A Study of Small Farms in Matsqui Municipality in The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SMALL FARM FUNCTION: A STUDY OF SMALL FARMS IN MATSQUI MUNICIPALITY IN THE LOWER MAINLAND OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by GUY STRETTON SWTNNERTON B.A., University of London, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Geography We accept this thesis as conforming to the requirefLs^andard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1969. In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the require• ments for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Depart• ment or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Geography The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date June 9, 1969. ABSTRACT This thesis documents and analyses some of the major character• istics of the present socio-economic situation of small farms in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. To obtain a realistic appreciation of the small farm problem consideration is given to the fact that the major function of small farms is not always agricultural production. The major term of reference for the study was that the character• istics of small farms are the result of the functions the holding serves for the farm operator and his family. Small farms were identified as holdings of less than twenty-one acres and the heterogeneous functions of farm occupancy were synthesised into three levels of farm operation on the basis of working time spent on the holding, relative income ob• tained from farm and non-farm sources and the value of,the sale of agricultural products. Three types of small farm operators were recog• nised: full-time, part-time and residential. The Lower Mainland was selected because it is one of the most important agricultural areas in British Columbia and the region contains a high percentage of the total number of small farms in the province. In addition, the positive relationship between urbanisation, small farms and the part-time and residential farmer was likely to be clearly repre• sented because the area is subject to the metropolitan dominance of Van• couver. Within the Lower Mainland, Mats qui Municipality was singled out ii iii for specialized study since it is reasonably representative of the Lower Mainland's agriculture and is within commuting distance of Metropolitan Vancouver. The Real Property Appraisal Records for Matsqui Municipality were used as the sample frame and a random sample of forty fain operators completed the interview schedule. The evidence indicated that many of the small farms under study were not viable economic units, and some of their occupiers may be classed as low income families. However, the low financial returns reported by many of the small farm operators Implied that their reasons for living on farms were not necessarily founded on economic considerations. Social rather than economic factors explained the respondents' higher level of satisfaction with rural than city living, whereas any dissatisfaction with living on farms was related to the lack of economic success. The three most frequently stated reasons for preferring rural living were availability of space, a better place to bring up children and a super• ior physical environment to that experienced in urban areas. The evidence also indicated that there was an inverse relationship between dependency on farming for a livelihood and the level of satisfaction with rural living. The three factors which were most important in accounting for the relative economic success or failure of small farms were managerial efficien• cy, the availability of working capital and the desire of the farmer to operate his holding as a commercially orientated business. Because the majority of full-time small farms do not adequately ful• fil economic or human needs they will be phased out, whereas small farms used essentially as a place of residence or operated on a part-time basis will become increasingly common in the landscape of the Lower Mainland. iv This is because although they do not adequately meet the economic require• ments of a modern agricultural system, they do provide their occupiers with sufficient independence to satisfy their social needs>^ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xi A(3KNOWLEDGEMENTS xii INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. THE SMALL FARM PROBLEM $ Choice of Criteria for Identifying Small Farms Factors Relating to the Persistence of Small Farms Identification of Pull-Time, Part-Time and Residential Farmers II. THE EVOLUTION OF AGRICULTURE IN THE LOWER MAINLAND 16* Suitability of the Lower Mainland as a Study Area Matsqui Municipality as the Specialized Study Area Physical Geography of Matsqui Municipality Historical Geography of Agricultural Development Present Agricultural Situation Development of an Agribusiness Attitude Consequences of Urban Growth Sources of Primary Data in. ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FARM FAMILY Ill; Farm Tenure and Distribution Size of Farm Units Choice of Farm Enterprise Size Factor Type of Operator Intensity of Farming Operations Interrelationship of Factors. Capital Value of Small Farms Factors Affecting Farm Performance Farm Labour Contact with District Agriculturist Marketing Procedure v vi Farm Family Income Income from Agriculture Income from Off-Farm Employment Amount of Off-Farm Employment Type of Of f-Farm Employment Perquisite Consumption and Welfare Payments Summary IV. NON-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE LIFE OF THE FARM FAMILY Social Background and Subsequent On-Farm Migration Place of Birth and Ethnic Origin Migration to the Lower Mainland Level of Mobility Reasons for Farm Occupancy Duration of Farm Residency and Age of Operator Demographic Characteristics of the Farm Family Education Levels of Members of the Farm Family Education Levels of Farm Operators and Wives Education Levels and Future Plans of Farm Children Involvement in the Community Social Participation Economic Participation Degree of Isolation Within Mats qui Municipality Within the Lower Mainland Social Reasons for the Persistence of Small Farms Level of Satisfaction with Rural Living Reasons for Preferring Rural Living Future Plans of Small Farm Operators Summary V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Factors Accounting for the Presence of Small Farms Economic Circumstances of Families on Small Farms Non-economic Aspects of the Life of the Farm Family Conclusion Factors Accounting for the Economic Success or Failure of Small Farms The Relative Value of Full-Time, Part-Time and Residential Small Farm Operations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES I. SOME EXISTING GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF FULL-TIME, PART-TIME AND RESIDENTIAL FARMS II. SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION FOR AGRICULTURE Til Page III. SELECTION OF SAMPLE FRAME AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE 156 17. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR SMALL FARMS .....158 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Relative Importance of Farm Size Groups in Census Division k and Census Sub-Division UO, Matsqui Municipality 1951 - 1961 18 II. Urban-Rural Population Breakdown for Census Division 4, 1951, 1956, 1961 and 1966 21 III. Comparison of Area and Use of Farm Land in Census Division k and Matsqui Municipality for the years 1951 and 1961 23 IV. Comparison of Operators and Type of Farm Tenure in Census Division k and Matsqui Municipality for the years 1951 and 1961 2k V. Changes in Farm and Improved Farm Land Acreages in Census Division k and Matsqui Municipality for the Period 1921 - 1966 32 VI. Crop and Livestock Production by Cash Income for the Fraser Valley in 1961 33 VII. Comparison of Area and Use of Farm Land in Census Division k and Matsqui Municipality for the year 1966. 3U VTII. Percentage Distribution of Small Farm Respondents by Physi• cal Relief in Matsqui Municipality U5 IX. Percentage Distribution of Small Farm Respondents by Siae of Holdings 18 X. Percentage Distribution of Small Farm Respondents by Ad• justed Size of Holdings 50 XI. Percentage Correlation Between Size of Farm Holdings and Types of Farm Enterprise for the Survey Farms... 55 XII. Percentage Distribution of Small Farm Respondents by Types of Farm Enterprise. 58 XIII. Percentage Distribution of \Land Use Types by Small Farm Respondents 60 viii ix Table Page XIV. Percentage Correlation Between Types of Farm Operator and Types of Farm Enterprise 62 XV. Percentage Distribution of Small Farm Respondents by Esti• mated Total Capital Value of Farms.. 63 XVI. Percentage Distribution of Farm Respondents by Real Property Taxes Levied on the Farm Unit 6j> XVII. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Relative Fre• quency of Personal Contacts with the District Agriculturist. 68 XVTII. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Relative Fre• quency of Attendance at Meetings or Field Days Sponsored by the District Agriculturist 69 XIX. Percentage Distribution of Farm Respondents by Gross Value of Farm Products Sold 72 XX. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Gross Income from Off-Farm Employment • 74 XXI. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Type of Occu• pation of Operator's Wife 75 XXII. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Amount of Off- Farm Employment Expressed in Days • 77 XXHI. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Type of Off- Farra Employment 19 XXIV. Percentage of Farm Operators Reporting Types of Perquisites Consumed 81 XXV. Percentage Distribution of Farm Respondents by Place of Birth of the Husband 87 XXVT. Percentage Distribution of Farm Respondents by Place of Birth of the Wife 87 XXVII. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Immediate Pre• vious Living Location 93 XXVTII. Percentage Distribution of Farm Respondents by Farm Childhood Reported by Husband and/or Wife.. 9h XXIX. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Number of Years Resident on the Farm 9$ X Table Page XXX. Percentage Distribution of Farm Respondents by Age of Operator • 96 XXXI.