AAES has been renamed Alaska Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (AFES).

Sub-communities within this community

Recent Submissions

  • Food Prices in Alaska with Supplemental Cost of Living Data...1960 to 1970

    Marsh, Charles F. (University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service, 1971-03)
    The Quarterly Report on Alaska's Food Prices was started by economists at the Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station in 1951. Since then, enumerators have collected food prices from three to six retail stores in selected Alaska cities for analysis and reporting by the Experiment Station. Collection of prices occurs simultaneously in each survey city during the week containing the 15th day of the month surveyed. Enumerators quote prices on the brand of each food item which is selling in greatest volume in each store surveyed. Prices of individual food items from the stores in each city are averaged to obtain the survey price. Only six cities were surveyed when the study first began - Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka. Because o f the need and demand for cost o f living data from other areas with in the state, the survey has been expanded to include Petersburg, Kodiak, Seward, Valdez, Kenai-Soldotna, Nome and Bethel. Over 6,000 copies of Alaska's Quarterly Food Price Reports are printed each quarter and mailed by request to government agencies, chambers of commerce, labor organizations, businesses and individuals throughout Alaska, other states and several foreign countries.
  • Supplement to Soil survey of Fairbanks Area, Alaska September 1963 containing SOIL INTERPRETATIONS for NONAGRICULTURAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

    United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1974-04
    The soil survey of the Fairbanks Area, Alaska, published in September 1963, included some interpretations of soil properties for use by engineers and others involved in construction, but emphasized interpretations for agricultural use of the soils. This supplement contains additional interpretations for use by planners, contractors, engineers, home builders, and others concerned with nonfarm uses of soils. Detailed descriptions of the soils and soil maps are in the original report and are not repeated here.
  • Soil Survey: Fairbanks Area, Alaska

    Rieger, Samuel; Dement, James A.; Sanders, Dupree (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963-09)
  • Soil survey and vegetation : Northeastern Kodiak Island Area, Alaska

    Rieger, Samuel; Wunderlich, R. Eugene (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1960-10)
  • An examination of a development rights purchase program for Alaska Agricultural lands: Final Report

    Workman, William G.; Arobio, Edward L.; Gasbarro, Anthony F. (Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, 1978-12-09)
    Many Alaskans are concerned about the conversion of highly productive agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses now occurring in the state. Land on the urban fringes of Anchorage and Fairbanks that once produced vegetables and grains or supported dairy farms appear is the most vulnerable to this conversion. As major population centers grow, residential, shopping center and industrial land uses displace agriculture because they render greater returns. This displacement is viewed by some as not being in society's best interest. Those concerned about the loss of agricultural lands argue that these lands are some of the best agricultural lands in the state and are vital to maintaining the agricultural economy of the state. In addition, it is suggested that their preservation will help to maintain a much desired way of life and to provide needed open space. The state and municipal governments in Alaska have made attempts to intervene in the land market to slow down or stop agricultural land conversion. Methods employed to date include tax incentives and the sale only of the agricultural rights on state or municipal lands. This report discusses the feasibility of an alternative means of preserving agricultural lands, namely, the public purchase of development rights from private landowners. Under this voluntary arrangement, private agricultural landowners would be compensated for giving up their option to develop their land for nonagricultural purposes.
  • Hey! We Like Milk Too!

    Gazaway, H.P.; Marsh, Charles (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, 1956-09)
    Increased consumption of fresh milk in Alaska's schools means stepping up imports from surplus producing Stateside milksheds.
  • The Agricultural Outlook: 1965

    Marsh, C.F.; Burton, W.E.; Saunders, A.D. (Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, 1965-03)
    The general economic picture for 1965 indicates another better-than average year for the nation as a whole. Strong advances in economic activity now underway will likely continue at least through the first half of the year. Current trends reveal no serious imbalances in the economy. Forces expected to shape demand expansion for business, consumers and the government in coming months are (1) continued uptrend in business investments, (2) favorable inventory-sales ratios, (3) further improvement in the goods and services export-import trade balance, (4) more favorable factors affecting demand for housing, schools, and facilities, (5) expanded consumer purchases of goods and services, (6) another big sales year for autos, (7) larger consumer expenditures for food, and (8) increased government purchases of goods and services.
  • Alaska's Farm & Consumer Resources: 1964

    Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, 1965-01
  • Alaska's Farm & Consumer Resources: 1963

    Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, 1963
  • Farm and Consumer Research:1962

    Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, 1963-04
  • Some Economic Aspects of Farming in Alaska: With Chief Attention to the Matanuska Valley

    Barrows, H.H. (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1950-01)
  • Market for the Products of Cropland in Alaska

    Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1950-07
    A preliminary appraisal of the market for agricultural products grown in Alaska is set forth In this report. The publication is the result of one of several studies being conducted by Government agencies to ascertain the basis and the extent of Alaska's agricultural future. Early sections of this report describe present marketing practices and agencies. The last section discusses the characteristics and location of the market and indicates measurements of its potential size In terms of the acreages of local cropland that may be required to supply it. The extent of the future market outlets is of primary importance to both present farmers and future settlers.

    Dickson, James G. (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1956-11)
    The preliminary survey of the plant species of grazing value found in the several areas is reported . Some comments on management and other problems are included. The information given is restricted to a few sections. Although the flora is similar for those studied, additional islands must be studied before general application to other specific areas is attempted.

    Scarseth, George D. (University of Alaska Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1956-09)
    Alaska's Extension Service was fortunate in again obtaining the services of Dr. George D. Scarseth, Director of Research for the American Farm Research Association. His task during the 1956 growing season was to review the fertility status of potato fields and to diagnose the potato malady that has reduced yields in recent years. Having familiarized himself with the symptoms during the 1955 season, he came back to Alaska in August of this year to study in greater detail the onslaught of this malady and to help interpret the results of studies designed to: explore basic causes and possible corrective measures. Dr. Scarseth's report is here reproduced in full for the guidance of farmers and agencies dealing with food production in Alaska.

    Andrews, Richard A. (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1955-06)

    Gazaway, H.P.; March, Charles (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1956-09)
    When offered more than once daily and at five cents a half-pint, Palmer school children consumed fresh milk at the rate of 1.1 half-pints per day, an increase of 138 percent over normal. Seward school children customarily eating lunch at school consumed 1.5 half-pints per day. Sixty Alaskan schools - comprising 90 percent of the Territory's school enrollment - can be supplied with fresh milk. The market potential existing in these schools is estimated at 5,000,000 half-pints (2,500,00 pounds or 300,000 gallons) annually. This is 8 to 10 times the amount now consumed in Alaskan schools. Increased consumption of fresh milk in Alaska's schools means stepping up imports from surplus producing Stateside milksheds. Alaska's dairy industry now supplies less than two-thirds of the Territory's fresh fluid milk.

    Anders, Richard A. (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1954-12)
    Over 10 million pounds of milk were produced in Alaska during 1953. Almost two-thirds of this was produced in the Matanuska Valley . Milk sales were greater than sales of any other farm product. During the year 1953, dairymen in creased herd size by an average of 3 milk cows. Most of this increase came from first calf heifers which brought with them lower milk production. About half of the dairy farmers sold over 125,000 pounds of milk per farm . The average dairy farmer had 288 acres of which 104 were cropland. Dairymen had 4.6 acres per animal unit in feed crops. The trend in use of cropland was toward more hay, silage and pasture and less grain, potatoes and vegetables. Dairymen have been increasing their acre ages of grass for hay and pasture. In 1953, 41 percent of the acreage cut for hay was a grass mixture. Purchased feed was the greatest single expense. It amounted to about one-fourth of total expenses. Machinery purchases were second and labor was third. Fertilizer , the fourth largest expense, amounted to $8. 50 per acre of cropland. Milk sales made up 88 percent of the cash income. The net returns from farming ranged from a loss of over $7, 000 to a net gain of over $14,000 . The average was $4, 843. Fifteen dairymen realized over $6,000 . Fourteen farmers who realized a high net return from dairying had 7 more cows and sold 2, 200 more pounds of milk per cow than the 14 farmers who had a low net return. Furthermore, they bought more fertilizer and realized more from each dollar spent for purchased feed. Average cost of keeping one producing cow for the y e a r, except for unpaid operator and family labor and interest on family capital, was $664.11 . It cost an average of $7.97 to produce 100 pounds of milk . The range was from $4,07 to $13.97 per hundredweight per farm .
  • Farms of Railbelt Alaska

    Andrews, Richard A. (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1954-12)
    Gross farm income to Alaskans was nearly 3 million dollars in 1953. Milk was the most important farm product, followed by sales of potatoes, poultry and vegetables, The Matanuska Valley provided over half of the total farm production, Seventy-six farmers were interviewed in 1953, Of these, 39 were dairy farmers , 23 were potato farmers , 5 were poultry farmers, 4 were vegetables farmers and 5 were miscellaneous farmers. Dairymen as a whole increased their cow numbers faster than they cleared land in preparation for larger herds. Potato farmers experienced a very poor year. Yields were high and acreage planted was greater than ever before, but disease cut the crop drastically and the market was very competitive, This was the first year in the past 5 that potato growers as a group lost money. Poultry producers obtained a greater average rate of lay per hen than in previous years, Even so, the margin of return was small. The Tanana Valley was the second most important agricultural area in 1C)53. Potatoes were the leading enterprise. There was much interest in dairy farming but lack of capital, buildings and a dependable water supply are major deterrents to development of this enterprise, On many potential dairy farms, cleared land was no longer a limiting factor because over one-third of the cropland was either idle or in green manure crops. Tanana Valley potato growers who received the greatest net farm returns from their farm operations obtained high yields, had a high percentage of US #1 potatoes, had a sizeable acreage in crops and utilized considerable family labor. The other leading agricultural areas -the Kenai Peninsula, Southeastern Alaska and the Aleutian Chain-were the source of over 20 percent of the total agricultural production in Alaska during 1953. Several types of farm enterprises prevailed in these areas and on varying scales of production. Dairy and poultry were the leading enterprises in Southeastern Alaska, poultry and beef on the Kenai Peninsula and beef and sheep on the Aleutian Chain. No one enterprise existed on sufficient numbers of farms to make analysis possible when information was collected by the survey method.
  • Potato Farms in Alaska

    Andrews, Richard A. (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1953-10)
    Nearly 150 rural families produced potatoes in the Railbelt area of Alaska during 1952, Only a small proportion of these families were specialized potato farm ers. Since potato production is readily adaptable to part-time farming, many of these families grew potatoes on a part-time basis or as a minor enterprise, Twenty-four of the 83 farmers interviewed in the Matanuska Valley specialized in potato production with an average of 11 acres per farm. Thirteen of the 18 farmers in the Tanana Valley grew potatoes as a major enterprise averaging 16 acres per farm. Virtually all of the potatoes on the Kenai Peninsula were grown as a minor enterprise or as a part-time venture. As a source of farm income to Alaskan farm ers, potatoes ranked second only to dairy, A major portion of the money spent by potato farmers in both the Matanuska and Tanana Valleys was for improving service buildings and increasing equipment inventories in 1952, The net returns on 24 Matanuska Valley potato farms ranged from a loss of $5, 489 to a net gain of $8, 958 and averaged $3, 446c Three farmers lost money in their farm operations. Yield was the major factor influencing income from potatoes in 1952, Farmers with the higher net return obtained 6,8 tons of U„ S. No, l's per acre as compared with 4,4 tons obtained by farmers realizing less from farming. Both groups had approximately the same acreage of potatoes. Farmers with the higher incomes grossed more and spent less in their business venture than did farmers with lower incomes. Savings were incurred on hired labor, feed, seed, machinery repairs, fuel and oil, and fertilizer. Farmers with the greatest acreage of potatoes netted only $300 more than those with fewer acres. The form er averaged 14 acres of potatoes per farm and the latter 8 acres per farm. Labor costs for farmers with greater acreages were 3 times greater than those for farmers with the lesser acreage. The difference was $1,171, The potato yield per acre on 48 Matanuska Valley farms ranged from 0 to 8,7 tons of U,, Sc No, l ’ s and averaged 5,6 tons. Twenty-eight of these farmers reported above average yields. Local variations occurred among general areas as to both yield and management practices. Average yield was higher in 1 of the 3 general areas and another area used more fertilizer and seed than the third. However, the rates of fertilizer and seed used per acre have been increasing in all areas in recent years. A frost in August severely cut average yield in the Tanana Valley. Some fields were a total loss. In spite of the frost, average net returns on 10 potato farms were $4,019 which was about $600 more than Matanuska Valley potato growers realized. Potato farmers on the Kenai Peninsula were severely handicapped by lack of equipment. Many planted and harvested by hand. Potatoes were a common cash crop; 12 of the 19 farmers interviewed produced small acreaged.

    Andrews, Richard (Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, 1953-10)
    Over half of the farmers in the Railbelt area of Alaska located on their farms after World War II, Farming on the current scale is so new that it is in a constant state of flux. Changes frequently occur in farm practices and in farm ownership. Shortage of cropland and inadequate buildings place a temporary ceiling on expansion of major lines of farming in all agricultural areas. Liberal amounts of credit must become available for continuation of the rapid expansion experienced in the past. The major reason why various kinds of agricultural enterprises developed as they have in leading agricultural areas can be found in the history of agricultural settlement. The Matanuska Valley provided nearly half of the agricultural production in Alaska in 1952, More families were engaged in farming in this valley than in any other area in Alaska. Milk sales topped all others as a source of income and more full-time farmers had dairies than any other enterprise. Potatoes were second in importance with numerous part-time farmers growing varying acreages. Poultry and vegetable production both follow a similar pattern of numerous small producers and only a few specialized farms. The Tanana Valley was the second most important agricultural area in 1952, Most farmers relied on potatoes for their major source of farm income. Vegetables were grown as a minor enterprise on several farms. Few flocks of hens were found., Although interest in dairy farming has been strong in this area, only 3 farms produced milk in surplus quantities in 1952* Of these 3 farms, one was a public institution, one was exceptionally large,, and one was exceptionally s^iall. Lack of housing and domestic water have deterred both dairy and poultry farming,, Compared to the above areas, agricultural development on the Kenai Peninsula has been slow. Farmers have been greatly handicapped by lack of a source of borrowed capital and by distance from a si2able market. Livestock and poultry are the major enterprises. Even though 12 of the 19 farmers interviewed grew potatoes, acreages usually were small. Vegetable production is not great because most of the produce is sold locally and not much produce is demanded by this market. Shortages of equipment necessitate a great deal of hand work.

View more