SOCIOLOGICAL {AND EcdquIC ‘ CHARACTERISTICS OF COUNTY pMAf I ADMINISTRATORS IN MICHIGAN Thom fix that Dagn- of M. 5.: ' MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Christoph Bumper 1953 . .-..‘- This is to certify that the thesis entitled Sociological and Economic Aspects of County P.M.A. Administrators in Michigan presented by Christoph Beringer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _M.I_S.l___ degree in Agricultural Economics .. M Major professor \ J I C .2: ~'- .' y I ..'- l - - -" _ .' f —.H . -<’. .~.:.-';‘.‘."‘ f 1:; fifai: it fizz é???" . .:.. I ', I, n . A_. ‘l .. ' '. f a .._.1- .- 'V,.- A I! - "- . . L . ..‘_-v--‘_ ‘— -v‘w ,a .51: ,. .2 :45: Date MIL— L ‘ c, - o,~ "-l. I q o' 6 r ’ “It rad. v -v~ fl .1. . ‘ ".R. ' "Esrzn‘wgiifi ,5 ' . -- ' i A"); ‘ -‘ .. :~L ~Dr's-j l'...“ . x 1-9. .WwwangA .vrv. :r: ‘. .lllnll III I t I .Ill .ll'lllll‘l 1|: SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COUNTY PMA ADHINISTRATORS IN MICHIGAN By Christoph Beringer AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of ' MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1953 Approved THESIS ChristOph Beringer The objectives of this study were: (1) to obtain sociological information about the members of county Production and Marketing Administration committees in Michigan, eSpecially their personal and social character- istics, and their affiliation with various voluntary organizations; (2) to analyze the success the adminis- trators have had as operators of their farms; and (3) to find out whether or not changes have occurred over the years in the type of personnel as additional farmers were elected county PMA administrators. Regarding social and personal characteristics, the analysis has shown that PMA administrators are usually older farmers, their average age being 55.6 years. The educational background of PMA.administrators is better than that of the representative sample of Michigan farmers studied. Of the PMA administrators, 19.5% had attended college, compared with 6.2% of the sample of Michigan farmers. The analysis showed that PMA administrators are highly active in their communities, 63.5% of those who responded having held offices in the township govern- ment for an average of 9.9 years. A considerably smaller number have been members of social and fraternal organi- zations. With reSpect to activities and business interests outside of farming, it became apparent that those who have C o ‘w‘ p“ \ I'M ' I n 64 f"‘-s. \n./ W ChristOph Beringer 2 not been farming all their lives preferred jobs involving office work rather than physical labor. The fact that PMA administrators did not differ from other Michigan farmers regarding membership in the Farm Bureau Federation is considered one of the most important results of this analysis, because it proves that the Split between the Farm Bureau Federation and the Production and Marketing Administration has not yet reached down to the local level. With respect to activities in local governments and member- ship in the Farm Bureau Federation, the younger group of administrators, namely, those who were not members of either the community or county committees before 1945, do not differ appreciably from those who were members during this period. Regarding farming operations, it became evident that the farms of PMA administrators are equal in physical size to those of Michigan Farm Account Cooperators. Although the intensity and efficiency of farming Operations of PMA administrators proved to be considerably below the standard average compiled for Michigan Farm Account COOperators, this conclusion could not be reached with reapect to gross income. In this connection, the analysis has shown that PMA administrators cannot be classified as incapable or inexperienced farmers. Their interest in improvement ChristOph Beringer 3 associations, such as the Dairy Herd Improvement Association, was very great. Their below-average success as farm Operators was thus attributed to the fact that they are, on the whole, older farmers. The implications for agricultural policy can be summarized under the following headings: (l) Partisan considerations have not, to any appreciable extent, entered into the decisions made on the local level. (2) In selecting PMA adminis- trators, it appears that less emphasis is placed by the voting farmer upon success as a farm operator than upon previous administrative experience. (3) It appears from the deve10pments in the twenty-year exiStence of the AAAPPMA agency that the highly partisan character of both the PEP-Extension group and the AAA-PEA agency will determine to whom the bulk of the administrative assignments will fall, depending upon the preferences of the party in power. SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECON MIC CHARA TERISTICS OF COUNTY PMA ADMINISTRATORS IN MICHIGAN By Christoph Beringer A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1953 ' (0//2./5"3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. Dale E. Hathaway, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State College, under whose guidance this thesis was written. His suggestions from the very beginning of the study up to the preparation of the final manuscript were valuable not only because they came from a man whose concept and knowledge of the field of public policy are extraordinarily broad, but also because his criticism and suggestions were at all times positive and marked by great personal interest in the student's advancement. The writer is also deeply indebted to Dr. Thomas K. Cowden, Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, who gave him, through his friendly understanding, the Opportunity of returning to the United States to complete requirements for the Master's Degree. Thanks go also to Dr. Lawrence Witt who suggeSted the problem and helped to lay out the frame within which the analysis was made. Mr. James Quick, Chairman of the Michigan Production and marketing Administration Committee, took a very favorable interest in this work and helped greatly; it was largely due to his personal talks with the county l|.'|| ‘i‘l‘lll PMA committeemen that such a large number of them completed and returned the questionnaires. Dr. Lauren H. Brown made valuable technical suggestions when the questionnaire was prepared and the data evaluated. Dr. Lawrence Boger helped in the preparation of the statistical tests. To these men and to all others not mentioned by name, who made valuable suggestions in one way or another, go the author's sincere thanks. Last, but not least, the author feels that this is the apprOpriate place to express his gratitude to the American peOple. The generous attitude of their institutions, in particular the U. S. Department of State and the Michigan State College, made it possible for him to Spend two most beneficial years in the United States, where he has gathered rich human and academic experience. It is the author‘s sincerest hOpe that this stay may have been a small but worthwhile contribution toward the furthering of understanding and fruitful cooperation among the peoples of the world. lllllllllllln. IIII|II TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Sampling . . . . . . . . . The Method of Analysis . . . . . . . The Limitations of the Study . . . . II FARMER COMMITTEES: AN OUTGROWTH OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN THE 19308. O O O O O O O O O C I O O O The Ideas Underlying the Creation of Farmer Committees . . . . . . . . The DevelOpment of County Committees in the Light of the Changes Which Have Taken Place in the Program Throughout the 20 Years of Agricultural Adjustment Administration . . . . . . . The Attitudes of Farm Organizations Toward the Agricultural Adjustment Legislation, with Particular Reference to Its Administration . . . . . . . . III SOCIAL AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS IN MICHIGAN . . . . The Age of the Administrator . . . . The Holding of Elective Offices and the Activities in Various Organizations as Measure of the Individual's Administrative Ability and Experience . Membership in Various Farm Organizations IV THE FARMS OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . The Farming Operations of PMA Administrators . . . . . . . time: TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter I Page Total Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Tillable Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Gross Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Total Productive Man Work Units . . . . . 70 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 79 APPENDIX I The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 II Letter of the Chairman of the Michigan PMA Chairman to all County PMA Committeemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 III Explanation of the Term Productive Man work Unit C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 97 IV The T and X2 Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 V Rates of Customwork in Michigan . . . . . . 105 VI Presentation of Wholesale Prices of Agricultural Products as Used for the Compilation of Gross Income . . . . . lO7 Illa-II ‘II III. llllulll I‘II. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Age Distribution of 165 Michigan County PMA Administrators According to Age Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2 Educational Background of PMA Administrators Compared to a Sample of Michigan Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5 The Kinds of Township Government Offices Held by PMA Administrators . . . . . . . . 50 4 Activities of PMA Administrators on the Local School Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5 Outside Business Interests Besides Farming for 165 Michigan County PMA Committeemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6 The Average Number of Years PMA Administrators Have Served on Community and County Committees . . . . . . 55 7 Membership in Various Farm Organizations of 165 PMA Administrators in Michigan Compared to a Sample of Michigan Farmers . 57 8 Total Number of Acres Operated by PMA Administrators and Farm Account COOperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 9 Number of Tillable Acres on Farms of PMA Administrators and Farm Account Cooperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 lO Calculated Gross Income of PMA Administrators and Farm Account Cooperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11 Total Productive Work Done on Farms of PMA Administrators and Farm Account COOperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 I'IIIIII \‘I llI'llll-lll ‘Il‘ll‘ll' LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table ' Page 12 Productive Man Work Units per Acre on Farms of PMA Administrators and Farm Account Cooperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 15 Productive Man Work Units Per Man on Farms of PMA Administrators and Farm Account COOperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 14 Number of PMA Administrators Who are members of Improvement Associations . . . . . 77 LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page I County Map of Michigan Indicating the Counties Wherefrom Reports were Obtained o O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 II Map of Michigan Indicating the 17 Different Farming Areas of Michigan as Used in the Farm Account Project . . . 8 III Map of Michigan Indicating the Price Reporting Areas as Established by the Michigan CrOp Reporting Service . . . 12 CHAPTER I Seldom in the history of democratic government do we find a system of administration as unique as the one introduced by the government of the United States in 1935 to administer the first Agricultural Adjustment Act. It was unusual in that it did something previously unknown to students of public administration: it has substituted farmers for civil servants as the administrators of a federal farm program. The reason for the introduction of these farmer committees at that time was not the failure of the civil servant, but rather the absence of a sufficient number of trained personnel. To resort to farmers was thus part of the great eXperiment in government which had to be undertaken because of the depression. These farmer committees and their position within our democratic society are the subject matter of this analysis. It will be shown how out of an improvisation grew one of the most powerful and thoroughly organized administrative systems in the United States. The reader is reminded at the beginning of this inquiry that a failure of this administrative organization might have resulted in a complete collapse of the Agricultural 2 Adjustment Movement. Without it the Democratic Administration of the past 20 years would presumably have never been able to gain national administrative power for 5 successive terms. Over the years a good many controversies have arisen about the feasibility of an administrative system of the kind introduced by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1955. Although they seldom have been formally eXpressed these differences of opinion gave an incentive to investigate more fully some of the characteristics of the committee system. More specifically it has been tried to explore some of the personal and professional characteristics of the farmers who make up these administrative committees, and to relate the findings to the objectives of our present agricultural policy. In particular the objectives of the study can be stated as follows: 1. To obtain information about the members of County Production and marketing Administration committees1 in Michigan, their personal and social characteristics, and their affiliation with various voluntary organi- zations; 2. To analyze the success the administrators have had as operators of their farms; 1 Hereafter called PMA committees. 5 5. To find out whether or not there have been changes in the type of personnel over the years as new farmers have been elected county PMA administrators. Mgthods of Sampling The basic information was obtained through a mail questionnaire which was prepared by the author in co- operation with the Michigan State PMA committee.1 The State PMA committee participated in the study because they were interested in more detailed information about the 240 county committee members working in the State of Michigan. The questionnaire was sent by mail in September 1952. Accompanying the questionnaire was a letter signed by the Michigan PMA chairman which urged the local adminis- trators to complete the questionnaire and return it to the State Office.2 Out of approximately 240 committee members 165 (sixty-eight per cent) completed and returned the questionnaire. The reaponse of the chairmen of the committees was about equal since 55 (sixty-seven per cent) out of 80 reported. Figure I shows a county map of Machigan indicating the counties from which reports were 1 For a copy of the questionnaire see Appendix I. 2 For a copy of this letter see Appendix II. 4 obtained. It should be mentioned in this connection that returns from those areas of the state where agriculture is relatively more prosperous were proportionately fewer than for regions less suited for farming purposes. From the Upper Peninsula only 2 (15.5 per cent) out of 15 counties failed to report, while 22 (52.5 per cent) out of 68 counties in the Lower Peninsula did not return the questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. Part I asked for general information regarding age, education, membership in voluntary non-farm organizations, membership in farm organizations, experience in various levels of government, previous professional experiences other than.farming, and the length of time the person had been PMA administrator at various levels. Part II of the questionnaire concentrated exclusively on information regarding the administrator's farm. Most important were those questions asking for the numbers of livestock kept, the acreage planted to different crOps, the amounts and the kinds of labor employed on the farm, and production data such as the number of bushels harvested per acre and the amount sold in the case of livestock and livestock products. m Inch FIGURE i r ' I r.J / . I. g. I I. Omonogon r 5; Boroqo “I I I 3 r . ~—.--- I °I I - I GoqobIc 1 ' 1. .Morauene ..... ILuce ' .. .I J -" I ' ‘ I . . ' . . 5.....-J' ron ' I Alger P J I I Chlpp.wo \ Q l ' '-‘ \. I ‘b’v'r'am I Is" ., .. I---—-—-—ei- ‘ o ] o ‘ n \..| I 'c n I v.6.“ ..... “f °° ° ° |IIIIocI-Imoc L _______ ‘ u o a . o ' . ' "° ' ' I ' . “ «S 'r'-°T'J / I Pi 5 i . ' P ' ‘V: -J c. | . . I . 06 . Emmet I Cheboygonr 5 o. i I 8 , I a ! I Q ' I Charles-0'5. I i Prosquc IsIo ._., I.._-_._S‘_J--_.-_-T ....... Q 1.-.-.-1- JOIsoooI ontmoroncyi AIpono Antrim ~ . ' o o I I 3 .o . . I .\° I . ______ I __________ V. rIKCIIIIIasqua | Crawford :Oscodo IAIcono e . - Grand I I - I "a"! Yrovouo i i I l Monistoe.Wo:Iord III/“smoke:Foo-cbgmoreaq:n;;wo-II—obco ' . I I i I I I i I I I I ..... ,._-i.._- ....1-_- ...._I..-__ _.-I_-_ _.._. .__._. Mason ILoke TOIcoolo ‘TCIoro I Ioden IArenoc ' l I I I I I I I F'1 I . . ' Huron . I I L . I I ' . ‘Boy ....... -_.--_-_I_-- _.-.+-_.--- I.._-_--._I Oceono {Nowoygo ‘IMOCOSIO .IsoboIIo .MIdIond I . I I ' i I i I I L ..... 1 ...... . | , , I Tuscolo ”Somme I , I I “rm- , ! ....... .i L-'-"-'-J_'_I_'—‘ -_._‘l’"-"’ lo-n' ' 4' I iMonIcolm .GroIioI |Soounow I I I ‘ . a . ' I - o ' I , .....1 Re orting Counti s “r" 32.7.;wa I i I I L-.. 6 ff 0 ..I ' ' . -_.4-_. - - E p ." ' I I I rGonouo {Lopoor I ooooo —J ' F'_.'----‘rs—-—-—t -—.-—-—-—‘ Li‘s-0-- Ottowoi -Iomo .Chmon IShIowosooo' . ISL Clan I I . ' | ' Counties not i i i I . i I . . I ' . I re orting . - . I ....i ..... ..;. . p I . ' , L rOoIIIand TMocomEI ‘_ ..... _.L- - -_-.L-_. -—~+---T'-~‘-'-"’"._.' ""1 I I AIIooon 'Borry quIon imghom iLIvunqsIoni I I I i i ! I i . I I I I i _______ .T._-_I-_ ._.-J_.-_-_-.'...L._.-._.I.-_._--..L..T....---..'..- Von Boron .KoIomozooi Calhoun idockson IWOsMInOI 3W0”. 9“ I ' - . ' ’ I ‘1 I I I i I I i I I . l I ‘ I -—-—. .L--.—- -—-L-_r--t--—.L-_.‘ o . ------- +-~----- -— r- _ 0° , Con :59, Joseph iaronch iHIIIsaoIo I Lonowoo ,Momoo ‘s ' . b ' I 0° I I I I I ' . I I I I f I ' I oo—oodoo_oo&oo—oo—oo—J I... MAP OF MICHIGAN SHOWING COUNTIES FROM WHICH DATA WERE OBTAINED lob Ionic {I If“! I" 1' a ,. . 4&7 ~5' “ Reporting Counties Counties not reporting MAP OF MICHIGAN SHOWING COUNTIES FROM WHICH DATA WERE OBTAINED The Method of Analysig The data contained in each part of the questionnaire had to be analyzed differently. The reason for this was that the sociological and personal information of Part I did not need a long transformation process which was necessary for the data derived from Part II of the question- naire. The data of Part I were first summarized and the results were stated in table form. In several cases comparisons were made with information obtained on identical questions from another sample of Michigan farmers.l These findings were analyzed to determine their effect upon: (a) The overall success of agri- cultural programs; (b) The success of the program on the local level; (0) The impact which these characteristics have on the society as a whole. The results are presented in Chapter III. The primary objective of the information 1 Parts of this information were used by Dale E. Hathaway in his thesis entitled Farmer's Knowledge and Attitudes Towgggs Agricultural Pgograms, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1952. The data underlying this study were obtained through personal interviews with a group of 500 farmers with farms of 70 acres and more in central and southern Michigan. The author feels justified to make comparisons between this group and the one subject to analysis in the present study. This can be defended on the basis that the number of farmers making use of agricultural programs and Operating less than 70 acres is very small. A comparison with a group which include these relatively “small“ holders of land (census data) would be inadequate. 7 obtained in Part II of the questionnaire was to compare the farming Operations of PMA administrators with another group of Michigan farmers. For this purpose a group of farmers has been chosen which participates in the Farm Account project of Michigan State College.1 How these data were compiled and analyzed is briefly explained in the following section. On the basis of the information recorded in farm account books which are summarized annually, Farm Manage- ment extension Specialists compile what is called “average standards of performance" by using a set of standard conversion factors.2 In order to make the data useful for comparison, Michigan has been divided into 17 areas in order to allow for climatic, soil, and marketing differences. Figure II shows a map of Michigan indicating the 17 different areas as used in the Farm Account project. 1 The reasoning why a comparison with census farmers is inadequate is similar to the one stated previously. The census data include farms with as little as 5 acres and the results are thus biased in favor of a group which is actually not participating in the agricultural program. It has been shown that Michigan Farm Account C00perators are on the average better farmers than the ones included in the census data. For a list of conversion factors and their eXplanation see Appendix III. . AREA NAME 1. 2. 3. LI. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 170 FIGURE II TYPE OF FARM]: MG AREAS III III CH: GAN 43$ Natural Line Basis I 16 ', (22/) MICHIGAN\ Corn and livestock Small Grains and livestock Southwestern Fruit and Truck Crops Poultry, Dairy and Truck Crops Dairy and General Farming Dairy and Cash Crops Dairy, Hay, and Special Crops Beans, Sugar Beets, and Dairy Cattle, Sheep, and Forage Central Potato and Dairy Northern Fruit and Dairy Sbrthern Potato and Dairy General, Self~suff1c1ng, and Part Time Cattle, Potatoes, and Self-suffi- cing I Cattle, Ray and Spring Grains Dairy and Potatoes Potatoes, Dairy and Part-Time uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u I l _ a l .. . ‘. u' n '. v ,. . .- '- '1‘ I. . ~ n . .‘ . I' . o n o . . b .. u . . u ,. n . '. u l’—- . I . )o' n a .. 0 o . v u . . . . .. . o . .- - n . . .- r .I ‘ u u 0 . . l . . . . K . . . o ,-p '. ..‘ 's, ' .. ,- u. .0' 4". ,‘ . . ' ' I 0 ~~ ‘ I . f c J‘ ' I I . . I; ' ~ I ’ w . \ .. .4 I I II J F.‘ .‘ . . ~-' ' ‘h o . 1 I . ... 9 In the analysis of the data for PMA administrators we have gone through a like process. The questionnaires have been sorted according to areas used in the Farm Management Project. The data then have been converted by using the same transformation factors, and then were summarized. The figures obtained are thus comparable to the results stated in the Farm Analysis Booklets in which the converted data for Farm Account C00perators in 17 different areas are summarized. These booklets list a great number of standards which could be used for comparison purposes, and we have attempted to concentrate on those considered most important. The measures used in this study can be grouped under three headings: a. Those related to the measurement of the “Size of Business" of an enterprigg: Total acres Tillable acres Productive man work units Man labor equivalent Gross income b. étandards which measgre the intensity with which PEA administrators use the resources on thagg farm. To measure this we use the following standards of_per§9rmance: Productive man work units per acre Tillable acres per productive animal unit Fertilizer expenses per tillable acre c. §tandards which measure the efficiency with which the resources are used on the farm. Productive man work units per man 10 On this basis the two groups of farmers could be compared. The results have been shown in table form, each table covering one particular standard of performance. The differences are however not meaningful unless they have been subjected to a significance test. We have used for this purpose one of the standard tests, in our case one which tests differences in means.1 Again, as in the case of Part I, the evaluation of the data in the light of agricultural policy objectives, however subjective this evaluation may be, was the most important part of the analysis. The plan to use farmers as administrators of Agricultural Programs came into being because other Specialists were not available in a suf- .ficient number. Implied in such action is the belief that on a lower level of administration an administrator is needed who is not only a good coordinator but also an expert in his field. Since the lawmaker has based the use of farmer committees upon these assumptions the author felt Justified in assuming the success a person has had as farmer is partially correlated with his ability to administer the program successfully. After the data in both parts have been analyzed it will be possible to determine, by comparing the results stated in Chapter III and Chapter IV which characteristics 1 For a description of this test see Appendix IV. 11 appear to the voting farmer to be most important when he chooses the man to represent him on the PMA county committee. gge Limitations ogfthe Study The shortcomings of an internal nature are those which go back to the questionnaire and the methods with which the data were compiled. Not all the data employed for comparison are equally reliable; subsequently those are treated where we have well-founded reasons to believe that they have been subject to uncontrollable errors. The estimation of Gross Incomg for each individual farm was made by using the production figures obtained from the questionnaire and average commodity prices reported for different areas by the Michigan Crop Reporting Service. Figure III shows a map of Michigan indicating the different price reporting areas as established by this agency. Prices are reported from various market places within these areas.. The number of units reported sold by the PMA administrator were multiplied by this season average price for the area. For "work off the farm" allowances have been made on the basis of the 12 lm Royal. 0 FIGURE III L1/" i . ' r / - L ‘1 g I L‘ " ' Ontonogon r"1 ‘0' Samoa .j I L1 ' 3 | r 1.....- ! ° i I I (Become 1. I I . .Morquenc '_ _____ J Luce | I. I . i . - x K I.-._..I ron I I Alger J " I Chippewa o. . I r--—- I I I ....... . '0 . .- I._.—.--- ' ' ioickInSOV‘q; ‘ I. - _i_51choolcroft:" .Mockmoc Chquév—dg. — -_.._ _.J_-———-T ——————— otugo Siontmorency' Alpeno .’ ._..‘ ALntrim .—.-.—.—- —-q—-—---— - I I i i mg TMIdIond I I l—-—.—-_. _- .__..L. - ontcalm GroIioI _- ._-.L-_. ._- - - - rry TEoton 1:lngham vinqfloni - i - . a v i * - . .-- ._-.L- -_.-_._.. ...... .L- ...._....._ V‘o-n r; 'Kol a ma .. ColhounMson ouhtcnow Y ‘\\\\ '1 i r . ! i I I ° L ....... ' — ————— ”J'— —-—o -._I"—f—-—-L-—.“ x" I CO" . - p !8ronch iHiIIsdolo Lenowce iMonroo a“ ' i Q I I i . l ' . I I I ! .C—Ofidu—oo 00— —I J‘ I -- ‘ .0 O.— .. . - —_ MAP OF MICHIGAN SHOWING 9 PRICE-REPORTING AREAS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE MICHIGAN CROP REPORTING SERVICE 15 information given in Extension Folder 161.1 The resulting figure is an estimate of the administrator's gross income. However, the author realizes that this approximation comes closer to what is usually referred to as "Total Cash ‘Income”, since it does not allow for changes in stocks which have to be included in the gross income figure. The main source of farm income in Michigan are dairy products and fewer estimates had to be made with reSpect to this figure since a large number of administrators reported the dollar income they had derived from the sale of milk and cream. Approximations had to be made, mostly for minor income items on the basis of the information available. Since true information about ”man labor equivalent“ is also most difficult to obtain through a mail question- naire, some doubts as to the accuracy of this figure exist. Man labor equivalent can be defined as the amount of work done by one adult male who is working on the farm full time. The number of months worked on the farm by different members of the family, hired youth labor, and adult hired labor were converted to this basis. The l Ektension Folder 161, Rates:for Custom Workgin Michigan I95Q2§nd 195;, Michigan State College, 1951. Fbr a list of the rates used see Appendix V. 14 information upon which we had to base our computed figure was in some cases obviously wrong. This was evident in cases of committee chairmen who are known to Spend a great part of their time working for PMA and who reported to have worked 12 full months on their farm. In general the tendency existed for the farm operators to overrate the number of months Spent actually working on their farm. Nevertheless we had to accept the information Since any correction on our part would have been arbitrary. We will for this reason rely less on this figure when evalu- ating the farm of the individual administrator. External influences are of course present and con- siderably more important than the ones discussed above because they tend to limit the study with regard to its applicability. Michigan agriculture is not necessarily representative of the whole or even parts of the United States, nor are the men administering the PMA program in Michigan necessarily a true sample of all county adminis- trators in the United States. One of the reasons seems to be the difference in sociological structure which in turn is caused by tradition, customs, and eventually factors like climate which have been used to eXplain regional differences in peOple's attitudes and behaviors. 15 A second reason is the very fact that the production of field crops toward which the program was directed in the beginning are less important in Michigan's agriculture than is the case in some other farming areas of the United States. This may have tended to lessen the importance of the program and its administrators to Michigan farmers. The problem and the principal methods by which it was analyzed have now been introduced. The following chapter will give us a closer look at the deveIOpment of local administration in the 20 years which have passed since the Agricultural Act of 1955 was introduced. After this historical summary, the positive part of this inquiry will be presented, which is an evaluation of the data obtained in the light of agricultural policy objectives. CHAPTER II FARMER COMMITTEES: AN OUTGROWTH OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN THE 19508 AS the American economy failed to work during the depression of 1929-1955 and farm income dropped drastically, the farm organizations urged Congress to pass legislation which would raiSe farmers' income to a level comparable to that of other sectors of the economy and at the same time secure the supply of agricultural products upon which the non-agricultural population depended. The situation in agriculture was such by the end of 1952, that thousands of farmers were subject to mortgage foreclosures, many of them had started to auction off their farms, rural banks had to close and everybody became aware that a complete breakdown of the nation's agriculture must be avoided.1 As a result of this emergency the First Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed by Congress in April 1955. The theoretical arguments underlying the law, which was drastic government interference into the free flow of the economy, can be summarized as follows: Since the amount supplied 1 Edwin G. Nourse, Joseph S. Davis, John D. Black, Three Years of Agricultural Adjustment_Administration. The Brookings Institution, Washington D. C., 1957, pp. 20-210 17 in a market has an influence on the market price, a higher price would bring about a rise in total revenue for several commodities due to the peculiar shape of the demand curves which these products face. To obtain this reduction in supply the law prOposed to reduce the acreage planted to different crOpS. In addition to this increase in revenue farmers were to be given benefit payments if they were willing to cooperate. The money for these payments was raised through a Special excise tax on the commodity in question. To make the program work a vast number of adminis- trators was needed. Each individual farmer had to be signed up, his acreage had to be allotted and measured, and his compliance had to be checked before he could receive any benefits. The only existing agency upon which the Federal Government could rely for the execution of the program was the COOperative Extension Service. This organization had been weakened as a result of the depression and was actually dissolved in many counties throughout the United States. The USDA did not plan to rely completely upon the Extension Service, at least not for a very long time, because it was realized that the administration and 18 execution of the program had to be on a much broader basis. This idea was laid down in the provisions for the Agri- cultural Adjustment Act of 1955:1 The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to establish for the more effective administration of the functions vested in him by this act, state and local committee, or associations of producers and to permit cooperative associations of producers.........to act as agents of their members and patrons in connection with the distribution of rental and benefit payments. The Ideas Underlying the Creation of Farmer Committees When the agricultural adjustment program was first designed it was quite obvious that it would result in an enormous centralization of power unless some device was found to get the farmers to participate actively in the execution as well as the formulation of the law. This was implied long before the law was actually written when President Roosevelt, then governor of New York, announced in a Speech to Topeka, Kansas, in September of 1952 that he favored administrative decentralization to make the proposed farm program work on a c00perative basis, rather than to concentrate great administrative 1 Ernest Kneisl, Administrative Politics and the AAA, Unpublished Honors Thesis, Harvard University, 1947, p. 110 19 powers in Washington.1 Underlying this idea was (1) the belief the farmers themselves know a good deal about what ought to be done in agricultural policy, and (2) the fear that the American farmer enjoying freedom of action and belief, would strongly resist a program involving regi- mentation of his activities from a central agency in Washington. A third reason for the establishment of farmer committees as was indicated previously, was the very need for a large number of trained personnel suf- ficiently acquainted with the problems facing agriculture. Another objective in setting up farmer administration, was to give stronger leadership to the farm group and thus strengthen the influence of the farmer in shaping the nation's economic policy. The administration of Agricultural Adjustment programs was handled by a system of committees on the national, state, and local level. The national committee which was reSponsible to the Secretary of Agriculture worked in c00peration with five regional committees, also located in Washington, these regional committees in turn presided over the state and local committees.2 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Agricultural Adjustment_1957-58, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1959, p. 216. 2 Regional Committees are now replaced by commodity committees. 20 The Development of County Committees in the Light g: the Changes Which Have Taken Place in the Program Throughout the 20 Years of Agriculture; Adjustment Administration The reSponsibilities of the county committees are manifold, yet they can be grouped into two general areas. The first comprises the educational part of the program, the second area involves the execution and supervision of the law. Informational and educational work was in the fore- ground during the early stages of the program. The first task was to get the new ideas out to the farmers. This involved thorough knowledge on the part of the administrator as to the benefits which each farmer could obtain through participating in the program, and the ability to explain the technical prerequisites necessary to be eligible to receive these benefits. This educational program was carried out in general meetings of farm groups and through house to house visits. Many observers have criticized the fact that Agricultural Adjustmentl committees carry on this type of educational program on the ground that it is dangerous propaganda and not in agreement with the democratic principles upon which this country was founded. 1 From here on called AAA committees. 21 A second basis upon which enemies of the committee system of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration advanced their criticism was that the informational program was running in many phases parallel to the program of the Extension Service. This was not true in the early stages of the program when the educational job of the committees was one of short run character involving mainly the explanation of year to year changes in the program, while the educational program of the Extension Service was designed to give long run benefits to farmers through increasing their technical knowledge. However, when the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allot- ment Act was enacted in 1956 the educational job to be done on the part of the AAA committees followed no longer merely year to year objectives but gradually began to aim at the same goals as those set forth for the Extension Service. The work of the two agencies began to overlap more and more. This was true especially after the end of World War II. The Farm Bureau has pointed outthis .fact frequently in its annual resolutions and based its larguments against the Production and Marketing Adminis- ‘trationl on what was considered a ”misuse" of public funds. ‘_l l The Production and Marketing Administration will 1E'JI'CJm here on be referred to as ”PMA“. 22 A series of new laws, although they were essentially amendments to the basic act of 1955, have been passed in the last 20 years. Many of them introduced new adjustment devices and thus changed the executive tasks of county administrators from time to time. The first adjustment measure, which is still important today, was introduced with the first Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1955. It consisted of production control through voluntary contracts between the Secretary of Agriculture and individual producers of basic commodities. Production control aimed at a reduction in the acreage planted to each of the ”basic” commodities.l The allotment is determined annually in Washington.for the entire nation and distributed to the individual states. The state committees apportion the state allotment to the counties in the state, where it is distributed to the individual producers. Acreage allotments are figured on a historical base. The administrative job involved in carrying out the acreage control program is considerable. Since the participation of farmers is not compulsory it is essential to persuade a large enough number of farmers to take part 1 The following were classified as "basic“ commodities by the AAA.of 1955: Corn, cotton, rice, peanuts, tobacco and wheat. 23 in the program. The larger the number of cooperators the more effective the program will be. Aside from the educational job, the county administrators are involved in a considerable amount of office work, along with the supervision of the community committees. These community committees sign up farmers during the winter or early Spring, and determine the allotment for each individual farm. In the fall they visit the farmers who signed up for the program to check their compliance. If the farmer had actually fulfilled the promised reduction in acreage the benefit payments were made. At the present time (since benefit payments have been abolished in their original form) the reduction of acreage is part of the prerequisites which have to be fulfilled if a farmer wants to receive crop loans. Acreage allotments were in effect for several crops throughout most of the years since 1955 except during World War II and some of the post-war years. After 1956 the payments distributed as reward for cooperation in the acreage control program were no longer called ”benefit payments” but rather "soil conservation payments”, since the reduction of acreage was now termed a soil conservation 24 measure.l Soil conservation payments were to be given if the producers agreed to use soil conserving practices (liming, planting of nitrogen restoring legumes, etc.) and/or promised to reduce the acreage on certain soil depleting cr0ps, which were essentially the same com- modities termed ”basic” under the first Agricultural Adjustment Act. Marketing agreements are a second measure which became important in the early years of agricultural adjustment. Their principal aim was to prevent ”unfair" trade practices, by eliminating certain low quality grades from being brought onto the market. The adminis- tration of marketing agreements is extremely difficult because evasion of the law by individuals cannot be checked easily. Acreage allotments, marketing agreements, and soil conservation were thus principal adjustment measures in the early years of the program. The Act of 1958 intro- duced additional measures, namely commodity loans, crOp 1 On January 6, 1956 the supreme court declared several provisions of the First AAA unconstitutional. Among those were production control provisions and the processing tax on commodities on which acreage control was imposed. The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allot- ment Act was passed in order not to leave the farmer without any protection after this decision. 25 insurance, and marketing quotas on ”basic" commodities which were another form of acreage control. The purpose of loans and crop insurance programs was to provide for an equal supply of basic agricultural commodities over the years, a plan which became known under the name "Ever-Normal Granary". The provisions differed for each individual crop, but loans were to be given on all "basic" commodities. The Federal CrOp Insurance Program, the second new 1 The insurance provision aimed at wheat exclusively. protected the wheat farmer against I'unavoidable production risks" and was expressed as a ratio of present to average yields. Two plans were available, one covering the loss if the harvest is below 75 per cent of the average yield on the farm in question, a second starting when the crop goes below one-half of the average crop. The two main features of the plan are: (l) the premium as well as the loss is stated in kind and then multiplied by the prevailing market price; (2) for each individual farm a separate base is calculated which tends to avoid over-insurance of low producing farms and under-coverage of farms with high average production and good soil 1 The possibilities for insurance of other crops were to be investigated. 26 management. The determination of this average yield, the inspection of the crop, and the statement of the loss incurred is the job of the county administrators. It is not necessary to point out the responsibility each inSpecting county committeemen has not only towards his fellow farmer but also towards society as a whole. Production adjustment needs came to a sudden and with the entry of the United States into World War II. Most of the work for which the committees were originally set up was no longer necessary, but the Department of Agriculture was not willing to allow an organization which it had organized so carefully to dissolve because its services were not needed at the moment. In order to keep the organization alive the Secretary of Agriculture decided to make the AAA committee chairmen head of the defense boards.1 The defense boards were established on the county and state level. They added considerably to the power and prestige of the AAA committees because repre- sentatives of a great number of agencies connected with agriculture were represented on the committees over which 1 The I'Defense Boards“ were later called ”War Boards”. 27 the chairman of the AAA committee presided. The following agencies were members of the Defense Boards:l Bureau of Agricultural Economics Bureau of Animal Industry Forest Service Farm Credit Administration Farm Security Administration Rural Electrification Administration Soil Conservation Service State Experiment Station Vocational Agriculture 2 State Department of Agriculture All the agencies listed above had to follow the recommen- dations of the Defense Boards. Since the AAA committee was the leading organization on the Board it did not only have considerable influence upon its action but also carried the main burden of the work which had to be done.3 Kneisl has summarized the obligations of the War Boards:4 1. Estimate farm machinery needs as basis for steel priority figures. 2. Campaign to get farmers to order Spare machinery parts early, and to sell their scrap steel. 5. Act as an advisory body to the county draft boards, recommending deferments on investigation and determination of facts. 1 E. Kneisl, op. cit., p. 52. 2 Not all these agencies are represented on the county defense boards. 5 E. Kneisl, Op. cit., p. 55. 4 Ibid., p. 53. 28 In addition the Defense Boards had to carry out any projects outlined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Later during the war cooperation between the war boards and several other agencies, concerned with different aSpects of war mobilization (transportation, etc.) was urged. This tended to give even more strength and executive powers in the hands of the AAA committees which emerged from the war considerably stronger than they were in the beginning. Aside from the activities in connection with the War Boards the county agricultural committee was Still concerned with a series of other tasks, in their nature exactly opposite to what they had been in the years before the war. Instead of restricting production, it now had to be encouraged. Howard Tolley states some of the production goals as determined by the Department of Agriculture in his book entitled, "The Farmer Citizen at War":1 The Department of Agriculture asked farmers to aim in 1942 for the greatest agricultural production in the country's history. Farmers were asked to produce 125 billion pounds of milk, they were asked for a cattle slaughter that would reach 28 million head of cattle and calves, for 4 billion dozen eggs as well as a lot more chicken for meat, for the slaughter of 85 million head of hogs........ l H. Tolley, The Farmer Citizen at War, The MacMillan Company, New ork, 1948, p. 54. 29 The great confidence which the Department of Agri- culture had in the work of its committees is indicated in the Department of Agriculture report for 1941:1 ......Such a program (the Agricultural National War Program) would not have been possible had agriculture entered the war period unorganized and without any national machinery for coordinating its activities... As matters stand,writh agriculture organized nationally through AAA programs and with the Department author- ized to help farmers to guide the war time cr0p adjustments through the use of Special prices and definite acreage and marketing controls, they can meet the precise requirements with an economy of effort hitherto unapproached. As the war ended the committees found themselves again faced with the job of trying to avoid what they had previously encouraged.2 The war-caused expansion of production again was a serious threat to the welfare of the nation's agriculture. Yet due to the great needs of wartorn countries all over the world the demand for agricultural products did not drop as seriously as it was expected, and production was readjusted gradually and without serious price dr0ps. l Ib;g., p. 58. 2 The AAA committees were renamed PMA committees when the Production and Marketing Administration was founded on August 18th, 1945. The reason given for this action was the need to ”centralize reaponsibility for commodity programs and actions” (USDA Office of the Secretary, Press release, August 18th, 1945). 5O Post-war legislation did not affect the tasks of the county committee to a very great extent. The measures remained essentially what they have been in the years before the war, including the granting of crop loans, and allotments of acreage which have been made on potatoes, wheat, corn, and beans in several postwar years. The administration of the Soil Conservation program of the Production and Marketing Administration has been the most outstanding obligation of the county committees in Michigan in recent years. In a letter dated July 21, 1952 the Chairman of the Production and Marketing Ad- ministration in Michigan gives a description of the processes involved in the execution of the Soil Conservation Program.1 ...Each County Committee in the State deve10ps its own program. Using the State Handbook as a guide they select the practices applicable in their own county and the minimum Specifications and maximum rates of assistance must be within the limitations given by the state handbook. Representatives of the Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service and other interested agencies also participate in the deve10ping of the county programs... ...After a county has developed its own handbook, community committeemen again visit farmers to determine actually what practices have been performed so that payments to farmers can be computed. An 1 Mr. James Quick, Chairman of the Michigan State PMA.Committee in a letter to the author, dated July 21, 1952. 31 application form is then prepared signed by the farmer and submitted to this office for processing and subsequent payment. Our procedure requires that farmers submit substantiating evidence for most practices before payments are authorized... The tremendous shifts in the kind of administrative tasks which have taken place in the 20 years of Agricultural Adjustment Administration indicate the enormous flexibility of the county committees. The administrators are now adequately trained and stand ready to take on any new obligations the Department of Agriculture proposes. Recently the USDA has prepared a memorandum which directs production towards defense mobilizations:l ...As the defense mobilization objectives of this government place greater demands and obligations upon all phases of our economy and in particular upon our food and fiber production resources, it becomes essential to provide for the gearing of the knowledge, experience, facilities and other capacities of the Department of Agriculture to the mobilization job and to redirect our policies and programs to assure maximum contribution in the most efficient and least costly manner to that task. All of the agencies and facilities of the department can and must take a contribution towards the mobilization effort. Some of the agencies will be more directly, immediately and intensively concerned with mobilization than others, but each most henceforth give its fullest effort and priority attention to the mobilization effort... l Memorandum No. $280. United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D. 0., February 16, 1951, p. l. 52 For the county the following measures have been 1 I proposed: ...There is hereby created in each agricultural county of the United States and in the Territories a County Agricultural mobilization committee. The membership of the committee shall consist of the chief official of each agency or bureau of the department of agriculture having countrywide jurisdiction for that county and the members of the county PMA committee. The county agent and a representative of the Vocational agricultural educational teachers in the county shall be invited by the chairman of the committee to become members of the committee. The Chairman of the county PMA committee shall be chairman of the County Agricultural Mobilization Committee, shall call meetings thereof and report upon its operations and activities... The memorandum indicates furthermore that regular reports have to be made to the State Chairman describing the activities of the committee. This ends our short survey of the different stages the county AAA committees have passed during the almost 20 years of their existence. It does not claim to be an exhaustive study of all the deveIOpments which have occurred, but tried to point out the enormous influence AAA committees have gained in our present system of democratic administration. The farm organizations have influenced this develop- ment considerably. The Farm Bureau more than any other 1 Ibid., p. a. 55 farm organization frequently expressed its views on the legislative proposals and has taken active part in the develOpment of the nation's agricultural policy. Some of the attitudes of farm organizations eSpecially those pertaining to program administrative policies are treated in the following section. The Attitgges of Fgrm Organization; Toward the Agricgltural Adjustment Legislation; With Particular Reference to Its Administration Major disagreement among the farm organizations did not exist until the middle of World War II.1 Until then they_all favored the idea of agricultural adjustment and agreed that the level of income had to be raised in order to put the American farmer on par with other producers in the nation‘s economy. The Eggmer's Unign has always supported a very high level of support prices and demanded that the cost of production or parity, whichever is higher, be paid for farm products domestically consumed. It also recommended broader powers to be given to the county committees under the AAA of 1958 in order to make the allotment of acreages 1 The following organizations are included: The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmer's Union, and the National Grange. 54 more effective in the counties concerned.1 In general the Farmer‘s Union has not changed its position towards national agricultural policy, it favored the Brennan Plan, which prOposed to give farmers direct payments amounting to the difference between the market price and the support price. The viewpoint of the Farmer's Union is summed up by the following statement taken from its annual reso- lutions 1959.2 ...Although recognizing, that the Federal Agricultural Programs have many weaknesses and that legislation has not yet provided farmers with either cost of production or parity price, we believe it would be a serious set- back to American Agriculture to lose any of the good 1" points of existing Federal Programs. we must keep the present legislation and seek changes and corrective amendments... The American Farm Bureau Federatiog was an equally strong supporter of the adjustment movement throughout the early years of the program. This attitude continued through the war years and even in 1945 the Farm Bureau demanded price supports on all agricultural commodities on which the government had asked for increased production, and Opposed very much any move to drop the assistance 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Yearbook gf_Aggicu1turell940. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1940, p. 956. 2 Ibid., p. 958. 55 given to farmers. In its 1945 resolutions the Farm Bureau recommended a marketing agreement which did not wait for the price to fall below the parity level. The Farm Bureau suggested an examination of the parity formula with a View to more equitably adapting it to the needs of dairy and 1 other commodities requiring the maximum amount of labor. The attitude of the Farm Bureau towards the system of administration which had developed over the years was quite different. The enormous rise in importance which the AAA committees had experienced during the war years tended to affect the importance of the county agents and the Extension Service program in general. Edward O'Neal, then president of the Farm Bureau, started a serious attack against the AAA committees in 1945 and asked Congress to reduce appropriations to the AAA. In par- ticular the Farm Bureau recommended: 1. Approving House provisions continuing the AAA and limiting appropriations to $500,000,000 to be used solely for soil building and water conservation payments and administrative expenses. 2. In order to aid in the reduction of expenditures and to eliminate overlapping services insert the house committee provisions assigning all infor- national, educational, and promotional functions of the AAA in states to the state extension services and authorize transfer of funds for this. 1 Resolutions of the annual meeting of the Michigan Farm Bureau 1945. 56 5. Provide for the distribution of seeds, fertilizer, etc. (which was handled by AAA committees) through established trade channels.1 The Farmer's Union, backing the Department of Agriculture's view, quickly detected the reasoning under- lying O'Neal's statement. Mr. J. G. Patton, president of the Farmer's Union, testified before the same committee: ...The historical and basic reasons for this attack on regional offices is obvious. The American Farm Bureau Federation has an extremely close relation- ship with the Extension Service, which is adminis- tered on a state basis. Unable to control some of our farm programs here in Washington that organi- zation would like to break down the whole farm program into state units, where the organization has been successful in capturing control for its own purposes, until such time as it can force or secure controls at the Federal level...2 After the war the Farm Bureau continued to fight the administrative system of the AAA. The following citation, although Spoken as early as 1959, still characterizes the position of the American Farm Bureau Federation towards administration of agricultural programs: ...we View with deep concern the growing tendency of governmental agencies to set up Special Field Personnel to contact farmers every time a new program is to be deve10ped or a new job is to be ,done. The Extension Service of our Land Grant Colleges had definitely proved itself the best 1 Ernst Kneisl, op. cit., p. 69. 2 Ibid, p. 70. 57 qualified agency to carry out the educational work in connection with Federal Programs affecting rural people. In the interest of economy and efficiency and to avoid duplication, confusion and conflicts of policy we urge that the Extension Service in the States and Counties be utilized as the edu- cational coordinating agency to contact and assist farmers in planning and carrying out all agricultural programs, exclusive of their regulatory and enforce- ment aspects in c00peration with farmer committees or other c00perating groups and that adequate funds be transferred to the Extension Service in States and counties to provide the necessary personnel for such service... Another major attack on the administration of the AAA was made by the Farm Bureau Federation during its annual meeting in 1947. The federation not only urged an extensive decentralization of administration of federal programs but also suggested that the functions of the soil conservation service be transferred to the Extension Service at all levels of administration. Also in its 1947 resolutions the Farm Bureau Federation suggested decentralization of the Agricultural Conservation Program of the PMA on a grant in aid basis, so that each state could develOp its own program. They also said methods of selection of the state committees should be more democratic. In its resolutions of the years 1948, 1949, and 1950 the Farm Bureau demanded essentially the same 1 American Farm Bureau Federation, Annual Resolutions of the 2lst Annual Meeting, Chicago, December 5 - 7, 1959. 58 as in 1947. In 1951 the American Farm Bureau asked Congress not only to reduce the apprOpriations for the Agricultural Conservation programs, but also to curtail PMA and other federal action agencies. It furthermore demanded to abolish all federal payments to individual farmers for soil conservation practices. The Farm Bureau has thus always attempted to strengthen the position of the Extension Service and tried to halt the setback which this agency experienced in recent years due to the strong' development of PMA. The Bureau's main argument in its fight against organizations competing with the Extension Service is the reduction of waste in the national interest.1 Perhaps as a result of the Farm Bureau's plea for greater efficiency, steps have been undertaken by the Department of Agriculture to eliminate waste. In a memorandum issued February 15, 1951 the Secretary of Agriculture declares: ...In accordance with the objective of the department to headquarter all USDA personnel having county , reSponsibilities into a single office, county office personnel of the Soil Conservation Service and of the Production and Marketing Administration shall be moved into the same county offices as soon as such physical consolidation can be efficiently accomplished... 1 Extension Service and PMA are not the only agencies whose reaponsibilities overlap. The $08 and the Forest Service for example are equally active in the same fields. 59 With reSpect to COOperation between the agencies regarding formulation and execution of the soil conser- vation program the Secretary of Agriculture Specified: ...Under the direction of the Assistant Secretary the Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service and the Production and Marketing Administration will jointly determine the soil conservation practices to be included in the Agricultural Conservation Program and rates of payment for soil conservation practices, by meetings and consultations at the national, state and county levels. All agencies shall be guided by the Department's basic soil conservation objective... This physical consolidation of PMA, $08 and Forest Service, however, even if it eliminated waste as suggested by the Farm Bureau Federation, accomplished quite the Opposite of what the Farm Bureau had hoped for since it strengthened the position Of PMA committees. The new Republican administration was in Office only two days when Secretary Benson made the first step to reorganize the Department of Agriculture. It has been indicated that the reorganization plan will be based upon the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. The following statement taken from the USDA's News Letter of January 22, 1955 gives a first approximation of the changes likely to occur in the Department of Agriculture and its field staff during the coming years:1 What we intend is a gradual stream-lining of the Department's services in the interest of earning 1 United States Department of sAgriculture, Memorandum 147- 55, January 22,195 40 and greater efficiency. The action is taken after weeks of study and conferences with congressional leaders, the members of the President's committee on re-organization, our own Interim Agricultural Advisory Committee and members of the Hoover Commission. In this first reorganization plan, the Production I‘A-‘ “ and Marketing Administration's powers have already been seriously limited, since the Agricultural Conservation program is no longer the reaponsibility of PMA, but will in the future, be associated with the Research, Extension, and Land Use Group. The recommended policy is undoubtedly much more in line with the aims of the Farm Bureau Federation. Whether the new administration will continue to follow the suggestions made by the Farm Bureau to reduce the powers of PMA and strengthen the Extension Service cannot be foreseen so shortly after the new administration has taken office. CHAPTER III SOCIAL AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS IN MICHIGAN Thus far a picture has been obtained of the duties and reSponsibilities of PMA administrators within the general framework Of program administration. We can now attack the central part of the analysis. The present chapter will deal with social and personal characteristics which we found for 165 county PMA administrators in Michigan. The information underlying the present analysis was obtained from a mail questionnaire, described in a previous chapter. Not considered as yet is the problem of question choice. On the basis of a different set of questions other than the ones asked, different results might have been obtained. The choice of the questions is actually subjective, because a scientific and generally applicable way to determine administrative ability does not exist. Administrative ability depends on a series of variables of which the human mind is able to determine only rela- tively few. Exact measurement is only possible if all or at least a great number of those variable factors can be determined. We are unable to conduct an eXperiment 42 as is possible in the physical sciences, where one factor can be singled out and its influence be made evident. Taking account of this shortcoming a number of questions have been Selected which are not only in our Opinion but in the minds of other students of public administration closely associated and determinants of the characteristics we attempt to explore. The questions asked are based upon generalizations which take place unconsciously in our minds. They are similar to the ones made when one is asked to select a person for the job of public relations chairman of an organization. It has been observed that most good public relations men have a genuine ability to meet other people, understand their point of view, and know how to compromise between differences in Opinions of groups or individuals. As a result we would call on a man having these abilities to fill the job as public relations man. The foregoing example illustrates such a deduction and is similar to the generalizations which had to be made in this study to determine the questions. It has been attempted to select questions which, taken in the aggregate, give some idea of administrative experience and ability of local PMA administrators. Each of the various character- istics is discussed, together with the results obtained :from the questionnaire in the following section. 45 Tpe Age of the Administrator The key for the solution of a number of problems confronting us, in this analysis of a group of adminis- trators, is the knowledge of their age. Both the distribution between different age limits and the average age for the entire group will be considered. The division in age groups is important because it indicates whether we are dealing with a group whose age is normally distributed around one mean, or one which concentrates about two extreme points. The latter would indicate that considerable replacement among the administrators has taken place. Since the administrator has to make decisions for the farmers in his community concerning day to day problems by which he is confronted it would be most desirable if the PMA administrators are themselves active farmers and closely affected by the problem upon which the decision is made. Table 1 shows the age distribution among the 165 PMA administrators reporting. It will be Observed that the greatest concentration falls within the age limits of 50 - 70, the average for all reapondents is 55.6 years. The high average age and the great concentration about the age group from 50 - 70 already indicates that young 44 farmers rarely participate in the administration of AAA programs. This is also a first indication that PMA administrators are not the most liberal of all farmers in Michigan. to back this preliminary conclusion and the question will be asked again when other characteristics are evaluated in subsequent sections. However, more evidence is needed in order TABLE 1 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF 165 MICHIGAN COUNTY PMA ADMINISTRATORS ACCORDING TO AGE GROUPS NO. of Individuals in Percent RF gge Group: pEach Group TOtfil. 20 - so 1 .6 so - 40 12 7.5 40 - 50 52 - 19.5 50 - 60 46 28.1 60 - 70 65 59.6 70 - 80 a 4.9 Total 164 100.0 The next step in our analysis is an investigation into the educational background of the administrators. we have asked our reSpondents to indicate their schooling background by checking one of the following: no Schooling, .I.J'!|a.llllil'1‘<1. 45 l - 4 years grammar, 5 - 7 years grammar, completed grammar, some high school, completed high school, some college, completed college. One hundred and sixty-four persons reported, the results are shown in Table 2, column 1. The importance of basic education as a prerequisite for the Job of PMA administrator does not have to be emphasized. Adequate basic training provides the technical knowledge which is required to enable the administrator to handle office work (a great deal of the administrator's duties consists of office work) satisfactorily. The meaning of the answers is greatly increased if we compare the PMA administrators with other farmers in Michigan. The educational background of the 500 farmers making up the "Sample of Michigan farmers” is shown in column two. The greatest difference between PMA administrators and the sample of Michigan Farmers is apparent with reSpect to ”some college”. While only 4.2 per cent listed college education in the sample of Michigan Farmers, 16.4 per cent of the PMA administrators had attended college. The results show that the educational background of PMA administrators with reSpect to college training is slightly higher than for the farmers in the sample. For PMA administrators we have tried to relate age and educational background. However, no significant correlation could be found. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS COMPARED TO A SAMPLE OF MICHIGAN FARMERS]- TABLE 2 Column 1 Column 2 Educational PMA Administrators Sample of Michigan Farmers Background N0. Percent No. Pgrcent No schooling 0 0 5 .6 l-4years grammar 0 O 16 5.2 5-7years .. grammar 17 10.4 54 10.8 L’ Completed grammar 57 54.8 185 37.0 Some high school 26 15.8 116 25.2 Completed high school 32 19.5 95 19.0 Some College 27 16.4 21 4.2 Completed College 5 5.1 10 2.0 Total 164 100.0 500 100.0 l The identical question concerning education was asked in a survey conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics of Michigan State College in 1950 in which 500 Michigan farmers were questioned. for this sample were those from whom participation in the The farmers selected program could be expected on the basis of their farm size (farms with 70 and more acres) 47 The Holdinggof Elective Offices and the Activities in Various Organizations as Measure of the Individual's Administrative Ability and EXperience The individual can hardly be better characterized for our purposes than by exploring his activities in elective ‘5” offices in government, social, fraternal and professional organizations. We have tried to look at the county administrator as a member of his community, and at his outside interests and activities beyond his daily pro- 7 i fessional duties to obtain exact knowledge of his adminis- trative ability and experience. More general we will analyze him as "zoon politikon', as Aristotle has called man when he Spoke of him as an integral part of the world around him. Many distinguished typologies of more recent origin essentially conceive two different directions into which human personalities deve10p. The most commonly known 1 which describes two typology is the one by C. G. Jung extreme cases of human personalities, one which is most generally called introvert, the other extreme is the extrovert personality. Extroverts are people who try to associate freely with their fellowmen and depend to 1 C. G. Jung, Psychologische Typen, Zuerich 1926. 48 a great extent upon the possibility to find confirmation of their own personality in their associates. The second extreme case called introvert tends to be the exact Opposite of the type characterized above. In this group are found people whose center of gravity is within them- selves rather than in the world around them. They depend less upon association with others and therefore are less willing and able to communicate with other members in their communities. The meaning of this typology can easily be transposed for our purposes. We can Speak of an extroverted type showing great interest in work in public organizations and institutions, an introverted type would be quite opposite in nature to the one described above. When evaluating the answers obtained on this part of the questionnaire this scale was born in mind, with which we measure the ability to communicate. This willing- ness and ability to communicate is likely to be expressed in people’s desire to seek election into public offices and membership in various social and fraternal organizations. This is the general meaning which can be attached to the fact that administrators are either very active or inactive in their communities. If they do not show considerable participation in public affairs it can be concluded that their administrative experience is less 49 than of individuals who have been active in various organi- zations and local governments for many years. However, this was not necessarily the kind of experi- ence the designers of the program were looking for. They wanted people who were free from all ties with other institutions and thus excellent prospects to become a new and different type of administrator. The designers of the program had hoped that a sufficient number of active farmers would become highly interested in the program and thus form this new body of administrators.1 That such a develOpment has not taken place in Michigan becomes evident from the fact that 95 (65.5 per cent) out of the 165 individuals held elective township offices for an average length of 9.9 years. The exact grouping according to different Jobs which were held is given in Table 5. l The following chapter, in which we will give an evaluation of the administrator's farming Operations will show, that great emphasis was put on the necessity that PMA administrators be farmers as prerequisite for their eligibility, rather than administrative experience. 50 TABLE 3 THE KINDS OF TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT OFFICES HELD BY PMA ADMINISTRATORS Percent of Total Kind of Office Held Number Rgporting Justice of Peace 21 14.1 T Township Clerk 14 9.5 E Board of Review 15 8.8 Treasurer 11 7.4 - : Highway Commissioner 6 4.1 w L; Constable 2 1.5 Others 7 4.8 Two or more 20 15.5 None held 54 56.5 Total Number Reporting 148 100.0 Only 5 persons out of 165 served in the county government. Table 4 shows the answers to a question closely related to the previous one, the number of people active on the local schoolboards. TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS ON THE LOCAL SCHOOLBOARDS fine o; Activity Number in Each Peggent of 223;; Director 15 9.6 Treasurer 5 5.2 Moderator 5 1.9 Board Member 5 1.9 Unapecified l .7 No Job held 129 82.7 Total Number Reporting 156 100.0 From Table 5 it becomes evident that the percentage of routine administrators among the PMA administrators is extraordinarily high. As many as 94 (65.5 per cent) individuals have held township offices for an average of 9.9 years. The very fact that such a great number of PMA administrators are active in the local government indicates that we are dealing with a group of persons in which the public places the utmost confidence. The conclusions which can be derived from the information in Table 5 are twofold. The first is that no new group of administrators has emerged as was expected 52 by the lawmaker.1 The second conclusion is, that the people serving on the committees have considerably more administrative experience than the rest of the farmers in the rural community.2 The high percentage of PMA administrators having served in the local government caused us to investigate whether or not this trend was also dominant among the few who have been elected committeemen in more recent years. We have for this reason divided the group into two parts, the first one including all those persons who have been on committees before 1945, the second covering only those who have served after World War II. No sig- nificant difference between the two groups could be determined. The question asked with respect to membership in social and fraternal organizations and outside activities 1 This is in contrast to the results obtained by Edward C. Moe and Carl C. Taylor in their study "Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community” in which they state that committee members are ”to a considerable extent a new group". Cited in Charles Hardin, The Politics of Agriculture, The Free Press, Glencoe, 111., 1952, p. 120. 2 Robin M. Williams in "Sociological Aspects of Farmers' Reaponses to AAA programs: Selected Kentucky Areas, 1958-1940” observed, that among land use planning committee members more farmers were involved in office holding generally than non—members. Cited in Hardin, 0p. ci§., p. 121. 55 besides farming were answered by a great number of indi- viduals. Out of 152 individuals answering the question 106 were not members of any social or fraternal organi- zation. Twenty-seven persons (20.4 per cent) listed membership in one of the various groups and 5 belonged to more than one of the organizations listed.l In addition we asked committeemen for outside activities or business interests besides farming which they have now or have had in the past. Each answer was i 'W" of course different. Some were lengthy descriptions and the information had to be grouped to be at all usable. We distinguished 5 different kinds of activities according to aspects which interested us most in connection with this study. Table 5 shows the number of individuals in each group. In a previous section we arrived at the conclusion, that PMA administrators had more than average eXperience in handling administrative tasks. The information presented in Table 5, which shows that among the outside 1 membership was listed in the following: Rotary Club Lions Club _ Professional Clubs Chamber of Commerce Other Service Clubs Other Social Clubs 54 TABLE 5 OUTSIDE BUSINESS INTERESTS BESIDES FARMING FOR 165 MICHIGAN COUNTY PMA COMMITTEEMEN 17F: ”Lin-fa: . mm: mm..- '4 Kind of Business (Barcent of Tbtal Interest Number in Each Reporting White collar 22 16.1 Work in Coops 21 15.5 Entrepreneur 5 5.6 Skilled labor 5 2.2 Unskilled labor 2 1.5 No business interest 84 61.5 Total Number Reporting 157 100.0 activities besides farming, white collar jobs and work in cooperatives was dominant, supports these earlier conclusions. Although the total number of individuals having been engaged in activities other than farming was not very great (most of the administrators were engaged in operating a farm all their life) the trend among those who have had other activities is remarkably in the direction of work related to administration. Before we close this section we will consider one question which shows the length of time present day administrators have been working on the committees. The results are presented in Table 6. 55 TABLE 6 THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF YEARS COUNTY PMA ADMINISTRATORS HAVE SERVED ON COMMUNITY AND COUNTY COMMITTEES Position Average Number of Years Average number of years served on the community committee 6.94 Average number of years served on the county committee 8.41 Average number of years served, total 15.41 Table 6 shows that very little replacement has taken place in the ranks of PMA administrators. Most of them have really ”grown old" with their Jobs. Whether this indicates great eagerness on the part of the administrator to hold on to their official position or the great disinterest of the rest of the farmers in the community in everything related with public work is difficult to determine. Considering the results from our question on township offices it seems to be largely the great disinterest or inability to handle public affairs on the part of most citizens. Our analysis indicates that only a very small percentage of the rural population works in public office. ‘Within this group the bulk of the Jobs available is concen- trated. The nature of the job apparently makes little or no difference. 56 Membership in Various Farm Organizations The disagreement among farm organizations with reapect to program administration has been pointed out in a previous chapter. This section will reconsider the problem, this time in the light of the frequency with which PMA adminis- trators have been members of farm organizations. It will be attempted to determine in this connection whether or not a difference exists between PMA administrators and other Michigan farmers regarding membership in the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Grange. If the number of PMA administrators in these organizations is relatively small it would lead to the conclusion that the power struggle which exists between Farm Bureau and PMA on the national level does actually affect the behavior of the administrators on the local level. Table 7 compares the two groups of farmers. Un~ fortunately we do not know the percentage of membership in the Farmer's Union, since the central office in Michigan refuses to give any information with reapect to membership in this state. On the questionnaires which were filled out for our sample of Michigan farmers the question regarding membership in the Farmer's Union was not asked. ' «In? .4! .dflh a Y . hum-v.91" “a J] ..I:i. 57 TABLE 7 MEMBERSHIP IN VARIOUS FARM ORGANIZATIONS OF 165 PMA ADMINISTRATORS IN MICHIGAN COMPARED TO A SAMPLE OF MICHIGAN FARMERS Farm Bureau Farmer's Federation National Grange Union Sample of Sample of 500 Mich. 500 Mich. PMA Adm. farmers PMA Adm. farmers PMA Adm. Membgrship; No. Perc. No. Perc. No. Perc. No. Perc. No. Pergg "r-flm rxh sun-um w; Member 65 40.9 184 56.8 40 26.1 50 10.0 27 17.6 FTT'T’. . -. Non-members 91 59.1 516 65.2 115 75.9 450 90.0 127 82.4 Not reported 11 - - - 12 - - - ll - Total 165 100.0 500 100.0 165 100.0 500 100.0 165 100.0 Table 7 indicates that no appreciable difference in membership exists between PMA administrators and other Michigan farmers. A considerably greater percentage of PMA administrators were members of the National Grange, and membership in the Farm Bureau was on the same level. Aside from the mere fact that such a large number of County PMA administrators are members of what we might term "anti-PMA organizations", the number of years which they have held membership is of interest. Out of the 65 individuals who reported membership in the Farm Bureau Federation 22 were members for 10 or more years and 18 have held various offices. Out of 40 National Grange 58 members 26 have held membership for more than 10 years, and 12 have served as officers in the organization. The picture among those who are members of the Farmer's Union is quite different. Only 5 out of 27 have held membership in the Farmer‘s Union for 10 or more years, while 10 have held various offices. These results are not at all what we should expect in view of the hard pressure which is exerted by the Farm Bureau Federation against the administrative organization of PMA. We have tried to relate this phenomenon to the relatively high age of most administrators and divided our reporting PMA administrators into two groups. The first group were peOple who have served on either com- munity or county committees before 1945, the second group were those who did not serve on any PMA committee until after World War II. Yet no appreciable differences could be detected with respect to membership in the Farmer's Union and the National Grange. In the case of membership in the Farm Bureau Federation a slight downward trend in membership seemed indicated among the younger group. However, the test did not show a significant difference between the two groups. The fact that the two groups do not differ appreciably regarding membership in farm organizations indicates that PMA administrators on the 59 local level are not directly affected by the power struggle which has develOped between PMA and the American Farm Bureau Federation on the national level. Partisan considerations, which play an important role on the higher administrative levels do not seem to influence the decisions of local administrators. Before we close this section we will sum up the results we obtained from our questionnaire regarding sociological and personal characteristics of PMA administrators. It became obvious as we proceeded through the various steps in our analysis, that the PMA administrator is a highly active individual in his community. We have shown this by referring to the large number of individuals serving as officers in a great variety of organizations. Their educational background was higher than average and their professional experience appears to indicate better than average qualifications to serve as PMA administrator. Two points stand out as the result of our investigation up to this point. 1. The men presently administering the program on the county level are active individuals in their communities and interested in the general welfare of the community. 2. The reapondents proved to have considerable educational background and administrative experience to qualify them for the Job as PMA administrator. CHAPTER IV THE FARMS 0F PMA ADMINISTRATORS It has been indicated in a previous chapter that the creation of farmer committees was the result of (1) the great need for a large number of experts in the agriCultural field and (2) the desire on the part of the lawmakers to , l—r. ‘0' provide for an administration of the program which would A ~' be as democratic as possible. The 1955 Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish ”state and local committees, or associations of producers”, but committee members did not have to be farmers until the provisions of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allot- ment Act Specified in detail that members of local com- mittees cannot be elected unless they are farmers. ...Farmers within any such local administrative area and participating or cooperating in programs administered within such area shall elect annually from among their number a local committee of not more than three members for such area and shall also elect annually from among their number a delegate to a county convention for the election of a county committee. The delegates from the various local areas in the county, shall in a county convention, elect, annually, the county committee for the county which shall consist of three members who are farmers in the county. 1 Production and marketing Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, Compglation of Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, Agriculturgl Adjustment Act of 1958, Crop Insurance Act et al.. Agricultural Handbook No. 49, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. 0., p. 6. 61 The provision clearly aims at the elimination of - outsiders on the local committees, to make the program truly ”the farmer's own show”. At the same time, by having only farmers on the cOmmittees the law tries to insure that only experts be involved in the administration of the program. Underlying this provision is the idea a that expertise and administrative ability are closely 1 § related. This view has been expressed by Paul Appleby in his recent publication, "Policy and Administration”. FF“ Appleby was himself long associated with the United States Department of Agriculture. His belief, which is laid down in the following citation, might thus well be the result of his experience with AAA committees. ...The role of experts in the process of administration is one auxiliary to the role of the administrators, the role of public administrator is auxiliary to that of politicians....At lower levels in the administration occurs the simplest Joining of expert and administrative function. Relatively simple but specialized information there characteristically is brought to bear on action directly involving a small number of people... If this theory is accepted a second hypothesis follows, namely, that a good farmer must be expected to be a better administrator than a poor farmer. 1 Paul H. Appleby, Policy and Administration, University of Alabama, University of Alabama Press, 1949, p. 60. 62 It has been shown in the previous chapter that PMA administrators have considerable administrative experience and have an educational background superior to that of average farmers. The present chapter will determine whether this success is also reflected in the adminis- trators' farming operations. To determine whether an interrelationship between the two phenomena exists was the first reason why the analysis of the administrators' farms was undertaken. A second reason was that a good many people, mainly associated with the Land Grant Colleges, hold the Opinion that PMA administrators are usually the unsuccessful farmers in the community whose dominant motivation in accepting a Job as PMA administrator is the need for additional revenue aside from their small earnings on the farm. These ideas have never been formally expressed, yet they became evident in several conversations the author had with persons at Michigan State College. Before the farming operations of PMA administrators are discussed, two important characteristics have to be pointed out. These characteristics do not directly refer to the successfulness with which PMA administrators have operated their farms but are of more general interest; 65 they indicate the length of time PMA administrators have been farming and the tenure relationships on their farms. In this connection committee members were asked how many years they had been farming since they were 16 years old. The average for those who answered the question was 54.8 years, which indicates that most of the administrators had lived on the farm all their lives. This is also reflected in the observation that 104 of the respondents (65 per cent) f‘j‘i i iii-55.2: 9.: Wkwwm owned all the land they Operated. Most of the remainder of the land was farmed in family partnership; very few of the administrators owned none of the land they were Operating. The FarmingTOperations of PMA.Administrator§ As indicated in a previous section, the analytical procedure was to compare Michigan PMA committeemen with Farm Account Cooperators in their Farming Areas. Realizing that Farm Account Cooperators are better than average farmers in some reapects, the important objective was to have a well-established scale by which PMA committeemen could be compared. In order to support our conclusions as well as possible a maximum number of criteria have been employed. 64 Tables 8-11 compare PMA administrators and Farm Account COOperators with reapect to four different characteristics, all of them indicating either physical size of the farm or the volume of business and production which took place on the farms in 1951. Although these four standards are individually not very meaningful and do not tell much about the farming ability of adminis- rm ‘7‘ WW “-1 trators, in the aggregate they are a first approximation 1;; 79—2; of how successful the administrators have been as farmers. Comparison between total acreage and gross income, between the total amount of work done on the farms of PMA adminis- trators and the relation of these to our standards (the farm account data) permits further conclusions as to the efficiency with which farms of PMA administrators have been operated. In the tables of this chapter column I indicates the results obtained for PMA administrators and column II contains the acreage for Farm Account COOperators with whom the PMA administrators have been compared. Significant differences between the two groups are indicated by a star after the area number. It might well be objected that valid conclusions cannot be reached on the basis of information pertaining 65 to only one production year. However, in most cases (except for farming area 4 where only one individual reported) the figure represents an average for a number of farms, which tends to even out the individual variations. Also, comparison is made only with farmers who worked under identical climatic and market conditions and who reported for 1951 only. Total Aegeage rpm“ 74"“ an The first measure which we have used to determine physical size of the farm appears in Table 8. The results of the test showed that no significant difference exists between the two groups of farmers in any of the farming areas except in area 5 where the average for the farms of PMA administrators was more than 100 acres below the corresponding figure for Farm Account COOperators in this region. 66 TABLE 8 TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OPERATED BY PMA ADMINISTRATORS AND FARM ACCOUNT COOPERATORS, BY AREA I II __PMA Agministrators Farm Account Coopergtogs r Number of Average Number of Average 3 Farming Individuals Number Individuals Number i _Area in the Area of Acres in the Samplg of Acres E l 7 161.2 79 181.8 2 15 209.5 57 250.2 4 1 105.0 58 164.7 5* 16 155.7 141 259.1 6 8 201.5 55 224.1 7 8 177.8 55 227.5 8 7 192.1 48 165.6 9 & 15 12 197.1 51 249.0 10 17 160.4 46 221.5 11 7 2580 9 - - l2 19 221.7 41 278.1 14 10 221.5 28 205.6 15 4 255.0 17 222.1 16 5 175.5 17 205.7 17 28 166.0 45 149.7 All State Average 162 187.2 654 215.2 *Areas in which a significant difference existed between PMA administrators and Farm Account Cooperators. In Table 9 PMA administrators and Farm Account Tillable Acr 1 eage Cooperators have been compared with reapect to the average 1 Tillable acres are defined as acres of improved land which is suitable for inclusion in a crop rotation. 67 number of tillable acres on the individual farms. Signifi- cant differences between the two groups existed in three out of 17 areas in the state. The average for the entire state was lower by 26.2 acres, which also proved to be a TABLE 9 a NUMBER OF TILLABLE ACRES ON FARMS OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS E AND FARM ACCOUNT COOPERATORS I II _ PMA Administrators Farm Acgopnt Cooperators L" Averagef Number Averagef Number Farming Number of Number of Area Individuals Tillable Acres Individgals Tillgble Acres 1 7 162.4 79 144.2 2* 15 168.1 57 182.7 4 1 90.0 58 122.0 5* 16 106.4 141 178.6 6 5 170.6 55 175.5 7 8 156.4 55 181.8 8 7 150.0 48 127.4 9 & 15 11 115.9 51 126.2 10 16 98.5 46 157.5 11 7 20103 - " 12* 19 98.0 41 151.6 14 9 94.2 28 104.8 15 4 152.5 17 145.8 16 5 96.7 17 96.4 17 28 92.2 45 68.9 Total State Average*‘ 155 121.0 654 147.2 *Areas in which a significant difference existed between PMA administrators and Farm Account Cooperators. 68 significant difference. However, the number of tillable acres is not lower in all of the state's farming areas; this is especially true for the administrators in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan where average tillable acreage is on the same level as that of Farm Account Cooperators in the area. The fact that no significant difference existed between the two groups of farmers with reapect to total acreage and that the tillable acreage in the case of P ‘* PMA administrators was lower by as much as 26.2 acres (14.4 per cent, 147.2 acres equaling 100 per cent) suggests that the farms of PMA administrators are less intensively utilized. The truism of this observation will become evident as the analysis is continued in subsequent sections. Gross Income The volume of transactions is indicated if the 1951 gross income of the two groups of farmers is contrasted. This comparison is made in Table 10. The result for the entire table again shows that on the whole the volume of business was considerably lower in the case of PMA committeemen. The average gross income for the entire state in the case of Account Cooperators is $12,015 in TABLE 10 69 CALCULATED GROSS INCOME OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS AND FARM ACCOUNT COOPERATORS _PMA Administrators II __ Eagm Aggount Coopegators Farming Number of Average Number of Average Area Individuals Income Individuals Income 1 7 10,950 79 14,460 2 15 7,440 57 15.780 4 1 6,000 58 12,960 5* 16 7,080 141 14,750 6 5 16,160 55 15,950 7 7 9,600 55 12,550 8* 7 9,070 48 15,400 9 & 15 10 6,510 51 8,540 10 7 8,970 46 10,050 11 6 9,650 - - 12* 15 5,840 41 7,600 14 8 8,460 28 6,600 15 4 5,820 17 7,150 16 5 7,200 17 8,270 17 26 6,670 45 4,940 All State* 145 7,755 654 16,015 *Areas in which a significant difference existed between PMA administrators and Farm Account COOperators. contrast to an average of only $7,755 in the case of PMA administrators. Yet it can be seen from Table 10 that PMA administrators in only three areas of the state have a gross income that is significantly below the standard. The difference between the two groups is extraordinarily great in these areas, which accounts largely for the fact 70 that the average gross income for the entire state is so much below the state average for Farm Account COOperators. It should not be overlooked, however, that in seven out of 17 areas PMA administrators show a remarkably high income.1 The discussion in subsequent sections will reveal that in a number of these areas where income has been relatively high, total productive work and intensity E i .1 a 4 E Lt. and efficiency of farming Operation have been considerably below the average for Farm Account Cooperators. Total Productive Man Work Units The last measure used to approximate the size of business indicates the amount of productive work which was done on the farms during 1951. In farm management this measure is called a Productive Nan Work Unit, or PMWU.2 The total PMWUs per farm are thus an expression for the entire productive work which took place during the year. Table 11 shows the results of the computations grouped according to farming areas. The difference between .Farm Account Cooperators and PMA administrators, again, is large enough to conclude that the volume of production is considerably lower in the case of PMA administrators. 1 Areas 6, 9 a 15, 10, 14, 16 and 17. 2 A detailed description of the term and its computation can be found in Appendix III. 71 TABLE 11 TOTAL PRODUCTIVE WORK DONE ON FARMS OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS AND FARM ACCOUNT COOPERATORS f I II PMA Administrators Farm Account Coogggatorg Number of Average PMWUs Number of Average PMWUs Area Individuals .per Farm Individuals per Farm 1 7 547 79 550 2* 15 245 57 615 4 l 208 58 561 5* 15 207 141 605 6 4 518 55 575 7* 8 529 55 589 8 7 545 48 528 9 & 15* 11 290 51 464 10 17 552 46 478 11 7 578 - - 12* 17 258 41 455 14 8 276 28 550 15 4 407 17 584 16 5 251 17 447 17 27 265 45 505 Total State* 151 285 654 518 h *Areas in which a significant difference existed between PMA administrators and Farm Account Cooperators. The volume of production, income and the physical size have thus been roughly determined. On this basis it was possible to show that although the total physical size of the farm is not different from that of Farm Account Cooperators, PMA administrators are not equal to the former group with reSpect to volume of business and total 72 production. It would be interesting to carry the investi- gation further and try to determine why this is the case; however, this would take us beyond the purposes of this analysis, where an attempt was made to determine the characteristics of PMA administrators and the implication of these characteristics upon the administration of the program. So far only the physical size and the volume of TED-F‘s”. :- 5. production which took place on farms of PMA administrators has been indicated. Additional measures which allow the determination of the success administrators have had as farm operators will now be elaborated. In this connection the results of our analysis regarding intensity of farming operation will be shown when productive work done on the farm and acreage are correlated. The efficiency with which man labor is used on the farms of PMA administrators is measured when the total amount of productive work done on the farms and the number of men employed are correlated. Table 12 shows the first measure of intensity, comparing the total amount of productive work done on the farm and the number of tillable acres. The results are in accordance with our expectations on the basis of Table 11. The intensity of production on farms of PMA administrators is considerably lower than on farms of Account Cooperators. The results show a remarkable steadiness in the individual areas. 75 TABLE 12 PRODUCTIVE MAN WORK UNITS PER ACRE ON FARMS OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS AND FARM ACCOUNT CCOPERATORS I II PMA Administrators Farm Account Cooperators _ Farming Number of Average PMNUS Number of Average PMWUs ? Area Individuals .per Acre Individuals oper Apre g 1* 7 2.4 79 5.8 L 2* 14 2.0 57 5.5 4 l 2.5 58 4.7 5* 16 2.4 141 5.6 6* 5 2.9 55 5.5 , 7% 8 2.5 55 5.4 8* 7 2.5 48 4.4 9 & 15* 11 2.5 51 5.8 10 5 5.2 46 5.9 11 7 2.8 - '- 12 16 2.6 41 5.2 14 8 5.5 28 5.2 15 4 2.8 17 2.9 16 5 2.6 17 4.9 17* 26 5.4 45 4.8 All State* 148 2.78 654 5.81 *Areas in which a significant difference existed between PMA administrators and Farm Account Cooperators. The correlation between animal units and tillable acres was computed only for farms which turned out to have less than 10 acres per productive animal units.l Only 100 out 1 Productive Animal Units measure the total amount of productive livestock on the farm in terms of one milk cow (one milk cow is equal to one PAU). 74 of 165 fell in this group; the rest either did not report or had so few animals that a computation would have been meaningless. Since this relatively large group did not have an appreciable number of livestock, the low intensity .1 U. of farming Operation for the entire group is again indicated. In Table 15 we have contrasted the two groups of farmers with reSpect to efficiency. Efficiency is measured among other indicators (i.e., capital efficiency) by the amount of productive work done by human labor employed on 9” the farm. Again it is evident that PMA administrators in those areas of the state where we find agriculture relatively prOSperous Operate their farms less intensively and less efficiently. 75 TABLE 15 PRODUCTIVE MAN WORK UNITS PER MAN ON FARMS OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS AND FARM ACCOUNT COOPERATORS I II PMA Administrators Farm Account COOperators . Number of Number of T Farming Individuals Average PMWUs Individuals Average PMWUs __Area per Area _per Man per Area per Man 1 5 207 79 552 5 2*. 11 198 57 547 2 4 - - 58 555 g 5* 14 170 141 555 g 6* 5 181 55 525 L, 7* 7 221 55 528 8* 6 160 48 517 9 & 15 11 199 51 502 10 16 204 46 505 11 7 262 - - 12* 14 168 41 268 14 7 161 28 226 15 4 256 17 259 16 5 158 17 281 17* 25 178 45 227 All State“ 151 190.5 654 514.6 *Areas in which a significant difference existed between PMA administrators and Farm Account Cooperators. What are the conclusions which can be derived from the foregoing analysis? In general it became evident that Michigan PMA administrators were the less active farmers in the state. Their farms were worked less intensively, but the financial returns from their farming Operations were not in all cases 76 below average, as this was expected. The efficiency with which human labor was used on the farms did not compare favorably with the average Farm Account Cooperators. Judging merely on the basis of productive efficiency would lead us to believe that PMA administrators are poor farmers and therefore are not as well adapted for the administrative Job as might be expected of farmers who are more active in their farming Operations. Low intensity and efficiency 'WJ could be due to inability and lack of technical knowledge on the part of the farm Operator, however, the great number of administrators belonging to improvement organizations and making use of the Cooperative Extension Service makes evident that the main cause of the small size and lack of efficiency on the farms of PMA administrators is the fact that more than half of our respondents are relatively old and unable to carry on full-scale Operations. Table 14 shows the number of individuals belonging to different improvement organizations. According to Table 14 more than half of the adminis- trators belonged to either the Artificial Breeders Association, the Soil Conservation District or the Dairy .Herd Improvement Association. Thirty-seven individuals belonged to either two or all three of these organizations. One hundred and thirty-one administrators indicated that they were COOperators in the Federal Extension Service. 77 TABLE 14 NUMBER OF PMA ADMINISTRATORS WHO ARE HEHBERS OF IMPROVEKENT ASSOCIATIONS Number Per Cent of Organization in Each Total Reporting Artificial Breeders Assn. 55 22.4 Soil Conservation District 16 10.8 Dairy Herd Improvement Assn. 4 2.8 Artificial Breeders Assn. and Soil Conservation District 20 15.6 Artificial Breeders Assn. and Dairy Herd Improvement Assn. 7 4.8 Soil Conservation District and Dairy Herd Improvement Assn. 5 2.0 All Three 7 4.8 None 57 58.8 Total Reporting 147 100.0 To find out more about their farming operations the fertilizer expense per tillable acre which was incurred by PMA administrators as compared with farm account cooperators has been computed. For this reason the administrators were asked to indicate the number of pounds of different kinds of fertilizers which they applied on their farms in 1951. These amounts have been taken and multiplied by the season average price as obtained from different fertilizer companies throughout Michigan.1 l A list of fertilizer prices as used in this analysis can be found in Appendix VI. 78 Comparison with Farm Account COOperators regarding the application of fertilizer shows that PMA administrators were on the whole not below the standard average, and the fertilizer application in areas 10 and 17 was considerably higher in the case of PMA administrators. These general observations conclude the analysis of the administrators' farms. It has been shown that the '1 Ana? respondents are on the whole elderly farmers who, although the physical size of their farms is not significantly different from that of other Michigan farmers, till a considerably smaller percentage of their farm land. The relatively high educational background of many adminis- trators might be reaponsible for the fact that gross income on the whole was not as low as was expected on the basis of the observed low intensity and lack of efficiency. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The importance of the PMA committee system as an effective instrument in the hands of public policy makers, in particular the United States Department of Agriculture, has been pointed out at various places in the course of this analysis. In the present chapter, where the findings will be reconsidered with respect to public and agricultural policy, the PMA committee system will not be regarded as an executive organ only, but it will also be considered as a powerful tool in the hands of the individual farmer. The positive aSpect of the committee system (in contrast to centralization of power as its negative feature) is without doubt its ability to allow the individual farmer to voice his Opinion and thus take part actively in the formation of agricultural policy. As a citizen he expresses his opinion about how the nation's foreign and domestic policy should be conducted, through voting in the national elections. As a farmer he has, aside from the influence he exerts as a member of various pressure groups, two ways in which he is able ' 5" ' ' -15H‘31'. 80 to shape the nation's agricultural policy. We refer here to his right to elect PMA committeemen who represent him in meetings with state and national committees. This privilege is supplemented by the right which every farmer has, namely, to express his Opinion in personal and group meetings with his county and community PMA committeemen, who in turn voice his (the individual farmer's) Opinion regarding agricultural policy in regular meetings with the state committee. The state committee chairman is in constant contact with his superior office in Washington, where he will present his own and the Opinion of the farmers in his state. In Spite of this very positive activity of Opinion channeling and administrative decentralization, the PMA agency has become an institution which has concentrated enormous powers on the national level, where it is probably the most influential section of the Department of Agriculture. Also, and this is very closely connected with the foregoing, the Production and Marketing Administration has engaged in a violent struggle with other already existing Federal and State agricultural agencies, and has suppressed them to such an extent that after twenty years of its existence 'the AAAPPMA organization is now an agency capable of exerting enormous political pressure on the national 81 level and able to provide its subsidiaries on the local level with a mass of assignments. The struggle to which reference has been made develOped mainly between Extension Service-American Farm Bureau Federation on one side and the Production and Marketing Administration on the other. Although there is no evidence that the PMA agency ever tried to directly outcompete or replace the Extension Service, it became nevertheless obvious that the former gradually engaged in carrying out activities which were previously assigned to the Extension Service. The reason for this enormous growth of the PMA agency and the relative suppression of the Extension Service is without doubt the partisan character of both institutions. The AAA-PMA agency is the invention of the Democratic Cadministration of the early thirties, while the Extension Service and the Farm Bureau Federation, though quite liberal when they first came into being, later on associ- ated with the conservative element in the farm group. Charges have frequently been made that the PMA agency has engaged actively in the political campaigns of Democratic candidates, yet substantiating evidence for this and similar statements is lacking.1 The fact that the growth 1 Charles M. Hardin, The Politics of Agriculture, Glencoe, 111., 1952, p. 151. 82 of AAA-PMA was favored by the Department of Agriculture in the twenty years of its existence cannot, however, be denied. The Farm Bureau Federation, whose association with the Extension Service has been pointed out frequently in the course of this study, has at several times supported r Republican candidates in political elections and its political affiliation is quite obvious.1 For the Extension Service, engagement in political activities is not as ‘ F 2:11. 1- apparent as it is in the case of the Farm Bureau Federation. The association of the Extension Service with the latter suggests, however, that partisan ties also exist between the two organizations. The struggle between the Farm Bureau Federation and the PMA has not been equally severe at all stages during the_1ast ten years. The issues at stake have seldom been matters of program formulation but rather different concepts about the feasibility of program administration, where the points over which disagreement came about were mainly centralization versus decentralization of administrative power. The Split between the two agencies cannot be detected at all levels of administration. In the present analysis, referring especially to the large percentage 1 Charles M. Hardin, Op. cit., p. 155. 85 of administrators holding or having held membership in conservative farm organizations, it became evident that these partisan-motivated controversies, so highly important on the national level, do not exist on the local level of program administration. In Table 7 we have shown that membership in the Farm Bureau Federation and the National Grange was equal or higher among PMA administrators as compared with other Michigan farmers. The impact of this phenomenon upon the future develOpment of the internecine struggle between the PMA and the FEE-Extension group is not perfectly foreseeable. The fact that the membership of both agencies is overlapping at the local level will tend to prevent "outright war" between the two agencies. 0n the other hand, since the formulation of policy and the distribution of assignments are done mainly on the national rather than the local level, it can be expected“ that the ruling party will favor the one of the two agencies which will support, in action and belief, the program laid out by its (the party's) policy-making body. Due mainly to the fact that the conservative element is nOt completely absent within the PMA agency a complete elimination of the Production and Marketing Administration appears very unlikely. The realism of this suggestion is supported 84 by recent government proposals to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, which although reducing the importance of PMA in favor of agencies supported by the more conservative- minded Farm Bureau group, plan a thorough reorganization only for that part of PMA which is located in Washington. i No provisions have been made towards reorganization or 2 dissolution of local committees. The fact that the Farm Bureau Federation and PMA are joined on the local level is without doubt of great ‘ .,' importance for both parties engaged in this power struggle, however, it should not be overlooked that the results from this inquiry are representative for Michigan only and eventually will be for some of the other northern states which are similar in sociological and agricultural structure. Agricultural programs, however, are equally, if not more, important in other states of the Union where farmers and their political attitudes differ considerably from those prevailing in the part of the country where this study was conducted. The analysis in Chapter IV has shown that PMA administrators did not compare favorably with the average for Michigan Farm Account Cooperators, particularly with reapect to efficiency and intensity of farming Operation. 85 Several points have to be brought out in this connection. On the basis of intensity and efficiency of farm operations on PMA administrator's farms, which were below the standards set in this analysis, it should be expected that gross income of our reapondents reflects this trend also. However, only in three of the state's .v- mu“ lib) m 17 areas is the groww income considerably below the average for Farm Account COOperators. The fact that farming area 5, the one in which Michigan State College is located, is one of those where the PMA administrators are the poor farmers in their communities, is indeed unfortunate and might well contribute considerably to i the Opinion held in Land Grant College circles, namely, that PMA administrators on the whole are the least success- ful farmers in the countryside. On the basis of the present analysis such conclusions cannot be derived. Reference is made to the fact that most of the respondents showed great interest in matters of agriculture which is evidenced by the large number of them being members of improvement associations, such as the Dairy Herd Improvement Association, the Soil Conservation District and the Artificial Breeders Association. The average physical size of PMA administrator's farms, which does not differ to any significant extent from the average .H-z . 86 size of farms of Michigan Farm Account COOperators, suggests, that at one time many of the PMA administrators, who now work their farms considerably less intensive, were quite active and successful farmers. What is more important in this connection, however, is that the farmers in electing their county committees apparently do not emphasize the farming success of their candidate, but rather other characteristics which, in their minds, are more directly related to administrative ability. The role of expertise, as stressed by Appleby and the architects of farmers' administration, is instinctively neglected by the voting farmer and great emphasis apparently is placed upon educational background and working eXperience in other organizations involving reaponsibilities of an administrative nature.1 The question which now has to be linked to the foregoing analysis is the following: Is the fact that PMA administrators are not a new type of administrator a positive feature, or would it be more desirable if the committees were made up of personnel not previously attached to various other organizations? The basic reason why the lawmakers stressed so vividly the desirability of having a new group develop into able l P. H. Appleby, op. cit., p. 47 ff. 87 and efficient farm leaders was, without doubt, that an attempt was being made to eliminate conservative forces as much as possible from entering the policy-making body of the AAAPPMA organization. Yet, would such a develop- ment as the one desired by the lawmakers have been of 3 great benefit to the American farmer, for whom the program fl was created? The very fact that the PMA committeemen is a person who has already, in other instances, enjoyed the - confidence of his fellow community members, suggests that k» the committeemen represent the farmers adequately in this case also, where the formulation of agricultural programs according to the wishes of all farmers is the overall objective. The fact that the voting farmers select people as PMA administrators who have represented them successfully on other occasions also shows, as has been remarked in a previous section, that the farm program is not taken as a political issue at the local level, in which case one should expect the more liberal farmers in the community to take over active leadership as administrators of the farm program. It has been attempted in this connection to determine whether considerable differences existed between those who served on the committees before 1945 and those who 88 did not serve until after the war. Although a difference seemed apparent - namely, that younger PEA committeemen were less active in the township government and related activities - it was not possible to prove that a signifi- cant difference existed between the two groups. r'. ‘1‘ A {QMKC 1'! Yet all is not well. In connection with the results regarding age of the administrators, it has been shown (Table 1) that only 15 (8 per cent) out of 164 (100 per cent) are below 40 years of age and only 45 (27.5 per cent) ' ix are below 50 years of age. On the basis of this evidence, it became apparent that the farmers of Michigan are not truly represented on the PMA committees. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the average length of time present administrators have spent working on the community and county committee is between nine and ten years. Most of them have really "grown old" with their jobs and we would expect that they would be well acquainted with the technical requirements of program administration. The reasons why younger and more active farmers are not represented on the committees so as to give a true cross section of all farmers in the state, participating in the program, are of course manifold. maybe the most important reason is that the adequate fulfillment of the 89 PMA administrator's job requires a considerable amount of time. Since the bulk of the work occurs at a season when most farmers are tied down on their own farms, the absence of young and active farmers on the committees is easy to explain. How much the monetary rewards play an important role as an incentive to take on the job as PMA adminis- trator is hard to determine on the basis of our information. It appears almost certain, however, that these material factors played a much bigger role when the program was first begun and it was difficult for many farmers to cover their needs from farm earnings only. With this gradual diminution in the importance of monetary incentives came a relaxation of patriotic issues. The times of national emergency, which always weld together the most active forces in the society, have gone by and an unprecedented prOSperity has taken its place. For the great mass of the farmers the program is still important, though much less an issue as this was the case in the early and middle thirties. Combined, these reasons give a very logical eXplanation of the reasons why the age of committee members is considerably above the average of the other farmers in the community. If the high average age is believed to seriously affect the successful administration 90 of the prOgram, which is at the present time in no way apparent, the author suggests as a possible solution that the number of terms one man can serve on a committee be limited. This would not only allow an increased change- over of personnel on the individual committees, but would also permit qualified members of individual committees to move up to a higher administrative level. In this connection another problem suggests itself, namely, the difficulty of finding adequate personnel to replace the retiring administrators. Due to the fact that the county adminis- trator has to Spend a considerable amount of time away from his farm if he is to fulfill his duties adequately, and secondly on the basis of the almost complete disap- pearance of the patriotic issue, a develOpment which has been pointed out in the previous section, it appears unlikely that a great incentive exists for young and active farmers to take on the job as PMA administrator. If the replacement problem proves to be a serious difficulty, it might well be that the Federal Government, irregardless of its political orientation, will again rely more heavily on the Extension Service to administer the Farm Program. There are several aspects upon which the analysis has not touched. One concerns the attitude of PMA 91 administrators toward the program in general and the administrative assignments in particular. The data in the present analysis do not allow the drawing of any conclusions as to motivations and attitudes which PMA administrators hold toward their job and the value of the program. Further investigations eXploring these particular aSpects are needed to complete the studies concerning agricultural programs and their administration which have been made in recent years at Michigan State College. APPENDIX I 95 I Personal Data --' Michigan PMA County Committee l. h. 10. 11. Rm 0 O O ‘ O O . O ‘ O O. 0" O O.- O O O 2. co‘mty O O O O O O O 3 0 Age 0 O A Formal education - a. None. .,. . ._.; t e. Some high school . . . . . b. 1-h.years grammar . . . . . f. Completed high school . . . . . c. 5-7 years grammar . . . u . g. Some college . . . . . d. Completed grammar,. 1.. . . h. Completed college . . . Major .'. . Give the date when you first started AAA work: a. As township committeemen . . . . . b. As county committeemen . . . . Have you served continuously since you first started AAA work? . . . . . .. If not, list the periods by dates in which.you have served: . . . . . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ‘ O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O ‘Do you belong to any general farm.organizations;.if so, for how long, and Pi what positions have you held in the organization? , '~ - .n . . , Do you now hold, or have you Organization HOV'many years? in the past year held any How long? ' , office, if yes, what office? Grange . . . Farm.Bureau Farmers Union 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O I 0 Are you now an officer of any school district? . . . . . If yes, a. What office? . . . . . b. What district? . . . . . . . . . . c. Years of service in office . . . . . Have you, in the past, ever held an office in one of the following levels of government? What office? HOV long? Township ( . . . . . ) . . . . . . - . . . . . County ( . . . . . ) . . . . . .4 . . . . . State. (.....) Federal ( . . . . . ) . . . . . . . . . . . IHave you had any other full-time occupations besides farming since you 'were 16? . . . . . If so, what were they and how long did you work in caCh70'Cl00oases.00000000000000.0000... 12. Are you a member of: a. ABA (Artificial Breeders' Assn.) . . . . . b. SCD (Soil Conservation District) . . . . . c. DHIA (Dairy Herd Improvement Assn.) . . . . . f 13. Do you make use of the Cooperative Extension Service program? . . . . . . 1h. Are you a member of business clubs, service clubs, or other non-farm organ- izations?..... Ifso,whichones?................. 15. What other activities or business interests besides, farming and PMA do ,younowhave,orhaveyouhadinthepast? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 II The Farm 16. Howmanyyearstaveyoufarmedsinceyouwere16? . . . . . . . . . . . . l7. Howmanyacres do you now gerate (1951-52)? . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . Owned.....Rented..... J 18. How long has the land you now own been in your possession? .' . . . . . . (Number of acres bought since 1939 . . . . . . . . . .) 19. How many months or weeks did each one of the following work on the farm in 1951? - ' "23'."- Months Farm Operator . ‘. . . . Wife _ o o o o 0 Children (Son under 18, etc.) . . . . . Other family members _‘. . . . _ . (father, etc.) . . . . . Hired youth labor (high school boys, etc.) . . . . . Adult hired labor . . . . . 20. Doyourentoutanyland? . . . . . No. ofacres. . . . . . . . . . 21. Did you do any custom work off your farm in 1951 with one of the following machines: Bailer . . . . . Days peryear . . . ‘Combine..... Daysperyear... Field chopper . . . Days per year . . . Corn picker . . . . Days per year . . Other..... Daysperyear.. 22. Average number d cows milked last year . . . . Pounds sold (or$ income frommilk sale) . . . . . . . . . ., Ave. no. heifers over 1 yr. . 0 0 O O O O Harvested Bay (All) Tillable pasture Other heifers under 1 yr.. . . " " laying hens . . . " " feeder pigs bought . . . " " feeder pigs sold .~ . . " " hogs fattened . . . " " boars and gilts sold . . " " ewes . . . " " beef cows . . . " " calves raised . . . " " calves sold as feeders . " " owncows fed out . . . " " beef feeders purchased . " " beef feeders sold . . . " " broilers raised . . . " " turkeys raised . . . Number of acres in: Wheat . Corn ' a. For Grain b. For Silage Soybeans Dry Beans Sugar Beets Oats Barley Potatoes Truck crops (list) Fruit: Acres POQCheB o s e o Apples . . . . Cherries . . . . a. Sweet . . . . b. Sour . . . . Other (list) 0 0 Acres 0 O O O 0 O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O . O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ”a. O O O Wfl O O O O 0 Wgt. . . . Wgt. sold Wgt. sold . Wgt. sold . 94 Bushels (tons) Ember of acres Bearing Non-hearing O O O 0 per acre 0 O O O O ‘ I O O O O O O C O I O O . C O O Total tillable acres Wood lot Non-tillable pasture Total acres 23. Approximately-how many tens of fertilizer did you apply last year? Analysis ‘ 4 Tons 34242' ... .; 2-12-6, 3-1849' . . . . . 0-20420' . - . . . . . Other anahysis ‘ .‘. . . . Ammonium.nitrate . . . . . Ammonium sulfate . . . . . Lime . . . . . Others . . . . . 2h. Approximately what is your total investment in machinery? Check one. 0 - 2,500 (. . . . .) 2 500 - 3 500 (... . . .) 3,500 - 5,000 (. . . . .) 5,000 - 7 500 (. . . . .) 7 500 - 10,000 (. . . . .) 10,000 - 15 000 (. . . . .) 15,000 and over (. . . . .) APPEN DIX II 96 UNITED STAGES DEPARMT OF AGRICUIE'URE Product ion and Marketing Administration 200 North Capitol Avenue lensing ll , Michigan 53 -Administ rat ive —13 September 8, 1952 To: County Chairmen From: James H. Quick, Chairmen, Michigan PMA Committee Subject: Background of Michigan PMA County Comitteemen The questionnaire attached has been worked out with the representatives of Michigan State College and we wish to have you complete it immediately following your elect ion on September 15. We would like to have you return it to this office at your earliest convenience after your County Election. The summary and tabulations of these questionnaires will be sent to you when this work is completed. It is quite important that these be filled out completely and returned to us as soon as possible. . .0 ,,- -' "‘\. .. i I, - , I" ~. C /// r / \ ‘ v‘ -_ (L n I, ’17 A / . ' Attachment " "‘6 " "" ' half. (#53 g / 5’ t/ APPENDIX III "The Productive Man Work Unit (PMWU) is the amount of work usually done by a man in a ten hour day on crOps, productive livestock and work off the farm for pay." The foregoing definition of PMWU is taken from the Report of the Farm Records Subcommittee of the North Central Farm Management Extension Committee, dated November 10, 1952. Also in Appendix III can be found the number of PNWUs attributed to each individual enterprise. N0. ....95.... WORKSHEET Farming Area ....... Price Area .......... Computation of PMWUs: I5.22:1:qu enterprise“ 1.-" n -‘w-“_ ___ h_Number “ . PMWU/Unit _ Total Milking Cow _ 15 Heifer over 1 year 3 Heifer under 1 year 3 more I .18 _H_o_gg .5 Ewes .5 . Beef cows ' F 3 Calves L 3 Broilers . .l Turkeys _ 03 Total PMWUs in Livestock Crop Acreage PMWU/acre Total Wheat __ 1.0 Corn grain h_ 2.0 Corn silo ' 2.5 qu.beans 1.0 Dry beans 1.0 Sugar beets 9.0 Oats ___ 1.0 Barley' 1.0 819 1.0 fgtatoes 600 ' .os'. - .s .. - ~--.. . . . I -:... o -. "F'I -.-~e I- ... ~- ~ .- . --- , .. _ . s . ' < ‘ a "on. . . O . . . . ,,,. O . _, .. s .. . I. s r .. ' O . I 0 so .-.., _ u u u ' IO-o or. . ' l l,‘ \o -. su II..- 01’ '0 ...-~..... 0. 'l-al we .-.¢ 0 - . Q‘s s . ‘9 . . I . . . , O O I . n - -.-.. 0-!- s ' '- -. .1. " ‘- oau- ' n..-- ‘~~so:- r- a... s a . ... .. a . - .. ~- . p a... . 0's- ~0- - .4 -‘--.. II n n, ' "D' V-.- ---s.o~. . . -.-n r... .. . ..- . s .- ' as a sl 1 I. -..-e ., no“ A~_ 99 Crop -._-._. Acreage PMWU/acre q___.Total__ Caboagg 10.0 Tomatoes 10.0 ‘_ Squash M_ 10.0 Cucumbers 10.0 Melons 10.0 Onions 30.0 Peaches (bearing), 15-0 gpples (bearing) 15.0 L Berries (bearing) 15.0 Pears (bearing) 15.0 Peaches (nonbearing) __ 2.0 Apples (nonbearing) 2.0 Berries (nonbearing) 2.0 Pears (nonbearing) ‘ 2.0 Berries 20.0 Grapes 10.0 Hay == ___ .7 Tillable pasture .7 Total PMWUs in Crops Total PMWUs in Livestock Total PI'MUS \\\\\ I‘*. .0 .. -' .sl' . . ~ .. . . I - ' s .- ‘ . ‘ .' [a v a s 1"- I s D e .“. ‘ . I .~ | I' ....- .‘o' ‘ “...“, on 0-0 "00 oV"~- .. I t .s"" , ~ I .a ’I.-.". . '4 Computation of PAU \ lCX) Kind of Enterprise Number Conversion factor Total Milk cows 1.00 Heifers ovpr:1fiyear 0.50 Calves under 1;pear 0.25 Laying hens 0.01 Hogs raiser 0.20 Ewes 0.1b Beef cattle 0.50 Brood sows or boars 0.h0 Agrgilers raiser 0.00h Turqus r 0.012 Bulls or steers 1.00 Total PAUS Total till. acres Man labor equ. TA/PAU PMWUs/acre EMWUs/man Crop expense Machinery expense , o u . s - , I ‘ _ - V‘.‘ . . a s .. -' - , .I . - ... ., . . ...- .. . .. A. I - . . . ... -- . ~v-- "U ~. - c n . . .- -- . u. -¢-.-- .. .. . - .. .... . ... .- , ~u. - . r u... . » . I' ’ I I Q. . \ ...“ r-.. ...! no.-- on 01- ..-~-....-.- ... a. - ...-. - A - ... 4 a ...-A « .. .. . . . Arvoga- . , . n O . i . fl ‘ - v‘4.. -. - 0.. . - .~. - .--. .. - o m'a- .-.- — - o o-. ..‘ - .-~ .‘o .o . . ,.., . n. - -.--g-~ -- . - ' " . C ‘ : I ADA 3 ~ ‘..na - .- .... . .. g u .. -. .... 0‘ n . . . ‘ . . . ... -~-. A . . . . L o . .. . .— ....u. - . ... e .o a. o¢ ~..--" . . . . . . u - -\ " \O u , . . . ‘ r . .5»... . -- . . . . .. v. - - . -. i . ' D C V. , . .o o o . . . . v.‘ . . ., u .-~ — ' 0 ‘ - c... navy-oo- t- n - u n n -~- .. c a . ,. .- an o . n - it -~ - o.‘ - .- - I I I 'o-. -. o-.- o u....-qoo._-' .. . _. - ... . _ . ., - . . . .... . o q . v. ~ » r . . s I' . n .- J. ‘ 'v-s . . u . . .1 ... .. ...-.0 I. o o- o . ... .. .. . . .. . -. . . . - , O . . . p ‘ . | a o D o . - ‘ . g I ‘- s. . - --‘ - -v I . . . .. . 4 n. . . ... . .7 . . n .. . . ‘ o' . ' .a\-‘ “ I. - Q - , ,. .. - - <. . . ... . ‘... ‘ .. . . . . . ’ ~ ., . . . . .V. . . ...r. . ...... I ~.-> ,._.. - . 9.7.01 v .,. - II ' g . . > . . . .0 a-~----’O ‘--l-*-.-c. u-«n . - a . . . - . . o . . n . .s ...- ... .A . a ..A .. .. - .. .-.-- - --. .. -~ ' ..,.,. . .. .... ....- o .. . . v. . . . . - .m. . .- - I . ._ _ ... , . ‘ .. .r .. . .- . t. I -« n . - . ' . . . . - .. ~u A - , . .. ..... a . . , ‘ . .. . . - ....c I I .... a”... . . on . ..~ - - -- ...-...-.. , . ,. . a. . ..---.. - ... . . .. .... ....~ . V A .. .A ... , . . -~- ~ a.~ - ... . . APPENDIX IV 102 THE T TEST The results submitted have been tested for significant differentials. Much of the conclusions are based on the differences between means which were found in the analysis. Where such a difference is stated it is significantly different on a 1% level. This implies the probability that the difference is not due to chance but to other factors, some of which to determine is the task of this analysis. The following test was used: #_— _. 7 t = i1- x2 N1 3: mg "7— ...—......— 0‘ N1 N2 where X1 3 income reported for farm account cooperators. X2 income computed for PMA committeemen. Degree of freedom = N1 + N2 ‘ 2 103 THE x2 TEST The x2 test has been used in this study to determine whether or not particular subgroups differed significantly from the total group (universe) with reapect to certain sociological characteristics. The test is best illustrated by actually going through the various steps required using an example out of this study: The problem was to determine whether or not county administrators who did not serve before the end of World War II were equally engaged in holding of elective offices as the entire group. For this purpose we have to compare the observed value for the sample (administrators not having served before 1945) with the values which are expected on the basis of the results obtained for the entire group. The following notations are used: f - actual frequency fe = expected frequency K = number of columns Universe Office Held Observed Expected No. Percent Chi Square No 11 6.97 54 56.7 2.528 Yes ‘ 8 12.02 93 63.5 1.534 Total 19 18.99 147 100 3.672 104 2 Since X2 = $£-%E£;l- 2 X2 = (a - 12.oa)+ (ll - 6.9722 12.02 6.97 - x2 = 3.673 Degrees of freedom ' (K - l) 3 (2 - 1) 3 1 If the result is to be significant on a 5% level the value for Chi Square (X2) must be at least 3.84. we conclude therefore that the difference which exists in the above case between the total group and the sample with reSpect to holding of elective offices is due to chance in more than 5% of the cases and is therefore rejected as significant difference. APPENDIX V 106 RATES OF CUSTOMWORK IN MICHIGAN The following hourly rates are taken from Extension Folder F 161 "Rates for Custom Work in Michigan” for the calendar year 1951. They have been used in the computation of gross income. 1. Combining $ 10.00 per hour 2. Picking Corn 5.40 per hour 3. Field Baling 15.60 per hour 4. Hay ChOpping 10.00 per hour 5. Drilling Grain 3.25 per hour 6. Disking 3.75 per hour APPENDIX VI In Appendix VI, Part A, 1951 wholesale prices are presented as used in this study and reported by the Michigan Crop Reporting Service. This agency has established 9 different marketing areasl wherefrom reports are obtained. The prices indicated are average annual prices. In Appendix VI, Part B, a list of fertilizer prices is presented. The prices were obtained from different fertilizer companies and concerns in Michigan. Trans- portation allowances have been made for farms located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 1 Chart III shows the 9 different marketing areas. 111) Price Area ...3.... Gross Income Computation ‘gnterprise Amount Sold Price/unit Total receipt Milk L62 cwt. Eggg, _.Q6 dz. Milking cows 181 Feeder pigs 20.73 h“ Boers and gilts Beef feeders 27.18 Broilers .25 lb. Turkeys . 38 1b. Veal calves 35-50 Sheep 16.62 Lambs I 31.75 Chickens .25 Corn 1.63 Wheat 2.09 Barley - 1.08 Cats .80 Rye 1.51 Potatoes 1.27 Beans (navy) 6.22 Other beans 9.51 Soy beansA‘ 2.83 Apples 1.50 1109 Pfice Area 0000020... Gross Income Computation Enterprise Amount sold Price/Unit Total receigt Milk h.62 cut. 3883 .50 ds. Milking cows 23h Pseder pigs __ 20.331.— Bosrs and gilts Beef Feeders 25.33 Broilers .33 Turkeys .hl Veal calves 33.62 Sheep ‘ 12.38 Lambs 27.h0 Chickens .31 Corn , 1.71 ‘Wheat 2.05 Barley 1.25 Oats ‘ .87 Rye 1.hh Potatoes 1.21 Beans (navy) 6. 12 Other beans 9.6;.m Soy beans 2.83 Apples 1.73 Alfalfa hay 2h.22 Gross Income Computation JLLO Price Area ...3.... ‘gnterprise Amount Sold Price/unit Total receipt Milk b.62 qyt. Eggs .h6 dz. Milking cows 181 Feeder pigs 20.73 Boars and gilts Beef feeders 27.18 Broilers .25 1b. Turkeys .38 lb. Veal calves 35-50 Sheep 16.62 Lambs A 31.75 Chickens .25 Corn 1.63 Wheat 2.09 Barley 1.08 Oats .80 Rye 1.51 Potatoes 1.27 Beans (navy) 6.22 Other beans 9.51 Sey beansAA 2.83 Apples 1.50 Alfalfa hay 2h.33 —-.- ILlZ Price Area ....S.... Gross Income Computation Price/Unit Total receipt Milk h.29 Eggs .h7 Bulking cows 266 Feeder pigs VI 19.83 Boars and gilts Beef feeders 25.38 Broilers .29 Turkeys .33 Veal calves 32.21 Sheep 10.3h Lambs 27.62 Chickens .2? Corn 1.6h Wheat . 2.20 Barley 1.17 Oats .8h Rye 1.59 Potatoes 1.17 Beans (navy) 6-16 _r70ther beans 9.60 Soy beans ‘ 2.75 Apples 2.11 Alfalfa hay 19072 113 Price Area, so. oéoo 0 Gross Income Computation EEEEL_ .h? Milkingtgows 288 Feeder pigg 21.12 Boars and gilts Beef feeders 27.55 Broilers .31 Turkeys .37 Veal calves 36.62 _fi Sheep 10.67 Lambs 28.33 .1. Chickens .30 Corn 1.65 J__. ‘Wheat 2.21 _“, Barley 1.23 Oats .8h Rye 1.62 .. Potatoes 1.59 Beans (navy) 6.10 ~wether beans 8.50, Sgy_beans ' .2.81.s __ Apples 1.79 Alfalfa hay 19.22 p a o ..\ . . '_ . (.. .. ‘J -.. s- ..l .- 0 If“ _ ...": o. ‘- U I a O I l"§. . . . .. ~ I I" . .0 a . ' D .. I O _0 ~ . ...,. O .. C O .‘ l ‘0 . fl . 0 .. l ,0 .' . . «0. ~ ......... .‘ A ._- '.. .‘ f‘.‘ . .- A I ... , u 1-. ~ xxx“; -.' . 3 . \ ‘1 Gross Income Computation 114: Price Area 3007006; Ente arise Amount Sold __Price/Unit Total receipt Milk ' ‘ $.12 Eggs .50 Milking cows 2h5 Feeder pigs 20.09 Boars and gilts Beef feeders Boob? Broilers .33 Turkeys .hp Veal calves 3h.52 Sheep 1h.02 Lambs _22.19. Chickens .30 . Corn 1.72 . Wheat ' 2L2; Barley 1.37 Oats .90 Rye 1.59 Potatoes l.h0 Beans gravy) 6.12 Other beans 19.88 Soy beans 2.81 Apples 1.80 Alfalfa hay == 2h.01 ”Hi“: I ,' . 0 fire..." . .. -.. . . u u u- ‘ -4 . - .... .. v - . .. .... . .. .1 a v 1‘ I ' - ..., .., .,- l u ' -.I .. Gross Income Computation llfii Price Area goo-8.00.0 {Enterprise Amouggf§old Price/unit Total receipt Milk h.32 Eggs .hB Milking cows 26h Feeder Pigs 20.6h Boars and gilts Beef feeders 29.17 Broilers .30 ' Turkeys .36 Veal calves I 36.h3 Sheep __1_., 1h.82 Lambs 31.92 Chickens 132 Corn 1.6h Wheat ~__ 2.25 Barley 1.19 Oats .QQ Rye __1.66 Potatoes :1;Q8 Beans (namy) 6.19 Other beans ' 8.92 Soy beans 2.8h Apples 2.35 Alfalfa hay 21.1.5 oar . o- ‘ uh. . a. . . . :2: . ‘ .3 ‘ '.o . o . . . ' ‘ . ' . .1. . 1:" . . .3 n ' ~L - ‘ - f It I y." . ... ' . . I .‘q . . . . ‘. v' . I , ‘ v. , . .' . . . , ‘ I ... s o'l‘ . ‘ - . I .c ' ‘ . ”Act. ' . ‘ . .. . .a - £116 Price area ....?... Gross Income Computation En§‘_:?£§9“__ “---“- Wu“- 5°19 T°m __°,1'_ - Milk ' (LLIZ Eggs .51 Milking cows _g§6 Feeder pigg p30.86 1 Bears and£gilts 4__4 Beef feeders 22;;§_ Broilers .33 ... Turkeys .hQ Veal calves 35.86 Sheep ___ ---... 1h.§3 Lambs 30.h1 Chickens T .3Q_ Corn 1.67 Wheat . 2.26 Barleyw 1.19 Cats .88 Rye 1.68 Potatoes a. lgng f Beans (navy) 6.08 Other beans 9.09 Soy beans 2.87 Apples 2.h0 Alfalfa hay 22.h2 PART B 117 Total receipts Entegrise Amount Sold Price unit Income from work off farm PMA payments m Approximation of Gross Income Fertilizer Analysis Amount Price Total 3-12—12 £6.35 (/ 5 up) _ ,Z 1 2-12-6 W l 3—18-9 _ 52.72 (.1 5 @121 0—20-20 Other ...i / l Ammonium Nitrate 100.00 (i 5 L33) {’1 Ammonium Sulfate 70.00 (g 5 up) Lime A020 Machinery expense = 10% of investment. x 9.1 ~53 )4 l . s a. - .1 ..co .. ... . ... . . m ..N .4... .10. r ... . n . . a -1 I sawiaaaaiymla ... .13.... ....--7... ...r L541- ....«.-.t.- . . .. 2.53.... «9165.....3a 3...... a. RM? 7 .9- -L '11:"! ‘1)“. (0|. ‘1'!) .11 9|. II‘D",'I¢IIII|III|’|IIIII’I O . : .tavl MICHIGAN STAT NIVERSITY LIBRARIES EU 3 1193 03057 831