FAMILY FARM ADJUSTMENTS To MEET THE “IMPACTS..;:_'3 OF ECONOMIC TECHNOLOGICAL AN SOCIOLOGICAL CHANGES ,. ON 3* CENTRAL MISSOURIFARME; THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF Ph. D, ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘ ALBERT Ross HAGAN ' 1963 W i! H] ' H lflfimflitflfifl WI] It W WWII I 3 1293 O 1096 9982 This is to certify that the thesis entitled FAMILY FARM ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET THE IMPACTS OF ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL CHANGES ON CENTRAL MISSOURI FARMS presented by Albert Ross Hagan has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree inAgricultural Economics . / - .x/I /' /// \I/--”/ - ‘ LI. I J ' ‘0‘ -‘ yh ;- t~¢-y\- ‘ , tz 9‘— a ' . V Major professor Date August 1, 1963 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FlNES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 1n: 5:; 1m 1/98 c:/ClFlC/DateDue.p65-p.14 ABSTRACT FAMILY FARM ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET THE IMPACTS OF ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND SOCIOLOGICAL CHANGES ON CENTRAL MISSOURI FARMS by Albert Ross Hagan Farm families always have faced the necessity of adjusting to changing conditions, but the degree and rapidity of these changes during the past two decades have created unique and perplexing problems. A ladk of understanding of these problems and of the economic consequences of measures to alleviate them motivated the staff at the Missouri College of Agriculture to undertake an unusual type of coordinated research and extension effort. The work involved selection of a two-township laboratory area where all of the family farms and their problems could be studied in depth over a period of years. The Bladkwater area of COOper county was chosen. Initial work included a detailed soil survey of the area and personal interviews with each farm family to get complete data on resources owned and used in 1959 which was selected as the base year from which adjustments would be measured. The data were analyzed to determine the kinds of adjustment problems peculiar to the different types of farming operations found in the area. The results disclosed Albert Ross Hagan 220 separate farm units, ranging from 1,100 down to a few acres in size. The farms were grouped into ten economic classes, using a breakdown similar to that in the 1959 Census of Agriculture. The groups included 95 commercial farms, 49 part-time farming units, 37 part—retirement operations, two abnormal holdings, and 37 unclassified farms. The analysis included a summary of capital invest— mentS, crop and livestock production, labor resources, farm earnings, non—farm income, and family living facilities. Measures of efficiency in the use of resources were computed. The two—township area included over 40,000 acres of farm land, with 82 per cent consisting of bottomland and good quality upland soils. Farms ranged in size from 85 acres per farm in economic class VIII to 576 acres in class I.‘ The value of farm assets varied from $10,000 in class VI to an average of $158,000 in class I. The value of crop production was above $857,000, with corn providing 48 per cent of the total. Beef cattle and hogs accounted for 98 per cent of the value of livestock production which exceeded $1,184,000 in 1959. Low income and imbalance in the use of resources were two major problems revealed by the analysis. Incomes were low on many of the small units because of inadequate land and working capital. Inefficiencies in the use of resources restricted the earnings on many of the large farms. Albert Ross Hagan Case studies on representative farms and other follow-up research have been initiated to investigate opportunities for improving family income. Preliminary results indicate that the economic position of some farm families may be improved by: (l) acquiring additional land and other resources for full-time farming; (2) using available resources more intensively and with greater efficiency; (3) moving away from farming into full—time employment in another vocation; (4) supplementing farm income with earnings from off—farm employment; or, (5) by combining limited farm earnings with retirement income from various sources. The results of the investigation thus far accentuate the need for identifying major adjustment problems and of coordinating research, teaching, and extension programs to aid in their solution. FAMILY FARM ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET THE IMPACTS OF ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND SOCIOLOGICAL CHANGES ON CENTRAL MISSOURI FARMS BY Albert Ross Hagan A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University ‘ in partial fulfillment of the requirements - for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1963 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to many individuals and groups for encouragement and assistance with his graduate program and in the preparation of this thesis. Special appreciation is expressed to the following: to Dr. Glenn L. JOhnson and other members of the guidance committee for counsel and advice during the period of graduate work and the conceptualization of the research on which this thesis is based; to the Farm Foundation at Chicago and to Michigan State University for financial assistance through fellowships; to the Agricultural Economics Department of the University of Missouri for researdh facilities; to many co-workers who rendered encouragement and assistance; and eSpecially to Dr. Frank.Mi11er who gave many valuable suggestions for preparation of the thesis manuscript. Most of all, the author wishes to express his gratitude to his wife, Melva, and two sons, Don and Randall, for their constant encouragement and sacrifices which made the graduate study and thesis work possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Situation . . . . . . Nature of Over—All Adjustment Problems Missouri Agricultural Resources and Adjustment Problems . . . . . . . . . Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . Economic Problems . . . . . . . . . . Social Adjustments . . . . . . . . . The Missouri College of Agriculture and Farm Adjustments . . . . . . . . Purpose and Objectives of Study . . . . . II. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farm Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farm Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Family Farm . . . . . . . . Historical Development . . . . . . . . Study Definition . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Classification: Commercial Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Classification: Other Farms Economic Classification: Unclassifiable Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . iv P‘H Chapter III. METHOD OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Choice of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . Factors Considered in Selection of the Area . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Procedure for Site Selection . . . . . . Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . Advisory Committees . . . . . . . . . . . Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working Relationships . . . . . . . Procedure for Getting Bench—Mark Data . . . General Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of Soil Resources . . . . . . . . Geologic Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of Water Resources . . . . . . . . Personal Interviews for Bench—Mark Information . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Bench— Mark Data . . . . . . . Analysis of Data by Economic Classes . . Method of Organizing Follow— up Research . IV. RESOURCES AND RESOURCE USE IN THE BLACKWATER AREA OF MISSOURI . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Situation and Historical Review . . Lamine Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blackwater Township . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Farms by Economic Classes . . . Types of Farms by Tenure Groups . . . . . Types of Farms by Major Income Sources . Other Groupings of Farms . . . . . . . Size Groups by Total Farm Acres Operated . . . . . . . Size Groups by Total Cropland Acres Operated . . . Size Groups Based on Total Productive Man Work Units (PMWU) . . . . . Size Groups Based on Value of Total Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Resources and Management . . . . . . . General Description . . . . . . . . . . . Major Soil Series . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use——Crop Production . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Page 50 51 96 98 101 104 107 107 109 112 120 123 123 Chapter Trend Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Livestock Production . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beef Cattle Production . . . . . . . Hog Production . . . . . . . . . . . Other Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . Capital Investments . . . . . . . . . . Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farm and Family Earnings . . . . . . . Cash Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . Cash Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . Cash Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . Net Changes in Inventory . . . . . Farm Contributions to Family Living . Income from Off— Farm Work . . . . . . Non— Labor Income . . . . . . . . . Total Net Family Income . . . . . . Cash Available for Family Living . . Aggregate Measures of Efficiency . . . Labor Resources and Labor Efficiency . Sources of Labor . . . . . . . . . . Total PMWU——All Enterprises . . . . . Farm Labor Costs . . . . . . . . . . Labor Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . Financial Management . . . . . . . . . Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farm Records . . . . . . . . . . . . Tax Management . . . . . . . . . . Participation in Government Programs Rental Arrangements . . . . . . . . . Buying Practices . . . . . . . . . . Integration Practices . . . . . . . . Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early Day Markets . . . . . . . . . . Livestock Markets . . . . . . . . . . Trading Centers . . . . . . Community Services and Facilities . . . Family Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. MAJOR ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . General Situation . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Problems and Adjustment Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Farm Income . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 133 134 134 139 144 149 150 150 151 154 157 157 157 159 159 161 162 162 164 166 168 170 170 172 174 174 177 177 179 180 181 181 181 183 183 184 184 184 184 185 186 192 192 193 193 Chapter Page Soil Erosion and Wasteland . . . . . . 197 Lack of Up-to-Date Knowledge of Input- Output Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Uncertainties About the Economic Consequences of Alternative Adjustments in Farming Systems . . . . . . . . . . 200 Obsolescence in Farm Buildings, Farmstead Arrangements, and Field Layouts . . . . . 201 Imbalance in the Use of Labor Resources . . 201 Lack of Off-Farm Employment Opportunities . 201 Difficulties in Getting Satisfactory ‘Water Supplies for Domestic Use . . . . . 202 Investment Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 VI. FOLLOW-UP RESEARCH ON SPECIFIC ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 General Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Burge Branch Hydrology Study . . . . . . . . 204 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Cooperating Departments and Agencies . . . 205 Description of Study Area . . . . . . . . . 205 Equipment Installation and Use . . . . . . 206 Progress to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Special Study of Part-Time Farming 211 Reason for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Progress and Results . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Beef Cattle Enterprise Study . . . . . . . . 212 Reason for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Progress and Results . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Economic Consequences of Alternative Farming Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Reason for Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Progress and Results . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Nitrate Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Reason for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Cooperating Departments and Agencies . . . 220 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Progress and Results . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Ground Water Fluctuations . . . . . . . . . . 223 Cooperating Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Progress and Results . . . . . . . . . . . 223 vii Chapter Cobalt Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Follow—Up Studies Under Consideration VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Future Research . . . . Implications for Teaching Programs . . . Implications for Extension Programs . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 224 224 226 226 232 233 234 234 237 Table II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLES Number of farms and farm operators by economic classes in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . Farming units in the Blackwater area of Missouri grouped by economic classes and by degree of ownership of operating units in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Size of operating units in average number acres owned and operated on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . Acreage distribution of major soil series and soil types in Blackwater and Lamine townships, Cooper County . . . . . . . Land use summary - soils of Blackwater area Trends in corn fertilization on economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in selected time periods . Computation of crop yield indexes and comparisons with the gross value of all crop production on different claSSes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computation of the gross value of crop production per farm and labor efficiency in crop production on different classes farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of Average cash receipts from different live- stock enterprises and the relative importance of each in different economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 85 9O 92 111 113 118 131 132 136 Table XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XVIII. Gross value of production from various livestock enterprises on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . Summary of different kinds of beef cattle production and the gross value of beef production on economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . Kind and size of beef cow herds in economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 and the average production in each class . . . . . . . . Summary of total pork production on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 and the gross value of pork production . . . Average size of sow and litter enterprises on different economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scale of purchased hog production — the number of farms on which purchased hogs were fed, the number fed and the total pounds of pork produced per farm by economic classes in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . Inventory of farm assets showing a classification of capital investments on economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri as of January 1, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial balance sheet showing assets, liabilities, and net worth for all commercial farms (86 farms) in the Blackwater area of Missouri as of January 1, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial statement — summary of farm assets, other resources, debts, and net worth by economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri as of January 1, 1960 . Page 138 142 143 145 147 148 152 156 Table XIX. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXVI. XXVII. Financial summary — computation of average farm and family earnings for various classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . Financial summary — computation of average total net family income and comparisons with the average cash available for family living for families in different economic classes in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . Financial summary — non-labor family income and its relationship to total net family income on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 Financial summary - computation of aggre- gate measures of efficiency for the average of economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . Average number of man days of labor from different sources on economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . Average values (costs) of labor and labor efficiency of economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Labor efficiency as shown by the average PMWU per man-equivalent on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . Financial management — types of rental and leasing arrangements on farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . Relationship of the average family living index to other factors for farm families in each economic class in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . xi Page 160 163 165 169 171 175 176 182 188 ..-—._.__._.. -— Table Page XXVIII. Relationship between the average leader— ship index and other factors for farm operators and wives in different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 XXIX. Comparisons between the average family living index and the availability of selected conveniences for family living on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . 191 xii Figure l. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Map of Blackwater area . . . . . . . . . . . . Farms in Blackwater area on which deep wells are located . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specimen aerial photo showing a small portion of the Blackwater area. Photo taken October 13, 1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population of Blackwater town . . . . . . . . Changes in number of farms in Blackwater and Lamine townships in Cooper County, Missouri. U. S. Census data . . . . . . . . . . . . Blackwater area farms on which one or more vacant farm houses were located in 1960 . . Vacant farm houses in Blackwater and Lamine townships, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri by economic classes, 1959 data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of commercial and other farms by ownership and operating arrangements in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of farms in Blackwater area according to major enterprises, 1959 . . . . . . . . . Percentage of commercial and other farms in different size operating units based on total acres operated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . Grouping of small farms, commercial and other farms under 160 acres in size, by size of operating units in total farm acres in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . xiii Page 54 66 68 79 8O 82 83 86 88 95 97 99 Figure Page 13. Percentage of commercial and other farms in different size operating units based on cropland acres operated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . 100 14. Commercial and other farms grouped according to total PMWU on crop and livestock production in the Blackwater area of MissOuri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 15. Small farms grouped according to total PMWU on crop and livestock production in 1959 in the Blackwater area of Missouri . . . . . 103 16. Blackwater area farms grouped according to value of total farm resources, 1959 data . . 105 17. Total value of farm assets per farm on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . 106 18. Types of land in Blackwater and Lamine townships of Cooper County, Missouri, based on 1959 soil survey . . . . . . . . . 110 19. Average number of acres with complete soil tests, per farm reporting, on major types of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods . . . . . 114 20. Average number of acres treated with rock phosphate, per farm reporting, on major types of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods . . . . . . . 116 21. Average number of acres limed, per farm reporting, on major types of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 22. Average number of acres terraced, per farm reporting, for major classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 23. Average number of acres contoured, per farm reporting, for major classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Figure 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Average acres of land operated per farm for different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . Total acres of cropland per farm and use of crop acres in 1959 on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri . . Acreage of grain crops in relation to farm and family earnings on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area oerissouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intensity of cropland use in relation to farm and family earnings on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The percentage of gross value of all livestock production accounted for on farms in each economic class in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in the number of units in major livestock enterprises on all farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average total value of farm assets and a classification of such by major types of investments on economic classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri as of January 1, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average total cash receipts and sources thereof on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . Average total PMWU required for crop and livestock production on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farm labor Charges per PMWU'in relation to the average PMWU per man-equivalent on different classes of farms in the Black— water area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . Page 125 126 127 129 137 140 153 158 173 178 Figure 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Page Examples of sheet and gully erosion on farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Location of the Burge branch hydrology study initiated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Physical features of the Burge branch watershed and the location of equipment for the hydrology study initiated in 1959 in the Blackwater area of Missouri . . 208 Water management plan including the Burge branch watershed used for the hydrology study initiated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Map of Blackwater area showing farms with different levels of nitrate (N03) concentration in deep wells, measured in parts per million (ppm), 1962 . . . . . . . 222 xvi . ._-_._ _ .__ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Situation This thesis is a descriptive analysis of the early stages of a long—range study of family farms and the adjust— ment problems which confront them in a dynamic economic setting. Nature of Over—A11 Adjustment Problems The manifold nature of over—all adjustment problems Within the farming sector of our expanding economy has been well documented in numerous writings. It is beyond the scope of this study to review them in detail. However, a brief resumé of the key elements in the situation will contribute to an understanding of the details of the study. The root of farm adjustment problems is an economic Paradox. Our economic welfare and progress as a nation hinge on growth and expansion in all sectors of the economy. These, in turn, are contingent upon improved efficiency and factor productivity in agriculture so labor and other resources can be freed for other lines of work and still Provide an abundance of food and fiber for expanding needs. 1 2 But, from the standpoint of the economic well-being of many individual farm families, success breeds failure. Some of the reasons for this contradiction are found in developments during the past few decades. Productivity in American agriculture in this generation has stirred the admiration and envy of the entire world. Total production of farm commodities has expanded at an unprecedented rate since 1950--a 27 per cent increasel-- despite a declining labor force. Output per worker has more than doubled with one farm worker now supplying 27 people. This achievement has been accompanied by a mass out-migration of people, accelerated during the upheavals of World war II, and an even greater reduction in man-hours of labor used in agricultural production. (Bonnen reports a migration from agriculture of 18,000,000 people since 1940 and a concomitant reduction of 9.5 billiOn in man-hours of labor).2 This withdrawal of labor resources has been accompanied by a sharp reduction in the number of farms--from 6.4 million in 1940 to 4.6 million in 1959, with only about 2 million of 1U. S., Department of Agriculture, Farm Production-- Trends, Prospects, and Programs, Agricultural Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 239 (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 1. 2J. T. Bonnen, "The Nation's Present and Future Supply of Farm Products." Adjustments in Agriculture-1A National Basebook (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961), pp. 130-131. 3 of those left classified as commercial farms.l These changes pose two important questions: (1) What are the causes of the increased productivity? And, (2) what are the consequences ' in terms of farm income and pressures for family farm adjustments? Accelerated adoption of new technologies is primarily responsible for the astounding increases in farm production. Total inputs have changed little in the past decade but Substitutions among the factors of production over an even longer time span are mostly output—increasing. Most spectacular among these shifts has been the substitution of capital for labor——particularly of power equipment for man- power and horse-power. Bonnen states that the number of tractors increased from one-fourth million in 1930 to 1.5 million in 1940 and to 4 3/4 million in 1960, while the number of horses and mules on farms dropped from a peak of 26 million to 3 million.2 This is in addition to the rapid increase in self—propelled combines, balers, corn-pickers,and other motorized equipment. Often overlooked is the tremendous increase in use of electrical power. In 1961, over 95 per cent of United States farms had access to electricity as compared to eleven per cent in 1935; and farmers now use over 22 billion kilowatt 1Ibid., p. 132. 2Ibid., p. 134. 4 hours in contrast to 1.7 billion in the earlier period.l Autos, trucks, milking machines, mechanized feeding equipment, and other innovations have further increased the output per hour of labor. Another significant shift in the factor mix has been substitution of fertilizer for cropland. As compared to 1950, the acreage of cropland used has declined by 10 per <:ent while the amount of fertilizer applied jumped over 70 Exer cent by 1961. Crop production per acre advanced almost 35 per cent during the same period.2 During this same time span, livestock production per breeding unit increased almost 30 per cent while the number Of breeding units declined slightly.3 These higher rates of pIKDduction are a reflection of improved technologies of many kinds. Another cause of the greater productivity, although a difficult one to measure, is the higher quality of manage— merrt and labor remaining in agriculture. It is presumed that the less efficient operators have moved out of agricul— ture and the more efficient and better equipped have remained. However, this varies greatly among regions and areas of the country. 1Ibid., p. 134. S., Department of Agriculture, 1962 Agricultural QEEkzgk Chart Book, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961),— p. 6. 3Ibid., Fig. 15, p. 7. ::Z:7______________________________________________________————————””’::§fiii:-—-"*~ 5 In total, this combined substitution of capital for labor has reduced the number engaged in farming to eight per cent of our labor force, a sharp contrast with the situation in Russia where 40 to 50 per cent of the labor supply is reported to be necessary for food production. Income—wise, farm families have not fared so well. :In the aggregate, the farmers' share of the nation's income cxontinues to dwindle. This portion of total personal income in.the United States dropped from 10 per cent in 1946 to four per cent in 1961. While gross farm income has increased during this period from 29.7 billion dollars to about 40 billion, net farm income has declined from 15.2 to 12.8 billion dollars.1 Even with the reduced number on farms, the income frcun farming per person remaining has improved little during tbs: lS—year period to 1959 and stood at $690 as compared to $2,1131 for the non—farm population. (Income per person in farndng from all sources amounted to $1,001 in 1959).2 This squeeze on farm earnings is a consequence of two major forces: depressed prices for farm products and rising costs of farming. Lower prices result from a continuing excess of farm production over demand for major PIOducts despite rapid growth in the domestic population and \ lIbid., Fig. 1, p. 2. 2E. O. Heady, ”Nature of the Farm Problem," Adjust— EEEE§ in Aqriculture—-A National Basebook, (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961), p. 56. 6 some expansion in foreign outlets in recent years. ‘While the domestic market for farm products has had support from high consumer purchasing power, the price and income elasticities of demand for farm commodities have forestalled much help from this source. Accumulated stocks of some commodities (especially wheat, cotton, and feed grains) further depress prices. The highly competitive nature of farming makes control over aggregate output and prices extremely difficult. Price rises which do occur are not all reflected in higher farm earnings as the farmer's share of the consumer's retail food dollar continues to grow smaller. In 1961, he received only 38 cents as compared with 49 cents just a decade earlier.1 For some commodities the "cut" taken out by marketing services is much higher than the 62 cents in the aggregate. On the cost side, the pressure on net earnings is even greater.. Production expenses take a growing share of gross farm income. They required almost 70 cents out of each dollar of gross income in 1959 as compared to 60 cents ten years earlier.2 Both price inflation and the increasing percentage of purchased inputs, as previously described, account for the increase. Investment in production assets has increased more than five-fold since 1940, adding to lUSDA, 1962 Agricultural Outlook Chartbook, Fig. 31, p. 12. 2U. S., Department of Agriculture, Agricultural. . Outlook Charts, 1961, (waShington: U. S. Government Pr1nt1ng Office, 1960), Table 10, p. 60. 7 annual fixed costs. According to Missouri family liVing records, cash outlays for family living have made comparable increases. Individual farm families alone cannot correct these general cost—price discrepancies. While they produce and sell under highly competitive conditions, they buy on markets characterized by monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. They can, of course, lower unit costs of production through greater volume and increased efficiency. Most of such adjustments, however, are output increasing and tend to be self-defeating over time. Several factors are responsible for the failure of farm production to adjust to market demand. The irreversible nature of the aggregate farm supply curve is explained theoretically by Johnson.1 The basic cause is the low opportunity cost for many of the resources used in farming. Many factors of production——such as land, machinery and equipment, buildings,and the operator's own labor in many cases——have few alternative uses. Hence, when such resources are once committed to farm production, they are kept in use even when prices decline sharply since losses are minimized over non-use. If variable costs are covered, any additional income will pay some return to fixed resources. Another cause of the increasing output despite lower Prices is the atomistic nature of competition in agriculture. lGlenn L. Johnson, "Supply Functions—-Some Facts and NOtions," Agricultural Adjustment Problems in a Growing gfigggmy (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College PEEoE, 1958» pp. 8 An individual operator often may lower his production costs per unit of output by adopting new technologies which, in total, are output—increasing and price-depressing. Thus, in the short—run, he finds it profitable in his own operation to make the changes, even though they contribute to the aggregate imbalance between supply and demand. Government programs and policies have done little in the past 30 years to correct the basic cause of the agricul— tural income problem--the over—commitment of resources in agricultural production. (Marketing orders and quotas and the land retirement features of the Soil Bank and similar programs are possible exceptions.) In fact, some economists contend that many of the governmental efforts have hampered rather than helped the needed adjustments. Missouri Agricultural Resources and Adjustment Problems Missouri farmers are not immune to the problems just described. In fact, they face more troublesome adjustments than those in many other areas for a number of reasons which Stem from the physical, economic, and social characteristics of the state and its people. These will be reviewed briefly for the benefit of the reader who is unacquainted with them and to formulate a background for the types of adjustments analyzed in this area study. Missouri is truly a border state. From east to west, it is located between the center of population and the geographic center of the United States and is almost 9 equidistant between Canada on the north and the Gulf of Mexico on the south. It is on the southern fringe of the cornbelt but extends into the cotton belt in the delta land area of southeast Missouri. It is bordered and bisected by two of our largest rivers, the Mississippi which forms the entire eastern boundary and the Missouri which bounds the western side of the northwest corner and divides the state from Kansas City on the west to its confluence with the Mississippi on the eastern side at St. Louis. Politically, as well as geographically, Missouri has long been considered "border land." Sentiments were sharply divided, even within families, during Civil War days and numerous battles were fought within its borders. Some of the intense feelings of this era culminated in the exploits of Jesse James, the Dalton Gang, John Brown, Quantrell's raiders, and other “notable" characters. In earlier days, St. Louis served as a "gateway" to the west for explorers, adventurers, and pioneers. Kansas City later became the major terminal for the Santa Fe Trail and grew into one of the foremost cattle markets of the country. Farther north, St. Joseph gained renown as the starting point for the famed Pony Express Riders and likewise grew into a major livestock marketing center. The early day convergence of people of many nationalities, backgrounds, and beliefs in the St. Louis area, prior to moving up the major rivers and their tributaries, led to a heterogeneity and independence within 10 early settlements which persist and may explain some of the unpredictable responses to political issues. Physical Resources The natural resources1 of the state and their use have had an important bearing on types and systems of farming and on the capacity of farm families to adjust to changing conditions. These include soils, water,and climate. Missouri's soil resources vary widely in physical properties, fertility, and management practices needed to make their use profitable. They are derived from four basic materials: bed rock, glacial till, loess,and alluvium. In the northern half of the state (primarily above the Missouri river), glacial till, consisting of clay inter-mixed with sand and gravel, is the parent soil material but in many localities is over-laid with a mantel of loess. This wind blown cover attains depths of 50 to 75 feet in the northwest along the Missouri river and gradually fades out toward the east side of the state, except for areas along the river bluffs. The Ozark region is characterized by stony and gravelly soils of low fertility, largely due to the cherty limestone and dolomite materials from which they were formed. The prairie soils of southwest Missouri originated largely 1The following publication is the source of much of this general resource data: James E. Collier, Agricultural Atlas 9; Missouri, University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulkfiin 645 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1955). 11 from shales and are noted for their claypan and hardpan subsoil layers Which limit their productivity for some crop uses. Bands of alluvial soils border the major streams and tributaries which permeate the rolling to hilly upland areas of the state. These productive soils vary from narrow strips and patches along some of the Ozark streams to the wide flood plains of the Mississippi, Missouri, Grand, Chariton, Osagepand other large streams. In the southeastern delta area, several counties lie entirely within the wide flood plain formed by the Mississippi, St. Francis and Little River drainage systems. water is one of.Missouri's most valuable natural resources. An abundance of surface water is available most of the time for domestic and industrial uses. Approximately 11,500 miles of permanently flowing streams serve many needs and over 1,000 miles of navigable waterways either border or flow through the state. A unique water resource isl represented by more than 1,000 large springs throughout the Ozark region, 98 of which have daily flows of more than a million gallons each. Many thousands of deep farm ponds1 and several large man-made reservoirs further enhance the ‘water resources. These latter include the Lake of the Ozarks, 1During the period 1936 to 1960, Missouri farmers constructed 184,087 deep farm ponds according to government and.Missouri College of Agriculture specifications. Data from: U. S., Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service, Agricultural Conservation Programs: Summary by,States 1960 (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961), Table 3, p. 65. 12 with over 1,300 miles of shore line, Wappapello, Table Rock, Bull Shoals, and other smaller reservoirs. The new Kaysinger Bluff reservoir, now in the planning stage, will be up—stream from the Lake of the Ozarks on the Osage river and will be twice as large. Ground water supplies vary widely in depth, quality, and quantity. In many of the alluvial valleys the supply is abundant for irrigation at shallow depths, often less than 100 feet. In most other areas, supplies are adequate at reasonable depths for domestic use but, in a few areas, the water is too highly mineralized for most uses. Missouri's climate is favorable for most kinds of agricultural production. Average annual rainfall varies from 34 inches in the northwest to 50 inches in the southeast. One-half to two-thirds of this rainfall, however, occurs during the spring and summer months When land is most susceptible to erosion. Spring and summer rains often are torrential, causing severe erosion losses on unprotected upland soils Which are intensively cropped. The average frost-free period varies from 178 days in the north to 220 or more days in the southeast lowlands, allowing a relatively long growing season. Average daily maximum temperatures exceed 90 degrees during July and early August over most of the state While midwinter low temperatures on the average vary from 16 degrees in the north to 28 degrees in the southeast. Much lower temperatures are not uncommon and abrupt changes often occur. From a management viewPoint, IIIIIIIIIIIIII[::T______________________________________________"_"”_“_"77i::77~ l3 Missouri's winter climate retards development of many disease and parasite problems which trouble southern farmers and, at the same time, is more favorable for winter handling of livestock than in states farther north. Economic Problems Low income is the major economic problem of Missouri farm families. Census data for 1959 reveal the widespread nature of this "dollar shortage” for current needs. Almost 73 per cent of Missouri fanns (106,685) met the census definitional requirements for commercial farms in 1959.1 But of this number, only 25 per cent produced gross sales above $10,000, an amount usually considered an acceptable minimum to meet the needs of an average farm family under present price-cost relationships.2 This leaves 75 per cent of the fann families in the state with "inadequate" income by this standard. Even more serious is the fact that over 46 per cent (49,236) of these commercial farm families realized gross sales of less than $5,000 in 1959. Added to this number of very low income commercial family farms is another 39,571 (27 per cent of the total farms in the state) classified as "other" fanns, largely part—time and part— retirement units which, by census definition, have less than 1Chapter II includes a detailed explanation of census definitions of economic classifications of farms. 2H. L. Stewart, "Changes in Farms and Farming," talk at the 39th Annual Agricultural Outlook Conference, washington, D. C., November 16, 1961, p. 10. 14 $2,500 gross farm sales. Most of these families, however, had non-farm income to supplement farm earnings. Particularly notable in the 1959 census data is the differential impact of changing economic conditions in different areas of the state and on different types of farming. As one might expect, the meager land resources in the Ozark section seriously restrict farm earnings. Another area in which low farm.income prevails, and one similar in many respects to the Blackwater area used in this study, is the north central section where beef cattle and grassland farming systems are traditional and predominant. A special study recently initiated in that part of the state includes a six-county area (Harrison, Mercer, Putnam, Davies, Grundy,and Sullivan counties) which seems to typify problems of a larger area in that section. A summary of 1959 census data for these six counties shows that 77 per cent of the farms were classified as commercial farms but only 19 per cent had gross sales above $10,000. The 81 per cent with gross sales of less than $10,000 included 49 per cent (an average of 540 farm families per county) with gross sales under $5,000. In Putnam County, 87 per cent of the commercial farm families realized gross sales of less than $10,000 and for 61 per cent gross sales dropped below $5,000. The financial stress experienced.by Missouri farm families stems from a number of deep-seated problems. Many of the difficulties can be traced to inadequate resources, an imbalance among factors of production,and inefficiencies 15 in both production and marketing. These, in turn, are closely akin to deficiencies in management, in making both organizational and operational decisions. For the average family farm in Missouri, land resources are inadequate for supporting the higher Cash costs of farming and family living with prevailing farming systems. While average farm size, acre-wise, has increased rapidly during the past two decades (from 136 acres in 1939 to 197 acres in 1959), the enlargement has failed to keep pace with developing technologies and growing cash demands. Actual cropland, over which the fixed costs from mounting investments in machinery and equipment can be spread, is scarcely more than a third of total farm acres (36.2 per cent in 1939 and 36.7 per cent in 1959), averaging about 49 acres per farm in 1939 and 72 acres in 1959. Low quality of available cropland also is a limiting factor on many farms, because of either low inherent productivity or soil depletion through erosion and other mismanagement. Capital assets, other than land, also are insuf— ficient on many farms to permit the volume of output necessary to meet present day needs for income. Under—employment of labor in relation to other factors appears to be one of the most serious problems of iMbalance in resource use. Many families lack sufficient land and other capital resources to utilize labor fully and effeCtively. Investment capital often is either unavailable 16 or unused for the land improvements necessary for reclama- tion and higher levels of productivity. Capital sometimes is lacking for machinery, equipment,and other items necessary for productive employment of labor. In other cases, perhaps more numerous in recent years, an over-investment in these items "frees" labor for no productive alternative use, leaving a residue of high fixed costs with little improvement in earning capacity. Perhaps inadept management contributes most to imbalance in resource use. A large percentage of family farm operators lack the training and experience to analyze the economic potential of alternative resource combinations and to make the adjustments that would meet changes in conditions effectively. From an organizational viewPoint, many farmers cling to the highly diversified "general farming" systems of an earlier generation. Numerous small- scale enterprises allow for neither the volume nor efficiencies demanded by present-day farm operations. Another serious problem relates to the adjustment of production programs to meSh more closely with existing and potential market outlets. .Market structures often change and many farm families find it difficult and disagreeable to adjust to them. Perhaps they should not in many cases. In one county within an hour's drive of the university, many poultry producers have expanded broiler and turkey enterprises greatly in the last few years in cooperation with integrators, largely feed companies and hatcherymen. 17 Others attempted to expand on their own initiative and were forced out of business by industry—wide expansion which depressed prices below the variable costs of production. Integrators, and their producers, were able to survive for a time because of profits in other segments of the integrated operation. However, within the past two or three years, some of them are approaching insolvency. Despite such experiences, successful farm operators must be alert to changing market demands and opportunities and must maintain sufficient flexibility to permit adjustments to them. Social Adjustments Changing technology and economic conditions during the past three decades have revolutionized the living of Missouri farm families and the nature of the institutions which serve them. Thirty years ago, farm families were united in rather closely knit family groups and neighborhoods centered around the one-room rural school and the country church. Small towns and villages served as community centers for these groups. Changes in the past three decades have transformed these patterns of rural organization. Foremost among them have been improvements in roads, motorized travel, electrical power, consolidated schools, and new technologies which permit greater output of agricultural products per farm worker. The farm labor force became more mobile because of the experiences of World War II. Combinations of these changes have caused rapid and profound adjustments in rural living. Homes have been l8 modernized through use of electrical power, pressure water systems, sewage disposaliand automatic heating systems. The one-room rural schools have been absorbed within larger consolidated districts creating new educational and social centers. Many rural churches also have been abandoned through consolidation into Larger congregations in nearby towns and villages. Good roads and fast transportation have opened new horizons for recreational pursuits beyond the home and neighborhood. These conditions have generated a trend away from the close family and neighborhood ties of earlier days. Improved living standards associated with these changes are not available equally to all farm families. The cost usually is high in tenms of cash requirements. For an average family or four persons, the annual caSh outlay for family living often is five times higher now than it was twenty years ago. Living cost records from Missouri farm families in recent years show an average annual requirement of $2,500.00, or more, per family of four. Many families lack the farm earnings required to meet these expenditures. Economic pressures created by the never-ending struggle to attain higher living standards seem to influence greatly the ability of many.Missouri farm families to make satisfactory adjustments to changing conditions. Some use limited caSh resources for family living improvements When sorely needed for up-dating the farming system. Some eXhaust their credit potential for consumptive rather than productive l9 purposes. Others overexpand farming operations through the use of credit and are unable to meet the higher costs of farm operations and family living. Many seek off-farm employment to alleviate the income shortage but fail to adjust farming operations to the restricted labor and management inputs. In summary, one might observe that most farm families face perplexing adjustment problems because of the scope and rapidity of technologic, economic, and sociologic change. Many of these problems seem especially troublesome to Missouri farm families because of unique problems in farm size, quality of resources, soil erosion losses, traditional farming patterns, off-farm employment opportunities, institutional rigidities, and many other influences. The Missouri College of Agriculture and Farm Adjustments The Missouri College of Agriculture, through its research, teaching, and extension activities, has influenced agricultural deve10pment in the state for many decades. It has played a prominent role in developing new crop varieties; new soil treatments; improved breeding and feeding practices; more effective controls for diseases, weeds, and parasites; and many other new technologies. It has been less successful in helping farm families adapt these new methods and technologies to profitable farming systems. Even so, its comprehensive extension program in Balanced Farming for more 20 than 20 years has set a unique pattern for extending the research findings and teachings of the college to Missouri farms in an effective manner. Interest in agricultural adjustments generated through the Balanced Farming program is largely responsible for this special study. A brief review of the development of the College of Agriculture and its programs will help explain the purpose and scope of this study. A detailed historical review is unnecessary since its establishment and growth has followed the usual pattern of Land Grant institutions throughout this country. Primary attention will be given to the unique situations and developments which bear directly on this research. From the viewPoint of assisting farm families in adjusting to changing conditions, both helpful and hindering influences may be found among the administrative policies, programs, and activities of the college throughout its long history. Early administration of the college (under the direction of four deans from 1872 to 1909) was characterized by much strife and turmoil. The College of Agriculture was caught in a cross-fire of criticism from other branches of the university and from farmers Whose interests it was designed to serve. However, the wisdom these administrators and the dedication of the staff they assembled established a solid foundation and administrative pattern for future growth. 21 Administrative policy from 1909 to 1938 was noted for stability and strong departmental development. Under the vigorous administration of Dean Mumford during this entire period, departmental patterns were firmly established and fiece competition, rather than cooperation, was the guiding force. This policy is indicated by the following quotation from Dr. W. C. Etheridge: The effect of this administrative plan was to spur the departments to healthy competition, in which each group was striving to excel the others in exploring and developing strictly its own field, so that growth of the whole Eollege was a summation of increase by its unit members. This policy of competition and long department chairmen tenure led to strong departmental loyalties and notable achievements in many areas of research. Perhaps such incentives and accomplishments were justified in building the prestige of an institution. At the same time, however, they created barriers to cooperative efforts among departments which have been difficult to surmount. Succeeding Deans M. F. Miller, E. A. TroWbridge, and J. H. Longwell provided administrative leadership during the next 22 years to 1960. These years included the disruptions of World War II and post-war adjustments. It was a period of unprecedented development of new technologies 1W. C. Etheridge, "Impulse and Design for Progress, Historyigf.§h§.Missouri College‘g£,Agrigulture, by F. B. Mumford, University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin 483 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1944), p. 142. 22 which influenced the research program greatly. While this program included both basic and applied research, the latter was largely practice centered as one might expect with strong autonomous departmental programs. New discoveries in livestock breeding, feeding, and housing; in soils and crop management; in mechanization; and in other technologies had tremendous impact on productivity and efficiency in agriculture as an industry. However, it was largely left to the sagacity of each individual farm operator to determine the workability of these innovations and to evaluate the economic consequences of their application on his own farm. Early in this period of rapid change, a new and unique program was initiated by the Agricultural Extension Service of the College of Agriculture. After 1941, this program gained state-wide and national prominence under the name of Balanced Farming. The key feature of the program was the whole farm and family unit approach to solving the problems of more effective farm organization and adjustment to changing economic conditions. Its focal point was development of long—range plans for both the farm and the home to determine how available resources could be used best to achieve family goals. A systematic step-by-step procedure was developed for guiding farm families in planning and carrying out Balanced Farming systems which would give higher returns from the use of all resources. A.brief outline of this ten-step procedure will indicate the sc0pe and meaning of Balanced Farming as it has developed on 23 thousands of Missouri farms: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Appraise the resources available—-make a complete inventory of all assets, liabilities and net worth; Establish family goals-~determine what the family would like most to achieve over a period of years; Identify problems--clarify the obstacles to attainment of the goals established; Analyze alternatives--compare the economic consequences of different systems or courses of action; Choose a long-range plan to guide future developments; Carry out the chosen plan, using records and annual budgets to guide year-to-year adjustments; Assume responsibility for consequences of the action taken; Evaluate progress--analyze records and budget new alternatives to keep up-to-date with changing conditions; Control costs and investments to avoid financial difficulties; and Adjust plans to keep abreast of new technologies Which might improve productivity and earnings .from the resources at hand. 24 It is interesting to note that this procedure harmonizes closely with basic principles in decision—making developed by Dr. Glenn L. Johnson and others through independent research during the same time period.1 It is readily obvious that a wide range of subject matter information is essential, both in planning Balanced Farming systems and in developing and modifying them through succeeding years. It became apparent at the outset of the state—wide program that wholehearted; vigorous cooperation among administrators and specialists from all subject matter departments of the College would be necessary. This cooperative effort was difficult to achieve in the beginning. Departmental rigidities and rivalries, previously mentioned, were firmly entrenched. However, after many training schools, workshops, demonstrations, field days, and personal efforts, these problems were largely overcome and the program was greatly accelerated. According to an old adage, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." This was exemplified in Balanced Farming when records from many cooperating families began to show . . . . . 2 Spectacular improvement 1n farm earnlngs and family 11v1ng. lGlenn L. Johnson and Cecil B. Haver, Decision-Making Principles in Farm Management, Kentucky Agricultural EXperiment Station Bulletin No. 593 (Lexington: 1953), p. 8. . 2These observations are based on records from . 1ndividual case study farms with production and financ1al reCords up to 15 years in some cases. 25 The cumulative economic effects of applying many sound practices to well-organized farming systems far exceeded expectations. Balanced Farming units truly became "show windows" for the recommendations of the College of Agriculture. Specialists in all departments came to realize that the adoption of recommended practices would pyramid, if their economic desirability were first proven. This brief resume of the development of a unique extension program has been presented to highlight two opposing forces in our Land Grant Colleges. Almost from the beginning, one group has been striving for departmental autonomy and pre-eminence; the other has been clamoring for cooperation and united effort. As previously indicated, administrative policy of the Missouri College of Agriculture seemed to favor the former through many decades. However, even through these periods, sporadic attempts at cooperative activity were momentarily successful and some played an important role in laying the foundations for the Balanced Farming program. Some early day activities of the Missouri College of Agriculture involved cooperative action which did much to gain recognition and prestige for the institution.1 Some lThese activites are reviewed in the following publication from which specific data were taken: M. F. Miller, Missouri College 9; Agriculture Through g Half Century in Retrospect, University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 769 (Columbia, 1961). 26 predated the establishment of the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service. Among the first and most enduring was the Farmers' Institutesl established by the State Board of Agriculture in 1883 and continued for fifty years until 1933. These were one and two day county-wide meetings with lecturers provided by the State Board and various departments of the College of Agriculture. Agricultural trains,2 sponsored by railroads serving the state, were started about 1910 and continued for several years. These, too, included lectures by resident staff members of the college in different subject exchange ideas. The novelty of these excursions attracted thousands of farmers who, for the first time in many cases, became aware of the College of Agriculture and members of the staff. The eXhibits and illustrated lectures were forerunners of organized extension work and helped kindle the spark of enthusiasm for early day extension leaders. Another innovation in 1910 was Farmers' week meetings3 Which continued, with some variation, for over 25 years. These four or five day schools were held in mid-winter with as many as 3,500 farmers and their wives in attendance. While each department ran its own show and vied for the attention of those in attendance, staff members had lIbig., p. 11. 21bid., p. 12. 3110s.. p. 13. 27 opportunities for cooperative effort, particularly in arranging for the Farmers' Banquet held in Rothwell Gymnasium each year. Prime roast beef from the college herd was always served and was cooked by faculty wives in their home ovens. Fine food, entertainment, and a prominent speaker made these memorable events for the farm families Who always were guests of the College and State Board of Agriculture. Another activity Which gained state-wide prominence in the early years was the Corn Shows1 sponsored by the Missouri Corn Growers Association, established in 1903. The keen competition in these shows attracted widespread attention and afforded the judges and speakers an opportunity to gain much needed rapport with Missouri farmers. One of the prominent judges, later known as the "corn man" of Missouri, was Sam Jordan Who became an outstanding lecturer for the State Board of Agriculture and was one of the first two county agents in Missouri. The pre-extension activity most closely akin to Balanced Farming was initiated about 1910 by Professor D. Howard Doane Who was head of the first Department of Farm Management, established in Missouri about 1910. For two or three years prior to this date, Mr. Doane had farm accounting and planning cooperators scattered throughout the state. During the summer months, he conducted farm management lIbid., p. 14. 28 demonstrations on the farms of selected cooperators. These all—day affairs included a basket dinner at the noon hour with as many as 1,000 men, women, and children in attendance. An analysis of the cooperator's records was presented along with suggestions for farm re—organization. These all—day meetings were continued for some time by the department's first farm management extension specialist, Mr. D. C. Wood, who started his work in 1915. Mr. Doane also developed another program closely related in many ways to the Balanced Farming Associations of recent years. He established a selected group of farm Inanagement cooperators——as many as 300 at one time--each of Vvhom sent in a monthly management report. From these results, :suggestions were developed for changes in organization and <>peration on the farms of cooperators. Disruptions during World War I and the adjustment 19eriod which followed caused a lapse in most of the farm I>lanning activities. During the 1930's, however, a more aggressive program in farm planning was revived under the leadership of Don Ibach who was employed as farm management specialist. The new program, called Replanning Missouri Farms, included farm planning demonstrations, summer meetings on demonstrators' farms, and, later, farm planning schools in a.few counties during the winter months. This farm planning work involved cooperation among sPecialists from several subject matter departments in ¥ ,7 7 W ___._4 29 developing the basic data and, in some cases, in conducting the summer field meetings and winter schools. Some specialists were resentful, however, and apparently felt they Should not be wasting their time helping with another gperson's project. These feelings were intensified in succeeding years and, no doubt, influenced discontinuance <3f the program in 1938 when Mr. Ibach moved on to other - employment. But the seeds were sown. Some of the «operators of demonstration farms continued the work without Inuch supervision and formed a valuable nucleus on which to louild when the idea was revived as Balanced Farming in 1941. In summary, the Missouri College of Agriculture, ILike most state Land Grant Institutions, has played a Extominent role in developing the agricultural resources of tflae nation to a level unexcelled anywhere else in the MKDrld. The spectacular achievements of many Balanced Ffiarming families highlight the economic potential of current, Euad accumulated, research findings of the institution when Euaplied in well—organized farming systems. Momentous aIzcomplishments already have been made in adjusting our aSiriculture to the fast moving changes of the past two decades. It is easy, however, for a well—established insti- 'ttrtion to rest on its laurels and fail to keep abreast of tllea real problems and needs of its people in periods of rapid 30 transition. This possibility has stimulated many disturbing questions in the minds of the project leader for this study and other administrative and departmental staff members for several years: Do we maintain a true picture of what is happening on all kinds of farms throughout Missouri as conditions change? Is our present research, both basic and applied, geared to the current and most pressing problems confronting Missouri farm families? How do our projections for future research synchronize with key trends in farming and family living? Do our teaching programs, both on and off campus, concentrate on principles and reasoning processes or on memorization of facts that are soon outmoded? Are our extension programs oriented to all kinds of farms and farm families or do the striking achievements of the relatively few, who are most aggressive and able, blind us to the real problems and needs of the greater numbers who are less fortunate and articulate? Purpose and Objectives o_f Study A felt need for answers to questions such as those Previously noted was the motivating force back of this study 0f family farm adjustments. The basic idea was selection Of a small, off—campus laboratory area where all the farm and family units could be studied, both individually and Collectively. For many years, individual farm families have a~‘51justed successfully to changing conditions by following 31 the step-by-step procedure previously outlined. (See page 23-24 and associated footnote). The real purpose of this study was to apply similar principles and procedures to the laboratory area as a Whole and to special homogeneous groups within the area. Another major purpose was to focus primary attention on problems and their solution rather than subject matter disciplines. The work has been guided by the following specific objectives: 1) To determine, for a base year, the kinds of family farm units existing in the laboratory area; 2) To ascertain the resources available in the area, in total and for different kinds of farm units, the use of such resources and the economic consequences of such use in the base period; 3) To identify special adjustment problems which confront farm families with different kinds of Operations and under different circumstances; 4) To determine the economic consequences of alternative adjustments on case-study farm units, typical of the larger groups previously established; and, over time, to identify the obstacles encountered in making the adjustments planned; 5) To develop follow—up research projects, both basic and applied, appropriate to seeking 32 solutions to the problems revealed in other phases of the study; - 6) To orient the extension program in the county i and the study area to the problems and needs of the different kinds of farms and farm families revealed by the initial survey; and 7) To measure, over time, the changes which actually occur in the area by making periodic ) comparisons with bench—mark data. This thesis will cover work completed for the first three objectives and will include a progress report on activities related to objectives (4), (5) and (6). CHAPTER II DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS Before explaining the method and procedure used in this study, certain terms and concepts which influence the classification and analysis of data will be defined and clarified. This procedure is particularly important for interpretations whidh vary with the passing of time. Much of the definitional framework relative to farms and their characteristics was patterned after that of the 1959 Census of Agriculture. However, some modifications were made to permit a more realistic analysis and presenta— tation of data. Census definitions and variations from them for this study are explained in this chapter, along with a review of the historical development of the "family farm“ concept. 5 The census definition of a farm was based primarily on a combination of "acres in the place" and the estimated 1 Value of agricultural products sold. The word "place" was lU.S., Bureau of the Census,.Q5§. Census pf ASEEEELEE£§= 1959, Vol. I, Counties, Part 11.Missouri (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961), p. le, Cited hereafter as Census of Agriculture, 1959. 33 34 defined to include all land on which agricultural operations1 were conducted at any time in 1959 under the control or supervision of one person or partnership. Control may have been exercised through ownership or management, or through a lease, rental or cropping arrangement. Restrictions on the classification of "places" as farms are given in the following quotation: Places of less than 10 acres in 1959 were counted as farms if the estimated sales of agricultural products for the year amounted to at least $250. Places of 10 or more acres in 1959 were counted as farms if the estimated sales of agricultural products for the year amounted to at least $50. Places having less than the $50 or $250 minimum estimated sales in 1959 were also counted as farms if they could normally be expected to , produce agricultural products in sufficient quantity 5 to meet the requirements of the definition.2 3 The 1959 census definition of a farm is more realistic than that employed in 1950 and 1954 when "places Of three or more acres were counted as farms if the annual value of agricultural products, whether for home use or for sale but exclusive of home-garden products, amounted to $150 1Ibid., p. x. Agricultural operations were considered to exist on a place if, at any time in l959——"(a) Any livestock (hogs, cattle, sheep, goats, horses, or mules) were kept on the place. (b) A combined total of 20 or more Chickens, turkeys, and ducks were kept on the place. (c) Any grain, hay, tobacco, or other field crops were grown on the place. (d) A combined total of 20 or more fruit trees, grape vines, and nut trees were on the place. (8) Any VeQEtables, berries or nursery or greenhouse products were grown on the place for sale." 2Ibid., p. xiv. -: m- 35 or more. Places of less than 3 acres were counted as farms only if the annual sales of agricultural products amounted to $150 or more."1 The 1959 definition was used in this study. Farm Unit A farm unit is equivalent to the census term "acres in the farm" determined by adding total acres owned and total acres "rented in“ by an operator and then subtracting the total acres "rented out" by that operator. The remainder constitutes the number of acres in the farm or the "farm unit." In this study, only the acres operated within the two-township area were considered if only a part of the farm unit was in the area and if the headquarters was outside of the area. If either the majority of the acres in the farm or the headquarters was within the area, the total unit was included. Farm Operator The 1959 census defines a farm operator as follows: The term “farm operator" is used to designate a person who operates a farm, either doing the work himself or directly supervising the work. He may be an owner, a member of the owner's household, a hired manager, or a tenant, renter, or share cropper. If he rents land to Others or has land worked on shares by others, he is considered as operator only of the land which he retains for his own operation. In the case of a partnership, Only one partner is counted as an operator. The number 0f farm operators is considered to be the same as the X 1Ibid., p. xv. 36 number of farms.1 In this adjustment study, the term "farm operator” includes either men or women. It may include both in case of a partnership. It does pg: include either share croppers or hired managers since they do not perform some of the usual managerial and entrepreneurial functions. In the case of partnerships, the study definition differs from that of the census because, in most of the area partnerships, both members contributed their labor, capital, and management and shared in the farm's profit or loss on a pre—arranged basis. Each partner was considered to be an operator in his own right and was so counted. Because of these differences, the number of farm operators does not equal the number of farms in this study. The Family Farm Since the entire study is centered on family farms and the adjustment problems peculiar to them, it is important that the term, as herein used, be clearly defined. A better perspective of the concept can be gained from a brief review of its development over time. Historical Development Few concepts are more widely and more loosely used, than the term "family farm." Agricultural educators, 1Ibid., p. xv. .—_" 37 researchers, editors and policy makers use the term almost daily. Politicians often feel compelled by expediency to uphold and defend it. Farm organization leaders decry the economic and political policies which, they feel, will undermine and jeopardize its existence. Orators sometimes refer to it as the "bulwark of democracy" which should be perpetuated at all costs. Despite all the concern, few trouble themselves to define and understand the "creature" so ardently defended. One might paraphrase a famous Missourian's remark about the weather—-"Everyone talks about the family farm but no one defines it." Actually, this is not wholly true as many attempts have been made, though the results have been widely divergent. In pioneer days, the family farm concept seemed to be synonymous with the small self—sufficient, subsistence unit which prevailed. Farming and family living were closely interwoven. In the early Jeffersonian concept, the family farm was a small unit and was exemplified by the 160- acre limit in the early Homestead Act. This was the beginning of a scale limitation on family farm size in terms Of acres. With rapid commercialization in recent decades, IIgross sales" have been used as a measure of farm size and the Census Bureau has divided farms into "economic classes" on this basis. Various attempts have been made to identify family farms, as distinct from other units, by grouping cenSus economic classes. firm. ‘7‘“... r' 38 Benedict suggested an income criterion which would place the family farm in an income range between $600 and $10,000 per year (gross farm income adjusted to 1959 prices).1 Bachman and Jones likewise used farm income to separate the census economic classes into "large-scale farms," "commercial-family farms," "small-scale farms," and "other units".2 In their analysis, the capital investment in land and buildings was weighed with the value of products in making final determinations of class groupings. At the International Tenure Conference in 1946, an eleven-man committee on family farm policies gave a more re- fined interpretation of the family farm as follows: Our definition of a Family Farm consists of the following characteristics: 1) The entrepreneurial functions vested in the farm family. 2) The human effort required to operate the farm provided by the farm family with the addition of such supplementary labor as may be necessary, either for seasonal peak loads or during the developmental and transitional stages in the family itself. (The amount of such regular outside labor should not provide a total labor force in excess of that to be found in the family of "normal“ size in the community.) 3) A farm large enough, in terms of land, capital, modern technology and other resources to employ the labor resources of the farm family ;M. R. Benedict, g; al., "Need for a New Classifica- tion of Farms," Journal 2; Farm Economics, (Vol. XXVI, November, 1944), pp. 694-708. 2Kenneth L. Bachman and Ronald W. Jones, Sizes 9; Farms ip Egg Epited States, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1019 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1950), p. 54. 39 efficiently. (The labor resources of a family farm are deemed to be employed efficiently when the rewards for their efforts are equal to rewards for comparable human efforts in other occupations. Rewards in this context are in real terms in contrast to monetary rewards and include the value that members of the farm family place on leisure, working close to nature, 'independence' and other non—monetary values ascribed by them to farming. This definition brings in management as a factor along with income and labor. While more sophisticated and comprehensive on the one hand, the concept here expressed becomes more subjective and immeasurable on the other. In 1957, J. V. McElveen, in his analysis of family farms, formulated the "family—scale" concept to coincide with the economic classifications of the 1954 census. "As an average for the United States, it is believed that $2,500 to $25,000 gross sales in 1954 are fairly realistic limits for approximating what might be thought of as a family—size farm.” Farms with over $25,000 annual gross sales were considered to be "larger—than-family—farms" or ”large—scale— farms" while farms with gross farm sales between $250 and $2,500 were classified as "smaller—than-family-farms." This lJoseph Ackerman and Marshall Harris (ed.), Family Farm Policy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947), p- 389. 2Jackson V. McElveen, Family Farms ip 3 Changing Economy, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 171 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1947), p. 49. 40 classification has been accepted by many researchers and policymakers in recent years but a growing number do not believe it is realistic, in modern agriculture, to place such limitations on the scale of the family farm. Motheral commented on the shortcomings of such definitional restrictions as follows: Most of the turmoil over the family farm concerns a problem of measurement rather than substantial meaning. This misplaced emphasis upon precise measurement has been aggravated by reliance upon, and widespread misuse of, data from the U. S. Censuses of Agriculture. Too often the careless use of census data has led to the conclusion that the family farm is in process of destruction, either from the growing concentration of holdings in a few hands or from the parcellation of farms into units of exceedingly small size, or both. Brewster and Wunderlich2 conclude that "a perfect definition of the family farm is not possible." Nevertheless, they go on to define the family farm as "any farm on which most of the labor and managerial activities are carried out by the same individual or family.” In their discussion, they point out that the family farm involves close associa- tion of the household and the farm business, but the farm need not be the place of residence. They conclude that classification as family farms does not rest on ownership 1Joe R. Motheral, "The Family Farm and the Three Traditions," Journal pf Farm Economics, (Vol. XXXIII, November, 1951), p. 526. 2John M. Brewster and Gene wunderlich, "Farm Size, Capital, and Tenure Requirements," Adjustments ip Agriculture—- A National Basebook, ed. Carlton F. Christian (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961), Chapter 8, p. 198. 41 of capital resources but upon the family's possession of managerial power to direct farm operations. Thus, any form of tenure arrangement may be in harmony with their definition so long as managerial power is retained. They still, however, place upper and lower limits on the size of family farms as indicated in the following quote: The upper size limit of family farms is considered here as the amount of land and other resources Whose labor requirements are approximately three man-years. The labor force of an ordinary farm family is approxi- mately 1.5 man—years. The lower size limit of any self-supporting family farm is the smallest amount of land and other resources needed to support farm operating and family living expenses from farm earnings. The mates and bounds of these various definitions would have excluded almost one-half of the farms in the Blackwater area from consideration. Since the objective of the study is to determine the nature of adjustment problems confronting family farm units, regardless of how adequate they may be, these restrictions were not acceptable. Study Definition In simple terms, it was decided for this study that a family farm is any farm unit run by the farm operator and his family. Since this is not sufficiently explicit for classification and analysis of farm units, the family farm concept was examined to determine those characteristics 1Ibid., p. 203. 42 xnhich have endured over time-~despite depression, inflation, zautomation, and other technologic, sociologic, and economic (Shanges. Four distinct characteristics seem to have :survived through all these changes: 1) The management (primary decision-making) must be vested in the farm operator zand his family; 2) the farm operator and his family must areside on the farm unit (or near enough to permit convenient eunployment of family labor); 3) the farm operator and his family must supply at least a part of the farm labor; and ‘4) the farm operator and family glgpg must bear financial :reSponsibility for the farm operation and receive the benefits which accrue therefrom. Therefore, the main consideration in identifying family farms was based upon these "durable" characteristics, .retained through the years and embodied in the "whole-farm, ‘Whole—family" concept. Census takers, professional farm managers, extension workers and others recognize this fact Whedl'they classify farm families among the self-employed. This concept was well expressed by Carl Malone: Farm families play two related roles-~they are both the managers and the workers. They employ themselves Tbut not for a fixed wage. As to earnings, they must accept whatever they get in income from the operation of the farm business. . . . Truly, a farm family is a l self—employed and self-directed social and economic unit. 1Carl C. Malone and Lucille H. Malone, Decision-Making .QEQ Management for Farm and Home (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State COllege Press, 1958), p. 4. 43 In this study, as long as the "place" qualified as a farm and met the four durable characteristics, the farm unit was classified as a family farm. These qualifications :place neither a ceiling nor a floor on the scale of a family farm with respect to acres, income (gross or net), labor employed, or investment. They do not exclude subsistence, Eaart—time or part—retirement farms as did most of the Ioreceding definitions. The qualifications do, however, eliminate most integrated units, share-cropper units, Eprofessionally managed farms, and "hobby and investment farms." Economic Claqqi Float-ion: Commercial Farms The 1959 census divided commercial farms into six economic classes, on the basis of the total value of all farm products sold, as follows: Class of Farm Value of Farm Products Sold Class I $40,000 and over Class II $20,000 to $39,999 Class III $10,000 to $19,999 Class IV $ 5,000 to $ 9,999 Class V $ 2,500 to $ 4,999 Class VIa _ $ 50 to $ 2,499 aProvided the farm operator was under 65 years of age, and—-(l) he did not work off the farm 100 or more days, and (2) the income that he and members of his household received from nonfarm sources was less than the total value of farm products sold. 1Census of Agriculture, 1959, p. xxiv. 44 The study definition of commercial farms coincided with that of the census but the method of ascertaining the gross value of farm products sold was different. The census obtained the quantity of individual products sold and multiplied these quantities by the state average prices for each product. In this study, gross value of farm products sold was the actual amount of cash received by the farm operator from sales of farm products. Economic Classification: Other Farms The census segregates "other farms" into three economic classes. A description of these classes, along with changes and additions for this study, is presented below. 1) Class VII: Part-Time--Farms with a value of sales of farm products of $50 to $2,499 were classified as "part-time" if the operator was under 65 years of age and he either worked off the farm 100 or more days or the income he and members of his household received from nonfarm sources WIS greater than the total value of farm products sold. This restrictive definition was not used because it does not accurately represent part-time farming acitivites. In the first place, the ceiling of $2,500 gross sales automatically places the part-time farmer in a low income class--a Carryover of the "subsistence farm" concept of the 1930's. With today's equipment and other tedhnology, 1Census of Agriculture, 1959, p. xxiv. 45 a farmer can handle an 80 to 160 acre farm and still have time for a nonfarm job. Even with below average efficiency, he can produce 15 acres of wheat, 30 acres of soybeans, 55 acres of corn and feed out 50 head of feeder pigs with 100 days labor, leaving 200 days or more for off-farm work. This kind of operation would provide gross sales of $4,000 to $5,000 at 1963 prices. Therefore, for this study, the census definition of a part-time farm was used with the following supplement: If the farm operator (the primary decision—maker) works off the farm 200 or more days, or, if the combined household nonfarm income was larger than the gross farm sales, the farm was considered to be part—time regardless of the amount of gross farm sales. 2) Class VIII: Part—Retirement - Farms with a value of sales of farm products of $50 to $2,499 were classified as "part—retirement,” if the farm operator was 65 years old or over. Again, placing a low-income ceiling on this type Of unit is not necessarily correct and interviews in the Study area revealed that the age limit also is unrealistic. seVeral residents under 65 had "earned their retirement" and bought small farms on which they could "make themselves useful" and "keep busy.” Eleven farm operators over 65 received more than $2,500 in gross sales of products from their farm units, yet insisted that they "only worked when 1Census of Agriculture, 1959, p. xxiv. 1 46 they felt like it" and considered themselves retired. For these reasons, the following supplement was added to the census definition of a part—retirement farm: If the farm operator was 65 years of age and pygp and considered himself to be retired, the farm was classified as part-retirement regardless of the level of gross farm sales; or, if the farm operator was ppggp 65 and considered himself to be retired, -the farm was classified as part—retirement if he reported less than 150 days farm work, regardless of gross farm sales. 3) "Class IX: Abnormal — All institutional farms and Indian reservations are classified as 'abnormal', regardless of the value of sales." There were two "abnormal" farms in the Blackwater area and, although they were not family farms, they were included in the land use section to help account for all the land in the area. _Economic Classification: Unclassifiable Farms Class X: Unclassified — There were 37 farm units in the study area for which no financial data could be COllected, i.e., partial units and non—cooperator units. Since the absence of gross farm sales information prevented inclusion in a census economic class, a new class was made 50 Other information about these units could be included in the "bench—mark data." This new class X was designated M 1Census of Agriculture, 1959, p. xxiv. 47 as the "unclassifiable group." These economic classes are designed to group farm units only for a given year. Shifts in gross farm sales, off-farm work, health of the farm operator, advancing age, and other factors may cause considerable change in the actual number of farm units within any given class in succeeding years. This does not, however, nullify the value (of the method used in analyzing the problems of adjustments Vnithin the given year and over time. Other Definitions Several other terms used in economic and farm ibusiness analyses sometimes are defined differently. The following definitions explain their use in this study: Productive man work unit (PMWU).--This is a standard of work accomplishment which represents the "normal" amount of work performed in a ten hour day by a farm.operator Of average ability using typical production methods and equipment in the care of a given enterprise. Each unit Of crop and livestock enterprises was assigned a PMWU Constant which was multiplied by the number of units in that SHterprise for each farm to determine farm totals. Missouri Bulletin, B.F. 6103, "Farm Business Planning Guide" was the Source of data for PMWU values. Annual man—eguivalents of labor.--This term represents the actual number of full-time men required to accomplish 48 the reported number of days of family and hired labor employed on the farm. It is computed by establishing the total number of man-days that the operator and all other paid and unpaid laborers worked on the farm during the year and dividing this sum by 25 to convert to months of labor. This is then divided by 12 to obtain the annual man equivalents. In this computation, days worked by women and school age children were converted to equivalent man- days of labor by applying a factor of .2 to the days actually worked by females and .5 to the days worked by school age males and men over 65 years of age. Cash receipts.——These are the total cash receipts accruing to the family from the operation of the farm business. Cash expenses.—-These are the total cash outlays, both for operating costs and investments, made in the Operation of the farm business. Cash balance.-—This is the difference between cash receipts and cash expenses. Inventory change.-—This is the end of the year inVentory minus the beginning of the year inventory. It may be eiiher positive (+) or negative (-). Home-used products.——These are farm—produced items useci or consumed on the farm. They include meat, dairy and Poultry products, fruit, vegetables, and fire wood. In the Survey, each family reported the quantities of meat, dairy, 49 and poultry products used. These amounts were multiplied by the following prices to determine their total value: milk, 30¢ per gal.; butter, 60¢ per 1b.; eggs, 25¢ per doz.; poultry, 40¢ per head; pork, 15¢ per 1b. (liveweight); and beef, 25¢ per lb. (liveweight). Each family estimated total values of fruit, vegetables, and fire wood used (in terms of cost if purchased). These totals were summed to get the "value of home-used products" per family per year. Farm income or farm and family_earning_.--This figure is the cash balance plus or minus the inventory change plus the value of home-used products. Off-farm income.--This represents the earnings received by the farm operator and members of his household for work or services performed away from the farm unit. operated. Non-labor income.--This is income received by the farm operator and other household members from sources which require no physical effort, such as interest, rent, dividends, social security payments, etc. INQQ;£g§m_ipggmg.—-This is the summation of off—farm income and non-labor income. ,Eggal_pgp_£§mily_ipggm§.--This is the sum of net farm and family earnings and non—farm income. Other terms and concepts Which need clarification will be defined in footnotes as they are used. CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY After a decision was made to develop a comprehensive area study of family farm adjustments, several questions arose. What kind of area should be selected and where should it be located? How should the study be organized and flhlanced? What kinds of information should be collected initxially, and by what methods? How should it be analyzed? What kind of follow—up activities could be devised for gaiiling the most benefit from the study? These, and other, questions were considered by the projeact leader and administrators early in the planning stagtas. Research and extension advisory committees later were appointed by the Dean of the College and the Director of E>Ctension to consult with the project leader in initiating and developing the study. Since one of the primary ObjeCtives was to stimulate inter—change of ideas and coordination of effort in helping farm families adjust to Changing conditions, the advice of these committees rePreSenting several disciplines was particularly valuable. The methodology reported here reflects the thinking and judgment of several staff members who served on these two committees. 50 51 Choice 9; Study Area Since work with all farm family units in the study area was contemplated, it seemed desirable to limit the size of the area to one or two townships of approximately 150 farm units . Factors Considered in Selection of the Area Several factors were considered in selecting a site for the study. Convenience to the College of Agriculture in the central Missouri area was one of the first restrictions on location. Since the participation of numerous staff members, both resident and extension, seemed necessary in carrying out the study, it seemed wise to stay within a radius of 50 to 100 miles of the University. Long—range usefulness of the area for extension training schools, for ClaSS tours, and for on—the—farm types of follow—up research also were reasons for keeping the area relatively near the Camlous. The kind of extension program in the county was a key factor in choosing counties in which specific sites might be considered. It seemed essential to have a staff of ComPetent agents, a well-organized extension program, harmonious working relationships, and a COOperative and forWard looking county extension council. A strong balanced fanTitling program for several years also was considered de S irable . 52 An area with a variety of farming systems--from the standpoint of farm size, kind of crop and livestock enterprises, types of soil, level of capital investment and farm income-—also was sought. It seemed well to have an area typical of central and north Missouri and to avoid either a sub—marginal farming area or one far above average for the state. The committees also wished to find a completely rural area in Which most families relied on farming for a livelihood. Boone County, in Which the University is located, was not considered suitable because an earlier survey had indicated a high percentage of part-time farming. Final selection of the area was contingent, of course, on the attitude of farm families and their leaders in the area and their willingness to cooperate. Procedure for Site Selection A sub-committee, including the project leader and the District Extension Director, assumed responsibility for making a preliminary selection of two or three areas for final consideration. Several central Missouri counties--including Monroe, Randolph, Cole, Audrain and Cooper--seemed to meet the general requirements. After consulting with county extension personnel specific sites were studied in Monroe and Cooper counties. These areas were outlined on large 53 (:ounty road and soil maps and were personally inspected by 'the sub-committee. The Pilot Grove and Blackwater areas on ‘the west side of Cooper county seemed most appropriate and, vvith the sanction of the larger committees, a tentative selection was made of the Blackwater area, including all <>f Lamine and Blackwater townships. Following this preliminary selection, the proposal vvas discussed with the Cooper County Extension Council and fainn leaders in the area. This conference was followed by a ccumnunity—wide meeting at which the program was explained and approved. Following this meeting, the Blackwater area——centered arcnlnd the little town of Blackwater——was chosen for the study. Its location in the state and in Cooper county is Shown on the maps in Figure 1. (Details of the area map and its preparation will be explained later.) Organizational Structure In order to accomplish the objectives of the study, arrangements were made for sharing responsibilities among the experiment station, the state agricultural extension serVice, the county extension council, leaders in the BlaCkwater area, and other agencies as the needs became apparent. These responsibilities included development of plans, preparation of forms, approval of procedures, financing, and implementing the work with farm families and 54 I959 FARM OWNERSHIP MAP BLACKWATER - LAMINE LOCATION OF AREA TOWNSHIPS COOPER COUNTY MISSOURI \ gnawing; m NA 5 0 am SMM mm: suums Donaw DNLAE N4... ouurunm Euunamno... N N Lmncnmnrrrr _:_.;.:. i at 1.--Map of Blackwater area Fig. 55 leaders in the area. Advisory Committees As previously indicated, researCh and extension advisory committees were appointed to assist with the responsibilities assumed by the state staff. They were to advise and assist Albert R. Hagan, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Who was designated as project leader and who is author of this thesis. The Research Advisory Committee appointed by the Dean and Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, John H. Longwell, included the following staff members: Committee Membgp Department Frank Miller Agricultural Economics Clarence Klingner Agricultural Economics (Extension) Herbert F. Lionberger Rural Sociology Clarence L. Scrivner Soils Leland F. Tribble Animal Husbandry Robert Beasley Agricultural Engineering Cecil L. Gregory ~ Rural Sociology The Extension Advisory Committee appointed by Brice Ratchford, Director of the Agricultural Extension Service, included members of both the county and state administrative staffs and of the departmental extension specialist staffs as indicated below: Cpmmittee Memberp J. U. Morris J. C. Evans Rowena Greene JOhn Ed Harris Myron Bennett Jeanette Palmer J. W. Burch Marion Clark John Falloon Louise Woodruff Tom Brown 56 Qgpartment State Extension Staff State Extension Staff State Extension Staff County Extension Staff County Extension Staff County Extension Staff Animal Husbandry Agricultural Engineering Soils Home Economics Agricultural Economics The Cooper County Extension Council assumed direct responsibilities for local financing, employment of personnel, and other administrative activities. Members of the council from Blackwater and Lamine townships, including a man and woman from each township, also represented the council on the area advisory committee. An area advisory committee of twelve members was established to assist with program planning, determining policies, and arranging local activities. The committee also consulted with the associate county agent assigned to the area on operating procedures. This committee included the four county extension council members from the two ‘townships. The other eight members of the committee, 57 including two men and two ladies from each township, were elected by people in the area at special annual meetings. Each committee member was elected for two years, except for the first year when half the members were elected for one year in order to allow for two-year tenure on a staggered term basis. Financing Financing the long-range adjustment study was a major problem which, it seemed, could be solved best by disPersing the cost of the project among all of the departments, divisions, and agencies participating. In the first place, each department assumed responsibility for financial support of staff salaries and travel expenses for personnel working on different phases of the study, including the support of any graduate assistants later assigned to special follow—up studies. The Agricultural Economics Department assumed the additional costs of preparing all forms and procedures, conducting comprehensive interviews with all farm families in the area, processing data, and preparing reports. The Missouri Agricultural Extension Service assumed responsibility for the salary of an associate county agent to be assigned for full-time work in the area, at least during the formative period of the first two or three years. Costs of extension administrative staff time and travel also 58 were assumed by the state office. Funds for local administrative costs-—including office space, secretarial help, telephone, supplies, travel of the associate county agent, etc.——were raised by the county extension council. Early in the study, these funds were secured through additional appropriations by the Cooper County Court, a $100.00 annual contribution by the bank in Blackwater, and a limited amount through fees collected from cooperators for special services. Special funds for local activities were secured by the area advisory committee. For example, the committee decided to arrange an area—wide chicken barbecue dinner meeting for all families in the two townships early in the study in order to explain the program and encourage cooperation. A local business firm contributed all the chickens for the dinner which was served to approximately 225 people. This event established a precedent for similar follow—up dinner meetings once or twice each year. These SeSsions have proven quite useful in keeping area families informed of progress on special activities and research projects. As a general policy, other agencies which participated in follow—up research projects were expected to C30ntribute the salary and travel expense of professional workkars assigned. Other costs of such cooperative research prOjECts were to be shared on a 50—50 basis with the MiSSOuri Agricultural Experiment Station. ‘.II-__l 59 Working Relationships The advisory committees previously described assumed responsibility for planning and coordinating the work in the area. Numerous meetings of these committees were held early in the study period. Since the study was planned as a joint extension— research effort from the beginning, extension service personnel assumed considerable responsibility for organiza— tional activities and program planning in the area. First oi? all, it was decided that the special area program should be: an integral part of the county extension program under tlua overall direction of the county council and the county extension staff. The area advisory committee and the associate county agerfi2were expected to serve a key role in the entire Prcxgram. First, they were to develop long—range and annual PrCKgrams and plans for the area. They also were to serve as 21 local clearing house and sounding board for research Prcmposals based on special area problems which they also were; to help identify and clarify. As a matter of policy, it was decided that any new PrOExasals for area research projects by other department and agency'personnel should be cleared first through the project leader and the state research and extension advisory committees. A brief progress report of such projects will be included later. 60 Procedure for Getting Bench—Mark Data Since one of the major objectives was to analyze changes in the laboratory area over time, considerable effort was made to establish bench—mark data from which measurements could be made. For several reasons, 1959 was chosen as the base year for collecting bench—mark data. Since this was a census year comparisons with census data were anticipated. Also, new aerial photographs for the area were made by the ASC service during the fall of 1958, providing up—to—date pictures for identifying farm units and field arrangements. Since the study was initiated in 1959, time was available for preparing survey schedules and other materials before starting personal interviews during the winter and spring of 1960. Several techniques were used in getting the basic data. They included a general reconnaissance survey, study of maps and other historical data, a special survey of soil resources in the area, a geologic survey of underlying formations, a survey of water resources, and personal interviews with all farm families in the area. General Survey One of the first activities was to get copies of aVailable maps of the two—township area. Three useful kinds were discovered. While seriously out—of—date, an old soil 61 survey map of Cooper county gave some indication of major soil types in the area. A detailed road map, prepared by the State Highway Department, also proved quite useful. This map showed all roads in the two townships and the location of all farmsteads. Topographic maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey proved quite accurate in revealing variations in elevation in the area. Another useful guide was a plat map of the area prepared by,a private firm.1 While this map was someWhat out of date and contained numerous errors, it showed the existing ownership pattern in the area for most farm units. With the above maps for reference, the project leader and the county agent drove all of the roads in the area to get personal impressions of the kinds of farms, types of livestock enterprises, conditions of farmstead improvements, and other general information which would help in planning the work. Obvious errors on some of the maps were corrected. Contacts also were made with representative farmers and farm leaders in the area during this reconnaissance survey. All available census data for the two townships were assembled for future use. Early reports were available in the University Library. More recent information was lPlat.Mapp__f_ Cooper County,.Missouri (Independence, Mo.: Murphy Map Company, 1959). —: ' 62 secured with the assistance of Mr. Ray Hurley, regional representative of the U. S. Bureau of the Census. Historical data for the area were secured from several sources. An Atlas of Cooper County, prepared in 1915, revealed interesting trends in farm ownership patterns xNhen compared with maps prepared in connection with this study.1 Early day histories of Cooper County disclosed :Eascinating accounts of the early development of Blackwater auld Lamine townships.2 Excerpts from this historical :review are included in later descriptive data. Further insights of past developments and trends accrued from personal interviews and informal conversation with long- time residents of the area. Survey of Soil Resources Since land resources and their use have tremendous influence on the economic welfare of farm families, one of the first steps in getting bench—mark data was to arrange for an up—to—date soil survey of the two townships. _ 1George A. Ogle, Standard Atlas pf Cooper County, Mlssouri (Chicago: George A. Ogle and Company, 1915). 2H. C. Levens and N. M. Drake, History 9; Cooper QQEEEX. Missouri (St. Louis: Perrin and Smith, Steam Book and Job Printers, 1876). 2W. F. Johnson, History_p£ Cooper County, Missouri (Topeka, Cleveland: Historical Publishing Company, 1919). 63 Cooperative arrangements were made with the Soils Department for a crew to do this work under the supervision of Dr. C. L. Scrivner. Several innovations were included in the soil survey for the purpose of exploring new techniques in getting field data, in analyzing and presenting the results, and in making the survey information useful to farm families in the area. One of these included deep subsoil sampling for each major soil type and complete chemical analyses of these samples. In addition, soil profiles were prepared and photographed for each major soil type. Landscape photographs also were taken to show the characteristics of eadh major soil series. 9 Another new procedure included the development of photo-maps, prepared by superimposing soil survey information on aerial photographs for each part of the area. Two complete sets of 1958 aerial photos for the two townships were secured for use by the soil surveyors. Soil types were outlined on the photos during the field work. The slope and erosion classes also were indicated. Complete results of the soil survey were reported in Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin B772, Soils of Blackwater and Lamine Townships, Cooper County. This bulletin, released in August of 1961, contained several features which enhanced its usefulness in the area program. A specimen photo-map was included inside the front cover 64 along with symbols and guides for interpreting the survey for individual farm units. This map was followed by both a tabular and a narrative description of each of the major soil series and individual soil types. Pictures of landscapes, soil profiles, cross sectional drawings, and relief maps were used to identify more clearly the characteristics of each soil and its problems. Another innovation was an illustrated land use summary indicating the intensity with Which various soil types could be farmed and the mechanical erosion protection necessary for each. Finally, a break-down of the acreages represented by each soil type and major series of soils was included. A personalized copy of the bulletin was given to each farm owner and operator in the area. Inserted in it was a photo-map showing the boundaries of his farm unit so that the different kinds of soil on his farm unit could be identified readily. Geologic Survey After the results of the soil survey and other preliminary work were explained at a special inter-agency meeting, Dr. Beveridge, State Geologist, indicated an interest in preparing a geologic survey of the area to determine underlying geologic formations. This survey was initiated in the fall of 1962 and is nearing completion. 65 One purpose of the geologic survey was to relate the geologic formations to the major soil series in the area. Another was to study the effect of these formations on underground water resources in the area. The information also was expected to add to the knowledge of nitrate concentration in deep well water which is a follow-up project of this area study. Survey of Water Resources In several Missouri counties during the past few years, the state geologist has made a special survey of underground water resources by having a drilling crew make test drillings on quarter mile intervals to determine the 'depth of the water table, the volume of water available, and its quality. This type of survey was planned for the Blackwater area but has been delayed because of lack of funds. However, a record was prepared on all the farms in the area on which deep wells, both drilled and dug, were located. The distribution is shown in Figure 2. Identifica- tion of these wells proved quite useful in the nitrate study later reported. Personal Interviews for Bench-Mark Information Eadh farm family in the area was interviewed to get bendh-mark data of resource use. This information will be used for determining the adjustments made in succeeding years. 66 LKATION 0’ AIM IQSS FARM OWNERSHIP MAP BLACKWATER - LAMINE TOWNSHIPS COOPER COUNTY M|$$OURI / 9, *4- 9 - _ii—i '— )\ \ \ \ M' nun-m ‘ -. \ fi.‘ M‘rctul ’ \ -,.. \ ..... . -... "a . _n \ 0'. A 74.2 ‘. .9 _ 1., . .__ .... I .- , - - -.. -, e ‘21 . _ l t D" I“. 7 7 / i_ -_-_._¢...... ! _— .m- «VJ—l "" u. '"l .m 4 A . , 77 — .1... m. .. ‘ 72." '.'.'.' ‘ 1’ -... a. 7 — .1: "' a mu “- I .. a. . I 1 ' I ""35?"- u-u-in "" a... -. 'a- I ‘ ‘ "' ' .m m.- .4 .m . e 4 L .w. u... . u... ,, .u , t—f—u n- . up -| — I!” _ I n ‘ “III-l"! _ _. '- -- :-.- . .. .- T .. .. - , .4 ., , . .. .—- r' ' ‘ "‘ ... ... - , .. O w.— to: no ,_ i .m , _Tll u-fia . . - ul- n-‘no ‘ "I. ' ".m- :. -.:.. 5.... m . I . . . c _ .. - “IQ ‘ ,. .. . . . .. I .- a _ v... un .. I I" u- u . u... . on... «Q . a, m ‘ nu , . _ _, . _ _I“ .- _‘ -m‘ .. “I u. _ _ ._ I...“ .. Pun n. -— {u . - _.‘. | "“ "‘ , ~-'- :- ... --~- ~.-.-.. ,. "w- e ~ -.- on: , u— . ' Luuut " i . II. , l-- “- 4...... "I — lob "" . I'” J "' e- - "" m‘." 1 . _ nu... “un- .. q - I' . Isl-"1- I m ....I=. I... " "- .ll' 0‘ , .I - I \ 94"" ..._ . n. l QM On ' -- 4 I'- 0-- \- I '5'. h L . -- r ,. LEGEND I . — awn to I — MA . d n Aswan us ‘ n ‘nru‘v nn 3 .. "‘ ~ ‘5. —- (Du-"v no“): 1;...” — \ ...... MN I 11'." “I. ‘u ._. RAMIOMJ "' (a rum-sum ' "" I own ot nu ao- -..- g r u nun—m- , N 7:... . 5 van. at mun-t . u A 5 a... Fig. 2.--Farms in Blackwater area on Form with Deep Well +- which deep wells are located. 67 One of the first steps in preparing for the interviews was to secure 1958 aerial photo enlargements for .the entire area. These aerial photographs, taken in October of 1958, were purchased from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. During the interviews, the boundaries of each farm unit were outlined in red and individual fields in blue on the aerial photos to facilitate getting specific land use data. The usefulness of these photos in identifying fields and other physical features is indicated in the reduced specimen photo of a small portion of the area shown in Figure 3, page 68. The information recorded on these photos was used in preparing a 1959 Farm Ownership Map of the area shown in Figure 1, page 54. Another major task in preparation for the interviews was development of a detailed survey schedule on which to record specific data for each family and each farm unit. This schedule included 36 pages and eight sectors in which the following information was recorded: Sector 1 - Land Use Sector 2 - Livestock Production and Management Sector 3 - Financial Management Sector 4 - Family Activities Sector 5 - Facilities for Home and Family Living Sector 6 — Household and Family Labor Data Sector 7 - Inventory of Resources Sector 8 - Farm Business Summary water Fig. 3.--Specimen aerial photo showing a small portion of the Black- areo. Photo taken October l3, 1958. 69 Preliminary copies of this survey were pretested in the field before the schedule was developed in final form. All of the field interviews were completed during the winter and spring of 1960 by the project leader and a graduate assistant. The interviewing instructions prepared for the Michigan State University Township Agent Study were used as a guide. Frequent consultation between the two interviewers also helped to insure uniformity of procedures. After the first few interviews, it became apparent that a someWhat different type of schedule was needed for some situations. Several partnership operations were encountered and were treated as one farm unit from the standpoint of capital investments and other business data. However, it seemed desirable to get family living information for each member of the partnership individually. Because of this need, a special "green" schedule was prepared to include only data from additional members of partnerships. These schedules were used throughout the remainder of the survey. Financial information and family living data were not obtained from owners living outside the area. However, land use and production data were obtained for all tracts of land in the area regardless of ownership. A special "pink" schedule was prepared getting this information for tracts controlled by absentee owners. This schedule also was used for the few cases in Which either the owner or the operator would not provide information through personal interview. 70 The production data were secured from secondary sources. After the schedules were completed in the field they were checked for completeness before preparation for final audit. In the auditing process, all inventory data, financial returns, and other information involving computa- tions were checked and verified. After this work was completed, the schedules were coded for IBM card analysis. Analysis 9: Bench-Mark Data The primary purpose of collecting bench-mark information was to get a clear picture of the different types of farming operations in the area. Several groupings were made in an attempt to discover the most useful way of summarizing the data. One was made by size of farm based on total acres. Since the quality of land varied considerably in different parts of the area, another grouping was made according to the acres of cropland available on each farm. For another part of the analysis, all farms were grouped on the basis of total productive man work units (PMWU) required for crop and livestock production. Another major classification was based on tenure in the base year. Six major groupings were made on the basis of ownership and rental arrangements. Another classification was based on major sources of income. 71 After experimenting with these and other groupings, a major breakdown by economic classes, as explained in Chapter II, pages 43 through 47, seemed most useful for identifying the problems of adjustment confronting the farm families in the area. Analysis of Data by Economic Classes The data for all farms were grouped according to the ten economic classes previously described. The first step was to get a complete summary of the information for each economic class, including the average situation for the farms in eadh group. An inventory was made of all the resources available, the use of them during the base year 1959, efficiencies in their use, and the effect on farm income and family living. The results will be presented in the next Chapter. Method of Organizing Follow-up Research Since the purpose of the study was to identify major adjustment problems confronting different types of family farm operations and to aid in their solution, several methods were used to initiate follow-up research and to develop programs which would assist families in making the adjustments. Reliance was placed on the area advisory committee and the County Extension Council for initiating some of these activities. They, in turn, passed on suggestions to the research and extension advisory 72 committees at the College of Agriculture for further consideration. Another technique was to arrange meetings for presenting the situation in the area to personnel from other agencies. This resulted in some of the follow-up activities later reported. In addition to formal meetings, personal contacts were made with the leaders of other agencies to inform them of particular studies related to their areas of special interests. This, too, has resulted in cooperative studies of some additional problems. CHAPTER IV RESOURCES AND RESOURCE USE IN THE BLACKWATER AREA OF MISSOURI General Situation and Historical Review The Blackwater area chosen for this study comprises all of Blackwater and Lamine townships located in the north- west corner of Cooper County in central Missouri. It is 32 miles west of Columbia and about 10 miles west of Boonville on Interstate 70 and U. S. 40 highways. These roads provide convenient access for both University and county extension personnel. The maps in Figure 1, page 54, show the relative location in the county and the state. The area'has a combination of upland and bottomland Where a variety of crops can be grown. Livestock enterprises are typical of large areas in central and north Missouri. Some land along the "breaks" of the Blackwater and Lamine rivers also has characteristics of the Ozark and Ozark border regions farther south. The climate of the area is favorable for almost any type of cornbelt farming. The average annual rainfall varies from 35 to 40 inches, with distribution over the season averaging a little over 4 inches per month, with 73 74 little variation through the growing period The growing season over the years has averaged 192 days, from April 9 through October 24. The mean temperature through the grow1ng season is about 67.6 degrees Fahrenheit While the two townships are handled as one unit for most phases of this study, a better understanding of the area can be gained from a brief description of the characteristics of each. Lamine Township Lamine township is in the northern—most tip of It is bounded on the northeast by the Cooper county. on the east and southeast by the Lamine Missouri river; river, on the south and southwest by the Blackwater river, and on the northwest by the Saline county line. Amost surrounded by the three rivers, the peninsula—shaped area contains approximately 24,463 acres. The topography ranges from level bottomlands along the three rivers to high rolling ridgelands which are steepest adjacent to the major streams. Most of the soils are inherently fertile and 1Wayne L. Decker, Monthly Precipitation in Missouri, Z'limatic Atlas of Missouri No. _]__, University of Missouri, :ollege of Agriculture Bulletin— 650 (Columbia: Agricultural xperiment Station, 1955), p. 28. 2James D. McQuigg, Climates g the States, Missouri, Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Climatography S- f the United States No. 60-23 (Washington. U S Government tinting Office, 1959) , pp. 4 6. —1—-——=t'v '} 75 are quite responsive to soil treatments. The rolling land, however, requires protection from erosion for intensive land use. The economic and political history of the township goes back for more than 150 years. A few excerpts from the writings of early—day historians indicate the colorful history and the nature of resources of the area in pioneer days: Lewis and Clark, on their exploring expedition across the Rocky Mountains, and down the Columbia river to the Pacific ocean...arrived at the mouth of the Lamine river on the 8th of June, 1804, and on the 9th at Arrow Rock. When they returned from the journey and camped, on the 18th of September, in Howard county, opposite the mouth of the Lamine river.... Lamine township was first settled in 1812, by a few pioneers....In the year 1812 or 1813 there was a fort, called "FortMcMahan," built somewhere in this township but the exact location could not be ascertained.... The soil of the township is excellent and the inhabitants are in a prosperous condition (1876). It is noted as one of the most wealthy townships in the county....Lead has been found and worked in paying quantities in this township. It has an abundance of timber of the very best quality, and a large quantity of lumber and cordwood is shipped every year by means of the Blackwater and Lamine rivers. These streams abound with fish of very fine quality, and the Boonville market is principally supplied by them.1 As will be observed in the analysis of data in this study; conditions have changed greatly since 1876. Timber anéixnineral resources, as well as fishing enterprises, no longer have economic significance. Much of the once fertile lauid lias been depleted through erosion and other mi sm an agement . lLevens and Drake, pp. 13, 154—55. ~76 Blackwater Township Blackwater township likewise is a peninsula shaped area. The Blackwater river separates it from Lamine township on the north and the Lamine river serves as the boundary on the east and south. The Pettis county line forms the western boundary. The township is traversed east and west by old highway U. S. 40 and by new Interstate 70, now under construction. This township is smaller in area than Lamine (15,686 acres) and, for the most part, is of more rugged terrain. While a considerable acreage of bottomland borders the two major streams and their tributaries, much of the upland is steep and stony and has much more limited potential for farming than does Lamine township. This is especially true for the areas south of Interstate 70. Blackwater township, too, has an eventful history which is indicated by a few excerpts from the writings of Levens and Drake: William Christie and John G. Heath temporarily settled in this township in 1808, but only remained long enough to manufacture a small quantity of salt, When they returned down the river. James Broch, the first permanent settler, arrived in 1816; Enoch Hambrich ‘came in 1817; David Schellcraw, in 1818 and planted an acre of cotton which yielded very well. The soil is rich and exceedingly productive. The bottomland is low and swampy. and the ridge land fertile and susceptible of early cultivation. In the bottom, corn and timothy are grown in large quantities; on the ridgeland, corn, Wheat, oats, tobacco, potatoes, and all kinds of garden vegetables are produced in great abundance. The different kinds of wood are ash, beach, 77 black oak, black walnut, cherry, cottonwood, elm, maple, hickory, redbud, sugar tree, white oak, and white walnut. The minerals which are found in this township are iron, which appears in large deposits, and lead which crops out on every hillside. There are, in this township, six salt and a great number of fresh water springs. Salt was successfully manufactured at these springs as early as 1808, and from that time till 1836 the manufacture of it was carried on pretty extensively by Heath, Bailey, Christie, Allison, and others. There are four public schools for white, and one for colored children, supported by the inhabitants of this township. There are two churches in this township; one a Cumberland Presbyterian church, established in 1850; and the other a Baptist church, established in 1853. There is at this time no store or mill in the township, although both are much needed by the citizens. There are two warehouses, from which the surplus productions of the township are shipped. There is one physician, Dr. Thomas E. Staples, and three ministers of the gospel, Viz: N. T. Allison, Jr., Baptist, Robert Crockett Cumberland Presbyterian, and C. Q. Shouse, Christian.i During the intensive survey of the area in 1960, no evidence was discovered of the abundant iron and lead resources and one would be hard pressed to locate any of the early—day salt mines long ago abandoned. Many other changes have occurred since these early— day accounts. Further reading of these historical records reveals that land clearing, lack of adequate transportation and trading centers, and protection from Indian raids were serirnas problems during the pioneering stage of development. .As these problems were overcome, steady growth in the number of farnm and in population followed until 1930 when the trerni turned downward. This decline is reflected in the Chifllgjjlg population of Blackwater township, which apparently, lIbid., pp- 143—54. 78 was established late in the past century. While no town was reported in Blackwater township by Levens and Drake in 1876, the metropolis of Blackwater was described in glowing terms by a later writer: The village of Blackwater is the metropolis of Blackwater township and is surrounded by fertile and enterprising country and thrifty farmers. The town has a population of about 500 and the mercantile business represents practically every line of business found in a village of that size. It has one newspaper, two banks, and an electric light plant. The merchants are prosperous and enjoy a good trade. Blackwater is one of the oldest trading points in Cooper County. It takes its name from the stream Blackwater from which also the township takes its name.1 As noted in Figure 4, page 79, the population of the town reached a peak of 506 in 1930 and has declined steadily since that time, almost following a normal distribution curve. Abandoned store buildings, a few of Which are shown in Figure 4, page 79, dramatize these changes and reflect the consequences of rapid declines in rural population and numbers of farms since 1930. The rapid decline in number of farms in the two-towship area, as determined from census data, is shown in Figure 5, page 80. Abandoned store buildings are not the only dramatic earmarks of a declining rural population, however. Vacant 'farm.houses were noted throughout the area during the general survey, and a quick survey of vacant rural houses was made in 1962. Through this procedure, 55 vacant houses Which had been occupied since 1940 were identified. The distribution 1Johnson, History.2£ Cooper County, p. 226. 79 i920 i930 i940 1950 1960 1910 1900 Population of Blackwater town 9.4. F 80 Number of Farms 3007 i 930 l 940 i 950 l 960 Fig. 5.--Changes in number of farms in Blackwater and Lamine townships in Cooper County, Missouri. U. S. census data. ‘ 81 of farms on which vacant houses were located is shown in Figure 6, page 82. Some of the larger farms, composed of tracts previously operated as smaller units, contained as many as 5 vacant houses. Variations in the types of houses now vacant are shown in Figure 7, page 83. Some vacated recently seemed to be in livable condition, while others, abandoned 10 to 20 years ago, had deteriorated rapidly. Since the number of vacant houses on farms seemed disproportionately high relative to the reduction in number of farms, based on survey data, it was hypothesized that many of the houses were last occupied by the families of 'hired workers, rather than farm owners and operators. Some ‘verification is indicated in the greater concentration of -the vacated houses in the more productive upland and bottomland areas . Types 2; Farming Duringflthe area survey, data were obtained from 220 separate farm operators whose units ranged in size from 2 acres up to 1040 acres. Complete schedules were obtained on 'lfil of these operations and 32 more were over 80 per cent cOmplete. The remaining 37 consisted of 25 partial units ‘stth headquarters out of the study area (no attempt was made 'tC) get a complete schedule in these cases), and 12 non- c00perators who refused to be interviewed. Thus, of the 195 cOmplete farm units located in the study area, 77 per cent _82 l958 FARM OWNERSHIP MAP BLACKWATER - WAYIOI 0' l.“ LAMINE TOWNSHIPS COOPER COUNTY MISSOURI . ......_.4 F17: Fig. 6.--Blackwater area forms on which one or more vacant farm houses were located in 1960. 83 8.: £223.: uses .w $333003 cm 3.30: Econ— Acouo> .h .m. I’i‘ A . . ,zuwmflr. :- u.u-:. n .141 1h 84 were full cooperators, 16 per cent were partial cooperators and 7 per cent were non-cooperators. Types of Farms by Economic Classes A summary of all farms in the area is shown in Table I, page 85. The first part of the table includes all farms in the area while the second part, designated as "classifiable farms," omits those in class X. One surprising revelation was the prominence of part—time farming, despite the lack of industrial development which would provide special inducement for off-farm employment. The distribution of farms among the different economic classes is shown in Figure 8, page 86. Part- time units constituted the largest economic class in the area. The prevalence of part-retirement units (the second largest economic class) also was greater than anticipated and, while not identified on the chart, a surprising number in the various economic classes were owned and/or operated by widows, widowers, and other unmarried individuals. A total of 16 commercial farms and 10 other farms (over 14 per cent of the 183 classifiable) were operated by persons of these descriptions. This grouping by economic classes was made on the premise that many of the problems in farming and family living, and the capacity and volition to adjust to changing 85 mmmau oasosouu Hum usuu Hum u .O.M\xm 00.00H mmH 00.00H mmH oo.ooa NMN 00.00H CNN meumm Add mo.>v mm mo.m¢ mm mo.om oma ~m.om mma Hanuo 00.0 o 00.0 o mm.mH hm mm.wa hm x mo.H N mo.H N mm.o N Hm.o N xH Hm.0N ov NN.ON hm VN.hH 0v mm.oH hm HHH> mH.oN Hm wh.om mv m@.HN Hm hN.NN mg HH> Hm.~m moa Hm.am mm hm.m¢ moa ma.m¢ mm Hmwuuueeou mm.m h mw.m h No.m h mH.m h H> mm.ma om Ha.ma vm Hm.~a 0N Hm.oa vm > 0m.¢H mm whovd 5N horNH mm hN.NH hm >H mN.HH mm mv.aa HN wv.m NN mm.m AN HHH ma.w NH ao.o ad na.m Na oo.m Ha HH mm.m h mn.~ m No.m h hm.m . m H m.o.m\.x. H0852 m.o.m\* ROBE-z m.0.m—\X H0852 m.o.m\x uOQESZ manOHU muoumuomo Show mfihmm muoumuumo sham mfiumm aaMMMHU manna uaflmawfimmmao mfihmm HH< uwaocoom ,mmmH Gun MHflomWfl: HO “OH“ HUUMEUMHQ 05 :fl MUMQOHU UflfluOGOOO 3 WHOfiHaO EON Us NEW NO HUEZII-H and? .220 mmo— .mommflu umEocooo .3 _Sommsz do no.6 5534053 or: 5 £53 “_0 cor—59.5% omoacaouamld .mE awe—0.0 X. 3.06 _oEtocnd. E059: om "mlfllrlll iflll:l . .ll..H.§fl.llwlliflWl lllwiumuhrhl ullWrWVIlLIlWWIINwllHl “Mal .HflrillHilWl! ... “Econ. o_ULUEEOUICOZ LOfOI. . ...—EU". Quilt—El. Etc...— _EUCOEEOUIN 87 conditions are tied closely to the level of income available. Several other groupings were made, however, to shed further light on types of operations in the area and the major characteristics of each. Types of Farms by Tenure Groups One impressive observation from personal interviews and subsequent analysis of data was the multiplicity of ownership and operating arrangements. While the wide variations made realistic groupings somewhat difficult, five major groupings of farm units were made as follows: owner- operator only; tenant-operator only; owner-operator and tenant-operator; owner-operator and non-operating owner; and, non-operating owner only. The summary in Figure 9, page 88, shows the predominance of owner-operator units in the area, especially among the part—time, part-retirement, and other non-commercial units. Over 50 per cent of the part-time units were in this group while only 1/3 of the commercial farms were so classified. It also is interesting to note that 29 of the 32 commercial farm units in this group were in economic classes III, IV, and V and none were in class I. As might be expected, complete tenant operated units were more numerous among commercial farms. More than one- half of these units were in economic classes III and IV. Most of the non-commercial tenant operators were part-time farmers. Only one part—retirement farm operator fell in 88 (65 . 2%) n/ér Operated Only /, on-Opera ting Owner Owner- 0 perator ‘ nd Tenant-Operator W Commercial Farms Other Forms Fig. 9.--Percentage distribution of commercial and other forms by owner- ship and operating arrangements in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959. 89 this group. Commercial farmers dominated the group which included owner-operators Who rented additional acres to enlarge their operating units. As in the case of tenant operated units, operators in economic classes III and IV were most numerous, accounting for more than 50 per cent of the commercial farms included. In the fourth group, made up of farmers who Operated a part of their owned land and rented out some to other operators, more than two-thirds consisted of non- commercial operators and over one-half of these were partly retired. Since the unclassified group (economic class X) consisted largely of absentee owners, they dominated the non-operating owner group, accounting for 25 of the 35 operations. The remaining number Was almost equally divided between part-time and part-retirement units. Only one commercial farm operator fell in this class. Another three-way grouping of farms into full-owners, part-owners, and tenants--as shown in Table II, page 90—- reveals some useful variations among the tenure groups. Aside from class IX farms, Which have little economic significance, part-retirement operators in class VIII topped the list of those Who had achieved full ownership. Almost 95 per cent had attained this status. In other economic classes, the percentage of operators Who had acquired I“- 9O v.mma m.¢a N.emm n.mH m.NmH 0.05 mfiumm HH< H.a¢H 0.0H N.HOH w.h 0.nHH m.am Hunuo 0.0ma m.ma 0.0vm 0.0H 0.mma n.mh x 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.0m 0.00H XH 0.000 0.00 0.0m H.m 0.00 m.¢m HHH> m.mma 0.0M m.mma 0.0 n.0NH 0.vn HH> I IIIIII wwwmm lllllll m.wa 0.0mm m.om 0.mmm >.¢m Hmflunmfifioo 0.m©a 0.0N 0.000 0.00 ¢.mh ¢.Hh H> m.mma n.0H 0.mma b.0H 0.50H p.00 > m.0NN ®.mN m.mam 0.mN 0.>¢N H.w¢ >H m.n0m 0.0a N.amm 0.0m N.vMN v.mm HHH 0.000 0.00 >.Hv¢ m.Vm v.anm m.mv HH 0.0Nv 0.0m m.aam 0.0v 0.000 0.0V H . muuWmemMWM>< ucuo Mam muHWMmmmMWM>< ucuo Hum muuWmemMWM>< ucmo Hum mmwmuo mummMHU usages uchOiuumm ch3oiaasm UHEocoum mmma Ga muacs mcflumuumo Mo mflnmnwc30 mo wuhmmp >Q paw mumwmau UHEocouw an pmmsoum ahzommfiz mo mmum kum3xomam m£# CH mwacs wSHEumm |.HH mamas 91 ownership of all land operated ranged from 74 per cent in class VII down to 40 per cent in class I. As will be noted, the average size of operating unit in the full-owner group, ranged from 696 acres in economic class I down to 80.9 acres for part—retirement units. It also may be noted that tenant operations, either wholly or in combination with owned land, were most prevalent among commercial farm units. Another grouping, in which a comparison was made between acres owned and total acres operated, is shown in Table III, page 92. This analysis shows that, without exception, the average farm operator in economic classes I through VII operated more land than he owned. The opposite was true for those in class VIII. The data in Table III emphasize the declining availability of land resources to owners and operators in economic classes I through VI. In summary, a diversity of situations and problems are apparent among the different economic classes when viewed from the pattern of land ownership and operating arrangements: 1) Farm operators in the higher economic classes control more land resources, either through complete ownership or through a combination of owned and rented land; 2) Most operators Who rely entirely on rented land have units too small to permit sharing returns with a landlord; ' 3) Inadequate land resources, and consequent under- employment of labor, seemed to be a key factor in keeping many operators in low-income groups, mmnao uwsocouo Hum 9:00 mom I .U.m\xn manna Show Mom 0 co momauu>¢u oo.ooa n.mma . oo.ooa- H.mm¢ «sump flee mh.mn «.mna mo.m¢ ¢.sma umnuo -- m3... -- ------..-----m..mm---:- Tl mm”... 32 x mH.o 0.8m am.o o.om xH om.h «.mm om.>a m.mma HHH> up.oa m.mmH L om.pa p.m~a HH> .......... ...mumw------:--------muwmm----- - .----lwmumml--- .. - 33 - .. $353.8 .. --...E ................. «am. ........ . ....... Aw...“ .............. -mumm l4 u. mp.m m.vma sH.m h.mma > m~.~H m.nm~ hm.ma m.mhd >H mo.¢H o.am~ mm.aa H.mmd HHH Hm.m m.vmm mm.h .m.om~ HH no.5 o.smm oa.h 6.6mv H n.0.m\x umwuufid n.U.N\x omouuafl amsouu ”GM numnmao puumuumo mound Hmuos 00:30 mound owfiocoum momma ca wusoanwz mo noun Hmuasxoadm on» a“ manna mo mommmau ucuuummwo co wouauumo can punzo.muuum mo Hones: umou0>a cw mafia: mcwunuumo mo oNflmI|.HHH Hands 93 e3pecially in economic classes V and VI; and 4) As indicated in other studies, land rental in the Blackwater area plays a dual role in aiding adjustments among economic classes of farms. It provides the older operators in class VIII (with 33 of the 35 over 60 years of age and 19 of the total over 70 years) an opportunity to remain on their home farm units by shifting the burden of operating responsibilities to younger operators on neighboring farms. At the same time, it gives younger and more aggressive operators an opportunity to enlarge their operating units. It will be noted from data presented that operators in economic classes II, III, and IV predominated among the tenant operators of full and partial units. Other study data showed that these operators were largely in the middle-age group, from 30-59 years, and those with the largest families of younger and high school age children. Types of Farms by Major Income Sources H09 and beef cattle operations over-shadowed all other types of farms in the area when analyzed on the basis of sales from crop and livestock enterprises. For this analysis, all farms were grouped into 8 classes as follows: 1) Hog Farms: those with over 50 per cent of caSh sales from hogs; 2) Beef Cattle Farms: those with over 50 per cent of cash sales from beef cattle; 3) Beef-Hog Farms: those with over 50 per cent of cash sales from beef and hog enterprises combined but less than 50 per cent from either enterprise separately; 4) Sheep Farms: those with over 50 per cent of cash sales from sheep and wool; 5) Dairy Farms: those with over 50 per cent of cash sales from dairy cattle and products; 6) Cash Crop Farms: those with over 50 per cent of cash sales from crops; 94 7) Mixed-Livestock Farms: those with over 50 per cent of cash sales from livestock and livestock products but less than 50 per cent from any one or two enterprises; 8) General Farms: all other farms not included in the above seven classes. The distribution of farms among the eight classes is shown in Figure 10, page 95. The predominance of hog and beef cattle enterprises in the area is further emphasized by combining classes (1), (2), and (3). The three account for 114 of the 154 farming operations included in the analysis. All farms in economic class I fell in the beef cattle group and 6 of the 10 operations in class II were so classified. Hog farms were dominant for the commercial farms in economic classes III, IV, and V. The greatest number of cash crop farms was in economic class VII, part-time farms, as one might expect. The remaining 15 of the 21 cash crop operations were about equally divided among classes III, IV, V, VI, and VIII. Sheep production was of minor importance in the area. While sheep enterprises appeared on several units, they accounted for 50 per cent or more of the sales on only three farms, all part-time operations. Dairy enterprises were of little economic importance with only one modern grade 1% dairy operation. Poultry enterprises also were few in number with only one flock of 1,800 hens exceeding a 200- hen laying enterprise. There were no broiler producers in the area. 95 No. of Forms 50 - 7 ' l—Commercial Farms _ / ; 40 Z 3» -Other Forms 2. _ é /a 10 _ O a; 2.3.5:: Hog Beef Beef Sheep Dairy Cash Mixed General -Hog Crop Live- stock Fig. l0.--Types of farms in Blackwater area according to maior enterprises, 1959. 96 Other Groupings of Farms Other comparisons were made among farms by grouping them according to size based on total farm acres operated, total cropland acres operated, total productive man work units (PMWU) on crop and livestock enterprises, and total capital investments. The results of these analyses bring out additional differences among farm families in the various economic classes and the nature of unique adjustment problems which confront them. Size Ggoups by Total Farm Appe§,Qpergted Small farms, in terms of total farm acres operated, were in the majority in the Blackwater area in 1959, as shown in Figure 11, page 97. Of the 217 farms included in this analysis, 110 contained less than 160 total farm acres. By combining these with the next size group (160 to 319 acres), the number increased to 173, almost 80 per cent of the total number studied. It is interesting to note that non—commercial units were most numerous in the smallest size group (77 per cent of the total) While commercial farms (primarily economic classes III, IV, and V) made up 62 per cent of the second size grouping. Nineteen of the 26 farms ranging from 320 to 479 acres in size were in commercial farm classes II, III, and IV. Only 18 farms, exceeded 480 acres in size. Eleven of 97 (77. 3%) Under l60 A 50. 7%/ (38.1%) 60/2319 Acres: ,‘ .‘ , Commercial Forms Other Forms Fig. ll .--Percentage of commercial and other forms in different size operating units based on total form acres operated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959. 98 these were commercial farms in economic classes I, II, III, and IV. Because of the large number involved, the 110 farm units of less than 160 acres were examined more closely. As shown in Figure 12, page 99, 19 of these smaller operating units contained less than 40 acres. Most of them were part— time and part—retirement units which also comprised most of the farms in the 40 to 79 acre group. Thus, the imperative need for off—farm income to meet the higher cash demands for present-day farming and family living becomes obvious among these land-scarce units. Size Groups by Total Cropland Acres Operated When grouped according to the acres of cropland, even more of the farms were small. Almost three-fifths of the farm operators had less than 80 crop acres. This limitation played an important role in the low farm earnings. Figure 13, page 100, shows that more than three-fourths of these small units were non-commercial farms, although 30 were commercial farms—~mostly in economic classes V and VI which later analyses showed to be in greatest financial stress. Further examination revealed the fact that 70 of the operating units contained fewer than 20 crop acres and a total of 119 contained less than 40 acres. It is not Surprising that most of these were part-time and 99 No. of Farms .50 ' ' I—Commercial Forms -Other Farms 40 30 20 l0 0 Under 40 *0 80 to 40 79 ’ll9 Total Farm Acres Fig. lZ.--Grouping of small farms, commercial and other Farms under 160 acres in size, by size of operating units in total farm acres in the Blackwater area of Missouri in l959. 100 W [:23 Commerial Forms Other Forms Fig. i3.--Percentoge of commercial and other forms in different size rating units based on cropland acres operated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959. 101 part-retirement units where farm earnings had to be supplemented by non-farm income. §ize Groupségased on Total Productive Man ngk Units (PMWU) Another measure of size of business was explored by grouping all farms according to the labor employed in crop and livestock enterprises. Computations were made by applying PMWU standards to the acres of crops and the numbers of livestock units on each farm in 1959. Figure 14, page 102, emphasizes the under-employment of labor at farm work. Almost 50 per cent of the farms provided less than half—time employment for one man. Almost 80 per cent of the operating units afforded less than full- time employment, based on a standard of 300 PMWU for one man for a year. Further analysis of the units Which furnished less than 120 PMWU per year revealed that more than one-half of these 92 farms provided less than 40 PMWU, and 80 of the 92 had enterprises that required less than 80 PMWU per year. Figure 15, page 103, shows the distribution of farms that provided various levels of productive farm labor and indicates the number of operating units which went beyond the usual one-man labor requirement--above 320 PMWU per year. 102 No. of Farms .100 - 90 - l-Commercial Farms -Other Forms Total Number of PMWU. Fig. l4.--Commercial and other forms grouped according to total PMWU on crop and livestock production in the Blackwater area of Missouri in l959. 103 No . of Farms 50- 7 % Commercial farms ~r~ Other forms 40 - 30- 20- 280' 320& er I60- 200- 240- 40 79 H9 l59 I99 239 279 3l9 over l20' Total number of PMWU Fig. l5."Small farms grouped according to total PMWU on crop and livestock production in I959 in the Black- water area of Missouri. 104 Size Groups Based on Value of Total Resources Total capital controlled by the operator sometimes is used to indicate the size of a farm business. A wide range was discovered among farms in the Blackwater area. On the low extreme were two operating units with an average of less than $2,000 in total capital investment. On the upper end of the scale were two farm units with a total investment of over $220,000 each. Further understanding of the variations in total capital invested may be gained from the groupings in Figure 16, page 105. While not shown on the chart, a further breakdown of the 37 units with less than $20,000 invested revealed a very uniform distribution among the smaller farms. Withp$2,000 class intervals between zero and the $20,000 IT‘laanzimum for this group, the 37 farms were evenly distributed aIt'long the ten subgroups. The wide disparity in total capital resources a~‘7ailable to farm families in different economic classes is ac centuated by the comparisons in Figure 17, page 106. As later analyses will reveal, families in economic classes V and VI were in greatest financial stress because of limited fan resources, low farm earnings, and lack of significant “On-farm income. With this general classification and description of a:I'L‘ea farms to give an overall perspective of the kinds of 105 No. of Forms 50 - l l ' l [/4 -Commercial Forms -Other Forms Under 20,000: 40,000- 60.000c 80,009— lO0,000—‘120,000& 20,000 39,999 59,999 79,999 99,999 “9,999 Over Total value of resources in dollars Fig. l6.--Blackwater area farms grouped according to value of total farm resources, l959 data. 106 . Value of Assets $160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 w,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 I II III IV V VI VII VIII Economic Classes Fig. 17.--Total value of farm assets per farm .on different classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959. 107 operations and the major resource limitations, attention will be turned to a more specific analysis of resource use and. economic consequences . Soil Resougces and Management General Description The productivity and earning potential of a rural arxea are closely related to the quality of soil resources arud their use and management over time. A comprehensive gpixzture of the soil resources and their use in the Blackwater arxea was gained through a special soil survey in 1960 with true cooperation of the University Soils Department. Since thua results already have been published, only a few of the hfimghlights will be included in this analysis.1 Aerial Phantographs and personal interviews with farm operators in tine area provided a second source of information. Data from lKrth.sources were used in the analysis of the land and its use during the base period. Wide variations were found in the 40,149 acres of farmland in Blackwater and Lamine townships. Almost 24 per Cenrt is alluvial soil along the streams which either border cu: run through the area. More than three-fourths of this 1C. L. Scrivner and J. C. Baker, Soils.p§ Blackwater .EEQ_Lamine Townshi 3, Cooper County, University of Missouri, COllege of Agriculture Bulletin 772 (Columbia: Agricultural EXperiment Station, 1961). 108 low bottomland (7,399 acres)winds along the Lamine and Blackwater rivers and smaller tributaries in the area. The other bottomland lies in the broad flood plain of the Missouri River along the northeastern boundary of Lamine township. Other soils of alluvial origin include the terrace or high bottom soils, mainly bordering the lower flood plains of the Blackwater and Lamine rivers. These comprise another 8.9 per cent of the land area. The upland soils of the area are underlaid either by glacial till or by cherty limestone but most are covered with a mantle of loess which varies from a depth of 10 to 20 feet along the Missouri River bluffs to a thin layer Which, in some cases, has completely eroded away. The darker colored soils of loess origin are farther away from the major streams and account for 20 per cent of the land in the area. The light colored upland soils of similar origin have a deeper covering of wind—blown material; are more steeply rolling in topography; and, except for the Steinmetz soils, are better drained than the darker upland soils. They represent the largest acreage of soils in the area comprising 29.3 per cent of the total. The steeper and less productive upland soils of cherty limestone origin are concentrated largely in the area south of the Blackwater River. These soils, of limited production potential, occupy 18 per cent of the area. 109 Major Soil Series A quick View of the distribution of area soils among these major series may be gained from Figure 18, page 110. A more detailed summary, showing specific soil types, is presented in Table IV, page 111. From the economic point of view, the productivity of the soils is of primary importance, especially in terms of the intensity with Which the land can be used. About 25 per cent of the land area is level, or nearly so, and can be farmed intensively with proper soil treatment and other good management practices. Another 22 per cent has slopes of 2 to 5 per cent and can be used just as intensively with proper erosion control. Another 28 per cent of the upland areas range between 5 and 10 per cent in slope, making a total of 30,000 acres, 75 per cent of the total area, which can be used rather intensively with proper management and mechanical protection to control erosion. Of the remaining 10,000 acres, approximately one-half has little economic potential because of the rough, stony terrain, poor internal and surface drainage, overflow hazards, and serious erosion damage from past mismanagement. The other 5,000 acres, While undesirable for cultivation, can yield some return through pastures, meadows, and small grain production. A one-page summary of the land use potential was developed by the project leader and the soil surveyor for 110 Total acres 16,000 - 14,000 .- l2,000 10,000) 8,000 6,000 '4,000 2,0“) Creek Missouri Terrace Upland Upland, bottom river -‘ or da’k light Land bottom bench loess loess land land origin orig in Upland, Limestone 8. glacial rill origin Fig. 18.--Types of land in Blackwater and Lamine townships of Cooper County, Missouri, based on 1959 soil survey. 111 TABLE IV.-—Acreage distribution of major soil series and sgil types in Blackwater and Lamine townships, Cooper County Total Area - 40,149 Acres SOILS OF THE SMALL CREEK BOTTOMLANDS Acres 2--Westerville silt loam 3,670 3--Nodaway silt loam 629 7--Chequest silt loam 1,100 8--Carlow silty clay loam 2,000 Total 7,399 SOILS OF THE MISSOURI RIVER BOTTOMLANDS IO—-Haynie fine sandy loam 768 11--Sarpy loamy sand 346 12-—Sarpy sand 77 13--Onawa clay loam 694 14—-Onawa clay 229 19--Riverwash 42 Total 2,156 SOILS ON TERRACES OR BENCHES 20--Moniteau silt loam 768 23--Chariton silt loam 1,864 2‘1--Blocl«lton silt loam 556 29--Sandy terrace 197 Total 3,589 DARK COLORED, LOESS-DERIVED UPLAND SOILS 30'-Sharpsburg silt loam 254 31-—Grundy silt loam 1,150 32--Ladoga silt loam 3.367 33-—Pershing silt loam 3,288 Total 8,059 LIGHT COLORED, LOESS—DERIVED UPLAND SOILS 34“Meniro silt loam 1,080 35--Winfield Silt loam 7,469 g6--Weldon silt loam 1,524 7--Steinmetz silt loam 1,627 T otal 11,700 UPLAND SOILS DERIVED FROM LIMESTONE OR GLACIAL TILL 40"St0ny land 3,703 4é“B<%WIeyville and Baxter silt loams 2,930 “Cara silt loam 613 Total 7,246 8. Percent of the area UWNH'QD 04051—4 H co .3) PPHOPH qumcoco 1 U! .1; OHlb-l—I (fireman 9° (.0 sews H.500) l N .0 o H “9°90.“ Hood-q L. Scrivner and J. C. Baker, Soils o_f Blackwater and C. fwdownships, Cooper County, University of Missouri, College Agriculture Bulletin 772 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961) . 112 inclusion in Bulletin 772. This summary is presented in Table V, page 113. A necessary step in analyzing the economic conse- quences and desirability of alternative adjustments in land use in an area is to determine the present situation and recent trends in the use of soil resources. This kind Of .information, both for soil treatment and for water manage— Inent work, was obtained during the personal interviews with :Earm operators. A summary Of this data is presented and :Lndicates some of the current problems and the need for adjustments . Soil Treatment Several activities contributed to a better under- :atanding of the basic fertility level of area soils. Soil Shirveyors collected deep subsoil samples for all soils in time area and determined the content of organic matter, .Ptuosphorus (P205), potassium, calcium, hydrogen, and magnesium. From these tests, the exchange capacity and the base saturation for each soil were calculated and sununarized if! Bulletin 772. Complete soil tests also were available on mauxy of the farms. During the first year or two of his work, time associate county agent prepared complete soil inventory books for 15 or more of the farm Operators, showing CorIlplete tests on all fields and pastures. Trends in the use of soil tests are shown in Figure 159. page 114. One reason for selecting the years 1939, 1953, TABLE V.-—Land use summary — soils of Blackwater areaa Maximum use intensities which are desirable“ Intensive Moderate Small Grain, Cultivation Cultivation Pasture and Meadow Pasture Row Crops 1/2 or Row Crops 1/2 to Row CropsLess Than an More of Time 1/4 of the Time 1/4 of the Time Woodlots t _, . . ,, SOiIS Nodaway On 2to 10% Slopes Slope over 10% needing Haynie Sharpsburg Menfro no major Sarpy Grundy Winfield erosion or Westerville Ladoga drainage Chequest Pershing Slope over 5% control for Blockton Menfro Weldon each use Winfield Bewleyville intensity Gara On 2to 5% Slopes Stony land Weldon Bewleyville On 2to 5% slopes On 5 to 10% Slopes 10 to 15% Slopes s°l15 Sharpsburg Sharpsburg Menfro needing Grundy Grundy Winfield terracing tor Ladoga Ladoga one use Pershing Pershing On 5 to 10% Slopes mtehSity Menfro Menfro Weldon Winfield Winfield Bewleyville On 2 to 5% Slopes Gara Weldon \ Bewleyville 50115 need- Chariton Steinmetz “‘3 drainage Carlow Moniteau 01' protec- Onawa. tion frOm surface Wk The actual intensity of use for any tract of land is dependent upon many factors in addition to soils. ll 30118 listed for intense use can be used less intensively. Likewise, with special care, some 80113 can be used more intensively than shown. Fertilization and contouring are considered to be standard practices in the above grouping. L _ ac. L. Scrivner and J. C. Baker, Soils gr; Blackwater and w Townships, Cooper County, University of Missouri, College °f Agriculture Bulletin 772 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961). 114 Acres 80 - 7o .. Commercial Forms Other Forms 60 P - All Farms 40 L. 30 .— 20 “ I I I I, 10 — ,/ (None) 0 l 1 I /l a r Fig. 19.—-Average number of acres with complete soil tests, per farm reporting, on major types of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods. 115 and 1959 was the availability of ASC aerial photographs. Also, it was felt that 1939 would be rather typical of the immediate pre—World War II period while 1953 would be recent enough for recall of some significant data that could be obtained from farm operators. Soil treatment is a recent innovation in the Blackwater area as shown in Figures 20 and 21, pages 116 and 117, and in Table VI, page 118. Although soil tests indicated a heavy requirement for both, very little lime and no rock phosphate had been applied prior to the World War II period. Almost the same situation prevailed for other soil treatments as indicated in Table VI, page 118. Commercial nitrogen had not been used prior to 1940 and very little Starter fertilizer had been applied. However, rather sharp uPvilaxd trends in the use of all treatments have occurred for most classes of farms in recent years. As might be eXpected, farm operators in economic classes I through IV were most aggressive in stepping up the use of soil treatments. Operators in class II were the heaViest users of fertilizer and, while other variables were in\folved, it is interesting to note that they realized substantially higher returns to labor, capital, and manage- ment. than did those in any other economic class. Examination of farm business records for 1959 also showed that farm ope:I:‘ators in economic class II spent considerably more money for fertilizer than did those in any other class, an average 116 Acres 70 60" W4 Commercial Farms - All Forms I N I L( Ens)fi:" 1939 1953 1959 Fig. 20.--Average number of acres treated with rock phosphate, per farm reporting, on maior types of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods. 117 Acres 70 1- Farms ' C 'l 60 - VIA ommercua _fi\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\v \\_\\\\\ \N 1939 1953 1959 Fig. 21 .--Average number of acres limed, per farm reporting, on major types of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods. 118 aomouuaa mo apaaom mo Hones: omnuo><. 0.hh m.00 0.0 0.NOH 0.0ma 0.00H naunm Add H.0m 0.00 0.0 i h.mha m.mma 0 Hafiuo ---mnm... ......... -mnm-------:--m...m:--.-----mnmm---: o... - .. m ..--.. x 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 xH 0.00 0.~h 0.0 0.m- 5.0HH 0 HHH> ---me----------mm .......... ...m----.-----mm ......... mm------:---m---: ... h.~0 n.0m 0.0 m.nma ¢.H¢H 0.00H Hawouuafiou oooooooo .......... ....mmm ........... mi..- S 0.00 0.0m 0.0 0.00H 0.00H 0 > 0.9 has o.o m.o3 «3.5 0.03 B 0.0m m.~0 0.0 0.00~ 0.00H 0.00H HHH n.00 0.0m 0.0 m.~0~ m.mm~ 0 HH O.m0 0.m~ 0.0 0.00~ 0.m- 0 H ,mmma mmma mmma mmmu mmma mmma undone auou aHou pan so Show uom anon Hum powammm A20 :0 Show Hum anon Mom powammm Honwaau mommnau loom poxwe mo npaaom mo Hanan: omnuo>¢ uancoum 33qu 95a @3033 5 33me no, down Houmzxvam can aw mEMMM «0 mommmao afieoaooo ao aofiumuwafiuuou cuoo aw mpaaueii.H> mqmcfi 119 of $830 per farm. Other variations among economic classes in expenditures for fertilizer are shown in the following summary: Average Fertilizer Cost Number Number Per Per Economic of Using Per Farm Crop Class Farms Fertilizer Farm Using Acrea I 5 3 $450 $750 $2.15 II 11 8 604 830 3.32 III 21 17 518 639 3.35 IV 27 18 160 240 1.49 V 24 9 66 177 2.11 VI 7 l 38 267 7.76 VII 49 13 117 440 6.38 VIII 37 ll 59 197 7.43 aAverages computed for cropland acres on farms reporting. While the average fertilizer expenditure per crop -..-u... acre was higher on the small farms in classes VI, VII, and VIII, only 14 to 30 per cent of the Operators reported the use of any fertilizer. In contrast, 81 per cent of the Operators in class III and 73 per cent of those in class II reported fertilizer purchases in 1959. Trends in the application of anhydrous ammonia, liquid soil treatment, and bulk fertilizer also were investigated. . TheSe Cflianges are shown in the following summary: Type of Fertilizer Number of Area Farmers Using 1939 1953 1959 A1}hydrous ammonia O 28 28 Liquid fertilizer 0 4 10 Bulk fertilizer 3 53 73 L r _ __ 120 Closer examination of the data reveals that farm operators in economic classes I, II, and III used most of the anhydrous and liquid fertilizer. However, farmers in all economic classes made use of fertilizer delivery and- spreading services. Water Management Because of the severity of erosion on upland soils, terracing, contouring, and other conservation measures were generally accepted. The survey data showed a rather sharp acceleration in use of such measures in recent years but observation indicated that much of the early work was Poorly planned and constructed. The trends in acres terraced and contoured per farm are shown in Figures 22 and 23, pages 121 and 122. Terrace construction has been much greater on commercial farms than on part—time and part— retirement units. Most of it is concentrated on farms in eCOnomic classes I through IV. Contouring has been more Widely adopted on all groups of farms than has terracing i bUt it, too, is practiced on more acres per farm by OPerators in the first four economic classes. Terrace outlets form the foundation of a good water , management system and were built at an accelerated rate during the three time periods checked. Area farmers reported 20 in use in 1939, 44 in 1953, and 86 in 1959. All Of those used in 1939 were on farms in economic classes 121 Ac res Commercial Farms 1 Other Forms - All Forms 20 ._%_-_ 1939 I953 1959 Fig. 22.--Average number of acres terraced, per farm reporting, for maior classes of farms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time oeriods. l"- 122 Ac res 40 _ , Commercial Forms Other Forms 30 P - All Forms | 939 1953 1959 Fig. 23.-"Average number of acres contoured, per farm reporting, for major classes of farms in the Blackwater. area of Missouri in three time periods. - 123 I and II. By 1959, however, one or more outlets were reported for each economic class. While they have little importance for soil conservation, deep farm ponds are quite valuable for livestock water. The number reported in use in each time period is shown in the following summary: Type of Farm Total Number of Deep Farm Ponds 1939 1953 1959 Commercial 14 37 89 Other 1 4 29 All Farms 15 41 118 Tile drainage was reported for approximately 600 ‘ acres of poorly drained land on eleven farms. The acreage 1 reported was relatively constant for each time period and was evenly dispersed among the six economic classes. Open ditches were used by 24 farm operators in 1959 1 to drain 1600 acres, about twice the acreage so improved , twenty years earlier. ‘ Only one farm operator practiced irrigation in the Blackwater area in 1959. He irrigated 50 acres of corn with a Sprinkler system, using water from the Blackwater River. Land Use——Crop Production General Both the acreage of cropland and the intensity of its use influenced earnings from area farms in 1959. The t°tal acres of cropland were closely associated with gross 124 cash receipts, the criteria used in grouping farms by economic classes. Figure 24, page 125, shows the sharp downward trend in crop acres through all six classes of commercial farms, ranging from 349 acres in economic class I to 34.4 acres per farm in class VI. While part-time farmers, those in economic class VII, controlled almost 70 acres of cropland each, part-retirement farms (economic class VIII) contained only 26.5 acres on the average. Figure 24 also shows much more uniformity in the average acreage of open pasture and other land available to operators in each economic class. Thus, the major differences in farm size among the economic classes are accounted for largely by variations in the cropland acres available. The pattern of cropland use varied more among the (iifferent classes of farms as shown in Figure 25, page 126. CHperators of class I farms controlled almost twice as many acres Of cropland as the average of all commercial farms, 'hnat.the acreage of grain and seed crops was somewhat less tflhan the commercial farm average. On class I farms, over 73 EKar cent of the cropland.was used for roughage production (rotation pasture, hay, and silage) in 1959, in contrast to 25 to 32 per cent on class II and III farms. Two other comparisons dramatize the impact of land Ilse intensity and scale of enterprise on farm earnings. In Figure 26, page 127, the acreage of grain crops (including feed grains, wheat, soybeans, and seed crops) is plotted .32 E 050332 *0 00.6 563603 9t E WES i0 momma? Eo..o&% to» E5» Lad panorama pco_ ea 3.00 amono> __> .EOU _> > >_ _: , = _ :< _23 ”mo—U “mo—U mac—U “35 :< 306 “35 305 $00 “mo—U «35 o . V ‘ . I \S s\\ I ... . R l s \\ s a l a a ‘\ l 000 a r g pool. ..aéO wotu< 00203.. V“ x 9.228 coaO 35¢. 0020}. 00m pea—aotu motu< 009.03. - 126 . "Songs we 00.6 5.95.003 9.: E “E5; we 3320 29.0th :0 on: E 3.00 no.0 we 3: “Eu ES» En. “Eu—mob we $50 _20 .....WN .mE mac—U o_Eocouw . Eton— unto“. WEB“— .u£0 X x_ _:> => .EoU _> > >_ :_ . __ _ :< :< mac—U “35 3°C 305 __< aEU “mo—U mmay—U n35 "mu—U “menu . o A 09. n 8w 1 com m3: hopto E 3.6“ aohv omo.o>< 4 09. «092.333. 5 no..u< aBU oqu>< £80 voom .25 snoU \ . con £ §o< no.0 omSo>< \k “£80 too“. . E «9.2 no.0 ouuho>¢o .oo.ooa omo.¢ m oo.ooa ~.Hoa .~.HoH manna Has mo.om mma.~ » L Hm.mm e.¢m f . n.om gonna ....... “mm:-------...mmi--- .---mwm::i 3: _ 3. x oo.o o oo.o 0.0 0.0 xH mm.m «Hm mo.am m.o~ H.m~ HHH> mm.ma vmm.~ imm.¢m m.vm ”.mo HH> HHHmmHEW““Emmi“--. -------._n---m.-----mm---“ i... me.H mmm.a mm.~aa m.a¢ H.um H> oo.m omm.m mm.mm m.mn o.mw >. ~m.ma Hmo.m -.¢m «.mea m.hma >H oo.o~ emm.m mm.mOH m.ao~ m.¢ma HHH mm.¢H e-.~H va.mHH m.mm~ m.vm~ HH oe.m mmm.aaw om.am m.nmm ¢.>om H A.U.m\x mommuo>4 mommuo>¢ oommuo>¢ mmsouw xovsH can cowuosooum mono vamflw oaofiw ommuo>< mmouo mammmao mo oaam> macho mono um mound mo mouom UflEocoom mmma a“ fluaommaz mo mono Hmumzxomam.m£u.cw wEHmm mo mommmflo ucoummmao co cowuosc ioum mono Ham mo msam> mmoum can £uw3 mcowflummEoo can moxmocfl camfix mono mo coaumusmEOUIl.HH> mange :1. .~ u .J..~:vti.~ ~17... t y ~ ~ §> ...~.~.~;\.~. i. . . . l1 ..I IIIIIrb ill] a .. .l . . . l mmmHu UHEocooo Ham ucoo mom n .U.M\$Q cocoaucfl onsummm UCMHGOOB can Como co moUM£m50H mo COHuodwonmm 5.08 050$ 80;» m 8.03 2188 08 25mm is 38mm 8.08 moad m 8.8 086st m2 “230 8.8 3.8 31m 8.3 035.: am x 8.0 8.0 o 8.0 o m an 3.8 8.8 Sm 86 Rod». am 33 8.2 058 3.9m 8.2 madman me HH> 8.28 8.28 886 w 3.8 «8.88 mm Hmflonmseoo w 8.3 8.8 884 34 08.3 a US l 8.2 8.3 085 86 318 am >. 8.8 8.3 8.0.8 8.3 8183 R B 3.8 3.8 «88 8.8 18de an HHH 8.5 8.8 RTE 8.3 ooméma 3 H 848 8.38 89:» 8.8 «8.8 w m H ouuwomouo D32momouo ommno>< Q.O.M\X 05Hm> meumm mmsouw mo Una coflposwonm mono sham Hum COfluodpoum COfluUSUOHm mono Had mommmHo HHAN MO 05Hw> mmOHO QOHU, HHAN 05Hm> WWOHO MO 05Hd> mmOHU HMHOE .OZ UHEOGOUH momma cH flHSOmWHZ mo mmnm HOHMBMUmHm Ogu cw wEHmm mo wwwmmao UQOHOMMHU :0 GOHuUSUOHm QOHU Ga kocuHOwam HoflmH Una Ehmw H m GOHUUBUOHQ QOHU M0 05Hm> mwouw 0S“ mo EOHHMOSQEOUII.HHH> mqm¢H '7'; . A. [7' _:—_: «v w: *Umz/z .../“M 133 far computed and, likewise, realized substantially higher financial returns than those in any other economic class. Trend Data The survey data also revealed the timing and rate of adoption of a number of new technologies in crop production through three major time periods--1939, 1953, and 1959. Some of these trends are indicated in the following summary: Item 1939 1953 1959 Corn yields per acre (bushels) 45 55 60.2 Corn plants per acre (Average number) 10,123 12,198 14,077 Number of Farmers Using: Gasoline tractor fuel 51 115 131 Butane tractor fuel 0 2 2 Diesel tractor fuel 2 5 10 One-row corn picker 4 41 40 Two-row corn picker 2 4O 55 Corn picker-sheller 0 1 27 Field chopper O 35 37 Deep tillage 0 2 3 Minimum tillage 1 2 7 Two-row cultivation 44 109 119 Four-row cultivation 0 6 15 Pre-emergence herbicide on corn 0 2 5 Post-emergence herbicide on corn 0 48 61 Insecticide for corn bore 0 4 4 Insecticide on alfalfa 1 16 7 Seed cleaned before planting 43 77 90 Seed treated before planting 6 23 22 Planned supplemental grazing 23 40 46 These data show that many of the innovations in crop production were post-WOrld War II developments. Frequency counts showed that most of the innovators were in the upper economic classes while very few technologies were adopted by those in class VI. Part-time farmers tended to be innovators 134 in a number of cases, probably to their own detriment since there was a general tendency to overinvest in machinery relative to volume of production. This was a major observation in a more detailed analysis of part-time .farming in the area.1 Livestock Production General Analysis of survey data verified earlier observations of the prominence of livestock production in the Blackwater area. This was clearly demonstrated by the capital investments, by cash receipts, and by the gross value of livestock production. As of January 1, 1960, the total investment in livestock exceeded $1,214,000--an average of over $7,500 per farm for the 145 Operators reporting such investments. This represented 17.5 per cent of the total capital invested per farm but the amount varied widely among the different economic classes. Livestock owners in economic class I had over $42,000 per farm invested in livestock, over three times greater than their nearest competitors (those in economic class III) Who had an average livestock inventory 1William N. Ross and Albert R. Hagan, Part-time Farming aggnghg Family Farm, University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin 807 (Columbia: .Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963). .. . __ ._ ___._——.__.__ ,___._____i 135 of $13,800. The average investment ranged downward to $1,744 per farm in economic class VI. The distribution of capital investments among different livestock enterprises highlighted the predominance of beef cattle on area farms. The $917,000 investment in cattle represented over 75 per cent of the total assets in livestock. Total investment in hogs amounted to more than $147,500 while horses ranked third with a total of $81,080. Over $80,000 of this, however, was invested on two horse breeding farms in the area. Dairy cattle were reported on 71 farms with a total investment of over $45,000. Sheep and poultry enterprises almost tied for low place, with slightly ; more than $9,000 invested in each. Livestock production is big business in the area from the standpoint of cash sales, accounting for over $1,000,000 (80 per cent) of the total in 1959. Beef cattle and hogs were responsible for most of this income, Nmproximately $763,000 from beef cattle sales and $363,000 fronihog sales. Average cash receipts for different i livestock enterprises and differences among the economic Claisses are shown in Table IX, page 136. The gross value of all livestock production also . indicates the importance of livestock to the economy of the area. Figure 28, page 137, shows the distribution of livestock production among the various economic classes while Table X, page 138, gives a quick perspective of the relative importance of the major livestock enterprises. X ‘ ...~y~:‘\.~. 136 WWMHU UHEOCOUQ win... Sufisp H.500 me H .U.3\¢\UQ mamwn Show won a co mommno>4m ¢N.H baa w Hw.0 hm m mm.mm H¢0.m w mm.mm mom.N m 00.0 mm w mEHmm HH< Hm.0 mm m mN.H mm w av.0m Hma.m w 0H.MN 000 w mm.H mm m Hwfluo Amuma ouwamfiouch x xmumn ouoamfiouch xH mn.a hm 0N.0 m 0H.mm omN.H hm.cm vow 0m.0 0H HHH> 00.0 mm 0w.a mm 0m.om «mm.m mv.mm mNH.H mm.H mm HH> mm.a and w o¢.0 00 w H0.¢m 000.5 m 00.0N nnm.m w 0h.0 NOH w HMHUHoEEoo «0.0 mm 00.0 0 00.0N mam mm.mH mmm 00.0 0 H> hm.m 00H No.0 a 0¢.mm 000.H 00.0m mom.a N¢.N om > mn.0 0m vm.m Hmm mm.mm m0H.~ 00.00 mmH.m 00.0 0 >H mv.0 00 00.0 0 cm.mv wHH.0 cm.om enm.v mm.m mam HHH mm.m mmm 00.0 0 mm.¢m www.ma ~N.MN mom.m 00.0 0 HH 0H.0 mm m 00.0 0 w vN.mw mma.mmw mo.mH Hmm.w m 00.0 0 w H Q.U.3\X ommno>¢ 9.0.38 ammuo>< Q.U.3\x ammuo>¢ 9.0.3xx ammuo>< 9.0.3\X ammuo>< mmwmuw Ammmm d m0mwzv Xuoum mcfiwwmnm xoouw mcflvwwum XOOJw mcfivownm mpUDUOHm mummmfio .Uonm anaasom a uoxumz "momSm .0 uoxumz "mauvmo w umthz “moor muflmn uafiocoum momma CH HHDOmmHz mo mono HoumSMUMHm can CH mfihmm No mommMHo OwEocoom unmhmumflv :a stm mamas mo wocdunomfifl 0>MumH0H onu Una mmmflumhmuco x00um0>HH #:mhwmwflc EOHH mumflmomu Qmmo QmMH0> 00.0 o mv.N mwo.m 00.0 o mm.mm hwm.ww hm.dn vM®.hv #h.NH . mom.omd HH> ¢O.H omh.mw 05.0 www.mw amoo mh®.hw mm.Nm bmwemv¢w W Nho¢V mmh.hhmw , NM.HF mvh.v¢w w HMMOHQEEOU 66.6 o oo.o o 60.6 a w~.em ev~.~ w ~m-~v «mo.a mm.o omm.m . H> nm.~ coo.~ em.o mow . oo.o o m~.am mmo.v¢ em.mv oo¢.mn cw.» owo.mm > oo.o o m~.m wmm.m oo.o o ~o.om om~.oo ms.oo emn.aaa em.ma «Ho.¢ma >H 66.6 o oo.o o wo.v meo.e ca.ae mmm.es mm.¢m ooo.¢oa so.oa vae.mmfl HHH me.v one.o mH.o ~m~ 60.6 o mm.ev mm~.~e _ oa.m¢ mav.me mm.~a mmo.~ma . - HH 00.6 o w oo.o o w_ 66.6 o . w _ -.me moo.~maw me.o~ mmv.ev » om.ma mam.m- » H o.o.3\x maam> owonxxx moam> a.o.3\x osam> u.o.s\x asam> , o.o.xxx osam> .n.o.m\x osau> manage muuasom coups: gag: . atom . xuom .xooumm>aq flea mmwmwao uwfioaoom mmmwumumusw xooumo>flq Baum Goduoavoum mo mzam> mmouw mmmma aw “Macaw“! mo mono kumsxomam 030 :w mEHmm mo mommmHu unoHoMMflp no mmmwumhmccm xuoumm>wa msoflum> scum cowuospoum mo osdm> mmouoli.x wands 139 Trends in livestock production through two decades and some indication of the relative importance among enterprises over time are illustrated in Figure 29, page 140. The most pronounced changes since 1953 are increases in steer and heifer feeding and decreases in the number of purchased hogs fed. Changes in general livestock management practices also were checked through the three major time periods to indicate trends in the adoption of new technologies. The changes are illustrated in the following summary of a few practices associated with control of external livestock parasites: Number of Farmers Practice Using Practice 1939 1953 1959 Use of back rubber for fly control 0 27 44 Spray cattle for fly control 14 84 84 Spray cattle for lice l 30 41 Use rotenone for cattle grub control 3 19 27 Spray hogs for lice and mange 57 100 115 Spray sheep for external parasites 2 3 4 Dip sheep for external parasites 8 5 2 Beef Cattle Production The predominance of beef cattle among livestock enterprises in the area and the increases in cattle production during the past decade already have been noted. Feeding of purchased cattle, both heifers and steers, was more heavily concentrated on farms in economic classes I, II, VII, and X in 1959 than in earlier years, while beef cow herds accounted 140 No. of Units 5,000r' Purchased Hogs Fed} / \ \ 4,000 — / \ \ \ .’ 3,000— / / “away i // /./. / ‘ /. . . / ° 2:000- . ,. / Litters of Hogs Farrowed? Beef Cows "1 - l,000- 'Oooio...... Ewes) . '00.... 9.00.... O'CIOIOOOOOOOOOO ' .. “‘9 :l-lfifsri Fed - _ Dairy Cows ’1‘! “’M ”I -—- —. fi—x—K- K—‘C—‘—* . ’— ] l I l 939 l 953 l 959 Fig. 29.—-Trends in the number of units in major livestock enter- prises on all forms in the Blackwater area of Missouri in three time periods. 3' 141 for a greater per cent of beef production on the farms in all other economic classes. Actually, the five operators of class I farms had the large enterprises, accounting for almost one—third of the total value of beef production in the area. Feeding of purchased heifers and steers accounted for almost 95 per cent of the beef output on these farms. The number fed ranged upward to more than 600 head on one or two farms. These and other comparisons are shown more explicitly in Table XI, page 142. Both registered and grade herds of beef cows were used for calf production but only a few herd owners sold breeding stock. Most of the registered herds were in economic classes I through IV, but grade herds actually dominated in all groups except in class I. In the entire area, 18 registered herds and 68 grade herds were identified. Hereford and Angus were the dominant breeds with 38 and 31 6 herds reported, respectively. Fifteen Shorthorn herds were reported while others were of mixed breeding. Registered bulls were used with almost 90 per cent of the l beef cow herds. Table XII, page 143, includes a few other cOmparisons among economic classes in producing beef calves. l Since one of the major objectives of the study was l to evaluate adjustments made over time, a few trends in ; adOpting new technologies in beef calf production are www.mwo w 00.00H fimm.m~0.m 0mm.¢mm.a mNN.¢¢H.H mEHMm Had ¢w5.HNN w Hm.Nm mho.®mm oon.Hho mhm.va H0390 hoo.ow wh.HH oma.wmm 0mm.omm omH.mm N o 00.0 o o o xH OHN.N¢ mm.o ocv.wma 0mw.mm omfi.mwa HHH> www.mm 00.0H m0a.m¢¢ 00H.mhm moo.vm HH> www.m¢¢ w 00.nw mmw.amo.m mm®.NHN.H 0mm.maw HMHOHGEEOU M th.N mm.o 00>.OH o 005.0H H> l mmo.¢v on.® mmn.¢0m omm.mm mmh.¢¢H > omN.®® mm.0H www.mam www.mv mom.mom >H mmm.hh ©0.NH mNH.mom www.mma oom.mmm HHH mmm.mh om.0H mma.hmm th.HHN owm.mHH HH mmo.HwH w 05.0N Cam.aam ovm.mwh ooo.mv H 03$ .o.m Hum 333 it 3.55 “momma magma zoo mango GMWWMSWMHm GOMuUSUOHm "Eoum wouspoum moon «0 mpcdom meMMHU 05Hm> mmouw HMUOB NO X UHEOGOUM mmma EH flHSOmmflE m0 mmum H0UM3¥UmHm wflu CH mEHuH no mommmHU UHEOGOUO :0 dofluuzvonm Noon mo 05Hm> mwoum on» GEM GOHHUDUOHQ mauumo H009 Ho mUCflM ucmumwmwp Ho hHmEE5m||.HN mqm¢m 00.00H 050.0H m.Nm5 00.m0 0.5a 5.0a 50.05 00 0040N 0H mEHmm Ham 00.0N 000.HH 0.000 mv.00 m.¢a 5.0H 50.0w 0N mm.ma v 00:00 Nm.0 5N5.Hm 0.0m0 H¢.0m 5.0N 0.00 00.00H m 00.0 0 x 00.0 o 0.0 00.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0 00.0 0 NH 00.0a va.HH 5.0N5 50.00 0.mH m.0H 50.0w ma mm.ma N HHH> 00.0 0Hw.m 0.00m 00.00H 0.0 0.0 mm.mm 0H 50.0H N HH> o0.H5 mwm.0H 0.005 H0.¢0 5.0a c.0N oo.m5 N0 oo.mN «a H0HUH0EEOU M v0.0 omm.m 0.000 00.00H 0.0 m.m 00.00H N 00.0 0 H> l m0.NH 5mH.HH 0.0H5 o0.HOH 5.0a m.vH 00.00a ma 00.0 0 > 00.0N 55m.mH N.0vw 00.00 0.0H 0.0a 0H.m0 NH 00.00 5 >H mm.0N 00¢.0H N.vow 00.00 m.NN ¢.MN mv.H5 0H 5m.mN v HHH ma.0H NOH.MN 0.005 0m.50 0.0N 0.0m mv.H5 m 5m.mN N HH 00.0 000.mv 0.000.H 00.00 o.m¢ 0.00 00.0 0 00.00H H H o.o.m\x 000H0>€ 000H0>< mono MHMO fl .oz 000H0>¢ Q.U.3\X .oz Q.U.3\X .oz mmDOHo 00osponm A.mflav A0mmn0>Hmo 009552 mpu0m mo pcflm UflEocoum .M mmMHU £000 SH CONDUSUOHQ 000H0>0 0am“ 0:0 000._.. 5.” ..nusommHE MO 0000 H0003M00Hm 0:0 ca 05000 00 00m00Hu unaccooo 2H mcnaa Boo mmwn mo 0Nfim cam 0cHMi|.HHX mqmca l 144 noted: Number Reporting Use Management Practice of Practice 1939 1953 1959 Vaccination for Blackleg 24 43 54 Vaccination for Abortion 0 21 56 Cows "Bangs—free" by test 5 29 76 Cows fed silage 12 26 22 Cows fed legume hay 36 52 76 Calves weighed at birth 1 0 0 Calves weighed at weaning 2 10 13 Calves castrated under 2 months 19 29 40 Calves dehorned under 1 month 9 14 13 Artificial insemination used 0 0 8 Tested sire used 0 0 1 St° Louis was the major market for sale of beef cattle from the area. Thirty—nine producers shipped to St. Louis, sixteen to Kansas City, and smaller numbers to St. Joseph and various local markets. Hog Production As noted in Table X, page 138, the value of pork Production in the Blackwater area approached one-half million dollars in 1959, ranking next to beef cattle among the liVestock enterprises. Seventy—five per cent of the area Pork production was concentrated on commercial farms, with almost 60 per cent on those in economic classes II, III: and IV. Production from sow and litter enterprises Was more than five times greater than that from purchased feeder pigs. Table XIII, page 145, presents a few other highlights and comparisons among economic classes. 145 Hem.Hme m oo.ooa moo.mem.m ome.NOm ONH.5ke.~ msumm Ham moe.eHH w Hm.m~ mmm.aoe mmm.amm oom.mmm awnuo oem.mm wa.5 oo0.mm~ 0mm.HeH om5.m0 x o o o o o xH mmm.am mm.m mmH.moN mwm.ea cm0.mmH HHH> em0.5e 80.0 00m.eam ooo.mv oom.HeN HH> mme.kem w me.05 Hm~.mflm.w Hmv.oem 005.5¢~.~ Hanunmssoo mmo.H em.o om~.HH o omm.HH H> moa.mm no.8 m~5.~0m oom.m mmm.wmm > ems.HHH H5.mm Hmm.ve5 mow.mm mmo.mme >H ooo.eoa «H.HN omm.mmo cme.mk omm.eao HHH mae.m5 mm.vH mme.ome www.mm oee.mee HH mmv.5e w m0.m 0m0.0Hm om0.mmH omm.ewa H Goduospoum mmMHU H0m 0000500 .34 mmflm 00000m wHouufiq .0 Bow mmoouw xwom mo sounuooponm 690 msam> mmouo Hmuoe 00 a "Eons cmusaoum snow 00 macson Hmuoe omwwmwwm COHuUDGOHm XHOQ MO 05H0> mMOHm 0H3 mood 0m0H CH flhdommwz m0 mwum H0u03¥00Hm 0gp can wEMm Mo mwmmMHo ucohwmmwfi co COHuUSUOHQ XHOQ H0000 mo AHMEESmIiHHHX mamas”. 146 The size of hog enterprises varied widely among the different economic classes as shown in Table XIV, page 147, and Table XV, page 148. Only one large—scale confinement system was in operation in 1959. A much larger one, with a farrowing house of approximately fifty-sow capacity, had been abandoned after the death of the farm owner a year or two prior to the survey. Both the survey data and general observations in the area indicated a lack of up-to—date facilities for handling hog enterprises efficiently. A few of the larger farm operators stated that this lack of facilities and the shortage of competent labor caused them to drop sow and litter enterprises entirely. Trends in the adoption of management practices for hog enterprises, including recent innovations as well as older recommendations, are summarized below for comparisons: Management Practice Used Number of Farmers Using 1939 1953 1959 Central farrowing house 20 43 57 Individual farrowing houses 42 53 53 Farrowing on clean ground 13 27 26 Farrowing stalls or crates l 7 11 Heat lamps 2 46 6O RadiafiZheat in floor 0 0 l ltters ear-notched _ 3 .18 18 Iron.injections for anemia O 4 23 Tested boar used 0 l 2 Bacflifat measured 0 l 2 llage fed to sows . 2 6 5 S9“H3 vaccinated for LeptospirOSis 0 0 ll P4915 vaccinated for Cholera 38 65 56 P4913 vaccinated for Erysipelas 0 21 22 Ptgs treated for worms 38 79 90 P198 finished on concrete 1 l 6 sprinklers used in hot weather 0 3 5 Self—fed grain and protein 16 39 44 3%li5—fed complete mixed feed 0 6 20 lgs produced under contract 0 O O 147 mmmHU UflEocooo Mom #coo Mom u .U.W\XU mmmau UflEocouw on“ CHSuHB ucmo Mom u .U.3\Xfl mamma mnfluuomou EHMM mom :0 mommuo>¢m 00.00H m.Hom~mN m.mvH 0.0m mH.m¢ _mm omm mEumm Ham mo.ma H.mho\na 0.5m ¢.ma o¢.oN mm mNH Hogpo 0m.m 0.0mN.HN o.mm o.vH HH.w m nm N 00.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 00.0 o N NH hm.o H.wa~ma m.Hw m.HH vm.hm Va hm HHH> 05.0 n.mm¢rma N.MHH o.mH mo.Nm ma m¢ HH> vm.ow N.¢mm.®m m.w®H v.mm 0N.mm mm mm HMfiUMoEEOU ov.o 0.0NN.HH o.Hm o.m mm.vH H h H> mm.m N.mhm.¢H H.Hh H.MH oo.mh ma vN > oo.mm w.mHH\o¢ «.mma v.wm no.00 ma hm >H mm.mm m.na®.wm «.vha H.NN ma.oh 0H Hm HHH ow.oH m.mmm.v© h.mwm o.¢m vo.mw h Ha HH hh.w 0.0mm.mm o.mH¢ o.mm oo.o¢ N m H o.o.m\x eumm umm o.o.3\x .oz Ekmm Mom Sham Mom mfihmm mmsouw “New“ team t t5 Uwospoum MHom Mo mpcsom mo Hmnfidz mo MLQESZ kupflq w 30m HmQEUZ UflEocoom mafiunomom mEHmm ll|llllllllllllllllllllllllll Nomad CH fiudommflz MO MGHM HTQMBMUMHM OQU Gd mfiumw m0 mommMHU UHEOGOUm #:0HGHMHU GO wOmHHmuwucv HGHUHH wad 30m MO mNHm wmd . Hw> m ONH.® No OH m HH> vm HNm.mH wma ma VH HmeHwEEOU 8 o o o o o H> 4 l s H 000 m wN v H > m Noweh mm AH m >H ma mow.mH wva ma v HHH w mNN.MH an hm m HH 0N mmw‘Nv th 00 m H A.o.m\x sfimm you Ehmm Mom m.o.3\¥ Monasz mmwmuo xHom wo meadow Hmuoe omwwwummomo pom mums mmom wommmao U n m z pommflousm guenz no meumm UflEocoom mummMHU Uflfiocoow An Ehm moo: pwmmsohsm £0H£3 : $3 Fe #3832 mo mmum Hwbmaxomfim of E r m “mm twosooum viom «0 m 258.. m o m u 9.8 now Hogan 23 own one: o wfinmw mo gonads may I mofluuzwowmumom pomMSUHsm mo mamumll.>x mange 149 Hampshire hogs were favored by almost 50 per cent of the hog producers. Hampshire boars were used by 49 of the 102 producers reporting ownership of boars. Other boars included 13 Durocs, 10 Landrace, 9 Yorkshire, and smaller numbers of other breeds. Sow ownership followed a similar pattern, except Landrace were favored over Durocs. Very little pattern could be established for hog marketings by seasons as the time of selling was widely dispersed through the year. National Stock Yards at St. Louis was the major market for fat hogs with approximately 50 per cent of total shipments going there. Other marketing was distributed among Kansas City, St. Joseph, Boonville, Marshall, and other local outlets. Other Livestock Other livestock enterprises were of little economic importance in the Blackwater area in 1959. The number of animals was so small that average data by economic classes had little significance. A few observations illustrate the general situation. Only eight farmers reported the sale of dairy PrOducts and only three of these might be considered c0mmercial producers. Only one Grade A milk producer Operated in the area and he had the only Holstein herd. He alSo was the only milk producer with a milking machine, bulk tank, milking parlor, and other facilities for a modern dairy farm. 150 Sheep enterprises also were small and few in number. Only 503 ewes were included in flocks on 13 farms. Most of the sheep owners produced early lambs (January and February lambing) for the early summer market, but several carried lambs over for fall feeding. Most of the wool was marketed at Boonville while Kansas City was the leading market for lambs, followed closely by St. Louis. Hampshire and western breeds accounted for most of the sheep, and most of the owners reported the use of registered rams. More than one-half of the laying hens were concentrated in one commercial flock of 1,800 birds. The other 1,425 hens were dispersed among eight other flocks. The one large flock in the area produced eggs for a hatchery as did all except two of the other flocks reported. No broiler and ‘turkey enterprises were in the area. Capital Investments Assets An investment of over $7,569,000 in total assets was reported by 153 area farm operators from whom complete financial data were secured. For all these farms, the investment in real estate accounted for 70 per cent of total assets, but the ratio ranged from 62.5 per cent in class I farms to 86.6 per cent for those in class VIII. Livestock investments constituted 17.5 per cent of total assets for all the farms but varied from a high of 26.6 per cent on class I 151 farms to a low of.8 per cent for those in class VIII. Machinery and equipment investments ranged from 3 to 11 per 'cent of total assets with an average of almost 8 per cent for all farms. Table XVI, page 152, shows further comparisons among types of assets in economic classes of farms. Ownership of area resources was heavily concentrated in economic class I farms as shown in Figure 30, page 153. As earlier observed and further highlighted in this chart, inadequate resources seriously limit the potential for adequate farm income from farm units in economic class VI and, to a lesser degree, in classes IV, V, and VII. Liabilities For all farms included in the financial analysis, the total debt was not particularly burdensome. However, the situation differed greatly among types of investment. The long—term real estate mortgage debt was quite low relative to value of assets, a ratio of 1.0 to 17.8, While the debt secured by chattel mortgages was relatively high--a ratio of 1.0 to 5.1. Perhaps this inclination to encumber working assets more heavily than real estate during periods of rapid change and financial stress is a natural tendency. A reluctance to increase long-term debt was expressed by many of the farmers who were interviewed, even though it would improve the overall financial position. 152 mmMao UHEocooo Ham ucwo mom u .o.m\Xo mmmao on» :Hfipfl3 #:oo mom u .o.z\$n mammn Sham Mom m no mommno>¢m oo.ooa «mo.m¢w hH.on NMN.Omw om.h 0mm.mw o¢.¢ HNm.Hw Hmnha wvm.h w mEHmm HH¢ wh.Nm va.mmw Hm.wh hma.on H¢.m mom.Hw om.N dmm w Ha.ma Ohm.¢ w Rogue Anamo ouoamfioonHv x Amumn ouwamfiooaHv xH vo.hH www.mm mm.®m th.¢m Ho.m HmH.H ¢N.N 0mm 0H.m NMN.m HHH> mh.mH vm¢.mN mm.mw mam.ma Ho.m omN.N wm.m hoo.H h¢.wa mmN.m HH> NN.h® voN.omw mo.®o OON.mmm no.0 0mm.¢w wN.m Hm®.Nw 00.0H Nmm.m w HMHUHwEEOU mh.o mmH.OH om.Oh oma.h mo.h wa 5N.m 5mm HH.hH v¢N.H H> mm.m odv.mN om.o> me.ON m¢.w om¢.N Nh.m mmo.H oo.hH hHo.m .> mN.NH mm©.¢m mm.oo VON.MN mo.HH mNm.m mv.m hwm.a om.©H mmn.m >H mo.0N woo.¢o hm.mo wmm.o¢ hH.m whm.m om.m omh.m mm.HN NHw.MH HHH N¢.HH mmm.ho wN.m® Hmh.®¢ mm.OH mHo.h vb.m hum.m H0.¢H mmw.m HH mH.NH Nmm.hmaw Nm.No www.mom HN.® www.mw oo.v mmm.bw Nm.mN vHo.va H 0.0.m\x owmno>< 9.0.3\X mmmum>¢ .0.3\X ommuo>< 3.0.3\X wmmuo>¢ A.U.3\X ammuobm museum Emmwwmmmoe muWMMoWMMMEH wumwwmmwwz moflmmsm a. town xooumofiq mmwmmao . mo 05Hm> mo wDHm> mo 05Hm> comm mo 05Hm> Mo osaw> UfiEocoom momma .H MHNDQMb Mo mm HHDOmmAE mo mmum Hmym3¥UMHm on» :H mfihmm m0 wwmmmao UHEOGOOO Go mquEumw>cfl Hmufimmo mo GOHUMUMMHmmMHU m mnfl30£m wuommm EHMN Mo huoucw>CHll.H>x Manda 153 .82 .— x532. do 3 E532 do 080 5.026.003 of E 258 cc 330.0 859.8» :0 rcogmo>£ do womb .o_oE .3 :03 mo 3:03:32“. 0 tea £030 EB. do «30> _22 om€o>3o_U _> 305 .EoU..o __ .86 t __ ago _ “mo—U > 305 > 305 _ n35 o ”I’M”! 74"”! II... Film ".../g . . . 80.8 «raw/iv rill/4 I 99% 4 .I I Z , taxxr/ ' ‘‘‘‘‘ .8... 80.00 A 0.02334 *0 o:_o> omEo>< D 956N— uoznasm d :33 €00“. ...o 039, ongo>< 20.533 d b32032 do 032, 09:23 I. 68.8- 7/ £coEo>oi§ .u 95.. .o 03.9, 8203. I . 1 LTXKB—n 33> 5:8 154 Chattel mortgages per farm were highest on economic class I, II, and III farms where cattle feeding operations were most heavily concentrated. Accounts payable also were highest per farm in these three classes. Real estate mortgages for farms reporting this type of debt were highest in economic class III, with an average of $13,100 per farm, and lowest in class VII with approximately $3,200 per farm. Net Worth A financial balance sheet, as illustrated in Table XVII, page 155, was prepared for farms in each economic class. A summary of the financial balance sheets for each economic class, showing the average position of each and for "commercial" and "other" farms as major groups, is presented in Table XVIII, page 156. The results show that farmers in all economic classes were in good financial condition, but some financial problems were concealed in the group averages. A few individual farm families were on the verge of bankruptcy, despite the favorable situation for the group. Others were heavily burdened with short—term debt even though the net worth statement showed a favorable situation. .155 TABLE XVII.--Financial balance sheet showing assets, liabilities, and net worth for all commercial farms (86 farms) in the Blackwater area of Missouri as of January 1, 1960. ' ASSETS Sub-Total Average Total Average (86 Farms) (86 Farms) Current Assets: Cash $ 79,236 $ 921 Feed, Seed, Supplies 220,850 2,568 Livestock (Feeding) 451,961 5,255 Total Current Assets $752,047 $8,745 Working Assets: Livestock (Breeding) $392,915 $4,569 Machinery and Equipment 385,649 4,484 Total WOrking Assets 778,564 9,053 Total Fixed Assets: (Land and Improvements) 2,739,935 31,860 Total Farm Assets $4,270,546 $49,658 Total Non-Farm Assets 603,051 7,012 Total Farm and Non-Farm Assets $4,873,597 $56,670 Liam Farm Debts: ' Short-Term Debts $243,285 $ 2,829 Long-Term Debts 252,425 2,935 Total Farm Debts $495,710 $ 5,764 Total Non-Farm Debts 13,600 158 Total Farm and Non-Farm Debts $509,310 $ 5,922 NET WORTH Net Worth 4,364,287 50,748 Total Liabilities and Net Worth $4,873,597 $56,670 156 MMMHU UHEOSOUO Hmm ....qu H00 anm\anU .muoumnomooo 30w m Scum mEmuH meow How span muonEoocH Op can Spuo3 ums may stwm Ho: HHH3 mpnwp Hmwou mmma moonsommn Hofiuo mo osam> Hmuou was mpwmmm Eumw mo 05am> annoy .wommo 050m CH Q mammn Enmm Mom m so momMHw>.Hv w oo.wN m¢¢.m w m¢.m¢ Hm>.oaw mb.Nm «Nm.mm w nonuo Amumn ostmEoquv x Amuse muonEoosHv XH mm.ha omo.Nm mw.m ¢0H.H mo.mH ONN.HH eo.na www.mm HHH> om.ha ®w®.¢m hH.¢N H¢N.m ©m.@N vm¢.oa mh.ma vm¢.mN HH> Ho.mm mwm.Nm w em.Hh HwN.m w mm.¢m Hmn.m w NN.>® voN.om w HmHoH0EEoo m®.o va.m mo.N mmo.m mn.o ovo.N m>.o mma.oa H> Nh.oa mmm.em wH.oa ma¢.m mm.mH Hmm.w mm.m mav.mN > mN.NH hhH.om 5N.m Nmo.N mo.h Oha.¢ mN.NH mmo.vm >H Nm.wH omN.vm Ho.oN omm.m 00.0H omm.oa wo.0N mmo.vm HHH mm.0H th.0h NN.¢H mmv.OH w>.m mew.aa N¢.HH mmm.hm HH oe.ms mm¢.vwew o~.HH o~m.eaw mm.m owe.mmw MH.NH mmm.hmaw H 0.0.m\& 0mMHo>¢ U.U.M\X ommno>¢ 0.0.m\x ommno>¢ 0.0.M\$ mmmno>< mmsouw nuuoz munoo moousomom Hofiuo mpmmmd Emmm mmwmwao Auoz ,Hmuoa mo 05Hm> Hmuoa mo 05Hm> kuoa oasocoom momma .H kHMSQMb mo mm HHdOmeZ Mo sous prmsxomam map :a mEHmm mo nwmmmHU UflEosouo an NHHHOQV U NC US“ .musot .mOUHSOmOH Hmfiuo .wavmwm EHMN mo NHmE55m I ucmEmumum HMHUCMCHhII.HHH>X mqmfia 157 Farm d Family Earnings Cash Receipts Livestock enterprises provided over $1,000,000 (80 per cent of the cash receipts) in 1959. As shown in Figure 31, page 158, the percentage of income from this source was particularly high on class I farms on which large cattle feeding enterprises predominated. Percentagewise, livestock furnished the major part of the income on all except class VI farms. Data Shown in Figure 31, page 158, accentuates the wide disparity in total cash receipts among farms in different economic classes. Except on economic classes I, II, and III farms, the low level of cash receipts precluded satisfactory family earnings with the prevailing cost-price relationships. Cash Expenses Expenses in this analysis included all cash expenditures for 1959, both for operating costs and for new investments. Inventory changes compensated for the invest- ment items in the financial summary.. Total cash expenses for the area almost equalled total caSh receipts with a total outlay of $1,394,089 in 1959 on the farms reporting. As would be expected in a hog and cattle feeding area, feed costs far exceeded any other .002 cm “5332 00 outs 5336.00:— m;. 5 “E30 00 momma—u E30002". :0 009.9: mouse» pea 20300. :30 .22 omoto>< £3000“ x0233; omoto>< I 3° _ U 0 w EOCOUW 80.0w 08.8 000.3 000.8 95.2» 2333. :80 159 cash outlay for the year, except for the investment in purchased livestock. Feed expenses amounted to more than $250,000 while the purchase of livestock required an outlay of $483,864 in 1959. The next highest expense item, for new machinery purchases, totalled $144,582. The following array Shows a few of the other major expenditures for the year: Item Expenditure Gasoline and fuel oil $65,393 Repairs and maintenance 51,277 Labor 49,717 Machine hire 38,982 Taxes ‘37,476 Supplies 36,421 Interest 35,552 Fertilizers and lime 33,834 Seeds and plants 29,538 New buildings and fences 25,107 No other individual expense item exceeded $20,000. Cash Balance While cash receipts exceeded cash expenses in the aggregate, a negative cash balance occurred in economic classes I, V, and VII. Operators in econOmic class II realized the most favorable cash balance as shown in the financial summary in Table XIX, page 160. Net Changes in Inventory Table XIX also illustrates the effect of inventory Changes on farm and family earnings. Inventory increases more than compensated for the negative cash balances on 160 waste o>onm was no 160 can .Amv .va msEdHoo as nuances 0:» msHEEDm >9 owumHSUHmo Q manna msfluuomwh EHmw mod m :0 mommno>mw «mm.aw Nm¢w Now w on w MhH.m w . mwN.m w mEHmm Had mwv w Nomw vwh w HNwl w mmw.¢ w Nmo.¢ w Hofiuo Amumo oumamfioosHv x Amumn muoamfioosHv xH h¢H.H Nmm mmHI Hmm NNm.N NhN.m HHH> mHI Nov 0mm.H Ohm.H| mmm.w ma0.m HH> 0V0.Nw mHmw m¢0 w owm w HHm.NHw N00.maw HMNUHOEEOU hmo mwm mNH 00H hNH.H omN.H H> ooh mme omw Hem: mem.¢ mo>.m .> mNo.N me 00m me.H 5mm.m mNH.h >H s~w.~ New ewe mmm.H wmm.ma Nmm.ea HHH mo¢.v 0am 0m 000.m Hem.ma ONN.MN HH omm.Hw owow oma.h w me.me ®m®.mhw va.mow H mmhww>< wmhww>4 omhww>< omMWW>¢ wmmmw>¢ omwmw>< wwwwuo Rmmsficumm ha mpoopoum omsmno moqmamm momsomxm mumflooom m0MMMHU Ifismm was Sham omDImEom huousw>sH sumo Sumo ammo UHEosoom momma as NHSOmmwz 00 mass Houm3¥omam on“ GM mEHMm mo mwmmMHU mDOHHm> MOM mmGHGHmw hdflfiww USN EHMN wmmuw>m mo GOHumqufioo I MHMEEDm HMflUGMGflhII.XHx mamas 161 class I and V farms but not for the part-time operators in class VII. Inventory changes varied widely among different type of investments and economic classes. While total livestock inventory values increased by more than $50,000 for all farms reporting, the changes from January 1, 1959 to January 1, 1960 ranged from a net increase of almost $36,000 for all class VII farms (an average increase of $1,440 per farm) to a net decrease of almost $17,500 for the ten operators in economic class II. The five economic class I cattlemen had the highest average increase-—$5,573 per farm. Net increases in feed and supply inventories were realized in all economic classes. Net inventory changes in machinery and equipment ranged from a decrease of $580 ($145 per farm) on economic class VI farms to an increase of $17,219 for the 10 operators in economic class II. Operators of class I farms had an increase of $1,586 per farm. The wide variation in inventory changes on area farms emphasizes the necessity of including these items in order to get a true indication of farm earnings. Farm Contributions to Family Living Home produced food and fuel contributed over $70,000 to farm and family earnings in the area in 1959. Fruit and beef contributed most as shown in the following array of F L 162 the more important items: Item Value in 1959 Fruit $13,894 Beef 13,759 Vegetables 11,375 Pork 9,727 Milk 8,249 Fuel (wood) 4,065 Eggs 3,995 Butter 3,067 Poultry 2,471 As shown in Table XIX, page 160, farm contributions to family living were highest in economic class I and lowest in class VIII. Income from Off—Farm WOrk Off—farm employment contributed most to family cash income on class VII (part—time) farms, averaging over $4,000 Per farm as shown in Column 3 of Table XX, page 163. HC>Wever,‘some off—farm work added to family income in all ecOnomic groups except class I, averaging $509 for all cOmmercial farms. A detailed analysis of part—time farming in the areas and special problems associated with off—farm employ— ment: is included in University of Missouri Bulletin 807.1 Non—Labor Income Non-labor sources of off—farm income also contributed to fEamily living in the area in 1959, especially to ¥ 1Ross and Hagan, Part—Time Farming and the Family m. 2163 mans» m>onw 0:0 mo Avv new Amy maesHoo cw mufiSOEm ms» Aufl3 A He“ CESHOO .xHX oahmev wocmamn cmmo on» mCHEE:m An pmusQEooo o>onm Avv can .Amv .ANV mcEsHou Cw nuances on» msHEEsm >n 000508003 manna meauuomou show you s so mommum>¢m Hes.a » mmo.m w ems » mmH.Hm «mm.aw magma Hes Sea a was a Sm a. - ease In: a .I 356 .................. -----------------:----------------..mwmm-Mwmpmwm-- x Anson oumHmEooch xH omm.N mmm.N mm¢.a Ha h¢H.H HHH> Nov.N vmm.¢ hon moo.¢ mHI HH> ...... mmmw-M-I-U-I- Ame-mm w -...m--w-i.---wm-w- -.W----------wwm-.m-- 32.58 m:- ---..--Mmm ....... nIII-mw-II- gems-I.-- ------..--Ifi ...... a mom Nmm.a Nmm see 005 > Hom.a H¢0.N ch mmm mNo.N >H oom.u 0mm.m om mne va.N HHH mmm.v who.m Hm NNo mo¢.v HH mem.ml w Nom.N w mow w o w 0mm.aw H kw: mam-e... ammo... ...-Mm: in: Lug “ficw>sq mafladm u0m £0&OUCH xaaadm mEOUCH oEoocH mmcflcumm moMMMao wanmsnw>¢ rmmo umz Hmuoe nonmsucoz sums-mac assess 6cm sums oeeocoom momma CH HHSOmmwz mo swam noum3xomHm on» Ca mommmao UHEocoUo ucmuwwmao ca mmaHaEmM you 0cfl>aa NHHEMM sow mannasm>m sumo ommum>m 0:0 Sue? mCOmHnMQEOU 0cm mEOUCfi xaaEMm umc Hmuou mmmum>s mo ceaumusmeou I >HMEEsm assocssamII.xx mqmdfi 164 part-retired farm families in economic class VIII. The summary in Column 4 of Table XX, page 163, shows a range from $51 per family in economic class II up to $1,435 per family in class VIII. Social security payments accounted for almost 54 per cent of this non-labor income; interest, rent, and dividends 21 per cent; and other sources 25 per cent. Variations in non-labor income among the economic classes are shown in Table XXI, page 165. Table XXI also shows the relative importance of non- labor income to families in different economic classes. In class VIII, over 55 per cent of net family income came from non-labor sources, primarily social security, while the amount was scarcely more than one per cent for families in class II. With little question, off-farm labor and non-labor incomes have decreased the mobility of farm families in the area. Considered from the viewpoint of the farm families involved, the offzfarm income had enabled many to remain on their home farms with an acceptable level of living, while without such income, economic pressures would have forced them to leave. Total Net Family Income One of the most revealing figures in the entire financial analysis was the tota1.net family income. It was 165 mmmao owaosoom Mom usoo Mom u .U.m\xa mmmao caeosooo may canvfl3 ucoo mom u .0.3\Xm mm.ma o.ooa mnm.¢bw vm.mN emo.maw mm.0N emm.maw mm.mm H¢H.ovm manna Ham smumm 6.05 emo.mmw m¢.mm «Hm.saw r em.¢a 656.5 m mm.~o and.mmw umsuo :- ----- - ----- L. ------------- - ----- - ...... III-I--- ---..- ----- --Jflmmfimmmmmm-- x «mama ouoamsoosHv xH vm.mm m.mm 05H.0¢. om.ma mph.b Nm.h HNO.m NH.Mh Ahm.mN HHH> qum b.0H 50¢.NH Hm.Nm vm0.¢ 0N.hm . mmo.¢ no.0m oom.m HH> I - ....m----mmm-:m..m.m----...mm-m-:...mm: man... - . 32.-a... I om.mm w.MIIII mmHHMIIII m0.mmulI momuN II1I00H0 0 .00.0I I m I I H> m¢.mN m.hH www.ma mN.mm HVm.¢ m¢.HN mNm.N mm.N¢ .mHm.m > Nm.N m.N_ NHh.A mo.m hm mm.mo mwo.n @m.am own >H mm.N m.N bmo.N mN.o ONH hO-Om mvo.d o>.m¢ Nam HHH .mH.H 0. new Hm.Nm 00m mH.hm mNN 00.0 0 HH MN.NN ¢.m 0mm.N m 00.0 o w oo.ooa 0mm.N m 00.0 o w H .6: as . .8? E . .sf 5 . . E . 5 . .5 E seams” Humans 3.0.M\X Oawuoam m.U.W\x UAWHMHm s.o.3\x OHMUMMQ m.U.3\x UHWuwmm museum uwww wwwow WM nwousom Add moonsom Henna uwwmowwwwmmwcH unassumm Hmwuom mmWMMHU QEOUGH hawamm - oasosoom HonsdIcoz "Scum wEoosH mafiamm Honmqlcoz mo unsoec Hmuoa 0800c.“ enawsemw mmma cw anaemmwz Mo sous Hmum3xomam on“ ma meson mo mmmeHU usmhwmmwp so um: Hmuou Op magmGOflumamu and was maoocfi MHHEMM HOAMHIGOG I MHMEESn HmwosmsflmII.HxN wands 166 determined by summing the farm and family earnings, the off— farm labor income, and the non—labor income for each family in each economic class. This amount probably is more meaningful than any of the others computed in evaluating the current economic welfare of individual farm families and groups. From this standpoint, families in economic class II were in the strongest position in 1959 as shown in Column 5 of Table XX, page 163. Part-time families ranked next to those in class II with $4,354 while the part-retired families in economic class VIII were considerably above those in classes V and VI. Again, these findings may explain in large part the persistence of part—time and part— retirement farm units. The net family income data also accentuate the economic disadvantage of families in economic classes V and VI. Low farm earnings and limited non-farm income leave these families very little money for family living. This situation is reflected in level of living indexes and other measures of living standards presented later. From the welfare standpoint, farm families in economic classes V and Vi were in greatest need of financial assistance. Cash Available for Family Living Cash available for family living, as shown for each economic class in Column 6 of Table XX, page 163, was computed for each family and for the economic class by 167 combining the cash balance from the farm business with the off-farm labor and non-labor income items. Farm families in economic class I were the lowest among all classes in the availability of cash for living in 1959 with a negative $5,309. This was due, at least in part, to the less intensive land use and the major reliance on cattle feeding enterprises which were in an unfavorable economic position that year. Those in class II fared best with $4,538 available for the year. The average commercial farm family had $1,136 available as compared to $2,289 for the average part-time and part—retirement family. Families in economic classes V and VI were considerably below the usual caSh needs for family living with $605 and $749 available, respectively. Actual cash expenditures for family living were not available for Blackwater area families in 1959. However, such data were secured from 140 farm families Who participated in the Missouri Extension Service record project for that year.1 It is interesting to compare these average caSh expenses with the cash available to families in the study area. For the 113 families engaged in full-time farming, ordinary caSh costs averaged $2,182 and other costs (life insurance and new investments) $2,239--a total of $4,421 per 1"1959, Missouri CaSh Costs of Family Living" (Cooperative Extension Service, University of Missouri, 1959) p. 4. (Mimeographed). 168 family of four persons. The total was over $400 higher for the 27 part-time farm families. Aggregate Measures 2; Efficiency Highlights of the earnings from area farms in 1959, as shown concisely in Table XXII, page 169, revealed some interesting facts about farm business operations for that year. One disturbing revelation was the fact that all economic groups experienced negative returns to management in 1959, indicating a lack of adequate returns to reward all of the factors of production. Some of the implications of this situation are shown in the computations summarized in Table XXII. The first step in analysis was to deduct the charges for unpaid family labor from farm and family earnings to get the returns to the operator's labor, capital, and management as shown in Column 3 of Table XXII. Next, a deduction was made for the operator‘s labor to determine the returns to capital and management as summarized in Column 4. Only class II and III farms had positive returns to capital and management, indicating that the operators in all other classes failed to get full pay for their own labor. By deducting a 5 per cent interest charge on invested Capital from the returns to the operator's labor, capital, and management, the returns to labor and management were 169 mammn mswuuom0n sham H0m so 00mmu0>¢0 smv.~um Hem- m Hm.o- menu a Ho~.H» 60m.em menus Hes emo.-w HmH.H-w . H0.HI mmm- w «on m was » “mayo ------------- . -------- .-..I-I-I-II ------------..-----mmmm-mmmmmmmme-- x Amuse spasmsaocuv xH mmm.al mmml 05.0I moNI 0N0.H hfiH.H HHH> ----mwmhmu ........ WWMHHH--- -----mwwmu----- ..... WWW”---.-----Wmmm ..... .----mm-u--- ... mN0.NIw n vamu 0 fl hm.0I NmHI w H 5N0.Hw Illr 0¢0.Nw asaouoesoo ¢Nm.HI 1| Illmm IIIII II. IIIImmwmm I III mmmHIIII. I Mam hmm H> mNm.NI mmbl Hm.mI mm¢.al .mmm 005 > m00.NI 0H I 0¢.0I omal hm0.H 0N0.N >H hom.NI meal 0m.0 Nam Hum.N ¢N0.N HHH mum.HI N00 Na.m hmH.N mmd.v m0¢.v HH msm.nuw -¢.muw se.ou 40HI » 0mm.ew 0mm.ew H 00MWW>< 00MWW>¢ wmwmw>m 00MWW>< 00MMW>¢ 00MMW>< 0%MWHO usmfiommcmz a 00WMMHU usos0mmcmz us0E0mmcmz 0:08000sm: usufiomwsmz .Hmuamsu .Honsq mmsasusm oasosoom ou cusu0m one Henna 0cm asuwmso a Housman 0.Housu0mo maaemm on susu0m ou.susuma R. on cusumm ou susu0m 0cm sham momma wusommaz 00 moms u0ussromam 0:0 as mason mo m0mmmao oasosoom mo 000u0>0 0:0 How MUC0HUflmm0 mo 00H5000E 0u000H000 mo coaumusQEou I NHMEEdm HmwosmcHhII.HHxx mamas 170 determined with the results shown in Column 6. Only in economic classes II and VI were earnings high enough to pay capital charges and leave any returns for labor and management. Operators in class VI realized a small return ($58) to labor and managment only because of the very limited resources on which interest charges were computed. Not even the operators in class II, however, had sufficient earnings to pay adequate returns to both labor and capital. Thus, one might conclude that none of the economic groups in the area could perpetuate the type of operations conducted in 1959 under the conditions then prevailing. Labor Resources and Labor Efficiency Since labor was one of the major resources on area farms, several analyses were made to determine how it was used. The procedure was to determine productive man work unit (PMWU) requirements for crops and livestock, farm labor costs, and the efficiency of labor use on different types of farming operations. Sources of Labor Both family and hired workers contributed to the tOtal supply of labor available. Table XXIII, page 171, Shows the relative contribution of farm operators, farm Wives, other family members and hired workers to the total. Family labor predominated in all economic classes of farms, 171 0HH£ 0GH£UME tam MOSH» Mo when Hmsuum 0:» 0:0 :0E U0HA£ m9 00MH03 mast Hoduom 0:0 musesdm an o0pmasoamo mmMHU owEosoo0 0£u :a£ua3 0:00 H0m n .o.3\.\.0 mN. mo Houusw #:0Eumsnom :0 an U0HHQHHHDE U 0. mo HOHUMM HG0EHMSHpm as >3 tmflamfluasa 00xH03 mast Hmsuom 0£u I what :05 mm 00mm0memo m. Ho Houowm 0:0Euwoflwm :0 an ©0HHQHHHDE @0xHo3 mast Hmsuum 0;» I want :08 mm 00000mem A manna Est H0m 0 so 0000H0>¢m 00.00H N.owN ma.NH m.¢m Hm-hm m.HmN bm.0 0.0H mm.N v.h mw.mh H.mNN mEHmm AH< 00.00H m.mWH MN.NH b.0N hh.h0 w.wVH 00.5 N.MH ma.¢ 0.h em.mh v.0NA H0nuo A0009 0HOHmEooch x Amuse 000Hmaooch xH 00.00H m.mNN “0.0H m.MN mm.mm v.HoN 0v.m 0.5 vo.¢ H.m mw.Hm m.va HHH> 00.00H 0.NHH om.0a m.wa 0©.mm h.mm 0m.ma N.>H Hm.¢ m.m mm.m0 0.Hh HH> 00.00H m.v0m om.Na >.mv 0v.hm 0.0Hm mm.o w.MN ¢H.N m.> wh.wh 0.50N H0HUH0EEOO 00.00a N.mMN 0N.o 0.0 «p.00 w-VMN 00.0 o 0®.m 0.0 mo.0m 0.0NN H> 00.00a N-wNm wo.v m.ma Nm.mm m.NHm 0v.m 0 ha MN.H o.¢ NN.0® H.HmN > 00.00d a-mNm Hm.v o.vH mw.mm H.HHM om.m m NA mm.v w.VA om.hm m-mwN >H 00.00u m.mav ma.ma m.vm Hw.0w 0.0mm moIMH H.No m®.o- ®.N 0H.H> M.V¢N HHH 00.00H H.5hm 0m.WH hIAo v0.mw v-mam mwvv. N.ma N0.m V.HH 0h.mn w.mwN HH 00.00H 0.000 m0.mm N.~0m no.0e $.00m 00.0 0 00.0 o No.0v 0.00m H .hmwvx 0WMMW>< .WmMVX 0mmww>d .Umwvx 00MWW>¢ .omhvfi 0mMWW>¢ .UmWVX 00MWW>< .U%MVR 00MWW>¢ AHV 0 0 0 0 0 szOHU wH0XH03 Had 0H0xH03 U0HHm zammwwmmflc UHOMMMMMM0W0SHO. nwmwk EHmm Hou0H0mo EH00 00MMMH0 Uwfiocoom "an mmmH 5H Honda EH00 Ho mama so: no H0AE=z momma as HHSOmWHz m0 00Hm Hmumzxomam 0£u :H mEHMu Mo mommMHU OAEOGOUO :0 mOUHsom ustomwaw EOHM HOQMH Mo m>mc nmE Mo HwnEd: 000H0>>< :> .500 _> > >_ :_ : _ _Soh _22. 320 SBU $00 $05 .20.— mmcU $00 $06 Soc 300 $20 0 a a ..N m d ... W m - 09 I 08 00m LOJCOZ w_UE ”CO 00* . _0>0._ _cmExoiEw 0:12:25; 4 . I 00v I 00w 40030): .00 D>><><><¢0 H¢.on moo.~ » moo.~ » ¢¢~ m A mme.H » usumm Has H~.HH» mem.H u mmH.H w mea m _ oqo.H w Hague ------------ -.--I----I-------I---------.-:------mumm-mwmmmmwmw-..-- x Amuse 0u0HmEoocuv NH no.0N Hum.a hum.a 50H 0H¢.H HHH> 0N.o oom.H vmh mNH f .omm I HH> II vm.w w IIIIII MNH.N » I IT 0mm.m 0 Ir 0Nm m n OMN.N w HMHUHmfiaou ----mmmm---. ....... mam ...... - ...... mam ...... ----m..- ....... III--..“.-. ..... i s vm.NH 0h0.N mmN.N mm omH.N > 0m.m moo.N ohN.N mm 05H.N >H 00.0 >00.N mom.N Nmm Nam.N HHH mm.m Hmo.N o¢0.N wa mON.N HH mm.m w Hma.N w mmm.v w mNm.N m 00H.N w H A00 Ame as. Ame .ANV Ads 0320 uc0H0>Hsngcmz HOA0A_EHMH Had Hoomq_ Honda mawash mQSOHo H00 H00 Ho 09H0> oonm Ho 05H0> was 00H0£U 00H0£U Hence no 05H0> H0909 mommmao Henna Honmq 000H0>< 0msH0>< 000H0>¢ owfiocoom flmmmfl CW flhflommflz NO MOHM HOUM3¥UMHQ 03.“ CH mEHMH Ho 00000Ho UHEocoo0 co >0c0Honm0 Henna 0cm HOQMH mo Amumoov 005H0> 000H0>¢II.>Hxx mqmda HH H0uam£U CH ©0Gfl0amx0 0H0 nofiuosvoum xUOpm0>HH Una mono Mom DZZm Hmuou mo mfloaymHsonoo oom an Hoan gnaw mo mwmw ampOu may mcflwfl>flc >9 wmumasofimon mammn Ehmw H0& 0 co m0mmuw>¢m m.mom m.m0N o.H m.owm CNN mEHmm Had N.ohH h.moa v.0 m.m®a mNH Moguo “mama wuwamaouch mm x Amumn 0p0HmEooch m NH o.vm N.mh m.o m.m~m hm HHH> m.on m.oNH v.0 o.NHH av HH> 6 N.nvN 0.0mm N.H m.vom mm HMfluuwafioo N w.ow «.mw w.o N.mmm w H> m.moH H.Nma H.H N.®Nm vm > ¢.mvN m.¢hm H.H H.mmm hm >H H.mmm ¢.mmm v.H m.ma¢ Hm HHH ¢.w¢m m.mmv m.H H.55m Ha HH m.hmm o.owh IN.N w.mo© m H 0mmn0>¢ 0m0H0>¢ 0mmu0>¢ ,0mmu0>< 0mmu0>< mmsouw us0am>flswmlc02 Umwmflgmg0ucm Ham Qmuc0Hm>HDvacwz Hoflmq Enmm mfiumm mmMMMHU H0m DBEA MOM 032m Hmuoe mo H0flfisz mo mama H0909 mo .02 UHEonoom mamma CH Husommfiz mo m0hm H0umz on 0 Sum 0 Dxx mmmmmfio HG0H0MMHU c0 ufi0Hm>H5mvwlfimE Hum ESSA 0mmu0>m¥0gmmhfi£womfiwmmmm Wowmdnfiwmm Mogaqll. mqmfib 177 A striking contrast between labor efficiency and labor costs is shown in Figure 33, page 178, Where the average PMWU per man-equivalent is plotted alongside the average labor cost per PMWU for each economic class. Financial Management In connection with the general survey, a check was made on a few financial and business management practices. Observations from this summary and analysis are presented briefly. Insurance Insurance was more widely used for farm buildings filan any other purpose in 1959, ranging from 70 per cent of the operators in class VII to 100 per cent of those in classes I and II. Insurance coverages for other purposes are illustrated below: Type of Insurance Per centa of Operators Insured Commercial Other All Farms Farms Farms Farm machinery 35 14 25 Livestock 34 13 24 Crops 17 10 14 Life 59 44 52 Liability 55 45 50 Hospital 56 48 52 Accident 20 26 23 aPer cents are rounded to the nearest whole number. Closer examination of the data reveals that fewer farm operators in the lower income c1asses--especially classes 178 Egg 8 2 '2 0° 3 o . 3% ii 3% ' $3 § § § § 179 V, VI, VII, and VIII——had insurance protection of all types as compared to those in classes I through IV. Credit Short—term credit was used most extensively for the purdhase of livestock, feed, and machinery. Over 90 per cent of class II operators and 80 per cent of those in class I borrowed money for cattle purchases. Commercial operators used credit much more extensively than other area farmers as shown in the following summary: Short—Term Credit Used for Purchase of Per centa of Operators Using Commercial Other All Farmers Farmers Farmers Machinery 23 9 17 Livestock 38 12 25 Fertilizer 8 2 6 Feed 27 3 16 Family living items 12 3 8 Other items 10 8 8 aPercentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Banks provided practically all of the short—term credit to area farmers in 1959. Seventy operators borrowed from banks, eleven used dealer credit, and four borrowed from individuals and other sources. No FHA borrowers and only one PCA customer were among those providing this financial information. Long-term credit was used almost exclusively for farm purchases. From 14 to 64 per cent of the operators in .different economic classes used such credit. The range 180 varied from 64 per cent of the operators in class II to 14 per cent of those in class VI. Long-term credit was more widely dispersed among lending agencies than Short-term borrowings. Life insurance companies supplied credit for farm purchases to 10 area farmers. Individual lenders provided funds for 15 to lead the list. Banks and the Federal Land Bank Association each made long-term loans to 8 owners. The Farmers Home Administration had one farm purchase borrower, and other agencies supplied long-term credit to 21 farm owners. Farm Records Record keeping systems also were investigated in the survey because of the general lack of knowledge of farm business performance. A variety of accounting systems were reported and some, no doubt, included the use of two or more methods jointly. The following summary indicates the types of record keeping practices reported: Type of Record Number of Farmers Using Missouri Looseleaf Record Book 24 Commercial Record Book 25 Home-made Record Book 44 Receipts and Bills 102 Check Bock Records 124 Other 15 No Records Kept 4 Very little difference was noted between commercial farmers and others in record keeping practices. 181 Tax Management Most area farmers filed income tax returns on a cash basis, 144 of the total number reporting. Only 12 filed accrual returns. All of the respondents were asked if they regulated purdhases and sales to shift taxable income from one tax year to another. Thirty indicated the regular use of such practices, 25 made such adjustments on big items purchased, and 80 reported that such adjustments were never made. Participation in Government Programs The participation of area farmers in government price support programs is indicated in the following summary: Types of Participation Per centa of Farmers Participating Commercial Other All Farms Farms Farms Always 15 2 9 Only When market prices are low 32 13 23 Never 44 44 44 aPercentages are rounded to the nearest Whole number. Rental Arrangements As shown in Table XXVI, page 182, crop-share leases were widely used in the area, with 70 operators reporting this method of paying rent. CaSh leases were reported by 20 operators while only 8 had livestock-share leases. mmmHu OHEosoo0 0gp :HnuH3 #200 H00 u .u.3\xm 182 oo.o o ¢¢.H¢ mp 00.0 HH «v.0 m >0.mm on mo.HH om mEH0m Had 00.0 o Nh.mm mm m¢.m m m¢.m m , ¢>.0N mm 0H.m 5 H0390 ----.. .......... .. ....... - - - I--. ............. ..-H-----..--:.mmm MMfiflflfli x ”mama 000HAEOOGHV xH oo.o o mm.m¢ 5H H¢.m N Hv.m m vm.o¢ mH HH.m m HHH> 00.0 o m¢.¢m NH vo.m H so.~ H r mm.oH m 0H.m v HH> --mmum----m---..-mflm----“.--szvm ..... m..- 4 mm. ..... m: .. -Mflmm .. ..m- 1.3.... m. _e.§.§8 --moum----m-i “mm--- .... ..... m...“ ..... 0-..- an: - H- :03... - -m I. 8.0 o - a oo.o o om.bm m om.NH m 00.0 o ho.Hv OH om.NH m > 00.0 0 v0.00 NH Oh.m H Hv.h N vh.o¢ HH H¢.b N >H 00.0 o No.hv 0H mN.VH m 05.0 H 0H.nm NH mo.mH 0 HHH 00.0 o mn.mb m 00.0 o 00.0 o flo.m® h hN.>N m HH oo.o o oo.om v oo.o~ H oo.om H 00.00 v oo.o~ H H AmHv ANHV AHHV AoHV Amy A00 any A00 Amy Rwy Amy Amy AHV 0.0.3.)» H3852 0.0.: ngz 0.0.3\X Hons—52 0.0.35» H3552 0.0.; HwnEfiZ 0.0.3.\.Rv Hmnnfidz mflflOHO cwmwmwmwmm Hmuo cmuuHuz Howmmmqu mumsmumouo ammo ummmmmwm 0000A no make HG0E0mG0HH¢ H0us0m mmmH :H HH5000H2 mo 00H0 . H0u03xo0Hm 0:» CH mEHmm so mvc0fi0mq0HH0 mcH000H 0n0 H0HG0H mo m0mwu I HG0E000G05 H0HOG0GHHII. H>xx wands 183 Only 11 operators reported the use of written leases in contrast to 75 Who relied entirely on oral arrangements. No formal father-son agreements were reported although other data revealed several such operations on an informal basis. Buying Practices The following summary gives the highlights of selected buying practices: Buying Practice Number of Farmers Using Commercial Other All Farms Farms Farms Feed Purchases: Buy in quantity for discount 33 8 41 Buy at seasonal low prices 14 8 22 Buy only as needed 57 45 102 Need only a little at a time 1 2 3 Don't use supplement 2 5 7 Fertilizer Purchases: Buy season in advance 0 O 0 Buy when needed 75 41 116 Spreads own fertilizer 15 l 16 Hires spreading done 7 4 11 No fertilizer used l6 18 34 Integration Practices Two economic class VII operators reported use of contract feeding arrangements. The use of "grain banks" for storing, processing, and delivering feed was the only other integration arrangement reported. Nine commercial farmers and four others reported use of the service. +77, # 184 Markets Early Day Markets Market outlets and the products sold in the Blackwater area have changed greatly since pioneer days when salt, timber, and other products were shipped by boat down the Lamine, Blackwater, and Missouri rivers. Livestock often were driven to market, and the famed Santa Fe Trail was initiated originally in the Blackwater area near Arrow Rock. The eastern terminus later was shifted to Kansas City which became one of the country's major terminal livestock markets. Livestock Markets Several market outlets are available now to livestock and crop producers. The National Stock Yards in East St. Louis is the major market for fat hogs and cattle, although several producers ship to St. Joseph and Kansas City which are somewhat closer. Local auctions and buying Stations at Boonville and Marshall draw market animals from some producers in the area. Trading Centers Several trading centers serve the Blackwater area although only two villages are located therein-—Blackwater in the north end of Blackwater township and Lamine in the . a...“ ..— —~ 185 southeast corner of Lamine township. Both villages are served by the Missouri Pacific Railroad. Lamine has only one general store and service station combined. Blackwater has the usual services of a small town, including a progressive country bank, barber shop, service stations, drug store, lumber yard, and a general merchandise store. Many types of businesses have been abandoned since WOrld War II, however, and vacant buildings line the main street. (See Figure 4, page 79). Nelson, just over the Cooper County line in Saline County west of Blackwater with a population of 126, and Arrow Rock (population 245) at the northern-most tip of Lamine township are other nearby village trading centers for consumption items. Larger trading centers include Marshall, 15 miles northwest; Boonville, 12 miles east; and Sedalia, about 20 miles to the southwest in Pettis County. Community Services and Facilities Several small churches of different denominations serve the area residents. These include four rural Protestant churches in the open country, three in Blackwater, and three in Arrow Rock. A Catholic church at Pilot Grove, 7 miles south, and a rural Catholic church in Pilot Grove townslrip somewhat nearer, serve the residents of that faith. ._ -.-__._. .-- - 186 The Locust Grove school is the only active rural school in the area. Other grade school children are transported to Blackwater and other nearby towns. Most of the high school students are transported to Pilot Grove and Boonville. Several community buildings have been developed from abandoned rural schools while the W—W Community Hall was cEonstructed at the junction of highway 41 and Route K through tile efforts of the W—W Home Economics Club. The grade school 1building in Blackwater, including a large and relatively new glflmnasium, provides a meeting place for large community g1itherings, while an excellent conference room in the rfiacently remodeled bank building in Blackwater accomodates Snialler groups. In addition to the county extension council, local Euivisory committees, 4—H clubs, WPFA groups, and home <3Conomics clubs, several other organizations serve the area. thong them are the Blackwater Garden Club, the Blackwater Saddle Club, and three major farm organizations——the Farm Bureau, Missouri Farmers' Association (MFA) and National Farmers' Organization (NFO). Family Living Comprehensive data were secured relative to family Size, educational levels, age of household members, Organizational and recreational activities, off—farm 187 employment, family living facilities, and other items. These data have been summarized for use in associated follow-up studies. Only a few highlights most pertinent to this analysis will be included here. Table XXVII, page 188, gives comparisons among families in different economic classes with respect to a few key items. The relationship between the average family living index (shown in Column 2 and explained more fully on the following page) and the other factors for families in each economic class is quite revealing. Among commercial farm families, lower indexes are associated with smaller households, older farm operators, fewer years of married life, a lower percentage of farm ownership, and a somewhat higher rate of tenancy. The age of the farm operator affects his willingness and ability to adjust. Advanced years may account for the willingness of farmers in classes V, VI, and VIII to remain on the land despite low farm earnings. The high percentage of farm ownership in these three classes, as shown in Column 6 of Table XXVII, page 188, also influences their reluctance to leave present farm units and their ability to survive as farm operators. The influence of farm families in community affairs is indicated by a "Leadership Index" constructed on the basis of membership and leadership in organizations and Community activities. This index is shown in Columns 2, 3: .H0m0mmB0C mo HHHHHQOHHO>0 AOHV 0C0 “0m0Houm 000w CONOHH mo huHHHQ0HH0>0 Ami “moHHHHHU0w >H0CC0H mo tCHx A00 “OHC0 >HHE0H m0 000 ABC “m00n Ho xoCHu no 000 A00 N00HuHHHo0m mConou mo UCHx Amy “H0000: H0u03 Hon mo huHHHQ0HH0>0 A00 NE0H0>0 H0H03 0HCmm0Hm mo HHHHHQ0HH0>0 Ami NE0um>m mCHH00£ mo 0m>u Amy “COHHUCHHmCou 0000: 00 0Q>u AHV 188 N0H0u00m C0H Co 00009 003 CoHu0HCUH0UA 0Hm0n mCHuHom0H EH00 H0m 0 Co 0000H0>¢0 00.0H Nm.mm 0.~N m.~m H.m «.mH mEH0m HH< mm.HH No.00 H.0N m.mm 0.N m.mH H0£H0 ---mmqm ...... mum-.-- ----mmmi Iiflm ....... :-....-m...N ...... ..----INm-i N 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xH 00.0 00.00H 0.mm H.00 H.N 0.0H HHH> mm.0H >0.mm m.0~ H.00 b.m 0.0H HH> --mmm ...... mum--.-imam-----:-mmw-:::---------Mm ...... .------N“--- 3.358 --Mmmm:::m..mm- .....mm---. ...-.mm ---------------- m... ...... H ...N“ E 00.0H mm.m0 m.m~ 0.mm h.m 0.0H > mm.mm 00.00 0.0H 0.h¢ ¢.m b.0H >H m0.mH mm.00 b.0H h.vv 0.v 0.0m HHH 00.0 00.00H m.- m.mv H.m ¢.Hm HH 00.0w 00.00 0.NN m.v¢- v.m 0.H~ H any A00 Ami A00 Ame Ami AHC muC0C08 0H0C30 00HHH0Z HOH0H0QO 0H0£0wsom X00CH mQCOHw mH00> mo CH I CH>HA 0C0 ... sue-No N ...-NW...” ...-HM: .Nwmu .mwmm ummwm 00mmH CH HHCommHz mo 00H0 H0H03x00Hm 0:» CH mm0Ho UHEOCou0 C000 CH m0HHHE0m EH0m Haw wHouu0w H0£Ho OH X0©CH 0CH>HH >HHE0M 000H0>0 03H Ho QHLwCOHH0H0mII.HH>xx mqmde 189 and 4 of Table XXVIII, page 190. It is interesting to note the association of this index with the ages and educational level of farmers and their wives and the size of the family unit. One final family living item of special import in this study is the level of living among families in different economic classes. One measure (shown in Column 2, Table XXIX, page 191, is the family living index computed from a scale used by sociologists. In addition to the index, several items that are directly related to present day living standards were used for these comparisons. They are shown in Columns 3 through 9 of Table XXIX. Bathroom facilities, sewage disposal systems, T.V. sets, and ventilating fans seem most pertinent in reflecting more recent innovations in living standards and emphasize some Of the disadvantages of families on economic class V and VI farms . 190 .COHH0QHOHHH0Q H0C0HH0NHC00H0 coma mUCHom m. . . . mHCHom v. . . . mHCHom m. . . . muCHom N. . . . #CHOQ H . . . . .0H0fi 00wa0 £000 Hom . QH£0H0QE0E 00HHHEEOO £000 How . . . .00C00C0uu0 .H0H500H 0C0 mH£0H0QE0E H0COHH0NHC00HO . .00C00C0uu0 H0C0Hmm0ooo 0C0 mHflmH0QE0E H0C0HH0NHC00HO .hHCO mH£0H0QE0E H0C0HH0NHC00HO . .monHOw m0 00H£0H03 00003 003 x0©CH QHQmH0000H H0uou 000H0>0 0£u wo C0HH0H50H0UQ mHm0Q mCHuHom0H EH0w H00 0 Co m000H0>¢0 H.m 0.0H b.0v 0.0 m.mm 0.0 0.0 0.0 mEH0m HH< m.~ m.0H «.mm m.m m.mm 0.0 0.m H-e H0CH0 n.N 0.0H 0.mm 0.0 H.Hm A0u00 0u0HmEooCHV x A0H0Q 0H0HQE00CHV xH H.N m.m b.~0 m.m H.0h m.¢ n.m m.m HHH> h.m 0.0H 0.m¢ n.m H.00 H.m 0.m 0.0 HH> N.m 0.0H m.m¢ m.0H m.wv m.m 0.5 H.m H0H0H0EE00. m.H m m N.Nm m w 0.Nm 0.0 0.m m.¢ H> n.m b.0H m.~m 0.0 m.mm N-m 0.0 h.m > e.m 0.0H m.¢e H.0H 0.50 m.m 0.0 0.0 >H 0.0 N.HH m.Hv m.OH h.vv h.m 0.0 0.0 HHH H.m v.NH 0.00 m.HH m.w¢ 0.HH 0.0 v.MH HH ¢.m o.mH n.m¢ o.MH m.vv 0.NH m.m 0.0H H 80 6v AS 80 Ami 2: A3 Amy E 0H0; 00H0HQE00 00¢ 00H0HQE00 00¢ A00>H3 0 mHou0H0mOV Am0>H3 EHOmv AwHou0H0QO EHmmV mmCOHU I0msom Hopflmme .>¢ Hoogom.fifl.>< Oan00CH X00CH Qx00CH 0C0 CH mHSmH0p00H QH mH0000H mHCmH0000H m0mm0H0 .02 .>4 m0>H3 EH00 Hou0H0mo.EH0m H0uOB 0m0H0>m H0HOB 000H0>< H0HOB 000H0>¢ OHEOCOOM 0mmmH CH HHsomeE mo 00H0 HOU03¥O0Hm 0H» CH 0EHOM mo m0mm0HO uC0H0mew CH mm>H3 6:0 mHou0H0mo EH0M How 0H0u00H H0£Ho 0C0 x00CH mHan0p00H 000H0>0 0£u ammBHmD mHnmCOHUMHom .HHH>XK mam<fi 191 o .x0UCH 0CH>HH >HHE00 000H0>0 0:» mo C0HH0050E00 CH 00UCH0CH uoc 0H03 mE0uH 000£BQ .HH>XX 0HA0B .n 0HOCH000 CH C0>H0 0H0 0CHH0HCUH00 CH 0005 0H0u00m0 00.m N~.¢0 v~.00 00.Hh 0H.00 00.00 ~.0H mEH00 HHa 00.0 00.00 05.00 00.nn 00.00 00.00 0.0H H0Cuo OmMm H¢.MH 00.00 IIIII mmwmm IIIIIIII WWMMMIII 00.00H 0.0H x 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 xH 00.0 00.00 mh.m0 om.~h 00.00 00.00H 0.5H HHH> 00.00 00.00 00.00 50.00 mn.~0 0m.h0 .0.0H HH> III «0.0 mm.~0 ov.H0 00.00II II 00.00 00.00H b.0H H0H0H0EE00 IIIImmwmw 00.~v 00.00H 00.Nv hm.0~ 00.00H 0.0H H> m0-m 00.nh >0.H0 00.mm mH.0V 00.00H v.0H > 00.00 0H.~0 00.00 00.00 m¢.Hh 00.00H 5.0H >H V0.MH 0v.m0 00.00 N0.H0 >~.>b 00.00H 0.0m HHH 50.0H b0.H0 00.00H mm.m0 mm.m0 00.00H ¢.H~ HH 00.~¢ 00.00H mm.m0 Hh.m0 Hh.00 00.00H 0.H~ w 80 at A00 .3 .3 Am. .3 .3 0CHHHMWHC0> wwwm C00H00 HMMMMMWC wwwwwflwwwm UHMMWMMM MHMWMM mMMMHU . . . meEmh 00000H0 AHN0CH>00 00E00 mo 000HC0UH00 000H0>< OHEOCOUH 0m... 0H CH HHsommHz 00 00H0 H0003x00H0 0C0 CH 0EH00 00.00000H0 0C0H000H0 C0 0CH>HH >HHE0M H00 000C0HC0>C00 00HU0H00 mo huHHHQ0HH0>0 0C0 0C0 x00CH 0CH>HH >HHE0m 000H0>0 0C» C003H0n 0C00HH00E00II.xHxx mamas . _-..._._....._... . - CHAPTER V MAJOR ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS General Situation The analysis of survey data, as summarized above, brought to light many problems which confront families in the Blackwater area in adjusting to changing conditions. Several of these problems were obvious and data were at hand to aid in their solution. Others seemed to require greater study in depth. Many others, no doubt, have not been revealed by the study. After a preliminary analysis of the survey data and information collected from other sources, current research and extension activities were reviewed in light of their Ilsefulness in helping to solve the problems identified. It sx>on became obvious that appropriate data were not available fcxr several of the current problems. It also seemed aFEDarent that cooperative effort among different departments 0f ‘the college and with other agencies would be desirable jIllplanning research that would contribute to their solution. Some of the specific problems which seemed most obvious to research workers and most troublesome to farm families in the area motivated follow-up research efforts. 192 193 The nature of these problems is indicated by a brief descriptive review. Specific Problems and Adjustment Opportunities Low Farm Income With little question, the most universal problem in the Blackwater area in 1959 was low farm income. As previously noted, only in economic classes II and III did ‘ the operators realize a return to capital and management, after deducting a reasonable charge for the labor of the operator and his family. Earnings were not sufficient in any of the classes to pay a return to management. Only in economic classes II and VII was the total net family income at a level comparable to the actual family living expenditures of Missouri farm families Who cooperated in the 1959 record project. Low farm income, of course, is a consequence of other conditions of a causative nature. Some of these were revealed by the analysis of survey data and by general observations. Some adjustments to alleviate the conditions were indicated by the analysis. Other possibilities are expected to materialize from follow-up studies. Inadequate resources, both in quantity and quality, contributed to low farm earnings in economic classes V, VI, VII, and VIII. The acquisition of additional land and other resources for adequate full—time farming units is one solution - _=.'~=—._._._.L -. » - 194 to the problem. The feasibility of this kind of adjustment within the area is limited because of the fixed land resources. Other limitations are personal. The age and physical condition of some operators preclude a shift to more intensive operation of available land. Others lack the capital to acquire the additional land and facilities needed for full employment‘of the available labor and are reluctant to incur additional debt for such purposes. Others do not wish to assume the management responsibilities of larger businesses. Another adjustment possibility for families with inadequate resources is to move out of agriculture completely. Many people in the Blackwater area have followed this plan as shown by the declining number of farms since 1940. This avenue is closed to some, however, because of age, health, training, and other personal factors. Over a period of time, this kind of adjustment also is restricted by general economic conditions. Few off—farm employment opportunities were afforded during the depression years of the 1930's. Good basic training is essential in keeping this avenue of adjustment open to young people over a period of time. A third alternative, one already chosen by almost one—half of the farm families in the area, is to supplement farm earnings with non-farm income. The additional income includes earnings from off-farm employment and funds from 195 non—labor sources such as social security, investments, and rental property. Some people regard this as an emergency or transitory procedure that should be used only during periods of rapid change. Actually, part-time and part—retirement farm units offer considerable promise as an expanding and more permanent segment of our agricultural economy. An important consideration is the fact that less intensive land use is required on these units, permitting a shift away from wheat and feed grain production where many of our surplus problems exist. Preliminary case studies for part—time units in the area indicate that minimizing inputs of labor, capital, and operating costs should take precedence over maximizing profits and returns to land resources. This shift harmonizes with more extensive land use. One restriction on shifting to part—time farming in the Blackwater area is the lack of sufficient off—farm employment opportunities within a reasonable commuting distance. Future developments may alleviate this problem. On the other hand, adjusting to part—retirement operations is enhanced by the expansion in social security and other retirement programs. One other adjustment under investigation in the Blackwater area is the development of inter-farm arrange- ments which permit specialization within a livestock enterprise. For example, a farm operator with limited land and capital may specialize in feeder pig production (the 196 labor-intensive phase of the hog enterprise) while the operator of a large farm may develop a hog-finishing enterprise (the labor-extensive phase) with a contractual arrangement between the two operators. This procedure Should allow each to use his own resources more effectively. Analysis of the survey records showed that inefficient use of land resources was a major factor contributing to low earnings on the larger farms in economic classes I, II, III, and IV. On class I farms, 73 per cent of the crop acres were utilized for roughage production--a relatively low- income use. Many of the large operators reported difficulty in hiring competent labor for intensive enterprises. Preliminary results from case studies in the area show that approximately 400 acres of the better quality land provide an optimum size family unit. The owner of the largest farm (1,100 acres) sold 485 acres in 1961 to a young farmer for a new operating unit. Budgets for this farm indicate quite satisfactory earning potential with intensive corn and soybean production combined with hog and cattle feeding enterprises. With present levels of capital investment and price-cost relationships, the operators of large farms need to shift to more intensive land use in combination with their cattle and hog feeding enterprises. Budgeting and linear programming on case-study farms verify this conclusion and Show that beef cow herds combined with grassland farming 197 will not provide returns to all factors of production under present conditions. Satisfactory returns from the livestock feeding systems also are contingent on soil treatment and other good management practices to maintain yields somewhat above present levels. Another factor influencing low earnings on the first four economic classes of farms in 1959 was the unfavorable cattle feeding situation. This is one of the hazards of a cattle feeding enterprise. However, several cattle feeders could have reduced the unfavorable consequences of price declines by engaging in more flexible cattle enterprises. Budgets for case study farms indicate that two or three kinds of cattle enterprises with different buying and selling dates and management requirements add stability to the system. It is recognized that some of the proposed adjust— ments are output-increasing in the aggregate and may aggravate the problem of adjusting overall supply and (kflnand. However, the study thus far has been limited to the microeconomic phases of adjustment. A later study Will give more attention to the broader implications. Soil Erosion and Wasteland Much of the rolling upland in the area has suffered from erosion and depletion through intensive land use in past Years. The soil survey indicated that 47 per cent of the land.had been damaged by moderate to severe erosion. The 198 results were obvious on almost every upland farm in the area. Figure 34, page 199, includes examples of both sheet and gully erosion on area farms. One protection from erosion is to keep more of the land in pasture and other roughage producing crops. While this procedure has some merit, it likewise reduces the earning capacity of the land so used. This type of extensive use was particularly apparent on the large farms in economic class I Where 73 per cent of all cropland was used for pasture and other roughage crops. Another safeguard against erosion is a complete system of water management--including terraces, outlets, structures, and other facilities. The cost of such a system on area farms would range from $35 to $50 per acre-- depending upon the degree of slope, past erosion, and other factors. However, such a system permits more intensive land use and increases the earning potential substantially, according to analyses made on case study farms. Lack of Up-to-Date Knowledge of Input-Output Data Extension work in Balanced Farming (Farm and Home Development) in Missouri and some researdh activities have been hampered for many years by a lack of up-to-date information for farm planning. This shortage was especially troublesome in some of the budgeting and linear programming analyses for case study farms in the Blackwater area. Labor .000. 5 $303.2 “_0 00B .0333. ... , 5.50 :0 cove-.0 xzom 0:0 000;... 00 m0_a£oxm_II.vm .9". . a d . .N . . . 1H3: ,.. . l. . . .. , . . 4 . . . . -. . 4:20.!- . €90.60“. 1%...“ JNHMNwmfiQV .. . .. .. . . , . . I 2.11.4 MK : . .. - .. I . . . .. . . .24: V, .-...l u . . . - v .1405"... 4x. .1 .. . . :0? ., .05... y? .. . 4.0 11.523593... I Hm-afiffiwf .- . 0500‘- 0 D Jr“. 1! ,0 . ..I . i ...‘n . .- :0-r..o .- ‘tOlQI A i 200 input data for livestock enterprises, in particular, were in need of revision. This need for up—to—date labor data led to a special study of labor requirements for beef cattle enterprises, largely through the efforts of a special livestock committee appointed by the area advisory committee. Results of this study are reported in Chapter VI. Similar studies for Other major crop and livestock enterprises are needed to Supply up—to—date information. Uncertainties About the Economic Consequences of Alternative Adjustments in Farming Systems As a result of farm planning schools with small gyroups and of work with farm families individually, the associate county agent encountered considerable resistance 'to planning major adjustments in farm organization. Part of 'the reluctance to change from existing systems seemed to stem from the uncertainties about the results from computed alternatives. This situation led to case studies on farms that represented some of the major types that appeared to be adapted in the area. A number of follow-up studies were initiated to determine the economic consequences of different kinds of adjustments on these farms. 201 Obsolescence in Farm Buildings, Farmstead Arrangements, and Field Layouts One of the obvious problems on area farms was obsolete buildings and farmstead arrangements. Likewise, field layouts were not designed for convenient access with power equipment. These conditions indicated need for further research in alternative farmstead and field arrangements for greater convenience and efficiency. Imbalance in the Use of Labor Resources As previously noted, a two-way problem existed in the use of labor. On smaller farms, labor was seriously under—employed. At the same time, some of the larger operators, particularly the large-scale livestock producers, were finding it difficult to get qualified farm workers. This problem indicated the desirability of exploratory research on various kinds of inter-farm arrangements for solving the problems of imbalance in resource supply and resource use. Lack of Off-Farm Employment Opportunities Only 20 per cent of the farm businesses provided full-time employment for the family labor force. This general lack of adequate resources and low earnings on farms emphasized the need for off-farm employment to maintain reasonable standards of living. However, few 202 employment opportunities were available to farm operators and other members of their families in the immediate area. A study of part-time farming indicated that many people who found employment were forced to drive to Boonville, Marshall, Sedalia, and other places that were rather far from the Blackwater community. One of the major concerns of members of the advisory committee and other individuals was the need for more local employment opportunities. This problem is discussed in the next Chapter in connection with the part-time farming study. Difficulties in Getting Satisfactory ‘Water Supplies for Domestic Use While more than 80 deep wells were found in the area, many families were troubled with highly mineralized water that was hardly usable for domestic purposes. In some localities, water was not available for household and farmstead uses at reasonable depths. Because of these situations, a special request was made to the state geologist for a survey of underground water resources. While funds have not been made available for this inventory, other closely related work has been initiated. Investment Problems While capital investments were rather high for most farms in the area——particular1y those in the upper economic classes--debts were relatively low and the net worth of farm 203 operators was satisfactory for most economic classes. Despite this fact, some of the younger operators were experiencing difficulty in purchasing farms, buying equip- ment, and obtaining sufficient livestock to utilize the feed produced. While credit for current farming operations seemed to be readily available, a lack of sufficient equity to qualify for loans hindered some of the younger operators in getting established. -Methods of solving this problem are being investigated on the case study farms. CHAPTER VI FOLLOWEUP RESEARCH ON SPECIFIC ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS General Procedure In planning follow-up researdh activities, it seemed wise to relate specific projects to the most troublesome problems of farm families in the laboratory area. Some of these problems were revealed by the survey data; others, as previously noted, originated from work with the area advisory committee; and some came from other individuals and groups. The general policy of the college research advisory committee was to analyze each problem and determine the contributions that other departments, agencies, and groups might make to a coordinated research effort. While all studies did not lend themselves to this approach, it has been followed for most of the investigations already initiated. Burge Brandh Hydrology Study Purpose Because of the severity of erosion problems in the study area and the general lack of knowledge of the effect 204 205 of a complete water management system on the control of water runoff under intensive land use, a special hydrology study was initiated during the summer and fall of 1959. The specific purpose was to measure the water runoff and erosion losses from a small watershed in relation to the intensity of rainstorms over a period of years. The land was to be used intensively throughout the period with the addition of a complete water management system as the study progressed. Cooperating Departments and Agencies The hydrology study was planned by staff members in Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, and the U. S. Geological Survey. Cooperative research agreements were developed with both the surface water branch and the quality water division of the U.S.G.S. The direct costs were shared on a 50-50 basis between the experiment station and the appropriate branch of the U.S.G.S. Description of Study.Area The ZOO-acre watershed chosen for the hydrology study included the head waters of Burge Branch in the northeast part of Lamine township. Most of the land in the watershed was owned and operated by a father-son partnership consisting of O. L. and William T. Burge. Before initiating the study, most of the land in the upland watershed had been used for pasture and roughage and contained a 206 substantial acreage of wasteland. As a part of the cooperative study, the land owners agreed to farm the land very intensively in order that water runoff and erosion losses might be measured during the earlier years before mechanical erosion control measures were constructed. At the same time, a complete water management system was planned, showing the location of terrace outlets, terraces, structures, and other necessary measures. Steps were taken to start developing the new land use system early in the study period. Equipment Installation and Use Primary equipment for the research involved the installation of automatic recording equipment for measuring runoff. Automatic rain gauges also were installed at the site and in the upper part of the watershed. Silting basins were constructed at different locations in the watershed and bench-mark readings were established for measuring future accumulations of sediment. Later, additional equipment was added for measuring soil erosion losses in suspension from water runoff. Figure 35, page 207, shows the location of the watershed in the study area. Figure 36, page 208, shows the physical features of the watershed area and Figure 37, page 209, illustrates the complete water management system for the Burge land. wane-I or nu —» . 3.:- "~- -~ 9‘ I958 FARM OWNERSHIP MAP / ~--... " :=_-_...- BLACKWATER -LAMINE . ..__ _ .. ' TOWNSHIPS "' "' COOPER coumy . .. .... ._ , 1 nus-scum _‘-=- .- -.-.-.- 3... 3,. ~ "~ '-‘-" -:‘.. . ‘ n-o \ . -/‘ 5:”... T it“ ~ H (I). In: .... o .1711“... “_'=~'_ ...-a _r4H\ ' ."A , ‘ ‘L .- FAT—I! t/ bf) . ...... .- w I . LEGEND . : nun-cu a... - - y 4. Own ...... . If — awn _ n...- u...- an..." ‘ "- «"33” " a nun "on yuan: ' 5. T—: :‘mtv mom: n...— ._... ....- “ '_ '~ My 0: ‘0 0“" _ unu- tau. .... I an" no. ' m1 - n C l 1':- ' :- _... .2”. .-.. ...-m ...- - _- _n ca run-Hum ..."... .. ...- u...- . I ,, u mum \1_m ”’2'" "J _ "‘ . row-unnum- ‘\ now-..- Iuy- m- u- . 'Mdtw -'— ... v“. . .... can .... :4. in ... “:1:— Fig. 35.--Location of the Burge branch hydrology study initiated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959. “My, , A I 521‘ 7 {.%fi liberation of Measuring Equipment r: Fig. 36.--Physica| features of the Burge branch watershed and the i |ocation of equipment for the hydrology study initiated in I959 in the Black- water area of Missouri. 208 ,V (Missouri River) L L egg/7a,: ‘ L; [91.0, #- [/— 209 do I u.- _l-n-n-u. 1,0”: w-DX' 0 OD I ‘ ‘- ‘ II 0.4 ant/u! T Bu/ye 51m] Not/1 Hnit.- 365 Far,” Inc; 247 (rap Arr“ ..-. fem-rte all/E’s ‘ -- 77.1. 5pm: ’\—/‘__ ”in-Sufi?” [lime/e Srruefizres _. Ema-.5 /\ \_/0-6\_, _ Dimskw Claims/5 __ Fifi" Eng-[s é 7.3/16- ggtc ca - -— 7m: __ .._ fiat/s :::-_-::__.F/&// roar/5 0 - __ [,1 em 4. 5.24 —x—x— [Amy/nut flutes 6 --- Pain Guaye a--- ("'1 5”,;- & Bur-4”- [Wyn-At Map Sta/e5] 1m: . 330’ Fig. 37.--Water management plan including the Burge branch water- shed used for the hydrology study initiated in the Blackwater area of Missouri in 1959. 210 Progress to Date The initial equipment for obtaining the watershed data was installed during the late summer of 1959. Data collection on water runoff was started in early October of that year. About a year after the initial project, a second agreement was made with the Quality water Branch of the U.S.G.S. for collecting and analyzing samples of runoff water from each rainstorm to determine the losses of soil in suspension. This long range study is continuing but several years' data will be necessary to give much indication of erosion losses under varying conditions. However, two graduate students in agricultural engineering have completed Master's theses on the basis of work in connection with the hydrology study.1 and 2 Another student, Wes Norton, majoring in agricultural economics, has completed a manuscript covering analyses of 12 different systems of organization and operation for the 586-acre Burge farm on Whidh the hydrology study is located. lWilliam Reynolds, "A Continuous Suspended Sediment Sampler for Use on an Intermediate Size watershed“ (unpublished Master's thesis, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of.Missouri, 1962). 2Dwight Hale, "Effects of Conservation Practices on Run-off from a ZOO-Acre watershed" (unpublished Master's thesis, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Mdssouri, 1963). 211 In addition to the hydrology data, complete records are kept on the watershed area each year, including crop acres, yields, soil treatments, conservation work completed, and other items. Special Study.g£ Part-Time Farming Reason for the Study The summary and analysis of survey data Showed a far greater prevalence of part-time farming in the area than anticipated and revealed some unique adjustment problems confronting families with dual responsibilities of farming and off-farm work. Some preliminary budgeting on represent- ative part-time farms indicated the feasibility of shifting to less intensive land use on some of these units. This adjustment, if applied more widely, seemed promising as one means of alleviating problems of agricultural surpluses and declining rural population. A special study was initiated in 1961 to explore these ideas and gain a fuller understanding of problems associated with part-time farming operations. Procedure A graduate student in the Agricultural Economics Department was assigned the part-time farming study as a part of his training for a Master's degree. One of the first steps was to make a thorough review of literature related to part-time farming and how it evolved through many 212 generations. The second step involved a more detailed analysis of survey data collected in the area and follow—up interviews with some of the part—time operators to get additional information. Progress and Results The analysis for this study has been completed and a bulletin manuscript is in the hands of the editor.1 Beef Cattle Epterprise Studv Reason for the Study During a meeting in the summer of 1960, the livestock committee expressed an interest in sponsoring a st:udy to get up-to—date information on labor requirements Thar handling beef cattle enterprises. Several members were Illanning to expand their cattle enterprises and were tuncertain about the labor requirements under different metfliods of management. The shortage of farm workers in the areea stimulated considerable interest in labor saving preu2tices in feeding and handling cattle but data were not available to show which were most effective. With the assistance of the committee and the associate county agent, a SPeCial study was initiated with the Departments of AgriCultural Economics and Animal Husbandry cooperating. F 1Ross and Hagan, Part-time Farming and the Family arm ' " " '”" m ‘. 213 Procedure A list of all beef cattle producers in the area, showing a summary of the type of operation and the size of each enterprise, was prepared. This list was reviewed with the livestock committee members who personally interviewed all producers whom they thought might be interested in cooperating in the study. This resulted in 35 cooperators. Nolan Hesemann, a graduate assistant in the Department of Agricultural Economics, was assigned to the project and personally interviewed all cooperators to get complete inventory data, a description of all beef cattle enterprises, and other general information for the study. Special forms were developed for keeping weekly records of labor on all jobs associated with the enterprise, including both routine work and special activities. These records were sent in each week to the Agricultural Economics Department, starting in the fall of 1960. Records for beef cow enterprises were started at the time of weaning the current year's calf crop and were continued until the same time a.year later. Records of cattle feeding enterprises were started at the time of purchase and continued until the sale of all cattle from the lot. A total of 55 lots of cattle were included in the study, including 15 beef cow herds and 40 lots of feeder cattle. Fifteen of the cooperators also wished to keep feed and financial records of their enterprises as well as labor 214 records. Special forms provided for these records also were mailed in each week. Progress and Results All cooperators kept records up-to-date throughout the entire period except for one young man Who accidentally drowned during the summer of 1961. Final records were completed by the fall of 1962. Each cooperator.was provided a complete summary 0f the records for each lot of cattle as soon as all animals were sold. After all records were in, the data were put on IBM cards for complete analysis. Analyses were completed by the spring of 1963 and manuscripts have been completed for two publications covering the results of the study. Economic Consegpence§.g£.Alternative Farming Systems Reason for Studies Analysis of survey data clearly showed that adjustment problems varied greatly among different types of farm operations. In order to gain a better insight of adjustment opportunities, case study farms were selected to represent the major types in the area. The purpose was to determine, through budgeting and linear programming, the economic consequences of alternative adjustments for each farm unit. In addition to the value of these studies for farm planning in the Blackwater area, it was felt that the 215 results would be quite useful as working models for Balanced Farming agents and other professional workers in planning adjustments on similar farms throughout the state. Cooperation After preliminary analyses had been completed for the first case study, the project was discussed with Mr. Crickman, Chief of the Farm Economics Division of the Economic Researdh Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and a cooperative agreement developed for expanding the study to other types of farming operations in the area. This cooperative arrangement provided additional funds for employing graduate assistants to assume responsibility for the detailed budgeting and programming work. Procedure Case study farms were selected on the basis of economic class, size of farm in total acres, total capital investment, and other items. The desire of the farm operator to develop a selected plan also was considered since one purpose of the study was to identify obstacles to carrying out plans over a period of years. One of the first steps in analyzing the alternatives was to get a complete inventory of all resources available and detailed work maps for the farm unit. While the procedure has varied someWhat for different kinds of operations, three 216 or four different levels of intensity of land use were first outlined for the farm under study. Several combinations of livestock enterprises were prepared to determine the costs and returns for each alternative. The same coefficients were used in setting up tableaus for linear programming solutions to determine the optimum combinations of resource, use under the assumptions made. Progress and Results Both budgeting and linear programming techniques are being used for analyses on case study farms. Most of the analytical work has been completed for four farms, and manuscripts describing the results are being prepared. Comparisons among alternative systems on study farms revealed wide variations in potential earnings. Several combinations of cattle enterprises were compared for a large farm, one containing 1,040 acres with 718 acres of good cropland.1 Three levels of intensity of land use were chosen and different cattle enterprises were combined with each. In the extensive system, all land was used for grass and hay production-éexcept for 97 acres in woodland and farmstead acres. The intermediate land use system 1Robert E. Laughlin, Albert R. Hagan, and John P. Doll, "An Economic Analysis of Alternative Beef Cattle Systems for a Large Farm in Central Missouri" (unpublished bulletin manuscript, Agricultural Economics Department, University of Missouri, 1963). 217 included about 200 acres of corn and barley for grain; 100 acres of corn and sorgo silage; 50 to 100 acres of alfalfa— ; brome hay; 300 to 350 acres of improved rotation pasture; i and 225 acres of permanent and woodland pasture. (While the cropping system remained the same, utilization of crops varied somewhat with the livestock enterprises selected.) In the intensive system, the 718 acres of cropland included 400 to 450 acres of corn and barley for grain; 60 to 200 acres of corn silage; 60 to 100 acres of alfalfa-brome hay; and 3 to 32 acres of rotation pasture. Different kinds of cattle enterprises were combined with each land—use system. One type of beef cow enterprise provided for the sale of calves at weaning time in the fall. In the other, calves would be put on full feed, either loefore or at weaning time, and sold at choice grade weighing 800 pounds. The yearling steer enterprise included good to choice grade feeders weighing 600 pounds when purchased in the fall and 1,150 pounds when sold a year later. The plain steer enterprise consisted of 700 pound animals purchased in Ckztober and sold in the following February-March period weigflling 1,000 pounds. The heifer enterprise involved the PurC31ase of 400 pound calves in October and the sale as Choices animals early the following summer weighing 800 pounds;. Except for plans III—B and III-C, feeder pigs for fOllOMRing cattle was the only hog enterprise considered. ... ‘1- "--- --- farm income (returns to labor and management) for combinations are Shown below: I. Extensive: II. III. The total capital investment required and the net Kind pf System A. 365 beef cows (stocker calves) B. 350 beef cows (calves fed) 175 feeder pigs C. 700 yearling steersa 350 feeder pigs Intermediate: A. 306 beef cows (calves fed) 153 feeder pigs B. 569 yearling steersa 284 feeder pigs C. 500 yearling steersa 100 plain steers 120 heifersC 360 feeder pigs Intensive: A. 350 yearling steersa 300 plain steers 255 heifersc 453 feeder pigs B. 300 yearling steersa 100 plain steersb 135 sows (two litters each) C. 400 yearling steersa 200 plain steers 1,600 feeder pigs Total Capital Reguired $293,662 323,272 388,974 329,228 373,639 386,870 428,498 398,506 422,639 different Net Farm Income $—1,220 —42 5,695 ~822 6,506 7,500 10,982 17,809 10,187 :Yearlring steers—-wintered, grazed and fed (fall market) Plain_ steers——wintered, and fed (early spring market) 0 _ I Helfel:s—-wintered and fed (summer market) . \ \ ‘ x . x ‘ x \ \ 219 The above results are from comparative budgets. Linear programming solutions are being rerun on a new 1620 computer recently acquired. Earlier programming results were similar to the most favorable budgeted systems. This analysis showed that capital requirements are high for beef cattle systems on good land. (Real estate was valued at $150.00 per acre on this farm.) It also indicated that earnings are relatively low except for the systems including intensive land use and rather large hog enterprises. Similar analyses have been made for three other area farms. One includes 586 acres, another 402 acres, and the third 200 acres. In all cases, rather intensive land use { systems were essential for satisfactory returns to all factors of production under existing conditions. Nitrate Study Reason for Study In several isolated areas throughout Missouri in recent years, rather serious outbreaks of poisoning have reSIthed from nitrate concentrations in deep well water. P1r0fessional workers in many fields have become quite Concearned about the dangers to livestock as well as farm familaies on farms where contamination occurs. Since little is erJWn about the source of contamination, representatives 0f Se\neral departments and agencies were interested in Selecting an area where basic research might be developed to 220 determine the origin of excessive nitrate concentrations in well water and methods of minimizing the hazards. The Blackwater area seemed well suited for this study since survey data already indicated the location of all deep wells in the two-township area. Cooperating Departments and Agencies For the initial stages of the study, the state geologist agreed to assume direct responsibility for sampling the water from all deep wells in the area. Representatives of the Veterinary School and departments of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Chemistry, and Soils agreed to serve in an advisory capacity. Tentative plans were made to expand the number of cooperating groups as the study progressed. Procedure Mr. Dale Fuller, a member of the staff of the state geologist at Rolla, agreed to collect samples from all deep) wells for special analyses. In preparation for this worlc, Mr. Fuller was provided a list of all area farms on Whicll deep wells were located and a map of the area showing the Jxacation of each farm. A copy of the map is shown in Figure 2, page 66. Mr. Fuller started visiting the farms in July of 1962 Eund collected samples for analysis from about 40 wells 221 each month during July, August and early September. During his first trip, he gathered complete information on each well from the standpoint of depth, type of construction, kind of cover and other general information which might have a bearing on contamination. The water samples were tested for both nitrate and chloride concentration. Progress and Results By the end of September, 1962, analyses had been completed on the first samples from all wells. The results showed that 40 per cent had dangerously high concentration of nitrates, above 15 parts per million (ppm). The concentration ranged upward to more than 400 ppm for one well in the area. Figure 38, page 222, shows the nitrate concentration in the wells sampled. After the first analyses were completed, Mr. Fuller selected the wells with high nitrate concentration for follow—up sampling each month during the ensuing year. One purpose was to determine whether or not such factors as temperature, season of the year, rainfall, and other variables influenced the nitrate concentration. This work is still in progress. One follow—up meeting was held in the spring of 1963 with representatives from the above departments and agencies and other interested groups. More specific studies are expected to materialize from the exploratory work now in progress. 222 .. ... ... Lennon 0' an "‘ , ...- “ . n n:- ""’-u« ~ / ...—- ... 'ufl" - .... I / ... ' ll ' o '- “...-‘5‘» __ .. -7 .. |~r~ .. m— “' .. . 7i " z T ‘ — .- .11.... ... .. ”3...." 1.1:" I '3 ' .4 _ ...... . i , .. , . “A ._ .. ‘ / 33* 1 1.. . J ":2:- ' ' ~ -:..'-'s I .7 I? .‘.I on. a nu. ' . ,— .... .--. .. I. '0 --- .... . ... ' l .. .-.... .... " kn: .. u -e ... “ .- ‘ F- .4 - It a-.. ' ‘ =, cum-n- .,. ...... ,, .. “' ‘1'?" 3;?" - n— ' ' an , ~-- ' 1;: ‘ in“- ‘-‘-' .. " .' .. \ fllIn-u ...- .. I—v' .... t . ..-... --~ I -.-.5 ...... '1 -- "‘ -:.- .... .. , .. ..., . ..- ,, " .. 3 um" ...... ... h... ‘u 7:»..- .. .. .. ] ...... .... .. .. .... j w m ....-. .... - Nitrates above l5 ppm (N03) 3:, I Nitrates below 15 ppm |9$ FARM OWNERSHIP MAP BLACKWATER - LAMINE TONNSHlPS COOPER COUNTY N SSOURI ”...-4i... '1. .u- ...:- ....J M l I. ll~ 5‘: “SW ’ - , ,_ .71“. v- --’ / a _ a ”.22" I~ 7“" . ... , .. fl O .. ‘."=" q . “mu "A. LEGEND — “WAY” — Limk‘ mu tow." nouns nun! noun .. mama r: unusluas 5 Your: a! In»: h on ut rum 5 row- ur | In I IA~I as Fig. 38.--Map of Blackwater area showing farms with different levels of nitrate (N03) concentration in deep wells, measured in parts per million (ppm), l o 223 Ground'Water Fluctuations In connection with the above studies, it seemed desirable to determine fluctuations in ground water levels throughout different periods of the year. Cooperating Agencies The state geologist agreed to assume responsibility for setting up recording equipment to measure fluctuations in ground water levels over time, if an abandoned deep well could be located. Procedure After considerable inquiry, an abandoned well was located near the Burge Branch watershed Where rainfall data already were being recorded. With permission of the farm owner, automatic recording equipment was installed in the well in March of 1962. Progress and Results While measurements are still in progress, a summary of the data collected from March through October, 1962 Showed very little correlation between rainfall and fluctuations in the water level. 224 Cobalt Deficiencies In cooperation with the area livestock committee and the associate county agent, Professor G. E. Thompson of the Animal Husbandry Department, arranged for feedlot tests of cattle during the winter of 1962 to investigate cobalt deficiencies in wintering and fattening rations. The results indicated no need for additional cobalt beyond the amount contained in trace mineral salt. Other Followfigp Studies Under Consideration Tentative plans have been made for additional studies in the laboratory area as personnel and funds are available. Some under consideration are as follows: 1) Potential and area-wide implications of long-run adjustments in the number and size of operating units in the area; 2) Special problems and opportunities for adjustments in part-retirement farming operations; 3) Additional case studies to explore adjustment opportunities for other types of operating units in the area, including part-time farms; 4) The economic potential for inter-farm adjustments in the area; 5) Special enterprise studies, similar to the beef cattle labor study, for other major crop and livestock enterprises; and 225 6) Follow-up surveys at five and ten year intervals to measure the adjustments made over time. Other special research activities may be initiated at any time to attack new problems as they are identified. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The primary purpose of this community—wide study of family farm adjustments was to gain a better understanding of the problems confronting farm families under different circumstances and of the types of research, teaching, and extension programs which would contribute most to their solution. Rapid changes of the past two decades have placed a heavy burden of adjustment on farm families. New develop— ments do not affect all in the same way, however. Some have been able to absorb the increasing costs of new technologies, farm operations, and family living while maintaining a satisfactory level of family income. Others have not. This differential impact of change motivated the selection of an off—campus laboratory area where the adjustment problems confronting all types of family farms could be studied. A unique feature of the study was an effort to apply decision making and farm planning principles to an analysis of the entire area and to homogeneous groups within it. This procedure led to adoption of the following specific 226 227 objectives: 1) to determine for a base year, the kinds of family farm units existing in the study area; 2) to ascertain the total resources available, their distribution among different types of farm units, their use during a selected base period, and the economic consequences of such use; 3) to identify the adjustment problems which were 1 unique for different kinds of farm units in the area; l 4) to determine the economic consequences of 3 alternative adjustments and the obstacles encountered in making changes over a period of years; i 5) to establish follow—up research work geared to the problems revealed; 6) to orient extension programs to the problems, goals, and needs of the different kinds of farm family units identified; and 7) to measure the adjustments made over time. Blackwater and Lamine townships of Cooper County, Missouri (known as the Blackwater area) were chosen for the work which was started in 1959. Detailed data on resources and resource use were gathered through a special soil survey and comprehensive personal interviews with farm owners and operators. 228 The 220 farms in the area were grouped into ten economic classes for analysis, using a breakdown similar to that in the 1959 Census of Agriculture. The groups included 95 commercial farms, 49 part-time units, 37 part- retirement operations, two abnormal units, and 37 unclassified farms. The analysis included a summary of capital investments, crop and livestock production, labor resources, farm earnings, non-farm income, and family living facilities for the base year, 1959. Measures of efficiency in the use of resources were computed. The two-township area included over 40,000 acres of farm land. Almost 24 per cent was bottomland; another 58 per cent consisted of good quality upland soils. Land resources were unequally distributed among area farms, ranging from 85 acres operated per farm in class VIII to 576 acres in class I. The value of crop production exceeded $857,400 in 1959. Grain crops accounted for 60 per cent of the total, caSh crops 18 per cent, and roughage 22 per cent. Corn ranked first in value, accounting for 60 per cent of the value of grain crops and 48 per cent of the total crop value. Livestock played a prominent role in the economy of the area. The gross value of all livestock production in 1959 exceeded $1,184,000 with beef cattle and hog production accounting for almost 98 per cent of the total. 229 Labor available in 1959 ranged from 112 man-days per farm in economic class VII to 670 days in class I. Family labor accounted for.46 per cent of the total supply on class I farms and for 83 to 100 per cent in all other classes. Productive man work units (PMWU) necessary for the total crop and livestock production were computed as one measure of size of business. Livestock enterprises required 53 per cent of the labor in 1959; crops 47 per cent. Only in classes I, II, and III did the productive work exceed the full-time employment level of one man. The value of farm labor was computed by applying standard wage rates to the labor actually used. From these values, the labor charge per man-equivalent was computed, it averaged near $2,000 for each economic class. The labor charge per PMWU varied widely, however, ranging from $5.83 on class II farms to $23.72 on those in class VI. Real estate accounted for 70 per cent of the total farm assets in 1959, livestock 17.5 per cent, and machinery almost 8 per cent. These investments were not equally distributed among the economic classes. Farm assets averaged almost $158,000 on class I farms but were less than $40,000 per farm in classes IV through VIII which included 63 per cent of all farms in the area. The value of farm assets barely exceeded $10,000 per farm in class VI. Cash receipts from farm operations in 1959 varied widely, averaging almost $70,000 on class I farms and dropping 230 to $1,300 per farm in class VI. Cash expenditures also were high, and farm and family earnings (the returns to labor, capital, and management) were low in all classes. Class II farms had the highest earnings, $4,405 per farm, followed by those in class III with $2,824. The amounts ranged downward to $-18 per farm in class VII. Net earnings were insufficient in all economic classes to pay returns to all of the factors of production. Only in classes II and VI did the farm operators realize any return to labor and management, after deducting interest on capital. Returns to capital and management were realized only in classes II and III. Two other computations shed further light on the income available for family living in the area. The net family income was determined by combining farm and family earnings with non—farm income. Families in economic class II fared best with $5,078 per farm. Those engaged in part— time farming (class VII) ranked second, averaging $4,354, while those in class VI were lowest with $1,237 per family. The cash available for family living was computed by combining the cash balance from farming operations with the non—farm income. Results ranged from $—5,309 in economic class I to $4,538 in class II. Those in classes V and VI averaged $605 and $749, respectively—-far below the $4,421 average expenditure by Missouri farm families who COOperated in the 1959 record project. 231 Analysis of the survey data and follow-up case studies revealed some of the most pressing adjustment problems which confronted families in the area. Low farm income was the most universal problem but it was largely a consequence of inadequate resources, inefficiencies in their use, and general economic conditions over which the individual had little control. The analysis also indicated that some farm families might improve their earnings by: 1) Acquiring additional land and other resources to provide adequate full—time farming units; 2) using available resources more intensively and with greater efficiency; 3) moving away from farming into fulletime employment in another vocation; 4) supplementing farm income with off—farm employment; or, by 5) combining limited farm earnings with retirement income from various sources. The survey indicated that all courses of action had been attempted with varying degrees of success. Ways of making these adjustments more effectively are being investigated through follow—up studies. While it was recognized that improvements in marketing, transportation, processing, public programs, off- farm employment opportunities, farm prices, general economic conditions, and other non-farm determiners of level of ‘— ‘_ _ _—'—_Sd--I— - 232 income might help alleviate the adjustment problems of individual farm families, they were beyond the scope of this study. Conclusions Several impressions and conclusions from the results of this study may be expressed concisely. Adjustment problems of farm families are personal and specific and require specific remedial measures. Recognition of this basic fact is the first step in keeping extension and research programs closely attuned to the real needs of farm families. Farming and family living are closely entwined on family farms, and it is difficult to separate the analysis of the farm firm from consideration of family needs. Both of these, in turn, are influenced by sociological factors in the community and by off-farm facilities and conditions. All must be consideredin evaluating adjustment opportunities. Many farm families lack knowledge and understanding of their true circumstances. They often are unaware of the long—run economic consequences of present systems of farming and of opportunities for adjustment. While most farm operators have attained considerable skill and confidence in operating machinery, producing crops, and handling livestock, they are often ill-prepared to evaluate the performance of existing farm businesses and the potential of alternative operations. 233 The dynamic nature of agriculture and family living requirements emphasize the need for continuous research and constant revision of extension programs to keep abreast of these developments. Implications for Future Research Several ideas for modifying research efforts have materialized from work on this study. One is the need for acquiring and maintaining accurate information about the current status of major types of farming in specific areas and for determining the economic consequences of recommendations for adjustment. Another is the value of the team approach in research in gaining a more complete understanding of adjustment problems and the means of solution. This coordinated approach may include carefully selected groups of farm Operators in carrying out some types of research and joint efforts with representatives of other agencies. The need for closer cooperation among extension and research personnel in planning and carrying out many kinds of researdh also is indicated. Extension workers might well spend more time in identifying problems, in counseling with researchers in planning projects, and in assisting with various phases of some research activities. 234 Implications for Teaching Programs Experiences in this study indicate the value of a laboratory area, where adjustments based on research findings are in process, for use in class work. It provides an excellent setting for emphasizing methods of problem solving in relation to basic principles and reasoning processes. The solution of problems that represent real situations can vitalize the work with students. Farms in the Blackwater area have been used extensively in training students in farm management, animal husbandry, agricultural engineering, and other subject matter fields. Implications for Extension Programs Some unique opportunities for making extension programs more useful to farm families in solving adjustment problems accrued from the study. The extension service is in a strategic position to aid farm families in identifying and solving many of the troublesome problems which confront them in periods of rapid change. The following procedures are suggested: 1) Teach families decision—making principles and procedures. This has become a trite statement in academic circles but is still sound. It means much more, however, than memorizing specific steps. It must involve actual working 2) 3) 4) 5) 235 procedures and opportunities to use them in solving personal problems. Motivate and inspire families to make desirable adjustments. Experiences in the Blackwater area and with families in Balanced Farming associa- tions indicate that this is easy to achieve after they fully understand their problems and realize their opportunities. Conduct intensive schools for training in ‘planning and management principles, for explaining the results of adopting specific technologies, and for evaluating the use of specific farming methods. General meetings have lost their "punch" while well planned schools with well defined purposes have much appeal. Enrollment fees seem to enhance their drawing power. Have extension personnel participate more aggressively in research activities, especially in off-campus applied researdh projects. work closely with selected farm families to establish and maintain up-to-date patterns of :brming and family living. These people become innovators of a special kind, not those Who make a "splurge" with every new idea but families Who develop sound plans and adjust ahead of the crowd after careful evaluation. They become the "pace- setters" who lead the way. Their farms and homes 236 are the "show windows" of results of research and extension teaching programs. 6) Spend more time on problem identification on an individual farm, area, and county-wide basis. Only in this way can activities and programs be kept forceful and effective. 7) Recognize the multi—pronged potential for family adjustment in all farm and home planning activities. These may include off—farm work entirely, part-time or part—retirement farming units, more effective full—time farming systems, and other alternatives depending upon the resources, needs, and desires of individual families. 8) Work with special groups which have common interests and problems. Most of these activities have been tried successfully -in the Blackwater extension program, but some need further development and improvement. '- -.“'_.~——§-u5—; ' BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ackerman, Joseph, and Harris, MarShall (ed.). Family Farm Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947. Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1958. Baum, E. L., gt él- (ed.). “Economic and Technical Analysis IQE Fertilizer Innovations and Resource Use. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1957. Black, John D., and Brinser, Ayers. Planning One Town. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952. , and'Westcott, George W} Rural Planninq.gf One County—AWOrcester County, MassaChusetts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959. Bonnen, J. T. "The Nation's Present and Future Supply of Farm Products,".Adjustments.ig.Agriculture-1A _National Basebook. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. Bradford, Lawrence A., and Johnson, Glenn L. Farm Manage- ment Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1953. Case, H. C. M., Johnston, Paul E., and Buddemeier, Wilbur D. Principles 9; Farm.Manaqement. 2d ed. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1960. Castle, Emery, and Becker, Manning. Farm Business Manage- ment. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1962. Christian, Carlton F. (ed.). Adjustments in.Aqriculturgr1§ National Basebook. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. 238 239 Heady; Earl 0. Economics gf.Aqricu1tural Production and Resggrce Use. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. . "Nature of the Farm Problem," Adjustments in Agriculture-:A_National Basebook. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. :.§E.§i- (ed.). Agricultural Adjustment Problems .ig.a Growing Economy. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1958. Hopkins, John A., and Heady, Earl 0. Farm Records and Accounting. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1955. Johnson, Glenn L. "Supply Functions-—Some Facts and Notions," Agricultural Adjustment Problems ig_§ Growing Economy. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, 1958. ..g§.gl. (ed.). {Managerial Processes gf.Midwestern Farmers. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1961. Johnson, W; F. Histogy.gf Cooper County, Missouri. Topeka, Cleveland: Historical Publishing Co., 1919. Levens, H. C., and Drake, N. M. Historylgf Cooper County, Missouri. St. Louis: Perrin and Smith, Steam Book and Job Printers, 1876. Malone, Carl C., and Malone, Lucile Holaday. Decision making and Management for Farm and Home. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1958. Ogle, George A. Standard Atlas.g£ Cooper County, Missouri. Chicago: George A. Ogle and Company, 1915. Vincent, warren H. (ed.). Economics and Management.ip Agriculture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1962. Bulletins Back, W. B., and Hurt, Verner G. Potential.fg£_Agricultural Adjustment Eng Qeyelopment.ig.§hg Ouachita Highlands .gf Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University, College of Agriculture Bulletin B-582 (Stillwater: Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1961). 240 Bird, Ronald, Miller, Frank, and Turner, Samuel C. Nonfarm Households. fihiversityfgf Missouri, College of Agriculture Research Bulletin No. 661 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, March, 1958). Booth, E. J. R. Agricultural Adjustmgpp_ppg Farm Labor Under—employment pp Eastern Oklahoma, 1910—50. Oklahoma State University, College of Agriculture Technical Bulletin T—9l (Stillwater: Agricultural Experiment Station, May, 1961). Carpenter, Earl T. Farming Opportunities ip Missouri Projected Through 1975. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 746 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, July, 1960). Collier, James E. Agricultural Atlas 2; Missouri. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 645 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment = Station, February, 1955). ” Coutu, A. J. Systematic Farm Planning ip Relation pp Water Resources pp Parker Branch Pilot Tributary Watershed. North Carolina State College in Cooperation with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Report P 56—1 AE (Knoxville: March, 1956). , Baum, E. L., and Ray, R. M. Ap Analysis pinhg Parker Branch Watershed Project 1953 through 1959: A Progress Report. North Carolina State College in cooperation with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Progress Report T 60-3 AE (Knoxville: June, 1960). Decker, Wayne L. Monthly Precipitation ip Missouri; Climate Atlas_g£ Missouri Np. 1. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 650 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1955). Eisgruber, L. M., and Janssen, M. R. Changes ip Farm Organization ppg Operation'ip a Central Indiana Township—~1910 pp 1955. Purdue University, College of Agriculture Research Bulletin No. 686 (Lafayette: Agricultural Experiment Station, December, 1958). Hartmans, E. H., §p_pl. Part—time Farming: Possibilities and Limitations. University of Minnesota, College of Agriculture Extension Bulletin No. 296 (St. Paul: Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1959. 241 Interstate Managerial Project Committee, Summapy Data from uppg Interstate Managerial Survey. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 669 (Lexington: Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1959). Johnson, Glenn L. Sources pf Incomes.gp Upland Marshall County Farms. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Progress Report No. 1 (Lexington: Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1952). . Managerial Concepts pg; Agpiculturalists. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 619 (Lexington: Agricultural Experiment Station, July, 1954). , and Hardin, Lowell S. Economics pf Forage Evaluation. Purdue University, College of Agriculture Station Bulletin No. 623 (Lafayette: Agricultural Experiment Station, April, 1955). , and Haver, Cecil B. Agricultural Information_g§ an Aspect pf Decision Making. Michigan State University, College of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 273 (East Lansing: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1960). , and Haver, Cecil B. Decision-Making Principles .ip Farm.Management. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 593 (Lexington: Agricultural Experiment Station, January, 1953). McQuigg, James D. Climates g; the States, Missoupi. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Climatography of the United States No. 60-23 (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959). Mackie, Arthur B., and Baum, E. L. Problems apg Suggested Programslfgp Lowfigncome Farmers. Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Agricultural Relations, Report T 60-2 AE (Knoxville: October, 1959). Martin, James R., and Southern, John H. Part-Time Farming .lfl Northeast Texas. The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 970 (College Station: Agriculture Experiment Station, January, 1961). Miller, M. F. .A Century gijissouri Agriculture. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 701 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, May, 1958). 242 . .Missouri College pp Agricultupg throughIQ Half Century lp Retrospect. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 769 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961). Mumford, F. B. History_gf the Missouri College pf Agriculture. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 483 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, October, 1944). North Central Farm Management Research Committee, Problems .gf Small Farms. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 660 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, September, 1955). Ross, William N., and Hagan, Albert R. Part-time FarmingIng the Familprarm. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 807 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963). Saig, Elias N., and Doll, John P. .Agricultural Production q Trends lp_Missouri Counties 1939—1959. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 787 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1962). Scrivner, C. L., and Baker, J. C. Soils g; Blackwater and Lamine Township . University of Missouri, College of Agriculture B772 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station, August, 1961). Steward, Donald D. Employment, Income gpg Resources pp Rural Families pf Southeastepp Ohio. Ohio State University, College of Agriculture Research Bulletin No. 886 (wooster: Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1961). Taylor, Henry L. ‘Ap Economic Study pf the Johnson Creek watershed Area .Madison County, Tennessee. Tennessee A and I State University, School of Agriculture and Home Economics Bulletin Ag. Econ. No. 1 (Nashville: School of Agriculture and Home Economics, March, 1959L Taylor, Calvin C., and Burch, Thomas A. Personal and Environmental Obstacles pp Production Adjustments pp South Carolina Piedmont Area Farms. Clemson Agricultural College, College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 466 (Clemson: Agricultural Experiment Station, December, 1958). The American Bankers Association, The Farm Problem. Agricultural Commission and Economic Policy Commission (New York: 1958). 243 Toon, Tomas G. The Earning Power 9; Inputs, lpvestments, and Expenditures pp Upland Grayson County Farms During 1951. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Progress Report No. 7 (Lexington: Agriculture Experiment Station, January, 1953). Government Publications Bachman, Kenneth L., and Jones, Ronald W. Sizergf Farms.lp the United States, U. S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1019 (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, July, 1950). Harding, T. Swann. Some Landmarks.lp the History pf pp; Department pf_Agricu1ture. U. S. Department of Agriculture History Series No. 2 (waShington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Revised July, 1948). Inman, Buis T., and Southern, John H. Opportunities for Economicupevelopment.lp Low-Production Farm Areas. U. S. Department of Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 234 (waShington: U. S. Government Printing Office, November, 1960). McElveen, Jackson V. Family Farms.lp g Changing Economy. U. S. Department of Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 171 (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, March, 1957). Niederfrank, E. J. People and Agricultural Resource Adjustments. U. S. Department of Agriculture AEP-86 (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, June, 1958). U. S., Bureau of the Census. United States Census 9; _Agricultupg: 1959. Vol..l Counties, Part.ll Missouri. (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961). . 1954 Census gf_Agriculture. Vol. III-Pt. 9 Ch. VIII (waShington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956). U. S. Department of Agriculture. Farm Production Trends, Prospects and Programs. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 239 (WaShington: U. S. Government Printing Office, May, 1961). . .lflfilingiQELLEIBL Outlook Charts. (waShington: U. S. Government Printing Office, November, 1960). 244 . l962 Agriculturgl Outlook Chartbook (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, November, 1961). . 1963 Agriculppral Outlook Chartbook (WaShington: U. S. Government Printing Office, November, 1962). . Agricultural Conservation Program——Summary py States, 1960. U. S. Department of Agriculture Unnumbered Series (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, December, 1961). Articles and Talks American Farm Bureau Federation, "Is the Family Farm Dis— appearing?" The Nation’s Agriculture, June, 1960. Benedict, M. R., gp,gl. "Need for a New Classification of Farms,“ Journal pf Farm Economics. Vol. XXVI November, 1944. Bonser, H. J., and Porter, C. W. "Part-Time Farming: Boon or Bugaboo," Better Farming Methods, July, 1961. Dorner, Peter. "The Family Farm: Can it Survive?" Better Farming Methods, June, 1961. Geyer, Richard E. "The Myth of the Corporation Farm," Better Farming Methods, June, 1962. Gibson, W. L., Jr. "Is the Family Farm Obsolete?" Better Farming.Methods, March, 1962. Hathaway, Dale E. "The Family Farm in a Changing Agricul— ture," Michigan Farm Economics, No. 186, July, 1958. Heady, Earl 0. “What‘s Happening to Farm Size?" Iowa Farm Science, March, 1958. Hough, Jahn W. "Averages Can Ruin Us," Better Farming Methods, February, 1962. Johnson, Glenn L. "New Managerial Concepts and the Extension Service," Talk at the Extension worker's Conference, Lexington, Kentucky, December 18, 1952. Motheral, Joe R. "The Family Farm and the Three Traditions," Journal pp Farm Economics. Vol. XXXII November, 1951. 245 Shuman, Charles B. "The Family Farm," The Nation’s Agricul- ture, February, 1957. Stephens, P. H. "Managing $100,000 Per'worker ... Success- fully," PCA Farming, November-December, 1961. Stewart, H. L. "Changes in Farms and Farming," Talk at the 39th Annual Agricultural Outlook Conference, washington, D. C., November 16, 1961. Stucky,‘William G. "How Agricultural Colleges Can Serve. the Farmer's Real Need," Bette; Farming Methodg, November, 1960. Unpublished Materials Cooperative Extension Service, University of Missouri. "1959, Missouri Cash Costs of Family Living.“ (Columbia, 1959). (Mimeographed). Hale, Dwight, "Effects of Conservation Practices on Runoff from a ZOO-Acre Watershed" (unpublished Master's Thesis, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering, University of Missouri, 1963). Laughlin, Robert E., Hagan, Albert R., and Doll, John P. "An Economic Analysis of Alternative Beef Cattle Systems for a Large Farm in Central Missouri" (unpublished bulletin manuscript, Agricultural Economics Department, University of Missouri, 1963). Reynolds, William. “A Continuous Suspended Sediment Sampler for Use on an Intermediate Size waterShed“ (unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering, University of Missouri, 1962). ROOM USE 0”“ rzrmm m w IGAN STQTE UIN V. BRQRI Hmll l lllll ll lllllllle :l