(:'\. {357‘
:5. Hi {xfl‘fi

;_-, .111'11""-I‘I| {‘50:

4 ., é";
J“""’F$‘K‘
I M:.:u5‘b r‘ . 1‘
(\‘E‘fifién

 

‘3’»:22‘ ax?

§:%W'V'

1‘ 1;?
1< 

I
.I
n‘
a
4n

at!

“n.
' ,4]; u .111
..-. ~ ‘.
(AS 1w -,1 .. I

‘

-

I".

‘, . .,
.h-¥—
. . ‘. 1
' ,4 V
14". ‘.‘ .,
‘ . I.»

‘3
6‘61 ,ru) 1:1: ‘.

_..‘4

- ' .t 5111"“ ‘ '
.1.:1- 15):: 51"1“ 5'5““5'15.‘ :11: A ““1"“; .1111

“Fifi-“é;

.6'"&_‘d5¢« .-'&‘M.A1. '- - h .

.. LI .n'II-l
.1" “nu-1113"" £175?» 5
“:f J 195“ .1 1

‘ IEEME

- f,_.—
0’-

I A

:n‘d‘l:

‘I‘1I':.l:.."l 13‘5'1' n10 IO‘I

' 3'514'15 1,-1'11191: ‘5" '1 ' 11.11110
" ... .w“ “W” 11.1.. 1'.
1'1 5111‘ 11 3:1,“, 111(11 11-1 '1 11111.. $1.11;

"1

,l' I
~ 41.551113 1
$51K "1:51 $111 5‘11““ 1351?; ”0}“; 111111 ‘Ufim

[<-

 

Will! lll‘llllllllllllHillfllflllil 1-

 

 

 

 

 

THESTS 293 00375 7423
\
I“ '1‘7“? 2' “Cf ‘
£19.42“ . '53 4i: *i l l
| ' f‘ 77.; p- Q
1 g- 7 ..- no . _ .1; 'f"‘;!
" ‘ ta: ... " .:~»;.~ ‘ .4.-‘$‘_'9

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FARM EXPANSION PATTERNS AND THE
STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURE IN MID-MICHIGAN

presented by
iMICHAEL‘GEORGE DOROH

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S . degree in Sociology

 

 

WK.

Harry Schwarzwel 1 er

 

Major professor

Date 15 December 1983

 

.MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'——l l

' g
MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
emana-DJ

 

 

EARN EXPANSION PAITERNB.AND THE STRUCTURE OF
AGRICULIURE.IN”MIDHMICHIGAN

by

‘Michael George DorOW'

AtTHESIS

Smeitted to
Nfichigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of

iMASTER.OF.ARTS

Department of Sociology
1983

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Harry K. Schwarzweller,
who served as my academic and thesis advisor. His invaluable assistance
and encouraganent never wavered during my lengthy erinations.

I am very grateful to Dr. J. Allan Beegle for the constructive criti-
cism and careful reading he gave my work.

Dr. Craig K. Harris deserves my sincere thanks for the help he pro-

vided me in organizing the data.

Finally, to Mrs. Janet Drews Dorow for her remarkable patience and

unwavering encouragement, I want to express my sincerest appreciation.

ii

TABLE OF (DNI'ENTS

INI'RODIIZTION

STUDY SITE AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES
Data Collection
Factors Examined
1) Family households
2) Farming Enterprise
3) Farming Status
(3) Resident Owner and Operator
(b) Resident owner; operation idle
(c) Absentee owner and operator
(d) Owner non-operator
(e) Non—owner operator
4) Off—Farm Work Status
Focus of Analysis
1) Relational style
(a) Tightly integrated exchange
(b) Loosely integrated exchange
(c) Tightly integrated core and loosely
integrated periphery
2) Bonding Basis
Fann Size: An Important Condition
1) Mini-sized farms
2) Small-sized farms
3) Larger sized fanns
Summary

STUDY POPULATION
Some special circumstances
1) Absentee fannland owners
2) Jointly owned land (farm partnerships)
3) Other land use patterns
Delineation of Farm Operator Population
FINDINGS
Lone Adults and Canplex or Irregular Families
1) On Mini Sized Farms
2) On Snall Sized Farms
3) On Larger Sized Farms
Nuclear Families and Wbrk Organization
1) On Mini Sized Farms
2) 0n Snall Sized Farms
3) On Larger Sized Farms

iii

Nuclear Family Situations
Farmland Expansion Patterns

1) Expansion Strategies

2) Relational Attributes of Phrpandmg Farms

3) Relationships Between Operating Familes
and Non-operating Owners

Ebtpansion Patterns: Summary
SW AND CONIIUSICNS

LIST OF REFEREMIES
CIT-{ER BIBLI(I?:RAPHY

iv

Table 1

Table 2
Table 3
Table 4

Table 5
Table 4 6

Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

LIST OF TABLES

Residence Location of Families Associated with
Farmland in Venice and Brookfield
Townships (Percent)

Farming Status of Farm Families in Venice and
Brookfield Townships (Percent)

Acreage Managed by Farm Operator Families, by
Scale of Farming Operation (Percent)

Off-Farm Work Status of Husband and Wife in
Nuclear Family Households, by Scale of
Farming Operation

Age Characteristics of Nuclear Families Operating
Farm, By Off-Farm Work Status of Husband and
Wife and Scale of Farming Operation (Percent)

Participation in Farming Activities by Husband and
Wife in Nuclear Family Households, by Scale of
Operation (Percent)

Main Farming Enterprises on Nuclear Family Farms, by
Scale of Farming Operation (Percent)

Family Farm Expansion Strategy, by Scale of Farming
Operation (Percent)

Nunber of Farm Units Added (Via Rental, Sharecropping,
Or Other Means) by Farm Households Engaged in
Expansion Strategy, by Size of Farming Operation
(Percent)

Types of Relational Exchanges Between Expanding Farm
Units and Added Units, by Scale of Farming Operation
(Percent)

Types of Primary Bonding Between Expanding (Multiple)
Farm Units and Added Units, by Scale of Farming
Operation (Percent)

Types of Secondary Bonding Between Expanding (Multiple)
Farm Units and Added Units, by Scale of Farming
Operation (Percent)

44
45
46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Figure 1

LIST OF FIGURES

Michigan Farm Fanily Study Areas

vi

56

ABSTRACT

FARM MANSIQI PATTERI‘B AND THE
STRUCIURE OF AQUCULTURE IN MID-MICHIGAN

By
Michael George Dorow

This research paper derives from a study of the changing structure
of agriculture in selected areas of rural Michigan that are experienc-
ing a gradual but steady increase in part-time farming, and a concomi-
tant proliferation in nunbers of small farms. Although still basically
agricultural, many farmers in these areas are beginning to parcel off
smaller acreages for sale to developers, city peOple, retirees, and
young farmers. Both part-time and full-time farmers engaged in a
variety of arrangements to manage (i.e. , to operate) existing
farmlands.

Data were collected from township records , official documents , and
key informants . Ownership patterns , managenent arrangements , and
non- farm employment patterns were determined .

We are dealing especially with the formal and informal arrange-
ments that exist between various families to farm the land they own,
rent, or share. Kinship, of course, is important as are contractual
arrangements. Our main concern is with reciprocities involved and the

organization of these arrangements.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been a renewal of interest by sociologists in
what is often called "the structure of agriculture." The research activ-
ity that resulted has not been restricted to any particular focus , but
has included such varied topics as the organization of work and labor on
farms, the economic productivity of various enterprises, and of course,
the impact of part-time farming on the agricultural scene (Congress of
the United States, 1978; Bergland, 1979; GAO, 1978). (he issue that
deals with an underlying element in the structure of agriculture is the
form of organizational activity as it relates to land tenure . The land
tenure issue implies some concomitant concerns such as the increase of
corporative agriculture , foreign ownership of land , and the trend toward
more part-time farmers. Each of these and related questions suggests the
general problem of who controls American agriculture (United States
Department of Agriculture, 1979) .

The study reported here was designed to explore certain facets of
this canplex issue and, insofar as possible, to do so from a broad per-
spective . In order to understand current structural features in American

agriculture , it is necessary to briefly trace the general characteristics

of land tenure as they have existed or been previously reported.

Throughout the early history of American agriculture, farm ownership
by farm operators was the expected general norm. The Jeffersonian ideal
of a rural American society included in it the notion of full ownership
of land by farmers. When land ownership by farm operators. became more
difficult with rising land values and generally low farm income, land
ordinances in the late 1700's and later with the Preemption Act of 1841,
and the Homestead Act of 1862, provided Opportunities for the acquisition
of full title to farmlands by farmers. But it was still beccming in-
creasingly difficult for farmers to finance their operations.

Expanding markets, out-migration from the rural sector, and a steady
flow of major innovations in farm equipment stimulated change in the
structure of American agriculture. While the farm equipment innovations
appeared as "labor saving" devices, they invariably demanded increased
farm inputs. In time, capital investments by farmers had to be diverted
more directly into the purchase of a variety of farm inputs. Decisions
had to be made about expanding the scale of operation by putting more
capital into the purchase of land or through rental or mortgaging. Aver-
age farm size was increasing, but it was facilitated through various land
rental arrangements and not just through the purchase of more land. The
pattern of land tenure began to reflect new social structural arrange-
ments as a result of increasing capital needs; it is no longer simply a
factor associated with and essential to the agricultural ladder.

In an effort to evaluate overall tenancy charges, the Bureau of
Census developed and revised tenancy types and classifications during the
1880's. The categories included: full owners, mortgaged owners; part

owners (those who farmed their fully owned land plus rented additions);

tenants renting their farmland; and managers (hired by farm operators to
manage their properties). The U.S. Bureau of Census (1974 and 1975),
Kelso (1933), Wehrwein (1933), Moyer, et al., (1964), and Wilcox (1947),
acknowledged these types while reporting on the changing family farm.
The concern of these authors was to explain the economic functioning of
various farm structures. It was reported that the farm, under various
forms of tenancy arrangements, generally continued to be a viable Opera-
tion whether the farmer held title or was purchasing the land. The
ownership pattern appeared to play little, if any, part in the overall
economic Operation Of the farm. Research into tenancy, however, remained
more a byproduct of these inquiries.

This is not to say that tenancy was a matter ignored by researchers.
The shifting patterns of tenure relations have been well documented over
the past fifty years (Johnson, 1933; Bell, 1942; Ackerman and Harris,
1946; Farm Foundation, 1956; Berry, 1963 and 1964; Kelso, 1933; Dorner,
1963; Reinsel, 1970; Hurlburt, 1964; Rohrer, 1970; and Rodefeld, 1978).
These reports provide some insights into the changing tenancy patterns.
They showed a decrease Of tenants and an increase of full owners while at
the same time there was an increase in part owners. Of key interest and
concern in these studies was the question of what would happen to the
farmland in terms Of improvements and shared cost of farm Operations
between the part owners and their landlords. It has been pointed out
that due to legal fees, rental arrangements were usually informal
agreements with the part owner (renter) taking over the cost Of land
maintenance (Penn, 1979; Timmons, 1972). Again, much of this research
focused on cost efficiency Of the farm unit within the particular land

tenure type.

Sane research began to pay particular attention to the social signifi-
cance of land tenure arrangements when it was suggested that the organiza-
tion of land tenure represented a series of social interactions akin to a
social system (Loanis and Beegle, 1950). Other clues surfaced to provide
information as to the underlying social organization in farm tenure rela-
tions. Cotner, et al., (1965), Pbyer, et al., (1969), Reiss (1968),
Winters (1978), and Johnson (1972 and 1974), reported that in various
forms of tenure relations part owners (renters) and full owners will
Often be related family members. Furthermore, these authors indicated
that this feature has increased since the early 1950's. The idea
suggested was that the Older family member, usually the full owner, would
be sup- portive and pass along farming knowledge and experience to the
younger fani ly member.

Certainly another important consideration is that not all tenure
relations involve related family members. This is especially the case as
the number Of rental pieces Of land is increased by a farmer. Rental
arrargements may also take on the added dimension of non-owners farming
rented land. Questions also have to be asked regarding the quality Of
land available for these individuals. It is therefore important to con-
sider this in terms of the social linkages that make up land tenure ar-
rangements. In and of themselves, the linkages that exist between land
owners and renters in farming carmunities are an important concern. What
are the character Of these linkages? Who are the participants in these
arrangements and what does each participant bring into the relationship?

By exploring these social organizational elements we can perhaps more

fully understand the nature of a farm and farming community in contempor-
ary American society and this may serve to modify our traditional con-
ceptualizations. 'We also need to ask about control Of agriculture
through reciprocities that become established within the farming sector.

Part-time farming, Of course, has become a relatively permanent fix-
ture in American agriculture. Its rapid increase, especially in areas
near our major metrOpolitan areas, represents an enonmously complex
phenomenon that will have an impact not only upon agricultural markets
and the overall productivity of agriculture, but especially on land-use
patterns and land values.

Early reports on part-time fanming during the 1930's tended to show
that it did not threaten the traditional commercial markets and that many
part-time farmers came from urban areas (Alter and Diehl, 1940). Later
research tended to be more issue-oriented and aimed at particular aspects
Of part-time farming (Frauendorfer, 1966).

Generally, though, most studies on part-time fanning have tended
toward defining part-time farming, the motivations behind it, and the
characteristics of off-farm work patterns. In the process, research on
part-time farming has created an awareness that the phenomenon is a more
or less regular feature within the agricultural sector and that it mani-
fests itself in several respects. From this perspective, part-time farm-
ing is seen as a way by which an individual family can make the transi-
tion into or out Of agriculture.

Another consideration emerging from this research is that each pos-
sible outcome of part-time farming has policy implications and impacts on

the changing structure of agriculture. During the 1930's, it was viewed

as a direct threat to the full—time farmer. This was especially true
again in the 1950's and 1960's when the emphasis was on farm consolida-
tion for greater production and efficiency. Research into this area,
especially when the issue of land tenure was being considered, tended to
focus on comparing the efficiency of part-time versus full-time farming.

Currently, decisions over the proper definition Of part-time farming
are still in the forefront Of research concern. Additionally, though,
there is a tendency to label and link part-time farming with what has
Often been called "small farm problems" (Brown and Justus, 1974; Loomis,
1965; and Fuller, et al., 1977). Theoretically, one of the more interest-
ing new perspectives is the location Of part-time farming within a politi-
cal economy framework (Buttel, et al., 1982).

While there are certainly a large mmber of complex issues related to
land tenure and part-time farming, the study reported here is limited.
It deals with land tenure arrangements in two Michigan areas that have
been subjected to rapid growth in part-time farming. The principal con-
cern is with the formal or informal arrangements that exist between the
various families in these two areas to farm the lands they own, rent, or
share. In particular, attention is focused on the reciprocities involved
and the "organization" Of these arrangements. By this inquiry some doors
may be Opened for further useful study of the charging structure Of agri-
culture and perhaps additional lights can be shed on who owns and controls

agriculture in the mid-Michigan context.

STUDY SITE AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES
This study focuses on two rural townships, Venice and Brookfield, in
mid-Michigan (Figure 1). The counties in which the study sites are
located are adjacent to metropolitan areas. Consequently, a variety of
farm types was expected and, in particular, a large anber Of part-time
and hobby farms. The excellent road system allows for commuting to the
city for work while residing in the countryside.

Over the years, these townships have seen great changes in the
pattern of farming. They were heavily involved in animal production up
until the late 1950's. Dairying was especially important along with some
beef, poultry and hog enterprises. Some sugar beet, truck farming and
general cash crops also were located here. Changing markets and forms Of
production, however, and the draining away of agricultural labor to indus-
trial jobs, led to more emphasis on cash crop production (corn, soybeans,
and field crOps). At the same time, the surviving dairy farms had grown
considerably larger in scale and herd size. Gone now are most of the
small silos and poultry buildings that used to be so commonplace. There
has been a definite transformation in the appearance of many farmsteads
as the Old houses and wooden barns have been replaced with modern homes
and metal sheds. Now, too, there is greater variety in the size Of
holdings and scale of farming in the area.

The study sites are reasonably representative of mid—Michigan
agriculture. TO the south Of this area, of course, as one gets deeper
into the "corn belt" region Of the midwest, cash grain production appears
more intensive. To the west, along Michigan's shoreline, fruit crop

production is far more important. And to the north, soils and climate

are not as favorable for farming. Venice and Brookfield townships, how-
ever, are not unlike a large segment of the mid-Michigan area. The urban
fringe pressure on the study sites, one could say, may hinder our ability
to generalize to other situations. Nevertheless, it is precisely because
of this pressure that the social structural features of land tenure with
respect to both full- and part-time farmers may have implications that
reach far beyond the given study boundries.

Brookfield Township, with a pOpulation of approximately 1500 peOple,
is located in Baton county about twenty miles south and west of the
Lansing area. There are no villages in the township. Charlotte, with a
pOpulation of approximately 8200, is five miles from the township's north-
west boundaries. Battle Creek, a major urban center with businesses,
manufacturing, and a p0pulation of 38,000, lies approximately twenty
miles to the west. Battle Creek's accessibility to Brookfield Township
is enhanced by a four-lane limited access highway that passes within one
mile of the township and connects Lansing, Charlotte, and Battle Creek.

Venice Township, with a p0pu1ation of approximately 1500, is located
in Shiawassee County thirty-five miles north and east of the Lansing
area. It contains one small village on its eastern boundary with a popu-
lation of approximately 600. Aside from residential property, this
village has several small businesses and grain elevators that cater to
the surrounding farm community. On the other side of the township is the
town of 0wosso with a population of 17,000 and the commercial center of
Shiawassee County. Thenty miles to the west is the city of Flint, a

major manufacturing and business center. Venice Township is connected to

Flint by a limited access highway that runs through three southern sec-
tions of the township and is part of the system that connects Flint and

Lansing.

Data Collection

 

The initial phase Of field work began in the spring of 1978. A main goal
was to do a census of agriculture and to obtain information on family
farm Operations in the study areas. We wanted to map the location of
farms and we wanted to know what land parcels were being farmed, who was
doing the farming, the ways in which that was accomplished, and the kinds
of enterprises involved. In effect, we wanted to determine the social
organization of agriculture in these townships and to focus attention on
both full- and part-time fanmers.

County and township officials made available public tax records that
documented land ownership, location and size of parcels, and the classi-
fication (residential, commercial, and agricultural) of all real property
in the townships. A similar procedure was followed in each township
using the same year tax roll information. From this information, lists
of property owners (taxpayers) were drawn up based on the classification
of their land holdings. In addition, platt books were used to help
organize this information by township sections and to assure complete
coverage. The names and addresses of land owners and the parcels
involved were compiled systematically and arranged for field specifica-
tion and review.

Tax roll information provided an overview of farms in the study area

in terms of size and scale. At this point, however, we wanted to remain

10

open as to our definition of a "farm". We did not want to restrict the
focus by imposing any hard and fast definitions. We wanted to Obtain
specific information on the structure of households associated with each
and every parcel of farmland. Also, the farming activities of all house-
holds in the specified area were to be noted so that the farming situa-
tion could be examined holistically.

To gain a clearer understanding of the social structure of agricul-
ture in the study areas, it was decided that information on age and
off-farm employment patterns would be sought for principal adults in each
household owning or Operating agricultural land. To supplement these
research efforts, the project requested and was granted permission by the
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service to use
a list of names of farmers participating in these programs in the study
areas. This helped specify addresses, locations of farmland parcels,
acres owned, and crOpland Operated by participating farmers. Since the
list contained only information of SOS program participants, it served as
background information but provided only a partial listing of non-owner
operators farming in the study areas. The role of non-owning Operators
and the ways in which they form linkages with non-Operating owners is an
important consideration.

With the corrected list of all agricultural land owners and Opera-
tions, county extension agents, local goverrment officials, and neighbor-
hood informants were consulted tO help in verifying and elaborating these
records. Numerous neighborhood informants throughout the area were
interviewed and in several cases knowledgeable locals were hired to help

in a more concentrated fashion. Information from various sources was

ll

cross-checked for accuracy. This procedure of contacting and questioning
many informants entailed numerous visits to the study areas.

To provide consistent coverage and recording reliability by research
team members and neighborhood informants, additional procedures were
established for processing the information once it was brought from the
field. All field notes were transcribed onto standard form data sheets
which were reviewed at the research office. Information was compared for
consistency and completeness. Any missing data were obtained on return

visits to the study areas.

Factors Examined

 

Utilizing information available from this survey we focused on the social
organizational aspects of agriculture in these two mid-Michigan town-
ships. We were especially concerned with the organization Of all land
holdings that were classed as agricultural. Four general areas of infor-
mation were specified: family households, farming enterprise, farming
status, and Off-farm work status.

1) Family Househplds

 

Not all farm households, of course, are constituted by complete or tradi-
tional families. Nevertheless, for present purposes no distinction is
made in unit designation and we simply use the term "family household" to
refer to the basic social entity within which ownership and/or control of
a particular parcel of farmland is located. We understand, of course,
that not every individual in a family household enjoys equal ownership
rights or control over the land that is designated as belonging to that
household.

12

Information was gathered for each farm family household that owned or
operated some agricultural land in the specified township. We took a
family household to be any collection Of individuals who reside at the
same address and share the same home and living arrangements. A determi-
nation was made as to which type of family organization a given household
represented. Three basic kinds of family housholds were noted: lone
adult household (single adult male or female with or without dependent
children and in a very few cases with an elderly parent); nuclear family
households (conjugal family with or without dependent children); and
complex families (all other non-nuclear family types, such as an elderly
mother living with her unmarried adult son, two adult brothers, etc.)

For each lone adult household situation, a special effort was made to
establish whether or not it was comected closely with an adjacent house-
hold on the same property (particularly in cases where the lone adult
household is a mobile home adjacent to the main farmstead home). If not
connected in an Obvious manner, it was classed as a lone adult household.

2) Farminngnterprise
For each family household associated with farmland in the study areas,
information was collected on the farming activities being conducted by
members of that household on that land. Several major enterprise cate-
gories were specified: cash grains (corn, wheat, soybeans); beef cattle
(feeder steers, breeding stock); dairy; other livestock (hogs, pigs, and
sheep); and a variety of "other" farming activities (including horse

farms, onion farms, and home-use Operations).

13

3) Farming Status
For each household, we sought to determine which principal adult (8)
"farmed the land" and was in some way actively involved in the farming
Operation. Several categories were used to describe types of statuses in
terms of the particular farmland parcels:

(a) Resident ownep and operator. In this case the family lives on, adja-

 

cent, Or relatively close by its farm property and one or more members of
the household are active in farming the land.

(b) Resident owner ,3 operation idle. Here the family lives on, adjacent
to, or relatively close by its farm property but the farmland is idle.
(c) Absentee owner, and, operator. The family resides more than six miles
from its farmland but nevertheless, farms the land.

(d) prer non-operator. The owner of the farmland is not actively en-

 

gaged in the farming enterprise. Land owned by this family is operated
by someone else.

(e) Non-owner: Operator. In this case, the farm operator family does not

 

own the primary core of the farming unit with which it is associated.
The land is rented or share-farmed.

4) Off-Farm Work, ,Statug
For each household in the study areas, we determined from neighborhood
informants which principal adu1t(s) worked off the farm. Off-farm work
status implies at least 120 days or more off-farm work per year in a full-
time job although, given these data collection procedures, we could not

be sure.

14

Focus of Analysis

 

For this study we need to draw as complete a picture as possible of the
farmland situation in these two townships and the peOple who own and
operate those lands. Information was derived from tax roles, plat books,
and discussions with neighborhood informants. A main consideration is
the farming status of each household in the two study areas. Who is
farming each parcel, and do they own and live on the land? In addition,
especially for present purposes, the relationship between operators and
non-operating owners of particular parcels was a key consideration. To
round out our coverage of the structure of agriculture in these areas, we
determined for each case the kind of farming enterprises being pursued,
the off-farm employment pattern of household members, and who was doing
the farming.

While government documents provide a complete legal description of
farmland parcels, one must go beyond this narrow view in order to com-
prehend the nature of a farming Operation. For instance, we should take
into account the land rental market and the ways by which farmers increase
the size of their operations. The nature of these arrangements are of
key importance for the present study. We explored these arrangexents by
focusirg on two main variables which we have called "relational style"
and "bonding basis."

1) Relational §tyle refers to the nature of the association that

 

exists between farm Operators or renters and the non-Operating owners.
What is the degree of socioeconomic integration that bonds these parties

together? Three main forms Of relational style are posited:

15

(a) A tightly integrated eccharge is one that involves more than just a

 

simple owner to renter arrangement. This is generally a family partrer—

ship where the factors of production (land, labor, and capital) are inex-
tricably interwoven. A legalistic colesion is impled. It would be very

difficult to separate the contributions of the parties involved.

(b) A loosely integrated exchange is one where no labor and/or managerial

 

interlock is evident . Generally, the relationship between the farm Oper-
ator and the non-Operating land owner is a simple land rental agreement.
This type of exchange may involve more than two farms; i.e., where an
owner/ operator Of an ongoing farm rents adjacent farmlands from his
neighbors in order to expand his operation.

(c) A tightly integrated core and loosely integrated periphery is also

 

possible. In effect, this type of situation occurs wlen some kind of
partnership arrangement, which constitutes the core of a farm business,
expands its operation by renting farmlands from neighbors. Tie core
linkages exhibit attributes of the tightly integrated exchange and the
remainder of the rented farmland linkages are loosely connected. A
simple owner to renter agreement exists between the core unit and the
periphery with no overlap of equipment, labor, or capital in evidence.
2) Bonding Basis is another dimension to be considered in analyzing

 

tle relationship between the farm Operator and the non-Operating owner of
farmland. The concept of bonding basis focuses our attention on addi-
tional attributes involved in the expansion of farm units beyond the
simple exchange of land used for rent. For each farmer who expands his
Operation by entering into a rental arrangement , we take into accomt tie
parties involved and tl'eir social relationships to each other. In cases

16

where a farm operator expands his operation by renting farmland from one
other family, we look at the nature of the bonding between the operator
and the non-operating owner . Since there is only one bonding , we call
this the primary bonding. A primary bonding may involve ore of the

following kinds Of linkages:
Familial -- close parental or sibling (father to son, brother to

 

brother, etc.)
Kinshi -- secondary kin (suit to nephew, cousin to cousin, etc.)
Neighbor -- nearby farmland owner (could be distant kin)
Contractual -- part of a corporative system (a form of contractual)
When there are additional linkages with other farms beyond the main
two that constitute a core, we similarly examine tie bonding basis for
these secondary linkages.

Farm Size: An Important Condition

 

Considering farm size, one of the limitations of our data is that we were
not able to obtain detailed information to specify scale of the farming
operation. Hence, we had to rely on are total acreage involved, includ-
ing all rented land, as an indicator of scale. This figure, "acres man-
aged" , represents an aggregate total of land without regard to land
value, soil quality or actual scale of operation (i.e. , capital invest-
ment) . Acres managed is reduced into three categories which parallel in
a reasonable sort of way the differentiation (in terms of farm size and
scale) that exists in the study areas.

1) Mini-Sized Farms

 

Mini-sized farms are those units that range from a few acres to fifty
acres. Many farmland units of this size are rented by the owners to

l7

neighboring farmers. If they are being farmed directly by owners, how-
ever, we expect them to be mainly home-use production oriented and opera-
ted by part-time (weekend or twilight) farmers. In that case, care must
be taken to insure that the grouping does not include any specialty crop
operations , which of course would mean a larger scale operation. Unlike
Michigan's western half of the state with its berry and fruit production,
the mid-Michigan area where the study sites are located consists pri-
marily of cash grain and dairy operations .

2) Small-Sized Farms

 

The next group of farms range from fifty to three hmtdred acres. One
expects ttese smaller-sized farms to be Operated mainly by part-time
farmers. Our use of the terms "part-time", "weekend", and "twilight
farmers" in no way should be taken to suggest or claim anything about the
quality of farming being carried out. The designations merely indicate
those farmers who work Off the farm a goodly portion of the year, usually
180 days or more, at a full-time job. In most cases, this category does
not include dairy or animal production farms (the exception being where
the operation is mainly for home-use production or a modest comercial
enterprise).

3) larger-Sized Farms

 

This grouping, larger-sized farms, refers to farming Operations with over
three hundred acres. We expect these larger-sized fame to be geared
more toward market production along with cash grain production, commer-
cial beef farms and dairy operations.

18

Summary
A main goal of the study is to examine the social organizational features

of agriculture two mid-Michigan areas which have experienced a rapid
growth in part-time farming (hiring the past decade. Agriculture here
consists mainly of cash grain farming for market production plus a few
scattered dairy operations; it has undergone a gradual trans formation
toward greater specialization from the more diversified pattern of the
previous gereration . This region differs considerably from the western
shore area of Michigan which continues to be more diversified, supporting
a variety of fruit and berry enterprises .

Identifying all fanns, farmsteads and farm family houesteads in the
two townships , the aim is to explore patterns of ownership, management ,
and non-farm employment. A main focus is on the kind of land rental
arrangements that exist between the various farm families; i.e., the
relational style and bonding basis involved in the creation of some kind
of exchange of user/owner rights to farmland parcels.

STUDY P(I’IJIATT(N
Information on patterns of ownership , management , and non- farm employment
provides a basis for analyzing and better understanding the formal and
informal arrangements that exist between various families to farm the
land they own, rent, or share. A main concern in exploring these tenure
relations is with the reciprocities involved and the organization of such
arrangements. Before dealing with the nature of specific arrangements,
however, it is necessary to assess more fully the land tenure situations

in these townships, as revealed by the results of our census survey, and

19

to delineate more systematically the study pOpulation for the purposes at
hand.

Some Special Circumstances

 

Using data collection procedures described earlier, a population of 454
family households was located and surveyed; each of the households is
associated in some way with farming in the two mid-Michigan townships
(through the ownership and/or managetent of farmland). In the process of
further delineating the pOpulation for present purposes, some interesting
situational patterns were uncovered that although somewhat peripheral to
our main concern are quite relevant to an understanding of land tenure in
the area.

1) Absentee Farmland Owrers

 

(he of the more intriguing questions Often asked about such farming con-
mnnities has to do with the pattern of absentee land ownership . Are
there any significant outside interests? From official records, it was
determined (Table 1) that approximately 81 percent (N-368) of the survey
households reside within the township bom'tdaries (168 of the 211 Brook-
field households and 200 of the 243 Venice households). The remainder, a
total of 86 households owning or Operating agricultural land in the town-
ships, resides outside. But of course many of these "outside" owners are
just over the bomidary which, very Often, means "just across the road"
(since township boundaries are invariably demarcated by roads). Indeed,
53 households located outside tie specified study areas are gererally no
further than two sections from the border.

20

When a distance criterion of six miles or more from the township
boundary is employed to distinguish a "mic" absentee owrer, we find that
13 households owning farmland in Brookfield and 20 households in Venice
township can be designted "absentee owners ." The six mile criterion is
certainly an indicator of some difficult logistical problems for the farm
owner; but even this does not specify what the literature has come to
call an "absentee landlord."

Only two families living further than six miles from Brookfield farm
tleir agricultural land in the township; eleven do not. (lily two of the
twenty households beyond six miles from Venice township farm their land
in the township; eighteen do not. Distance from an absentee farm owner
household to the township ranges from a minimum of ten miles to a maximum
of thirty miles one way. Farming by such absentee owners consists of
cash grain production; it would be exceedingly difficult to manage a
livestock enterprise .

All farm family households located more than six miles beyond the
township boundaries were omitted from further analyses. With the excep-
tion of two out-Of-state owners with relatives living in the townships,
most absentee owners reside rear the Lansing or Flint area. Thus, the
base pOpulation is reduced to 421 hcmseholds.

2) Jointly Owned Land (farm partnerships)

 

Surprisingly, only eight cases of farm partnerships in Brookfield and
Venice townships were noted . The four partnerships in Brookfield involve
family members who participate in management of the farm. Only two cases
in- volve jointly owned land. A similar situation exists in Venice;
there are tm cases of jointly owned land with the remaining partnerships
in- volving individually owned land combined in joint management.

21

3) Other land Use Patterns

 

Some agricultural land, of course, is not being used for farming purposes.
A number of such situations in these two townships was observed.

(he situation is wtere agricultural land is owned by corporations ,
not by individuals or families. In Brookfield township, for instance,
theFarmBureauowreda40acreparcel ofland thathadnotbeenfarmed
for years. At the time of this study, the property was in transition and
probably being sold to a farmer. The non-farm use of land is more exten-
sive in Venice township. A power company owns over 200 acres of land as
the right-of-way for a high voltage power line and there is a 120 acre
commercial gravel pit in the township . Also, a modern recreational camp-
ground is being established by flooding 60 acres of farmland to make a
lake . In the nortlrmvest section of Venice township , a brick company owns
35acres,butthis isbeingusedbyalocal farmer. Atthetimeofthis
study an extremely controversial issue in the community was the conver-
sion of a farmstead into a landfill for the city of Flint.

Delineation of Farm Operator POpulation

 

The distribution of hrmseholds in terms of farming status is reported in
Table 2. Of tle base population (resident owners/operators) , a total of
238 households participate directly in farming the agricultural land in
these two townships; there are 119 (59. 6 percent) such farm operator units
in Brookfield and 119 (53.5 percent) in Venice. Since our analysis Of
the social organization of agriculture is keyed to the pattern of land
holdings, the study pOpulation for further analysis will consist of these
238 households that are directly involved in farming the agricultural

22

land. That is, the study focuses on the operating farmers in the two
townships .

The two townships were observed to be very similar in their agricul-
tural and farm family characteristics . For the sake of analytic clarity
township data were combined in order to explore the variety of farming
arrangeients. Table 3 reports the distribution of families in terms of
acres managed; one should note the distribution within each of the three

scale types: mini, small, and larger Operations.

FINDII‘CS
(he aim of this study is to take into account the various types of
families associated with the Operation of farms in mid—Michigan. For
ease of explication family-kmsehold structures were divided into three
main groups: lone adult households, complex or irregular households, and
the common nuclear family household. Nuclear families presuppose a
certain type of family organization (family of procreation) that is not
easily transferable to otter forms of household organization. Because of
this, we will discuss lone adult and complex or irregular households as a
separate set of circumstances.
Lone Adults and Complex or Irregular Families

 

l) 01 Mini Sized Farms

 

There are four cases in this study pOpulation of lore adult households on
mini sized farms. Three are lone males and one, a lone female. me of
the lone adult males is a retired farmer who rents out most of his
farmland. He, himself, manages only a few acres of cash grains. The

other two lone adult males grow cash grain crOps; the lone female has a

23

few lead of beef cattle. In all cases, every effort was made to deter-
mine that tlese households were independent and that other family members
living nearby on the same prOperty (in a house trailer or small house)
were not overlooked.

There are no complex or irregular type family situations operating
mini-sized farms.

2) On Small Sized Farms

 

The complex family situation involves living arrangements that include
two or more adults living together in a non-nuclear family unit. Of the
15 households organized along non-nuclear family lines and operating
small-sized farms, nine are lone adults and six are complex or irregular
family living arrangements.

The nine lone adult households are all adult males who work Off tle
farm. In terms of their farming activities, six of them grow cash grains
while the other three engage in beef cattle Operations.

It is interesting to note that five of the nine adult males rent
additional farm land. Two pick up additional farm land from nearby
family members. These two cases, it appears, are more than a simple
owner to renter exchange. The linkages involved suggest a tightly
integrated unit of Operation between the renter and the owner; there is
an exchange of equipment, labor and some capital, as well as the fact of
kinship bonding that holds the relationship together. 'Ihe other three
lone adult households that expand their farming Operations through rental
of land do so through simple owner to renter agreements.

There are six complex or irregular family situations within the small

sized farm category. By complex or irregular, we mean those arrangements

24

that involve two or more adults living togetler, but not as a simple
nuclear family imit. Examples of complex households are: adult brotlers
living together; adult brother(s) and sister(s); single adult children
living with an older parent; etc.

In five of the complex households there is a principal adult male
and, in each case, 1e works Off the farm and is responsible for the
farming Operation. (In one case we could not determine the information.)
Four of the cases are cash grain operations , one is a beef cattle opera-
tion, and one is a dairy operation. Two of the complex households rent
additional farmland. The one case for which we have more information is
an interesting example of a core-periphery unit Of Operation. The farmer
resides in a complex family household; he rents two additional farms from
owners. (he of these owners is a family member who provides more than
just farmland; he assists with labor and provides some capital. Together,
they form a tightly integrated core that links to the third farm in a
simple owner to renter arrangement. The linkages in this particular
example suggest a tightly integrated core and a loosely integrated
periphery-

3) (11 larger Sized Farms

 

The larger sized farm category includes five complex families and two
lone adult households. Four of the complex family households have no
principal adults working off the farm. (There is one case of no
household information.) Three of the farm operations are cash grain
production and two are dairy farms. In terms of social organization of
tlese households as farming units, we found three cases where the farm
unit is expanding via rental. Each farm household increasing the size of

25

its Operation does so in ways that help explicate the kinds of attributes
that are to be fOLmd in the study areas. One farmer increases the size
of his operation by renting an additional farm from a family member. The
family member , although a non-operator , provides capital , equipment , and
sole labor to the Operating farmer. We call this type of farm organi-
zation a tightly integrated unit . In another case, the farmer rents an
additional farm from a non-kin neighbor. This simple owner to renter
exchange is based on a contractual bonding and is an example of a loosely
integrated style of social bonding .

There are also two cases of lone adults who Operate farmland. Both
are males managing individual farming imits. (he farmer who does not
work off the farm is operating a dairy. We were unable to obtain spe-
cific off-farm employment information for the other lone adult but he is
operating an onion farm.

Nuclear Families and Work Organization

 

Where the previous discussion concerned lone adult and complex family
situations , here we examine relationships between scaled farming and work
organization in the case of nuclear family leuseholds. Of the total study
pOpulation of 238 family households , 211 (88.7 percent) are nuclear
families. The ways in which they arrange their time and schedules can
have an impact on the organization of the farm. Who works off the farm,
thereby increasing the household income, can play a role in how much
farming activity a farm family can undertake (Table 5) . If, for example,
both husband and wife work off farm, they may be able to afford (or to
risk investing in) newer/ faster equipment to farm more land. Due to the

26

location of factories in the area and the nature of work shifts, those
working the afternoon shift have until 3:30 p.m. before they are due to
report; this gives them time to do some farming in the morning. Those on
the day shift find several hours of daylight remaining in the summer
months to get out into the fields.

1) 0:1 Mini Sized Farms

 

As one would expect, for a very small scale farming operation, 22 of 25
nuclear families (88 percent) have at least one principal adult working
off the farm full-time (refer to Table 4). From all indications these
mini sized farms are being farmed by individuals who are dabbling with
agriculture on weekends or in the evenings while their main employment is
in off—farm work. We believe only a few of these farmers plan to enlarge
their farming Operations as long as they remain secure in their Off-farm
employment. (11 the other hand, it is probable that the mini category
includes some older farmers and other individuals moving out of agricul—
ture who want to maintain some connection with farming. The three cases
where neither adult works off tie farm are retired couples.

2) at Small Sized Farms

 

Within tle small size category, 62.6 percent of tie nuclear family
houselelds have at least one principal adult worldng Off the farm
full-time. This is not too unusual given the proximity of the study
areas to urban centers and industrial employment. Considering the
general characteristics of farming activities in mid-Michigan, predomin-
antly a cash grains area, farming activities can be conducted before or
after a work shift, on weekends, and of course shared by spouses.

27

3) (11 larger Sized Farms

 

Among the larger-sized farming Oprations with 300 or more acres managed,
51.6 percent of the hrmsel'olds have at least one principal adult working
off the farm in full-time employment. We would like to point out that in
cases where one Spouse works off the farm, wtether husband or wife, that
individual can make a significant contribution to the Operation and via-
bility of the farm in the form of capital inputs from off-farm erploy-
ment. In marginal farming operations, this could make the difference
between continuing to operate the farm or having to abandon farming (and
being forced to rent out the land).

Nuclear Family Situations

 

Then we consider the possible combinations for Off-farm employment by
Spouses in nuclear families in terms of scale of farming Operation (Table
4), we note that as the size of the Operation increases, the proportion
of principal males working off the farm decreases considerably, while tie
proportion Of principal females working off the farm decreases only
slightly (Table 4) . Situations where both spouses work off the farm also
vary inversely with size; both work Off in 36.0 percent of the mini-farm,
28.8 percent of the small farm, and 14.0 percent of the larger farm situ-
ations . This probably reflects the increased amount of labor needed to
Operate larger-sized farms .

The husband or principal adult on mini, small, and larger-sized farm
Operations is (as observed by his neighbors) the person doing the farming
in approximately 75 percent of the cases (Table 6). The only Lmtusual
case among these various fanning Operations is a smaller farm wlere a

28

woman, by herself without her husband's help, was managing a beef cattle
operation. (The husband teaches scl'ool.) Among the larger farms, there
are slightly more cases where both husband and wife participate in the
farming activities. It slould be pointed out that these informant data
will tend to reflect publicly visible farming activities. No doubt there
is much greater female involvement in farming than is often recognized or
admitted by local informants.

As previously mentioned, the primary form of farm enterprise in the
mid-Michigan area is that of a cash grain Operation. We food no excep-
tion to this in our study areas (Table 7). Among the nuclear families
situated on mini-sized farms, 60 percent are engaged in cash grain
production, while 20 percent are involved in tome-use production. (he
could speculate that tl'ese families are mostly dabbling in farming as a
part-time or hobby activity, and not recessarily managing their Opera-
tions for a substantive profit. Most so-called mini farms produce less
than $1300 gross farm sales annually.

Among the small-scale farms, a similar emphasis on cash grain produc-
tion is noted. Some of the small farms are involved in animal production
with dairy, beef cattle, and mixed livestock. While these animal produc-
tion farms are more intensive forms of Operation than are the cash grains ,
they are often small enough so that an Operator can work Off the farm.
Given the fact that 63.6 percent (N=81) of tlese houselolds have at least
one adult working Off the farm full time, a cash grain enterprise allows
for the expansion and contraction of farming Operations with more ease
than would dairying and livestock production.

29

Among the larger-sized farms , cash grains account for 57.8 percent
(N=37). There is more dairy farming, of course, and in general these
farms have gross sales of from $20,000 to above $100,000 annually. (It
the average they own 277 acres, which is more than double the amormt of
land owned by small size farms. The large sized fanns operate an average
of 396 acres, and rent through various means an additional 216 acres from

neighbors .

Farmland Expansion Patterns
To begin with, we focus on all farm family households that are expanding

 

their operation through some kind of rental or share crOpping arrangement.
Among the mini-sized operations, we find no case of a farm family expand-
ing its miit of Operation via a rental or share cropping arrarigeient
(refer to Table 8); hence, reference to mini-sized Operations is omitted
from the remaining discussions.

Among the small-sized farms, oily 36 percent are renting or expanding
their farming Operation in some way, compared with 80.3 percent of the
larger farms. The fact that some farmers expand their unit of Operation
through rental is not unique in itself. What is interesting is the sc0pe
of such rental activity by farmers and the nature of the social linkages
that serve to reinforce these arrangements (Table 9). A main aim of the
present inquiry is to explore the attributes that are associated with a
particular relational style and basis for bonding .

1) Expansion Strategies
Increasing the size of a farming unit can be accomplished by securing
additional farm land through rental, share cropping, lease, or simple use

 

30

agreements. As noted, (Table 8), we found that 36.0 percent of the small
farmers and 80.3 percent of tie larger farmers are adding at least one
additional parcel of land to their farming Operation through some form of
rental. We further observed (Table 9) that about 37.0 percent of the
small farm and 59.6 percent of the larger farm "expanders" are adding two
or more parcels. Indeed, some of the larger farms are adding up to nine
separate parcels of land by rental . Generally, these additional units of
land are being attained from non-operating owners of farmland; note that
33.7 percent of the total number of families owning some agricultural
land in these two townships was not farming their land at the time of
this study. lbwever, much Of this land is being rented and farmed by
others . Increasing a farming Operation or maintaining and controlling
agricultural production may hinge on the availability of and access to
land held by non-Operating owners.

It is of key interest in this baseline study to determine the kinds
of relational styles and bonding bases that exist in tle study area.
This provides a imique Opporttmity to view the roles and attributes of
non-Operating owners and the farmers to whom they rent their lands. The
expansion and contraction of available agricultural land not only influ-
ences a given farm operation over time but also directly affects the
structure of agriculture in a rural commmity. Considering the rapid
changes coming about in these areas that are adjacent to metropolitan
comties with their enormous potential of rural residents, there is every
reason to be concerned about the future availability of agricultural land .

2) Relational Attributes of Expanding Farms

 

In terms of actual farm linkages beyond the number of connections a farmer
makes , it should be pointed out that there are several attributes that

31

represent a social style of linkage between the family farm mit and
non-Operating owner. The tightly integrated family farm unit is one in
which exchanges between the Operator and the non-operator are linked in a
way that is more complex than a simple owner to renter exchange. The
degree of involvement in this type of exchange suggests that equipment,
land, and/ or labor are being provided by the non-Operator.

Among the small-sized farm Operators who are expanding their units of
Operation, 38 .8 percent are doing so in terms of a tightly integrated
relational exchange (Table 10). These are one-mit exchanges that involve
kin group members. For instance, a mmmber of cases exist where a younger
Operator is farming his parents' land. The parents in these cases are
retired farmers or are in the process of reducing their farming opera-
tions. Their equipment, land, and in some cases, labor are a key feature
in the exchange. This represents a key organizational characteristic and
social attribute in the farming Operation.

An intra-family strategy can add an eleient of stability to the farm
operator's business organization. It may especially be the case if the
younger Operator does not have to increase outputs for purchase of
additional farmland . Yet the operator is somewhat secure if a family
member is the landowner.

At some point, l'owever, a notion of what constitutes the farm and who
is controlling agricultural production and decision making must come into
the discussion. The more information we have on tle relational style and
basis of social bonding between the Operating farmer and the landowner
from wtom they rent, lease, or associate with in a share crOpping arrange-
ment, the more finm we can fix our definition of a farm. (lice this dimen-
sion is included in discussions of farms and farming, we may be better

32

able to assess the direction and stability of farming in metropolitan
fringe areas. It would be especially useful to know if some form of agri-
cultural ladder is in place provided by some form of social bonding. Or,
whether the various forms of social bonding offer some form of continuity
for the farmer who rents , leases , or sharecrops land . With unemployment
figures rimming high, especially in the mid-Michigan area, it would be
usefiul to know if changes in the farming sector are being brought about
by unemployed auto workers who also participate in some form Of part-time
farming.

When there are more than two farms corrected, there is the possibil-
ity that a tightly integrated family farm tmit forms the core of a farming
operation. The remaining farm connections can be readily broken down into
other types of owner to renter styles. Among the small-sized farming
operations , we find ten family farms interlocked in tightly integrated
farming Operations or core farming units . Tie additional land the core
picks up can be readily broken down into owrer to renter styles. The
third type of relational exchange is what we call a loosely integrated
style of farming operation. Here, the type of exchange between the owner
and tie renter can be easily broken down into a simple rental exchange.
There is nothing in this arrangement to suggest anything beyond a simple
owner to renter exchange. We find 40.8 percent of the small scale
Operations linked in this way (Table 10).

Among the larger sized Operations, 26.3 percent of the farmers are
expanding their unit Of operation in a tightly integrated relational
style (Table 10). When we consider at farms expanding out from a core
Operation to pick up additional farmland through rental arrangerents, we

33

find 15.8 percent of tie Operators involved in this multiple farm
expansion. In otter words, tire core consists of tie Operator and a
non-Operator who provide some land, labor, capital, and/or equipment.
Togetl'er, as a core operation, additional land is picked up in a simple
owner to renter agreement. In the tightly integrated relational style,
we find related family members involved in some aspect of the farming
Operation besides bringing the land into the Operation. However, it is
not only relational exchanges that involve relatives contributing in this
marmer.

3) Relationships Between Operating Families and Non-Operating

 

Owners

 

Another important aspect to consider in terms of land tenure arrangements
associated with expanding farm units is the nature of the social bonding
involved. The basis of social bonding goes a step beyond the social
organizational aspects we've referred to as relational style (Table 10).
While consideration of relational style provides some rotion as to how
members of the agricultural commmity are arranged in terms of ownership
and control of a community's land resources, i.e., the form of organi-
zation, consideration of the nature or basis of these bondings permits us
to understand more clearly who tie participants in these arrangements

are . The previously discussed "tightly integrated" unit of organization
showed, in some respects, that this comon type Of relational style is
based Lpon family ties.

In assessing the bonding basis of rental market participants both
primary and secondary bondings must be taken into account. 'Ihe focal
point for this analysis is a farm Operator family and the nature of its
bonding with landlords.

34

We conceptualize the bonding basis as involving the possibility of
two lines of relationships. "Primary bonding" is that cormection between
a farm operator family and the main or primary source (landowner) from
which additional land is acquired. This takes into account the nature of
the bonding between the owner of farmland and the farm family Operating
their land. Table 11 shows the types of primary bonding and the nature
of the bonding between those farm families expanding their Operation via
the rental market. We see that farmers managing smaller farms are more
inclined to expand their Operations through land acquired via rent or
shares from family members. In this case, the type of bonding indicated
is familial; that of a close family member such as a father, son and/or
brotler. The larger sized farmers draw more upon neighbors to expand
their operations (55 percent of the small farms expanding their unit of
operation via the rental market do so from close family members; only 39
percent Of the larger farms expand via close family members).

Whentheprimarybondinvolved intheexpansionofafarm0peration
is a familial or close family member, the family farming the land often
is part of what can be conceptualized as an extended family.

Wten more than one piece of land is acquired, we must similarly
consider the social bonding involved.

Our previous discussion of relational exchanges combimd the nature
of support provided by non-Operating owners in tte rental exchange in
addition to the land. In multiple farm expansion, we have looked at the
social basis of additional rental land (Table 11) . This provides us with
a notion of the social bonding that exists in these rural areas espe-
cially on the secondary parcels of land that go to make up tle Operating

35

farm. We asked the question; what is the nature of the social bond
between operators and non-Operating owrers when farm unit expansion
exceeds one parcel of land picked up in the rental market? Table 12
reports the types Of secondary bondings between expanding farm wits and
their added units . We found that over 10 percent of the small farmers
and 12 percent of the larger farmers have a kinship basis even for

secondary bondings .

Expansion Patterns: Summary
Rental market participation by members of the farming commmity in mid-

Michigan is not uncommon nor is it necessarily a new feature in the struc-
ture of agriculture. What is interesting is to consider the ways by
which these farms enlarge their Operations through rentals and to explore
the social relationships that bind owrer and Operator together into an
accommodating miit. It was noted that 36 percent of the small and 80
percent of the larger sized Operations engage in some form of unit
expansion (Table 8). Of dose that are expanding, 59 percent of tie
smaller Operations are very closely tied organizationally to family
members who share, rent, or lease land and provide in varying degrees tl'e
labor, equipment, and/or capital for the Operation. Similarly, 42 per-
cent of the expanding larger sized farms do so through the acquisition of
additional land from mothers of their close kin group (Table 10).

Whereas only 37 percent of the expanding small farms are acquiring
two or more imits Of land to expand their total Operation, nearly 60
percent of the larger sized farms are adding two or more units. These
reciprocal relationships are very important for stabilizing the agri-
cultural commmity in this mid-Michigan area. The nature of trese

36

expansions and the degree to which they involve kin group members say
something about the importance of family members in farming. Movement of
Older people out of agriculture into retirement can make way for younger
farmers to get a footlold. Through rental, sharing, or leasing of land,
farm operators have an Opportunity, whether they are young or old, to
expand their Operation with or without the high cost and risk of land
purchase. It appears that participating in the land rental market is a
viable Option for all sized Operations; thus , it adds to the overall
stability of the agriculture comnmity.

SUPMARY AND C(IIILUSIONS
This has been a study of the social organization of agriculture in a
mid-Michigan area. It is based upon information pertaining to 454
families who, through the ownership and/or management of farmland, are
associated in some way with agriculture. Specifically, it focuses on 238
of these familes who are actively engaged in farming.

The study sites, two townships on the fringes Of major metrOpolitan
centers , are very similar in demographic composition and are reasonably
representative of the mid-Michigan area in terms of types of agriculture
(cash grain production) and average size of farming operations. This
area differs of course from the southwestern part of Michigan where fruit
and berry crop production are especially strong . And it differs consider-
ably from the more marginal farming activities characteristic of the
rorthern section of the lower Penninsula of Michigan.

Total acres managedbyafarmfamilywasusedasameasure offarm
scale . CrOpland acreage and other indicators of farm scale were not

37

available from neighborhood informants or from township dooments and
records. The three categories Of farm scale were: mini farms (1-49
acres); small farms (50-299 acres); and larger sized farms (300 plus
acres managed). These were considered useful divisions for this base-
line , exploratory study .

The mini sized farms generally were comprised of part-time farmers
doing farm work on weekends or in the evenings. From all indications,
these farms were oriented mainly toward home-use production with an
occasional beef steer or cow. We found no indication of attetpts to
expand the farm units through rental of reighboring lands and we would
Speculate that these farms all have less than $2500 gross sales per year.

Among the small sized farming Operations, we found a little more
variety in farm enterprises with a few more dairy and beef cattle Opera-
tions. These Operations range from marginal to full-scale commercial
Operations. Like the mini sized farm families, the majority of small
farm households have at least one adult working off-farm. It appears
that this size Operation, over 50 acres, allows an miner/Operator who is
often also working off-farm to take advantage of modern farm equipment so
as to Operate the farm in a reasonably efficient manner. Small sized
farm Operations average less than $10,000 gross farm sales per year.

The larger sized Operations are gererally "full-time" enterprises .
They are organized around a great variety of farming enterprises,
although cash grain production is the most typical. This category, as
expected, contains several large dairy and animal production Operations .
The gross farm sales range from $10,000 to over $100,000 per year.

38

We observed that as the farming Operation gets larger, there is a
tendency for a smaller proportion of husbands (in nuclear family house-
lolds) to work off the farm. However, a rather large prOportion of wives
work off tie farm on the larger sized farms. This interesting effect
should be taken into account by county extension agents and others who
are attempting to communicate directly with farm family households .

Part-time farming is a characteristic of all types and scales of
farming. In many cases, it appears, the off-farm job allows for the
continuation of farming activity , particularly among smaller farms , in
light of low gross sales .

(he important question for further study is whether there are any
measurable differences in the kind and quality of farming practices
carried out by those wto work off the farm and farm the land compared
with those for m farming is the sole occupation. From outward
appearances noted during fieldwork for this study, there seems to be
little difference. Indeed, there is some reason to suspect that those
who hold off-farm jobs are better able to deal with the vagaries of tie
market and consequently, do a better job of soil conservation and farm
development.

Another question arises: At what point, if any, does the distinction
between full-time and part-time fanmer become blurred when actual farm
sales are taken into account? This question is especially relevant in
the mid-Michigan area given similar scales of operation, modern equipment
and the seasonal nature of cash grain Operations. Indeed, the part-time
farmer may be better able to finance higher farm inputs derived from
Off-farm earnings. In many cases, these higher inputs may come from the
employment Of either husband, wife, or both in off-farm work.

39

Among all size Operations, we found part-time farmers an inteng
part of the setting. Perhaps the term "part-time farmer" is an incorrect
one to use for tlose who operate a viable, full-scale farm yet work off
the farm as well. Often the incore from off-farm employment brought into
the household through both husband and wife can provide an important
source of development capital. The term "part-time farmer" may conger up
visions of someone not completing farm tasks because of time constraints,
or that such part-timers Operate small farms of little or no consequence
to the agricultural commmtity or to the process of food production. We
would suggest a more apprOpriate designation for many of these individ-
uals and their families; many are really "split-time farmers." This is
an especially apprOpriate term when we note that over 60 percent Of the
small-sized Operations and nearly 50 percent of the large sized farm
Operations have at least ore adult working Off the farm full-time. These
"split-time" farmers and farm families are really multiple job holders
managing mo occupations at one time (either as individuals or house-
folds).

(he Of the factors that must be taken into accomt to more fully com-
prehend the changing structure of agriculture, especially in metrOpolitan
fringe areas, is the diversity of farming arrangements and the time-
splitting of farmers with dual ocopations . Pressure of non-Operating
owners to sell smaller pieces Of land due to tie influx of rural resi-
dents and increased taxes must be weighed in light of the fact that trese
smaller pieces of land may be an integral part of a family's efforts to
arrange a commercially viable Operation. We have explored these arrange-
ments by focusing on the social relationships and strategies of farmers
who are expanding their Operations through land rental.

40

When we examine the social linkages between Operator and ton-operat-
ing owners, we are concerned with the relational style (form) and bonding
(nature of the social relationship) involved. Three kinds of relational
style were observed in the mid -Michigan area . A tightly integrated style ,
whether connected with one or more farms, appears as the primary organiza-
tional form. Tl'e key element l’ere is the fact that a majority of farm
families expand their operations by linking with ton-Operating owners in
a way that has the ton-Operator providing some labor, equipment, and/or
capital . Since these tightly integrated styles invariably involve close
kin and family members, this arrangement suggests something on the order
of an extended type Of family farming operation in the American context.

Some expanding farm Operators may pick up additional farmland beyond
the initial arrangement; in this case , the tightly integrated arrangement
is best regarded as the core of such an Operation while the other fann-
land parcels added to the operation generally consists of simple owrer to
Operation exchanges . It is this core that will gererally provide labor
and/or equipment; and, to some degree, management decisions (concerning
the overall farm Operation) may be made by participants in the core. A
third type of relational exchange consists of a simple owner to Operator
arrangement. In this case, there is no overlap of labor, equipment, or
capital.

The reture of the bonding among families expanding their farm Opera-
tion is another attribute we examined. This focus adds a useful dimension
toward gaining a better mderstanding of wl'o farmers link up with when
they attempt to increase the size of their farming operation. 'lhe avail-
ability of additional farmland (for purchase, rent, lease, or own shares),

41

of course, impacts on the nature and eventual size of the farms. Added
improvements or rented lands , or the lack of them, influences cons ider-
ably the agriculture output . In tightly integrated relational styles and
where social bondings are along close family lines , problems of continu-
ity and land care may be less severe or brothersome than with other forms
of relational style and bonding. If there is uncertainty over continuity
of farmland rental, the likelilood edsts that a farmer may be willing
to build improvements into or onto the land. The fact that laud is
available to the Operating farmer without having to purchase it would
tend to reduce farm inputs and allow Operators to adjust their farming
Operations according to time constraints , market conditions , and the
previous year's income. The renter still has to consider the upkeep of
rental land during periods of changing conditions .

Given the relative stability of the land tenure situation in these
mid-Michigan settings (and a reasonable degree of equilibrium or accomo-
dation); i.e., with tie available farmland being farmed by owners or
renters , we are led to ask about the kinds of Opportunities available for
newcomers to farming. Certainly, for family members in a tightly inte-
grated relational arrangement and in a familial bonding style, the social
networkprovides ameansbywhichthenew farmercanbe introduced to
farming.

With regard to newcomers in the area, our survey did locate two tran-
sitional situations. In one case, farmland was being sold to another
farmer wl'o lives in a nearby area. The other case is the consideration
of sale of a farm for the purpose of converting it into a county or
regional landfill. During the period of our observations, we saw no

42

clear indication of movement into the area by "new" fanmers. This par-
ticular question, for the time, must remain unresolved. Nevertheless,
the problem is important: low do individuals and families new to the
area enter into farming and become stable members of do agricultural
community?

Agricultural land in metropolitan fringe areas is subject to various
kinds of pressures and conditions which can affect changes in the nature
of farm production, especially among farm Operators wto must rely on the
rental of farmland. 'lhese interstitial rural areas, being ever more
pressed by metrOpolitan expansion, merit continued and closer examination
in order to gauge changes in the structure of agriculture over time. To
conceptualize and research the relational styles and the nature of social
bondings involved as farm Operators struggle to expand their size of
toldings through rental, leasing, and share farming arrangements will add
to our understanding of the functioning of modern farming Operations. In
many ways , it will help us to better comprehend what it is that consti-
tutes a "farm." Further, it may provide insights into the kind of con-
tinuity that exists in the rental market and the movement of people that
might be expected into or out of farming in the area. In light of the
current ecoromic downturn in mid-Michigan and the high rate of unemploy-
ment, it would be most interesting to know whether tl'ose who were
formerly part-time farmers working full-time in industry have turned
toward greater involvement in farming. And, if so, what will be the
impact on the agricultmral sector in and on rural communities located in
or near depressed industrial centers?

TABLE 1. Residence location of Families Associated With Farmland in
Venice and Brookfield Townships (Percent).

 

 

Residence Location of Venice Brookfield
Farmland Owners and/ or Township Township
Operators (N - 243) (N = 211)
Within township 82.3 79.6
Nearby, in adjacent township 9.5 14.2

Further away, more than
6 miles from township 8.2 6.2

 

Total Percent 100 . O 100 .0

 

45

TABLE 2. Farming Status of Farm Families in Venice and Brookfield
Townships (Percent)*

 

Family Farming Status Venice Township Brookfie ld Township
(N = 223) (N = 198)

 

Omer and Operator

 

of famlarfl 45.7% 48.5%
Farm owner/non—operator 44 .4 26 . 8
Non-owner/ farm Operator 7.6 11.1
Owner of idle farmland 2.3 13.6
Total Percent 100 . 0 100. O

 

*Note: This table excludes tlose families associated with farmland in
Venice and Brookfield townships wto live further than 6 miles away
from the townships.

46

TABLE 3 . Acreage Managed by Farm Operator Families , by Scale of Farming
Operation (Percent)

 

Swhofmmmgwammn
(kmmtdSthflgmfi

.mms Pmmm mm. emu hma
Managed of all (10-49 Acres) (50-299 Acres) (300+ Acres)

Farms
(N=238) (N=3l) (N=136) (N=7l)

 

10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49

N

gH N
O\.O\N
ml-‘UON
N

 

35.3?
19.1
18.4
19.1
8.1

50-99

100-149
150 -l99
200-249
250-299

H HHHN
GPOPOPVNON

 

300-399
400-499
500-599
600-699
700-799
8m-899
900-999
1000+

HHNw

 

8 oowwwbfi

o mowwbmowoomowmwmo
S PPPaHaae

o moonHbg

H

100.0 100.0

H

Total Percent

 

47

TABLE 4 . Off-Farm Work Status Of Husband and Wife in Nuclear Family
Households, by Scale of Farming Operation

 

Scale of Farming Operation*

 

 

Off-Farm Work Status Mini Small er
of Husband and Wife (N - 25) (N = 118) (N - 64)
Husband only works off-farm 48.01 28.0% 18.8%
Wife only works Off-farm 4.0 6.8 18.8
Both husband and wife

work off-farm 36.0 28.8 14.0
Neither Husband or Wife

work Off-farm 12.0 36.4 48.4
Total Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

*Note: There are 2 cases of no information for mini-farms and 2 cases for
small farms.

TABLE 5. Age Characteristics of Nuclear Families Operating Farms, by
Off-Farm Work Status of Husband and Wife and Scale of Farming
Cperation (Percent)

 

 

 

 

 

Smaller Farms larger Farms

(Hobby/ Small Combined)

One or the Neither Ole or the Neither

other or husband other or husband

both work nor wife both work nor wife

off-farm work off- Off-farm work off-
Age Category* farm farm
of Families (N = 77) (N = 43) (N = 33) (N = 31)
Under 30 years 3.9% 2.3% 12.1% 9.7
30 to 49 years 53.3 23.3 51.5 38.7
60 to 64 years 38.9 62.8 36.4 48.4
65 and over 3.9 11.6 - 3.2
Total Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00

 

*Note: In most cases the age range applies to both husband and wife. In
the few cases of discrepancy, the husband's age was used.

49

TABLE 6. Participation in Farming Activities by Husband and Wife in
Nuclear Family Housekolds , by Scale of Operation (Percent)

 

Scale of Farming Operation

 

 

Mini Small larger
Who does the farming? (N = 24)* (N - 116)* (N - 64)
Husband only does the farming 75.0 75.0 70.3
Wife only does the farming - 0.9 -
Both husband and wife
do the farming 25.0 24.1 29.7
Total Percent 100.0 100.0 100.00

 

Note: There are 3 cases of no information for mini-farms and 4 cases for
small farms.

TABLE 7. Main Farming Enterprises on Nuclear Family Farms, by Scale Of
Farming Operation (Percent)

 

Scale of Farming Operation

 

 

Mini Small Larger
Type of Farming Operation (N - 25)* (N I 120)* (N = 64)
Cash grains 60.0 67.5 57.8
Dairy 4.0 11.7 26.6
Beef Cattle 12.0 7.5 4.7
Mixed Livestock
(hogs, pigs, sheep) - 9.2 7.8
Home use production 20.0 - -
Miscel laneous** 4 .0 4 . l 3 . 1
Total Percent 100.0 100.0 100.00

 

*Note: There are 2 cases of no information.

**Note: "Miscellaneous" refers to: l mini-scale lorse farm; 4 small
farms (onion; sweet corn; tree farm; aid home use production
farm; and 2 large onion farms .

51

TABLE 8 . Family Farm Ebrpansion Strategy, by Scale of Farming Operation

(Percent)

 

Nature of Farm
Unit Expansion

Scale of Farming Operation
Mini* Small larger
(N = 31) (N - 136) (N -= 71)

 

Families mg
their farm unit by
rental , share cropping
non-Operating owners

Families Managing their farms as
single unit Operations
without any additional land
rented

- 36 .073 80.3%

100.0% 64.0 19.7

 

Total Percent

100.0 100.0 100.00

 

*Note: (he case is a family renting all their land from an absentee
owner; the family does rot own auy land.

52

TABLE 9. Number of Farm Units Added (Via Rental, SharecrOpping, or
Other Means) by Farm Households Ehgaged in Expansion Strategy,
by Size of Farming Operation (Percent)

 

Number of Farm Units Scale of Farming Operation

 

Added for purposes of Small Larger

Farm Ecpansion (N - 49) (N = 57)
Ome farm unit 63.3 40.4
TWO mits 22.4 19.3
Three units 6.1 12.3
Four units 8.2 19.3
Five units - 3.5
Six mits - 1.7
Nine units - 3.5

 

Total Percent

100.0

100 .00

 

53

TABLE 10. Types of Relational Exchanges Between Expanding Farm Units and
Added Units , by Scale of Farming Operation (Percent)

 

Relational Exchange Type Scale of Farming Operation
Small Larger
(N - 49) (N '- 57)

 

Two Farms , Tightly integrated (with
ton-Operating owner providing
labor, equipment, aid/or capital
along with the land) 38.8% 26.37,

Combination of tightly integrated
multiple farm core with additional
farm units acquired by simple
owrer to renter exchange 20 .4 15 . 8

Three farms or more , loosely integrated
by simple owrer to renter exchange 40.8 57.9

 

Total Percent 100.0 100.00

 

TABLE 11. Types of Primary Bonding Between Expanding (Multiple) Farm
Units and Added Units , by Scale of Farming Operation (Percent)

 

Basis of Primary Bonding Scale of Farming Operation
Between Core Unit and Small Larger
Added Units (N - 49) (N -= 57)

 

Familial, close family members

(father/son/brotl'ers) 55.1 38.6
Kinship, secondary kin

(amts/uncles/neptews) 4.1 ' 1.8
Neighbors (rearby) 20 .4 45.6
Contractual

(non-personal) 20 . 4 10 . 5
Corporative

(part of corporative system) - 3.5

 

Total Percent 100 .0 100.00

 

55

TABlE 12. Types of Secondary Bonding Between Expanding (Multiple) Farm
Units and Added Units , by Scale of Farming Operation (Percent)

 

Basis Of Secondary Bonding Scale of Farming Operation
Between Core Unit and Small larger
Added Units* (N - 49) (N - 57)

 

Familial, close family members

(father/ son/brothers) 6 . l 8 . 8
Kinship, secondary kin

(aunts /uncles / nephews) 4 . l 3 . 5
Neighbors (rearby) 22 .4 42 . 1
Contractual (non-personal) 4. l 5.3

Corporative (part of
corporative system) - -

NO secondary bonding 63.3 40.3

 

Total Percent 100 . 0 100 .00

 

*Note: If more than two bondings, the general character of the periphery
is specified.

56

FIGURE 1 . Michigan Farm Family Study Areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Venice Township
in
Shiawas see County

 

 

 

 

Brookfield Township
in
Eaton County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LISTOFREFEREI‘CFS

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Joseph, and Marshall Harris
1946 Family Farm Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Alter L.A. and Diehl, L.G.
1940 "Part-Time Farming Research." Journal Of Farm Ecoromics, Vol

Bell, Earl H.

1942 Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Sublette, Kamsas,
Rural Life Series, NO. 2.

Bergland, Robert
1979 Speech as Secretary of Agriculture, before the National
Farmers Union Convention, Kansas City, Missouri.

Berry, R.L.
1962 "Cost Sharing As a Means of Improving Share Rent leases,"
Journal Farm Ecoromics.

1963 Farm Tenancy Problems . South Dakota Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 510.

1964 "Share Rents as an obstacle to farm improvement and soil
conservation." Journal of land Economics, 40.

Brown, V.C. aid F.E. Justus Jr.
1974 "Part-Time Farming in Kentucky." Agricultural Economics
Information Series No. 15, University of Kentucky.

Buttel, Frederick, et a1.

1982 "Tie political ecoromy of part-time farming." Geo. Journal
6:293-300.

Congress of the United States
1978 Public Policy and tle Changing Structure of American
Agriculture, Congressional Budget Office.

Cotner, M.L. and M.E. Wirth, and G.D. Erwin
1965 Participants in t‘re Land Market: A Profile of Renters,
Buyers, a1d Sellers in lower Michigan, Research Report 12,
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

57

Dorner, Peter
1963 "Land Tenure, Income Distribution, and Productivity
Interactions," land Economics, 40(3) .

Farm Fomdation
1956 Land Tenure Research Workstop, Chicago, Illirois.

Fuller, Anttony, et a1.
1977 A Directory of Part-Time Farming Studies. Vol. 1, North
America and Western Europe Department of Geography, University
of Guelph, Canada.

Frauendorfer, S.A.
1966 "Part-Time Farming A Review of World Literature." World
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociological Abstracts, Vol.
8, NO. 1.

General Accounting Office
1978 Character and Structure of American Agriculture: An Overview,
CED-78-178.

Hurlburt, Virgil L.
1964 Use Of Farm Resources as Conditioned by Tenure Arrangements.
North Central Regional Publication 151 , Nebraska Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 215.

Johnson, Bruce Bysong
1974 Farmland leasing as a means of resource control in U.S. land
based agriculture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Agricultural Economics , Michigan State University.

1974 Farmland tenure patterns in the United States. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ecormics Research
Service , Agricultural Ecoromic Report NO . 249 .

1972 Tle Farmland Rental Market - A Case Analysis of Selected Corn
Belt Areas . Farm Production Economics Division, Economic
Research Service, U.S. Departunent of Agriculture, Agricultural
Economics Report, No. 235.

Johnson, Bruce F. , and Peter Kilby
1975 Agriculture and Structural Transformation. New York: Oxford
University Press .

Johnson, E.C.
1933 In John D. Black (ed.) Research in Agricultural land Tenure,
Social Science Research Comcil Bulletin No. 20.

59

Kelso M.M.
1633 In John D. Black (ed.) Research in Agricultural Land Tenure,
Social Science Research Council Bulletin No. 20.

loonis, Charles P., and J. Allan Beegle
1950 Rural Social Systems, Prentice Hall, Inc. , New York.

loomis R.A.
1965 "A Profile of Part-Time Farming in the United States."
Agricultural Economics , Michigan State University Report NO.
15.

Moyer, D. David, et a1.
1969 land Tenure in the United States, DevelOpment and Status.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ecoromic Research Service,
Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 338.

Penn, J .B.

1979 "The Structure of Agriculture: An Overview of the Issue." In
Structure Issues of American Agriculture, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economics , Statistics , and COOperatives Services ,
Agricultural Ecoromic Report 438.

Reinsel, Robert D. , and Bruce Johnson
1970 Farm Tenure and Cash Rents in the United States, Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture , Agricultural
Economics Report No. 190.

Reiss, F.J.
1968 Farm lease Practices in Western Illiuois. University of
Illinois, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin No. 728.

Rodefeld, R.D.
1978 "Trends in U.S. Farm Organizational Structures and Types."
In Rodefeld, R.D., et al., (ed.) Changes in Rural America.
T're C.V. Mosby Comby Company, St. louis.

Rohrer, Wayne C.
1970 "Agrarianism and the Social Organization of U.S. Agriculture:
Tl'e ()Joncomitance of Stability and Change." Rural Sociology,

35(1 .

Timrnons , John F.
1972 Improving Agricultural Tenancy; an FAO landowrer Study, Food
and Agriculture of UN, Review FAO Agricultural Station No. 35.

U.S. Bureau of Ce'usus
1974 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce.

60

1975 Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to
1970. Washington, D.C.: Bicentennial Edition.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
1979 Structure Issues of American Agriculture,

Economics , Statistics and COOperative Services . Agricultural
Economics Report No. 438 .

Wehrwein, George S.
1933 In John D. Black (ed.), Research in Agricultural Land Tenure.

Wilcox, Walter W.
1947 The Farmer in the Second World War. Ames: The Iowa State
College Press.

Winters, Donald L.
1978 Farmers Without Farms . Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood
Press .

OIHER BIBLHIJRAPHY

 

Bertrand, Alvin
1978 "Ownership, Tenancy, and Labor Force Trends." In Thomas R.
Ford (ed.), Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and Change.
Ames: Iowa State University Press .

Bertrand, Anson R.
1979 Letter: TTe Structure of Agriculture and Agricultural Policy,
U.S.D.A. Director of Science and Education, May 15.

Bertrand, Alvin, and Floyd Corty (eds.)
1962 Rural Land Tenure in the United States. Baton Rouge:
louisiana State University.

Black, John D., (ed.)
1933 Research in Agricultural land Tenure. Social Science Research
Comcil Bulletin NO. 20.

Brewster, John M.
1958 "Technological Advance and tie Future of the Family Farm."
Journal of Farm Ecormics, 40.

Harris M.
1969 "Shifts in Ehterpreueurial Emotions in Agriculture," American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51.

Haves , leslie
1973 Suitcase Farming Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.

61

Maris, Paul V.
1950 "This land is Mine." From Tenancy to Family Farm Ovrership,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration,
Agricultural Morograph No. 8 .

Nikolitch, R.
1962 Family-size Farms in U.S. Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Report No.
499.

Parsons, K.H., and W.F. Owen
1951 "Implications of Trends in Farm Size and Organization."
Journal of Farm Ecouomics, 33.

Smith, Lynn T., and Paul E. ZOph, Jr.
1970 Principles of Induuctive Rural Sociology. F.A. Davis Company,
Philadelphia.

Stewart, H.L.
1960 "The Organization and Structure of Some Rapresentative Farms."
In Journal of Farm Economics, 42 (2).

Taylor, Henry L.
1929 "The New Farm Economics." In Journal of Farm Economics, 11.

Wallace, James J. and Raymond Beneke
1956 Managing the Tenant Operated Farm. Ames: Iowa State College
Press.

H RN STRTE UN V. LIBRR

nuc 16
W"
31

Ill um finmnm IMF

293008757423