w" rvrmwmv W'ijmw m“ WW"WHWW .;I1....1 .-.1 ' °’. ' ” W" IIIIII III] IIIIIIII II’IIIIII I'III‘I‘II'III .‘l‘I‘I III: IIIINII “'1 I”. “III“ 1' II:I IHIHI IIIIII' II . I "I‘VWVI‘W'P‘ ‘ 'uIr I. 1.: J' 3 1.3:!“ ., 11;?II1 $14 a; II I‘IIIII’I’I‘ 11"” I'm“. MI I“. (- . "111 1 I'll.1 i II II amt.“ T 3: . '11:“- 3;. I. ' IIII . EIIIII III II1._r IIIiItII'I: -. f .1 II. .-1III . III IWI IIII'IIflIIII III” IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IwI‘ ‘1' III 1 1,. I.I IIIIIIIL IIIIII II . j “IIIIIM a,“ 11' 1:43:15.“ :9; .7 ”h“"1”' ” ..'“ "WVIJ '“”I .III I’Im’1m"vféi*g 1.1.1' .1. 1111'. ‘ ‘ . :;: :1 111' .3... 1"I’1”I M .1.. . .1. . 1.1'II'1.1|! 1| II I ,I‘I I1 I =1 I : I:;I'I.I'IIII .Il 'I'II'IIIIIIII III IIIIIII III .IIIIIII'I III IIIIIIIII “II EIII‘ .IIII 51“”; III. lg . ’ 1.. z: I 1 I 111 . "’I"1I-' 1 M II .IH.;.I1..- . 1 .HI IIII'I' I I I III'IIIIIIIII' "I'LII'IIIII' IIIII‘I'II IIWII ‘IIIIII I 1’I’II'1II Ijv.‘ ”II JII‘v I kg”: .‘ ' ' VIII MW" 1 .1.’III. I II”1 I "W. Hm 1“ . 1I1' 1 111?... I "' "I1 “WIV II III “I IMII’I ! “I I . ' ' ' ' ’1 . . " II1'IIII I.I’ 1‘1" :3'1‘" . J' 1 III III ’. I . IIJII’IlII IIIIII II’II’I’IIIIJ.’ I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII'I 1’ RI" .11: «1.1;; lIIII-IIIIIIII I I’I III: 'III I 1II| I:I.l .‘FIII lIII” IIIHI "II‘ ' i1|.;"J‘I II I153111F‘I1 51” ft? 1:3”. +3: 1-1. I .1. 1' II. 'I 1. III-11'! IIIIIJ1,|IIII§I11'II "I IIIII‘II' .th .1IIIIIIII1’ IIIII III I. I 3.“: II‘I EH11 11251.. 5’1" I" It .-‘|""" IrI-' ,III . I .71 I '1I I “III. ‘% I31 1141“?” '16s .I ,. "IIII'II 1;.I1I“ '11'II'II'I1||::*III1. I I‘Il' II’I III: III}; III: IIIE'III-I IIIIII I’I‘ ”III I'I::.:'I’III1|’ I‘IIIII' . 'IIJFHEH 11...! "' Rh": ‘T'EE'. 1 1 "WI III. " f"";..' " ‘ 1' E .1" “"1" ”111'“ 1’1'3'.1~11'..”i171”...’r’:::="1"1.5“ W: . .‘f I 1'” IIIII.‘ :I-I' .13. 1' "‘.."I.I..' :' .II'JII” -‘1::' MI" 1.” ._J.1_,’.If'....’::” .11” f“_‘§H—1 :~“~ -" ' Il' " II ' ‘ " ': 1 =’ 31.134: “1.2:. — "'— “ "1'1 Amwms °1’*”°.1I1§Ar1’.==”””" ‘ ‘ I‘:"’.‘:’.~‘”.i‘=”s‘;r.. ”tits-1'..- 1. , . . «we. 911mm 9’. :5- -- * -.-'1‘»" 1' 1’" ..,....’1 " 1 : .:’f-€1;"I"""-"'- ., ' " 4:“ .,,. . k, As 5H6...N .311 A 195.4.- .I.’ . 1 . IIIIII .. , 1' . I , .. .' II1I'III IHII IIIII I"1 .- 'A’ I..}‘.‘- :21: ’l .I. ' .‘ IIIII I I wmls :fQIr m. |DW~4¢§ M .555 II III. I..1.I I. I. ‘l 7-:.'0;2I 'Hj'III' _ - I 19- . 11' . I.“ ' ml " "'I H' ' '1- ,....: y... - .. ‘ 7'. MWlfiAfl smwmwgasm - . V Wfifiamfielmér Murphy. ’1] 117' ' . .1 _ MIJ’ '_" 1955 ' “ * “ ' . 1 I ' 1 I . . .' 1. . _ .' 11 I: I I 1 ' 1 . 1 ".I 'I I"" I III I “‘1 1 I" 'I I. .1’» '1 11 I I I I 1 1‘ II . .' ”IIt I|1|1 ‘11 1 1 I I I II 1 I II "I :I'I I.’ '.' I I. I I II'... II II’1I'.I II1I .1.."" "I. :.I'III I 1.. .III I°I 1 r ‘ ’ . 1‘. 11" . ’1 ' I: .I-I’I 'I‘J 111. ' .',. l' 1’ '1 I, i .II' I III‘III IIII III'II IIIIII' IIIIII | lIII I..I|" I II III;'|. II 1'. 1 ’. ' 1 : I. 1' 1. 11 ' "°.1.".'l .. ' 1 . 1.1‘1 511'” "E 1:1"? *‘ . i’I1.|,','1.."’I’I" I III=I.|.I I.'MI’IIII1I' I'I1I' IIIIIII IIIIII'IElI “1‘ 1 "I ’.II.III‘;.I (:’_'III I :TI1I'I'II ”I. I II .I IIIIII 'IIIII'I.I I“. III I IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII II HI IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII. III.IIIIIII IIIIIf IM'II’IIII .' IIIII ’IIII smut1.II1.JI,I1:I.I..I*ILI.:HIII113“? ' 41’ .3"... .1 11’1'1.‘ ” "‘.. ' .1... .1 1. .1. ’1" "‘1. *‘ II.1I'+'1 '-'.I1.T.I'I II I IIIIII I. '1 'III'.I|;I§II 1 I 1 11' I I I III: II III 1III 'IIIIIIIIJ II’I III' I'IIIII' 'III III. IIII I INIIII ”II III‘I‘iI. :gIHI - VIII '1"! “III? I IIII'IIN I IIIIII IIHIUUIS‘I 115‘ IFIIJ‘M’I IIII' . IIII‘IIIIIIII II 1' IIII‘IIIJI. If.v IIIIIII IIIIII'I.‘ I .orI .°I._['I f” . i'g’ {I‘IP “1 fiim ‘ I]; Eh!" {IQ} . .| .1. .I 1 -‘I I II 1.? .1. [F ,1 WI “3:53.?“ 1 ' .1.-11111‘11111‘1 ’11 ‘1’1.””'I I” 1’ '11” 1: ’iei' . ’11:». .3211 11.11 1.111 . . 1 ‘51.“.1 11 1, I! ‘I'I I: II II'” IN! “I | ' , . 'II ,1 I‘d”. .; u . .. M’ 11’. 1 ’1’ 1I1I..1. 111 1.1". .2. - 111 1 .1 1.1 .1. 111 1. 1.1 1 . 1» II',1 1..’ .1 I11“ 'I III“. III .1 I .' 1"“ 11 IIIIIIII "I. -——.——- - o‘— -—-—- .-.———__—.-_——' _ ;‘.-— W...— - F“. iiflgfi i=3!» J V..- ATTITUDES OF MICHIGAN FARMERS TOWARD GOVERNMENT PRODUCTION CONTROL PROGRAMS AS SHOWN BY A 1954 SURVEY By WILLIAM mam-.1312 MURPHY, JR. A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1955 THEQ‘S ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to deternine the attitudes of the farmers toward the gevernnent production controls and to analyse the relationships between these attitudes and certain characteristics of the tan: and farmer. The.infcrneticn for this study was gathered by personal interviews with 414 Inchigan far-ere in the summer of 1954. The sample consisted of farmers located in four areas which represented different types of heavy commercial agriculture. Only those farmers who had an allotment of 16 acres or more of wheat were interviewed. It was on farms where the wheat acreage was out that the farm operators would be most aware of the government control programs. In addition, various managerial decisions were necessary on these farne. Ihe characteristics of the farmer GOD! sidered in the study as possibly influencing his attitudes toward the government programs were: farming experience, age, tenure status, per cent of incmne fron.farning. membership in a turn organization. and at- tendance at,neetings held by the county agricultural agent. The farm characteristics considered were: total fern acreage, total tillable acreage, type of fern, and intensity of livestock.progran. It was found that most of the farmers had thought about continued acreage allotments but were not particularly concerned about possible future effects on their farn.operations and organisation. 'lhile the farmers were willing to accept acreage allotments, they were more reluc- tant to accept more stringent controls such as marketing quotas. Part of this reluctance was probably due to the desire of the farmers to have 11 361561 a more complete freedom of choice as to whether they would or would not comply with allctnents. In spite of the possible effect of the marketing quotas on farm operations, only about four out of ten farmers took part in the balloting in 1954. Over two-thirds of the farmers thought the govern- ment would enforce the penalty for wheat sold on the market, but only about half as new farmers thought the penalty would be enforced for wheat fed on the farm..- A Although the farmers indicated they did not any. marketing quotas, over 50 per cent of the farmers believed that all commodities supported should be supported at the same percentage of parity. Of those farmers who didn't believe that all products should be supported equally. nearly one-half believed that the support level had to be hinged 1,. son manner to the surpluses of the individual products. . . I ‘ During the four year period between 1950 and 1954 the farmers became more favorable to the direct payment plan of supporting farm income. This may have resulted because farm prices had fallen under the storage program. Also, it may have been that after operating under the storage program for four more years, the farmers were just looking for better methods and the direct payment plan was readily available as an alternative. The faraers had indicated an acceptance of acreage allctnents and price supports , but there should be a better system of ocmnmnioaticn to pro- vide more intonation and alternatives to the farmers in order that they may develop a more informed opinion. 1 Approved W lajor Professor iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to those who helped with the development and completion of this study. “ Special appreciation and thanks are expressed by the author to his major professor, Dr. Lawrence W} Witt, under whose guidance and direction this study was made. Thanks are expressed to Dr. Dale E. Hathaway for his helpful suggestions. The author assumes full responsibility for any errors that may be present in this manuscript. iv CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . Purpose of this Shidy. . Importance of this Study REVIEWOF LITERATURE. . . . . PROCEDURE ANDHETHODS . . . . Selection of Areas Studied Selection of the Sample. . The Questionnaire. . . . . ATTITUDES TOWARD THE GOVERNMENT THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF m FARM AND PM 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C O I O O O O O PROGRAMS AND Farmers' Reactions on the Possibility of Continued Acreage Allotments . . . . . . . Farmers' Attitudes Toward Marketing Quotas and the Penalty Enforcement. . . . . . . . Voting and attitudes on marketing quotas. Attitudes toward penalty provisions . . . Attitudes Toward Complying with Individual Crap and Total Farm Allotments . . . . . . . Present Price Support Levels and How Future Support 1.07018 ShOUld be Determinede e e e e Knowledge About and Attitudes Toward the StorageProgram Versus the Direct Pamnt P1“. 0 O O O O O O . O I I O O O O O 0 PAGE 10 27 27 30 32 34 35 4O 41 48 51 62 70 CHAPTER V. SUWARYANDCONCIHSIONS.. . . .. . . . . . .. smw O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Conclulionfl................. APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APENDII C. BIBLIOGRAPHY EXCERPTS FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ON WHICH THIS gm? “E BBED. . C C C O O C O C O O O O CONVERSION RAmS FOR LIVES'IWK TO STANDARD mm UNITS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 WITH)! OF SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC MPSUSEDI‘NTHISSNDY. . . . . . . . . vi PAGE 86 86 92 96 105 107 113 TABLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Field Crop Acreage and Livestock lumbers in IndicatodCOuptiOl.................. Reaction of Farmers Toward the Possibility ofContinuedControls. ... ... . . . . . . . .. Effects that Farmers Believe Continued Allotments Iill Rave on Farming Operations and Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Acreage Allotments as Related tomeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee The Sample Vote Compared to the State Vote on the "heat motes in 1953 and 1954. . . . . . . . . Voting Status of Farmers in 1954 as Related to Attendance at County Agent Meetings or Huberlhip in a F‘m Organization e e e e e e e e e e Farmers' Participation-in the 1954 Quota Vote asRelatedtoFarnSise inAcres. . . . . . . . . . . Parmers' Vote in 1954 as Related to Farm EMI‘AOM’iflYO”...osceeeeeeeeeeee How the Farmers in the Sample Counties Voted on “heat Marketing Quotas in 1954 . . . . . . . . . . Farmers' Opinions on the lheat Penalty Enforcement iflTOMOf‘hOItUBO.a.eeeeeeeeeeeee Farmers' Attitudes Toward the Penalty Enforcement of Wheat Fed on the Farm as Related to Years of FamingExperionOO.................. Farmers' Expected Compliance with Acreage Allotments asRclatedtcTypeofFarm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmers‘ Attitudes on Compliance with Acreage Allotments as Related to Acres in Cropland. . . . . . vii PM 28 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 48 49 51 52 53 mm 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Compliance with Acreage Allotments as Related to the Farmers' Attendance of County Agent Hastings. Reasons Given by Farmers for Complying with Individual Crop Allotments. . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons Given by Farmers for Not Complying with Individual Crop Allotments . . . . . . . . . Farmers' Reactions Toward Cross-Compliance as Relatedto'l‘ypoofFam.. eeeeeeeee ee Reasons Given by Farmers for Complying with Tau]. th Ante“. Allomnt. e e e e e e e e e e Reasons Given by Farmers for Not Complying with Total Farm Acreage Allotments. . . . . . . . Farmers' Attitudes Toward Supporting Farm Commodities at the Same Percentage of Parity as Related to Ownership Status . . . . . . Farmers' Attitudes Toward Supporting Fara Comodities at the Same Percentage of Parity as Related to Attendance at Meetings Conducted by County AgriculturalAgente............... Farm Commodities Believed to be Supported uanwr‘bly u n.1‘ud to TYPO 0: Farm. e e e e e Farmere' Opinions on How Price Supports for Individual Comnodities Should be Determined . . . Advantages Given by Farmers of the Storage Methods of Supporting Perishable Farm PTOdUOt'eoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Disadvantages Given by Farmers of Using Storage Methods to Support Perishable Products. . . . . . The Familiarity of Farmers with the Direct Payment Plan as Shown by the 1950 and 1954 Surnyl..................... Knowledge of Direct Payments by Farmers Who Attended County Agent Meetings or Belonged tO‘FmorS‘mi.tione e e e e e e e e e e e e e viii PAGE 56 57 61 63 64 65 67 69 72 73 76 77 TABLE 28. 29. 30. 31. 52. 33. Advantages Given by Farmers of Using Direct Payments to Support Perishable Comodities. . . Disadvantages Given by Farmers of Using Direct Payments to Support Perishable Comodities. . . Farmers' Choice as to Methods of Supporting PorishableProducte..............- Farmers' Choice as to Method of Supporting . Brishable Products as Related to Tenure Statue..................... Years of Farming Experience and Age in Years of Respondents in Relation to the Farmers' Choice as to lethods of Supporting firi.h‘b10h'0duoueeeeeeeeeeeeee Composition of Sample Characteristic Groups Uledinthilfltudy............... PAGE 79 82 83 84 105 LIST OF FIGURES RIM FAQ 1. Location of Counties and Townships Used as 8mpl.‘r0u..................... 27 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of this Study This study is based upon a segment of a farm management survey taken in the summer of 1954. The general purpose of the survey was to find out the effects of the production control programs of the United States Department of Agriculture upon.Michigan farms. It is the purpose of this study to determine the attitudes of the farmers toward the govern- ment programs and to analyse the relationships between these attitudes and the characteristics of the farm and farmer. In addition, the study provides an insight into the farmer's estimate of the future effects the programs will have upon his farming operation. In pursuing the objectives outlined above, all facets of the govern- ment programs had to be considered including: (1) How did the farmers feel toward marketing quotas and the penalty enforcement, whether it be on wheat fed on the famm or sold in the market, (2) Did the farmers be- lieve controls would be continued and what effect would a continued allotment program have on their farm, (3) Would farmers comply with allotments on individual crops and total farm acreage allotments, (4) How did the farmers feel about support levels and how did they think the level should be determined, (5) What did the farmers know about, and what were their attitudes toward the storage programs versus the direct payment plan? Importance of this Study Many problems have arisen under the present legislation which must be studied if solutions are to be found that will allow future agricultural programs to operate with less difficulty and with fewer conflicts between the objectives of the programs and the ends of society. In 1954, for the first time since Wbrld'War II, there was an attempt to control agricultural production in.flichigan through the use of ‘msrketing quotas. The 1954 wheat crop was the first harvested under allotment and marketing quotas since 1942. Marketing quotas for wheat meant that all farmers who had wheat acreage allotments of more than 15 acres were required to comply with these allotments. Amounts grown in excess of this allotment were subject to a heavy, and what amounted to a prohibitive, tax. The outback in wheat acreage for 1954 averaged about 20 per cent nationally with another 13 per cent cut in the 1955 crop. Corn also came under the allotment, but the penalty was less severe in that the farmer who failed to comply lost only his eligibility for price supports on the corn crop. Some of the elements leading up to the current controls were antic- ipated for some time. For example, during the war (World War II) and post war years while wheat production was expanding, it was known that normal market outlets would not.move the wheat crops being produced. The increased wheat production could be attributed to relaxation of controls of wheat during World war II and the reconstruction period 1946-1949, and to the sharply higher price paid for wheat. The Korean ‘War was considered important enough to further delay the implementation of effective controls on production. Further increases in wheat production can be explained hy advances in wheat growing technology and by support prices which reduced price uncertainty and further encouraged expanded wheat production. Faced with marketing quotas on wheat and acreage allotments on other crops, the farmer had some difficult managerial decisions to make. The decisions were difficult not only because of undetermined future govern- ment policies, but also because of the uncertainty of prices, yields, and a lack of knowledge on production.methods of other enterprises that might be used on the diverted acres. The decisions made by these farmers will not only affect those making the decisions, but other farmers throughout agriculture as well. If there is a heavy shift from a controlled crop to another particular crop it.may lead to surpluses in this second crop. This in turn will affect farmers who had previously been growing only uncontrolled crops. As a result of these new surpluses, lower prices may prevail or production controls and price programs may be extended. Farmers previously unaffected will thus be forced to change from.their normal path of decision.making to a new framework in making managerial decisions. The acreage allotments make cuts across the board without regard to the farm or farm setup. While this may be administratively efficient for the nation as a whole under the present policy, it is not necessarily consistent with maximum efficiency within the individual famm. In many cases there will be a drastic effect on the efficiency of farm.operation because an optimum size production cperation had been established. Of further consequence to the farmers is the impact of the allotments on his capital position. Just how the farmer will adjust his capital assets depends in a large part on how he looks to the future. If he believes the present allotments are Just a temporary situation, and that wmys will be found to end the surpluses without controls, few adjustments will be made. If, on the other hand, he believes the current situation will prevail over several or many years with production potentials under controls, he may make long range changes such as adding enterprises which are more difficult to start and to liquidate. A program, if it is to function properly, must be accepted by the farmers. Too many times these programs are designed within a political framework and thus do not reflect the true economic conditions. The farm programs are political because they must be passed by Congress and accepted by the President, or passed over his veto. At times Congress sees the fanm programs as election issues and tends to modify the pro- gram.in the hope of gaining votes in the next election. 'Under such a situation permanent long-range programs are difficult to establish. Until the 1930's agriculture operated under essentially competitive conditions. The free market system did keep the market cleared by moving the commodities from the producer to the consumer but it was also unstable and wasteful. Price uncertainties continually harrassed the farmers. During inflationary periods, farm.prices tended to rise faster than costs. But in deflaticnary periods farm costs tended to stay at high levels while the prices of farm products dropped rapidly. Farmers cannot adjust production quickly; crops are planted months ahead of final harvest, and it takes years to establish a livestock program. Moreover, agriculture in the last decades has become a declining industry in the sense of labor required to produce the agricultural products demanded. The structural nature of agriculture was such that fast enough changes in resource use were difficult to achieve. This meant that some of the production was out of step with demand and resulted in lower re- turns to those resources. In effect, the human resources were not effec- tively moved out of agriculture. Even when there was a transfer of labor resources into and out of agriculture it was not at all consistent with farm prices. In times of falling farm prices people not only stayed in agriculture, but also migrated to the farm. ‘On the other hand, as farm prices rose, migration from the farm increased and the more farm prices increased relative to other prices the greater the movement of people out of agriculture. This happened because urban employment opportunities were available only when all prices were high. Agricultural programs were instituted as emergency measures to furnish aid and assistance to meet short-run problems that were dis- tressing agriculture. The free market was unable to cope with the varying characteristics of agricultural production and consumption. Agricultural production is highly seasonal and long production periods are involved, thus adjustments to meet demands are not easy. Because of the competitive nature of agriculture, each producer makes his own individual changes. For the industry as a whole this can mean a total production greatly out of step with demand. Weather conditions have a further effect on the total production. Even though planned production was consistent with anticipated consumer demands, unpredictable variations of the weather would greatLy change expected yields and thus total production. Again, supply and demand would be out of equilibrium. The government programs have changed from being just emergency measures to the status of being regular duties of the federal government. Most of these programs have attempted to increase the farmer's income by raising the prices of some of his products. ‘With the higher prices, pro- duction controls were necessary in order to attempt to reduce production to a level consistent with demand or to prevent expansion in production. It could be said that the programs attempted to set up monopolistic con- ditions--that is, to maintain or raise prices by controlling the suppky.t The government programs, however, have not been completely success- ful. One important reason is that there has not been 100 per cent par- ticipation in the program by the farmers. When the programs were set up it was believed that most farmers would participate because they would stand to receive higher incomes and have less price uncertainty than non- participatcrs. Also, it was thought that by making participation in the acreage control program a prerequisite to price support eligibility, overproduction would be prevented. Neither of these assumptions have proved to be completely true in the operation of the price support and acreage control programs. Another reason the programs were not com- pletely effective was that.many farmers who did cooperate with the acre- age allotment tended to adopt better production techniques. The added production per acre in some cases partially or even totally offset the anticipated effect of the reduced acreage. There have been many theories advanced as to why all farmers have not taken advantage of the price support programs. Many times these theories are based upon values that the farmers are believed to have rather than the ones he really holds. To those working in the legislative branch of the government and operating in a political framework, the farmer may even appear irrational. However, these apparent differences in values might not be of such consequence if they were discussed in marginal terms instead of absolute terms. Really there aren't any abso- lute values such as complete freedom or complete security in existence today. ‘Under the marginal analysis any differences which might rise between the government and farmers could be settled on the basis of determining a proper substitution rate between values. When such cone flicts between values are viewed as marginal conflicts there is probably a range of complementarity at the margins, whereas if the values were considered to be absolute there most certainly would be a direct GOD! flict. This means that there can be programs which would increase both freedom.and security within certain ranges but if carried to extremes would result with one or the other value decreasing.1 Since the agricultural programs have now been operating for over two decades it would appear that some type of government administration will continue into the future. The present trend would seem.to indicate that there will be a further centralisation in the administration of all government programs and that more production controls will be necessary. A greater centralization of controls is almost inevitable. Allotments must be on a national basis because each area and community naturally wants to get as high an allotment as possible. Further, farm prices are determined on a national and international basis. Most of the programs 1Dale E. Hathaway, ”Agricultural Policy and Farmers Freedom," Journal 22 Farm Economics, Volume XXXV, No. 4, November, 1953, p. 499. are now being used to maintain high prices rather than as emergency methods to prevent "depression" prices. Acreage controls won't be enough to keep the high prices. In addition, marketing restriction will probably be necessary to prevent further stockpiling of surpluses. It will not be easy to find a farm.program that will be compatible with the national, international and individual goals. Each individual has his own set of values and thus there are bound to be differences in goals desired by these individuals. Most of the time the objectives and goals of the programs are set up by farm organization leaders and various politicians who profess to be speaking for the farmers. The leaders or representatives are able to do this because there are many decisions to be made on which the farmers have no definite or strongly held opinions. The leaders then attempt to justify their decisions or positions by try- ing to convince their constituents that the action taken was in the best interest of the entire political area or organization.membership. Thus their word cannot be taken as representing farmers but rather must be considered as their own opinions to which the majority of their constit- uency do-not object.2 Many times, however, their word is taken as final. It would appear that there should be a certain amount of research carried on at the farm level to determine just how the programs really are working, how effec- tive they are, and how well local values are being attained. In addi- tion, such studies would be useful in determining the attitudes of the farmers toward the government programs. 25. E. Hathaway and L. W. Witt, ”Agricultural Policy: ‘Whose Valua- tions,” Journal 2f Farm Economics, Volume XXXIV, No. 3, August, 1952, p. 308. According to Geoffrey Shepherd such research should not start out with a proposition that welfare is or is not best served by free market prices, but rather that there should be an inquiry into the different results of different programs and policies. He goes on to say that when those results have been determined and presented as clearly as possible, the voters can judge intelligently how much of each (efficiency, security, etc.) they want, according to their set of values.3 3Geoffrey Shepherd, "What Can a Research Man do in Agricultural Price Policy?" Journal 2f Farm Economics, Volume XXXVII, No. 2, May, 1955, p. 314e CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ‘Until 1929 farm policy on the national level was directed mainly toward increasing the availability of education and research to the farm, regulating the actions of those with whom the farmer dealt, and provid- ing more liberal credit. This sort of legislation did not prove to be of significant help to the farmers in the 1920's. Farmers were plagued with low prices and they saw the cure as being higher prices for farm products. The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 was the government's first attempt to take part in stabilizing agriculture. It was a compro- mise measure and proved to be of little value. It was not until the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 that the government became involved in direct participation in farm operations. Price increases were the means by which it was hoped to reach the goal of income parity. Also in this Act considerable emphasis was placed upon curtailment of pro- duction. There were many changes in the next few years; some portions of the original act were declared unconstitutional, but in general,sub- sequent legislation broadened the scope of the Act of 1933. In 1938 the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was passed and it is the basis of the present program. Under this act price supports were made mandatory on certain crops rather than discretionary on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture. The act in addition to providing for acre- age controls also supplemented the controls with marketing quotas, a much 11 more drastic method of reducing production. Another outstanding feature of this act was the addition of the ever-normal granary concept. During‘florld War II price supports were extended to cover a consid- erably larger number of commodities. Also the level of support was raised as an inducement to greater agricultural production. In some cases where price ceilings prevented prices of commodities from keeping pace with production costs, outright subsidies were paid. The Agricultural Act of 1948 was an amendment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The purpose of this act was not only to stabi- lise agricultural returns during peace times but also to set a pattern for agriculture policy over a long period of time. There has been considerable controversy on the type of price pro- grmms, on the level of price supports, and on the administrative control, but it appears that some form.of subsidy is here to stay. Neither of the major political groups or any of the major agricultural pressure groups have ever mentioned the possibility of discontinuing the programs; rather they have only differed on the type of program.desired. The Farm.Bureau, for instance, takes a firm stand in favor of flex- ible price supports. They believe that prices must be free to fluctuate in order to guide the allocation of resources in the balancing of pro- duction and consumption. They hold that since the present program does not allow the prices to fluctuate there can be no balancing of supply and demand and large surpluses tend to accumulate resulting in production controls. The Farm Bureau contends that these controls only tend to freeze production patterns which may prevent shifts in resources which would bring about more efficient production. 12 They advocate flexible controls, which allow prices to perform their normal function of helping guide production and consumption, as a method of providing farmers with a certain amount of insurance against sudden disastrous drops in farm price. The Farm.Bureau doesn't approve of direct production payments because they say the fanm people don't like the idea of getting a dole from the government. The strongest objection.the Farm Bureau has, however, is the fear that direct government payments would lead to a completely government-managed agriculture in which farmers would be dependent on the government for their net income.4 The Grange takes a position on price support similar to that of the Farm Bureau. Their stand on the government policy as indicated in one of their information pamphlets states in part that: "The Grange supports policies which tend to stabilise the economy against violent business cycle fluctuations.” ”It has vigorously opposed the payments of government subsidies in liew'cf fair prices for farm.products." "The Grange has been a strong advocate of flexible price supports. It recognizes that high rigid support prices mean regimentation of pro- ducers, stopping of adjustment to economic change and intolerable costly surpluses."6 4W. E. Hamilton, The Economic and Political Philosophy 2£_Variable Price Support Advocate37—A revised form of a paper prepared for a meeting of the-Sguthern Economic Association, November 19 and 20, 1954, Merchan- dise Mart, Chicago, Illinois, p. 16. 6The Gregge Blue Book, The National Grange, washington D. 0., p. 3. 13 The stand taken by the Farmers Union, however, has been considerably different from that of the Farm Bureau or the Grange. ‘James G. Patton, national president of the Farmers Union, in presenting their stand on agriculture policy before the Senate Agriculture Committee led off by saying, "Full parity farm income is attainable in our time."6 He then went on to present a detailed account of why and how'such a program could be achieved. Expanding full employment is the foundation of their full parity farm.income program, but even under full employment conditions they say an.expanded demand for farm products is required in order to increase the inadequate market bargaining power of farms. Part of this additional demand would be achieved by increased federal financing of‘ various food distribution programs. Price supports at 100 per cent of parity for the farm production of all farm.commodities would be achieved through the use of production payments in combination'with.marketing quotas for individual commodities. In this way supplies could be balanced with what the market and public would demand at 100 per cent parity. V There have been numerous and varied types of studies conducted to determine just where the farmer himself stands on the various hinds and phases of government agricultural programs. There have been broad sweep- ing studies covering all phases of the programs, and there have been other studies concerned with the attitudes and effects of the government pro- grams on one individual commodity. Probably the most extensive project GTsstinony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, June 7, 1954, as reported by the National Farmers Hgion'Washingtgnzygwslettez, Volume 2, N0. 25, Jung 10, 1955s 14 in determining farmers' attitudes and opinions toward agricultural pro- grams was conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1951 under the title of ”Family Farm Policy Review.” The object of this study was to conduct a comprehensive policy review of how well farm pro- grams were serving famdly farmers and how these programs could be im- proved to better protect and preserve the traditional American pattern of family farming.7 The review’was conducted throughout the United States at county meetings. In New York, a study was developed in conjunction with the Family Farm.Policy Review. The survey leaders in New'York questioned the value of county meetings because they felt the attendance would not represent a cross section of the farmers. With the objectives in mind of obtain- ing New York farmers' opinions on agricultural policies and programs and getting suggestions for changes and improvements in these programs, ag- ricultural agents and teachers of vocational agriculture interviewed 1,500 farmers in the summer of 1951.8 The study was restricted to those farmers who received one-half or more of their income from farming. Since the sample was to be for the state as a whole, proportionate units were se- lected at random from.each county. The study found that New York farmers were not very well informed on the various farm programs. The number, size and technical nature of the programs were listed as the main factors responsible for the farmers' 7Family Farm Policy Review, United States Department of Agriculture, June 11, 1951, p. ix. 8Edward O. Moe, New York Farmers' Opinions _o_n._Agricultural Programs, New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Cornell Extension Bulletin 864, November, 1952, pp. 56-57. 15 difficulty in understanding the programs. Most of the farmers desired a special infonmation service which would keep them aware and informed on the various agencies and programs. On the issue of price supports for agricultural products New York farmers were about evenly divided. Fortybfive per cent believed prices should be supported, 46 per cent didn't like the idea of support, and 9 per cent didn't express an opinion. Younger farmers and those with less education, especially those who had never attended high school, were more likely to desire price supports. Approval for price supports was considerably less among poultry and livestock farmers (other than dairy) who favored supports by only 30 per cent, as compared to the average of. 45 per cent. The dairy farmers favored the supports at the same rate as the average.9 A.tota1 of 669 farmers favored price supports. Of these farmers, over half desired a flexible support related to the supply of the comp modities. The rest of the farmers were about evenly split between the categories of being undecided or being in favor of supports being fixed at a certain level of parity. Of those farmers desiring a fixed per- centage of parity, 87.2 per cent favored a parity level of 90 per cent or more.10 After the farmers had discussed price supports, direct payments and export subsidies they were asked, "If we are going to keep farm income up, which do you think would be the best way to do it?" Only slightly over two-thirds of the farmers attempted to answer the question. 91bid., pp. 33-34. 101bid., pp. 34-35. 16 Of those answering, more than one-third favored price supports and about one-third were undecided. About one-tenth favored direct payments and two out of ten favored the export subsidy idea.n ‘Hoe found the New York farmers were opposed to the idea of produc- tion adjustments. Six out of 10 farmers stated that there should be no production control programs. It was found that farmers who did not favor price supports were much more opposed to production adjustments than those who approved price supports.12 In the summer of 1950, Michigan.8tate College conducted a survey to determine the attitudes of Michigan farmers toward the government support program. A sample of 500 farmers were selected to be interviewed from seven different counties, representing different types of farming areas. In order to restrict the study to full-time commerical farmers, only these operators farming 70 acres or more of land were interviewed.13 The farmers were evenly divided as to whether price supports were needed in 1950. Farmers were rather inconsistent on this issue in that when answering a later question, two-thirds of the farmers indicated that there should be some floor under farm prices. Of those favoring supports, 46 per cent did so because they felt supports were needed to keep farm prices up and to place farmers on a par with other groups in the economy. 111b1d., pp. 37-38. 121bid., p. 38. 13Dale E. Hathaway, E. E. Peterson, and Lawrence Witt, Michigan Farmers and the Price Support Program. II. Farmers' Attitudes Toward Eh: Support FFEEFEE, IMichiganTState Collegefzgricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan, Technical Bulletin 235, December, 1952, p. 6. 17 Farmers who didn't think supports were needed were strong in the opinion that supply and demand would take care of their problems.14 Forty-one per cent of the farmers interviewed thought acreage allot- menms were needed in 1950, and yet three-fourths of the same farmers thought it was good business for the individual farmer to offset his acreage allotment if possible by improved production methods. It was further noted that such attitudes were not associated with attitudes toward acreage allotments or support prices.15 On the question of free- dom.versus security in the government programs, only 27 per cent indicated they were willing to accept more production controls in order to achieve price security. Sixty-two per cent were unwilling to accept production controls in order to achieve more price security. .After various questions on the diversion and direct payment type programs, the fanmers were asked which method of supports they preferred for perishable products. Nearly one-fourth of the farmers had no preference, 10 per cent didn't want either method and the rest of the farmers were just about equally divided on their preferences for the two methods.16 Throughout the survey Hathaway and others found that the farmer was not well informed on the various phases of the government programs. For example, eight out of ten farmers didn't know or were wrong in their understanding of the relationship between support prices and parity, 70 per cent of the farmers interviewed had no understanding of what was 14Ibid., pp. 10-13. 151bid., pp. 20-23. 151b18., p. 38. 18 meant by the term.'marketing quota,” and.more than one-half of the farm- ers had never heard of direct payments. The Michigan study further found that there was no association be- tween the farmers' attitudes and knowledge of the government program and the following factors: age and farming experience of operator, farm ownership, indebtedness, size of farm, membership in farm organization, or years of formal education.17 A.more recent study was conducted by Iowa State College to determine the views and opinions of farmers located throughout Iowa and the northern three-fifths of Illinois on the entire price support program. The study consisted of sample surveys, of approximately the same size, taken in April, June and October 1953, and January 1954.18 Thus it was possible to observe if the farmers' attitudes were subject to change in the period of a few months. Most of the checking on possible changes in attitudes was carried out on shifts in price support opinions. According to the survqys there were substantial shifts in attitudes toward price supports between the first survey in April and the January survey taken ten months later. Only 44 per cent of the farmers favored supports on feed grains in April, but the next January this figure had increased to 68 per cent. Those opposing supports declined 19 per cent and in addition, fewer farmers were undecided in January 1954.19 There 171bid., pp. 3-4. 18Donald R. Kaldor, Views 93: Iowa and Northern 111111033 Farmer; 33 Price Su ort Polio , Iowa §tate Experiment §tation, Iowa State College, es, Iowa, Preliminary Report No. 4, p. l. lglbide ’ Fe 20 19 was also a considerable shift in favor of price supports for hogs. Even with the shift, there were still 55 per cent against controls.20 The upswing in favor of price supports on cattle was somewhat greater in northern Illinois than in Iowa, which resulted in the percentages favor- ing cattle supports being about equal in the two states. The combined area report in January 1954 showed that 48 per cent of the farmers were in favor of support with an equal number opposed.21 In the April survey Kaldor found that when the farmers were asked to express an opinion on the question of flexible versus fixed support levels they were definitely in favor of the flexible controls. Seventy- three per cent favored the flexible controls, 20 per cent preferred fixed levels of support and there were 7 per cent who were undecided as to which they favored.22 The July survey found that farmers were about evenly divided on the question of acreage controls. Forty-four per cent favored keeping their corn acreage free of controls and taking a cut in the support price, while 42 per cent preferred cutting their corn acreage and keeping a 90 per cent of parity price support level.23 In January after the corn acreage allotments had been announced for 1954, an attempt was made to determine how farmers would respond to acre- age allotments in 1964. This survey found that participation in the 201bid., p. 3. 211bid., p. 4 22Donald R. Kaldor, Views of Iowa and Northern Illinois Farmers on Price Su ort Policy, Iowa State—CollegeAgricultural Experiment‘Station, Ames, Iowa, Preliminary Report No. 1, p. 6. 23Ibid., p. 10. 20 program.wou1d be rather light. Only 40 per cent of the sample indicated they would participate or might participate in a program where there would be a 15 per cent reduction in corn acreages. If the acreage out was 20 per cent, only 56 per cent stated they might participate in the program. Nearly one-half of those farmers who didn't plan to participate in the program stated they wouldn't comply because they fed all their corn.24 There have been numerous surveys which have been concerned with one commodity. Such a study was conducted in Pennsylvania to determine milk producers' knowledge and opinions of the state Milk Control Law. It was found that the producers were relatively uninformed. Although the fluid milk industry had been under state control for over twenty years, only slightly over half of the producers knew that a governmental agency estab- lished milk prices.25 Of the informed group, nearly two-thirds believed that the control program.had helped the industry and another third were undecided as to the effect of the program. Only 5 per cent believed that the control program had actually been harmful.26 Of this same informed group, nearly three-fourths of the producers favored continuation of the state milk regulation.27 24Donald R. Kaldor, Effect of Corn Acres e Allotments on Farmers' Production Plans in Iowa “and Ner‘ih'e_‘r‘n‘"nlinoie, IowafiS’tate EolTe‘re, Agricultural Experihent Station, Amos, Iowa,;Preliminary Report No. 3, March 1, 1954, pp. 2-3. 25“. T. Buts, C. W. Pierce, H. 8. Preston, Producers_Knowledge and Opinion 2f State Milk Control in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment StatioEC'State Cellege, Pennsylvania, Journal Series Paper No. 1796, April, 1953, p. 9. 261bid., p. 25. 27Ihid., p. 15. 21 The uninformed respondents (those producers who did not know that a governmental agency established milk prices) were asked if they would favor the establishment of a governmental agency to control milk prices. Only 29 per cent of these farmers favored the establishment of such an agency.28 'With the aid of statistical analysis the conclusion was reached that knowledge about milk control tends to make producers favorable to control. The study in addition, found that the producer's knowledge about milk control could be positively related to the respondent's years of formal education, size of farm business and absolute size of the dairy enterprise.29 The potato industry has been studied in great detail by single comp modity surveys. In the spring of 1952 the agricultural experiment sta- tions in the North Central Region.made a study of various regions in the United States on the effect of the price support program on potatoes. The first full scale price support program on potatoes was started in 1942. Until 1945 the government was concerned with increasing potato acreage to meet wartime requirements for potatoes. Thereafter there were just general maximum allotments until 1947 when specific farm allotments were established by using acreage patterns developed during the war time period. This program lasted until 1950 when all price supports and acreage allotments were discontinued. One of the major conclusions reached in this study was that price stability and not price level was responsible for the tremendous increases zexbio.j‘pi“le. 291bid., pp. 29-31. 22 in potato acreages.30 Support prices for potatoes were not high rela- 'tive to other farm.prices nor relative to their historical relationship to parity, but the price support program reduced fluctuation of prices which historically had varied over a wide range. The study further found that attitudes toward the price support program varied considerably be- P tween regions where potato production is the main crop and regions where good alternatives were available. The majority of farmers who depended .r fiver-.4. a. ..- on potatoes as their principal source of income thought the government ;' price support program had been a good thing for them.and that the pro- gram.resu1ted in higher income from potatoes. The majority of those farmers who used potatoes as a supplementary cash crop did not think the program.was good for them.and that as a result of the program they had lower incomes from potatoes. When the potato farmers were asked if they would prefer a direct payment plan instead of price supports both groups indicated a preference for price supports. They also indicated that if prices are to be supported in periods of low prioes,some type of re- strictions will be necessary. They preferred, however, a weaker type of control such as acreage allotments rather than more stringent controls such as grade restrictions or marketing quotas.31 30Roger W. Gray, Vernon L. Sorenson, and'Willard W. Cochrane, Ag Economic Analysis 22 the Impact 2£_Government Programs in the Potato Industry of thg_United—States,'University of Mifihesota'zgricultura x- periment Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Technical Bulletin 234 and North Central Regional Publication No. 42, June, 1954, pp. 72-75. 31Roger'W. Gray, Vernon L. Sorenson, and‘Willard W. Cochrane, Price Su rts and the Potato Industry, University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment-Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Technical Bulletin 234 and North Central Region Publication No. 43, January, 1954, pp. 23-24. 23 In conjunction with the Forth Central Regional Study, Michigan State College conducted a study of the effect of the federal potato programs. For the Michigan study an additional questionnaire was added and the size of the sample was increased to get a representative sample of the Michigan potato producers. This study found substantially the same results as the I larger north Central Regional Study. Here again it was found that price certainty was one of the most important aspects of the price program. Of ‘ those producers who liked the support program, 54 per cent of the farmers r‘ thought it was a good thing because it assured farmers a guaranteed price. Only 18 per cent liked the progrma'because it raised prices to farmers.32 It was further found that there were no relationships between the use of supports and such things as the age and farming experience of the farmer, size of famm, investment in potato producing equipment, production prac- tices or membership in farmorganizations.53 It was found, however, that as the distance from.the terminal market increased, the producers indicat- ed a greater approval of the program.34 It is interesting to note that the National Potato Council turned its attention to reducing price uncertainty by cutting the wide range of price fluctuations in the potato industry. Mr. William.l. Case, director of the National Potato Council, in testimony given during the hearings 32Da1e E. Hathaway and A. Dewey Bond, Iichi an Potato Producers and Price Su ort Pro rams, Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station, ast [Eaging, Michigan,Bulletin 241, June, 1964, p. 19. 33Ibid., p. 5. 34Ibid., p. 24. 24 before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, requested an increase in the appropriations for the crop and livestock estimates work:55 He went on to testify that in the last three or four years the potato industry had attempted to handle its own problems. In order to keep production in line with demand, there needed to be more accurate and extensive research done on the crop reports. If the industry is to do a better Job of planning production, monthly data must be available on the amount of potatoes being harvested and marketed. This data would be in addition to the total production information now available.:56 It may be that studies which cover the effects of a price support program on only one comodity can be extremely useful. Information may be obtained in this type of study which might otherwise be lost in studies covering attitudes and effects of entire price support and production control programs. The type of study as conducted on potatoes cannot be used exclusively, however, because it fails to provide answers as to what effects the program on one commodity will have on other crops that are grown on the farm. The results of all the surveys were somewhat similar regarding the opinions. of farmers toward the various government programs. One of the most striking similarities is the lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of the farmers about the programs which are now a part of their 35"Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropria- tions, United States Senate, Eighty-fourth Congress, First Session," Agricultural A ro riations for 1954, United States Government Printing 0 ice, ashingéon 5. C. ' 361b1d., p. 551. 25 everyday 1ife. In addition, there appear to be certain inconsistencies in the farmers' attitudes toward the government programs. Thus far, the farmers' knowledge and opinions have been gained and formed through the experience of participation in what he believes to be a desirable or unp desirable program. If farmers are to become familiar with the different types of programs and the various alternatives, our political system and the field of agricultural extension are facing a tremendous challenge. ‘l_._'-a-!-T:—QW‘ ...:th- CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND METHODS Selection of Areas Studied The selection of the sample areas was based upon representation of various important commercial farming areas of Michigan. The samples, in addition, represented areas where managerial decisions involved dif- ferent kinds of alternatives as the result of the production controls. A further consideration in selection was obtaining a large enough sample to insure reliability of the final results. The sample counties chosen were Kalamazoo, Livingston, Sanilao, and Gratiot-Isabella (Gratiot and Isabella counties were considered as one sample area) which represented type-of-farming areas 2, 5, 7, and 8 respectively, as shown on.Figure I. These counties represented heavy commercial agriculture areas where the production control programs had the fullest impact. When the wheat acreage was out, many managerial decisions were necessary. In some areas there tended to be a natural crop or enterprise to which to shift the production capacities; in other areas the decisions on diverted acres were more difficult. The areas were so located with respect to markets, climate, soil types and off-the- farm.job opportunities that the resultant managerial decisions would, :not end in a shift to any one particular crop or enterprise. The acres of major crops grown and the number of livestock shown 21n.Table 1 give an over-all picture of the production within the counties used in this study. 27 O'TYPE OF-FARMING AREAS IN MICHIGAN (Areas on a natural- line basis) U '. I ,..‘ 37"." Ontenegoa .r fii H I 3v , ' 0 I I. ' | n . I J jMorqueHs '_ ...... Luce ' . — ----- l7 - ' . - 2....-.J"°" ' '. Alger I I . . I I ' '_ J ‘7 . ChIppewo e .' "'—' I I“, e. I - ISchoolcroH *"’"'I"_'-°‘ ‘ . I - .',_..1.- -MockInoc - _ _. .. .1 ' L— \. i Pr ‘ Counties I 1%? m 3‘ T hips 00 I O I . ‘ .-, ‘ t ‘ “I _. V I‘ . .I . Ware“. .‘Iéamr. I _ MICHIGAN ,1: neral Livestock and Corn y, Livestock and Corn ‘5’. “Western Fruit, Dairy and Truck 41;“ y. Poultry and Truck "5,." ’ and General Farming ’_"I-.,’< _ . Part-Time and Truck “, ". and Cash Crops h Crops and Dairy .ral Livestock and Part-Time 51;: , Potatoes and Truck gin 4: estern Fruit and Dairy Vin.- y, Part-Time and Potatoes (Instr? Part-Time and Cattle {W e, otatoes and Part-Time I “g e, Hay and Part-Time a I." . and Potatoes r‘h' . Potatoes, Part-Time Forestry I, I “ I t. \‘— soda-00h. 00—0... ‘_J‘ v as " 4“. D -q— '0' I ee—ob—ee—» '3'.“ The 83 counties in Michigan are here grouped into 17 type-of-farming areas as indicated in this map. The ‘natural" boundaries of these areas do not, how- ever, follow county boundaries, but lines representing the influences of soil, climate and markets. Figure I. location of Counties and Townships Used as Sample Areas #1503 28 Entry. -.I .. .- slim-II: In. .mNImH .am .omma .aass lemma «capgfipaum Hauspasoduu«_qawanoaa .ouspasoaum<_uo aaoapaamua qamasoast I‘I‘ o.mHH H.~ «.afl o.mH a» on m.~ no. a. nu ma a.»n nooomaapaa 063 «J «4. 92 mm on o.~ -.. H. mm 3 Was 83323 o.mnn o.H m.» o.m¢ mm mm o.~ oa.v n.¢n me an m.~¢ osawsam H.ooa m.¢ p.m o.ma 0* av mom um. m.m on ma v.6” snaondum o.msn «.0 a.a o.ma p» «n a.» on.» 0.59 «a o» w.mn poupsac no a. a. as v. a“ an as nu nv mm Mw “mason U. m a. O T. B I n ..M M. u .... O O 8 O M. N q 9 u. .e .d .a a .A a. w J m mu m “H o n In. J I 9 9 O m. 0 fl. W m T. .+ D. 3. uHssHa< no anus-sonfi nouo< «o nunsasoga smuHHZDOo QMHHq n24 mu wfllprfi-n_,>p.A TABLE 18 REASONS GIVEN BY FARMERS FOR COHPLYING WITH TOTAL FARM ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 61 Reasons Per Cent Will comply in order to get program benefits 30.1 Have to comply, no choice in the matter 14.7 Will comply if allotments cause only little or no changes in farm.organization 10.4 Will comply but don't like it 9.2 Believe allotments and support are necessary under present conditions 7.4 Have to, can't afford a penalty 3.7 Will comply if allotments are compulsory 3.1 Other reasons 20.2 No answer 1.2 Total 100.0 Number of respondents 163 62 As shown in Table 19, 30.7 per cent of the farmers interviewed were not going to comply with total farm acreage allotments because they wanted to continue to grow feed crops. There was very little difference in the reasons given for not following individual crop allotments and those that were given for not following total farm allotments. This would indicate that the farmers didn't believe the cross-compliance aspect would have any more effect on their farming operations than an allotment on one crop. It would appear that the side comment given by some farmers, "If you follow allotments on one crop, you might as well follow it on all crops,” was a general feeling on the part of the farmers interviewed. Present Price Support Levels and How Future Support Levels Should be Determined Before asking the farmers specific questions on price support levels, the farmers were grouped according to their attitudes toward the parity concept of the support program. This was done by asking the following question: "Price support programs are usually based on some percentage of parity; that is, we say that cotton is supported at 90 per cent parity. Do you believe that all commodities being supported should be supported at the same percentage of parity at any given time-~say, right now?" Fifty-six per cent of the farmers thought that all commodities being supported should be supported at the same percentage of parity, 19 per cent didn't think that all farm products should be supported at the same level. One-fourth of the farmers didn't express any opinion. It was found that two of the characteristic groups had certain associations with the way farmers felt about the support level. There was a decided difference between the opinions of farm owners and farmers TABLE 19 REASONS GIVEN BY FARMERS FOR NOT COMPLYING-WITH TOTAL FARM ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 63 Reasons Per Cent Need the crops for feed 30.7 Do not plan on using any of the program.benefits 18.4 Don't see how it‘s possible to operate with this system 9.8 Don't like allotments, have no use for supports 9.2 Not unless there is a compulsory enforcement 7.4 Would take a chance on selling on the open market 3.7 Need to have cash crops 3.7 ‘Want to stay with rotation 3.7 Other reasons 11.0 No answer 2.4 Total 100.0 Number of reSpondents 163 64 who rented all their land (Table 20).50 Farmers who owned all the land they operated favored supporting all products at the same level by a four to one ratio. Farmers who rented all the land they operated still favored supports at the same level of parity but only by a three to two ratio. The farmers who owned some of the land they operated and rented the rest were in a position about halfway between complete ownership or tenant status on the question of support levels. TABLE 20 FARMERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD SUPPORTING FARM COMMODITIES AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF PARITY AS RELATED TO OWNERSHIP STATUS Response Owned All Owned Some Rented All Land Rented Some Land Should be supported at same level 81 72 61 Should not be supported at same level 19 28 39 Total 100 100 100 Number of respondents 147 93 51 Those farmers who attended meetings conducted by the county agricul- tural agent were significantly different from.those who didn't attend any of the meetings. Both groups favored support levels being the same for all products at about the same rate. The difference was between the should not be and don't know answers. Table 21 shows how these two groups were divided. Twenty-eight per cent of those farmers attending meetings 50Difference was significant at the l per cent level of chi square. .— - __- #41“; v“--4d"'-__—_-I 65 TABLE 21 FARMERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD SUFTORTING FARM COMMODITIES AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF PARITY AS RELATED TO ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS CONDUCTED BY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AGENTS Response Attended Did not Attend Meetings Meetings Should be supported at the same percentage of parity 53 54 Should not be supported at the same percentage of parity 28 11 Don't know 19 35 Total 100 100 Number of respondents 139 185 thought supports should be at different levels of parity and only 19 per cent said don't know. On the other hand, only 11 per cent of those farm- ers not attending county agent meetings wanted supports at different lev- els and 35 per cent said don't know. Again it appeared that those farmers who attended meetings conducted by the county agents were more likely to express a definite opinion rather than say don't know or no opinion.51 The 231 farmers who thought that all farm commodities should be sup- ported at the same percentage of parity were asked if they believed the support levels were presently being detennined in this way. About two- thirds of the farmers knew the products were not being so supported and 51Significant difference at the l per cent level of chi square. one-fourth didn't know. One-twelfth said that all support levels were at the same percentage of parity. This last group of farmers thought they knew hOW'the price Support levels were determined, but they were mistaken in their understanding of how the parity concept was being used in the price support program. There were no particular characteristics in evidence which would account for these farmers thinking as they did. The 25 per cent who didn't know if supports were being maintained at the same level of parity probably had very little idea what parity meant. They might have thought it sounded like a good idea to support all com- modities at the same level. Apparently these farmers were a random selec- tion, since they appeared to be about equally divided within all of the characteristic groups. There were 154 farmers who knew that commodities were not being sup- ported at the same percentage of parity but thought it would be desirable if all commodities were so supported. These farmers were asked if they felt that any products were being treated less favorably in relation to others by being supported too low. Nearly 87 per cent of the farmers listed a product they believed was being treated less favorably. Over two-thirds of these farmers gave dairy products as the commodity that was being treated unfavorably. About 5 per cent of the farmers thought all products were treated unfavorably. Other products mentioned were wheat, beef cattle, and rye, barley, or cats. The dairy farmers more than all other farmers were likely to believe that dairy products were being treated unfavorably.52 (Table 22) The 52Difference between dairy and non-dairy farmers was significant at the 1 per cent level of chi square. Q;"‘L-_-Ifil’ 7” “u-” ...-VJ» ...A‘ N .O 67 dairy farmers may have felt that way because they thought feed crops were being supported too high in relation to milk. TABLE 22 FARM COMMODITIES BELIEVED TO BE SUTTORTED UNFAVORABLY AS RELATED TO TYPE OF FARM Commodity Supported Unfavorably Dairy Farms Other Farms Dairy products 74 38 Other products 26 62 Total 100 100 Number of respondents 85 69 The farmers were then asked which products they believed were being supported relatively higher than other products. Only 42 per cent of the farmers listed a product which they believed was being supported more favorably. Twenty-eight per cent of the farmers didn't think that any products were supported too high. Another 37 per cent didn't know or gave . no answer to the question. Wheat was the commodity listed most often (16 per cent) as being supported favorably in comparison to other farm products. Other products listed were corn, cotton, tobacco, and hogs. It seemed that there was no real antagonism among farmers toward the price Support levels. Although the dairy farmers tended to believe that dairy products were being treated unfavorably, they did not seem to blame other Parts of agriculture by saying other farm products were being Supported too high. ‘_‘.._ I" I w: -.‘A- .‘ow -. I. Ask“ 68 The eighty farmers who did not believe that all farm products should be supported at the same level of parity were asked how they thought the support level for an individual commodity should be determined. Nearly one-third thought the amounts of surpluses should be an.important con- sideration.(Table 25) Another 6 per cent thought support levels should be based on supply and demand for the product and 5 per cent thought Air“-__-l~ ’F I there should be a type of flexible control. It appeared that farmers were aware of the surplus problem in agriculture since over 40 per cent an“ of the farmers believed that the support level should be determined in some manner by differences between production and consumption or surpluses. Next, the farmers who thought that all products were not supported equally were asked which farm products, if any, were being supported too low. Twenty-nine per cent of the farmers listed dairy products, 23 per cent listed various other farm products, but no one product was named more than 4 per cent of the time. Twenty-three per cent of the farmers did not believe that any farm products were being supported too low. There were no relationships noted between any of the characteristics and the products named by the farmers as being supported too low. Slightly over one-third of the 80 farmers didn't think any products were being supported too high. Thirty-eight per cent of the farmers didn't know or gave no answer to the question. Just a little over one- fourth of the farmers named a product that they believed was being sup- ported too high. The only product named consistently was wheat, which accounted for one-half of the products named. There were no relationships between the characteristics of the farm or farmer and the products listed as being supported too high or between those farmers who said no products were being supported too high. 69 TABLE 23 FARMERS' OPINIONS ON HOW PRICE SUPPORTS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMMODITIES SHOULD BE DETERMINED Reaponse Per Cent By amounts of surpluses 31.3 By cost of production ' 12.5 Some type of flexible supports 7.5 By supply and demand 6.2 On the basis of individual yields and production 5.0 Should be based partly on weather conditions 2.5 Supported to provide equality of purchasing power 2.5 Don't believe in price supports 1.2 Other answers 11.3 No answer 3.8 Don't know' 16.2 Total 100.0 Number of reapondents 80 70 The farmers did believe that some products were being supported un- fairly, either too high or too low, but there was no consistent group of farmers who felt that any one product was being supported unfairly in re- lation to other products. Again it seemed that no one group of farmers felt that they were in a worse or better position at the expense of other segments of agriculture. Knowledge About and Attitudes Toward the Storage Program Versus the Direct Payment Plan The questions used to gain the farmers' knowledge and attitudes to- ward the storage program versus the direct payment plan were the same ones that were used in the 1950 study.53 This was done in order to see if farmers after four more years of Operating under the storage program had changed their attitudes. In the four years between studies, there had been considerable discussion of the direct payment plan which may have had an influence on the farmers' understanding and attitudes toward the plan. In order to get more complete opinions and attitudes of farmers to- ward the programs, the mechanics of the two proposals were presented in the following situation: "Two farmers were talking about ways to keep farm prices and in- comes from falling too low. They didn't agree on how perishables like butter and eggs should be supported. One of the farmers, Mr. Black, said he favored the present method by which the government buys direct from processors and stores the products in order to hold prices up. Mr. Neod, on the other hand, said that he favored a plan under which farmers would 53Dale E. Hathaway, E. E. Peterson, and Lawrence Witt, Michigan Farmers and the Price Support Program. 11. Farmers' Attitudes Toward the Support Program, hichigan State College Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, East Lansing, Michigan, Technical Bulletin 235, December, 1952. .s . 71 sell all their perishable products, like eggs, for whatever they would bring. If these prices were so low that they would be below the support level, then the government would make direct payments to farmers in order to bring their incomes up." The farmers were then asked: "As you see it, what are the advantages of Mr. Black's suggestion that our government continue its present plan of buying perishables direct from processors and storing them? Disadvantages?" The advantages given by farmers for the storage method of supporting prices are shown in Table 24. Only about 21 per cent of the farmers gave an advantage for the storage program. The advantage most often mentioned was that the program improved the prices of farm products, but this only accounted for 7 per cent of the farmers. Twenty-eight per cent of the farmers could see no advantages of the storage program for perishables, almost one-third said they didn't know what the advantages were, and another 19 per cent didn't answer the question. In 1950, 40 per cent of the farmers gave advantages for the storage program. In that survey 21 per cent of the farmers liked the program because they felt it raised the price of farmproducts.54 The price decline of farm products between 1950 and 1954 was probably the reason for the drop in number of farmers who thought an advantage was higher farm prices. As can be seen in Table 25, farmers had little difficulty thinking of disadvantages of the present support methods for perishables. Almost 15 per cent didn't think that storage by the government really solved the surplus problem, while another 13 per cent thought the storage of perish- ables caused waste of food which should have been consumed. About 54Ibid., p. 34. TABIE 24 ADVANTAGES GIVEN BY FARMERS OF THE STORAGE METHODS OF SUPPORTING PERISHABLE FARM PRODUCTS 72 W Advantages of Present Support Methods Per Cent Improves the prices of farm products 7.0 Costs less and is simpler to administer than direct subsidies 2.2 Government storage creates a reserve stockpile of food 2.2 Government purchases stabilize the market 1.2 Farmers get money for product immediately .2 Helps big farmers and processors .5 Less red tape 2.7 Saw no advantage in storage methods 28.5 Don't know what the advantages are 31.6 Other answers 5.3 No answer 18.6 Total 100.0 Number of reSpondents 414 .... J”- ..lf' . ’4“ " TABLE 25 DISADVANTAGES GIVEN BY FARLERS OF USING STORAGE METHODS TO SUPWRT PERISHABIE PRODUCTS. 73 I I Disadvantages of Prasent Support Methods Per Cent k” Storage by government doesn't really solve surplus problem 14.5 Causes waste of food which should be consumed 13.1 Costs are too high, wastes tax money 9.2 Helps middlemen not farmers 6.5 Makes food more expensive to consumers 2.4 Cause 3 overproduction 2 . 4 Not effective in raising prices to farmers 1.5 Only big farmers helped .2 Saw no disadvantage in storage method 4.1 Othe :- answers 6 . C No answer 13.5 Don't know what the disadvantages are 26.6 Total 100.0 Number of respondents 414 \_ —*r t: “‘1 “W r; 74 one-tenth of the farmers thought the cost of the program was too high and that tax money was wasted. Some farmers felt that the storage program helped the middleman instead of farmers. Others thought that the present supports encouraged overproduction. Less than 5 per cent of the farmers could see no disadvantage, 27 per cent didn't know what the disadvantages .3 were, and another 14 per cent didn't answer the question. Over twice as I many farmers gave disadvantages as gave advantages for the storage method of supporting prices of perishable products. In 1950 about twice as many farmers felt that costs were too high and that food was wasted which should “’1 be consumed.55 It was found that farmers who attended county agent meetings were much less likely to give a don't know answer when asked about advantages of the storage program. Only 42.4 per cent of those farmers said don't know, as compared to 58.4 per cent of the farmers who did not attend county agent meetings.56 When this same comparison was made for those farmers who didn't know what the disadvantages were, the difference was somewhat less.57 Also, farmers who rented all or part of their land were less likely to give a don't know answer to both questions than farm owners. The dif- ference in both cases was highly significant.58 The intensive dairy farm- or was more inclined to think that the storage program didn't really solve 551bid., p. 35. 56Significant difference at the l per cent level of chi square. 57Significant difference at the 5 per cent level of chi square. 58$ignificant difference at the l per cent level of chi square. the surplus problem than the farmer with no livestock. Twenty-three per cent of the intensive dairy farmers gave this reason as being a dis- advantage as compared tc 11 per cent of the non-livestock farmers. The dairy farmer was probably more aware of the surplus problem at that time because of the publicity concerning the tremendous quantities of butter and cheese in government storage. Before the farmers were questioned about their opinions on direct payments they were asked if they had ever heard of the idea of allowing perishable products to sell for whatever they would bring and then pay farmers directly if necessary, to bring up their incomes. Fifty-two per cent of the farmers indicated they had heard about direct payments from one source or another. (Table 26) About 40 per cent of the farmers said they had never heard of direct payments and about 10 per cent didn't know or else didn't answer the question. In the 1950 survey it was found that 47 per cent of the farmers had heard about direct payments, 50 per cent said they had not heard about direct payments, and only 3 per cent didn't know or gave no answer.59 (Table 26) In the four year period between surveys there was only a slight increase in the farmers' knowledge about direct payments. It was of interest, however, that the proportion of farmers who associated direct payments with the Brennan Plan declined substantially from 14 per cent to l per cent. More farmers in the 1954 study tended to be uncertain about whether they had heard about direct payments rather than being sure that they had not heard of the direct payment program. “w-.. S'9Hathaway, Peterson, and'Witt, op. cit., p. 36. 76 TABLE 26 THE FAMILIARITY OF FARMERS WITH TEL DIRECT PAYMENT ELAN AS SHOWN BY THE 1950 AND 1954 SURVEYS Mm Knowledge of Direct Payments 1950 1954 Survey Survey Per Cent Have heard of the direct payment idea 33 40 It is part of the Brennan Plan 14 1 Heard of it during'World war II -- 11 Total that had heard of direct payments 47 52 Have never heard of direct payments 5O 39 Don't know if had heard of direct payments 2 6 No answer 1 3 Total ' 100 100 Number of respondents 500 414 77 A greater percentage of farmers having more than five units of live- stock had heard about direct payments than those with less than five units or no livestock at all. Part of this difference could be accounted for by the intensive dairy operators, 15 per cent of whom.had experience with such payments on.milk or cream during World'War II. Nearly half of the a farmers with less than ten years of farming experience had not heard of direct payments hwereas only one-third of the farmers with more than ten years of farming experience had not heard of direct payments. Again, this could be related to the fact that a greater number of farmers with over ten years of farming experience had come in contact with direct payments on milk and cream during the war. Farmers who belonged to a farm organization or attended meetings conducted by county agents were more apt to have heard about direct pay- ments than the other farmers (Table 27). TABLE 27 KNOWLEDGE OF DIRECT PAYMENTS BY FARMERS WHO ATTENDED COUNTY AGENT ILETINGS OR BELONGED TO A FARM ORGANIZATION Knowledge Attended Did not Belonged Did not Belong of Direct County Attend to a to a Payments Agent any Farm. Farm Meetings Meetings Organization Organization Have heard 62 46 63 50 Have not heard 38 54 37 60 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of reSpondents 107 152 186 146 ‘- 78 There was a significant difference between those who did and those who did not attend county agent meetings.60 The difference between those who belonged and those who didn't belong to a farm organization was slightly less significant.61 The farmers were next asked: "What do you feel are the advantages of such a plan? Disadvantages?" Approximately six out of ten farmers saw no advantages for direct payments, responded don't know, or gave no answer at all. (Table 28) This compares with eight out of ten farmers who gave similar answers about the storage program. The largest group of farmers who gave advane tages said direct payments would lower food costs to consumers and thus increase consumption. Others said there would be no loss to the govern- ment from storage and waste, and that farm prices would be raised to the farmers. Some felt that the advantage of direct payments would be the elimination of the processor's participation in the support benefits. There was very little difference between the advantages given in 1950 and those given in 1954. There were no relationships noted between advantages given and any of the characteristic groups. About 10 per cent of the farmers could see no disadvantages of direct payments. (Table 29) There were an additional 48 per cent who had no opinions or did not answer the question; this is contrasted with 40 per cent who had no Opinion or didn't comment on disadvantages of the storage program. Of those farmers who gave disadvantages, the main disadvantage 60Difference was significant at the l per cent level of chi square. 61Difference was significant at the 2 per cent level of chi square. TABLE 28 ADVANTAGES GIVEN BY FARNERS OF USING DIRECT PAYMENTS TO SUPPORT ERISHABLE COMMODITIES 79 Advantages of Direct Payments Per Cent Lowers cost of food to consumers, increases consumption 12.6 No loss to government from storage and waste 6.0 Raises price to farmers 4.6 Clears market 4.4 Cuts out processors 3.6 Reduces waste of food 1.9 Saw no advantages in direct payments 19.1 Other answers 7.7 No answer 14.5 Don't know 25.6 Total . 100.0 Number of respondents 414 80 TABLE 29 DISADVANTAGES GIVEN BY FARMERS OF USING DIRECT PAYMENTS TO SUPPORT RERISHABLE COMMODITIES W Disadvantages of Direct Payments Per Cent Will cost government too much 11.1 Difficult and costly to administer 5.3 Would cause overproduction 4.6 Would have too much red tape 4.3 Don't like idea of government handout 3.9 Would make farm incomes dependent on Department of Agriculture policies 1.4 Would take too long to get money 1.0 'Would cause too much regimentation .2 Saw no disadvantages in direct payments 10.4 Other answers 10.4 No answer 16.7 Don't know 30.7 Total 100.0 Number of reSpondents 414 _M —_ 81 given was "the high cost to the government" which was given by one-tenth of the farmers. Approximately 5 per cent of the farmers were concerned about becoming too dependent on government policies or else didn't like the idea of a government handout. Other farmers believed that the pro- gram would be difficult and costly to administer, result in a lot of red tape, and involve waiting long periods of time for their money from the government. There were about one-half as many farmers concerned about the high cost and administrative aspects in the 1954 study as in the 1950 study. When the different disadvantages were considered it was found that there was a significant difference between those farmers who attended county agent meetings and those who didn't attend the meetings in giving the disadvantage, "Difficult and costly to administer." Over twice as many farmers who attended the meetings gave this disadvantage than those who did not attend the meetings. After the farmers had given advantages and disadvantages for the two methods of price supports, they were asked which method of support they preferred. It was found they had a preference for direct payments. Cver one-third of the farmers preferred the direct payments and less than one- fourth of those questioned wanted the storage method. There were, however, over 30 per cent which didn't express an opinion as to which method they preferred and there was an additional 7 per cent who didn't favor either method. (Table 30) There was a considerable shift in attitudes toward the two methods of sulport between the survey conducted in 1050 and the survey used in this study. In 1950 those farmers interviewed showed a 82 TABLE 30 FARKLRS' CHOICE AS TO METHODS OF SUPPORTING PERISHABLE PRODUCTS Method of Supports Preferred Per Cent, Storage methods used at present 21.5 Direct payments to farmers 33.9 Don't know' 29.5 Don't want either one 7.0 No answer 3.1 Total 100.0 Number of re3pondents 414 83 slight preference for the storage method of supporting prices. Twenty- two per cent did not know which method they preferred and 10 per cent did not favor either method.62 It was found that farmers who rented all their land had little preference for either method. Farmers who owned all their land were definitely in favor of direct payments, while those farmers who owned part of their land and rented the rest tended to take a position in between the two.63 (Table 31) TABLE 31 FARMERS' CHOICES AS TO METHOD OF SUPTORTING PERISHABLE PRODUCTS wammmTomwmsmms Support Method Preferred Owned A11 Owned Some Rented All Land Rented Some Land Per Cent Storage method 27 39 49 Direct payments 73 61 51 Total 100 100 100 Number of reapondents 103 84 43 There was also an association noted between farming experience and age of the operator and the choice of method preferred for support prices on perishable products. Table 32 shows these various relationships. 62Hathaway, Peterson, and witt, op. cit., p. 38. 63The difference between those farmers who own all their land and those who rent all their land was significant at the 2 per cent level of chi square. 84 TABLE 32 YEARS OF FARMING EXPERIENCE AND AGE IN YEARS OF RBSPONDENTS IN RELATION TO THE FAREERS' CHOICE AS TO METHOD OF SUPTORTING PERISHABLE PRODUCTS Farming Experience Age Support method Preferred Less Than Over Under Over 11 11-20 20 36 36-55 55 Storage method 46 35 27 46 37 22 Direct payments 54 65 73 54 63 78 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 76 79 95 59 133 58 In both cases there was very little difference between either of the extreme groups and the middle group.64 According to the results of the 1950 and 1954 studies on farmers' attitudes toward the storage and direct payment there was a shift in favor of direct payments. In the later study, the farmers considered high costs as only a minor disadvantage of both programs. Except for the difference just noted, the farmers only slightly changed their attitudes toward the advantages and disadvantages of the direct payment program. After operating under the storage program for four years the farmers didn't see as many advantages of the program, but neither did they give as many disadvantages. In 1954, the farmers were less likely to express an opinion on the advantages and disadvantages of the storage program. 64The difference between extreme groups was significant at the 2 per cent level of chi square. 85 It would appear that the farmers were becoming more discontented with the storage program, but did not know exactly why. The discontentment 'with the storage program may have been the reason for the shift in favor of the direct payment plan. WV M! AND CONCIDSIOE Sunny In the sinner of 1954 a survey was taken of 414 Hichigan farmers to determine the effects of the United States Department of Agriculture production control programs upon lichigan farms and to further determine the attitudes of the farmers toward thsse programs. has sample areas studied represented various important comercial farming areas of Iichigan. In addition, these areas were so located that managerial decisions involved different kinds of alternatives as the result of production controls. In order to stay within the objective of including only comrsisl forum and farms facing adjustment problem, only these forms having a wheat allotment of 16 acres or more were included in the sample. Only that segment of the survey dealing with the attitudes of the farmers toward the governent programs was used in this study. There were five main facets of the government programs considered: (1) Attitudes of the farmers toward continued acreage controls and the effects of a contin- ued sllotuont program on their farm, (2) Attitudes toward marketing quotas and the penalty enforcement, whether it was on wheat fed on the farm or sold in the market, (3) Attitudes on compliance with sllcuosnts on indi- vidual crops and totsl‘farm acreage allotments, (4) Attitudes toward sup- port levels and the method used in determining a. level, (a) Attitudes toward and knowledge about the storage programs versus tho'direct payment plmo 87 Besides detarnining the farmers’ attitudes toward the various phases of the government programs, an analysis was carried out on possible rela- tionships between the attitudes and characteristics of the farm and farmr. The characteristics of the farmer which were considered as possibly in- fluencing his attitudes were: farming experience, age, tenure status, per cent of income fron farming, farm organisation membership and attend- ance at meetings held by the county agricultural agent. The farm char- acteristics considered were: total acreage, total tillable acreage, type of fern, and intensity of livestock prograns. Over 90 per cent of the far-ers interviewed indicated that they had given some thought about the possibility of continued acreage allotments and nearly eight out of ten farners thought the allotment program wuld be continued. Thus the allotment program had come to be expected as an inevitable aspect of farning. lhen the farmers were asked what changes they would nets in farm operations and fern organization if acreage allot- ments continued, about one-fourth said they would make few or no changes. About 16 per cent of the farmers thought continued allotnents would mean a change in their cropping system. Another 15 per cent didn't Imow what changes, if any, would be necessary in the farm operations or organisation. Intensive dairy far-ers were nore likely to believe that their fern op- erations would not be affected than cash crop farmers. lhen changes in farm organisation were considered it was found that farmers with less than 180 acres of land and farners over 56 years of age were less likely to make changes because of allotments. In spite of the possible effect of marketing quotas on farm opera- tions, only four out of ten farmers took part in the wheat marketing 88 quota vote in 1963 and 1964. Although approximately the same number of farmers voted in the two years, there was a considerable shift in the way the farmers voted. In 1963, of the farmers voting, 61 per cent voted for quotas, 34 per cent voted against quotas, and 6 per cent didn't re- member how'they voted 0r didn't answer the question. In the 1964 vote only 40 per cent of the farmers were for quotas, 46 per cent were against quotas, and 16 per cent did not indicate how they stood on the issue. The change in the vote did not result fron.farmers changing the way they voted, but rather, the change was due to a different composition of farm- ers that took part in the balloting. It was found that farmers who at- tended.meetings conducted by the county agricultural agent were more likely to take part in the balloting. Also, as the size of the farm.inp creased, it was more likely that the farm operator participated in the voting. The only characteristic that appeared to have any association with the wny the farmer voted was his farming experience. Farmers with more than 20 years of experience were more likely to favor marketing restrictions than farmers with less experience. Over two-thirds of the farmers thought the government would enforce the penalty for wheat sold on the market, but only about half as many farmers thought the penalty would be enforced for wheat fed on the fanm. Host of the farmers believed the penalty would be enforced for wheat sold on.the market because the penalty was part of a law or else because they knew the penalty had been enforced before or was in the process of being enforced. The farmers who believed the penalty would be enforced for wheat fed on the farm had no particular reason for believing as they did. The only reason given with any consistency was “The government says it 89 will enforce the penalty.” Of those farmers who didn't believe the penalty would be enforced for either wheat sold or wheat fed, about one- half thought the law was impossible to enforce. Farming experience was the only characteristic that was associated with the attitudes toward the penalty enforcement. The majority of farmers with 6 to 20 years of farming experience didn't think the penalty would be enforced for wheat fed on the farm, whereas over 60 per cent of the farmers with either more or less experience thought the penalty would be enforced. lhen the farmers were questioned about complying With acreage allot- ments it was found that they had about the same reactions toward both the individual crop allotments and total farm acreage allotments. Forty- six per cent of the farmers indicated they would follow individual allot- ments, 41 per cent said they would not comply, and 13 per cent were un- decided as to what they would do. The number of undecided rose to nearly 21 per cent when the total farm acreage allotments were considered, and the other 79 per cent'were about evenly divided on following this cross- compliance aspect of the program. In.both cases the intensive livestock operators were less inclined to follow the allotments than were farmers with other types of farms. Also the farmers having 140-219 acres of tillable land were less likely to follow allotments than those farmers operating either more or less acres of tillable land. On.the positive side, the farmers who attended meetings conducted by the county agent were more likely to comply with both individual crop and total fann allotments than those farmers who did not attend any of the meetings. Nearly one-third of the farmers who planned to comply with allotments were doing so in order to be eligible for the program benefits. 90 Of those farmers who did not plan to follow the allotments, nearly one-third felt they could not reduce their food crops. The intensive livestock farmers especially felt this way. There were only small dif- ferences between the reasons given for complying or not complying with , individual crop allotments and the reasons for compliance or non-compli- ance with total farm acreage allotments. The farmers apparently felt that if they complied on one they might as well comply with both upsets of the allotment program. f In order to get the farmers' attitudes toward price support levels 1 they were asked if they thought that all farm commodities being supported should be supported at the same percentage of parity. Fifty-six per cent of the farmers thought they should be supported the same, 19 per cent didn't think that all farm products should be supported at the same level, and one-fourth didn't express an opinion. Farm owners were more likely to believe there should be equal supports than farmers who rented all the land they operated. ‘ Of the farmers who wanted all supports to be maintained at the same level of parity, only about two-thirds knew the levels were not being so supported at that time. This group of farmers was asked which prod- ucts they believed were being treated unfairly. Nearly 87 per cent of the farmers listed products they believed were being treated less favor- ably; dairy products accounted for two-thirds of the products. Only 42 per cent of the farmers listed a product as being supported favorably in comparison to other products. There appeared to be no real antago- nism among farmers toward price support levels. Although dairy farmers tended to believe that dairy products were being treated unfavorably, 91 they did not seem to blame other parts of agriculture by saying other farm.products were being supported too high. Those farmers who did not believe that all products should be sup- ported at the same level of parity gave various opinions on how'support levels for individual commodities should be determined. However, nearly 60 per cent believed the support level should be determined in some man- ner by surpluses of the comedity. The questions used to gain the farmers' knowledge and attitudes to- ward the storage progrsm and direct payment planoused inethisastidyewere the same ones used in a similar study in 1960. During the four year period there was a considerable shift in attitudes toward the two meth- ods of support. In 1960 the farmers had no strong preference for either method of support, 34 per cent preferred the storage method, and 32 per cent liked the idea of direct payments. The other 64 per cent didn't know which they wanted or else didn't like either plan. In 1954 only 22 per cent wanted the storage program and those who liked the direct payment plan idea increased to 39 per cent. There were still over one- third who did not know”which plan they preferred or also didn't want either method of support. Farmers‘who owned all their land were much :mere in favor of direct payments than those farmers who rented all the land that they operated. Those farmers who owned part of their land and rented some additional land tended to take a position in between those farmers with complete ownership and these who rented all their land. The farmers who had over 20 years of farming experience, or were over 66years of age, tended to be more favorable toward direct payments - “1‘" ‘ "I A.‘..: . -4‘4 . 92 than other farmers. In the later study, the farmers considered high costs as only a minor disadvantage of both programm. Except for the difference just noted, the farmers only slightly changed their attitudes toward the advantages and disadvantages of the direct payment program. After operating under the storage program.for four years the farmers didn't see as many advantages of the program, but neither did they give as many disadvantages. The farmers who at- tended county agent meetings were less likely to give a don't know an- swer when asked about the advantages and disadvantages of the storage program than were those farmers who never attended any of the meetings. Also these farmers who attended the meetings had a better knowledge of direct payments than the other farmers who didn't attend. Conclusions In general, it appeared that farmers had become accustomed to acre- age allotments and accepted them as part of routine farming. ‘Many of the farmers had so established their fanning operations and organisation that they could continue operating under allotments without any undue difficulties. lost of these farmers, however, had accepted the allot- ments with the idea that they could comply or not comply as the immediate situation dictated. If the program benefits were great enough they would comply, but if they thought they could achieve greater income by raising larger acreages or if they needed feed crops, they would not comply. When.programs such as marketing quotas were put forth, they were not so willing to accept the control. A.more stringent control such as marketing 4 n -__.i._ 4‘“ m: 2 . . " Ni . _' “ Ma‘ _—3 -‘ I ~ 1 ._ . i' u; ,' ' ‘ 95 quotas did not leave the farmer as free a choice to comply or not to comply, and thus the farmers were reluctant to commit themselves to future allot- manta. Although the majority of the farmers were following the acreage controls to get the program benefits, they wanted to think they had a freedom to do as they wished and the penalty aspect of the marketing quotas just about eliminated the farmers' freedom of choice. In spite of the possible effect of marketing quotas, and though fewer farmers were willing to accept the quotas, only four out of ten farmers took part in the balloting in 1954. It would appear that the farmers after all were somewhat indifferent to the government programs and were willing to accept what was put before them by someone else. Farmers were not willing to accept the more rigid production controls, yet over one-half of the farmers believed that all supports should be main- tained at the same level of parity. Of those farmers who didn't think supports should be maintained at the same percentage of parity, almost 50 per cent believed that the support level had to be hinged in some manner to the surpluses of the individual products. During the four year period between 1950 and 1954 the farmers modi- fied their attitudes toward the methods of supporting farm prices. In 1950 the farmers had no strong preference for either the storage program or the direct payments plan. In 1954 it was found that there had been a considerable shift in favor of the direct payment plan. The farmers gave about the same advantages and disadvantages of the two proposed programs in both 1950 and 1954 so no clear cut explanation was available as to why the farmers were more willing to accept the idea of direct payments. There was a decline in farm prices during this period and the farmers may have been 94 disillusioned as to the price supporting abilities of the storage program. Also after operating under the storage program for four more years the farmers may have been somewhat discontented with the program and were more willing to accept other alternatives. The direct payment plumbing the 3. .9.’\. alternative proposed in the studies tended to be more readily accepted. Farmers have accepted the idea of acreage allotments and price sup- )”.fil Ge“.- . ports and appear to be in search of different alternatives in maintaining these programs. Often these programs become intensely technical and 1:: ‘—-—— :-. complex, thus a better system of cemnications is needed to provide more information on alternatives to the farmers in order that they may be able to deveIOp a more informed opinion and emercise their rights and obligations as citisens. APPENDIX A. EXCERPTS FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ON M1 ICH THIS STUDY WAS BASED B. CONVERSION RATES FOR LIVESTOCK TO STANDARD ANIMAL UNITS C. COMPOSITION OF SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC GROUPS USED IN THIS STUDY ATTENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ON WHICH THIS STUDY WAS BASED 97 EXCERP’I‘S FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ON WHICH THIS STUDY WAS BASED No . Revised June 21, 1954 Michigan State College Farm Management Survey The information obtained in this questionnaire is intended to be used only for the purpose of research. All information pertaining to indi- viduals will remain confidential and the names of persons cooperating in this survey will not be made public. County Township Interviewer L Date Time Begun Time Ended Completed 1. How many total in 1954? acres are in the farm or farms you are operating How many did you farm in 1953? 2. How many acres 3. How many acres 4. How many acres 5. How many acres 1954 1953 of cropland (tillable acres)? of permanent pasture (not woods)? of woodlot? in buildings , etc . ? Total ‘ .‘Y '1! 3 come] arhli' ‘m-{w- h L e‘.‘. . 6. 7. 8. 14. 15. 98 You mentioned you are farming acres of tillable land. How many acres of it are idle and noFbeing used for field crops or pasture in 1964? In 1963? Ihat proportion of your total income is from farming? 9% a. (IF LESS THAN 100%) what is your major source of non-farm income? a. What is your ownership or tenure status on the land you farm? 1. Own all of land you farm? 2. On some land and rent additional land? 3. Rent all of land that you farm? 4. Ianage farm for someone else as hired manager? 6. Operate land in partnership with someone else? 6. Other 1). (IF PART OF LAND OPERATED IS RENTED) how many acres of land are rented? a. Did you vote on the wheat marketing quota in 1953? Yes 3 How did you vote? Yes No NJ. Don't remember No . DOE. O Did you vote on urinating quota for the 1966 wheat crop? (July 23, 1954) Yes 3 How did you vote? Yes No N.I. D.X. 99 26. No. on han—dw No. on hand Kind of Livestock July 1, 1954 ? July 1, 1953 1. Dairy cows 2. Heifers (Dairy) 3._____Beef cows (Breeding) 4. Feeder cattle 6. Brad sows 6. Hogs on feed 7.____Laying hens 8._____Pu11ets“ 9. Broilers 10.____Turlsey, geese, etc. 1: Sheep, ewes h 12. Feeder lambs 13.______0ther A 14.____Other : . an“: 1‘.- uev car “n.1m-4- 9...»! .' in If I’ll-a. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 100 Have you given any thought to whether we will continue to have acreage allotments on some crops for several years? Yes No How do you feel about the possibility of acreage allotments every year for several years? What effect do you think the allotments will have on your farming operations if they continue for a period of time? what changes, if any, do you plan to males in your present farm organisation if the acreage allotments are continued? This year, for the first time in more than ten years, we have marketing quotes on the wheat crop. According to the law, all farmers who produce more than 16 acres of wheat must comply with their acreage allotments, or pay cash penalties of about 81.12 per bushel on each bushel produced on all of the acreage over their allctnents. a. If the wheat is sold, do you believe the governnent will enforce the final}; of 81.12 per bushel on the farmers who exceed Keir moments Yes ______3 Why? No x “by? __ D.K. ____. b. If all 2.1:. the wheat _i_s_ fed on the farm, do you believe the governnent will enforce the penalfl on farmers who exceeded their wheat acreage allotments Yes 3 Why? No 3 Why?— DOK. 0 It has been announced that next year there will be cross-compliance on all crops with acreage allotments. This means that a farmer will have to comply with the acreage allotments on all crops which have them or get no price supports on any of his crops. In addition, each farm which has more than 10 acres removed from controlled 38. 39. 101 crops will receive a total farm acreage allotment that will include the controlled crops plus the 1953 acreage of other crops. Compli- ance with this total farm allotment will also be necessary on those famms which get one, in order to receive any price supports. b. b. 0e d. lflll you comply with acreage allotments on the individual craps? Yes 3 Why? No 3 “by? D.K. . lill you comply with a total acreage allotment on your farm if you receive one? Yes 3 Why? No 3 Why? D.K. . How ‘would your wheat acreage compare with that which you har- vested in 1963 if there were no controls but the price you ex- pected to receive was one-third lower than for last year's crop? (I) D.K. (2)-——_flbout the same (3) Decrease wheat acreage (4) Increase wheat acreage Why would you take this action? (IF WHEAT ACREAGE WOULD BE emcee, ASK3) What other crops would you increase (or decrease) to offset the changes in wheat acreage? Why would you choose that crop or crops? How would your corn acreage compare with that harvested in 1953 if there were no controls but the price you expected to receive was one-third lower than last year's crop? (I) D.K. (2) About the same (3) Decrease corn acreage (4)._-——Increase corn acreage ‘1 F.‘ A H‘id’. D-Zfiflnm‘JT$‘$3Pu "J 102 b. Why would you take this action? c. (1? com: masses mm as CHANGED, ass.) lhat other crops would you increase (or decrease) to offset the changes in corn acreage? d. ‘Why would you choose that crop or crops? Price support programs are usually based on some percentage of parity; that is, we say that cotton is supported at 90 per cent parity. Do you believe that all commodities being supported should be supported at the same percentage of parity at am given time - say, right now? Yes 3 Do you think that all products are supported at the same percentage of parity now? Yes . No 3 Which products do you feel are being treated less favorably in relation to others by being supported too low? Which, if any, products do you believe are being supported relatively higher than other crops? D.K. . No 3 How should the support level for an individual commodity be determined? Which products, if any, do you feel are being supported too low at the present time? Which products, if any, do you feel are being supported at too high a level? DOK. O 41. 103 Two farmers were talking about ways to keep fanm prices and incomes from falling too low; They didn't agree cn.how perishables like butter and eggs should be supported. One of the farmers, Mr. Black, said he favored the present method by which the government buys direct from processors and stores the products in order to hold prices up. Mr.‘lood, on the other hand, said that.he favored a planuunder which farmers would sell all their perishable products, like eggs, for whatever they would bring. If these prices were so low that they ‘would be below'the support level, then the government would make direct payments to farmers in order to bring their incomes up. a. As you see it, what are the advantages of Mr. Black's suggestion that our government continue its present plan of buying perish- ables direot’from.processors and storing thmm?_‘__* A“ “A M-_-‘~A¥ L kA-‘_ lhat are the disadvantages? A A‘ A “— v b. Have you ever heard of Hr.‘locd's idea, that our government would allow perishable products to sell for whatever they would bring and then pay farmers direct, if necessary, to bring their in- comes up? 1. Yes, i- ‘ __ 2. No, _ _~ _A 3. D.K.___i . (a) What do you feel are the advantages of such a plan? M ‘#A——_ (b) Disadvantages?___ M“— A“ --‘A_.“ n_ ..- M A “ *Ak A—A‘L-L — (c) In general, assuming perishables are going to be supported, which of the two ideas for handling perishable products do you prefer? 1. Purchase from processors 2. Direct payments to farmers 3. D.X. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 104 Approximately how long have you been farming as a farm operator? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Less than five years Five to ten years Eleven to fifteen years Sixteen to twenty years Over twenty years LA. Would you mind telling me your age? 1e UMCI' 25 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 25-35 36-45 46-65 56-65 Over 66 How may of your family live on this farm? Do you usually go to the meetings held by your county agricultural agent if they deal with a product you produce? Yes Do you belong to one or more of the general farm organisations? No H.A. 1. Farm Bureau Grange Farmers Union Farm Bureau and Grange Farm Bureau and F. U. A__A.._‘ 6e Grange ..nd Fe Us 7. All three 8. 9. 0the r___ None APPENDIX B CONVERSION RATES FOR LIVESTOCK TO STANDARD ANIMAL UNITS CONVERSION RAEB FOR LIVESIOCK 1'0 STANDARD “m1. UNITS The animal units were converted using a cow as a standard unit. 106 It is based primarily on nature produced in one year per 1,000 pounds of live woight as follows.‘ Tons of Insure Produced Head of Animals Equal In One Year For 1,000 To One Animal Unit Pounds of Live Weight Cow 1 12.0 Steer l 8.6 Horse 3 1 8.0 Sheep 8 6.0 Bogs 6 16.0 Chickens 860 4.6 'Illinois Agimltural Handbook, 1949, p. 206. APPENDIX C COMPOSITION OF SAHPLE CHARACTERISTIC GROUPS USED IN THIS STUDY 108 TABLE 33 COMPOSITION OF SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC GROUPS 'USED IN THIS STUDY ThBLE 33-A TABLE 33-8 FARMING EXPERIENCE OF OPERATOR AGE OF OPERATOR Years Per Cent Years Per cent Under 6 ' 9.0 Under 25 3.8 5-10 21.5 26-36 80.3 11-15 14.0 36-46 28.7 16-20 16.2 48-66 20.8 no Answer .2 Over 86 9.7 Total 100.0 Total 100.0 Number of respondents 414 Number of respondents 414 TABLE 33-0 MEMBERSHIP II A FARM ORGANIZATION W TABLE 33-D 109 IER CENT OF INCOME Fm FARIING Organization Per Cent Per Cent Income For Cent Farm Bureau 60.? 0- 9.9 1.9 61"“. 10? 10.1909 309 Farmers Union .2 20-29.9 3.6 Farm Bureau and Orange 2.2 30-39.9 3.4 Farm Bureau and Farmers 4049.9 .7 Union 0 50-5909 703 Orange and Farmers Union 0 60-69.9 1.0 All Three e2 70-79.9 1.9 now 45.0 80-89.9 4.6 Total 100.0 90-99.9 4.8 Number of respondents 414 100 66.9 Total 100.0 lumber of respondents 414 110 TABLE 33-8 TABLE 33-? TEWRE STATUS OF OPERATOR ATTENDANCE OF COUNTY AGENT EETINGS Status Per Cent Answer Per Cent Own all the farm 47.8 Yes 33.8 Own some land and rent some 29.0 lo 44.? Rent all the land farmed 16.? Sometimes 20.5 Hanage farm 1.0 lo Answer 1.2 Operate land in partnership 4.8 Ag foul 100.0 0th.? leg A Number of respondents 414 TOtCl 100.0 Number of respondents 414 IABLE 33-0 TOTALIFARIIACREAGE OF FARMS ENUIERATBD 111 TABLE 35-3 TILLABLE ACREAOE OF FARMS ENUNERATBD Acres Per Cent 0- 69 2.9 70- 99 8.2 100-139 12.3 140-179 20.6 180-219 14.2 220-269 12.8 280-299 8.0 300-499 16.7 500- 4.8 Total 100.0 number of respondents 414 Acres Per Cent 0- 89 9.2 70- 99 11.8 100.139 21.0 140-179 20.3 180-219 13.3 220-269 10.2 280-299 4.8 300- 9.4 Total 100.0 Number of respondents 414 TABLE 33-1 ms or mm mm Ismssxm or LIVESTOCK meow 112 Type and Intensity Per Cent Per Cent Intensive 38.9 Extensive 10.4 BOO: 9e‘ Intensive 8.3 Extensive 3e 1 Hogs 6.3 lanai" 3e9 Extensive 1.4 0th.? 3 e9 13““.1” Ze‘ Etumr'. 1.5 General 4.8 Intensive 3.1 Extensive 1.7 Less than 5 units ef livestock 9.7 No livestock 19.6 Toul 100eo 70e7 number of respondents BIBLIOGRAPHY Buts, W. T. , 0. I. Pierce, and H. S. Preston. Producer Knowled and 0 inion of State Hilk Control in Penns ham cu ra Experiment 3%tIonfThe finnsyIvamte CoIIege, State College, Pennsylvania, Journal Series Paper No. 1798, April, 1963. Gray, Roger I., Vernon L. Sorenson, and Willard W. Cochrane. An Economic Anal sis of the Impact of Government Programs on the PotaE' Indus In the Uni-Senate“ University o? Minnesota—AgricuIturaI Experiment S'EeTt onT. nne‘Tepo s, Minnesota, Technical Bulletin 211 and North Central Regional Publication lo. 42, June, 1964. . Price Sun rts and the Potato Indust . University of Minnesota AngcuItu‘r—aJI SxperIzn'F-Stati on, Minneapolis, linnesota, Station Bulletin 424 and North Central Regional Publication Ho. 43, January, 1964. Hamilton, I. E. The Economics and Political Hailosophy _o_f_ Variable Price $521321; MmfiMi's—e-d W paper preparedm‘e-tfn-E o the Soufiern Economic Association, November 19 and 20, 1964, Merchandise Ilart, Chicago, Illinois. Hathaway, Dale E. ”Agricultural Policy and Farmers Freedom: A Suggested Framework," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 111V, No. 4, November, 1953. —""" “" ‘- , and A. Dewey Bond, Hichi an Potato Producer; and Price Support Pro rams. Uichigan State 0 e riculturfl Experiment tat on, 9 East ESsing, Michigan, Technical Bulletin 241, June, 1964. , E. E. Peterson, and Lawrence litt. Michigan Farmers and the Price Su ort Pro ram. 11. Farmer's Attitudes award Es Sup-FEM PFogram. c igan tats Colfige ErIcuIturaI Experiment Station, ast nsing, Michigan, Technical Bulletin 236, December, 1962. , and L. I. Witt. "Agricultural Policy: Ihose Valuations,” Journal 2}; Farm Economics, Volume mm, No. 3, August, 1962. Kaldor, Donald R. Views of Iowa and Northern Illinois Farmers on Price Su rt Polio . Iowa IngcfiTturaI EmermtIcn, Iowa 5535 SoIIe gs, s, Iowa, Preliminary Report No. 1. . Views of Iowa and Northern Illinois Farmers on Price Su rt Polio . To'wa Agricultural Experiment Station, I?” State Cc ego, s, Iowa, Preliminary Report No. 2, January 6, 1964. 114 . Views of Iowa and Northern Illinois Farmers on Price Su rt PolI . I'o'wa EmmraI Expermnt Station, Fwa State Co ego, Es, Iowa, Preliminary Report No. 3, March 1, 1964. . Views of Iowa and lcrthern Illinois Farmers on Price Su rt Pol! . Tommlfifid Immuflon, Ewe Sate 0 age, Es, Iowa, Preliminary Report lo. 4, Hay 18, 1964. Kettering, Darwin 0. "Participation in the Federal Price Support Program by Michigan Farmers.” Unpublished I. S. thesis, Department of Agri- cultural Sconomics, Iichigan State College, 1961. Hichigan Department of Agriculture. lichigg Aggimntural Statistic; 1964. m. 1956. V v loo, Edward O. Sew York Parner's 0 inions on ricultural 123%. How York State C'o'Ilege o? IEIculmre a CorneII UHversIt , a, new York, Cornell Extension Bulletin 884, November, 1962. Patton, James G. festincw before the Senate Agricultural Connittee, June 7, 1964, as reported by the Hational Farmers Union, Iashiggton Newsletter, Volume 2, Ho. 23, June 10, 1966. Shepard, Geoffrey. “that Can a Research Han Do in Agricultural Price Policy?” Journal 35 Farm Economics, Volume xxxvn, Ho. 2, Kay, 1966. Th; m Blue Book. The National Grange, Iashington, D. 0., 1966. United States Departnent of Agriculture. Price Pregam, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 136, January, 156 . . _Th_e_ lheat Situation. lS-139, June 30, 1964. . 1h; Family Policy Review. June 11, 1961. United States Government Printing Office, ”Hearings before the Subcon- nittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Sighty Fourth Congress, First Session,‘I Agicuhurgl Appgopriations £35 1964, lashington, D. C. _ walker, Helen 11., and Joseph lev. Statistical Analysis. Henry Holt and Co., lew York, New York, 1963.‘I ROOM USE 0W