34M,» 267 1,1‘, 1957 Qnw. ' The Farmer and Hi: Market fikfi IAIY“! i" QDK P07 VII ZIG 6M1 OCH-U K- "fii filil Nil flhilfi SISHCI IMSOM HALL ILUVD DVLCI 001R! LAIO an! mm an "‘ "QV LVN. ‘I'll IIIY 1L5 CCCC LL The heavy black lines show the area covered in the survey. in cooperation with the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS SUMMARY * In an effort to determine the pattern behavior of farmers in the markets they A patronize, 277 farmers were interviewed during July and August 1956. The survey was f made in eight counties — Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Robertson, Madison, Freestone, Leon I and Walk-er. "Y The questions included in the schedule were primarily qualitative. They were in large part “open” in the sense the farm-er was given free choice in his responses. Forty-two percent of the farmers had lived in the sam-e vicinity for 30 years or more of their adult lives, and 24 percent on the same farm for 30 years or more. Sev- enty-one percent of the farmers had liv-ed in the same vicinity for 15 years or more and 47 percent had lived on the same farm for 15 years or more. Ninety-two percent of the farmers reported that the radio was the most popular source of market information. Forty-three percent of the farmers obtained market in- formation from newspapers. One-third of the farmers received special market reports. Livestock production was by far the most important farm enterprise. Eighty- eight percent of the farmers interviewed raised cattle and 38 percent produced hogs. Fifty-two percent grew cotton. The local auction was the most important market agency patronized by cattle pro- ducers. Seventy-five per-cent of the cattle-men made sales through the auction, 50 per- cent in full and 25 percent in part. The local buyer was first choice among hog producers; 37 percent made sales in full and 13 percent in part to him. The farmers’ general attitude toward the local auction was evidenced by their comments in that for every unfavorable statement there were 14 favorable. Of the 277 farm-ers interviewed, 155, or 56 percent, had had no experience with cooperative marketing or cooperative supply associations. The prevalence of the livestock enterprise may be one of the reasons for the low ebb of cooperative activity in the area under study. Among livestock men in Texas, co- operative livestock marketing in the local area is almost nonexistent. Endorsement of cooperative activity as given by the farmers interviewed centered around better prices and cash dividends resulting from successful operations. ‘i E-R-fi;A-T-A Bulletin 867 The Farmer and His Market éiigurés 1 and 6 are reversed. The chart §enown as Figure 6 is Figure 1, and the véchart shown as Figure l is Figure 6. r IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, commercial iculture with its ever-growing marketing s is of comparatively recent origin. Such 0n as the complexities of marketing has » ed, has been focused mainly on the distrib- system from the farmers’ local market to nsumers’ retail market. the studies and researches concerned with ‘ ing, little attention has been directed to- the farmers who are vitally affected. A t of marketing should display interest in he farmer reacts toward the marketing I , favorably or unfavorably. rge M. Beal of Iowa State College inter- w 268 members of Iowa agricultural coop- ” es to ascertain their general attitude, degree i onage and concrete understanding of their tive organizations. (This study was report- Iowa Farm Science, July 1954.) A high tage indicated no feeling of responsibility t their cooperative. The vast number who ped around” before trading with their coop- ‘e suggests that many members feel free ronize their association when that is advan- s and to patronize competitors of their own ss organization when that is immediately _ tageous. e business operations of local and regional izations received major emphasis in recent lwide studies of agricultural cooperatives in . However, the status and behavior of the received little attention. These studies ported in Bulletin 782, “Business and Finan- v nalysis of Local Cooperative Associations of , Season 1949-50,” and Bulletin 803, “In- and Cost Analysis—Cooperative Cotton Gins . ooperative Supply Associations of Texas, 3 1949-50,” of the Texas Agricultural Ex- gent Station. In the present study, steps taken to consider the important aspects of ership; representative farmers were sur- f» regardless of whether they belonged to co- tives. The primary objective of this study to concentrate on the behavior pattern of yers in the markets they patronize. SCOPE OF STUDY a e scope of this study is exploratory. A small including eight counties, Brazos, Burleson, es, Robertson, Madison, Freestone, Leon and er, was selected for obtaining schedules from ‘ers during July and August 1956. No at- t was made to select a sample that could be ded to represent the total farm population. ‘- the type of road to market is important in T he Farmer and Hi1 Market W. E. PAULSON, Professor "Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology the farmer’s marketing activities, farmers were selected according to the various kinds» of roads within the country. It was proposed to obtain schedules from 30 to 40 farmers in each county. A total of 277 schedules was taken in the survey. Questions included in the schedule were pri- marily of the open type (questions that do not suggest a specific answer) to insure that the re- sponses of the farmers were as much free choice as possible. The information sought was, in large measure, qualitative in character. The homesteads of two-thirds of the farmers interviewed were on paved roads, U.S., State and farm-to-market, Figure 1. The one-third of farm- ers living on unpaved roads were 11 miles from market, on an average. A minimum of information was collected re- garding pertinent features of the farm populations» Of the farmers interviewed, .84 percent were white, 15 percent Negro and 1 percent Latin- American. In age groupings, 2 percent were less than 30 and 18 percent less than 40 years old. Oge-third of the farmers were 6O years of age or ol er. Forty-two percent of the farmers owned all the land operated; 41 percent added rented land to the land owned. Most of this rented land was in pasture. Seventeen percent of the farmers rented all the land operated. Nine percent of the farms contained less than 50 acres; 20 percent were less than 100 acres in size; 39 percent were 400 acres in size or larger. STABILITY OF FARM POPULATION The relative stability of the farm population could be of considerable importance in the devel- CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Stability of Farm Population . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Grocery _Markets Patronized . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Principal Farm Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Popularity oi Local Livestock Auctions . . . 5 Farmers’ Estimates oi Livestock Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Experience oi Farmers with Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 U U 8 8 a S lllnnlunlnnluuluullunlnulu:llnuhllllnul PcreentaqeAll Farmers I- 3 3 Q- __§_' jg" ‘i? é; ti". g 5° I-o £0 9° E3 3. l-l-L u; a. Z:- g +' “H i‘ "‘-' o§ x .2 a 5 fiat M “’ z Z Z i Figure 1. Types oi road passing homesteads oi farmers interviewed. opment of efficient farmer markets, especially as regards the farmer cooperative marketing asso- ciations. Of the farmers interviewed, 42 percent had lived in the same vicinity for 3O years or longer of their adult life; 24 percent had lived on the same farm for 3O years or longer. Seven- ty-one percent had lived in the same vicinity for 15 years or longer; 47 percent had lived on the same farm for 15 years or longer. Seventeen farmers out of every 20 interviewed subscribed to farm papers. Fifty percent of the farmers read daily papers. Weeklies of various types were received in 50 percent of the farm homes. ‘ The farmers were questioned as to sources of market information. Ninety-two percent of the farmers received market information over the radio, Figure 2. Forty-three percent mentioned newspapers as a source of market information. Thirty-nine percent indicated a familiarity with outlook reports. One-third received special mar- ket reports. A considerable percentage of these special reports concerned livestock prices re- leased by local livestock auctions. GROCERY MARKETS PATRONIZED A farmer’s trip to market is generally a two- way activity--a delivery of farm products sold in the market and a return trip with farm supplies, groceries and household goods purchased in the market. The farmers were questioned regarding the trading centers in which they purchased gro- ceries as clues to the markets in which they sold farm commodities and purchased farm supplies. 4 »- Twenty-one percent reported patronage at. With-Coop. try crossroad grocery stores. Half of theseiT ers purchased half or more of their groce these points. t In explaining reasons for selecting the 1 markets patronized farmers mentioned the tures most frequently: nearness and conve favorable prices and a-yQriety of produc considerable number of farmers expressed’ thusiastic loyalty to the hometown.‘ Citie farm machinery agencies and with favorabl kets for farm products received many fa comments. f The 5 percent of the farmers interview lived in cities purchased groceries in the- cities. Such situations as: off-the-farm ~§ ment in the cities, relatives living in the citi relatives in business were factors of consid weight in determining the cities in which f , , purchased groceries. a Seventeen percent of the farmers madf purchase a week; 20 percent made two = percent made three purchases a week. 95': 102 "A h °\ llllllalllll i ‘é llllllllll Perczniaqe All Farmers g: ~s limllnldilllnllnl“ R i.‘ nnlunlun S l Figure '2. Means used by farmers in ' gaining market information by kind and f A source. a A Feed. fifififififififi. I“"°*F ~:~:-:~:-:-:»:-: aid“ 1‘ ‘£3 "s2 +2 » E5 IE <3 1x ‘E5 Zn’. LEE cBo III! a 3. Principal farm supplies purchased by I to schedule. armers er of the farmers made four or more pur- p; a week. Forty-three percent of the farm- rchased all groceries in one city or town and ; ent made purchases in two cities or towns. large part of the farmers interviewed were sers of farm supplies, Figure 3. Eighty to _ cent purchased feed, seed and fertilizers. ty to 76 percent purchased insecticides, mo- .els, fencingirnaterials and hardware. Farm 'nery was purchased by 59 percent and baby by 46 percent of the farmers. PRINCIPAL FARM ENTERPRISES I e marketing problems of farmers are tied ly to the commodities produced for the mar- igure 4. The production of cattle was the . r 5“ I Peas m 5 o Z ~ é . Q *5 2 E i s- ": 9 i co U U 5 a p gure 4. Main products produced for the market. most important farm enterprise. Two hundred and forty-three farmers, or 88 percent of those interviewed, produced cattle. Thirty-eight per- cent raised hogs and 8 percent produced milk for the fluid market. Goats and sheep were of minor importance. Thirty-three percent of the farmers produced eggs for the market, 10 percent turkeys and 7 percent broilers. Cotton production was the second most important farm enterprise since 145, or 52 percent of all farmers, were cotton growers. Fifteen percent of the farmers produced corn for the market. Hay, sorghum grain and oats are un- important as marketable products in this area. iWatermelons lead in vegetable production, with 10 percent of the farmers as producers. Peas, tomatoes and sweet potatoes‘ were produced on only a few farms. POPULARITY OF LOCAL LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS In the marketing of cattle, the local auction was the agency most frequently used, Figure 5. Fifty percent of the cattle producers made sales exclusively through the auction. An added 25 percent sold a part of their livestock through the auction. Twenty percent of the cattle producers sold in terminal markets, 4 percent in full and 16 percent in part. Sixteen percent of the cattle producers sold exclusively to local buyers, local butchers and other farmers, and 15 percent sold in part to these outlets. Local buyers were the most important pur- chasing agency of hogs. Thirty-seven percent of the hog producers made exclusive sales to local buyers and 13 percent sold in part. The local auc- ti-on ranked second in importance, with 26 percent of the hog producers making exclusive sales and 9 percent in part through this agency. Terminal markets were patronized in full, or in part, by 17 percent of the hog producers. Sales to local butchers and to other farmers were made by 14 percent of the hog producers. In transportation to the local and terminal markets, 46 percent of the cattle producers and 70 percent of the hog growers used their own trucks. Commercial trucks were used by 16 percent of the cattlemen and 5 percent of the hog growers. The remainder of the cattle and hog producers used both commercial trucks and their own trucks. FARMERS’ ESTIMATES OF LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS The high percentage of livestock farmers pa- tronizing the local auction showed a strong en- dorsement of this agency. The ratio of favor- able to unfavorable comments concerning the auc- tion was 14 to 1. Mos-t of the unfavorable com- ments pertained to one auction which at the time of the survey was in the process of reorganization to eliminate its undesirable features. "A the local auction was next. q W l llll Cattle. B’ I '8 5 llllllllllllll fi ‘é l||||| ‘<2 6 lull Inn Pamwl-"lfijti- Car-file and. H03 Producers 3 R s it llJlllllll Q Buibhcr her F o 5 Figure 5. Main market outlets for cattle and hogs. Favorable prices at the auction received the highest vote of confidence. The convenience of The opportunity for selling in small lots and quick service frequently were given as reasons for patronizing the local auction. The livestock producers overwhelmingly favored selling livestock by weight rather than by the head. As for the unfavorable reactions, a few farm- ers, felt that buyers enjoyed a distinct advantage over farmers in the auction sales. Several farm- ers stated that it was necessary to have livestock for sale in the early period of sales or suffer a price sag in the later period of sales. Eighteen favorable comments were made rela- tive to the terminal market for livestock. Highest prices, advantages of sales in large lots and the best outlets for high quality livestock were men- tioned most frequently. Eight unfavorable com- ments were registered about sales in the terminal market. High transportation costs and too much shrinkage were mentioned most frequently. Of the 91 farmers producing eggs for the mar- ket, 54 made exclusive sales to grocery stores, 7 to produce buyers and 18 dire-ct to consumers. Of the 22 farmers who sold all, or part, direct to con- 6 sumers, 11 made delivery to the consu sold on the farm and 2 producers, who o, stores in the city, made delivery to consu r their stores. An additional 2 farmers s, clusively to hatcheries. * Sixty-five percent of the egg producers delivery" to the market 011C633. week; 20 i delivered twice a week, andtfi percent dc three times a week. = Local buyers were the most important outlets for turkey and broiler producers. \ cery stores were second in importance. ' All but 1 of the 145 cotton growers I‘ ized one gin exclusively. Thirty-one cotton, ers sold all their cotton to the gins patroniz 17 more sold a part of their cotton to th Thirty-one cotton growers sold all their i to local buyers and 16 more sold part of th ton to local buyers. Fifty cotton growers all their cotton in g-overnment loan and 31f placed a part of their cotton in loan. t growers, in general, expressed satisfactio their ginning service. ' The few farmers producing a surplus 0,. and hay made sales chiefly to neighboring _ ers. The remaining sales were made prin to local buyers. e. Almost without exception watermelon‘ 1 i marketed through a cooperative marketing ciation or sold direct to truckers. EXPERIENCE OF FARMERS WITH COOPERA According to the Directory of Texas a eratives, 1952, the 8 counties covered in thi‘ mi “E 4E 15E .,, _ >- : E ao- ,_ : t6 35C U- : I v5 <1 : % 15E <0 : "lg _. s "E L) _. 5 s 3 Q- 1 Figure 6. Relationships to marketing and supply eratives oi the iarmers interviewed. “ i a total of 11 supply and marketing co- ts. Of these, 4 were supply associations iere watermelon marketing associations. I; - cooperative gins and 1 a vegetable and 1 rketing association. Few farming areas k had as few supply and marketing coop- , as the one covered in this survey. As a nce, this study does not yield a repre- F view of agricultural cooperatives in Tex- relatively long residence of the farmers in ity and the long tenure on the "farms they should be important contributing factors rmation and maintenance of cooperatives. y. these favorable factors have been in- e. The prevalence of livestock produc- the area covered partly explains the low tive activity. Except for the cooperative ion association in the Fort Worth market, tive marketing among Texas livestock pro- is almost nonexistent. The few coopera- 2: auctions that have been organized usual- k had only a brief period of operation. the 277 farmers interviewed, 155, or 56 , have had no experience with cooperative ‘ng and supply associations, Figure 6. Sev- 10f the farmers formerly were members of tives, but, at the time of the survey, they then belong to a cooperative. The pre- greason given for withdrawals was the fail- - the cooperatives to which they had be- "ty-eight of the farmers, or 17 percent, heir cooperative full patronage. Among trons were 21 farmers belonging to a fluid argaining association. Some of the milk ' rs, however, patronized other cooperatives Thirteen percent of the farmers patron- eir cooperative in part. Eight percent of ,, ers patronized cooperatives as non-mem- Three percent of the farmers were mem- tnot patrons of cooperatives. Four cotton growers patronized cooperative gins, two as member-patrons and two as nonmem- ber-patrons. Eighteen farmers explained their lack of mem- bership in a cooperative by the fact that no coop- erative was operating in their area. Forty-six farmers commented that only one buyer or mar- keting agency operated in their market. Sixty favorable comments were made for co- operatives. Better prices resulting from coopera- tive business were mentioned 26 times. Cash div- idends as evidence of successful operations also were mentioned 26 times. Eight of the comments indicated mild endorsement of cooperative activ- ity. ' . The 29 unfavorable comments made showed no consistent pattern. Among these comments were: cooperatives not needed, too much competition al- ready without adding more through cooperatives, and poor service and slow delivery. Some of the farmers wished to retain the independence of non- member status. One farmer remarked that the prices of one supply cooperative were higher than those of the competitors and still there were no cash patronage dividends to the members. The farmers were questioned regarding their patronage of mail-order houses as a source of production supplies. The farmers used mail-or- derhouses sparingly for this purpose. Ample opportunity was offered the farmers to express such dissatisfaction with the present mar- keting system as they might have. Most of the farmers in the area covered seem content with the marketing system as it now operates. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The field aspect of this study was conduc- ted, in large part, by Louis H. Stern, assistant pro- fessor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M College. A high degree of initiative and good judgment characterized his work. 331v ca. l State-wide Researc ‘k The Texas Agricultural Experiment Stati is the public agricultural research age g Location of field research units in Texas mam- of the State oi Texas‘ and is one oi ta'n cl b th Texas Agri ultural Experiment f Stirtieon aiid csoperating agecncies parts oi the Texas A<§=M College Syst IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subject-matter departments, 2b,‘ departments, 3 regulatory services and the administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural" of Texas are 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 cooperating stations by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the Texas Forest Service, Game and Fish Commisf Texas, Texas Prison System, U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technologic lege, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. Some experiments are conducted on" and ranches and in rural homes. l REsEARCH BY THE TEXAS STATION is organized by programs and projects. A program of research." “sents a coordinated effort to solve the many problems relating to a common objective or situation. search project represents the procedures for attacking a specific problem within a program. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 350 active research projects, grouped in 25 programs whi; clude all phases of agriculture in Texas. Among these are: conservation and improvement of soil; servation and use of water in agriculture; grasses and legumes for pastures, ranges, hay, conservatio improvement of ,soils; grain crops; cotton and other fiber crops; vegetable crops; citrus and other su__ cal fruits; fruits and nuts; oil seed crops—o_ther than cotton; ornamental plantsé-including turf; btus, weeds; insects; plant diseases; beef cattle; dairy cattle; sheep and goats; swine; chickens and turkeys’ mal diseases and parasites; fish and game on farms and ranches; farm and ranch engineering; far ranch business; marketing agricultural products; rural home economics; and rural agricultural econ; Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central services. RESEARCH RESULTS are carried to Texas farm and ranch owners and homemakers b y specialists and c_ agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. a