No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Farm and Non-Farm Alternatives for Increasing Incomes of Small New York State Dairy Farms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2017
Extract
Cochrane has described the shape of modern agriculture as a world with highly productive, commercial farmers at one extreme and the world of poor, low-production farmers at the other. In the highly productive world, technology and farm expansion have resulted in increased yields and production on many farms. In contrast, many low-production farms provide no more than poverty level incomes for the farm operators and their families. Their problems stem largely from the fact that many of these farm operators are old, poorly educated and have limited and poor quality resources. Many have been unable to take advantage of the exploding technology and the scale economies accompanying increases in farm size. A third group, the “transition” group, forms the continuum between the two extremes. Some of its members, like young farmers just getting started, are improving their operations and moving into the “commercial world.” For others, who perhaps lack the financing or managerial capacity to compete in a modern agriculture, the transition is in the opposite direction.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , April 1975 , pp. 20 - 36
- Copyright
- Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association
References
1. Brunk, H. C., Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, 2nd ed. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1965.Google Scholar
2. Cochrane, W. W., The City Man's Guide to the Farm Problem. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1965.Google Scholar
3. Hathaway, Dale E., Government and Agriculture. New York: Macmillan and Company, 1963.Google Scholar
4. Hightower, Jim, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Washington, D. C.: Agri-business Accountability Project, 1972.Google Scholar
5. National Fertilizer Development Center, Proceedings of the Workshop on Methods of Working with Limited Resource Farmers. Muscle Shoals, Alabama: Tennessee Valley Authority, May 1972.Google Scholar
6. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. 1972—Cornell Recommends for Field Crops. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University, September 1971.Google Scholar
7. President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, The People Left Behind. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969.Google Scholar
8. Tweeten, Luther, and Ray, Daryll, Impact of Public Compensation Policies. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1972.Google Scholar
9. U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1969. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971.Google Scholar
10. U. S. Congress, Rural Development Act of 1972. Public Law 92–419, August 30, 1972.Google Scholar
11. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1973. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973.Google Scholar
13. Wardle, Christopher, “Farm and Non-Farm Alternatives for Improving the Income Position of Small New York State Dairy Farmers,” Unpublished Master's Thesis, Cornell University, 1974.Google Scholar
14. Wardle, Christopher, and Boisvert, R. N., Farm and Non-Farm Alternatives for Limited Resource Dairy Farmers in Central New York. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, A. E. Res. 74-6, July 1974.Google Scholar
15. West, J. G., and Kiehl, E. R., “Public Institutions and Rural Development,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 29, No. 1, (January-February 1974), pp. 14–17.Google Scholar