A PARTIAL EVALUATICN OF AN EXPEREMENT
CONCERNING THE POSSIBILEYY OF ESTABLESHNG

A FARMERS‘ CQNTINU‘QUS SYSTEM 05 REPORTING
ENCOME, EXPENBETURES AHD RELATED DATA

Them: for the Dogma of M. 5.

MECEIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Olan Dean Forker

1958

'1 HFMS

 

A EARTIKL EVALUATION OF AN EXPERIMENT CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF
ESTABLISHING-A FARMERS' CONTINUOUS SYSTEM OF REPORTING
INCOME, EXPENDITURES AND RELATED DATA

By
Olan Dean Forker

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of.Agriculture of Michigan
State University of.Agricu1ture and.Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of.Agricultural Economics

1958

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express a sincere "Thank You" to all of the
many people who helped to make this thesis a reality.

A Specific debt of gratitude is due Dr. Warren H. Vincent, under
whose excellent guidance this study was accomplished. His counseling
and reading of the original draft during the first few days of his
vacation was indeed above and beyond the call of duty.

Without the financial. aid granted by Dr. L. L. Boger, head of the
Agricultural Economics Department, in the form of a research assistants
ship, the furtherance of the author's education and his undertaking of
this study would have been impossible.

Special thanks are also due Dr. Glenn L. Johnson, Dr. H. M. Riley,
Dr. J. M. Nielson, and other members of the staff for their teachings,
criticisms and many helpful suggestions in the preparation of this
manuscript.

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to his wife
and Yvonne Lewe for typing the preliminary drafts, and Mrs. Shirley
Goodwin for typing the final manuscript.

Sincere appreciation is due Mrs. Arlene King and the clerical staff
of the Agricultural Economics Department for their help in the laborious
task of statistical compitations.

The author' 5 wife, Kathleen, and children, Michael, Brent, and
Susan are to be commended for their loving patience and understanding
during the many nights and weekends when this study held priority.

The author, of course, assumes reaponsibility for any errors
remaining in this thesis.

W¥cfi~¥m (-3" SSH?

ii

A PARTIAL EVALUATION OF AN EXPERIMENT CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF
ESTABLISHING.A EARMERS' CONTINUOUS SYSTEM OF REPORTING
INCOME, EXPENDITURES AND RELATED DATA

By
Olen Dean Forker

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1958

WWW g/(Alx

Approved

 

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an experiment relating
to the possible establishment of a system of reporting farmerst income,
expenditures and related data on.a continuous basis. .A panel was
established in December, 1956 and maintained through the calendar'year
1957. This evaluation was conducted early in 1958.

.Assuming that data of a local nature are needed, a farmer panel
reporting actual data at regular intervals would furnish detailed data
more timely and realistic of the farm situation than any present known
data.gathering system.

Changes in trend can be quickly noted and recorded as the change
occurs. The data collected by the continuous reporting system are
indicative of the current farm situation as it pertains to farm and off-
farm income, the time and method of marketing, the prices paid and
received by farmers, and the time and amount of farmer investments.
Time series of this data would be useful in.supply and demand types of
analysis. It may be possible to use the panel advantageously for
investment and expectation studies.

,As,a panel system progresses over time, the value of the data
collected would increase at an.increasing rate.

The objectives of the experiment were partially fulfilled. The
study describes and analyzes the problems and costs of establishing and

maintaining a farmer panel.

iv

Experience in the establishment of the farmer panel was as follows:
(1) Of the 678 eligible farmers contacted, 70 percent consented to
answer questions regarding their operation. (2) Forty-four percent of
the eligible farmers enrolled in the project as panel members. (3) Of
the enrolled farmers, 25 percent failed to submit the first report.

In the more agricultural counties a higher enrollment rate was realized.

To increase enrollment special attention would need to be given
smaller sized farms, older operators, part-time farmers, and.1ow income
farmers. Steps would need to be taken to decrease uncertainty in the
minds of the prospective panel members regarding the purpose and
intent of the project.

Redefining the population to include only the farms with an income
level of over $1200, (this omits the $150-$ll99 income level that is
included in the census definition of a commercial farm) would, it
appears, make it possible to increase the enrollment rate and the
representativeness of the panel.

Refusals and drop-outs appear to be a problem in establishing and
maintaining a panel representative by age of operator, size of farm,
and level of income. However, the enrolled and completed group did not
seem to be biased with regard to type drier-m.

Fortyefive percent of the enrolled farmers failed to report
information for a complete 12-month interval. The large drop-out rate,
however, did not significantly alter the studied characteristics of
the panel. Followdup procedures apparently did not increase the number

of completing farms.

.Apparently estimates obtained from a farmer panel contain a high
sampling error. If, however, the response error is small, the panel
system of continuously collecting data may be as accurate and as useful

as other methods.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page
1.1NHDmmeNH.. ..... n.n.u.”. ..... .H.”. .......... ..n

9-4

Purpose of Study.................... ..... ...............
Procedure and Source of Data..................... ..... ..
Review of Literature-Earm.Accounts.....................
Other Means of Collecting Data..........................
Need for the Project........................ ........ ....

\OCDWHH

II. THE PROJECT...................................;............ 11

Development of Farm Accounting at MSU....... ..... ....... 11
The Mail-In Earm.Account Project...................;.... 13
The Research Project.................................... 15
The Sample........................................... 16
The Ranel Member..................................... 22
Selection.and Training of Field'WOrkers....... ..... .. 22
Field'Work........................................... 23

III. PROBLEMS IN ESTABLISHING THE FARMER PANEL ......... 25

introduction...................... ............ ..... ..... 25
Rate of Enrollment..................... ...... ........... 25
The Field Worker........................................ 27
Rate of Enrollment................................... 2?
Characteristics...................................... 2?
Field'Worker Technique............................... 30
Teamwork............................................. 30
The Field'Worker-Student or Other................... 31
Characteristics of Cooperators and Non~Cooperators...... 32
.Age of Operator...................................... 32
Tenure Status........................................ 33
Size of Farm......................................... 33
Type of Earm......................................... 35
Level of Income...................................... 35
Reasons for Refusing to Enroll.......................... 38
' The County.Agents Role.................................. to
Advertising the Project................................. hl

Summary................................................. h2

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
CHAPTER Page
IV. REPRESENTATIVENESS QF,THE RANEL.................. ..... ..... hh

Introduction............................................ uh
Rate of Completions..................................... A6
Representativeness by Selected Characteristics.......... A6
Age Distributions........ ........ .................... A?
Size of Earm......................................... M9
Tenure Status.............................. ..... ..... A9
Type of Farm..............................;.......... A9
Level of Income...................................... A9
Sampling and Response Error... ..... ..................... 5h
Reporting Bias of Panel................................. E:

Summary............... ............... ............ .......
mmmrimmdnmrmma PANEL........... ....... 58

Introduction.......... ........ ................ ..... ..... 58
"Drop—Out" Rate....... ..... ............................. 59
The "FollowaUp" ......................................... 59
County.Agent’s Role...... ............... ............... 60
"Drop~0ut" Rate Compared with Selected Variables........ 61
Immndamr...u.n.u.u.u.”.n.n.u.u.u ....... - 61
Time Spent with Interviewees. ..... ................... 61
Age of Operator............................ ..... ..... 63
Size of Farm................ ..... . ........ ........... 63
Tenure Status........................................ 63
Type of Farm......................................... 63
Level of Income...................................... 61
Reasons Given for Non—Completion...................t.... 67
The.Attitude of Earmers Who Completed................... 69
Communication Problem................................... 70
Summary.................................. . .......... .... 71

VI. POTENTIALTTTES OFA FARMER PANEL 73

Information Available................ .................. 73
A Study of Some Selected Farm Expenses.................. 75
A Study of Investment Intentions........................ 77
Potentialities of the Panel Records Compared to

Extension Records.................................... 77
Research Potential...................................... 82
'Work in Progress........................................ 86
Summary................................................. 86

viii

TABLE OF come - Continued
_CHAPTER ' Page
VII. A 0031‘ STUDY 88

Introduction............................................ 88
Field magnetooboooooooooaocoo-cocoouOooooooooooa... 88
Operational Expenses.................................... 90
Overhead................................................ 90
Cost of Survey and Panel Compared....................... 92

We've-ocoooocot90.000.000.00... oooooooo oooocov'noooc 92
VIII. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMDATIQNS............................ 95

Conclusions............................................. 95
Concerning the Establishment of the Ranel............ 95
Concerning Representativeness of the Panel........... 96
Concerning the Maintenance of the Panel.............. 96
Concerning the Potentiality of a Farmer Panel........ 97_

Recommendations.................................... ..... 97

Suggestions for Further Study........................... 98

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................. ........ . ..... .......... 100
.APPENDICES..........;....................... .......... ............ 103

W
1-1
1-2

III-l

III—2

III-3

III-h

III~S

. III-6

III-7

III-8

III-9

III-10

IV —1

LIST OF TABLES

Page

.Average Number of Earm.Account Records.Analyzed per Year
in momm, 1913-195300000000090600009000000000.0-capo-oo.

Number of Farm Account Cooperators 195h-1957, at MSU.......

Enrollment Rate and the Degree of Participation of Farmers
Contacted in the Establishment of the MBU Farmer Panel
(Decemer1956)0000f0000000.00.000.000...OOOOIOIOOOOOIOOO0.

Average Dain Performance of Interviewers in.Establishing
the MSU Farmer Panel (December 11-27, 1956)................

Interviewer Characteristics and Their Farmer Enrollment
Record in Establishing the MSU Farmer Panel...............

.kverage.Age of Cooperators and NonFCoopenators in the
Establishing of the MSU Farmer Panel (December l956).......

Percent of OunervOperators in Each Group Involved in
Establishing the MSU Farmer Panel........

Relative Frequenqy Distribution by Size of Farm in the Non:
Cooperator and Enrolled Groups.............................

Relative Frequency Distribution.by Type of Farm for the
Enrolled and Noanooperator Groups-1956 Income.....

0......

Relative Frequency Distribution.by Level of Income in.the
Non-Cooperator and Enrolled Groups-19S6 Income...

Farmers' Reasons for Not Enrolling in.MSU Farmer Panel
(Dmemer 1956)....90...0...."I.'0......OCOOOOOOOOOCIOOOOI

Interviewers Ordering of Importance of Reasons Not Given
(m 1958)....9'.DotftOOOCOOOOOO'OOOOC

Number of Farmers Starting and Completing as Members of the
MSU Farmer Panel (1957).0000.0090-oooooooooooooooqcoooooone

OOOOOIODQOOOOOOO.

'0‘...

Rate of Completion in the MSU Farmer Panel (1957)....

ll

13

26

28

29

32

33

3h

36

37

to

h6
h7

LIST OF TABLES - Continued.

TABLE
IV-3

Iv-h

III-5

IV~6

ma

V-J.

V-2
V-3

V-S

V—6

V-7

V-8

Page

Relative Frequency Distribution by Age of Operator in the
Census and the Enrolled and Completed Groups of the MSU
Farmer Pallelooooooooooooocoococoon-cocooo-o‘dooooooooooooo.o ’48

Relative Frequency Distribution by Size of Farm in the
Census and the Enrolled and Completed Group of the MSU
Farmer Panel!IIDO...ODOOOICOOO‘OOOOOO00000.0.IOOOOOO'OOCOOD SO

Tenants as a Percent of Total Operators in the Census,
Enrolled, and Completed. Groups of the MSU Farmer Panel. . . . . 51

Relative Frequency Distribution by Type of Farm in the
Census and the Enrolled and Completed Groups of the I‘BU
Fumer PmelOOOOIOOOOOOOIOO'OOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOIOO'OO'O00.0.0... 52

Relative Frequency Distribution by Level of Income in the
Census and the Enrolled and Completed Groups of the MSU
Famer Pme100000.0000...OOOOOOOIOO.DOOOOOOOOOOOOC00......- 53

Relative Frequency Distribution by Level of Income
(Omitting Economic Class VI) in the Census and the Com-
plated Group of the EU Famer Panel....................... 55

Number of "Drop-Outs" and ,Ebrtent of Participation in the
EU Famer Panel-00......OOOOOOOOOIIOOOO0.000.000...OOOIO'OI. w

"Dropout" mote b), IntewiewerOOOOOOOIO09.0.0.0...0.00.0.0. 62

Average Hours Spent by Interviewers Per Enrollment in the
m Famar hnel’000.00.000000000000000COOOOOOIOOOOOIOOOIOO 62

Relative Frequency Distribution by Age of Operators in the
Enrolled and "Drovaut" Groups of the MSU Famer Panel.... . 61:,

Relative Frequency Distribution by Size of Farm in the
Enrolled and "Drop-Out" Groups of the MSU Farmer Panel. . . . . 65

Percent of Omen-Operators in the Enrolled and "Drop-Out"
GroupSOf the mu Fan-m Panel-OOOOOI'OOOOOOOO0.0.000...'0.COO. 66

Relative Frequency Distribution by Type of Farm in the
Enrolled and "Drop-Out" Groups of the MSU Farmer Panel. . . . . 66

Relative Frequency Distribution by Level of Income in the
Enrolled and "Drop-Out" Groups of the MSU Farmer Panel. . . . . 68

xi

LIST OF THEE?) - Continued

we
v—9

VI-l

VI-2

VII-3

VI-b.

VI-5

VI-6

VII-1

VII-2
VII-3

Page

Reasons for Drovauts from Correspondence and. Follow-up
Interviews During Sumner of 1957.. 69

Changes in Average Annual Expenditures 1956 to 1957 for
Selected Items of Research Panel Menbers and Extension
PrOJect Manbers by CO‘mtifil O Q 0 I I O O O O O I O ...... D O I O I O 0000000 76

1957 Investment Intentions as of December, 1956 and Actual
1957 Investments of Huron County Cooperators in the PEG
Farmer Ran81~.hh Farms Reporting-000000.concede-0000000000. 78

1957 Investment Intentions as of December, 1956 and Actual
1957 Investments of Kalamazoo County Cooperators in the MSU
Farmer PanBl-h5 Farms Reporting. ooooo 00000009.. oooooooo no. 79

1957 Investment Intentions as of December, 1956 and Actual
1957 Investments of been County Cooperators in the MSU
Farmer Panfilfl~35 Farms Reporting-onooooo-oooococo-ocoo-ode. 80

1957 Investment Intentions as of December, 1956 and Actual
1957 Investments of Shiauassee County Cooperators in the
MSUFarmer Panel-37Fa1msReporting........ ..... 81

Selected Characteristics of the Famer Panel Compare-:1 to
Those of the‘MSU Extension Accounts by County's-1957 Account
MemberSOOOIO0.0.00....OO.'OOO‘OOOID...OOOOIOOIOOOOOOQOOOOODO 83

Field and Salary Costs of Interviewers in Establishing the
PRU Farmer Panel (December 11-27, 1956).................... 89

Costs of Establishing and Maintaining the MSU Farmer Panel. , 91
Field and Salary Costs of Interviewers in Surveying Farms

in the Township Agricultural Prom—Kellogg Research
PrOJGCt’1956"°00000'000000000000000090000.0000coo-onno.on 93

- xii

FIGURE
2-].
2-2
2-3
2-14

2-5

6-1

LIST OF FIGURFS

Type of Farming Areas in Michigan-«Counties from which
the area probability sample were drawn for the farmer

mnBIOIIDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOQOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOCOI...'00.

Geographical distribution of the probabilitv saanle
segments and the location of eligible farmers.(Huron) . . .. .

Geographical distribution of the probability sample '
segments and the location of eligible farmers (Kalamazoo).

Geographical distribution of the probability sample
segments and the location of eligible farmers (Mason). . . . .

Geographical distribution of the probability sample
segments and the location of eligible farmers (Shiawassee)

Relative total error of survey and panel compared as a
result of sampling and response error—«an estimate. . . . . . . .

Overlapping Use of Data Collected by Farm Account Records.

xiii

Page

17

18

19

20

Sh
85

CHAPTER I

INTPDDUCTION

Pumas of Study -

This study is ‘an attempt to evaluate the extent to which objectives
were fulfilled in an experiment relating to the possible establishment
of a continuous system of reporting farmers? income, expenditures, and
related data. Field aspects of the experiment were initiated in
December of 19 56 and carried out through the calendar year of 1957 .

This evaluation includes consideration of statistical and opera-
tional problems in both the field and office phases of data gathering
and processing. The study includes a review of the developnent of farm
accounting projects in the United States, and the present status of
farm account projects in land grant colleges. Particular emphasis is
given to the farm accounting program at Michigan State University to
show how this experiment is related to total research and extension
effort as it relates to farm record work at this University and to

similar programs elsewhere .

Procedure and Source of_£lg§
1. Review literature pertaining to farm records and other methods
' . l
of collecting data to see how the MSU Farmer Panel is related to other

work formerly or presently being conducted along these same lines.

 

w: Wm—w

1Panel, as used herein, refers to a group of selected farmers, or
others as specified, who submit information on a continuous basis.

1 .

2. Restate and interpret the objectives of the MSU Farmer Panel
project. '

‘3. Review the development of and method of handling farm records
at Michigan State University. I

14. Study the procedure and method of handling farm accounts (the
Mail-In Farm Account system) during the operation of the project.

5. Study the problems of establishing the original panel. Analyze
the records kept by the interviewersz (Appendix D) and the character-
istics of the interviewers. Compare the characteristics of the farmers
who enrolled in the panel with the ones who refused.

6. Determine as far as possible the extent to which the original-
panel and the completed panel are representative of agriculture in the
respective counties. .

7 . Study the problems of maintaining the original enrollment
through to completion.

8. Attempt to determine some of the potentialities of a farmer
panel.

- 9. Determine the costs of the project and compare these with the
costs of enumerative type surveys.

10. Develop some conclusions and recommendations concerning the
above in regard to establishing a permanent farmer panel.

The data used concerning the panel members were collected by the
interviewers as a part of the experiment (Appendix D). The character-'-

istics of the interviewers were taken from their application blanks .

zlnterviewers, as used herein, refers to the field workers who had
the job of interviewing and enrolling panel members in the project.

\

The author had no part in the collecting of these data and establish-
ing the panel .

To enlarge upon the infomtion collected during the experiment,
the author, in January and February of 1958, interviewed by mail
Qiestionnaire the interviewers (Appendix A) and the county agents of
the counties involved (Appendix B) and in March 1958 the cooperators
who completed the project (Appendix C);

One hundred percent reaponse was obtained with the interviewer and
county agent questionnaires; 7).; percent reSponse with the farm coopera-
tors questionnaire. The results of the latter two questionnaires are ,

summarized in the respective appendices.

Reviegv_of Literature-flan Accounts

The history of the collection of information from farmers, both
cost information and other data, dates back to the late 1800's. Prior
to 1902 the United States Department of Agriculture used mail type
questionnaires to obtain farmers! estimates of costs.~ Farm record plans
were instituted about this same time in New Jersey and Kentucky to
investigte sorghum costs and corn costs respectively. After 1902 the
route method was developed by the United States Department of Agriculture
whereby information was collected on a daily basis from a small group
of farms by a personal interview."5 This method was also used in
Minnesota and Illinois. In 1903, with the help of G. F. Warren, the

alrvey method became popilar for the collection of farmers' estimates.

1
.fi fi—r—r

3M. K. Bennet, Farm Cost Studies in ihe United States, (Stanferd
University Press, 1923). — " fl __

F. W. Peek in 1921 made a classification of the methods of study avail-
able in ‘farm management cost analysis:

I . Accounting Method
1.‘ Route plan
a. Entire farm business
b. Enterprise and farm business study
0'. Extension enterprise study
2. Occasional visit and. book plan
3. Correspondence Plan

II. Surveqyr Method
1. Farm Business Analysis
a. Single entensive survey
b. Continued surveys
c. Periodic repeated surveys
2. Enterprise Cost Studies
a . With farm business analysis
b. Without farm business analysis
3 . Questionnaire '

III. Combination of I and II4
Bennett in his studies stated that the expansion or contraction at the
United States level of such cost accounting projects and the collection
of such information depended on the farmers dissatisfaction or satis-

faction respectively of farm prices more“ than any other individual

5
reason 0

Warren in his farm management book listed a very detailed method
6 .
of cost accounting by enterprise in the year 1927.
Mary people about this time recognized the unreality of using

results of cost studies as an approach to a pricing policy. In 1925,

L _._

W “fi—ff—

. 4E. W. Peck, Methods of Conduct% Cost of Production and Farm
Q‘r‘ggiza‘tion Studies, is 71921), p. 111.

£5Bennett, pp. cit.

 

E3G. 1“. Warren, Farm Manage__r_n' ent, New York: The Macmillan Co., 1927.

Myers pointed out several ways of measuring farm income.’7

Case in the smrmnry of his book8 discussed the characteristics of
three methods of collecting farm data. The first one was by the means
of cost studies which was very expensive. However, it did point out
the relative influence of various cost items on the total cost and
income and brought out the problem to be dealt with in gaining greater
efficiency in farm operations. The second method or survey provided a
means of obtaining current data. This developed under the influence
of G. F. Warren between 1903 and 1908 and was used on a very wide scale.
At this time few farmers really kept farm records that were suitable
for analytical comparison. Thus the survey records resulted in certain
difficulties. It was this situation that brought the emphasis on farm
accounting records. Most of the land grant colleges and universities
in the United States have at some time or another carried on farm account
projects.

The preliminary report) of the farm records sub-committee of the
North Central Regional Farm Management Research Committee9 shows that
there is a wide variation in the nature of the farm record programs in.
different states. 0f the ten schools in the Midwest having farm account

projects as a part of the university or as a part of the farm business

 

7W. I. Myers, "Farm Business Analysis," Journal of Farm Economics,
Vol. 8, No. 1, January, 1926.

3H. c. M. Case and D. B. Williams, Fifty Years. of Farm w,
University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1937f. — F— i

9G. A. Pond, T. R. Nodland, A. G. Mueller, and C. W. Crickmn,
"Preliminary Report of Farm Records Sub-Committee to North Central
Regional Farm Ihnagement Research Committee ," Sections 1 and 2, unnum-
bered mimeograph report.

associations, only two, Illinois and Minnesota, have continued to
receive major research support. In the rest of the states the farm
account prpject is mainly under the control and supervision of the
extension program.

Illinois cites as the main plrpose of their work "to promote
efficient farm mnagement among cooperating farmers through an exten-
sion, research, and service program and otherwise to promote the general
welfare of agriculture in Illinois ." 10‘

Glenn Johnson11 states that the purpose of farm accounts are as
follows: (1) To produce descriptive data, (2) as a source of data for
analytical research, (3) to support extension activities, and (h) to get
political support for the agricultural economic institution. 'He suggests
that you cannot accomplish all four with one set of accounts.

H. C. M. Case in the final statement of his book states, "Above
all the farm management worker must recognize that agriculture is highly _
dynamic and that a farm management research, teaching or extension pro-
gram must be of necessity dynamic ,to fulfill the responsibility to
agriculture ." 12

In the last few years at the ammal meeting of the American Farm
Economics Association there has been a series of discussions dealing

with the data needed and the problems involved in collecting data for

1OI?) (3.

“Statement by G. L. Johnson, Agricultural Economics Department,
Michigan State University.

”Case. and Williams, Fifty Years of Farm Management, _p. cit.,
p. 368.

agriculture research, extension and teaching. Most of them emphasize
that census data imposes numerous problems in the estimation of the
livestock numbers, etc. However, the biggest problem is that these
data are only collected every five years and by the time. the infor-
mation is plblished it is two years old. The articles point out that
for research purposes, extension purposes, teaching pirposes and for
the purposes of business firms there is a need for local data on a
county basis.” Benedict, Kuznets, and Bachman emphasize .a need for
reorganizing and re-emphasizing the agricultural data collection and

14
processing methods .

_L_. h .—

13Frark V. Beck, -"Making Ebcisting Local Data More Available and
Useful," Journal of Farm Economcs, December, 1955.

Doris D. Brown, "Local Data Wanted by Business Firms," Journal of
Earn; EEOEEME—SJ December, 1955. ‘W m

George T. Blanch, "New Iata Requirements by Areas: How Can They
Be Met?" Journal of Farm Economics, December, 1955.

—'—va

Doris D. Brown and J. B. Claar, "Agricultural Data. Requirements
in Ebcterlsion Work," Journal offiFaVrmiggnggcs, December, 1956.

Marion D. Thomas, "Data Requirements in Agricultural Adminis-
tration and Research," 13% of Farm Economics, December, 1956.

E. C. Wilcox, AMS, "Local Data Requirement in Areas of High
Agricultural Specialization," JowjffiFaIZLEconoriqu December, 1956.

Jay Hurley, "Livestock Data Problems in the Census of Agri-
culture," Jgggurnal‘ of FarLRomMcs, December, 1957.

“Benedict and Kuznets, "Better Basic Data for Agriculture: Some
Possible Approaches ,‘f J ouls'nsul_:<g§w Egg Ecgngrrig May 1958 .

K. L. Baclrman, "Discussion: Better Basic Data for Agriculture,"
igurnal of Farm__Econgmigs, May 1958.

01:11:33 page of Collectingfillata
Since 1950, Michigan State University has been running a consumer
panel that submits a'weekly diary listing all food purchases. Shaffer
listed the following advantages and disadvantages of the consumer panel.
Advantages_of the_§gn§umer Panel

1. Minimizes memory loss
2..Avoids association.biases
3. Includes purchases regardless of source
h. Relates purchases to consumer characteristics
5. Measures quantitative movement of goods
6. Increases availability of personal information
7. Permits the probing.analysis
8. Utilizes mail reporting effectivehy
9. Insures greater reliability with a small sample
10. Provides information concerning dynamic relationships
11. Permits loW'unit cost
12. Provides data for many thesis problems
13. Supplies store of timely information for the solution of
many unforeseen problems

Disadvgatages

Limitations and problems of the consumer purchase panel:
'"All survey techniques have sampling, cooperation, reporting,
and tabulation problems but these problems are magnified, come
plicated and compounded in the case of the continuous panel."

1. Mechanical difficulties

2. High total cost

3. Requires large full-time staff

. Dangers of overduse of the panel

. Subject to conditioning .

Some special markets inadequately reported
Difficulties in maintaining cooperation.and resulting
sampling problems15

*3 ONU'l-E"

The panel has most of the problems of the survey method, and in

addition has the problem of maintaining the sample through time.

A.— —.‘. h.‘ —
m—v‘ ——

15James D. Shaffer, "Methodological Basis for the Operation of a
Consumer Purchase Panel," Ph. D. Thesis, Michigan State'University,
1952.

The Doane Agricultural Service, Inc. conducts the Doane Countrywide
Farmer Panel for the purpose of collecting farm data. This "panel" is
run on intermittant rather than a continuous flow basis so cannot be
called a panel as defined in this thesis. It is composed of approximtely
2000 farmers who subndt information as requested by Doane. The panel
members are not recruited from a probability sample.

As far as the author knows there is not presently available a
continuous flow of data on a local basis concerning what the farmers
spend, what they spend it for, what the farmers' income is, and from
what his income is obtained. From the numerous articles written on this
sibje'ct, the many problems involved in research, the many problems
involved in political groups publishing inaccurate data, and the
statistical problems of survey, it is evident that a current and con-

tirmous flew of information is needed.

Need Egr 'the Prgiegt
Alfred G. Dale states:

The accumulation of data. is never more than a means to an
end . . . assumptions regarding the future can be projected on
the basis of current facts; and in the face of economic situ-
ations that are essentially dynamic, the. question which should
always be resolved from a survey is not so much "where we are"
as "where we are going. "16

It is believed that a panel by accunmlating continuous and current
data can show "where we are going" more accurately than can surveys.
The United States Department of Agriculture and Michigan State

University agreement (Appendix H) listed the following as the needs for

—————rfi —"—v_

16Alfred G. Dale, An Econo_mic Surv " Method for Small Areas
Bureau of Business Research, finiversityfiof rTexas, Aust’ in' , ESE.

 

10

Farmer Panel information:

(1) One time enumerative surveys of farm operators have been
too few and far between.

(2) It is important to have frequent and accurate data concerning
farm income and expenses.

(3) There is a need for significant changes in the agricultural
situation to be recorded quickly.' This is not being done. At present,
for instance, the farm machinery situation is taken from industrial
production reports. It is not known.whether certain changes are occur-
ring at the farm level or in dealer inventories.

A continuous reporting system at the farm level would indicate
what and.when a change is occurring at the time it is occurring. .An
alternative then is to establish representative groups of farmers who
'would report regularly, perhaps monthly or quarterly, on information
concerning income and expenditures.

This research project was established to determine the feasibility
of such a project, the adequacy of. the information collected, and the
problems of a technical nature that might occur.

An attempt will be made in the following pages to evaluate the

successfulness of the experiment.

CHAPTER II
THE PROJECT

Develo ent of Earm.Account at MSU

Farm accounting originated at Michigan State University in 1913
when cost account records were kept on single enterprises by 25 farmers.
Cost accounting continued until 1953. Table I-l shows the average

number of farm records analyzed each year.

TABLE I-l

AVERAGE mm OF FARM ACCOUNT RECORDS ANAI YZED PER YEAR
m MICHIGAN, 1913-1953*

A _‘__ _—. _._ __._
.——.-—v V W W v—f ——v._v.~ _—v w ——v v: “a
w ——'—va Viv—V v—V ——‘— ——v ——v ——r v—w—v

 

 

 

Cost Accounts g, A Farm.Accounts

Year "E’fngle m “I ' I” I w I“ "I *

Enterprise Farm Extension, Other Total
1913-1h 25 - - - 25
1915-19 50 - — - 50
1920~2h - 7O — — 7O
19 25~29 35 - 11h - 1149
1930-3h 363 - 833 58 1,255
1935-39 171 - 1,239 21:6 1.656
19h0-hh 88 " 191147 " 1: 235
19h5-h9 120 7- 873 . - 993
1950~53 so '- 653 - 703

-
.__ -__‘

¥Compiled by'Dr. E. B. Hill, Department of Agricultural Economics, MSU.

ll

12

Complete farm account records have been kept by Michigan farmers
as a part of the cooperative extension pregram since 1929. In general,
all the accounts from that date have included an itemization of expenses,
income, crop production, livestock produced, and beginning and ending
inventories. They nonnally have not included complete enterprise
accounts.

The procedure for collecting information at MSU was such that at
the close of the accounting year the books were brought to a central
location in the county where they were checked for completeness and
accuracy by'an extension specialist using a cross check technique. The
books were then brought to MSU for. processing. Before 1950 all steps
in this operation were accomplished by hand .

Beginning in 1950 the summarization process started a transition
process which culminated in the Mail-In Account System.

(1) In 1950, on a trial basis, selected annual data from individual
farms were punched on IBM cards.

(2) In 1951, photostatic copies were made of the summary, crop and
inventory pages. This enabled the record books to go back to the
farmers faster. IBM cards were then punched from the photostats and
selected pages were placed on microfilm.

(3) In 1952 and 1953, every page of the account book was put on
microfilm and primary data were punched on IBM cards . Individual
calculations were run by IBM machine .

(h) In 1951;, morofilming was discontinued and hand surmaries were

made from which IBM cards were pinched directly.

13

(5) In 1955 and 1956, a pilot group was established to test the

feasibility of a mail-in-type farm accounting system. All. primary
information was placed on IBM cards.

(6) In 1957, all farm records were kept by the mail-in- accounting
system.

The number of farms handled by the mail-in accounting system

progressed from 75 in 1955 to 1719 in 1957 (Table I-2) . i

TABLE 1-2
NUMBER OF RARM.ACCOUNT COOPERATORS 19Sh-1957,.AT MSU

.h- w“
———v w W 7—. — —v' —v v—v—vv—w
‘—

w—vW—w fi—— v—v—w —.—v —.—f — WW v———v

 

 

Year Farm Account ______ Mail- In Account
Record Book Regular Probability Sample Total
19514 BIAS ShS
1955 539 75 611A
1956 526 119 615
1957 Enrolled * 1h20 299 1719
Completed 1282 161 ’ 1M3

J A __ _ ._‘
Wfi— ~— —v_.. w

*This number mailed in a complete series of reports for their
1957 business. A smll portion. of these were not used in
the farm business analysis.

The Phi};__In Farm Account Project.

The members of the regular project are those Michigan farmers who
volunteer to participate. The members mail in monthly, an itemized
statement of financial transactions on uniform ledger type sheets
(Appendix E). These forms provided space in which the farmer was
required to list, in any order, the expenses and receipts incurred in

the farm operation with the amount and the date of the transaction.

114

It was suggested but not required that the farmer list the person being
dealt with, check number for items being paid by check, and quantity
purchased. The farmer made out these forms in duplicate, mailed one
copy to MSU and retained one copy for reference.

Besides this an inventory was taken at the beginning and end of
the year. Other pertinent data, such as farm size, livestock program,
and crop program were collected.

‘When the farmer's form is received at MSU the following Operations
take place:

(l).A Clerk-typist opens the mail and checks the farm number and
name against a master roster to make sure they have been recorded
correctly. At this same time any notes that the farmer might have made
are marked so they will be brought to the attention of the appropriate
persons.

(2).A codeaclerk writes a code number in a column by each
transaction.

(3).Another code-clerk checks this coding.

(h) A comptometer operator adds all of the columns on the form for
use in verification.

(5) IBM cards (Appendix I) are punched.

(6) The cards are then.verified on an IBM verification machine.

(7) The cards are run-through a collator where all cards of a given
code number are matched with a master set of code cards.

(8) Then the alphabetic descriptions are gang punched in the

individual detail cards.

15

(9) The cards are then sorted and arranged in numerical order by
fam code number.

(10) Individual cards are interpreted so that material represented
may be read at the top of each card.

(11) A tabulation is then made in triplicate on printed forms
(Appendix E) so that for each farm, each transaction is listed in a
uniform mnner with totals and subtotals for certain major categories.

(12) Finally, these printed sheets are sorted and separated. One
copy is mailed back to the farmer, one copy is kept on file at 181] and
one copy is mailed to the county agent in the cooperators's respective

counties .

The Research Project

The project was named "icperiments Relating to the Possible Estab-
lishment of 9. Farmers' Continuous Reporting System of Farmers' Income,
kpenditures and Related Data.” warren Vincent, Associate Professor
of Agricultural Economics at LBU, was designated project leader for
IBU and Nathan Koffsky and Wylie D. Goodsell for the Agricultural

. l
Mketing Service and the Agricultural Research Service respectively.

Objectives. The main objectives of the project were to study:

1. The problems involved in establishing a representative farmers!
continuous reporting system and in keeping it representative.

2. The kinds of information that can. be obtained from such a re— -
porting system including the feasible length of a survey form.

3 . Comparison of costs as between enumerative surveys and farmers'
continuous reporting system.

 

1The Project Outline (Appendix H).

l6

)4. A quality check to the extent possible of comparing differences
in results between emlmerative surveys and farmers? continuous
reporting system.2

The Sang . The sample was drawn by the "Area Probability Sampl-
ing Procedure":3 in four selected counties of Michigan. As an experiment
and to stay within the limits of the budget 300 farms were to be drawn.
Assuming a 33-1/3 percent dropout rate it was hoped that 200 would
complete. The four counties selected were Mason, Shiawassee, Kalamazoo
and Huron (Figure 2-1) . They were picked for the following reasons and
weighted as indicated below:

(1) Mason County was selected to represent the lower income area
of the north . It was desired that the enrolled sample be composed of
60 farms.

(2) Shiawassee County was picked to represent the general farming
and part-time farming area of south-central Michigan. This sample was
to be composed of ‘75 farms.

(3) Kalamazoo County was selected to represent the part-time farm-
ing and diverse soil and agricultural production area of southern
Michigan. Seventy—five farms were desired for this sample.

(14) Huron County was selected to represent an area of high agri-
cultural output and little part-time farming. Since this is a more
important agricultural area it was weighted with 90 farms. The dis-
tribution of selected area segments by counties are shown in Figures

2-2, 2-3, 2-1;, and 2-5.

 

2Ibid.
3Earl E. Houseman, "Application of Probability Area Sampling ’00

Farm Surveys," Agricultural Handbook No. 67', U. 3. Government Printing
Office, Washington 15. C., Tfiy 1951;. "

 

FIGURE 2-1 17

a-TYPE OF-FARMING AREAS IN MICHIGAN

(Areas on a natural- line basis)

COUNTIES (indicated in red) FROM WHICH THE AREA
PROBABILITY SAMPLE WAS DRAWN FOR THE FARMER PANEL

i Y‘
o roJ / .
j E; L.
Ontonooon l' 3; Borooo '..J'
3 . .
! '1’ I
J

  
 
      
  
   

o Chippewa
. K...
“-'o !
O. | - .L.-— *

YQ:EE-'1 L jMorqucHo ' _____ J Luce
' ooooo ' ' I
' Ir on i 0 ',.¢..._-,, !
"‘ ’ J- ! I’ll-'9". -—-J ‘7
! ' . mm
' . 1:, ~ .. ‘2 .

 

u.-.—--

- Z “ Z- . , . r . ..
2' ‘ ‘: -"-‘ “ I ' a I
.—S .‘_.—.' .L._._-_._‘.—-_-gu ¢ '_.._--._.—.

3_ Rollo: o-lCrouford .

MICHIGAN

General Livestock and Corn

Dairy, Livestock and Corn
Southwestern Fruit, Dairy and Truck . .- "
Dairy, Poultry and Truck .. ’

Dairy and General Farming
Dairy. Part-Time and Truck
Dairy and Cash Crops

Cash Crops and Dairy

General Livestock and Part-Time

Dairy. Potatoes and Truck ., _

Northwestern Fruit and Dairy , . '

(2. Dairy, Part-Time and Potatoes 44’41- , "-‘~...--.L--... '
Forestry, Part-Time and Cattle ‘ "

Cattle, Potatoes and Part-Time

Cattle. Hay and Part-Time

Dairy and Potatoes

:7. Dairy. Potatoes, Part-Time Forestry

_._ _-—.-_-_. _._-..¢'.~'..'.-

enact?! than»

.—-—---.;-I no: ———————— 4—-
'Mecosto.

SOnHOC

p.970

‘3'?
o o

..
I

on
O
o

 
 

if- . T _ J. ......
-Eoton

 

,—

The 83 counties in Michigan are here grouped into 17 type-of-farming areas
as indicated in this map. The “natural” boundaries of these areas do not, how-
ever. follow county boundaries. but lines representing the influences of soil,
l climate and markets.

toasma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ON zawfilmonnz o

moans Honda no 3095 +

.9095 on com—5.8 £5 gaseous 6090334 .1
.3930 on .8 333325 seamen 3 pong .

“Bantu oafimfio o5 noeooaefi aha s88 .88

1‘ Hanan gm :9 Eco Essa

age Anna «o bassoon one not none-eon

magnum batten one. so seasons—En Hideous
«um gens

l9

 

 

 

 

 

subclaonn: o

3685 Hand he pofiohfi +

.3980 be. poncho.“ £5 983th unwashed a.

.3088 3 .8 30.333 3398 on somehow .
Amoeba." Sauna. one notoaefi. ante :83 ES

 

Ease 08323

Hash ADE DE SEEM

Snag no 8333 one one Anchor. reason

.35 bangs one no noaeofinefln Confineooo
m4. amps:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

 

 

33$an 0

 

nunaua Honda ma coaaoaxm +
. , HHonno op
vmmsamu van mcowpmosv coaoanQ *

Haogao on
no ”:0flamoao gnawed on vomzamm .

Anaeuum oanwwwam
0:0 ooaaudcna game nonmv undo

 

H88 ugh an: 358 284:
285..“ caning no 9:933 23
23 3858 33.5 33%an
2: no 3332»an definanmooc

 

 

 

 

.TN @2on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

isles: o

gong—ma .72 ad conga +
.993» 3

3940.“ 93 30.33%. 3.8392 x.
. 30.30 3 no

«defiauosv Manama op vomsaom .

$08.3.“
353A» 28 «3335 «as: gay 38
35 33.8.... am: .5758 fimgm
magnum oaflwju “.8 8383

05 98 259.93 0.35% 333305
on» no nogsnfinvaan Haodfianwowo

m..~ go:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

A primary drawing was made and the segments numbered l~100 in which
interviewing was done in any order. Assmflng that all segments would
be exhausted a secondary drawing was made and numbered 101-200. The
quota was not fulfilled from the We drawings so a tertiary drawing
was made and numbered 201-300. In the latter two drawings, numerical

order of interviewing was not naintained.

Th: Panel member. A farmer was eligible to be a member of the
panel if he (1) sold over $250 worth of farm products in 1956, (2) farmed
a place of 3 or more acres of land, (3) intended to farm in 1957, and
(h) the farmer‘s bookkeeper lived in the designated segment.

For operational purposes these panel members became a part of the
regular LBU Mail-In Farm Accounting Project. They were required to

submit information as discussed above (Appendix E).

geleciéon Ed Trainifingggf Field Workerg. The interviewers duties
were such that he had the responsibility of interviewing and of sales-
manship. His interviewing duties consisted of taking a survey schedule
on every eligible farmer. His salesmanship duties required him to
explain the accounting system, and if possible, enroll the farmer in
the project for the complete year of 1957.

Interviewers were selected on the basis of farming background,
academic training, general character and personality. The interviewers
were given a one—day training session in which they were instructed as
to the objectives of the project, the proper field procedure,

and the proper way to act as a representative of Michigan State

23

UniversityfL They were then sent out into Shiawassee County for a one
day trial run in which they applied the principals taught the day be-
fore. The next half day was spent discussing the problems encountered
in the field the previous day. The balance of the day was spent in

packing and getting ready for the two weeks run in the field.

field Work. The interviewers were given specific segments in
which to work. They were to contact all residences in these segments,
determine their eligibility and attempt to enroll them as a panel member.
In the case where residents were not at home, three repeat calls were
to be made.

The interviewers each received a map of the county in which they
were to work with the segments marked. When they received an assigned
segment, they were to drive directly to that segment, orient themselves,
drive around the segment and indicate the location within the segment
of all. residences by drawing a map on their report. They were to
arrange their material and then contact each resident in the segment.

After introducing themselves, they were to‘explain their pzrpose
and fill out a brief field schedule (Appendix D). They were to obtain
the name of the operator, age of operator, number of people living at
the residence, age and relationship of persons living there, the tenure
status of the operator, the size of farm, the sources of income and

relative importance of each, the level of cash marketing for the farm,

 

—_*.k
w—vv-v—uu—vfifi v—v—vw—
a

‘Unpublished mimeograph, "Interviewer' a Reference mnual for an
Ecperiment Relating to the Possible Establishment of a Farmerst Continu—
ous Reporting System of Income, Expenditures, and Related Data,"
Agricultural Economics Department, Michigan State University, 1956.

2h

an.estimate of the 1956 expenses for selected expense items and an
indication of their investment intentions for the year 1957. Upon
completing the questionnaire they were to explain the accounting system
and attempt to enroll the farmer in the project.

Upon completing the interview and after leaving the farm they were
to fill out the farm identification report (Appendix D) to establish
a record of the residence number, name and address of operator, the
date contacted, indicate whether the survey schedule was completed or
not, indicate whether this unit visited was an "eligible" farm, and if
so, was the farmer enrolled in.the project. At the end of each day,
the interviewer was to place in the mail a report (Appendix D) to the
project leader indicating the county and segment number he worked in,
the number of farms visited, the number of farm operators contacted,
the schedules taken, the enrollments made that day and the enrollments
to-date along with the mileage covered. For the first few days infor~
nation was telephoned into the project leader at the end of each day by

one individual from the county.

CHAPTER III
PROBLEMS IN ESTABLISHING THE FARMER PANEL

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the experience gained
and the problems encountered in establishing the experimental farmer
panel. The following are considered:

(1) The number of farmers enrolled are compared to the number of
contacts and eligible farmers.-

(2) The interviewers‘ characteristics are compared to their per-
formance record to see if a relationship exists.

(3) To determine the relationship, if any, between certain
characteristics of the farmers contacted and their refusal to enroll,
the enrolled groups and the nonrcooperator'groups are compared.
Characteristics considered are age of operator, size of farm, tenure
status of operator, type of farm and level of income. Chi-square tests
are used to test the significance cf the difference.

(h) The county agents contributions are discussed.

(5) The method of initially informing the farmer about the project

is discussed, and other possible methods are considered.

Rate of Enrollment
The sample established an enrolled panel of 299 farmer members

(Table III—l). The sixteen interviewers had made 1,728 farm calls of

25

26

which 1,257 were actual farmer contacts. Of the farmers contacted 678

were eligible; 190 refused to answer the questions on the schedule or

to enroll; 189 answered questions but refused to enroll in the project.
Proportionally, uh percent of the eligible farmers or 2h percent

of the total farmers contacted were enrolled in the project.

TABLE III-,1

WROLIMT RATE AND THE DEGREE. OF PARTICIPATION OF FARMERS CONTACTED IN
THE ESTABLESHMENT OF THE MSU FARMER PANEL
(December 1956)

1.;

Enrollment
Number of Farmers as_f§rc§pt of,
County CalTs Con— BTigi- Re- Sched- EE- —""‘
Made. tacted ble fused1 ule2 rolled Eligible Contacts

— -_.._

- ' __~ A.- “ _

 

Huron » 317 261 159 30 129 90 57 3h
Kalamazoo 631 h2h 198 61 137 75 38 17
mason 32h 22h 103 15 88‘ 60 58 27
Shiawassee ‘u56 3h8 218 an 13h 7h 3h 21
Total 1,728 1,257 678 190 u88 299 an 2h

 

“—V—V ~— —_—— w —

1This group refused to answer schedule questions or to enroll.
3Answered schedule questions but refused to enroll.

More success in enrollment was experienced in.Huron and Mason
counties where alternatives other than agriculture are relatively few.
.A high refusal rate was experienced in Shiawassee and Kalamazoo counties

where off-farm opportunities are more abundant.

27

The Field Worker

Rate of Enrollmegt, Sixteen interviewers worked in the field an
average of nine days each (Table III-2). They made an average of 13.3
calls per day; 8.1.of these were actual face to face contacts. Of these
8.1 contacts, an average of h.5 were eligible. Of the eligible, the
interviewers obtained 3.1 survey schedules per day and enrolled an
average of two panel members per day. The range of enrollment as a
percentage of eligible contacts ranged from 88% for interviewer No. 16
down to 2h% for interviewer No. 8. Interviewer No. 1 only worked one
day and was not considered in this analysis. Seven of the interviewers

enrolled more than h5% of the eligible contacts which they made.

Charagterigtics. Table III-3 shows the age of each interviewer,

 

the number of years of schooling completed, major in college, the
average grade, and an indication as to whether or not the interviewer
had prior survey experience. .All interviewers had prior farm back-
ground. Although no statistical tests were made to substantiate it,
the hypothesis held on the basis of observation is that there was no
causal relationship between the interviewer characteristics and the
rate of enrollment or the rate of completion. The interviewers having
a completion rate of 25% or over of the eligible farmers were of no
Special age group nor were they in the category of the higher years of
completed education. {Although all of the interviewers who had a grade
average of over 3.0 had a relatively good completion record, there is I
I no indication that this can be used as a sole criterion in selecting the

interviewers. This study, although it cannot be considered as

28

.3338 no.“ a 53394 comm

. Hdmo 93 mo 38qu one. .Hom coupon opfinoumad
pmoa o5 tnfimemmom: you poo. 2.3% one. at mnooaom 5H3 podpnoo modMnoptoodm Snowmenome

. . pod no 28: one? .8593 mfluwo movsaofim
.tnpnsoo 0%. Sop.“ one op pecan mag mfiaobgo. motdaofiw

628,338 manage one. mo canon d m3
mommgfim :H .30 9.8 @3303 33353.5. .935. .ooudeafldmnm «donut-z .sonsmnm dogged”:

I
E
r

 

1

 

 

 

 

a: o.N H.m m.: H.w m.mH. m 0H HHe toe owenope.
we m.N :.N o.N H.m m.NH NH 4H m .m oH
mm o.N H.m N.m N.0H m.:H m 0H m .m mH
H: e.H e.N a.m m.e :.mH OH NH a .m 4H
to o.N m.N o.m m.N m.HH HH 4H. 2 .m mH
e: N.N 0.: m.m e.mH m.mH N w e NH
we s.N m.m o.m m.m :.e HH NH m .m HH
mm s.H H.m 0.: m.m m.e NH mH m .m 0H
mN o.H H.m 0.; e.N H.MH N N m m
:N e.H N.m N.m N.N o.mH OH HH e .m w
an m.N ma: :.e o.mH s.mH m m m p
cm :.N m.m m.: m.oH H.mH oH HH H: .m e
we H.m N.m s.o w.m m.oH 0H 0H m m
an m.H m.N 0.: o.m. o.sH OH HH m .m s
Nm m.H :.N o.:. o.eH N.NN a HH M .m m
oe m.N e.N m.m m.m m.m NH 4H m .m N
mH o.H o.m m.e o.NH o.mH N N m H
Exam. mpodvfioo m¢03300 mHHdU .Ho a CB Exhog 908.32
oooHseoeom oHeHmHHm esHHeq esHHen eHoHc_cH steepesoo eosoHe
aHHsa .noecH

l. J J|4 {.1 ll 11.114 W

L11 [ I I y ’I! r

AomQH .eNtHH cooeooonv
epic get em: a; eEmmHfiéa E mega .8 Egg SHE 835.

NtHHH mg

29

.topodpeoo.msndu manfimmao mo peooaom d adv

.eeee. 95. NHeo OHOHO fl cote: conHsteeH can

.an .NnO man 3% once: .OmmH .83. e353 .eo oe efioc oeflem

.Omma Nnonemooa noeqnh d mw3.qu topoaasoo nook onceonmom owoafioo some OH593.2H .mHueuRm homH

t b lllrll E E 'lt L {if ’ [*bllr

 

1 1| ]

 

Ne OO NN so.» no» Nm.N .23 .3 OH NN NH OH

NH Om ON on soa Hm.N doom .3. OH HN m . OH

8 H: OH ooh ooh NH.N .soom .3. OH mN OH OH

ON OO NN 8N eea Om. m s.moHoNoOO OH Om HH mH

Hm O; . OH on 8» mmN sonsote .mHl NN N NH

OH O: ON 8 8» OO.N .88 .3. OH HN HH H

OH mm OH on . moa NON .coom .3 :H mN NH OH

HH m N N on no» NO. N 8385 H ON N O

OH ON . OH 8 mos. OO.N .osem Os 4H ON OH O

NN . mm HN mom to» OH. m nonsense OH Hm O t N

mm om ON os so» 3m .88 .3. OH NN OH O

ON O: Hm cc to» OO.N .osem .3. OH Nm 3 m

mN Om NH 8. no» NH.N .cocm .3. 4H ON OH O

OH Nm NH on e9H m:.m .ooom .me 4H NN m . m

NO ON ON 8 mos mOm doom .3. OH NN NH N

N mH ON mos ooh :NN doom .3 OH HN N H
eoeoHOEoO OOHHoeem eoHHot case 38% 83.5 to no: topoHOEoO Om . OHOHO nosesz
*pemoaom *vnoonom ism afinoaxm Ixodm omoaaou owoaaoo cofipdoagu .oon :H nozmfib
mendm koshem Show m:HH< Hmndow mmd. when. InoRQH

LL r ' F I I I

 

L {I t L [L ? f! F Ll [[ r

Anzam mmzmdm pm: mmH GZHmMquaHmw
2H Qmoomm azmznqcm2M_mmzm¢m mHmmB 92d.mOHBmHmMHUdm<mO mmsmemmHZH

thHH mamda

30

conclusive, shows no relationship between rate of enrollment and prior

survey experience.

Field Worker Technigge. Field workers, in an attempt to sell the
project to the farmer and to enroll him in the project, emphasized the,
following points.1

(1) It is an advantage and aid to the farmer in respect to book-
keeping, farm accounting and income tax purposes.

(2) In the long run you, the panel member, will benefit from the
research which this data makes possible.

(3) This information is necessary so that your situation will be
realistically represented in data used for agricultural policy
decisions.

(h) Information will benefit all people, including you, the farmer,
interested in descriptive statistics of agriculture.

(5) You are receiving something for nothing.

The interviewers indicated that approach numbers 1 and 3 were most
successful. They were not successful when they used techniques border-
ing on high pressure salesmanship, nor when they tried to push the
project on the farmer. 'When illustrations were used involving present
agricultural programs they were often interpreted as taking sides on a

political issue and were not successful.

Teamwork. In some counties the interviewers worked as a team,

that is, they met each night after working in the field, discussed

_¥ _
fi—v vi

1Response of interviewer questionnaire (Appendix A).

31

their problems of the day, and made recommendations to each other on
techniques that were successful and those that were not. This procedure
seemed to give them a fresh start for the morning. In other counties
they did not do this and the interviewers acted more on. their own.
Therefore, the question was asked the members (Question No. 11 of the
questionnaire) how they operated, what way they thought was the best

and why.

Most of them seemed to prefer the team approach, even those who
operated on the "lone wolf" basis thought the team approach would be
better. They seemed to feel that working as an individual during the
day, coming back in the evening to discuss problems and plan as a team,
and then working as an individual the next day, was the best method.
This seemed to increase the esprit'-de~corps' of the team and to focus
their attention more on the problems of others. This decreased their
own personal problems and made the whole method of interviewing and
selling the project more uniform. ‘

The feeling taken from the interviewers' questionnaire seemed to
be that in order to have success in interviewing and enrolling farmers
and in not being too ill at ease in selling the project, the interviewer
had to have a sound understanding of and appreciation for the farmer's

situati on .

_T_h_e__§ield Wogker-dStudent SLQQEL The census utilizes local
people to interview for the census. Would other than students be more
capable in enrolling farmers in this project? The county agents indi-
cated that although someone within the county could do the enrollment

work, college students would do better (Appendix B).

32

Characteristicsnpf CooperatorsfiandTNon~Qggperaters

To determine some of the problem areas of enrollment, the age of
operator, tenure status, size of farm (acres), type of farm, and level
of income were compared for the two groups.~ Chi-square tests of
significance were computed for the latter two to test the significance
of any difference in distribution.

For the farmers who refused to enroll (non—cooperators), the data
are limited to those who consented to give information to the inter-
viewer (Appendix D). In the same respect, it can not be determined
which group represents the population of the county nor which group
might cause a bias in the sample. The information here will only point
-out problem areas of enrollment.

In computing the Chi-square tests actual number of farms in each

category were used rather than percent figures as given in most tables.

‘Age of Operator. The average age of the farm operators who ens
rolled in the four counties was five to nine years younger than the

average for the farmers who refused to enroll (Table III-h).

‘ TABLE III-h

AVERAGE AGE OF cooptrumps AND. NON-COOPERATORS IN THE ESMISHING
or 'I'HF‘. usU FAFMEE PANEL
(December 1956)

.3 AL __

 

“ County; . _ .L _§pop§rator ._» Non—cooperator1
Huron ' hS 502
Kalamazoo hS 5h
mason h9 Sh.
Shiawassee ~ :hl A -

 

1Average for nonpcooperators are for only those who completed the
survey schedule. '
2Average compited for 80 farms .

33

As data were incomplete for the Shiawassee County non-cooperators,

no computation was made for them.

Tenure Status. A farmer was classified as an owner operator when
he owned over one-half of the land that he operated. On the average a
larger percent were owner operators in the enrolled group (Table III-S).
It is the author's opinion that this difference is not important in that
it would not bias the financial information collected. A probability
sample of this type, however, could and should show the tenure status

of the area and the trend in tenure over time.

TABLE III-S

PERCENT OF OWNER-OPERATORS IN EACH GROUP-x.» INVOLVED IN
ESTABLISHING THE MSU FABMER mm
(December 1956)

 

'7—‘V r— v—fi V

 

 

County - Cooperators Nonrcooperators
Huron . 79 75
Kalamazoo 78 68
Mason. 98 93
Shiawassee 82 78

*See Table III-1 for number of farms.

 

gigeLpf;§arm. The average size of the farm was larger in respect
to total acreage and tillable acreage for the enrolled farms in all four
counties (Table III-6). Chi-square tests did not show this difference
to be significant except in.Shiawassee county, where there was an

evident tendency for smaller farmers to refuse to enroll.

3h

.HoeeH scooped OH one ed patterns aHscdoEEONOa
50333200 a.“ come wand.“ 90 895E .3304“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m a . m we
knot. m mama. m mommé gem. H Henge-.30
. O O O m a OH O O mam .. OOm
mH OH OH OH OH HH OH aH aaN .. OOH
mm Om ma mm .9” NH mm mm 2H I 8H
l.3 mm mm mm mm mm mm q: 9H .. 8
mm mm mm :m mm pm i m mm .. 0
mafia.“ H.309 mo eaogealnMaodr dummy
OmH NN Oa ON ONH la mNH Om amongst .HHE
HOH Oa ONH OH OH mNH amH mNH nosed H38
emu emenobfl
4N 8 8 mm mN NO om mm wing mo Honesz
common aopgoaooo nodes howdnmaooo common nopgmaooo Nominee popdaomooo
As aloe. it Him E .82 i We: name is L acme
mommwsdwnm some: _ 0333..”de spasm

t

 

’L
‘1. '4‘)

E [L I

OdOOaO 8.38%. as. Oce.§aOOOtzOz

t

l’

'l I y I'

EB. 2H gm m0 wNHm Mm ZOHEDmHmBMHQ Hog MERE

maHHH mama

35

Eggs of Farm. Farmers interviewed indicated the relative amount
of income which they received from different sources. Farms were
classified as follows:

(1) Part-time-—over 50 percent of total income from off-farm
sources.

(2) Dairye-over 50 percent of total income from the sale of dairy
products and dairy cattle.

(3) Livestock-over 50 percent of total income from the sale of
livestock (1.6., beef, sheep, hogs).

(h) Poultry-~over 50 percent of total income from the sale of
poultry and poultry products.

(5) Grain, etc.--over SO percent of total income from the sale of
grain, vegetables, fruits or nuts.

(6) General-50 percent or less of the total income from any one
of the above sources.

Chi~square tests showed a significant difference in.distribution
in only Shiawassee County. In Shiawassee County, farms with a larger
share of off-farm income were less inclined to enroll. There was no

significant difference apparent in the other three counties (Table III—7).

Level of Income. Farmers interviewed indicated the dollar volume
of farm products sold for 1956 (exclusive of off-farm income) by
economic class.

The distribution in each county was significantly different at the
10 percent level in all counties (Table III-8). Observation of the
relative frequency distribution indicates that a problem existed in

enrolling farmers in economic class VI ($O-ll99).

36

.HostH peaches OH one he cassette aHpenoHfisOHOa
.OOOOdasmsoo ca toms Megan Ho genes: Hddedw

, .meuem Heaoeom we commmmmdao oao2.mshem sense HHO. .oonsom ego
and Song 0560 OSoo:H mameaem Hdpop one mo encased om nebo.don3 enhp_hn poamammeflo mu:.en¢u Or

r tr}?
11" Id

 

m N m m we
Nmmom.NH OOOm. OmmmH . NOOO. soadHeTHeO

mN ON a N NN HN HN NN finesse
OH mN . . NN OH mH moH 2 mm .Bc .5.an
O N O m O O O O seeded
m N O m O m m o Odopmmhfiq
Hm OH ON OO ON ON OH OH 33
mm HO Nm Hm Hm Om OH , NN ceasing

 

mandq Hmpop mo envenomtasennwwwmueHHu

I b? It I I (I

 

 

 

 

 

 

mN HO mm mm HO OO Ow Nm azmsnem mo nonspz
common aopwaoaooo OOHHoH hopeaoaooo Omaaoa sopmnonooo OeHHoa aopuaomooo
Immtl, Jmoz ammnrr, rrnuan new plummwm Imm . isoz
oommusufinm . comm: coheseamm _nonsm
mSOQZH OmmH

mmbomo.moedmmmOOOIZGz 924.9HAudmam_MMHdm0m,
SNOW mo MNMB Mm chabmHmHmHfi_HDZMbUmmh mbHadqmm

NIHHH mqmds

37

.HoseH esooaoc OH one ee.edeaoceHe NHeeeoOchOHms
.dOdepsaeoo dH OomO.ms9d% mo senses HOOPOOW

(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N N N N we
somm.OH *ONH.m A *NO0.0 *HH0.0 Hence maeevmlflno
O . NH _ H m N O O a .nce op eonemom
O O m O m O H N + -OOO.mN
NH O NH .O mH O OH O OO0.0NuOO0.0H
OO HO Nm OO Nm OO NO OO maa.a.rOON.H
NH mm mm H: mm 0: OH Om mmHH now
manna Hdpop Ho enactmentoammmw mokHobeH
ON mN OO ON mN mO OO O: numeaem mo nonssz
OOHHoa aopmaomooo .OoHHoa hopdnoaooo peHHon nopdaomooo peHHoa noponoaooo
new neoz. rams. Idoz ism unoz .itnmm ‘1, 1:02
oemmezeasm comm: oosdewHeM donsm
"(8 l r?» [Lip A Mr Ll ILL fr ”it It i illitfllnbb Wt
@805 OmmH

mmbcmc mmagcmzm Qz<vmosdmmm00012oz
mma 2H MSOUZH ho quHH.Hm.ZOHBbmHmeHQ NuZMmemm abHBOAMm

OIHHH essay

38

Reasons for Refusing to Enroll

Interviewers were asked to indicate on their farm identification
report (Appendix D), reasons as to why an eligible farmer refused to
enroll in the project. In each county the most predominant reason given
for not enrolling in the project was as follows (Table III-9):

(1) Mason County-"poor health"

(2) Kalamazoo County-w" going out of farming"

(3) Shiawassee County-"thinks business too small"

(ll) Huron County-J'inappropriate bookkeeping system"

The "poor health" reason given is consistent with the high mean
age of the non-cooperators in Mason County. "Thinks business too small ,"
it should be noted, is a reason given by the farmers and not by the
interviewers . This latter reason was fairly predominant in both
Shiawassee and Kalamazoo counties which are composed of a large number
- of part—time smaller farmers. I

' Since there was a high percent of "Reasons not given," the inter-
viewers were asked (Appendix A) to rank according to importance what
they thought were the most important reasons stated or implied that
certain farmers refused to enroll. Although there was no consistent
ranking, the computed ranking showed "afraid of how records will be
used" as the most important reason (Table III-10).

This latter reason along with the ones "afraid of government" and
"afraid to try something new" are added to the predominant reasons given
by farmers.

The reasons given indicate only one consistent pattern and that is

one of uncertainty. " These uncertainties would have to be overcome to

39

t I'l'l [I t I

 

I 11

ms mN ms 8 fl am 8 2 8% as meadow
m .N m no 0 z o m =coom wsHAfipmas
o o N N o o o o =fiflm§ unflmteg £56..
4H 0 m o o o N m =spasme noon:
0 o N N N H N N =emms we Haas.mesoomn so: no saunas:
a m o o o o N m spamssnmsom was no washed:
0 o m o m N a ma . =Nadsm cop mmmsamsn manage:
o o o o o o m in =mxoon.ssu assumes:
o o .N m NH N H N =smpmam mauaaaonaaqu=
a s . 4H ed a m a oa =wqaesdq No pso madam:

illll

psoonom umnssz mmoonmmwmonmsz enommoMIanEmz psmonom119mnssz

 

 

HHonsm no: new msomuom

’l

 

} . ! I'Ll {III 'II I 5"! r
‘41 1

 

m: . NNH mo and --e¢HHonsm pa: manamaau

ow . me om :w Itpmaaonsm msnum

moa was mma NHN agmanawflam mamas
It“! comm: mommsmmmM .GOhsm .mmedzuwmeI

I ’ ’l
1 , 11
l I] 1‘ ll 11

Aomma nonsmommv
gazem mMZM¢m pm: ZH‘GZHAquzm aoz mom mzomamm _mmmzm¢m

mIHHH aqmdy

ho

 

 

 

TABLE III-10
INTERVIEWERS ORDERING OF JIIPOR‘IIANCE OF REASONS NOT Gm
(January 1958) '
Rank ' Reason Rank Score*
1. Afraid of how records will be used 86
2 . Going out of farming 8h
3'. Afraid of government 82
h. Prefers. own books 82
5. Business too small . 80
6. Afraid to try something new 69
. 7 . Inappropriate system 29
8. Doesn't want responsibility - ° 16
9. Too much bother 13
10 . Closed mouth attitude 7
11. Farm in Soil bank 11
12. Doesth keep records and won't 2
7 13 . Fear of nsu representative l

.——w ifv—‘v—v—vfi—v—fv—v ————— v — “WW—Vi

*Based on judgment of 16 interviewers where first was weighted 8,
second 7, etc.
enroll the non-cooperative members in the project. To accomplish this

would probably entail an increase in time and cost per farm enrolled.

The County Agents Role

The county agents at the onset were in favor of the project and
agreed with the need for it and it's objectives (Appendix B). Prior to
operating in counties, permission was asked of the county agents. They
were asked to participate in the establislunent if they so desired.
However, a deliberate attempt was made to not require their participation
nor pit any reaponsibility on their position. The success or failure
of the project then can not be attributed to the county agents. None

of the agents spent more than one day assisting in establishment.

Advertiging the Project

(As this project was set up there was no advance notice given to

 

the people selected as panel members. In most cases the farmers inter—
viewed had no prior notice or knoWledge of this project.

.All but two of the interviewers (Appendix.A) thought they would
have had more success had the farmers had prior knowledge of their call.
They felt too much time was taken.in.simmly explaining who they were
and what they were doing there. This might, or might not, have hindered
enrollment. Two interviewers felt that they would have had less success
had the farmers had prior warning. They gave as their reasons: '

(1) "good salesmanship cannot have a substitute," (2) if they had had
time to discuss the project they might have tended to shy away from it
and make prior decisions concerning the project. The interviewers who
thought they might have had more success if the farmers had had prior
information as to the object of the project gave as their reasons:

(1) the farmers wanted more time to consider the whole project before
committing themselves, (2) and they did not like to take the word of
the interviewer alone for the advantages of the project.

One interviewer ran into the situation where the people in some
of the segments which he interviewed did have prior knowledge concerning
the prpject and had discussed the program in their Farm Bureau meetings.
These people were much easier to talk to and much easier to enroll.

Of course, this is as a result of the organization accepting the project.
If the organization had rejected the project the opposite would have

been true.

142

Several interviewers seated to think that the lack of advance

notice was the big stumbling block. Farmers are not quick to make
decisions of this sort andjperhaps, therefore, need a little more time
than the one interview for considering enrollment in such a long-term-
project. One interviewer stated, "Selling the program is a minor
problem. Making them believe you are actually who you are and not a
book salesman, . . . is the greatest problem."

The county agents were asked, "Would prior warning help enrollment?"
(Appendix B). Three of the county agents indicated that this would help
enrollment. 'When asked what type of forewarning they would use, one
indicated letter and two indicated newspaper advertisement. The inter-
viewers seemed to think that contacts through the county agent by way

of rm organizations would be the most effective.

m

The original assumption of a 50 percent enrollment rate was too
optimistic in that only 14).; percent8 of the eligible farmers contacted
were enrolled in the project.

Although no statistical tests were made to substantiate it, an
observable relationship between the characteristics of the interviewers
and their performance was not evident. Hence, an interviewer, with the
intelligence of an average college senior or above, with a pleasing
personality, and an understanding of the farmers situation, can adequately
interview and enroll in establishing a farmer panel.

wfi ——

2Subsequently it was discovered that 27 percent of these farms made
no reaponse. Hence, were not technically enrolled.

h3

The above analysis indicates that problems are associated with
the following:
(1) Smaller size farms,
(2) Older operators,
(3) Part-time farmers, and
(1;) Low income farmers (Economic Class VI) are less
inclined to enroll in the project.
(5) The uncertainty about the whole project as indicated
by many of the ones who refused to enroll is a problem area.
(‘6) Forewarning as to the objectives and needs of the project
as well as to the interviewers call might have increased
enrollments-dainty by reducing uncertainty as in (5) above.
Significance tests on data indicate that no problem existed as to
type of farm. However, there was a significant difference in the two

groups as to income level in all four counties.

CHAPTER IV
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE PANEL

Introduction
In studying the representativeness of this panel the following were
cited as relevant questions.

(1) was the group of total eligible farms representative of the
population? -

(2) was the group of refusals with schedules representative of
the population?

(3) was the group of refusals with schedules representative of
all refusals?

(h)‘Was the group of enrolled farms representative of the
population?

(S)‘Was the group that completed representative of the
population?

(6) What was the relative sampling and response error?

.A discussion will be presented concerning the sampling and response
error and the accuracy of reporting. In Chapter III it was shown that
the non-cooperator and enrolled groups were significantly different in
reapect to certain characteristics.1 Since no information was available
concerning the farmers who refused to answer the survey questions and
the above difference existed, the answers to the first three questions
'were not determinate with the existing data.

An attempt will be made in this chapter to answer (h) and (S).

v—‘rv

1Refer to Chapter III summary for details.

hh

’45

The census figures for the year 195).; are used as the best available
estimate of the ‘popilation in the studied counties.2 A comparison is
made to test the hypothesis that the enrolled group and the completed
group are representative of the population (total farms in the county
as defined by the census). The enrolled and completed groups are
compared directly in the next chapter .

Keep in mind that the census data were taken in 1955 covering the
19511, situation and the information concerning the panel was collected
in 1956 . Although no adjustment is nude here, it is obvious that some
change took place during the interim period. No trend adjustment was
made because it was felt that the smll change would notbias the study.

The criticisms of Olson concerning census data are worth notingi

1. Census figures are averages for size of income classes
by geographic areas. Within each area considerable variation
exists; therefore, the size class figures are averages for farms
that not only differ in type of organization but which also operate
at various positions on their average cost curves. 2‘. Classifi-
cation of farms on the basis of gross sales as reported by the
census tends to place in larger sized groups, farms with higher
yields but otherwise similar to farms with low yields and classi-
fied in the smaller sized group. Also farms having larger sales
from inventories tend to fall in higher income classes and similar
farms with smaller sales from inventories. 3. As Stigler has .
pointed out the "regression fallacy" is involved in the procedure
used in this study. He illustrated that the same kind of data and
procedures could yield opposite cOnclusions if farms were classi-
fied on the basis of number of workers instead of on the basis of
sales per farm. His criticismis valid for much of the cross tabu-
lation that has been done in farm managment.3

L

i W

zBureau of the Census, "A Statistical Abstract Supplement—County
and City Data, Michign 1951;," U. 8. Government Printing Office,
Washington, 19.0., 1956.

amass-ll 0. Olson, “Review and Appmisfl of‘fiethods Used in. Study-
ing Farm Size," “Resource Productivit Returns to Scale and Farm Size
edited by I. O. Heady, 5. L. Johnson, L. §. H'Ersin, Iowa State College

Press, 1956: P0 55°

to

Hate of,Gompletion

Of the 299 farmers enrolled in the project, 217 actually started
by submitting the first report (Table Ivhl). One hundred and sixtybone
completed the project by submitting records on income and expenditure

for the complete year of 1957.

TABLE.IV-l

NUMBER OF FARMERS STARTING.AND COMPLETING-AS MEMBERS
OF THE MSU EARMER PANEL

 

 

 

(1957)
Huron Kalamazoo Mason Shiawassee Total
luMber of Farms Enrolled 9O 75 60 7h 299
-thber of Farms
Submitting 1 or more 56 61 h6 Sh 217
reports
*Submitting 12 reports hh hS 35 37 161

——_'W 7—"? w —— _' w — —— 'v

*This is the completed group of the panel.

Twentyhseven percent of the farmers enrolled made no response. Fiftye
fcur percent of those enrolled completed the project. Of the eligible

farms, twenty-four percent completed (Table IV-2).

.—

Representativeness bv Selected Chaggcteristics
Representativeness is important in making certain types of esti-

mates concerning the population being sampled. The representativeness
of the LSU Farmer Panel was studied in terms of the age of operator,

size of farm, tenure status, type of farm, and level of income. They
were not necessarily listed in the order of importance or was any one

considered more important than the others.

h?

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE TV-2
RATE OF COMPLETION IN THE MSU FARMER PANEL
(1957)
Com _etion as a Percent of __g
Eligible Farms‘ ‘iEnEoIIed Farms

Huron ‘ 28 h9
Kalamazoo 23 60
mason ' 3h 58
Shiawassee 17 50
Total '. 2h - 5h

Fbr a measure of representativeness,.the characteristics of the
panel members were compared directly to the 19Sh census data. Chi—square
tests were made to indicate the significance of the difference between
the census and enrolled group and the census and completed group as
separate comparisons. The 10 percent level was arbitrarily selected to
test the significance of the difference. The appropriate level of
significance might vary above or'below this level depending on the pur-

pose and use of the data collected.

.ége_2§§tribution. The only available census comparison for age
distribution.was for the whole state of Michigan. The enrolled group
was significantly different than the census group in Huron, Kalamazoo,
and Shiawassee counties. Dropout changed the distribution so that only
Mason and Shiawassee were significantly different upon completion
(Table IV-B).

h8

.Hosma Raoomom OH 039 pm menace one 2099 econommwv haequfiMfiswfiM*
.msmqoo one op tondmsoo ma menace nodooaqofipupsmsoo as vom:.mshwm mo amass: Hospoéw

11“

 

m . m m m m m m m we

emaw.mm amoo.mw *mow.oa :mzm. mo:.m *:::.oa mmm.w amom.oa Hence onesemuaco

mm a: we . m: a: m: a: m: 4.0m cm¢.eue=

pm Hm a HH excess:

m m cm as a NH a w as + mm

m m ea :m mm :m mm mm am so n om

mm on mm :m o: m: :m mm mm a: u mm

em as am me as as we mm . ma em . om

mshdm Hopop mo psoonon I nopdhcgo mo owd_

 

 

 

 

 

am as mm ow me me s: cm www.0sa menu“ go amazes
emsoae emafiou empmae eoaaoe empmaa emaaoe empmam emaaoe :mmH
1500 «am 1500 new :Eoo new 1300 new msmcuo
.al sameness
oommwswfinm some: ooudsdadx conga

Ill

Am24m mmzmdm pm: mma mo mmbomc Gasmamzoo 92¢.quuomzm
mma Q24.mbmsz mmE 2H moa¢mmmo mo mo<.wm ZCHEDmHmBmHQ Mozwbcmmm Mbwaddmm

mJbH mqmgw

h9

The value of the comparison is doubtful in Huron and Kalamazoo'
Counties because of the large number of unknown’ages. ’Also since the
census dataiaine for'Michigan and not for the individual counties, some
variation is expected. ‘

l Size cf‘Earm. The average size of farms for the sample was larger
than for census farms. ’The relative distribution'was significantly .

different for both the enrolled and completed group in all counties

except.Mason (Table IV-h).'

Tenure Statgé: The enrolled and the completed groupS'when compared
to census figures show a bias in favor of tenant operators. Mason and
Shiawassee show very little relative difference (Table IV-S).

It is believed that a sampling error here will not seriously affect

‘ithe information collected other than as to the degree of tenancy;

Type ofAEanm. The panel farmS'were classified by type of farm in

Na manner similar to the census (See'Type of Farm-~Chapter III).
I No significant difference was found between the enrolled and comé
pleted group when compared to the census except in the Mason County
enrolled group. Dropout changed the distribution so that the completed
group me- closer to the census’distribution (Table 137-6).

"It is evident that this type of. panel-could be established repre-
sentative of the population in terms of type of farm with'very little

difficulty .

Levelgof Income. In all cases the panel is composed of a larger

‘percent of Economic Class VI farms than the census. The sample drawn

50

e e . m. -m

.oodoeHeHdeo co HoeoH actuate 0H one to pdoeoNeHc aHodoeeeHdent

.nowpdpemsg 5 tom: mend.“ mo gonads Hanged"

 

m N e e we
eoeN.sH eeom.mN ch.w *mH:.mH essm.NH *HNN.NH tsHm.mH emoN.eH Hence oeoeeoueco
omH HeH NHH mNH eNH aHH mmH ‘ meH :HH NmH omH eNH omeoeee.omoeo>4
m H H H s e N . H Nee . com
m mH m m m z N NH m N a mm: .. 8N
e N m o m m a N e e l. c RN .. oNN
m m a e m 0 HH e m cH NH 0H NHN . ONH
eN oN NH oN NN HH HH NH a m HH eH mNH - 04H
cm eH mH eN mN aH NH oH HH cm oN HN emH - 00H
4N NN eH eH mN mN e NH mH N :H oN do - 0a
m . N m m m N eH a eN mN m mo . om
m m NH m a mH NH NH :H H a a: . cm
a m m m a a :H m a. . m N .. OH
H s m N m e 4 HH H m .<.0H coeds
.9:ng H33 mo pscgom. .. omdonow H.308
am Ne mmm.N mm co eNN.H me me

omega twine canoe topoaa codes madam. depend eoHHop menace paved... 3.309 255$

1:80 Ifim :m Eu 1800 1cm zmma taco 33m

 

 

‘

commwscflnm some:

 

moN.N m: mm :Nm.m hence No ethane

‘Yl III
“‘1‘:

eH -200, zen oH

gages .consm.

I r

8ng gm om: "an. we abomw Bmmflgoo Bad QMAAQE E .
n54 mbmzmo E a 52m .mo ”mNHm Mm 20%“.me Mg Ea

:->H memes

51

TABLE Iv-S

TENANTB.AS.A PERCENT OF_TOTAL OPERATORS IN THE CENSUS, ENROLLED,
AND COMPLETED caoups OF THE MSU EARMER PANEL

'—v—'— v—V—v fir 1* W V_._

 

195h
County Census Enrolled Completed
Huron. 11.0 21 21
Kalamazoo 7.7 22 20
Mason. 3.8 2 3
Shiawassee 10.1 . 11 . 17

indicates a larger percent of Economic Class I farms in two counties,
Kalamazoo and Shiawassee. The distribution was significantly different
from the census in all cases except in the completed group comparison.in
ShiaWassee County (Table IV-7).

The sample is composed of a larger percentage of lower income farms
than the census would indicate for the population. Considering that in
the previous chapter low income farms'were considered to be difficult to
enroll, there appears to be an inconsistency in our study. It should be
noted that the completed group distribution.is more similar to the census
than the enrolled group in all but Kalamazoo County.

The Kalamazoo County agent stated that the sample was composed of
too many low income farmers. This seems to verify his claim.

Since the low income farmers seem to be a problem area in enroll-
ment and in representativeness, what would happen to the representative-
ness if the population were redefined to exclude the $O~ll99 group? ~

4
Bachman- indicated that the need for data from this group is different

h_

4x. L. Bachman, PDiscussion: Better Basic Data for.Agricu1ture,"
_Journal of Farngconomics, Vol. XL, May 1958.

52

.HosoH essence 0H one. on soothes afifififilfie
.cofipwcamce menace he eoHMfimudHo renown
.:0depsneoo :H poms manna Mo oneness adored;

Lit

 

 

H .. N m m : m s . , n N m .e
Nsm.m mNc.s ems.m *Nee.a 400.0 see.H. mHe.N mmN.m spoon oseesozacu
.sH .mH NH a m e .sH mH NH eH mH HN . Hostess
oN mN on H: mm sN N: mm on Nm em mm .opo .cHuse
m m N o N e a a a o o H auanoe
m a N m 0H m HH mH NH m c e ensconced
as . as an He m: mm wN. wN sN eN NN eH soHen
s manna Hmpop mo pscoacanweasm mo waxy
mm ca Hme.H . em mm sNe me. No, Nem.H an em mNN.m .nenom no sonssz
topodn uoHHoh mememo oopoan toHHon menace. pmpoan poaaop meadow popoda toHHon msmdoo {1
I800 . 1mm lfiow IE IEOU IE IEOU Imm .
commmEMflcm some: - _oonEMHox . conga

I!" . In
I I ,

1‘ '1 j

“as mesa em: as .3 game geese Bee gaze
a: nae. memzmc e: E 55 so ME em zoEBHEmE 6% Sea

053. H.548

53

.HosoH essence 0H one so occsoeeHc aanccHeHdeme
.coapdpsneoc_qa poms mendm mo access Haspo¢w

*1 ’1" r 'r' E

 

N N N N N N N N . so
ems.N *see.Nm eomH.NH *eOm.e *NmN.cN ewee.nm *eme.o *emN.NN Hence osoeeo-He0
HH HN m. HH NN NH eN eN m 4H mH mH eeH.H - 0
He No me Oh am ma Nm em Na No ac we eee.e . ooN.H
HH sH . mH mN aH a sH . .2H 0H m EH eH mee.sN . 000.0H
a , m H c n m m m s 0 H H + 000.mN

meudq Hdpop mo pneumonxnosoocH mo Hosea

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm ea ema.H mm 00 Nee ms . ma -mes.H e: 0e NHN.N hence No sohssz
pmpcam poaaon msmcoo n popoda voaaon memcoo copcan poaaoh memcmo topodm ooflaon msmcmo
asoo Lem .500 com .800 [gm 1500 new
mommoswfinm . comm: oonemHox nonsm

 

‘ 1

'1},

I]

Amadm maimem pm: Ema mo mmbomo mmemamzco 92d.nmqqomzm
mme mz<.mmm2Mo Ems 2H MSUUZH mo gabmq Mm ZOHBDmHmemHQ HUZMbOmmm MbHH¢Qmm

mobH mqmdy

5h

than for the commercial farms of over $1200. He suggests that the low
prochictiom-low income farms and large to medium commercial farms be
carried separately and that the information collected be tailored to
fit data requirements .

If the low income (30-1199) farms were dropped from our comprison,

the remaining distribution is similar to the census (Table IV-8) .

Sampling and Response Error
lemming that the sampling error is small and the reSponse error

large for surveys in general, the total relative error can be indicated

by the hypotenuse of a triangle (Figure h-l) .

Figure 14-1

Relative Total Error of Survey and Panel Compared as a
Result of Sampling and Response Error-An Estimate

 

Saulpling Error
Sampling Error

l\\

Response Error Response Error

SURVEY PANEL

Prior findings herein indicate that the sampling error of this
panel is large. It is assumed since the farmers report actual figures,
not estimated, that the response error is smll.

' The hypothesis that the response error is smll suggests that,
despite the large sampling error, the panel system could provide data

at least as useful as that from surveys.

SS

.Hm>mH pqmonma OH on; pd psmnmmmap thstfiMstHms
.GOHpapsmsOo as poms mendu Ho Hones: daupo¢w

[‘4

N N N . N .Hn

 

aom.o *m:~.oH HmH.o moH.o Hpmmp massemcHso
or so, no , mm ma ma mm mm mmm.m . oo~.H
NH mH mm m cm NH HH NH mam.s~ - ooo.oH
m H a s a m o H + u ooo.m~

meudm Hdpop mo ammonomtnosoonH Ho Hosea

 

 

 

Hm osm.H Hm «ma mm mom.H mm maorm msuam.mo tense:
.mmymaasop. mummww mmponsop msmqmo popmHmsow m:msm 1mopmdmmoo mumsmo 111ml
mmmmmswanm . some: ooNasdem nonmm

III! II Iii
L! H liltdlrlllr pl, I [I i

aMde mmzmdm pm: mma mo mDQMU GHEmAmzoo mme.nz¢.mbmsz HMH 2H
AH> mmfio onozoom UZHBBHZGV gov—,2 mo EA Mm ZOHBDmHmemHQ MUEE gag

m! magma.

S6

Reperting Bias of Panel

The reporting bias of a panel, reporting actual income and expendi~
tures, may be in only one direction. Certain farmers will by choice or
by neglect fail to report all of their transactions. Very'seldom will
anyone report more income or more expenses than actually occurs. There
is the possibility then that actual transaction data collected from a
panel will be biased in the negative direction. It is believed that
this reporting error is small. Hewever, more research needs to be done

to determine a cardinal estimate of this error.

arm V
‘ In this chapter the hypothesis that the panel enrolled and com-
pleted was representative of the agriculture in the respective counties
was tested. ‘Assuming that the 10 percent level of significance using
chi-square tests is indicative of the possibility of the sample coming
from the same population as the census of l9Sh the following areas
appear to be representative:
(1) The type of farm in.all caSes but one (the enrolled group in
Mason County was significantly different) was representative.
(2) The level of income, when Economic Class VI farms were omitted,
“was representative of the population. (Only Mason County comparison was
significantly different.)
. The panel appeared to be non-representative of the population in.
the areas of:
(1) Distribution by age of operator (in Huron and Kalamazoo Counties

the completed groups were not significantly different from the census

group) ‘.

5?

(2) Distribution by size of farm,

(3) Tenure status, and

(11,) When all income groups are considered the level of income.

Tne significant difference between the panel and the census indi-
cates that it is difficult to establish a representative panel. This
does not exclude the usefulness of this data for other pirposes at which -
the 10 percent level of significance is not important. ‘

Assuming conditions similar to those in the experiment, the sampl~
ing error of a panel is ‘quite large. However, if the reSponse bias is
quite small the net error is possibly comparable to that of a survey.

For mechanical reasons it is assumed that the response error will
be only in a negative direction—(i.e., that of under-reporting) . It is
believed that this error is quite small but more research needs to be

done in this latter area before a definite statement can be made.

CHAPTER V
MAINTAINING THE FARMER PANEL

Introduction

Forty-six percent of the farmers who enrolled in the panel failed
to mail in twelve monthly reports .' Whyr did these panel members not
fulfill the necessary requirements?

What are the problems of maintaining a continuously reporting
panel? What are the characteristics of the "drop-outs"? Would the
farmers who did complete be willing to continue for another year?

In an attempt to answer these questions, the following areas have
been studied.

(1) The drop—out rate.

(2) The follow-up program.

(3) The county agent's role.

(14) Selected variables as they are related to drop-outs, such as:
The interviewer, age of operator, size of fann, type of farm and level
of income. »

(5) Reasons given by farmers for not completing.

(6) Attitude of farmers who completed.

('7) The problem of communication.

It should be remembered that this panel was operated as a sub—

sample of the regular PBU Mail-In Account Project (the latter with

58

59

membership on a voluntary basis) and received no special attention

other than the one followup discussed later in this chapter.

"Dropig t" Rate

"Drop-fonts" are those who enrolled but failed to submit a complete
series of twelve monthly reports . One hundred thirty-eight farmers were
of this category. Of these, fifty-.unine percent failed to sibmit even
the first report. Although they accepted the proper forms and told the
interviewer, either implicitly or explicitly, that they would become a
member, they in actuality, did not even start the project. 0f the other
bl percent of the non-completing members, 20 percent of them mailed in
one to three reports, 114 percent mailed in from four to six reports and
seven percent nailed in seven to eleven reports.

In Huron County 7h percent of the non-completing members submitted
no report. .It is possible in this county that a large number of the
people who accepted the book had no intention of actually becoming a
member of the project. In Chapter III is was noted that Huron County
had one of the largest enrollment rates. This was counteracted by the
large drop—out rate.

Perhaps an increase in enrollment rate by various means would only

result in an increased drop-out rate.

mii’Fglcw-Eg'

Ellywn Stoddard, a. graduate student in the Sociology Department who
was also a member of the original interviewing team, was hired during
the Spring of 1957 to go into the field in an attempt to obtain better

rapport. In addition he attempted to obtain reasons why these people

TABLE v.1

NUMBER OF "DROP-OUTS" 'AND W or PARTICIPATION
IN THE MSU FAME. PANEL

Huron Kalamazoo Mason Shiawassee Total

 

 

#4
v w— fi f—w— __~ _ V?— '—

Nmrioer of incomplete

records . ho 30 25 37 138‘
Percent "drop-outs" 51 ho h2 SO ho
Percent of incompletes

submitting no reports 7h h? ‘ 56 Sh 59
Percent of incompletes '

submitting l-3 reports 10 23 12 35 20
Percent of incompletes

submitting h—6 reports 9 23 20 8 1h
Percent of incompletes

submitting 7-11 reports 7 7 p 12 3 7

A. ’. __L A

—___ _,

failed to report. The reasons which he obtained will be given later in '
this chapter.

This follow-up work was conducted mainly in Shiawassee County with
some work being done in the other three counties. He assisted mamr
farmers in filling out their first three monthly reports. Very few of
these submitted reports after his visit.

There is no indication that the follow-up decreased the mimber of

incompletions to any substantial extent .

County Agent' 8 Role
In Kalarmzoo County the assistant county agent spent approximately

36 days during the year 1957 in explaining and maintaining the original.

 

sample (Appendix B). The county agents in the other counties spent from
two and one—half to eight days each.

61

It is the author's belief that this is the reason for the lower
drop-out rate in KalamazooCounty and for the more even distribution in'
the percentage figures as to the extent of participation (Table V—l).
It is important to note here that although this county agent spent over
four times as much time as any other county agent, the drop-out rate is
only-two percent less than Mason Countyand only 10 percent less than
the other counties.

The county agents felt that the drop-out rate could have been
reduced by making the tabulated report (coding classification) more
nearly fit the income tax report. This is being changed in the 1958
Mail-In Account Project. A

The project helped the county agents to contact and work with
‘ additional farmers in many instances.

"Drop-Out" Rate Compared mtg Selected. Variables

Integigwfr . There was a large variation in the drop-out rate
amont interviewers (Table V-2) . Interviewer No. 11 had a 61; percent
drop-out rate while Interviewer No. 12 had a 32 percent drop-out rate.
Again as in Chapter III there is no apparent relationship between the

studied characteristics and the drop-out rate.

Time gmgthiyzemigees. There does appear to be a relation-
ship between the time spent by, the interviewer in enrollment and the
rate of completion. On the average, six nfinutes more were spent with
the panel members who completed the project than with the incompletes
(Table 17-3). A

TABLE V52

"DROP-OUT" RATE BY INTERVIEWER

 

Wflfij — w — Z — w—fi
A __ __n

Wm fi—v—v—fi

 

 

 

Number Number Percent
Interviewer Enrolled Drop-out Drop-out

1 ' 2 1 SO
2 28 11 to
3 12 5 h2
h 17 8 h?
S 31 1h h6
6 2b. 7 37

7 21 10 ha .
8 15 6 he
9 7 h 57
10 15 8 53
ll 25 16 6h
12 19 6 32
13 22 12 55
1h 1h 5 36
15 20 11 SS
16 27 1h 52
Total 299 138 no

TABLE VAB

AVERAGE HOURS SPENT BY mvaRs PER ‘mnommm'r IN
' THE MSU FAME PANEL

‘— __. -4 .—

A v — fivr

 

County . Complete Incomplete
Huron 1.3 1.2
Kalamazoo 1.3 1.1
Mason 1 3 l 2

63

This would indicate a direct relationShip'between time spent in

explaining the project and the rate of completion.

éflELPf Operator. Tests of significance did not show a significant
difference in age distribution.between the enrolled group and the
"drop—out" group (Table V-h). In Mason.and Shiawassee counties the
average age of-the farmers who failed to complete was higher than for
those who completed. In.Kalamazoo drop-outs did not change the mean
age. In Huron County the average age of those not completing was lower

than those enrolled.

§iee of Farm. The average size of farm for the incompletion.group
was higher in three counties (Huron, Kalamazoo and Shiawassee) than the
average of the original group. This would indicate a tendency for
larger farms to not complete (Table VkS). Tests of significance,
however, indicate that this difference in distribution is possible by

chance and is not significantly different from the original group.

Tenure Status. Owner-operators and tenants showed almost equal
tendency to complete the project (Table VF6).

In.Mason County all drop-outs were owner-operators. This, however,
does not indicate that tenants are more likely to complete as there
‘were only two percent tenancy in the original group. The other three

counties show little variation.

Type of Farm. In the type of farm comparison the difference in

distribution was not significantly different in three of the counties.

6h

4”ka Ramona o: 93 ad ooqmnomfio pfiowwficwfim oz .nofipdpdeoo nun poms amend.“ Ho Henson 39.04..“

 

: m m e we
emq.m ems. mme.m , :m.H spams academieno
S 3 A _ mm a: m: m: .3 m: «we e32
R an 3 V m . me
0H 0H mm em 0H em ma mm mo - om
on on 0: gm mm me. em em a: : mm
HH we a ma , cm as mm mm :m - om

mead.“ Havoc. mo psmopomalhopflnono mo mmd

am as mm co . 0m me on. . ca manem.mo amnsez_

ll ll L|I LII, I

350995 3303 mpsoaonm .moHHoE. $890.5 336% mesoaona om Smog

oommgflsm some: ooudfimflwm . deem

 

 

 

. Jl
I [I i [III

1.52% Edam pm: Ea. mo mmbomw .Ewbomomnz mad
QmAAomznm E E“ mmoafimmmo mo mod Hm ZOHBDmHmBmHQ M07530? “WP—wag

41> mag

tlr.» [I L’}

65

.Hosma paragon om on» pm mocoammmao pcdofiMchfim 02

I

.cOdepsns one“ oomc.menam mo Hones: Haspoew

 

*Ill} r
[1‘4

 

 

in m a in .3
89m mmmé mmm. 8mg H38. «gauge.
a: :3“ mm ea 9:” 3H :3 :NH Tait smashes. 5m:
N: SH N: 3H a: m: 8H and A303 $834 5%
2H m . OH m m m mam a 00m
.3 ma m 0H 1? ma 3 0H mam t 8H
0N _ mm 8 ma S 3 3 mm m? a ONH
mm a: 0: mm mm mm m: on maa a 00
ON ma mm MN mm mm :H :H mm n o
aspen Hdpop Mo pnooaemniAmonodv anew no mean
R .3. mm 8 on me 3 om gm Me 93:52
mesogonm omwwohqm mpcogonm omflaohamil, mesomopm mmwwommm mesoaopm. omHHoncm
mmmmmsmflnm comm: ooudfidasx nonsm

ll

11

AHde mMEM¢m bmz Ems ho mmbomo eBDOIQOaz

mub

mqmdy

Q24.nmqucmzm mmeszH xM¢m mo MNHm Mm onBbmHMBMHQ Nozmbdmmh m>H9¢Amm

66

TABLE Ve6

PERCENT OF OWE-OPERATORS IN THE ENROLLED AND “DROP-OUT" GROUPS
OF THE MSU FARM RANEL

_4 h; _ L“
h ' ' ' _ __i ' —*—.—‘ +——v:r|———v——

—— — "—w i w—v— “w — _v_ ‘

 

County' Enrolled Drop-Out
Huron 79 80
Kalamazoo 79 76
Mason 98 - 100
Shiawassee ‘ 82 81

.—

The tWO groups were significantly different at the 10 percent level in
Huron county where it appeared that part-time and grain-farms showed a

greater tendency to not complete than did the other types.

TABLE V47

RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF FARM IN THE ENRQLLED.AND
"DRDPHOUT" GROUPS OF THE MSU FARMER RENEL

#. L A W in—
m ‘ i
— _ A
w v—' r m fi—

 

thron Kalamazoo Mason _§hiawassee
Ens Drop Enp Drop Enp Drop Enr Hi 'Drop
rolled Outs rolled Outs rolled Outs rolled. Outs

Number of Farms- 88 hS 71 28‘ 59 2h 73 37

_. ##_‘¥ __.‘
VT. * v—f— —— v—v—t

Type of Farm-percent of total

 

Bart-time 18 2o 31 29 ‘32 h6 ‘ 33 -32
Dairy 16 13 2h 21 29 29 31 35
Livestock S S 6 7 8 8 3 5
Poultry 0 o h 7 o o o - 0
Grain, etc. to ~hh 13 ll 22 13 lo 9
General 21 18 22 25 9 u 23 19
Ehi-square testl 133532.. W 03066 2.13128 .5138
df 3 3 2 2

.ai

hi fi v—r ‘ fi fi

tActual number of farms used in computation.
*Signiricantly different at the 10 percent level.

67'

LeleLof Income. There was a variation in the distribution by
economic class as a result of certain farmers not completing the project.

However, the difference in distribution was not significant (Table V-8) .

Reasons Given forlon-Completion

0f the 138 drop-outs reasons for discontinuing were obtained from
51;, either from their correspondence or from Stoddard' s follow-up
report. A summarization of the reasons given is shown in Table V—9.
Stoddard found that nine of these 514 farmers were so disinterested in
the project that they probably should not have been enrolled in the
'first place. The most predominant reason for dropping out was, "Going
out of farming." The nmct most predominant reason was, "Business too
Small."

Such reasons as " going out of farming" and "moving to a different
farm," would automatically eliminate the panel member from the project.
In the maintaining of a continuous panel, the problem of replacing these
members would exist continuously.

When asked as to reasons why these people did not complete the
county agents responded in the following nanner (Appendix B): One county
agent said that these people were just not the cooperative type. The
Mason County agent thought that the farmers who dropped out of the
project had businesses which were too small to maintain their interest.
The Kalanazoo County agent gave reasons such as: "health too poor" and
"moved" as being most important; "inappropriate system" and "thinks
business too snall" as other reasons, with another reason that " it was
just too much bother."

68

.HosmH Romance mm one pd ooovoHmfio pascamdcwwm oz .cOdeesmEoo_nfi poms mshdu mo Aeneas fidcpoaw.

} I L

E 'l’l
Ill

 

N . N N m. we
HsH.H mm.m os.m gem. demos onosoossso
Hm mm om mm or be. «me ma -eoH.H - 0
em as mm em mm em as no moo.m - oo~.a
_ ma 4H NH ma mm me a .ma ome.:m c ooo.oa
o m o m . o m m H + . ooo.mm

mend“ Hmpop mo pomoaomanoeoooH mo debug

em es mm as om me on om

.mpsomown oommoncw. .mwsoaoan oommonom mesoooem commoncm , mpeoaoum ooflaoaou

oommmzmfinm nommxt. oonEdem . ocean

I [L [8"

1‘1

{ I {I ll!- FL” "} III}!

[1‘14 '1‘ 1 I‘ll

gazes messes em: ems mo mosses sessions: aza.nunuomae
.mme 2H monZH no seeme_em ZOHeemHmenHa wezmeomma meeeanmm

mnb HQM¢H

mendu mo nonemz

69

TABLE YF9

REASONS FOR DROP-OUTS mom CORRESPONDENCE AND
FOLLOW-UP mm DURING some OF 195?

MAL—hp ...__ A.._._.i

1— ‘ fi , YT v —v—.— W +7——

AA —A
i m w. i __‘_‘v._ w' 7

Number of Farms
,Huronj*keiinasoo Mason ighiiwassee TotEi

w i W _fi_ f v“

Total drop-outs h6 30 25 37 138

 

L4. k

Reasons for drop-outs:

"Going out of farming"
"Inappropriate system"
"Prefers to keep own
books"
"Business too small"
"Fear of the government"
"Fear of how information
might be used"
"Serious illness or death" 1 2
"Neved to different farm" 1 l
"Illiterate" 1
"Too much bother" 2
*"Shculd not have been
enrolled" 6 2 l

.___4 g L

erI

5 6 3 15
2 2 6

kJnan)
H
NH b)
FJFJ FJF‘
NHNON NQN

\O

v—v fi V—v W v W—w—V

Total 15 15 1h 10 5h

fl V . w w v—Vr Vfi ———.——.— _ fi

*From Stoddard's followaup report.

 

A.study of these reasons seems to coincide with previous data in
that one of the problem areaS'would be with the small farmers. The
other areas of importance here seem to be areas in which drop-outs would

occur by normal attrition and change in agriculture.
_The.Attitudefiof‘Farmers;flhoeCompletgg
The 161 panel members who completed the year were asked to indicate

their reason for originally enrolling in the project (Appendix C).

70

One hundred nine responded and gve reasons as follows:
1. (56 respondents) To assist them with their accounting and as
an aid in filing income tax reports.
2. (28 respondents) Just to cooperate with Michigan State
University.
3. (1h reapondents) To help the government and Michigan State
University in collecting statistical data on the fam situation.

)4. (6 respondents) Good salesmen.

5. (5 respondents) As an experiment.

To determine the acceptability by farmers of this type of project
they were asked the questions, "Would. you continue in such a project if
it were originated again?" and "Would you recommend this project to
others?" SixtyL-eight of the panel members reaponding said that they
would enroll in such a project again; 113 said they would not. When
asked as to whether they would recommend this project to others, 91
farmers said yes and only eight said no. It must‘be remembered here
that this questionnaire bore no appeal of any kind. It also needs to
be remembered that this questionnaire was mailed in the early Spring
when one could expect respondents to give relatively little thought to
their answer. However, it is noteworthy that a 7h percent response was

obtained .

Comufigtion Problem
Aside from the original personal contact between the interviewer

and the panel member all other contacts were by mail. A formal letter

was mailed to each panel member in January of 19 S7 welcoming them to

I'll ull'lnl'lp .vlihilllriliilvl I.

 

71

the project and giving them instructions on the procedure to follow in
submitting reports. Changes and other instructions were mailed out
during the year.

It was each panel member's responsibility to complete and mail in
his report at the end of each month. During the first year of operation,
the tabulated reports were mailed back at irregular times and often a
month or more after the farmers! reports were received.

Too nany changes and letters of instruction created disgust and
conmsion on the part of the panel member. It is possible that too
little correspondence might canes the panel member to feel unimportant
and not remember to mail in his report.

To determine the optimum amount and sequence of correspondence,
further research and experimentation should be done . It is felt that
regular correspondence with a minimum of detail would approach the ~-
optimum. .

m

Under conditions similar to those experienced in this study, it
can be expected that approximately 16 percent of the farmers enrolled
will not complete a full year. 8

The following appeared to create problems in maintaining the
panel:

(1) The amount of time spent in enrolling the panel member and
explaining the project was directly related to the completion rate.

(2) The larger size farms tended to drop out during the project.

(3) Older farmers tended to not complete as health failed.

72

(h) There was a problem of commication which bears further study.

Problans were not associated with the following:

(1) Follow-up did not appear to increase rate of completion.

(2) Although there was a large variation in completion rate between
interviewers no one characteristic seemed to be important.

(3) Age of operator.

(1;) Size of farm .

(5) Tenure status.

(6) Type of farm.

(7) Income level.

The most predominant reason given for not completing was "going
out of farming." This is normal attrition. Sixty-one percent of the
farmers who responded to the questionnaire upon completion of the
project indicated that they would join the project if it was put into
operation again and if asked. Ninety percent of the farmer cooperators

responding indicated that they would recommend this project to others.

GMMERVI
POTENTIALITIES OF.A FARMER PANEL

The purpose of this chapter is to indicate some of the potentiali~
ties of a contiImous system of reporting farmers' income, expenditures
and related data. Such a system would make available a current and
continuous flow of agricultural statistics which, as far as the author
knows, has not been approached by other farm account undertakings in
either public or private institutions.

For a survey to provide simiJAr infomation-as current it would
have to be taken on a monthly basis. The average cost of a survey
would have to be multiplied several times to compare to the yearly cost
of running a project. of this kind.1 ‘ ‘

The following is a discussion of some of the comparisons and studies
actuale made as a part of this experiment, a discussion of work now in
progess, and a discussion of some of the as yet untried potentialities

of the system .

Illnesses—Azania
The operational procedure as being carried out at Michigan State
University involves the use of a system where all the information

A

1368 Chapter VII for further discussion of costs. To collect
information from the same farmer on repeat calls the cost per month
would diminish. Part of the $25 average cost is in originally locating
and isolating the group of farmers to interview (see page 92).

73

7h

collected is placed on IBM punched cards. The farms are coded by

(1) type or fanning area, (2) county, and (3) farm number. Thus the
information can be sorted by area or by county or by individual farms.
A seven digit code is used 3 two for the area, two for the county and
three for the farm number’within the county (Appendix I).

Detailed transactions are classified by using a five digit code.
.As a result ofexperimentatidn done in 1957 the coding system and
classification has been revised (Appendix F). Since the 1958 system
is simpler, yet has‘lost little, if any, of the original detail, it is
presented here rather than the one actually'used in.l957. This classi-
fication.gives a complete breakdown.of farm operating expenses, farm
machinery purchases, farm and nonrfarm receipts, and investments,
such.as, buildings, land, improvements, and livestock.

4A six digit code is used for the quantity column allowing for
example, the sale of 999,999 bushels of potatoes in one transaction.

It has been found particularly useful for numbers of livestock, both
sold and purchased, pounds of milk sold, etc., where there is a uniform
quantity figure used throughout the state. It would be possible by
using standard units to cover most of the items purchased and sold.

The system then provides figures on the actual farming expenses,
actual farm receipts and actual farm investments with much quantity
information available. Such descriptive data can be used for various
purposes including use by public officials, extension workers, teachers
and others. Sub-samples could be taken from an established panel to be

used for certain types of analytical research. Once the panel is‘

-75

established information of importance could be collected to fulfill

additional needs .

.A Sgggy~9f;§ome SelectedFarm.Expen§e§

In an attempt to compare results of the panel with those obtained
from recall surveys the farmers were asked in December, 1956 to estimate
their 1956 expenditures for (I) hired labor, (2) purchased feed,
(3) fertilizer and (h) gas, oil and other fuels.2 The data then were
compared to the actual expenditures on identical farms during the year
1957 and the percentage change computed (Table VI-l). The question
arose as to whether these changes were typical of those found in.other
farms. Since the only similar data available'were found in the records
of extension project members the average change for these was recorded
and the two compared (Table VI-l) .

There was a large variation in the percent of change between.groups.
This might discredit” the value of the recall survey but some say the
change indicated by the panel group was more true than that indicated
by the actual figures from the extension group. .Although this is
inconclusive evidence as far as evaluating the accuracy of the panel,
the study does show that fertilizer and fuel expenditures are relatively
consistent from year to year while hired.labor and feed expenditures
may be (mite erratic. Whether erratic or constant this continuous flow
of current data can indicate the trend and the rate of change by the

month, by the quarter or by the year. It is important to note that the

__

1 i —

33y interviewer in December, 1956 per field schedule (Appendix D).

76

as H

N...

mm .

New

. me

me”
new
ems
w

[|(

14)

at
m m
mm:
mm

mm..
Nee
nan
n:

+

a 0
now
«a

Hoes .Heo .mce

I I ['7 [tr 'll'l)

MNOH

omoa ,

mH

._m|

QOHH

QONH .

o

Hm
mam
«n

f

to Sites

't

m +
w N
mowH
m

_ mm

. are.

some
m

pmmm
ma

mt ,
OONH

mnom
0

.Am necdodaac nonesseno cmea one Honda ace arena _

It!)

mm
mom
em

_ we

mm:
mm

we
new
4:

mm

ome
ms

connected some

[III I

I‘ll
r),

d‘ ‘

'I'IEI

I

n?
N N
«Nam
a

)II

II

_mmm

ppm
m

“urn.
sees
mace

:H

mm .

Hem
m

I [I'll

[fr

mm.

Nmm
om

mnrn.

owes
cmma
mm

awn“.
new
New

m:

mama
wmma
m:

_ soaooopxm Hoesm ooamoopwm Hosea cosmoopxm Hoomm . oowmoopxm doodm

noose sense

1

II!)

II

oquso paragon

mmma
momma

news“ .othoomnmzufinm

omodso concern

emma
comma

manna .OZTIoomsz

owedeo essence

emma
comma

mendm .OZTtooqudeM

mmHBZboo Mm mmmmzmz_aumhomm onmZHBNm aza.mmmmzmz Amadm momeflmmm

owedso.esoonom

emea
comma.

needy .02xtqonsm

mo mzmaH mmaumqmm mom Nmmfi OB wmmH MMMbBHmzmmxm AdeZd.mu¢mm>d.zp macadmo

HIHb qu49

ii)! rt I '
{I 1

owodno
+ season

77

extension group operates at a higher average level of expenditure than

the panel .

A Study of__lnve_stm3nt Intentions

Investment information needed in outlook work is available for
industry but not farms. At the time of the original interview with
the panel member, they were asked to indicate by quarter their invest-
ment intentions for the year 1957 in regard to major building improve-
ments for'the home and farm buildings, a new or used tractor, a new or
used automobile and other new or used machinery (Appendix D). The yearly
intentions were tabulated and compared to actual investments (Tables VI—Z,
VI-3, VI-h and VI-S).

Building improvement intentions were not fulfilled in most
instances and machinery was purchased in 1957 that had not been antiei-v-
pated in December of 1956. Did the economic situation or the individual
situation en the farm change to such a degree that it was necessary for
them to change their plans? Perhaps this was indicative of the
approaching recession.

Investment intention questionnaires could be mailed to a sub-sample
of an established farmer panel and the information collected could be
useful in prediction. The current and continuous flow of actual invest-
ments would be useful in checking on any change in expectations at the

farm level .

Potentialities of the Panel Records Comared to Extension Records

As discussed earlier, firm account projects have been carried on

at land grant colleges for Irony years. Johnson says that the data from

.eopmea mendm on» thO 90% popsnsoo med momweobu one .meEdHoo spon_ue ohms osdn opens conned pom menmme

tl’ I
t It ill

 

 

 

eee. see . swam eee. Nee men is; . ewe seats
emo a. see ,
0 com Que
omme .0 age
mi. 0 Re
9 co» wee
mmoe o Nee
m: o ome
to: o ace
0 ooo~ ooe
oooe come owe 0 com eee
mum o. moe o oooe woe
ome o eee 0 08 Nine
Re 0 3e 0 oooe eee
eee. o eee meme 0 ooe
meow. ceme eme . mme o ace 0 000m woe
wmm o mmo «mom 0 see ooze o ace 0. ooN moe
wee o eee come _ ommm woe 0 com moe o cow see
c ‘ See 30 come 0 Nee oofi 8i. 3 0 8m mme
an o oee ooee oooe owe 0 com eee mmm o awe
e3 0 mme 0 See «me 8: o3 Se 0 ome Nee
same 0 Noe ooom o eee oee o. eee mam o eee
04mm. co: eee ome o eee 0 com eee. 4mm 0 mac
mme o emo omme o eee o comm eee one 0 :me
hoe o eee come 0 Noe mmem o owe mm o are
om w o a 30 o a omeew Se 8% o a Se

esseee_eoeeseee .ez ewes Hespee_eomeeeee .oz_esem ,Hsspee eeeetmee .oMieemm‘:

 

 

 

 

 

momdnonsm amoqenomzi‘ momsnoesm oes¢ mommnoesm eopowne

f
1' [I] 11"} 1‘ 1
ill! [II

11

I l! II

I 1
I I [tr’rl II It I I [III [ I
14 I“ {I'll 1‘4 1] lfl‘l 11 ‘1 11“]

ewZHHmommm mindm J:
Amz¢m mmzmdm sz.mme 2P mmoa¢mmmooo MBZbOo Zommm .
mo mBZHZEmm>zH wmmfi Adbeo¢.924.©mma .mmmzmomm mo m¢.mzoRBZHPzH EzmzamH>2H NmmH

N1; memee V

.popmea mafia.“ on» head. no.“ 393800 mad momonoho one .9853 £900. 5 once when 96nd pop”: pom mange

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9
7. 11 it 1; +0“: iii ill 1: rifltflil r}.

mama mama. omma smog . . cg mama. . mg mama sweet:
8e 8m] 11 Se . . 1 i
mme. o mee

on ooe ome
o ooe ewe
N: 0 8e
0 8e oem
mow 0 SN . o 8 ome
oe:e o8e N:e me 8m ewe
mme 0mm we 0 8m mme
mme 0mm Re 8m 0 see 0 o8e Se
0 8e 8m m: 0 8m 0mm 8: 8m
emmm 8m 8e 0 8: oee SN 0 8e
om 8m m8 0 8e m8 0 8me _ 8N
em:m 8~e mm eee 0 8e 0 ome mm
0 8e 3e 0 8e 3e 0 8e 5e
8 . 0 8e 8m . 0 8e _ o 8: 8e
0 8e Re 0 8m fie
85 8mm ::e o 8me ::e Nmoe 0mm ::e
m:e~ 0 Re . o 8~e Re 0 8m mme
0 8e eee 0 08m moe Nee o eee 0 8m eee
0 8m :me 8e 0 2e 0 om :me
o . 0mm 8e 0 8me 8e 0 Be 8e
0mm 0 e8 0 8Ne mme o 88 mime
mN a o a 3:“ ENE o a mg a a o a QB” a mad

H32 8835 52 Ems! esfieeleeeeeeemreztfiss Eewmieemfiefi .02 3143313 eeeeseqei .3
1 manganese @8523: , momdfifiefl 35¢ . . 3.3:er Hopes _ 3

ewZHHmommm mzmem m: . ..
Amadm mmzm¢m D x Ema 2H mmoaemmmcoo Hezboo oomdxzuam
mo mazmxemm>2H wmmfi gedao<.mz<_ommd nmmmzmomm mo m<_m20Hazm92H Bzmzsmm>zH Nmmfl

MIHb mqm¢H

80

.eopmea menom one hHso.eom popsnsoo med mmwduobw any .mnEsHoo npon.se oeou ohd: obond uopmea pom mendme

I rL IL I \[ [Vllll rll’r

.i. .. e:eee Veeee ..

 

 

 

me: 33 Ree 82. , 3.3 :3“. tease...
mmm. o moa
ommm o me
noma o mqfl
owoa o om
Jam 0 mOH
ommm comm mne
oowfi o NHH
OOH 0 Ho
0 com mme
HPNH o .OMH
mum o N:e
JON 00: pm
mNH omH NHH
0 8m 8e 0 8m oee . .
0 0mm one mOm 0 em 0 000m m:e
omH o NmH mmm o mmH omoa o NHH
.Ne: e e e :me e e eee e es Neeee eee e :me
..e .emsel.HempmeymwmmMEMWLuuenmmme hemmwweymwmmmmmeummenmmme.i
momdnondm oped. momdaonsm eopodna

  

it? I ill P.’ Irlbrl’llli llr
114 ‘11“ I .II
t» I I I‘ll! t ill! tbn'n‘lr'v F It VI'[ :1
1'1 {I‘l‘ 4“

 

41] In

eweeeemosmm memes mm .
. Es Es a: E E 88388 ES 202: .
so mBE See .233 E Ree .En .3 me. mzerB BE Ree

JIH> mqmdy

.popmea was.“ one ago no.“ popasoo med mmwdnmbw one .mgaoo £0.03 5“ ones who: 95nd copmefl pod Ewe

{I F’ ll' } I {II}! E -I'IIrL-I' [It

 

II I ll [111

 

mu emea mm:e. . V . meme, oo:e ... ; .:meee :mme . eoea. wees omsseee.
«mm: o eee .

com o woe
mam o Noe
mme o eee
o ooN eee
m ooN eee
moe 0mm 8e
e:me o e:e
0 0mm Nee

0 0mm moe mo:. 0 eee

come come wee o oo: Noe

o eee :oe 0 com e:e

0mm 0mm owe o ooN .eee

some ooNe owe o oo: woe

men 0 moo 0 00m e:e

on 0 me e 8e . me

o oowe ewe omem come eee 0 come ewe

emu oooe Nee o ooom owe

eee mme , eme o cow eme

o ooe eme

omme o e:e sew ooe m:e

emom o owe e:e o owe

ooe ooN moe

0 come mme

omoe o eee come 0 ewe o . oooe :oe

o oooe e:e o oo: eee mmm oooe :me

mom 0 ome o om ace 0 ome moe

m$e o8e e:e o 8: Se o 88 e:e

mmfiw O a mac. . 0mm AW 0 a Ema O a" 00m # Ema
amortw ammmsowsm . om Show . ,

mom... on . 33. . I. .. .eopo. -
ewzHemommm wZMdm pm
qmz<m mmzmem bmz.mme.zH mmoeemMmcoo.w92boo mmmmdzaHmm
mo mazmzammsz Nmma A<bho¢.m24 omma «mmmzmoma mo m¢.m20H92MBzH Ezmzsmmsz wmmfi

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

mIH> mqde

82

farm record projects3 tend to produce unreliable production functions.
It, therefore, seems desirable to compare the characteristics of this
panel to those of a normal extension account project.

By observation it appears that the panel was more representative
of agriculture in the respective counties than the extension group.
The acreage distribution, the distribution by type of farm, and the
distribution by level of income for the panel varies over a wide range
and is more similar to the popflation as defined than is the extension
group (Table VI—6) . To the extent that the usefulness 'of data depends
on representativeness of the sample, information from the panel would
be more useful and less misleading than data from the extension group.
The wider distribution of characteristics in 'the panel would allow
greater freedom in selecting and drawing "purposive sub-samples" for

use in certain research activities.

................

Research Potential
Farm account records have been used in the past to develop marginal
productivity analysis of investments and expenditures4 and to derive

a
Cobb-Douglas value productivity functions.

i f — ——

3G. L. Johnson "Classification and Accounting Problems in Fitting
Production Functions to Farm Record and Survey Data," Resource Produc-

tivit Returns to Scale and Farm Size, Edited by E. O. Heady, G. L.
3ohnson, L. S. Hardin; Ames, Iowa State College Press, 1956.

4Robert V.Wag1ey, Mar inal Productivit of Investments and
Ex ditures, SelectedIn Inghg County Fame, b 52,finp1'51§shed 78.0
tiesis, T933

 

 

E’Louis S. Drake, Problems and R sults in th'e'Use '03; Farm Account
Records to Derive Cobb-mu las Vfiue Productififi Functi€n§,71npub‘lished
PE. D. thesis, Michigan State CoTTege, T935.

83

.eee emits mg 5mm Bream swag .tfiewsthsEQ

 

 

.omso node 2H mendm mo Hansen
one now >H nopnono op nowmm .domeesnsoo node pom moansb menses one now wsflpnomoe mendm Ho non€52e

l l l Fl . lrllll ll ll ill hall I ll
llllll l l l lull l l l l 1 l l l

e we me mm m m me :e we we we em estate
o 8 o: o e: :m o N: o: 5 mm mm .eee .E
o m m o o : m e e o o e .hepesom
o m e :e a m we ee ee we m o ‘ seesmssee
mm a: an R e: mm es 8. :N E 5 me E
25m e38 no passage go easy .3 eoepfietpmen
Z a. e o o m we m : me o e + ,. 08.3
mm ee me 8 mm a m; :e me. me m we mafia .. 80.8
8 en. a. :e 8 me 0 mm as m 8 we mafia .. 8N.e
o ee m o ee Fe 0 am m o :e me made n 0
sense Bee .3 .eeeesemlmeaeu oesoeooe ks. 833.253
3 m a 8 m m e: .o oe E o m + .. com
me a m o o m o m : m : o mmm .. 8N
mm 5 me em 8 se mm me :e E :m E mew .. e:e
s . :m :m :e m: m: me am om am am e: mme I o»
o m mm o oe em 0 mm o: 0 am we so .. o
. sense e309 so eeeessaaeoeesfifieea sweets
mew eee l _ 8e 8 l .oeN 8e .5 8e mme .... amassed refines
new ome eee New mme eee New mme ::e me «me one teases e38
owueobdrlsndm Mo ouem .
me an e e mm H ee m: e ee :: e «Ewe me these

l D» l Ill III I'lrllll"
{Ill llllll‘ l ‘l ll

 

ll

 

oommsswwnm domdz.li . boumsdfldx : . . mowpmAAmeesndno
.4ln; .iiu. iumm»i imuwmuq ”Mu . .11iuilummmuiwwM|.wimwmawunuuuuunuuuuuuunuunuuuuu
, Amanda copeeafioo new one open Hodwmv
mmmmzmz BZDOUUd.NmmH
E8 em wESS. gages ems
MPH. .mo HmomE QB @380 gm 3% E. .mo moHBmHEoéde Eam

 

 

. ole mg

8h

Current and continuous information collected by the Consumer Panel
at Michigan State University has been used in demand analysis.6
Inf-oxidation from the Phil-In Fann Account has been used to study risk
and uncertainty in dairy fanning.7

With the broader and more representative coverage of the panel type
system established on a probability basis, useful supply and demand type
analysis could probably be made. Research in the area of expectations
could be done by using 9. "Spot" questionnaire system. on sub-samples of
the panel.

By adding a "home account" record to the farm account the panel
could be used to study farm and home inter-relationships.

Purposive or stratified samples for research projects could use a
selected sub-sample of the project or if the panel was not extensive
enough to fulfill requirements, additional. observations could be taken.
Assuming these are all processed by the Mail-In Account IBM summarizing
system, overlapping of research data requirements could make maximum
use of the panel data and. minimize or lower the cost of data collection

in the other research projects (Figure 6—1).

——_

6C}. ,G. Quackenbush, "Demand Analysis from the PISU Consumer Panel,"
Journal of Farm EconomigsJ Volume 36, No. 3, August, 1951;.

. 7John Repaid Brake, Financial Seasonality or any Fag%£ and Its
Relation to Risk and Uncertainty, unpu‘Slished H. S. hesis, c gen
State University, T956.

 

85

Figure 6—1

Cverlnpping Use of Data Collected by
""'f"FarmAccount Records-"

RProject A \

 

-, mm»

(.5
Farmer Panel Account

( \\ . 3 Serving 3 needs
' Records \x‘ ‘\-. i

2 Serving 2 needs

lResearch \‘
Project B us\n.g
ispot questionnaires
,I by mail .

...........

 

In the past little has been done to make maximum use of the farm
account data.8 Some even say that the research potential of farm record
data is limited .9

, If a. farmers' continuous reporting system was to be maintained,
the monthly data available would be useful in studying trends. As the
number of time series increased, the value of the data would increase
at an increasing rate. The full utilization of such a project would _

only be realized over a period. of years.

1‘ _ __‘__
w v—vw

“Milton L. Manuel, "Historical Development and Evaluation of the
Farm Management Associations in the United States," Unpublished Ph. D.
- Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1952.

9Preliminary Report of Farm Records Subcommittee to North Central
Regional Farm Management Research Committee, Section 2.

86

Full utilization would require consolidation of the data require-
ments and coordination of the data collecting processes as they pertained
to different research activities at the institution controlling the panel
(Figure 6~l).

workgin433ogéess
‘Warren Vincent, project leader, is compiling, quarterly, an average
of farm expenditures, income, and investments from the monthly accounts
of the farmers cooperating in the MSU Nail-In Farm Accounting Project.10
This is purely descriptive data using averages of the farms reporting.
The value of this type of information is in its timeliness. .Actual'
investments, income and expenditures are quickly noted and the change
if any from the previous like period is quickly known by interested
parties.

.....

A farmer panel as defined in this study has many potentialities.
- So far data collected by farm.account records have not been fully
utilized. The broader and more representativeneSs of the panel when-
compared to the extension groups would make the data collected more
valuable for all uses.

Such apanel could have the following potentialities:

Cl) It would make available descriptive data for political and
institutional uses.

w

1°Published in ”Farm Wgement Guidepost," Agricultural Economics
Department, Michigan.8tate Universityu

87

(2) It would make available on.a quarterly basis current data

concerning estimates of farm expenditures, farm income, and farm
investments.

(3) By periodic questionnaires to a sub-sample of the panel,
investment intentions could be estimated for agriculture as is now
being done in industry;

(h) The data, coming from a sample more representative of the
population than the extension accounts, would be less misleading when
used for political ends.

(5) The panel could be used for some types of research in expecta-
tion studies. .

(6) The panel could be used for the study of home and farm inter~
relationships.

(7) Purpoeive or stratified sub-samples could be taken in whole or
in part from the panel. Data could be used directly as collected or
additional questionnaires could be completed by mail or personal inter-
view depending on needs of the research project in question.
Coordination would be necessary here to fully utilize the project.

(8) A quarterly summary (any other period in multiples of monthly
data is possible) is posSible giving a current picture of the actual
agriculture situation as it occurs on the local basis.

More research is needed in this area to determine the full
potentiality of such a panel.and how to make maximum.use of the data
collected.

CHAPTER VII
A COST STUDY

Introduction

Cost is one of the major problems of collecting data by farm
accounting projects. Since establishing and maintaining a panel of this
type has not previously been tried, it seems desirable to record the
cost involved.

It should be remembered that this was the first year of the mail-
in account project on a large scale and an experimental year for the
panel. It is therefore expected that the costs are higher than might
be expected the following years.

The study includes (1) the cost of establishing the panel (field
expenses), (2) the cost of operation through theyear 1957 (operational
expenses), and ('3) overhead expenses. These costs will be compared to

the cost of collecting similar data by the survey method.

Field , Expenses
There was ‘some variation among interviewers in the cost of estab-
‘ 1
lishing the panel. The range of from $21.59 per day to $30.10 per day

with an average of $25.70 per day per interviewer (Table VII-l) .

_._..A A —__. _

lInterviewer No. 1 not considered as low because of the small
proportion of days worked in the field. However, his expenses are
complted in the total and average costs.

88

89

.eHmHe was eH made use“ we ago one sHeox
.ooxaos when H38. eon oweaouém
.oaoam one ea has pea oweuo>4w

III, lr’r ill bl,

[‘1‘ Ill 1 i

.. mm.ma.coxea km>nsm hoe pmoo omseo><_ .wm.maa.eoaaoacm seem gem pmoa owaeo>4

 

 

 

Oa.mN. .ao.geae .Om.momN mO.aH ..O:e4NNN .aH.eOm Hm.mHmH momH , . omH . ‘ .Hapoa
Ha.aN OO.mHa OO.NON am.aH nO.mON eO.OOH .mm.aOH mH NH 0H
Nm.aN mO.mON 4N.NmH OO.NH ea.mHH aO.mm Na.NO HH a mH
em.mN . om.OOm no.0OH :O.4H N:.O:H HN.mO HN.aN NH OH 4H
O4.eN NO.HH: oa.mmH Hs.ON om.aNN Om.:w . mm.m:H :H HH mHt
a©.ON ma.:HN Nm.eOH HO.mH OO.mOH Om.a: Oa.Oo m s NH
Ow.ON mw.NO4 oo.aON mN.aH mN.mmH mO.Hm Oo.mOH mH HH HH
eN.sN :m.moa OO.NON Hm.OH aa.HON em.ae. mm.aOH mH NH OH
me.HN .em.msH Nm.m0H mH.m mo.go mm.e Notom w a m
Nm.mN 0N.Oom mO.OOH NO.:H mH.O:H mo.mm mm.ma NH OH w
mO.mN am.OmH so.aHH :w.e Os.mav mO—JH Hc.:o mm m a.
mm.mN HO.eom OO.@OH mO.mH mm.mmH :m.:O mm.ma NH OH w
sm.HN aO.mmN .mO.eOH Om.m me.Nm am.:H .NH.O> .NH OH m
H:.:N Hm.NmN No.wOH mO.NH mm.oNH NN.Hm HH.ma NH OH :
aw.mN OH.OmN , wO.OOH OO.OH NO.ONH am.Om mo.eo _NH m m
O4.Om OO.Om: O0.aON Oa.ON OJ.O:N 3H.eOH oN.H:H mH. NH N
ewe.aH Om.mw ON.eO Om.OH .OO.ON mO.N mm.wH m N H
mean sea unease. Hapoe damn tum _Hapoe smepo . owamHHz. Hapoe. .eHmHa emassz
momsoaxm proe auwamm monsoaxm oaofim when no honesz amamfisnoan

I! I 1" ll 1" i ‘ll
ll 1" '1 ‘II
I I, III l

11'] 11 1ll 1" ‘il‘ll‘ l 1“ j

. ‘ AcmeH .sNuHH eonsmommv .. .
geese assess Om: may oszmHOmaeme 2H mmmzmHammezu eO.memOO emaaam aza.Oamaa

.HJHHa_eqmaa

90

The total field costs of establishing a panel of 299 farmers was
$h,79h. This is an average of $15.98 per farm enrolled or an average
(of $9.82 per schedule (Appendix D) taken.

Considering that only 161 farms completed the project, the average

cost per completed record was $29.77 (Table VII-2)-

Qperational Ebcpen‘ses'

The actual labor payroll for work done on records was $h,875.

The mashine charges for punching IBM cards, verification, collating,
sorting, tabulating, etc .' was 31,1135, office supplies'and materials
cost $600. Cooperators' supplies cost $1,000.

The field follow-up conducted by Ellywn Stoddard cost 3683'. This
covered Mr. Stoddard's part time salary and field expenses between May
20 and June 8, 1957. Professional travel expenses included travel to
Washington to consult with United States Department of Agriculture
”official-'8.

The total maintenance and operation cost was $9,033, or $30.11.; per

farm enrolled, or $56.09 per farm completed.

Overhead

An exact figure for overhead costs is not available. It is esti-
mated, however, that the overhead costs for this project are approxi-v
mately equal to operational costs. Overhead costs would include the
following:

(1) A share of permanent inventory (i.e., buildings, office machines,
and office equipment) used to facilitate the project but not included

in the above operational .cost.

91

.poonona mfinp ov heflmnm>fiqb mpdpm
sewagefiz pd pomnoua wnfiecsooow anew one he memoo Hdpop one we dofippoa d wquwooadd_hn Umpsmsoo
was named nonpo may .m vaaoaa¢infi confluence enmemmnwd hog mu pomnopa one o¢.hapomhav vowednok

 

 

 

 

 

magma dram
2:th mama
scams . . 3.2» Swag handmade 30E use sospfimdo 33.
mOuoma 4H.0m$ mmo_wa Goapwpmno use .ndd: Hence
m:.m mw.H 00: mmmqmaxm Hm>dha Hanofimmmmonm
, +3.: m .N m8 ”9.3038 33a
m>.m OO.N coo .opm «mmmwenmm .mmaaaasm
as mum So...“ ”.8336 Renegades».
92 meg m3; r. newness 2m“,
em.oma mm.oHa mwmaza museums no aonmq
amputee he. .m.o@wmh§m
tum; new; sense smmhsmsxm 33m 309
onum mnmzmfishmqu Ho sudden
mom . newsmashman now monmpmfimnnm
mamaafl newsmashoan now owdmafiz
msfismé‘mfie
Newsflash“. Ema she H8205 Eda she fleece w. seepeoflehnflu 303

I I r I
I I] i l ‘1 III 1“
. u 1‘
|’
I I t II
‘11 II I

I [I I
II {II '11 III ll 1"! l l l 1 III 1“ 1‘ ll!

qm2¢m mmzmdm D 2 mm& 02H2H¢H2H¢S n24f02HmmHAM4Hmm Lo mamoo

NIHH>.MAM¢H

92

(2) Salaries of professional staff. The project leader spent
approximately 10 percent of his time in the direction and supervision
of the experiment. The County Agents spent 51; days of their time in

working with the project.

Cost of $11er and .Panel Comgged
A recent survey conducted here at Michigan State University cost

$22.77 per interview record completed (Table VII-3). The daily cost
per interviewer per day was $214.86. A similar survey in Iowa cost
$25.65 per interview completed.1

To be as current as the panel which collects data by nail, the
survey system would consist of monthly interviews. Assuming that
monthly interviews were made the cost for similar data would be approxi-

mately 8150. 2

W

The average cost of establishing (field expenses) the farmer panel
in December 1957 was $15.98 per farm enrolled. The operation and
mintenance cost was $30.11; per farm enrolled. This. latter includes
placing the detailed information on IBM cards and includes classifying

and smnmarizing of the information for each farm.

 

1A1mual Report to the Kellogg Foundation on Ehraluation of the Iowa
km and Home Development Program 1957-58.

. 2The estimate is $150 rather than $300 ($25 x 12) because of the
diminishing cost of interviewing the same group of farmers on successive
months.

93

ll)! I I Irkll

 

 

 

 

ermmavu_3mwbhmpdd sea pmoo mwsao><. mmm 3.:oxwp mamaspamsw demos
om.;m 0H.Nmmm. mam.m.. . mm.aa oa.eomm 4m.oama wwymmmm com ... ;.m can . . fleece
sm.om . hh.sm: mmm oo.ma Hm.mfl hh.mma Hm.sh ma. mma ‘ .ha..-. .p me. e
hm.am mm.esm 00m oo.mH Ho.ma mm.esm he.om do. «he cm ea h
em.mm mm.0mm cam oo.mH dH.HH mm.omm om.maa mo.mom am an m
sm.mm , ms.moca ems . oo.mH mm.oa ms.dem me.oefl eh.wom a: hm s
oo.mm mm.omsa med oo.ma om.oa mm.msm o~.mam mm.emm mo mm m
Hm.:m mm.emha cmo.a , oo.ma Hm.HH mm.ehh mm.mmm mo.mHs as am N
mm.mN mm.HHmm mhh.Ha oo.maa mm.HH mm.h:HH as.mos ma.mme HHH HOH a

Ii [I
I III)“ ‘1 i 11!

man pom undead. fleece Then gem hum son Hmpoa amnpo
momcmmxm Hayes hadaem mumfidm .mmmceaxm ndmwm.

 

))I I t I I 1" III
I I I'll L n I bl
I Ill 1' l 1‘ l l i

omma Humwomm mcm¢mmmm cooqumx .
Edmwcmm Q.«mbeubono¢.mHmmzzoa mmb 2H namem wzHMm>mbm 2H mmMZHHbmmth he memcc deqdn QZd_QAMHm

maeee mamay

9h

Assuming that the overhead cost equaled the cost of operation, the
total cost of Operating the experiment for the year 1957 was $22,860.

It is believed that, by moving from an experiment to a continuous
and prescribed operation, the cost per. record of such a data collecting

System could be substantially reduCed.

CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize some of the conclu-
sions dnawn from the study. .Also, certain recommendations are made
that might be useful in the establishment of a similar or larger panel.
More detailed findings have been.summarized at the end of each of the

preceding chapters.

Conglgsigns

(l).A review of literature leads one to the conclusion that there
is a need for more and better agricultural data, especially with regard
to current farm information.

(2) The objectives of the.experiment were partially fulfilled.

The study provided information.concerning the problems and costs of
establishing and maintaining a farmers! continuous reporting_system
and, to a degree, the kind and quality of information that can be
obtained therefrom. ‘

Concernigggthe'Establishmentggfgthgrfianel.

(1) Less than 50 percent of the eligible farmers enrolled in the
project. About 70 percent consentedto answer questions regarding
their operation. About 25 percent of the.farmers who enrolled submitted
‘no reports. In the more agricultural counties a higher enrollment

rate was obtained.

95

96

(2) Smaller size farms, older operators, part-time farmers, and
low income farmers were less inclined to enroll in the project.

(3) There was apparently sufficient uncertainty in the minds of
the prospective panel members in regard to the purpose and the intent

of the project to hinder ready acceptance.

Cone ergg Represzentativeness of' the Panel.

(1) Comparison of the panel characteristics to census data indi-
cates that the sample was not seriously biased in regard to the type of
farm.

(2) It appears that refusals and drop-outsvwere a problem, how-
ever, in establishing a panel representative by age of operator, size
of farm, and level of income.

(3) Unless a method can be found to correct the above, a farmer
panel is likely to have a. large sampling error.

(1;) It appears that representativeness could more easily be
established by the probability sampling method. in a poprlation defin-
‘ ing eligible farms as those having an income of over $1200 (thus
omitting economic Class VI).

_ancernfing¥the liaintenancetofwthg Panel

“(1), Approximately )45 percent of the enrol-led farmers did not
report information for a complete twelve month period.

(2) Follow-up procedures included reminder letters and a summer
farm visit to those who had sent no information. These procedures

did not appreciably increase rate 0f participation.

.97

( 3) Despite the losses in mlmber of cooperators, the character-

istics of the panel were not significantly changed .

Concew the Potentialitz of 'a‘Farmer Pangl.

(l) Assisting that data of a local nature a’reneeded, a farmer panel
reporting actual data at regular intervals could fumish detailed data
more timely and” realistic of the farm situation than any presently known
data gathering system. :

(2) Oncebooperator rapport was established many types of supple-
mentary résearch projects could be conducted, such as, those dealing
with investment intentions and expectations.

( 3) assuming the mnel was sufficiently large, it would be possible
to draw apprOpriate sub-samples for other types of research. These
might include estimating marginal productivity of certain. resources,
enterprise cost studies and others. _

(1;) Such a; system could provide infonnation useful insupply and
demand analysis. ' I ‘

(5) Trend data could be quickly noted and recorded as changes occur.
The value'of these time series would increase» at an. increasing rate over

time .

angmgfidééaaa ' .

(1) "Because of the difficulties (at establishing the part-time and
low incOme portions of the panel, it is recommended that the population
be redefined to exclude those farms with an income from farm products

of less than $1250.

98

(2) Assuming that an increased enrollment rate is desired the
following recommendations are made with regard to establishing a panel:

(a) After the sample segments are determined first contact
all farms to determine identity and eligibility.

(_ b) Secondly, promotion of the objectives and advantages of
the project could be directed toward the prospective
panel members. For example, personal correspondence,
brochures, and assistance of farm organizations in the
area may be used.

(c) A time lag between theoriginal visit (a) and the enroll—

' ment visit is recommended. This would help to remove
the feeling of uncertainty felt by both the interviewer
and the farmer when a quick decision was demanded.

(d) College students make desirable interviewers. However,
there may be We to use local farm people in either the
promotional or enrollment phases of the work.

(3) It is recommended that local county extension personnel be
utilized. to maintain rapport and to assist in keeping administrative

records current .

ingestion for meme; :3th

(1) With the possibility that the response error might be small,
it is recomended that further study be made to determine the size and
significance of the response error. This could be done by comparing
selected reSponse items with-known data, such as, milk income, breeding

fees, gas and oil expenditures, etc.

,99

(2) The effect, of certain farmers refusing to. enroll, on: the
representativeness of the panel could be determined more accurately if
data were available for all eligible farmers contacted. It is sug-:
gested that recommendation 2 (a) . above would place more emphasis on,
obtainingpth'esePdata. If another panel is established, it is suggested
that ‘a greater attempt be made to obtain the characteristics of all
eligible farms and a direct comparison be made to determine the T
difference between the sample (all eligible farmers . contacted) and the
enrolled and completed groups.

(3) A study should be made to‘determine ,the. feasibility of using
sub-samples of such a panel for research purposes.

(1;) If; such a panel method was to be eatpanded to other states, it
is suggested that a study be made first to- determine the existence of
duplicating efforts in the data collection process. ‘

(5) It is suggested that a study be made to determine the
reliability of _ the data as they are used for various ‘plrposes,

(6) The optinmm length! of the time lag as suggested above and the
increased cost of. having'a time lag is unknown. A study should be
made to determine the optimum length of. the time lag and the signifi~

canoe, if any, of increased efficiencies.

100

BIEIO'GRAPHY

Bachman, K L. "Discussion: Better Basic Data for Agriculture,"
Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 140, No. 2, May 1958.

————'

Beck, Frank V. "Making Existing Local Data More Available and Useful,"
Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 3], December 1955.

Benedict, M. 3., and Kuznets, G. M. "Better Basic Data for Agriculture:
Some Possible Approaches," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. ho,
No. 2, May 1958.

Bennett, M. K. Farm Cost Studies 51% the United States. California:
Stanford U varsity Press, 19 .W *W

Blanch, George T. "New Data Requirements by Areas: How Can, They Be
Met?" Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 37, December 1955.

 

Brake, John Ronald. "Financial Seasonality of Dairy Farming and Its
Relation to Risk and Uncertainty." Unpublished M. S. thesis,
Michigan State University, 1956.

Brown, Dorris D._ "Local Data Wanted by Business Firms," Journal of
Farm Economies, Vol. 37, December 1955.

Brown, Dorris D. , and Clear, J. B. "Agricultural Data Requirements in
- Ebctension Work, " Jourml of _Farm Economics, Vol.38, No. 5,
December 1956.

Case, H. c. M., and Williams, D. B. Fift‘ Years of Farm Mana ement.
Urbana; University of Illinois Press, E57.

Dale,iAlfred G. An Economic Surv Method for Small Areas-Bur u of
Business Research. Austfi: ¥He University of Ties, 1953.
Drake, Louis 3. "Problems and Results in the Use of Farm Account

Records to Derive Cobb-Douglas Value Productivity Functions ."
Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State College, 1952.

 

Ferber, Robert. Statistical Techniques in Market Research. New York:
Mchw-Hill Book Co. , i910 .

Hill, Elton B. "Farm Accounting." Unpublished Mimeograph, Ag. Econ.
Dept., Michigan State University, October 1955.

101

Houseman, Earl E. "Application of Probability Area Sampling to Farm
Surveys ," in A riculture Handbook No. 6 . Washington: The United
States, Government Printing Office, my 1951;.

Hurley, Ray. "Livestock Data Problems in the Census of Agriculture, "
Journal of “farm Economics. Vol.39, December 1957.

lnterviewer' 3 Reference Manual for An Experiment Relating to the
Possible Establishment of a Farmer‘s Continuous Reporting System
of Income, Expenditures, and Related Data. Unpublished mimeograph,
Ag. Econ. Dept., Michigan State University, December 1956.

Johnson, Glenn L. "Classification and Accounting Problems in Fitting
Production Functions to Farm Record and Survey Data, " Resource

Productivit Returns to Scale and Farm $13.3. Editedb yE. 0.
Ready, G. L. Johnson, and L. S. firdinT Ames: Iowa State College
Press, 1956.

 

Manuel, Milton L. "Historical Developnent and Evaluation of the Farm
Management-Service Association in the United States." Unpublished
Ph. D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 1952.

Olson, Russell 0. "Review and Appraisal of Methods Used in Studying
- Farm Size, " Resource Productivity, Returns to Scale and Farm Size.
Edited by E. O. Heady, G. L. Johnson, and L. Sm Hardin. Allies:—
Iowa State College Press, 1956.

Pond, G. A... Nodland, .T. 12., Mueller, A. G., and Crickman, c. w.

Pre%z_ Remr't of Farm Records Sub-Conanttee to N. '0. Re ional
Farm fl @393 ResearcfiColugitwegV. Section Tend Section 2.

 

Shaffer, James D. "Methodological Basis for the Operation of a Consumer
Purchase Panel." Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1952.

Thomas, Marian D. "Data Requirements in Agricultural Administration
and Research." Journal of Farm Economics. Vol. 38, No. 5,
December 1956.

U. S. Government Printing Office, Bureau of the Census "A Statistical
Abstract Supplement," County and City Data Book. Washington, D. C.,-
1956.

Vincent, Warren H. "A Summary of Field Work and Farmer's Investment
Intentions." Unpublished mimeograph, Ag. Econ. Dept.- , Michigan
State University, May 1957.

. "A Tentative Analysis of the 1957 Mail-In Accounting Project
and a Proposalfor 1958," (For discussion plrposes) Unpublished
mimeograph, Ag. Econ. Dept., Michigan State University, Jamlary 13,
1958.

 

102

Vincent, Warren H. "Facts About Farmers Accounts," Agricultural
Economics Publication #622, Michigan State University, 1955.

. "Farm Management Guide Post," Mimeographed Publication,
Agricultural Economics Department, Michigan State University,

1958.

Wagley, Robert V. "Marginal Productivities of Investments and Expendi-t
tures, Selected Ingham County Fanns, 1952 ," Unplblished M. S.
thesis, Michigan State College, 1953.

Warren, G. F. Farm Engagement. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1927.
Wilcox, E. C. "Local. Data Requirements in Areas of High Agricultural

Specialization," Journal of _Farm Econorrc’Lcs, Vol.38, No. 5,
December 1956. W ’I

APPENDIX A

MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE TO INTERVIEWS
CONCERNING THE USDA-MSU
RESEARCH PROJECT

1.

2.

10).;

Questionnaire to Interviewers Concerning the
USDA-BU Research Project

(a) In mid-Decatur 1956, you received approximtely two (2) days training on
the pin-pose and objectives of the research Mail-In Hoject. To the best you
can remember - what was your concept of the project objectives?

(b) In the training program what approach to the farmr were you advised to
use?

(c) What were cans of the problems encountered in the field?

(d) Was the training geared to the problems enc amtered?

(e) Howmchtime intrainingmespentonfillingoutproperlythe survey
form? Was this sufficient training? Explain.

(1‘) Please suggest ways that you think your training could have been moved?

What different techniques or "selling" the program to the tamer do you recall
using?

(c)

(In) Which technique was most successful?

(c) Which technique was not successful?

3.

h.

5.

7.

105

From your interview we obtained a breakdown by counties the reasons that some
of the eligible ones did not enroll. Of the eligible, quite a few have "no
reason" for not enrolling. The table below gives such figures. Please indi-
cate in which county(s) you worked. To the best of your ability, rank the
reasons (explicit or implicit) according to importance as to why you think
these people did not enroll.

Shiawassee Mason Kalannsoo Huron
No. eligible for schemle 229 119 7311'
“as 611301106. 73 5? 7O 95
Not enrolled with reason for
not enrolling 38 23 36 36

No. giving "no reason" 118 ’49 _ 7h 33

Rank according to importance the county in which you worked the following
reasons: '

Going out of farming
Inappropriate system

Prefers to keep own books
Business too small

Fear of the government

Fear of how figures would be used
Afraid to try something new
Other:

llllllll
HHHH
IIHIIII

 

Whenyou startedyour tork eachncrnimdidyouhavea specific goalofhow
m fanners you would sign up for that day? If yes, how many?

Did your daily goal change from the beginning-mad of the period? ""'"""’
If so, how many at the first part of the period? Riddle -

E

 

Did you feel that you had accomplished the mission set forth men you had com-
pleted the work?

It has been suggested by sons cooperators that they should have had a longer
period to study the merits of the project before enrolling and a longer advance
period for instruction before nailing first reports. This would require stu-
dents, if unployed, to delay their academic program one tern. Was the renam-
eration and eXperience sufficient for you to recommend to a student that he
take the position?

 

Do you feel that a representative sample of farming was obtained fro. the area
in which you interviewed? If your answer is "no", do you think it' is
possible to obtain a representative sample? If you answered "yes", what
nethod would do the Job? If your answer is "no" any is it not possible?

9.

10.

106
3

Was the survey form that you used (cepy enclosed for your reference) too
short? __ Too long? __ or of about the proper length?

What informticn did you have the most difficulty in obtaining? (a)

The most ease in obtaining? (b)

Was the balance of the information fairly easy to obtain? (c)

Compared to the success you did have in signing up farmers do you think you
would have had more or less success if the farmers involved had had prior warn-
ing and information on the purpose of your call. Ebtplain.

Did you feel that chring your work you were operating as a "lone wolf" so to
speak,orasamenberofatean? Ifyou operatedindifferent
counties did you feel differently at am time c‘uring your job? Would
you recommend the "lone wolf " approach? The team approach? Why?

8
n45

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE
DIRECTED TO THE COUNTY AGENTS

108

Questionnaire Concerning the USDA Research Portion of the MSU Mail-In Farm Account
Project to County Agents of the Four Counties Involved (Mason, Huron, Kalamazoo,
Shiawassee).

1.

2.

3.

h.

5.

How much time in 1956 if any did you Spend in helping to set up the sample on

this research project? . How much time during 1957 did you
spend explaining to the Research Cooperators what it was all about?

How much time in maintaining or keeping on the ones that originally signed up?

 

What was your attitude towards the research project when you first heard about
it?

 

 

 

 

What is your attitude now?

 

 

 

 

Does the sample of farmers obtained and completed represent accurately the ag-
ricultural and farming picutre in your county?

 

 

 

 

Below is a list of the farmers in your county who enrolled but did not complete
the project? If possible please describe their farm setup and give reasons
for their not completing by each name.

1. 7. l3. l9.
2. 8. 1h. 20.
3. 9. 15. 21.
u. 10. 16. 22.
S. 11. 17. 23.
6. 12. 18. 2t.

Attached is a list of those completing 12 months by records. What percent of
these farms (a) have you visited? . (b) knew before 1957? .
(c) called on you for help? . (CD know well enough to describe? .

Since the research project has stopped, how many if any of the farmers (per
question 5) have asked to join the regular MSU "‘ Iail In" Farm Account system?
. Did you ask any that did not ask you? . If yes, how

 

many? . How many were reenlisted? .

7.

9.

10 .

11.

109

I presume you are acquainted with the method of enrolling the representative
sample using students from I-ISU. Could any other type of person be used with
more success? . If so, what type of individuals?

 

 

 

In your Opinion, would the farmers be willing to give the personal information
asked of them to, say, another farmer from the county, (such as done for the
Census Bureau) who might be employed to do this type of interviewing?

 

 

 

 

Has the enrollment of the research sample of farmers into the project helped
you to work with more farmers in your county? . Has it facilitated
or hindered your work in any other way? , . Explain.

 

 

 

 

Would the data obtained from these surveys and from the continuous reports of
expenses and receipts be of use to you in your county extension work?
If so, in what way? .

 

 

What specific and/or general information would be of Special interest to you?

 

 

 

 

What part of the project would be of special influence to the farmer in caus-
ing him to continue sending in information?

 

 

 

 

Would you add anything to the project as a way to get the representative in-
terest in the project and in causing them to continue with the project?

 

 

 

 

110

13 . Would it be possible to hire within your county individuals who would and

could capably carry out the actual survey and interview work as done by I'EU
students in December 1956?

 

 

 

 

1h. ’ould a larger or smaller percentage of enrollment be obtained if all farmers
concerned had been given prior warning and information on the reasons for the
project and their part in it?
Please suggest one way that the group selected in the segments could have
been forewarned.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your information. Please place in enclosed envelope and mail today.

Glen D. Forker
Graduate Assistant
Dept. of Agricultural. Economics

Results obtained from a mail questionnaire to county agents in counties included
in the EU Farmer Panel.

 

 

No . Nature of the Question ; Huron 1 Kalamazoo Mason Shiawassee
l. a) Days spent in helping set up sample. 1 O 1 §
b) Days spent explaining project to co-
operators. 5 IS 2 i
o) Days spent maintaining original sam-
ple. . 3 21 3 2
2 . a) Original attitude toward project . Favor- Favor- Accept- Favor-
‘ able able able able
1)) P081? “036015 attitude. " II ” But 311.2“: too
soon.
3. Opinion as to representativeness of Many < Too may 01! for
sample. 11/ low small OK census
yield famers definition“L
‘ . farms
h. Drop Outs - Reasons for drOp outs. .
1) Going out of farming E
2) Inappropriate system :
3; Prefers to keep own books
I. Thinks business too small 10 E:
5) Fear of government
6) Fear of how information might be E.
used +‘
7) Health too poor 6
8) Moved 5
9) Illiterate o
10; Too such bother 2 ‘3
11 Retiring soon z
5. Of those completing-what % have you .
visited? 135 56' 99 38
iknew before 1957 5’ 1L5" 99. 33.
i called on you for help 10 51 " 25
i know well enough to
describe 115 58 " 25
6. a) How marw have asked to join regular
project? 8 h 5 . 2
b) How mam did you ask to join regular
project? 0 l 6 O
c) How many were re-enrolled in regular? 6 3 - 7 l
7. Could ary other type interviewer have No Most OKW seF ~ Follow up?
been more successful? OK Fina needed.
6 OK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Nature of the .mestion Huron Kalamazoo Mason Shiawassee
8. Would farmers give information to an-
other farmer from county? No No No Yes
9. Has this project helped you work with .
more farmers ? Yes Yes Yes Few
Has it facilitated or hindered work in
any say? We Helped No -
10. Would information obtained be of use t4
you and your county? Yes Yes Yes No
In what way? --- Income level 1:
Show trends & timing of buying and
selling. 3:
Comparison of off-afarm income to
fem income. x
Regular mil-in reports more useful a:
11.. How could dropouts be reduced?
1. Follow-up calls . x x
2. Greater breakdown of income & ex-
penditures, enterprise analysis 6:
more nearly fit income tax report. a:
. 3. Bookkeeping. x
' 12. that would you add to keep representa-
tion.
1. More follow-yup callsr 3: Same as No
' No. ll,(2) Change
2. Fit it w/ income tax report. 2:
13. Would it be possible to hire someone id Yes but
county to do interview work? Yes college ? No
' better
11:. Would prior warning help enrollment? Yes Yes‘u- ? Yes
that method of forewarning? Newspaper J: 2
letter 1:

 

APPEIWH C

SUMMARY OF AND QUESTIONNAIRE TO FARMER COOPERATORS

Questionnaire to Farmer Cooperators
of the PHD-USDA Research Project

Name- Farm No.

 

l. The following have been given as reasons for carrying on the project. Please
check Egg reason 10;: would consider most marten .

a. There is a need by those working in and for agriculture to rave re-
liable representative farming information which has not been previous-
ly available. This could be obtained by full cooperation by farmers
in a project like this.

b. Michigan State University has an obligation to assist farmers with
their accounting problems.

c. Michigan State University has an obligation to assist farmers with
their management problems.

do Other 3

 

 

 

2. What was your main reason for joining the project?

3. Did you realize that this was an experimental effort? .

b. If the project were to continue as it was carried out in 1957 and you were not
to be charged, would you continue to cooperate in the project? If yes,
for one year only? or for more than one year?

 

5. What changes would you recommend to improve the project?

6. If your answer to No. b was no, would you continue if the changes were made?

 

7. Would you recounend this project to others?

ODF/yl

Results obtained from mail questionnaire to farmer cooperators of the Research
Project.

v—vf

No. ' Nature of the Question Huron Kalamazoo Mason Shiawassee

 

v

. Number of respondents 33 38 26 23
1. Reasons for project-check most important
a. Need for information by those working

in and for agriculture. 26 33 21 21
b. m has obligation to assist‘farmers

in their accounting problems. 2 2 2
c. 160 has obligation to assist farmers

with management problems. 2 3 l l
d. Other 3 l

2. thin reason for joining the project.
1) Help government & mt} solve farm prob-

lens. 3 2 3 2
2) Assist with my accounting 8: bookkeep-
ing. '12 19 7 3
3) As an aid to income tax record a: filing. 2 2 l 5
h) Believed it to be worthwile project. 3 1
5) Just to cooperate with $11. 5 11 9 3
6) As an mmerimcmt. 2 2 1
7) Salesman sold me "bill of goods". 1; l l
3. Did you realize this was an experiment-
al effort?
Yes 30 3h 26 19
No 2 2 2
ha. Would you continue in such a project?
Yes 16 26 12 11:
No 15 11 ll 6
7. Would you recomnend this project to others?
Yes 23 32 l7 19
No 3 l 3 l

 

APPENDIX D

FORMS USED BY INI'ERVIEWERS IN THE
ESTABIJSHMENT OF THE MSU FARMER PANEL

1.17

 

EOE/um mam ho fimmEDZ H4908

 

$00 @9958 «.5 $852 5309

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ D 02 e + v
E e D D E:
D 02
Dozflmew Duo» D02 Bush
D 02
D s D E D E D 2 _U E
D oz
DozUnoH Dnow D02 Duo»
02
E 02 D as as mu 0: D new
«zaps? 3:33.
A5398 eon H5 a fine: 55.398 eoz H3 0283 @333.
«nodes hoe—huh Bung. . oz .3 new .oz hem use 882 .oz
8: .m 3 new fl 3 eeeeeaeseo 3638 we: Aeveean sees wease
teases .N .H 48m
.0 .m e: .m. hopmnomo Bush
.0 .n 53323:
$5533 fioeem seapeeaheeeep. Ewe m3 so Ema m p n: a:

 

5.9500

hpflnnobfinb epmpm 53:3”:

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK
IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS

118

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

COOPERATING

Prof. Warren Vincent

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Agricultural Economics Department

Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date
Dear Prof. Vincent:
Today I worked in county, segment number(s) o
l. FARMS TI Forenoon Afternoon Evening Total
VISITED I
2 FARM OPERATORS First Cell I Second Call I Third Call Total
' CONTACTED I 1
3, SCHEDULES I Completed I Not Completed I Total ; ”0388,?131 £91132“

I

Remarks on schedules:

 

I I

 

 

 

 

h ENROLL”ENTS I_No. with Complete Inventory

TODAY I

With Incomplete Inventory I Total

I

 

 

5 , ENROLLMENTS
TO DATE

 

Before TodayI Days before TodayI Total to Date I Average per day

I I

 

6 Reading at start

fiéading at end 1 Miles today

 

' MILEAGE

 

 

I I

 

Comments, problems, questions:

 

 

 

Yours truly,

 

 

119

I. S. U. FAME}! PANEL
FIEID SURVEY

Interviewer
County?
Segment

Visitation Time Record

First Call Second Call Third Cell
Arrival Time

 

 

Departm'e Time I r I

- caveat-c v.0 — V's—v vouvv- UQV'

East Lansing, Michigan 120

Be

Name of Operator

M. S. U. FARMER PANEL
Field§urvej
December 1956

Post Office Address
Family

19
2o

3.

It.

How mamr persons are now living in this house?

What are their name, ages, and relationship to you (the farm operator)?
name 3: relationship

q v ’ V—v

 

 

 

v fl

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

' 'fY w t..— 7

Are there othe manbers of your funny living in other' dwellings on
this fem? Ye N - . If YES, what are their names, ages, and
relationship to you 9 farm operator)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—..v

In 1956, did you. farm as a manager , in a partnership , or
for yourself ?

4

IF YOU ARE A HIRED MANAGER, the remaining questions should be answered
for your employer and should relate to the operations you managed.

IF YOU AREA PARTNER, the remaining questions should be answered for the
whole form. We will avoid contacting both partners. Does be live in
this segmalt? Yes No What is his name?

C.

121
.2-

Tenure and Farm.Size

1.

2.

Do you own the farm you operate? Rent ? Own and rent also ?
(A) How many acres are there in the farm you plan to operate in 1957 ?

(B) How many acres tillable?

 

 

 

 

 

3. If you both own.and rent, how many acres of rented land will there be?
. How much tillable?
b. If you.rent, what rental arrangements do you have?
acres Cash 50/50 share 1/3-2/3 share 2/3-1/3 share Other
Tillable
Nondtillable
Classification

'we would like to be able to classify your farm by two methods -»by the sources
of income and.also by the volume of sales. To do this, would.you please

1.

Other crops)

Estimate the percent or proportion.of total receipts (from.sale of farm
products and offnfarm family income) "taken in" in 1956 that came from
these various sources: ‘

Kind Percent

Off-farm sources

 

Dairy
Beef
Hogs
Sheep
Poultry
Wheat

) Beans

 

 

) Other crops sold

 

 

) 100

E.

F.

- 122
.3-

0

2. If you omit the off-fans income and consider only farm products sold,
which of the following value groups would include your farm hisiness
for the past year (Check one)

' 0 to $1.199
31.200 to $9 999
$10,000 to $25,999

$25,000 and over

IIII

mgr.

Next, we would like to see how some important expense items vary from year to
year. If you can tell us how much you spent for these in 1956, it would be

, of much interest to compare them with your actual results in 1957. There-

fore, please give to the best of your ability the amount spent for each of
the following in 1956.

Hired labor t
Purchased and 8
Fertilizer and lime S

8

Gas,oil and other fuel

Investment Intentions
(To BE ASKED OF Fm WHO HAVE W 113me Tim THEY WILL m seamstress

Now, my last questions is of a little different nature. One of the very

useful kinds of information used by economists in forecasting business oonditicnz
is the investment intentions of indistry. This idomation has been volunteered
by businessmn but famers have not been given the opportunity to indicate

their investment plans.

(continued on next page)

1.

.u-

As things stand now, do you plan to:

(a) Build a new home or make
Major improvements on your
present home next year..... Yes 0N0 0

IF YES:
During which quarter?
About how much do you
CXPOCt to Spend?eeeeeoeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeee

(b) Build new farm buildings
or make major farm build-
ing improvements next year Yes 0N0 £7

IF YES:
During which quarter?
About how much do you
GXPBCt to Spend?.......................

(c) Buy a new or used tractor
Dem Year?ueuoee........“Yes END 0

IF YES:
During which quarter?
About how much do you
expect to spend (amount
above trade“in)?eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

(d) Buy a new or used auto-
mobile next year............Yes 0N0 [7

IF YES:
During which quarter?
About how much do you
expect to spend (amount
above trade-in)?eoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

(a) Buy other new or used
machinery (including
trucks) next year...........Yes 0N0 0

IF YES:
During which quarter?
About how much do you
expect to Spend (amount
above trade-in)?..n......”nun"...

123

 

" Mar .31

Jane .1"
1957

Apr. 1-
June 30
1957

July 1-
Sop. 30
1957

Oct. 1
D300 3*
1557

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

"MAIL IN" FARM ACCOUNT FORMS

1.25

Confidential

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Mail-In Accounting Proiect

 

 

 

 

Yes: 1 9 ............
Nome of Form Operates: Address
County .......... Form No ...........................................................................
Do you (Check one): Own your form .................... Rent you: Iorm ................ Own and tent .........

Did you work full time on the form this accounting year? [I Yes I] No
II not, how many months did you work 0“ the form AND what was the nature oI your oII Iorm onk?

 

 

Was the OH Iotm income reported on you: monthly income sheets? [I Yes [I No
If not, how much dId the 0“ Iotm Income amount to? S

DId your wife receive' Income Item 0“ farm work? ................ How many months ................ Income S ......................................
Did any other member oI you: family living with you receive income lost you: not included In your report? D Yes I] No.
If so, Io: how molly months? ................ Income S

 

 

 

Names and ages oI children In your IomIIy (clrcle those not of home) .................

 

Please estimate the number of 10 hour days of labor contributed to farm work duting the you: by your wife and children over
12 yeon of age

 

Were the reponed telephone charges the total bill .................... ot the Iowa shore only ................... ?

II the total bill was reported, who! percent oI this total should be considered the Iorm shore? .................... %
Were the reported electricity charges the total bill .................... or the form show only... ...?

II the total bill was reported, who! percent oI this total should be considered the Idrm shore? .................... %
Were the reported automobile charges the total bill .................... or the form shore only ................... ?

II the total bIII was repofled, what percent of thIs total should be considered the form shots? .................... %

IF YOU RENTED LAND: 1. Who! would you estimate as the value of all land rented?
2. If you used buildings on tented land, how much do you IhInk they could be Insuted Io:
3. Whoi' Is your best estimate oI taxes on all rented land and buildings...
4. Estimate the amount oI money the landlord spent during the record your mIot the“ IoIIowing items" not dlteody entered in

 

in.the»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your IIIOI'IIIIIJ repom
Inmnce on buildings S ........................................ Fertilizer S
Custom work hired S ........................................ LIme S
RepoIIs—BuIIdIngs and Fences S Seed and Plants S
Goo harvesting supplies S ........................................ Other Items s
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Average number
Total acres 4 of cows 3 Total cIop value 6
TIlIoble acres 4 Milk sold (pounds) 6 Ctzztzolue P" tillable 5
A mbes oI _. ‘_“_ FenilIsz or so
:39. nu i _ DoIry product ”I” 5 tIIIoble as? W _i _ __ __
Days of wolk: Total 4 Milk sales per cow (lbs.) 5 Crop yield index 3
Pet men 3 Milk sole per mm (lbs) 6 Row ctop acres 4
Per tillable acre 3 Avmgélxmber 0‘ 3 GIoin crop acres 4
Gross Income: Total 6 Percent beeI coll crop 3 Sod crop acres 4
—- ————-—— Pct. oI tillable acres —— -~—————
Pet man 5 Average numbes sows 3 seeded to legumes 3
— Pct. of tillable acres
Pet tillable acre 5 Pigs weaned pet lifter 3 barnyard monured 3
Pct. oI tillable acres
Pet S1,000 machinery 5 Lambs pet 100 ewes 3 in legumes 3
Pct. oI tillable acres
Pet S100 expense 3 Average numbet oI ham 5 green monuted 3
ears to equal
Investment 2 Egg soles per hen 4 Soil Index 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Mail-In Accounting Form No. 6-56

FARM FINANCIAL SUMMARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. NET INCREASES AND NET DECREASES B. CASH FARM RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES __| :I
Landlord Operator Total Per Til. A Landloard Operator Total I Pct. of All
1. Crops 1. Crop Sales and Gov't Payments I
2. Dairy 2. Dairy Products I
3. Cattle 3. Dairy Cattle I
4. Poultry — 4. Beet -——_ “y..—— —-_.
5. Hogs —— 6. Enos H
6. Sheep 8. Poultry Meal _—
7. Other 7. Hogs —
“e:e ROSS INCOME 8. Sheep and Wool _
9. Expenses and Net Decreases —— T 21:: 9. Custom Work: _ —*
~10. Landlord Operator Total 10. Labor 0ft Farm:
11. Hired Labor "it"!!! I" 11. Machinery Cash Sales I
12. Feed Purchased 12. Improvement Receipts _
13. Crop Expense 13. Other Receipts - I
14. Machinery Expense I 14. 1"Fife-IT;Its—h—F—Ieceipts — ~ 1!!! I
15. Improvement Expenses 15. Hired Labor _ F
16. Taxes — 16. Feed Purchased
17. Family Labor 17. Seeds and Plants Purchased !
18. Other Expenses __ __ 18. Machine Hire i
19. Total Expenses _— — 19. Supplies Purchased
20. Net Income __ 20. Machinery Repair a Maintenance
21. Total Labor 21. Improvement Repair a Maintenance I
22. Total Expenses 22. Livestock Expense I I
23. Custom Work Expense 23. Fertilizer and Lime I
24. Other Crop Expense 24. Gasoline, Fuel and Oil
25. Machinery Purchased—(See Column B, line 30) 25, Taxes
26- 28. Insurance on Property I
27. 27. Electricity, Telephone (F.S._-.__...-..)
28. 28. Automobile Upkeep (F.S._-__.........)
29. Improvements (See Column 8, line 31): 29. Livestock Purchased
30. 30. Machinery Purchased
31. 31. Improvement Investments — .
32. 32. Other Cash Expense — — I
33. INVESTMENTS Landlord Operator TOTAL Tote! Gash Expense I
34. Beoinninll Endlnll Boeinnlno Endlns Beginninll Ending 34. INVENTORY CHANGE Landlord Operator Total
35. Orchard 35. Farm Improvements
36. Land 38. Machinery
37. Farm Improvements 37. Feed and Crops
38. Machinery and Equipment 38. Dairy Cattle
39. Feed and 0T0; 39. Beet Cattle
40. Dairy Cattle 40. Hogs J
41. Beef Cattle 41. Sheep
42. Hogs 42. Poultry
43. Sheep 43.
44. Poultry 44. Total E
45. 45. Net Inventory Change
46.

 

48. Net Cash Income

 

47. TOTAL FARM INVESTMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

47. Inventory Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

48. Net Income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48. Residence 56.

49. Conservative Real Estate Market Value —- 57. 49- Family Labor Charge @ 3 -------- _-
50. Improvement Investment Per Animal Unit 58. 50- Net Farm Income

51. Machinery Depreciation 59. 51. Interest on Investment

52. Improvement Depreciation I 60. 52. Labor Income

53- 61. 53. Type of Farm ‘__T
54. 82. 54.

55. — 63. 55, u ‘ _._

 

 

 

Tiichigan State University 126
IFast Lansing, Michigan

MSU FARMER PA‘iEL
Farm Inventory January 1, l9____
Improvement§_& Machinery

\T
Name County Farm Lo.

  
    
  

  
  

  

tem

 

Item

ora e cho

ciatio iatipn '

 

     
  
  
  
 
 
 

 
    
  

'Tenant House
I .
IDairy Barn

   

nure s eader

   
 

I Other Earn
litilk House
I Corn Crib

I

S

   

e

Grane

     
    
    

cooler
Ho House ~

    

. Poult House
I Machine Shed
I Ga 8

Silo

Stor e

       
 
  
  
  
   

 

  
 
 

 

ifiell & water stem

Fenc
Tilin

   

O
MACHII

\ l

e

     

 

b

 
    
    
 

 
 
   
  
  

Auto farm share
Truck

Trailer

  

. I'I'a ons
' ”rector #1
rector #2
tractor #

Plow(s)

Disc

 
  
 
 

 
  

J

     
      
  
   

I
I

   

Cultivat r
L Barrows
Culti

Corn Planter

    
  
   
  
   

 
  

 

cker

—Grain Drill
Combine

  
 

Mower

 

I

  
  
 

Hayrake
Ha baler

  

 

TOTAL MACHINERY

   

Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

M SU FARMFR PANEL
Farm Inventory January 1, 1L
Feed & Livestock

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name County Farm Noe __
i
I Item Amount Value Item Amount .I Valli?“
I E229. I_i__o_g_s_
Corn Silage T. Ii El 006‘. Rows .3.
ISOrn Gr air. ( sh.bu.) Gilts
IOats bu. Boers I
I I
l-lheat bu. Summer Pigs (Jun-Jul) I
7 -“ "‘1;
Hey T. Fall Pigs (Aug-Dec) i
I I
Other Hogs I
. i
—— - TOTAL HOGS my. $5
Susan
I
ISeeds Ewes
Fertilizer on hand Lambs
__ TOTAL FEED m It Rams i
_m... :47
D ir .
..?—l Feeders :
C_cws I
“ "‘“'“"'““*““"*'*Il~iool :
ijgigcrs over 1 year __ I
TQ'IELSJLFP m 35 _. =
5111118 oveLLyear -- A _I *""'"""""" ‘4‘" ...--.” I I
._...._._ ”mm—T" Poultry
‘Calgas under 1 year Hans J
I
IOther Pullets
TO'I‘LL DE IRY Broilers
:______ “* ___‘ “33:70: ...: at
Egg; Roosters
Quotas. __
so
Turkeys
TOTA . P . 4;;
TOTAL BEEF d. L OULTB'Y MK --n-—---—I
_ 399‘ 49 1‘9ng LIVESTOCK xxx 3”,;

 

 

o—c‘i_.‘

 

...-...

128
Name ............................................................................ County ............................................ Farm No .........................

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION INFORMATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 9 ............
HOGS BEEF CATTLE
Farrowing Record Beef herd Calving record
Date Litters Farrowed Pigs born Pigs weaned Date Cows calving Calves born Remarks
TOTAL ’ I
Predominant Breed: ......................................................
Cattle feeding: Grade of cattle fed this year: Common ...........................
Medium-.---.--......-. Good ................ Choice ................
Approximate Average Weight of cattle bought this year: ......................
TOTAL Was this usual weight? ........ . ...........................
Notes: .................................................................................................. . .........
Predominant Bra-d: ............................. . ........ . ...............................................................................................................
If feeder pigs were bought, what was their approximate weight7.--.---.-..- T- SHEEP
NW: """"""""""" T Lambing Record
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Date Ewes Lambing Lambs Born Remarks
DAIRY
Predominant Breed: ............................................................
Mills Mullah"
Used: ABA ............ Own Bull ............ this year.
Approximate percent of herd freshening from August 1 to December
31 ........................
Herd on some mill: testing program? ........................ If so, which one?
T TAL
........................ Herd B. F. Record 0
Notes relevant to this year's production record: ...................................... Predominant Breed ......................
...... Number of Sheep Sheared...--.
Pounds of wool .............................................
.......... Noun“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: One copy of this record must be mailed to MSU with the December report or before.

Name--- - ..

 

129

3W County-.C1A’7/£dmi. Farm NOQ€7-3.Q:.L9-3.M

CROPS RAISED AND LAND UTILIZATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.517.
Ililield Owned Land Rented Land
um- CROPS . . R 5
... “2:.” mm..." Var" yr... “22::P\
Corn for Silage / 0 J ' 10 11:71, \ x V
Corn for Grain (report yield on )
nun“: corn basis 3/ 70 1234054.; [12] f fl 2 \ 92
0°” 35‘ .30 105053 Wk My _
Barley A E 1
Wheat 8?
Soybeans \
Beans Q
Potatoes I

 

 

 

Hay—Alfalfa (No. of cuttingsKXl

 

It

(0)

 

Clover (No. of cums ...... )

 

fl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mixed (percent kgur‘eséo.) I

 

“mow j

 

 

 

 

 

Gra ' acres if already r
shown as hay E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
  
  
 

3 _thw - i- ----
/) \ __
/ “Ewe T l _
K A /o 2 2015.", 2.6.;
Sum r "o 5"
TMga/Acnes )1; in Cash Rah: Sloafor/gx_ '3:
T" P AIfaIf Share Rent: Landlord 1
I 0v ure— a ~1—I— Ha Tenant gm“... 5 .....A
Sweet clover Yield Landlord -
5 da E uiv'a- {enzrlrt'd 31.....A
u n err on o
M ed (% | 30 ) Estimate Tenant 3 ...... - ................. ...-.2. ......... A
I ............
i ”M" 1 0 I TOTAL RENIED ACREAGE ................. 5. 1 ...-...A
June Grass I
Idle Tillable Land
2: ‘= PLEAS H CK CA E
Total Tillable Acres 1i? £2 E C. E R FULLY
No Tillable Past e I . Do tlhe figures shown rn acres column add to the correct
It' I" tota
W d ed ‘—‘3_ 2. Is production reported for every crop? (If not har-
°° s not pastur I ______ vested, estimate yield)
Farmsteads, roads, lanes, etc. II 3. Has all tented land been accounted for?
TOTAL ACRES II/LO 3 52 "W " ........ "

   

 

 

Do not enter crops received as rent from land which you rented to another person. If such crops are fed on the form you operate they should

be entered as purchased feed on the expense report so that this form will not receive the credit for the value of such crops.

; Name ............................................................. County ......................................... Farm No. ..... .LLill ................

FARM INCOME For the month of ............................................ 19 ............

Code LIVESTOCK SALES

Leave

g lanlr) Date Description Where Sold Weight Price OK for Sch. D? Gross Receipts

 

(Enter deductions on expense sheet for this month.)

EGG SALES

 

Code Code Date Dozen Size or Gr. Price Receipt
Leave Date MILK SALES
lanlr) S
------ Number of cows in herd this month
Base Milk Sold: First pay period lbs.
Second pay period lbs.

Excess Mill: Sold: First pay period lbs.
Second pay period lbs.

xxxxxx Base Price S Excess Price S

...... Test

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Receipts: Total for first period

 

Total for second period S

 

 

 

 

 

j Total for the month
' Mill: or Cm... sold not mind“: above tbs. TOTAL EGG SALES s
7 Mill: or cream sold not included above S

' (Diedugtions for the farm shown on mill: statement should be entered on expen: OTHER INCOME
f s eet.
‘ Code Date Kind of Receipt Amount

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK CHECK TABLE
Number (include young stock)
Dairy 3...: Hogs Sheep IPoultry

 

 

Item

 

I Number at beginning of month

Number bought this month

Number born this month

' TOTAL To ACCOUNT FOR

; Number sold this month
Number butchered this month

3 Number died this month

‘ Number on hand at end of month TOTAL “OTHER" INCOME S

TOTAL ACCOUNTED FOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL CASH INCOME s ‘—
MSU Mail-In Accounting Form No. 2-56 :—

Name ............................................................. County .......................................... Farm Non-.133: ................

FARM EXPENSES For the month of ............................................ 19 ............

Code Item Person Receiving _ Total Total Cash Paid
Date Payment No. Bill to 7
What is it? How much of it? What used for? Operator Landlord \/

S

OGHOUIvatO-A

wuuwuwwuwwmnnnwnmnnm-s-A-sd-n-s-n-n-sd
OQQO'JI‘wDO-‘OOOQOUI#WDO-‘OOQQOU‘I‘IHDO-‘O

40

 

NOTE: If there were purchases which should be inventoried, please complete the tables on the back of this sheet. This is necessary if inventories are
to be kept accurately.

MCII WILL. 15.. . ...rntlnn Far-In Nn 1J§6

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS..--

 

 

 

 

 

 

FARM INVENTORY INFORMATION

Farm Machinery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE TRADE-IN THE NEW ITEM
Depreciation
What was its What was How should the item be described in
What was Traded inventory the your inventory bools? Years of
bool: value? allowance? Expected life Method‘
S
2&8 Straight Line or (2) Declining Balance or (3) Sum of the Years Digits
TE: Be sure the amount recorded on the opposite side of the sheet is the total cost excluding trade-in allowances.
Farm Buildings
1. The expense(s) recorded on Iine(s). ..on the opposite side of this sheet should be added to the value of the
shown in the inventory boolr.
(which building?)
2. The expense(s) recorded on Iine(s) ............................ Should be added to the value of the ( In” M 7)
shown in the inventory boolr. .
3. The expense(s) recorded on Iine(s) ............................ are for a new .............................. which should be de-

 

(which building?)
preciated over ................ years using the ................................................................. method of depreciation.

 

 

 

NameW— County

LIVESTOCK FEED & SEED ON HAND AT END OF YEA

Farm No.2;

132

_ 33 —/93

Buggy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Amount Price Total Item \N Wr l
‘ Value \ A
FEED AND SEED if
”Silage—Corn ten 70 S 7 S 1170 Sl-IEEPE
, - wes
\ Grass ton -—-— Lambs \ \ /’
Grain—Corn (shelled) bu. 000 l 56 {A e 0 R A
— ams
0°” I”- 50q .75 3 7.5’ F a /
WIIOO' DU. 3'0 ‘21. 0Q ! o O WOOW- o a /—l w
B rl b . — Q - ___
— a 'Y u TOTALEKEEP ( s
Beans bu. "' OULTR
Potatoes bu. .. a." LLQD S [/9 0
_ \ M \ 950 950
/\ r\ \BtMmV
_ Hay—Alfalfa ton 1‘0 2 C2 . 0 VR
I Clover ton -- :\\:*)n
f- e
i Mixed ton 4L 1 L 332% X\
Sm . I‘L\ I: 2TOTAL POULTRY xxxxxxx Sui/40
-— w on _-- - -.--
4% A?» 34% V TOTAL LIVESTOCK xxxxxxx s ,
- Seeds (alfalfa and clover) lbs. 3 L /_,- I [31 35-5.
' “WT“ ‘°" “‘“d’ '°" "\ Vv ZV ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Very Important)
" Growlng Wheat A“ / 3 a? 24 6 1. Cows on hand (millring and dry) first of month:
, l Jan FebeZLMouZLApraLMorZ¥_juneeZ¢_
DAIRY CATTLE aim—— -E_ bier -——-—~ Average number of cows for the year—,2. 7C5—
, Cows g 4 S 4X00 2. Hogs—Number litters farrowed during year_/
/ Heif : er 1 Year 1 l: v 6: ' Number of pigs weaned during year __
/ B 1 Y x l M 3. Sheep—Number of ewes at lambing time-fl
Wold '°' l — Number of lambs raised _
{6"‘(Um'fi‘ I?) j a 50 O 4. Poultry—Approximate number of layers in iioci: Rm of ml: month.
\'\WMW/\ j. 75' JanZQ-L Feb/£12-Mam_9_ Ap/L__Ma/ 7001.... .4615:

 

 

 

 

BEEF CATTLE
Feed

 

 

 

 

 

lam-0.. Aug/‘flSep. anomams- 0091.11
Average number of hens for the yup/321—

. LIVESTOCK CHECK TABLE FOR THE YEAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

er («fly Number (include young stoclr)
I. I...“ Dairy Beef Hogs Sheep
Breeding Herd \ Number at beginning of year 42 0 1 o 24
__ —— mber bought and received as gifts / o
I: TOTAL BEE-In” _- -... ‘” =@>L-Q \Ntn\born during year a; g 2: JS'
HOGSBrood Sows 6 S w "\TOTA TO ACCOUNT FOR 74 [0 [IL 49
3 Gills 4?. [a o '40me ['7 o 50 4]
a Bears .. Number Embed durin it, o 2: a
/ Summer Pigs (June-July) "‘ NUMbfl did during war \\\3\ O 4" 2,
Fall Pigs (Aug-Dec.) 55‘ X] 0 Number on hand at end at year \ 5:2, @— Q _2_
TOTAL ACCOUNTED FOR I 7 m/ //
TOTAL HOGS (71:30 ‘ S I 33 0 . TOTAL TO ACCOUNT FORWACCOUNTED FOR

 

 

 

7-"-

_-n Accounting Form 5-‘37

133

EASH'LATflflhfl3,NHCfliK3Ah

FINANCIAL STATEMENT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY “MAIL-IN" ACCOUNTING

FARM CODE

 

 

PROJ I CT

 

 

 

YEAR

 

 

MO.

 

 

NAME

3.0.ADDRESS

COUNTY

TOTAL TO DATE

IIIIJ

 

.---4

|||||

VIIIIIII

Ill-ll.

lullll

TIIIII

IIIIIIIIIII‘

IIIIIII

IIIIJ

Isl-Ill

 

TOTAL
PREVIOUS MONTHS

IIIIL

rill-ll.

IIIII

III-Ilvll-III

I'll]

 

ITEM AMOUNT

Tl'lsl

vIIlltlsl

rIIIIII

llrllllilll

lll'l

 

ITEM

 

 

 

CODE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

THE MSU "MAE. IN" FARM
ACCOUNTING PROJECT I34 CODE BOOK

135

THE MSU.
“ MAI L— l N ”
FA RM ACCOUNTTNC
PROJECT

IBM CODE BoeK

A Cooperative Extension Project
Sponsored.by County Extension Wbrkers
and The Agricultural Economics Depart-
ment, Michigan State University.

March, 1958

MSU;Mail-In Account Code

Code

10100
10
20
30
ho

10200

Item

LABOR EXPENSE

Housing for labor
Labor board, etc .
Labor social sec.
Labor wkmns comp.

FEED EXPENSE
Drain
Millifeed
Hay
Other roughage
Bedding
Minerals
Salt
Grinding
Pasture rent
Stilbesterol
Aureomycin
Terramycin

SEEDS

BZFTEy seed
Buckwheat seed
Seed corn

Seed oats

Rye seed

Spelts seed

Legume or grass seed
Alfalfa seed
Clover seed
Fescue seed
Orchard grass seed
Red top seed

Rye grass seed
Sudan grass seed
Timothy seed

 

Seed Beans
Beet seed
Flax seed
Seed potatoes
Seed wheat
Asparagus seed
Cabbage seed
Malon seed
Celery seed
Seed peas
Cucumber seed
Lettuce seed
Pumpkin seed
Onion seed

PLANTS
Transplants
Seedlings
Trees
Sets
Roots

Code

10500
10
~20
30

10600
10
20

10700
10
20

30
50

6O
70
80

10800
10
20
30

10900
01
02

136

FARM OPERATING EXPENSES

ItGl. Code
FERTILIZER 10922
1 or 23
Manure 2h
MUlch 25
26
LIME 27
rims 28
Marl 29
MISC. CROP EXPENSE 11000
Crop insurance 10
Crop marketing 20
Overpayment on loan 30
Crop inspection ho
Hauling crops to mkt.
ASC loan.fee 11100
Apple stamps
Co-op entry fee
Crop sales tax
Star. 8: warehousing
Seed treatment 10
Crop supplies 20
Binder twine 3o
Bale'ties
Containers 11200
Tags & tickets '
Frost prev. supp.
Soil testing
Spray material 10
Bee expense 20
30
SUPPLIES
SmaTI equipment 11300
Syrup equipment
Equipment for labor
MACH! HIRE &.CUSTOMI IO
MEEEDR?EE§€""“'
Baling 11h00
Bean pulling ’ 10
Beet lifting 20
Best harvesting 30
Blocking ‘ ho
Chopping 50
Combining 6O
Corn picking 70
Cultipacking 80
Cultivating
Discing 11500
Drying 01
Fert. spreading 02
Harrowing 03
Hauling 0h
Lime spreading 05
Manure loading 06
Manure spreading 07
-waing

Planting

.1222

Plowing
Potato digging
Raking

Sawing
Shelling

Silo filling
Spraying
Trucking

MACH! REPAIR MAINT. '
Tractor rep. 8: maint.
Farm equipment repair
Trailer license
'wagon license

TRUCK UPKEEP
Truck repair
Truck oil
Truck grease
Truck antifreeze

Truck fuel

Truck insurance

Truck license

AUTO UPKEEP
IUTD repair
Auto 011 &.10b.
Auto antifreeze

Auto fuel

Auto insurance

Auto license

GAS, OIL, FUEL

'DT1 ' "
Grease ‘
Antifreeze

Tractor or motor fuel

IMPROVEMENT MAINT.
Bfiilding repEIF"
Fencing repair

Tile repair

Drive or yard maint.
Hdwre 8c bldg. mat'l
Electrical maint.
‘water system.maint.
Heating system maint.

SOIL, WATER CONS. Egg.
Bulldozing

Drainage ditches
Earthen dam

Pond

Brush eradication
'Windbreak

Terracing

137

I~BU Mail-In Account Code FARM OPERATDIG EXPENSES (Continued __

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code Item, Code Item
11600 FIRE & WIND INSURANCE 12200 TAXES
_' 10 ReaI estate taxes
11700 V__E_T_. §c_ MEDICINE 20 Personal prop. taxes
WOrming '
Dehorning 12300 mmms'r (Farm Debt)
Penicillin
Castrating 12IIOO RENT
Bag balm
Blood testing 12500 ELECTRICITY
Sulmet
Vaccination 12600 TELEPHONE
Caponizing .
12700 'NESCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
11800 BREEDING EXPENSE Rat poison
. water rent
11900 LIVESTOCK EXPENSE General advertising
10 Ni tes ing Safety deposit box rent
20 Dairy supplies Checking acct. serv. chge.
washing compounds Dog tax
Strainer pads 10 Farm.subscriptions
Inflation rUbbers 20 Organization dues
‘Water softener 30 Bus. meetings & travel
Strip cups to Legal fees
Testing bottles 50 Liability insurance
30 Registration 51 Loan insurance
hO Livestock rent 60 Freight
SO Poultry supplies 70 Income tax service
Egg cartons & crates 80 Office supplies
Leg bands 90 Bee supplies
Egg washing compound
Litter 13000 MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
6O Brooder fuel
70 Heater fuel 13100 EGGS FOR RESALE
80 Sheep shearing ... ......
90 Livestock supplies 13200 MILK FOR RESALE
Fly spray T—"T'T'T
Louse powder 13300 .APPLES FOR RESALE
Sheep dip ...—...... ”-
Syringes, needles, etc. l3hOO POTATOES FOR RESALE
Dilators
Whitewash barn 13500 NURSERY STOCK FOR RESALE
12000 LIVESTOCK I'IIARKETING 136.00 STUMPAGE
Truckifig lvstk fer sale 'T'TTTTT'
Commission 13700
Stockyard charges
Lvstk advertising 13800
Showing lvstk
MSat storage 13900
Livestock sales tax
12100 MILK MARKETING

 

Hauling & tax
ADA

Association dues
Revolving fund

MSU Mail-In Account Code

Code

20000
001
002
003
00k
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
01h
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
02b
02;
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
03h
035
036
037
038
039
oho
0L1
002
0L3
ohh
Obs
006
Oh?
0&8
0&9
050
051
052
053
050
055
056

 

Item
MACHY PURCHASED

 

Adding machine
Airplane
Auger

Auto

 

 

Bale‘loader
Baler

Baskets

Bean cooker
Bean harvester
Bean puller
Beet harvester
Beet lifter
Beet planter
Beet thinner
Belt

Binder

Blower

Buck rake

Bulk tank
Bulldozer

 

 

Canvas

Cement mixer
Chicken brooder
Chopper
Clippers
Clodbuster
Combine
Compressor
Conveyor
Corn‘binder
Corn picker
Corn planter
Crates
Cream.separator
Cultihoe
Cultipacker
Cultivator

 

 

Disc

 

 

Egg cooIEr

Egg grader

Egg washer
Egg‘waxer
Electric drill
Electric fence
Electric motor
Elevator

 

 

Code

20057
058
059
060
061
062
063
06h
065
066
067
C68
069
070
071
072
073
07h
075
076
077
078
079
080
081
082
083
08h
085
086
087
088
089
090
091
O92
O93
09h
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
10h
105
106
107
108
109
110

 

112
113

Item

Fan

Fanning mill
Feed cart

Feed grinder
Feed mixer
Feeders
Fertilizer Spreader
Field cultivator
Fire extinguisher
Fork lift
Fruit'brusher
Fruit grader

 

 

Garden tractor
Gas pump

Gas tank
Gasoline motor
Grain drill
Gutter cleaner

 

 

Hammer mill
Harness

Harrow
Hay'conditioner
Hay crusher
Hay dryer
Hay'rack

Hay rake

Hay rope

Hoist

 

 

Irrigation equip.

 

Jeep

 

ladder
Lawn mower
Lime Spreader

 

PEnure loader
MACHI PURCHASED
Manure spreader
Milk cans

Milk cooler
Nilkhouse heater
Milk pails

Milk tank
Milker

Milker washer
Mower

 

 

 

Nests

 

Code
2011A

119

8
MACHINERY Puncagsgfigw ___

Item
Office furniture

 

Picker sheller
Picking sacks
Pickup

Plow

Portable hay bag
Portable poultry house
Post hole digger
Potato digger
Potato grader
Potato loader
Potato planter
Pruner

 

 

Roller
Rotary'hoe

 

Sacks

Saw

Scales

Seed treater
Seeder
Sheller

Silo filler
Silo unloader
Slings

Small tools
Sprayer

Stalk shredder
Steel squirrel
Stone boat
Straw Debaler
Sub-soiler
Syrup equipment
Scraper

Tines

Tarp

Tent

Tractor
Trailer

Tree digger
Truck

Typewrit er
Water t ank
‘Waterer

wagon

wagon box
wagon rack
wagon unloader
water heater
weeder

welder
Wheelbarrow
Wiggle hoe
Windrower

MSU Nail-In Account Code

Code

.30000
01
02

 

Item

BUILDINGS
Tenant house
Barn

Machine shed
Storage
Garage

ShOp

Hog house
Poultry house
Milkhouse
Milking parlor
Silo

Corn crib
Granary

Bath house
Laborers house
Toilets
Drying floor
Greenhouse
Cold frames
Hot houses
'we11 house
Sugar house

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUILDING, FARM'IMPROVEMENT INVESTMENTSWE

LIVESTOCK PURCHASES

Item .
FARM’IMPROVENENTS

 

 

Tilzm= g
Fencing

Land clearing
Road

Bridge
Culvert
Gates

Pump & water system

Nat er cups
Stanchions
Paved‘barnyard
Wiring

S idewalk
Orchard
Windmill

wall

Code

140100
10
20
30
ho

00200
10
20
30
ho
50

h0300
10
20
30
ho

hOhOO
10
20

Item

BALM RENEW
Dairy cows bought
Dairy calves bought
Dairy heifers bought
Dairy bulls bought

BEEF CATTLE BOUGHT
BEST cows bought
Beef calves bought
Beef heifers'bought
Beef bulls'bought
Beef steers bought

SWINE BOUGHT
Sows bought
Pigs bought
Gilts bought
Boars‘bought

SHEEP BOUGHT
Ewes boughE
Lambs bought
Rams‘bought

OTHER LIVESTOCK BOUGHT
Horses bought
Rabbits'bought
Goats'bought

Fur animals bought

POULTRY BOUGHT
ChicEs bought
Pullets'bought
Hens bought
Roosters'bought
Ducks

Geese

Turkeys

MSU Nail-In Account Code

Code

50100
10
20
3o
ho
50
60

50200
10
20

50h00
10
20
30
AC

750500
10

20

30

AC

50

60
_70

550600
10
20
30

50

51100
10
2O
30
L0
50
60

51200
10
20

.30

Item

 

DAIRY CATTLE SOLD
Dairy cows sold
Dairy calves sold
Dairy heifers sold
Dairy bulls sold
Dairy steers sold
Butchered dairy sold

BEEF CATTLE SOLD

 

Beef cows sold

Beef calves sold
Beef heifers sold
Beef bulls sold
Beef steers sold
Butchered beef sold

SWINE SOLD
Sows SETdT
Pigs sold
Gilts sold
Bears sold
Hogs sold

Butchered hogs sold

SHEEP & WOOL SOLD

DRES‘SB1E‘"'
Lambs sold
Rams sold
W001 sold

POUUDRY SOED
Hens 8015-.-
Pullets
Broilers sold

Dressed poultry sold

Ducks sold
Geese sold
Turkeys sold

Code
51300

 

10
20
30
ho
5o
60
70
80
90

51h00

10
ll
12
13
1h
20
21
22

30

51500

01
02

OTHER LIVESTOCK SOLD 51600

Horses sold
Rabbits sold
Goats sold
Dogs sold

Fur animals sold

FEED GRAINS SOLD

Barley
Buckwheat
Corn
Oats

Rye
Spelts

SEEDS SOLD
AITalfa seed
Clover seed
Grass seed

01'

02
03
0h
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12

13
1h
15
16
1?
18

Item

CASH CROPS
Beans
Soybeans
Sugar'beets
Flax
Potatoes
Wheat

Mint
Popcorn
Onions

 

FARM AND NON-FARM RECEIP'jSLICE.“

Code
51700

 

51800
10
20
30

52000
10
20

ROUGHAGES g STRAW 53000

Hay

Alfalfa hay
Clover hay
Mixed hay
Timothy hay
Silage

Corn silage
Grass silage
Straw

TRUCK CROPS
Asparagus
Canning beans
Celery

Sweet corn
Cucumbers
Cauliflower ‘
Cantaloupe
Cabbage
Lettuce
Pumpkins
Radishes
Squash
Tomatoes
watermelon
Rhubarb

FRUIT

Apples
Apricots
Red cherries

Sweet cherries

Peaches
Pears

Plums

Prunes
Cider
Blackberries

Black raspberries

Blueberries
Boysenberries
Grapes

Red raspberries

StraWberries
Currants
Gooseberries

10
2O

5hooo
(See

55000
01
02
03
Ch
05
06
07
08
09

56000
(See

56100
(See

56200
57000

10
20

Item
rawwa

seesaw
TTIing

Fertilizer

Ponds

D,__.__A m W
Milk

Cream

EGGS

Hen eggs
Turkey eggs

CUSTOMTWORK

Section 109 for kind)

WW
Syrup

Standing trees
Lumber

Posts

Logs

Fuel wood
Christmas trees
Evergreens

Nuts

MACHINERY SOLD

Section 200 for kind)

MACHINERY SOLD

Section 201 for kind)

MACH . _I_12§ . SETTLEI'IENT

 

WROVEI-IENT RECEIPTS
Buildings sold
Insurance settlement

 

MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS
Gas tax refunds
Bags

Rebates or discount
Fertilizer sold
Fuel sold
Dividends

Tenant house rent
warehouse services
Honey

Interest from.co-op
Cooperative stock

 

s....r

 

‘,_
.1
0
c . . ‘
..
.
.... .
.
.
. .
.. .
. .
Q
. .I I
.
.
. .
4
a 1
o . . ‘
a I .
.
.
.. .
~ I v
. . .
a. . l V o
.. . . . .
. .
II a .-
u h .
. .
n
.
‘ .

 

 

 

FBU Mail-In Account Code

Code
60000

60100
10
20
30
ho
50
60
70

70100
70200

80000

 

 

Item
OPERATOR NON-FARM INCOME
Milage
wages

Fees
Sales commissions

FAMILY INCOME

Sale of real estate
Pensions

Rent (non-farm.pro .)
Interest (nonnfarm§
Social,security
Unemployment ins .

Oil lease

FARM DEBT PAYMENTS
FAMILY DEBT PAYMENTS

Egg-FARM EXPENSE

FARM AND NON—FARM RECEIPTS (Cintingefijl

ISU Mail-In Account Code

Code

80100
10
20
30
ho
50
80200

10
20

30
ho
So
60

80300
10

20
30

ho

50
60

70

Code

801400
10

 

FOOD

Food for home use
Heals & snacks away
Beverages

Vitamins

Butchering

HOUSING g UPKEEP
Rent
Upkeep on house & grounds
Electrical
Plumbing
Carpentry
Painting
Seeding
Taxes on house
Insurance on house & equip.
Interest on house debt
Lodging or accomodation

20

 

HOUSEHOLD OPERATION 30500
Utilities 10
Telephone & telegraph 20
Electricity 30
water ho
Fuel & ice (home share) 50
Supplies 60
General household supplies 70
Stationery & postage 80
House plants, flowers, garden
supplies 80600
Household help 10
wages 20
Social security 30
Repair & installation of equip. & ho
furnishings
Miscellaneous household services
Frozen food service 50
Laundry service ,
water softening 60
Moving & storage 70
Pest control (home share) 80
Ifinor equipment & furnishings 90
Kitchen utensils
Small tools 80700
Non-durable furnishings 10
20

mm 1,1va ACCOUNT CODE 142

CLOTHING

Outer wear

Ready-made garments
Suits, coats, dresses
Sweaters, skirts, shirts
Overalls, work clothes
Jackets, playsuits
Underwear & accessories
Hats, gloves, purses
Lingerie, underwear
Ties, belts, scarves
Jewelry & repair
Umbrellas

Footwear

Clothing care & storage

Materials & services
Clothing material
Dressmaking

anding supplies

MEDICAL CARE*

Moro:- bills

Oculist & glasses
Dental'bills

medicine & drugs

Medical supplies
Hospital'bills

Hospital insurance premiums
Travel for medical care

EDUCATION ggRECREATION
school eXpense
Reading material
Paid admissions & party expense
Sports & hobbies

Equipment & upkeep

Licenses
Lheic & instruments

Instruments & upkeep
Toys, bicycles & games
Instruction &.lessons
Social & non-professional dues
Pets & care

TRANSPORTATION
Auto upkeep (Home share)
Repair

Oil & lubrication
Antifreeze

Fuel

Insurance

License
NonAbusiness travel

 

 

- .. a y. x
_
.
.
n
. . 0 .
‘ ~ ~ » f r
. . ~
\1
v I e
. u \ . s .
. . u . . a
n A A
n e .
I u n
. f
A . O
. . . .
. .
t A ‘
t
. .
A. n
. v» I
A. .
n A . ~ . .
A '. . -. A.
. . I
. I
A a
n n I
. .
. . A . .
' ~ 0 t
I n 0. ¢ -
a y . C
I - u. a u .
. n
. v .V
s.
x
. l
. r
1 .
a . ~I
. A
n i
I .4 A 4
o . a . . . A n .
. .| k . . 4
. . . . I .
c . a .l o . .
V p A . .. ~ . l 0.,
u. A . A
.. V . r u A . . . . A o
. . . \ a b
A s n I A . . I u
A o r a . v - O x i a v
I. .. . . . A . .
.. .. . , , A A . A .
. , . A A
u . n . - a .
. n a n A I n
~ . u .
n . . a D
. . c .
a A v . l
l . . r A
A . . u
A . . . . l . Y
. .. A a
. . . I! - ...
n .
A . . . I
J I A . . . a . o A . . « .~ .
us 0 . ! . o .. . . r . 1 . .
o .A u. . . \. n c A
. . A
.
u 4 r O I
. I . o
A . _ V . .
a a .
I - a e
. . . .
a. L
r b I
. .
u v I I I
A I . _
y . on I . t
. o
r . . u
.
. .
c

$11 Mail-In Account Code

Code

80800 CONTRIBUTIONS -:<

 

Church

Salvation Army

Red Cross

Community Chest
Non-profit schools
Non-prof it hospitals
Veterans' organizations
Scouts

Drives (polio, heart, multiple

sclerosis)

GIFTS g5 CARDS
We to non-family
Wrappings , cards

PERS OHAL

ToiIet articles

Barber, beauty services
Smoking needs
Allowances

Photos

Miscellaneous personal property

TAXES, CLASS _1_*
Non-farm“- personal tax
Non-farm real estate tax
State income tax
Intangibles tax

Sales tax

TAXES, CLASS II
Federal Ecome tax
Inheritance tax
Gift tax
Miscellaneous tax

Egg-FARM INTEREST*

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
Non-farm legal fees

Health 8: accident insurance
Funeral and Special events
Union dues

Bank charges, deposit box

NON-FARM INVESTI-ms
meta? bonds

Saving & retirement plans
Life insurance premiums
Real estate investment
Social security (self)

 

, 143
FAMILY LIVING ACCOUNT CODE (Continue )
Code

90100 MAJOR REIIODELING
“FEE additfons
Landscaping

 

90200 MAJOR EOUIPiIENT 8: FURNISHINGS
Clun' a, s ver, glass
Cleaning equipment (vacuum cleaner)
Clocks, mirrors 8: pictures
Drapes, window fittings
Furniture coverings
Furniture & lamps
Humidifier
Major kitchen equipment
Major laundry equipment
IvIattresses, linens, bedding
Rugs 8: carpets
Sexdng machine

 

 

 

Haj or garden equipmenF ~j

 

Luggage '
10 Radio, T .V. , record player, piano
Records '
Repairs
20 Auto
Purchased auto (home share)

90300 EXPENSE 2N NON-FARM DNESTMENT
Eke ep on investment properties

 

*These totals may be used if you file
the long form (10140) income tax return.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

' . .1 v ‘ a
|. a . I . « n.; ' \
p 4 {a n a . . , __
" “'"' "“ ""‘-‘""‘ " ‘ ~' ‘ “‘ ‘ ' I , - ....r ”.O'n'.tn..e - e
-
..
3“.
~‘— 'I‘
. n . . . - ,. , I ‘. . ‘ . I
. I 1 ... - A I . ' n- - n"—.
o. o--"“.¢ - ‘A‘ O.- y'
-' . '
. . . . -
n .
n .r . .
u
., .
n
a . . . . . ‘
. . I ,
s .A - .
o vuv' ~.- 9 n ... .. . .....4 ... n.~ ..- ‘
~ - I. u) ‘- .
.. .1 . a .» ....
u
" ' ' . a
' .. . . ' . . ,.
. . n I
‘ - w _ v A
A. . , . a s
I
.' ~ ‘ - a .
p
.. .. I . v. .V s ' '-
‘1 _-' . - . -. . ‘ ~
. h ' I~ I.
. . '
0’ I . v _ ..- > 1 . l
.. .
D . . I .
~-
I ‘ l -' V x . .
. ' . J .
u , g
‘ ‘ . A
. . . - . u n
' t
. o . i ,
.. . . . .. '. ,‘
| ‘ ‘ . I .-‘ ll ~Hri e
. . u A . ‘ ' . .> .
a ‘ ’ v I I
- . - ’ . ‘ ‘ I. «o
n ‘ . . . “
’ - _ - a '. . v,
u . >
‘ - n- I < ‘
-:.r
e . -
t ‘ . ‘
. .r . . -.
. ' ‘. N
- ,
. -' - . ~ , In.
0 . ‘ I
'_ ‘_Vv -. -. ... Ah“...-
.. . I '0‘
. A . - ‘
I . . A . _ '
- '.. "- l a
' ' '\ ‘s
. —a o. ‘~.--.--.«.->-. —q--IAo. ' 0"-"H ' V , : ..’ ‘ K
v |. ’ ’ . .S
a... ' ' I - ‘
. .
A .....,... ......., > ‘
c A. u .... . n . ' ‘ .
.. . . ._
_ .
- .....--.--.-»-r~..... .—v - '- ... _,._
. . - _
' A I . .m' ' . ~ i -. -
. A.
' . h- x
.'- - v t ’
A .~ ‘
.‘ .
\.-‘ ' .
a . ‘
. . A r..- .... .~ -.r-- a r .-- - ..H 0 . .... .' ‘ ‘ ‘ " . - -.. ... ‘
y I I .
) ,
. §
. ..rr'q f,‘ '0.‘ .I .
" * o. u A
\ 'I e r
I
" ‘.' . . ' -
‘ ’ ca. ...4.- . -. ... .._
. .
. A .- l . . -
a . '| . ‘ I. f
"" - \ ... .' . . ..
.a u
I‘ n
-' . , A ‘
> i. ) ' -I . ' ‘
I ' l " ,
- ~ K ’ .
.... I . .‘V
n I. ‘-
‘ . o
If _
.. c _ o
" \‘P
‘ . a ; \
- , A.. .
- . a . .'
1 D».
.. . . r ..5 .~. ...A. .. . ...- .o
.
. ‘L .
’ 5 I . I' n V
l . , . .
. .. .
n~‘- - l - u ‘- ... ...A.... .
. . (
O "
. ' ' 0
- I . a .
| - l '.
- . 91... . .
. . a
. .\ .9. - .
I ' n '
' .. V . ‘. ’
v A , . . ' ‘1“. .. _ \
v ‘ O ' ‘.
. . . a n_.-
'- ~ --t A .‘ C
. , .A . .. - . .0 > ,
., ~»--o- - - o ..-...a. —< «s
4 . . 0' \
-,v .-.. . A .a. ‘ ‘
3 A , ‘. - .‘ -
l p ' , - ,~ , 3. .~ ~ . v - .-. .-. , . . ,. . v , ... ha». A .‘
‘.D \‘. " " - - - .,A I.
\ ' . ._ r . '
‘ .A , . . . .'- . A .l
.A - .
. u , ~
. . n' ‘ ' ‘ v
. ,_ 1 Y o. ._ I ‘ ‘ . I
a r , ’
A. . . ‘ _ . ,

 

 

   

 

 

‘ . .
u I I l u . A. < ‘ u
' ' 1" . .A .A
' " . ' ' . -- I
‘ . . . .. -
n .- - V
. ' . . . . .
A! ' .A .
v . ‘ ’
. K. . _ :. ' A , 'u , ‘
A u ,. o. ' ' V _ , .
a. ‘
i ‘ a.. ,- - . >- -
- » k i - . ' - ‘ .
In: I .-u... . o- p ,. .. »..
~ . r‘ .- .
. . .
. 0' ._. — A ' A '— 0. ~- _
‘ ' . . ~ . ,
.. -. ‘2 .- .. _ A. . . .
.
. ‘ .
. I _ _H. . . ‘ ._ . '. ‘
., ' u 4 . - -. s .I u
. . - n . -
. . .. . A V . I L
‘ - ' ‘ V ' . t‘ -
\- . .. n - A u ' . ' ..r - ~
' . y o
‘ n . , ' . . , . ' . ' ‘ .
A ~. ‘ .
.‘ . 't I j ”I. - . A

 

APPENDIX G

FINANCIAL SUMMARY FORM USED IN THE
1958 ”MAIL IN" FARM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.2. 55.. 29.53550 zo_._.o<m._.m:m H N zOFoummoo zoan< n _ A... .D .m .2 A 3255309 nomfionoou Ban—63¢ 29 333m 5355 956.89:
. _ _ _
_ _ _ _
u M u n J
m n u m
_
M u u __ u
.I. _ J _ _
u u u u
A. n _ a
_ _ 1 m
_ _ u .
u m u “
JJ — _J
u m u u
u _ _ n J
_ _ _1 _
u m n u
_7 _ u _w J
u m u n
u _ _J n J
_ 1 _
u u m u
u n _ _A
_ fi 1 _ J
u u u u
_ _J u _
m _ _ J J
_ _ _ u
u M m u
a 1 _ J.
u m m n
u _ _ _
_ fl a J
_ _ _ u
w M m n
_J J. _ _ J
_ _ n u
u u _ J.
_ _ _ .
u n u u
_ _ _ _
p _ _ _
_ _ _ .
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ n M n J
u u n n
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _r J
n n n _
_ _ _ u
u a “ fl _F D _ D
up<n 0._. 45.0... .qummao uh<n oh ..Ebh hzummao 38 . unoo
nmoJoz<4 m0._.<mmn_o e8 >._._._.z<:a 0: 2m: 2m:
Z<0_IU=2 .UZ_WZ<|_ Pm<m
UZFZDOUU< ..Z_.I:<_2:
. ¢<N> PUNHOKQ N000 22(5—
>._._mmm>_ZD m._.<._.m Z<0_IU_2 A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

urSzSDm |_<_UZ<Z_L

APPENDIX H

PROJECT OUTLINE OF THE EXPERIMENT RELATING TO THE
POSSIBLE ESTABLISTNENT OF A FARMERS' CONTINUOUS REPORTING
SYSTEM OF METERS! INcom AND EXPENDITURES AND RELATED DATA
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, NOVEMBER 6, 1.95 6

To:
From:

14?

Persons interested or involved in the Michigan State University farmer panel
Warren H. Vincent, Michigan State University

Subject: Prelimfimry report of research aspect of mail-in project

Date a

November 6 , 1956

I. Cooperative agreement with United States Department of Agriculture

A.

B.

Name of project-Experinents relating to the possible establishment of a
Farmers' ContinuOus Reporting System of farmers' income and expenditures
and related data.

Leaders

1. Warren Viment for the Michigan Agricultural Fhrperinnt Station
2. Nathan M. Koffslw for the Agricultural Marketing Service

3. Wylie D. Goodsell for the Agricultural Research Service

Location—h counties in Michigan
Headquarter-4.1a“ Lansing, Michigan

Reed for stuck—In the past the USDA has relied on ore-tin emmerative
surveys of farm operators for such of the basic information relating to
farmers ' incomes ard' expenditures. These surveys have beon few and far
between. For example, the 1955 Survey of Famers' Expensiitures was 9
years after the previous nationwide survey which was of limited signif-
icance and almost 15 years after the previous comprehensive survey of
191:2. In view of the importance of maintainirg accurate farm income and
expemn data, it is essential that the Department have available mom.
for obtaining such information mch more frequently. Furthermore, the
results of emmerative surveys do not become available usually for as
much as a year or two after the survey has been completed. The Depart-
nnnt should consider the alternative of establishing representative
groups of farmers who would report in regularly, perhapsnorthly, on
information relating to income and expenditures. (he great advantage

of a Continuous Reporting System is that significant changes are
recorded quickly. For example, actual information on farmrs' expend-5
itm~es for farm machinery in 1956 are not presently available. It is
known that farm machinery production is down sharply from 1955. But
there is the question as to how much of the decline reflects Sheller
farm purchases or reductions in dealers' inventories. A continuous
Deportilg system would indicate what was actually 11W. to famde'
purchases at the tin. But there are new questions of teclmical

nature which would require answers before the Departmmt would be in a
position to know whether such an approach on a nationwide basis is
feasible and would provide adequate information. The ARS is also inter-
ested in testing out the procedure as a means of getting the data needed'
for analyzirg costs and returns by type of farm, production, addustnnms,
and the financial positions of farmers. For these reasons the Agricul-
tural Marketing Service, the Agricultural Research Service and the
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station are conducting cooperative re-
search.

F.

1&8
.2-

Oojectives: the main objectives are to study:

1. The problems involved in establishing a representative Farmers'
Continuous Reporting System and in keeping it representative.

2. The kinds of information that can be obtained from such a reporting
system, including the feasible length of survey form.

3. Comparison of costs as between Enumerative Surveys and Farmers'
Continuous Reporting Systems .

h. A quality check to the extent possible, of comparing differences in
results as between Enumerative Surveys and Farmers ' Continuous

Reporting System.

Procedure-«The cooperating parties will establish a probability sample
of about 200 farms in 1; counties in Michigan for the purpose of providing
monthly information on farmers‘ income and expenditures and related data.
The sample will be representative of agriculture in the selected counties
Tests will be devised to determine the effects on the representativeness
of the sample of refusals to participate, and the effects of dropouts
after the Continuous Reporting System has been established. The sample
will be contacted for the purpose of obtaining information on farm
characteristics, and selected income and expense item in the preceding
year and eliciting participation. Mail-in reporting forms will be
designed to test types of information that can be obtained, and how much
can be obtained without Jeepardizing the sample or results. Consider-
ation will be given to a possible recall survey of cooperators to
determine selected income and expense items in 1957 without moves

to monthly records as well as information on how the monthly records were
kept. Cost data on the project will be maintained for comparison with
other survey costs.

1. Agricultural Marketing Service

a. Will provide the services and travel expenses of its regular
staff msnbers for planning and consultation in this stuw.

b. Will provide not to exceed $5000 for reinbursement to the
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for salaries of
emmsrators and clerical assistance, travelexpenses and
machine tabulations in connection with this work.

2. Agricultural Research Service

a. Will provide the services and travel expenses of its regular
staff menbers for planning and consultation in this study.

b. Will provide not to exceed 85000 for reinbursement to the
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for salaries of
enumerators and clerical assistance, travel expenses and machine
tabulations in commotion with this wcrk.

lie
.3-

3 . Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station

a.

b.

0.

Will assume the major responsibility for all field work,
coding and machine tabulations in this study.

Will provide office space and other facilities for the
project staff .

Will provide the services and travel expenses of its regular
staff members for planning and consultation in this stuw.

H. Mutual Agreements

1. It is nutually understood and agreed that:

8-

b.

C.

d.

The estimated expenditures for this project will be approx-
imately as outlined in the following budget . Reimbursement by
APB and ABS to the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station will
be made quarterly for specific expenditures for each previous
quarter as listed in detail on properly executed invoices or

vouchers prepared by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station to _e__ach ccoperator.

Follow up on this study will be made by personal review and
consultation between the parties and reports will be premd
by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station as agreed upon.

The results or information obtained from these studies herein
outlined may be used jointly by the ccoperators or by either of
the parties separately, but am manuscripts prepared by either
shall be submitted to the other parties for suggestions and
approval prior to publication. In the event of disagreement,
either party may publish results on its own responsibility,

giving proper aclmowledgment of cooperation.

In connection with the performance of work under this agreem
the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station agrees not to
discriminate against ary employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, or national origin. The
aforesaid provision shall include but not be limited to, the
following: employmnt, upgrading, demotion, or transfer;
recruitment or recruitment advertising, moff or termination,
rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for
training, including apprenticeship. The Station agrees to post
hereafter in conspicuous places, available for anployees and
applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the
Department setting forth the provisions of the nondiscrimination
clause. The Station further agrees to insert the foregoing
provision in all sub ~agreemsnts hereunder, except agreements for
standard commercial supplies or raw materials .

f.

150

4,-

No member of or delegate to Congress or resident commissioner,
shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to
am benefit to arise therefrom, unless it be nude with a
corporation for its general benefit.

This agreement shall become effective October , 1956 am
shall continue in force until June 30, 1957, subject to
renewal from year to year by mutual agreement of the parties

in writing. Either party may terminate this agreement upon
90 days' notice in writing to the other parties.

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL EXPERDEENT STATION
By:
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

BY:

 

Administrator

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

By:

 

I. Approximte budget of expenditures for the period October 1, 1956 to

June 30, 1957 .

 

 

Item Michigan Ann ARS TOTAL
Salaries
Professional 3 7501 45 7501
Enumerator and clerical . 25002 25002
Other .
II'Favel and per diem 17503 17503
Machine tabulations 10002 10002

Supplies, equipment, etc.

315in m- W W

 

1 Non-reinbursable item. Represents portions of salaries of staff menbers of

ARSaniAlB.
2

For reinbursement to the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

3Approachmtely 8250 is for travel expenses of staff members of A16 and ABS.
About 31500 is for reinbursement to the Michigan Agricultural Experiment

Station .

use

APPENDIX I

IBM CARD "FORMAT" USED IN THE
MSU "MAIL IN" FARM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

M?

ma
nephew 930.5804 mwmm eHudwcs :9
on». GH Ummfi mm ......mfimhom= go SmH
humanism
deQIHIIIHO EH00

p

 

 

a snaneaansasnnnnnna_c raceLa.......~

 

It

 

 

 

#PIBD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eee lea . ax. c
::R: ace. 8858838 8 snazmzaessesers 99:38 m
a
a w m m a
z m a
a cmnaa ceeaoo fa w
20ch Eonm ©0553 cowpmfinomom W
m u. .. gm e Hagen m. m
a I
I
e m. aneeoo a chasm m a
a mu ~n.£ anemone N ..
a P .3 0:82 H a
9 Oh essaoo . mmcceea
N u
_ _
anarzaeLe assess sfsscsnsiesaescsesaesafiscsnanasannnnnannna==££=ace£27......u.
1: «A manhood no coco on specs.
4 coapdfinomcn 83H 59H .m
U+m o ... m o m 4 . \

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROOM USE Git-ELY

 

 

 

 

6 5935

"'TITIiTtfl‘IITILflj'Ifllflifiiflfliujffl'fifiilflfllfll'lfilfimfES