APRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTQF   ..
LARGE FAR-M TRACTORS AND COM-BlNES i , J *

Dissefiation for théyDeg‘ree ofPth, I:
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FRANCIS KENT WALTON
1977 ’ '

.yrzlf; Llnnfl n'n

\

Mich}
Universrty

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Preliminary Technology Assessment of
Large Farm Tractors and Combines

presented by

Francis Kent Walton

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D . degree in _Agr_i_cu_l_tural

Mechanization
Science

L Major professor /

 

Date April 20, l977

07 639

 

Ill/sillll/II/l’llllllllll'lflllllll/I/Il/lll/l

 

ABSTRACT

A PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF
LARGE FARM TRAC?ORS AND COMBINES
by

Francis Kent Walton

Present governmentally influenced economic policies
and conditions make the purchase of large machines attrac-
tive on an individual enterprise basis: however. when
considered from an overall societal standpoint. many
secondary and higher-order consequences must be evaluated
to determine if society has actually benefited from
increased size of farm machines. Externality costs may
exceed by many times the total economic benefit derived
from the technology modification of the current high-horse-
power farm tractor and combine.

In the research study, externality costs became
manifest in farm structural changes which were measured
by levels of structural differentiation for each of the
five farm structural characteristics investigated. High
levels of farm structural differentiation have been shown.
by sociologists and economists. to be socially and
economically undesirable for society.

Farm structural data associated with large tractors
and combines were obtained from computer records of the

Michigan State University CoOperative Extension Service's

Francis Kent Walton
TelFarm record service and an investigation was completed
of selected structural changes associated with the technol-
ogy modification of the purchase of highest-cost tractors
and combines.

Farms which purchased highest-cost tractors decreased
family labor participation and increased hired labor
differentiation over twice the amount of the other farms
in the study from 1974 to 1975. The increase in capital
differentiation on highest-cost tractor purchase farms was
twice that of all other farms over the same time period.
Land and machinery differentiation increased significantly
on the all-farms category; however. a decrease was found
for highest—cost tractor purchase farms thus indicating a
possible concentration in land ownership and a decreased
need for leased machines or hired-machine work on those
farms which purchased large tractors.

The second part of the research study deve10ped the
nucleus for a comprehensive technology assessment relating
alternative agricultural technologies to major societal
problems. Techniques of inquiry of problem-driven
technology assessment led to controversial issues. Educa-
tional aids and inquiry into professionalism.were additional
subject areas where problem-oriented technology-assessment

techniques could likely prove useful.

Approved fiW Approved M
M Jor Professor (57 De rtment Ch irman

 

A PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF
LARGE FARM TRACTORS AND COMBINES

by

Francis Kent walton

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1977

© Copyright by
FRANCIS KENT WALTON

1977

ABLE OF COE‘ITENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Societal Problem . . . .
Statement of the Research Problem . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of Technology Assessment . . . . .

An aid to decision makers . . . . . . .

Preliminary ASpects of Technology Assessment

Technology Assessment Methodology . . . .

Related Studies which Used Technology
Assessment Methodology . . . . . . .

Statement of the Current Status of the Art
Conceptualizations and Definitions . . . .
Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Family farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other farm types . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structure and structural differentiation

TeChnOIOgy seleCtion e e o e e o e e e 0

ii

PAGE

(n -q x: «a Kn A»

10

la
24
26
26
27
30
32
37

PAGE

PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . 46
Methodologies Followed in Research . . . . . . . . 46
Technology-Driven Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Research procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “9
Technology and structural methodology . . . . . 57

Computer-aided selection of farm

structural characteristics . . . . . . . . 60
Results of investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Preliminary Problem-Driven Assessment . . . . . . 97
Research procedure 0 o e e e e e e e o e e e e e 97

Preliminary results of investigation.
societal problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Discussion of preliminary results . . . . . . . 11h
Technology assessment as an educational aid . . 115

Technology assessment as an inquiry
into professionalism . . . . . . . . . . . 118

SUMMARY 0 o e e o o o o e e o e e e o e e e o e e o 121
CONCLUSIONS 0 e o e e e e e e e e o e e o e o o e e 127
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . 130

REFERENCES 0 o o o e o e o e o o e e o e o e e e e e 132

iii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
I. FAMILY LABOR PARTICIPATION RATIOS . . . . . . 69
II. HIRED LABOR DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS . . . . . 72
III. CAPITAL DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS . . . . . . . 75
IV. LAND DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS . . . . . . . . . ~78
V. NACRINERI DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS . . . . . . 82
VI. TOTAL TILLARLE ACRES FARMED . . . . . . . . . 85
VII. HIGHEST-COST TRACTOR PURCHASES . . . . . . . 86
VIII. FARM STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS . . . 122
IX. FARM STRUCTURAL CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . 123

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. FAMILY LABOR PARTICIPATION, 1968-1975. ON
ALL FARMS. CROP FARMS. AND BIG TRACTOR
PURCHASEFARMSO00000000000000. 7O

2. HIRED LABOR DIFFERENTIATION, 1968-19759 ON
ALL FARMS, CROP FARMS, AND BIG TRACTOR
PURCIi-ASE FARMS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 73

3. CAPITAL DIFFERENTIATION. 1968-1975. ON ALL
FARMS. CROP FARMS AND BIG TRACTOR
PURCHASE FARMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

u. LAND DIFFERENTIATION. 1968-1975. ON ALL
FARMS AND CROP FARMS AND BIG TRACTOR.
PURCPAASE FA—RMS O O O I O C 0 O O O O O o O O O 79

5. MACHINERY DIFFERENTIATION, 1968-1975. ON
ALL FARMS AND CROP FARMS AND BIG TRACTOR
PURCHASE FARMS o o I o o o o o o o o o o o o c 83

.(\ -7. I Ce 0 (I. by 3 k
“In. +U 1 PG ”U +.U CV had

INTRODUCTION

Within the last century, the technology of mechanical
power has revolutionized agricultural food production in
the United States. Petroleum products coupled with
innovations in metallurgy in conjunction with automotive
assembly-line techniques created an agribusiness industrial
complex unsurpassed in labor-efficient primary food produc-
tion. The change from the vast surplus of land with a
scarcity of labor during the 1800's to the present
adequacy of land with high rates of unemployment. illus-
trates the need for evaluation of the labor-resource
supply in relation to the appropriate application of
technology for farm production.

The technological change from animal draft power to
mechanical power. derived from cheap fossil fuels, was
accentuated only slightly by the wars and slowed only
temporarily by the depression of the thirties. Few would
argue that the agricultural technological transition from
draft power to fossil fuel power was detrimental to the
evolving industrializing society up to 1950: however. the
adaption of labor-efficient technologies has not been

without a large number of associated externality costs.

Since 1950 there has been no significant technological

1

c}

C!

131:1

«him

0)..

change in mobile farm power sources of the farm tractor and
combine, but there has been a twenty-fold increase in the
availability of technological modification through
increased tractor size. The availability and utilization
of large-scale tractors and combines may be of much greater
total cost to society as a whole than the economic benefits
derived by a select few.

Buchele (1975) emphasized that the primary reason for
the utilization of high levels of technology was the reward
of individual economic gain. Buchele further pointed out
that individual gains from the use of the technology have
been shown to rapidly diminish as the majority of possible
users acquire use of the technology. The economic gain of
the early adopter was then lost, but the technology
remained. The possibility of returning to a previous
intermediate level of technology was financially nonviable
and the externality costs remained.

With the decline in the number of workers involved in
direct farm production of food and fiber. there has been
an associated increase in the capital requirements necessary
for viable commercial agricultural production units.

Gulley (197a) considered large capital requirements to be
among causal factors which created structural changes that
required large measures of agricultural adjustment for those
individuals involved with agricultural production. In
addition to Gulley, Harris (1974) indicated that traditional

family-farm functions have been. in many reSpects. absorbed

by agribusiness in varying degrees depending upon type of
enterprise and location. Recent vertical integration in the
southern poultry industry illustrates structural change from
low to high levels of differentiation. Such differentiation
has been researched by sociologists such as Rodefeld (1975).
Stockdale (1976). and Goldschmidt (1972). The sociologists
found Specific farm structure with high levels of structural
differentiation to be detrimental to the social institutions
of society. The economist. Heady (1975). illustrated the
economic decline of rural areas associated with large

increases in farm size.

Statement of the Societal Problem

For various reasons. Specific individuals and
clientele groups in the United States value or desire
commercial agricultural production farm structure to be
similar to one of the following: traditional family farm.
current family farm. larger-than-family farm. other-than-
family farm. or agribusiness-factory farm. Such farms differ
significantly in farm structure. thereby providing a widely
varying environment for the individuals associated with
each farm structure. and imparting distinctive character-
istics upon the communities in which they are located.

It is known that technology change and modification
have played a key role in the creation of distinctive farm

structure. Yet the exact impact imposed upon farm structure

(n

by the technology modification of the large tractor and
combine is not known. The change from draft horses to
total tractorization was a giant shift for agricultural
production in the United States. Technology modification in
the size of the farm tractor and combine has likely created
an even greater change in the structure of farms in the
United States than the shift from horses to tractors. The
transition from a large hitch of horses to a two-bottom
size tractor likely had only a small effect on farm
structure compared with the modification from a two-plow
tractor to a tractor capable of pulling more than twenty
plows.

The available technologies for agricultural produc-
tion are becoming increasingly capital intensive. Power
units required to maintain viable agricultural production
enterprises are being manufactured and placed into service
in ever-increasing size. The economic viability of
purchasing larger machines under present economic policies
and conditions makes such purchases financially attractive
on an individual enterprise basis. When viewed from an
overall societal standpoint. in place of the individual
standpoint. many secondary and higher-order consequences
of the increasing size of agricultural production technology
must be evaluated in order to determine to what extent
society has benefited from increased machine size.
Externalities or shadow costs may exceed manyfold the

initial purchase price of the largest machines. Some

r
3‘.
(D

1
'1
‘c

kg 4-

"va

secondary costs can be evaluated by economic measures.
Other secondary costs to individuals and to society such as
losses of components of Freedom. Justice. Environment. and
Quality of Life are not measurable by standard Specific
economic measures: however. they may be systematically
identified. evaluated. and estimated.

The problem then. at the societal level. is to
determine which technologies and technology modifications
best serve the needs of society when all costs and benefits

are considered.
Statement of the Research Problem

The first part of the research problem consisted of
the need for information regarding the relationship
between increased size of farm machines and sociologically
relevant farm structural changes. The research approach
used in the technology-driven part of the study was to
investigate the impacts of the technology modification of
size of tractor and combine purchases upon the sociologically
relevant farm structural characteristics of family-labor
participation. hired-labor differentiation. capital
differentiation. land differentiation. and machinery
differentiation.

The second part of the study utilized technology
assessment which was defined by Coates (1975) as ”the

systematic study of the effects upon society that may

CO‘.

dri

inc

occur when a technology is introduced. extended. or modified
with emphasis on the impacts that are unintended. indirect
and delayed." The establishment of an analytical framework
for a comprehensive technology assessment related to agri-
cultural technologies and societal problems was the second
part of the research problem. Agricultural technologies.
societal problems. clientele groups. and references which
could be used as the initiation of a comprehensive problem-
driven technology assessment were elements selected for

inclusion in the research study.

deve

Q.

07!

t
h

39

m
.11

k.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Purpose of Technology Assessment

An aid to decision makers

Technology assessment was develOped as an aid to
decision makers at the congressional level by Congressman
Daddario in 1966. Government funding and interest continued
the political orientation of technology assessment until a
wider array of interest groups began utilizing the metho-
dology for different types of investigations with the
results being used to educate a Spectrum of decision makers.
The George Washington University assessment group headed by
Coates (1975) carried significant impact on the early
development of technology-assessment methodology. The
technology-assessment process was not to make decisions.
but to illuminate and expand associated information so the
decision makers could make a decision based on as much
accurate information as possible.

Secondary consequences and externalities were the
major considerations of technology assessments. and stress
was placed upon the fact that information was to be made
freely available to decision makers and interested members
of the public. In accordance with the definitional nature

7

of technology assessment. this research study gave little
attention to the primary economic considerations associated

with the technologies in question.

Preliminary Aspects of Technology Assessment

Black (1975) wrote. "Orientation to the future is the
major attribute distinguishing technology assessment from
research. Technology assessment entails development of
hypotheses or statements of prospective future conditions
arising from new technology. which could be considered a
stage of research. but it does not allow for completion
of the research process by testing the validity of such
statements of hypotheses which have to be considered
plausible possibilities. not certainties or even prob-
abilities. Policy decisions necessarily reflect a subjec-
tive or Judgmental weighting of the set of hypotheses. or
possible consequences of new technology. To have this much
illumination of the future is better than no analysis of
future consequences of technology. or an analysis restricted
to the intended beneficial effects.” Black later wrote.
”All technology assessments. however sophisticated and
detailed. must remain “preliminary.” Knowledge of complex
social processes and interactions. eSpecially of the
future. will forever remain incomplete." In Justification
for technology assessment. he also wrote. "These estimates

are based upon scanty and inadequate data. and must be

cc:
2101

ll]

of

considered rough approximations at this time. but they do
not need to be highly accurate for the purpose of
illuminating potentially significant long-run consequences.”

Back (1975). in referring to the technology assessment
of minimum tillage wrote. ”This study was undertaken by the
Office of Planning and Evaluation as a part of a continuing
effort to provide better information for USDA policy
officials on significant agricultural and related issues of
national importance.“ Back further wrote. "Knowledge of the
past is not useful to policy officials unless it provides
foresight of (l) likely future consequences of continuing
technological advance. and (2) Opportunities to influence
the nature. magnitude and direction of future technology.
Analysis intended to give a future perspective to policy
officials on technology-related decision options and
consequences is a part of a recently emerging type of policy
analysis called technology assessment." ”The purpose of
technology assessment is to assist in the management of
technological processes including research and development
as well as technology transfer and application. not to
hamper these processes.”

Mayo (l975)wrote. ”The purpose of technology assessment
is to clarify policy and project options in terms of their
full social implications in order that intelligent choices
can be made by responsible public and private-sector
decision makers." Black (1975). in describing technology

assessment wrote, "The function of technology assessment

8:

wk!

m

A
\
U

iol:

10

is not advocacy. but to give decision makers a larger and
better hand from which they can select their trump card."
Coates. according to Chen and Zissis (1975). also
emphasized the preliminary nature of technology assessment
when she wrote. ”after the initial effort. a monitoring and
surveillance program must be set up to update and implement

the results of technology assessment on a continuing basis."

Technology Assessment Methodology

Some practitioners of technology assessment have made
statements which relate only to a specific type of metho-
dology and would tend. upon interpretation. to be in
conflict with an alternative methodology. Black (1975)
wrote. ”Technology assessment must not attempt impossible
precision." Yet Finsterbusch (1975) includes technical
feasibility. economic feasibility. and profitability as
segments in his complex methodological assessment procedure.
Several of Finsterbusch's assessment components did not
appear consistent with the definitional characteristics of
the secondary effects of technology assessment as defined
by Coates which was previously quoted in this paper.
Determination as to whether a Specific rigorous assessment
technique or a generalized assessment methodology would be
appropriate for a given assessment would be influenced by
factors such as the type of problem to be addressed, the

Special interests of clientele groups. and the personal

ch:

in;

ll

characteristics of the decision makers.

Chen and Zissis (1975) characterized the most
important part of technology assessment as "policy-and-
action-oriented. The results of technology assessment are
expected to change or influence policy decisions.” ”The
effort of technology assessment in the near future should
be focused on those technologies which are likely to exert
very significant impacts on society and which are in a
sufficiently early stage of development still subject to
effective control." Chen and Zissis divided the technology
assessment methods into those which were "technology-drivenf
and those which were ”problem-driven” as previously used by
the Committee on Public Engineering Policy of the national
Academy of Engineering and presented to the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1969.

In further describing technology assessment methodology.
Chen wrote. "technology assessment is policyband-action-
oriented. This makes technology assessment itself more a
technology than a science, with all the implications of the
difference between science and technology. The conclusions
of recent methodological studies are similar and congruent
in terms of the general steps taken and the general
considerations to be included. However. the specific
methods for determining the unintended. indirect. and
delayed social effects of a given technology are diverse.
unrigorous and judgmental."

Tracing methods were described by Chen as a chain of

12

events or identified impacts. Each impact was made eXplicit.
Tracing methods included the impact-tree method of ’
assessment in which each branch represents a course of
events or an alternative for policy decisions. Such a method
may be considered a technology-driven method of assessment.
Chen described scanning methods as having possible
components of: apparently enormous impacts. major societal
problems. major social values. disciplinary aspects. and
checklists. Such components were characteristic of problem-
driven assessment.
In describing one methodology for technology assess-
ment. Mayo (1975) listed the following steps:
Step 1 - ngine the Assessment Task
Establish scope (breadth and depth) of inquiry
Develop project ground rules

Step 2 Describe Relevant Technologies

Describe major technology being assessed

Describe technologies competitive to the
major and supporting technologies
Step 3 Develop State-of-Society Assumptions
Identify and describe major factors influenc-

ing the application of the relevant
technologies

Step # - Identify Impact Areas

Step 5 - Make Preliminary Impact Analysis
Step 6 - Identify Possible Action thions

13

Step 7 - complete Impact Analysis
Analyze the degree to which each action

option would alter the specific societal

impacts of the assessed technology

discussed in Step 5

Black (1975) wrote. “it has often been observed that
there are linkages between many current social problems
and the rapidly advancing agricultural technology of the
past three decades.“ This statement gave a direct aware-
ness of the relationship between social problems and
agricultural technology. Many studies such as cargill
(1972) and Hightower (1973) have shown the labor or work
diaplacement aspects of technology. Nest such technology-
labor substitution aspects were of first-order consequences
and were the desired goal of the technology implementation.
Such labor-substitution studies are not material for
inclusion as principal components of technology assessment
until such components are or become second or higher-order
consequences.
Problem-driven assessments which were initiated from

a list of commonly accepted societal problems were
described by Chen and Zissis (1975). The technology or
alternative technologies were then evaluated to find
whether the societal problem was alleviated or aggravated
because of the technology or technologies in question.
various schemes such as that described by Montgomery (1975)
have been used to quantify the desirability of the various

technologies with respect to goal variables.

14

Montgomery and the Michigan State University Group for
the Analysis and Assessment of Technology develOped the
components of provision of physical necessities (P).
environment (E). freedom (F). and justice (J) as all-
encompassing components for technology assessment. In
making the quality of life concept operational. the compo-
nents were placed in a matrix array or cross-tabulation
table against technological alternatives. An estimated
value judgment ranging from +2 to -2 for each matrix
Space was then determined. The rows or columns were then
summed for the various technologies and an aggregate value
obtained for each.

It was the opinion of the author that in the United
States. the commercial agriculture production sector of the
economy has maintained a relatively steady condition during
the past two decades and that the provision of physical
necessities. (P). with respect to food and fiber through
agricultural production in the United States. has not been
a major issue. Therefore. with the provision component (P)
satisfactorily fulfilled from the agricultural sector.
components of environment (E). freedom (F). and justice (J)

were emphasized for the latter part of the research study.

Related Studies Which Used Technology Assessment Methodology

Back (1975). along with others in the Office of Planning
and Evaluation of USDA. published Minimum Tillage: A

C17

15

Preliminary Technology Assessment. in September. 1975.

This was one of the first technology assessments dealing
specifically with a technology within the area of agriculture
mechanization and will be reviewed in methodological detail.

Back prefaced the study with technology assessment
definitions. A page of "highlights“ followed containing
the following material. ”The purpose is to provide policy
officials and program managers with information useful for
managing the process of technological change in ways to
enhance beneficial effects while avoiding potentially
adverse effects." Projections were prepared through the
year 2.000 and summarized as follows: annual harvested
acreage up 20 million. crop production up 5 percent. labor
savings of 350 thousand man years at an estimated value of
$1.6 billion. energy savings of 850 million gallons of fuel
or $275 million per year. increased use of chemicals with
a cost of $300 million per year. soil losses reduced by
50 percent. environmental pollution from pesticides and
herbicides may become a major social concern. and the impact
on numbers and sizes of farms remains in doubt. More
research is required to accelerate beneficial impacts or
reduce adverse consequences.

Beck's ”Introduction" provided a definition of the
technology within a conceptual framework rather than specific
typological farm practices. The technology under study was
then related to the complementary technology of chemical

weed control.

16

The previously stated conceptualization as to content
was then listed as principal variables or “impacts" related
to production increasing conditions (yield. multiple
cropping. etc.): conservation and environmental quality:
energy. machinery. labor requirements: and farm size.
Implications for public policy and recommendations also
followed in the report and were presented as follows:

1. The extent of the technology adoption was given.
(Acres covered by the technology. 1963-1974).

2. Factors affecting the technological concept "Each
farmer makes these kinds of production decisions on the basis
of the agronomic and economic information available to him.”
Market and price factors were assumed not to be major
constraints. Yields and multicrops may increase due to
the enhancement of timeliness and moisture considerations.
Lower machinery and labor costs enhanced adoption. Conserva-
tion tillage relates to the environmental factors.

3. Projected expansion of the technology to the year
2.010 was divided into levels of the technological concept
and crop specific estimates. The adoption of the pure
technology of zero tillage was compared to reduced tillage.
Adoption curves were estimated.

4. Impacts: farm labor estimates for the year 2,000
were estimated at 2 percent of the national workforce. The
impact of the technology in question on national labor is
negligible. "However. reduced tillage may be a major

contributor to further significant reductions in farm-labor

re;
pro

32H

5081
039!

5203

1?

requirements." Feed grains. wheat. rye and soybeans
produced with the new technology could save 200 thousand
man years of labor by year 2.000 or a 7 percent reduction

in labor. "Fer some farms. labor saved may encourage
expansion in crop acreages and farm operations.” "Because
most of the pre-harvest operations are performed by farm-
Operator families rather than hired labor. a substantial
amount of this saving could be diverted to increased leisure
time of members of farm families.”

In production costs. labor was valued at $3 per hour
and minimum tillage saved 52-58 percent of preharvest labor.
Machine costs were expected to decrease as the minimump A
tillage technology was adopted over a long time span:
however. immediate cost reductions were not expected.

Concerning energy costs. future supplies of fuel were
in question. With higher energy prices. farm costs and
consumer prices for food could rise. Conservation tillage
could save 50 percent of total production of energy
requirements. By 1980 a 20 percent reduction in tillage
could save #25 million gallons of fuel per year. Twice
this much could be saved by the year 2.000. Pesticide use
would increase 2 1b/acre by 2.000 and would be equivalent
in energy requirements to an additional 0.6 gallon of fuel
per acre.

As to number and sizes of farms. Back wrote. ”available
data are inadequate for fully assessing the impacts of

further reductions in tillage on numbers and sizes of farms."

18

Soil losses due to erosion can be cut 50 percent by the
adoption of the technology. Pesticide pollution of the
environment would likely increase with the adoption of
the technology. Back's summary was adequately covered in
the preceding comments. Research implications which
followed the summary included Specific technology research
needs and monitoring requirements to follow the developing
technology. Policy and Program Implications included the
USDA'S promotion of the technology based upon conservation.
environmental. and production impacts. The technology
assessment was ended by a list of needed monitoring
functions to make the assessment more useful in future years.

Back's technology assessment was written within the
institutional framework of the USDA and therefore did not
deal with controversial issues. Most issues considered
were of primary consequence rather than the investigation
of second-order consequences which was the material consid-
ered by most technology assessments. As an example. Back
listed the savings of 350.000 man years at a value of $1.6
billion. He did not list the possible societal costs
attached to that savings such as displacement. relocation.
unemployment. and decline of community institutions.

In considering relevancy. Guy Black (1975) wrote,
"In short. technology assessment directed to mission-
oriented agencies must be restricted to the scope of agency
interest and responsibility: otherwise it loses relevance to

that agency. But from a public point of view. assessment in

19

these terms is too narrow.”

Cargill and Rossmiller (1970) recommended studies be
undertaken of a technology-assessment-like nature. They
recommended that “Studies be undertaken to develop appro-
priate policies whereby the losers who are required to
make substantial social and economic adjustments due to
technological change can be compensated. out of the rewards
flowing to the gainers from those changes.” They also
recommended the development of a parallel system of social
accounts in which measurements of the non-market costs and
benefits of alternative programs and policies may be
assessed.

The following study which used methodology similar to
technology assessment was included even though the words
technology assessment were not used by the authors.
Fridley and Holtman (1974) in Predicting the Socio-Eccnomic
Implications of Mechanization by Systems Analysis used
confidence levels to compute an expected value of system
merit. A rating of from h to 10 was used. The value of 4
represented marginal acceptability and 10 represented high
achievement of desired outputs. various technologies and
clientele groups were selected. A realized output index
was also introduced into the calculation as a measure of
technology performance. Summation techniques were used to
find composite desirability indexes. Fridley and Holtman
concluded. ”Engineers are responsible for dramatic changes

in our way of life. and agricultural engineers will

20

continue to have a very important impact on farmers. farm
workers. and consumers of farm products. It is our
responsibility to do all we can to ensure that our efforts
provide the best possible overall benefits. This goal can
be met best by a systematic effort at clearly defining the
real need and identifying both the positive and negative
aSpects of proposed changes."

Gill (1971) in Economic Assessment of Soil Compaction
wrote. ”This physical. compactible soil system. however. is
not an isolated entity since it interacts with the social
and economic components of the agricultural system. The
importance of soil compaction as a physical phenomenon
must be evaluated in relation to the complete system. and
the cost of compaction must be established to provide a
basis for national as well as individual decisions."
”Intuitively we may believe that compaction induced by
mechanization may reduce crop yields. but that these
reduced yields may be offset by more economical forms of
cultural operations. As a result. viewing the practical
system in terms of ”net" costs may provide a means of
”living with" an agricultural system which has an inherent
controlled compacting capability.” Gill assumed a 1 percent
loss in crop value due to compaction for freeze depths of
over 25 cm and a 10 percent loss for depths of freeze less
than 25 cm. With the previous assumptions. Gill estimated
crop value loss at $1.18 billion annually for the 0.8.

Gill also wrote. ”the economics of the agricultural

21

system appear to dictate the adoption of equipment that
has a greater compaction potential rather than less.”

Donaldson and McInerney (1973) examined unanticipated
structural and societal changes which were due to the
tractorization of sectors of India. They found enlarged
land holdings: tenants had been eliminated. and there was
no increase in production intensity.

McMillan (19b9) found a .97 correlation between
tractors per 100 farms and the average value of farm
machinery and implements per farm in Oklahoma. McMillan
determined the tractors per 100 farms to be a valid and
reliable measure of farm mechanization. In the study. he
found population decreases greatest in counties with the
greatest number of tractors per 100 farms. 'From 1925 to
1945. McMillan found a 3 to h rural-farm-person decrease
for each tractor added. Also for each tractor added there
was a decrease of 0.5 farm.

Bertrand (1951) found mechanization to be the
Significant change factor in rural Louisiana. An increase
in tractors was correlated with an increase in cropland per
farm. a decrease in the number of farms. and a decrease in
rural farm population. Bertrand and others (1956)
researched mechanization and social consequences in the
Southwestern United States.

Finch (1951) related the United States economic. farm.
and social structural problems associated with farm produc-

tion to the advance of mechanization. Overproduction

22

through mechanization and subsidization were the factors
which diSplaced many farm enterprises.

Esmay (1973) considered the social costs of reduced
employment to be a major consequence of most large-scale
mechanization efforts in deve10ping countries. Appropriate
or intermediate technology was considered the desirable
alternative for a wide-based income distribution.

The President of Yale. Griswold (l9h8). in Farming
(and Democracy wrote. "meanwhile agricultural machinery and
technology. applied on a constantly eXpanding scale.
increased the productive capacity of agriculture.
depressing prices and wages. creating a labor surplus. and
accelerating the flight from the land." "These were the
true causes of distress of agriculture.” Griswold went on
to illustrate the total cost of food purchased by American
consumers to be the price paid by the consumers plus that
paid by the taxpayers in subvention of existing methods
of producing it and the social institutions surrounding
them.

Culley (197“). in Beliefs and values in American
Farming. described freedom by encapsulating it in terms of
presocial freedom. He wrote. "The concept of freedom that
has been a part of an agrarian view of agriculture is
inadequate for farming in the present and future."
"Freedom for the farmer in the latter part of the 20th
century will not square with the concept of independence

of the Agrarian Ideal." "The rugged individualist has been

23

given his due credit. but perhaps it is time to lay his
weary bones to rest.” ”The type of structure desired for
agriculture is one that is capable of achieving society's
goals." "There will be fewer farmers in the traditional
sense of the word: that is. owner-operators.” ”Of
necessity. the farmer must increase his output in order to
increase his income.” ”He is not able to improve his
income appreciably but finds it necessary to expand his
Operation simply to stay even.”

Schwarzweller (1975) portrayed the changes which
occurred in a German village due to tractorization.
Schwarzweller indicated a high degree of over-mechanization
had occurred in recent years in the German village which he
studied. }

Buchele (1975). in Social Costs of Large Machines/Farms.
assessed a variety of societal problems such as unemployment
costs and conservation. The temporary advantages. gained.
by early adopters of technology. were discussed along with
the long-term benefits gained by society. Limitation of
farm size was considered as a control measure to counter
the effects of technological change. Buchele develOped a
concept of ”A new view of rural America” and described ”A
plan for rural America" based on a long-range plan for

U.S. agricultural conservation.

24

Statement of the Current Status of the Art

Technology assessment is a relatively new area of
study: the topic was placed in a position of national view
in 1966 by Congressman Daddario in a report to the Subcom-
mittee on Science. Research and Development. A.wide
variety of methodology has developed from the detailed
technology-specific outline listed by Finsterbusch (1975)
to the broad conceptualization developed by the Michigan
State University Group for the Analysis and Assessment of
Technology as described by Montgomery (1975).

Each methodology has its Specific advantages and
limitations. Such advantages and limitations depend upon
the objectives of the individual or individuals who are to
carry out the assessment and the clientele groups who will
be served by the assessment. Time and cost limitations may
also enter into the methodology selected for the study.

The previously considered definitional papers and
related studies gave insight into the topics considered and
methodologies used in this study. considerable time passed
since studies were completed which related mechanization to
various sociological consequences at the onset and after
completion of tractorization in the United States. The
technology-driven assessment part of this research was an
inquiry into sociologically relevant components of farm
structure as affected by the technological modification of

the large farm tractor and combine.

25

Approximately thirty years has passed since the
completion of tractorization. Although many sociological
studies have been completed over this time period and it
has been known that tractor and combine size has been
increasing. no major attempts have been made to interrelate
the technology modifications considered in this study with
sociological components of farm structure and changes in
farm structure which have been shown by Rodefeld (l97h).
Goldsmith (1972). Ready (1975). and others to be
sociologically relevant.

The diversity of techniques and variety of approaches
to problems used by practitioners in the field of technology
assessment. illustrate the newness and diversity of the
field of technology assessment. With the characteristic of
technology assessment being investigative toward second and
higher-order consequences of technology. the methodology
was quite appropriate for studying sociologically-related
variables.

Reese (1973) in Candidates and Priorities for Technology
.Assessment found. from a survey of Federal Executive Agency
Professionals. mechanization of farming and the resultant
displacement of people from the land to be considered as a
candidate technology for assessment. Although several
components of labor were considered in this research study.
such components were evaluated from sociologically-related
structural relationships rather than from an economic-

displacement viewpoint. This research study was undertaken

26

from a broad holistic approach rather than from myopic.

Special-interest considerations.
Conceptualizations and Definitions

m

The explicit definition of farm types was of critical
importance in understanding the various structural concepts
presented by the different authors in previous studies.

The general definition of a farm as a land-based unit
producing food and fiber was a beginning point for many
authors. This definition.gave little indication of any
structural or classification-type information. and.most
authors could agree thus far on the definition of a farm.
Traditional legal definitions of land ownership were
proprietary in the definitions of farms. Such definitions
rapidly became incomplete as new land-use and ownership
patterns developed. Such traditional definitions were
considered only as they applied to Specific issues in
this research study.

As enumerated elsewhere in the study. the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (1973) set explicit
land ownership and use categories in establishing equitable
and generally acceptable just distributions of government
funds toward land owners and tenants who maintained farm
operations upon land owned by others. Such definitions

”were based upon parcel ownership or on farm operatorship.

27

This type of farm definition was based on ownership of the
land resource. and there could have been as many farms as
there were owner parcels. plus the additional category of
farms as operational units which were operated by tenants
upon land owned by individuals other than the tenant. The
primary measurement used in classification was the physical
dimension of size in acres.

The Census of Agriculture adopted classifications foré
farms based on acres operated, acres of land owned. acres of
land rented. and legal status of corporations. As economic
trends and political objectives changed. so changed the
definition of a farm. As explained in detail by Rodefeld
(1974). such definitions were inappropriate for the study of
changes in structural differentiation. I

Larson (l97fi) wrote. in Economic Class of Farm: and the
Farm-Family welfare Myth. of the inadequacy of using size
of farm business and other economic measures as indicators
of farm and family well-being. Traditional definitions of
a farm were covered in additional detail in the section
which conceptualized farm structural differentiation.

Family farms

Much rhetoric. considerable popular writing. and some
economic writing has been devoted to the idealization of the
family-farm concept. Most authors agreed that there were
elements beyond economic considerations associated with the
concept of the family farm. The agreement that there were

associated elements was as far as the authors agreed.

am

28

Nikolitch (1972) contributed significantly over recent
years toward adding elements of farm structure. both
economic and elemental such as labor. into the definitions
of farm types. Nikolitch defined the family farm as ”a
primary agricultural business in which the operator is a
risk-taking manager. who with his family does most of the
farm.work and performs most of the managerial activities."
The remaining farms which failed to meet the preceding
conditions were then called ”other-than-family farms."

Gulley (197“) in Beliefs and values in American
Farming develOped historical perSpectives into definitional
frameworks. Such definitional frameworks were.covered in
detail elsewhere in the study.

Nair (1969) traveled the world searching for common
elements of farm characteristics and compiled the findings
in the book entitled. The Lonely Furrow. Definitional
elements were found throughout the writing. The invisible
ladder. the national dream. farm indebtedness and the work
ethic were considered with reSpect to technology and other
related factors.

Slack (1970) was one of the initiates in recent
agribusiness farm-type definitional writing. In Defense
Against Famine: The Role of the Fertilizer Industry.
Slack wrote. ”In the early days of agriculture--the manure
and ashes era--the cost of farming was not given much
thought. There was little or no outlay of cash: the farmer

grew his own seed. supplied his own fertilizer. and provided

29

motive power in the form of horses (or bullocks) and his own
muscles. The farm was a family Operation. a self-contained
enterprise.“ "In some areas Of the world this is still the
rural way of life. but it is fast passing away. even in the
less-developed countries. In the more advanced areas. much
of the crop production is on large farms Operated on a
”food-factory" basis. Seed is bought from Specialty growers:
tractors. combines. and other machines make it possible fpm
one or two men to farm hundreds Of acres. and large amounts
of fertilizer are bought and used to give high yields per
acre.”

Other agribusiness elements. particularly the machinery
manufacturers. have entered writings and other media as
definitional interpreters of what should be considered
family farms. Henkes (1976) and Nelson (1975) illustrated
the concepts desired by the machinery industry. Another
agribusiness. the largest so-called “farm organization”.
Farm Bureau. which claims to represent the largest block Of
farmers. avoids using the words family farm for reasons
described by Olson (1973). Olson showed that such a vast
conglomerate as Farm Bureau could not justly represent the
conflicting interests of the family farmer and agribusiness.

Paarlberg (1974) defined the family farm as "one on
'which the majority Of the labor and decisionemaking are
supplied by the farmer and his family.” Kyle (1973) wrote.
“It is still going to be a long time. 25 to 50 years. before

public corporations control much of our agriculture. but it

30

doesn't mean that commercial farms will be the "family farm”
in the old sense of the word." Ottoson (1963) wrote. "The
family farm still dominates the rural scene but the Old
definitions are outmoded." From such statements it was
evident that the definition was an evolving definition which
required more than the two words "family farm" to convey a
Specific meaning.

Harris (1974). in Entrepreneurial Control in Farming.
wrote. "About l/2 of selected elements of entrepreneurship
have been shifted to off-farm firms. The overall trend is
toward acceleration of such Shifts brought about by the
quickening of change in agricultural technology.“ Such
elements of current definitional nature add complexity to
an operational definition needed for the reSearch study.
Other farm types

wunderlich in Ottoson (1963) suggested farming has
"moved through the Domestic Stage characterized by largely
self-sufficient units and motivated by self preservation:
and through the Commercial Stage characterized by off-farm
contact with the product markets and motivated by family
income. We have now entered the Industrial Stage charac-
terized by close interdependence with both resource and
product markets and motivated by firm profits."

Nikolitch (1972) used the concept of other-than-family
farms. This concept was effective as long as the defini-
tional characteristics did not require further elaboration

for the study at hand. Factory farms as used by pOpular

WI“

:3
on

31

writers carry significant connotations but very little
definitional characteristics useful for research type
classification.

Rodefeld's (1975) classification of farm types was
useful. as his conceptualizations were explicitly based on
various farm structural characteristics. Rodefeld's defin-
itions of family. tenant. larger-than-family. and large-
scale-industrial type farms were useful in that the farm
legal organization (proprietorship. partnership. corporation)
was viewed separately from structural type. Rodefeld's
research findings on the present and changing status of
family and nonfamily type farms have been markedly different
from those of the United States Department of Agriculture.
These latter studies have classified farms according to
their legal organization or in terms of other census
definitions.

Thompson (1976) added dimensions of rural resident.
supplemental-income farmers. senior-citizen farmers and
full-time small-farm Operators in his research work
concerning small farms in Michigan. Thompson's dimensions
were further categorized by off-farm employment. farmer
age. and level of farm income. Consistency with census
classifications was maintained.

For purposes of this study. Michigan TelFarm farm type
classifications were unified under the three categories of
crop. livestock. and Specialty as shown in the following

list.

32

CrOp: Saginaw valley Cash Crop
Cash Grain '

Livestock: Cattle Feeding
Hog
Beef-Hog
Beef-Cow
Southern Dairy
Northern Dairy
Southern Dairy Mixed
Southern Mixed
Northern Mixed
Specialty: Unclassified
Fruit
Vegetable
Potato
Poultry
Forest Products
Flower
Nursery
Mushroom
AS stipulated by definition. TelFarm crop farms
received less than five percent of their income from
livestock or livestock product sales.
Spgucture and stpuctural differentiation
As was previously noted under the definitions of farm
and family farm. structure became a component in the
definition as the definitions were eXpanded and conceptual-
ized into modern terminology. Nikolitch (1972) included
labor and management in the definition of the family farm.
Paarlberg's (1974) definition also contained the resources
of labor and management. In the study and writing of
Structural Changes in West European Agriculture 1950-1970.
Breitenlohner (1975) used macro-level structural character-
istics of: agriculture in the economy. agricultural labor

force. agricultural productivity. agricultural output value.

33

land utilization. average farm size. distribution of
agricultural holding by Size. fragmentation. land tenure.
mechanization inputs. chemical inputs, and irrigation
inputs.

The United Nations. Economic Commission for EurOpe
(1967) also used macro-level structural characteristics of:
labor-force decline. management resources. vocational
education of Operator. capital investment. income. part-time
farming. type of institution. tenure. type of ownership.
sales. output-input. gross sales. pattern of farming.
level of technique or mechanization. costs. level of yield.
return to capital. family farm income. labor requirement
and rent.

Donaldson and McInerney. (1973) (2) wrote. "The
primary impact of mechanization on agriculture can be seen
through the changes in its input structure." ”Certainly
mechanization has been the critical enabling factor in
the process of farm amalgamation."

Weelock (1969) related structural differentiation to
sectors of the national economy and suggested that
structural differentiation could be used as a predictor of
productivity.

Ball and Heady (1971) described the traditional family
farm as a farm where all of the factors of production were
owned and provided for by the farm family. The North
Central Public Policy Education Committee (1972) in Who

Will Control U.S. Agriculture described structural compo-

34

nents of hired labor and hired management along with rented
land and rented machines (capital) noting that they have
recently entered into the farming economy in large scale.

Harris (1974) analyzed entrepreneurial control in
agriculture by describing the traditional family farm in
the United States whereby the Operating manager and his
family owned and controlled all of the factors Of production.
In such a traditional family-farm structure there would
have been no differentiation. The direct contrast to such
a traditional family farm was the totally differentiated
factory-type farm in which hired management had no
structural connection with land. capital. or management:
land owners had no structural connection with labor.
capital. or management. And finally. the Owners of the
capital would have no structural connection with land.
labor. or management. Rodefeld (1974) labeled these farms
with the highest levels of differentiation on all dimensions
as the "corporate/industrial type."

Gulley (1974) went to considerable detail in describing
and diagramming differences in the traditional farm struc-
ture and the current commercial farm structure. Difficul-
ties were encountered with conceptualizing farm structure
as Harris and Gulley's definitions lead from a traditional
family-farm structure to the current factory-type
commercial farm structure. Their definitions were not at
the true endpoints but in the middle of the definitional

structural continuum between the two pure endpoints.

35

Nickolitch (1972) gave some insights into structural
definitions by his explanation of the current commercial
family farm. By his definition. if a farm employed a hired
non-owning manager or if more than 50 percent of the total
labor was hired. the farm was classified in the other-than-
family farm category. This type of conceptualization.
however. gave little understanding of farm structure
between the exact definitional points on the continuum.
Rodefeld (1974) overcame the structural definitional
problem by using a differentiation scale which was suitable
for mathematical analysis. After analysis the scale was
divided into high. medium. and low levels of structural
differentiation. and was used by Rodefeld to classify
farms according to structural type and investigate the
relationship between farm type and rural community
characteristics and change. Structural differentiation as
defined by Rodefeld was used as the Starting concept for
the independent variables of farm structure employed in
this study. This differentiation concept may be thought
of as losses Of parts of entrepreneuership of the farming
operation. (Harris. 1974) Differentiation may be
considered as a loss of entrepreneuership functions from
the totally owned and managed traditional subsistence type
family farm as described by Culley (1974). 3

In the present research. the level of farm structural
differentiation will be defined as the extent to which the

farm manager is separated from the ownership and/or

36

provision of the remaining factors of production (land.
labor. and capital). The level of differentiation between
the factors of production may be thought of as the level
of non-ownership and/or non-provision of the production
factors.

Structural differentiation concepts were used to
describe the interrelatedness of the traditional produc-
tion factors of land. labor. capital. and management. The
definition of family farm as defined by Nickolitch (1972)
was combined with the conceptualization of farm structure
and structural differentiation as used by Rodefeld (1974).
The family-farm structural base. where the Operator provided
most of the management and the Operator and family provided
the majority of the labor for the farm operation. gave a
starting point for farm structural consideration which was
consistent with current commercial farm Operations in the
midwestern United States. In current commercial farm
operations structural differentiation may be thought of as
infringements between measures of concern. associations.
or ownership between the farm Operating manager and the
other factors of production. Putting it simply. differen-
tiation was used as a measure of who Owns and who controls
the factors of production on a farm Operation.

High levels of differentiation between the factors of
production of a farm enterprise may be considered as either
desirable or undesirable depending upon the Specific party

at interest. For example, the interests of absentee owners

37

wishing to extract maximum immediate monetary returns from
a given farm enterprise with high levels Of structural
differentiation would likely be opposed to local area
residents who have economic interests which would be best
served by low levels of structural differentiation of the
given farm enterprise as described by Heady (1975).

The Objectives Of the technology-driven part of the
research were to empirically determine the types and levels
of farm structural differentiation and determine if levels
Of structural differentiation were increasing or decreasing.
and determine if changes in technology might be responsible
for changes observed in levels of structural differentiation.

The differentiation variables were designed to range
from zero to one. In unique cases. however. differentiation
could become greater than one due to unusual farm
structural characteristics.

Tephnology selection

From James Watts' early experiments in England through
the steam-power era of mobile power devices to modern
tractors of current production. the unit of power has been
horsepower.

The Nebraska Tractor Test Law of 1919 was the first
significant large-scale effort at establishing uniform
tractor-test procedures. The test was based on various
performance horsepower output measurements and has proved
useful from 1920 to present. with very little change.

Owing to the various homestead acts and settlement

38

patterns. the large farms which could utilize large equip-
ment did not predominate in most areas of the United States.
The manufacture of small gas-powered tractors provided an
alternative to draft animal power for small farmers.

Gray (1956) illustrated in his history of the develop-
ment of the agricultural tractor in the United States that
very large tractors were in use as early as 1909. Gray
stated that by 1925. the low-priced Fordson represented
60-75 percent of the total domestic tractor production.

The Fordson and other mass-produced two-plow tractors
initiated a two-plow tractor-size era in U.S. agricultural
production history. By the mid-thirties most companies had
introduced three-plow tractors. Four-plow tractors were
introduced in the 40's and 50's. The 60's saw the five-
and Six-plow Sizes and by the 70's the horsepower race was
full Speed ahead.

Early large tractors described by Gray were the Reeves
40-horsepower steam tractor which pulled sixteen 14-inch
plows and broke 160 acres in 24 hours. the Gaar-Scott
steamer of 25 horsepower which plowed at the rate Of 1 acre
in 7 minutes 58 seconds. and the largest Best tractor which
weighed 41 tons and had drive wheels each 15 feet wide by
9 feet diameter. The horsepower ratings reported by Gray
were likely not based on current methods of calculating
horsepower.

Gray also illustrated the close association between

mobile power sources and plowing. To many individuals the

39

concept of tractor size was based on the number of plows a
tractor could pull in a satisfactory manner. The general
acceptance Of the plow Size classification was illustrated
by Farm Equipment Red Book as late as 1959. Farm Equipment
Red Book listed the number and size of plows as the first
Specification for each type of tractor. Back (1975)
referenced Rask's use of two-plow and four-plow size
tractors in labor-utilization studies.

With the recent advent of the chisel plow and the
introduction Of the adjustable-width moldboard plow. which
adjusts from 12-inch cut to 22-inch cut. hydraulically on
the go. the concept of number of plows a tractor can pull
will likely disappear as a measure of size in the larger
tractors. From the standpoint of the present technology
assessment. the tractor-size categories were selected and
classified as (1). the two-to three-plow-era Size.

(2). the four-to Six-plow-era size. and (3). the current
trend of tractors sized by 100's of horsepower.

The Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute (1976)
utilized one-size breakdown in power-take-off (PTO) horse-
power for two-wheel-drive farm tractors. and another for
four-wheel-drive farm tractors. The two-wheel-drive small
tractors were size-categorized as under 35. and 35 and
under 40. PTO horsepower. From 40 to 100 horsepower. the
interval was in increments of 10 horsepower. Higher
horsepower categories were 100 to 120. 120 to 130. 130 to
140. 140 to 150. and 150 and over. The four-wheel-drive

40

categories were under 170. 170 to 200. and 200 and over
horsepower.

Sohne (1975) graphically illustrated the trends in
tractor size by graphing sales of various sizes of tractors
over time for the U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The graph illustrated a loss in sales of from 60 percent to
8 percent of tractors of less than thirty-four horsepower
in only 11 years from 1953 to 1964. In contrast. tractors
of over 100 horsepower in 1964 had only 3 percent of the
market. and 11 years later had 54 percent of the market.
From Schne's graphic data. the new tractors sold appeared
to double in horsepower every 11 years. In contrasting
this technology modification with the decline in farm
workers, it must be considered that the numbers of tractors
used or tractor use per year may have changed significantly.

The same interpretation was made from Schne's graph of
the Federal Republic of Germany of tractor size doubling
twice over the last 20 to 22 years. Implement and Tractor
(1976) reported a 7.1-horsepower increase from 1974 to 1975
for the average new tractor sold. This represented an
increase of 7.9 percent over the year or over twice the
mean increase over the past 10 years. The annual sales of
tractors over 100 horsepower increased 2.036 percent over
the past 10 years. During the same 10 years, the horse-
power sold in size units over 100 horsepower increased

2.798 percent.
Bowers (1975) indicated 10 years to be the useful life

41

of a tractor. when this use period was connected with the
size of tractor sold. it appeared as though each new
tractor sold had the Size capability of accomplishing
twice the amount of work of the tractor which it replaced.
From the labor standpoint. such would be the case only if
the number of tractors remained the same. Implement &
Tractor (1976) reported that the number Of new-tractor
sales declined from 196,994 in 1973 to 173,801 in 1974
and to 161.147 in 1975. The total horsepower sold over
the time period remained relatively consistent. the
values being 16,839,000: 15,706,400: and 15,704,900.
reSpectively. A great deal of the increased tractor
horsepower was used to improve timeliness of field
Operations according to Bowers (1975). Harrington (1975)
graphically illustrated the use Of increased horsepower
per given unit of land in the United States: the horsepower
increase was nearly linear over the period of his study.
Back (1975) referenced the Ohio study in 1967 by
Norman Rask (Cost-Analysis of NO-Tillage Corn". Ohio
Report January-February. 1967. p. 14-15). Preharvest
labor for two-plow equipment was reported to equal 3.47
hours per acre of corn produced. and for the four-plow size
equipment. the labor reported was 1.86 hours. The same
figures for no-till were .70 and .50 reSpectively. The
study was interesting in that the labor would have been
eXpected to have been cut in half when the tractor size

was doubled. In the case of nO-till. only a 28 percent

42

reduction in labor was given for a doubled tractor Size.

In considering multiples of a technology and tractor
purchases. the purchase of smaller tractors was likely to
have been Of a replacement nature on a one-to-one basis.
Medium-size tractors may have been purchases for a one-to-
one replacement basis. or may have been purchased to
replace several small tractors. It was unlikely but
entirely possible that a medium-size tractor of 100
horsepower was purchased to replace four tractors of the
25-horsepower size. Such a replacement as the hypothetical
one-for-four technology modification would likely have had
a large effect on farm structure. especially the farm-labor
structure. If this trend were carried further to include
the largest tractors of 300 to 600 horsepower. then it
would have been possible to conceptualize a technology
modification of a tractor purchase where one tractor
purchased replaced at least twelve smaller tractors. It
was highly unlikely that a change Of this order of magni-
tude had occurred on any one farm at any one time.

In relating the tractor to farm production. Gill (1971)
wrote. "Even though many Special-purpose machines are self-
powered. a large number of machines draw auxiliary power
from the tractor: hence the power of the farm tractor
determines the capacity of the entire crop-production
system."

Combine technology selection was Similar to tractors

with reSpect to size and time. Several large combines were

43

constructed and pulled by horses or mules in the late
1800's. Holbrook (1955) reported a 42-foot-wide cutting
header on a combine drawn by 40 horses in the year 1828.
The combine had an auxiliary engine powered by a steam
hose. The Furrow (1975). in its Bicentennial issue.
pictorially illustrated a similar combine pulled by over
30 horses and mules.

Gasoline-powered combines (requiring three men in
place of the 20 to 30 for steam threshing) appeared as
early as 1912. according to Holbrook. Steam threshing
machines predominated in harvesting until the late 1930's
and early 1940's. when small combines of 5 to 6-foot-cut
width harvested the majority of sown grain crOps. The
small mass-produced combines were power-takeOff-driven
and required only one operator. By the late thirties a self-
prOpelled combine was manufactured and p0pularized through
use by the harvest brigades running from south to north
with the ripening grain during the war years. After the
war. the size or capacity of these machines began the same
increase as tractors. The combines became a multipurpose
harvesting machine in the midwest as corn heads were added.
Capacity or size was measured in the number of rows of corn
that the Specific machine would handle. Combines were
usually manufactured in multiples of two rows. With the
advent of the 6-row. 30-inch planter, however. many 3-row
corn heads were manufactured for the smaller model machines.

Row models of 2. 3. 4. 6, and 8-row sizes dominated the

44

market. Official Guide. Tractors and Farm Equipment.
(1976 and earlier) listed the four basic sizes of combines
offered by most full-line companies. The sizes were based
not on the grain-platform head width. but on the corn head
carrying capacity. The Official Guide (1976) listed only
one power-take-Off combine capable of multipurpose harvest-
ing. and it required a 1.000 RPM power-take-off. The size
capacity on the machine was equivalent to a six-row corn
head which placed the available power-take-off combine in
the next-to-largest size category. The company manufac-
tured two smaller size models in the self-propelled line.
but no smaller power-take-Off model. The conclusion was
that no multipurpose least-cost machine alternatives are
available today to fulfill the needs of the small farmer.

Since the framework of agricultural structural thought
has Shifted from an individual-human concept (the self-
sufficient family farm) to a business-oriented commercial-
production (agribusiness) concept. it seems relevant to
base a study of farm structure on economic technological
capacity rather than on individual farm-machine size. It
was decided to use the level of investment in the machines
as a continuous variable to study farm structure. The
disadvantages. such as inflation. in using the price paid
for various technologies are considered elsewhere in the
paper.

This study was not one of what technology modification

had occurred on the farms. It was a study of the technology

45

modification of tractor and combine purchases and the
effects of such purchases on the structure of the farms
studied.

There was the possibility that a tractor or combine
purchase was not a technology modification but a direct
machine replacement. This would seem unlikely as the
number of years of useful machine life is relatively Short
and the rapidity with which new models of tractors and
combines were introduced. These and other factors (such as
repair down time and average tractor size of purchases and
number of trade-ins). taken in aggregate. illustrate how
few tractor purchases were made to replace a tractor with
the identical tractor technology.

Even if a tractor purchase resulted in the same
technological replacement as would a trade-in for an
identical tractor. then the technological effect from the
purchase would have been a null effect from the standpoint
of farm structure excepting any Secondary causal forces
upon farm structure due to the economic considerations from
the purchase. Without investigation. here. it would appear
that such economic impact would cause very little if any
effect on the farm structure due to secondary infrastructural

changes resulting from economic forces.

PBELIMIHARY TECHNOLOGY AEZESSMENT

Methodologies Followed in Research

Two major methodologies were followed in the research.
The first was the technology-driven assessment: the second
was the problem-driven assessment.

The technology-driven assessment part of the research
study was initiated by a demographic search of possible
areas where sufficient numbers of the technology for study
would be located. Potential areas were then narrowed by
limitations imposed by financial resources available for
the study. Various information sources were investigated
which linked the technology for study with components of
societal structure. The information source which provided
the largest amount of data of types required for the study.
at the least cost. was found to be the Michigan State
University COOperative Extension Service. TelFarm records.
AS the TelFarm record-system data were structured for tax
and economic analysis. a large number of procedures were
necessary to arrange data into forms useful for the study
of various technologies and agricultural structural
characteristics.

The second methodology followed in the research was

46

47

that of the problem-driven assessment. Several of the
techniques used. such as the analysis matrix and quality-
of-life components. were develOped by Montgomery (1975) and
the Michigan State University Group for the Analysis and
Assessment of Technology. The author developed technolog-
ical alternatives and technological modifications associated
with the agricultural-production technologies in question.
Also develOped were societal problems. clientele groups.
and reference lists which connected and associated the
technological alternatives and modifications with the
societal problems.

An example was given using technology-assessment
techniques as an educational aid.and an inquiry into
professionalism was developed.

The application of assessment methodologies was
preceded by the author's selection of clientele for
research findings as suggested by Montgomery (1975). As
indicated earlier. the primary objective of technology
assessment was to provide information as an aid to decision
makers. The first requirement would therefore follow that
the decision makers or clientele must be first identified
in order that data could be structured to produce maximum
educational impact on the decision makers. The clientele

list follows.

48

Clientele for Research Findings

1.

2.

3.

4.

Farm Machinery Industry

Management

Design Engineers

Labor

Sales - in-house industry. advertising, retail

Primary Consumers (farmers)

Food Policy Makers (generalists)

Congressional members
Congressional hearings
Consumer protection groups

Individuals

Educational Institutions

Agricultural Engineering and
Physical Systems in Agriculture

Agricultural Education - College level

Agricultural Education - High School
Vocational Agriculture

Extension

Rural Sociologists

Groups

Organic farmers
Jeffersonian Agricultural Idealists
Farm Organizations

Public Interest

49

Technology-Driven Assessment

Research procedure

Information sources-~The technology-driven part of this
technology-assessment investigation was initiated by exam-
ining demographically the agricultural crop-producing areas
of Hichigan. Indiana, and northern Ohio. Concentric circles
were drawn in less-densely pOpulated areas on state highway
maps in order to determine farming areas with the least
amount of urban influence. Several areas were found with
no papulating centers larger than 20,000 persons. Crop-
production areas were found in Indiana with 50. 60. 80, and
86-mile diameter cpen areas without major population
centers. Michigan areas of low population density were
found with diameters of #6. 54, 56, 68. and loo-miles. One
Indiana-Michigan non-urban area was found with a 96-mile
diameter.

As alternative research techniques were examined for
viability. the questionnaire survey technique for any of
the above selected areas was discarded owing to the
distances and time requirements needed to research the
subject adequately. Areas closer to urban centers were
then considered. Several Lansing-area farm-implement
dealers were contacted with regard to locating farms having
the technologies to be studied, and with regard to the
content of information collected and sent to the company's

main office for warranty registration. It was anticipated

50

that warranty registration information for new-tractor and
combine owners would supply the necessary leads to find
farms which were using increments of the technologies to be
assessed. Some reluctance to allowing access to records
was encountered. and incomplete warranty records soon
proved the technique of inquiry to be of questionable value.

Sales personnel turned out to be a good source of
information as to owners and locations of the technologies
for study. Tony Narnke. Agricultural Sales Representative
for Case Power and Equipment. Holt. Michigan. cOOperated by
providing model numbers. owner's names. and locations for
Case large-tractor owners within the area covered by his
company. This information was plotted and coded for tractor
size and location. In addition. tractor-owner locations
were marked on detailed county road maps which were
obtained from the Michigan State Highway Commission.
Department of State Highways. The owner list plus the
county road maps would allow for efficient follow-up of
personal interviews if the method of inquiry was to be
followed.

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service was investigated as a potential information source
for farm structural data. Specific types of data were
available at individual farm, township. county, district.
and state levels of aggregation. Number of farms. acreages
of farmland. crOpland, various crops, subsidy payments.

farm transfers. farm divisions, and farm combinations were

51

the major statistics available. Problems associated with
the various data sets were accessibility to longitudinal
data. time lag, and incompleteness of farm transfer.
combination. and division data. Significant measures of
farm structural change could have been obtained: however.
the incompleteness and therefore. accuracy of the data
would not have been desirable for a comprehensive research
study. The reason that the data were not complete was that
in recent years very few farmers had participated in any
government farm programs. and that data were updated by
farmers voluntarily visiting the local Agricultural
Stabilization Office to change farm records. Recently.
there has been no incentive nor requirement for any farm
record updating. It was significant to note that farms in.
the USDA governmental institution were defined on an owner-
ship-and-producer (tenant) basis and that a land area as
small as one-tenth of an acre could have been called a
farm. The statistics of farm numbers with this type of
ownership definition could not be compared with farm-
numbers data from the Agricultural Census. which used a
Idifferent economic definition of a farm.

A similar method to obtain land ownership and transfer
data was found in public legal records maintained by each
county property-taxation unit. These records were accurate
and maintained up-to-date; however. contractual obligations
regarding ownership and future transfer of land would have

necessitated an.individua1 search for each record from a

52

different location. Measures of value of farmland. improve-
ments. and personal prOperty were available. but they were
not in aggregate form. These types of governmental legal
data would have been valuable in case-study research for
land farm-structure determinations. Each of the previously
listed data collection techniques would have necessitated
personal follow-up questionnaires.

The major source of data for the technology-driven
part of this research study was obtained from Michigan State
University Cooperative Extension Service. TelFarm records
with cOOperation from William Dexter and James Mulvany.

An initial investigation was undertaken to determine
if sufficient data were available to Justify TelFarms use
as a primary data source for the technology assessment.
Farm structural and depreciation data were found to be
available for approximately 1600 Michigan farms. A change
in the computer-tape data-storage system used for storing
previous years' data made older data of certain types
accessible only by expensive tape-conversion processes.

The preliminary study to determine the feasibility of
using TelFarm data was initiated by a hand search of the
hard cepy of summaries compiled from the first nine-months
reports of depreciation schedule transactions which were
returned to TelFarm by the participating farmers. The
reports were a noncomplete set of data for two reasons.
First, all participating farmers did not turn in the

specific reports. and second. of those farmers who did turn

53

in the reports. there was no assurance that actual purchases
were all included.

A list was compiled from the depreciation schedule
transactions of new and used tractor and combine purchases
amounting to $10,000 or more. The items which were compiled
were: county number. farm number. farm type. cost. new or
used machine purchased. and machine description. ’From the
data set of 89 purchase entries. two types of information
were generated. The first was a listing of tractors and the
second a listing of combines. The listing of tractors
having power-take-off (PTO) horsepower exceeding 130 was
compiled by eliminating smaller tractors as listed in the
depreciation-schedule description received from the farmers.
This information was then used to determine the horsepower
from the model identification given and to find the model's
horsepower in Implement and Tractor (1976). "Farm Wheel
Tractors on the U.S. Market." This technique identified
the make and model of 33 tractors. leaving only one tractor
which cost $19.30? unidentified. From the price and
horsepower data and Official Guide: Tractor and Farm
Equipment (1975). it was possible to determine that a
tractor at that price was over 130 PTO horsepower. The
tractors were then plotted by tractorbmanufacture make by
use of coded map tacks on a Michigan county-outline map.

The largest number of TelFarm.large tractor purchases per
county was four in both Lenawee and Lapeer Counties.

Missaukee and Isabella counties had three purchases each.

54

St. Clair. Monroe. Jackson. Ionia. and Saginaw had two each.
One purchase each was accorded the counties of Emmet. Clare.
Ottawa. Sanilac. Montcalm. Gratiot. Ingham, Kalamazoo.
Calhoun, and Hillsdale. The number and make of tractors
were 3 Allis Chalmers, a Case. 12 John Deere. 1 Ford. 5
International. 3 Massey Ferguson. 2 Steiger. and 3 White.
One make was unknown from the description. TRACTOR.
Approximately the same procedure was followed to
determine the two largest models of each make of combine
with the exception that only the Tractor and Implement Blue
Book was used in size determinations. Of the 9 combines
identified. 2 were Allis Chalmers. 3 John Deere. 2 Inter-
national and 2 Massey Ferguson. Lenawee county had 2
purchases; Monroe. Kalamazoo. Ingham. Allegan. Ionia. Bay.
and Schoolcraft had 1 purchase each. From the above
information. which covered part of the purchases for nine
months. it was determined that the TelFarm record system
contained many farms which had purchased large tractors
and combines, and that the TelFarm information source
should be investigated further as a data source.
Computer-aided selection of technologies for study--
The 1975 TelFarm depreciation schedules were selected as a
technological data base for this part of the study. The
1975 depreciation schedules carried tractors of various
ages. The oldest tractor which had been purchased new.
was a 1935 International F-ZO.

The data were collected from depreciation summary

55

tapes by selecting all machine categories associated with
tractors and combines, and by recording information perti-
nent to the depreciation purchase entry. The information
recorded included: county number. farm number. farm type,
farmers item entry number, machine description. trade-in
value. cost. year of purchase, new or used. and machine
classification. The columns containing this information
were placed on the left of the print-out page for tractors,
and the columns for combines were placed on the right-hand
side of the page for ease of identifying machine type.

Even though the machine classification column contained a
further breakdown or description of the technologies. the
data were unusable owing to the number of incorrect entries
in the machine-classification breakdown. As an example.
diesel tractors were entered indiscriminately between the
tractor entry code and the diesel-tractor entry code.

The purpose of obtaining the information was to enable
the location of farms using large tractor and combine
technology. Several problems were encountered with reSpect
to the full accomplishment of this goal from the raw data.
It was evident from examining the data that a large number
of partnership purchases were made where the cost indicated
only a fractional share of the total cost of the machine
purchase for the farm.

From the sociological standpoint. the author considered
partnerships to be extended family-type arrangements where

decisions were entered by mutual agreement. In using a

56

sociological approach to this technology assessment. it was
not of significance whether the large machine was owned in
partnership but whether the machine was available for use
on the farm or farms. Along with the above. an assumption
was made that if an item was listed in the TelFarm record
for tax purposes that it would likely be used. Machines
purchased through partnership were increased in cost to
reflect the fractional share paid by the farmer. The
computer was able to identify identical entries for
approximately 225 machines and make corrections in the
cost. Manual corrections and deletions were made on 280
entries which the computer could not discriminate as being
partnerships. In addition. several semi-trailer truck
tractors were deleted from the data. Several unisystem
tractor units were also deleted from the tractor section.
Used tractor and combine entries under $500 were deleted.
New tractor and combine entries under $1,000 were deleted.
Plots were then made of the tractor and combine purchases
in new and used categories for 1955 through 1975. The
purchase price or cost was plotted against the year of
purchase. The plots clearly illustrated the increasing
costs of machinery due to inflation and the availability of
larger machines. Machine-size groupings were evident in
the new-combine plot where the cost distribution was between
$1,000 and $#6.000. Combine headers were also distinguish-
able from the combines in latter years. The highest

machine-cost values for each year were checked for validity

57

by using Official Guide; Tractors and Farm Equipment for
various years. From the plots. only one value was found to
be outside the expected price range. That value of $23,000
was in New Tractors 1968 and was approximately twice the
price of any new conventional farm tractor. The value could
have easily been a crawler tractor of large size. waever.
since the second highest-cost tractor for that farm was
$7,000, the $23,000 entry was deleted.

The highest-cost tractor and highest-cost combine for
each farm having made a tractor or combine purchase for a
given year was selected by computer. From 6.831 tractor
entries. 1.526 were selected as the highest-cost tractor
entries. From the 1.u41 combine entries. 870 were selected
as the highest-cost combine entries on each farm. Although
there were 6.831 tractor entries. it would have been
incorrect to have assumed that all entries were tractors.
as some farmers had entered major repairs and tire purchases
which were higher than the $500 and $1,000 minimum for
entry classification. A similar situation occurred in the
combines. as farmers entered combine crawler tracks ($8,000
in one case) and combine headers in the combine category.
Since the highest-cost technology farm-number selection was
based on highest single-purchase cost. the non-combine and
non-tractor items were eliminated from the new listings.

Technglogy and structural methodology

If all machine purchases per farm were included as a

 

method of diSpersion for analysis of farm structures. then

58

the structure associated with the small machine purchased
by the owner of another large machine would have been
weighted equally against the structure where a small
machine was the only machine on a given farm. This type
of analysis would have been valid: however. it would not
have isolated the structural differences as vividly as a
system designed to bring out the structural differences
associated with the given technology. To find and
illustrate the structural differences and changes due to
the technologies it was necessary to identify the highest-
purchase cost of each type machine which had been purchased
on each farm at a Specified point in time. This was
accomplished by selecting a subset of farms which purchased
a new or used highest-cost machine in 1975 and measuring
farm-structure change from 197“ to 1975. This would have
given structural change due to the addition of the
technology if the effects of the technology were isolated.
If the structure were plotted or correlated for each year
against the purchase price of the machine. the structure
relative to purchase price would have been identified and
compared with other structures at different purchase price
levels.

Structure at various time periods could have been
compared; the difference in structure having been made up
of structural change due to the technology modification or
change plus other factors. If structural change due to

other factors was assumed on all farms to have been equal.

59

then total structural change minus structural change due
to other factors would have left remaining the amount of
structural change due to the purchase of the technology in
question.

Owing to the structural makeup of the TelFarm depre-
ciation schedule. the most accurate information concerning
exact tractor and combine technologies in service on the
TelFarm farms were for the year 1975. For this reason.
machine purchases made during 1975 (those entered onto the
TelFarm depreciation schedules) were used in the study of
the effect of machine purchases on farm structure and
structural differentiation. ‘

The method which TelFarm used to allocate labor to
crOp enterprises was consistent over the time of the study.
The TelFarm labor allocation system was develOped by using
information from different university departmental and farm
record sources to establish mean time requirements for the
production of each unit of each farm product. On farms
which reported a variety of products or enterprises. the
labor was divided proportionally according to the prepared
computer program. The validity of the allocation system and
the variables involved could have added possible errors to
the labor data reported: however. the continuity of the
allocation system remained the same for the entire study.
The labor reported in the study was the labor allocated to
crops owing to the primary use of tractors and combines in

crOp production functions.

sf.

60

A case study of ten farms with highest-cost tractor
purchases was completed for 1969 and 1975. Farms were
selected on the basis of descending order of highest-cost
tractor purchase and those which had reported records
sufficient for structural study over the l968-to-l969 and
the 1974-to-1975 time intervals. Five farms were eliminated
out of the first fifteen in order to obtain sufficient
records for analysis. The structural change over the one-
year time period was determined by taking the latter-year
structure and subtracting the similar earlier-year

structure for each selected variable.

Computer-aided selection of farm structural characteristics

Farm stggctural conceptualization--The farm structural
characteristics for the farms for this study were obtained

from TelFarm Business-Analysis Summary Tapes. The farm-
structural data-information system was conceptualized in a
manner similar to that used by Rodefeld (1979). The
concepts of farm structural differentiation (as applied to
farm structure related to management function. ownership.
and labor) were the primary relationships measured. The
concept of differentiation may be thought of as a measure
of non-ownership or non-provision of the resources needed
for assured farm production and continued enterprise
viability. A detailed description of the concept of
differentiation was covered elsewhere in the study. under

"Structure and structural differentiation."

61

Conversion of raw data to fa£m_structural indicators--
TelFarm business analysis summary tapes were used as a data
base for the indicators of farm structure. Tapes for the
years 1968 through 1972. as originally used with the CDC
3600 computer. were searched by one program. Tapes of the
years 1973 through 1975. designed for use with the current
CDC 6500 computer. were searched by a separate program.

Information was extracted sequentially beginning with
the individual farm number. The first part of each farm
3 number was the standard reference code number for the
Michigan county where the farm was located. The county
code system.was a list of alphabetically arranged Michigan
counties coded with number 1 for the first county and
progressively numbering each county. The farm number was
used as the common element for combining information from
the depreciation tapes concerning technologies with farm
structural information from the business analysis
summary tapes. Thus. the Specific technologies were
connected with specific farm structural information on
an individual farm basis.

Tractor and combine purchases were then arranged
according to increasing year of purchase and decreasing
cost. The farm structural data were filed by year for each
farm for which it was available. To the structural data.
which were two rows deep on hard cepy. were added the
highest and next-to-highest-cost tractor and combine

purchase. for each year. if any such purchases were made

62

during that year.

The structural data were then combined with the largest
tractor and combine purchase data for each year. Several
of the largest tractor and combine purchase farms were
then evaluated for structural change with respect to time
of major tractor or combine purchases by using hand compu-
tation methods. The year of major purchase and the preced-
ing year were selected as the years to be considered for
determining the structural changes associated with the
machine purchase. Differences in structure were determined
for each farm that had reported sufficient data to make the
calculation. If values were missing. no entry was made in
the statistical compilation for analysis.

Family-Labor Participgtion-~Family-labor participation
was considered as family labor involvement (other than the
Operator) in the farm enterprise. The ratio measure was
actually a measure of differentiation between the operating
manager and total labor control: however. to most individ-
uals considering differentiation, the concept of family farm
or extended family farm would place family labor differen-
tiation in a Special category separate from other differen-
tiation types. The cOOperative family decision-making
characteristics of the family farm placed the family labor
input in a unique relationship with the operating manager.
Such a relationship would add measures of control over
family labor which would not exist for hired labor.

When considered from the family enterprise viewpoint.

63

the family labor involvement was a measure Of family labor
efforts Of integration or the bringing together Of
individual family labor efforts toward the common family
goal of an adequate. least-cost labor supply for the farm
enterprise.

The family-labor involvement indicator Of differentia-
tion was derived by taking the hours of labor reported in
the non-paid family-labor category (other than Operator) of
Tethrm records and dividing that amount by the total labor
utilized in the farm Operation. The previous calculation
gave an indicator of family-labor involvement. other than
Operator. which varied from zero to one. A zero (0) was an
indication that there was no family-labor involvement
reported. other than Operator. and a one (1) was an
indication that family members (other than operator) did all
Of the work. and that the Operator reported no labor for
self or hired labor. In such a case. the Operator would
have been serving a management function only.

Even though the actual number of hours of different
types Of labor was considered as a measure of farm structure.
the ratio was required to remove the effect Of the component
of size. The same method of removing the component Of size
was used in calculating the other differentiation ratio
indicators. The concept of size (in hours Of labor) was
used as a variable in another part of the study.

Hired-labor differentiation--Hired-labor differentia-

tion was calculated as the ratio of hours of hired labor

64

divided by the total hours of labor reported on TelFarm
records. This variable was similar in respect to size
when compared to the family-labor involvement variable as
it varied from O to 1. However. the concept of structural
differentiation was applied to this ratio value because of
the wider acceptance of the structural definition of a farm
with reSpect to hired labor than with the structural
definition of a farm with reSpect to family-labor involve-
ment. The concept of labor differentiation. as used by
Rodefeld (1974), and developed here by the above ratio.
could have been considered as any possible Operational
barriers or restrictions which could infringe upon the
enterprise between the operating manager and the full
accomplishment of the labor factor Of production. The
ratio could have been considered a measure Of the non-
control which the owning manager had over the labor inputs
into the farm enterprise.

The ratio was set up as a measure of non-provision
(not provided by manager) rather than provision (provided
by manager) so that the measurement Of differentiation
could be cumulated into sociologically relevant terms as
used by Rodefeld (197“). and to allow individuals not
familiar with farm structural termininology a more clear
understanding Of the concept of infringement upon total
entrepreneurial function.

Capital differentiation-~Capital differentiation was
calculated as the ratio of cash interest paid divided by

65

the sum Of cash interest plus non-cash interest for each
individual farm in the TelFarm accounting system. The
non-cash interest was a measure of interest which might
have been paid to the owner-Operator if the owner-Operator
had his assets invested elsewhere than his Own farm enter-
prise. The non-cash interest data were used by TelFarm as
a means of determining enterprise accounting returns to
the management function of the farm enterprise. as contrasted
to the returns to equity reserve within the farm enterprise.
The differentiation ratio Of capital used in this study
was the same as the differentiation between owner-Operator
and capital as used by Rodefeld (1974). Capital differen-
tiation as viewed by the author was a measure Of non-control
Of the capital resources of the farm enterprise. Capital
differentiation could have been viewed as equity differen-
tiation.
Land differentiation--The land differentiation ratio
was Obtained by dividing rented acres farmed by total
acres farmed. If all land farmed was rented land. then
the land differentiation would have been 1. If no land
was rented. the land differentiation ratio would have
been 0 divided by the total land farmed or 0. The land
differentiation ratio was designed as a measure of the
non-control (non-ownership) which the farm Operator
maintained over the land used in the farm enterprise.
Machinery differentiation--Machinery differentiation
was calculated by dividing the expenditures for custom-

66

hired services plus eXpenditures for the leasing of equip-
ment. for the year, by the farm's reported machine
depreciation for the year. If the farm Operation hired
and leased a large amount of services and machinery and
had a low investment in owned machinery. then the machinery
differentiation ratio could have gone above 1.
Results Of investigation

Two important criteria of measurement were considered
when farm structure was analyzed. The first criterion was
the absolute value of each of the various types Of farm
structural differentiation. The second criterion of
measurement was the rate of change. on a year to year basis.
Of the various structural differentiation components. The
analysis included all farms. crop farms only and subsets Of
the first two groups. One major subset of farms selected
consisted of the group of farms which. in 1975. had
purchased the highest-cost tractor ever purchased by that
farm. These farms were designated highest-cost tractor
purchase farms. The structural differentiation analysis
was based on the 1975 structural data minus that for 197“.
The subset included 122 tractor cases. A similar subset
involved 10h highest-cost combine purchase farms. The
theoretical base for the analysis Of these subsets was
develOped in the section of this study entitled Technology
and structural methodology. The result Of the above analysis

was placed with each appropriate structural characteristic.

67

The results of two separate case studies Of ten farms
with highest-cost tractor purchases for 1969 and 1975 were
placed with the results of the different structural charac-
teristics. For 1969. the highest-cost tractor purchases
varied from a high of 315.000 to $9.000 for the ten farms
selected. The 1975 highest-tractor costs varied from
$97,000 to $30,000.

Owing to computer-storage costs for the quantity Of
data processed. the longitudinal components Of the research
study were handled by hand-computation methods. Tables I
through VII were prepared on a single-variable basis from
the computer run for each year. The mean structural
values were determined for all farms. crop farms only. and
other subsets of these two groups.

The 1968 data were prepared by conversion Of a previous
data-base system. Several Of the 1968 variable values which
were reported in the tables were not used in further anal-
ysis owing to a large error found in the computer conversion
of labor information on one farm in the all-farm category.
NO error was found in the crop-farm category.

Results and discussion

Family-labor pgrticipgtion--Family labor participation
was the ratio Of family labor (other than Operator) divided
by the total labor input to the farm enterprise. From
Table I a structural decrease of 35 percent for crOp farms
over the seven-year period. and a u.5 percent decrease for

all farms over the 1969-tO-1975 time period was calculated.

68

Figure 1 illustrates the structural changes. For the
respective farm types. family-labor participation decreased
12 and 4.“ percent from 1974 to 1975.

From the set of all farms. a subset of highest-cost
tractor purchase farms was computer selected as described
previously. This subset of farms (Big Tractor PurchaSe
Farms in the Figures) decreased mean family-labor partici—
pation .028 with a standard deviation (SD) Of .0942 and
cases (c) which numbered 122 from 197h to 1975. A mean
decrease of .0132 (SD .1176) (c 1175) was found for the
subset Of all other farms. Mean ratio values were
evaluated to have a significance (3) of .01. The reSpec-
tive decrease for the subset Of highest-cost combine
purchase farms was .012 (SD .099h) (c 104).'

In the ten-case study subset Of farms. which was
described in a previous section. the computer was not used
in the selection of the farms. The mean family-labor
participation for this group Of 10 farms decreased .03
between 1968 and 1969 and .06 between 197“ and 1975.

Figure 1 illustrates the overall and Specific
decreases in family-labor participation on all farms and on
crOp farms. From Figure 1 it is evident that Big Tractor
Purchase Farms decreased family-labor participation over
twice as much as all other farms when the decrease was

plotted from the all-farms mean for 197a.

69

TABLE I

FAMILY LABOR PARTICIPATION RATIOS

 

 

 

Standard
Year Mean Deviation Cases
All
Farms
1968 .1651 .2018 1.781
1969 .1985 .2036 1.544
1970 .1995 .207 1.382
1971 .1962 .205 1.273
1972 .1939 .2092 1.281
197 .1916 .2075 1. 89
197 .1979 .2113 l. 1
1975 .1896 .2117 1.42
Crop
Farms
1968 .1849 .2182 141
1969 .1786 .2177 168
1970 .1804 .2110 7142
1971 .1593 .1877 128
1972 .1 30 .2101 117
197 .1 26 .1982 147
197 .1375 .2026 183
1975 .1206 .1898 201

 

fl

70

      

  
 

 

 

.20 ~
019 ""
a)
9.
E“! 018 )-
«t
a:
g \
H Big Tractor
53 .17 _ Purchase
fl Farms
0
H
E:
g .16 D
‘5
m
:5
>4 '15 '
.4
H
E
0117’ "
013 "
.12 " '
I 1 1 i I l L Lg
1968 69 7o 71 72 73 74 75
FIGURE 1

FAMILY LABOR PARTICIPATION. 1968-1975. ON
ALL FARMS. CROP FARMS. AND BIG TRACTOR PURCHASE FARMS.

71

Hired-Labor Differentiatlggy-Hired-labor differentia-
tion was calculated as the ratio of hours of hired labor
divided by the total hours of labor used in the farm enter-
prise. From Table II the mean hired-labor differentiation
increase was calculated to be 29 percent from 1969 to 1975.
and 8 percent from 1974 to 1975 on all farms. The mean
crop farms labor differentiation increased 53 percent over
the 7 years from 1968 to 1975 and 15 percent from 1974 to
1975. From 1974 to 1975. hired-labor differentiation
increased .072 (SD .1756) (c 107) on highest-cost tractor
purchase farms and .048 (SD .1705) (c 92) on highest-cost
combine purchase farms. The mean ratio values were
evaluated to have a significance of .02.

The data would. at first appearance. seem contrary to
the traditional concept that large machines replace hired
labor. When considering the concept of labor displacement
by machine. it must be kept in mind that the differentiation
ratio indicator was designed to remove components Of farm
size. The hired-labor differentiation ratio measured the
farm structure of the reported labor and was not an
indicator of the Specific quantity of labor used. Several
reasons for the large increases in hired-labor differentia-
tion found by this study were explained in detail by
Rodefeld (1974).

The mean hired-labor differentiation in the ten-case
study Of highest-cost tractor purchase farms increased .13

from 1968 to 1969 and .15 from 1974 to 1975. This

72

TABLE II

HIRED LABOR DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

 

 

 

Standard
Year Mean Deviation Cases
All
Farms
1968 .3302 .2949 1.352
1969 .3127 .2892 1.374
1970 .3182 .2799 1.243
1971 .3298 .2769 1.147
1972 .3370 .2826 1.146
197 .3588 .2972 1.206
197 . 7 0 .2995 1.262
1975 . 0 9 .3075 1.264
Crop
Farms
1968 .2944 .2736 105
1969 .3328 .3075 13
1970 .3718 .2890 ,12
1971 .3947 .2888 107
1972 .35 3 .3009 98
197 .38 7 .3020 123
197 . 917 .3163 150
1975 . 93 .3400 161

 

 

HIRED LABOR DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

73

Big Tractor
Purchase 1
Farms . /

.38 r
.37 ~
.36 r
.35 -
.34 -
.33 r

.32 b

 

.31 -

 

I‘i Ll 41, 1 ’L 1 1, 1

1968 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
FIGURE 2

HIRED LABOR DIFFERENTIATION. 1968-1975. ON
ALL FARMS. CROP FARMS. AND BIG TRACTOR PURCHASE FARMS.
(Big Tractor Purchase Farms represented by ----)

74

increase was twice that of the mean of the subset of
highest-cost tractor purchase farms. The two-fold increase
in differentiation between the groups was coincident with
a two-fold greater mean tractor cost in the ten-case study
farm subset over the mean of the subset Of highest-cost
tractor purchase farms.

The large decrease in hired-labor differentiation on
crop farms from 1971 to 1972 (illustrated in Figure 2) was
undoubtedly affected by the decrease in farm labor income
in 1971. In that year the farm labor income drOpped to
$2.700 for the mean TelFarm farm according to 1971 TelFarm
record statistics.

Capital Differentiation--Capital differentiation was
calculated as the ratio Of cash interest paid divided by
the sum Of cash interest plus non-cash interest for each
farm enterprise. The increase in capital differentiation
on all farms was 17 percent over the seven-year time
period. From 1974 to 1975 the increase was 9.3 percent.
On crOp farms. capital differentiation decreased 18 percent
from 1968 to 1971. and then increased 61 percent from 1971
to 1975. The mean increase for 1974 to 1975 was 18
percent.

The highest-cost tractor purchase farms increased
capital differentiation .0127 (so .2407) (c 116) from 1974
to 1975. The significance level was .02. Highest-cost
combine purchase farms increased differentiation .0029

(SD .1725) (c 97) during the same period.

mum...

75

TABLE III
CAPITAL DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

 

 

 

Standard

Year Mean Deviation Cases

All

Farms
1968 .3099 .2018 1.781
1969 .3011 .4666 1.324
1970 .3068 .505 1.16
1971 .3077 . 1 1.09
1972 .3509 . 892 1.091
197 .3122 .3446 1.155
197 .3320 .2874 1.206
1975 .3630 . 725 1.214

Crop

s 68 31 a 3040 119

19 . .
1969 .2935 .2501 146
1970 .2788 .2101 119
1971 .2625 .2670 113
1972 .3 62 .4840 91
197 .3 38 .3763 117
197 . 578 .4922 148
1975 . 216 .5150 164

 

 

WOHB<m ZOHrH<HrH2nmmMEfiHHQ ‘Hd‘rflHnHuVU

CAPITAL DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

76

 

 

 

 

.42 .
.LI'O P /
Big Tractor
Purchase
.38 v Farms"
.36 P Crop Farms _ /
.34 i//
'32 111'
Farms
.30
.28
.26
7 I A 1 L
1968 69 7o 71 72 73 74 75

FIGURE 3

CAPITAL DIFFERENTIATION. 1968-1975. ON
ALL FARMS. CROP FARMS AND BIG TRACTOR PURCHASE FARMS.
(Big Tractor Purchase Farms represented by ----)

77

From 1968 to 1969 on the ten-case study farms. the
capital differentiation remained the same: however. from
1974 to 1975 capital differentiation increased .093. The
high increase in capital differentiation for 1972 (as seen
in Figure 3) was likely an indication Of increased borrow-
ing of capital due to the low farm labor income for 1971
which was reported by TelFarm statistics.

Land Differentiation--Land differentiation. as
determined by the ratio of land rented divided by total
land Operated. was reported in Table IV. Land differen-
tiation increased 10 percent over the seven years. or a
0.87 percent increase for 1974 to 1975 for all farms. The
crop farm land differentiation had an apparent decrease of
12 percent over the 1968-to-l970 time period. and an
increase of 18 percent from 1970 to 1975. In absolute
terms. land differentiation changed from a mean Of .38 in
1968 to a mean Of .42 for all TelFarm farms (S .01).

Land differentiation increased .0347 (SD .2591)(c 80)
(S .03) on highest-cost combine purchase farms between
1974 and 1975. This was in contrast to a similar size
decrease for highest-cost tractor purchase farms.

The mean values of the ratio Of land differentiation‘
indicators were affected very little by widely varying
data in contrast to absolute values such as hired labor
hours. The reason for this was that the ratios only
varied from plus one to minus one: whereas one absolute

value such as hired labor varied from a minimum of 1 to

78

TABLE IV
LAND DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

 

 

 

Standard
Year Mean Deviation Cases
All
Farms
1968 .3829 .2454 844
19 69 . 3845 . 2532 827
1970 .3818 .23 3 719
1971 . 992 .23 7 7 5
1972 . 011 .2 66 7 1
197 .4080 .2 1 7 8
197 .4159 .2457 8 5
1975 .4195 .2459 838
Crop
Farms
1969 .4835 .25 6 102
1970 .4663 .2590 85
1971 .4883 .2383 82
1972 .4978 .2399 68
197 .4812 .2381 81
197 .5211 .2534 92
1975 .5483 .2552 96

LAND DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

.56
.54
.52+
.50

.48.

79

 

      

\
.-\._

 

  

All Farms ' I 1
Big Tractor)
Purchases

Farms 1

1958 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75

FIGURE 4

LAND DIFFERENTIATION. 1968-1975. ON
ALL FARMS AND CROP FARMS.
AND BIG TRACTOR PURCHASE FARMS.

80

a high of over 100.000. When the mean was calculated for
labor. the resulting mean was not representative Of the
labor on the individual average farm because of the
extremely high value on one farm.

In terms Of management-land differentiation change.
the 1968-1969 ten-case study of highest-cost tractor
purchases indicated a .10 mean change for the ten farms
which would tend to indicate that the largest ten farms at
that time were increasing their land rentals much faster
than the average farm which had a mean change of .04 over
the 1969-to-1975 time period. The 1974-1975 ten-case study
indicated a mean decrease Of .03 in the management land
differentiation ratio.

The figures for all farms and the ten-case study farms.
indicated an increase in management-land differentiation
from 1968 to 1975: however. there was a possibility of a
downward trend in the 1974 to 1975 time period on the
highest-cost tractor purchase farms. Such a downward
trend would indicate a decrease in rentals and a concen-
tration in land Ownership as the means of expansion of
farm enterprise.

Machggery Differegtiation--Machinery differentiation
was calculated by dividing the expenditures for custom-
hired services plus expenditures for the leasing of equip-
ment. for the year. by the farm's reported machine depre-
ciation for the year. Machinery differentiation fluctu-

ated widely on all farms and crop farms. From 1972 to

81

1975 machinery differentiation on all farms increased 17
percent. however. in the four years preceding 1972. there
was a similar size differentiation decrease. From 1974 to
1975 machinery-differentiation increased 4.8 percent.

CrOp farms had a machinery differentiation increase of 14
percent from 1968 to 1975 and an increase of 1.8 percent
from 1974 to 1975.

The highest-cost tractor purchase farms decreased
machine differentiation by a mean Of .0231 (SD .0932)

(c 120) (S .01) and highest-cost combine purchase farms
decreased by .0285 (SD 1140) (c 100) (S .01) from 1974
to 1975. Since this differentiation was a measure of
rental of equipment and/or machine hire services. it
would seem logical to assume that a large combine or
tractor purchase would reduce the need for the rental of
equipment or the hire Of outside services.

The mean machinery differentiation On the ten-case
study farms increased .03 from 1968 to 1969 and .013 from
1974 to 1975. However. seven Of the values had a decrease
in differentiation in 1975. Such variation illustrated the
need for a larger sample size.

Part of the wide fluctuations in machinery differentia-
tion may be explained by low labor income in 1972 which
likely caused an increase in rentals the following year.
Changes in the tax law for investment credit also could

have caused irregular machine rental periods.

82

TABLE V

MACHINERY DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

 

 

 

Standard
‘ Year Mean Deviation Cases
All
Farms
1968 .1473 .1540 1.317
1969 .1373 .1584 1.323
1970 .1327 .2353 1.199
1971 .1294 .1 97 1.133
1972 .1253 .1 9 1.101
1.51 283% 1.223
197 01 93 0 U
1975 .1260 .1546 1.267
Crop
Farms
1968 .1461 .1660 109
1969 .1508 .1607 132
1970 .1646 .1631 125
1971 .1615 .1721 113
1972 .1609 .1755 97
197 .1771 .1757 130
197 .1637 .1999 159
1975 .1667 .1790 180

 

 

MACHINERY DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

 

 

83

 

018 - ‘ -.
. = :
.17 *- CrOp
Farms
.16 )- Li
015 "
.14 r-
~13 L All ' Big Tractor. \
Farms ' Purchase ———A
Farms .
.12{ \
f L . . . . . ).
1968 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
FIGURE 5

MACHINERY DIFFERENTIATION. 1968-1975. ON
ALL FARMS AND CROP FARMS.
AND BIG TRACTOR PURCHASE FARMS.

84

Tbtal tillable acres farmed--Table VI listed total
tillable acres farmed. The all-farms group Of farms
increased acreage a mean of 29 percent from 1968 to 1975.
The crop farms increased mean acreage 33 percent from
1968 to 1973 followed by a decrease of 3 percent from 1973
to 1975.

§;ghest-cost tractor purchases--Mean highest-cost
tractor purchases from Table VII increased 108 percent for
all farms from 1968 to 1975. The crop-farm mean for
highest-cost tractor purchases increased 131 percent from
1968 to 1975.

Structural correlation--The correlation results refer
to the all-farms group Of farms unless indicated otherwise.
Only those farms which reported adequate data were included
in the correlations. Tractor purchase cost correlated .16
(S .02) in 1968 and .05 (S .16) in 1975 with the level of
land differentiation. The change in correlation suggested
a possible change in structure.

A .06 (S .17) and -.10 (S .01) correlation indicated
that a possible change had taken place between machine
differentiation and tractor purchase cost from the year
1968 to 1975.

Tillable acres farmed correlated .22 (S .001) in
1968 and .37 (S .001) in 1975 with tractor purchase cost.
The data indicated a stronger relationship between tractor
size (as determined by cost) and acres farmed in 1975 than

in 1968. The correlation values for the interim years

85

TABLE VI

TOTAL TILLABLE ACRES EARNED

 

 

 

Standard
Year Mean Deviation Cases
All
Farms
1968 296 237 1.353
1969 301 218 1.326
1970 311 206 1.175
1971 3&5 2&4 1.108
1972 351 255 1.070
197 35“ 253 1.151
197 367 262 1.188
1975 383 279 1.175
Crap
Farms
1968 361 228 133
1969 79 257 139
1970 29 328 120
1971 #60 82 11“
1972 #69 18 9
197 481 424 11
197 472 #05 inc
1975 1+67 2.13 151

 

 

86

TABLE VI I

HIGHEST-COST TRACTOR PURCHASES

 

 

 

Standard
Year Mean Deviation Cases
All
Farms
1968 ,6#9 .2864 284
1969 ' .683 .2856 308
1970 .939 .2833 303
1971 5.213 . 318 233
1972 46.275 . 037
197 $3.9 0 .LH-PIB 540
197 , . 3 .5711 61
1975 $9.688 .7397 9
Cr0p
Farms _
1968 -6.1Z3 .2#75 16
1969 g .9 2 .2796 19
1970 96.386 . 14? 23
1971 -6,007 . 118 33
1972 )7'612 .5000 8
197 99.37 .623" 3
197 12.1 . 15 62
1975 714.302 .9882 73

 

 

 

87

were .26 (S .001): .15 (S .006): .17 (S .001): .22 (S .001):
.31 (S .001); and .31 (S .001) respectively.

The respective values for cash crop farms for 1968
through 1975 were .37 (S .10). .22 (S .20). .68 (S .001).
.08 (s .22). .20 (s .13). .21 (s .13), .33 (s .01) and
.5“ (S .001). The wide variations and low significances
were due to the small sample size which ranged from 16
cases to 61 cases.

Labor correlations--The tractor purchase cost correla-
tion with family labor of .02 (S .32) and .09 (S .07) shows
no significant relationship for the years of 1968 and 1975.
Total labor per tillable acre correlated .006 (S .h6) in
1968 and -.21 (S .001) in 1975 with tractor purchase cost.
The 1975 correlation indicated the higher the tractor
purchase cost, the less total labor required per tillable
acre. Such a relationship would have been expected.

The structural variables of family-labor participation
and hired-labor differentiation were designed to illustrate
change in farm structure based conceptually on a farm-by-
farm equivalency basis. The size or magnitude of the
variables was diminished or eliminated by eliminating the
size component from the calculation and placing the
indicator value into a ratio form. Such a ratio-compari-
son technique proved to describe structural change fully
only when the magnitudes remained relatively stable. In
order to fully understand the structural change relation-
ships between the interrelated variables of family labor

88

and hired labor. it was necessary to understand the trend
changes. The decline in family-labor participation and
the increase in hired-labor participation would.at first
consideration. appear to have been a direct-substitution
relationship. Such a substitution relationship would have
been valid only if the total amount of labor remained fi
nearly the same. In actuality. there was a significant
decrease in total labor per farm when all farms were

considered. The -.50 and -.56 correlations. each with

 

significance of .001. between family-labor participation
and hired-labor differentiation indicated the extent to
which a high or low level of labor participation by either
variable was associated with the opposite level of labor
involvement in the other category for l968and 1975.
respectively. Nearly a perfect correlation existed
between total-labor hours and hired-labor hours in 1968.
In 1975 the same variables correlated .908.

From the standpoint of structural differentiation.
family labor decreased and hired labor assumed a higher
level of the fractional share of labor input into the
farm enterprise in both the case studies and all farms
studied for the years 1968 to 1969 and 197# to 1975.

Land correlations--The correlation between tractor
cost. having a mean of $17.01“. and the additional acres
added to the farm Operations since the previous year was
.45. The mean acres added for the subset of highest-

cost tractor purchase farms was 31 contrasted to a mean of

89

19 acres added for farms not purchasing their largest
tractor in 1975. The mean acreage added for farms which
made their highest-cost tractor purchase in 1975 was 12
acres greater than farms which did not make highest-cost
tractor purchases in 1975.

In the case study of ten highest-cost tractor pur-
chases in 1975. there was a mean acreage added of 132
acres. If the mean acreage of 19 acres added for the
overall increase in farm size was subtracted from the
mean of 132 acres added for the ten-case study farms. then
the mean difference would be 113 acres added for the ten-
case study farms. If the mean increase of 12 acres for
the subset was then subtracted from the mean of 113 acres
for the case-study farms. the difference would have been
101 acres greater increase for the highest-cost tractor
purchase farms in the ten-case study.

When looking at this information from the point of
view of the case study. one farm added 8.2 percent of the
mean acres added for the 122 farms. Also 8.2 percent of
the farms added 35 percent of all mean acres added: this
represented all farms in the case study and represented
individual tractor investments of from $h2.000 to $30,000.

The same relative procedure was completed for a case
study of ten farms for 1968 to 1969. The mean acreage
gained for highest-cost tractor purchase farms was 50
acres. The largest or highest-cost tractors purchased

were John Deere 5020's with a price range of 315.000 to

90

$10,000 and a 126 DBH. or 140 PTO horsepower.

Harrington's (1975) values for horsepower per crop
acre-«which were approximately .7 horsepower per crap acre
for 1970. and half of that value for l950--illustrated the
increased use of more horsepower for the same acreage of
crap production in recent years. The concept of crepland-
handling ability on a per-tractor basis was introduced at
this point to illustrate the difference in technology
modification between 1968-1969 and 1975. The largest ;

 

available tractors being purchased by TelFarm farmers in
1969 produced 140 PTO horsepower. This was 67 PTO horse-
power over the mean tractor horsepower sold in 1969. If
a value such as .7 horsepower would provide power for one
acre of crap production. than the new large tractor had a
land handling capability of 96 acres greater than the
average tractor size sold in that year. From the ten-case
study of 1968-1969. the farms which purchased a similar
tractor added a mean of 50 acres to each farm operation
the year of tractor purchase. From the 1975 ten-case
study. one commonly-purchased large tractor was the John
Deere 8636 with 225 PTO horsepower. The difference
between 225 and 98 PTO horsepower (the mean for tractors
sold in 1975) was 127 PTO horsepower. If the same value
of .7 horsepower per acre was used. then the 1975 large
tractor had a land-handling capability of 181 acres greater
than the mean size of tractor sold in 1975. The ten-case

study for 1975 found a mean of 132 acres added per farm

91

for farms which purchased a high-cost tractor similar to
the one illustrated. In the calculations the retirement
of tractor horsepower was not considered. The reserve
tractor capacity found in the preceding analysis was
consistent with Bowers' (1975) findings of additional
horsepower added per given land area.

Labor per tillable acre--Crop farms which made 1
highest-cost tractor purchases in 1975 decreased total }
mean labor per tillable acre from the previous year. An
additional structural relationship was derived from the I
change in the total labor hours reported for 1975 minus
reported total labor hours for 1974. The resultant value
was a mean of #84 hours (Standard Error. SE 205) (SD 2255)

(c 12). When this value was divided by 30.? mean acres
added. (SE .734) (8D 80.52) (c 85). the result was 15.77
hours labor added per tillable acre added. Hired labor
added on the farms was 648 (SE 197.558) (SD 2024.367)

(c 105) hours divided by 30.? mean acres added which
equaled 21.11 hours hired labor added per tillable acre
added.

On all other farms not making highest-cost tractor
purchases in 1975. the mean labor hours added were 146
(SE 87.45) (SD 2956.518) (c 1143). The number of acres
added was 19.0 (SE 2.775) (SD 79.275) (0 816). when
calculated as previously indicated. the results were 7.68
hours labor added per acre of land added to the farm

operation. Hired labor added per tillable acre added was

“1

3‘1"

'0
f0
fr

hi!-

92

316 (SE 84.451) (SD 2690.53) (c 1015) divided by 19.0
which gave 16.63 hired labor hours added per tillable acre.
From these figures it may be seen that farms which
purchased highest-cost tractors in 1975 did not decrease
hired labor on a per acre basis.

Family-labor participation decreased on highest-cost
tractor purchase farms from 1974 to 1975 by a ratio
difference of .028 (SE .009) (SD .094) (c 122). Since the
mean ratio value was .1979 (SD .2113) (c 1415). the family
labor participation decreased 14.15 percent. This.
multiplied by the mean of 24.04 (SD 25.09) (c 1180) hours.
gave a decrease of family labor of 3.4 hours per tillable
acre.

The remaining farms decreased the ratio .013 (SE .003)
(SD .118) (c 1175) from the mean ratio of .1979. The
change resulted in a 6.57 percent decrease. This result
multiplied by the 24.04 hours labor per acre gave 1.58
hours of labor less per acre which was contributed from
family labor.

Farm types--Farm types. as related to highest-cost
tractor and combine purchase costs. were investigated for
1975. The following information was extracted from the
total data set for all farms by selecting only those farms
which made the highest-cost purchase ever made by the farm
for a tractor or combine in 1975. This selection of farms.
from the total of 1.424 farms. gave a subset of 122

highest-cost tractor purchase farms and 104 highest-cost

CO
re

fc

pu
hi

CO

00

fr.

001

and

93

combine purchase farms. The farms selected had the
restriction that adequate records were reported sufficient
for computation for structural data for both 1974 and 1975.
From the selection criteria of highest-cost machine ever
purchased for a farm. one must not get the idea that all
highest-cost machines on TelFarm farms were large. high-
ccst machines. The cost range of highest-cost machine
further illustrates the point. The cost range for highest-
cost tractor purchases on TelFarm farms for 1975 varied
from a low of $1,495.00 to a high of $47,788.21. The
combine-cost range was from $500.00 to 841.346.45.

The 122 tractors were distributed on Michigan TelFarm
farm types as follows: 33 percent on Southern Dairy. 16
percent on Cash Grain. 10 percent on Hog. 10 percent on
Northern Dairy. 6 percent on Saginaw valley Cash Crop.
5 percent on Southern Mixed. 3 percent on Southern Dairy.
3 percent on Beef Cow. 3 percent on Cattle Feeding and the
remainder on the other Specialized farm types. The
distribution consisted of 22 percent crop farms and 70
percent livestock farms. The combines were distributed
13 percent on crop farms. 85 percent on livestock farms.
and 2 percent on specialized farms. Crop farms repre-
sented 14 percent of all farms in 1975.

The highest-cost tractor purchases for 1975 were
identified as to farm-type location through the use of a
scattergram. A $47,000 and $35,000 tractor were purchased

by Southern Dairy farms. Six Cash Grain Farms purchased

94

tractors within the cost range of $42,000 to $30,000. One
Southern Mixed farm purchased a tractor for $30,000 and one
Cattle Feeding farm purchased a $34,000 tractor. Many
farm types purchased tractors below $25,000 in cost.

Within this subset of farms no Saginaw Valley Cash Crap
farm purchased a tractor at a cost of over $26,000 in 1975.

New tractor market coverageu-The extent to which the
research covered the new-tractor market was estimated as
499 largest or highest-cost tractors purchased. minus 216
used-largest tractors purchased equaled 283 plus 121
second-largest tractors purchased, minus 67 used tractors,
equaled 337 new-tractor purchases out of 4.076 reported by
Implement & Tractor (1976). This represented a minimum of
8.3 percent of the total new-tractor sales in Michigan for
1975. As to the representation of the largest tractors. a
minimum of 25 four-wheel-drive new tractors were identified
among the TelFarm tractor purchasers. With 249 new four-
wheel-drive tractors reported sold in Michigan, by Imple-
ment and Tractor in 1975. and a minimum of 25 purchased by
TelFarm farmers, the study covered at least ten percent of
the new four-wheel-drive tractor market.

The ten-percent new-tractor market coverage takes on
additional meaning when added to the concept that only two
percent of Michigan farms participate in the TelFarm record
system. The TelFarm farms therefore have a high proportion

of the large tractors in Michigan.

95

Limitations of the Technology:9riven Assessment--In
structural calculation. when one value was zero. the
calculation was eliminated from the analysis except for
family-labor participation. If structural values were
actually zero, (which was entirely possible, but not
probable), the structural analysis of the data could have
been miscalculated by a small amount. Difference changes
in structural data would have also been miscalculated by
a very small amount. The limitation was necessary because
some farmers did not complete all entries on the TelFarm
records. The decision was made to minimize error by
eliminating values, rather than calculating erroneous
values due to no entry or zero entry.

An example of incomplete structural data which
illustrated the point follows: Farm number 10070 reported
farming 405 tillable acres in 1969, O in 1970, and then
reported 530 in 1971. It was highly unlikely that the
farmer did not farm in 1970. If in the calculation of
structural change, the value of zero minus 405 acres were
used, the farm would have decreased acreage by 405, a
highly unlikely event in view of the fact that the farm
reported 530 acres in 1971 and remained in the TelFarm
program through 1975.

Small differences occurred in the use of separate
data bases. In such instances. different mathematical
operations were conducted on the data using case-selection

criteria based on various methods for the elimination of

96

missing values. In the research study, only consistently
derived data were discussed as results.

The machinery differentiation index may have been
overly sensitive to change due to the limited number of
components considered in the calculation equation.

Possible advantages could be gained in future research
by the use of additional machinery differentiation compo-
nents or by inserting a correction factor of 3 or 4 in the
denominator in order to more nearly reflect actual cost
considerations of machine use,

Tbtal differentiation for each case was calculated on
an individual case basis by the computer and then cumulated
on an individual variable basis. Small differences were
noted between such cumulations and composite total differ-
entiation values when cumulated after composites had been
made. Rounding errors may also contribute to small
differences. Relative comparisons of values were made only
on data derived by consistent methodologies.

If a small. newer piece of equipment would have been
equivalent in cost to an older. larger piece of equipment.
an error in estimate of level of technology or technology
modification could have occurred. Some factors in the
consideration were counterbalancing. A newer, smaller
piece of equipment would likely have a seasonal effective
work capacity similar to an older large machine because

the older machine would likely have more down time.

97

Differences due to inflation were minimized whenever
possible by holding the time covered in the analysis to one
year. Inflation correction factors were not used in the
study.

Structural data for 1968 were obtained by a conversion
of data from a different computer system. There was an .
error in a labor conversion value which could not be
corrected because there was no hard copy of data for 1968.
Whenever the error did occur in 1968 data, longitudinal

 

‘- dl_‘-'I

data were started from 1969.

As indicated earlier, the lack of complete records
submitted by TelFarm participants and the lack of continu-
ous participation decreased the significance which could
have been placed on data generated from data sets contain-

ing low numbers of cases.

Preliminary Problem-Driven Assessment

Research procedure
Problem-driven assessment outlines were develOped as

educational and communication aids for various clientele
groups identified earlier. The problems which were
associated with agricultural technology were selected as
examples of how the process of technology assessment could
be used to illuminate and clarify issues which surround
the application and use of technology in society.

The initial part of the problempdriven assessment was

98

an accumulation of problems, clientele groups. and refer-
ences which the author felt were representative for the
problem under study. The list of references included for
each problem illustrated either the connections between the
problem areas and the technologies, or provided essential
background information necessary for completion of a
technology assessment.

Because of the repetitive nature of the assessment
technique for each problem, a standardized matrix pattern
was developed. The assessment matrix for all problems was
determined to be the same. The matrix horizontal array
was Provision. Environment. Freedom, and Justice. The
vertical technology alternative array consisted of the
following:

Draft animals only

Mixed power (Draft animals + small tractor + small
combine).

2-3 plow tractor + pull-type combine.
#-6 plow tractor + small self-prepelled combine.
7-12 plow tractor + medium self-prOpelled combine.

Over-130-horsepower tractor + large self-prepelled
combine.

An example of a similar assessment matrix may be found in

this study under'Technology assessment as an educational

aid."

 

99

Preliminary results of investigation. societal problems
Societa1_problem--Unemployment. Clientele groups:

taxpayers and unemployed.
REFERENCES:

Buchele. w. F.. 1975. Social cost of large machines/farms.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper
No. 75-5001. June 22-25, 1975. Davis. California.

Cargill, B. F. and G. E. Rossmiller, 1972. Fruit and
Vegetable Harvest Mechanization. Rural Manpower
Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Michigan. 838 p.

Griswold, Alfred w., 1948. Farming and democrac . New
Haven. Yale University Press. 227 p.

Hennessey, Wesley J., 1969. The hidden migration. Speech
given by Dean, School of Engineering and Applied
Science, Columbia University. March 22, 1969. 12 p.

Hightower, Jim, 1973. Hard Tomatoes Hard Times. Schenk-
man Publishing Company, CamEridge, Mass. 268 p.

Lewis, D. C. and D. W. Williams. 1970. Agricultural
engineers vs agricultural workers. ASAE Pacific
Region paper PR-70-104, Bakersfield, California.
February 12, 1970. 21 p.

Ray, D. E, and E. O. Heady, 1974. Simulated effects of
alternative policy and economic environments on U.S.
agriculture, CARD Report, Center for Rural Ag. & Dev.
Iowa State University. Ames. No. 46T. 83 p.

Rural America Inc.. 1975. Toward a Platform for Rural
America. Rural America, Inc.. 3 Connec icu
Avenue, N.w., Washington, D.C. 64 p.

Schumacher, E. F.. 1975. Small is Beautiful: Economics as
if Pegple Mattered. Harper & Row, New York. 290 p.

Telleen. Maurice, 1976. Wanted, 61,000,000 horses &:mules,
etc. The Draft Horse JOurnal, Vol. 13. No. 1. p 46.
Route 3, waverly. Iowa, 50677,

Thring, Meredith Wooldridge. 1974. Machines-~Masters or
§laves of Man. McLay & Co.. London. 115 p.

 

100

Societal problem-~Crime. Clientele groups: urban

society, rural society.
REFERENCES:

Cargill, B. F. and G. E. Rossmiller, 1972. Fruit and
Vegetable Harvest Mechanization. Rural Manpower
Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan. 838 p.

Goldmark, Peter C.. 1974. The need for a new rural
society. Michigan Business Review. May. pp 5-9.

Gotsch. Carl R.. 1972. Technological change and the
distribution of income in rural areas. Am. J. Agr.
Econ. May. 1972. p 326-341.

Hennessey, Wesley J.. 1969. The hidden migration. Speech
given by Dean, School of Engineering and Applied
Science. Columbia University. March 22. 1969. 12 p.

McCurry, Dan C.. 1975. American farmers and the rise of
agribusiness: seeds of struggle. Arno Press, New
Yerk. 16 p.

Michigan State News, 1975. Kids try TV plot on Sears.
Michigan State News, East Lansing. Michigan. V01. 70,
Nb. 1. September 25, 1975. p 2.

Rabinowitch. Eugene, 1968, Student rebellion: the aimless
revolution. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. 7-10.
September 1968,

Redfield, R.. 1947. The folk society. The American
Journal of Sociology 52: 293-308.

Stockdale, Jerry D.. 1976. Technology and change in U.S.

agriculture: model or warning. Forthcoming paper,
university of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls. Iowa.

Societal problem-~Maintenance of viable rural communi-
ties. Clientele groups: urban society, rural society.
REFERENCES:

Baker, G. L. and W. Murry. 1975. The great depression farm
ills hit the cities, ig,Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington. D.C. 262 p.

 

101

Buchele, W. F.. 1975. Social cost of large machines/farms,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper
NO. 75-5001. June 22-25. 1975. Davis. California.

Carlson, W. A,. 1975. Alternative futures for U.S. agri-
culture, Office of Planning and Evaluation, USDA,
Washington, D.C. Committee Print for the Committee
on Agriculture & ForestrY. 51 p.

Caudill. Harry R.. 1962. Night Comes to the Cumberlands.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Cottrell. W. F.. 1951. Death by dieselization: a case
study in the reaction to technological change.
American Sociological Review. Vol. 16, pp 358-365.

Goldmark, Peter C.. 1974. The need for a new rural
society. Michigan Business Review. pp 5-9,

Goldschmidt, W. R.. 1968. Small business and the community:
a study in Central valley of California on effects of
scale farm Operation. Part 3. pp 3888-3949. in,

Role of Giant Cor orations. U.S. Senate, Committee on
SmalI Business, Subcommittee on Monopoly.

Heady, Earl and Steven T. Sonka, 1975. Farm size structure
and off-farm income and employment generation in the
North central region. North Central Regional Center

for Rural Deve10pment, Iowa State University. Ames,
Iowa. 91 p.

Loomis. C. P. and J. A, Beegle, 1975. A Strate for Rural
Change. Halsted Press, Wiley & Sons, New York. 525 p.

Redfield, R.. 1947. The folk society. The American
Journal of Sociology 52: 293-308.

 

Rodefeld, Richard D.. 1974. The changing organizational
and occupational structure of farming and the implica-
tions for farm work force individuals, families, and
communities. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Depart-
ment of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin.
Madison, Wisconsin.

Rodefeld, Richard D.. 1970. Farm types as related to the
question of enhancing and preserving rural communi-
ties. Prepared for Governor Lucey's Budget Hearings.
December. 1970.

Rural America, Inc.. 1975. Toward a Platform for Rural
America, Rural America, Inc.. 1346 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington. D.C. 64 p.

 

102

Schumacher, E. F.. 1975. Small is Beautiful: Economics as
if People Mattered. Harper &.Row. New York. 290 p.

Schussheim, J. J.. et a1., 1975. Rural development goals:
critique of the second annual report of the Secretary
of Agriculture to the congress. Library of Congress.
Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C. 43 p.

Study Committee on The Church and Agriculture, 1974. This
Land: Ours For a Season. The Brethren Press, Elgin,
I . 0 p.

Woodley, J. C.. 1975. Some Incidents in the Cha e From a
Man gower Enterprise to Fantastic Earmipg in My ime.
University of Missouri, Cblum is. p.

S eta oblem--C nsum tion of non-renewable ener
res es. Clientele groups: Petroleum company owners
and management. primary agricultural producers, and U.S.
non-food production sector.

REFERENCES:

Adams. Henery, 1910. An Qpen Letter Tb The American
Teachers Of History. as g on. p.

Agricultural Engineering Department, 1974. Energy in

Michigan agriculture. Agricultural Engineering
Department, East Lansing. Michigan. 43 p.

Back, William B.. 1975. Minimum tillage: a preliminary
technology assessment. USDA Office of Planning and
Evaluation. Report to 94 th Congress, lst Session.
September 25. 1975.

Chancellor, William J.. 1969. Agricultural mechanization
and world food needs. Agricultural Engineering.
I! 57.

Clark, Wilson, 1975. Energy for Survival. Doubleday,
New York. 652 p.

Clark, Wilson, 1975. U.S. agriculture is growing trouble
as well as cro s. Smithsonian JOurnal. January.

19750 PF 59" e

Cottrell. Fred, 1955. Energy and Society. McGraw-Hill.
New York. 330 p.

103

Domier. K. W., et a1., 1971. Traction characteristics of
two-wheel drive, four-wheel-drive and crawler
tractors. Transactions of ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
1971. pp 520-522.

Fogarty, Bill. 1976. Pro-planning pays off. Editor.
Implement & Tractor. vol. 91, No. 9. April 7.
pp 8-10.

Floyd, Charles, 1975. Radials are for real. Implement
and Tractor. May 7, 1975. pp 32-34.

Freeman. Peter R.. 1974. The agroecosystem: a framework
for assessing agricultural production technologies in
developing countries. Technology Assessment Vbl. 2,
Nb. 4. p 241.

Hensley. Glen, (editor) 1976. Art Arfons. Farm & Power
Equipment, V01. 62, No. 2. p 55.

Hughes, Harold and J. B. Hbltman. 1972. Beef feedlot
design and management. vol. II ;p H. E. Koenig,
Design and Management of Environmental Systems.
Second Annual report. NSF GI-20. Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Koenig, H. E. and E. C. Edens, 1975. Energy. ecology and
economics: elements of a thermodynamically based
economy. Design and management of rural ecosystems.
Michigan State University. East Lansing. 58 p.

Lerza, Catherine and Michael Jacobson. 1975. Food For
People. Net For Profit. Ballantine Books. New York.,

Po

Nebraska, University of, 1930 through 1975. Nebraska
tractor tests, Agriculture Experiment Station,
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 1200 p.

Pimentel, D.. 1974. Workshop on research methodologies for
studies of energy. food. man, and environment. phase
1. Center for Environmental Quality Management,
Cornell University. Ithaca, New York.

Reed, I. F.. et a1., 1959. Effects of two-wheel and tan-
dem drives on traction and soil compacting stresses.
Transactions of the ASAE, St. Joseph. Michigan. 1959.

pp 23’250

Telleen. Maurice, 1976. Wanted, 61,000,000 horses & mules,
etc. The Draft Horse Journal, Vbl. 13, No. l. p #6.
Route 3, Waverly. Iowa. 50677.

 

104

Tice. Carolyn, 1976. As Haley's comet passed. Farm &
Power Equipment. VOl. 61. NO. 2. p 14.

van Arsdall. R. T.. 1976. Energy requirements in the U.S.
food system. Agricultural Outlook A0-8, March 1976,
USDA ERS. pp 18-19.

Wittwer, Sylvan H., 1975. World Food and Nutrition Stud :
Enhancement of Food Production for the United States.
Nationai Academy of Sciences, Washingtan. 5.0. 175 p.

Societal Problem-~Conservation of agricultural
resources. Clientele group: society.
REFERENCES:

Back, William B., 1975. Minimum Tillage: a preliminary
technology assessment. (Part II Of Alternative
Futures for U.S. Agriculture), USDA Office Of
Planning and Evaluation for the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry. (£8. Senate. September 25,
1975. 94th COngress. lst session. Committee Print.

89 Po

Barnes. Peter, 1975. The Peoples Land. Rodale Press.
Emmaus. Pa. 260 p.

Buchele, W. F.. 1975. Social cost of large machines/farms.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper
No. 75-5001. June 22-25, 1975. Davis. California.

Commoner, Barry. 1972. The Closin Circle: Nature Man 8
Technology. hantam Books. Inc.. New YOrE. 344 p,

Goldschmidt, W. R.. 1968. Small business and the community:
a study in central valley of California on effects of
scale farm Operation. Part 3, pp 3888-3949, pp

Role of Giant CO orations. U.S. Senate, Committee on
Smali Business, Subcommittee on MOnopoly.

Kranzberg, Melvin. 1975. Development of the concept of
technology assessment. ip,Progpam Of Policy Studies:
Readipgs pp Technolo Assessment. George ashington

university, Washington. D.C. 840 p.

Lucas, Robert, 1975. Soil organic matter. Michigan State
University. CrOp and Soil Science Department. East
Lansing. Michigan. Intradepartmental paper.

 

 

105

Morrison, Denton E., et a1., 1972. The environmental
movement: some preliminary observations and predic-
tions. pp 259-279. in W. Burch, Ed.. Social Behavior.
Natural Resources and-the Environment. rper an
Row. Inc.. cw or . 279 p.

Robertson. L.S. et a1., 1975. ‘Visual symptoms, causes,
and remedies of bad soil structure. Michigan State
University, Agriculture Experiment Station. Research
Report 294. 8 p.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1975. Energy and Economic
Myths. Southern Economic Journal. V01. #1, NO. 3.

January 1975. pp 347-375.

Societal problem--Agpicultural soil compgction§§l bil-
_ionperyear - Gilll 1221). Clientele groups: Society.
REFERENCES:

Back, William 3., 1975. Minimum tillage: a preliminary
technology assessment. (Part II of Alternative
Futures for U.S. Agriculture). USDA Office of
Planning and Evaluation for the Committee on Agricul-
ture and Ferestry, U.S. Senate, September 25. 1975.
94th Congress, 1st session. Committee Print. 89 p.

Free, G. R.. 1953. Traffic soles. Agricultural Engineer-
ing 31‘85280

Gill, W. R.. 1971. Economic assessment of soil compaction.
pp 431-458. ;p_3arnes, et a1., Compaction of Agpicul-
pural Soils. American Society Of Agricultural
Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan.

Jamison, J. C.. et a1., 1950. Distribution Of tractor tire
effects in Cecil clay. Soil Science Society of
America. Proceeding 15:34-37.

Lorang. Glenn, 1972. HOW new owners get more out of big
four-wheel power. Farm Journal, V01. 96. NO. 3.
March. 1) 26.

McKibben. E. G., 1971. Current emergency. pp 3-6, _ip
Barnes, et a1., Com ction of ' icultural Soils.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 85.

Joseph, Michigan. 471 p.

Parker, E. R. and H. Jenney. 1945. Water infiltration and
related soil properties as affected by cultivation
and organic cultivation. Soil Science 60:352.

 

106

Perumpral, J. V. et a1., 1971. The finite element method
for predicting stress distribution and soil deformation
under a tractive device. American Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers. Transactions. Pp 1184-1188.

Reed. I. F.. 1940. A method Of studying soil packing by
tractors. Ag. Eng. 21:281-3.

Robertson, L. S. et a1., 1975. Visual symptoms, causes,
and remedies Of bad soil structure. Research report
294. Michigan State University, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station. East Lansing, Michigan. 7 p.

Sdhne, Walter, 1975. Terramechanics and its influence on
the concepts of tractor power developments and energy
consumption. Paper from International Conference of
the International Society for Terrain Vehicle Systems.
Detroit, Michigan.

Sommers, C. 3., 1976. Soil compaction, how to make the
least of it. Successful Farming, Vol. 74, NO. 1.
January. Pp 28-34.

Willits, Nathan A., 1956. Measurement of pressures in
soils produced by traffic and the relationship
between those pressures and compaction in undisturbed
soils. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State
University. 99 p.

Societal problem--Agpicultural prgducpgon magimization.
Clientele groups: World society, agribusiness owners and

management. primary agricultural producers, U.S. non-food

production sector.
REFERENCES:

Earnes, Peter, 1975. The Peoples Land. Rodale Press,
Emmaus, Pa. 260 p.

<lObaum, R.. 1974. The loss Of agricultural land. A
study report to Citizens Advisory Committee on Envir-
onmental Quality. Washington. D.C. 22 p.

Cotner, M. L, et a1. 1975. Farm land: will there be
enough? ERS-USDA, ERS-NO. 584. 15 p.

Eschwege, Henry, 1975. Some problems impeding economic
improvement Of small-farm Operations: what the
Department of Agriculture could do. Comptroller
General Of the U.S. report to the Congress, General
Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 31 p.

107

Gobstein. Howard, 1975. Analysis of export control.
Graduate Program in Science, Technology, and Public
Policy. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

26 p.
Lerze C. and M. Jacobson, 1975. Food for Peo le Not for
Prof t. Ballantine Books, Random House, New York.
p.

Ottoson, H. W.. 1963, Land Use Policy and Problems in the
United States. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

91:.

Thompson, Jim. 1975. Agripolitics. Prairie Farmer, Vol.
147, No. 21. November 1.

Wittwer, Sylvan R.. 1975. World Food and Nutrition Study:

Enhancement of Food Production for the Uni e ates.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 174 p.

Societal problem-~Freedom of entry into agpicultural
enterprise of choice. Clientele groups: Society as a

 

whole, unemployed, and young people in rural America.
REFERENCES:

Barnes. Peter. 1975. The Peoples Land. Rodale Press.
Emmaus, Pa. 260 p.

Buchele, W. F.. 1975. Social cost Of large machines/farms.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper
No. 75-5001. June 22-25. 1975. Davis, California.

Clark, Wilson, 1975. U.S. agriculture is growing trouble
as well as crOps. Smithsonian. V01. 5. pp 59-64,

Clawson, Marion. 1970. A new policy direction for American
agriculture. Reprint NO. 82. Resources for the
Future. Washington, D.C.

COpp, James H., 1964. Our Chapgipg Rural Society: Pers-

ectives and Trends. Iowa State University Press.
files. 331; P-

Engler, Jerry W,, 1976. Howard Johnstone-Kansas horse
farmer. The Draft Horse Journal. V01. 13, NO. l.
p 12.

Harris, Marshall. 1974. Entrepreneurial control in
farming. USDA ERS NO. 542.

' IT '-

 

108

Hightower, Jim. 1975. Eat YOur Heart Out. Crown Publish-
ers, Inc.. New York. 294 p.

Lerza, C. and M. Jacobson, 1975. Feed for Peo 1e NOt for
Profit. Ballantine Books, Random House. Row York.
p.

Logsdon. Gene, 1973. Homestead;pg: Heg_to Find New
lpdepe§%ence on the Land. Rodale Press. Tnc.. Emmaus,
Pa. 2 p.

Long, Robert W.. 1975. Letter from Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture to Henry Eschwe e of the U.S. General
Accounting Office. April 2 , 1975. 3 p.

ran.

McCurry, Dan C.. 1975. American farmers and the rise of
agribusiness: seeds Of struggle. Arno Press, New York.

1 p. }
Merrill, Richard, editor, 1976, Radical 5gpiculture. ’
Harper Colophon Books, New York. 9 p.
Ottoson. H. W.. 1963. Im lications For Future Land Polio .
University Of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 459 p.
Rural America. Inc.. 1975. Toward a Platform for Rural

America. Rural America, Inc.. 1346 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington. D.C. 64 p.

 

Stockdale, Jerry D.. 1976. Technology and change in U.S.
Agriculture: model or warning. Forthcoming paper.
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa.

Successful Farming. 1976. New Eressures on land prices.
Successful Farming, V01. 7 . No. 1.

Successful Farming. 1975. Farm debt-to-asset ratio.
Successful Farming, Vol. 73. NO. 10.

Schumacher, E. F.. 1975. Small is Beautiful: Economics as
if People Mattered. Harper E Row, New York. 290 p.

Telleen. Maurice, 1976. My bicentennial editorial. The
Draft Horse J0urnal. V01. 13, No. l. p 74.

Sopietal prpblem--Maintepppce of a democratic form of
ggvernment. Clientele group: Society.
REFERENCES:

Barnes, Peter, 1975. The Peoples Land. Rodale Press,
Emmaus, Pa. 260 p.

109

Bawden, D. L., 1973. The neglected human factor. American
gggrnal of Agricultural Economics. V01. 55 NO. 5.
p.

Brewster, JOhn M.. 1963. The relevance of the Jeffersonian
dream today. pp 87-135 ;p_H. W, Ottoson: Land Use
Policy and Problems in the United States, University
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 459 p.

Dalrymple, Dana C.. 1964. The American tractor comes to
Soviet agriculture: The transfer of a technology.
Technology and Culture. Vol. V, N0. 2, Spring 1964.
pp 191-21 0

Ferry, Wilbur R.. 1972. Must we rewrite the constitution
to control technology. pp 9-20 1p,N. deNevers,
Technology and Sgpiety. Addison Westly. Reading. *
Mass. 307 p. 1

Flinn, W. L. and D. E. Johnson. 1974. Agrarianism among
Wisconsin farmers. Rural Sociology. V01. 39. No. 2.
pp 187-204.

Gotsch. Carl R.. 1972. Technological change and the
distribution of income in rural areas. Am. J. Agr,
Econ. May. 1972. P 326-341.

Griswold. Alfred W.. 1948. Fermi and democrac . New
Haven, Yale University Press. 227 p.
Gulley. James L., 1974. Beliefs and values in American

firming. USDA Economic Research Service N0. 558.
7 p.

Handy. Rollo and E. C. Harwood, 1975. Useful Procedures
of Inquiry. Behavioral Research council. Great
Barrington, Massachusetts. 232 p,

Kranzberg, Melvin. 1975. Development of the concept Of
technology assessment. gpbProgram Of Policy Studies:
Readings in Technglogy Assessment. eorge Washing-
ton University, Washington, D.C. 840 p.

Mccurry, Dan C.. 1975. American farmers and the rise of
agribusiness: seeds of struggle. Arno Press,
New York. 16 pe

Paarlberg, Don. 1974. The family farmer: an endangered
species. John Deere Journal Vol. 3. N0. 2. pp 18-19.

Padover, S. K., 1939. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy.
Mentor Books, New York. 1869p.

110

Sdhne, Walter, 1975. Terramechanics and its influence on
the concepts of tractors power-develOpment and energy
consumption. Paper presented at International
Conference of the International Society for Terrain-
Vehicle Systems. Detroit. 21 p.

Telleen. Maurice, 1976. My bicentennial editorial.
The Draft Horse Journal. Vol. 13, No. 1. pp 74.

Woodley, J. C.. 1975. Some Incidents in th§_Change From

§:Man Power Enterprise to Fantastic Farming in My
Time. University Of Missouri, Columbia. 1 p.

{7.0:}

 

 

‘dfi' ". '.

Societal problem--Equitap;e distribution Of external-

ity costs. Clientele groups: Consuming society and

 

primary agriculture producers. (
REFERENCES:

Buchele, W. F.. 1975. Social cost of large machines/farms.
American Society Of Agricultural Engineers. Paper
NO. 75-5001. June 22-25, 1975. Davis. California.

Cargill. B. F. and G. E. Rossmiller, 1970. Fruit and
vegetable Harvest Mechanization: Policy Implications.
Editors, Michigan State University. R.M.C. Report

180 DP 380

Gill, W. R.. 1971. Economic assessment of Soil compaction.
pp 431-458 pp Barnes et a1., Compaction Of égpicul-
tural Soils. American Society Of icu tura
Engineers. St, Joseph, Michigan. 71 p.

Goldschmidt, W, R.. 1968. Small business and the community:
a study in central valley of California on effects of
scale farm Operation. Part 3, pp 3888-3949, gp,

Role of Giant Corporations. U.S. Senate, Committee on
Small Business, Subcommittee on Monopoly.

Griswold. Alfred W.. 1948. Farmipg and Democrac . New
Haven, Yale University Press. 227 p.

Heady, Earl, 1974. Rural development and rural communities
of the future. Chapter 12 pp Rural Industrializatgon.

Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa.

Mottur, Ellis R.. 1975. Technology assessment and citizens
action. Part III. Section H. pp 9-26 pp Readi s in
Tpphnology Assessment, Program of Policy S u ies.
George Washingtbn University. Washington D.C. 600 p.

111

Raup, Philip M., 1969. Economies and diseconomies of large
scale agriculture. American Journal Economics.

v01. 51' N00 Se
Seagraves, J. A.. 1973. On appraising environmental

institutions. American Journal of icultural

Economics. Vol. 55. N0. 4, pp 617- 21.

Societal problem--Oligopoly control Of maphinery
component of agricultural production. Clientele groups: 3
Primary agriculture producers, owners and management of
machinery companies, and other members of society.

REFERENCES: (F

 

Barber, Clarence L., 1973. The farm machinery industry:
Reconciling the interests Of the farmer. the industry,
and the general public. American Journal Agricultural
Economics, V01. 55. No. 5. PP 810-828.

Canada Royal Commission on Farm Machinery, 1969. Special
Re ort on Prices Of Tractors and COmbines in Canada
and Other Couptries. Queen‘s Printer, Ottawa. 839 p.

Hightower, Jim, 1975. Eat Your Heart Out. Crown Publish-

ers, Inc.. New York. 294 p.

MacDonald, Neil B. et al.. 1969. Farm Tractor Production
Costs. Queen's Printer Ottawa. 2 p.

MacDonald. Neil B.. 1969. Locational Advantages in the

Farm Machiner Industr . Queen's Printer, Ottawa,
204 p.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 1938. Report on the agri-
cultural implement and machinery industry. costs,
prices, profits. House Document 702, Seventy Fifth
Congress, Third session. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington. D.C. 1176 p.

Societal problem--Professionalism in agriculture,
Clientele groups: Urban society, rural society, and
primary agriculture producers.

REFERENCES:

Bawden, D. L., 1973. The neglected human factor. American
Journal of Ag. Econ. V01. 55, NO. 5. pp 879-887.

112

Boulding, K. E,, 1975. The profession as a two-faced
monster: conspiracy in the scientific and profess-
ional subcultures. Speech presented at Ethics and the
Professions Symposium Series, Michigan State Univer-
sity. January 31. 1975.

Chemical and Engineering News, 1976. Butz on agriculture.
Chemical and Engineering News. Vol. 54, N0. 17.
PP 2 .

Dorf. Richard C.. 1974. Technology, Society and Man.
Boyd and Fraser. San Francisco, California, 9428 p,

Editor's FOrum. 1975. Can yesterday's farming feed today's
people? Crops and Sells. December. 1975. pp 5-8.

Garrett, R. E. and T. H. Burkhardt, 1972. The engineer's
responsibility in agricultural mechanization. Ameri-
can Society Of Agricultural Engineers. Paper NO.
72-680. December 11-15, Chicago, Illinois.

Gavett, Earle R.. 1975. Can we de-mechanize agriculture?
Paper presented at the Northeastern Agricultural
Economic Council Meeting, Orono. Maine. June 23-25,
1975.

Culley, J. L., 1974. Beliefs and values in American
farming. USDA ERS No. 558. 74 p.

Hadwiger. D. F.. 1975. The green revolution: some new
perspectives. Change. N0vember. pp 36-41 and 62.

Hightower, Jim, 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenk-
ng Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2 p.

Loomis. C. P. and J. A, Beegle, 1975. A Stratggy_for Rural
Chapge, Halsted Press, Wiley & Sons, New orEL

525 P0

Mayer, Andre and Jean Mayer, 1974, Agriculture, the island
empire. DAEDALUS, Journal of the American Academy of
Arts and Science, Summer. pp 83-95.

Madden, et a1., 1973. The renaissance of corporate
reSpogsibility. Technology Assessment. V01. 2, MO. 1.
pp 2- 0.

McFate, K. L. and J. C. Frisby, 1972. The role of agricul-
tural engineering in countryside development. Ameri-
can Society Of Agricultural Engineers. Paper NO. 72-
132. June 27-30, 1972. H0t Springs, Arkansas.

 

 

113

Morton, Harry, 1975. Frank Opinion - A historian Speaks
cut: production or people--What is a rural area for.
The Draft Horse JOurnal. V01. 12. NO. 1. pp 77-81.

Nelson. L. F. et al.. 1975. Recognizing productive,
energy-efficient agriculture in the complex U.S. food
system. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Paper NO. 75-7505. Chicago, Ill. December 15-18.

Nolan, M. F. and J, F. Galliger, 1973. Rural sociological
research and social policy: hard data. hard times.
Rural Sociology, Vol. 38, N0. 4. pp 491-499.

Office of Communication, 1973. Energy to keep agriculture
going. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington,
D. c.

Stout, B. A., 1975. The professional agricultural engin-
eer. Speech presented to Alpha Epsilon Banquet.
January 22, 1975. Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

Successful Farming, 1976. How useful are government
services tO farmers. Successful Farming. V01. 74,
N0. 6. pp 30-36.

Telleen. Maurice, 1976. Wanted. 61,000,000 horses and
mules, etc. The Draft Horse JOurnal. V01. 13, No. 1.

p #6.

Telleens, The.. 1975. The farm audience speaker--a curious
phenomena. The Draft Horse J0urnal. V01. 12. No. l.

P 350

Watson, L. et al.. 1972. Failing the People. Agricultural
Policy Accountability Project. Washington, D.C.

p.

Wittwer, Sylvan R.. 1975. World FOOd and Nutrition Stud :
Enhancement of Food Production ?Or tfie UniEed StaEes,
National Acaaemy of Sciences. WashingEon, 5.0. 175 p.

Zerbinos. Genie, 1975. Professional groups called

monopolies. MSU News Bulletin. Michigan State Univer-
sity. East Lansing. February 6, 1975, p 6.

‘rT

 

114

Discussion Of prelimgpary;p§sults

The problem outline develOpment and references were
develOped as a starting point for continued study. The
analysis outline system was not intended to be complete
but only a starting point for evaluation of the alternative
technologies or technology modifications impacted against
the components of provision, environment, freedom, and

Justice which were develOped by the Michigan State Univer-

‘Z ~vnx.v n'.‘ a. 9 '*

sity Group for the Analysis and Assessment of Technology.

 

An assessment would be required for each clientele group
identified unless an overall societal assessment was to be
made.

It was the opinion Of the author that individuals
associated with technology-assessment exercises would gain
significant understanding of conflicting viewpoints and
issues along with an understanding of values from contrast-
ing lifestyles. For the successful completion Of a
technology assessment, it would be imperative that all
participants have significant correct knowledge of the
technologies. and that no participant would assume quality-
Of-life components regarding components of lifestyles. such
as definitions of work or work types, with which the indi-
vidual was not familiar. Components of freedom and Justice
must be determined by those individuals within a clientele
group and must not be evaluated by others not having an
understanding of the clientele group.

With reference to the urban versus agricultural life-

115

style settings and food production potentials, it was the
author's opinion that the alternative technologies
suggested for assessment could decrease the element of
finality associated with technological irreversibility and
entry into agricultural occupations while at the same time
add new measures of freedom for intellectual and physical p
pursuits for those individuals with limited financial ?
resources. %

Iggggglpgy_assessment as an educational aid ;

 

.In order to introduce and acquaint the graduate
agricultural engineering class entitled Agricultural
Mechanization in Developing Countries with concepts Of
problem-oriented technology assessment, a technology
assessment worksheet, similar to the following. was
distributed to members Of the classes Of the Spring terms
of 1974 and 1975.

Technology Assessment of Agpicultural Lifestyles

Commercial
Subsis- COOperative Traditional Farm -
tence Subsistence Family Farm Hired Labor

Provision
Environment

Freedom

If I i |

Justice

TOTALS

 

116

The clientele for which the assessment was to be
completed was described to the class to be the total popula-
tion of the home country for each individual class member.
The class was instructed to use the numerical values on a
scale from -2 to +2 including 0 to evaluate the alternative
technologies of agricultural production lifestyles as to
the ability of the technology to fulfill the needs Of the
clientele group when considering the quality Of life
problem areas. The +2 was to be used for the most adequate
or desirable alternative. Such numerical values were Often
called impact values.

The farm type or agricultural lifestyles which made
up the alternative technology array of the matrix consisted
Of subsistence, cOOperative subsistence, traditional family
farm. and commercial farm-hired labor. The problem array
consisted of the quality of life variables, develOped by
Montgomery (1975) and the Group for Analysis and Assessment
Of Technology of Michigan State University, which were:
provision of goods and services, environment, freedom, and
Justice. Approximately twenty minutes was required. each
year, to explain the concepts associated with each of the
variables so that the individuals could proceed to complete
the assessment procedure. In both years, after the individ-
uals had begun to fill out the questionnaires, there were
questions raised as to the clientele groups which were to
be covered by the questionnaire. Even though the clientele

group had been previously defined as the whole of society,

 

117

the concept of clientele group was not clearly understood
when the variable Of commercial farm-hired labor was
encountered. The author believed the indecisiveness over
clientele and the agricultural lifestyle to be the begin-
ning Of a learning experience which forced clarification of

conflict Of interest between groups as to role designation.

loyalty. and concerns of the groups or individuals at

interest, Such points of clarification to interest groups

 

should provide insight into dealing with technological
impacts in developing countries. j
Even though the number of participants was limited to
eleven in 1975 and ten in 1976, there were several inter-
esting points in the cumulative results. Impact values
were selected between -2 and +2 for each matrix intersec-
tion. In the results of the farm-type or alternative
variable, out of a possible range Of -8 to +8, the range
for 1975 was -4 to +8, and in 1976 the range was -6 to +8,
thus vindicating the variable range selected. The cumula-
tive average value for each farm type for 1975 was:
subsistence, 3.1: cooperative subsistence, 4.2: traditional
family farm, 4.4: and commercial farm-hired labor. 1.3.
The respective values for 1976 were 0.8, 3.1. 3.4, and 1.3.
One value was consistent between years, namely. that for
the commercial-farm hired-labor farm type. The coopera-
tive-subsistence and traditional-family farms were close
in evaluation, and averaged out three times higher than

the commercial farm type on the value scale. Due to the

118

limited number Of cases, no conclusions should be derived
from the assessment other than the authors belief that
technology assessment could be used to advantage as an
educational aid. This was consistent with the findings Of
Krauss (1974).
Technology assessment as an inquiry into professionalism
Components related to the generation and use Of the
technology under study along with associated profession-
alism were structured into a questionnaire. The question-
naire was designed to evaluate components of awareness in
areas of: societal needs, professional insularity, profes-
sional responsibility, externality costs. societal restric-
tions used to control technology,and level of personal
commitment to societal goals as Opposed to personal or
corporate goals. The context of the questionnaire

designed for one-page administration convenience follows.

 

119

QUESTIONNAIRE

Your response is invited in a Technology Assessment Of

large-scale farm tractors as related to the proposed ASAE

long-range goal number 1:

"To develop public understanding Of the consequences,
both positive and negative. of existing and preposed
engineering-technology-for-agriculture on human
health, social structure, the environment, economy.
and natural resources."

Disagree

DO you agree with certain members Of the
USDA.whO suggest the economic problems of
the small family farm should be considered
as a welfare problem instead Of an agri-
cultural Problem?

Due to the inaccessibility to large amounts
of capital and various economies of scale,
the institution of the small family farm
should be discarded as an Obsolete agricul-
tural alternative.

In light of recent trends in unemployment,
production Of large-scale tractors should
be discouraged in contrast to the encour-
agement of the production Of two or more
smaller tractors Of total equivalent
horsepower.

Design engineers should be directly

responsible for the preparation of a social-

impact statement before a technology change
or technology modification is released for
societal use.

Like the technologies of nuclear energy
and hard drugs and the technology modifica-
tion Of the SST, the technology modifica-
tion of the large-scale farm tractor should
be placed under regulated control.

‘axn-r- \- er_- NA”

f

 

 

120

If there are external social and economic costs (such
as unemployment and welfare) which are imposed on secondary
groups in the production and use of a technology (such as
very'large tractors). which Of the following control mea-
sures do you feel would maximize Justice to all segments
within society:

1.
2.

Direct taxation on the initial purchase.

Yearly taxation on the user (similar to a pollu-
tion-use tax). :

Graduated tax which increases geometrically with
increasing farm size.

 

 

 

As an individual agricultural engineer, I
feel that I can accomplish the necessary

changes required to implement the proposed
long-range goals of ASAE without the over-
riding assistance of a social OSHA or EPA.

 

 

Your age:

 

Student: Yes NO

 

Member of ASAE years

Division: P&M saw EP&P StdEnv Food Eng

Employment: Industry University USDA COnsultant

Percent Of time involved with:

Management Design Sales

 

Extension Teaching Research

 

 

The technology-driven assessment methodology was

used in the research study to determine farm structural

.95“ ‘14:}

differentiation characteristics and farm structural

differentiation change on all TelFarm farms and on various

 

subsets of the farms. Table VIII was presented both as a PA
definitional summary of farm types and as a structural

analysis summary of structural differentiation characteris-

tics on all farms and crap farms for 1969. 197k. and 1975.

Table Ix summarized the total cumulative structural change.

for both farm structural differentiation characteristics

and family-labor participation on all farms and crap farms

for the years indicated.

Family-labor participation--The mean family-labor
participation decreased significantly on all farms with
crop farms decreasing the greatest amount. In 1975
highest-cost tractor purchase farms decreased family-labor
participation twice as much as other farms (S .06).

Hired-labor differentiation--Hired-labor differentia-

 

tion. in contrast to family-labor participation. increased
significantly over the period of the study. Highest-cost
tractor purchase farms increased hired-labor differentiation
over twice that of all farms.

121

122

TABLE VIII
FARM STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIATION RATIOS

 

 

Structure Traditional TelFarm Totally
Family Farm Structure Differentiated
l969.l974,l975 Factory Farm

 

 

A11
Farms
Hired-labor O .31 .37 .00 1.00
Diff.
Capital Diff. 0 .30 .33 .36 1.00
Land Diff. O .38 .01 .42 1.00
Machinery O .10 .In .15 l.00+
Diff.
*TOTALS 0 1.13 1.25 1.33 4.00+
Crop
Farms
Hired-labor 0 .33 .39 .45 1.00
Diff.
Capital Diff. o .29 .36 .uz 1.00
Land Diff. O .48 .52 .55 1.00
Machinery 0 .15 .16 .17 l.00+
. Diff.
*TOTALS 0 1.25 1.43 1.59 h.00+

 

 

*TOTALS obtained by adding the separate various structural
differentiations.

FARM STRUCTURAL CHANGE

123

TABLE IX

 

 

 

 

Structure Year Percent of
Change
All :al
Farms '
Family Labor 197a to 1975 - u.u
Participation 1969 to 1975 - 4.5
Hired Labor 197# to 1975 8.0
Differentiation 1969 to 1975 29. . .
Capital 197a to 1975 9.3 i
Differentiation 1968 to 1975 17. ‘
Land 19?“ to 1975 .87
Differentiation 1968 to 1975 10.
Machinery 197“ to 1975 #.8
Differentiation 1972 to 1975 17.
CUMULATIVE STRUCTURAL 197k to 1975 27.37
CHANGE 1968 to 1975 77.5
Crop
Farms
Family Labor 1974 to 1975 -12.
Participation 1969 to 1975 '35.
Hired Labor 197h to 1975 15.
Differentiation 1968 to 1975 53.
capital 197% to 1975 18.
Differentiation 1971 to 1975 61.
Land 1974 to 1975 5.2
Differentiation 1970 to 1975 18.
Machinery 197“ to 1975 1.8
Differentiation 1968 to 1975 14.
CUMULATIVE STRUCTURAL 1974 to 1975 52.0
CHANGE 1968 to 1975 181.

 

 

 

 

124

Capital d;fferentiation--A general over-all capital
differentiation increase was found from 1968 to 1975 on

all farms. Highest-cost tractor purchase farms increased
capital differentiation over twice that of all farms from
197“ to 1975.

Land differentiation--Mean land differentiation was
found to increase on all farms from 1968 to 1975 except
for the 1969 to 1970 time period. Highest-cost tractor
farms decreased differentiation from 197“ to 1975 indi-
cating a possible concentration of land ownership.

Machinery differentiation-~Machinery differentiation
fluctuated widely due to the design of the variable:
however. a mean increase was found for crop farms.

Structural correlations--Correlations between struc-
tural variables and the cost of tractor and combine pur-
chases were generally 1ow. Often a structural variable
would change from a low correlation with high significance
to no correlation with low significance over the time
period from 1968 to 1975. Such an example was tractor
purchase cost with land differentiation: the correlations
were .16 (S .02) in 1968 and .05 (S .16) in 1975. Such
correlation differences indicated that change had occurred
in the relationship of the variables. but analytically
the change was not necessarily predictive of the change
which had occurred. In such instances the only informative
finding was that a previously weak relationship no longer

existed or the opposite.

125

Tillable acres farmed correlated .22 (S .001) in 1968
and .37 (S .001) in 1975 with tractor purchase cost. This
finding indicated a strengthening of the relationship
between tractor cost and acres farmed from the 1968 to

1975 time period. The interim year's correlations

strengthened the validity of the relationship. f?
Fan types—~01“ the 122 highest-cost tractor purchase 5..

farms in 1975. 22 percent were crop farms and 70 percent

livestock farms. Highest-cost combine purchase farms [4

 

were 13 percent crop farms. and 85 percent livestock farms.
Crop farms represented 14 percent of all farms in 1975.

Southern dairy farms purchased two of the ten highest-
cost tractors at $47,000 and $35,000. Cash grain farms
purchased 6 of the 10 highest-cost tractors within the
cost range of $42,000 to 330.000.

Laggy-In the study of acreage added to farms and
tractor acreage-handling capacity. farms which purchased a
highest-cost tractor added relatively more tractor power
than acreage to farming Operations. The finding indicated
that more acreage could be added to the farm Operation
without a shortage of tractor land-handling capacity.

Concentration of ownership of land on the highest-
cost tractor purchase farms was indicated by the ten-case
study and by the 122-case study of highest-cost tractor
purchase farms in 1975.

ggchnology Availabilitz--A problem of technology
availability was encountered by the author while working

126

on the technologybdriven assessment. The author was unable

to find any manufacturer offering a small-size multipurpose

power-take-off combine capable of meeting the small farmer's

needs and economic restrictions.

The problem-driven assessment technique-~The problem-
driven assessment technique provided a method for concep-
tualizing second-and higher-order causal-factor relation-
ships between the alternative technologies and problems
encountered by society or specific clientele groups within
society. The provision. environment. freedom. and Justice
components provided a convenient method of conceptualizing
qualify-of-life components. Such as assessment technique
could easily become Operational as illustrated by the
technology assessment of agricultural lifestyles described
in Technology Assessment as an Educational Aid. A
questionnaire related to issues of agricultural profession-
alism was developed using ideas derived from the assessment

methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

Farm structural characteristics may be conceptualized
to vary from no differentiation on the traditional family
farm to total differentiation on the corporate type farm.
Sociologists and economists such as Rodefeld (1974).
Goldschmidt (1972) and Heady (1975) have established the
social and economic undesirability of highly differentiated
farm structural characteristics.

This research study found the existence of relation-
ships between the technology modification of the purchase
of large tractors or combines and the level of differentia-
tion of the various farm structural characteristics
investigated. The exact nature of the relationships or
the causal forces involved in the relationships were not
investigated. Undoubtedly there were many causal forces
acting to increase or decrease the level Of differentia-
tion of the structures studied. Evidence of multiple
causal forces was obvious in the case Of hired-labor
differentiation and the acquisition of large tractors. It
would normally be thought that the addition of a large
tractor would decrease hired-labor differentiation because
the farm Operator would then provide a higher share Of
the labor inputs to the farm enterprise. Such was not

127

.14-

 

128

found to be the case on the Tethrm farms. Other causal
forces diminished or overpowered the increased labor
efficiency. provided by the new large tractors. to the
extent that highest-cost tractor purchase farms increased
hired-labor differentiation over twice that of all farms
from 1970 to 1975. While hired-labor differentiation
increased. family labor participation by members other
than the operator decreased twice as much on highest-cost
tractor purchase farms than on other farms.

Capital differentiation. like labor differentiation.
increased approximately twice as fast on highest-cost
tractor purchase farms than on all farms from 197“ to 1975.
Such an increase could be explained by the increase in
borrowed capital necessary to buy the highest-cost tractors.

Land and machinery differentiation increased from
197“ to 1975 for all farms and crap farms. HOwever.
highest-cost tractor purchase farms decreased land and
machinery differentiation during the same time period. thus
indicating a possible concentration in land Ownership and
a reduction in the need for hired machine work and leased
machines.

Farm Operations which purchased highest-cost combines
added very small additional acreages to their Operations in
contrast to large acreage additions for those farms which
purchased highest-cost tractors. Large combine purchasers
could have used the machines for custom harvesting in

addition to harvesting for their own Operations.

129

Techniques of inquiry of problem-driven technology
assessment led to controversial issues. Educational aids
and inquiry into professionalism were additional areas
where problem-oriented technology-assessment techniques

were thought by the author to prove useful.

 

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Research studies should be conducted using direct

I...)

cause-effect methodology to determine the social. eco-
nomic and environmental effects inflicted upon communi-

ties by large-scale agricultural technologies. Such

 

studies should utilize direct relationships rather than 7
the two-step procedure of first using farm structural
differentiation as a measure of the effect of technology
modification upon farm structure. and second. using
sociological and economic research findings concerning
structural differentiation to prove associated growth or
decline Of rural communities and institutions.

Sociological and economic Objectives should be
determined for rural areas by those societal members
residing within the areas. An agricultural technology
system could then be selected which would be compatible
with the objectives of the community. Control measures
could then be initiated through conventional economic
channels. such as taxation. to allow all costs of the
technology to be paid by those receiving benefits from the
technology and to compensate those who received damages
from the use of the technology.

The sample population of the technology-driven part of

130

131

the research study should be extended to cover a random
sample of all farms in the state rather than only TelFarm
farms. Other states should be researched to determine if
the results which were found in this research study would
be consistent from state to state.

The second part of this research study. Preliminary
Problem-Driven Assessment. was develOped as the nucleus
for a comprehensive technology assessment relating alterna-
tive agricultural technologies to major societal problems.
Anyone completing such research which utilizes problem-
oriented technology assessment methodology must be aware
of the controversial nature of the inquiry procedure when
working in professional areas where Open controversy is not
encouraged.

Research is needed to determine the extent to which
technology assessment techniques would prove useful in
educating all persons dealing with the transfer of highly

develOped technology into less-develOped countries.

REFERENCES

«5‘

{I
IS
f
r!

 

REFERENCES

Agricultural Stabilization and Cbnservation Service. 1973.
Michigan Annual Report. Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service. USDA. East Lansing. Michigan.
90 p.

Back. William B.. 1975. Minimum tillage: a preliminary
technology assessment. Part II ig Alternative Futures
for U S iculture. USDA Office of PIanning andi

luation or t e mmittee on Agriculture and
Forestry. U.S. Senate. September 25. 1975. 9l$th
Congress. lst Session Committee Print. 89 p.

Ball. A. G. and E. O. Heady. 1972. Size Structure and
Future of Farms. Iowa State University 55338. Afies.
Iowa. p0

Bertrand. Alvin L., 1951. Agricultural mechanization and
social change in rural Louisiana. Louisiana bulletin
No. 458. Agricultural Experiment Station. Louisiana
State University. #8 p.

Bertrand. A. L. et al.. 1956. Factors associated with
agricultural mechanization in the southwest region.
S.W. Regional bulletin NO. 6. Agricultural Experiment
Station. University of Arkansas College of Agriculture.
anetteville. 31 p.

Black. Guy. 1975. Technology assessment: what should it be.
Pp 33-41 ;9_Readi s in Technolo Assessment. Program
of Policy Studies. Wasfiington. E. 0. 555 p.

Bowers. Wendell. 1975. Selection and management of big
tractor systems. Oklahoma State University. 32 p.

 

Breitenlohner. Cynthia A.. 1975. Structural changes in
west European agriculture. 1950-1970. Economic
Research Service. USDA. Fbreign Ag. Econ. Report
NO. 1114. "'9 P.

Buchele. w. F.. 1975. Social cost of large machines/farms.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper
NO. 75-5001. Annual meeting June 22-25. Davis. Calif.

132

 

133

Cargill. B. F. and Rossmiller. G. E.. 1972. Fruit and
vegetable harvest mechanization. Rural Manpower
Center. Michigan State University. East Lansing.
Michigan. 838 p.

Cargill. B. F. and G. E. Rossmiller. 1970. Fruit and
Vegetable Harvest Mechanizationiggplic' Im lications.
Editors. Michigan State University. RMC Report
No. 18. p. 38.

 

Chen. K. and G. J. Zissis. 1975. PhilOSOphical and
methodological approaches to technology assessment.
Journal of the International Society for Technology
Assessment 1:17-28.

Coats. vary T.. 1975. Technology and public policy: the
process of technology assessment in the federal
government. Part III-D. pp l-U? ig_Program of Policy
Studies. Readings in Technology Assessment. George
Washington University. Washington. D. C. 600 p.

Coates. Joseph E.. 1971. Technology assessment: the
benefits. the costs. the consequences. The Futurist

5:225-231.

Donaldson. G. F. and J. P. McInerney. 1973. The consequence
of farm tractors in Pakistan. Development Economics
Department. International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development. washington. D. C.

Donaldson. G. F. and J. P. McInerney. 1973. (2) Changing
machinery technology and agricultural adjustment. Am.
Jo Agro Econ. V010 55: N00 50 Pp 829’3890

Esmay. M. L. and C. W. Hall. 1973. Agricultural Mechaniza-

tion in Develo 1 Countries. Shin-Norinsha Co. Ltd.
7 E-Cfiome. Kanda Hishifiicho Chiyoda-ko. Tokyo 102.

Japan. 222 p.

Farm Equipment Red Book. 1959. Tractor general Specifica-
tions. Implement & Tractor Publications. Los Angeles.
California. Yearbook for 1959. p 15.

Farm & Industrial Equipment Institute. 1976. Retail sales
of farm wheel tractors. Implement & Tractor. V01. 91.
No. 10. p 28.

Finch. James K.. 1951. Engineeringand Western Civilization.
McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York. 39 P-

Finsterbusch. Kurt. 1975. A policy analysis methodology for
social impacts. Journal of the International Society

for Technology Assessment. VOl. No. 1. p45.

 

134

Fridley. R. B. and J. B. Holtman. 1979. Predicting the
sociO-economic implications of mechanizations by
systems analysis. Transactions. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers. Vol. 17. NO. 5. pp 821-825.

Furrow. The. 1975. The machines of agriculture. The
Furrow. V01. 80. Issue 7. pp 16-

Gill. W. R.. 1971. Economic Assessment Of Soil Compaction.
Pp “31-458 i3 Barnes. et al.. Compaction of Agricul-
tural SO ls. American Society of Agric tural
EEEineers. St. Joseph. Michigan. #71 p.

Goldschmidt. W. R.. 1972. Statement before Cbngress.
March 1. 1972. concerning the role of giant corpora-
tions in agriculture. Part 3. pp 3888-3918 in
Role Of Giant Cor orations. U.S. Senate. Committee on
SmaII Eusiness. Suficommittee on MOnopoly. 92 Congress.
gaggington. D.C.. U.S. Government Printing Office.
1 p.

Gray. R. B.. 1956. Develo ment of the icultural Tractor
n the United S tes U 1 0. erican ociety of
icu ura ngineering. . Joseph. Michigan. 102 p.
Griswold. Alfred W.. 19h8. Fermi & Democrac . New Haven.
Yale University Press. 227 p.

Culley. J. L., l97t. Beliefs and values in American farming.
Ens. U.S.D.A., NO. Ens-558. 7“ p.

Harrington. R. E.. 1975. Agricultural Engineering and
Productivity. Paper presented at January 1975 annual
meeting of American Association for the Advancement of
Science. New York City. 17 p.

Harris. Marshall. 197“. Entrepreneurial control in farming.
U.S.D.A. ERS No. 542.

Heady. E. O. and S. T. Sonka. 1975. Farm size structure
and off-farm income and employment generation in the
north central region. NOrth Central Regional Center
for Rural Development. Iowa State University. Ames.
Iowa. 91 p.

Henkes. Rollie. 1976. Legislating protection for the family
farm. The Furrow. VOl. 81. Issue 1. p 3.

Hightower. Jim. 1973. Hard Tbmatoes Hard Times. Schenkman
Publishing Company. Cambridge. Massachusetts. 268 p.

Holbrook. Stewart R.. 1955. Machines of Plent : Pioneerin
in American Aggiculture. New York. MaeMiIlan. 236 p.

 

135

Implement & Tractor. 1976. Farm tractor market. Implement
& Tractor. VOl. 21. NO. 10. p 29.

Krauss. Otto F.. 1970. Energy utilization by households and
technology assessment as a way to increase its
effectiveness. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of
Metallurgy. Mechanics and Materials Science. Michigan
State University. East Lansing. Michigan. 251 p.

Kyle. Leonard. 1973. Corporations to replace family farm
by year 2.000. Interview with Leonard Kyle. Professor
of Agricultural Economics. Sunday. April 15. 1973. by
The State Journal.

Larson. D. K., 1971+. Economic class of farm and the farm
family welfare myth. American Journal Of Agricultural
Economics. VOl. 56. No. 5. p. 1203.

Mayo. Louis R.. 1975. Evaluation of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory report on technology assessment of modular
integrated utility systems. Part III-H. pp 1-26‘33
Program of Policy Studies Readiggs in Technology
Assessment. George Washington Universi y. Washington.
WP.

 

McMillan. Robert T.. 1949. Social aspects of farm
mechanization in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Agricultural
Experiment Station. Stillwater. Bulletin NO. B-339.

30 Po

Montgomery. D. J.. 1975. Making the “quality of life" an
Operational concept. Phi Kappa Phi Journal. VOl. LV.
NO. 1. winter 1975. Pp 96-51.

Nair. K., 1969. The Lonel£ Furrow. University of Michigan
Press. Ann Arbor. 31 p.

Nelson. L. F.. 22.31.. 1975. Recognizing productive
energy-efficient agriculture in the complex U.S. food
system. Paper No. 75-7505 American Society of
Agricultural Engineers meeting December 15. 1975.
Chicago. Illinois. p 11.

Nie. NOrman. R.. §t_§l.. 1975. Statistical Packa e Fer
the Social Sciences. McGraw Hill. New YorE. 575 p.

Nikolitch. Radoje. 1972. Family-size farms in U.S.
agriculture. Economic Research Service Report NO. #99.
UOSODOA. 36 p.

North Central Public Policy Education Committee. 1972. Who
Will Control U.S. Agriculture? Special Publication 27.
COOperative Extension Service. University of Illinois.

Urbana-Champaign. 56 p.

 

136

Official Guide: tractors & farm equipment. 1976 and
earlier. National Farm & Power Equipment Dealers
Association. St. Louis. MO. 375 P.

Olson. Mancur. 1973. The Lo ic Of Collective Action.
Harvard University Press. Cambridge. Mass. 186 .

Ottoson. H. W.. 1963. Land Use Polio and Problems in the
United States. University of Nebraska Press. LincoIn.
“69 p.

Paarlberg, Don. l97h. The family farmer: an endangered
species? John Deere Journal. Vel. 3. To. 2. p 19.

 

Reese. H. C. et al.. 1973. A Survey of Federal Executive
Agency Professionals. Vol. 2. pp 59-60 ;g Candidates
an Priorities For Technology Assessment. Program of
Policy Studies in Science and Technology. George
Washington University. Washington. D.C.

Rodefeld. Richard Donald. 197“. The changing organizational
and occupational structure of farming and the
implications for farm work force individuals. families.
and communities. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
Department of Rural Sociology. University of Wisconsin.
Madison. Wisconsin.

Rodefeld. Richard D.. 1975. Evidence. issues and conclu-
sions on the current status and trends in U.S. farm
types. Paper prepared for the 1975 Rural Sociological
Society Meeting. San Francisco. california. 60 p.

Schwarzweller. Harry K., 1971. Tractorization of agricul-
ture: the social history of a German village.
Sociologia Ruralis. VOl. XI. NO. 2. JOurnal of the
EurOpean Society for Rural Sociology. PP 127-139.

Slack. A. V.. 1970. Defense against famine: the role of
the fertilizer industry. Doubleday & 00.. N.Y. 232 p.

Sdhne. Walter. 1975. Terramechanics and its influence on
the concepts of tractors power-development and energy
consumption. Paper presented at International Confer-
ence of the International Society for Terrain-Vehicle
Systems. Detroit. 1975. 21 p.

Stockdale. Jerry D.. 1976. Technology and change in U.S.
agriculture: model or warning. Department of
Sociology. Anthropology and Social Work. University of
Northern Iowa. Cedar Falls. Iowa. 39 p.

 

137

Thompson. R. L. and R. E. Hepp. 1976. Description and
analysis of Michigan small farms. Research Report
296. Agricultural Experiment Station. Michigan State

University. East Lansing. 20 p.

United Nations. Economic Commission for EurOpe. 1967.
Farm rationalization II: economic classifications
of farms: a review of farm classification systems
used in EurOpean countries and of problems connected
with such classifications. EOE/FAG Ag. Div.

New IOrk. United Nations.

Weelock. Gerald. 1969. National agricultural structure
and its relation to agricultural productivity: a
cross national study. Department of Rural Sociology.

Cornell University. Ithaca. New YOrk.