EFFECT OF.ACREAGE CONTROL PROGRAMS ON CROP.AND LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS ON SELECTED MICHIGAN FARMS BY Charles Louis Beer A THESIS Submitted to the School for.Advanced Graduate Studies of Hichigan.$tate'University of.Agriculture and Applied Science in.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of.Agricultural Economics 1957 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude and appreciation to all those who helped with the completion of this study and the preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks are expressed by the author to his major professor Dr. Lawrence WL‘Witt for the guidance, inSpiration and encouragement which he has provided throughout the course of graduate work. Thanks are expressed to all the staff members of the Department of ,Agricultural Economics, who have given freely of their time and advice whenever it was requested. The author is indebted to Dale E. Hathaway who directed the sampling and the field work and to Milton Steinmueller, Rdbert Kenworthy, Donald Frayer and Donald Harmer who assisted the author with the farm interviews and to the farmers in the sample who cooperated so well. Financial assistance provided by Dr. L. L. Boger, head of the .Agricultural Economics Department made it possible for the author to continue his graduate study. Mrs. Yvonne Lowe did an excellent job of preparing the original manuscript for the final typing. Graduate students, too numerous to mention, have provided constant stimulation to continued learning. The author is grateful to them for their contributions and assistance with some of the problems involved in this work. The author accepts full responsibility for any errors which may be present in the completed work. Charles Beer ii EFFECT OF.ACREAGE CONTROL PROGRAMS ON CROP AND LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS ON SELECTED MICHIGAN FARMS By Charles Louis Beer AN'ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for.Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan.State University of.Agriculture and Applied.Science in.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of.Agricultural Economics Year 1957 Approved ____éé:2§kkp/xtw~—¢4L,AfiZbfi{Za/4QQH: ABSTRACT This study was designed to test the hypothesis that land taken out of the production of controlled crops is likely to be used to produce other feed or cash crops in order to make full use of available labor or other resources available on the farm. [A second hypothesis is that price support programs are more likely to be used by those farmers in.Michigan who have larger total production of crops. The sample areas were selected to be representative of various important commercial farming areas of Michigan. Complete description of the sampling procedure and a brief census description of each area is given in Chapter I. This study has been confined to the specific area of price support and acreage control programs. It shows the relationship between acreage control and the use of diverted acres on a group of sample farms. It also shows the changes planned in the livestock operations on these farms. ‘A large proportion‘of the farmers interviewed in this study made no _ use of price supports on their crops and many who did use supports used them on only one crop. It is worth noting that price supports and con- trols were administered through the basic crops on the assumption that sufficient interaction would occur throughout the crop and livestock programs to decrease the supply and increase the price. This and otlua: studies indicate that there was little change in total crop acreage iv although there was some reduction in the acreage of wheat. Only a small amount of the diverted acreage was left idle. The largest portion of it was planted to other feed or cash crops. Approximately 3,300 acres were taken out of the production of con- trolled crops, (wheat and corn), because of the acreage allotments and marketing quotas by the hlh farmers interviewed in this study. Four crops accounted for the use which was made of 65 percent of this land. In the order of their importance, they are: Oats, 2h percent; dry beans, 16 percent; barley, 13 percent; corn, 12 percent. .About 11 percent of the diverted acreage was used as summer fallow or idle land. One should note, however, that the total land in summer fallow and idle was less in l95h than in 1953. This study shows that 65 percent of the land removed from the pro- duction of controlled crops, (wheat and corn), in.Michigan was used to produceother feed crops and 2h percent of the diverted acreage was used to produce other cash cr0ps. This extra production of feed crops, about 2,150 acres on hlh farms, would lead one to expect some expansion in livestock numbers to make use of the additional feed. Chapter III shows that approximately th tons of forage and l,hSO tons of feed grains would have been produced on the land diverted from allotments and planted to feed crops by the hlh farmers in this study. This would be sufficient feed to carry approximately 2,100 additional animal units of livestock on these farms.. Farmers with larger amounts of land in diverted acreage appeared more likely to be planning changes in livestock on their farms than those farmers who had smaller amounts of land in diverted acreage. Examination showed that those farmers reporting diverted acres and A planning livestock changes, were likely to be planning increases of beef or hogs in a much higher ratio than these two enterprises held in the overall sample of farmers interviewed. The results of this study support the hypothesis that price support programs are more likely to be used.by those farmers in Michigan, who have larger total production of crops (through larger acreages of these crops and better per acre yields). This study also supports the hypothesis that land taken out of pro- duction of controlled crops is likely to be used to produce other feed or cash crops in order to make full use of available labor or other resources on the farm. Other feed crops were produced on 2,150 acres of the 3,300 acres diverted from allotment crops. Only 10 percent, or about 330 acres, was planted to forage crops (hay or pasture). The remaining 1,820 acres of feed crop acreage consisted of feed-grains. Thus, the additional feed production on the hlh farms was approximately 1,890 tons of feed. This was made up of th tons of forage and l,h50 tons of feed-grains. Contrary to expectation a relatively small amount of the diverted acreage was used fer forage production. The use of diverted acreage for production of feed grains appeared to be encouraging the expansion of grain-consuming livestock on the sample farms. vi CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I STATWT OF PROMOOOOO...0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0... II III Introduction.......................o....‘.......o......... Hypothesis............................................... Selection of Sample and Sample.Area...................... Census Information on Counties Selected.................. Sumry.0......OCOOCOOOCCOOOOOIOOOCCO0.00....0..000...... REVIEW OF LIMATUREooooooooo00000000000000.000000000000000. Changing Policies........................................ 'Why Government Supports?-~and Controls?.................. Recent Legislative Developments.......................... Some Recent Studies in This.Area......................... What Are the Objectives of Agricultural Policy........... 3mm.OOOOOCOCOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....00.... CROP CMNGE ON MICHIM FARM, 1953-19Shooooooooooooeoooooo Introduction............................................. Acreage Shifts Which Have Occurred, 1953-19Sh............ Use of Price Supports by Farmers, l953-195h.............. Use of Diverted.Acreage.................................. Effect of Allotments Upon Farm Operation and Organization smry.0.000000000000000.COCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO LIVESTOCK CHANGES MADE.AND PLANNED ON SAMPLE EARMS.......... Introduction............................................. Changes Made in Number of Livestock Units, 1953-195h..... Reasons Given for Change Made From 1953 to l9Sh.......... Changes.Anticipated and Reasons for These Planned Changes .Age of Operator and Plans for Change..................... 3mm.0..OOOOCOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0.0.0.0000...I INTERéRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CROP CHANGES AND PLANNED CHANGES IN LMTWK ON ME FABMSOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOO0.00.0000... cornpared by Type Of FarmCOOOOCOOOOOIOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Compared by Acreage of Cropland on Farm.................. vii 68 68 69 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER .Amount of Diverted.Acreage per Farm...................... Relationship Between Use of Diverted Acreage and Plans for Livestock Changes................................. Comparison of Reasons Given for Livestock Change and Use of Diverted.Acres..................................... SWWOOOOOOOOCCOCCOOO0.00.0...OOOCIOOOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0... VI WYAND CONCLUSIONS0.0.0.0.0000...0.00000000000000000000 3mm...0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...O....00.... conCluSionS.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BBLIOGMPHYIOOOOOOOOO0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.000.000.000... ”WHOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO0.000000000000000COOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO, viii Page 70 72 77 81 8h 8h 90 9h 97 TABLE ' 341. 3-9. LIST OF TABLES Page Percentage of cropland in different crops on sample farms in £01.11. areas in Michigan, 1953-195h000coco-00.00.00.000cocoon.o Percent and number of producers using price supports on seleCted crORS‘-l9s3'195hoo00000000000000.0000.cocooeoeeoooo. Prices received as a percentage of parity prices for selected crops, 1953-’195h0000000000000000000000000000000.000.00.000.00 Percentage of various crops sold by farmers. Comparison of farmers using support prices with those not using support prices, 1953-195h00000000.000.00.0000000000000000.cocoa...coo Relationship between the use of support prices on selected crops and the total production per farm in Michigan, 1953- 19Sh......................................................... Relationship between yield per acrenand the use of support prices on selected crops in Michigan, l953-195h.............. Relationship between average acreage harvested per farm and the use of support prices on selected crops in Michigan, 1953-1.95th.000...0000000000000...one.cocoooeoooooooeoooooooo Use of acreage diverted from wheat and corn in Michigan, 195h Effects that farmers believe continued allotments will have on farming operations and organization....................... Change and direction of change in livestock numbers which occurred from 1953 to l95h on farms in the sample on which liveStOCk ms raised-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Relationship between changes made in livestock numbers from 1953 to l95h and changes planned in the near future.......... Change and direction of change which occurred between July 1, 1953 and July 1, 195h on farms where the operators said'that they had made changes in livestock numbers because of allot- manta.OCOCOOOOOOO0......0000000.0.0.0....IOOOOOCOOOOOOO0.0... 39 hO hl h2 h3 h6 h8 53 Sh 56 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 11-h. 14-5 . 14—9. nab. h-ll. h412. Page Relationship between changes in livestock numbers made from 1953 to 195h and changes planned in the near future on farms where changes were made because of allotments................ Farmers' plans for changing livestock numbers by type of livestock and direction of change involved................... Number and percentage of farmers planning change in live- stock, compared with those not planning change............... Reasons given by farmers for the changes which they planned to make in the livestock operations on their farms........... Reasons given by farmers who had made previous changes in livestock numbers because of allotments for the additional changes which they planned to make in the livestock opera- tions on their farms......................................... Change planned compared by livestock on farms, 195h.......... Direction of planned changes by number of animal units on farm, l9ShOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCOOOOO0.0.0....0.000.000.0000...0..I. Intentions to increase livestock on farm compared by amount of livestock on farm and type of livestock to be increased... Intention to decrease livestock on farm, compared by amount of livestock on farm and type of livestock to be decreased... Relationship between age of operator and plans for changes in liveStOCk operationS.OOOOOOOOICOOOOOO0.0.0.0...OCOOOOOOOOOOOO Relationships between planned changes in livestock operations by specialized dairy farmers and age of operators............ Distribution of farms by type of farm; farms reporting use of diverted acreage compared with farms reporting no diverted acreagBOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO Distribution of farms by acreage of cropland; farms reporting use of diverted acreage compared with farms reporting no diverted acreage0.000000000000000COCO0.000IOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0 Comparison of the number of farms reporting use of diverted acreage with farms reporting no diverted acreage by area..... 57 58 59 61 61 62 63 63 6h 65 66 69 70. 71 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Pa ge 5-h. Comparison of farms reporting use of diverted acreage by amount of diverted acreage per farm and by area.............. 71 5-5. Comparison of farmers reporting diverted acres and farmers reporting no diverted acres in relation to their plans to Change liveStOCkOOOOO0.00000000000000.00.00.00.00...0......O. 73 5-6. Relationship between use of diverted acreage and plans for livestock changes on farms which reported use of diverted acreage.O...OOCOOOOCOOOOOOOCCOOCOOI00.000.000.00...00.0.00... 75 5-7. Relationship between use made of diverted acreage and the type of livestock which farmers reporting use of diverted acreage planned-m orange.O..00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 76 5-8. Comparison of reasons for planned changes in livestock given by farmers who made use of diverted acreage and by farmers who reported no use of diverted acreage...................... 78 5-9. Relationship between reasons given for planned changes in livestock and the direction of these changes: Farmers reporting no diverted acreage compared with those reporting diverted acreage............................................. 79 5-10. Comparison of reasons for planned changes in livestock by size of diverted acreage reported............................ 80 xi CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction ‘Price support and acreage control programs as they have operated in recent years are based upon supporting the prices of basic crops, and exerting acreage control over these crops through the use of allot- ments. It was hoped that a reduction in acreage would reduce the supply and thus increase the price of these crops on the Open market. It was also a hope that acreage controls would reduce the feed grains available and in this manner reduce the supply of livestock and livestock products. This in turn was to cause an increase in prices received for these products. The major objective of this study is to provide information on farmers'response to agricultural price support and control.programs. This is done through a review of the actions which.Michigan farmers have taken when faced with these programs. The actions taken.by farmers is examined in respect to the overall effect which they have had.upon crOp and livestock Operations on the selected.thhigan farms. The author hopes that sufficient information of this nature will eventually enable the people of the United States to establish a program, (this may include the idea of no program except in an emergency), for ' agriculture which will be both effective and politically acceptable. On examination of past agricultural programs one finds that many times Objectives or expected results of a given program were stated in general terms which could be interpreted by each interested group in almost any manner that they would like. This general terminology was necessary in order to secure passage of legislation which would put the programs into effect. In other cases Congress was directing that a new idea be applied in trying to improve the conditions of agriculture. Terminology necessarily had to be vague so as to provide scope for experimentation and for the counsel of experts in administration of these programs. ‘When such pro- grams were put into operation the conflicts in interpretation were brought into sharp focus and became faults in the program. J. K. Galbraith states: There were four faults of the old program which were of commanding importance. I venture to suggest that there would be considerable measure of agreement on the list as follows: (1) the surplus problem; (2) the controls prdblem; (3) the trade problem; and (h) the discrimination problem.1 Galbraith defines these problems in more detail. He indicated that the costly inventories which the CCC (Commodity Credit Corporation) was forced to acquire because of the "surplus problem" were evidence that they had not planned for this result. .Actions by the office of the Secretary of Agriculture would lead one to believe that he had not planned fer them either. This, however, may be an.unfair accusation 1J. K. Galbraith, FarulPolicy: The Current Position, JFE, Vol. 37, N0. 2, May, 1955, p. 293. Fx since the Secretary was prevented from taking action which might have reduced the surpluses when Congress made 90 percent supports mandatory on some creps. Of the controls which became necessary because of the surpluses, Galbraith states: Either the controls were politically acceptable and not very effective, or they were effective and politically dis- agreeable. The recent experience with controls over diverted acreage and it's abandonment during the election campaign suggests the nature of the difficulty.2 He indicates that "trade" problems arose when export subsidies and import restrictions were made necessary by the maintenance of United States prices above world market prices. These export subsidies and import quotas were in sharp conflict with our (United States Government) stated.position on world trade. The prdblem of discrimination, that is, the producer of one crop being favored over another by certain administrative decisions, looms large in the overall workings of any type of agricultural program which has yet been.put into operation. The decision as to whether a product would receive support or not has often been.based on history, politics and the important detail of how successfully it can.be stored. Then also, the establishment of quotas for either growing or marketing, tend to create a situation where the value of the quotas are capitalized into the value of the land on 2Ibid., p. 293. f‘l (1 which these quotas exist since they restrict free entry into the production of the commodity involved. Shepherd recognizes the conflict between effectiveness and political acceptability which makes it necessary to state objectives of a specific program in more general terms. He writes: In some cases, the objectives that are stated are not the real or primary objectives. The stated objectives of the original ever-normal granary were the stabilization of supplies and prices. There is good reason, however, to believe that the primary objective was rather to raise farm prices and thus increase farm income-to "stabilize them upward." But there would.be opposition from consumers to this objective, whereas everybody is in favor of stabilization. Not until 19h0 was the price-raising objective spelled out loud in the CCC quotation given above. In caSes like these the original statement alone does not tell the whole story. Judgment is needed here to determine what the objective really was.3 Since many times there is some variation.between the real or primary objectives of a program and the stated Objectives of the same program, the author will try to draw some comparison between the stated objectives of the price support program being examined and the goals as viewed by farm leaders, non-farm leaders and members of Congress. Hypothesis The price support programs are more likely to be used by those farmers in Michigan.who have larger total production of crops through larger acreages of these crops and through better per acre yields. Thus the programs provide aid for the farmers who are already above average in respect to income possibilities. 3Geoffrey Shepherd,‘Hhat Can.A Research Man Do In,Agricultural Ptice P011917 J'FE, Vol. 3"]? No. 2, May, 1953: p. 308. Land taken out of the production of controlled crops is likely to be used to produce other feed or cash crops in order to make full use of available labor or other resources on the farm. 'When other feed crops are produced on this land it is likely that livestock numbers will be increased in order to utilize these feed crops on the farm. These ideas will be tested through the use of information obtained from farmers in Michigan about their farming operations and their actions and beliefs about agricultural programs which affect the management and operation of their farms. Selection of Sample and Sample.Area The selection of the sample areas was based upon representation of various important commercial farming areas of Michigan. The sample represented areas where managerial decisions involved different kinds of alternatives as farmers adjusted to production controls. The selection was also made large enough to insure reliability of the final results of the survey. Information was gathered through a field survey taken during the summer of 195h. The schedule was a 17 page questionnaire which had to do with farm size; special questions on controlled crops, that is, wheat and corn; crops grown.in 1953 and in l95h and the use made of diverted acreages; livestock changes made, 1953-195h and plans for future changes; 4 feed utilization; attitudes and some personal history of the farm operator. SA copy of the questionnaire is included in the.Appendix. The interviewers were instructed that if there was no one at home on the first call, to make two more calls on different days at different times of the day before abandoning attempts to establish contact with the farmer to be interviewed. The interviewers were furnished with instructions on interviewing procedures for this particular survey. They were also furnished with general instructions for interviewers. These instructions were all pointed at reducing the refusal rate to an absolute minimum, getting complete unbiased information.and finally, creating a favorable impression of the survey and of Michigan State College. The counties of Kalamazoo, Livingston, Sanilac and Gratiot-Isabella were chosen as being representative of their type of farming areas. (Gratiot and Isabella counties were considered as representative of one type of farming area.) The counties chosen represented heavy commercial agricultural areas where production controls would have the fullest impact. In some areas there tended to be a natural crop or enterprise to which one could shift the production capacities of the farm. In other areas the decisions on diverted acres were more difficult to make. The areas were selected.because of their location in respect to markets, climate, soil types and off-the-farm job opportunities. This would reduce the possibility that the resultant managerial decisions would end in a shift to any one particular crop or enterprise. Nineteen townships were selected in the five counties. The location of these counties is‘ shown on the map on the following page. RAND MPNALLY LOOSE LEAF OUTLINE MAP ' umomwcei WISCONSIN Human ) one up so u :9 ocean "or m u. s. a. 25‘ II‘ i MICHIGAN H ANO.AI.I P CIABO lwc: I I- —.-._.- i i 1 i cmpézm I.- ’ ' \ . gnomes»: h‘mfia__1 ..... _' ‘ I \-__l q 'crwuvou A'.’ ‘ ”gaze; Fig“ am‘fi’ 013560 I , o m... T I __-_I_-_!._._!-__-__ ._ I 'W.lcmwroao|oscou l .A‘Enmm' ‘ . g ' ! I | I ““Wé?“ mam-.4 Kai—'ofiirfofi'" men] one I— . common ! ! I 55' __-._. _-__.-__.- ._I.- I ma l'oscsou [cunt |aunwn77 W ' I i i I I :—-._ -_|____ MY 0 l wm'zn—gifitiv'l—"Ii i -_l I I— - _ . 'I mam , lam cumon lswumsszf I . ' - . l _. _L. -_L- 1.. v»: luau «mom: lucwsow ' L._,! I i icm I amour“ Fain-c? Ti; — ° 0 I sums . ' FORTE JWIPWEITCA+ f 130?“! . WI}; # .w 6'5“? 0 o ' I w n x A w A m ‘ TN: Map Is also available in sin 17 x22 -— _ _ - A _ _-_1I _ 756 OB 021 Census Information on Counties Selected Hheat and corn are both important crops in Kalamazoo County} The 1950 census classified about 15 percent of the farms in this economic area as cash grain farms, 29 percent as dairy farms, 1h percent as live- stock other than dairy and poultry and 2h percent as general farms. .A high proportion of the commercial farms in this area produce both wheat and corn. From l9h0 to 1950 this economic area had an expansion of about 1h percent in corn acreage and about 65 percent in wheat acreage, even though the number of farms producing corn declined nearly 20 percent and the number of farms producing wheat remained.very nearly the same. In the Gratiot-Isabella area of Central Michigan the 1950 census classified 20 percent of the farms as cash grain, 30 percent as dairy farms, 5 percent as livestock other than dairy and poultry and 22 percent as general farms. The number of farms producing wheat increased by 20 percent in this area between l9h0 and 1950. The acreage of wheat in- creased by more than two and one-half times, and the production of wheat by more than four times. The total.production of corn increased during this same period even though the number of corn.producers decreased by 25 percent and the corn acreage declined about 20 percent. Sanilac County was selected.as representative of the "thumb" area of Michigan. The 1950 census classified h2 percent of the farms as cash grain farms, 28 percent as dairy farms, 2 percent as livestock other than dairy and 22 percent as general farms. The wheat production in this area more than doubled in the 10 year period. It would appear that this was because the acreage of wheat harvested per farm was about double. About the same production of corn came from fewer producers growing less acres of corn but obtaining higher yields. Livingston County was chosen as representative of a dairy area. The 1950 census classified 38 percent of the farms in this county as dairy farms. Only 15 percent were classified as cash grain farms, 11 percent as livestock other than dairy and poultry and 18 percent as general farms. An increase in acreage per farm and increasing yields more than doubled the corn production in this county between 1910 and 1950. The acreage of wheat doubled during this period and the production more than doubled because of the increased yields obtained. Townships within the counties were selected in such a way as to maintain an approximately uniform soil type within each of the economic areas. The individual farms were selected within these townships by drawing a random sample of farms from the wheat listing sheets of the county Agricultural ‘ Stabilization and Conservation Committee. Specific parts of the survey have been used as the basis for three 'hster of Science theses and three articles}5 The information in these studies will be drawn upon in this study where it appears useful. 5Hsiang Hsing Yeh, Estimatin in Michigan Using Sampling Detail}? 2 University, East Lansing, MMgan, 19 t-Ou ut Relationshi s for Wheat M. S. Thesis,_Michigan State William Delmer Murphy, Attitudes of Michigan Farmers Toward Govern- ment Production Control Pro 5 as Shown b a 1 Surve M. S. Thesis, gan te University, 3 Lanszmg, c gan, 9 Myron Eugene Mirth, Production Responses to Agricultural Controls in Four Michi% Farming Areas, M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University, 8 :Lng, ‘3 1gan, 9 10 §Eafl飣 Review of some agricultural programs indicates that often there is variation.between the expected results of a program and the actual results achieved. The objectives have been and still are, difficult to establish in a clearcut ferm. Controls have become necessary but in the nature of our system these controls were either politically acceptable and not very effective or they were effective and politically disagreeable. This study is to test the idea that price support programs are used more by the above average farmers and thus do little to raise incomes of the low'income groups. Also that the land taken out of production of controlled crops is planted to other feed crops and thus causes increase in livestock numbers in order to utilize these crops on the farm. Sample areas were selected to be representative of various important commercial farming areas of Michigan. Brief census descriptions for each of the areas are included in this chapter (Chapter I). Dale E. Hathaway, "The Effects of Agricultural Production Controls in 1951; on Four Michigan Fanning Areas," Eatery Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 37, No. A, May, 1955, pp. 565-573. Lawrence‘flitt and.Dale Hathaway, "Farmers' Plans to Change Live- stock Numbers as Related to.Agricultural.Production.Controls," Quarterly Bulletin Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State Chiversi , East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 38, No. A, May 1956, pp. 511-519. Delmer Murphy and Lawrence Witt, "Attitudes of Michigan Farmers Toward.Control.Programs," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 38, No. A, may 1956, pp. 500-510. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Changing Policies Agricultural policy of the United States undergoes almost constant change but much of it still is based upon the general principles which were introduced by the legislative action of the early thirties. Much of this legislation has been modified quite liberally by Congress and by the administrative agencies of both parties. Some has expired because of 1 Supreme Court actions. The farm program which has been put on the books by Congress since 1932 includes: Federal funds loaned for getting farms electrified, for enabling small farmers to put in the next crop or buy a farm of their own and for doing earth moving and conservation work. A large bureau gives free technical advice on soil and water conservation; another regulates speculation on the commodity markets; another does scientific research and helps control diseases and pests; another looks after the price support program and acreage controls, when necessary; and another conducts an experimental insurance program against natural hazards.2 lThe Hoosac Mills case on which a decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on January 6, 1936 should be noted. This decision invali- dated the production-control provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Other decisions include; Rickert Rice Mills, Inc. vs. Fontenot; United States vs. Liberty Rice Feed Mill, Incl; California Canning Peach Growers! Association vs. Myers, etc. (See pp. 97-107, AEicultural A ustment Act 1 3-1 United States Department of Agric ture, fishin'fin, D. 5., 193%.; 2Wesley McCune, Who‘s Behind Our Farm Policy? Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., New York, 1956, p.37 12 All of these items are part of our overall agricultural policy. Many of them are quite generally accepted while others are more controversial. . This study deals primarily with the price support program which is part of the overall agricultural policy. These programs were founded upon the general assumption that farm incomes were low because prices were too low and that an increase in price would bring about an increase in agricultural income. There was little concern over the possibility of surpluses being produced since the surpluses then existing were con- sidered to be temporary attributes of the depression and low levels of urban purchasing power. As the programs developed, however, some longer run surpluses did arise. Controls were designed to reduce these surpluses. As these controls were placed upon the acreage of specific crops the acreage of these crops was reduced, but in my cases the total production, in bushels or tons, remained the same or increased because of techno- logical advances. At the same time the acreage which was removed from production of controlled crops was being used to produce other cash or feed crops . 331 Government Price Support?--and Controls? Much has been written about the farm situation during the 1930's. Farmers were told how they would be better off if they produced less of given commodities, in other words, restrict production as business had done and increase price. Government agencies were being formed and were gaining experience in administration of this type of program. Farmers 1'. 13 were also gaining experience as to how to fit the programs into their overall farm operation. The results achieved often differed from the results which had been expected or predicted. There was no universal agreement on exactly what should be done or how it should be accomplished. Most groups agreed that something should be done to aid farmers during the depression period. Many contend, however, that if in times of high employment, farmers do not find returns from farming comparable in over- all terms to those that might be achieved in other occupations, enough of the more mobile farm workers will shift out of agriculture so that real incomes will be somewhat comparable in the farm and non-farm parts of the economy. A more realistic view in terms of our present structure, both political and economic, may be expressed in terms used by J. K. Galbraith . in discussing the farmers' effort to develop countervailing power. Such is the extraordinarily consistent record of the farmers' efforts to develop countervailing power, curiously enough, the whole effort is still viewed, even to some extent by farmers them- selves, as vaguely artificial. While the word "emergency" has now disappeared from agricultural legislation, there is still a sub- jective feeling that someday it will pass away. The fact that the modern legislation is now of two decades' standing, that behind it is a long history of equivalent aspiration, that there is not a developed country in the world where its counterpart does not exist, that no political party would think of attacking it are all worth pondering by those who regard such legislation as abnormal.3 Whichever view one wishes to take (i.e. that government should stay out of farming or the latter one that government programs in agriculture are 3J. K. Galbraith, "The Case of Agriculture," Readings in Aggicultural Economics, Prentice-Hall, Inc. , New York, 1955, p. 219. here to stay) he must realize that American agriculture is highly dynamic. It has been going through a veritable revolution in technology4 and this change is still underway, possibly at an even more rapid rate than we have seen up to now. At the same time, there have been substantial shifts on the demand side. Many of these also are still in process. The impact of these shifts varies greatly among commodities. This makes it even more difficult for any fixed formula, such as has been used during most of this period, to produce results which will be appropriate for price or actual operating purposes for any given year. With this in mind, one might well take a brief look at government programs for agriculture in the United States. Many believe that this sort of action began in the Depression of the 1930's. Contrary to popular opinion, however, government controls were practiced long before this time. Attempts to control production were set up in the early days of the 5 Virginia Colony. In 1631 the Virginia Colonial Legislature passed a law 4R. G. Bressler, Jr. ,"Farm Technology and the Race with Population," Journal of Farm EconomicsJ Vol. 39, No. )4, November 1957, pp. 8h9-86h. Lawrence Witt, "The Driving Force of Technology," American Farm Policy, The NUEA Discussion and Debate Manual 1956-1957, Artcraft Press, Colombia, Missouri, Vol. 1, 1956, pp. 175-188. Sherman E. Johnson, "Changes in American Farming, " Miscellaneous Publication No. 707, USDA, Washington, D. 0., l9h9. Glenn Johnson, "Some Ideas and Facts about Supply Responses, Productivity and Incomes in United States Agriculture ," unpublished paper prepared for presentation at a Harvard University Seminar, 1956. 5Edward Everett, "American Apiculture-The First 300 Years ," "Farmers In A Changing World ," 191m Yearbook ofMAEiculture, USDA, 19h1, p. 18h. f! f. [I 15 fixing a minimum price for tobacco. A year later production had in- creased so much that it necessitated adoption of controls. A crop acreage curtailment and price-fixing agreement was signed between the colonial authorities and the principal merchants and officials were appointed to destroy inferior tobacco and if necessary, burn surplus crops.6 In 1906, some 250 years after production controls were adopted in Virginia, burley tobacco growers in Kentucky tried to organize to control output and raise prices. This program was soon abandoned as efforts to enforce controls brought outbreaks of violence by "night riders."'7 The farmers of the 1920‘s were plagued with low prices and they saw (or thought they saw) a cure’in higher prices for farm products. Passage of several acts such as the Capper-Volstead Act in 1922, the Cooperative Marketing Act in 1926 and the Agricultural Marketing Act in 1929 indicated a movement of government into the field of cooperative marketing and surplus control measures in the agricultural arena.8 A federally subsidized farm program was begun between 1929 and 1932 which was far beyond any earlier attempts of this nature. Millions were spent in the field of agriculture to consolidate and coordinate the marketing activities of the cooperatives and to engage in stabilization operations, the latter primarily for wheat and cotton. Even these far 6Ibid., p. 185. 7Harold G. Halcrow, Argricultural Policy of the United States, Prentice-Hall, Inc. , New ork, New York,T95’3, p. 287. 8Theodore Saloutos and John D. Hicks, "Agricultural Discontent in the Middle Vest, 1900-1939," University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1951, p. 1405. l, [‘b l6 reaching policies fell short of solving the problem which faced agri- culture in the 1930's. The legislative acts referred to in the paragraph above were among the measures used in 'an attempt to achieve these higher prices. It was not until the Agicultural Adjustment Act of 1933, however, that the government became involved in direct participation in farm operation. The original Agricultural.AdJustment Act of 1933 did not provide penalties for overplanting. Cooperation in.an acreage control program was voluntary. Crop acreage control is a form of rationing of the productive agents available to the farm. The purpose of exercising this control was to direct the output of the farm. Schultz and Brownlee say, In general the aim of crop acreage control ... has been primarily to reduce the production of feedstuffs on the assump- tion that this would.curtail the output of livestock and live- stock products which in turn, because of presumed inelasticity of demand for these animal products, would increase the income which farmers Obtain from these products. Subsidiary aims have ., been the stabilization of livestock output through the use of corn-storage techniques and the conservation of soil resources.9 The idea that production.would expand.more rapidly than the demands of a normal economy was not given serious consideration.up to this point. The main idea was to maintain.price, assuming that higher prices would provide good farm income. In 1938 an editorial in‘Wallaces' Farmer said, 9T.‘H} Schultz and O. H. Brownlee, Effects of Cro .Acrea e Control IFeatures of.AAA on Feed Production in 11 Midwest States, Iowa State College Research metin' , No. 298, Ames, Iowa, April, 19142, p. 676. 1? ... But the main importance of the AAA program this year to every farmer is that it gives the voluntary system a‘last chance to make good. If farmers fail to participate, if acreage in- creases, if corn prices drop, then those who want compulsion are likely to get their way next year.10 Later legislation, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, provided specifically for the establishment of marketing quotas for tobacco, corn, 11 wheat, cotton, rice and peanuts. These provisions with but minor modifications have been retained under the 19149 act. 12 A recent study indicates that in general farmers had become accustomed to acreage allotments and had accepted them as part of routine farming. Many of the farmers had no established their farming operations and organization that they could continue Operating under allotments without any great difficulty. Most of these farmers, however, had accepted the allotments with the idea that they could comply or not comply as the immediate situation dictated. If the program benefits were great enough they would comply, but if they thought they could achieve greater income ”Wallaces' Farmer and Iowa Homestead, Wallace Publishing Company, Des Moinesflowa, Apr117f193r. “Marketing quotas are a more direct and effective device of supply control than are acreage allotments. They restrict the quantity of a product a farmer is permitted to sell, or produce, in a given year with-- out a penalty. Marketing quotas are usually tied in with acreage allot- ments and have become a part of the production control machinery. The Bankhead Cotton Control Act of 1931:, introduced penalty taxes on cotton ginned in excess of individual farm quotas. Similarly, the Kerr-Smith Tobacco Control Act of 1931; and the Warren Potato Act of 1935 provided for a tax on marketing in excess of individual quotas. 12?. D. Murphy, Attitudes of Michigan Farmers Toward Government Production Control Progéams as Shomlz a 12514 Wig-1,743. Ffhesis, Mic gan S niversi y, Eas Lansmg, Michigan, 955. 18 ‘ by raising larger acreages or if they needed the feed crops, they would not comply with the allotments. Marketing quotas, however, have made some change in this situation. Recent Legislative Developments In 19h8, two years after the cessation of World War II, with the high wartime price supports scheduled to expire, Congress passed the Aiken Bill of 19148. Its objectives sought to bring about a return of the flexible price supports system prevalent before the war. In principle, the Aiken Bill sought to restoreto the market a part of its traditional function of guiding the farmer as to what is profit- able to produce and how much of each product should be gown. It did not advocate the return to a completely free market but did drop provisions which caused "price pegging" during the war, 13 namely the Steagall Amendment. The Aiken Bill contained provisions for flexible supports, (from 60 percent to 90 percent of parity) but these lower supports were postponed until 1950; thus, the principle was there, but in fact, supports were left high and rigid, as if the Steagall Amendment had been extended. The Agricultural Act of 1910 which, with amendments in 1952 and 19514, is a modified version of the 19148 flexible principle actually superseded Title II of the 19h8 act before it became effective. The relation of supply at the beginning of a crop year to the normal supply determines 1‘3"Price pegging" is a name often used to describe the act of support- ing prices at a level other than the normal equilibrium price. 19 the rate of support (between 75 percent and 90 percent of parity). This applies to all "basic" crops except tobacco where the support is 90 per- cent when marketing quotas are in effect. Support was made mandatory for whole milk, butterfat, and other dairy products at 75 to 90 percent of parity and for tung nuts, wool14 and Irish potatoes at 60 to 90 percent, with actual levels in that range to be determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. With some modifications the 19149 act continued the parity formula which was modernized by the 19148 act. The main difference between "old" parity and "new" is that under the "old" formula relationships among the parity prices of various commodities were determined by the relationship that existed in a fixed baseperiod, usually 1910-19114. The "new" formula determines parity by the relationships existing in the most recent ten- year period. Both formulas use 1910-19114 as a base for determining the ratio of prices paid to prices received. The "new" formula also includes consideration of wages paid farm labor. In addition, the 19149 act con- tained a step-down provision for support level reduction. It provided that parity price could be reduced, but not more than 5 percent per year 15 under the new formula. 14wool was given special recognition under Title VII of the Agri- cultural Act of 19514. 15A detailed discussion of this can be found in A icultural Infor- mation BulletinJ No. 13, Price Prog'ams of the United tates Department of Agriculture, 1951;. 20 The.Agricultura1.Act of 19h9 was remanded in 1952 to provide for mandatory 90 percent supports on the "basic" agricultural commodities. In 195A as in 19h8, Congress provided at least lip service to the concept of a flexible or variable price support program. The act provided in the main for a gradual transition to a variable price support program. It provides a permanent program of variable supports ranging from 75 to 90 percent of parity for wheat, cotton, corn, rice, peanuts and the non-quota types of tobacco, with a onefiyear transitional period for which the range was fixed at not lower than 82.5 nor higher than 90 percent of parity. The 195h act also provided for a "commodity set-aside" on wheat, upland cotton, cottonseed oil, butter, nonfat dry milk and cheese in 1 order to provide safeguards against interference with normal marketings of the supplies of such commodities.16 Under Title VII of the same act, provision was made for encouraging annual domestic production of approxi— mately three hundred million pounds of shorn wool at prices fair to both producers and consumers in a manner which will have the least adverse effects upon foreign trade. The act states: The support price for shorn wool shall be at such incentive level as the Secretary, after consultation with.producer repre- sentatives, and after taking into consideration prices paid and other cost conditions affecting sheep production, determines to be necessary in order to encourage an annual production consistent with the declared.polioy of this title: Provided, that the support price for shorn wool shall not exceed 110 percentum.of the parity price therefbr. If the support price so determined does not exceed 90 percentum of the parity price for shorn wool, the support 16Title I,.Agricu1tura1.Act of 1951, Congress of the United States, 19514. I 21 price fer shorn wool shall be at such level, not in excess of 90 percentum nor less than 60 percentum of the parity price therefor, as the Secretary determines necessary in order to encourage an annual production of approximately three hundred and sixty million pounds of shorn wool.1'7 Some Recent Studies in This Area The results of a study by Hathaway andPeterson18 shows that only 25 percent of the 572 farmers interviewed in their study had used price supports in l9h9. It also shows that a smaller percentage planned to use supports in 1950. This study also shows that farmers who operated larger farms made more use of supports than those operating smaller farms. In the case of wheat those with more than 500 bushels of wheat to sell made much more use of support prices on wheat than did those who sold a smaller quantity of wheat. This study did not shOW'any definite relationship between the use of price supports by a farmer and his education, debt status, years of farming experience, political inclination or general farm organization membership. .At the time of this study over one-fourth of the corn producers said allotments interferedwith their management plans. This was the major reason for not complying with allotments given.by one-half of the wheat, bean and potato producers interviewed. 17Title VII, Section.703, Aggicultural.Act of 195h, Congress of the United States, 195h. 18Dale E. Hathaway and E. E. Peterson, Michigan.Farmers and the Price Support Pro am Technical Bulletin 23H3’Michigan State College, .Agricultural eriment Station, East Lansing, Michigan, December, 1952. 22 Michigan farmers who understood marketing quotas (30 percent of the total sample interviewed) were strongly opposed to them and were unwilling to accept controls to achieve price security. "Only one-fifth of those farmers who understood marketing quotas favored their use."19 Those who failed to recognize the impact that marketing quotas might have on their businesses were more willing to accept them to achieve security. .An under- standing of what might be involved apparently reduced farmers' desire for a high degree of price security through government programs.20 About equal division of farmers existed in regard to the need for price supports. Even so, two-thirds of the farmers interviewed felt that some sort of floor under farm prices should be provided.by the government. More farmers opposed acreage allotments in 1950 than were in favor of them. .A majority of the farmers who thought supports necessary in 1950 also favored the use of allotments. Three-fourths of the farmers said that farmers who complied with allotments should, if possible, use better production methods to offset allotments. Many farmers opposed the compulsory provisions of the marketing quotas because of possible effects upon the feed supply for their live- stock. Only one-fourth of the farmers interviewed were willing to accept 19Da1e E. Hathaway, E. E. Peterson and Lawrence Witt, Michiga__n Farmers and the Price Support Proggam, Technical Bulletin 23 , Michigan State College,.Agricultura Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan, December, 1952, p. 3. 2°Ibid. 23 more production controls, including marketing quotas in order to achieve greater price security from the support programs. In 1953, Hathaway“. published an article in which he examined agri- cultural policy as it fits into a framework of farmers' desire for freedom. It is almost obvious that a problem of definitions arises here. He considers values (i.e. freedom and security) in marginal terms and attempts to show how one can in this way explain the apparently irreconcilable value conflicts of the American farmer. .A study of this same group of farmers completed by Murphy indicates that a majority of them expect some government control to exist. Over 90 percent of the farmers interviewed indicated that they had given some thought about the possibility of continued acreage allotments and eight out of ten farmers thought the allot- ment program would be continued.22 About a quarter of the farmers said they would make few or no changes because of this. Sixteen.percent indicated it would cause a change in their cropping system. .Another 15 percent just didn‘t know what changes would be made. Intensive dairy farmers indicated a stronger belief that they would not have to change farm'operations, than did crop farmers included in this survey. ‘When marketing quotas werediscussed the farmers were not so willing to accept controls. In Spite of this, however, only four out of ten, or 2lDale E. Hathaway,.Aggicultural.Policy'and Farmers' Freedom: A Suggested Framework, JFE, Vol, XXXV, No.h, November, 1953. amurPhY: 22' 2.11:2.” P0 87- 211 to percent, farmers took part in the 195A balloting on marketing quotas for wheat.23 Yet a majority of these cast their ballot in favor of marketing quotas. This seems to support the idea that farmers are still somewhat indifferent to government programs and are willing to accept what is put before them by someone else. Perhaps this is because in most cases the imposed changes are small, patticularly after possible compensating adjustments are made. It is likely that, since the required changes were small, farmers were not strongly enough opposed to the situation as it existed to take the action necessary to bring about change. In other words, if farmers had been more strongly opposed to marketing quotas a larger proportion of them could have voted on the referendum, and cast their ballot against marketing quotas. ‘Hirth24 found that acreage allotments had little effect on.Michigan corn producers in 195h. "Only about one-third of the state corn producers complied with allotments, production actually increased from 1953 to 195h.”25 He also found that those complying with corn acreage allotments and those not complying did not react differently with respect to farming practices on corn. There apparently was no strong motivation to encourage farmers to make greater than normal efforts to gain high yields. 23Ibid., p. 92. a‘Myrbh E. Hirth,"Production.Responses to Agricultural Controls in Four Michigan Farming.Areas in 195h," M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956. 25Ibid0, P. 81. 25 The existence of heavy penalties for non-compliance with wheat marketing quotas, however, seemed to be a strong enough motive to bring about compliance of 9h percent of the farmers producing wheat in Michigan. .Abuut two-thirds of the wheat growers indicated that they would have planted larger acreages of wheat if the same price structure had existed and allotments had not been in effect. The study indicated that only about seven and one-half percent of the growers had used their best land for wheat in order to increase yields. Thirty-five percent, however, increased the use of commercial fertilizer in order to increase yields. Further increases can.be expected since 6h percent of those using fertilizer thought that they could profitably apply larger amounts on 26 wheat. What.Are the Objectives of.Agricu1tura1.Poliqy? One method to find the objectives of a given policy is to examine the legislative bill or statute which puts the policy into law. The Agricultura1.Act of 19h9 states: It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, through the exercise of the powers herein conferred upon the Secretary of .Agriculture, (a) to stabilize farm income and farm prices at a fair level, thereby protecting the purchasing power of farmers and assuring a high level of employment; (b) to protect the national security by maintaining adequate supplies of agricultural commodities and by keeping the national agricultural resources permanently productive; (c) to provide an adequate balanced and orderly flow of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce; and (d) to protect the interests of consumers by- 261bid., p. 80. 26 maintaining a continuous and adequate supply of agricultural commodities at fair prices.”7 This is the general pattern which has been followed in establishing the objectives of price support legislation for the past 20 years. The general idea seems to be that income should be supported for farm people in order that their purchasing power will not drop too drastically and that some protection should be provided to assure the consumer of adequate food at "fair" prices. Conservation of the natural resources of the nation and the development of good citizens have also been stated as objectives from time to time. Recently the Department of Agriculture prepared a Special report on problems of low-income farmers, entitled, "DevelOpment of Agriculture's Humanllesources."28 This was transmitted to Congress, accompanied.by a message from.the President which indicates what many believe to be the purpose of agricultural programs. The first paragraph of this message states: In this wealthiest of nations, where per capita income is the highest in the world, more than one-fourth of the families who live on American farms still have cash incomes of less than $1,000 per year. They neither share fully in our economic and social progress nor contribute as much as they would like and can contrib- ute to the nation's production of goods and services.29 27Section 3, Agricultura1.Adjustment Act of l9h2, Congress of the United.States. ~ 28"Development of.Agricu1ture‘s Human Resources," House Document, ‘No. lh9, 8hth Congress, lst Session, 1955, contains a reprint of the, report itself, the President's message and the Secretary of.Agriculture!s letter of submittal. - 29These income estimates are for 1950 and do not include nonemoney income in the form of housing and home produced food. 27 One cannot help thinking that this expresses the belief held by much of the non-farm population as to the purpose or objective of legislation on agricultural programs. They support these programs to help increase the income of the low-income farm people, not understanding that the actual program does little for the low-income farmer. The general public is woefully ignorant of the ineffectiveness of price supports in aiding the loweincome families on the land; nor do they see the inadequacies in the overall averages as guides to farm price programs.30 Public opinion studies as well as some studies in communication have shown that a relationship exists between how strongly an opinion or feeling is "felt" and the willingness to act on these opinions. For example, an Opinion or belief held by an active, vociferous minority can often be imposed upon a society who voice opposition to the given belief. This is possible because the majority does not feel strongly enough about their opposition that they are willing to act upon it, and thus they accept the belief to which they voice opposition rather than take action to oppose it. One might say they have accepted the belief by acquiescence. At this point, it is important to emphasize the influence of congressmen with seniority, who, working through the committee system which exists in COngress are able to exert an influence disproportionate to the group which they represent. 30one needs only to cite the great use which politicians and special interest groups make of overall averages to support their arguments in favor of special legislation. This is particularly important since this ignorance of the general public enables use of figures on average income of all farm people to bolster the argument for programs to increase the incomes of commercial farmers for whom the figure is not representative. 28 .Agricultural states and districts are represented more adequately in the House and.Senate than are the non~agricu1tural groups, both by seniority and'by more representatives and senators in relation to the amount of the p0pulation. One's first thought on the results expected from agricultural pro- grams, is that farmers would like to have higher prices since they readily associate higher prices with increased income. As a result of this desire for higher prices and the normal human desire to avoid work31 of any sort, as much as possible, it has been easy to sell the various agricultural programs as being able to accomplish ends and objectives, while a little thought would show that these ends cannot be achieved by the suggested methods. Section II of the.Agricultural.Adjustment.Act declared that its poliey was to seek to establish and maintain such a balance between production and consumption as would re-establish farm prices at a level that would. give farm commodities a purchasing power equivalent to that commanded over the base period. Close examination shows that this legislation attempted to raise prices through combined action of reducing supply and increasing demand. 31Here reference is made to the work involved in thinking, not just jumping to conclusions, but rather thinking as a clear analytical process in which a person considers an action, its returns or benefits and its long run effects or consequences upon the individual and the society in which he is living. These returns and consequences must be considered in terms of tangible and intangible objectives where both must be recon- ciled with the overall set of values and goals which they as individuals and society hold or wish to attain. 29 (Reduction in supply through allotments and controls; increasing demand through purchase agreements and loans.) The objectives of individual legislators is difficult to obtain; however, it appears safe to assume that they believe that the price support legislation would correct the 'income situation of the farm group in relation to other sectors of the economy. ‘Will this action, however, raise the incomes of the farm group, especially the incomes of the "low-income" sector within agriculture? Census figures for 195h show that 25 percent of the farmers, 35,760 in Michigan, have gross sales of less than.$2,500 per year. .About seven percent of these farmers have gross sales of less than.$1,200 annually; .A 10 percent or even a 20 percent price increase will not do much to increase the net income of farmers in this situation. The average gross annual sales of this 25 percent of Michigan farmers is about 31,550. About $500 of this is from the sale of field crops other than vegetables, fruits or nuts. Corn and wheat are the two crops on which supports are most often used in.Michigan. The farmers in this low-income 25 percent average about 250 bushels of corn and 80 bushels of wheat sold annually per farm. Therefore, one needs to look for other Objectives of agricultural policy or other means to obtain the objective of increased income. Rainer Schickele, in his book on agricultural policy states: Public debate and congressional declarations leave no doubt. that the fundamental purpose of farm price-support programs has been to raise the level of agricultural income. Farm income was considered inadequate in comparison with non-farm income and 30 price supports were to raise it toward a level more nearly equivalent to that prevailing in cities and towns.32 He also indicates that the superior end of price support policy is to bring average income level of farm families into line with that of non-farm.families and that the norm against which farm income is compared and toward which it is to be raised is not defined in terms of the sub- sistence and contributive principles established as the norm of income distribution. Instead, that norm is conceived in terms of equalizing average incomes of farm and non-farm families. Much recent agricultural policy has been oriented toward the problem of unstable and low aggregate farm income. It has ignored the resource problem within agriculture, to which the often chosen instrument of price, properly applied, could make its principal contribution. In limiting attention to aggregate and average (per capita) farm income, it has by- passed still broader resource problems closely related to rural poverty. Onewhalf of the nation's farms contribute less than one-tenth of total farm product sales. Price policy cannot, therefore, solve this economic prOblem. It is much more apt to continue to increase the disparity of agricultural income distribution. Some feel that low family incomes within agriculture must be supplemented by means which will promote rather than hinder human mobility. Rural education, health, nutrition and housing-through their contributions to the vigor and productivity of a major part of our next generation-«are such means, warranting generous 33Rainer, Schickele, gggicultural Policy, McGraw-Hill Book 00., Inc., New York, 195k, p. 1 7. 31 Federal support. Once free of excess labor resources, agriculture will also have a legitimate claim to an average level of real family income fully equivalent to that of comparable non~agricultura1 employment. In this broadest sense, "parity for agriculture" must become one of our 33 nation's foremost objectives. .Along this same line of thought, that is, that many people are not in complete agreement with the results which have been brought about by agricultural policies (whether these are the expected results or some results which were not expected, but just happened), a quotation from Murray R. Benedict seems fitting. Few will subscribe to the view that the farmer should be able to determine the price he will get and at the same time produce as much as he wants to produce. Urban.businesses, even the largest of the corporations, cannot do that. They have more control over prices than the farmer has but not over price and volume. If a given level of price is to be maintained, the necessary adjustments in volume will eventually have to be made. 34 In general it is extremely difficult to establish exactly the object- ives of agricultural policy. Most groups will agree that the low-income situation should be changed and many agree upon the need for stability which would help avoid the erratic fluctuations of price and income. .Agreement upon the proper or best method to achieve these objectives is much more elusive. This lack of agreement can almost always be traced to values and beliefs held by those whom a specific policy affects. '33William H. Nicholle, “A Price Policy for.Agricu1ture," Contemporary Readings in.Agricultura1;Economics, Prentice—Hall, Inc., New Yerk, 1955, p.‘2h9. 34Murray R. Benedict, Can we Solve the Farm Problem, The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1955, p. H37. 32 The most important values which might be listed, according to Hathaway,35 are family farm ownership; equality, at times called justice‘ and which has come to be known as parity, but is essentially a concept of real farm income; and the value that is placed upon economic efficiency. .Another value has becbme more prominent and should probably be considered also; it is the value of stability or security. (Stability as used here should be defined as freedom from erratic and completely unpredictable change of great magnitude which would cause serious loss of income or profit making ability of a large group of individuals.)36 At various times different public programs attempt or are developed in an attempt to increase or improve the attainment of these social values. Sometimes the attainment of several of these values coincide and any one program.may increase or help achieve a fuller attainment of a number of such values. At other times a program designed to attain one of these 36Dale E. Hathaway, A icultural.Poligy and Farmerst Freedom: A Suggested Framework, JFE, o . , No. h,INovember, 1953, p. h98. 36Human abilities and money resources, once committed, are rela- tively immObile. Furthermore, in periods of abrupt change, especially in severe depressions, the alternative opportunities dry up and the choice is not there. This provides a strong argument for emergency aid for the group affected, but does not support the view that public aid should.be provided continuously in such a way as to keep too many workers in that economic group, be it agriculture or any other group of our economy. The worker, urban or rural, who thinks he should get more than he does, as most of them do, can try for a raise or can seek another job, but if his demands are higher than those the market will pay, he must either accept what he can get or be unemployed. The situation of the farmer in a relatively free market is somewhat similar. His attempts to change the free market structure will also be limited.by what the ' rest of the economy will allow through the present political framework. The farmer cannot put legislation into effect without at least acquiescent support of a majority of the rest of the economy. 33 values may conflict with other values and in many cases such programs may conflict with expected freedom of the farmer to operate his farm. 'Much of the time, results occur which are at great variance with the expected results of the program. This appears to be caused by our imperfect knowledge situation. In other words, the "facts" about what effect a given program will have may be quite different from what the "facts" actually turn out to be after the program is put into operation. Part of this change in "facts" undoubtedly is caused by rapid techno- logical advance but much of it is the result of our imperfect knowledge of what the "facts" really are. .Added observation of who does what and why they do it, because of government programs, will help remove some of this imperfect knowledge about expectations as to the effects of a specific program. If a farmer makes the decision to participate in the AAA program, the restriction placed upon his crop acreage makes it necessary for him to readjust the use of his resources. He has several alternatives for making this adjustment: (1) He may remove his poorest land from the production of controlled crops; (2) he may intensify his use of land by combining more labor and capital with it; (3) he may substitute crops which are as productive or even more productive, for the acreage of controlled crops not produced; or (h) by the use of soil building practices he may increase future yields. Previous studies show that some of these alternatives have been put into practice. There has been much speculation about the type of crops 3h which have been grown on this diverted acreage and about the effect which the control programs have had, or will have, upon the livestock enterprises. The main purpose of this study is to examine these two questions in more detail. The next three chapters are devoted to this purpose. Summagz .Agricultural policy covers a very broad field and is intertwined with the general policy of the United States in many of its aspects. This study, however, is confined to the specific area of price support and acreage control programs. It shows the relationship between acreage control and the use of diverted acreages on a group of sample farms and the changes planned in livestock operations on these farms. There are differences of opinion on the need for price support programs at present. 'Yet some type of agricultural program has been with us for over a century. The magnitude of the program has greatly expanded in the past 25 years. In the early stages of the programs there was no worry about surplus production. Voluntary cooperation was expected. However, in recent years surplus disposal and production controls have become very important. These programs which were once considered an "emergency" measure, are now considered.by many as a very permanent aspect of the general policy of the United States and tighter restrictions in the form of marketing quotas, are being put into effect. Some other modifications have been made in an attempt to bring support prices into more close 35 alignment with costs, for example the modernization of "parity" and the wool incentive level plan. Previous studies shOW'that larger farm operations made more use of price supports than did the small farms. These studies also indicate that there is something less than complete understanding about the operation of the programs among farm.people. .Allotments alone did not induce a high rate of compliance; however, the existence of heavy penalties for non-compliance on wheat seems to be a strong enough motive to bring about compliance on this crop in Michigan. In this case, the farmers used better methods to increase the yields of wheat. The objectives of agricultural programs are usually stated in quite general terms. Increased agricultural income is a generally accepted Objective; however, there is little agreement on the method for achieving this objective. CHAPTER III CROP CHANGES ON MICHIGAN FARMS, l953~l9§h Introduction The price support and acreage control programs as they operate are based upon supporting the prices of basic crops, and exerting acreage control over these crops through the use of allotments. It was hoped that a reduction in acreage would reduce the supply and thus increase the price of these crops on the open market. It was also assumed that ". . . the aim.of crop acreage control for the corn belt has been primarily to reduce the production of feed-stuffs on the assumption that this would curtail the output of livestock and livestock products . . . ."1 'Hith this in mind the writer chose to examine the shifts which took place on the farms where interviews were taken, in the use of land taken out of the production of the controlled crops as a result of the acreage allotments. The results of this examination are presented in the indi- vidual sections of this chapter. They discuss the changes which have occurred; the relationship between these changes and the use of price supports; the actual use made of diverted acreages; and the effect of allotments upon farm operations and organization. 1T. W} Schultz and O. H. Brownlee, pp, cit., p. 676. 36 37 .Acreage Shifts Which Have Occurred, 1953-l95h This study showed little change in the total acreage of crop land from 1953 to l95h; however, a significant shift in the acreage of various crops did occur. In 1953, wheat made up 25 percent of the harvested acreagegbut declined to 16 percent in l95h. This was offset by an in- crease in corn for grain from 17 to 19 percent of the crop acreage; in cats, from.13 to 1h percent; in dry beans, 6 to 8 percent; and clover for pasture, 8'to 9 percent. There were also increases in the acreage of rye, barley, and sugar beets on these farms, but these crops accounted for a relatively small percentage of the total crop land. There was a decrease in the summer fallow acreage but also a corres- ponding increase in idle land. These shifts in acreages under the control program differed considerably in different areas of the state. In Kalamazoo County wheat acreage declined from 27 to 17 percent of the cropland. The proportion of cropland planted to corn in l95h remained the same as in 1953. There were sizable increases in idle cropland, clover for hay, barley, and alfalfa for hay. In the central.Michigan area, the acreage shifts were somewhat dif- ferent. ‘Wheat acreage declined and corn acreage remained about the same prOportion of cropland as in 1953. The greatest increase was in dry bean acreage which increased from 15 to 22 percent of the cropland. There was also an increase in soybeans, clover for hay, and in alfalfa. This is an area in which dry'bean production had declined since world war II and the controls on wheat seemed to reverse this trend. 38 In Sanilac County, which was not in the commercial corn area at the time of the survey and therefore not subject to acreage allotments on corn, there was a sharp increase in corn and oats acreage. There was also an increase in the acreage of dry beans over 1953, although not as much as in the central Michigan area. In addition to the reduction in wheat acreage, there was also a substantial reduction in the land in summer fallow associated with it. ‘Most of the acreage taken out of wheat in the Livingston County dairy area went into feed products. There was an increase in corn for grain, oats, clover for hay, and alfalfa in this area. In the Kalamazoo County sample and the central Michigan area, the corn allotments were at least partially effective in preventing farmers from planting corn on acreage diverted from wheat. Thirty~four percent of the farmers interviewed in these two areas had complied with their corn allotment. Many who complied said they did so because they wanted price supports on corn. This was especially true in the central.Michigan area. The reduction in corn acreage, however, was partially offset by farmers in the area who had not complied with corn allotments, many of whom had increased corn acreage. In these cases, the major reason given for not complying with allotments was the need for the corn for livestock feed. Thus, where corn was produced as a cash crop there was a tendency to switch to other cash crops when possible or to alternative grain crops. ‘Where there were no controls on corn or where the corn was fed, much of no the acreage diverted from wheat went to corn. The Kalamazoo area was the only area in which there was any increase in idle cropland and this was probably only a oneeyear reaction since some of the adjustments require longer periods. Use of’Price Suppgrts by Farmers, 19535135h Michigan farmers interviewed in 195h made use of price support prow grams on five crops in 1953 and 195h according to the results of this study. These crops were wheat, corn grain, dry beans, oats and soybeans. Some indicated that they would use the support price on barley in 195h. 0n.only one crop did more than 20 percent of the producers make use of price supports in either year. This crop was wheat and even here just slightly more than 50 percent of the producers used supports. Table 3-2 shows this breakdown for each of the crops. Table 3-2. Percent ind number of producers using price supports on selected crops-1953-l95h. =========================================================================: Crop Wheat Corn Oats__ Barley, Dry Beans Soybeans Percentage 19Sh S3 .11 12.8 3 .7 17 .2 22 .6 27 .8 1953 56.2 18.2 2.h -- 17.1 h.2 Average 5h.8 15.5 3.0 8.6 19.9 16.0 Number 19Sh 202 he 13 7 28 10 1953 212 60 8 o 18 1 Average 207 53 10.5 3.5 23 5.5 *Figures from hlh farmers interviewed in Michigan l95h representing four 'general areas of the state. bl One would normally expect that a greater proportion of producers would use supports on wheat than on the other crops since wheat is usually considered a cash crop. Because of this, however, one might expect an even higher percentage of producers would have used supports on wheat. Only about 20 percent of the producers of dry beans, which are also a cash crap, made use of supports. Soybeans and corn are next in importance with about 16 percent of the producers making use of supports. Producers made very little use of support prices on oats with only about 3 percent of the producers using them. One might assume, however, that more use would have been made of supports in a less favorable "free" market price situation (especially in.the case of dry beans.) Table 3-3 shows the relationship between prices received by farmers and the average parity price for the two years which are covered by this study. Table 3-3. Prices received as a percentage of parity prices for selected crops, 1953-l95h.* W . irop Years ‘Wheat ‘ufiCorn Oats Barley Dry Beans Sgybeans 1953 81.6 81.1; 8h.7 87 .2 100.6 9u.2 4 195a 82.2 80.5 85.2 79.5 88.5 108.0 *Source: .Agricultura1.Prices, A.M.S., Hashington, D. C., 1953-195h. One might expect that the producers who sold a larger proportion of their crop would.be more likely to use support prices or in other words h2 those who used support prices would sell a larger percentage of their total production. Table 3-h supports this expectation except in the case of dry beans which are fed only when not fit for sale. Table 3-h. Percentage of various crops sold by'farmers.' Comparison of farmers using support prices with those not using support prices, l953-l95h. Use of Crop Price Supports eat Corn Oats Barley» Sfii§ Beans Soybeans Yes 98.0 77.2 ' 76.0 none 95.0 100.0 1953 No 90.3 h1.1 38.0 1.8.0 100.0 91.0 Yes 96.5 75.7 68.5 82.5 95.7 100.0 l95h No 91.2 h2.l 3h.1 20.9 99.2 88.3 Yes 97.7 76.5 72.3 82.5 95.1. 100.0 Average No 90.7 81.6 36.1 311.5 99.7 89.7 One would also expect that the producer who has larger total pro- duction of a given crop would more likely use supports since he would be able to obtain the benefits over a greater number of bushels with small additional cost for securing the price support loan.' Table 3-5 shows that this relationship exists for each of the crops under discussion. The average total production of the farmers using support prices is considerably larger than the production of those not using supports, in each case shown. This varied from.h0 percent larger in the case of dry beans to 10h percent larger with soybeans. h3 Table 3-5. Relationship between the use of support prices on selected crops and the total production per farm in Michigan, 1953-195).; - Use of Crop _ Price Supports ea Corn. 0a 8 Barley Dry Beans qubeans 5 Bushels‘ e~ Yes 1602 2886 1893 --;- 870 1200 1953 N0 1019 1556 999 1420 657 39h Yes 107h 2587 2317 73h 1102 565 19Sh No 658 1810 1233 h08 7h7 h73 Yes 1338 2696 2105 73h 986 882 Average No 838 1683 ' 1116 hit 702 83h Further examination shows that the yield per acre is slightly higher fer the farmers who use support prices except in the case of soybeans, and the average acres per farm are greater on the farms where supports were used. Tables 3-6 and 3-7 show these relationships by year and the average for the two years under study. I From this one can say that the farmers, who use better practices and raise larger acreages, are more likely to be the ones who use the support programs. Table 3-6. Relationship between yield per acre and the use of support prices on selected crops in Michigan, 1953-1958. Use of Crop Price Supports Wheat Corn Oats Bapley Dry Beans Soybeans ~ Bushel Per Acre ~— Yes 33.2 58.9 37.8 --- 22.7 28.0 1953 No 30.7 50.8 82.2 35.3 19.2 26.8 Yes 33.8 58.7 52.3 80.7 21.2 23.6 1958 N0 31.1 55.8 86.8 83.8 20.1 33.2 Yes 33.3 56.8 85.0 80.7 22.0 23.8 Average No 30.9 53.1 88.5 39.8 19.6 29.8 Table 3-7. Relationship between average acreage harvested per farm and the use of support prices on selected crops in Michigan, 1953-1958. Use of Crop Price Supports Wheat Corn Oats Barley_ Dry Beans Soybeans 1953 1958 Average Yes No Yes No Yes No 88.2 33.2 32.2 21.1 80.2 2702 51.8 '30.8 83.8 32.8 87.6 31.6 sAcreage Harvested 50.0 none 38.3 50.0 28.8 11.8 33.7 18.9 88.3 18.0 .51.8 23.9 26.8 10.1 37.2 18.2 h702 1800 [LS-0 3700 25.6 11.0 35.8 18.6 fi—Mr-' n,Q-‘r«9-- ...-..-. Hue“ —._,_.'-4-‘r~ ran~~~~—“r\.1fi a... -4 HNN".-,,A—._._...--—.---_—_.HM.. s ‘ a . 3 o a . a a a . .. . 1 O I O ‘ , O M.—.fi.,~'."—~‘h~nflfi-~N~—- Q C I D a 9 ‘ . a Q I 9 1 1 ' O Q Q 85 Use of Diverted.Acreage Approximately 3,300 acres of land were taken out of production of wheat and corn, because of acreage allotments and marketing quotas, by the farmers interviewed in this survey. .A study of the use made of this acreage shows that 28 percent of this land was planted to cats; 16 percent was planted to dry beans; 13 percent to barley; and 12 percent to corn. These four crops accounted for 65 percent of the acres diverted from wheat and corn because of allotments. The remaining 35 percent was distributed as follows: Clover, 6.6 percent; summer fallow, 6.3 percent; idle land, 8.6 percent; soybeans, 8.8 percent; rye, 3.2 percent; spelt, 2.0 percent; alfalfa, 3.0 percent; sugar beets, 2.0 percent; corn silage, 0.2 percent; other, 217 percent. Table 3—8 presents this information in a more detailed manner. This study shows that total wheat acreage was decreased. The total acreage of corn was not decreased; however, the acreage of corn was decreased on the farms which complied with their corn allotment. In most cases, however, the land removed from production of wheat or corn on these farms was used to produce other crops for feed or sale. Considering the acreage given in Table 3-8 and an average yield,one could expect about 881 tons of forage, 1,850 tons of concentrates for feed purposes along with 893,800 pounds of dry beans, 3,212 bushels of soybeans and 788 tons of sugar beets for sale as cash crops. Table 3-8. 1958.* W Number of farms on which diverted 86 Use of acreage diverted from wheat and corn in Michigan, Total number of diverted acres Ai- L. _- Percent of total diverted acres Crop acres were used planted to this planted to this for this crop crop crop (Number) (Acres) (Percent) Oats 63 800 28.0 Dry beans 81 581 16.3 Barley 35 826 12.8 Corn 38 800 12.0 Clover hay 8 127 3.8 ) Clover pasture 7 68 2.0 )6.6 Clover seed 2 27 0.8 ) Summer fallow 13 207 6.3 Idle land 13 152 8.6 Soybeans 12. 186 8.8 Rye 11 105 3 .2 Alfalfa hay 7 97 2 .9 ) )3 .0 Alfalfa pasture l 2 0.1 ) Spelt 8 67 2.0 Sugar beets 8 62 2.0 Corn silage l 5 0.2 Other 12 91 2.7 Total 3,323 100.0 *Use made of diverted acres as reported by 818 farmers in the sample 'interviewed as part of this study in 1958. 87 Effect of Allotments Uppn Farm Operation and Organization The following questions were asked in order to see how the farmers felt allotments would affect their farm operation and organization. The questions are: "What effect do you think the allotments will have on your farming operations if they continue for a period of time? 'What changes, if any, do you plan to make in your present farm organization if the acreage allotments are continued?" The answers given by farmers for the two questions fell into the same general categories but there was a different apportionment of the answers. . (See Table 3-9) 'Twenty-one percent of the farmers thought allotments would have no effect on their farming operations. .Another 16 percent said they would change their cropping system, which probably meant that they would follow allotments. Thirteen percent said their incomes would be reduced and another 10 percent thought the allotments would put them out of business. Other farmers hesitated to say what the effects would be until they knew the exact nature of the programs. Further study indicated that for the intensive dairy farmer, con- tinued acreage controls would have less effect than it would have on cash crop farmers, according to the answers given.by them. There were no similar differences between the other types of farmers and the cash crop farmers. The intensive dairy farmers probably felt that they already had a lot of land in pasture and hay. They also indicated that they needed most of the remaining acreage for feed crops and since they sold very little if any grain off the farm they would make little use of the 88 program benefits and thus would not comply with allotments. Farmers who had less than 180 acres of cropland were more likely to believe that allot- ments would have little or no effect on their farm operations than were the larger farmers. Many of these smaller farmers didn't think they would receive a serious cut in acreage and therefore the program would not affect them as far as farm operations were concerned. Table 3-9. Effects that farmers believe continued allotments will have on farming operations and organization.* Effects Operations Organization No change or little effect 21.0 29.7 hfill.change cropping system 15.9 17.9 ‘Will have less income 13.0 0.5 Be forced out of farming 10.0 2.9 'Will change livestock programs 6.0 15.2 Depends on future programs 8.6 2.7 Strive to increase yields and production capacity 2.2 5.3 Farm according to allotments 1.9 3.8 ‘Ubnit follow allotments 1.8 0.5 Other 11.8 3.6 Don't know 12.6 17.6 Total 100.0 100.0‘ *818 respondents on this interview 89 There was also a slight indication that farmers who were in a rent- ing status were more likely to believe that the allotments would cause a reduction in income than were farm owners. This difference may have been due to the renter's uncertainty as to what action the landlord would take in respect to allotment programs. A When considering how allotments might affect their farm organization almost three out of ten farmers thought there would be little or no change needed. About 18 percent indicated they would change their cropping system and 15 percent were going to change their livestock program. Slightly over 5 percent of the farmers interviewed volunteered that they would try to increase crop yields. Summagy A large proportion of the farmers interviewed made no use of price supports on their crops and many who did use them did so on only one crop. To be exact, price supports on wheat were used by just over one- half of the farmers who were interviewed, and less than 20 percent of the farmers interviewed used supports on other crops. The farmers most likely to use supports were those producing crops for sale; those producing larger total amounts of the crops and the farmers who had on the average, both, larger acreages and better yields per acre than the average for the given crop. It is worth noting that price supports and controls were administered through the basic crops on the assumption that sufficient interaction would occur throughout the crop and livestock programs to decrease the 50 supply and thus increase the price. However, this and other studies indicate that there was little change in total crop acreage although there was some reduction in the acreage of wheat. ‘While the acreage of wheat was reduced there was little or no reduction in the total pro- duction, in terms of bushels available for feed or sale, because of the use of better technology in the production on the reduced acreage. Meanwhile, only a small amount of the diverted acreage was left idle. The largest portion of it was planted to other feed or cash crops. Approximately 3,300 acres of land was taken out of the production of wheat and corn because of acreage allotments and marketing quotas, by the farmers interviewed in this study. Four crops accounted for the use which was made of 65 percent of this land, they are; cats, 28 percent; dry beans, 16 percent; barley, 13 percent; and corn, 12 percent. About 11 percent was used for summer fallow or idle land. One should note, however, that the total land in summer fallow or idle was less in 1958 than in 1953. This study shows that about 65 percent of the land removed from production of controlled creps was used to produce other feed crops, and 28 percent was used to produce other cash crops. This extra production of feed crops, about 2,150 acres on 818 farms, would lead one to expect some expansion in livestock numbers on the farms to make use of this feed. Chapter IV considers the livestock changes made or planned on the farms where interviews were taken. When asked how they expected allotments would change their farming operations, 30 per cent of the farmers interviewed thought there would 51 be little or no change needed on their farms, about 18 percent indicated that they would change their cropping system and 15 percent were going to change their livestock system. Five percent volunteered information that they would try to increase crop yields through the use of more productive resources. The study also indicated that the use of diverted acreage will be likely to differ from one area to another depending on what crop will yield the maximum advantage to the farm operation in the use of his remaining resources, but in very few cases can it be expected that it will remain idle or unused. For example this study shows a large portion of the diverted acreage used for the production of feed crops by the dainy farmers in.Livingston County and the production of dry beans in the Sanilac County area. CHAPTER IV LIVESTOCK CHANGES MADE AND PLANNED ON SAMPLE FARMS Introduction Chapter III has shown that feed supplies on many farms were as large or larger after controls were applied to certain crops as before. It is necessary therefore to trace through the changes in livestock in order to view the total effect of the control programs on the farm operation. In order to do this, one must consider the changes which have occurred in the livestock enterprise and raise the following questions for study. What changes have occurred? How many of these changes were because of controls? How many for other reasons? .Are there other significant factors which should be considered? Then, what changes are planned in the near future in the livestock enterprises? How do the changes planned because of the control programs compare with those changes planned for other reasons? Is there a significant relationship between the changes made fer other reasons and the control programs? Also of interest is the relationship between those who have made changes because of the control pregrams and those who are planning changes in the future because of these same programs. It would be expected that there may be some relationship between the use made of the diverted acreages on a given farm and the changes being 52 53 carried out or planned in the livestock enterprise of the farm. These interrelationships are discussed in more detail in Chapter V. Changes Made in Number of Livestock Units, 1953-1958 .A total of 265 out of 333 livestock farmers made some changes in livestock units on their farms from 1953 to 1958. Consideration of the total group is shown in Table 8-1. This shows that 80 percent of the farmers made some change in the number of livestock units raised in the year from July 1, 1953 to July 1, 1958. Fifty percent of them increased the number of livestock units while 30 percent decreased the number of livestock units on their farms during this year. Twenty percent of them made no change in the number of livestock units on their farms during this period. Table 8-1. Change and direction of change in livestock numbers which occurred from 1953 to 1958 on farms in the sample on which livestock was raised.* Iaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa=============================== Farms on which changes were made: Number Percent Increase - - - - 165 50 Decrease - - - ~ 100 30 Farms on which no changes were made: 68 20 Total 333 100 *Of the 818 farmers interviewed, 333 had some livestock on their farms. Further examination shows that about one~half(88 percent) of those who had increased the number of livestock units on their farms planned to 58 make additional changes in livestock in the near future. A similar number planned no additional change. Four percent said they didn't know or gave no answer to the question about additional changes planned. Sixty-one out of the 100 who had decreased livestock units from 1953 to 1958 said that they planned to make additional changes on their farms; 33 said they did not plan further change. Six said they didn't know or gave no answer about additional changes in livestock. About 80 percent of those planning additional change in each case were planning to increase the number of livestock units on the farm. This relationship is shown in Table 8-2. Table 8-2. Relationship between changes made in livestock numbers from 1953 to 1958 and changes planned in the near future. Plans for Change made in livestock units 1953-1958_ Total future action Increase Decrease No change Group Percent PErcent ’PErcent Percent Additional change planned 88 61 38 . 88.5 No additional , change planned 88 33 63 88.5 No answer given 8 6 3 7.0 Total 100 100 100 190.0 Fifty-one out of the 333 farmers who had livestock said that they had plans for a second change in their livestock operation. That is they planned to change more than one type of livestock. Some planned to in- crease one and decrease the other, some planned to increase two types of livestock, and some planned to decrease two types of livestock. SS Thirty-eight, (75 percent) of those who had plans for a second change planned to increase livestock on their farms while 13, (25 percent) planned to decrease livestock numbers in this second change. Thirty-two of the 38 who were planning increases in the second change, also planned to increase the numbers of livestock in the first change also, the other 6 had plans to decrease the other type of livestock. Eleven of the 13 who were planning to decrease livestock numbers in the second change intended to increase some other type of livestock in the first change which they planned to make. Only two had plans to decrease in both the first and the second change which they said they planned to make.~ In other words most of the decreases in one type of livestock were at least partially offset by increases in some other type of livestock for the farm. Reasons Given for ChangegMade From 1953 to 1958 A comparison of farmers, who indicated that they had made changes in livestock because of government controls, with the total group of farmers who had livestock shows some interesting results. Table 8-1 shows that 265 farmers made some change in livestock on their farms from 1953 to 1958. 'When asked, "Have you made any changes in your livestock numbers because of the acreage allotments on your crops?", 85 farmers answered "yes", 278 answered "no", and 10 gave no answer to the question. A comparison of the changes made by the group who said that they had made changes in livestock numbers because of allotments is shown in Table 8-3. 56 Table 8-3. Change and direction of change which occurred between July 1, 1953 and July 1, 1958 on farms where the operators said that they had made changes in livestock numbers because of allot- ments. Farms on which changes were made: Number Percent Increase 26 58 Decrease 13 29 Farms on which no changes were made: 6* 13 Total 85 100 *These 6 said they had made changes because of allotments, however, the ’records show no change in numbers of livestock on the farm. Comparison of Table 8-3 and Table 8-1 shows that a slightly higher percentage of the farmers who said that they had made changes because of allotments did make changes in number of livestock units during the year than was true for the sample as a whole. Fifty-eight percent of this group increased the number of livestock units while only 50 percent of the entire sample increased the number of livestock units during the year. Table 8-8 shows that 62 percent of this group planned additional change in livestock on their farms. Thirty-six percent said that they planned no additional change and two percent gave no answer about future change. This table also gives a more detailed breakdown for comparison with Table 8-2 which gives similar information for the entire group of 333. 57 Table 8-8. Relationship between changes in livestock numbers made from 1953 to 1958 and changes planned in the near future on farms where changes were made because of allotments. Plans for Chapge made in livestock units, 1953-1958 Total future action Increase Decrease No Change group Percent CPercent Percent '—T'Percent .Additional ' change planned‘ 58 77 50 62 No additional change planned 82 23 33 36 No answer given 0 0 l7 2 A comparison of these two tables shows that a larger percentage of the farmers, who had made changes because of'allotments, were planning additional changes than was true for the entire group who had livestock on their farms. The exact figures are 62 percent compared with 89 percent. Changes.Anticipated and Reasons for These Planned Changes One would normally expect that one of the ways in which farmers could and would adjust to the control programs would be by a change in their livestock operation. Table 8-3 shows that 85 out of 333 farmers said that they had made changes in livestock because of allotments on their farms. Thirty-nine of these changed the number of units of live- stock on their farm during the period from July 1, 1953 and July 1, 1958. This is out of a group of 265 who had made some change in livestock numbers during that period. When asked, "Do you plan to make any future changes in livestock numbers?", about one-half (169 out of 333) indicated that they had plans 58 for future changes. If they said that they had plans for changing live- stock in the future, they were also asked, "What are these changes?" and -"Why do you plan to make these changes?" Table 8-5 gives this infor- mation in terms of the type of livestock involved as well as the direction of change which was planned. These figures, Table 8-5, show that 8 per- cent (27 farmers) planned to decrease livestock numbers; 82 percent (181 farmers) planned to increase livestock numbers. This accounts for 50 _percent of the farmers who had livestock. Table 8-6 shows that 85 per- cent planned no changes and 5 percent did not answer the question about change. Table 8-5. Farmers! plans for changing livestock numbers,by type of livestock and direction of change involved. Number of farmers planning changes by: Plans to increase -T§pe of livestock Direction of change Dainy 52 Beef 88 Hogs 36 Other 9 181% Plans to decrease Dairy 18 Other 9 27** *Of these farmers, 29 were planning increases in several types of live- stock; 11 were planning a decrease in one and an increase in another. *%Six of these farmers were increasing another type of livestock; two were decreasing several types. - 59 Table 8-6. Number and percentage of farmers planning change in live— stock, compared with those not planning change. NETHEE. Percent Total number of farmers planning change 169 50.5 Farmers planning no change 189 88.7 Farmers giving no answer about change 15 8.8 Twenty percent of those farmers planning increases in livestock numbers expected to increase at least two types of livestock, ten percent planned to decrease one type of livestock while increasing another. One- fifth of the farmers who planned decreases were planning to increase other types of livestock and only two persons reported plans to decrease several types of livestock. This data indicates that control programs are probably encouraging some expansion in livestock production. The reasons given for the planned changes in livestock operations were grouped into eight groups for ease of classification. These groups are given in Table 8-7 and 8—8. Table 8—7 shows a breakdown of the reasons for change given by the whole group of 169 farmers who indicated that they had plans for change in livestock. Table 8—8 shows a similar breakdown fOr a sub-group (of the 169 farmers), who had made previous changes in livestock because of allotments and were planning additional changes in the near future. The two of the tables are presented in sequence for the purpose of comparison. Eight farmers indicated that the reason for their planned change in livestock numbers was because of 6O allotments or government action; (see Table 8-7). Table 8-8 shows that four of these eight are farmers who had made previous changes because of . acreage allotments on their crops. A closer examination of these tables, however, shows that some of the other reasons which were given can be quite closely associated with the allotment program. The use of diverted acres to grow forage or other feed grains would give a surplus of feed which a farmer would be able to use by increasing his livestock operation or by changing fr0m one type of livestock to another. One may well assume that the reduction in acreage of cash crops, say wheat, would cause an income decrease and therefore an increase in income was necessary because of the government program. This income increase was sought by 89 farmers in this sample through plans to increase their livestock. An aggregation of this sort will give one a total of 95 farmers, (or 56 percent of those planning changes) who planned their changes because of the government programs. If one included only Items 1, 2, and 6 in this aggregation thus eliminating the income increase, Item 8, there would be a total of 86 farmers (or 27 percent) who were planning changes because of government action. A sort was also made in order to examine the relationship between size of livestock operation and plans for future change in their operation. The 333 farmers were grouped.by the number of animal units on farms in 1958, and then examined in respect to percentage planning change, 61 Table 8-7. Reasons given by farmers for the changes which they planned to make in the livestock operations on their farms. m Reason given for change Total group of 169 farmers who indicated plans for change , Number Percent 1. To use additional forage 28 18 2. To use additional corn or other crop 18 8 3. To use less labor or be- cause of labor problem 21 12 8. To increase income 89 29 5. Have unused space 11 7 6. Need something to use labor 5 7. Allotments or government 8 5 8. Other 31 18 No answer 6 8 Total 169 100 ‘ Table 8-8. Reasons given by farmers who had made previous changes in livestock numbers because of allotments for the additional changes which they planned to make in the livestock opera— tions on their farms. Group of 28 farmers who had made Reason given for change changes because of allotments and were planninggadditional changes Number Percent 1. To use additional forage 5 l8 2. To use additional corn or other crop 2 7 3. To use less labor or because of labor problem 1 8 8. To increase income 10 36 5. Have unused space 0 0 6. Need something to use labor 0 O 7.,Allotments or government 8 18 8. Other 8 18 No answer 2 7 Total 28 100 62 Table 8-9; direction of planned change, Table 8-10; intention to increase livestock, Table 8-11; and intention to decrease livestock, Table 8-12. Those farmers with ten animal units or less were more likely to be planning change than the farmers who had more than ten animal units. See Table 8-9. Table 8-9. Change planned compared by livestock on farm, 1958. Number of animal units on farm, 1958 Change planned Ow TE¥5 LbllO' ‘11-20 21-- _ r -- “ Percent ~ “TV Yes 83.3 52.9 62.0 88.1 50.5 No 16.7 38.2 38.5 88.8 86.7 Don't know 0 8.9 3.5 7.1 2.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Number of farms 6 38 29 88 180 L— Further examination shows that the major portion of farmers planning decreases in size of livestock operations had large livestock enterprises, that is more than 20 animal units. Table 8-10 presents this information in more detail. I The major portion of the increases planned were being planned by farmers who had more than ten animal units of livestock on their farm in 1958. (See Table 8-11). One hundred four out of 181 farmers planning changes were in the group which had over 10 animal units on their farms. ’4‘“-— r- o_—. 63 Table 8-10. Direction of planned changes by number of animal units on farm, 1958. Direction Number of animal units on farmg_l958 Total of of chang§_ 0 155‘ 6-10 11—20 Over 20 sample Increase 5 18 18 33 ' 71 181 Decrease - - 8 8 19 27 No answer - e - - - 1 1 Number of farms 5 18 22 37 91 169 Table 8-11. Intentions to increase livestock on farm compared by amount of livestock on farm and type of livestock to be increased. Type of live- Number of animal units on farm, 1958 Total stock increased 0 1&5 6¥10 11-20 Over 20 . number Dairy 1, 8 5 11 31 52 Beef 2 9 6 ll 16 88 Hogs 2 8 3 9 18 36 Other - l - 2 6 9 Total 5 18 18 33 71 181 There is not a great amount of difference between those planning in— creases in dairy, beef and hogs, although there is a much larger number of dairy farms in the total sample, than there is of beef or hog farms. Thus it may be concluded that dairy farmers were less likely to expand in dairy but rather to expand by adding other types of livestock to their operation. 68 The farmers who were planning decreases in livestock numbers were mostly dairy farmers who had more than 20 animal units in 1958. Two- thirds of those planning decreases were planning to decrease dairy, one was planning a decrease in hogs, and 8 were planning to decrease other livestock. None of the farmers interviewed were planning a decrease in beef cattle or feeders. Table 8-12. Intention to decrease livestock on farm, compared.by amount of livestock on farm and type of livestock to be decreased. =============================================================1_ -- Type of live- ' Number of animal units on farm, 1958 Total stock decreased -O_-—EI:5T—‘ 6:10 11-20 Over 20 number Dairy - - 1 2 15 18 Beef - - _ _ _ 0 Hogs - - - - l 1 Other _ - - , 3 2 3 8 Total - - 8 8 19 27 1 Age of Operator and Plans fonghangg The plans for change in livestock numbers are less likely to be made by farmers over 65; 70 percent of this group reported that no changes were planned on their farm. See Table 8413. I Younger farmers were more likely to be planning changes in their livestock operations. In most cases, the changes planned by the younger farmers were plans to increase livestock numbers. 65 Table 8-13. Relationship between age of operator and plans for changes in livestock operations. W Age of operator Changes planned Hider 25' 36 86‘ 56’ Over 25 35 85 55 65 65 _. 1 A _ éPercant---- “ No change 39 38 83 86 56 70 Increase livestock 53 59 5O 82 3O 26 Decrease livestock 8 3 7 l2 l8 8 100 100 100 100 100 100 C—_ Farmers reporting 13 67 92 65 50 23 It is not possible to attribute these increases or decreases entirely to the control program. Some of the changes would be expected to occur as part of the normal life cycle. It appears, however, that farmers under 50 years of age were more likely to make adjustments in an attempt to maintain or increase their size of business. The differences were even more apparent when an analysis was made of a group of specialized dairy farmers. Over 50 percent of the farmers under 85 years of age were planning increases in livestock, while nearly all of the farmers planning decreases were 85 years of age or older. About-two‘thirdsof the younger farmers planning change were planning to increase their dairy enterprise; many also planned to add other live- stock as well as increasing their dairy operation. See Table 8-18. F-.. 66 Table 8-18. Relationships between planned changes in livestock opera- tions by specialized dairy farmers and age of operators. ‘ .Age of operator Changes planned Under 25_' 36 86 56 Over 2a 35_ 85 55 . 65 85 A _ _ - —%Percent——~ 1 1 No change 83 86 81 83 > 88 88 Increase livestock 57 « 51 53 88 ' 30 12 Decrease livestock O 3 6 3 13 22 O 100‘ 100 100 100 100 100 Farmers reporting 7 35 .51 23 23 8 Slight differences existed between the part-time and fullétime live- stock farmer. It appears that the part~time farmers who have any livestock. are willing and able to expand as readily as other farmers. The major difference seems to be that a larger portion of the part-time farmers have no livestock at all. Summapy Almost one-half of the farmers interviewed were planning changes at the time of the study. Eighty percent of the group made changes during the 195341958 year. About 20 percent said that they had made changes because of allotments. Of the farmers planning changes in livestock more than four-fifths of them were planning to increase livestock. Thus over 80 percent of the farmers interviewed in this study were planning to expand livestock. 67 As a result of this study, Witt says: . . . production control programs for one or a few commodities not only shift the pressure to supplies and prices of other crops, but to other livestock, especially to dairy and beef cattle after a period of time. Such shifts must be borne in mind in planning or revising extended farm programs.1 . This survey did not deal with the size of the planned changes which farmers were to make. It appears safe to assume that these changes, in total, would be governed to some extent by the additional feed available. Chapter III shows that 881 tons of forage and 1,850 tons of feed grains were produced on the land diverted from allotment crops on the 818 farms in this study. This would be sufficient to carry approximately 2,100 additional animal units of livestock on these farms. tLawrence‘Witt and Dale Hathaway, Farmers' Plans to Change Livestock Numbers as Relates to Aggicultural Production Controls. Quarterly Billetin, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 38, No. 8, p. 519. CHAPTER V INTERéRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CROP CHANGES.AND PLANNED CHANGES IN LIVESTOCK ON SAMPLE FARMS The preceding two chapters (III and IV) discussed separately the crop changes and the livestock changes which have occurred on the sample farms. This chapter presents the inter-relationships which exist between the crop and livestock changes made_or planned on these farms. To do this the writer examined the farms reporting diverted cropland acreage and compared them with the farms reporting no diverted cropland acreage. These comparisons were made in respect to type of farm, acreage of cropland, plans to change livestock and reasons given for planned changes in livestock. The term "no diverted cropland acreage" means that a farmer had no acreage on which he was required to change cropping plans because of allotments on wheat or corn. This was because in some cases the regular rotation called for less than the allotted amount of the crop; on other farms, the plans were to reduce wheat below allotment and to disregard the corn acreage allotment, thus having no diverted acreage on the farm because of allotments. Compared by Type of Farm Comparison by type of farms as to whether there was or was not diverted acreage shows that a higher percentage of dairy farms and crop 68 69 farms were in the group with no diverted acres, while the other five types of farm categories had a higher proportion reporting diverted acreage. Table 5-1 presents this material in more detail. Such farms (dairy and crop) may have put less emphasis on wheat and hence were able to stay within the allotment minimum of 15 acres of wheat. Table 5-1. Distribution of farms by type of farm; farms reporting diverted acreage compared with farms reporting no diverted acreage. ;====:-= Farms reporting Farms reporting Type of Farm diverted acreage no diverted acreage All Farms Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Dairy 80 19.8 116 27.9 196 87.3 Beef 22 5.3 17 8.1 39 9.8 HOgs 15 3.6 7 1.7 22 5.3 Other 11 ' 2.7 5 1.2 16 3.9 General . 11 2.7 9 _ 2.2 20 8.9 Less than 5 A. U. 23 5.6 17 8.1 80 9.7 No Livestock (crop) 36 8.7 85 10.8 81 19.5 Total 198 88.0 216 52.0 818 100.0 Compared by Acreage of CrOpland on Farm Comparison of the two groups by acreage of cropland shows that a larger proportion of the farms with less than 180 acres of cropland reported no diverted acreage, while a greater proportion of the farms with_ 180 acres of cropland or more reported diverted acreage. Sixty percent of the farms with less than 180 acres of crOpland reported no diverted 7O acreage as compared with 80 percent for the group reporting diverted acreage. Table 5-2 presents this information for each group by acreage of cropland. Table 5-2. Distribution of farms by acreage of cropland; farms reporting diverted acreage compared with farms reporting no diverted acreage. - Farms reporting Farms reporting Acreage of Cropland diverted acreage no diverted acreage All Farms Number Parcentw —Number ‘Percent Number PErcent O - 69 12 2.9 26 6.2 38 9.1 70 - 99 22 5.3 28 6.7 50 12.0 100-139 35 8.5 51 12.3 86 20.8 180-179 86 11.2 38 9.2 88 20.8 180-219 30 7.3 25 6.0 55 13.3 220-259 21 5.1 21 5.1 82 10.2 260-299 9 2.2 11 2.7 20 8.9 300-Over 23 5.6 16 3.9 39 9.5 Total 198 88.0 216 52.0 818 100.0 Amount of Diverted.Acreage_per Farm It is interesting to note that the amount of land in diverted acres per farm is concentrated between 1 and 20 acres in all four areas, (Table 5-8); however, in.Area 1, Kalamazoo County, there are a substantial number in the 20 to 29 acres per farm group. Fifty-four, or 12 percent, of the farms reported diverted acreage of 20 acres or more. Almost one-half of this group was in Kalamazoo County. 71 Table 5-3 shows the breakdown by area of those farms reporting use of diverted acreage and those farms reporting noneuse of diverted acreage. Table 5-8 gives the breakdown of the farmers who reported use of diverted acres by area and by the size of diverted acreage per farm. Table 5-3. Comparison of the number of farms reporting diverted acreage with farms reporting no diverted acreage by area. Farmers reporting Farmers reporting Area diverted acreage no diverted acreage Number Percent Number Percent Kalamazoo 63 61.2 80 38.8 Isabella-Gratiot 62 56 .3 7 88 83 .7 Sanilac 38 38 .0 66 66.0 Livingston 39 38 .6 62 61.8 Total Sample 198 88.0 216 52.0 Table 5-8. Comparison of farms reporting diverted acreage by amount of diverted acreage per farm and by area. ==================================================: Average amount of diverted acreage per farm Area Total 1-9 10-19 20-29 . 30-39 80—89 50-over Number 1 1 Number __ v“ Kalamazoo 15 23 15 3 ‘ 5 2 63 Isabe11a~ 28 28 5 8 3 2 62 Gratiot Sanilac ll 18 3 3 3 0 38 Livingston 16 17 5 O l O 39 Total 66 78 28 10 12 8 198 _ Percent 33 8O 18 5 6 2 100 H...“ 72 It appears that the larger number of farms reporting diverted acreage in Kalamazoo and Gratiot-Isabella, is due to the fact that acreage controls existed on both wheat and corn in these counties, while in Sanilac County the controls existed only on wheat since Sanilac County was not in the commercial corn area at the time of this survey. Livingston County was in the commercial corn area but was selected as representative of the dairy area and thus apparently had to make less adjustment to than was necessary in the livestock and crop areas. Relationship Between.Use of Diverted.Acreage and Plans for Livestock Changes - A large proportion of the farmers in Kalamazoo and Isabella-Gratiot counties who planned to make changes in livestock in the near future also reported diverted acreage on their farms. In Sanilac County the major portion of the farmers planning livestock changes reported no diverted acreage on their farms. If Sanilac County where corn was not covered by acreage allotment, is eliminated, one finds that 62 percent of the farmers who planned changes in livestock on their farms also reported diverted acreage,2 Next it seemed logical to examine the data for some relationship between the crops grown on the diverted acreage and the type of live- stock change planned. 2Since corn production in Sanilac County was not subject to restric- tions imposed by allotments, a smaller proportion of the total farmers sampled were faced with the problem of acreage diverted from allotment crops. The improvement of drainage facilities in the county also made possible an increase in feed production on many farms and a corresponding increase in livestock numbers to utilize this feed supply. 73 Table 5-5. Comparison of farmers reporting diverted acres and farmers reporting no diverted acres in relation to their plans to change livestock. Farmers reporting Farmers reporting Area diverted acres no diverted acres Number fPercent Number *Percent Kalamazoo 33 7O 18 3O Farmers Gratiot-Isabella 27 59 19 81 planning . livestock Sanilac 13 38 25 66 Changes ‘Livingston 18 87 2o . 53 Total 91 58 78 86 Kalamazoo 3O 58 26 86 Farmers . p] ing Gratiot-Isabella 35 55 29 85 no live- . stock Sanilac 21 38 . 81 66 Changes :Livingston 21 33 82 67 Total 107 83 138 57 One hundred ninety-eight farmers reported diverted acreage on their farms. Ninety-one of the 198 planned to make some change in the livestock enterprise on their farm. Only 78 of 216 farmers reporting no diverted acres were planning livestock changes. In order to examine these in more detail it became necessary to shOW'the relationship between the type of crop planted on the diverted acreage and the farmer's intention regarding the change in livestock on this farm. Table 5-6 was set up to show this relationship. There were 6 farms on which part of the diverted acres was 78 put to 3 different uses, (for example some was planted to corn, some was planted to sugar beets and some was left idle) and 38 farms on which part of the diverted acres was put to two different uses. The remaining 158 farms used the diverted acres for only one use. The totals in Table 5-6 are therefore greater than the number of farms involved. But it was felt that this was the only way to examine the data to look for relation- ships between the use made of diverted acreage and the planned changes in livestock. Twenty-one out of 38 farmers planting corn on the diverted acreage reported that they had no plans for livestock changes, as did 8 out of 12 farmers who left the diverted acreage idle. Nine out of 13 raising rye, 21 out of 35 raising barley and 8 out of 5 raising sugar beets on the diverted acreage reported that they planned to make changes in the livestock on their farm. The farmers using their diverted acreage for other purposes were about evenly dis- tributed between those planning livestock changes and those reporting no changes in livestock planned. Examination of the relationship between the crops grown on diverted acreage and the type of livestock to be changed does not show any major concentration in any one group. See Table 5-7. It is interesting to note that of the farmers reporting use of diverted aoreage and also planning livestock changes, 33 percent of them planned a change in dairy stock, 28 percent planned a change in beef, 26 percent planned a change in hogs and 13 percent planned a change in other stock. A review of the total sample as to type of farm shows 75 Table 5—6. Relationship between use of diverted acreage and plans for livestock changes on farms which reported diverted acreage. ‘— _— Use made of Livestock No livestock diverted change change Total acreage planned planned Spelts 8 8 8 Corn 13 21 38 Cats 23 22 85 Rye 9 8 13 Barley 21 18 35 Dry beans 22 18 80 .Sugar beets 8 l 5 Soybeans 5 6 ll Clover (hay) 8 2 Clover (pasture) 8 8 8 Alfalfa (hay) 3 3 6 Summer fallow 6 7 13 Clover (seed) 1 1 2 Idle land 8 8 12 Other 6 8 10 Total 129 119 288 Total farms involved 100 98 198 87 percent are dairy farms, 9 percent are beef farms, 5 percent hog farms and 8 percent other. This shows that the plans to change dairy are less than proportionate while the plans to change beef, hogs and other types of livestock are more than proportionate for the total sample. Moreover it is clear that livestock changes are not limited to roughage consuming animals, but may involve any livestock. 76 Table 5-7. Relationship between use made of diverted acreage and the type of livestock which farmers, reporting diverted acreage, planned to change. =========================================================r l_ia== Use made of diverted ‘_ Type of livestock to be changed acreage Dairy Beef Hogs Other Spelts 2 l O 1 Corn 5 3 5 0 Oats 6 8 6 3 Rye 8 8 1 O Barley 7 2 10 2 Dry beans 7 8 2 5 Sugar beets O 3 1 O Soybeans 2 l l l Clover (hay) 3 O l O Clover (pasture) 2 O 2 O Alfalfa (hay) 1 o o 2 “Summer fallow 2 l 3 O Cloher (seed) 0 O 1 O Idle land 1 2 1 O Other 2 O 2 2 Total farms 33 28 26 13 Total fields 88 33 - 36 16 This supports the hypothesis that crop allotments cause an increase in general livestock on farms. No clear-cut relationship between crops grown on diverted acreage and the type of farm appeared to be present. However, the dry beans and sugar beets were concentrated in Isabella-Gratiot and Sanilac counties 77 and the barley was raised on diverted acres mostly in Kalamazoo County. Eight farmers produced Spelts. These were all in Livingston County. In a more detailed classification the number of farms in any one group is too small to be very reliable. Comparison of Reasons Given for Livestock Change and Use of Diverted The farmers at the time of the interview, were asked to give reasons for the planned change in livestock. These reasons were examined in order to make comparisons between those reporting diverted acreage and those reporting no diverted acres; also to compare by direction of change planned and by amount of diverted acreage reported in use. Table 5-8 gives a comparison of reasons given by farmers for planned changes in livestock compared by farms with and without diverted acreage their farms. The farmers reporting use of diverted acreage gave "utilization of corn or other crop" as a reason more than twice as often as those report— ing nonvuse of diverted acreage. The same situation was true where "allotments or government" was given as a reason. Chapter IV shows that the majority of livestock changes planned were to increase the amount of livestock. Table 5-9 presents the relation— ship between reasons given for planned changes in livestock and the direction of these changes. Those planning decreases most often said they were doing so to use less labor or to increase income. One reported a planned decrease because of allotments or government. See Table 5-9. 78 Table 5-8. Comparison of reasons for planned changes in livestock given by farmers who reported diverted acreage and by farmers who reported no diverted acreage. Farmers reporting Farmers reporting Reason for change diverted acreage no diverted acreage Number Percent Number Percent 1. To utilize additional forage. 12 l3 l2# 1; 2. To utilize additional corn or # other crops. 10 11 8V 5 3. To use less labor or labor problems. ll 12 ll 18 8. Increase income from change. 22 28 27 35 5. Have unused building space. 8 8 5 7 6. Need something to use labor. 2 2 7. Allotment or government. 6 7 2 3 8 . Other 25* 27 l3** l7 *Includes 6 who gave no answer. **Includes 2 who gave no answer. # These appear to be inconsistent answers at first glance, however, some of this inconsistency may be explained by the fact that the farmer had not been making full use of his available feed supply prior to this time. Or he may have made some change in his cropping practices which gave him a larger feed supply. A comparison by size of diverted acreage in use shows that none of the farmers with less than 10 acres in diverted acreage said they were planning livestock change to use additional forage, while 17 percent of those with 10 to 19 acres and 20 percent of those with 20 acres or more gave this reason for planned livestock changes. 'More of the farmers with 10 to 19 acres of diverted land gave labor problems as a reason for change than did those with less than 10 acres or those with 20 acres or more. 79 Table 5-9. Relationship between reasons given for planned changes in livestock and the direction of these changes: Farmers reporting no diverted acreage compared with those reporting diverted acreage. Farmers reporting Farmers reporting diverted acreage no diverted acreage Reason for change , Direction of change Direction of change Increase Decrease Increase Decrease NUIHBGI: PGI‘CEDE NUMBGI‘ PBI'CGIIE NUIHBGI' PércenE NLUHBGI‘ PercenE 1. To utilize addi- tional forage. 12 15 - 12 19 - 2. To utilize addi- tional corn or other crops. 10 13 - 8 6 - 3. To use less labor.* 6 8 8 33 5 8 6 83 8. Increase income. 18 23 8 ' 33 28 38 3 21 5. Have unused build- ing space. 8 5 - 5 8 - 6. Need something to . use labor. 2 3 - 3 5 - 7. Allotment or government. 5 6 l 8 2 3 - 8. Other 22 28 3 25 8 l3 5 36 Total‘ ' 79 100 12 100 63 100 18 100 *One farmer gave this reason for planned change but did not indicate direction of change planned. Twenty-eight percent of the farmers with l to 9 acres in diverted acreage gave "increased income" as reason for change, 26 percent of those with 10 to 19 acres gave this reason and 16 percent of those with 20 acres 80 or more gave it as a reason. Table 5-10 presents this comparison in numbers of farms and percentages. It represents the 92 farm operators who reported both use of diverted acreages and plans for livestock changes on their farms. Table 5-10. Comparison of reasons for planned changes in livestock by size of diverted acreage reported. Acreage of diverted land per farm Reason for change 71-9.Acres 15i19 Acres 20iAcres or More NumEer Percent—'Number Percent Number Percent 1. To utilize additional forage. - O 7 l7 5 2O 2. Tb utilize additional corn or other crops. 8 l6 3 7 3 l2 3. To use less labor or labor problems. 2 8 7 l7 2 8 8. Increase income from change. 7 28 ll 26 8 l6 5. Have unused building Space. 1 8 2 5 1 8 6. Need something to use labor. 1 8 - V O l 8 7. Allotment or govern- ' ment. 1 8 3 7 2 8 8 . Other* 9 36 9 2l 7 28 Total 25 100 82 100 25 100 *Includes those giving no reason. 81 An attempt was made to determine the rations which were being fed live- stock on the farms in this study. The author hoped that by doing this he could better estimate the possible livestock expansion or contraction as a result of the change in feed production brought about by controls. The ration and crop utilization information obtained in the questionnaire was not sufficient to accomplish this end. Therefore, estimates were based upon standards available. Summary Comparisons made in respect to type of farm, acreage of cropland, plans to change livestock and reasons given for planned changes in live- stock indicate that farms of 180 acres or more are more likely to have made use of diverted acreage on their farms than those with smaller farms. Most of the farms with diverted acres reported that they had from 1 to 20 acres; only 12 percent of the farms reporting diverted acres reported more than 20 acres of diverted land on their farm. Farmers with larger amounts of land in diverted acreages appeared more likely to be planning changes in livestock on their farms than were those farmers who had smaller amounts of land in diverted acreage. A large proportion of the farmers in.Area l, Kalamazoo County and in Area 2, Isabella-Gratiot counties, who planned to make changes in live- stock also had made use Of diverted acreages on their farms. In Sanilac County, where only wheat adjustments influenced the amount of diverted acreage on a given farm this relationship did not exist, but census figures show an increase in the corn acreage which one can assume is partly responsible for the planned livestock changes. 82 No major concentration is shown in the relationship between live- stock changes planned and the use made of diverted acreage by any group of farmers. Further examination shows that those farmers reporting diverted acres who were planning livestock changes, were likely to be planning increases of beef or hogs in a much higher ratio than these two enterprises held in the overall sample of farmers interviewed. There apparently was enough flexibility in feed supplies or feeding practices or both, to permit a wide variation in the kind of livestock expanded. A larger sample may have shown some more definite relationships in this area of the study. It seems reasonable to expect, however, that grain consuming livestock would be increased in order to use the additional feed crops (more grain than forage) which are being produced on the land being removed from the production of controlled crops on the farms in Michigan.‘ The single reason which was given the most often in response to the question of why they planned to change livestock, was "to increase income.” About one out of four farmers reporting diverted acreage gave this as a reason for livestock changes planned, while one out of three of those reporting no diverted acreage gave this as a reason for their plans to change livestock numbers on their farm. "To utilize additional corn or other crops," was given as the reason for planned livestock change by farmers who reported diverted acreage more than twice as often as it was given by those farmers reporting no diverted acreage. The reason, “Allotment or government" was given at about the same ratio by these two groups. 83 Those planning changes which would decrease livestock numbers said they were doing so "to use less labor" or "to increase income." Only one said that the planned decrease was because of allotments. A much larger sample would have been of value when examining the detail which is indicated.by the breakdown shown in this chapter. Because of the size of the sample there are too few individuals in many groups to provide conclusive information. They can, however, indicate some ideas which are presented above and which can use further study at some later time. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Newspapers occasionally state that farmers have voted production controls on themselves as a means of getting a particular level of price support. What is not stated is that these controls had been watered down by law to such a point that they do not really control production. Review of agricultural programs supports the point that often there is variation between the expected results of a program and the actual results achieved.by the program. There are differences of opinion on the need for price support programs at present. Yet some type of agricultural program has been with us for over a century. The magnitude of the program has greatly expanded in the paSt 25 years., In the early stages of the programs there was no worry about surplus production. Voluntary cooperation was expected. However, in recent years surplus di8posal and production controls have become very important. The agricultural programs which were once considered an "emergency" measure, are now considered by many as a very permanent aspect of the general policy of the United States and tighter restrictions in the form of marketing quotas, are being put into effect. Some other modifications have been made in an attempt to bring support prices into more close alignment with costs, for example the modernization of "parity" and the wool incentive level plan. 88 This study was designed to test the hypothesis that land taken out of the production of controlled crops is likely to be used to produce other feed or cash crops in order to make full use of available labor or other resources on the farm. A second hypothesis is that price support programs are more likely to be used by those farmers in Michigan who have larger total production of crops (through larger acreages of these crops and through better per acre yields.) Thus the programs tend to provide aid for the farmers who are already above average in respect to income possibilities. The sample areas were selected to be representative of various important commercial farming areas of Michigan. Complete description of the sampling procedure and a brief census description for each of the areas is given in Chapter I. This study has been confined to the specific area of price support and acreage control programs. It shows the relationship between acreage control and the use of diverted acres on a group of sample farms. It also shows the changes planned in the livestock operations on these farms. Previous studies show that larger farm operations made more use of price supports than did the small farms. These studies also indicate that there is something less than complete understanding about the operation of the programs among farm people. Allotments alone did not bring about a high rate of compliance; however, the existence of heavy penalties for non~compliance on wheat seems to be a strong enough motive to bring about compliance on this 86 crOp in Michigan. In this case, the farmers used better methods to increase the yields of wheat. A large proportion of the farmers interviewed in this study made no use of price supports on their crops and many who did use them did so on only one crop. To be exact, price supports on wheat were used by just over one—half of the farmers who were interviewed and by less than 20 percent on other crops. The farmers most likely to use supports were those producing crops for sale, those producing larger total amounts of the crops, and the farmers who had on the average both larger acreages and better yields per acre than the average for the given crop. It is worth noting that the price supports and controls were admin- istered through the basic crops on the assumption that sufficient inter- action would occur throughout the crop and livestock programs to decrease the supply and thus increase the price. However, this and other studies indicate that there was little change in total crop acreage although there was some reduction in the acreage of wheat. This reduction in acreage of wheat did not bring about a proportionate reduction in total bushels of wheat produced. The major portion of land diverted from the production of wheat or corn was planted to other feed or cash crops. Approximately 3,300 acres of land was taken out of the production of wheat and corn by the 818 farmers interviewed because of the acreage allotments and marketing quotas. Four crops accounted for the use which was made of 65 percent of this land. In the order of their importance they are; oats, 28 percent; dry beans, 16 percent; barley, 13 percent; 87 and corn, 12 percent. About 11 percent of the diverted acreage was used as summer fallow or idle land. One should note, however, that the total land in summer fallow or idle was less in 1958 than in 1953. This study shows that about 65 percent of the land removed from the production of controlled crops (wheat and corn) in Michigan was used to produce other feed crops and 28 percent was used to produce other cash crops. This extra production of feed crops, about 2,150 acres on 818 farms, would lead one to expect some expansion in livestock numbers on the farms in order to make use of this additional feed. Chapter IV con— siders the livestock changes on the farms involved in the study. The farmers' opinions on the effect of continued allotments upon their farm operations shows that 30 percent of them thought there would be little or no change needed on their farm, about 18 percent indicated that they would change their cropping system and 15 percent said they were going to change their livestock system if allotments were continued. Five percent volunteered information that they would try to increase crop yields through the use of more productive resources. The study also indicates that the use of diverted acres will be likely to differ between areas of the state depending on which crop will yield the maximum advantage to the farm Operation in the use of his remaining resources, but in very few cases can it be expected that the land will remain idle or unused. For example, this study shows a large portion of the diverted acres used for the production of feed crops by the dairy farmers in Livingston County and the production of dry beans in Sanilac County. 88 About one-half of the farmers interviewed were planning livestock changes at the time of the study. Eighty percent of the 333 livestock farmers interviewed made some changes in livestock units on their farms from July 1, 1953 to July 1, 1958. About 20 percent said that they had made livestock changes because of allotments. More than four-fifths of the farmers planning changes in livestock were planning to increase the numbers of livestock on their farm. When one compares this with the total sample it shows that 80 percent of the farmers interviewed in this study were planning to expand livestock. This study did not deal with the size of the planned changes which farmers were to make. It appears safe to assume that these changes, in total, would be governed to some extent by the additional feed available. Chapter III shows that approximately 880 tons of forage and 1,850 tons of concentrates (feed grains) were produced on the land diverted from allotment crops on the 818 farms in this study. This would be sufficient feed to carry approximately 2,100 additional animal units of livestock on these farms. Comparisons made in respect to type of farm, acreage of cropland, plans to change livestock and reasons given for planned changes in live- stock indicate that farms of 180 acres or larger are more likely to have made use of diverted acreage on their farms than those with smaller farms. Nest of the farms using diverted acres reported that they had used from 1 to 20 acres. Only 12 percent of the farms reporting use of diverted acres reported use of more than 20 acres of diverted land on their farm. 89 Farmers with larger amounts of land in diverted acreages appeared more likely to be planning changes in livestock on their farms than were those farmers who had smaller amounts of land in diverted acreage. A large proportion of the farmers in Kalamazoo County and Isabella—Gratiot Counties who planned to make changes in livestock also had made use of diverted acreages on their farms. In Sanilac County where only wheat adjustments influenced the amount of diverted acreage on a given farm this relationship did not exist, but census figures show an increase in the corn acreage which one can assume is partly responsible for the planned livestock changes because of its impact upon feed supplies. No major concentration is shown in the relationship between livestock changes planned and the use made of diverted acreage by any group of farmers. Further examination shows that farmers, reporting diverted acres who were planning livestock changes, were likely to be planning increases of beef or hogs in a much higher ratio than these two enter- prises held in the overall sample of farmers interviewed. .A larger sample may have shown some more definite relationships in this area of the study. It seems reasonable to expect, however, that this type of livestock would be increased in order to use the additional feed crops, (more grains than forage), which are being produced on the land being removed from the production of controlled crops on the farms in Michigan. When the farmers were asked why they planned to change livestock, the reason which was given most often was "to increase income." About one out of four farmers reporting diverted acreage gave this as a reason 90 for livestock changes planned, while one out of three of those reporting no diverted acreage gave this as a reason for their plans to change livestock numbers on their farm. "To utilize additional corn or other crops," was given as the reason, for planned livestock change more than twice as often by farmers who reported diverted acreage, as it was given by those farmers reporting no diverted acreage. The reason, "Allotment or government" was given at about the same ratio by these two groups. Those planning changes which would decrease livestock numbers said they were doing so "to use less labor" or "to increase income." Only one said that the planned decrease was because of allotments. A much larger sample would have been of value when examining the ' detail which is indicated by the breakdown shown in Chapter V. Because of the size of the sample there are too few individuals in any one group to provide much conclusive information. They can, however, indicate some ideas which are presented above and which can use further study at some lamrthw. COnclusions The results of this study support the hypothesis that support pro- grams are more likely to be used by those farmers in Michigan who have larger total production of crops (through larger acreages of these crops and.better per acre yields). Chapter III shows that the farmer who uses support programs is more likely to have larger total production of the crop, (Table 3-5), higher yields per acre, (Table 3-6), and larger 91 acreages of the crop on his farm, (Table 3-7), than the farmer who does not use supports. This chapter also shows that the farmer who sells a higher proportion of his crop is more likely to make use of support programs, (Table 3-8), than the farmer who feeds a larger proportion of his crop. This study also supports the hypothesis that land taken out of production of controlled crops is likely to be used to produce other feed or cash crops in order to make full use of available labor or other resources on the farm. .And where other feed crops are produced on this land it is likely that livestock numbers will be increased in order to utilize this feed. Chapter III shows that 2,150 acres out of 3,300 diverted from allotment crops was planted to other feed crops. It also shows that only 10 percent or about 330 acres was planted to forage crops (hay and pasture). About 11 percent, 359 acres, was left idle or used for summer fallow. About 25 percent of the diverted acreage was used to produce other cash crops, such as dry beans, soy beans, rye and sugar beets. . The additional feed production on these 818 farms amounted to about 1,891 tons of feed. This consists of 881 tons of forage and 1,850 tons of feed grains. Chapter IV shows that a little more than 50 percent of the farmers who had livestock on their farms planned to make future changes in live- stock. The great majority of these plans were for an increase in live- stock numbers. 92 The author would like to suggest that future studies of this nature be designed so that a shorter questionnaire could be used. The length of time required for each interview seemed to tire the interviewee and consequently less complete and reliable answers. .A point in question is the part of the questionnaire on feed usage and rations fed to livestock. The author feels that this would be valuable information. However, he feels that more reliable information could.be obtained by a second visit to these same farmers with a shorter questionnaire requesting only this information. .Another conclusion one can draw although it is not specifically stated in this study is that farmers do not care for cross-compliance as part of the allotment program. Prior to the time interviewing was begun on the survey the United States Department of.Agricu1ture announced that cross-compliance would be in effect as part of the 1955 allotment program. However, before planting time for the 1955 crop this announcement had been on, the cross-compliance requirement had.been removed by the .Administration. 3 This cross-compliance feature has reappeared under another name as part of the Soil Bank program. It will be interesting to watch the progress of this program as it also removes the possibility of using acreage diverted under the Soil Bank program from being planted to other crops. If wise decisions are to be made in the area of farm policy the non- farm people as well as the farm people must be well informed. In order 93 to do this we must find the facts and systematically interpret them so the people will be capable of setting up a program which is both politically acceptable and economically feasible to accomplish the desired results . BBLIOGRAPHY Benedict, Murray R. Farm Policies of the United States, 1790 ~1950: AStudy of Their Orig ins and Development The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1953. . The Agricultural Commodity Programs, The Twentieth Century ifid, New York ,T9.56 ' . Can We Solve the Farm Problem? The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1955. Bottom, J. Carroll. "Methods of Presenting Economic Data to Farmers ," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXIV, No. 5, December, 1952. Bressler, R. (3., Jr. "Farm Technology and the Race With POpulation," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXIX, No. 8, November, 1957. Davis, Joseph S. On Agricultural Policy, 1926-1938, Stanford University Press, Stanford University, California, 1939. Everett, Edward. "American Agriculture-«The First 300 Years ," Farmers in a Changing World-~1980 Yearbook of Agriculturg, USDA, Washington, Dc 6., 1m. Galbraith, J. K. "Farm Policy: The Current Position," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXVII, No. 2,. May, 1955. . "The Case of Agriculture," Readings in Agricultural Economics, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1955. Halcrow, Harold C. Aggicultural Policy of the United States Prentice- Hall, Inc. , New York, 1953. Hathaway, Dale E. "Agricultural Policy and Farmers‘ Freedom: A Suggested Framework ," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXV, No. 8, November, 1953. . "The Effects of Agricultural Production Controls in 1958 on Four Michigan Farming Areas ," Quarterl Bulletin Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 37, No. 8, May, 1955. . "The Price Support Program for Dairy Products in Recent, Years," giérterlg Bulletin, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 0 . 9, o. , May, 1957. 98 95 Hathaway, Dale E. and E. E. Peterson. Michigan Farmers and the Price ort Pro ggagn, Technical Bulletin 238, Agricultural Experiment tation, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1952. Hathaway, Dale, E. Peterson and Lawrence Witt. Michigan Farmers and the Price Support Program, Technical Bulletin 235, Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1952. Johnson, Glenn. "Some Ideas and Facts About Supply ReSponses, Producti’v- ity and Incomes in U. 8. Agriculture." Unpublished paper prepared for presentation at a Harvard University Seminar, 1956. Johnson, Sherman E. Changes in American Farming, Miscellaneous publi- cation No. 707, USDA, Washington, D. C., 1989. Kettering, Darwin G. "Participation in the Federal Price Support Program by Michigan Farmers." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1951. McCune, Wesley. Who's Behind Our Farm Policy, Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., New York, 1956.- Murphy, William D. "Attitudes of Michigan Farmers Toward Government Production Control Programs as Shown by a 1958 Survey." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955 Murphy, Delmer and Lawrence Witt. "Attitudes of Michigan Farmers Toward Control Programs," Quarterlg Bulletin Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 38, No. ,May, 1956. Nicholls, William H. "A Price Policy for Agriculture," Conte¥orafl Readings in Agricultural Economics, Prenticel-Hall, Inc. , ew York, 1955. Schickele, Rainer. Agricultural Policy, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1958. Schultz, T. W. and O. H. Brownlee. Effects of Crop Acreage Control Features of :lAAA on Feed Production in 11 Midwest States, Agricultural Experiment; Station, Research Bulletin No. 298 Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, April, 1982. Shepherd, Geoffrey. "What Can a Research Man do in Agricultural Price Policy?" Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. MVII, No. 2, May, 1955. Saloutos, Theodore and John D. Hicks. Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West 1900-1939, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 19?. 96 Wfilcox, Walter'W} and Willard W} Cochrane. Economics of American.Agri- culture, Prentice—Ha11,Inc., New York, New York, 1951. hflrth, Myron E. "Production Responses to Agricultural Controls in Four Michigan Farming.Areas in 1958." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956. United States Senate. Possible Methods of Improving the Parity Formula-- Repgrt of the Secretary of.Agriculture. Senate—Document No.18, 85th Congress, lst Session, U. 8. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., February, 1957. United States Department of.Agriculture. Price Programs of the United States Department of.Agriculture, Agricultural Information Bulletin No.13, United Statés Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1958. . A icultural Prices Agricultural Marketing Service, W53 shington, D. C., 1953-1958. Wallaces' Farmer ghd Iowa Homestead. Wallace Publishing Company, Des Mbines, Iowa,.April 23, 1938. ‘Witt, Lawrence. "The Driving Force of Technology,".American Farm Policy- The NUEA Discussion and Debate Manual l956-1957,.Artcraft Press, Columbia, Missouri, V61.71,71956. ‘Witt, Lawrence and Dale E. Hathaway. "Farmers' Plans to Change Livestock Numbers as Related to Agricultural Production Controls," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 38, No. 8, May, 1956. Yeg, Hsiang Hsing. "Estimating Input-Output Relationships fOr Wheat in Michigan.Using Sampling Data 1952-1958." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955. APPENDIX 97 APPENDIX No. - COpy - Questionnaire Used in the Study - Copy - Michigan.State College Farm Management Survey The information obtained in this questionnaire is intended to be used only fer the purpose of research. All information pertaining to individuals will remain confidential and the names of persons cooperating in this survey will not be made public. County Township Interviewer Date Time Begun Time Ended Completed _ 1. How many total acres are in the farm or farms you are operating in 1958? How many did you farm in 1953? 1958 1953 2. How many acres of cropland (tillable acres)? . How'many acres of permanent pasture (not woods)? 3 8. How many acres of woodlot? 5 . How many acres in buildings, etc.? A Total 6. YOu mentioned you are farming acres of tillable land. How many acres of it are idle and not being used for field crops or pasture in 19582.1. In 1953? 7. What proportion of your total income is from farming? A % a. (IF LESS THAN 100%,) What is your major source of non-farm income? 98 No. 8. a. What is your ownership or tenure status on the land you farm? b. 1. Own all of land you farm? 2. Own some land and rent additional land? 3. Rent all of land that you farm? _ 8. Manage farm for someone else as hired manager? 5. Operate land in partnership with someone else? 6. Other __ (IF PART OF LAND OPERATED IS RENTED) how many acres of land is rented? First I have some questions about some of the things you do in producing and.using your wheat: 90 10. a. b. c. d. f. a. b. c. How many acres of wheat will you harvest in 1958? A. How many acres of wheat did you harvest in 1953? A. How many acres of wheat did you harvest in 1952? p A. (If new ACREAGE was REDUCED FROM 1953 TO 1958:) What were the reasons for your reduction in wheat acreage? Were there any other reasOfis for your reduction in wheat acreage? 88v many acres of wheat would you have planted in 1953 (for the 1958 harVest) if there had.been no acreage allotment? A. ‘What was your wheat yield per acre in 1958? (expected) bu. What was your wheat yield per acre in 1953? bu. ‘What was your wheat yield per acre in 1952? bu. Now'I‘d like to ask you about some of your production practices for wheat: Use Fertilizer N. Top Dr. 11. On the crop Cert. lbsT' Anal lbs. Anal. Seed? 18. /A. a. Planted in 1953 Harvested 1958 b. Planted in 1952 Harvested 1953 c. Planted in 1951 Harvested 1952 99 ‘ No. 12. a. Under the most favorable conditions what is the higheSt wheat yield you think you can get on your farm? _ bu./A. (IN ASKING QUESTION 11b INSERT THE ANALYSIS OF FERTILIZER THAT FARMEl HAS MOST RECENTLY USED ON HIS WHEAT.) b. What is the greatest amount of fertilizer that you can profitably apply on wheat on your farm? " lbsa/A. c. Do you believe nitrogen top-dressing for wheat would be profitable on your farm? Yes ; How many pounds per acre can.you profitably use? lbs. of N. No . D.K. . 13. a. Did you use your best field or best portion of the field for wheat this year? Yes ; Why did you choose the best land for wheat? No. Why did.you consider the land not put into wheat less desirable fOr wheat production? 18. a. Did you vote on the wheat marketing quota in 1953? Yes ; How did you vote? yes no No . N.A. D.K. . Don't remember. 15. Did you vote on marketing quota for the 1955 wheat crop? (July 23, 1958) Yes ; HOW'did you vote? yes no No . N.A. D.K. . D.K. Now I'd like to ask about corn: 16. a. How many acres of corn did you plant in 1958? A. How much will you harvest for grain? A. Fer silage A. b. How many acres of corn did you plant in 1953? A. 7 c. How much did.you harvest for grain? A. For silage? A. d. How many acres of corn did you plant in 1952? A. How much did you harvest for grain? - A. For silage? A. 100 No. 17. a. Did you receive an acreage allotment for corn this year? Yes ; What is your corn allotment? No . D.K. . b. How many acres of corn would you have planted this year if there were no acreage allotments on corn? A. For grain? A. For silage? A. 18. a. (CHECK.ANSWERS TO 15a &:l6a.AND ASK THE PORTION THAT.APPLIES IN EACH CASE. BE SURE TO MARK OUT PART OF QUESTION NOT.ASKED.) Why (did) or (didn’t) you cOmply with your corn allotment? Now I‘d like to ask you about sOme of your production practices for corn: fPlant Fertilizer Side r. . ‘Flow-down 19. Rate lbs. .Anal} lbs. Anal. Alf. or [A. [A. ' ,ZA. Clov. Sod a. Planted in '58 b. Planted in '53 c. Planted in '52 20. YOu indicated that you have reduced your wheat acreage. (IF COMPLIED WITH CORN'ALLOTMENT) you also reduced your acreage of corn. a. About how many acres have the acreage allotments on wheat and corn caused you to change the use of, from what you would have planted if there were no allotments A. b. What use have you made of this acreage removed from wheat (and corn)? 101 No. m zzbqoo 2H Q¢HOB mma A.mm¢mw m>HBommmmm amp mbm H mw¢m N ZOHBWMbU 2H QZ¢QMOMD adHOB mme Adbdm nqbomm m 924 .mom ZOHBmeU 26mm mmomo QHAAOMHZOO 20mm QHPOSMM M¢¢MMO¢ Ema gabdw nqbbmm H ZSDQOO 2H quOB mmav Hmpoa amnpo oHoH .mm aoHHmmvnosasm .Nm .vmwm .Ehmm .om omsfiao uMHMIIImime chm be 621' la oafioflbflll. .R hmm wuc>MHn .mm .euan .aosoaa .HN assessed .oN mnwmnho sea 02 wow mmma .mdsm ow: Ahmav Mommo mza :mma 2H mmomo mo mo¢MMO¢ Ema Q¢HOB m ma pooh nmav m ma camm awav Mmma .eoaa 8369 “Hal .8. eases noel mmma .hmm.< new oz.mww .Mawwml amma .dem omb nmv E pooh “av umma. umma ma umma .poaas seam .ooam .aw .asm.¢ op one done Haste satay. .oaH .4 ~61 «mi (Man and. “NM Hx.oz seaaoo A.mwdm Ema zo mMDth mHH3 .QmBqu mHQMC Hue 2H mmomD mumfio may ha modu BDOMd MMd.2MmH .BmmHm mmome Ebbma mm¢ m2¢.zmoo mo eamm3 zo BZMEHOQH¢ mo mmbHA ho mmmw¢qo mmy zmmzamm mad: mH ZDHmeHQ mHmB mflamd .thbmzoo Duh gases mma Qz¢ 2H numnd mm nabbmm MBHQOEZOU EUdm ho mmmdmombm zmmH .MHHQUSZOU mUdM mom a: mwdm mH ambudo 20mm zuyaoo Hm quomm.H 30m 2H anOB mmfiv H6809 hmnvo .QH amass .momnom .wa Enema season .aa mono «Steam .mH No. .oum omom naofloam .3. Sent maps .3 mac: mmwxmq .w noon-coon-In000000-00o...not...0'won't...OOOOOCIQOI0oIOOOOOOIOOOUOoouO-IIIIIODono.onto.0.0.0.000......-0.000.000.000000000 mwom .w .wnfiomom Moon .w mummflmm .m nice MHHS .2 use dame .m poem pom vommnondm .m 88 now oooaeoam A .4 .< cow Sea .4 Sop .4 .59 .mmi. .59 .SA mace .5m .59 88.0 .ansm Sosa duo. Nam .eosm Nam Sham mason Edam Nam 38 omwflm ease soon: date .58 .34 C? 83:66 .88 18m A 880 58 in KWHM Amav NJHM .hmav mmHv KHHV floapr (va mmM Tbspx. owv “mm sz (final hwy waoz SESHCD , .mmmH ea escapopd don mmono one mo none ao>o Ono hp odo ow m.poq .mpmeapmm pmmp Mach mafia p_H awn doflpmosv pascammflu a ma mane Sosa H .09 macho 606% 950% town 50% pan: adobe Mum op mafia o.H soz .wm 106 A.MHHQOESOU mo¢m mam m 30m 2H Bdma Adbwm nqbomm 94808 mmH n24 qudyoe mm QAbomm mmmma MuoammbHA ho mamm4qo Ema zmmzemm @942 mH ZOHmH>HQ mHmE mmah4 .nmebmzoo mum A4909 HEB 924 2H QMQQ4 mm quomm MBHQOZEOU modm ho mmm¢mUMDm zmma .MBHQOSECO modw mum a: mw4m .N 225900 26mm zmaaou um QAmem.H mom 2H 94908 mmyv Haves 90990 .0H 3 . mnEmH powwow .JH I.o....o-aonoo-coooooooooono.-....-ea...nocoo-cn.cou-on.oo.nouooo-aoeoouoaoooruo.I...coco...can...o-ooooooWWbMWoMMHWWflwW-HWW. .opm mmoo @9959 .NH 1 naofloam .d sang gal ..................... , mwom .m 3' a 8% .MMoo xHfi: .: No. use H38. .m 600..“ .HOH UomgOHa .N .060.“ ROW UmofifiOHm .H .4 . .4 509 209 .4 nop .4 .59 .59 .59 .59 m509 .59 ”5 8218.88.88 .flm New .ansa Nam awed mason Noism .odm naso om .m fies 93W .988. .53 .82 .82 .82. :68 .88 18m 58 88 @158 a: 3: Rd 33 So as a d: 3 A8 an a: 3 3 7oz 8:58 .QOHposoonm mono mmma 099 you tap 9m5n m: wcflnp mo onflx oEmm 699 D9 oH503 mfl9a .9090 90mm poem HHfis 50% 309 no czopxdmp9 oEon es ebaw 50h UH5oo 50H905eopm Hmpop mo mopmsflpmo omonp mdflm: .nmma 5H oo5poam op pcmmkm 50% @090 90mm Ho 9055 309 50% teams obs: H :02 .ww 107 No. 29. Dairy Cattle: (IF THERE ARE NO DAIRY CATTLE ON THE FARM, CHECK HERE At 1. AND GO TO THE NEXT CATEGORY OF LIVESTOCK. ) the present time: a. How many pounds of grain per day are you feeding milk cows that are now milking? ~ lbs. b. In the grain you feed your milk cows, what does this mixture consist of per 1000 pounds of feed? c. Do you feed your dairy cows a commercial supplement in addition to home grown grains? Yes ; What is it? No . Approximately how many pounds of grain per day do you feed a dairy cow during the period from December 1 to March 1? lbs. How many days do you feed grain? Are you now feeding hay to your milk cows? Yes No Approximately how many pounds of hay per day do you feed a dairy cow during the period from December 1 to March 1? lbs. How many days do you feed hay? Approximately how many pounds of silage do you feed per cow per day during the period from December 1 to March 1? lbs. of corn silage. lbs. of grass silage. Do you anticipate any changes in what you feed your dairy cattle during next year? Yes ; What changes? What are the reasons? No . 108 No. 7. a. Do you anticipate any change in the amounts of various feed fed to your dairy cattle during the next year? Yes ; What changes? - What are the reasons? No '. 30. Hegs: (IF THERE.ARE NO HOGS ON THE FARM, CHECK HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT CATEGORY OF LIVESTOCK. 1. Do you self-feed fattening hogs during the entire fattening period? Yes ; What is‘your grain mixture per 100 lbs. of grain fed in a self-feeder? ‘ Does this mixture differ for different ages and weights? Cregp feeding? Vkeninggto lOQ#? 100% to market? Do you feed grain to fattening hogs in addition to that fed in the Self-feeden? i__ How long do you have fattening hogs on a self-feeder? lb , __ Do you feed commercial supplement to your fattening hogs in addi- tion to home produced grain? Yes ; What is that supplement? No '. 2. Do you plan to make any changes in your feeding of fattening hogs during the next year? Yes ; What Changes? Why? No . No. 31. Feeder Cattle: (IF THERE ARE NO FEEDER CATTLE ON THE FARM, CHECK HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT CATEGORY OF LIVESTOCK. ) 1. a. What weight do you normally buy your feeder cattle? Dbs. b. What grade of cattle do you attempt to market? c. At what weight do you normally sell your beef cattle? d. How long is your normal feeding period for beef? 2. a. Do you feed grain to your beef cattle? Yes ; What is the grain mixture you feed your cattle? What is the rate per day at which you feed grain to your beef cattle? Do you feed a supplement in addition to the grain mentioned above? Yes ; What supplement? No. . 3. Do you anticipate any change in your cattle feeding methods during the coming year? Yes ; What changes? ‘Why do you plan these changes? No . 32. Poultryz. (IF THERE IS NO POULTRY (50 OR LESS) ON THE FARM, CHECK HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT CATEGORY OF LIVESTOCK. ) 1. a. What is your present whole grain.mdxture for laying hens? b. What is your present mash mixture for laying hens? c. Do you feed a supplement in addition to the grain mentioned abofie? Yes ; What is it? No . 110 No. 2. a. What is your present whole grain mixture for growing chicks (if any)? b. What does your growing mash consist of? 0. Do you feed any supplement in addition to those mentioned? 3. a. What is your whole grain mixture for broilers (if any)? b. What does the ground feed mixture for broilers consist of? c. What, if any, supplement is fed in addition to the feed mentioned above? 8. Do you anticipate any changes in your poultry feeding during the next year? Yes ; What are they?w What‘reasons? No. . 33. Have you given any thought to whether we will continue to have acreage allotments on some crops for several years? Yes No How do you feel about the possibility of acreage allotments every year for several years? 38. What effect do you think the allotments will have on your farming operations if they continue for a period of time? 35. 36. 37. 111 No. What changes, if any, do yOu plan to make in your present farm organization if the acreage allotments are continued? This year, for the first time in more than ten years, we have market- ing quotas on the wheat crop. .According to the law, all farmers who produce more than 15 acres of wheat must comply with their acreage allotments, or pay cash penalties of about.$l.12 per bushel on each bushel produced on all of the acreage over their allotments. a. If the wheat is sold, do you believe the government will enforce the penalt of'81.12 per bushel on the farmers who exceed their allotments Yes ; Why? No . Why? D.K. . b. If all of the wheat is fed on the farm, do you believe the govern- ment will enfarce th§_penalty on farmers who exceeded their wheat acreage allotments? Yes ; Why? ,_+ No . Why? _1_ ‘_ D.K. It has been announced that next year there will be cross-compliance on all crops with acreage allotments. This means that a farmer will have to comply with the acreage allotments on all crops which have them or get no price supports on any of his crops. In addition, each farm which has more than 10 acres removed from controlled crops will receive a total farm acreage allotment that will include the controlled crops plus the 1953 acreage of other crOps. Compliance with this total farm allotment will also be necessary on those farms which get one, in order to receive any price supports. a. Will you comply with acreage allotments on the individual crops? Yes ; Why? No . Why? D.K. . 1_ 38. a. 39. a. 112 No. Will you comply with a total acreage allotment on your farm if you receive one? Yes ; Why? No . Why? D.K. C How would your wheat acreage compare with that which you harvested in 1953 if there were no controls but the price you expected to receive was one-thirdlower than for last year's crop? (1) D.K. (2) About the same (3) 'Decrease wheat acreage (8) Increase wheat acreage Why would you take this action? (IF WHEAT ACREAGE WOULD BE CHANGED, ASK:) What other crops would you increase (or decrease) to offset the changes in wheat acreage? Why would you choose that crop or crops? How would your corn acreage compare with that harvested in 1953 if there were no controls but the price you expected to receive was one-third lower than last year's crop? (1) ______D.K. (2) About the same (3) Decrease corn acreage (8) Increase corn acreage 113 No. b. Why would you take this action? c. (IF CORN.ACREAGE WOULD BE CHANGED,.ASK:) What other crops would you increase (or decrease) to offset the changes in corn acreage? d. Why would you choose that crop or crops? 80. Price support programs are usually based on some percentage of parity; that is, we say that cotton is supported at 90 percent parity. Do you believe that all commodities being supported should be supported at the same percentage of parity at any given time--say, right now? Yes ; Do you think that all products are supported at the same ' percentage of parity now? Yes . No ; Which products do you feel are being treated less favorably in relation to others by being supported too low? Which, if any, products do you believe are being supported relatively higher than other crops? . D.K. . 118 No. No ; How should the support level for an individual commodity be determined? Which products, if any, do you feel are being supported too low at the present time? Which products, if any, do you feel are being supported at too high a level? D.K. 0 'Two farmers were talking about ways to keep farm prices and incomes from falling too low. They didn't agree on how perishables like butter and eggs should be supported. One of the farmers, Mr. Black, said he favored the present method by which the government buys direct from processors and stores the products in order to hold prices up. Mr. Wbod, on the other hand, said that he favored a plan under which farmers would sell all their perishable products, like eggs, fOr whatever they would bring. If these prices were so low that they would be below the support level, then the government would make direct payments to farmers in order to bring their incomes up. a. As you see it, what are the advantages of Mr. Black‘s suggestion that our government continue its present plan of buying perishables direct from processors and storing them? What are the disadvantages? b. Have you ever heard of Mr. Wbod's idea, that our government would allow perishable products to sell for whatever they would bring and then pay farmers direct, if necessary, to bring their income up? 1. Yes, 2. No, 30 D.K. o 82. 83. 88. 85. 86. 115 No. (a) What do you feel are the advantages of such a plan? (b) Disadvantages? (c) In general, assuming perishables are going to be supported, which of the two ideas for handling perishable products do you prefer? 1. Purchase from processors 2. Direct payments to farmers 3. D.K. ’ Approximately how long have you been farming as a farm operator? 1. Less than five years. 2. Five to ten years. 3. Eleven to fifteen years. 8. Sixteen to twenty years. 5. Over twenty years. - 6. N.A. ' . Wbuld you mind telling me your age? 1. Under 25 ‘ 2. 25-35 30 36-h5 )4. ’46-'55 5.5865 6. Over 65 How many of your family live on this farm? Do you usually go to the meetings held by your county agricultural agent if they deal with a product you produce? Yes No N.A. Do you belong to one or more of the general farm organizations? 1. Farm Bureau 2. Grange 3 . Farmers Union 8. Farm Bureau and Grange No. 5. Farm Bureau and F. U. 6. Grange and F. U. 7. All three 8. Other 9. None I would like to get your name and mailing address correctly. NAME ADDRESS 88881 US- (5817 t 1‘1 _ I. , 1H O ['I . r..:mb" 5""...Y' ' P. 1.5-: V; R f .j 1.. 4 I: 5“" ' . .5 1 ' 3 it} 8 FL . . '3? .7; ' '13:}.5 “J“ ... mafia: a"