HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3484(
I
I
I
I
I
ri
,I
I
I
I
I ~.
I
I
I
.J
Alaska
1
s i=:D evelopment of New Land.s
a: s (j) ~~ C\1 • .. "-..-1n ~-;;-
~ , ..-gc:-o ~ i~g Matanuska -Susitna
; !=* Borough
r~,O==L()
~ Cl)
HD
1775
.A4
U45
197 0
United States Department of the Interior
Alaska Power Administration
February 1970
,,
---------------------------------
i ~~ Development of New Lands
~ .B~-
,
~c
~ c
:c
n ciJ
=o
~c
~
-.;_. D• --_,
-= 5
• 1n
Matanuska -Susitna Borough
Alaska·
Report of Study Team
February 1970
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Informatwn Servtces
Anchorage, Alaska
c
[
[]
~·
E·
D
D
-B
~n IJ
~
D
0
Q
c
i ~B
~G
'E
c
[
United States Department of the Interior
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
P. 0. BOX 50
JUNEAU. ALASKA 99801
IN REPLY REFER TO:
740
Mr. Robert Vroman
Chainnan
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Box B
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Dear Mr. Vroman:
February 11, 1970
It is a great pleasure to transmit to you the attached report, "Agricultural
Potential in Matanuska-Susitna Borouqh." as oartial resoonse to .vour Bor-
ough Resolution No. 66-8. This resolution requested our agency • ••• to $X•
pedite its investigation of the potentialities for further development of
the land, water, and related resources of the Borough and to assist the
Borough Water Resources Reclamation Committee in preparation of appropriate
resource development proposals."
The report presents the joint findings of a study team, .which includes re-
presentatives of the State of Alaska•s Division of Agriculture, Division
of Industrial Development, and Cooperative Extension Service; the Depart ...
ment of Agriculture•s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
Fanners Home Administration, Soil Conservation and Statistical Reporting
Service; and the Alaska Power Administration. The Alaska Agricultural
E~periment Station also furnished considerable data.
Additionally, encouraging and valuable contributions were made by Borough
officials, and residents, fanners, agricultural interests and other re-
presentatives of State and Federal agencies.
The broad range of responsibilities and knowledge of Alaska agricultural
matters represented by the study team, together with the valuable assist-
ance furnished by others, commends this overall look at the Borough agri-
cultural potentials to continuing consideration.
Alaska can produce abundant crops and products of high quality, but agri-
cultural development in Alaska has lagged because of problems of costs,
markets and competition from imported products •.
The report shows real potential for expanding agriculture in the Borough.
Present and potential farm enterprises can be profitable with good manage-
ment, suitable marketing arran~ements and economic farm sizes.
Agriculture, the major industry in Matanuska-Susitna Borou~h, can flourish
and contribute significantly to further development of the Borou~h and State.
The report presents measures which the study team sug~ests for early con-
sideration to facilitate optimum development of the Borouqh's aqricultural
potentials. It is a privilege for me to join with them in this submittal.
cc: Mr. Roland Snodgrass
r1re Domonic Carney
Mr. Peter M. Probasco
r-1r. John Nash
Mr. Daryl Bohman
Mr. Blaine Halliday
Mr. Duane Skew
Mr. Ira M. Stevens
'~----------·---------------~--~---
~ly, .. Gus!!!oo~~
Administrator
iv
[]
Ti
f'
! l u
n L__,
n r j u
I-~
I
~
--------~--- -----------~--------------·-·-----------------~----------------·
c
[
E>
D
·c
-c
c
c
_0
1 c
c
n
G
[
-[
[
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LANDS
IN
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
Summary and Conclusions of Study Team
Agriculture has been and continues as the major industry in the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough. Although development of new agricultural enterprises has
lagged for some time in the Borough, as elsewhere in Alaska, this study
shows that agriculture can flourish and contribute increasingly to develop•
ment of both the Borough and t.he State.
It establishes that the potential for new agriculture in the Borough can
be of major significance in the Borough economy. Present and future farm
enterprises can be profitable with good management, suitable marketing
arrangements, and economic farm sizes.
This report measures the potential for further agricu.ltural development as
a basis for decision by the Borough on zoning suitable lands for agriculture
and identifies actions meriting early Borough consideration. A longer ver-
sion of the report has been prepared for limited distribution to agricultural
agencies and·technical personnel. Entitled, "Possibilities of New Land De-
velopment in Matanuska-Susitna Borough," it contains greater detail and back-
up data on farm budgets, climate, and agricultural problems and potentials.
The Borough's strategic location, between the population and commercial
centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks, destines it to play an important role
in the growth and development of. Alaska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska's leading farming area, accounts for over
70 percent of the State's agriculture, with farm production valued at nearly
$4 million annually.
Good opportunity exists for new crops and processes particularly suited to
the Borough's climate and soils. Some which seem to have good promise are:
Virus-X-free potato seed; grass seed for forage and.turf; vegetable process-
ing; extension of fresh vegetable storage; greenhouse expansion; sod and
nurserya small fruits; flax, r~pe and other oil-seed crops.
At present the Borough and other adjacent agricultural areas produce a re-
-latively small proportion of the food needs of the Railbelt area. Most
food comes in from other states.
The expanding population can provide a market for many times the present
production. As much as 100,000 acres may be needed to produce agricultural
products in the Borough by 2000.
Soil Conservation Service records identify suitable agricultural lands 'in
the Borough to meet any foreseeable need. Agricultural lands, however are
not unlimited. Some soils are much better adapted to crop production than
others. Soil quality is critical to agriculture.
Hiqh land costs, competition for other uses, and t.he need for the best qual-
ity soils suggest need for zoning lands in the Borough to insure their avail-
ability for future agricultural development.
A sound Borough aqricultural development and expansion pro~ram may neces-
sitate changes in current farm or~anization and operation. Some of these
changes can be made by the individual farmer; others are appropriate for
farmer cooperatives. In addition extensive credit and technical assistance
could be required from public agencies.
One of the major Borough farm problems is smallness of farm units. Synthesiz-
ed farm budqets were developed to determine the minimum size farms that could
be operated economically in the Borouqh. (See pages 60 and 61 for comments
on exceptions to the synthesized farm budgets). Based on reasonable yield,
cost and price figures, the minimum economic sizes were indicated as follows:
Dairy--60 cows and 280 acres; grain--340 acres; potato--42 acres; vegetable--
20 acres. These farm sizes would support a man and his family without other
income=
The dairy and other livestock enterprises evaluated would be full .vear oper-
ations, crop farming seasonal.
Part-time farming, where farmers receive some income from off-farm activities,
is commonplace in most agricultural areas as well as in Alaska. A comprehen-
sive agricultural development plan for the Borough would include some part-
time farming enterprises.
The study indicated opportunity for increase in the gross value of Borouqh
agricultural production from about $4 million to over $24 million in the
year 2000. The multiplying effect of this basic industry could increase the
potential economic returns to $60 million annually by the year 2000.
Actions which merit early consideration by the Borough include the followin~:
1. Agricultural Policy. It is the official policy of the State of Alaska
to encourage cont1nuing development of the agricultural potentials of Alaska.
How to accomplish this has not been defined, but various support measures
have been established. Definition of the State's pro~ram can assist the
Borough in its planning.
2. Zoning of Borough Lands. Zoning of 100,000 acres of Borough lands
for agriculture would be desirable to aid in realization of the Borough agri-
cultural potential. The lands most appropriate for zoning are outlined in
Fiqure 5 in the report.
3. Possible Plans for Develo~ment of Agricultural Potential. There-
port outlines measures which coul assist in developing land in new areas
vi
r
l '
n ,-;
r ,
l J
r!
I I
l_j
u
fl u
r!
I !
lJ
,,
! ' u
n u
n u
L__j
~
~
c
[
~
~-
C·
as Alaska's needs for food products outgrow the capacity of current fanning
areas to produce. These measures, though different from any program now
available in Alaska, in essence do not vary greatly from the reclamation
land development programs of the West.
They look toward the year 2000 as foreseeable goals and are presented only
as guides for planning future development programs.
D
E
"C
As need for additional food production increases, the suggested measures
would include substantially complete preparation of large blocks of new
agricultural land, division of these lands into tracts that could be de-
veloped into economic size fanns and selling,or leasing to qualified
fanners.
We trust this report will be helpful in planning and guiding further agri-
cultural developments in the Borough.
Kif~~
Alaska Supervisor
c
c a ~~~ .Dom~~Carn~y _· -
~. Ma
1
nager Anchorage OffEice i u A aska Department of conom c
-Development
1 C r----_ ------:r ______ -----:~
(___~ ~t/ .. ~Ct4c:~._/
F Peter M. Probasco
L. Area Fann Management Agent
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Alaska
6
[
.[
[
vii
Farmers Home Administration
B aine o. Halliday
State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
~~~~
Duane M. $~~-:=-Statistician in Charge . ·
Statistical Reporting Service
.Jl?Q~
Ira M. Stevens
Agricultural Economist
Alaska Power Administration
c
C
~
~·
c,
D
E
D
u
D
u
c
-c
I B
~
~L
[
[
[
Acknowledgements
The study team acknowledges the help of many people who have made valuable
contributions to the study. Some help came through personal interviews,
some through letters. Some people prepared special information for the
report, others furnished data from published or unpublished sources. A
number of people read all or parts of the manuscript and offered useful
suggestions. The following list includes most of the contributors.
Borough Land and Water Resources Committee when study started: ·Robert-A.
· Douglas, businessman, Willow; Henry Hett, farmer, Palmer; Rose s. Duley,
homesteader, Houston; Lloyd Lankford, farmer, Montana Station; Harold New-
comb, businessman, Wasilla; Roland Snodgrass, farmer, Palmer.
Farmers: Harlan Hamilton, Palmer; Don Wright, Wasilla; Harold Kelton, Wasil-
la; Clyde Oberg 1 Palmer; Charles Rainwater, Homer; Gene Reid, formerly of
Palmer; Homer Smith, formerly of Homer; Heinie Snider, retired, Wasilla;
Noel Wood, Palmer.
Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station: Don Irwin and Allan H. Hick, re-
+~•a.A l'fofwoal"tru••e• J.fftwo•I"A I= nwolll"U l'fofwoal"tl'\woo ~ofrnnunl'f i?ac+•tf-DYarut<fva ·n-f. '-11'--_,,.._.._VVItiiilll ••VI ... W"-I e -·-·t~t _,,..__VYI. -l'::fl'l-11-.••--..... --. -~·----,,.--•
ficer; Lee Allen and c. Ivan Branton, agricultural engineers; Roscoe L.
Taylor, Leslie J. Klebesadel, William w. Mitchell, agronomists; Arthur L.
Brundage, William J. Sweetman, animal husbandmen; Charles F. Marsh, Wayne
E. Burton, and A. Dale Saunders, economists;,Richard H. Washburn, entomo-
logist; Curtis H. Dearborn and Donald Dinkel, horticulturists; Charles
Logsdon, plant pathologist; Neil Michaelson, former soils scientist' Win-
ston M. Laughlin and Paul Martin, soil scientists.
Soil Conservation Service: Harold Cooper, former State soil conservation-
ist; Samuel Rieger, State soil scientist; Cliff Marcus, work unit conser-
vationist; Dale Schoephorster, soil scientist; Andrew linn, agricultural
engineer.
State Division of Agriculture: Ed Kern, marketing specialist; Fred Hon-
singer, D.V.M., State veterinarian; James Pazaruski, D.V.M., assistant
State veterinarian.
Financial Institutions: George Jefferson, State Agricultural Revolving
Loan Fund; George Crowther, Alaska Rural Rehabilitation Corporation and
Federal Land Bank; Dale Sanner, Farmers Home Administration; June Withey,
Matanuska Valley Credit Union; James Wilson and James J. Hurley, Matanuska
Valley Bank.
Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service: James Matthews, associate di-
rector; Leland Cade, and Dave Reed, former extension agents.
ix
Alaska Power Administration: Tom Cantine, Assistant Administrator and Chief
of Project Development; Robert Cross, Administration Hydrologist.
Other U. s. Government personnel: Harold White, D.V.M.; USDA Animal Health
Division, Anchorage; H. P. Gazaway, economist, u. s. Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs, Juneau, formerly economist at Agricultural Experiment Station; Charles
L. Welling, economist, u. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, former eco-
nomist Agricultural Experiment Station; Marvin Slaughter, Palmer, former
U. s. Geological Survey; J. Hugh Hammond, Raleigh, North Carolina, Consul-
tant for USDA; Clyde Courtnage, Alaska Field Coordinator, Economic Develop-
ment Administration, Anchorage; Rodney E. Wilson, Executive Director, Alaska
Stabilization and Conservation Service office, Anchorage.
Other State of Alaska affiliates: Robert c. Haring, Department of Business
Administration and Accounting, University of Alaska, College; James z. Irany,
Anchorage Community College, formerly Office of Economic Opportunity, Anchor-
age; Janet McCabe, Alaska State Housing Authority, Anchorage; Jan Koslosky,
State Senator and businessman, Palmer; Jalmar Kertulla, State House of Re-
presentatives and farmer, Palmer.
Other Businessmen: Don Donatello. Donatello Feed Mill. Anchoraae. Jack Flint.
manager, and Ed Smith former manager Matanuska Maid, Palmer; Bob Webb and John
Vanover, small slaughter house operators and farmers, Palmer; Barney Hollembeck,
farm supply dealer and farmer, Palmer; Mason LaZelle, former general manager
of Matanuska Electric Association, Palmer (now deceased); J. o. Ekstead,
engineer, Matanuska Telephone Co., Eagle River; Wayne Hunter, editor "Alaska
Farmer", Palmer; Harry Leckwold, refrigeration, Palmer; Paul Huppert, vegetable
dealer, Palmer; Jake Moesh, produce dealer, Anchorage.
X
n
[
r .
lj
[J
I!
lJ
[
c
n u
n u
r: u
r ,
I
!
L4
0
C
i~
'
D
-C
5
i
'
D
D
c
c
E
L
[
c
[
..
---------------------------·----------·-· -----
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LANDS
IN
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
Table of Contents
Page
Administrator's Letter.
Summary and Conclusions of Study Team
Acknowledgements ....... 1, •••
Introduction .•.....•....•...•••.....
Borough Location, Size, Authorities, Responsibilities ..••.
Purpose of the Study . . . .
Planning Request ...
Participating Agencies •.•....•..••.
Borough Econom_y. . . • . • •
Present Status and Development • . . . . • . .
Relation to Anchorage and Railbelt .•.•..
Potential Development, Pending Proposals
. . . .
Present Agriculture. . • • • . . .• • . ••.
Contributions to Borough Economy .....••..•....•
Employment Comparison .•...•...•.......•
Income Comparison ••. ~ ....•.•..•.•...•...
Oescrjption .1 ·• •· •••.•••••••••••• ~ •••••.•
Irrigation. . . . . . . . • . • . . . •.•
~larketing . . . . . .................. .
Other Economic Factors .........•.•..
Agricultural Potentials ..•...••.•.... ~ .•••
Potential Rail belt Area Market for Present Borough.
Agricultural Products. . . . . . • . . • • . ••.
Potential New Crops and Processes •.......
Virus-X-Free Potato Seed. . . . . . ...•..••
Gra·ss Seed for Forage and Turf.
Vegetable Processing Plant ..... .
Extension of Fresh Vegetable Storage.
Greenhouse Expansion ....... .
Sod and Nursery. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . •
Sma 11 Fruits . • • . . . . . . . • •
Flax Rape and Other Oil-Seed Crops.
Sugar Beets . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .
Improving Winter Grazing for Domestic Livestock and
Game if ·i' " II . 8 " • .-. + ~ @-.,. e . ~ "' " • ,. • • . • • • • • •
Marketing Beef and Lamb off Grass .•••••.••
xi
/
iii
v
ix
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
5
5
7
a
8
9
9
10
12
13
17
18
19
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
--·~·~ ... _,_.--~~-·----.. -· ""~------···-~-------------~ ·----"·---"·----~--·~--
Potential Requirements· fo·r--Agricultural Lands.
Available Lands •......
Four Special Study Areas
Climate Factor .....•.
Pa 1 mer Area . • . • . . . • • . . . . • .
Wasilla Area. . . • • . .•.
Montana-Sunshine Area .
Horseshoe Flat Area •..•..•..•..•..
Average Temperatures, Alaska and Other States
Improved Farm Practices and Organization ........••
Implementation of Economic Size Farm Units.
Improved Practices -Development .•
Improved Practices -Production
Improved Practices -Harvesting ..
Improved Practices -Marketing .•••...•..
Improved Practices -Management •..•..
Economic Size-Farm Ente~prises. . . ••.
Dairy Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Small Grain Farms • . • . . . • . ...
Potato Farms ..•.....•.
Farm Size Needed ..•..•....•..••.••
Emphasis on Most Profitable Agricultural Enterprises
Potential Economic Returns . • • • . •.•.
Actions Meriting Early Consideration ••...
Agricultural Policy . • . . . . . . . • . . ..
Zoning of Borough Lands for Agriculture ..•..••••.
Possible Plans for Development of Agricultural Potential .•..•
Current Public Programs •.........•....••..
Federal Homesteading. .. . • ••...•...
State Homesteading ••.•••.•...•..
Land Clearing, Rental and Sale by State -1967 Law
FHA Program of Farm Land Procurement,
Deve 1 opment and Sale . . . . • . •
Canadian Land Programs •..•..•
Australian Land Development Program.
Analysis of Current Programs ••.
Actions Involved .•..••
Land Acquisition •••••.•
Land Clearing and Development.
Applicant Review and Screening .•.
Financing and Contract Administration •.
Agencies Involved ••...••
Funding Sources. . • . .• ·. . . . . . • •
Alternate Procedures ••••.•••.••.
Possible Administrative Agencies •.
Legislation Required .•...
Xii
Page
27
28
31
36
38
38
38
38
39
39
43
43
44
44
44
45
46
49
50
51
51
53
53
54
54
54
57
58
58
58
58
58
59
59
60
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
63
63
-------~ ~ -------------------·---·--·------·---· -~ --· ·---------------------·-------------------·-···----------··---------------------· -----·---------·
r
l~
B
.fJ
[
D
u
n
[_j
fl u
[
n u
[J
r;
u
n u
[J
c
r··,
lj
'
j []
IJ
D
c
g
G
[
c
[
Appendix·
A
B
c
D
E
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Appendices
Letter from Haro 1 d W. Searby, Regi ona 1
Climatologist, ESSA Weather Bureau,
_ Anc,horage, Alaska ', • . • . • .
Maps of Special Study Areas ....
Average Monthly Annual Temperatures
for Fourteen States 1931-60 .••••
Foreign Land Programs ••.•.
Bibliography
List of Tables
Railbelt Production, 1966 and Reasonable
Goals by. Decades, 1970 to 2000 for Com-
modities Now Being Produced .••••••
Projected Reasonable Goals Showing Acres
and Farms Needed for Current Types of Farm
Enterprises for Railbelt by Decades 1970
. .. . . .
to. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .
Summary of Average-Size Farms and Acres
Needed to Produce Railbelt Goals of Currently
Produced Commodities by Decades 1970.to 2000.
Farm Commodity Pri.ces -Alaska Agricultural
Statistics and Projected Value of Products
Sold, 1970 to 2000 ..•••••••••••
Potential Agricultural Lands -Matanuska
Susitna Borough .....••.•••••
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Farm Budget Summaries
Minimum Economic-Size Farms in Matanuska-Susitna
Borough • . . . . . . • . . • . • . . • • • •
xiii
65
67
77
79
.83
20
22
23
23
32
48
52
----------------------
List of Figures
Figure Page
1
2
3
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Vicinity Map. • . • • • 2
Matanuska-Susitna Borough General Map (following page 2)
4
5
6
7
Variation of Time of Sunrise and Sunset
at Palmer, Alaska and St. Louis, Missouri •
Average Number of Hours Between Sunrise
and Sunset at Palmer, Alaska and St. Louis
Missouri During Spring and Summer •••••
Areas of Borough Land with High
Agricultural Potential .••.•••
Mean January Temperature Curves
for the North American Continent.
Mean July Temperature Curves for .
the North American Continent ••
. . . . . . . .
B-1 Palmer Area Land Classification Map
B-2 Palmer Area Land Classification Map •
B-3 Palmer Area Ownership Map
B-4 Palmer Area Ownership Map
B-5 Wasilla Area Land Classification Map.
B-6 Wasilla Area Ownership Map ••••••••••
B-7 Montana-Sunshine Area Land Classification Map.
B-8 Montana-Sunshine Area Ownership Map. • •••
B-9 Horseshoe Flat Area Land Classification Map.
xiv
15
16
30
40
41
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
n
n
n u
r--,
I .
LJ
n
l......J
u
[~
__;
i L . _,
c
r
~
~
D~
0
c
D
c
c
u
C
-c
g
G
[
[
[
DEVELOPMENT OF NEH LANDS
IN
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
Introduction
Borough Location, Size 1 Authorities, Responsibilities
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is the largest political subdivision of the
State of Alaska.
Covering more than 23,000 square miles, an area the size of the combined
states of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, it e~tends
from just north of the City of Anchorage to Mount McKinley National Park.
(See Figure 1). Generally it includes the area drained by the Matanuska
and Susitna Rivers. Borough headquarters is at 'almer in the Matanuska
Valley.
Incorporated January 1, 1964, the Borough has a five-man legislative as-
sembly and an elected, full-time chairman. At the time of incorPQration,
the Borough assumed three mandatory area-wide powers as follows: (1) edu-
cation, (2) planning and zoning, and (3) assessment· and collection of taxes.
The e&sential functions of planning and zoning have played an important role
in the Borough's development over the past five years.
This study was requested by the Borough in connection with its planning and
zoning function.
Purpose of the Study
The specific purpose of the study is to measure the potential for new agri-
cultural development in the Borough as a basis for decision by the Borough
on zoning suitable lands to protect them for future development. This re-
quires measuring the contribution such lands might make to the overall
Borough economy if developed for agricultural use.
Study objectives include the determination of how the basic resources of
land, water, climate, people, and money can best be utilized to establish
a more viable agriculture in the Borough and to identify actions meriting
early consideration.
Planning Request
In 1966, Matanuska-Susitna Borough adopted a resolution requesting the Bureau
of Reclamation 1J, predecessor agency in Alaska to the Alaska Power Admin-
istration, to conduct a study of the Borough's natural resources potentials.
!I In June, 1967 the Alaska Power Administration was established as a
separate Bureau of the u. s. Department of the Interior. Its purposes
are to "promote the development and utilization of water, power, and
related resources of Alaska," including the full responsibilities for
Rec 1 ama t ion • s former programs.
~----~--~------------~ ---------
Fiaure 1
BOROUGH
SUSITNA
Glenn
WILLIAM
SOUND
• ,......J
I
MATANUSKA -SUSITNA
BOROUGH
VICINITY MAP
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~ Jr
f I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•f
I
I
I UNITE D STATES
OE.P'AffTMENT 0, THE. INTEIUOit
ALASKA POWER ADIIINISTRATfON
I ......... . ·,
..............
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA
, BOROUGH
'·' GENERAL MAP
---,;.
I
.
l
r
I i ~-
0-
0
D
0
D
0
c
l., ~ ~u ~
' i ~r
lJ
c
[
[
--------------------------
The Borough resolution specifically asks that the agency" ••• expedite its
investigation of the potentialities for further development of the land,
water and related resources of the Borough and to assist the Borough Water
Resources Re.clamation Conmittee in preparation of appropriate resource
development proposals."
About the same time the Borough contracted with Alaska State Housing Author-
ity to conduct a series of planning studies.· APA agreed informally with
Alaska State.~ousing Authority concerning are~s of primary interest,sq that
full 1ntegratlon of the efforts of both agenc1es would be assured • .!/ Thus
_ ·APA was to include the agricultural resources of the Borough in its studies.
Further disct,Jssions. with Boro,ugh officials resulted in agreement that the
,Alaska Power. Administration's initial efforts be devoted to water and agri-
culture. The water study involves an inventory of the Borough ground and
surface water resources and an examination of present and potential muni-
cipal water supply and pollution problems.
Participating Agencies
Tn _,,;m,, n~ t-ho h ... n.:an \".:tnno n~ .:an ... ;rult-u ... .:al m.:aTTO\"C ;nynht~:~tf thP ::~cc;ct::~ni"'D 611'91"-~' VI VII,._,...,""_. IWII!-1"-~~ M~l IV-.I.VWII""I lti-V¥-t-.1 til-··--· Wtt---.1-.IIIWW-It--
of all concerned Federal, StaJe, and local agricultural agencies and inter-
ests was enlisted for the agricultural study.
This resulted in formation of· a study group including representatives of
Alaska offices of the following agencies:
Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Farmers Home Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Statistical Reporting Service
State of Alaska:
Cooperative_Extension Service
Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources
Industrial Development Division, Department of Economic
. Deve 1 opment
]/ -The Phase·.one report of the Alaska State Housing Authority was com-
pleted and published in March 1968. APA prepa~ed the sectirin on
agricuiture. ~SHA's Phase II is scheduled for publication in the
fall of 1969.
3
--~--·~~~
Department of the Interior:
Alaska Power Administration--lead agency
The Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station also furnished considerable data
and checked its use in the report for technical accuracy.
Borough Economy
Matanuska-Susitna Borough has an abundance of natural resources largely un-
developed. These include a land area almost as large as the state of West
Virginia, water sufficient for almost any foreseeable use, timber, minerals
fish, water fowl and wild game, and unusually good conditions for recreation
development. These resources and their development potentials are briefly
discussed as background for consideration of the agricultural development
potential.
Present Status and Development
Water is not a limiting factor over most of the Borough where settlement
and development is likely to take place. Surface water supplies from lakes
and streams are abundant. Ground water is aiso known to be available in
many areas, but of unknown quantity in other areas.
Much land is available for agriculture, recreation, and residential, com-
mercial or industrial development.
The Borough contains about 4.3 million acres of land classified as forest.
This constitutes a little more than one-fourth of the Borough area. The
timber on about two million acres of this forest land is considered as
commercial quality. Species are largely white spruce and birch with smal-
ler quantities of balsam poplar and aspen.
A recent contract--May 1968--sold 21 million cubic feet of State timber
in Susitna Valley to be harvested over a ten-year period.
Metallic mineral resources of the Borough include antimony, bismuth, cobalt,
copper, gold, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, platinum, tin, tung-
sten, and zinc; non-metallic minerals include ceramic clay, coal, gypsum,
haydite, limestone, marl, and perlite. These minerals have all been found,
but their extent in most cases is not known. Much of the potentially mineral-
bearing area of the Borough is unexplored.
The portions of the Borough bordering Cook Inlet and the Knik Arm area are .
considered favorable geological areas for oil and gas. through no productive
wells have yet.been drilled within the Borough.
4
n
[
B
-0
[
l ,.
j
f=J
LJ
n I ! L.J
[]
c
[
0
D
~-------------~ --~--~-~----------~-------,----------·-~------------------------------~
D
[
1 a .
I
1 ~-' .,
1 0-j
·1
D
l
~ [j ,
.,
{]
1 E ' 1
i
-~
~
~ D
j
ii ~ B 1
.§
j c ~
~ ~ c J
1 B ]
;; ;
jj
11
G '
_;j -
• c
c
[
'
Wfld ga111_e--moose, caribou, sheep, and goats--and sport fish abound in the
mountains, valleys, and streams of the Borough. Located close to Anchorage,
this area probably receives more hunting and fishing pressure than other
areas of the State. Water fowl it"' the lower Susitna River is significant.
Resource development in the Borough generally has been very small to this
time, only a fraction of its yotential.
· Relation to Anchorage and Railbelt
Matanuska.-Susitna Borough 1 ies strategically adjacent to Anchorage--the
population and commercial center of the State and the Railbelt l!area.
The Alaska Railroad, which extends from Seward through Anchorage to Fair-
banks, traverses the Borough, south to north, bisecting it into two almost
equal parts. It connects the Borough with the State's two largest cities
and the tidewater ports of Anchorage, Seward and Whittier.
Existing highways connect the Borough with all major market areas. The
Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway when completed in 1972 or 1973 will roughly
parallel the Alaska Railroad and further open up the Borough to trade and
development.
Alaska's major military installations at Anchorage and Fairbanks provide
ready markets for Borough agricultural products.
Anchorage serves as headquarters for the large petroleum developments on
Cook Inlet. Fairbanks serves this purpose for the burgeoning development
on the North Slope.
Its location in the Railbelt between the two centers destines the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough to play an active role in development of the area.
. .
Potential Development, Pending Proposals
Agriculture produces basic wealth from the land. Perhaps the most basic
of all industries, it produces food, clothing and shelter, items essential
to sustainhuman life. Expenditures for these necessities represent a
large share of most people's income. In the past most of these items have
.been shipped in. Opportunity exists to produce a larger proportion, partic-
ularly of the food products,within the state. Alaska's potential growth
]j The. Railbelt, as traditionally envisioned, includes the area from Kenai
. Peninsula north through Anchorage, .the Matanuska and Susitna Valley .areas
and inc.luding Fairbanks and Tanana Valley. The Alaska Railroad extends
470 miles from Seward to Fairbanks with a 14-mile spur to Whittier.
5
and development could create extensive markets for these products. Local
agricultural production to fill these needs could furnish employment and
investment opportunity for many people. The section of this report on
agricultural poten~ials presents reasonable production goals for the future
to the year 2000. It shows 353 farms, cultivating 92,600 acres and produc-
ing products worth $24 million.
In addition to these direct benefits, the agricultural industry generates
jobs and income for many other people. Farmers need land, land clearing,
drainage, irrigation, fertilizer, seed, machinery and many other goods and
services. The items produced on the farm must be transported, processed,
packaged, stored and sold -all steps requiring labor and capital and provid-
ing jobs. In addition there must be service people -school teachers, gro-
cers, service stat;on operators, doctors, lawyers, various levels of govern-
ment workers -these and many more -to serve the fanners and agriculture-
related industries and to serve each other.
Thus it can be seen that agriculture, as a basic industry has a multiplying
effect on the growth of a developing economy. This effect includes the
multiple re-use of funds kept in the community and in the State rather than
sent out for imported foodstuffs. A conservative estimate is that the
multiplying effy(ft produces r-evenues t't~o to thiee times as great as the
farm revenues. _f With farm revenue at $24 million and generated non-farm
revenue at $50 to $60 million, the total increased business activity could
approach $80 million by the year 2000.
A further impact on the Borough will be the influence of Anchorage because
of its location. As the Anchorage area grows and industry develops, its
influence will spread into the Borough. Even now many people live and play
in the Borough but work in Anchorage. And this situation will likely con-
tinue and expand.
A Knik Arm crossing, whether bridge, causeway, or tunnel, will surely be
built within the foreseeable future, providing another transportation link
between Anchorage and the Borough. Besides shortening the distance to
Fairbanks and the North Slope, this crossing will greatly improve access
to Big Lake and other recreation and residential areas. It will open the
entire McKenzie Point -Goose Bay area for d-evelopment of industry, com-
merce, agriculture, housing, and recreation.
Tandy Industries, a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based firm has recently announced plans
for "Seward's Success", a totally climate-controlled city with enclosed
lf A recent study of the Columbia River Basin Project showed gross farm
revenue of $63 million. Gross revenue to businesses and services as-
sociated with the agricultural industry was $153 million, thus 2.4
times as much.
6
r
[
0
{]
n u
c
n u
ll u
c
c
u
0
c
[
-C
~
D
c
0
c
:u
4
"
E
G
c
[
---~------------~-~
residential and business malls, to be built in this area -iiTITiediately across
Knik Arm from Anchorage and connected by an aerial tramway. The first
phase of the project would cost $170 million and eventual cost would be
$800 million. Location of the proposed site is indicated on Figure 5.
The State Division -of Aviatton has requested the Division of Lands to re-
serve a 'large block of land in'the Goose Bay area for an airport to accom-
modate future jumbo jet aircraft. FAA estimates this airport will be needed
by 1985 or 1990.
Alaska State Housing Authority, in their current borough planning studies,
recommends specific uses for various land tracts in the McKenzie Point-
Goose Bay area after the Knik Arm crossing is built. The tract lying next
to the proposed airport is reconmended for agriculture.
As indicated earlier, almost every mineral of commercial significance exists
in the Borough but their extent is not known. Much of the potential mineral
bearing area of the Borough has not been explored. It is reasonable to
predict that future demands for Alaska mineral production will lead to ·-·
identification and development of the-significant mineral reserves in· the
Borough which wi11 serve as a basis for an expanding industrial economy.
As our affluent population grows and acquires more leisure time, further
recreation areas with improved services will be needed. The Big Lake area
-has-developed rapidly and plans are underway for a sizeable State-sponsored
recreation development at Nancy Lake.
Hundreds of people are buying small tracts of land on lake shores for sum-
mer cottages and winter recreation sites. Camping, fishing, hunting, hik-
ing, boating skiing, sno-machine activity, horseback riding and other
sports are available for development in the Borough. Recreation potential
is large and will increase.
~~t. McKinley National Park containing the highest mountain in North America
lies on the northern boundary of the Borough. Within a few years,.when
the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway is completed, this outstanding recreation
area will be accessible from this road as well as the Denali Highway, and
the railroad through the Borough.
Present Agriculture
Agriculture in Matanuska-Susitna Borough is located primarily in the Mata-
nuska Valley with greatest activity in the Palmer :area ... This was the-_head-
-· quarters of the depression•inspired Matanuska Colony establ ish.ed in 19.35
-and included some of Alaska's better farming lands._
7
------~------------~----------~-------------------------~----------
The Matanuska Valley has been recognized as the center of farming activity
in Alaska for many years and now produces 70 percent of the State's agri-
cultural production.
A little over 10,000 acres are farmed in the Borough. This represents only
a small part of the potential since over a half million acres have been
designated as agricultural lands by the Soil Conservation Service.
Dairying is the major farm enterprise by a wide margin with milk represent-
ing almost 60 percent of the cash sales. Crops include hay, silage and
small grains, used primarily for the dairy enterprise, with smaller income
from poultry. potatoes and other fresh vegetables.
Relatively small farm~ often operated on a part-time basis, characterize
farming in the Borough. Some consolidation and increase in size has ocur-
red in recent years.
Contributions to Borough Economy
Agriculture is the major industry in the Borough and makes a substantial
~ontribution to the Borouah economv. -----------------..,-v-
Employment Comparison:
A survey conducted by ASHA in the fall of 1966 showed one-fourth of the work
force in the Borough employed directly in agriculture. The tabulation fol-
lows:
Activity
Agriculture
State and Local Government
Services
Trade
Construction
Federal Government
Mining
Transportation, Communication, Utilities
Manufacturing
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Total ·
People Employed
433
323
212
172
. 150
129
124
85
34
33
1,695
The table lists only two basic industries -agriculture and mining. The
mining was essentially production of coal as fuel for power generation and
heating of the military bases in the Anchorage area. With the conversion
of the military bases to the use of natural gas, the coal mine was shut
down.
8
[
{]
nl,
.J
n LJ
n , I LJ
n L
c
D
c
0
0
[l . i
j
[
[
D·
D
c
D
D
D
D
c
.[
I B
~
-§
_l, D
~
c
-· r_--L
[
Two ot~er basic industries ~ forestry and tourism or recreation -are not
identified in the table. The forest industry is included in the table as
part of man~facturing; tourism activities are included as part of services
and trade.
The other activities listed in-the table are primarily of a service nature -
government, trade, transportation, communication, utilities, and other ser-
vices -designed ·to service the basic industries. ·
Since agriculture is the major basic industry, the main function of the
service activities is to serve. the agricultural industry and people who
.• serve it. Thus, the work force employed in agriculture and service to
agriculture is well over half of the Borough total.
Income Comparison:
Total value of Borough agricultural production in 1967 was $3.9 million.
Gross receipts from all other activities for the City of Palmer and the
Borough outside of Palmer amounted to about $16.5 million. These included
retail salesi wholesale sales; construction; finance and real estate;
transportation, communications, and utilities; service; professional; and
manufacturing.
As pointed out in the case of employment, the major function of most of
these activities is to serve the basic industries and the people who serve
them. Thus most of the gross receipts were undoubtedly generated from sales
direct to agriculture and to people whose major activity is service to agri-
culture.
Descript1on
Agricultural crops and livestock have been grown in Matanuska Valley for
more than 70 years. Early development was undertaken under the Homestead-
ing Act and was enhanced by food needs for miners and crews building the
Alaska Railroad. A great impetus to agricultural development came Jn the
... mid-1930's w.ith the Matanuska Valley Colony. Some settlers did well;
others poorly. At the erid of 20 years,many had left. Records show a ·
doubling of the v~lue of production in the Borough from about $2 million
to $4 million between 1953 and 1961, with a leveling off since that time.
The Palmer area providesmost of the current farms in the Borough. Others
(lre located in the vicinity of Wasilla and Montana-Sunshine, with a few
scattered in oth~r areas.
In 1967there were 135 farms in the Borough. only about 60 of which were
considered full time operations. The last available census, 1964, shows
158 farms ranging in size from one to 1,351 acres, not considering the
9
~~-------·----
----------------------~--"----------------------------
few that had large government leases. About one-third of these farms were
within the 140 to 179 acre size, with one-third larger and one-third smal-
ler.
The 135 farms in 1967 harvested 10,700 acres or an average of 79 acres per
farm. Nearly 80 percent of this acreage produced livestock forage, includ-
ing hay, silage, and pasture; over 15 percent produced grain. Thus 95
percent of the acreage produced livestock feed. The remaining acreage
grew cash crops with about four percent in potatoes, and a little more
than one percent in lettuce, carrots, cabbage~ and other vegetables.
Considered on basis of value of items produced, milk represents 45 percent;
hay and silage, used primarily for dairy cattle, ranks next, with eggs and
potatoes follo·wing. Here is the tabulation.
Product Value Percent
Milk $1,770,000 45
Hay and Silage 797,500 20
Eggs 413,000 ll
Potatoes 395,000 10
Meats (PoultryJ beef, veal
pork, mutton 185,700 5
Vegetables (Lettuce, carrots,
cabbage, other) 175,300 5
Oats and Barley 135.800 4
Total $3,875,300 1oo
Except for a few small farm flocks producing eggs for home use, two com-
mercial poultry farms supply all available local eggs. Each farm grades
and markets its own production, usually to a speciaHzed trade and at a
premium price over shipped in eggs because of preference by some people
for locally produced eggs.
Irrigation
Irrigation is generally considered necessary to supply water to soils when
moisture from precipitation is insufficient to produce optimum crop growth.
Supplemental water is often needed in Matanuska-Susitna Borough especially
in the spring to help germinate seeds planted.
Water can be applied by gravity flow through ditches or through sprinklers.
Sprinkler irrigation has been determined to be more practical in the Borough.
Water for irrigation is abundantly available over much of the present and
potential farming areas of the Borough.
10
n u
[]
c
D
D
lJ
[]
D
0
[
[
[J
[
~
8-
~·
0
c
D
D
c
0
~
1 l ;:
[
[
[
Research to determine the need. and benefits of irrigation has been. con-
ducted by the Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station for the past 12 years.
Results show that for maximum growth, plants require .12 to .17 inches of
water daily, or from 9.1 to 13.6 inc;hes during the growing season. This
is 4 to 6 inches more than is normally available although there is great
variation from one year to the next.· ·
Some of the results of-irrigation research, as summarized by the Experiment
Station, are as follows: ·
1. In most years irrigation produces substantial yield increases of all
crops, although there is a wide rang~ in crop yield response. In wet years,
for example, some crops show very little or no response, whereas in dry
years, certain vegetable crops show enormous yield increases.
2~ There seems to be little question that irrigation facilities should
be provided for successful vegetab 1 e production in Matanus ka Va 11 ey. The
four or five relatively dry weeks during May and early June make uncertain
the emergence and survival of small-seeded crops that must be planted at
· shallow depths •.
3. An investigation in 1967 analyzing cost and production records
from 13 fanners using sprinkler irrigation corroborated findings of the
Experiment Station.
4. Irrigation alone may not always produce an increased yield commen-
surate with its cost. However, since fertilizer is essential to succes-
sful crop production on most Borough soils, and since these soils respond
best to fertilizer only if its application is accompanied by sufficient
moisture 11 the optimum fertilizer amount can often be used only with con-
trolled water application. Thus irriqation frequently is essential to
effective fertilizer use and therefQre is a 1 imi ti ng factor to successful
crop production. ·
Irrigation may be less critical in other areas of the Borough where pre-
cipitation is heavier than at the Experiment Station where tests have been
made. This has not yet been determined.
During the 1969 season, all crops throughout the State suffered from lack
of moisture. The problem;was accentuated because of dry subsoil carried
over from the previous fall. Grain and forage production projections in
the Borough for 1969 were reduced t9 about one-half of normal because of
the lack of moisture.
Several frosts during the week of August 10 cut yields even further. These
11
-~--·····--·~----------~~~-
may have been prevented or their severity substantially lessened by sprin-
klers applied during the critical period.
Prospects for a successful farming season in the Matanuska Valley in 1970
have been lessened by a dry 1969 summer and fall which has left subsoil
moisture abnormally low.
The probability of inadequate moisture, the need for a full growing season
uninterrupted by an early frost, and the high costs of other production
inputs all combine to emphasize the need for sprinkler irrigation systems
in the present major farming area of the Borough. While this will not
guarantee satisfactory yields, it will greatly aid in their attainment.
Irrigation serves a double purpose in increasing crop yield and as an in-
surance against crop failure. Availability of electric power for pumping,
coupled with recent technology in large area, high pressure sprinklers,
use of plastic buried pipe, fertilizer attachment systems, and automatic
response to frost temperatures, enable the farm operator to control his
main risks while also optimizing his production. One crop failure would
more than pay for the system. More important than avoiding a crop failure
is the importance of preventing the bankruptcy of a going farm enterprise.
Marketing
In Matanuska-Susitna Borough farm production is small in relation to pro-
ductive areas in the lower states. The small and scattered production has
discouraged sophisticated processing and marketing procedures. For this
reason, independent firms have been reluctant to come in to do the job.
This means the farmers themselves have had to assume most of the respon-
sibility of developing the marketing mechanisms. Depending on the ability
and circumstances of the producers, this could be an advantage instead of
a disadvantage. It affords farmers the opportunity to supplement their
income with part of the employment and profit available through perform-
ing a processing and marketing function. This is evident in the dairy
marketing process. Milk is transported from Borough dairy farms to a
modern plant in Anchorage owned and operated by farmers. Here the milk
is processed and distributed and farmers share in savings and the profits
made possible through the processing function.
One reason for the better success of the dairy industry, than other agri-
·cultural enterprises, is that it is the only one that has been large enough
to justify a processing plant.
Potato growers of the Valley have also organized an effective marketing
co-op. Although their production is not large, they are able to get better
prices by controlling most of the supply, and bargaining from this strength.
12
r
"l
.. J
D
-n: .J
n . .
D
D
D
n u
c
lJ
[
[.,
...
-------------
c
r
-
=-----~ ~ ___ -=,_~
-· ----3
-1 ~ ~~ -~
D -
0
l c ~
D
D
c
-~ D
--------;
--~-1 c l
-~ c
---~
-~ f-1 ----~ ~
-.
~ _@
-i D
~
~
c
[
Vegetable producers market·most of their produce through a privately
owned marketing finn. This finn dO"es ·some grading and sorting. washing
where necessary. packing ind delivering to fill contracts at wholesale
houses and military bases. for which service the farmers pay a commission
_fee. Some. f~nners sell part ()r ~11 of their produce throuqh roadside
stands. A few others attempt to market direct. · · · -
. ..
·Mo~t ofthe other items ~ hay~ silage. small grains -are Llsed On farills-
where produced or marketed by the fanner himself. Sales might go through
the_ co~op or be made direct to neighbors or another feed store.
Cull dairy cattle. veal. beef and pork are used at home or sold to either
of two small local slaughter plants.
Many of the marketing problems are associated with the small supply.
· ·' Other Economic Factors
Some economic factors affect agriculture adversely in Alaska as compared
to the lower states; others favor Alaska fanners.
The present markets for Borough agricultural production are essentially
local. Generally small farms. high labor and transportation costs. and
high capital· needs contribute to high production and marketing costs.
·In addition. most of the present agricultural products are produced and
marketed ·in the Borough in direct competition with comparable imported
products from agricultural areas in other states where production costs
are significantly lower.
Computerized grocery chain wholesale systems. providing a wide variety of
produce from states with early and late harvests. present an additional
barrier to entry of local produce into the normal supply system of Alaska
food stores.
The cost of local production to the grower on the farm versus the imported
price that he must compete against. generally sets the margin-in which the
profit or loss will take place• For most products. those lowerproduction
costs plus the costs of transporting the produce to Alaska represen.t rough
'ceilings on the prices which can be charged in the market place for Borough
products.
Cost comparisons of locally produced versus shipped in commodities have. _
been made by the Experiment Station. This should be helpful in determining
crops and products having greatest competitive advantage. FollowJ~g are
their figures:
13
---------·---·-----··· -·
ESTIMATED COST OF LOCAL PRODUCTION TO GROWER
compared to
COST OF IMPORTED PRODUCTION TO WHOLESALER
Cost of Local
Item Unit Production to Growerl/
Milk cwt. $ 8.60
Potatoes
(Thru storage} cwt. 3.78
Eggs doz. .65
Pork lb. .40
Grain ton 60.00
Hay ton 40.00
Some factors which favor Alaska farmers and give them a
are as follows:
Cost in Palmer of
Imported Product~on
to Wholesaler _/
$9.80
$5.25-$7.25
.38
.46
80.00
81.00
competitive advantage
1. Crops grow faster in Alaska because of the great extension in day-
light hours during the growing season. The actual number of daylight hours
during the growing season are greater in Alaska than in some areas of the
lower states. For example, a 110-day growing season with an average day
of 18 hours produces more daylight hours than a 140-day growing season with
an average of 14 hours. Figures 3 and 4 show a comparison of the hours of
possible daylight at Palmer, Alaska and St. Louis, Missouri. Figure 3. shows
difference in day and night throughout the year at the two locations.
Figure 3 shows difference in length of day, particularly during spring
and summer, when crops are growing.
2. Longer hours of photosynthesis and rapid growth for longer periods
with short rest periods each day result in higher stored sugar content in
some vegetables. Also some vegetables are particularly adapted to cool
climate; they thrive well and produce better, with a higher quality pro-
duct than in most other states.
3. Vegetable producers in Alaska have a remarkably clean environment
for crop production. Many insects, diseases, and weeds in the lower States
cause serious reduction in vegetable yield as well as expense of spray-
ing and control. Climatic screening and careful inspection have kept these
pests out of Alaska. It gives local producers a definite production ad-
vantage. Vegetables unsprayed for insect and disease control have an
advertising and sales advantage over those produced under normal conditions.
lJ Costs will vary between farms due to size and efficiency differences.
~ Vary in relation to price changes in.Pacific Northwest supply area.
14
n L--1
c
[
0
c
c
[
[
[
[
~
§.
c-
c
c
c
c
c
E
~ [
~
[
~ • ~ g ~ -
-
~ c
[
[
[
SUNRISE SUNSET
JANUARY
; l 1\ \
I \
I \
FEBRUARY ;;~ ! 1\\ NIGHT
MARCH /. I( " ~ :
APRIL V,l I '~ I
I
J i
MAY I I I \f\ I
I \ ~
JUNE ' \ l \ I '
JULY
~ DAY I J
\ ' r I \ I
' I
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
\ \ I v r\_\ !'L
"' 17
~
OCTOBER ,~ Vl
NOVEMBER \ ' I ,' NIGHT \ ~ I . \ •
DECEMBER ' \ i \
' I
' \
Midnight 2 :oo 4 :oo s :oo a:oo to:oo NOOO 2:00 4 :oo s:oo a:oo to:oo Midnight
LOCAL STANDARD TIME
----ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
--PALMER I ALAS.KA
VARIATION OF TIME OF SUNRISE AND SUNSET
AT
PALMER, ALASKA a ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
Figure 3
.,
c
c ., 21 8
~
20
19
~
:I: 18 (,!)
..J
> 17
cr
0 16
1aJ
..J 15 m
C/) 14 C/)
0
0-13
ll..
0 12
C/)'
a: II ::>
0
J: 10
9
8
' LJ
l!Uil.!IIJ, l_IJ I~ I I_ ..!..:. !l ~~ ll '
·-
-~ ....... ............ .
/
;I' ~
~ "' 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/ ~ " 1~\ ~ " /~ """" ~ ~ / s\. y v ~
7 ~
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS BETWEEN SUNRISE AND SUNSET AT PALMER,
ALASKA AND ST. LO~IS,· MISSOURI DURING SPRING AND SUMMER
~L .. _ .. _j
' l ....... _.]
~
t ,
-
I
!
~
1
:§
-
"
c
-------~-------~-~----~-~---------"----~--~--~--·-·------------·-·---~--·-----·-···------------·----------~·----·-----~~-------~---------·-·-
c .
[
[1
~~
0-'
0
c
c
D
c
D
c
c
E ~
c
[
c
[
An important point which could have a definite bearing on success of agri-
cultural production in the Borough and State is the need for continuing
and more stringent regulations on incoming plants and seed. Already some
diseases. such as club root in cabbage. have been found. In the past there
has been no eradication. just control after a problem like this has been
established.
Alaska's law for agriculture-plant and seed quarantine is already available
but manpower and finance remains a problem. However. without adequate con-
trol. serious crop diseases and pests could 9et into the state. their ar-
rival causing problems that. may-even defeat the feasibility of. producing
these crops. More stringent controls need to be placed on companies allowed
to ship into the state. Only certified or clean sources should be permitted.
The future economic implications of this should not be overlooked.
Agricultural Potentials
Experience of the better farmers in the Borough and the studies summarized
in this report indicate that farming in the Borough can be profitable with
good farm management. suitable marketing arrangements and economic sized
farms.
Market studies indicate that present and rapidly expanding population of
the Railbelt Area can provide local markets for significant additional vol-
umes of agricultural products presently produced in the Borough.
Studies show there is opportunity for new crops and processes. some of which
may also be of export significance.
Land class.i•fi!cation studies by the Soil Conservation Service establish that
suitable lands are available in the Borough for extensive expansion of pre-
sent agricultural production.
Realization of optimum production requires considerable changes in current
farm practices and organization. These changes. can include: implementation
of economic sized farm units; emphasis on the most profitable crops and
livestock products; development of improved marketing arrangements for many
products; achievement of economies in cost of farm supplies and other farm
inputs; and improved management practices. ·
Many changes and developments will be the r.esponsibility of the individual
farmer. Others are appropriate for farmer cooperatives.
·In addition there will be need for extensive credit and other assistance
from appropriate levels of government.
The potential economic returns to the Borough of an expanded agricultural
economy could merit zoning of selected lands for agriculture to protect
them for future development.
17
•
Potential Railbelt Area Market for Present Borough Agricultural Products
Table 1 presents Railbelt market area 1/production of food products grown
in the area in 1966 and reasonable goaTs for production of these items in
the years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
The 1966 production per capita is computed by dividing the Railbelt farm
production by the estimated population of that year.
The Railbelt market area population is estimated for each ensuing ten-year
period.l/ u. s. per capita consumption of each commodity is projected for
future years based on current national trends.
The Rail belt production per capita goals for the years 1970 and 2000 assumes
a gradually increasing proportion of locally produced commodities. Projected
Railbelt market area population each year multiplied by established per ca-
pita goals of locally produced food products gives Railbelt total production
goals for each commodity. ·
Table 1 also projects the number of acres of farm land needed to produce
these items each year, and the total number of specified-size farms needed.
An estimate of the income from sale of farm products by years is also in-
dicated. Tables 2, 3 and 4 present greater detail on these points.
Although goals indicated in these tables are considered to be reasonably
attainable, they are subject to periodic review.
Dairying has been the major agricultural actiyity in the Borough for many
years, representing well over half of the cash sales. However, local pro-
duction, currently represents probably less than one-third of the fresh
milk consumed, with the remainder imported. The projection of goals
1J The Railbelt as traditionally envisioned, includes the area from Kenai
Peninsula north, through Anchorage, the Matanuska Valley, and includ-
ing Fairbanks. (Election Districts No. 9, Palmer-Wasilla, Talkeetnai
10, Anchoragei 11, Sewardi 12, Kenai-Cook Inleti and 19, Fairbanks)
The "Railbelt Market Area" population is greater than that of the Rail-
belt. As indicated above, it includes other areas of the State served
in whole or in part by the Anchorage and Fairbanks distribution centers-
-about 70% of the State's population.
~ These population figures may be too low in light of the recent oil acti-
vity on the North Slope, the proposed pipeline and related activities.
18
[
[
0
-o
~D
D
c
n u
D
lJ
c
D
D
D
c
c
[
[
c
l
~
§-
n-
D
C
D
D
c
B
I ·c
~ c
I ~ \::!
~c
[
-c
[
of locally produced mtlk presented in Table l assumes that increased ef-
ficiencies in production and marketing will pennit local producers to ob-
tain increasing portions of the Railbelt Area market.
The projection indicates a doubling of the dairy industry by 1980 -an
increase of 20 fanns and 1,500 cows. In the year 2000 the total number
of cows would be about 7,800 with c0111nensurate increase in the number of
dairies and farm land. Thus, the potential dairy industry is large enough
to merit extensive individual, Borough and State efforts to capture an
increasing share of the market.
Each of the other c0111110dities-beef and veal, pork, eggs, potatoes and
vegetables -has expansion possibtlities. Details of these projections ap-
pear in Table 2, l and 4.
Projection of Railbelt area beef and veal production have been held to a
maximum of about 25· percent of u. s. per capita consumption, recognizing
that Kodiak Island may produce and market considerable beef in Anchorage
due to Kodiak's competitive advantage in beef production. It is also
likely that more of the Railbelt beef needs will be fed out and produced
in Railbelt areas outside the Borough than is true of dairy and some other
c0111110dities.
Vegetable projection estimates assume establishment of a vegetable freez-
ing plant fn the Railbelt. If this plant cannot export to the other states,
production goals calculated for the Railbelt market alone (values in Table 1)
may not adequately sustain it. A successful development of export pro-
ducts and a market and a motivating price to growers and plant, could
greatly increase the number of acres over those indicated in the table.
In some areas export looks promising.
The Experim!nt Station suggests a small multiple product processing plant
to freeze peas, broccoli • brussel sprouts and cauliflower, could be sus-
tained by the Railbelt market at the present time. They estimate a market
for 400 tons of frozen peas alone which could require 200 acres. The other
products handled would increase the volume and the expected population
growth could soon make a very satisfactory operation.
Potentia 1 New Crops and Processes
Opportunity exists for development of new crops particularly suited to the
Borough climate and soils. These would command premium prices in export
markets, which could offset the higher costs of production in Alaska and
the transportation costs to the export markets. Some also would create
new local markets.
Opportunity also exi.sts to improve processing and marketing of crops and
livestock products produced in the Borough. Some opportunities have been
19
Table 1. Railbelt Production, 1966 and Reasonable Goals by Decades, 1970 to 2000
For Commodities Now Being Produced.lf
1966 1970 1980 '1990 2000
ITEM Actual------Projected--------
POPULATION
LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
M11k: u.s. :
Rail belt:
Beef &
Veal: u.s. .
Rail belt:
Pork: -u.s. :
Rail belt:
Eggs: u.s. :
Rail belt:
VEGETABLES, FRESH
Potatoes: 0. S:
Rail belt:
Cabbage: u.s. :
Rai 1 belt:
Carrots: U. S :
Rail belt:
Lettuce: u •. S. :
Rail belt:
(1,000) 194
Per capita consumption (lbs) 296
Proportion produced (%) ; 32
Production per capita ~(lbs) 94
Total Production (1000 cwt) 183
Per capita consumption (lbs) 109
Proportion produced (%) 3
Production per capita ~& jl(lbs) 3
Total Production (1000 cwt 5.4
Per capita consumption(lbs) 65.3
Proportion produced (%) 1
Production per capita 2/ .7
Total Production (1000-cwt) 1.4
Per capita consumption (no.) 313
Proportion produced (%) 16
Production per capita 2/(no.) 52
Total Production (1000-doz) 843
Per capita consumption (lbs) 101
Proportion produced (%) 55
Production per capita 2/(lbs) 56
Total Production (1000-cwt) 108
Per capita consumption (lbs) 9.9
Proportion produced (%) 12
Production per capita 2/{lbs) 1.2
Total Production (1000-cwt) 2.4
Per capita consumption (lbs) 6.9
Proportion produced (%) 25
Production per capita ~(lbs) 1.7
Total Production (1000 cwt) 3.3
Per capita consumption (lbs) 20.6
Proportion produced (%) 15
Production per capita ~(lbs) 3.1
Total Production (1000 cwt) 6-.0
1J ~ (Footnotes next page)
20
206 316 410 570
285 275 260 250
36 42 50 60
103 116 130 150
212 367 533 855
110 112 115 120
5 9 17 25
5 10 20 30
10.3 31.6 82.0 171.0
66 66 68 70
3 6 15 21
2 4 10 15
4.1 12.6 41.0 85.5
310 300 295 290
20 20 20 20
62 60 59 58
1064 1580 2016 2755
95 85 70 50
60 70 75 80
57 60 52 40
117 190 213 228
9.5 9.0 9.0 9.0
32 56 56 56
3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
6.2 15.8 20.5 28.5
6.7 6.5 6.5 6.5
37 46 46 46
2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
5.2 9.4 12.3 17.1
21.0 21.0 22.0 23.0
20 30 35 40
4.2 6.3 7.7 9.2
8.7 19.9 31.6 52.4
c
·[
-FJ
_n
L_J
n
[
c
c
[
c
c
[
D
[
l
D
C
~
~-
0-
D
c
D
D
~ 0
4 ~
.:l 6
i
D '
-
E c
c
[
Table 1. Railbelt Production, 1966 and Reasonable Goals by Decades, 1970 to 2000
For Commodities Now Being Produced. (Continued)
ITEM
1966 1970 1980 1990 2000
Actual --------Projected--------
VEGETABLES 1 FRESH
Other: 0. s. Per capita consumption (lbs) 10.7 10.5 10.2 . 10.0 10.0 = Rail belt: Proportion produced (%) 8 19 29 40 50
Production ~er capita l/(lbs) .9 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Total Production (1000-cwt) 1.7 4.1 9.5 16.4 28.5
VEGETABLES.1 FROZEN 4/
Peas : 0. s. Per capita consumption (lbs) 2.3 (None supplied from local
sources in 1966. Totals
below assume frozen foods
become available by 1970
supplying an ever increas-
ing share of the demand.)
Broccoli U. s. Per capita consumption (lbs) .9
Cauliflower u. s. Per capita consumption (lbs) .4
Greens u.s. Per capita consumption (lbs) 1.1
Carrots. U. s. Per capita consumption (lbs) 1.1
Potatoes : u. s. Per capita consumption (lbs) . · 17.3
TOTAL FROZEN: u. s~ Per capita consumption (lbs) 23.1 24.0 27.0 33.0 38.0
Railbelt: Consumption per capita ( 1 bs) 27.0
Proportion produced {%) 0 25 50 60 65
Production per capita (lbs) 0 fi.O 13.5 19.8 24.7
Total Production (1000 cwt) 0 12 42 82 140
Potatoes (frozen) ('1 000 cwt) 0 8 28 55 93
Other Vegetables (frozen) (1000 cwt) 0 4 14 27 47
TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS 21 71 129 210 353
TOTAL ACRES 21 (1000) 15.2 14.7 27.7 51.1 92.6
Added acres to be developed (1000) 13.0 23.4 41.5
Total development cost at $400/acre ($million) 5.2 9.4 16.6
P~ODUCT VALUE £/ ($million) 4.4 8.4 14.1 24.2
ll
y
In light of the recent oil activity on the North Slope, the projected population and
hence all other figures in this table and tables 21 3 and 4 could probably be revised
upward.
Production, per capita, Railbelt in 1966 is amount produced and sold in the Railbelt
divided by the estimated population of 194,000. For other years, 1970 to 2000, it is
an estimated goal based on a gradually increasing proportion projected to be produced
in the Railbelt.
Dressed weight beef excludes Kodiak and other island production but assumes it will
compete with Ra i1 belt.
u. s. consumption 1966, in terms of equivalent farm weights. Conversion factors are
peas 1.09; broccoli 1.33; cauliflower 1.43; greens 1.43; carrots 1.82; potatoes 2.50. ·
Details given in Tables 2 and summarized in Table 3.
§! Details given in Table 4. 21
Table 2. Projected Reasonable Goals Showing Acres and Farms Needed for Current Types
of Farm Enterprises for Railbelt Area by Decade 1970 to 2000.
DAIRY:
VEAL:
BEEF:
HOG:
Milk ( 1000 cwt)
No. cows at 10,000 to 11,000 lbs/head
No. farms at 60 cows per farm
Acres needed at 280 acres per farm (1000)
No. Calves -72% of dairy cows
Total veal produced at 150 lbs/hd. (1000 lbs)
Veal l/2 produced from farm feeds (1000 lbs)
Acres needed at 312 lbs veal/acre (1000)
No. farms at 200 acres producing 800 calves
Beef and veal (1000 lbs)
Veal as indicated above (1000 lbs)
Beef (1000 lbs)
No. cattle to produce beef at 600 lbs/hd
Beef from range past111re = 1/3~(1000 lbs)
Beef from farm production = 2/3 (1000 1bs)
Acres grain & forage at 312 lbs beef/acre
(1000 acr.)
No. farms at 425 acres feeding 330 head
Pork ( 1000 1 bs)
Feed at 4.25 1bs/1b pork (1000 1bs)
No. hogs at 165 1bs carcass (1000)
Acres grain at 2500 1b/acre (1000)
No. farms at 350 acres producing 1250 head
POULTRY:Eggs (1000 doz)
POTATO:
Grain at 6 1bs/doz eggs; 1/2 produced
(1000 lbs)
No. chickens at 18.3 doz eggs/bird/yr.
Acres grain at 2580 1bs/acre (1000)
No. farms at 330 acres and 15,000 birds
Used fresh (1000 cwt)
Frozen, fresh equivalent (1000 cwt)
Total potatoes (1000 cwt)
Acres at 22,600 lbs/acre (1000)
No. farms at 42 acres
( 1000)
VEGETABLE: Used fresh (1000 cwt)
SUMMARY:
Frozen, fresh equivalent (1000 cwt)
Total vegetables (1000 cwt)
Acres at 18,000 1bs/acre (1000)
No. farms at 20 acres
TOTAL ACRES (1000)
TOTAL FARMS
22
1970
212
2120
35
9.8
1526
229
115
.4
2
1030
229
801
1335
267
534
1.7
4
410
1742
2.5
.7
2
1064
3192
58.1
1.3
4
117
8
125
.6
14
24
4
28
.2
10
1980
367
3336
56
15.7
2402
360
180
.6
3
3160
360
2800
4667
933
1867
6
14
1990
533
4845
81
22.7
3488
523
262
4
8200
523
7677
12,795
2559
5118
.8
16.4
39
2000
855
7773
130
36.4
5597
840
420
1.3
7
17,100
840
16,260
27,100
5420
10,840
34.7
82
1260 4100 8550
5355 17,425 36,338
7.6 24.8 51.8
2.1 7.0 14.5
6 20 41
1580
4740
86.3
1.9
6
190
28
218
1.0
24
55
14
69
.4
20
2016
6048
110.2
2.4
7
213
55
268
1.2
29
81
27
108
.6
30
2755
8265
150.5
3.3
10
228
93
321
1.4
33
127
47
174
1.0
50
14.7 27.7 51.1 92.6
71 129 210 353
r:l -u
-D
lJ
n LJ
0
[
c
D
[
[
-------------------·-·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-----
r
c
c
c
D
c
[
[
Table 3. Summary of Average-size Farms and Acre~ Needed to Produce Railbelt Goals of
Currently Produced Commodities by DecaJi_es 1970 to 2000.
FARMS:
-----nairy farms at 280 acres and 60 cows
Veal calf farms at 200 acres and 800 calves
Beef cattle farms at 425 acres and 330 head
Hog farms at 350 acres and 1250 hogs
Poultry farms at 330 acres and 15000 layers
Potato farms at 42 acres
Vegetable farms at 20 acres
ACRES NEEDED (1000)
Acres for da1ry
Total No. farms
Acres for veal calves
Acres for beef cattle
Acres for hogs
Acres for poultry
Acres for potatoes
Acres for vegetables
Total Acres
1970
35
2
4
2
4
14
10
71
9.8
.4
1.7
.7
1.3
.6
__d_
14.7
1980
56
3
14
6
6
24
20
129
15.7
.6
6.0
2.1
1.9
1.0
__L
27.7
1990 .2000
81 130
4 7
39 82
20 41
7 10
29 33
30 50
210 353
22.7 36.4
.8 1.3
16.4 34.7
7.0 14.5
2.4 3.3
1.2 1.4
_.6_ 1.0
51.1 92.6
Table 4. Farm Commodity Prices -Alaska Agricultural Statistics and Projected Value of
Products Sold, 1970 to 2000.
cwt cwt
cwt Beef & cwt doz. cwt Other
Milk Veal Pork Eggs . Potatoes Veg. Tettal
Unit Value 1966 ($) 10.18 41.70 53.29 .77 5.55 13.96
Unit Value 1967 ($) 10.61 41.77 45.71 .79 4.65 12.66
Unit Value 1968 ($) 10.63 42.19 43.34 .88 5.50 11.99
Value Used for
Projections ($) 10.00 40.00 40.00 .75 5.00 10.00
Projected Production
1970 (1,000) 212 10.3 4.1 1064 125 28
1980 (1,000) 367 31.6 12.6 1580 218 69
1990 (1,000) 533 82.0 41.0 2016 268 108
2000 (1,000) 855 171.0 85.5 2755 321 174
Projected Value.
1970 ($1,000) 2120 412 164 798 625 280 4,399
1980 ~$1,000) 3670 1264 504 1185 1090 690 8,403
1990 $1,000) 5330 3280 1640 1512 1340 1080 14,182
2000 ($1,000) 8550 6840 3420 2066 1605 1740 24,221
23
under study by the Experiment Station. Many others have never been ex-
plored. There is urgent need for clbse examination of successful agri-
cultural programs in other areas of the world of similar latitude and
climatic conditions and determination of what might be done in Alaska.
This would involve search of literature. followed by a sound research
and testing program of the most promising ideas.
The following new crops and processes appear promising:
Virus-X-Free Potato Seed
Alaska is in an unusually good position to produce Virus-X-Free potato seed
because of its low population of insect vectors that spread the virus.
Marketing tests of Alaska grown Virus-X-Free seed have shown that an excel-
lent quality seed can be grown here and marketed in the other states eco-
nomically. Reports from growers in the other states who tried this seed
show that it produced a faster growing. heavier yielding. and better grade
product than the same variety grown from seed produced in other locations.
Further work is needed to determine the yield potential in Alaska for vari-
eties of seed used in the lower states. If successful. this enterprise
alone could absorb the Borough•s entire presently cultivated acreage.
Grass Seed for Forage and Turf
Experiment Station scientists have developed and improved forage and turf
grass varieties particularly adapted to Alaska climate and soil conditions.
Production of these seeds represents a considerable potential for Borough
lands. The potential markets for turf grasses. Arctared red fescue and
Nugget Kentucky bluegrass. include lawns. athletic fields. parks. roadside
beautification and soil stabilization.
The potential markets for both types of seeds is statewide and in other
states with similar climates and soils.
Vegetable Processing Plant
The potential for vegetable production in the Borough for export outside
the state 1/has for sometime been recognized to depend upon development of
economic processing methods. A pilot pea processing and marketing operation
y We specify export 11 outside the State .. because shipment from the Borough
to distant areas of this large state such as the North Slope could also
be considered exporting. As industrial development expands. these areas
will furnish better markets for agricultural products.
24
n
[-,
-
f!
L
[
c
[
[
[
[
L
c
C
E
~-
D
D
E
0
[J
[
B -
' ~
~ l
I c
~
i B ~
"
~ u -
~ .
[
[
l
---------~~-~--------~ -------------~.
in 1968 a_nd 1969 showed favorable results. in that a product of excellent
quality was produced which was favorably received. The test indicates
a considerable potential for ultimate export of frozen vegetables. Rea-
li za ti on of this export potentia 1 through accomplishment of necessary
processing and marketing arrangements would also permit considerable ex-
pansion of vegetable production for local markets.
Extension of Fresh Vegetable Storage
..
A new method of storing food products has recently been developed. Known
as controlled environment storage, this method is designed to reduce but
not completely eliminate oxygen ·from the storage unit. · The units also
keep the product cool. A large plant of this type recently built at Four
Corners, four miles west of Palmer, was used as a conventional refrigeration
plant in 1968. It indicates that the season for lettuce and other vetables
can be extended by several months with justification for expansion of the
vegetabl~ production in the Borough.
Greenhouse Expansion
Several small greenhouses in the Borough now produce tomatoes, cucumbers,
other vegetables, and bedding plants. Their total prod1Jction 1s small.
The short season for producing vegetables and flowers in Alaska. their
perishability. and the high cost of transporting these items from the
lower states. all favor expansion of greenhouse operations in the Borough
to meet Railbelt area needs.
The success will depend to a large extent on productio~ costs. To have
the best chances for success the facilities should be large enough for
efficient operation. Production costs should be competitive with landed
costs of vegetables shipped in. The greater freshness of local vegetables.
then. would assure their salability at competitive prices. Efficiently
operated greenhouses could become important facets .of Borough agriculture.
overcoming the disadvantages of climate and distance. Operatinq on a year-
round basis. greenhouses could supply all the tomatoes. cucumbers. radishes,
peppers. and other adapted vegetables, as well as cut flowers, potted plants
and ornamental bedding plants used in the area. And the program should·
grow with the expanding population.
Recent advances in greenhouse construction. using inflatable plastic to
cover large tracts at a fraction of the cost of conventional greenhouses
may encourage rapid development in this field.
It has been suggested that heat generated in the oil pipeline from the North
Slope to Valdez miqht be used as a source of heat for gre~nhouses. This
idea bears investigation. If found feasible great expansion might result.
25
Sod and Nursery
Sod installations are now standard practice among many builders in the
lower states. Similarly, there is a growing market for nursery stock for
landscaping and replacements. With the projected rapid growth in the area
served by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, sod and nursery items could be-
come profitable activities for several farmers.
Sma 11 Fruits
Strawberries, raspberries, service berries, and several varieties of cur-
rants may be grown successfully in the Borough. Wild blueberries, lingen-
berries or low-bush cranberries, crowberries, and salmon berries also grow
profuse1y in, some areas. In addition a new research project on cranber-
ries and lingenberries has been set up at the Experiment Station at Fair-
banks, and there are many bog areas in the Borough that may be suitable
to cranberry production. Thus, the production of small fruits for local
markets could be a considerable potential in the Borough.
Flax, Rape and Other Oil-Seed Crops
Oil-seed crops that might be grown in the Borough include rapeseed, crambe,
flax, limnanthes, and sunflower. Some work has been done on these. Fur-
ther tests are needed. Most of these crops are adapted to a cool climate
and the oil is of high quality. The meal produced after extraction of
oil would have value as livestock feed. However, a limiting factor that
must be considered is the need and cost of processing to extract the
oil. With the small Alaska market, most of the output would have to be
shipped out.
Sugar Beets
These have been testid and can be grown successfully. The high capital
costs for a mill, the large acreage needed to operate a plant successful-
ly,·and lack of local demand for this much output would preclude establish-
ing a sugar beet industry soon. As population grows and demand increases,
it may become feasible at some future date.
Improving Winter Grazing for Domestic Livestock and Game
Present livestock practices in the Borough involve primarily reliance on
a stored or imported feed throughout the long winters. There is opportunity
to help take care of the winter-summer feed imbalance by improving the
range to extend the grazing season.
Work at the Canadian Experimental Fa~Mile 1019, Alaska Highway, Yukon Ter-
ritory has shown that beef cattle can winter well with only brush shelter,
26
c
[
D
-~ u
-0
n
c
D
D
[
c
[
c
0
D
[
[
[
l
L
E
~-
D-
D
c
D
u
c
D
! l ~
j
c
~
! B ~
~
:3 c " ~
,
[
[
[
locally produced hay and native grass forage. Although extensive test-
ing has not been done in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, it would seem reason•
able that these same results could be secured here because the winter is
less severe than in the Yukon.
Over a long period wild species have adapted themselves to the rigors" of
the Alaska climate. Moose and other game thrive and take advantage of
poor range and browse even.in deep snow and cold weather, without costly
mechanically produced feed, without artificial shelter and without ex-
pensive man labor to care for them. Development of a domestic breed with
some of the characteristics of game animals would be helpful.
There is also opportunity to provide improved winter grazing for moose and
other wild species which can be reflected in increased stocks.
Marketing Beef and Lamb off Grass
Marketing beef and lamb off grass may be one way to take advantage of the
abundant summer forage and avoid high cost winter carry-over. This pro-
gram would necessitate importing stocker animals in the Spring, from
Canada, the Pacific Northwest or other areas of Alaska.
Although the economics of this procedure do not seem favorable now, condi-
tions could change to the point where it would be feasible. Although the
local market would be limited for large quantities of meat at one time,
it may be possible to work with the Japanese in developing a fall market
to complement their current program of spring meat imports from New-Z~a
land and Australia.l/ Hawaii likewise could alternate imports from Alaska
and Australia. -·
Potential Requirements for Agricultural Lands
Table 3 summarizes the Railbelt acres required and number of farms to pro-
duce the goals of agricultural products currently produced in the Borough
as presented in Table 1.
Both the Tanana Valley in the Fairbanks area and the Kenai Peninsula in-
clude agricultural areas which could produce significant amounts of the
projected agricultural demands of the Railbelt Area. However, over the
past several years the Borough is credited with about 77 percent of the
value of all commodities produced in the Railbelt Area. In light of the
long history of agriculture in the Borough, its broad development base,
favorable climate and soils, and favorable market location, it is reasonable
!f Tussing, Arlon R., et al, Alaska-Japan Economic Relations, Institute
of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska, 1968.
27
to expect the major part of the new agricultural production will also oc-
cur in the Borough. A possible exception is beef cattle production. More
favorable conditions on the Kenai Peninsula and on Kodiak and other islands
may make this a better location for cattle production.
The estimates of acres required to produce Railbelt goals as presented in
Table 3, include no allowances for potential new agricultural products suit-
able for production in the Borough. Although it is impracticable to ac~
curately estimate the magnitude of these potentialities, on the basis of
the limited available data, it seems that they could easily offset the
portion of the Railbelt area production likely to be developed in areas
outside the Borough.
The Tanana Valley and Kenai Peninsula also have good opportunities for ex-
pansion of agricultural production. Kodiak and adjoining islands and the
Aleutian Chain can expand too, particularly in livestock production.
Available lands
Well over half a million acres of land could be developed for farming in the
Borough. Only the better lands from standpoint of class, size of block,
location and climate are being considered.
Potential farm land in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough generally does not lie
in large, flat expanses. Rather, it generally lies in smaller pieces cut
up by wet lands, streams, lakes, and irregular or rough terrain, and inter-
spe~sed with soils of different classes and qualities.
Detailed soil surveys by the Soil Conservation Service have been made of
the Matanuska and Susitna River Valleys. Reconnaissance surveys of the
rest of the Borough add considerably to the known potential farm lands.
Most of this better potential agricultural land lies in areas west of the
Susitna River and along the Yentna, Kahiltna and Beluga Rivers.
The Soil Conservation Service classifies lands according to its capability
for agricultural uses. In this classification system the soils are grouped
into eight broad capability classes. The risks of soil damage or limitation
in use becomes progressively greater from class I to class VIII.
Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Because of
general climate limitations, however, no soils in the Borough or elsewhere
in Alaska are considered as class I. Class II, III, and IV all can be
cultivated, but they have progressively greater limitations that reduce
the choice of plants to be grown and/or increase the need for soil conser-
vation practices. Class II soils are the best in Alaska, Class Ill next
best.
28
r
[
B
D!
~ ' J
D
D
D
n
[
0
l
[
0
[
[
[
[
D
C
11 8
~-
0·
0
c
c
n
b
1 r
~c
l q ~u • ~
~ ,D
[
[
Class IV soils are marginal for farming because of steepness, shallowness,
wetness, sandiness, lack of fertility or other limiting factors and are
suitable primarily for grass crops.
Class V soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations,
impractical to remove, that limit their use largely to pasture, range, wood-
land, or wildlife food and cover. There are no class V soils in the Mata-
nuska or Sus1tna Valley Areas.
Class VI and VII soils are generally suitable for pasture or forest. Poorly
drained peat soils (muskeg) included in class VII probably have few agri-
. cultural uses.
Class VIII lands have no use for commercial plant production.
The acreage in each soil capability class as .found in the detailed soil sur-
veys of Matanuska and Susitna River Valleys are shown as follows:
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class VI
Class VII
Class VI II
TOTAL
225,840 acres
194,250 acres
140,520 acres
145,000 acres
418,130 acres
27,290 acres
1,15i,o3o acres
In addition to the 420,000 acres of class II and III soils indicated above,
the reconnaissance survey, covering the rest of the Borough, shows probably
another 200,000 acres. of land suitable for agricultural use. If we conser-
vatively estimate half of this is of class II and III quality, it would
make a total of well over 500,000 acres of these better lands in the Borough.
This half million acres of class II and III soils include all land~ of this
quality even those in small, isolated tracts.
In order to get an estimate of the acreage and location of the better Bor-
ough soils that might be considered for future agricultural development,
SCS prepared maps from their. records showing six general areas which in-
clude the larger blocks of better agricultural soils. These general areas
were further divided into 34 tracts approximately along natural boundaries.
(Figure 5).
Each tract, varying in gross acreage from about 5,000 to over 100,000 acres,
was assigned a number and keyed to Table 5. This table shows characteristics,
of each tract, including data on size and location, present cover, owner-
ship, an estimate of the acreage of class II and III soils and climate
characteristics. The data on annual precipitation and qrowing season con-
tain many estimates since there are no climate stations within a consider-
able distance of some of the tracts. Further information on growing degree
29
·····~----------·---·--------
KEY MAP
T22
T ISN
T16N
Figure 5
AREAS OF BOROUGH LAND
WITH
LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
Highways
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
boundary
Railroad
5 0
HHH
SCALE OF MILES
HIGH AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL
n
0
0
16N
0
c
c
n
Ll
0
[
[
c
[
~
~ -
c
D
C
0
D
D
~ [J
--
!
::l c
-[
~
~
! B ~ -
~
-G
--
[
-[
[
days from available stations is presented, Appendix A, in a letter received
from Harold W. Searby, Regional Climatologist of the Alaska ESSA Weather
Bureau in Anchorage. Table 5, containing these data, was prepared for use
in evaluating the various tracts of land for future development and will
be referred to later in the ~iscussion on zoning.
Four Special Study Areas lJ
Since it was not practical nor necessary to study all present and potential
farming lands in great detail, it was felt desirable to choose four re-
presentative areas of farm land and potential farm land for detailed study.
Thus, from their detailed soil surveys of the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys,
the Soil Conservati.on Service selected the four areas. In this selection
the following factors were considered: land quality, climate, compactness
of arable areas, size of block to facilitate economical clearing, size of
fields to permit efficient tilling, planting and harvesting with modern
equipment, cost of clearing or draining and capability of lands.
The areas chosen varied in size from about 11,000 to 32,000 acres and in-
cluded much of the lands presently in agriculture. The approximate acreage
of Class II and III land available for farming and the total acreage in
each area is shown in the following tabulation:
Acreage
Class II and III Farm
Area Land (Approximate) Total
Palmer 13,000 32,000
Wasilla 7,000 11,520
Montana-Sunshine 7,000 11,520
Horseshoe Flat 13,000 15,360
Total 40,000 70,400
The Soil Conservation Service provided data from which maps of these areas
have been prepared. (Appendix B, Figures B-1 to B -9). These maps show
land capability class, ownership, and land that has been cleared. Land
classes II, III, IV, and other classes having limited value for agriculture
are designated. Ownership designation shows private, State, Borough, Fed-
eral, and land withdrawn for special uses such as airports, fairgrounds,
municipalities, and future housing development, etc.
lJ Greater descriptive detail on these four blocks is presented in Chapter
3 of the detailed report, .. Possibilities of New Land Development· in
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska ...
31
l '' U.l'O J ".> JIL l J < ...... 'l [J[ "''""'""'I.O:IJ.Jtl ..... lll'l.Jl.IL."-"'UL lol -~•II<JUal! :J J lo j II •' J'-lJ L L'-'!~IJI.i!-1-•-'J I .!.,-'---~-•. _LL>UJL~J._L.!......,_i1....I .. l-1JII.L-"-.oJ.J:~~o.-L"•I'-'L =......J.-=u " '-J --.~.L .. JLJLo•~ "Jo -· >'-~~---~·--·-·-··· ... ~-~~~ ·~-·
Table 5
POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS--MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
. Tract Class Class Av. Sub-Lime Topo-
No. y Area Total II III Other ~ypt~ stratum · Needs graphy
~----------Estimated Acres---~-----· es) . (Tons)
1. Springer System 6,000 4,500 300 1,200 24-40 Gravel None Level
2 •. South Butte 4,000 2,100 700 1,200 36-38. Gravel None Level
3. North Butte 4,800 2,500 1,000 1,300 24-36 Gravel None Level
4. Lazy Mountain 5,300 1,000 2,800 1,500 12-24 Till 3-5 Rolling
5. North Palmer 8,600 3,800 3,400 1,400 36-60 Gravel 2-3 Rolling
6. Moose Creek-Sutton~a~1,200 500 400 300
b 2,900 300 2,200 400 12-36 Gravel 2-3 Level
Palmer Area Total 32,800 14,700 10,800 7,300
7. Fishhook 3,700 2,600 1,100 12-24 Gravel 3-5 1 Rolling
w a. Schrock Road 4,200 1,300 1,700 1,200 12-36 Gravel 3-5 .··Rolling
N 9. North Wasilla 14,200 10,000 4,200 12-24 Till 3-5 Rolling
10. South Wasilla 19,800 13,800 6,000 12-24 Till 3-5 Rolling
Wasilla Area Total 41,900 1,300 28,100 12,500
11. Horseshoe Flat 20,000 16,600 3,400 15-20 Gravel 3-5 Level
12. Little Susitna 15,200 2,000 10,000 3,200 12-30. Sand 3-5 Rolling
13. Flat Horn Lake 25,600 14,500 5,600 5,500 12-30 Sand ·3-5 Rolling
14. Susitna Station 16,800 13,200 3,600 36-48 Gravel 3-5 Level
15. Red Shirt Lake (a)10,200 5,400 1,700 3,100
(b) 7,100 2,400 2,800 1,900 24-36 Gravel 3-5 Rolling
16. Beluga River 20,500 5,400 8,000 7,100 18-40 Till 3-5 Rolling
17. Alexander 26,500 19,700 6,800 40-60 Gravel 3-5 Level
18. Lower Yentna 8,200 5,800 2,400 18-40 Gravel 3-5 Level
Lower Susitna Area
Total · 150,100 68,400 44,700 37·,000
y See notes at end of table
.... /
I• ._td.{J!i.'ll:i.!.lti.b UlhJ!t.:llsihJ,j,IJ:bLJ [J[Ji.tiiJ...tJ.i',l: l:l" !lllhl I( L ' ll .. llliii .. JL
Table 5 (Continued)
(al 14,800 7,200 3,800 3,800
19. Willow ~~ 4,300 800 2,200 1,300 12-24 Till 3-5 Rolling
6,100 4,800 1,300
20. Delta Islands 3,300 2,600 700 36-60 Gravel 2-3 Level
21. Kashwitna 7,300 5,400 400 1,500 24-40 Gravel 3-5 Level
22. Trapper Creek 31,400 19,200 2,700 9,500 18-40 Gravel 3-5 Level
Wfllow Area Total 67,200 35,200 13,900 18,100
23. Caswell 31,800 11,100 ll,lOO 9,600 12-30 Gravel 3-5 Rolling
24. Montana 33,500 17,600 5,900 10,000 18-40 Gravel 3-5 Rolling
25. Answer Creek . 23,800 15,600 2,100 6,100 24-40 Gravel 3-5 Rolling
26. Talkeetna 6,800 4,700 600 1,500 24-40 Gravel 3-5 Level
27. West Talkeetna 15,500 12,200 3,300 24-60 Gravel 2-3 Level
28. Rabideux 13,000 6,300 3,900 2,800 12-30 Sand-
Gravel 3-5 Rolling
w 29. Chunilna 14,600 3,400 7,400 3,800 12-30 Gravel 3-5 Level w 30. Chulitna 11,900 ·8,800 500 2,600 24-40 Gravel 3-5 Level
31. ·.Chase 6,800 4,200 900 1,700 24-60 Gravel 3-5 Level
Middle Susitna
Total 157,700 83,900 32,400 41,400
32. Kroto 88,400 38,700 23,200 26,500 18-40 Gravel 3-5 Rolling
33. Kahiltna 18,500 6,500 6,500 5,500 18-40 Gravel 3-5 Rolling
34. Skwentna 36,100 19,000 6,300 10,800 18-40 Gravel 3-5 Level
Yentna Area Total 143,000 64,200 36,000 42,800
Borough Total 592,700 267,700 165,900 159,100
Table 5 (Continued)
c ~ ~~ :;:, 0 -+I ~ ~ ~
3-c '0 4U ;:;, -0 .,. 4UO» .&:
0» -en -uo-u•-en cc--~~~ .,_ c c: en C'-en "" "" -oen •-s: Ill+' • cu ,:~ocu cu cu
Tract sen>. ::t~U >II +IC-s:-> c! OIGIG c c CU4U en--enu-0
No. ]j Area l:E·~~ so:~-_...., C';f.!. -ce u <c.:-LIJ-cs--
1. Springer System 110 16.5 200. 0 40 C-70%1 T-30% p
2. South Butte 110 16.5 100 0 40 . C-60%1 T-40% p
3. North Butte 110 16.5 100 0 45 C-20%, T-80% p
4. Lazy Mountain 110 16.5 500-700 3 45 C-10%, T-90% p
5. North Palmer 120 16.5 400 0 45 C-60%1 T-40% p
6. Moose .creek-Sutton 90 15.5 500-600 0 55 C-5%, T-95% PB
7. Fishhook 90 17 700-800 0 60 C-5%1 T-95% p
w a. Schrock· Road 90 18 500-600 0 60 C-5%, T-95% p ~
9. North Wasn la 105 18 400-500 0 55 C-5%1 T-95% p
10. South Was i 11 a 105 18 100-300 0 55 C-5%1 T-95% p
11. Horseshoe Flat 110 20 100-150 5 12* T SB
12._ Little Susitna 110 22 100 12 18* T SB
13. Flat Horn Lake 110 28 150-200 10 25* T SB
14. Susitna Station 110 28 100 15 30* T SB
15. Red Shirt Lake no 27 150-250 8 30* T SB
16. Beluga River 105 27 100-500 40 35* T SB
17. Alexander 105 28 100-400 30 35* TM s
18. Lower Yentna 105 28 100-300 30 40* TM SB
]j See notes at end of table.
•
L~ ___ j
w
U'1
19. Willow 100
20. Delta Islands 100
21. Kashwitna 90
22. Trapper Creek 90
23. Caswell 90
24. Montana 90
25-. Answer Creek 85
26. T-alkeetna 85
27. West Talkeetna 85
28. Rabideux 85
29. Chunilna 85
30. Chulitna 85
31. Chase. 85
32. Kroto 90
33. Kahiltna 90
34. Skwentna 90
l/ Numbers keyed to map, Figure 4.
~ Distance from Anchorage
* Air Miles
y Cover
T -Trees
C -Cropland
M -Muskeg
y Ownership·
P -Private
8 -Borough
S -State
Table. 5 (Continued)
27 200 0 75 T PS
26 0-50( 6 80 T s
26 150 0 85 T -99.%, C-1 S s
26 0-100 6 85 T s
25 200 0 90 T PS
27 250-350 0 100 T-99%-. C-1% p
28 300-500 0 110 T PS
28 350-400 0 110 T P8
28 300 0 120 T P8
28 350 0 120 T s
28 350-450 0 120 T 8
28 400 8 125 T 8
28 350 8 125 T s
30 250-300 15 55* TM s
30 250-300 35 60* TM s
30 250-300 30 60* TM s
Climate Factor
Next to or perhaps even equal to physical soil characteristics, climate
plays an essential role in successful agricultural production and develop-
ment in the Borough.
If the better agricultural tracts are chosen, based on soil quality, then
climate can become the limiting factor in potential development of the tract
for farming. ·
Recognizing the importance of climate early in the study, a detailed analysis
was made of available climatic data in the current and potential farming
areas with emphasis on the four special study areas indicated above.
Climate data coverage is good over the eastern part of the Matanuska Valley
where most of the farming has been done, but more limited over the poten-
tial new farming areas.
Following are some of the essential findings and observations from the cli-
mate study. ]J
1. The growing season ·dn ·the· Bot"ough ·is cool and short, and moisture
distribution is not ideal.
2. Despite these problems, the summary rating of the climate is favor-
able. Farmers and researchers have gained much experience in fitting crops
and work schedules to the climate and have demonstrated good production
capability for many crops.
3. Even in potential new areas with limited climate data, the avail-
able information and limited farming experience indicate reasonably favor-
able climate conditions.
4. Moisture is often short in spring and early summer in ~reas where
most of the farming is now being done. This should not be as great a pro-
blem in most of the potential new areas.
5. Precipitation is much heavier in the latter part of the summer
throughout all present and potential farming areas. This high, late pre-
cipitation helps build subsoil moisture for the following spring crops
but it often interferes with harvesting operations in current farming
areas. This problem would likely be accentuated in potential development
areas where all precipitation, including late summer and fall, is heavier.
!I A full account of the climate study is presented in Chapter 4 in the
detailed report "Possibilities for ~ew Land Development in-Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, Alaska."
36
c
[
[
-~----~-~--~ ~-~------~-----·----~·-~--~-------------------~--~--~ ..
c
-[
' ~ • • J
I ~-j
D-
0
, c
D
';j
-D
~
6
E --
-
i ~ c
c
-[
[
6. Records show that the Susitna Valley receives considerably more
precipitation throughout the year than does the Matanuska Valley.··
7. There are significant differences in both temperatureand precipi-
tation within relatively short distances in the immediate Palmer area.
Considerable variations also occur over the larger area, particularly in
temperatures. V.ariations within areas are greater ·than average variations
between areas. The records indicate there is not a great deal of differen-
ce in average temperatures over the potential agricultural land·s. local
variations, particularly in frost occurences, are significant.
8. Average length of season between last frost in the spring and first
one in the fall over the area is about 90 to 110 days. On an area wide
basis, the last spring frost usually occurs in the last two weeks in May
or the first week in June. In the fall the first frost usually occurs in
the last few days of August or the first half of September. Considerable
variation occurs from one area to another and from one season to another.
As indicated earlier, the effect of this relatively short qrowin9 season is
ameliorated to a great extent by the long hours of summer daylight.
9. Farming experience and the climate show a wide variation in vulner-
ability to frosts during the growing season. Unseasonable frosts are fre-
quent occurences at some locations, while others regularly escape them.
Night-time radiation cools the ground surface and the air near it. Where
there is wind or free air drainage, mixing or replacement with warmer air
limits the rate of cooling. \~here air drainage is restricted, local frost
can form, while surrounding areas remain much above freezing.
10. Good indications of potential frost damage may be had from local
topography and forest cover. We would expect susceptibility to frost
damage in low points around the smaller lakes and in the undulating ter-
rain in the Wasilla study area; creek bottom lands in the Montana-Sunshine
study area; the lowest elevations in the Horseshoe Flat study area; and
sheltered areas near the bases of terraces and bottom lands along the
Matanuska River i~ the Palmer study area.
11. As in much of the farming area of the country, there is occasional
winter kill of perennial crops. Two general cases are reported: extreme
cold where there is little or no snow on the ground, and formation of an
ice layer on the ground due to unusually warm, wet periods in winter.
The Palmer area with light snows and strong winter winds would likely have
more probiems with winter kill than the other study areas. Heavy winter
snowpack in potential agricultural areas along the Susitna River should
keep these areas relatively free of winter kill problems.
12. knik vJinds usually in the summer, and Matanuska winds usually in
the winte;-, adversely affect farm operations in the Palmer area. These
37
local winds pose erosion and winter kill hazards by removal of snow cover.
Local conservation practices of special field layouts, shelter belts, and
cropping patterns are designed to help control these problems. Other
potential farming areas are less affected by winds.
13. There are some significant climatic differences between the study
areas that will bear on crop selection and farming schedules. Each area
has certain advantages.
14. In sumary some detail on the effect of climate is pre·sented about
each of the study areas.
Palmer Area
This area has probably the longest growing season of the four study areas,
although the Horseshoe Flat area may be Quite similar in this regard.
The Palmer area climate is marked by early removal of the winter snowpack
and early breakup and relative freedom from killing frosts in the latter
part of the growing season.
Parts of the area are subject to wind erosion problems, and moisture defi-
ciencies are fairly con1mon during the spring and early sumer. Supplemen-
tal irrigation will be of greater value in the Palmer area than for most
of the other potential agricultural lands.
Wasilla Area
Local climate variations seem QUite pronounced in the study area. The un-
dulating topography produces many potential frost pockets, particularly in
the small valleys and in the vicinity of the lakes. However, the terrace
locations to the south and ridge locations elsewhere are not as susceptible
to frost damages.
Precipitation amounts are a little greater and winds are less of a problem
than in the Palmer Area.
Montana-Sunshine Area
Here larger precipitation amounts and snow cover will act to shorten the
growing season. However, the area should be almost free of moisture de-
ficiencies. General climate, local farming experience, and natural vege-
tation, all point to favorable conditions for forage crops.
Horseshoe Flat Area
[
[
D
·Q
·D
D
c
D
0
c
D
D
[
D
D
Location of the potential agricultural lands -an elevated outwash deposit [J
with nearly level slopes -is quite favorable. We would expect relative
38
[
[
, •
'I
'!I
1
n
c
D
c
[
freedom from early frost damages and growing season temperatures quite
similar to those in the Palmer area.
Because of th~·exposure, the Horseshoe Flat area likely receives somewhat
more precipitation than either Anchorage or the Palmer area, but less than
the other Susitna Valley stations. ·
Soil surveys .. indicate 8 preponderan~e of well-dra'ined soils .here but, not as
deep, generally, as soils in the Palmer·area. Dought problems may be similar
to those experienced ·in the Palmer area. ·
' . ' . '
·Average Teillpt!rature~, A 1 aska and Other States
Many people have the mfstaken idea that all of Alaska ,is much colder through-
.out the year than the other states. Actually the c_oasta1 areas of South
Central and. Western 'Alaska, as well .as the Ala$ka peninsula, the Aleutia·n
Chafn and the Southeast ar-e warmer 'in winter than'most interior points i.n
the lower sta~es, except in the Southern States.··
. . -.
Figure 6 presents av~rage temperature curves· for' vari:OUS degrees in January
on the North American continent and shows that some areas in the northern
part of the lower statt!S are .colder ,in January. than the areas mentioned in
·Alaska~ .. Figure 7 shows ayera·ge July temperature curves for the continent •
. Average monthfy ·and'yearly temperatures for 101 areas in 14 states are shown
in a table in Appendix c. The 13states-listed for comparison with Alaska
are as follows: . Maine, New Hampshire,·verrnont, New York, Michigan, Wiscon-
sin, Minnesota, North Dakotai. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Uta.h.
The table shows that at least one point in each of the 13 states has a lower
average temperature than Southeastern Alaska. In North Dakota all nine·
areas reported colder average annual temperatures than Southeast Alaska.
Average January temperatures at most North Dakota points were at least 20
degrees colder thanJanuary temperatures in Southeastern, Southwestern, and
South Coast areas of Alaska. Eighty-six of the 92 reporting points in the
13 States showed lower average January temperatures than these coastal areas
of Alaska. The six areas reporting warmer temperatures follow: the Coastal
Area in New York, the North Central Areas of Idaho, the Arkansas and Kansas
'Drainage Basins of Colorado and the Dixie Area of Utah.
Improved Farm Practices and Organization
The United States has made great strides in agricultural develoJ"'ment inire-
:cent decades8 Since. ·l940 prod~;~cti'on ·per. acre has mor·e than doubled for.
many crops. Milk production per cow also has doubled. Where·one·farm worker
supplied food ~roducts for only, :t+en. people .in 1940 1 he supplied fnod for
42 in 1967 and probably supplies 50 now.
Figure 6
... ....._
'·-....,_ .......... --.~---... ..
'\. .,_,....\
\ ·-......_
NORTH AMERICA
--------~----------------
n
[j
D
.e
·D
[]
MEAN JANUARY TEMPERATURE
u
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
0
D
c
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
--------------------------
r
[
n
~-
n·
(J
[
c
D
c
D
c
~[
E
c
[
[
[
NORTH AMERICA
MEAN JULY TEMPERATURE
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
Figure 7
Man hours required to produce a unit of farm products has been reduced
drastically in three decades. For example, corn required 108 man hours
per 100 bushels in 1935-39, but only 9 hours in 1963-67. During the same
period wheat was reduced from 67 to 11 man hours per 100 bushelsi hay from
9 to 3 man hours per ton and potatoes from 20 to 4 man hours per ton. .
What accounts for this greatly increased efficiency? Improved farm practices
and organization are largely responsible. These include greater use of im-
proved machinery, fertilizer, fue 1, power, better rna nagement practices, 1 ower
costs, and greater economies associated with larger scale operations.
Many of these lower costs and better practices can be adopted in Alaska.
For example:
1. ·Oil and gas are rapidly developing into the major industry in Alaska.
Several major oil companies plan to build new oil refineries in the State.
As these new facilities become operable, costs of gasoline and other fuel
to farmers should decline.
2. A large fertilizer plant recently built on Kenai Peninsula manu-
factures nitrogenous fertilizers in the form of ammonia and urea. These
fertilizers, designed primarily for use in the lower states, can also be
used in Alaska with considerable savings of transportation costs. Also
as the ships return from transporting this fertilizer south, they could use
some phosphorous and potash types of fertilizers as ballast. Thus the
transportation cost on these essential fertilizers should also be reduced.
3. Electric power is one cost that has gone down while other costs
have risen sharply. Power development lends itself well to economies of
scale. As greater economic development in all fields increases the demand
for electric power, larger and more efficient plants will reduce this cost
to all consumers including farmers. Greater individual use as farms get
larger will further reduce unit power costs. ·
The following table, based on current rates of Matanuska Electric Association,
. Inc., shows how the average cost per kilowatthour is reduced as more power
is used.
kWh per month
250
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
Average cost per kWh
5.4¢
4.0¢
3.2¢
2.8¢
2.7¢
Other improved practices and organization including implementing of eco-
nomic size farm units, and improved practices of development, production.
42
·---~ -------~---~---------------------------------~---~-------------
[
[
D
-o
~o
D
c
c
D
c
D
c
[
D
c
c
[
[
r
[
~
~-
D .
D
c
D
J
]
D "
c
[
harvesting, marketing, and management are discussed in the following sec•
tions. Success of agriculture in the Borough will depend to a large de-
gree on the extent to which these improved practices are employed.
Implementation of Economic Size Farm Units
There is some range in what may be considered aneconomic size farm unit
for a specific commodity. Efficiency of operation as reflected in manage-
ment practices can make the difference. The minimum size economic farm
unit as determined in the farm budget investigation was based on specific
yields, costs, and prices and on a level of management which could reason-
ably be expected to be attained by most farmers. The more efficient op-
erator may be able to get by with a somewhat less than minimum size unit.·
as determined in the study, especially if he receives favorable breaks on
prices and costs. The average operator, however, will need to achieve the
economic size farm unit or eventually be forced out of business, unless
he can make adjustments and receive more favorable prices, costs, and
yields than those used in the study.
The last section of this report presents suggestions for a possible way for
farmers to secure an economic size farm unit.
Improved Practices -Development
In this modern age Borough farmers cannot be burdened with obsolete develop-
ment, production, harvesting, and marketing equipment and practices because
they must compete with lower states' farmers who use the most efficient
methods and equipment.
Development costs are expensive, especially when done on an individual basis.
Borough farmers cannot pay these high development costs and compete with
already developed and highly productive farms in other states.
The unit development cost is much less if done in large blocks. Relative-
ly reasonable development costs result from use.of the most advanced mach-
inery, equipment, and techniques, especially when it can be accompanied
by salvage and sale of the timber cleared.
In 1959 only 57 percent of Alaska's farms had electric service from a cen-
tralized supply. By 1967 this percentage had increased to 94. This great
increase over this short period was due largely to efforts· of the Mata-
nuska Electric Association in the Borough and other REA associations in
other areas extending their service to farms throughout the adjacent agri-
cultural areas oftentimes at costs greater than anticipated returns.
Since electric power is so essential to successful farming, the rural electric
cooperatives can take much credit for helping farmers to :!>u:ceed and im-
prove their living standards.
43
Improved Practices -Production
Unit production cost can determine the success or failure of a farm enter-
prise. Local costs must be kept 1n line with costs of ·efficient pperations
in the lower states plus transportation.
Yield relates closely to cost. Additional production costs should be in-
curred only where returns therefrom are greater than the added cost.
For example, irrigation will increase production under certain circumstances.
The decision to install an irrigation system in a given instance depends
on additional returns anticipated in relation to· irrigation system cost;
also in the case of limited funds on alternative returns expected from the
funds required for the irrigation installation.
Experience throughout the lower states and in Alaska has demonstrated that
smaller farm units often find it difficult to compete with medium size to
large units. Small farms go out of business and consolidate to make larger,
stronger units.
In this technological age, modern, efficient machinery replaces more expen-
sive labor. To justify this machinery cost, it must be applied to more
acres. Likewise, many other costs are associated closely with farm unit
size and are more expensive when performed on small units.
Successful Borough farmers will keep informed on new and improved production
practices and apply them promptly.
Improved Practices -Harvesting
Harvesting is actually a part of production. In Alaska the growing season
is short, and harvesting must be performed promptly and efficiently. Time-
liness is especially important. Yield and quality of product will be af-
fected if harvesting begins too early or too late. Modern, efficient har-
vest machinery is essential. In a few instances, such as for carrots, one
digger might harvest the crop of several growers. For most crops, however,
especially if the acreage is large, each producer will need his own harvest-
ing equipment.
The critical nature of the harvest operation and the need to own harvesting
equipment to do the job efficiently dictate that farms should be of size
to make best use of necessary machinery and equipment.
Improved Practices -Marketinq
Marketing in a broad sense represents all activities involved in the flow
of goods and services between initial production and final consumption. It
44
c
[J
D
D
D
c
D
c .
c
0
c
c
[
D
[
~
~-
D·
0
C
D
D '
~
' c
"
~ D ]
~
~
j
D 1
~ c
-c
[
involves assembling, grading, packing, proces.si.ng, and distributing. As
th«! economy becomes more complex marketing repres.ents a larger proportion
of the production~marketing function. ·
Marketing is always a major problem in a new or developing agricultural
economy. Costs per unit handled are high when production is low-and .
s(:attered. The problem is accentuated by the seasonality of production
of many co11111odities and the difficulty of breaking into established markets
for only a short period each year.
Because it is difficult to market small volume efficiently, it becomes es-
pecially important that all of a given type of co11111odity produced in the
co11111unity be marketed together. If an independent marketing firm-refuses
the activity and the farmer cannot market his own small supply efficiently,
the obvious answer lies with a strong farmer-organized cooperative with net
revenues prorated back.
As the economy grows, marketing unit costs can.be reduced and storage can
lengthen the marketing period.
In order to have an efficient marketing system, one which will allow a suc-
cessful farming program in the Borough, two things are essential.
1. Fanning in specific areas with each farm approaching as nearly as
possible an economic si~e unit.
2. Farming an economic size unit will occupy a man's full time. He
there.fore will need a specialist to perform the marketing function.
Conducting the marketing activity through an efficient fanner-owned cooper-
ative will allow the farmer to participate in returns from marketing with-
out do1ng it h1mself. If this is not practicable, an efficient marketing
finn, even though not fanner-owned, can usually handle fann products with
greater dispatch and less problems than the producer trying to do.the job
himself.
Improved Practices -Management
Observant agricultural leaders in Alaska realize that unusual conditions
exist in this state which makes it necessary for a successful farm operator
to have or to acquire special management skills.
Higher costs, greater investment needed, shorter growing season and greater
distance from source of supply, all make management critical in Alaska.
At the same time, less help is available from farm organizations, marketing
agencies, and loan agencies, so1,1rces of valuable information in the lower
states.
45
The Extension Service and other qualified agricultural agencies in Alaska
are able to help in many ways.
A farm management service, on a commercial basis, as available in the farm-
ing areas of the lower states, could be helpful to Borough farmers. If
there are too few farmers to justify it at the outset the Extension Service
might extend its activities to cover this service for a period.
Some of the research at the Experiment Station could be directed to helping
to solve especially difficult management problems.
A traditional service of farmer cooperatives is to help farmers with manage-
ment problems. Aid in purchasing of supplies and aid in marketing farm pro-
ducts are very valuable services. Advice and service of this type provided
by the farmer's own organization may mean the difference between .success
and failure of individual farms.
Purchasing and marketing advice and service are also provided by private
firms. The quality and quantity of this help will likely be dependent on
the volume of business. It should improve and increase as agriculture
developed in the area.
Probably no one outside the farmer and his family is more interested in his
successful operation than the loan agency which holds his mortgage. This
agency is vitally interested because of the investment needing protection.
Very likely this agency is supplying some farm management and marketing
advice. The importance of good sound information from this source cannot
be over emphasized.
As farming increases and farm organizations become established and grow in
strength, they also may be very helpful in supplying farm management ser-
vice and advice.
Economic Size Farm Enterprises
Most farming units in the Borough are small with resultant high production
-costs. In most areas this has been due to the pattern of land ownerships
which resulted from the Matanuska colonization project and land settlement
by homesteading.
As development of economic sized farms and farm enterprises will be key
factors in the success of any efforts to expand the agricultural production
of the Borough, synthesized farm budgets were developed for four different
size operations with each of the following enterprises: Dairy, small grain,
potato.
46
c
n
D
D
D
0
c
D
D
c
D
D
D
[
[
D
[
~
~~
0-
0
c
D
D -
c
D
~ , •
D
-c
B
~ c
[
-[
[
·-·--------------~---~~--------·-----------~----------
,f._:--: ·--:
Such budgets, bas~d on reasonable yields, costs and prices. help to identify
and locate the break-even point of fann economics. Below this poin~ an av-
erag~ fanner cannot succeed or make his best contrU~_(Jtio . .n to:society. Above
this break-even point agriculture can succeed in Matanuska.;susitna Borough.
::{:;:
Sunwnaries of these fann budgets a)'!e given in Table 6-~}j · The sizes of each
·. enterprise ·are listed as small, medium-small, medium-large. ·and large with
a doubling of size between each category. The small dairy has 15 cows in
the milking herd, the medium-small, 30' the medium-large, 60; and th:e large 1
120. In the same manner, budget grain farms have 80i· lo0 1 320 1 aJ1d 640
acres and budget potato farms 15·1 30 1 60 1 and 120 acres~ · : -. ·
~: ,, .... ': '::· -~-.
It should be emphasized that 'the four sizes of budget'rfarms are presented
to show the contrast in returns that might be-,·expec·ted, ·Obviously the smal-
ler size units that show a loss·would·net·be:.-recommen(led~-· · · . . .· ··-
Cash receipts in the fann budget· summaries include all cash returns received
by the fann operator. Fann perquisites include the house as livtng quarters
for the fanner and his family; perhaps a garage and other-buildings, a space
for yard and gar~en 1 milk and cull.dairy cow to butcher·-e-fram the budget dairy
farms and other nonnal privileges. Since the house is'part of the farm in-
vestment. the costs of interest, depreciation, repair and maintenance, taxes,
insurance,, etc. are 1ncluded as part of the farm expenses.' ·· ·
.. , .. ,
Current farm expense 1ncludes-~i)(-percent interest on<total fnves~ent 1 in-
cluding both equity and borrowed capital. The proportion represented by
each was not delineated since it would vary widely in fnd'fvidual cases. In-
vestment costs on owned and borrowed capital are both considered at the rate
of six percent because an operator should ·be,.·able :to borrow at this rate
from Federal or State sources-and his equity should not earn less.·
The success of a farming enterprise may be measured either as rate of return
on investment. after allowing an equitable fee to the operator for his labor
and management; or as return to labor and management after allowing an equit-
able rate of interest. on capital investment. In this study the latter method
fs used in the budget sumarfes. The difference. therefore 1 between current
farm expense and gross farm income, labeled as net farm income fn the table,
is considered as return to labor and management. To determine the profit or
loss from the enterprise, an equitable allowance for the operator's labor and
management has been deducted from net farm 1 ncome. This·, a 11 owance · is con-
sidered to be $3 per hour for the operator's labor and 5 percent of cash re-
.cefpts for his management. ·
1J The full farm budgets are'presented in Chapter 13 of the detailed report
"Possibilities of New'Land Development in Matanuska-Susitna Borouah,
Alaska."
47
--------·-------------
~--~--~-~~------------~------
D
r
~
~-
0-
0
C
D
D
c
D
c
;c
~t1 ~b
D
[
c
[
This analysis is designed to determine the size of operation necessary to
secure an income that would pay all costs of interest on investment and
labor and management necessary to produce the product. In some cases this
would be an economic size part-time operation.
A second type of analysis considers the minimum size necessary to produce
a reasonable living for a farm operator and his family without outside
income.
A farm that would produce a net fann income or return to labor and manage-
ment of $6,000 over and above farm perquisites was considered the minimum
economic size. ·
Dairy Farms
Investment as shown in the budgets of the different size dairy operations
varied from $68,000 to $354,000. Labor requirements on these farms varied
between 1,720 and 10,474 man hours per year. The two smaller budgets were
considered to be one-man operations. The next to the largest could carry
on its operation with one full time man in addition to the operator. while
the largest would require three additional men.
The study showed it to be uneconomical to produce grain or hay on small
acreages because of the high machinery and equipment costs. For this reason,
provision was made in the two smaller dairy budgets to buy all concentrates
and hay and produce only haylage and pasture.
Reference to Table 6 shows a loss of over $4,500 on each of the two smaller
budget dairies. The 60-cow dairy, however. was over the limits of minimum
economic size. This budget showed a net farm income of $12 1 613. With an
allowance of $9 1 000 for the operator's labor and $3 1 070 for his management.
or a total of $12 1 070 there would be a small profit of $543. The large
dairy with 120 cows showed a net farm income of $24 1 791, a labor and manage-
ment allowance of $15 1 144 1 and a profit of $9 1 647. This is a profit above
all costs and represents 2.8 percent on the total investment of $354 1 000.
Considering the six percent interest already allowed 1 the total return would
be 8.8 percent on investment after allowing the operator $15 1 000 for his
efforts and $4,200 for farm perquisites.
These budgets indicate that a dairy in Matanuska-Susitna Borough would need
to approach 60 cows in order to be considered an economic size unit 1 under
the yield 1 production. cost and price assumptions used. This size would
allow the operator a little over $12 1 000 for his labor and management be-
sides a six percent return on his investment.
Using the second type of analysis 1 in which $6 1 000 return plus farm per-
quisites was considered as the standard for minimum size 1 the 15-cow dairy
49
·--·----~~---------~-------------~---~------------~----------·---------~----------------------------------~---~-------
would be short by more than $7,000; and the 120-cow dairy would be over by
nearly $15 1 000. The 30-cow dairy would be short by about $4,000 and the
60-cow dairy would be over by about $3 1 000. By interpolation, it was found
that a dairy farm with 50 cows would produce a net income of about $6,900
thus allowing $3,600 for farm perquisites and $6 1 000 for the operator•s
labor and management.
As indicated earlier, the difference between these two methods of analysis
is the allowance for the operator•s labor and management. If the operator
is to receive $3 per hour for his work plus 5 percent of cash receipts for
his management, nearly 60 cows will be required under the yield, cost and
price situation assumed. If, however, the operator is willing to accept
$6,000 for his labor and management besides the farm perquisites, 50 cows
would be enough.
Small Grain Farms
Investment requirements for small grain budget farms are considerabJy less
than for dairy farms, varying between $45,000 for the small, 80-acre farm,
to $194,000 for the large 640-acre farm. Labor requirements obviously are
much less, also, the two smaller farms requiring only 466 and 833 hours an-
nually, which could be performed by the operator himself. The two larger
farms require seasonal hired labor. Even the largest one, however, provides
only about half-time employment throughout the year.
The 80-acre small grain farm had a net farm income of only $1,229. The
operator•s labor and management was valued at $1 1 773 1 leaving a net loss
of $544. The 160-acre farm also showed a small loss of $148. Neither of
these farms could be considered economic units.
The 320-acre farm showed a net farm income of nearly $9 1 000. With labor
and management costs of $4,800, a profit of $4 1 200 would be realized. The
640-acre farm showed a profit of $11,314 after allowing $6,900 for labor
and management. Interpolation would indicate 170 acres were necessary to
make an economic operation, although this would not provide a full living
for a man and his family. It would, however, pay all costs, including
interest on investment and an equitable rate for all labor required to
plant, produce, harvest, and market the crop. The operator would need a
supplemental income which could be earned durinq the season he was not able
to farm.
It would require a farm a little larger than 320 acres to provide the full
living of $6 1 000 plus farm perquisites for the operator and his family. As
indicated in Table 6, a 320-acre farm would have a net income of $8 1 952.
With $3,600 of this represented by the farm perquisites, it would leave only
$5,352 cash return, or $648 short of the $6,000 originally indicated as
needed for minimum size. Interpolation indicates about 340 acres would
eliminate the loss.
50
n
[
D
~B
·D
0
c
D
D
c
D
0
c
D
D
[
[
[
l
[
~
~-
D·
D
c
D .
D
' D
~
' ~
:l E '
~
j c
-[
l ~ = .
'
~
" c
[
c
L
Potato Farms
Because of the smaller acreage needed, potato farms required less invest-
ment than either grain or dairy farms. From small to large, the total
investment varied between $40,000 and $115,000, Labor requirements were
greater than for grain farms, but considerably less than for dairy farms.
The 15-acre potato farm would require about 685 hours of labor annually;
the 120 acre farm, 4,424, with almost linear variation between. Like
grain farming, potato farming is very seasonal and there is a limit as to
how much work the operator can do personally.
Table 6, shows a profit of $30,125 on the largest budget potato farm. This
represents a 26 percent return on the total investment of $115,000, much
greater than for either the large dairy or grain farms. It must be re-
membered, however, that prices used were for the fresh market which is
limited in Alaska. Less than 1,000 acres would supply all the needs of
the Railbelt at present. Fresh potatoes, except ~ossibly for seed, can-
not be shipped outside the state profitably and prices for processing po-
tatoes would be much less, thus allowing considerably less profit.
The small 15-acre potato farm obviously should not be expected to support
a farmer and his family throughout the year. However, on the basis of a
part-time farm, it could almost break even under the yield, cost, and price
assumptions used. Net farm income was shown to be $2,236 1 and labor and
management allowance of $2,238, leaving a loss on the enterprise of only
$2. The 30-acre and-60-acre potato farms showed profits under this anal-
ysis of $1,903 and $8 1 280, As with the 15-acre farm, neither would the
30-acre farm provide a full living for an operator and his family.
On the basis of $6,000 net for labor and management plus farm perquisites,
the 30-acre farm showed a loss of $2,675 and the 60-acre farm a profit of
$4,338, Interpolation would indicate a farm of 42 acres would satisfy
these basic requirements and supply the full living under the yield, price
and cost figures assumed.
Farm Size Needed
The preceding analyses show a wide variation in the minimum economic farms.
The variation is contingent on whether the operator was allowed: (1) Fixed
fees for his labor and management ($3 per hour plus 5 percent of cash farm
recei~ts), or (2) A lump sum of $6,000 plus farm perquisites, regardless
of the' hours worked. These data are presented in Table 7.
As indicated in the footnotes to the table, the farm size shown in the
"lump sum 11 column is the minimum size required under yield, price and cost
assumptions to sustain a man and his family without outside income. Re-
turns from farms this size would pay all costs including six percent interest
51
Type of Farm
Dairy
Small Grains
Potatoes (Fresh)
Table 7. Minimum Economic-Size Farms in
Matanuska-sus1tna Borough
Farm Size Based on~
Hours worked !/ Lump Sum ~
60 Cows
170 Acres
15 Acres
50 Cows
340 Acres
42 Acres
n
[
D
-o
-0
lJ Actual hours required annually at $3 per hour, plus 5 percent of cash []
receipts for management.
2/ $6,000 for labor and management over and above farm perquisites. [J
on the farmers equity, provide a ~home and certain other farm privileges for o·
the operator and his family and pay him $6 1 000 for his labor and management.
In case of the dairy which requires considerable labor, this $6 1 000 would
amount to a pretty small hourly fee; for the potato and grain farms with Qi
low labor requirements, it would amount to a high hourly fee. •
The first column in Table 7 shows the size of farm necessary to pay all
costs including six percent interest on the farmer's equity plus $3 per hour [J
for his labor and 5 percent of cash receipts for his management. Although
farms this size can be operated economically they will net necessarily SUJ'!-
pcrt a family. The 60-cow dairy obviously would provide full time employ-C_'j,
ment fer the operator and would be considered a self-sufficient family farm.
The 15-acre potato farm and the 170-acre grain farm, however, must be con-
sidered part-time farms. They will pay the operator adequately for his o-_:_•_.
labor and management skills but since the work is seasonal, he must have
another source of income.
It will be noted from Table 6 that the current farm expenses en the 15-acre c·.
potato farm are slightly greater than cash receipts. The reason this farm
is considered of economic size despite this relatively high expense, is
because farm perquisites, valued at $2,400 annually, are included in the nl,
gross farm income. Labor and management are given a value of $2,238 1 which ~~
almost balances against the farm perquisites. Thus it might be considered
that the farmer on this small potato farm is reimbursed adequately for his
equity investment and receives in addition farm perquisites worth about [J
$2 1 400 in exchange for his 685 hours of labor.
It is common practice for a large proportion of the farmers in the lower [;
states as well as in Alaska to secure a substantial ,art of their income ~
from off-farm sources. This is not necessarily bad. In fact in Alaska
52
c
[
---~---------~ ----------------
D·
0
c
D
[
[
u
[
[
[
with its short growing season, this practice may continue and expand with
crop farming. Livestock enterprises, on the other hand -dairy, beef, hogs,
sheep, J)Oultry -which lend themselves to year-round activity, will tend
to be of a size to be self-sufficient.
Synthesized farm budgets were prepared for only dairy, small grain and po-
tato farms. Minimum size units for these three enterprises were determined
based on specific assumptions. The study was not designed to investigate
the economics of veal, beef, hog or poultry production or any of the new
crop possibilities.
Tables 2 & 3 mention specific sizes of various livestock and poultry enter-
prises. These farms undoubtedly would provide year-long employment for the
farm operator and perhaps some members of his family as well as considerable
income. It has not been determined, however, whether these farms are larger
or smaller than the minimum economic size.
Although small grain enterprises were considered in the synthesized budget
study, there will likely be relatively few of this type of farms in the
Borough. livestock enterprises, beef, veal, hogs and sheep as well as
poultry, are more likely with grain and forage grown as feed on the farm
or in some cases supplied by specialized grain farms.
Emphasis on Most Profitable Agricultural Enterprises
Successful agriculture in Matanuska-Susitna Borough would be furthered by
continued development and production of those products which bring farmers
the greatest returns. The synthesized farm budgets indicate that dairy,
grain, and potatoes can be produced profitably. These are presently the
principal farm products in the Borough and likely will remain so for some·
time. However, the potential returns to the farmer and the economic im-
portance to the Borough of the potential new crops and processes previously
discussed make it important such crops and processes receive high priority
consideration. This applies particularly to those products which might
be suitable to export.
Potential Economic Returns
Agriculture as a basic industry has a multiplying effect on the growth of
any developing economy. This multiplying effect includes many people em-
ployed to supply goods .and services and operate the marketing system. As
indicated earlier, a conservative estimate is that other a~riculturally
related revenues are two to three times as much as farm revenues.
On this basis and estimates of the farm receipts that would result from the
Railbelt Area agricultural production presented in Table 4, the potential
53
economic returns are estimated to have been $9 million in 1966 and increase
to $60 million by the year 2000,
Table 4 considers only agricultural commodities now being produced in the
BorouQh. Thus, this estimate does not include the higher economic returns
which could result if new agricultural products were added.
Actions Meriting Early Consideration
Agricultural Policy
It is the official policy of the State of Alaska to encourage continuing
development of the agricultural potentials of Alaska. How this is to be
accomplished has not been defined, but various support measure have been
established. Definition of the State's program can assist the Borough in
its planning.
Zoning of Borough Lands for Agriculture
The study has shown that zoning of selected Borough lands would aid in re-
alization of the Borough agricultural potential. Such zoning might be ac-
companied by other positive actions including assistance in developing new
agricultural lands as need for food products outgrows current farming areas'
capacity to produce. Thus in looking to the future. the better undeveloped
lands suitable for agriculture should be zoned and reserved for this pupose.
But there is more pressing need for zoning to protect prime agricultural
lands already in farms. If action is not taken soon much of the better agri-
cultural land can be lost by default to suburban development.
Anchorage is growing at nearly boom town rate and has a rather limited base
for expansion. Improved highways are making the Valley area a more attractive
place to live. Demand for home sites on good farm land has greatly accelerat-
ed in recent years and will likely continue.
Probably all land holders in the area are aware of this situation and the
possibilities it holds for the future. A survey of the Valley area would
indicate many small acreage land holders. A few areas are similar to suburbia
already. In addition, there are many land ho.ldings of eighty acres or less.
When considering present land price expectations, anticipated land values
in the future. plus present and future subdivision hopes and plans. it
would seem that probably a great many of the smaller holdings of 80 acres
or less are already out of the reach of agriculture.
As indicated above, it is especially important that zoning for agriculture
include most of the land presently in agricultural usage. It may not be
54
r L
-o
rJ
[
0
D
c
c
[
[
0
n
L
[
[
B
I ~-
~
j D-
O
C
D
D
c
B
c
[
[
[
possible to revise the land tenure situation in present intensive farming
areas and get these smaller acreages back into agricultural use.
Figure 5 and Table 5 show 34 tracts of land in six areas that are suitable
for agricultural development, In between these areas and tracts are greater
areas not suitable for agriculture but suited for homesites, industry, re-
creation and other non-agricultural use. Thus there is ample land for all
purposes.
It is especially important in Alaska that only the best farming lands be
farmed. Soil characteristics, the primary basis on which the 34 tracts were
selected, are more critical to agriculture than to most other uses. Many
lands that are marginal for agriculture would be well suited for homesite
development. If the prime agricultural lands are taken for other uses, agri-
culture will have difficulty expanding and may even fail in the Borough.
Even if all good farming lands are not actually taken for these other uses,
the high costs brought on by bidding for them could become a major factor
causing low farm returns and failures. A good zoning ordinance could avoid
or reduce this problem.
Alaska in its developing phase is in an unusually good position to learn from
others. The older civilizations in Asia have learned through .·the centuries
that the rich bottom lands should be left for agriculture with their villages
built on less productive lands. While this may not always apply to Alaska
because the bottom lands are often wet, the principle does apply -that of
keeping the better lands for farming and building living Quarters and in-
dustrial developments on less productive land.
A report from the October, 1966 "Farm Index," publication of USDA's Economic
Research Service, stated that all of the 50 States, more than 400 countries
and more than 11 700 towns and townships had zoning ordinances at that time.
The article also reported that certain zoning districts in California re-
served the best farmland solely for farming, even excluding non-farm rural
residences.
In many areas of the lower states in the past, however, prime agricultural
lands have been used for roads, freeways, cities, housing, industry, and
airports. Planners now recognize that many of these land should have been
reserved for agriculture with the other facilities built on adjacent bench-
land or other areas not suited to agriculture.
Alaska now can take the 11 ounce of prevention 11 steps and avoid the "pound of
cure" problems of the future.
Figure 5 and Table 5 show and describe all land in tracts of 51 000 acres or
more that eventually could be used for agriculture. Altogether there are
55
---~--~--------------------------------
about 430,000 acres of class II and III lands in these tracts. This is
less than the half million acres of this class of land indicated previous-
ly as available in the Borough. However, this tabulation does not include
the smaller tracts of class II and III land. Also the estimated acres of
these better soils in the tracts have been reduced by one-eighth to take
care of lands in farmsteads, roads, streams, ditches, fence rows, or other
small or irregular tracts that cannot be farmed. Thus, the amount of land
indicated in each tract is an estimate of the net class II and III acres
that could be used for producing crops.
The amount of agricultural land that will be needed in the future is not
definitely known. It will be dependent on the amount of food needed and
the amount that might reasonably be expected to be produced locally. This
in turn is dependent on the number of people to be fed and on other eco-
nomic factors related to local production costs versus costs of the pro-
ducts imported. Following are some of the considerations:
1. Rate of population growth in Alaska, the other states and the world.
2. Competitive advantage or disadvantage in producing items that can
be produced locally.
3. Transportation rates for food items in relation to rates for farm
supplies and other physical farm production inputs.
4. Proportion of these input items that may be available from local
sources and their relative cost.
The study projected goals of 100,000 acres that could be needed by the year
2000. This amount of land might be considered for zoning now. The Borough
could use the map and table (Figure 5 and Table 5) as a guide in consider-
ing land to be zoned for agricultural use.
Since it is not known where future development will take place and hence
where agri cul tura 1 land wi 11 be needed, it is fe 1 t that a 11 class II and I II
lands indicated on the map and in the table should be considered and re-
served for agriculture, although not all necessarily zoned at the present
time.
Lands now being used for agriculture might be zoned first. In selecting
additional lands, special consideration might be given to the better tracts
in areas of Palmer Wasilla, and lower Susitna. Table 5 shows a total of
168 1 000 acres of class II and III land in these three areas. If deduction
is made of 39 1 000 acres presently inaccessible because it lies west of the
unbridged Susitna River, the remainder is 129 1 000 acres.
56
----------------------------------
D
[
Q
·B
-0
D
0
D
D
c
0
D
c
0
D
0
[j
[
l
-r
~
8·
C-
D
c
D
D
c
D
c
-c
g
c
[
[
[
It has been suggested that some of the land in the Palmer area is in smal-
ler tracts and perhaps does not lend itself to zoning for agriculture. Also
a large part of tract 12, Horseshoe Flats, across Knik Arm from Anchorage,
is being considered for an airport so may not be available for agriculture.
Considering these unavailable lands plus some of the less desirable tracts
in the three areas, the total amount of available class II and III lands
would probably not greatly exceed 100,000 acres.
It is reasonable to tax land zoned for agriculture on th.e basis of its use
for agriculture so incentive is not stifled. Consideration might also be
given to granting a five to ten year tax-free period during the time of
development and heavy investment as has been done for other businesses in
the Borough.
If land is sold or developed for another use, a tax increase retroactive
for a specified number of years on its appraisal as developed or bised on
selling price would be reasonable. This procedure has been used succes-
sfully in other states.
Possible Plans for Development ofAsricultural Potential
Costs of land development and farm enlargement are high. This is true all
over the Nation but especially so in Alaska and in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough. Borough farmers with small uneconomic units operating in com-
petition with large o.perators from the lower states are at a ·definite dis-
advantage. Anticipated returns from an enlarged farming unit may not be
great enough to justify the expense for the individual farmer. In addition
financing is tight and most present and potential farmers do not have _
enough equity to begin farming, especially when it involves large develop-
ment outlays or even enlargement of present units to economic size. ·
In cases where financing is available, it is often difficult to secure land
from adjacent farmers to make an economic unit because these other farmers
are often also small and have the same problem. In addition considerable
amounts of good farm land is held by individuals for speculation or other
purposes.
The heavy financial obligations involved in the.develOJliYient of new lands
for agriculture in the Borough, compared to anticipated returns, limits
the entries that are likely to occur without considerable financial and
other assistance. Realization of the Borough potential for optimum agri-
cultural development would amply merit provisions of the needed assistance
for development of new lands for agriculture as a continuing program. Thus
some public entity with financial capability and authority to acquire, de-
velop and dispose of lands for this purpose is desirable. This could be
.the Borough, State of Alaska or the Federal Government.
57
Current Public Programs
It may be possible to use laws and programs already on the books with some
modification to accomplish this purpose. More likely, however,, new legis-
lation would be preferable. Following is a brief review of existing laws:
Federal HomesteadinT. The original Homestead Act of 1862 was designed for
opening of farming ands in the West. This law, long since outdated when
considered from the standpoint of modern, efficient farm land development,
is not operative in Alaska pending settlement of Native land Claims. Even
after this settlement the law will likely continue ineffective because the
State, authorized to select more than 100 million acres, will likely choose
practically all lands that have value for agriculture.
State Homesteading. Enacted in 1960 and amended in 1964, this law provides
for sale of tracts up to 640 acres to the highest qualified bidder. One-
tenth of the purchase price must be paid in cash at time of purchase and
the balance in nine installments in cash or by receiving specified credits
for work done to improve the farm. The intent of the State in granting
these credits is to encourage land development rather than to reimburse the
farmer for all his development costs. ·
Land Clearin9, Rental and Sale b~ State-1967 Law. This recent law, more ap-
propriate un er the current cons deration, than the Federal and State home-
steading laws, provides for the State to clear or drain State owned agri-
cultural land in large blocks with selection and contracting to be done
after consultation with the u. s. Soil Conservation Service. The lands thus
prepared would be leased in units of not less than 320 acres for a period
of ten years with stipulation that it must be cropped fnr at least seven
years. After this time the land may be sold to the lessee with rental
payments, less interest at five percent, applied to the purchase price.
The price for the land would be an appraised value but would be based on
the clearing and/or drainage costs. If the costs of clearing are_. reasonable
such as $100 per acre, the annual rental fee will be only $10 to $15 per
acre.
FHA Protram of Farm Land Procurement, Development and Sale. Farmers Home
Kdminis ration has authority to procure a large block of land, do some level-
ing or other land preparation if necessary, divide it into economic-size
farm units and sell it to farmers who can qualify for FHA loans. As an
example, assume an area of 640 acres owned by FHA. Most of this land has
been cleared and farmed and the remainder can be cleared and made ready for
farming with reasonable expense. An adjacent tract of 320 acres of pro-
ductive but idle land owned by an estate can be purchased.
58
-0
D
c
D
0
c
D
c
c
D
D
D
L
[
~~--~-----~~---
r,
[
~
I ~-
D-
C
[
c
D
c
-o
!
j
[
~ n_~ ~u
-?
[
-
[
[
FHA will first buy this half section and thus have available a block of
960 acres of good potentia 1 farm land. Next FHA will perform the neces-
sary clearing and leveling to make the land ready for farming. Then the
land will be divided into four 240-acre units or five 190-acre units 1 or
some other combination of economic-size fanning units. It should be plan-
ned that each farm will have enough cropable land to pay operating expenses,
living expenses, make debt payments, and have some reserve.
A further assumption is that there are several individuals interested in
buying farms. After each has submitted his application and some have been
found eligible for an FHA loan, the processing for purchase will be ac-
complished. Besides the farm land the total price paid (loan received) would
also cover necessary buildings, including a house, to complete the unit.
The price would need to be attractive and within the repayment ability of
the farmer. Such a plan does not include, necessarily, any money for live-
stock or operating. The farmer must have assets of his own.
FHA will participate in a program of this type only if the land is located
in a proven fanning area. Sound loan J)Olicies preclude attempting it in
experimental areas.
Canadian Land Programs. Homesteading and land development programs in Ca-
nada are adm1n1stered by the provincial governments and vary from one pro-
vince to another. In some cases they are similar to programs in the United
States. Low interest rates and deferred payments are often charged on funds
made available for land clearing. Some programs provide substantial grants.
A review of Canadian land programs is presented in Appendix 0 with the
thought that some aspec_ts may be adapted in Alaska.
Australian Land Development Pro9ram. Since this program is similar in some
respects to that to be suggeste for consideration by Matanuska-Susitna
Borough its essential features are given here and greater detail included
in Appendix D. A complete report of the program can be found on page 25
of the June 30 1 1969 issue of USDA's ''Foreign Agriculture."
Some 11.2 million acres of land that ultimately can carry one million cat-
tle is being developed in Queensland under a joint Federal-State program,
administered by the State but partially financed by the Commonwealth. The
Queensland government acquires the land, clears and improves it, then mak~s
it available to individuals for purchase or lease in holdings large enough
to earn a living for a family. The program is being financed by a $23
million loan from the Federal Government plus additional outlays by the
State of Queensland.
This plan pertains largely to development of livestock production on large
scale ranching operations. It is considered here with the thought that some
of the principles might be applied in Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
59
------------------·-------~---------------
Analysis of Current Programs
Evaluation of the above domestic land programs reveals that none of them
as now designed provide the Borough with the means to adequately assist
in development of new farm lands needed to produce future food goals.
Some aspects of the foreign programs could be useful but they do not
present a blueprint for the Borough ~o follow.
Consideration in the study was given to the advisability of a government
action agency sponsoring a program in which farmers with small uneconomic
units would be able to exchange them for credit on a fully developed new
economic-size farm. The idea was abandoned and it is felt that almost the
same results could be attained if the agency completely developed the new
land in large blocks, laid out economic-size farms and provided attractive
financing.
In addition to new farmers recruited to take these units, many present
farmers with uneconomic-size farms in the current agricultural areas will
be attracted. They should be anxious to sell their present farms to neigh-
bors who likely also need to expand. Thus this program would be a real
help to both types of farmers who under the present situation may have
little opportunity to expand their operations.
A review of present farm operations in the Borough shows that a number
are operating successful enterprises with less land and fewer cows than
was indicated as minimum size economic units in our budget studies.
Several factors could help account for this. The budget farms were based
on specific yield, price and cost figures. Anyone able to secure higher
yields, higher prices or lower costs could operate successfully with fewer
acres.
Farmers have learned to be innovators. A lack of sufficient land base has
forced various adaptations, some of which are as follows:
1. A dairyman or other livestock farmer may buy more feed rather than
produce it.
2. Capital may be substituted for land by applying more fertilizer or
adding an irrigation system, or both. Intensive farming can greatly in-
crease yields over those used in the budget study.
3. Costs are being kept down in some cases by very careful mana~ement.
Some farmers with exceptional mechanical ability, for example, can keep
machinery and equipment in good state of repair at a fraction of the cost
to the less adept operators. Average machinery costs in Alaska and those
used in the budget studies are high.
60
[
D
c
c
D
c
c
c
[
D
•
D
[
[
[
c
[
~
~·
o~
u
c
c
2!
D "
c
J E
! [
~
[
I ~ ..
c
[
c
[
4. Out of pocket labor costs are also high in Alaska. Any operator
who can make good use of family labor can get by with less cost and hence
a smaller unit than those indicated in the farm budgets,
The above discussion is presented not to minimize the value of the budget
studies made, because they still apply in the great majority of farm op-
erations, but only to call attention to the fact that farmers can and do
innovate when necessary.
Most operators of uneconomic-size farms, however, will not be able to make ,
the necessary adjustments, Many could be forced out of business as the
trend towards larger operations continues, if some public program is not
provided, For this reason the Borough might consider a plan, not of asking
small farmers to make adjustments which many of them will be unable to make
or asking them to give up their farms and turn them over to their neighbors,
but rather, offering them an alternative,
Briefly the plan might involve a public agency developing land in new areas
as need for food products outgrows the capacity of current farming areas to
produce, The plan would include complete development of economic-size farms
with attractive financing so that small farm operators in current farming
areas would be encouraged to apply,
Actions Involved
The following actions would be necessary for the government agency sponsor-
ing a new land development program.
Land Ac9uisition, Since it is desirable to develop new land in large blocks,
1t wou·l ¥1rst be necessary for the government agency to acquire title to any
lands in the block it does not already own.
Land Clearing and Development. Before selling or leasing lands to farmers,
1t w111 be necessary for the agency to clear and perform other development
activities, These may include leveling, draining, liming and installing
irrigation systems in some cases. Also laying out of farm boundaries and
making other essential improvements so the new owner could begin farming
without undue delay or added expense.
Applicant Review and ScreeninR. The agency will need to carefully review and
screen applicants to assure t at t~ey can qualify from standpoint of back-
ground, experience and financial capability.
Financ1nl and Contract Administration. Contractual arrangements must be work-
ed out w th farmers who have been awarded farms. Long-term, low-interest
loans should cover only land development and preparation and should allow
a reasonable development period before first payment is due.
61
,---,------
Roads and utilities, schools and other public services, are considered as
part of the social development cost and should be financed and developed
with public funds at the time of the project development. All these, how-,
ever, should be paid for under regular tax assessment schedules to all who
live in the area.
Agencies Involved. All agencies with agricultural responsibilities now
operating in the Borough could have a part in the proposed development pro-
gram. However, a special agency would have to be set up with financial
capability and authority to acquire, develop, and dispose of lands, and
administer contracts.
FundinT Sources. Several different types of funds are now available from
Federa, state and private sources. Under present regulations, however, .
these credit agencies would not be able to supply enough capital to carry
out the program as outlined.
It would be necessary for one of the present finance agencies to be greatly
expanded to handle this new program or to create a new credit supplier with
a substantial new source of funds. There is advantage of having all funds
available from a single source. In this way the development agency could
have full authority and jurisdiction over fund disbursement for short term
loans to farmers as well as long term land clearing and other capital im-
provement needs.
Whatever financial system is used, new legislation will be necessary to ade-
quately carry out the program.
Alternate Procedures. Emphasis throughout this report has been on private
ownership of a11 factors of production including land, with long term loans
made by the developing agency to farmers to pay for it.
An alternative which may have real merit and should receive careful consid-
eration is for the sponsoring agency -Borough, State or Federal government -
to own the newly developed land and to lease it.to farmers on a long term
basis as is done with grazing land.
Advantages of this type of program are as follows:
1. It would open the door to more people, making farming attractive to
a.wider range and thus possibly improve the quality of management.
2. Fewer problems would be involved in transferring ownership of the
farm within the family because of the smaller required investment.
3. There would be less need for government subsidy to individuals be-
cause of the smaller revenue needed to pay all farming costs.
62
n
[
D
.fj
.. n u
n
c
D
0
c
D
D
[
D
0
c
[
[.
c
-C
i ~ . ;
~
,!
' i §~ ~
I
D· ' l
D
c
D
D
j
1l
~
D
E
~ u --
' ~
[
~
[
[
Possible Administrative Agencies
The development program as envisioned and outlined could be undertaken by
any of several agencies:
The Borough .
The State Division of Agriculture
A State Corporation, such as a conservancy district
The Federal Government ·
It seems an agency of the State might be the most logical one to take this
leadership. The Federal Government is more distantly removed from the spe-
cific problems of the State, although it may be possible for a reclamation-
type project to be developed under sponsorship of a federal agency. Many
advantages would accrue to agriculture in Alaska if the ju~isdiction were
State-wide rather than restricted to the Borough.
Legislation Required
Special legislation will be needed by the government body which undertakes
the development program, to set it up and give it authority and funds to do
the job.
If the State is the agency, the Borough will also need to adopt regulations
and ordinances to assist. As indicated previously, a zoning ordinance to as-
sure that the better farming lands will be reserved for agriculture is es-
sential to success of the program. Zoning is a function of the Borough. If
tax exemptions for a certain development period are found to be desirable,
this also is a Borough function.
Federal cooperation would be helpful in the new development.
63
c
-c
~i=l ~~ ' i I §-
0-
D
c
D
D
c
E
1 [
I
i
~
~
§
"
[
B
c
[
[
[
APPENDIX A
Letter from Harold w. Searby
Regional Climatologist'
ESSA Weather Bureau
Anchorage. Alaska
F
~
i IJ._ ~ I 8
D-
O
E
D
~
~ s[]
c
,n
_dQ
~
j u
1i c
[
[
November 4, 1969
Mr. Gus Norwood
Alaska Power Administration
P.o. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Norwood:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Environmental Science Services Administratio·n ·
WEATHER BUREAU ALASKA REGION
632 Sixth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
It has taken me much longer to respond to your letter of October 1, 1969
than it should have. We have been busy preparing for a Weather Bureau
Regional Directors Conference, and much of our regular work was temporarily
J delayed.
Because only monthly mean temperatures are available for any of the stations
within the area of interest, this is what was used in the computation of
the growing degree days. Mean temperatures for partial months were deter-:
mined from a graphical plot of the monthly means, connected by a smooth
cqrve. The general formula for computing growing degree days is as
follows: (T -TB) N • GSS (growing degree days). TM • mean temperature
for the perfod Nand TB • base or threshold temperature (in this case 40°F).
Zero or negative results are used as zero degree days. For example, if
TM = 56°F, TB • 40°F and N • 31 days then GSS • (56-40)31 • 16x31 • 496.
Data is available for nine locations within the Matanuska•Susitna Borough.
The following table gives elevation, growing degree days and length of
growing season based on a threshold of 40°F·for these locations.
Elevation Growing Length of
in Feet Degree Days Season
Talkeetna 345 1793 5/1 -9/30
Skwentna 150 1805 5/3 -9/27
Caswell 241 1984 5/1 -9/30
Willow 600 1719 5/4 -9/28
Susitna 50 1873 4/28-10/4
Wasilla 3S 50 1939 4/25-10/3
Matanuska Exp. Sta. 150 1970 4/25-10/5
Palmer lN 220 1909 4/24-10/4
Alpine Inn (Sutton) 455 1667 5/3 -10/1
Because there are many factors that influence the average te~erature at any
recording site, an attempt to make general application of the mean temperature
from one area to another would be speculative. This does not however, make it
65
a hopeless situation. Comparison of a location with data to one without,
can be made by studying the terrain features of both locations~ The
follmving are all factors for consideration:
1. South slopes are warmer than north slopes or level ground.
2. Low areas experience colder nighttime temperatures which
generally result in lower average temperatures.
3. Proximity to large bodies of water modifies both maximum
and minimum temperatures.
4. Increases in elevation, with other factors being equal; will
on the average result in a decrease in mean temperature of
.27°F per 100 feet of increase in elevation, or approximately
l°F for 400 feet.
5. Ground cover, whether forested (cooler)or grassland (warmer).
The above list covers the main factors that influence temperature and the
resulting growing degree days. Only by studying an area of interest is
it possible to say whether the effect of each is additive or compensating.
Please accept my apology for the long delay. I hope the growing degree
day data for specific locations plus the list of influences will be
helpful.
Sincerely yours,
66
----------~·---------~-------------------------
[
-D
0
c
D
0
[
c
c
0
D
[
[
(6-a o~ L-a sa~n6~j)
sva~v Apn~s L'~~ads JO sdaw
a XION3ddV
J
]
J
J
~~ u[
!!:
!
]~
J ~
f
D
J
D
-D
-8 I
f]
]
J
'i
" ~
[
r~
R
8-
[-
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
[]
I]
[
[
L
L
LEGEND
LAND CLASS
1:·:·::··.':1 Closs II
~00o"agl Gloss m
1; ::-~ Closs Dr
I~ 0o
0nl Closs E. SEI
~ Cleared
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
R\LMER AREA
LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
Prepared by
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
And
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
314 1/2 1/4 0
SCALE OF MILES
SEPTEMBER
Figure B-1
J
J
D
D
J
D
0
D
D
0
J
u
J
.
Z/1
301J\H3.S NOI.l\1J\H3SNOO 110S
PU\1
NOI.l\fH.lSINJ~a\1 H3MOd \f>IS\11\1
.(q paJodaJd
d~W NOIJ.~OI.:IISS~10 ON~1
"3ij" ij3W1"d
HE>nOH08 \1 N.lJSnS -\1>1 SnN \1.1\fiN
paJoaJo ~
mt!Q .m.ssDJO ~ a
.zti SSDJO ~
m SSDJO ogg~g
li SSDJO l":":i::::_.:J
SS\110 ON\11
ON3~31
a o a o a o
0 ao 0 Dooa
o 0 oaooo
a c 0 ° 0 o 0 o
a a a _a_-"1-__:::-o?---"ll+----f-.J_-----j ~r-.::'>...---a--o--a--=-..r--<jt--=o o---e----~c ~ 0 a
[] [] 0 []
0 [] c 0 []
0 0 [] []
[] 0 [] [] []
[
0-
c
D
c
c
[
c
c
[
[
18
30
LEGEND
OWNERSHIP
D Private
rzzLI State
D City
17
32
5
~ Specia I Use
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
. PALMER AREA
OWNERSHIP MAP
Prepared by
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
And
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
3/4 1/2 1/4 0
SCALE OF MILES
SEPTEMBER, 1968
FiQ.ure B-3
Figure 8-4
. !,..EGENQ .. ·
OWNERSHIP
. D· Private
rzz;1 State _,
fQS2i Special Use
~ Federal
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
PALMER AREA
OWNERSHIP MAP
Prepared by
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
And
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
314 1/2 1/4 0
SCALE OF MiLES
SEPTEMBER /968
---·-----~·
D
[
D
-B
·D
D
c
D
D
c
c
c
D
0
D
c
c
[
IIH/ :I.Snllnlf
5311~ ~0 31\fJS
0 VII Ul
301A!:!3S NOI.LVA!:!3SNOO liOS
puv
NOI.LV!:!.LSINI~OV !:!3MOd V>ISVlV
Jiq paJodaJd
d"W NOI.DfOI.:iiS~10 ON'll
'13H'I '1111S'IM
H9n0!:!08 VN.liSnS-V>ISnNV.LV~
li.Zt'B m:, SSDIO
2ii SSDIO ~ ~
mssDIO ~
SSVlO ONVl
ON3~31
J
J
J
J
·D
]
Figure B-6
LEGEND
OWNERSHIP
D Private
rzzLl State
~ Special Use
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
WASILLA AREA
OWNERSHIP MAP
Prepared by
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
And
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
3/4 1/2 1/4 0
SCALE OF MILES
AUGUST. 1968
c
[
0
T -8
17
N
~o
0
c
D
0
D
D
c
c
D
D
c
[
[
[
D
D T 24 N
c
[
[
[
[
LEGEND
LAND CLASS
1:;./.J Class li
~ 0 Class m
~ . Class Ill'
~ 0 CIa ss l1l a 'lZII.
~ Cleared
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
MONTANA-SUNSHINE AREA
LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
Prepared by
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
And
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
3/4 1/2 1/4 0
SCALE OF MILES
AUGUST. 1111111
Figure B-7
Figure B-8
LEGEND
OWNERSHIP
D Private
rzzLj State
~ Special Use
~··Borough···
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
MONTANA-SUNSHINE AREA
OWNERSHIP MAP
Prepared by
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
And
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
314 1/2 1/4 0
SCALE OF MILES
AUGUST. 9
[
D
c
0
D
[
D
D
c
0
D
[
6-8 a.1n6!d
8961 :J.Sn&nlf
S311W .::10 3llt::lS
0
301A~3S NOI.L\fA~3SNOO 110S
pu\f
NOI.L\f~.LSI NI~O\f ~3MOd \f>IS\fl\f
,{q p&JDd&Jd
dVW NOI.LV~I.:IISSV1~ CNV1
~3H~ .1 ~1.:1 30HS3SHOH
Heno~os \f N .L 1 sns-\f>l sn N \f.L \f~
pUD( IIJDJS ((D pUD
pUD( PIIJDII(:l ON :3.LON
D2S:l8 l2r,SSD(0
2rr SSD(!)
m SSD(O
~ Liili'!J
~ ~
li SSD(O 1::~-:~·._:j
SS\f10 0 N\fl
CN3~31
J
J
~
J
"
J -
~
B
~ •
~
i ~
~
J
0
D
.
0
D
·D
J
c
[
~
• § . •
C·
c
C
c
~ D ~
"
~
[
6
1 [
-c
~
! D
-c
[
[
[
APPENDIX C
Average Monthly and Annual Temperatures
for Areas in Fourteen States 1931-60
[
0
c
[
1
"
[
[
[
APPENDIX C
Average temperature CF): Monthly and annual 30-year normals, 1931-60,
by climatic divisions
State and climatic Jan., I Feb. Mar Apr. May June July-Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
division
----------
Maine: Northern ____________ 13.3 14.9 25.0 38.4 51.4 60.8 I 66.3 64.3 55.8 44.9 32.6 17.9
Southern Interior ____ 19.0 20.6 i 30.0 42.3 54.1 63.0 1 68,6 67.0 58.7 48.1 36.6 23.0 Coastal ______________ 23.1 24.0 1 31.9 42.1 52.1 60.3 66.3 65.6 58.6 49.1 39.1 26.7
New Hampshire: • Northern ____________ 15.8 16.9 : 26.0 39.4 51.9 61.0 65.7 63.6 55.9 45.6 33.6 19.7 Southern ____________
1
21.6 22.8 31.6 i 43.7 55.4 64.4 69.3 67.2 5y.s 49.0 37.8 25.1
Vermont: Northeastern ________ . 16.3 17.7 27.4 41.0 53.5 62.7 67.2 65.1 57.4 46.8 34.9 20.4 Western _____________ [ 20.3 21.6 30.8 44.2 56.1 65.1 69.7 67.6 60.0 49.4 37.8 24.6
Southl.'astem ________ l 19.1 19.8 29.0 42.1 54.0 63.1 67.5 '165.4 57.8 47.2 35.8 22.7
New York: 1 "'-
Western Plateau ____ . 24.7 24.5 32.1 44.7 55.7 64.7 68.7 66.9 60.2 49.8 38.2 27.1 Eastern Plateau _____ 23.7 24.0 32.1 44.8 56.0 65.0 69.5 li7.6 60.3 50.0 38.5 26.5
Northern Plateau ___ 16.4 17.0 25.8 39.6 52.3 61.4 65.7 li3. 7 56.3 45.8 33.5 19.9 CoastaL ____________ 32.2 32.4 39.2 49.4 59.9 69.1 74,5 73.1 66 . .5. 56.5 45.9 35.0 Hudson Valley ______ 25.2 26.2 34.7 47.3 58.7 67.5 ~ 70.3 62.6' 52.0 40.6 28.5 Mohawk Valley _____ 20.7 21.5 30.2 43.8 55.8 65.2 . 67.8 60.2 49.3 37.5 24.4 Champlain Valley ___ 18.4 19.6 29.1 43.3 55.9 65.3 69.9 67.9 59.9 48.7 36.5 22.7
St. Lawrence Valley_ 17.5 18.9 28.7 43.1 55.3 64.9 69.6 67.6 59.7 48.8 36.6 22.2 Great Lakes _________ 25.5 25.4 32.8 45.2 56.3 66.4 71.1 69.6 62.6 52.0 40.3 28.9 Central Lakes _______ 25.7 . 25.5 33.o 1 45.1 56.9 66.8 71.4 69.6 62.5 51.9 40.5 29.0
Michif,!an: West Upper _________ 15.4 16.2 24.4 39.0 51.2 60.7 66.1 ti4.6 56.3 46.2 31.0 19.8 East l'pper __________ 18.3 1!!.1 24.9 38.1 49.3 5!1.2 ti5.0 64.4 5ti.5 46.7 33.7 22.9
N orthwl.'st Lower ___ 2L7 20.!1 2!!.0 41.7 52.8 t\3.2 ti8.2 lii.O 5!1.2 48.9 3ti.3 25.8
Northeast Lower ____ 20.2 1!1.7 27.0 40.9 52.5 62.ti 67.4 titl.O 58.0 4!!.0 3.~.3 24.3
Wl.'st Ct>ntral Lower_ 23.6 23.3 30.9 43.9 55.0 ti5.2 6!1.!1 ti8.ti 60.7 50.3 37.6 27.3 Central Lowl.'r _______ 23.2 23.3 31.3 45.0 5ti.6 titi. 7 71. I ti9.4 til.2 50. 7 37.5 26.7
East Central Lower_ 23.7 23.5 I 3t.ti 44.7 55.8 66.4 71. I." ti!l.6 61.8 51.2 38.4 27.3
Southwest Lower ____ 26.5 27.0 34.7 47.1 57.9 6!U \.12. 7 71.3 64.0 53.3 40.0 29.6
South Central Lower 25.2 25.7 33.8 4ti.9 58.0 ti8.2 if4 70.7 63.2 52.3 38.8 28.2.
Southeast Lower ____ 25.6 26.1 34.1 46.6 57.9 68.2 7 . 7 71.1 63.7 52.7 39.3 28.6
'Wisconsin: >
Northwest_ __________ 12.4 14.7 25.5141.7 53.8 63.3 69.0 67.0 57.9. 47.1 30.5 ' 17.6
North CentraL _____ 13.3 14.9 24.8 40.9 53.6 ti3.1 I Iii.!! li5.8 57.1 146.5 30.3 I 1!!. 0 Northeast_ __________ 16.7 18.0 27.3 42.4 54.ti tj4.4 I ti!l.3 67.3 5!!.8 48.1 33.1 1 21.0 West CentraL ______ 15.3 17.9 29.0 45.2 57.9 ti7.3 72.1 70.3 tiO. 9 I 49.7 33.1 20.4 CentraL ____________ 16.5 18.3 28.6 44.4 56.ti 6fi.3 . 70.9 69.0 ti0.3 4!1.2 33.4121.0 East CentraL _______ 19.8 21.0 I 2!1.9 43.6 54.6 ti4.8170. 7 69.5 61.3 ,50.5 35:8 24.1 Southwest ___________ 19.1 21.9 31.8 46.9 58.6 ti8.3 73.1 71.1 ti2.5 :il. 4 35.4 23.4
South CentraL ______ 20.4 22.5 32.2 46.9 58.4 ti!!.2 73.0 71.2 62.9 51.9 31i. -~ 24.5 Southeast_ __________ 21.9 23.6 32.5 45.8 56.7 67.0 72.4 71.2 63.1 52.2 37.2 25.6
Minnesota: Northwest ___________ 4.5 8.4 21.7 40.2 s4.o 1 63.1 lti!!.2 67.1 5ti.7 45.1 26.1 11.7
North CentraL _____ 6.4 10.0 22.1 39.6 .~3.1 1 ti2. 7 6!!. 3 66.0 56.0 45.1 26.9 12.6 Northeast_ __________ 10.0 12.9 23.5 38.8 so. 7 I s!!.s ns.6 64.4 55.3 44.8 27.9 15.1
West CentraL ______ 10.8 14.7 27.0 43.!1 57.2 I titi.ti i2.ti 70.5 ti0.5 48.7 30.2 17.3
CentraL ________ ----_ 11.3 14.9 27.0 44.0 57.211i6.ti 72.2 69.8 60.3 48.7 30.5 1 i. ti East Central_ _______ 10.7 13.9 25.4 42.3 55.2 64.1i 70.3 li8.0 58.4 47.3 2!1.7 16.1i Southwest_ __________ 14.3 18.1 29.2 45.4 s8.3 I 68.o 73.8 71. ti li2.0 50.3 32.3 20.2
South CentraL ______ 14.9 18.4 29.8 46.2 58.!1 68.7 73.!1 7l.ti 62.31 50.!1 33.1 20.1i
Southeast_ _____ -----15.1 18.2 29.3 45.7 58.2 67.8 72.8 70.7 lil.6 50.2 33.3 20.4
North Dakota:
Northwest. _____ -----6.8 10.8 22.5140.5 53.6 61.7 69.2 66.9 56.1 44.4 21i.2 14.7
North CentraL_ _____ 4. 7 8.8 21.6 40.3 53.9 62.2 69.2 66.8 56.2 44.2 25.0 12.6 Northeast ___________ 3.5 7.8 21.1 39.7 53.6 62.5 69.0 67.0 56.3 44.2 24.9 11.2
W<'st Centra!__ ______ l 9.1 ~ 12.8 i 24.2 41.7 54.4 i ti2.H 70.2 '!8.o I s7.3
1
4s.s ! ?~-~ , 16.6
C!'ntraL _____ -------i li.'_l i 10.1 I 2a.!i 41.1 54.1 . ti3.0 70.2 h8.0 57.4 4-5.4 i 2h./ ' 14.4
East ('l'ntraL-------1 f.!\ 10.1-! I 24.3 41.8 55.3 I li4.3 71.0 ti!l.o sx.4 h:.3 n.a 13.8
Southwl'st. __________ i 13.6 . 16.7 126.1i 42.f> 54.4 ' t\2. 7 70.9 ti8.8 51-!.0 : ~t\ I :.!!J.ti : 2'J.3
10. i 114.2 21i.O 43.3 55.7 : li4.3 72.0 ti!J.\1 59.3 ' 47 ) 29.2 I 11-!.21 South Ct•ntraL ______
5!1. 0 I 46.!) i 2h. 7 I 16.0 Southl.'nst ___________ I !!.9 12.6 25.ti 42.7 55.6 i 64.7 71.4 ti\!.5
Annual
_40.5
44.3
44.9
41.3
45.6
42.5
45.6
43.6
46.4
46.5
41.5
52.8
48.8
45.5
44.8
44.4
48.0
48.2
40.9
41.4
44.5
'43.5
46.4
4ti.9
47.1
4!1.4
48.6
48.9
41.7
41.4
43.4
44.9
44.5
45.5
47.0
47.4
47.4
3!1.0
3\l.l
3!1..0
43.3
43.3
41.9
4.5.3
45.8
45.3
3\1.5
38.l'\
38.4
40.9
40. 1
40.7
42.5
42.5
41.8
·Average temperature (°F): Monthly and annual 30-year normals, 1931-60,
by climatic divisions-continued
Rtatt-d~~~~~::m~tic Jan. I Ft-h. Mur.1
1
Apr. I May June July I Au~. St-pt. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual
Montana: I ·~ ! ! Westem _____________
1
21.8 25.8 33.0! 43.2 51.5 1 57 .. ~· ti4.9! 62.8 54.6 44.7 32.1 26.2 43.2
Southwt>stt>rn ________ 18.1 21.9 I 28.5' 40.0; 49.0 1 .'i5.X 64.1 · fi2.1 53.3 43.7 29.7l' 22.7 40.7
North Ct•ntraL .. ~--~ lti.5: 19.9. 28.1 I 42.4 i 53.1 ; 5\t . .'i. ti7.9; 65.3 55.7 45.7 31.0 22.7 42.3
Ct>ntraL ____________ I 20.9 i 23.8 ! 30.2 : 42.2 · 51':'8 , 58.4 ti7.1 M.O 55.7 46.0 32.9,26.4 43.4
Routh CentraL _____ 22.2 25.2! 32.2 I 44.0 53.7! til.O ti9.7 ti7.7 57.8 47.9 34.2 27.1 45.2
Nort:lt•astt>rn ________ 10.8 1 15.3 2ti.2 43.0 55.1 ti2. 7 70.9 tiS.4 57.5 · 45.9 2!1.8 1 18.5 41.9
Soutlwastt-rn ________ 17.!1 121.5 30.4 44.4 55.4 ti3.6 72.6 70.4 59.2 47.8 32.2
1
' 23.8 ; 44.9
Idaho: I Panhandle __________ 25.X : 29.5 36.5 4fi.O 54.2 .~9.9 flfi.ti fi4. 7 57.1 46.7 35.0 29.9 . 46.0
N. Ct•ntrall'rairirs __ 27.4 · 31.2 37.0 45.1 52.4 .~7.H ti.~.9 64.4 57.5 47.9 36.5 31.3: 46.2
N. Central Canyons_ 31.4 3ti.5143.4 .~1.7. 59.3 ti5.4 73.7 71.7 63.7 53.1 ·~39.9 I 34.6 •
1
52.0
Central Mts _________ 21.0 25.2 , 31.4 41.4 50.0 5ti.3 64.6 62.5 54.8 45.1 32.0 125.0 42.4
Southwestern '
Valleys ____________ 28.2 33.6 41.7 51.0 58.8 65.4 74.4 71.6 62.6 52.0 38.7132.0 50.8
lli~rhlands _________ 2ti.O 30.2 35.8 44.8 52.6 59.4 69.4 67.0 58.4 50.2 36.5 . 30.0 46.7 Southwestrrn I
Centrall'lains _______ l25.4 30.3 3S.2 4!Ul 5fi.2 63.4 · 72.7 69.9 61.0 50.5 37.1 :1 30.1 48.6
Northeastl'TH \'allt•ys: Hi. 7 22.ti 32.1 43.2 51.6 58.2 i titi.2 ti4.1 55.6 45.5 30.8 1 21.5 42.3
t:pper Snake River 1 I ' 1
Plains _____________ 19.fi 24.1 32.fi 44.6 53.5 f.0.5 , fi9.1 66.7 57.8 47.2 132.6 24.5 44.4
Eastern llighlaHds __ 19.1 23.0 29.9 41.6 50.7 57.8 I ti6.3 64.5 56.0 45.6. 31.4 23.7 1 42.5
Wvoming: I I 1 tell~~·s~one I 1 1 ~ • , , I>r.un.lge __________ Hi.O 19.6 2.~ .. ~ ! 36.5 45.6 52.7 ti0.4 5!1. 7 50.6 41.2 ; 2~.1
1
20 .. 4 I
Snake !>raJna~re ..... l13.9 1!1.0 1 24.4 · 3ti.O 45.7 52.S: ti0.2 5!1.4 50.7 41.4. 26.5, 17.9 I
Urren and Bear I I 1 I Drainage __________ ! 15.7 i 19.7 27.1 39.0 48.6 5fi.6 64.0 62.0 53.5 43.0 I 28.4, 20.3
Big Horn and Wind I I Hivrr Drainage ____ 20.1 24.4 32 .. 5 43.7 53.4 61.6 69.7 67.5 58.0 47.3 32.1 24.4
Powder, Little ·
Mo. and Tongue
Drainage __________ 20.9 23.7 i 30.6 42.3 52.1 60.6 69.6 67.8 57.7 47.2 32.5 25.7
Belle Fourche I
I>raiuagr __________ 21.0 23.6 30.5 42.7 53.1 62.0 71.3 69.5 59.0 47.7 32.7 25.6 1
Cht>yrmu• and 1
NiolJrarai>rainage 22.3 2.'>.3 31.9 43.4 .~3.7 63.1 72.0 70.1 59.1 48.2 33.3 26.1 I
Platte I>r.ailtai!P ..... , 23.1 25.6 30.9 41.5 51.0 60.5 ti8.1 66.3 57.2 46.5 3~.8,26.8 1·
· Colorado: I _
Ark. Drainagl' Basin i 2S. 7 31.7 37.2 4ti. !l .~fi.1 fiti.l 71.3 69.8 62.4 .'>1. 6 · 3" 8 • 31.5
1 Colo. Draina~re Basin· 21.2 2.'i.3 I 32.ti 42.8 51.7 ,. 60.1 66.4 64.5
1
; 57.3 46.7 ! 32.7 · 24.4 ,
Kans. Drai11age · I I I I Basin ______________ 281 314 374 485 5!!21686 1 751 735i647 530 1 384'312
Platte Drainage 1 i 1
, !
Basin ______________ 26.5 29.1 134.8 44.6 53.71. 63.2 · 6\l.4 67.8 59.7149.0 ll36.1
1
129.9:
Rio Urande
Drainage Basin ____ 17.2 22.7 30.5 40.2 48.4 J 56.9 61.9 60.5 54.1 . 44.1 I 29.9 i .20.2 1
Utah: I I I 1
· Wt>stern _____________ 25.3 30.6 38.4 4S.O .'>6.4 I ti.'i.O 74.0 72.1 I ti2.8 50.9 , 3tl.5 29.0 I
Dixit> ________________ 39.1 43.S 1 50.fi 5\1.3 ti7.5j 7ti.5 183.6 SI.X 75.0:63.8 1 4!Ui 41.1
'North Centra!__ _____ 2ti.ti 31.5 I 39.3 4\1.4 .~7.8 · tit\.1 i 74.9 . 73.0 ti4.0 ' 52.4 . 38.0 · 30.ti
Routh CentraL ______ 21\.9 30.8 38.1 1 4fi.\l ' .~4.8 ' ti3.2 j 70.4 · fiX.ti til.3 , 50.2 : 37.4 30.1
Nortlwrn Mts _______ 20.4 '23.8 30.9 i 41.7 .~o.o , .~7.ti fi5.3 ti3 . .'i 5.~.ti 45.3 , 31.!1 . 24.ti ,
t:inta Basin _________ Hi. 7 22.7 35.4147.0 5fi.l ti4.1 1 71.2 ti\1.0 tiO. 7 148.7 I 33.2 1 22.ti '
SoutheasL_--=-------26.4 32.3 ~1._0 51.1 59.9' ti9.1 75.9 13.7 ti5.S 53.4 l 3~.2 29.~ 1
Alaska: Southeastern ________ 29.4 30.9 35.0 41.1 47.6
South Coast_ ________ 27.1 28.8 30.7 36.7 43.1
Southwestern Islands ____________ 30.0 29.8 30.4 34.2 38.9
Copper River_______ 2.3 9.0 17.7
Cook Inlet_ _________ 12.3 18.2 23.3
31.0 42.8
35.2 45.1
Bristol Bay----------11.5 16.7 18.8
West CentraL______ 2.8 6.4 9.5
Interior Basin _______ -9.5 -3.1 7.3
31.0 42.4
24.3 37.5
26.3 43.9
Arctic Drainage _____ -12.2 -13.5 -9.5 5.7 23.7
53.3
49.7
44.0
52.3
53.5
50.7
49.1
56.2
37.9
56.0
53.4
48.5
54.2
56.4
54. 7
52.8
! 58.4
1 44.1
I
5.5.9
53.4
50.9
51.4
54.4
53.6
51.0
53.1
43.2
.'il.3
48.4
47.5
43.4
46.8
46.8
43.3
42.2
35.1
44.2 37.2 31.4
40.5 32.9 27.8
41.1 35.8 31.4
29.9 13.3 3.5
35.0 21.9 13.3
34.5 22.0 12.1
30.4 16.1 4. 9
24.5 3.4 -~.3
21.014.11-7.7
37.9
3i.2
39.8
44.6
44.2
44.9
45.7
44.2
49.3
43.~
50 7
47.0
40.6
49.1
ti0.9
.'>0.3
4R.2
42.5
45.ti
51.4
42.8
39.4
31!.5
29.2
34.6
32.9
27.3
24.5
14.4
Source: Agricultural Statistics. 1967• u. s. Department of Agriculture,
1967 from Table 840• pages 724-729. Original Source: Weather
Bureau. u. s. Department of Commerce.
n
[
~oi
·-'
c
c
0
0
c
c
0
[
[
[
J
J
J
~
-
J -
~
B
~
~
-
(
~
J f
J
~
~
D
0
J
u
0 XION3ddV J
J
D
·J
·~
B ~--
J
J
l
[
~
~··
C·
D
c
0
0 .
c
0 -
" j c
l
[
~ B !
~
¥,
~ "" ;
D -
.
~
[
[
[
-------·---
APPENDIX D
FOREIGN LAND PROGRAMS
The Alberta Land Development Program
Having recently undergone major changesf this program may be particularly
useful as a guide for Alaskan farm deve opment. This plan provides for lands
to be subjected to a soil survey similar to that performed in the United
States. From this information plus information already on hand, the lands
are assigned a capability rating for agricultural production, forestry pro-
duction, wildlife production, and recreation. This program, known as 11 Ru-
ral Land Zoning 11 is designed to set aside land suitable for agriculture,
forestry, wildlife, and recreation, and to categorize and reserve it as
such. The basis of the program is land quality with consideration also
given to social and economic factors.
After the land has been zoned, determination is made of which lands with
agricultural potential should be developed first. Next the lands are legally·
surveyed under the rectangular system and each quarter section is inspected
and appraised. Reservations are made of lands along water courses and all
stream banks, coulees, etc., from any permanent disposition. Drainage and
road systems are planned and the final plan is presented to a technical panel
composed of resource agency directors and all other land interests. Any of
these agencies or interests may make requests for adjustments. These adjust-
ments are then made if possible to the satisfaction of all concerned. Lands
are then advertised for homesteading with a priority to local farmers and
opportunity for outsiders to apply at a later time. The settler m~y file for
a homestead with a limitation of five quarters (800 acres) of land under
various public land dispositions.
In the past land clearing in Alberta has been entirely the responsibility of
the settler. A maximum clearing and breaking loan of $2 1 000 has been avail-
able to those who had cleared 35 acres with their own resources. As in the
United States, the Alberta Provincial government feels that their present
homestead policy is outmoded. Major problems have been the settler's short-
age of capital and management ability. Past settlement programs have not
been accompanied with detailed planning or screening of applicants.
Completely new approaches are now being developed, designed particularly to
help establish more economically viable farm units. Detailed planning will
be performed with a definite recognition of all land uses. Priority will
be given to settlers already farming in the area for farm enlargement and
to make their units viable. For land to be suitable for agricultural develop-
ment, it must meet certain quality standards including a frost-free period
greater than 60 days and capability of. growing short season cereals such as
barley, flax, rape, and some grass seeds.
79
-~~~---~-~-~-----~--~~~------
Homestead units under the new policy would become available only to appli-
cants who could successfully pass a form of screening which would consider
their experience 1 agricultural knowledge. and financial resources. Acreage
allocated would depend on the amount of land required to develop an economic
agricultural enterprise in the area under average managerial conditions.
In addition a land clearing guaranteed loan would be provided with a limit
of $6 1 400. This loan would be ava1lable through cor.wnercial lending agencies
with the Provincial Government guaranteeing the repayment of the loan and
also paying all interest charges for a maximum of ten years. Repayment of
the loan would be deferred for a maximum of five years depending on the in-
dividual circumstances. The farmer would agree to clear the land based on
prescribed conservation measures in order that land would be retained for
wildlife production. recreation, streambank protection. etc.
Land Development Programs from other Canadian Provinces
These programs cover clearing and development activities which vary from small
grants to substantial loans. Funds for the programs usually come in part from
Federal sources although· some provinces handle it themselves. British Co-
lumbia provides a maximum loan of $6 1 667 with 25 percent payable upon com-
pletion of the work and the balance over a 20-year period at four percent
interest. An alternative program provides $5,000 maximum with the same re-
payment terms except no payment required at com~letion of the work.
In the prairie province of Saskatchewan where clearing and breaking costs are
much lower 1 a government grant is available in the amount of $3 per acre, or
one-third of the clearing cost, whichever is less. In Northern Ontario, a
loan covering half the development cost up to a maximum of $15 ~er acre for
clearing and $10 per acre for breaking is available. Quebec has one of the
more liberal programs. This Province makes grants to acceptable applicants
of $60 per acre for 60 percent of the farm area or 120 acres, whichever is
lesser 1 up to $7 1 200 per farm unit.
In order to participate in these land clearing programs most J'lrovinces require
that the applicant be a bonafide .farm owner and operator with substantial
proportion of his income received from farming.
Australian Land Development Program
The Fitzroy Basin Briglow Land Development Scheme, being carried out in
Queensland, Australia, began in 1962 as one of the main long-term programs
in which the Australian Federal Government is cooperating with the State
governments to increase the country's agricultural production.
The Queensland Department of Land, which is responsible for the administration
of the Fitzroy River Basin scheme, fs proceeding according to a 3-point plan:
80
c
[
[]
·fJ
.J1 u
D
D
D
0
c
0
D
c
D ..
D
c
[
[
J
~
3
D
[
B
B-
D·
D
E
0
[j
D
G
c
[
[
(1) Acquisition and resubdivision of the land; (2) allocation of blocks of
land resulting from the resubdivision; (3) making loans available to new
settlers.
Outstanding leases on property in the area are terminated by negotiation
with existing lessees. The land is then redivided into parcels capable
of carrying not less than 800 head of adult cattle when sown to pasture.
Part of the redesign of the region is the planning of an adequate road sys-
tem -one of the most pressing needs of the area. Main features of the plan-
ned road system are north-to-west highways, east-to-west feeder routes, and
a reasonable access road to every block.
Each original leaseholder is offered a new title to part of his holding under
conditions that require the block to be developed to minimum standards set
up by the State. All other new blocks are also required to meet these stand-
ards.
I The remaining blocks are offered either as purchase leases or grazing home-
steads. The purchase lease tenure applies to blocks classified as not being
substantially more than a living area; these blocks may eventually be owned
outright by the lessee after he has paid off the mortgage and met minimum
development standards. The grazing homesteads are blocks exceeding 10 1 000
acres leased for 30 years; after that time the lessee has a right to further
tenure over a living area of the block.
Of the blocks offered for new settlement, 30 percent must be sold at public
auction. The remainder are allotted to applicants in accordance with pro-
cedures determined by the State; these are known as ballot blocks.
Government loans are available for the purchase price of both ballot and sale
blocks. ·. In addition, for the ballot blocks government development loans are
available for basic property improvements -such as land clearing, establish-
ment of sown pastures, fencing, water facilities, and cattle tick control
units (which include handling yards). . ·
Development of Areas 1 and 2 is nearing completion. By December 1968 1 the
254 blocks carved out of these two areas had been allocated as follows:
115 retained by original lessees; 101 allocated by ballot; and 38 sold at
auction. In Area 3 the first three blocks have been allocated by ballot.
In addition, 130 miles of main roads were completed or near completion. Cone
struction was completed or well advanced on another 427 miles of access roads
to properties. On the 101 ballot blocks more than 877 miles of fencing had
been constructed and 127 dams and earth tanks had been built.
81
Carrying capacity of the area had risen to a cow and a calf to each 7-1/2
acres. In 1930, the average stocking rate for the whole brigalow area was
about 1 animal to 30 acres.
In blocks settled soon after the scheme began, beef cattle numbers increased
from 54,000 head in 1963 to 96 1 000 by January 1968. The human population in
the entire scheme area 1s now about 500; about 1,000 additional persons are
expected by the time development is complete.
It is expected that cattle ranching will continue as the main enterprise in
the newly developing brigalow areas for many years to come. However, it is
also expected that cash crops -such as wheat, sorghum, and safflower -""rl
fodder crops -such as oats and forage sorghum -will eventually be grown
in part of the area. ·
Obviously, the increased beef production of the new area will be a big boost
to Queensland's rapidly expanding beef industry. The State now produces over
one-third of all Australia's beef. Australia is the world's second largest
beef exporter, ranking below Argentina.··
According to the Queensland Department of Lands, there has been tremendous
interest in the Fitzroy Basin scheme, both throughout Australia and from over-
seas -particularly from those interested in participating in the development
of one of the world's few remaining fertile frontiers. To all potential set-
tlers, the department points out that this is no undertaking for a shoestring
operator. Considerable capital investment is required.
In fact, to be eligible to ballot for a block today, the prospective settler
must show the Queensland Department of Lands that he has command of capital.
to the extent of A$36 1 000. The full value of a sale block developed to pas-
ture is in the vicinity of A$150,000 when stocked.
82
[
B
~B
,D
D
[
D
D
c
D
0
c
D
D
c
[
[
.<'4dV..t60~Lq~a
3 XION3ddV
~~ ~--·-----~
----
..
J
J
J ,
u
~~
Jt
D J
DC
0
D
D
d
0
·D
~8 i
.. ~
' ~
]
n
c·
~
B~
c;
c
E
D
u
c
D
[
[
L
APPENDIX E
Bib 11 osraphY
State of Alaska
Andrews, Richard A., Farms of Alaska Railbelt. Alaska Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Mimeograph C1rcu1ar 7, December 1954, 28 pages.
Andrews, Richard A., and Hugh A. Johnson, Farming in Alaska. Alaska Agri-
cultural Experiment Station Bulletin 20, Palmer, october 1956, 32 pages.
Brundage 1 A.L.1 J.G. Schubin, and W.J. Sweetman, Veal, A Market for Alaska's
Surplus Calves. Information Circular, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Palmer, September 1962, 13 pages.
Burton, Wayne E., Hos Production in Alaska: Some Economic Asiects. Alaska
Agricultural Experiment Station, R1sc. t1rcu1ar, June 196 , 7 pages.
Didrickson, Jack c., Letter, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. February
1968.
Dinkel, D.R., Growing Sweetcorn in Alaska's Cool Environments. Alaska Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Buiietin 39, November 1966, 8 pages.
Gazaway, H.P., Facts and Observations on Agricultural Develoe;ent in Alaska.
Prepared for the Alaska Division of Lands, Department of aturai Re-
sources, July 1960 1 56 pages.
Gazaway, H.P., Potential Market for Railbelt Truck Crops. Alaska Agricultural
Extension Service, Ju1y 196o, 22 pages, io references.
Governor's Advisory Committee on Economic Development 1 Alaska, Overall Eco-
nomic Development Plan. Submitted to Governor William A. Egan, State
of Alaska, Noveffiber 1962, 247 pages. Chapter on agriculture, pages
174-196,
Irwin, Don L., Recommendations for Atricultural Develo~nt in Alaska.
Alaska Agricultural Experiment S at1on, Mfmeograph~946, 7 pages.
Johnson, Hugh A., Present and Potential Agricultural Areas in Alaska. Alaska
Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 15, Palmer, February 1953,
28 pages.
83
--···-----------------------~-------------------------------~---------------------·
Johnson, Hugh A., and Harold T. Jorgenson, The Land Resources of Alaska.
Book published for the University of Alaska by University Publishers,
Inc. 1 New York, 1963, 551 pages,
Johnson, Hugh A. and Kenneth L. Stanton, Matanuska Memoir: The Story of
How One Alaska Community Develoged, Alaska Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 18, Palmer, 1 55, 117 pages, 70 references.
LaZelle, Mason and others, Overall Economic Development Plan, Election Dis-
trict SevenA State of Alaska. June 1962, Mimeograph, 16 pages plus 4
pages of ex ibits on agriculture.
Moore, Clarence A., Farming in the Matanuska and Tanana Valleys of Alaska,
Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 14, January 1952,
32 pages.
Pillsbury, H.W. and c. Ivan Branton, Greenhouses in Alaska. Coooerative Ex-
tension Service. University of Alaska, Publication No. 30 1 1964 1 24 pa~es.
Saunders, A. Dale, Financing Alaska's Farms. Alaska Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 35 1 May 1964, 31 pages.
Saunders, A. Dale, Potato Costs. Alaska Agricultural Exneriment Station,
Mimeograph report, Project 124 1 Revised April 1964.
Saunders, A. Dale 1 Producing Beef for Alaska's Railbelt, A Summar£ of Expected
Costs and Possible Returns. Alaska Agricultural Exreriment s ation, Mfsc.
eire., March 1962, 7 pages.
Stevens, Delwin M., An Economic AnalTsis of Sprinkler Irrifation in Alaska's
Matanuska Valle,. Alaska Agricu tural Experiment Stat on, unpublished
manuscript, 196 1 50 pages, 25 references.
Stevens, Ira M.1 ATriculture in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Prepared
as a part of A aska State Housing Authority's Comprehensive Planning
Report, Anchorage, 1968, 18 pages and map.
Storey, Charles D., A Proposed Livestock Research Program for Alaska. Alaska
Agricultural Experiment station, Palmer, september 1963, 13 pages.
Vroman, c.w., and Associates, Some Potentials and Problems of Cattle Ranching
on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Onder contract with Aiaska Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, 1956, 32 pages.
---------Mimeographed reports, letters and memoranda. Alaska Agricultural
Experiment Station, (unpublished).
---------Tourism -Recreation in the Matanuska-Susitna Borouqh. An interim
report, Alaska State Hous1ng AutHority, December, 1967, 24 pages, 13
references.
84
[J
[
6
~B
.n ~u
0
c
0
0
[
D
D
c
D
...; c .
'
"' c
[
[
[
g
~r
0(
0
E
D
[J
c
D
E
-c
i ~B
i 10
c
[
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Conservation Program, Palmer County 1968 ACP Programs. Alaska
State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation service Office, Palmer,
1968.
Agricultural Exchange Delegation to the Soviet Union, 1963, Soviet Agriculture
~odal. Report of Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture and others,
gn Agricultural Economic Report No. 13, u. S. Department of Agri-
culture, Washington, D.C., June 1964, 82 pages.
Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Alaska Agricultural Statistics.
Annual reports of u. s. Department of Agriculture statistical ReportinQ
Service, cooperating with Alaska Division of Agriculture and Alaska
Agricultural Experiment Station, Palmer, 1953-1968.
Mims, O.L., J.L. Paschal, and w.u. Fuhriman 1 Some Economic Aspects of Farm-
ing in Alaska with Chief Attention to the Matanuska Valley. Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, u.s. Department of Agriculture, cooperating with
Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, FM-74, Washington, D.c •• January
1950, 89 pages.
Myers, Kenneth H., Facts for Pros~ective Farmers. Economic Research Service,
Farmers Bulletin No. 2221, u •• Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.c., July 1966 1 22 pages, 24 references.
Rockie, W.A., Ph*sical Land Conditions in the Matanuska Valley, Alaska.
Physical Lan survey No. 41, u.s. soil Conservation service, washington,
D.c., 1946 1 32 pages and map.
Schoephorster, Dale B., et al, Soil Surve' of Matanuska Valley Area, Alaska. u. s. Soil Conservation Service, Wash nqton, b.C., 67 pages, .72 maps.
Stocker, Frederick D., The Role of Local Government in Economic Development
of Rural Areas. Agricultural Economic Report No. 94, Economic Research
service, u.s. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., July 1966,
20 pages.
-------Crambe, A Potential New Crop for Industrial and Feed Uses. Agricul-
tural Research service, 34-42, u.s. berartment of Agriculture, 1962,
9 pages.
-------Markets for the Products of Crosland in Alaska. Progress report,
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, .s. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.c., July 1950, 50 pages.
-------Alaska Conservation Needs Inventora. u.s. Soil Conservation Service
and other agencies, 1968, 57 pages an 8 tables.
85
--------------
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management, Establishing a Farm in Alaska. u.s. Department
of the Interior, 1961, 32 pages.
Bureau of Land Management, HomesteadinA in Alaska. u.s •. Department of the
Interior, Anchorage, August 1963, imeograph, 17 pages~
Bureau of Reclamation, Region 7, Some Sulsested Standards and Guides for Use
in Farm Bud,et Analysis. u.s. Hepar ment of the lnter1or, Denver, Novem-
ber 1§63, 5 pages, 14 references.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Kenai National Moo~ Ranfe A Plan
for Proaosed Management and Development. u.s. Department o the Interior,
Port1an , Oregon, undated, unpaged.
Morgan, Joseph M., Alaska, A Reconnaissance Re,ort on the Potential Develop-
ment of Water Resources 1n the Terr1torv o Aiaska for lrr1sat1on, Power
Product1on and other 8enef1c1ai uses. ~iaska D1strict Off1ce, Bureau of
Reclamation, u.s. Department of the Interior, House Document 197 1 January
1952, 287 pages, hard bound.
Spencer, David L. and John BQ Hakala, Moose and Fire on the Kenai. Reprint
from "Proceedings, Third Annual Tall limbers Fire Ecology Conference",
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, u.s. Department of the Interior,
April 1964 1 24 pages, 4 references.
Surrett, Lonnie W,1 Memo to Secretary of the Interior on trip to Tenth Inter-
national Grasslands Congress at Helsinki, Finland, July 1966. Bureau ~f
Indian Affairs, u.s. Department of the Interior, August 10, 1966.
Department of
Other Publications of u. s. Government
Ellis, Clyde T., Soviet Atriculture and Electric Power. Report and Staff
studies to the Commit ees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Public
Works, United States Senate, Senate Document No. 71, 86th Congress,
2nd Session, Washington, D.c., 1960, pages 90-119.
86
·---~----~------------------~-~-----~-------~-~----
0
[
D
~B
A )u
0
c
D
D
c
D
0
c
D
-
0
-'1 c
[
[
n
[
E
~~
0
E
D
[]
c
c
·[
I'
National Advisory Conwnission on Food and Fiber, Food and Fiber for the Future, u.s. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1967, 361 pages.
Transportation Task Force, Transgortation and Economic Development in Alaska.
Federal Field Conwnittee ¥or evelopment Planning in Alaska, Anchorage,
· 1968, 193 pages, (Pages 25-29 on agriculture).
Tuck, Bradford H., An A?sre~ate Income Model of Semi-Autnnomous Alaskan
Economy. Prepared or ederai F1e1d Committee for Development Planning
1n Aiaska, 1967 1 116 pages, 63 references. · ·
Canadian Government
Agricultural Research Branch, Research Retort 1960-64, Experimental Farm,
Mile 1019 Alaska Highway, Yukon terri ory. Canada Department of Agri-
culture, 12 pages.
Agricultural Research Branch, Research Report, 1965-1966, Research Station,
Beaverlodge, Alberta and Exyer1mentai Farms. Prince George, Bril1sh
Coiuffi61a; Fort Verm111on, A Berta; Fort simpson, Northwest Territories;
Mile 1019 Alaska Highway, Yukon Territory. Canada Department of Agri-
culture, 32 pages.
Bell, J.M., R.K. Downey, and L.R. Webber, Oil and Oilmeal from Canadian
Ra~eseed. Canada Department of Agriculture, Pu611cat1on I IS3, Ottawa,
19 3, 14 pages, 23 references.
Day, J.H., Reconnaissance Soil Surve* of the Takhini and Dezadeash Valleys
in the Yukon Territory. Researc Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture,
1962, 78 pages and map. .
Experimental Farms Service, Ex~erimental Farm, Mile 1019 Alaska Hi,hway,
Yukon Territory, Progress eport 1953-59. Canada Department o Agri-
culture, 2o pages.
Gubbels, Gerard H., Gardenin~ in the Yukon. Canada Department of Agriculture,
Publication 1192 1 1963, 9 pages.
Gubbels, Gerard H.1 Plastic Crop Shelters and Greenhouses. Canada Depart-
ment of Agriculture, 12 pages.
Guitard, A.A., R.L. Taylor, J.C. Brinsmade, J.A. Gilbey, J.A. Newman, and
J.Y. Tsukamoto, Grgwth of Spfiig Cerffls in N~ffhwe,ter~ CBnadl ~nd Alaska. Canada Department ogr1cu ure, Pu cat on22 , 1 6 , ll
pages.
87
Information Division, Pictures of Northern Agriculture. (16 aood rictures
of Northern Canada's Experiment Stations, together with captions, show-
ing some ~ossibilities for farming and rroducts grown). Canada Depart-
ment of Agriculture, 1967.
Miller, R.J., Letter and reports on British Columbia Land Clearing Assistance
Acts, British Columbia Department of Agriculture, Victoria, 1968.
Nowosad, Frank s., A Handbook for Northern Gardeners. Canada Department of
Agr1culture, Publ1cat1on 1081, June 1964, 21 pages, 15 references.
Sawyer, C.D., Letter and reports on Alberta Homestead Sales. Alberta Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests, Edmonton, 1968.
Thiessen, H.W., Letter and mimeograph report on Alberta Land Clearing Pro-
gram. Conservation and Utilization Branch, Alberta Department of Agri-
culture, Edmonton, 1968.
--------Research Hi-Lites, 1955-56. Whitehorse Exrerimental Farm, Mile 1019
Alaska Highway, Yukon Territory, 28 pages.
--------Research Hifthlights~ 1957-58. Whitehorse Experimental Farm, Mile
1019 Alaska Rig way, Yu on Territory, 22 pages.
Articles from United States Department of Agriculture's Weekly Periodical, FOREIGN AGRicuLTuRE ·
Akers, Howard A.1 Kenya Strepsing Development of its African Farming Areas.
October 3, 1~66.
Frostenson, Georg, Sweden Seeks Urban-Rural Balance. March 4, 19~8.
Koeller, Harold L., France's Troubled Farmers, a By-product of Agricultural
Change. December 25, 1967.
Korpela, Martt1, Finnish Government Seeks Solution to Farm Problems. November
6, 1967.
Lankford, James F., Sweden Considering a New Agricultural Policy. October
17. 1966.
Myrdal, Gunnar, Land Reform in its Broader Economic and Social Setting.
August 15, 1966.
Quintus, Paul E., France Moves Ahead in it~ Program of Farm Restructuring.
September 5, 1966.
88
c
[
·o
~B
A Ju
..-·
~
D
0
D
D
c
0
D
c
D
0 .
c
[
[
c
~~
r 8~,
j 0,
D
]
~ 0 ~ J
~ 1 0 l
~
~
1 0 j
0
I 8 ~
I .,
0 ' .
~
c
G
[
Schubkegel, Martin G., Argentina's New Rural Rent Law Foreshadows Improved
Land Use. August 14 1 1967.
-• ' • • ' • ; -·~ -., • : • : • < _. • ,, • -•
Stephanides, c.s., Agriculture Moves Up in Khuzistan. June 31 1968
Stephanides, c.s., Iran Rounds Out the Fifth Year of Its Land Reform Program.
September 11 1 1967,
Wache 1 Michael, Farm Restructuring in France-Some Social Aspects. May 22 1 1967.
Articles from Periodicals·{Non-sovernmental)
Parker, Bob, The Farmers Who Hired a Berry Merchant. THE FARM QUARTERLY.
Cincinnati, winter 1966-67.
Smith, Thomas E., Triticalel Grain of the Future. From American Societ.v of
Agrono~, CROPs AND sol s, February 1967.
Books {Non-governmental)
Atwood, Evangeline, We Shall Be Remembered. {Story of the Matanuska Valley
Colony). The Alaska Methodist University Press, Anchorage, 1966 1 191
pages including early pictures and list of original colonists.
Clawson, Marion, Polict Directions for u.s. Agriculture. Published for Re-
sources for the Fu ure 1 by the John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1968 1 382 pages, 52 references.
Morrison, Frank B., Feeds and Feeding. (Abridged, ninth edition). The Mor-
rison Publishing Company, tiinton 1 Iowa, 1961 1 696 pages, 11 appendix
tables on feed values.
Rogers, George w., The Future of Alaska, Economic Consequences of Statehood.
Published for Resources ?or the Future, Inc., Sy the John Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, 1962 1 311 pages.
Other
Burton, Wayne Eugene, Alaska's Agricultural Production Potential, An Eco-
nomic Analysis. 'PhD. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, 1968,
263 pages, 53 references.
89
_____ , ____ _
Smith• Homer. FarminT on the 60th Parallel, A Plan for the Kenai. MimeoqraDh
rerort. Homer. A aska. 1967. 23 ~ages.
90
r
[
6
0
D
D
n u
D
c
D
.10
~ c
[
C