QHTSU

entof

ure

Economic

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research

Report

Number 40

.^:¿^^^'^'^^'j^'Sf^7^t^ ^ÍJ^^^^jí&^^y^^^^^^^'^^5•l^¿^;^

arm Population Trends

by Farm Characteristics,

1975-80

Vera J. Banks ///I
808949

SALES INFORMATION Additional copies of this report can be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402. Ask for Farm Population Trends by

Farm Characteristics, 1975-80. Write to the above address

for price information or call the GPO order desk at (202)

783-3238. You can also charge your purchase to your VISA,

MasterCard, or GPO deposit account. Bulk discounts

available. Foreign customers, please add 25 percent extra

for postage.

Microfiche copies ($4.50 each) can be purchased from the

National Technical Information Service, Identification

Section, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Order

by title and enclose check or money order, payable to NTIS.

For additional information, call NTIS at (703) 487-4780.

The Economic Research Service has no copies for free mailing.
\J W^'

¥Am POPULATION TRENDS BY FARM CHARACTERISTICS, 1975-80.^ Vera J.

Banks, Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Research

Report No. 40.

ABSTRACT The number of persons living on larger farms jumped 67 percent

between 1975 and 1980, while smaller and midsize farms together

lost about 20 percent of their population. Despite the heaviest

rates of population loss, smaller farms (annual sales less than

^20,000) still contain about half of the U.S. farm population.

Midsize farms (annual sales between $20,000 and $99,999) lost

about 7 percent of their population during 1975-80 but still

contain nearly 33 percent of the U.S. farm population. Although

the number of persons living on larger farms (annual sales of

$100,000 and over) increased substantially, they only account for

18 percent of farm residents.

Keywords: Farm population, race, tenure status, value of

agricultural sales, type of farm, population trends, population

distribution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author appreciates the invaluable assistance, critical

review, and comments of Calvin Beale and Judith Kalbacher. The

study also benefited from the constructive comments and

suggestions of Robert Coltrane, Robert Speaker, DonnReimund, and

Leslie Whitener. Appreciation is also due to Margaret Butler for

her computer and statistiGal assistance, to Deborah Acors for

her assistance in preparing this report, and to Linda Hatcher

for her editorial assistance.

Washington, D.C. 20250 February 1984
CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY iii

INTRODUCTION,. . . 1

OPERATOR AND NONOPERATOR FARM POPULATIONS 2

FARM POPULATION BY TENURE STATUS OF FARM OPERATOR 5

FARM POPULATION BY VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD 9

Smaller Farms. 11

Midsize Farms . 14

Larger Farms. 15

FARM POPULATION BY TYPE OF FARM 18

Cash-Grain Farms 25

Tobacco, Cotton, and Other Field-Crop Farms 29

Vegetable, and Fruit and Nut Farms 30

Livestock Farms ..................... 31

Dairy Farms ............ 32

Poultry and Miscellaneous Farms 34

DISCUSSION 34

LITERATURE CITED. .... . 36

APPENDIX............. 38

Definitions and Explanations 38

Source and Reliability of the Estimates. 40

il
SUMMARY The number of persons living on larger farms jumped 67 percent

between 1975 and 1^980, while smaller and midsize farms together

lost about 20 percent of their population. Despite the heaviest rates of population loss, smaller farms (annual sales

less than $20,000) still contain about 50 percent of the U.S.

farm population. Midsize farms (annual sales between $20,000

and $99,999) lost about 7 percent of their population during

1975-80 but still contain nearly 33 percent of the U.S. farm

population. Although the number of persons living on larger

farms (annual salefe of $100,000 and over) increased substantially they only accouiit for 18 percent of farm residents.

The majority of farm residents live on farms in which they have

an ownership interest. Most of these residents are on fullowner operations (the operator owns all the land farmed), but

the shift continues toward residence on part-owner operations

(the operator both owns and rents part of the land farmed). In

1980, about 50 percent of the farm population resided on farms

operated by full owners, about 40 percent lived on farms operated by part-owners, and the remaining 10 percent lived on

farms operated by tenants (persons who operate only land they

rent from others or who work on shares for others).

The population living in farm operator households (farm operators, their families, and possibly other relatives or unrelated

individuals) remained essentially unchanged: about 6.6 million.

In contrast, the number of persons living in nonoperator households (hired farm laborers, their families, and possibly relaFarm populat]Lon

Farm ;

characteristic June

1980

June

; 1975 ;

Percentage

change,

1975-80

Thousands Percent

Total farm population 7,045 7,217 -2.4

Sales category:

Smaller farms 3,533 4,046 -12.7

Midsize farms 2,217 2,394 -7.4

Larger farms : 1,295 777 66.7

Tenure of operator:

Full owners 3,528 3,817 -7.6

Part owners 2,822 2,582 9.3

Tenants 696 818 -14.9

Operator status:

Operator households 6,588 6,537 .8

Nonoperator households 457 680 -32.8

iii
tives or unrelated individuals) fell by about 33 percent. The

nonoperator population fell among both white and black farm

residents.

The majority of both white and black farm residents live on

livestock and cash-grain farms. However, \^ites not living on

these two farm types were more likely to be on dairy farms,

whereas blacks were more likely to be on tobacco farms. The

number of persons living on livestock farms grew during the

5-year study period and reached about 40 percent of the total

farm population in 1980. Although the number of persons living

on cash-grain farms declined during 1975-80, they still contained 27 percent of all farm people in 1980.

The relative ranking of the farm population among the various

farm types continues to shift. Nevertheless, the farm population remains highly Concentrated on livestock, cash-grain, and

dairy farms. Shifts in production and efficiency can significantly alter the number and distribution of farm residents.

Farm people will be most responsive and susceptible to policies

and programs relating to livestock and cash-grain farming.

iv
Farm Population Trends

by Farm Characteristics,

1975-80

Vera J. Banks

INTRODUCTION statistics on the number of persons living on farms in rural

areas of the United States, their geographic distribution, and

their socioeconomic characteristics are published annually

(18,20). 1/ Reports are issued periodically on trends in the

farm population by characteristics of farms. This report

presents estimates of the 1980 and 1975 farm populations by

race, tenure status of operator, value of agricultural products sold, and type of farm. Two earlier reports covered the

periods 1966-70 and 1970-75 (1,3).

Farm residents living in the same household as the farm operator and those living in households that do not contain an

operator are separately identified. Farm population estimates

are presented for the United States and two major geographic

regions—the South and the combined North and West. _2/

Although limited in detail, estimates are also given for farm

residents of Spanish origin (who may be of any race).

Data for this and the earlier research reports were obtained

from the June Enumerative Survey (JES), a 48-State sample survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The JES

collects information annually from farmers and ranchers and is

designed to provide the basis for estimates of farm numbers,

land use, crop acreages, livestock numbers, farm labor, farm

population, and related economic factors (22). 3J

The 1980 and 1975 farm population estimates in this report are

based on the farm definition adopted for the 1974 Census of

Agriculture. Under this current definition, the farm population consists of all persons living in rural territory on places

which in the reporting year had, or normally would have had,

sales of agricultural products of $1,000 or more.

\J Underscored numbers in parentheses refer to literature

cited at the end of this report.

l_l The combined North and West includes the Northeast, North

Central, and West census geographic regions.

3^/ See Source and Reliability on p. 40 for more discussion of

this survey.
Some of the research and policy-relevant questions addressed in

this analysis are the following:

o How many people live on small-scale operations which

make only minor contributions to the Nation's farm

output?

o What proportion of farm people live on farms of adequate

commercial scale to derive a reasonable farm income?

o How many and what proportion of the farm population are

on different types of farms?

o What is the trend in number, tenure, type, and scale of

farming for the black farm population? How does this

trend compare with the white farm population?

o What variations exist in the rate of farm population

change for each tenure group by type of farm or value

of agricultural sales?

o Are persons living on a specified farm type more likely

to have low income from agricultural products sold than

another?

This analysis, based on JES data, provides insights and answers

to these and similar questions that cannot be answered by data

from either the Census of Population or Census of Agriculture.

The Census of Population presents comprehensive data on the

demographic, social, and economic characteristics of persons

living on farms. In the Census of Agriculture, a statistical

profile is produced of the Nation's farming, ranching, and

related agricultural activities. The JES provides information

on both farm residents and the characteristics of farms on

vAiich they live.

OPERATOR AND NONOPERATOR FARM POPULATIONS

In June 1980, 7,045,000 persons lived on farms in rural areas

of the conterminous United States, kj This 1980 estimate of

the farm population is 172,000 below that of 7,217,000 for

1975. Since first counted in 1920, the fairm population has

declined almost steadily, although the rate of decline slackened in the seventies compared with the previous decade.

Based on the previous farm definition, the rate of loss in

the farm population averaged 2.9 percent per year between

4/ Farm population estimates in this report exclude Alaska

and Hawaii and relate to June only. The data are derived from

a different sample survey than that used in the annual CensusUSDA farm population reports. Therefore, the numbers relating

to national, regional, and racial totals in this report differ

slightly from published April-centered annual averages for

1980 and 1975 (2,4,19).
1970-80. V This average rate of decline is significantly

lower than the 4.8 percent for 1960-70 (19).

The JES distinguishes between the population living in the farm

operator's household and the population living rent free in

other dwellings on farms. In this report, the population residing in the farm operator's household will be referred to as

"operator population," and those persons living in a farm

household that did not contain a farm operator or who do not

pay cash rent for the house will be termed "nonoperator population." Operator households contain farm operators and their

immediate families and may also include other relatives or

unrelated individuals. Nonoperator households are most often

those of hired farm laborers and their families, but many also

consist of other persons, such as relatives or unrelated individuals, who for various reasons are permitted to live in a

farm home rent free. The operator and nonoperator populations

are examined separately because earlier research found significant differences in their numbers and distributions by race,

tenure status of operator, and characteristics of farms.

The vast majority of farm residents live in operator households

(94 percent). The proportion of the total farm population

classed as operator population remained about 90 percent from

the time the data were first collected in 1966 until 1975.

However, while the operator population remained stable between

1975 and 1980, persons living in nonoperator households declined significantly (table 1). Thus, the proportion of the

total farm population classed as operator rose and that of

nonoperator declined accordingly. Traditionally, nonoperator

dwellings on farms were primarily occupied by hired farmworkers. However, the hired farm workforce has shifted from

primarily farm to primarily nonfarm in residence. In 1949, 65

percent of all hired farmworkers lived on farms; by 1979, the

proportion had declined to 17 percent (9^).

Black farm residents are much more likely than whites to be

classed as nonoperator population. In 1980, about 30 percent

of blacks on farms lived in nonoperator households compared

with only 6 percent of the white farm population. The population living in other units on farms declined in both racial

groups, but the rate of loss was significantly heavier among

blacks than among whites.

Declines in the birth rates and accompanying increases in

the usually small nonfamily households (those maintained by

persons living alone or with other unrelated individuals) have

led to a shift toward smaller U.S. household size. The average

number of persons in U.S. households fell from 3.14 in 1970 to

V The previous farm definition, in use since 1960, defined

the farm population as all persons living in rural territory on

places of 10 or more acres and selling at least $50 worth of

agricultural products in the reporting year, and on places of

under 10 acres and selling at least $250 worth of agricultural

products.
Table 1—-Farra population in operator and nonoperator households by race,

Spanish origin^ and region, June 1980 and 1975

Operator status, race, :

Popul at ion \ Percentage

change,

1975-80

: Percentage

: distribution

and region :

1980 : 1975 ; ; 1980 ; 1975

Thousands-"—^- - Percent - -

Total farm population :

Operator

Nonoperator :

7,045

6,588

457

7,217

6,537

680

-2.4

.8

-32.8

100.0

93.5

6.5

100.0

90.6

9.4

White

Operator

Nonoperator

6,775

6,392

383

6,888

6,357

531

-1.6

.6

-27.9

100.0

94.3

5.7

100.0

92.3

7.7

Black

Operator

Nonoperator

236

164

71

271

147

124

-12.9

11.6

-42.7

100.0

69.5

30.1

100.0

54.2

45.8

Spanish origin 1/

Operator

Nonoperator

168

111

57

NÂ

NA

NA

-

100.0

66.1

33.9

-

North and West

Operator

Nonoperator

4,483

: 4,225

258

4,689

4,353

337

-4.4

-2.9

-23.4

100.0

94.2

5.8

100.0

92.8

7.2

White

Operator

Nonoperator

4,444

4,193

: 252

4,648

4,326

323

-4.4

-3.1

-22.0

100.0

94.4

5.7

100.0

93.1

6.9

Black

Operator

Nonoperator

: 14

: 11

: 4

8

2

6

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

Spanish origin _!/

Operator

Nonoperator

: 101

: 68

: 32

NA

NA

NA

-

100.0

67.3

31.7 _

South

Operator

Nonoperator

: 2,562

: 2,363

: 199

2,528

2,184

343

1.3

8.2

-42.0

100.0

92.2

7.8

100.0

86.4

13.6

White

Operator

Nonoperator

: 2,331

: 2,199

: 131

2,240

2,031

209

4.1

8.3

-37.3

100.0

94.3

5.6

100.0

90.7

9.3

Black

Operator

Nonoperator

: 221

: 154

: 67

263

144

119

-16.0

6.9

-43.7

100.0

69.7

30.3

100.0

54.8

45.2

Spanish origin ]J

Operator

Nonoperator

: 67

: 42

: 25

NA

NA

NA -

100.0

62.7

37.3 -

NA = Not available.

B = Base less than 50,000.

- = Zero or a number which rounds to zero.

1/ Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race.
2.94 in 1975, then to 2.76 in 1980 (15). The average number of

persons in farm households also dropped, particularly among the

nonoperator group. Between 1975 and 1980, the average size of

nonoperator households on farms dropped from 3.36 persons to

2.89 persons. Operator households declined only slightly in

average size, from 3.41 persons to 3.32 persons. Irrespective

of operator status, black and Spanish-origin farm households

are generally larger than those with a white household head.

Population trends by operator status contrasted for the two

major geographic regions. In the combined North and West,

\rfiere nearly two-thirds of all farm people live, both the operator and nonoperator populations declined from 1975 to 1980. bj

However, the decrease in the operator population was a slight 3

percent compared with a decline of 23 percent among persons in

nonoperator households. In the South, on the other hand, population increase in farm operator households was offset by a

loss in nonoperator households, thus resulting in relative

stability for that region.

Regional differences have narrowed, but the proportion of the

farm population living in nonoperator housing remains somewhat

higher in the South than in the rest of the country. This

principally reflects the concentration of the black farm population in the Southern States. In 1980, almost a third of all

blacks on southern farms lived in rent-free housing, basically

as farmworkers and their families. In contrast, whites on

southern farms were no more likely to be in nonoperator households than were their northern and western counterparts.

Persons of Spanish origin, who represent only 2 percent of the

total farm population, have higher proportions in nonoperator

households than either whites or blacks.

FARM POPULATION

BY TENURE STATUS

OF FARM OPERATOR

Farm tenure deals with the rights of individuals in the use

of land and other resources. The ways in which land, labor,

and capital are combined under varying tenure arrangements

influence the efficiency of production and the cost of farm

products, thus affecting not only farm residents but all members of society (_^). The tenure classifications used in the

agricultural censuses and this report are restricted to farm

operators and their rights on the land operated. These tenure

categories are (1) full owners, who operate only land they own,

(2) part owners, who operate land they own and also land they

rent from others, and (3) tenants, who operate only land they

rent from others or work on shares for others- In this study,

the nonoperator population is classified by the tenure status

of the operator on whose farm they live.

6^/ Treated here as a single unit for analysis, the farm population in the combined North and West is disproportionately

located in the North Central region. In 1980, 70 percent of

all farm residents living outside the South were on farms in

the North Central region (19).
The majority of farm residents live on farms in which they have

an ownership interest. About 90 percent of the farm population

resided on full- or part-owner operations in both 1975 and 1980

(table 2). Most farms are full-owner operations, but over the

last 30 or so years, the proportion of part-owner farms has

gradually increased. From 1975 to 1980, the proportion of

persons living on part-owner farms increased from 36 to 40

percent of the farm population. This increase reflects the

overall decline in farm numbers and the rise in the nimiber of

part-owner operators who combine the security of an owned unit

with economies of size provided by rental units to obtain a

viable operation. The improved performance of farm machinery

and other modern technology to operate on a larger scale has

given the modern farmer the capacity to expand and thereby

increase total net farm income (14). Good farmland is limited,

and the purchase of land requires ever-increasing amounts of

capital; thus leasing and renting additional land has become

the optimal means for operators to enlarge their operations.

Land available for rent by part owners is often owned by retired farmers, by surviving spouses, by sons and daughters who

left the parental farm for nonfarm emplojrment, by those who

have given up most of their farming activities but retain the

land and even their residence on it, and by other nonfarm landowners . Operators of part-owner farms are much more likely to

report farming as their principal occupation than are operators

in the other tenure categories. In 1978, 70 percent of all

part owners reported that they spent 50 percent or more of

their worktime in farming or ranching (16).

Between 1975 and 1980, the number of persons living on partowner farms increased, while those living on farms in the other

tenure groups decreased. Earlier JES studies found that even

when population decreased among all tenure groups, the rate of

decline was significantly lower among those on part-owner operations . The lower rate of population loss in this tenure group

compared with the full-owner and tenant categories reflects the

increasing importance of farms operated by part owners.

The improved population retention in the part-owner group

should not be interpreted as the effects of new entrants into

farming. The high cost of land and capital requirements for

buildings, equipment, and machinery, generally, have spurred

the exodus from farming and raised barriers to entry. Although

the exact proportions are unknown, relative gains in the partowner group are thought to result mainly from the shifting of

operations from one tenure class to another. For example,

operators who were previously classed as full owners become

part owners as they rent additional land.

Adjustments in farm operational arrangements to a changing

agricultural structure have resulted in a downward trend in

full tenancy. The proportion of farms operated by tenants has

fallen rapidly and steadily since 1935, when tenants reached

their peak and accounted for 42 percent of all U.S. farms.

Tenant-operated farms represented only 13 percent of all farms

in 1978. In particular, the mechanization and modernization of
TáBle 2~Farm population by tenure of operator, race,

Spanish origin, and region, June 1980 and 1975

Tenure of operator, '

Population Percentage

change,

1975-80

Percentage

distribution

race, and region :

1980 ; 1975 1980 : 1975

Thous and s "Percent " •"—"""

Total farm population 7,045 7,217 -2.4 100.0 100.0

Full owners 3,528 3,817 -7.6 50.1 52.9

Part owners 2,822 2,582 9.3 40.1 35.8

Tenants 696 818 -14.9 9.9 11.3

White ; 6,775 6,888 -1.6 100.0 100.0

Full owners 3,413 3,692 -7.6 50.4 53.6

Part owners 2,695 2,454 9.8 39.8 35.6

Tenants : 667 743 -10.2 9.8 10.8

Black 236 271 -12.9 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 97 97 - 41.1 35.8

Part owners : 113 109 3.7 47.9 40.2

Tenant s 26 64 -59.4 11.0 23.6

Spanish origin y : 168 NA - 100.0 -

Full owners : 75 NA - 44.6 -

Part owners : 66 NA - 39.3 -

Tenants : 28 NA - 16.7 —

North and West : 4,483 4,689 -4.4 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 2,168 2,383 -9.0 48.4 50.8

Part owners : 1,837 1,786 2.9 41.0 38.1

Tenants : 478 521 -8.3 10.7 11.1

South : 2,562 2,528 1.3 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 1,359 1,434 -5.2 53.0 56.7

Part owners : 985 797 23.6 38.4 31.5

Tenants : 218 297 -26.6 8.5 11.7

NÁ = Not available.

- = Zero or a number which rounds to zero.

1/ Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race.
cotton and tobacco farming caused many landowners to end the

employment of tenant labor to produce their crops. Competition

for rental land from owner-^operators seeking to enlarge their

operations continues. ThuSj between 1975 and 1980, as in

earlier periods, the number of persons living on tenant farms

declined at a heavier rate.

The agricultural censuses have consistently shown that blacks

operate a significantly higher proportion of tenant farms than

do whites, and earlier surveys found a higher proportion of the

black farm population living on such farms. As late as 1975,

about 20 percent of all black farm residents were on tenant

farms compared with about 10 percent of whites. However, significantly heavier population losses among blacks in this

tenure group resulted in both racial groups having about the

same proportion on tenant-operated farms in 1980 for the first

time in history.

The percentage of the farm population residing on part-owner

farms has increased for both racial groups, but blacks are

still more likely than whites to be on part-owner farms. Examination of the operator and nonoperator populations by race

and tenure status reveals that the high proportion of blacks on

part-owner farms results from their disproportionate representation in other dwellings on these farms. In 1980, over 40

percent of blacks on part-owner farms lived in rent-free households. Persons living on farms and employed as hired farm

laborers are most often quartered in such units and thus are

classified in the nonoperator population. Part-owner farms

with their large acreage and high market value of agricultural

products sold are more likely to have full-time agricultural

workers than the other tenure groups. Among farms reporting

the use of hired labor in 1978, 54 percent of part-owner farms

had regular and year-round agricultural workers compared with

27 percent for all other farms. ]_/

Persons of Spanish origin were more likely to live on farms

operated by a tenant than were other farm residents, 17 percent

compared with 10 percent, nationally. A somewhat higher than

average tenancy rate was also found among farm operators of

Spanish origin.

Despite a 24-percent increase in the population living on

southern part-owner farms, the likelihood of living on a fullowner operation was still somewhat greater in this region than

in the rest of the country. This likelihood results, in part,

from the heavier representation of part-owner farms in the

North and West. In 1978, 31 percent of the farms in the North

and West were part-owner operations compared with 26 percent in

the South.

The proportion of farm residents living on tenant farms did not

differ significantly between the two major geographic regions.

Each region had roughly 10 percent in 1980. This similarity is

7/ Persons who did 150 days or more of hired farmwork.
in sharp contrast to the regional differences that existed as

late as midcentury. According to the 1950 Agricultural Census,

34 percent of all southern farms were classed as tenant farms

compared with 20 percent in the North and West. The 1978 Agricultural Census reported that this wide regional disparity no

longer exists.

The trend of population increase among persons living on partowner farms and the decrease for those in the other tenure

groups pertained to persons living in farm operator households

only (table 3). Population dropped in all tenure categories in

the nonoperator population, but the rate of decline was somewhat lower for persons living in other dwellings on part-owner

farms.

FASM POPULATION

BY VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

SOLD

The farm population is examined on the basis of the total value

of agricultural products sold from the farm in the preceding

year. _8/ This report emphasizes three broad sales categories:

(1) smaller farms—those with annual sales of less than

$20,000, (2) midsize farms—those with sales between $20,000

and $99,999 annually, and (3) larger farms—those with annual

sales of $100,000 or more.

Value of agricultural sales is widely used as a measure of farm

size. However, this output measure, while useful for assessing

the consequences of different farm sizes at a given point in

time, has limitations in making comparisons over time. Sales

value adequately measures total output but is sensitive to

inflation and relative coimnodity price changes. In addition,

different kinds of agricultural commodities require different

combinations of land, labor, and capital per dollar of sales.

Some farms are labor intensive, some are land intensive, and

others are capital intensive. Classifying farm size on the

basis of sales ignores these very significant differences (6^).

Thus, caution should be exercised in interpreting shifts in

farm numbers and population among the sales groups.

Shifts in farm numbers result from changes in price inflation

as well as from such nonprice factors as changing farm size and

increased agricultural production. Therefore, some researchers

use the Consumer Price Index as a general indicator of variations in price levels, thus providing a basis for determining

how much of an indicated increase or decrease in farm numbers

is real and how much is due to price changes. The Department

of Agriculture's fourth annual report to Congress on the status

of the family farm estimates the change in farm numbers due to

price changes and nonprice factors by detailed sales classes

(13). For the three broad sales groups examined here, all of

the net loss between 1974 and 1978 in number of smaller farms

and all of the net gain in number of larger farms resulted from

6/ Sales value is based on total gross income received from

the sale of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock and poultry

products, horticultural commodities, and miscellaneous agricultural products.
Table 3—Population in farm households by operator status, tenure

of operator, and region, June 1980 and 1975

Operator status,

Populat ion Percentage

change,

1975-80

: Percentage

: distribution

tenure, and region 1980 ; 1975 ; : 1980 : 1975

-—^-Thousands— -Percent—

Operator households:

Total 6,588 6,537 0.8 100.0 100.0

Full ovmers 3,379 3,563 -5.2 51.3 54.5

Part owners 2,581 2,277 13.4 39.2 34.8

Tenants 628 697 -9.9 9.5 10.7

North and West • 4,225 4,353 -2.9 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 2,075 2,257 -8.1 49.1 51.8

Part owners • 1,712 1,621 5.6 40.5 37.2

Tenants : 438 476 -8.0 10.4 10.9

South 2,363 2,184 8.2 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 1,304 1,306 -.2 55.2 59.8

Part owners : 869 656 32.5 36.8 30.0

Tenants 190 222 -14.4 8.0 10.2

Nonoperator households :

Total : 457 680 -32.8 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 149 254 -41.3 32.6 37.4

Part owners : 240 305 -21.3 52.5 44.9

Tenants : 68 121 -43.8 14.9 17.8

North and West : 258 337 -23.4 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 93 127 -26.8 36.0 37.7

Part owners : 125 165 -24.2 48.4 49.0

Tenants : 40 45 B 15.5 13.4

South : 199 343 -42.0 100.0 100.0

Full owners : 55 128 -57.0 27.6 37.3

Part owners : 116 140 -17.1 58.3 40.8

Tenants : 28 75 -62.7 14.1 21.9

B = Base less than 50,000.

10
both price changes and nonprice factors. In contrast, the

increase in number of mdsize farms due to growth from price

changes was partly countered by a decrease from nonprice

factors.

Between 1975 and 1980, the number of persons living on larger

farms increased, while population decreased on farms in the

two lower sales groups. This is without any adjustment for

inflation. Population growth on farms in the higher sales

category resulted in their proportionate share of thé farm

total rising from about a tenth in 1975 to nearly a fifth in

1980 (table 4). The number of residents on these larger farms

increased only among whites and persons living in the farm

operator's household.

Smaller Farms Smaller farms—^those with sales of less than $20,000 annually—

are a diverse group and are occasionally separated into three

types: (1) those where farming is a secondary activity supplementing other income, (2) those where farming is the primary

activity supported by off-farm income, and (3) those with no or

very small amounts of nonfarm income. For the first type,

the owner's primary goal is to maintain a rural residence,

often with only minimal farm product sales. Included in this

group are the "hobby" or "lifestyle" farms. Others in this

group may sell a larger volume of farm products while still

relying primarily on nonfarm income. The second type includes

those who desire farming as an occupation and hope to expand

their farming operation. In the interim, however, they may

have substantial nonfarm employment to help accumulate capital

for enlargement of the farm. Retired or semiretired farmers,

who may have reduced the size of their operation upon or in

transition into retirement, are also included in the category.

The third group consists of subsistence farms whose operators

and families are often underemployed and live below the poverty

level (13). Fourteen percent of all farm families were below

the poverty level in 1980 (19).

Generally, the lower the value of sales, the higher the contribution the farm operator family receives from off-farm sources.

While the nonfarm contribution tends to lessen as value of

sales increases, farm operator families with less than $20,000

in sales received 94 percent of their total income from nonfarm

sources in 1979 (table 5). Farm income is likely to exceed

that received from off-farm sources only among farm operator

families with annual sales of $40,000 or more. Earlier studies

have found that the sources of nonfarm income vary across sales

categories. On smaller farms, off-farm income usually comes

from nonfarm wages and salaries. By contrast, rents, dividends, and interest are usually the more important nonfarm income sources for farms in higher sales classes (14).

Despite persistently heavier population losses, smaller farms

still contain the largest share of the farm population. About

half of all persons on farms in June 1980 were on places with

sales of less than $20,000 annually. Between 1975 and 1980,

smaller farms incurred a population loss of 13 percent compared

11
Table 4—Farm population by value of agricultural products sold, race, and

Spanish origin, June 1980 and 1975

Va lue o f agricul t ur a 1 :

Populat ion Percentage

change,

1975-80

: Percentage

: distribution

products sold and race :

1980 ; 1975 ; ; 1980 ; 1975

—-Thousands^ —Percent

Total farm population 7,045 7,217 -2.4 100.0 100.0

Larger farms 1,295 777 66.7 18.4 10.8

$200,000 and over 570 NA - 8.1 -

$100,000-$199,999 725 NA - 10.3 -

Midsize farms 2,217 2,394 -7.4 31.5 33.2

$40,000-$99,999 1,316 1,341 -1.9 18.7 18.6

$20,000-$39,999 901 1,053 -14.4 12.8 14.6

Smaller farms 3,533 4,046 -12.7 50.1 56.1

$10,000-$19,999 865 1,017 -14.9 12.3 14.1

$2,500-$9,999 1,644 1,757 -6.4 23.3 24.3

$l,000-$2,499 1,024 1,272 -19.5 14.5 17.6

White 6,775 6,888 -1.6 100.0 100.0

Larger farms 1,253 7oa 78.2 18.5 10.2

$200,000 and over 543 NÁ - 8.0 -

$100,000-$199,999 711 NA - 10.5 -

Midsize farms 2,165 2,315 -6.5 32.0 33.6

$40,000-$99,999 1,285 1,284 .1 19.0 18.6

$20,000-$39,999 880 1,031 -14.6 13.0 15.0

Smaller farms 3,356 3,870 -13.3 49.5 56.2

$10,000-$19;999 835 992 -15.8 12.3 14.4

$2,500-$9,999 1,561 1,666 -6.3 23.0 24.2

$l,000-$2,499 960 1,213 -20.9 14.2 17.6

Black 236 271 -12.9 100.0 100.0

Larger farms 37 57 -35.1 15.7 21.0

$200,000 and over 25 NA - 10.6 -

$100,000-$199,999 12 NA - 5.1 -

Midsize farms 38 63 -39.7 16.1 23.2

$40,000-$99,999 19 48 B 8.1 17.7

$20,000-$39,999 19 15 B 8.1 5.5

Smaller farms 161 152 5.3 68.2 56.1

$10,000-$19,999 26 21 B 11.0 7.7

$2,500-$9,999 73 77 -5.2 30.9 28.4

$1,000-$2,499 61 54 13.0 25.8 19.9

Spanish origin 1/ 168 NA - 100.0 -

Larger farms 54 NA - 32.1 -

$200,000 and over 37 NA - 22.0 -

$100,000-$199,999 17 NA - 10.1 -

Midsize farms 42 NA - 24,4 -

$40,000-$99,999 ' 29 NA - 17.3 -

$20,000-$39,999 12 NA - 7.1 -

Smaller farms 73 NA - 42.9 -

$10,000-$19,999 10 NA - 6.0 -

$2,500-$9,999 37 NA - 22,0 -

$l,000-$2,499 25 NA — 14.9 -

NA = Not available,

B= Base less than 50,000.

- = Zero or a number which rounds to zero.

IJ Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race.

12
with a loss of 7 percent on midsize farms, and a 67-percent increase on larger farms • Although the data are not strictly

comparable because of the change in farm definition, population

loss on smaller farms for the 1970-75 period was also significantly higher, 26 percent compared with 13 percent nationally.

The smaller farm category also makes up the highest proportion

of U.S. farms, 64 percent of the Nation's 2,5 million farms in

1978. While the majority of farms fall into the smaller farm

category, they account for only 22 percent of all land in farms

and 8 percent of the total value of sales. These farms are

generally small in size. In 1978, the average size of farms

with less than $20,000 in sales was 141 acres; farms with

greater sales averaged 841 acres (16).

In contrast to 1975 when about equal proportions of both racial

groups were on smaller farms, blacks were more likely than

whites to live on such farms in 1980. During the 5-year study

period, the white population on these farms lost 500,000 persons, or 13 percent, while blacks had no significant change in

number.

Regardless of race, about 68 percent of the southern farm population lived on places with sales less than $20,000 in 1980,

reflecting the concentrated black farm population in the

Southern States and the high number of southern farms in the

lowest sales class. In 1978, more than half of the Nation's

610,000 farms with sales under $2,500 were in the 16 Southern

States.

Comparatively fewer Spanish-origin farm residents live on

smaller farms. In 1980, only 4 out of every 10 Spanish-origin

farm residents lived on a place with sales of less than $20,000

annually.

Table 5^—Income per farm operator family by major source

and value of sales, 1979

Value of agricultural;

products sold

Total net

cash income

Net cash

farm income

Off-farm income

Total

Percentage

of total

-Dollars- Percent

All farm operator

families 25,479 11,566 13,913 54.6

Less than $2,500

$2,500-$9,999

$10,000-$19,999

$20,000-$39,999

$40,000-$99,999

$100,000 and over

16,793 -740 17,533 104.4

17,349 1,144 16,205 93.4

18,484 4,014 14,470 78.3

19,436 8,642 10,794 55.5

26,199 17,367 8,832 33.7

72,683 61,912 10,771 14.8

Source: (17).

13
Only 22 percent of all persons living in nonoperator households

in i980 were on smaller farms. Because of the low value of

farm products associated with these farms, these households

probably would not contain a large number of hired workers.

Persons living in these nonoperator dwelling units are probably

relatives or caretakers. In 1978, only 27 percent of the farms

with sales of less than $20,000 reported'any use of hired

labor. About 62 percent of the remaining farms reported using

such labor.

Midsize Farms The continuous decline in the number of midsize farms—those

with sales ranging from $20,000-$99,999 annually—may be considered one of the most significant trends in farm size by

sales class. ÜSDA analysts regard these farms as:

• ..too large for part-time farms and too small for

full-time farms. Therefore, they are under the greatest

adjustment pressure and bear the greatest part of adjustment costs. A few will grow in size. Some will reduce

the size of their operations and become part-time farms.

Others will phase out as the operator retires or transfers

completely to nonfarm employment in search of higher

income (13).

Lin and others have projected that the number of farms in this

category will continue to decline through the year 2000. These

projections further indicate that "...future farm numbers are

likely to follow a bimodal distribution—^^a large proportion of

smaller farms, an ever-increasing proportion of larger farms,

and a declining segment of medium-size farms (7)."

The historical decline in total number of farms incorporates

both a phaseout of smaller operations and an increase in farms

in the higher sales classes. Determining the exact dividing

point, with respect to value of sales, ^ere farms ceased to

decline is difficult, but the consensus is that the point falls

within the midsize category. Farms in this class accounted for

29 percent of all agricultural receipts in 1978, most of which

were derived from farms with $40,000-$99,999 in sales. More

than 70 percent of all products sold from midsize farms came

from this upper sales subgroup.

Midsize farms contained 2.2 million residents in 1980 (table

4). These farms lost 7 percent of their population during

1975-80 but still contain 31 percent of all farm people. Within the midsize sales class, different population trends were

noticed: the number of persons on farms in the upper subgroup

($40,000-$99,999) remained essentially unchanged, while those

on farms in the lower subgroup ($20,000-$39,999) declined by 14

percent. The higher sales subgroup has more farms and more

people living on farms than the lower subgroup.

Whites are more likely than blacks to live on midsize farms.

In 1980, nearly a third of the white farm population but only

one-^sixth of the black lived on these farms. Fewer blacks

14
lived in both subgroup^ of this sales class. About a fourth of

all Spanish-origin farm residents lived on midsize farms.

Unlike residents of smaller farms, vhich were about equally

divided between.the South and the combined North and West,

persons living on midsize farms were disproportionately located

outside the South. Three-fourths of all persons living on

farms in this sales category were in Northern and Western

States (table 6). This lower representation on southern midsize farms was somewhat more pronounced in the higher sales

subgroup. Between 1975 and 1980, regional population trends

contrasted on midsize farms. Overall, persons on southern midsize farms showed no significant change in nuunber'—roughly

500,000 persons. However, in the North and West, the number

of persons on midsize farms declined by a tenth, primarily from

the heavy rate of population loss on farms in the lower sales

subgroup.

Larger Farms The number of persons living on farms in the top sales category-—^^those with annual sales of $100,000 and over—amounted to

1.3 million in 1980 and increased by 67 percent during 1975-80

(table 4). This sales group was the only one of the three

broad sales groups examined which experienced population growth

during the 5-year study period. Farm niraibers in this sales

category also increased and are projected to continue to increase through 1990 (7). The bulk of the increase in number of

larger farms resulted from rising farm prices: the farm distribution shifts forward as rising prices push farms with a

constant volume of output into higher sales classes. Prices

received by farmers rose 33 percent between 1975 and 1980.

In 1978, about 223,000 farms reported agricultural product

sales worth $100,000 or more. These farms do not include all

farms that might be considered large on the basis of land

acreage. On the other hand, they do include some operations on

comparatively small plots that are intensively operated, such

as greenhouses, broiler houses, or cattle feedlots. While

larger farms represented only 9 percent of all farms they

accounted for 62 percent of total value of agricultural products sold. Large numbers of farms in this top sales group are

found in Iowa, Illinois, California, Texas, and Nebraska.

According to the 1978 Census of Agriculture, these five States

contained 34 percent of all such farms.

The number of corporate farms more than doubled between 1974

and 1978. But, the proportion of farms operated by corporations remains relatively small. In 1978, only 3 percent of all

farms with sales over $2,500 were incorporated. The great

majority of all fairm corporations are family held; roughly 9

out of every 10 farm corporations are operated by a family. Á

recent study of Illinois farmers cited tax savings, ease of

property transfer, and business continuity as principal reasons

for the increasing number of family-held farm corporations

(10), As expected, the relative importance of corporate farms

increases as the value of sales of farm products increases.

15
Table 6~Farm population by value of agricultural products sold,

region, and operator status, June 1980 and 1975

Value of agricultural

products sold, region,

Popul ation ] Percentage

change.

Percentage

distribution

, .

and operator status 1980 ; 1975 : 1975-80 1980 ; 1975

-

'Tho

4,483

Li sands—

North and West 4,689 -4.4 100.0 100.0

Larger farms 1,005 553 81.7 22.4 11.8

$200,000 and over 421 NÂ - 9.4 -

$100,000-$199,999 584 NA - 13.0 -

Midsize farms 1,686 1,884 -10.5 37.6 40.2

$40,000-$99,999 : 1,032 1,044 -1.1 23.0 22.3

$20,000-$39,999 : 655 840 -22.0 14.6 17.9

Smaller farms 1,792 2,253 -20.5 40.0 48.0

$10,000-$19,999 504 706 -28.6 11.2 15.1

$2,500-$9,999 846 965 -12.3 18.9 20.6

$l,000-$2,499 442 582 -24.1 9.9 12.4

South 2,562 2,528 1.3 100.0 100.0

Larger farms 290 225 28.9 11.3 8.9

$200,000 and over 149 NA - 5.8 -

$100,000-$199,999 : 141 NA - 5.5 -

Midsize farms 531 510 4.1 20.7 20.2

$40,000-$99,999 284 297 -4.4 11.1 11.7

$20,000-$39,999 : 246 213 15.5 9.6 8.4

Smaller farms 1,742 1,793 -2.8 68.0 71.0

$10,00O-$19,999 361 312 15.7 14.1 12.3

$2,500-$9,999 798 792 .8 31.1 31.3

$l,000-$2,499 582 690 -15.7 22.7 27.3

Operator households 6,588 6,53v^ .8 100.0 100.0

Larger farms 1,068 491 117.5 16.2 7.5

$200,000 and over 424 NA - 6.4 -

$1Ö0,000-$199,999 : 644 NA - 9.8 -

Midsize farms : 2,087 2,147 -2.8 31.7 32.8

$40,000-$99,999 : 1,225 1,169 4.8 18.6 17.9

$20,000-$39,999 . 862 978 -11.9 13.1 Í5.0

Smaller farms 3,433 3,898 -11.9 52.1 59.6

$10,000-$99,999 ' 829 957 -13.4 12.6 14.6

$2,500-$9,999 " 1,603 L,696 -5.5 24.3 25.9

$l,000-$2,499 1,001 1,245 -19.6 15.2 19.0

Nonoperator households 457 680 -32.8 100.0 100.0

Larger farms : 227 286 -20.6 49.7 42.1

$200,000 and over 145 NA - 31.7 -

$100,000-$199,999 81 NA - 17.7 -

Midsize farms 130 247 -47.4 28.4 36.3

$40,000-$99,999 91 172 -47.1 19.9 25.3

$20,000-$39,999 39 75 -48.0 8.5 11.0

Smaller farms 100 147 -32.0 ' 21.9 21.6

$10,000-$!9,999 36 60 -40.0 7.9 8.8

$2,500-$9,999 41 60 -31.7 9.0 9.0

$l,000-$2,499 : 23 26 B 5.0 3.8

NA = Not available.

B = Base less than 50,000.

- = Zero or a number which rounds to zero.

16
Larger farms constitute somewhat less than a tenth of all

farms, but more than half of all corporate farms.

The number of persons living on larger farms increased only

among whites. The black population on these farms, most of

whom were living in nonoperator households, declined. The number of whites living in nonoperator dwellings also declined,

but this loss was offset by the substantial growth among whites

in operator households. The decline in the nonoperator population on these larger farms that generally employ many hired

farmworkers reflects the increasing tendency among farmworkers

to commute from a nonfarm residence to their farm jobs. In

1980, about 8 out of 10 wage and salary agricultural workers

did not reside on farms. In the late forties, only 35 percent

of all hired farmworkers had a nonfarm residence (9,19).

Spanish-origin farm residents have a high proportion of their

total population living on larger farms~32 percent in 1980.

About 80 percent of the Spanish-origin population on larger

farms lived in other dwellings and were classed as nonoperator

population.

Although the population on larger farms increased overall, the

growth varied regionally. The rate of population growth was

almost three times higher in the combined North and West than

in the South (table 6). The heavier rate of farm population

increase in the Northern and Western States resulted in significant changes in the distribution of farm residents among

the three broad sales groups. In 1975, roughly a tenth of the

farm total lived on larger farms regardless of region of residence. By 1980, the proportion of all northern and western

farm residents living on larger farms had increased to slightly

more than a fifth. In the South, however, the proportion of

persons living on such farms did not change significantly.

The nonoperator population remains heavily concentrated on

large-scale farms. In 1980, half of all persons living in

other farm dwelling units were on larger farms. According to

the 1978 Agricultural Census, larger farms accounted for more

than a third of all hired workers with 150 days or more of

farmwork.

Because of the emergence of the part-owner strategy of commercial farm operation, land in farms is not necessarily S3nionymous with land ownership, as many large operations are a combination of rented and owned land. The remaining tenant operations today are also larger than average in output. The distribution of the farm population, like the distribution of

farms, shows a strong negative relationship between value of

sales and full ownership and a strong positive relationship

between sales and part ownership (fig. 1 and table 7). The

likelihood of farm residents living on a full-owner operation

decreases as value of sales increases; whereas the likelihood

of their living on a part-owner operation increases with aales.

Only 23 percent of all persons living on larger farms were on

full-owner operations, the majority~62 percent—lived on farms

17
operated by a part owner. In contrast, persons living on

smaller farms in 1980 were more likely to be on a full-owner

operation; only 25 percent lived on a farm operated by a part

owner. The number of persons living on tenant farms showed a

slight positive relationship with value of sales. The observed

relationship between sales and tenure status of operator is not

affected by region of residence (table 8).

FARM POPULATION BY

TYPE OF FARM

Although American agriculture produces a large variety of farm

products, the general farm that produces many different products

is rapidly decreasing. With advances in production technology

and changes in marketing demands, the modern commercial farm is

becoming increasingly specialized, and the trend probably will

continue. The classification of farms by type represents a

description of the major sources of income from farms sales, and

it groups together farms having a relatively high degree of

uniformity in the kinds and proportions of crops and livestock

products sold.

Figure 1

Farm Population by Value of Agricultural Products Sold and Tenure of Operator, 1980

Percent

80

60

40

20

Tenure

Full owners

Part owners

ï^y^ Tenants

$1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$9,999 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$39,999 $40,000-$99,999

I

$100,000 &

I

over

Value of agricultural products sold

18
Table 7~Fartn population by value of agricultural products sold

and tenure of operator, June 1980

Tenure of operator

Value of agricultural :

products sold :

Populat ion Percentage distribut ion

Total : Full :

: owners :

Part

owners

[ Tenants Total ;

Full

owners

: Part :

: owners :

Tenants

Thousa _ j Tk^_ ^ ^^*-nds — r CLUCiii,

Total farm population 7,045 3,528 2,822 696 100 50.1 40.1 9.9

Larger farms

$200,000 and over

$100,000-$199,999

1,295

: 570

: 725

303

115

188

804

349

455

188

106

82

100

100

100

23.4

20.2

25.9

62.1

61.2

62.8

14.5

18.6

11.3

Midsize farms

$40,000-$99,999

$20,000-$39,999

: 2,217

: 1,316

: 901

803

402

401

1,142

750

392

272

164

108

100

100

100

36.2

30.5

44.5

51.5

57.0

43.5

12.3

12.5

12.0

Smaller farms

$10,000-$19,999

$2,500-$9,999

$l,000-$2,499

: 3,533

: 865

: 1,644

: 1,024

2,421

482

1,132

807

876

292

412

172

237

91

100

46

100

100

100

100

68.5

55.7

68.9

78.8

24.8

33.8

25.1

16.8

6.7

10.5

6.1

4.5
to

o

Table 8-—Farm population by value of agricultural products sold, tenure of operator3

region of residence, and race, June 1980

ultural

region,

1/

Tenure of operator

Value of agrie

product sold. Popul.at ion Percentage distribut ion

and race Total ;Full :

owners :

Part :

owners :

Tenants . Total : Full

: owners

: Part :

: owners :

Tenants

- Thoiusands—~ — Pelrcent

North and West 4,483 2,168 1,837 478 100 48.4 41.0 10.7

Larger farms 1,005 246 613 146 100 24.5 61.0 14.5

Midsize farms 1,686 630 851 205 100 37.4 50.5 12.2

Smaller farms 1,792 1,293 372 127 100 72,2 20.8 7.1

South 2,562 1,359 985 218 100 53.0 38.4 8.5

Larger farms 290 58 191 42 100 19.7 65.9 14.5

Midsize farms 531 173 291 66 100 32.6 54.8 12.4

Smaller farms 1,742 1,128 503 110 100 64.8 28.9 6.3

White 6,775 3,413 2,695 667 100 50.4 39.8 9.8

Larger farms 1,253 299 772 182 100 23.9 61.6 14.5

Midsize farms 2,165 791 1,109 264 100 36.5 51.2 12.2

Smaller farms 3,356 2,323 814 220 LOO 69.2 24.3 6.6

Black 236 97 113 26 100 41.1 47.9 11.0

Larger farms 37 4 29 5 B B B B

Midsize farms 38 7 26 5 B B B B

Smaller farms 161 86 58 16 100 53.4 36.0 9.9

B - Base less than 50,000,

IJ Value of agricultural products sold for larger farms is $100,000 and over; for midsize farms,

$20,000-$99,999; and for smaller farms, $1,000-$19,999.
In the JES, a farm is classified as a particular type based on

the product, or group of products, having the largest percentage of the total value of sales. This classification

differs somewhat from census of agriculture procedures where,

in order for a farm to be classified as a particular type,

the value of sales from a product, or group of products, has to

represent 50 percent or more of total sales. _9/

The classification by type is based on sales for a single reporting year, and the distribution and number of fairms by type

for a given year may be influenced by abnormal weather conditions, disease or pests affecting production, or shifts in the

relative prices of various farm products. See Definitions and

Explanations on p. 38 for the types of farms for which data

are presented, together with the products, or group of products, on which the classification of farm by type is based.

Data on type of farm provide a basis for the study and analysis

of agricultural problems, such as those relating to the development of land use programs, farm adjustment programs and

plans, soil conservation programs, and problems dealing with

the production and marketing of agricultural commodities. The

number, characteristics, and distribution of persons living on

the various types of farms are valuable information to those

who provide products for production purposes and to those who

provide services for farms and farm people.

A study in the midforties by Taylor and others used type of

farming areas as the focus for an analytical description of

important aspects of rural life. They noted that, "The production of the same farm product or combination of products results in many common activities among the people, and therefore

in broadly similar interests, attitudes, and values (12) ."

They also noted that the roles of towns differed in response to

the major types of farms because each has differing seasonal

work rhythms, tenure systems, socioeconomic groupings, and

methods of marketing farm products and obtaining farm supplies.

The distribution of the farm population by type of farm in 1980

reveals that most farm people live on livestock and cash-grain

farms (table 9), These two farm types contained the majority

of both white and black farm residents (fig. 2). However,

whites not living on these farms were more likely to be living

on dairy farms, whereas blacks were more likely to be on tobacco farms. There has been some shifting, but these population concentrations by farm type and race were also observed in

the earlier 1970-75 study.

9_/ Starting with the 1974 Census of Agriculture, data were

published on an expanded classification system for agricultural

production published in the 1972 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. In general, the SIC

classifications are comparable to the historical type-of-farm

classifications.

21
Table 9~Farm population by type of farm, race, and

Spanish origin, June 1980 and 1975

Type of farm and race [

Popul at ion • Percentage

change,

: Percentage

: distribution

j , ,- .

1980 ; 1975 ; 1975-80 ; 1980 ; 1975

^^Thousands—- —Percent—

Total farm population : 7,045 7 ,217 -2.4 100.0 100.0

Gash-grain : 1,874 2 ,206 -15.1 26.6 30.6

Tobacco : 405 554 -26.9 5.7 7.7

Cotton : 92 158 -41.8 1.3 2.2

Other field crops : 362 264 37.1 5.1 3.7

Vegetables : 105 102 2.9 1.5 1.4

Fruit and nut : 195 208 -6.2 2.8 2.9

Livestock, except dairy : 2,775 2 ,472 12.3 39.4 34.3

Poultry : 137 108 26 .9 1.9 1.5

Dairy : 922 1 ,0L3 -9.0 13.1 14.0

Miscellaneous : 178 134 32.8 2.5 1.9

White : 6,775 6 ,888 -1.6 100.0 100.0

Cash-grain ' 1,819 2 ,112 -13.9 26.8 30.7

Tobacco ' 350 464 -24.6 5.2 6,7

Cotton 75 119 -37.0 1.1 1.7

Other field crops 345 250 38.0 5.1 3.6

Vegetables 90 88 2.3 1.3 1.3

Fruit and nut 185 190 -2.6 2.7 2.8

Livestock, except dairy 2,686 2 ,418 11.1 39.6 35.1

Poultry 134 107 25.2 2.0 1.6

Dai ry 918 I ,009 -9.0 13,5 14.6

Miscellaneous 175 132 32.6 2.6 1.9

Black 236 271 -12.9 100.0 100.0

Cash-grain 51 82 -37.8 21.6 30.3

Tobacco 49 82 -40.2 20.8 30,3

Cotton : 16 34 B 6.8 12.5

Other field crops : 15 10 B 6.4 3.7

Vegetables : 8 10 B 3.4 3.7

Fruit and nut : 5 6 B 2.1 2.2

Livestock, except dairy : 82 41 B 34.7 15.1

Poultry : 3 1 B 1.3 .4

Dairy 4 4 B 1.7 1.5

Miscellaneous : 3 1 B 1.3 .4

Spanish origin L/ : 168 NA - 100.0 -

Gash-grain 33 NA - 19.6 -

Tobacco : 3 NA - 1.8 -

Cotton : 10 NA - 6.0 -

Other field crops : 17 NA - 10.1 -

Vegetables : 12 NA - 7.1 -

Fruit and nut : 11 NA - 6.5 -

Livestock, except dairy : 62 NA - 36.9 -

Poultry : 2 NA - 1.2 -

Dairy : 15 NA - 8.9 -

Miscellaneous : 2 NA 1.2

B = Base less than 50,000.

NA = Not available.

-= Zero or a number which rounds to zero.

1/ Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race.

22
Livestock farms and caBh-grain farms each contained roughly a

third of all farm people in 1975. However, changes in production emphasis between 1975 and 1980 resulted in an increase in

the percentage of all farm people living on livestock farms,

while the proportion on cash-grain farms declined. By 1980,

about two-fifths of the entire farm population resided on livestock farms (excluding dairy and poultry). If dairy and poultry operations are added, then over half of all farm people are

on livestock enterprises. Population numbers on cotton and

tobacco farms, the typical row crop farms of the Old South,

declined significantly. The number of residents on these two

farm types together declined by 30 percent between 1975 and

1980.

The number of persons residing on cash-grain farms declined

without regard to region of residence or operator status

(table 10). In contrast, population numbers on livestock farms

increased only among those persons living on such farms in the

South; the number of persons living on such northern and

western farms remained stable. Patterns of population change

Figure 2

Farm Population by Type of Farm and Race, 1980

Type of farm

Cash-grain

Tobacco

Cotton

Livestock

Dairy

All others

10 20 30

Percent of total

40

23
Table 1 o—Farm population by type of farm, region, and

operator status, June 1980 and 1975

Percentage

Operator status, race, :

Popul ation * Percentage

change.

distribut ion

, ,

and region :

1980 ; 1975 ; 1975-80 1980 ; 1975

Thousands-~ M—rercenc ^— IJrf^ ^* ^% ^4^ "f" ^m ^m mmm^ -^

North and West : 4,483 4,689 -4.4 100.0 100.0

Cash-grain : 1,472 1,683 -12.5 32,8 35.9

Tobacco : 18 21 B A .4

Cotton : 15 34 B .3 .7

Other field crops 266 175 52-. 0 5.9 3.7

Vegetables : 68 65 4.6 1.5 1.4

Fruit and nut : 156 169 -7.7 3.5 3.6

Livestock, except dairy: 1,516 1,511 .3 33.8 32.2

Poultry : 53 45 B 1.2 1.0

Dairy * 805 894 -10.0 18.0 19.1

Miscellaneous : 115 93 23.7 2.6 2.0

South : 2,562 2,528 1.3 100.0 100.0

Gash-grain : 402 523 -23.1 15.7 20.7

Tobacco : 387 533 -27.4 15.1 21.1

Cotton : 77 123 -37.4 3.0 4.9

Other field crops 96 89 7.9 3.7 3.5

Vegetables : 37 37 B 1.4 1.5

Fruit and nut 39 38 B 1.5 1.5

Livestock, except dairy 1,259 961 31.0 49.1 38.0

Poultry 84 64 31.2 3.3 2.5

Dairy 117 118 -.8 4.6 4.7

Miscellaneous 64 41 B 2.5 1.6

Operator households : 6,588 6,537 .8 100.0 100.0

Cash-grain : 1,779 1,977 -10,0 27.0 30.2

Tobacco : 373 517 -27.9 5.7 7.9

Cotton : 67 103 -35.0 1.0 1.6

Other field crops : 332 224 48.2 5.0 3.4

Vegetables : 92 89 3.4 1.4 1.4

Frui t and nut : 161 172 -6.4 2.4 2.6

Livestock, except dairy : 2,648 2,270 16.7 40.2 34.7

Poultry : 130 102 27.5 2.0 1.6

Dairy : 839 964 -13,0 12.7 14.7

Miscellaneous 167 118 41.5 2.5 1.8

Nonoperator households : 457 680 -32.8 100.0 100.0

Cash-grain : 95 229 -58.5 20.8 33.7

Tobacco : 33 37 B 7.2 5.4

Cotton : 25 55 -54.5 5.5 8.1

Other field crops : 30 39 B 6.6 5.7

Vegetables : 13 13 B 2.8 1.9

Fruit and nut : 34 35 B 7.4 5.1

Livestock, except dairy : 126 202 -37.6 27.6 29.7

Poultry : 7 7 B 1.5 1.0

Dairy : 83 49 B 18.2 7.2

Miscellaneous : 11 15 B 2.4 2.2

B = Base less than 50,000.

24
also contrasted among persons on livestock farms by operator

status.

Persons living on farms in the combined North and West regions

were just as likely to be on a livestock farm as on a cashgrain farm; each contained about a third of the regional total

in 1980. In the South, however, livestock farms dominated and

accounted for nearly half of the regional total. Cash-grain

and tobacco farms were of about equal importance; each contained somewhat less than a sixth of all southern farm people.

Cash"Grain Farms Cash-grain farms grow principally wheat, corn, soybeans, sor-

~~" ghum, and rice. (Although the soybean is not a grain, it is

classified as such in agricultural statistics.) These major

field crops are not concentrated in any particular region, but

they are dominant in the Corn and Wheat Belts of the North

Central States. In 1978, 24 percent of all U.S. farms were

classified as cash-grain, and these farms accounted for 27

percent of all land in farms, 44 percent of total cropland, and

50 percent of harvested cropland. Although the number of U.S.

farms with sales of $2,500 or more has increased overall,

the census of agriculture indicates that the number of cashgrain farms in this sales class declined from 580,000 in 1974

to 526,000 in 1978. 10/

In 1980, about 1.9 million persons lived on cash-grain farms.

More people live on cash-grain farms than on any other type

except livestock (table 9). Cash-grain and livestock farms

together contain about two-thirds of all farm people. However,

the population declined significantly during 1975-80 among

persons living on cash-grain farms, while population on livestock farms grew. An undetermined amount of this change reflects shifted emphasis on these farms from grain production or

sales to livestock feeding. The number of persons residing on

cash-grain farms declined with no difference due to race, operator status, or region of residence.

Three-fourths of all persons living on cash-grain farms reside

in the combined Northern and Western States. In this broad

region, the number of residents on cash-grain farms did not

differ significantly from the number on livestock farms ; each

type accounted for roughly a third of the total in 1980 (table

10). In contrast, only a sixth of the southern farm population

lived on cash-grain farms. In the South, the largest number of

farm people live on livestock farms, and about the same proportion of people reside on cash-grain farms as on tobacco farms.

Cash-grain farm residents, like cotton and dairy farm residents, are more likely to live on farms where the operator is

a part owner than any bf the remaining farm types (table 11).

The likelihood of being in this tenure group is greatest in the

10/ In 1978, 68,000 cash-grain farms sold less than $2,500

worth of agricultural products; comparable data from 1974 are

not available.

25
Table 11—Farm population by type of farm, tenure of operator, and region of residence, June 1980

Tenure of operator

Type of farm

and region Popul at i on Percentage distribut ion

Total ;

Full :

owners :

Part

owners

\ Tenants Total ;

Full

owners

: Part :

: owners :

Tenants

nds- Ti .

Thousa rGL cciiu—

Total farm population 7,045 3,528 2,822 696 100 50.1 40.1 9.9

Cash-grain 1,874 713 902 258 100 38.0 48.1 13.8

Tobacco 405 190 171 44 100 46.9 42.2 10.9

Cotton 92 20 58 13 100 22.3 63.7 14.0

Other field crops 362 193 128 42 100 53.2 35.3 11.6

Vegetables 105 50 45 10 100 47.6 42.9 9.5

Fruit and nut 195 137 33 25 100 70.3 16.9 12.8

Livestock, except dairy 2,775 1,657 911 207 100 59.7 32.8 7.5

Poultry 137 97 29 11 100 70.8 21.2 8.0

Dairy 922 338 516 68 100 36.7 56.0 7.4

Miscellaneous 178 133 28 18 100 74.3 15.5 10.2

North and West 4,483 2,168 1,837 478 100 48.4 41,0 10.7

Gash-grain 1,472 576 685 211 100 39.1 46.5 14.3

Tobacco 18 12 4 2 B B B B

Cotton 15 5 8 2 B B B B

Other field crops 266 157 82 27 100 59.0 30.8 10.2

Vegetables 68 28 31 9 100 41.2 45.6 13.2

Fruit and nut 156 112 28 16 100 71.8 17.9 10.3

Livestock, except dairy 1,516 849 534 133 100 56.0 35.2 8.8

Poultry 53 31 13 8 100 59.6 25.3 15.1

Dairy 805 306 441 58 100 38.0 54.8 7.2

Miscellaneous 115 92 11 11 100 80.4 9.6 10.0

South 2,562 1,359 985 218 100 53.0 38.4 8.5

Cash-grain 402 138 217 47 100 34.3 54.0 11.7

Tobacco 387 178 167 42 100 46.0 43.2 10.9

Cotton 77 16 51 11 100 20.3 65.9 13.7

Other field crops 96 36 46 15 100 37.3 47.5 15.2

Vegetables 37 22 14 1 B B B B

Fruit and nut 39 24 5 10 B B B B

Livestock, except dairy: 1,259 808 377 75 100 64.2 29.9 6.0

Poultry 84 65 16 3 100 77.4 19.0 3.6

Dairy 117 32 76 9 100 27.4 65.0 7.7

Miscellaneous 64 40 17 7 100 62.5 26.6 10.9

B = Base less than 50,000.

26
South where more than half of all cash-grain farm residents

live on part-owner operations. Persons living on this farm

type also have a very high representation in the total tenant

farm population. Nearly two-fifths of all people living on

tenant farms in 1980 resided on cash-grain farms.

In terms of value of farm products sold, cash-grain farm residents are almost as likely to live on smaller farms as on midsize farms (table 12). However, their relative importance

within these size categories differs significantly. The cashgrain farm population constitutes more than a third of the

total population residing on farms with annual sales of

$20,000-$99,999. In contrast, they account for only a fifth

of the population on farms with sales of less than $20,000

(fig. 3). Although only a fifth of all cash-grain farm residents live on larger farms, they rank first in the distribution

of the population residing on these farms as well as on midsize

farms.

Figure 3

Farm Population by Type of Farm and Value of Agricultural Products Sold, 1980*

Type of farm Larger farms Midsize farms Smaller farms

Cash-grain

Tobacco, cotton, and

other field crops

Livestock

Dairy

All others

29

12

26

22

11

35

24

24

20

15

54

;3:

8

* Value of agricultural products sold for larger farms is $100,000 and over; for midsize farms, $20,000-$99,999; and for smaller

farms, $1,000-$19,999.

27
00

Table 12—Farm population by type of farm and value of agricultural products sold, June 1980 1/

Type of farm Popul at ion Percentage distribution

and region

; Total : Larger : Midsize : Smaller

To tal : Larger : Midsize Smaller

: farms : farms : farms : farms : farms : farms

. rv^ . 3 . ____'.____.. . Tl^_,--^_^

Total farm population : 7,045 1,295 2,217 3,533 100 18.4 31.5 50.1

Cash-grain : 1,874 378 786 711 100 20.2 41.9 37.9

Tobacco : 405 19 93 294 100 4.7 23.0 72.6

Cotton : 92 47 26 18 100 51.1 28.3 19.6

Other field crops : 362 85 72 205 100 23.5 19.9 56.6

Vegetables : 105 22 21 61 100 21.0 20.0 58.1

Fruit and nut : 195 53 53 89 100 27.2 27.2 45.6

Livestock, except dairy 2,775 333 530 1,912 100 12.0 19.1 68.9

Poultry 137 33 58 45 100 24.1 42.3 32.8

Dairy : 922 291 531 100 100 31.6 57.6 10.8

Miscellaneous 178 33 48 98 100 18.5 27.0 55.1

North and West 4,483 1,005 1,686 1,792 100 22.4 37.6 40.0

Cash-grain 1,472 303 665 504 100 20.6 45.2 34.2

Tabace0 18 - 2 16 B B B B

Cotton 15 10 2 3 B B B B

Other field crops 266 64 45 157 100 24.1 Í6.9 59.0

Vegetables 68 16 19 32 100 23.7 28.6 47.7

Fruit and nut 156 37 46 73 100 23.7 29.5 46.8

Livestock, except dairy : 1,516 288 385 843 100 19.0 25.4 55.6

Poultry 53 20 20 13 100 37.7 37.7 24.5

Dairy : 805 245 474 86 100 30.4 58.9 10.7

Miscellaneous 115 22 27 66 100 19.1 23.5 57.4

South : 2,562 290 531 1,742 100 11.3 20.7 68.0

Cash-grain : 402 74 121 207 100 18.4 30.1 51.5

Tabacco : 387 19 90 278 100 4.9 23.3 71.8

Cotton : 77 37 24 15 100 48.6 31.4 20.0

Other field crops : 96 21 27 48 100 21.9 28.1 50.0

Vegetables : 37 6 2 29 B B B B

Fruit and nut : 39 16 7 17 B B B B

Livestock, except dairy : 1,259 45 145 1,069 100 3.6 11.5 84.9

Poultry 84 13 38 32 100 15.9 45.6 38.5

Dairy : 117 46 57 14 100 39.3 48.7 12.0

Miscellaneous : 64 11 20 32 Í00 17.8 31.9 50.3

B = Base less than 50,000,

U Value of agricultural products sold for larger farms is $100,000 and over; for midsize farms, $20,000-$99,999;

and for smaller farms, $1,000-$19,999.
Tobacco, Cotton/ Both tobacco and cotton farms are geographically concentrated.

and Other Nearly all tobacco farms are located in the South; in 1980,

Field-Crop Farms North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia,

and Virginia accounted for more than 90 percent of total U.S.

tobacco production. Cotton production is highly concentrated

in Texas, California, Arizona, and Mississippi, which together

produced 81 percent of the 1980 cotton crop (21). On the other

hand, other field-crop farms have varying specialities and are

dispersed throughout the country. For example, in Idaho,

Washington, Maine, and Oregon, the specialty is potatoes; in

North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and

Oklahoma, the specialty is peanuts; and in Hawaii, Florida, and

Louisiana, it is sugarcane.

About an eighth of the total farm population lived on these

three farm types--tobacco, cotton, and other field-crop—in

1980. Although the number of persons living on these farm

types declined by about 12 percent overall between 1975 and

1980, their proportionate share of the total changed little.

Individually, growth trends contrasted with heavy population

loss on both tobacco and cotton farms and substantial population increase on other field-crop operations.

As a group, tobacco, cotton, and other field-crop farms had a

heavy representation among blacks. In 1980, these three farm

types accounted for a third of all black farm people, compared

with roughly a tenth for whites. The heavy representation of

blacks is related to their historic concentration on tobacco

and cotton farms. As late as 1969, these two farm types

accounted for half of all black-operated farms, and despite

significantly heavy rates of decline, they still accounted for

a third of the black total in 1978. However, blacks on tobacco

farms are more likely to be in operator households, whereas

those on cotton farms are more likely to live in nonoperator

households. These variations reflect the differences in farm

size and the use of hired labor on these two farm types. The

1978 Agricultural Census reported that the average cotton farm

consisted of 719 acres compared with just 99 acres for tobacco

farms. The labor on the smaller tobacco farm is usually furnished by the farm operator and family members; less than a

tenth of all tobacco farms reported the use of regular hired

labor in 1978. On the other hand, about two-fifths of all

cotton farms reported the use of regular hired labor. These

regular hired farm laborers, who work 150 days or more, are

often housed in rent-free nonoperator dwellings.

The relative distribution of the population residing on tobacco, cotton, and other field-crop farms is consistent with

the distribution of farms by type. In 1959, cotton farms were

the most numerous and tobacco ranked second, but beginning in

the 1964 Agricultural Census, this order reversed and tobacco

farms became more important. By 1974, cotton farms had dropped

from second to third rank. The shift in relative importance

among these three farm types resulted primarily from the sharp

decline in cotton farming as production shifted to fewer but

larger onerations. The number of cotton farms with sales of

29
$2,500 or more declined by about a fourth between 1969 and

1978, ^ile the number of tobacco farms in this category increased by about a fifth and the number of other field-crop

farms more than doubled.

Settlement patterns contrasted among these three farm types by

value of sales. Nearly three-fourths of all persons on tobacco

farms lived on places in the smaller farms sales class. Tobacco farms are typically not large agricultural units, and on

the average, market value of agricultural products sold from

tobacco farms is lower than on any of the nine specified types.

In 1978, the average value of sales per tobacco farm was

$16,679 a year; the national average for all farms was $43,560.

Other field-crop farms had the next lowest average sales, and

similarly, about half of all people on these farms were also on

places with sales of less than $20,000 annually. On the other

hand, persons on cotton farms are more likely to be on places

with annual sales of $100,000 or more.

Although the population on these three farm types is more

likely to be on farms where the operator has an ownership interest, tenancy remains relatively high, especially on cotton

farms.

Vegetable, and Vegetable production is concentrated on a relatively small numFruit and Nut ber of large and highly specialized farms, Vegetable farms are

Farms widely scattered with significant concentrations in California,

Florida, Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, Texas, and New Jersey.

In 1978, these States accounted for more than 40 percent of all

U.S. vegetable and melon farms. The more numerous fruit and

nut farms are also highly specialized, but they are concentrated in just a few localities, more than half are in California

and Florida.

In 1978, 35,000 vegetable farms and 90,000 fruit and nut farms

represented 1 and 4 percent, respectively, of all U.S. farms.

Roughly 300,000 persons lived on these two farm types in 1980.

As a group, these farms evidenced population stability between

1975 and 1980. The apparent slight population gain on vegetable farms and the population loss on fruit and nut farms were

not statistically significant.

Wiites predominated on vegetable, and fruit and nut farms; only

13,000 blacks and 23,000 persons of Spanish origin lived on

such farms in 1980. Persons on these types of farms were three

times more likely to live in the combined Northern and Western

States than in the South, but their proportionate share of the

total by regional location differed little.

Vegetable, and fruit and nut farms are similar to tobacco,

cotton, and other field-crop farms in that both groups have a

relatively high proportion of their population classed as nonoperator. In 1980, only 47,000 persons lived in other dwellings on vegetable, and fruit and nut farms, but these persons

constituted 16 percent of the total population residing on such

farms, a proportion that is higher than on any other type

30 .
except cotton. The presence of nonoperator population is

highly associated with the presence of farm wa Not

only are vegetable, and fruit and nut farms likely to use hired

labor, but they also hire more workers per farm. A study by

Robert Coltrane on expenditures for hired labor by type of farm

found that, among operations reporting expenditures, these

farms spend considerably more for labor than other farm types.

In 1978, a fourth of the total $7.7 billion reported as hired

and contract labor expenses c¿me from vegetable and melon, and

fruit and tree nut farms (5^).

Contrary to popular notion, smaller farms are not the primary

growers of berries, melons, and other fruits and vegetables;

larger farms are the major producers of these products. However, these enterprises, with annual sales of $100,000 or more,

contain only 25 percent of the total population residing on

such farms (table 12). Half of all persons living on vegetable, and fruit and nut farms were on places in the smaller

farm sales category.

Livestock Farms Livestock farms accounted for 42 percent of all U.S. farms in

1978, and more people lived on these farms than on any other

type. Roughly 4 out of every 10 farm residents lived on livestock farms in 1980 (table 9). These farms were also the most

populous in 1975, but population growth, mostly at the expense

of cash-grain farms, resulted in an increase in their relative

importance in the distribution of farm people.

Livestock specializations include cattle and calves, hogs and

pigs, sheep and lanbs, and goats, but the typical livestock

operation specializes in only one kind of animal (13). Livestock farms are generally large in terms of acreage; in 1978,

they contained more than half of all land in farms. Marketings

from these farms are high, and their sales accounted for 33

percent of the total value of all farm products sold. Livestock farms are concentrated mostly in Texas, Missouri, Iowa,

and Oklahoma. In 1978, these four States contained 31 percent

of all livestock farms (16).

In 1980, livestock farms had the highest proportion of both

white and black farm residents. At the beginning of the study

period, the predominance of livestock farm residents pertained

only to whites. At that time, cash-grain and tobacco farms

were more populous, with each containing about 30 percent of

the black total. However, heavy black population loss during

1975-80 on these two farm types substantially reduced their

relative importance. Spanish-origin farm residents are also

more likely to live on livestock farms than any other type.

In the combined Northern and Western States, neither the number

nor the proportion of livestock farm residents differed significantly between 1975 and 1980 (table 10). In comparison, the

number of southern livestock farm residents increased significantly over this period, and their share of the region's total

rose to nearly half. Despite this population growth, more

people live on livestock farms outside the South. In 1980, the

31
number of farm people was distributed about equally between

livestock and cash-grain farms in the combined North and West,

Livestock operations often require large numbers of hired farm

laborerSs and the nonoperator population is heavily represented

on such farms. In 1978, nearly a fifth of all regular and

year-round farmworkers were on livestock farms (16).

In 1980s an above-average proportion of livestock farm residents lived on farms where the operator was classified as a

full owner (table II), According to the agricultural census,

owned land accounted for 66 percent of the total acreage in

livestock farms. Livestock farm residents also made up the

largest share--47 percent--of the total full-owner population.

However, the dominance of this type did not pertain to persons

living on a farm where the operator was either a part owner or

a tenant. In the distribution of the part-owner population,

livestock and cash-grain farm residents had about equal proportions of the total; in the tenant population, cash-grain farm

residents dominated.

In terms of sales value, more than two-thirds of all livestock

farm residents lived on places with less than $20,000 worth of

agricultural products sold (table 12), Only tobacco farm residents had a higher proportion of their total in this sales

category. In the distribution of the small farm population,

livestock farm residents constitute more than half of the

total, a concentration heavier than that for any other type by

sales class (fig. 3), Part-time farmers, many with sales of

less than $20,000 annually, often engage in livestock production. A large number of U.S. farms raise a small number of

cows for beef-calf production. Beef cows, along with hay, are

two of the most important commodities raised by small farmers

(13). These small, part-time producers, employed primarily in

nonfarm work, raise livestock to supplement their nonfarm income. Some livestock operations, such as a cow-calf enterprise

that can be operated after regular working hours and on weekends, are ideal for part-time farming (11).

Dairy Farms Both the number of dairy farms and the number of farms with

milk cows have declined substantially. Milk production, which

was once almost universal on farms in the United States, has

become a very specialized farm activity. Dairying as a sideline activity has virtually disappeared, along with milk production for home use.

The typical dairy farm is one which is proprietor-operated and

has sufficient acreage (on the average, 294 acres) to raise

most of the feed supply and dairy herd replacement. Dairy

farms are concentrated in the North Central and Middle Atlantic

States. In 1978, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania,

Ohio, and Michigan accounted for 62 percent of all dairy farms

(11). Climate and soil in these States are most suited to

raising grains and forage for cattle and to provide pastureland

for grazing.

Z2
In 1980, 922,000 persons lived on dairy farms. Although population on these farms decreased at an above-average rate between 1975 and 1980, their ranking among farm types has not

changed significantly. Since the data were first collected in

1973, about an eighth of the total farm population has resided

on dairy farms, which rank third in number of persons.

Regardless of geographic location, dairy farming is almost entirely conducted by white farmers. The 1978 Agricultural

Census reported only 437 black-operated dairy farms. Less than

1 percent of all persons living on dairy farms were black, and

they were most likely to live in nonoperator households.

Spanish-origin farm residents were somewhat more likely to live

on dairy farms, in contrast to blacks, as occupants of the

operator's rather than of the nonoperator's household. Nine

percent of the Spanish-origin farm population was located on

dairy farms in 1980.

About 9 out of every 10 dairy farm residents lived in the combined Northern and Western States. Thus, in the distribution

of farm people by type, dairy farm residents account for a much

higher proportion of the farm population in the North and West

than in the South. All of the population loss on dairy farms

between 1975 and 1980 occurred in the North and West; in the

1973-75 period, population declined on dairy farms regardless

of region of residence.

Technological innovations, such as the milking parlor and automatic dairy equipment (bulk milk tank cleaners, pipeline

milkers, silo unloaders, and barn cleaners) have resulted in

substantial substitution of mechanical power for hired labor on

dairy farms (11). Nevertheless, these farms still rank high in

use of regular hired laborers. In 1978, 36 percent of all

dairy farms reported the use of regular hired labor, and in

1980, 18 percent of the total nonoperator population lived on

these farms.

Persons living on dairy farms were highly concentrated in terms

of both value of agricultural products sold and the tenure

status of the operator. In 1980, 58 percent of the dairy population resided on midsize farms, and 56 percent resided on

farms where the operator was a part owner. These concentrations existed regardless of region of residence, but there were

significant variations. The probability of the population

living on midsize farms was significantly higher for residents

in the North and West than for those in the South; the likelihood of the population living on part-owner operations was

stronger for residents in the Southern States.

The population on dairy farms makes up a significantly higher

proportion of the population on larger and midsize farms than

on smaller farms. More than 20 percent of the total population

on each of these two upper sales categories lived on dairy

farms in 1980. On smaller farms, the dairy farm population

represented only 3 percent of the total (fig. 3).

33
Poultry and Poultry and eggs were once produced by millions of farms as

Miscellaneous sideline enterprises. Today, they are principally produced by

Farms highly specialized large-scale operations, \^ich are relatively

few in number but produce the bulk of poultry and egg supplies

(11). In 1978, 45 percent of all poultry and egg farms had

sales in excess of $100,000. Poultry farms accounted for 98

percent of the total value of sales of all poultry and poultry

products. Although poultry farms are found throughout the

country, they are mostly concentrated in the broiler producing

areas of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Delaware, and

Maryland (16).

In this study, miscellaneous farms include: (1) those farms

producing nursery and greenhouse products; (2) those farms

principally selling either forest products, horses and mules,

or other miscellaneous livestock products; and (3) those farms

selling several types of farm products. In the latter group,

the types of products sold in the various parts of the country

differed widely.

About 300,000 persons lived on poultry and miscellaneous farms

in 1980, representing 4 percent of the total U.S. farm population (table 9). Between 1975 and 1980, the number of persons

residing on these two farm types increased by 30 percent, a

rate exceeded only among residents of other field-crop enterprises. Regional location was not a significant factor, but

the rate of increase among persons residing on these two types

of farms in the Southern States was somewhat higher than among

those in the combined Northern and Western States (table 10).

Persons on poultry and miscellaneous farms are very likely to

live on a full-owner operation because large acreages are not

required for poultry operations. Although they account for

only 7 percent of the total full-owner population, more than 70

percent of all persons residing on this group of farms lived on

places where the operator owned all of the land operated (table

10). In the distribution of their population among the three

broad sales classes, poultry farm residents were more likely to

live on a midsize farm whereas miscellaneous farm residents

were more likely to live on smaller farms.

DISCUSSION The trend in American agriculture toward fewer, larger, and

more efficient farms has been accompanied by a decline in the

number of farm residents. As farms become more specialized and

production and sales become more concentrated, the distribution

of the farm population by characteristics of the farm also

changes.

Most farm residents continue to live on farms where there is an

ownership interest. The majority of these farms are full-owner

operations, but the shift continues toward residence on partowner farms. This shift reflects the rise in the number of

part-owner operators, who combine the security of an owned

enterprise with the economies of size provided by rental units

to obtain a viable operation.

34
Larger farms are increasing in number and are projected to continue to increase through 1990. These farms, \diich account for

nearly two-thirds of total farm output and slightly more than

one-third of all farmland, do not contain the bulk of the farm

population. In 1980, only a fifth of the total farm population

resided on larger farms. However, these larger farms were the

only ones on the value of sales continuum to experience significant population increase. Both midsize farms and smaller

farms continue to experience farm population decline. Smaller

farms represent nearly two-thirds of all U.S. farms and contain the largest share of farm population. About half of all

farm residents reside on smaller farms. These farms are a

diverse group which contributes little to total farm output,

and many have a high dependence on nonfarm income.

The relative ranking of the farm population among the various

farm types has been and will continue shifting. Nevertheless,

the farm population remains highly concentrated on livestock,

cash-grain, and dairy farms. The degree of farm population

concentration is highly associated with regional variations in

farms by type. For example, persons living on farms in the

combined Northern and Western States are as likely to reside on

a livestock farm as a cash-grain farm. In 1980, each of these

two types contained about a third of the regional total. In

the South, however, livestock farms are the most populous type.

Nearly half of all southern farm residents lived on livestock

farms. About 9 out of every 10 dairy farm residents lived in

the North and West.

The forces that produce changes in the farm sector directly

affect farm people. The demonstrated relationships between

specified farm characteristics and farm population indicate

that shifts in production and efficiency can significantly

alter the number and distribution of farm residents. It is not

possible to say how much farm people will be affected by future

developments in agriculture, but farm people will be most responsive and susceptible to policies and programs relating to

livestock and cash-grain farming.

35
LITERATURE CITED 1, Banks, Vera J. Farm Population Trends and Farm Characteristics. RDRR-3, Ü.S, Dept. Agr•, Econ. Stat, Coop.

Serv,, Dec. 1978.

2. . Farm Population Estimates for 1975. AER-352.

U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Oct. 1976.

^* ___* and Calvin L. Beale. Farm Population by Race,

Tenure, and Economic Scale of Farming 1966 and 1970.

AER-228. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., June 1972.

, and Judith Z. Kalbacher. U.S. Farm Population,

1980. ESS-5. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Stat. Serv., June

1981.

5. Coltrane, Robert !• Immigration Reform and Agricultural

Labor. Forthcoming Agricultural Economic Report. U.S. Dept.

Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., 1984.

6. Larson, Olaf F. "Agriculture and the Community,"

Nonmetropolitan America in Transition. Chapel Hill, N.C.:

Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1981, Chapter 4, pp. 148-193.

7. Lin, William, George Coffman, and J. B. Penn. U.S. Farm

Numbers, Sizes, and Related Structural Dimensions: Projections to year 2000. TB-1625. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ.

Stat. Coop. Serv. , July 1980.

8. Maier, Frank H., Sheridan T. Maitland, and Gladys K.

Bowles. The Tenure Status of Farmworkers in the United

States. TB-1217. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv. and

Agr. Mktg. Serv., July 1960.

9. Pollack, Susan L. The Hired Farm Working Force of 1979.

AER-473. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Aug. 1981.

10. Salomon, Sonya, and Kathleen K. Markan. "Incorporation

and the Farm Family." Paper presented at Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, San Francisco, Calif.,

Sept. 1982.

11. Schertz, Lyle P., and others. Another Revolution in U.S.

Farming. AER-441. U.S. Dept, Agr., Econ. Stat. Coop.

Serv., Dec. 1979.

12. Taylor, Carl C, and others. Rural Life in the United

States. New York, N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1949.

13. U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry. Status of the Family Farm: Farm Organization

and Performance in the 1970''s. Ninety-seventh Congress,

1st Session. Feb. 1982.

36
14. , Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry. Status of the Family Farm. Ninety-sixth

Congress, 1st Session. June 1979.

15. U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Households and Families, by

Type: March 1981 (Advance Report)," Current Population

Reports. Series P-20, No. 367, Oct. 1981.

16. . "Summary and State Data," Census of Agriculture. 1978, 1974, and earlier years.

17. . "1979 Farm Finance Survey," 1978 Census of

Agriculture. Vol. 5, Part 6, 1982.

1^' _____--___ ^^^ U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Farm Population of the United States: (for specified year),"

Current Population Reports. Series P-27.

19. "Farm Population of the United States: 1975,

1980, and 1981," Current Population Reports. Series P-27,

No. 47, 54, and 55. Sept. 1976, Sept. 1981, and Nov.

1982.

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

U.S. Farm Population (specified year) and Farm Population

Estimates (for specified year).

^^• , Statistical Reporting Service. Crop Production.

CrPr 2-2(8-82). Aug. 1982.

22. _^ . Scope and Methods of the Statistical Reporting

Service. vMP-1308, Sept. 1983.

37
APPENDIX

Definitions and Population coverage. Population estimates in this report reExptanations late to the 48 conterminous States and thus exclude Alaska and

Hawaii•

iFarm population. The farm population consists of all persons

living on places from \diich $1,000 or more of agricultural

products were sold, or normally would have been sold, in the

reporting year. Persons in institutions, summer camps, motels,

and tourist camps, and those persons living on rented places

where no land is used for farming are classified as nonfarm.

Race. The population is divided into three groups on the basis

of race: white, black, and other races. The last category

includes Indians, Japanese, Chinese, and any other race except

white and black. In this report, estimates are shown separately for whites and blacks, and in the text, the term "race"

refers to this division. Estimates for other races are included in estimâtes for the total but are not shown separately.

For operator households, race relates to the farm operator

only, and the race of other members of this household is

assumed to be the same as that of the farm operator. For the

population in other dwelling units on farms, that is, the nonoperator population, race relates to the head of the household.

Persons of Spanish origin. Persons of Spanish origin are those

whose ethnic origin or descent was Mexican, Puerto Rican,

Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Spanish origin.

Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race.

Operator population. Persons living in the farm operator's

household.

Nonoperator population. Persons living rent free in other

dwellings on farms.

Tenure. The tenure classifications are restricted to farm

operators and their rights on the land operated. The tenure

of farm operators is based on replies to inquiries about land

owned, land rented from others, and land rented to others.

Value of sales. Value of sales is based on gross income received from the sale of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock

and poultry products, horticultural commodities, and miscellaneous agricultural products. All sales data relate to 1

year's farm operation. Crop sales represent the crops produced

in the preceding year which have been sold or will be sold even

though some sales will occur after the end of the calendar

year. Sales of livestock and poultry and their products relate

to the calendar year of the sale regardless of when raised or

produced. In the JES, all Government program pa3rments received

in the preceding year are included in the value of sales. It

is only in this respect that the sales data in this report

differ from those obtained in the Census of Agriculture. Under

38
census procedures, the income from government payments and

loans is not included in the value of sales.

Type of farm. The type-of-farm classification represents a

description of the major source of income from farm sales. The

JES classifies a farm as a particular type based on the product

having the largest percentage of total sales in the reporting

year. This classification is somewhat more liberal than in the

Census of Agriculture where, to be classified as a particular

type, a farm must have sales of a particular product or group

of products amounting in value to 50 percent or more of the

total value of all farm products sold during the year.

The types of farms, together with the products on which type

classification is based, are described as follows:

Type of farm

Cash grain

Commodity or

livestock item

Corn, sorghum, small grains, flax,

soybeans for beans, cowpeas for

peas, dry edible and seed beans,

dry peas, and rice

Tobacco Tobacco

Cotton

Other field crops

Vegetable

Fruit and nut

Cotton

Peanuts, potatoes (Irish and

sweet), sugarcane, broomcorn,

popcorn, sugar beets, mint, hops,

seed crops, hay, silage, and forage

All vegetables and melon crops

Berries, other small fruits,

citrus, tree fruits, grapes, and

nuts

Livestock

Poultry

Dairy

Miscellaneous

Cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, goats,

wool, and mohair

Chickens, eggs, turkeys, ducks, and

other poultry products

Milk and cream, plus sales of dairy

cattle

Nursery and greenhouse products,

forest products, mules, horses,

bees and honey, and government

payments

Rounding. The individual figures in this report are rounded to

the nearest thousand without adjustment to group totals, which

are independently rounded. Percentages are rounded to the

39
Source and

Re líability

of the Estimates

nearest tenth of a percent; thererore, tne percentages in a

distribution do not always add to exactly 100 percent.

Source of data. Estimates in this report are based on data

obtained in the 1980 and 1975 June Enumerative Surveys of the

Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The JES is conducted annually in the 48 conterminous States.

In 1980, the basic area frame sample included about 15,600 area

segments. The number varies by State according to land area

and importance and diversity of agriculture. The area segments

(sampling units) are completely enumerated; they included about

126,000 separate tracts, each represented by a different operator, who is contacted in person for information. In both 1975

and 1980, information was obtained from about 22,000 farm

households associated with these sample segments.

Reliability of the estimates. Since the estimates are based on

a sample, they may differ somewhat from figures that would be

obtained if a complete census count had been taken. As in any

survey work, the results are subject to error of response and

of reporting as well as to sampling variability.

The standard error of estimates, which measures variations that

occur by chance because a sample rather than the whole of a

population is surveyed, was computed for each population

characteristic. All statements of comparison made in the text

of this report are statistically significant at the 95 percent

confidence level. This means that the chances are at least 19

in 20 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.

The sample design and the varying sampling rates do not permit

a concise generalized table showing approximate order of magnitude of standard error for estimated numbers. The 1980 U.S.

farm population total in this report was 7,045,000. The standard error for this estimate was 44,000. The chances are 68

out of 100 that the estimates would differ from a complete

census count by less than this amount. The chances are 95 out

of 100 that the estimate would differ from a complete census

count by less than 88,000 (twice the standard error).

40 •U.S. GOVERIMEHT PBIKTIHG OÏPICE : 1984 0-420-932/HIS-2063
Relate¿SseS£^

copees oi th-.s report^ .^ ^^ -^S^Z'^^Ti^'^ '''''''

can be P-c^-^,::3: ^ address or ca« the GPO orde ^3.0^-906664

20402. \Nnte to the above ^^^ ^^^ ^, 00¿ "

Price: ^^^

CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS

Form Population

Series P-27, No. 56

Form Population of the

United States: 1982

U.S. Department of Commerce

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

U.S. Department of Agriculture

ECONOMIC RESEARCH

SERVICE

Figure 1

Percent of Population Living on Farms by Race: 1920 to 1982

1920

1