HOWARD L. HILL AND FRANK U. MAIER
AsLS FARMING has become more closely related to urban occupations and life, the rural tradition of the family farm has been changing and is being challenged. The farm population has declined. Farm production has become specialized and mechanized. Most of the descriptive characteristics of the family farm system have changed. Occasionally it is sug- gested that the tradition of the family farm is no longer relevant to the realities of American agriculture in the sixties. What does it mean?
The ideal of the family farm had its achieved through a system of individ- roots in the colonial past, when land ually owned and operated family farms. was abundant relative to labor. Early Individual ownership of farms thus pro- efforts to establish feudal systems of vided the foundation for civic virtue land tenure failed, because unsettled and for social and political stability. and unclaimed land was generally avail- This preference for the family farm able to farmers of moderate means who in turn produced land policies during depended on family labor. Thus, during the next century that further rein- the colonial period, settlers developed forced the ideal, and, because agri- strong sympathy for the idea of indi- cultural lands were abundant, the Fed- vidually owned and operated farms. eral land policies during the 19th Thomas Jefferson's exposition of what century gave it strong support. Al- we now call the family farm was nur- though few Federal restrictions were tured in this soil. In his view, an agri- placed on the transfer of lands once culture of owner-operated farmers was title was granted, the coincidence of desired as the means to a good society abundant land and lenient land dis- rather than being an end in itself. He posal programs assured wide distri- held that the basis of enlightened self- bution of ownership of farmland over government was the independence and much of our country. self-reliance of the individual. Self-re- Even during Jefferson's lifetime, liance rested on social equality and though, the role of agriculture began economic security, which could best be to change as the percentage of the 166 The Family Farm in Transition 167 total work force that was employed in land that is leased has been fairly agriculture began to decline—72 per- stable—about one-third. In areas of cent in 1820, 59 in 186O5 3Ö in 1900, commercial farming, with their in- 27 in 1920, 12 in 1950, and 6 in i960. creasing size of farms and higher farm However important the family farm income, the proportion of farmland is as a system of agriculture, the small- under lease is high; land is commonly ness of the farm sector means that the leased both by full tenants (who rent family farm cannot be relied upon as all the land they farm) and by part the only source of civic virtue and owners (who own some land and rent social and political stability. additional land). In most of the low- Even before large-scale disposal of income farm sections, however, the public lands ended, farm tenancy proportion of full owners is relatively was increasing. As this trend pro- high. gressed, the concept of the agricultural For the country as a whole, the shift ladder emerged as an explanation for to fewer and larger farms has been the existence of tenancy in a system accompanied by a rise in part owner- that cherished the goal of owner- ship and increased use of such devices operatorship. A farm iDoy could climb as vertical integration and land pur- up the agricultural ladder step by chase contracts to gain control of the step—a worker on his parents' farm, resources needed for larger operations. a hired farmworker, renter of a farm, Farm operators seemingly have a basic the owner of a mortgaged farm, and interest in income levels and a second- finally, owner of a debt-free farm. ary interest in tenure status. Improving the operation of the Now the major concern is whether agricultural ladder was seen as a way the trend toward the larger and more to preserve the system of owner- specialized farming operations is com- operated family farms. Such programs patible with a family-farm system. As as publicly supported credit, research, a goal or an ideal of farm organization, and extension were also expected to the family farm has changed little. But assist family farmers. the actual conditions on what is com- Later, programs for conservation monly thought of as family farms have and for production control and price undergone continuous change, both support that were developed gave fur- in organization and in relation to other ther support to the idea of individually sectors of the economy. owned and operated farms. The right Nevertheless, a study by Radoje to participate in these programs, how- Nikolitch, of the Economic Research ever, for the most part is not limited Service of the Department of Agricul- to family farms. Whether or not these ture, showed that in numbers of farms, programs tend to strengthen a family the family farm overwhelmingly pre- farm system of agriculture is not vailed in 1949 and 1954 in all parts of evident. the country and for most of the census types of commercial farms. DISCUSSIONS of how to maintain and In that study, as in this paper, family strengthen our system of family farms farms were recognized as businesses are no longer concentrated primarily in which operating families are risk- on the issues of security of tenure and taking managers who do most of the the rights of tenants and sharecroppers. work. The labor supply of the usual Important changes in the tenure farm family is equivalent to 1.5 man- structure have taken place, and the years. inferior status sometimes associated Ninety-six percent of all farms and with tenancy has changed. 94 percent of all commercial farms were The proportion of all farmers who classed as family farms in 1954. More- are tenants (who operate only rented over, these percentages seem to have land) has declined, but the amount of increased slightly between 1949 and 168 Yearbook of Agriculture 1963 Blue-Collar Workers Replace Farmers as Largest Rural Occupational Group
Professional, Technical, and Kindred Workers
Managers, Officials, and Proprietors (Except Farm)
Clerical, Sales, and Kindred Workers
Craftsmen, Foremen, Operatives, and Kindred Workers
Service and Private Household Workers
Laborers (Except Farm and Mine) Farm Laborers and Farm Foremen
Farmers and Farm Managers
1940 1950 I960
1954, even though the average size of excess of 2,500 dollars a year. A hired all commercial farms increased from wage expenditure of 2,500 dollars is 276 to 310 acres. roughly equivalent to 75 man-weeks of hired labor—slightly in excess of 1.5 THE 1959 CENSUS of Agriculture dis- man-years of hired labor. closed a situation not greatly different. The variation among regions, how- In 1959, for the whole country, 5.6 ever, was considerable. In the North- percent of all census farms reported east, 11,1 percent of all census farms annual expenditures on hired labor in spent 2,500 dollars or more for hired 77îf? Family Farnï in Transition 169 labor in 1959; the Corn Belt, 3.2 per- States to 56 percent in the Delta cent; Lake States, 2.9; Northern Plains, States. 3.3; Appalachian, 2.5; Southeast, 5.0; These data indicate that the ideal Delta States, 4.6; Southern Plains, 8.0; of the family farm as one relying pri- Mountain, 12.7; Pacific, 19.6. The aver- marily on family labor is more relevant age in 48 States was 5.6 percent. and more easily attainable in some Census data on farm expenditures types of farming and regions than in for hired labor also were analyzed for others. commercial farms by type of farm. The But what are the long-term trends in percentage of commercial vegetable the family and hired worker composi- producers who reported expenditures tion of the farm labor force? of 2,500 dollars or more for hired labor We obtained data from the Statistical was 36.8; fruit and nut growers, 38.0; Reporting Service of the Department cotton, 12.0; tobacco, 2.1;,cash grain, of Agriculture on the annual average 4.9; miscellaneous, 28.1; other field of monthly numbers of farm family crops, 25.4; poultry, 9.4; dairy, 7,9; workers and hired farmworkers by livestock ranches, 16.6; other livestock, regions from 1929 to 1962. During 5.4; general, 6.4. The figure for all com- the depressed years of the thirties, all mercial farms was 8.5 percent. More- regions experienced at least some drop over, within each of the types of farm, in the relative importance of hired regional variation was great. w^orkers in the farm labor force, very likely because of an accumulation of ANOTHER WAY of looking at the posi- family labor on farms as the rate of tion of the family farm is to look at ofF-farm migration slowed. the composition of the farm labor force between family workers and DURING THE period of the Second hired workers. This measure has the World War, another drop in the pro- advantage of reflecting the tenure portion of hired workers in the farm status of all the members of the farm labor force occurred in all regions ex- labor force, whereas consideration of cept the Pacific States—probably a re- the proportion of family farms among sult of the retention of family workers all farms obscures the statistical weight on farms under Selective Service pro- of hired workers on the relatively few cedures, the general wartime scarcity larger-than-family farms. For com- of hired labor, and the Umited mech- mercial farms for the country as a anization of farm operations because of whole, Mr. Nikolitch found man- the planned wartime production of years of hired labor to have been 25.4 farm machinery. percent of all farm labor in 1954, In the period after 1945, however, having decreased from 27.8 percent in several diíTerent patterns may be ob- 1949. Not surprisingly, he also found served among the geographic regions. that hired labor as a percentage of Only slight year-to-year changes and all labor varied considerably by type no trends have been evident in four re- of commercial farm. gions—Middle Atlantic, East North Regional variation also was great Central, West North Central, and within each of the types of farm. For Mountain. example, on vegetable farms in 1954, Moderate but fairly steady increases the relative importance of hired labor in the proportion of hired workers in varied from 20 percent in the Northern the farm labor force after 1945 appear Plains and 29 percent in the Delta to be the pattern in the other five areas. States to about 80 percent in the Our data provide only inconclusive evi- Southeast and Pacific regions. On dence of the relative position of the cash-grain farms in 1954, hired labor family farm in these areas. as a percentage of all farm labor In the Pacific region, an increase in ranged from 10 percent in the Lake hired labor probably resulted from in- (>7;{--2S2°—oa- -i;{ 170 Yearbook of Agriculture J963 creases in total production of specialty period since 1900. At the same time, crops, which require much labor, and however, the proportion of land in full- from farm enlargement. In this region, owner farms declined from 53 percent with by far the largest percentage of of all land in farms in 191 o to 31 per- hired workers, the family farm has never cent in 1959. dominated the farm scene as completely The proportion of full tenancy de- as in most other regions and could be clined from a high point of 42 percent declining further. in 1930 to 20 percent in 1959, and In New England, the increase in the the land area tenants operated de- hired-labor portion of the farm labor creased from 31 to 15 percent. force has probably resulted in large A significant tenure trend with refer- part from a sharp drop in the number ence to ownership of farms is the rise in of smaller farms. This may actually part ownership—that is, farms made represent little or no loss in the relative up of both owned and rented land. position of family farms. This tenure class since 1940 has in- In the South Atlantic, East South creased steadily in relation to other Central, and West South Central re- tenure classes, comprising 23 percent gions, the increasing proportion of hired of all farm operators in 1959. Part workers is explained partly by sharp owners operated 45 percent of all decreases in numbers of sharecropper land in farms. units (whose family members are Although a sharp drop in tenancy counted as family rather than hired occurred after 1950, there was little w^orkcrs) and reductions in numbers of decline in the total area leased. Two low^-production and subsistence farms. factors are responsible. Renting by In all three of these regions, the decline part owners has increased. Part owners in the number of small farms (includ- in 1963 operated 219 million acres ing sharecropper units) was much under lease—more, in fact, than the sharper than for the Nation as a whole, 163 million acres rented by tenants. so that betw^een 1945 and 1962 the The other factor is the increase in tmmber of family w-orkers fell by about average size of tenant farms. This has one-half. Meanwhile, hired w^orkers in- been due to the decline in the numbers creased slightly in the South Atlantic re- of sharecropper farms, w^hich are gion and decreased slightly in the other comparatively small, and of other two regions. The resulting increasing small, tenant-operated farms. proportion of hired labor in the farm Large declines in numbers of small- W'ork force, how'cver, may not consti- and medium-sized farms have oc- tute an actual weakenins^ of what our curred among tenant farms and among country desires as family farms, be- all categories of tenure. The number cause sharecropper and other small, of farms from 10 to 500 acres declined low-productive farms are tisually not by 1,467,000 betw^een 1950 to 1959, considered to be family farms. while the number of farms with 500 acres or more rose by 33 thousand. LAND TENURE arrangements of farm As one w^ouid expect, the dropout operators take on particular im- of farm.s was higher among smaller portance in any appraisal of the family ones. Disappearance of farms of 260 farm. The traditional tenure goal of to 499 acres accounted for less than i full ownership has continued to hold percent of the total decline. Seventy- a strong attraction for many farm tw^o percent of the total decline con- people, yet it has been undergoing sisted of farms of few'Cr than 100 acres. modification. Exceptions to the overall pattern w^ere The percentage of all farm operators the East North Central and West classed as full owners has been un- North Central States, where the changed since 1950 at 57 percent— heaviest dropout was in the 100- to a higher proportion than any other 179-acre group, amounting to 36 and The Family Farm in Transition 171 44 percent, respectively, of the total capital investments ranging from 30 decline in numbers of farms larger thousand to 60 thousand dollars, and than I o acres. Corn Belt farms ranged from 50 thou- Rising land values permit compara- sand to 100 thousand dollars. tively few farmers to purchase enough The lowest capital requirements were land for large-scale operation. Many on farms in the Southeastern States farmers with small acreages and excess that were representative of most cot- machine capacity attempt to purchase ton-, tobacco-, and peanut-producing more land and thereby contribute to farms in the region. But net farm in- upward pressure on land prices. Many comes there were also low in relation other farmers choose to invest their to most typical farms in other areas. limited capital in machinery or liv^c- The farm types selected for the an- stock and to rent some or all of their nual costs and returns studies of the land. Thus only a fifth of all farms of Economic Research Service arc impor- 2 thousand acres or m.orc are operated tant, typical operating units in differ- by full owners, while three-fifths are ent farming areas, and in most instances operated by part owners. they are the most common unit. They Farmers who prefer to rent (rather are representative of commercial farms. than purchase land) avoid paying high Thus their capital requirements and prices for land, but they probably pay other organizational characteristics higher rents. Their efforts to lease land would be expected to differ from part- have bid up effective rental rates. More- time or other farms, wdiere the sale of over, higher rental returns also indi- farm products is not the major source of rectly contribute to the upward pressure family income. Such part-time and res- on prices of farmland because the higher idential farms are not family farms as rental returns make investment in farm- the term is commonly understood. land more attractive to farm and non- All of the types of farms studied farm people alike. showed substantial increases since 1950 in their total capital requirements, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL required for reflecting increases in the amount and farming poses serious problems for many value of resources used. With few persons who wish to get established on exceptions, the investment in land and farms of adequate size. buildings increased at a greater rate A 1962 report by the Economic Re- than total farm investment. Moreover, search Service, ^Tarm Costs and Re- the investment in land and buildings turns, Commercial Farms by Type, makes up a sizable portion of the total Size, and Location," showed a large capital investment, amounting to 80 variation in total capital investments percent or more on 18 of the typical per farm. These investments range from commercial farms. Farms in these 13 thousand dollars per farm on small groups were primarily producers of tobacco farms of the North Carolina cash crops, including cash grain, Coastal Plain—which had an annual tobacco, and cotton farms, and ranged net farm income of 2,500 dollars—to from small family units to highly nearly i million dollars per farm for capitalized, large-scale farms. large cotton-general farms in the San Joaquin Valley of California, where OVERALL, the asset position of com- net farm incomes amounted to nearly mercial agriculture is good. At the 80 thousand dollars annually. beginning of 1962, the equities of farm Of 39 types of farms in 21 major operators and other owners of farm farming areas reported in these studies, resources w^ere nearly 87 percent of the 25 had a total capital itivestment in value of farm assets. This ratio was 81 1961 of 50 thousand dollars or more, percent in 1940 and 91 percent in and II types exceeded 100 thousand 1950. Capital assets of agriculture in dollars. Typical dairy farms had total 1962 were 207.3 biUion dollars, com- 172 Yearbook of Agriculture 1963 pared to 131.6 billion dollars in 1950 Still other changes, less apparent in and 52.9 billion dollars in 1940. their effect on farm organization, have Increases in the sixties in the capital direct meaning for the family farm tra- assets of agriculture resulted chiefly dition. Of particular importance are from rising prices of farmland. The the declining need for land in crop increase in the level of capital assets production, reduction locally in land and in prices of farmland has had an available for farming as a consequence adverse effect on beginning farmers of growth in urban and other nonfarm who arc without substantial family uses of land, and the increasing reli- assistance and on established farmers ance of the farm people on nonfarm who need to enlarge if they are to meet employment. minimum standards of farm income. From 1950 to 1959, ^^^ acreage used For farmers in these two kinds of for crop production in the United States situations particularly, means other declined from 377 million acres to 358 than ownership must be used to some million, and the acreage harvested from extent to gain control over resources 336 million acres to 317 million. The needed to attain adequate levels of decline of about 6 percent in cropland farm production. harvested was more than offset by a In specific instances and on some 27-percent increase in the average pro- types of farms, operators rely heavily ductivity of harvested acres. on nonfarm sources to provide some of The increase in production per har- the farm resources. Livestock-share vested acre has been attributed largely leases, farm partnerships, and pro- to increased use of fertilizer. Some of ducer-processor contracts are examples the increase is also due to concentra- of this type of agreement. Each of these tion of production on better lands, as potentially provides that the person farmland is transferred to other uses who supplies the farm operator with such as to woodland and pasture. This outside capital also participates is shown by the regional differences in actively in making some or all of the the patterns of declining cropland and management decisions. Just how much shifts of cropland to other uses. the use of various arrangements to Relatively large declines in the acre- acquire more capital has diminished age of cropland harvested occurred farmers' rights to make major manage- from 1950 to 1959 in four regions— ment decisions is difficult to determine. Southeast (23 percent), Appalachian This matter has great significance, (18 percent). Delta (16 percent), and because the terms under which a farmer Northeast (12 percent). The Northern acquires land and capital resources de- Plains, Southern Plains, and Corn Belt termine whether he actually makes im- all had a decrease of about 8 percent portant management decisions, shares in crop acreage harvested. Slight in- these decisions with someone else, or creases occurred in the Mountain and even largely turns them over to some- Pacific regions. one else. But even where farm manage- The effect on farming opportunities ment decisions rest mainly with farm of a continued drop in the use of land operators, their decisions more and for crop production will depend on more must be coordinated with the op- whether land taken out of production eration of farm suppliers and processors, is suitaljle for farming and is actually and adjusted to the requirements of needed for agricultural production. government agricultural programs. Attention was given to these points in a publication in 1962 of the Depart- WE HAVE TRACED the development of ment of Agriculture, "Land and Water the family farm tradition and descriljed Resources, A Policy Guide." significant changes in agriculture that According to projections it reported, have transformed the organization of the national need for harvested crop farms. acreage by 1980 to supply domestic The Family Farm in Transition 173 and export needs for food and fiber A number of factors contributed to would be 291 million acres, or 26 this trend. Urban and industrial ex- million fewer acres than the acreage pansion have multiplied the number harvested in 1959. By 1962, the com- of employment opportunities available bined operation of the Feed Grain and to farm people. Decentralization of fac- Conservation Reserve programs were tories and businesses into rural areas instrumental in reducing harvested and improvement in roads have made crop acreage to 288 million acres— nonfarm job opportunities more acces- 3 million fewer acres than the pro- sible. A third consideration is the in- jected needs by 1980. creased desire of farm people generally Upon the completion of Conserva- for higher incomes. Some farmers, with tion Reserve and Feed Grain contracts, too little capital or credit to enlarge a major problem relating to the family their farm, actively seek outside em- farm will be to find uses for this land ployment and make their farming a that are compatible with production "moonlight" operation. needs and also take account of the The combination of off-farm employ- needs of farm families for adequate ment and farm operation is sometimes income. In the absence of continued pointed to as being at variance with payments for land diversion, it can be the family farm tradition, according to expected that the incentive to return which a farm should be capable of pro- land to crop production will be great, viding adequately for a farm family unless profitable alternative uses for and of utilizing fully its labor. More diverted land are developed. and more farms, however, have failed Urban and other nonfarm uses for to meet one or both of these conditions, land have had important effects on as the cash income needs for modern farming in many localities through a living standards continue to rise and reduction in the acreage locally avail- as mechanization further reduces the able for farming. The reduction is time for farm operations. not great nationally, although the effects on individual farmers are some- REALISTICALLY, the alternatives to the times serious and may necessitate combination of farming and off-farm relocation or continued operation with employment may be much less desir- a reduced acreage. About i million able, from both an individual and acres a year were required for urban community point of view. The alterna- and industrial growth, highways, air- tives, broadly speaking, are to continue ports, and the like from 1950 to 1961. as full-time farmers but to be underpro- This land was classed as rural before ductive, or to discontinue farming and its conversion to urban use, and some seek full-time nonfarm employment. of it had not actually been in farm To implement either alternative in use. A problem that is more serious a way that benefits the families con- locally is the disruptive effect on farms cerned requires specific and sometimes of land speculation extending beyond difficult measures. For many such oper- the area of imminent urban expansion. ators, a shift to full-time farming would involve the acquisition of additional Oi^F-FARM EMPLOYMENT i S an impor- land. Within limits, this could be done tant source of income for many farm through the use of credit. But to try people. Thirty-four percent of all com- to achieve this on a large scale would mercial farm operators reported some seriously bid up prices of farmland. off-farm employment in 1959, com- Farm families who rely in part for pared to 27 percent in 1950. Off-farm their income on nonfarm work often employment of 100 days or more was are reluctant to seek full-time nonfarm reported by 15 percent of the commer- work if it involves relocation to urban cial farm operators in 1959, compared areas. Even those who would like to to 9 percent in 1950. leave may lack the skills needed to get 171 Yearbook oj Agriculture 1963 employment at a wage that would reduction in farm numbers and farm- cover their relocation costs and exceed ing opportunities for rural youths. their present incomes, including the Without doubt, migration from agri- value of food produced for home con- culture over the decades has benefited sumption and housing. many of those who left and has exposed new opportunities outside agriculture ONE MEASURE that may ease the prob- to their descendants. Important bene- lem of some farm people in shifting fits have accrued to agriculture also, to full-time nonfarm employment is for the decline in the farm population the assistance provided by the Man- is one of the factors that underlie the power Developmeni and Training Act great improvements in agricultural of 1962. Farmworkers with less than productivity. 1,200 dollars of annual net family in- come are eligible for assistance under THE FAMILY FARM has adjusted to the act, which provides financial as- many stresses, but when we focus sistance for training and relocation and attention on some of its characteristics allowances while training. The net we may overlook the significance of income limit on eligibility, however, other important trends in the structure would eliminate from participation of agriculture. many farmers who still operate inade- The high capital needs and the more quate-sized farms and rely in part on specialized management ability needed off-farm employment for their income. for modern commercial farming could Some young adults, however, may be lead in the direction that farms become able to quahfy for training and allow- quite dependent on outside financing, ances under the youth provisions of with farm operators divested of an the act. ever larger share both of ownership of Probably the most serious challenge farm resources and of decisionmaking. to the family farm ideal is the difficulty Furthermore, some types of farms of entry into farming at a level that may become sufficiently large and holds promise of economic progress specialized that both their manage- for the farm family. ment and labor force are hired em- It spells a serious inequality of oppor- ployees. Finally, farming opportunities tunity between yoimg farm people more and more may come to be heredi- who do and who do not inherit a tary, so that farms are transferred substantial interest in a profitable and within families from generation to well-organized farm or otherwise bene- generation. fit from family assistance. (It must be Any of these developments could conceded, of course, that such in- take a direction sharply contrary to equalities of opportimity are not un- the ideal of the family farm. known in other economic activities.) The diificulty of becoming a success- HOWARD L. HILL joined the Depart- ful family farmer is made more serious ment of Agriculture in igfjy and has been by the fact that farm people, histori- engaged in land tenure research in the cally, have had high birth rates, so Resource Development Economics Division that each generation of farm children of Economic Research Service. He was is more than sufficient to replace the born in South Dakota and studied at South preceding generation. Dakota State College and the University Furthermore, the actual numbers of of Wisconsin. opportunities for employment in agri- FRANK H. MAIER since ig^4 has done culture have been declining steadily. research in land tenure and farm labor The results are evident in nearly every investigations in the Farm Production rural community where pressure of Economics Division of Economic Research economic and technological change in Service. Ele studied at Valparaiso University farming have brought about a sharp and the University of Chicago.