^^ United States

1Ü^^ Department of

'^^y Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Rural Development

Research Report

Number 78

C 5

The Farm

Entrepreneurial

Population, 1988

Margaret A. Butler

r-a"'">-.

^

^L2-~^ «iCT-^^ /'
It's Easy To Order Another Copy!

Just dial 1-800-999-6779. Toll free in the United States and Canada.

Other areas, please call 1-301-725-7937.

Ask for The Farm Entrepreneurial Population, 1988 (RDRR-78).

The cost is $8.00 per copy. For non-U.S. addresses (includes Canada), add 25

percent. Charge your purchase to your VISA or MasterCard, or we can bill you.

Or send a check or purchase order (made payable to ERS-NASS) to:

ERS-NASS

P.O. Box 1608

Rockville, MD 20849-1608.

We'll fill your order by first-class mail.
The Farm Entrepreneurial Population, 1988. By Margaret A. Butler, Agriculture and

Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Rural Development Research Report No. 78.

Abstract

About 5.3 million people lived in households tied to a farm business in 1988, compared

with almost 5.0 milhon in the farm population as conventionally defined by place of

residence. The farm entrepreneurial population, those people with an economic tie to

farming, includes people who depend on farming for all or part of their income but who

do not necessarily Uve on a farm. This report analyzes census data on income,

education, and other characteristics of the group identified by farm occupation and farm

self-employment income criteria.

Keywords: Farm entrepreneurial population, farm operator population, farm-income-only

population, demographic characteristics, social characteristics, economic

characteristics, households, famihes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Linda Swanson for her guidance, critical review, and comments.

Appreciation is also extended to Calvin Beale, Judith Kalbacher, David McGranahan,

and Carolyn Rogers for their review and constructive comments; and to Helen Green

for typing.

1301 New York Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20005-4788 July 1990
Contents

Summary v

Introduction , i

Method of Identifícation 1

Regional Distribution 2

Racial and Ethnic Characteristics 3

Sex and Age 3

Education 4

Labor Force Participation 4

Agricultural and Nonagricuitural Employment 4

Unemployment 7

Household and Family Structure 7

Farm Entrepreneurial Households 7

Farm Entrepreneurial Families 8

Income 10

Household Income 10

Family Income , , 10

Poverty 13

Sources of Income , 13

Conclusions . _ 14

References , 15

Appendix I: Definitions and Explanations 16

Appendix II: Source and Reliability of Estimates 17

Appendix III: Characteristics of Farm Operators and

Farm Income Recipients 17

IV
Suiimiaiy

About 5.3 million people lived in households tied to a farm business in 1988, compared with

almost 5.0 million in the farm population as conventionally defined by residence. The farm

entrepreneurial population, those people with an economic tie to farming, includes people who

derive all or part of their livelihood from farming but who do not necessarily live on a farm.

This report analyzes data from the Census Bureau's March Current Population Survey for 1988

on income, education, and other characteristics of the farm entrepreneurial population.

Since first counted in the 1920 census, the farm population has been defined as people who Uve

on farms or ranches, regardless of occupation or income. Today, some people live on farms but

work in nonagricultural occupations, and some people who operate farms or derive income from

farms do not live there. This report quantifies and describes the characteristics of those who

have business ties to farming but who do not necessarily live on farms.

The farm entrepreneurial population consists of people who live in households in which

someone's primary occupation is operating or managing a farm, or in which someone receives

income from self-employed farming.

Findings for 1988 include:

o Most farm people were white males. The median age of the farm entrepreneurial population

was 34.5 years, which was older than the national median age.

o Education among farm people varied among the sexes: Females in the farm entrepreneurial

population were more likely than their male counterparts to continue their education beyond

high school.

o The farm population ranked high in labor force participation. About 3.1 million farm

entrepreneurial people were in the labor force, with an unemployment rate of just 2.1

percent. Over 50 percent of people in farm entrepreneurial households worked in

nonagricultur£d industries.

o The median income of farm entrepreneurial families was $28,098 in 1987, about 7 percent

below the national average. The poverty rate for farm families was 10.1 percent, but fewer

than 1 percent received welfare benefits. The national poverty rate was 10.7 percent with 5

percent on welfare. The main sources of income for farm entrepreneurial families were farm

self-employment and wages and salaries earned from farm or nonfarm jobs.

o The farm population's social structure was more traditional and homogeneous than that of

the total population. Of the 1.5 million farm entrepreneurial families, 95 percent were

married couples. Only 2.3 percent of famihes were headed by women. Largely because of

the farm population's older age structure, more than half of all farm families had no children

of their own living at home.
The Farm Entrepreneurial

Population, 1988

Margaret A. Butler*

Introdoction

In March 1988, approximately 5.3 million persons, or 2.2

percent of the U.S. population, lived in households

associated with the operation of farms, as indicated by a

household member's occupation or source of income.

This 1988 estimate is 6.5 percent lower than the 5.7

million estimated for 1987, but this is not a statistically

significant change (2)} Based on the conventional farm

residence definition, there were an estmiated 5 million

persons in the farm population in 1988 (10).

Since first separately counted in the 1920 census, the

farm population has been defined as people living on

farms or ranches, regardless of occupation or source of

income. At that time, the vast majority of people tied to

farming lived on farms. But rural life has become more

diverse, as agricultural science and technology have cut

labor requirements, and off-farm job opportunities have

grown. As a result, people who live on farms today are

not necessarily employed in agriculture, and those

employed in agriculture often do not live on farms.

Thus, the farm residence approach has lost some of its

former validity. Alternative criteria for identifying farmrelated people and the differences in the criteria used are

detailed elsewhere (1).

To provide more complete coverage and a more precise

concept, this report identifies the farm population based

on farm operator or manager occupation and/or selfemployment income from farming. This group and its

household members are called the farm entrepreneurial

population. Data are presented on the social, economic,

and demographic characteristics of the total farm entrepreneurial population and its components for 1988.

No attempt is made here to identify the population

associated with hired farmworkers. Many persons who

do hired farmwork have only a tenuous connection with

farming based on short-term seasonal work, and are also

incompletely identified by occupational survey questions

unless the questions relate to an entire year. Such

*The author is an economist in the Agriculture and Rural Economy

Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to sources listed in the

References section.

questions were asked in the Agricultural Work Force

Survey for 1987, which estimated the population of hired

farmworker households (3). But, the objective in this

report is to define and characterize in its own right the

population of farmer households.

Method of Identification

Data used to identify the farm entrepreneurial population

in 1988 were drawn from the public-use computer files of

the March Current Population Survey (CPS), conducted

annually by the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department

of Commerce. The household is the unit of observation

and consists of all persons who occupy a given housing

unit. A house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a

single room are all considered housing units when

occupied as separate living quarters.

People who fell into the CPS farm occupation and farm

self-employment income categories were combined with

members of their households to form the farm

entrepreneurial population analyzed in this report.

Definitions of these CPS categories are as follows:

o Farm operator population: All persons living in

households where at least one member is employed

primarily as a farm operator or farm manager. A

household is also included if at least one unemployed

member indicated that his or her last full-time job

was farm operator or farm manager. An advantage

in using occupation as a criterion is that there is no

residence requirement, enabling those who farm but

live off the farm to be included. A shortcoming is

that, except for the CPS December supplement

which lacks detailed demographic data, employment

data refer only to a respondent's primary occupation.

Households in which one or more members have

only part-time, secondary jobs in farming are missed,

unless another member works primarily as a farmer.

o Farm income population: Persons in households with

at least one member who received farm selfemployment income in the preceding year. Farm

self-employment income is net money income (gross

receipts minus operating expenses) from the

operation of a farm received by a person on his or

her own account, as an owner, renter, or sharecropper. A household is also included if at least one
member reported a net income loss from farming.

This criterion also has no residency requirement but

misses households of people who run incorporated

farms.

The total farm entrepreneurial population consists of all

persons in households identified by either or both of the

farm occupation and farm income criteria. The two

populations overlapped substantially; households often

qualified under both criteria (fig. 1). Because most farm

operators were self-employed as farmers in the preceding

year, about 54 percent of the total farm entrepreneurial

population was in households with both a farm operator

or manager and a farm self-employment income

recipient. Thirty-seven percent of the farm entrepreneurial population was in households where one or more

persons received farm self-employment income and no

one was primarily employed as a farm operator or farm

manager. This group is called the farm-income-only

group. The remaining 9 percent resided in households

with an operator or manager but reported no farm selfemployment income.

This report focuses on characteristics of the entire farm

entrepreneurial population. The components of this

population are farm operators or farm self-employment

income recipients, their families, and other household

members. Some data are available on characteristics of

farm operators and farm income recipients alone (see

Appendix III).

Regional Distribution

Slightly more than half of all farm residents lived in the

South in 1950, and about a third lived in the Midwest (9).

But mechanization of cotton production and the near

abandonment of the share-tenant system of farming

resulted in heavy movement of people off the farm and a

smaller southern share of the total farm population.

As measured by the entrepreneurial definition, over 40

percent of the farm entrepreneurial population lived in

the Midwest in 1988 (table 1). The South had the second

largest share, slightly under 30 percent of the farm

population, although it had the highest regional share of

the Nation's total population (fig. 2).

Southerners in the farm entrepreneurial population were

more likely than their counterparts elsewhere to receive

farm self-employment income without having a primary

farm occupation. Thirty-four percent of the farmincome-only population lived in the South, compared with

24.9 percent of the farm operator population. This

reflects the more frequent small-scale nature of southern

Figure 1

Composition of the farm entrepreneurial pOipMilMlon^

Percent

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 ^

I Farm occupation and farm income Farm-income-only Farm occupation only

Total farm entrepreneurial

population, 5.3 million persons

Farm occupation population.

3.4 million persons

Farm income population,

4.8 million persons

Source: (7).
farming and the greater reliance on off-farm work as the

chief source of employment.

Racial and Ethnic Characteristics

Few minorities operated farms in the United States.

Only 1.4 percent of the farm entrepreneurial population

was black, and 1.9 percent was of Hispanic origin (table

2). Most minorities in agriculture were hired farm wage

and salary workers. About 79 percent of blacks in

agriculture were wage and salary workers. About 96

percent of Hispanics with an agricultural occupation were

wage and salary workers (7).

Sex and Age

Males outnumbered females in the farm entrepreneurial

population. There were 117 males for every 100 females,

compared with about 95 males per 100 females in the

total U.S. population (7), The ratio was even higher in

the farm operator population, where there were 120

males for every 100 females.

The historic movement of young adults off farms has

significantly altered the age structure of farm people. In

1988, the farm entrepreneurial population was older than

the national population. The median age of this farm

population was 34.5 years (table 2), compared with 32.2

years for the U.S. population (7),

Persons of prime working age (age 25-44 years)

constituted only 27.9 percent of Ihe farm population in

1988. In contrast, 32 percent of the total U.S. population

was in this age group (fig. 3). The. initial capital

investment needed for modern farming and the drop in

the number of farms brought about by productivity gains

have slowed the entry of young people into farming.

There were 3.4 million farms in 1965. By 1988, the

number had fallen to 2.2 million fój.

Table l--RegionaI distribution of the farm entrepreneurial population, 1988^

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Region Total operator income

only

Total operator income

only

Thousands .Fervent..

Total 5,329 3,361 1,968 100.0 100.0 100.0

Northeast 358 246 112 6.7 7.3 5.7

Midwest 2,625 1,710 914 493 50.9 46.4

South 1,514 837 677 28,4 24.9 34.4

West 832 56S 265 15.6 16.9 13.5

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7),

Figure 2

Regional distribution of the population, 1988

Farm entrepreneurial population U.S. population

South

^ 1

^0^i^^r It 1 1

::::I5.6%:I:J ^ "^ II It iiiii i;

\Aiori4

^11II-!II

wesi ^ T

" ^-tJJj]

Northeast

Source: Í7).
Because so many young people have left farms, persons

age 45-64 years constituted a much higher share of the

work force in the farm entrepreneurial population than

in the total population (26.8 percent versus 18.9 percent).

Retirement age people, those 65 years and over, accounted for only 8.7 percent of the farm entrepreneurial

population and 11.8 percent of the total population. The

lower representation of retirement age people in the

farm population is forced partly by the employmentoriented definition used in this report. To be counted

among the farm entrepreneurs, a person needed current

or recent employment as a farm operator or manager or

needed farm self-employment income.

Education

Farm entrepreneurs were more likely than the general

population to complete high school, but they were

somewhat less likely to attend college. Of the farm

entrepreneurial population age 25 years and over, 49

percent had completed high school only (table 3).

An additional 32 percent had completed at least 1

year of college. In comparison, 39 percent of the

U.S. population had completed high school only,

and an additional 37 percent had 1 or more years

of college.

Women in the farm entrepreneurial population were

much more Ukely than all U.S. women to have completed

high school (fig. 4). Farm entrepreneurial women were

also more likely than either farm entrepreneurial males

or total U.S. males to be high school graduates. Only 15

percent of farm women did not complete high school

versus 23 percent of farm men and 24 percent each of

men and women in the general population. College

attendance was more common in the general population

for both men and women. Farm entrepreneurial men

were least likely to have attended college (30.2 percent).

Labor Force Participation

Seventy-five percent of the farm entrepreneurial

population age 16 years and over was in the labor force

in 1988 (table 4), The participation rate for males (88.3

percent) was significantly higher than that for females

(60.3 percent). Among men, those in farm operator

households were more Hkely to participate in the labor

force than those in farm-income-only households.

Agricultural and Nonagricultural Employment

Employment of those in farm operator households was

overwhelmingly concentrated in agriculture (table 4), as

Table 2--Characteristics of the farm entrepreneurial population, 1988^

Characteristic

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Total operator income

only

Total operator mcome

only

..„..Thousands.,... ........ J^ercent........

5,329 3,361 1,968 100.0 100.0 100.0

2,869 1,835 1,034 53.8 54.6 52.5

2,460 1,526 934 46.2 45.4 47.5

5,212 3,274 1,938 97.8 97.4 98.5

77 58 19 1.4 1.7 1.0

99 67 33 1.9 2.0 1.7

1,390 853 537 26.1 25.4 :27J:^

3,477 2,178 1,299 65.2 64.8 66.0

557 371 186 10.5 11.0 9.5

759 501 258 14.2 14.9 13.1

731 436 295 13.7 . 13.0 15.0

784 429 355 14.7 12.8 18.0

646 442^ W5 12,1 13.2 10.4

461 330 132 8.7 9.8 6.7

Total

Men

Women

Race and Hispanic origin:

White

Black

Hispanic origin^

Age:

Under 18 years

18-64 years

18-24years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 y^ars

65 years and over

Yeary

Median age 34.5 34:1 35.1

-- = Not applicable,

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

^Persons of Hispanic origin may he any race.

Source: (7).
expected in view of the occupational basis used to

identify the group. However, only 38 percent of

women in the farm operator population worked

in agriculture.

Most employed women in this population (over 60

percent) worked in nonfarm jobs. About 86 percent of

employed people in farm-income-only households worked

in nonagricultural industries.

Figure 3

Age structure of the population, 1988

Percent

20

15 -

10 -

5 -

US. population

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34

Age

35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Source; (7).

Table 3-Education of the farm entrepreneurial population age 25 years and over, 1988^

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Education level Total operator income

only

Total operator income

only

Thoumnds .......Fercent

Total 3,381 2,137 1,244 I0Q.O 100.0 100.0

Not high school graduate 654 427 227 19.3 20.0 18.2

High school graduate 1,657 1,059 598 49,0 49.6 48.1

Some college or more 1,071 651 419 31.7 30.5 33.7

Men 1,800 1,154 647 100.0 100.0 100.0

Not high school graduate 418 280 137 23.2 24.3 21.2

High school graduate 838 540 298 46.6 46.8 46.1

Some college or more 544 334 211 30.2 28.9 32.6

Women 1,581 984 598 100.0 100.0 100.0

Not high school graduate 236 146 90 14.9 14.8 15.1

High school graduate 819 520 299 51.8 52.8 50.0

Some college or more 526 318 209 33.3 32.3 34.9

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7),
Nonagricultuml Industries

Farm entrepreneurial persons working in nonagricultural

industries were primarily concentrated in professional

and related services, trade, and manufacturing industries

(table 5). Women were far more likely than men to be

employed in professional and related services (39.3

percent versus 12.6 percent, respectively). Manufacturing

was the leading industry for men.

Nonafficultuml Occupations

Even among people living on farms, off-farm

employment is not uncommon. About 43 percent of

employed farm entrepreneurial persons living on farms

had worked in nonfarm occupations in 1988. Nearly 33

percent held technical occupations, and slightly more

than 20 percent held managerial positions (fig. 5).

The proportion of farm entrepreneurial persons primarily

employed in nonagricultural occupations differed between

the farm operator and the farm-income-only subgroups.

About 3 of every 10 persons in the farm operator

population held nonfarm jobs versus 19 of every 20

persons in the farm-income-only population (7).

Although fewer persons in the farm operator population

than in the farm-income-only population held nonfarm

jobs as their primary occupation, the need for off-farm

employment was probably greater for the farm operator

population. As the main source of income for the farm

Figupe 4

Education level of persons age 25 and over, 1988

Farm entrepreneurial population

Men Women

Not high school graduate

Some college or moreU.S. population

Men Women

Source: (7).
Operator population, farm income is so erratic that offfarm jobs are often necessary to supplement farm

income. The farm-income-oûly population is not usually

as dependent on farm income as the main source of

income. This population is more Ukely to be living on

farms for the purpose of maintaining a rural residence

and may view farming as a hobby or investment.

Unemployment

The rate of unemployment was relatively lower among

farm people than among the total population. Only 2.1

percent of the farm entrepreneurial labor force was

unemployed (table 4), while 6 percent of the U.S. labor

force was unemployed. Men and women in the farm

entrepreneurial labor force had similar unemployment

rates. At the national level, more men than women were

unemployed (6.4 percent versus 5.5 percent, respectively).

Unemployment was higher in the farm-income-only

population than in the farm operator population. This

was true for both men and women.

Household and Family Stnicture

There were almost 1.7 million farm households in the

United States in 1988, or almost 2 percent of all U.S.

households. Farm households generally fit traditional

family patterns. But farm households had fewer young

children at home because of a lower proportion of adults

under age 35.

Farm Entrepreneurial Households

An average of 3.10 persons lived in each farm

entrepreneurial household in 1988 (table 6). Although

small by historic standards for farm households, the size

of farm households remained somewhat larger than the

national average of 2.64 persons (^J. Farm entrepreneurial households were more likely than households

in general to be classified as family households (90

percent versus 71 percent, respectively), reflecting the

relative absence of one-person households among farm

people who are still economically active.

Table 4—Labor force participation of the farm entrepreneurial population age 16 years and over, 1988^

Farm Fann Farm Farm

Labor force status Total operator income

only

Total operator income

only

Thousands Fervent.......

Total 4,140 2,629 1,511 100.0 100.0 100.0

In labor force 3,119 2,036 1,083 753 77.4 71.7

Employed 3,053 2,014 1,039 97.9 98.9 95.9

Agriculture 1,451 1,451 41 46.5 71.3 3.8

Nonagriculture 1,601 604 998 513 29.7 92.2

Unemployed 66 22 44 2.1 1.1 4.1

Not in labor force 1,021 592 428 24.7 22.5 283

Men ?,720 1,425 796 100.0 100.0 100.0

In labor force 1,961 1,317 644 883 92.4 80.9

Employed 1,926 1,306 619 98.2 99.2 96.1

Agriculture 1,164 1,136 27 59.4 86.3 4.2

Nonagriculture 762 170 592 38.9 12.9 91.9

Unemployed 36 11 25 1.8 .8 3.9

Not in labor force 259 108 151 11.7 7.6 19.0

Women 1,919 1,204 715 100.0 100.0 100,0

In labor force 1,158 720 439 603 59.8 61.4

Employed 1,127 708 420 97,3 98.3 95.7

Agriculture 288 274 14 24.9 38.1 3.2

Nonagriculture 840 434 406 72.5 603 92.5

Unemployed 31 11 19 2.7 1.5 4.3

Not in labor force 761 485 277 39.7 40.3 38.7

totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7).
Farm Entrepreneurial Families

Farm entrepreneurial families accounted for 2.4 percent

of the approximately 65.1 million U.S. families in 19S8

(8). The average size of farm entrepreneurial families

(3.48 persons) did not differ significantly from that of alt

families (3.17 persons) (table/^ f5j.

Families composed of married couples remain the

dominant form of household in the United States, despite

substantial increases in other types during the 1970's and

IPSÍ^s, The structure of farm families seems to be more

traditional than that of U.Sv families overall. Marriedcouple famiUes accounted for 95 percent of farm

entrepreneurial families in 1988 (table 7) bul 80 percent

of all U.S: families (^. Fentales headed only 2.3 percent

of farm families but 16.3 percent of all U.S. families.

Despite the predominance of married-couple families, a

majority of farm families had no children present. This

Table 5--Employment in nonagricultural Industries of the farm entrepreneurial population age 16 years and over, 1988^

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Nonagricultural industries Total operator income

only

Total operator income

only

......Thousands...,. Fercent.....\

Total 1,601 604 998 100.0 100.0 100.0

Forestry and fisheries 2 2 1 .1 .3 .1

Mining and construction 130 30 100 8.1 5.0 10.0

Manufacturing 244 72 172 15.2 11.9 17.2

Transportation, communications,

and other public utilities 112 24 88 7,0 4.0 ^.^

Trade 339 153 186 21.2 25.3 18.6

Finance, insurance, and

real estate 93 36 58 5.8 6.0 5.8

Professional and related

services 427 177 250 26.7 29.3 25.1

All other services 147 70 77 9.2 11.6 7.7

Public administration 107 41 66 6.7 6.8 6.6

Men 762 170 592 100.0 ioo:o 100.0

Forestry and fisheries 2 2 1 .3 1.2 0

Mining and construction 117 26 91 15.4 15.3 15.4

Manufacturing 182 37 145 23.9 21.8 24.5

Transportation, communications,

and other public utilities 78 13 65 10.2 7.6 11.0

Trade 153 50 103 20,1 29.4 17.4

Finance, insurance, and

real estate 34 6 28 4.5 3.5 4.7

Professional and related

services 96 14 82 12.6 8.2 13.9

All other services 48 16 32 6.3 9.4 5,4

Public administration 51 6 45 6.7 3.5 7.6

Women 840 434 406 100.0 100.0 100,0

Forestry and fisheries 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining and construction 13 4 9 1.5 .9 2.2

Manufacturing 62 36 27 7.4 8.3 6.7

Transportation, communications.

and other puMc utilities 35 11 23 4.2 2.5 5.7

Trade 186 103 83 22.1 23.7 20.4

Finance, insurance, and

real estate 59 30 30 7.0 6.9 7.4

Professional and related

services 330 162 168 39.3 37.3 41.4

All other services 99 54 45 11.8 12,4 11.1

Pubhc administration 56 35 22 6.7 8.1 5,4

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7)
Figure 5

Nonagricultural occupations of the farm entrepreneurial labor force living on farms, 1968

Percent

50

40

30

20

10

Managerial

Farm operator Farm-income-only

Services Precision production Machine operations

Source: (Z).

Table 6"Characteristics of farm entrepreneurial households, 1988*

Characteristic

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Total operator income

only

Total operator mcomc

only

Thousands Fervent

1,715 1,080 635 100.0 100.0 100.0

1,537 978 559 89.6 90.6 88.0

178 102 76 10.4 9.4 12.0

140 78 62 8.2 7.2 9.8

609 388 221 35.5 35.9 34.8

344 228 115 20.1 21.1 18.1

361 217 144 21.0 20.1 22.7

261 168 93 15.2 15.6 14.6

Total households

Family households

Nonfamily households

Number of persons in

household:

One

Two

Three

Four

Five or more

Average number of persons

per household 3.10 3.11 3.10

Number

-- = Not applicable.

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7).
is consistent with the older age structure of farm people

and a lower birth rate. Fifty-six percent of all farm

entrepreneurial families, versus 51 perceitt of all U.S.

famines, had no children of their own under 18 years of

age living at home (table 7) (9). Of the farm families

with children at home, more than half had only schoolage children (age 6-17 years), about 20 percent had only

preschool-age children (under 6 years), and another 21

percent had both preschool-age and older children. The

proportion of farm families raising school-age and

younger children about equaled that for all U.S. families

with children.

Income

Income of farm entrepreneurial families lagged behind

the rest of the Nation. Farm families and households

differed from the general population in the amount and

source of income received. Income data are shown

separately for households and families.

Household Income

Household income includes the income of all related

persons plus the income of any unrelated persons in the

household. In the CPS, income data show gross money

income received; that is, income before payments of

Federal, State, local, or Social Security (FICA) taxes and

before deductions, such as union dues or Medicare

premiums.

The median income for farm entrepreneurial households

was $28,098 in 1987 (table 8). This median was significantly higher than the $25,986 median for all U.S.

households (9),

However, median income was not evenly divided between

farm household subgroups. The median income of farm

operator households ($24,068) was far lower than that of

farm-income-only households ($35,394). Therefore,

households with at least one person working solely or

primarily as a farm operator or manager in 1988 did not

fare nearly as well as households having farm income but

no primary occupational commitment to a farm business.

This was true despite the fact that 1987 was by far the

best year for farm income since 1979 (5),

Family Income

Despite the higher farm household income, farm families

as a group earned lower incomes than families in general.

The median income of farm entrepreneurial famiUes was

Table 7~Charaeteristics of farm entrepreneurial families, 1988^

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Characteristic Total operator income

only

Total operator income

only

Thousands Fervent

Total families 1,537 978 559 100.0 100.0 100.0

Married-couple famuy 1,461 923 538 95.1 94.4 96.2

Other, male householder 41 32 10 2.7 3.3 1.8

Other, female householder 35 23 12 2.3 2.4 2.1

Number of persons in family:

Two 596 382 214 38.8 39.1 383

Three 326 215 111 21.2 22.0 19.9

Four 364 220 144 23.7 22.5 25.8

Five or more 251 161 90 16.3 16.5 16.1

Own children under age 18 years:

None 857 560 297 55.8 57.3 53.1

One or more 680 418 262 44.2 42.7 46.9

All under 6 years 138 93 45 20.3 22.2 17,1

Some under 6 years, some 6-17 years 145 90 55 21.3 21.5 20.9

All 6-17 years 398 235 163

Number

58.5 56,2 62.2

Average number of

persons in family 3.4B 3.44 3.52 — *— """

- = Not applicable.

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7).

10
$28,890 in 1987 (table 9), about 7 percent below the

median of $30,951 for families nationwide (9), This

income situation is not as contradictory as it seems. The

farm entrepreneurial population has a much smaller

proportion of one-person households than does the U.S.

population. Such households typically earn much lower

incomes than do other households, especially if the

person is elderly and retired. When the income

measured is limited to that earned by families-which

must contain two or more related persons~the farm

population shows a lower median income.

There were no significant differences in the income

distribution between farm families and famihes

nationwide except in the $20,000 to $24,999 range, where

farm family income peaked (fig. 6). Almost 14 percent

of farm entrepreneurial families, versus nearly 10 percent

of families nationwide, earned between $20,000 and

$24,999. Farm families were as Kkely as all famihes in

general to have an annual income of $40,000 or more.

Approximately a third of both farm entrepreneurial and

U.S. families reported incomes of $40,000 or more.

However, these statistics mask wide variations within the

farm population. The median income for farm-incomeonly families was significantly higher than that for either

farm operator families or for all families nationwide.

Farm operator families were more likely to be in the

lower income categories (fig. 7). Only a third of farm

operator famihes reported income of $35,000 or more

versus a half of farm-income-only famihes.

U.S. farmers appear to be recovering from the financial

stress of the early and mid-1980's. Creditors' claims on

the farm sector's assets and income continued to decline,

marking the fourth consecutive yearly decrease in the

level of debt outstanding (4). In 1987, 15.4 percent of all

farm entrepreneurial families who received farm selfemployment income reported a net loss from farmmg.

This was an improvement over 1986, when 21 percent

had a net loss due to farming (2), According to a survey

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the overall

improvement in the farm sector's earnings in 1987 is

reflected by the increase in the share of farms in a

favorable financial position (positive income and a

debt/asset ratio less than 0.40) and the decrease in the

share of farms with generally low income (4),

However, a loss from farming did not necessarily reflect

the overall socioeconomic well-being of farm families.

Income from other sources helped compensate for losses

in agriculture. The percentage of farm famihes who lost

money from all income sources did not change

significantly between 1986 and 1987. Total income was

negative for 1.3 percent of farm entrepreneurial families

in 1987 versus 3.5 percent in 1986 (table 9) (7).

Table 8-Income of farm entrepreneurial households, 1987^

Household income

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Total operator income

only

Total operator mcome

only

Thousands Percent

1,715 1,080 635 100.0 100.0 100.0

23 17 5 1.3 1.6 .8

35 29 6 2.0 2.7 .9

80 58 22 4.7 5.4 3.5

54 41 14 3.1 3.8 2.2

170 143 27 9.9 13.2 4.3

164 121 43 9.6 11.2 6.8

228 161 67 13.3 14.9 10.6

167 94 72 9.7 8.7 11.3

265 151 114 15.5 14.0 18.0

201 98 103 11.7 9.1 16.2

329 167 162 19.2 15.5 25.5

Total households

Household income:

Loss

$142,499

$2,500-$7,499

$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999

$15,000419,999

$20,000-$24,999

$25,000-$29,999

$30,000-$39,999

$40,000-$49,999

$50,000 and over

Dollars

Median household income 28,098 24,068 35,394

~ = Not applicable.

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7).

11
Table 9-Income and poverty among farm entrepreneurial families, 1987*

Income and poverty

Farm Farm Farm Farm

Total operator income

only

Total operator income

only

Thousands ........JPercent

1,537 978 559 100.0 100.0 100.0

21 17 3 1.4 1.7 ,5

11 25 2 1.8 2.6 .4

28 20 7 1.8 2.0 1.3

41 23 7 2.7 2.4 1.3

44 37 7 2.9 3.8 1.3

132 109 23 8.6 11.1 41

138 107 31 9.0 10.9 5.5

213 150 63 13.9 15.3 11,3

160 90 71 10.4 9.2 12.7

138 78 60 9.0 8.0 10.7

96 64 33 6.2 6.5 5.9

185 92 93 12,0 9.4 16.6

314 155 159 20.4 15.8 28,4

Total families

Family income:

Loss

$l-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$5,00047,499

$7,50049,999

$10,000414,999

$15,000419,999

$20,000424,999

$25,000429,999

$30,000434,999

$35,000439,999

$40,000449,999

$50,000 and over

Below poverty level

Median family income

~ = Not applicable.

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: (7).

156

28,890

131

25,055

25 10.1

Dolíais

35,833

13.4 4.5

Figure 6

Income distribution of U.S. families and farm entrepreneurial families, 1987

Percentage of families

0\J

25 -

20 -

. /

15 Farm entreppeneurial families

10

5

~ ,_.--,If•«•¡JU¿JJ|^iltB«»"«-«-ÍIiIIB - .7-^^^^^***^

^;¡v»»».»**^

.^

II 1 { 1 1

Under 5.0- 10.0- 15.0- 20.0- 25.0- 30.0- 35.0- 40.0- 50.0

5.0 9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 29.9 34.9 39.9 49.9 and over

1.000 dollars

Source: (7).

12
Poverty

Poverty thresholds are based solely on money income

and vary by family size. The average poverty threshold

for a family of four was $11,611 for income received in

1987 (9), Although the poverty rate for farm entrepreneurial famiUes (table 9) was slightly lower than that for

families nationwide in 1987 (10.1 percent versus 10.7

percent, respectively), the difference was not wide

enough to be considered statistically significant (9).

Poverty rates for farm entrepreneurial families have

declined steadily for the past 3 years, while rates for

families in the general population have not changed

significantly. The decrease in the number of farm

families who sustained a net loss from farming may

partially explain the decline. In 1985, one of every four

farm families reported a net loss from farming (2), By

1987, only 3 of every 20 farm families had a net loss from

farming.

Poverty is more prevalent among farm operator than

farm-income-only families. Although the poverty rate for

farm operator families has declined significantly over the

past 3 years, their rate was still about three times higher

than that for farm-income-only families in 1987 (13.4

percent versus 4.5 percent, respectively). Farm operator

families tended to rely more heavily on income from

farming as the main source of income. And, the

proportion of farm operator families who reported a net

loss from farming in 1987 was more than twice that of

farm-income-only families (24.3 percent versus 10.2

percent, respectively) (7),

Sources of Income

Farm entrepreneurial families received income from

various sources but, as expected, most (92 percent)

reported farm self-employment income (or loss) in 1987

(table 10). About 13 percent of farm operator families

reported no farm self-employment income, a situation

likely to occur in families with farm managers or new

operators. About 39 percent of the total income of farm

operator families came from farming, compared with less

than 8 percent for farm-income-only families (fig. 8).

The share of income from farming for farm-income-only

families did not change between 1986 and 1987. Farm

operator families were less dependent on off-farm

sources of income in 1987 than in 1986. In 1986, only 28

percent of farm operator family income came from

farming (2),

Wage and salary income was the most frequently

reported income source, after farm self-employment

income, for farm entrepreneurial families (table 10).

Wage and salary income was also the main source of

income for families nationwide. In 1987, 76 percent of

farm families and 82 percent of families nationwide

Figure 7

Income distribution of farm operator and farm-income-only families, 1987

Percentage of families

25 -

/

20 - Fam-income-only families /

15

Farm operator families /^

10

5

^

.^^ /iiv*»»'*'****».. y ^

y ../■■" ''^^-^^^:;::íX.¿:^^

....... \ \ 1 1 f ] 1 - 1 Under 5.0-

5.0 9.9

10.0- 15.0- 20.0- 25.0- 30.0- 35.0- 40.0- 50.0

14.9 19.9 24.9 29.9 34.9 39.9 49.9 and over

Source: (Z).

1,000 dollars

13
received wage and salary income (8). Nearly 71 percent

of the total income of farm-income-only families came

from wages and salaries versus 36 percent of that for

farm operator families.

Interest, the third most frequently reported income

source, was widely received by farm entrepreneurial

families. Farm families were more likely than families

nationwide to have savings or investments that earned

interest. About three-fourths of farm families (table 10)

and two-thirds of U.S. families reported interest income

in 1987 (8). A third of the farm families received other

property income, such as dividends and rents. This, too,

is a larger proportion than found among U.S. families as

a whole. The higher lilcelihood of farm entrepreneurial

Table 10-Sources of income of farm entrepreneurial

families, 1987

Farm Farm

Source of income Total operator income

only

Thousands

Total families 1,537 978

Percent

559

Families receiving:

Wage and salary income 76.1 68.6 89.3

Self-employment income:

Nonfarm 16.6 10.9 24.7

Farm 91.6 86.8 100.0

Property income:

Interest 76.3 73.4 813

Dividends^ 35.8 32.9 40.8

Transfer payments:

Social Security and railroad

retirement income 21.7 24.0 17.7

Supplemental security

income^ 1.1 1.2 .9

Public assistance and

welfare^ .5 .6 .4

Unemployment compensation,

veterans' payments, and

workers' compensation 8.1 5.9 11.9

Retirement"^ 9.5 9.9 ^,8

Alimony and child support^ 12.3 10.8 15.0

^Includes dividends, net income from estates or trusts, net rental

income, and royalties.

^Includes payments made by Federal, State, and local welfare

agencies to low-income persons who are age 65 years and over, blind,

or disabled.

^Includes payments from Aid to Families with Dependent Children

and general assistance,

"^Includes private pensions and annuities; military retirement; and

Federal, State, or local government pensions.

^Includes other regular contributions from persons not in the

household.

Source: (7).

families lo earn rental income, which is induded in the

dividends category, may partially explain the difference in

receipt of dividends.

Interest income, however, differed between the two

subgroups in the farm population. Farm operator

families were less likely than farm-income-only families

to get interest, dividends, or rent, although this source of

income constituted a larger portion of totaLincpme for

farm operator than for färm-income-Gnlyfaniilies (12.5

percent versus 8.1 percent, respectively) (8),

Some farm families received income from public

assistance, unemployment compensation, and retirement

programs, but these families were the exceptions. We

classified the farm population as those in households

where a member had a farm-related job or farm selfemployment income. Thus, few people in farm

entrepreneurial families would receive these kinds of

payments, which generally go to people who are not

working.

Welfare benefits ranked at the bottom of the list of

income sources for farm entrepreneurial famiUes. Fewer

than 1 percent of farm famiUes received public assistance,

compared with more than 5 percent of families

nation\wde (8), One reason for this difference is that

farm families tend to have more assets than do families

nationwide. Another explanation is that the farm

population has far fewer female-headed families with

dependent children. Thus, a smaller proportion of farm

families qualify for assistance.

People in farm entrepreneurial families may have

received other types of benefits less often than families in

the general population because they chose not to

participate. Wage and salary workers and/or their

employers are required to enroll in unemployment

compensation and retirement benefit prógramsy Bnt the

self-employed have ah option not to enroll. The higher

proportion of self-employed persons in farm entrepreneurial families explains part of the difference in the

rate at which farm families receive these benefits

compared with the rate for families nationwide. Eight

percent of farm entrepreneurial families and 13 percent

of all families received unemployment compensation,

veterans' payments, and workers' compensation in 1987

(8), Farm families were also less likely to collect

retirement income (9*5 percent versus 14.5 percent).

Within the farm entrepreneurial population^ farm

operator families were more likely than farm-income-only

families to receive Social Security payments, an indication

of their older average age.

Conchisions

People with ties to farming are a diverse group.

Although farming is a lifestyle choice for some people,

the use of farm occupation and farm self-employment

14
income as criteria for identifying farm people emphasizes

farming as a business. People who make their living by

farming must have appropriate skills for the farm

business as well as the necessary skills to compete for

off-farm jobs.

Only about 25 percent of the farm entrepreneurial

population did not complete high school. Women were

more likely than men to have completed high school. The

need for higher levels of education is greater for women

than for men, since women are more likely to hold

nonagricultural jobs. With the unemployment rate for

farm people well below that for the rest of the Nation,

the farm entrepreneurial population appears to be

competing successfully for the jobs available in their area.

Farm entrepreneurial families did not lag far behind

families nationwide in income in 1987. Although the

share of farm families in poverty did not differ from that

of families nationwide, farm entrepreneurial families

were less likely to receive public assistance. Farm

families depended on farm self-employment and wage

and salary income as the main sources of income. Farm

self-employment income accounted for about 25 percent

of the total income of farm families, and income from

wages and salaries accounted for slightly more than half

of their total income.

Demographic characteristics of the farm entrepreneurial

population are similar to the rest of the Nation.

References

1. Banks, Vera J., Margaret A. Butler, and Judith Z.

Kalbacher. Alternative Definitions ofFarm People,

AGES 89-9. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Mar.

1989.

2. Butler, Margaret A. The Farm Entrepreneurial

Population, 1987. RDRR-72. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ.

Res. Serv., June 1989.

3. Oliveira, Victor J., and Jane E. Cox. The Agricultural

Work Force of 1987. AER-609. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ.

Res. Serv., May 1989.

4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Financial Characteristics of U.S. Farms, January

I 1988. AIB-551. Oct. 1988.

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural

Statistics Service. Agricultural Statistics, 1988.

Crop Production. CrPr2-2. Aug. 1989

and earlier years.

7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. Current Population Surveys, March 1986 thru

1988. Unpublished tabulations developed by the U.S.

Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.

Figure 8

Total family Income from various sources, 1987

Percent

100

80

60 -

40

20

Income sources

All other sources

-Social Security and

raliroad retirement

-Interest and dividends

-Farm self-employment

-Nonfarm self-employment

-Wages and salaries

Total farm entrepreneurial

famHies

Farm operator

families

Farm-income-oniy

families

Source: (Z).

15
8- "Household and Family Characteristics:

March 1988," Current Population RepoHs, Series P-20,

No. 437, May 1989.

9. . "Money Income and Poverty Status in

the United States, 1988," Current Population Reports,

Series P-60, No. 166, Oct. 1989.

10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Ser\ice. "Rural and Rur^ Farm Population:

1988," Cuftent Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 439,

Aug. 1989.

Appendix I: Definitions

and E^lanations

Population coverage^ Estimates in this report are based

on data tabulated from the March 1988 Cm-rent

Population Survey (CPS) of the Bureau of the Census.

They relate to the civilian nomnstitutional population of

the United States and members of the armed forces

living off post or with their fainilies on post.

Race, The population is divided into three groups on the

basis of race; white, black, and "other races." The last

category includes Indians, Asians, and any other race

except white and black. Data for "other races" are not

shown in this report.

Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin are those

who indicate that their origin is Mexican, Puerto Rican,

Cuban, Central or South American, or other Hispanic

origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be any race.

Age. The age classification is based on the age of

persons at the last birthday prior to completing the CPS.

Median. The median is the value which divides a

distribution into two equal parts, with half of the cases

falling below this value and half of the cases exceeding

this value.

Labor force. Persons are classified as in the labor force

if they were employed or uhemployed (see definitions

below) during the survey week.

Employed. Employed persons include all civilians age 16

and over who, during the survey week: (1) did any work

as paid employees; did any work in their own business,

profession, or on their farm; or who worked 15 hours or

more as unpaid workers on a farm or in a business

operated by a member of tiie family, or (2) were not

working, but who had jobs or businesses from which they

were temporarily absent because of illness, bad weather,

vacation, or labor-management dispute; or because they

were taking off for personal reasons, whether or not they

were paid by their employers for the time off, and

whether or not they were seeking other jobs.

Unemployed. Unemployed persons are those civilians

age 16 and over who, during the survey week, had no

employment but were available for work and: (1) had

engaged in any specific job-seeking activity within the

past 4 weeks; (2) were waiting to be called back to a job

from which they had been laid off; or (3) were waiting to

report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

Not in the labor force. All civihans age 16 and over

who are not classified as employed or unemployed. This

group includes persons engaged only in housework at

their own home, attending school, or unable to work

because of long-term physical or mental illness; persons

who are retired; seasonal workers for whom the survey

week fell in an off-season; and the voluntarily idle.

Industry and occupation. Data on industry and

occupation refer to the job held during the survey week.

Persons with more than one job during the survey week

were classified as employed in the industry or occupation

in which they worked the greatest number of hours

during the week. The industry and occupation groups

are based on the classification system used in the 1980

Census of Population.

Family. A family is a group of two or more persons (one

of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage,

or adoption and residing together; all such persons are

considered as members of one family.

Family household. A family household is a household

maintained by a family (as defined above). A marriedcouple family household consists of a husband and wife,

with or without children. Other family households

consist of a male or female householder with dependents

but no spouse present.

Nonfamily household. A nonfamily household consists of

a householder who lives alone or with one or more

nonrelatives. It may also contain subgroups of persons

who are related to each other but not to the householder.

Own children. Own children in a family are sons and

daughters, including stepchildren and adopted children

of the householder. The count of own children under

18 years of age is limited to single (never married)

children.

Family income. The total income of a family is the sum

of the amounts received by all income recipients in the

family.

Rounding. The individual figures in this report are

rounded to the nearest thousand and have not been

adjusted to group totals, which are independently

rounded. Percentages are rounded to the nearest tenth

of a percent; therefore, the percentages in a distribution

do not always add to exactly 100.0 percent. The totals,

however, are always shown as 100.0.

16
Appendix II: Source and Reliability

of Estimates

Estimates in this report are based on data obtained from

the March 1988 CPS conducted by the Bureau of the

Census. The CPS deals mainly with labor force data for

the civilian, noninstitutional population of the United

States, and members of the armed forces Uving off post

or with their families on post. Questions relating to

labor force participation are asked about each member

age 14 years and over in every sample household.

Supplementary questions are also asked about household

and family characteristics and about money income and

work experience for the previous year. For a more

detailed description of the CPS, its sample size, and the

estimating procedure, see (8, 9),

Since the CPS estimates in this report are based on a

sample, they may differ somewhat from the figures

obtained if a complete census had been taken using the

same schedules, instructions, and enumerators. There

are two types of errors possible in an estimate based on

a sample: sampling and nonsampling. Standard errors

that primarily indicate the magnitude of the sampling

errors for data presented in this report are published in

(10), Standard errors also partially measure the effect of

some nonsampling errors in response and enumeration,

but do not measure any systematic biases in the data.

The full extent of nonsampling errors is unknown.

Particular care should thus be exercised in the

interpretation of figures based on a relatively small

number of cases or on small differences between

estimates.

All major statements of comparison made in the text are

statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.

This means that the chances are at least 9 in 10 that a

difference identified in the text indicates a difference in

the populations that is greater than chance variation

arising from the use of samples.

Appendix III: Characteristics of Farm

Operators and Farm Income Recipients

About 1.2 milHon individuals were primarily employed as

farm operators or farm managers (app. table 1). Around

712,000 individuals were farm self-employment income

recipients, but were primarily employed in nonagricultural occupations. These farm income recipients were

less likely than farm operators to reside on farms. Farm

operators were slightly older than farm income recipients,

although the difference was not large enough to be

considered statistically significant. Farm operators were

just as likely as farm income recipients to graduate from

high school, although less than a third of farm operators

continued their education beyond high school.

Unemployment was practically nonexistent for farm

operators and only 2.5 percent for farm income

recipients. The unemployment rate for farm income

recipients was low, considering that nearly 94 percent

worked outside agriculture.

17
Appendix table 1--Selected characteristics of individual farm operators and farm self-emplo>Tnent income recipients,

1988'

Characteristic

Farm Farm income Farm Farm income

operators recipients

only

operators recipients

only

.............. .Thousands , „Tercent...

Total

Men

Women

Residence:

Farm

Nonfarm

Race and Hispanic origin:

White

Black

Hispanic origin^

Age:

Under 18 years

18 to 64 years

18-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

65 years and over

Education:

Persons age 25 years and over

Not high school graduate

High school graduate

Some college or more

Employment status:

Persons in the labor force,

age 16 years and over

Employed

Agriculture

Nonagriculture

Unemployed

1,228

1,059

169

864

364

1,200

17

14

8

1,020

46

240

241

231

262

260

1,175

279

570

325

1,227

1,221

1,216

5

6

712 100.0 100.0

575 86.2 80.8

137 13.8 19.2

291 70.4 4Ö.9

421 29;6 59.1

702 97.7 98.6

5 1.4 .7

11 1:1 1.5

4 .7 .6

633 83.1 88.9

33 3.7 4.6

120 m5 m9

157 19.6 22.1

198 18.8 27.8

126 21.3 17.7

74 16.3 10.4

675 100.0 100.0

116 23.7 17^

ai3 48.5 46.4

246 27.7 36.4

604 100.0 100.0

589 99.5 97.5

22 99.1 3.6

567 Â 9S.9

15 .5 2.5

Years

Median age 48.4

— = Not applicable.

^Totals may not add due to rounding.

^Persons of Hispanic origin may be any race.

Source: (7).

All

18
Keep Current on Rural America

Subscribe to...

Rural Conditions and Trends

A New Periodical from USDA's Economic Research Service

Rural conditions

andf^ends

ERS analysts will track rural developments in the

following subjects in this new quarterly periodical:

Macroeconomic conditions

Employment and unemployment

Industrial structure

Earnings and income

Poverty

Population

Quick-read text and sharp graphics will help you get

the information you need to know efficiently, effectively.

Order now to get a subscription rate of just $14 per year.

Just call

1-800-888-6779

(8:30-5:00 ET in U.S. & Canada;

other areas please call 301-725-7937)
1990 Agricultural Chartbook

More than 300 charts cover a wide range of subjects from U.S. exports to foreign farm output,

livestock to grains, fruits, and vegetables, food prices to consumption trends, farm income to

farm productivity, and rural employment to rural poverty. The chartbook also includes a section

on 1990 testimony by the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture to Congress.

A detailed index makes the chartbook easy to use and includes names and phone numbers of

specialists to contact for more information. The charts are printed in black and white and can

be easily reproduced for use as a teaching tool or visual aid to speeches or reports.

1990 Agricultural Chartbook. 120 pp. April 1990.

Order#AH-689.$11.00.

To order, call toll free, 1-800-999-6779 (8:30-5:00 E.T. In the U.S.

and Canada; other areas, please call 301-725-7937) or write:

ERS-NASS, P.O. Box 1608, Rockville, MD 20849-1608