INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: received. Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 THOMPSON, Ronald L u rie , 1949DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975 Economics, agricultural Xerox University Microfilms f Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS IN MICHIGAN By Ronald L. Thompson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1975 ABSTRACT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS IN MICHIGAN By Ronald L.. Thompson The importance of Michigan's limited resource farms and their future is oft debated. This study focuses on those farms in an attempt to describe their present condi­ tions and contribution to Michigan's agricultural sector. In addition an attempt is made to project the optimal com­ bination of resources on these farms through the use of representative farm cases and linear programming techniques. For the purposes of this study limited resources farms are defined as those having annual gross agricultural sales of less than $20,000. Agriculture, According to the 1969 U.S. Census of almost 86 percent of Michigan's farms fall into the limited resource category. In order to describe the present conditions on these farms, a random sample of ten lower peninsula counties was chosen for surveying. A survey instrument was developed and utilized which focused on the physical resources owned, past production history, composition, off-farm employment, family and future aspirations of those interviewed. The information gathered from the conducted inter­ views is summarized in four limited resource farm categories. Ronald L. Thompson The limited resource rural resident farms were defined as those with gross agricultural sales below $2,500 whose operator was employed more than 800 hours off farm and whose age was under 65. The limited resource supplemental income farms were defined as those with gross sales between $2,500 and $20,000 whose operator was employed more than 800 hours off farm and whose age was under 65. The limited resource senior citizen farms were defined as those whose operator was 65 or over or was receiving social security benefits. The limited resource full time farms were defined as those with operators who worked less than 800 hours off farm and whose age was under 65. What emerges from this categorization is a view of the changing composition of Michigan's limited resource farm sector. The farms whose operators have more than 800 hours of off farm employment comprise almost two-thirds of all limited resource farms. Percentagewise, these two categories have constantly increased their share of all limited resource farms while the opposite can be said of the senior citizen and full time farms. Both of the latter categories each represent about one-sixth of the limited resource farm population. In terms of physical resources and gross farm incomes, the full time farms followed by the supplemental income farms are the largest limited resource categories. In total farm family income, however, the supplemental income and rural resident categories achieve Ronald L. Thompson the most. This dramatizes the importance of off farm income to these farm families. In order to comment on the optimal combination of agricultural resources on these farms two representative cases from each limited resource category were developed. Additionally, unit budgets of various cropping and live­ stock enterprises were developed as were budgets for acqiiiring physical and human resources. The budgets were placed in a linear programming matrix and optimal combinations generated for each of the representative farm situations. The linear programming analyses suggests that the resources held by Michigan's limited resource farmers are under utilized and somewhat inefficiently utilized. particular, In they suggest that those cropping and livestock activities presently employed on limited resource farms are suboptimal. The analyses point to greater production of swine and soya beans and more land rental by Michigan's limited resource farms than they presently engage in. The study concludes that the importance of Michigan's limited resource farms to the state's agricultural sector cannot be overstated. Though declining in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all Michigan farms, they still com­ prise the overwhelming majority of Michigan farms and control more than half of the state's agricultural resources. More importantly, the growth of rural resident and supple­ mental income limited resource farms suggests that limited resource farms will continue to be an important feature of Michigan's agriculture. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge all of those who provided me with both the inspiration and assistance to complete this project. Foremost among these are my wife, Cynthia, children, Sela and Marce, parents Lurie and Constance Thompson, and my in-laws, Cosby and Carey Bramlett. I wish to offer my sincere appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Ralph Hepp, for his assistance and guidance and to the members of my guidance committee, Drs. Larry Connor, Ruth Hamilton, not least, James Schaffer and A. Allen Schmid. Last but I would like to thank Mrs. Shirley Rabbage for her assistance in typing this manuscript. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Page INTRODUCTION ............................... Objectives II ............................... METHODOLOGY OF SURVEY ANALYSIS ......... 1 7 9 Criteria for Determining Limited Resource Farms ........................... 12 Survey Results ........................... 12 P o p u l a t i o n ......................... 12 County Numbers ......................... 16 Limited Resource Farm Families . . . . 18 Farm T e n u r e ....................... 25 Net Farm W o r t h ..................... 27 Land in F a r m s ........................... 30 Soil T y p e ................................ 36 Cropland U s a g e .................. .. 36 Livestock ............................. 43 M a c h i n e r y ......................... 45 Farm Labor Utilization ............... 46 Farm I n c o m e ............................. 48 Off Farm I n c o m e ...................49 Home G a r d e n s ....................... 60 Anticipated Changes, Goals............. 62 Survey Summary ........................... Limited Resource Rural Resident Farms. Limited Resource Supplemental Income Farms ........................... Limited Resource Senior Citizen Farms. Limited Resource Full Time Farms . . . III METHODOLOGY FOR BUDGETARY ANALYSIS . . . . Budgetary Analyses ...................... Case 1: A Rural Resident Farm Occupy­ ing 23 Tillable Acres virith no Expansion Contemplated ............... iii 64 64 66 67 68 70 79 79 Chapter Page Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Land Rental and Hired Part Time Labor Availability . ............. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Restricted Land Rental and Hired Labor Availability ......... Case 2: A Rural Resident Farm Occupy­ ing 80 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn with Desired Expansion of Income Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities and Part and Full Time Hired Labor with Restricted Land Rental ... Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part and Full Time Hired Labor with Restricted Livestock A c t i v i t i e s ................... 86 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land Rental ... Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part Time Labor and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock and Fruit and Vegetable Activities ......... Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Enlarged Swine Facilities, Full and Part Time Labor, and Land R e n t a l ........... Case 3: A Supplemental Income Farm Occupying 67 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn and No Expansion ......................... Contemplated Supplemental Income Under Assump­ tions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities and Land R e n t a l .................. Supplemental Income Under Assump­ tions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, Swine Facilities and Land R e n t a l .................. Supplemental Income Under Assump­ tions of Availability of Part' Time Hired Labor, and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock Activities . iv 80 81 83 85 87 88 89 90 95 95 96 Chapter Page Case 4: Supplemental Income Farm Occupying 128 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn Whose Operator Desires a Change in His Off Farm Employment Status .................... Case 5: A Senior Citizen Farm Occupying 70 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn and No Expansion Contemplated ........................ 96 Ill Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Part Time Hired Labor Avail­ ability with Restricted Land Rental and Livestock Activities. . 112 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land Rental . . . 113 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Land Rental Restricted . . . 113 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor and Land Rental with Livestock Activity Restricted 114 Case 6: A Senior Citizen Farm Occupying 120 Tillable Acres with Dairy Barn Whose Operator Desires a Change in Livestock Enterprises . . 115 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part Time Hired Labor with Livestock Activity Restricted . . 118 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facili­ ties, Part Time Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ......................... 119 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities Part Time, Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ......................... 120 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities with Land Rental and 121 Hired Labor Restricted ........... v Chapter Page Case 7: A Full Time Farm Occupying 100 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn Whose Operator Desires Off Farm E m p l o y m e n t ...................... Case 8: A Full Time Farm Occupying 160 Tillable Acres with Dairy Barn Whose Operator is Considering E x p a n s i o n ............................. 128 Full Time Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rental, and 25 Cow Dairy Facility. Full Time Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rented, and 50 Cow Dairy Facility. 136 Price Analysis: An Analysis of Changes in Net Cash Return, Cropping and Livestock Programs, and Resource Utilization Under Three Price Levels. 137 Supplemental Income Under Assump­ tions of Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Restricted Livestock Activity. . . Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facili­ ties, Hired Labor, and Land Rental Senior Citizen Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Land Rental Full Time Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Dairy Facility, and Land Rental. . Budgetary Summary ...................... Limited Resource Rural Resident Farms Limited Resource Supplemental Income F a r m s ................................. Limited Resource Senior Citizen Farms Limited Resource Full Time Farms . . IV 121 SUMMARIES, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................... 135 140 141 142 143 144 144 155 157 159 161 Chapt er Page APPENDICES .................167 1 Test Survey Instrument 2 Final Survey Instrument..... ............... 3 Unit B u d g e t s ........................... .. 4 Shadow Prices of Budgeted Cases 5 Labor Utilization in Budgeted Cases B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................. vii 177 . .......... 189 209 . . . 212 . ! . . . 240 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 Page No. of Farms by Economic Class and Corrected Estimates 1959, 1964, 1969, Michigan Census 13 of A g r i c u l t u r e ............................ Resources Owned by and Production of Michigan's Limited Resource and Commercial Farms (In P e r c e n t ) ....................... Number and Percent of Limited Resource Farms by County Michigan Census of Agriculture, 1969 ............................................ Age and Living Situation During School Years of Male and Female Heads of Limited Resource Farm Families, 1974 Survey (In Percent) . . 21 22 Level of Formal Education and Emphasis of High School Program (In Percent) ............. 24 Children of Limited Resource Families and Other Related Adults Living at Home . . . . 26 Reasons Given for Living in Rural Area, 1974 Survey (In P e r c e n t ) ..................... 28 8 Net Farm Worth, 1974 S u r v e y ................ 29 9 Percent Distribution of Owned Land and Owned Tillable Land, 1974 S u r v e y ........ 7 10 Major Soil Type (In Percent), 11 Average Acreage Planted and Percent Total Acreage Cropped and Diverted by Limited Resource Farm Category, 1974 Survey . . . . 12 13 1974 Survey 34 . 37 38 Average Acreage Planted by Those Planting, 1974 Survey ................................. 3 Year, Average Yields by Limited Resource Category, 1974 S u r v e y ................... viii 'i 16 42 40 Table 14 15 16 17 Page Livestock Numbers on Farms Reporting and Percent Farms Reporting, 1974 Survey . . . . 44 Average Total Income by Source and Economic .................... Class (In Dollars) 50 Off Farm Employment and Wage in Percent, 1974 S u r v e y ................................. 53 Job Tenure, Distance, Fringe Benefits, 1974 S u r v e y ............................... . 54 18 Average Income Per Farm Family, 1974 Survey. 58 19 Self Sufficiency in Food Production by Limited Resource Category, 1974 Survey (In P e r c e n t ) ................................. 61 Desired and Actual Net Cash Farm Income, 1974 S u r v e y ................................. 62 Anticipated Changes in Farm Operations in Next Two Years, 1974 Survey (In Percent) . . 65 20 21 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Page Number and Percentage of Limited Resource Farms in Michigan, 1959, 1964, 1969, U.S. Census of Agriculture ...................... 14 Number and Percentage of Limited Resource Farms, United States, 1959, 1964, 1969, U.S. Census of Agriculture ............... 15 Percentage of Limited Resource Farm by Type 1959-1974 U.S. Census of Agriculture . 17 Mean Years Lived on Present Farm, 1974 Survey ...................................... 27 Average Acreage of Michigan Farms, 19591969, Census of Agriculture ............... 31 Farm Land Use by Operator and Farm Characteristic, 1969 Census of Agriculture. 31 Owned Acreage by Limited Resource Category, 1974 Survey ................................. 33 Mean Acres Rented in and Out by Michigan’s Limited Resource Categories, 1974 Survey. . 35 Hours of Labor Supplied to Farm by Husband Wife, Children and Hired, 1974 Survey . . . 47 1972-1973 Average Gross Farm Income and Cash Expenses, 1974 Survey ............... 49 Minimum, Comfortable, Average Monthly Income 1974 Survey (In Dollars) .................. 60 Stratification of Michigan Counties. The First County in Each Group Was Surveyed . . 10 Chart 1 x LIST OF MAPS Map 1 2 Page No Limited Resource Farms by County, Michigan Census of Agriculture, 1969 . . . Percent of Limited Resource Farms by County, Michigan Census of Agriculture, 1969 ' . . . . . ............................. xi 19 20 LIST OF ANALYSES Analysis I-A 1-B 2-A 2-B 2-C 2-D 2-E 3-A 3-B Page Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Land Rental and Hired Part Time Labor Availability . . . ............................ 82 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Restricted Land Rental and Hired Labor A c t i v i t i e s .................................... 82 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities and Part and Full Time Hired Labor with Restricted Land R e n t a l ............................... 91 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part and Full Time Hired Labor with Restricted Livestock Activities ...................... 91 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land Rental .................... 92 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part Time Hired Labor and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock and Fruit and Vegetable A c t i v i t i e s ................................. 92 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Enlarged Swine Facilities Full and Part Time Labor, and Land Rental. 93 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor Cattle Facilities, and Land Rental . . . . 97 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Labor and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock A c t i v i t i e s ............................... xii . 97 Analysis 3-C 4-A 4-B 4-C 4-D 4-E 4-F 4-G 4-H Page Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, Swine Facilities, and Land Rental ......... 98 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Full Time Off Farm Employ­ ment, Part and Full Time Hired Labor, and Swine Facilities with Restricted Land Rental ...................................... 105 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Full Time Off Farm Employment, Part and Full Time Hired Labor, and Land Rental with Restricted Live­ stock Activities ........................... 105 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Full Time Off Farm Employment, Cattle Facilities, and Part and Full Time Hired Labor Availability with Restricted Land Rental ...................... 106 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Restricted Land Rental and Off Farm Employment ... . . 106 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor with Livestock Activity, Land Rental, and Off Farm Employment Restricted . 107 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Land Rental and Off Farm Employment Restricted ............. 107 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employ­ ment with Restricted Land Rental and Livestock Activities ........................ 108 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Enlarged Swine Facilities, and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land Rental ...................... 108 xiii Analysis 4-1 4-J 4-K 5-A 5-B 5-C 5-D 6-A 6-B 6-C Page Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land R e n t a l ................................... 109 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land R e n t a l ................. 109 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Swine Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land Rental ..................... 110 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Part Time Hired Labor Availability with Restricted Land Rental and Livestock A c t i v i t i e s ................................... 116 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land R e n t a l ...................................... 116 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Land Rental R e s t r i c t e d ................................. 117 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor and Land Rental with Livestock Activity Restricted ........................ 117 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part Time Hired Labor with Livestock Activity R e s t r i c t e d ................................. 122 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities, Part Time Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ......... 122 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities, Part Time Hired Labor and Land R e n t a l .......... 123 xiv Page Analysis 6-D 7-A 7-B 7-C 7-D 7-E 7-F 7-G 7-H 7-1 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities with Land Rental and Hired Labor Restricted . .. 123 Full Time Under Assumptions of Full Time Off Farm Employment, the Availability of Hired Labor and an Enlarged Swine Facility with Land Rental Restricted ................ 129 Full Time Under Assumptions of Full Time Off Farm Employment, the Availability of Hired Part and Full Time Labor and Cattle Facilities with Land Rental Restricted . . . 129 Full Time Under Assumptions of Full Time Off Farm Employment, the Availability of Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Land Rental Restricted ...................... 130 Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities and Hired Full and Part Time Labor with Land Rental and Off Farm Employment Restricted .................. 130 Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities and Hired Labor with Land Rental and Off Farm Employment Restricted ........... ...................... 131 Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Part and Full Time Labor with Land Rental, Livestock Activities, and Off Farm Employment Restricted ............. 131 Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Weekly Off Farm Part Time Employment ................................... 132 Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Enlarged Swine Facilities, and Weekly Off Farm Employment with Land Rental Restricted . . . 132 Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employment with Livestock Activity and Land Rental Restricted .................................... 133 xv Analysis Page 7-J Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Swine Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Land Rental Restricted . 133 7-K Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Land Rental Restricted.......................... 134 7-L Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Land Rental Restricted. . . . 134 8-A Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rental and 25 Cow Dairy Facility..........................................138 8-B Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rental, and 50 Cow Dairy F a c i l i t y .................................138 PA-1 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Normal Prices, Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Restricted Livestock A c t i v i t y ....................................... 145 PA-2 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Low Prices, Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Restricted Livestock A c t i v i t y ....................................... 145 PA-3 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of High P r i c e s , Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Livestock Activitiy_ R e s t r i c t e d ..................................... 146 PA-4 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Normal Prices, Availability of Swine Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ................ 147 PA-5 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Low Prices, Availability of Swine Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ................ 147 PA-6 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of High Prices, Availability of Swine Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land Rental . . . . . . . . 148 Analysis Page PA-7 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Normal Prices, Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Land R e n t a l .................. 149 PA-8 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Low Prices, Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Land R e n t a l .................. 149 PA-9 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of High Prices, Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities and Land Rental ........... 150 PA-10 Full Time Under Assumptions of Normal Prices Availability of Dairy Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ........................ 151 PA-11 Full Time Under Assumptions of Low Prices, Availability of Dairy Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ........................ 151 PA-12 Full Time Under Assumptions of High Prices, Availability of Dairy Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land R e n t a l ........................ 152 xvii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During much of the last century data has been collected regarding the rural sector of the United States. The develop­ ment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the land grant complex fostered research on rural America. Topics researched have been widely varied including projects on the human popu­ lation, physical resources, and farm enterprises found in our rural sector. Although it is difficult to identify a rural subject that has not been researched at some point in time, it is true that most recent efforts have ignored the plight of the limited resource farm sector within American agriculture. It is not difficult to understand the exclusion of limited resource farms as a research focus. American agri­ culture has been a constantly evolving sector characterized by rapid technological changes over the past thirty years. During that time animal power has been replaced by mechanical power and chemical fertilizers and herbicides developed. Both of these developments have greatly reduced the human labor required to farm a given parcel of land and have also resulted in increased production in the form of higher yields. The reduction in labor requirements enabled the displacment of most farm laborers and allowed farm owners to increase the acreage farmed at the same time. 1 However, the new technology 2 also required a different labor input as more sophistication was required to both operate the new machinery and utilize the new chemicals. The increase in yields has enabled U.S. farmers to expand total agricultural production while the total acreage in U.S. farms has steadily decreased. Thus over-abundance of farm output continued to dominate the thought of the agricultural establishment until the past two years. This condition of abundant supply saw the development of production control mechanisms which constrained output rather than encourage i t . Much of the research during this period was concerned with cost efficiency and many of the extension activities were aimed at introducing the new technology. service, faced with a limited budget, The extension sought those innovative farmers who, they felt, would be most receptive to change as clients. By working with these people it was assumed that the new technology would be adopted on their farms and that it would then spread to neighboring farms as their operators emulated their more successful neighbors. There was not enough money available for the extension service to work directly with all farmers and the over abundance of supply provided a rationale for not attempting to educate all of them. Thus both the research undertaken by the land grant complex and the services offered through extension became more and more directed at the needs of the larger, better managed farms. Why should researchers now undertake projects which 3 focus on limited resource farmers in the U.S. or, more parti­ cularly, in Michigan? As the conditions of world and U.S. agriculture continue to evolve the small American farm has become more important. The over abundance of food has dis­ appeared at the world level as starvation continues to plague parts of Asia and Africa. The feed grain reserves that characterized the United States for the past twenty years have also disappeared. While world and U.S. stockpiles of food have diminished, world demand for U.S. increased. food has The higher level of income now generated in many countries has allowed their populace to increase purchases of foreign foods. World food prices, which were always lower than U.S. prices, are now at U.S. levels. This situ­ ation has resulted in higher food prices in the U.S. as the demand for her food has increased while the supply has remained relatively constant. Consequently, new pressures exist to increase agricultural production rather than to constrain it. While the desired supply response can come partly from increasing acreage farmed, more land under cultivation is limited. the ability to bring Thus emphasis must be also placed on increasing yields on existing acreage. To what extent this can be done on limited resource farms must be determined. Similarly the cost of increasing yields on small farms must be known. Another argument for increasing research on limited resource farms arises out of a desire to understand the causes and instances of rural poverty. Percentagewise, 4 census ;data reveals, poverty in rural America is more perva­ sive than in urban America. The inability of the rural sector to provide viable economic opportunities is often cited as the compelling reason for the rural has characterized this century. to urban migration that To what extent poverty exists on our limited resource farms needs to be determined. Moreover, we need to assess the organization of these farms to determine whether or not their size alone constains earned income to poverty levels. There also exists a need to update our knowledge of the socio-economic factors attendant to Michigan's small farms. Information of that nature is inadequate and consists mainly of census statistics. It is virtually impossible to identify subtle shifts or trends using that data as the level of aggregation often distorts or masks them. Further, census statistics report existing conditions in a static sense but does not allow dynamic analysis. It offers no insights into the goals and future aspirations of the individual farmer or of the collective whole. To better identify the conditions of Michigan's limited resource farm population and to comment on their future requires primary research. This thesis will focus on obtaining and analyzing such information on the limited resource farms found in Michigan. The term "limited resource" is used by many agricultural economists to denote relatively small farming operations. However, there exists no similar consensus as to how small a farm must be in a particular or group of measures to so qualify. Because of the variance in agricultural enterprises, many physical measures are inappropriate. A two hundred acre cash grain farm might be considered small while a two hundred acre fruit farm might not. A forty cow herd might be a small beef herd but not a small dairy herd. Adoption of a gross sales measure ignores the variance in total expenses and, hence, yields a varied picture of net income. Adoption of a new income measure, because of varied manager­ ial practices, can lead to widely varying gross sales even within a single enterprise. Despite these difficulties and out of necessity, a definition must be adopted. The definition chosen has at its base a measure of gross sales. Limited resource farmers are those whose gross agricultural sales are less than $20,000 annually but more than $50 and who own more than 10 acres of land. Those who own less than 10 acres but whose sales are more than $250 are also included in this definition. This classifi­ cation comprises the U.S. Census Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, Part Time and Part Retired. In fact, the choice of $20,000 as a cut-off figure was, in great part, dictated by Census practice. Since Class 2 comprises those farms with sales between $20,000 and $40,000, inclusion of this class would certainly include many coramerical farms. Since Class 3 includes those farms with sales between $10,000 and $20,000, exclusion of this class would exclude many small farms. Hence $20,000 was chosen as the point below which farms would be classified as limited resource. In using 1959 6 census data, however, the inclusion of Class 3 has the effect of including some farms that would not have been considered small at that time. This historical bias limits the use of census data in this thesis to post 1959 reports. Within this broad category of limited resource farms, it is necessary to further categorize on the basis of age and off farm employment. The reasoning underlying this further categorization comes in the recognition of the varied opportunities and goals facing different limited resource farm groups. The categories are defined as follows: Limited Resource Rural Resident F arms: The limited resource rural resident farms are those headed by a person under sixty-five years of age, who works more than 800 hours annually off farm, and who grosses less than $2,500 annually in farm sales. This category comprises almost one-third of the s t a t e ’s limited resource farm popultion. Limited Resource Supplemental Income F a r m s : The limited resource supplemental income farms are those headed by a person under sixty-five years of age, who works in excess of 800 hours annually off farm and who grosses between $2,500 and $20,000 annually in farm sales. This category comprises one-third of the s t a t e ’s limited resource farm population. Limited Resource Senior Citizen F a rms: The limited resource senior citizen farms are those headed by a person on social security or over sixty-five years of age who gross 7 less than $20,000 in annual agricultural sales. This category comprises almost one limited resource farm in five. Limited Resource Full Time F a rms: The limited resource full time farms are those headed by a person under sixty-five years of age, who works less than 800 hours annually off farm, and who grosses less than $20,000 in annual agricul­ tural sales. This group comprises one limited resource farm in five. Objectives The first objective of this research is to develop a conceptual framework of limited resource farmers. This will provide a mechanism for developing programs around the specific needs of the various limited resource farmer groupings. The second objective of this research is to estimate the number of limited resource farmers in Michigan and to comment on their characteristics. This will provide a definition of the major conditions and problems affecting this strata. The third objective of this research is to develop unit budgets of variable costs of farm enterprises applicable to limited resource farmers in Michigan stating the labor and fixed capital requirements. This will provide a basis for advising limited resource farmers on the economic con­ sequences of various alternative enterprise combinations. The final objective of this research is to determine 8 appropriate enterprise combinations and technology levels for representative Michigan limited resource farm situations consistent with the operator's goals and resource endowments. These case studies will illustrate potential solutions to the hypothetical goals of these representative farms and farmers. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY OF SURVEY ANALYSIS In order to accomplish the objective of surveying a random sampling of Michigan's limited resource farm popu­ lation, the counties were stratified into eleven groupings. One group containing all upper peninsula counties was eli­ minated because of the small number of farms it contained.’*' The other counties were grouped on the basis of similar agricultural conditions with two groupings comprised of census designated S.M.S.A. counties (see following chart). From each of the remaining ten groupings, one county was randomly selected for interviewing. One of those counties, Cass, was chosen as a test county. An initial survey instrument was designed for use in that county (see Appendix I). The Cooperative Extension Agency in that county was asked for a list of limited resource farmers living in the county and complied with the request. From that list, farmers were interviewed during the summer months of 1973. The experience in Cass county led to the refinement of the survey instrument (see Appendix II) and to refinements in the selection process. *"The fifteen upper peninsula counties, which comprise 18 percent of the s t a t e ’s counties, contain only 2,458 limited resource farms or 3 percent of the limited resource farm population according to the 1969 Census of Agriculture. 9 10 Chart 1. Stratification of Michigan Counties. County in Each Group was Surveyed. GROUP I Cass Berrien St. Joseph Van Buren GROUP II Branch Allegan Barry Calhoun Hillsdale Lenawee GROUP III Ionia Gratiot Shiawassee Montcalm GROUP IV Sanilac Huron Tuscola GROUP V Gladwin Arenac Clare Isabella Lake Mecosta Midland Newaygo Osceola Wexford Missaukee GROUP VI GROUP X Leelanau Antrim Benzie Grand Traverse Manistee Mason Osceola GROUP VII Ogemaw Alcona Alpena Iosco Presque Isle GROUP VIII Oscoda Charlevoix Cheboygan Crawford Emmet Kalkaska Otsego Roscommon GROUP IX The First (SMSA) Livingston Bay Genesee Ingham Kalamazoo Macomb Muskegon Oakland Wayne (SMSA) Ottawa Clinton Eaton Jackson Kent Lapeer Monroe Saginaw S t . Clair Washtenaw 11 In order to save time and to broaden the population beyond those farms known to the extension staff, it was decided that the remaining surveys be concentrated in particular townships. Three townships in each county chosen for interviewing were randomly selected and ranked. Prom plat books, a list of all property owners in each township was derived. These lists were then forwarded to the cooper­ ative extension director in each county along with a list of criteria (see below). The director was asked to eliminate names from the list that he knew violated the criteria. A similar list and criteria was sent to the township board of supervisors in each township along with the same request. The returned lists formed the population for this survey. Three percent of the number of limited resource farms, according to the 1969 Census of Agriculture, in each of the designated counties was chosen as the sample population. Interviewers were sent into these counties in the spring of 1974. They were told to attempt to survey the target number from the township in their county with the highest ranking. If they were unable to reach the target in that township they were allowed to go into the second township. In no case was it necessary to interview in the third township. The completed surveys from these counties and from Cass county were then analyzed and tabulated and form the body of the 1974 Survey of Michigan's Limited Resource Farm Population. 12 Criteria for Determining Limited Resource Farms As previously defined, a limited resource farm is one which occupies more than ten acres of land with gross sales below $20,000 annually. Since those asked to assist in the identification of limited resource farms did not always know the gross sales of farms in their county, a list of enterprise combinations was developed which could produce $20,000 in sales. These enterprises were: Dairy - 25 milk cows Cash Grain - 200 tillable acres Beef Cattle Feeding - 100 feeders Beef Cow and Calf - 80 cows Farrow and Finish Swine - 30 sows 2 litter system Feeder Pig Production - 60 sows 2 litter system Feeder Pig Finish - 500 feeders Poultry - 3,500 laying hens Fruit - 40 acres Survey Results Population There are widely varying estimates of the number of limited resource farms in Michigan. The 1969 agricultural census reported 66,494 farms in Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, Part Time and Part Retired. When the 1969 census figures are corrected for over-and-under count using the United States averages (see Table 1) the number of limited resource farms in Michigan totals 81,843. The 1970 Census Survey of Table 1. No. of Farms by Economic Class and Corrected Estimates Michigan Census of Agriculture Commercial Farms Class I Class I 1959, 1964, 1969 1969 1969* 1964 1964* 1959 1959* 3,975 7,459 3,951 7,451 • 2,413 7,023 2,490 7,248 1,068 3,823 1,099 3,933 Limited Resource Farms Class III Class IV Class V Class VI Part Time Part Retired 9,282 10,887 12,572 4,154 22,637 6,962 9,227 11,669 13,475 5,842 31,838 9,792 13,374 15,298 15,848 6,231 23,683 9,603 13,802 16,171 16,753 7,721 29,347 11,900 12,779 19,363 .21,647 6,362 34,149 12,511 13,145 20,254 22,643 7,372 39,570 14,497 Total Farms 77,928 93,209 93,504 105,432 111,765 122,513 * Corrected Estimates (Note: All Abnormal Farms Excluded) 1 Corrected estimates derived from Mich. Census and Ingram, J. J. and Prochaska D. D., Measuring Completeness of Coverage in the 1969 Census of Agriculture, "American Statistical Association Business and Economics Statistics Section." 1972. 14 Agricultural Finance reported only 52,654 farms in the same categories. The percentage of all Michigan Farms represented by the limited resource population also varies amongst these sources. The 1969 agricultural census reports that percentage as 85.3 percent but when corrected the figure rises to 87.8 percent. The 1970 survey estimates the limited resource population at 80.5 percent of all Michigan farms. Historically both the number and percentage of limited resource farms in Michigan and in the nation are on a decline. Data from the 1959, 1964, and 1969 Census of Agriculture are presented in the following figures Michigan 1. 1969 66,494 85.3% 1964 84,037 89.9% 1959 - 106,811 Figure 1. 95.6% Number and percentage of limited resource farms in Michigan, 1959, 1964, 1969, U.S. Census of Agriculture. The overall decrease in the limited resource farm population between 1959-1969 was 30.3 percent in Michigan as compared to only 22.9 percent for the nation as a whole. However, Michigan's limited resource farms have comprised a consistently greater percentage than the national average. 15 United States 1969 79.7% 2,175,475 1964 87.3% 2,753,897 1959 90% 2,820,127 Figure 2. Number and percentage of limited resource farms, United States, 1959. 1964, 1969, U.S. Census of Agriculture. Within the categories of limited resource farms, several trends are discernable. The percentage of limited resource senior citizen farms has remained almost constant from 1959 to 1974. The percentage of limited resource full time farms has decreased constantly. This reflects both an increase in size in some full time units which can no longer be classified as limited resource as well as shifts in others to senior citizen, supplemental income, or part time categories and the exit from farming of still others. Taken together, the percentage of limited resource supple­ mental income and rural resident farms has steadily increased to over 60 percent off all limited resource farms. Some variance between these two categories is the result of 16 shifting agricultural prices rather than any perceivable change in the nature or size of the operations. However, the overall increasing trend reflects increased opportunities for off farm employment for farm operators and the desired of some employed people to live on farms. In absolute numbers there was a decline of 43.6 per­ cent in the full time category between 1959-1969, percent in the senior citizen category, in the rural resident category. 38.2 and 33.3 percent The supplemental income category showed a 1 percent gain during the same period. Table 2. Resources Owned by and Production of Michigan's Limited Resource and Commercial Farms. (In Percent) Commercial Limited Resource Land Owned 32 68 Machinery Owned 49 51 Value of All Agricultural Products Sold 64 36 Value of All Crops Sold 60 40 Value of All Livestock and Livestock Products 70 30 County Numbers According to the 1969 Census of Agriculture,^ the range in number of limited resource farms per county was from a low of 21 in Luce to a high of 2,219 in Sanilac ^1969 Census report omits Keweenaw and Crawford counties. 17 1974 29.3 Rural Resident 1969 18.6 Senior Citizen 33.1 Supplemental Income 19 Full Time 34 Rural Resident 17.2 Senior Citizen 1964 28.2 Rural Resident Supple­ mental 34.7 Full Time Figure 3. 25.7 Full Time 1959 Rural Resident 18.1 Senior Citizen 23.1 Supplemental Incone 17.3 Senior Citizen 14.2 Supple­ mental Income^ 36.5 Full Time Percentage of limited resource farm by type 1959-1974, U.S. Census of Agriculture, Michigan Survey. 18 (see Table 3). All of the counties in Southern Michigan had in excess of 1,000 limited resource farms except four predominately urban counties (see Map 1). Almost all of the counties in Central and Northern Michigan had fewer than 400 limited resource farms. Percentagewise, the range was from a low of 72.4 percent also in Luce to a high of 97.9 percent in Baraga. In only one county with more than 1,000 limited resource farms was the percentage of such farms greater than 90 percent. The other twenty counties with limited resource farms in excess of 90 percent of all farms were scattered throughout Central and Northern Michigan. Only one-third of the counties having fewer than 85 percent limited resource farms were scattered throughout Central and Northern Michigan with the rest concentrated in Southern Michigan (see Map 2). Limited Resource Farm Families Approximately 94 percent of Michigan's limited resource farm families responding to the 1974 survey were headed by both a husband and wife (see Table 4). None of the limited resource farm categories had three percent of the male heads missing and only two categories, senior citizen and full time, had greater than 3 percent of the female heads missing. The men were older than the women in all categories with the majority of men in all categories over 45. The majority of female heads in both the rural resident and supplemental income groups were under 45 while the opposite was true for CHARLE o t s e g o MONTMOR ALP E N A \ KALKASKA C R AW FD OSCODA, X CRD TRAV ALCONA Av \ - y WEXFORD MASON LA KE MISSAUKEE ROSCOM. OSCEOLA CLARE OCEANA NEWAYGO MECOSTA OGEMAW GLADWIN ARENAC ISABELLA M IDLAND USCOLA SANILAC MUSKE MONTCALM KENT < 400 LAPEER GENESEE OTTAWA I SAGINAW GRATIOT IONIA CLINTON ST CLAIR SNtAWA | < 400 - 1,000 OAKLAND > 1,000 ALLEGAN BARRY VANBUREN K A LAM A. EATON CALHOUN STJOSEPH BRANCH Map 1. INGHAM JACKSON L/VINGSTN WASHTENAW HILLSDALE LENAWEE No limited resource farms by county, of Agriculture, 1969. WAYNE MONROE Michigan Census MACOMB 20 ir o n DELTA t OTSEGO MONTMOR. A L P I N A' i f j I 'M A N IS WEXfORD MISSAUKEE ROSCOM. OGEMAW L A K E )< y \0 S C E 0 L A BAY [OCEANA NEWAYGO ISABELLA M W L A N t r— TUSCOLA SANILAC M ONTCALM > 90% KENT 90 IONIA CLINTON SHU WA < 85% OAKLAND 'ALLEGAN. CALHOUN ST.JOSEPH BRANCH Map 2. JACKSON HILLSDALE Percent of limited resource farms by County Michigan Census of Agriculture, 1969. liable 3. Nunber and Percent of Limited Resource Farms by Cbunty Michigan Census of Agriculture, 1969 Cbunty Alcona Alger Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry Bay Benzie Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Chippewa Clare Clinton Delta Dickinson Eaten Ehmet Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Houghton Percent Number 92.1 88.5 81.0 92.7 83.6 85.1 97.9 87.2 85.5 89.6 85.2 88.2 85.5 84.6 90.3 94.4 86.3 89.8 84.7 87.9 82.1 89.3 84.7 90.9 93.1 94.5 82.3 83.3 89.3 95.3 280 92 2,002 530 285 463 139 1,134 1,293 207 2,140 1,439 1,475 1,073 251 202 386 354 1,677 328 133 1,591 210 1,236 472 69 521 1,611 1,811 261 County Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent Lake Lapeer Leelanau Lenawee Livingston Luce Mackinaw Macomb Manistee Marquette Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Percent Number 80.4 81.9 81.0 92.0 93.4 84.9 88.1 85.4 89.3 81.4 94.7 81.9 85.1 84.1 84.2 72.4 87.8 81.4 89.6 91.8 87.0 89.1 87.2 93.1 74.5 87.8 88.7 88.1 82.2 85.7 2,015 1,146 1,320 286 99 1,078 1,389 1,020 109 1,545 144 1,408 435 2,151 925 21 86 812 337 89 529 706 513 663 333 1,756 1,522 118 475 867 County Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw St. Clair St. Joseph Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Wesford Percent Number 87.5 84.7 85.1 96.0 87.6 86.3 92.4 77.4 90.8 95.9 86.3 87.8 86.5 79.6 94.4 88.3 81.1 85.8 82.1 88.9 92.0 755 732 314 191 581 82 159 1,429 376 47 2,117 1,460 1,194 2,219 51 1,510 1,791 1,705 1,395 531 301 Table 4. Age and Living Situation During School Years of Male and Female Heads of Limited Resource Farm Families, 1974 Survey (In Percent) Rural Resident Hus. Wife Supplemental Income Hus. Wife --- Senior Citizen Hus. Wife Full Time Limited Resource Hus. Wife Hus. Wife 2.2 11.1 1.7 5.0 1.2 2.5 Not present 2.8 2.8 Under 25 2.8 5.6 1.2 2.5 --- --- --- --- 25-34 19.7 21.1 17.5 23. 7 --- --- 10.9 13. 3 13.6 16.7 35-44 21.1 28.2 30.0 36.2 --- --- 21.7 24.4 20.2 25.0 45-54 36.6 32.4 35.0 21.2 --- 2.3 28.3 24.4 27.7 21.7 55-64 16.9 9.9 16.2 12.5 11.1 54.5 37.0 26.7 19.4 22.1 65 or over --- 1.2 86.7 36.4 --- --- 16.1 7.1 --- --- 2.5 2.2 6.8 Living Situation During !School Yearsi (In Percent) Rural 82. 8 64.3 95.0 76.2 93.0 86.1 91.5 72.3 90.4 73.7 Urban 17.2 35. 7 5.0 23.8 7.0 13.9 8.5 27.7 9.6 26.3 the other two categories. Male heads also tended to be youngest in both the rural resident and supplemental income categories. More than 90 percent of the male heads and 75 percent of the female heads spent their school years in rural areas. The percentage of male heads was smallest in the rural resi­ dent group while virtually the same in the others. The percentage of female heads spending school years in rural areas was also lowest in the rural resident group but highest in the senior citizen grouping. As Table 5 indicates, the majority of both female and male heads of Michigan's limited resource farm population received high school degrees. The females received more education through high school but the males received more college education and technical training. The percentage graduating from college was about the same for both sexes, however. The male senior citizen heads were the least educated while the male heads in the supplemental income group were most educated. The female heads in the rural resident group were the most educated while the level of formal education for female heads in the supplemental income and full time categories was slightly lower. Of the male and female heads who went to high school the majority received general educations. The second largest category was agricultural for the male heads and business/secretarial for the females. Table 5. Level of Formal Education and Emphasis of High School Program (In Percent) Rural Resident Hus. Wife Supplemental Income Hus. Wife Senior Citizen Hus. Wife Full Time ' Hus. Wife Limited Resource Hus. Wif e 8 years or less 17.4 2.9 11.2 5.2 43.2 37.5 26.1 7.3 21.8 10. 6 9-11 years 26.1 19.1 17.5 18.2 34.1 42.5 17.4 22.0 23.0 23. 5 High School Degree 33.3 63.2 55.0 67.5 15.9 10.0 39.1 58.5 38.5 54. 4 Some College or Technical 17.4 13.2 15.0 6.5 6.8 5.0 13.0 9.8 13.8 8. 8 5.8 1.5 1.2 .6 — 5.0 4.3 2.4 2.9 2. 7 86.2 65.0 69.2 62.2 69. 3 — 20.0 — 21.9 1 .0 7.7 .5 8. 3 12.8 1.5 13. 2 — 7.7 1 .0 6.1 7. 3 College Grad High School Emphasis General 57.1 58.7 54.3 71.6 86.7 Agricultural 14.3 1.6 37.1 1.4 3.3 Home Economics 1.8 7.9 — 12.2 Business/Seeretarial 3.6 25.4 — 6.8 3.3 3.4 Vocational 10.7 1.6 5.7 1.4 3.3 — College Prepartion 12.5 4.8 2.9 6.8 3.3 10.3 — 10.0 5.0 10.3 25 Most of Michigan's limited resource farm families had children living at home. As seen in Table 6 there was considerable variance between the limited resource farm categories with respect to the age and number of children at home. As would be expected, the rural resident families and supplemental income families had the youngest families while the senior citizen families had the oldest children. The senior citizen families had the smallest percentage of those reporting children living at home and the lowest average number of children per family reporting children at home. The supplemental income group had the highest percentage of families reporting children at home and along with the rural resident families had the highest average number of children living at home per family reporting children at home. In the 14-17 age group, better than one- third of the limited resource farm families reported having children. This age bracket comprises the best potential source of meaningful farm labor amongst the children at home. Only six percent of the farms surveyed reported other related adults living at home. Farm Tenure Michigan's limited resource farm families have lived an average of twenty years on their farms. expected, ure. As would be the senior citizens had, by far, the longest ten­ The full time farms were second while the younger rural resident and supplemental income farmers had the lowest tenure. Table 6. Children of Limited Resource Families and Other Related Adults Living at Home 5-8 9-13 14-17 Over 18 Children 22.1 29.4 36.8 33.8 47.1 66.2 7.4 1.6 1.15 1.64 1.52 2.31 2.91 1.6 21.8 34.6 46.2 47.4 47.4 81.8 6.4 1.47 1.52 1.56 1.46 2.27 3.03 1.4 0 0 0 9.7 80.3 12.5 3.1 0 0 0 1 3.14 1.0 2.0 7.1 9.5 33.3 35.7 54.8 57.1 4.7 1.7 1.0 1.79 1.33 2.17 2.54 1.0 16.0 23.7 34.2 35.6 54.8 60.4 5.9 1.54 1.33 1.49 1.44 2.47 2.83 1.46 Under 5 Rural Residents % Reporting A v e . Number Children of those reporting Supplemental Income % Reporting A v e . Number those Reporting Senior Citizen % Reporting A v e . Number those Reporting Full Time % Reporting A v e . Number those Reporting Limited Resource % Reporting A v e . Number those Reporting at Home Other Related Adults at Home 27 33.9 21.1 16.2 20.0 14.2 Rural Resident Figure 4. Supplemental Incane Senior Citizen Pull Time Limited Resources Mean years lived on present farm, 1974 survey. When asked for reasons for living in a rural community, two-thirds of the limited resource farm families responded either an appreciation of rural life or disdain for urban life. As Table 7 indicates, either employment, less than four percent gave retirement, or health reasons. About one in ten, mainly rural resident and supplemental income limited resource farms, report family rearing reasons and about the same percentage, mainly full time and supplemental income families, report agricultural opportunity as their reason. This latter statistic is very revealing and sug­ gests that economic considerations had little impact on the decision to live in rural communities. Net Farm Worth The mean value of land, buildings, machinery, and livestock reported by limited resource farm respondnets in 1974 was $67,124. The mean farm and consumer debt was $6,291 and the mean net farm worth $61,772 (see Table 8). Table 7. Reasons Given for Living in Rural Area Rural Resident 1974 Survey Supplemental Income (In Percent) Senior Citizen Full Time Limited Resource Employment 6.0 1.3 — Retirement 1.5 1.3 16.7 Farm Opportunity 6.0 13.0 9.5 19.6 11.6 Disdain Urban Life 14.9 16.9 11.9 15.2 15.1 Appreciation Rural Life 55.2 44.2 54.8 54.3 51.3 1.5 3.9 11.9 3.0 Health Raise Family Other 2.2 2.6 — 3.9 — — 16.9 2.4 6.5 10.8 2.6 4.8 2.2 3.0 1.7 Table 8- Net Farm Worth 1974 Survey Rural Resident Selling Price Land & Bldgs. Supplemental Income Senior Citizen Full Time Limited Resource $40,970 $61,020 $50,410 $63,660 $53,723 Value of Machinery 3,760 10,890 5,000 14,810 8,488 Value of Livestock 1,230 5,530 3,570 10,700 4,913 $45,960 $77,440 $58,980 $89,170 $67,124 7,280 6, 3S0 950 5,410 5,352 $38,680 $71,060 $58,030 $83,760 $61,772 1,890 1,000 310 590 939 Total Assets Farm Debt Net Farm Worth Consumer Debt % Distribution Net Farm Worth 0-$ 20,000 21.1 1.2 8.9 4.3 9.1 $20,001-$ 40,000 39.4 21.2 22.2 19.1 26.3 $40,001-$ 70,000 23.9 37.5 42.2 21.3 31.3 $70,001-$100, 000 15.5 18.8 22.2 17.0 18.1 — 21.2 4.4 38.3 15.2 $ $100,000-over 30 Both the supplemental income and full time categories had average selling price of agricultural land and buildings in excess of $60,000. However, the full time farms had twice the value of livestock and one and one-half times the value of machinery as that owned by the supplemental income group. The supplemental group had somewhat more farm and consumer debt than the full time farms. worth, Thus, in terms of net farm the average of the full time farm ($89,170) was sub­ stantially in excess of the supplemental income farm (77,440). Senior citizen farms had land and buildings worth more than $50,000 but somewhat lower than average holdings of machinery and livestock. As a category, they had the lowest level of debt, only 1.6 percent of total farm worth, resource group. of any limited The rural residents had the lowest average value of land, buildings, machinery and livestock. addition, In they had the highest absolute and percentage level of farm and consumer debt. Their net farm worth averaged only $40,010 a farm. Land in Farms According to census data, from 1959 to 1969 the aver­ age acreage of Michigan's commercial and limited resource farms has remained remarkably constant (see Figure 5). More than three of every four acres owned by commercial farms is cropland, enabling them to harvest crops from over 6 of every 10 acres owned. The percentage of cropland to total land has been only 66 percent for limited resource farms who have harvested crops from only 4 of every 10 acres owned. 31 m 333.6 332.5 331.8 C ommercial Limited Resource 1959 Figure 5. 121.7 124.5 123 1969 1964 Average acreage of Michigan farms, Census of Agriculture. United States 1959-1969, Michigan 22. Full Time 56. Commercial Comnercial / 20. Supplemental \ Income il. Phil Time Figure 6. ' Rural /Senior. Resident/ Citizen Farm land use by operator and farm characteristic 1969 Census of Agriculture, (percent of total). 32 There has been a constant decline in land in Michigan farms from 14.7 million acres in 1959 to 11.9 million acres in 1969. During this period land in limited resource farms declined by 5 million acres while land in commercial farms grew by 2.2 million acres. Yet in 1969 limited resource farms occupied 2 of every 3 acres of Michigan farmland. When compared to the U.S., Michigan's limited resource farms occupy about 21 percent more of total farm acreage than do U.S. limited resource farms. Almost all of this increase is attributable to the rural resident and supple­ mental income categories although all Michigan limited resource categories occupied more land, percentagewise, than the national average for limited resource categories. By limited resource farm category, able range in size. there is consider­ The 1974 survey demonstrates the variance in average acreage. Because the prices received by farmers were relatively high in 1973, there is some dis­ tortion in the above picture. Many farms that would classify as limited resource were boosted into the commercial category. This has the probable effect of decreasing average acreage in all categories and of shifting some rural residents into the supplemental income group. Hence the average of 97.6 acres is much lower than the 122 acre average reported in the 1969 agricultural census. This difference is also reflected in the distribution of limited resource farms by acreage owned as reported in the 1969 census and in the 1974 survey. The census reported 33 125.8 108.8 96.4 97.6 66.7 Rural Resident Figure 7. Supplemental Income Senior Citizen Full Time Limited Resource Owned acreage by limited resource category, survey. 1974 that slightly over half of the limited resource farms in Michigan were under 100 acres in size in 1969 while the 1974 survey raised that to 58 percent. Only 7 percent of the 1974 respondents owned over 180 acres, a figure of 20 percent is given in the 1964 census. As Table 9 demonstrates, the rural residents had the smallest acreage owned and tillable acreage owned. The senior citizens had the next smallest acreage followed by supplemental income farms and led by the full time farms. The full time were the largest farms in tillable terms. senior citizen farms were very close to the supplemental income farms in tillable acreage indicating that a higher percentage of their land is tillable than that in supple­ mental income farms. Another discrepancy arises between the 1969 census data and the 1974 survey data with respect to net land rental transactions. According to the 1969 census data, The Table 9. Percent Distribution of Owned Land and Owned Tillable Land Rural Resident Owned Tillable Supplemental Income Owned Tillable Senior Citizen Owned Tillable 1974 Survey Full Time Owned Tillable Limited Resource Owned Tillable __ 2.1 7.4 9.7 25.0 8.5 8.5 11.9 17.3 11.1 15.9 2.1 10.6 8.6 14.8 27.8 33.3 27.3 25.5 25.5 30.0 27.8 22.5 19.0 26.7 15.9 29.8 27.7 21.4 17.3 — 17.5 11.4 13.3 11.4 17.0 21.3 13.2 10.1 1.5 10.0 3.8 2.2 2.3 17.0 4.3 7.4 3.0 0- 29 21.1 26.9 2.5 3.8 2.2 2.3 30- 49 19.7 23.9 7.5 12.7 11.1 50- 69 8.5 9.0 11.2 21.5 70- 99 32.4 29.9 28.7 100-139 11.3 9.0 140-179 5.6 180- 1.4 35 all Michigan farms rented a net 2.1 million acres from non­ farm land owners. Of this net rental, limited resource farms rented a net of over .9 million acres with the balance being rented by commercial farms. The 1974 survey data, however, shows the average net rental of farmland by limited resource farms to be a negative 1.1 acres per farm. An insight to this situation is gleamed from Figure 8 below. Rented in Bill Rented out I Rural Resident Figure 8. I Supplemental Income Senior Citizen Full Time Limited Resource Mean acres rented in and out by Michigan's limited resource categories, 1974 survey. Both supplemental and full time categories had very high positive net rental transactions while the reverse was true for senior citizen and rural resident categories. Hence, the more active farms rented land in while the less active farms rented land out. Because of the previously noted relatively high level of 1973 farm prices, many of these counted as limited resource full time or supplemental income farms in 1969 were commercial farms in 1974. If they were also large land renters, their inclusion in the 1974 sample 36 might have the effect of moving the limited resource total in the direction of the 1969 data. The rental basis for the majority of rent-in and rentout transactions was on a share basis. One in four rent-in transactions was on a cash only basis with about one in six on a combined or other basis. Only one in six rent-out transactions was on a cash only basis with about one in five on a combined or other basis. All of those involved in cash only transactions were either supplemental income or full time limited resource farms. Soil Type The major categories of soil type reported by Michigan's limited resource farms were sandy loam and clay loam. These two acounted for 8 of every 10 responses to the question of major soil type in the 1974 survey. Over half of the remain­ ing responses gave clay as the major soil type. There was not much difference in soil type between farm categories (see Table 10). Cropland Usage Of the limited resource farms surveyed in 1974, the main crops harvested in 1973 were corn, hay and pasture. These uses account for almost two of every three acres reported (see Table 11). In addition more than one acre in ten was reported diverted in government grain programs. The average acreage used for crop purposes was 71.8 per limited resource farm. Table 10. Major Soil Type (In Percent) Rural Resident Sand 1974 Survey Supplemental Income Senior Citizen Full Time Limited Resource 6.1 5.1 6.7 4.3 5.5 Sandy Loam 39.4 50.0 31.1 42.6 41.9 Clay 12.1 12.8 8.9 10.6 11.4 Clay-Loam 34.8 30.8 53.3 38.3 37.7 4.3 2.5 Loam 6.1 — . Loamy-Sand 1.5 1.3 — .8 Table 11. Average Acreage Planted and Percent Total Acreage Cropped and Diverted by Limited Resource Farm Category, 1974 Survey Alfalfa Clover Hay Com for Silage Com for Grain Wheat .6 Other Soya Grain Beans Pasture Fruit Other Cash Crops Diverted Total Rural Residents Acreage Percent total 6.6 20 4.6 14 2.3 7 1.7 5 2 1.2 4 10.5 30 33.6 1 5.1 15 .6 2 Supplemental Income Acreage Percent total 17.3 19 4.3 5 24.6 27 5.8 6 5.1 6 8.5 9 13.0 14 2.1 2 1.0 1 8.6 9 90.3 Senior Citizens Acreage Percent total 7.6 17 1.6 4 8.0 17 6.4 14 4.1 9 1.2 3 6.9 15 1.6 4 3.8 8 4.0 9 45.2 Fill Time Acreage Percent total 24.2 19 11.2 9 31.9 24 5.0 4 6.0 5 9.1 7 23.9 19 6.2 5 4.7 4 5.5 4 127.7 Limited Resource Acreage Percent total 13.7 19 4.1 6 17.1 23 4.7 7 4.1 6 4.9 7 11.6 16 1.3 2 2.3 3 7.7 11 71.5 .4 The variance between limited resource farm categories was considerable in both average acreage used and in crop­ land usage. The rural resident category had an average of 33.6 acres used, the lowest of any category. Almost one- third of that acreage was diverted while half was in corn, hay and pasture. Rural residents had the highest average number of acres diverted amongst the categories, further indicating their relative inactivity in agricultural pur­ suits. Senior citizen farms reported only 46.6 acres cropped or diverted. Slightly more than half of their acreage was in corn, hay and pasture with wheat as the fourth major usage. Supplemental income farmers had an average of 90.3 acres in crops or diverted. Corn, hay and pasture comprised almost two-thirds of their acreage with soybeans and diverted acreage as the next most important usages. greatest average acreage, full time farms. The 127.7 acres, was reported by the More than seven of every ten acres was reported in corn, hay and pasture. Soybeans was the next most important crop with the percentage of diverted acreage being the smallest for all categories. Another view of cropping practices is afforded by examination of the average acreage planted by those actually planting a particular crop. As Table 12 indicates, the limited resource average acre planted by those planting had a range of 16.2 acres of other grain to 30.9 of alfalfa, clover or hay. Amongst the categories, the part time farms Table 12. Average Acreage Planted by Those Planting 1974 Survey Rural Resident Supple­ mental Income Senior Citizen Full Time Limited Resource Alfalfa, Clover, Hay 19.4 32.5 22.9 43.7 30.9 Corn for Silage 14.0 21.4 14.6 20.2 19.7 Corn for Grain 14.1 31.3 24.7 20.7 29.9 Wheat 13.2 17.5 19.1 20.7 17.6 Other Grain 12.2 16.2 20.4 16.4 16.2 Soybeans 10.0 30.2 13.8 31.5 27.6 Pasture 17.0 32.0 28.1 35.4 29.3 Fruit 11.0 33.0 11.7 28.0 19.2 Diverted 27.5 28.3 22.6 21.1 26.1 Other Cash Crops 16.6 26.7 41 had the lowest average acreage planted by those planting ranging from 10 acres of soybeans to 19.4 acres of alfalfa, clover or hay. The senior citizens were second lowest in average in all but three categories ranging from 11.7 acres of fruit to 28.1 acres of pasture. The supplemental income farmers led in average acreage in both corn for grain and silage and in fruit. Their averages ranged from 16.2 for other grain to 33 acres of fruit. In all but one of the other categories the full time farmers had the highest average acreage per farm reporting ranging from 16.4 acres of other grain to 43.7 acres of alfalfa, clover and hay. Yield measures are also important in analyzing the cropping practices of Michigan's limited resource farms. As Table 13 indicates the rural resident category had the lowest yields except for wheat where their yields are the highest. Supplemental income farms had the next lowest yields excepting corn for grain where their average was the highest. The full time farms had yields just lower than those of senior citizens whose tended to be the highest. The 1969 census data demonstrates a variance in yields between the state's commercial and limited resource farms. The limited resource farms have yields 15 percent lower in corn for grain, 12 percent lower in wheat, and 14 percent lower in soybeans than those of commerical farms. While there are many possible explanations of this phenomena, the census also reports limited resource farms using only 60.4 Table 13. 3 Year, Average Yields by Limited Resource Category 1974 Survey Rural Resident Supplemental Income Senior Citizen Full Time Limited Resource Alfalfa (tons) 2.35 2.36 2.85 2.84 2.53 Corn Silage (tons) 1 10.7 11.5 13.7 11.3 Corn Grain (bu.) 69. 5 92 83.9 87.3 86.1 Wheat (bu.) 47.1 38.5 43 38.8 41.3 Soya beans (bu.) 16.8 23.7 29.3 24.6 23.7 43 percent of the fertilizer used per harvested acre by com­ mercial farms. cide, pesticide, From this, it may be inferred that herbi­ and other input usage may also be less than that employed by commerical farms. Livestock The 1974 survey reveals that there is not much live­ stock activity on limited resource farms. report beef herds, dairy herds, Only 27 percent 15 percent poultry flocks, and 11 percent swine. 15 percent Supplemental income farms reported the highest percentage of beef (36 percent), swine (18 percent) and poultry (21 percent). Full time farms had the highest percentage of dairy (45 percent) while the rural residents had the lowest percentage of farms reporting all categories of livestock (see Table 14). The average limited resource beef herd had almost 20 cows. The supplemental income and full time herds were largest and reported the greatest number of calves born. Both report high numbers of feeders purchased and at double the weight of similar purchases in the other categories. Full time farms sold their calves at the lowest weight however. The average limited resource swine farm had 70 pigs born in 1973 and purchased almost thirty feeders. Full time farms had the largest swine operations with heavy emphasis on farrowing while supplemental income herds were somewhat smaller but the emphasis on feeding. Senior citizens had the highest number of pigs weaned per litter while rural residents had the smallest. Table 14. Livestock Numbers on Farms Reporting and Percent Farms Reporting Rural Resident % of No. per Farms Farm Beef Cows Beef Calves Born Calves Sold Selling Weight Calves Feeder Calves Bought Ave. Weight Calves Bought Feeder Cattle Sold 17 13 7 7 14 13 8 13.7 7.8 7.0 543 lbs. 4.8 132.2 lbs. 5.0 Supplemental Income % of No. per Farms Farm 36 19 10 9 29 21 23 Senior Citizen % of No. per Farm Farms 27 24.8 16.1 22 16 11 545 lbs. 9 20.2 16 250 lbs. 4 21.4 4 Swine No. Litters Farrowed Ave. No. Pigs Weaned Feeder Pigs Sold Feeder Pigs Bought Market Pigs Sold 7 6 6 8 6 3.8 5.6 25.5 10 6 18 18 10 11 16 9.4 6.6 75.5 55.9 31.1 4 4 4 2 4 Poultry Ave. No. Laying Hens Doz. Eggs Sold Per Hen 7 1 25 15 21 5 47.7 11.5 16 7 11 1 60 40 8.2 60 9 9 33 66 Dairy Ave. No. Milk Cows Cwt. Milk Per Cow A Market. B Market 3 3 50 50 9.5 130 1974 Survey 12.8 7.1 5.6 429 lbs. 6.7 95 13.5 Full Time % of No. per Farm Farms 28 19 6 6 26 19 21 20.1 13.f 21.0 lbs. 350 25.3 289 lbs. 27.8 Limited Resource % of No. per Farms Farm 27 18 9 8 21 15 15 19.6 11.7 12.1 489 lbs. 16.6 223 lbs. 20 11 11 2 15 13 18.4 6.4 35 14.4 93.8 11 11 6 9 11 10.8 6.5 52.4 29.4 42.2 203 12 15 2 39.7 15 15 4 73.2 12.4 19 119 45 36 79 21 15 10 69 31 15.8 117 6.0 7.5 22.5 12 32.5 19 119 45 The average limited resource poultry flock had 73 birds but only one in four sold eggs. Of these which did sell eggs the average number sold per chicken was 12.4 dozen. Rural residents and full time farms sold the most eggs per bird while senior citizens had the biggest flocks. The average limited resource dairy flock had almost 16 cows and sold 11,700 pounds of milk per cow. Senior citizens and full time herds were largest and each sold 11,900 pounds per cow. The highest production occurred on rural resident farms at 13,000 pounds per cow while the supplemental income farms had the smallest herds and pro­ duction. Almost 7 of every 10 dairy farms was on the A market primarily because of the number of A market full time herds. Machinery Michigan limited resource farms reported an average value of machinery of $8,488 in the 1974 survey. full time farms had the highest average, As expected, $14,810. Supple­ mental income farms had the second highest average, $10,890. Both senior citizen and rural resident farms had significantly lower values of machinery $5,000 and $3,760, respectively. According to the 1969 Census of Agriculture, all of the limited resource farms had tractors. almost Pick up balers were present on 3 of every 10 farms and corn pickers, picker shellers, or corn heads present on 1 of every 4. About 1 of every 8 limited resource farms had grain and bean 46 combines. As a group, limited resource farms had 51.2 per­ cent of all of the machinery by value held by Michigan farmers. Farm Labor Utilization The mean number of hours of labor utilized on Michigan limited resource farms was reported to be 2,264 in the 1974 survey. labor, The male head supplied about 60 percent of the the female head 25 percent, hired labor 3 percent. children 12 percent, and There was considerable variance in total labor utilized between the four limited resource farm categories with less variance in the source of that labor. Full time farms utilized the most labor, per week. per week, almost 85 hours Supplemental income farms utilized almost 49 hours senior citizen farms almost 29 hours per week, and rural resident farms less than 19 hours per week. Female heads of full time farms supplied the most labor of all female heads, more than 20 per week. Their labor supply was greater than all labor supplied to rural resident farms and that supplied by the male heads of senior citizen farms. The female heads of supplemental income farms supplied more labor than the male heads of rural resi­ dent farms as did the children of the full time farms. The senior citizen farms used the most hired labor and had the smallest input of labor from female heads. Assuming the quality mix of labor input between the categories to be equal, some comment can be made on the 47 efficiency of that labor. Using gross income per hour of labor as an indicator, the supplemental income farms were the most efficient followed by senior citizen farms, full time farms, and rural residents. Using net income per hour of labor the only change that occurs is between the senior citizen and supplemental income groups. This measure was between $1.08-$1.30 per hour for the top three groups but only $0.06 per hour for the rural residents. Even for the more efficient categories, these inflated measures of hourly wage are well below the federal minimum wage level. In the case of rural residents, this measure suggests that nonmonetary factors determine the quantity of labor input. 4419 Total Husband Wife Children Hired 2493 2535 2264 1329 1466 1434 912 563 226 102 1002 189 683 389 29 lural SuppleResident mental Income 21 Figure 9. 1157 559 695 313 110 165 Senior Citizen 74 Full Time 63 Limited Resource Hours of labor supplied to farm by husband, wife, children and hired, 1974 survey. 48 Farm Income According to the 1969 Census of Agriculture, the limited resource farms in the U.S., although 80 percent of all farms, produced only 25 percent of the value of all agricultural products sold and related income. In Michigan, the limited resource farms in 1969 produced 36 percent of the value of all agricultural products sold and related income although 85 percent of the state's farms. Over the ten year period 1959-1969, there are two discernable trends occurring in the source of agricultural income for Michigan's limited resource and commercial farms. The limited resource farms have been earning an increasing share of their total farm income from crops while the per­ centage of income from livestock enterprises has declined. The reverse is true for Michigan's commercial farms. There has been a decline in the share of farm income earned from forestry for both groups. Livestock activities have gener­ ated more than half of total farm income since 1959 for Michigan's limited resource farms although by a small margin in 1969. Crop income accounted for almost 49 percent of total farm income in 1969 for Michigan's limited resource farms. The mean gross farm income of the respondents to the 1974 survey was $6,996. had the highest mean, lowest, $1,150. As expected, the full time farms $13,770 and the rural residents the The senior citizen farms had a mean of $5,000 while the supplemental income farms had a mean of $9,300. In net cash income terms, the rural residents reported a net of only $50, while the senior citizens reported a net of $1,930. The supplemental income farms reported a net of $3,080 with the full time farms reporting the highest net, $4,750. These figures indicate that senior citizen farms were the most efficient in terms of net income as a percentage of gross income with both full time and supplemental close behind. All three of these categories netted between 33 percent and 39'percent of their gross. Rural resident farms, by comparison, netted less than 5 percent at their gross agricultural sales. The net cash income figure reported somewhat overstates the actual return to labor of these farms, however, since they do not include a depreciation charge or a return to capital investments. Gross Income $1,150 $9,300 $5, 000 $13,770 $6,996 1,100 6,220 3, 007 9,020 4,697 50 $3,080 $1, 993 $ 4,750 $2,299 Cash Expenses Net Cash Income Figure 10. $ 197S-1973 average gross farm income and cash expenses, 1974 survey. Off Farm Income The importance of off farm income to Michigan's limited resource farms is beyond dispute. The following table derived from the 1970 Census Survey of Agricultural Finance, clearly demonstrates this conclusion. The data Table 15. Average Total Income by Source and Economic Class Class 3 Class 4 Net Cash Farm Cash Wages Nonfarm Bus. 10,574 4,531 4,670 328 653 41.3 42.6 3.0 2,291 5,176 24.6 8,455 % total Class 5 12,113 % total Class 6 7,538 % total Part Time 11,124 % total Part Retired % total Gov't Custom Farm Work Program No. Farms Reporting % total 2,850 (In Dollars) Social Security Pensions Nonfarm Property Off Farm Total 305 265 207 6,427 10,958 6.0 2.8 2.4 1.9 58.7 259 706 229 471 50 6,922 56.4 2.8 7.7 2.5 5.1 .5 75.4 602 6,120 610 363 200 498 95 7,886 7.1 72.1 7.2 4.3 2.4 5.9 1.1 92.9 182 3,192 112 191 175 1,274 40 4,985 3.5 61.8 2.2 3.7 3.4 24.7 .8 96.5 62 9,976 362 356 33 151 56 10,935 .6 90.7 3.3 3.2 .3 1.4 .5 99.4 39 792 184 320 102 1,604 146 3,147 1.2 24.9 5.8 10 3.2 50.3 4.6 98.8 % Off Farm % F.R. Average Off Reported Farm 83.8 7,669 86.4 7,976 88.8 8,875 76.7 6,495 58.7 9,181 75.4 8,488 92.9 5,167 96.5 10,997 100 10,934 86 3,661 99.4 3,186 98.8 51 is presented by economic class groupings which does not permit accurate transformation into limited resource cate­ gories. That fact withstanding, draw further conclusions. it is still possible to None of the limited resource economic classes received a majority of their income from their farm. In fact, even if income from government pay­ ments and custom work were included in farm income the pre­ ceding statement would hold. There is considerable variance in total income and off farm income between the economic classes. Census classes part retired and 6 were the lowest in total income and in off farm income. Both received practi­ cally all of their income from off farm sources. In the part retired category, the majority of total income came from social security or pension payments. of these farms are over 65 years of age, Since the heads it follows that their employment potential is slight and, indeed, they received only 25 percent of their income from cash wages. One fact that is often overlooked is the relative impor­ tance of government farm program payments to this group. Although dollarwise these payments ranked amongst the lowest to any economic class, percentagewise they were highest in contribution to total income. This indicates the relatively greater importance of these payments to this class. In Class 6, wages accounted for the majority of income with social security and pension payments providing one dollar in four. The relatively low dollar amount of wages and 52 high pension payments indicate the possibility of many dis­ abled persons being included in this category. According to the 1970 Survey of Agricultural Finance, the part time economic class has the highest average income, off farm income, and cash wages of all limited resource groups. Their income from their farm, custom work, and government farm program payments supplied less than 5 percent of their total income. Amongst the limited resource farms which grossed in excess of $2,500 from agricultural sales, total income and farm income were positively correlated with agricultural sales while cash wages and off farm income were negatively correlated. This indicates that those who gave up off farm employment for greater farm activity made, on the average, more income than those who didn't. However, those who gave up practically all of their farm activity for off farm employment (part time) made the most income of all. Against this backdrop, the off farm employment of Michigan's limited resource farm families can be properly assessed. Over two of every three respondents to the 1974 survey indicated that the male head had off farm employment. One farm in four reported the female head had off farm employment and one in four reported another member of the family had off farm employment (see Table 16). Within the limited resource categories, however, is considerable variance in off farm employment. there The over­ whelming percentage of male heads in the senior citizen and Table 16. Off Farm Employment and Wage in Percent Rural Resident Male Female No off farm employment Professional-Technical Manager, official, proprietor Clerical Sales Craftsman or foreman Operative (semi-skilled) Nonfarm laborer Service 2.9 8.7 5.8 — 5.8 27.5 43.5 2.9 — 64.7 5.9 — 13.2 1.5 1.5 7.4 — 5.9 1974 Survey Supplemental Income Male Female 1.2 3.7 5.0 — 8.7 25.0 47.5 3.7 — 80.3 3.9 — 5.3 2.6 — 1.3 1.3 5.3 Senior Citizen Male Female Full Time Male Female Limited Resource Male Female 77.3 86.7 31.9 3.8 5.0 — 5.0 17.6 30.3 2.5 — 73.2 5.4 1.3 5.3 10.7 17.3 26.0 22.0 7.3 10.0 30.9 20.0 18.2 9.1 14.5 3.6 — 85.4 4.9 — 6.8 — — — — 4.5 6.8 — — 2.4 — 2.4 — 4.9 2.2 — 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 — 50.0 25.0 25.0 61.5 7.7 — 10.3 5.1 2.6 5.1 — 7.7 — 7.6 2.7 .9 4.0 .4 5.8 Wage $ 0-2.50 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.50-4.00 4.01-4.75 4.76-5.50 5.51-6.25 6.26-over 3.1 9.4 15.6 20.3 31.3 7.8 12.5 20.0 33.3 6.7 13.3 20.0 4.2 1.4 4.1 12.3 16.4 34.2 16.4 8.2 6.8 6.7 22.2 Ave. number hours worked per week 42.9 31.4 41.3 32.2 36.7 34.2 19.8 32.1 41.0 32.0 Weeks worked in 1973 49.6 42.8 47.3 42.0 35.3 48.8 37.2 33.3 47.2 40.8 33.3 4.2 29.2 12.5 12.5 4.2 — — — 11.1 22.2 11.1 22.2 11.1 — — 25.0 — 50.0 — 25.0 33.3 33.3 16.7 — 8.3 8.3 — — — — — — — — — — 3.6 Table 17. Job Tenure, Distance, Fringe Benefits 1974 Survey Full Time Male Female Limited Resource Male Female Rural Resident Male Female Supplemental Income Male Female Senior Citizen Male Female Year at present occupation 12.4 8.6 14.1 9.1 21.5 11.8 4.8 8.1 13.6 8.9 Miles drive to job, one way 21.6 12.9 15.4 8.9 6.7 13.3 8.3 13.4 17.3 11.9 CJl Fringe Benefits Percent With Life Insurance 67.7 36.4 63.9 12.5 40.0 Health-Hospitalization 84.8 54.5 82.2 43.8 70.0 20.0 Paid vacation 86.2 63.6 87.7 50.0 50.0 40.0 Retirement other than social security 62.9 47.6 55.7 20.0 30.0 40.0 30.8 61.8 25.0 — 30.8 79.9 42.9 — 38.5 81.7 51.8 38.5 55.1 37.0 55 full time categories had no off farm employment. Virtually all of the male heads in the other categories had off farm employment. craftsmen, Of those employed, the majority were either foremen, or semi-skilled operators. Those employed worked an average of forty hours per week and forty-seven weeks per year. Those in the rural resident and supplemental income categories worked more than the average while the senior citizens worked only thirty-six hours per week and thirty-five weeks per year. The full time farmers who worked averaged twenty hours per week and thirty-seven weeks per year. The senior citizens had been at their jobs longest, over twenty years, while the full time male heads had been at their jobs only five years. Almost half of the male heads working earned between $4.00 and $5.50 per hour while one in three earned less than $4.00 per hour. The rural residents received the highest hourly wage followed by the supplemental income male heads. The senior citizens, although at their jobs longer, received the lowest hourly wage. Two- thirds of those senior citizens employed received less than $4.00 per hour. Most of the male heads received fringe benefits which included life insurance (62 percent), health hospitalization insurance (80 percent), paid vacation (82 percent), percent). and retirement other than social security (55 These fringe benefits were received primarily by the supplemental income and rural resident heads and to a lesser degree by the senior citizens. The full time heads did not receive any fringe benefits, probably because they 56 did not work full time. The male heads drove on an average 17 miles each way to their jobs. This data from the 1974 survey indicates the importance of off farm employment to the male heads of Michigan's limited resource farmers. Of the female heads with off farm employment, most worked in the service, clerical, or profession-technical areas. Wives of full time and rural resident male heads were employed more than the others. On the average, those employed worked thrity-two hours per week and forty weeks per year. There was virtually no variance between the categories in hours worked per week. The female heads of full time farms worked the fewest weeks while those of senior citizen farms worked the most. The female heads had been at their present jobs slightly less than nine years. As was the case with the male heads, the senior citizen female heads had the longest job tenure. The female heads received much lower hourly wages than those paid the male heads. More than 2 of every 3 women employed received less than $3.50 per hour and 3 in 10 received less than $2.50 per hour. The senior citizen women were also the lowest paid followed by the full time female heads. Fringe bene­ fits were paid to a smaller percentage of female heads than male heads although there was less disparity among the limited resource farm categories. Only 25 percent received life insurance, 43 percent health and hospitalization insurance, 52 percent paid vacations, and 37 percent 57 retirement other than social security. The female heads drove about twelve miles each way to their jobs. Limited resource farm respondents in 1974 averaged another $1,219 in off farm income. About half of that came from governmental transfer payments (nonagricultural) with a third coming from investments. This, along with pension income and income from other nonfarm sources represented twelve percent of net family income (see Table 18). Within the categories, there was considerable variance in the above nonfarm income sources. averaged the most, Senior citizens $5,077 or 60 percent of their income. They had the most income in each of the source categories, as might be expected. The full time farm families received $641 or 10 percent of their income from nonfarm sources. Their relatively high pension and transfer income is reflective of the inclusion of disabled persons under 65 years of age in this category. The rural residents received $538 or 5 percent and the supplemental income families received $168 or 1 percent of their income from these sources. In net family income terms, the limited resource average was $10,149 in 1973. The supplemental income families blended to second highest average net cash farm and wage incomes to lead all categories with a $12,109 average. The rural residents had the greatest wage income boosting their net family income average to $11,466 despite their receiving the lowest net cash farm income. Senior Table 18. Average Income per Farm Family Rural Resident 1974 Survey Senior Citizen 50 $ 3,080 $ 1,930 $ 4,750 $ 2,299 Transfer Payments 144 01 2,933 249 594 Investments 394 155 1,373 176 444 Other Inc. Pensions —- 12 771 216 181 10,878 8,861 1,353 1,166 6,631 $11,466 $12,109 $ 8,360 $ 6,557 $10,149 2,874 2,667 3,981 1,946 2,721 Net Cash Farm Wages Net Family Income Per Capita $ Full Time Limited Resource Supplemental Income Percent Reporting Income Between $ 0-2,500 1.4 2.5 11.6 17.0 6.7 2,501-5,000 4.3 2.5 18.6 29.8 11.3 5,001-7,500 15.9 11.4 18.6 14.9 14.7 7, 501-10, 000 17.4 15.2 16.3 19.1 16.8 ^ 10,000 60.9 68.4 34.9 19.1 50.4 citizen families received relatively equal amounts of income from all sources to average $8,360 net family income. These families, however, had the highest per capita income of all categories due to the absence of other people living in their household. The full time farm families had the lowest average income of $6,557 despite the largest net cash farm incomes. They received the lowest wages of all categories, only $1,166 or $22 per week. Percentagewise, almost half of the full time families, and 30 percent of the senior citizen families had income below $5,000 in 1973. Only one rural resident family or supplemental income family in twenty earned below $5,000. Almost two-thirds of those families received in excess of $10,000 while the same was true of only one-third of the senior citizen families and one-fifth of the full time families. Clearly, poverty exists amongst some of Michigan's limited resource farm population by any standards. However, that poverty is restricted primarily to the full time and senior citizen categories. When asked what minimum income was needed to support their families, the limited resource families responded $486 per month to the 1974 survey. When asked what income was needed for a comfortable living, the response was $707 per month. The average net family income exceeded the average needed for comfort in all categories except the full time. This indicates that most of the limited resource families consider their level of consumption comfortable. 60 1009 956 854 697 722 516 484 551 386 'iural Resident 546 591 Supplemental Income Senior Citizen 497 486 Full Time Limited Resource Top Figure - Average Income Middle Figure- Comfortable Income lower Figure - Minimum Income Figure 11. Minimum, comfortable, average monthly income, 1974 survey (in dollars). Horae Gardens As the following tables indicate, almost all of Michi­ gan's limited resource farms had vegetable gardens but only half consumed any meat produced at home and fewer than one quarter consumed any milk or eggs produced at home. The supplemental income and full time categories had the highest percentage consuming meat, milk and eggs produced at home. This might be anticipated because these two categories have the highest level of agricultural activity. About one limited resource farm in every eight reported self sufficiency in the production of meat, milk, and eggs. The very high percentage of full time farms reporting self sufficiency in the production of milk reflects the high level of dairy activity for this category. Table 19. . Self Sufficiency in Food Production by Limited Resource Category In Percent 1974 Survey Full Time Limited Resource 91.1 89.4 90.1 88.6 93.3 78.7 83.8 35.7 75 36.4 70.2 55.6 4.3 15 9.1 17 11.2 Rural Resident Supplemental Income With Vegetable Gardens 85.9 93.8 Freezing or Canning Vegetables 75.7 Consuming Home Produced Meat Producing 100% Meat Consumed Senior Citizen Producing 50-94% Meat Consumed 10 22.5 13.6 23.4 17.4 Producing 1-49% Meat Consumed 21.4 37.5 13.6 29.6 27 Consuming Home Produced Milk 4.2 21.8 9.3 42.6 19.4 Producing 100% Milk Consumed 2.8 7.7 7.0 40.4 12.6 Producing 50-99% Milk Consumed — 3.8 2.3 — 1.8 Producing 1-49% Milk Consumed 1.4 10.3 — 2.2 4.2 Consuming Home Produced Eggs 11.6 30.4 20.5 30.4 23.1 Producing 100% Eggs Consumed 5.8 15.2 9.1 19.6 12.2 Producing 50-99% Eggs Consumed 2.9 3.8 — 2.2 2.5 Producing 1-49% Eggs Consumed 2.9 11.4 11.4 8.7 8.4 62 Anticipated Changes, Goals When asked what net cash farm income they were trying to achieve, the mean response was more than double the actual income earned by limited resource farms in 1973. Table 20. Desired and Actual Net Cash Farm Income, Survey. Rural Resident 1974 Supple­ mental Income Senior Citizen Desired Net Cash Farm Income $3,009 $6,278 $5,348 $9,054 $5,721 Actual Net Cash Farm Income $3,080 $1,930 $4,750 $2,299 $ Despite net cash 50 Full Time Limited Resource the apparent desire to greatly increase their farm income, only 30 percent ofthe limited re­ source farmers anticipate expanding their farm operation over the next two to three years. Half anticipate no changes at all while one in eight anticipate retiring or doing less farming. More senior citizens anticipate de­ creasing or terminating their operations than any other group. Conversely, the supplemental income group had the largest percentage of operators anticipating expansion. More than one rural resident in three anticipate expanding and less than one in thirteen decreasing their operations. One full time farmer in seven anticipate decreasing their operation while three of ten anticipate expanding. 63 Of those who anticipate expanding their operations, one in four wish to either increase acreage of livestock numbers. Most of the full time anticipate increasing acreage while most of the rural residents anticipate increasing livestock numbers. An equal number of supple­ mental income farmers anticipate increasing livestock, increasing acreage, or changing enterprises. Of those who anticipate expanding their operations, the mean amount of extra family labor available was six­ teen hours per week. Full time families had only three hours per week available while all others had between fourteen and twenty. Only 13 percent of the male heads of limited resource families anticipate changing their off farm employment in the next two or three years. These male heads wish to work an average of thirty hours per week, thirty-seven weeks per year. They are seeking an average of $10,000 annual income from this employment. However, half of those did not know what type of employment they desired. Only 6 percent of the female heads anticipate chang­ ing their employment, most not knowing what type of employment they desired. These female heads wished to work twenty-two hours per week, thirty-seven weeks per year and sought $3,800 annual income from this employment. When asked to comment on the problems they faced as limited resource farmers, the responses fell into three primary categories. One group complained of high taxes, 64 rapid inflation, and other general economic comments. Another group responded with anti-government comments. Many felt that the government should not subsidize farming, that the extension service and universities were not responsive to the needs of small farmers, that there was too much red tape in government programs, etc. A third group felt that small farms could not produce an adequate living without outside employment. Some expressed their involvement in agriculture as a hobby or secondary source of income and were most concerned with economic conditions that would threaten their off farm employment. Survey Summary From the results of the 1974 survey of Michigan's limited resource farms the following summaries of the limited resource categories can be made. Limited Resource Rural Resident Farms As one might expect from the definition, the amount of agricultural activity on rural resident farms is slight. They average less than seventy acres in size and crop only one-third of that. Less than one in three rural resident farms have any livestock and those that do have very small holdings. The average asset worth of these farms is less than fifty thousand dollars and the average net worth less than forty thousand dollars. The rural resident families supply only nineteen hours of labor per week to their farms. Table 21. Anticipated Changes in Farm Operations in Next Two Years In Percent Limited Resource 60.0 50.0 50.9 3.9 17.1 9.1 7.7 33.8 43.4 2.9 29.5 31.4 Retire From Farming 1.5 3.9 14.3 4.5 5.0 Other 6.2 2.6 5.7 6.8 5.0 Do Less Farming Expand Farming Operation Supplemental Income 52.3 46.1 6.2 Senior Citizen Full Time No Changes Rural Residents 1974 Survey Changes Anticipated by Those Anticipating Expansion Don *t Know Increase Livestock Numbers Increase Crop Yields Increase Acres Farmed Increase Livestock Production Other 8.7 3.0 50.0 6.7 6.9 47.8 30.3 50.0 20.0 26.0 3.0 — 13.3 4.1 30.3 — 46.7 27.4 3.0 — — — 13.0 — 30.4 30.3 13.3 1.4 26.0 g 66 These farms generate an average of $1,150 per year in sales but only $50 in net cash income. The rural resident families desire about three thousand dollars annually in net cash farm income but only one-third anticipate expand­ ing their farm operations. The male and female heads of these farms are middleaged couples with an average of almost two children. They have lived on their farms for over a decade and intend to remain on them. The male heads work full time in off-farm pursuits primarily at the semi-skilled or skilled level. About one female head in three work, primarily as clerical or semi-skilled workers. The combined wage income averages almost eleven thousand dollars over 90 percent of total family income of $11,466. Limited Resource Supplemental Income Farms The supplemental income farms have a relatively high level of farm activity when compared to other limited resource farms. They average over one hundred acres in size and crop about eighty percent of their land. About seventy-five percent have livestock, mostly beef herds and feeder cattle. The average asset worth is almost eighty thousand dollars and the average net worth in excess of seventy thousand dollars. The supplemental income families supply almost fifty hours of labor per week to their farms. These farms generate an average of $9,300 per year in sales and $3,080 in net cash income. The 67 supplemental income family desires over $6,000 in annual net cash farm income and almost anticipate expanding their farm operations. The male and female heads are middle-aged couples with an average of about 2.5 children living at home. They have lived on their farms for over a decade and a half and intend to remain on them. The male heads have full time off farm employment at the semi-skilled or skilled levels primarily. Only one female head in five works primarily in the clerical or service areas. Their combined wage income averages almost $9,000 or 75 percent of total family income of $12,109. Limited Resource Senior Citizen Farms The senior citizen farms have an average amount of agricultural activity relative to other limited resource farms. They average almost one hundred acres in size and crop about forty percent. Over forty percent have live­ stock most having beef herds or dairy. The average asset worth and average net farm worth is almost $60,000. The senior citizen families supply almost thirty hours per week of labor to their farms. These farms generate an average of $5,000 in gross agricultural sales and $2,000 in net cash farm income. The senior citizen families desire over $5,000 in net cash income although one in three anticipate decreasing their operations and almost none anticipate increasing them. 68 These retirement aged families rarely have children living at home. They have lived on their farms for over three decades and wish to remain in rural society. Only 22 percent of the m a l e 1heads and 14 percent of the female heads have off farm employment. Their combined wage income of $1,350 is only one-sixth of their total family income of $8,360. Limited Resource Full Time Farms The full time farms have the highest level of agri­ cultural activity of all limited resource farms. They average over one hundred twenty-five acres in size with almost all in crops. half had dairy herds. Almost all have livestock and about The average asset worth is almost $90,000 and the net farm worth average is over $80,000. The full time families supply eighty-five hours of labor to their farms per week. These farms generate sales $13,770 and net cash incomes of $4,750 on the average. The full v. time family desire over $9,000 in annual net cash farm income but less titan one in three anticipate expanding their farm operations. These middle-aged couples have an average of 1.4 children living at home. They have lived on their farms for two decades and intend to remain on them. Few of the male heads have part time off farm employment. About 40 percent of the female heads have off farm emplojmient. pri­ marily in the clerical and service areas. The combined 69 wage income averages only $1,166 annually or one-sixth of total family income of $6,557. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY FOR BUDGETARY ANALYSIS In order to accomplish the objective of providing an analysis of several possible farm enterprise combinations which Michigan's limited resource farmers might employ, a series of unit budgets were developed, placed in a linear programming matrix, and a series of representative farm situations analyzed to determine the optimal combinations of enterprises. The budgets, (presented in Appendix III), have been developed to reflect what Michigan's limited resource farmer might obtain through the use of superior management techniques. There are seven crop budgets, five livestock budgets, one budgeted specialty marketing enterprise, hired labor budgets, two labor selling budgets, two and land rental budgets included in the potential farm activities. All budgets are of the cash returns above the variable cash costs of production associated with each enterprise or the cash costs of acquiring resources. The crops budgeted included corn, alfalfa, oats, soya beans, and pasture. corn silage, wheat, Two different soil types were assumed for budgetary analysis which allows for the tailoring of the technology applied to the 70 71 proper level. The two soil types which account for nearly 80 percent of the acreage farmed by those limited resource farms respondents to the 1974 survey are clay loam and sandy loam (see Table 10). Consequently those were the two major soil groupings chosen for budgeting. The clay loam soils assumed in the budgets are Miami and Conover. The sandy loam soils assumed in the budgets are Hillsdale and Fox Warsaw. The cropping activities were also chosen because of their widespread prevalence in the cropping activities of those surveyed. They account for almost eight of every ten acres farmed. Most of the economic and technical coefficients for the budgets were presented in Costs and Returns for Major Cash Crops in Southern Michigan [Meekoff, Connor and N o t t , 1974]. The yields assumed in these budgets are those of the seventy-fifth percentile of Michigan's farmers. That is, they represent the yield above which only one farmer in four is able to obtain. The majority of the limited resource farmers now experience far lower yields than those assumed. However, it is the objective of this analysis to determine what the potential is for farmers utilizing the proper level of technology and above average management. The technical inputs of the budgets were developed to obtain the assumed yields if superior management is applied. The yields also reflect normal climatic conditions. Those conditions may not occur in any given year which could have a significant impact on the assumed yields. 72 The corn, corn silage and soya bean budgets were developed to reflect the effect of planting and harvesting dates on yields. Four different planting periods were budgeted for each crop. The assumption is made that the crops will be harvested during the proper time framework given planting dates. While it is assumed that all planting is done by the limited resource farm operator, two harvesting possibil­ ities are budgeted for each crop. Harvesting is budgeted for all crops by the farm operator and also on a custom basis. Rates charged for custom harvesting were published in Rates for Custom Work in Michigan [Meekoff and Nott, 1974]. Labor requirements for the cropping activities were developed assuming thirty-one acres were planted and harvested. The coefficients for each crop were published in a report by Lauren H. Brown [Brown, 1974]. The total labor requirements were allocated between planting and harvesting activities. The five livestock activities budgeted included a cow-calf budget, a feeder cattle budget, a feeder pig budget, a swine farrow-finish budget, and a dairy budget. Four different feeding systems were developed for the feeder cattle and dairy budgets. The dairy yields and swine farrowing yields also assume above average management although the feeding system justifies the assumption in the dairy budget. Labor requirements reflect the experience 73 of the participants on small farms in Michigan's Telfarm accounting program as do the other technical coefficients assumed. These, again, assume above average management and a high level of efficiency. The harvested specialty marketing budget developed is a customer fruit and vegetable enterprise. This enterprise consists of the farmer planting several vegetable crops and strawberries and allowing customers to pick them and purchase them at lower than retail prices. that, It is assumed in the analyses where the enterprise is allowed, the farm is located near an urban this type center where a market for of enterprise might exist. It is assumed that the acreage used for this activity is irrigated. budget covers income from the enterprise, cash expenses of production, The the variable and a yearly overhead budget covering some of the overhead expenses (see Appendix III). The budgets do not include any estimates of selling expense as selling practices are widely varied. In most cases these enterprises are open during posted hours in the harvest period. While the presence of a sales force is necessary whenever the farm is open, when customer activity is slack sales activity is minimal. Consequently, the labor may be employed in other activities or in leisurely pursuits. Hence no estimate is made of the labor required for the sales effort. Two different budgets were prepared for hired labor. 74 The experience of Telfarm operators was, again, employed in determining the pattern of the labor market. It is assumed that a full time arrangement is one in which the employee provides three thousand hours of labor for $7,000 annually. It is assumed that part time labor is available at a cost of $2.25 per hour up to certain constraints. It is assumed that part time laborers are high school students seeking employment. Two different budgets were prepared representing off farm part time employment opportunities available to supplemental income and full time limited resource farmers. In one instance labor is allowed to be sold in any amounts at any time during the year. Such employment might be available if the farmer had skills which he could employ in a service market, i.e. carpentry, auto mechanics, etc. In the other instance it is assumed that employment is available only if the same number of hours are worked per week throughout the year. In the case of supplemental income farmers, the wage rate assumed is $3.90 per hour while the wage assumed for full time farmers is $3.25. These wage rates reflect those received by the respondents to the 1974 survey (see Table 16). The land rental budget assumes a cash cost of $75.00 per acre rented. That cost reflects the highest return a land owner would receive from the various cropping enter­ prises allowed under a 50-50 share rent. Under that rental 75 system the land owner provides half of the purchased inputs and receives half of the output. The 50-50 share arrange­ ment is the most lucrative one for the land owner of the rental arrangements common in Michigan. evidence, There is some however, that the land rental market is biased toward the commerical farmer and against the smaller operator. It is contended that the land owner perceives the commerical farmer as a preferential tenant. In that owner return is determined by yield in the share rental arrangements, this contention is plausible since commercial farmers have historically obtained higher yields than their limited resource counterparts. Thus, the option of rent­ ing land may be foreclosed to small operators in some areas. The prices assumed for the agricultural output of these budgeted farms reflect the anticipated prices for the period 1975-1980. Price forecasting of agricultural prices is extremely difficult since the supply function is so greatly affected by climate and the demand function by both domestic and foreign conditions. The relationship amongst the crop prices and between the crop and livestock prices reflect historical trends. The input prices are those paid in 1974 for the various inputs. It is assumed that those prices will hold over the period covered by the budgets. However, use of the budgetary model in the future will no doubt require updating of these prices as the prices of inputs have been inflating rapidly. 76 The budgets were placed into a linear programming matrix. This allows for the determination of the optimal combination of activities given certain constraints. this type of analysis produces precise results, results are not always practical. While those The linear programming technique assumes that all activities are infinitely divisible and can be engaged in at fractional levels. assumption will not hold in practice, however, economies of scale exist. This since dis­ The budgets do not reflect either economies or diseconomies of scale but, rather, reflect conditions at an anticipated level of operation. Similarly, the results from a linear programming analysis are better indicators of directions of activity than of the absolute level of activity. The linear analysis allows for some tailoring to the particular circumstances of a farm, but it in no way allows for the precise duplica­ tion of a specific farm. It is a technique which is more appropriate to the mean situation than the individual one. For the purpose of analyzing various livestock acti­ vities, the linear programming analyses were restricted to the inclusion of only one type of livestock enterprise. Cattle activity was not allowed on the same farm with either dairy or swine and vice versa. This follows an assumption that it is best for an operator to specialize in only one livestock activity in order to obtain the level of managerial practices assumed. 77 The objective functions of the various linear program­ ming analyses reflect the net cash returns, above the variable cash costs of production, to the fixed assets assumed and family labor utilized. The functions do not deduct any charges for overhead, taxes, capital expenses including principal or interest payments, depreciation, or interest on owned assets. Hence they are not estimates of the net cash earning or taxable income from any of the varied enterprise combinations. Since these overhead costs and other noncash expenses will vary from farm to farm and with accounting practices it was not felt that estimation of them would be particularly useful. Simiarly, the opportunity costs for the family labor employed in these operations will vary across families which precludes its estimation. Consequently, the reader is cautioned against making intercase comparisons of the objective functions obtained or in misconstruing them to be the net income received by the farm operator. The linear programming analysis does provide some insights into the investment decisions facing the limited resource farmer. facilities, For those constraints, labor available, i.e. livestock etc. assumed in the analysis that are completely exhausted in the optimal solution, shadow price is reported. a This shadow price is the amount by which the objective function would increase if an addi­ tional unit of the constrained asset was provided less the 78 unspecified cost of providing that additional unit. If the cost of acquisition is lower than the shadow price the decision to invest would be a profitable one. problem arises, however, A in those cases where the asset is not available in single units but only in multi units. In those cases we have no a priori knowledge of the range over which the shadow price holds. It might not change below the acquisition of 100 units or it might change after the acquisition of a single unit. The analyses presented in this section are single period analyses and do not attempt to answer the investment question. The shadow prices are presented in Appendix IV. The linear programming analysis utilized in this section does not allow for the salvage of unused assets. It assumes that all unused assets have a zero salvage value and are retained on the farm. may not always hold in practice, While this assumption the availability of unused machinery may serve the desire of maximum flexibility to some operators. The representative farm situations to be analyzed were developed to reflect the conditions found on many limited resource farms in Michigan. the acreage, soil type, Specification of livestock facilities, grain storage capacity, planting and harvesting equipment owned, and family labor is made for each of the representative farms. Two representative farms of each limited resource category were constructed for analysis. 79 The labor available was specified between ten different periods for cropping purposes. The livestock labor demand was assumed not to conflict with cropping needs and, hence, is accounted for separately. It is felt that a good manager can plan his livestock activities to prevent peak labor demand periods, activity, needs. i.e. farrowing from interferring with peak cropping labor The labor demand of the dairy activity was not treated separately. Since labor utilization is particu­ larly constant throughout the year with dairy herds, it was allowed to compete for labor with cropping needs throughout the year. A complete specification of labor utilization by period is presented in Appendix V. It was assumed that all of the representative farms had tractors available. It was also assumed that each farm had all the planting equipment necessary for the crops budgeted. In no case where land rental into the farm was allowed, was rented acreage allowed to exceed owned acreage. Because of the market constraints already mentioned and because of the capacity of the mechanization systems assumed, this assumption was made. Budgetary Analyses Case 1: A Rural Resident Farm Occupying 23 Tillable Acres with no Expansion Contemplated Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of land rental and hired part time labor availability. 80 B. Assumptions of restricted land rental and hired labor activities. This case is representative of some limited resource rural resident situations. The adult head of the family has full time off farm employment. The farm family is willing to provide 328 hours of labor during the year but not more than an average of three hours per day during the planting period. The farm occupies 23 tillable acres of sandy loam soil and does not have livestock facilities. A forty horsepower tractor is owned as is a full complement of planting equipment. however. No harvesting equipment is owned, Two analyses of this situation are presented in Analysis 1-A and 1-B. The objective functions of these analyses are to be interpreted as the net cash returns, above the variable cash costs of production, to the fixed productive assets, described above, and the hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any overhead costs, capital expenses including principal or interest payments, charges for depreciation, or interest on owned capital. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Land Rental and Hired Part Time Labor Availability In the first analysis, 1-A, it is assumed that up to twenty three acres of land is available for rental and that some part time labor is available for hire. objective function of this analysis is $3,664. The As shown 81 in Analysis 1-A the cropping program includes soya beans planted in three time periods, corn planted in the first time period, and alfalfa. The maximum amount of land available for rental is rented while an additional acre of land could be rented at a cost of up to $100 per acre and still be a profitable transaction. The total labor utilized by this cropping program is 295 hours with 238 hours provided by the family and 57 hours hired. All family labor and hired labor available in the periods between May 19 and June 3 and between June 20 and September 30 is utilized. Additional labor in these periods would allow for increased returns by decreasing the production of corn in favor of increased acreages of soya beans and alfalfa. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Restricted Land Rental and Hired Labor Availability In the second analysis, 1-B, it is assumed that the operator cannot rent any land or hire any labor. objective function of this analysis is $2,787. The As shown in Analysis 1-B the cropping program includes soya beans planted in three period and alfalfa. was available for rental, If an acre of land a cost of up to $115 could be paid with the transaction remaining profitable. labor utilized is 128 hours. The total All of the labor available between May 19 and June 11 was utilized. Additional labor in these periods would allow for increased returns by 1 A Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Land Rental and Hired Part Time Labor Availability Crops Acres Corn I Soya 1 Soya 2 7.8 12 9.2 9.2 Soya 3 7.7 Alfalfa Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units «... 57 hours 238 hours 23 23 Objective Function $3,664 1 B Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Restricted Land Rental and Hired Labor Activities Crops Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Acres 6.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Objective Function $2,787 Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Restricted Restricted 128 hours 23 hours Restricted 83 increasing the production of soya beans and decreasing the acreage of alfalfa. Case 2: A Rural Resident Farm Occupying 80 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn with Desired Expansion of Income Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of availability of swine facilities and part and full time hired labor with restricted land rental. B. Assumptions of availability of land rental and part and full time hired labor with restricted livestock activities. * C. Assumptions of availability of full and part time hired labor and cattle facilities with restricted land rental. D. Assumptions of availability of full and part time hired labor and land rental with restricted live­ stock and fruit and vegetable activities. E. Assumptions of availability of enlarged swine facilities, full and part time labor, and land rental. This case is also representative of some limited re­ source rural resident situations. The adult head of the family has full time off farm employment but the farm family has a goal of increased farm income that would put them into the supplemental income category. They are willing to provide a total of 797 hours of labor for cropping 84 activity per year with a maximum of four hours per day on the average during the planting period. The farm occupies 80 tillable acres of clay loam soil and is located near an urban center. This location allows them to operate the customer harvested fruit and vegetable activity. A forty horse power tractor is owned as is a full complement of planting and baling equipment. It is assumed that the farm has a 26* X 50' livestock barn with a storage capacity of 70 tons of hay and 5,000 bushels of grain. Five analyses of this situation are presented in Analysis 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D, and 2-E. The objective functions Of these analyses are to be interpreted as the net cash returns, variable cash costs of production, above the to the fixed productive assets, described above, and the hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any over­ head costs, capital expenses including principal or inter­ est payments, owned capital. charges for depreciation, or interest on In the four analyses that allow for the fruit and vegetable activity (2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-E) the objective function does not reflect the cost of acquiring the necessary equipment (see Fruit and Vegetable Budget, Appendix I) for the enterprise or the cost of labor associ­ ated with selling. Nor does the objective function in Analysis 2-E reflect the cost of the additional livestock facility assumed. In Analysis 2-A, and 2-E it is assumed that 520 hours of family labor are available for livestock care which should be considered in interpreting the objective functions. Ifen... 85 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities and Part and Full Time Hired Labor with Restricted Land Rental In the first analysis, 2-A, it is assumed that both full and part time labor can be hired, that 10 acres of the fruit and vegetable enterprise can be planted, that farrow­ ing and nursery facilities for 11 sows on a two litter system and finishing facilities for 340 feeder pigs exist, but that land rental is restricted. of this analysis is $28,867. The objective function As shown in Analysis 2-A, the cropping program included soya beans being planted in all four planting periods, corn in the first two planting periods, alfalfa, enterprise. and the maximum fruit and vegetable All crops were custom harvested and sold with the exception of the corn which was fed in the swine pro­ gram. The analysis includes the maximum numbers of sows, 11, and the purchase of 170 feeder pigs. An additional 2,805 bushels of corn would have to be purchased and fed. The necessary farrowing and nursery facility for an addi­ tional sow would increase the objective function by $250 while the finishing space for an additional feed pig would increase the objective function by $20 less the costs of acquisition. The acquisition of an additional acre of land would increase the objective function by $126 less the cost of that acquisition. This plan utilized 1,747 hours of labor, 690 of which were purchased. Of the 582 hours of full time labor hired, only 376 were actually 86 needed. per hour. The cost of these hours actually needed was $3.61 The high shadow prices in the soya bean planting periods indicates that the objective function could be increased by substituting additional acreage of soya beans for corn. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part and Full Time Hired Labor with Restricted Livestock Activities In the second analysis, 2-B, it is assumed that both full and part time labor can be hired, that 10 acres of the fruit and vegetable enterprise can be planted, that 80 acres of land can be rented, desired. but that no livestock program is The objective function of this analysis is $23,455. As shown in Analysis 2-B, the cropping program includes soya beans being planted in all four periods, first two planting periods, and vegetable enterprise. and sold. corn in the alfalfa, and the maximum fruit All crops were custom harvested The acquisition of an additional acre of land would increase the objective function by $124 less the cost of acquisition. This plan utilized 1,517 hours of labor although 2,177 hours were hired. Of the 2,063 hours of full time labor hired, only 599 hours were actually needed. The cost of these hours actually needed was $8.03 per hour. Again the addition of labor in the soya bean planting periods would increase the objective functions by decreasing corn acreage and increasing soya bean acreage. 87 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land Rental In the third analysis, 2-C, it is assumed that both full time and part time labor can be hired, that 10 acres of the fruit and vegetable enterprise can be planted, that facilities for 45 head of cattle exist, and that land rental is restricted. The objective function of this analysis was $19,699. As shown in Analysis 2-C, the crop­ ping program includes soya beans being planted in all four periods, pasture, corn planted in the first period, alfalfa, and the maximum acreage of fruit and vegetable enterprise. The analysis also includes the feeding of 38 head of cattle with the corn and pasture grown and aug­ mented by the purchase of 615 bushels of corn. All of the crops are custom harvested with all others being sold. An additional acre of land would increase the objective function by $135 less the cost of that acquisition. A similar increase would be realized by additional hay storage of $4.07 per ton. This analysis employed 1,121 hours of labor with 518 hours hired. full time labor hired, Of the 422 hours of 314 hours were actually needed. The cost of the hours actually needed was $3.13 per hour. Again the addition of labor during the soya bean planting and harvesting period would increase the objective function by increasing soya bean acreage. By comparing this analysis to 2-A, the difference between raising cattle or swine can be ascertained. Assum­ ing the same square footage of livestock facilities, the swine program returned substantially more than did the cattle program. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part Time Labor and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock and Fruit and Vegetable Activities In the fourth analysis, 2-D, it is assumed that both full time and part time labor can be hired, that up to 80 acres of land can be rented but that both livestock and fruit and vegetable activities were restricted. The objective function of this analysis is $17,921. By com­ paring this analysis to 2-B the effect of the fruit and vegetable activity can be ascertained. Without it, the objective function declined by about $5,500. The cropping program remained essentially the same with respect to corn and soya beans. The decrease in acreage from fruit and vegetable activity was allocated to increasing the acreage of alfalfa. This analysis used about two-thirds of the labor used in 2-B or 1,046 hours. Of these over 1,339 hours were hired but of the 1,232 hours of full time labor hired only 307 hours were needed. actually needed was $9.36 per hour. The cost of the hours An additional acre of land would increase the objective function by $126 less the cost of acquisition or slightly more than in 2-B. Again 89 the addition of labor in the soya bean planting period would increase the objective function by increasing soya acreage. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Enlarged Swine Facilities, Full and Part Time Labor, and Land Rental In the fifth analysis, 2-E, it is assumed that both full time and part time labor can be hired, that up to 80 acres of land could be rented, that 10 acres of the fruit and vegetable enterprise could be grown, and that swine facilities for 15 sows and 463 feeders exist. function of this analysis is $36,402. The objective By comparing this analysis with 2-A, the effect of additional livestock facilities and land rental can be ascertained. By compar­ ing this analysis with 2-B, the effect of allowing swine versus eliminating it can be observed. The cropping program is identical to that of 2-B so the $13,000 difference in objective functions can be attributed to the swine program. The analysis includes the maximum number of sows and the purchase of 231 feeders. The purchase of 2,389 bushels of corn was necessary for the swine program in addition to the feeding of that grown. It was necessary to store 1,041 bushels of corn in a commerical elevator or to stagger the purchase. The addition of the farrowing and nursery facility for an additional sow would increase the objective function by $249 while the addition of finishing facilities for one feeder would increase it by $20 both above the costs of these additional facilities. The fact that these shadow 90 prices are approximately equal to those in Analysis 2-A indicates that the value of these facilities has not de­ creased at this higher level. 2,546 hours of labor. This analysis employed Of those 2,177 hours were hired with 1,108 of the 2,063 hours of full time labor actually needed. The cost of the full time labor actually needed was $4.35 per hour. Case 3: A Supplemental Income Farm Occupying 67 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn and No Expansion Contemplated Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of availability of part time hired labor, B. cattle facilities, and land rental. Assumptions of availability of part time labor and land rental with restricted livestock activities. C. Assumptions of availability of part time hired labor, swine facilities, and land rental. This case is representative of certain supplemental income farm situations. It is assumed that the operator has full time off farm employment but is still relatively active on the farm. The farm family is willing to provide 664 hours of labor for cropping activities and up to one hour per day for livestock activities. It is assumed that no more than an average of four hours per day is available during the planting period. In all instances the family is allowed to hire part time labor but not full time. Ha*_ The farm Case 2 A. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities and Part and Full Time Hired Labor with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg 14.1 4.4 11.5 10 10 10 10 10 Livestock Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeders No. Resources Used 11 170 Corn buy 2,805 bu. Hired Full Time Labor Hired Part Time Labor Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units 107 hours 582 hours 1057 hours 80 Restricted Objective Function $28,867 2 B. Crop Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part and Full Time Hired Labor With Restricted Livestock Activities Acres Corn 1 29.6 Corn 2 12.2 Alfalfa 24.6 Soya 1 20.9 Soya 2 20.9 Soya 3 20.9 Soya 4 20.9 Fruit & veg 10 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Restricted No. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Labor Hired Part Time Labor Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 2062 hours 114 hours 547 hours 80 80 Objective Function $23,453 2 C. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture Fruit & veg 10.7 10.1 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 10 2 D. Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Livestock No. Resources Used Units Feeder 4 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 422 hours 97 hours 678 hours 80 Restricted Corn buy 615 bu. Objective Function $19,967 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Full and Part and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock and Fruit and Vegetable Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 29.9 12.3 33.2 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.2 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Restricted No. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 1232 hours 107 hours 514 hours 80 80 Objective Function $17,921 2 E. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Enlarged Swine Facilities, Full and Part Time Labor, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg. 29.6 12.2 24.6 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 10 Livestock Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeders No. 15 231 Corn buy 2389 bu. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 2063 hours 114 hours 547 hours 80 80 Objective Function $36,402 to 03 94 occupies 67 tillable acres of sandy loam soil with a 26' by 50' livestock barn. A forty horse power tractor is owned as is a full complement of planting and baling equipment. Three analyses of this representative situation are pre­ sented in Analyses 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C. The objective func­ tions of these analyses ai*e to be interpreted as the net cash returns, above the variable cash costs of production, to the fixed productive assets, described above, hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any overhead costs, ing principal or interest payments, or interest on owned capital. and the capital expenses includ­ charges for depreciation, Since the only variable between the analyses is the use of the livestock facility, they provide an insight as to the relative profitability of swine versus cattle versus no livestock activities. In all three analyses the cropping program is identi­ cal with a single exception. They all plant the same acreage of soya beans in all four periods, corn in the first two periods, wheat and alfalfa. Total acreage planted is 113 acres reflecting the rental of 46 acres. Beyond this rental level further rental becomes unprofitable except in Analysis 3-A. harvested. In all instances the crops are custom All of the available crop labor is utilized except for 93 hours during the late fall. Total crop labor utilized is 710 hours with 139 hours of part time labor hired. 95 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities and Land Rental In the first analysis, 3-A, it is assumed that the livestock facilities can be used to house a maximum of 45 head of cattle. The analysis includes only 38 head however because of the storage level of hay. It was assumed that storage of 5,000 bushels of grain and 70 tons of hay were available. The analysis did provide for the rental of 18 extra acres which were planted to pasture. All of the corn grown was fed with the exception of 59 bushels. The livestock program utilized 211 hours of additional labor and the objective function is $9,484. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, Swine Facilities, and Land Rental In the third analysis, 3-C, it is assumed that the livestock facilities can be used for 11 sows on a two litter system and for finishing 340 feeders. The analysis includes only 260 feeders however because of the restric­ tion on livestock labor available. An additional hour of labor available would return $14.15 less the cost of acquisition. In this analysis all of the corn grown was fed and an additional 1,285 bushels purchased. This analysis utilized an additional 364 hours of labor and had an objective function of $13,593. 96 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock Activities The second analysis, 3-B, did not allow the utiliza­ tion of the livestock facilities. of this analysis is $8,425. The objective function By comparison, it is only $1,000 less than 3-A which includes cattle but $5,000 less than 3-C which includes swine. Case 4: A Supplemental Income Farm Occupying 128 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn Whose Operator Desires a Change in His Off Farm Employment Status Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of availability of full time off farm employment, part and full time hired labor, and swine facilities with restricted land rental. B. Assumptions of availability of full time off farm employment, part and full time hired labor, and land rental with restricted livestock activities. C. Assumptions of availability of full time off farm employment, cattle facilities, and part and full time hired labor availability with restricted land rental. I D. Assumptions of availability of part time hired labor and swine facilities with restricted land rental and off farm employment. 3 A. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 15.7 7.8 24.5 20.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 17.5 Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Livestock No. Resources Used Units Feeder Cattle 4 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 139 hours 799 hours 67 63 - r Objective Function $9,484 3 B. Suppl ernental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Labor and Land Renta 1 with : R estricted Livestock Activities Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 15.7 7.8 24.5 20.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Restricted No. Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Objective Function $8,,425 . . Units 139 hours 571 hours 67 46 3 C. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor, Swine Facilities, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 15.7 7.8 24.5 20.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Livestock No. Resources Used Units Feeder Pigs 260 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 139 hours 935 hours 67 46 Corn buy 1285 bu. Objective Function $13,593 99 E. Assumptions of availability of part time hired labor with livestock activity, land rental and off farm employment restricted. F. Assumptions of availability of part time hired labor and cattle facilities with land rental and off farm employment restricted. G. Assumptions of availability of part and full time hired labor and weekly part time off farm employment with restricted land rental and livestock activities. H. Assumptions of availability of part and full time hired labor, enlarged swine facilities, and weekly part time off farm employment with restricted land rental. I. Assumptions of availability of part and full time hired labor, cattle facilities, and weekly part time off farm employment with restricted land rental. J. Assumptions of availability of part and full time hired labor, cattle facilities and flexible part time off farm employment with restricted land rental. K. Assumptions of availability of part and full time hired labor, swine facilities, and flexible part time off farm employment with restricted land rental. 100 This case is representative of certain limited resource supplemental income farm situations. The case allows for the analysis of utilization of family labor both on and off the farm. In the first three analyses, 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C, it is assumed that the head of the family has full time off farm employment and that the family is willing to supply 797 hours of cropping labor and 520 hours of livestock labor. analyses, 4-D, 4-E and 4-F, In the second three it is assumed that no off farm employment is available and that the farm family is willing to supply 2,460 hours of cropping labor and 1,040 hours of livestock labor. In those analyses, however, hiring additional full time labor is restricted. three analyses, 4-G, 4-H, and 4-1, In the third it isassumed that part time employment is available up to thirty hours per week but that the same amount of work must be done per week throughout the year. The program is allowed to allo­ cate the 2,460 hours of cropping labor between the farm and the off farm opportunities while it is assumed that 20 hours per week of livestock labor is available regard­ less. In the final two analyses, 4-J and 4-K, it is also assumed that part time employment is available off farm. However, in these analyses labor can be sold off farm at any time from either the 2,460 hours of cropping labor or from the 1,040 hours of livestock labor. The hourly wage assumed for part time employment is $3.90 per hour. 101 This farm occupies 128 tillable acres of clay loam soil and has a 26' by 50' livestock barn. Storage is avail able for 5,000 bushels of grain and 70 tons of hay. The farm is located near an urban center which allows for the operation of a customer harvested fruit and vegetable enterprise. A forty horse power tractor is owned as is a full complement of planting and baling equipment. The objective functions of these analyses are to be interpreted as the net cash returns, production, above the variable cash costs of to the fixed productive assets, described above and the hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any overhead costs, capital expenses including principal or interest payments, charges for depreciation, or interest on owned assets. Nor do the objective functions reflect the cost of acquiring the necessary equipment (see fruit and vegetable budget, Appen­ dix 1) for the enterprise or the cost of labor associated with selling. In those analyses where labor is allowed to be sold off farm the objective functions include the wages earned off farm while the objective functions in the analyses where full time employment is available (4-A, 4-B, 4-C) does not include wages earned. The objective function in analysis 4-H does not reflect the cost of the additional livestock facility assumed. Comparing the objective functions of Analyses 4-A, 4-B and 4-C demonstrates the relative profitability of utilizing the livestock facility for swine or for cattle 102 with a program which restricts livestock but allows for land rental. In all cases the farm family supplies 797 hours of cropping labor while in the livestock analyses 520 hours of family labor are provided for livestock activity. The highest objective function, $40,440, was associated with the swine activity. $36,436, The second highest objective function, came from renting land while restricting livestock. The lowest objective function, $31,579, came from utilizing the livestock facility for cattle. Comparing the objective functions of Analyses 4-D, 4-E and 4-F demonstrates the relative profitability of utilizing the livestock facility for swine or for cattle with a straight cropping program with land rental restricted in all analyses. In all cases the farm family supplies 2,460 hours of crop­ ping labor while 1,040 hours are available for livestock. The highest objective function, $46,073, was associated with swine activity. The second highest objective function, $36,888, was associated with cattle while elimination of all livestock activity only reduced the objective function to $36,573. Comparing Analyses 4-F and 4-J demonstrates how the objective function changes when no off farm employment is available (4-F) and when part time labor is available (4-J) at any time during the year. The crop and livestock programs are identical for these two analyses with the $6,000 dif­ ference in objective functions resulting from the sale of slack labor off the farm. This indicates that only half of 103 the family labor provided is needed on the farm for the most profitable organization when cattle is allowed and land rental restricted. Comparing Analyses 4-A and 4-D demonstrate how the objective function changes when no off farm employment is available and when full time off farm employment is assumed. In both cases swine activity is allowed while in Analysis 4-A where full time employment is available full time hired labor is also allowed. In Analysis 4-D where no off farm employment is allowed, full time hired labor is restriced. The difference in objective functions, $5,500, reflects the higher hired labor costs associated with Analysis 4-A. However, the wages earned off farm are not reflected in that difference. Hence, $5,500 annually, if the off farm earnings do not exceed the family would be better off employing all of their labor on the farm. Comparing Analyses 4-G and 4-E demonstrates how the objective function changes when no off farm employment is available (4-E) and when part time employment is available but requires the same hours worked per week (4-G). difference in objective functions, wages earned off farm. $2,500, The is less than the This occurs because of the higher level of purchased labor on the farm in Analysis 4-G. Comparing Analyses 4-1 and 4-J demonstrates how the objective function changes when part time employment is available which requires the same hours worked per week (4-1) with the availability of part time employment at any 104 time during the year. The objective function in the latter instance was $3,500 greater than in the former. The maxi­ mum amount of labor was sold off farm when working was not restricted. In the case where employment was restricted to a set number of hours per week, only 28 hours per week were sold out of the 30 per week allowed. Comparing Analyses 4-A and 4-K demonstrates how the objective function changes when full time employment is assumed (4-A) and when part time employment is available at any time during the year. functions, $11,000, The difference in objective is somewhat misleading since that of 4-A does not include the wages earned off farm. If the full time wages are not in excess of $11,000 annually, it would be more profitable to work on the part time basis. Comparing Analyses 4-C and 4-1 demonstrates how the objective function changes when full time employment is assumed (4-C) and when part time employment is available at a fixed number of hours per week (4-1). in objective functions, $8,000, The difference is somewhat misleading since the objective function in 4-C does not include wages earned off farm. If those wages are greater than $8,000 the most profitable organization would include full time off farm employment. 4 A. Supplemental Income Under Assumptionsof Availability of Full Time Off Farm Employ­ ment, Part and Full Time Hired Labor, and Swine Facilities with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 23.4 Corn 2 9.1 Alfalfa 9.5 Soya I 16. 5 Soya 2 16.5 Soya 3 16.5 Soya 4 16.5 Fruit & veg. 20 Livestock Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs No. 11 170 Corn buy 1595 bu. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 2327 hours 120 hours 547 hours 128 __ Objective Function $40,440 105 4 B. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Full Time Off Farm Employ­ ment, Part and Full Time Hired Labor, and Land Rental with Restricted Livestock Activities Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg. 55.7 27.9 39.4 39.4 39.4 34.2 20 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Objective Function Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 5424 hours 112 hours 495 hours 128 128 $36,436 4 C. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Full Time Off Farm Employ­ ment, Cattle Facilities, and Part and Full Time Hired Labor Availability with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 20.4 Corn 2 7.6 Alfalfa 8.4 Soya 1 14.4 Soya 2 14.4 Soya 3 14.4 Soya 4 14.5 Fruit « veg. 20 Pasture 14 Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Livestock No. Resources Used Units Feeder Cattle 4 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 2042 hours 115 hours 547 hours 128 — — 4 D. 106 Objective Function $31,579 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Restricted Land Rental and Off Farm Employment Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit St veg. 17.8 26.4 15.9 15.9 15.9 16 20 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs Objective No. 11 170 Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 78.1 hours 2440 hours 128 — Function $46,073 4 E. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor with Livestock Activity, Land Rental, and Off Farm Employment Restricted Crops Acres Corn 1 17.4 Alfalfa 26.4 Soya 1 16 Soya 2 16 Soya 3 16 Soya 4 16 Fruit & veg. 20 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 75.4 hours 643 hours 128 Objective Function $36,573 4 F. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Land Rental and Off Farm Employment Restricted Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg Pasture 8.1 22 15.9 15.9 15.9 16 20 14 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Feeder Cattle 4 No. Resources Used Units 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 64.4 hours 1826 hours 128 Corn buy 844 bu. Objective Function $36,888 -- 4 G. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land Rental and Livestock Activities Crops Acres Corn 1 Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg. 24.4 20.9 20.9 20.9 21 20 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold Objective Function $39,082 Restricted Units 1868 hours 76 hours 762 hours 128 — 1560 hours 108 4 H. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Enlarged Swine Facilities, and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg. 24.4 20.9 20.9 20.9 21 20 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Sows Feeder Pigs Corn buy 15 231 3840 b u . Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold 1868 76 856 128 — 1560 Objective Function $52,014 hours hours hours hours 4 I. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture Fruit & veg. 20.6 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.4 14 20 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Sell Feeder Cattle 4 No. Resources Used Units 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold 1409 hours 75 hours 983 hours 128 -- 1413 hours Objective Function $39,456 109 4 J. Crops Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land Rental Acres Corn 1 8.2 Alfalfa 22 Soya 1 15.9 Soya 2 15.9 Soya 3 15.9 Soya 4 16 Fruit & veg. 20 Pasture 14 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Feeder Cattle 4 No. Resources Used 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold Corn Buy 844 bu. Objective Function $42,972 Units 64.4 hours 1824 hours 128 — 1560 hours 4 K. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor, Swine Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg. 3.1 26.4 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.7 20 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs No. 11 170 Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold 498 64 1940 128 — 1560 hours hours hours hours Objective Function $51,631 110 Ill Case 5: A Senior Citizen Farm Occupying 70 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn and No Expansion Contemplated Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of part time hired labor availability with restricted land rental and livestock activities. B. Assumptions of availability of part time hired labor and cattle facilities with restricted land rental. C. Assumptions of availability of part time hired labor and swine facilities with land rental restricted. D. Assumptions of availability of part and full time hired labor and land rental with livestock activity restricted. This case is representative of some limited resource senior citizen farms. It is assumed, in this case, that the operators wish to keep their activity limited and do not desire expansion of their operations. The farm family is willing to supply 681 hours of labor in a cropping program with a maximum of 3.5 hours per day during the planting period. They are willing to supply 780 hours of labor for livestock activities. The farm occupies 70 tillable acres of clay loam soil and has a 56' by 20' livestock facility. They have a 5,000 bushel grain storage capacity with a 70 ton hay storage capacity. A forty horse power tractor is owned as is a full complement of planting and baling equip­ ment. Four analyses of this farm are presented in Analyses 112 5-A, 5-B, 5-C and 5-D. In Analyses 5-A, 5-B, and 5-C it is assumed that no land will be rented into the farm and that no full time labor is available. In Analysis 5-D their restrictions are lifted but livestock activity is restricted. Livestock activity is also restricted in Analysis 5-A while swine is allowed in 5-C and cattle is allowed in 5-B. The objective functions of these analyses are to be interpreted as the net cash returns, above the variable cash costs of production, assets, to the fixed productive described above, and the hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any over­ head costs, capital expenses including principal or inter­ est payments, charges for depreciation, or interest on owned capital. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Part Time Hired Labor Availability with Restricted Land Rental and Livestock Activities In the first analysis, time labor hire, 5-A, both land rental, full and livestock activity is restricted. objective function is $11,910. The The cropping program includes soya beans planted in all four planting periods, corn planted in the first planting period, and alfalfa. customed harvested and sold. The total labor utilized is 450 hours of which 86 are hired. All crops are The objective function could have been enhanced by providing more labor during the soya planting periods. An additional acre of land will 113 increase the objective function by $134 less the cost of acquisition. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land Rental In the second analysis, 5-B, both land rental and full time hired activities are restricted. head of cattle is allowed. analysis is $12,241. A maximum of 45 The objective function of this The cropping program is identical to that of 5-A with respect to soya beans. However this analysis provides for pasture at the expense of corn and alfalfa. The analysis includes the feeding of 38 head of cattle with 1,567 bushels of purchased corn. Again the cattle activity was constrained by a lack of hay or silage storage capacity. The livestock activity utilized 211 hours while the crop program utilized 366. spent on crop activity, 64 were hired. Of the hours The acquisition of an additional acre of land would increase the objective function by $149 less the cost of acquisition. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Land Rental Restricted In the third analysis, 5-C, land rental and full time hired labor are restricted while facilities for 11 sows and 340 feeders are assumed. analysis is $21,408. The objective function of this The cropping program is identical to 114 that in 5-A although the corn is fed rather than sold. The swine activities include the maximum number of sows and feeders with the purchase of 170 feeders and 3,456 bushels of corn. labor. The swine activities utilize 755 hours of family An additional facility for sows would increase the objective function by $250 while an additional facility per feeder would increase it by $20 less the cost of acquiring those facilities. An additional acre of land would yield $135 less the cost of its acquisition. Comparison of Analyses 5-A, 5-B and 5-C reveals the relative profitabilities of the swine versus cattle versus no livestock situation. Cattle activity provided a mere increase in objective function of $300 over no livestock while swine provided an additional $9,000 over cattle. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor and Land Rental with Livestock Activity Restricted In the final analysis, 5-D, land rental and full time labor hire are allowed while livestock is restricted. The objective function of this analysis is $15,522 or an increase of $3,500 over Analysis 5-A where land and full time hire were restricted. was rented. The maximum acreage allowed for rental Soya production in all four planting periods increased by 80 percent while alfalfa production increased 57 percent. Corn production in the first planting period more than doubled and corn was also planted in the second 1 115 period. This analysis employed 915 hours of labor although 1,253 hours were hired. Of the 1,145 hours of full time labor hired only 278 hours were needed. The cost of this labor actually needed was $9.61 per hour. The addition of time in the soya planting periods is again critical to increasing the objective function. An additional acre of land would return $126 less the cost of acquisition. Case 6: A Senior Citizen Farm Occupying 120 Tillable Acres with Dairy Barn Whose Operator Desires a Change in Livestock Enterprises Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of availability of land rental and part time hired labor with livestock activity restricted. B. Assumptions of availability of cattle facilities, part time hired labor, and land rental C. Assumptions of availability of swine facilities, part time hired labor and land rental. D. Assumptions of availability of cattle facilities with land rental and hired labor restricted. This case is representative of certain limited resource senior citizen farms. but, due to age, The family had operated a dairy farm are now seeking a combination of enter­ prises that would not demand as much labor. The family is willing to provide 1,096 hours of labor for cropping activity and another 1,040 hours for livestock activity. During the 5 A. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Part Time Hired Labor Availability with Restricted Land Rental and Livestock Activities Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 10.9 18.4 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units 85.9 hours 364 hours 70 Objective Function $11,910 116 5 B. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Cattle Facilities with Restricted Land Rental Crops Acres Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 S o y a ,4 Pasture 15.3 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 14 Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Livestock No. Resources Used Feeder Cattle 4 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Corn Buy 1567 bu. Objective Function $12,241 Units 64 hours 512 hours 70 __ _ 5 C. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part Time Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Land Rental Restricted Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 10.9 18.4 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs No. 11 170 Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 86 hours 1119 hours 70 -- Objective Function $21,408 117 5 D. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Part and Full Time Hired Labor and Land Rental with Livestock Activity Restricted Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 26.4 10.6 28.5 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.7 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Restricted No. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 1145 hours 107 hours 417 hours 70 70 Objective Function $15,522 118 planting periods it is assumed that the maximum availability of labor per day is 6 hours on the average. The farm occupies 120 tillable acres of sandy loam soil and has a 26' by 50' dairy barn that can be converted to accomodate swine or feeder cattle. storage capacity, There is a 5,000 bushel grain a 70 ton hay storage capacity, and a 138 ton silage capacity. A forty horse power tractor is owned as is a full complement of both harvesting and plant­ ing equipment. Four analyses of this case are presented in Analyses 6-A, 6-B, 6-C and 6-D. In Analyses 6-A, 6-B and 6-C it is assumed that land rental is allowed while Analysis 6-D restricts land rental. In all analyses part time hiring is allowed while full time hiring is restricted. Cattle facilities are assumed in Analyses 6-B and 6-D, swine facilities in 6-C, in 6-A. and livestock activity is restricted The objective functions of these analyses are to be interpreted as the net cash return, cash costs of production, above the variable to the fixed productive assets, described above, and the hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any overhead costs, capital expenses including principal or interest payments, charges for depreciation, or interest on owned capital. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part Time Hired Labor with Livestock Activity Restricted In the first analysis, 6-A, the hiring of full time labor and livestock activity are constrained while land rental is allowed. is $14,427. The objective function of this analysis The cropping program includes soya beans planted in all periods, alfalfa, corn planted in the first two planting periods and wheat. The analysis included the rental of 31 acres beyond which further renting was no longer profitable. The total labor utilized was 1,132 hours of w h i c h 139 hours were hired. Labor is constrained in all p er io ds except from October 1 to April 2. The objective function could be increased by providing labor in any of these periods with the highest results from increased soya bean and alfalfa acreages. All crops were self harvested and sold with the exception of alfalfa which was custom harvested. Senior Ci tizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities, Part Time Hired Labor, and Land Rental In the second analysis, 6-B, the hiring of full time labor is restricted while land rental is allowed. It is assumed that facilities up to 45 head of cattle exist. The objective function of this analysis is$17,084. The cropping program is identical to that in 6-A in both acres planted a n d labor utilization with the following exceptions. An additional 13 acres were rented for pasture and about half of the corn grown in the first planting period was harvested as silage. Of the corn grown for grain 1,207 bushels w e r e fed while 288 bushels were sold. The analysis includes the maximum head of cattle being fed, 45, which 120 requires an additional 252 hours of family labor. An additional unit of cattle space would return $28 less the cost of acquisition. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities. Part Time, Hired Labor, and Land Rental In the third analysis, 6-C, the hiring of full time labor is restricted while land rental is allowed. It is assumed that facilities for up to 11 sows and 340 feeders exist. The objective function of this analysis is$23,937. The cropping program is identical to that in 6-A in terms of acreage planted, land rented, and labor utilized. The only difference is that all corn grown is fed in the swine enterprise and an additional 2,250 bushels of corn are pur­ chased. The swine facilities are utilized to their capacity with the maintenance of 11 sows on a two litter system and the purchase of 170 feeders. This activity utilizes 755 hours of family labor in addition to the 993 hours utilized in the cropping program. An additional sow would return $250 and an additional feeder $20 above the cost of acquisition of the facilities needed for expansion. Comparison of Analyses 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C reflect the relative profitability of swine versus cattle versus no livestock. Without livestock family labor utilized was 993 hours with an objective function of$14,427. With cattle family labor utilized was 1,245 hours with an objective function of$17,084. With swine family labor utilized was 1,748 hours with an objective function o f $23,937. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities with Land Rental and Hired Labor Restricted In the final analysis, 6-D, the hiring of full time labor and land rental are restricted while facilities for 45 head of cattle are assumed. this analysis is $15,914. The objective function of Comparison of this analysis with 6-B provides an insight into the relative profitability of land rental. With rental constrained, the acreage of all crops planted decreased with the exception of corn silage and pasture. Percentagewise the greatest decreases were in wheat followed by corn and soya beans with the smallest decrease in alfalfa. The reduction in the objec­ tive function is almost $1,200 with a decrease in 188 hours of family labor utilized. The livestock activity was identical to that in 6-B as would be expected. Case 7: A Full Time Farm Occupying 100 Tillable Acres with Livestock Barn Whose Operator Desires Off Farm Employment Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of full time off farm employment, the availability of hired labor and an enlarged swine facility with land rental restricted. 6 A Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Land Rental and Part Time Hired Labor with Livestock Activity Restricted Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 20.9 10.5 32.2 28.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units 139 hours 993 hours 120 31 Objective Function $14,427 6 B. Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired L a bo r, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil 1 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 11.3 10.5 9.6 32.2 28.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 13.4 Livestock Feed Sell Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Feeder Cattle 2 Feeder Cattle 4 Cattle Facilities, Part Time No. Resources Used Units 16 29 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 139 hours 1270 hours 120 44 Objective Function $17,084 6 C Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities, Part Time Hired Labor and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 20.9 10.5 32.2 28.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs Corn Buy No. 11 170 2250 Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units — — 139 hours 1748 hours 120 31 Objective Function $23,937 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities with Land Rental and Hired Labor Restricted 123 6 D Livestock Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil 1 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya, 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 6.1 7.8 9.6 14.8 2.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 13.4 Livestock Feeder Cattle 1 Feeder Cattle No. Resources Used 16 29 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time, Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Objective Function $15,914 Units __ -- 1082 hours 120 -- 124 B. Assumptions of full time off farm employment, the availability of hired part and full time labor and cattle facilities with land rental restricted. C. Assumptions of full time off farm employment, the availability of hired labor and swine facilities with land rental restricted. D. Assumptions of availability of cattle facilities and hired full and part time labor with land rental and off farm employment restricted. E. Assumptions of availability of swine facilities and hired labor with land rental and off farm employment restricted. F. Assumptions of availability of hired part and full time labor with land rental, activities, G. livestock and off farm employment restricted. Assumptions of availability of hired full and part time labor, cattle facilities, and weekly off farm part time employment. H. Assumptions of availability of hired full and part time labor, enlarged swine facilities, and weekly off farm employment with land rental restricted. I. Assumptions of availability of hired full and part time labor and weekly part time off farm employment with livestock activity and land rental restricted. 125 J. Assumptions of availability of hired full and part time labor, swine facilities, and flexible part time off farm employment with land rental restricted. K. Assumptions of availability of hired full and part time labor and flexible part time off farm employment with land rental restricted. L. Assumptions of availability of hired full and part time labor, cattle facilities, and flexible part time off farm employment with land rental restricted. This case is representative of certain limited resource full time farm situations. It is assumed that the family has been supplying its labor to the farm and not pursuing off farm employment but now wishes an off farm source of income. In three analyses, 7-A, 7-B, and 7-C, it is assumed that full time employment off the farm has been found and that the family is willing to supply 797 hours of cropping labor and 520 hours of livestock labor. In three analyses, 7-D, 7-E and 7-F, it is assumed that no off farm employment can be found and that the family is willing to supply 2,460 hours of cropping labor and 1,040 hours of livestock labor. 7-1, In three analyses, 7-G, 7-H, and it is assumed that part time employment is available but that an equal number of hours be worked per week. program is allowed to allocate the 2,460 hours of labor The 126 between cropping activity and off farm employment while 1,040 hours of livestock labor are provided regardless. In the final three analyses, that part the year. 7-J, 7-K and 7-L, it is assumed time employment is available at any time during The program is allowed to allocate labor to off farm employment from the family supply of 2,460 hours of cropping labor or the 1,040 hours of livestock labor. It is assumed that not more than 1,560 hours per year of employment is available on a part time basis and that the part time wage rate is $3.25 per hour. The farm occupies 100 tillable acres of clay loam soil and has a26' by 5 0 ’ livestock barn. Storage is available for 5,000 bushels of grain and 70 tons of hay. A forty horse power tractor is owned as is a full complement of planting and harvesting equipment. The objective function of these analyses is to be interpreted as the net cash return, above the variable cash costs of production, to the fixed productive assets, described above, and the hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any overhead costs, capital expenses including principal or interest payments, charges for depreciation, or interest on owned assets. In those analyses where part time employment is taken, the objective function includes the wages earned. ment is assumed, In the analyses where full time employ­ the wages earned are not included in the objective function. In the two analyses (7-A, assume additional swine capacity, 7-H) which the return does not reflect the cost of acquisition of those extra facilities. 127 Comparing Analyses 7-B, 7-D, 7-G, and 7-L yields an insight into the relative profitability of the various labor utilization schemes. In all of these analyses, that no full time labor can be hired, it is assumed no land rented, that the livestock facility is devoted to cattle. lowest objective function, $17,306, and The is associated with the Analysis 7-B which assumes full time off farm employment. Since that function does not include wages earned, somewhat misleading. $19,898, it is The second lowest objective function, is associated with the Analysis 7-D which assumes that no off farm employment is available. objective function, $23,824, The second highest is associated with the Analysis 7-G which assumes that part time employment is available at a set weekly requirement. $24,968, The highest objective function, is associated with the Analysis 7-L which assumes that part time employment is available at any time. The amount of family labor used on the farm is identical between Analyses 7-L and 7-D where 841 hours were employed. In Analysis 7-B only 690 hours of family labor are employed on the farm while in 7-G 936 hours of family labor are utilized on the farm. In all of the analyses that allow for the same labor utilization patterns, 7-C, 7-E, the analyses that include swine (7-A, 7-H, 7-J) are the most profitable. tional swine facilities are assumed, (7-A, Where no addi­ 7-E, 7-J) the return is between $7,000 and $9,000 above that associated with cattle. Where additional swine facilities are assumed, 12S (7-A, 7-H) the return is about $12,000 above that associ­ ated with cattle. The return associated with a cattle program is about $50 greater than that associated with no livestock activity. Case 8: A Full Time Farm Occupying 160 Tillable Acres with Dairy Barn Whose Operator is Considering Expansion Following analyses presented: A. Assumptions of availability of hired labor, land rental, and 25 cow dairy facility. B . . Assumptions of availability of hired labor, land rental and 50 cow dairy facility. This case is representative of some limited resource full time farm situations. The farm family derives the majority of its income from the farm and is interested in increasing that income. At present the farm has a 25 cow capacity for its dairy operation. The family wishes to con sider the doubling of that capacity to 50 cows. The farm occupies 160 tillable acres of sandy loam soil and has storage capacity for 5,000 bushels of grain, hay, and 138 tons of silage. 70 tons of A forty horse power tractor and a fifty horse power tractor are owned as are a full complement of planting and harvesting equipment. Two analyses of this farm are presented in Analyses 8-A and 8-B In the first analysis the 25 cow capacity is assumed while the second analysis a 50 cow capacity is assumed. In both cases it is assumed that both full time and part time labor 7 A Full Time Under Assumptions of Full Time Off Farm Employment, the Availability of Hired Labor and an Enlarged Swine Facility with Land Rental Restricted Crops Corn Soya Soya Soya Soya Acres 1 1 2 3 4 21.8 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.6 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Sows Feeder Pigs Corn Buy 15 231 4077 bu. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 1018 hours 64 hours 980 hours 100 Objective Function $29,065 7 B Full Time Under Assumptions of Full Time Off Farm Employment, the Availability of Hired Part and Full Time Labor and Cattle Facilities with Land Rental Restricted Crops Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture Acres 15.5 22.4 12 12 12 12.1 14 Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Livestock No. Resources Used Feeder Cattle 4 38 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Corn Buy 186 bu. ObjectiveFunction $17,306 Units 98 hours 781 hours 100 CO 7 C Full Time Under Assumptions of Full Time Off Farm Employment, the Availability of Hired Labor and Swine Facilities with Land Rental Restricted Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 16.7 21.3 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.6 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs No. 11 170 Resources Used Hired Full Time . Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units 470 hours 64 hours 1002 hours 100 __ Objective Function $26,151 7 D Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Cattle Facilities and Hired Full and Part Time Labor With Land Rental and Off Farm Employment Restricted Crops Acres Livestock No. Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Pasture 28.6 28.6 28.6 14 Feeder Cattle 4 38 Corn Buy Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time 1581 bu. Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented ObjectiveFunction $19,898 Units __ 48 hours 842 hours 100 **— 7 E Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities and Hired Labor with Land Rental and Off Farm Employment Restricted Crops Acres Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 29.8 36.1 24.1 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs Corn Buy No. Resources Used 11 Hired Full Time 170 . Hired Part Time 4436 bu.Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units 1510 hours 16 hours 450 hours 100 — Objective Function $26,594 Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Part and Full Time Labor with Land Rental, Livestock Activities, and Off Farm Employment Restricted Crops Soya Soya Soya Soya Acres 1 2 3 4 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.2 Livestock Sell Sell Seli Sell Restriced Objective Function No. Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented $19,866 Units 48 hours 677 hours 100 -- 131 7 F 7 G Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Weekly Off Farm Part Time Employment Crops Acres Corn 1 Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 6.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.9 14 Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Livestock No. Feeder Cattle 38 Corn Buy Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time 965 bu Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold Units 64 hours 772 hours 100 -- 1560 hours Objective Function $23,824 7 H Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Enlarged Swine Facilities, and Weekly Off Farm Employment With Land Rental Restricted m w to Crops Corn Soya Soya Soya Soya Acres 1 1 2 3 4 20.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.9 Livestock Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sows Feeder Pigs Corn Buy No. Resources Used 15 231 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor 4163 bu Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold Objective Function $36,548 Units -v aaa 64 hours 1835 hours 100 — — 1560 hours 7 I Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor and Weekly Part Time Off Farm Employment With Livestock Activity and Land Rental Restricted Crops Corn Soya Soya Soya Soya Acres 1 1 2 3 4 20.8 19,8 19.8 19.8 19.9 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units ___ 64 hours 742 hours 100 — Objective Function $23,618 7 J Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Swine Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Land Rental Restricted Crops Soya Soya Soya Soya Acres 1 2 3 4 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.2 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Sows Feeder Pigs Corn Buy 11 170 4436 bu. Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold Objective Function $34,425 Units 48 hours 1480 hours 100 1560 hours 7 K Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Land Rental Restricted Acres Crops Soya Soya Soya Soya 1 2 3 4 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.2 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold Restricted Units -- 48 hours 725 hours 100 — 1560 hours Objective Function $24,936 134 7 L Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Full and Part Time Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Flexible Part Time Off Farm Employment with Land Rental Restricted Crops Acres Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Pasture 28.6 28.6 28.6 14 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Feed Feeder Cattle 4 Corn Buy No. 38 1581 bu. Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Labor Sold Objective Function $24,968 Units 48 hours 842 hours 100 — 1560 hours 135 is available for hire and that land is available for rent. The objective functions of these analyses are to be inter­ preted as the net cash return, above the variable cash costs of production, to the fixed productive assets, described above, and the hours of family labor utilized. These net cash returns do not reflect any overhead costs, capital expenses including principal or interest payments, for depreciation, or interest on owned assets. charges In both analyses it is assumed that the family is willing to pro­ vide 4,000 hours of labor with a maximum of 12 hours per day on the average during the planting period. Full Time Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rental, and 25 Cow Dairy Facility In the first analysis, 8-A, the hiring of labor and renting of land is unrestricted while the dairy herd is limited to 25 cows. is $36,988. The objective function of this analysis The cropping program includes soya beans planted in all four periods, corn planted in the first two periods, corn silage planted in the first period, wheat, alfalfa, and pasture. All crops were self harvested except for alfalfa which was custom harvested. All corn and corn silage was fed while the other crops were sold. Only 122 acres were rented beyond which it became unprofitable to rent additional acreage. was 24 cows. The dairy herd in this analysis The lack of hay storage and corn silage 136 storage constrained the additional cow. An additional ton of hay storage is worth $75 while an additional ton of corn silage is worth $36. Total labor utilized by this analysis is 4,370 hours of which 985 were hired. Of the 846 hours of full time labor hired, only 423 were needed. The cost of the hours needed is $4.67 per hour. Full Time Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rented, and 50 Cow Dairy Facility In the second analysis, 8-B, the hiring of labor and renting of land is unrestricted while the dairy herd is limited to 50 cows. The hay storage capacity is assumed at 175 tons and the silage storage capacity at 276 tons. The objective function of this analysis is $53,251. The cropping program includes soya beans planted in the first three periods, corn and corn silage planted in the first, alfalfa, and pasture. All were self harvested except alfalfa.and all were sold except the corn silage and corn. The maximum number of acres were rented beyond which an additional acre would return $116 less the cost of acquisi­ tion. The dairy herd in this analysis was at capacity, 50 cows, while an additional cow would return $267 less the cost of facility acquisition. A total of 7,003 hours of labor were utilized of which 4,065 were hired. Of the 4,033 hours of full time labor hired only 2,970 hours were needed. per hour. The cost of the hours actually needed is $3.16 137 By comparing these two analyses, expansion possiblity are gleaned. insights into the With the doubling of capacity of silage, barn space, and hay storage, objective function increased by $16,000. the This is the return to the additional investment in facilities and livestock. Assuming a cost of $33,000 for these facilities (see Budget in Appendix III), the yearly return on invest­ ment would be substantial. It would also be noted that less family labor was employed with the expanded facilities. Price Analysis: An Analysis of Changes in Net Cash Return, Cropping and Livestock Programs, and Resource Utilization Under Three Price Levels Following analyses presented: PA-1 Supplemental income under assumptions of normal prices, hired labor and land rental availability with restricted livestock activity. PA-2 Supplemental income under assumptions of low prices, hired labor and land rental availability with restricted livestock activity. PA-3 Supplemental income under assumptions of high prices, hired labor and land rental availability with livestock activity restricted. PA-4 Rural resident under assumptions of normal prices, availability of swine facilities, hired labor, and land rental. PA-5 Rural resident under assumptions of. low prices, 8 A Full Time Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rental, and 25 Cow Dairy Facility Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil. 1 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 19.8 14.9 9.6 86.6 49.2 21 21 21 21 17.5 Feed Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Livestock No. Resources Used Units Dairy 1 Dairy 4 14 10 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 846 hours 139 hours 3788 hours 160 122 Objective Function $36,988 138 8 B Full ’rime Under Assumptions of Availability of Hired Labor, Land Rental , and 50 Cow Dairy Facility Crops Corn 1 Corn Sil 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Pasture Acres 16.5 19.1 156.3 29. 5 29.5 25.8 43.3 Livestock Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Dairy 1 Dairy 3 Corn Buy No. 11 39 3923i b u . Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 4033 hours 32 hours 2938 hours 160 160 Objective Function $53,251 139 availability of swine facilities, hired labor, and land rental. PA-6 Rural resident under assumptions of high prices, availability of swine facilities, hired labor, and land rental. PA-7 Senior citizen under assumptions of normal prices, availability of hired labor, cattle facilities and land rental. PA-8 Senior citizen under assumptions of low prices, availability of hired labor, cattle facilities, and land rental. PA-9 Senior citizen under assumptions of high prices, availability of hired labor, cattle facilities and land rental. PA-10 Full time under assumptions of normal prices, availability of dairy facilities, hired labor, and land rental. PA-11 Full time under assumptions of low prices, availability of dairy facilities, hired labor, and land rental. PA-12 Full time under assumptions of high prices, availability of dairy facilities, hired labor, and land rental. The following twelve analyses are included to provide an insight into what changes would be made in farm activity if prices received went up or down by twenty percent. There 140 are four sets of farm situations presented each with a normal, high, and low set of prices. In all analyses the variable cash costs of production are assumed unchanged. While the variance in objective functions is caused by inflating and deflating the prices received, the same effect could result from changes in the variable cash costs or in yields. All crop prices and livestock prices are varied by the twenty percent margin with the exception of those received from the fruit and vegetable enterprises. Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Restricted Livestock Activity The first set of analyses, PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, assume that 2,460 hours of cropping labor are provided by the farm family and that livestock activity is restricted. The farm occupies 128 acres of clay loam soil while land rental is allowed. available for hire. analysis, level. $14,387, $32,061, The objective function of the first is associated with the normal price The objective function of the second analysis, is associated with the low price level. third objective, level. Both full time and part time labor is $43,080, The is associated with the high price At the normal and high price levels, the maximum acreage of rental land was rented while at the lower price level only 60 percent of the maximum acreage was rented. At the higher price level soya bean production increased by 10 percent, alfalfa by 5 percent, by 23 percent. and corn production fell At the lower price level soya production fell by 33 percent, alfalfa by 6 percent while corn remained at the normal level. Hired labor totaled 566 hours at the normal price level, 977 hours at the higher price level, and 107 hours at the lower level. Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Availability of Swine Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land Rental The second set of analyses, PA-4, PA-5, PA-6, assumed that 797 hours of cropping labor and 520 hours of livestock labor are supplied by the farm family. The farm occupies 80 acres of clay loam soil and the livestock facility has a capacity of 11 sows on a two litter system and for finishng 340 feeder pigs. Land rental is allowed in these analyses. The objective function of the analysis assuming normal prices is $38,274. The objective function of the analysis assuming the low price level is $28,355. The objective function of the analysis assuming the high price level is $48,877. All analyses included a 20 acre customer harvested fruit and vegetable enterprise. All analyses utilized the capacity of the swine facility with identical swine programs. At all price levels the maximum acreage of land was rented. There was very minimal change in the cropping programs at the various price levels as was the case with hired labor. Total variance in labor used was about 1 percent at the three price levels analyzed. 142 Senior Citizen Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Land Rental The third set of analyses, PA-7, PA-8, PA-9, assumed that 1,096 hours of cropping labor and 1,049 hours of live­ stock labor are provided by the farm family. It is assumed that land can be rented into or out of the farm which occupies 120 acres of sandy loam soil. Both full time and part time labor are available for hire. a 45 head capacity is assumed. A cattle barn with The objective function of the analysis assuming normal prices is $17,084. The objec­ tive function of the analysis assuming normal prices is $17,084. The objective function of the analysis assuming low prices is $10,890. The objective function of the analysis assuming high prices is $27,078. and At the normal high price levels, the maximum number of feeder cattle are fed while at the lower price level only 16 head of cattle were fed. At the normal land were rented into the farm. price level 44 acres of At the higher price level the maximum of 120 acres were rented into the farm. the lower price level, however, of the farm. acreage, At 20 acres were rented out Soya beans accounted for 36 percent of the corn and corn silage 13 percent of the acreage, wheat 20 percent of the acreage and alfalfa 17 percent of the acreage at the normal price level. At the lower price level soya beans account for 55 percent of the acreage, alfalfa 28 percent of the acreage and corn and corn silage 143 16 percent of the acreage planted. At the high price level soya beans account for 49 percent of the acreage, corn and corn silage 26 percent and alfalfa 19 percent of the acreage planted. Labor utilization varied from 866 hours at the lower level to 1,422 hours at the normal level to 2,049 hours at the higher level. Hired labor was only 59 hours at the low level and 139 at the normal level but climbed to 2,133 hours at the high level. Full Time Under Assumption of Availability of Hired Labor, Dairy Facility, and Land Rental The final set of analyses, PA-10, PA-11, PA-12, assume that 4,000 hours of family labor are available for both cropping and dairy activites. The dairy herd capacity is 25 cows with a 70 ton hay storage capacity, storage capacity of grain, of silage. 5,000 bushel and a 138 ton storage capacity Both part time and full time labor are available for hire and land rental is allowed. 160 acres of sandy loam soil. The farm occupies The objective functions are $36,988 at the normal price level, $26,638 at the low price level, and $50,727 at the high price level. At the normal level 122 acres of land is rented into the farm while at the high level the maximum acreage, low level, however, 160, is rented. 17 acres are rented out. At the At all price levels the maximum herd size is attained given the feed storage capacity. Soya bean production is 30 percent of total acreage at normal prices, 39 percent at low prices, 144 and 36 percent at high prices. Corn and corn silage pro­ duction is 16 percent of total acreage at normal prices, 20 percent at low prices, and 19 percent at the high price level. Alfalfa production is 17 percent of the total acreage at normal prices, 29 percent at low prices, percent at the high price level. and 18 Wheat production is 31 percent of total acreage at normal prices, high prices and not produced at low prices. 21 percent at The acreage of pasture remains steady at 17.5 acres planted at all three price levels. Total labor utilized on this farm ranged from 3,400 hours at the low price level to 4,370 hours at the normal price level to 4,700 hours at the higher level. Hired labor ranged from a low of 91 hours at the low level to 985 hours at the normal level to slightly over 2,000 hours at the higher level. Budgetary Summary From the results of the budgetary analyses the follow­ ing observations can be made about the economic opportunities available to the limited resource farm categories. Limited Resource Rural Resident Farms The budgetary analyses presented in Case 1 and 2 indicate that the low level of gross incomes on these rural resident farms is caused by inefficient combination of resources. In Case 1 where only twenty-three tillable acres are assumed owned, the gross income obtained is well above P.A. 1 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Normal Prices, Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Restricted Livestock Activity Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 45.3 20 62.4 32 32 32 32.1 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Restricted Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Units 459 hours 107 hours 1334 hours 128 128 Objective Function $32,061 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of Low Prices, Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Restricted Livestock Activity Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 40.5 20.3 58.4 28.6 28.6 28.6 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Restricted No. Resources Used Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Objective Function $14,387 Units __ 107 hours 2154 hours 128 77 145 P.A. 2 P. A. 3 Supplemental Income Under Assumptions of High Prices, Hired Labor and Land Rental Availability with Livestock Activity Restricted Crops Acres Corn 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 49.6 66 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 Livestock Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Restricted No. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 869 hours 107 hours 1012 hours 128 128 Objective Function $43,080 P.A. 4 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Normal Prices, Availability of Swine Facilities, Hired L a b o r , and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg. 31.4 13.1 6.5 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.3 20 Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Livestock No. Resources Used Units Sows Feeder Pigs 11 170 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 3099 hours 112 hours 530 hours 80 80 Corn buy 540 bu. Objective Function $38,274 147 P.A. 5 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of Low Prices , Availability of Swine Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg 30.8 15.4 6.8 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.8 20 Livestock Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Sows Feeder Pigs Corn buy 11 170 415 bu. Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 3036 hours 112 hours 532 hours 80 80 Objective Function $28,355 P.A. 6 Rural Resident Under Assumptions of High Prices, Availability of Swine Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Fruit & veg. 31.4 13.1 6.5 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.3 20 Livestock Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell No. Sows Feeder Pigs Corn buy 11 170 540 bu. Objective Function Resources Used Units Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 3099 hours 112 hours 530 hours 80 80 $48,877 P.A. 7 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Normal Prices, Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil 1 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 11.3 10.5 9.6 32.2 28.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 13.4 Livestock Feed Sell Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Feeder Cattle 2 Feeder Cattle 4 No. Resources Used Units 16 29 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 139 hours 1283 hours 120 44.5 Objective Function $17,084 P.A. 8 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of Low Prices, Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn Sil 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 6.1 9.6 28.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 11.1 Livestock Sell Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feeder Cattle 2 No. Resources Used 16 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented Objective Function $10,890 Units 59 hours 807 hours 120 (20) out P.A. 9 Senior Citizen Under Assumptions of High Prices, Availability of Hired Labor, Cattle Facilities and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil 1 Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 32.2 20.9 9.6 45.9 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 13.4 Livestock Sell Sell Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Feeder 2 Feeder 4 No. Resources Used Units 16 29 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 1994 hours 139 hours 746 hours 120 120 Objective Function $27,078 P. A. 10 Full Time Under Assumptions of Normal Prices, Availability of Dairy Facilities, Hired Labor, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil 1 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 19.8 14.9 9.6 86.6 49.2 21 21 21 21 17.5 Feed Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Livestock No. Resources Used Units Dairy 1 Dairy 4 14 10 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 846 hours 139 hours 3788 hours 160 120 Objective Function $36,988 A. 11 Full Time Under Assumptions of Low Prices, Availability of Dairy Facilities Hired Labor, and Land Rental ’ Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil 1 Alfalfa Soya' 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 10.9 7.8 9.6 41.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 11.5 17.5 Feed Feed Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Livestock No, Resources Used Units Dairy 1 Dairy 4 10 14 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 91 hours 3306 hours 160 (17) out Objective Function $26,638 P. A. 12 Full Time Under Assumptions of High Prices, Availability of Dairy Facilities, Eired Labor, and Land Rental Crops Acres Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn Sil 1 Wheat Alfalfa Soya 1 Soya 2 Soya 3 Soya 4 Pasture 30.8 20.4 9.6 68.1 58.5 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 17.5 Feed Sell Feed Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell Feed Livestock No. Resources Used Units Dairy 1 Dairy 4 14 10 Hired Full Time Hired Part Time Family Labor Acres Owned Acres Rented 1899 hours 139 hours 3591 hours 160 160 Objective Function $50,727 152 153 the $2,500 limit for classification .as a rural resident farm. Since fewer than three rural resident farmers in ten own less than thirty tillable acres, it follows that with proper management most rural resident farmers could obtain much higher gross and net incomes from their farms than they presently receive. The ability of these farmers to achieve their desired mean net cash income, As Case 2 indicates, $3,009, is questionable. those with relatively large acreages may achieve that goal but Case 1 indicates that the smaller rural resident farms could not. The budgetary analyses suggest the importance of soya beans in the cropping programs of limited resource farms. In both cases the maximum acreage of soya was planted given the labor available in the planting period. In none of the analyses was the percentage of total acreage allocated to soya less than 44 percent. However the survey results indicate that only 1 percent of the tillable acreage on rural resident farms is presently allocated to soya. The budgetary analysis also indicates that swine enter­ prises are more profitable than cattle enterprises. It should not be concluded that rural residents should always produce swine in preference to cattle since more labor is required in the production of swine. Not only is the labor demand greater for swine but it also requires a higher level of skill especially when farrowing is involved. However the swine enterprise in Analysis 2-A fielded $8,900 154 more than the cattle enterprise in Analysis 2-C. In both of these analyses the same physical resources are assumed available so the difference can be construed in large part as a return to the extra 379 hours of operator labor employed. This suggests that swine should be included in more limited resource farm plans relative to cattle than the 1:2.4 ratio found in the survey results. With respect to labor utilization, analysis suggests that presently, the budgetary labor may be inefficiently used on limited resource rural resident farms. The survey results report a mean utilization of 912 hours of labor on these farms. In Analysis 2-D, where 160 acres are planted with no livestock activity, the labor utilized was only 1,046 hours. In Analysis 1-B, where 23 acres are planted with no livestock activity, 128 hours. the labor utilized was only Since only one rural resident in four has any livestock activity and since they plant only 23 acres of crops on the average, the suspicion is raised that they inefficiently utilize labor presently. Another managerial decision facing rural resident farmers is whether to rent additional land or rent their land out. The budgetary analysis suggests that at a cost of $75 per acre, the renting of land, up to the maximum level allowed, was always a profitable decision given labor availability assumptions. The survey results, on the other hand, show that on the average the rural resident farmer decided to rent out 14 acres of land. 155 The budgetary analysis of limited resource rural resident farms suggests that resources are not being employed in the most efficient manner on the farms presently. The allocation of land between crops, the choice of live­ stock activity, labor utilization, and land rental decisions on rural resident farms could be improved these analyses suggest. This would result in much greater gross and net incomes being achieved on them. Limited Resource Supplemental Income Farms The budgetary analyses presented in Cases 3 and 4 suggest that improved utilization of resources through better management on the supplemental income farms in Michigan would result in higher gross and net incomes than what they presently generate. The objective functions realized in Case 3 suggests that only the smaller supplemental income farms have resource bases inadequate to generate the $20,000 gross income necessary for commercial classification. mean desired net cash income of these farms, $6,278, The reported in the survey results should be within reach as indicated by the budgetary analyses. However the attainment of this desired net income is predicated on improving present managerial practices. As in the case of rural resident farms, the budgetary analyses of supplemental income farms suggests that the present allocation of land to soya production is suboptimal. 156 In none of the budgeted analyses was soya acreage less than one-third of the total acreage planted. However it is less than one-tenth of the total acreage actually planted as reported in the survey results. Most of the supplemental income farms reported live­ stock activity in the survey results. The ratio of swine activity to cattle activity was 1:2 on these farms. The budgeted analyses of supplemental income farms again demon­ strated that swine was more profitable than cattle. The analyses also indicate that although the inclusion of cattle to a cropping program would increase the objective function, that increase was small. 3-B this is demonstrated. In Analyses 3-A and --- With no livestock activity (3-B) the objective function is $8,425 and family labor utilization 571 hours. With cattle added (3-A) the objective function increased by $1,059 and the family labor utilized by 228 hours. This increase in objective function may not cover the opportunity costs for that labor as well as the invest­ ment costs incurred. The budgetary analyses suggest that not enough supplemental income farmers are raising swine and that, perhaps, too many are engaged in cattle production. The same implications are raised with respect to labor utilization on supplemental income farms as were raised on rural resident farms. These farmers reported utilizing 2,535 hours of labor on their farms per year on the average. The budgeted cases did not come close to that level of labor 157 utilization except in cases where the time consuming specialty marketing enterprise was allowed. Hence, these farms are also suspect of being inefficient in their use of labor. The budgetary analyses of limited resource supple­ mental income farms suggests that present resource allocation is suboptimal. This is especially true with respect to allocation of land between crops and in the choice of live­ stock enterprises. Overall, these farms have an adequate resource base to provide gross incomes in excess of $20,000. Thus, the instance of the farms as limited resource farms is caused more by poor management or operator preference than by size. Limited Resource Senior Citizen Farms Although the age of Michigan's limited resource senior citizen farm operators may limit their receptivity to change, the budgetary analyses presented in Cases 5 and 6 suggest that they could earn higher gross and net incomes from their farms. Approximately one-half of the senior citizen farms occupy more than 70 tillable acres. On those farms the resource base appears to be adequate to generate enough gross income for classification as a commercial farm. The objective functions obtained in Case 5 substantiate this conclusion. Similarly the mean desired net income from these farms, $5,348, should be attainable through improved management and allocation of resources. 158 The senior citizen farmers also plant a suboptimal level of soya beans. In none of the budgeted analyses was soya acreage less than 36 percent of total acreage planted. However, actual soya production on senior citizen farms is only 3 percent of total acreage. Only four percent of the senior citizen farms report swine activity while 27 percent report cattle activity. The budgeted analyses demonstrate the relative profitability of swine when compared to cattle. This suggests that other factors must be preventing senior citizen operators from chosing swine enterprises in preference to cattle. Although land rental was engaged in, when allowed, in these analyses, allowed. it was seldom utilized to the maximum In reality, however, senior citizen farms on the average rent out 22 percent of their land. This could be explained by attributing a high preference for leisure to these operators. Such a preference could also explain the reluctance of them to adopt swine enterprises over cattle programs. The reported mean hours of labor employed by senior citizens on their farms was higher than that used in the analysis except for two analyses of Case 6. In those two situations the level of livestock activity and the relatively large acreage cropped demanded more labor. consequently, On the average, the budgeted analyses suggest that these farms are also insufficient with respect to labor utilization. Because of the advanced age of the senior citizen operators, their receptivity to change is questionable. It may not be easy to induce them to change their managerial practices and their preference for leisure may limit the enterprises in which they will engage. Thus even though their resource base is adequate to generate more income than presently generated, the inducement to increase efficiency may be missing. Limited Resource Full Time Farms The budgetary analyses presented in Cases 7 and 8 indicate that the gross and net incomes presently generated on full time farms could be increased considerably. In fact they suggest that only the smallest full time farms have resource bases inadequate to generate the $20,000 in gross sales necessary for commercial categorization. It is less clear that all full time farms can generate the $9,054 net cash income desired on the mean. However it is safe to assume that with better management and resource allocation, most could generate that level of net cash income. As was the case with the other limited resource categories, the analyses suggest that full time farmers are not producing the optimal level of soya beans. In only the two analyses with dairy was the allocation of total acreage to soya less than 50 percent. In those two cases more than 25 percent of the acreage was allocated to soya 160 while in reality only 7 percent of the acreage planted by these farmers was in soya. Again as with the other categories, the full time farms appear to engage in a suboptimal level of swine pro­ duction. In the analyses in Case 7 where swine production competes with cattle production, although requiring more labor. swine is more profitable In reality, however, 28 percent of the full time operators report cattle activity while only 11 percent report swine activity. The full time farmers rent more land into their operations than out of it. Although they do not rent as much land into their operations as the analyses indicate as profitable, this may be because their opportunity to rent is limited. The existence of full time limited resource farms is attributable to poor management and resource allocation the budgeted analyses suggest. In only a few cases are the resources inadequate to generate a commercial level of gross income. The particular problem areas pointed to by this analysis are crop allocation and livestock enterprise decisions. CHAPTER IV SUMMARIES, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The importance of Michigan's limited resource farmers to the state's agricultural sector cannot be overstated. They occupy the majority of the farmland and own the major­ ity of farm equipment in the state. While some correctly argue that they are a declining phenomena, the fact that in 1969 the 66,494 limited resource farms comprised over 85 percent of the state's total must be recognized. The strategic position of the limited resource farm becomes apparent when the nation's agricultural sector goals are studied. No longer does the condition of abundant supply of food exist either in the U.S. or in the world. Thus, emphasis has shifted from restraining agricultural output to expanding that output. resource subsector, currently, The Michigan limited is the state's least efficient and least productive one. The technology and managerial techniques necessary to improve these operations exist. Further the expressed desire of Michigan's limited resource farmer to achieve higher net cash farm incomes suggests that the motivation for improvement exists. Thus the challenge to the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service 161 162 and to farm management specialists is to educate the limited resource farmer in the application of the most efficient technology and managerial practices. Any attempt to educate these farmers must begin with an understanding of their situation. Most are full time off farm employees whose farms are secondary sources of income. Of the remaining, half are senior citizens whose economic lives are ending while the other half are the only full time farmers amongst the limited resource. For the limited resource farm families the appreciation of rural life is the primary motivation for their location. Under this circumstance, ordinary economic theory is found wanting as several assumptions are violated. Primary amongst these is the profit maximizing behavior assumed. The return to labor on most of these farms is well below the minimum wage raising serious question as to whether the opportunity costs for labor are being met. Another theory assumption that is violated is that of perfect knowledge. Although no one's knowledge is ever perfect, the informa­ tion base of limited resource farmers is relatively poorer than that of their commercial counterparts. Even though all categories of limited resource farmers expressed a desire for higher net cash farm income, their receptivity to change is in doubt. This is especially true of the senior citizen and full time farmers whose advanced age is a limiting factor. 163 Another peculiar feature of this population is their relative wealth to income situations. Especially because of inflating land prices, most of the limited resource farm families have net worths in excess of $40,000. The full time farmers have the greatest net worths but the lowest incomes while the rural residents have the largest off farm income but lowest net worth. The income derived from many of the full time and senior citizen farms is lower than the interest their capital could earn in some money markets. This creates the complex occurrence of both poverty and wealth simultaneously. The inability of limited resource farmers to escape poverty without off farm employ­ ment is, however, not caused because their resource base is inadequate. What can these farmers achieve in terms of net cash farm income? There is every reason to believe that the net cash income earned on these farms can be improved con­ siderably. At the present price level with proper tech­ nology and management the conditions exist which merit that belief. For example, the renting of additional land is warranted in all of the linear programming analyses at the current price level while in reality many limited resource farmers actually rent out land. Knowing when to plant and harvest and how to properly fertilize will enable this increase in income as will knowing what to plant. This is especially true in the case of soya beans as the 164 budgetary analyses indicate. Thus the conclusion that these farms can be organized and managed in such a fashion as to greatly increase the net cash incomes from them is warranted. If we are to meet the challenges posed by an increas­ ing world demand for food, the limited resource farm will be of prime importance. It is those agricultural resources contained on these farms which have the potential for increased productivity with present technology. The key to increasing productivity on these farms will prove to be the job the extension complex does in educating not ignoring them. Much research must be done, however, before the exten­ sion service can complete its educational role. The problems of limited resource farmers have been ignored in large part by agricultural researchers. Following is a brief description of several research projects that are considered to be crucial. One major research area which merits attention is that of rural land usage. Beyond the knowledge that the allocation of rural land to agricultural uses is declining, little is known about the shifting patterns of land usage. Questions remain unanswered as to who is purchasing agri­ cultural land and their motivation for those purchases. Are these people intending to keep the land in agricultural production or are they purchasing it to develop along nonagricultural uses? If they do intend to keep the land 165 for agricultural uses, will this be their primary economic activity? Will the farm provide their sole source of income or might it be a tax shelter or hobby? Does this represent the enlargement of an existing farm enterprise or is it the only agricultural land owned by the farmer? How was the decision made to purchase the particular plot of land that was transferred? How do property taxes affect the transfer of land either between parties or between agricultural and nonagricultural uses? More information is also needed on the role of inflating land values in determining how that land is used. The impact of all of these questions needs to be considered for both the limited resource and commercial farm s e ct or s. Another major research focus which demands attention is that of the role of capital in limited resource farm operations. Questions remain to be answered on the avail­ ability and utilization of capital in these operations. Are funds available to all limited resource farmers or just to certain categories of them. The suspicion that these funds are only available to those limited resource farmers with full time off. farm employment exists. What sources of credit are available and what sources are used? Is more utilization of short term or long term credit made by these farmers? Under what circumstances is credit applied for and what requirements are dictated by lending institutions? Does the correlation exist between the usage of credit and 166 growth, production efficiency, or location? Answers to these questions and to others concerning credit and limited resource farmers are needed. A third research area should center on the managerial practices of limited resource farmers. More information is needed on the production response of certain managerial techniques on existing limited resource farms. Although it is possible to speculate on these results from experiment station experience or the experience of commercial farms, it is highly desirable to monitor the production response in typical limited resource farm situations. This would provide more accurate benchmarks than those presently utilized in this thesis and elsewhere. Research is also needed on the various specialty markets which limited resource farmers can participate in. Those crops and livestock enterprises especially suited to small scale production should be identified and investigated. Services that small operators could provide for large farms should also be explored as should those that could be offered to retail and wholesale markets. Although this list is not an exhaustive one, it does include projects which the author merits priority. It is doubtful that the resources needed to accomplish all of these projects will be forthcoming in the short run. Thus, it is important that related research in other states be monitored for their relevancy to the Michigan situation. APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: TEST SURVEY INSTRUMENT 1. How long have you lived in Cass County? Male Head___________ Female Head________ 2. Did your ______________ live in Cass County? Male Head Female Head Parents _________ ____________ Grandparents _________ ____________ 3. Why did you move to Cass County or remain in Cass County?________ 4. What is your age? 5. Do you have children?_____ Male Female______ How many and between what ages_____________________________________ 6. Check years of education completed for primary male adult wage earner 0-8 College 0-2 9-12 h.s. degree Other 2-4 _____ College degree Was your high school education? _ _____ _____ vocational _____ general _____ business _____ college prep_____ agricultural_____ What was your major emphasis in high school?______________________ What was your emphasis in college?_________________________________ 7. Check years of education completed for primary female adult wage earner or female head of household 0-8 College 0-2__________ 0-12 _____ h.s. degree _____ Other _____ 2-4_____ _____ College degree Was your high school education _____ vocational general _____ _____ College prep agricultural business/secretarial _____ home economics 167 168 What was your major emphasis in high school______________________ What was your major emphasis in college__________________________ 8. 9. List grade completed and major emphasis for a. All children living at home b. All retirees living at home Employment (nonfarm) or primary over 15years male wage earner a. Who is your present employer?_________________________________ b. How long have you worked there?_______________________________ c. If less than two years list other employers in past two year d. How many weeks per year did you work in past two years? e. How many hours per week did you work in past two years? f. 0-10 hrs. 31-40 hrs. 11-20 hrs. 40-50 hrs. 21-30 hrs. Above 50 What was your regular rate of pay per hour? $0.00-$l.75 $3.75-$4.25 $1.76-$2.25 $4.25-$4.75 $2.26-$2.75 Over $4.75 $2.76-$3.25 g* Do you receive any of the following fringe benefits? life insurance retirement (not soc. sec.) health/hosp. other/please specify ins. paid vacation time h. What are your primary job responsibilities? i. What job skills do you possess? j- List any special job training you have received (Presently or previously used) 169 k. Do you hire your skills out? Yes No ____ _ Estimate hours per week you hire out Estimate weeks in year you hire out _____ _____ Estimate yearly income from hired services $ 0-1,000 _____ _____ $1,000-2,000_____ $2,000-3,500 _____ $3,500-5,000 _____ $5,000-over 1. _____ How many weeks did you spend wanting to work but unable to find job in past two years? ________________ m. Are you satisfied with your employer and do you wish to remain there? n. _______________________________________________ How much time does it take you to get to work (one way hrs. miles 10. Female head of household a. Do you work outside of your home?__________ b. How many weeks per year do you work (estimate on past 2 years) c. How many hours per week do you work (estimate on past 2 years) d. 0-10 _____ 10-20 _____ 20-30 _____ 30-40 _____ What is your regular rate of pay $ 0-$l.75 _____ $2.76-$3.25 _____ $1.76-$2.25 _____ $3.26-$3.75 _____ $2.26-$2.75 _____ $3.76-$4.25 _____ Over $4.25 _____ e. Who is your present employer?______________________________________ f. How long have you worked there? g. If less than 2 years list other employers in past two years _____________ 170 h. Do you receive any fringe benefits? life insurance hosp. insurance _____ retirement plan (not soc. sec.) _____ paid vacation time Other/please specify __________ _____ _________________________________ i. What are your primary job responsibilities? j. What job skills do you possess? k. List any special job training you have received. 1. Did you in the past 2 years hire out any special skills to other people i.e., cooking, sewing, etc. Estimate hours per week _____ Estimate weeks per year _____ Estimate yearly income from hired services m. How many weeks did you spend wanting to work but find job in past two years? n. o. _____ unable to _____ Estimate hours per week you spend on housework 0-10 ________ 30-40____ _ 10-20 ________ 40-50___ _ 20-30 _____ 50-above _____ Are you satisfied with your employer and do you wish to remain there ?____________________________________________________________ p. How much time does it take you to get to work (one way) Hrs. miles. 11. Assets a. b. Estimate value of your house if you own it? Under $10,000 _____ $10,000-15,000 _____ $15,000-20,000 _____ How many acres of land do you own? homesite other 171 c. Do you own other real estate (specify) 12. Self provided services a. Do you grow any of your own food? eggs b. _____ vegetables _____ milk grains _____ meat fruits _____ Do you sell any produce from your truck garden? $0-$500 c. Estimate percentage _____ $500-1,000______ Do you make any of your clothing? Estimate percentage Farm Enterprise Study 1. How many acres of land do you farm? a. How many of those do you rent? How much rent do you pay? b. How many acres do you own? How many acres do you rent out? How many tillable acres do you own? c. ______ What percentage of your land is sand _____ , loam______ , clay ______ 2. d. What percentage of your land is hilly? e. Approximately what would your farm sell for? Do you own any farm buildings? _____ Specify description, age, capacity, condition value 3. barns _____ other storage silos _____ livestock bldgs Do you own any major farm equipment? tractors _____________ irrigation ___________ trucks _____ _____ age, value ________ milk equip. planting _____ _________ _________ harvesting 4. How many hours per week do you spend on farming? 0-10 hrs 10-20 hrs. _____ 20-30 hrs 30-40 hrs 40-above hours 172 5. Do any other household residents work o n farm? Who? _____ ______________________________________________________________ How many hours per week? 0-10 _________ 30-40___ 10-20 20-30 6. 40-above _____ _____ Do you hire any outside labor or services? If so, approximately how many hours _____________ ____________ Estimate total expenditure___________ ____________ 7. How do you market your output. Auction___________ _________ co-op_____________ _________ Local ag. market _________ Contract__________ ________ other_____________ _________ 8. Estimate your average total agricultural sales for past two years. 0-$2,500 9. _____ $10,000-15,000 _____ $2,500-5,000 _____ $15,000-20,000 _____ $5,000-7,500 _____ $20,000-30,000_______ $7,500-10,000 _____ $30,000-above _____ Estimate your cash expenses for farming 0-2,500 _____ $10,000-15,000_______ $2,500-5,000 _____ $15,000-20,000_______ $5,000-7,500 _____ Over 20,000_____ _____ $7,500-10,000 _____ 10. Do you buy any inputs from a co-op?________ Specify__________________ 11. What contact have you had from extension service a. written information _____ e. nutrition _____ b. personal visits _____ f. other______ ___________ c. attended training programs _____ d. 4-H _______________________ 173 What Farm Enterprises are You Engaged In 1. Dairy a. No. of cows b. No. of bulls c. Do you use artificial insemination d. Average lbs. milk sold/cow e. Percent of time you spend f. Percent of feed grown Cow/Calf a. No. of cows b. No. of bulls c. Artificial insemination d. No. calves sold per cow per year e. Average weight of calves sold f. Percent of time you spend g- Percent of feed grown Feeder Calf 4. a. No. of calves fed per year b. Average purchase weight c. Average sale weight d. Percent of feed grown e. What feed mix do you use f. Percent of your time spent Poultry (Broilers) a. No. chickens sold per year b. Average length held before sale c. Percent feed grown d. Feed mix e. Percent of your time spent f. Average weight at sale g- Cage system 174 5- Egg 6. 7. 8. 9. a. No. eggs sold per hen b. Percent feed grown c. Percent of your time spent d. Cage system e. No. chickens kept in laying flock Swine a. No. pigs weaned per litter b. Farrowing field as pen c. Percent of feed grown d. Average weight sold per pig e. Percetn of your time spent f. No. of sows g. No. of boars Fruit a. Yield/acre or tree b. No. acres devoted c. Percent of your time spent Berries a. Yield/acre b. No. acres devoted c. Percent of your time spent Grains— Specify for each a . _________________ 1. Yield/acre 2. No. acres devoted 3. Percent of your time spent 4. When do you plant 5. When do you harvest 1. Yield/acre 2. No. acres devoted 3. Percent of your time spent 4. When do you plant 5. When do you harvest b. 175 1. Yield/acre 2. No. acres devoted 3. Percent of your time spent 4. When do you plant 5. When do you harvest Aspirations— Next 2 Years 1. Do you anticipate changing your family residence composition? If so, how?__________________________________________________________ 2. Do you anticipate any family member outside of children without h.s. degree attaining further educational or vocational training? Specify__________________ ____________________________________________ 3. Do you intend to stay in Cass County? 1. Same residence _____ 2. New residence _____ a. Purchase _____ b. Rent _____ Why?_________________________________________________________________ 4. State your aspirations for nonfarm employment. family members and following criteria 5. Female 1. No. of hours _______ __________ 2. Type of job desired ________ ___________ 3. Hourly income ________ ___________ 4. No. of weeks ______ __ ___________ 5. Travel time ________ ___________ Do you intend to work a truck garden? eggs __________ Vegetables___________ milk __________ grain meat 6. Consider all fruit _____ _____ State your aspirations for your farm enterprise considering the following criteria a. Farm income net cash expenses ____________ b. Hours worked by family/residents ____________ c. Expansion/contraction of existing assets ____________ d. Desired enterprises_____________________ ________________________ 176 7. What is or would be your total desired family income level for the next two years? 8. 0- 5,000 _________ $ 5,000- 7,500 _________ $ 7,500-10,000 __________ $10,000-12,500 _________ $12,500-15,000 _________ Will you attain this income with your present employer?________ APPENDIX 2: FINAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT CONFIDENTIAL SMALL FARM FAMILY PROGRAM SURVEY INFORMATION R esp o n d ent Name____________________________________________________ M a ilin g A d d ress________________________________________ ( S t r e e t o r R u ra l R o u te) ( C ity ) (Z ip Code) T ele p h o n e No. ______________________________________ Farm L o c a tio n C ounty _______________________________________________________________ Township _____________________________________________________________ D i r e c t i o n s t o Farm I n te r v ie w e r ____ ________________ ______________________ N am e______________________________________________________________________ D a t e _______________________________________________■ __________________ In a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r s u g g e s tio n s and o p in io n s r e g a r d in g th e n e e d s o f f a m i l i e s l i v i n g on s m a ll fa rm s . We would l i k e to o b t a i n in f o r m a tio n a b o u t y o u r fa m ily and farm o p e r a t i o n . The i n f o r ­ m a tio n you g iv e w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l . I t w i l l be sum m arized w ith t h a t from o th e r f a m i l i e s and u sed to o b t a i n a b e t t e r u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e p ro b lem s on a s m a ll farm and program s to s o lv e p ro b le m s. B e fo re a s c h e d u le i s c o m p le te d , d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e farm q u a l i f i e s a s a s m a ll farm a c c o rd in g to th e f o llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n . D e f i n i t i o n o f a s m a ll farm — 10 a c r e s o r m ore o f la n d and e n t e r p r i s e s s m a lle r th a n : D a iry - 25 m ilk cows + fe e d cropfe Cash g r a in - 200 t i l l a b l e a c r e s B eef c a t t l e fe e d in g - 100 f e e d e r s + fe e d c ro p s B eef cow and c a l f - 80 cows + fe e d c ro p s F arrow and f i n i s h sw ine - 30 sows - 2 l i t t e r sy stem + fe e d c ro p s F e e d e r p ig p r o d u c tio n sw ine - 60 sows - 2 l i t t e r sy stem + fe e d c ro p s F e e d e r p ig f i n i s h sw ine - 500 f e e d e r s + fe e d c ro p s P o u lt r y - 3 ,5 0 0 la y in g h en s + fe e d c ro p s F r u i t - 40 a c r e s 177 i 178 ICard 1 (Col.) CONFIDENTIAL Card 1 C ounty Code 2 Farm No. 3 -5 F i r s t , I w i l l a s k q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y o u r fa m ily . A. F am ily D ata 1. ( c i r c l e an sw er) What a r e th e a g e s o f a l l p e r s o n s I n t h e fa m ily ? a) b) Husband W ife None 0 Under 25 1 25-34 2 35-44 3 45-54 4 55-64 5 65 & o v e r 6 None 0 U nder 25 1 25-34 2 35-44 3 45-54 4 55-64 5 65 & o v e r 6 c) C h ild r e n u n d er 5 y e a r s o ld (Number) 8 d) C h ild r e n 5-8 y e a r s o ld (Number) 9 e) C h ild r e n 9-13 y e a r s o ld (Number) 10 f) C h ild r e n 14-17 y e a r s o ld (Number) 11 g) C h ild r e n 18 y e a r s o ld o r o v e r (Number) 12 h) O th er r e l a t e d a d u l t s 13 2. How many c h i l d r e n a r e l i v i n g a t home? 3. Was th e l i v i n g s i t u a t i o n d u rin g s c h o o l y e a r s o f th e husband a n d /o r w ife i n a r u r a l a re a ? (Farm , c o u n tr y , s m a ll tow n, e t c . ) (Number) 14 15 N e ith e r Husband W ife B oth 179 ICard 1 ( C o l.) 4. What was th e l e v e l o f fo rm a l e d u c a tio n a t t a i n m e n t f o r t h e husband? C o lle g e g ra d 5. 6. B. 8 y e a rs o r l e s s 1 9 -1 1 y e a r s 2 C om pleted h ig h s c h o o l 3 Some c o l l e g e o r t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g 4 What d id t h e h u s b a n d 's h ig h s c h o o l e d u c a tio n e m p h a siz e : 17 No h ig h s c h o o l e d u c a tio n 0 G e n e ra l 1 A g ric u ltu ra l 2 Home econom ics 3 B u s in e s s /s e c re ta ria l 4 V o c a tio n a l - o t h e r 5 C o lle g e p r e p a r a t i o n 6 What was t h e l e v e l o f fo rm a l e d u c a tio n a tt a i n m e n t f o r t h e w ife ? C o lle g e g ra d 7. 5 16 5 18 8 y e a re o r l e s s 9 -11 y e a r s 1 2 C om pleted h ig h s c h o o l 3 Some c o l l e g e o r t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g 4 What d id th e w i f e 's h ig h s c h o o l e d u c a tio n e m p h a s iz e : 19 No h ig h s c h o o l e d u c a tio n 0 G e n e ra l 1 A g r i c u lt u r e 2 Home econom ics 3 B u s in e s s /s e c re ta ria l 4 V o c a tio n a l - o t h e r 5 C o lle g e p r e p a r a t i o n 6 F am ily L iv in g In fo rm at i o n 1. 2. 3. Do you have a v e g e ta b le g a rd e n ea ch y e a r? Do you can o r f r e e z e v e g e ta b le s f o r y e a r ro u n d u s e ? Yes 1 No 2 Yes 1 No 2 What p e r c e n t o f home consumed m eat i s p roduced on th e farm ? 20 21 22 0% 0 1 -5 0 % 1 51-99% 2 100% 3 180 Icard ll (Col.) 4. 5. 6. What p e r c e n t o f home consumed m ilk i s p ro d u ced on th e farm ? 23 035 0 1-50% 1 51-99% 2 100% 3 What p e r c e n t o f home consumed eggs a r e p ro d u c ed on th e farm ? 24 0% 0 1-50% 1 51-99% 2 100% 3 A p p ro x im a te ly how many d o l l a r s o f m o n th ly incom e d o es y o u r fa m ily n eed to a c h ie v e a s a t i s f a c t o r y o r c o m fo r ta b le l i v i n g w ith p r i c e s a t t h e i r p r e s e n t (M arch, 1974) l e v e l . $ 25-26 (H undred' s d o lla rs ) 7. What i s t h e minimum m o n th ly incom e n eed ed to s u p p o rt th e fa m ily ? 27-28 $ (H undred' s d o lla rs ) 8. How many y e a r s have you and y o u r sp o u se li v e d on y o u r p r e s e n t farm ? 29-30 (y e a rs) 9. How many y e a r s have you and y o u r sp o u se c o n tin u o u s ly farm ed? 31-32 (y e a rs) 10. What a r e y o u r r e a s o n s f o r l i v i n g i n a r u r a l community? 33 F or em ploym ent re a s o n s 0 For r e t i r e m e n t 1 Farm o p p o r tu n ity 2 D is d a in f o r u rb a n l i f e 3 A p p r e c ia tio n f o r r u r a l l i f e 4 F or h e a l t h re a s o n 5 R a is e fa m ily 6 O ther 7 N ex t, I w i l l a s k q u e s tio n s a b o u t your farm 1. How many a c r e s do you own? 34-36 2. Of t h e owned l a n d , how many a c r e s a r e t i l l a b l e ? 37-39 131 fcard 1 (Col.) 3. What I s th e m ajo r s o i l ty p e ? 40 Sand 1 S andy-loam 2 C lay 3 C lay -lo am 4 Loam 5 Loam y-sand 6 Muck 7 4. How many t i l l a b l e a c r e s d id you r e n t i n 1973? 5. I f la n d was r e n te d , w hat ty p e o f l e a s e a rra n g e m e n t was u s e d on r e n te d la n d ? 4 1 -4 3 44 Cash r e n t 1 S h a re r e n t 2 C ash and s h a r e r e n t 3 O th er 4 6. How many t i l l a b l e a c r e s o f owned la n d d id you r e n t o u t i n 1973? 7. 8. I f la n d was r e n te d o u t , w hat ty p e o f l e a s e a rra n g e m e n t was u sed on r e n te d la n d ? C ash r e n t 4 5 -4 7 48 1 S h a re r e n t 2 C ash and s h a r e r e n t 3 O th e r 4 How many a c r e s o f th e f o llo w in g c ro p s d id you h a r v e s t i n 1973? a) A l f a l f a , c lo v e r o r o th e r hay h a r v e s te d 49-51 b) Corn f o r s i l a g e 52-54 c) C orn f o r g r a i n 55-57 d) Wheat 5 8 -6 0 e) O th er g r a in ( i . e . : f> Soybeans 64-66 g) P a s tu r e 6 7 -6 9 h) F ru it 70-72 1) D iv e r te d o r i d l e 7 3-75 j) O th er c a sh c ro p s (Kind -76-78 k) O th e r fe e d c ro p s (Kind 7 9 -8 0 O a ts , ry e ) 61-63 182 IC ard 2 I ( C o l.) Card 9. 2_______ 1 C ounty Code _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 Farm Number ________________________________ 3-5 What w ere t h e 3 y e a r a v e ra g e y i e l d s p e r a c r e from th e fo llo w in g c ro p s ? a) A l f a l f a , c lo v e r o r o t h e r hay h a r v e s te d (T ons) C orn f o r s i l a g e (T ons) ______________ (o n e d e c im a l p la c e ) ______________ b) 8-9 c) C orn f o r g r a i n (B u .) ______________ 10-12 d) Wheat (B u .) ______________ 13-14 e) Soybeans (B u.) ______________ 15-16 6-7 Ask q u e s t i o n s a b o u t l i v e s t o c k p ro d u c tio n f o r th e ty p e o f l i v e s t o c k on t h e farm i n 1973. I f 1973 l i v e s t o c k p r o d u c tio n was n o t t y p i c a l , o b t a i n th e in f o r m a tio n f o r a t y p i c a l y e a r d u rin g th e l a s t t h r e e y e a r s . 10. 11. 12. 13. B eef Cow-Calf a) How many b e e f cows w ere i n y o u r h e rd ? b) How many c a lv e s w ere born? c) How many c a lv e s w ere s o ld ? d) (Number) ______________ 17-18 (Number) ______________ 19-20 (Number) ______________ 21-22 What was t h e s e l l i n g w e ig h t o f c a lv e s p e r head? ( l b s ) __________ 23-25 F eeder C a ttle a) How many f e e d e r s w ere p u rc h a se d ? (Number) ______________ 26-27 b) What was th e a v e . w e ig h t o f f e e d e r s p u rc h a se d p e r head? (lb s .) ______________ 28-30 c) How many f e e d e r s w ere s o ld ? ______________ 31-32 d) What was th e a v e . s e l l i n g w e ig h t p e r head ( c w t.) ______________ 33-35 (Number) Swine a) How many l i t t e r s w ere fa rro w e d d u rin g th e y e a r? (N o .)___________ 36-37 b) What was th e a v e . number o f p ig s weaned p e r l i t t e r ? ______________ (One d e c im a l p la c e ) 38-39 c) How many f e e d e r p ig s w ere s o ld ? 4 0 -4 2 d) How many f e e d e r p ig s w ere p u rc h a se d ? e) How many m a rk e t hogs w ere s o ld ? (Number)___________ ______________ ______________ 4 3 -4 5 (Number)___________ ______________ 4 6 -4 8 a) What was th e a v e ra g e number o f la y in g h en s?_______________________ 4 9 -5 2 b) How many d o ze n s o f eggs w ere s o ld p e r hen?__________ ______________ 53-54 (Number) P o u ltr y [N o te : ESTIMATE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOZENS SOLD_________ * AVERAGE NUMBER OF LAYING HENS _________ ] 183 l£ard...2 (Col.) 14. D a iry a) What was th e a v e ra g e number o f m ilk cows I n y o u r h e rd ? (Number) b) Were you on a G rade A o r B m a rk e t? 55-56 G rade A 57 G rade B c) [N o te : What was t h e a v e ra g e a n n u a l m ilk p r o d u c tio n p e r cow? (C w t.) ___ 5 8 -6 0 USE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TO ESTIMATE PRODUCTION] L b s. s o ld i n 1973 ___________ * A verage number o f cows m ilk in g and d ry _________ OR + A verage number o f L bs. s h ip p e d on t y p i c a l day cows m ilk in g and d ry _______ X 365 OR DHIA, Owner S am pler o r o t h e r re c o rd 15. 1 6. O th er L iv e s to c k DO NOT CODE a) Kind b) Number c) P ro d u c tio n D u rin g 1973 w hat h a s b een t h e t o t a l la b o r h o u rs of farm w ork by t h e : (E s tim a te on w eekly b a s e s i f n e c e s s a r y t o a r r i v e a t y e a r l y t o t a l ) H o u rs /y e a r (H u n d re d 's H ours) D. O ff-F arm Employment a) Husband 61-62 b) W ife 63-64 c) O th e r f a m ily members 65-66 d) H ire d 67-68 In f o rm a tio n f o r 1973 I I f th e husband had o f f - f a r m work 1. What k in d o f w ork was done? 69 None 0 P r o f e s s i o n a l o r T e c h n ic a l 1 M anager, o f f i c i a l or p ro p r ie to r 2 C le ric a l 3 S a le s 4 C raftsm an o r forem an 5 O p e ra tiv e s ( s e m i - s k i l l e d ) 6 ( c o n t.) 184 fCard 2 (Col.) Nonfarm l a b o r e r S e rv ic e Farm 2. Ave. num ber o f h o u rs worked p e r week? 7 0 -7 1 3. Number o f w eeks w orked I n 1973? 7 2-73 4. What I s y o u r r e g u l a r h o u rly wage? 2 .5 1 - 3 .0 0 0 1 3 .0 1 - 3 .5 0 2 3 .5 1 - 4 .0 0 3 4 .0 1 - 4 .7 5 4 4 .7 6 - 5 .5 0 5 5 .5 1 - 6 .2 5 6 6 .2 6 -o v e r 7 0 -2 .5 0 74 5. How many y e a r s have you worked a t th e p r e s e n t o c c u p a tio n ? 7 5 -7 6 6. How many m ile s do you d r i v e to y o u r p r e s e n t jo b ? (o n e way) 7 7 -7 8 7. Aro an y o f t h e f o llo w in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s r e c e iv e d ? a) L i f e In s u ra n c e Yes No 1 b) H e a lth /H o s p ita l In s u ra n c e Yes No 1 2 2 79 80 Card 3 I ( C o l .) Card 1 C ounty Code 2 Farm Number 3 -5 c) P a id v a c a t i o n tim e Yes No 1 2 d) R e tire m e n t (n o t s o c ia l s e c u rity ) Yes No 1 2 e) O th er ( s p e c i f y ) f I f th e w ife had o f f - f a r m work 8. What k in d o f w ork was done? 185 Icard 3 (Col.) None P r o f e s s i o n a l o r T e c h n ic a l M anager, o f f i c i a l o r p ro p rie to r C le ric a l S a le s C ra ftsm a n o r fo rem an O p e r a tiv e s ( s e m i - s k i l l e d ) Nonfarm l a b o r e r S e rv ic e Farm 9. Ave. num ber o f h o u rs w orked p e r week? _____ 9-10 10. Number o f weeks worked i n 1973? _____ 11-12 11. What i s y o u r r e g u l a r h o u rly wage? 0 -2 .5 0 13 2 .5 1 - 3 .0 0 3 .0 1 - 3 .5 0 3 .5 1 - 4 .0 0 4 .0 1 - 4 .7 5 4 .7 6 - 5 .5 0 5 .5 1 - 6 .2 5 6 .2 6 -o v e r 12. How many y e a r s h av e you worked a t th e p r e s e n t o c c u p a tio n ? 13. How many m ile s do you d r i v e to y o u r p r e s e n t jo b ? (one way) ______ 14. Are an y o f t h e fo llo w in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s r e c e iv e d ? 14-15 16-17 a) L i f e in s u r a n c e Yes No 1 b) H e a l th / H o s p i t a l In s u ra n c e Yes No 1 P a id v a c a t i o n tim e Yes No 1 c) d) e) 15. _______ R e tire m e n t (n o t s o c ia l s e c u rity ) Yes No 2 2 2 1 2 18 19 20 21 O th er ( s p e c i f y ) Did anyone e l s e i n your h o u se h o ld work o f f - f a r m i n 1973? Yes No 1 2 22 186 ICard 3 (Col.) E. Now, I would l i k e t o o b t a i n a n I n d i c a t i o n o f c h a n g es i n t h e farm o r o f f - f a r m em ployment. 1. 23 Over t h e n e x t two t o t h r e e y e a r s , what ch a n g e s would you l i k e t o make i n y o u r fa rm in g o p e r a t i o n ? ___________________________________________________ None Do l e s s fa rm in g Expand fa rm in g o p e r a t i o n R e t i r e from fa rm in g O th er I A s k q u e s t i o n s 2 - 3 o n ly i f ite m 3 was checked i n q u e s t i o n 1 above 2. What c h a n g es would you l i k e t o make i n exp and ing t h e farm o p e r a t i o n ? ( D e t a i l e d a s p o s s i b l e - No. a c r e s , k in d and number o f l i v e s t o c k , e t c . ) 24 D o n 't know I n c r e a s e cro p y i e l d s I n c r e a s e a c r e s farmed In c re a s e l i v e s t o c k p ro d u c tio n I n c r e a s e l i v e s t o c k numbers O th er 3. j ASK 4. ___ How many a d d i t i o n a l h o u rs of l a b o r p e r y e a r a r e a v a i l a b l e by t h e f a m i l y f o r t h i s e x p a n s io n ? ______ (H u n d re d 's Hours) EVERYBODY What n e t c a s h farm income a r e you a t t e m p t i n g t o a c h ie v e ? 25-2 6 $_ (H undred' s D o llars) 27-29 I f chan g es i n o f f - f a r m work i s a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e husband a s k q u e s t i o n 5 -8 ._______________________________________________________ 5. What k in d o f a j o b would you l i k e t o have i n o f f - f a r m employment? 30 Don' t know 0 P r o f e s s io n a l o rT ech n ical 1 M anager, o f f i c i a l o r p r o p r i e t o r 2 C lerica l 3 S ales 4 (c o n t.) 187 ICard 3 (C o l.) C raftsm an o r forem an 5 O perativ e (S e m i-s k ille d ) 6 Nonfarm l a b o r e r 7 S ervice 8 Farm 9 6. How many h o u rs would be worked p e r week?_____________________ _______________ 31 -3 2 7. How many weeks p e r y e a r ? _______________ 33-3 4 8. What income i s d e s i r e d p e r y e a r? $_______________ (H u ndred ' s D o llars 35-37 I f a change i n o f f - f a r m work i s a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e w i f e a s k q u e s t i o n s 9 -1 2 .__________________ ________________________________ 9. 38 What k i n d o f a j o b would you l i k e t o h a v e i n o f f - f a r m employment? D o n 't know 0 P r o f e s s io n a l o r T ech n ical 1 M anager, o f f i c i a l o r p r o p r i e t o r 2 C lerica l 3 S ales 4 C ra fts m a n o r foreman 5 O perativ e (S e m i-sk ille d ) 6 Nonfarm l a b o r e r 7 S erv ice 8 Farm 9 10. How many h o u rs c o u ld be worked p e r week 39-4 0 11. How many weeks p e r y e a r? 4 1-4 2 12. What income i s d e s i r e d p e r y e a r? 43-45 (H und red ' s D o llars) F. C a p i t a l In v e s tm e n t I n Farm B u s in e ss 1. 2. 3. What i s t h e e s t i m a t e d s e l l i n g p r i c e f o r y o u r la n d and b u i l d i n g s ? 46 -4 8 (T h o u s a n d 's D o llars) What I s t h e a p p ro x im a te v a l u e o f y o ur m a c h in e ry , on J a n . 1 , 1974? (000) What i s t h e a p p ro x im a te v a l u e o f y o ur l i v e s t o c k on J a n . 1 , 1974? (000) 49-5 1 52-54 188 Icard 3 (C o l.) G. H. 4. What i s y o u r a p p r o x im a te amount o f d e b t f o r t h e farm and farm p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y on J a n . 1 , 1974? $___________ (000) 55-57 5. What i s y o u r a p p r o x im a te d e b t f o r consumer i t e m s on__________$___________ Jan. 1 , 1974? ( C a r s , f u r n i t u r e , a p p l i a n c e s , e tc .) (000) 58-59 Fam ily Income 1. What was t h e a v e r a g e p e r y e a r g r o s s a g r i c u l t u r a l s a l e s f o r t h e p a s t two y e a r s ? $____________ (000) 60-61 2. What was y o ur a v e r a g e p e r y e a r c a s h fa rm e x p e n s e s f o r t h e p a s t two y e a r s ? $____________ (000) 62-63 3. What was y o ur f a m i l y income from t r a n s f e r paym ents i n 1973? ( i . e . : S o cial s e c u r ity , w e lfa re , e t c . ) $____________ ( H u n d r e d 's D o llars) 64-66 4. What was y o u r f a m i l y income from i n v e s t m e n t s i n 1973? ( i . e . : fa rm r e n t , s a v i n g s a c c o u n t s , s t o c k , b o n d s , e t c . ) $____________ (H u n d re d 's D o llars) 67-69 5. O th e r f a m i l y income i n 1973? $____________ (H u n d r e d 's D o llars) 70-72 1. S t a t e y o u r s u g g e s t i o n s and o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e n e e d s o f f a m i l i e s l i v i n g on s m a l l f a r m s . _________________________________________________ 2. S t a t e any o t h e r comments o r o b s e r v a t i o n s . (i.e .: p en sio n s) APPENDIX 3: UNIT BUDGETS ASSUMED PRICES Corn $2.30/bu. less 50/bu. marketing charge Wheat $3.30/bu. less 50/bu. marketing charge Alfalfa $40.00/ton Oats $1.30/bu. less 50/bu. marketing charge SoyaBeans $6.55/bu. less 50/bu. marketing charge Strawberries 400/quart Sweet Corn 700/doz. Tomatoes 60/lb. Cucumbers $5.0 0/bu. Greens $3.00/bu. Snap Beans $6.00/bu. Cabbage $1.7 1 /bu. Feeder Cattle $57.00/cwt. Market Cattle $45.00/cwt. Feeder Pigs $61.00/cwt. Market Pigs $40.00/cwt. Milk $8.50/cwt. Cull Cows $400 Bred Heifers $100 Land Rental $75.01/acre Full Time Hired Hand $7,000/3,000 hour year Part Time Hired Labor Store Grain $2.25/hour 1.5 0 /bu. CORN BUDGET Clay Loam Variable Cash Costs $ 6.25 27.85 4.60 5.14 $43.84 Sandy Loam (1/4 b u . '$25/bu.) Seed (1/4 b u . ’$25/bu.) (100-50-50) Fertilizer (lbs.) (80-25-50) (2 lbs.*$2.30/lb.) Herbicide (2 l b s .•$2.30/lb.) Power & Machinery $ 6.25 21.10 4.60 5.14 $37.09 Harvesting Cash Costs $ 4.57 11.00 7.38 18.00 Self Harvest for Grain Custom Harvest for Grain Self Harvest for Silage Custom Harvest for Silage $4.57 11.00 7.38 18.00 Labor Requirements (hours) $ 6.12 3.19 1.19 5.79 2.89 Planting Self Harvest for Grain Custom Harvest for Grain Self Harvest for Silage Custom Harvest for Silage $ 6.12 Yield Grain Silage 90.16 81 72.16 62.9 16.23 14.58 12.99 11.32 bu, bu. bu, bu. 3.19 1.19 5.79 2.89 (Planting Period) Grain ton ton ton ton Apr. 25 May 11 May 19 May 27 May 10 May 18 May 26 June 3 72.12 64.8 57.73 50.32 bu, bu. bu. bu, Silage 14.42 12.96 11.55 10.06 ton ton ton ton WHEAT BUDGET Clay Loam Variable Cash Costs $ 7.87 (1.75 bu.-$4.50/lbs.) Seed (1.75 bu.*$4.50/bu.) 32.00 (60-75-50) Fertilizer (lbs.) (60-25-75) 4.33 Power & Machinery $44.20 Sandy Loam $ 7.87 24.15 4.33 $36.35 Self Harvest Custom Harvest $ 2.16 9.00 Labor Requirement (hrs.) $ 2.58 3.86 2.86 Summer Labor Self Harvest Custom Harvest $ 2.58 3.86 2.86 Yield 45 bu. 40 bu. 191 Harvesting Cash Costs $ 2.16 9.00 ALFALFA BUDGET Clay Loam Variable Cash Costs $ 3.70 (2 lbs.-$1.85/lb.) Seed (2 lbs.■$r.85/lb.) 14.52 (0-50-75) Fertilizer (lbs.) (0-25-75) •36 Power & Machinery 25.50 (17£/bale-150 bales) Baling (17£/bale•144 bales) $44.08 Harvesting Cash Costs $ 6.15 6.15 Labor Requirement (hrs.) $ -66 5.34 10.68 1*84 3.68 Self Harvest Custom Harvest Spring Spring Summer Spring Summer Planting Self Harvest Self Harvest Custom Harvest Self Harvest Sandy Loam $ 3.70 9.77 .36 24.48 $38.31 $ 6.15 6.15 $ .66 5.34 10.68 1.84 3.68 Yield 5 ton 4 ton OAT BUDGET Clay Loam Variable Cash Costs $ 7.87 (2.25 b u . *$3.50/bu.) Seed (2.25 b u . •$3.50/bu.) 22.45 (40-50-50) Fertilizer (lbs.) (40-25-75) 1.50 (.25 l b s .•$6.00/lb.) Herbicide (.25 lb s .•$6.00/lb.) 6•85 Power & Machinery $38.67 Harvesting Cash Costs $ 2.16 9*00 Spring Harvest Period Summer - Self Harvest Summer - Custom Harvest $ 7.87 19.35 1.50 6.85 $35.57 $2.16 9.00 $2.83 1.54 1.48 .48 Yield 80 bu. 70 bu. 193 Labor Requirement (hrs.) $ 2.83 1. 54 1.48 .48 Self Harvest Custom Harvest Sandy Loam SOYABEAN BUDGET Clay Loam $ 7.05 8.82 4.83 6.24 $26.94 Sandy Loam (.83 bu. $8.50/bu.) (10-25-25) (1 l b . *$4.83/lb.) Seed (.83 b u . •$8.50/bu.) Fertilizer (lbs.) (10-0-50) Herbicide (1 l b .•$4.83/lb.) Power & Machinery $ 7.05 10.55 4.83 6.24 $28.67 Harvesting Cash Costs $ 3.79 9.25 Self Harvest Custom Harvest $3.79 9.25 Labor Requirement $ 4.33 2.32 1.6 1.08 .36 Planting Summer Self Harvest Harvest Period - Self Harvest Summer Custom Harvest Harvest Period - Custom Harvest $ 4.33 2.32 Yield 38 bu. 36.54 bu. 35.01 bu. 30.63 bu. (Planting Period) May 19 - May 26 May 27 - June 3 June 4 - June 11 June 12- June 19 1.6 1.08 .36 26 25 24 21 bu. bu. bu. bu. PASTURE BUDGET* Clay Loam Variable Cash Costs $ 3.70 4.08 .36 $ 8.14 Sandy Loam Seed Fertilizer Power & Machinery $3.70 2.75 .36 $ 6.81 Labor Requirement (hr.) 1 Yield 5 ton 195 ♦Adjusted to yearly basis 4 ton FRUIT AND VEGETABLE BUDGET 10 acres Income Strawberries Sweet Corn Tomatoes Cucumbers Greens Snap Beans Cabbage Total Income (2/3)-2 2 2 1.25 .75 1.25 .75 *2 $493.25 2 187.57 2 312.24 1.25 263.63 .75 213.57 1.25 232.57 .75 305.57 costs $ 3.413.00 1.400.00 2.400.00 1.565.00 1.125.00 1.878.00 771.00 $12,552.00 657.67 375.14 624.48 329.54 160.18 290.71 229.18 2,666.90 $ $ 9,885.10 $ Yearly Overhead for Fruits and Vegetables Advertising Insurance Equipment Facilities Total overhead Net cash income Labor Requirement $ $ 450.00 25.00 150.00 250.00 875.00 $ 9,010.10 493 hours 196 Variable Cash Costs Strawberries (2/3) Sweet Corn Tomatoes Cucumbers Greens Snap Beans Cabbage Total variable cash Net to overhead acres 12,800 quart/acre*40£/quart acres*2,000 doz./acre*70£/doz. acres*20 ton/acre*6£/lb. acres*313 bu./acre*$5.00/bu. acres*375 bu./acre*$3.00/bu. acres*313 bu./acre*$6.00/bu. acres*450 bu./acre•$1.71/bu. 197 STRAWBERRIES Total Cash Costs Machinery Fertilizer & Chemicals Herbicide & Spray Other Irrigation Plants Total Cash Costs Labor Requirement $159.81 368.64 166.90 50.00 83.64 157.50 $986.49 Per Year $ 79.91 184.32 83.45 25.00 41.82 78.75 $493.25 125 hours Yield 12,800 quarts ♦Costs incurred over first two years, crop produced second and third year. SWEET CORN Cash Costs Machinery Fertilizer & Lime Spray & Dust Seed Irrigation Other Total Cash Costs $ 17.00 73.75 20.00 10.00 41.82 25.00 8187.57 Labor Requirement 60 hours 2,000 dozen Yield TOMATOES Cash Costs Machinery Fertilizer & Lime Plants & Chemicals Irrigation Other Total Cash Costs Labor Requirement Yield $ 51.40 89.80 104.22 41.82 25.00 8312.24 28 hours 20 ton 198 CUCUMBERS Cash Costs Machinery Fertilizer & Lime Seed & Chemicals Rented Beehive Airplane Spraying Irrigation Other Total Cash Costs $ 22.95 90.15 61.71 10.00 12.00 41.82 25.00 $263.63 Labor Requirement 19 hours Yield 313 bu. GREENS Cash Costs Machinery Fertilizer & Lime Plants & Seed Spray & Dust Irrigation Other Total Cash Costs $ 26.00 83.75 25.00 12.00 41.82 25.00 $213.57 Labor Requirement 40 hours 375 bu. Yield SNAP BEANS Cash Costs Machinery Fertilizer & Lime Seed Spray & Dust Irrigation Other Total Cash Costs $ 32.00 88.75 35.00 10.00 41.82 25.00 $232 .57~ Labor Requirement 10 hours Yield 313 bu. 199 CABBAGE Cash Costs Machinery Fertilizer & Lime Plants & Seed Spray & Dust Irrigation Other Total Cash Costs $ 40.00 78.75 90.00 30.00 41.82 25.00 $305.57 Labor Requirement 55 hours Yield 450 bu. 200 EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE (10 acres) Irrigation System Direct Seed Planter $5,000 1,100 Transplanter 900 Corn Planter 1,500 Disc 1,657 Drag 180 Plow 800 2 Row Cultivator 850 Weed Sprayer 500 Row Crop Sprayer 500 Flat Bed Wagon 765 $13,752 COW-CALF BUDGET Sales 420 lbs. x $57/cwt Less Assumed 10% Loss Marketing Expense (3%) $239.40 23.94 6.46 $209.00 Expense Protein-Salt-Mineral Veterinary-Medicine Insurance-Taxes Breeding Expense Miscellaneous Replacement Cost Utilities, Power, Fuel Total Cash Expense Net to Overhead $ 11.84 6.05 8.50 4.50 2.00 12.00 2.65 $ 47.54 $161.46 Feed Requirement Corn Hay 6 bu. 6 ton Labor 8 hrs. 202 FEEDER CATTLE BUDGET Sale 1050 lbs. X $45/cwt $472.49 Cash Expenses $239.40 6.50 3.50 10.00 1. 00 1.25 55261.65 $210.84 Purchase Price 420 lbs. X $57/cwt Power and Machinery Improvements Livestock Expense* Utilities Miscellaneous Total Cash Expense Net to Overhead Feed Requirement Systems 1 Corn (bu. ) Hay (ton) Corn Silage (ton) Salt ($) Soy 44 ($) Dical ($) Labor Requirement 2 55 3 70 .82 3.28 4 42 1.86 8.49 4.95 17.05 19.18 12.20 37.94 5.6 hrs. 203 FEEDER PIG FINISH BUDGET Sales: Market hog 230 lbs. X $40/cwt $ 92.00 50 lbs. X $61/cwt $ 30.50 Cash Expenses Purchase Price Assumed 3% Loss .92 Purchasing Cost .95 Soy Oil Meal 7.89 Premix 1.23 Veterinary-Medicine .67 Utilities 1.08 Marketing 1.52 Total Cash Expense $ 44.76 Net to Overhead $ 47.24 Feed Requirements Corn Labor Requirement 11.25 bu. 1.4 hrs. 204 FARROW-FINISH SWINE BUDGET (2 Litter System)* Sales: Market Pigs (14.47 X 230 lbs. X $40/cwt) Sows ( Unbred Gilts ( $1,331.24 52.65 .39 X 450 lbs. X $30/cwt) .1 X 300 lbs. X $33/cwt) 9.90 $1^393.79 Cash Expenses Soy Oil Meal $ 182.70 Premix 26.75 Veterinary-Medicine 34.74 Utilities 45.27 Marketing 29.78 Total Cash Expense $ 319.24 Net to Overhead $1,074.55 Feed Requirement 229.32 bu Corn Labor Requirement ♦Assumed 8 pigs weaned per litter, culled, .195 sows culled. 47 hours .25 gilts bred, .05 gilts 205 Housing For Swine Farrow-Finish 100 Sows 1545 Feeders Farrowing Facility 34,000 Nursery Facility 17,355 Breeding Herd Facility Feed Processing and Storage 2,500 10,100 1600 Gallon Liquid Manure Tank 2,700 Liquid Manure Pump 3,000 Finishing Facility 43,775 113,430 206 DAIRY BUDGET Sales 135 cwt milk X $8.50/cwt $1 ,147.50 112.00 .28 X $400/Culled Cow .425 X $100/Calf 42.50 $1,302.00 Cash Expense Power & Machinery $ 27. 36 Improvements 16.74 Livestock Expense 73. 99 Utilities 18.60 Miscellaneous 5.08 Total Cash Expense $ Net to Overhead $1 ,160.23 Labor Requirement 141.77 56 hours Feed Requirement Systems 1 Corn (bu.) Corn Silage (ton) 83.5 90 3 4 105 126 7.7 4.34 .36 2.07 3.42 53.54 24.71 2.06 9.84 Hay (ton) Soy 44 ($) 2 Dairy Heifer Replacement 4, .28 207 DAIRY HEIFER BUDGET (Birth to Fresh) Cash Expense Power & Machinery Improvements Livestock Expense Utilities Total Cash Expense $ 2.60 3.60 58.19 2.40 $66.79 Feed Requirement Hay (tons) 2.5 Corn (bu.) 6.8 Labor Requirement (hrs.) 20 208 Investment Budget For Dairy Housing Stall Barn Structure in Concrete $13,325 Stanchions and Water Bowls 1,250 Gutter Cleaner 1,500 Ventilation Water, Plumbing, Wiring 750 1,750 $17,575 Equipment Milking System $ 4,200 Milk Conveyor 2,200 Electric Feed Cart 2,000 Silo 5.000 Silo Unloader 2.000 $15,400 Total Investment $32,975 APPENDIX 4: SHADOW PRICES OF BUDGETED CASES Shadow P r i c e s (In D o lla rs) 1 A Corn Picker 6.43 Small Grain Combine 2.55 Silage Harvesting — Sow Facilities Feeder Pig Facilities Cattle Facilities Dairy Facilities Hay Storage Silage Storage Land 100.67 — 1 B 5.07 5.46 — — — — — ____ 2 A 6.43 5.46 3.49 250.14 19.82 __ 2 B 2 C 2 D 6.43 3.84 3.49 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.43 3.49 — ____ — _ ____ __ — ____ __ ____ — — ---- ____ — — ---- — Corn Pickers 6.43 Small Grain Combines 3.84 Silage Harvesting 3.49 Sow Facilities Feeder Pig Facilities Cattle Facilities Dairy Facilities Hay Storage 9.13 Silage Storage 14.06 Land 124.20 — — 6.43 3.84 3.49 249.32 19.65 3 A 3 B 3 C 6.43 3.47 4.02 6.43 3.47 4.02 6.43 3.47 4.02 __ — — __ 4 A 4 B 6.43 .93 3.49 250.14 19.82 6.43 3.49 120.98 112.10 __ 115.54 126.38 124.20 4.07 16.54 135.15 4 D 4 E 4 F 4 G 4 H 4 I 4 J 4 K 5 A 5 B 5 C 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 4.30 3.92 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 6.43 5.46 __ __ — 250.14 19.82 — ____ ____ — — ---- — — ---- — — ____ — — ____ — — — — 135.15 143.74 _ _ 3.96 26.38 148.92 _ __ ____ 126.13 __ 249.32 19.65 __ __ _ __ 124.45 15.14 15.27 75.01 75.01 75.01 _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ 223.06 18.30 __ 250.14 19.82 __ ---- 134.25 _ 135.15 5.34 23.59 143.13 3.96 26.38 148.92 __ ___ 141.12 __ 134.25 3.96 26.38 148.92 135.15 209 4 C - - 2 E Shadow P r i c e s (In D o lla rs) 5D C orn P i c k e r 6 .4 3 S m a ll G r a i n Combine 5 .4 6 S ila g e H a rv estin g 3 .4 9 Sow F a c i l i t i e s F eed e r P ig F a c i l i t i e s C a ttle F a c ilitie s D a iry F a c i l i t i e s Hay S t o r a g e S il a g e S to ra g e Land 1 2 6 .1 3 Corn P i c k e r S m a ll G r a i n Combine S ila g e H a rv estin g Sow F a c i l i t i e s 2 4 9 .3 2 F eed e r P ig F a c i l i t i e s 1 9 .6 5 C a ttle F a c ilitie s D a iry F a c i l i t i e s Hay S t o r a g e S ila g e S to rag e Land 1 5 5 .3 5 6 B 6 C 6D 2 5 0 .1 4 1 9 .8 2 2 8 .1 6 7 A 7 B 1 9 1 .1 6 1 6 .4 4 7 5 .0 1 7 5 .0 1 9 1 .4 9 1 5 5 .3 5 71 7 J 7 K 7 L 8A .46 2 6 .3 8 1 6 6 .4 2 7 4 .9 7 3 5 i6 6 7 5 .0 1 5 .4 2 1 8 .0 4 1 4 1 .5 8 8 B 2 5 0 .1 4 1 9 .8 2 1 5 4 .4 5 1 6 6 .4 2 1 6 6 .4 2 7 D 2 0 3 .3 2 1 7 .2 3 2 0 .0 8 7 5 .0 1 7 C 2 6 6 .6 9 1 1 5 .5 4 1 4 9 .7 7 7 E 1 4 2 .1 4 1 3 .8 5 .4 6 2 6 .3 8 1 6 6 .4 2 1 9 5 .9 7 1 6 6 .4 2 .4 6 2 6 .3 8 1 5 5 .3 5 210 7H 6 A Shariow P r i c e s (In D o lla rs ) Corn P i c k e r S m a ll G r a i n Combine P .A . 2 P .A . 3 P .A . 4 P .A . 5 P .A . 6 6 .4 3 5 .4 6 6 .4 3 5 .4 6 6 .4 3 5 .4 6 6 .4 3 6 .4 3 6 .4 3 .21 3 .4 9 3 .5 1 3 .4 6 2 5 0 .1 4 2 4 9 .7 4 1 8 8 .7 6 1 9 .8 2 8 .4 8 3 5 .1 5 S ila g e H a rv estin g 3 .5 1 Sow F a c i l i t i e s F eed e r P ig F a c i l i t i e s C a ttle F a c ilitie s P .A . 7 P .A . 8 P .A . 9 P .A . 10 P .A . 11 P .A . 12 7 4 .9 7 8 3 .5 4 9 9 .9 5 211 P .A . 1 2 8 .1 6 9 3 .1 7 D a iry F a c i l i t i e s Hay S t o r a g e S ila g e S to ra g e Land 1 2 6 .1 3 7 5 .0 1 1 6 9 .4 8 1 1 9 .2 7 7 5 .6 1 1 6 2 .9 3 7 5 .0 1 7 5 .0 0 9 7 .7 9 3 5 .6 6 3 .9 1 3 5 .2 7 7 5 .0 1 7 5 .0 0 1 0 2 .1 8 / APPENDIX 5: LABOR UTILIZATION IN BUDGETED CASES LABOR UTILIZED Case 1 A Family Available Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nev. IS-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 48 24 24 24 24 24 70 60 ----- Part Time Hired 48 — — 16 16 9.3 40 40 33.3 — — 16 86 18.2 — — 328 — 0 30 — Labor Used — 57. 3 Slack Labor M 24 295.4 2.20 — 5.23 3.74 2.25 — — — 24 — 4.04 — 41.8 — ----- — 29.9 — — Shadow Price .1 — 89.9 ------------- LAEOR UTILIZED Case 1 B Family Available Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 19-May 26 May May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1 - Apr. 24 Live stock Labor Total Labor 48 24 24 24 24 24 70 60 — 30 — 328 « - Part Time Hired Labor Used --. —— ... 24 24 24 —— - 50.1 6 __ 128.1 Slack Labor Shadow Price 48 24 ' ____ 24 19.9 54 — 14.07 199.9 3.29 1.80 .31 —— .— — V \ v- Case 2 A A p r . 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 2<-oune 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 - June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Live stock Labor To tai Labor Full Time Hired 72 36. 36 36 36 36 250 250 — 45 520 1317 37.3 18 .6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 19.4 130.4 — 12.8 291.2 582.3 *■ 32 16 16 16 16.4 -' 11 — 107.4 141.3 54.6 70.6 70.6 70.6 71 207.8 236.4 _ 68.8 755.1 1746.8 ♦ ... —— ___ 61.6 144 _— __ 56.1 259.8 3.68 .31 19.06 16.96 14.81 7.99 —— —— __ 9.35 —— LABOR UTILIZED Case 2 B ' A p r . 25-May 10 11-May May 18 IS-May May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 1-Apr. 24 Apr. Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired Family Available 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 132 66 66 66 66 66 68.8 462 ' — 45 — — 45.4 1031.3 2062.5 - - 797 Part Time Hired Labor Used 32 236 102 118 118 118 118.4 325.8 279.8 16 16 16 16.4 7.0 — —— 11 — — 101.4 — 114.4 1517.3 21.5 — 16 16 16 16.4 — ' 120. 5 27/5 65.5 65.5 65. 5 65.9 264 225.4 — 65.3 210.8 1120.8 Shadow Price Slack Labor 3.89 .53 18.73 16.63 14.48 7.66 2.25 __ —— — — 432.2 —_ -1031.3* 1463.5 6.92 — — \ \x Case 2 C A p r . 25-May 10 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 72 36. 36 36 36 36 250 250 — 45 — 797 27 13.5 13.5 13.5 13. 5 13.5 14 94.4 — — — 9.3 210.8 421.5 11 — 96.9 ♦ . 22 “ 1 119.0 - T --------- 714.6'- 2.25 17.03 14.93 12.78 5.96 69.05 —— ----- 5.85 .88 ----- LABOR UTILIZED Case 2 D Family Available A p r . 25-May 10 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 May 4-June 11 June June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 — 45 — 797 Full Time Hired 78.9 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 • 41.1 276 Part Time Hired 32 16 16 16 16.4 — — — - — 27.1 616.1 1232.1 11 — 107.4 Labor Used 182.9 75.4 91.4 91.4 91.4 91.8 257.6 80.7 — 83.1 — 1045.7 Shadow Price Slack Labor 3.58 .21 19.12 17.02 14.87 8.04 —— ------------- — — — 33.5 445.3 — — 9.46 616.1 * 1094.9 — \ Case 2 E 10 Apr. 25-May IS May 11-May May 19-May 26 Oj x May 27-June June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 45 520 1317 132 66 66 66 66 66 68.8 462 — 45.4 1031.3 2062.5 32 — 16 16 16 16.4 r T — — 11 — 114.4 236 102 ' 118 118 118 118.4 325.8 279.8 — 101.4 1028.7 2546.0 -L— --\ -432.2 — — — — 522.6 947.9 4.00 .62 18.67 16.57 14.43 7.60 2.25 6.82 ■ — — LABOR UTILIZED Case 3 A Full Time Hired Family Available Apr. 25 -May 10 18 May 11 -May 26 May 19 -May May 27 -June 3 June 4 -June 11 June 12 -June 19 June 20 -Sept.30 O c t . i -Nov. 18 Nov. IS -Mar. 31 Apr. 1 - A p r . 24 Livesto ck Labor Total Labor 64 32 32 32 32 32 200 200 0 40 364 1028 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 11 139 Case 3 B Apr. 25-May 10 11-May May IS May • 19-May 26 3 May 27-June June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor To tal Labor V, 64 32. 32 32 32 32 200 200 0 40 364 1028 Part Time Hired > • Labor Used Slack Labor 96 48 48 48 48 48 216 107.1 92.9 51 210.8 938.3 153.2 228.7 Shadow Price 6.40 3.71 11.40 9.91 8.42 3.96 3.37 11.25 - w— — — -—— — — — — — — — 32 16 16 16 16 16 16' 11 139 96 48 48 48 48 48 216 200 6.40 3.71 11.40 9. 91 8.42 3.96 3.37 ’ 92.9 51 710.1 11.25 364 456.9 Case 3 C LABOR UTILIZED Family Available A p r . 25-May 10 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired Part Time Hired Labor Used — 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 96 48 48 48 48 48 216 107.1 64 32 32 32 32 32 200 200 0 40 364 1028 — — — — — — — — — 11 ---- — 139 51 364 1074.1 Slack Labor Shadow Price „ 6.52 3.82 11.40 9.91 8.42 3.96 3.37 ---- ---- 92.9 — ‘ 11'. 25 14.15 92.9 S Case 4 A 10 A p r . 25-May May 11-May 13 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 -June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. IS N o v . 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor •k .■ 72 36. 36 36 36 36 250 250 — 45 520 1317 \ ~ 149 74.5 74.5 74.5 74.5 74. 5 77.6 521.3 32 — 16 16 16 16.4 16' — 253 1 1 0 . 5' 126. 5 126. 5 126. 5 126.9 343.6 462.3 i 4.57 1.18 17.98 15.88 13.73 6.91 6.29 — — — — — — — 309 — 51.2 1163.7 2327.4 7.4 — 119.8 103.6 755 2534.3 __ 928. 7 1229.9 ■ 2.25 — — LABOR UTILIZED Case 4 B Family Available A p r . 25-May 10 11-May 18 May May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 — 45 520 1317 347.2 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 ■ 180.8 1034.2 • — 119.3 2712.2 5424.3 Part Time Hired Labor Used 32 16 16 16 16 16 112 451.2 225.6 225.6 225.6 225.6 209.6 446.8 373.5 80.0 2525.7 130.7 62.6 62 62 62 62 68 457 32 234.7 98.6' 114.6 114.6 114.6 115 326.1 454 44.9 1021 2042.1 11 Slack Labor —— —— __ 6. 5 _ 910.7 _ __ 84.3 3232.2 4215.6 Shadow Price 5.87 2.50 11. 07 8.97 6.82 __ 30. 54 * —— \ N. Case 4 C Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 72 36. 36 36 36 36 250 250 45 520 1317 16 16 16 16.4 8' 115.4 100.9 231.6 1796.3 3.89 .53 18.73 16.63 14.48 7.66 2.25 253.4 6.92 1309.4 1562.8 Case 4 D Family Available Full Time Hired 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562. 5 135 1040 3500 — Part Time Hired 2.7 . — — — — 16 16 16 16.4 — — — 11 — 78.1 — — — -— - — — — Labor Used 218.7 55 124 124 124 124.4 402.3 444.1 — 146 755.1 2517.6 Shadow Price Slack Labor 2.25 17.03 14.93 12.78 5.96 -1 5.85 — 53 — — — — 987.7 122.9 562.5 — 284.9 * 1060.5 V, Case 4 E A p r . 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar . 31 1-Apr. 24 Apr. Livestock Labor Total Labor 216 108 108 .108 108 108 1390 567 562. 5 135 ~*— 2460 » ——» — — — — — — — — — — — t —_ 16 16 16 16.4 — ' — — 216 54.8' 124 124 124 124.4 402.5 442.5 — ■_i. 53.2 — ---- 987.5 124. 5 562. 5 11 146 — — — — 75.4 718.5 1816.9 < .70 15.05 12.95 10.80 3.98 ------- 2.41 1.73 — 219 A p r . 25-May 10 Lay 11-May 18 Lay 19-May 26 3 May 27-June June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Live:stock Labor Total Labor LABOR UTILIZED 4 F LABOR UTILIZED Family Available Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-Junell June 20-Sept30 Oct. 1-Nov.18 Nov. 19-Mar.31 Apr. 1-Apr.24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired Part Time Hired Labor Used Slack Labor Shadow Price ----------------------- ----16 16 16 ----------64.4 160 55 124 124 124 386.1 432.7 --135 210.8 1889.9 56 53 ------1003.9 134. 3 562.5 -— 829.2 1674.5 ----13. 85 11.75 9.60 ------.34 ----- 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 119.6 59. 8 59.8 59. 8 59.8 59.8 62.3 418.5 --41.1 934. 1 1868.1 1 --16 16 16 16.4 ------11 --76.4 336.6 93.4 183.8 183.8 183.8 184.2 778.1 639.2 562.5 187.1 0,1 3255.8 74.4 --------674. 2 346.3 ----1974 2112.3 --------r 220 216 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562. 5 135 1040 3500 Sell Labor 4 G Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-Junell June 12-Junel9 June 20-Sept30 Oct 1-Nov.18 Nov. 19-Mar.31 A p r . 1-Apr.24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 2.25 17.24 15.14 12.99 6.17 ----2.32 24.54 ----- 77.1 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 441. 3 180 562.5 107.1 --1560 LABOR UTILIZED Family Available 10 Apr. 25-May May 11-May 18 26 May 19-May May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired Part Time Hired Labor Used Slack Labor Shadow Price Sell Labor 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 119.6 59.8 59. 8 59.8 59.8 59.8 62.3 418.5 --41.1 934.1 1868.1 1 --16 16 16 16.4 ------11 --76.4 336.6 93.4 183. 8 183. 8 183. 8 184.2 778.1 639.2 562.5 187.1 1028.8 4284.5 --74.4 --------674. 2 346.3 ----945. 3 1083.6 2.25 --17.03 14.93 12.78 5.96 -----!. 2.14 25.75 ----- 77.1 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 441.3 180 562.5 107.1 --1560 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562. 5 135 1040 3500 90.2 45.1 45.1 45.1 45.1 45.1 47 315.6 --31 704.4 1408.8 --16 16 16 16 ------11 --75 306.2 89.8 169.1 169.1 169.1 169.1 720.1 614 509.4 177 210.7 3317.4 63.3 --------716.9 268.6 53.1 --1533.7 1666.4 .80 --15.19 13.09 10.94 4.12 ------40.69 ----- 69.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 399.7 163 509.4 97 --1412.8 4 I Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 4 J LABOR UTILIZED —_ ----------------------- 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 31.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 16.6 111.6 --11 249. 2 498. 3 — —— --16 16 16 16.4 ----------64.4 Labor Used Slack Labor Shadow Price 160 55 124 124 124 124.4 386.1 432.7 --135 210.8 3449.9 56 53 --------1003.9 134. 3 562.5 --829.2 114.5 ----13.85 11.75 9.60 2.78 ------ r 128.7 55 139.9 139.9 139.9 140. 3 425.8 431.9 --146 755.2 4062.7 119.2 68.9 --------980. 8 246.7 562.5 --534 Sell Labor 4* 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 Part Time Hired ----- 1560 4 K Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor --16 16 16 16.4 --------64.4 --14.11 12.00 9. 86 3.03 ------.82 1.07 1560 222 Apr. 25-May 10 11-May 18 May May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired CO Family Available LABOR UTILIZED Family Available • Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t , 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Live stock Labor Total Labor 56 28 28 28 28 28 225 225 — 35 — 681 Full Time Hired — — — — — -— — — — — Part Time Hired 10.5 — 16 16 16 16.4 — — — 11 — 85.9 Labor Used 66.5 28 44 44 44 44.4 132.9 27.6 — 46 — 4-49.5 Slack Labor Shadow Price 2.25 — 28 — 17.24 15.14 12.99 6.17 — — — — — — 92.1 197.4 — — — — * 6.21 14.24 317.4 e n a 5 A V 5 B 10 Apr. 25 May 18 11 May May May 26 May 19May 27- June 3 June 4- June 11 June 12 June 19 June 20 Sept.30 O c t . 1- Nov. 18 N o v . 19- Mar. 31 A p r . 1- Apr. 24 Livestoc k Labor Total Labor - 56 28 28 28 28 28 225 225 35 780 1461 7.7 16 16 16 16.4 64.4 44 44 44 44.4 116.7 16.2 35 210.8 576.7 48.3 28 13.85 11.75 9.60 2.78 108.3 208.8 34 569.2 948.7 ■ 5 C LABOR UTILIZED Family Available 10 A p r . 25 IS May 11 -May 19 -May 26 May 3 May 27 -June June 4 -June 11 June 12 -June IS June 20 ept. 30 O c t . 1—I'n-'V, 18 N o v . 19 -iviar. 31 A p r . 1 -Apr. 24 Livesto ck Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired 56 28 28 28 28 28 225 225 Part Time Hired Labor Used Slack Labor Shadow Price 2.25 10.5 66.5 16 16 16 16.4 44 44 44 44.4 132.9 27.6 92.1 197.4 46 755.1 1204.5 24.9 342.4 28 11 35 780 1461 85.9 17.03 14.93 12.78 5.96 5.85 5 D 25-Mav 10 18 11-May 19-May 26 May 3 May 27-June June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. IS N o v . 10-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Lives tock Labor Tot al Labor \ii \J nuJ 56 28 28 28 28 28 225 225 73.3 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 38.3 256.6 35 780 1461 25.2 572.7 1145.4 32 16 16 16 16.4 11 107.4 161.3 64.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 81.1 224.2 70.8 3.58 .21 19.12 17.02 14.87 8.04 39 410.8 9.46 71.2 915.1 1352.7 1798.7 LABOR UTILIZED 6 A Apr. 25-May 10 11-May 18 May 26 May 19-May May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 1-Apr. 24 Apr. Livestock Labor Total Labor Family Available Full Time Hired Part Time Hired 96 48 48 48 48 48 350 350 — — — — 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 —— — — — — .— — 60 — 1096 — 11 139 Labor Used 128 64 64 64 • 64 64 366 247 — — — — 7.45 4.76 11.62 10.13 8.64 4.17 4.27 — — — 103 — — — 71 — mm mm _ 1132 Shadow Price Slack Labor 9.93 62.47 » 103 V \ 6 B 10 A p r . 25-May May 11-May IS 19-May 26 May May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June -12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 O c t . 1-Nov. IS N o v . 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor • 96 48 48 48 48 48 350 350 — 60 1040 2136 , — — > — — — — — - r 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 — — 11 — 139 128 64' 64 64 64 64 366 271.9 — 71 252 1408.9 --t. — — — — — — 78.1 — — 788 866.1 7.45 4.76 11.62 10.13 8.64 4.17 4.27 — — 9.93 — . — LABOR UTILIZED 6 C Family Available Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 96 48 48 48 48 48 350 350 ' — —1 60 1040 2136 « Full Time Hired Part Time Hired Labor Used — —— —— —— 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 128 64 64 64 64 64 366 247 —— —— —— —— 11 —— —— 139 71 755.1 1887.1 Slack Labor Shadow Price 7.57 4.87 11.62 10.13 8.64 4.17 4.27 103 9.93 284.9387.9 6 D Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-Jur.e 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 96 48 48 48 48 48 350 350 96 4848 48 48 48 248.2 185.9 60 1040 2136 60 252 1082.1 4.88 2.17 10.10 8.61 7.12 2.66 101.8 164.1 9.62 788 1053.9 LAEOR UTILIZED Family Available — . — 16 16 16 16.4 — —— Labor Used 133.3 -85.6 85.6 85.6 86 40 375.4 ““ Slack Labor Shadow Price — 3.8 68.6 —— —— 323.9 102.5 13.63 11.53 9.38 2.56 — —‘ ' 67.4 64.4 1028.6 1771.9 • 2.29 562.7 S X 7 B Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 2C-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 65.1 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 33..6 33.9 227.9 “— 22.4 508.8 1017.6 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 45 520 1317 Part Time Hired 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 — — — — — — 22.7 — 16 16 16 16.4 ----- r - - ----- — ----- ----- 45 520 1317 - — 11 — 98.1 94.7 -t- — ■ 36 52 52 52 52.4 194.1 101.3 2.25 ----< — — — 55.9 148.7 — 56 210.8 781.2 309.2 535.8 — 16.81 14.71 12.56 5.74 — — — 3.28 •— • — 227 Apr. 25-May 10 11-May 18 May May 19-May 26 27-June 3 May 4-June 11 June June 12-June IS June 20-Sept. 30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. I-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired LABOR UTILIZED 7 C Family Available 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 30.1 15 15 15 15 ' 15 . 15.7 136.6 45 520 1317 10.3 235 470.1 Part Time Hired Labor Used Slack Labor Shadow Price .91 102.1 51 16 16 16 16.4 64.4 67 67 67 67.4 222.3 151.5 53.2 755 1457 14.91 12.82 10.67 3.85 43.4 235.1 2.1 1.85 330.1 228 A p r . 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired 7 D Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 May June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 2C— Sept.30 Oct 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar. 31 A p r . 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 216 108 16 16 16 199. 5 48 11.07 8.97 6.82 124 124 124 92.9 210.8 841.5 107.6 1190.5 474.1 562.5 135 829.2 2658.5. LABOR UTILIZED 7 E Family Available 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 3500 96.7 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3 50.3 338.3 33.2 755.1 1510.2 Part Time Hired Labor Used Shadow Price Slack Labor 312.6 156.3 16 172.3 156.3 104.4 232 108 16 755.1 1512.1 4.25 2.15 51.9 156.3 1208.3 797.3 562.5 168.2 4.26 3498.1 229 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired 7 F Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 3500 216 108 16 16 16 124 124 124 61 232 108 11.07 8.97 6.82 47 1158 459 562.5 135 2.95 48 725 2775 • 7 G LABOR UTILIZED Family Available 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 ----— --------------- Part Time Hired — --- 16 16 16 16 .4 — •— --------- --- 64.4 ----------------------- --- Labor Used 118.9 38.4 124 124 124 124.4 625 287.3 562.5 107.1 210.8 2395.9 'Slack Labor 97.1 69.6 — -_------- 765 279. 7 --- Shadow Price — -— -- 13.63 11.53 9.38 2.56 ----- 6.48 27.9 829. 2 1104.1 — --- — -- 11.4 69.6 --— Sell Labor 77.1 3.8 3.8 3. S 3.8 3.8 441.3 180 562.5 107.1 —— — 1560 7 H Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 16 16 16 16.4 ----------- 64.4 204.6 38.4 124 124 124 124.4 625 332 562.5 107.1 1028.7 3330.3 --------- 765 235 --- 27.9 11.3 169.7 13.63 11.53 9.38 2.56 --— -- 6.48 --— ___ --- 77.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 441.3 180 562.5 107.1 1560 230 Apr, 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-Mav 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired LABOR UTILIZED Family Available Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 26 May 19-May 27-June 3 May June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 1-Nov. 18 Oct. 19- M a r . 31 Nov. Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired Part Time Hired 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 ------------------------- ----- 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 2500 _— ----------------------- 16 16 16 16.4 Labor Used 204.6 38.4 124 124 124 124.4 625 332 562.5 107.1 --— ------- --- 64.4 —— --16 16 16 ------— — ----48 Slack Labor 11.4 69.6 --------- 765 235 --- Shadow Price ----- 13.84 11.74 9.59 2.77 ----- 6.42 2301.5 27.9 1040 1198.5 ------- —— --124 124 124 61 232 108 ----755. 1 3040. 1 216 108 ------47 1158 459 462.5 135 284.9 459.9 ----11.07 8.97 6.82 --------------- Sell Labor 77.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 441.3 180 562.5 107.1 --- 1560 7 J Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 3 27-June 4-June 11 June June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oc t . 1-Nov. 18 N o v . 19-Mar. 31 1-Apr. Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 1560 7 K LABOR UTILIZED Family Available 216 108 108 108 108 108 13'90 567 562.5 135 ___ ----- ----- Part Time Hired ___ — -- 16 16 16 Labor Used — __ — -- 124 124 124 61 232 108 --—; ---------- 3500 --------------- 48 2285 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 ----------------------- --- --- --- ------- Slack Labor 216 108 --- Shadow Price — ---- --- 11.07 8.97 6.82 47 1158 459 562.5 135 ----------- --- --- Sell Labor 2.95 1215 --- 216 108 --- 1560 7 L Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 16 16 16 ------------- 48 124 124 124 --- 199.5 92.9 ----- 210.8 2449.5 ------- 11.07 8.97 6.82 107.6 1190.5 474.1 562.5 135 829. 2 1098.5 --------------- 1560 232 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 4-June 11 June June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 1-Nov. 18 Oct. Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired LABOR UTILIZED 8 B Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept.30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Family Available Full Time Hired 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 1030 257 257.3 128.6 128.6 128.6 128.6 128.0 1026.4 900.5 - 670 536 4000 Part Time Hired •—— — — — 473.3 125 252.6 252.6 236.6 125 2276.7 830.1 1700 730.8 32 7002.7 --16 16 — — — 4033 \ r Labor Used Slack Labor -- 111.6 — — . — Shadow Price .95 — 4.55 3.06 • 1.57 111.6 139.7 637.4 — — 11.87 62.2 1062.5 — — -- LABOR UTILIZED P.A. 1 P.A. 2 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired Part Time Hired Labor Used 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 29.4 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 15.3 102.7 '— 10.1 230.4 459 32 — 16 16 16 16.4 — — — 11 — 107.4 277.4 122.7 138.7 138.7 138.7 139.1 435.3 123.7 — 156.1 0 1670.4 216 108 108 . 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 Slack Labor — — — — — — 970 546 562.5 — 1270.4 2396 Shadow Price 3.58 .21 19.12 17.02 14.87 8.05 — — — 9.46 — _ 234 Apr. 25-May 10 Mav 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Family Available ----- • — — — — — — — — — — — — 32 16 16 16 16 -11 —“ 107 — 248 124 124 124 124 352.4 103.3 —— 146 108 1037.6 463.7 562. 5 “— 1345.7 2261.4 —— 5.30 2.61 4.84 3.65 2.46 ■ 13.90 LABOR UTILIZED Family Available 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 562.5 135 1040 3500 55.6 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.8 29 194.7 ----- 19.1 434.6 869.2 Part Time Hired Labor Used 32 303.6 — 16 16 16 16.4 — — — 11.0 — 107.4 Slack Labor 135.8 — 151.8 151.8 151.8 152.2 467.6 109.6 — 165.1 — 1653.5 ----------------- 951.4 652.1 562.5 — 1474.6 2823.1 Shadow Price 3.12 ■ 20.52 17.98 15.37 7.23 — — — — — 8.12 — — P.A. 4 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12--June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov-. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 — 45 520 1317 198.4 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.2 103.3 694.2 — 68.2 1549.7 3099.3 32 — 16 16 16 16.4 16 — — — — 112.4 302.4 135.2 151.2 151.2 151.2 151.6 369.3 484.9 — 96.3 755.1 2635.9 _,_ — — — — — — 459.3 — 16.9 1314.6 1780.4 4.84 1.46 17.64 15.54 13.39 6.57 8.29 — — — — — 235 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock I.abor Total Labor Full Time Hired P.A., 5 . Family Available Full Time Hired Part Time Hired 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 194.3 97.2 97.2 97.2 97.2 97.2 101.2 680.1 32 16 16 16 16 16.4 16 — . — 45 520 1317 66.8 1518.2 3036.3 72 36 36 36 36 36 250 250 198.4 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.2 103.3 694.2 — — — — 112.4 Labor Used 298. 3 149.2 149.2 149.2 149.2 149.6 367.2 486.2 Slack Labor — — — — — — — 5.35 2.64 15.95 14.28 12.60 7.08 9.28 443.9 — — — — 96.9 755.1 2621.6 Shadow Price 14.9 1283.1 1731.7 ‘ — — P.A. 6 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor — 45 520 1317 — 68.2 1549.7 3099.3 32 — 16 16 16 16.4 16 — — — — 112.4 302.4 135.2 151.2 151.2 151.2 151.6 369.3 484.9 — 113.2 755.1 2635.9 — — — — — — 459.3 16.9 - - 1314.6 1780.4 4.34 .28 19.33 16.79 14.18 6.05 7.29 — — — — — 236 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May IS May 18-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 Ju.ne 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. .18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. I-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor LABOR UTILIZED P.A. 7 LABOR UTILIZED Family Available 96 48 48 48 48 48 350 350 -------- 60 1040 2136 — . -— — — — -— — — — — — Part Time Hired Labor Used 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 — 128 64 64 64 64 64 366 271.9 — — 11 — 139 Slack Labor — — — — — ■— — 78.1 7.45 4.76 11.62 10.13 8.64 4.17 4.27 — — — 71 252 1422.3 Shadow Price — 788 852.7 9.93 — — P.A. 8 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-Ju'ne 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. i9-Mar.. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 96 48 48 48 48 48 350 350 __ _ 16 16 16 _ -_ — — 60 1040 2136 96 11 __ 59 . — 48 _ 64 64 64 48 233.1 134.8 -- 71 91 865.9 — — ■ — — 116.9 215.2 — — 949 1329.1 2.15 — 6.11 4.92 3.73 .16 — — — 3.42 — — 237 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Full Time Hired LABOR UTILIZED P. A. 9 Family Available Apr, 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May lp-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Get. 1-Nov. ;18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 96 48 48 48 48 48 350 350 Full Time Hired 127.6 63. S 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.8 66.5 446.5 ----- 60 1040 2136 ----- 43. 9 996.8 1993.5 Part Time Hired Labor Used 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 255.6 127.8 127.8 127.8 127.8 127. 8 432.5 341.7 --------- 11 — 139 Slack Labor --------- ------------- 9.03 5.80 12.39 10.49 8.81 3.44 7.58 454.8 ----- 114.9 252.1 2049 Shadow Price — — . — — 8.74 1784.7 2219.5 — — .. P.A. 10 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. I3-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 1030 257 0 4000 54.2 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 28.2 189.6 — 18.6 423.2 846.3 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 — — 11 — 139 302.2 151.1 151.1 151.1 151. 1 151.1 1434.2 756.6 817.7 286.6 — 4370.2 — — — — — — — — 212.3 — 423.2 615.1 6.94 4.24 11.75 10.26 8.77 4.31 3.46 1.21 — 11.12 — — LABOR UTILIZED P.A. 11 Family Available 216 108 108 108 108 108 1390 567 1 030 257 0 4000 Labor Used _ _ 32 — — 248 108 124 124 124 108 100 6 451. 5 817.7 268 — — — 16 16 16 — — — — — — — — — 11 — — — 91 3396.6 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 369.6 184.8 184.8 184.8 184.8 184.8 1469.3 795.2 817.7 309.8 0.1 47 0 3 Slack Labor Shadow Price 2.27 .10 6.11 4.92 3.73 .16 — — — — — 384 115.5 212.3 — — — 3.42 3.26 — — 694.4 P , A. 12 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18' May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June•11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 O c t . 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor 216 108 108 108 108 108 1 390 567 1030 257 4000 121.6 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 63.3 425.4 — — 41.8 949.7 1899.3 11 — 139 8.31 5.09 13.26 11.34 9.68 4.31 4.07 — — — — — — 197.2 212.3 - - 949.6 1335.3 — — -------- 12.15 — — 239 Apr. 25-May 10 May 11-May 18 May 19-May 26 May 27-June 3 June 4-June 11 June 12-June 19 June 20-Sept. 30 Oct. 1-Nov. 18 Nov. 19-Mar. 31 Apr. 1-Apr. 24 Livestock Labor Total Labor Part Time Hired Full Time Hired BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, W. R. "Necessary Conditions for Growth of Farm Business Firms," Agricultural Economics Research. Vol. XIX, No. 1, January, 1967, pp. 1-6. Bertrand, Alvin L. "The Structural Characteristics of Low-Income Rural Families: Key to Effective Develop­ ment Programs." A paper presented to Improved Living on Limited Resources Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee. 1974. Brown, Lauren H. An Explanation of Telfarm Business Analysis Report Computations. Ag. E c o n . Misc. 1968-4. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1973. _________ and Speicher, J. A. Business Analysis for Dairy Farms, D-221. Agricultural Economics and Dairy Departments, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1970. Carlin, Thomas A. and Reinsel, "Combining Income and Wealth: An Analysis of Farm Family 'Well Being'," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, V o 1. 55, N o . 1, Februrary, 1973. Cheung, Steven N. S. The Theory of Share Tenancy. University of Chicago Press. 1969. Chicago: Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, Farm P lanning and Financial Managem e n t . West Lafayette, Indiana, 1972. Harsh, Stephen and Patterson, Homer. Economics o f Pickling Cucumber Production in Western Michigan. Agricu11ura1 Economics Report No. 125. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1969. ________ , Kelsey, Myron and Neibaurer, James. Economics of Tomato Production in Western Michigan. Agricultural Economics, Report No. 126. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1969. 240 241 Hepp, Ralph E. "Enterprise Budgets for Pork Producers." Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 74-1. Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1974. ________ . "Procedures in Analyzing a Business." Unpublished paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. 1968. Howell, H. B. and Stoneberg, E. G. Suggested Costs and Returns in Crop and Livestock Production for Use in Farm Budgeting. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service, 1968. Johnson, Bruce B. "Farmland Leasing as a Means of Resource Control in U.S. Land-Based Agriculture." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. 1974. Kearl, C. D . , How, R. B. and Schreiner, A. J. Changes in Enterprise Costs and Returns on a Market Garden Farm, 1958-61 to 1968-71. Agricultural Economics Reports, 73-20, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 1975. Kelsey, Myron and Belter, Harvey. Economics of Strawberry Production in Southwestern Michigan. Agricultural Economics Report No. 276, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1974. Kyle, Leonard R. Hours of Labor Used by Months on Farms on Michigan Telfarm Cooperators, 1965. Economics Report No. 54, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1966. Larson, Donald K. "Off Farm Income: Its Impact on Farm Family Income Status." Review Draft. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974. Lee, W. F. and Brake, J. R. Conversion of Farm Assets for Retirement Purposes. Research Report, 129. Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, 1972. Meekhoff, R. L . , Connor, L. J. and Nott, S. B. Costs and Returns for Major Cash Crops in Southern Michigan. Agricultural Economics Report No. 27'7~ Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1974. 242 ________ and Nott, S. B. "Rates for Custom Work in Michigan," Extension Bulletin E-458. Cooperative Extension Services, Michigan State University, 1974. Michigan Department of Agriculture. Michigan County Statistics 'Field Crops, 1959-1972'. 1974. Pugh, Charles R. "Developing Plans with Low-Income Farmers." Southern Farm Management Extension Publication, No. 11, 1967. Reinsel, E. I. Farm and Off-Farm Income Reported on Federal Tax Returns, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-383, 1968. ________ . People with Farm Earnings ... Source and Distri­ bution of Income, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-498, 1972. Trimble, Richard L. , Connor, Larry J. and Brake, John R. Michigan Farm Management Handbook, 1971. Agricultural Economics Report No. 191, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1971. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Income Situation, Economic Research Service, F15-222, July 1973. U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 68, "Poverty in the United States: 1959 to 1968," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973. ________ . Bureau of the Census, 1969 Census fo Agriculture, General Reports Volumes. 1972. ________ . Bureau of the Census. Special Reports, Volume V . 1969 Census of Agriculture, 1974. ________ . Bureau of the Census. 1969 Census of Agriculture, State Summary Volumes. 1972. Whatley, Booker T. "The Production of Specialty Crops as They Relate to Limited Resource Farms." A paper presented to Improved Living on Limited Resources Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee. 1974. Wiggins, Edward R. "Creating an Economic Base for Improved Rural Living by Improving Farm Income." A paper presented to Improved Living on Limited Resources Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee. 1974. 243 Wright, K. T. Economic Prospects of Farmers--Now and in 1 9 8 0 . Research Report 47, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, 1965. _________ . Farm Production and Income Trends— Michigan and U . S . Agricultural Economics Report No. 197, Depart­ ment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1971.