PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDEML PM SUPPORT PROGRAM BY MICHlGAN FARMS!!! Thai: for flu beam of M. S. MimiGAN STATE COLLEGE Darwin 6. Kettering 1.951 ihg_‘__ Inmmmmarn NW1: 0727 9238 RETURNING MATERIALS: bV1531_} Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from ..--z3--_ Your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. This Is to certify that the thesis entitled "Participation in the Federal Price Support Program - by Michigan Farmers" presented by Darwin G. Kettering has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for If. S. degree in Agricultural Economics MAL. Major professor Date August 20, 1951 0-169 PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY MICHIGAN FARMERS BY Darwin G. Kettering A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1951 " / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to Professor Everett E. Peterson for his guidance and constructive criticism in the preparation of this thesis. The suggestions given by Professor Lawrence ”W. Witt were greatly appreciated. The cOOperation and time of the farmers interviewed is acknowledged. Appreciation is especially expressed to Professor Duane L. Gibson of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology for his assistance in conducting this study. Finally, the author is indebted to his wife for typing and proofreading this work. The author, of course, assumes full responsibility for any errors that may be present in this manuscript. 5253:88 1-53 PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY MICHIGAN FARMERS By Darwin G. Kettering AN'ABSTRACT submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1951 Approvedw V Darwin G. Kettering The purpose of this study is to (1) determine the extent of par- ticipation, (2) analyze factors that affect participation, and (5) study reasons given by Michigan farmers why they do or do not partici- pate in the federal price support program. The information for this study was obtained by interviewing a random sample of 505 commercial farmers located in the southern half of Michigan's lower peninsula. The field work was done during the summer of 1950. (1) In 194.9, only 25.5 per cent of the 505 farmers interviewed had used the federal price support program. Also, there were only 15.9 per cent that indicated they intended to use the price support program in 1950. Participation in the acreage allotment program for 1950 differed for each of the controlled crops. For com, 28 per cent of the pro- ducers were within their allotment; wheat, 36.6 per cent; beans, 55.7 per cent; and potatoes, 57.9 per cent. However, many were within their allotment for other reasons than being eligible for the price support program. If those giving other reasons are removed only a small number are left who participated in order to be eligible for price supports. (2) It was found that the price differential between the market price and the support price, size of farm, and type-of-farm were sig- nificant factors affecting participation. However, type-of-farm m not significant as a factor affecting participation for farms under 200 acres in size. Thus, if use of the program is used as a criteria of benefits received, the large crop farmers are benefiting from the Darwin G . Kettering price support program the most. Factors found to have little or no significant influence upon participation in the price support program are: (l) tenure, (2) in- debtedness, (3) political party, (h) membership in farm organizations, (5) age, (6) farming experience, and (7) education of the operator. (3) The higher price they could receive for their-price supported crop was the reason given most often by farmers why they used the price support program. This was also the main reason given for not using the program on the cash crops. 0 However, the large farms were concen- trated in the group using the program indicating that a price differen- tial is more important to the large farmers. Inadequate storage and dislike of the program were not significant as reasons for not using the program. The reasons most often given for being within their acreage allot- ment could be classified as coincidence. That is, they complied be- cause the weather did not permit them to plant more or, under their rotation the size of the field available was less than the allotment. Very few farmers complied with acreage allotment because they expected to use the price support program. The main reason for not complying with the acreage allotment for the cash crops was that it interfered with their rotation or they did not want to split fields. None indica- ted that they had stayed out in order to maximize their income. Thus, it appears that farmers are influenced by physical reasons more than economic when it concerns participation in the acreage allotment pro- gram; the former being close at hand, the latter tradionally being something over which they have no control, price being important when they have alternatives at a moment of time. CHAPTER I. II. III. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................ Purpose of the Study................................. Importance of the Study.............................. PROCEDURE AND METHODS................................... Selection of the Areas Studied....................... Selection of the Sample Interviewed.................. The Questionnaire.................................... HISTORICAL BACKGROUND................................... Review of Price Support Legislation.................. Definition of Terms Used............................. EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM......................................... Proportion of the Farmers Using the Price Support Programs in l9h9..................................... Preporticn of the Farmers Intending to Use the Price Support Program in 1950........................ Proportion of the Farmers Complying with Acreage AllOtmentS in lgSoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo FACTORS AFFECTING PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPOM PmeMOCCOOOOOOOOOO.0O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO Prices Recei‘VGd by Farmers..........................o PAGE 13 13 18 23 26 26 L9 1&9 53 55 59 59 CHAPTER VI. VII. Farm.Situation...................................... Characteristics of the Operator..................... REASONS FARMERS GAVE FOR PARTICIPATION OR NONPARTIC I- PATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM............ Use of Loan and Storage and Purchase Agreements..... Compliance With Acreage Allotments.................. CONCLUSIONS............................................ APPENDIX.A Material Used in the Selection of the Sample Areas............................... APPENDIX.B Material Used in the Selection of the Sample Interviewed......................... .APPENDIX C The Questionnaire.......................... BIBLIOGWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO0.0.0.0000...0.00.00.00.00. ii PAGE 62 66 78 78 89 108 120 133 TABLE 2. 3. h. 5. 7. 9. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Number of Sample Farms Required in Each Area............. Counties, Townships and the Number of Farms Per Township to be Selected for Interviewing................. Use of Price Supports in l9h9 and Intentions for 1950, 505 Farms, Southern Michigan....................... Compliance With Acreage Allotments for Farmers Reporting Controlled Crops, Southern Michigan, 1950................ Use of the Price Support Program.by Farmers Reporting Selling Price Supported Crops, Southern Michigan, l9h9... Per cent that Used the Price Support Programiby Type- of-Farm, 505 Farms, Southern Michigan, 19b9.............. Per cent that Used the Price Support Program by Size of Farm, 505 Farms, Southern Michigan, 19h9.............. Per cent that Used the Price Support Program.by Tenure Group, 505 Farms, Southern Michigan, 19h9................ Per cent that Used the Price Support Program by Real Estate Indebtedness, 1.39 Farms, Southern Michigan, 1919.. Per cent that Used the Federal Price Support Program.by Political Party, 505 Farms, Southern.Miohigan, l9u9...... Per cent that Used the Price Support Program_by Member- ship in.Farm Organizations, 505 Farms, Southern Michigan, 19h90000000000000000000000....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..00... iii PAGE 19 20 53 57 63 67 7o 72 iv TABLE PAGE 12. Per cent that Used the Price Support Program by Age of the Operator, 505 Farms, Southern Michigan, 19b9....... 7h. 15. Per cent that Used the Price Support Program by Years of Farming Experience, Southern Michigan, 19L9........... . 75 114. Per cent that used the Price Support Program by Education of the Farm Operator, 505 Farms, Southern Michigan, 19h9............................................ 76 15. Reasons Given by Michigan Farmers Why They Used the Price Support Program, Southern Michigan, 19119.. ... . .... . .... .. . 80 16. Reasons Given by Michigan Farmers Why They Did not Use the Price Support Program, Southern Michigan, 19149.... 81 17. Reasons Given by Michigan Farmers Why They Complied With Acreage Allotments, Southern Michigan, 1950..... .... . 85 18. Reasons Given by Michigan Farmers Why They Did not Comply With Acreage Allotments, Southern Michigan, 1950.. . 86 19. Distribution of the Major Types of Farms by Counties, ‘ Michigan, 19M............................................ 98 20. Distribution of the Major Type of Farms by Type-of- Farming Areas, Michigan, 191414............................. 102 21. Land in Farms, Tillable Land and Land Use by Counties, Michigan, 19th............................................ 103 22. Land in Farms, Tillable Land, and Land Use by Type- Of’Farming Areas, Michigan, 19141400000000.0000oe‘eoeoeoeeooo 10? LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Location of Counties and Townships Used as Sample AreaBOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO............DOOOOOOOOO......OOOCOOOO 13 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of this Study It is the purpose of this study to (1) determine the extent of par- ticipation; (2) analyze factors that affect farmers participation; and (5) study the reasons given by Michigan farmers why they do or do not participate in the federal price support program. This study is a segment of a research project about farmers be- havior, knowledge, and attitudes toward federal price support legisla- tion. The title of this project is, "Farmers' Responses and Adjustments to Production Control and Price Support Programs in Michigan." Besides the objectives outlined above for this study, this project had the following objectives: (1) to study the adjustments in kinds and amounts of crepe and livestock and in production techniques on farms cooperating with the acreage allotments programs, and on non-cooperating farms between l9h9 and 1950; (2) to analyze the effect of these adjust- ments on farm resource combination, use, and net farm income; (5) to determine the aggregate effect of these adjustments on the production «if corn, wheat, beans, and potatoes, and on the production of alterna- ‘bive commodities; and.(h) to develop a method which can be used for stundies of similar problems in other areas and in other years. Importance of the Study Agriculture is the classic example of production under competitive conditions. It fulfills, for the most part, the basic conditions of "pure" competition. There are a large number of producers and it is relatively easy for a newcomer to enter the industry. No single pro- ducer can affect to any great extent, the price of the resources he buys or of the products he sells. Therefore, it would appear that government price programs would be unnecessary or certainly be at a minimum. Agricultural prices would be determined by economic laws operating in a more or less free market. These free market prices would serve to control the production and consumption of agricultural products. For instance, an increase in demand for a commodity would raise its price and that rise in price would make the production of the commodity more profitable. This would bring more resources into the industry thus, increasing production to meet the increase in demand. Also, a decrease in demand would work through the same mechanism to decrease production and resources would be forced out of the production of this commodity. Similarly, if the supply of an agricultural commodity is increased this would lower the price of the commodity, and this lower price would move more of it into consumption and force resources out of the industry. .Also, a decrease in the supply would raise its price and this would ra- tion out the small supply to those who are willing to pay the most for it and make it profitable for resources to enter the industry. The free market price mechanism automatically makes production and consumption equal. It is a mechanism which regulates the quantities that are produced and consumed, allocates that production among the low cost producers, and distributes the consumption among the consumers with the strongest effective demand. Until the end of the 1920's, agricultural production and consump- tion were regulated by this mechanism. In the sense that agricultural commodities were kept moving from the producer to the consumer and the market was always cleared, it worked, but it also proved to be unstable and wasteful in the short run. In the long run, agriculture has become a declining industry in the sense that less and less human effort is required to produce all the agricultural products demanded. The price mechanism has not worked well in moving these human resources out of the industry. Because of this, agriculture has generally been unpro- fitable when compared to other industries. The price mechanism.has not worked well in changing resource use to coincide with the changes that have taken place in the per capita consumption of different foods. Thus, the production of some agricultural products is out of step with consumer demand, and this has the effect of lowering the return to these resources. In the short run, the free market price mechanism did not work 'well because of several characteristics of agricultural production and consumption.1 Erratic fluctuations in supply have always been a charac- 'teristic of agricultural production. Even though the acreages planted 'to different crops would remain constant in line with a constant demand, 1. Shepherd, Geoffrey 8., Agricultural Price Control, Ames, Iowan The Collegiate Press Inc., 19h9. pp 5-11. or change in line with a change in demand, unpredictable variations in weather would cause fluctuations in yields and therefore, in total pro- duction. A second characteristic that has hampered the operation of the free market price mechanism in the short run has been the changes that take place in the demand for farm products that go with prosperity and depression. These changes in general demand cause prices to fluctuate widely. During these fluctuations in demand, total agricultural pro- duction remains fairly stable. Each farm is set up to produce a cer- tain quantity and the individual farmer has no influence on the price he pays or receives so his tendency is to avoid any substantial changes in output which would involve substantial costs and to keep producing the same total amount. A third characteristic of agriculture that has caused difficulty in the operation of the free market price mechanism.is the length of the production period and the seasonal nature of agricultural produc- tion. This causes maladjustments between production and demand of agricultural products to exist for a few years before there is a change in production. A clear illustration of this is the various cycles found in livestock production. Besides these characteristics of agricultural production that .have kept the price mechanism from functioning properly in the short tins, there have been long run problems. The problem of low earnings i11 agriculture relative to other industries is caused by the slowing «down.of population growth outside of agriculture, the inelastic demand curve for agricultural products, and the rapid technological improve- ments that have been introduced to increase agricultural production.2 As the technological improvements are adopted and production is increased, the prices of agricultural products are forced down because of the inelastic demand for these products. The total income of the industry is decreased because an increase of one per cent in output wdll increase revenue by less than one per cent where the demand is inelastic. As agriculture becomes more unprofitable, the resources are forced out. In the case of agriculture, the resources have con- sisted mostly of the labor force. The reasons for this are that labor is quantitatively the most important resource employed in agriculture, the improvements in technology have been largely labor saving in their effect, and labor is more readily transferable than other resources.5 The effect of this excess supply of labor upon the rate of return that labor employed in agriculture receives, is to lower it. Both hired and self-employed people earn relatively low incomes. Because of the low earnings, people are induced to leave agriculture but be- cause of state laws, traditions, and the failure to prepare farm youth for other occupations, labor cannot move freely and the rates are for- ced down considerably below expanding industries. There have also been the long run problems of the effect of changes ill consumer tastes upon the returns of resources employed in the 2. Schultz, Theodore W., Production and welfare 3£_Agriculture, New York: The Macmillian Company, 19149. pp 88. 3. Schultz, Theodore'W., Agriculture in an Unstable Economy, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1915. pp 85 production of certain agricultural products. The consumption of some foods has increased and that of others decreased. The per capita con- sumption of fruits, vegetables, and dairy products have shown a marked increase in the past forty years, while the consumption of grain pro— ducts and potatoes have declined. The effect of this has been to lower the prices of these products and the returns to the resources employed in their production. Because of the difficulties caused by the inherent features of agricultural production, which prevent the free market prices from.regu- lating agricultural production and consumption satisfactorily, and the relative unprofitability of agriculture caused by excess labor supply and changing consumer tastes, there have been numerous agricultural programs. These programs started out as programs of advice, assistance and action in times of emergency. They have passed through this stage to one of continuing administrative controls. The greatest share of the agricultural programs that have been developed have attempted to increase agricultural income by increasing agricultural prices. As a consequence of this program, there have been production control pro- grams that attempt to reduce production to a level consistent math the greater revenue in order to prevent surpluses. ~Thus, some of the price and production policies of agriculture become exactly the same as the monopoly organization which controls production as a means of increas- ing revenue. In order that the present federal price support programs would operate without difficulty and be fully effective, several assumptions had to be made as to farmers' behavior and the marginal rates of substitution of resources and products that apply on different types of farms. It was assumed that farmers who participated in the programs, would receive higher net incomes and have less price uncertainty than if they did not participate; therefore, it was believed that most farmers would participate in the program. It was further assumed that by making participation in the acreage control program a prerequisite to participation in the price support program, production would be re- duced in line with the greater net revenue and burdensome surpluses would not accumulate. This contained the further assumption that the technical rates of substitution that actually apply on the various types of farms are not flexible enough so that farmers may adopt production techniques which would offset the anticipated reduction in production because of the reduced acreage. However, there have been numerous deviations from these optimum conditions as given in the above assump- tions. Participation by farmers in these programs has been much less than 100 per cent. Numerous hypotheses can be given why farmers do not participate in the programs. For instance, in the case of feed crops, such as oats and barley, the present program.may have little to offer the livestock producer who feeds all of these crops. Also, 'the farmer may dislike to take on the storage function because under ‘the program.the farmer must assume some of the risks involved in stor- ixu; crops. Moreover, farmers who raise corn, wheat, beans, and pota- toes or crops which are subject to acreage control, may choose to stay curt of the program and increase their acreages of these crops in an- ticipation of higher market prices. Their price eXpectations may turn to the optimistic side because of the program and general business conditions. Another deviation from the optimum conditions required to make the program fully effective, is that farmers who do cooperate with the acreage allotment programs can adopt production techniques which off- set partially or completely, the anticipated effects of a moderate reduction in total acres planted. To offset a reduction in production, farmers can do the following: (1) they may remove the poorest acres from production; (2) they may use better seed, more fertilizer, and take better care of the acreage they are allowed to crop; (3) they may use the acres released by the allotment to produce substitute crops; or (A) they may use the acres released to improve the soil. The farmers may be willing to put these changes into effect because their price ex- pectations for the crop may take an optimistic turn because of the plan- ned curtailment of output, and the support price is high enough to pay for the changes in resource combination. Because of these deviations from the optimum conditions necessany to provide for the efficient operation of the program, many problans have arisen. The reduction in total production of the controlled crops znay result in lower net incomes to farmers who cooperate in the acreage allotment programs than the income realized by those who do not cooper- trte despite the price support programs for these crops. Thus, partici- ‘pation.in programs may be small and the individual farmer has the problem cu? appraising the profit opportunities available and determine whether lma shall or shall not participate in the prograns. A second problem of national significance is the accumulation of surpluses of the price supported crops even though acreage restrictions are in effect. These surpluses appear because agricultural programs are political issues and political considerations have resulted in price supports that are considerably above equilibrium levels. At that price, the amount demanded by consumers is less than the amount that 'will be supplied; thus, the market can only be cleared by government purchase and storage. These chronic surpluses may appear in the areas that are normally surplus producing areas because the farmers in the deficient grain producing areas are forced to become more self-sufficient. The high market prices for feed grain may be forcing them to reduce their pur- chases from the surplus areas and grow more of their own feed. Another factor that may cause the accumulation of surpluses de- spite the control of production would be the high retail prices for beans and potatoes. This may be causing the substitution of other items for these two food products in the consumer's diet. These two products also tend to be ”inferior" goods of which consumers purchase more when incomes are low than when incomes are high. Another cause of surplus accumulation would be that a reduction in the acreage of controlled creps fails to bring about the desired reduction in production because yields per acre increase. Available evidence indicates that in most types of farming, farmers can adopt prculuction techniques that will offset any moderate reduction in acreage}.l h. Schultz, Theodore W. and 0. H. Brownlee, Effects pf Crop ‘Acreage Control Features of AAA on Feed Production in ll Midwest States, Agricultural Experiment Station, Research.Bull3tin 295, Ames, Iowa, April, 19h2, pp 678. 10 p A third problem that may arise is that acreage controls may be re- quired for additional crops. Shifts in the farming program to utilize the land taken out of presently controlled crops may lead to the need for controls on additional commodities in the future. For instance, the substitution of soybeans for corn and wheat, or the substitution of feed crOps for cash crops, and increases in livestock to utilize the feed may all call for the need of additional controls. There are a number of possible solutions to these problems. From the farmers viewpoint they could be aided by an appraisal of the profit opportunities available under the existing programs as an aid to making their decisions as to whether or not they should participate in such programs. In order that the present legislation may be more effective,‘ more drastic reductions in the acreage of corn, wheat, beans, and pota- toes may be required. The acreage control feature may need to be exe tended to substitute crOps. There may also be a need for greater incentives to encourage farmer cooperation or the use of compulsory compliance with the program. Another possible solution is that the program should be revised. .A possible example of a revised program would be one that would provide income and conservation payments to farmers in low price periods. The Inarket prices of agricultural commodities would be allowed to fluctuate in.accordance with supply and demand. Then in order to encourage the excess population in agriculture to move to alternative occupations, 'the price program would be supplemented by one that would tny to re- Imave barriers to labor migration. 11 At the present time, the demand for agricultural products is veny high and there is not a surplus problem but a problem of shortages. Agricultural prices in some instances, are not in need of support but of control. However, agricultural programs are still in effect. A few segments of agriculture are relatively well off only at times when demand is very high. Probably there will again be a time when a large segment of agriculture will be faced with the problem.of low prices. Thus, it is important that the problems that have arisen under the present legislation.be studied in order that possible solutions may be put forth. This information should be forthcoming in order that future agricultural programs will operate with less difficulty and with fewer conflicts between the objectives of the program and the ends of society. CHAPTER II PR EDURE AND TECHNIQUES Selection of Areas Studied The final selection of the sample areas indicated on Figure l was influenced by two objectives: first, to make the sample as representa— tive of the important commercial farming areas of Michigan as possible; second, to obtain a large enough sample to assure reliability of the final results with economy of time and money. To further this objec— tive the state was divided into commercial and noncommercial agricul- tural areas.5 The areas defined as commercial and included in this 6 study were Type-of—Farming Areas 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 on Figure 1. In order to further limit the area of travel and expedite the process of interviewing, seven counties were selected to represent the six type-of-farming areas. The seven counties selected were Lenawee, St. Joseph, Eaton, Livingston, Sanilac, Saginaw, and Montcalm. These counties were selected on the basis of type-of—farming, crops grown, location in the area, and location with respect to industrial areas. Industrial areas were omitted in order to eliminate as much as possible, the large number of part-time farmers, the problems of which were 5. Non-commercial areas were defined as those having less than 50 per cent of the total land area in farms. 6. Hill, E. B., Types-pffFarming in Michigan, Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 205: East Lansing, Michigan, June, 1959. 13 “‘..mmuuaaummmmlll/ll/l/Im-mmm.mun-u" Counties Selected IIIII Sample Townships FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS USED AS SAMPLE AREAS MICHIGAN Area , 13. 15. 16. 17. Corn and Livestock Small Grains and Livestock Southwestern Fruit and Truck Crops Poultry, Dairy and Truck Craps Dairy and General Farming Dairy and Cash Crops Dairy, Hay and Special Craps Beans, Sugar Beets, and Dairy Cattle, Sheep, and Forage Central Potato and Dairy Northern Fruit and Dairy Northern Potato and Dairy General, Self-Sufficing, and part- time Cattle, Potatoes, and Self-Suffic - :1 Cattle, Hay and Spring Grains Dairy and Potatoes Potatoes, Dairy, and Part—Time - . HIHIHIIIIIEIIIIINHI. .Nll‘fll' . :2'.‘ vwill'f. O'J'IICCUOIQCIUIIJIOIIIIIII H "”0"" "VJ"! “I":Ilhllfll all "Ill J ‘ ’IOHHIIONHIUIJIIMH"?V -. .000. an. I. o I“ o -.. ..v a. It i I n I ~ . | ‘ ... . .5 a l . \ \ ...! a s}. s Hi considered a separate study. Tables 19, 20, 21, and 22 in Appendix A present the basic county and area data that was used to select the areas studied. This data was taken from l9h5 United States Census of Agriculture. Area 1 is the major corn and livestock area in.Michigan. In l9hh, 90 per cent of the land was in farms and 70 per cent of the farmland was tillable. The major crop was corn which occupied 20 per cent of the tillable land. About 28 per cent of the farms in this area were classified as general farms, 26 per cent were classified as dainy.farms, and 1h per cent as livestock farms. Lenawee county was selected from this area because it is centrally located, contains no large industrial areas, and is generally representative of the area. St. Joseph county was selected to represent Area 2 which is the small grain and livestock area in Michigan. In l9hh, 85 per cent of the land was in farms and 68 per cent of the farmland was tillable. Corn and pasture occupied 20 per cent of the tillable land. About 28 per cent of the farms were classified as general farms, 22 per cent as dairy farms, and 18 per cent as livestock farms. St. Joseph county is further away from the influence of industrial areas than other counties in Area 2. Area 5 is the general farming area of Michigan. In l9bh, 86 per cent of the land was in farms and 68 per cent of the farmland was til- lable. In this area, a large variety of crops are grown with hay and corn being the two most important crops. In 19hh, about 26 per cent of the farms were classified as dairy farms, 22 per cent as general farms, and lh per cent as livestock farms. Two counties, Eaton.and Livingston, were selected from this area because of itssize and the large number of farms to be represented in the sample. Eaton county is located in the western half of the area and Livingston county is located in the eastern half. They were selected primarily for their location in the area and because the two together fit the average for the areas as to land use and type-of-farming. From.Area'7, Sanilac county was chosen. This is the dairy and special crops area of Michigan. In 196b, 86 per cent of the land was in farms and 7h per cent of the farmland was tillable. In this area hay, pasture, oats, wheat, and beans are the important crOps. In 19hb, 38 per cent of the farms were classified as dairy farms, 20 per cent as general farms and 16 per cent as crOp farms. Sanilac county was chosen from this area because it is further removed from the influence of the Detroit industrial area and does not contain an industrial area like that found along the St. Clair River in St. Clair county. Area 8 is the major bean and sugar beet area of Michigan. In this area the major crops are hay, beans, pasture, and wheat. In 19AM, farms occupied 82 per cent of the land area and 68 per cent of the farmland -was tillable. About 29 per cent of the farms were classified as general farms, 26 per cent as crop farms and 19 per cent as dairy farms. Saginaw county was chosen from this area.because it is an important bean produc- ing county and because of its location in the area. Area 10 is the major potato growing region of Michigan. In 19bb, only 57 per cent of the land was in farms and 50 per cent of the farm- iland.wms tillable. The major form of land use is hay. In.l9hh, 32 per cent of the tillable land was used for this purpose. About 37 per cent 16 of farms were classified as dairy farms, 25 per cent as general farms, and 10 per cent as crop farms. Montcalm county was chosen from this area because it was the leading potato producing county in the area. From the above seven counties, twenty-four townships were selected as blocks for concentrated study in order to economize on time and money. These townships are indicated on Figure l. The townships were chosen by arraying the townships in each county according to the per cent of land in farms that was tillable, then dividing them into three or four groups and selecting the middle township in each group. In Lenawee, St. Joseph, Eaton, and Montcalm counties, the town- ships after being arrayed, were divided into thirds and the middle township of each group was chosen. In the case of the same percent- age of tillable land in two townships, or in the case of even mmbere in each of the thirds, the township with the name beginning with the letter appearing first in the alphabet was chosen. In Saginaw, Sanilac, and Livingston counties, the townships were arrayed and then divided into fourths and the middle township selected following the same procedure as outlined above. In the case of Sanilac and Livingston counties, this procedure was followed in order to sample more farms and allow for not having a county in Area 6. Although this area contains a large number of farms producing mainly for home use, the commercial farms are similar to those in Livingston and Sanilac counties and were represented in the sample by this means. In Saginaw county another sample township was selected because only farms of seventy acres and over were to be included in the sample. This procedure was followed in order to eliminate some of the part-time and subsistence farms. In this county the large number of farms below seventy acres in size made 17 another township advisable in order to secure enough farms of seventy acres and over. There were new areas excluded from this study. These areas were omitted on the following basis: (1) crops grown; (2) type-cf-farming; (3) amount of land in farms; and (A) number of farms producing mainly for home use. The information used to exclude these areas is presen- ted in the tables included in Appendix A. The fruit areas, which are represented by Type-cf-Farming Areas 3, h, and 11 in Figure l, were omitted because may of the important cash crops in these areas are not under the price support program. Area 3 is the most important fruit region in Michigan, and Area 11 is second in importance. Area 14, besides being an important fruit area, is the most intensive dairy and poultry area in Iichigan. Type—cf-Farming Area 6 was also omitted from the sample. This area was omitted because over one-third of the farms are producing mainly for home use. However, because the ccmnercial farms in. this area are similar to those found in the surrounding area, they were rep- resented in the sample by the procedure previously described. Type-of-Faming Areas 9, 12, 13, 1h, 15, 16, and 17 were also ex- cluded from the sample. These areas were defined as noncommercial ag- ricultural areas. In 191m, these areas all had less than 50 per cent of the total land area in farms. Of the total land in farms, less than 145 per cent was tillable with the exception of Area 15 which had only 114 per cent of the total land in forms but 53 per cent of it was tillable. Of the tillable land, 60 per cent or more was in hay and pasture with the exception of Area 12 which had 1.6 per cent. Therefore, the acreage of such price supported crops as corn, wheat, beans, and 18 potatoes is too small to make the crop sales of any consequence and they were excluded from the sample. Selection of the Sample to be Interviewed. In order to stay within the objective of trying to sample comer- cial agriculture, only farms of seventy acres or more were included in the sample to be interviewed. 0n the basis of the breakdown planned in the tabulation, a sample of five hundred of these farms was necessary to provide reliable results. The operators of these farms were inter- viewed during the sumer of 1950. The "five-hundred” sample was divided among the different counties by computing the total number of farms seventy acres and over, in each of the type-of-farming areas represented by the seven counties. The percentage of farms in each area was computed and the sample was divi- ded among the areas according to these percentages. Table 1, located on page 19, gives the per cent of farms that are seventy acres and over in each area and the number of sample farms required in each area. The mmber of farms in each county to be interviewed was divided equally among the townships selected in the county. Table 2, located on page 20, presents the counties, number cf farms to be interviewed per county, per township, and the township selected in each county. The sample of farm operators to be interviewed in each township was selected from records kept by the county offices of the Production and Marketing Administration.7 Each county office maintains a 11.1: of all the owners of tracts of land ten acres or more in size. These tracts are arranged by township, with the tracts in approximate alphabetic order by the owner's name. 7. Hereafter referred to as EMA. 19 TABLE 1 NUMBER OF SAMPLE FARMS REQUIRED IN EACH AREA Percent of fauna Total number of Area 70 acres and overa farms requiredb 1 9.14 1+7 2 1h.3 72 5 23.6 118 6 12.6 63 7 13.0 65 8 13.3 66 10 13.8 69 a. Source: l9h5 United States Census of Agriculture. b. None of the seven counties are in Area 6, therefore, half the numberfbr Area 6 was allocated to Livingston county and half to Sanilac county to represent Area 6 in the sample. This procedure was followed for reasons previoumly given in the text. The following information appears for each tract: a ”farm? (really a tract) number that is assigned each tract; the name and ad- dress of the owner, (if the tract is operated by someone other than the owner, his name may also appear, but this record was kept in onhy those cases where the nonowner operator is a relatively "permanent” operator); the total acres in_the tract plus the acres of nontillable pasture; and, if the tract is signed up in the Agricultural Conserva- ‘tion.Prcgram.this is indicated along with the actual value of the .Agricultural Conservation Program practices proposed by the operator for 195oe The sample was to be selected from the farms of seventy acres or more as operating units and not "ownership tracts” as was listed in TABLE 2 20 COUNTIES, TOWNSHIPS AND THE NUMBER OF FARMS PER TO‘FJNSHIP TO BE SELECTED FOR INTERVIEWING County TOtfll NOe of farms* No. of farms per Me Townships Lenawee St e Joseph Eaton Livingston Sanilac Saginaw IMOntcalm h8 72 6O 96 69 16 2h 20 17 23 Ogden Dover Whodstock White Pigeon Constantine Flowerfield Eaton Roxand Hamlin Cohoctah Iosoo Deerfield Hamburg Custer Maple Valley Flynn Evergreen Blumfield Taymouth Brady Brant Pine Crystal Douglas t Figures do not agree with similar column in Table 1 because of rounding in order to have each interviewer take the same number of interviews in each township. RkMA.records. Therefore, it was decided that in order to insure that all operating units of seventy acres or more have an equal change of appearing in the sample, a.random.samp1e of all ownership tracts of 21 thirty acres or more should be drawn. Then at the time of the inter- view all farms that were operating units of less than seventy acres were eliminated. Using a table of random numbers, approximately twice the number of ownership tracts of thirty acres or more were selected by tract or ”farm" number assigned by Perm. About twice the number of names were drawn‘in order to supply the interviewer with sufficient names to ob- tain the required number of interviews per township. Since the records are kept from one year to the next and land is constantly being bought and sold, many tracts have been subdivided or combined and new numbers have been assigned to the tracts. In these instances, only the new number was included in the sample selection. The old numbers, if drawn, were put aside and another number was drawn from the table of random numbers. The following data for each tract thus selected was recorded: the ”farm" number (i.e. the tract number) 3 name and address of the owner: name and address of the operator if it was available; acres of farm- land; acres of cr0p1and, acres of nonorOpland. open pasture, and the total value of the approved practices under the Agricultural Conserva- tion Program if the tract was signed up under the program. A sample of the form used to record this information is included in Appendix B. Using the ”farm” number, the legal description of each tract was obtained from the folders used by the township committeemen in their farm visits. These legal descriptions were used to locate the tract on maps of the township. These maps were made from the 19140 State High- way uple 22 The above procedure led to the following bias that could only be eliminated at the time of the interview. A farm of seventy acres or more that was made up of two or more ownership tracts larger than thirty acres, would have two or more times the opportunity of falling in the sample than a farm composed of a single ownership tract of more than seventy acres. In order to eliminate this bias, the interview was organised so that the size of the total operating unit, the number, and the acreage of all tracts operated were obtained at once. Then the com- pletion or termination of the interview was determined by the following conditions: (1) If the farm, as an operating unit, consists of one tract of seventy acres or more, the interview was completed. (2) If the farm, as an operating unit, consists of one or more tracts totalling less than seventy acres, the interview was to be terminated at once. (3) If the farm, as an operating unit, consists of two or more tracts totalling more than seventy acres and only one of these tracts consists of thirty or mre acres, the interview was completed. (L) If the farm, as an operating unit, consists of two or more tracts totalling more than seventy acres and two of these tracts consist of thirty or more acres, half of these interviews were to be terminated at once. The decision as to which interviews to be terminated was determined by referring to a table of random one's and two's. If the first number was ”one” the interview was completed: if a ”two” the interview was terminated. Each number was marked out after it had been used. (5) If the farm, as an operating unit, consists of three or more tracts totalling more than seventy acres and three of these tracts consists of thirty or more acres, two out of three. of these interviews were terminated at once. The completion or termination of these interviews was determined by the use of a table of random one's and two's and three's as was described under point four. 23 A sheet with the above instructions and a table of random one's and two's and one's, two's and three's were provided each interviewer to refer to in order to decide whether the interview should be taken or terminated. An example of these instructions appears in Appendix B. The Questionnaire An example of the questionnaire used in this study is included in Appendix C. This questionnaire was twelve pages long and was divi- ded into five sections. Page one of the giestionnaire was used to re- cord the number of calls before the interview was completed and to secure the information needed to determine if the interview should be completed or closed. The procedure followed in doing so was described in a previous section. The interviewers were instructed, if the in- terview could not be taken on the first call, to make two more calls at different times and on different days before they should stop try- ing to establish contact. Each interviewer was given instructions on interviewing procedure. These instructions were prepared by the Social Research Service of Michigan State College. A-copy of these instruc- tions are included in Appendix B. In section one, information about the cropping and soils program was recorded by sketching a map of the farm, numbering the fields and indicating the 1950 crop. The operator was asked what soil management practices he had followed on each field for 1950 and 19149 and what orcp was raised on the field in 1%9. In this section the question was asked on the amount of oomercial fertilizer applied per acre each year and the total tons of commercial fertilizer purchased each year. This was done in order to check on the use of commercial fertilizer. 2h It was thought that farmers when asked how much fertil izer they used per acre, gave what they had intended to apply, which may be different from the amount actually used, but they would know how much they pur- chased during the year. Section two was devoted mainly to determining participation in the price support program, disposal of price supported crops, and reasons why farmers did or did not participate in the price support and acreage allotment programs. In this section the questions used to determine the respondent's reasons for his actions were left open ended and the interviewer was to record the answers using, in so far as possible, the words used by the respondent. In section three the respondents were questioned to determine their knowledge of the programs and some of its features. They were also asked questions to determine their opinion of them. The ques- tions were left open ended and the interviewer was to record the answers. In section four several situations concerning farmers and the price support program were described and the respondents were asked to conment on each situation. In the previous section they were asked directly what they thought and in this section they were asked indirec- tly by using these short descriptive situations. After the story had been read to them they were asked questions and their answers recorded. Section five was used to secure information that would be needed to sort the various responses into groups. In this section, informs;- tion about the respondents age, education, farming, experience, poli- tical affiliations, and membership in farm organisations was secured. 25 Also, in order to round out the farm organisation picture, the amount of livestock on hand January I, 1950, was obtained. For the most part, the questions in this section were pre-coded and the interviewer had only to check the appropriate answer. CHAPTER III HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Review of Price Support Legislation The most recent piece of price support legislation was the Agri- cultural Act of l9h9. It became effective January 1, 1950, although some of its provisions do not apply fully until 19514. This legisla- tion did not radically change existing price support legislation. Its main effect was to make certain amendments to a body of law that has been built up since the first large scale attempt to support agricul- tural prices was made by the federal government during World‘War I. During World War I there was an urgent need for more food. In order to encourage farmers to produce food the Food.Administratiwn set out to encourage farmers to produce more wheat and hogs by the use of price floors. The Food Administration.had no specific legislative authority to support hog prices during world war I, nor did it have any funds for that purpose. It announced that it would try to stabi- lise the price so that the farmer could count on getting, for each one hundred pounds of hog ready for market, thirteen times the average cost per bushel of corn fed into hogs. In the case of wheat, however, the Food Administration did have specific legislation to establish a price floor. The Food Control Act of 1917 directed the price for wheat at not less than two dollars per bushel at Chicago for the 1918 crop. The Food Aministration ran into some difficulty in the support of 27 hogs. It had to drop the thirteen to one promise because the price of corn was very high during the summer of 1918 and this would have put the support price of hogs considerably above the market price. It did however, help to maintain hog prices after that by using the weight of purchases by foreign relief organisations, army purchases, and by the control of packers and exporters. But on llarch 6, 1919, the program of support for hog prices was officially drapped and in July hog prices began to fall sharply in line with the decline in demand from wartime to normal peacetime levels. In the case of wheat, the Food Administration set the minimum price at $2.20 at Chicago but this was soon raised to 32.26 to compensate the growers for a twenty-five per cent increase in freight rates. This price was extended to the 1919 wheat crop, but on May 31, 1%0, at about the time wheat prices reached their peak, the price floor was dis- continued. After May the price of wheat fell rapidly from the wartime levels. The next phase of government intervention developed out of this decline in agricultural prices in 1920, and the continued depression of the prices farmers received relative to the prices they paid. A great many bills were introduced before congress during the 1920's in order to correct this unfavorable situation in which agriculture found itself. The two proposals that received the most support were the equalisation- fee plan or McNary-Haugen bill and the Export-Debenture plan. The equalization-fee plan provided that a government board should buy up enough of a crop to raise the domestic price to a level equal to that of the world price plus the tariff. Imports would be blocked by 28 the tariff or by law. The board would then sell its accumulation abroad at whatever price it could get and the losses would be assessed against the growers in proportion to their production. It was expected that the domestic price would be raised high enough not only to cover these losses on exports but to increase the farmer's income to a level higher than could be obtained from selling the whole crop at the world price. The export debenture plan was similar to the equalization-fee plan. Under this plan the exporter of a commodity would receive a certificate, giving him the right to draw on the Treasury for a specific sum for each pound exported. This would enable the exporter to sell abroad at lower than domestic prices and imports would be blocked by the tariff. Both of these plans were schemes to dump part of a crop abroad, in order to reduce the domestic supply and raise the domestic price. Neither of them were~ ever enacted. The equalization-fee plan was passed twice by congress but each time it was vetoed by the President. However, the A basic ideas behind them were included in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Since neither of the above plans could be passed against the oppo- sition of the administration, the farm bloc turned to the policy of raising farm prices by cooperatives and stabilization operations of purchasing and holding. On June 15, 1929, congress passed the Agricul- tural Marketing Act of 1929 which created the Federal Farm Board. The purpose of‘this act was to promote the marketing of agricul- tural comodities. The Board was expected to enlarge the system of co- operative marketing associations as the principal means for accomplishing 29 this purpose. However, before it could do anything in this direction the price declines of the early part of the depression had begun and the Board turned its efforts to holding up prices. The Board started its stabilisation operations with a revolving fund of five hundred million dollars. It used this money to hold up prices by lending it to stabilization corporations which in turn en- abled them to hold large stocks of oomodities, especially wheat and cotton, off the market. The fall in demandwas so great that even though a large proportion of the crops were taken off the market, prices still kept on falling. The stocks were finally given away or sold at very low prices. The Board ended up losing between three hundred and four hundred million dollars of its original find of five hundred million. With this eXperience behind them, congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. In this Act several ideas were included that are still found in present legislation; for it was in this act that the. first legal definition of parity was given. The act stated as its ob- jective that it was the policy of congress to ”re-establish prices to . farmers at a level that will give agricultural commodities a purchas- ing power with respect to articles that farmers buy, equivalent to the purchasing power of. agriculture commodities in the base period. The base period in the case of all agricultural commodities except tobacco, shall be the prewar period, August, 1909, to July, 1911;. In the case of tobacco, the base period shall be the postwar period August, 1919, to July, 1929." 30 This was also the first time that certain commodities were desig- nated as "basic” comedities. The original act designated cotton, wheat, tobacco, corn, hogs, rice, and milk as basic commodities. In 1931;, the Jones-Ccnnally Cattle Act increased this list to include: cattle, peanuts, rye, flax, barley, grain sorghums, sugar beets, and sugar cane. . Section 8 of the Act contained the provision for ”reduction in the acreage or reduction in the production for market, of any basic agricultural commodity.” Thus, the conclusion of the Federal Farm Board that prices could not be raised over a period of years without control of production was written into law. It was under this pro- vision that millions of farmers entered into contracts to reduce acreages in return for benefit payments. This was the first attempt to keep agricultural production in line with the greater net revenue secured by raising prices above the market price. In order to achieve the objectives of the act for those commodi- ties designated as basic, a processing tax was levied on the first domestic processing of the commodity. In each case this tax was to be equal to the difference between the market price and parity. From the funds provided by this tax, the Secretary of Agriculture was to make payments to those farmers who entered into contracts for the re- duction in acreages or reduction in production. Loans were also made to farmers by the Commodity Credit Corporation8 to withhold crops from the mket. Thus, it was embarking upon the same policy of the Farm 8. Hereafter referred to as CCC. 31 Board but it believed it was protected from the same fate because of the production control feature of the Act. For any commodity, whether designated as a basic commodity or not, the Secretary was also authorized to enter into marketing agreements. These agreements were entered into with the processors, association of producers, and other handlers, or to license all these. The agreements were used to eliminate unfair practices and to promote the objectives of the act. In 1931;, several acts were passed that revised and made some ad- ditions to the original law. The Jones-Connally Cattle Act was passed to provide a direct appropriation of $250,000,000 for surplus reductions and disease elimination in the dairy and beef cattle industries. It also, as previously mentioned, increased the list of commodities desig- nated as basic. At this time the Bankhead-Jones Cotton Act and the Kerr- Smith Tobacco Act were passed. These revised the original Act in that they made production control or marketing control compulsory instead of voluntary for cotton and tobacco growers. In these acts provision was made for individual marketing quotas for all producers of cotton and tobacco, and taxes were placed on quantities marketed in excess of these quotas. In 1935, the Warren Potato Act became a law and it made reduction in production of potatoes compulsory in a manner similar to that described for cotton and tobacco. Other important legislation was passed in 1935 as an amendment to the 1933 act. This was the legislation that is commonly called Section Thirty-two. This legislation is aimed at widening the market outlet for farm commodities. It provides the authority for the so-called 32 surplus disposal programs. These include: (1) the payment of subsi- dies to enlarge exports; (2) programs to find new uses for agricultural commodities; (3) disposal of surplus commodities into uses ordinarily considered uneconomic; and (h) assisting lowbincome persons, to enlarge their food consumption. This first phase of agricultural adjustment came to an end on Janu- ary 6, 1936, when the Supreme Court, in the Hocsac Mills case, declared the processing tax provision unconstitutional. The decision rested on the ground that the act controlled agricultural production, that con- gress had no power to enact such a law since it was not delegated to it by the constitution, and that the power of congress to levy taxes and appropriate money for the general welfare did not give it the power to tax one group for the benefit of another group. However, the long time effect of this decision was to transfer the cost of the program from.the industry to the United States Treasury; for it did not take. congress long to devise other means to secure the same end. ‘Within a short time after the Hocsac Mills decision, congress on- acted the Scil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. In this act production control is replaced by soil conservation, but with the same objective of improving farm income.' Under this act benefit payments were made to producers out of general treasury funds for shifting from soil-depleting crops as cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, and rice (also called "basic” commodities) to soil conserving crops as grasses and legumes and.for carrying out certain other soilabuilding practices. The act authorized the appropriation of not more than five hundred million dollars for any fiscal year to carry on these practices. 33 The marketing agreement provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment ‘Act of 1933, were not as a ihole declared.unconstitutional. However, in 1937, a new Marketing Agreement Act was enacted. By this act, mar- keting agreements are limited to specified commodities. For any of these commodities the Secretary may, after a public hearing, enter into a.marketing agreement with handlers or issue orders designed to secure a parity price. The orders to be effective, must be approved by two-thirds of the producers or the producers of two-thirds of the volume within the marketing area described in the marketing 3agreement. For milk, the Secretary may issue orders fixing minimum.prices to pro- ducers, but for other comodities orders may be issued limiting the quantity which may be shipped in interstate commerces, and establishing maxim quotas which my be handled by different dealers. 0n.February 16, 1938, the Agricultural.Adjustment.Act of 1938'be- came law. Compared with earlier farm programs it was nuch broader in scope than any previous farm.relief legislation. This was perhaps, its most distinctive characteristic. For it is in this Act that most of the past efforts are brought together into one program and with but few amendments it is in force today as the Agricultural Act of 1919. The general purposescf the 1958.Act were to conserve the soil, assist in the marketing of farm.products, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in cotton, wheat, corn, tobacco and rice. The regulation of ccnmerce in these five basic ccmnodities was aimed at minimising the changes in supply, marketing and prices of.farm.comp modities, protect consumers interests by maintaining adequate reserves 314 of food, and to assist farmers in obtaining a fair share of the national income. In order to reach these high objectives, the Act authorised the use of soil conservation measures, acreage allotments, commodity loans, marketing quotas, crop insurance on wheat, and parity payments. The Act of 1938 continued thel936 Soil Conservation Act. Under this section of the act, all farmers were eligible to participate in the program and receive payments for following good farming practices. Just what constituted good farming was left to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Staying within acreage allotments was the principal method of proving to the Secretary that farmers were follow- ing good farming practices. If the farmer did not keep within his acreage allotment, deductions were made from his benefit payment, he was not eligible for maximum loans if he produced a basic commodity, and he was not eligible to receive the parity payments. Under another title of the act, the 000 was directed to make non- reoourse loans on corn, cotton, wheat, tobacco, and rice in pursuit of the objectives of the act. The loans were made available to only those farmers who cooperated in the acreage allotment program. The act also specified for the first time, that the Secretary of Agri- culture must set the loan rate between 52 and 75 per cent of parity. The act also provided that if supplies exceeded normal amounts, marketing quotas could be established for the basic commodities. How- ever, they could only be established if two-thirds of the producers approved their establishment. In the case they were established, loans must be made to non-cooperators but only on the amount of the oomodity that would be subject to penalty if marketed and at sixty per cent of 55 the rate received by coOperators. (A cooperator is a farmer who does not knowingly exceed his acreage allotment.) If the quotas were not approved, no loans were to be made for that marketing year. The 1938 act also marked the first attempt to provide crop in- surance by the government. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation was created to offer crop insurance to wheat farmers. The insurance was to cover all losses from unavoidable natural causes such as hail and drought. . Another significant provision of the act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments to the growers of the five basic comp modities. These payments were to be made in amounts that would pro- vide a return which was as nearly equal to the parity price as the funds that were made available would permit. The law did not provide any specific means for raising the necessary funds, but until 19h8, congress had not.failed to apprOpriate money under this provision every year prices were below parity. The next agricultural price legislation grew’out of the world's need for more food and fiber during'WOrld war II. The various produc- tion restrictions on the basic crops were dropped and the emphasis was placed on expansion and not on contraction of supplies. The first legislation was the Bankhead Bill which.provided that the CCC loans on the basic commodities had to be at 90 per cent of parity, except for cotton, where the minimum level was 92% per cent of parity. This as- sured the growers of these commodities a price floor because of the nonrecourse character of C00 loans. The second important piece of legislation was the Steagall 36 Amendment which provided that during the war and for two years after, the price of any crop that the Secretary of Agriculture claimed should be expanded had to be supported at 90 per cent of parity. The means of support were left to the Department of Agriculture. The principal Steagall commodities were hogs, milk, butterfat, potatoes, eggs, and poultry. The only major crops which had to be supported under this amendment were potatoes and eggs. Since the price support provisions of the Steagall Amendment were to expire at the end of 191+8, the Agricultural Committees in Congress held hearings in an attempt to write a new basic law. During the 1930' s, the demand for farm relief was the main pressure for legislation, but now the pressure was for legislation that would help agriculture to maintain the'high level of income it had attained during the period of high domestic and foreign demand that prevailed during and after the war. Although it was intended to write a new basic law for agriculture, agreement could not be reached and in order to maintain price supports after the end of 19h8, congress passed the Agriculture Adjustment.Act of 1%8. This law maintained the price support level of 90 per cent at parity for basic commodities till June 30, 1950, and for the principal Steagall comodities-udairy, poultry, hogs and potatoesuuntil January 1, 1950. Thereafter, aqstem of flexible price supports were to go into effect. Under this provision, the price support could vary from 60 to 90 per cent of parity depending upon the size of the crop. An average crop would bring 75 per cent of parity and for each increase or decrease of 2 per cent in supply, support levels were to be decreased 37 or increased by 1 per cent of parity. This applied to the designated, basic commodities of cotton, wheat, corn, rice, peanuts, wool, and potatoes. Tobacco was to be supported at 90 per cent of parity. Sup- ports of all other commodities were left to the discretion of the Sec- retary of Agriculture. The other important new provision of this act was that it modernised the parity formla. It did this by adjusting the 1909 to 1911; base period to the price relationship in the ten year period preceding the determina- tion of a new'parity price. For example, the January 15, 1950 parity price of hogs was computed as follows: the January 19h0 to December, l9h9 monthly average price received by farmers for hogs, was $15.20 per hundred pounds. This base period price was adjusted by dividing it by 202 per cent-athe January, l9h0 to December, l9h9 average index of prices received by farmers. This index used the January, 1910 to De- cember, 191h.as its base. This adjusted base period price of $7.52 was then.mu1tiplied by 2h9 per cent which was the January 15, 1950 inp dex of prices paid. This index also used the 1910-191h.base. The cal- culations came to $18.70--the parity price as of January 15, 1950 for hogs. . _ Before the many provisions of this act could become effective, the law was repealed by the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 1919. As was intended by'the 19h8 act, it became effective January 1, 1950. This bill, like all legislation, was a compromise; a compromise between those who favored rigid, high price supports and those who favored flexible supports. The Agricultural Act of l9h9 places agricultural commodities into 38 three groups: basic commodities, designated nonbasic, and other non- basic commodities. It also uses a two parity system. Both the old formula, that was used until the 19h8 Act, and the neW'formula, as defined in the l9b8 Act, were to be used. In order to see how the price support feature for the different groups of commodities works, each shall be discussed separately. For the farmers who produce a'basio commodity (corn, wheat, cot- ton, rice, peanuts, and tabacco), price supports are mandatory if the producer is within his acreage allotment and if the producers do not disapprove of marketing quotas. For the 1950 crops, the level of price support is 90 per cent if acreage allotments or quotas are in effect. In 1951, if acreage allotments or marketing quotas are in effect, the level of price support shall be between 80 and 90 per cent of parity, depending upon the supply of the commodity. A small supply or a nor- mal supply calls for maximum.supports. .As the supply increases above normal, the support declines toward the minimum.level. For the 1952 and succeeding creps the level of price support shall not be more than 90 per cent of parity or less than'75 per cent. This range would also apply to the 1951 crops if no acreage allotments or marketing quotas are in effect. The level of support for tobacco is 90 per cent of parity if marketing quotas are in effect. If marketing quotas are voted down, price support for cooperators is mandatory at 50 per cent of parity for the basic commodities other than tobacco. There would be no support for tobacco if marketing quotas are not approved. The act also defines the commercial corn growing areas and producers outside this area.receive 75 per cent of 59 the level of price support available to c00perators within this area. At all times, the level of price support to non-oooperators is deter- mined.by the Secretary of Agriculture. In the case of these basic commodities, either the old or the new parity formula will apply de- pending upon whichever is higher. After l95h, only the new parity formula will apply. Price supports are also mandatory for the designated, nonbasic commodities. These commodities are: wool (including mohair), tung nuts, honey, potatoes, milk, butterfat, and the products of milk and butterfat. However, unlike the basic commodities, only the new parity formula shall apply. For wool, including mohair, the supports shall be at a level between 60 and 90 per cent of parity that will encourage the annual production of 360,000,000 pounds of shorn wool. For tung nuts, honqy, and Irish potatoes, the support level is to be between 60 and 90 per cent of parity. For whole milk and butterfat and their products, the level of support is to be between 60 and 90 per cent of parity, as will assure an adequate supply. Support is to be provided through the purchases of the products of milk and butterfat. Price support for the other nonbasic agricultural commodities may be at any level not in excess of 90 per cent of parity. In deter- mining whether support will be provided for any nonbasic commodity, and in fixing the level of such support, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to take the following factors into consideration: (1) the supply of the commodity in relation to demand; (2) the price levels at which other commodities are being supported.and, in the case of feed grains, the feed values of such grains in relation to corn; (3) the ho availability of funds; (h) the perishability of the commodity; (5) the importance of the comodity to agriculture and the national economy; (69 the ability to dispose of stocks acquired through a price support operation; (7) the need.for offsetting temporary losses of exPort markets; and (8) the ability and willingness of producers to keep supplies in line with demand. As far as possible, price support is intended to be made available on any storable, nonbasic farm.commodity for which a marketing quote or marketing agreement or order is in ef- fect at a level between.75 and 90 per cent of parity. There are numerous other provisions in the act, the most impor- tant one being that the Secretary of Agriculture is given the right to require producers to comply with acreage allotments, production goals, and.marketing practices, including marketing quotas, in order to be eligible for supports. The Secretary is also authorized, if he determines it in the national welfare to do so, to support a commodity at a level above 90 per cent of parity. Provisions are made for the disposal of government owned commodi- ties. The 000 is prohibited from.selling any basic agricultural comp modity or storable commodity at less than 5 per cent above the current support price of such a commodity, plus reasonable carrying charges. There are numerous exceptions to this sales restriction; they are: (1) sales for new or bybproduot uses; (2) sales of peanuts and oilseeds for extraction of oil; (3) sales for seed or feed if such sales will not substantially impair any price support program; (A) sales of come modities which have substantially deteriorated in quality or as to which there is a danger of loss through deterioration; (5) sales for 141 the purpose of establishing claims arising out of contract or against persons who have comitted fraud or other wrongful acts with respect to the comnodity; (6) sales for carport; (7) sales of wool; and (8) sales for other than primary use. i The disposal of perishable commodities is much less restricted. The act authorizes the Secretary and the 000 to make commodities avail- able that are in danger of deterioration for use in making payments for commodities not produced in the United States. Any commodity not disposed of by this means shall then be made available, free of cost, to the school lunch programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to public and private welfare agencies. The Section Thirty—two program was also amended. .The amendment requires that the sums collected shall be devoted principally to peri- shable, nonbasic commodities other than those for which price supports are not mandatory. (The Section Thirty-two funds came from the 50 per cent of import duties that are earmarked for the support of farm pro- ducts. Thus, the and (until agriculture is again faced with price prob- lems) of a long line of successive pieces of farm legislation is cul- minated with the Agricultural Act of 19149. From this panorama of legislation, a few implications and trends can be seen; for instance, the programs moved from preventing depression prices to maintaining . high farm prices. As the pressure for high farm prices moved the sup- port level up, each new farm act brought more and more controls, at first voluntary and then various attempts at compulsory controls. The present program with its high level of support could, if demand drops h2f off, make more controls inevitable. There is also, the tendency for farm legislation to become more political. The high level of support, emphasise upon.minor and unimportant commodities, and the frequent changes in legislation are indicators of this trend.9 As the programs proceed in this direction, knowledge of farmers participation in the program.mny well serve to determine if the farmers believe these pro- grams are operating within their own interests and are satisfied with the results. Definition of Terms Used In order to understand some of the provisions of the Agricultural Act of l9b9 and methods used to put them.in operation, it mny'be‘well to properly define in greater detail, some of the terms used; for when the farmer decides to participate in the price support program, he must make decisions as to which price support plan he will use and understand the conditions to be fulfilled in order to participate in the program. Because the terms have specific meanings according to price support law, he may be confused because they may also have other meanings or have been incorrectly interpreted in popular use. Acreage allotment. Acreage allotments are a means of adjusting the supply of field crops to a level consistent with the support price. Whenever the supply exceeds the demand at the support price, the Secre- tany of Agriculture estimates the number of acres of a given crop it will take to meet the normal consumption for the coming year. He then 9. Mauch, Arthur, "New Farm Price Support Program.(Agricultural get of 19h9),' Michigan Farm Economics, No. 85 - Supplement, January, 950. . ‘ h} announces a national acreage allotment that is large enough to fill this need and provide a safe margin for carryover. This allotment is then broken down to give each state that produces the crop its share of the allotment. The state allotments are further broken down into allotments for counties and finally for each farm. The farm allot- ments are based upon the number of acres of the particular crop that were planted during past years. Section h01 (o) of the Agriculture Act of 1919 provides that "compliance by the producer with acreage allotments, production goals, and marketing practices (including marketing quotas when authorized by law), prescribed by the Secretary, may be required as a condition of eligibility for price support." Therefore, the controls are not mandatory, but the farmer is persuaded to participate by the reward of receiving the support price. The Department of Agriculture has adopted an over-all policy with respect to this provision. For instance, if a grower complies with his acreage allotments on one crop but not another, he is still eligi- ble for price support on the commodity for which he complied with the acreage allotment but is not eligible in the case of the other. When a producer owns or has an interest in more than one farm producing a commodity subject to acreage control, the policy changes with the crop grown. In the case of tobacco, compliance will be determined on the basis of operations on each farm independently. For the farmer who grows potatoes, his compliance will be determined on the basis of opera- tions on all farms in which he has an interest. If he exceeds his al- lotment on any one farm, he will not be eligible for price support on L314 any other farm in which he has an interest. For wheat, cotton, corn, rice, and beans, eligibility will be determined on the basis of opera- tions on all farms in which the producer has an interest, as well as on the individual fame. Therefore, a producer must stay within his total acreage allotments for all farms to be eligible for the support price. He can exceed the acreage allotment for any one farm and still receive price support for the crops produced on the farms he does not exceed his allotment, as long as he does not exceed the total allotment for all farms. Marketg 3%. Marketing quotas are a means of regulating the marketing of commodities when supplies become excessive. A marketing quota restricts the farmer to selling or “consuming on his own farm only the amount of a crop that can be raised on his acreage allotment. This is done by first determining a national marketing quota and trans- lating this into toms of acreage. The acreage is then alloted among states, counties, and individual farms. Marketing quotas must be proclaimed whenever supplies of corn, cotton, wheat, and rice reach certain levels. In the case of peanuts, marketing quotas must be announced every year regardless of the supply- Also, a marketing quota must be announced each year for each kind of tobacco for which a marketing quota was in effect for the year before. Following the announcement of a marketing quota, a referendum is held. If at least two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum favor marketing quotas, the quotas become effective and apply to all producers of the comodity. If more than a third of the producers do not favor quotas, none will be in effect. If at any time they are hS approved they mny be terminated by the Secretary of Agriculture if there is an increase in demand or a.national emergency. If marketing quotas are in effect, then marketings by the pro- ducer in excess of his quota are subject to penalties, as follows: 50 per cent of the basic loan rate is applicable to cooperators in the case of corn and wheat; 50 per cent of the parity price for cotton and rice as of June 15, of the calendar year in which the crop is pro- duced; to per cent of the preceding season's average price in the case of tobacco; and 50 per cent of the basic loan rate in the case of pea- nuts. If the total acreage of peanuts does not exceed the 19h? acreage, payment of the marketing penalty will not'be required on any excess peanuts delivered through a specified marketing agenqy. Marketing quotas also affect the level of price support for the basic commodities. If in any year producers disapprove of marketing quotas, the support price will be set at 50 per cent of parity, and this would be available onty to producers who cooperate with acreage allotments. In the case of tobacco, prices will not be supported if producers disapprove of marketing quotas. L033 3.1.9. storage. This is a method by which prices are supported and the producers assure themselves of the support price. Price sup- port loans to producers are called nonrecourse loans. In other words, the producers are not obligated to make good any loss incurred through a decline in the manket price of the commodity put up as collateral. For example, the producer who obtains a loan on his wheat at the sup- port price of $1.95 Per bushel is not obligated to pny off his loan even though the market price of wheat at the time the loan matures is 1:6 only 81.85. Instead, he delivers the wheat to the CCC and discharges his obligation in full. Thus, through the loan, the producer receives the support price just the same as though the 000 had originally pur- chased his wheat at $1.95 per bushel. Also, this does not stop the producer from paying off the loan and selling at a price higher than the loan price. Meet price support loans are made by lending agencies approved by the 000 with the CCC agreeing to take over the loan from.the lending agency if requested. The 000 also makes some direct loans. A rate of 3 per cent interest per’year is charged on loans which are redeemed. No interest is charged when a commodity is delivered to the 000 to satisfy a loan. In such cases the 000 pays any interest charges that might be due a lending agency. In order to obtain a loan the storage space must meet certain specifications. After the producer has made his application for a loan the storage is inspected, samples taken to determine grade, and the bin.or granany is sealed. In order that the crops can be eligible for storage, it must meet certain grade standards. The producer is liable for quantity and grade against all preventable hazards. That is, the producer must deliver the number of bushels on which he has a loan and is responsible for maintaining grade. The cost to the producer is one cent per bushel on grain and two. cents per hundred weight on beans if farm.stored, with a minimum charge of three dollars. 0n commercial stored commodities the charge is one half cent per bushel on grain and one cent per hundred weight on beans with a minimum charge of 81.50. However, a storage allowance of seven h? cents per bushel is to be paid on farm.stored wheat and soybeans if held until April 50. In the case of commercial storage, the govern- ment pays all charges. If the loan is redeemed and the crop sold on the open market, no storage allowance is paid and no storage allowance is paid on other crops. Purchase agreement. A purchase agreement is a method developed by the CCC in 19U7 by which the producer is assured the support price for his commodity at the close of the marketing season. A purchase agreement provides a.means of price support for the producer who is unable to store his commodities in elegible storage, who does not need the proceeds of a loan, or who is not willing to encumber his collateral as required under a loan operation as previously described. A producer obtains a purchase agreement by paying a small service. charge, and at the same time, speciflying the amount of the commodity he will deliver to the CCC. The agreement becomes effective when signed by the producer and approved by the government agency. The 000 agrees to purchase at the support price, not more than the amount for which the producer agreed to deliver. The crop must meet certain standard grades in order to be eligible for delivery to the government under a purchase agreement. In general, the grades are the same as those for a loan. under this arrangement the producer is under no obligation to deliver the crop to the CCC. In other words, he may sell, feed, plant, or dispose of it any time he chooses. If he intends to deliver his crop he must declare his intentions wdthin a thirty day period speci- fied by the CCC. In turn, the producer is notified when to deliver he the commodity and he is given fifteen days to deliver the crop. The cost to the producer at the time of signing the agreement is one half cent per bushel on corn, small grain, and soybeans, and one cent per hundred weight on beans, with a minimum.charge of 81.50. If wheat and soybeans are held until April 30, a storage allowance of seven cents will be paid on farmpstored grain and if stored tn commercial warehouses the actual storage charge is paid. If the crop is disposed of on the open market, no storage allowanoe'will be paid nor will a storage allowance be paid for any other crop. CHAPTER IV EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM Just what use the farmers have made of the price support program in 1919 and how much they planned to use it in 1950 will be the ques- tion considered in this chapter. From the preceding chapter, it could be seen that the programs have evolved from 'tempcrary" programs of step-gap aid to ”permanent" programs that are becoming more complex and political in nature. Elaborate administrative machinery has been set up to bring the program.into every county and into the reach of every farmer. Proportion of the Farmers Using the Price Support Program.in 19u9 When the l9h9 marketing season began, any producer had three al- ternatives open to him.for disposing of any price support crop that he did not intend to feed; (1) a government loan; (2) a government pur- chase agreement; or (3) selling on the open market. He could use any of these methods or any combination of them. He did not have to comply with acreage allotments as a condition of eligibility but had only to wait until his crop was harvested and then determine which manner of disposal would maximize his income. If the producer had decided to secure a government loan on his crop, he would have had to go through the following procedure, or ”red tape" as referred to by many producers. He would first have to so make an application with the Rama. The PhMA'would have sent a.field inepector to the producer's farm to check on the quantity stored, the conformance of storage facilities to the CCC requirements, to take a sample of grain to be tested for grade by an authorised grader, and to place a seal on the bin or crib. On the basis of the report from the field inspector and the authorized grader--and assuming that the producer's grain meets all the requirements--the PtMA‘would have made out a note and a chattel mortgage for the signature of the producer. The producer would have then signed these documents and taken them to a loan agency approved by the CCC and obtained his money. But he could have Obtained a loan direct from.the CCC. In both cases the producer was required to pay a service fee based on the number of units of the commodity and interest on the loan at the rate of 3 per cent per year. From.the time the bin or crib was sealed until the grain was de- livered, the farmer was responsible for its safe keeping. If rats had ruined part of it, if the roof had leaked and part of it spoiled, if the crib had.broken down or weevils had gotten in, he would have had to pay for the damage. If something entirely beyond his control had occurred, like a flood, when the bin or crib was on ground con- sidered safe, or lightning, or a hurricane, the government would have had to stand the loss. However, on farm-stored wheat and soybeans, if held until April 30, I950, the government would have paid a storage allowance of seven cents. If they had been stored in a commercial warehouse it would have paid all approved warehouse charges. If they had been disposed of on the open market, no storage allowance would have been paid. The loan procedure was much the same in the case of 51 warehouse-stored grain. However, the warehouse receipt issued on warehouseostored grain would have eliminated the need for (l) checking by the field inspector, (2) the grading of the grain by the CCC, and (3) filling out a chattel mortgage. The service fee was approximately one half that charged for farmpstorage loans, but the interest rates, as in the case of farmpstored grain, remains at 3 per cent per year. For those who used the second method the procedure would have been quite different. The producer would have gone to the county BtMA and arranged for a purchase agreement. This simply means that the CCC agrees to purchase at the support price any quantity the producer elects to sell, up to and including the maximum quantity covered by the agree- ment on the basis of weight, grade, and quality factors set forth by the CCC. There was a half cent a bushel service charge for this agree- ment, but there was no inspection of the grain or of the storage facili- ties. If the producer had wished to feed the grain or if the manket had been to his advantage he could have disposed of the entire amount or any part of it. In other words, a purchase agreement assured the producer of the support price for any amount of his crop up to the amount specified when the agreement was made. He could not deliver more than the amount specified in the agreement. The agreement became effective when signed by the producer and approved for the 000 by the Pet . With these two methods of securing price supports available in l9h9, farmers were asked how'they disposed of their crops and to what extent they used the price support program. The specific wording of the questions asked can be found on page four of the questionnaire 52 which is included in Appendix C. The answers to these questions were recorded on page five of the questionnaire. The data obtained on par- ticipation in the price support program is summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 USE OF PRICE SUPPORTS IN 19h9 AND INTENTIONS FOR 1950 505 FARMS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN L Percent Reporting Percent Intending Plan Used Use in 19h9 Use in 1950 Loan and Storage 18.h. 9.3a Purchase Agreement 5.7 14.08‘ B 01311 1 eh e6 Subtotal 25.5 13.9 Neither Plan '70.? 85.7 No Eligible Crops 5.8 2.h Subtotal 7L..5 86.1 Tom]. 100.0 10000 a. Of those that indicated they intended to use the loan and storage plan in 1950, hh.7 per cent said their action would depend upon the market price in relation to the support price. Also, h5.0 per cent of those that indicated they intended to use the purchase agreement plan qualified their answer with the same statement. In 19h9, 25.5 per cent of the respondents reported using the pro- gram. The remainder, or 7h.5 per cent, reported they did not use either price support plan. Of these, 3.8 per cent did not use either plan'be- cause they did not produce a crop that was included in the price support program. It was found therefore, that approximately one farmer out of every four used the price support program in l9h9. Why some farmers found it to be to their advantage to use the program and others did not will be discussed in the following two chapters. 53 However, not all farmers who used the price support program de- livered their grain to the government and received the support price. Of the 18.h per cent that used the loan and storage, 75.2 per cent delivered their grain to the government to pay off the loan. Only 2h.8 per cent used other means of disposing of their crop with 56.5 per cent of these repaying their loan and selling the grain on the open market; the others indicated they still had the grain in storage. Of the 5.7 per cent that used a purchase agreement, only 3h.5 per cent delivered some of their grain to the government. The other 65.5 per cent sold their grain outright, fed it to livestock, or still had it on hand. Of those who used both the purchase agreement and the loan and storage method of price support, 7l.h per cent delivered the grain to the government, with 28.6 per cent still having the grain on hand or were disposing of it in other ways. Therefore, of the 25.5 per cent of the farmers indicating they had used the price support program in l9h9, 65.9 per cent delivered the grain to the government for the support price. The remainder, or 5h.l per cent, did not follow through and obtain the support price but handled their grain in other ways. Proportion of the Farmers Intending to Use the Price Support Program in 1950 The informants were asked how they intended to dispose of their 1950 crops. The specific wording of the questions asked can be found on page four of the questionnaire which is included in Appendix C. The answers to these questions were recorded on page five of the question- naire. The answers to these questions are summarized on Table 3. 5h The procedure that the producer must follow in securing the price support for his crops in 1950, is the same as that described for par- ticipation in l9h9; however, in order to be eligible for the support price on corn, wheat, beans, and potatoes, the producer must comply with acreage allotments for these crops. The authority for this is found in Section hOI (c) of the Agricultural Act of 19h9. It was nec- essary to proclaim acreage allotments because of the accumulation of excessive storage supplies in 19h9. These excessive supplies are caused by the support price being above what consumers were willing to pay and the higher prices making an increase in production profitable. It was found that 9.5 per cent of the respondents intended to use the loan and storage plan of price support, h.0 per cent the purchase agreement plan, and .6 per cent both of these plans. The remainder, or 86.1 per cent of the respondents, either did not grow a crop that was included in the price support program or intended to dispose of their crops in other ways. Of those who stated they intended to use the loan and storage plan of price support, 1.1..7 per cent indicated that their final decision would depend upon whichever was higher, the market price or the support price. The same was true of those who indicated they planned to use the purchase agreement plan with L5 per cent indicating that their final decision would depend upon relative prices. If the number who actually signed up under the price support pro- gram.in l9h9 is compared with the 1950 intentions to participate, a decrease of 11.6 per cent between the two years has taken place. There is only a 1.7 per cent decrease in the use of the loan and storage plan, 55 but a 9.1 decrease in the number who are using the purchase agreement plan. Thus, in 1950 instead of one farmer out of four using the price support program, there was approximately only one farmer out of every seven indicating that he intended to use the program. Proportion of the Farmers Complying With Acreage Allotments in 1950 Acreage allotments were in effect in 1950 for the first time since the early 19h0's for several important Michigan crops. Acreage allot- ments were put in effect on corn, wheat, beans, and potatoes. The decision to cooperate or not to cooperate with.the government program on wheat was made in the fall of 19h9. Similar decisions for corn, beans, and potatoes were made in the spring of 1950. The reduction asked by the government from the 19h9 planted acre~ age varied with each crop. A 13 per cent reduction in corn acreage, 2h per cent reduction in wheat acreage, 21 per cent reduction in bean acreage, and a 7 per cent reduction in potato acreage was asked by the government. For: corn, theacreage allotments were set up only for those counties that were classified as commercial corn growing counties. In Michigan there were twenty seven of these counties in.the southern half of'Michigan's lower peninsula. In the case of potatoes, the in- dividual farm allotments apply only to commercial potato farms or those having three acres or more of potatoes. The information on participation in the acreage allotment program was obtained by asking the respondents what their acreage allotment was for the different controlled crops and then checking the third page of the questionnaire to determine the actual acres of these crops. The 56 respondents were then asked why they did or did not comply with the acreage allotment. The specific wording of the questions asked can be found on page seven of the questionnaire which is included in Appendix C. Table h presents the number that reported growing a "controlled" crop and the percentage complying with acreage allotments. From.the answers given when asked why they complied, it was ob- vious that a great number complied because of coincidence and not be- cause they had intended to comply with the program. They gave numerous reasons for being within the allotment set up for their farm that had no connection with the program. For example, some said the size of the field that was available under the rotation plan was smaller than the allotment, or others stated that the weather prevented them.from.p1ant- ing any more. However, in Table L, these are omitted and the per cent of those complying intentionally are given in the third column. Included in Table h, found on page 57, are the number of respon- dents indicating they had intended to use the price support program.for each of the controlled crops. The decision to comply with acreage a1- lotments for most farms growing wheat was made in the fall of 191.9. The farmers producing corn, beans, and potatoes made the decision to comply in the spring of 1950. The respondents were interviewed during August, 1950. The data indicates that there may have been some confusion about complying with acreage allotments as a condition of eligibility to participate in the price support program and a revision of price ex- pectations due to the Korean war. During 19h9, it was decidedly to the advantage of the bean and potato growers to use the price support program. TABLE 11 COMPLIANCE WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS FOR.FARMERS REPORTING CONTROLLED CROPS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1950 Percentage of the farmers Number Within Their Complying Intending Use of CrOps Reporting Allotment Intentionally Price Supportsa Corn 379b 28.0 11.5 2.1: Wheat 393 36.6 11.14 5 .3 Beans 202 33.7 16.8 23.8 Potatoes 29 37.9 13.8 2h.l a. Of the number that indicated they intended to use the price support program in 1950, three of the corn producers, five of the wheat producers, twenty-four of the bean producers, and two of the potato producers stated their actions would depend upon the market price in relation to the support price. b. This does not include producers in Sanilac county which was out of the commercial corn growing area and allot- ments were not in effect. The support price was 75 per cent of parity and none of the producers intended to use the price support program. Those that did plan to take advantage of the programs in 1950 may have intended to do so without knowing that acreage allotments were in effect and participation in the program.was necessary in order to receive the support price. In the case of corn and wheat, the support price was not very much above the market price in 19h9. In.August, 1950, there was only about a 13 cent differential between the support price and the market price. However, because of the numerous factors which have an influence upon the producers' actions when it comes to his participation in government programs, it is difficult to determine why there is a wide variation 58 between their intentions to use the price support program and compliance with the acreage allotment program. CHAPTER V FACTORS AFFECTING PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM In this chapter, an attempt will be made to point out some factors that had an influence on the farmer's decision to participate in the 19h9 price support program. Ten.factors are considered that might have had a possible influence upon participation. The more important factors are: prices, type-ofefarm, and size of farm. Besides these, numerous factors that are classified as characteristics of the opera- tor are examined. These factors are: tenure, indebtedness, political party, membership in farm.organizations, age, farming experience, and education. A cross-sectional analysis is made using each of these factors (except price) as an independent variable and participation as the dependent variable. Chi-square is used as a test of signifi- cance. Prices Received by Farmers Under the assumption that farmers are trying to maximize their incomes, the returns they could receive for their crops under dif- ferent disposal alternatives should have an effect upon how they disposed of them. In 19h9, there were no acreage allotments in effect for any of the price supported crops. Therefore, the only decision left to the farmer was which method of disposal would give him the highest return. Table 5 gives the number of informants that reported selling part of their crops in l9h9 on which they could have 60 used the federal price support program. None of the producers repor- ted using the program.on barley and rye. The largest number used the program on beans and potatoes. TABLE 5 USE OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY FARMERS REPORTING SELLING PRICE SUPPORTED CROPS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19h9 Percentage of the farmers using Percentage Numbe? Total that Crops Reporting Loan.& Purchase Using Sold Storage Agreement Both Program. Outright Beans 178 28e6 10e2 -'- 38.8 61e2 Potatoes 3O -- -- -- 33.3a 66.7 Corn 126 1795 use 07 22.2 77ee wheat 319 11.9 13.1 .t. 15.h. 8h.6 Soybeans 1L. -- .3 -- 1L.3 85.7 Cats 86 -- 1.2 -- 1.2 98.8 Barley 10 -- -- -- -- 100.0 Rye 9 -- -- -- -- 100.0 a. Producers sign a request for government purchase of their potato crop if they cannot secure a price in the market as high as the support price. Therefore, it is similar to the purchase agreement. During the last four months of 19h9, if the average market price as reported in Agricultural Prices for barley and rye is compared with the support price there is very little difference in the two. The aver- age market price for barley was $1.08 per bushel and the support price was $1.15 per bushel, a difference of only'7 cents per bushel. In the case of rye, the market price averaged $1.20 per bushel and the support price was $1.27 per bushel. Again there was only a 7 cant difference between the market price and the support price. 61 The difference between the market price and the support price in the case of wheat and soybeans was somewhat greater than that for the preceding craps. The market price for wheat averaged 31.8} per bushel and the support price was $2.02 per bushel. Therefore, there was a 19 cent difference between the two. With soybeans, the average market price was $1.97 per bushel and the support price was $2.11 per bushel or 1h cents above the market price. Corn, potatoes, and beans presented similar situations. However, the gap between the market price and the support price widened with each crop. The average.market price for corn was $1.15 per bushel and the support price was $l.bh.per bushel, or 29 cents above the market price. In the case of potatoes, the average market price was $1.03 per cwt, and the average support price, $1.66 per cwt, or 63 cents above the market price. With beans the average market price was $5.75 per cwt, and the support price, $7.15 per cwt, a difference of $l.h0 on every one hundred pounds of beans. Thus, it would appear that the difference between the support price and the market price exerts an influence on whether the producer will dispose of his crop through the regular market channels or use the government price support program. For, as the difference between the market price and the support price becomes greater, more and more producers used the program. A small difference in price does not at- tract many producers and they are willing to forego a small increase in price in order to avoid going through the process of securing a loan or taking out a purchase agreement. But,.as the difference in price increases the producers are less willing to forego the added 62 income and use the program.in greater numbers. It must be noted howa ever, that the use of the program was the least on the feed craps. Even though these were for sale and the price differential the smal- lest, they are usually considered as feed crops and not cash crops. This may have had an influence on the use of the program.on these crops. Farm.Situation Another aspect considered to have a possible influence upon par- ticipation in the price support program was type-of-farming. If the farmer planned to feed most of his crop, then he would not be as in- terested in the price support program. In order to secure some in- formation about this the farms were classified into three groups: (1) crop farms, (2) livestock farms, and (3) general farms. The par- ticipation in the price support program by each group was then re- corded. The farms were classified according to the amount of labor put in on crops and livestock by using productive man work units10 as a measure of the amount of labor used. A crop farm was defined as having 60 per cent or more of the total productive man work units used on crops. Similarly, a livestock.farm was defined as a farm.that had 60 per cent or more of the total productive man'work used on livestock enterprises. A general farm.was defined as a farm.which used more than.h0 per cent of the labor on crops and livestock without using more than 60 per cent 10. A productive man-work unit represents the amount of produc- tive work done by a man working at average labor efficiency in a ten hour day. The factors used were taken from Bill, Elton B. and Lauren H. Brown, Princi 163 of Farm Management, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edward Bros., Inc., I9H7 ppjg7. 63 on either crops or livestock. Fitting each of the 505 farms into this classification, resulted in 25 per cent being classified as crop farms, 39 per cent as livestock farms, and 36 per cent as general farms. 0n the basis of this classification, there was a tendency for the farmers that operated farms classified as crop farms to use the program more than those classified as general or livestock farmers. In this case, 31 per cent of the crop farmers used the program compared to 27.h per cent of the general farmers and 20 per cent of the livestock farmers. (Table 6) However, the results were not statistically significant. Chi square11 was used as the test of significance by using only the subtotals of the table. This also applies to subsequent tables. TABLE 6 PER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY TYPE-OF-FARM, 505 FARMS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19119 Plan Used Crop Livestock General Loan and Storage 22.5 13.2 21.0 Purchase Agreement 6.2 6.3 ‘h.8 BOth 203 .5 1.6 . Subtotal 31 .o 20.0 27 .1. Neither 58.9 78.1.; 71.0 No eligible crops 10.1 1.6 1.6 Subtotal 69.0 80.0 72.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 number of informants (129) (190) (186) ll. Pearson, Frank A. and Kenneth R. Bennett, Statistical Methods, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19h2 ppw395 6h The reasons why this does not appear as a more significant factor affecting participation in the program is that most livestock farmers diversify to some extent and produce a cash crop. In the areas suited to the production of potatoes and beans, livestock farmers may have some fields that are particularly adapted to the production of these crops and utilize them.in this manner. Also, growing conditions were very favorable for crop production in.l9h9 and many farmers had a sur- plus of grain over feed requirements. Therefore, crop sales were probably made by many farmers who ordinarily do not make a practice of selling. Thus, in l9h9, many livestock farmers were in a position to use the program and when considering type-of-farming alone for this year it does not appear too significant. There may be wide difference in participation by years for the livestock farmers due to variation in crop yields. Along with type-of-farm, another factor that was believed to in- fluence participation was the size of farm operated. Assuming that size of farm.has an influence on the amount of crop sales, then the farmer with a large crOp sales may feel it to his advantage to use the program.more than the operator of a smaller farm. The sample of 505 farms was divided into five groups on the basis of the total acres in the farm. (Table 7) From the table, located on page 65, it can'be seen that the larger farms used the program.more than the smaller farms. There were 61.5 per cent of the farms over 360 acres using the program.compared to 17.3 per cent of the farms under 119 acres. 'There were only 26 farms over 360 acres in size so the number of observations may be too small to give 65 TABLE 7 PER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY SIZE OF FARM, 505 FARMS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19h9 Under . A 360 a 119 120-199 200-279 280-359 over Plan Used Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Loan and Storage 1h.3 18.0 20.2 28.1 30.3 Purchase Agreement 3.0 5.6 7.1 6.3 19.2 Both -- 1.0 2.h -- 11.5 SUthtal 17 03 216.6 29 .7 3,4011» 61 05 Neither 76.8 72.8 6901 5903 314.6 NO eligible crops 5.9 206 102 603 309 Subtotal 82.7 75.h. 70.3 65.6 38.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Informants(l68) (195) (8h) (32) (26) reliable results. Chi square was used as a test of significance and the difference between the various size group was highly significant. The reason for this is that the larger farms would have more crop sales than the smaller farms. A difference of a few cents per bushel may seem.greater the more bushels the farmer has for sale. If a farmer has but one hundred bushels for sale and can get but 10 cents more per bushel by using the price support pregram, he may not be as likely to do so as if he had 500 bushels for sale. The procedure for securing the support price would be the same in both cases and with only 100 bushels for sale he may not believe the added income would sufficiently compensate him.for going through the difficulty of securing the support price. The sample of 505 farms was again divided into three groups on the basis of type-of-farm. Each group was then divided into those who used 66 the program.and those who did not and each of these subgroups was divi- ded into three groups on the basis of size of farm. All the farms of less than 119 acres were defined as small farms, those of 120 to 199 acres as medium.farms, and those over 200 acres as large farms. There was still only a slight tendency for the crop.fanners to use the program.more than the general farmers or the livestock farmers in the small and1nedium.size group. However, the large crop farmers used the program considerably more than the large general or livestock far- mers. Sixty one per cent of the large crap farmers used the program compared to 27 per cent for either the livestock or general farmers. Thus, the hypothesis that the program was benefiting the large crop farmers considerably more than the livestock or general farmers, would appear to be true. Characteristics of the Operator Another factor considered to have an influence upon participation in the price support program was the tenure status of the operator. There are several aspects to this prdblem. If landlords require tenants to raise cash crops then they may participate in the program more than other tenure groups. Also, if the tenant does not have secure rental arrangements then.he may be unwilling to bother with the difficulty of storage in order to secure the support price. 80 several hypotheses can be stated as to the effect of tenure on participation. The 505 farms were sorted on the basis of full owners, part owners12 12. A part owner is defined as a farmer who owns part of his land and rents additional land to complete his operating unit. 67 and renters. The part owners used the program.the most with 32.6 per cent of this group using the program. Second in the use of program were the owners with 23.3 per cent of this group using the program. However, the operators who were renting all their land used the program almost as much as the owners with 2l.h per cent of this group making use of the price support program in 19h9. TABLE 8 PER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY TENURE GROUP, 505 FARMS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19h9 Plan Used Owner Part Owner Renter Loan and Storage 15.2 26.8 15.8 Purchase Agreement 7.h. 3.6 2.8 BOth 07 202 208 Subtotal 23.3 32.6 21.11 Neither 71.7 66.7 7h.3 No eligible crops 5.0 .7 .3 Subtotal 76.7 67.11 78.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Informants (297) (138) (70) The results of this sort were not statistically significant. The differences in the groups can be accounted for by chance alone. Another sort was made in each group by size of.farm and it was found that with- in each size group there was no significant difference between tenure groups, although in each size group there was a tendency for the part owners to use the program.the most. However, the effect of tenure upon participation probably would be very insignificant. It would appear that a large number of the tenants had secure enough rental arrangements 68 that they could take advantage of either the loan and storage or the purchase agreement plan of price support. Another factor that was assumed to have some effect upon partici- pation, was the real estate indebtedness of the farm operators. WOuld the operators who are in debt, be more likely to use the program as a method of price insurance or security than the operators that are free of debt? The responses as to participation of the h39 operators who were either owners or part owners were sorted according to indebedness. (Table 9) TABLE 9 PER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM:EY REAL ESTATE INDEBTEDNESS, A39 FARMS*, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19h9 Plan Used In Debt _ Free of Debt Loan and Storage 15.5 - 23.2 Purchase Agreement 5.8 6.6 30th 105 .6 Subtotal 22.8 3o.h Neither 73.3 66.3 No eligible crops 3.9 3.3 Subtotal 77.2 69.6 Number of Informants (258) ' (181) * Includes only the owners and part owners. Contrany to the above hypothesis, the operators who were free of debt used the program.more than.the operators who were in debt. 0f the operators that were free of debt, 30.h per cent used the program compared to 22.8 per cent of the operators that had some indebtedness. 69 However, the tendency indicated here is not statistically significant, for if chi square is used as a test of significance the value arrived at could occur in more than 5 per cent of the cases due to chance alone. Another sort was made in each group by size of farm. It was found that a larger proportion of the farmers who were free of debt and who operated small and medium.sized farms used the program.than those who operated similar farms but WhO‘WGPO in debt. However, in the large fanm group, the proportion was the same in'both instances. Political beliefs were thought to have a possible effect upon par- ticipation in the price support program. It was assumed that there was a difference in the policies of the two major parties that would have an influence on participation in the program. The Republican party was believed to be Opposed to government intervention and control and gave greater emphasis to "free enterprise", while the Democratic party was in favor of higher support prices with less regard for the consequences of further government control. If the respondents favored the Republican party, they would then be less likely to participate in the price support program. Each informant was asked two questions to determine which of the two major political parties he favored. He was first asked, "Do yen remember for certain whether or not you voted in the 19h8 Presidential election?" and then, ”In general, which political party did you favor in the Presidential election of 19h8?" Table 10 on page 70, presents the information.obtained by sorting the responses as to participation by the political party favored in the l9h8 Presidential election. 70 TABLE 10 PER CENT THAT USED THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY POLITICAL PARTY, 505 FARMS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19h9 Plan Used Republican Democrat Other Uncertain Loan and Storage 15.8 25.7 25.0 1h.5 Purchase Agreement 7.0 3.6 -- 5.2 Both 1.8 .7 -- 1.3 subtotal 2h.6 30.0 25.0 21.0 Neither 71.2 67.8 7500 7507 No eligible crops h.2 2.2 -— 5.3 Subtotal 75.h 70.0 75.0 79.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Informants(285) (Inc) (A) (76) There was a tendency for those who favored the Democratic party in l9h8 to use the program.more than those who favored the Republican party. 0f the 285 that reported they had favored the Republican party, 2h.5 per cent indicated they had used the price support program. There were lhO informants that favored the Democratic party and 30.0 per cent in- dicated they had used the price support program. There were four who indicated they had favored a party other than two major political par- ties and'76 that indicated they were uncertain which party they had favored in l9h8. There were no refusals as such on this question however, some of the informants who indicated they were uncertain probably could have been considered as refusals. The results obtained by this sort were not very Significant; that is, political beliefs do not effect participation in the program. The value obtained by using chi square as a test of significance was very 71 low and could have occurred in fifty chances out of one hundred by chance alone. Price support legislation has been, especially in re- cent years, a political issue on the national scene. Also, any dis- cussion of it among producers is influenced by their political be- liefs. However, the actions of the individual famm operators were not in general, influenced by the political party they had supportedin the preceding Presidential election. Another sort was made in each party group by size of farm and it was found that within each size group there was no significant difference except for the large.farms. Here it was found that L7 per cent of those that favored the Democratic party used the program compared to 33 per cent of those that favored the Republican party. However, the number of observations in the group that favored the Democratic party was probably too small to be reliable. The findings were based on only 16 farms which were operated by a person who favored the Democratic party, used the program, and operated a farm of over 200 acres. Membership in farm organizations was also thought to have a pos- sible influence upon participation in the progranlor those that were members might be more likely to use the price support program. The members of the farm organization were likely to become better informed about the method of price support and how they might benefit from.the legislation through their discussion groups and meetings. They also were probably better informed as to the faults of the legislation and what their elected leaders believe was a sound agricultural policy. The informants were asked if they were a member of the Michigan Farm.Bureau or the Grange. Because the membership in other farm 72 organizations in Michigan is so small no attempt was made to record membership in these organizations. The informants were asked two ques- tions: (1) "Are you a member of the Michigan Farm Bureau?" and, (2) "The Grange?” Table 11 presents the results of this sort-when partici- pation in the program is compared with membership in the major farm organizations. TABLE II PER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY MEMBERSHIP IN FARM ORGANIZATIONS, 505 FARMS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 191.9 Farm Plan Used Bureaua ‘ Grangea Neither Loan and Storage 21.1 11+.6 16.7 Purchase Agreement 7.6 8.3 14.2 BOth 2.7 LL02 .3 Subtotal 314; 27.1 21.2 Neither 67 .0 72.9 73.2 No eligible crops 1.6 -— 5.6 SUthtal 6806 72.9 78.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Informants (185) (148) (287) a. There were 8.1 per cent of the Farm Bureau members that indicated they were also members of the Grange and 31.2 per cent of the Grange members that indicated they were also members of the Farm Bureau. There was a marked tendency for those who were members of the two major farm organizations to use the program more than those who were a member of neither organization. Of the 185 informants who reported they were members of the Farm Bureau, 31.14 per cent indicated they had used the price support program in 1919. Of the 148 who reported they were 73 members of the Grange, 27.1 per cent indicated they had used the pro- gram, while 21.2 per cent of the 287 informants who indicated they were members of neither organization, reported using the program. Using chi square as a test of significance the results were highly significant and could only be due to chance alone in less than five cases out of one hundred. Another sort was made by combining the two farm organizations and sorting each group by size of farm. It was found that within each size group there was very little difference in the use of the program between those who were members of farm organizations and those who were not. Thus, if the effects of size of farm are removed, membership in farm organizations has little effect upon participation. There were three other items that were classified as characteristic of the operator that might have a possible influence on whether he would participate in the program.cr not. The first of these are age and farming experience. There are farmers who have been farming only since world war II. They have been fanning in a time when agricultural prices have been in general, very favorable. In contrast to this group are the farmers who began farming during the depression of the 1930's; a time when conditions in agriculture were very unfavorable and there was little opportunity to move into other industries. And then there are other groups that were farming before the depression of the 1930's and remember the high prices after Wbrld War I and the troublesome 20's. They also remember the beginning of government interference in the pro- blems of agriculture. What influence would the time that farmers started farming and his age have on his participation in government programs? 7h If a farmer had started farming during the past decade, then he would be more likely to use the program.than if he had started earlier. Tables 12 and 13 present the information on participation in the price support program.sorted by the age of the operator and.years of farming experience. TABLE 12 ER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY AGE OF’THE OPERATOR, 505 FARMS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19u9 Less than 60 and Plan Used 50 30-59 Loqhg 50-59 Over Loan and Storage 20.h| 21.h 22.0 12.8 16.1 Purchase Agreement 8.2 hto 5.9 8.0 3.h Both h.1 .8 .9 2.h. - SUthtal 32 .7 26 02 280 8 23 .2 19 0) Neither 61.2 69.8 69.5 72.8 75.9 No eligible crops 6.1 h.o 1.7 h.0 L.6 Subtotal 67.3 73.8 71.2 ‘76.8 80.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Informents(u9) (126) (118) (125) (87) The result of the sort by age indicates that there is a tendency for the younger farmers to use the program more than older farmers. Taking the two extremes, farmers less than 30 years of age and those over 60 years of age, 32.7 per cent of the younger group used the pro- gram.compared to 19.5 per cent of the older group. However, if the 30 to 39 age group is compared with the ho to L9 age group, 26.2 per cent of the farmers used the program compared to 28.8 per cent of the latter. The results of this sort are not statistically significant. 75 TABLE 13 PER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY YEARS OF FARMING EXPERIENCE, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19119 . Less than ho and Plan Used 10 10-19 20—29 30-39 *Over Loan and Storage 19.2 21.0 18.h 1b.7 lh.8 Purchase Agreement h.5 7.2 5.8 8.8 1.8 Both 1.3 .8 1.0 1.1.1:, -- Subtotal 25.0 290° 25 .2 27.9 16.6 Neither 69.9 66.2 7108 72.1 7906 No eligible crops 5.1 L48 2.9 -- 3.8 subtotal 75.0 71.0 7u.a 72.1 83.h Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Informants(156) (12h) (105) (68) (5h) The results of the sort of participation.by years of farming experi- ence again indicates that there is a tendency for the men with less than to years of farming experience to use the program more than the group who have had be years or more of farming experience. In the group that has been farming for less than.h0 years, approximately 27 per cent used the price support program.compared to 16.6 per cent of the group that had indicated they have farmed for over ho years. The results of these two sorts that pertain to age and farming experience are not statistically significant, indicating that they do not have any influence upon use of the program. A farmer who has just started farming is as likely to use the program as the man who has been farming 30 years and who has watched the various agricultural programs come and go, and who has farmed in periods of high and low farm.prices and in periods of rapidly falling or rising prices. 76 The last factor that will be considered to have a possible in- fluence upon participation in the price support program is the educa- tion of the farm Operator. Due to the complexities of the program, it was thought that the level of education might have an influence upon whether the operator thought it to his advantage to participate in the program.or not. If a.farmer had a high formal education, then he would use the program more than a farmer with a lower formal edu- cation. The informants were asked what was the last grade or year they had completed in school. The exact wording of the question can be found on page l3 of the questionnaire which is included in Appendix C. The results of this sort of participation by education level is presented in Table 1h. TABLE ll). PER CENT THAT USED THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BY EDUCATION OF THE FARM OPERATOR, 505 FARMS SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 19h9 Some Completed Some Completed Grammar Grammar High High Some Plan Used School School School School College Loan and Storage 16.2 20.6 1h.6 20.8 16.7 Purchase Agreement l.h. 7.h_ 6.9 6.2 - BOth "" .6 2.6 2.0 303 SUthtE-l 17 .6 2806 214-01 2902 2000 Neither 77.0 68.2 711.1 65.6 75.5 No eligible crops 5.h 3.2 1.7 5.2 6J7 Subtotal . 82.11 71.11 75.9 70.8 80.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Informants(7ll) (189) (116) (96) (50) 77 From.the results of this sort, it would appear that the level of education has very little influence upon participation in the price support program. In this case, those that had the least and the most formal education used the program.the least. Briefly stated, the findings of this chapter regarding some fac- tors that may have an effect upon participation in the price support program, shows that price, size of farm, and type-cf-farm are the three significant items affecting participation. Type-cf-farm was not sta- tistically significant for farms under 200 acres in size. Another factor that might have an effect but was not included because of lack of information at this time, was available storage. Many farmers may not have used the program.because they lacked storage facilities or their storage would not meet the CCC specifications. In the next chapter it is indicated that in the case of wheat and beans, ll.h.per cent of the wheat producers and 11.9 per cent of the bean producers indicated their storage was inadequate. They stated that their stor- age would not meet government regulations. For the other crops, the percentages were lower with 2.7 per cent of the corn producers, 1.2 per cent of the cat producers, and 5.9 per cent of the rye producers giving inadequate storage as the reason for not using the program. For the remaining crops, this Breascn was not reported. It can probably be concluded that this is not too significant an item preventing the use of the price support program. CHAPTER‘VI REASONS FARMERS GAVE FOR PARTICIPATION OR NONPARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM In this chapter the reasons given by farmers why they did or did not participate in the price support program.will be presented. These reasons are considered in order to determine some factors that may have been overlodked in the preceding chapter. Also, the importance of some factors that might have affected participation are difficult to determine in any other way. For instance, how important is the factor that farmers may'be opposed to the program and therefore, do not use it? An attempt was made to answer this question along politi- cal 1ines but it did not appear very significant. However, how'often do farmers give this as a reason for not using the program? The reasons given on why they did or did not use the programs are presented to give further insight into these areas that may affect participation. Use of Loan and Storage and Purchase Agreement After the informants had been asked if they had used the price support program in l9h9 and their intentions for 1950, they were asked why they did or did not use the government price support program.in l9h9. The informants were asked the following questions: (1) ”I notice that you put (did not put) your l9h9 corn crop under a purchase agreement (and/tr under loan and storage). Why did you decide to handle your crop that way?” and (2) "What other reasons?" For each crop that was eligible for price support, the respondent was asked 79 these questions with other crops being substituted into the question in the place of corn. The question was left open ended and the in- terviewer was to record the answer given for each price supported crop. The replies on why they used the program.are summarized in Table 15, page 80, for each of the crops eligible for price support. The data indicates the importance of price as the determining factor of whether the farmer will participate in the program. It was only in the case of beans and potatoes that other reasons were given on why they had participated and the numbers were too small to tabu- late separately. The reason given by most informants for using the program was that they could get a.higher price. Of the twenty eight that used it on corn, 82.1 per cent gave this as the reason for their participation. Also, 72.5 per cent of those producing beans, 70 per cent of those producing potatoes, and 61.2 per cent of those produc- ing wheat gave the same reason. .A good many indicated they used the program not only to get a higher price but they also used it as a means of insurance against a price drop. They probably stored their grain each year in order not to market their crop at harvest time or during the seasonal low, and by using the program they were able to secure insurance against any unexpected fall in prices during the time of storage. There was no significant difference between crops. However, in the case of cats, soybeans and possibly potatoes the number of observations were so small that the results were not too reliable. The replies on why they did not use the price support program are summarized in Table 16, page 81, for each of the eligible crops. 8C Amv 33 Ag A3 AC 8.5 $3 ...........mpechHnH mo honeBz OOOOH OOOOH OOOOH II II OOOOH OOOOH COCO-H eeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeoeDHHDOoH0m II II meH II I... II II II Ceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoowqommmh OZ OOOH II. m9: II II II II II. oeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeemgomdoh h0g8 OOON OOOOH NOHN II II OeOOH wean (\uONH eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeemoa cowam s pmewcwe condenseH 0.05 in m.mn 1| :1 1| m.H© a.mm .......ocwua nonwfie c pow oasoo ”oweommcm woopdpom mmwom "50m 0% hOthm ”pdo ”dog”! ““00 ......‘O..................”QOho om Hmommbm HQHmm Mme Qmmb Mmme mm3.mmm2mH¢ wzomHU szmdmm 82 In this case, the reasons are more varied and as would be expected there is more variations between crops, although the same reasons appeared,for most of the crops. With the feed crops of corn, oats, barley, and rye the reason for not using the program most often given was the most of these crops were fed. On corn, this accounted for 76.1 per cent of the reponses; oats, 82.1 per cent3'barley, 61.9 per cent; and rye, 58.8 per cent. In this group, they probably do not market any crops and only in favorable years do they have some excess above the requirements for feed which is sold on the open market. In the case of the cash crops of wheat, beans, and potatoes, the reason most often given for not using the program.was that there was not enough difference in price. On wheat, that accounted for 28.1 per cent of the responses; beans, h8.6 per cent; and potatoes, LO per cent. Thus, for the cash crops, we have one group indicating they could get a higher price and another group indicating there was not enough dif- ference in price. On each of these groups, a sort was made by size of farm.and it was found that the group that used the program because they could get a higher prise was composed of larger farms than the group that indicated there was not enough difference in price. This emphasizes the significance of size of farm.as a factor affecting par- ticipation. The informants gave two main reasons for not using the price sup- port program fcr soybeans: (1) there was not enough difference in price, and (2) that they were not in favor of the program. There were 31.2 per cent of those producing seybeans giving each of these reasons 83 for not using the program.cn soybeans. Also, 25.0 per cent said they fed most of their soybeans to livestock as a reason for not partici- pating in the program. However, there were only sixteen cases re- . porting and the results would not be too reliable. A reason given for not using the program.for each of the eligible crops was that they were not in favor of the program.‘ The percentage varied with each of the crops. This was given as a reason for not using the program on the cash crops more than for the feed crops. Of those that grew potatoes, 30.0 per cent were not in favor of the potato program, 2h.2 per cent for wheat, and 22.0 per cent for beans. In the case of feed crops, only 12.2 per cent gave this as a reason for not using the program.cn corn, 7.6 per cent on oats, h.8 per cent on barley, and 5.9 per cent on rye. The other reasons that appeared with some regularity were that their storage facilities were inadequate and they did not have a large enough crop with which to bother. In the case of wheat and potatoes, 11.h per cent and 11.9 per cent of the producers indicated inadequate storage facilities kept them.from.using the program. 'With the feed crops, only a very small number gave this as the reason why they did not use the program. A few indicated they did not use the program because they did not have a large enough crop with which to bother. There were lh.8 per cent who indicated they did not use the program.cn wheat for this reason, 10 per cent on beans, and 25 per cent on potatoes. The producers did not give this reason as often for not using it on feed crops as they did on cash crops. It was however, prObably implied by the producers 8b. of the feed crops then they gave the reason that most of it was fed to livestock. This gives some indication that they considered what was left over too small on which to get a loan or purchase agreement and sold it on the open market or held it over for the following year. Compliance With Acreage.Allotments .As a follow'up to the reasons why they did or did not use the price support program.in l9h9, the informants were asked why they complied or did not comply with acreage allotments in.1950. The method used to secure this information was similar to that used in the pre- ceding section on why they did or did not use the price support pne- gram.in 19h9. Each informant was asked for each controlled crop, the following question: "WCuld you mind telling me why you stayed (did not stay) within your allotment on corn?” The replies on why they were wdthin their allotment are summarized in Table 17, page 85. The greatest number of reasons given by the informants why they were within their acreage allotments could be classified as coincidence. That is, the informants were within the allotment set up for their farm for a reason other than that they had complied with the program in order to secure a loan or purchase agreement. These reasons, classified as coincidence, varied but in general they had to do with the rotation followed, field size, and the weather. Only 11.3 per cent of those that produced corn indicated they had complied with acreage allotments because they expected to use the price support program. 0f the wheat producers, 20.1 per cent were within the allotment because they expected to use the program. However, with TABLE 17 REASONS GIVEN BY MICHIGAN FARMERS WHY THEY COMPLIED WITH ACREAGE AILOTMENTS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1950 crops ....0.0.00.0........OOOOOOOOOO Com mat B68118 POtatoes Response: Price insurance, loan expected.. . . . . 11.5 20.1 119.2 h5.5 Coincidence, because of rotation, field size and weather...... ...... 811.0 68.8 116.2 511.5 To comply with government programs.. 2.8 10 .11 11.6 -- Others.............................. 109 07 -- -- Peroent eeeeeeeeooeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeee 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number Of Informants................ (106) (lhh) (65) (11) beans and potatoes the number increases until there are 149.2 per cent of the bean producers and 1.5.5 per cent of the potato growers complying because they wanted to be eligible to use the program. A few responses on corn, wheat, and beans indicated they had com- plied with acreage allotments because it was a government program. They evidently believed that government programs were a good thing and they wanted to cooperate. The reasons why farmers did not comply with acreage allotments are summarized in Table 18. With corn, 50.5 per cent indicated they did not comply because the crop was raised for feed and 11.3 per cent of the wheat producers indicated the same thing. The main reason given for not complying with cash creps was that it interfered with their rotation, or the size of field available was larger than the allotment and they did not want to split fields. There Seemed to be a strong 86 dislike for splitting fields and planting it to other crops. Several specifically stated they would not split a field in order to comply ‘with the allotment. or the wheat producers, 56.0 per cent indicated that it interfered 'with their rotation so would not comply with the allotment. In the case of beans, h5.8 per cent of the producers indicated it interfered with.their rotation and 27.8 per cent did not use it on potatoes for the same reason. TABLE 18 REASONS GIVEN BY MICHIGAN FARMERS WHY THEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH ACREAGE.ALLOTMENTS, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, 1950 Cropeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Corn Wheat Bea-n8 POtatOOB Response: Crop raised for feed................ 50.5 11.5 -- -- Interferes with rotation, size of fieldeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ELI-09 56.0 ’43.8 27.8 Didn't know the n11ctment........... 10.6 6.5 15.9 16.7 Allotment tOO smallccccccc.........c 303 809 1107 505 Not in favor of the program......... 6.2 8.9 12eh 22.2 weather did not permit following planned rotation.................. 1.5 .8 hwh -- Crops not regularly grown........... .7 1.6 2.2 ~- 0ther.........................c...c. e7 6.8 1009 1607 N0 responsecc...”.................. 202 08 202 1101 Percentteeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 100.6 101.6 101.5 100.0 'NUEbCI‘ Of Informtseeeeoeeeeeoeeeee (273) (214.8) (137) (18) * Because some informants mentioned more than one reason, the percentages do not always equal 100. 87 There were three reasons given with.about the same regularity: (1) they did not know the allotment; (2) the allotment was too small; and (3) they were not in favor of the program. Of the corn producers, 10.6 per cent said they did not know their allotment for corn. Also, 8.9 per cent of the wheat producers, 11.7 per cent of the bean producers, and 16:7 per cent of the potato growers indicated the same thing. Thus, they may have been within their allotment but they did not comply with the idea of being eligible for a loan or purchase agreement. - There were also a few that indicated their allotment was too small and the usual comment that would go along with.this was, "What are you going to grow?" There were very.few of those that grew corn that in- dicated their allotment was too small as a reason for not using the program, only 5.3 per cent. But there were 5.5 per cent of the potato producers, 8.9 per cent of the wheat producers, and 11.7 per cent of those that grew beans that gave the same reason. Another reason that appeared with regularity for all four control- led crops was that they did not comply with acreage allotments because they were not in favor of the program. 0f the group that produced potatoes, 22.2 per cent gave this as a reason for not complying. Also, 12.h per cent of the bean producers, 8.9 per cent of the wheat pro- ducers and 6.2 per cent of the corn producers indicated the same thing. In neither case, that is, participation in the price support plan or acreage allotment program, does this reason of not being in.favor of the program appear too significant as a factor affecting participa- tion. There are other factors that are far more important in in- fluencing the farmer's decision as to whether he shall participate in 88 the program. He may not be in favor of the program but if it is available this seldom prevents him.from participating if he thinks it will be more profitable. In a few cases, the weather and the crop not regularly grown, were given as reasons for not complying with acreage allotments. Neither of these were given as reasons why they did not comply with the allotment for potatoes and for the other crops they were not very significant. The findings in this chapter show that the majority of the farmers are influenced by price. For instance, the group that participated wdth the price support program.in 19h9 did so because they could get a higher price. The group that did not participate on the cash crops also gave price as their main reason for not participating in the program. However, the reason for this difference in opinion as to price can be found in the effect of size of farm.upon participation. If each of these groups are sorted on the basis of size of farm the large farms are found in the group that used the program because they could get a higher price. A small price differential is probably more important to the large farmer than the small. Reasons for complying or not complying with the acreage allotment program were mainly the rotation and size of field available. In both instances, these were the main reasons given for their actions except in the case of corn and many did not comply because they raise the crop for feed. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS Agriculture fulfills, for the most part, the basic conditions of "pure” competition. It would appear then that government programs would not be needed. Instead, there is a great deal of intervention by the government into the, affairs of agriculture. In general, this intervention has been brought about by the failure of the price mechanism to regulate agricultural production and consumption in the short run, to move resources, mostly labor, out of agriculture in the long run, and change resource use in line with changes in consumers demand. There are two reasons which prevent the free market prices from operating satisfactorily: (1) the inherent features of agricul- tural production, and (2) the obstacles in the way for a free move- ment of labor. The effect of these upon agriculture has been to pre- vent the price mechanism from functioning properly and to make it relatively unprofitable compared to other industries. In order to remedy the unprofitability of agriculture, there have been numerous government programs that have attempted to in- crease agricultural income by increasing agricultural prices. The programs of World War I were intended to increase production and some of the techniques employed have been carried over and included in later programs. This more or less set the pattern of agricultural price legislation. Each "new” piece of legislation does not change the previous law but only makes amendments to it. The present price 90 price support law is the Agricultural Act of l9h9. This act represents a compromise between those who favored rigid, high level price supports and those who favored flexible supports. It keeps in operation.an elaborate set of administrative machinery to bring the program into the reach of every farmer. Because there are numerous deviations from.the optimum.conditicns required to make the program fully effective, many problems have arisen. For the individual farmer, there is the problem of appraising profit opportunities available and determine whether he shall partici- pate in the programs. There is the national problem.of surpluses of the price supported crops. This is caused by the fact that agricultural legislation is a political issue and the result has been higher price supports. These higher prices bring forth more production than will clear the market at those prices. Also, as controls are put on one crop, shifts in the farming program to utilize the land taken out of controlled crops may lead to the need for additional controls on the substitutes. In order to provide some information about farmers response to the price support legislation in l9h9 and 1950, this study was made. It is a segment of an overall research project about farmers' behavior, knowledge, and attitudes toward federal price support legislation. .At the beginning of this study, it was stated that one of its pur- poses was to determine the extent of participation in the federal price support program. This can best be summarized by saying that of the 505 Michigan farmers asked how they disposed of their crops in l9h9, only 25.5 per cent indicated they had used either the loan.and storage or purchase agreement plan of price support. Thus, approximately one 91 farmer out of four used the program in l9h9. 0f the 25.5 per cent that did use the program, 65.9 per cent, or approximately two thirds, delivered their grain to the government. The informants were asked how they intended to dispose of their crops in 1950. Only 15.9 per cent indicated they planned to use the price support program in 1950. Of these, nearly half indicated their final decision would rest upon which was higher, the support price or the market price. Therefore, approximately one farmer out of seven indicated he had thought about using the program in 1950. The decrease in the use of the program can largely be accounted for by the smaller differential between the market price and the support price in 1950 compared to l9h9. The farmers who produced crops that were subject to acreage con- trol were also asked what their allotments were and these were comp pared to the actual acreage to determine if they were within their allotments. In the case of corn, 28.0 per cent of the 379 growers were within their allotment, 56.6 per cent of the 395 wheat producers, 3367 per cent of the 202 bean growers, and 37.9 per cent of the 29 potato growers. However, this does not tell all the story; from the reasons given of why they complied with their allotment, many gave reasons that amounted to saying it was a coincidence. They had not planned on complying but because of the size of the field available, rotation, and weather, they were prevented from planting any more. If these are removed from.the number that were within their a1- lotment it leaves only h.5 per cent of the 379 corn growers compLying intentionally, ll.h.per cent of the wheat producers, 16.8 per cent of the bean producers, and 15.8 per cent of the potato producers. If these are then compared with the per cent intending to use price sup- ports on each of the crops, it shows that with corn and wheat, more complied with the acreage allotment program than intended to use the price support program. With beans and potatoes, more intended to use the program than intentionally complied with acreage allotments. This probably indicates confusion about the relationship between the acre- age program and the price support program. Also , there may have been a revision in price expectations, but because the market price dropped so far below the support price in 19119, in the case of beans and po- tatoes, some who may not have used the program in 19149 intended to use it in 1950 and did not know they had to comply with acreage allotments as a condition of eligibility. It was also the purpose of this study to analyze factors that af- fect farmer's participation in the federal price support program. In this case, ten factors were considered that might have a possible ef- fect upon participation. They were: (1) price differential between the market price and the support price, (2) type-of-farm, (3) size of farm, (LL) tenure, (5) indebtedness, (6) political party, (7) member- ship in farm organizations, (8) age, (9) farming experience, and (10) education of the operator. From the sorts of participation in the program by each of these factors, only prices, size of farm, and type-of-farm appeared to have any influence upon participation in the price support program. In the case of the price, the further the support pr ice was above the market price the more the producer used the program. With size of farm, the 95 larger the farm in acres the more likely the price support program would be used. Type-ofefarm.was only significant for farms over 200 acres in size. In this group the crop.farmers used the program.ccn- siderably more than the livestock and general farmers. Chi square was used as the test of significance and the values obtained indicated the differences were highly significant. These three factors could probably be combined because it was found on all the eligible crops that the market price was lower than the support price, but on many of the crops only a:feW'used the program. However, as the differential became greater, more farmers used the pro- gram. Now if size of farm is introduced as a second significant fac- tor, it may be an indication that many farmers do not believe it advantageous to use the program because they do not have enough to sell. This is the factor that keeps the large livestock farmers from using the program.who primarily produce feed and not cash crops. But as the difference becomes greater, more and.more farmers found it to their advantage to use the program. It is the large crop farmers that make the most use of the program. If use is taken as a measure of benefits received then the large crop farmers are benefiting the most from the program. A third purpose of this study was to study the reasons given by Michigan farmers why they do or do not participate in the federal price support program. In l9h9, price was the main reason given by farmers for participating in the program. They either mentioned that they could get a higher price or they used the program as a fonnof in! surance against unexpected declines in prices. This applies to all eli- gible crops. 9h The reasons given for not using the program.varied between crops although the same reasons appeared for most of the crops. For the feed crops, the reason given most often was that they fed the crop to livestock. In the case of the cash crops, they indicated there was not enough difference in price. If a sort is made by size of farm.on these two groups, those that used the programfibecause they could get a higher price and those that did not because there is not enough difference in price, the re- sult is that the group that used the program contains the larger farms. This again indicates the significance of size of farm as a factor in- fluencing the use of the program. A few reasons that have received some attention as to their imp portance as a reason wiv farmers do not use the program appeared with some regularity, but were not too significant; they were, inadequate storage, and not in favor of the program. In the case of the cash crops, the reason for not using the program because they were not in favor of it, was used more than with the feed crops. The same ms true with inadequate storage facilities, but only 11 per cent indica- ted this kept them.frcm using the program.fcr the cash crops and only a very small number gave it as a reason for the feed crops. The informants were also questioned about why they had or had not complied with acreage allotments. The greatest number of the reasons why they were within their allotment could be classified as coincidence. They did not ccmpLy'with the program.in order to secure a loan or a purchase agreement. For corn and wheat, the percentage of the informp ants that gave these reasons was very large, but with beans and potatoes 95 the reasons were about equally divided between coincidence and they expected to use the price support program. For corn, 50.5 per cent of the informants indicated they did not comply with acreage allotments because they raised corn for feed. Al- though wheat is usually considered a cash crop, 11.3 per cent indicated the same thing. The main reason given for the cash crops was that compliance interfered with their rotation and they did not want to change their rotation or split fields in order to comply with the pro- gram. Other reasons that appeared with about the same regularity 'werex (1) they did not know the allotment, (2) the allotment was too small, and (5) they were not in favor of the program. ‘A reason.fcr not complying with the acreage allotment program that did not appear was that they stayed out in order to produce all they could of these crops in anticipation of higher market prices be- cause cf the price support program.and general'business conditions. This was not given by any of the informants. It appears that the majority of farmers, when it comes to the acreage allotment program, are influenced more by physical reasons such as rotation, field size, etc. than by price. The former being close at hand they work with it every year, the latter tradionally being something over which they have no control, price being important when they have alternatives at a moment of time. The main purposes of this study have been covered and it gives some information on how’many participated, who participated and, why or why not they participated in the price support program. However, the observations made here are based on one year's actual practices 96 and the intentions for the following year. It probably raises more questions than it provides answers. Certainly a number of years ob- servation with their different price relationships would give more adequate information about the role of price in determining how many will use the program. It would also bring in the variations in crop yields, as the year selected happened to be a year favorable for crop production. This is undoubtedly a factor that determines to a great extent, whether the livestock farmer will use the program. Also a change in technique of analysis from the cross-sectional procedure to a case-grouping procedure might be appropriate. Certainly many of the important attributes are lost when the cross-sectional procedure is used, and if these were included a pattern of action might be discovered. The important point to be determined is the exact relationship between a changing price differential and the amount available for sale which is manifest in type and size of farm. It is the relationship of these factors that determines, to a large extent, participation in the price support program. APPENDIX.A Material Used In The Selection Of The Sample Areas 98 APPENDIX A TABLE 19 DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAJOR TYPES OF FARMS BY COUNTIES, MICHIGAN, l9hh Percentage of all farms classified as 8 'v E ' s a a 2' s, 5 a 8 a r 8 s8 :3 ’23 2.2 a s: .8 4:. 33‘ . ° a t: 3:: a as a: a 5 m 5 549 hD a h .4 o -H 5 .: 8 o g 8 g a 8 as :3 83 as 8 8 .a at o as Hillsdale .6 .6 .2 6.1 29.8 7.b. 15.5 - 31.2 8.6 Lename .7 1.8 .2 1200 2602 8.2 1700 "' 2509 8.0 ionroe 1.8 14-05 03 214.5 1202 10.8 6.1 - 26.2 13.6 Branch .3 .6 .2 h.9 55.2 6.6 18.1 - 27.8 6.3 Cass 3.0 1.1 .3 6.2 17.8. 8.0 21.0 .2 18.8 28.0 St. Joseph 1.2 1.0 .2 8.5 19.6 8.5 25.0 - 2302 12.8 Kalamazoo h.7 6.0 1.1 10.1 25.6 5.h 9.h .1 16.1 21.5 Calhoun .9 2.8 .5 6.7 23.5 5.3 21.0 - 21.8 17.5 Barry 07 103 " 11.9 22.2 5 J4- 12.8 2709 17.8 5 Berrien 50.0 3.3 1.0 3.h. 6.9 b.7 3.9 .1 12.7 1h.0 Van Buren 20.5 60’4- 06 6.7 17.8 70L}- 608 .3 20.1 15.6 Allegan 7.8 h.8 .3 7.3 30.6 18.7 8.7 .2 18.2 11.L b Ottawa 3.2 6.0 .7 h.3 33.5 13.h. 3.6 .3 18.9 16.1 Kent 5.1 6.2 1.2 8.5 5h.2 7.h 5.9 .1 15.8 17.6 Muskegon 2.7 7.1 1.2 3.6 32.8 7.2 5.3 .2 9.6 30.3 Jackson 1.0 3.1 .5 5.h. 28.1 5.9 19.3 .1 17.9 18:7 washtenaW' 1.3 1.6 .u 5.8 28.2 8.0 22.3 .1 19.9 16J1 Eaton e7 .8 .1 1301 26.3 LL07 11.9 91 2705 11408 Ingham 06 I409 06 6.3 5205 5.8 13.8 - 16.1 1901-]- 5 Livingston 1.u 1.5 .2 8.3 3n.2 6.7 1h.8 .2 18.7 18.0 Ionia 1.5 1.8 .3 8.7 2h.5 3.2 16.3 - 32.7 11.0 Clinton .6 .6 .1 11.7 21.1 h.9 1h.5 - 37.1 9.8 Shiawassee .5 .6 .2 16.8 28.9 6.1 7.0 - 2h.8 15.2 Genesee 1.7 .6 .A 11.6 16.8 6.0 7.7 .1 11.0 hh.1 APPENDIX A TABLE 19 CONTINUED Percentage of all farms classified as 8 C... 13 o I :4 .54 5 58 '8'. {33’ a E .43 a 433 a g .1: 4:. :3. °.. t: 3 a as s as ° 0 E'5 83 8 s :3 8 '3 8 .3 a 8 8 8 E '3 (a buzz t> tn-P «at; c3 9. #3 a.a. c: IL 0 Wayne 2.6 10.7 2.3 u.6 10.h 7.h. 2.8 .5 8.h 50.3 Cakland 5.9 3.6 .9 6.3 18.2 10.6 9.8 - 9.3 35.h 6 Macomb 2.7 12.u 1.3 8.7 25.6 8.7 3.h - 6.7 38.5 Lapeer .7 2.8. .2 10.u 82.9 h.8 7.8 16.2 18.6 St. Clair .6 2.5 .3 9.9 37.6 6.2 7.7 - 11.3 23.9 7 Sanilac .3 .h - 21.3 38.1 2.5 h.6 .1 28.7 h.0 Gratiot .1 .6 .2 21.9 19.5 8.0 6.9 .1 38.5 8.2 SaginaW' .u 2.2 .3 22.6 18.3 5.3 a.3 .1 25.1 23.8 Tuscola .5 .7 .2 35.7 21.h 3.5 n.u. .1 23.7 9.8 8Huron .2 J4 .2 112.8 8.5 2.0 1.1.0 .1 58.14 51‘. Isabella .2 .8 .1 18.6 28.u. 2.8 7.6 .2 36.7 8.6 Midland .5 1.0 .1 17.1 17.0 3.6 7.h. .2 17.6 35.5 Bay .A. 8.2 .h 28.7 20.8 2.8 3.3 - 25. 18.0 Clare .7 .3 .1 3.9 32.7 14.2 18.0 .3 17.1 22.7 Gladwin .6 .3 .2 5.h. 37.5 3.1 1h.8 .h 18.8 18.9 9 Arenac .2 1.8 .1 1b.h. 27.2 3.1 6.3 .2 31.6 15.1 Ogemaw .6 .7 .3 8.0 33.3 1.3 18.9 .8 20.2 19.9 Iosoo .s. .u. - 5.8 27.5 8.2 15.5 .5 25.5 20.2 Montcalm .5 .7 .1 19.8 32.7 5.2 11.9 - 28.1 10.2 Newaygo 1.5 8.9 .2 6.8 39.2 3.5 6.7 .2 17.1 15.9 10 MGOOSta .5 1.2 .3 10.5 33.8 2.9 7.14 .LI- 31.14 11.8 Lake .2 1.8 .2 5.1 33.3 1.5 6.5 1.0 25.2 25.2 Osceola .2 .6 - 10.0 an.0 1.8 8.1 .3 23.0 12.h APPENDIX A TABLE 19 CONTINUED 100 Percentage of all farms classified as 8 '° 33 J. a; a .. 2' >. 5 a a .8 h .9 as a s :3 a g ii *3 13 o ° 6. t’ t 3 $3 8 é‘ " 0 o 243 ‘8” ‘5 ‘5 2 8 '3 8 .5 t 8 3 8 E :1! 0 £142: .'> D: «P <: O Q 0. o-J Ex. 04 (5 a. O Ooeana 18.2 6.6 .1 11.3 16.9 2.8 3.1. .3 2L..L. 16.11 Mason 9.9 2.1 .h. 7.h. 56.5 5.5 6.h - 25.2 8.8 11 Manistee 9.1. .9 1.2 6.6 21.1 2.5 7.6 .3 29.1 21.3 BenZie 18.2 .6 .14 . 13.0 5.1 7 .8 ' 7 .2 J4 20.6 26.7 Gr. Traverse 27.1 .5 .6 11.1 12.2 1.8 7.0 .2 2h.h 15.5 Leelanaw 25.7 .LI- - 11.1.0 14.3 1.5 5.2 .7 35.0 150,4- Wexford .h 1.0 .11 8.3 30.6 2.6 8.7 .1 2L1.8 23.1 Missaukee .2 1.5 - 11.2 371. 2.1 6.1. .3 37.7 10.2 - Kalkaska .11 1.8 .2 18.1 20.11 2.1 7.9 .L. 30.2 18.5 12 Antrim 7.8 L..2 .3 10.7 18.9 2.5 5.9 1.0 3L..7 111.0 Otsego - .7 .2 25.9 15.1 .1. 6.9 1.8 35.1 13.9 Charlevoix 3.5 2.2 .3 10.0 22.5 11.7 9.2 .8 27.9 18.9 Emmet 1.2 .8 .7 13.2 211.3 1.7 7.2 2.1. 21.6 26.9 Roscomnon - 1.11 .7 .7 28.1 6.2 19.2 1.1. 17.1 25.2 13 Crawford 1.1 1.1 - 9.9 1A.} 2.2 20.9 - 7.7 1.2.8 OBOOda " -' - 6.8 39.6 2.2 19.1-‘- .7 15.1 16.2 Aloona 1.5 - .1 7.8 18.5 1.6 20.9 .9 25.0 2h.l Alpena 5.2 .1 .2 9.h 19.0 .8 12.7 2.2 5b.? 17.7 1h Montmoreney .2 - - 6.9 25.5 2.7 19.1 2.0 27.h 16.2 Presque Isle .b. - - 35.9 9.6 .8 6.0 1.1. 31.1. 1L..5 Chebcygan 1.2 .5 - 10.2 52.1 2.5 7.8 1.9 17.5 26.9 15 Chippewa .L. .11 .1 25.6 19.2 2.8 5.9 1.8 2111. 19.1. Mackinac .2 .2 .2 20.5 31.1. 1.1 2.9 5.1. 16.3 21.8 16 Menominee - .2 .1 7.6 59.5 1.0 5.5 8.6 9.7 9.8 101 APPENDIX A TABLE 19 CONTINUED Percentage of all farms classified as om: n30 pom mposvcam Hdaonoo mpodvoam vmoaom zooamobwq apnoea Eon mono aompo Had can» -Hsoannom moanmpowob 952 one page hvnnoo dead 581097h18661 O O O O O O O O O O O O 96 552252688 7 1 222 223211.414 27:2 5598146227 0 O O o O 0 0 O O 0 O 22A67171L4L41inuwm79n7n7 l l 01220I41u0225068 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 146 2 722222656 2222 71861.2271L4ncL49222nuno O O O O O O o O 0 O O O 22. 22oalaz2hucaz21122z2 58221822702268 OOOOOOOOOOPhflmfi/M 885222222 mmr9r979rDLuncme422111. 9219h051480522 00.000.00.080 1 225 :2 9m19791 7%11. b.1211 80122 .....u...... 1 2 261 502142 22 .— ...-...... 52161.14 1.407 .......-.... l 1 R n en a o n w.t o r 0900 ats 0 .10.... anen 1 .0 n.n ace Wfli a r o eognam kteoe gtuou ucleohc onor e ieflcu nunonnTinuvnmmnunu corn 7 1 l9h5 United States Census of Agriculture *Source: 102 APPENDIX A TABLE 20 DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAJOR TYPE OF FARMS BY TYPE—OF-FARHING AREAS, MICHIGAN, 1988* =aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagaaagaaagaaaaaaaaaaaan-ll Percentage of all farms classified as an ‘8 .g 8 'U 3 ' h .24 3 °‘" 5 '3 5 133’ i: :3 fl 2;; 3 0 a T: ‘53 '3 o o n. i? :3 3 m h 33 0 as 80 as .. a a 8 > 3 3 '38 _§ 8.2 :> m4.) :0 :3 ll. :3 is. g (to 1 .8 1.9 .2 11.9 25.8 8.2 18.2 - 27.8 9.1 2 2.1 2.8. .8. 8.7 21.7 6.5 17.8 .1 21.6 18.7 5 70.2 8.8 .8 5.0 12.5 6.0 5.5 .2 16.8. 15.8 8. 8.7 6.0 .8 5.9 52.8 10.7 8.9 .2 15.1 18.8 5 1.0 1.7 .5 9.7 26.5 5.7 18.2 .1 22.8 18.6 6 5.0 7.5 1.2 6.5 28.5 7.9 6.0 .1 10.2 55.7 7 .8. 1.8 .1 15.6 57.8 8.8 6.2 .0 20.0 15.9 8 .5 1.8 .2 26.2 19.1 5.8 5.8 .1 29.5 18.7 9 .5 .7 .1 7.5 22.6 5.2 15.9 .8 22.6 19.5 10 .6 2.6 .2 10.8 56.6 2.5 .7 .8. 25.0 15.1 11 18.1 1.8 .8. 10.6 16.0 5.2 6.1 .5 2.6 1.7 12 1.9 1.7 .5 12.9 28.2 2.5 7.8 1.0 5.0 17.9 15 J1 .8 .2 5.8 27.5 5.5 19.8 .7 15.5 28.1 18 1.5 .1 .1 18.0 20.9 1.6 15.5 1.6 27.2 19.9 15 .5 .5 .2 25.0 25.5 1.9 8.8 5.6 20.8 20.6 16 " .2 01 7.6 59.5 100 3.5 8.6 9.7 9.8 17 J1 .5 .5 12.0 58.7 2.7 8.8 5.9 8.6 28.6 *Source: 1985 United States Census of Agriculture APPENDIX A TABLE 21 105 LAND IN FARMS, TILLABLE LAND AND LAND USE BY COUNTIES, MICHIGAN, 1988a Percentage of Tillable Land in ‘8 2-3. “8'3 # h as a) 8st“. 8*” 8 :3 03 as a) m a) m 081—! is; 4:323 4533?) 2 g m 53 411'on p, .9, 3.- d m was 3 m .p u 0 .942-9 0 o a) g 8'6 2: >3 4:, g g .3 SD .9 «4 a) d m H (DH 0 0% OH (I! d O (D O S :5) 38° 0 .g :5. gr; 2 o Flu-J Out—4 m D-c D 00 £1. to U) [14> ES: 0 m Hra. Hillsdale 95 66 25 18 28 - - - 2 1 11 12 - ' 6 1 Lenawee 90 72 18 5 50 - - - 8 1 15 12 - 8 Monroe 85 ‘79 12 7 26 - 1 - 15 8. 18 11 - 5 Branch 91 65 25 12 28 - - — 2 - 12 15 - 5 Cass 83 78 16 28 21 - 1 - 2 1 9 8 - l5 2 St. Joseph 88 78. 17 19 22 - - — 5 1 10 8 - 17 Kalamazoo 76 69 19 17 20 - 1 - 1 2 12 11 - 10 Calhoun 82 65 19 17 22 1 1 - l 2 15 12, - 7 Barny 88 62 21 22 16 2 l - - 2 15 12 - 7 Berrien 85 72 13 8 18 - 2 - 3 29 7 6 - 10 5 Van Buren 85 65 18 12 21 - 1 - 2 15 6 6 - 15 Allegan 77 68 21 18 20 - 1 - 1 7 10 12 l 11 8 Ottawa 81 68 25 12 21 1 1 - - 5 11 16 - 7 Kent 80 68 25 15 16 5 2 - - 7 7 15 — 12 Huskegon 81 57 27 l6 l6 2 1 - - 5 5 12 - 11 Jackson 82 62 22 16 2O 1 l - - 3 9 11 - 12 washtenaw 82 65 28 15 25 — 1 - - 2 ll 18 - 6 Eaton 95 7O 17 ll 20 6 - - 1 1 18 12 - l2 Ingham 86 65 21 15 22 5 1 — 1 2 10 18 - 6 5 Livingston 81 60 25 16 19 8. 1 - - 1 9 15 - 10 Ionia 90 69 18 17 21 5 l - - 2 18 18 1 8 Clinton 95 75 16 17 18 8 - l 1 - l8 l8 1 5 Shiawassee 91 75 18 ll 16 11 - l 1 1 15 lb - 6 Genesee 77 71 28 13 16 7 1 - l 1 11 18 1 6 APPEIEDIX A TABLE 21 CONTINUED 1011 Percentage of Tillable Land in 94g Q—c'd 0 ca fl oz"! 0.4 4.» m 8513:. hi) (D 0 33:1 3.3 o 3 0% g “‘3'; b. fi-H up 1. o d and b» .23 49 0 out :3 00 -P Q 0 +349 43 0 o 88 882:88888888888727 2 O 02. (Du-I ed (3 O o O :5 O 1.0 £9. a! ’E! '6': o a»: 2.5-a m a. o m a. m :12 83> :. o an HR. Wayne 88 69 16 5 26 — 5 - 5 11 12 12 - 12 60alc1and 68 66 22 22 18 1 2 - - 6 5 11 - 9 Macomb 77 78 25 11 20 5 2 - 1 9 11 12 - 6 Lapser 92 67 25 21 15 7 1 - - 2 7 l5 1 5 St. Clair 78 70 27 18 12 6 1 1 - 2 ll 11 - 5 7Sanilac 95 79 25 25 6 l8 - 1 - l 8 15 2 5 Gratict 91 71 17 11 20 16 - 2 2 - 10 15 2 2 Saginaw 86 71 16 15 15 19 l 2 - 2 ll 15 2 5 8Tuscola 85 71 16 15 lo 22 1 5 - 1 9 l2 5 8 Huron 9b. 75 l9 l2 6 27 1 2 - 1 9 15 7 2 Isabella 82 65 22 18 16 9 1 2 - - 7 18 2 5 Midland 57 55 25 21 15 15 1 2 - - 5 11 2 8 Bay 85 72 19 15 11 17 5 5 - 8 8 ll 2 8 Clare 82 8o 59 25 15 1 1 - - 1 5 9 - 5 Gladwin 50 80 86 15 15 5 l - - l 5 10 1 5 9Arenao 62 55 1 16 ll 15 1 1 - 1 5 11 1 8 Ogemaw L16 59 E2 23 11 2 l - - 1 5 8 - 8 Iosoo 52 57 86 17 10 8 2 - - 1 2 8 1 5 Montcalm 79 65 25 18 15 9 5 - - l 8 15 - 10 Newaygo 85 52 50 18 15 5 2 — - 6 5 9 - 11 10 Hecosta 69 52 51 25 15 5 5 - - 1 2 9 - 6 Lake 22 57 55 21 12 2 2 - - 2 2 6 - 12 Osceola 73 ’42 112 27 11 1 5 - - 1 2 8 - 5 APPENDIX A TABLE 21 CONTINUED 105 Percentage of Tillable Land in Q—um $413 05 °8 . a): 0.4 +3 to 8"“ 23% no 8 m .er +321 49H 0 CD C9 3’ 8" 88 a . 8 3 8 :38 s s» «*8 8 § 2'” :3: “t; 8 § .‘3 so 2‘3. 888 B "* .3: 2 0 0g (1)-H g’ d O a) O :5 0 ha) [5 113 g '06 U Oar-1 Che-c m CL. 0 on On (a U) [:89 :~-- 0 m H&. Oceana 63 58 26 15 15 2 2 - - l6 2 5 - 15 Mason 58 58 51 22 11 5 1 - - 6 8 9 - 8 Lianistee 56 55 25 28 12 2 2 - - 5 2 5 - 18 11 Benzie 88 87 25 28 9 1 l - - 15 1 5 - '19 Gd. Traverse 89 62 8 28. 12 - 8 - - 11 2 6 - l5 Leelanau 61 17 28 21 9 1 5 - - 11 5 8 - 10 Werford 81 86 58 28 15 1 5 - - 1 1 8 — 18 Missaukee 88 82 59 19 12 1 8 - - 1 5 8 .. 6 Kalkaska 25 89 26 25 15 1 5 - - 2 1 5 - 21 12 Antrim 52 8o 35 l8 l2 1 5 - - 9 1 7 - 15 Otsego 27 56 85 15 6 — 10 — - - 2 9 - 15 Charlevoix 50 56 85 17 11 l 5 - - 5 5 7 - 7 Emmet 83 59 38 21 10 1 5 - - l 1 7 l 8 Roscommon 6 57 87 22 8 - 2 - - 2 6 - 11 13 Crawford 8 55 57 80 9 2 - - 2 - 5 - 5 Osooda 17 28 85 29 7 - - l 1 8 1 8 Alcona 50 58 85 28 5 l 2 - - 1 5 5 2 7 Alpena 86 85 85 15 8 - 8 - - 1 5 12 2 7 lh'Montmorenqy 16 57 85 15 5 - 5 - - l 5 9 5 8 Presque Isle 8O 57 87 11 5 - 1 - - 1 5 12 8 2 Chebcygan 50 81 87 20 5 - 2 - - 5 2 8 1 7 15 Chippewa 20 59 89 21 - - 1 - 2 8 2 8 - Mackinac 8 87 65 12 1 - 2 - - 1 10 2 5 l6 Menominee 86 52 58 15 8 - 5 - — - l 18. 1 2 APPENDIX 106 A TABLE 21 CONTINUED Percentage of Tillable Land in 88 83 03 0.4 3 to 25““ 8o 0) 8 no .83 a fig '33 3 8 m 8 88 § 8: s 4’ 86 83. 5 '” ‘° 8 ‘1’ .4” ‘8? ° g 43 E a «3 ,o r13) m wt 0.4 a’ o 8; 8S 8’ 2’3 o o *6 ‘8” 8‘ 2o ‘D ‘23 33 16‘?! -: c: as 2&4 in n. L) cm 94 a) 0) IL?» E; C) a: 14:: Gogebic 6 55 75 5 l - 5 - - l - 8 l 5 Ontonagon 25 55 75 10 - - 1 - - 1 - 9 1 5 Houghton 28 82 65 8 - .. 8 - — 1 - 10 1 7 Iron 11 28 71 8 - - 6 - - 1 - 10 l 5 17 Baraga 10 58 69 8 - 5 — - 2 - 8 2 1 Keweenaw 2 51 80 2 - - 2 - - 1 - 5 - 8 Marquette 9 27 59 ll - - 8 - - l - 9 l 5 Dickinson 17 26 59 9 5 - 5 - l 1 - 11 2 5 Delta 27 51 52 18 5 - 5 - l - 15 5 5 Alger 9 50 65 15 - - 8 - - l - 10 5 2 Sohoolcraft 5 81 58 25 - - 6 - — 1 - 6 1 12 Luce 6 56 80 25 5 - 6 - - 1 - 8 5 9 *Source: 1985 United States Census of Agriculture APP“:~;DIX A TABLE 22 LAND IN FARLIS, TILLABLE LAYD AND LAND USE BY TYPE OF FARL'JING AREAS, MICHIGAN, 1988* 107 Percentage of Tillablwe Land in (H a: are OE 03 m (D d (D +1 m 88 86 m 3 m 83 118 “8:: 8 8 ‘n 5 ur% 6, «8 3 c6 86 83. B n ‘6’ *5 8 B 3.31% 13 a) :3 a) .3 0 “8 as: a» 8 ‘5 8 8 8 8 £35" 0 8 8 re :1 .2 33,4 CHE—I m a. o m 11.. m m £2.:> 55 O m H 8:. 1 90 7o 19 10 27 - .2 - 7 2 12 12 - 5 2 85 68 18 20 20 .6 .8 - 1 2 11 10 - 11 5 85 68 16 10 2o - 2 - 2 22 6 6 - 12 8 7o 68 28 18 18 2 1 - .2 6 8 15 .2 10 5 86 68 2o 18 19 5 .7 .2 .6 1 12 15 .5 7 6 69 69 22 15 2o 5 2 - 2 7 9 12 .2 8 7 86 78 26 2o 9 10 .5 1 - 2 10 12 1 8 8 82 68 19 18 15 18 1 2 .5 1 8 15 5 5 9 86 82 81 19 12 5 1 .2 - 1 5 9 6 11 10 57 SU 32 21 15 8 3 - - 2 3 9 - 8 11 51 89 25 21 11 1 2 - - 10 2 6 - 18 12 81 81 27 19 11 .8 5 - - 5 2 6 .1 12 15 9 35 £3 30 8 - 1 - - 2 1 5 .5 6 18 52 59 85 17 8 .2 2 - 1 8 9 2 6 15 18 53 57 16 .5 - 2 - - - 2 9 2 8 16 86 .2 58 15 8 - 5 .. - - 1 18 1 2 17 12 55 62 11 1 — 8 - - 1 - 9 2 5 *Scurce: 1985 United States Census of Agriculture APPENDIX B Material Used In.The Selection Of The Sample Interviewed 109 wmowpomam 088$ . A 93.9893 GOHaQwhome :3.» mo maficham ammo was . .053 mmmhcfié AhoEpOV .8852 $ch .Hms .uoe 8.3m no.5 :02 90.5 3.8% 282 Such 8.8qu 3.3.3 H.532 ta .5 .m sou.“ 30.95. @2335 we 038mm .3wach QfiSmESE mama hp 500 110 7/28/50 Agr. Econ. Dept. E.E.P. and S. R. S. PROCEDURE FOR DECIDING-QE COMPLETION OE INTERVIEW Tenure Situatio Instructions the Farm Unit One or more tracts in farm: (l) 922 tract of 70 acres or more (2) One or more tracts totaling 1850 than 70* acres (3) Two or more tracts totaling more than 70 acres; onlz one tract of 30 acres or more (b) Two or more tracts totaling more than 70_ acres, two tracts of 30 acres or more each (5) Three or more tracts totaling more than 70 acres; three tracts of 30 acres or more each (6) One ownership tract, two or more farms Two or more tracts in sample Complete interview Terminate interview Complete interview Complete if "1," terminate if "2" as follows: 2, l, 2, 2, l, l, 2, l, 2, l, 2, 2, l, l, 2, l, 2, l, 2, 2, l, 1 Complete if "1," terminate if "2" or "3" as follows: 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1 ) 3233’ 2,133) 3’ 2’ l, 1’ 33 2.9 23 l3 3 Complete or terminate as in (h) or (5) Complete interview lAll land owned or rented operated as a single farm business 2Cross out each number used and go on to the next for the next case 7/28/50 Agr. Econ. Dept. (DLG) and S. Re So 111 FARM MAGEMENT SIRVEY Interviewing Procedures Objectives 2.1; 113 Study The general purpose of this study is an analysis of "Farmers Responses and Ad- Justments to Production Control and Price Support Programs in Michigan." A detailed statement of specific objectives may be found in a mimeographed statement with the foregoing title. Notice that the study attempts to determine not only behavior, but knowled e and attitudes as well. It has generally been found that the problem of obtaifing an unbiased picture of knowledge and attitudes is even greater than deter- mining behavior. The interviewer, tEerefore, must not only be continuously alert to his memflling the interviewing situation but must be particularly so on questions measuring knowledge and attitudes. Your Personal Apgwmce Don't either over-dress or go to the other extreme and try to look more like a farmer than a farmer doest It is usually preferable not to wear coats and ties. Sport shirts, and slacks are acceptable if conservative in cut and color. Neatness. plays a considerable part in holding down the refusal rate. Avoid the aspect of a salesman or a poll—taker. Don't wave your clip-board around, nor do you need to hide it, but keep it under your arm or hold it in an unobtrusive way at your side ' until you have gotten into or through your introduction. Wig to Interview In every case, interview the operator, the person who takes responsibility for the business decisions on the farm. In some cases this will be a woman but not usually. Don't try to rely on data obtained from the wife of the operator. '1? the farm is run on a partnership basis, note it on the schedule and interview the partner who is available at the moment. A separate sheet of instructions has been drawn up to provide detailed infome— tion on whether a farm unit is or is not to be included. If in doubt, take the interview! Strive to interview the informant without having other people present. Schedule a time when the informant will be free if non-family persons are present. It is eferable not to have family members (or hired men) present but cannot always be avoided. ‘D‘y indirectly (without revealing your purpose) to get the operator separ- ated from the other persons for the interview. (When you go to the house to inquire for operator, don't forget your own farm background! The back door or a side door is the one where most farmers expect their friends to comet) Getting the. Interview A low refusal rate is absolutely essential. A good interviewer can hold his re- fusal rate down to 2 or 3 percent or less. A serious bias results if refusals average very much higher than that. -2- 112 Some refusals are legitimate (e.g. recent deaths or serious illnesses). In all instances, whether the refusal appears Justifiable or not, keep a schedule for that farm, indicating tract nunber, etc. and state the reason given for refusing. Remember that the good will of the farmer toward M. S. C. is, in the end, more important than the study. In other words, don't push too hard to get the interview if a man appears determined not to be interviewed. One way to prevent refusals is to convince yourself, and hence your informant, that what you are doing is important and worthwhile. flow; _t_9_ Handle "Not-at-Homes" For those not at home on first call, try to find out from a neighbor, if con- venient, when the farmer might be expected home and try again at that time. In gen- eral, follow this pattern: Make t__h_r___ee different calls on three different days at three different times of the day, keeping a record on your schedule for that farm. If you have no success after three tries, abandon your attempt to establish contact but save the record of your visits on page 1. Introducing Yourself Always give your name and identify yourself with Michigan State College, "My name is John Doe and I'm from Michigan State College," is one way to introduce your- self before you bring up the subject of the survey. Some survey organizations, including the Division of Special Surveys of the B. A. E. , U. S. D. A., contend that an identification card should be shown, but allow the leeway of showing it either at this point or at some later convenient time. We recommend that you work out a pat-- tern for yourself which seems to work (i.e. to hold down refusal rate and elicit con- fidence in you). You will be supplied with an M. S. C. employee identification card and a "letter of authority" from the Agricultural Economics Department. Have the letter handy but you will probably find it unnecessary to use it during a whole summer of interviewing. If you can work out a smooth and nonchalant method of routinely showing your M. S. C. employee identification card it may be the best way to handle your intro- duction, particularly in an age when surveys are used as a guise for selling every- thing from magazines to aluminum ware and in a period when subversive individuals might be expected to be found at every hamlet and crossroads!!! Explaining the Purpose of the Stgy Begin early on the "sales talk." Don't "beat around the bush." Give good information. The first page of the schedule contains our suggestions for the-points to be covered in explaining the purpose of the study. Try it out! Our pro-tests show that it works. If you vary from this in what you say, be particularly careful not to set the stage for biased answers (i.e. conditioning the informant to give the answers he thinks you want). Sell—the survey so it stays sold! Give reasons for the survey--tell the truth. Give one or two reasons first, then if the respondent is still skeptical go on to other reasons or a repetition and elaboration of your first ones. Make respondents feel they are making a valuable contribution to a worthwhile study. ' Typical questions or comments at this stage and suggested ways of meeting them are given below: "Now what did you say this was all about? " (Requires a repetition or an elaboration of your original points.) I on o I a ._ I. I a 3 u a o n In a s o I .- u. . « cu. uw ( a . 'v a... I At . .... a . v u . .Fll a . .u .. t n . . . I a alil I all . a. I . ' a . . . .o,v \ I I I. f. I t n .. .v c. . s u I... I c . a w a . -3- 113 "Why did you come to see me?" (Calls for a reéemphasis of "chance selection" so as to get the experiences and ideas of all kinds of farmers. The man may be a P. & M. A. township committee- man or in other ways be very faniliar with the program. If necessar , don't hesitate to adndt that P. &4M. A. lists were used to obtain the samp§e of names butm mp size that'we controlled the selection, that it was entirely by chance, and the results are to be treated as completely confidential. The State and County P. & M. A. offices know about the study and are interested in the find- ings but not in knowing what any one individual says.) "I haven't got time to answer a lot of questions." (Emphasize that it is not just "a lot of questions" but an opportunity for him to contribute to the solution of an important prdblem. If he does appear to be too'busy, schedule an appointment. Suggest a time-"This evening?") "I can't answer a lot of hard questions. Go see someone else." (We need the ideas of a lot of peeple. The questions are not hard but deal wit: things he does and decisions he makes as a farmer. McVe into the questions as soon as possible to convince this type.) "Can't you find anything better to do than run around asking questions?" (Don't argue! Let him talk a.little and get it off his chest. Keep calm. Be a good listener. Maybe he's dead serious about his remarks and maybe he isn't! He knows and.yguw know that there is wasted effort to be found in the activities of public agencies. ”But you knoww and he knows that there is also a lot of good coming out of the activities of public— agenc1es. You are convinced, 'we hope, that this is worthwhile and not "just another survey." Your job is to convince him of that when he begins to cool down!) "Are you doing this just so you can get a thesis?" (This is the remark of a SOphisticate! He may be serious or he may be just kidding you a little. 'Well, it so happens youire not getting a thesis out of it. It is being done because Michigan State College feels that it is an impor- tant area to get information about. Theses make contributions, too, but you probably won't need to argue that one!--It should be noted in passing that farmers have not too infrequently given an interview just to do u, a perfect stranger but apparently a "nice guy", a personal favor. 'We'd ra%%er they gave it because they, too, considered it worthwhile, but an interview given for almost any reason is better than a refusal.) "How Long Will This Take?" This deserves a section by itself! Be honest if asked how long it will take. (The pre-test took about two hours. 'We hepe that the present, revised form, partic- ularly after you have developed your skill at interviewing, can be taken in an hour to an hour and a half.) Offer to come back, if necessary. Suggest a time. CO at opportune times. Just after mealtimes, including breakfast, and after four in the afternoon are usually good times. The evenings can be used for sched- uled appointments which you have made at busier times of the morning or afternoon. Asking the Questions Ask the questions the way they are worded. The questions have been carefully pre-tested to provide the best possible setting for the response. Try repeating the question, if there is difficulty, putting emphasis on the word or phrase which you -b- 11h suspect caused the trouble. If you do feel it necessary to paraphrase or explain, be very careful not to bias the response or give away the answer to a knowledge ques tion. If you find extensive rephrasing necessary with a farmer, indicate in paren- thesis the wording of the question as you asked it. State all transitional and introductory comments to the informant. The intro- ductory remarks found at the beginning of most sections and some individual questions are a part of the interview. Use them! Ask the questions in the order given. Considerable thought was given to the question order. Use it! To vary the order may defeat the purpose of the study. Ask each question that is applicable. A question may be omitted only when you are sure that the informant has already given a clear and complete answer to it at an ear 1er point in the interview. If there is any doubt of this, by all means ask it. One way to bring up "gracefully" a question which has already been answered, at least in part, is to preface the question with such a comment as, "You've already talked some about this next question, but I want to ask it to see if there is any. thing more you want to say about it." Make your delivery conversational. Read the schedule over several times, aloud, before taking your first interview. Practice will assist you in acquiring the prOper pace, an occasional change of voice tone, and an emphasis on the key words in the question. Don't let your voice drop at the end of a question,—-the key words are frequently there. You will soon find that you can ask the questions verbatim with the use of only a glance at the first word or phrase of the sentence. Don‘t try reciting from memory too soon but the sooner you can do it, the better, because you can then look at your informant now and then, as in conversation, instead of staring at the schedule all the time.--A good interviewer learns to "ease into" questions now and then by the use of appropriate neutral phrases like, "In your opinion", or fiAEbEEEr thing we're interest in is", followed by the question exactly as stated. Stimulating Discussion (Probing) On many questions an elaboration of the response is important. This is partic- ularly true of knowledge or attitude items. A skillful interviewer knows how to "probe" without biasing the reaponse. Some of the devices are: Repeating the question. Sometimes this is needed, with a special emphasis on key words 0 Pausing expectantly. Don't make it too long. But this device will often induce an elaboration of the response. Brief assenting comments. Congenial-sounding expressions which are helpful, particularly'While you are hastening to record what has already been said, include: "Uh-huh", "Yes", "I see","That's interesting", etc. Neutral questions. These include, "What do you have in mind?", "How do you mean?", hHow is that?", "Just how do you mean?", etc. Never ask probes that suggest an answer. By this we mean that it is pretty sure to introduce a bias if you say, ‘ "Don't you think that ------ " or "You wouldn't want to ------ , would you?" Those are the questions of a salesman or propagandist, not a researcher! u .. .. I D . . I o I. . I . .. l o l \. . . . v . .. I ‘ ..J . ’ . . 1 . a” -5:- 11 5 - Summariz . If handled well, this scheme will often induce an informant to ampli is remarks. It also helps to assure that you heard him correctly. "You feel, than that..........., is that right?", is one way to do this. Reassurin the hesitant informant. If, in response to a question, an informant says, "UK, I don"t-know much about such things", it sometimes helps to say, "Well, from what you 522 know about it.............. (repeating the question)?" For furtrer hints on probing, see the excellent manual, "Interviewing for NORC". Avoiding Fatigue This refers to the informant's fatigue, not yours! You, of course, are inde- fatigable or you wouldn't be doing this kind of work! We have tried to reduce fa- tigue by organizing the schedule into sections, by the kinds of questions asked and the way they are worded, by trying to make the whole schedule interesting. You can assist in holding down fatigue by appearing interested in the study and in the informant's replies at all times, by commenting on the progress being made if the informant seems to be g'é'ttdfié restless, by occasionally allowing the inforgant to digress a little, but not too much, onto some irrelevant topic that he appears to want to tell you about. _- Handlgig' Interruptions If neighbors or friends arrive while the interview is in prOgress, ask: "Would you prefer to have me come back this evening?" As far as other interruptions are concerned, including children, animals, phone calls, etc. , it is well to remember that they usually bother the informant less than they bother you! Recording t_hg Resp_onses See the manual, "Interviewing for N010", for a thorough exposition on recording responses. Certain aspects need particular emphasis, especially in connection with questions dealing with knowledge or attitudes. Re lies should be recorded verbatim. It is not easy to record all that an in- forman says and In His own words but it is important since it is the only way that the meanin of the reply can be indicated and at the same time reveal sonething of the ormant's personality and the strength of his feeling on an issue. Also, we may want to quote "typic replies. They need, therefore, to be accurate. If a man says, "I don't believe.......... etc.", don't report it as, "Doesn't believe... ......... etc.“ It is essential that you learn to take down a fm and phrases hastily so as to have reminders from which to reconstruct the complete response. Such notes taken during the interview should be expanded as soon after as possible before the clear impression of what was said is forgotten. Avoid summarizing 95 pargphrasing 92 informant's response. The final interpre- tation and sunmary of reaponses is to be done in the office. To do it in the field produces an artificial and colorless picture of what was actually said and may result in over-simplification and distortion. Preliminary rmarks made by the informant before definitely answering a uestion should be recorded if related to the subject. Preliminary remarks frequently help to eaqala'i'n the siBsequenE definite answer. and, if omitted may result in a misinter- petation. -6- 116 Everything that relates tg the purpose 9_f_ the question should b3 recorded. Irrelevant comments may, of course, be omitted if they help to shed no light on the subject of the question. You'll have to exercise your judgment on the relevancy of some remarks. Kee your attention centered on your informant, not on your schedule. You have to learn to [avoid appearing too abosrbed in your note-taking. Nor should you make the informant feel that he is having to wait around for the next question while you take notes on what he has said. Even if you can't take shorthand you can soon acquire the skill of note-taking quickly and deftly while at the same time keeping the conver- sation moving or at least appearing to do so. The latter can be achieved, in part, by means of the brief assenting canments, "Uh-huh", "Yes", "I see", etc. , referred to in an earlier section. Indicate the %ints at which on obed. If you were forced to use one of the "neutmollomps or "'s-mnmaries' escr ed earlier indicate it in your verbatim record with a question mark in parentheses, thus: (?). If you were forced to para-- phrase the question, record the question you asked in parentheses. Other mechanics 3.1: recordi g. (1) Write legibly; others will have to read your writing. 2 you run out 0 space to record responses, use the blank pages oppo- site but be sure to nunber the responses to correspond with the question. (3) Use cross-references to call attention to material in an earlier question which contains a partial or complete answer to the question at hand. ()4) Certain standard abbrevi— ations will help in recording the interview. Use "R" for "respondent", "DK" for "Don't know", "NA" for "not asked", "NA-inap." for "not asked, inapplicable." Record the responses yourself. Never let the respondent fill out the schedule by himself or look it all over before answering any of the questions. Peering over your shoulder now and then usually cannot be entirely avoided and may even help the informant understand what you are "driving at". Closing the Interview It is important to leave the informant with a friendly feeling toward you and toward Michigan State College. Getting the schedule completed is important but—- maintaining good will is paramount. You should leave the informant at least as favorable toward M. S. C. and the necessity for field surve s as when you approached him. If you have improved—His attitude, so much the be ter. A few words of thanks will make the respondent feel that his information is appreciated and that he has made a contribution to something worthwhile. This is also a good time to clear up any doubts or questions which the informam has. Some respondents have been known to ask again at this point, "Now, what did yo .- say this was all about? ", or "What are you going to do with all this information?" Such informants can usually be satisfied by repeating or elaborating on the purpose of the study which was offerred at the beginning. A short and simplified explanation of how responses of many persons are added up so that we can report how many do this or do that, think this way or that, may be used with some informants. Some respondents will have been pressing you for what you know or think about the questions as the interview progesses. These can be put off by saying, "It's y our ideas we're interested in, not mine." If he continues to press you during the terview, tell him you want his comments first on all questions, then you'll talk if he wants you to. Do your Talking at the end of the interview. The informant will feel more friendly to you and to M. S. C. if you do a little talking on the subject - , - c -' ' c . * u .. a...” ,._. ' Q ‘0 sun" 1 ‘ Q . ‘ . . I..- o u ‘ . I , A . . . I ' . a. . l 'a. v ‘ .l . "" " I .-.- n . ... O ‘ I .. .‘. n . . o 4 . " ' c u u l t ' I . . . _ . O I . 3 ' - ~ ‘ . . . I . . ~ - c . . . . ‘ O . o . 1 a . ' a ‘ . " f '3 ‘ 0 ‘j... . . 'Q ‘0‘ ‘ -_ '-| r- . .. 5 a I I :3“ 'n-qa. . . . . . n - ‘ . . . I, __ .‘ . , I ' u . 1 ' l ' a ' . . a .‘ . ' o _ ‘ I I.‘ ~ '. .‘ . ‘ I . , _ 'l 1 u ‘ \ ~.'_ ' . ~ 0 . v I ' - . l ‘ . . . u I ' a ; 0‘ I ‘ Q ~ . . ‘ .‘ u . . - . . . . ‘ 4 ~ . . . .- 0 ~- I u o I‘ .~ .. . . . :- . . . . - .. . n o ‘ - .. _ , . w ' ‘ o . . . . ‘Nn u a‘l . O ‘ . ‘-‘ ...» o . g . _7_ 117 if he has repeatedly quizzed you. If he has been asking for your ideas and opinion, he is entitled to: hear a little of them, by} be diplomatic and make it clear that they represent your personal ideas, not necessarily those of M. S. C. Some interviewers find that it builds good will in closing to say something like. "I've been asking an a lot of questions. Are there any you'd like to ask in}: about the study?" This g ves the hesitant informant an opportunity to clear up any points he has not understood about the purpose of the study. A final point or two should be made in connection with closing the interview. Close it and et out! Don't hang around too lon even if the respondent wants you to, ex'é'épt, per 35‘,“ if you are taking the-In rview in the evening. Interviewing is your job and farmers will appreciate it if you appear businesslike, even if it means brea ' g up what has developed into a pleasant association for him. If you're invited to a meal, use your own judgment about accepting. Sometimes the invitation is ma-ely a gesture of courtesy and is really not expected to be accepted. Sometimes it is very sincere and will create offense not to accept. Try to judge which it is and decide accordingly. "" Lastly, always remember that you are looked upon, in a sense, as a representatix of Michigan State College. This will often result in your being asked for informatio on subjects which may be outside your range of information. Just remember the", yin are neither a walking encyclopedia nor an itinerant county agricultural agent! The best way to handle most of these requests is either to sxggest that he get in touch with his county agricultural agent or to offer to do so for him. If you offer to do the latter, be sure you $2 it! Editigg the Schedule A good interview is one which is accurate, complete, and consistent. One way to assure a good. interview is to "edit" the schedule as soon as possible. That is, as soon after the interview is taken as is practical, the entire schedule which you have taken should be looked over. Mealtimes and evenings are frequently the best tims. Reconstruct the situation in which the interview was taken so as to sharpen your memory of what was said. Examine each question to be sure that you filled in the answer accurately and completely. If you didn't do so, you may still be able to re— member what the correct answer was. But don't guess. This is the time, also, to complete the sentences for which you may have only taken down disconnected words and phrases on the knowledge and attitude questions. Fill in the "1's" and "you'e" and "they's" which you may have left out in your particular shorthand. Dress up your handwriting so it will be legible. Complete the words which you have only partly spelled, out, such as "gov" for "government", etc. There are several points where you can check for "consistency". For example, a farmer of 35 is not likely to have been farming on his own for 25 years. This is the time to discover such inconsistencies. Maybe you can remember which item is wrong and correct it. If through inadvertence or lapse of memory, you cannot supply the original answer to a question, indicate that fact in the appropriate place. We would prefer to see a note like NA (Not asked). or a comment like "Can't read my notes", to any attempt to deduce what a respondent would have said to such a question. It is also advisable to exchange your schedules daily with a team mate for editing so that you can catch errors, find inconsistencies, improve your interviewing techniques £13 be sure that someone else can read your writing! . . as 1 I n . .. I I 1 s . \I O l I . o . . a . .. x a .. ... l .0. t. . n. s .10 l . .. u . . . . : m . .a ... J . . . .. .- a . I. d i n‘ . n I r C.v - .. O . 1 . 1 . . a. . V-Il - . .\. . . . . l I Q , . .. . O . u .. I u . u A ~ . a I c. 1 . . - ... . u. . . u I . . I I h - O . .. v.1 .Qo 2/28/50 Dept. of Sociology -(PNM) and Anthropology l. 2. 1. 2. 3. h. S. 1. 2. 3. b. S. 6. 7. 8. 118 There are three types of interviews: fact-finding, informing, and motivating. You will actually be engaged in the fact-finding interview. Remember that two personalities are involved. The informant may not want to give the facts; you may be prejudiced and not want to get the real facts. PREPARING FOR THE INTERVIEW Formulate your problem! Make appointments-you save both the informant's and your own time! Provide for the setting of the interview—~Do you need privacy, etc.? Practice taking the informants point of view. Examine and discount your own prejudices. INTERVIENING Gain and deserve the informant's confidence! Establish a pleasant association! Render your informant a real service. Be convinced, yourself, that your project carries real meaning for the informant, and that the results will pay off for general advantages for him! Help the informant to feel at ease and ready to talk! Allow the informant time to get accustomed to his surroundings and gain a little poise! Aim to make him feel that he is an equal, who can exchange ideas and opinions with you! Begin with pleasant topics! Ask some questions which will enable the informant to show pride in his knowledge. Everyone likes to be recognized! Do not start asking questions directly, but wait until you think the informant is ready to give the desired information and give it accurately. Listen! Keep on the subject! Be straightforward and frank rather than shrewd or clever! 119 9. Avoid the role of teacher! Let the informant be the teacher. 10. Teke pains to accent your questions so that they are easily understood! 11. Avoid implying the answer to your own question! 12. Help the informant to realize his responsibility for the facts! 13. Avoid impertinence! lb. Keep the question on hand in mind until adequate information is obtained on each one; but as soon as a question is definitely answered, dismiss it in order that you may concentrate on the next one! 15. Give the complete statement or question as found on the "schedule". 16. Give the informant opportunity to qualify his answers! 17. Be on the alert for constant errors that may grow out of succeeding interviews! 18. Adjust the speed of the interview to the mental alertness and speed of the person you are interviewing! 19. Do not dawdle! An interview is net a social visit! 20. Keep control of the interview! 'Without being domineering, do not allow the informant to run away with the interview, but tactfully keep him aware of the definite purpose which should be accomplished in a limited time. 21. The truth which the interviewer wants, the informant, too must want! "To learn how to interview well, actual practice is indispensable of course; but this is a slow and wasteful process unless the learner thinks constructively about what he is doing and systematizes his experience. Thus it pays, after an interview, to review it critically, to note its excellent features so that they may be readily used again as occasion requires, and to select one or two weak spots to be corrected. 'Was time wasted in preliminaries? If so, plan your next approach with care, and get down to business more promptly. Did the interview get out of hand? Think of the ways in which to hold the next one to the line without loss of necessary spontaneity. “Was your interviewee uncertain as to just what some of . your questions meant, or did they seen to strike him as trivial? Then concentrate on improving the (accent) of your questions so that they will be clearly expressed. Be specific in your self—criticism, and pick out for further practice and improve- ment one point at a time on which to concentrate. Before each new interview it is well to think out some one way in which to improve on earlier performance." "Comparison of your procedures with those of others engaged in similar work also serves to indicate the direction in which you can move toward an increasingly effective method." (Bingham, W. V. D., and Moore, B. V. [figw‘tg Interview, Harpers, 1931, pa Sh) APPENDIX C The Questionnaire Michigan State College Agr. Econ. Dept. Aug., 1950 (Rev. 2) and S- R- S- 121 FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY All information in this schedule is strictly confidential and under the control of the Agricultural Economics Department of Michigan State College. Names of persons interviewed in this survey will not be made public in any way. County' Township Tract number Interviewer Dates 9}: Calls and Interview Call Call Interview completed Number Date Time of day Yes No l. a 2. 3. We're making a special farm management survey in several counties in Michigan this summer. We're particularly interested in crops grown on Michigan farms, in the use and sale of crops, and in farmers' ideas about price supports for farm products. We're talking with some of the farmers in County this week. We pick out the farms to be visited by chance and talk with the operators. First I need some information about the size of your farm. 1. How many acres do you farm altogether whether owned or rented? (If less than 70 acres, terminate the interview) 2. How many acres do you own? (If the answers to question 1 and 2 are thersame, omit question 35.} h 3. How many acres do you rent? a. Is all of this rented from the same owner? b. What is the name of the owner and number of acres rented from each owner? . (1) Name Acres (2 ) Name Acres (3 ) Name Acres (See separate instructions for method of deciding whether or not to complete the interview.) l. -2- Tract No. 122 SECTION I Now I would like to sketch a map of your farm to help us get a better picture of your cropping and soils programs. (Assign a number to each field for reference in getting land use and soils data. Use fanmer's numbering system if he has one. Indicate acreage and 1950 crap for each field and transfer to page 3.) ‘3“ Tract No. “ 123 2. Land Use and Soil Treatment (Complete the table below fer each field) a. On this field No. ‘where you.have corn, did.you apply commercial fertil- izer this year? How much per acre? 'What analysis? 'What did you raise on that field last year? Did you use commercial fertilizer? How much? 'What analysis? (Repeat for each field in corn, then proceed to other row crops, to wheat and small grains, and to hay and tillable pasture.) ‘Which of these fields did you put manure on this year? 'Which did you.put it on last year? Did you have a plow-under crop on any of these fields this year? Last year? b. On these fields in non-tillable pasture, did you apply any commercial fer- tilizer or manure? (Check to be sure that every field on the map is accounted fer.) . 1950 Cro and 3931 Treatment 19142 Crab and 3931 Treatment Field Acres Comm. Fert. Pl Comm. Fart. No. Crap Lbs./ Anal Man- ungw Crop Lbs./ An ‘ Man- Plow acre ° ure . er acre a1. ure under Till. Total .xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx. xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Other { . lélél, xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx c. How many tons of commercial fertilizer did you buy in 1950? in 19h9? d. HOW many acres of wheat do you intend to plant this fall? l. 2. ~ “'~ Tract No. 12h SECTION II we are also interested in what Michigan farmers did with some of their crepe last year. and to what extent they use government price supports. a. b. c. d. 90 g. h. How many bushels of corn did you harvest in 19h9? (1) (If any land was rented) what was the landlord's share? Did.you sign a purchase agreement with P. & M. A. (A. A. A.) for any of your 19u9 corn crop? For how many bushels? (1) Did you.store it on your farm or in commercial storage? (2) How much did you deliver to the government? (3) (If all under purchase agreement was gg§_de1ivered to the government) what did.you.do with the rest of it? (a) How much did.you sell on the cpen market or to other farmers? (b) How much do you have on hand which.you.intend to sell or deliver to the government? (c) How much was or will be fed to livestock? Did you.put any of your 19u9 corn crap in approved storage and get a loan on it under the P; & M. As'program? How much did you store? (1) Did.you.store it on your farm or in commercial storage? (2) Is it still in storage? (3) Delivered to the government? (u) Loan repaid and crop sold? Did you sell any of your 1949 corn on the market or to other farmers which was not under purchase agreement or loan? How much did.you sell? Do you have any on hand new which.you.are planning to sell? How much? Do you.usually sell some corn in most years? (1) (If yes) About how many bushels per year would your sales average? How much corn did you feed to livestock? Could you tell me what the landlord did with his share? (1) Did he use a.purchase agreement? (2) Loan and.storage? (3) Did he sell it outright? (A) Was it fed on this place? (Repeat for wheat. oats, barley, rye. dry field beans. soybeans. and potatoes 1;,rgiged gp_this £g;__1§,12h 2. ) Now we would like to know something about what you intend to do with some of your 1950 craps. b. C. d. Do you intend to use a.P. & M. A.‘purchase agreement for your 1950 (corn) crop? (1) Will you store it on your farm or in commercial storage? Do you.p1an to get a loan on any of your 1950 (corn) crop through P. & M.A.? (1) Will you.store it on your farm or in commercial storage? Do you intend to sell any of your 1950 corn crop on the cpen market or to other farmers? Do you intend to feed any of your corn? (Repeat for wheat. oats. barley. rye. dry field beans, soybeans, and potatoes 1: r nthis farm 1.1; 1259.) _ 5 _ REPLIES TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 Tract No. 125 Item. 8.. Amount harvested (1) Landl'ds share Qperator ' g £25.19. b? C. d. e. f. g. Burchase aggeement (1) Where stored (2) Del. to gov't (3) (a) Sold outright (b) On hand (c) Fed to livest'k Loan and storage (1) Where stored. (2) Still in storage (3) Del. to gov't (A) Repaid and sold Outright sale To be sold Usually sells (1) Average Fed to livestock Landlord's share h. (1) Purchase agreement (2) Loan and storage ( 3) Outright sale (4) Fed to livestock M 19h9 (2) 1950 Intended xxxxxxxnxxx xxxnxxxxxxx XXX xxx xxx xxx 231 m xxx xxx xxx xxx XXX XXX XXX xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx x xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 3. 4. s; 6 126 - - Tract No. Some farmers use the P. d M. A. purchase agreements or loan and storage prOe ‘ grams and others don't.. We'd like to know some of the reasons for this. (Ask the following questions for gggh,of the crops listed on page 5.) (l) I notice that you put (didn't put) your 1949 corn crap under a.purchaso agreement (and/or under loan and storage). Why did you decide to handle your crap that way? ' (2) What other reasons? Did Crop Did not Reasons (For all crops listed in question 1 and 2 for both 1949 and 1950. check to do; ; termine whether disposal intentions for 1950 are different than actual disposal in l949 in the use of purchase agreement. loan and storage, outright sale. no sales at all. or in any combination of these. For each difference noted. ask the questions below.) a. In handling your corn crop, I see that last year you (spec1fy '&2_pga9r tiggg) and that this year you.intend to (gpgg1fiy_'59_pggpt1ggg). I would be interested in knowing why you are making this change. Crap: Change: Reason: Crap; Change: 1 Reason: . In general. which price support plan would you.prefer, the purchase agreement or the loan and storage program? (1) Purchase agreement 1 ) (3) Neither (____) (2) Loan and storage ( ) (4) Don't know_ (a...) mm 1 6. 7. l. 2. 3. -7- Tract No. 127 The County P. &.M. A. Office has set up acreage allotments in 1950 for most farms that grow certain crOps. 'What acreage allotment did you receive for corn? For wheat? For beans? For potatoes? (Record reply under question 7) (Check p. 3 to see if within allotment on each controlled cr0p grown and ask:) ‘Would you mind telling me why you.stayed (did not stay9‘within your allotment on corn? Allot. Actual easons w or'w not Acres Acres R hy hy Crop Section III Where do you get most of your information about the price support program and how it operates? Free response Follow up (1) Township committeemen . . . ( (2) County P. & M. A. employees (3) Other farmers o o e o e o e (h) County agricultural agent (5) Radio . . . . . . . . . . (6) Newspapers . . . . . . . (7) Farm.magazines . . . . . (8) Other (specify) O O O O C O O O Q C O O O O I D O O O C O O o O O 0 O 0 O o 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o I O o O O IAAA AA 0 0 a O 0 o O o o o o o O o O O O O O I O (For each source not mentioned as a free response ask:) Do you get any information from ? (Record response in follow-up column) What do you understand to be the reason why there is a price support program for some farm crepe? ___ flew do you personally feel about it?. Do you think that a price support program is needed, or not? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 'Why do you feel that way? 7. 9. 10. .. 8 .. Tract 130. 128 What do you understand to be the relation. if any. between support price and parity? What do you understand to be the reason for acreage allotments on such crops as corn and wheat? A—_‘ How do you feel about it personally? Do you think that acreage allotments are necessary, or not? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) Why do you feel that way? We've been talking about the price support and acreage allotment program as it operates over the whole country. Now let's come back to your local situation. How do you feel about the way the program is Operating in this county? We sometimes hear people talking about using marketing quotas in connection with price support programs. Would you mind telling me Just what the term "marketing quota" means to you? (Omit 9 if answer to 8 is "don't know") How do you feel about it personally? Do you feel that marketing quotas should ever be set up. or not? Yes () No () IX () Why do you feel that way? Have you heard of the "Brennan Plan"? Yes ( ) No ( ) (If yes) How do you feel about it? 9 _ 9.. Tract No. 1‘9 SECTION IV ‘How I'd like to get your comments on some situations dealing with farmers and the price support pregram. l. 2. 3. Mr. Brown usually grows about 20 acres of wheat. He was notified that his 1950 wheat allotment would be 16 acres. He stayed within this allotment because he thought he might want to use the purchase agreement or loan—andpstorage program. Mr. Brown tried to get as high a yield as he could on the 16 acres of wheat that he was allotted. He got the best seed he could find. fertilized heavily, and sowed his wheat on the best 16 acres on the farm. A.friend commented that it seemed to him such practices would result in a bigger cut in wheat acreage this fall if most farmers did the same thing as Brown. It you think Brown was justified in his actions even though it would mean bigger cuts in acreage allotments this fall? Mr. Stone ordinarily raises about enough corn to feed his livestock. Last fall he found that he could.get a government loan of $l.h0 a bushel on his corn. Since Mr. Stone had plenty of good storage space. he saw a.chanoe to make some extra money by taking advantage of the loan and storage program. He put his enti£g_cr0p in storage with a loan of $l.h0 a bushel on it and bought corn for livestock feed at 90 cents a.bushel from neighbors who did.not have approved storage. He was thus able to make 50 cents a.bushel on his own corn which he would otherwise have fed to his livestock. What do you think of Mr. Stone's actions? A A group of farmers were discussing price support programs at a meeting on agri— cultural policy. _Mr. Smith was speaking: "I am in favor of the general idea of a.price support program for farmers which would keep their incomes from falling too far. I think. however. that the present program is unfair to us farmers here in Michigan. we don't grew very many acres of these so—called basic creps. It‘s the big fellows further West who ought to have their acreage allotments out. not us. They're the ones who really cause the surplus." What do you think of Mr. Smith's statement? b. 5. - 10 _ Tract No. 130 Mr. Black had been doing a lot of thinking about the whole price support problem and its relation to farmers‘ income. One day he was talking with a neighbor about it and said, "There’s a lot of talk about security these days and it‘s high time farmers had a little of it. They ought to be entitled to have a.floor under their prices so their incomes wouldn't fall too far and plunge the whole country into a depression. The way I see it a farmer ought to be guaranteed 90% of parity on everything he sells so his buying power will never fall too far be— hind that of the city man. I'd go for that idea even if it meant acreage allot~ ments. production controls on livestock. marketing quotas or any other kind of regulations to make it work." a. What do you.think of Mr. Black's statement that there should be a floor under farm prices? b. imat do you think of Mr. Black‘s idea that a farmer should receive 90,4: of parity? . c. How far‘would you go in agreeing with Mr. Black that farmers ought to have more security even if it means more acreage allotments, production controls and marketing quotas? Two farmers were talking about ways to keep farm.prices and incomes from falling too low. Both men agreed that the present plan of price supports for such crops as corn and.wheat worked fairly well, that is, having farmers arrange purchase agreements or loans-and~storage with.P. & M. A. - They didn't agree, however, on how perishables like butter and eggs should be supported. One of the farmers, Mr. Benson. said he favored the present method in which the government buys direct from processors and stores the products in order to hold prices up. Mr. Wood. on the other hand. said that he favored a plan under which farmers would sell all their perishable products like eggs for whatever they would bring. If these prices were so low that farm incomes wmuld be below parity, then the government would make direct payments to farmers in order to bring their incomes up. ‘ (1) As you.seo it. what are the advantagesof Mr. Benson's suggestion that our government continue its present plan of buying direct from processors and storing perishables? What are the disadvantages? e.~e . ‘I e - “11" 'D‘ECt NO 0 151 (2) Have you ever heard of'Wood'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 incomes up? 1) Yes ( ) 3) No ( ) 2) Yes, Brennan plan (__——) h) Don't know ( ) (a) What do you feel are the advantages of such a plan? (b) Disadvantages? (c) In general, which of the two ideas for handling perishable products do you prefer? 1) Purchase from processors ( ) 2) Direct payments to farmers ( 3) Don'tknow ( ) SECTION V 'We have just a few more questions to ask you. They have to do with‘general informa— tion about the farm and about you so that we can divide the responses people give according to the ages of farms and so on. 1. First, would you mind telling me how old you are? (1) Less than 30 ( ) (b) 50 - 59 ( ) (2) 30 - 39 ( ) (5) 60 and over ( ) (3) to - u9 (‘"") 2. HOW many years have you been farming on your own? (1) Less than S ( ) (5) 20 ' 29 (.___) (2) 5 - 9 ) (6) 30 - 39 ( ) (3) 10 ~ 1h ( ) (7) he and over ( > (b) 15 - 19 ( ) 3. ‘What was the last grade or year you completed in school? (1) No schooling ( ) (5) Some high school ( ) (2) 1 - h years grammar ( ) (6) Completed high school ( ) (3) 5 - 7 years grammar ( ) (7) Some college (____; (h) Completed grammar ( ) (8) Completed college ( h. Have you ever taken a short course in agriculture? (1) Yes, college ( ) (2) Yes, Vet. Adm. (____) (3) N0 (____) 5. Are you a member of the Michigan Farm Bureau? (1) Yes ( ) (2) NO ( ) 6. The Grange? (1) Yes (____) (2) No ( ) _ 7. 10. 11. 12. .12- Do you remember for certain whether or not you voted in the 19h8 Presidential 132 Election? (1) Yes, voted ( ) (3) No, too young to vote ( ) (2) No, didn't vote ( ) (b) uncertain ( In general, which political party did you favor in the Presidential Election of 19h8? (1) Republican ( ) (3) Other (specify) ( ) (2) Democratic ( (h) uncertain ( ) New to complete the picture of your farm organization, we need to know how many livestock you have. How many'dainy cows did you have on hand January l, 1950? (1) Dairy cows? (6) Saws? (2) Beef cows? (7) Pigs? (3) Feeder cattle? (8) Hens? (h) Ewes? (9) Other (specify) (5) Feeder lambs? HH Have you bought any corn for livestock feed since last October 1? HOW many bushels? Other grain? (Specify) Corn Do you feel that you have adequate storage for your corn? Did you build any new storage fer corn in the past two‘years, either permanent or temporary? Do you plan to build any additional storage for corn in 1950, either permanent or temporary? (Repeat for wheat, other small grain, beans, and potatoes if grown on this farm in 1950.) Adequate Built past 2 yrs. Plans to build Yes No Maybe Perm. Temp. No Perm. Temp. Maybe No Corn 'Wheat Other smggp. Beans Potatoes (If owner or part-owner) would you mind telling me if you own your farm free and clear or if you still have some indebtedness? Free ( ) Debt ( ) Finally, so that we may check our records and also send you acopy of our report would.you.mind giving us your name and address? B IBLIOGRAPHY Brownlee, O. H. and T. W. Schultz, "No Production Control," Iowa Farm Economist, May, 1914.1. Hill, Elton B. and Lauren H. Brown, Princi les 2f; Farm Management, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edward Bros., Inc., E957. Johnston, P. E. , "Farm Organization and Operation," Journal .93. Farm Economics, 21. 1.6-57, 1939. ""'"""' "— Mauch, Arthur, "New Farm Price Support Program (Agricultural Act of 1919)” Michigan Farm Economics. Michigan State College Extension Service, Department of Agricultural Economics, East Lansing, Michigan. No. 85--Supplement, January, 1950. Pearson, Frank A. and Kenneth R. Bennett, Statistical Methods, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19142. ' Peterson, E. E., "Acreage Allotments and Farming in 1950,” Michigan Farm Economics. Michigan State College Extension Service, epart- ‘ ment WAgriciltural Economics, East Lansing, Michigan. No. 88, April, 1950. Rowe, B., "Effects of the AAA Upon Regional Specialization in Agri- culture,” Journal _o_f_‘_ Farm Economics, 21: 31446, 1939. Schultz, Theodore $1., Agriculture in an Unstable Eoonogz, New York: MoGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc 8.191335. Schultz, Theodore W., "Economic Effects of Agricultural Programs ," American Economic Review, 50: 127-151;, February, 19141. Schultz, Theodore w., Production and Welfare 33 Agriculture, New York: The Macmillian Company, 19149. Schultz, Theodore W., and 0. H. Brownlee, Effects 2!; Crop Acres. e con- trol Features 2f; AAA 22 Feed Production _i_l_1_ fieven Midwestern States. law; Agricultural EXperiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Bull. 295, April, 1 . Shepherd, Geoffrey S. , Agricultural Price Control, Ames, Iowa: The Collegiate Press, Inc., 19149. 13h Shepherd, Geoffrey 8., ”Stabilization Operations of the Commodity Credit Corporation,” Journal gFarm Economics, 214: 589-610, 1912. U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Farmers in a Changing World," The Yearbook 33:. Agriculture, 19140, U. S. Government Printing Office, 179W— U. 5. Production and Marketing Administration, Price Pro rams 2}; the United States Department of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Igr - cufture. Miscellaneous P'Eblication 685. 1919. U. S. Production and Marketing Administration, Price Programs 2;: the United States Department of; Agriculture, U. S. Department of Agri- culture. Agriculture Information Bulf. No. 13, 1950. Wilcox, Walter W., ”The Nonpartioipator, Does He Wreck AAA Production Control?" Iowa Farm Economist, Iowa State College, 7: 114, June, 19141. 4&19fit WC’l USE 02:.in .flwl ling, ry,“_._.,mI--”m‘*'*.'lfl‘-s "1111111111“! 111111311