(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "U.S. farmers' preferences for agricultural and food policy in the 1990s"

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return to the hbrary from which i, was withdrawn 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its return to the library from which it was withdrawn 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 

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 





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 





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 


Iowa a 


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 


Iowa a 


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 





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 








Iowa a 


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 





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 





Michigan 


27 


30 


13 


14 


9 




2 


5 


Missouri 


26 


19 


15 


10 


19 




1 


10 


Nebraska 


37 


21 


5 


21 


12 




4 





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 





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 





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 





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 





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 





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 


Iowa a 


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 York u . 


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 York J . 


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 York a . 


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 


Iowa J 


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 







13 


40 


3 


Illinois 


21 


74 












11 


51 


2 


Indiana 


26 


60 












9 


33 


4 


Iowa 





87 












20 


59 





Kansas 


75 


64 












23 


25 


3 


Michigan 


39 


54 












9 


41 


3 


Missouri 


16 


25 




1 







10 


21 


2 


Nebraska 


41 


67 












16 


30 


4 


North Dakota 


88 


73 












23 


82 


5 


South Dakota 


50 


73 












18 


58 


4 


Wisconsin 


4 


47 












10 


63 


4 


West 


27 


19 




6 







10 


3 


3 


Arizona 


11 


7 




35 







5 


1 


5 


Idaho 


33 


26 




1 







7 


13 


5 


Washington 


31 


21 












12 


4 


3 


South 


26 


19 




12 




3 


11 


18 


7 


Alabama 


6 


12 




5 







9 


16 


7 


Arkansas 


14 


10 




4 




15 


5 


17 


5 


Florida 


7 


15 




1 







9 


8 


12 


Mississippi 


16 


15 




21 




5 


16 


20 


4 


Oklahoma 


73 


26 




18 




1 


16 


26 


4 


South Carolina 


42 


52 




17 







19 


8 





Texas 


19 


18 




14 




1 


9 


17 


9 


Northeast, New York 


9 


23 












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 









North Dakota 


19 


39 


31 


11 









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 





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 





6 


Nebraska 




26 


30 


35 




7 


2 





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 









J na: 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 Dakota 11 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 2 c /r hogs and l r /r sheep combined with hogs, beef, or sheep 

* l c /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 



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 



1 

1 

5 

1 


1 

20 


3 



2 
1 
1 

1 
2 

2 
1 
1 





1 


6 

30 
1 
1 




1 
2 

1 
8 

7 



1 

1 

2 
2 
3 
1 
3 
3 
4 
3 
1 


1 
1 




1 
1 

1 





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 

16 



6 
14 

5 

18 

2 

3 

4 

13 

4 

10 

3 





1 


1 

3 



1 

2 
1 

2 

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 4 9 9 6 

Iowa 5 26 27 

Kansas 03 324 14 3 4 

Michigan 1 14 10 2 10 3 

Missouri 1 3 5 8 1 6 2 

Nebraska 03 3 10 7 923 

North Dakota 9 4 2 4 26 3 

South Dakota 00 6 9 12 13 1 7 

Wisconsin 35 5 2 3 5 

West 518 18 4 19 

Arizona 30 5 6 5 

Idaho 1 7 15 4 14 

Washineton 009 21 4 22 

South 3 3 2 2 3 9 3 7 

Alabama 2 1 2 8 4 

Arkansas 2 1 2 8 2 3 4 

Florida 1 2 2 3 1 2 9 

Mississippi 8 3 3 12 1 3 6 

Oklahoma 10 4 2 2 5 36 1 7 

South Carolina 8 1 2 6 1 

Texas 16211 28 

Northeast, New York 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