ITIN 97.0 JANUARY I96‘! - L‘; is I. i‘ f- l‘ z- gbv \ 91 FARMS FARM FARM ~51‘ NET Rgggugggg SALES MONEY MONEY INCOME INCOME FROM FROM ALL FARMING SOURCES THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS w” TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 50 €3@§@- ,4 -. This analysis of part-time farming is part of a broad study of _ the income levels, income sources and farm and human resource patterns of the 88,000 rural open-country families in a 24-county area of Northeast Texas (Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 940, Incomes of Rural Families in Northeast Texas). a A major farm adjustment in this area has been an increase in part-time farming, or a greater dependence on nonfarm sources of income by farm’ families. By classifying families based on income sources, 37 percent of all farm families living in the open country in 1955 Were classified as part-time farm families. Fifty-five percent of the open-country families Were farm families and 45 percent Were nonfarm. Part-time farm operators were classified into four major groups. c Group I, 23 percent of all part-time farmers, includes all part-time farms Where operators reported no off-farm Work, but half or more a. of their income Was from off-farm sources, principally nonwork sources. Group II includes farm families with the operator report- ing from 1 to 99 days of work off the farm, only 11 percent of all part-time farms. In group III, including 23 percent of all part-time farms, operators reported from 100 to 249, or less than full-time Work off the farm. Group IV, part-time farms, with operator working off the farm “full-time,” or 250 days or more, includes 43 percent of all part-time operators. Part-time operators controlled 40 percent of the‘ farm and land‘ resources, marketed 28 percent of all ‘farm products sold (in terms of value), but received only 16 percent of the net money return from farming in the area. Wide differences exist in farm size, organization and operations on part-time farms. The average size was 165 acres; however, almost 70 percent of the farms were less than the average. The median size of farm was 90 acres. Most of the total investment in farm resources of $16,024 was in land. About half the farms had total farm resource investments below $10,000. The efficiency of part-time farm operations was low when measured in terms of farm sales in relation to costs and labor expended. On all part-time farms, gross sales averaged $1,623, cash farm expenses averaged $1,420 and net sales averaged only $203. The median value of farm sales was only $680. Other farm income items, including mineral and rent income, value of farm perquisites and “land appreciation” value, averaged $1,317 per farm and was of more importance to farm operators than income from farm sales. In an analysis of total farm returns, including monetary and nonmonetary items and a charge of 6 percent interest on total investments as well as a depreciation charge, returns to family labor and management averaged $421. The major economic employment activity reported by part-time farm operators was wage or salary work. Such work was reported by 41 percent of the operators. Forty percent of the operators re- ported farming as a major activity, 9 percent reported self-employ- ment in something other than farming, and 10 percent reported other types of major activities. Few family members, other than the family heads, reported major activities which yielded money income; 16 percent of the children and 12 percent of other persons in the household reported such activities. All family members, including the operator, worked at farming, and in off-farm jobs an average of 2,850 hours, or the equivalent of about 365 8-hour days. Most of this work (in terms of hours) was work off the farm. However, a considerable amount offarm- work was performed; more than 1,000 hours. There was"f1o sig- nificant relationship between the amount of time that family mem- bers spent at work on their own farms and the extent of work performed off the farm. The farm operators and family members in each part-time farm group spent about equal amounts of time at farmwork except the family members in group I. These families spent less time doing farmwork than any other group. The chief difference in the total employment of family members in each group depended on the difference in time put in at off-farm work, which ranged from 640 hours for group I, to 2,616 hours for group IV. When considering the total amount of available labor in the family, the operators and family members in group IV approached full employment. The other groups, including operators and family members, averaged more than 100 8-hour days of unemployed time. This included more than half of the part-time farm families. Their combined unemployed time amounted to more than one million annual man-days. In the broad study of farm families in the area, the average net money income for the part-time farm families was substantially above those of other farm families. This relatively higher income was not due to part-time farming since only $426 net money was derived from farm operations; less than half of this amount was from the sale of farm products. Farm income averaged $1,882, in- cluding nonmonetary returns. Returns to family labor in off-farm work was much higher than the returns to family labor in farming. Including farm per- quisites, total farm returns to family labor and management aver- aged 39 cents an hour. Per hour returns for labor in off-farm work averaged $1.39. Total monetary and nonmonetary returns when combined raised total family income levels by about a third. However, most of the returns ‘from farming are returns associated with living on and owning farmland rather than carrying on productive farmwork. On the average, 70 percent of all returns in farming were returns to investment and only 30 percent were returns to farm labor and management. I PART-TIME FARMING IN NORTHEAST TEXAS OF THE MAJOR FARM ADJUSTMENTS in low- production agricultural areas has been the shi.ft- ing of thousands 0f families from farm to non- farm jobs. Much of the move to nonfarm jobs has been made 0n a full-time basis. In Northeast Texas, the net migration of population from farms totaled 180,000 persons during 1940-50—a shift of 43 percent of the total farm population LOf the area.‘ According to the Census of Agri- fculture, the total number of farms decreased from bout 81,000 to 60,000 during this time and fur- her declined to about 49,000 by 1954, or about 40 ercent during 1940-54. By 1960 the number of arms had declined to about 32,000, or an over- ll drop of about 60 percent in 20 years. A second major adjustment in such areas has en the attempt to supplement farm income by art-time Work off the farm. Thousands of farm =milies who do not want to shift out of farming fmpletely or who Want to farm part-time follow is course. This has resulted in an extensive v ral pattern of living and land utilization com- only referred to as part-time farming. Accord- g to the Census of Agriculture, more than a th of all farmers in the 24-county study area I 1954 were part-time farmers. From 1939-45, e number of operators in the study area Who ' rked 100 days or more off the farm increased , a faster rate than the general trend of such owth in the United States and other parts of xas. , This trend toward part-time farming has not surprising in view of agricultural develop- nts of the last 25 years or so. Perhaps the y y surprising feature is that part-time farming = become so Widespread, and that a major pro- ‘rtion of rural families in this area depend heav- I on nonfarm employment and other off-farm rces for most of their income. The trend and rent situation resulted from a combination of _ umstances, two of which are important in this a. In Northeast Texas, human and farm re- rces were such that thousands of operators underemployed in an economic sense, that their farm earnings were appreciably less _n comparable Workers were receiving in non- ’ jobs. At the same time, farmers found mselves unable to gadjust to developing tech- q particularly tolthe larger scale of farm Iles, Gladys K., Net Migration from the Rural Farm pulation, 1940-50. U. S. Department of Agriculture tis. Bul. 176, June 1956. I ‘cultural economists, Farm Economics Research Di- 'on, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department Agriculture, cooperating with the Texas Agricultural eriment Station, College Station, Texas. James R. Martin and John H. Southern “ business required. Most of the farms Within the area Were too small to realize significant internal economics by reorganizing farm resources. Ex- pansion of land resources was difficult because of the capital structure of the small farm opera- tors, and land values that had advanced to levels too high to justify buying for farm purposes. High investments in labor-saving machines and devices were uneconomical on such small farms. Although markets for crops grown in the area were limited, the operators of small farms had no alternative except crop production. The farms were not large enough to support adequate levels of most livestock and timber farming. As these conditions persisted in farming, the development and expansion of industries and businesses With- CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Purpose of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Definition and Classification of Part-time Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Classification of Part-time Farming . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Extent of Part-time Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Numbers of Part-time Farms and Human Resources Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Farm Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Farm Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Labor Resource Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Age of Family Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Age of Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l0 Education of Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l0 Labor Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..lU Farm Organization and Returns to Farm Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Framework of Farm Organization and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Scale of Operations and Organization of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Farm Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Tenure of Operator and Length of Residence on the Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14 Farm Sales and Net Money Returns from Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Other Farm Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l5 Total Farm Returns to Family Labor. Management and Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l6 Occupations and Labor Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . ..l6 Nonfarm Occupations and Activities . . . . . . ..l6 Labor Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ..l7 Income and Income Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l8 Income by Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Nonwork Sources of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Off-farm Work Income Compared to Farm Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2U Total Family Money and Nonmoney Income Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2l Role of Part-time Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2l in the area and elsewhere furnished more produc- tive employment and consequently higher incomes to those farm operators and family members who could shift to these opportunities.” Purpose oi Report This report on part-time farming results from a broader orientation study of the resources and levels of income among rural families in a 24-county area of Northeast Texas?’ The farms and families includedin the part-time category and analyzed in this report and the basic infor- mation used are part of that study. A limitation of this study from the standpoint of part-time farming should be pointed out. Only the rural part-time farmer is included. Many part-time farm operators live in towns or cities of the area and would need to be studied to complete the part- time farming picture. The purposes of this report are directed spe- cifically to the following questions: (1) How important is part-time farming in this area, and what is its place in farm produc- tion? (2) What are the employment and income characteristics of part-time farm families? (3) What is the nature of part-time farm- ing in terms of farm enterprises, resources used and returns to these resources? Levels of income among part-time farm families and the primary determinants of that income are outlined. Off-farm earnings of family members as well as those of the operator are shown. Also, since many people believe part-time farming may be the answer to some low-income farm problems, the analysis will indicate the apparent place of part-time farming. Is it of real significance in adjustment possibilities for higher income levels in the total economy of the area? Is part-time farming or specific types of part-time farms re- lated to age or other personal characteristics of the operator? What is the apparent efficiency of part-time farming in the area? (A later re- port on part-time farming will deal further with efficiency and specific adjustment opportunities and will examine the question of whether part- time farming is a permanent adjustment, a tran- sition to or from other types of employment or a residential situation.) The information presented here will be use- ful in the Rural Development Program and other efforts to improve economic conditions in rural 31633. 2For the economic development background of the area and details on all rural families, see Incomes of Rural Families in Northeast Texas, by John H. Southern and W. El. Hendrix, Tex. Agri. Expt. Sta. Bul. 940, October 1959. 3Ibid. 6 Definition and Classification of Part-time Farming Definition . The definition of a part-time farm v? considerably in the literature and in commo age. The general understanding perhaps r to a situation in which the farm operator off the farm some minimum} amount of time ‘ year, say 100 days, in combination with his q operations. The usual understanding is in A of small-scale farming, which may be the , mon situation but is not necessarily a -.-= ment. In most instances, part-time farmi been conceived as a use of the labor resou A a combination of farm—off-farm work. f this study, a part-time farm was defined, farm4 having gross sales of farm prod _ $250 or more, with the operator working 100‘, 0r more off the farm, 0r receiving half of the family gross income from nonfarm In the broad study of incomes of rural ilies in this area, source of income was l, sized as the most important determinant of time farming. Comparing income from fa ‘j nonfarm sources, therefore, is the chief fa h‘ classifying farmers as part-time, provided’; is at least $250 in farm sales. Nonwork l, such as old age pensions, military and reti pensions, rentals or royalties from mineral.‘ A or production and rentals from other p é owned is included also. This concept off time farming classifies many operators time, even though little or no work is fl performed off the farm, but in all instanc >5; farming is done. In other words, a comb‘, of farm and nonfarm use of labor resourcesf necessary. Income is not confined to com? tion for labor; it may be a return on prop from other nonwork sources. 7 This study’s definition is broader t , one used by the Census of Agriculture ins it does not restrict part-time farming n with sales of farm products of less than . The 1954 Census of Agriculture definiti part-time farm is: “Farms with a value of sales of farm pr ducts of $250 to $1,199 were classified part-time if the farm operator reported (a ~ 100 or more days work off the farm ' 1954, or (b) the nonfarm income receiy, by him and members of his family =7 greater than the value of farm produ »i_ sold.” This definition is useful for many purpo it eliminates many farms that are part- other criteria or when source of income». major criterion of classification. " 4Places of 3 acres or more were counted as fa v annual value of agricultural products, exclusive! garden products, amounted to $150 or more. , less than 3 acres were counted as farms if t: value of sales of agricultural products amoun =6 or more. If sales were less than $250, the " classified as residential. I LE 1. FARMS BY CLASSES, NORTHEAST TEXAS ._ "‘ 3 Farms‘ Farms’ Number Percent Number Percent £12m 19.911 91.4 15.099 90.9 -» - 11.010 22.4 17.990 36.8 ' -tia1 19.741 40.2 15.825 32.3 f1}- - s 49.122 100.0 48.914 100.0 lrom 1954 Census of Agriculture. from 1956 Sample. ‘i. more inclusive definition is needed to _ y the true characteristics of farm families epend mainly on nonfarm income as their of living. Illustrating the importance of {a definition is the fact that 43 percent of y operators classified as part-time farm rs in this report have full-time, nonfarm _. This large group is discussed in detail 1~ however, their gross farm sales averaged ’ $2,100 and cash farm expenses averaged ‘ightly less. The Census’ definition of part- arming is limited to small-scale farming. rs selling farm products worth $1,200 or would not be classified as part-time farm rs even though they have full-time, non- '0bs and realize little, if any, net cash in- lrom farm operations. About 30 percent fpart-time farm operators (as defined for port) produce and sell products worth for more. A comparison of the types of ias reported by the 1954 Census of Agri- with the types as defined in this study is 5 in Table 1. As a result of the more in- f» definition, more than a third of the farms ssified as part-time, while less than a fare so classified by the census. ij-hough the definition used in this report I i farms having gross sales of farm pro- f less than $250, the distinction between M. and residential farms is not a sharp any residential farms may be part-time particular year. In fact, what is some- dicated as a significant change between i; of part-time and residential farms may ft resulting from the sale, or lack 0f sale, than additional small quantity of farm pro- f" any one year. Therefore, part-time includes a wide variety of situations, 0' from small-scale units with only a small 1| farm sales to large-scale farming with volume of farm sales and large expendi- - equipment and supplies, and from little ‘- -farm work to full-time employment off ’- 'on of Partf-tirne Farming time operators might be classified from viewpoints-for example, the size and their farm operations, their net income ' ing or their total net income. How- the definition of part-time farming used i- udy revolves around the amount of time spent in off-farm work, as well as the amount of income from other nonfarm sources, the classifi- cation used is based on these factors, and opera- tors are classified into four groups: ( 1) Group I, no off-farm work (0 days) ; (2) Group II, little off-farm work (1 to 99 days) ; (3) Group III, moderate levels of off-farm work (100 to 249 days) ; and (4) Group IV, full-time off-farm work (250 days or more). Group I includes all part-time, farms whose operators reported no off-farm work. Thus, these operators were in position to devote full time to farming operations and from the viewpoint of the utilization of their own labor resources, they might be classed as full-time farmers. However, the families in group I received half or more of their total family net money income from non- farm sources. Such a situation arises even though no family member works off the farm, as the family receives income from nonwork sources. Another situation occurs in which one or several family members other than the operator worked off the farm and contributed more to family money income than did gross farm sales. Family situations varied considerably within this classi- fication, but each family had two common at- tributes: ( 1) The operator did not work off the farm, and (2) family nonfarm money income ex- ceeded gross farm sales. Group I includes 23 per- cent, about 4,100 families of all part-time farm operators (Table 2). Group II includes farm families with the op- erator reporting from 1 to 99 days of work off the farm. This group averaged 40 days of off- farm work and received half or more of their family money income from nonfarm sources. Here again, family members other than the operator contribute to family income. Also, many families had important nonwork sources of income. The main difference between groups I and II is that farming activities of the operators in group II competed with some limited nonfarm activities in labor or worktime. Only 11 percent of the op- TABLE 2. NUMBER OF FAMILIES BY GROUPS. PART-TIME FARMS, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955 panfilies Average days Group operator Number - Percent worked of! farm Group I‘ 4.138 23 0 Group II’ 1.979 11 40 Group III“ 4.138 23 132 Group IV‘ 7.735 43 264 A11 families 17.990 100 149 ‘Farm operators reported no off-farm work. "Operators reported 1 to 99 days of off-farm work. “Operators reported 100 to 249 days of off-farm work. ‘Operators reported full-time, off-farm work (250 days or more). 7 erators, involving. about 2,000 families, are in this group. In group III, the farm operators reported from 100 to 249 days of work off the farm, aver- aging 132 days. Thus, they spent considerable time at nonfarm work, yet less than they would have done as full-time nonfarm workers. By def- inition, nonfarm family income of this group does not necessarily exceed farm sales as the operator worked a minimum of 100 days off the farm. With 100 days or moreof off-farm work, the non- farm activities of the farm operator were im- portant, as the amount of time spent at farm- work could have been limited by time spent at off-farm work or a reverse procedure. This group had about the same number of farm operators and families as group I—23 percent of the oper- ators and about 4,100 families. Part-time farm families in which the oper- ator reported working off the farm “full-time” are in group IV. In this analysis, 250 days or more of work off the farm was considered full- time. The operators in this group averaged 264 days of work off the farm. Under this classifi- cation, a farm operator could work full-time off the farm yet nonfarm income might not exceed farm income. However, no such instances were found. All families in group IV lived on a farm and the operator worked full-time off the farm. A high percentage, 43 percent of the part-time farm operators—-about 7,700 families—were in this group. Since part-time farming includes a Wide range of situations, this classification divides the operators into fairly homogenous groups. Also, with such a classification, relevant adjustment problems can be approached. For example, the aspect of part-time farming as a transitional stage from farm to nonfarm status can be ex- amined. Many people regard part-time farming as a transitional adjustment, yet all of the oper- ators in group IV, 43 percent of all part-time farm operators, had full-time, nonfarm jobs. Families in group I, 23 percent of all part-time farm families, must by definition have received most of their money income from nonfarm sour- ces, even though the operator, traditionally the family’s “breadwinner,” did not work off the farm. Apparently, this latter situation was not a transitional stage of adjustment to nonfarm status. Slightly more than a third of the part-time farm operators (those in groups II and III) were “part-time,” as the term implies; that is, the op- erator was engaged in farming and also worked off the farm less than full-time. Many of these operators may have been in the process of ad- justing their labor from farm to nonfarm occu- pations; however, they accounted for only a small part of the total number of part-time farm oper- ators. Group II operators, those reporting 1 to 99 days of off-farm Work, was the smallest group, 8 having less than 2,000 families, or only 11% cent of all part-time farm families (Tabl Therefore, only a small part of current pa j farming can be explained as an adjustmegi nonfarm status. The number of operatorsf worked off the farm as much as 100 days bu 3 than 250 days, group III, totaled about f families, or 23 percent. This classificatio veals a tendency for part-time farm operate.‘ work off the farm on a relatively full-time. or to work off the farm little or not at all. j; Extent of Part-time Farming Numbers of Part-time Farms and Human Resources Involved Evidence of the increasing relative u‘, ance of part-time farming in this area is g clining number of commercial farms in r, to total part-time and residential farms. ‘ ~ ing to the 1954 Census of Agriculture, th number of farms decreased by about 11, tween 1950-54. Of this decline, about -_ farms, or 95 percent, were classified as n cial. Consequently, part-time and resi, farms decreased only slightly in absolute‘. bers, and increased proportionately from .. half to nearly two-thirds of all farms dur” 5 years. Another clue as to the increasi; portance of part-time farming in the area ' trend in land in farms. Although betwee 54, the area as a whole decreased by 400,00 in total land in farms, the land in part-time. increased by more than 350,000 acres. f area in commercial and residential farms d ed by more than 650,000 acres and m0 L 100,000 acres, respectively. A Of the 88,000 rural families in the. east Texas study area, more than 39,000,} percent, were classified as nonfarm and ‘a 49,000, or 56 percent, as farm families i Farm families were further classified in time, part-time and residential farm fl’ Full-time farm families made up 31 percen time farm families 37 percent and res farm families 32 percent of all farm fam' The human resources on the part-tim' are estimated to represent 40 percent of l‘ labor force on all farms in the area. Th, 68,000 people living on the part-time fa cs3 included 39 percent of all rural farm w? than 14 years of age, 41 percent of all pf sons from 14 to 64 years of age and 31}, of all farm persons 65 years old or mor Part-time farm operators have _ high levels of education compared wit farm operators in the area. Almost 27 of the part-time farm operators had a hi education or more compared with 19 and‘; cent for the full-time and residential fa i; tors, respectively. Nearly half of all fa‘ ators with a high school or higher level?" were part-time farm operators, while only t a fourth of all farm operators with less .5 years of schooling were part-time farm tors. Resources art-time farming is not only important in area in the number of farm operators, but because 40 percent of the total farm resour- ~ land 40 percent, livestock 42 percent and ment 39 percent) were held by part-time ers (Figure 1). The average value of farm rces was $16,024 with land $12,803, live- v $1,846 and equipment $1,375. art-time farmers controlled 29 percent of 3' cropland and 33 percent of all idle crop- acres. However, they had relatively more “re, 42 percent of all pasture and 55 percent improved pasture. They also operated 40 nt of all woodland not in pasture. Appar- , much of the previously cultivated land on farms had been taken out of crops and was nger considered cropland. All part-time paveraged 165 acres in size compared with cres for full-time farms. Output art-time farms, representing 37 percent of " s and 40 percent of the total farm resour- arketed 21 percent of all crops sold and 32 nt of all livestock and livestock products ‘art-time farmers.produced 22 percent of tton sold, 15 percent of all vegetables and Arcent of all other crops (Figure 2). They ‘aéted 41 percent of the poultry and poultry J ts. They sold 38 percent of all cattle and .Ilivest0ck. They accounted for 17 percent __ dairy products sold, but dairying was lim- .1: a few farms. Only 4 percent of all other Yproducts, including fruits and special crops, fsold by part-time farmers. Sales of wood ts made up only a small part of total pro- Asold even though part-time farmers control _I cent of the woodland not in pasture. Other roduction, not shown in Figure 2, included iment conservation payments and receipts {tom work on other farms. The part-time ~rs received 43 percent of all conservation Ants made to rural-farm operators and 43 t of all payments for custom work. Labor Resource Characteristics -e characteristics of resources Within class- roups of operators help to explain Why perators do more off-farm work than oth- 5% he age level of both the farm operator and ifamily members was a major difference ‘ the groups. 9' Family Members Jroup I had more older family members and ely fewer in the productive age groups than 6O PART-TIME FARMS 37% OF ALL FARMS 5O PERCENT OF FARM TOTALS IN AREA 4o o Q - a’ ' v g v Q 9) 3 e1 Q“ Q’ V Q, \I Q v f i‘? 149° gs ($9 5;‘ A63 s‘? x63 $00 x68 \ / \ ‘ / k V RESOURCES ACRES Figure 1. Percent of iarm resources and farm acres con- trolled by part-time iarm operators in Northeast Texas. the other farm groups (Figure 3). More than half of all family members in group I were 55 years of age or older. There was a low percent- age of young family members. Group II had less than half as many family members 65 years of age or more as group I and only 29 percent of all family members were more than 55 years old. Group III also had a large number of family members, 46 percent, less than 20 years old and a still smaller percentage of aged family mem- bers. Almost half of all family members in group IV were in the productive age group from 20 to 54. Only 3 percent of the family members Were 6O 5Q PART-TIME FARMS 3770 OF ALL FARMS PERCENT OF FARM TOTALS IN AREA FARM PRODUCTS SOLD Figure 2. Aggregate farm products sold from part-time farms as compared to all farms in Northeast Texas. 9 AGE GROUPS OF ALL FAMILY MEMBERS UNDER 2O YEARS GROUP I * * 25% GROUP II * * 38°/o GROUP Ill * * * * * 46% 3890 61111111 1111 11 11 1 40% 3B°Io 12 % 10% EACH SYMBOL REPRESENTS 1o PERCENT OF ALL FAMILY MEMBERS 2O TO 54 55 TO 64 65 YEARS AND OVER 33 °/o Figure 3. Age distribution of all iamily members by part- time farm groups, rural Northeast Texas. 1955. 65 years of age or older, and only 10 percent were 55 years of age or more. Age oi Operators Even greater differences in age levels of the farm operator were apparent among part-time farm groups (Figure 4). A high percentage of operators in group I were in the older age class. More than half were 65 years of age or older, and 86 percent of the operators were 55 or more. Few of the operators were from 35 to 54 years of age. In group II, a much smaller percentage of the op- erators were 65 years old or older, although half were 55 or more. Relatively few operators in group III were 65 years of age or older, and less than a third were 55 or more. More than half were between the ages of 35 and 54 years. As in group III, few of the part-time farm opera- tors in group IV were aged, but a smaller part were 55 years old or older. A large proportion of the operators in group IV were less than 54 years of age. Among all groups, relatively few operators were less than 35 years of age. Education of Operators Education is usually associated with age and consequently the educational level of operators would be expected to vary considerably by groups. The part-time farm operators who worked full 10 time and 100 days or more off the farm 1, more education than the operators who did -_ or no off-farm work. More than 85 percen the farm operators in group I had completed» than 9 grades in school as compared with 37 ‘ cent with the same education level in groupi Also, only 6 percent of the operators in gro completed high school in contrast to 15, 24 c, 43 percent in groups II, III-Zand IV, respectii Labor Resources By converting labor resources to a co denominator, such as man-work equivalen w‘ relative quantities of labor resources ands utilization may be compared by groups of q ators. In this analysis, it was assumed 1;‘ male 14 to 64 years of age, not in school an physically handicapped is equal to one man- equivalent. Females of the same age, han ped males and children in school were consi less than one man-work equivalent. (For 1Q tion of man-work equivalents, see footn Table 3.) In actual instances, these -= may be high or low for any given family -f or family situation; in general, the co 1“ man-work equivalents are a good relative ure of the labor force among groups of fa‘ Using these criteria, it is estimated t =_ 49,000 farm families in the area had slightly AGE GROUPS OF OPERATi as T0 s4 s5 T0 e4 es ' YEARS YEARS A110. UNDER 35 YEARS 11 111, 1 4 11,1 11,1 I m 1, 1151111 111,111 1 1 1.11 t! EACH SYMBOL REPRESENTS IO PERCENT OF ALL 0P’ Figure 4. Age distribution oi iarm operators by farm groups, rural Northeast Texas. 1955. V 3. FAMILY LABOR RESOURCES, PART-TIME FARM c’ GROUPS, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955 Family members‘ Per- All centage fam- Not in school of ilr ilqfi“ M91“ Total iami- mem- an 1' Fe- m lies bers Males capped males sch°°l males 4' Percent — — — — — — Unit — — — — — — , I 23 3.27 0.32 0.13 0.25 0.02 0.72 1 11 11 3.91 .65 .12 .23 .06 1.06 ' 111 23 4.01 .73 .11 .31 .07 1.22 l IV 43 3.92 .83 .10 .29 .07 1.29 9e 100 3.79 .67 .11 .28 .05 1.11 j14 years to 64 years of age not in school, not handi- = 1.0 man-work equivalents: male 14 years to 64 fof age not in school. handicapped = 0.5 man-work l, ents." male 14 years to 64 years of age in school, not (‘lapped = 0.3 man-work equivalents; female 14 years »j‘years of age not in school, not handicapped = 0.3 equivalents,- all others = 0 man-work equivalents. 50,000 man-work equivalents. The 18,000 'me farm families had about 20,000 man lents, or 40 percent of the total labor force ,-.farms in the area. , e family heads made up almost two-thirds total labor force on all part-time farms. ximately 54 percent of the labor force were g- 64 years 0f age or less with no phys- f‘. itations, and 10 percent were operators L: 65 with some physical limitation. Other mily members not in school and not phys- 1 andicapped accounted for only 6 percent ‘l limitations made up 25 percent; and fin school not handicapped accounted for rt-time farm group I, including all family s, averaged only 0.72 man-work equiv- er family, or only three-fourths of one k worker (Table 3). This was due mainly ielatively high proportion of older family B; and farm operators. In this group, all g ily members not in school averaged less e-half of one man-work equivalent, and y family members with no physical limita- eraged less than one-third of one man- " ivalent. Group II averaged slightly over ‘ll-work equivalent per family, and groups 7.1V 1.22 and 1.29 man-work equivalents, ,ely, or considerably more than the equiv- (gone full-time worker. f; Organization and Returns to Farm Resources ' time farmers. and their families have goals and objectives, ranging from farm- l hobby to the goal of a large commercial j he social implications of part-time farm- ecognized as important. However, these tors need not hinder an economic eval- iThis report emphasizes the economic or aspects of part-time farming. labor force; females not in school, with no » This section of the report deals with the or- ganization and operation of part-time farms. An attempt is made to establish the economic place of part-time farming and to estimate the total value of farm returns to family labor and man- agement. Some of the factors that limit farm production and the attainment of efficient oper- ations are discussed as a framework for farm or- ganization and operations. These limitations have important implications in dealing with ad- justment problems of part-time farmers. Framework of Farm Organization and Operations Several conditions of the area, as well as characteristics peculiar to part-time farming, should be considered in order to understand the organizational problems of these farmers. Some of the more important conditions are: ( 1) Farm resources in this area were once largely commit- ted to the production of a single cash crop, cot- ton. The competitive position of the area in the production of cotton deteriorated during the past 35 years and no other enterprise of similar eco- nomic magnitude has been available to take its place. (2) Since much part-time farming in- volves a combination of farm and off-farm work, the use of labor in one activity may compete for the use of it in the other. (3) iWith nonfarm sources of income, part-time farm operators may and often do use off-farm income as a source of operating or investment capital for farming. Cotton production, at one time the principal source of cash farm income, has rapidly moved out of the area. As a result, the few remaining cotton-producing farms have serious marketing problems. Frequently, cotton must be hauled long distances to gins, and existing gins within the area handle such small volumes that obsolete gin- ning equipment cannot be replaced. Prices re- ceived for cotton are usually low and ginning ex- penses high. As no other crop has been found to replace cotton, the major source of farm income has shifted from cotton to livestock. Fortunately, the development of industries in the area has made some off-farm work opportunities available. Many farm operators found it easier to obtain off-farm work than to adjust their farm resour- ces to livestock production. As a result, many farm holdings have not increased in size, and al- though the area is well suited to production of livestock and timber, many part-time farms that were originally operated by full-time farmers and organized for production of cotton are still small. This situation affects the selection of farm en- terprises on many part-time farms. The area of study is not one of high commer- cial farming; consequently, except those for live- stock and timber, farm-product markets are dis- organized compared with those in commercial farming areas. Many farm operators are uncer- tain where they will market, or even if there will be a market for their farm products from one year to the next. For example, vegetables (per- 11 ishable products) “are sometimes harvested and the operator hauls them long distances to markets in different towns only to find the markets are closed. Farm products shipped from other areas of the state often are sold in retail stores at rel- atively high prices when similar products produc- ed within the area cannot be marketed at any price. Operators of retail stores stated that they did not buy locally because they were not assured of a dependable quality or supply of products. A cannery was utilizing local labor and shipping farm products from distant areas for processing, even though the same products were being pro- duced locally. Cannery officials stated that few products would be bought from local growers be- cause the markets would be flooded by the time the local products were on the market. Since commercial farming is not highly developed for crops, custom operators are not well established in the area. As a result, the small part-time farmer is particularly vulnerable because their small acreages of crops are bypassed by custom operators during rush periods, such as harvest- time. Labor-use decisions are difficult for part- time farm operators as much part-time farming involves a combination of farm and off-farm Work. Labor in one activity may compete for labor in the other. Usually, it is assumed that the operator chooses to use his labor where returns are greatest, whether this is in farming, nonfarm work or a combination of the two. This assump- tion is valid only when labor resources are com- pletely mobile. The nature of nonfarm employ- ment is such that there is relatively little demand for consistent part-time employment. Also, the quality of labor on part-time farms in this area is such that nonfarm employment is limited. Therefore, many part-time farmoperators have short planning horizons, as labor resources can- not move freely from farm to nonfarm work. At any time, the operator may need to decide whether I00 90“ o O I i O I - 1 2 n: so — 1 4 1 u. 16 so ~— 1 I I'- | | E 4o — 1 l Q I q; ‘ugpmu 511E | AVERAGE SIZE 3f so — 1 (so Acnzs) | {165 ACRES) I I l 2O - | | I » 1 I0 -' | | I o 1 l 1 1 l 1 1 o so 10o 15o 20o 25o 30o TOTAL ACRES OF FARMLAND Figure 5. Distribution of iarm size on part-time iarms. rural Northeast Texas. 1955. l2 to use his labor in farming or nonfarm w, part-time farm operators are not c0 _ “free” in formulating or carrying out 1. use of labor. If decisions as to where la turns are greatest must be made in the f run,” the net effect of any commitment resources to nonfarm uses may be one duces farming efficiency or returns to The decision may even beplie that reduc returns in the long run. Thei’ nature of n work is such that it usually demands r‘ amount of labor, such as 8 hours a day,- a week. Maximum returns in farming ' mand the use of the operator’s labor at"! when it is committed to nonfarm work : available. This may partly explain some farming inefficiencies associated with p farming. At least half of the part-time farm o: have good paying nonfarm jobs with inco quate not only for family living but also f‘ operation and expansion. This factor j farm organization and operations in tw_ First, because of outside earnings, part-ti operators may continue to operate in farms and realize little if any cash retu-y farming. Second, with the proper ma =_f and nonfarm earnings, part-time farm o . can organize their farm operations as source of supplemental income. Of cour , two situations do not exist for all part-ti operators. Those with little or no off-fa do not have the alternative of expanding; sources with nonfarm income as family J comes are low even for family living. ‘ Scale of Operations and Organization of I The most predominant characteristic; time farms in this area is that Wide din exist in farm size, organization and ej Part-time farms vary even more in si - organization of enterprises than do c0 farms. Analysis reveals that few con can be found. Therefore, averages hav meaning but can be used to generalize; the characteristics of the part-time fa »~* The range in scale of operations p from 1 to more than 1,500 acres. Most , farms were too small for most types of a farm enterprises found in the area, but I ing the size of farms in some areas of t States (Figure 5) were still rather lar, age size was 165 acres, but almost 70 f the farms were smaller than average. _ ian size of farm was 90 acres, which r the central tendencies in farm size. I The part-time farm groups differ as to farm size. The average farm si‘ directly with the extent of off-farm W0” farm operators (Table 4), but the extr age differences between part-time fa amounted only to 27 acres. The range, , 4. FARM sxzs AND TOTAL FARM RESOURCES PER 1 , BY PART-TIME FARM GROUPS, RURAL NORTHEAST , TEXAS, 1955 Farm resource = Farm _ .| group size Land Livestock E3221? Total i l‘ Acres Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 1p l 147 11,502 1,343 588 13,433 1 - ll 148 11,575 1,974 1,023 14,572 1i.- HI 158 12,321 1,840 1,433 15,594 - IV 174 14,049 2,086 1,851 17,986 j page 165 12,803 1,846 1,375 16,024 i tion of farm sizes Within each part-time farm 8p were similar to that 0f all farms as shown igure 5. There was a somewhat larger pro- “ion of smaller farms in groups I and II re operators reported no and very little off- 1 Work), but the proportional differences not large. The central tendencies in size rm was 80 acres for groups I and II, and 100 for groups III and IV. There were no consistent differences in ma- - use among part-time farm groups. Re- less of size, most farms had relatively large “ges devoted to pasture and a high percent- _f the pasture acreage was improved. All averaged a little more than three-fourths A farm in pasture, and a fourth of the total f e acreage was improved pasture. The aver- l 19 acres used for crops was less than 12 ‘t of the total acres in farmland. Almost rcent of the total cropland was currently §3Except for the home garden, many farms l ly idle cropland. » art-time farm operators controlled 40 per- f the total farm resources (land, livestock uipment) of the area. In terms of capital " ent, land is the most important farm re- f; on most part-time farms. Therefore, like ‘ reages operated, the range in capital in- , t is wide, varying from $1,000 to more j 20,000. The average resource value of all zwas $16,024. As with acres operated, the does not reflect the typical. Only 30 per- the operators had this much or more in- ljn total resources. Approximately half of h s had total farm resource investments n $10,000. rming in the area is such that part-time rs organize their farm resources in much e Way as do full-time farm operators. l the major resource. Part-time farmers $5,400 less in total value of farm resour- 95 fewer acres per farm than do full-time , but the resource distribution patterns 'lar.5 Part-time farmers as a whole had of their total investment in land, 11 ‘in livestock and 9 percent in equipment, ull-time farmers averaged 79, 12 and 9 " respectively. I and Hendrix, op. cit., p. 25. Although the range in total value of farm resources within each part-time farm group is wide, there may be some relationship between the average value of total farm resources and the ex- tent of off-farm activities by the farm operator (Table 4). Average value of all farm resources increased, mainly because of larger acreages, as the number of days worked off the farm by the operators increased. Total resources of group I averaged $13,433, with land at $11,502, livestock at $1,343 and equipment resources at only $588. Group II operators had approximately the same level of land resources as group I operators but averaged slightly more than $1,000 greater in to- tal resources, with $631 more in livestock and $435 more in equipment. Group III operators averaged $15,594 in total resources with $12,321 in land, $1,840 in livestock and $1,433 in equip- ment. The average value of each type of farm re- sources Was consistently higher for group IV op- erators, who averaged $14,049 in land, $2,086 in livestock and $1,851 in equipment for a total of $17,986 in farm resources. The value of livestock and equipment held by part-time farm groups in- dicates the amount of operating or Working cap- ital increased as the average number of days Worked off the farm by the operator increased. Farm Labor Characteristics of the family labor resources were discussed earlier in this report, and overall utilization of family labor in farming and non- farm activities is the subject of a later section. However, it is necessary to summarize the rela- tion of farm labor resources, in terms of total farmwork performed, to other farm resources, and the extent to which family labor is utilized in farming activities. By using labor input data development from other studies in the area, estimates of total labor requirements necessary to operate an average part-time farm were computedfi (A division of labor requirements in farming and time spent at off-farm is shown in Table 10.) Most of the farmwork performed on part- time farms was done by operator and family members. The average part-time farm required slightly more than 1,200 hours of labor, of which approximately 152 hours was hired labor, with the family supplying more than 1,000 hours, or 89 percent, of the total labor. A few of the part- time farm operators hired some custom Work, but the relatively small amount of labor involved was insignificant for the farms as a whole. Although total labor requirements differed to some extent, the proportion of famly labor used to carry out necessary farmwork was similar for each group. Groups I, II, III and IV used 72, 136, 104 and 224 hours, respectively, of hired “Magee, A. C. and-Stone B. H., Production and Production Requirements of Crops, East Texas. Texas Agricultural Exp. Station Misc-Publication 225, September 1957. 13 50,000 /. VALUE OF FARM RESOURCES 40,000 ~ . 210,000 - FULL-TIME FARMS (AVE. $21,451) / 2o,ooo~— / / '°'°°° I PART-TIME FARMS f2 - (AVE. $115,021 ‘, 4 o 1 I 1 1 1 1 l j o ' GROSS FARM SALES / Q 3,000 - —*~—"-—**1 / Putt-nus FARMS / 2,000 - // / H000 -- g X _ ___ ____ .- — ’ PART-TIME FARMS o "' '1'- _1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1o 20 3o 4o so so 1o ao so 100 PERCENT OF FARMS Figure 6. Value of farm resources and level of farm sales on part-time farms and full-time iarms in Northeast Texas. labor, and family members supplied 91, 88, 92 and 82 percent 0f the total farm labor. Hired labor was of greater importance on units whose operators worked full time off the farm. Labor resources on most part-time farms Were not a limiting factor of production. Even with the nonfarm jobs of the operators and family mem- bers, considerable amounts of unused labor or un- employment existed. Only those family members in group IV approached full employment. Be- cause of the personal characteristics of family members, the labor force in group I may be fully employed as far as hours of work are concerned. Although this group averaged 0.72 manwork equivalents per family, no family member for the group as a whole averaged as much as one-third of one manwork equivalent (Table 3). Tenure of Operator and Length of Residence on the Farm Tenure status and length of residence indi- cated that most part-time farm families were well established and residents of long standing in their community. For all operators, 83 percent were owners or part-owners; they had lived at their present residence an average of 17 years. Ten- ure varied somewhat, but there seemed to be lit- tle, if any, relationship between tenure of opera- tor and days Worked off the farm. Groups I, II, III and IV averaged 25, 22, 14 and 13 years of residence, respectively, at their present place. The operator’s age was highest for group I and lowest for group IV, indicating that length of residence was a function of age. About 61 percent of the operators in group I re- ported residing at the present place for at least 15 years. In contrast, only 31 percent of the op- erators in group IV reported similar length of residence. In groups II and III, 58 and 41 per- cent of the operators, respectively, reported at least 15 years of residence at the present place. 14 Farm Sales and Net Money Returns from Farm sales covered a wide range on time farms. On many farms, product sal sisted of two or three calves or only 2 or 3 of cotton. At the other extreme, on a few 1; the gross sales of broilers or dairy produc large. Sales on 30 percent of the farms i from $250 to $400, whereas sales on about; cent of the farms ranged frorn5§$10,000 to $ Farm sales averaged $1,623, "but more 11, percent of the farms sold less. The media y of product sales was about $680. Part-tim 2 (37 percent of all farms in the area) sold percent of all farm products. Furthermo atively few part-time farms were responsi a large proportion of the total sales. 1; 10 percent of the part-time farms accoun' 50 percent of the aggregate value of fa 1 0n all part-time farms. I; A high volume of gross farm sales is 1 chief objective of most part-time farm 1? because all operators have sources of inco 1 than farm sales. Most of them seem '. more nonfarm work. The timeliness of o. work prevents many operators from r large volume of farm products. In anyi the comparison of information on levels 1, sales and resources between part-time a time farm operators in the same area ' show the differences in intensive use of f sources (Figure 6). Less than 10 percen part-time farm operators sold more than- worth of farm products while more than cent of the full-time farm operators sol than this amount. Comparing resource distribution, almost 50 percent of the 1;- farms had resource levels of less than while 50 percent of the full-time farms source levels of less than $12,000. Thus, 1 differences in total resource levels exist point of central tendencies. However, t a significant difference in gross farm I 50 percent of the full-time farms had 1, of $2,100 or less and 50 percent of the 1 farms had gross sales of $680 or less. ' ‘ Farming activities do not decrease j creased off-farm work by the farm 1* Farm sales ranged from an average of ' group I to $2,091 for group IV (Table 5 All part-time farm groups averag sales from livestock and livestock prod , from crops (Table 5). On the average, the major product sold by groups I, II I Group IV sold more poultry and eggs (1; of value) than any other product, alth sale of cattle was second. Cotton, alt minor enterprise in the area, was the 11-, crop for each group, and the value of =- cotton and cottonseed was greater than r of all other crops sold. * The sale of wood products was of I portance in all groups. Other products, V ment conservation payments and custom . were relatively unimportant except 1n III, where the value of custom work aver- 125. I 5 e level of efficiency on part-time farms is i: cash farm expenses were high in relation <: farm sales. Furthermore, net money a from farming did not increase consist- 'th an increase in gross sales. Gross farm veraged $1,623 and farm expenses, $1,420, an average of only $203 net money re- tom farming (Table 5). Group IV opera- fd the highest level of farm sales, $2,091, '- lowest net money returns from farming, roup II operators also had high cash ex- _. relation to gross sales and averaged only money return from farming. The ratio i: oney returns from farming to gross sales for all groups, averaging only 13 cents ‘q: of gross sales. Farms in group IV, perators reported full-time, off-farm em- averaged only 2 cents net farm sales of gross sales. 'f-- Income hough net money returns from farming for most part-time farm families, the in of a farm enables the operator and fam- eceive income other than from sales of foducts. These other sources of income considered in any analysis of part-time "Ieral rent income, that is, income from leases or royalties, is an important source come. For more than 30 years, the leas- ’d for production of oil and gas has been a pread and constant importance in this lay rentals, lease bonuses and income alties result in significant income to s. Income from this source averaged ‘part-time farmer for 1955 (Table 6). onetary farm income items include: gproducts used in the home; rental value elling; and “land appreciation” value. 1y, the value of home-use products and fl value of the home are closely related come, as these reduce cash family living f, On an average, these families valued e-use products at $350. For purposes f , the rental value of the dwelling per ‘s assumed to be $30 a month, or $360 Most farm operators were aware of _ iation in land values, and this seemed wrtant in influencing the holding of farm T’ For purposes of analysis, it was as- of farm returns an appreciation in the value ynot considered as an “output” related to the ess. However, in view of Widespread lack of (s on farm operations, the concern has been for "on of the “why” of part-time farming. In in- t-was found that this “output” in the form of values was as much or more in the minds of operators as was the product output in the ’ sales. TABLE 5. FARM SALES AND EXPENSES PER FARM, PART- TIME FARM GROUPS, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955 G G Item Grgup rfiup Glifiup fir“? Average Number of Families 4.138 1.979 4.138 7.735 17.990 ———————Do1lars————— Gross farm sales Cotton and cotton seed 181 221 312 203 224 Vegetable crops 34 82 117 48 64 Other crops 8 48 193 18 59 Cattle 305 531 517 532 476 Dairy products 9 78 279 304 206 Poultry and eggs 46 59 298 830 445 Other livestock _ 39 22 38 27 32 Pulpwood 11 6 15 25 17 Other woodland products 25 0 1 24 16 Government conservation payments 2 17 12 14 11 Custom work 0 15 125 64 58 Other 5 55 2 15 Total 665 1.079 1,962 2,091 1,623 Cash iarm expenses 453 949 1,413 2,055 1,420 Net money returns from farming 212 130 549 36 203 Net money returns from farming per dollar of gross sales .32 .12 .28 .02 .13 sumed that land values have appreciated at 3 per- cent net per annum. This is a conservative allow- ance as the rate of increase in land values in this area during the past 25 years has been higher even after adjusting for changes in price levels. At 3 percent per annum, all farms averaged $384 annually in land-appreciation value. Operators in group I, with the smallest investment in land resources, averaged $345 and group IV operators, With the largest investment, $440. The total value of items other than sales aver- aged about $1,300 per farm for all farms in each group (Table 6). From an economic standpoint, therefore, these items were, on the average, more important to the part-time farm operators and their families than the value of net money re- turns from farming. TABLE 6. FARM INCOME. OTHER THAN FARM PRODUCT SALES. PER FARM. BY PART-TIME FARM GROUPS, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955 Item Grclaup Grfiup Giiclalup Gigorup Average Families in class (number) 4.138 1.979 4,138 7,735 17.990 ——-———Dollars————— Value oi farm products used at home 300 415 368 352 350 Assumed rental value of dwelling at $30 per month 360 360 360 360 360 Assumed land appreci- ation value at 3 percent net annually 345 347 370 440 384 Mineral rent income 361 176 48 252 223 Total other {arm income 1,366 1.298 1.146 1,404 1,317 15 TABLE 7. FARM RETURNS TO FAMILY LABOR, MANAGE- MENT AND CAPITAL PER FARM, BY PART-TIME FARM GROUPS, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955 Group Group Group Group IV Item I H HI Average Families (number) 4,138 1,979 4,138 7,735 17,990 Percentage of all families 23 11 23 43 100 ——--—— Dollars————— Gross farm sales 665 1,079 1,962 2,091 1,623 Cash farm expenses 453 949 1,413 2,055 1.420 Net money returns from farming 212 130 549 36 203 Other farm income‘ 1,366 1,298 1,146 1,404 1,317 Total farm returns 1,578 1,428 1,695 1,440 1,520 Equipment depreciation’ 59 102 143 185 138 Farm returns to family labor, management and capital 1,519 1,326 1,552 1,255 1,382 Interest on total farm investment 806 874 936 1,128 961 Farm returns to family labor and management 713 452 616 127 421 ‘Includes value of home-use products, rental value of dwell- ing, value of land appreciation, and mineral-rent income. ’Depreciation of total investment in equipment over a 10-year period. Total Farm Returns to Family Labor, Management and Capital The goals of part-time farmers may be such that farm operations are nominal, or are a “by- product” of other returns to farming and rural living. However, an analysis of farm returns to operator and family labor, management and cap- ital is made to show their interrelationship, as well as for comparison with incomes from non- farm sources. Total farm income consists of net money re- turns from farming (gross sales minus cash farm expenses), the value of home-use products, rental value of dwelling, land-appreciation value and in- come from mineral rights. Total returns to op- TABLE 8. OCCUPATIONS REPORTED BY PART-TIME FARM OPERATORS, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955 Percentage Occupation of operators Percent Farming‘ 44 Manufacturing and buildinga 16 Mechanics and operators“ i 11 Retired ~ 8 Retailing‘ 7 Profession5 6 Other“ 8 Total 100.0 ‘Includes farming and ranching (farm and timber laborers comprise 3 percent). zlncludes carpenters, bricklayers, industrial workers, and so forth. “Includes bulldozer operators, utility company and railroad employees, oil and gas field workers. ‘Includes clerks and owners of retail establishments. ‘Includes doctors, lawyers, government workers, teachers, and so forth. “Includes domestic and custodial workers and housekeepers. 16 average, farms in all groups realized some. erator and family labor, management and cap' from the farm were derived by deducting a chat for depreciation on equipment from the valuel total farm income. . All part-time farms averaged less than $1, in combined farm returns to family labor, 1 agement and capital (Table 7). These retu ranged from $1,255 for group IV, to $1,552. group III. When a chargerisk made for capital‘ vested in the farm business, the average ret to farm labor and management on all farm $421. With a capital investment charge, the p, time farmers in group IV had a low retu $127 to farm family labor and manage ‘_ Farms in this group had high cash farm expe and interest cost on investment that result, this low return to farm labor and manage g Farms in group I, whose operators reporte off-farm work, averaged $713 returns to and management—the highest of any gr These farms had relatively low cash farm e ses and a smaller charge on investments. O turns to family labor and management, but ' sidering the amount of time that family mem- spent at farmwork, returns were low. a Occupations and Labor Utilization Rural families including part-time fa I_ in Northeast Texas have had opportunities I; their labor resources in a range of activities. 5 classification of part-time families as outlin Table 2 indicates that about two-thirds of w. operators worked off their farms 100 dag more annually. ‘ Nonfarm Occupations and Activities The Census of Agriculture classifies y these part-time operators as farmers, and 3, cent of them as commercial farmers. Ho_ only 44 percent of the part-time farm ope f’ reported their occupations as farming (Tab and in 1955, only 4O percent reported their i; economic employment activity as farming. 41 percent reported Wage or salary work as , main activity and about 9 percent were se ployed (Table 9). Only those operators in G‘, I and II spent a major part of their total p tive activity in farming. In both groups, i who reported retirement as their occupation} doing some farming. Nonfarm occupation of greater importance in groups III and IV‘ example, in group IV, only 18 percent re farming as their occupation, even thoughj age sales of farm products per operator y‘ ed to about $2,100. About 16 percent of the part-time fa reported construction and manufacturing, i" ing such activities as carpentry, painting‘ trification and steel plant operations, as the jor occupation. Mechanics’ and operators’ pations (bulldozer operators, garage mec and gasfield laborers) were reported by f ent; retired 8; retailing 7; and profes- percent. e main activities (not occupations) re- ->by family members other than the oper- ere chiefly housekeeping and attending Table 9). Only about 1 in 10 wives work- ithe farm. In group II, however, 25 per- ifthe Wives reported their main activity as for salary worker. Most of the children—- nt—attended school, but 14 percent of gren, those usually above school age, re- '~ orking for salary or wages. In group 6 percent of the children were attending jiAbout 17 percent of the children in this ere operating the farm and an equal per- ljwere in wage or salary work. The di- f ivities of the children remaining home lained because many of the family heads and physically handicapped and the f took on added responsibility. Perhaps Esame reasons, most of the adult children 'g at home were found in these two Only a few persons, including operators fly members, reported “looking for work” jmajor activity in 1955 and only a limited 90f children who had not left home were I ed Forces. 11- ' ation V» on the estimated hours of farmwork go and the hours of off-farm work re- ported, all part-time families including the labor resources of family members working at both farm and nonfarm activities, averaged a little less than the equivalent time worked by a full- time farm operator, or slightly more than 3,000 hours annually (Table 10). It is assumed that one able-bodied, full-time worker can spend about this number of hours at farm and nonfarm work. Nearly 1,800 hours were spent at work off the farm, with only about 60 hours, or 3 percent, spent in work on other farms. On the average, 1,100 hours were spent at work by the operator and family members on their own farms. Families in group I worked. a total of less than 1,400 hours both on and off the farm, but the characteristics of their labor resources explain the reason for this. As shown previously, nearly 30 percent were retired, almost a third were 65 years of age and over and each family’s labor re- source was only about 0.72 of a one-man equiv- alent. The operators in this group did no work off the farm, but other family members put in the equivalent of about 80 8-hour days, including some work on other farms. Work on the farm of families in group I averaged a little more than this, or about the equivalent of 90 days. On the average, families in groups II, III and IV spent about equal amounts of time at farm- ing. Families in groups II and III spent about as much time farming as in nonfarm work. Fam- ilies in group IV spent a little less than half as fMAIOR ACTIVITIES OF OPERATOR AND FAMILY MEMBERS. PART-TIME FARM GROUPS, RURAL NORTHEAST ? TEXAS. 1955 Main activity Unpaid Farm Wage or Farm . l Self- In In armed Looking Dis- House- operator $011,111‘: $313; $235; employed school services for work abled keeper other _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — D ' 75 9 3 13 77 4 15 4 45 2 44 5 4 9 5 69 17 40 3 41 9 2 1 4 13 2 2 83 25 75 8 4 88 6 1 93 l0 l ’ 2 89 17 3 3 17 26 3 7 17 7 8 25 59 8 10 90 13 86 1 3 1 1 14 71 1 2 5 2 _ONS‘ i 8 8 15 15 15 39 14 14 14 14 30 14 36 9 36 19 -. 9 9 19 44 19 persons 2 12 5 7 12 21 34 7 I percent. - living in household were too iew in number for significance. 17 TABLE l0. AVERAGE ‘RESOURCES AND LABOR USED PER FARM. BY PART-TIME FARM GROUPS, NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955 Man- Esti- _ work mated Tlme sPem Total T 0t a1 Farm equiva- family Qff_ of m group lents labor farm Farm" work :1: 39;! per avai1- work in? time family‘ able’ Units — — — — — — Hours — — — — — — Group I 0.72 2.160 640 743 1.383 777 Group II 1.06 3.180 1,132 1.003 2.135 1.045 Group IH 1.22 3.660 1.536 1.246 2.782 878 Group IV 1.29 3.870 2.616 1.020 3.636 234 Average 1.11 3.330 1.776 1.075 2.851 479 ‘Details on manwork equivalents per family are shown in Table 3. “Assuming that 1.0 man equivalent can spend 3.000 hours at farm and nonfarm activity in a year. much time in farming as in nonfarm work, even though the operators had full-time, nonfarm jobs. In the overall use of labor resources, group IV families had the fewest hours of unemploy- ment. The chief difference in the total employ- ment of family members in each group comes from the difference in time put in at nonfarm Work, which ranged from 640 hours for group I to 2,616 hours for group IV. Apparently the labor resources in group IV were rather fully employed. Most of the unem- ployed labor resources occurred where the opera- tors reported less than 250 days of off-farm work. The unemployed time per man equivalent amount- ed to about 97 8-hour days, 130 days and 110 days for groups I, II and III, respectively. This means that more than half of all part-time farm fam- ilies in the area, or more than 10,000, were un- employed about 1 million man-days annually. Due to small acreages and types of enterprises that cannot absorb much additional labor without ma- 100 9o~ a0- 1o»- w t! =1 Enor- l ‘I 1 u. 11.5O- ' o 1 ' ‘ 1 AVERAGE moons '- l z ‘oh 1 . ($3,260) g I i I 5 so - i 1412011111 moon: °- i i ($2340) I ll 20- ,1 - : 10- I 1 l1 If o 1 1 I111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567891011121314 NET CASH MONEY INCOMES (01,000) Figure 7. Percent of part-time farm families with specific net cash money income levels in rural Northeast Texas. 18 jor capital expenditures, the loss of this muci ductive activity apparently means that the ~ in these groups could not find full-time, no employment, but worked only when jobs , available. . The proportion of the farmwork perfo by the operator and other family member not learned. But the off-farm work, incl Work on other farms averaged about 2223 per family, and the operator was the chie son employed working an average of 163 da. three-fourths of the total off-farm work ( 11). Wives and children accounted for nea the rest of the off-farm Work. Work on> farms was slight, accounting on the avera only 21 of the total 222 days worked. The f a great deal of variation in the total of work performed by the family head. It i’ from none in group I to 282 days, about 1~ cent, of the total of 327 days worked by ij group IV. I Income and Income Sources T! The average net cash income was $2,' all rural families in the area, and $1,960 1‘ time farm families!‘ All sources of cash 1 and amounts earned by all family membe _ included, but not nonmonetary income s value of home-produced foods and appr in value of farmland owned. Cash inco part-time farmers averaged about $3,260 1: ‘ily, higher than that of any other type 0 family in the area. The median inco $2,840. About 60 percent of all part-ti i’ families had cash incomes below the ave $3,260 (Figure 7). » Incomes by Sources I The families in groups III and IV, j erators averaged half to full-time nonfa I had considerably higher incomes than fa,‘ groups I and II. Levels of income were same for groups I and II, nearly $2,100. 12). These families had the least off-fa 1 and were more dependent on nonwork. f The income level for families in group II the off-farm work of the operator averagf 150 days, had net money incomes of nearl Net money income of group IV famili‘ operators worked full-time in nonfarm j, about $4,300, or more than double the in families in groups I or II. T The percentage of total net mone from nonfarm work, 73 percent on the“ is further evidence of the importance of work to the income level of all part-if families (Table 12). However, income f farm work varies greatly among groups, centage rising from 30 percent for : { about 87 percent for group IV. As pre dicated, except for group I, the operato SSouthern and Hendrix, op. cit., pp. 9-10. FARM OPERAUONS NONWORK SOURCES I8 OFF-FARM wonx 76 '70 ALL GROUPS GROUP GRUP GROUP I II III IV GROUP L, e 8. Sources of net money income by part-time farm g ups. rural Northeast Texas, 1955. 0st important family member Working off the 1 rm. He earned, on the average, about 79 per- _t of the income from off-farm Work, and in f oups III and IV from nearly 80 to more than 90 rcent, respectively. ,_ On the average, nonwork income was the sec- 'd most important source of income for all part- 5“ farmers. But for group I families, such pay- ants were the most important single income - rce, averaging 57 percent of the total net 'ney income received (Figure 8) . Operators in ,'s group were part-time, not because of work I the farm, but because of the importance of nfarm income in their total income picture. ily in group III was net money income from operations important, on the average, in the l income picture. Even in this group only 18 i ent of the total net money income Was from g ing. For all part-time families, net farm j made up only 6 percent of the total, or i} t $1 of each $17 of income. Income from k on other farms Was of only minor import- in the average income for all operators as p as in the average for any group. TABLE 11. DAYS OF OFF-FARM WORK BY SPECIFIC FAM- ILY MEMBERS, PART-TIME FARM GROUPS. RURAL NORTH- EAST TEXAS. 1955 Person working Part-time iarm . . “h.” Total group Operator Wife Children family members — — — — — —---Days—————-—— Noniarm work Group I 0 26 24 12 62 Group II 4U 61 24 11 136 Group III 132 24 14 2 172 Group IV 264 27 16 0 307 Average 149 29 19 4 201 Work on other farms , Group I 0 0 10 8 18 Group II 11 3 6 8 28 Group I11 17 U 3 U 2U Group IV 18 0 2 U 2U Average 14 4 3 21 Total work otf-farm Group I 0 26 34 2U 80 Group II 51 65 3U 19 165 Group III 149 24 17 2 192 Group IV 282 27 18 U 327 Average 163 29 23 7 222 Nonwork Sources of Income Because of the importance of nonwork in- come a breakdown of the items making up the to- tal amount needs to be examined. Of the $586 average for all families, about 55 percent was from property, including mineral lease and roy- alty payments and rental payments from realty rented out (Table 13). Only 13 percent was of the welfare type of payment. Service-connected benefits and social security and other retirement annuities amounted to about 27 percent of the to- tal. Unemployment compensation and other sour- ces made up 5 percent of the total nonwork in- come. In group I, nonwork income was of major importance, averaging nearly $1,200. Almost 60 percent of this Was from transfer-type payments, that is, pensions and other benefit payments. The rest was from property income. Income from each of these sources was greater for this group than for any other, because of the greater percent- age of older and retired operators and other fam- ily members. Transfer payments would be ex- pected to be more important among families in this group. At the same time, greater real prop- TABLE 12. SOURCES OF INCOME. BY PART-TIME FARM GROUPS. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955 Source of net money income All sources I pementaQe I-‘arm operation Work on other farm Nonfarm work Nonwork In"? families A Percentage A t Percentage A t Percentage A t Percentage Ammmt Peg? 12:2? e ‘I oi total moun of total moun of total moun of total i Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent il- I 23 212 10 63 3 623 3U 1.185 57 2.083 100 II 11 130 6 120 6 1.342 65 484 23 2.076 100 f- 111 23 549 19 174 6 1.939 66 293 10 2.955 100 1V 43 36 1 91 2 3.767 87 446 10 4.340 100 i ge 100 203 6 107 3 2.364 73 586 18 3.260 100 19 TABLE 13. NONWORK INCOME SOURCES PER FAMILY, PART-TIME FARM GROUPS, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS], Income source l» Persenisqe M‘ 1 U 1 _ s ' 1 A'd M'1't . Farm mera 0th nemp oy oc1a P bl. M t l 1 1 1 ary .§.%°‘;’ili£. wl-‘HJF- 395° £212." .::;:*:.:. .351‘; royalties Income sation retirement aid agencles tives benefits Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — — — — — — — — — l, Group I 23 361 142 0 145 ‘221 17 20 235 44 Group II 11 176 27 4 56 65 0 29 "= 126 1 Group III 23 48 61 30 30 p 12 0 0 96 16 Group IV 43 252 111 7 17 13 0 0 40 6 Average 100 223 97 10 54 67 4 8 107 16 erty accumulation among older persons Would mean more property income. Off-farm Work Income Compared to Farm Income The major source of income on part-time farms Was nonfarm Work, on the average. The question arises, “HoW do returns in farm and nonfarm activities compare?” Total net money returns from farming aver- aged only $203 for all operators, or a net money return of 19 cents per hour for farmwork (Table 14). Comparable returns for off-farm Work aver- aged $2,471, or $1.39 an hour. Net money returns from farming varied considerably by groups, from only 4 cents an hour in group IV to 44 cents an hour in group II1. Total farm returns to labor and management, which include the value of all farm perquisites, land appreciation and mineral rent incomes less all farm costs, including an interest charge on total farm investments, may be compared With returns for off-farm Work (Figure 9). Total farm returns to family labor and management on all farms averaged 39 cents per hour compared With $1.39 per hour for off-farm Work (Table 14). Total farm returns to family labor and man- agement were greater than net money returns from farming. The added returns-—perquisites and other farm outputs-—in addition to net money returns Were greater than the value of total farm TABLE 14. INCOME FROM FARM AND OFF-FARM WORK OF ALL FAMILY MEMBERS, BY PART-TIME FARM RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955 _ ’ costs (Table 6). Groups II, III and IV fa had relatively high nonmonetary returns farming and farm returns to family labor; agement and capital compared favorably those farmers in group I. However, high costs, especially the interest cost on inves A lowered total farm returns to labor and m‘ ment for these families. '. Total farm returns to labor and ment per hour of farmwork for family me in group I compare more favorably with r per hour of off-farm Work. These famili ceived about the same value of farm perql and other farm returns (returns other thy: farm sales) as families in other groups but; less time in farmWork, Which resulted in ly high total farm returns per hour. Consi the total value of all farm costs and retu if families in group IV received low retu 1 hour of family labor and management in fa If these family members value their la farming the same as their labor in off-farm‘ substantial losses to labor in farming are; red. That is, if the hours of farmwork we for at the rate of off-farm Work and cha a farm expense, returns to management in ing would be a loss of more than $1,200. on the average, from the standpoint of f labor and management, operators who =- time nonfarm jobs paid for the privilege 0, a part-time farmer. This average, of cour, not represent all individual operators as so 3 Total tarm r0, Returns Net money returns to ’ Fa m r u wggiggxill per hour rlgtitmrzogggn returns per family l P ' g ° P . Y of oH- f . hour of labor and -- mc°me farm work arming iarmwork manage- , ment _ _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — —-—Dollars——————————————j Group I 686 1.07 212 0.29 713 i? Group II 1,462 1.29 130 .13 452 Group III 2,113 1.38 549 .44 616 Group IV 3,858 1.47 36 .04 127 Average 2,471 1.39 203 .19 421 20 efficient enterprises and consequently a ble hourly returns in farming. ‘Returns to nonfarm Work varied less than _ s to farming. Average returns per hour ff-farm work ranged from $1.07 per hour in Q I to $1.39 in group IV, Whose operators ‘ f». full-time off the farm. For some types vnfarm jobs, the returns per hour were great- pnging up to $2.00 and more per hour, but ' y the range in hourly earnings from different jobs was not as great as the range in gs from farm activities. llFamily Money and Nonmoney Income Levels ITotal net money and nonmoney income aver- $4,216 for all part-time families, or almost 3 d more than money income only (Table 15). nge in total income was from about $3,000 L oup I to about $5,300 for group IV (Figure ~ arm returns to family labor, management pital averaged almost $1,400 for all fam- which was more than a third of the total in- 1' received. Of the total farm income, 69 per- nonmoney. The importance of farm re- increased as the off-farm activities of the rs and family members decreased. Farm , Qs to family labor, management and capital i- from 23 percent of the total family in- 11in group IV to 50 percent in group I. How- there was no relationship between the t of labor used in farming and the relative fnce of farm returns, or the dollar value rns in farming. the average, 70 percent of all returns in p,‘ g were returns on investments and only cent were returns to farm labor and man- _j: Thus, most part-time farmers are in- I rather than farmers. RETURNS TO OPERATOR AND FAMILY LABOFl FARM WORK DOLLARS PEAR noun 1.50 OFF-FARM WORK DOLLARS PER noun LOO .530 o o .50 |.oo 1.50 l Figure 9. Average farm returns to family labor and manage- ment in farming and returns to family labor in off-farm work by part-time iarm groups. rural Northeast Texas. 1955. Role oi Part-time Farming Much has been said and written about the role of part-time farming in the overall agricul- tural production pattern, as well as its place in the rapidly advancing rural-urban interdepend- ency. This study has examined part-time farm- ing in an important rural region and compared the relative productivity of farm and nonfarm ac- tivities of the people living on these farms. The specific efficiency levels of various types of part-time enterprises and recommended im- provements that can be made for efficiency in re- source use for greater incomes will be presented in a later report. The current analysis estab- '15. TOTAL FAMILY INCOMES PER FAMILY. OR RETURNS INCLUDING NET MONEY AND NONMONEY INCOME BY 1' FARM AND NONFARM SOURCES, PART-TIME FARM GROUPS. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955 Farm income to family labor. management and capital Total family income Q _ up Net money Families nonfarm N t Total money income‘ Net money Nonmonetary he 02mm: and returns returns 1 feturiso nonmoney income Number — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — — — — — -— —4 — — 4.138 1.510 573 946 2.083 3.029 1.979 1.770 306 1.020 2.076 3.096 4.138 2.358 597 955 2.955 3.910 7.735 4.052 288 967 4.340 5.307 17.990 2.834 426 956 3.260 4.216 Percentage of Total Income Numbeii — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.138 50 19 31 69 100 1.979 57 10 33 67 100 4.138 61 15 24 76 100 p 7.735 76 6 18 82 100 o 17.990 67 10 23 77 100 a return from land resources and a farm output. i, returns from off-farm work and all sources of nonwork income except returns from mineral leases ancl royalties. 21 lished the following points with respect to the general characteristics of and the current situa- tion in part-time farming in the area. To reflect part-time farming among rural families, this analysis uses a broader definition of part-time farming than the definition used by the U. S. Census of Agriculture. Under this broad- er definition, 37 percent of all farmers in the area were classified as part-time operators. These operators controlled 40 percent of the farm and land resources, produced 28 percent of all farm products and obtained 16 percent of the total net money returns from farming. Forty-three percent of the part-time farmers had full-time, nonfarm jobs. Twenty-three per- cent did not work off the farm, but income earn- ed from off-farm work by other members of the family or income of a nonwork nature improved family incomes significantly. The two major ad- justments toward part-time farming, which in- volved two-thirds of the operators, were in an “all or nothing” situation; that is, doing no work off the farm with major dependence on nonwork income, or working full-time off the farm. In hours of labor, part-time farm operators and family members did a considerable amount of farming, averaging a little less than 1,100 hours of farmwork. The operators and family a members in group IV approached full employ- ment in terms of possible hours of work. The other groups, including operators and family members, averaged more than 100 days of unem- ployed time. E VALUE OF NONFARM FARM INCOMES INCOMES DOLLARS 2,000 1,000 0 |,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 | | I I I I | GROUP I 3,029 101m. mcom: GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV 5,307 ALL GROUPS 4,215 \ NONMONEY RETURNS MONEY RETURNS Figure l0. Total money and nonmoney incomes to part-time [arm families by part-time iarm groups, rural Northeast Texas. 1955. 22 In view of the quality of labor resources; family members with limited off-farm l; ment opportunities) on part-time farms in? the operators reported no off-farm work 4 cent of all reporting), farming is importa family members. Including nonmoneta I turns, returns to family labor, manageme capital in farming account for a large per ‘ of the total income receivedjrom all incom’ ces. ' é _ A wide difference in returns exists y the time spent in farming and the time s, off-farm work. On the average, the net 5 return in farming was 19 cents an hour, farm return to family labor and managem, cluding farm perquisites (and rental all‘ and an appreciation in land value), w‘ charge for the use of farm resources, A cents an hour. Per hour return for labor _ farm work averaged $1.39. a The low returns for labor in farming pared with returns in nonfarm work is ed of limited off-farm opportunities for empf for many part-time farm operators wor f than full-time off the farm and for famil bers having little or no off-farm empl Apparently, in an attempt to use their =- sources, they do farmwork and receive L” turns for their labor. If this labor were off-farm work, incomes would be impro returns from farming lowered only sligh? On the average, efficiency of fa m; tions was low when measured in terms output or sales in relation to costs and 5 pended. Although some individual y were more efficient than others, many I be supporting their farm enterprises ~ off-farm earnings. -' Under the present organization and E management on most part-time fa _‘ would be little economic gain in expand' resources to permit full employment ( standpoint of hours worked). Estima - ployment for all family members on : averaged 479 hours. If this time were, farming at the present level of total re hour of family labor and managemen ‘ creased total returns (opportunity cost) " ily would average less than $200. The g‘ are probably too low to justify the addi incurred by expanding farm resources ? fort to obtain full employment. ‘ Relative to other part-time farm, the families with operators reporting; off-farm employment (43 percent of ; families) have large amounts of labor. A erators and family members are appar orous and “willing to work,” as indica -~ relatively full employment. Their fa tivities seem to be an attempt to use I resources fully; yet that part of their q ent” involved in farmwork (in hours of i) is wasted from the standpoint of gaining ate returns for their labor. Under the pres- 'vel of management, these families had low s to family labor and management in farm- i’ ith these general points in mind, the ques- 31 ight be asked: “What is the place of part- ijfarming, and why do operators continue to i?when they get such low returns for their 1 y answers have already been given as to (son for part-time farming. Much of it ‘be associated with values and goals of the dual and family—the desire to live in the ; the desire to farm as a hobby; the de- avoid urban living problems; and the de- i. rear children on a farm. ndoubtedly these desires of the operators "milies are important considerations. How- the place and reason for part-time farming u; area may be economic in nature as well ial. Many operators, even when attribu- their situation to personal and community f 'ves, were aware of economic considera- '- o factors were involved in these economic erations. The first was that economic farm of a nonmonetary nature exceeded the '_ry returns—they were real and significant total income picture of the family. Ob- _j he home can mean a great deal in reducing for food. The value of these home-use j s was shown previously, as well as the jJof other nonmonetary returns (Table 6). Z-operators reported, on the average, an an- alue of home-use products ranging from ii$300 for group I to $415 for group II. The -for all operators was $350. If equality lhness as well as the actual retail value of A oducts are considered, probably the value "re-consumed products was greater than re- . O other nonmonetary return, and one men- gby some operators as “free rent,” was the value of the home. This rental value, of j varies by size and other qualities and fa- “of the home. Many of these rural homes robably rent for $75 or more per month, Lpurposes of this study, a conservative esti- $30 a month, or $360 a year, was assumed " ental value for all homes. third nonmonetary return, which is not so but was referred to frequently by oper- y products grown on the farm and consum- _ ators as a reason for keeping ownership and some use of farm resources, was the appreciation in the value of land held by the average operator (83 percent owned land resources). As with rent, the land-appreciation value is difficult to judge, but according to land-value trends, the apprecia- tion on a net basis (that is, allowing for taxes, other expenses and price level changes) has amounted to more than 3 percent annually over a period of 25 years or so. Based on this estimate, the average annual land-appreciation value per operator has amounted to about $384, and for group IV families as high as $440. The range in land-appreciation value among all operators was as wide as the range in acres of landowned. Many part-time operators had accumulated sizable net assets because of this one noncash income factor. This trend in land-value increase with the obvious result of improved asset position has encouraged maintaining investments in land even though fam- ilies have quit farming. These three nonmoney income sources, when combined were equal to about a third of the aver- age net money income of all operators-—about $1,100. Because of assumed equal rental values of homes and since the value of home-used pro- ducts cannot vary greatly among operators, there was little variation among the four groups in the estimated total amount of nonmoney income. It ranged from about $1,000 for group I to slightly more than $1,100 for group IV. Thus, nonmone- tary returns are important sources of farm re- turns. The second factor involved in the economic consideration of part-time farming was the farm background of operators with economic accumu- lations of farm resources and a feeling that re- turns to resources were adequate. This factor is associated partly with the rather rigid character of resource investment in agriculture. Funds once committed by farm families to farm resources do not flow freely to other investments, even though such investments might return more than farm- ing. Incomes from investments with assured re- turns are probably too low to attract funds that could be obtained by selling farm resources, and people with farm backgrounds generally feel that they are not qualifiedto make speculative invest- ments that might realize high returns. Oppor- tunity costs of foregoing these higher returns do not seem significant to these families. Opera- tors interviewed often expressed the feeling that “there is no better investment (than land) avail- able to me.” The costs of land investment were also opportunity costs since almost all owners held their land debt-free. 23 i mm STATION O nu SULSTATKONS nrs nun uuomronrs A coorzmrmc STATIONS Location oi field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION OPERATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service joclay it KeAearc/z .94 jomorrow ,5 rogre i, State-wide Researc The Texas Agricultural Experiment St - is the public agricultural research age i oi the State oi Texas, and is one oi I parts oi the A&M College oi Texas. IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services f administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of TL 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14- co, stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include f‘ Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Tec College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch: experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural hom f THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, I in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. a these are: a Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle Conservation and use of water Dairy cattle Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats Grain crops Swine Cotton and other fiber crops Chickens and turkeys g Vegetable crops Animal diseases and pa Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fish and game Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engin‘ Oil seed crops Farm and ranch Ornamental plants Marketing agricultural - Brush and weeds Rural home economics e Insects Rural agricultural econo Plant diseases Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS. v WI-IYS. the WHENS. the WHERES and the HOWSY hundreds oi problems which coniront operators, iarms and ranches, and the many industries de g ing on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the ~. ‘A Station and the iield units oi the Texas Agricul Experiment Station seek diligently to iind solutioi these problems. '2