I Illiliflll IFJIIIHIJIIIHI _

   

MiG-”H. STATE UNIV.

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

 

DATE DUE | DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

MICH. STATE UN“?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 chlRC/DateDmpGS—p.“

MICH. STATE umrv.
M

 

 

ABSTRACT

SMALL FARM MANAGEMENT:

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

BY

Victoria Claire Shade

As background work for the preparation of a small
farm management text, the author explores the small
farm situations and problems related to small farm re-
search and education. The author identifies the lack
of available and accessible references as one significant
problem and includes major listings of information sources
and references. Current materials are identified as in-
adequate to the needs of small farm families and sugges-
tions for future materials are made. A small farm

management text is proposed.

SMALL FARM MANAGEMENT:
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

BY

Victoria Claire Shade

A PLAN B PAPER

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1982

?+ "b”. _'_

V! n'I V ‘H‘n
.5 ...e-e ....:

F" I a
og¢n¢ area: a
I.

=.

-Vne
."‘ 'v’ :Vihl .
‘. d ‘i ‘
~ ~
EA‘N ,, -
‘H‘av
. .
A»... .
.. .
U 2‘
‘b 5..‘\’ 2“;
..~
Cr 5 .
....J 53 :anA.
byyl
‘\
““3. 3 _‘_
2"~
‘
'5‘ u
.A. ‘.~ .'
.e‘.“. ~rs.
'v

Preface

It would be tempting to begin with the gag line
"I started out as a child..." because in many ways that
is where this paper did start. My parents' love for
rural areas and farms was instilled in me at an early
stage -- even as I was growing up in Chicago. I have
them to thank for the many trips through the countryside
and vacation trips that included stOps at the small
family farm in southern Ohio.

Today I marvel at how long it took me to figure
out that one doesn't have to be born a farmer (or marry
one) to become one. Once that revelation occurred, my
education progressed with the goal of becoming a farmer
in mind. However, I became increasingly aware of the
myriad problems facing the small farmer and agriculture
as a whole, and my goals shifted to include sharing my
new found information. Five years ago there was very
little information available for either the small farmer
or the small farm researchers.

My first meeting with Dr. Ralph Hepp (my major
advisor for my masters program) included a discussion
of my interest in writing a small farm management text.'
Three years later, after what seemed to be a phenomenal

number of research hours, this paper represents the

ii

I. . A
can-~93 : A~~.A
vaufllquab Una-v»

a

. . - .
A .Hfliin
oh; a...”

W U»‘.nu-..d‘
J C

s;u:~=-p\‘. -A‘

.1

~
hasn‘t wt-m'.‘ .
I

up»:

C. v‘ ‘ A
“9-5 ~53 :32“:

v2.5 1 Q‘- ‘
.u-ovg“. .“e ‘
. ‘ . ’
(‘I‘I I, H- FR;

' :—
ug‘nu.‘f .‘.‘VH

' $

A. .'A

' -..: 5‘32:

.‘fi-b

r

'I '3‘.
Q ~ .
-:~:V:.
‘5‘».‘-

. .

'a

- “-"

‘gnq .‘.:..'- Ia.-

"\
n3 “'3‘ .h 'n
t‘ b .
‘I
In. C
- V.
\ 6
~-~“~Q :: .2-
~ ‘~ -
a
‘g r
i I

:': “
Ԥ
V, .3 21;:
:‘1
.
H- . y
-a“fl

(I
’ i
[ll

tangible outcome of that meeting. However, it is just

the beginning, for this paper represents the background
research, completed to date, to write that small farm
management text. I will continue my writing efforts while
I work to earn the money for the small farm I always
wanted. The Missouri Co-operative Extension Service has
kindly hired me to work as a farm management specialist

of the state that initiated its small farm program back

in 1971.

Federal interest has stimulated small farm research
and many new materials have become available just within
the past two years. I hope to combine the new research
results as they arise from across the country, and my own
practical work experience garnered during the next few
years, to put together a functional management tool for

small farmers. By then I may be a small farmer myself!

.g'.

dgb'b

we a. C. ...
a. a. a. a.
n» a. c. a.
u» .3 4 . a.
a. I. .2 v.
a-» Co A. D.
3“

n.

.‘h l I U
“s 1.- QU RV

'.

Hug
-

‘ .A‘-A“
o.-, ‘ h
OV.\§\'

‘

H

.hl

u a
«3
q:
3;

\ 4“

1‘ .u. FIL. Nd ‘.. ~.. s..
m . a» 1.. : .L .C to .C
:.
Av
I O Q ‘\ I D I
.12 «4.. \f TA «‘3
C

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . .

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

A.

B.

C.

Statement of Problems . . . . .

Objectives . . . . . . . . . .

Procedures Used . . . . . .

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES . . . . . .

A.

B.

Past Changes in Agriculture:
The Statistics . . . . . . .

Past Changes in Agriculture
and Rural Society: Forces
and Issues . . . . . . . . .

1.
2.
3.

Technology and Its Delivery
Cheap Energy . . . . . .
Agricultural Policy and

the Family Farm . . . . . .

Profile of Small Farms Today .

1.
2.
3.

Small Farm Definitions . .
Small Farms in the U.S. . .
Small Farms by Region . . .

Footnotes and Miscellaneous
References . . . . . . . . . .

iv

21

23

33

. 45

. 55

H

4
—¢

-
n J..
"In

est-‘03!“
AR.
1.

V‘s—v.-
o..\,

A
\r
‘Anvvvq “A-
OQVQ‘ l a
DP.“
.ivua

n

0’.
0.0!

ca- 1“ Ni

'. 4%. ‘ L A 1 I I II. I ‘ lifi I“ ‘. .‘ ‘ -.I C“ ”I! Q
T. u: «L a: C. n: \f nu u. :. a: u... k. s... A: '1‘ 1‘ ax»
:. 9C a. a... as
Q . find —‘~ 5—. ~\\
0 u n o A.» I I AV 3.— Q- o o c o o
. I 7.. .J A». 3. 1. n... P. 3.. . u .3. .3. 2 3 17 I;
s
‘a“
U l 'I~ I
H.~ ‘P. «xx» ‘nu

Table of Contents (continued)

 

III. ACTIVE FORCES OF CHANGE AND THE
ROLE OF THE SMALL FARM . . . . . . . . . . . 65

A. The "Welfare" vs. "Function" Debate . . 65

B. Social Aspects: The Value of Small
Farms in Rural Communities . . . . . . . 72

C. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

1. Transportation, Decentralization,

and Diversification . . . . . . . . 79
2. Labor intensive Operations and

Family Farm Units . . . . . . . . . 81

D. Organic Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . 82

1. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2. Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3. Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4. Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

E. Roles of Small Farms . . . . . . . . . . 84

1. Full-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2. Part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

F. Footnotes and Miscellaneous
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

IV. SMALL FARM RESEARCH AND ACTIVITIES . . . . . 92
A. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

1. Historical Perspectives and

the Past Emphasis on Large

Farm Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Small Farm Problems . . . . . . . . 96
1978 CRIS Search . . . . . . . . . . 100
1980 CRIS Search . . . . . . . . . . 104
Small Farm Research Needs . . . . . 110

U'IJBUN
o o 0

U

Table of Contents (continued)

C.

D.

Small Farm Activities and
Management Education Programs . . . .
l. Coop Extension Programs in
the South; Missouri . . . . . . .
2. Frank Porter Graham Center . . .
3. Agricultural Marketing Project
4. New England Small Farm Project .
5. Coolidge Center for the Advance-
ment of Agriculture . . . . . . .
6. Organic Agriculture Organizations;
MOFGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. The Mother Earth News . . . . . .
8. Center for Rural Affairs . . .
9. Washington Small Farm Resources
Network . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Washington Cooperative Extension
11. Tilth . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. Rural Venture and Control Data
Corporation . . . . . . . . . . .
13. National Rural Center . . . . . .
Mini Small Farm Reference Library . .
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SMALL FARM MANAGEMENT EDUCATION . . . . .

A.

B.

Information Needs of Small Farmers .

Types of Small Farm Management

Education Programs . . . . . . . . .
1. Traditional Extension . . . . . .
2. Paraprofessionals . . . . . . . .

3.

Intensive Training . . . . . . .

Small Farm Education Materials . . .

1.
2.

Current Materials . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for New
Publications . . . . . . . . . .

vi

116
117
118
118
119
119
120
121
121
122
122

123
124

125

127

131

131

134
134
135
137
138
138

140

. .

.
.3
.H
a:

e.
.U
.c
2.

1.1.23

R
\

Oar-g
-

A"‘."

~D

UVV‘L»

a . .2
_ A.
...n p.
a. .3
:u n J
and

:‘

Du-

.\

ou.

in.

qc . ~ V. —~. us

.2

....

I U ‘5

:q 6 A.»
5k

C F. 1.. E 3 2.. 0 v.. t.

1“ ‘4 ‘(v

Table of Contents (continued)

VI.

D. Small Farm Management Text -

Some Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Why? . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. The Content . . . . . . . . .
3. An Outline . . . . . .

E. Footnotes and Miscellaneous
References . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND OTHER INFORMATION
SOURCES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

A. Small Farm Research Bibliography

1. Bibliography . . . . . . . .
2. Bibliography Source List . .

B. How-To Books for Small Farmers,
Gardeners and Homesteaders .

1. Farm Buildings and Equipment

2. Gardening, Crops, Trees, Soils,
Fertilizers, Pest Control and
,House Plants . . . . . . . . .

3. Greenhouses . . . . . . . .

4. Homesteading: How-To, History
and Philosophy . . . .

5. Livestock, Bees and Aquaculture

6. Miscellaneous Farm Management
References . . . . . . . .

C. Other Information Sources . . .

1. Organizations . . . . . . . .
2. Magazines and Newsletters . .
3. Appropriate Technology and
Biological Agricultural
Organizations . . . . . . . . .
4. Agencies of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture . . . . . . . .
5. Miscellaneous Government
Publication Sources . . . .

vii

Page

141

141
142
144

148

153
153
155
231
235
236
237
242

243
246

249
250
250
271
276
281

288

z
N
2
“A
9.
\'-...
”CA

.

a
U

Q

A...“
c

’H‘ol
D
‘Hnu
5:-
5‘.
CV

Al'anfi
Voluvaou
\
H‘v-‘g
‘RR
no
to.
S

<

\-
:hv~ n‘
"'UUVL-.. _
'F'fi-‘d“

_-
.uaK/VU

. Q .
:-o O: ”
unto. ul-
n9. ”A‘OAQ 00A
l
"00 \erygv
n." .‘PO'Av-Av
'0...
\
,F:§
122W“-

... r . r.

~m -: w... «J
at a.» u-‘ A: 44 Av A: w .s Av
Vi um .\‘ e A» Us.‘«~n.‘ss.~§
C. r ‘ . n. r a. I. 3 Am 3.
T. a C e 3 .1 .J e u. o.»
7‘ an. P WU W: r. L» -.L n- \H.
4. S. 6.

‘do. \.HN \NH

Table of Contents (continued)

VII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

VIII. THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . 292

Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

APPENDIX
A1. States by Regions . . . . . . . . . . . 295

A2. Percent of Farmers Having Gross
Annual Sales Under $20,000, by
State, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

A3. Number of Small Farms by Region,
by New USDA Estimate, 1980 . . . . . . 299

A4. Implementing the USDA Small
Farm Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

A5. Policy of Committee for Economic
Development (CED) for Farm Labor
Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

A6. Field Staff, Funding and Insti-
tutional Affiliations of State
Leaders of Cooperative Extension
Small-Farm Programs, Southern
Region, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

viii

.4;
11.

l
1

9‘

”.9, v
Aw‘age nu:
1:53 - l

"='\-

‘

a n V. .‘
nda nu
‘IA “-

Av
. H...
.3. arm
n... vs
«.5 3‘
c.‘ an.

I... II],

. 1~ - :1 C 2: C r I. E T. 3;:
.3 3. A. 51 . {a e «I. .4 3 k» .
C.» 1 D... .3 C. 71 :1 3
C 3 I an I it .3. I .
D. . a. 3 S T. f. V. ‘1 C r C
C o. C .6. 1-. .1 um 43 .9. S
o .3 4. a» 41 e n.... «3 Au 5.. Am a:
n5 .5 .3 ... .. :1. nu 3 3 ~. 3 2
o nu; an r. q: a» “44‘ Av .vs we. r. ..\
n v . . . . H4. s5. a: A a .9. u: D. ~\~ D. n\..

1 r

s: Q;

Rut h?

fly

4‘

o. . U.
h. e h\
.. s a a
thn \-§ \Cs

10.

11.
12.
13.

14.

LI ST OF TABLES

Number of Farms and Land in Farms,
1935 - 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional Decrease in Farm Numbers,
1935 — 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average Number of Acres Per Farm,
1935 - 1974 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Average Farm Size (Acres) by Region,
1935 - 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Farm Population, 1935 - 1975 . . . .

U.S. Population and Persons Per Farm,
1935 - 1974 O O O O O O O I O O I 0 O 0

Indices of Prices Paid by Farmers,
Prices Received by Farmers, and Parity
Ratios, 1910 - 1970 . . . . . . . . .
Some Indices of Crop Production, Farm
Output per Hour of Labor, and Produc-
tivity, 1950 - 1975 . . . . . . . . . .

Fossil Fuel Input for Different Beef
Production Systems . . . . . . .

Summary by Value of Agricultural
Products Sold, 1974, into Three Farm
Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Small Farms by Size in Acres, 1974 .
Race and Tenure of Small Farm Operators

Hired Farm Labor on Small Farms, 1974 .

Farm Operator Debt, 1974, by Size of
Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

16

24

List of Tables

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

(continued)

Payments from Government Farm Programs,

by Size of Farm, 1974

% of Agricultural Products Sold By

Commodity Group and Size of Farm,

Small Farms by Regions

Average Net Farm Income

Change in Number of Farms by Size,

1950 - 1974 . . . . .

Market Value of Agricultural Products
1950 and 1974

Sold, by Size of Farm,

I

1974 with

1974

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm,

by Size, 1950 and 1974

Total Publicly Funded Agricultural
Research Compared with Small Farm
Related Research Activity:

Small Farm Research Projects and Land
1977

Grant Institutions:

Land Grant Small Farm Research Projects:

1975 - 1980 . . . . .

Regional Location of Land Grant Small

Farm Research Projects

1977 - 1978

.101

.103

.105

.109

l” 3. n; .... E a. :1 I.
u“ z. :1 . . .... ya u .3 A: e
.4. r :1. C... .1... a. :v~
S v. c. c. . - 7. S a I r
. . u. .u 6.. Q. C .u ... u. C a. a.
o b ‘4 ..~ any 1 . ~.¥ .ul. K.» F.» ‘5. Rd. Av
A." or" I.” 0‘“ phvl

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth
During the Past 200 Years . . . . . . . . . . 25
Energy Use in the United States, 1974 . . . . 26

Energy Use in Production Agriculture,
1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Complete Cycle of Natural Gas Production
in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Distribution of 1978 Wheat and Feed
Grain Payments by Size of Normal Crop
Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Percentage of Farms with Annual Sales
of Less than $20,000 by State, 1974 . . . . . 56

 

3‘

q .

VIRVGF“ ‘
a-""

Evan

Q
R
h‘vve‘

-~

H

I‘C‘ c

“:1:
-b‘

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

A. Statement of Problems

B. Objectives

C. Procedures Used

--~'\.Q

'h‘
0

' .
,u 5- v":
cat‘s ‘-‘~
.
v g-lnafl“v:
‘. H¥‘I-'

up!

I
.L . a
- . t s a: 4‘ a.» M.
.Q‘ AV v.- fin .\. ufi‘ v».
Q s
2‘
c E 3
«as Amy sn‘ s b I t s «a
. . a.» v. Q» . s ...e
. . a. A C a. as. 1 ....
.. . :C t . u . .... .
1 s “\‘u Ah“ “I Q ~ .\ H n a
.n .s .0 -. ugh. an N .. s. . u
...r... a y .

 

 

Chapter I

INTROD UC'I‘ ION

This first chapter of the paper will present a
statement of the problems to be dealt with, a discussion
of the author's objectives, and an elaboration on the
procedures used for gathering the materials for the

paper.

A. Statement of Problems

1. There is a dispute over the role of small
farms in agriculture and society. For many years there
was little interest in the well being and continued
existence of small farms. The topic is currently popular,
but for a variety of reasons. On the one hand, those
interested in poverty and welfare issues have raised the
cry of "aid the small farmer...it's the only humane
thing to do." The small farm is preserved as a fossil,
by this philosophy, and not for any active function. On
the other hand, small farm advocates and grassroots or-
ganizations of small farmers are discussing the small
farm as an important and viable section of agriculture.
These groups investigate the structure of agriculture

and how it should relate to the goals of society.

 

2. "A“ i

.0.-- b

. . g
:on:.‘:.‘ a ”AFRO“
ul¢c.-AUA\' VVa-v‘w—a.

u . .
:Ao-quh‘c

yfi.-—
1“! a n

a.-. A-

. ‘ .
:.u..,..,:.. "-3.
cu no¢vuuniiuoa 5...;
I

HM

‘:.;‘:HV!‘
'e. ’ “A“
. .§h-.‘l ‘iVV03-E

q

. Q
-:~
the to -. ‘

LA)

‘\ :h
‘s

2. There is a lack of information effectively
available concerning current small farm research and
activities around the country. For example, the small
farm listings in the card catalog of the main library
at Michigan State University could be counted on the
fingers of both hands. While the majority of small
farm research and activities has developed during the
last five to ten years -- the materials are not as
pitifully non-existent as most reference facilities would
lead one to believe.

3. There is a lack of small farm management
materials. In the past, the major agricultural research
and education emphasis has been directed at the larger
farm operator. While much of the traditional materials
can be adapted for use by the small farmer, they are
rarely available in an appropriate form. On the other
hand, there is a definite need for new size-specific
research to deal with the specific problems and circum-
stances relevant to the small farm.

4. Small farm bibliographies are almost non-existent,
or are not sufficiently comprehensive. It is difficult
for research to proceed apace when the results of comple—
nmntary efforts are unavailable. This situation leads

to “reinventing the wheel".

" fl

I‘fi‘.;n. ~ ..;I
. ‘ ~.-._
.n 4"-
' u
' A
"1° : I."
on.»

u'boav

n
.A “Vacs“;

 

‘ ‘1
IV qu'.‘-" ...
.
l I

-:-= P. ‘“ fir.-
wav U- .Ҥv-h
V

A... .

2. .a‘

.
r-flAI.nA ‘ n ’
a. DC.._: ‘3 I

‘ i -
K‘Qfi.e ..
«u "

“....' a
“u .u ‘
v. ‘V=I aha".
‘U‘\“ Vvv
u
: ‘:~a ,
bub 5‘3.“- a“~
. -._
I‘ V
9
I ”a.
such 5:18 a. ‘a
A‘ . I
.H‘An‘.
.1" ~
v- -‘
.
4“ 8"
. .m ‘~cn:“fi
5“‘~~
‘ I
e§».‘ :fi‘fi A
I ‘~.‘.=
A“
v2‘2fi"
N
‘.-
"' ‘8.
w..:“:..:“
. .N~‘t. ‘
q .
"\ e
.
\“ a 3
§
“ ‘
A‘ '
“.\
"U 29‘
‘v ‘-
~“ I
v. _I .
o‘h‘vt I, a“;
.‘H
"A‘.
“b:.

B. Objectives

 

The author's primary objective for this paper is
to present, in an organized and meaningful form, the
mass of information gathered to date as background for
writing a small farm management text. The information
presented is organized around four secondary objectives.
Objective 1. Support the functional role of the
small farm, as a viable and active member of the agri—
cultural economy and community. The paper will discuss
the past and current small farm situations to demonstrate
that the small farm has functional value.

Objective 2. Analyze and categorize current small

 

farm research and activities to determine any potential
limitations for meeting small farm needs.

Objective 3. Address the problems of small farm

 

management education to determine the needs for new ma-
terials.

Objective 4. Provide a small farm reference bibli-
ography and as much other source information as is prac-

tical under constraints of time.

.
bn“
._.
'0"
Q
.

.Anh"
4

...v-““
Q
-

va-hg R
-. y‘avv

. n
s

I: .3

u§~

n
a.» I

ha

~..
In

'_¥-:s -
"tau v
s

 

N:

a»
.8.

\(U

C. Procedures used for the Paper

 

Though the author has been casually collecting
materials relevant to small farms for the past ten
years, serious efforts did not begin until mid-1980.
After exhausting traditional reference techniques with
little result, a multi-direction plan was adapted.

1. With the aid of Agricultural Economics
Reference Room personnel and Bibliographic Retrieval
Services, Inc. (BRS) a computerized search was run.
Keywords accessed 370 English language references re-
lated to agricultural economics and small farms or
alternative agriculture, and, of those, less than 100
were potentially useful. However, it was evidence of
much better progress than before.

2. As many publications as were immediately
available were acquired. The reference lists for each
represented the beginning of a large many—branched
tree. Each publication led to other publications and
the beginning of a bibliography was assembled. As it
was not possible to divide the main body of the bibli-
ography into topic areas, most references include a
notation to one other publication that cited that
reference.

3. A correspondence effort was also begun, each

letter requesting (a) information concerning any small

,__ v--— «c

 

:r. R "".I“l.3n
.3“; abt-tL-‘-3

1 g '
q'RF. '(IA “N
“4.4“. 1 03V I no“

.
:m- urn-g inc—nu»;
«vb .Jv‘.» cogdsuw‘
' ‘ + . . .
3" A“ N - c .
“5.9 5:..- LG u o -
on." ‘ '

. F ‘ A“ A o
"'8 eX~EJS¢VAA x...

I

any... q «o- ‘
:nv:.1.us exfib'be:'

 

IAQpAF. .
.-~ ': - v
vet-v“ e Q‘s HOC‘
b
.I' |
“' A R F. 1
v»... tv VCV‘;-ar 2
~ -
on.“
II‘ (‘In . .
u... . VA 5,!
.V.I=es ‘fi'UITK -.‘
:“ ::“ . ,
. 3 r! v ‘
k .“‘e- ‘ltn V
Q.
:-~‘ ..
. .
he ~‘ -
w “4‘92 :93) (3"
HA

farm activities or programs of which the recipient
might know, and (b) organizations or people to contact
for more information. Some of the initial letters

were sent to different universities and state coopera-
tive extension offices where the author knew small farm
programs existed. With a few notable exceptions,
response was poor to nonexistent. Other letters were
sent to popular alternative agriculture periodicals and
responses from these were generally warm, encouraging
and filled with referrals to small farm organizations
and magazines, and to specific programs and people at
universities and in Extension. Armed with referrals,
names, and addresses, letters to these groups drew good
response.

Each response to a letter the author sent meant
sending a reply, as well as several other letters to
new prospects. Profiles of a sampling of those organi-
zations corresponded with are included in the paper.

4. Advertising, book catalogs, and articles in
alternative agriculture publications provided addi-
tional references. Many of the "how-to" materials came
from these sources. “502‘,
5. The CurrentAInformation.Service (CRIS) was

accessed in September 1980. This provided a stack of

285 research project descriptions. The projects were

l.- ulhfl -

 

n ‘ g ’
"’ -" O? *-
arca-ELEI ‘VL :e.

.

IA!“O.‘A Mkaqe
"""'—‘ ' ‘ntyu
”I.” ”R,” ”A v
"‘3 5 «Q sci.
:'nA-‘,“

‘
”"9’33‘ ‘J-vrn.
"".vu ,

'h
boofi g‘g..

V . . '
n-q‘p 'H:L A“
pm...“ V

q .
“S ‘18:

 

 

 

‘A l
Anfiava‘ u 'I‘ w ‘ a '
uvv:\-~ b.1e ~X.:

-

-"‘vq' .
l h I
n...’1.. "~.er‘
:‘ifi
v-savn: ‘fi‘ere C: Q
‘
a; .
‘Ne “Qua: . H ‘

u
H I -
Isuta‘ ash . fi‘
§ ..‘v
“H“ ‘ I
4‘ A‘s“
ch....s' “'R‘
“‘4
o'- .
““5 HQ '
Hybar‘ :h.‘
A “"
“I'~l
I ~ “
‘."‘c,
I

Q -.
‘\ ~R§‘.
sii“; 113a,: 4
‘ .
y“ 4
2. .
'~ ‘He
5-.
\.‘ t
3 Or ‘.
on.
&..;t. a, ‘
'!
‘ «-1
-
0:
1‘ = ‘1
""3. C.
~Q‘ul 1
uh.
"in 4.;
‘\ ”a,
5‘“ Jan,
V
\\
o
‘
“u
,"

analyzed for general topic category and for regional
location. These results are compared with an earlier
(1978) CRIS search by Dr. Jerry West, University of
Missouri.

6. Other references and source people were dis—
covered through the agricultural economics departmental
publications lists of other universities. State
COOperative Extension Publication bulletins and govern-
mental publication catalogs provided references to more
material. Where possible, all of these relevant publi-

cations were ordered.

The remaining parts of the paper, besides those
specifically mentioned above, were assembled in an
ordinary fashion using as source the over one hundred
bulletins, publications, articles and other materials
that became physically available. Because of the un-
wieldy size of the bibliographies themselves, materials
directly used in the paper are referenced in footnotes
at the end of each chapter.

Initially, the author felt discouraged by the lack
of small farm materials available, and exalted at each
new discovery. Now the feeling is more one of frustra-
tion, because so much has been written, but is not

effectively available for research purposes. Some

 

avg... 1:; AV": “
new-airs A“ V-t“.
' o

‘ 0V I '
ns-I '“V:" '3‘. A.
1L.&.~.‘-"D "‘
. ‘ 0“
.
~::"‘" " 3'
.y‘. Vac.

“,- in

-:~a:5:" 3""
ubvvu H-‘ O "‘

onpfiuq ‘ ‘Q .
~v....ka»e-:,, :19
A. ‘ . '

" fi-ASHS O: ‘u-oe

:‘fncn.:p. .
'tb‘ififivns *‘era

~ .

Hay-A '

ILO.C":‘ “’
'“Ucvv

‘ \
‘f‘ u
to“ .l

V.“ ~l“V:. R
A's ‘
\A‘ y
‘ ‘1‘
- "Q .
u.‘ ‘
fi‘.‘ he n..,‘
‘~
5
'I|‘:' V
un‘tafl u'
VI B‘.e a‘.‘..
It...
:l'. V
a I
.‘.‘ A.
H
u.Xea aha I
..‘
‘
I
~:‘\
‘I..L ‘ cg. 'fl
“‘5‘ ‘a
.S f
'-
." RA '

sv.; .fi‘
.
I
I §
-. Q :A _
v...,‘tah~' 5‘
«g:
'~
I ‘-
“w?"
‘vb Kw, a
ayaa‘fia 5
“‘°
V
w" ‘
“539" H.
~ .
’ .‘ e ‘1-
A §.‘C
‘
P‘s
‘~~‘.e- A
. A
‘V\S A“;
t.
V C
\
.54.-
"w'an '
\“ ‘ A
t.
“‘
'-.Q_ “‘
:‘QCQV
\ ‘g ‘ e
.l "
~~
31-1.:
‘-
.~‘ V 5
~33 a
.‘ .
n I"
‘
33“ e ‘
\ C
\‘ ‘
\ ‘
\Ius.
l A“
h v C-
a‘. “\
u‘A‘.
“\SAA,

groups and organizations have started assembling their
own libraries of small farm materials for in-house re-
search. The author was generously invited to visit
those libraries, and spend all the researching time
necessary. However, as these groups are all located at
some distance, travel costs proved prohibitive. Un-
fortunately, the groups had not compiled bibliographies
or lists of the publications they had collected. The
exceptions were Dr. Patrick Madden of Pennsylvania State
University and his collaborator, Heather Tischbein Baker
of the National Rural Center's Small Farm Project. The
National Rural Center is researching a bibliography
that will be published in the future and Mrs. Baker
invited the author to visit her collection of "four
file boxes and four file drawers" of uncataloged small
farm materials ( a veritable treasurel). Dr. Madden,
in conjunction with other research projects, is working
on a computerized bibliography that is expected to
access upwards of 4000 references, when completed.
However, the sheer quantity of materials that have been
written does not bear evidence to their usefulness.
Deficiencies in past research are discussed later in
this paper. New materials are becoming available at a
rapid rate, during the current Federal interest in
small farms; one hopes that small farms will not be

“dediscovered” by future administrations.

n
p.33

fie
A:

Ru.

o
‘1“

NJ.

‘4‘

u
AF!

Q

§§~

€37

-
Q

R
A
. vvool
A'
5-.
VA
- ~b'.

\
d

 

. .
a.“ 2M
. . ..

a: a:

CI d 5‘

Chapter II

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Past Changes in Agriculture: The Statistics

Past Changes in Agriculture and Rural Society:
Forces and Issues

1. Technology and Its Delivery
2. Cheap Energy

3. Agricultural Policy and the Family Farm

Profile of Small Farms Today
1. Small Farm Definitions
2. Small Farms in the U.S.

3. Small Farms by Region

Chapter Footnotes and Miscellaneous References

 

.
~-AV‘ A-
.:.H_-‘

c
:1«
1

ha

' a. .
:‘~“‘.‘n:“. 0v
icingyg'vuna 5‘;

4

. . ‘
"--. "‘a . “a
5......ba‘

C-u

~"‘ ‘5' ‘
”of
C

‘ ~ : -
ugv‘: a“
§

'n.‘ ”a“.
h“ a.
u “V§VH..',
Q
H
::h _
.-

.
:A‘n~ :‘
~‘-.‘

d ‘.

‘ \

I.‘

" n
“a.
I‘U‘.e‘a b:
v‘ .
5.“ .
.

".l “N I.
“‘ 0.2.

~

‘ .

.‘.
‘

':~ av...‘

.. .

" V.

w J .‘.

.‘g‘ ‘A

\- “Q '
\
~~ ‘
:‘A‘. .
' ‘s
“.‘ ‘3’ L
‘ N
‘ "

In, ‘

V

“.ks‘~Qv ‘
\
“~:~

‘

,.

u“-:‘

' C
“ 5‘.
‘VK

\.\

“‘:“\-

'A Q .
‘M ~.
—
«K.

.

hfi“

‘ ‘

Vv‘.‘A‘.

.“§’o

I
‘1
. ‘

 

Chapter II

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Historically policies concerning farm size are
significantly the philosophies of rebels ending an old
political and social order, and starting a new. The
cry for land reform (a breakdown of the large estates
and distribution of the land to the people) was heard
during the French Revolution and many a Latin American
one. The large collective and state farms in the Soviet
Union were formed after 19281, offering another example
of the connection between farm size and political/societal
philosophy.

Farm size was also of importance as the United States
was being formed. To Thomas Jefferson and other early
Fathers of American History, farm size and the right to
own land were important for political and social reasons.2
Jefferson felt that small property-owning farmers had the
qualities of freedom, independence, self-reliance and the
ability to resist oppressors.3 Also, agriculture was
considered to be a source of most of the human virtues
vital for popular self government.4 In later years agri-
culture was lauded as being the bastion of a competitive
economy: entry and exit were open, markets were competi-
tive, and there were a large number of small firms (or in

this case, farms). Continuous debate sad the issuance of

“5:73.!“ I}

 

a'ip'd quail: C

sn- ‘3...“

" n
.h$e~-a:~

‘ no-

my... a.vuu "V ‘
‘

:flrg. H. 2‘”

nhgv u. an“

‘ .
inf! uqfirfiyvg .1”
"U ‘.-.~.V' ‘..\‘
.

'v
‘Avo .' V
“Vwe v e-

AI'IA ‘L ‘ ‘ .
3.....9 Chi- .‘l

.

.I .
H

“‘e 3 O‘R"‘ no

‘...V‘-.. V.

. ‘.
ECVunu "‘V‘-\ I.
'-."“"-s=

' .‘Tfla ‘
a. nu\a§e £23.:

:1 0
' (:1

ll)
0
4

a new land act every few years finally culminated in the
Homestead Act of 1862, which gave a settler up to 160
acres of land in return for settling on it for five years
and improving it.5
However, agriculture has undergone dramatic changes
since that time. The number of farms, the size of farms,
the amount of land in farms, and the very structure of
agriculture have changed. This chapter will cover some
of those changes, first with a look at some of the sta-
tistics (II.A), then with a look at some of the forces of
change (II.B), such as technology, cheap energy, and
agricultural policy. Finally the chapter will define

"small farm", and profile the small farm as it is today,

both on a national and regional level.

A. Past Changes in Agriculture and Rural Society:
The Statistics

 

 

Perhaps the most dramatic change in agriculture has
been in terms of the number of farms (Table 1). In 1935
the U.S. saw its maximum number of farms - over 6.8
million. The years thereafter have witnessed a continual
decrease until only 2.3 million remained in 1974.6 This
loss of 4.5 million is a 66% decrease in that period.
Three million of those farms have been lost since 1950

(57%).

Changes have occurred in the acres of land in farms

 

‘
'~n .;A‘.~a “.r
..
3.3V] _..Vu\:.o -

"urn V

a I ’1
"are were '3 ‘

-:7‘"‘“"‘) . n.“ . i

.
.....~

.uu‘i""
.

.':~V‘Q‘. 1",
o

q. A; ~‘

It. yua. ‘:
I , ‘
All! A. V I'V‘ "
o‘u. Uri a -e‘-‘

a
‘ ‘

‘Vfi— :pa‘nfiumflu

oodm my ..u\Js.-»-»a

§
‘R'! o ‘
a... C 1.: ~ cm
§H|nu Viv.
-
u
n
.5' ‘ I
... 3X3 ." a
4 “AU 5.
I: ~ )- s
.‘ p. H“ I.
.:‘~‘ Vine: a‘:
H

.
‘~
‘-
‘\I a
a“bs a“; “1
§
v.
a,”
\ "A '
h.‘=::'\‘: ' .
“M. “‘-w
b “ '
I ‘ «5:
‘e
\ 8
"a QQ I.
“" LG :
5|;5 '
it
..
Q
3;.”6 ‘ \
.voh ‘Sla‘A c
‘ .
O-
\I ~:
:
‘
'9',
. ¥
‘\: as v

Q
n ‘ ‘
‘M 3 J

N$\'\~

nu “fix
a Vv."‘l £

". .
\. 7“. ‘

a.“.“ ‘\

s “H
‘TH ~VI.‘
‘ H ‘
-‘~§‘ov-
\‘ Q-
C ‘J
.-
I.-
‘a.‘ 'V
'4 WQH
‘
‘C Q‘-
‘\\n :-
*C

10

also, though not so drastically (see Table 1). In 1950
there were 1161.4 million acres of farm land (the acreage
maximum). This had dropped 12.4% by 1974. As new
acreage was coming under production during this time,
frequently from irrigation gains, the total acres lost
from agricultural production is probably much larger.

The change in farm numbers has a slightly different
look on a regional basis (Table 2). The decreases come
from abandonment of poorer land, particularly in the more
mountainous areas, of farms too small to support a family,
and of land going for other uses in the Eastern States,
for example.7 The combination of smaller farms into
larger ones also affected the number of farms. This means
that the average size of farms also changed. In 1935 the
average farm size was 155 acres. By 1974 the average had
increased to 440 (Table 3). These average farm size
figures are somewhat deceptive, though. There is con-
siderable variation between region and even more between
states. The average in Arizona is 6,539 acres, while in
Rhode Island farms average 102 acres.8 The regional
figures show a spread of 1360 acres for Western farms
in 1974 to 183 acres for Northeastern farms (Table 4).

In making comments on average farm size, one must bear
in mind that Western farms have increased in size to a
much greater extent than elsewhere in the country. In

1935 Western farms were an average of 1.4 times larger

11

Table l — Number of Farms and Land in Farms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1935:1974

Number of % Decrease from Land in Farms
Year Farms Previous Census (acres) % Change
1940 6,102,417 -10.5 1,065,114,774 1.0
1945c 5,859,169 - 3.9 1,141,615,364 2.0
1950 5,388,437 - 8.1 1,161,419,720 1.7
1954c 4,782,416 -11.1 1,158,191,511 - .3
1959 3,710,503 -22.6 1,123,507,574 -3.0
1964 3,157,857 -14.9 1,110,187,000 -1.2
1969 2,730,250 -13.5 1,062,892,501 -4.3
1974 2,314,013 -15.2 1,017,030,357 -4.3
Change
from -4,498,337 -66.0 -37,484,700 -3.6
1935
Change
from -3,074,424 -57.0 -144,389,300 -12.4
1950
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Agriculture, 1974.

 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.

1Except for 1964 and 1969, data represent differences for

coterminous United States.

cConterminous United States.

 

I)
J
D
N
I
L)
I D

 

D

I

..J
‘L’
(.1
[II

I

 

" ' .
3511.16.15:

. I
have. ~E"'=‘
".‘. "' Hug...

. ‘
Au.-
:V‘bu

 

12

Table 2 - Regional Decrease in Farm Numbers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1935-1974
Year
Region 1935 1974 % Decrease
Northeast 555,925 127,531 -77
North Central 2,263,543 1,017,367 -55
South 3,421,923 930,099 -73
West 570,959 239,016 -58
United States 6,812,350 2,3l4,013 -66

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1974.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978.

 

 

I I. ‘
an 3- ..
0141.8 m.
—.

I a

A

‘4
—_

lg.

t.‘

 

A
by’

Table 3 — Average Number of Acres Per Farm
1935-1974

Year

 

1935c
1940
1945c
1950
1954c
1959
1964
1969

1974

13

 

 

AveragerAcres
Per Farm

 

154.8

174.5

194.8

215.5

242.2

302.8

351.6

389.3

439.5

% Change From
Previous Year

 

113.

112.

111.

112.

125.

116.

111.

113.

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture,

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978.

cConterminous United States

1974.

 

sun mum.

 

 

v" V5 n

mess:

1‘» '
v... -

I
51.“. we“..' :

v o
b.‘

A u
‘5“.-
WI h.

 

14

Table 4 - Average Farm Size by Region

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1935-1974
Region 1935 1974 % Increase
Northeast 93.4 183.2 96
North Central ‘ 172.3 356.7 107
South 109.9 328.6 199
West 414.0 1360.0 229
United States 154.8 439.5 184

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1974.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978.

 

We?
. V.

~*:n
5‘1‘.‘

1
“a RA“"

4
s

Vv~i

fibtb

m!

.0
Use“
5508

H‘

WC.“

5
b

A-- ‘
.~‘ «6
‘-d v-

may
0:.9

I‘

1e

)

.I

ny-
~v-

ADA
in

 

4:

s:

Cs

t..

15

than Northeastern farms, for example, while being 7.4
times as large by 1974.

The population declined during this period from
32.2 million in 1935 to 8.9 million in 1975, a total change
of 72.3%. This off-farm migration changed the relation
between the farm and nonfarm pOpulation. In 1935 farmers
were 25% of the total population, but were only 4% by
1974 (Table 5). This means that the number of people in
the U.S. per farm changed considerably. In 1935 there
was one farm for 19 people but by 1974, the ratio was only
one farm for every 92 people (Table 6).

Prices have changed considerably as well. Table 7
shows the development of the prices farmers received for
agricultural products sold compared with the prices they
paid for all their inputs purchased. One decision tool
has been the parity ratio (prices received divided by
prices paid), which takes the price figures for 1910-14
as its base level. In general, parity has fallen, leaving
farmers in a cost squeeze. This in turn affects other
aspects of agricultural structure.

The figures in the previous tables show the bare
bones of what has happened to farm numbers, size and farm
population. Another aspect, control of agriculture, is
also of interest. With the increase in size of farm has
come an increase in corporate farming.* Large

’*Fanny'fimm10qunatnxm;ananotinchxhd.hithflsdiaxms£XI

9.,

4A..
“~.
dd

0-.-

x..g

 

16

Table 5 - Farm Population, 1935-1975

Year

 

1935

1940

1945

1950

1954

1959

1964

1969

1975

40 year decrease

 

Farm Population

 

 

#(OOOS) % Change % of Total Population
32,161 - 25
30,547 - 5.0 23
24,420 -20.0 18
23,058 - 5.6 15
19,019 -17.5 12
16,592 -12.8 9
12,954 —21.9 7
10,307 —20.4 5

8,900 -13.7 4

-23,261 -72.3

 

Source:

David Orden and Dennis K. Smith, Small Farm Programs.

 

 

.4 c . I. a
a. .1 . I
2
Av
‘J.
6
o" a
V. .n.
n 2‘ 4.:
an An. ad.
u o "I. I o

A‘

.. . .
2,.

uh. n (v
-¢ en.
.04 Au:
. . I ..

au-

4.-'1

— .

 

In-

41.

wJ s . «Q
3 . .. i
L . a
. t A.
‘5 A:
. .'
N U fin» \h\
P. a.
my 5 .
m... H... z.
I m ‘ ‘
«2W ~n ‘3‘
\v a J 2‘

17

Table 6 - U.S. Population and Persons Per Farm

 

 

 

1935-1974
# Persons
Total U.S. Farms % Increase From

Year Population (000$) (0003) Per Farm Previous Year
1935a 127,057 6812 18.65 -

1940 132,165 6102 21.66 116.1
1945a 139,583 5859 23.82 110.0
1950 151,326 5388 28.08 117.9
1954a 161,763 4782 33.82 120.4
1960 179,323 3710 48.33 142.9
1964 191,463 3158 60.63 125.5
1969 202,711 2730 74.25 122.5
1974 211,909 2314 91.58 123.3

 

 

 

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1974.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978.

 

aEstimated; Alaska and Hawaii not included

bUnrounded farm numbers used in calculating this column

'l) *4
a( J
0' L11

'U
H)
'1

I

 

Table 7 - Indices of Prices Paid by Farmers,
Prices Received by Farmers, and

 

Parity Ratios

 

Prices Received for
Year all Agricultural Products

 

1910-1970

 

 

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

104

211

125

100

258

238

280

Prices Paid for
all Inputs Purchased

(1910-14 = 100)
97

214
151
124
256
300

390

Parity

E22:

107

99

83

81

101

80

72

 

Source: USDA, Agricultural Statistics, 1972.

 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

a"Parity Ratio":

1972.

Prices received divided by prices paid.

U . S . Government

" I
:Py- p... a. . ‘1
“~o~u~-.

a

.153 an 1;:

(I)

C)

19

agribusiness corporations are obstructions of the
Jeffersonian ideal for agriculture in that they threaten

a reversal of the abolition of entail.9

A corporation
has an unlimited lifetime, theoretically, and a corporate-
owned farm could continue on and on for generations. One
benefit of privately owned land is that management and
land use are likely to change with the death of the
owner, in the changing of ownership. Corporations do not
normally die and, while corporation ownership may change,
the management of these large firms may well remain the
same - cementing any inherent management errors.

So far agribusiness corporations have not concentrated
on land-extensive commodities, such as grains, cotton,
and beef. There is no great advantage in producing the
undifferentiated, widely produced commodities. The
corporations are mostly found in feed-cattle, laying hens,
fruits and nuts, vegetables and melons, and, to some ex-

10

tent, in cotton. There is a concentration of larger

corporations (10 or more shareholders) in California,
Florida, Texas, Hawaii, and Louisiana.11
These changes in agriculture have happened against
a back drop of rural society as a whole. Though net
farm population out migration was in the 5-6% range for
several decades, it dropped considerably in the early

12

19705 to just under 3%. This is related to what has

".Jr

"Ilia-F

 

 

.f: h.»
‘33 t..

I .
”7“! m. n

. H FF“
“‘4‘"; $.‘
4

-
.hJu..-\.
2:95.

The was: .
Azerican cens-
cf their into?
“N: 900‘: we:

7‘
Q ‘ ‘
V HV‘
5".Ԥ: 0. sad
:E~‘A‘1“;AH k.
IL‘vg. “:

.9. 1
a“ ‘n c ‘
VVS~D \o" c. E
‘A.
cg: s“

A'-
‘ I
»~.‘..:: ‘ :fi
. “‘=
l \
(a! .
int) ‘._ ‘
“‘a~
.
‘5 n
s
' ‘u
~ ‘eJSI":-
~“‘
L.
“‘9 Ci
1
\
.h.
':~ g
\b‘a [gag
‘\‘\
s
t“\
"H oc
N a
.
n.‘:'.\ 1““ A
‘
\~‘n
‘9
'1
"RE;

20

been called the "new migration," the "rural renais-
sance," or the "demographic revival of nonmetropolitan

13 In effect there has been a renewal of

territory."
growth in nonmetropolitan areas, especially the rural
ones.

The vast changes in agriculture have enabled
American consumers to spend a relatively small percentage
of their income on food. However, these changes meant
rural poor were displaced from the farm, leading to an
enormous migration of people. Many of these people were
not able to adjust to the changes because of a lack of

skills or education.14

For these the technological
revolution has not been a success.

As the unskilled migrate to urban areas, the indirect
costs of cheap food appear in the form of social services
for support and training. "The President's Commission
on Rural Poverty concluded that many people merely ex-
change life in a rural slum for life in an urban slum...
(and) that the violence in northern streets is a product
of frustrations born in southern fields."15

The original, major migrations from rural to urban
areas left rural areas at a considerable disadvantage in
terms of services and, generally, quality of living. The

new urban to rural migration has meant progress, but

nonmetro areas are still depressed in terms of wage

 

an.

. .
' . ‘.
QOV
--:o: '3‘. v-.--
""5 u“
.

"““xfi

i4¢-.u.

2 m,“ ”1.:

.. 5:3- Mau—
Qb‘v—a ‘
‘v :2“: :‘
‘.“~- \Al

Q ‘ _

‘~ ~“ As ‘

.

““ : h'e it. n

§;A

~I
Q. ,
~~IN~.‘ h“ A
.n‘ "VH5 V
. . ‘. -
h ‘A ‘
55“: ‘ys C
a ' I /
‘-fl ‘
'-~=r -
c
“\ .
v::'.'u'§ " "~
”"3 “a. a
‘
A _ .

n D
U.‘.| Q ‘
V.“‘~

s.‘
:~.,:
.“ *Q
.-‘4 C...e:‘:
\
“ ,
\-
.._‘ ,.. n
‘:“.=’ *s z
s «‘
.9
I “
‘ I
“‘t 2.. H
“5“‘ e
q:
1. fis‘". ,
‘5‘ Co...¥c
~
I
A‘ ‘V
‘\
i

“
KWEC‘ A‘
‘ 1
\ V‘. ‘.
‘C
‘ 1
'53“.
I“ v :~~,
:‘r 1
’\
\
0“ , a
0
.“ ‘
.‘ ‘:

21

levels, family income, employment opportunities, ade-
quate nutrition, adequate housing, and access to health
care and other essential services and facilities.16
Poverty is prevalent in many rural areas of the country.
What has brought about these changes in agriculture?

Part B will discuss some of the forces and issues in-

volved.

B. Past Change in Agriculture and Rural Society:
Forces and Issues

 

There are many dimensions to farm structure: number
and size of farms, degree of specialization in produc-
tion, ownership and control of productive resources,
conditions of entry and exit, and socioeconomic charac-
teristics of farm operators and resource owners, among
others.17 These aspects are affected by many factors in
varying ways, over different periods of time. Technology,
economies in size, taxes, goals of the farmer, capital
requirements, variation in input prices, price cost
margins, risk and expectations, managerial ability and
alternative opportunities all can affect some dimension
of structure.18 This section will concentrate on aspects
of three issues or forces that have made a significant
impact on the shape of agriculture and rural society:
technology and its delivery (II.B.1), cheap energy

(II.B.2), and agricultural policy on the family farm

(II.B.3).

 

one
5!]

“I a

mu.

‘3“)!-
L.

‘ vv-au

‘x.
a :-.,‘_ ‘
“N. ‘ ‘Hho
.Hs‘ "A ~
A
3“» ‘»::.
l~~k-j
u:_.~::‘
; V
u.3 Q‘_‘ A.-
NAb “ “w
:7QO L“ ‘3‘
§ 5 LU Au“
~.
'h R
Q 'Q‘yqa
Q... ~ ~

22

1. Technology and its Delivery

 

In the early days of U.S. history, hand power was
the basis for most technology.19 Improvements included
the cotton gin, cast iron plows, and mechanical reapers.
Between the Civil War and WWI, horse drawn implements
predominated. The U.S. Department of Agriculture was
established in 1862; the land grant colleges (1862 and
1890), agricultural experiment stations (1887), and the
Cooperative Extension Service (1914) followed. Across
the nation farmers were receiving information about new
practices.

Between World Wars I and II mechanical power came
into its own. The high farm prices and high wages rela-
tive to machinery costs started the rapid conversion.
The Depression delayed a real explosion until 1935, when
increasing demand for food related to the economic re-
covery and war in Europe helped complete the transition
from horse to mechanical power. Other new technologies
(like improved livestock breeds, hybrid corn varieties,
and chemical fertilizers and insecticides) insured con-
tinually increasing agricultural productivity.

After World War II technological advances increased
production dramatically. Crop yields increased through
the use of irrigation, chemical inputs, and improved

Varieties. In livestock enterprises, improved breeds,

Oh

 

.. .. v . C
C a r.
I (an n n.
“v. 0 “4

«AM -a ‘
«nu e L s at;
at 7- a flv

.3 .. . . .
a n“ a. 3
a. a v1 o.
v . .nl. an.
RM .15 e 3‘
.1. a: .5" L .
.I o t m t b s

“ I

1 .
V. ., .
. c a.
.\ . v*
9.1!
o.
:2 S
t s «3
Ab
u u ~\~
~nu .‘q
ad a:
V. 4:
.11. 1H“

0
~‘

 

Ia"
fin

83‘

An.

N... x c
a.“ C
e .. .
e
H 3
T. C
.4 ~
» a
an.»
x...

23

artificial insemination, and efficient feeding also
increased production. Researchers developed new
mechanized harvesters for many crops. Figure 1 shows
the relation of increases in productivity in different
stages of our history during the past 200 years.

Table 8 shows the indicies of crOp production, farm
output per hour of labor, and productivity, 1950-1975.
Productivity has risen on a per hour and per acre

basis as well as for total production.

2. Cheap Energy

The availability of cheap energy has, over the
years, "fueled" the technological explosion. Today the
food system consumes 16.5% of the total energy in the
U.S. (Figure 2). Home Preparation takes 5%, the Whole-
sale and Retail Trade 2.6%, Transportation 0.5%, Food
Processing 5.4%, and Production Agriculture 3%.

In many ways cheap energy has meant cheap food for
American consumers by substituting fossil fuel for animal

and human labor.20

But not only has energy enabled in-
creased mechanization, it has made possible the augmen-
tation of crop and livestock systems for greater
productivity. This is especially apparent in.crop

systems where yields are boosted by the use of energy

intensive aids: fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation.

‘ea- So.”

‘ Q
a
4.4115

‘2

 

 

 

  

. . a
.2 v.
mu. 3 a.
.2 r n.
.u .V.
V.
v. 5. .3
3. .\¢ use
an Au. an.
"in a. Q.

‘

-\.v v -\v
PP. Q ~ I
do an: Ad-
a 4 . 4 u 4

 

 

24

Table 8 - Some Indices of Crop Production, Farm Output
per Hour of Labor, and Productivity
1950-1975 (1950 = 100)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Index of Cr0p Index of Farm Index of Total
Production Output per Output per Production
Year per Acre Hour of Labor Input (Productivity)
1950 100 100 100
1955 107 134 111
1960 128 191 128
1965 145 260 137
1970 148 323 139
1975 162 424 162

 

Source: National Academy of Sciences. Agricultural Production
Efficiency. Washington, D.C. 1975. and Committee on Agricul-
ture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate. Status of the Family
Farm. 96th Congress, lst Session, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 1979.

 

 

 

“‘R ‘
if Hy
“'E“e to

FII

‘
A gicu‘tural Prods:

!
PA

. .-
" ca

 

I
1

l
.J.

 

 

25

Figure 1.

 

U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth- During the Past 200 Years

    
   
 

0:) Of 1967
120 '
[—- Mecnamcal eczence
Hand power Horse power power ' power °
100 ~— 2 I

Civil War WW I WW II

 

 

' ; l
I l I I l ’ -

 

 

illtli 'lilll;ll;‘ LillL‘lLlL
1775 800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975
~— m

 

Source: Lu and Quance, Agricultural Productivity:
Expanding the Limits. USDA, ESCS, Agricultural
Information Bulletin 431. 1979.

 

 

., ‘ .
'0. .‘GFU: .. A“
vh‘ue -.'uh. 5"‘. . .

 

’1'... I: j 5 .‘.,.
V!.£.:V\’~' " .e 4
‘

‘
""~‘vC-“-3:;cn

hint”:

4M~cm .kfiu :2:

 

26

Figure 2. Energy use in the United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pbme3%':a t' ..d10% w .0
e; ra ion \ A. ‘.\
Wholesale G Retail Trade
....2.5% *1
Trumpet-tation .. .0.3% >-
Food Processing ...5.4% r- 16'5‘
anhmzrmxAgtflaflzune :n- n” Toufl.enen9rusai
...3.0% 5:‘ in U. 5. food
:nstan
83.5%
Odun'auugyise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: CAST Energy Report, p. 32.

 

I Q
1"”‘1': Amp

cum...
d

‘
.uv .u_u.~' b
4

£393 a ““n'n

Amy“

 

Cid". Cheat; 9“ a

\-n-‘_

9 Q
Q' ‘
3 " "0"9 puma-
I.‘ “"‘-U~.n\.c

‘Q

'5.” .1.
fawn" tue .da':

' I

.
.‘~n‘~ w

*\ 1
“.‘:=“ 13.9 o

27

Figure 3 outlines energy use in production agriculture.
The largest category is for the manufacture of ferti-
lizers and pesticides (36%). The actual application
takes a much smaller amount. It is important to note
that cheap energy has been a guiding force in research
and development of the new agricultural technologies.
Along the way, in the development of a plant variety,
for instance, many gene stocks will be discarded as being
undesirable. A field of corn plants must ripen at the
same time, be the same height, and above all have a good
yield response to the energy-intensive inputs (pesti-
cides, fertilizers, and water). If any one of these
should become limiting, the bred-in genetic homegeneity
becomes a liability and crop yields plummet. Back along
the researcher's path are the undesirable plants. Some
of these have moderately high yields, but do not respond
well to added fertilizer, pest protection or water. As
energy costs increase these discards look more appealing,
for a reasonable yield is achieved with low input costs.21
Most research decisions embody some assumption concerning
future energy availability and price. Since 1972-3,
Americans have started to question the directions of the
past, looking more creatively to the future in terms of
design of new agricultural systems.

In the meantime, cheap energy has made the huge

farms possible. Commodities are being produced in much

28

Figure 3. Energy Use in Production Agriculture, 1974.

aungy uaaanufiunmwc
fertilizers 5 pesticides

Field machinery operations

Tnuuporuudon

Irrnyudan

Lhnetadn.dainr5‘pmumzy

Crapdrying

tfisceUMnaas

 

 

ll!!! lillllii
III" in!!!

lilllliIlliiillilillliiiliiliiiiii
llllillillillllll

[illillli

 

 

illlllillflliil
mum

 

 

um I

 

 

 

 

 

 

ummmmumnmuuumummmummmummmiua

 

 

 

4

 

Source: CAST Energy Report, p. 33.

1
L

wu-
.J..€

gackag

:RVfiQA
I‘IV.U=D

imib

-ui- .,

‘Ifin
.DIH’
4

5'.

e

 

..l
1
’5 Arc, V'f"
.V L‘. .“
I
‘8 ’H fiv-s'
86.59: :1“

:ices and

O'gv...’
5555‘. ' .

4
“ha.
315.9".5.
h. v ‘ ,
“ 3.511
“
ya; CQfi.

-." A “
we ~ SM“‘ai
Q
.' .
"“uy 0..
no yokerc" A
‘-e '5
C
‘ l
qt .

e5.

(n
'H

£1.

 

29

more limited areas since cheap energy allows additional
packaging, specialized handling, and transportation

across the country. Cheap energy has enabled farmers

to dry crops and then store them, holding products for a
better price. Management decisions could be made on the
basis of energy cost as well. Different cultural prac-
tices and production systems use different amounts of
energy. Table 9 points this out for beef production
systems. The ratio of input BTU's to food value BTU's

of retail beef produced can range from 13.4 for beef born
in confinement, grown on irrigated pasture and finished

on feedlot corn, to 1.9 for beef that are kept on the
range for the entire time from birth to finish. In the
past corn finished beef with its high level of marbling
(intramuscular fat) was more desirable. Today, between
high energy costs and dietary recommendations for decreased
fat intake in our diet, the noncorn-finished beef may seem
advantageous.

Since energy availability will gradually decrease,
as world supplies run out, prices should be expected to
continue to rise. Figure 4 shows, for example, the
estimated natural gas production over the next 100 years.
One factor frequently neglected is that, in coming years,
there will be a greatly increased energy demand from
Third World developing nations. In the next five years,

Africa, Latin America, the Near East and the Far East are

“-1'-'la—

 

——.§
0‘
.JV’
- -
:V’:
.~‘
‘—

3'5."-

 

~A -‘
P‘- .. _
“Hung ..

n ...

‘Q V
'4'~
'chE/
I
‘V‘ .3 I
'
the... “t
.
u

 

30

Table 9 - Fossil Fuel Input for Different Beef
Production Systems

 

Input BTU per

Practice at a Given Period
food value BTU

 

 

 

Birth Growth Finish of retail beef

Confinement Irrigated Feedlot 13.4
pasture corn

Range/ Irrigated Feedlot 8.1

Supplement pasture corn

Range/ Range Feedlot 4.4

Supplement silage

Range Range Range 1.9

 

Source: Doering, Otto et al., "Current Energy Use in the Food and
Fiber System." USDA, ERS, 1977 in Energy - A Vital Resource for
the U.S. Food System. Am. Soc. Ag. Engineers, Chicago, Illinois.
1978.

 

 

.cnuy
I.‘I-e 4
I

vn.P\o . s

(\n

~\..— .

.-.~..~..s

 

PRODUCTION RATE
(Io‘7FT’/vn)

31

Figure 4. Complete Cycle of Natural Gas Production
in the United States

 

4L“... --.__._.__

i

i

i i >. i I l
’ i

 

SJ

QESE:VE

(n
I"
U)

ULFIMATE Recovaa: L
m, 1290 x 1012???
U' (BEEBE,1967)

 

ac

 

 

_._..—._— [-—--—.— ..

o
«7
0
Hi
0

 

 

v0
0

 

J

\283 x 1012

 

\

tax ‘
P \Ԥ\
I -
./

2 \\ Qxi‘ i3
_ ---- ___...... f. - -_._.,-__i
/////

 

10

/ '4

I / ,

/ r
//J

 

. \

 

 

 

”4

/fl

‘Fé

N

\ \

“/

/
r--‘—*~7-->-—-——-—

 

 

 

 

Source: Energy, Ecology, and Economics. Elements of a
Thermodynamically Based Economy, by Herman E. Koenig and
Thomas C. Edens. 1977.

32

expected to increase their energy demands 6% for farm
machinery, 9% for irrigation equipment, and 17% for
pesticides manufacture.22
Finally, there is the question of the impact of the
energy problem on society as a whole. Different re-
searchers speak for both the highly optimistic end
(advances in technology will prevail over all), and
highly pessimistic end (culture as we know it is doomed).
.Amory Lovins, who developed the concept of net energy

23 is remarkably

gain from adopting new technologies
<3ptimistic. Lovins specializes in energy-related tech-
:nologies. After considerable travel around the world
to see what technologies are being developed, he stated
‘that there is sufficient new technology currently
available and "on-line" to conserve enough energy to
maintain our style of living.24
Herman Koenig, Director of the Center for Environ-
mental Quality at Michigan State University, agrees with
Lovin's estimates of energy availability, though dis-
agreeing on the potential effects of current technology.
He is much more pessimistic for the future, as he be-
lieves it will be necessary to the survival of society
as we know it to decentralize into self-sufficient
conmnrnities in the coming twenty years. Dr. Koenig is

currently working on a plan to decentralize southeast

MiChigan (the Detroit area) an has included in the

‘Iavu
e...,,
.."V
5‘.
:~v§
“
.‘s
’1.
‘.£‘

:wv-v
{use

 

 

1 1‘ \
a» S s S \ Q
. s a» «w ‘ « Wk a; A: a» «We a. w.
#5 ‘fw .. s he. ~: .~.. 1.. e.
v s .n. \ AKNHb -hfih.‘ ~\~ Awuv he . fiat.
:u «5 UN m.. s. I!

§-‘ \ _..

 

33

plan the concept of many small (10 acre) farm plots
surrounding each community to provide some of its
basic food supplies (grain and other field crops not
included).26

There are as many differentscenarios of the future
related to the energy problem as there are experts, but

inevitably the future will bring a change in the

structure of agriculture.

3. Agricultural Policy and the Family Farm

 

Originally, farm policy was based on the idea of
agriculture as the paradigm of free economic competition.
The theory envisioned many equally small and homogenous
firms, a market based solely on the supply and demand
for their goods, perfect information for the participants
as to market conditions, easy entrance and exit in the
market of firms, and a continual seeking of greater
efficiency by adopting lower cost production processes.
The less efficient firms go out of business, shifting
their resources to other uses.27

In practice the model becomes unrealistic. One
aspect - the search for cost reducing production proc-
esses - may lead to the development of large sized firms
(those which do achieve lower production costs and force

others out of that business). These would then restrict

competition in that area to the few remaining firms

34

that are most successful.

Other problems center around mobility and homo-
geneity. Land, some capital items, and many people are
not instantly mobile, either with respect to geographic
location, or sectors of the economy. Thus, resource
adjustments in response to cost saving technology can run
into bottlenecks, or create unacceptable hardship. Nor
are people or land homogeneous. Factors such as age,
lack of education, or lack of appropriate skills, may
limit opportunities for some to move out of agricultural
production or may make the cost of doing so exceed the
benefits.28

Land may or may not have other uses and is not
equally affected by changes in technology. Poorer land
suffers a relative loss in income producing capacity as
technology changes.29

Resource adjustments may be delayed by lags in the
dissemination of information. In today's computer economy,
information itself becomes a resource, and its distribu-
tion (how and.to whom) is an issue of its own. Resource
adjustments can also be delayed or prevented by price
changes related to the inelastic demand for agricultural
commodities. When new production technology has been
developed and adopted, farm prices have fallen, relative

to prices for other goods (see Parity column in Table 7).

Vfldle some resources can move out of agriculture, others

35

are 'trapped in', and subsequently returns to agricul-
tural production resources become lower than in other
sectors of the economy.

Both the low price and low income situations call
for public action outside the scope of the competitive
model. The low price situation has been the historic
basis of farm policy. The low income-poverty situation
has received less attention. A solution to this problem
is beyond the capability of the model of perfect compe-

30 Having examined the competitive model related

tition.
to agriculture, it is of interest to look at some of the
general agricultural policies and their effects.

The agricultural situation in the 19305 had a great
deal to do with agricultural policy. International
markets were limited, there were continual problems of
excess capacity and a pervading welfare situation, due to
low returns to all resources.31 The Depression had affected
the entire economy so that there were few alternative
opportunities for those forced out of agriculture. Large
numbers of farm residents (who totaled over 32 million in
1935) were living in near poverty, uncertain of the sur-
vival of their farms.32

Efforts by policy makers to remedy these problems
included price supports based on quantity of output,

supply management (set-aside plans) to improve prices,

development of cooperatives and marketing orders to

36

enhance bargaining power, making credit available to
Preserve operator ownership and continued research
and. (SievelOpment support to improve the productivity of
land and labor so that farm costs might be reduced.33
The 19405 and after saw continued excess farm production
as jennprovement in technology accumulated faster than
resources (people) could leave agriculture. A major
9&331tLiof rural development, extension, and credit programs
became speeding the exit of resources out of agriculture
ax1¢1_ aiding the technical advancement of those farms

34

reIlI-aining. The gap widened between large and small

fa~321tiers.

The Agricultural Research Act (Title 7, Chapter 17,
Section 427) reads, "It is declared to be the policy of
the Congress to promote.. .a sound and prosperous agri-

culture and rural life as indispensable to the main-

tenance of maximum employment and national prosperity."35

EVer since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the expressed
Purpose of the agriculture policy of the U.S. has been

to support family farms, especially small, land-owning

farms. 36’

However virtually all the competent research
shows that the commodity programs are regres-
sive, that is, they give more help to those
who are already well-to-do than they do to the
poor. They widen the distribution of income
withinragriculture.

37

Figure 5 shows the 1978 distribution of wheat and

feed grain payments, by size of a farm's normal crOp

38 By far the largest percentage of pay-

acreage (NCA) .
tments went to the upper 10% size class (50% for wheat
iand 40% for feed grain). Payments in the upper 10% size
class were over 53% for cotton and were 40% for rice.

(Dn an average for the U.S., the smallest 50% of farms

Ireceived less than 10% of the payments.39

The commodity program subsidies are on the basis of
Knolume, or on a dollar-per-bushel basis. Those with
Ilarge farms and large volumes get a large payment while
the program provides little help to the small operator.
Zycre reduction, for example, may considerably benefit
1:he larger operator; he just sets aside his most marginal,
ZLeast.productive land. The small operator may be crip-
E>led by any acreage reduction at all.40

There are questions regarding agricultural policy
‘tuaday, possibly vital to the whole nation, that are be-
coming of great importance in California. They center
around such issues as:

1) Is the replacement of family farms by

much larger farms leading to the social and

economic impoverishment of rural communities?

2) Are small farmers and farm workers being

displaced from employment at least in part

through the investment of tax-payer dollars

in research benefitting primarily large

producers, despite the national policy goals

of maximizing employment and of enhancing the
quality of rural life?

38

iiqure 5 .

Distribution of 1978 Wheat and Feed Grain Payments
by Size ot Normal Crop Acreage

Wheat

 

Percentage ol Program Payments

 

 

 

:2" F

: Z
30 /
/
. M
:flmmm%%fl /A 6 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOW" 10-20‘7. 203095 304096 405096 U006! 404.10% 30-20% 20-1
10% 504070

Acreage Size Class

O

9610

a2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30— Z
2... %

V 7%
.o_ ‘ y / //
owmm% A Ad / A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOW“ 10-20% 2080% 304096 40-50% Upper 40.30%
10% 504096

Acreage Size Class

8
3
39
g
0
a?
8
3'

‘

Source: D. Paulberg, Can the Family Farm Survive, 1978.

39

3) Are lower costs claimed for large farm

units reflected in fact at the retail level

in lower prices, better quality food or

other benefits to the consumer?41

California's Small Farm Viability Project reached

a number of conclusions on the above concerns:

There is little evidence that cost savings

to the farmer are passed on to the consumer

in the form of lower prices. This is not

surprising since the farmer is a price

taker, not a price maker, and hence has no

control over what the consumer will pay.42
'This is also not unexpected because the price of the

farm product makes up just a small percentage of the
“total retail price for most items, especially those that
‘undergo any amount of processing. Each "value added"
:step contributes its share of the costs (with labor
being the largest portion of the whole).

Another conclusion of the California study was that
\vhile well-structured and properly managed family farms
czould compete successfully with far larger units in
Gafficiency of on-farm production, they tend to be at a
Clisadvantage in competing for resources and markets.43

A tight labor market statewide continued industrial-
iAzation of agriculture that displaces farmworkers from
'enmployment, serious economic decline in some regions,
a~1'1<d.the additional pressure of urban people migrating to
r’uzral areas and competing for local jobs, are all factors

44

fueling the current problems. Until the last few

 

 

Jofia,‘

ivy
V!
3 ""
éaVI

59' a;
”‘QIOK‘
.

5a .
U4 8‘.

1"

l):
;-
(D

d)
I"

11'
I

40

decades, there was an informal "farm ladder" which
allowed able and hard-working peOple to progress from
being a field hand, up through supervisory positions,
to eventual establishment as an independent farmer. By

now that ladder has virtually disappeared.

C. Profile of Small Farms Today
1. Small Farm Definitions

The term 'small farm' covers a broad spectrum of
farm types. Over the years many different units have
been used to measure farm size. The definitions can vary
by commodity, by region of the country, and by available
information from which to make a distinction (among
others). There are no truly acceptable definitions.
Defining size by acreage generally works within a com-
modity group, but a 40 acres garlic field and a 40 acre
pasture are not in the same size class. Defining size
by number of livestock units also poses difficulties: a
forty cow dairy herd would not be equivalent in size to
a 40 hen laying flock. Also it would be difficult to
make comparisons between crop and livestock farms - not
to mention a greenhouse or X-mas tree operation.

Other farm size measures used in the past are levels
of capital investment, which has valuation problems; and
net income, which information is difficult to obtain,

and which measure is based on varying levels of

41

management capability more than size of operation.45

Madden and Tischbein (Pennsylvania State Uni-
\Nersity and the National Rural Center's Small Farm
Project) criticize past small farm studies for using
simplistic definitions. They object to studies that
fail to differentiate among the various types of small
farms of the one hand, and then define those small farms
Iby a single dimension, such as a gross sales limitation
<3r level of one resource used (acres of land, number of

46

cows milked, etc.).

In an effort to solve some of the definitional

jproblems, the USDA has adopted a new definition to

47

identify small farm families. The families so desig-

nated should :

--operate farms by providing most of the
labor and management;

--have total family incomes from farm and 7
nonfarm sources below the median non- \

metropolitan family incomes in their
states:

--depend on farming for a significant
portion, although not necessarily most,
of their incomes.48
This definition was developed, in part, to depict
5i group of farm families whose main distinguishing
factor is moderate-to-low income. The USDA's previous

definition was of the gross income limitation type. A

Small farm was one that had less than $20,000 in farm

42

sales. This emphasized the farm business as the main
Exalicy concern. The new definition focuses on farm
ifahdlies and excludes families with relatively large
<fo-farm incomes who sell less than $20,000 in farm
‘Products.

The first and third elements of the new definition
are subjective and cannot be easily measured, but median
.ncnmetropolitan family income can be readily measured,
(and is being used for USDA small farm discussions.49
'The new definition gives small farm data that differs
Inarkedly in some areas from that of the old gross income
«definition. Besides the subjective aspects of the new
rdefinition, it seems as if there is a major flaw that
tindermines its usefulness.

In areas characterized by rural poverty, such as
‘the:South, the nonmetropolitan median income is likely
tn: be much lower than it is in areas with stronger rural
economic bases, such as certain areas of the North
Central region. Thus, the inherently poor areas should
lmave a lower cutoff point to use for counting their small
farms. Regardless of those families excluded because of
CIEf-farm income, there will be a number of farm families
“Eith income below the $20,000 level. This should effec-
txively decrease the number of small farms in the South.

Ekat, for example in the North Central region, nonmetro-

EXDlitan income is likely to be higher. 50 a higher

It

 

'1‘

I”.
f a.
()
(In

a...“
I‘d“

U
V‘A ‘5‘-
. 1‘ b.

“M u
by a:

'h-
“u‘ 3
‘

t I)

43

acceptable income level is set for inherently wealthier
areas, increasing the number of farm families eligible
to be counted as "small." This speculation is borne
out by comparisons of farm families under both defini-
tions. The number of small farms under the new defini-
tion declined 6% in the South and increased 5% in the

50 This result seems contradictory

North Central region.
to the USDA's goals for the new definition. Supplemental
income farming is much more likely to be a factor in the
North Central Region, and it seems to serve no purpose

to decrease the number of families eligible for small
farm status in the poverty stricken areas of the South
(or elsewhere). Government funding is sometimes allocated
on a formula basis. It is a point of interest whether the
new small farm definitions will bring about any change in
funding allocations.

There is a further complication in matters relating
to small farm definitions: that of practical expediency.
Even if the new USDA definition were completely satisfac-
tory, there are many projects for which it could not be
used because of lack of sufficient data.

The Census of Agriculture is the most complete
SOurce of data relating to farms. Within this context
the best measure of farm size is gross income or farm

Sales. One major and more recent problem with this

measure is that the effect of inflation on prices may

 

3“:|n
vug. “V

.9. .N
“V “a.
A

h. u‘
"u. ..:

44

serve to overstate the apparent increase in the number

51

of larger farms. There are other limitations involved

with using Census of Agriculture data. The farm defini-

 

tions have changed over the years, and to some extent so
has the format used. For 1974, detailed comparisons of
Characteristics of farms related to farm size can only
be made for farms with $2,500 sales or more. Additionally,
no data is available for units with gross sales less than
$1,000.52
In spite of Madden's critique53 and the inherent
limitations, definition of farm size through gross in-
come measures and the Census of Agriculture seems to be

54 It only remains to

the best alternative available.
agree on an income level.

An upper limit of $20,000 gross income for small
farms was first used working with 1969 Census of Agricul-
ture data. Researchers carried it forward for use with
the 1974 Census; some still use it today. However,
during the past decade inflation has been such that a
$40,000 level is much more appropriate. ($40,000 is also
the upper limit of the next Census economic class up from
$20,000.) $40,000 as an upper limit for small farm gross
1“come is appropriate according to measures of net farm
income, as well. Net farm income is the residual income

aceruing to the farm operator (or owner) for his inputs of

labor, management, and capital.

3v~
\h\

n...

.4
sins... MMW

45

In the last five years, net farm income as
a percentage of gross income has been about
25% —- varying from 35% in 1973 to 19% in
1977. Small farms usually have a higher
net margin than larger farms because small
farms are more labor intensive, more labor
is contributed by the family and a larger
percent of the capital is equity capital
versus debt capital. If we accept the 25%
net margin as a general guide, $40,000 gross
income would return $10,000 to the family
for resources or a minimum acceptable
standard for family income.55
The final size breakdown, as used for most of
this paper, is as follows:
- small farms: less than $40,000 sales

— medium farms: between $40,000 and
$100,000 sales

-— large farms: over $100,000 sales

frhe remainder of this chapter will discuss small

farnn ruational and regional statistics.

2. Small Farms in the U.S.

VVhat are some of the characteristics of a small
farm? There is such variety in type that it would be
difficult to define a "typical" small farm. However,
the Sensus of Agriculture provides some basis for in—

v . . . .
es”ligating small farm characteristics.*

1*
I“::flrmldlxanouaithattimme.nBCbnshkuabhexEmiatRXIin
data from table to table. This hinders accurate comparison.

Almost 80% of all farms are small (Table 10).
These farms control 46% of the farmland and 43% of the
total cropland. While 60% of the farms with irrigated
land are small farms, only 20% of that land is on a
small farm.

8.5% of the small farms have more than 500 acres
in size. 17% have between 220 and 500 acres, while 75%
have fewer than 200 acres (Table 11) . This points out
the limiting aspect of land size for thoSe farms grossing
less than $40,000.

Of all small farm operators 69% are full owners of
their land. 95% are white, but there seems to be little
difference in ownership by race. There are 3% fewer
White tenant farmers than there are black (Table 12) .

29% of small farms hire farm labor, spending an
average of $1069 per farm. Of those laborers 83% work
feWer than 25 days. 95% work fewer than 150 days (Table
13) - This indicates that most small farmers are dependent
on family labor.

Small farms also are limited in available capital.
One indication of this is that small farmers use much
1333 credit than do other farmers (Table 14). Of the
81“all farms ‘uSing credit the average debt per farm

is $25,180, half that. of medium size farms and a third

of the debt per fart: 52;: large farms.

47

Table 10 - Summary by Value of Agricultural Products
Soldyyl974, into Three Farm Sizes

. 4
Farm Sizes
Fanmsand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gand in Farms Total Small1 Medium2 Large3

_§3rme (number) 2,311,775 1,834,866 324,310 152,599
% 100 79.3 14.0 6.7

Land

_in Farms (acres) 961,964,901 438,507,931 246,639,638 276,817,332
% 100 45.6 25.6 28.8

Total

Cropland (acres) 439,074,974 199,210,806 123,914,003 115,949,165
% 100 43.0 28.2 26.4

Harvested

Cropland (acres) 302,410,581 113,213,798 95,118,383 94,078,400
% 100 37.5 31.4 31.1

Irrigated

Land (farms) 235,891 142,715 48,430 44,736
% 100 60.5 20.5 19.0

Irrigated

Land (acres) 40,955,167 8,237,677 8,684,972 24,032,518
% 100 20.1 21.2 58.7

1

"Small" refers to farms with gross yearly sales of $1,00-$39,999.
2"Medium“ refers to farms with gross yearly sales of $40,000-$99,999.

3"Large" refers to farms with gross yearly sales of $100,000 and over.

4Subtotals may not add to totals, some farm categories are excluded.

Source: Tables 49 and 56 in 1974 Census of Agriculture, Vol. II,
Part 7, pp. 34 and 58. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. July 1978.

 

'1.
.‘I

V
a
“ v

AP‘

."".4

 

 

48

 

 

 

 

Table 11 - Small Farms by Size in Acres, 19741
Egarms by Size Number of Small Farms Percent
1 to 9 acres 118,428 6.5 -
10 to 49 acres 363,198 20.0
50 to 69 acres 143,271 7.9
75.4
70 to 99 acres 223,971 12.3
100 to 139 acres 214,045 11.8
140 to 179 acres 191,912 10.6
180 to 219 acres 113,643 6.3 —
220 to 259 acres 89,047 4.9 :1 17.2
260 to 499 acres 224,412 12.3
500 to 999 acres 96,167 5.3
1.000 to 1,999 acres 35,853 2.0 8.4
2'000 acres and over 20,919 1.1

Total 1,813,947

 

g

1Small Farms - those grossing $1,000 - 39,999 in yearly sales.

Source: Tables 49 and 56, Census of Agriculture, 1974. U.S.
Bureau of the Census.

49

fralole 12 - Race and Tenure of Small Farm Operators,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19741!2
Number Percentage
£311 small farm operators 1,834,866 100 %
Full owners 1,269,713 69.2
Part owners 375,563 20.5
Tenants 189,590 10.3
White small farm operators 1,770,473 5.02.}
Full owners 1,226,482 69.3
Part owners 363,321 20.5
Tenants 180,670 10.2
Black and Other Race operators 54,592 199_%
Full owners 36,943 67.7
Part owners 10,315 18.9
Tenants 7,334 13.4

 

lFor definition of Race, see text 1974 Census of Agriculture.

2Small Farms - farms having $100-$39,999 gross yearly sales.

Source: Tables 49 and 56 in 1974 Census of Agriculture, Vol. II,
Part 7, pp. 34 and S8. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

July 1978.

50

Table 13 - Hired Farm Labor on Small Farmsl, 1974

Hired farm labor: farms 533,344
51,0005 570,049.
.Average dollars per farm (51,0005) 1.069

‘Wbrkers by number of days worked per farm:2

is
150 days or more 84,812 4.0
25 to 149 days 262,925 12.5
Less than 25 days 1,753,318 83.5

 

Total 2,101,055

 

1Small Farms are here defined as those having yearly gross
income of $1-$39,999.

2Data only available for small farms with yearly gross income
of $2,500-$39,999.

Source: Tables 49 and 56. Census of Agriculture, 1974.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.

51

Table 14 - Farm Operator Debt, 1974, by Size of Farm

Size of Farm

 

Large Medium Small
‘Number of Farms having Debt 88,368 166,956 420,094
Amount of Debt ($1,0005) 14,001,979 9,110,088 10,575,968
.Average Debt per Farm 158.45 54.00 25.18
($1,000)
Percent of Total Debt in
Each Farm Size 41.6 27.0 31.4

 

Source: Table 66, Census of Agriculture, 1974. U.S. Bureau of
the Census.

52

Many government farm programs have been instituted
in order to help the small farmers. While almost 50%
c>f farm program payments go to these farmers, on the
aaverage small farms receive much smaller payments
(Table 15).

Only 21% of all agricultural products sold come
from small farms (Table 16). However, this varies con-
siderably by specific commodity. Small farms produce
54% of the tobacco, 47% of the forest products, and 36%
of the forage crops. On the other hand, large farms
dominate the markets in sales of certain other commodi-
ties. Small farms thus produce only 4% of the poultry
and poultry products, 6% of field crops other than
grains, forages and cotton, 9% of the vegetables, and
10% of the nursery and greenhouse products. Other
commodities sold are produced by small farms at the
following levels: cotton (15%), fruits, nuts and
berries (17%), cattle and calves (19%), grains (25%),
dairy products (25%), hogs and pigs (26%), sheep, lambs
and wool (27%), and other livestock(27%).

Averages related to small farms across the whole
U.S. can take on quite a different flavor when viewed
from a regional standpoint. The next section will

briefly look at some regional aspects of small farms.

53

15 - Payments from Govergment Farm Programs
by Size of Farm, 1974

Size of Farm1

Large Medium Small

of Farms 19,493 40,691 155,485
5 (51,0008) 75,827 68,245 136,735
vi
payment per Farm 3889.96 1677.15 879.41 '
($)
of Total Payments
Farm Size 27.0 24.3 48.7

“I- '1’] A.:-

 

ti"
Li
1.-
-h
'4
1!.
{
T
l

 

ole 10 for size definitions

Tables 49 and 56, Census of Agriculture, 1974-
:eau of the Census.

 

54

Table 16 - % of Agricultural Products Sold -- By
Commodity Grogp and Size of Farru 1974

Size of Farm

 

 

@odity 532% Medium 1.3.593
ALL PRODUCTS (9%) 20.9 24.9 54.2
TOBACCO 53.9 25.9 20.2
GRAINS 25.0 33.0 42.0
FIELD SEEDS, HAY,

FORAGE 8 SILAGE 35.5 24.6 39.9
COTTON s. COTTONSEED 14.6 18.1 67.3
0mm: FIELD CROPS 5.9 12.2 81.9
VEGETABLES, SWEET CORN

s. MEIDNS 8.7 9.3 82.0
FRUITS, NUTS, 8 BERRIES 17.2 17.8 65.0
POULTRY s. POULTRY PRODUCTS 3.8 16.9 79.2

DAIRY PRODUCTS 25.5 38.4 36.1

CATTLE s. carves 19.1 15.8 65.1

SHEEP. LAMBS & WOOL 27.0 20.0 53.0

Boss 8. PIGS 26.5 35.5 38.0

OTHER LIVESTOCK 27.1 18.6 54.3

WERE! a GREENHOUSE

PRODUCTS 9.8 12.0 78.2

FORESTRY PRODUCTS 46.7 23.1 30.2

_\

 

Source: 1974 Census of Agriculture, 131:7: Table 61-

 

:ls

55

3. Small Farms by Region

Small farms are found in every state. As mentioned

earlier 79% of all farms gross less than $40,000 in

sales. These farms are more prevalent in some areas

than others, however. The map in Figure 6 gives some

idea of the distribution of small farms across the
country, based on a $20,000 gross sales divider. By
this method of counting small farm concentration is
highest in states such as West Virginia (93%) , Tennessee
(90%), Kentucky (86%), Virginia (83%), and Alabama (81%).

Another fourteen states have over 70% concentration of

small farms: Texas (79%), South Carolina (78%), Alaska

i
._'i 7
’1
X ._
a _\
4 ' ‘V
I» h .9
. 3' :‘
J.~ k ‘ -

'E‘

1“ ,.
31*".- .
u 7 _‘

3 e
. x
. I”: .
, I 1
i .'

‘ .
.

(78%), Oklahoma (76%), Missouri (75%), Florida (74%),

 

North Carolina (74%), Louisiana (73%), Hawaii (73%),
Michigan (73%), Utah (73%), New Mexico (71%), Oregon
(71%) and Arkansas (70%) . (See Appendix 2 for a com-
PIEte listing).

By the new USDA small farm definition (see section
II.C2.1.) 6.6% of North Eastern farms are small farms,
with 43.9% in the North Central Region, 39% in the South
and 10.5% in the West. For the U.S. small farms repre-
sént only 53% of all farms (see Appendix 3 for more
details).

However, based on the definition preferred by this
author (less than $40,000 gross sales - see II.C.1.),

s<Blue interesting regional variations emerge (Table 17) .

56

 

 

>82 .mocmxuoz Such AHOEm mom.

.mhmu

A on» no mmcwcooooum "mozmma swam Madam

.momm edema
"euusom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$02 .823
«we
aooouaooe
will mdwalllilllllllu . .
.U<3 nHHHnnvIIllllnl . Scam-Sooa
in . ll (lllllflliMlLluHfl'lllllllll.
muamflndnwmmmwrlufilllWlJ _ Mu $59-8o6e
”muse- H, -lllll...“ T- a... z .55.
.Hujxo
ltl (ii “(((lilrllllll
l. 02W .23. .433
m: y .50 ill.) ”Gunman“.
. <.. uxx+mxs
as. .111 r p .. >uz.
may. .IJ maxoxmox
«so. ”waxwxmmw
5:3 .lxxeamwmw
mi :3 m 9.3.
22:4 3.0
5.3 2 ~st
[/01
zis

 

 

 

 

 

30.3 :2: one. — —

 

 

 

 

mo emmueooeem .o euzmqm

 

.vhmu .uueum an coceomwlccze mama mo

mu~cm unacc< new: ninth

57

Table 17 - Small Farms by Regions, 1974, with Average
Net Farm Income

 

 

(% of Market value of Net farm

Regions Farm # total) ag products sold (%) income (%)

U.S. 1,834,866 100% 17,524,252 100% 4,731,633 100%
($2,578.73

North /U.S. farm)

East 97,085 5.3 996-769 5.7 193,998 4.1
($1'998'82/farm)

North

Central 754,706 41.1 9,532,981 54.4 3,127,769 66.1

. ($4,144.35/farm)

South 810,037 44.2 5,328,410 30.4 1,188,078 25.1
($1,466.70/farm)

West 173,038 9.4 1,668,091 9.5 221,786 4.7
($1,281.72/farm)

 

Source: Census of Agriculture, 1974.

 

 

58

There is a significant concentration of small farms in
the North Central and Southern regions. The North
Central farms have a much higher level of goods sold
(54% of total small farms in U.S.) and the highest
average income ($4144/farm).

Having looked at the past and current situation of
the small farm in the U.S., we will consider some of
the active forces of change and the role of the small

farm.

 

59

D. Chapter Footnotes and Miscellaneous References

Footnotes

1Philip M. Raup. "Societal Goals in Farm Size"
ed. by A. Gorden Ball and Earl O. Heady. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa. 50011. 1972.

2Embodied in these early philosophies were aspects
of an effort to break the British system of primogeniture
and entail, and to emphasize the right to occupy and own
vacant land without reference to any prior claims Britain
might think it had. (see #1).

3Ibid., p. 4.
4Ibid., p. 5.
5

North Central Regional Center for Rural Develop-
ment. Small Farm Research Priorities in the North Central
Region. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 50011.
February 1979, p. 1.

6U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Agricul-
ture, 1974. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 1978.

 

7Ibid.

81bid.

9Op. cit. Raup, p. 7 (see #1).

10Status of the Family Farm. USDA, ESCS, AER #434,
Washington, D.C. 20250. September 1979.

llIbid., p. 8.

12Alex P. Mercure. Rural America in the 19705.
Statement before the Subcommittee on Rural Development of
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
U.S. Senate. April 25, 1978.

 

 

60

13Andrew J. Sofranko, and James P. Williams, eds.

rth of Rural America: Rural Migration in the Mid-

. North Central Regional Center for Rural Develop-
. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 50011. June
. 215 pp.

14David Orden and Dennis K. Smith. Small Farm

rams: Implications From a Study in Virginia. Research
etin 135. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
ersity, Blacksburg, Virginia. 24061. October 1978,

 

9.
1511618., p. 21.
16
Mercure, p. 90 (see #9).
17E. M. Babb. "Some Causes of Structural Change in

Agriculture" in Structure Issues of American Agri-
Jre. USDA, ESCS, AER #438, November 1979.

181618., p. 52.

19Following section on technology from:

:hi Lu, and Leroy Quance. Agricultural Productivity:
1ding the Limits. USDA, ESCS, Agricultural Informa-
Bulletin #431. August 1979.

20Energy- A Vital Resource for the U.S. Food

gm: Cost and Policy_Impacts on Agriculture and the
Jmer. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. Chicago, IL December 19,
. p. 25.

 

21George Ayers. Class Notes from "Biological Pest
:01” Michigan State University, Spring Term 1980.

22B. A. Stout and C. A. Myers, A. Hurand, L. W.
Ley. Energy for World Wide Agriculture. Michigan
9 University, East Lansing, MI 48824. September 1977.

 

23Amory Lovins. Talk at Michigan State University,
Lansing, MI 1979.

24Ibid.

61

25Herman Koenig, Personal Communication, Michigan
.e University, East Lansing, MI 1978.

26Ibid.

27Op. cit. David Orden (#14), p. 9.

281bid., p. 10.

29Ibid., p. 12.

30Ibid., p. 12.

31David H. Harrington. "Perspectives on the Eco-
cs and Structural Change in U.S. Agriculture" in
pture Issues of American Agriculture. USDA, ESCS,
cultural Economic Report 438. November 1979.

32Ibid., p. 48.

331bid.

34Ibid.

3SSmall Farm Viability Project. The Family Farm
alifornia. November 1977.

 

36J. Patrick Madden and Heather Tischbein. "Toward
genda for Small Farm Research." Am. J. of Ag. Econ.,
61:5, December 1979.

37Authors referred to were H. 0. Carter, Willard W.
rane, Paul Findley, Varden Fuller, Charles Harden,
Nelson and Luther Tweeten.

38Don Paulberg. "Farm Price and Income Support
rams and the Future of the Family Farm" in Can the
1y Farm Survive. Special Report 219, University of
ouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1978.

39Op. cit. Status of Family Farm (#10) p. 37.

40Op. Cit. Don Paulberg (#38), p. 57.

62

41Small Farm Viability Project (#35), p. 6.

42Ibid., p. 11.

4311818.

44Ibid., p. 10.

45Ralph E. Hepp, "Small Farms in U.S. Agriculture",
Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 79-45, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824. 1979. 18 pp.

46Op. cit. Madden and Tischbein (#36).

47Thomas A. Carlin, "Small-Farm Component of U.S.
Farm Structure" in Structure Issues of American Agricul-
ture. USDA, ESCS, Agricultural Economic Report 438,
November 1979. pp. 274-277.

 

and

Ovid Bay. "USDA Small-Farm Policy: Emphasis on
the Family" Issue Briefing Paper #28, USDA. Office of

Governmental and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250.

September 19, 1980.

481bid. (Carlin), p. 274.

49Ibid. (Carlin and Bay).

SOIbid. (Carlin).

51Status of the Family Farm. Committee on Agricul-
ture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Congress, Senate.
96th Congress, lst Session. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 1979.

 

52James E. Horne. Small Farms: A Review of
Characteristics, Constraints, and Policy Implications.
SRDC Series #33, Southern Rural Development Center.
Mississippi State, MS 39762. September 1979. 35 pp.

and

Census of Agriculture, 1974. Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D.C. 1978 .

 

 

 

 

“-5..”- .

 

 

 

63

53J. Patrick Madden and Heather Tischbein. Joint
Statement in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Agri-
cultural Research and General Legislation of the Committee
of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. U.S. Congress,
Senate. 96th Congress, lst Session. U.S. Government

Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1979.

54Other, more appropriate, measures might be possible

for research projects including in-the-field surveys of
the population to be evaluated. This, however, is a costly

technique .

550p. cit., Hepp (#46), pp. 2-3.

 

64

Miscellaneous References

Herman E. Koenig and Thomas C. Edens.
Eccfilogy and Economics: Elements of a Thermodynamically

Based Economy." in Problem Analysis in Science and
Engineering ed. by F. H. Branin, Jr., and K. Husegin.
Academic Press 1977.

"Energy

Curtis Stadtfeld, From the Land and Back. Charles
Scribner' 5 Sons , 1972 .

USDA, ERS. The Economic and Social Conditions of
Norumetrgpolitan America in the 19705. 1975.

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.
SmaJJ.Farm Research Priorities in the North_Central Region.
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011. February 1979.

World Energy Outlook. Exxon Background Series.
December 1979.

 

 

".

Chapter III
ACTIVE FORCES OF CHANGE AND THE

ROLE OF THE SMALL FARM

The "Welfare" v5. "Function” Debate

Social Aspects: The Value of Small Farms in
Rural Communities.

Energy

1. Transportation, Decentralization, and
Diversification

2. Labor Intensive Operations and Family
Farm Units

Organic Agriculture
1. Energy

2. Health

3. Environment

4. Poverty

Roles of Small Farms
1. Full-time

2. Part-time

Footnotes and Miscellaneous References

 

Chapter III
ACTIVE FORCES OF CHANGE AND THE

ROLE OF THE SMALL FARM

A. The "Welfare" vs. "Function" Dispute

In the past there has been a general agreement
that small farms are an anachronism out of place in
large-scale, capital intensive modern agriculture.
There has been a consensus that they are inherently

economically inefficient.

Past agricultural policies were based on
the premises that:

a) small farmers are not economically
viable;

b) the best opportunities for those
operating small farms are in the
non-farm sector; and

c) the world's food and fiber needs
can best (most efficiently) be met
by large-scale, energy-and-capital-
intensive agriculture.

 

These policies have had the message of "get big
or get out," and, indeed, that is what happened to many
small farms. Between 1950 and 1974 alone there was a
loss of over three million farms (see Table 18). Of
those, 76.2% were small farms. Medium sized farms de-
creased by 25.4% and large farms increased by 1.6%.
Change also occurred in the share of the market sales

by size (Table 19). In 1950 the respective share of

65

a.“

66

Table 18 - Change in Number of Farms, by Size! 1950-1974.

 

 

 

 

Sizes Number of Farms1
31: Farms 1950 1974 Change Percent Change
Small 4,169,441 1,834,866 -2,334,575 -56.0
Mediumn 1,102,362 324,310 - 778,052 -70.6
large 103,231 152,599 + 49,368 +47.8
Total 5,375,034 2,311,775 -3,063,259 -57.0

 

1 .
Abnormal farms not included

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture,
1950 and 1974.

 

67

Table 19 - Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold,
by Size of Farm, 1950 and 1974.

 

FARM SIZES
Small Medium Large
1974
Market Value ($10005) 17,524,252 20,071,570 43,699,427

Percentage of Market

 

Share 21.6 24.7 53.7
1950

Market Value ($10005) 5,824,598 10,577,563 5,786,964

Percentage of Market

Share 26.2 47.7 26.1

******

Percent change within

Farm Sizes, 1950—1974 — 4.6 -23.0 +27.6

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1950 and
1974.

 

“in 1:

"My .1.

 

“A“
Vie.

(‘)
(D

We“.

‘0‘;
VV

.v.‘

(K)

h‘.

1,,
in“:

\
d'l‘
uh.

 

68

the market for small, medium and large farms was 26.2%,
47.7% and 26.1%. By 1974 that had adjusted to 21.6%,
24.7% and 53.7%, showing that large farms were benefiting
from the market policy advantages they were receiving.
However, the 19705 saw evidence of an increasing
concern for the "small farm problem." The Rural Develop-
ment Act of 1972 and the 1977 Food and Agriculture Act
both included sections advising development of extension
and research programs for small farmers. Jim Hightower
(Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times) was not impressed with the
efforts. Concerning the Rural Development Act, he wrote,
"Having failed millions of small-scale operators during

the past thirty years, USDA washes its hands of them...

 

(the Act) is USDA's answer to their small-farmer 'problem.‘
But the effort here is not to help the little guy in
farming, it's to help him out of farming...it could do as
much for the small farmer as it does for the biggest
farmer and for corporate agribusiness. But it does not."
In 1978, USDA, ACTION, and the Community Services
.Administration sponsored five regional conferences on
Small Farming.3 Following those conferences, in January
1979, Secretary of AgricUlture, Bob Bergland, declared
that.USDA policy would seek to preserve a place for the
sma11.farm operation in American agriculture.4 (See

Appendix 4 for USDA's actions in implementing this policy.)

69

Following are the suggestions of the USDA Ad Hoc Com-
mittee on Small Farms of the Joint Council on Food and
Agricultural Sciences:

1. The rationale for assisting small-scale
farmers is based on the following four
principles:

—- All farmers, regardless of farm size,
should be in a position to benefit from the
agricultural science and education system;
because of varying needs and types of
farming, no single method of assistance
will suffice. Programs must meet the
unique needs of small-scale as well as
larger-scale farmers.

-- Simple humanity requires attention be
given to those whose needs are greatest,
and human dignity dictates that effort be
expended to assist low income small-scale
farmers to raise their income, from either
farm or nonfarm earned income.

 

-- An agricultural system that accommodates
small farms provides the opportunity for
persons to choose small-scale farming, or to
combine farming with off-farm employment as
a life style.

-- Assistance to small-scale farmers will
promote better management and more effective
use of a significant body of the nation's
natural resources.

2. Small farm research, extension and teaching
should not be undertaken:

-- To significantly affect the food
supply, or

-- For purposes of altering the number of
farms producing most of this nation’s food
and fiber.

70

3. Success of a small-farm effort should be
measured by:

-- The number of small-scale farm families
whose real earned farm and nonfarm income
increases, with greater emphasis given to
raising all farm families above the poverty
level.

-- Number of small-farm families who per-
ceive that their quality of life has improved.

-- Reduction in underemployed rural human
resources.5

While much is praise-worthy in the above proposals,
point 2 specifically limits government small farm efforts
to the "welfare" realm. This is not only likely to
affect the direction of policy decisions in the future
in terms of taxes, and credit availability, etc., but
may limit efforts in research and education that could
help the small farmer become a more viable participant
in the food and fiber system.

Why should treating small farms as a welfare issue
be significant? In general, it seems that in the past
an almost deliberate policy stand was taken to push
small farms out of agriculture. This was related to the
chronic surplus production that threatened prices and
therefore the livelihoods of all farmers. As Kenneth
Boulding, an agricultural economist at the University

of Michigan, once wrote:

 

71

The only way I know to get toothpaste out
of a tube is to squeeze, and the only way
to get people out of agriculture is to
squeeze agriculture... If you can't get
people out of agriculture easily, you are
going to have to do farmers severe in-
justice in order to solve the problem of
allocation.6

(See Appendix 5 for the policy of the Committee for

Economic Development [CED] for the farm labor force.)

The remaining small farmers indeed mainly exist

in poverty. (See Table 17, Chapter 2.) Average net

LAMA 4‘5

» m i
-1

farm income for small farms in the U.S. is $2579.
Small farms in the North Central region fare the best

with an average net farm income of $4144. Critics

l _,
11‘

have suggested, however, there is no reason to limit

 

small farm policies to the "welfare" realm.

Dr. Allen Thompson, from the Whittemore School of
Business and Economics at the University of New Hamp-
shire, has several conclusions concerning small farms:

1) Past research and policy has failed

to consider the "externalities" of farm
policy effects on the rest of the economic
system - leading to a systematic under-
standing of the true costs of farm policies
that have helped reduce the number of small
farmers. Social costs and benefits should
be considered for any policy.

2) Small and large farms seem to operate
in different economic systems and past
economic models are more appropriate for
researching large farms.

72

3) A separation.of potential from actual

efficiency is necessary. Significant gains

can be made over current small farm produc-

tivity by employing more modern technology

and better management. Past data on small

farm efficiency reflect the results of the

institutions that favor larger farms. In

many cases inefficiency is not due to inr

herent diseconomies of scale in production.

One interesting point can be noted by returning
to look at changes in market share of sales (Table 19).
Small farms, in.Spite of a 76% decrease in numbers over
a 25-year period, only lost 4.6% of their share of the
market. While large farms have captured over half of x;
the market, smaller farms progressed more (relative to ”Hue?"

their size) by increasing their sales per farm more

than did large farms (Table 20).

 

The rest of this chapter explored areas in which
there are special considerations relevant to small farms
that indicate their potentially vital roles in agricul-

ture and society.

B. Social Agpects: The Value of Small Farms in Rural
Communities

Policies affecting small farms have wider implica-
‘tions for rural and urban society. The urban implica-
-tions of the mass migration from rural areas are familiar-
high unemployment, ghetto poverty, unadjusted people,

etc. Rural areas suffered from the withdrawal of the

73

Table 20 - Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm, r“

BygSize, 1950 and 1974.

 

Size of Farm 1950 1974
($ Sold by Farm)
Small 1,400 9,551
Medium 9,595 61,890
Large 56,058 286,368

Percent Increase

682

645

511

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1950 and

1974.

 

74

population as well. While there has been a movement
back into rural areas that has improved job oppor-
tunities,

...it is important to note that not all
rural areas or rural people have shared

in this growth. Approximately 500 counties
in parts of the Great Plains, the Cornbelt,
and the Mississippi Delta continue to lose
population as many have been doing for 20
or 30 years. Most of these counties are
agricultural and have experienced an exodus
of workers from agriculture that has ex-
ceeded non-farm job creation.

For almost 30 years there was only one study of
the relationship between agricultural structure and

rural communities. Walter Goldschmidt conducted a study

of two Californian communities that were similar in many

 

economic and social aspects.9 The main difference was
that one was surrounded principally by large commercial
farms, while the other was in the middle of small family
farms. The determination he made was that the community
serving small farms had a more active economic and social
life than did the community surrounded by large farms.10
The town surrounded by family operated units was superior
in all measures reflecting quality-of-life: "income,
level of living, social and physical amenities, social
and religious institutions, and the degree of local con-
trol of the political process."11

After Goldschmidt's study there have been several

<5ther studies conducted. Two relatively unknown projects

75

were studies of Maine's contract-broiler growers,
comparing the social and family characteristics of in-
dependent egg producers and broiler growers with those
who had formal contracts with large vertically inte-

12 The studies were in the late 19505 and

13

grated firms.

again in the early 19605. There seemed to be few

social or economic disadvantages for the contract
broilers. However, the study did not focus significantly
on measuring the community life of the producers.

A fourth study, this one by William D. Heffernan,
at the University of Missouri-Columbia, compared the
community life of family farmers and of farmers involved

in contract broiler productions with that of workers

and managers of larger than family farms.14 This

Louisiana-based study provided four main conclusions:

First, workers in corporate-farmhand structures
are less involved in the formal and political
activities of the community than are those in
family farm structures. Secondly, owner—managers
in the corporate farmhand structures are more
involved in those aspects of the community than
are family farmers. Thirdly, the first two con-
clusions suggest rather clearly that the corpor-
ate farm structure, relative to the family farm
structure, begins to emphasize the two extremes
with community and political involvement. This
type of agricultural structure suggests the de-
velopment of two rather distinct social classes
of rural America which undermines the traditional
American ideal of equality. The fourth conclu—
sion is that little difference exists between
workers in the corporate integrated structure and
workers in the family farm structure with regard
to community involvement.

 

 

76

A fifth study was done by the Community Service
Task Force of the Small Farm Viability Project in

California in 1977. It restudied Goldschmidt's two

16

communities. Changes had occurred in the two areas

over time, and the study documents the historical
growth patterns of the large-farm and the small-farm
communities over 30 years. Following are the findings
of the original study compared with the current update
information:

As in 1945, the small-farm community continues
to support more businesses than the large-farm
community by a ratio of 2:1.

The volume of retail trade in 1976 was greater
by nearly 70% in the small-farm community, an
improvement over the 61% advantage in 1945.

Expenditures for household supplies and building
equipment were not available.

It was also impossible to determine the number
of persons supported per dollar volume of agri-
cultural production.

The small farm community has improved its ma-
terial advantage since 1945, as measured by
median family income.

In 1976 Dinuba had 2% times the number of inde-
pendent business outlets in Arvin, a ratio
equivalent to that found in 1945.

Farm laborers constituted 37.6% of the large-
farm community's labor force in 1970 and only
13.7% of the small-farm community's, compared
with 66% and 33% respectively in 1945.

The number of physical facilities and public
services is still far greater in the small-farm
town.

-r an :"THV‘WT' _.
1

vet‘s-—..q»-a
w- - p- -
. ‘ .

”:13 w. .
...-

 

 

77

As in 1945, there are more schools in Dinuba
than Arvin; four elementary schools to two,
one junior high school to none, and one high
school in each town.

The small-farm town still provides its
citizens with many more park facilities;
five parks to two, and eight playgrounds to (

none .
e

The small-farm town has more than four times
the number of social and civic organizations.

Public recreation centers were not touched
upon.

 

 

Today as in 1945, Dinuba supports two news-
papers, while Arvin has one.

Consistent with 1945, churches bear the ratio
of 2:1 in favor of the small-farm community.

-. 5-, ~— -., ._._..—.a,..,..'.’
r' a . .4 -. 3' . -. . .3.

Local decision-making is more accountable and ,
unified in the small-farm community, whereas 8
in the large-farm town, decisions are made in. 5
a confusing and fragmented fashion because of
the proliferation of special districts. This
reaffirms the 1945 findings.17

 

Finally, a sixth study was done by University of
California-Davis, also in California.18 This covered
130 towns in the San Joachim Valley, with the objective
of comparing size of operation, ownership of land and
‘water resources, and the quality of community life.
The findings point out that there is a pattern of ad-
xnantage going to those communities with small farming

area or democratic. water usage or both. "Large scale

(agriculture offers the local communities no substantial

advantage . " 1 9

78

The Community Service Task Force outlines the
process of structural change it found:

When small farms are replaced by larger
farms a process of economic and social
decay begins in rural communities. As
farm families move away, local businesses k
begin to dry up. Social organizations also '
begin to stagnate as opportunities and
local revenues shrink. Public services are
constricted by the reduction of the local
tax base. As control of the land base is
concentrated the probability of absentee
ownership is increased. This erodes the .
local control of community residents and bi
takes more money from the local economy.
The population of the community becomes
less stable as hired labor, often seasonal,
replaces local labor, and average incomes
tend to drop. This situation also prevails
in areas of California that ware developed
originally into large farms.2

 

The Task Force pointed out however, that all is

 

not necessarily rosy for small farm communities. They
may be isolated, and may have a limited tax base, as
the main employment base (agricultural land) is outside
the taxing jurisdiction of small cities. If unincor-
‘porated, funds will be received from the county, but
at low levels. Small communities are frequently less
lcnowledgeable concerning applying for state and federal
assistance. There may well be a housing shortage, in-
adequate sewer and water systems; costs for utilities,
21

transportation and retail food are high. Again,

there is room for creative public planning and policy

making.

 

79

C. Energy,

As energy in agriculture has been discussed
elsewhere, at this point the paper will be confined
to a short discussion of the more important points.

1. Transportation, Decentralizationj and
Diversification

Energy costs in agriculture go beyond the simple
aspects of production. After production, commodities
can and are shipped across the state, country and world.
Where competition is strong, it's possible to see an
East Coast enterprise ship exactly same product to the
West Coast that a West Coast concern is shipping east.
Economists have been at pains to defend, or at least ex-
plain, this massive criss-crossing transportation net-
work. At the beginning of an era of resource rising
costs and shortages, it becomes less acceptable and
feasible. One area, the San Joaquin Valley, produces
42% of California's agriculture products, or close to
one-twentieth of the total U.S. output.22 Though it
has been calculated that by the year 2000, California
‘will have so many people it won't be able to export any

23 currently the rest of the country is fairly

food,
dependent on Californian food and fiber. This is quite
evidence by the “shock waves“ felt through the nation
'when.California has bad weather that damages or wipes

out.a.crop. The situation is hardly a stable one.

 

 

80

Residents of the North East feel themselves particularly

vulnerable and are starting a push for regional 'food

self-reliance.‘24

In a written report, two small farm advocates

from Vermont maintained: "We will never produce F
more than half our food needs, but we can

begin to cut the margin and in so doing we can
keep the food dollar in Vermont, keep people
off the public dole, rely less on social serv-
ices, help rebuild our rural communities, and
finally create a sense of interdependence among

the rural people."25 y

 

So regionalism, also praiseworthy from the perspective of s.mx\”*
energy conservation as from stable food supply, is be- '

ginning to generate support.

Energy limitations can affect the structure of

 

community organization as well as the structure of agri- ,yfi;§ei
culture. Dr. Herman Koenig, Director of the Center for
Environmental Quality at Michigan State University, he-
lieves the energy problems will be severe for the future.
1T0 improve the possible situation, Dr. Koenig recommends
a: decentralized form of society: small service self-

snifficient communities surrounded by small (say ten acre)

pJJJtS of land for growing a part of the local food sup-

26

ply.
In close conjunction with a regional and decentralized

form of agriculture and corrununity is the idea of diversi-

fszation. This implies a move away from the emphasis on

the: vast monocultural systems of agriculture, to produce

81

a mixture of commodities. Even more energy efficient
can be small integrated crop and livestock farms. The
products and wastes from the integrated systems comple-
ment each other, even moving toward an ideal difficult
to achieve - closed-system agriculture (wherein an agri-
cultural unit would be input self-sufficient and the
output generally stay on the farm). Diversification
can vastly improve the biological system itself, aiding
when properly designed, in effective pest control.

2. Labor-intensive Operations and Family Farm

m

One theoretical major difficulty of limited re-
source farms is a lack of capital for many energy-
intensive inputs. In reality, the small farmer's
ability to substitute labor-intensive technology for
capital and energy-intensive operations is a major ad-
vantage. As energy and capital become more expensive
and less accessible, the small farmer maintains a degree
of flexibility unavailable to his larger counterparts.

While industry may expect a 13-15% return on in-
‘vested capital, farmers may receive only 6% (even before
any'return to management). In many ways this is related
'to a.lack of choice on the part of the farmers. For
rmany farmers, however, objectives may extend beyond
Imaximum profit and include consideration of farming as a

‘WBY’Of life, not just a way to make a living.

82

D. Organic Agriculture

Organic Agriculture is just emerging as a respectable
farming technology.29 Much research remains to be done,
but what exists so far is encouraging. It seems that
though organic technologies can be used on large—scale
farms, they are best adaptable to small operations.
With low input requirements, organic agriculture meets

many of the needs of limited-resource farmers.

1. Energy
The Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, of

Washington University in St. Louis, conducted a study
comparing matched conventional and organic farms, mainly

30 The organic farms were much

analyzing field crops.
less energy intensive. The high energy inputs used by
conventional farms were inorganic fertilizers and pesti-
cides (see the Chapter II discussion on Energy in Agri-
culture). The Organic farms averaged 6.9 thousand BTU's
per dollar of market value produced, while the average
for the conventional farms was 16.2.31

Just as "small farmer" refers to a wide spectrum,
so’does "organic farmer": the definitions are many. But

it can be said that organic farmers tend to use less

energy intensive inputs.

2. Health

There has been increasing consumer concern over

83

widespread chemical additives in processed foods and
over the chemicals sprayed for pest control on food.
Diets are changing, with a shift in evidence toward more

32 This can

”natural," unsprayed and unprocessed foods.
be of benefit not only to the organic farmer, but also
to the small, local farmers, as both may be able to
market their products direct to consumers. Additionally,
health considerations are important to those farmers
switching into organic agriculture. They cite interest
in the health of their family, the soil, and the animals

they raise, when organic practices are used.33

3. Environment

 

Farmers have been called "stewards of the soils,"
but in many parts of the country the stewardship is not
working very well. Iowa, for example, is praised for
its cost sharing conservation efforts, paying close to
$6 million last year. Despite this, the efforts cover
only 20% of what needs to be done. Forty years from now
an additional 40% (10% now) of Iowa's farmland will be

34

severely eroded. One young farmer, after pointing out

that a "cheap food policy" is in reality a cheap raw
materials policy, continued to say,

But in the end, we will have sold America's
agricultural treasure at discount. We will
have strained the family farm system to the
point of rupture... We will take the respon-
sibility, because we're not just stewards of

. ~ . ' " 'S.‘ " E
(Whig .3

 

 

84

our soil, we are stewards of our energy and
water resources as well. We hold them in
trust for future generations... And we‘re
managing that trust about as well as some
of our forebearers looked after the buffalo
herd. And as a young farmer I'm beginning35
to know what it felt like to be a buffalo.

Organic agriculture techniques are not only less

energy intensive, but emphasize soil building and con-

servation.

...greater effort to conserve soil and water
and protect the environment is an.inescapable
mandate for the future. Organic agriculture
may not only be in a better position to con-
form, but may have pointed lessons for all to
learn. It may have played a demonstration
role. If this be true, it could be the single
most positive contribution organic agriculture

makes...36
4. Poverty

Organic agriculture as mentioned above is an.appro-
priate technology for limited resource farmers. The
National Sharecroppers Fund recognized this in the late
19605, adopting organic methods for training its agricul-
tural paraprofessionals, who help NSF coops.37 Today the

Frank Porter Graham Center (see Chapter IV) carries on the

‘tradition.

E. Roles of Small Farms

Small farms function, or try to, over a wide range

(of life situations. Some small farm.operators may be

 

 

more interes:

c: not that 1

bY' An many
Paper 8 p‘ZODo

 

85

more interested in 'just living in the country,‘ whether
or not that limits their agricultural efficiency.

Others are definitely in farming to feed their families,
whether they can provide a good living or barely scrape
by. In many respects there is little difference in this
paper's proposal for the roles of small farmers and those
they fulfill today. The objective is to help these roles

and the people in them to function more effectively, in

ways they may not today.

1. Full-time

The full-time small farmer should be viable, parti-
cipating actively in the food or fiber system to the
limit of his objectives. A combination of good enterprise
selection and integration into his system, with good man-
agement, in a climate of favorable institutional policy,
will make the small farmer's success much more likely.
The full-time farmer can be helped to find advantageous
conditions and strength in numbers by aiding him to join
or form a c00p for input purchasing, or more importantly,
for marketing. Also valuable in the long term is the
.active encouragement to everyone, including the farmer,
'to'take seriously his role as steward of the soil to en-
hance its productivity long into the future. Also of
great benefit to the farmer would be direction in using

newer, less energy intensive methods and systems.

 

.l

gm ~- 7‘. 4'": 7;: f 7 "

15:.

2. Part
Tue par "

 

 

 

86

2. Part-time

 

The part-time farmer sometimes has more staying
power in adversity, from his significant off-farm income.
He has no less responsibility for the effective use of
the resources at hand than the full-time farmer, though
his relation to agriculture could be much more varied
according to conditions, such as:

--Entry into agriculture - With land and capital

equipment as expensive as it is today and interest

as high as it is, it is necessary for the begin-
ning farmer to have a large off-farm income or
other help. The disappearance of relatively in-
expensive entry into agriculture is forcing a de-
cline in the numbers of farmers as old ones retire
and are not replaced.

--Exit from agriculture - Part—time farming may

be a useful step in beginning the retirement

process or in divestment to leave agriculture.

--Supplemental income, or "two-timers" - Off-farm

income may be instrumental in raising the farmer's

quality of life. This can be properly approached
as a beneficial and intelligent option.

--Hobby farming - The farming activity (enjoyment

of the product) is the main objective here. Good

practices and different methods can still be in-
troduced, even as a way to gain their trial by

more reticent types of farmers.

87

--Country lifers or rural residents - The
objectives here are likely related to an
appreciation of country life. Agricultural
activity is probably on a small scale for
supplemental food.

--Self-sufficient - Though a share of rural
residents may practice a large degree of
self-sufficiency because of the exigencies
of rural poverty, this category is likely to
more describe those with goals of becoming
food and/or energy self-reliant as a virtue.
Possible other desires in this direction
would be to practice voluntary simplicity in

living and a barter economy for one's needs.

89

11Agricultural Structure and the Community. William

D. Heffernan in Can the Family Farm Survive? Special
Report 219, Ag. Experiment Station, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo. 1978.

12Ibid.

13Lewis A. Flock. Social and Family Characteristics
of Maine Contract Broiler Growers, Maine Agricultural Ex-
periment Station Bulletin 569, Orono, Maine, August 1960.

14Op. cit., Heffernan (#11).

15Ibid.

16Op. cit. Small Farm Viability Project (#10), p. 218.

17Ibid., p. 220.

18Ibid., p. 230.

19Ibid., p. 242.

201bid., p. 243.

211bid., pp. 244-245.

221bid., p. 230.

23USDA. A Dialogue on the Structure of American
.Agriculture: Summary of Regional Meetings. November 27—
December 18, 1979. p. 6.

24Massachusetts Cooperative Extension, New England
Small Farm Project, Personal Communication, July 1980.

250p. cit. (#23), p. 7.

26Dr. Herman Koenig. Personal Communication, Michigan
State University. Fall 1980.

27Op. cit., Heffernan (#11), P. 35.

1r ‘ '. M ‘
51.51332... .-. ._,; ._ .

 

8 .
Irw1n
he. Englewc

 

Report
353;. Study 1
D.C. 20250.

300rgani

Salt: A Com;
for Selected
Biology Of N;
’10- 63130.

90

28Irwin T. Saunders. Rural Society. Prentice-Hall,
Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. 1977.
29

Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming.
USDA Study Team on Organic Farming, USDA. Washington,
D.C. 20250. 1980.

30Organic and Conventional Crop Production in the Corn
Belt: A Comparison of Economic Performance and Energy Use
for Selected Farms. W. Lokerety, et a1. Center for the
Biology of Natural Systems, Washington University, St. Louis,
Mo. 63130.

31Organic Farming: Yesterday's and Tomorrow's Agri-
culture. R. Wolf, ed. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pa. 1977.

32"Shifting U.S. Diets May Alter Farming." Farm
Economics. Harold E. Neigh. Pennsylvania Cooperative Ex-
tension Service, University Park, Pa. 16802. 1980.

33"Iowa," The New Farm. Vol. 3:2, p. 7.

34Jerome Goldstein. The Leastigthe Best Pesticide
Strategy. J. G. Press.

35Steve Smysen. "What Price Productivity?" The New
Farm, Vol. 3:2, p. 13.

36Harold F. Breimyer. A paper on economics of organic
agriculture (Lincoln, Nebraska, October 24, 1980) cited in
Small Farm Advocate issue No. 6, Fall 1980.

37Robin Myers. "The National Sharecroppers Fund and
the Farm Coop Movement in the South" in Radical Agricul—
ture, Richard Merrill, ed. Harper and Row, New York.
1976.

i": . ..

“alfijoh-Inruen‘rurv .3 ., .

 

"h

Robe:
and Ecolom

‘

C) O
(n m 1’

Allanheld,

Charles
..... Nature af
59 Econ pa '
C01lifflbia, v0.

ti

 

USDA. T
Ni.

fat: Managing
“ “Yetf .
-e 3

91

Miscellaneous References

 

Robert Oelhaf. Organic Agriculture: Economic
and Ecological Comparisons with Conventional Methods.
Allanheld, Osmun & Co., N.Y. 1978.

 

Charles Alexander, Jr. and Philip F. Warnken.
The Nature and Extent of the Organic Agriculture Industry.
Ag Econ Paper No. 1978-37. University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo. 1978.

 

William E. Saupe. Information Needs Relatingyto
Small-Farm Programs; and Policies. USDA, ESCS Staff
Report, Washington, D.C. July 1980.

 

 

USDA. Living on a Few Acres: Yearbook of Agricul-
tureJ 1978. Washington, D.C. 1978.

Managing_the Part-time Farm. CES, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana. March 1966.

 

Chapter IV

SMALL FARM RESEARCH AND ACTIVITIES

A. Research
1. Historical Perspectives and the Past
Emphasis on Large Farm Problems
2. Small Farm Problems
3. 1978 CRIS Search
4. 1980 CRIS Search
5. Small Farm Research Needs

B. Small Farm Activities and Management Education
Programs

1. COOp Extension Programs in the South;
Missouri

. Frank Porter Graham Center
Agricultural Marketing Project
New England Small Farm Project

£11wa

Coolidge Center for the Advancement of
Agriculture

6. Organic Agriculture Organizations; MOFGA
7. The Mother Earth News

8. Center for Rural Affairs

9. Washington Small Farm Resources Network
10. Washington Cooperative Extension

11. Tilth

12. Rural Venture and Control Data Corporation
13. National Rural Center

C. Mini Small Farm Reference Library

D. Footnotes

as».

 

:1
I'D

Inln!

Chapter IV

SMALL FARM RESEARCH AND ACTIVITIES

This chapter will look at small farm research -
past and present, as well as recommendations for the
future (IV.A.). It will also briefly profile several
organizations and their small farm activities (IV.B.).
A small farm "mini research library" will be presented
for the service of those desiring a brief look at the

small farm situation through primary materials (IV.C.).

IV.A. Research

 

1. Historical Perspectives and the Past Emphasis
on Large Farm Problems

 

 

As has been discussed earlier, rural America under-
went considerable social and economic upheaval attended
by vast migrations off-farm. Between.l935 and 1974
close to 4 million.farms folded. There have been many
critics of the land grant complex.1 Some would like to
implicate it, along with big business, in purposefully
manipulating” conditions to create that rural upheaval.2
Others pointed out the institutional bias toward the
larger farmers. In 1970, Lauren Soth, an editor of the

Des Moines' "Register and Tribune", pointed out that the

92

4P: '

93

land-grant system spent most of its effort and funds
serving the largest and richest farmers while neglecting
the needs of the vast majority of farmers: "They have
not yet given anywhere near the attention in either
research or education to the problems of the bypassed
poor farmers and bypassed rural communities that their
numbers justify - to say nothing of help on the basis
of need."3
Some of this bias was an honest, though partially
misguided and narrow-minded, devotion to progress and
to the new technologies, with a serious lack of insight-
ful analysis of the long-term fruits of their labors.
Or perhaps that can be said only now, through the service
of hindsight. Others, not so kind, pointed out that the
people and corporations being served were those that
were contributing major money in grants for the research.
Possibly the most familiar critique, Jim Hightower's
Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times (published in 1973, in con-
junction with the Agribusiness Accountability Project4)
attacks the land grant complex on all fronts. The book's
title refers to the development by California land grant
research of a hard—skinned, tasteless tomato. This ex-
penditure of research effort and funds subsequently
made mechanical harvesting feasible. In turn, this led
to serious unemployment of Californian workers, and has

led to increased corporate concentrations in the

94

processing industry. (Four canning corporations now
control more than 80% of tomato processing.5) An
afternote that is both humorous and pathetic is that
California has since developed a "square" tomato to
further improve harvesting and transportation effi-
. 6
oiency.

1975 saw the passage of California's Farm Labor
Law, a major victory for the farm workers' unions.
In seemingly direct response, the University of
California forged quickly ahead in the development of
mechanized harvesters.7

The farm workers call the machines 'los

monstruos' - the monsters. They see them

as mechanical behemoths that threaten to

decimate the farm labor work force and

turn California into another Appalacia,

with an underclass of unemployed workers

as poor as any to be found in Kentucky

or West Virginia.8
In exchange for mechanical harvesting of 13 crops,
more than 120,000 farm worker jobs will be lost. In
response to farm worker criticism, J. B. Kendrick Jr.,
the University of California‘s vice-president for
agriculture, said that the university is an agent of
change: "It does not decide public policy or compen-

sate losers among conflicting societal interests."9

.Although one can argue that mechanization, and "progress

in general, are neither ;nherently good nor evil, still

it is obvic

 

 

Virtual abs
overall Pl
EESearch ca
PIOmOte the
its res-Lt:

detre l Opme :11

95

it is obvious that the university community instru-
mentally aids the formation of public opinion and of
public policy. Through these, as well as its research,
the land grant complex affects the structure of agri—
culture and the welfare of the country in a close to
virtual absence of public accountability. With no
overall plan, and a lack of societal consensus of goals,
research can proceed in many directions that may not
promote the overall good. Divorcing pure research from
its results echoes the dispute over the ethics of the
development of the atomic bomb.

Certainly one can say that the research and Exten-
sion of the past have been poorly responsive to the
needs of the small farmer. Granting this, what is the
next step? Clear decision making and predictive efforts
are hampered by the lack of sufficient background infor-
mation. The relative lack of interest in small farms,
until the past decade, has left large gaps.10 There is
just too much that is unknown. Research needs will be
addressed later (A.5.), but first a look at small farm

problems is appropriate to help judge the effectiveness

of current research.

96

IV.A.2. Small Farm Problems

 

Many areas that are problems for small farmers
have been identified as research needs (discussed
below in A.5). What has not been emphasized suffi-
ciently, however, is a recognition of the complexity
of the subject. Agricultural research traditionally
deals with aspects of production technology; much of
the traditional research is not size specific or size
exclusive. In other words, it gag be applied to the
needs of the small farmer. However, some situations
require size specific solutions; one cannot "move the
decimal point" on everything.

Another aspect is that some problems cannot be
dealt with at the farm level. These problems are re-
lated to institutions and government policies. A final
'consideration is, to reiterate, that "small farm"
covers a wide spectrum of types of units. Add to that
the micro “climates" (society, economics, etc.) for
different regions of the country, and one is faced with
great diversity. However, some problems are sufficiently
pervasive across the spectrum to be worthy of mention.
These fall into the general areas of marketing, finance,

education, technology, and natural resources.

7

small fart:

 

Many small

markets la:

 

 

97

Marketing - What many programs ignore is that a
small farm's production is useless without a buyer.
Many small farmers don't have access to the same
markets larger farmers use, sometimes because of low
volume and sometimes because of vertical integrations
(closed markets) within a commodity. Small farm con-
ference participants called for the development of
alternative markets, such as farmersr markets and other
direct-to-consumer routes. There is a lack of onefarm
storage facilities to allow delay of marketing until
prices improve. In some cases programs for pooling
products or small farmer co-operatives should be de-
veloped. Transportation to market can also be a major
problem for the small farmer.

Finance - Credit availability can frequently be
a serious problem. The Small Farm Viability Project11
felt that gaps in the supply of funds are more a function
of the experience and financial equity of a farmer than
of the size of his farm.

The Small Farm Advocacy Project12 specializes in
helping small farmers through the red tape in acquiring
loans from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and
the Small Business Administration (SBA). It had reported
considerable and lengthy delays for many farmers.
Federal income tax regulations on capital gains have

helped increase farm land prices, decreasing land

98

accessability for small farmers.

Education - Education programs for the small

 

farmer should cover a long term (2 - 3 years), and

be bilingual where appropriate. There is presently

a shortage of educators for small farmers; programs
for their training should be developed. The California
Small Farm.Viability Project suggested that student
small farmers receive subsistance allowances during
training, coordinating these with other welfare pay-
ments to prevent loss of benefits. Of particular
interest was a suggestion to integrate training pro-
grams with credit institutions and funds availability.

Technology - The agricultural sector has concen-

 

trated on.technologies for large farms for so long that
there is a critical need for the research and develop-
ment of new ag technologies specifically oriented to
small farms. Also, older technologies that are appro—
priate for small farms, but are no longer used because
of their lack of relevance to larger farms, should be
revived and remarketed. An.emphasis should be placed
on energy efficient technologies.

Natural Resources --The prime concern is for the

 

accessability of land inputs, and, in some parts of
the country, water availability is of equal importance.
Land speculation and foreign investment have bid up the

price of land in parts of the country so that it is

99

beyond the means of would-be new farmers ($14-16,000
per acre for agricultural land in parts of California).
This affects overall entry into agriculture, and makes
business more difficult for the existing small farmers.
Current estate taxes, income tax structure and capital
gains provisions all aid in creating this situation-
Dr. Harold Breimyer, agricultural economist at the
University of Missouri, believes that "those who invest
money in land speculation are participants in.inflation,
not hedgers against inflation?l3
This paper will proceed to investigate current

small farm research through the medium of two computer-

ized searches of land grant research projects.

100

IV.A.3 1978 CRIS Search

A CRIS (Current Research Information Service)
search for small farm related research activity was
run by Dr. Jerry West in 1978.14 Along with other
source material Dr. West was able to determine the
number of publicly funded small farm research projects,
the number of "scientist years" devoted to the projects,
and the funds devoted to those projects. (Table 21)
For comparison purposes, the totals for all publicly
funded state and federal agricultural research projects
were also determined. There were 25,730 ag research
projects with 10,983.4 scientist years supported by
$1,004,086,000 in funds (or $390,024 per project). The
small farm projects were categorized into those that
were social science related (50), and those that were
technology related (17), giving a total of 67 projects.
27.1 scientist years and $1,556,000 (or $23,224 per
project) were devoted to those 67 projects. There were
also some other projects that were determined to be on
topics related to and useful for small farms, though
not so directly aimed. These were called "marginal."
Dr. West commented that federal monies were just re-
cently available for small farm research, and that over
half of the funds went to 1890 institutions. Thus much

of the research was carried on in the South. Those 67

Table 21 -

 

“V136 of

Research

Tctal State
‘5‘ Federal

6.7 c A ‘.
T0414. 131 at;

Ag EXPQIimer:

Social SCier.
361a:

 

ed Ema:
Farm ReSEar
.a.- :esea:
3':

131-ejects “a
.0 small Pa

0

I
'U

H

101

Table 21 - Total Publicly Funded Ag Research Compared
with Small Farm Related Research Activity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1977-1978
Type of # of Scientist Total Funds
Research Projects Years (000$)
Total State
& Federal 25,730 10,983.4 $1,004,086

Total in State
Ag Experiment
Stations 20,725 6,556.7 594,230

Social Science
Related Small

 

Farm Research* 50 15.3 1,010
Technology

Related Small

Farm Research* 17 11.6 546
Total Small

Farm Research 67 27.1 1,556

Projects Marginal
to Small Farm
Research Problems 22 8.9 888

 

*Only projects at 1862 and 1890 land grant institutions were included.

Source: J. G. West's Agricultural Research and Extension Needs of
Small Scale, Limited-Resource Farmers, SJAE, July, 1979.

102

small farm projects were divided into groups by topic
(Table 22). The tOpics used (and number of projects)
were typology (16), enterprise combination (12),
marketing (9), technology (17), and "other areas" (13).
Structure of agriculture related projects were deliber-
ately excluded. It was generally felt then, as it is
today, that "typology" (description, analysis and “f
classification) represents the small farm research state
of the art. The typical first questions researchers

ask are, "Who are our small farmers?", "How many are
there?", "What resources do they have available?", "What
are their needs and desires?", "How can we, as researchers
best serve the small farmer?", etc. After that stage,
other projects may be designed to meet specific per-
ceived needs. However, as the breakdown of topics shows,
many of the projects were in areas other than typology.
This does not necessarily mean."beyond" typology, though.
Researchers from a number of different disciplines inde-
pendently start small farm projects. Thus a project on
“feeding requirements for small beef herds," for example,
may be initiated before there are any clear answers
available to typology questions. This situation can

have both advantages and disadvantages.

’n

 

Table 22 -

T‘pology

  
 

Mar} 1» ‘ ..
(e ‘lttg

m a
“a w
«9‘..an LOCK?
d‘

r3
0
II) (.4

 

103

Table 22 - Small Farm Research Projects at Land Grant
Institutions: 1977

 

 

Topic # of Projects
Typology 16
Enterprise Combination 12
Marketing 9
Technology 17
Other Areas* 13

Total -67-

 

*Includes Finance (3), Transportation (1), Government Programs (2),
Off-farm Employment (2), Human Capital (3), Social Dimensions (1),
and Community Impacts (1).

Source: J. G. West's Agricultural Economics Research and Extension
Needs of Small-Scale, Limited-Resource Farmers, SJAE, July 1979.

104

IV.A.4. 1980 CRIS Search

 

A more recent search (September 1980) of small
farm research projects was made through CRIS by this
author that looked at a somewhat wider background.
Unlike the earlier search, this one included projects
related to rural sociology and the structure of agri-
culture. The specific information request read "Listings
of all research related to small farms: all areas are of
interest. Some examples are: description and analysis,
sociology, appropriate technology and technology aimed
specifically at small operations, organic farming,
economies of scale, structure of agriculture, marketing,
any topic related to farm management, self-sufficiency,
Co-operative Extension programs, etc."

The search yielded 285 projects (Table 23), of
these 148 were directly related to small farms and
another 37 had some portion that specifically addressed
a small farm situation or problem. 100 other projects
were of a generalized nature that could be applied to
small farms. Table 23 breaks down the projects into
topic areas and whether the projects are directly related
to small farms (Direct), have a small farm portion
(Aspect), or are of a general, but applicable nature
(Marginal). These projects are listings for 1975 to
1980. The table further divides them into those

projects scheduled for completion prior to November 1980

 

Table 23 -'

 

 

 

Livestock

Description
& A“all/Sis

”€35 Eata '1
tv .
"Liners in
3r

105

Table 23 - Land Grant Small Farm Research Projects:

 

 

 

 

 

1975-1980*

Topic Direct Aspect Marginal Tatal
Crops 49(9/40)¢ 4(2/2) 16(9/7) 69
Livestock 25(7/18) --- --- 25
Description
5 Analysis 20(11/9) 1(1/-) 1(1/—) 22
Farm Management 34(13/21) 10(8/2) 15(12/3) 59
Structure
of Agriculture 13(5/8) 12(8/4) 60(40/20) 85
Foreign-Tropical 7(5/2) 10(7/3) 8(4/4) ‘_2§

Total 148(50/98) 37(26/11) 100(66/34) 285

 

 

*CRIS Data Thru September 1980.

4:Numbers in Parentheses are (# projects completed/# projects in

process).

and these

time, Pra
represente

 

r"
p)
O
U)
(D
P
:3
1

Cate-Sofie"
develor; 1-
currently
adére

53 s:

1)c

2)

106

and those that will still be in.progress after that
time. Projects completed and projects in progress are
represented in parentheses after the total number for
each topic and type. Of the total number of projects
142 have been completed and 143 are in.progress. Of
those in progress, 109 are in the Direct and Aspect
categories. Five of those deal with small farms in
developing countries, so one can say that there are
currently 104 land grant research projects that directly
address small farm problems. The topic areas are as
follows:

1) Crops: covers research related to plants,
waste management, related machinery processing, and
pest problems.

vegetables 23

pest management 15

fruit

machinery

waste management
beans

forages

tobacco
processing

HI—‘l—‘NN-bfi

2) Livestock: covers animals, related machinery,

diseases and pests, and waste management.

sheep
swine
dairy
beef
goats
fish

wwwqum

107

waste management 2
general 1
rabbits 1
poultry 1
feed 1

Projects in the following three categories
frequently had multiple objectives. Projects were
assigned to categories on the basis of what seemed to
be the main thrust of the project objective description
provided by CRIS.

3) Description and Analysis (D/A) -- includes
some income analysis and sociology aspects.

4) Farm Management (FM) -- includes income
analysis, enterprise selection, farm business manage-
ment, and marketing.

5) Structure of Agriculture (S/A) -- includes
socio-economic and rural development studies. (The
largest representation of this group is in the "marginal"
category.)

6) Foreign (Trop.) -- includes tropical small farm
research from Hawaii and developing country small farm
problems.

It is clear that the largest effort is in the area
of crops and livestock (78 total Direct and Aspect
projects with 60 of those "in progress"), with an emphasis
on the crops end. The farm management category is of
second highest magnitude (39 total projects, with 21 "in

progress") .

108

Table 24 indicates the regional location of the
universities carrying out the above projects. Again
the projects are listed as number completed/number in
progress. As in the 1978 CRIS search, the South* con-
tinues to dominate the field of small farm research,
accounting for 104 Direct and Aspect projects, or 62%.
The strongest concentration is from the South Atlantic
States with 57 projects (43 in progress).

According to the 1974 Census of Agriculturels,
using a $20,000 gross income dividing point, the South
had 48% of the U.S.‘s small farms. Under the new USDA
definition, the preliminary 1980 estimate gives the
South 39% of the country's small farms.16 Since
Federal research funds are sometimes divided on a formula
basis, changes in funding might occur in relation to the
small farm "decrease" in the South. The finalized new
Census of Agriculture data should bear light in this
respect.

The other three regions each had about 12% (38%
totally) of the projects: North Central 22 (22/10),
North East 21 (9/12), and West 20 (15/5). The main dif-
ference for these regions comes in looking at number of
projects completed/number of projects in progress. The
Western Region has by far the smallest number of projects
in progress.

*See Appendix 1 for listing of states in each Region.

109

Table 24 - Regional Location of Land Grant Small Farm
Research Projects*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region 93°32 Egg; _D_/_A FM §/_A_ Trop . Total
South Atlantic 6/24¢ -/7 1/2 6/8 1/1 -/1 57
W. South Central -/5 2/2 3/1 4/5 ——- l/- 23
E . South Central 314 _1_/_3 £44; 1_/_4_ 2_/_- :1 24
SOUTH 9/33 3/12 6/7 11/17 3/1 1/1 104
W. North Central -/1 --- --- 4/2 --- --- 7
E. North Central :::_ :2: .112 .411 .211 .113 15
NORTH CENTRAL-7U. --- 1/2 8/3 2/1 1/3 22
Middle Atlantic -/3 2/3 3/1 --- -/3 3/1 18
New England :11_ :::_ :::_ :£1_ 11:. :2: 3
NORTH EAST -/4 2/3 3/- -/1 1/3 3/1 21
Pacific -/2 1/2 --- l/- 3/- 4/- 13
Mountain :2: 111' 2:: .11: .41: ‘21: 7
WEST -/2 2/3 --- 2/- 7/- 4/- 20

 

 

*Current Research Information Service (CRIS) Search for 1975-80.
(Includes all projects under "Direct" and "Aspect")

¢#Projects completed/# projects in process (eg. 4/5)

.1

.."7'; a} .

110

IV.A.S Small Farm Research Needs

 

Analysis of past research discloses several
weaknesses that hamper its effectiveness.17 The
problems range from research relevant only to limited
geographic areas to obsolete research that is no longer
valid for current Federal programs, prices, and tech—
nology. There is frequently a failure to distinguish
between the different types of small farms, and the
research generally uses a single factor (gross sales,
number of acres of land, etc.) to define the farms.
This oversimplifies a complex situation.

One major deficiency is the lack of an overall
model that looks at the system within which a small
farm operates, with considerations of the many inter-
actions that affect the structure of agriculture and
the results of different public policies. This lack
of a model leads to fragmentation of effort. "The
typical agenda for small farms research reads like a
shopping list written with no specific menu or meal
plan in mind - just a string of seemingly unrelated

18 The attempt to solve small farm poverty

items."
problems purely by education in the technology of in-
creasing production while neglecting the problems of
marketing the increased production is one example of the

results of the lack of a small farm systems model.

111

However, perhaps the worst problem to date is

most succinctly stated by the following:

Research to date does not provide a reliable
basis for predicting the success or failure

of small farms or of various programs intended
to help them survive and prOSper. This is
largely because the economic models (Leiben-
stein) on which this research is based have
never been proven valid for analyzing or pre-
dicting the behavior of small farm families.
Conventional neoclassical theory of the firm,
which leads to the conclusion that only those
firms producing at the low point on a long-run
average total cost curve can ultimately sur-
vive, fails to explain both the pluralism (the
continued existence of a relatively large
number of small farms) and the bifurcation 9
(disappearing middle) of American agriculture.

Considering the deficiencies of past research, what
can be suggested for the future? Certainly the develop-
ment of a small farm model (a major research project in

itself) would be of value. In.the meantime, important

progress could be made by interdisciplinary teams of

 

researchers that could consider the wider aspects related
to any one problem. Somewhere though, some consensus is
needed as to why we want small farms, to provide direc-
tion.for research and policy development.

Many researchers have outlined their recommendations
for future work. There are research needs of the scien-
tists and the information needs of the small farmer (out-
lined in Chapter V.A.). There are macro issues, such as
related the place of small farms, society's goals and the

20

structure of agriculture. What are the socioeconomic

112

benefits and costs of small farming? Until very
recently21 when two studies were conducted in Califor-
nia, the only research of this type was from one study

conducted in the 1940s, also in California (Goldschmidt,

1946).22 There are also micro issues, such as what the

goals and objectives of small farmers are, and such as
appropriate technology. Following are the major topics
of the recommendations of several organizations and re-

searchers:

1. National Rural Center23

a. Public Agricultural - food policies;

b. Energy;

c. The tax system and the structure of
agriculture;

d. Marketing;

e. Off-farm earnings and rural labor;

f. Production efficiency and technology;

g. Structure of agriculture and small
farm information needs

(A full book-length report is available
from NRC on each of the above.)

2. Ad Hoc Committee on Small Farms of the Joint
Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences24

a. Characteristics of small farms;

b. Management of resources and product
marketing;

c. Community Infra-structure;

d. Technology appropriate for small farms;

e. Quality of life for small-scale farm
families;

f. Policy.

Small Farm Viability Project (California)2

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

113

5

Marketing;

Finance and credit;
Training;
Technology;

Natural resources;
Community services.

(These are elaborated in a 250-page report
by S.F.V.P.)

William Saupe, University of Wisconsin

a.
b.
c.

d.

g.

Steven T. Sonka, University of Illinois

a.
b.
c.
d.

e.
f.

26

Small-farm criteria and definitions;
Goals and goal achievement;

Problems and disadvantaged circum-
stances;

The human resources stock of small-

farm families;

The farm resources stock of small-farm //
families;

Available community and institutional ,/’
resources;

Current use of resources to solve
problems. ’

27

Economies of scale studies;

Problems of getting started in farming;
Description and analysis of small farms;
Role of Cooperative Extension in
education;

Appropriate technology;

Control of resources, especially land.

North Central Center for Rural Development28

(The Center rated a number of research
problems; those with "high" priority are
included below.)

a.

Characteristics, number, needs and
nature of small farms: total available
resources base (human, physical, eco-
nomic); types and numbers of small
farms; socio-economic costs and benefits
of small farms;

114

b. Assessment of small farm "quality of
life": the aspirations, goals and
expectations of small farm families;
satisfactions with occupation,
family life, living environment.

c. Assessment of existing research, educa-
tional, service and input organizations
and programs for small farms: impact of
existing and proposed public policies
on farms of different sizes and types
(e.g., land use, environmental, safety,
taxes, etc.); analysis of sources and
systems of information delivery and
educational programs for small farms;

d. Development and modification of tech-
nology appropriate for small farms:
appropriate machinery, equipment and
buildings for small farms (including
retrofitting, management and size as
related to enterprise); alternative
systems of crop production, harvesting,
handling, storage and marketing; alter-
native systems of livestock production,
handling and marketing.

As can be seen, many different topics and view-
jpoints are emphasized, but there is much consensus of
<opinion. The differences are likely to relate to (l)
(innions as to the place of the small farm in the
structure of agriculture; (2) the level of approach for
S<>lving small farm problems: the micro level (production,
education, etc.) or the macro level (institutions,
POlicies, etc.) .

Next we will investigate some of the current Small

Farm Programs around the country.

115

IV.B. Small Farm Activities and Management
Education Programs

 

There is a wide variety of small farm programs
around the country. Some are connected with the
Cooperative Extension Service, some with community
colleges, some with private groups and foundations,
and some with popular magazines. Some programs relate
purely to conventional agriculture, while others con-
centrate on organic or alternative agriculture. Pro-
grams also vary in emphasis from one region of the
country to another.

Both the Rural Development Act of 1972 and the Food
and Agriculture Act of 1977 included sections aimed at
the development of Extension and research programs for
small farmers, but no funding was provided.29

In 1978 five regional small farm conferences were
held, sponsored jointly by USDA, ACTION, and the Commu-
nity Services Administration, to identify important
problems and issues in each region.

In January 1979, USDA Secretary Bergland declared
that USDA policy would seek to preserve a place for the
small farm, and provide assistance that will enable
small farm families to increase their total earnings

30

(farm and nonfarm). A recent USDA publication "Small

Farm Programs and Activities" 37:78-3tes the state
2:1

[II-I" -‘

small farm program progress in ;:

 

 

 

116

The following list of small farm programs is not
meant to be a comprehensive one. It represents a
sampling of programs around the country.

1. Coop Extension Programs in the South;
Missouri

 

Coop Extension in the South has perhaps the largest

and oldest programs.32

(See Appendix 6 for a listing

of Southern state programs. It looks at the number of
field staff [professionals and paraprofessionals], the
type of funding [Smith-Lever 3(c) or 3(d) and other] and
the state administrative and specialist leadership at
the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions.)

Of the southern states, Missouri's Small Farm
Program is the largest and one of the oldest. It was
started in 1971 and currently has 44 paraprofessional
education agents located around the state. The program
is to assist small farm families in improving their
quality of living, emphasizing agricultural technology,
family resource management, and home gardening. The
program is subject to systematic evaluation by plan of
the State Small Farm Family Committee. The program's
accomplishments are then communicated to Extension
staff, County Extension Council members and other com-
munity leaders. Missouri Extension has published

several reports detailing objectives and progress of

Small Farm Program:

117

- Missouri Small Farm Program Report MP445;

- Missouri Small Farm Program.- An Evaluation
with a Control Group, SR176;

- Profiles of Families Living on Small Farms,
MP518.

2. Frank Porter Graham.Center

 

The Frank Porter Graham Demonstration Farm and
Education Center at Wadesboro, N.C. brings together
the small farm efforts of the National Sharecroppers
Fund and the Rural Advancement Fund. Besides working
directly with farmworkers and small farmers, the Center
has a number of special programs. Local small farmers
are trained as VISTA."paraprofessionals“ who then return
to their communities to act as farm improvement helpers
and community organizers. Another program trains para-
professionals in adult literacy problems.

Graham Center concentrates on agricultural tech-
nology for small-scale, limited resource farming, on
rural development, on farm cooperatives, and on agri-
cultural public policy. The training programs are
backed up by the Center's library and demonstration/
research farm, which emphasizes ecologically sound
farming methods. The Rural Advance newsletter relates

the Center‘s accomplishments.33

118

3. Agricultural Marketing Project

The Agricultural Marketing Project in Nashville,
Tennessee specializes in providing technical assistance
to farmer-controlled small farm marketing projects.
Especially successful has been the Food Fair (farmers'
market) direct marketing model which was initiated in
Tennessee and spread to many other Southern states.
Other interest areas are bulk sales markets for small
farmers, consumer food education, and alternative on-farm
energy sources. AMP publishes materials on marketing,
nutrition, energy and land ownership. The newsletter
"Farm, Food, Land" provides information on the various

marketing activities.34

4. New England Small Farm Project

 

The New England Small Farm Project at Amherst,
Massachusetts brings together funding from the private
sector, USDA, Coop Extension, and VISTA to help small
scale commercial farmers, and to promote a thriving
local agriculture. The Project provides a bimonthly
newsletter, credit information, leadership training,
help with political strategies, media assistance, issue
research and financing for local projects. The Project
works closely with Massachusetts Extension's New England
Small Farm Resource Center in Amherst. The Center main-

tains an.extensive collection of references and

"fist" I

y

119

periodicals which cover the technical, economic and
political aspects of small scale farming in New

England. Visitors are welcome.35

5. Coolidge Center for Advancement of Agriculture

The Coolidge Center for the Advancement of Agri-
culture researches alternative agriculture technologies
for small farmers. The Center conducts a "broad, in-
terdisciplinary investigation of cropping systems,
appropriate mechanization, animal husbandry, protected
cultivation, long term maintenance of soil fertility,
and environmentally sound pest control." The Center
publishes "The Coolidge Center Quarterly: A Journal of
Small Scale Agriculture", a short but informative news-
letter. The Center also maintains an extensive library
of agricultural books and research data from world-wide

sources. Visitors are welcome, by appointment.36

6. Organic Agriculture Organizations; MOFGA

The small farmer is served by membership in organic
organizations throughout the country. One example is
the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. It
publishes a large newsletter that provides production
information, marketing info, an.advertising medium, and
meeting information for MOFGA.activities such as group

purchasing of inputs, workshops, and farmers' markets.37

120

For references to other state and local organic
agriculture organizations, see listings in VI.C.3:
Appropriate Technology and Biological Agriculture

Organizations.

7. The Mother Earth News

The Mother Earth News monthly magazine has been a
major leader of the back-to-the-land movement since
1970. TMEN focuses on self-sufficiency in both urban
and rural areas. Response to TMEN has been such that
the organization expanded to provide newspaper, radio,
and TV "how-to" spots.

Other major developments have been the purchase of
a large tract of land for a research center and eco-
logical village. Each summer intensive workshops are
held on the technologies of self-sufficiency: alterna-
tive energy sources (wind, water and solar), livestock
and crop production, earth-sheltered homes, etc.
Traveling workshops provide farmers all over the country
with "how-to" information on gasohol production.

Mother's influence and readership in the alterna-
tive agriculture and lifestyle areas is such that her
glowing endorsement of a new product can bring so many
requests and orders that the inventor is forced from a
basement operation to a good-sized business in the space

of a few months.38

121

8. Center for Rural Affairs

The Center for Rural Affairs is headquartered in
Walthill, Nebraska. It is a non-profit group whose
purpose is to aid rural development through providing
information, conducting research and publishing reports.
Areas of recent interest have been: energy use in agri-
culture, discrimination against small farmers in credit
and legal situations, rate reform in electric utilities,
improved rural utility services, use of ag research
monies, organic agriculture, and the general misdirec—
tion of public policies which fosters the industrializa-
tion of agriculture.

The Center publishes four periodicals: the New Land

 

Review, The Small Farm Energy Project Newsletter, the

Small FarmAdvocate, and the Center for Rural Affairs
39

 

 

Newsletter.

9. The Washington Small Farm Resources Network

The Washington Small Farm Resources Network (out
of the Blue Mountain Action Council) addresses North-
western small farm problems. Different Network projects
have organized local commodity groups, cooperative bulk
purchasing of farm inputs, and local farmers' markets.
Project members and VISTA volunteers research credit
availability, marketing strategies, alternative agricul-
ture methods, and write local news releases on small

. 40
farm issues.

122

10. Washington Cooperative Extension

Washington Cooperative Extension has several
counties with strong small farm programs and has around
20 limited resource farming project personnel. The
project's priorities center around providing technical
"how-to" information. Small-scale agriculture enter-
prises are researched for their capital requirements and
potential profits. The emphasis is on educational ma-
terials, workshops, and the Small Farm Newsletter.
Current agricultural information.and Extension Bulletins
are being researched and rewritten so as to be relevant

to small-scale farmers.41

11. Tilth

Tilth is a regional association that focuses on
agriculture in the Pacific NOrthwest. Local chapters
serve as a framework for responding to both the urban
and rural community needs. Past activities have in-
cluded workshops, seed exchanges, farm tours, farmers'
markets, apprenticeship programs, group purchases of ag
inputs, and the promotion of land preservation programs.
Emphasis in on information.networks and local research.
After 5 years of specialized research, Tilth published
Winter Gardening in the Maritime Northwest. Tilth
members are kept up to date via the quarterly journal,

"Tilth".42

123

12. Rural Venture and Control Data Corporation

Rural Venture (Minneapolis, Minnesota) is a sub-
sidiary of CDC (Control Data Corporation), a large
computer and credit corporation- It has one of the more
ambitious small farm programs, especially for a private
sector organization. Rural Venture states its purpose
is "to plan, initiate and manage comprehensive programs
for revitalizing existing rural areas, and for creating
innovative small-scale agriculturally-oriented rural
environments." The programs being implemented to accom—
plish this are many. However, two are of specific in-
terest: (l) the experimental farm - 1500 acres of land
divided into fifteen 100 acre farms that will act as a
demonstration that "small farms are technically and
economically feasible." As a backup RV and CDC are
developing computerized small farm educational programs
for transmission by their PLATO system terminals, with
the view in mind to develop a world-wide small farm
market for the small computers in twenty years; (2)
grants - to develop small farm appropriate technology,
CDC has made grants of over $15 Million to universities
and other organizations. One such was to Tuskegee In-
stitute to develop PLATO education courses. Grants also
addressed specific areas such as small-scale hog raising,
beekeeping, alternative energy projects, specialty crop

growing, small business planning, management and marketing.

124

Many other projects around the U.S. and in developing
countries address the problems of small farmers and

the rural poor.43

13. National Rural Center

 

The National Rural Center Small Farms Project -
NRC is an independent nonprofit organization specializing
in research and development of policy alternatives con-
cerning rural issues. The Center's Small Farm Project is
completing a two-phase research program. Phase I involved
two national workshops with diversified participation.
The first focused on.questions of small farm definitions.
The second looked at research needs. Phase II brought
together researchers to review the existing small farm
knowledge and to propose a research agenda. The results
to date include seven reports on public policy, energy,
the U.S. tax system and the structure of agriculture,
marketing, off-farm earnings, production.efficiency and

technology, and small farm information needs.44

TV.C.

125

Mini Small Farm Reference Library

The following publications are a sampling of the

most current and useful references (of those I have read

myself) for someone wishing to quickly look into the

small farm situation- Those wishing to do more in depth

research or to check out a specific aspect relating to

small farms should turn to the several bibliographies

listed in Chapter VI.

"Agricultural Economics Research and
Extension Needs of Small-Scale, Limited-
Resource Farmers," by Jerry G. West.
Southern Journal of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, July, 1979. 7pp

Can the FamilyiFarm Survive? Special
Report 219, 1978. University of Missouri,
Columbia. 77pp

Co-operative Extension Small-Farm Programs
in the South: An Inventory and Evaluation..
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Research Division Bulletin 153,
April, 1980. 86pp

A Dialogue on the Structure of American
Agriculture: Summary of Regignal Meetings,
November 27 - December 18L_1979. USDA.
113pp

The Familprarm in California. Report of
the Small Farm Viability Project, November
1977. 253pp

 

Information Needs and Sources for Michigan "
Small Farm Operators by Ralph Hepp and

Thomas Olson. Michigan State University,

AER 372. March 1980. 44pp

III lilillv

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

126

Missouri Small Farm Program: An Evalua-
tion With a Control Group. University of
Missouri. SR 176, 1975. 26pp

 

Information Needs Relating to Small-Farm
Programs and Policies by William E. Saupe.

 

 

ESCS Staff Report, July 1980. 38pp

Profiles of Families Living on Small Farms.

 

University of Missouri Bulletin MP7518.
1980. 30pp

Regional Small Farms Conferences: National

 

Summary and Regional Reports. USDA & CSA.

 

December 1978.

Research, ExtensionL and Higher Education

 

for Small Farms. Report of Ad Hoc Committee

 

on Small Farms of the Joint Council on Food
and Agricultural Sciences. December 1979.

Slpp

Small Farms: A Review of Characteristics,

 

Constraints, and Policy Implications. by

 

James E. Horne. Southern Rural Development
Center, SRDC #33, September 1979. 35pp

Small-Farm Issues: Proceedings of the ESCS

 

Small-Farm Worshop. May 1978. ESCS-60.

 

73PP

Small Farm Programs: Implications from a

 

Study in Virginia. Research Division

 

Bulletin 135. Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
tute and State University. October 1978.
200pp

Small Farm Research Priorities in the North
Central Region. N.C. Regional Center for

 

Rural Development. Iowa State University,
February 1979. 25pp

Structure Issues of American Agriculture.
USDA & ESCS. AER 438, November 1979. 305pp

USDA Research and Extension on Family Farms.
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Agricul-
tural Resources and General Legislation.
July 25 & 26, 1979. 211pp

"USDA Small Farm Policy: Emphasis on the
Family." Issue Briefing Paper #28, September
19, 1980. 7pp.

127

IV.B. FOOTNOTES

1
Land grant complex refers to:
a. the 1862 and 1890 agricultural colleges, created by the

Morrill Acts;
b. the state agricultural experiment stations, created by

the Hatch Act in 1887, and
c. co-operative extension service, created in 1914 by the

Smith-Lever Act.

2Mark Ritchie. "The Loss of Our Family Farms:
Inevitable Results or Conscious Policies?" 1979. 32pp

3Lauren Soth. "The End of Agrarianism: Fission of .
‘the Political Economy of Agriculture." American Journal pf“?
<>f Agricultural Economics, 52:5 (December 1970), p. 655. 3ft»

4Jim Hightower and Susan DeMarco. Hard Tomatoes, .
ILard Times. Schenkman Press, Cambridge, 1973. ?,':

 

5J. Belden, G. Edwards, C. Guyer and L. Webb, eds.
Evasw'Directions in Farm, Land and Food Policies. Conference
C>r1 Alternative State and Local Policies, Washington, D.C.

(1979) p. 55-69.

 

 

6Robert Lindsey. "And Now California Develops a
Square Tomato," New York Times, March 8, 1977.

7Cesar Chavez, "Square Tomatoes and Idle Workers: The
I=‘arm Workers' Next Battle" 1977 in New Directions in Farm,
Efiégldy and Food Policies, pp. 176-178. (see #5 above)

81bid.

91bid.

10One might liken the current gaps in small farm re-

Search to those that exist in biological entomology. The

aCivent of DDT switched the emphasis to pesticide research.
rItegrated pest management researchers must now make up
£01: a thirty year gap in the biological aspects of their

field.

., ..3

i [1.1. lull").
” .r
1 .l. .

128

11Small Farm Viability Project. "The Family Farm in
California" November 1977.

12Small Farm Advocacy Project - see Center for Rural
Affairs under IV.B.

13Gene Logsdon and Jim Ritchie. "Can the Family Farm
Survive the Eighties? Decade of Decision." (An interview
with Harold F. Breimyer) "The New Farm" vol.3:1. January
1981, pp. 46-51.

14Jerry G. West. "Agricultural Economics Research
and Extension Needs of Small—Scale Limited-Resource Farmers."
£Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 11:1, pp.
149-56 (July 1979).

' 4
a"
'5'

15United States Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of
.Aqgriculture, 1974. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977.

16United States Department of Agriculture. "USDA
£3nmall-Farm Policy: Emphasis on.the Family." Issue Briefing
I?auper #28. Office of Governmental and Public Affairs,
PVEishington, D.C. September 1980. 7 pp.

. ’ .‘.-.l

m?) H‘ ‘~‘ u .uK-I-Lgi—L ' '
_ . r. , _~' - -. . ‘ '. .. . ' - "
"Ir 2. v ~ , -, . - . s
. 1 . , A. .. . J. 7...
r .
..o . , .
I
‘1’?" . . ._ .. (.

 

17A number of researchers treat with small farm re-
53€3£chh needs and critique the current research. Of particu-
31213: interest are: a) Madden and Tischbein (see #18), b)
West (see #14), c) Small Farm Viability Project (see #11),
51) saupe (see #26), and e) Allen R. Thompson, "Suggestions
f01:.Researching Small-Farm Questions" in Small-Farm Issues:
EIEfiaceedings of the ESCS Small-Farm Workshop, May 1978.
USDA, ESCS-6‘0. Washington, D.C. 20250. July 1979.

18J. Patrick Madden and Heather Tischbein. "Toward
aI'LAgenda for Small Farm Research." American Journal of

:gggggicultural Economics, vol. 61:5, pp. 940-946. (December
79)

191bid., p. 944.

20See West, #14.

21$ee Small Farm Viability Project, #11.

129

22(1) Walter R. Goldschmidt. "Small Business and
the Community: A Study in Central Valley of California
on Effects of Scale of Farm Operations," U.S. Senate,
Report of the Special Committee to Study Problems of Small
Business, 79th Congress, 2nd Session, December 1946;
(2) also his update and return to the same research
project: Walter Goldschmidt. As You Sow. Montclair,

N.J. Allanheld, Osmun & Co., 1978.
(3) University of California, Davis, Study of Com-

munity Services Task Force in "The Family Farm in Cali-
fornia" pp. 230-242. See #11.

23National Rural Center, Bulletin. National Rural
Center, Washington, D.C., January 1981. 2 pp.

24USDA. Joint Council on Food and Agricultural
£5ciences. Research, Extension and Higher Education for
£3mall Farms. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Small

Farms. December 1979. 51 pp.

 

25See #11.

26William E. Saupe. Information Needs Relating to
:Srnall Farm Programs and Policies. USDA, ESCS Staff Report.
EVEishington, D.C. 20250. July 1980. 38 pp.

27Steven T. Sonka. "The Research Needs of Small
Farmers" in Small Farm Issues: Proceedings of the ESCS
Enall Farm Workshop, May 1978. pp. 31-35. (see #17)

28North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.
§§E&§11.Farm Research Priorities in the North Central Region.
108 Curtis Hall, Ames, Iowa, 50011. Iowa State University.

February 1979. 25 pp.

29See #28.

30See #16.

31Ovid Bay. Small Farm Programs and Activities:
SiIfigtes Reports, 1979. USDA, SEA-Extension. Washington,
~CL 20250. September 1980. 36 pp.

32Co-operative Extension Small Farm Programs in the
Sisagth: An Inventory and Evaluation. Virginia Polytechnic
IIstitute and State University. Research Division Bulletin

53. April 1980.

 

130

33Rural Advancement Fund and Graham Center Informa-
tion leaflets, 1980. (see "Organizations" VI.C.l.).
34

Agricultural Marketing Project papers, 1980 (see
"Organizations" VI.C.l.).

35New England Small Farm Project information sheets,
1980. (See "Organizations" VI.C.l).

36Coolidge Center Quarterly vol.I:1, Winter 1980
(See "Organizations" VI.C.l.).

37From several 1980 issues of the MOFGA newsletter

(See "Organizations" VI.C.l.).

38The Mother Earth News Magazine (see "Magazines and £:mi
DJewsletters" VI.C.2.). :Tn‘
39

Center for Rural Affairs "Annual Report," 1979.
(See "Organizations" VI.C.l.).

:-’ ’ w

 

40Personal communication: Randal Son, WSFRN Project ééii
Director, July 1980. W
41

Personal communication: Tyler Clark, Skagit County
Extension, July 1980; Steven Kraten, King County Extension,
CTtily'1980; Richard Carkner, Extension Economist at Washing-
ton State University, August 1980.

42231£h subscription and membership leaflet, 1980.

43Rural Venture information packet, received from
Pat Gorman, President, Rural Venture, October 1980.

44See #18.

Chapter V

SMALL FARM MANAGEMENT EDUCATION

Information Needs of Small Farmers

Types of Small Farm Management Education Programs
1. Traditional Extension

2. Paraprofessionals

3. Intensive Training

Small Farm Education Materials

1. Current Materials

2. Recommendations for New Publications
Small Farm Management Text - Some Thoughts
1. Why?

2. The Content

3. An Outline

Footnotes and Miscellaneous References

Chapter V

SMALL FARM MANAGEMENT EDUCATION

This chapter will start with a look at the informa-
tion needs of small farmers (V.A.), followed by the
current types of programs used for management education
(V.B.). The advantages and disadvantages of current types
caf small farmer education materials will be discussed,
salong with recommendations for new materials (.V.C.).

I; proposed outline for small farm management text will

finish the chapter (V.D.) .

.Zi- Information.Needs of Small Farmers

Since "small farmers" exist as a broad spectrum
(part-time, supplemental income farmers, part-retired
farmers, subsistance, and other low-income farmers, etc.) ,
c>I‘Le's information needs may be different from another's.
rED some extent information needs may vary with geographical
a~Il:‘ea, agricultural enterprise, or even time of year.

In Michigan, a research project evaluated the needs
of limited resource farmers.1 County Extension agents
felt that a farm's stage of development, regardless of
size, had a strong influence on information needs.
Farmers just getting started asked more basic questions,

while those in business longer asked more complicated

131

1 till!!! 1’!!!

Iv : vli 1.0.13
l.

e

1.3,.-.

 

132

questions that reflected a good deal of thought. However,

the agents felt that small farmers tended to ask more

"how-to" types of questions on production technology, and

were more interested in specific recommendations. Time of

year was also considered important. "During the summer,

farmers are busy and most questions are the 'brush-fire'

type. Army worms were a problem common to each of the

counties, and the questions asked by farmers were the same

no matter what the size of the farm."2

The Michigan study looked at over 40 specific problems
farmers might have, and asked farmers of different sizes

to rank the problems according to level of importance.

These problems were grouped into categories: technical,

institutional, and human. Then the perceived importance of

each category of information by farm size category was

examined .

Small farmers did not consider technical problems as

"Very important" as often as large farmers did, and even

more small farmers responded that some problems were "not

in~"Portant at all" than did any other size category. There

seemed to be little relation between farm size and per-

c3eived importance of human problems.3 This variation in

perception of problems may indicate that certain problems

are more size related than might have been expected. How-

eVer, it is very likely that small farmers have problems

that they are not aware of.

0:11! 1.. .146 .
71'! 1.114 ii. . ,

11.2”} '

133

The problems that Michigan small farmers rated as
‘the most important were:

1. How to get better prices for your farm
products?

2. How to cut down on the heating hill?

3. Keeping up-to-date on the records and
farm accounts;

4. Personal or family health concerns;

5. Figuring how much fertilizer to use;

6. How to figure income tax;

7. Not knowing when to sell your farm products;
8. Problems with insects and disease;

9. Political issues (school bonds, highways,
etc.);

10. How to raise children properly.4

I?e1rmers in all size categories felt that farm product
E>Irices were the most important problem. Items 3, 5, 6,
'7.. and 8 were also in the top ten for large farms. Again,
211: is important to mention that particular information
nGaeds may be tied to location or enterprise. A minority
=311arecropper in the Deep South will have different needs
from those of a part-time farmer who works fulltime on an

as sembly line .

('11! J
0.!!!)
(IIIOBI!

'1'. .(1‘1.
ll"-

. 1:42 i.

134

B. Types of Small Farm Management Education Programs

The state Cooperative Extension Services are the
main agencies involved with small farmer management edu-
cation, though not, by far, the only source of information
used by small farmers. Information can come from news-
;papers, magazines, radio or television. It can also come
ifrom dealers, salesmen, banks, farm organizations, or
friends.

Frequently there is only one extension agent in any
one county to serve the information needs of all the
farmers, regardless of size, in the area. Small farmers
may well represent 70-90% of all the farmers in the area
and an agent's time and funding are limited. What kind of
programs does extension use to meet the needs of local
Small farmers?

1. Traditional Extension

In some areas that have a large population of small
farmers, the local agents may be somewhat puzzled by all
the new uproar about the importance of serving small farm
clientele, since that is what they've been doing for years.
In other areas, by philosophical choice, there are no
Special small farm programs. These agents feel that
dividing their clientele is discrimination and they prefer
to serve all comers equally. Other agents will work with
81“all farmers, but feel their primary commitment should

be with the larger operators who contribute the majority

135

of products for the food and fiber system.5 Traditional
comrnunication methods are likely to be used: newsletters,
weekly newspaper columns, workshops and the ever impor-
tant telephone.

2. Paraprofessionals

 

While small farmers do make use of a wide spectrum
of information sources, they tend to seek out their neigh-
bors , friends and relatives more than do farmers of any
other size.6 This phenomenon is much studied by rural
sociologists and by those interested in. "the diffusion. of
innovation" or the process of adaptation of new technolo-
gies - 7

In each community, different friendship and inter--
action patterns exist that define certain key people as

Opinion leaders. 8

Extension agents can concentrate on
work ing with these farmers, knowing that the information.
Will Spread, through the natural communication lines of
the community. This has been referred to as the "multi-
Plier effect". The idea has been. developed further to add
a neW dimension to the COOperative Extension. Service.

In the late 19605 Texas A&M University and the Texas
Agricultural Extension Service initiated a pilot program
using nonprofessionals (now called paraprofessionals) for
EXtension education.9 Previous studies had indicated that

poor 1y educated, low-income small farmers made little use

Of the services offered by government agricultural agencies

136

such as Cooperative Extension.10 This serves to help
increase the gap between the disadvantaged and the ad-
vantaged farm families.

In some cases the small farmers are unaware of the
services available to them. In other cases they have a
negative attitude to the agencies as being part of a
generally unresponsive or even.oppressive government
("thgm"). Under any circumstances, it was felt that some-
times a well educated, professional county agent might not
be able to communicate effectively with the small farmers.
In an attempt to remedy this problem, nonprofessionals
who were members of the community were selected to act as
small farm.program aides. Where possible, people were
picked who already had agricultural skills and had credi-
bility in the community. Intensive training was provided
where necessary.

The program.received a favorable evaluation.and
similar programs have since been implemented around the
country. Missouri Extension's Small Farm Family Program,
in operation since 1971, also uses paraprofessionals to
good advantage.11 The Graham Center (see IV.B.2) in North
Carolina functions as a training center for local small
farmers. The farmers then return to their communities to
act as farm improvement helpers and community organizers.

A program.in adult literacy is included along with agri-

cultural training.

137

3. Intensive Training

Another form of small farmer educational program
involves intensive training. A limited group (20-50) of
small farmers in one particular area is selected, and
participates in a long term, intensive program. It is
generally expected that the program will last 2-3 years.

The Training Task Force of the California Small Farm
Project analyzed the training requirements of a diverse
group of small farmers and would-be small farmers.12
This group included the whole spectrum from non-English
-speaking people with limited formal education to back-to-
the-landers or urban dropouts. Each group has different
training needs. Some suggestions were that subsistance
funding be available for the farmer during training, that
training take place "on farm", and that credit availability
be arranged with local lending institutions. Suggestions
from other researchers are: a) the whole farm family be
involved; b) the training programs include elements which
will give quick cash results for those families which are
desperate for income; c) the label 'low' or 'limited' in-
come be avoided for program titles; d) programs include
considerable one-to-one contact and as many real life

demonstrations as possible; and e) the program have the

13

endorsement of local community leaders. Another possi-

bility in intensive training is an intensive subject-matter

138

workshop. One such example is Missouri Extension's

Female Farrowing School.

C. Small Farm Education Materials

Besides the newsletters, workshops, and in-training
materials, continually duplicated in Extension and other
offices around the country, what types of materials are
available for a small farmer to learn the answers to his

problems.

an {'9’
1 _ 'L

1. Current Materials

...p';
- .I .

Many State Extension Services have bulletins specifi-
cally aimed at the needs of the small farmer. Missouri,

for example, has a Small Farm Guide series, with 13

 

bulletins on cow-calf, dairy, and feeder pig enterprises,

14 Michigan J/

as well as pasture and building information.
has a similar small farm series entitled "Farming-Know-How:
Guidelines to Better Family Farming." There are bulletins
on geese, sheep, winter wheat, tractors, feeder pigs,
buildings and equipment for horses, sheep, beef and swine,
roadside marketing, and enterprise selection.15
Other than bulletins (and other sources already dis-
cussed) the one remaining major information source is the
pOpular book. Five years ago just of few of these were
available. Today several hundred are on the market (see

VI.B. How-To Books...). Many of these have been written

in response to the large increase in urban-to-rural

II: .V '(l.
1x11vliiil‘i...)

139

migrants and the back-to-the-landers with interests in
food and energy self-sufficiency. Depending on a farmer's
objectives these materials have certain limitations. The
books have little business management or decision making
information in them. The styles are easy-to-read and
frequently folksy. However, recent publications generally
have more technical information included and will serve as
good, basic manuals. After a would-be-farmer is familiar
with the basics of a particular enterprise, more detailed
information should be obtained either from a practicing
farmer, Extension agent or a technical manual. (Books in
the energy or construction categories are frequently an
exception, having plenty of functional, applicable infor-
mation.)

Another category of education material available is
the farm magazine (see VI.C.2. Magazines and Newsletters).
The sources for small farmers are limited, but improving.
The Small Farmer's Journal emphasizes "practical horse
farming," but provides other good enterprise information
along with updates on government small farm policies.

Countryside is a "seriOus homesteader's" magazine that

 

emphasizes small livestock information. Tilth (Biological
Agriculture of the Northwes:) has an emphasis on crops and
gardening, but provides a well-balanced spectrum of infor-
mation on small farm marketing, resources, history and

publications, and serves as an information exchange medium.

3 3.: . .
i 1'“ .
wine, ‘ ' '

140

Finally, a new magazine got off to a good start and is
getting better with time: Rodale Press' The New Farm.
The main thrust is moderate organic agriculture, but an
issue might cover Federal small farm policy, marketing,
crop production problems, relevant economics, and many
other topics in a clear and sometimes even scientific
exposition.

In spite of the few sources of information that are
available, the small farm operator is frequently at a
disadvantage when decision making time comes around. New
publications are needed that remedy the weaknesses of
those in the past.

2. Recommendations for New Publications

New materials should maintain an easy-to-read style,
but include more specific production information. Decision
making, record keeping and financial aspects should also be
included unless the publication is aimed specifically at
hobby farmers with no concern for expenses. Case histories
would be of benefit in some formats.

Extension bulletins frequently could benefit by
adapting an easy-to-read style. Bulletins are most effec-
tive when paced for the target audience. Occasional humor
‘would not be out of place, and is even to be desired.

More small farm information on crops is needed, while
there is a reasonable collection of livestock and gardening

materials currently available.

141

D. Small Farm Management Text - Some Thoughts

1. Why?

As was mentioned much earlier, this paper is an
outgrowth of the author's belief that there is a need for a
small farm management text. That belief has been strength-
ened as the subject was researched.

A text is needed because currently available materials
are insufficient in quantity and inadequate in scope. Most
publications are not oriented toward decision making.
Furthermore, most of the materials are limited as to
audience.

The author envisions that the final form of the text
will serve many purposes. The audience can include the
entire spectrum that falls under the heading of "small
farmer," so that the needs of part-time, full-time, limited-
resource, self-sufficient, conventional and alternative
agriculture farmers will be served. The text is not in-
tended primarily to be a "how-to" manual, though aspects
(of that may be included. It is intended to serve mainly
ass an educational tool in management and decision making.

The expanded outline of the finished text could be
Lzsed as a source for organizing management workshops and
Seminars. The different levels of the outline could provide
tile appropriate topics for meetings of different length (one

hCyur, half-day, whole day, intensive workshops, etc.).

142

Ideally, the format of the finished text should be
a collection of loose leaf units that are one to fOur
pages long, that could be used as a whole or broken up
for individual use. The terminology should be kept as
simple as possible and an easy-to-read style maintained.
Clearly explained illustrations and tables should be in-
cluded, where appropriate, and a few cartoons or other

bits of humor would not be out of order.

2. The Content

There should be three main.areas of subject matter
covered by the text: goal definitions and decision
making, farm business management, and farm enterprise
management.

Goal definitions is the first step in.any form of
decision making process. Getting a farm family to define
its goals and objectives and to realistically look at the
options is very important. This approach will prevent
multiple headaches later when the family has to make
choices between alternatives. The text should discuss
the different types of small farmers so that a.fami1y can
realize the options available and decide how to categorize
itself.

For totally new farmers, "getting started" should
be discussed. This is one area where there is a special

need. The back-to-the-land movement of the 19703 saw

[ltlx
. 1.. (I! (I1 711.11.71.11

Q:

143

many families unprepared for the realities of farm life.
Also, this is a good place to expose the reader to basic
energy conservation and environmental issues to demon-
strate the different management issues that will be
decided at a later time. When that is complete, enterprise
selection, farm business organization and a preliminary
farm plan can be worked out. This is another part of the
planning process that cannot be neglected. The above
topics are the ones for which the least material is avail-
able to would-be small farmers. Yet, they are the most
critical.

The second major topic area is the more traditional
one of Farm Business Management. Many texts already cover
this area for university students. Few, if any, explain
the basic business principles in.a sufficiently clear
manner to meet the needs of the large variety of small farm
audiences. This material is dry and potentially confusing
to those without special training.

Of special importance to this section of the text is
liberal use of case studies or practical examples. Farmers
need to see that the theory has practical application.

As in.the first section, references should be made
along the way to the differences in decision making and
management inherent in the variety of small farm operations.

The third major area is Farm Enterprise Management.

This is an.especially important section, as little decision

144

making information is available to small farmers on, for
example, a goat dairy, a worm farm, or any other of a
multitude of specialty and conventional enterprises.

This section should include check lists of important de-
cisions or decision categories, examples, and a reference

list for accessing more information about each topic.

3. An Outline

Below is a rough outline covering the just discussed
topic areas. It is not broken down to the suggested unit
form and will have to be expanded and adjusted to fit
appropriate unit length.

So many small farmers and would-be small farmers make
mistakes that could be remedied by implementing a proper
decision making process beforehand. The author hopes
that the proposed text will serve as a management tool

for avoiding some of these problems.

I.

II.

145

Goal Definition and Decision Making

A.

C.

So you want to be a farmer?

-Define family goals

-How to make decisions

-Profiles of types of small farmers
(part-time or supplemental income,
homesteading or self-sufficiency,
part-retired, limited-resource and
low-income, hobby, full-time)

Getting Started in Farming

—Farm appraisal and acquisition
-Resource inventory

-Organic agriculture, energy conser-
vation, and environmental considera-
tions

-Enterprise selection

-Farm business organizations

Making a Preliminary Farm Plan

Farm Business Management

A.

C.

D.

E.

Economic Principles
-Margins and profit
-Substitution principle
-Opportunity costs

Farm Records
-Accounting

-Cost concepts

-Income tax management
-Business analysis
Credit, Insurance and Sources
Ownership costs - DIRTI
Budgeting

-Partial budgets

-Enterprise budgets
-Whole farm planning

Capital Budgeting

III.

146

Enterprise Records and Decision Making
-Role of programmable calculator
Marketing

-Direct marketing

Coops

Labor Needs

Off-farm Employment

Retirement and Estate Planning

Farm Enterprise Management and Miscellaneous

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

Land and Water Management

Pest Management

Field Crops

Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialty Crops
Forestry and Nut Trees

Animals and Other Livestock

-Dairy (cows and goats), beef, swine,
poultry, sheep, horses, rabbits, fish,
earthworms, etc.

Farm Buildings and Greenhouses

Tools, Machinery, and Draft Animals

Energy

—Conservation
-Solar, wood, bio, wind

Home Food Processing
Farm Product Storage

The Farm Home
-Building your own

147

M. Rural Crafts

-Stone work, fencing, and small-scale
construction

N. Urban Agriculture

0“,

148

E. Footnotes

 

1Thomas M. Olson. Nonformal Education Delivery
Systems to Reach Limited Resource Farmers in Michigan.
PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978. 182 pp.

2Ralph E. Hepp and Thomas M. Olson. Information
Needs and Sources for Michigan Small Farm Operators.
Agricultural Economics Report (AER) #372. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Mi. 48824. March 1980, 44 pp.

31bid., pp. 10-12.

4Ibid., p. 9.

SHepp and Olson, p. 17.

61bid., p. 13.

7Olson, p. 26.

8Missouri Cooperative Extension. Profiles of
Families Living_on Small Farms. MP518, undated (1979-

1980), 30 pp.

9Howard W. Ladewig and Vance W. Edmondson. Egg
Effectiveness of Nonprofessionals in Cooperative Exten-
sion Education for Low-Income Farmers. Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, Texas. 1972. 24 pp.

1°Ibid., p. 5.

11Missouri Small Farm Program: An Evaluation With a
Control Grogp. Missouri Cooperative Extension, SR176.
Columbia, Missouri. 1975. 26 pp.

12Small Farm Viability Project. The Family Farm in
Qplifornia. 1977. pp. 113-156.

13E. G. Stoneberg, Extension Economist, Iowa State
University. Informal comments on methods of working with
limited resource farmers, from a 1972 TVA conference in
Chattanooga, Tennessee.

I.

149

l4Missouri Small Farm Program Report. Missouri
Extension MP445. Columbia, Missouri. 1976. 22 pp.

 

15Ralph Hepp and Linda Halsey. Programming_f9r
Small/Part-time Farmers. Ag. Econ. Staff Paper 78-26.
Michigan State University. 1978. 13 pp.

 

150

Miscellaneous References

 

Atkinson, J. H. “Trip to Missouri" - Interoffice
Memorandum to C. E. French, Purdue University. November
27, 1972. 3 pp.

Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies.
New Directions in Farm, Land and Food Policies. Washington,
D. C. 1978. 318 pp.

Crecink, John C. "Characteristics of Small Farm
Families." Talk at 1980 Agricultural Outlook Conference,
Session #9 - Rural Deve10pment, Washington, D.C. November
6, 1979. 9 pp.

Hepp, Ralph E. Characteristics of Michiga n' 5 Small
Farms. Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #77- 73, Michigan
State University, 1977.17 pp.

Horne, James E. Small Farms: A Review of Charac-
teristics, Constraints, and Policy Implications.
Southern Rural Development Center, SRDC #33. Mississippi
State, MS 39762. September 1979, 35 pp.

Madden, J. Patrick, and Heather Tischbein, "Toward
an Agenda for Small Farm Research." American.Journal of
Agricultural Economics. Vol. 61:5. December 1979. 7 pp.

Missouri Cooperative Extension. Missouri Small Farm
Family Program. MP445. Columbia, Mo. 65211. 1979.

23 pp.

 

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.
Small Farm Research Priorities in the North Central Region.
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011. February 1979.

25 pp.

Orden, David, and Steven T. Buccola and Patricia
Klobus Edwards. Cooperative Extension Small-Farm Programs
in the South: An Inventory and Evaluation. Research
Division Bulletin 153. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Slacksburg, Virginia 24061. April 1980.

86 pp.

Saupe, William E. Information Needs Relatin to
Small-Farm Programs and Policies. USDA. ESCS Sta
Report. Washington, D. C. 20250. July 1980. 38 pp.

FF“. 3":— L.‘!’:'..’:£¢ j 42...; -.;;:_x. . guinea-9.5;

I“

151

Southern Farm Management Extension Committee.
Small Farm Seminar. Lexington, Kentucky. April 3-5,
1973. 52 pp.

Task Force on the Viability of Small Family Farms
in Lane County. Final Report. 1979. 11 pp.

Thompson, Ronald L., and Ralph E. Hepp. Description V/
and Analysis of Michigan Small Farms. Research Report
296. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
48824. March 1976. 20 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Community Services
Administration, and Action. Regional Small Farms
Conferences, National Summary. December 1978.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statis-
tics and Cooperative Service. Small-Farm Issues: Pro-
ceedings of the ESCS Small-Farm Workshop! May 1978.
ESCS-60. July 1979. 73 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Joint Council on
Food and Agricultural Sciences. ResearchLyExtension and
Higher Education for Small Farms. Report of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Small Farms. December 1979.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education
Administration. Small Farm Programs and Activities: State
Reports! 1979. Washington, D.C. 20250. September 1980.

36 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Small Farms Working
Group. Small Farm Family Newsletter. No. 5. Fall 1980.

8 pp.

U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry. USDA Research and Extension on Family Farms.
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research
and General Legislation. 96th Congress, First Session.
July 25 & 26, 1979.

Vines, C. Austin, and Marion A. Anderson, eds.
Heritage Horizons: Extension's Commitment to People.
Extension Journal, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin 53706. 1976.
236 pp.

West, Jerry G., "Agricultural Economics Research and
Extension Needs of Small-Scale, Limited-Resource Farmers."
Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. July 1979.

§¥pp.

152

Wiggins, Edward R. "Procedures for Developing an
Education Farm Management Program for Small to Medium
Farmers." in Small Farm Reference Manual - informal

collection of materials by Myron Kelsey from an Extension
Farm Management conference. June 1974.

 

Q
r'
1.
i'.
i
‘.

 

Contents

Chapter VI

Bibliographies and Other Information Sources

 

A.

Small Farm Research Bibliography

1.

2.

Bibliography

Bibliography Source List

How-To Books for Small Farmers, Gardeners
and Homesteaders

1.

2.

Farm Buildings and Equipment
Gardening, Crops, Trees, Soils,
Fertilizers, Pest Control, and
House Plants

Greenhouses

Homesteading: How-To, History and
Philosophy

Livestock, Bees and Aquaculture

Misc. Farm Management References

Other Information Sources

Organizations
Magazines and Newsletters

Appropriate Technology and Biological
Agriculture Organizations

Agencies of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture

Misc. Government Publication Sources

Chapter VI

Bibliographies and Other Information Sources

A. Small Farm Reference Bibliography

As mentioned earlier, one of the most difficult
and frustrating aspects of researching small farm
problems is the lack of available and/or accessible
resource information.

The author originally undertook compiling a list
of what seemed to be the few references existing. It
quickly became obvious that, in reality, there were many
references. However, without small farm bibliographies
or indexing at libraries (as "small farm" has not been
generally recognized as a specific category) these
"many references" were extremely difficult to find.

Throughout this paper references have been cited
that the author had the opportunity to read. Those
many references cited other references that the author
was not able to obtain in the limited time available.
The following listing of approximately 800 references
represents all these cited. To prevent an incorrect
interpretation of abbreviations in the many different
forms used by those authors, most citations have been
retained in their original form. Also, as the author

was unable to read those listings to determine precise

153

154

subject matter, it was impossible to break up the
listings by subject matter. So, the entire 800
references are listed alphabetically by the name of the
primary author and then by the title of the article or
book.

To aid somewhat in interpreting the subject
matter of the listing, the bibliography is followed by
a list of the major reference sources and which pieces

they cited (VI.A.2).

#1.!1l .

155

VI.A.1. Bibliography

1.

10.

ll.

Abihay, L. More Income From a Small Farm: The
Multiple Cropping Approach. Agric Los Bands.
Vol. 15. No. 3. pp. 10-11. July/Sept 1976.

Ace, D. L. Dairy Goats Require Lots of Care Just
to Break Even on the Small Farm. Yearbook of
Agriculture (USDA). Washington. 1978. p.
357-364. Ill.

Ackerman, Joseph, and Harris, Marshall (ed.).
Family Farm Policy. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1947.

 

Acres, USA. A Voice for Eco-Agriculture, Box 1456,

 

Kansas City, MO 64141.

Agnes, Brenda D. 1890 Extension Program Impact on
Families in Texas. Prairie View A&M University
(undated).

Albrecht, W. A., Soil Fertility and Animal Health.
Fred Hahue Printing Co., Webster, IA 1958.

Albrecht, William A., "How Soils Nourish Plants,"
Acres, USA. November, 1973.

 

Alderfer, Evan B. Changing Times on Pennsylvania
Farms. Philadelphia, Research Dep Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Rev.
18-26 Reprint. May 1973.

Allaby, Michael and Floyd Allen. Robots Behind
the Plow. Rodale Press. Emmaus, PA 1974.

Allgood, James G. The Role of Paraprofessionals
Working with Limited Resource Farmers. Paper
presented at the Southern Small Farms Management
Workshop. Nashville, TN, Oct., 1978.

Allison, John R. Small Farms: Estimated Income
and Farm Organization Changes of Small Farms
to Beef Price, Wage, Off-Farm Employment Oppor-
tunities and the Exclusion of Cash Field Crop
Enterprises. S.L.: S.N., 1978. 35 p.: Map.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

156

Alvarez, J. and C. 0. Andrew. The Role of Agri-
culture and Marketing in Economic Development.
Gainesville, Univ of Florida Resour Econ Dep,
Staff Paper 50. 25 p. June 1977.

American Farm Bureau Federation. "Is the Family
Farm Disappearing?" The Nation's Agriculture.
June 1960.

American Vegetable Grower, “How Big is the Roadside
Market Industry?“ Vol. 25, no. 2, Feb. 1977.

Andrew, C. 0. Agricultural Policy Formation Applied
to Small Farm Credit Concerns. Gainesville,
Univ of Florida Resour Econ Dep, Staff Paper 51.
39 p. June 1977.

Andrew, C.O. Incongruent Performance Criteria for
Small Farm Economic Development. Gainesville,
Univ of Florida Food Resour Econ Dep, Staff Paper
67. 24 p. Ref. Dec 1977.

Andrew, C. 0. "Small" Farmers Cope with Risk and
Scientists. Gainesville, Univ of Florida Food
Resour Econ Dep, Staff Paper 79. 15 p. Ref.
April 1978.

Anderson, James M. Keller, Luther H. Beef Feeding
Systems and Optimum Farm Organizations for Three
Areas of Tennessee. Knoxville, Univ Tenn Agr Exp
Sta Bull 480. 65 p. July 1971.

Anderson, Jonathan D. Johnson, Roger G. Analysis
of Optimum Farm Organization in the Red River
Valley. N. Dak Agr Exp Sta Bull 489. 15 p.
March 1971.

Anthes, Earl. "A Summary Report: Small Farmers
Hearings," West Memphis, AR, sponsored by Div of
Community Services and the Rural Development
Committee, July 1978.

Armstrong, David L. 1969. Can Family Farms Com-
pete? -— An Economic Analysis. In Corporation
Farming-— What are the Issues? Proceedings of
North Central Workshop. Chicago, I11., April
21-23, 1969. Nebr Dept Agr Econ Rpt 53, pp 39-50.

Atkinson, J. H. "Trip to Missouri" (to study Small
Farm Programs). Interoffice Memorandum to C. E.
French, Purdue University. November 22, 1972.

1 111.1"!
.1: I.-.l.‘1.1v 1’41

l|... 1

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

157

Atkinson, R. "Georgia Small Farm Program: A
Progress Report.4' Mimeographed Release, Athens,
Georgia: Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Georgia, July, 1976.

Axinn, George H. and Thorat, Sudhakar. Modernizing
World Agriculture, A Comparative Studyof_Agri-
cultural Extension Edugation Systems. New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1972.

Axinn, George H. New Strategies for Rural Develop-
ment. DeWitt, Michigan: Rural Life Associates,
1978.

Bachman, Kenneth L., and Ronald W. Jones. Size of
Farms in the United States. U.S. Technical Bul-
letin No. 1019 (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, July 1950).

Baier, Kurt and Nicholas Rescher, Eds. Values and
the Future: The Impact of Technological Change
on American Values. The Free Press. New York.
1969.

 

Bailey, W. R. "Necessary Conditions for Growth of
Farm Business Firms," Agricultural Economics
Research. Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1967, pp. 1-6.

 

Bailey, Warren R. The One-Man Farm. ERS 519. USDA.
Econ. Res. Serv., August 1973, . 2.

 

Baker, Barton 8., Marvin R. Fausett, Paul E. Lewis,
and E. Keith Inskeep. "Progress Report on.the
Allegheny Highlands Project: Agriculture,
January-December, 1978," Morgantown, West Vir-
ginia: College of Agriculture and Forestry,
University of West Virginia, 1979.

Ball, A. G. and E. O. Heady, "Trends in Farm and Enterprise
Size and Scale," Size, Structure and Future of
Farms, Ed., A. Gordon Ball and E. O. Heady, Ames,
Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1972.

Ball, A. Gordon and Earl O. Heady, eds. Size,
Structure and Future of Farms. Ames, Iowa: The
Iowa State University Press, 1972.

Ball, Gordon and Earl O. Heady. "Trends in Farm
Enterprise and Scale." pp. 40-58 in Gordon A.
Ball and Earl O. Heady (eds.), Size, Structure
and Future of Farms. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press. 1972.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

158

Barber, Clarence L. "The Farm Machinery Industry:
Reconciling the Interests of the Farmer, the
Industry and the General Public." Am. J. Agr.
Econ., Vol. 55, No. 5. December 1973 pp. 820-828.

Barkley, Paul W. "A Contemporary Political Economy
of Family" Vol. 58, No. 5. pp. 812-819 of American
Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1976.

Barkley, Paul W. "Some Nonfarm Effects of Changes in
Agricultural Technology." American Journal of
Agricultural Economics. Vol. 60, No. 2. May 1978.

 

Barlowe, R. and L. Libby, "Policy Choices Affecting
Access to Farmland," Who Will Control U.S. Agri-
culture? Ed. by H. A. Guither, North Central
Regional Extension Publication 32, Urbana, IL
1972.

Barlow, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. Englewood

4—

Cliffs, New Jersey: McGraw-Hill, l9 8

Barnes, K. K. "What's Happening in Farm Machinery and
What Should Happen?" Farm Technology, Vol. 21,
No. 8, Sept. 1965, pp. 26-27, 23, 62.

Barnes, Peter, Ed., The Peoples Land: A Reader on
Land Reform in the United States. Rodale Press
Book Division, Emmaus, PA 1975.

Barnes, Peter. "The Great American Land Grab." New
Republic, June 5, 1971.

 

Barnes, Peter. "The Vanishing Small Farmer," The
New Republic, June 12, 1971, pp. 21-24.

Barnes, Peter and Larry Casalino, Who Owns the Land.
National Land for People, 2348 North Cornelia,
Fresno, California 93711.

Barnes, Peter and Larry Casalino, "Who Owns the Land?
A Primer on Land Reform in the U.S.A." Center for
Rural Studies, Berkeley, California.

Baskin, John. New Burlington: The Lifepgpd Death
of an American Village. Norton Co., 1976.

 

Baum, E. L., et al. (ed.). Economic and Technical
Analysis of Fertilizer Innovations and Resource
Use. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press,
1957.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

159

Baum, W. C. "Agricultural Credit and Small Farmer."
Fert News. Vol. 22. No. 2. pp. 39-41. February
1977.

Bawden, D. Lee. "Purpose and Design of the Rural
Income Maintenance Experiment." American Journal
of Agricultural Economics. December 1977.

 

Bay, Ovid, Theron Bell, and Marjorie Berninger.
Regional Small Farm Conferences: National Summary,
Washington, D.C.: USDA, CSA, ACTION. December
1978.

Bay. 0. Small Farm Conferences--"Giving the Little
Buy a Say". Ext Rev USDA Sci Educ Adm. Washington,
U. 8. Government Printing Office, Nov/Dec 1978.
Vol. 49, No. 6. pp. 16-17.

Bay, Ovid. Small Farm Programs and Activities: States
Reports, 1979. USDA, SEA Extension. Washington,
D.C. 20250. September 1980. 36 pp.

 

Beale, Calvin. "Quantitative Dimensions of Decline
and Stability Among Rural Communities." unpublished
paper 1973.

Beale, Calvin. "Rural Depopulation in the United
States: Some Demographic Consequences of Agricul-
tural Adjustments," Demography, 1, 1964, pp.
264-272.

Beale, Calvin, "Rural-Urban Migration of Blacks:
Past and Present," American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 53:302-307, 1971.

Beale, Calvin L. The Revival of Population Growth
in Nonmetropolitan America. ERS- -605. Economic
Research Service, U. S. D. A. June 1975.

Beardwood, Roger. "The Southern Roots of Urban
Crisis," Fortune, Vol. 78, No. 3 (August 1968),
pp. 84-93.

Becker, Ann. "Appropriate Technology and Agriculture
in.the United States." U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977.

Belden, J., and G. Edwards, C. Guyer, L. Webb, eds.
New Directions in Farm, Land and Food Policies.
Agriculture Project, Conference on.Alternative
State and Local Policies, 1901 O Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009. 1979. 318 pp.

 

‘ .‘ I
.1 7:1
:9: ".'-‘.‘
is th} - .

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

160

Belden, Joe and Gregg Forte. Toward A National
Food Policy. Exploratory Project on Economic
Alternatives. 2000 P Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20036. 1976.

Benedict, M. R., et al. "Need for a New Classi-
fication of Farms," Journal of Farm Economics.
Vol. 26. November 1944.

Berlo, D. K. The Process of Communication. New
York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

Berry, Wendell. A Continuous Harmony. Harcourt,
Brace Jovanovich, 1972.

 

Berry, Wendell, "Culture and Agriculture," RAIN,
Vol. IV, No. 3, December 1977; RAIN, 2270 NW
Irving, Portland, OR 97210.

Berry, Wendell, "Land Reform Starts on the Land and
in the Heart." Environmental Action Bulletin,
October 19, 1973.

Berry, Wendell. The Unsettling of America: Culture
and Agricuirure. San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books. 1977.

 

Berry, Wendell and Gene Logsden. "Sanitation Laws
Squeeze Out Small Producers." Organic Gardening
and Farming. October 1977, pp. 43-51.

Bertrand, A., "Agricultural Technology and Rural
Social Change," Rural Sociology, 1958. Chapter
26, pp. 400-413.

Bertrand, Alvin. "Rural Social Organizational Im-
plications of Technology and Industry." pp.
75-88 in Thomas R. Ford (ed.), Rural U.S. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University Press. 1978.

Bertrand, Alvin L. "Research on Part-time Farming
in the United States" Sociologia Ruralis
Vol. 7. No. 3. pp. 295-306. 1967.

Bertrand, Alvin L. "The Structural Characteristics
of Low-Income Rural Families: Key to Effective
Development.Programs." A paper presented to
Improved Living on Limited Resources Workshop,
Nashville, Tennessee. 1974.

 

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

161

Bertrand, Alvin and Harold Osborne, Rural Indus-
trialization in a Louisiana Community.
Louisiana State Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 524, June 1952.

 

Bierman, Russell W. and Betty A. Case, "The Farmers
Home Administration and Its Borrowers", Agricul-
tural Finance Review, Volume 21, July 1959, pp.
40-67.

Biggs, Huntley H., ed., Ronald L. Tinnermeier, Ed.
Small Farm Agricultural Development Problems.
Fort Collins, Colorado State University. 168 p.
Illus. C1974.

Biggs, H. H. New Perspectives on Development Strate-
gies Raising Productivity Levels on Small Farms.
in Small Farm Agricultural Development Problems.
H. H. Biggs & R. L. Tinnermeier, Eds. p. 1-19.
Ref. 1974.

 

Bildner, Robert. "Hard Times for Southern Farmers,"
In These Times. 1509 North Milwaukee Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60622. December 21-27, 1977.

Bildner, Robert. "Southern Farm, A Vanishing Breed."
Southern Exposure, Vol. 2, Nos. 2 and 3 (Fall
1974). PP. 72-80.

 

 

Bird, Alan R. and John L. McCoy. White Americans
in Rural Poverty. Agricultural Economic Report
No. 124. ERS, USDA. November 1967.

 

Bishop, C. E. Labor Mobility and Population in
Agriculture, Ed. E. O. Heady, Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press, 1971.

 

Blackburn, Donald J., George Brinkman and Herbert
C. Driver. Farm Business, Behavioral and Partici-
pation Characteristics of Limited Resource
Farmers. ISSN 0318-1804. School of Agricultural
Economics and Extension Education, Ontario Agri-
cultural College, Guelph. March 1979.

Blobaum, R. Missouri's Program to Save the Small
Farmer. Org Gard Farming. Vol. 23. No. 4.
pp. 126-131. April 1976.

 

Blobaum, Roger.. "How China Uses Organic Farming
Methods," Organic Gardening and Farming, July
1975.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

162

Blobaum, Roger. The Loss of Agricultural Land.
A Study Report to the Citizens Advisory Committee
on Environmental Quality, 1700 Pennsylvania Ave.,
Washington, D.C., 1974.

Blobaum, Roger. "Remarks," Paper delivered at the
First National Conference on Land Reform, San
Francisco, CA 1973.

Blosser, R. H. "Greater Use Slashes Machinery Costs,"
Better Farming Methods, March, 1964. pp. 32-33.

Bogue, Donald J. and Calvin Beale, Our Changing Rural
Society: Perspectives and Trends, ed., James Copp,
pp. 71-126.

 

Bonnen, James T. "Assessment of the Current Agri-
cultural Data Base: An Information System
Approach." In A Survey of Agricultural Economics
Literature 2. Edited by Lee R. Martin. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press, 1977.

 

Bonnen, James T., "The Distribution of Benefits from
Selected U.S. Farm Programs," Rural Poverty in
the United States. A report by the President's
National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty,
May 1968.

Bonser, H. J., and Porter, C. W. "Part-Time Farming:
Boon or Bugaboo." Better Farming Methods. July
1961.

Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity_Agarchism, Ramparts
Press, Berkeley, California, 1972.

Booth, E. J. R. The Potential for Rural Development
in Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Stillwater: Okla-
homa Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
B-548, February 1960.

 

Boshoff, W. H. Using Field Machinery. Oxford Press,
New York, 1968.

Breimyer, Harold F. Individual Freedom and the
Economic Organization of Agriculture. 314 pp.
University of Ill. Press, Urbana. 1965.

Brewster, David. "Some Historical Notes on the Farm
Definition." Agr. Econ. Res., vol. 29, no. 1,
USDA, Econ Res Serv, January 1977.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

163

Brewster, David and Thomas A. Carlin. "A New Set
of Small-Farm Guidelines." Agricultural Eco-
nomic Research, Economics, Statistics and
Cooperatives Service, USDA. Vol. 31, No. 3.
July 1979.

Brewster, David E. "Federal Policy and the Small
Farm, An Historical View." In "Toward a Federal
Small Farms Policy," report on Small Farm Policy
Workshop (Phase I), Winrock, Arkansas, October
16-18, 1977. Washington: National Rural Center
(1828 L St. NW), 1978.

Brewster, J. M. "Farm Opportunities: Output and
Population Growth" Land Policy Review. Vol. 8.
No. 4. pp. 8-11. 1945.

 

Brewster, John M. A Philosopher Amonngconomists.
294 pp. J. T. Murphy Printing Co., Philadelphia.
1970.

Brinkman, George, H. C. Driver and D. J. Blackburn.
A Classification of Limited Resource Farmers
Based on Behavioral and Economic Characteristics.
Agricultural Economics and Extension Education
ISSN 0318-1804. Ontario Agricultural College,
University of Guelph. May 1977.

Brockett, John E. Farm Management for Part Time
Farmers. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Extension Service, Special Circular
203, 1975.

Brockman, C. Making a Living from Organic Eggs
A Small Poultry Farm, Michigan. Org Gard Farming.
Vol. 23. No. 12. pp. 64-66. December 1976.

Bromfield, L. Malabar Farms, Ballantine Books, New
York, 1947.

Brooks, Joseph. "Loss of Black Owned Land Continues
in Rural South," Catholic Rural Life. National
Catholic Rural Life Conference, 3801 Grand Avenue,
Des Moines, Iowa 50312. March 1976.

Brown, Lester. Seeds of Changg. Praeger, New York,
1970 0

Brown, Thomas G. "Extension Farm Management Programming
for Small Farms." Paper presented at North Central
Farm Management Extension Workshop, Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, Michigan 48824. May 1973.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

164

Browne, Robert 8., "Only Six Million Acres: The
Decline of Black Owned Land in the Rural South."
Emergency Land Fund, 836 Beecher Street, S.W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30310. 1973.

Brucker, M. H., C. B. Baker, D. E. Erickson.
Planning Retirement from Farming: A Computer-
Assisted Method for Low-Income Farmers. Special _
Publication 34, College of Agriculture, Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1975.

Brunner, Edmund. "The Small Village, 1940-1950"
Rural Sociology, 17, June 1952. pp. 127-131.

Brunner, Edmund deS., and Yang, E. Hsin Pao. Rural
America and the Extension Service: A History
and Critique of the Cooperative Agricultural and
Home Economics Extension Service. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1949.

Buchanan, Keith. The Transformation of the Chinese
Earth, Praeger. ‘New York, 1956.

Bullock, Bruce, and Allen M. Beals. Economies of
Size and Diseconomies of Specializaripn in North
Carolina Pork Production. Econ. Infor. Rpt. 44.
Raleigh, N.C., N.C. State Univ., Dept. of Econ.
and Business, November 1975.

Burkett, W. K. and K. H. Parsons. "Buying Farms with
Hundred-Percent Loans: An Analysis of the Farm
Security Administration Loan Experience in Wiscon-
sin", Land Economics, Volume 27, No. 2, May 1951.

Burkett, W. K. and J. F. Thompson. Low Incomes of
Rural People in South Central Kentucky. Lexing-
ton: Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 697, 1965.

Burrill, George and James Nolfi, "Regional Food
Strategies, New Ways of Bringing Farmer and Con-
sumer Closer Together As Food Policy Becomes a
State Issue," Organic Gardening and Farming.
January 1976.

Bushman, D. H. The Role of Poultry Production on
Small Farms Chickens, Ducks, Management. g;
Anim. Sci. Vol. 45. No. 2. pp. 402-409.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

165

Buttel, Fred, William Lockeretz, Martin Strange,
and Elinor C. Terhune. Energy and Small Farms:
A Review of ExistingfiLiterature and Suggestions
Concerning Further Research. NRC Small Farms
Project Rep. No. 3, forthcoming 1979.

Butz, Earl. "Agribusiness in the Machine Age," USDA
Yearbook for 1960. Govt. Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.C. 1960. p. 389.

California Public Policy Center. Working Paper in
Economic Democracy: Towards a New Rural California.
California Public Policy Center, 304 South Broad-
way, Room 224, Los Angeles, California 90013.

California Small Farm Viability Project, Final Report.
State CETA Office, Rural Affairs, Department of
Employment Development, 800 Capitol Mall, Sacramen-
to, California 95814. 1977.

Campbell, Rex R., George H. Daily, and Robert L.
McNamara. Population Change in the Ozarks Region,
1970-1975LpA Report to the Ozarks Regional Commis-
sion. Columbia: Department of Rural Sociology,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 1978. pp. 26-27.

Carlin, T. A. and Fred Woods. Tax Loss Farming.
ERS-USDA 546, April 1974.

Carlin, Thomas A. "Farm Families Narrowed the Income
Gap in the 1960's," Agricultural Finance Review
Vol. 33. pp. 22-26. 1972.

Carlin, Thomas A. and Reinsel, "Combining Income and
Wealth: An Analysis of Farm Family 'Well Being‘,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.
55, No. 1. February 1973.

Carlin, Thomas A., Gary Hendricks and Faye F.
Christian. Residential and Regional Distribution
of Benefits Under the Allowance for Basic Living
Expense (ABLE) Welfare Reform Proposal. Agricul-
tural Economic Report No. 374. ERS, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture in cooperation with the Urban
Institute. June 1977.

Carlin, Thomas A. And John Crecink. "Small Farm
Definition and Public Policy," Pullman, Washington:
presented at the AAEA annual meeting (July 30-
August 1, 1979).

~
~

166

125. Carlin, Thomas A. and John Crecink. "Small Farm
Definition and Public Policy." Journal of Agri-
cultural Economics. Vol. 61, No. 5. December
1979.

 

126. Carlson, J. "Big Corporations Back Out of Farming,"
and "Why These Corporate Farms Crashed," Farm
Journal, April 1971 (3 pp.).

127. Carter, Joe. "The Farrallones Rural Center: Dis-
covering Self Reliance," Environmental Action
Bulletin. March 6, 1976. p. 4.

128. Carver, Thomas N. Principles of Rural Economics.
New York: Ginn and Co., 1911.

129. Center for Rural Affairs. FmHA's Limited Resource
Loan Program. Center for Rural Affairs, Box 405,
Walthill, NE 68067.

 

130. Center for Rural Affairs. Land Tenure Research Guidg.
Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill, Nebraska, 1975.

131. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
From the Ground Up: Building a Grass Roots Food
Policy. CSPI, 1755 S Street, N.W., Washington,
C.S. 20009. 1976.

132. Center for Studies in Food Self-Sufficiency, Research
Report on Developing a Community Level Natural Re-
source System. Center for Studies in Food Self-
Sufficiency, Vermont Institute of Community
Development, 90 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont
05401. 1976.

133. Central Coast Counties Development Corporation (CCCDC).
Program Profile. CCCDC, 7000 Soquel Drive, Aptos,
California 95003. 1978.

134. Chapman, James. Small Farms in Michigan: A Proposal
for Research. Master's Thesis. Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University,
E. Lansing, MI 48824.

135. Charlton, J. L., Social Aspects of Farm Ownership
and Tenancy in theIArkansas Ozarks. Arkansas
AES Bulletin No. 471, September 1947.

136. Chavez, Cesar. "Square Tomatoes and Idle Workers:
The Farm Workers' Next Battle," The Nation,
December 1977.

 

4.

 

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

167

Chien, Ying I. and Garnett L. Bradford. A
Sequential Model of the Farm Firm Growth Process.
Lexington, KY. Americana Agricultural Economics
Association, Amer J Agr Econ, Vol. 58. No. 3.
pp. 456-465.

 

Cheung, Steven N. S. The Theory of Share Tenancy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1969.

Christian, Virgil, and P. Adamantius, "Farm Size and
the Displacement of Black Farm Families in
Southern Agriculture," Human Resource Development
in the Rural South. A Report of the Center for
the Study of Human Resources, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas. 1971.

Clark, Tyler. "Washington State University is
Working to Meet the Needs of the 'Smaller' Farmer."
Tilth Vol. 5, No. 1. Spring 1979.

Clark, Wilson. "U.S. Agriculture is Growing Trouble
as Well as CrOps," Smithsonian Journal. January
1975, pp. 59-64.

Clawson, Marion. AmericasJLand and Its Uses.
Published for Futures, Inc., Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, MD., 1972.

Clawson, Marion. A New Policy Direction forAmerican
Agriculture. Reprint No. 82, Resources for the
Future, Inc., Washington, D.C., April 1970.

 

Clawson, Marion. "Restoration of the Quality of Life
in Rural America," in Heady and Whiting, Ch. 9.
1975.

Cline, Philip L. "Emerging Technologies in Agricul-
ture and Their Impacts on Input/Output Coefficients.
Oklahoma State University, unpublished paper, 1974.

Cochrane, W. W. and M. E. Ryan. American Farm Policy,
1948-1973. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1976.

Cochrane, Willard W. The City Man's Ggide to the Farm
Problem. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1965.

Coffee, Joseph D. "Personal Distribution of Farmer's
Income by Sources and Region," Amer. J. Agri. Econ.
Vol. 50. No. 5. p. 1380-1396. 1968.

‘lil!1.l197

I'1t'il11, iv

 

 

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

1553.

168

Coffman, G. W. Corporations with FarmingOperations.
ERS-USDA, Agr Econ Report No. 209, June 1971.

Colbert, Jan (Editor). Progress 77: Missouri Small
Farm Family Program. Cooperative Extension
Service. University of Missouri and Lincoln
University. 1978.

 

Coleman, E. A Small Farmer's Guidelines to Success
in Maine. Org Gard Farming. Vol. 24. No. 1
pp. 75-77.

Colette, Arden W., and Gail Eastley. A Bibliography:
The Role of Communications and Attitudes in Small
Farm Programs. Rural Development Series Number 4,
Southern Rural Development Center, Box 5406,
Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762. 1977.

Colette, W. Arden and Gail Easley. Small Farm Opera-
tions, Rural Development Bibliography Series No. 4.
Mississippi: Southern Rural Development Center,
September, 1977.

Colette, w. Arden. "The Role of Communication and
Attitudes in Small Farm Programs," SRDC Series;
also unpublished papers, Food and Resource Eco-
nomics Department, University of Florida, September
1977.

Coley, Basil. "Leaving the Farm." Rural Development
Research and Education, 1, 4 (Summer 1977), 19-20.

Comer, S. L. "Resource Allocations for Maximizing
Income on Limited Resource Farms in Giles County,
Tennessee," unpublished M.S. thesis, Tennessee
State University, 1974.

Comer, Sammy and Roger Woodworth. Improving Incomes
on Limited Resource Farms in South Central Tennes-
ggg. Bulletin 36, Nashville, Tennessee: Tennessee
State University, 1976.

Commoner, Barry. ”Can We Survive?" Washington Monthly.
December 1969. pp. 12-21. (Deleterious effects of

nitrasyn pesticides in California.)

Commoner, Barry. Interview in Ruralamerica: reprinted
in the Congressional Record. September 24, 1976.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

1721.

169

Commoner, Barry.. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man
and Technology. Alfred A. Knopp, New York, 1971.

 

 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A Policy for Food and
Agriculture in Massachusetts. Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Department of Food and
Agriculture, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massa-
chusetts 02202. 1976. To be revised in 1978.

Comptroller General of the United States. Some
Problems Impeding Economic Improvement of Small
Farm Operations: What the Department of Agricul-
ture Could Do. Report to COngress, General Ac-
counting Office, 4th and G Streets, N.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20548. August 15, 1975.

Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies.
New Directions in Farm! Land and Food Policies.
Washington, D.C. 1978.

Constant, Florence. "Land Reform: A Bibliography,"
Center for Community Economic Development, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. 1972.

Coombs, Philip H. with Ahmed, Manzoor.. Attacking
Rural Poverty, How Nonformal Education.Can.Heip.
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press,
1974.

Copp, J. "The Meaning of Rural - A Third of Our
Nation," Yearbook of Agriculture - 1970. pp. 143-148.

Cordtz, Dan- "Corporate Farming: A.T0ugh Row to Hoe,"
Fortune, August 1972, 8% pp.

Cotner, M. L., et a1 Farmland: Will There Be Enough?
EARS-USDA No. 584, May 1975.

Crecink, John C. and Roosevelt Steptoe.. Human Re-
sources in the Rural Mississippi Delta-With Emphasis
on the Poor. Agricultural Economic Report No. 170,
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture. 1970.

Crosswhite, William M. Part-time Farminc.and the
Preservation of Open Space in the Pen1erdel Region.
Univ of Del, Dept of Agr Econ, Agr Exp Sta, Univ
of Del, p. 10.

 

172.

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

18]..

170

Cunningham, L. C. Commercial Dairy Farming North
Countrngegion New York. Agr Exp Sta Bul 942.
Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell Univ, June 1959, p. 5.

Curry, J. Farmers' Response to Small Farm (Incentive
Bonus) Scheme Income. Farm Food Res. Vol. 6.
No. 4. pp. 79-81.

 

Cutler, M. R. "Breathe Life Into Our Cold Statistics."
Remarks of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
for Conservation, Research and Education at the
Small Farms Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico
USDA Programs. Cutler, Malcolm Rupert (addresses,
statements, etc.). 2593-78, 10 p. Sept 6, 1978.

Daly, Rex F., J. A. Dempsey, and C. W. Cobb. "Farm
Numbers and Sizes in the Future." pp. 314-332 in
Gordon A. Ball and Earl O. Heady (eds.) Size,
Structure and Future of Farms. Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University Press. 1972.

Darrow, Ken and Rick Pam. Appropriate Technology
Sourcebook. (Stanford: Volunteers in Asia) 1976.

 

Davis, Leroy. The Role of Cooperatives in the Survival
of Small Farms. Southern University and A&M College
P.O. Box 9846, Baton Rouge, LA 70813. April 1975.

12 pp.

 

Davis, Thomas F. Persistent Low-Income Counties in
Nonmetro America. Rural Development Research
Report No. 12. Economics, Statistics, and
Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture. May 1979.

Dhillon, J. A. "Description of the Sample: Charac-
teristics of the Rural Poor," unpublished paper,
Center for Rural Development and Research, Florida
A&M University, 1977.

Dhillon, J. A. "Knowledge Level, Need and Use of
Selected Antipoverty Programs by the Rural Poor,"
unpublished paper, Center for Rural Development
and Research, Florida A&M University, 1977.

Dhillon, J. A. "Perception of Institutional Incen-
tives and Constraints by the Poor in the Acceptance
of New Ideas and Economic Opportunity Programs,"
unpublished paper, Center for Rural Development and
Research, Florida A&M University, Sept 22, 1977.

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

171

Diaz Cisneros, H. Comments on John Higgs' paper on
"Reaching Small Farmers for Rural and Agricul-
tural Development". Misc Publ Hawaii Univ Coop
Ext Serv. Vol. 152. pp. 63-82. Jan 1978.

Dietrich, Raymond A., Costs and Economies of Size in
Texas-Oklahoma Cattle Feedlot Operations. Bul.
1038, Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., May 1969.

Dietrich, Raymond A., J. Rod Martin, and P. W.
Ljungdahl. "Custom Feeding Clients in Texas
Feedlots--Operational Characteristics, Management
Practices, and Feeding Strategies." Bul. 1148.
Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., October 1974.

Doering, I. II, O.C. Appropriate Technology for U.S.
Agriculture: Are Small Farms the Coming Thing?
Introductory Comments. Am. J. Agri. Econ. Vol.
60, No. 2. pp. 293-294.

Doll, John P., James V. Rhodes, and Jerry G. West.
Economics of Agricultural Production, Markets, and
Policy. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1968, p. 235.

Donaldson, G. F. and J. P. McInerney. "Changing
Machinery Technology and Agricultural Adjustment."
Am. J. Agr. Econ., Vol. 55, No. 5, December 1973,
pp. 829-839.

Dorner, Peter. "The Family Farm: Can it Survive?"
Better Farming Methods, June 1961.

Dorner, Peter. "The Farm Structure Debate and Wis-
consin Family Farming." Economic Issues #46.
Dept. Ag. Econ. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706. June 1980.

Driver, H. C., et al. A Realistic Assessment of
Policy Instruments Designed to Aid Limited Re-
source Farmers in Making Major Farm Improvements.
ISSN 0318-1804 School of Agricultural Economics
and Extension Education, Ontario Agricultural
College, Guelph. May 1979.

Durost, Donald D. and Warren R. Bailey. ”What's
Happened to Farming?" In Hayes, J. (ed.)
Yearbook of Agriculture, 1970, pp. 2-10, repro-
duced in Rodefeld et al., op. cit., pp. 15-19.

192.

193.

194.

195.

196.

197.

198.

199.

200.

2021.

172

Edwards, P. K., D. Orden, and S. T. Buccola.
"Evaluating the Impact of Federal Human Service
Programs with Locally Differentiated Consti-
tuencies," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Vol. 16, No. 1, 1980.

Edwards, Richard J. "Classification and Review of
Selected Activities to Assist Small Farmers."
Paper presented at symposium titled "Toward a
Federal Small Farms Policy." National Rural
Center, Washington, D.C. November 1978.

Edwards, Richard J. and George W. Coffman. Farm
Poverty: A Current Assessment and Research Focus.
NEAD Working Paper, National Economic Analysis
Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture. September 1977.

Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. Ballantine,
New York. 1968. 223 pp.

Emergency Land Fund (ELF). The Black Land Base: A
Public Policy Perspective. ELF, 836 Beecher
Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30301. 1977.

Emergency Land Fund. 40 Acres and a Mule. Emergency
Land Fund, 233 East Hamilton Street, Jackson,
Mississippi 39205. Newsletter.

Emergency Land Fund (ELF). Implications for Black
Land Loss: Federal Financing for Black Rural
Development. A Report on Minority Credit Barriers
in Eleven Southern States. ELF, 836 Beecher Street,
S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30301. 1977.

Emergency Land Fund (ELF). To Save Our Land. ELF,
836 Beecher Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30301.
Annual Report of ELF.

Emerson, Peter M. Public Policy and the Changing
Structure of American Agriculture. Congressional
Budget Office, Congress of the United States,
Washington, D.C. September 1978.

Enlow, G., C. George, J. Holik, and E. Wiggins.
"Missouri Small Farm Family Program: 1979"
Columbia, Missouri: Missouri Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, MP445. Revised. 23 pp.

202.

203.

204.

205.

206.

207.

208.

209.

210.

211.

212.

173

Enlow, George, Charlotte George, John Holik and
Ed Wiggins. Profiles of Families Living on Small
Farms. MP518, University of Missouri, Columbia,
MO.

Enochian, R. V., D. D. Durost, C. A. Moore, and C. D.
Rogers. "Report of Rapporteur Group I." In Back,
Technology Assessment, gp. cit., pp. 152-155.

Epp, Donald J. An Analysis of Farm Size Change in
Michigan. Thesis, with bibliography and abstract.
Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824.
1964. 46 pp.

Ervin, Bernard. "Off Farm Income and Part-time
Farming in Ohio," Socio-Economic Information for
Ohio Agriculture and Rural Communities, No. 576,
Department of Agricultural Economics: Ohio State
University, 1976.

 

Esbenshade, Henry. Farming for a Social & Ecologically
Accountable Agriculture. Alternative Agricultural
Resources Project. Citizen Action Press, Davis,
California. June 1976.

Evans, Homer C., W. W. Armentrout and R. L. Jack.
Some Effects of Price and Incgme Sgpport Programs
on Marginal Farms, Bulletin 451, Morgantown, West
Virginia: West Virginia University.

 

 

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy.
"Extension's Responsibility to Farmers and Ranchers
with Gross Farm Income Less Than $10,000." Report
of Project III Committee May 4, 1967.

Fairweather, George W. and L. G. Tornatzky. "Experi-
mental Methods for Social Policy Research,"
Pergamon Press, 1977.

Farris, Paul L. Alternatives and Consequences for
Preserving the Family Farm. Agri. Sci. Rev.
Third quarter, 1968. pp. 19-26. 1968.

Faulkner, Edward. The Plowman's Folly, 1943.
Available from Mother Earth News, Hendersonville,
N.C.

 

Finley, Robert M., and Robert E. J. Retzlaff.
“Economies of Size in Midwest Hog Operations."
J. of the Amer. Soc. of Farm Managers and Rural
Appraisers, Inc. Vol. 38 No. 2. p. 9. Oct. 1974.

213.

214.

215.

216.

217.

218.

219.

220.

221.

222.

223.

174

Flander, N. E. and H. B. Metzger. Small Farms
in the Eastern Coastal Area of Maine--Their
Resources, Incomes and Needs. Res Life Sci
25 (2), 17 p. October 1977.

 

Fliegel, Fredrick C. The Low Income Farmer in a
Changing Society. University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Agricultural Experiment Station.
Bulletin 731, 1966.

Fliegel, Frederick C., James D. Williams, and Andrew
J. Sofranko. "Urbanites Go Back to the Farm,"
Illinois Research 20 (Summer) pp. 8-9. 1978.

Flint, Charles L. "The First Centennial: A Hundred
Years of Progress in American Agriculture," Agri-
cultural Sciencg Review, CSRS-USDA, Vol. II, No. 2
2nd Quarter, 1973.

Fogle, H. and Faust, M. Orchards Can Be Profitable,
Good Management is the Key Small Farms. Yearbook
Agriculture (USDA) Washington. 1978. p. 171-179.

 

Fowler, Stewart H., Beef Production in the South.
Danville, Ill.: The Interstate Printers &
Publishers, 1969.

 

Freeman, Orville. Agriculture in Transition. Report
to the President, January 7, 1969. USDA.

Frey, T. Major Uses of Land in the United States:
Summary for 1969. USDA-EARS, Agr Econ Report
No 250, February 1974.

 

 

Fugitt, Glenn. "The Places Left Behind," Rural
Sociology, 36, 1971, pp. 449-460.

 

Fugitt, Glenn, Anthony M. Fuller, Heather Fuller,
Ruth Gasson, and Gwynn Jones. Part-time Farming:
Its Nature and Implications. Asford, Kent,
England: Wye College. 1977.

Fujimoto, Isao. "The Communities of the San Joaquin
Valley: The Relation Between Scale of Farming,
Water Use, and the Quality of Life." In U.S.
House of Representatives, 95th Congress, Subcom-
mittee on Family Farms, Rural DevelOpment, and
Special Studies. Hearings on Obstacles to
Strengthening Family Farm System, October 28,
1977.

224.

225.

226.

227.

228.

229.

230.

231.

232.

233.

234.

175

Fujimoto, I. "National Center Pushes Small-Scale
Technology," Catholic Rural Life. March 1978.
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, 3801
Grand Ave., Des Moines, IA 50312.

Fujimoto, I. "The Values of ApprOpriate Technology
and Visions for a Saner World," National Center
for Appropriate Technology, Pub., P.O. Box 3838,
Butte, Montana 59701.

Fuller, Anthony M. "The Problems of Part-time
Farming Conceptualized." pp. 38-56 in Anthony
M. Fuller and Julius A. Mage (eds.), Part-time
Farming: Problem or Resource in Rural Development.
Norwich, England: Geo Abstracts Ltd., University
of East Anglia. 1975.

Gambone, Jim, and Dave Gutknecht. "Control Data: A
Look at the Small Farm and Appropriate Technology
Programs of Control Data Corporation." Private
paper obtainable from J. Gambone, 2298 Priscilla
Ave., St. Paul, MN 55100. May 1980.

'Gardner, B. Delworth, and Rulon D. Pope. "How is

Scale and Structure Determined in AgriCulture?"
Am. J. Ag, Econ., Vol. 60, #2, May 1978.

 

Garst, Elizabeth. .A Description of Beef.Cow-Calf
Producers in Six States -- Their Enterprise,
Motivation and Sources of Information- Thesis
with bibliography and abstract. Dept. of Ag.
Econ, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI
48824. 1976. 159 pp.

 

 

Gasson, Ruth.. "Goals and Values of Farmers," Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 24, September 1973.

 

Gates, Paul. The Farmer's Age: Agriculture, 1815-1860.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

Gates, Paul.. "Testimony," Farm Workers in Rural
America, 1971-1972.

Gee, Wilson. The Social Economics of Agriculture.
New York: McMillan Co., 1942.

George, Charlotte. Lincoln University Small Farm
Family Resource Management Program. .Lincoln
University Cooperative Extension Service, Jeffer-
son City, Missouri. May 1978.

235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

240.

241.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

176

George, C. The Missouri Small Farm Family Develop-
ment Program. Proceedings of the Agricultural
Outlook Conference, Washington, D.C., U.C. Dept.
of Agriculture. 1979, pp. 386-390.'

Geyer, Richard E. "The Myth of the Corporation Farm,"
Better Farming,Methods. June 1962.

Gibson, W. L., Jr. "Is the Family Farm Obsolete?"
Better Farming Methods. March 1962.

Gill, W. R. "Economic Assessment of Soil Compaction."
in Barnes et al. Compaction of Agricultural Soils.
Am. Society of Agri. Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 1971.

 

Gist, Noel P., "Ecological Decentralization and
Rural-Urban Relationships," Rural Sociology 17,
December 1952, pp. 328-335.

Givan, William D. and Ralph G. Kline. The Effects of
Various Wage Rates on Farm Organization and
Structure in Southwest Virginia. VA Polytech Inst
Res Div Bull 63. 60 p. July 1971.

Goldschmidt, W. As You Sow. Montclair, N.J.
Allanheld, Osmun & Co., 1978.

 

Goldschmidt, Walter. Small Business and the Commu-
nity: A Studyin Central Valley of California
on EfiEcts of Scale ofiFarm Operations. Senate
Committee Print No. 13, Report of the Special
Committee to Study Problems of American Small
Business, U.S. Senate, 79th Congress, 2nd Session,
1946.

Goldstein, J. The New Food Chain: An Organic Link
Between Farm and City. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA
1973.

Goldstein, Jerome, Editor. The Least is Best
Pesticide Strategy. J. G. Press, Incorporated,
Box 351, Emmaus, Pennsylvania 18049.

Goldwaith, J. W., "A Town That Has Gone Downhill,"
The Geographical Review, 7, October 1927.

Gone, Hambridge, ed. Farmers in a Changing World:
Yearbook of Agriculture 1949. Washington D.C.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940, pp.
191-326.

247.

248.

249.

250.

251.

252.

253.

254.

255.

256.

257.

258.

177

Goodstein, Jeanette, ed. The Rural Poor Unseen by
Poligy-makers. Phoenix, Arizona: Center for
Public Affairs, Arizona State University. March
1977.

Gorham, Lucy. Revitalizing Maine's Agriculture.
Maine Audubon Society, Gilsland Farm, 118 U.S.
1, Falmouth, Maine 04105. 1975.

Gorney, Cynthia. "University Is Sued Over Develop-
ment of Sophisticated Harvesting Machine." The
Washington Post, January 18, 1979, p. A-ll.

Graber, Scott. "A Blight Hits Black Farmers," The
Nation. March 11, 1978.

Green, Wade. "How Durable is the Small Farm,"
Countryside Journal, December 1978, pp. 90-98.

 

Green, Wade. "The New Alchemists," New York Times
Magazine, August 8, 1976.

Grove, Ernest W. "The New Dichotomy in Agriculture,"
Journal of Farm Economics, 45:2, 1963.

 

Guither, Harold D. "Factors Influencing Farm
Operators' Decisions to Leave Farming," Journal
of Farm Economics, XLV (August, 1963), pp. 567-576.

 

Guyer, Cynthia and Lee Webb. "Agricultural Group
Seeks Out Non—Federal Answers," Catholic Rural Life
3801 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50312.
September 1978.

Guyer, Cynthia. "State and Local Governments Lead
the Way," in "The Family Farm: Can It Be Saved?,"
E/SA Forum. United Methodist Church, 110 Mary-
land Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002.
October, 1978.

Hagan, Albert Ross. FamilyFarm Adjustments to
Meet the Impacts of Economic, Technological, and
Sociological Changes on Central Missouri Farms.
Thesis with bibliography and abstract. Michigan
State University, E. Lansing MI 48824. Dept. of
Agricultural Economics. 1963. 245 pp.

Hainsworth, P. Agriculture;#_A New Approach.
Faber and Faber, London 1954.

259.

260.

261.

262.

263.

264.

265.

266.

267.

268.

269.

270.

178

Hall, B. F. and E. P. Leveen. Farm-Size and
Economic Efficiency: The Case of California.
Berkeley, Univ Calif Agrl Exp Stn, Giannini
Found Agrl Econ, Working Paper 53. 42 p. Ref.
February 1978.

Hall, Harry H., Eldon D. Smith, and Angelos Pagou-
latos. Public Economics of the Small Farm.
Staff Paper No. 4. Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of Kentucky. July 21,
1977.

Hambidge, Cove. "American Agriculture -- The First
300 Years." Reprinted from 1940 Yearbook of
Agriculture, in Rodefeld 23.2l-r 1978, pp. 9-15.

Hamilton, David. A primer on the Economics of
Poverty. 133 pp. Random House, New York. 1968.

Hamilton, Martha M. The Great American Grain
Robbery and Other Storieg. Agribusiness Ac-
countability Project, 1972, pp. 101-116.

Hansen, R. J. and R. G. F. Spitze. Dual Employment
Increasingly Important to Small Farmer Income.
Staff Paper Dept Agricultural Economics, Univ.
of Nebraska. 5, 12 p. 1975.

Hansen, Ronald J. and R. G. F. Spitze. "Increasing
Incomes of Farm Families Through Dual Employment,"
Agr Fin Rev Vol 35. pp. 59-64. 1974.

 

Hansen, Ronald J. "Nonfarm Income Earned by Com-
mercial Farm Operators in Central Illinois,"
Amer. Jour. Agr. Econ., Vol. 53. No. 1. pp. 103-
105, 1971.

Harman, Villis. "The Changing Role of Science and
Technology." Renaissance_UniversaliJournal,
Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 1977, pp. 3-5.

Harris, Marshall. "Landless Farm People in the United
States," Rural Sociology 6, 1941.

Harrison, Kelly. Marketing Problems Associated with
Small Farm Agriculture: Report on An ADC. New
York: Agricultural Development Council, 1974. 7 p.
I11.

Hart, Albert Bushnell, Ed. National Ideals Histori-
cally Traced, 1607-1907. Vol 26 of The American
Nation. Harper. Hew York. 1904-1918.

271.

272.

273a.

273b.

274.

275.

276.

277.

278.

179

Hartmans, E. H., 23 al. Part-time Farming:
Possibilities and Limitations. University of
Minnesota, College of Agriculture Extension
Bulletin No. 296 (St. Paul: Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, June 1959).

Harvey, J. L. and Garth Holmquist. Rural Manpower:
An Annotated Bibliography. Rural Manpower
Center, Special Paper No. 5, August 1968,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
(300 references).

Hathaway, Dale E. "The Family Farm in a Changing
Agriculture," Michigan Farm Economics No. 186,
July, 1958.

Hathaway, Dale E. "The Federal Credit Programs
for Individual Farm Development," in Federal
Credit Agencies, A Series of Research Studies
Prepared for the Commission on Money and Credit,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
1963.

Hathaway, Dale E. and Arley D. Waldo. "Multiple
Jobholding by Farm Operators," Michigan State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Research Bulletin 5. 1964.

Hathaway, Dale E. People of Rural America.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968.

Havelock, Ronald G. in collaboration with Guskin,
Alan; Frohman, Mark; Havelock, Mary; Hill,
Majorie; and Huber, Janet. "Planning for Inno-
vation Through Dissemination of Scientific
Knowledge." Institute for Social Research.

The University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan,
1971.

Hawaii University Cooperative Extension Service.
Strategies for Improving Small Farmer Develop-
ment in the Tropics; Proceedings. University
of Hawaii, May 23-26, 1977. Misc Publ Hawaii
Coop Ext Serv. 152, 144 p. January 1978.

Hawkins, D. R., H. D. Ritchie and G. A. Greathouse.
Opportunities for Supplemental Income from a
Beef Cow Herd. Chatham, Michigan: Northern
Beef Demonstration Center and Michigan State
University, 1975.

 

279.

280.

281.

282.

283.

284.

285.

286.

287.

288.

289.

290.

180

Heady, Earl O. 2E al. (ed.). Agricultural
Adjustment Problems in a Growing Economy. Ames,
Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1958.

Heady, Earl O. "The Agriculture of the U.S."
Scientific American, September 1976, pp. 107-127.

Heady, Earl 0. Economics of Agricultural Produc-
tion and Resource Use. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952.

Heady, Earl O. and L. R. Whiting. (eds.)
Externalities in the Transformation of Agricul-
ture: Distribution of Benefits and Costs from
Development. Iowa State University Press, 1975.

 

Heady, Earl O. and Steven T. Sonka. "Farm Size,
Rural Community Income, and Consumer Welfare."
American Journal of Agricuitural Economics.
Vol. 56, No. 3. August 1974.

Heady, Earl C., and Steven T. Sonka. Farm-Size
Structure and Off-Farm Income and Employment
Generation in the North Central Region. Ames:
Iowa State University, North Central Regional
Center for Rural Development, 1975.

Heady, Earl C., and Ronald D. Krenz. "How Big Will
Our Farms Get?" Iowa Farm Science, XVI, No. 5,
(November, 1961), pp. 51-53.

Heady, Earl 0. "Nature of the Farm Problem" 5g-
justments in Agriculture -- A National Basebook.
Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961.

Heady, Earl 0. "New Priorities." North Central
Regional Center for Rural Development. Rural
Development: Research Prioritieg. Ames, Iowa.
Iowa State University Press. 1973.

Heady, Earl 0. Pattern of Farm Size Adjustment in
Iowa, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment
Station Research Bulletin 350, Iowa State College,
Ames, 1947.

Heady, Earl 0. "Public Purpose in Agricultural
Research and Education." J. of Farm Econ.,
Vol. 43, No. 1, February 1961, pp. 566-581.

Heady, Earl 0. "What's Happening to Farm Size?"
Iowa Farm Science, March 1958.

291.

292.

293.

294.

295.

296.

297.

298.

299.

181

Heagler, Arthur M., Coral F. Francois, and James H.
White. Developing Profitable Row Crop Systems in
Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA Agr Exp Sta Dep Agr
Econ Agribus AEA Inform Ser No 32, 75 p. Oct 1973.

Hedrick, Stephen K., and Dale K. Colyer. Socio-
Economic Factors Affecting Beef Production in West

 

Virginia. Morgantown: West Virginia University P
Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 610, ‘i

1972. g“

Hendrix, W. E. "What to Do About Low Income in
Agriculture," Journal of Farm_Economics, Vol. 38, 1
No. 5 (December 1956), pp. 1375-1390. 1

 

Hendrix, William E. Approaches to Income Improvement F'
in Agriculture, Experiences of Families Receiving
Production Loans Under the Farmers Home Administra-
tion, Production Research Report No. 33, Agricul-
tural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, August 1959.

Hepp, Ralph E. "Characteristics of Michigan's Small
Farms." Staff Paper No. 77-73. Department of
Agricultural Economics. Michigan.State Univer-
sity, 1977.

Hepp, Ralph E., and Thomas M. Olson. Information
Needs and Sources for Michigan Small Farm Operators.
Agricultural Economics Report #372. Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University,
E. Lansing MI 48824. March 1980. 44 pp.

Hepp. Ralph, and Linda Halsey. "Programming for
Small/Part-Time Farmers." Summary of Proceedings
of an Extension In-Service Training Workshop or
Educational Program Innovations for Small/Part-
Time Farm Operators. Staff Paper 78-26, Department
of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1978.

Hepp, Ralph E., and Victoria C. Shade. Enterprise
Selection on the Small Farm. Michigan Cooperative
Extension Service Bulletin No. E-1258. Michigan
State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824. January,
1979.

Hepp, Ralph E. "Small Farms in U.S. Agriculture."
#79-45. Department of Ag. Econ. Michigan State
University.

300.

301.

302.

303.

304.

305.

306.

307.

308.

182

Herbst, J. H. Management Comparisons Among Farms
with Less Than 100 Hectares in Baden-Wurttemberg,
Switzerland, and Southern Illinois. A Err Ill
Univ Dep Agric Econ. 149, 29 p. December 1976.

Herr, William McD. Characteristics of New Borrowers
Obtaining Farm Ownership Loans from the Farmers _
Home Administration--Fiscal 1966, Agricultural Hi
Economics Report No. 184, Economic Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May
1970.

Herr, William McD. New Borrowers in the Farmers
Home Administration Operating Loan Program,
1965/66, Agricultural Economics Report No. 160, _
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of .
Agriculture, May 1969.

v.1!” ”'2'. '- " ' . -.

 

Hewitt, Timothy D. “The Family Farm System of
Agriculture: Prospects for Survival and for
Providing World Food Needs." Institute of Agri-
culture, University of Tennessee, P.O. Box 1071,
Knoxville, TN 37901. December 1974.

Higbee, E. Farms and Farmers in an Urban Age,
Twentieth Century Fund, 1963, pp. 3-5 and 7-44.
(Very good overview of changes in technology
other than mechanization - fertilizer, new breeds,
seed varieties, etc.)

Higgs, J. Strategies for Improving Small Farmer
Development in the Tropics; A Discussion Paper.
Misc Publ Hawaii Univ Coop Ext Serv 152: 15-62.
January 1978.

Higgs, J. Response to Participants' Comments on the
Discussion Paper. "Strategies for Improving Small
Farmer Development in the Tropics." Includes
Discussion Summary. Misc Publ Hawaii Univ Coop
Ext Serv. 152: 106-139. January 1978.

Hightower, Jim. "The Case for the Family Farmer."
In Food for People, Not for Profit, A Sourcebook
on the Food Crisis. Preface by Ralph Nader. New
York: Ballatine Books, 1975.

Hightower, Jim. "Corporate Power in Rural America,"
State of the Agribusiness Accountability Project.
Paper presented at the New Democratic Coalition
Hearing, Washington D.C., October 12, 971.
Published in WIN pp. 8-10.

 

309.

310.

311.

312.

313.

314.

315.

316.

317.

318.

319.

183

Hightower, Jim. Eat Your Heart Out, How Food
Profiteers Victimize the Consumer. New York:
Harper Colophon Books, 1976.

Hightower, Jim. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times, A Report
of the Agribusiness Accountability Project on the
Failure of America's Land Grant College Complex.
Forward by Senator James Abourezk. Cambridge, k
Massachusetts: Shenkman Publishing Company, 1972. ‘

Hill, Howard L., and Frank H. Maier. "The Family
Farm in Transition." U.S. Dept. of Agr. Yearbook .
(A Place to Live), 1963, pp. 167-174. 1

 

 

 

 

Hill, Lowell D. "Characteristics of the Farmers 1
Leaving Agriculture in an Iowa County," Journal -
of Farm Economics, XLIV (May 1962) pp. 419-426.

 

Hill, Stuart B. "Limitations of the Energy Approach
in Defining Priorities in Agriculture," Dept. of
Entomology, Macdonald Campus, McGill University,
Quebec, Canada.

Hines, Fred. "Effects of Welfare Reform on the Rural
Poor." Agricultural Finance Review. Vol. 32,
pp. 22-34. August 1971.

Hoffman, Charles S. "Do You Mean Family Type Farm?"
Land Policy_Review, 5:6, 1942.

Hoffmann, Randall A., and Heady, Earl O. Production,
Income and Resource Changes from Farm Consolidation,
Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station
Research Bulletin 502, Iowa State University, Ames,
1962.

Hoiberg, Eric, and Wallace Huffman. Profile of Iowa
Farms and Farm Families: 1976. Iowa State Univer-
sity Agr. and Home Econ. Exp. Sta. and Coop. Ex-
tens. Serv. Bull. P-141. April 1978.

Holmes, Mac R. and David W. Parvin, Jr. Results and
Implications of Mixed Integer Programming of Small
Farm Organizations for Part-Time Farmers in a
Piedmont County. Experiment, Ga., Univ. Ga. Coll.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 156. 21 p. April 1974.

Hopkins, John A., and Robert C. Kramer. "Comment:
Another Look at Economies of Size in Cattle
Feeding." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Econg-
mies. Vol. 20. No. 3. pp. 51-53. November 1972.

320.

321.

322.

323.

324.

325.

326.

327.

328.

329.

330.

184

Hopkins, John A., and Earl O. Heady. Farm Records
and Accounting. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
College Press, 1955.

HOpkins, M. L. and E. W. McCoy. Methods to Evaluate
Investments in Alternative Farm Enterprises.
Highlights Agric Res. Winter 1976. Vol. 23.

No. 4. p. 14. I)

Horne, James E. Small Farms: A Review of Charac-
teristics, Constraints, and Policy Implications.
Southern Rural Development Center Publications
#33. “

 

 

Hottel, B. J. and Robert D. Reinsel. Returns to
Equity Capital by Economic Class of Farm.
Washington, D.C.: USDA, ERS, Agricultural Economics
Report 347. 1976.

 

Fv‘ .1. '._'i -

 

Hough, John W. "Averages Can Ruin Us," Better
Farming Methods, February 1962.

 

Howard, Albert. An Agricultural Testament, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1940.

Huffman, Wallace E. "Decision Making; The Role of
Education." American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 56. February 1974.

 

Hutton, R. F. and H. R. Hinman. A General Agricul-
tural Firm Simulator. Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology #72, Revised Edition.
1969.

 

Ingerson, Ann. Bibliography,of Research Relating to
Small Farms, 1970 to 1977. NEAD Working Paper,
National Economic Analysis Division, Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
September 1977.

 

Inman, Duis T., and John H. Southern. Opportunities
for Economic Development in Low-Production Farm
Areas. USDA Information Bulletin No. 234
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
November 1960).

Institute for Southern Studies. "Our Promised Land,"
Southern Exposure. P.O. Box 230, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina 27514. Fall 1974.

185

331. Integrative Design Associates. Appropriate Tech-
nology and Agriculture in the United States.
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 1977.

332. Interreligious Task Force on U.S. Food Policy
(Taskforce), Family Farming and the Common Good.
Hunger Bulletin Number 7, Taskforce, 110 Maryland
Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002. February
1977.

333. Interstate Managerial Project Committee. "Summary
Data from The Interstate Managerial Survey."
Bulletin 669. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station. University of Kentucky, June, 1959.

334. Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and
Economic Adjustment. Goals and Values in Agri-
cultural Policy. 364 pp. Iowa State University
Press, Ames. 1961.

335. Jarck, W. "The Impact of Mechanization on the Small
Timberland Owner," Egrest Farmer, Vol. 25 (1)
October 1965. pp. 17, 36, 38.

336. Jhunjhunwala, Bharat, and Fred H. Tyner. Budgets
for Major Crop and Livestock Enterprises for
Small Farms in North and West Florida. Gainesville
Univ Fla, Inst Food Agric Sci Dept Food Resource
Econ Rep 41. 54 p. January 1973.

337. Johnson, Bruce B. "Farmland Leasing as a Means of
Resource Control in U.S. Land-Based Agriculture."
PhD dissertation, Michigan State University. 1974.

338. Johnson, Donald E. and E. A. Wilkening. Five Years
of Farm and Home Development in Wisconsin. Re-
search Bulletin 238, Agricultural Experiment
Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin. June 1961.

339. Johnson, Helen W. Rural Indian Americans in Poverty.
Economic Report No. 167. ERS, USDA. Sept 1969.

340. Johnson, G. L. and Lewis K. Zerby. Values in the
Solution of Credit Problems, in Baum, E. L.,
Diesslin, H. G., and Heady, E. O., Eds., Capital
and Credit Needs in a Changing Agriculture.
pp. 271-290. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
1961.

 

341.

342.

343.

344.

345.

346.

347.

348.

349.

186

Johnson, Glenn L. Chapter 8, "Action Taking.and
Responsibility Bearing." .In A Study of Managerial
Processes of Midwestern Farmers. Edited by
Johnson, Glenn L.; Halter, Albert N.; Jensen,
Harold R.; and Thomas, D. Woods. Ames, Iowa: The
Iowa State University Press, 1961.

Johnson, Glenn L. "New Managerial Concepts and the
Extension Service," Talk at the Extension.Worker's 1
Conference, Lexington, Kentucky. December 18,
1952.

__ _,
F.

_‘ ' A

Johnson, Glenn L. "Single Enterpreneur Decision
Theory," Staff Paper No. 77-87. Department of
Agricultural Economics; Michigan State University,
1977. .9

:— Inf-

 

Johnson, Glenn L., and Lewis K..Zerby. What.Economists
Do About Values, Case Studies of Their Answers to
Questions They Don't Dare Ask. East Lansing,
Michigan: Department of Agricultural Economics.
Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs.
Michigan State University, 1973.

Johnson, R. Bruce and John D. Hargroder. Use of
Credit and Other Resources py,Low Income Farmers
in the Macon Ridge Area of Louisiana. Research
Report 472, Department of Agricultural Economics
and Agri-business. Louisiana State University.
June 1974.

Johnson, Roger G. and Wendell D. Herman. Effect of
Price Changes on Farm Plans in Southeast Central
North Dakota. Fargo, N Dak Agr Exp Sta, North
Dakota Farm Research 33(2). 20-24, Reprint No.
864. November-December 1975.

Johnson, Roger G., Bernard L. Goodman, and Norman
Dalsted. Farm Business Analysis by Size of Farm
in Northern East Central North Dakota. N Dak Agr
Exp Sta Agr Econ Rep 84. 12 p. April 1972.

Johnson, Roger G., Harvey G. Vreugdenhil and Wendell
D. Herman. Optimum Farm Enterprise Organization
in Southeast Central North Dakota. Fargo, N Dak
Agr Exp Sta, Dep Agr Econ, Agricultural Economics
Report, No. 113. 23 p. July 1976.

Johnstone, Paul H. Old Ideals Versus New Ideas in
Farm Life. In USDA Yearbook (Farmers in a Changing
World). 1940: 111-170. 1940.

 

350.

351.

352.

353.

354.

355.

356.

357.

358.

187

Joint USDA-NASULGC Study Committee on Cooperative
Extension. A People and A Spirit. Fort Collins:
Colorado State University, 1968.

Jones, DeWitt, Japhas Gordon, and Gwendolyn Lee.
"Off-farm Employment of Low-Income Farmers."
Arkansas Farm Research, November-December 1978,

p. 8. E

Jones, Dewitt. "Factors Involving Off-Farm Employ-
ment of Low-Income Farmers in Urban and Rural
Labor Market Centers." Pine Bluff, Ark., Ark.
Agri. Expt. Station. Paper presented at conference
of Small Farm Research, Baton Rouge, LA, April 3,
1978.

 

Jones, Dewitt, Ronald J. Hanson, Sammy Comer, and
John Crecink. Off-farm Earnings and Small Farms.
Washington, D.C.: NRC Small Farms Project Rep.
No. 6, forthcoming 1979. Part 1, Dewitt Jones.
"Farm and Non-farm Uses of Farm Family Resources:
Impact on Farm and Total Farm Family Income.“
Part 2, Ronald J. Hanson. "Role of Off-farm In-
come to Small Farm Families." Part 3, John
Crecink, "The Rural Labor Market." Part 4,

Sammy Comer, "Rural Industrialization and Off-
farm Employment Opportunities of Small Farm
Families."

Jones, Lawrence A. "Emergency Credit for Farmers,"
Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 17, pp. 10-22,
November 1954.

Jordan, Max F. (Coordinator). Agrarian Reform and
Rural Development in the United States. A Country
Review Paper. Working Paper No. 7814, Economic
Development Division, ESCS, USDA. July 1979.

Justus, Fred and J. C. Headley. The Management
Factor in Farming: An Evaluation and Summary of
Research. Minn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. 258
(No. Central Reg. Res. Publ. 184). March 1968.

Karoonyavanick, A. Comments on John Higgs' Paper
on "Reaching Small Farmers for Rural and Agri-
cultural Development". Misc Publ Hawaii Univ
Coop Ext Serv. 152: 83-86. January 1978.

Katz, Elihu and Paul Lazarsfield. Personal Influence.
Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955.

359.

360.

361.

362.

363.

364.

365.

366.

367.

368.

369.

370.

188

Kaysing, Bill. First Time Farmer's Ggide. Straight
Arrow Books, San Francisco, CA 1970.

Kearl, C. D., R. B. How and Schreiner, A. J. Changes
in Enterprise Costs ang_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. F

Kendell, Kenneth K. Northwest Small Farms Conference,
La Grande, Or. 1978. ACTION (Service Corps).
Regional Report, La Grande, Oregon. Washington:
USDA, 1978. 60 p.: Ill.

Kerachsky, Stuart H. "Farm and Off-farm Work Deci-
sions." American Journal of Agricultural Eco-
nomics. December 1977.

 

'V

 

King, F. H. Farmers of Forty Centuries: Permanent
Agriculture in China, Korea, and Japan. Jonathan
Cape, London, 1926; reprinted, Ed. Rodale Press,
Emmaus, PA.

 

King, Seth. "The Family Farm is Not Dead," Saturday
Review, July 29, 1972. 3 pp.

Kline, Ralph G. and Charles H. Cameron. The Beef
Industry in the Appalachian Area of Virginia.
Research Division Bulletin 99, Blacksburg, Vir-
ginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 1975.

Knight, Frank H. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1946.

Koepf, H. H. "Organic Management Reduces Leaching
of Nitrate," BioDynamics, Fall 1973.

 

Kolb, J. H. Emerging Rural Communities, Madison,
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959.

Krause, Kenneth R. and Leonard R. Kyle. Economic
Factors Underlying the Incidence of Large
Farming Units. Amer. Journal Agr. Econ. 52:748-
761. December.

Krause, K. R., and L. R. Kyle. Midwestern Corn
Farms: Economic Status and the Potentiaiifor Large
and Family-Sized Units. Agr. Econ. Rpt. 216.

USDA Econ Res Serv November 1971, pp. 37-38.

 

371.

372.

373.

374.

375.

376.

377.

378.

379.

380.

381.

382.

189

Kreisman, Irwin. "Foreign Investors Eye Local
Farm Land," Capigol Times. Madison, Wisconsin,
September 18, 1974.

Kropotkin, P. Conquest of Bread, New York Univer-
sity Press, NY 1972.

 

Kropotkin, P. Fields, Factories and Workshops B1
Tomorrow. Harper and Row, New York, 1974. -

 

Kyle, Leonard. "A Major Problem: Machinery Costs."
Michigan Farm Economics, February 1964. Michigan
State University Cooperative Extension Service,
East Lansing, 1964.

 

LaDue, Eddy L. "Financing the Entry of Young Farmers,"
Agricultural Finance Review, 1979 (Forthcoming).

 

LaDue, Eddy L. Financing Northeast Agriculture in
the Years Ahead, Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics Staff Paper 79-2, Cornell University,
March 1979.

 

LaDue, E. L. "The U.S. Experience in Providing Fi-
nancial Assistance to Small Farmers Rural Credit."
Cornell Agric Econ Staff Pap. Ithaca, NY. The
Station. October 1979. (79-34) 28 p. Ill.

Ladewig, Howard W. and Vance W. Edmondson. Th2
Effectiveness of Nonprofessionals in Cooperative
Extension Education for Low-Income Farmers, B-122,
Texas A&M University Experiment Station, May 1972.

Lanpher, Buel F. "The Economic Profile of Low-Income
Farmers in the North Central Region." Paper pre-
sented at the Workshop of the North Central Re-
gional Farm Management Extension Committee, May
1973. 22 pp. Michigan State University, E.
Lansing, MI 48824.

Lappe, Frances, Joseph Collins and Cary Fowler.
Food First: Beyond the Myth_9f Scarcity. Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston. 1977.

Larson, Donald K. "Economic Class as a Measure of
a Farmer's Welfare," Amer. Jour. Agr. Econ.,
Vol. 57, No. 4., pp. 658-664. 1975.

Larson, Donald K. "Economic Class as a Measure of a
Farmer's Welfare." Amer. Jour. Agr. Econ., Vol.
57, No. 4 (November 1975), 658-664.

383.

384.

385.

386.

387.

388.

389.

390.

391.

3920

190

Larson, Donald K. "Impact of Off-farm Income on Farm
Family Income Levels." Agricultural Finance Re-
view. Economic Research Service, USDA. Vol. 36.
April 1976.

Larson, Donald K. and Thomas A. Carlin. "Income and
Economic Status of PeOple with Farm Earnings,"
Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics

974.

 

Larson, Donald K. and James A. Lewis. "Small-Farm
Profile." Small Farm Issues: Proceedings of the
ESCS Small-Farm Workshop. ESCS, USDA Rural De-
velopment Report. Washington, D.C. May 1978.

“may

 

 

 

Larson, Donald K. "Wage and Salary Incomes: A 'Big !
Crop' for People with Farm Earnings," Journal of
the Northeastern Agricultural Economics, Vol. 3,
No. 1. pp. 64-75. 1974.

Larson, Harold C. "Tenant-Purchase Program", Agri-
cultural Finance Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, Nov 1939.

Larson, Olaf and Everett M. Rogers. "Rural Society in
Transition: The American Settings," Our Changing
Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends, Ed. by
James H. Cepp: Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press, 1964.

 

Larson, Olaf F. "Sociological Research Problems."
North Central Regional Center for Rural Develop-
ment. Rural Development: Research Priorities.
Ames, Iowa. Iowa State University Press. 1973.

LaVeen, E. Phillip and Mark R. Gustafson. The Poten-
tial Impact of Direct-Marketing Policies on the
Economic Viability of Small Fruit and Vegetable
Farms in California. Res. Rpt. No. 327, Calif.,
Agr. Exp. Sta., Giannini Foundation of Agricul-
tural Economics, December 1978.

Leagans, J. Paul. Adoption of Modern Agricultural
Technology by Small Farm Operators: An Inter-
Disciplinary Model for Researchers and Strategy
Builders. Ithaca: Dept of Agricultural Economics.
New York State College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Cornell University, 1979. 50, 3 p. Ill.

Lee, W. F. and J. R. Brake. Conversion of Farm Assets
for Retirement Purposes. Research Report, 129.
Michigan State U., Agr. Exp. Sta. E. Lansing, 1972.

 

393.

394.

395.

396.

397.

398.

399.

400.

401.

402.

191

Lee, Y. E. "Adjustment in the Utilization of
Agricultural Land in South Central Michigan
with Special Emphasis on Cash-Grain Farms,"
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Michigan State
University. 1975.

LeRay, Nelson L. Full-Time and Part-Time Farmers
in a Low-Income Area. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 67-3. #
Ithaca, NY, Cornell Univ. Dept of Rural Soc., NY 3
State Col. of Agr., a Statutory College of the
State University, Cornell Univ., USDA, Econ Dev
Div, Econ Res Serv, December 1967, p. 26.

Lerza, Catherine. "Farmers on the March," The
Progressive. June 1978.

 

‘v

Lerza, Catherine, and Michael Jacobson, eds. Food
for PeOple, Not for Profit, A Sourcebook on the
Food Crisis. Preface by Ralph Nader. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1975.

LeVan, Donald E. Partitime Farming in Central
Missouri. Unpublished MS thesis, University of
Missouri, Columbia, 1972.

LeVeen, E. P. and M. R. Gustafson. The Potential
Impact of Direct-Marketing Policies on the Eco-
nomic Viability of Small Fruit and Vegetable
Farms in California. Res Rep Calif Agric Exp
Stn. Berkeley, Calif. The Station. December 1978.
(327) 26 p. Map.

Lewis, J. A. White and Minority Small Farm Operators
in the South. Agric Econ Rep Econ Res Serv USDA
353, 39 p. Dec 1976.

Lewis, James A. Ownership and Control of Resources
by Minorities and Small Farmers in the South. by
James A. Lewis. Washington: Natural Resource
Economics Div. Economic Research Service, USDA.
16 Leaves: Ill. -1. 1976.

Lewis, James A. and Peter Emerson. "A Note on Small
Farms." Agricultural Economic Research. Oct 1978.

Lewis, James A. "Small Farm Definitions and Their
Effect on the Target Population," paper presented
to Ad Hoc Task Force on Small Farm Research Needs
conference sponsored by North Central Regional
Center for Rural Development, Ames, Iowa March
1978.

403.

404.

405.

406.

407.

408.

409.

410.

411.

412.

413.

192

Lianos, Theodore. "Relative Share of Labor in
United States Agriculture, 1948-1968," American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 53, No.
3 (August 1971), Pp. 411-422.

Lindsey, Robert. "And Now California Develops a
Square Tomato," New York Times, March 8, 1977. P

Linstrom, H. R. Farmer-to-Consumer Marketing.
ESCS-01, USDA Econ Sta Coop Serv February 1978.

Liss, Samuel. "Production and Farm Ownership Loan
Programs of the Farmers Home Administration from
Prewar Depression Through War and.Postwar Infla-
tion," Agricultural Finance Review, Vbl. 11, pp.
1-15, November 1948.

 

Lockhart, Madelyn K. "Income Distribution in the
South." The Economics of Southern Growth.
Southern Growth Policies Board, Fisher-Harrison
Corporation, 1977.

Lodgson, Gene. "The Last Farmer," Farm Journal,
1975.

Loftsgrad, L. O. and S. W. Volker. "Changing Rural
Life in the Great Plains," Journal of Farm Eco-~
nomics, 45M 1963, pp. 1110-1117.

Logsdon, G. and J. Ritchie. "Can the Family Farm
Survive the Eighties? Decade of Decision."
(An interview with Harold F. Breimyer, Ag.
Economist at University of Missouri.) The New
Farm, vol. 3:1. January 1981, pp. 46-51.

Logsdon, G. Where Does Small Farming Fit In? A
Kentucky Farm As An Example. Org Gard Farming.
25 (3): 166, 168, 170, 179-180. March 1978.

Loomis, Ralph A., Dean E. McKee, and James T. Bonnen.
"The Role of Part-time Farming in Agricultural
Adjustment in Southern Michigan," Quarterly
Bulletin of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station, XLIV, No. 4, Michigan State University
East Lansing, 1962, pp. 644-653.

Love, H. G. Marketing Problems in Small Farm
Operations. KY Agri-Bus Spotlight. Lexington,
February 1979. (106). 4 p.

414.

415.

416.

417.

418.

419.

420.

421.

193

Lu, Yao-chi, and Leroy Quance. "Agricultural
Productivity: Expanding the Limits." USDA,
ESCS. Bulletin 431. August 1979. Washington,
D.C.

Mackie, Arthur B. and E. L. Baum. Problems and
Policies of American Agriculture; Programs for
Commercial Farmers with Low Incomes. Ames:
Iowa State University Press, 1959.

 

Mackie, Arthur B., and E. L. Baum. Problems and
Suggested Programs for Low-Income Farmers.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Agricul-
tural Relations, Report T 60-2 AE (Knoxville:
October, 1959).

--———--=-—w——:Iv

 

Madden, J. P. On the "Small Farm" Issue Definitions,
Policy. Agric Eng (St Joseph, Mich). St.
Joseph, Mich. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers. Feb 1979. Vol. 60 (2). P. 24-25.

Madden, Patrick J. Economies of Size in Farming:
Theory! Analytical Procedures, and a Review of
Selected Studies. AER 107. USDA Econ Res Serv.,
February 1967.

 

Madden, J. Patrick. "Small Farms in America -
The Diversity of Problems and Solutions." In-
creasing Understanding of Public Problems and
Policies - 1978. Farm Foundation, Oak Brook,
Illinois. 1978.

 

Madden, J. Patrick and Earl J. Partenheimer.
"Evidence of Economies and Diseconomies of Farm
Size." In A. Gordon Ball and Earl O. Heady
(ed.) Size, Structure and Future of Farms. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1972, pp.
91-107.

Madden, Patrick, Delworth B. Gardner, Diana Branch,
David Holland, and Howard Osborn. Production
Efficiency and Technology for Small Farms.
Washington, D.C.: NRC Small Farms Project Rep.
No. 7, forthcoming 1979. Part 1, J. Patrick
Madden. "Agricultural Mechanization and the
Family Farm -— Some Social and Economic Con-
siderations." Pennsylvania State University
AERS Rep. No. 139. Jan. 1979. Part 2, Diana
H. Branch. "Tools for Small Scale Farming: An
International Picture." Part 3, David Holland.
"Production Efficiency and Economies of Size in
Agriculture." Part 4, Howard A. Osborn.

422.

423.

424.

425.

426.

427.

428.

429.

430.

431.

194

"Technology and the Small Farm: A Conceptual
Framework."

Madden, J. Patrick and Heather Tischbein. "Toward
an Agenda for Small Farm Research." American
Journal of Agricultpral Economics. Vol. 61,
No. 5. December 1979.

Maddox, C. L., R. F. Jones, and C. H. McDaniel.
"Demonstrations on Limited Resource Farms in
Alabama." Bulletin R14, Auburn, Alabama:

Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, University
of Alabama, 1969.

Mamer, John W. gt al. Technological Change, Farm
Mechanization and Agricultural Employment.
(Berkeley: University of California, Division
of Agri. Sciences) July 1978.

 

‘1

Marable, Manning. "Black Agriculture in the
Seventies," In These Times. 1509 North Milwaukee
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60622. January 25-31,
1978.

Maris, Paul V. "How Tenant-Purchase Borrowers of
the Farm Security Administration are Meeting Their
Principal and Interest Payments Under a Variable
Payment Plan", Agricultural Finance Review, Vol.
5, November 1942.

Marshall, Ray and Godwin Lamond. Cooperatives and
Rural Poverty_in the South. Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, MD 1971.

Marshall, Ray. Rural Workers in Rural Labor Markets.
Salt Lake City, Utah: Olympus Publishing Company,
1974.

Marshall, Ray, and Allen Thompson. Status and
Prospects of Small Farmers in the South by Ray
Marshall and Allen Thompson. Atlanta, GA:
Southern Regional Council. 80 p. 1976.

Marshall, Ray. Status of Smallpgarms in Arkansas
Southern Regional Council, 1976.

Martin, James R. and John H. Southern. Part-Time
Farming in Northeast Texas. The Agricultural
and Mechanical College of Texas, College of
Agriculture Bulletin No. 970 (College Station:
Agriculture Experiment Station, January 1961).

432.

433.

434.

435.

436.

437.

438.

439.

440.

441.

442.

195

Martin, Lee, Arthur Coutes, and H. S. Sengh. "The
Effects of Different Levels of Management and
Capital on the Incomes of Small Farmers in the
South." Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 42.

Martin, Philip L. "Public Service Employment and
Rural America." American Journal of Agricultural
Economics. Vol. 59, No. 2. May 1977. E

Massey-Ferguson Ltd. "The Pace and Form of Farm
Mechanization.in the Developing Countries."
Toronto: Massey-Ferguson Limited, 1974.

>_ r.

Massey, J. G. Southeast Small Farms Conference,
Montgomery, Ala. 1978. ACTION (Service Corps).
Regional Report, Montgomery, Alabama, November,
1978. Washington: USDA, 1978. 40 p.

 

[Inter .

Mayall. "Our Farming Future," Ecological Agricul-
ture: An interview in the Institute of Man.and
Resources Report. Summer 1978.

 

Mayer, Leo V. "Agricultural Finance Issues and
Policy Alternatives." Congressional Record,
95th Congress, Second Session. Vol. 124, No. 50,
pp. 2757-2763. Washington, D.C. April 11, 1978.

McAfee, D. H. "Farm Opportunities Program."
Mimeographed Release, Greensboro, North Carolina:
North Carolina Agricultural Extension.Service,
September 1975.

McClatchy, D., and C. Campbell. "An Approach to
Identifying and Locating the Low-Income Farmer."
Canadian Farm Econ., Vol. 10, no. 2 (April
1975), 1-11.

McCoy, E. W. Small Scale Farms in Alabama: Can
They Survive. Highlights Agric Res. Vol. 23,
No. 4. p. 7. Winter 1976.

McCoy, John L. .Rural Poverty in Three Southern
Regions: Mississippi Delta, Ozarks, and South-
east Costa} Plain. Agricultural Economic Re-
port No. 176. ERS, USDA. March 1970.

(MCCurry, Dan. "Losing Ground," Sustenance. The
Action Center, 1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. April 1978.

 

443.

444.

445.

446.

447.

448.

449.

450.

451.

452.

453.

(454.

196

McElroy, Robert C. "Manpower Implications of
Trends in the Tobacco Industry." In Rodefeld
33 al., pp. cit., p. 25.

McElveen, J. V. and K. L. Bachman. Low Production
Farms. USDA, Agricultural Information Bulletin
108. June 1953.

McElveen, Jackson V. Family Farms in a Changing
Economy. USDA Information Bulletin No. 171,
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
March 1957.

McElveen, Jackson V. and Buddy L. Dillman. A
Profile of the Rural Poor in the Coastal Plain
of Northeastern South Carolina. Agricultural
Economic Report No. 202, ERS, USDA. April 1971.

McGee, Leo and Robert Boone. "Black Rural Land
Ownership: A Matter of Economic Survival," The
Review of Black Political Economy. Fall 1977.

McLuhan, T. C., ed. Touch the Earth, Outerbridge
and Lazard, 1971, p. 8.

McNabb, Coy G. "The Problems and the Issues of
Concern to the Family Farm." Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo. 1979-12. March 1979. 9 pp.

McWilliams, Carey. Factories in the field. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, 1939.

Mellor, John W., and Lichiro Takahasi. Part-Time
Farming in St. Lawrence County, New York. A. E.
Res. 4. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell Univ. Agr. Expt.
Sta. September 1958.

Merrill, Richard, ed. Radical Agriculture, Harper
and Row, New York, 1975. (A powerful commentary
on everything from land reform to seed quality.)

Merrill, Richard. "Toward a Self-Sustaining Agri—
culture." pp. 284-327 in Richard Merrill (ed.),
Radical Agriculture. New York: Harper and Row.
1976.

Metzger, H. B., and N. E. Flanders. Improving the
Incomes of Small Farm Families in Coastal Maine.
Bull Univ Maine Orono Life Sci Agric Exp Stn.
742, 39 p. Ref. October 1977.

 

 

 

197

45$ Dwtzger, H. B. Small Farms in the Lower Penobscot
River Area: Their Resources and Incomes. Bull
Univ Maine Orono Life Sci Agric Exp Stn. 713,
32 p. 1975.

456. Meyer, Charles W. and William E. Saupe. "Farm
Operators Under the Negative Income Tax."
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. ?

EET‘NO. 2. May 1970.

457. vulk, Richard G. "The New Agriculture in the U.S.:
A Dissenter's View." Land Economics, Vol. 48,

No. 3. August 1972. pp. 228-235.

 

458. Moles, Jerry. Societal Values and Goals Related to
Small Farms. Washington, D.C.: NRC Small Farms
Project Rep No 9, forthcoming.

459. bkfles, Jerry A. "Discussion of AAEA Session,
Appropriate Technology for U.S. Agriculture:
Are Small Farms the Coming Thing?" Am. J. Agr.
Econ., Vol. 60, No. 2, May 1978, pp. 316-321.

460. Moles, Jerry A. Who Tills the Soil? - Mexican-
American Farm Workers Replace the Small Farmers
in California: An Example From Colusa County /
by Jerry A. Moles. Corvallis, Ore.: Western
Rural Development Center. 21 p. -1. 1976.

A461. Moore, Donald S., and J. Rod Martin. Farm Size in
Relation to Market Outlets and Forward Contracting
for Major Field Crops and Beef Cattle, Texas
Rollinnglains. B-1187C, Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta.,

Feb. 1978.

462. Moore, H. R., and W. A. Wayt. The Part-Time Route
to Full-Time Farming. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. Res.
Bul. 793. Wooster, Ohio, September 1975.

463. The Best Strategy for Defending Tobacco. Remind
Opponents that it Helps Small Farms Stay in
Business. Flue Cured Tob Farmer. Raleigh, N.C.
Specialized Agricultural Publications. April
1979. Vol. 16 (4). p. 40, 42. Ill.

.64 . Morrill, Richard L. and Ernest H. Wohlenberg. The
Geographypof Poverty. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1971.

Mosely, J. L. Small Farms and Implications for Public
Policy Education in the United States. Increasing
Understanding Public Probl Policies. Oak Brook, Ill.

1978. p. 71-78.

6555.

466.

467.

468.

469.

470.

471.

4472.

4fi73.

47U1.

4175..

4776..

477.

198

Moser, Sir Claus and G. Kalton. Survey Methods in
Social Inyestigation- New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1972.

Morss, E. R. Strategies for Small Farmer Development.
Focus Tech Coop. 1: 7-11. 1976.

Motheral, Joe R. "The Family Farm and the Three q
Traditions," Journal of Farm Economics. Vol.
XXXII November 1951.

Murray, W. G. "Farm Size and Land Values" Corporate
Farming and the FamilylFarm, Ed. by the National
Farm Institute; Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State Uni-
versity Press. 1970.

 

Myer, G. "The Missouri Small Farm Program: An
Analytical Evaluation." Unpublished PhD Disser-
tation, Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri
1976.

Myers, William E. "Comments on Small Farm Research:
California's Small Farm Viability Project,"
Small-Farm.Issues: Proceedings of the ESCS Small-
Farm Workshop, May_l978, ESCS-60, Washington,
D.C.: USDA July 1979.

 

Myers, William E. "The Family Farm in California."
Community Services Task Force Report to the State
of California, Small Farm Viabilitygroject.
Sacramento, California. November 1977.

Naseem, M. Small Farmers Responses to Technological
Innovations. J. Agric. Res. 15 (1): 1-13.
March 1977.

National Academy of Sciences, Board on.Agriculture
and Renewable Resources. Agricultural Production
Efficiency. Washington, D.C., 1975.

National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. The
PeOple Left Behind. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. September 1967.

National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Rural
Poverty in the United States. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. May 1968.

National Commission on Food Marketing, Food From
Farmer-to-Consumer. U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1966.

 

199

What's Ahead for the

478. National Farm Institute.
Iowa State University

FamilJL Far_m_, Ames, Iowa:
Press, 1970.

Bulletin Publications,

479. National Rural Center.
20036.

1828L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
January 1981. 2 pp.

480. National Rural Center (NRC). A Directory of Rural
Organizations. NRC, 1200 18th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 .

481. National Rural Center. The Rural Stake in Public
Assistance-Information and Analysis to Guide
Public Policy. National Rural Center, Publica-
tion Series. No. 10. February 1979.

482. National Rural Center. Toward a Federal Small Farms
Policy, Phase I: Barriers to Increasing On-Farm
Income. NRC Report No. 9, Washington, D.C.:
National Rural Center (November 1978).

National Science Foundation, Appropriate Technology-
A Directory of Activities and Projects. National
Science Foundation/Research Applied to National
Needs. National Technical Information Service,
Document Sales, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

483.

84. National Sharecroppers Fund (NSF). The Condition of
_F_‘_a_rmworkers and Small Farmers: 1977. NSF, 2128
Commonwealth Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina.

28205.

5. Nelson, Aaron G., W. F. Lee and W. G. Murray.
Agricultural Finance, Sixth Edition, The Iowa

State University Press, 1973.

3. Nelson, Bryce. "Basic Goals and Values of Farm
People," Goals and Values in Agricultural Policy,

Iowa State University Press, 1961.

"Search for an Alternative

New Alchemy Institute:
187, February 1975.

Agriculture," Science, Vol.

New Mexico State University Navajo Indian Irriga-
tion Project Planning Team. Alternative Farm
Organizational Structures for the Navajo Indian
Irrigation Project. Las Cruces, N Mex Agr Exp
Sta Spec Rep No 17. 200 p. April 1972.

 

 

 

 

200

489. Newby, Howard, Colin Bell, David Rose, and Peter
Saunders. Property, Paternalism and Power:
Class and Control in Rural England. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 1978.

 

490. Nichols, E. H., F. C. Fliegel, and J. C. VanEs.
Growing_Numbers of Small Farms in the North 1
Central States. Illinois Agricultural Economics m 3
Staff Paper, Series S, Rural Sociology: 795-13. 'M
University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. 61801.
1979.

 

491. Nielson, James. "The Change Agent and the Process
of Change." Research Bulletin No. 17. Michigan 1
State University Agricultural Experiment Station. 3
East Lansing, Michigan 1967.

 

‘V

492. Nielson, James and William Crosswhite. The Michigan
Township Extension Experiment: Changes in Agri-
cultural Production, Efficiency and Earning_.
Atricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin
274, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1959.

493. Nikolitch, Radoje. "Family Labor and Technological
Advance in Farming," Journal of Farm Economics,

November 1962.

494. Nikolitch, Radoje. Family Operated Farms: Their
Compatibility with Technological Advance. Amer.
Jour. Agr. Econ. 51:530-545. August 1969.

 

495. Nikolitch, Radoje. Family-Size Farms in U.S. Agri-
culture. ERS 499. USDA Econ. Res. Serv. Feb.

1972, p. 1, 3.

96. Nolan, Michael and Paul Lasley. "Agricultural Ex-
tension: Who Uses It?" Journal of Extension.

September/0c tober 19 79 .

7. North Central Farm Management Research Committee,
Pchlems of Small Farms. University of Missouri,
College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 660 (Columbia:
Agricultural Experiment Station, September, 1955) .

North Central Public Policy Committee. Who Will
Control U.S. Agriculture? North Central Re-
gional Extension Publication 32. University of
Illinois, Cooperative Extension Service, Spec.
Publication 27. 1972.

 

201

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.
Small Farms Research Priorities in the North Cen-
tral Region, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University,

February 1 9 7 9 .

499.

500. North Central Research Strategy Committee. Research
Needs of Large and Small Farms. Agricultural
Economics Bulletin 4373, Urbana, Illinois: Uni-

versity of Illinois, 1974.

501. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.
Small Farm Activity in the Northeast: A Directory
of Land Grant University Personnel by Discipline
and Subject Area. Cornell University, Ithaca,

New York. June 1979.

502. Nyankori, J. C. O. and J. W. Courter. A Potential
Source of Income for Farms with Small Land Base.
Direct Marketing. J. Am. Soc. Farm. Manage. Rural

Appraisers. Denver, April 1979. Vol. 43 (l).
p. 71-73.

503. Olson, Thomas M. Nonformal Education Delivery Systems
to Reach Limited Resource Farmers in.Michigan.
Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics
Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824.

1978.

04. Orazem, Frank. "Economic Status of Income Groups by
Farm Size." pp. 59—77 in Gordon A. Ball and Earl
O. Heady (eds.), Size, Structure and Future of
Farms. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press,

1972.

Steven T. Buccola, and Patricia
Klobus Edwards. Cooperative Extension Small-Farm
Programs in the South: An Inventory and Evaluation.
Bulletin 153, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. Blacksburg, Va. April 1980.

86 pp.

Orden, David and Steven T. Buccola. "An Evaluation
of Southern Cooperative Extension Programs Aimed
at Small Farmers," Pullman, Washington: presented

at AAEA annual meeting July 30-August 1, 1979.

Orden, David andsDennis K. Smith. Small Farm Programs:
Implications from aétudy in Virginia. Research
Division Bulletin 135, Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
tute and State University, Blacksburg, Oct. 1978.

5. Orden, David R.,

 

 

 

202

508. Orden, et al. "Small Farms in ." (by
southern state). Staff Papers SP-77—20, SP-78-1,
and SP-78-3 through SP-78-14. Blacksburg,
Virginia: Department of Agricultural Economics,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-

 

 

sity, 1978.
509. Orden, David et al. Small Farms inIMississippi.
Staff Paper SP-78-6 Department of Agricultural

Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
February 1978. ‘

510. Orden, David and Patricia K. Edwards. "Small Farm
Programs in the Southern United States," paper
presented at the Southern Small Farm Management
Workshop. Nashville, Tennessee, October 25-27, v
1978.

 

511. Orden, D. R. and D. K. Smith. Small Farms in
Virginia. VAE (Va. Agric. Econ.). 285, 5 p.
Map. December 1977.

512. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Part-Time Farming: Germany, Japan, Norway, United
States. Paris: OECD. 151 p. in various pagings:
Ill. Maps. —1. 1977.

513. Orshansky, Mollie. The Poor in 1965 and Trends,
1959-65. U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Res. and Stat., Note, February 16,
1967.

£14. Otagaki, K. K. Opening Remarks at the Small Farmer
Workshop Strategies for Improving Small Farmer
Development in the Tropics. Misc Publ Hawaii
Univ Coop Ext Serv. 152: 12-14. January 1978.

5. Ozarka. "A Special Report on: The Small Farm in
Transition." Journal of the Ozark Institute.
Eureka Springs, Ak. January 1979.

i. Padberg, D. I. "The Family as a Partner in the Food
System. #79-E-94. Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, Ill. 61801. August 1979. 10 pp.

Parsons, K. H. A Comment on a Few Issues Suggested
by John Higgs' Paper "Strategies for Improving
Small Farmer Deve10pment in the Tropics." Misc
Publ Hawaii Univ Coop Ext Serv. 152: 94-97.
January 1978.

 

203

518. Patel, A. U. Response to the Discussion Paper by
John Higgs on "Reaching Small Farmers for Rural
and Agricultural Development." Misc Publ Hawaii
Univ Coop Ext Serv. 152: 87-93. January 1978.

519. Pavlicek, Anthony. Towards Solving the Low-Income
Problems of Small Farmers in the Appalachian
Area. Bulletin 4997, Morgantown, West Virginia:

West Virginia University, Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1964.

520. Pederson, Harold A. "A Cultural Evaluation of the

Family Farm Concept," Journal of Farm Economics,
26, 1950.

521. Perelman, Michael. Farming for Profit in a Hungry
World. Allanheld, Oseum & Company, 19 Brunswick
Road, Montclair, New York 07042. 1978.

522. Perrin, R. and D. Winkelmann. Impediments to

Technical Progress on Small Versus Large Farms.

Am. J. Agric. Econ., Vol. 58. No. 5. pp. 888-894.
December 1976. '

523. Perrin, Richard K. A Survey of Beef Production

Patterns in the Mountains and Piedmont of North
Carolina. N. C. State Univ. Dep. Econ., Econ.
Inform. Rep. 27. 33 p. April 1972.

524. Perry, Ben L. "Comment: Agricultural Economics

525.

526.

Research and Extension Needs of Small-Scale,
Limited-Resource Farmers." Southern Journal of
Agricultural Economics. July 1979.

Perry, John L. "Lower Elk Concept: An Alternative
Rural Development Pattern." Tennessee Valley
Authority.

Petersen, John M. and Earl Wright. Dynamics of Small
Area Labor Supply: A Case Study. Little Rock,
AR: Industrial Research and Extension Center,
University of Arkansas, 1967.

27. Peterson, Willis and Yujiro Hayami. "Technical

I. P

Change in Agriculture," in A Survey of Agricultural
Economics, 1940's to 1970's, L. R. Martin, ed.,
University of Minnesota Press. 1977.

etzel, Todd E. "The Role of Education in The
DynamiCs of Supply." MericaLJ. of Agricul-
tural Economics 60 (August, 1978).

 

 

 

204

 

529. Pfeiffer, E. Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening.
Anthroposofic Press, New York, 1940.

"Food Production and the Energy

530. Pimentel, D. et a1.
Crisis," Science, November 1973, pp. 443-448.
531. Pimental, David. "Energy and Land Constraints in
Food Protein Production," Science, November 21, FRI

1975.

532. Pollard, S. and J. Morris. Economic Aspects of the

Introduction of Small Tractors in Developing
A Philosophy for Small Tractor De-

 

Countries:

velopment Farm Mechanization. A M A (Agri Mech 11

Asia). Tokyo, Farm Machinery Industrial Research 1
pp. 49-54. m3

Corp. Winter 1979. Vol. 10. No. l.

533. Portola Institute. The Energy Primer. Menlo Park,

CA. 1974 .

Midwest Small Farms Conference, Des

1978. ACTION (Service Corps.).
Iowa. Washington,

534. Powers, Ron.
Moines, Iowa,
Regional Report, Des Moines,

USDA, 1978. 47 p.

President's National Advisory Commission on Rural
Poverty. The People Left Behind. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

535.

536. Price, P. Rural Sociology, Ed. by A. Bertrand,
New York: McGraw Hill, 1958.

American

537. Primus, Wendell E. "Work and Income."
December

Journal of Agricultural Economics.
1977.

38. Pryor, Shirley- Regional and Residential Impacts
of the Proposed Better Jobs and Income Program.

ESCS-69, ESCS, USDA. August 1979.

9. Pugh, Charles R. "Developing Plans with Low-Income
Farmers." Southern Farm Management Extension

Publication, No. 11, 1967.

Rasmussen, Wayne D. and Gladys L. Baker. The
U.S. Dept. Agr.

Farmer Speaks for a Way of Life.
Yearbook (Contours of Change). 1970:25-31. 1970.

Rasmussen, Wayne D. "The Mechanization of American
Agriculture." In Alan Fusonic and Leila Moran,

 

205

Agricultural Literature: Proud Heritage -
Future Promise. Washington: USDA Graduate

School Press, 1975, pp. 295-315.

542. Rasmussen, Wayne D. "Technology and American
A Historical View." Technology

 

 

 

Agriculture:
Assessment: Prpceedings of an. ERS Workshop,
April 20-22, 1976. AGERS-31. USDA Econ Res
Serv., 1977.

543. Raup, Phillip. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on.
Family Farms, Rural Development Land. Special
Studies, Committee on Agriculture, House off-Repre-
sentatives. 95th Congress First Session.

WObstacles to Strengthening Family Farm System."
Serial No. 95-BB, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 1077 .

544. Raup, Philip M. "Societal Goals in Farm Size." In
Size, Structure and Future of Farms. Edited by
Ames, Iowa:

 

A. Gorden Ball and Earl O. Heady.

The Iowa State University Press, 1972.

545. Raup, Philip M. "Some Questions of Value and Scale
in American Agriculture." Am. J. Ag. Econ.,
Vol. 60. pp. 303-308. 1978.

546. Ray, R. M. and Herbert N. Walch. "Farm Planning
Manual, A Guide for Increasing Income," Tennessee

Agricultural Extension Service Publication
EC622, Revised December 1975.

47. Ray, R. M. and E. H. Hudson. "Tennessee Rapid Ad-
justment Program Analysis of the First Six Farms,
University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment
Station. Bulletin 443, June, 1968.

8. Ray, V. K. They‘re Destroying Our SmallkTowns
Absentee-Owned Farms. .InThe People's Land:
A Reader on Land Reform in the United States.

The Corporate Invasion of American

. Ray, Victor K.
Colorado, National Farmers

Agriculture . Denver ,
Union . 1968 .

Redfield, R. "The Folk Society," American Journal
of Sociology. pp. 293-308.

Farm and Off-Farm Income Reported

Reinsel, E.I.
USDA Economic Research

on Federal Tax Returns,
Service, ERS-383, 1968.

 

 

 

 

 

206

1552. Reinsel, Edward I. "Farm Family Incomes and
Farmer's Incomes Improve at Different Rates,"
Agri. Fin. Rev., Vol. 35. pp. 31-35, 1974.

 

553. Reinsel, Edward I. "People with Farm Earnings...
Sources and Distribution of Incomes," Economic
Research Service, USDA, ERS-498. 1972.

554. Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station Rhode
Island University Cooperative Extension Service.
The Small Farm, A Surviving Enterprise. 5;
Resour. Vol. 24. No. 1. pp. 8-9. Winter 1978.

555. Rhodes, V. James. "Small Farmers and Big Markets,"
Can the Family Farm Survive. Special Rpt. 219,
Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ. Mo. 1978.

556. Rhodes, V. James, Calvin Stemme, and Glen Crimes.
Large and Medium Volume Hog Producers: A National
Survey. Special Rpt. 223, Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ.
Mo., February 1979.

557. Rhodewald, G. and R. Folwell. "Farm Size and
Tractor Technology," Agr. Econ. Res. No. 3
(1977), PP. 82-89.

558. Rieck, Robert E. and Glen C. Pulver. An Empirical
Measure of Decision Making in Evaluating Farm
and Home Development in Wisconsin. Research
Bulletin 238, Agricultural Experiment Station
and Cooperative Extension Service, University of
‘Wisconsin. June 1962.

59. Riggins, S. K. Agricultural Cooperatives: An Im-
portant Alternative for Farmers. KY Agri-Bus Q.
Lexington, University of Kentucky. Jan/Mar
1979. (37), 7 p. Ill.

0. Ritchie, Mark. "The Loss of Our Family Farms:
Inevitable Results or Conscious Policies?" 824
Shotwell, San Francisco, CA 94110. 1979 34 pp.

. Rodale, Robert, ed. The Basic Book of Organic
Gardening. Ballantine Books, Inc., New York, NY.

 

Rodale, Robert. Sane Living in a Mad World: A
Guide to the Organic Waytof Life. New York:
New American Library, 1972.

Rodefeld, R. D. The Changing Organizational and
Occupational Structure of Farming and the Impli-
cations for Farm Work Force Individuals, Families
and Cgmmunities. Madison, Wisc: U. of Wisc.
unpublished PhD dissertation, 1974.

 

‘& —

 

1.1 -

 

564.

565.

566.

567.

568.

569.

570.

571.

572.

573.

574.

575.

207

Rodefeld, Richard and Kevin.Goss. Corporate Farming
in the United States: A Guide to Current
Literature, 1967-1977. Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology. Penn State Univ.,
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. 1977.

Rodefield, Richard. "A Reassessment of the Status
and Trends in Family and Corporate Farms in U.S.
Society," Congressional Record 31, May 1973, pp.
510052 ff.

Rodefeld, Richard D. "Proposal for Possible Small
Farm Research," Memo to Joan S. Thompson, Pennsyl-
vania State University. 1977.

Rodefeld, Richard D. pp al. (ed.). Change in Rural
America: Causes, Consequences and Aiternatives.
St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1978.

Rogers, E. V. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. Communication
of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach. The
Free Press, New York. 1971.

Rogers, Everett M. Communication of Innovations:
A Cross Cultural Approach. New York: The Free
Press, 1971.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New
York: The Free Press, 1962.

Rogers, Everett M. in association with Svenning, Lynne.
Modernization Among Peasants, The Impact of Commu-
nications. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1969.

 

Rose, John Kerr. Survey of National Policies on
Federal Land Ownership. Senate Report, 85th
Congress, Doc. no. 338.

Kelley, R. W. Review of a Paper by John Higgs:
"Reaching Small Farmers for Rural and Agricultural
Development." Misc Publ Hawaii Univ Coop Ext Serv.
152: 98-106. January 1978.

Ross, Peggy J., Herman Bluestone and Fred K. Hines.
Indexes and Rankings for Indicators of Social
Well—Beingyfor U.S. Counties. Statistical Sup-
plement to Research Report No. 10. ESCS, USDA.
May 1979.

Ross, Peggy J., Herman Bluestone and Fred Hines.
Indicators of Social Well-Being for U.S. Counties.
Rural Dev. Res. Rep. No. 10. Econ., Stats., and
Coop. Serv. USDA. May 1979.

 

 

576.

577.

578.

579.

580.

581.

582.

583.

584.

585.

586.

208

Ross, William N., and Albert R. Hagan. Part-time
Farming and the Family Farm. University of
Missouri, College of Agriculture Bulletin No.
807 (Columbia: Agricultural Experiment Station,

1963.
Rowher, Robert A. "Family Farming as a Value,"

 

 

Rural Sociology 16, December 1951. H

Rowher, Wayne C. and Louis H. Douglas. The Agrarian E
Transition in America: Dualism and Change. 5

Roy, Ewell P. and Floyd J. Bordelon. Economic
Aspects of the Low Income-Limited Resource I
Problem in Louisiana. Research Report No. 467. 1
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri- w
business. Louisiana State University. June 1974.

 

 

Rural America. Platform for Rural America. Revised
at the Third National Conference on Rural America,
December 5-7, 1977. Washington, D.C.

 

Rural America. Strategies for Rural Action: 1977
Conference Working Papers. Rural America, 1346
Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Listing of and prices for 14 papers.

Rural America, Toward a Platform for Rural America-
1978. Rural America, 1346 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Rural Venture, Inc. Information Packet. Rural
Venture, Inc., 6750 France Avenue South, Min-
neapolis, Mn. 55435.

Ryan, Bryce and Neal C. Gross. "The Diffusion of
Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities." Rural
Sociology 8, 1943.

Saint, W. S. and E. W. Coward. "Agricultural and
Behavioral Science: Emerging Orientations."
Science, Vol. 197, August 19, 1977. pp. 733-737.

Salaman, Lester M., Black Owned Land: Profile of a
Disappearing Equity Base. Office of Minority
Business Enterprise, Department of Commerce, E
and 14th Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
1974.

 

209

587. Salaman, Lester M. Land and Minority Enterprise:
The Crisis and the Opportunity. Office of
Minority Business Enterprise, Department of Com-

merce, E and 14th Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230. June 30, 1976.

588. Saupe, William E. "The Effect of an Experimental
Negative Income Tax on Farm Business Decisions
and Financial Management." Americanyflurnal of
Agricultural Economics. December 1977.

 

589. Saupe, William E. Information Needs Relating to
Small-Farm Programs and Policies. USDA, ESCS

Staff Report. Washington, D.C. 20250. July
1980.

590. Saupe, William E. Poverty-Level Farming in Wisconsin.
Special Bulletin 11. Research Division, College

of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of
Wisconsin. May-June 1968.

591. Saupe, William E. and Bruce Weber. Rural Family
Income in Wisconsin. Research Report R2634.
Research Division, College of Agricultural and

Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
1974.

 

592. Saupe, William E. Rural Wisconsin Families in
Poverty. Resource Report A2052. University of
Wisconsin-Extension and Research Division,
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin-Madison. May 1974.

93. Saupe, William _e__t_ _a_1;. Smaller Farms Prpgram.
UniversitLof Wisconsin Extension 1976 Reporp.
A2814. University of Wisconsin-Extension 1977.

)4. Saupe, William E. "Welfare Reform and Low Income
Farmers." Economic Issues, No. 20. Department
of Agricultural Economics, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. April 1978.

i. Sayre, James R. and John G. Stovall. "ERS in Search
of its Clientele." Mighell, Ronald L. (Editor).
Looking Forward: Research Issues Facing Agricul-
ture and Rural America. Economic Research
Service. USDA. September 1977.

Schaefer, Ed. "Changing Character and Structure of
American Agriculture: An Overview," U.S. General
Accounting Office, Rep No CED-78-178. Sept, 1978.

_ _-— ’_ ._. -

 

 

 

 

 

all!

.I 15.51
15....

‘1

 

210

597. Scheneman, Carl, John Cox and Howard Diesslin.
Extension Educational Opportunities with
Small-Farm Operators.

598. Scherer, C. and R. Swope. A Tough Game to Get
Started Small Farmers. Ext Rev U.S. Dep Agric
Sci Educ Adm. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Vol. 49. No. 6. pp. 10-11. 5‘
November/December 1978. '

 

599. Schmiesing, Brian, W. D. Dobson and Carol Tank.
"The FmHA and Credit Needs of Beginning Farmers." -
Economic Issues. Department of Agricultural ; I
Economics, University of Wisconsin. No. 30, _
February 1979. ‘J

 

600. Schmitz, Andrew and David Seckler. "Mechanized
Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of
the Tomato Harvester," American Journal of

Agricultupal Economics, Vol.f52, November 1970,
pp. 569-577.

601. Schneeberger, K. C., J. G. West, D. D. Osburn, J.
Hartman. Expanding Agricultural Production: The
Small Farmer Case. Proc Annu Meet West Agric
Econ Assoc. 47th: 56-58. Ref. 1974.

602. Schneeberger, K. C. and J. G. West. "Marginal
Farms, A Micro Development Opportunity,"
Southern Journal oprgricultural Economics,
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 97-100. July 1972.

603. Schneeberger, K. C. and Jerry West. "Profile of
Small Farmers in Missouri," Small Farm Program -
A series of papers concerned with low-income
farmers in Missouri; Department of Agricultural
Economics; University of Missouri, Columbia.

604. Schreier, Jeanette (Editor). Rural Income Main-
tenance Experiment: Composite Interview.
Institute for Research on Poverty, University
of Wisconsin-Madison, 1973.

 

605. Schreiner, Dean F. "Community Services in a
Dynamic Rural Economy." In Ball and Heady,
pp. 333-352.

606. Schroeder, M. E., L. C. Schisler, R. Snetsinger,
V. E. Crowley, and W. L. Barr. Feasibility of
Transporting Spawned Mushroom Compost from a
Central Facility for Small and Medium Sized

 

 

607.

608.

609.

610.

611.

612.

613.

614.

615.

616.

211

Mushroom Farms Costs and Returns, Yields.
Prog Rep PA Agric Exp Stn. 370, 9 p. April
1978.

Schultz, T. W. The Economic Organization of
Agriculture. pp. 152-171, McGraw-Hill, New
York. 1953.

Schultz, T. W. "A Policy to Redistribute Losses E1
from Economic Progress," J. Farm Economics, 3‘
43:554-565, August 1961.

Schultz, Theordore. Transforming Traditional
Agriculture, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale
University Press, 1964. ;j

 

 

Schultze, Charles L. The Distribution of Farm
Subsidies: Who Gets the Benefits? Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1971.

Schumacher, J. F. Small is Beautiful, Economics
as if People Mattered. New York: Harper and
Row Publishers, 1973.

Schwartz, James W. United States Department of
Agriculture. Science and Education Administra-
tion. Agricultural Research. A Bibliography
for Small and Organic Farmers. 1920 to 1978.

Science and Education Administration. "The Science
and Education Administration's Research and
Extension Programs for Small Farms," A Report
Prepared for the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, and Related Agencies, Com-
mittee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives, Washington, D.C.: SEA, USDA
March 1, 1979.

Scott, J. T. and G. F. Summers, Rural Industriali-
zation: Problems and Potentials. Ames, Iowa:
Iowa State University Press, 1974.

Scoville, Orlin J. "Measuring the Family Farm."
gourg_Farm Econ., Vol. 29, No. 2, 1947, pp.
506-519.

Seastrunk, D. H. "Essential Elements of a Successful
Small Farm Program." Rural Development Research
and Education, Vol. 1. No. 1. p. 26. Summer
1977.

 

 

 

212

617. Sellers, Jr., Walter E. Variations in Length of
the Farm Workweek. USDA Statist Bull 474. 20 p.

September 1 9 7 l .

618. Setzer, Florence, Lee Bawden, William Harrar and
Stuart Kerachsky. Summary Report: Rural Income
Maintenance Experiment. Institute for Research
on Poverty, The Office of Economic Opportunity,
and the U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. November 1976.

619. Shah, C. H. Small Farmers: Policy and Problems.
Econ & Polit Wkly. Vol. 13, No. 42, pp. 1771-1775.

620. Sharples, Jerry A. and Allen Prindle. "Income
Characteristics of Farm Families in the Corn
Belt," Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 34,

July 1973 .

621. Sharples, Jerry A. "Incomes of Farm Families -
Implications for Agriculture in the 1970's,"
Western Agricultural Economics Association Pro-
ceedings of Annual Meeting. 1973.

622. Shepherd, Geoffrey. "Are Big Farms More Efficient
Than Small Ones?" Iowa Farm Science, Vol. 16,
No. 3-4, pp. 41-44. September-October 1961.

623. Shover, John L. First Majority -J_;.ast Minority.
The Transformation of Rural Life in America.
Northern Illinois University Press. 1976.

624. Shuman, Charles B. "The Family Farm." The Nation's
Agriculture, February 1957.

:25. Sisson, Charles A. The U.S. Tax System and the
Structure of American Agriculture. NRC Small

Farms Project Rep. No. 4, forthcoming 1979.

26. Sloan, Eric. An Age of Barns. Ballantine Books,

—__

New York, 19 74 .

7. Slocum, W. L. "Attributes of Farm Families with
Low Frequency of Contact with Agricultural Ex-
tension." Rural Sociology 22 (1957) .

- Slocum, W. L. "Cultural Change: From Folklore to
Science in Farm Technology." Agricultural
Sociology, 1962, pp. 169-184.

 

 

 

213

 

Small Farm Research and Extension. Sec 1404. In

629.
National Agricultural Research, Extension and
Public Law 95-113.

Teaching Policy Act of 1977.
7U$23101. Subtitle F. September 29, 1977.

630. Small Farm Viability Project. The Family Farm in
Cififornia. Submitted to the State of California.
November 1977. F1

SmaLlFarm Viability Project, Training Task Force
State CETA Office, Department of Employ-
800 Capitol Mall, Sacramento,

November 1977.

631.
Report.

ment Development,
California 95814 .

Three Years to Break Even on a
Yearbook Agriculture (USDA)

 

14...-

§
4
E.

632. Smalley, J. 14.
Small Farm. __ _
washington, 1978. p. 15.

633. Smith, Allen G. and Kenneth R. Krause. Financing
Future Farm Production-—A Look at Three Scenarios.

Washington D.C. J.S. Dep Agr Econ Res Serv.,
Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 35. 10-14.

October 1974.

Smith, Bruce L., H. D. Lasswell and R. D. Casey.

634.
Proppganda Communication and Public Opinion.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,

1946.
Bibliography: 160 Acre Anti-
National Land for People,

635. Smith, Charles.
Fresno, California 93711.

.Monopply_Water Laws.
2348 North Cornelia,

Bibliography: Land Reform in
America. Earthwork, 3410 19th Street, San Fran-
cisco, California 94110. Over 1,000 references,
most comprehensive bibliography on land issues

available .

536. Smith, Charles.

7. Smith, Edward J. "Economic Profile of Limited
Resource Farmers," in proceedings of the workshop
on Methods of Workingwith Limited Resource

Farmers, National Fertilizer Development Insti-
tute, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals,

Al abama , Bulletin Y-44 .

Smith, Russell. Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture.
1953.
Cost-Size Relationships and Tradi-

Economic Behavior. South J Agric

Soltani, &.R
151-156. December 1976.

tional Farmers'
Econ. Vol. 8. No. 2. pp.

 

214

640. Sonka, S. T. and E. O. Heady. Effects of Alterna—
tive Farm Policies on Farm and Nonfarm Sectors
of Rural America. South J. Agric. Econ. Vol. 6.
No.2, pp. 47-58. December 1974.

641. Sonka, S. T. "Optimum Farm Size." Paper presented
at the 1978 Rural Policy Forum, Dept. of Agr.
Econ., Univ. of Ill. at Champaign-Urbana, March
1978.

642. Soth, Lauren. The End of Agrarianism: Fission of
the Political Economy of Agriculture. Amer. Jour.
of Agr. Econ. Vol. 52. pp. 663-667. Dec. 1970.

 

643. Southern COOperative Development Fund (SCDF) , Annual
Report. SCDF, 1006 Surrey Street, Lafayette,
Louisiana 70501. 1978.

644. Southern Farm Management Extension Committee.
Proceedings of the Southern Farm Management Ex—
tension Committee Small Farm Seminar, Lexington,
Kentucky, Southern Farm Management Extension
Committee, 1973.

645. Southern Farm Management Extension Committee.
"Survey of Extension Service Programs Designed
for Small Farmers in the Southern Region."
Mimeographed Release, Lexington, Kentucky.
April, 1977.

646. Southern Regional Council (SRC) , Increasing the
Options: A Report of the Task Force on Southern
Rural Development. SRC, 75 Marietta Street, N.W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 1974.

F47. Southern Regional Council (SRC), Map: Rural Popula-
tion as Percent of Total Population. SRC, 75
Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
1974.

18. Southern Rural Development Center. The Role of
Communication and Attitudes in Small Farm Programs
SRDC Synthesis Series No. 4, Mississippi State,
Mississippi (August, 1978).

'. Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC) , Rural
Development Research at Land Grant Institutions
in the South. Publication No. 2, SRDC, P.O. Box
5406, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762.
January 1977.

 

H"

 

 

215

650. Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC), "Small
Farms: Feature Issue," Rural Development Research
and Education. SRDC, P.O. Box 5406, Mississippi
State, Mississippi 39762. Summer 1977.

651. Spitze, R. G. F., Daryll E. Ray, Alan S. Walter, and
Jerry G. West. Public Agricultural-Food Policies

and Small Farms. NRC Small Farms Proj. Rep. No.
2, forthcoming 1979.

652. Stanton, B. F. "Perspectives on Farm Size" American
Journal of Agricultural Economics. December 1978.

653. State CETA Office. The Family Farm in California:
Report of the Small Farm Viability Project, Sacra-

mento, California November 1977.

654. Steffen, Robert. "Future of Farming," Nebraskaland
Magazine, December 1972.

655. Steffen, Robert. "Seeking an Ecological Agriculture,"
Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill, Nebraska.

656. Steinhart, J. E. and C. E. Steinhart. "Energy Use
in the U.S. Food System," Science, Vol. 184, No.

4134 (April 1974). pp. 307-315.

657. Stephens, P. H. "Managing $100,000 Per Worker...
Successfully," PCA Farming, November-December,

1961.

658. Stevens, Joe B. "The Demand for Non-Market Goods and
Services as Revealed Through Migration to Southern
Oregon," paper presented to Annual Meeting of
W-118R, Regional Research Committee, Salt Lake

City , October 19 78 .

59 . Stewart, Frances. Technology and Underdevelopment.
Westview Press, Inc. , 19 77 .

50. Stewart, Fred J., Harry H. Hall and Eldon D. Smith.
"Potential for Increased Income on Small Farms in
Appalachian Kentucky." American Journal of
Agricultural Economics. Vol. 61, No. 1, Feb 1979.

1. Stewart, Fred J., Harry H. Hall, and Eldon D. Smith.
The Potential for Increasing Net Incomes on
Limited-Resource Farms in EasternfiKentucky. Res.
Rpt. 24. Lexington, Ky., Univ. of Ky., Col. of
Agr. , Dept. Agr. Econ., Agr. Expt. Sta., May

1976, pp. 1, 4.

 

'1

«ing- an

 

 

216

662. Stewart, H. L. "Changes in Farms and Farming,"
Talk at the 39th Annual Agricultural Outlook.
Conference, Washington, D.C., November 16, I961.

663. Stewart, H. L. "The Organization and Structureof
Some Representative Farms in 1975." Journal of
Farm Economics 33, 1951.

664. Stoneberg, E. G. Extension Economist. Iowa State Pi
University, informal comments: "Methods of Working 7
with Limited Resource Farmers." 1

 

665. Strickland, Cecil L. and Mostafa Soliman.. Nonpro- I
fessional Aides. inAgriculture, An Evaluation of '
a Program in Cooperative Extension Education for
Small Farm Families, Bulletin B-~116'5(PV) , Prairie
View, Texas: Prairie View, A&M University, 1976.

 

lrji '

 

666. Stucky, William G. "How Agricultural Colleges Can
Serve the Farmer's Real Need," Better Farming
Methods, November 1960.

667. Suchman, E. A. -Eva1uation Research, New York, N.Y.:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1967.

668. Sundquist, W. B. Economics of Scale and Some Impacts
of Agricultural Policy on Farm Size, Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Center for the Study of Human
Resources, 1971.

669. Sutton, E. M. Marketing Cooperatives Makes Small
Farmers Bigger. Farmer Copp U.S. Farmer Coop
Serv. Vol. 44. No. 10, p. 7. January 1978.

 

$70. Sweetman, H. L. The Principles of Biological Control.
Wm. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa 1958.

71. Swift, J. E. ed. Agricultural Chemicals: Harmony
or Discord for Food, Peop_le and the Environment,
1971.

2. Tammeus, William D. "Evidence of Growth Limits in
Agriculture Seen." The Kansas City Star.
November 2, 1975.

. Task Force of the Viability of Small Family Farms in
Lane County, 1979. Final Report, Lane County
Housing and Community Development, 170 E 11th
Avenue, Rm. 206, Eugene, Oregon 97401. November
19 79 .

 

217

Taylor, Fred R., Leroy W. Schaffner. Crop Production
N Oak Farm Res Vol. 29,

Costs and Profit Returns.

674
No.3, pp. 33-36, January-February 1972.

"Rural Life and Urbanized Society,"

675. Taylor and Jones.
1964, Chapter 3, pp.

Oxford University Press,
49-64.

 

The Return of the Draft Horse for Small

676. Telleen, M.
Farms. Org Gard Farmiry, Vol. 23. No. 2.
pp.156, 158, 160, 162, 164. February 1976.

Marketing Alternatives

677. Tennessee Valley Authority.
for Small Farmers: Fruits and Vegetables. 1
Bulletin A

National Fertilizer Development Center.
Y-148. Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660. November

1979.

678. Tennessee Valley Authority. Proceedings; of the
Workshop on Methods of Working with Limited Resource

Farmers, Bulletin Y-44, Muscle Shoals, Alabama,
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1972.

679. Thiesenhusen, W. C. "Some Social Consequences of
Mechanization," Madison Wisc. Dept. of Agric.
Econ.; paper presented at conference, Agricultural
Technology for Developing Nations, Univ. of 111.,

May 24, 1973.

 

 

1941R. A Note on z Goods, Marketed

680. Thirsk, Wayne R;
Surplus and the Labor Intensity of Small Farm
Agriculture. Houston, Tex.: Rice University.

23 pp. 1973.
Marketing and the Small Farmer.

§81. Thompson, Allen.
Washington, D.C.: NRC Small Farms Proj. Rep. No.

5, :forthcoming 1979.
32. Thompson, James F. "Defining Typical Resource Situa-
tirnis." Farm Size and Output Researchiy A Study
iJrJMethods. South. Coop. Series Bul. 56. June
1958, p.36.
3. Thompson, Ronald L. Description and Analysis of
Limited Resource Farmers in Michigan, unpublished
PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975.
Thompson, Ronald L. and Ralph E. Hepp. "Description
Research

and Analysis of Michigan Small Farms."
Report 296. Michigan State University Agricul-

tural Experiment Sta. E. Lansing, MI. March 1976.

 

218

685. Tilth Newsletter, Box 2382, Olympia, Washington
98507.

686. Todd, John. "A Modest Proposal: Science for the
People." pp. 259-282 in Richard Merrill (ed.)
Radical Agriculture. New York: Harper and Row.

 

1976.
687. Tootell, R. B. "The Future of the Family Farm." P11
Agricultural Policy Review, 5:3. 1965. , 1

688. Toothman, J. 8. Changes in Consumer Food Buying.
Can Small Farmers Benefit? Marketing Farm Econ.
(PA State Univ). p. 1-3 October 1975. A

11

L.

 

689. Tkimble, Richard L., Larry J. Connor and John R.
Brake. Michigan Farm Management Handbook, 1971.
Agricultural Economics Report No. 191, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, MI 1971.

690. Tuskegee Institute, Cooperative Extension Service,
Tuskegge Institute: 1971-1977. Alabama Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Tuskegee Institute,

Alabama 36088.

691. Tweeten, Luther, and Dean Schreiner. "Economic Impact
of Public Policy and Technology on Marginal Farms
and on the Nonfarm Rural Population." Benefits
and Burdens of Rural Development: Some Public
Policy Viewpoints. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univ.

Press, 1970, p. 53.

692. Tweeten, Luther G. Elements of Economic Growth in
Rural Areas. Research Report P-665. Stillwater:

Oklahoma State University, July 1972, pp. 1-14.

 

793. Tweeten, Luther. Foundations of Farm Policy.
Lincoln, Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press,

1970 . pp. 73-75.

94. Tweeten, Luther. "Research Resources for Micro-
politan Development." North Central Regional
Center for Rural Development. Rural Development:
Research Priorities. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univ.

Press, 1973.

i. Tweeten, Luther G. The Role of Education in Alle-
viating Rural Poverty. Agricultural Economics
Report No. 114. Washington, D.C.: USDA June 1967,

pp . 14-18 .

 

696.

697.

698.

699.

700.

701.

02.

219

Tweeten, Luther, Wallace Huffman, Steven T. Sonka,
and Richard Rodefeld. Structure of Agriculture

and Information Needs Regarding Small Farms.
Washington, D.C.: NRC Small Farms Proj. Rep. No.
8,forthcoming 1979. Part 1, Luther Tweeten and
Wallace Huffman. "Structural Changes: An Over-
View." Part 2, Steven T. Sonka. "Consequences
of Farm Structural Change." Part 3, Richard D.
Rodefeld. "Farm Structural Characteristics:
Recent Trends, Causes, Implication and Research

Needs— Excerpts . "

United Methodist Church. "The Family Farm: Can It
Be Saved?," Engage/Social Action, United Methodist

Church, 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20002. October 1978. Entire issue.

united Presbyterian Church. Who Will Farm? Church
and Society Program Area, United Presbyterian
Church, USA, 1244 Interchurch Center, 475 River-
side Drive, New York, New York 10027. 1978.

U.S. Congress. A Bill to Encourage the Continuation
of Family Farming as a Part of the Agricultural
System in the United States. H.R. 10716. By Mr.
Brown of California, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Richmond, Mr.
Jeffords, and Mr. Panetla. 95th Congress,
Second Session, February 2, 1978.

U.S. Congress. Underemployment of Rural Families.
Materials prepared by Wilcox and Hendrix for the
Joint Committee on the Economic Report. 82nd

Congress, First Session. 1951.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Agricultural
Credit Act of 1978, Conference Repopp. 95th
Congress, 2nd Session, Report No. 95-1344, July

1978.

Congress, House of Representatives, Committee

on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation and
and Committee on Small Business. Subcom-

Credit,

mittee on Antitrust, Consumers, and Employment.
Rural Development Budget Proposals: Joint Hearings
Before the Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit
and the Subcommittee on Family Farms, Rural De-
velopment, and Special Studies of the Committee on
Agriculture and the Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Consumers, and Employment of the Committee on Small
Business, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth
Congress, First Session, Nov 10, 11, 1977. Lexing-
ton, KY. Washington: US Govt Print Off, 1978. VI,

256 p. 24 CM.

U.S.

 

 

 

220

[LS.Cmmress, House of Representatives, Committee
Obstacles to Strgngthening
Serial No. 95-BB. 95th

1977.

70L
on Agriculture .

Pauly Farm System.
Congress, First Session.

704. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee
ontme Judiciary, Antitrust Subcommittee, Family !

FannAct. Hearings. 92nd Congress, 1972.

House of Representatives, Committee

Antitrust Subcommittee. Famil
94th Congress, September, 1976.

705. U.S. Congress,
on Judiciary.
Farm Act. Report.

706. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee
<x1the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Family Farms
and Rural Development. Upgrade Small Farmer
Operations Hearings, 94th Congress, 1976.

 

707. U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Agriculture and
Assistance to Small Farmers in Upgrading

Forestry.
Their Farming Operations. 8. Report 94-1234,
1976.

94th Congress, September,

Committee on Agriculture and

708. U.S. Congress, Senate.
Superintendent of

Forestry, Farm and Food Policy.
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402. September 15, 1976.
Discussion of objectives and current issues of
U.S. agriculture policy. Also outlines major
organizations involved in farm policy and provides

brief history of U.S. agriculture policy.

Committee on Agriculture,
"Status of the Family

1979.

709. U.S. Congress, Senate.
Nutrition and Forestry:

Farm." Washington, D.C.

710. U.S. Congress, Senate. "Priorities in Agricultural
Research of the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
A Summary Report of the Hearings." Staff Report
of the Subcommittee on Administrative Practices
and Procedures, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, December 1978.

U.S. Congress, Senate. Select Committee on Small
U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Commit-

Business.
Impact of Federal Estate and Gift Taxes on

Small Businessmen and Farmers: Joint Hearing
Before the Select Committee on Small Business and

the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Senate, Ninety-
Fourth Congress, First Session. Minneapolis, Minn.

Aug 26, 1975. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
IXI, 1J35 P.; 24 CM 1975.

ll.

 

221

Select Committee on Small

Business. U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Problems
of Entry into Family Farming: Joint Hearings
Before the Select Committee on Small Business
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, U.S. Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress,
Second Session. Eau Claire, Wis. December 11,
1978. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1979. .

III, 362 p.: I11.; 23 CM.

713. U.S. Congress, Senate. Select Committee on Small
Business U.S. Congress Senate Committee on '

Interior and Insular Affairs. Will the Family .
Farm Survive in America? Joint Hearings Before the ‘1

Selected Committee on Small Business and the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.

Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, First Session.
Part 1A, 1B, 1C. Appendixes Situation Studies.

Washington. p. 183-2184. 1976.

714. U.S. Congress, Senate. Select Committee on Small
Business U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs. Will the Family
Farm Survive in America? Joint Hearings Before
the Select Committee on Small Business and the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate, NinetyeFourth Congress, Second Session.
Part 3. Federal Reclamation Policy (Westlands

Water District). Washington, 649 p. 1976.

712. U.S. Congress, Senate.

 

 

Senate. Select Committee on Small

715. U.S. Congress,
Subcommittee on Economic Deve10pment,

Business.
Marketing, and the Family Farmer. U.S. Congress,
Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry. Subcommittee on Agricultural Credit
and Rural Electrification. Federal Disaster
Isnuding for Crop Loss Due to Drought: Joint Hearings
Before the Subcommittee on Economic Development,
marketing, and the Family Farmer of the Select Com-
mittee on Small Business and the Subcommittee on
Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification of
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, U.S. Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress,
Second Session. January 30, 31, and February 1,
1978. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1978.

III, 189 p.: 111.; 24 CM.

Department of Agriculture, Brief History of the

U.S.
Farmers Home Ad-

Farmers Home Administratiop.
ministration, January 1975.

 

717.

718.

719.

720.

721.

722.

723.

724.

725.

'26.

222

Development of
A Report on
Washington,

U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Agriculture ' 5 Human Resources:
Problems of Low-Income Farmers.

D.C., G.P.O. , 1955.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. "A Dialogue on the
Structure of American Agriculture: Summary ogf
Regional Meetings November 27-December 18g 1979,

Washington, D . C . 1950 .

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Farmer's Expendi-
tures in 1955 by Regions for Production and Farm
Living...with Tables on Off-Farm Income," Statis-

 

 

 

tical Bulletin No. 224. 1958.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Living on a Few 1
Acres, Yearbook of AgricultureL 1978. Washington, J
1978, p. 2. -

 

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

U.S. Department of Agriculture. News. Apr 30, 1979.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. "USDA Small-Farm
Policy: Emphasis on the Family." Issue Briefing
Paper No. 28. Office of Governmental and Public

Affairs; Washington, D.C. 20250. Sept 1980, 7 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Community Services
Administration, and Action. Regional Small Farms
Conferences,_National Summary. Documentation and
Review of Material for the Research Project,

January 1976, p. 13.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service. Analysis of Multiple Income and Small
Farm Subspgtor. Documentation and Review of
Material for the Research Project, Jan. 1976, p. 13.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS. Beliefs and
Values in American Farming. ERS-558. Washington,

D.C. 1974.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS. Changes in
Farm Production and EfficiencyL A Special Issue.

35:561. 1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, Extension's Responsibility to Farmers
and Ranchers with Gross Farm Income Less than

$10JOOO. Report of Project III Committee to
the Extension Committee on Organization and

Policy, May 4, 1967. p. 23.

 

223

728. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research
Service. Rural and Farm Family Rehabilitation
Project: An Expansion in Program Strategy to
Assist Rural Families Faced with Limiting Condi-
tions, An Evaluation of a Team Project in Vermont.

Program and Staff Dev., Ext. Serv., in coopera-
and USDA

 

 

tion with Univ. of Vermont, Ext. Serv.,
Econ. Res. Serv., Econ. Dev. Div. I
Economic Research m

729. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Service. "State Farm Income Statistics." U.S.

Government Printing Office, Supplement to Statis-
tical Bulletin 576, September 1977.

 

'1?
*1.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service. "Trends in Kinds and Sizes of Farms."
Landg the Yearbook of Agriculture: 1958. Washing-
ton, D.C., Kenneth L. Bachman and Jackson V.

McElveen, p. 303-304 .

730.

U.S. Department of Agriculture - ESCS. "Characteris-
tics of Small Farm Families." Talk by John.C.
Crecink, Washington, D.C. 20205. November 1979.

731.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS, John C. Crecink.
Families with Farm Income, Their Income, Income
Distribution and Income Sources. Washington, D.C.

20250. November 1979.

732.

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economics, Statis-
tics, and Cooperatives Service. Status of the
Family Farm: Second Annual Report: to the Congress.
AER #434. Washington, D.C. 20250. September

1979.
734. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics

and Cooperatives Service. Small-FarmIssues:
Proceedings of the ESCS Small Farm Workshop, May

1978. ESCS-60. July 1979.

733.

Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statis-
tics, and COOperativesService. Structure Issues

of American Agriculture. Agricultural Economics
Report 438. November 1979.

35. U.S.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Joint Council on
Food and Agricultural Sciences. Research, Ex-
tension and Higher Education for Small Farms.
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Small Farms of
the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.

December 1979 .

U\
o

 

224

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secre-
tary. Remarks prepared for delivery by Secretary

of Agriculture Bob Bergland, before the National
Farmers Union Convention. Kansas City, Missouri.

March 12, 1979 .

737.

 

738. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
tion Administration. "Guidelines for Small Farm

Enterprises: Extension Short Course," Washington-

Oregon-Idaho, The Dalles, Oregon, November 14-15,
1978. Washington: Small Farm Programs, USDA-SEA,

1978. 44 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education :3

Administration. The Science and Education Admini-

§tration's Resgarch and Extensggn Programs for
Small Farms. Prepared for the Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Represen-

tatives. March 1, 1979.

Science and Educa-

 

739.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-SEA. Small Farm Pro-

grams and Activities._ State Reports, 1979.
Washington, D.C. 20250. September 1980. 36 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Small Farms Working
Group. Small Farm Family Newsletter. April 1979.

742. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.
Characteristics ofjlzhe Population Below the
Poverty Level: 1975. Current Population Reports,

Series P-60, No. 106. 1977.

740.

741.

743. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). The Changing
Character and Structure of American Agriculture:

An Overview. #CED-78-178, GAO, Washington, D.C.
20548. September 26, 1978.

744.. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Food: Re-
ports, Legislation and Information Sources. GAO,

4th and G Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20548.

May, 1978.

15. U.S. General Accounting Office. Some Problems
Impeding Economic Improvement of Small-Farm Opera-

tions: What the Department of Agriculture Could Do.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
August

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
1975. Report to the Congress, recommendations for

improving extension services and the Land Grant
College complex so as to benefit small farms.

 

225

746. University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture.
Feasibility Study; Small Farm Research and
Extension Center at Boonevge, Arkansas.
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1979.

747. University of Missouri. Can the Family Farm Survive:
Report of Seminar. Ag. Experiment Station Special
Report #219, University of Missouri, Columbia.
1978.

748. Unknown Source. Reference List from Paper on Farm
Size.

749. Upchurch, W. Finding a Future in Farming Small
Farmers, Extension. Ext Rev USDA Sci Educ Adm.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vol. 49. No. 6. pp. 14-15. Nov/Dec 1978.

750. Van Arsdall, Roy N. Can the Family Farm Compete?
U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Farm Index,

June 1969.

and Marvin A. Anderson, eds.
Heritage Horizons: Extension's Cpmmitment to
People. Journal of Extension, 605 Extension
Building, 432 N. Lake Street, Madison, Wiscon-

sin 53706. 1976 236 pp.

752. Voth, Donald E. and Martin Redfern. "Some Issues
in Small Farm Development Programs." Paper
presented at Workshop on Options for Increasing
Agricultural Income on Small Farms in Western
Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma. Winrock Inter-
national Center, Morrilton, Arkansas, July
11-12, 1978.

Structural Change in Agriculture and
Econ & Polit Wkly.
27-32. January

PF- 6'7:

751. Vines, C. Austin,

753. Vyas, V. S.
the Small Farm Sector.

Vol. 11. No. 1/2. pp. 24, 25,
10, 1976.

754. Wade, N. New Alchemy Institute: Search for an
Alternative Agriculture. Science. Vol. 187,
February 28, 1975.

No. 4178. pp. 727-729.

55. Walker, Dwight. Southwest Small Farms Conference.
ACTION (Service Corps). Regional Report,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 1978.

Washington: USDA, 1978. 55 pp.

 

 

226

756. Walker, G. and W. A. Halbrook. Minimum Capital
Requirements for Two Levels of Farm Income on.
Small Farms in Southeast Arkansas. Bull Agric
Exp Stn Div Agric Univ Arkansas. 816, 39 p.
December 1976.

757. Walton, F. K. A PreliminaryTechnology Assessment
of Large Farm Tractors and Combines. East Lansing,
Michigan: M‘SfiU Dept of Agri. Engineering, PhD
Dissertation, 1977.

 

 

758. Wardle, Christopher and Richard Boisvert. Farmand
Non-Farm Alternatives forLimited Resource Dairy
Farmers in Central New York. Bulletin A. E. Res.
74-6, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, July, 1974.

 

759. Washington Post, "U.S. Policy Handcuffs Small
Farmers," Washington Post. October 5, 1971.

 

760. Webb, Lee. Protecting the Family Farm/Preserving
Farmland. Conference on Alternative State and
Local Policies. 1901 Que Street, N.W., Washington
D.C. 20009. 1977.

761. Weinberg, Alvin M. "Science for the People or by
the People?" Nature, Vol. 274, August 1978.

762. Weitz, Raamen. From PeasanttoFarmer: A Revolu-
tionary Strategy for Development. Columbia
Univ. Press, 1971.

 

 

763a. Welford, Harrison. Sowing the Wind. New York:
Bantam Books, 1971.

 

763b. Welford, Harrison. "Agribusiness Overkill on the
Farm, " The Washington Monthly. September 1971,
pp. 21-28.

 

'64. Wellman, Allen C., and Jeffrey L. Jorgensen.
Livestock Marketing--What Small Feeders are Doing
in Nebraska. Nebr Univ Coll Agr Home Econ Dept
Agr Econ Rep 59. 31 p. June 1972.

is. West, Jerry G. "Agricultural Economics Research
and Extension Needsomeall-Scale, Limited.
Resource Farmers," Southern Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 49-56
July 1979.

 

 

 

 

766.

767.

768.

769.

770.

771.

772.

773.

227

West, Jerry G. "Issues in Research and Education

Related to Small Farms," Washington, D.C.:
Science and Education Administration, USDA

(mimeo) , 1979 .

West, Jerry, et al., Missouri Small Farm Project:
Annual Report. University of Missouri-Columbia,
College of Agriculture, Columbia, Missouri 1977.

West, Jerry G. and K. C. Schneeberger. The Missouri
Small Farm Program, Department of Agricultural
Economics Publication No. 36, Columbia, Missouri:

University of Missouri, 1972.

West, J. G., V. Harrold, K. C. Schneeberger, and L.
Williamson. "Missouri Small Farm Program, An
Evaluation with a Control Group." Publication
SR176, Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri,

1975.

West, Jerry G., and Lionel Williamson. The Role of
Cooperatives in Small Farm Development - Are They
Viable, Marginal, or Doomed to Failure? Ag Econ
Paper #1978-21. University of Missouri, Columbia,

Missouri. June 1978.

West, Jerry G. "Small Farms in Missouri: Their
Characteristics and Their Problems," Towards a

Federal Small Farms Poligg. Washington, D.C.:
National Rural Center Report Number 9, November

1978.
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.

Whiston, W. D. Small Group Farm Machinery Syndi-

cates Share Farming. Agric Gaz N S W. Vol. 87.
No. 6. pp. 27-28. December 1976.

White, Estelle E. and Edger T. Boone. "Decision
Making and Communication Patterns of Disadvantaged

Farm Families in the North Carolina Coastal Plains

Area." Technical Bulletin No. 245. North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, December

1976.

White, F. C., B. R. Miller, and C. A. Logan. An
Alternative to the Farm Property Tax in Georgia.

Res Bull Ga Exp Stn 170, 39 p. Ref. May 1975.

 

 

 

 

776.

777.

778.

779.

780.

781.

782.

783.

784.

785.

786.

228

Wiegmann, F. H. Profile of a Small Louisiana Farm
Acreage, Costs, Programs, Policies. La Rural
Econ. Baton Rouge. Vol. 40. No. 4. pp. 4-7.
November 1978.

Wiggins, E. R. "Small Farm Development Programs."
Staff Paper 1972-8, Columbia, Missouri: Department
of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri,
July 1972.

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.

Wiggins, Edward R. Missouri Extension Launches Small
Farm Prggram. Columbia: University of Missouri
Extension Division, MP373, 1973.

 

 

Wiggins, Edward R., and Duane Dailey. Missouri
Small Farm Program 1974 Report. Columbia:
University of Missouri Extension Division, MP445,
1975.

 

Wiggins, Edward R. "Procedures for Developing an
Extension Farm Management Program for Small to
Medium Farmers." Paper presented at North Central
Farm Management Extension Workshop, Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, MI 48824. May 1973.

Wilken, D. F. "Costs, Investments, and Earnings--
By Size and Type of Farm 1974-1975" Farm Manage
Ill Univ Dep Agric Econ. 29(Rev), 4 p. Oct 1976.

Williams, James D. "The Changing Causal and Compo-
sitional Structure of Migration in the Nonmetro-
politan Midwest, 1955-1970. Unpublished PhD
thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
1978.

Williams, Raymond.and Richard Douglas. Financing
New Cooperatives. Program Aid No. 1229. ESCS,
USDA. April 1979.

 

 

Williams, William A. Roots of the Modern American
Empire. Random House, New York, 1969.

Williamson, L. "Optimum Resource Combinations for
Small Farmers in Four Missouri Counties," un-
published MS thesis, University of Missouri,
1974.

787.

788.

789.

790.

791.

792.

793.

794.

795.

796.

797.

229

Wilson, Walter. "The Economy of Small Farms in
Wisconsin," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 28,
No. 2 (April 1948), PP. 458-475.

WIN. Vol. 8, No. 12, WIN, Box 547, Rifton, New York

12471. July 1972. Issue on "The Death of the
American Farmer." I

Wittwer, S. H. "Maximum Production Capacity of Food
Crops." Bioscience 24 (April 1974), 216-224.

 

Wolf, Ray, Ed. Organic Farming Yearbook of Agricul-
ture. Rodale Press, Inc., Emmaus, Pennsylvania.

 

Wollenberg, C. Big Agriculture--A California Tradi- H
tion--The Small Farmer Deserves a Chance. Cry V
California, San Francisco, California Tomorrow.

Winter 1978/1979. Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 18-24.

Wong, R. "Agribusiness Plows Under the Family Farm."
Environmental Action, September 14, 1974. pp. 3-6.

Wood, William W. "Role of Small Farms in American
Agriculture and Rural Society." Increasing Under-
standing of Public Problems and Policies - 1978.
Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, Illinois. 1978.

Woodworth, Roger C., Sammy L. Comer and Richard J.
Edwards. A Comparative Study of Small, Part-Time
Retirement and Large Farms in Three Counties in
Central and West Tennessee. Bulletin No. 38.
School of Agriculture and Home Economics, Tennes-
see State University, Nashville. February 1978.

Wordle, Christopher, and Richard N. Boisvert. Farm
and Non-Farm Alternatives for Limited Resource
Dairy Farmers in Central New York. Ithaca: Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment Station, A.E.
Res 74-6, 1974.

Workshop of Methods of Working with Limited Resource
Farmers. Proceedings. Muscle Shoals, Alabama:
National Fertilizer Development Center, Tennessee
Valley Authority, Bulletin Y-44, 1972.

 

Workshop on Improved Rural Living on Limited Re-
sources. Proceedings. Muscle Shoals, Alabama:
National Fertilizer Development Center, Tennessee
Valley Authority, Bulletin Y-88, 1975.

 

 

798.

799.

800.

801.

230

Yeary, Edward A. Can You Earn Your Living on a
Small Farm? Rev. February 1976. Berkeley:
Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of
California. 4 p.: Ill. -1. 1976.

Yetley, M. J. and F. Hoy. Managerial Influence on
Organizational Efficiency: An Analysis of Local
Farmer Cooperatives. Rural Sociol. Vol. 43. p

 

No. 1. pp. 48-69. Spring 1578.

Zwerdling, D. "The New Pesticide Threat," The
Washington Post, August 1973 (Reprinted iE_Food
for People Not for Profit, pp. 93-98- health
problems from agricultural sprays.)

 

 

Zwerdling, Daniel. "Can U.S. Farmers Kick the
Petrochemical Habit?" New Times, May 29, 1978.

 

 

231

VI.A.2. Bibliography Source List

134

157

164

204

222

228

229

257

.322

Chapman, James. Small Farms in Michigan: A Proposal
for Research. 35-69-96-144-242-282-323-327-393-
498-566-568-607- 623- 683- 704-706.

Comer, Sammy and Roger Woodworth. Improving on_Limited
Resource Farms in South Central Tennessee. 546-547-
786.

 

Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies.
New Directions in Farm, Land and Food Policies.
40-43-44-45-58-75-102-105-113-117-118-131-132-133-
136-139-152-160-162-163-196-197-198-199-206-234-244-
246-248-255-256-330-331-332-380-395-425-442-447-480-
483-484-521-564-581—582-586-587-631-635-636-643-646-
647-649-650-690-697-698-708-743-744-745-759-760-767-
788.

Epp, Donald J. An Analysis of Farm Size Change in
Michigan. 38— 84— 254- 285- 288- 312- 316- 374- 412- 492-
622.

 

Fuguitt, Glen, Anthony M. Fuller, Heather Fuller, Ruth
Gasson, and Gwynn Jones. "Part-time Farming: Its
Nature and Implications." 21-27-92-97-143-195-210-
219-262-270-334-340-349-356-369-494-540-642-520.

Gardner, B. Delworth, and Rulon D. Pope. "How is Scale
and Structure Determined in Agriculture?" 513-549-
557.

Garst, Elizabeth. A Description of Beef Cow-Calf
Producers in Six States -- Their Enterprise, Motiva-
tion and Sources of Information. 99-147-214-278-
284-292—350-779-780-795-796-797.

Hagan, Albert Ross. Family Farm Adjustments to Meet
the Impacts of Economic, Technological, and Socio-
lqgical Changes on Central Missouri Farms. 3-13-
26-46-60-88-188—236-237-273a-279-281-286-290-320-
324-329-342-416-431-445-468-497-576-624-657-662-666.

Horne, James E. Small Farms: A Review of Charac-
teristics, Constraints, and Policy Implications.
90-112-119-155-186-249-351-415-616-678-692-695-720-
752.

232

377 LaDue, Eddy L. "The U.S. Experience in Providing
Financial Assistance to Small Farmers Rural
Credit." 72-111-273b-294-301-302-354-375-376-387-
406-426-485-701-716.

414 Lu, Yao-Chi, and Leroy Quance. "Agricultural
Productivity: Expanding the Limits." 145-474-
542-672-726-789.

422 Madden, J. and Heather Tischbein. "Toward an Agenda
for Small Farm Research." 115-241-317-353—421-
458-625-651-681-696.

490 Nichols, E. H., F. C. Fliegel,.and J..C..Van Es.
Growing,Numbers of Small Farms in the NOrth
Centgal States. 36-65-68-175-215-222-226-453- g
489-504-686-783. '

 

 

503 Olson, Thomas M. Nonformal Education Delivery Systems
to Rgach Limited Resource Farmers in_Michigan.
24-25-32-61-86-108-153-166—208-247-276-295-297-
307-309-310-326—333-341-393-344-358-366-396-466-
491-528-544-569-570-571-584-627-629-634-684-705-
707-774.

505 Orden, David R., Steven T. Buccola, and.Patricia
Klobus Edwards. Cooperative Extension.Small-Farm
Programs in the South: An Inventory and Evaluation.
23-192-201-423—438-470-508-645—667-710-769-777.

 

 

507 Orden, David and Dennis K. Smith. Small Farm Pro-
grams: Implications from a Study inVirginia.
56-76-122-205-207-293-365-403-428-432-500-519-
535-602-609-644-656-665-668-758-768-787.

515 Ozarka. "A Special Report on: The Small Farm in
Transition." 6-7-9-10-20-31-37-39-40-41-42-52-
53-54-62-63-64-67-71-78-81-82-83-85-89-91-101-
103-107-109-1l6-120-126-127-128-130-135-141-142-
149-158-159-160-165-167-168-169-211-216-220-221-
224-225-230-231-232-233-239-243-245-251-252-253-
258-263-268-272-275-304-308-313-315-325-335-359-
363-364-367-368-371-372-373-388-408-409-427-430-
436-448-450-452-457-464-469-478-486-487-493-520-
526-529-530-531-536-550-561-562-565-572-577-578-
603-614-626-628-638-654-655-663-670-671-675-687-
693-762-763(A)-763(B)-785-790-792-800.

524. Perry, Ben L. "Comment: Agricultural Economics Re-
search and Extension Needs of Small-Scale
Limited-Resource Farmers." 154-179-180-181-209-
407.

 

589

683

732

733

734

736

748

765

233

Saupe, William E. Information Needs Relating to
§mall-Farm Program§ and Policies. 5-36-55-77-
79-94-98-123-125-150-164-170-178-190-193-194-200-
260-283-314-328-338-339-345-355-362-383-385-389-
401-419-422-433-437-441-444-446-456-472-475-476-
481-496-501-509-537—538-543-558-574-575-579-580-
588-590-591-592-593-594-595-597-599—604-618-652-
660-694-699-700-703-717-721-723-734-735-736-737-
739-741-742-746-784-793-794.

Thompson, Ronald L. Description and Analysis of
Limited Resource Farmers in Michigan. 28-70-122-
138-337-360-392—539-551-689-772-778.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS, John C. Crenick.
Families with Farm Income, Their Income, Income
pistribution, and‘Ingpme Sources. 121-148-266-
274-381-384-386-552-553-620-621-637-719.

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS. Status of the
Family Farm: Second Annpal Report to the Congress.
14-30-87-183-184-218-287-319-390-405-461-477-555-
556-610.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics
and Cooperatives Service. Small-Farm Issues:
Proceedings of the ESCS Small-Farm Workshop, May
1978. 110-171-172-212-370-382-439-451-462-495-
641-661-682-691-724-727-728-730.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Joint Council on
Food and Agricultural Sciences. Research Exten-
sion and Higher Education for Small Farms. 49-
124-471-482-499-506-613-648-653-765-766.

Unknown Source. Reference List from Paper on Farm
Size. 32-34-57-66-95-146-176-187-191-203-223-238-
261-267-280-289-352-420-424-434-443-459-541-545-
563-567-585-596-605-608-630-679-729-757-801.

West, Jerry G. "Agricultural Economics Research and
Extension Needs of Small-Scale, Limited Resource
Farmers." 378-397-402-507-510-527-600-611-658-
659-761-771.

Bibliographic Retrieval Services, Inc. 1-2-8-11-
12-15-16-17-18-19-47-50-73-74-80-100-114-137-151-
173-174-182-185-213-217-240-259-264-269-277-291-
300-305-306-318-321-336-346-347-348-357-361-377-
391-398-399-400-411-413-417-429-435-449-454-455-
460-463-465-467-473-488-502-511-512-514-517-518-

234

522-523-532-534-548-554-559-573-598-601-606-612-
617-619-632-633-639-640-669-674-676-680-685-688-
702-711-712-713-714-715-738-749-753-754-755-756-
764-773-775-776-782-791-798-799.

235

VI.B. How-To Books for Small Farmers, Gardeners, and
Homesteaders

The following listings include both popular books
and a limited assortment of textbooks. Most are still
in print and are available from the publisher or can be
ordered from a local bookstore. Many of the popular
books are available through the catalogs provided by
Garden Way and The Mother Earth News:

1) Garden Way Book Catalog
Garden Way Publishing

Charlotte, Vermont 05445

2) Mother's Bookshelf
Post Office Box 70

Hendersonville, NC 28739

‘\L'IO-I I" . 0

‘ .II-
In
»

 

 

236

1. Farm Buildings and Equipment

 

Boyd, James S. Practical Farm Buiidings. Interstate
Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1979. 276 pp.

 

Branch, Diana S. ed. and editors of Organic Gardening,
New Farm, and Intermediate Technology Publications.
Tools for Homesteaders, Gardeners, and Small-Scale
Farmers. Rodale Press, 1978. 512 pp.

 

Brown, Arien D. and Ivan Gregg Morrison. Tractor and
Small Engine Maintenance. Interstate, 1973. 316 pp.

 

Bruyere, Christian and Robert Inwood. Counrry Comforts:
Designs for the Homestead. Sterling, 1979. 237 pp.

In Harmonyywith Nature: Creative Country Con-
struction. Sterling, 1979. 213 pp.

Halsted, Byron D. ed. Barns, Sheds and Outbuildings:
P1acement,,DeSign, and Construction. Greene, 1977.
240 pp.

Hunt, Donnell. Farm Power and Machinery Management.
Iowa State University, 1973. 365 pp.

Leavy, Herbert T. Successful Small Farms: Building
Plans and Methods. Structures Publishers, 1978.
192 pp.

Mortis, George A. Fences, Gates and Bridges: A Practical
Manual. Dairy Goat Press. 191 pp.

237

2. Gardening, Crops, Trees, Soils, Fertilizers,
Pest Control and House Plants

Applied Biochemists, Inc. How to Identify and Control
Water Weeds and Algae: A Guide to Water Management.

64 pp.

Agnatias, P. Intensive Culture of Vegetables on the I
French System: With a Concise Monthly Calendar of ‘
Operations. 192 pp.

Geatty, Virginia L. and the editors of Consumer Guide.
Rating and Raising Vegetables. Simon & Schuster.
288 pp.

 

Belanger, Jerome. Soil Fertility. Countryside Publica-
tions. Waterloo, Wisc. 1977. 160 pp.

Ben, Robyn. Everyone's Guide to Home Composting. Rein-
hold, 1978. 117 pp.

Bonar, Ann, ed. Home Gardening. 321 pp.

Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Handbook of Biological Control
Plant Pests. 97 pp.

Babel, Nancy Wilkes. The Adventurous Gardener. Godine,
1979. 237 pp.

Carr, Anna. Rodale's Color Handbook of Garden Insects.
Rodale Press. 241 pp.

Chan, Peter and Spencer Gill. Better Vegetapie Gardens
the Chinese Way. Graphic Arts Center, 1977. 96 pp.

Clarke, J. Harold. Growing Berries and Grapes at Home.
Peter Smith. 372 pp.

Deaton, Charles and Michael MacCaskey. All About Pruning.
An Ortho Book. Chevron Chemical Co., 1978. 96 pp.

Doty, Walter L., ed. All About Vegetables. An Ortho

Book. Chevron Chemical Co., 1973. 7 3 pp.

Efraimsson, Ralf. 65 Houseplants from Seeds, Pits &
Kernels. Woodbridge Press, 1977. 144 pp.

Farb, Peter. Living Earth. Harper Colophon Books, 1968.
(Non-technical book on soil ecology).

238

Foster, Catherine Osgood. The Organic Gardener. Vintage
Books, N.Y. 1972.

 

Garden Way Research, ed. What Every Gardener Should Know
About Earthworms. 39 pp.

 

Goldman, M. C., ed. The Complete Bgok of Composting.
Emmaus, P. A. Rodale Press, 1977. !

Hill, Lewis. Pruning Simplified: A Complete Guide to
Pruning Trees, Shrubs, Bushes, Hedges, Vines, Flowers,
Garden Plants, Houseplants and Bonsai. 208 pp.

 

Howard, Sir Albert. The Soil and Health: A Study of
Organic Agriculture. Schocken Books, New York. 1972. '1

307 pp. #5

 

 

Jeavons, John. How to Grow More Vegetables Than You Ever
Thought Possible on_Less Land Than You Can Imagine.
Ten Speed Press, 1979. 82 pp.

John Henry Co., ed. How to Care for 150 Foliage Plants
"From the Plant's Point of View" Series - P.O. Box
17099, Lansing, MI 48901, 1976. 32 pp.

Logsdon, Gene. Small-Scale Grain Raising. Rodale Press,
1977. 305 pp.

. The Gardener's Guide to Better Soil. Rodale Press,
1976. 246 pp.

Merchants Publishing Company. Houseplant Propagations for
Modern Living. Kalamazoo, MI 49001, 1979. 64 pp.

 

. Hanging Plants for Modern Living, 1975. 80 pp.
. Flowering Plants for Modern Living, 1976. 80 pp.

Minnich, Jerry, Marjorie Hunt, and the editors of Organic
Gardening. Rodale Press, 1979. 405 pp.

 

Mueller, Jo. Groying‘Ypur Own Mushrooms. Garden Way
Publishing, 1976. 174 pp.

Newcomb, Duane. The Postage Stamp Garden Book: How to
Grow All the Food_You Can Eat In Very Little Space.
Tarcher, 1975. 150 pp.

Organic Gardening and Farming staff, ed. The Encyclopedia
of Organic Gardening. Rodale Press, 1978. 1200 pp.

239

. Organic Fertilizers. Rodale Press, 1973. 129 pp.

Organic Farming: Yesterday's and Tomorrow's
Agriculture. Rodale Press, 1977. 344 pp.

 

 

Perkins, Harold O. Espaliers and Vines for_the Home
Garden. Iowa State University Press, 1979. 200 pp.

Perry, Frances, ed. Simon and Schuster's Complete Guide
to Plants and Flowers. Simon & Schuster, 1976. 537 pp.

Pheiffer, Ehrenfried E. Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening.
A condensation edited and published by Bargyla and
Gylver Rateaver, Pauma Valley, CA 92061.

 

Pheiffer, Ehrenfried E. Weeds and What They Tell. Bio-
Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Inc., 308
Adams St. Springfield, Illinois 62701, 1976. 55 pp.

Philbrick, Helen and John. The Bug Book. Garden Way,
1974. 126 pp.

 

Philbrick, Helen and Richard K. Gregg. Companion Plants
and How to Use Them. Devin, 1966. 113 pp.

Portugal, Nancy and Jody Shane-Main. The Potted Plant
Organic Care Handbook. 80 pp.

 

Riotte, Louise. Success with Small Food Garders Using
Special Intensive Methods. Garden Way, 1977. 1922 pp.

 

Rodale, J. I. How to Grow Vegetables and Fruits by the
Organic Method. Rodale Press, 1961. 926 pp.

 

Rodale, Robert. The Basig_Book of Organic Gardening.
Rodale Press, 1971. 377 pp.

Seymour, John. The Self-Sufficient Gardener: A Complete
Guide to Growing and Preserving All Your Own Food.
Doubleday, 1979. 256 pp.

Sinnes, A Cort. All About FertilizersLSoils_& Water. An
Ortho Book. Chevron Chemical Company, 1979. 112 pp.

Smith, J. Russell. Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture.
Har-Row, 1978. 408 pp.

Southwick, Lawrence. Dwarf Fruit Trees for the Home
Gardener. 118 pp.

240

Stout, Ruth. How to Have a Green.Thumb Without an Aching
Back. Cornerstone, 1968. 160 pp.

Symonds, George W. D. The Shrub_identification Book.
William Morrow & Co., 1963. 379 pp.

. The Tree Identification.Book. William Morrow &
Co., 1958. 278 pp. !

Yepsen, Roger B. ed. Trees fdr the Land, Orchard and
Woodlot. Rodale Press, 1976. 305 pp.

. Organic Plant Protection. Rodale Press, 1976,
688 pp.

 

 

Misc. Texts and Handbooks of Interest

 

Buckman, Harry 0. and Nyle C. Brady. The Nature and
Properties of Soils. Macmillan, 1969. 653 pp.

 

 

Childers, Norman. Modern Fruit Science. Horticultural
Publications. 976 pp.

 

Delorit, Richard J. and Henry L. Ahlgren. drop Production.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1967.

McVickor, Malcolm H. Approved Practices in Pasture Manage-
ment. The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1974.
400 pp.

Sholto, Douglas J. and Robert de Hart. Forest Farming.
Watkins Publishing, London, 1976.

 

Sprague, Howard B. ed. Hunger Signs in Crops: A Symposium.
David McKay Co., 1964, (Color plates Showing nutrient
deficiencies.)

Thompson, Homer C. and William C. Kelly. Vegetable Crops.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1957. 611 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbooks: .Grass, 1948.
Insects, 1952. Land, 1958. Plant Diseases, 1961.
Seeds, 1961. Soil, 1957. Trees, 1949. Water, 1955.

White, William and Donald N. Collins, eds. The Fertilizer
Handbook. The Fertilizer Institute, 1976. 208 pp.

 

241

Wilson, M. Curtis, Delmar B. Broersma, and Arwin V.
Provonsha. Practical Insect Pest Management Vol 1:
Fundamentals of Applied Entomology. Waveland Press,
Inc. P. O. Box 400, Prospect Heights, IL 60070.
1977. 166 pp.

. Practical Pest Management Vol 2: Insects of
Livestock_& Agronomic Crops. Waveland Press, Inc.,
1980. 197 pp.

. Practical Pest Management Vol 3: Insects of
Vegetables and Fruit. Waveland Press, 1977. 110 pp.

 

. Practical Pest Management Vol 4: Insects of
Ornamental Plants. Waveland Press, 1977. 134 pp.

 

 

242

3. Greenhouses & Hydroponics

Brann, Donald R. How to Build Greenhouses/Sun Houses.
EasiBild, 1976. 114 pp.

Bridwell, Raymond. Hydroponic Gardening. Woodbridge
Press, 1972. 224 pp.

Clegg, Peter and Derry Watkins. The Complete Greenhouse
Book: Building and Usinngreenhouses from Coldframes
to Solar Structures. Garden way Publishers, 1978.
280 pp.

 

DeKorne, James B. The Survival Greenhouse. Peace Press,
1978. 165 pp.

Douglas, James Sholto. Beginner's Guide to Hydroponics.
Sterling, 1979. 156 pp.

Fisher, Rick and Bill Yanda. The Food and Heat Producing
Solar Greenhouse. John Muir, 1980. 161 pp.

 

McCullogh, James C. The Solar Greenhouse Book. Rodale
Press, 1978. 328 pp.

Neal, Charles D. Build Your Own Greenhouse. Chilton,
1975. 130 pp.

Nearing, Helen and Scott. Building and Using Our Sun-
Heated Greenhouse. Social Science Institute, 1979.
148 pp.

Nichols, Richard E. Beginning_Hydroponics. Running
Press, 1977. 126 pp.

Sherman, Charles E. and Hap Brenizer. Hydro-Story.
Nob Press, 1977. 95 pp.

243

4. Homesteading: How-To, History, & Philosophy
Angier, Bradford. One Acre and Security. Vintage Books,
1973. 318 pp.

Bateman, James E. Trapping: A Practical Guide. Stack-
pole, 1979. 168 pp.

Berry, Wendell. The Unsettling of America: Culture &
Agriculture. Sierra Club Books, 1977. 228 pp.

 

Borsodi, Ralph. Flight from the City. Harper Colophon
Books, 1972.

 

Cohan, Ray. How to Make It On the Land: A Complere Guide
to Survival in the Country. Prentice Hall, 1972.

Churchill, James E. The Homesteader's Handbook. Stack-
pole Books, 1974.

 

de Moll, Lane and Gigi Coe, ed. Stepping Stones: Appro-
priate Technology and Beyond. Schocken Books, 1978.
204 pp.

 

Emery, Carla. Carla Emery'sOld Fashioned Recipe Book:
an Encyclopedia of Country Living. Bantam, 1977.
529 pp.

 

 

Farallones Institute. The Integral Urban House: Seli-
Reliant Living in the City. Sierra Club Books, 1979.
494 pp.

 

 

Fukuoka, Masanobu. The One-Straw Revolution: An Intro-
duction to Natural Farming. Rodale Press, 1978.
181 pp.

 

 

Harmond, Paul, ed. The Farmstead Book 1. Kronnaid
Assoc.,1978. 258 pp.

 

Jacobs, Herbert. A Practical Guide for the Beginning
Farmer. Dover Press, 1978. 237 pp.

 

Kains, M. G. Five Acres and Independence. Dover Press,
1973. 397 pp.

 

Kern, Barbara and Ken. The Owner-Built Homestead.
Scribner, 1977. 394 pp.

Langer, Richard W. Grow It! Avon, 1963. 365 pp.

 

244

Lawrence, Martin. The Homesteader's Handbook. The
Complete, Month-By-Month,,How-To Book for Farm, Garden,
and Household. Mayflower, 1979. 223 pp.

 

 

 

Leckie, Jim, Gil Masters, Harry Whitehouse, and Lily
Young. Other Homes and Garbage: Designs for Self-
Sufficient Living. Sierra Clubb Books, 1975. 302 pp.

 

 

Lenandowski, Stephen, ed. Farmer's and Housekeeper's
CyclOpaedia. 544 pp.

 

Logsdon, Gene. Two Acre Eden. Rodale Press, 1980.
237 pp.

 

Main Street Press, ed. The Complete Farmer: A Compendium
of Do-It-Yourself, Tried and‘True Practices for the
Farm, Garden & Household. 173 pp.

Marks, Vic, ed. Cloudburstdz. Kronn and Assoc., 1975.
128 pp.

 

Massacrier, Jacques. Simple Living: An Illustrated
Workbook for the New Farm and Home. 192 pp.

 

Nearing, Helen and Scott. Living the Good Life. Social
Science Institute, 1979. 194 pp.

 

. Continuing the Good Life. Social Science Insti-
tute, 1979. 194 pp.

 

Neese, Harvey C. The Almanac of Rural Living. Morrow,
1979. 483 pp.

Oelhaf, Robert C. Organic Agrigulture. Allanheld, Osmun,
and Co. Publishers, Inc., 1978. 271 pp.

 

Phillips, S. H. and H. M. Young Jr. No-Tillage Farming.
Thompson Pub. 224 pp.

Robinson, Ed and Carolyn. The "Have-More" Plan. Garden
Way, 1973. 70 pp.

Scher, Les. Finding and Buying Your Place in the Country.
MacMillan Press, 1973. 393 pp.

Schumacher, E. F. Small Is Beautiful: Economice_as if
People Mattered. Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973. 305 pp.

 

. Good Work. Harper Colophon Books, 1979. 223 pp.

 

 

245

Schwenke, Karl. Successful Small-Scale Farming. Garden
Way, 1979. 148 pp.

 

Seymour, John. The Guide to Self-Sufficiency. Hearst
Books, 1976. 256 pp.

Tetrault, Jeanne and Sherry Thomas. Country Women: A
Handbook for the New Farmer. Doubleday. 383 pp.

 

 

Vivian, John. The Manual of Practical Homesteading.
Rodale Press, 1975. 340 pp.

Wigginton, Eliot, ed. TheFoxfire Book. Doubleday, 1972.

 

380 pp.

. Foxfire 2. Doubleday. 410 pp.

 

. Foxfire 3. Doubleday, 1975. 511 pp.

Foxfire 4. Doubleday, 1977. 496 pp.

 

. Foxfire 5. Doubleday, 1979. 512 pp.

 

Yepsen, Roger B. Jr., ed. Growingyfor Market. Rodale
Press, 1978. 301 pp.

 

 

246

5. Livestock, Bees, and Aquaculture
Aebi, Osmond and Harry. Mastering the Art of Beekeeping.
Unity Press, 1980. 288 pp.

Alderson, Lawrence. The Chance to Surviye: Rare Breeds
in a Changing World. Greene Press, 1979. 192 pp.

Banks, Stuart. The Complete Handbook of Poulty-Keeping.
Van Nos Reinhold, 1979. 216 pp.

 

Bardach, John E., John H. Pyther and William O. McLarney.
Aquaculture: The Farming and Husbandry of Freshwater
and Marine Organisms. Wiley Press, 1972. 868 pp.

Belanger, Jerome D. The Homesteader's Handbook to Raising
Small Livestock. Garden Way, 1975. 248 pp.

 

. Raising the Homestead Hog. Rodale Press, 1977.
226 pp.

 

. Raising Milk Goats the Modern Way. -Garden Way,
1975. 154 pp.

 

Bradbury, Margaret. The Shepherd's Guidebook. Rodale
Press, 1977. 223 pp.

Dadent, C.P. First Lessons in Beekeeping. Scribner, 1980.
288 pp.

de Bairacli Levy, Juliette. Herbal Handbook from Farm
and Stable. 320 pp.

 

Farnham, Albert B. Home Manufacture of Furs and Skins.
A. R. Harding Publishers. 283 pp.

. Home Tanning and Leather Making,Guide. A. R.
Harding Publishers. 176 pp.

Gleanings in Bee Cnlture staff, ed. Starting Right with
Bees. Root, 1976. 96 pp.

Grohman, Merril and Joann. The Cow Economy. Coburn Farm
Press, 1976. 166 pp.

Hanson, Louise G. and Lily A. Davis. The Basic Beekeeping
and Honey Book. McKay Press, 1977. 196 pp.

 

Haynes, N. Bruce, D.V.M. Keeping Liyestock Healthy; A
Veterinary Guide. Garden Way, 1978. 322 pp.

247

Head, William and Jon Splane. Fish Farming in Your Solar
Greenhouse. 44 pp.

 

Herrick, Dr. John B. "Is She Going to Make It, Doc?"(and
645 More Livestock Health Questions).

 

Hobson, Phyllis and Steve Edwards. Tan Your_Hide:iHome
Tanning_Furs & Leathers. Garden Way, 1977. 135 pp.

 

. Raising a Calf for Beef. Garden Way, 1976. 113 pp.

Holderread, Dave. The Home Duck Flock: A Complete Guide..
Garden Way, 1980. 200 pp.

 

Lockwood, Guy, D.V.M. Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
Care for Self-Sufficient Living. Scribner, 1979.
330 pp.

 

Logsdon, Gene. Getting Food from Water: A Guide to
Backyard Aquaculture. Rodale Press, 1978. 208 pp.

 

Luisi, Billie. A Practical Guide to Small-Scale Goat-
keeping. Rodale Press, 1979. 208'pp.

Luttman, Rick and Gail. Chickens in Your Backyard: A
Beginner's Guide. Rodale Press, 1976. 152 pp.

 

. Ducks and Geese in Your Backyard: A Beginner's
Guide. 252 pp.

Mackenzie, David. Goat Husbandry. Transatlantic Press,
366 pp.

 

Marcia, Leonard S. Raising Poultry the Modern Way.
Garden Way Publishers, 1975. 224 pp.

Peace Corps and Volunteers in Technical Assistance.
Freshwater Fish Pond Culture and Management. 200 pp.

Picart, Francois. Escargots From Your Garden to Your
Table: How to Cpntrol, Raise, and Process Common
Garden Snails. 74 pp.

 

Root, A. I. ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture. Root, 1978.
712 pp.

Simmons, Paula. Raising Sheep the Modern Way. Garden
Way Publishers, 1976. 234 pp.

Spaulding, C. E. D.V.M. A Veterinary Guide for Animal
Owners. Rodale Press, 1976. 420 pp.

249

6. Misc. Farm Management References

 

Castle, Emery N., Manning H. Becker, and Frederick J.
Smith. Farm Business Management. MacMillan Pub. Co.,
1972. 340 pp.

 

Herbert, J. H. Farm Management. Stipes Pub. Co., 1980.
290 pp.

 

Higgs, Roger, Charles Heidenreich, Richard Loberger,
Robert Cropp and Milton Mitchell. Agricultural
Marhematics. Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc.,
1973. 299 pp.

 

James, Sydney C., ed. Midwest Farm Planning Manual.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 333 pp.

Nelson, Aaron G., Warren F. Lee, and William G. Murray.
Agricultural Finance. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa, 1973. 413 pp.

Osburn, Donald D. and Kenneth C. Schneeberger. Modern
Agriculture Management. Reston Publishing Company,
Inc., Reston, VA. 1978. 369 pp.

Tomek, William G. and Kenneth L. Robinson. Agriculture
Product Prices. Cornell University Press, 1972.
376 pp.

 

250

VI.C. Other Information Sources

1. Organizations

These groups work on farm, land and food issues
that frequently intersect with small farm interests.
Many of the addresses and the descriptive comments come
from New Directions in Farm, Land, and Food Policies.
Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies.

Washington, D.C. 1978. pp. 289-298.

251

Agricultural Marketing Project. 2606 Westwood Drive,
Nashville, Tennessee 37204. (615) 297-4088.
Lindsay Jones, John Vicek, Laurie Heise.

AMP organizes farmers' markets, or "food fairs,"
in 19 southern cities. Issues excellent pamphlets
on food and agricultural issues for both consumers
and farmers. Field offices in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
and North Carolina.

Agricultural Teams Farm to Market Project. 436 Alameda
Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44504. (216) 743-1734.
Ron Daniels, Project Coordinator.

Project on direct marketing alternatives for low-
income and minority farmers.

American Agriculture Movement. Main Office, Springfield,
Colorado 81073. (303) 533-6223 or 523-6666; Washing-
ton Office, 308 2nd Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20003 (202) 544-5750.

AAM is the new farm organization which grew out of
the 1978 "farm strike" and the movement to enact 100%
parity at the federal level.

American Agri-Women. Estate Tax Issues Committee,
Springfield, Nebraska 68059. Doris Royal, Coordi-
nator.

Working committee on estate and inheritance tax
problems faced by farm women.

Black Land Services. Penn Community Center, P.O. Box 126,
Frogmore, South Carolina 29920. (803) 838-2669.
Joseph McDomick, Director.

Concentrates on the legal problems facing black land
owners in the "sea island" region of the Southeast.
Excellent paralegal booklet available; Got Land
Problems?

:Blobaum and Associates. Main Office, 1340 42nd Street,
Suite A, West Des Moines, Iowa 50265. (515) 225-6035.
Roger Blobaum; Washington Office, 1346 Connecticut
.Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 659-4367.
Joe Belden.

Blobaum and Belden are full-time consultants on
agricultural and food issues/policies.

252

Boston Farmers' Markets. Division of Land Use,
Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture,
100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02202.
(617) 727-6633. Greg Watson.

Provides technical assistance and issues a newsletter
to community groups working on farmers' markets and
urban agriculture projects.

Boston Urban Gardeners. 300 Massachusetts Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts 02115. (617) 267-4825.
Charlotte Kahn, Judy Wagner.

Coalition of neighborhood community organizations and
urban agriculture activists that provides technical
assistance, organizes workshops, and publishes a news-
letter, BUG.

California Agrarian Action Project. P.O. Box 464, Davis,
California 95616. (916) 756-8518. Paul Barnet, Don
Villarejo and Katherine Bertolucci.

Ongoing work on the impact of agricultural research

at the University of California; special emphasis on
the problems of California farm workers. Publications,
slide Show and newsletter available.

California Food Policy Coalition. c/o Earthwork, 3410
19th Street, San Francisco, California 94110.
(415) 626-1266. Eleanor McCallie, Anna Hackenbrecht.

Coalition of consumer activists, public interest re-
search groups and church/hunger organizations working
on a broad range of agricultural and food policy
issues in California.

California Office of Appropriate Technology. 1530 10th
Street, Sacramento, California 95814. (916) 445-1803.
Gil Friend and Rosemary Menninger.

Issues "Grants News" and provides technical assistance,
contacts and small grants to groups working on a
variety of appropriate technology projects in Califor-
nia. A State Agency.

253

California Small Farm Viability Project. c/o Department
of Employment Development & Rural Affairs, 800 Capitol
Mall, MIC 77, Sacramento, California 95814.

(916) 322-4440. Bill Myers, Director.

Issued an excellent report in 1977; "The Family Farm in
California," with recommendations for new approaches
and public policies for the state to adopt in order to
support small and family farmers.

Center for the Biology of Natural Systems. Washington
University, Box 1126, St. Louis, Missouri 63130.
(314) 899-5327. Barry Commoner, Director.

Excellent research and comparative studies on the
efficiency and viability of organic and ecological
methods of crop production.

Center for Community Change (CCC). 1000 Wisconsin Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007. (202) 338-6310. Pablo
Eisenberg, Director; Norm Deweaver, Rural Development.

CCC monitors federal policies and programs affecting
rural communities, farmworkers and small farmers.
Provides information and technical assistance to rural
community-based groups. Has helped to initiate a

Rural Coalition; a network of groups which will together
advocate for increased attention, funds and programs

for rural communities - especially the rural poor.

Center for Rural Affairs. P.O. Box 405, Walthill,
Nebraska 68067. (402) 84605428. Marty Strange, Don
Ralston; Co-Directors.

Focusing on Nebraska, CRA'S staff works on projects
and research which supports family and small farmers;
monitors federal, state and local policies; issues
excellent publications on issues such as rural credit
and irrigation issues. Publishes two newsletters;
"New Land Review" and the "Center for Rural Affairs
Newsletter."

Small Farm Advocacy Project. Gene Severens, Attorney;
Chuck Hassebrook, Field Organizer.

CRAJS project on legal assistance to small and family
farmers.

254

Center for Rural Communities. Cooperative Extension
Service, Stockbridge Hall, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002. (413) 545-2715. Pat
Sackrey, Christina Platt.

The Center is sponsoring a variety of innovative
projects which support small and family farmers and
encourage rural community economic development in
Massachusetts.

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). 1755
S Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009. (202) 332-9110.
Michael Jacobson, Director.

Publications and information on nutrition, food
quality and community/citizen action strategies on
food related issues. Publications listing available.

Central Coast Counties Development Corporation (CCCDC).
7000 Soquel Drive, Aptos, California 95003.
(408) 688-9000. Miguel Barragan.

CCCDC works with farmworker cooperatives and organi-
zations in a multi-county area; providing technical
assistance, training and financial advice.

Clearinghouse for Enforcement of the Reclamation Law.
c/o Rural America, Inc., 1346 connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 659-2800. Henry Hyde,
Coordinator.

The Clearinghouse was established to coordinate infor-
mation and activity on.the 160-Acre Limitation/1906
Reclamation Law.

Community Nutrition Institute (CNI). 1146 19th Street
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 833-1730. Ellen
Haas, Rob Stein.

Monitors legislation.and acts as an advocate on food
and nutrition issues. Publishes excellent weekly
newsletter; CNI Weekly Report.

Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies.
Agriculture Project, 1901 Que Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20009. (202) 234-9382. Lee Webb, Executive
Director, Cynthia Guyer; Coordinator, Ag. Project.

255

Focus is on state and local policy innovations.
Publications, technical assistance, workshops and a
"Clearinghouse on Alternative Legislation."

Connecticut Conservation Association. Northrop Street,
Bridgewater, Connecticut 06572. Robert Kunz,
Director.

Spearheaded effort to enact Connecticut's Farmland
Preservation Bill (passed 1978). Issues reports on
the need to protect agricultural land in the state.

Conservation Foundation. 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 797-4300. Robert
Healy.

Publishes "Conservation Foundation Letter", $1/issue.
Book to be published in 1979 on preservation of agri-
cultural land.

Consumer Federation of America (CPA). 1012 14th Street,
N.W., Suite 901, Washington, D.C. 20005. (202)
737-3732. Kathleen O'Reilly, Director; Gary Rosen-
berg.

The largest consumer group in the U.S.A. Research
and advocacy on consumer issues, including an ongoing
focus on U.S. food and agricultural policies.
Publishes a newsletter.

Cooperativa Central. Technical Assistance Project.
53 Russell Road, Salinas, California 93906.
(408) 449-3996. Gabino Marquez, Director.

Technical assistance to farmworker agricultural
cooperatives.

Cooperative League of the U.S.A. (CLUSA). 1828 L
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 672-0550.

National federation of customer owned businesses.
Advocates for producer and consumer cooperatives,
direct marketing and support for family and small
farms. Publications list available.

256

Council on the Environment. 50 Chambers Street. New
York, New York 10007. (212) 566-0990. Liz Christy,
Director.

City-wide organization providing technical assistance,
workshOpS, seeds, plants and publications to community
groups working on urban agriculture projects.

Domestic Working Group on Hunger & Poverty. c/o National
Council of Churches, 475 Riverside Drive, New York,
New York 10027. (212) 870-2307. Mary Ellenlloyd,
Director.

An ecumenical task force concerned with U.S. food and
agricultural policy. Organizes regional and state-
wide conferences to bring people together around
these issues at the local level.

Earthwork/Center for Rural Studies. 3410 19th Street,
San Francisco, California 94110. (415) 626-1266.
Mark Ritchie, Eleanor McCallie.

Clearinghouse of information on farm and land related
issues (library, publications, films, etc.). List of
publications is available.

Emergency Land Fund (ELF), and National Association of
Landowners (NAL). 836 Beecher Street, S.W., Atlanta,
Georgia 30310. (404) 758-5506. Joseph Brooks,
Director.

ELF does excellent work on the legal problems facing
black farmers and landowners. NAL is a membership
organization of black farmers in the Southeast.

Environmental Action. 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 833-1845. Victoria
Leonard, Coordinator.

Advocacy on environmental issues. Publishes "Environ-
mental Action" magazine and conducts "Dirty Dozen"
campaign against anti-environmental members of Congress.

AT.

Washington, D.C. JJ' (202) 833-1484. Maureen

Environmental Defense Fund. 1525 18th Street, N.W.
Hinkle, pesticides :coriinator.

257

Initiates lawsuits on problems threatening people
and the environment, such as pesticides and food
additives.

Environmental Policy Center (EPC). 317 Pennsylvania
Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 547-6500.
Louise Dunlap, Director; Jack Doyle, Energy and
Agriculture Issues.

Excellent work on the impact of energy-related develop—
ments (strip-mining, power-line siting, etc.) on agri-
cultural land and rural communities. EPC is an ex-
tremely effective lobbying group at the federal level.

Exploratory Project on Economic Alternatives (EPEA).
2000 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
(202) 833-3208. Gar Alperowitz, Jeff Faux.

Ongoing research and publications on national food
policy alternatives. Published "Toyards a National
Food Policy" by Joe Belden and Greg Forte.

 

 

Farm Labor Organizing Committee. 7148 St. Clare,
Toledo, Ohio 43609. (419) 243-3456. Baldemar
Velasquez, Chairperson.

Organizing farm workers flurmghout Ohio. Coordinating
a major, national boycott against Del Monte and Camp-
bells in 1979.

Farralones Institute. Agricultural Training Center,
1800 Joy Ridge Road, Occidental, California 95465.
(707) 874-2332. David Katz, Gil Friend.

Alternative training center to be established in
1978/1979. Emphasis on self-sufficiency and appro-
priate technology skills.

Federation of Southern Cooperatives. Rural Training
Center, P.O. Box 95, Epes, Alabama 35460. (205)
652-9676. John Zippert, Charles Prejean.

Federation provides technical assistance to farmer
cooperatives and rural, community-based organizations
throughout the Southeast. Operates a Training Center
in Alabama and an office in Atlanta.

258

Food Policy Center. 538 7th Street, S.E., Washington,
D.C., 20003. (202) 547-7070. Marty Rogol, Director.

Research, information and lobbying on hunger, food
and farm related issues -- both domestic and inter-
national. Involved with the White House Commission
on World Hunger.

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). 2011 Eye Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 452-8250. Roger
Schwartz, Director; Jeff Kirsch, Deputy Director.

A public interest law firm and advocacy organization
for federal feeding programs as they affect states
and localities.

Graham Training Center. c/o Rural Advancement Fund.
P.O. Box 95, Route 3, Wadesboro, North Carolina 29170.
(704) 851-9346. John Gauci, Director; Cary Fowler,
Resource Center.

Established in 1973 to provide innovative training
opportunities to small farmers, Sharecroppers and
rural community organizations in the areas of agri-
culture and cooperative/community development.

Greenmarkets. 24 West 40th Street, New York, New York
10018. (212) 840-7355. Barry Benape, Director.

Technical assistance, contacts and resources on
farmers' markets and direct marketing alternatives.

Hartford Food Systems, Inc. c/o Conn PIRG, 248 Farming-
ton Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06105. (203) 525-8312.
Jack Hale; Conn PIRG Director.

The non-profit organization which was set up to initiate
and then Operate the various components of the integrated
system which was developed from the "Hartford Food Plan"
under the City's initiative (1976-1977).

IMPACT. 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20002. (202) 544-8636. Bob Odean, National Director.

Affiliated with the Interreligious Task Force on U.S.
Food policy, IMPACT issues the action-oriented news
bulletins. Twelve (12) state-wide IMPACT offices were
established in 1978.

111\114 1J1... . 1

 

259

Institute for Food and Development Policy. 2588 Mission
Street, San Francisco, California 94110. (415)
648-6090. Frances Moore Lappe, Joseph Collins.

Researches international food and agricultural issues,
with emphasis on potential for food self-sufficiency
in all countries. Lappe and Collins co-authored the
excellent book, "Food First".

Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 1717 18th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009. (202) 232-4108. Tom
Fox and Tessa Huxley, Urban Agriculture Project;
David Morris, Director.

Offers technical assistance on community gardens,
neighborhood parks, waste recycling, community-based
economic development projects. Publication list
available.

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). 1901 Que Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009. (202) 234-9382. Bob
Borosage, Director; Eleanor LeCain, Food Policy.

Research and publications on the impact of U.S.
policies on Third World countries.

Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR).
475 Riverside Drive, Room 566, New York, New York
10027. (212) 870-2316. Bob Morris, Director, Agri-
business Project; Leah Margulies, Coordinator, Agri-
business Campaigns.

Coordinates church-related investments re: corporate
accountability in the food and agricultural industries.
Research and publications on agribusiness.

Interfaith Committee on Corporate Responsibility. 3410
19th Street, San Francisco, California 94110.
(415) 863-8060. Robin Jurs.

Research on corporations in the food industry, focus
on Del Monte and the impact of food corporations on
local economies.

International Independence Institute (III). National
Community Land Trust Center, 639 Massachusetts Avenue,
Suite 316, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139.

260

(617) 661-4661. Robert Swann, Director.

Excellent resource for information and technical
assistance on land trusts and land banking concepts.
III's book, "The Community Land Trust: A Guide to

a New Model for Land Tenure in America," is the

best available publication on the land trust concept.

Interreligious Task Force on U.S. Food Policy. 110
Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002.
(202) 543-2800. George Chauncey, Director; Buff Main.

Washington based staff working for the American

religious community (the Task Force is interdenomi-
national) on support for the family farm, nutrition
policy, estate tax reform and international develop-

ment assistance programs. Monitors federal programs
and policies.

Domestic Food Policy Task Force. 245 Second Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20002. (202) L17-4343. Don Reeves,
Director.

Monitors,testifies and lobbies on domestic agricul-
tural and rural development legislation.

Maine Consortium for Food Self Reliance. P.O. Box 186,
Hallowell, Maine 04347. (207) 622-3188 or 623-1667.
Michael Schaaf, Coordinator.

A consortium of six active groups who are focusing on
agricultural and food related issues and policies in
the state of Maine.

Maine Food and Farmland Study Commission. State Planning
Office, 184 State Street, Augusta, Maine 04333.

(207) 289-3261. Chaitanya York, David Vail; Commission
Members.

State Commission taking a comprehensive and integrated
approach to future policy recommendations relating to
agricultural and food issues in Maine.

Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA).
Box 187, 110 Water Street, Hallowell, Maine 04347.
(207) 622-3118. Chaitanya York, Director.

261

A dynamic, growing, membership-based organization
providing information on organic agriculture,
producer and consumer c00peratives and many other
issues. Publishes an excellent newsletter, "The
Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener."

Missouri Small Farm Project. Cooperative Extension,
228 Mumford Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri 65201. (314) 882-2728. Edward Wiggins,
Jerry West.

Uses successful small farmers as paraprofessionals

in an extension program which provides production,

marketing and management skills to limited-resource
farmers. A publication summarizing the Program is

available.

Migrant Legal Action Program. 806 15th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005. (202) 347-5100. Rafael
Gomez, Director.

A Legal Services Corporation-funded support center,
focusing on farm labor cases, for legal aid offices.

The Mother Earth News. Research and Seminars, P.O.
Box 70, Hendersonville, NC 28791.

Publishes The Mother Earth News magazine, gives
workshops and seminars on self-sufficiency and
energy.

National Association of Conservation Districts. 1025
Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.
(202) 347-5995. Neil Sampson, Director.

Organization of conservation districts and related
state associations. Publishes a newsletter, the
"Tuesday Letter," ($10/year).

National Association of Farmworker Organizations (NAFO).
1329 E Street, N.W., Suite 1145, Washington, D.C.
20004. (202) 347-2407. Tom Jones, Director; Cliff
Rosenthal and Susan Hoechstetter; Hunger & Nutrition
Division.

262

Advocacy and monitoring on farmworker issues.
Serves as an information clearinghouse and source
of training for farmworker organizations. NAFO
is a membership organization -- its members being
local farmworker unions and groups throughout the
country.

National Catholic Rural Life Conference. 3801 Grand
Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50312. (515) 274-1582.
Gerald Foley, Director.

Educational materials, workshops, training sessions,
research and Rural Ministry Project. Focus on
food policy, rural development and social change.

National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT).
P.O. Box 3838, Butte, Montana 59701. (406) 723-6533.
Miranda Smith, Urban Agriculture Project.

Sponsored by CSA, NCAT offers technical assistance
and small grants to primarily low-income groups
working on appropriate technology projects, i.e.,
in food production, solar technology, methane
generation.

National Council of La Raza. 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 659-1251. Raul
Yzaguirre, President

AGRED 2403 San Mateo Boulevard, N.E., Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87110. (505) 268-2421. Ray Lopez,
Director.

La Raza's project; Assistance Group for Rural
Economic Development provides technical assistance
and training to individuals and community-based
organizations in the Southwest.

National Extension Evaluation Project. United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Room 6435-South
Building, Washington, D.C. 20250. (202) 447-4478.
Bill Wood, Director; Susan DeMarco, Research Staff.

A USDA in-house evaluation of the Extension Service.
The "Final Report" will be issued to Congress in
April 1979.

263

National Family Farm Coalition. 1346 Connecticut
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 483-1116.
Catherine Lerza, Robin Rosenbluth; Co-Directors.

Coordinates information and public education on the
"Family Farm Development Act" introduced to Congress
in 1978.

National Farmers Organization (NFO). 720 Davis Avenue,
Corning, Iowa 50841. (515) 322-3131. Oren Lee
Stanley, President.

National headquarters. Non-partisan organization of
farmers; major thrust is collective bargaining for
sale of farm commodities.

NFC-Washington Office. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20024. (202) 484-7075. Charles
Frazier, Director.

Legislative office; monitors federal legislation and
programs affecting NFO members/farmers.

National Farmers Union (NFU). 12125 East 45th Avenue,
Denver, Colorado 80239. (303) 371-1760. Tony
Dechant, President; Victor Ray, Assistant to the
President.

National headquarters. Organization of family
farmers; conducts ongoing education and legislative
programs and activities.

NFU-Washington Office. 1012 14th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20005. (202) 628-9774. Robert Mullins and
Ruth Kobell, Legislative Staff. Robert Lewis,
Director.

Legislative office, monitors federal legislation and
programs affecting NFU members/farmers.

National Land for People. 2348 North Cornelia, Fresno,
California 93711. (209) 233-4727. George Ballis,
Director.

Research, litigation and public education on issues
involving land and water rights. Excellent work on
the 160 Acre Limitation/Reclamation Law. Concerned

264

with both family farmers and farmworkers. List of
publications and media presentations is available.

National Rural Center (NRC). 1828 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 331-0258. John
Cornman, President. Heather Tischbein, Small Farm
Policy Project.

Research, information and projects on a broad range

of rural issues and policies; focusing on low-income
rural communities. Information clearinghouse monitors
federal rural policy legislation and programs. Re-
gional offices in Atlanta and Austin. Publishes the
excellent "Director of Rural Organizations" and other
extremely useful publications.

National Rural Development and Finance Corporation (NRD
& FC). 2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 916, Washington,
D.C. 20037. (202) 659-2064. Alfredo Navarro,
Director. Barbara Rose.

Non-profit corporation established in 1978 to address
the problems of the rural poor using the techniques

of community-based economic development. NRD & FC's
goal is to develop an effective mechanism of providing
development assistance, capital and other resources
increasing economic opportunities for low-income,
rural people.

Natural Resources Defense Council. Main Office, 122 East
42nd Street, New York, New York 10017. John Adams,
Director. Washington Office, 917 15th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005. (202) 737-5000.

Litigation and research on a variety of environmental
issues.

Neighborhood Technology Coalition. 909 Fourth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98104. (206) 447-3625. Lucy
Gorham, Coordinator.

City-wide coalition of community and technical assistance
groups working on small-scale housing, energy, food,
waste and water projects.

265

NETWORK. 1029 Vermont Avenue, N.W., #50, Washington,
D.C. 20005. (202) 347-6200. Carol Coston, Director;
Nancy Sylvester.

Catholic lobbying group for progressive national
legislation on food and agriculturally-related issues.

New England Small Farm Institute. 33 King Street,
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060. (413) 586-1101.
Judy Gillan, Coordinator.

Proposed regional Training Center for small farm
skills. Affiliated with both Women in Agriculture
and the Center for Rural Communities in Massachusetts.

New York State Assembly Task Force on Food, Farm &
Nutrition Policy. Room 404-Legislative Building,
Albany, New York 12248. (518) 472-2330.
Assemblyman Maurice Hinchey, Chairman

Assemblyman Hinchey established the Task Force to
encourage more activity on agricultural and food
issues within the New York State legislature.

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.
108 Curtis Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
50011. Research and publications related to rural
development. (See listing for Southern Rural De-
velopment Center).

Northeast Task Force on Food & Farm Policy. Room 5 CW,
The Capitol, Albany, New York 12248. (518) 472—6882.
Mabel Gil, Coordinator; Assemblyman Hinchey, Chairman.

Network of state and local officials, activists, and
others interested in food and agricultural policy for
the Northeastern U.S. Publishes newsletter, Sponsors
conferences and meetings.

Organic Gardening and Farming Research Center. (Rodale
Press) Kutztown, PA. Dr. Richard Harwood, Research
Director.

Publishes technical reports on.organic agriculture
research, aquaculture, etc.

266

Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority.
85 Pike Street, Room 500, Seattle, Washington 98101.
(206) 625-4764. Frankie Whitman, Coordinator.

Provides technical assistance to various local
projects such as a new farmer's equipment co-op and
direct marketing efforts in Seattle and the sur-
rounding area.

Resources for the Future. 1755 Massachusetts Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 462-4400.
Pierre Crosson. -

Ongoing research on land use and the preservation of
agricultural land.

Rural Advancement Fund/National Sharecroppers Fund.
2128 Commonwealth Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina
28205. (704) 334-3051. Kathryn Waller, Director.

RAF/NSF has worked for over 30 years to provide
technical assistance and training to small farmers
and tenant farmers in the Southeast. Operates the
Graham Training Center and Demonstration Farm in
Wadesboro, North Carolina.

Rural America. 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20036. (202) 659-2800. Clay Cochran, Director;
Peggy Borgers and Henry Hyde, Food and Agriculture
Policy.

National membership organization advocating on behalf
of rural people. Monitors federal legislation and
programs, conducts policy oriented research, organizes
annual conferences and offers technical assistance on
rural issues/policies. Publishes an excellent monthly
newsletter,"Rural America."

Rural American Women. 1522 K Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20005. (202) 785-4700. Jane Threatt, Director.

Membership and advocacy organization concerned with
problems of rural women. Publishes a regular news-
letter, "Rural American Women."

Rural Resources and Information. P.O. Box 567, Magic
Springs, ID 83845. Michael Pilarski.

267

Seattle Department of Community Development. 400 Zester
Building, Seattle, washington 98104. (206) 625-4492.
Daryl Grothaus, Director; Susan Appel.

Developing and supporting programs for neighborhood
groups aiming to reduce food costs through alternative
food projects. Leveraging federal community develop-
ment funding for these local efforts.

Second Harvest Food Banks. 819 North Third Street,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004. (602) 254-7458. Bob McCarty,
John Van Hengel.

National food salvage/gleaning network which provides
ongoing technical assistance, workshops and issues a
newsletter.

Small Farm Energy Project. P.O. Box 736, Hartington,
Nebraska 68739. (402) 254-6893. Dennis Demmel, Ron
Krupka.

Demonstration and research program helping small
farmers install and use alternative energy systems.
A model for what the country extension service could
be doing in this field. The Project issues a news-
letter.

Small Farmeris Journal. P.O..Box 197,.Junction.City,
Oregon 97448. Publishes Small Farmer's Journal
featuring practical horse farming. Helps coordinate
small farm.activities ianacific Northwest.

Soil Conservation Society of America. 7515 Northeast
Ankeny Road, Ankeny, Iowa 50021. Max Schnepf.

Ongoing concern about land use related issues.
Publishes the "Journal of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion" ($15/year).

Southern Cooperative Development Fund (SCDF). 1601
Surrey Street, Lafayette, Louisiana 70501.
(318) 232-9206. Reverend McKnight, Director.

A strong organization providing technical and finan-
cial assistance to a great number of rural community
economic development projects throughout the South-

east. SCDF's "Annual Report" is available.

268

Southern Rural Development Center. Box 5406, Mississippi
State, MS 39762.

The SRDC is one of four regional rural development
centers in the nation. It coordinates cooperation
between the Research (Experiment Station) and Extension
(Cooperative Extension Service) staffs at land-grant
institutions in the South to provide technical consul-
tation, research, training, and evaluation services for
rural development.

Southern Rural Policy Congress. 915 South Hull, Montgomery,
Alabama 36104. (205) 263-1397. Bill Harrison, Director.

An organization established to coordinate the efforts
of the major, progressive organizations in the South-
east concerned with the effects of federal, state and
local policies on low-income rural communities and
small, limited-resource farmers.

Texas Farmworkers Union. P.O. Box 876, San Juan, Texas
78589. (512) 787-5984. Antonio Orendain, Director.

TFWU is organizing farmworkers state-wide. Publishes
a regular newsletter which updates the Union's activities
(bi-lingual).

Texas Intensified Farm Planning Program. A & M University
Cooperative Extension Program, Drawer B, Texas A & M
University, Prairie View, Texas 77445. (713- 857-2023.
Hoover Carden, Dempsey Seastrunk.

An extremely effective extension program using para-
professionals in local communities to assist low-income
farmers and rural residents.

Tilth Association. Route 2, Box 190-A, Arlington, WA
98223.

Publishes Tilth journal, conducts alternative agricul-
ture research for Pacific Northwest; coordinates P.N.
small farm activities; does technical and research
consulting.

Trust for Public Land. 82 Second Street, San Francisco,
California 94105. (415) 495-4014. Steve Costa.

269

95 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. (212) 689—8833.
Peter Stein.

Provides information, training, technical assistance

and financing for community ownership of land, assisting
in a variety of open space projects, including community
gardens and parks.

Tuskegee Institute. Cooperative Extension, Tuskegee,
Alabama 36088. (205) 727-8011. Philip Brown, Dir.

Tuskegee's extension program works Specifically with
low-income, minority farmers in Alabama. Publications
are available.

Small Farm Demonstration Project. Tuskegee, Alabama 36088.
Booker T. Whatley, Director.

Professor Whatley is developing a "model farm" which
will test crop varieties, production methods and con-
sider marketing outlets -- all geared towards the small,
limited-resource farmer in the Southeast.

TVA. Ag Marketing Research Development Section, National
Fertilizer Development Center, Tennessee Valley
Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660. Joe Free.

Small farm and general agriculture research and
publications.

United Farmworkers of America AFL-CIO. Box 67, Keene,
California 93531. (805) 822-5571. Cesar Chavez,
President; Dolores Huerta, Vice-President.

Headquarters of the first, most successful farmworkers'
union. The UFW has concentrated its organizing and
legislative efforts in California, but is a national
union which intends to expand into other states where
farmworkers remain unrepresented and unprotected.

Urban Land Institute. 1200 18th Street, N.W. Washington,
D.C. 20036. (202) 331-8500. Ronald Rumbaugh, Execu-
tive Vice-President.

Publishes "Environmental Comment" $25/yr., monthly.
Runs articles in agricultural land preservation. See
especially the entire issues; May 1975 and January 1978.

 

270

U.S. Farmers Association. Box 496, Hampton, Iowa 50441.
Fred Stover, President; Merle Hansen, Vice-President.

The smallest and most progressive of the national

farm organizations. State chapters. Publishes "U.S.
Farm News."

Washington Small Farm Resources Network. 19 E. Popular

Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362, or 1505 Tenth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98122.

Coordinates local small farm activities.

Women's Family Farm Project. United Methodist Church,
475 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 10027.
(212) 678-6161. Ruth Gilbert, Coordinator.

Works with rural women throughout the country on a
variety of issues of concern such as estate and in-
heritance tax problems, protection of farmland, and
inadequate social services to rural communities.

Women in Agriculture. 133 King Street, Northampton,

Massachusetts 01060. (413) 545-0648. Pat Sackrey,
Christina Platt, Judy Gillan.

Organization and network of individuals in Massa-
chusetts who are actively involved in many critical
rural and agricultural issues.

271

2. Magazines and Newsletters

This is a listing of some of the publications
that address small farm related interests. Included

are addresses and subscription rates as of 1980.

272

Acorn/Midwest Energy Alternatives Network. Governor's
State University, Park Forest South, IL 60466.
Bimonthly. $6/yr.

Acres, U.S.A. A Voice for Eco-Agriculture. P.O. Box 9547,
Daytown, MO 64133. Monthly, $7/yr. Emphasis on pro-
ductive alternatives to chemical farming for commercial
farmers.

Alternative Market News. %Earth Cylers, Rt. 1, Box 9C,
Edwall, WA 99008. $5 or donations. Coordinates
contact for growing of experimental field crops and
seed sources.

Alternative Sources of Energy. Route 2, Box 90A, Milaca,
MN 56353. Bimonthly, $10/yr. Includes articles on
wood heat and farm energy sources.

Blair & Ketchum's Country Journal. 139 Main, Brattleboro,
VT. 05301.

Co-Evolution Quarterly. Box 428, Sausalito, CA 94965.
Quarterly, 512/yr. (In the tradition of the Whole
Earth Catalog.)

 

 

Communities: A Journal of COOperative Living. Drawer
426, Louisa, VA 23093. Bimonthly. $6/yr.

Compost Science/Land Utilization. JG Press, Box 3511,
Emmaus, PA 18049. Bimonthly. $20/yr. Journal of
waste recycling.

Countryside. 312 Portland Rd., Waterloo, Wisc. 53594.
Monthly. $12/yr. "Serious homesteading."

 

Country Women. Box 51, Albion, CA 95410. 5 issues.
$6/yr.

Dairy Goat Journal. P.O. Box 1808 C-4, Scottsdale,
Arizona 85252. $11/yr. A breeder's journal.

 

The Draft Horse Journal. Rt. 3, Waverly, IA 50677.
Quarterly. $6/yr.

Elements. Public Resource Center, 1747 Connecticut Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009. 9 issues. $7/yr.
Frequent articles on agriculture, energy, and nutri-
tion.

 

273

Farmstead Magazine. P.O. Box 111, Freedom, Maine 04941.
8 issues. 512/yr. Home gardening and small farming.

Food Monitor. Food Monitor, Inc., P.O. Box 1975, Garden
City, Long Island 11530. 11 issues, $15/yr. Articles
on family farms, agricultural policy, nutrition, rural
development and food aid programs overseas.

40 Acres and A Mule. Emergency Land Fund, 836 Beecher
Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30310. Bi-monthly,
$2/yr.

The Green Revolution: A Voice for Decentralization.
School of Living, Rt. 7, Box 388A, York, PA 17042.
Ten Issues, $8/yr.

Harronsmith. Camden East, Ontario, Canada KOKlJO. 8
issues, $10/yr. Homesteading in Canada.

In Business. JG Press, Box 323, 18 S. Seventh St.,
Emmaus, PA 18049. Bimonthly, $14/yr. Emphasis on
skills for alternative and traiditional small
businesses.

The IPM Practitioner. Bio-Integral Resource Center,
P.O. Box 7242, Berkeley, CA 94707. Monthly; $10 non-
professional, $25 professional. ‘

The Journal of the New Alchemists. The New Alchemy In-
stitute, P.O. Box 432, Woodshole, MA 02543. Once a
year, $10. Aquaculture and self-sufficient living
systems.

Land, People, Food. National Land for People, 2348 North
Cornelia, Fresno, California 93711. $10/yr includes
membership to NLP. $5/yr for low-income membership and
subscription. Covers family farm issues, farmworkers,
water and irrigation issues, land ownership, corporate
farm.

The Maine Land Advocate. P.O. Box 2762, 183% Water St.,
Augusta, ME 04330. Quarterly. $5/yr. Emphasis on
land trusts.

 

The Maine Organic Farmer and Gardner. P.O. Box 187, 110
Water Street, Hollowell, Maine 04347. Bi-monthly.
$6/yr.

The Mother Earth News. Editorial and Subscription offices:
P.O. Box 70, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791.

 

274

Bi-monthly, $15/yr. Emphasis on alternative energy
and lifestyles, ecology, working with nature, and
voluntary simplicity.

The New Farm. Rodale Press, Inc., 33 E. Minor Street,
Emmaus, PA 18049. Bimonthly. $10/yr. Emphasis on
Small-Scale and Organic Farming.

New Land Review. Center for Rural Affairs, P.O. Box 405,
Walthill, Nebraska 68067. $.50 per issue. Published
quarterly. Covers farm related issues and policies in
Nebraska--of particular interest to people and organi-
zations in the Great Plains region.

Newsletter of the Northeast Task Force. Northeast Task
Force for Food and Farm Policy, Room SCW--The Capitol,
Albany, New York 12248. Free. Updates policy inno-
vations and legislative activities for over 10 states
in the Northeast region.

NFO Reporter. National Farmers Organization, 475 L'Enfant
Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024. Monthly. $2/yr
for non-members. Monitors federal legislation, programs
and Congressional activities.

Rabbits. 312 Portland Rd., Dept. 7, Waterloo, Wisconsin
53594. $7/yr.

Rain. 2270 N.W. Irving, Portland, Oregon 97210. 10
issues, $10/yr; $5/yr low-income subscription rates.
Alternative technology topics.

Rural America. Rural America, 1346 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Monthly, $10/yr news-
letter and membership. An excellent newsletter with
articles on a variety of rural issues, programs, policies
and events.

 

Self-Reliance. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 1717 S
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009. Monthly, $6/
individuals; $12/institutions. Concentrates on urban
and neighborhood issues; waste recycling, urban gardens,
farmers markets, community parks.

She p. Hwy 19E, Waterloo, Wisconsin 53594. $9/yr.

The Small Farm Advocate. Center for Rural Affairs, P.O.
Box 405, Walthill, Nebraska 68076. Quarterly. $7/yr.
Surveys legal and administrative issues affecting small
and low-income farmers.

275

Small Farmer's Journal. P.O. Box 197, Junction City,
Oregon 97448. Features practical horse farming.

Quarterly $10.yr.

Tilth. Tilth Association, Route 2, Box 190-A, Arling-
ton, Washington 98223. Quarterly, $5/yr. Journal
of alternative agriculture for the Pacific Northwest.

 

Wood Burning Quarterly. 8009 34th Ave. 80., Minneapolis,
MN 55420. Quarterly, $4.95/yr.

276

3. Appropriate Technology and Biological
Agriculture Organizations

 

 

Most of the following addresses were supplied by
the Organic Gardening and Farming Research Center Staff

at Kutztown, PA.

277

ACCESS. John Shade. University of Wisconsin, 3203 N.
Downer, Milwaukee, WI 53201.

Acorn magazine. Midwest Energy Alternative Network.
Governers State University, Park Forest South, IL
60466.

Alternative Energy Resources Organization. (AERO)
435 Stapleton Building, Billings, MT 59101.

Alternate Sources pf Energy magazine. Route 2, Box 90-A,
Milaca, MN 56353.

 

Appropriate Technology Center. 82 Allen Hall, Urbana,
IL 61801.

ApprOpriate Technology International. (ATI) c/o Agency
for International Development (AID). U.S. State
Department, Washington, D.C. 20523.

Appropriate Technology Research. 1938 Hano Road, Santa
Fe, NM 87501.

Brace Research Institute. P.O. Box 400, McDonald Campus
of McGill University, Sainte Anne de Bellevue 809,
Quebec, CANADA. Publisher of: A Handbook on Appro-
priate Technology.

 

 

Center of Concern. 3700 13th Street, N.E., Washington,
D.C. 20017.

Co-Evolution Quarterly magazine. Box 428, Sausalito, CA
94965.

Conservation Tools and Technology, Ltd. (CTT) P.O. Box
134, Surrey KT26PR ENGLAND.

Coolidge Center for the Advancement of Agriculture.
Eliot Coleman, Director, 17 Bradstreet Lane, Tops-
field, MA 01983.

Doing It! magazine. Box 303, Worthington, OH 43085.

 

Earthcare Information Center. Mr. Paul Hanley, Box
1048, Wynyard, Saskatchewan, CANADA SOA 4T0.

East-West Center. Technology and Development Center,
Honolulu, HI 96822.

Ecological Agriculture Project. Box 225, Macdonald Campus
of McGill University, Quebec, CANADA H9X1CO.

278

Ecotope Group. Box 618, Snohomish, WA 98290.

Environmental Institute. Blaisdell House, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.

Farallones Institute. P.O. Box 700, Point Reyes, CA
94956.

Friends of the Earth. 530 Seventh Street, SE,
Washington, D.C. 20003.

The Futurist magazine. World Future Society, P.O. Box
30369, Bethesda Branch, Washington, D.C. 20014.

 

Groupe de Recherche sur les Techniques Rurales.(GRET)
34 rue Dumont d'Urville, 75-775 Paris, Cedex 16,
FRANCE

IFOAM Secretariat. c/o The Coolidge Center, Riverhill
Farm, 17 Bradstreet, Topsfield, MA 01983.

Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 1717 18th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009.

Intermediate Technology. 556 Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo
Park, CA 94025.

Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG).
Intermediate Technology Publications, 9 King Street,
Landon, ENGLAND. Publisher of: Appropriate Tech-
nology, a quarterly journal.

Note: All United States inquiries for ITBG Publica-
tions Should be sent to: International Scholarly
Book Services, Inc., P.O. Box 555, Forest Grove, OR
97116.)

International Development Research Center. Box 8500,
Ottawa, KlG 3H9 CANADA.

International Rice Research Institute. Agricultural
Engineering Department, Manilla, PHILIPPINES.

Land Institute. Route 3, Salina, KS 67401.

Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assoc. Box 188,
95 Second Street, Hallowell, ME 04347

Minimum Cost Housing Group. School of Architecture,
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA.

279

National Centre for Alternative Technology. Llywngwern
Quarry, Pantperthog, Machynlleth 2400, Powys, WALES.

National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT). Box
3838, Butte, MT 59701.

New-Age Foods Study Center. P.O. Box 234, Lafayette, CA
94549.

New Alchemy Institute. P.O. Box 432, Woods Hole, MA
02543.

NOFA (Natural Organic Farmers Association). P.O. Box
86, Greensboro Bend, VT 05842.

Office of Appropriate Technology (OAT). Box 1677,
Sacramento, CA 95808.

Organic Gardening and Farming magazine. Rodale Pness,
Inc., Organic Park, Emmaus, PA 18049.

 

Piedmont Organic Growers. Mrs. William H. Chandler,
Route 4, Boiling Road, Taylors, SC 29687.

Rain magazine. 2270 NW Irving, Portland, OR 97210.

Research Institute of Biological Husbandry. Postfach,
CH-04104 Oberwill BL, Switzerland.

Rural Education Center. Stonyfield Farm, Wilton, NH
03086.

Small Industry Development Network. Georgia Institute
of Technology, Industrial Development Division,
Atlanta, GA 30322.

Technical Assistance Information Clearing House (TAICH).
200 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10003. Publisher
of: TAICH News.

 

TOOL Foundation. P.O. Box 525, Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS.

Total Environmental Action, Inc. Solar Slides & Solar
Age Magazine. Box SA5, Church Hill, Harrisville, NH
03450.

Transnational Network for Appropriate/Alternative Tech-
nologies (TRANET). 7410 Vernon Square Drive, Alex-
andria, VA 22306.

280

Undercurrents, Ltd. 11 Shadwell, Uley, Dursley,
Gloucestershire, ENGLAND.

Volunteers for International Technical Assistance (VITA).
3706 Rhode Island Avenue, Mount Rainier, MD 20822.
Publishers of:Village Technology Handbook.

Volunteers in Asia, Inc. (VIA). Box 4543, Stanford,
CA 94305. Publisher of: Appropriate Technology
Sourcebook.

 

281

4. Agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Source: New Directions in Farm, Land, and Food
Policies. Conference on Alternative
State and Local Policies. Washington,
D.C. 1978. pp. 12-314.

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
local offices at the regional, state and county level.

These include the following agencies.

282

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS).

Ten special rural development/conservation projects
in 10 states have been funded at $1.3 million to
help small farmers solve conservation and water
quality problems. ASCS conducts the USDA cost
sharing programs with farmers that install needed
soil, water, woodland and wildlife conserving prac-
tices, and the Federal Crop Insurance Program which
provides farmers with all-risk insurance that repays
crop production costs lost because of bad weather,
insects, disease and other unavoidable natural
causes.

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA).

The FmHA provides loans, grants and technical advice
to small farm operators including: ownership, oper-
ating and emergency farm loans; financing single and
multiple rural homes for people unable to satisfy
financial needs elsewhere.

Cooperatives: Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative
Services (ESCS).

ESCS provides organization and management help to
c00peratives in connection with financing provided
by the Farmers Home Administration and other organi-
zations.

County Agents: Cooperative Extension Service (CES).

Extension Service is the educational arm in the field
for the Department of Agriculture and Land Grant uni-
versities and colleges; including the 1890 colleges.
There is a county Extension office in nearly every
county in the nation and it is usually located in

the county seat town--1isted under county government
in the telephone directory. County agents have ma-
terials on production, marketing, nutrition, rural and
community development and 4-H youth programs.

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

The FNS conducts the Food Stamp Program for low-income

households. Some small farm families qualify for food

assistance programs administered by USDA in cooperation
with appropriate state and local agencies.

283

Forest Service (FS).

Together, the Forest Service and State Forestry
agencies give technical advice to small private
non-industrial forestry landowners to help bring
their woodlots under improved management. Increased
production of fuelwood, pulpwood, and sawtimber can
provide supplemental income. Help is available to
contact buyers of these forest products. After tree
harvest, assistance is given with tree planting and
other management activities to maintain production
and improve the property.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS).

Through local Conservation Districts, farm families
request technical assistance to develop conservation
plans and apply needed practices for the protection
and proper use of soil resources, water and wildlife.
Increasing production of pastures, range lands and
crops may provide increased income.

Briefly, that is a summary of services and programs of
USDA agencies with local offices. Programs of these
agencies and others operating programs out of USDA head-

quarters in Washington, D.C. are listed in further detail

as follows:

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).

Administers programs to maintain production of wheat,
feed grains, substitute crops or soybeans, at a level
sufficient to satisfy market demand and meet food and
feed assistance commitments through purchases and loan
and price guarantees. Administers a cotton program to
assure adequate, but not excessive, supplies through
purchases and loan and price guarantees. Administers
acreage allotments and marketing quotas when applicable
under law to certain major crOps, to help keep supplies
in line with demand. Administers loans, purchases and
payments specified by law, and manages commodity inven-
tories. Administers the National Wool Act and the
Dairy Program. Administers programs to help obtain

284

adequate farm and commercial storage drying equipment
for farm products. Administers cost sharing programs
with farmers to install needed soil, water, woodland,
and wildlife conserving practices and pollution pre-
vention and abatement practices of enduring community-
wide benefits under the Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP). Conducts monitoring activities during
periods of anticipated shortages of fuel, fertilizer,
pesticides and other key farm production items.

Assists and cooperates with the Foreign Agricultural
Service in making government-held food stocks available
for foreign assistance program. The Commodity Credit
Corporation, administered by ASCS, with its $25 billion
borrowing authority (effective October 1, 1978), fi—
nances the commodity stabilization program, domestic
and export programs, including commodity disposal,
foreign assistance, storage activities and related
programs and operations of the Department. Administers
the Federal Crop Insurance Program which provides
farmers with all-risk Insurance that repays crop produc-
tion costs lost because of bad weather, insects, disease
and other unavoidable natural causes.

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

Helps the marketing system move food and other farm
products from producer to consumer.. Establishes
standards for grades. For instance, the Federal Grain
Inspection Service operates acceptance services to make
sure contract specifications are agreed to by individual
firms.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Helps safeguard the health and quality of the nation's
animals and plants. Protects consumers by maintaining
a strong system of Federal-State inspection of meat and
poultry products to assure wholesomeness and truthful
labeling. Maintains close surveillance of all animal
and plant imports, cargoes, and passengers' baggage for
foreign pests or disease. Cooperates with the states
and the agricultural industry to eradicate and control
animal diseases of national importance. Cooperates with
the states and industry to control or eradicate native
or alien pests and diseases of plants which pose an
interstate menace. Administers the Federal Meat In-
spection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act.

285

Forest Service (FS).

Directs multiple-use management programs on forest and
rangelands of the 187 million acre National Forest
System, an area covering one-twelfth of America's land.
Located in 44 states and Puerto Rico, the 155 National
Forests in the System contain the major resources of
timber, forage, watersheds, wildlife habitats, outdoor
recreation, minerals and natural beauty. Carries on
cooperative programs on about 400 million acres on non-
Federal commercial forest lands with state foresters,
other state, public and private organizations, private
owners of forested lands (small woodland owners and
wood processors). Concerns itself with marketing and
utilization of forest products, prevention and suppres-
sion of wildfires, land use planning, urban forestry,
river basin surveys, control of forest insects and di-
seases, flood prevention, watershed protection, and
forest management incentives to small forest owners
(such as the production and distribution of seedling
and planting stock). Other cooperative programs stimu-
late the proper management of state, county, municipal
and community forests.

Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service (ESCS).

Analyzes factors affecting farm production and their
relationship to the environment, prices and incomes,
and the outlook for various commodities. Studies
production efficiency; marketing costs and potentials;
rural development and natural resources; agricultural
trade, production and Government policies. Estimates
crOp and livestock production and prices paid and re-
ceived by farmers. Keeps statistical methods used

by USDA accurate and responsive to changing needs.
Conducts economic research to help farmers market
their products and purchase supplies cooperatively.

It also helps all rural people to obtain other business
through cooperatives. Assists farmers and other rural
people by conducting educational work to help them im-
prove the effectiveness of their cooperatives.

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA).

Provides loans, grants and technical advice to farm and
other rural and small town people and their communities
unable to satisfy financial needs elsewhere for rural
development and related purposes. Administers loans

286

and grants through county FmHA offices for many types
of agricultural, housing, community facility and busi-
ness and industry purposes. This assistance includes
but is not limited to: ownership, operating and emer-
gency farm loans; financing modest but adequate single
and multiple rural homes; financing water, sewer,
health, fire-fighting, educational and similar facili-
ties; and guaranteeing payment of business and industry
loans made by conventional lenders.

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

Administers USDA programs to provide food assistance

to all Americans who need such help, in cooperation
with appropriate state and local agencies. Administers
the Food Stamp Program that enables low-income house-
holds to buy more food of greater variety to improve
their diets.

The Packers and Stockyards Administration (PSA).

Administers the Packers and Stockyard Act which helps
to maintain free and open competition in the marketing
of livestock, poultry and meat production. Prohibits
unfair, deceptive, discriminatory and monopolistic mar-
keting practices which would deprive the farmer of a
fair price for his product, and deprive the market of

a reasonable profit for market services.

Science and Education Administration (SEA).

Carries out research on crops, livestock, soil and

water conservation, energy conservation, agricultural
engineering, control of insects and other pests, human
nutrition and consumer and food economics. Develops

new and expanded uses for farm commodities, and conducts
and administers a research program using the physical
and biological sciences to solve problems of market
quality, transportation and facilities. Handles Federal
grant payments for research at the agricultural experi-
ment stations and eligible schools of forestry. Assists
state experiment stations, land-grant colleges, and USDA
agencies in planning and coordinating scientific research
programs. Through Extension, is the field educational
arm of the Department of Agriculture and land-grant
universities and colleges. Federal, state and local
governments cooperatively share in financial support.

287

Extension is administered by the land-grant univer-
sity through a director in the 50 states, District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam.
The county agricultural agent is the contact. The
office is usually located in the county seat. Helps
people apply new research findings and technological
developments to the everyday problems of living and
making a living. Major areas include efficient pro-
duction and marketing of agricultural products; im-
proved family living, including nutrition, 4-H
development and community and rural development.

Rural Electrification Administration (REA).

Finances electric and telephone facilities in the
rural areas of 46 states. Most REA borrowers are
cooperatives.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS).

Develops and carries out a national soil and water
conservation program through 2,949 conservation dis-
tricts (Public Law 46, 74th Congress, 1935). Helps
develop and carry out watershed protection and flood
prevention projects in 11 major watersheds in coop-
eration with other agencies. (Flood Control Act,
Public Law 534, 78th Congress, 1944). Administers

the Great Plains conservation program (Public Law 118,
9lst Congress, 1969.) Helps local sponsors develop
and carry out multicounty resource conservation and
development projects (Food and Agriculture Act, Public
Law 703, 87th Congress, 1962). Helps develop USDA's
conservation cost-Sharing programs. Is responsible
for assisting in the preparation of long-term conser-
vation plans of operation and for most of the perma-
nent conservation practices provided by these programs.
Provides technical assistance to participating farmers
and ranchers and prepares designs and specifications
for work undertaken. Appraises potential for outdoor
recreation developments. Helps establish income-
producing recreation areas on privately owned land in
public water-based recreation and fish and wildlife
areas in watershed protection and resource conserva-
tion and development projects. Gives technical
assistance to land users participating in the conser-
vation credit program of the Farmers Home Administra-
tion. Assists land users to develop conservation plans
and apply conservation treatment for the reclamation,
conservation, and development of eligible coal mined
lands and water.

288

5. Misc. Government Publication Sources

 

Request publication catalogs.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Technical Informa-
tion Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economics, Statistics
and Cooperative Service, Washington, D.C. 20250.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Document Handling and
Information Services Facility, P.O. Box 6015,
Gaithersburg, MD 20760.

Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Governmental Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Chapter VII

CONCLUSION

This paper is an outgrowth of the author's interest
in writing a small farm management text. The primary
objective of presenting the background information
gathered for the text has been accomplished. The infor-
mation was given meaningful form and organization by four
secondary objectives.

1. "Small farm" is a broad-shouldered term that
supports not only many definitions, but many roles. Its
versatility almost enables it to be "all things to all
people." To some it provides supplemental income and a
part-time job, or a retirement home, or a "fruitful" and
productive hobby, or the base for a full-time livelihood,
while to others a small farm is the prudent start and
gathering of experience and resources before jumping into
full-time, large-scale commercial agriculture.

This paper explored the historical and current con-
tributions of small farms in agriculture and their posi-
tions relative to other size farms. Large farms relent-
lessly increase their share of the market. Medium size
farms are losing ground. Small farms gain in numbers,

but many face below poverty-level incomes.

289

290

Many forces are actively changing the directions
of agriculture. Federal policy plays a significant
role in whether small farms are suffered as welfare
problem or encouraged as functional members of agricul-
ture. Rural communities of small farms are richer cul-
turally according to some researchers. Others see the
small farm as having greater potential for energy
efficiency. New concerns for health and the environment
foster the organic agriculture movement, another "natural"
for the small farm. The conclusion is that there are
many viable roles for the small farm in the future -
both in society and the agricultural economy.

2. Two CRIS computer searches of small farm land
grant research were categorized and analyzed. There had
been an increase in projects in the two intervening years,
though mostly in the South East. It seems as if the
historical bias towards large farm research may be
abating. Certainly grass roots organizations across the
country and at certain state extension services are
springing up. Some have specific small farm interests,
while to others small farms are a side line to self-
sufficiency interests on a personal or even a regional
basis.

3. Addressing the problems of small farm manage-

ment education was another objective. The current

291

situation and its problems were reviewed and new
materials suggested. The prOposed management text
was discussed.

4. While the listings in the small farm bibli—
ography, "how-to-books" and other information sources
are by no means comprehensive, they are much more
extensive than any before. These source listings
represent a major step forward and will serve until
Dr. Madden at Penn State completes his computerized
bibliography.

While this paper presents more small farm infor-
mation together in one place than ever before, the

author hopes it is just the beginning.

Chapter VIII

THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

It has become clear to the author that the future
prosperity of small farms is intimately related to the
overall policy climate. Past policies, in effect - if
not by intent - have favored the development of larger
farms. Research and extension have played their parts,
but it takes stronger tools to change the structure of
agriculture. Secretary of Agriculture, Bob Bergland, has
been instrumental in stimulating an interest in small
farm programs on the Federal and State levels. Hopefully,
future administrations will not "undiscover" small farms.

If the pro-small farm policy climate continues, it
can stimulate new efforts in research on technology ap-
propriate to small farms. This research can capitalize
on a small farm's potential advantages related to less
energy intensive and capital intensive technology.

In the past, small farm programs operated indepen-
dently, with little awareness of similar programs oper-
ating elsewhere in the country. A small farms informa-
tion network established on the Federal level is a good
start, but needs further implementation. Another level

of information network is needed at the local level.

292

293

Groups, such as the Washington Small Farm Resources
Network, and others composed of small farmers themselves,
can function as self-help groups in a wide variety of
functions. However, the information aspects of such
groups are the most important. Farmers, especially
small ones, while long noted and applauded for their
independence should not let this attribute stand in the
way of beneficial group action.

Improvements can be made in many extension programs
as they relate to small farms. The major one is to make
working with small farmers an accepted and desirable
role for a county agent to play. In some areas, goals
for advancement are related to effective increase of
local farmers' net farm income. This serves as a nega-
tive stimulus for working with small farmers.

The specific goals of small program programs should
be developed in cooperation with the local small farmers.
Programs imposed from above with little local input will
have limited long-term success.

The author believes that the small farm sector of
agriculture can be revitalized to the benefit of the
economy, the environment, and both rural and urban soci-
eties. It is a long-term project, involving adjustments

to the structure of agriculture, but a worthwhile one.

POSTSCRIPT

Over three years have passed Since this paper was
started and it's been more than a year between the final
writing and the printing. In the intervening time ad-
ministrations have changed, and no one can accuse Ronald
Reamulof having small farm sympathies. Federal policies
reflect his pro-large business interests. In addition,
Federal budget cuts, in desperate attempt to mend the
ailing economy, have pulled the rug out from under many
promising programs. In some cases the "buck was passed"
to the states who, in turn, passed it to their counties.
Unfortunately, the areas most in need of small farm pro-
grams are those that can least afford to take over the
funding of those programs. Grassroots organizations
supported by involved individuals will have the best
likelihood of survival. Federal funding, as always, has
again proved to be chancy at best.

An old Chinese curse goes "May you live in exciting
times." Well, we're certainly in the midst of it now;
only time will tell whether it is a curse or a blessing

for the small farm.

294

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

States by Regions

Percent of Farmers Having Gross Annual Sales
Under $20,000 by State, 1974.

Number of Small Farms by Region, by New USDA
Estimate, 1980.

Implementing the USDA Small Farm Policy.

Policy of Committee for Economic Development
(CED) for Farm Labor Force.

Field Staff, Funding and Institutional
Affiliation of State Leaders of COOperative
Extension Small-Farm Programs, Southern
Region, 1977.

Appendix 1

STATES BY REGIONS

North East

North

South

New England

 

Maine

New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut

Central

East North Central

 

Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin

South Atlantic

 

Delaware
Maryland
Virginia

West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida

Middle Atlantic

 

New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania

West North Central

Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas

East South Central

Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi

West South Central

 

Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas

Appendix 1, continued.

West
—

Mountain

 

Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada

Pacific

Washington
Oregon
California
Alaska
Hawaii

297

Appendix 2

Percent of Farms Having Gross Annual Sales
Under $20,000, by State, 1974.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1974 Census of Agriculture,
Vol. 1, part 51.

Farms with

 

State 1/ All Farms Sales Under
$20,000
Number Percent
West Virginia 16,909 92.6
Tennessee 93,659 90.0
Kentucky 102,053 85.7
Virginia 52,699 82.6
Mississippi 53,620 82.5
Alabama 56,678 80.9
Texas 174,068 79.2
South Carolina 29,275 78.2
Alaska 291 78.2
Oklahoma 69,719 75.8
Missouri 115,711 74.5
Florida 32,466 74.4
North Carolina 91,280 74.2
Louisiana 33,240 73.1
Hawaii 3,020 73.1
Michigan 64,094 72.7
Utah 12,184 72.7
New Mexico 11,282 71.1
Oregon 26,753 71.0
Arkansas 50,959 70.2
Ohio 92,158 69.1
New Hampshire 2,412 68.2
Georgia 54,911 68.0
Pennsylvania 53,171 64.5

 

1“

298

Appendix 2 Continued.

Farms with

 

State 1/ All Farms Sales Under
$20,000
Number Percent

Indiana 87,915 64.4
Massachusetts 4,497 63.0
New Jersey 7,409 62.7
Rhode Island 597 62.3
Maryland 15,163 60.9
Connecticut 3,421 60.0
California 67,674 52.2
Washington 29,410 59.1
Nevada 2,076 58.6
Arizona 5,803 57.4
. . 57.3

WisconSln 89,479
New York 43,682 56'0
Maine 6,436 55°2
Kansas 79,188 55°C
Wyoming 8,018 54°9
54.2

Colorado 25,501
Idaho 23,680 53'9
Minnesota 98,537 51°4
Montana 23,324 48'1
Vermont 5,906 47.5
. . 47.3

IllinOls 111,049
Delaware 3,400 45°2
44.3

South Dakota 42,825
Nebraska 67,597 42°3
North Dakota 42,710 37.8
Iowa 126,104 36°3
2,314,013 65.5

United States

Number of Small Farms by Region,

by New USDA Estimate, 1980.1

299

Appendix 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of % of total % of small
Region Small Farms Farms in Region Farms in U.S.
North East (6.6)
New England 15,790 58 1.3
Middle Atlantic 65,370 58 5.3
North Central (43.9)
E. North Central 205,160 46 16.7
W. North Central 333,600 60 27.2
South (39 0)
South Atlantic 166,870 52 13.6
E. South Central 141,120 53 11.5
W. South Central 170,400 53 13.9
West (10.5)
Mountain 66,200 61 5.4
Pacific 62,880 49 5.1
United States 1,227,390 53 100.0

 

1See section II.C.l for USDA small farm definition.

Source: USDA Briefing Paper #28: USDA Small Farm Policy,
September 19, 1980.

300

Appendix 4

IMPLEMENTING THE USDA SMALL FARM POLICY

First, USDA has developed a small-farm network extending from the
secretary to each state. A policy committee on small-farm assistance was
established to provide overall policy direction and establish specific
program objectives. The committee is chaired by USDA's assistant secre-
tary for rural development and has as members all the assistant secre-
taries, USDA's chief economist and the director of the Science and Educa-
tion Administration.

A small-farm working group comprised of representatives from each
major USDA agency conducts small-farm activities under the direction of
the policy committee. Each state rural development committee has estab-
lished a small-farm committee to identify and address small-farm problems
at the state level. The USDA small-farm working group is available to
support each state small-farm committee in the implementation of a state
plan to assist small farm families.

Second, the secretary instructed all agency administrators to
take the necessary steps to insure that small-farm families have access
to and utilize USDA programs.

 

Source: "USDA Small-Farm Policy: Emphasis on the Family." Issue
Briefing Paper No. 28. USDA, Washington, D.C. 20250.

301

Appendix 5
POLICY OF COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (CED)

FOR FARM LABOR FORCE

 

The following is excerpted from "The Loss of Our Family
Farms, Inevitable Results or Conscious Policies? A Look
at the Origins of Government Policies for Agriculture."
by Mark Ritchie, 1979.

”The situation of U.S. agriculture has changed drastically
within a decade. In 1962, when the Committee issued the
policy statement An Adaptive Program for Agriculture, the
problems of U.S. farming were mainly related to maintaining
farm income in the face of continuing surpluses. The diag-
nosis was that agriculture was using too many resources;
fewer farms and farmers could produce all the output than
required or even more than could be marketed. As a result
of these findings, we prescribed programs for the better use
of our resources in agriculture [that], vigorously prose-
cuted, would enable the people involved in farming to re-
ceive higher incomes without government controls or subsidy.
In general, policies of this nature have been pursued by the
U.S. government, with the result described in the present
statement: namely, that U.S. agriculture today is a far more
efficient, far more productive industry." (emphasis added).
(p. 8)

Their evaluation was that their past analysis and recommenda-
tions were fundamentally correct, the government had faith-
fully implemented their recommended policies, and that the
desired results, 1/3 fewer farmers, was achieved. Specifi-
cally, they recognize that

"The farm population [4.5 percent] is now so small in rela-
tion.to the total population that further migration from
farms will not be substantial. Annual agricultural employ-
ment, which was 4.5 million persons only ten years ago, is
now about 3.5 million persons, or only 4 percent of the total
labor force, and it is still declining. It represents ap-
proximately the optimum.farm labor force that this Committee
[CED] envisaged for the 1970's in its statement An Adaptive
Program for Agriculture (1962)" (p. 32).

Source: Committee for Economic.Development "A New U.S. Farm.Policy
for Changing World Needs." 1974.

302

_.ommn auum< .mmn aquoudsm .co«n«>«o gouache:

.>u«nuo>.:= durum a ousunumcu Udcruou>_oa nucaonm> s.:0.a¢:~a>m use >u0uco>cn ct acusom 0:» cm winemOum flush madam couscouxu o>dueuomooos luau.

.mhmn ~qum¢1hhon coo .somoou cyanogen .AONIZ. enormo— Raymond Ehnu1-mam one Anwuz. uncuauunusuacm caduceuxm o>aueuomcou saw: usou>uoucu .oousom

.uueun c_o«u osmu dusu o>es ucc neon ya mucus
EnumOHQ mush

 

.uo>03¢=

.useuoOHQ lheu1mnoso uezuo Ou ounoutasoo ac: nu uq cameo aces :—

.:c*uco~on Emugoue cm oeuooamsoo euuuuquo org me names or» so >psua are c« coco—osu no)
.xnmeocce oosqunod one ocuensnmu one nu.:nou use EcumOAQ or» omm>uoaon mucous aouuunao eons?

.nsueu ._eEn ocu30oouuoougiq— co

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or“ o>uueuumucusom macaw

 

 

acouueuuucoseo ozu uoaocco ou >u-_sumcoonou usage coumcouxo duced some acumen: Insecum sequeuunsoeoo onmueuoucu one such ones: o:h\m
.uocmmq EmmoOug Queue no nobeuuuasusoe >a head acquso u:02ualaoo I>eoucu1 omIn I .+v\m
+ + x x c. 1 m : Emummum Eunmuumeam
4n2~0¢~>
- err .::1111Jfl1111 x he «a Edum0um unacceum lush ooquuncoucn
+4» +++ x o o Seymoum ocuswpugo 060: a uolfinh afiqk1uuaa a uueem
m<xMB
- 111111 -11- + - 11- m~.111 x - 1 1- ma m¢11--1-1:..1-xnmmasamcommom suum1-usm .nucomc coaucouxm
++++ + x x u m manunHODSM )0: ocqoo~o>oo
mmmmmzzmb
1111--1: 1-1111.11:.1-1. ++ 1:11;-tsm;:1111 -m:;11;:1|11111-!:1 11:51 w---;111131121-111-mud—anqucomwom luemuaueam .mucomc ecu:
+¢+ x v a sEuGOum uofluuh uqesm
+ m a a goofiOum neuoauuoauoc >uqassiou ou:s>
(Zugoatu =P=Om
-111111211111-1Jw1.111111- x x .111- o o saum0ua westboueo 030: u possum oede1uuum a -65m
$5.2;x0
--1111111.11111:Hmm::1. + x on on scumoua coauacauuommo luau
- 1111 <2~40¢<U remoz
++++ +++++ x x x me an BGMMOum Hmwseh luehsdaoaw
HmDOmmuI
++++++++ + x MN ca leuMOum worsen Agnew
11 11. unmmmmummuz
1 +++ + x mu mm on xuudununcomuom lhemlnfiaam qmacOmZ codneoumm
t2¢nmoos
1 1:11 1|I11114w11111 1 ++ x x Na Na lemmmum ucofimo~o>oo Euem1-osm
rxoahzmx
111-1.111111111muh11-11 x «a we summ0ua mascoouoo 030: a uosuou ceaeuuuaa a ~_asm
++++ x x s m Immacum Euem1uuofim
-1 1 11 11 1- 11.1:1-.11 .11 <~U¢Omu
+ x o o seaweed nauseoueo use: a uuoiueh oiub1uuam a duosm
+++ x x a n eeuooue noneocoon use usosoooco: Iuem1u~e§m
1 111.1 111--Ill -11 11 do 201—h
+ x a a anemone Suom1~dulm .aucsoo oases.
+ x v n innocum [houndmeflu .kucooo couHOuuon.
- 1111.1 - 1 mamzaxee
+ u wanna onouu saga yuan oz \1ieuo0um scausuumcoeoo ouuumuODcm a each egos:
++¢+ + x w o N“ o >ua~qhqmcomno¢ [noun—dean .uuceo4 sodocouxu
+++ x Na Na acacooueo use: a uuofiueh eldenuuem use again
¢S¢Q<A¢
comm woos nozuo Avon Avon u—nsosmmou ngmcomnuou EeHOOHQ meyuqa EmHOOAQ use oboum
1wmwmmwmumcu unnumnocna ue>0415usem noun lemonade Show -efin e
\umasmuoono~ unu~saoomm weapons uunum oaoam oeuuosocou muss:

coda:0uxo gave;

 

 

'1-6'IIQIII‘II111l-"Lli'l- 1.'lo'|I1111|1ll1 Illl1llplln-Iil‘lil

hem—1::mmoz cuerb:cm .mso~00uo Enem1a—msm :C.mceuxm o>aDCLOLCCU u:
museums oueum uo :c_uc__«uu< uncodunuuuuC~ use .ocdtzrm .uueum c_o.n

c attendee