Copyright
Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station.

Bulletin - Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station (Volume no.379-398) online

. (page 24 of 77)
Online LibraryMassachusetts Agricultural Experiment StationBulletin - Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station (Volume no.379-398) → online text (page 24 of 77)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Marlborough 32 . 8
Maynard. . . 37.0
Medford.... 5.5
Melrose. ... 7.8
Natick 29.4



32.7

28.0

4.8

2.8

26.3



22.0
14.0
35.0
14.6
18.4



7.8
19.0
48.3
73.3
19.0



Newton . . . ,
North

Reading.
Pepperell. .
Reading. . .



9.0

58.1
16.2



Sherborn ... 18.0

Shirley 42.8

Somerville.. 8.0

Stoneham... 10.1

Stow 24.0



Sudbury. . .
Tewksbury
Townsend .
Tyngs-
borough .



23.8
16.3
21.0



44.8
28.8
22.8

39.2
45.8
0.0
13.5
36.0

37.0
40.7
42.4



41.0
10.6
36.8

40.5

8.0

.9

49.7

36.0

32.5
29.8
32.5



3.2

1.7

24.1

.9

2.0

86.5

17.2

2.5

6.2
12.2
3.6



Wakefield... 8.4

Waltham... 8.1

Watertown . 17.8

Wayland ... 27.2

Westford. . . 18.3



7.0

24.0

.7

30.5

31.7



45.6
23.9



31.7
42.9



32.2

35.8

78.0

6.9

4.7



Weston 33.3 22.6 40.8 2.2

Wilmington. 9.8 53.0 26.5 10.5

Winchester. 9.0 20.5 36.5 28.0

Woburn 18.5 22.6 31.0 26.0



Norfolk County

Avon 9.4 28.2 54.0 5.2

Bellingham . 43.6 16.1 36.4 2.2

Braintree... 21.4 11.9 49.7 12.1

Brookline. .. 11.0 3.8 23.5 58.8

Canton 22.1 20.4 52.2 3.4

Cohasset.... 12.0 .2 70.7 15.1

Dedham 16.6 6.0 48 8 26.0

Dover 32.9 13.7 49.3 3.1

Foxborough. 46.3 13.5 31.7 3.6

Franklin.... 45.3 15.1 30.1 8.7



Holbrook . . .
Medfield. . . .
Medway. . . .



18.8 21.8 52.1 7.1

27.9 17.9 50.6 3.0
21.5 31.5 40.5 6.0



1.8

3.1

2.1

.9

10.3

6.4
2.0
1.1
5.4
1.3

.9
2.4
5.1
6.2
1.0

4.7
2.0
6.4
1.5
6.9



12.1 4.2 10.3 71.0 2.4



2.0
.8
.1

1.4
1.4
4.6
9.5
1.5

.5

1.0

.5



18.0 43.5 29.8 3.1 5.6



6.8
8.2
2.7
3.7
2.4

1.1

.2

6.0

1.9



The County 21.6 33.3 28.7 13.6 2.8



3.2
1.7
4.9
2.9
1.9

2.0
2.6
1.0
4.9



Norfolk County — Cent.

Millis 54.8 6.4 35.1 2.9 .8

Milton 37.7 4.4 53.2 4.0 .7

Needham... 14.6 9.9 44.9 28.6 2.0

Norfolk 40.3 18.1 36.9 3.1 1.6

Norwood... 25.9 10.6 39.3 23.1 1.1

Plainville. .. 43.9 14.1 33.8 3.8 4.4

Quincy 5.5 3.8 30.7 59.2 .8

Randolph... 7.4 26.1 53.0 11.1 2.4

Sharon 35.9 16.4 39.1 5.6 3.0

Stoughton.. 27.9 20.1 39.1 12.0 .9

Walpole 32.9 6.4 48.6 9.6 2.5

Wellesley. .. 35.2 6.9 32.0 21.5 4.4

Westwood . 32.3 9.4 48.4 9.1 .8

Weymouth.. 11.8 12.2 39.8 30.5 5.7

Wrentham.. 22.9 24.3 48.3 1.5 2.9



The County 29 . 1 14.0 42.5 12.2 2.2



Plymouth County

Abington. . . 37.5 0.0 51.0

Bridgewater 36.0 1.6 54.3

Brockton. . . 25.4 .2 42.9

Carver 5.1 24.4 66.7

Duxbury.... 19.4 15.0 61.5

East Bridge-
water 28.8 1.8 56.9

Halifax 26.0 6.1 59.9

Hanover 35.3 4.2 52 2

Hanson 27.5 7.4 53.0

Hingham... 14.7 15.1 59.8

Hull 3.1 0.0 8.0

Kingston... 14.3 11.2 66.7

Lakeville ... 15.5 10.7 52.7

Marion 14.8 0.0 79.8



Marshfield. . 11.3
Mattapoisett 7.4
Middle-
borough. . 30.1
Norwell 31.8



Pembroke . ,
Plymouth. . .
Plympton. ..
Rochester. . .
Rockland. . .



32.2
3.1
34.7
39.2
26.2



Scituate 24.4

Wareham... 19.3
West Bridge-
water 33.9

Whitman. . . 23.7



9.7
1.0

5.5
5.2

5.7
30.9
3.6
1.3
1.5

2.0
17.1

' .2
0.0



67.4
88.0

55.6
59.2

50.0
56.7
59.8
52.7
43.4

60.4
54.6

56.1
40.6



9.8

5.0

31.0

.8

3.3



10.1
1.0

7.2
8.0

9.9

85.0

5.6

2.8
5.2

11.0
3.5

4.7
2.1

4.7

3.8

.1

.5

28.0

12.2
5.4

8.1
31.5



1.7
3.0

.5
3.0

.8



2.4
7.0
1.1
4.1

.5

3.9

2.2

18.3

.2

.6
.1

4.1
1.7

7.4
5.5
1.8
6.3
.9

1.0
3.6

1.7
4.2



The County 20.8 11.0 57.7 6.5 4.0



Worcester County

Ashburnham.19.4 13.6 60.4 2.3 4.3

Athol 21.8 16.4 52.6 7.0 2.2

Auburn 37.3 23.7 27.5 7.0 4.5

Barre 26.7 36.4 33.9 1.9 1.1

Berlin 21.6 32.5 42.5 1.6 1.8

Blackstone.. 31.2 40.8 19.9 5.2 2.9

Bolton 29.8 43.7 24.9 .9 .7

Boylston.... 13.9 38.3 26.3 2.3 19.2



12



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387



Table 3. — Percentage of Land Suitability by Towns— continued



Town or
City



Suitability for
Agriculture



Good Me-
dium



Set-
tled
Poor Areas



Water



Town or
City



Suitability for
Agriculture Set-

tied Water

Poor Areas



Good



Me-
dium



Worcester County — Cont.

Brookfield.. 24.9 36.3 29.9 3.3

Charlton.... 54.9 29.2 12.6 .8

Clinton 11.3 26.3 13.1 23.6

Douglas 14.4 30.9 50.1 1.3

Dudley 46.1 23.2 21.6 5.0

East Brook-
field 32.4 30.9 27.1 4.0

Fitchburg . . 27.3 18.4 29.5 22.9

Gardner ... 31.8 31.6 22.1 11.1

Grafton 37.8 35.5 21.2 3.0

Hardwick... 17.2 26.8 51.2 .9

Harvard 24.0 55.9 15.2 2.6

Holden 26.7 42.6 25.1 3.7

Hopedale... 37.1 27.9 18.8 12.9

Hubbardston 36.6 40.2 19.8 .1

Lancaster... 39.7 42.9 10.2 6.2

Leicester... 39.8 36.7 14.5 2.2

Leominster . 32.8 34.9 18.8 11.1

Lunenburg.. 52.9 16.7 22.9 2.3

Mendon 23.1 46.2 28.0 1.5

Milford 21.8 34.5 32.5 10.8

Millbury.... 31.7 43.4 13.2 8.0

Millville 16.9 39.9 34.2 7.2

New Brain-
tree 37.2 40.3 21.3 .1

North-
borough. . 22.1 51.4 24.0 1.6

Northbridge 28.0 38.5 21.3 6.3

North Brook-
field 45.3 30.0 17.7 3.5



5.6
2.5
25.7
3.3
4.1



3.3
3.3



1.0
6.8



.9
5.9



3.5



Worcester County — Cont.

Oakham 37.8 46.3 14.3 .5

Oxford 42.4 27.9 24.5 2.7

Paxton 65.4 11.8 17.2 .8

Petersham.. 13.7 20.9 44.5 .3

Phillipston.. 26.6 4.8 66.1 .1

Princeton... 24.5 44.6 29.8 .2

Royalston ..15.2 6.2 77.1 .4

Rutland 50.0 33.0 14.7 .8

Shrewsbury. 22.3 44.1 19.2 8.5

South-
borough. . 29.1 32.3 22.7 5.4
Southbridge. 19.5 51.1 19.4 8.3

Spencer 44.3 37.1 13.6 2.4

SterHng 46.4 38.4 11.5 .7

Sturbridge.. 13.4 57.2 23.3 2.0

Sutton 32.7 29.2 32.9 1.1

Templeton.. 29.8 27.1 38.5 2.3

Upton 22.4 56.7 18.2 2.0

Uxbridge. . . 35.4 38.0 22.5 2.5

Warren 21.7 43.9 31.0 2.3

Webster ... 17.0 23.6 30.2 13.5

Westborough 27.2 35.5 30.4 4.5
West

Boylston .27.2 43.2 20.0 2.7

West

Brookfield 26.1 37.3 31.3 2.7

Westminster 35.2 34.8 25.3 .7

Winchendon 38.3 26.7 28.3 3.6

Worcester.. 25.3 15.6 7.0 48.6

The County 30.0 32.7 28.7 4.5



.9
1.1
1.5
5.9



10.5
1.7
2.6
3.0

4.1
4.1
2.3

.7
1.6

1.1

15.7

2.4

6.9



2.6
4.0
3.1
3.5

4.1



FACTORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL LAND UTILIZATION



The extent to which land classified as suitable for agriculture on the basis of
soil and topography will be actually cultivated depends on a number of different
factors. From the data already examined it appears that in 1880 the degree of
land utilization was high in most of the counties, and in five important counties
it almost reached the practical limit of physical possibility. It remains to be
seen why there has been such a considerable falling off in the amount of cultivated
land and what major developments are likely to take place in the future. To
account completely for the decline in the total area in farming would require the
consideration of a wide variety of subjects, including such important factors as
technological improvements of transportation and food preservation, a radical
change in the methods ot farm operation and farm living, and a number of com-
petitive factors in land utilization and marketing emanating from other sections
of the country and even from some foreign markets. In dealing with land utiliza-
tion matters in this discussion it is intended to confine the analysis to the con-
sideration of important factors related to the land as they evolved in Massa-
chusetts.

There are two important sets of conditions which effected a reduction in the
amount of cultivated land in Massachusetts. One relates to physical influences
and the other to economic and social factors arising from the use of land.



LAND USES 13

PHYSICAL FACTORS

Climate

From the physical point of view primary consideration should be given to
climate and the length of the growing season. While very great extremes in
temperature in Massachusetts seldom occur for more than a few successive days,
there is a considerable variation from one locality to another. On the average
there are from 40 to 50 inches of rainfall during the year. The length of growing
season is subject to wide variations depending mostly on local conditions, such as
elevation and air drainage, proximity to the shore, and the influence of winds.
A very uneven topography makes it difficult to indicate the length of growing
s^son for any large area.

A rfecent study in Essex County (Map 1) brings out vividly the fact that in-
dividual farms in the same locality have their own climatic problems which must
be closely studied in order to obtain the best results from farming operations.

Even with all these irregularities and variations in climatic conditions, the farm
operators of a few decades ago were able to adjust themselves to a comparatively
high level of utilization of the land resources. Under present-day conditions,
however, when competitive factors are more potent and readjustments in pro-
duction more frequent, climate often becomes a limiting factor. The introduction
of each new crop into a locality is followed by a period of uncertainty during which
some producers find that climatic conditions on their farms are unfavorable and
lead to considerable losses with continued production of the same crop. The
most important factor, however, which has contributed to many failures and the
abandonment of much land, is the attempt of many farmers, especially vegetable
growers, to advance or retard the growing season to meet competition from other
areas. Failure under these conditions leaves the impression that the soil or
climate is not favorable, whereas the true cause is the artificial forcing of a type
of cultivation which runs contrary to the prevailing physical background. Some
areas in the eastern part of the State, therefore, were left out of vegetable produc-
tion and by virtue of their location in high-cost sections were also barred from
less intensive types of agricultural utilization.



Erosion and Deterioration of Soil

With the withdrawal of land from agriculture in Massachusetts going on at a
rapid rate over a period of several decades, there has been a constant increase
in the forested area. The decline in agricultural land use has been traditionally
explained in terms of economic pressure or technological changes. As for soil
erosion and exhaustion, the general notion was that they were only minor factors
in the agriculture of the State, all the more since the major portion of the State
area was under protective forest cover. The first soil erosion reconnaissance
survey made in Massachusetts early in 1930 indicated that very little soil erosion
of much consequence existed in Massachusetts. Another survey made in 1938
indicated that soil erosion was more widespread and more serious than had been
previously recognized. A more detailed study made in 1939 and 1940* came to
the conclusion that accelerated erosion is both more extensive and more severe
than the previous survey indicated. It was pointed out, furthermore, that
erosion formerly was more severe and that many areas now under protective
cover of grass or trees had suffered severe losses in the past. By accepting this
point of view it is possible to explain to a considerable extent the retirement of



'Beaumont, A. B., and Kucinski, K. Conservation of Massachusetts Soils. Mass. State Col.,
Ext. Bui. 193, 1941.



14



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387



land from cultivation which has occurred in Massachusetts during the last several
decades. One must, however, guard against accepting this factor as one of ex-
clusive or major importance. Examination of individual areas on the basis of
the soil survey and the land-use survey indicates that in many localities large
sections of land were abandoned where erosion and deterioration of soil could
not have been of as much importance as in some of the areas still retained in
cultivation.




I — IMay 3o-5e.pt. 15, 105 D. SMay io - Oct. i , 140d.
SMay 15-5EPT. i5',iaoD. KSMay 15 - Oct. 15, i5o o.



^MAY 15 - 5ePT. 20^125D.HnAY 1 - OcT. ao, 1 To D.

' f Map 1. Frost Dates and Length of Frost- Free' Season" in Essex County
Prepared by Essex County Agricultural School from information supplied by local farmers



LAND USES 15

Both erosion and general soil exhaustion have been responsible for the with-
drawal of land from agricultural cultivation primarily when combined with
certain economic and social influences. In some areas, like the Connecticut
Valley and a few market garden sections, cultivation has continued in spite of a
high degree of erosion and considerable exhaustion of the natural fertility of the
soil. In these areas high expenditures for fertilizers and other protective meas-
ures have been justified by the level terrain and the possibilities of an intensive
type of farming.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS
Non-Resident Land Ownership

An important factor which has contributed directly to the withdrawal of land
from agricultural cultivation is connected with the social process which has been
going on in Massachusetts and in other parts of New England ever since the
end of the Civil War. The children of many old New England farmers either
emigrated to the West or settled in the cities. On the death of the parents the
farm was often retained but without active cultivation. It requires only a short
period of time under Massachusetts climatic conditions for land remaining 'un-
attended to grow into brush and woods. Left to itself, even the best quality of
land is ordinarily lost to farming. This process has been further accelerated in
some localities by the purchase of farms by city people for recreational or other
non-agricultural purposes. Such farming land is allowed to grow into woods,
which becomes the predominant cover. That all these conditions have had a
great effect on the trend of land utilization in Massachusetts is attested by the
great extent of non-resident ownership. In a study made in 1932 of 71 towns,
representing a fair cross section of the State, it was found that a little more than
one-third of the total area was owned by non-residents. Almost one-half of the
land owned by these non-residents had no buildings at all. Very little of this
land was being used for farming and practically the entire area is now under
some kind of forest cover.

Disappearance of Local Industries

Traditionally, agriculture in Massachusetts has been associated in most towns
with some type of local industry. With the gradual disappearance of these
industries in many towns, a considerable setback has been given to farming.
According to a recent study the number of industrial employees in towns of less
than 10,000 population has declined since 1895 more than 75 percent.'*

Local industries provided both the opportunity for employment for the surplus
labor of the' farms and a good market for the farm products purchased by the
employees. In many cases, with the disappearance of local industries, a portion
of the employees emigrated to urban centers, and the farmers, not finding a con-
venient outlet for their products, were compelled to curtail their operations.
When new market outlets were not found in a reasonably short time, much of
the land went out of cultivation. Evidences of that condition are found through-
out the State, but especially in some sections of Worcester County.

In some towns, however, in the vicinity of industrial communities or urban
centers, the disappearance of local industries has not necessarily involved the
loss of subsidiary employment for the local population. Better means of trans-
portation have made it possible for a good many people to be employed at some



*Rozman, David, and Sherburne, Ruth E. Historical Trend in Massachusetts Industries,
1837-1933. Mas:,. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 340, 1938. '



16



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387



distance from their home communities. Moreover, the growth of residential'
recreational, and other uses of land in rural areas has provided many oppor-
tunities for the local farming population to render various services, including work
with their teams. With the increase in all kinds of construction work in both
cities and rural areas, and the introduction of modern highways, there has been
a constantly increasing demand for such materials as gravel and sand. This has
resulted in more intensive utilization of gravel and sand pits throughout the State
wherever favorable sites are available. This is one type of industrial activity
based on local natural resources that has experienced an upward rather than a
downward trend in the rural areas of the State.

Land Values

In some areas the most important factor contributing to the curtailment of
the amount of land used for agricultural purposes is the demand for land for
other uses, largely related to residential, industrial, and certain types of recrea-
tional activities. When land becomes important for these more intensive uses,
people are generally willing to pay higher prices for land. High land values,
however, in many areas of Massachusetts, are not necessarily associated with
actual use of the land for these more intensive purposes. It is sufficient for people
to recognize that certain areas have a potential importance for other uses which
may come in the immediate future or over a period of time. There may also be
mistaken judgment, and certain areas may never come into the expected use.
Nevertheless, as long as people generally agree that a higher use is forthcoming,
the land values may be out of all proportion to values justified by the present use.
In communities where land areas are aflfected by present or potential considera-
tions for more intensive use, farm land is ordinarily valued at a higher level than
is justified by its agricultural importance.



FRANKLIN

BERKSHIRE

HAMPDEN

HAMPSHIRE

WORCESTER

BR\STOL

ESSEX

MIDDLESEX

NORFOLK

PLYMOUTH

BARNSTABLE



$5L4a



$56.29



$74.77



$60.21



$80.67



$132,36



$167.77



$175.78



$206.8a



$211.51



$228.81



DOLL ARS
100 150



Chart IV. Value of Farm Land and Buildings, per Acre, by Counties
Based on U. S. Census. 1940



LAND USES 17

The chart showing average farm land values by individual counties indicates
a wide variation, with Franklin County at the lowest level of $20.78 and Barnstable
County reaching $107.63 per acre. In considering these average farm land values
it is important to keep in mind that they refer to all the land in farms irrespective
of the cover and use. The land which is actually used for farming operations is,
however, only a fraction of the total land area. (Table 4) For the State as a
whole 40.5 percent of the total farm land is classified as improved. By individual
counties it varies from 31.6 percent in Plymouth County to 48.2 percent in Essex.
Thus it becomes clear that the average value for the land actually used in farming
is at least twice as high as indicated by official figures. The fact that the average
value per acre of farm land in Franklin County is the lowest in the State may be
attributed, to a certain extent, to the small proportion of improved land. More
important, however, is the general location of Franklin County and the low
density of population that place it in a position where present or potential high
land uses exert only a slight influence.



Table 4. — Percentage of Farm Land Improved,
BY Counties

Percent of Farm Land Improved

County

1935 1940

Barnstable 32.5 36.3

Berkshire 31.0 42.3

Bristol 39 . 6 45 . 7

Essex 40.3 48.2

Franklin 25.5 33.5

Hampden 34 . 3 33 . 5

Hampshire 33.9 43.4

Middlesex 41.5 47.0

Norfolk 37.9 41.2

Plymouth 33.0 31.6

Worcester 35.8 42.0

The State 34.5 40.5



The average land value in Berkshire County is only slightly higher than in
Franklin County, or $22.38 per acre. While Berkshire County is even farther
removed from large centers of population and is, therefore, comparatively free
from the influence of higher land uses in that direction, there is an important
recreational factor related to exceedingly favorable local natural conditions.
In addition, the proportion of land in farms classified as improved is somewhat
higher than in Franklin County. In Hampshire, Hampden, and Worcester
counties both the proportion of improved land in farms and the average value per
acre of farm land are on about the same level, whiv^h, in the matter of land values,
is almost 50 percent higher than in the two preceding counties. In general, farm
land values per acre increase going from the western to the eastern part of the
State. In all the counties lying east of Worcester the average value of farm land
is over $50, with Plymouth and Barnstable exceeding $100 per acre. In all these
counties land values reach a very high level by virtue both of greater pressure
from higher land uses and of the fact that land in agriculture becomes more
profitable because of proximJty to densely settled consuming areas. Of these
two influences the first is of far greater importance.



18



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387



When the major factor in farm land values is connected with expectations of
future land uses rather than with the current returns in agriculture, it becomes
almost impossible for a producer dependent on the farm for his living to carry
on stable farming. This is especially true in the case of the farmer who pur-
chased his land at an inflated high level and who has to justify his investment
on the basis of his returns in farming.



MIDDLESEX

NORFOLK

ESS EX

BERKSHIRE

PLYMOUTH

HAMPSHIRE

WORCESTER

BARNSTABLE

HAMPDEN

BRISTOL

FRANKLIN

STATE




Chart V. Average Value of Farms and Percentage of Value in Land and Buildings, by' Counties
Based on U. S. Census, 1940



Value of Buildings

The cost of land is only one part of the fixed investment and overhead charges
with which the farmer has to reckon. The other part is represented by the cost
of buildings both for residence and for the needs of the farm. For the State as a
whole, the average value of a farm on the basis of the 1940 Census was $6,647,
of which 41.3 percent represents the value of land and 58,7 percent the value of
buildings. In each county the value of buildings is higher than the value of land.
In Norfolk County exactly two-thirds of the total value of farm real estate is
represented by buildings. From the standpoint of profitability of farming opera-
tions, in some sections of Massachusetts and especially in the eastern counties,
the large investment in buildings in addition to the high cost of land creates a
real problem. It is true that the types of farming prevailing in Massachusetts as



LAND USES 19

well as in the entire northeast, especially dairy and poultry enterprises, involve
considerable investment in farm facilities. It is also true that some of the farms
are of a semi-residential type where people engaged in other lines of activity can
afford to have more expensive buildings for residential or recreational purposes.
Nevertheless, in cases where the farmer must justify his investment on the basis
of farming operations, considerable caution is required. While it is generally
recognized that high cost of land or high cost of farm buildings not fully utilized
may lead to eventual failure, not enough attention has been given to the fact
that in mauy cases failure results from investment in a type of farm house which
is not justified by the particular farming business, especially for a farmer in the
early part of his career.

Table 5. — Distribution of Value of Land and Buildings, by Counties

1940.

Average Value Land Buildings

County of Land



and Buildings Value Percent Value Percent



Per Acre



39.8


33.91


60.2


38.3


81.66


61.7


45.3


91.76


54.7


40.4


30.64


59.6


41.1


44.06


58.9


41.5


46.93


58.5


43.2


99.63


56.8



Barnstable $228.81 $107.63 47.0 $121.18 53.0

Berkshire 56.29 22.38

Bristol 132.36 50.70

Essex 167.77 76.01

Franklin 51.42 20.78

Hampden 74.77 30.71

Hampshire 80.21 33.28

Middlesex 175.78 76.15

Norfolk 206.82 80.38 38.9 126.44 61.1

Plymouth 211.51 104.74 49.5 106.77 50.5

Worcester 80.87 33.13 41.0 47.74 59.0

The State..." 109.40 47.08 43.0 62.32 57.0

Per Average Farm

Barnstable $5,699 $2,477 43.5 $3,222 56.5

Berkshire 7,705 2,965

Bristol 5,105 1,903

Essex 8,349 3,619

Franklin 4,806 1,898

Hampden 5,645 2,266

Hampshire 6,206 2,467

Middlesex 9,166 3,774

Norfolk 9,011 3,025

Plymouth 7,045 3,376

Worcester 5,720 2,262 39.5 3,458 60.5

The State 6,647 2,748 41.3 3,899 58.7



38.5


4,740


61.5


37.3


3,202


62.7


43.3


4,730


56.7


39.5


2,908


60.5


40.1


3,379


59.9


39.8



Online LibraryMassachusetts Agricultural Experiment StationBulletin - Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station (Volume no.379-398) → online text (page 24 of 77)