Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:12:14.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in Selected Characteristics of U. S. Farms During the 1970s and Early 1980s: An Investigation Based on Current and Constant Dollar Sales Categories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Carl R. Zulauf
Carl R. Zulauf*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Changes since 1970 in the distribution of selected farm characteristics among constant and current dollar farm sales categories were examined. In general, the same trends emerged but changes were less dramatic after adjusting for inflation. The increasing concentration of net farm income among farms with sales exceeding $500,000 was attributed in part to their continuing high ratio of gross farm income to expenses (approximately 145 percent). Farms with sales between $10,000 and $500,000 became more dependent on nonfarm income. This dependency is postulated to result from a farm income treadmill and use of nonfarm income to cope with the treadmill.

Keywords

deflated farm salesfarm sizeconcentrationnonfarm income
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , July 1986 , pp. 113 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldwin, S. Poverty and Politics: The Rise and Decline of the Farm Securities Administration. University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1968.Google Scholar
Barlett, P. F. “Microdynamics of Debt, Drought, and Default in South Georgia.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66(1984): 836–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, J. B. “Future Directions for Agricultural Policy.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66(1984):234–239.Google Scholar
Ehrensaft, P., LaRamee, P., Bollman, R. D., and Buttel, F. H.. “The Microdynamics of Farm Structural Change in North America: The Canadian Experience and Canada - U. S. A. Comparisons.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66(1984):823–828.Google Scholar
Faris, J. E. and Armstrong, D. L.. Economies Associated with Size, Kern County Cash-Crop Farms. Giannini Foundation Res. Rep. 269; University of California, 1963.Google Scholar
Gladwin, C. H. and Zabawa, R.. “Microdynamics of Contraction Decisions: A Cognitive Approach to Structural Change.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66(1984):829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, David H. and Manchester, Alden C.. “Profile of the U. S. Farm Sector.” Agricultural-Food Policy Review: Commodity Program Perspectives. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agricultural Report Number 530; July, 1985; pp. 25–53.Google Scholar
Houthakker, H. S. Economic Policy for the Farm Sector. Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1967.Google Scholar
Kada, Ryohei. Part-Time Family Farming: Off Farm Employment and Farm Adjustments in the United States and Japan. Tokyo: Center for Academic Publications Japan, 1980.Google Scholar
Krause, K. R. and L. R. Kyle. “Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of Large Farming Units: The Current Situation and Probable Trends.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 52(1970):748–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. E. Jr.. “Some Consequences of the New Reality in U. S. Agriculture.” Farms in Transition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Edited by Brewster, D. E., Rasmussen, W. D., and Youngberg, G.; Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1983, pp. 322.Google Scholar
Lin, W., Coffman, G., and Penn, J. B.. “U. S. Farm Numbers, Sizes, and Related Structural Dimensions: Projections to Year 2000.” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, National Economics Division. Technical Bulletin 1625, July, 1980.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, A. D. “Has Our Present Agricultural Policy Process Failed?” Farm Policy Perspectives: Setting the Stage for 1985 Agricultural Legislation. 98th congress, 2nd Session; Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Committee Print: S. Pit. 98-174; April, 1984, pp. 77–94.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. N. “Classification Criteria for Size and Type of Farm.” Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Farm Sector Review, 1983. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Economics Division; ECIFS 3-2; August, 1984.Google Scholar
President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. The People Left Behind. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office; September, 1967.Google Scholar
Salant, P. “Farm Households and the Off-Farm Sector: Results from Mississippi and Tennessee.” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agricultural Economics Research Report No. 143; January, 1984.Google Scholar
Schertz, L. P. “A Dramatic Transformation.” Another Revolution in U.S. Farming? Schertz, L. P. and Others. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic, and Statistics Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. 441; November, 1980, pp. 13–40.Google Scholar
Schultz, T. W. Economic Organization of Agriculture. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1953.Google Scholar
Smith, E. G., Richardson, J. W., and Knutson, R. D.. “Cost and Pecuniary Economics in Cotton Production and Marketing: A Study of Texas Southern High Plains Cotton Producers.” Texas A & M University; Bulletin 1475; College Station, Texas; August, 1984.Google Scholar
Stanton, B. F. “Perspective on Farm Size.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 60(1978):727–737.Google Scholar
Strickland, R. P. “The Negative Income of Small Farms.” Agr. Econ. Res., 35(1983):52–55.Google Scholar
Tew, B. V., Spurlock, S., Musser, W. N., and Miller, B. R.. “Some Evidence on Pecuniary Economies of Size for Farm Firms.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 12,1(1980):151–154.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. Causes and Consequences of Structural Change in the Farming Industry. Washington: National Planning Association; 1984.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L., Cilley, G. B., and Popoola, I.. “Typology and Policy for Small Farms.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 12,2(1980):77–85.Google Scholar
U. S. Congress. Report of the Country Life Commission. Senate Document 705. 60th Congress, 2nd Session, 1909.Google Scholar
U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture: A Special Report for the 1985 Farm Bill. OTA-F-272; March, 1985.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics: 1984. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1984.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Economics Division. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1980. Statistical Bulletin 674; September, 1981.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Economics Division. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1983. ECIFS 3-3; September, 1984.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. Structure Issues of American Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report 438; November, 1979.Google Scholar
van Blokland, P. T. “Large Farms Have More Than Their Share of Income and Expenses.” AgriFinance, (March, 1984):64–66.Google Scholar
van Blokland, P. T. “Time for a New Definition of ‘Farm’” AgriFinance, (February, 1984): 70 and 74–75.Google Scholar