remr, is r«Ponsible for
return to the hbrary from which i, was withdrawn
" or before the Latest Date stamped below
new cell Telephone Center, 333-8400
,LLINOIS LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS LIBRARY
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
AGRICULTURE
Ubr"y Materi"* ^ MMmum F- (w
The person charging this material is responsible for
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn
on or before the Latest Date stamped below.
Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli-
nary action and may result in dismissal from the University
To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
L161— O-1096
1
£
.630.7
/
_£;£ £ 4
*•«= 7? 7
/
(~4SrJ0 . (£i-* J
l I I I I l l I I l I
l I l I l I I I I I
I I I I I I l I I l l
l l I I l I l l l l
U.S. Farmers' Preferences for
AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD POLICY
IN THE 1990S
North Central Regional Extension Publication 361, North Central Regional Research Publication 321, Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 787
I
I
I
I
I
~~l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I I I
I I
I I
CONTRIBUTING
AUTHORS
This report was made possible
through the cooperative efforts of
agricultural economists in 2 1
states, working with the respective
agricultural statistics service and
state statistician, who assisted in
drawing a representative sample of
farm operators. The Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, also supported the
project through a cooperative
research agreement.
Many individuals contributed
ideas from which the questions
asked were derived. In each state,
one or more agricultural economists
supervised the sampling; the dis-
tribution of the questionnaire; and
the editing, processing, and report-
ing of the data from which this
composite report was assembled.
Persons contributing to the research
in the participating states were:
North Central
Illinois: Harold D. Guither,
Extension Economist, Public
Policy, and Professor, Agricul-
tural Policy; Robert G. F. Spitze,
Professor, Agricultural Policy;
Alexander Amuah, Research
Assistant, Agricultural Economics,
University of Illinois.
Indiana: Bob F. Jones, Extension
Economist, Public Policy, and
Professor, Agricultural
Economics; Marshall A. Martin,
Associate Professor, Agricultural
Economics; Dennis Shields,
Graduate Research Assistant,
Purdue University.
Iowa: Mark A. Edelman, Exten-
sion Economist, Public Policy;
Paul Lasley, Extension Rural
Sociologist, Iowa State University.
Kansas: Barry L. Flinchbaugh,
Extension State Leader,
Agricultural Economics; Andrew
Barkley, Assistant Professor,
Agricultural Economics, Kansas
State University.
Michigan: Vern Sorenson,
Professor, Agricultural Economics;
Laurie A. Cummings, Research
Assistant, Michigan State
University.
Missouri: Bruce Bullock,
Director, Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Missouri.
Nebraska: Lynn Lutgen,
Extension Economist, Public
Policy, University of Nebraska.
North Dakota: Norbert A.
Dorow, Extension Economist;
Roger Johnson, Professor,
Agricultural Economics, North
Dakota State University.
South Dakota: Larry Janssen,
Professor, Economics, South
Dakota State University.
Wisconsin: Ed Jesse, Professor,
Agricultural Economics,
University of Wisconsin.
West
Arizona: Harry Ayer, Extension
Economist, Public Policy, Univer-
sity of Arizona.
Idaho: Neil L. Meyer, Extension
Agricultural Economist, Univer-
sity of Idaho.
Washington: Robert L. Sargent,
Extension Economist, Washington
State University.
South
Alabama: J. Lavaughn Johnson,
Head and Professor, Agricultural
Economics, Extension Economist,
Auburn University.
Arkansas: Robert E. Coats, Jr.,
Extension Economist, Manage-
ment and Policy, Cooperative
Extension Service, University of
Arkansas.
Florida: Rodney L. Clouser,
Associate Professor and Extension
Economist, University of Florida.
Mississippi: David Schweikardt,
Assistant Professor, Agricultural
Economics; Robert Martin,
Extension Economist, Public
Policy; Terry Baldridge, Research
Associate, Mississippi State
University.
Oklahoma: Larry Sanders,
Extension Economist, Public
Policy; Daryll Ray, Professor,
Agricultural Economics,
Oklahoma State University.
South Carolina: Harold M.
Harris, Extension Agricultural
Economist; Greg Arbum,
Research Assistant, Clemson
University.
Texas: Lawrence A. Lippke,
Extension Economist, Manage-
ment; Ronald D. Knutson,
Extension Economist, Policy and
Marketing; Edward G. Smith,
Extension Economist, Marketing
and Policy, Texas Agricultural
Extension Service.
Northeast
New York: Bernard F. Stanton
and Andrew Novakovic, Profes-
sors, Agricultural Economics,
Cornell University.
U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Harry Baumes, Economic
Research Service.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AGRICULTURE LIBRARY
U.S. Farmers' Preferences for
AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD POLICY
IN THE 1990S
Harold D. Guither
University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
Bob F. Jones
Purdue University
Marshall A. Martin
Purdue University
Robert G.F. Spitze
University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
and contributing authors from
participating states
November 1989
North Central Regional Extension Publication 361
North Central Regional Research Publication 321
Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station BulfcSfltStJLTURE LIBRARY
FEB 2 7 1991
•••m.'CnO'T" or l|
TABLES
1 . Participating States, Size of
Sample, and Number of Usable
Responses
2. Preferred Policy on Production
and Price Supports after 1990
3. Preferences for Continuation of
Target Prices
4. Preferred Loan Rate Policy
5. Preferences for Continuing Paid
Land Diversion
6. Marketing Loan for Wheat, Feed
Grains, and Soybeans
7. Preferred Type of Acreage Bases
8. Preference for Continuing Use
of Payment-in-Kind (PIK)
Certificates
9. Preference for Continuing
Farmer-Owned Grain Reserve
10. Preferred Milk Price Policy
1 1 . Preferred Discretion for the
Secretary of Agriculture
12. Responses to the Statement that
Future Farm Programs Should
Give More Benefits to Farmers
with Annual Sales under
$250,000
13. Responses to the Statement that
Government Programs Should
Influence the Number and Size of
Farms
14. Proposed Ways to Reduce
Farm Commodity Program
Expenditures
15. Opinions on Conservation
Compliance to Obtain Program
Benefits
16. Preferred Future Conservation
Reserve Policy
1 7. Preferred Ways to Improve Soil
Conservation and Water Quality
1 8. Responses to the Proposal that
the Government Should Regulate
Land Uses to Reduce Water
Pollution
19. Preferred Policy on Crop
Insurance
20. Preferred Policy on Payment
Limitation
21 . Preferred Policy on the
Government's Loaning Money to
Farmers with Limited Capital
22. Responses to the Proposal that
Food Assistance Programs
Should Be Increased to Meet the
Needs of Those Eligible
23. Responses to the Proposal that
the Government Should Increase
Funding for Rural Development
Programs
24. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should
Negotiate Worldwide Trade-
Barrier Reductions
25. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should Rely
More on Bilateral Agreements
26. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should
Negotiate Domestic Farm
Subsidy Reductions in Major
Importing and Exporting
Countries
27. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should Join
with Other Exporting Countries
to Establish Production and
Marketing Controls
28. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should Provide
More Funds for Food Aid to
Hungry Nations
29. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should
Encourage Programs to Develop
Additional Farmer-Financed
Foreign Market Development
Programs
30. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should
Continue the Export Enhance-
ment Program and Other Export
Subsidies
3 1 . Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should Reduce
Its Agricultural Import Barriers
to Encourage Trade
32. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should Assist
Developing Countries Increase
Their Agricultural Productivity
and Trade Potential
33. Responses to the Proposal that
the United States Should Give
Selected Low Income Countries
Preferred Entry to the U.S.
Agricultural Market
34. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Cutting Every
Budget Item by a Set Percentage
35. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Reducing the
Defense Budget
36. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Reducing Social
Programs, Excluding Social
Security
37. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Reducing Social
Security Payments
38. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Reducing Farm
Program Expenditures
39. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Raising Taxes
40. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Increasing the Col-
lection of Taxes Due the Federal
Government
41. Responses to the Proposal that
the Federal Deficit Should Be
Reduced by Increasing User Fees
for Government Services
42. Farm Program Participation in
1988
43. Age of Respondents
44. Last Year of School Completed
by Respondents
45. Annual Gross Sales of
Respondents
46. Family Income from Off-Farm
Employment
47. Most Important Source of Cash
Receipts in 1988
48. Respondents' Membership
in Farm and Commodity
Organizations
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Summary 2
Future Directions for Commodity Programs 4
Target Prices 4
Setting Loan Rates 4
Paid Land Diversion 5
Marketing Loans 5
Acreage Bases 5
Payment-in-Kind (PIK.) Certificates 6
Farmer-Owned Reserve (FOR) 6
Future Dairy Policy 6
Discretion for the Secretary of Agriculture 7
More Support for Smaller Farms 7
Influencing the Size and Number of Farms 7
Cutting Farm Program Costs 8
Conservation Programs 9
Required Conservation Plans for Program Benefits 9
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 9
Preferred Ways to Improve Soil Conservation
and Water Quality 9
Regulating Land Use to Reduce Water Pollution 9
Other Issues 10
Crop Insurance 10
Payment Limitation 10
Credit to Farmers with Limited Capital 10
Food Assistance Programs 10
Rural Development 1 1
Agricultural Trade and Development 12
Federal Spending 15
Profile of Survey Respondents 16
Questionnaire 18
Tables... ..21
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was organized by a
subcommittee of the National
Public Policy Education Commit-
tee, which annually plans the
National Public Policy Education
Conference sponsored by the Farm
Foundation. The subcommittee
which coordinated the state sur-
veys was composed of Ed Bradley,
University of Wyoming; David
Lee, Cornell University; Larry
Sanders, Oklahoma State Univer-
sity; and Harold D. Guither,
University of Illinois, chairman.
The North Central Public Policy
Research Committee (NCR- 151),
represented by Robert G.F. Spitze,
University of Illinois, chairman;
Marshall A. Martin, Purdue Uni-
versity; and Daryll Ray, Okla-
homa State University, worked
with this committee in coordinat-
ing and organizing the project.
Special appreciation is extended to
the state agricultural statisticians
who assisted in selecting samples
to ensure representative and
reliable responses and in preparing
and mailing the surveys.
Dennis Shields, graduate research
assistant, Purdue University,
provided invaluable contributions
in analyzing and merging data for
the regional and total composite
responses. Connie Schwartz,
computer programmer at Purdue
University, wrote the software for
data entry and assisted with statis-
tical analysis.
Publication and distribution of this
report was made possible through
a cooperative agreement with the
Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
iii
STATES PARTICIPATING
IN THE SURVEY
Alabama
• Iowa
• North Dakota
Arizona
• Kanasas
• Oklahoma
Arkansas
• Michigan
• South Carolina
Florida
• Mississippi
• South Dakota
Idaho
• Missouri
• Texas
Illinois
• Nebraska
• Washington
Indiana
• New York
• Wisconsin
iv
INTRODUCTION
Providing for programs through
the 1 990 crop year, the Food
Security Act of 1 985 sets the stage
for new agricultural and food
legislation in 1990. Hearings by
Congressional committees and
public meetings are providing
opportunities for leaders of farm,
agribusiness, and consumer
organizations to express their
views on the form this legislation
should take.
To learn more about the preferences
of individual farmers, agricultural
economists in all major agricul-
tural states were offered the oppor-
tunity to participate in this nation-
wide policy-preference research
project. In the spring of 1989,
surveys using the same questions
were conducted in 2 1 states repre-
senting all regions of the nation.
This study was a cooperative
effort carried out by many people
who believe that preferences of
representative groups of farmers
contribute to the educational and
policy-making process.
The results of the study are poten-
tially valuable to many different
groups. For example, policy
educators can more fully carry out
their responsibilities if they know
how farmers view specific issues.
Leaders of farm and commodity
organizations can learn if their
resolutions and policy positions
align with the views of a scientifi-
cally drawn sample of farmers.
Agribusiness leaders and citizen
groups can see if their positions
match with farmers' views on the
major issues. Policy makers in
Congress and the executive branch
of the federal government can
use the information to determine
if a consensus exists on specific
policy issues.
Policy research workers in the par-
ticipating states cooperated in
developing a uniform question-
naire so that they could accurately
identify similarities and differ-
ences of opinion across state lines
and among regions of the country.
Questions selected for the survey
centered on the major issues that
agricultural and food policy
makers will face in 1990: policies
on price and income support,
conservation and the environment,
credit, trade, food assistance, and
fiscal matters.
After the questionnaire was
developed, agricultural economists
in each participating state inde-
pendently carried out its portion
of the survey. In all states, sam-
ples were drawn by or with the
assistance of the state agricultural
statistics service to attain a repre-
sentative sample of the state's
farmers. Special measures were
taken to protect the privacy of all
respondents, by keeping their
individual responses confidential
to comply with federal law.
Responses from each state were
combined and weighted according
to the number of farms reported in
the 1987 Census of Agriculture, to
obtain regional and total compos-
ite responses. For the few cases in
which a specific question was not
asked in one or two states, the
composite is based on the number
of states in which the question was
asked. Because all regions of the
country are represented in the
survey, the weighted responses
should be reasonably representa-
tive of all U.S. farmers.
Response rates varied from state
to state. Of course, variation in
follow-up technique may have
contributed to the variability: in
some states, after mail responses
were received, telephone inter-
views were conducted with
samples of those who did not
respond by mail, thus giving
additional reliability to the
responses received. Overall, this
report includes the responses of
12,717 farmers from 21 states
(map, page iv; Table 1).
Tables showing the weighted
responses from all respondents, as
well as individual state responses,
follow the text. The questionnaire
used in the survey is reproduced
on pages 1 8 through 20.
The 2 1 states where the survey
was conducted represented 59
percent of all 1987 cash receipts
from U.S. farmers in and included
58 percent of all farms in the
nation. These states marketed
70 percent of the meat animals,
53 percent of the dairy products,
70 percent of the food grains, 72
percent of the feed crops, 7 1 per-
cent of the oilseed crops, and 60
percent of the cotton sold in the
United States.
SUMMARY
In this survey of policy prefer-
ences, farmers in 21 states across
the country were systematically
selected to represent all U.S.
farmers. The 12,717 individuals
who responded express a wide
range of preferences on agricul-
tural and food policy that are im-
portant to the approaching 1990
legislation. Although the sum-
mary statements are based on an
aggregation of data from all par-
ticipating states, there may be
important reasons to consider
regional, production, and demo-
graphic differences in the results.
Policy direction.
Farmers' preferences are divided
on the direction that commodity
programs should take, but they
generally agree on the instruments
to carry them out. A majority
favors some form of continuation
of farm programs, while one-third
favors gradual elimination. A few
prefer mandatory supply control or
decoupling as an overall policy for
price and income support.
Target prices and loan rates.
A majority of farmers would like
to keep target prices, with more
favoring increased rather than
current or reduced target prices.
To set loan rates, farmers would
prefer to use average market
prices or to eliminate commodity
loan programs.
Paid land diversion.
Although farmers are divided on
continuing paid land diversion,
about two-fifths would prefer con-
tinuing to give the Secretary of
Agriculture an option to use it.
Marketing loans.
More farmers favor than oppose
a marketing loan for wheat, feed
grains, and soybeans. While the
north central and southern states
support the marketing loan, farm-
ers in the West and Northeast
disapprove.
Acreage bases.
Nearly a majority of the respon-
dents favors a crop acreage base
that would permit more flexibility
to plant different crops than does
the current, crop-specific acreage
bases.
Payment-in-kind (PIK)
certificates.
Farmers are split three ways on
continuing the use of PIK certifi-
cates: yes, no, and not sure.
Farmer-owned reserve (FOR).
About twice as many farmers
favor continuing the farmer-
owned reserve as oppose continu-
ation of it.
Future dairy support.
Preferences on future milk price
policy are divided, but the most
frequent choice among all respon-
dents is to phase out the dairy
support program. Milk producers
are also divided, but their most
frequent preference is to base sup-
port prices on the cost of produc-
tion and to establish a quota for
each producer.
Administrative discretion.
Although the Secretary of Agricul-
ture has considerable discretion in
implementing farm programs,
more respondents would prefer to
make no change than to give that
cabinet officer more or less
discretion.
Distribution of benefits.
A majority favors giving more
benefits to farmers with annual
gross sales under $250,000.
However, respondents do not
support using government pro-
grams to influence the number
and size of farms.
Reducing farm program costs.
If budget pressures require
reducing farm program expendi-
tures, respondents prefer to
continue payments to farmers with
under $250,000 in annual gross
sales and to reduce payments to
larger farm operators, or to make
across-the-board percentage cuts.
Neither eliminating some programs
nor basing payments on severe
financial need is a popular choice.
Conservation programs.
Farmers strongly support the con-
servation compliance features of
the 1985 Food Security Act. They
also strongly support the 10-year
Conservation Reserve Program
but are divided on how much
acreage should be included. To
improve soil conservation and
water quality, they prefer cost
sharing for conservation and water
structures and using government
payments to modify cultural prac-
tices or remove land from com-
mercial production. Respondents
are concerned with water pollution
and agree that government should
regulate land uses to reduce it.
Crop insurance and disasters.
On other production issues,
farmers are divided on a policy to
deal with farm production risks
from natural disasters. Their most
frequent preferences are to keep
the present crop-insurance pro-
gram and to have limited disaster
assistance in years of severe
natural disturbances.
Payment limitation.
Fanners are divided on the ques-
tion of payment limitation, but the
most frequent preference is to
make no change in the present
$50,000 limit.
Credit for farmers with limited
capital.
Farmers are about evenly divided
in favor of and opposed to the
government's lending money to
farmers who cannot get credit
from any other source.
Domestic food assistance.
Food assistance programs are
more popular in the north central
states and the Northeast than in the
West and South.
Rural development.
Rural development to expand em-
ployment and economic activity in
low income rural areas receives
strong support from all farmers.
Trade.
Farmers support negotiation to
reduce worldwide trade barriers;
increased use of bilateral agree-
ments; reduction of domestic farm
subsidies in major importing and
exporting countries; international
agreements to control production
and marketing; additional farmer-
financed market development pro-
grams; and export enhancement
and other export subsidies.
Foreign food assistance.
Respondents express no clear
preference on proposals to provide
more funds for food aid to hungry
nations, for the United States to
assist developing countries in-
crease their agricultural productiv-
ity and trade potential, or for
giving selected low income
countries preferred entry to the
U.S. agricultural market.
Federal spending.
Farmers support reducing the
federal deficit by cutting every
budget item by a set percentage,
by reducing the defense budget, by
reducing social programs, by
reducing farm program expendi-
tures, by collecting taxes due the
federal government, and by in-
creasing user fees for government
services. Respondents oppose
raising taxes or cutting social
security payments to reduce the
federal deficit.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
FOR COMMODITY
PROGRAMS
Farmers were asked what the
policy should be toward produc-
tion controls and associated price
supports after the 1985 Food
Security Act expires in 1990.
Although farmers across the
country are divided in their prefer-
ences, over half (52 percent)
prefer some type of price support
program. Among all farmers
responding, about one-third would
like to keep the present programs.
Slightly more than one-third
would like to gradually eliminate
commodity programs including set
aside, price support, deficiency
payments, and government
storage. Eleven percent would
prefer mandatory controls, and 8
percent want decoupling of
payments from production re-
quirements.
The strongest support for the
present programs comes from the
north central and southern states.
The West and Northeast are least
favorable for keeping the present
programs. The most support for
eliminating all programs comes
from farmers in the western states.
The percent of respondents
wanting to keep the present pro-
gram varies from 19 to 41 percent
in the different states. The percent
preferring to gradually eliminate
commodity programs varies from
22 to 52 percent (Table 2).
The farmers who most want to
gradually eliminate the programs
are those with annual gross cash
receipts under $40,000 or over
$500,000; with their major source
of income from cattle or hogs; or
with annual off-farm income over
$40,000.
Establishing a mandatory supply
control program, if approved in a
farmer referendum, is not a
popular choice. Among all
respondents, only 1 1 percent
choose this option; responses of
individual states vary from 5 to 23
percent. Somewhat more support
for mandatory controls comes
from the Great Plains, the South-
east, and Wisconsin than from
other states. In many of these
states, production risks are high
and crop choices are more limited.
In the Southeast, more mandatory
acreage programs, such as tobacco
and peanuts, have been in use.
The concept of separating govern-
ment payments from production
requirements (sometimes called
decoupling) is preferred by 8
percent of the respondents, with
the lowest support from the
Northeast. Individual state
responses vary from 4 to 14
percent. Of the alternatives pre-
sented, this one is probably least
understood, because it has not
been generally used.
Target Prices
Target prices are established by
law for certain crops. If the
market price does not equal the
target price over a specified
number of months, qualifying
farmers receive a deficiency
payment to make up the differ-
ence. Farmers were asked what
policy they prefer for target prices.
Target prices are a popular part of
the current price and income
support program. A majority
would like to keep target prices.
Only 28 percent want to phase
them out. However, 38 percent
want to raise them; 12 percent
favor continuing at present rates;
and 9 percent want to lower them.
The strongest support to raise
target prices comes from the north
central states; the strongest
support for phasing out comes
from the western states. Com-
pared to farmers in other regions,
a higher proportion of southern
farmers wants to continue them at
present levels (Table 3).
The strongest support for raising
target prices comes from major
wheat-, corn-, and cotton-produc-
ing states and from farmers with
annual gross cash receipts between
$40,000 and $500,000. The
strongest support for phasing out
target prices comes from livestock
and non-grain producers and those
with annual off-farm incomes over
$40,000.
Setting Loan Rates
The loan rate is established by
law, with some final discretion by
the Secretary of Agriculture. It
determines the amount of money
that the government will lend per
unit of the commodity, enabling
farmers to hold eligible products
for later sale. Farmers were asked
what policy they prefer for
commodity loans.
Although farmers are divided on
future loan rate policy, the most
frequent preference is to base the
loan rate on the previous five-year
average market prices to keep
prices competitive. This formula
was established by the 1985 Food
Security Act. However, while 36
percent of all respondents prefer
using average market prices, 34
percent favor eliminating loan
rates and commodity loans. Only
1 8 percent would like to see loan
rates raised as a primary means to
support prices.
The least support to raise loan
rates comes from the West and
Northeast, and the most support to
eliminate commodity loans comes
from the western states. Within
the north central states, respon-
dents show a wide range of
preferences for using average
market prices to set, raise, or
eliminate loan rates (Table 4).
The strongest preference to base
loan rates on the five-year average
market price comes from grain
producers and from mixed grain
and livestock producers. In
contrast, the strongest preference
to gradually eliminate loan rates
and commodity loans comes from
livestock producers.
Based on annual gross sales from
farming, the strongest preference
to eliminate commodity loans is
expressed by those respondents
with sales under $40,000 or over
$500,000. Those with annual off-
farm incomes over $40,000 also
strongly favor phasing out
commodity loans.
Paid Land Diversion
Under the 1985 Food Security
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
was given the discretion to control
production through a paid land
diversion program. Farmers were
asked if the paid land diversion
program should be continued.
Among all farmers, 41 percent
would like to see paid diversion
continue as an option available to
the Secretary of Agriculture; 27
percent would not; and 32 percent
are not sure or did not respond.
Strongest support for paid
diversion comes from the north
central and southern states.
Farmers in the western states are
least supportive of paid diversion
(Table 5).
Paid diversion is favored by a
majority of farmers in the Dako-
tas, Illinois, Iowa, Oklahoma, and
South Carolina. Grain farmers
strongly support paid diversion,
while livestock farmers show
more opposition than support.
Support is more positive among
farmers with over $40,000 in
annual gross sales than with those
under $40,000.
Marketing Loans
The marketing loan program
enables a producer who has a
government commodity loan to
repay the loan at the market price
for that commodity, even if that
price is below the loan rate. The
1985 Food Security Act author-
ized the marketing loan for rice
and cotton. The Secretary was
also given discretionary authority
to use it for wheat, feed grains,
and soybeans but has not done so
through 1989. Farmers were
asked if the marketing loan should
be extended to include wheat, feed
grains, and soybeans.
Farmers are divided on this
question. Among all fanners, 36
percent support marketing loans
for wheat, feed grains, and soy-
beans; 30 percent oppose; and 34
percent are not sure or did not
reply (Table 6). Farmers in the
north central and southern states
are most supportive of the market-
ing loan, while farmers in the
West are least supportive. The
highest proportion of "not sure"
and "no reply" responses also
comes from the western states
(Table 6).
All types of farmers except major
livestock producers support the
marketing loan for wheat, feed
grains, and soybeans. More
farmers with all sizes of opera-
tions support marketing loans than
oppose them. However, more
farmers with over $40,000 annual
income from off-farm employ-
ment oppose than support market-
ing loans.
The high proportion of farmers
who are not sure about marketing
loans or gave no response suggests
that many of them do not under-
stand this concept.
Acreage Bases
Under the 1 985 Act, each farmer
growing a program crop has a
specific base acreage for that crop
based on production history. On
many farms, other crops are grown
that do not qualify for program
payments. Because the type of
farm acreage bases is expected to
be a major issue in the 1990 farm
bill debate, farmers were asked if
they would prefer the current
policy or a total crop acreage base
that would permit more flexibility
in what they plant on their farms.
The 1988 Disaster Assistance Act
permitted farmers to plant soybeans
or sunflowers on as much as 25
percent of their program crop base
and still maintain their historic
program crop base in future years.
Among all farmers responding, 47
percent favor a total crop acreage
base; 3 1 percent favor a crop-
specific base; and the remainder
wants other arrangements or did
not respond. Although more
farmers in each region favor total
crop bases over crop-specific
bases, the strongest support comes
FUTURE DECISION FOR COMMODITY
PROGRAMS, CONTINUED
from the north central and
southern states. In only six states
does a majority favor the total
crop acreage base (Table 7).
However, strong support for the
total crop acreage base comes from
farmers with all types of operations,
from those in all sales classes, and
from those with all levels of off-
farm income.
Payment-in-Kind (PIK)
Certificates
After passage of the 1985 Act, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture
began to issue generic, negotiable
marketing certificates for payment
of certain farm program benefits.
These payment-in-kind (PIK) cer-
tificates provided a means for
farmers to move grain or cotton
under loan before the loan
matured and a means for the
government to move its stocks
into marketing channels although
the market price was below the
authorized price for the govern-
ment to sell its stocks. Because
the certificates are negotiable, they
also have cash value and are
bought and sold by farmers and
commodity marketing firms.
Farmers were asked if the use of
generic payment-in-kind certifi-
cates should continue as part of
the price and income support
programs as long as government-
controlled stocks exist.
Farmers are definitely divided on
this issue. Among all respondents,
37 percent say yes; 32 percent, no;
and 3 1 percent are not sure or did
not respond. In the north central
states, slightly more oppose than
favor PIK certificates. Strongest
support comes from the southern
states. In 14 states, mostly in the
South, north central states, and the
Northeast, more farmers favor
than oppose continuing use of the
PIK certificates. Substantial num-
bers in most states also are unsure
about their use. A majority of
farmers in North and South
Dakota opposes continuing use,
probably reflecting what may be
considered unfavorable results with
use of the certificates (Table 8).
When farmers responding are
divided by major source of farm
income and volume of sales, more
respondents with over $100,000 in
annual gross sales and those with
grain as their major source of
income favor use of PIK certifi-
cates than do other respondents.
Farmer-Owned Reserve
(FOR)
The farmer-owned reserve (FOR)
wasestablishedintheFoodand Ag-
riculture Act of 1977 and contin-
ued with certain limits in the 1981
and 1 985 acts. Farmers were asked
if some form of farmer-owned
grain reserve should be continued.
Among all respondents, 45 percent
favor continuing the farmer-owned
reserve with national minimum
and maximum amounts to be
stored; 22 percent oppose; and 33
percent are not sure or did not
respond. In each region and in
each state, more favor than oppose
continuing the farmer-owned
reserve. A majority of farmers in
Iowa, Nebraska, North and South
Dakota, Arkansas, Florida, and
South Carolina favor the FOR.
The lowest level of support comes
from the western states (Table 9).
All types of farmers, all sales
groups, and all amounts of off-farm
employment income support the
farmer-owned reserve.
Future Dairy Policy
Although the dairy price support
program was permanently
authorized by the Agricultural Act
of 1949, it currently operates
under amendments in the Food
Security Act of 1985. Milk prices
are supported through government
purchases of manufactured dairy
products at specified prices.
Farmers were asked their prefer-
ence for a future price support
program for milk producers.
Among all farmers, responses are
divided on what the future dairy
program should be. The total
responses show that 28 percent
favor phasing out all dairy price
supports over a period of several
years. Although 3 1 percent favor
some type of support program, 16
percent favor the present program
with adjustments of the support
price up or down based on
production and projected govern-
ment purchases; and 15 percent
want to shift to a support based on
average production costs and to
establish a production quota for
each producer. Only 4 percent
want to let the Secretary of Agri-
culture have more authority in
setting the support price, and 37
percent either are not sure or did
not reply (Table 10).
Although the composite response
shows a slight preference for some
type of program, the most frequent
response in each region is to phase
out the program.
When responses of only dairy
farmers are analyzed, much more
support for a price support
program is evident. Among all
dairy farmers, 4 1 percent prefer
to have support prices based on
average costs of production and a
production quota established for
each producer; 23 percent want to
phase out the program over
several years; 1 9 percent want to
keep the present program; 14 per-
cent are not sure; and 2 percent
would let the Secretary of Agricul-
ture decide the program.
In Wisconsin, 33 percent favor a
cost-of-production support with a
production quota; 25 percent favor
phasing out the program; 14 per-
cent favor the present program;
and 2 percent would let the
Secretary of Agriculture set the
support.
Only in Michigan, Wisconsin,
Washington, and Arkansas do
more farmers favor a price support
based on cost of production and a
quota system instead of the
present program (Table 10).
Discretion for the
Secretary of Agriculture
In all major farm legislation, the
Secretary of Agriculture has been
authorized to make certain
decisions to administer the price
and income support programs.
Respondents were asked how
much discretion the Secretary of
Agri-culture should have (com-
pared to the present) in setting
loan rates, set-aside acreage, and
export subsidies.
Farmers are divided on this
question. Among all farmers, 40
percent would make no changes;
33 percent would give less discre-
tion; 15 percent would give more;
and 1 2 percent did not respond.
Making no change in the amount
of discretionary decisions is also
the most frequent response in the
north central, western, and
southern states. But in New York,
giving less discretion is the most
frequent response. Only in Florida
does a majority of respondents
want to give the Secretary more
decision-making discretion
(Table 11).
Making no change in the Secre-
tary's discretionary authority is the
most frequent response among
farmers with all different sources
of income and amounts of income
from off-farm employment.
Farmers in all sales classes favor
keeping discretion the same,
except slightly more of those with
$250,000 to $500,000 in annual
gross sales favor less discretion.
More Support for
Smaller Farms
A major issue in debates on
previous farm bills has been
whether or not a higher proportion
of benefits should go to smaller
farms. In this survey, farmers
were asked to agree or disagree
with the statement that future
programs should be changed to
give more program benefits to
farms with annual gross sales
under $250,000.
Among all respondents, a majority
agrees that operators of smaller
farms should receive more
benefits. Although less than a
majority of farmers in the West
agrees, the proportion agreeing is
more than those who disagree
(Table 12). Farmers with all types
of enterprises and all levels of off-
farm income favor more support
for smaller farms. However, when
responses are divided by value of
annual sales, a majority of farmers
with annual gross sales over
$250,000 disagrees with giving
more benefits to smaller operators.
Influencing the Size and
Number of Farms
Whether or not farm programs
influence the trend toward larger
and fewer farms has become a
policy issue. Respondents were
asked if they agree that future
farm programs should be used to
influence the number and size of
farms, with allowance for type of
farm and geographic conditions.
Farmers are divided on this issue,
but 38 percent oppose while only
29 percent support the concept
that government programs should
influence the number and size of
farms (Table 13). Each region
shows more disagreement than
agreement on this issue. Only in
North Dakota, Alabama, Arkan-
sas, and Mississippi do more
farmers agree that government
programs should influence the
number and size of farms.
The greatest differences in
responses to this question come
from farmers with operations of
different sizes. In all classes of
annual gross sales over $40,000,
more farmers disagree than agree
that government should influence
farm size and numbers. A
majority of those over $250,000
disagrees, probably because larger
operators suspect that any efforts
to influence size would be to
reduce or limit the size or number
of larger farms.
The "not sure" responses on this
question range from 1 7 to 29
percent in the different states, a
higher percentage than for many
of the questions.
FUTURE DECISION FOR COMMODITY
PROGRAMS, CONTINUED
Cutting Farm Program
Costs
Respondents were asked how farm
commodity program costs should
be cut if necessary to reduce
federal spending. Respondents are
divided on what should be done.
Among all respondents, 35 percent
want to continue payments to
operators of small- to moderate-
size farms with annual gross sales
under $250,000 and to reduce
payments to operators of large
farms. However, 28 percent want
to make across-the-board percent-
age cuts. Neither making pay-
ments only on basis of financial
need nor cutting some programs
more than others is a popular
choice (Table 14).
Larger farm operators with annual
gross sales over $250,000 more
frequently prefer to make across-
the-board cuts. Farm operators in
the southern states are about
equally divided between percent-
age cuts and reductions of pay-
ments to larger farms. Making
payments to farmers with the most
severe financial need is favored
more frequently in Missouri and
some southern states than in other
regions of the country.
CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
Required Conservation
Plans for Program
Benefits
The conservation title of the 1985
Food Security Act included a
requirement that farmers with
highly erodible land have ap-
proved conservation plans devel-
oped by January 1 , 1 990, and
implemented by January 1, 1995,
to maintain eligibility for farm
program benefits. Respondents
were asked if soil conservation
and water quality compliance
should be a condition for receiving
farm program benefits.
Among all respondents, 60 percent
favor this provision. A majority in
all regions and all types and sizes
of farms supports this program.
Although some differences are
noted from state to state, the
responses indicate strong support
for this provision of the 1985 Act
(Table 15).
Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP)
The Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) in the 1985 Act
authorized up to 45 million acres
of the most erodible cropland to be
taken out of production for 10
years and planted to trees or
seeded to soil-conserving crops.
Rental payments are made annu-
ally and determined on a bid basis.
By early 1989, 30 million acres
had been signed up for this
program. Respondents were asked
what future policy they prefer.
Farmers definitely support the
CRP. Among all respondents,
only 26 percent want to eliminate
the program, while 23 percent
would keep the CRP acreage at 30
million, 23 percent would expand
it to 45 million, and 14 percent
want to expand it even further, to
60 million. Support for the
program is somewhat lower in the
West than in other regions
(Table 16).
Respondents in the north central
states and the West are more
supportive of expanding to 45
million acres; while in the South
and Northeast, more favor keeping
acreage around 30 million.
Farmers with larger sales volume
are more supportive of larger CRP
acreage. Livestock farmers more
frequently favor eliminating the
program or keeping acreage
around 30 million.
Preferred Ways
to Improve Soil
Conservation and
Water Quality
Soil conservation and water
quality continue to be major
policy issues. Respondents were
asked to check all the methods
listed that they believe would be
most effective in achieving
improvements in soil conservation
and water quality: ( 1 ) regulation
of farming practices; (2) taxing
certain practices, such as high
levels of chemical and fertilizer
use; (3) cost sharing only for
conservation and water structures;
and (4) government payments to
modify cultural practices or to
remove land from commercial
production.
Among all respondents, 45 percent
select cost sharing for soil and
water conservation structures;
25 percent select government
payments to modify cultural
practices or to remove land from
production. Regulating farm
practices and taxing certain
practices are each selected by 1 6
percent of respondents. In each
region, the ranking of these prac-
tices is about the same (Table 17).
Regulating Land Use to
Reduce Water Pollution
Respondents were asked if they
agree with a statement that govern-
ment should regulate land uses to
reduce water pollution. Among all
respondents, 6 1 percent agree; 1 8
percent disagree: and 21 percent
are not sure or did not respond.
Although more agree than dis-
agree, support for regulating land
uses to reduce water pollution is
lower in the western states and the
Northeast than in other regions of
the country (Table 18).
OTHER ISSUES
Crop Insurance
A comprehensive, subsidized, all-
risk crop insurance program was
enacted in September 1980.
Participating producers pay a
portion of the cost and the federal
government pays part. The 1988
and 1989 drought conditions in
many parts of the country have
made crop insurance policy a
major issue. Farmers were asked
what our national policy should be
to deal with farm production risks
from natural disasters.
Responses show a wide division.
Among all farmers, 33 percent
want to keep the present program;
2 1 percent prefer that the govern-
ment provide limited disaster
assistance in years of severe
natural disturbances, but without
federal crop insurance; 1 3 percent
prefer that farmers be required to
buy crop insurance to be eligible
for government program benefits;
and 1 1 percent favor eliminating
all disaster payments. The
remainder had other responses or
did not respond. Only in North
Dakota does a majority favor
keeping the present program.
Farmers in the north central states,
the West, and the South have
about the same preferences. In the
Northeast, more farmers favor
disaster payments, and fewer want
to eliminate all programs or have
mandatory insurance (Table 19).
Responses from farmers with
different types of farms, volumes
of sales, and amounts of off-farm
income are about the same.
Payment Limitation
Under the 1985 Act, there is a
$50,000 limit on direct price sup-
port payments to each farmer —
with certain exceptions. Respon-
dents were asked to recommend a
future policy.
Among all respondents, 39 percent
prefer to make no change; 27
percent want to decrease the limit;
1 1 percent want to eliminate the
limit; 7 percent want to increase it;
and 1 1 percent did not reply. Com-
pared to other regions, more
farmers in the north central states
prefer to make no change. Fewer
farmers in the West want to de-
crease the limit, and more want to
increase or eliminate it than do
farmers in other regions (Table 20).
Although more farmers in all sizes
and types of operations and with
all amounts of off-farm income
prefer to make no change, some
differences are noted. More
farmers with annual gross sales
over $250,000 prefer to eliminate
the limit than do fanners with
lower sales volumes. Farmers
with annual off-farm incomes over
$10,000 show more preference to
decrease the payment limit.
Preferences are about the same
for all types of farms.
Credit to Farmers with
Limited Capital
The Farmers Home Administra-
tion, an agency within the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, makes direct
loans to farmers who cannot get
credit from other sources. It has
faced serious problems with
delinquent loans during the 1980s.
Respondents were asked if the
government should continue to
loan money to farmers with
limited capital who cannot get
credit from other sources.
Farmers are definitely divided on
this question. Among all respon-
dents, 37 percent say yes; 35
percent, no; and 28 percent are not
sure or did not reply. Strongest
support for borrowers with limited
capital is in the South and least in
the north central states. In
Indiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Wisconsin, and Arizona, more
respondents oppose lending to
these farmers than favor it
(Table 21).
Farmers with annual gross sales
under $40,000 are more suppor-
tive of limited-capital borrowers
than are larger operators. Respon-
dents with operations over
$500,000 in annual gross sales are
more strongly opposed to these
borrowers than are those with
lower sales volumes.
Food Assistance
Programs
The domestic food assistance
programs are designed to feed
hungry people and also to stimu-
late greater consumption of
plentiful food products. Although
food stamps were first used in the
1930s, the Food Stamp Act of
1964 established food stamps as
part of our food assistance
program after World War II. Food
stamps and food assistance
amendments were incorporated
into the Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Act of 1973 and in
major farm bills in 1977, 1981,
and 1985.
10
In recent years, the emphasis has
gradually shifted toward improv-
ing the nutritional well-being of
low-income families, school
children, and at-risk pregnant
mothers and infants. Respondents
were asked if they agree that the
money for food assistance pro-
grams used for food stamps,
school lunches, and other targeted
programs should be increased to
meet more adequately the needs of
those eligible.
Farmers are sharply divided on
this question. Among all respon-
dents, 41 percent agree that food
assistance programs should be
increased; 36 percent disagree;
and 23 percent are not sure or did
not respond. Respondents in the
north central and northeastern
states are more supportive of food
assistance than those in the West
and South (Table 22). Only in
Indiana, North Dakota, and
Wisconsin does a majority agree
that assistance should be in-
creased.
Among farmers with annual gross
sales under $500,000, more agree
than disagree that food programs
should be increased. However,
those with over $500,000 disagree
more frequently than agree on this
question. Although more grain
and livestock farmers agree to in-
crease food programs, farmers
with other major sources of in-
come and those with over $40,000
in annual income from off-farm
employment disagree more
frequently than agree.
Rural Development
Economic development in rural
areas has been widely discussed as
rural communities undergo
change. Respondents were asked
if they agree with a statement that
the federal government should
increase funding for rural develop-
ment programs to expand employ-
ment and economic activity in
low-income rural areas.
Farmers strongly favor increased
spending for rural development.
Among all respondents, 58 percent
agree; 18 percent disagree; and 24
percent are not sure or did not
reply. Fewer farmers in the
western states and the Northeast
agree with expanding rural
development, although more favor
than oppose the proposal
(Table 23).
More farmers on all types of
farms, in all sales classes, and with
different amounts of off-farm
employment income support rural
development. However, support is
lower among those with annual
gross sales over $500,000.
11
AGRICULTURAL
TRADE AND
DEVELOPMENT
From 20 to 30 percent of the value
of U.S. agricultural production
moves into foreign markets every
year. More than half of the
soybeans, wheat, rice, dried
prunes, cotton, and almonds
produced in 1987 were exported.
The policies affecting trade and
development in other countries of
the world become significant for
U.S. farmers. Farmers were asked
a series of questions relating to
trade and development policies.
Q. Should the United States
negotiate worldwide reductions
in trade barriers?
Among all farmers, 71 percent
agree that we should negotiate
worldwide reductions in trade
barriers. Farmers in all regions
and with all types and sizes of
farms agree. Farmers with annual
gross sales over $40,000 are more
supportive of reducing trade
barriers than are those with
smaller operations (Table 24).
. Should the United States
rely more on bilateral trade
agreements?
Among all farmers, 59 percent
agree that we should rely more on
separate trade agreements with
individual countries. Responses in
each region and on all types and
sizes of farms are similar. The
percentage of "not sure" and "no
reply" responses is higher on this
question than the percentage who
disagree (Table 25).
Q. Should the United States
negotiate reductions in
domestic farm subsidies of
major importing and exporting
countries worldwide?
This question seemed especially
timely because the Geneva
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) negotiations were taking
place in Geneva at the time of the
survey. Among all respondents,
53 percent agree; 27 percent are
not sure; 10 percent disagree; and
10 percent did not respond. Al-
though more Wisconsin, Alabama
and New York farmers favor than
oppose reduced subsidies, the
proportion of "not sure" and "no
reply" responses brings the
positive responses below 50
percent. A majority of farmers in
all sales classes, with all types of
farms and all classes of off-farm
employment income, favors
subsidy reductions (Table 26).
Q. Should the United States
join with other major exporting
countries to establish produc-
tion and marketing controls?
International marketing agree-
ments have been discussed for
many years, with some farm
groups favoring them. Among all
respondents, 45 percent agree that
the United States should establish
such controls; 24 percent disagree;
and 3 1 percent are not sure or did
not respond. With one exception,
more farmers in each state favor
than oppose international produc-
tion and marketing agreements: in
Illinois, the numbers agreeing and
disagreeing are equal.
Among farmers with annual gross
sales over $250,000, a majority
opposes international production
and marketing agreements. Less
than a majority of grain and mixed
grain and livestock farmers
supports them, although more
agree than disagree.
Responses to this question seem
inconsistent with other responses
favoring more free trade with
fewer restrictions. The high
percent of "not sure" and "no
reply" responses suggests that
many respondents are not familiar
with what would be involved in
international production and mar-
keting agreements (Table 27).
Q. Should the United States
provide more funds for food aid
to hungry nations?
Farmers are divided on this
question. Among all respondents,
40 percent agree that the United
States should provide more funds
for food aid to hungry nations; 32
percent disagree; and 30 percent
are not sure or did not reply.
More farmers agree than disagree
in the north central states, the
West, and the Northeast. In the
South, however, preferences are
evenly divided. Only in Iowa, Ar-
kansas, Mississippi, and Texas
does a majority favor increased
funds. The high percentage of
"not sure" and "no reply" re-
sponses suggests farmers have
some uncertainty about providing
more funds (Table 28).
Farmers with annual gross sales
over $40,000 are definitely more
supportive of food aid than those
with farm sales under $40,000.
Major grain producers favor food
aid more than other types of
farmers.
12
Q. Should the United States
encourage additional farmer-
financed foreign market
development programs?
Farm commodity groups in some
states have established voluntary
programs in which producers of
that commodity agree to a small
assessment at the time they sell
their product. The funds are used
to promote demand for that prod-
uct in this country and overseas.
The 1985 Food Security Act
included national "check-off
programs for pork and beef if
approved by farmers in a nation-
wide referendum. Producers
subsequently approved these
programs. Corn, wheat, and
soybean check-off programs also
operate in many states.
Farmers favor more farmer-
financed market development
programs. In the survey, 46 per-
cent agree that the United States
should encourage more farmer-
financed market development
programs; 23 percent disagree;
and 3 1 percent are not sure or did
not respond. About one-third of
all respondents are not sure or did
not respond to this question.
Stronger support for these
programs comes from the north
central, western, and southern
states than from the Northeast
(Table 29).
A majority of farmers with annual
gross sales over $40,000 support
farmer-financed development
programs. Grain farmers are
somewhat more supportive of
these programs than are livestock
farmers.
Q.
. Should the United States
continue the Export Enhance-
ment Program and other
government export subsidies?
The Export Enhancement Program
was authorized in the 1985 Food
Security Act to counter subsidized
exports from the European
Community that were believed to
be taking away U.S. markets.
Other export subsidy programs
were already in effect.
Among all respondents, 48 percent
agree that the Export Enhance-
ment Program and other export
subsidies should continue; 12
percent disagree; and 40 percent
are not sure or did not respond.
Farmers in all regions support
export enhancement. However,
the unusually high percent of "not
sure" and "no reply" responses in
all regions suggests that many
farmers are not familiar with or do
not understand export enhance-
ment or other export subsidies
(Table 30).
Export subsidy programs are most
strongly favored by farmers with
annual gross sales over $40,000
and by grain or mixed grain and
livestock farmers.
Q. Should the United States
reduce our agricultural import
barriers to encourage more
trade?
Because we support certain
commodities above world market
prices, we have import quotas or
restrictions on certain commodi-
ties such as peanuts, dairy
products, and sugar. Reducing
import barriers could bring
increased competition to these
commodities.
Farmers are definitely divided on
whether or not to reduce barriers
to imports of agricultural products.
Among all respondents, 36 percent
agree that the United States should
reduce our agricultural import
barriers to encourage more trade;
32 percent disagree; and 32 per-
cent were not sure or did not
respond. In the north central
states, the West, and the South,
more farmers as a group support
import barrier reduction than
oppose it. However, in 10
states — Kansas, Michigan, Ne-
braska, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Wisconsin, Idaho,
Washington, Oklahoma, and New
York — more farmers oppose than
support reducing import barriers
(Table 31).
More farmers with annual gross
sales over $100,000 oppose than
support import barrier reductions.
Grain farmers are more in favor of
import barrier reductions than are
livestock fanners. These re-
sponses suggest some concerns
among certain groups of farmers
about increased competition and
possibly lower prices that could
result from lowering of import
barriers.
Q. Should the United States
assist developing countries
increase their agricultural pro-
ductivity and trade potential?
In many developing countries,
U.S. technical assistance has been
aimed at helping improve the
food-producing capacity of these
countries as a way to facilitate
general economic development.
Farmers are definitely divided on
this issue. Among all respondents,
34 percent favor assistance to
improve agricultural productivity;
35 percent oppose; and 31 percent
are not sure or did not respond.
Farmers in the Northeast are more
supportive of agricultural assis-
tance than are farmers in the other
regions (Table 32).
13
AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT,
CONTINUED
More farmers with annual gross
sales over $40,000 oppose agri-
culture assistance than favor it.
However, more grain, livestock,
and mixed grain and livestock
farmers oppose agricultural aid
than support it. More farmers
with off-farm employment
incomes over $40,000 favor than
oppose such assistance.
The responses to this question
suggest that farmers believe that
helping other countries improve
their agricultural productivity
helps build competition for their
products in overseas markets.
Apparently they do not recognize
that increased agricultural produc-
tivity contributes to general
economic development, a neces-
sary condition for long-term
market development.
Q. Should the United States
give selected low income
countries preferred entry to our
agricultural market?
Potential growth for U.S. agricul-
tural exports is in the developing
countries. One way to further
increase this trade may be to buy
more of the agricultural products
from these countries.
Farmers are divided on whether or
not we should give preferred entry
to agricultural products from
certain countries. Among all
respondents, 31 percent believe
that we should give preferred
entry; 32 percent disagree; and 37
percent are not sure or did not
respond. Only in the north central
states do slightly more farmers
agree than disagree that preferred
treatment should be given. In the
West, South, and Northeast, more
farmers disagree. No state had a
majority opinion on either side of
the question (Table 33).
Farmers with annual gross sales
over $40,000 are more supportive
of giving preferred entry than are
those with lower gross sales.
Grain farmers are more supportive
than livestock producers. Only
farmers with less than $10,000
annual off-farm employment in-
come are supportive of preferred
treatment for low income countries.
These responses suggest that many
farmers are apprehensive of giving
special treatment to countries that
might produce products competi-
tive to their own.
14
FEDERAL SPENDING
Monetary and fiscal policies can
affect the financial conditions of
farmers and their competitive
position in world markets because
these policies influence interest
rates, farm costs, and demand for
agricultural products. Reducing
the federal deficit has been one of
the major policy issues in recent
years. Respondents were asked to
agree or disagree with a series of
statements on how to reduce the
federal deficit.
Reducing every budget item
by a set percentage.
Among all respondents, 53 percent
agree that every budget item
should be reduced by a set
percentage; 20 percent disagree;
and 27 percent are not sure or did
not reply. A majority of farmers
in each region has similar views
(Table 34). Farmers with different
types and sizes of farming
operations all have similar
preferences.
Reducing the defense budget.
Among all respondents, 53 percent
agree that the federal deficit
should be cut by reducing defense
expenditures; 24 percent dis-
agreed; and 23 percent are not sure
or did not reply. Farmers in the
South support defense cuts, but by
a smaller percentage (Table 35).
A majority of all farmers with
different types and sizes of
farming operations has similar
preferences.
Reducing social programs
(excluding social security).
Among all farmers, 50 percent
agree that the federal deficit
should be reduced by reducing
social programs, excluding social
security; 25 percent disagree; and
25 percent are not sure or did not
respond. Farmers in all states
agree more frequently than they
disagree (Table 36). A majority of
farmers with different types of
farms and sizes of operations
agrees. More than 60 percent of
farmers with annual gross sales
above $100,000 want to reduce
social programs.
Reducing social security
payments.
Farmers do not want to see
reductions in social security
payments. Among all respon-
dents, 7 1 percent oppose reduc-
tions; only 9 percent favor cuts;
and 20 percent are not sure or did
not reply. This question produced
the largest percentage of strong
disagreement of any question in
the survey (Table 37). Farmers
with all sizes and types of farms
and all amounts of off-farm
income agree that social security
payments should not be cut.
Reducing farm program
expenditures.
Farmers are divided on reducing
farm program expenditures to
reduce the federal deficit. Among
all respondents, 41 percent agree;
33 disagree; and 26 percent are not
sure or did not reply. In the West,
a majority agrees that expenditures
should be reduced (Table 38).
More farm operators with annual
gross sales over $250,000 oppose
than favor cuts. More grain
farmers oppose cuts than support
them; but a majority of livestock
farmers supports reductions in
expenditures. More farmers with
a higher amount of off-farm
employment income favor farm
program cuts.
Raising taxes.
In all states, farmers strongly
oppose raising taxes to reduce the
federal deficit. Among all
respondents, 64 disagree that taxes
should be raised; 14 percent agree;
and 22 percent are not sure or did
not reply. Responses seem uni-
formly similar in all regions
(Table 39). A substantial majority
of all types and sizes of farmers
opposes increasing taxes.
Increasing collections
of taxes due.
More than two of every three
farmers strongly agree that the
federal deficit should be reduced
by increasing collection of taxes
due the federal government.
Among all respondents, 67 percent
agree; 12 percent disagree; and 21
percent are not sure or did not
reply. Responses are similar from
all regions and from all types and
sizes of farms (Table 40).
Increasing user fees for
government services.
In all states, more farmers agree
than disagree that user fees for
government services should be in-
creased. Among all respondents,
43 percent agree; 22 percent
disagree; and 35 percent are not
sure or did not reply. In the
western states, however, prefer-
ences for increasing user fees are
somewhat less, perhaps because
respondents fear that they might
be the ones paying the increased
fees (Table 4 1 ). Fewer farmers
with annual gross sales under
$40.000 favor increasing user fees
than do those with over $40,000.
Farmers with different types of
farms respond about the same to
this question.
15
PROFILE OF SURVEY
RESPONDENTS
To provide insight about the
respondents, the questionnaire
included a number of questions
about the farmers, their farm
operations, and their participation
in farm programs and farm
organizations during 1988.
Voluntary participation in 1 988
farm programs.
Among all respondents, 30 percent
participated in the 1988 wheat
program, 39 percent in the feed
grain program, 5 percent in the
cotton program, 1 percent in the
rice program, 1 2 percent in the
Conservation Reserve, 30 percent
in the disaster program, and 5 per-
cent in other programs (Table 42).
The percentage of farmers who
voluntarily participated in the
wheat acreage-reduction program
varied widely, depending upon the
significance of wheat production
in the state. In the major wheat
states of Kansas, North Dakota,
and Oklahoma, participation
ranged from 73 to 88 percent.
Participation in the feed grain
program in the north central states
averaged 57 percent, with a range
from 47 to 87 percent.
Participation in the cotton program
ranged from 14 to 35 percent in
cotton-growing states. In Arkan-
sas, 1 5 percent participated in the
rice program.
Participation in the Conservation
Reserve was reported in all states,
with the highest percentage in
North Dakota, Kansas, Iowa, and
South Carolina.
Participation in the 1988 Drought
Disaster Program varied from 1
percent in Arizona to 82 percent in
North Dakota. Because the north
central states were the hardest hit
by the 1988 drought, the highest
participation would be expected in
these states (Table 42).
Age.
Farmers in all age groups partici-
pated in the survey. Among all
respondents, 65 percent were
between 35 and 65 years of age; 9
percent were under 35; 24 percent
were 65 and over; and 2 percent
did not give their age. The per-
centage of respondents 65 and
over was higher in the South than
other regions (Table 43).
Last year of school completed.
All levels of formal education
were represented, from grade
school through college graduation.
Among all respondents, 43 percent
had formal education beyond high
school; 35 percent were graduated
from high school; 18 per cent
attended grade school or some
high school; and 3 percent did not
reply. The highest percent of
respondents who had received
formal education beyond high
school was in the West and South
(Table 44).
Annual gross sales.
Respondents operated farms in all
sales classes — from under $40,000,
to $500,0000 and over. Among all
respondents, 47 percent reported
annual gross sales under $40,000;
23 percent reported $40,000 to
$99,999; 24 percent, between
$100,000 and $500,000; 2 percent,
over $500,000; and 4 percent did
not reply. A higher percentage of
farmers in the South reported sales
under $40,000. A higher propor-
tion of farmers in the West reported
sales over $100,000 (Table 45).
Income from off-farm
employment.
Off-farm employment is an im-
portant source of family income
for many farm families. Among
all respondents, 25 percent
reported under $10,000 in income
from off-farm employment; 14
percent reported $10,000 to
$19,999; 17 percent reported
between $20,000 and $40,000;
9 percent reported over $40,000;
and 35 percent did not report any
off-farm income.
For the 35 percent that did not
report any off-farm income, we
do not know if they had none or
simply did not report it, making
it difficult to analyze the effects
of off -farm income on policy
preferences.
A higher percentage of respon-
dents in the South reported off-
farm employment income over
$20,000 than did those in other
regions. In 14 states, at least
20 percent of the respondents
reported off-farm employment
income over $20,000 (Table 46).
Most important source of 1988
farm income.
Grain, livestock, and dairy
production were the most impor-
tant sources of farm income
reported. Among all survey
respondents, 30 percent reported
hogs, beef, or sheep as their most
important source of income; 26
percent, grain; 9 percent, dairy;
13 percent, mixed grain and live-
stock; 1 6 percent, other; and 6
percent did not reply. The states
in which grain comprised the most
significant source of income for
respondents were Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Michigan, and
South Dakota.
16
States with highest proportion of
livestock operations were Ala-
bama, Arkansas, Florida, Missis-
sippi, Missouri, Texas, and South
Dakota. Wisconsin and South
Carolina had the highest propor-
tion of dairy farms (Table 47).
Membership in farm and
commodity organizations.
More respondents reported mem-
bership in the Farm Bureau than
any other organization. Farmers
Union membership was most fre-
quently reported in North Dakota,
South Dakota, Oklahoma, Wis-
consin, and Kansas. Washington
reported the highest proportion of
Grange members.
Membership in commodity organ-
izations varied according to the
importance of individual com-
modities in each state. Commodi-
ties represented in organizations
with the highest membership were
cattle, pork, soybeans, wheat,
corn, milk, and cotton (Table 48).
17
1989 GOVERNMENT AND AGRICULTURAL POLICY PREFERENCE SURVEY
SECTION A - FARM COMMODITY PROGRAMS
1. What should be the policy toward production controls and
associated price supports after the 1985 Food Security Act
expires in 1990? (Check one) i 1
a. Keep the present programs
b. Establish a mandatory supply control program
with all farmers required to participate if I
For a new farm bill, how much discretion should the
Secretary of Agriculture have, compared to the present, in
setting loan rales, set aside acreage and export subsidies?
MORE
LESS
NO
CHANGE
approved in a farmer referendum
c. Separate government payments from ^_^_^
production requirements. (Sometimes this
is called decoupling.) I I
d. Gradually eliminate commodity programs
including set aside, price support, deficiency I
payments and government storage programs . . I I
e. Other
SECTION B - CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
1. To be eligible for farm program benefits, the 1985 farm bill
requires the development of conservation plans for farms
with highly erodible land by 1990 and implementation by
1995. Should soil conservation and water quality
compliance be a condition for receiving farm program
benefits?
YES NO NOT SURE
18
2. What should be the policy toward target prices? (Check one)
HI m
a. Keep target prices at the cur
b. Raise target prices each year
of inflation
rent levels
2. The 1985 Food Security
Act authorized up to 45 million
>n Reserve Program (CRP) which
n a bid basis to farmers for long
Tiat should be the future policy?
(check one)
to match the rate [~
acres for the Conservatic
1 makes rental payments c
term land retirement. W
a. Limit the CRP to the
c. Lower target prices 2 to 4 percent each year to
reduce federal deficiency payments and federal
expenditures and to discourage
over-production |_
current level of about
d. Phase out target prices completely over a 5 to
10 year period
b. Expand the CRP to 45 million acres as
e. Other
c. Further expand the C
:RP to around 60 million I"
?. What should be our commodity
a. Base loan rate on the previoi
market prices to keep prices
b. Raise loan rates as a primar
support prices
oan rate policy? (ch
. acres
cck one)
rogram
is 5 year average
competitive
d. Eliminate the CRP p
' means to
r, Other
Broaches do you think would be
g improvements in soil
uality? (check any that you feel
c. Eliminate loan rates and commodity loans
3. Which of the following a
most effective in achievin
conservation and water c
4. Should an annual paid land diversion program to control appropriate)
production be continued as an option available to the a Regulation of farmin,
Secretary of Agriculture?
YES NO NOT SURE b- Taxing certain practi(
> praclirM
:es such as "high" levels
c. Cost sharing only for
conservation and water 1 I
5. Should the marketing loan be extended to include wli
feed grains and soybeans?
YES NO NOT
structures
' d. Government payment
practices or to remov
SURE production
1 1
s to modify cultural
e land from commercial
SECTION C - CROP INSURANCE
6. What type of acreage bases would you favor? (check
a. Continue the current policy of specific crop
acreage bases 1
one\ 1. What should be our natic
— - production risks from na
a. Continue the present
program where produ
nal policy to deal with farm
ural disasters? (check one)
voluntary crop insurance
cers pay about 70
:nt pays about 30 percent |~~
b. Assign each farm a total cro;
excluding hay and pasture, a
to be grown on the permittee
c. Other
) acreage base,
id allow any crop
of the cost .
b. Have government provide limited disaster
assistance in years of severe natural ^___^
7. Should generic (payment-in-kind) certificates continu
be part of price and income support programs as lonj
government-controlled stocks exist?
YES NO NOT
disturbances but have no federal crop
e to insurance
' as
c. Eliminate all disaster
SURE crop insurance progra
payments and federal
im 1 j
buy crop insurance to
nent program benefits . . 1 1
d. Require all farmers tc
be eligible for governi
8. Should some form of farmer-owned grain reserve (FC
with national minimum and maximum amounts to be
be continued?
YES NO NOT
>R) e. Not sure
stored,
f. Other
SURE
SECTION D - OTHER ISSUES
1. There is now a $50,000 limit on direct price support
payments to each farmer with certain exceptions. What
recommendations would you make for the future?
(check one)
a. Increase the limit
b. Make no change
c. Decrease the limit
d. Eliminate the limit completely
e. Other
2. What should be the future price support program for milk
producers? (check one whether you have milk cows or not)
a. Continue the present program adjusting the
support price up or down based on production
and projected government purchases
b. Set support prices based on average production
costs and establish a production quota for each
producer
c. Phase out all dairy price supports over a
period of several years
d. Give the Secretary of Agriculture more
authority to set the price support
e. Not sure
3. Should the government continue to loan money to farmers with limited capital who cannot get credit from other sources?
YES NO NOT SURE
Check your views on each question:
Strongly Not Strongly
4. Future farm programs should be changed to give a higher proportion of Agree Agree Sure Disagree Disagree
price and income support benefits to farms with gross annual sales
under $250,000
5. Government commodity programs should be used to influence the
number and size of farms with allowance made for type of farm and
geographic conditions
6. Government should regulate certain farming practices and land uses
to reduce pollution of underground and stream water
7. The $19 billion spent in 1987 to provide food assistance programs
through food stamps, school lunches, and other targeted food assistance
programs should be increased to more adequately meet the needs of
those eligible
8. The federal government should increase funding for rural development
programs to expand employment and economic activity in low income
rural areas
SECTION E - INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT Strongly Not Strongly
Check your views on each question: Agree Agree Sure Disagree Disagree
1. The United States should:
a. Negotiate world-wide reductions in trade barriers
b. Rely more on separate trade agreements between the U.S. and
individual countries
c. Negotiate reductions in domestic farm subsidies of major importing
and exporting countries world-wide
d. Join with other major exporting countries to establish production
and marketing controls
e. Provide more funds for food aid to hungry nations |
f. Encourage additional farmer-financed foreign market development
programs
g. Continue the export enhancement program established by the 1985
farm bill and other government export subsidies
h. Reduce our agricultural import barriers to encourage more trade | | | | | | |
i. Assist developing countries to increase their agricultural
productivity and trade potential
j. Give selected low income countries preferred entry to our U.S.
agricultural market
SECTION F - FEDERAL SPENDING
1. Reducing the federal deficit has been one of the major policy goals in recent years. (Check your opinion on each proposal.)
Strongly Not Strongly
The federal deficit should be reduced by: Agree Agree Sure Disagree Disagree
a. Reducing every budget item by a set percentage
b. Reducing the defense budget I
c. Reducing social programs (excluding social security)
19
d. Reducing social security payments
e. Reducing farm program expenditures
f. Raising taxes
g. Increasing collection of taxes due the federal government
h. Increasing user fees for government services
o
2. Farm commodity programs have recently cost $15 to $20
billion each year. If reductions were required because of
the need to reduce federal spending, which would you
favor? (Check one)
a. Make across the board percentage cuts as
required
b. Cut some commodity programs more than
others
c. Continue payments to operators of small to
moderate size farms (gross sales under
$250,000) and reduce payments to large farm
operators
d. Make payments only to farmers with the most
severe financial need
e. Other
SECTION G - PERSONAL DATA
To help us analyze your answers, we would like to know more
about you.
1. Your age: (Please check)
Under 35 ..
35-49
50-64.
65 or over .
2. Approximate annual gross sales (including government
payments) from your farm in recent years:
Under $40,000
$40,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $499,999
Over $500,000
3. What was the last year of school you completed?
Grade school
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college or technical school
Graduated from college
4. If you or members of your family were employed off the
farm, check the approximate amount of family income
in 1988 that came from off farm employment:
Under $10,000 . .
$10,000 • $19,999
$20,000 - $40,000
Over $40,000 ...
5. What was your most important source of cash receipts in
1988? (check one)
Hogs, Beef, Sheep
Mixed Grain and Livestock
Other
Specify
6. Check below the programs that you participated in during
1988? Feed
Wheat Grain Cotton Rice
Price Support and . . . . __ __
Acreage Reduction I I I I
Conservation Reserve F J 1988 Disaster Program f~
Other programs
7. Please check your membership in these organizations
in 1988:
American Agr. Movement
Farm Bureau
Farmers Union
Grange
NFO
Cattlemen's Association . .
Corn Growers
Cotton Growers
Grain Sorghum Growers .
Labor Union
Milk Producers
Pork Producers
Soybean Association
Wheat Growers
Other (Specify)
20
Table 1. Participating States, Size of Sample, and Number of Usable Responses
Region
and state
Number of
fanners in
sample
Number of
usable
responses
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
West
Arizona
Idaho
Washington
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Mississippi
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Northeast, New York
Total .
1 ,000
1,500
3,270
3,000
915
1 ,000
1 ,000
1 ,000
1,500
1 .000
700
3,100
1,000
1,193
1 ,000
869
1 .500
1,700
350
3,000
1.000
594
515
2,014
1,221
348
420
112
609
490
430
332
1,148
397
451
627
180
531
450
153
1,206
550
12,717
Table 2. Preferred Policy on Production and Price Supports after 1990
Response
percentage
59
34
62
41
38
42
11
61
33
43
47
37
40
37
63
21
35
26
44
60
55
Region
and state
Keep present
program
Mandatory
controls
Decoupling Eliminate i
Other
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central 32 12 9 37 46
Illinois 39 8 9 38 3 3
Indiana 30 8 9 42 4 6
Iowa 38 10 14 30 5 3
Kansas 37 12 11 31 72
Michigan 31 7 5 46 3 8
Missouri 25 7 6 43 5 14
Nebraska 39 13 11 27 5 5
North Dakota 40 18 15 22 3 2
South Dakota 33 13 12 35 2 5
Wisconsin 25 23 5 36 3 8
West 21 7 5 45 15 7
Arizona 24 8 6 49 9 4
Idaho 23 5 4 52 13 3
Washington 20 7 5 44 16 8
South 35 10 7 32 5 11
Alabama 33 6 5 30 15 II
Arkansas 32 7 6 33 10 12
Florida 32 10 4 46 4 4
Mississippi 41 9 6 33 4
Oklahoma 31 18 12 26 11 2
South Carolina 40 17 9 24 10 0
Texas 37 9 6 33 4 11
Northeast, New York 19 10 4 37
Composite, 21 states 33 11 8 35 8
Note: Regional and 2 1 -state composite responses are calculated using the number of farms in each state to give a representative response. States with large numbers ot (arms will have
more influence in the final calculated figure.
21
Table 3. Preferences for Continuation of Target Prices
Region
and stale
Continue
present levels Raise
Lower
Phase out Other
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
11
42
9
28
3
7
Illinois
13
40
13
27
2
5
Indiana
12
34
10
34
2
7
Iowa
15
42
7
31
3
2
Kansas
1 1
49
9
26
4
1
Michigan
7
41
7
36
3
6
Missouri
10
32
8
32
2
16
Nebraska
17
46
6
21
5
5
North Dakota
9
66
7
15
2
1
South Dakota
8
48
10
30
2
2
Wisconsin
11
42
9
26
3
9
West
7
22
9
41
2
16
Ari/ona
9
20
12
43
4
12
Idaho
9
25
8
40
3
15
Washington
7
22
9
40
5
17
South
14
35
10
28
3
10
Alabama
17
26
7
25
8
16
Arkansas
14
30
10
27
9
10
Florida
14
25
16
38
3
4
Mississippi
14
41
10
26
4
5
Oklahoma
9
50
7
23
2
9
South Carolina
15
46
7
17
3
12
Texas
14
33
10
30
0
13
Northeast, New York
7
29
8
27
4
25
Composite, 21 states
12
38
9
28
3
10
Table 4. Preferred
Loan Rate Policy
Region
and state
Average price
Raise rates
Eliminate loans
No response
percentage
of respondents
North Central
35
19
36
10
Illinois
39
19
34
8
Indiana
30
17
43
10
Iowa
49
20
27
4
Kansas
39
25
33
3
Michigan
31
16
44
7
Missouri
31
11
39
19
Nebraska
37
27
29
7
North Dakota ....
38
36
22
4
South Dakota ....
40
24
34
2
Wisconsin
35
11
41
13
West
29
7
44
' 20
Arizona
33
8
44
15
Idaho
27
11
45
17
Washington
29
7
44
20
South
37
17
30
16
Alabama
37
11
27
25
Arkansas
43
8
28
21
Florida
42
8
46
4
Mississippi
40
19
31
10
Oklahoma
34
27
28
11
Soijth Carolina . . .
41
26
20
13
Texas
35
18
31
16
Northeast, New York
27
8
34
31
Composite, 21 states
36
18
34
12
22
Table 5. Preference for Continuing Paid Land Diversion
Region
and state
Yes
No
Not sure
No reply
percentage
of respondents
North Centra!
43
25
24
8
Illinois
51
20
27
2
Indiana
38
29
26
7
Iowa
60
18
21
1
Kansas
50
25
22
3
Michigan
45
26
21
8
Missouri
30
36
29
5
Nebraska
53
21
22
4
North Dakota
59
20
19
2
South Dakota
55
24
20
1
Wisconsin
38
27
29
6
West
29
32
28
11
Arizona
25
38
29
8
Idaho
27
34
29
10
Washington
30
31
28
11
South
41
29
24
6
Alabama
31
23
32
14
Arkansas
33
27
31
9
Florida
36
43
19
2
Mississippi
42
27
29
2
Oklahoma
54
21
16
9
South Carolina ....
50
21
22
7
Texas
39
33
23
5
Northeast, New York
29
28
23
20
Composite, 21 states .
41
27
24
8
Table 6. Marketing
Loan for Wheat,
Feed Grains,
and Soybeans
Region
and state
Yes
No
Not sure
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
34
31
27
8
Illinois
37
33
27
3
Indiana
29
40
26
5
Iowa
39
31
28
2
Kansas
41
27
25
7
Michigan
34
41
18
7
Missouri
33
27
33
7
Nebraska
38
31
26 .
5
North Dakota
52
18
26
4
South Dakota
43
29
25
3
Wisconsin
22
36
34
8
West
17
38
33
12
Arizona
17
44
29
10
Idaho
17
40
32
11
Washington
17
37
33
13
South
41
28
24
7
Alabama
32
22
31
15
Arkansas
42
24
26
8
Florida
35
43
18
2
Mississippi
47
25
25
3
Oklahoma
45
24
20
11
South Carolina ....
38
25
29
8
Texas
42
29
23
6
Northeast, New York
16
27
34
23
Composite, 21 states .
36
30
26
8
23
Table 7. Preferred Type of Acreage Bases
Region
Crop-specific
Crop acreage
and state
bases
bases
Other
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
29
50
8
13
Illinois
38
49
6
7
Indiana
28
50
10
12
Iowa
39
46
11
4
Kansas
24
63
10
3
Michigan
35
46
9
10
Missouri
22
47
8
23
Nebraska
23
61
5
11
North Dakota
35
56
6
3
South Dakota
34
53
11
2
Wisconsin
37
43
7
13
West
26
33
16
25
Arizona
29
38
13
20
Idaho
29
33
12
26
Washington
25
32
17
26
South
33
46
9
12
Alabama
31
34
14
21
Arkansas
31
44
11
14
Florida
27
47
20
6
Mississippi
39
46
7
8
Oklahoma
31
55
5
9
South Carolina ....
47
34
6
13
Texas
33
46
7
14
Northeast, New York
31
32
10
27
Composite, 21 states .
31
47
8
14
Table 8. Preference
for Continuing
Use of l'a\ iiu-iit -in-kind (PIK)
Certificates
Region
and state
Yes
No
Not sure
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
35
37
21
8
Illinois
40
38
20
2
Indiana
31
36
25
8
Iowa
43
41
15
1
Kansas
40
42
16
2
Michigan
41
37
15
7
Missouri
28
29
36
7
Nebraska
46
35
13
6
North Dakota
37
51
10
2
South Dakota
31
55
12
2
Wisconsin
31
36
25
8
West
30
27
32
11
Arizona
33
31
26
11
Idaho
31
32
26
11
Washington
30
26
33
11
South
41
26
26
7
Alabama
32
15
38
15
Arkansas
37
20
33
10
Florida
43
32
22
3
Mississippi
39
23
34
4
Oklahoma
47
30
14
9
South Carolina ....
48
25
18
9
Texas
40
28
26
6
Northeast, New York
24
22
34
20
Composite, 21 states .
37
32
24
7
24
Table 9. Preference for Continuing Farmer-Owned Grain Reserve
Region
and state
Yes
No
Not sure
No reply
North Central 45
Illinois 44
Indiana 37
Iowa 58
Kansas 46
Michigan 45
Missouri 42
Nebraska 56
North Dakota 56
South Dakota 56
Wisconsin 41
West 35
Arizona 41
Idaho 32
Washington 34
South 47
Alabama 40
Arkansas 51
Florida 52
Mississippi 47
Oklahoma 43
South Carolina 50
Texas 49
Northeast, New York ... 32
Composite, 2 1 states .... 45
percentage
25
25
28
21
28
31
22
20
30
28
23
22
20
27
23
20
13
13
22
17
29
18
19
14
22
of respondents
23
28
29
20
22
17
29
16
13
15
30
31
28
29
31
26
32
28
24
32
20
24
26
34
25
7
3
6
1
4
7
7
8
1
1
6
12
11
12
12
7
15
8
2
4
8
8
6
20
8
Table 10. Preferred Milk Price Policy
Region
and state
Present
program
Cost and
quota
Phase out
program
Secretary of
Agriculture
Not sure
No reply
North Central 18 17
Illinois 22 14
Indiana 15 12
Iowa" na na
Kansas 20 16
Michigan 20 22
Missouri 14 10
Nebraska 22 13
North Dakota 27 18
South Dakota 21 19
Wisconsin 14 33
West 12 11
Arizona 12 9
Idaho 14 10
Washington II 12
South 15 13
Alabama 11 10
Arkansas 10 11
Florida 16 16
Mississippi 20 19
Oklahoma 17 15
South Carolina 18 16
Texas 15 12
Northeast. New York " h 12 27
Composite, 19 states 17 15
•' na: The question was not asked.
'' Other responses included buyout program, 9%; cash income subsidies. 3%; and other.
percentage of respondents
27 4
23 4
32 5
na
31
29
32
18
16
29
25
42
47
42
41
31
24
30
44
24
28
21
32
24
29
na
4
4
3
7
5
4
2
3
3
2
3
5
7
7
4
6
3
3
6
na
5
26
31
28
na
26
16
29
28
31
24
19
21
19
18
21
23
28
30
14
20
26
31
21
19
25
8
6
8
na
3
9
12
12
3
3
7
1 1
10
14
12
13
20
12
6
II
11
II
.14
na
9
25
Table 11. Preferred Discretion for the Secretary of Agriculture
Region
and state
More
Less
No change
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
15
34
41
10
Illinois
17
27
49
7
Indiana
15
34
41
10
Iowa
18
30
49
3
Kansas
14
41
39
6
Michigan
14
37
42
7
Missouri
12
32
41
15
Nebraska
19
27
46
8
North Dakota
17
39
40
4
South Dakota
18
39
40
3
Wisconsin
13
42
35
10
West
14
32
37
17
Arizona
17
33
35
15
Idaho
13
36
34
17
Washington
13
32
37
18
South
16
33
41
10
Alabama
15
22
43
20
Arkansas
12
27
47
14
Florida
52
22
23
3
Mississippi
19
32
42
7
Oklahoma
15
43
32
10
South Carolina
17
32
40
11
Texas
15
33
43
9
Northeast, New York .
14
32
30
24
Composite, 2 1 states . .
15
33
40
12
Table 12. Responses to the Statement that Future Farm Programs Should
Give More Benefits
to Farmers with
Annual
Sales Under
$250,000
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage
of respondents
North Central
24
31
15
15
8
7
Illinois
17
39
17
17
5
5
Indiana
6
19
27
25
15
8
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
25
35
14
15
9
2
Michigan
26
28
10
17
11
8
Missouri
15
34
20
16
7
8
Nebraska
29
25
16
17
9
5
North Dakota
40
28
10
12
6
4
South Dakota
42
26
9
15
8
0
Wisconsin
25
32
17
12
7
7
West
18
27
17
18
10
10
Arizona
12
26
14
23
15
10
Idaho
21
26
15
14
9
15
Washington
19
28
18
16
9
10
South
19
32
16
17
9
8
Alabama
17
31
20
12
3
17
Arkansas
9
40
21
17
5
8
Florida
27
26
16
18
11
2
Mississippi
19
29
18
19
8
7
Oklahoma
21
30
10
18
11
10
South Carolina
25
29
11
17
8
10
Texas
18
32
16
18
10
6
Northeast, New York . . .
22
29
18
15
5
11
Composite, 20 states
22
31
16
16
8
7
J na: The question was not asked.
26
Table 13. Response to the Statement that Government Programs Should Influence the Number and Size of Farms
Region
and state
Strongly
agree
Agree Not sure Disagree
Strongly
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
, 7
22
25
25
13
8
Illinois
5
23
24
30
12
6
Indiana
5
15
21
20
12
27
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
7
22
24
27
17
3
Michigan
5
23
25
23
15
9
Missouri
3
25
29
24
10
9
Nebraska
13
20
23
26
13
5
North Dakota
13
28
21
24
1 1
3
South Dakota
11
23
23
22
18
3
Wisconsin
6
19
29
27
10
9
West
3
17
21
27
21
11
Arizona
5
18
17
29
20
11
Idaho
4
17
23
23
17
16
Washington
3
17
21
27
21
11
South
5
25
24
24
12
10
Alabama
6
23
27
19
6
19
Arkansas
2
31
26
25
7
9
Florida
6
22
21
33
15
3
Mississippi
8
29
23
20
11
9
Oklahoma
4
18
20
27
19
11
South Carolina ....
7
25
20
25
9
14
Texas
5
27
26
23
11
8
Northeast, New York .
7
20
24
25
11
13
Composite, 20 states
6
23
24
25
13
9
Table 14. Proposed
Ways to Reduce Farm
Commodity Program
Expenditures
Region
Percent
Cut
More to
Financial
and state
cuts
some more
small farms
need only
Other
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
28
5
43
13
3
8
Illinois
33
7
40
11
3
6
Indiana
35
6
35
15
4
5
Iowaa
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
29
5
48
9
6
3
Michigan
31
6
37
12
3
11
Missouri
20
5
35
25
3
11
Nebraska
30
3
52
7
3
5
North Dakota
24
5
62
5
1
3
South Dakota
28
2
54
7
4
5
Wisconsin
26
7
47
10
3
7
West
33
9
28
16
3
11
Arizona
37
12
21
17
4
9
Idaho
31
7
31
16
3
12
Washington
31
8
30
16
3
12
South
30
8
30
19
4
9
Alabama
22
5
23
22
7
21
Arkansas
30
7
26
23
5
9
Florida
27
8
23
26
6
10
Mississippi
35
11
27
18
4
5
Oklahoma
41
7
33
5
3
11
South Carolina ....
31
6
34
16
3
10
Texas
27
9
32
21
3
8
Northeast, New York
6
36
18
6
1
33
Composite, 20 states .
29
7
37
15
4
8
' na: The question was not asked.
27
Table 15. Opinions on Conservation Compliance to Obtain Program Benefits
Region
and state
Yes
No
Not sure
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central ,
59
23
14
4
Illinois
62
24
13
1
Indiana
58
22
14
6
Iowa"1
na
na
na
na
Kansas
61
26
11
2
Michigan
63
20
11
6
Missouri
59
19
17
5
Nebraska
53
29
17
1
North Dakota
51
37
11
1
South Dakota
70
21
8
1
Wisconsin
64
19
12
5
West
58
17
16
9
Arizona
57
24
10
9
Idaho
52
23
15
10
Washington
58
16
17
9
South
59
19
12
14
Alabama
53
15
16
16
Arkansas
62
13
18
7
Florida
72
17
8
3
Mississippi
61
20
15
4
Oklahoma
54
30
8
8
South Carolina
64
17
13
6
Texas
59
24
12
5
Northeast, New York . . .
55
19
12
14
Composite, 20 states ....
60
22
13
5
Table 16. Preferred Future Conservation Reserve Policy
Current
Expand to
Expand to
Region
30 million
45 million
60 million
Eliminate
and state
acres
acres
acres
program
Other
No reply
percentage
of respondents
North Central
22
26
16
24
2
10
Illinois
22
31
20
18
3
6
Indiana
20
26
17
24
2
11
Iowaa
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
24
33
19
19
4
1
Michigan
17
29
17
28
2
7
Missouri
24
16
11
33
1
16
Nebraska
25
34
14
20
1
6
North Dakota
25
27
23
21
3
1
South Dakota
22
28
22
22
3
3
Wisconsin
27
22
15
28
0
8
West
15
18
10
36
4
17
Arizona
18
14
5
41
3
19
Idaho
19
15
11
36
2
17
Washington
14
19
11
35
4
17
South
24
21
13
29
4
9
Alabama
25
14
9
23
10
19
Arkansas
22
23
8
26
10
11
Florida
21
20
17
33
2
7
Mississippi
24
24
13
28
4
7
Oklahoma
17
28
23
21
2
9
South Carolina
30
25
17
19
1
8
Texas
26
19
9
33
3
10
Northeast, New York
23
14
8
28
4
23
Composite, 20 states
23
23
14
26
3
11
•* na: The question was nol asked.
28
Table 17. Preferred Ways to Improve Soil Conservation and Water Quality
Regulate
Tax
Modify
Region
farm
certain
Cost
cultural
and state
practices
practices
sharing
practices
percentage of respondents
North Central
17
19
43
25
Illinois
22
14
48
34
Indiana
13
20
44
26
Iowaa
na
na
na
na
Kansas
12
20
58
19
Michigan
18
18
43
24
Missouri
16
14
38
23
Nebraska
16
22
44
30
North Dakota
18
19
39
30
South Dakota
18
28
46
26
Wisconsin
20
27
38
23
West
13
11
47
22
Arizona
11
10
53
16
Idaho
11
13
46
16
Washington
14
11
46
24
South
17
13
47
18
Alabama
24
11
34
19
Arkansas
15
16
34
18
Florida
19
21
51
13
Mississippi
24
12
42
25
Oklahoma
12
9
58
19
South Carolina
15
11
46
29
Texas
16
13
50
16
Northeast, New York .
10
11
50
23
Composite, 20 states . .
16
16
45
22
Note: Respondents could select
more than one answer.
Table 18. Responses
to the Statement that the Government Should Regulate Land Uses to
Reduce Water
Pollution
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
20
41
13
12
5
9
Illinois
14
44
16
16
5
5
Indiana
21
37
14
15
6
7
Iowa"
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
21
45
13
13
7
1
Michigan
23
42
11
12
5
7
Missouri
16
42
15
13
5
9
Nebraska
31
44
15
5
2
3
North Dakota
22
39
14
14
8
3
South Dakota
28
48
9
11
4
0
Wisconsin
23
42
11
13
3
8
West
12
38
13
16
11
10
Arizona
14
30
15
17
14
10
Idaho
14
34
15
14
8
15
Washington
12
40
12
16
10
10
South
21
42
11
12
6
8
Alabama
19
42
11
8
2
18
Arkansas
13
54
12
9
3
9
Florida
33
43
9
10
3
2
Mississippi
27
39
13
8
4
9
Oklahoma
17
36
12
16
9
11
South Carolina
18
44
11
12
5
10
Texas
23
41
10
14
6
6
Northeast, New York . .
11
38
15
19
5
12
Composite, 20 states . .
20
41
12
13
5
9
' na: The question was not asked.
29
Table 19. Preferred Policy on Crop Insurance
Region
and state
Present
program
Disaster
payments
Eliminate Mandatory
all programs crop insurance Not sure Other
No reply
l>ei'ceiiuit>e of respondents
North Central
33
21
10
13
14
2
7
Illinois
42
16
9
12
16
1
4
Indiana
34
22
14
9
14
2
5
Iowa ''
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
36
26
11
12
12
3
0
Michigan
27
30
13
14
9
2
5
Missouri
26
19
15
10
19
1
10
Nebraska
37
21
5
21
12
4
0
North Dakota
51
13
4
20
7
4
1
South Dakota
38
25
9
16
8
2
2
Wisconsin
29
27
11
12
15
1
5
West
34
16
10
13
16
1
10
Arizona
26
11
16
19
17
1
10
Idaho
30
19
13
8
16
2
12
Washington
35
17
8
11
16
2
11
South
32
19
12
14
14
9
0
Alabama
28
10
7
15
21
2
17
Arkansas
28
15
10
20
15
2
10
Florida
32
13
16
20
15
1
3
Mississippi
31
21
14
14
14
2
4
Oklahoma
33
27
9
11
10
2
8
South Carolina ....
33
25
11
9
16
1
7
Texas
35
19
12
14
12
2
6
Northeast, New York .
32
30
5
8
12
3
10
Composite, 20 states
33
21
11
13
14
2
6
Table 20. Preferred
Policy on Payment
Limitation
Region
Increase
Make no
Decrease
Eliminate
and state
the limit
change
the limit
the limit
Other
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
7
44
31
10
4
4
Illinois
10
50
24
12
2
2
Indiana
7
37
30
15
5
5
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
7
46
33
7
6
1
Michigan
7
42
32
7
7
5
Missouri
6
36
29
15
3
Nebraska
7
52
30
7
3
North Dakota
7
56
30
4
2
South Dakota
5
44
39
6
5
Wisconsin
4
41
38
6
5
6
West
11
33
21
17
7
1
Arizona
11
28
18
24
8
1
Idaho
6
32
32
11
6
13
Washington
10
34
23
15
7
11
South
8
39
25
15
5
8
Alabama
6
35
22
11
9
17
Arkansas
8
34
19
18
9
12
Florida
5
36
35
16
6
2
Mississippi
8
42
25
16
4
5
Oklahoma
12
40
21
15
4
8
South Carolina ....
7
48
22
13
2
8
Texas
8
40
26
14
5
7
Northeast, New York .
14
39
31
8
5
3
Composite, 20 states
8
41
28
12
5
6
J na: The question was noi asked.
30
Table 21. Preferred Policy on the Government's Loaning Money to Farmers
with Limited Capital
Region
and state Yes
No
Not sure
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
33
38
18
11
Illinois
38
36
22
4
Indiana
28
44
20
8
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
Kansas
39
35
18
8
Michigan
26
50
12
12
Missouri
33
37
21
9
Nebraska
42
33
15
10
North Dakota
47
30
20
3
South Dakota
45
36
17
2
Wisconsin
26
47
19
8
West
36
34
17
13
Arizona
34
38
16
12
Idaho
34
34
16
16
Washington
37
33
18
12
South
43
33
15
9
Alabama
42
26
17
15
Arkansas
50
27
16
7
Florida
44
41
14
2
Mississippi
42
36
15
7
Oklahoma
40
35
11
14
South Carolina
30
39
18
13
Texas
44
32
16
8
Northeast, New York . . .
36
36
18
10
Composite, 20 states ....
38
36
17
9
Table 22. Responses to the
Proposal that
Food
Assistance
Programs Should Be
Increased
to Meet Needs
of Those Eligible
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage
of respondents
North Central
12
33
18
22
10
5
Illinois
9
36
20
24
6
5
Indiana
11
31
15
24
12
7
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
12
31
22
23
10
2
Michigan
12
31
17
20
13
7
Missouri
8
31
16
26
11
8
Nebraska
14
30
21
21
11
3
North Dakota
16
35
19
19
9
2
South Dakota
15
34
16
24
10
1
Wisconsin
19
36
16
15
7
7
West
8
28
18
23
13
10
Arizona
7
22
21
22
18
10
Idaho
9
22
17
24
13
15
Washington
8
29
17
24
12
10
South
9
26
14
28
15
8
Alabama
8
27
13
22
12
18
Arkansas
5
38
15
24
8
10
Florida
15
24
11
30
18
2
Mississippi
8
19
14
25
25
9
Oklahoma
13
24
18
22
12
11
South Carolina
6
17
17
36
14
10
Texas
7
25
13
32
17
6
Northeast, New York
16
28
19
18
8
11
Composite, 20 states
11
30
16
24
12
7
J na: The question was nol asked.
31
Table 23. Responses to the Proposal that the Government Should Increase Funding for Rural Development Programs
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
19
43
16
11
4
7
Illinois
13
51
18
13
2
3
Indiana
15
38
20
15
6
6
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
21
42
16
13
6
2
Michigan
15
40
17
14
7
7
Missouri
15
48
14
12
3
8
Nebraska
27
39
20
6
4
4
North Dakota
33
40
14
8
3
2
South Dakota
26
47
10
10
5
2
Wisconsin
20
41
19
9
4
7
West
11
35
18
17
9
10
Arizona
16
29
17
18
12
8
Idaho
13
30
20
15
7
15
Washington
9
36
19
17
9
10
South
16
41
12
16
6
9
Alabama
15
40
12
12
4
17
Arkansas
10
52
12
14
3
9
Florida
23
35
12
19
9
2
Mississippi
20
33
12
18
9
8
Oklahoma
19
37
15
14
5
10
South Carolina
16
36
11
19
6
12
Texas
15
42
12
17
7
7
Northeast, New York ....
15
35
16
15
8
11
Composite, 20 states
17
41
15
13
5
9
J na: The question was not asked.
Table 24. Responses to
the Proposal that
the United States
Should Negotiate
Worldwide
Trade-Barrier Reductions
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
24
46
16
5
1
8
Illinois
24
54
11
5
1
5
Indiana
33
40
13
4
1
9
Iowa
41
41
14
2
1
1
Kansas
25
49
17
5
2
2
Michigan
30
44
12
4
2
8
Missouri
17
47
19
8
2
7
Nebraska
23
52
16
3
0
6
North Dakota
25
48
16
6
2
3
South Dakota
28
51
10
6
4
Wisconsin
21
40
25
6
7
West
33
45
9
3
9
Arizona
35
41
9
3
11
Idaho
24
41
15
4
15
Washington
32
46
9
3
9
South
26
45
13
6
9
Alabama
22
35
17
6
19
Arkansas
12
57
15
5
10
Florida
31
42
13
7
2
5
Mississippi
28
40
16
8
7
Oklahoma
33
43
8
3
:
11
South Carolina
27
52
7
3
10
Texas
26
46
12
6
9
Northeast, New York ....
20
42
19
4
14
Composite, 21 states
25
46
14
5
9
32
Table 25. Responses to the Proposal that the United States Should Rely More on Bilateral Agreements
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
9
49
23
8
1
10
Illinois
8
55
20
11
1
5
Indiana
11
47
24
8
1
9
Iowa
12
46
28
9
2
3
Kansas
12
50
27
7
1
3
Michigan
12
46
22
9
1
10
Missouri
6
48
26
10
1
9
Nebraska
8
52
25
5
0
10
North Dakota ....
13
53
22
8
1
3
South Dakota ....
14
52
21
8
1
4
Wisconsin
9
48
27
4
1
11
West
10
44
22
11
1
12
Arizona
14
42
19
10
2
13
Idaho
11
43
21
7
1
17
Washington
9
44
23
12
1
11
South
12
50
19
7
1
11
Alabama
8
42
21
7
1
21
Arkansas
5
57
20
8
0
10
Florida
11
48
22
10
1
6
Mississippi
14
50
17
7
2
10
Oklahoma
13
45
20
6
2
14
South Carolina . . .
10
47
25
5
1
12
Texas
14
51
17
7
1
10
Northeast, New York
9
44
24
9
1
13
Composite, 21 states
10
49
22
8
1
10
Table 26. Responses to the Proposal that the
United States
Should Negotiate
Domestic Farm
Subsidy Reductions
in Major
Importing and Exporting
Countries
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
11
42
29
8
2
8
Illinois
10
47
29
7
2
5
Indiana
14
44
24
7
2
9
Iowa
19
42
28
7
2
2
Kansas
11
42
32
9
2
4
Michigan
13
41
24
9
2
11
Missouri
9
41
33
8
1
9
Nebraska
8
44
28
8
3
9
North Dakota ....
11
43
29
10
2
5
South Dakota ....
12
51
23
6
2
6
Wisconsin
11
34
35
7
2
11
West
17
42
21
7
1
12
Arizona
21
40
22
3
2
12
Idaho
13
37
25
6
1
18
Washington
16
42
21
8
1
12
South
13
39
25
8
2
13
Alabama
9
33
29
6
1
22
Arkansas
5
49
26
9
1
10
Florida
17
39
25
8
2
9
Mississippi
14
39
27
8
2
10
Oklahoma
15
35
24
7
4
15
South Carolina . . .
9
45
24
9
0
13
Texas
15
39
24
9
2
11
Northeast, New York
12
35
32
7
1
13
Composite, 21 states
12
41
27
8
2
10
33
Table 27. Responses to the Proposal that the United States Should Join with Other Major Exporting Countries
to Establish Production and Marketing Controls
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
7
35
22
21
5
10
Illinois
4
30
24
27
7
8
Indiana
7
29
24
22
8
10
Iowa
10
35
25
21
7
2
Kansas
8
39
22
21
6
4
Michigan
6
33
21
23
7
10
Missouri
6
37
22
22
3
10
Nebraska
8
34
25
19
5
9
North Dakota
12
41
20
20
4
3
South Dakota
10
41
17
21
5
6
Wisconsin
8
39
26
13
5
9
West
5
30
21
23
9
12
Arizona
8
29
15
24
11
13
Idaho
5
29
22
20
7
17
Washincton
5
30
22
23
8
12
South
9
40
17
16
5
13
Alabama
6
34
19
14
6
21
Arkansas
4
50
17
16
2
11
Florida
8
35
18
20
6
13
Mississippi
15
37
20
14
4
10
Oklahoma
11
29
19
19
8
14
South Carolina ....
6
48
19
12
3
12
Texas
10
44
15
16
5
10
Northeast, New York .
9
32
23
21
4
11
Composite, 21 states
8
37
20
19
5
11
Table 28. Responses
to the Proposal that
the United States
Should Provide
More Funds for
Food Aid to Hungry
Nations
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
9
31
22
24
7
7
Illinois
7
36
23
25
3
6
Indiana
10
34
19
20
9
8
Iowa
15
38
24
16
5
2
Kansas
7
28
25
27
10
3
Michigan
11
30
19
24
7
9
Missouri
4
27
24
29
9
7
Nebraska
11
30
17
27
7
8
North Dakota
13
36
22
20
7
2
South Dakota
10
33
24
20
7
6
Wisconsin
13
32
23
17
6
9
West
7
29
23
23
7
11
Arizona
8
22
24
27
8
11
Idaho
7
27
21
22
8
15
Washington
7
31
22
22
7
11
South
6
29
19
26
9
11
Alabama
6
24
20
23
6
20
Arkansas
4
35
17
28
7
9
Florida
5
29
17
27
9
13
Mississippi
10
28
18
21
14
9
Oklahoma
10
28
20
23
8
11
South Carolina
7
36
21
17
7
12
Texas
5
28
19
28
10
10
Northeast, New York . .
12
28
23
19
6
12
Composite, 21 states
8
30
21
24
8
9
34
Table 29. Responses to the Proposal that the United States Should Encourage Additional Farmer-Financed Foreign
Market Development Programs
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage
of respondents
North Central
7
38
25
17
6
7
Illinois
7
44
21
15
6
7
Indiana
9
42
19
16
5
9
Iowa
11
42
27
13
4
3
Kansas
8
39
27
16
7
3
Michigan
7
37
23
16
8
9
Missouri
6
39
25
20
4
6
Nebraska
5
33
34
14
5
9
North Dakota
9
38
26
18
6
3
South Dakota
9
44
21
17
5
4
Wisconsin
7
30
30
19
6
8
West
10
45
17
11
5
12
Arizona
15
40
14
14
5
12
Idaho
10
36
20
13
4
17
Washington
9
47
18
10
4
12
South
8
39
19
16
6
12
Alabama
6
33
22
11
5
24
Arkansas
4
40
21
22
3
10
Florida
7
39
18
17
8
11
Mississippi
10
35
22
16
8
9
Oklahoma
11
39
20
13
5
12
South Carolina
9
40
21
11
7
12
Texas
9
41
18
17
5
10
Northeast, New York ....
8
27
25
20
7
13
Composite, 21 states
8
38
23
17
6
8
Table 30. Responses to
the Proposal that
the United States
Should Continue the Export Enhancement Program
and
Other Export
Subsidies
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage
of respondents
North Central
7
41
30
10
3
9
Illinois
5
51
26
10
2
6
Indiana
6
40
32
8
3
11
Iowa
10
40
34
10
3
3
Kansas
11
44
27
11
3
4
Michigan
6
40
27
13
5
9
Missouri
3
38
36
11
2
10
Nebraska
7
38
34
7
3
11
North Dakota
19
48
20
8
2
3
South Dakota
10
41
28
12
4
5
Wisconsin
6
35
37
9
4
9
West
10
38
27
10
3
12
Arizona
11
34
27
11
4
13
Idaho
8
34
29
8
3
18
Washington
10
39
28
9
2
12
South
8
40
29
8
3
12
Alabama
3
35
31
7
3
22
Arkansas
3
43
32
11
1
10
Florida
8
29
33
13
6
11
Mississippi
11
40
27
8
3
11
Oklahoma
17
41
21
7
3
11
South Carolina
12
46
24
5
1
12
Texas
7
42
30
8
3
10
Northeast, New York ....
6
31
36
9
3
15
Composite, 21 states
8
40
29
9
3
11
35
Table 31. Responses to the Proposal that the United States Reduce Its Agricultural Import Barriers to Encourage Trade
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
6
30
22
25
8
9
Illinois
4
40
23
23
6
4
Indiana
6
31
22
25
6
10
Iowa
8
29
30
25
7
1
Kansas
7
28
25
29
8
3
Michigan
7
27
20
30
7
9
Missouri
5
36
22
22
7
8
Nebraska
5
30
22
25
11
7
North Dakota
8
26
24
29
9
4
South Dakota
9
26
19
29
12
5
Wisconsin
5
22
26
28
10
9
West
6
26
27
21
7
13
Arizona
10
27
20
23
9
11
Idaho
7
20
21
27
8
17
Washington
6
26
29
21
6
12
South
7
31
19
23
9
11
Alabama
7
29
18
19
6
21
Arkansas
4
42
32
11
1
10
Florida
6
34
20
22
10
8
Mississippi
10
36
20
16
8
10
Oklahoma
9
22
20
25
11
13
South Carolina
7
34
19
18
9
13
Texas
7
31
18
26
9
9
Northeast, New York ....
6
18
24
31
9
12
Composite, 21 states
6
30
21
24
8
11
Table 32. Responses to
the Proposal that
the United States
Should Assist
Developing Countries
Increase Their
Agricultural
Productivity and
Trade Potential
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
3
27
23
27
10
10
Illinois
2
30
22
29
10
7
Indiana
2
28
21
25
13
11
Iowa
5
30
29
24
9
3
Kansas
4
30
26
27
1
3
Michigan
5
32
17
28
9
9
Missouri
3
34
21
25
7
10
Nebraska
2
20
26
31
13
8
North Dakota
4
19
26
32
14
5
South Dakota
2
20
22
33
16
7
Wisconsin
4
29
26
22
9
10
West
4
27
23
25
9
12
Arizona
5
27
15
29
12
12
Idaho
4
24
21
24
10
17
Washington
4
28
25
24
8
11
South
5
32
18
24
11
10
Alabama
4
33
19
17
6
21
Arkansas
4
42
18
20
6
10
Florida
6
37
16
24
10
7
Mississippi
7
28
18
21
13
13
Oklahoma
4
21
17
28
16
14
South Carolina
3
30
20
22
12
13
Texas
5
34
17
24
10
10
Northeast, New York ....
5
38
21
19
5
12
Composite, 21 states
4
30
21
25
10
10
Table 33. Responses to the Proposal that the United States Should Give Selected Low Income Countries Preferred
Entry to the U.S. Agricultural Market
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
3
29
28 24
7
9
Illinois
2
35
29 24
5
5
Indiana
3
27
32 21
7
10
Iowa
6
35
36 18
4
1
Kansas
4
35
30 22
6
3
Michigan
5
27
24 28
7
9
Missouri
2
27
27 22
7
9
Nebraska
4
32
29 22
7
6
North Dakota
7
35
31 19
4
4
South Dakota
3
33
27 22
9
6
Wisconsin
2
22
32 24
11
9
West
3
21
29 27
9
11
Arizona
3
21
26 25
15
10
Idaho
4
20
28 23
9
16
Washington
3
21
30 28
7
11
South
4
29
23 24
10
10
Alabama
2
26
26 19
7
20
Arkansas
1
37
23 21
7
11
Florida
7
22
23 29
11
8
Mississippi
5
24
24 21
16
10
Oklahoma
6
23
24 23
11
13
South Carolina
3
31
24 17
11
14
Texas
^
31
22 25
10
9
Northeast, New York
4
23
28 25
8
12
Composite, 2 1 states
3
28
26 24
8
11
Table 34. Responses to the
Proposal that
the Federal Deficit
Should Be Reduced by Cutting
Every Budget Item
by a Set Percentage
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
17
38
15 18
4
8
Illinois
12
42
19 20
2
5
Indiana
17
36
16 19
3
9
Iowaa
na
na
na na
na
na
Kansas
20
41
15 17
3
4
Michigan
22
34
16 16
4
8
Missouri
14
40
19 17
3
7
Nebraska
13
48
10 16
4
9
North Dakota
15
39
17 20
5
4
South Dakota
20
41
12 17
4
6
Wisconsin
15
36
16 21
4
8
West
22
29
13 23
4
9
Arizona
27
28
11 22
3
9
Idaho
18
32
15 17
3
15
Washinaton
21
30
13 23
4
9
South
19
37
13 18
4
9
Alabama
13
33
17 16
3
18
Arkansas
9
47
15 18
2
9
Florida
20
33
13 18
4
12
Mississippi
19
37
14 18
5
7
Oklahoma
22
33
12 17
4
12
South Carolina
26
32
11 18
1
12
Texas
20
38
13 18
5
6
Northeast, New York".
na
na
na na
na
na
Composite, 1 9 states
17
36
14 17
3
13
•' na: The question was not asked.
37
Table 35. Responses to the Proposal that the Federal Deficit Should Be Reduced by Reducing the Defense Budget
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
19
36
13
19
5
8
Illinois
16
43
14
22
2
3
Indiana
20
37
15
15
5
8
Iowa a
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
26
41
12
13
4
4
Michigan
22
36
11
18
5
8
Missouri
13
36
15
24
5
7
Nebraska
22
40
13
15
5
5
North Dakota
32
38
12
11
3
4
South Dakota
29
39
10
14
4
4
Wisconsin
30
39
12
10
2
7
West
23
38
12
16
3
8
Arizona
18
34
12
21
6
9
Idaho
18
30
14
18
5
15
Washington
24
39
12
15
3
7
South
14
34
12
24
7
9
Alabama
8
30
15
22
9
16
Arkansas
10
40
12
24
6
8
Florida
16
27
11
23
12
11
Mississippi
15
32
12
23
10
8
Oklahoma
19
33
10
23
4
11
South Carolina
17
32
12
21
7
11
Texas
15
35
13
25
6
6
Northeast, New Yorku.
na
na
na
na
na
na
Composite, 1 9 states
18
35
12
19
5
11
Table 36. Responses to the
Proposal that
the Federal Deficit
Should Be Reduced
by Reducing
Social Programs,
Excluding Social
Security
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
13
35
16
21
6
9
Illinois
9
37
18
25
7
4
Indiana
16
34
18
19
5
8
Iowa"
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
15
35
19
21
6
4
Michigan
19
33
12
22
6
8
Missouri
14
35
16
24
5
6
Nebraska
13
45
16
16
8
2
North Dakota
11
33
15
27
10
4
South Dakota
15
33
14
26
7
5
Wisconsin
15
32
15
23
8
7
West
18
35
15
18
6
8
Arizona
26
37
11
14
4
8
Idaho
17
31
13
17
7
15
Washington
16
35
16
19
7
7
South
18
39
10
18
6
9
Alabama
14
34
12
17
6
17
Arkansas
11
48
11
19
3
8
Florida
24
35
6
13
11
11
Mississippi
26
35
8
15
9
7
Oklahoma
18
36
12
16
6
12
South Carolina
19
41
12
12
7
9
Texas
18
40
10
20
6
6
Northeast, New YorkJ.
na
na
na
na
na
na
Composite, 19 states
16
37
14
20
6
7
1 na: The question was mil asked.
38
Table 37. Responses to the Proposal that the Federal Deficit Should Be Reduced by Reducing Social Security Payments
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and stale
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
3
7
10
45
27
8
Illinois
3
8
12
52
20
5
Indiana
4
7
12
44
26
7
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
4
8
12
45
28
3
Michigan
3
7
9
42
32
7
Missouri
2
4
6
53
28
7
Nebraska
.3
9
15
38
31
4
North Dakota
3
8
11
46
29
3
South Dakota
4
7
10
45
28
6
Wisconsin
3
6
11
45
28
7
West
5
10
11
43
22
9
Arizona
6
8
12
41
22
1 1
Idaho
3
7
12
40
22
16
Washington
5
10
11
44
21
9
South
3
6
7
41
34
9
Alabama
2
5
4
41
30
18
Arkansas
2
4
5
44
37
8
Florida
1
6
10
41
33
10
Mississippi
2
3
6
32
50
7
Oklahoma
4
10
11
42
21
12
South Carolina
3
11
7
39
29
11
Texas
3
5
6
42
38
6
Northeast, New York;!
na
na
na
na
na
na
Composite, 19 states
3
7
9
43
30
8
Table 38. Responses to the
Proposal that
the Federal Deficit
Should Be
Reduced by Reducing
Farm Program
Expenditures
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
9
32
17
26
8
8
Illinois
6
36
18
27
8
5
Indiana
14
35
17
21
5
8
Iowa''
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
9
33
17
27
10
4
Michigan
11
37
12
24
9
7
Missouri
10
39
14
27
4
6
Nebraska
8
30
21
30
7
4
North Dakota
6
22
17
33
18
4
South Dakota
9
32
15
29
10
5
Wisconsin
9
26
21
26
11
7
West
14
40
14
18
5
9
Arizona
17
38
12
19
5
9
Idaho
13
38
14
15
5
15
Washington
13
, 40
14
18
6
9
South
10
33
13
25
10
9
Alabama
8
30
15
23
5
19
Arkansas
6
42
13
25
6
8
Florida
13
42
13
15
7
10
Mississippi
12
30
13
24
13
8
Oklahoma
9
27
12
27
12
13
South Carolina
11
22
14
29
13
11
Texas
10
32
13
27
11
7
Northeast, New York'1.
na
na
na
na
na
na
Composite, 19 states
10
33
15
25
9
8
•' na: The question was not asked.
39
Table 39. Responses to the Proposal that the Federal Deficit Should Be Reduced by Raising Taxes
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
2
13
12
36
28
9
Illinois
I
16
14
39
25
5
Indiana
3
13
15
35
27
7
Iowa ''
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
3
13
13
36
32
3
Michigan
4
12
11
32
35
6
Missouri
1
12
12
43
26
6
Nebraska
T,
16
10
38
31
2
North Dakota
•>
16
14
37
29
2
South Dakota
3
16
13
35
27
6
Wisconsin
4
12
13
31
33
7
West
Arizona
3
9
11
30
37
10
Idaho
T
6
11
33
33
15
Washington
2
15
12
32
30
9
South
2
11
10
34
35
8
Alabama
1
12
9
30
. 32
16
Arkansas
1
14
8
38
31
8
Florida
2
12
10
33
33
10
Mississippi
3
11
10
28
41
7
Oklahoma
2
8
12
32
34
12
South Carolina
3
6
14
36
31
10
Texas
3
12
8
35
36
6
Northeast, New Yorka.
na
na
na
na
na
na
Composite, 1 9 states
7
12
11
35
31
9
Table 40. Responses to the
Proposal that the
Federal Deficit
Should Be
Reduced by Increasing
the Collection
of Taxes
Due the Federal
Government
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
27
44
9
8
5
7
Illinois
27
52
9
6
4
2
Indiana
27
44
8
9
4
8
IowaJ
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
29
44
9
9
5
4
Michigan
25
42
10
9
7
7
Missouri
8
36
24
19
5
8
Nebraska
32
46
8
6
5
3
North Dakota
38
40
8
6
5
3
South Dakota
32
45
8
8
4
3
Wisconsin
27
37
13
9
7
7
West
25
46
11
6
4
8
Arizona
30
41
8
8
5
8
Idaho
22
40
11
8
5
14
Washington
24
47
12
6
4
7
South
28
42
9
8
5
8
Alabama
25
38
10
8
3
16
Arkansas
30
48
7
5
2
8
Florida
31
37
11
9
5
7
Mississippi
34
35
11
8
5
7
Oklahoma
23
42
10
7
7
II
South Carolina
30
41
11
4
5
9
Texas
29
44
8
8
5
6
Northeast, New York".
na
na
na
na
na
na
Composite, 19 states
27
43
9
8
5
8
1 na: The question was not asked.
40
Table 41. Responses to the Proposal that the Federal Deficit Should Be Reduced by Increasing User Fees
for Government Services
Region
Strongly
Strongly
and state
agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
disagree
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
10
35
24
17
5
9
Illinois
9
38
25
19
4
5
Indiana
12
37
21
16
6
8
Iowa'1
na
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
12
38
26
15
5
4
Michigan
10
31
24
19
8
8
Missouri
8
36
24
19
5
8
Nebraska
7
40
26
16
6
5
North Dakota
9
33
28
19
7
4
South Dakota
13
39
23
16
6
3
Wisconsin
14
32
26
15
5
8
West
9
30
24
20
9
8
Arizona
9
30
21
19
14
8
Idaho
8
28
22
19
8
15
Washington
9
31
24
20
8
8
South
11
34
22
17
7
9
Alabama
8
29
24
17
4
18
Arkansas
13
39
20
19
2
7
Florida
16
38
17
14
6
9
Mississippi
13
27
26
18
7
9
Oklahoma
11
32
20
17
9
11
South Carolina
12
28
24
16
9
12
Texas
11
35
24
17
7
6
Northeast, New York''.
. . . na
na
na
na
na
na
Composite, 19 states
10
35
23
17
6
9
•' na: The question was noi asked.
Table 42. Farm Program
Participation in
1988
Region
Feed
Conservation
and state
Wheat
grain
Cotton
Rice
Reserve
Disaster
Other
percentage of respondents
North Central
33
55
1
0
13
40
3
Illinois
21
74
0
0
11
51
2
Indiana
26
60
0
0
9
33
4
Iowa
0
87
0
0
20
59
0
Kansas
75
64
0
0
23
25
3
Michigan
39
54
0
0
9
41
3
Missouri
16
25
1
0
10
21
2
Nebraska
41
67
0
0
16
30
4
North Dakota
88
73
0
0
23
82
5
South Dakota
50
73
0
0
18
58
4
Wisconsin
4
47
0
0
10
63
4
West
27
19
6
0
10
3
3
Arizona
11
7
35
0
5
1
5
Idaho
33
26
1
0
7
13
5
Washington
31
21
0
0
12
4
3
South
26
19
12
3
11
18
7
Alabama
6
12
5
0
9
16
7
Arkansas
14
10
4
15
5
17
5
Florida
7
15
1
0
9
8
12
Mississippi
16
15
21
5
16
20
4
Oklahoma
73
26
18
1
16
26
4
South Carolina
42
52
17
0
19
8
0
Texas
19
18
14
1
9
17
9
Northeast, New York
9
23
0
0
4
14
5
Composite, 21 states
30
39
5
1
12
30
5
41
Table 43. Age of Respondents
Region
and state
Under 35
35.49 50-64
65 and over
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
11
30
37
20
2
Illinois
12
31
38
18
1
Indiana
13
27
38
20
1
Iowa
8
30
46
14
2
Kansas
10
24
37
28
1
Michigan
7
29
34
24
6
Missouri
7
31
37
22
3
Nebraska
12
30
39
20
0
North Dakota
19
39
31
11
0
South Dakota
16
33
35
14
2
Wisconsin
13
28
41
17
1
West
7
32
41
18
2
Arizona
7
22
35
24
2
Idaho
9
29
38
20
4
Washington
7
33
42
16
2
South ,
5
23
38
29
5
Alabama
4
21
36
31
8
Arkansas
6
29
41
20
4
Florida
4
24
41
29
2
Mississippi
5
24
39
31
1
Oklahoma
6
31
37
17
9
South Carolina
4
21
34
36
5
Texas
6
18
39
35
2
Northeast, New York .
9
33
35
17
6
Composite, 2 1 states . .
9
27
38
24
2
Table 44. Last Year of School
Completed by Respondents
Some
High
Some college
Region
Grade
high
school
or technical
College
and slate
school
school
graduate
school
graduate
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
10
9
40
24
15
2
Illinois
8
11
44
20
16
1
Indiana
6
7
46
22
16
2
Iowa
8
5
48
21
14
4
Kansas
7
7
37
30
18
1
Michigan
11
8
38
23
14
6
Missouri
12
12
41
23
22
2
Nebraska
7
5
41
23
22
2
North Dakota
13
10
27
32
17
1
South Dakota
13
7
36
27
17
0
Wisconsin
15
11
39
24
9
2
West
3
6
26
32
31
2
Arizona
4
8
23
28
34
3
Idaho
5
9
30
29
23
4
Washington
3
6
26
33
31
1
South
7
11
30
21
26
5
Alabama
7
15
31
22
16
9
Arkansas
7
15
37
19
17
5
Florida
8
12
27
27
23
3
Mississippi
11
II
30
21
25
2
Oklahoma
4
5
26
19
36
10
South Carolina
7
10
23
23
33
4
Texas
7
II
31
21
28
2
Northeast, New York
6
9
37
16
27
5
Composite, 21 states
g
10
35
23
21
3
42
Table 45.
Annual Gross Sales of Respondents
Region
and state
Under
$40.000
$40,000-
99.999
$100.000- $250.000-
249.999 499.999
$500.000
and over
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
43
27
21
5
1
3
Illinois
33
28
28
6
2
3
Indiana
49
23
16
6
2
4
Iowa'1
28
30
28
11
3
Kansas
44
28
20
4
1
3
Michigan
51
19
16
5
1
8
Missouri
66
20
7
1
0
6
Nebraska
26
30
35
7
2
0
North Dakota
29
36
29
4
1
1
South Dakota
27
37
26
7
2
1
Wisconsin
39
33
22
3
1
2
West
28
21
26
13
9
3
Arizona
28
17
16
14
20
5
Idaho
48
18
18
6
4
6
Washington
28
22
28
12
7
3
South
55
17
15
5
2
6
Alabama
14
65
10
7
3
1
Arkansas
59
15
13
4
2
7
Florida
74
10
8
3
1
4
Mississippi
61
12
12
6
4
5
Oklahoma
16
25
31
12
5
11
South Carolina
45
22
15
8
5
5
Texas
62
16
13
4
1
4
Northeast, New York . .
28
29
24
9
3
7
Composite, 20 states . .
47
23
19
5
2
4
J Data I'or Iowa based on 1987 survey.
Table 46. Family Income from
Off-Farm
Employment
Region
Under
SI 0.000- $20,000-
Over
and state
$10,000
19.999
40.000
$40.000
No reply
percentage of respondents
North Central
28
16
16
7
33
Illinois
28
16
17
6
33
Indiana
21
13
24
11
31
Iowa "
na
na
na
na
na
Kansas
28
18
15
6
33
Michigan
36
23
13
18
10
Missouri
21
22
20
8
29
Nebraska
30
13
11
5
41
North Dakota
37
16
7
2
38
South Dakota
45
13
11
2
29
Wisconsin
31
13
13
5
38
West
21
12
17
8
42
Arizona
16
12
16
10
46
Idaho
25
14
17
6
38
Washington
25
12
17
8
38
South
21
11
11
4
50
Alabama
17
12
25
12
34
Arkansas
20
17
18
8
37
Florida
16
17
25
15
27
Mississippi
23
15
21
9
32
Oklahoma
23
10
9
8
50
South Carolina
21
17
18
13
31
Texas
23
12
19
14
32
Northeast, New York . .
24
11
11
4
50
Composite, 20 states . . .
25
14
17
9
35
Jna: The question was not asked.
43
Table 47. Most Important Source of Cash Receipts in 1988
Region
and state
Grain
Hogs, heel',
or sheep
Dairy
Grain and
livestock
Other
No reply
21
14
18
na
17
21
41
17
13
36
12
20
38
24
16
44
47
43
42
39
22
30
59
5
30
pen 'entage of respondents
II 16
6 II
5 11
North Central
Illinois 60
Indiana 55
Iowa" na
Kansas 40
Michigan" 39
Missouri 18
Nebraska 47
North Dakota' 50
South Dakota11 27
Wisconsin 9
West 21
Arizona 4
Idaho 18
Washington 24
South 13
Alabama' 5
Arkansas ' 20
Florida 3
Mississippi f 15
Oklahoma 21
South Carolina 23
Texas II
Northeast, New York 11
Composite, 20 states 26
J na: The question was not asked.
" 47t sheep reported combined with hogs and heel'
' 2% orchards combined with "other"
J 5% hogs and 2Vc sheep reported combined in hogs. beef, or sheep column
' I c/f sheep and I c/t hogs combined with hogs. beef, or sheep
1 2c/r hogs and lr/r sheep combined with hogs, beef, or sheep
* lc/e sheep combined with hogs, beef, or sheep
Table 48. Respondents' Membership in Farm and Commodity Organizations
na
2
6
4
2
4
8
57
10
6
9
11
4
1
3
2
5
2
1
3
52
9
na
32
II
15
24
24
20
6
4
0
10
5
11
11
7
11
13
30
12
5
4
13
10
8
8
na
7
12
14
6
8
6
13
43
45
31
42
11
24
21
28
23
16
32
17
20
16
5
1
4
na
2
11
8
4
1
3
3
2
7
8
2
17
14
9
14
6
9
2
5
8
6
Region
and state
American
Agricultural Farm Farmers
Movement Bureau Union
National
Farmers
Grange Organization
Cattlemen's
Association
Corn
Growers
Association
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
West
Arizona
Idaho
Washington
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Mississippi
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Northeast, New York .
Composite, 21 states .
1
39
73
57
66
47
49
15
21
26
16
30
27
61
30
20
49
30
59
43
68
41
72
49
47
43
percentage of respondents
11
2
5
i
10
2
1
12
65
28
18
24
0
1
1
5
0
1
0
1
20
0
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
6
30
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
8
7
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
4
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
9
5
8
20
17
3
9
10
13
12
5
20
34
17
17
27
42
23
23
27
37
29
22
0
16
6
14
5
18
2
3
4
13
4
10
3
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
1
2
1
2
0
4
44
Table 48. (continued) Respondents' Membership in Farm and Commodity Organizations
Region
and state
Cotton Sorghum Milk
Growers Growers Producers
Soybean
Pork Growers
Producers Association
Wheat
Growers Labor
Association union
Other
percentage of respondents
North Central 01 979 654
Illinois 00 5 12 20 1 2
Indiana 0 0 4 9 0 9 6
Iowa 0 0 5 26 27 0 0 0
Kansas 03 324 14 3 4
Michigan 0 1 14 10 2 10 3
Missouri 0 1 3 5 8 1 6 2
Nebraska 03 3 10 7 923
North Dakota 0 9 4 2 4 26 3
South Dakota 00 6 9 12 13 1 7
Wisconsin 0 0 35 5 2 0 3 5
West 518 0 18 4 19
Arizona 30 5 6 0 0 0 5
Idaho 0 1 7 0 15 4 14
Washineton 009 0 21 4 22
South 3 3 2 2 3 9 3 7
Alabama 2 0 1 2 0 8 4
Arkansas 2 1 2 8 2 3 4
Florida 1 0 2 2 3 1 2 9
Mississippi 8 0 3 3 12 1 3 6
Oklahoma 10 4 2 2 5 36 1 7
South Carolina 8 1 2 6 0 0 1 0
Texas 16211 28
Northeast, New York 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80"
Composite, 21 states 2 2 6 4 6 7 4 8
' For New York, other memberships included Agway. Eastern Artificial Insemination Association. RCMA, regional and local dairy cooperatives, and other marketing cooperatives.
45
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I
It'll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
1
I I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA
111,
30112027989661
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11