, but like Thatcher it gained

prominence in the eastern section of

the spring wheat belt because of its

resistance to the then prevailing

races of stem rust. Ceres later declined because of the buildup of

races to which it is susceptible, and

it was no longer grown in the more

humid areas where rust is more seri-
20 AGB. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUBE

ous. Ninety percent of the approximately 62,000 acres of Ceres is nowgrown in Montana. The once famous Marquis variety, which for

many years led all other varieties of

hard red spring wheat in Minnesota

and the eastern part of South Dakota and North Dakota, was grown

only on 237,000 acres in 1954, 90

percent of which was in Montana.

ASSESSING THE VALUE OF NEW VARIETIES

In assessing the value of the many

new varieties now grown as compared with those they replaced, it

is convenient to recognize two categories of improvement: (1) Those

due to resistance to disease and insect

pests, and (2) those due to better

adaptation to climate and soils.

Even though it is sometimes difficult or quite impossible in specific

cases to distinguish between the two

categories, a consideration of them

from this point of view is useful.

Much of the improvement in varieties of hard red winter wheat is

the result of better adaptation to

certain areas and may be considered

permanent improvements or at least

relatively so. Most of the new varieties, especially those grown in the

southern Great Plains, including

eastern Nebraska, are medium early

or very early maturing varieties and

without doubt owe most of their

superiority to that fact. The advantages of early maturity in varieties

for this area were recognized before

1900, but it required about 40 years

of general experience and intensive

research to find the necessary genes

for early maturity and then combine

them with those for other desirable

characteristics. The varieties of hard

red winter wheat grown in central

and western Nebraska and in the

Northern States are at least as winter-hardy as Turkey, and some of

them are distinctly more winterhardy. This also may be considered

a permanent improvement.

Pawnee and Ponca owe some of

their superiority to resistance to

many races of leaf and stem rust

and to the prevailing races of hessian

fly. These and several other varieties are resistant to rusts, smut, or

other diseases. This resistance to

certain diseases and to hessian fly

may or may not be permanent, depending on the relative prevalence

of various races of these organisms.

A large proportion of the improvement in hard red spring wheat varieties can be attributed to resistance

to leaf and stem rust and to other

diseases. Such improvement has

seemed to be only temporary in

recent years, but these recently released varieties possess an accumulation of genes for resistance to stem

and leaf rust never before attained.

Better techniques and more complete and precise information favor

the breeding of new varieties possessing the desired combination of

genes in much less time and with

less effort than wasformerly the case.

The importance of rust resistance

in the more humid sections of the

spring wheat area tends to obscure

other improvements of a more permanent character. For example, all

important spring wheat varieties

now are 2 to 5 days earher in heading than the old Haynes Bluestem,

Red Fife, and Marquis. A part of

their superiority, especially in the

drier areas, must be attributed to

this characteristic. It may be that

some of the newer varieties are more

drought resistant than the varieties

they replaced, but such cannot be

regarded as a demonstrated fact

until some better means of measuring drought resistance is available.

Much of the wheat breeding effort

in the Western States has revolved

aroimd the control of bunt, or
uiöTKlBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 21

stinking sniut, in the Pacific Northwest and in the intermountain reg'on, and the control of stem rust in

alifornia. The varieties grown

there may, therefore, be regarded as

more or less temporary, depending

on the prevalence of particular races

of the organisms that cause these

diseases. The same is substantially

true of the varieties now resistant to

hessian fly in the Montezuma Hills

section of California. Better adaptation of certain new varieties to the

climate in the Western States has

contributed to higher yields.

Resistance to disease and better

adaptation account for wheat improvement in the Eastern States.

Very little commercial loss from

mosaic now occurs, although soilborne mosaic is widely distributed.

Most new varieties were tested for

resistance to soil-borne mosaic before they were released for growing in areas known to be affected by

this disease. This has not always

provided satisfactory protection.

Atlas 66 and Atlas 50 have been

severely damaged by soil-borne

mosaic in areas where this mosaic

had not been important previously.

Many of the newer varieties are

resistant to various races of leaf

and stem rust, bunt, and loose smut

and thus are superior to older varieties susceptible to these diseases.

On the other hand, Thorne, which

was grown on almost 4 times as

many acres as any other variety of

soft red winter wheat in 1949, is susceptible to most of the diseases

prevalent in the area. Seneca, which

apparently has replaced much of the

Thorne since 1949, likewise is very

susceptible to many diseases. These

varieties apparently are better

adapted than the older varieties to

environmental conditions in the soft

wheat region. The white wheats

grown in Eastern States—Yorkwin, Cornell 595, and Genesee—also

are well adapted to the climate, although susceptible to several important diseases.

Farm experience and experimental

evidence clearly demonstrate the

superiority of certain new varieties

recently distributed in the Southeastern States. They are more resistant to prevailing diseases than

are the old Purplestraw, Fulcaster,

Red May, and Fultz, which they

have largely replaced. However,

the relatively high yields of these

new varieties where diseases have

not been important indicate their

superiority in other as yet unidentified respects.

There have also been important

improvements in quality. The famous hard red spring variety Marquis is definitely superior to Haynes

Bluestem and Red Fife, which it

replaced. Despite certain differences

of opinion, it is generally agreed that

the most widely grown newer varieties are at least equal to Marquis

in quality and some are superior.

Inferior-quahty varieties like Humpback and Progress are no longer being released and have largely been

replaced.

Informed processors and cereal

chemists agree that most of the new

varieties of hard red winter wheat

are superior to such varieties as

Chiefkan and Early Blackhull, but

opinions differ as to their quality

characteristics as compared with

Turkey, which they also replaced.

The superior quality characteristics

of Comanche and Ponca are generally accepted.

Varieties of inferior quahty also

are being replaced in the far Western

and the Eastern States. In the

Western States, for example, Rex,

once an important variety, appears

to be on the way out. In the Eastern States Red Wave, Kawvale,

Purkof, and Kharkof have practically disappeared. Up to 1930 and

even later, new varieties often were

distributed with very little or no
22 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

attention to quality characteristics.

Today no new variety is released

by State and Federal experiment

stations until there is substantial

evidence of quality equal to or superior to those it will replace.

DISTRIBUTION OF MARKET CLASSES OF WHEAT

The proportion of wheat comprising each of the principal market

classes of wheat by crop reporting

districts in 1954 is indicated in table

11, summarized for each State in

table 12, and for the United States

in table 13.

The tables were prepared by

totaling the acreages of varieties belonging to each class and by crediting

to each class a portion of the category 'Variety not reported'^ according to the proportion of each market

class determined without including

this category. This was done by

crop reporting districts, and then

totaled for each State and for the

United States. The acreages of the

individual varieties making up these

classes are indicated in tables 5 to 8.

The distributions of each market

class are presented in figures 55 to

59; each dot represents 5,000 acres.

As shown in table 13, the proportion of hard red spring wheat in the

United States has remained fairly

constant since 1919, and the hard

red winter class has increased regularly from 32.0 percent in 1919 to

55.9 percent in 1954. The proportion of soft red winter wheat is only

slightly more than one-third of the

proportion in 1919 and only about

one-half the acreage shown for the

surveys in 1919, 1924, 1929, and

1934. The proportion of white

wheat varied somewhat, but the

acreage was higher (8.3 percent) in

1954 than in any previous survey.

The acreage of durum declined to

less than half the acreage in 1919

and less than one-third of the proportion in 1924 and 1929.

Table 12 shows that most of the

FIGURE 55.—Distribution of hard red winter wheat in 1954.

Each dot represents 5,000 acres.

34,634,009 acres.
DISTEíBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 23

B-

•' \' • '7^-: '^^^.^-

Ay^

K-^ /

• ^yj • ' • :iIfipüp.. i: ^

I (

—_ uL

—^¿^

' .-■■-yvlmr ^ •• 1 \

\

-A. ^^r1

""SV^N

FIGURE 56.—Distribution of hard red spring wheat in 1954. 13,248,404 acres.

FIGURE 57.—Distribution of soft red winter wheat in 1954. 7,340,268 acres.

391831—57 4
24 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGBICÜLTUKE

^^

r~—--^ ^

f^T»^

K|: \ J~ \

—'V . \

/ y/

ñ

^

rÏ

\

A^y^t'

ptip Öf

líNJ-^Qni^

wC ;. \i

/ —1

)

—^ ^^

y^'

0

\

J

-^^-^^v.^f

^

FIGURE 58.—Distribution of all white wheat in 1954. 5,157,147 acres.

increase in hard red winter wheat

since 1949 has been in Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas, where soft red

winter normally is the principal

class. Both Illinois and Missouri

have grown considerable acreages of

hard red winter for 40 years or more,

largely because of the superior winter-hardiness of hard red winter

varieties. The highest proportion

of hard red winter wheat in Illinois

previous to 1949 was in 1924, when

51.5 percent of the State acreage

was of this class. The percentage

then declined to 22 in 1944 and

jumped to 41.5 in 1949 and to 64.3

percent in 1954. In Missouri only

14.6 percent of the wheat was hard

red winter in 1919. It declined to a

low of about 6.1 percent in 1934 and

rose to 47.7 percent in 1949 and to

54.5 in 1954. In 1954 hard red

winter wheat predominated in 8 of

the 9 crop reporting districts of

Illinois (table 11 and fig. 55) and

in 5 of the 9 crop reporting districts

of Missouri. The acreage of hard

red winter in Arkansas was neghgi- FiGURE 59.—Distribution of durum wheat

in 1954. 1,591,172 acres.
DISTEIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 25

ble before 1954, but that year accounted for 12.3 percent of the State

acreage. In 7 districts in Missouri

the proportion of hard red winter

wheat was greater in 1954 than

in 1949.

Hard red winter wheat also replaced soft red winter wheat in eastern Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, and

in aD but one crop reporting district

(No. 4) of eastern Texas. This

increase in the acreage of hard red

winter in what has normally been

considered soft wheat territory

seems to have been due not to any

preference for hard red winter as

much as it is to the popularity of

the medium early maturing, high

yielding, moderately short strawed

variety Pawnee, and to a lesser extent to the varieties Triumph and

Westar. The popularity of Ponca

in eastern Kansas and eastern Oklahoma also has been a factor.

There also has been a considerable

increase in the percentage of hard

red winter wheat in Wisconsin, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, South

Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming,

but the proportion of this class decreased in Utah and Washington.

Although the nationwide change

in hard red spring wheat has been

relatively unimportant, there have

been rather marked shifts in certain

States (table 12). In North Dakota

the proportion of hard red spring

wheat was 81.6 percent in 1954, the

highest for any survey year except

1944. There also was a slight percentage increase in hard red spring

in Minnesota. The proportion of

hard red spring wheat declined

sharply in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois,

Nevada, New Mexico, Washington,

and Wyoming. This has not affected

the national total appreciably, as

relatively small acreages of this class

of wheat are grown in these States.

The proportion of white wheat increased in New York from 70.5 percent in 1919 to 97.7 percent in 1954,

and in Washington from 52.2 percent in 1924 to 77.4 percent in 1954

(table 12). In Michigan a marked

increase in white wheat occurred

from 1924 to 1949, and a moderate

decline in 1954. The proportion in

1954 was higher than in any previous year except 1949. There has

been also a moderate increase in the

proportion of white wheat in Oregon,

but a marked and consistent decline

in white wheat in Arizona, Colorado,

New Mexico, and Utah. The

changes in the proportions of white

wheat are the result of preferences

of farmersfor certain varietiesrather

than because of any superiority of

one class as such over another.

The greatest relative change in

the proportion of a market class

occurred with durum wheat (table

13). The acreage of durum wheat

in 1954 was less than half that of

1949, and the proportion of durum

wheat was only 2.5 percent in 1954

as compared with 4.2 percent in

1949. This decline, as previously

mentioned, was without doubt

caused by the recent widespread and

severe epidemics of race 15B stem

rust to which all the commercially

available durum varieties were very

susceptible. The decline was greatest in North Dakota, where about

93 percent of the durum crop was

grown in 1954, but there was also

a sharp decline in durum wheat

acreage in South Dakota and in

Minnesota. The decline was greatest in central and eastern North

Dakota, northeastern South Dakota,

and in Minnesota where stem rust

has been most severe. There was a

corresponding increase of hard red

spring wheat in North Dakota and

Minnesota. In South Dakota the

decline in durum wheat acreage

seems to have been mostly offset by

increases of hard red winter wheat

in other parts of the State.
26 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, XJ. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

'ta

»-s

-<

ja ^

*+-.^

<o Ob

>í>-)

^ 'Ta

•«s> p»

« Ö

5> Oi

r^ -^

ÇJ Oi

ä>-i (^ ff Ä

rO CO

A r

3 o

Ö

O «Û

Q :S

tg

pq

»oe<i»OíOr^«oo»ooi-He«

'>-' OSOOOXNCO

i-lt^ ir-

»Hoo»o»o»co5oooi>-t.-Hcoeooï

(NOO

^ \o

-0-!

.S'S

lag

coo

e4.-i

eoi-i

oieô

00 00

«5^

00 r^ a> »o Ci r^ CO

00 o ' ^' 1-Î ' Ö

OÄ ü^

3"^

o cíooíO to 00 00 o> r^ ^ Pi CO GO

<O00 I I • "1-H

«DO I I I it^

1-HCO I I I tO

KO a • I I ici

»Cil

ooeo-^oo o •<i< <o Tit to oi OS-^ »-H

C S » O Cd

too

csieo

*a*a^ a> Ï" '" s

-- w w ^w ,-«-sa 0> 00 03

9M

IS«
DISTEIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 27

^"T-T

CO 1-1 CO so io5

lO 00 lO rH i-TrH ^

15 .H lO (N (^ TÍ4 00 3 a U3 CO t« CO TH

15 io'^ CÍ i-H 1-1

t^C0t^»OOiiO«Oi-HTHMC<00 esiaîiD'3<t«-o»eoooo(Nt>.eo O'-HD0lNrH00COa>00l0-^í<

»-T csf TfT eo'«o cioT00 »o eo IN 00

tDcOO-^eOC^t-Hi-lr-ti-li-t

cocf

OTí< CS|Tí«iOO

2§5 ;i

«oo

eot>r

CMOO"^ o t* eo o 00 »o eo <N 00 o CO N1-1 •oopoc^çocDi-ioseoost^oo

eócói-HOÍí>¡-««íí-«í<eócócic^t-í

t^OOiO

O'tfjr-Î

t^íOi-t

30 CO CO

i-IOOíOíOOOb-.t^»0»OCICO

OÓCÓT-ÍI-í go

i-ti-l C0(NMO5

Neo l^(N(N

i-HOÓíO

Seo

»beo»d

<N»0 ^OiCO

'*ÍC5(N

00 Cí

cooó

, ,1,.,

a •«•Est ië'2SÎ2^g§3 i^tíS^«'' ^ -^

3w â >

o

»otí

fe >» ^ O)

f^^ , . _ . . . .

es S

'S

ü
28 AGR. HANDBOOK 1Ö8, TJ. S. DEFT. Oî^ AGRICULTtJiRÊ

e

3

1^

O «O

^ Ö

Ö c

Cq

©

ü

<

os

Tt< t^ O 1 1 • ' C<I 1

i ligSigiiiiïSSisigliëiiiie i i

i

738

1,623

38.568

26,532

14,859

861

10, 213

(522)

462,080

694,960301.440

507, 988

384,008

326,826

0000(N ' ' 'P '§ ¡S ¡ ¡ ! !§§

(NCÍOO'COCO" ! ! 'S^" "-<*" ¡<5*" ! ¡ ¡ ¡^"W" cO-^Tti00«O¡¡¡C0¡ ¡ ¡¡¡1

CD

bX)

03

1

i

coco ! ! ! !ío o

1

! CO 00 CO <M »o CO C<ï o Oi es r^ CO CO CO Oi CD »o «>< >-< f-< rH TH I I

! lO ,-J oi "*" CO CO CÓ CÓ C>í CÍ 1-H r-í i-í I-I j j

1

! rH «M <N CO o TH Tí<

! o »o có (N * r-;

o

1

1 OONCOOCDO 1

! c^ oi oó -^ ci oi ¡

t^ c<j 1-H r-i lo 1 1 ICO ii-i ¡eo j 1 1 ¡'-J'-J

r-irHTíílOrH ! I ¡CÍ ¡ ' ¡ ¡ ¡ 1 ¡ ' *

i

00 !io ¡^ ¡ ¡Cí

CÔ ! ¡oí 1 • * s

4.4

22.6

17.2

26.8

cq^ \^t^ ! !_, ! I ! !(N ! 1 I ! ! !

'có 1 "có 1 1 * • J ¡ ¡ ' ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

1

CO !<N !cs ! !(M

s i- i • i i"

CO ! 1 it>.O0i-lCí 1

! 1 ¡CSCÍoi-rlí 1

III Tt< t

Til 1 lOi I 1 1 ' • • ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

oi 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 I ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

05

CD »»o 1 1 1 i»0 o>

f3

! Ill lOOtCl i

! i : ! i"^^ 1

^ ! ¡o 1 ! ¡ ¡ 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

•Kli 1 1 ,-i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¡ ¡

1

00 !t^ ! ! ! !eo

^ is i i i^

CO 1 III loo'í* 1

i i i i Hs i

UD 1 IrH 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1

l>^ 1 1 r-í 1 1 1 ¡ 1 1 1 1 ¡ 1 ¡

os

,-( lOi 1 1 • 1 rH

03

! ! ¡ ! !eoo !

! ! 1 ¡ ! I3 !

»O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

?5 i i ; i ! i i i ! 1 1 I 1 i

05

03

o no 1 1 1 ICO

Ö !t^ ! ! I |t>:

(M

g8

. 1 1 1 1 iU3 1

: i ! i I i^ :

Ji

Î

f

0

1

<3

-1-

0

a

3

1

13

California—Continued

White—Continued

Baart

- Elgin Sonora..

Big Club 43 Pacific Bluestem 37Poso 44...Lemhi

Variety not reported 3

3o

Colorado

Hard red winter:

Wichita

— Comanche

Cheyenne

Tenmarq. BlackhuU

—

! I 1 !,E

¡4 à il

Kanred -- - - WasatchKanqueen

Nebraska 60Triumph - SiouxYogo... lowin - Nebred.

Apache - Ponca - - RedJacket

MinterWestar. - RedhuU

—
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 29

SsSS

gjt^ Soo « ^ ^ kfs ej ^ eo 00 a

!SS

>OOQQO 5Tt«ooe5t^

S^ íí

os»oeoeopoaít>.coco

lOI>CÍeOCÍrHrHrH

»ooco es OS 0> 00 »o t>-»o CO coc^

CS" CO C< 1-Î r-i ' • • .-¡C^

IrHiO

a® i9 ë

2 IS is

o 'S

fl o

-not!

-^2

1-2 g ce c3 I

Pirn

P o à;
30 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, V. 6. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUEE

rf* O Tt< OJ ,-nO CO O CO C eooor^OT

MOO00ÇD<O<OC<>.-ti-(i-l CD

CO 1-liDTt*«'^ t^coco«or^

\^ oeo ! i-^O 1 1

iiOO» 1 1

It^ 1 CO 1 •

I'i*

t>.<DOSC

i-|iOO> «c^

i§^ i^

§53 —I f-H

i-HO-^t<-OOï'TÎ<(MrHîO(NCV|iCÍ»OC0>O»O.-4.-ír-¡,-i

cseo«Or-ii-noTííCíc<»- Ci Tí» t»-^ CO

eoci * ' *

tf>»oeo>-HO

oos

t^ s I- ^-

¡Tí 2-^*5^ Î,q O ^^

£7CQ

^

I o 3 <» fl+3

2-0

?¿'S eSh-OË'

sw

^1 ^SS-2'S o i §=5 fe| g £ i g I fe-i
DISTEIBUTION OF "WHEAT IN 1954 31

OOTfíCí 00 oe*)r-ieo 00«ceo .-<

S5S22;3^9Ssí*=^*^95os"^^ooooTf<-*íi»í3

£^£2£2SSS"^"'0C00ri<-<i<TfTC»O(NQ0

»-" -«cDOOC^OlíCcO^OOOCC^OlíOCOr-»

JS" Jg oo "3 co' -Í OS oj OS oTco TjT r^ i-T CO (N 05 t^ ;0 »O CN i-l - "^ ^

W3 |.-H I t-HOOt^rii O ""

«co>Tt<05coeocDt^t^iocorÖ OS t>^ U3 »C Tji (N FH • • • •

I O 00-^ O-«íí i-H O

11>^ >0 -«si ci CO ' *

I CO t^ Tí* ri< ^

OS CO (M M

'ci ' I-i

COCM ICO

CirH ¡r-Í

rfCOíN

CO *ci

K) O) C

o ^ Hol

IíO I I CO

lOÓ ¡ !o

»o I I .-H

os íO »*<

CO-^ÍN cicles 1-

00OSi-icOrí<Cí00t^

'CO * 'c¿ 'i-i

U5«5rHCOC^ <^CO^^

rHCÓ 'l-í 'oÓi-H.-;

00 t^Cï

cóoó

ood

-ic^ioot^

H 'cic<í

!«.g

OSCÏ

r-JcO

Ç ;5'Ç3 CO Tt< o (N í-í «o

0Tí<O00(Nt>.cOC0d

ocot^

: »o .-H

g'g^o g §^.S¿ ^ Sa S^.'g ^o Í3= o£ a^

3é¡«opíPífiiiiswwoíiHow^PH<í^«

o

os »OOO rí< 00

l>^ C4 rH '

¡ ÖP

l-«í< I ll-l

ICO I it^

'9'>.

cocot>-

CÍ(NtH

Cí »OTí<

'oóci

391831—57-
32 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

'Ta

ci Ö

o:)

ö

•ç-» Ti

s 2

^í* d

S -M

>

Ö

o

Ä

U1

1^ 1 •
 ^

g ••-s

'ta

Ö S

<o Q

>sOb

^0 v^-

<;5 •^

R ?e

S

w CO ;.> <:^

O Ç3S

ç-<

Ö «;5

<i5 VJ^ o

Ö Ö

,^J <i-)

Ö.J2

<45

^«i ^

C3i

&q

Socoo.-H»oeo >-H»OeOl^l>t^TÎ<"^'Hr-li-1 TÍ" t>. o Tt< fH 1-1

COOQCOiOCSO 03 »O? OjOip J ¡JO

i-t 00 o •—I 00 00 o IOC CO kO t^- • • »o

lO I—I !>• CO ÍO ¿o CO I'* es 05 »o I I"*

i-Ti-T »o" • t^eooo I ICO

"^ I «NOÖCÖ • ICO

TJÎ-^O «O CO 00 "3 ÍD C<l CS

opior*«

CO-^ OS 1-" o "^ "^

r-i 00 l>" CO »O »O CO CO CO

C<l0500C<ICOO00-*»O"*C0C0iÖ 00 Tii CO ci --H

rH I iO(N

Ü

•SS.

O '

•¿I

.a

.0 3 3.23

.4*i CO

C0>-HOT-(00-^t^t^i-l.-l

CO »O r-î "O * CS* (M' Tíí ci ci

«í< 1-1 o CO 00 Tí< 00

Ö1-5 "<*< »-Í ci CO

cOCÍi-i

r>; ' TH I Ci ob

ic»Tí<eocococ<i-iCí

' c« ooococo

CÏ OCOIOOOCD

CO »ClTí<i-IO0

ci * ci CO

»o t-ioco »o

ci *ci"«3Îi-î

Tfl t^ 00 »o rH

CD * ci CÓ CO

! 2

'S ^

. o o
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1951 33

o oir-Ti-H O •^ eo CI C>< >-H r

iW (M 00

lOcO O

1 t^t- 00 I O» Oi »O CO O t^ O

»* I Oi t^ i-l .-H (M C^ t>.

«£> lr-l,-H CO-^O-^

CO leoio i-( 1-1

3C<IOO I05Q

5iOOi It^i-t

oo«0":>ooo ooo'+'f.

Tt< c^ «** OS .-I CO i-t * uo t^

rH OJ C<l î<i o CO lO(Nr-HlO

i-< CO 00'<*' r-t

c^eoc^ 1-t <-i Tî<oc^»oo>ooaosooooeocoe^csi(N,-ir-tr

Q CO C) «5-«(íi CO

I 0Ó OS t>^ CÍ lO CÍ

i(N05

lOS »ooo

!»ocô

¡CO «o (NOS ITf<00

¡loci

• coo

¡CÓ0Ó

i-^eooi»o

I c^ coco

!oÓ<N'<l<

ICO CO

o

1
34 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

e

iV^

^S? Ö

3 -)J

> O

ÎÎ5U1

«W 1

^ih

>^

-^

ç^ s

«w e

?3iO:)

rO ^

1?

R, Ö

S

«O CO

ÍJ <iJ

o «Si

Ci

a <;)

<45

V«

Ö C

to <4î

Ö^iS ^.<^

tiq

CT> COOPOOOOOCQOCO ^liD OOOOiO »O C<) Oi OO —I —I t ~ to t-i Ci Oi C Ç^ Oi rn

—< CC «O rH —. a> I - CO 05 Ti< CO 00 C< rH

Scoocoeoc

^ OO "»i" 00"

>-l OrfCO f-l

o 00 o> o

05 00 «O -«ï*

cvroo''o

00 t^ M <a

IOC3 '— 0 M ocse

COiOOO

o r-i —( t^ »o»ocs.-(

-0

t^-OSiOt^-^COOt^COCOC^C^i-

-eh lO Tji CO »-i i-H T-i

-o Ö g L -

2 ^ > -P i

w

ooeo»-i t^

»oco

c^' 06

00 ci

?Sü«

oseoo

011^

«3 «o

»ocsi

00

oó^

3 w C g

i CÚ r^ -^

^ t>. »-(

i-H »o

1-î t>^

o'csf

^00

l-HO>

CO-^i«

00 10

»Or-i

Orí«

«¿oí

fe- oí c3

O) ? c3

wW
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 35

î; "Í rf S 55 2Í *v3 22 <= o t^' ^ -^ ai t^ ^r

-• o> 00 00 r^ CÍ CÍ

lOOOOTfiCOOlC^rH

Sr-oa> Oi 25-^ o

:s

5C5 .<N

oi >a>

•rf I 00

N ICO

CD OS

,_(i-<Tí<»-icO'^c><OJOsoo»o»oiO'>!í<eoco

rH 00 t* ÍO CO ci Ci

«ííosr^

öcö

o »o CO

05>O0Ó

COOOO

a> coco

CO COlíf

1^ T-HIO COOlCOCD-^CÍOCO

lo' CO' CO' »d eO eO CO r-Í rH

OOC^Í (NCO

CO 00 i^CO

coo

»Or-t

.-Î 1-4 (N »H 1-i 1-5 iH

COOi

Oi-í

I^í^ c3|Ö b£) cfl^

iill|i|liltlli¿fflllliíiliilil!

'S oa

- P í

o

'Otí

¿'S

2«

"S? öti J 1=1

, o CO 03 tí <^
36 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

si Ö

s

Ti

:3

rir* fl

s +=

> o

SiO1

•w 1 ^

>^

•^

ç^ ff •^ es

>5 0i

rO •<h

<53

a. ÇS

=ï

<ü eo

o <u

o tSi

r< c <^ <^> j^

s- o

Ö Ö

Cq

^loeocoosioQQOcOTHOijoecr-.c^

•<í<»-H05<0»0»0'OkOCOPOC^(M<NT-(

i-ToT ! cíi-Tt^TcD'*' (N i-T l(M r-l

0«N

oo

TÍ<irOCC(MCS|(M(N(Nl-H.-(i-lr-(.-lrH

CO 00 l> t^ o "O CO C^ <-< GOO

OQO

0> t-»iOl'^CO'^ÄCO<l CO osíDc^oiioeot^c

05 i<N o

<N i<M l> Tfi looco

^ ci >0 C4 CÍ N r-i I-Î r-Í r-i

OOt^TH

00.-I

C0 05

i>00

¡»CCD

lOeo

I Q5Ä or^ o O) M s

,3 o

03

I o

I«

I ftS fe tí
DISTBIBTJTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 37

cCÍÍt^c5íD05i-i«C<líOi-iO?<COC «»OíOO-^^lr-lCOíOCOOt^íDC^C

SoJO

»OCOCÍ pT

OCO OOrH 5c^ 1^

t^.O-'i«« CSJNT- OSC»OOa>COCiiMC<MrHr-<i-l,H

t^Ni-l (N

»oeo

-4N

»OCÍ GO coo

3^ ^s.:§ , ? 2 o

ri >»

I >

o

»o
38 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEFT. OF AGEICULTTJEE

<

OS

657,137

99, 89723,631

1,873

687

54,571

o

o

(1,034)

19, 298

10, 311

3.0632,078

1,931

203

201

485.201

106, 699

16,05413.73913,46812,954

5,982

3,9713,932

1,5391.031

897

529

1

1,6981,407

790566566

395

283

884.730

66,361

43.'486"

5,088

152,063

i (2, 732)

2,260

29, 379

12,283

115

2.764

144

7,614

1,240

408

77

474'

425.411

23,713

356,983

28,007

57,326

26,"Í52"

39,118

104,588

3,448

6.517

¿¡

2

l!l!!l¡ r-i Oi eo Ci ^'H

! : i ! ! ! ! é^^ ' '"^

o

I

1 CO'^'t'COCO ! ! ! o »o <N 05 00 00 00 «o CO (N I-I T-l,-(

1 ci .-i ' * 111 «O -^ CS¡ T-î ,-î t-î

I * * I 1 !

1

r-lT-lrH OSrHiCOMIt^ o

s

1 CíCOO M CD,-I 1 r^00»OPÏ'<ÎI lOOrHCO«

1 'ci ' • • • í g^'^g^c^"^ ¡c^'woö •

1

0.4

.9

" "".2

.1

11.8

-----

2.9

7.0

o ! IOC^!I!<N!I! I! oo»o!!!!,-iec^r-t

! I^" • ! ! 1 • ! 1 1 ! ! co^ ! : ! ¡ '^ •<© ¡^ 1 1 1 I I . 1 i^^CO III, c3 ^

! 1 1 I ! 1 ! ! ! 1* ! ¡ 1 1

' '

(*) 2.0

' 47.'3"

4.0

4.3

05

É

1 los 1 1 1 Ico 1 1 ! ! ! Ico J ! ! ! ! 1 ¡lo !

! Ico ! 1 ! 1,-! 1 ! ! ! ! 1^- ! ! ¡ ! ! ! ¡^ :

¡ ¡ 1 ¡ 1 1 '^

i

00 1 ¡^ 1 ! 1 l°° ! ! 1 1 ' • ' 1 • I 1 1 1 ICO •

! ¡"i : : I'll ! i 1 i i i i i i i i i^ i

^COTíI IC5 I I II iCO-^O»

öio î ' I î II |oiooó

o

É

i 1*=^ ! i i ¡^ ! ! i i 1 1 ! i ! ! ! ! ! Ico :

i ¡"^ i i ! i^ i ! i ! i i i ! i i I ! i JS 1

^

1-^ iiM eoh-Tii

|cd ¡^ 1 1 II |<^S"='^

! * ! il III'

o

i í^" í i i !'=*!! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Icj !

: í^ Î M :" ! : ! i i i í í i I 1 i 1 í^ I

oa

05

1.0

15.1

20.6

§8

1 1 1 1 I 1 |co 1 ! ! ! I ! ! I ! ! ! 1 ! leo !

! i i i ! i i" i i i i ! i i : ! M i i i¿ Î

>

'a

Ü

1

ciT

Michigan—Continued

Soft red winter—Continued

Forward...

Red Wave..

Mediterranean _ Kawvale..

Fulcaster __ Fultz.Currell...

White:

YorkwinCornell 595

Genesee...

Dawson

Goldcoin

Variety not reported 3

s

Minnesota _ Hard red winter:

MinterMinturki

Marmüi

YogoKarmont

Pawnee

Turkey

Nebred

Wasatch..

Newturk

Hard red spring:

Lee

Rushmore

Mida

Thatcher....

Rival

Henry. Redman

Selkirk

CadetPremier

Regent Marquis PUot
DISTRIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 39

cooooi>i-iooi-i05

O

-O

p

391831—57-
40 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGEICULTURE

cooes

THCOCS

i^oco

Oi-H00TÍ<00<NCK>t^«D00í>-(M«0»0TíiOCC>(Mr

»-( CO«

I lO O »O >C O "O O

I CT> CO .-H t- 3; l;^ es

1-<í< CO 10 r^ CO ce "*<

»oooooopioo COrHCSlO'»í<i-lt^CO'5Í<

OOQO»OCOI>COCOCS
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 41

S § PÍ5SS§S?2Si53

It^^C^^^^'^^^^r^-^

íDQQíDt--TÍ<a>,-lrt<Oa>OSCO'<í<r-

'*<NTíit-CSO«0>0'*OTHoScCOÍooÍícs

to 05 ^ o CO Oi^t'-rco'io icT-rtî^-^ ^CO oTcjO <:o''rír

¡00 05 ococo

1 (M ".^fí Tt4 (M 00 o o

TÍ<CO>C,H

05 i-t (N l>.Oï

Qoo »o r-o

(N 0OO5 05 o

oT^jToococí

íO (M 05 (M OÍ

l(»005T}1t^rHt^Ot^

--;¿< 00 rH lO Tt< (N

^ o i-l lO rt< »o o

H i-H CO 00 OÍ CN ¿5

CO cd -^ 1-4 c^"

• osor- H 00 lO i-H TH ,-H

OOOlt^rHOOCOOOlOlOCOCOOOCO'MtNrOJ ^' r-i T-¡ r-í I-Î
42 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

^55 5U0r-(O 5CT><N t*

rs04 i-t

^COr-ir-t

C< Oi 1-H CO 1-1 «O

-f CO QO

IC OS CO

00(N

00 CD

rHCD-rH i-lO

05 OS 00C(0«O

.-ICO r-ICO

CD "O Tt<

r-4 l-H CO

t^ TÍ* o ~

o ooo

C<f ko go t^ r-^ <0 ^C

iCÎ- ec Pi 05 o »o-ííi c

CCOOîi-t

I Ci 00 rH oseóte

CO«OCQOb- i0i0»0

r-i "if oiÔ^ "«H logscD

CSC^OOOOi-t i00>»0

¡OriTi^'' ^S2 I i-tCQCO

t>.àocDt^»oi-it^»o»ocoeoeQei

Tí<CÍ.-4 00(N

oooo

p±í *;

«o ¿

¡OHPQ

Q î2

6

I"- il

¡ u Srq « 3^ o O ® « ûCfl ^
DISTRIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 43

^ r^ •-'<N «3 »-I •-• t-^ ce CO OCOl-H f

CM 00

5 t^CM -"tiOS

-fH 0»0 ft Oi to

coco

"^ CO

OCO>OCC-^r-.-Hr-lt^CMOO

sD005i-Hooc:c-iTrcooo-n<

«oocoíOí0 0co<Ni-ii-ia)

kO to

iOOOO'^t^.h-COOt^tOOO

a>oo «(N ^C^ »*< lO

ciöciaö

citó

.-•CM

00 »d

os 00

0ÓI>^

ai^^íM ^-S o Î3!:2 g b^'ö c3^ C3-M o-s P^>_^ o s M bp° " i> «3 P o (3 p-O

f^f^ p O I

O

'O

'ü ><! ca t^

W ^W> w
44 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Ö

3

^

â -1-3

> o

:) ^

<^ 1

«V *^

'^

ç^ K

<;5 Ç3

;s50N

rO -<fîS

S

I^

PQ

"^OO (N i-Hoor- C^

o»o ?2i:;gS

»OOCOiN

'•005C

CO o CD CS lO -t< t^

lO 00 rr to Cl t - oo t^ t^ TÍKM (M T-H

cDocN-^ eceococ^'Hf

* o3 Ö ÍM aj,

o

CO

1^

(N »o Tt* (M C^ C^ r00 CO

1-* 00

OOCOt^

CD r-t

OOOOCOC^OO

«i<" OÖ CNÍ * oi

<óe6

o lO t>-00 «D t^ 00 t^ Oí 00 CSl c^

i-t 00 CN «D t^ o (N c5 a> 00 00 e»5

-ti »o e^-«*" 0000

CO coo i-H OOíO

^ CO t>. T-l 1-1 -^

;z; H h-5 PR :2; PH piH Kl Pt, 5ü Ü >^ ©

I I

.-iTf<e>ïi-ioocO"^05a&»ooi

OCíO» rHO

CO (M' (M' CÍ T

OOr-H

OÖCD

OTÍí

l>íO

OCM

L^ 03 M ä 03-^

?^ QJ " ^ fa «' ' ü

Í3 o C °î Sí

I ÍJ tí ro O) .^ r-l
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 45

OOOCOOO

gi»oooo

• I—t »0 0> f-i

iNr-(<N Tt<fH(N05

CO o> i-i o

S2 g'^S "^ooeoS

OïCMOOQO

h-^CM rl ,-1 t^OOi-t

cot-Jo

o t^ •^COOiO

coeókd

oo

00Ó

«ooo

ë%.

a 2«^T3 o 03 2: R t-o-Orri 3 R'ö tí >.

c3 o

d

w

o.

l-l

03 w

.S'^ '- ^-^

; Í2 '

<pqZP»Hco,

gil

o

'O

Si

w a) "^ M

.. o o o rt ^ E"
46 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUEE

1

(1.017)

112. 577

74. 495

63.18033,788

16, 542

10.535

7,0426,787

5,499

4,7543.093

2,000

1,9831.9281,088

601

470

440

413

366340

200

172

96

"' 286"

15,325

Î

(239)

14,641

11,924

6,9056,240

685

2,611,0931,140,693

1

(668)

1,535

1,8417,347

278, 366

25," 732"36.608

26,412

28,587

1,664

29,35936,324

2,"228"

3.090

636"

2,797

1,1282,"452'

25,894

P ¡O it>- it^ 'O

^o'£2 '25 'SS 'fc ICO lOi lO ICC

^ ', \^ \r^ ItjT

^ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡^

III ¡CO

o»

1 05-^ Tt< CO >0 05 o 05 »O CO o CO o »O CO CS rH .-( rH rH .-1 rH ,H j I 1 »H C<l o

I

1 N(Ni-l.-l 1 t^Ol

i * ' ' *_ i dî2

¡ * 1

¡ f^^^^^ ¡ !o(N(NCCCOÍ^i-l • ' • i-^tO 1 1 j ¡THîOCÏ ¡"^*^

1 c5"r-i-^!!l0t>-"»0>0'>0t^!l>¡*'}¡¡¡''*¡ "^

o

1

¡ 1 I.-H 1 ia>

¡ ¡^ ¡ ¡,^ ¡eo

¡ ¡* ¡ ¡* ¡

1

! ! ! ¡CO ! ICOCO-^CÍ lt^C<ï 1 1 1 1 lio IrH 1 ¡.-ITt^rt« jC^»H

! ! ! ! ^* I !Ö»oo»o \i-irA ! ! ! ! ' i * ¡ ¡»-< '»o ¡ci^»3

o ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡C9

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡* ¡ ¡ ¡

1

! ! ! ¡OS ! ¡TtiOíDt- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !co ¡csi ! ¡oo"** !-:í<(N

¡ ! ! ¡oó ! !t>:iocor-* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 * í * 1 ¡c^rHâô !C4Tí! 5

r-l

! ¡ ¡ ¡o ¡ ¡.-HOiot^ 1 oi 1 1 1 ir*(Neo icoo>

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡^ ¡ ¡Cftr-iOr-; ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ I ¡ ¡ í ¡CS'r-ioi ¡cocí

M

É

1

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡1-- í ¡Tji ÍTHOS ! ¡ I I I I I I'* I I I iWCOCO iCXJkO a» 1 1 1 iC4 1 1 11

i

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡o ¡0)0 ¡ í 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¡ 1 1 1 iCOC^t^ ico-^

i i i i i i !?2 i^*'^ i i i i i i i i i i i i i^*^'^ i*^*'' s

Î 1 1 iC4 1 1 II

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡t^ ¡05<M ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡OÍNCO ¡OOt^

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡;SM ¡CÓ<M" ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡CÓF-íaO ¡ "oí

1 iiiiiic^ii-icoiiiiiiiiiiiii 1

00 1 1 1 irji 1 1 11

>

North Carolina....

Soft red whiter:

Atlas 66Atlas 50

Thome

Redhart

Coker 47-27

Anderson

Leap ForwardPurplestraw Fulcaster..

Currell

Hardired

CaralaCoastal

Sanford _ VahartChancellor ._

Leapland

V. P. 1. 131Taylor NittanySenecaFulhio. - Fultz

Rice

Flhit

White:

Greeson

Variety not reported 3

North Dakota:...

Hard red whiter:

Minturki

NewturkYogoTurkey Hinter

Marmin

Hard red sprhig:

Lee

Mida
DISTKIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 47

§ S S § C5iSSSfgse s C$ iS s § ?S 2? s ?g 5? 00 «^ OS ^ ^ t-rH Ä-^ io $ ^ TO ss « ^ g 22 2^ is ss ?2 g CÍ5 ^ r

OS 00 eo es N1—1

0 00 05 o CO w «o PO

SOS-^iOt^OCOt—

00 »O >0«D t^ COiC «o t-- »o

«O CO * »O CD r-i cooeoi-t

t>.COi-l tooû ooi-H CÍ -^

«D<r ooo

o> »o o

Ol .-ICSI

>C CD

05 CD O t^ CO i-H

O 1-1 O-^ 00 CO w cs o ^ »—• CO ^

OÓO "cSTii

ooo

cocao •-H l-l 00

•-H OS

«I o

»SS o b£ 13 fc- TS

ns a> <ü c3 ü

i:ü ;i 3 i:-r 3 4= ¿

!pH<;ES
48 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

0500>f-t»0^-Ot^t^O>»OOI~^ÇO(M»0'i<00

5Ti<.-(Ot^e5>ooiioco

'iiococ/ot^oeococ^c

OOCD.-<COOOt^O>

iO>-<05>—i»Oi—iiOO

H Ol CO (N U3 CO CO C^ 100

< CO coos .-

0 Cl CO 05 o

»OO I CO 00 i-l »O •^ CO o iCOCCtOr-

«5^ I 1^ 1-H CO CD o CS »-H IrHOCO^.

cst^ iasc5cD»o-^ >OIOSíOF-(O

i-TíN ¡CO 00 I o-^co

I—t I i-H ^ I iO

í^osoi-iíocooi IOTí<Tí4-^ cocoes CS ICOCÓt>I(H<NrH

CO(N r-(rH

COi-HCOCO-HOOiríí

CO es 1-J Ö (N CO (N <N CO rH

00 CO 00

ocies

OOO^

^^co

r- ooco

Oi-ícó

COQOO»

S5 '^

.-HCSiO

ocico

CS OO '-O >o CS »O Ieo i^ 1-H ci ^

CS CC » CO cs

QO CO -x> o; lO

s >*

¿¿œE-'«>E-'0:2;PnP=<c»:2;p^PL,«;^«;z;tf(i;(S«uê«;z;WO«i2

I o

N;:^ ce

_ u, Oí >

s :2¿.s.od

• o s o o C3
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1964 49

g IIIs Igg &'g"s§ s"sís s s •-"'-"« *"^"-"

CO o «ooo «

ecooo-*c

od-<íí(M'

t>.OCOOCi

IO5 00

o i-H t--eo Tt< a> ^

o t^ <N O) r^ (M rH

«5 »O'«*^ Tf<

r^ lo T-ioo COOSOO

odi-H"orod

«D »o »o rH

(Nl-HTf l-H

i i^ i :^2 i

1 lO 1 lO I

«o <o -í

—•PO »o

oTcíco

ooooo

odcsf

iooíO»oooor^eot>.Qor^cOT

o C5 oí 05 »o -^ c^' CM' i-í

J2 t-H o'^ »o (N rH

lO .—I Q CO 05 lO CO

OS (N e5 00 <N CO ?-

t>^o>cír-í.-r ,-r

^COCVJ CM PH ri0 050(NOCn(N

,-5 -^ .H 1-Î iri oó

oo—ico

eoc<io.-¡

coooo

Ot^OiPO

2 '-^^

j2|| SI'S il g i^il-slá §1 §-g as-ê i § § ^^-SlSl £ I|S|

'S-Sd I? aj >>^ g

0*3 rt P o «2

^111

!««
50 AGB. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUEE

30000000Ç

or-oicoío^ooi>o>Tí't^.-«»o<N«505r-"t^<fi>«'^eo

o r ~ r4 rr lo'o c^ <--r cd CO cvf o" 00 o »o CO i-î" r-T Tf.-i05C0»O»OC<ÍC^>-<r-lT-H
DISTEIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 51

CM «

csoo -tOicCOOOOiíOOcOíNrHi-i »o 5l 1^ CO Til r.

^Z''

0\ '-j

CD rHl^OliO OOOO 05

I 50, i-H CO t^ CO "«i« CO i-H

.-Îcs-T^- es

»o o

COiO

10 r^ Cl r^ CO ^coooos

IC CS iO o QT) 3^§

Cít^rHCOOíDTÍ<COCOCOr

CO »O 00 --I -^

csi -;,-; '

o t^l>00

1-J ^' (N Ö

'oi CO »c

-fii«eo

"eoco

eo (N ci t^

r>^ 'oder'

^S.^

.9

.S-a l'ifî^-^ ¿ ¿^ r^ c ^ '-^^-^ B'^-

o
52 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

•to d

â -H3

'î:?

d

o

()

.;33 ^

^

>-H

'^

a K

<o O

?:ïCA

rO ^

Ö ^

<

^

3o

Bq

(D

i

h^ 00 »O O g> r^ «O 051^ íO CO CO O Tí* oo 1-1 i i i i i i I-H

^ gí?5gíS2^;í*^^ ; : ¡ ! : í ¡"^ i

co

odoo o oTiO cToTQd»o >o"iir i-T

1 1 1 es 1 1 1 i-H 1 1 1 ce É

i

o>o 1 lOiieif. I 1 ico ! ! ! 1 SS ! i^sr:; 1 ! ¡s ! : : :

|S i i-^^g ! ! ¡'^ : j Î Í

1

05

1 050500Tí«0>»OO.-<1-«O>CIC0.-II-I I I I I I I ICO o "^oo-Ht^iOcococoeseses^

I o>«o CO es r-i t^ t^ eo es ICO i>es^

« * »

1

! cs!!o!!!»o^«o!oeo!!oçDt-.^r^ co

i *^ i ¡S i ! i"^ *^ !^ " i !2H"^*^' * ^

o

I

! i-Hco ¡ ! eses ! ! ! ! ¡1

: ^ ! ! '*^' : i i i : !

! ! ! * ! ! ! '•^ ! *^ ! '

^

2

1 1 1 100 t 1 lOO 1 1 1 ICO iCOOOOOCS lili

1 1 1 lOi 1 1 icc5 1 1 • 1 * 1 't^-'íí * 1 1 1 lO

o

1

! ! ¡ ! ! !o ! .'^ ! !^ ! !

1 1 1 1 I ITji' 1 1 * 1 ir.^ 1 ,

i

1 1 1 i»o 1 1 1 i-H 1 1 1 ICO it^ it^ ICO ! ! !co I ! ! ! ! ! lo ! !cs ! ! ! !

! i ! ! i ! '*'''' ' ' '

i

1 ! ! !o ! ! ¡^ ! ! ! !oo !a> !^ !ío ! ! !^

i i i ¡^ i i 1^ i i i i^ H i;^ ; ' ! ! ¡^

1 1 1 1 1 1 ic5 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ¡

1 1 -^' I t i 1 1 ¡ 1 !

i

¡ ¡ I I 1 ¡ ¡ ¡co 1 1 1 1^ ICO i«0 1 1 1 1 iCS

! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ !co ! ! ! '^' '^ '^ ' ' ' ' '* É

! ! ! ! ! !o5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

i

! ! ! ! ! i i ¡^ i i i i*^ ¡^ i^ ' ' ' ' '*^ es ¡ ! í ! I ! !co ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

1 1 1 1 1 ics ! ! 1 1 1 1 ¡ 1

2

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ I 1 r-H 1 1 i 1 eo 1 «D lio ! ! ! ! ! »o

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 00 ' ' I " »o I có 10Ö ! ! ! ! !ö

o ¡ 1 1 1 1 1 luo 1 1 1 1 ! ! ! !

ci

>

1

Í

00

South Carolina

Soft red winter:

Chancellor

Coker 47-27... ".'.'.'."

Anderson

Redhart

Atlas 50

Atlas 66.

Coastal

Purplestraw Thome

Sanford

Taylor Carala

Leap __ Seneca

Fulcaster

Hardired

Flint....

SanettForward. _.Clarkan

TrumbullLeapland

Variety not reported 3

3

South Dakota

Hard red winter:

Nebred

Minter...

Bluejacket.-. Minturki.

Yogo..- ::::::: Newturk

TurkeyPawnee.

Wichitalowin...

Karmont

RedChief

Cheyenne Westar

Marmin.
DISTKIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 53

;2:s;s§S£^^ OSOS00»O»CC0C^CSiHi-

>-H a> Tf< Tt< CO t^

»o «o M Tti CO r>.

lO 05 vo "* CS <£)

go oo'aï-TfT CÍ .-T

s? s

05 00 00 »O CO rH t^ W>CO oí C^ i-(C<ÍOOCOCOTí<Nt^OO

»oooTiroeo t^i-Tt^TjTo

CO «o i-H •* »o c^ »o Ci r-t

t^ r-tCO i-H

JO CO WSC^II^

pCJeO U3r->

t>- qj CO i-H c»

-«i* CO lo coco

C4t*CS|t^>OC

CO CO 1-H co' ci

05t^eOeOC<CSJ,-(i-(r-lr-lrH Ot^CO(N i-H ^

i-(coeo«Moococsc>icoeo

loco 'coo * I-Î

^^

o o «-H CO

CO"* (NOi

i-!ci .-ico

cot>-

coo

Cico

28 S^S

t^ »o oco t^os

Ö oi 1-H uá c4 r-i

l5^'&a ! Mil :§ ii !-ioiJa|J \^i |

^ di: tí 2 O) d

o >> 6H

§

03

w

.9 OT OJ

,ûo.d

s 2 ai OT ai tPIHPH<ÍCC
54 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, TJ. S. DEPT. OP AGRICULTUKE

t- rf< O 'U

CO iC 'O 0

h 1^ c5 -»t* 051 gi'-ioooocoeîicDco

cc <N <N '-•'-' "-I'-'

O'f t^ Ci THI-I

r>-co

IOOÎ

O OO iM Tt< CO 05 ^

T-l CO CO t^ -"ït-Oí CO

<íi C3 o CD o CO ft

0> i-i CO r-t i-H

Ttíoosioioío-^rí^eoeocococ^cíc^c^jieo cocoes

COt--

l-îo

o t^ Oi >o CO .-•

OJCO

COTt<W-^OQOOÏiO«0

ooo:c35 0<oooiCi-HCO

OOTfOi-'COCO'-'WCSJiO

co' 00"OS '^'.-Tb-Tco 00 rjT-^if

l^COC^rHCD»OC00500t«- CÍ 0> 00 »O C< i-H i-l

Pl^Tj'íM OO

-I 00 <C o Ti< o t>.

laxííi-íeo'^oocQ-^oocs

5oeooo u3í3íO

eoo^cD-^cjooot^kO

CDOl>0>OCÓCÍCÍi-ii-5

H OS 00 CO t>-OS

'cot>iod

00 CO

<NCÖ

OOt-'O'^

OCD '

cOt^

rjîcd

oo

ooo

CO 00

§^s ''2§'

I 03 3 _

ÜÜM<ÍO

9 o

CI

i I

1^ EH

Í2 >- c Q 03-^Ä JítLi 03

§w
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 55

0<-it-H«0>00)OOC4

Ui'^ t^ 00 Oi-^-^ o> c

coef ^"^tTcicfi-T

S ¡So !QO

hT ¡loec I«

§ S

^ioioio»0'^eocooî»-i>-t OO-H OO—ti-trH

«OTT Or-t C< CO «*'O b» 00

^ CO <Ô Tji o-Si

00 po 1-H lo N CO t^

ko ! -1-4 r-- CO t^ »o

^ 00 OS CO oi oo

kO CO •>*< M t>. ^•oubcooa »OCOO(N t^

^^î

hOlM rHrHÇO

l-HO^r.

oó^t>:

»O t» CO ÍO 00 CO

<o oi CO c4 ' *

OOOOt^<N CO (N ^rH ,-4

O

»O
56 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUBE

-—' o t>» i-< 1-« »H

!?5

SS2

coco

i-IOC<lîD

oeo

CO i-H CO lO-^ t> CO

t>; C^' i-i CO * cô

^O»0iDcDt^O

'^ i-î ci .-! i-i CO

HCÍ »OCOOi-l

'côocoodi-î

.-tcooso'<i<

'«iî OÔ C4 0Ó r-i

oooeoooc»

^ oó ci >d

HrjîcOiO

00 os

»OOÓ

CO 1-1 toca

a> fl CO ,

-sei

>

,. .1, 5o< h' Sog tí

11
DISTRIBUTION OP WHEAT IN Iô54 57

coíO ^l-^ SrSÎH SSoS5oo3co-HO«ocßQOooö«?oot^'«<r-.

Ä rH i-H I—( ^ oo

»o l^ Oi «o t^ (N

C«» 00-^ 1-H os 40

o »o •—lO>^ c3>»Hco»ot^eoi-Hr^oO"^i-tr^c^

OT^OtONOQQ-^COt^r-tgOCS SciO»OMC05lCÍ«¿>i-('í'l-^CÍCO

^îOO>>C00iOC^»O00l^CÏ-^COC>ir

1-« oó »o »d ci es ci oí 1-H T-î .-J

OCÍ"*rHkO'<*<rí»CC

oo <£) 05 o I© ir> CÎ '

OTírTír(>rt>rt>r
58 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

ö

^

â -tj

> o

5I5 1

<i> ^

>H

•S '^ W K

(O Ö

ÄOi

»O ^

'S

?s

S **•

ü eo

O ÍU

O C»

ri

Ö <to «w ^.

J^ o

a Q

•fci ^i ö^

<w -<

ja

Ci

^

öq

Hl

<

1

i

1 s §iiiis§SliSiSSS§2is^^ '"' ¡ ¡

co" 5

(298)

3,930

629

367

i

(518)

46,183

1,257

62Ö'

413

COOtOCOOiM ! O) OQ OO CO lO <£> 1

no

»ocoo • ^ îO »o »o-«í« es r-l r-t 1 1 Ir-T

8,

a

i

1 t^ rí* o W 00 o o 0> o» t^ o «o kO Tt< CO CO PO CO W C^ rH .-(

¡r^ ¡ ¡

O

1

! ^OCD

1 O O-«*< (N r-t ,H ^

1 r-

! COrH •

1

1 1 coco • ir"i<

i : ^- i ! '

00>O<N O0t^i-I I

l>CO '^^ * I .-i-^íí 1

^ CO r» CO íO »o CO .-1 i-H ^ CO O

1

1 lie

: : 1

*3

O

i

H

H

3

3

)

1

! ! o ! ! !eoio

! ! '^ i ! ! '"^ i>: 00 ! csi

CO 1

¡(Nuo ! lOr-C^O 1 1

(CÓ * '.-i 1 1

1 1 1TÍ< 1 1 líi

i í i'

I

! ! ! ! ! ! !io loo ! ¡COOOO^ !cD

¡có-ici«« !

! ! ! csj t^

I : ¡(Ncó

1 1 IT

1 lib

1 1 iC

1 1 1 I 1 1 ! <«<

I ! ! ! ! ! i®

00 o ! ! o

^ JO ! i ^ CO !

1 00 o Oi CO Tí< «o i ! i *^ "*

1 1 1CÖ ci

00

1 1 ''

ITt<1-H t^

i

05 1

»O 1

ICOOOCO 00 •

icó »dcD 1

I !*

1 ! ¡OOT-H

! ! I 'CD

! ! ¡c

¡ 1 IC

i-H

Oíeo ! 1

CDOÓ ! !

CO 11^,^

O !

i>: 1

!csi0>0'«í"0 !

i i i"^

os

É

! i '*" 1 1 iTj

1 1 iC

Oi

o»

: i ! ! i i ! ' ' ^s i i i CO !

1 iCO>Oi-i.-l 1

! ! *ocó * ! 1 ico>d

i i :"=

1

1

1

West Virginia

Hard red winter: "

Turkey Soft red winter:

Thome

Carala

Anderson __ SenecaPurplestraw... _ Forward

Vigo ii:::::"::::

i

3-3

Vahart

Redhart

Nittany

Butler¿4

Sä'

I'd

il

tí ca net

Trumbull

Rice

Mediterranean

Poole..

Flint. ._

V. P. 1. 131...Ashland

Red May....

Chancellor _ _.

Red Wave

Variety not reported s _

i

Wisconsin

Hard red winter:

Pawnee
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 59

c^ 1-t «o eo CO 1-H N

0> OQ CO 1-1 Q CÏ o

lO OO •^ •^ es »^ i-H

"^ íO I ICO

CO 00 I 100

to yi* CO t* eo Oi c^ « ^oo-^eo

i-^Ni-l 00

NU3

'si

§ î?S?5^î2g:::^SS!i^§

Sg§gS2 00 »O CÍ fH i-i"

»oco o

CO<N «

s^ eo I

8

80ii< ^ »o »o

HCOtN-OOOi-t

cvit^ioc><eo»ooo»oeoi-ircooooco

odtNlo CO c5

>Ori<CS 00>O

u. fl !> i: ö .^

I

'S

PQftg

es o 03 C ®
60 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

^. 3

^s? fl

3 -*->

>

d

o

:)

;a>

<w •«>» ^^ic)

Oi

»-H

^

e S <» Q

;3iOb

rO -^h

?>

•S

0^

'Ta

e

•


pq

<

,-i lO lO »O o CO 05

ào OÎ iO * CO <N

^S B o»ooo

CO CD CO

«OOCO

oTco

.-HCO

CO i^ a>-«ti O 001-<

^ CÍ1-Í1-41-Î

coeo-^'

I a> ^rrt O E2

MCO

»dco

ooo

cocí

BùB

sí C3 ^

(N 00

CO OÍ

COiO

»ooo

CO t^

lillílálliílJlllill

©'^ K» Ö »^

O II 00 -g

S^ o ° s

^-< 03 ÖÖ

«> ^ tí i-" j>S

çj (O m f-,

fH 9i tr, Q<

O Ö 2 «»

S I tí-o

cp cp d w

b£bXlE tí

•'S ^ O

ri fli-H aSpCi 0«5- Ü o o o

"" ¿^ tíS' >bë

<D®^C3 c3-<-*r'"ti>

;5 c3 rt -tí- w^- S

'9.$ s tn £

fe5 c3 rt -tí- WQç- S

tí <fl 03 © «!=! © »-~;' tí

cu o^ 2 © o-t^ S«*-

^ o Ï © ^- • ?"^«o íZco S«

•9fe5SÍi2'0¿»Hd^

© S~ tíS fa's a ©"o ©
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 61

CSSíí eooot^ ,ooîooOÏ>-eMi-iooeocD iTfi-i looweoc

2S rg"'« ^^îS :ss r^s? iCÎKNOO

I çOi-t

O es O» lO t-H CQ ci iPOOOQO

1-HOO

îiS5 is?§ë

o lOfH CO ^

rH l-^t^QO Cil

SSR

<0'-'Q "^ es'^ "^'S! es "?'-'M o o 100 I lOOQ i-^»-« o»-"í* «o «o go o oi o CO ci »»* r» t-1 r> IOï I H-íO IOSO»

CO ub -)-^ es i-H OO o t>-CO 0> »OCS lO l it>.0 lOOOO

•^eocf-^cocoi-TodecTjTor o »o ¡Cä ! irHr-î ¡íO"»^ t^^^^g^t^ c|oO ^g ¡g ¡ ¡g ¡gJOO

5SSSS :s§g

^o ^^

^s

iS:;^

iC<^^

.o
62 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGKICULTUEE

00 <N CO ^ OS O rH lO O >« »-; 00 lO ••-< .-HI--00»OC0C0t>-'^Ot^Ot^C>i it>. -* CO I—I-^ Oi05 Oi O I—105 O ^ O it^

i-i c5 CO r^ -• o-^

<N CS TÍH t-HCS

t^cicoco

?5S t^ »o cocí

i-mOiO-^O irtOO»« ••^ I C» Q N CO CO r-< »-tor^ooo »OTft^ lO ••^iO^«5oioo íDCOíOOit^ i«OMC0 It» it>.t^O>OOCi

§Q 05 »O lO CO

o (N OS t^OS h i-H IM CN <£) o

2§-^<^gî8"

-ioor^cor>-c^coot^o» »<THCT)Oco»-i'»t<i-ir-QO 0»Ot^COTHCMCSOCO<0

coo .-tCOi-HCO

^ (O T-i-^ <Z>

r-4 OOS-^C^ T

r-l»OCO C" i-HCOCSi

5iOOf»M05O00r»05C^C0t^-^ ÍCOt^QO-^OJQOí-HCSTfiCOt^OOCÍ

¡^

cococo»oo5t--.o cooc^o i»o lOO ii>« »o n-ti-i *ci I ooco n-H ir^.-H -^loeo

o CO o •* C< •-<-^ Or-tOO lO iCi lO C< lOO CÍO I OC5 lO 'OO Oi-l»H

o^^^^ w^^

^^o

<o<o r^r^t^oO'^cor^rííco t^ 00 C<OCOC<ICOOOOO

I

T»<0ioc^050or-oc<i I-^cs^csTí^c^^ooooo

Ci CO ,_^

j_(,-i,-(kOcO^COt^(N C<i-lCSC<íM-^COOO

OCSOO»Or-(«OTHO

-^odP ?^o

c3 a*;:?

"cS ça

Tí<r^Tt<'<i< i(Mo OOO-^ lOi-t o ¡s

-J © O) "O

^01
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 63

§iS| :§ii2sgss§sieiigsiii

»O I—I rH »O I t^C çOOSCOi-lC^iOCOCMOQO

1-4-<^ 00

SS""' loeo

it^'<i<coo5coocC'-Hi Í5i—iíD'^»O^OSCOCOt>-COOO

CO »o i-tos oes

l^ ^ 0> CO -<r o>

OO^COIN CO

(^^osíMor-cocooo

»0C0O»0r-HOt--»0|-'

(NíOCOcOOOOt^íO-^

i-H ÇOQC<

lOOOOOC

3oS

a

-et! rD
64

Sí

^

Qi

Ti

r3S 0)

rO 0

^ d

^ 4-»

^ o

OÇJ 1 o

-i^ ^ lo

5

02 ^

o>

K ^

;:^ Oi >^

^5Î

v^

s» «» •^ tas

W

w <i5

Q") Î-. )^

Ö C

<ü «'< <»

r«

ja

Ö

AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

(N OOOÇO

^00Oi-4 1-H f<-"lí* OS l> eO »** eO rH fH

i-H aoc<

C0oSSlíO00OC0í0íD»0«O«D00O000 5 t^ ^ Tí< 1-1 05

OOOCOIO jH

osíoioioor-iaoco

- i-H eo-^ «C r-J

IS00 00OC5

^ iHOS '^ 1—• os i-l

g^g5S SS 2SS :2§ss g ^.^^.^^

1^^

(N b-T-lC^

OO CO »^ CO CO ^

»HOOOOOO

,-HC^ CO QOMs§ OO rH -^ »H t-t o

CD OPC^ CO »Í3t^

ÇOCOOO o«-t
DISTEIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 65

^•^ 100Tt<Tt<«ooc»3

£î£îS5S"^Win^,-(ciOTt<c

^»coooíoOTí<Trt*OTí*c

to i-T CO os" i>^oT ^»H j-j"OS

«^ 8ÍSS Ö^S

H CO i»o >-itoeC'^

r »o i»oooooo>-<

oso

oseo

00 CO cvnoeoi>.

S oui

5eor^

»OOO

»OeO.-IOOOTt<r»i-lCÏ.-<'^OOCÏC^t^<N«OOQQOt^>005C<COiOCOOI^ ^c5S'¥o>0'--«o«oosçOi-iosiDe^ot^oo05^t^(Ncoco>-iooco^ SoOíoSe5osíO»ooso5-^oseoOTr*TíiQoi^t^rí'tDoO'í<rH«o^»oos

csTcoco

.-I o »O 00 (N os CO^ ^

»oo coeç 0»-l OMS COCO^JÎ

/-N .—s "^^ ^ '"'

rtOOC^t^»-ioco^eo

COt«--^Oi-iOSCDOO

«OtOOi-t

OOS CO

^(O o

^ W 00 "•

HCQOQ

Tí

es ; !^

IIIit«

3 rtS tí a > 09 (D « O) a> a>

OQCOOQCOCQCQ

2t o ®

Í Oí s

û|>i. !WJ

tí

I'd

.3 s

s«ÉllAillll.^^llëSgêlêêlllll>">ll^fgSêg?^is
66

8H

AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

PI o

fco

feo

PM

q^ O(NO0>-i^cDC100 0i(NC0r-. COOrHC^-^OO^ C^ O «O-i; CO CO r^_ 0505 to »o CO N 00 »o lOit^eo

fe o d^ 3

w ;PHP^

O5ociosco«oa>05a>t^»oco »o es co co ""t" o o T^i lo 00 CO t>-o o

1-5 05 cí oó oí oí o

OiCOt'-OO'^'^O'^CO'OO

r^cooi-H00t>^;-j;¿'HC2eo

?^ « rt

O g O)

üraPm

liililii^JÍi aTi o

'«J i is

S'§fl2^S-2 o^ g S-^tÍJxí fe^ J^
DISTRIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 67

^

ci

ceÖ

-se

1^

É¿^ ö-ga g§^' .^:'S^,^s'3

ä

«'s

3 ^ ^ rt s 3 g

M^ <D

o) 3 ai c«

9 c3 03 3 3^ o

gs

^^ ^

t-HCíeo'^>ocor>.ooo>0'-Hc^co"^>oir>t--oo2
68 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 5.—Percentage of the total hard red winter wheat acreage occupied by each variety

of that class in the United States at 5-year intervals since 1919, and the estimated

acreage for 1964

Variety

Percentage of acreage »

. Acreage,

1919 1 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954

1954

Pawnee 0.1 24.3

6.6

12.2

13.0

4.3

4.8

3.2

2.5

7.2

19.6

19.2

11.5

8.3

4.9

4.7

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.2

2.8

2.6

1.8

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.0

.6

.6

.6

.4

.4

.3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.1

.1

.1

.1

r-f (*) (*) (*)

(*) /*\

(*)

(*)

P)

(*)

6,798,140

Wichita - 6,640,353

Triumph .2

.1

4.6

3, 971,486

Comanche 2,866,253

Cheyenne 0.2 2.5 1,690,629

1,611,366

1, 268,532

1, 248,190

1, 209,230

1,112, 588

954,468

Westar —. .-. -.

Nebred.- 1.9

2.7

27.1

RedChief

Turkey - 99.4 70.5 59.5 55.9 42.0

Kiowa

Bluejacket .3

1.2

6.3

Yogo - --- .1

11.7

.6

28.6

883,884

609,434

447, 570

432, 677

400,899

339, 210

220,372

216, 242

206,799

149,382

134,081

101,612

101,020

93,093

83,281

81,422

76,096

68,728

65,841

43,742

40,612

38.635

33.686

26,063

6,048

5,704

6,587

5,460

4,713

4,690

4,425

3,579

Tenmarq .7

Ponca _ _

Blackhull (*) 7.5 22.7 25.1 27.0 15.0

(*)

.6

5.5

5.7

.1

.1

3.9

.9

1.1

4.6

.9

.3

.3

Wasatch _ _

Karmont (*) .3

(*)

.3

.3

.4

1.1

1.6

.1

F-ar1y Blackhull _ . Chlefkan

Rio (*)

Cache

RedJacket

Mlnter (*) Stafford

KanQueen 2

Kanred .. .5 21.2 13.0 10.9 5.1 3.3 ."6" Sioux

Newturk .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 Quanah

Minturki .2 .3

(*)

1.3

.6

(*)

2.4

.5 .5

.4

.6

.1

.2

.1

lowin

Nebraska No. 60 .1

Apache _

Ridit (*) .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 KanKing _ ._

Orienta

(•)

.1

(*)

(*)

.1

lohardi . .

Relief (*) .3 .1

(*)

.1

(*)

.5

Marmin.

Mosida __ .1 .1 .1 Reliant.-

Purkof. _ .8 1.1 1.2 NewChief _..

Montana No. 36 (*) .1

.3

.1

.5

.1

.4

.1

.1

.3

.2

.1

.1

.1

(*)

(*)

.1

Michikof 950

Utah Kanred _ _

602

411

325 Concho

—(V)— A'

(*)

...

(*)

( )

1.6

(*)

.5

.1

( )

."2'

.1

.7

(*)

.1

(•) (*)

(*)

(*)

---

.1

.1

(*) (*) (*)

RedhuU ..._

loturk

Wisconsin Ped. No. 2

Chequamegon

SIbley 81

—(V)— "'(*)"

.3

"i" varieiy not reporiea «

Total 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.7 99.1 99.9 100.0

.9

100.0

326.900

34,634,009

1 An flStArislr (*\ shnwn fliof f Via \ir\Ainn *-n.A ^».{ ^*-^ „^^^ -

percent" -"«xvx*vc.x vaiicuj. wi«, grown, oui mai me estimated acreage was less than 0.1

3 Recently classified as soft red winter wheat.

nJtTeiortedî"^ apportioning to each of the 5 principal market classes all wheat acreage for which the variety was
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 69

ni fhni j^^^^.^i^Oe of the total hard red spring wheat acreage occupied by each variety

arrlnnp i loT ^^^ United States at 6-year intervals since 1919, and the estimated

Variety Percentage of acreage »

Acreage,

1954 1919 1924

1

1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954

Lee _..

28.9

19.2

16.2

11.8

5.1

4.7

3.6

1.9

1.8

1.4

1.1

1.1

.6

.5

.5

.3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.1

.1

.1

i

(*)

(*) (*)

3, 838, 783

2, 637. 260

2,014, 686 Rushmore --1111^"!' (*) 41.6 28.3 19.1

.1

31.4

5.2

6.7

16.6

3.5

5.0

3.2

1.0

.8

.1

2.5

Rescue _ _

.1 1, 658.910

676,314

Rival i"i""ir.:"]::i" 621,883 2.6 31.5 27.0 10.3

25.8 Cadet __ 480. 423

Marquis

puot _ ::

71.4 85.4 87.4 60.2 24.3 ""9"7'

7.7

263. 900

237.236

Henry ___ 184.092

Redman 146, 904

144, 661

Regent- _ """8.T 77,896

Saunders _ 60.677

60.464

Supreme 43,123 ""2.2

.1

1.3

.8

.8

.4

.3

(•)

2.5

.3

.4

1.6

.6

Newthatch.. __ 36, 491

Vesta _ 35,847

Red ThatcherSelkirk

20,876

20,023

Huston 2

Premier

."i" ... __.

ri" .'î" "''\ '"n"

1.0

16, 548

10, 780

Chinook- 8,095

7,986

Renown 6,048 __

.1 1.6 1.6

.4

(*)

—(V)—

.1

.4

1.5

3.5

.2

(•)

(*)

.1

.1

(*)

.3

(*)

.1

.6

.1

(*) (*)

(*)

.1

Apex 2, 674

Kinney 2 .2 .1 .1 .1

(*)

.1

.7

1,663

Sturgeon 1,620

Red Bobs .1

(•)

.1

.2

465

Progress 391

Canus _

121

Carleeds- .7

( )

1.1

Kitchener (*) (*) Marquillo .1 1.0 Comet

Variety not reported 3 1.0 132.964

Total 71 7 »ÍÍ S 92 9 96.7 98.8 99.6 100.0 100.0 13, 248,404 1 1

\ The asterisk (*) indicates the variety wasreported as grown, but the estimate ofacreage was less than 0.1 percent. ' Soft red spring wheat.

8 Derived by apportioning to each of the 5 principal market classes all wheat acreage for which the variety was

not reported.

TABLE 7.—Percentage of the total soft red winter wheat occupied by each variety of that class

in the United States at 5-year intervals since 1919, and the estimated acreage for 1964

Variety

Percentage of acreage 1

Acreage,

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954

1954'

Vigo 4.4

33.2

24.8

22.3

12.9

5.4

2.6

2.3

2.1

2.0

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

1,820,003

Thome .._ _ (•) 13.7 1,639,883

Seneca _ 949,072

395,570

187,183

Butler... .5

.1

.8

Chancellor

Royal 165, 436

Pennoll 157,017

Atlas 66

6.7

(*)

2.4

143,772

Clarkan 1.2 7.8

.3

111, 587

Fairfleld. _ . . .. 105,930

Atlas 50 104,864

Mediterranean _ 13.6 5.7 6.4 4.4 3.2 2.9 89,923

Coker 47-27 89, 243

Redhart. (*) 1.0 2.3 6.9 5.8

.6

83,142

Vahart 74, 663

Anderson 1 64,511

See footnotes at end of table.
70 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 7.-Percentage of the total soft red winter ^^eat occupied hy each m^^^^^^

class in the United States at 6-year intervals since 1919, and the estimated acreage

for 1964—Continued

Variety

Percentage of acreage ^

4

Acreage,

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 196

1954

FulcastGr 12.6

(*)

2.0

17.3

5.7

2.4

14.0

9.0

1.9

11.8

9.6

1.8

10.3

10.8

1.9

7.0

5.1

1.8

3.4

2.9

1.6

.9

o

62,001

61,124

57,148

63, 475

Trumbull -

(*

(*' (*

(*

.8

.7

.7

.6

.6

.5

.5

.4

.4

.4

.3

3

.3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

Rudy

Qolino

Fultz 23.5

1.3

.6

17.1

1.1

1.0

14.5

1.5

.2

15.8

2.6

.6

12.2

2.5

.8

.4

4.2

iÔ.4

2.6

.5

.3

4.0

.4

.3

6.9

5.7

3.6

1.0

1.1

(*)

1.1

.5

1.6

2.9

1.2

53, 025

46, 980

44. 741

36,183

Purplestraw

Goens

Nittany 2.5 4.0 3.5 32, 890

32,013

31,828

TCawvale .4

6.0

10.2

5.6

27,044

24,954 Leap 22,146 2.6 4.9 6.7

.7

1.4

1.1

.9

.8

1.7

1.3

19,339

Forward (*)

1.9

2.6

1.6

1.3

4.3

.8

2.5

8.0

2.2

1.3

4.1

.9

4.5

8.3

2.7

1.0

3.7

.8

7.3

5.0

2.1

.7

2.8

.9

3.7

3.3

17,975

17, 682 Nigger 16,852 1.4

Currell -- 3.2

V P I 131 16,174

Fulhio --

.8

3.8

13,478

Red May 6.7 13, 286

10, 205

Red Russian .8 .5 .6 .3 .1 .2 .1

(*)

.7

1.1

.4

.2

.4

(*)

8,827

Nudel 6,678

Cárala .1

.4

.4

.2

1.8

.4

5,101

Hard ired 4,396

Triplet - 1.0 1.7 1.1 .8 4,191

3,865

Poole -- 12.0

.8

10.0

.6

6.0

.1

5.7

.3

3.1 3,768

Russian Red 3,408

"Pavian d

3,058

Jones Fife 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.0 .5 .2 .2

.1

.1

.1

(*)

.6

2,912

Rpabrppzp 2,420

Red Wave 5.5 4.2 2.6 2.6

.2

.1

1.5

1.4

.9

.1

1.1

1.0

.7

(*)

1.5

2,302

Baldrock 2,299

Prosperity .2

.5 1.0

.1

.7

2,113

Flint 2,046

Taylor 1,721

Mammoth Red ._ (*)

1.1

.1

3.3

.3

.5

.5

2.6

.4

1.9

.2

1.3

.1

.3

,2

L4

(*)

.1

(*)

.1

.2

(*)

.1

.4

.4

.1

C) (*) (*)

(*)

(*)

—(V)—

2.1

.2

.1

(*) (*)

(*) (*) (*)

(*)

1,684

Red Rock . . --.

1,529

Rfid Indian (*) (*)

(*) (*) (*)

(*) (*)

(*) (*) (*)

(*)

(*)

1,314

Rice .- - .2 .1 .1 881

Prairie 862

Newcaster 860

Harvest Queen -_ 4.9 3.9 3.6 3.2

(*)

(*) (*)

.4

(*)

.2

1.5

.1

.1

(*)

.1

.5

.1

.2

(*)

(*) (*)

(*)

.3

(*)

576

Valprize 576

Nabob (*)

.1

.3

383

Ashland

.8

376

Gipsy- .6 292

Purdue No. 1 291

Portage... (*) .5 .1 203

MoKing 68

Austin .1

.4

(*)

.2

.3

.1

(*)

Wabash (*)

Sanett _

Denton. .2

.4

.1

.4

.3

(*) n

.1

.3

.3

Fultzo-Mediterranean _ 1.5

(*)

.8

Lofthouse

Gasta

Valley.. _ (*)

Gladden.. (*) 1.0 .4 .2 .1

Varieties not reported 2 . ___ 6.2 379,050

Total 96.9 97.1 97.6 98.9 99.0 99.4 100.0 100.0 7,340,268

1 The asterisk (*) indicates the variety was reported as grown, but the estimate of acreage was less than 0.1

percent.

2 Derived by apportioning to each of the 6 principal market classes all wheat acreage for which the variety

was not reported.
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 71

TABLE 8.—Percentage of the total white wheat acreage occupied by each variety of that

class in the United States at 6-vear intervals since 1919, and the estimated acreage

for 1954

Variety

Percentage of acreage » Acreage,

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954

1964

Elmar 27.5

14.2

6.9

5.4

5.1

4.8

4.5

3.8

3.4

3.1

3.0

3.0

2.8

1.6

L2

L2

LI

LO

.9

.7

.6

.6

.4

.4

.4

.4

.3

.3

' .2

.2

.2

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

1,416,969

734,300

305, 671

277, 451

260,840

248, 971

234 194

Yorkwin _. 3.0

2L6

.1

9.0

16.5

L2

(*)

13.8

17.2

7.8

12.9

6.2

8.8

Baart 10.0 Í6.9 17.1 19.8

Elcin (Alicel)

Cornell 595

Federation LI 16.8 17.4 14.4

Brevor

Lemhi (*) 2.2 3.2 195,105

175, 284

161,456

154,878

154 346

Genesee

Ramona 44 _ 3.0

6.6

3.6

2.6

L7

3.8

.6

.8

2.4

4.2

Rex - -- 9.0

.9

(*)

(*)

8.9

3.3

.9

.1

4.0

Golden (*)

Idaed 142,375

84,629

63,241

61 108

Requa

White Federation 38

Marfed

Wilhelmina (Holland) .6 .9 .9 LI

3.3

4.1

65,700

Baart 38 62,888

Hymar 3.1 47,248

Baart 46 37, 797

Galgalos .7 .5 .3 .3 .6 .4 28,771

(*)

LO

.6

2.9

.8

.6

Orfed 26, 414

Onas _ .4 .7 .9 21,134

Big Club 43 19,864

Awned Onas 19,860

Dicklow 3.3 4.0 5.7 4.4 3.4

(*)

2.3

.4

.6

1.7

.3

LO

.2

.3

.5

.4

.2

.3

(*)

19,418

Pacific Bluestem 37_ 15,984

Bmiyip . (•) 1.0 2.6

.1

.3

1.8

.4

.6

13,822

12, 770

Pilcraw (*) 9,960

Peso 48 - 8,433

Major _ __ __ (*)

L2

.1

8.9

3.6

10.9

4.2

.4

.2

.9

L3

(*)

.4

.2

.7

9.8

.2

2.6

.1

.4

.2

9.2

1.1

6.5

3.1

.6

.1

.3

.6

.2

.3

.1

.3

(*)

.3

5,830

Jftnlrin 1.3 3.9 2.1 5,760

Hard Federation 31 6,611

Dawson 2.5

5.8

19.1

27.4

LI

.3

3.9

5.3

2.2

14.5

23.4

13.0

LO

.7

L3

3.1

.9

8.0

19.9

8.1

.6

.7

.9

2.0

9.2

2.1

8.6

LO

.6

(*)

.1

.3

.3

.3

.9

L2

5.6

.2

.1

(*) (*)

(*)

'i"

(*)

...

.5

.1

.2

.1

(*) (*)

^:| (*)

2,960

Hybrid 128 2,604

Goldcoin - 2,590

Pacific Bluestem. 2,027

White Winter 660

Rmk 650

Defiance 647

Sonora 502

Ramona 300

Greeson .1

.5

2.1

.4

.5

.8

.2

.1

.4

L7

L4

.9

286

Prohibition 75

Little Club

.2

5.5

.1

.5

.2

LO

60

Albit. .

30

Hard Federation .4

White Federation (*)

Poso 44

Florence _ ._ .4

.1

2.9

.1

(*)

""2."8'

3.0

(*) (•)

.1

.5

3.5

(*)

.1

—(V)—

.1

.4

.9

(*)

.1

.1

—(V)—

.1

(*) 100

Sevier (*)

Utac

.7

7.7

(•)

.1

.4

5.7

Bliipohaff

Kvhrid fi3

Variety not reported 2_ 1.3 66,694

Total _ 9L8 95.4 96.7 92.9 91.2 98.2 100.0 100.0 5,157,147

1 The asterisk (*) Indicates the variety was reported as grown, but the estimate of acreage was less than 0.1

^^2^Derived by apportioning to each of the 6 principal market classes aU wheat acreage for which the variety

was not reported.
72 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 9.—Percentage of the total acreage of club wheat occupied by each variety of that

subclass in the United States at 6-year intervals since 1919y and the estimated acreage

for 1954

Variety

Percentage of acreage » Acreage,

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954

1954

79.7

15.6

2.7

1.1

.5

.3

1,416,969

Elgin (Alicel) 0.6

30.9

13.4

43.9

66.1

21.5

3.2

277,451

Hymar 47, 248

Biff ninh 43 19,864

Poso 48 8,433

Jenkin _ 6.1

23.7

9.7

13.4

49.8

2.6

12.7

49.2

2.4

10.8

6.9

20.5

4.0

56.4

3.9

11.3

"lô.'è'

2.9

22.9

.6

6.6

1.3

6.2

'.5

1.2

(*) (*

(*)

6,760

Hybrid 128 2,604

Little Club 60

Albit 30

Pocn 44.

Utac .1

.1

""17^5"

.1

.1

.8

3.0

1.0

.2

.7

4.2

.9

'V

1.0

"Rliipphaff .2

1.3

19.5

Hvbrid 63 3.0

44.2

Total 86.7 86.8 92.8 91.8 83.4 91.3 100.0 100.0 1,778,419

1 The asterisk (*) indicates the variety was reported as grown, but the estimate of acreage was less than 0.1

percent of the total acreage of the class.

2 Derived by apportioning to each of the 5 principal market classes all wheat acreage for which the variety was

not reported.

TABLE 10.—Percentage of the total durum wheat acreage occupied by each variety of that

class in the United States at ô-year intervals since 1919, and the esti^nated acreage

for 1954

Variety

Percentage of acreage 1

Acreage,

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954

1954

Mindiim . ..... 0.3 5.5 15.9 22.5 31.2

.6

27.4

37.6

.4

7.8

15.8

69.6

15.9

6.6

4.0

1.5

.6

.2

.2

.1

(*)

1,108,131

Stewart 253,624

Vprnnm 104,801

Kubanka 1.2 11.6 12.5 24.6 12.8 8.3

.3

64,281

Carleton.. 24,023

9,922

3,013

Nugget

Stewart 221

Sentry (Ld. 356) 2,336

Ld.357 733

Bamatka 176

Pentad (red dnrum) . 1.1

.1

.3

8.2

.1

.6

(*)

74.5

17.3

.1

.3

.6

60.3

n.i

,9

.7

.6

41.7

18.3

.4

.2

.1

44.6

9.1

3.5

(*)

"'46^8'

8.1

.4

.1

(*)

2.4

Pellss

Amautka

Nodak

Varieties not reported 2 96.8 L3 20,132

Total 99.5 95.3 96.6 95.5 98.9 99.8 100.0 100.0 1,591,172

> An asterisk (*) shows that the indicated variety was grown, but that the estimated acreage was less than 0.1 percent. 1

2 Derived by apportioning to each of the 5 principal market classes all wheat acreage for which the variety was

not reported.
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 73

300000

5 »O § OOCD ^

^0

"^ N^^c^ï:^^^

Si

ooo

ooo kO o U3

88SÍSSSSS ooooooooo

ñ

OOC<OCS10i05C0i-t

cJociocór^cooóco eór-J(N

00O5NOC1i-t.-l00t^

r^ '<*' -^ e4 * CO eo CÍ

OOC0O"«i<01C0C<t^

3 0 05 05 3C0lOr-l

eo Q «D 1-H "«i* t^ r>.

g Ti< ,-1 cs T-t

il

-2

-0

.Î9

.2

fl o

5;z:

Tji I-Í ci 1-Î CO

eO»OOOíDcD»-HO>COC<l

00 ^ 00 00 CO

<*< coooc^ CO

»O Ti< * >-l 1-1

i-nOîD

o.-« -H

oî"o"<N

O5CO»-lCO»O00TÍ<«Dt-t cícocooot^-'ií^-^t^o

»fl OQ i-TciCO 00 o 00 lO cocí I>. ÎO-^ * »o «3

05 05

CÓi-i

00 t^Oi

oso«o

CI l-H

I •«*< CI 00 Tti »o f

liO >o t^oi ooo icj t^ooo»a> ( «D 05 a> »o Ti< t*

! cii-T .-Tci i-T

o

ta

^ «

Cîe0"«i*»o<ot>-ooo5 0i HC<COTj<»OCOt^00O5

«2
74 AGE. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

And

o P

Ö I

eo

S «'S

PU

dg cu

oooooooc

OOOOOOQÇ »-HO»Ot>TÍ<t^00G

»o" «o r^r TtT 00 ce o o

eo(N .-tNco »-•

eDi-HOKOOOt-'ií^OO-^

ooo«occt^»ot>-coo<

àoeoi-Ti-Tci

cor^-^ooi-ioooc^o

O»O00O'

CO(N

ooooooooo

lOC^OCOr-

,HC1 »o »0«D

00 CO oo »o »o

coco-* COCÍ

i-Hdc^>oaö>oi-tooo>

cT-«irlo TíT CO oT-íjí'00 c4"

§88SSS8§8 OS^00O»Q0r-i00»O00

3 00OÍ^»-Í^5OíD

3 »H »^eocí »-<

f-ioiob-coeoeooo

OS«D«Dt>-OOj¿CO;^

osoooeooc^QOOTf

c4 >d »o ci eó <£> o 1-j 0Ô

1-H CO ^ '** Oï

coeocot^b-050>îO«£2

•-nD»o-*Oïooeo-*»c

cf^-«DCD-^-CO¿"-H'2f

íS

dcDíMCOCOCOOSCOCftC» iOC»0>—iíOCO»00>iO

(NC<ii-icot»eoa)C^co

Oiooeoeooc^oocfl

o t-< eo co "*

t^C0>0C^»0'rf<C^O •^ io oi c^ ao (O Oi-^ t-di-i<Noieo»o.-i

lo I-Î" oícTt>r^r-T

»oeo

i-(oo

eoi-toc^t^eoost>c^

o CÓ «í< CD >o có oó b^ aooïœcooia>>o>o

OJlOOOt^COOiOr-tC

OSOSt^COt^t^'^OO'í

TjT CO c^ 00 cíI-i" oT r-T T-iCsiNißCOOOOt»

rH C< T-t 1-H rH i-l

6q

Ö

ü

'^^ Ä <4> •Ö

Ö 'Ö

-tCSCO-'fkOCDt^OOOS .2'-'C<ieOTí¡iocot>.'ooo5 HCC^-^iOOCOb-O»
DISTEIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 75

^ Hi 2 S ?S S3 »'«'»o

eo-^OiCí'<í<cít^N'«í«

IAU3

N t>.

i-< 1-1 i-H o» ;H t^ ^ OO

5 Oi »í5 OS »-I U3 C

i-i.-tCit*»OOï'^OÏ^

OOfDCH

'cocí

ot^(Ncx)ÄoeQ'«i<a>

kO lOCOO) ICO

ci ! ci

^00 «o

S?5

3QOQOOOC

S^IoSSoi-iT

t-î »o ciCÎrC 00 «o

OS «o •^ 1-1 co-^»-ii-i«oaöiO<oco

OSTÍ^OOO

iHíOíoe

os CO OA o -líDCI »00.-I

oSo»OíOC<

.-iCfl iCí íOOSíO-^i-tt^Os-^OS

^'«¿»oososeociosos

COt^OíO>Ot^TÍ<rííCí OOOOOíOCÍ

o o o o Tíi -»íí

OOOCO »-•

isíoocico»Hr^»oo ?»-t«oos»orv.oscír>-

50SÇ0-^»OOS'^i-i0l

H »o eo t^ CO 00 00

00 CO CD go-^-«I* «-t o

cooocsa5io-^í<CíC"

cíoic5cícot^eOT 5c<Oi-t"«*<

OSiO o^

OOt*t*cOcOOSC<-^ f-lt^CO»OÇOOOCOOt^

os* eó Ö t^ i-í ^ Tjí OS

cieo

i-;c4

CíU3 00O»O»-t

06»0»OC

COOSOOC

íOrH^r^ooo-^oscí cot»coosc<r-«oo-^

,-1 CSU3 1-1 -^»0

fHr-ieoeo eoi^

Tt< .-H t>. o os o

»•-•OSlOt-C

^IOTí^OOO

^cTcít^rodco

CO lí* <N

¿

s

o

'O0

q«He«eo'í'»ocot>.ooc CI eo •^ "3 CO t<-o r

S

Cl CO-^ »o CO t^ o Si-4CIC0'^>OCOt*00OS
76 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, Ü. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Ö

Ö

-<

s

'^ 2

•<s» .^

^ o

Ö I

«to v^

'Ta

Kí

^ ®

o 2

300QC DOOOÇ

^ .-( ,-H fî M I-H rH i-H

¿^

COOiOcOCiCO

c5 e4 0Ö Tiî c4 Tiî 0Ö ci ci

O»0r-(ai,-lt^000> cot^»oCïco^c<'*eo

i-Heo»oeooï«i5cD»oo

as,

(S

(£

QOOOt^NfHCOOïOSCO

CSQ0Oi-tOIX0r-(O

3000Ç

3000C

CíO»Ot>.t>.tDCOíD«

OOOQOOOOC goi-H>i50ot^Tî<eo«i

ci ci CM' ' O t^:

QO CO i-H .-H ce >C

CO 05 05 o •—< eo

0CO<M -^ rH Í Tti fO Ci »o

coco 1-t

»OCM

QOCO

-lOCOOit^O

^ t^ CO CO CO CD T—I CO 00

asoo«o»o«ocíioi—too

i-HC0t^t-<-;0ÇO00;O>O

I

Ü COC0i-lOC0'^'0çDt>.0

ci CO »íi ci

Cï CD CO CO

r^ cetros

Cíor^ouaoOfHCít^

i^t>^a>cc>eot>^ic5»o»-î

OOiOOl^t>-COi—t^OO

05>00100COt—ti—(CiOO »O-^COkOOiCOOOr-tÎS

CO »o .-T »o ci"^t«rcTci

t^eoo>o-^coc<i'^co

»-lClc5t^0500-«fOt>. CO»Ot--00f-lSiÄ«Ot>.

-tCÎCO-^iOCOt^OOOi +3»HCICO'«ii4lOOt»OOOî
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 77

i>.eo

»-HO>»oqo«ooot^cot-i

iis CO »oo

oooo t^OOiOOOO

Oi Ö 05 Ö Ö Ö Ö

too

o»o

rHCO

»oco

OS« *c5

tTooTo

ooc^oooo

rH lO t^ •'It* o o o

ci^ 'ci

CSiosiOiO-^

»-4ri(NaS0O

'Î'QOOO^OO'-HOSOi OOCiOClt^OOi-H

ÖÖodcJcJoOÖQOS

OOOJOOOSOOOS

ooooo5f-<eot^t«-

OTÍ<OQC00>O»í3t^

O-^íOOOSTííOOíO

0'<9<C<OC»OîO»0^

i-T 00 00 00 eo ci" t^^ ciço

iD5o«o»o-^i-tcQt^r^ i-teocodoo-^cÎTfiO

^,_r i^rH cTcî

-34-3

o

ÍSiHWC0«OíOt^00O»

•o

e ä

2i-ic<eo-^»o<©t^ooo» ;^ 55 Ci »000

eö o

s s

fcca

4-<i}< >0 CO t» 00 Oï
78 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

s 9

«^

"o

ci

e

&q

1

5 00 SÍ

1 llllllll § lililí 1 IsSIlilll i

il B ^'S¿Í^'S8?§ i

escssss i

<»'¿'gÍ2?ÍS'^''*"

i-H

03

4J

;'.!!!!!! i ! i ; i i 1 1 i 1 ! ! i ! !

9^ <D

fe Oí i i i i i i i i

¡ ¡ 1 ¡ ! 1

i i i ! i i ! ! !

P

PM i i i i .! i i i i i i : i :

! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ¡ ! L

S) 1 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 1 ! ; i i i i i ¡ 1 i M 1 i i i

§

! ! ! 1 1 1 ! ! i I i i ; i ',!!'.!!! ¡ ! ^ '''!!!!! ¡ ! ¡ ¡ ! 1

! ! 1 1 1 1 1 • 1

<í i i i i ! i i i

i i i i i i

i i i ! i ! : 1 :

1 1 1 !co ! ! • ^ ' ' ' i i i

i i i i i i i i i

-¿ ! ¡ ! !o 1 1 1 'lililí

' ! ! I ! ! ! ! !

ös^ ®

i i ! i i i i 1 1 ! ! ! ! i i ! i i i i ! i

S

P4 ! 1 í ! 1 ! !

i i i i i ! ! ! ! ! ! 'I ! ! i .

' 1fe

-»1

1 ! 1 !lo 1 ! I

! ¡ ! Ico ¡ 1 ¡

U3

CO i i i ! i i

\ N N 11N

ooo> eo oooot^ooo 05 oooooo o ooooooooo o

ë

4Í. 8|g § ||S|§S§§ § lililí 1 Íg8|S8S88 §

2

fe rt

o

lis »o

so lililí 1 issIiSisg 1

S 2o

<

OQOod g

U3 00-^T)í" »o" OÍ" O çD"

rHOi-t-HOS.-tOCO i

g'icí^'^'S 1

oTr-TcííNíN corleo t-i eo f-H c< 1-H CSI

^ ; M i ; I I ; i

.S «W) ! ! 1 ; ; ; ; ; ; 1 :: i i i ; :

1 1 I ! ! 1 ' í !

b

o«w PH ¡ ¡ ; 1 1 ! ! ! 1 1 1 i i i i i i i i i

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

M

'S 1

' ' !

1 ! 1 ¡ ! 1 1 1 !

^ i i i

; í : i M !:!;:::;:

! 1 ^ i>- 1 ! ! 1 ; ! 1 ! !

^ tí- i \^ ! i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ; ! ^ «a ¡ 1 1 ! 1 ! ! ' 1 ' 1 ! 1 ! 1 1 ! ! ! 1 ! ! 1 ' !

.a fetí ¡ ¡ i 1 1 ! ! 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¡

^ PH ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ; 1 1 I 1 ! 1 ! !'•!!!! 1 ! ¡ % , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 t > Ill

M « ; ;?3 <N !!!!'>!!! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! í ! 1 1 ! 1 ! ! 1

1 iTí* ^

e3 S ¡ 1 ! ! 1 ! 'I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 1 w I ¡

i i i i i i i i

i i i i i i ;;!!!;!!!

i ¡ Î

i ; i i i i i i ; : ; M í M M i N N

-M

ë •0 ! ! 1 ! ' ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ' ! ! !

'd V . I .

1

^ ! ; ;

.a ¡ ¡ ' 1 : ! i : M ;

i i i i i i : ! Î ! ! Î i : :

tí

021

o 1 ! !

11 i ! ! -à 2 : i i i i ; i ; 'rt

Ó3 ! : ! : ! :

ä i i i i i i

ü 1 i 1 i i

^ ! 1 ! ¡ ! !

'a ! ; i i ; : ! ! i %

1 líMi •M e3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O ¡ 1 ; ; ; 1 ¡ ¡

^ ! ! 1 Î 1 ! ! !

•4J

^ ! ¡ 1 ¡ 1 1 ¡ ¡ &

tí

o

-M ^ (N eo ^ »o íO 00 Oí

o

z

Î3 ^ N CO'* »o 00 g ^ CÏ CO Til »C> ÇO i>! 00 o»

' OQ
DISTRIBUTION OP "WHEAT IN 1954 79

l^^^

gooooo ^ o o o o o

«o o ÍOCO »oo

30000

1} t^ »O t^ »-H D«OO00 rH

r^ c^^_ieo

o«cioc 0>«OT-II-

<N 1-4

oeoosooo

g'osoÓQOQ OOOSOOO

OOOC»0<M oooooooooo

ööooööoooo oooooooooo

ooooooooo

ööc>öooööo

ooooooooo

OM OiOOO

eooo»o(NoOrH

5-^ o "«*<

5 «o o <*<

30C^ 00

oooooooooo

CX)»OcOOOíOS»OOCO'-<

Veo r-T cÎi-Ti-Tco

300000000 3ÇDOO00O-*O<N isíOi-H^oooieo--t

o

&^ §

1^ N eo «*< «o «o i-( C^ CO * »o «o ^rHCíCÍCO-^>OíDt^00O> C^CO'^'OCOt^OOOi
80 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

^ si

I

<

EH

3^

^ 2

P4

sa

d2 tüO

.59

.Í9

OOOOOQOOO

CD s 22 a ^ « ÍQ 00 ;-¡

eoi-HOOOCí50 CO

«OCitDO«©;^ »H

05 CD Tj< o »o U3 o

OSOOt^OO CO O

"O CO 00 OQ 05 t>- 1-t

c^ieoScs u3 CO

t^Oi-i^cD

Ö o (N t>^ 0Ó

»OO rHCO OÓQÓ

M Oi t^ U

CO<M i-t(N

?i-((MCO

c^ 1-H t^t^eo

Ü

I

OM »H es CO <*< >c «

5000QOOQO

-< CO »-ít>»«5 Ä

S (M

COOï

0i00 00CX>O>Ot-lCiO

»HUSC^cD-^Ot^OOO

(MO^CDCOQCOOO OS'-HOlt^'NMCD'^iÎ«

lo oT t>r oT00-^O CD lo

t-i-tcocDoocsoeo

i-t CD 1-tt^ U3 os

IS\ is 8sSSöo o

©o» Ci OCT>

SQ0«0O»C

,H ^CO"<í¡

3C><CÍ(N>*ít

CD Tt< O Q »H iC t^

o>o»OQOOsc<ieoeoeot^eo

CD o >o o> t^ t» os

ooouDod-^tTci

iCSCO'^'OcDt'.OOO» ÏÏ'^ sîZira 'l'Zai

rHCSCSCO-^iOiCCOt^aO

o
DISTBIBUTION OP WHEAT IN 1954 81

oo illllll i§ 'i§l OOOQOO

ÍO ïOOiO» rH CO

lili

no C^ tocs OS »o

t<-o «o 00-^ .-H

tt^ os CO M CO

OïO tv»-H

oi cocote

OOO "3 »o

i-tCO

C^ .-1

tO tO os cO o os CO

es l-Hl-H

.-HO t^O i-i o t^ >o t^OiOCÓ -coo

COOOC

eo-* r^o

t^ oc

os to-^ '<*< os (D iD

,-H iO I—I C<

o lo iO es »O »O ÇO

Cfl I^ CO os CD oo 00

t^-^ o 00 CO »-H 00 íO i-< os o 00 Tf .-I

(S .-H t^coo

(M 00 CO CI

"i* ^ CO r»

OCS CO"^

CC^ CO t^ >o

lO os os ^H o

os CO CO CD os

»o oco »o os

,-ics i-¡có¿

t^coco t^ »o

os t^oooor^

t^OO »OQCOCO

COOSCDC^ -^co

eoot>^cD''.-r

oo»ooo

»00»-t

oseo »oeo

COOOOO

IOOS.-<CS

H Ci eo »o t^ 00 os

5

<i<cs ooo

es t^CDO t^-* oo

es »OOS i-H

^ fl

^ s

Leseo-«*« »o g .-H es CD t-* 00 os
82 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, IT. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUBE

ii

CO «o ^ Ö o

0& 1-H o CO Oi

OOi-HO

cooo'cfc

43

COOOOi

SSSSS

COCIOOO ooo

sss

OOOOOC^Ci IOOOC<J ot^

eooO"**

iOOOi-t I^OOOi-H

r^ r^ "n^ CO 05

Ol .-(l>.0 »o

oood»o »o

OO Tt< t>- »o

1-4 1-liO t^

»O »ooooo

CiCOOCO^

OOQOO C

coco

-tí

il

¿i

c^ ^

.g

ooe COiNC co>-

t^OOIN-^ 00<M (©;o

OOOF-ICD o«ot^oo

(NCOOi t^

Ä tHCqcOUDOS

oo

dû'-'C^ W t^ 00
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 83

§iiiiiii

oooooooo

SS8888§8

gooooooo

0>00>OU300

1-1 00 «O 00 o Tf< 00 <»<

s

I'

o

2 <¿

.ÎS3

^0
84 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OP AGRICULTURE

TABLE 12.—Estimated percentage of total wheat area in each State occupied by each

class at 6-year intervals since 191 y

State and class

Percentage of the classes >

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954

Alabama:

Soft red winter -- 100.0

1.8

.9

96.7

.6

6.7

.1

93.2

100.0

.3

3.3

96.0

.4

6.8

100.0

2.1

.7

96.9

.3

100.0

.8

1.5

97.6

.1

9.6

100.0

.6

3.0

95.7

.8

3.6

100.0

21.1

.5

78.4

100.0

20.6

100.0

Arizona:

Hard red winter 27.5

Hard red soring 79.4 72.6

White

Durum

Arkansas: 2.2 .3 Hard red winter 12.3

Hard red spring

Soft red winter '"'92.'3'

.9

.9

.6

100.0 90.4 96.4 97.8 99.7 87.7

White. -- ---

California:

Hard red winter -- .7

.9

.3

98.0

.1

67.4

10.2

.3

10.8

11.3

100.0

.6

.7

.6 .2 .5 .2

White 98.4

.1

77.3

14.5

.3

2.1

6.8

100.0

98.8

75.0

19.8

.5

2.6

2.1

100.0

99.4

(*)

79.2

17.3

.1

2.6

.8

99.9

.1

100.0

30.6

5.8

3.5

60.2

99.8

(*)

79.5

18.7

.3

1.3

.2

100.0

99.5 99.8 iö5.ö

Colorado:

Hard red winter 88.3

11.2

(*)

.6

90.3

9.3

97.9

Hard red spring 2.0

Soft red winter (*)

White .1

Delaware:

Soft red winter .-

100.0 98.7

1.3

100.0

42.1

4.9

.6

62.6

100.0

Georgia:

Soft red winter 100.0

17.1

20.6

6.5

55.8

100.0

27.8

14,9

5.0

52.3

n

51.5

1.3

47.2

(*) (*)

12.5

.1

87.3

.1

(*)

86.0

11.5

1.5

100.0

26.4

7,5

4.8

61.3

100.0

36.7

6.4

2.0

54.9

100.0

37.6

6.1

1.3

56.1

100.0

Idaho:

Hard red winter .

42.9

Hard red spring -

7.3

Soft red winter ^\

White ---

49.8

nihiois:

Hard red winter 28.8

14.0

56.8

.1

.3

5.2

.4

94.2

.1

.1

55.0

42.1

1.8

47.3

2.9

49.7

.1

(*)

20.7

.1

79.0

.2

39.1

.8

60.1

39.9

1.4

68.7

22.0

.6

76.7

.7

41.5

.3

57.7

.6

64.3

Hard red SDrine .3

Soft red winter 34.5

White .9

Dumm (*)

16.1

(*)

83.9

Indiana:

Hard red winter . 16.1

.3

84.4

.2

14.6

.1

85.3

3.5

(*)

96.1

.4

4.0

Hard red spring _ (*)

Soft red winter 95.2

White .8

Iowa:

Hard red winter 89.1

7.9

2.4

.2

.4

94.4

.2

6.3

91.8

6.6

.4

.5

.7

94.2

.2

6.6

89.9

9.6

91.1

.1

8.8

95.7

4.0

.1

.1

.1

94.0

.1

6.9

90.6

9.1

.3

84.9

Hard red spring 13.4

Soft red winter 1.7

White

Durum 1.1

86.1

1.0

95,1

(*)

4.8

(*)

.1

.1

Kansas:

Hard red winter 98.9 99.8

Hard red spring

Soft red winter 13.3

.2

.4

.1

1.1 .2

White

Dumm .1

1.1

Kentucky:

Hard red winter 1.2

.3

98.5

(*)

.8 1,3 3.6

Hard red spring

Soft red winter 99.0

.8

.1

99.9 98.2

.2

.5

100.0 99. Ö

.2

97.8

.9

96.4

White

Durum

Maryland:

Hard red winter .1

99.9

1.8

.3

11.3

86.6

Soft red winter 100.0

1.5

9.0

59.9

28.8

.8

100.0

.4

.3

72.4

26.9

100.0

.3

.4

52.3

46.9

.1

100.0

.7

.3

46.1

52.9

100.0

2.2

1.4

42.9

63.6

100.0

'\

34.0

65.8

100.0

Michigan:

Hard red winter..- 1.1

Hard red spring .1

Soft red winter 16.9

White - 81.9

Durum

See footnote at end of table.
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT IN 1954 85

TABLE 12.^Estimated percentage of total wheat area iri each State occupied by each

class at S-year intervals since 1919—Continued

State and class

Percentage of the classes ^

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949

Minnesota:

Hard red winter

Hard red spring _

Soft red winter...

White

Durum

Mississippi:

Hard red winter

Soft red winter...

Missouri:

Hard red winter

Hard red spring

Soft red winter

White

Durum

Montana:

Hard red winter..

Hard red spring

Soft red winter...

White -

Durum

Nebraska:

Hard red winter

Hard red spring

Soft red winter

White -

Durum

Nevada:

Hard red winter

Hard red spring..

White

New Jersey:

Hard red winter..

Hard red spring

Soft red winter

White --

New Mexico:

Hard red winter

Hard red spring -.

Soft red winter

White

Durum

New York:

Hard red winter..

Hard red spring -

Soft red winter .-

White

Durum

North Carolina:

Soft red winter

White -

North Dakota:

Hard red winter,.

Hard red spring --

White —

Durum

Ohio:

Hard red winter... -

Hard red spring

Soft red winter

White

Oklahoma:

Hard red winter...

Hard red spring -

Soft red winter

White

Durum

Oregon:

Hard red winter... -

Hard red spring -

Soft red winter

White -

Pemisylvania:

Hard red winter.--

Hard red spring -

Soft red winter

White

See footnote at end of table.

1.7

94.4

(*)

.1

3.8

6.0

86.1

(*) (*)

7.9

11.3

70.0

.1

.9

17.7

10.1

80.7

.1

.8

8.3

8.6

86.3

11.4

83.8

4.3

87.1

.1

6.0

100.0

14.6

.3

85.1

100.0

10.2

100.0

8.5

100.0

6.1 12.6

4.8

7.7

92.3

7.0

.8

7.8

100.0

47.7

89.8 91.5 93.9 87.4

(*)

92.9

23.6

55.9

1.2

1.4

17.9

85.5

9.1

.3

5.1

8.5

16.8

74.7

.6

99.3

.1

65.3

6.4

20.8

7.5

.2

15.0

14.1

70.5

.2

99.1

.9

.4

69.8

19.9

74.5

.5

1.1

4.0

92.8

2.9

1.4

.2

2.7

28.7

13.4

57.9

83.8

3.7

.4

7.6

4.5

.1

1.1

9.2

15.5

82.2

.3

.9

1.1

92.7

4.9

.9

(*)

1.5

1.7

2.3

96.0

97.3

2.7

91.6

2.4

5.0

1.0

29.8

.3

1.1

95.1

3.5

75.4

24.3

.1

.2

14.5

7.4

.8

77.3

.1

.5

97.9

1.5

96.0

4.0

.2

67.6

(*)

32.2

.5

.1

98.4

1.0

86.1

26.5

5.6

2.6

65.3

.1

99.1

.8

2.2

15.3

82.5

20.0

77.2

.7

1.3

.8

90.4

7.5

1.1

1.0

15.6

2.2

82.2

100.0

93.0

4.1

2.4

.5

1.3

18.6

80.1

96.8

3.2

.2

60.1

.7

39.0

.7

.3

98.4

.6

91.6

.1

8.2

.......

25.0

2.9

.8

71.3

.1

.1

99.2

.6i

97.0

3.0

.2

77.9

.2

21.7

.3

.2

97.1

2.4

85.4

21.6

76.8

.2

.6

.8

95.3

3.3

.9

(*)

24.1

1.3

74.6

97.5

2.5

93.9

4.3

.2

13.8

85.3

97.4

2.6

.1

68.9

(*)

31.0

.4

(*)

96.8

2.8

91.1

14.6

22.1

3.4

3.1

71.4

.1

(*)

99.8

.1

.1

28.6

69.9

.1

.7

.7

96.5

2.4

1.0

(*)

.1

19.5

3.4

77.1

.1

52.3

( )

27.9

70.8

.1

.6

.6

98.8

1.2

(*)

11.9

.4

87.7

.2

98.5

1.4

92.0

1.1

.8

7.1

92.1

97.7

2.3

(*)

82.3

(*)

17.7

8.9

15.5

4.1

.4

80.0

.3

(*)

99.6

.11

99.0

.7

95.8

"4."2

12.0

1.0

.2

86.8

97.4

2.4

5.2

1.2

(*)

.6

.2

2.5

96.7

99.5

.6

.1

72.1

27.8

1.0

(*)

96.4

2.6

99.5

.5

3.8

1.6

.2

94.4

.3 2.0

(*) .1

97.9 94.9

1.8 3.0

1.7

.1

96.1

2.1
86 AGR. HANDBOOK 108, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 12.—Estimated percentage of total wheat area in each State occupied by each

class at 5-year intervals since 1919—Continued

State and class

Percentage of the classes i

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1964

South Carolina:

Soft red winter 100.0

1.6

79.9

100.0

3.5

52.9

.2

43.4

100.0

2.3

55.7

.7

41.3

100.0

5.7

72.7

2.6

19.0

100.0

6.3

71.6

4.2

18.9

100.0

6.2

84.7

1.2

7.9

100.0

6.9

84.6

(*)

8.6

.3

100.0

South Dakota:

Hard red winter.. _ 14.9

Hard red spring 82 7

White

Durum 18.5

.1

2 4

Tennessee:

Hard red winter 2 1

Hard red spring .2

Soft red winter 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 97 4

White 3

Texas:

Hard red winter 35.6

.1

62.4

.1

1.8

34.4

6.4

6.1

53.1

(*)

.1

78.6

1.3

17.9

.1

2.1

52.0

3.2

2.4

42.4

85.1

1.4

11.8

(*)

1.7

53.7

2.0

1.6

41.7

1.0

92.0

.1

7.1

.1

.7

64.8

1.6

1.6

42.0

92.5

(*)

6.8

(*)

.7

64.2

.3

93.7 93.9 97.2

Hard red spring _ 3

Soft red winter. 5.9

(*)

.4

54.0

.1

1.4

44.5

6.8 2.2 White

Durum .3

80.8

.1

.3

66.8

Utah:

Hard red winter

Hard red spring.

Soft red winter

White 19.1 33.2 Durum

Virginia:

Hard red winter

Hard red spring (*)

99.9

.1

22.0

.1

.5

77.4

Soft red winter 99.7

.2

7.9

9.6

14.9

67.5

.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 White

Washington:

Hard red winter. 25.4

3.5

18.9

52.2

21.4

3.1

11.5

64.0

26.3

1.7

6.6

65.4

29.9

1.3

5.7

63.1

26.6

.5

2.8

70.0

31.8

1.6

1.4

65.2

Hard red spring

Soft red winter .

White

Durum

West Vü-ginia:

Hard red winter .6 .7 Hard red spring .1

99.5

.4

10.2

85.1

1.6

.5

2.6

18.4

48.9

.1

4.1

28.5

Soft red winter 99.6

.4

42.5

60.8

5.0

........

12.6

69.6

.6

1.0

16.2

99.4 100.0 99.9

.1

41.9

57.3

99.8

.2

53.1

44.1

2.7

White 100.0 ""99.I

Wisconsin:

Hard red winter 22.5

65.6

8.5

.4

3.0

40.1

45.6

.1

.9

13.3

14.5

82.3

.9

.3

2.0

50.7

36.9

2

\.l

10.7

3.5

74.6

21.7

.3

78.9

20.0

~~2

.9

Hard red spring 8.6

Soft red winter. .

68.0

22.3

.8 White

Durum.

41.8

50.4

(*)

1.7

6.1

...

62.7

33.4

.2

1.2

2.6

Wyoming:

Hard red winter

.3

Hard red spring... 83.6

Soft red winter 13.3

White .1

Durum 3.1

as grown but occupying less than 0.1 percent of the total wheat 1 The asterisk (*) indicates a class reported

acreage of the State.

TABLE n.—Estimated percentage of the total wheat acreage of the United States occupied

fïrm9and 19H^ ^ ^^ ^"^^'^'* intervals since 1919, and the estimated acreage

Class

Percentage of total wheat acreage for the years— Estimated acreage for

the years—

1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944

46.8

24.0

18.2

7.7

3.3

1949 1954 1949 1964

Hard red winter 32.0

24.2

30.1

7.3

6.4

41.4

22.4

22.1

5.9

8.2

43.5

22.0

17.7

7.4

9.4

44.6

23.2

20.9

6.7

4.6

47.6

20.9

19.6

6.6

5.3

54.2

20.8

13.0

7.8

4.2

55.9

2L4

11.9

8.3

2.5

46, 042,742

17,690,458

11,002, 699

6,616,005

3,579,196

Hard red spring 34,634,009

Soft red winter. 13,248,404

White """ 7,340,268

Durum. 5,167,147

1,691,172

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 84,931,000 61,971,000

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1957