cK9
o(\S\rLAVJ^3
"Bi
Given By
37. S, SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS
\H>05IT(
^OCITORY
M-
Vol. Ill - pt. 9 ch. IX
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUC
IN THE UNITED STATES
(A COOPERATIVE REPORT)
sa m&i?*?.
"/n\
Agricultural Producers and Production
in the United States— A General View
SPECIAL REPORTS
1954
Census
of
Agriculture
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
WASHINGTON • 7956
It ii!zl
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary
Agricultural Research Service
Byron T. Shaw, Administrator
U. S. Department of Commerce
Sinclair Weeks, Secretary
Bureau of the Census
Robert W. Burgess, Director
United States
Census
of
Agriculture:
1954
Volume III
SPECIAL REPORTS
Part 9
Farmers and Farm Production in the United States
(A Cooperative Report)
Chapter IX
Agricultural Producers and
Production in the United
States — A General View
CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMERS and FARM PRODUCTION
PRINCIPAL TYPES OF FARMS •
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Robert W. Burgess, Director
AGRICULTURE DIVISION
Ray Hurley, Chief
Warder B. Jenkins, Assistant Chief
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Byron T. Shaw, Administrator
FARM AND LAND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Sherman E. Johnson, Director
PRODUCTION ECONOMICS RESEARCH BRANCH
Carl P. Heisig, Chief
Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents
OCT 3 - 1957
+W7.3I*3
I/, 3
eh?
SUGGESTED IDENTIFICATION
U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture.- 1954. Vol. Ill, Special Repor
Part 9, Farmers and Farm Production in the United States.
Chapter IX, Agricultural Producers and Production in the United States— A General Vi
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C, 1956.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.
or any of the Field Offices of the Department of Commerce, Price 40 cents (paper cover)
PREFACE
The purpose of this report is to present an analysis of the characteristics of farmers and farm production
for the most important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The analysis
deals with the relative importance, pattern of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and problems of
adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.
The data given in the various chapters of this report have been derived largely from the special tabula-
tion of data for each type of farm, by economic class, for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The detailed
statistics for each type of farm for the United States and the principal subregions appear in Part 8 of Volume
III of the reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
This cooperative report was prepared under the direction of Ray Hurley, Chief of the Agriculture Divi-
sion of the Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, and Kenneth L. Bachman, Head, Produc-
tion, Income, and Costs Section, Production Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Jackson V. McElveen, Agricultural Economist, Production, Income, and Costs Section, Production
Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, super-
vised a large part of the detailed planning and analysis for the various chapters.
The list of chapters and the persons preparing each chapter i
Chapter I Wheat Producers and Wheat
Production
A. W. Epp,
University of Nebraska.
Chapter II_
Chapter ITT
Chapter IV_
Chapter V.
Cotton Producers and Cotton
Production
Robert B. Glasgow,
Production Economics Research
Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.
Tobacco and Peanut Producers
and Production
R. E. L. Greene,
University of Florida.
Poultry Producers and Poultry
Production
William P. Mortenson,
University of Wisconsin.
Dairy Producers and Dairy Pro-
duction
P. E. McNall,
University of Wisconsin.
Chapter VI.
Chapter VII.
Chapter VIII.
Chapter IX,
The editorial work for this report was performed by Caroline B. Sher
statistical tables was supervised by Margaret Wood.
December 1956
Western Stock Ranches and Live-
stock Farms
Mont H. Saunderson,
Western Ranching and Lands
Consultant,
Bozeman, Mont.
Cash-grain and Livestock Pro-
ducers in the Corn Belt
Edwin G. Strand,
Production Economics Research
Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.
Part-time Farming
H. G. Halcrow,
University of Connecticut.
Agricultural Producers and Pro-
duction in the United States —
A General View
Jackson V. McElveen,
Production Economics Research
Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.
i, and the preparation of the
UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE: 1954
REPORTS
Volume I. — Counties and State Economic Areas. Statistics for counties include number of farms, acreage, value, and farm operators;
farms by color and tenure of operator; facilities and equipment; use of commercial fertilizer; farm labor; farm expenditures; livestock and
livestock products; specified crops harvested; farms classified by type of farm and by economic class; and value of products sold by source.
Data for State economic areas include farms and farm characteristics by tenure of operator, by type of farm, and by economic class.
Volume I is published in 33 parts.
Volume H. — General Report. Statistics by Subjects, United States Census of Agriculture, 1954. Summary data and analyses of
the data for States, for Geographic Divisions, and for the United States by subjects.
Volume III. — Special Reports
Part 1. — Multiple-Unit Operations. This report will be similar to
Part 2 of Volume V of the reports for the 1950 Census of Agri-
culture. It will present statistics for approximately 900
counties and State economic areas in 12 Southern States and
Missouri for the number and characteristics of multiple-unit
operations and farms in multiple units.
Part 2.— Ranking Agricultural Counties. This special report will
present statistics for selected items of inventory and agricul-
tural production for the leading counties in the United States.
Part 3.— Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and
U. S. Possessions. These areas were not included in the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The available current data from vari-
ous Government sources will be compiled and published in
this report.
Part 4. — Agriculture, 1954, a Graphic Summary. This report will
present graphically some of the significant facts regarding
agriculture and agricultural production as revealed by the 1954
Census of Agriculture.
Part 5.— Farm-Mortgage Debt. This will be a cooperative study
by the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department
of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census. It will present,
by States, data based on the 1954 Census of Agriculture and a
special mail survey conducted in January 1956, on the num-
ber of mortgaged farms, the amount of mortgage debt, and the
amount of debt held by principal lending agencies.
Part 6. — Irrigation in Humid Areas. This cooperative report by
the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census will present data ob-
tained by a mail survey of operators of irrigated farms in 28
States on the source of water, method of applying water, num-
ber of pumps used, acres of crops irrigated in 1954 and 1955,
the number of times each crop was irrigated, and the cost of
irrigation equipment and the irrigation system.
Part 7. — Popular Report of the 1954 Census of Agriculture. This
report is planned to be a general, easy-to-read publication for
the general public on the status and broad characteristics of
United States agriculture. It will seek to delineate such as-
pects of agriculture as the geographic distribution and dif-
ferences by size of farm for such items as farm acreage, princi-
pal crops, and important kinds of livestock, farm facilities,
farm equipment, use of fertilizer, soil conservation practices,
farm tenure, and farm income.
Part 8. — Size of Operation by Type of Farm. This will be a coop-
erative special report to be prepared in cooperation with the
Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture. This report will contain data for 119 economic sub-
regions (essentially general type-of-farming areas) showing the
general characteristics for each type of farm by economic class.
It will provide data for a current analysis of the differences
that exist among groups of farms of the same type. It will
furnish statistical basis for a realistic examination of produc-
tion of such commodities as wheat, cotton, and dairy products
in connection with actual or proposed governmental policies
and programs.
Part 9. — Farmers and Farm Production in the United States.
The purpose of this report is to present an analysis of the
characteristics of farmers and farm production for the most
important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census
of Agriculture. The analysis deals with the relative importance,
pattern of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and prob-
lems of adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.
The report was prepared in cooperation with the Agricultural
Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
The list of chapters (published separately only) and title
for each chapter are as follows:
Chapter I — Wheal Producers and Wheat Production
II — Cotton Producers and Cotton Production
III — Tobacco and Peanut Producers and Production
IV — Poultry Producers and Poultry Production
V — Dairy Producers and Dairy Production
VI — Western Stock Ranches and Livestock Farms
VII — Cash-Grain and Livestock Producers in the Corn
Belt
VIII— Part-Time Farming
IX — Agricultural Producers and Production in the
United Stales — A General View
Part 10. — Use of Fertilizer and Lime. The purpose of this report
is to present in one publication most of the detailed data com-
piled for the 1954 Census of Agriculture regarding the use of
fertilizer and lime. The report presents data for counties,
State economic areas, and generalized type-of-farming areas
regarding the quantity used, acreage on which used, and
expenditures for fertilizer and lime. The Agricultural Research
Service cooperated with the Bureau of the Census in the prep-
aration of this report.
Part 11. — Farmers' Expenditures. This report presents detailed
data on expenditures for a large number of items used for farm
production in 1955, and on the living expenditures of farm
operators' families. The data were collected and compiled
cooperatively by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census.
Part 12. — Methods and Procedures. This report contains an
outline and a description of the methods and procedures used
in taking and compiling the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and scope. — American agriculture is exceedingly diverse
and is undergoing revolutionary changes. Farmers and their
families obtain their income by producing a large variety of
products under a large variety of conditions as well as from sources
other than farming. The organization of production, type of
farming, productivity, income, expenditures, size, and character-
istics of operators of the 4.8 million farms in the United States
vary greatly. Agriculture has been a dynamic, moving, adjusting
part of our economy. Basic changes in farming have been occurring
and will continue to be necessary. Adjustments brought by tech-
nological change, by changing consumer wants, by growth of
population, and by changes in the income of nonfarm people, have
been significant forces in changing agriculture since World War II.
The transition from war to an approximate peacetime situation
has also made it necessary to reduce the output of some farm
products. Some of the adjustments in agriculture have not pre-
sented relatively difficult problems as they could be made by the
transfer of resources from the production of one product to another.
Others require substantial shifts in resources and production.
Moreover, a considerable number of farm families, many of whom
are employed full time in agriculture, have relatively low incomes.
Most of these families operate farms that are small when compared
with farms that produce higher incomes. The acreage of land and
the amount of capital controlled by the operators of these small
farms are too small to provide a very high level of income. In
recent years, many farm families on these small farms have made
adjustments by leaving the farm to earn their incomes elsewhere,
by discontinuing their farm operations, and by earning more non-
farm income while remaining on the farm or on the place they
farmed formerly.
One objective of this report is to describe and analyze some of
the existing differences and recent adjustments in the major types
of farming and farm production. For important commodities and
groups of farms, the report aims to make available, largely from
the detailed data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture but in a more
concise form, facts regarding the size of farms, capital, labor, and
land resources on farms, amounts and sources of farm income and
expenditures, combinations of crop and livestock enterprises,
adjustment problems, operator characteristics, and variation in use
of resources and in size of farms by areas and for widely differing
production conditions. Those types of farms on which production
of surplus products is important have been emphasized. The
report will provide a factual basis for a better understanding of
the widespread differences among farms in regard to size, resources,
and income. It will also provide a basis for evaluating the effects
of existing and proposed farm programs on the production and
incomes of major types and classes of farms.
Income from nonfarm sources is important on a large number
of farms. About 1.4 million of the 4.8 million farm-operator
families, or about 3 in 10, obtain more income from off-farm sources
than from the sale of agricultural products. More than three-
fourths of a million farm operators live on small-scale part-time
farms and ordinarily are not dependent on farming as the main
source of family income. These part-time farmers have a quite
different relation to adjustments, changes, and farm problems
than do commercial farmers. A description of and facts regarding
these part-time farms and the importance of nonfarm income for
commercial farms are presented in Chapter 8.
Except for Chapter 8, this report deals with commercial farms
(see economic class of farm) . The analysis is limited to the major
types of agricultural production and deals primarily with geo-
graphic areas in which each of the major types of agricultural
production has substantial significance.
Source of data. — Most of the data presented in this report are
from special compilations made for the 1954 Census of Agriculture,
although pertinent data from research findings and surveys of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, State Agricultural Colleges, and
other agencies have been used to supplement Census data. The
detailed Census data used for this report are contained in Part 8 of
Volume III of the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
Reference should be made to that report for detailed explanations
and definitions and statements regarding the characteristics and
reliability of the data.
Areas for which data are presented. — Data are presented in
this report primarily for selected economic subregions and for the
United States. The boundaries of the 119 subregions used for the
compilation of data on winch this report is based are indicated by
the map on page vi. These subregions represent primarily general
type-of-farming areas. Many of them extend into two or more
States. (For a more detailed description of economic subregions,
see the publication "Economic Subregions of the United States,
Series Census BAE; No. 19, published cooperatively by the Bureau
of the Census, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, July 1953.)
DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS
Definitions and explanations are given only for some of the more
important items. For more detailed definitions and explanations,
reference can be made to Part 8 of Volume III and to Volume II of
the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
A farm. — For the 1954 Census of Agriculture, places of 3 or
more acres were counted as farms if the annual value of agricultural
products, exclusive of home-garden products, amounted to $150
or more. The agricultural products could have been either for
home use or for sale. Places of less than 3 acres were counted as
farms only if the annual value of sales of agricultural products
amounted to $150 or more. Places for which the value of agricul-
tural products for 1954 was less than these minima because of crop
failure or other unusual conditions, and places operated at the time
of the Census for the first time were counted as farms if normally
they could be expected to produce these minimum quantities of
agricultural products.
All the land under the control of one person or partnership was
included as one farm. Control may have been through ownership,
or through lease, rental, or cropping arrangement.
Farm operator. — A "farm operator" is a person who operates
a farm, either performing the labor himself or directly supervising
it. He may be an owner, a hired manager, or a tenant, renter, or
sharecropper. If he rents land to others or has land cropped for
him by others, he is listed as the operator of only that land which
he retains. In the case of a partnership, only one partner was
included as the operator. The number of farm operators is con-
sidered the same as the number of farms.
VIII
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Farms reporting or operators reporting. — Figures for farms
reporting or operators reporting, based on a tabulation of all farms,
represent the number of farms, or farm operators, for which the
specified item was reported. For example, if there were 11,922
farms in a subregion and only 11,465 had chickens over 4 months
old on hand, the number of farms reporting chickens would be
11,465. The difference between the total number of farms and the
number of farms reporting an item represents the number of farms
not having that item, provided the inquiry was answered
completely for all farms.
Farms by type. — The classification of commercial farms by
type was made on the basis of the relationship of the value of
sales from a particular source, or sources, to the total value of all
farm products sold from the farm. In some cases, the type of
farm was determined on the basis of the sale of an individual farm
product, such as cotton, or on the basis of the sales of closely re-
lated products, such as dairy products. In other cases, the type
of farm was determined on the basis of sales of a broader group of
products, such as grain crops including corn, sorghums, all small
grains, field peas, field beans, cowpeas, and soybeans. In order to
be classified as a particular type, sales or anticipated sales of a
product or group of products had to represent 50 percent or more
of the total value of products sold.
The types of commercial farms for w-hich data are shown, to-
gether with the product or group of products on which the classi-
fication is based are:
Product or group of products amount-
ing to 50 percent or more of the
Type of farm value of all farm products sold
Cash-grain Corn, sorghum, small grains, field
peas, field beans, cowpeas, and
soybeans.
Cotton Cotton (lint and seed).
Other field-crop Peanuts, Irish potatoes, sweet-
potatoes, tobacco, sugarcane, sug-
ar beets for sugar, and other
miscellaneous crops.
Vegetable Vegetables.
Fruit-and-nut Berries and other small fruits, and
tree fruits, nuts, and grapes.
Dairv Milk and other dairy products.
The criterion of 50 percent of the
total sales was modified in the
ease of dairy farms. A farm for
which the value of sales of dairy
products represented less than 50
percent of the total value of farm
products sold was classified as a
dairy farm if —
(a) Milk and other dairy prod-
ucts accounted for 30
percent or more of the
total value of products
sold, and
(o) Milk cows represented 50
percent or more of all
cows, and
(c) Sales of dairy products, to-
gether with the sales
of cattle and calves,
amounted to 50 percent
or more of the total
value of farm products
Poultry.
Livestock farms other
dairy and poultry.
Chickens, eggs, turkeys, and other
poultry products.
Cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, goats,
wool, and mohair, provided the
farm did not qualify as a dairy
farm.
Type of fa
Product or group of products amount-
ing to 50 percent or more of the
value of all farm products sold
Farms were classified as general
when the value of products from
one source or group of sources
did not represent as much as 50
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold. Separate
figures are given for three kinds
of general farms:
(a) Primarily crop.
(b) Primarily livestock.
(c) Crop and livestock.
Primarily crop farms are those for
which the sale of one of the
following crops or groups of
crops — vegetables, fruits and
nuts, cotton, cash grains, or other
field crops — did not amount to
50 percent or more of the value
of all farm products sold, but
for which the value of sales for
all these groups of crops repre-
sented 70 percent or more of the
value of all farm products sold.
Primarily livestock farms are those
which could not qualify as dairy
farms, poultry farms, or livestock
farms other than dairy and
poultry, but on which the sale
of livestock and poultry and
livestock and poultry products
amounted to 70 percent or more
of the value of all farm products
sold.
General crop and livestock farms are
those which could not be classi-
fied as either crop farms or live-
stock farms, but on which the
sale of all crops amounted to at
least 30 percent but less than 70
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold.
This group of farms includes those
that had 50 percent or more of
the total value of products ac-
counted for by sale of horticul-
tural products, or sale of horses,
or sale of forest products.
Farms by economic class. — A classification of farms by eco-
nomic class was made for the purpose of segregating groups of
farms that are somewhat alike in their characteristics and size of
operation. This classification was made in order to present an
accurate description of the farms in each class and in order to
provide basic data for an analysis of the organization of agriculture.
The classification of farms by economic class was made on the
basis of three factors; namely, total value of all farm products
sold, number of days the farm operator worked off the farm, and
the relationship of the income received from nonfarm sources by
the operator and members of his family to the value of all farm
products sold. Farms operated by institutions, experiment sta-
tions, grazing associations, and community projects were classified
as abnormal, regardless of any of the three factors.
For the purpose of determining the code for economic class and
type of farm, it was necessary to obtain the total value of farm
products sold as well as the value of some individual products
sold.
The total value of farm products sold was obtained by adding
the reported or estimated values for all products sold from the
farm. The value of livestock, livestock products except wool and
mohair, vegetables, nursery and greenhouse products, and forest
Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION
IX
products was obtained by the enumerator from the farm operator
for each farm. The enumerator also obtained from the farm
operator the quantity sold for corn, sorghums, small grains, hays,
and small fruits. The value of sales for these crops was obtained
by multiplying the quantity sold by State average prices.
The quantity sold was estimated for all other farm products.
The entire quantity produced for wool, mohair, cotton, tobacco,
sugar beets for sugar, sugarcane for sugar, broomcorn, hops, and
mint for oil was estimated as sold. To obtain the value of each
product sold, the quantity sold was multiplied by State average
prices.
In making the classification of farms by economic class, farms
were grouped into two major groups, namely, commercial farms
and other farms. In general, all farms with a value of sales of
farm products amounting to $1,200 or more were classified as
commercial. Farms with a value of sales of $250 to $1,199 were
classified as commercial only if the farm operator worked off the
farm less than 100 days or if the income of the farm operator and
members of his family received from nonfarm sources was less than
the total value of all farm products sold.
Land in farms according to use.— Land in farms was classified
according to the use made of it in 1954. The classes of land
are mutually exclusive, i. e., each acre of land was included only
once even though it may have had more than one use during the
year.
The classes referred to in this report are as follows:
Cropland harvested. — This includes land from which crops
were harvested; land from which hay (including wild hay) was
cut; and land in small fruits, orchards, vineyards, nurseries, and
greenhouses. Land from which two or more crops were reported
as harvested was to be counted only once.
Cropland used only for pasture. — In the 1954 Census, the
enumerator's instructions stated that rotation pasture and all
other cropland that was used only for pasture were to be in-
cluded under this class. No further definition of cropland
pastured was given the farm operator or enumerator. Per-
manent open pasture may, therefore, have been included under
this item or under "other pasture," depending on whether the
enumerator or farm operator considered it as cropland.
Cropland not harvested and not pastured. — This item includes
idle cropland, land in soil-improvement crops only, land on
which all crops failed, land seeded to crops for harvest after
1954, and cultivated summer fallow.
In the Western States, this class was subdivided to show
separately the acres of cultivated summer fallow. In these
States, the acreage not in cultivated summer fallow represents
largely crop failure. There are very few counties in the West-
ern States in which there is a large acreage of idle cropland or
in which the growing of soil-improvement crops is an important
use of the land.
In the States other than the Western States, this general
class was subdivided to show separately the acres of idle crop-
land (not used for crops or for pasture in' 1954) . In these States,
the incidence of crop failure is usually low. It was expected
that the acreage figure that excluded idle land would reflect
the acreage in soil-improvement crops. However, the 1954
crop year was one of low rainfall in many Eastern and Southern
States and, therefore, in these areas the acreage of cropland not
harvested and not pastured includes more land on which all
crops failed than would usually be the case.
Cultivated summer fallow. — This item includes cropland
that was plowed and cultivated but left unseeded for several
months to control weeds and conserve moisture. No land
from which crops were harvested in 1954 was to be included
under this item.
Cropland, total. — This includes cropland harvested, cropland
used only for pasture, and cropland not harvested and not
pastured.
Land pastured, total. — This includes cropland used only for
pasture, woodland pastured, and other pasture (not cropland
and not woodland).
423026—57 2
Woodland, total. — This includes woodland pastured and
woodland not pastured.
Value of land and buildings. — The value to be reported was
the approximate amount for which the land and the buildings on
it would sell.
Off-farm work and other income. — Many farm operators receive
a part of their income from sources other than the sale of farm
products from their farms. The 1954 Agriculture Questionnaire
included several inquiries relating to work off the farm and non-
farm income. These inquiries called for the number of days
worked off the farm by the farm operator; whether other members
of the operator's family worked off the farm; and whether the
farm operator received income from other sources, such as sale
of products from land rented out, cash rent, boarders, old age
assistance, pensions, veterans' allowances, unemployment com-
pensation, interest, dividends, profits from nonfarm business,
and help from other members of the operator's family. Another
inquiry asked whether the income of the operator and his family
from off-farm work and other sources was greater than the total
value of all agricultural products sold from the farm in 1954.
Off-farm work was to include work at nonfarm jobs, businesses,
or professions, whether performed on the farm premises or else-
where; also, work on someone else's farm for pay or wages. Ex-
change work was not to be included.
Specified facilities and equipment. — Inquiries were made in
1954 to determine the presence or absence of selected items on
each place such as (1) telephone, (2) piped running water, (3)
electricity, (4) television set, (5) home freezer, (6) electric pig
brooder, (7) milking machine, and (8) power feed grinder. Such
facilities or equipment were to be counted even though tem-
porarily out of order. Piped running water was defined as water
piped from a pressure system or by gravity flow from a natural
or artificial source. The enumerator's instructions stated that
pig brooders were to include those heated by an electric heating
element, by an infrared or heat bulb, or by ordinary electric bulbs.
They could be homemade.
The number of selected types of other farm equipment was also
obtained for a sample of farms. The selected kinds of farm
equipment to be reported were (1) grain combines (for harvesting
and threshing grains or seeds in one operation) ; (2) cornpickers ;
(3) pickup balers (stationary ones not to be reported) ; (4) field
forage harvesters (for field chopping of silage and forage crops) ;
(5) motortrucks; (6) wheel tractors (other than garden); (7)
garden tractors; (8) crawler tractors (tracklaying, caterpillar) ;
(9) automobiles; and (10) artificial ponds, reservoirs, and earth
tanks.
Wheel tractors were to include homemade tractors but were not
to include implements having built-in power units such as self-
propelled combines, powered buck rakes, etc. Pickup and truck-
trailer combinations were to be reported as motortrucks. School
buses were not to be reported, and jeeps and station wagons were
to be included as motortrucks or automobiles, depending on
whether used for hauling farm products or supplies, or as passenger
vehicles.
Farm labor. — The farm-labor inquiries for 1954, called for the
number of persons doing farmwork or chores on the place during
a specified calendar week. Since starting dates of the 1954 enumer-
ation varied by areas or States, the calendar week to which the
farm-labor inquiries related varied also. The calendar week was
September 26-October 2 or October 24-30. States with the
September 26-October 2 calendar week were: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States with the October
24-30 calendar week were : Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Farmwork was to include any work, chores, or planning necessary
to the operation of the farm or ranch business. Housework,
contract construction work, and labor involved when equipment
was hired (custom work) were not to be included.
The farm-labor information was obtained in three parts:
(1) Operators working, (2) unpaid members of the operator's family
working, and (3) hired persons working. Operators were consid-
ered as working if they worked 1 or more hours; unpaid members
of the operator's family, if they worked 15 or more hours; and
hired persons, if they worked any time during the calendar week
specified. Instructions contained no specifications regarding age
of the persons working.
Regular and seasonal workers.- — Hired persons working on
the farm during the specified week were classed as "regular"
workers if the period of actual or expected employment was 150
days or more during the year, and as "seasonal" workers if the
period of actual or expected employment was less than 150 days.
If the period of expected employment was not reported, the
period of employment was estimated for the individual farm
after taking into account such items as the basis of payment,
wage rate, expenditures for labor in 1954, and the type and
other characteristics of the farm.
Specified farm expenditures. — The 1954 Census obtained data
for selected farm expense items in addition to those for fertilizer
and lime. The expenditures were to include the total specified
expenditures for the place whether made by landlord, tenant, or
both.
Expenditures for machine hire were to include any labor in-
cluded in the cost of such machine hire. Machine hire refers to
custom machine work such as tractor hire, threshing, combining,
silo filling, baling, ginning, plowing, and spraying. If part of the
farm products was given as pay for machine hire, the value of the
products traded for this service was to be included in the amount
of expenditures reported. The cost of trucking, freight, and
express was not to be included.
Expenditures for hired labor were to include only cash pay-
ments. Expenditures for housework, custom work, and contract
construction work were not to be included.
Expenditures for feed were to include the expenditures for
pasture, salt, condiments, concentrates, and mineral supplements,
as well as those for grain, hay, and mill feeds. Expenditures for
grinding and mixing feeds were also to be included. Payments
made by a tenant to his landlord for feed grown on the land rented
by the tenant were not to be included.
Expenditures for gasoline and other petroleum fuel and oil were
to include only those used for the farm business. Petroleum
products used for the farmer's automobile for pleasure or used
exclusively in the farm home for heating, cooking, and lighting
were not to be included.
Crops harvested. — The information on crops harvested refers
to the acreage and quantity harvested for the 1954 crop year. An
exception was made for land in fruit orchards and planted nut
trees. In this case, the acreage represents that in both bearing
and nonbearing trees and vines as of October and November 1954.
Hay. — The data for hay includes all kinds of hay except soy-
bean, cowpea, sorghum, and peanut hay.
Livestock and poultry. — The data on the number of livestock
and poultry represent the number on hand on the day of enumera-
tion (October-November 1954). The data relating to livestock
products and the number of livestock sold relate to the sales made
during the calendar year 1954.
LABOR RESOURCES
The data for labor resources available represent estimates based
largely on Census data and developed for the purpose of making
comparisons among farms of various size of operations. The
labor resources available are stated in terms of man-equivalents.
To obtain the man-equivalents the total number of farm opera-
tors as reported by the 1954 Census were adjusted for estimated
man-years of work off the farm and for the number of farm opera-
tors 65 years old and over. The farm operator was taken to rep-
resent a full man-equivalent of labor unless he was 65 years or
older or unless he worked at an off-farm job in 1954.
The man-equivalent estimated for farm operators reporting spec-
ified amounts of off-farm work were as follows:
Estimated
Days worked off the farm in 1954 man-equivalent
1-99 days 0.85
100-199 days . 50
200 days and over . 15
The man-equivalent for farm operators 65 years of age and older
was estimated at 0.5.
Man-equivalents of members of the farm operator's family were
based upon Census data obtained in response to the question
"How many members of your family did 15 or more hours of farm
work on this place the week of September 26-October 2 (or, in
some areas, the week of October 24-30) without receiving cash
wages?" Each family worker was considered as 0.5 man-equiva-
lent. This estimate provides allowance for the somewhat higher
incidence of women, children, and elderly persons in the unpaid
family labor force.
In addition, the number of unpaid family workers who were
reported as working 15 or more hours in the week of September
26-October 2 was adjusted to take account of seasonal changes in
farm employment. Using published and unpublished findings of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture and State Agricultural Col-
leges, and depending largely upon knowledge and experience with
the geographic areas and type of farming, each author deter-
mined the adjustment factor needed to correct the number of
family workers reported for the week of September 26-October 2
to an annual average basis.
Man-equivalents of hired workers are based entirely upon the
expenditure for cash wages and the average wage of permanent
hired laborers as reported in the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
Value of or investment in livestock. — Numbers of specified
livestock and poultry in each subregion were multiplied by a
weighted average value per head. The average values were com-
puted from data compiled for each kind of livestock for the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The total value does not include the value
of goats. (For a description of the method of obtaining the value
of livestock, see Chapter VI of Volume II of the reports for the
1954 Census of Agriculture.)
Value of investment in machinery and equipment. — The data
on value of investment in machinery and equipment were developed
for the purpose of making broad comparisons among types and
economic classes of farms and by subregions. Numbers of specified
machines on farms, as reported by the Census, were multiplied by
estimated average value per machine. Then the total values ob-
tained were adjusted upward to provide for the inclusion of items
of equipment not included in the Census inventory of farm
machinery.
INTRODUCTION
M
The estimates for average value of specified machines and the
proportion of total value of all machinery represented by the
value of these machines were based largely on published and un-
published data from the "Farm Costs and Returns" surveys con-
ducted currently by the Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.1 Modifications were made as needed
in the individual chapters on the basis of State and local studies.
The total estimated value of all machinery for all types and
economic classes of farms is approximately equal to the value of
all machinery as estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Value of farm products sold, or gross sales. — Data on the
value of the various farm products sold were obtained for 1954 by
two methods. First, the values of livestock and livestock prod-
ucts sold, except wool and mohair; vegetables harvested for sale;
nursery and greenhouse products; and forest products were
obtained by asking each farm operator the value of sales. Second,
the values of all other farm products sold were computed. For the
most important crops, the quantity sold or to be sold was obtained
for each farm. The entire quantity harvested for cotton and
cottonseed, tobacco, sugar beets for sugar, hops, mint for oil, and
sugarcane for sugar was considered sold. The quantity of minor
crops sold was estimated. The value of sales for each crop was
computed by multiplying the quantity sold by State average
prices. In the case of wool and mohair, the value of sales was
computed by multiplying the quantity shorn or clipped by the
State average prices.
Gross sales include the value of all kinds of farm products sold.
The total does not include rental and benefit, soil conservation,
price adjustment, Sugar Act, and similar payments. The totsl
does include the value of the landlord's share of a crop removed
from a farm operated by a share tenant. In most of the tables,
detailed data are presented for only the more important sources
of gross sales and the total for the individual farm products
or sources will not equal the total as the values for the less impor-
tant sources or farm products have been omitted. (For a detailed
statement regarding the reliability and method of obtaining the
value of farm products sold, reference should be made to Chapter
IX of Volume II of the reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture.)
Livestock and livestock products sold. — The value of sales for
livestock and livestock products includes the value of live animals
sold, dairy products sold, poultry and poultry products sold, and
the calculated value of wool and mohair. The value of bees,
honey, fur animals, goats, and goat milk is not included.
The value of dairy products includes the value of whole milk and
cream sold, but does not include the value of butter and cheese,
made on the farm, and sold. The value of poultry and products
includes the value of chickens, broilers, chicken eggs, turkeys,
turkey eggs, ducks, geese, and other miscellaneous poultry and
poultry products sold. The value does not include the value
of baby chicks sold.
Crops sold. — Vegetables sold includes the value of all vegetables
harvested for sale, but does not include the value of Irish potatoes
and sweetpotatoes.
The value of all crops sold includes the value of all crops sold
except forest products. The value of field crops sold includes the
value of sales of all crops sold except vegetables, small fruits and
berries, fruits, and nuts.
i Farm Costs am] Return-;, ia.'i5 (with comparisons*, Aericulture Information Bulletin No. 1SK, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, June 1958.
CHAPTER IX
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION IN THE
UNITED STATES— A GENERAL VIEW
(i)
CONTENTS
Page
Major sectors in agriculture 7
Economic classification of farms 9
Commercial and noncommercial farms 9
Part-time and residential farms 9
Commercial farms 10
Economic classes of commercial farms 10
Economic class as a measure of farm size 10
Geographic distribution of economic classes. 11
Characteristics and limitations of the eco-
nomic classification 12
Types of commercial farms 12
A measure of commodity specialization 13
Geographic distribution of types of farms 13
Cash-grain farms 13
Cotton farms 13
Other field-crop farms 13
Vegetable farms 14
Fruit-and-nut farms 14
Dairy farms 14
Poultry farms 15
Livestock farms other than dairy and poul-
try 15
General farms 15
Miscellaneous farms 16
Type-of-farming areas 16
Type of farm by economic class 17
Changes in the structure of commercial farming 18
Changes affect farmers differently 18
Changes by economic classes 18
Specialization in farming 19
Changes in type of farm 20
Changes in type by economic class 20
Geographic changes in type and economic class _ . 21
Changes in size of acreage 24
Change in acreage by economic class 25
Change in acreage by type of farm 26
Changes in farm operator characteristics 26
Age of operator 26
Tenure of operator 27
Off-farm work and other income 27
Residence of farm operator 27
Changes in farm resources 28
Tractors on farms 28
Land resources and market output 28
Page
Characteristics of type of farm by economic class 29
Farm operator characteristics 29
Color and tenure of operator 29
Residence of farm operators 30
Work off the farm and other income 30
Age of operator 30
Man-equivalents of labor used 31
Operator labor 31
Unpaid family labor 31
Hired labor 32
Cash wages paid 32
Class of work power 34
Land in farms 34
Cropland harvested 37
Value of land and buildings 38
Value of livestock 40
Estimated value of machinery 40
Total value of investment 41
Value of farm products sold 42
Gross sales per acre 43
Yield of corn per acre harvested 43
Gross sales per $100 of capital investment 43
Gross sales per man-equivalent 44
Limitations of relating sales to resources 44
Investment per man-equivalent 44
Total farm expenses 45
Cash wages 46
Machine hire 47
Purchase of livestock and poultry 47
Feed for livestock and poultry 47
Seeds, plants, and trees 47
Commercial fertilizer and liming materials.. 47
Fuel, repairs, and other operating costs for
motor vehicles and farm machinery 48
Marketing cost 48
Miscellaneous farm operating expenses 48
Property taxes and interest 48
Capital expenditures 48
Total motor vehicle and machinery expenses 48
Census specified expenses 49
Relation of Census specified expenses to total
farm expenses 49
Estimated value added 50
Value added per man-equivalent 51
Value added per $1,000 of capital investment. 51
Home facilities. 52
Electricity 52
Index of home facilities 52
3
CONTENTS
MAPS AND CHARTS
Farm labor productivity
Population: Total, non-farm, and farm, United States,
1910 to 1954
Number of farm operators working off their farms by num-
ber of days worked, for the United States and areas,
1930-1954
Farm income and population
United States farms
Part-time farms, number, 1954
Residential farms, number, 1954
Commercial farms, number, 1954
Economic Class I farms, number, 1954
Economic Class II farms, number, 1954
Economic Class III farms, number, 1954
Economic Class IV farms, number, 1954
Economic Class V farms, number, 1954
Economic Class VI farms, number, 1954
Cash-grain farms, number, 1954
Cotton farms, number, 1954
Other field-crop farms, number, 1954
Vegetable farms, number, 1954
Fruit-and-nut farms, number, 1 954
Dairy farms, number, 1954
Poultry farms, number, 1954
Livestock farms, number, 1954
General farms, number, 1954
Page
7
Type-of-farming areas, based on type accounting for 50
percent or more of commercial farms, 1954
Cash-grain farms — increase and decrease in number,
1950-1954
Cotton farms — increase and decrease in number, 1950-1954.
Other field-crop farms — increase and decrease in number,
1950-1954 ..
Vegetable farms — increase and decrease in. number,
1950-1954 ... — . I
Fruit-and-nut farms — increase and decrease in number,
1950-1954
Dairy farms — increase and decrease in number, 1950-1954.
Poultry farms — increase and decrease in number, 1950-1954.
Livestockfarms — increase and decrease in number, 1950-1954.
General farms — -increase and decrease in number, 1950-1954.
Economic Class I farms — increase and decrease in number,
1950-1954 ...
Economic Class II farms — increase and decrease in num-
ber, 1950-1954
Economic Class III farms — increase and decrease in num-
ber, 1950-1954
Economic Class IV farms — increase and decrease in num-
ber, 1950-1954
Economic Class V farms — increase and decrease in number,
1950-1954
Economic Class VI farms — increase and
ber, 1950-1954
TABLES
Table—
1. — Farms and specified farm resources by economic class of commercial farm, for the United States: 1954
2, — Number of farms in each type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954
3. — Percent distribution of farms in each type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954
4. — Percent distribution of farms in each economic class, by type of farm, for the United States: 1954
5. — Changes in number and percent distribution of commercial farms, by economic class, for the United States: 1950 to 1954...
6. — Number and proportion of farms having production or sales of specified commodities, for the United States by specified
years: 1929 to 1954
7. — Changes in number and percent distribution of commercial farms, by type of farm, for the United States: 1950 to 1954
8. — Change in number of farms, for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1950 to 1954 ...
9. — Changes in number of farms by size and percent distribution of commercial farms by size, for the United States: 1950
Page
16
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
Page
11
17
17
17
to 1954.
10. — Number and percent distribution of farms, 1954, and change in number of farms, 1950 to 1954; by size and economic class,
for the United States
11. Number and percent distribution, 1954, and change in number of farms, 1950 to 1954; by size and type of farm, for the United
States
12. — Specified farms and farm-operator characteristics, by type and by economic class for commercial farms, for the United States:
1950 and 1954
13.— Specified farm resources, percent 1954 is of 1950, by economic class and by type of farm, for the United States ..
14. — Proportion of farms operated by owners, part-owners, and managers, and croppers, and by white and nonwhite operators,
for each type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954
15. — Percent distribution of farms in each tenure and color group by type and economic class of farm, for the United States: 1954.
16. — Percent of nonresident operators for type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954
17. — Operators working off the farm 100 or more days as percentage of operators reporting as to off -farm work, for each type of
farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1954
18. — Percentage of farms with other income greater than the value of farm products sold, for each type of farm, by economic class,
for the United States: 1954
19. — Median age of operator for type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954
20. — Average man-equivalents of labor used on each type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954
21. — Percentage of farms reporting $5,000 or more cash wages paid, for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the
United States: 1954. -.—
22. — Percentage distribution of commercial farms in each type, by economic class of farm, by amount of expenditure for hired
labor, for the United States: 1954
23. — Class of work power: Percentage distribution of farms by type and by specified economic classes, for the United States: 1954..
24. — Percent distribution of total land for each economic class, by type of farm, for the United States: 1954
25. — Percent distribution of total land in farms for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1954..
26. — Average size of farm for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1954
CONTENTS 5
TABLES— Continued
Table— l'"0t
27. — Number of farms in specified acreage-size groups for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States:
1954 36
28. — Cropland harvested as a percent of total land in farms for each type of farm, by economic class of farm, for the United States:
1954 1 37
29. — Percent distribution of total acreage of cropland harvested for each type of commercial farm by economic class, for the United
States: 1954 37
30. — Percent distribution of total acreage of cropland harvested for each economic class, by type of farm, for the United States:
1954 37
31. — Average acreage of cropland harvested per farm for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States:
1954 37
32. — Average value per acre of land and buildings for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1954_ 38
33. — Percent distribution of value of land and buildings by type and economic class of commercial farms, for the United States:
1954 38
34. — Average value of investment in land and buildings, livestock inventory, machinery, and total investment for each type of
commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1954 39
35. — -Percentage of total investment by source for each type of commercial farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1954__ 41
36. — Percent distribution of total investment by economic class and by type of farm, for the United States: 1954 42
37. — -Percent distribution of gross sales for each type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954 42
38. — Average value of farm products sold per farm by type and economic class, for the United States: 1954 42
39. — Value of all farm products sold per acre of total land in farms, by type of commercial farm by economic class of farm, for the
United States: 1954 43
40. — Yield per acre of corn harvested for grain, by type of commercial farm and by economic class of farm, for the United States:
1954 43
41. — Value of all farm products sold per $100 of capital invested in land and buildings, livestock, and machinery, by type of com-
mercial farm by economic class of farm, for the United States: 1954 43
42. — Value of all farm products sold per man-equivalent of labor used, by type of commercial farm by economic class of farm, for
the United States: 1954 44
43. — Capital investment in land and buildings, livestock and machinery per man-equivalent of labor used, by type of commercial
farm by economic class of farm, for the United States : 1954 44
44. — Cash farm expenditures: Average per farm by type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1955 45
45. — Cash farm expenditures as a percentage of total farm expenditure, by type of farm, by economic class of farm, for the United
States: 1955 46
46. — Percent distribution of each expenditure by type of farm, for the United States: 1955 47
47. — -Expenses for purchase and operation of motor vehicles, farm machinery, and equipment as a percentage of total farm expen-
diture, by type and economic class of commercial farm, for the United States: 1955 48
48. — Specified farm expenses, average per farm and as a percentage of the total value of farm products sold, by type of farm by
economic class, for the United States: 1954 49
49. — Specified group of farm expense items as a percentage of the total cash farm expenses, by type of farm by economic class, for
the United States: 1955 49
50. — Estimated value added per farm by type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954 50
51. — Estimated value added as a percent of the total value of farm products sold, by type of farm by economic class: 1954 51
52. — Estimated value added per man-equivalent by type of farm, by economic class, for the United States: 1954 51
53. — Estimated value added per $1,000 of capital investment in land and buildings, machinery and livestock inventory, by type
of farm by economic class, for the United States : 1954 51
54. — Percent of farms reporting electricity by type of farm by economic class, for the United States: 1954 52
55. — Index of specified home facilities, commercial farms by economic class and type, for the United States: 1954 52
4-.Mir.iti— 57 3
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES
A GENERAL VIEW
Jackson V. McElveen
MAJOR SECTORS IN; AGRICULTURE
One of the striking features of American agriculture is the
diversity of farming — the differences in crops and livestock grown
on farms in various areas, the wide range in size of farms, and the
contrast in the way farm resources are used.
In a Nation so vast in land area, there are wide variations in
topography, climate, and soils. The terrain varies from alluvial
reaches and flat coastal plains and prairies, to rolling hills, to
mountain valleys, and plateaus. Soil types differ in composition
and fertility and in their adaptability for crops and grasses.
Climatic conditions range from semitropical in the southernmost
parts of the country to cooler northern areas that have a growing
season of only a few months; and from the relatively heavy rainfall
of the East to some western regions where the rainfall can support
only the sparsest vegetation.
Along with growth and development of the Nation's economy,
basic changes have taken place that have created even greater
differences in economic environments. Some of these differences
have been due to shifts in concentrations of population and mar-
kets, to changes in consumer food habits, and to developments in
processing and transportation of farm products. Others relate
to technological improvements in farming that have increased
the total farm production while reducing the need for so many
farm workers.
Differences in farming over the United States are explainable
largely in terms of man's efforts in adapting himself to his environ-
ment. Each farmer makes the decisions of how to use the land,
labor, and capital resources at his disposal. His decisions are
made within the framework of his appraisal of his environment
and of the relative advantage of alternative courses of action.
Because the environment is constantly changing, the process is
never complete but one of continuous adjustment to changing
conditions in both farm and nonfarm sectors of the economy.
Changes that affect agriculture have been particularly rapid in
recent decades. Technological developments in farming have
brought about substantial increases in crop and livestock yields.
Substitution of tractors for workstock has meant that many
acres that were used previously to produce feed for workstock
are now devoted to production for human use. The result has
been a phenomenal increase in farm output.
Mechanization of farming has enabled a smaller farm labor
force to tend and harvest this larger farm output. The output
per man-hour of farm labor has increased by nearly 3 times since
1910. (See figure 1.) Farmers have been faced with the fact
that fewer people are required to produce the foods and fibers for
a growing population off the farms.
At the same time, growth and expansion of the economy has
provided increasing job opportunities in the nonfarm sector.
Many farm people, particularly farm youth, have left for other
occupations. The farm population has decreased by 10 million
since 1910 and now comprises only an eighth of the total popu-
lation in the United States. (See figure 2.)
FARM LABOR PRODUCTIVITY
% OF 1947-49-!
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
Figure 2.
Growth in the agricultural sector has been accompanied by
changes in the nature and purpose of individual farm units.
Production of many enterprises such as dairying and poultry
have Income more specialized. Many farmers have increased
the scope and efficiency of their farming through the application
of improved techniques. At the same time, the pull of oppor-
tunities elsewhere has persuaded others to reduce the size of their
farm businesses and to take up work in nearby towns and factories.
Now that electrification and farm-to-market roads have brought
city conveniences to all but the remote rural areas, many city
workers have moved to the country. Some of these rural residents
raise farm products for home use and incidental sales.
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Included in the rural farm population are many farm operators
and members of their families who work at other jobs and busi-
nesses. (See figure 3.) More than 2 million farm operators
reported working off their farms in 1950 and in 1954. Of greater
significance in respect to levels of off-farm work, is the number
of farm operators who worked off the farm 100 or more days.
This figure indicates that off-farm work provides a major source of
employment and income. Most of the farm operators in this
group worked off their farms 200 or more days. While the number
of operators working off their farms less than 100 days has de-
creased in recent years, those working off the farm 100 days or
more has increased in each part of the country.
Off-farm work of operators is a major indication of the increasing
importance of nonfarm sources of income to farm people. In
addition, many other members of the families — wives and chil-
dren— work at jobs removed from the farm. Moreover, many
farm people now receive annuities or money from investment funds
and savings as a result of the greater coverage of the population
in provisions for retirement and for social security, as well as
the general increase in income levels. The income to farm families
from nonfarm sources has grown steadily since the 1930's; in
1954 it accounted for nearly a third of the farm family income.
(See figure 4.)
NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORS WORKING OFF THEIR FARMS BY NUMBER OF DAYS
^WORKED, FOR UNITED STATES AND AREAS, 1930-1954
Figure
Since the total number of farms has been decreasing, the
proportion of operators working off farm 100 or more days has
increased more than the increase in the number alone would
indicate. The table below shows this proportion for the United
States and major geographic regions from Censuses of 1930 to
1954. For the United States this increase was from 12 percent of
the farms in 1930 to 28 percent in 1954. The increase has been
much more rapid in the South than in other regions— from 11
percent of the farms in 1930 to 30 percent in 1954.
Year
Percent of all farm operators working
off farm 100 or more days
United
States
The
North
The
South
The
West
iml
Percent
11.5
16.8
18.4
23.9
28.3
Percent
11.1
16.6
17.8
22.0
25.3
Percent
10.8
15.8
18.1
24.3
29.6
Percent
17.8
24.0
27.1
31.5
35.2
1949=
1964*
FARM INCOME AND POPULATION
— I 1
Farm population
I \
"MIL. PERSONS
A GENERAL VIEW
Merging of farm and nonfarm sectors of our economy created
a zone in farming that is in contrast to commercial agriculture.
In this zone farming provides only supplementary income, and
farm-production plans are influenced by considerations that affect
employment in the nonfarm sector of the economy.
ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF FARMS
In delineation of major sectors in agriculture, a basic step is
the separation of the farms that are operated to provide the major
source of employment and income to the farm family from the
places that serve primarily as rural homes lor urban workers.
The economic classification of farms, developed by the Bureau
of the Census and the Department of Agriculture, separates farms
into two broad categories — commercial farms and other farms. The
basis for separation is the value of farm sales, the off-farm work,
and the other income of the operator family.
In the economic classification, all farms with a value of farm
products sold of $1,200 or more were considered commercial
farms. Indications are that most of the farms with farm sales
above this amount are operated to provide a major source of
farm-family income. In addition, farms with sales of $250 to
$1,199 were classified as commercial provided the farm operator
was not employed at an off -farm job as much as 100 days during
the year and provided the gross income from farm sales exceeded
other income of the family.
The category of other farms includes part-time, residential, and
abnormal farms. Residential farms are those having farm sales
of less than $250. On these, the size of business is small enough
to preclude the likelihood of their being operated to provide the
major source of income and employment for the operator family.
Part-time farms are those with farm sales of $250 to $1,199 but
whose operators work 100 or more days of the year at a nonfarm
job, or report that income received by the family from other
sources is greater than sales from the farm. Abnormal farms are
mainly public and private institutional farms, such as college,
prison, community, experiment station farms, and grazing asso-
ciations.
The separation of commercial farms from those that are part-
time and residential defines two distinct sectors within agriculture
with marked differences in economic interests. Commercial
farms are the going concerns in agriculture that produce virtually
all of the farm products for sale. The separation of this group
of farms for special study provides an improved basis for analysis
of production problems and gives greater form and meaning to
comparisons of income and of efficiency within agriculture and
between farm and nonfarm sectors of the economy.
Commercial and Noncommercial Farms
The other or noncommercial farms are numerous, accounting
for approximately a third of all farms in the United States in
1954. (See table below.)
Classification
Number
of farms
Land in
Cropland
harvard
Value of
land and
bmldincs
Value of
pmdiirls
sold
Percent
100.0
69.6
30.4
Percent
100.0
89.0
Percent
100.0
96.2
3.8
Percent
100.0
87.9
12.1
Percent
Activity on these farms is not oriented to commercial agriculture.
This is supported best by the relatively small volume of farm sales,
which amounted to less than 2 percent of all farm products sold.
Commercial farms comprised over two-thirds of the total number
of farms and accounted for 89 percent of the land in farms, 96
percent of the cropland harvested, 88 percent of the investment in
land and buildings, and produced 98percenl of the market sales in
1954.
The total number of farms has decreased from 6.3 million in 1930
to 4.8 million in 1954, a decrease of 1.5 million. (See figure 5.)
Commercial farms have declined by 1.6 million which is at a more
rapid rate than the decrease in all farms. • The decrease in com-
mercial farms has been partly offset by an increase in part-time
and residential units. A substantial part of the decrease in farm
numbers between 1930 and 1954 was among the small subsistence
units. These are places that have farm sales of less then $250
and no apparent sources of income other than from the farm.
U. S. FARMS
1950 1954
Figure 5.
Part-time and residential farms. — The increase in part-time
farming is the result of numerous factors associated with general
growth and development of both farm and nonfarm sectors of the
economy. Farmers have not shared equally in the benefits from
improved technology. Hilly land and small fields limited the
adaptability of machines in some areas. Many operators of small
farms have not found it economic to use even the smallest of the
tractors and machines. At the same time, there has been a
tremendous increape in retail and other services in rural areas
because of the increasing proportion of farm inputs being bought
by farmers as well as the larger disposable incomes of farm people.
This, along with continued expansion of industries in the open
country and small towns has provided local alternatives to farming.
Earnings from farming on some of the smaller units were less
than nonfarm wages, so farmers and members of their families
took advantage of attractive jobs nearby. Many continued to
farm while commuting to other work nearby.
Part-time and residential farms are located in most parts of the
country, but are most numerous in the South. Concentrations are
noticeable throughout the Appalachian and Cumberland Moun-
tains and in the vicinity of many of the larger cities.
' The data In figure 5 are not entirely comparable with the current Census economic classification since the criteria for separation of part-time from commercial were applied to
farms in the $1,200 to $2,499 value group. See McElveen, J. V., Family Farms in a Changing Economy. Agriculture Information Bulletin 171, Economics Research Division, ARS,
USDA, March 1957.
10
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
f^^p^-^-pJGROSS SALES $
UNITED STATES TOTAL \
574. 575 \
PART-TIME
250 TO SI.I99-F
NUMBER.
i aw;
JCTS MINOR SOURCE OF INCOME*)
Si
fV
100 FARMS \ 1
1=^
^
^vf
inr
| *?—
RESIDENTIAL FARMS
(GROSS SALES LESS THAtJ $250)
NUMBER. 1951
rv.
L^~4~
p .^'f^
J~~~tu
;■-- 1
•■"m
'-€.:
V
UNITED STATES TOTAL
878. 136
\
\
W
IDOT- 100 FARMS V^
>L ._
Figure 7.
The higher incidence of part-time and residential farms in the
SoutrTis owing partly to the more recent industrial development
there. Growth in manufacturing, in industries, and in trades and
services coincided with other developments such as improvement
of roads and the prevailing use of automobiles, which made it
possible for farm people to commute to jobs in town, while con-
tinuing to live on the farms. Rural electrification made city
conveniences possible in many rural homes and reduced some of
the incentive for moving to town. An important factor has been
the tendency of the manufacturing industries in the South to
decentralize by locating their plants throughout many semirural
areas. Also, the South contains a higher proportion of small, low-
income farms than other broad regions of the country. Farm
families on these small farms have probably had the greatest
incentive to supplement their incomes through off-farm work.
A detailed analysis of part-time farming appears in chapter S
of this report.
Commercial farms. — Commercial farms have a more general
and widespread distribution over the United States than is true
of the noncommercial farm categories. In most areas east of
the 100th meridian there is a uniform and fairly heavy concen-
tration of commercial farms. The density in the Mississippi
River flood plains of Arkansas and Mississippi, the tobacco
country of the Carolinas, and other scattered locations, reflect
the larger numbers of small farms in these areas. The Corn Belt
States of Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio have a uniformly
heavy concentration of commercial farms that is due to the high
proportion of land open and suitable for farming.
COMMERCIAL FARMS
IDOT. 500 FARMS
X)
The small number of commercial farms in most of the western
half of the United States reflects the low average productivity
of a region that has rough terrain and limited rainfall. The
farms are large, on the average, except where irrigation has been
developed. In the West, wherever large numbers of farms are
clustered, the presence of irrigation is indicated. Exceptions
are the Willamette Valley of Oregon and the Puget Sound country
of Washington, where rainfall is sufficient to allow a variety of
crops to be grown without irrigation.
Economic Classes of Commercial Farms
The commercial farms are divided into six economic classes on
the basis of the value of farm products sold. The criteria for
separating commercial from noncommercial farms and for deline-
ating the economic classes of commercial farms are shown in the
table which follows.
Criteria
Economic class of farm
Value of farm products
sold
Other
$25,001) or more
$10, I to $24,099
$:i.oiio to $9,999
$2, .Mill to $1,999
$1,200 to $2,499
Class III
None'
by operator and income of opera-
tor and members of his family
from nonfarm sources less than
value of all farm products sold.
Total of categories below.
more days or other incomo of
family greater than value of all
farm products Sold.
Public and private institutional
farms, experiment stations, etc.
Economic class as a measure of farm size. — One of the major
uses of the economic classes of commercial farms is in broad
analysis of the structure of farming. Information is needed on
the extent to which producers on different sizes of farms have
been able to make adjustments in production and take advantage
of new techniques that have proved efficient. The economic
classification, being based on gross sales of farm products, also
provides an indirect measure of relative levels of farm income and
its distribution.
A GENERAL VIEW
11
There is today a great public interest in the size structure of
farming. This is because of a real concern about the future of
family-type farms. These are farms on which the management
and most of the capital and labor are furnished by the operator
and members of his family. The apparent growth in the size of
farms and the reduction in the number of farms in recent years,
have made people wonder whether the family type of farm is
declining in importance as the major production unit in the
Nation's agriculture. As farming on a commercial scale today re-
quires large capital investments, a question is raised as to the
ability of farm families to compete in the adopt inn of new
techniques designed to increase efficiency and output.
Table 1. — Farms and Specified Farm Resources by Eco-
nomic Class of Commercial Farm, for the United States:
1954
Number
of farms
Average per farm
Economic class of farm
Land in
Value of
land and
buildings
Expend-
iture fin-
bbed
labor
Value of
farm
product-:
sold
Thou-
3,328
134
449
707
812
764
463
Acres
310.3
1,939.1
537.8
311.9
201.0
134.3
Dollars
25. 429
134. 169
51,610
27, 992
15.880
6^096
Dollars
665
8,342
1,166
422
214
106
43
Dollars
7,302
57, 997
14,883
7,178
756
Percentage distribution
100.0
4.0
13.5
21.2
24 4
22.9
13.9
100.0
25.2
23.4
21.4
15.8
9.9
100.0
22.2
27.4
15! T
8.8
3.3
100.0
50.5
23.6
13.5
7.8
3.7
0.9
100 0
27^5
20.9
12.4
5.8
Class I farms represent the relatively few large operations that
had gross sales of $25,000 or more in 1954. As a group, these
farms are characterized by large acreages and large investments in
land and buildings. They use considerable hired labor. The
average wage bill amounted to $8,342 per farm in 1954. Although
comprising only 4 percent of the commercial farms, Class I farms
accounted for 25 percent of the land in farms and 22 percent of
the investment in land and buildings. They produced nearly a
third of the farm products sold in 1954.
Economic Classes II, III, and IV represent, by and large, the
medium to high income family farms that are an outstanding
characteristic of American agriculture. They cover a fairly wide
range in value of farm products sold, from $2,500 to $24,999.
These farms as a group comprise the largest segment of commercial
agriculture in respect to both numbers and value of production.
Class V farms had sales of farm products that ranged from $1,200
to $2,499. Class VI farms sold between $250 and $1,199 of farm
products. By definition, operators of Class VI farms did not work
off the farm as much as 100 days during the year and gross farm
sales exceeded the income of the farmer and his family from off-
farm sources. Although farms in these two classes comprised 37
percent of the commercial farms, they accounted for only 7 percent
of the sales of all farm products. The small size of farm business
on these farms is indicated by the relatively small acreage and
small investment in land and buildings.
Geographic distribution of economic classes. — The geographic
distribution of each of the six economic classes of Commercial farms
is shown on the accompanying maps.
Class I farms are most numerous in Illinois, Iowa, the High
Plains of Texas, and the irrigated parts of California. Many
Class I farms, particularly in Iowa and Illinois, are livestock farms.
Many of these purchase cattle and hogs for fattening. Farms with
gross sales of $25,000 are not considered large for this type of farm
and the net income may be no larger than that received on many
of the smaller economic classes in other types of farming.
ECONOMIC CLASS
Figure
The Corn Belt is the broad area of greatest density of Class II
farms. Many farms in this class are also found in the Northeast,
in the Plains States, and in the Pacific Coast States. Class III
farms are widely distributed in the North. Class IV farms are
fairly uniformly distributed throughout the entire country,
although a heavy concentration of them is noticeable in the
tobacco sections of the Carolinas. Economic Classes V and VI
are much more numerous in the South where they are likely to be
associated primarily with the growing of cotton and tobacco.
ECONOMIC CLASS II FARMS
12
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
ECONOMIC CLASS III FARMS
SALES OF 1
NUMBER. 1954
\-''f IDOT. 100 FARMS Ni^ '<■
■ 1 mxm uN"Ms*' v
ECONOMIC
• . -1 ; I
CLASS
OF $2.50
V FARMS
) TO $4,999]
■•■■ #-
UNITEO STATES
811.969
TOTAL
V/~xl
T
*'%. ■-
5.
PI
ECONOMIC CLASS V FARMS
__ NUMBER J954 r^\
H
^T^Zj
UN.TE
763.348
Vy~^ p '
OOT-IOO FARMS V \
w
ECONOMIC CLASS VI FARMS
SALES OF $250 TO $1.199- FARM PRODUCTS MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME*)
NUMBER . 1954 r^\
1}
["j /i^O^s-. rr^K/
t\A
~-:~-L- '-. V--^''"'^
UNITED STATES TOTAL
462.427
V/~n > • - '" 1 \
*™£HS
tomtsop'eSte'. ™'n*°Bvi ' Jf 1 DOT. 100 FARMS I 1
SOURCES ^O A (COUNTY UNIT SfiSlSI \i
Characteristics and limitations of the economic classification. —
The economic classification is subject to certain characteristics
which need to be considered when they are used. Probably the
most important consideration is that classification on the basis of
gross sales rather than net value of production fails to take account,
of differences in purchased inputs. This needs to be considered
when comparisons are made between different types of farms.
In addition, the classification is based on one year's sales of
farm products. For the purpose of providing a picture of the
normal size of farms, this may not give an accurate picture of any
farm that, because of chance factors, had higher or lower than
normal yields or sales from inventories. The market output of
an individual farm may vary considerably from year to year even
though the farm organization remains relatively stable over a
period of years in respect to capital, labor, and enterprises. This
may be because of fluctuations in yield that arise through vagaries
in weather or through higher or lower than normal sales of live-
stock. Thus, it is possible for farms with fairly similar levels of
production over the average of several years to fall in different
classes when classified on the basis of sales in a given year.
TYPES OF COMMERCIAL FARMS
The commercial farms are divided into types on the basis of
the proportion of gross sales accounted for by sales of various
commodities. In general, a farm was placed in a particular com-
modity type if gross sales of the particular commodity or group
of commodities accounted for as much as 50 percent of the total
gross sales from the farm. In some cases the type of farm was
determined on the basis of the sale of an individual farm product,
such as cotton, or on the basis of closely related products, such as
dairy products. In other cases the type was determined on the
basis of a broader group of products such as corn, sorghums, small
grains, field beans, field peas, cowpeas, and soybeans. When the
value of products from one source or group of sources did not
represent as much as 50 percent of the total value of all farm prod-
ucts sold, the farms were classified as general.
A GENERAL VIEW
13
The information on farm sales was only for the year specified.
Many farms get a major part of their income from sales of two or
more of the commodities used in the criteria for determining type.
For these farms, classification by type in the particular year may
be influenced to some extent by chance factors, such as the price
relationships between commodities in the particular year and
abnormalities in crop yield or changes in livestock inventories.
In the classification by type of farm, no recognition is given to
products produced but not sold from the farm.
A measure of commodity specialization. — The separation of
commercial farms by type of farm identifies the major producers
of commodities or commodity groups. The criteria for determin-
ing type required that 50 percent or more of the farm income be
derived from a particular source. Most types represent a fairly
high degree of specialization among the producers classified. In
consideration of problems in the production of specific commodities,
this permits analysis of the farm organizations, efficiency and
income of the producers involved, as well as identification of the
areas of the country most affected. It makes possible a more
meaningful appraisal of public policies and of the probable effects
of alternative programs of assistance.
The number and proportions of the commercial farms by type
of farm are shown in the table below.
Type of farm
N'umbor
of farms
Percent
distribu-
tion
537, 974
525. 463
367, 7:5:!
32, 581
82. 096
548, 767
154. 251
..■i| NS.H
347. 079
37. 057
16 2
16 5
3, 327, 889
100 0
Geographic Distribution of Types of Farms
Cash-grain farms. — Out of 3.3 million commercial farms, more
than a half-million are cash-grain farms. Cash-grain farms are
those on which the value of farm sales from corn, sorghums, small
grains, soybeans, cowpeas, and dry field beans and peas was equal
to 50 percent or more of the total value of all farm products sold.
The geographic distribution of cash-grain farms is shown on the
map below. Concentrations of these farms are noticeable in
arras where one or more of the cash grains are a predominate crop.
In the IJakotas, Montana, Idaho, and Oregon, cash-grain farms
are primarily spring wheat farms. Farther south, in Nebraska,
Kansas, western Oklahoma, and the northern Panhandle of Texas,
winter wheat was the grain crop that determined the type. In
the Corn Belt States of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, cash-
grain farms represent largely corn and soybean farms. Cash-
grain farms in the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Texas, the Arkansas
Prairies, and the Sacramento Valley of California, include many
rice farms. In scattered localities the major source of income on
cash-grain farms is from sorghum, dry field beans and peas, and
small grains other than wheat and rice, but these farms are rela-
tively unimportant numerically.
Cotton farms. — Cotton farms are those on which 50 percent
or more of the sales of all farm products was from sales of cotton.
The line crop, cotton, was the major source of farm sales on slightly
more than one-half million farms, or about 16 percent of the
commercial farms in 1954. Cotton farms are located almost
entirely in the South and in selected irrigated areas of Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona, and California. (See map below.) The northern
extent of cotton production is limited sharply by temperature and
length of growing season. In general, rainfall is insufficient in
the Southwest so cotton can be grown only if irrigated.
The heaviest centers of concentration appear in the Mississippi
and Arkansas deltas, in the Upper Piedmont and Coastal Plains
of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi, and the Black Prairie of east central Texas. Other
concentrations are found in southwestern Oklahoma and the high
plains and lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
Figure 10.
Other field-crop farms. — Farms were classified in this category
whenever the value of sales of a variety of major and minor crops
accounted for 50 percent or more of the total value of all farm
products sold. These crops include tobacco, peanuts, potatoes,
sugar beets, sugarcane, and other specialty field crops except
cotton. No one area has all these crops. In areas where one or
more of them are grown, usually one tends to predominate. This
makes it possible to identify the "other field-crop" farms in most
areas as a more specific type, such as tobacco farms or peanut
farms.
4i:.".irji; r,7
14
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Slightly more than 10 percent of the commercial farms were
classified as other field-crop farms in 1954. These farms are
heavily concentrated in the Appalachian and southeastern States
(see map below). Tobacco is the most important type-deter-
mining crop. Farms on which the sale of tobacco was the major
source of farm sales accounted for more than two-thirds of the
other field-crop farms in 1954. Burley and fire-cured tobacco
farms account for most of the other field-crop farms in Kentucky,
Tennessee, and western North Carolina. In the eastern Carolinas
and Virginia, flue-cured tobacco predominates, although peanuts
are grown along the coast of Virginia and North Carolina. The
concentration of other field-crop farms in Georgia and Alabama
represent primarily peanuts in Alabama and a mixture of peanuts
and tobacco in Georgia.
VV«^_ OTHER FIELD- CROP FARMS
Hr ^~~~~TT^^. NUMBER. 1954
— Aj4^T^fj£r
UNITH) STATES TOTAL V/~\ ' !K^-%i>S ^1 \
367,771 \ ■. -S I \
\ f ID0T-I0O FARMS \ ]
Figure 17.
Concentrations of other field-crop farms include potato farms
in Aroostook County, Maine, and sugarcane farms in Louisiana.
In the Red River Valley area of Minnesota and North Dakota, and
in scattered western areas, potatoes and sugar beets are grown in
the same areas and frequently on the same farms.
Vegetable farms. — Farms on which the value of all vegetables
sold comprised 50 percent or more of the total farm products sold
were classified as vegetable farms. They account for only 1 per-
cent of the commercial farms. Many farms that grow vegetables
for sale do not grow enough to fall in this specialized category.
Important localized areas of vegetable farms are found in many
States across the Continent. (See map below.) Particular areas
of concentration are Long Island, the Florida Peninsula, the lower
Rio Grande Valley of Texas, southwest Arizona, and the area
adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
^TT-
VEGETABLE FARMS
NUMBER. 1954
I /pL-Ji
W Y j~ F
UMTED STATES TOTAL Xy~
32.561
ARMS S. ']
Fruit-and-nut farms. — Like vegetable farms, the fruit-and-
nut farms comprise one of the less numerous types. As fruit
production on a commercial scale is largely restricted to areas
having favorable conditions in respect to temperature, air drainage,
and soil moisture, fruit-and-nut farms are highly concentrated in
a few localities. (See map below.) The most important are found
in California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, New York, Florida,
and Texas.
Dairy farms. — Dairying is one of the more important types of
farming. More than one-half million farms, comprising nearly 17
percent of the commercial farms, were classified as dairy farms
in 1954. Farms were so classified if 50 percent or more of the
total sales of farm products were milk or other dairy products;
or, if 50 percent of the cows on hand were milk cows, sales of
dairy products of 30 percent was sufficient, if together with sales
of cattle and calves the two sources accounted for 50 percent of
the total sales of farm products.
The principal areas of concentration of dairy producers are the
Northeast, the Lake States, and the Pacific Coast States. (See
map below.) Smaller areas of concentration are the Central
Basin of Tennessee, southwestern Missouri, and the Lower Snake
River country of Idaho. Other localized concentrations are found
around most of the larger cities everywhere and are referred to
frequently as local milksheds.
A GENERAL VIEW
15
Poultry farms. — Sales of chickens and eggs from the home flock
is one of the most common sources of farm sales to farmers. In
few cases, are these sales large enough to comprise the 50 percent
of total sales of farm products needed to classify farms as poultry
farms. Of all commercial farms, slightly less than 5 percent were
poultry farms.
In general, poultry producers are most numerous in the north-
eastern quarter of the United States. (Sec map below.) In this
broad region, particular areas of concentration are shown in the
Delmarva Peninsula, New Jersey, southeastern Pennsylvania,
and the three southern New England States. In the southeastern
part of the United States, concentrations of poultry farms appear
in a few widely scattered localities. Particularly noticeable are
the places of broiler production in Georgia, North Carolina, and
the northwestern part of Arkansas. Poultry farms are relatively
scarce in the West except in the Pacific Coast States.
UMTED STATES TOTAL
154.257
POULTRY FARMS
Mi
\j
\ f IDOT.IOO FARMS
Figure 21.
Livestock farms other than dairy and poultry. — These farms,
taken together, are the most numerous type in the United States.
Over a fifth of the commercial farms (695,000) were classified as
livestock farms in 1954. Farms were so classified if the total
combined sales of cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, wool, mohair, goat
milk, and products from animals slaughtered on the farm ac-
counted for 50 percent or more of the total sales of farm products
(provided the farm did not classify as a dairy farm).
Livestock farms show a widespread and fairly uniform dis-
tribution over the country (see map below). The areas of greatest
concentration are in Iowa, northern Missouri, and western
Illinois. Central Indiana, southwestern Ohio, and northeastern
Nebraska show areas of almost equal concentration but of smaller
geographic scope. These States comprise what is known as the
Corn Belt where large quantities of feed grains are grown and the
fattening of hogs and cattle is the dominant farm enterprise.
Livestock farms in other parts of the country may vary from
vast ranches in the arid West, which may require 40 or more acres
per animal unit, to farms in some areas of the South, which
occasionally have improved pastures that will carry an animal
unit on 1 or 2 acres. Because of the large acreages required per
animal unit in the Western States, livestock farms are sparsely
distributed even though they are the most important type from
the standpoint of numbers. Many livestock farms in the Appa-
lachian and southeastern parts of the country are small farms of a
subsistence type where small sales of cattle and hogs are the main
farm sales.
General farms. — Farms were classified as general when none
of the specified commodities or commodity groups accounted for
as much as 50 percent of gross farm sales. The Census of Agri-
culture provides data for three types of general farms. These are
(1) primarily crop, (2) primarily livestock, and (3) crop and
livestock.
As a group, general farms account for 10 percent of the com-
mercial farms. Their geographic distribution is more uniform
over the United States than any other type (see map below).
Relatively heavy concentrations are found in areas that are transi-
tional between the more specialized farming areas; there general
farms are likely to be less specialized versions of the major types.
The combination of livestock production with the growing of grains
is the most frequent reason for farms being classified as general.
In the Plains States, for example, wheat production is often com-
bined with cattle raising or fattening. Farther east, hog and beef
fattening is combined with dairying and with growing corn and
other feed grains. Livestock is produced along with tobacco in
the burley and fire-cured tobacco country of Kentucky and Ten-
nessee, and with cotton throughout the Southeast. More than
three-fourths of the general farms were classified as primarily
livestock or crop and livestock.
16
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Miscellaneous farms. — This category includes relatively un-
important types as to number, such as forest-products farms, horse
farms, nurseries, and greenhouses. Taken together, these farms
accounted for only 1 percent of all commercial farms. The main
purpose in classifying miscellaneous farms was to exclude them
from the other types in order that the classification would be more
meaningful.
Type-of'Farming Areas
Any attempt to outline type-of-farming areas in the United
States must necessarily be very general. It is typical in some
regions that a particular type of farm predominates, but other
regions are characterized by a mixture of types, none of which
predominate numerically.
The accompanying map shows the type of farm that accounted
for 50 percent or more of the commercial farms in each county
for 1954. (See map below.) Mixed-farming counties are those in
which no single type comprised as much as half the commercial
farms.
On this basis, several major type-of-farming areas stand out:
The dairy areas of New England and the Lake States; the tobacco
areas of North Carolina and Kentucky; the cotton area which
covers most of the South as well as parts of Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, and California; the livestock areas which predominate
in the West and extend into the Midwest; the cash-grain areas
of the Midwest, North Dakota, Kansas, and the Northwest; and
the fruit-and-nut areas of central California and the Florida
peninsula. In addition to these, there are many smaller areas
in which certain types of farms predominate.
But the mixed areas cover a greater geographic extent than
does any specific type. These usually border the more specialized
areas. In some instances they are transitional areas in which two
or more major types of farming merge. In this respect, it is
interesting to observe the mixed nature of farming in the Mid-
west, long known for its corn, hogs, and cattle feeding. With the
exception of livestock areas of Iowa and Missouri and the cash-
grain areas of Illinois and Indiana, this region appears as pre-
dominately a mixed-farming area. Production of feed grains and
feeding of livestock are interrelated to the extent that neither
enterprise predominates in most of this region.
In reviewing the type-of-farming area maps shown here, it must
be recalled that they are based upon numbers of farms having a
major source of income from a particular source. For this reason,
type-of-farming areas may not represent the major source of in-
come for the area. This would be true in cases in which relatively
small numbers of farms with large sales volumes were of basically
different types. In most situations a cash-grain or dairy area,
for example, will approximate the area outlined by the major
source of income.
TYPE-OF-FARMING AREAS, BASED ON TYPE ACCOUNTING FOR 50 PERCENT
OR MORE OF COMMERCIAL FARMS, 1954
LEGEND
TYPE-OF-FARMING AREA
Hsl CASH-GRAIN BSSS DAIRY
[~1 COTTON M POULTRY
PH OTHER FIELD-CROP I^H LIVESTOCK (OTHER THAN
L J VEGETABLE
«_„ LZA GENERAL (NO ONE TYPE
MS FRUIT-AND-NUT 50 pERCENT 0R
A GENERAL VIEW
17
TYPE OF FARM BY ECONOMIC CLASS
Substantial differences exist between types of farms in regard to
the proportions that fall into the various economic classes. The
number of each type of commercial farm by economic class is
shown in table 2.
Table 2. — Number of Farms in Each Type of Farm by EcO'
nomic Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial
farms
3,327,889
537, '.174
525. 403
307, 733
32,581
82,096
548. 707
154, 251
694,888
80,039
113, 107
203,843
37, 057
134,064
21.995
15.239
5, 585
3,751
10, 675
11.698
13, 137
39,835
3,784
592
3, 202
4,481
448, 847
110,597
25, 5N5
15, 414
15, 330
76.083
28, 554
121, 287
9,955
7, 156
28. 578
5,828
706,852
Im, 337
47,013
47,706
5,094
16,367
156, 506
28, 582
152, 413
14,417
16,414
56, 470
5,533
S12, 108
129.042
116, 163
114,222
6,384
16, 876
153.690
27,605
143, 072
20, 255
59| 015
7,122
763,515
82. 789
1S7. 228
117. 121
6,495
I02! 836
28, 923
137, 490
21, 054
13.804
41, 565
8,357
462. 503
Other field-crop
67. 685
Livestock other than
dairy and poultry
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily livestock
Crop ami livestock .
100,791
10, 574
6. 569
1 1, 923
Class I farms (farms with a total value of farm products sold of
$25,000 or more) are not numerous, nationally. They numbered
134,064 in 1054 and comprised only 4 percent of the commercial
farm numbers. Most of the Class I farms are found among types
of farms that are numerically important. Livestock farms, for
example, account for 21 percent of all commercial farms. About
30 percent of the Class I farms are of this type. Cash-grain and
cotton farms, also numerous nationally, accounted for 16 percent
and 1 1 percent, respectively of the Class I farms. Of these types,
however, Class I farms comprise a small proportion of the number
of farms. Only 3 percent of the cotton farms, and 4 percent of the
cash-grain farms were classified in Class I.
In some types of farming, farms with sales of $25,000 or more
account for a sizable proportion of the farms. These are primarily
highly specialized types that are not numerous nationally. Fruit-
and-nut farms accounted for less than 3 percent of the commercial
farms, but among farms of this type 13 percent were classified as
Class I. More than 11 percent of the vegetable farms and 8
percent of the poultry farms had sales of $25,000 or more.
Classes II, III, and IV are often referred to as the family-size
farms. The value of farm products sold ranges from a lower limit
of $2,500 on Class IV farms to an upper limit of $25,000 on Class II
farms. About three-fifths of all commercial farms fall in these
classes. But farms in these economic classes are much more
typical of some types of farming than others.
Economic Classes II, III, and IV comprised about 75 percent of
the total number of cash-grain farms, and only slightly less of the
dairy farms and general farms. Substantially more than half of
the farms in each of the other types were in these economic classes
with the exception of cotton farms, other field-crop farms, and
vegetable farms. More than 60 percent of the cotton farms, 50
percent of the other field-crop farms, and 40 percent of the vege-
table farms fell in Classes V and VI (gross farm sales of less than
$2,500). These farms are often referred to as "low-production"
or "low-income" farms.
Table 3. — Percent Distribution of Farms in Each Type of
Farm by Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
100.0
100! 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.0
4.1
2.9
1.5
11.5
13.0
2 1
5.7
4.7
0.9
1.6
12 1
13. 5
20.6
4^2
13.8
18.7
13.9
18.5
17.5
12.4
11.3
14.0
15.7
21.2
29.8
8.9
13.0
15.6
19.9
28.5
18.5
21.9
18.0
26.0
27.7
14.9
24.4
24.0
22.1
31.1
19.6
20.6
17! 9
20.6
25.3
29.5
29.0
19.2
22.9
15.4
35.6
31 s
19.9
19.3
18.7
18.8
19.8
26.3
21.8
20.4
22.6
13.9
6.2
25.5
18.4
19.6
8.5
8.7
17.8
14.5
13.2
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
7.3
15.5
Table 4. — Percent Distribution of Farms in Each Economic
Class, by Type of Farm, for the United States: 1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
100.0
16.2
15.8
11.0
1.0
2.5
16.5
4.6
20.9
2.4
1.9
6.1
1.1
100.0
16.4
11.4
4.2
2.8
8.0
8 7
9.8
29.7
2.8
0.4
2.5
3.3
100.0
24.6
5.7
L0
3.4
17.0
6.4
27.0
2.2
1.6
6.4
1.3
100.0
22.7
6.7
6.7
0.7
2.3
22.1
4.0
21.6
2.0
2.3
8.0
0.8
100.0
15.9
14.3
14.1
0.8
2.1
18.9
3.4
17.6
2.5
2.3
7.3
0.9
100.0
10.8
24.5
15.3
0.9
2.1
13.5
18.0
2.8
1.8
5.4
1.1
100.0
7.2
29.0
14.6
Cash-Rrain_.
10.4
5.9
21.8
2.3
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
Primarily crop
1.2
To summarize, cash-grain farms, dairy farms, livestock farms,
and general farms are characterized by a small proportion of very
large farms or of extremely small farms, when measured in terms
of gross sales. Poultry farms, fruit-and-nut farms, and vegetable
farms have a relatively high proportion of operations which grossed
$25,000 or more in 1954 and somewhat fewer farms in the medium-
size groups. Vegetable and poultry farms are also characterized
by a fairly high proportion of small operations which had gross
sales of less than $2,500. Relatively few fruit-and-nut farms
produce at this small volume of business.
Few of the cotton and other field-crop farms sold as much as
$25,000 of farm products. More than half sold less than $2,500 of
farm products. More than two-fifths of all Class V and Class VI
farms were of these two types.
IS
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF COMMERCIAL FARMING
CHANGES AFFECT FARMERS DIFFERENTLY
Agriculture is confronted with many problems of production
and is undergoing basic adjustments. These problems, and the
kinds of adjustments that may be needed, vary considerably by
types and sizes of farms.
Changes that have affected agriculture have had different
impacts upon the several types and sizes of farms. This is true
for new developments in farm-production practices, changes in
demand, and prices of products, as well as for the more general
changes.
Improved techniques designed to increase yields and decrease
labor needs in farming have varied in their adaptability to different
crop and livestock enterprises and different sizes of farms. Differ-
ential rates of progress have been characteristic in the invention
of machinery to mechanize completely the production of the
major cash crops. Notable examples are the cash grains, which
for many years have been grown and harvested almost entirely
with machinery; and tobacco, which still requires a great deal
of hand labor, particularly at harvest. Mechanization has been
more feasible for farmers on larger acreage units and for those
with land that is fairly level and in sizable tracts. Because of
the high capital requirements, the financial and credit positions
of farmers have also been important factors bearing on the rate
of mechanization.
Farmers have not benefited equally even in the more simple
practices of increasing yields. The results from use of com-
mercial fertilizer, which have been so noticeable in humid eastern
areas, have not proven as effective in areas where rainfall is more
limited. Crop yields have been increased by using a wide variety
of improved plants and seeds, but only a few crops have had
such spectacular success as hybrid corn, which has affected the
farmers in the Corn Belt, primarily.
More general changes, that have originated in the economic
growth of the Nation, have also had different impact upon the
various sectors of agriculture. With increasing concentration
of population in cities, farmers have needed to produce the
products demanded by urban tastes and customs. Substitutions
of commodities have taken place. Consumers are buying less
of the starchy foods in the form of bread, flour, potatoes, and
rice, and are buying more meats, milk, eggs, and fresh vegetables.
Vegetable oils have increased in demand for both household and
industrial uses.
Rapid transportation and new processes for freezing foods have
changed the locational advantages of farmers. These develop-
ments have enabled some farmers who are far from population
centers to compete for what were formerly local markets. The
development and production of synthetic fibers, the decline in
foreign markets, and the competition of foreign agricultural
producers, each has a distinct impact upon the structure of
American agriculture.
Commercial farms have become fewer but they are much larger
when measured by either the volume of farm sales or the acres
of land in farms. The larger farms have become more numerous
and there are fewer small farms. At the same time, there have
been shifts in farming from one type to another. Along with
the reduction in the number of commercial farms, most types of
farms have decreased in actual number, but at different rates.
Some types have increased as a proportion of the commercial
farms. The changing structure is also reflected in adjustments
made in the composition and use of farm resources.
Changes in agriculture are gradual. Most of the comparisons
of changes, which follow, are based upon the Censuses of 1950
and 1954. The time period is too short to permit isolation
of long-run trends or to warrant conclusions regarding the implica-
tions of these changes. Some of the changes that have occurred
between 1950 and 1954 are thought to be illustrative of basic
and long-run adjustments that are being made. Others may
reflect only short-run variations that resulted from conditions
peculiar to one or the other years under consideration.
The Censuses of 1950 and 1954 are selected as the basis of these
comparisons because of the comparability of classifications used.
Both Censuses provide data on the characteristics of farms grouped
by economic class and by type of farm. The criteria used by
the two Censuses for determining economic class and type of
farm were identical. These classifications permit a more detailed
examination of changes in commercial agriculture than has been
possible previously.
CHANGES BY ECONOMIC CLASSES
Between 1950 and 1954 the number of commercial farms
decreased by 378,523, a decrease of approximately 10 percent.
The number of Class I farms increased by 30,833. This represents
an increase of more than a fourth in the number of these large
operations. As a proportion of the total commercial farms,
however, Class I farms comprised less than 3 percent in 1950 and
only 4 percent in 1954. (See table 5.)
Table 5. — Changes in Number and Percent Distribution of
Commercial Farms, by Economic Class, for the United
States: 1950 to 1954
Economic class of farm
Number
Increase or de-
crease (-) from
1950 to 1954
Percent of
farms
1950
1954
Number
Percent
1949
1954
Commercial farms
3, 706, 412
103, 231
381, 151
721, 211
SN2.3II2
901,316
717,201
'). 1127, 8.S9
134,064
448,847
Sli 1IW
703.515
462, 503
-378, 523
30, 833
-U.M)
-70, 194
-137,801
-254,698
-10.2
29.9
17.8
-2.0
-8.0
-16.3
-34.1
100.0
2.8
10.4
19.6
23.8
24.2
19.1
100.0
4.0
21.2
24.4
22.9
The number of farms in Class II increased by 63,000 — an
increase of 16 percent. Farms in this class comprised about
13 percent of the commercial farms in 1954, compared with 10
percent in 1950.
Farms in the smaller economic classes decreased in number.
This decrease was relatively small for Economic Classes III and
IV. While decreasing in actual number, farms in these classes
comprised a slightly larger proportion of the commercial farms
in 1954 than in 1950. Most of the reduction in the number of
commercial farms was among the small farms producing less than
$2,500 of farm products for sale. Class V farms decreased by
132,156, a decrease of 15 percent, and Class VI farms decreased
in number by 245,561, a decrease of 35 percent. These classes,
taken together, accounted for 36 percent of the commercial
farms in 1954 compared with 43 percent 5 years earlier.
A GENERAL VIEW
19
The average prices received by farmers for all farm products
sold were at approximately the same level in both 1949 and 1954.
The economic classifications based on farm sales in each of these
years are comparable in terms of the physical volume of farm
production represented. Changes in the number of farms by
economic class between 1950 and 1954 indicate the substantial
increase in farm production that took place. This alone would
have been sufficient to cause many farms to fall in larger economic
classes. But in addition, there was a reduction in the number
of farms and this land was incorporated in the remaining farms
giving them a larger acreage base. The shift to larger economic
classes was a combination of the increase in production per acre
and per animal unit and the larger acreage base per farm.
The increase in size of farm is a part of technological progress
in agriculture. The greater use of farm machinery enables a
smaller work force to tend more acres and more animal units and
to harvest a larger production. The increase in farm size does
not necessarily indicate a shift toward large-scale farms employing
large numbers of hired workers. In fact all indications are that
substantial growth took place on farms operated primarily with
family labor. Many of these farms acquired additional land in
order to utilize their machinery more efficiently.
SPECIALIZATION IN FARMING
Changing conditions have also had their impact upon the types
of farming — the commodities produced, the number of producers,
and the combination of farm enterprises. A question of current
interest relates to specialization in agriculture; more specifically,
whether or not recent developments have encouraged farmers to
specialize in one or more enterprises rather than produce several
different commodities in more diversified types of farming.
A conclusive answer to this question would require a more
detailed analysis than is given in this report. However, some
indication of probable trends may be drawn from changes in the
number and proportion of farms that produced one or more of
several major commodities during the 25-year period ending in
1954. These changes are shown in table 6.
The trend of the last 25 years indicates that most major com-
modities are now produced by fewer farms and by a smaller propor-
tion of the farms. This trend is much more pronounced in the
production of some commodities than others. In the case of
tobacco the trend is in the opposite direction.
In interpretation of these trends one must consider recent
developments in methods of production, marketing and processing,
changes in consumer demand, the time period under consideration,
and the types of Government programs in effect.
One of the major pressures for greater specialization in agricul-
ture has been the need for efficient utilization of machinery and
other capital equipment. Investments in farm machinery and in
improved housing and facilities for livestock and poultry have not
been profitable unless the enterprise was carried on in sufficient
volume. In order to gain the advantages from use of new tech-
nology, many farmers have found it necessary to concentrate on
one or a few enterprises rather than several.
The small change in the proportion of farms producing wheat
is owing largely to the time period. Mechanization in the produc-
tion of small grains was well underway prior to 1929. The changes
in production techniques of the last 25 years have not been so
important as those that occurred during the preceding two
decades. In contrast, mechanization of cotton production has
been a more recent occurrence. Its impact on the number and
proportion of farms producing cotton is apparent.
The increasing number and proportion of farms producing
tobacco are attributable to the lack of progress in developing
labor-saving equipment to perform certain crucial operations,
and the lack of more profitable alternatives to tobacco for many
farmers in the producing areas. Government programs — acreage
allotments and price supports — may have also contributed to
the trend.
The increase in the proportion of farms selling milk is in accord
with the greater consumption of fluid milk by a growing
population.
Production of broilers and eggs and of vegetables for sale show
noticeable trends toward greater specialization. The sale of eggs
and chickens from home flocks has been supplanted by modern
efficient highly specialized operations. This change reflects im-
provements in disease control, feeding and housing, and other
developments that enable fewer workers to care for a larger number
of birds. Along with developments in transportation and process-
ing, vegetable production, which used to be centered in environs
of most of the larger cities, has shifted to areas having other natural
advantages.
-Number and Proportion of Farms Having Production or Sales of Specified Commodities, for the United States by
Specified Years: 1929 to 1954
1929
1939
1949
1954
Item
Number of
Percent of
all farms
Number of
farms
Percent of
all farms
Number of
farms
Percent of
all farms
Number of
Percent of
all farms
4, 597, 949
1, 208, 368
1, 986, 726
432, 975
627, 452
893, 431
(NA)
3, 129, 715
3, 872, 482
(NA)
(NA)
73.1
19.2
31.6
6.9
10.0
14.2
(NA)
49.8
61.6
(NA)
(NA)
4, 456, 259
1, 385, 774
1,589,723
498, 348
462,552
953, 898
1, 460, 383
2,519,076
(NA)
2, 625, 783
1,842,704
73.1
22.7
26.1
8.2
7.6
15.6
24.0
41.3
(NA)
43.1
30.2
3, 403, 965
l 1, 147, 710
1,110,876
"531,922
346,528
1, 096, 650
862,128
1, 713, 435
2, 420, 718
2,982,616
2, 097, 807
63.2
' 21.3
20.6
6.4
20.4
16.0
31.8
45.0
55.4
39.0
2, 844, 369
>J1,004,607
864, 138
! 513, 346
279,606
934, 143
540, 556
1,030,287
1, 684, 531
2,611,031
1,423,943
Vegetables harvested for sale other than Irish potatoes and
Gieam sold
11.3
N'A Not available.
1 Totals for States fur which data are available.
'■ Inr-lu'les sijmm- <lui'lw:ituin of farina ivj.mim- <liiTcrent, typos of wheat.
• InrluMi'S -.nil if -in plication of farms rvpoj Mh-j. .iitlVivnt. types of tobacco .
20
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
CHANGES IN TYPE OF FARM
Between 1950 and 1954 there was a decrease in number of each
type of farm except cash-grain farms. (See table 7.) Cash-grain
farms increased by more than 100,000, or about a fourth. The
greatest reduction in absolute number occurred among dairy
farms and general farms, which decreased by about 150,000 each.
Among general farms, those classified as primarily livestock,
decreased by nearly half. Other livestock farms and cotton
farms, among the most numerous types nationally, decreased
by 111,000 and 84,000, respectively. Fruit-and-nut farms and
vegetable farms are specialized types that are not numerous
nationally. Fruit-and-nut farms remained about the same in
number while vegetable farms decreased by nearly a third.
Table 7- — Changes in Number and Percent Distribution
of Commercial Farms, by Type of Farm, for the United
States: 1950 to 1954
Type of farm
Number
Increase or de-
crease (— ) from
1950 to 1954
Percent of
1950
1954
Number
Percent
1950
1954
Commercial farms
Cash -'.Main
3, 706, 412
130,389
609,307
409, 421
46,415
82, 178
602.093
175, 876
806,080
494, 285
84, 569
134, 66(1
275, 050
50,368
3, 327, 889
r.:(7. 974
307 ! 733
32, 581
82, 096
548, 767
154, 251
694,888
347, 079
63! 197
203 843
37, 057
-378, 523
107,585
-83,811
-41.688
-13,834
-82
-153.326
-21,625
-111,192
-147,206
-4, 530
-71,469
-71,207
-13,311
-10.2
.24.8
-13.8
-10.2
-29. 8
-0.1
-25.5
-12.3
-13.8
-29.8
-5.4
-53.1
-25.9
-26.4
100. 0
11.6
16.4
11.0
1.3
2.2
16.2
4.7
21.7
13.3
2.3
3.6
7.4
1.4
100. 0
16.2
* Ulii'! lielil-crop
11. I
Livestock other than dairy
Primarily livestock
Crop and livestock
1.9
6.1
Changes in types of farms by economic class. — Cash-grain
farms were the only type that increased numerically between
1950 and 1954. Fruit-and-nut farms remained about the same.
There were decreases in the number of all other types. Decreases
also occurred among farms in each of the smaller economic
classes — -Classes III through VI. The larger farms, Classes I
and II, increased substantially.
These changes in number have brought about noticeable
differences in the size structure of the individual type of farm
(see table. 8). There was an increase in the number of Class I
farms for each type. Numerically, this increase was greatest on
cash-grain farms, an increase of 8,000 Class I farms. This type
accounted for more than a fourth of the total increase in Class I
farms.
The next largest increase in Class I farms occurred among
fruit-and-nut farms. The increase of 5,000 Class I farms repre-
sented an increase to twice the number of these farms in 1950.
Sizable increases in the number of Class I farms also occurred for
cotton, poultry, and other livestock farms.
The number of Class II farms increased for most types. Over
half of the increase was for cash-grain farms and a fourth of the
increase was for dairy farms. The decreases in Class II farms
were of relatively minor proportions where they occurred.
The changes in the number of Class III farms occurred only
for a few types. The decreases were virtually all for other live-
stock, general livestock, and general crop and livestock farms; a
total decrease of 60,000 farms. This was partially offset by sub-
stantial increases for cash-grain and other field-crop farms.
Changes in the number of Class III farms were slight for the
remaining types.
Table 8. — Changes in Number of Farms, for Each Type of
Commercial Farm, by Economic Class, for the United
States: 1950 to 1954
[A minus sign (-) indicates a decrease]
Type of farm
Increase or decrease,
1950 to 1954:
Commercial farms
Cash-grain
Cotton
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy,.
Poultry
livestock other than
dairy and poultry
General:
Primarily crop. .
Primarily live-
Crop and live-
Miscellaneous
1954 as percent of 1950:
Commercial farms
Cash-grain
Cotton
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than
dairy ami poultry
General:
Primarily crop ..
Primarily live-
stock
Crop and live-
stock
Miscellaneous
-13,831
- :,3,320
111,192
-4, 530
-71,469
-71, 207
Economic class of farm
11, 359
32. 593
2,041
KI.H'.lll
-1,649
-2.(153
-20,215
-6,425
-33, 508
1,184
-23,244
- 18, 948
- 1.071
-30.581
-14,110
-18.932
-23,462
-25 1.098
-3, 710
-104,314
-28,932
-5,291
-4,568
-15,593
-11.757
Decreases in the number of Class IV farms took place for all
types except cash-grain and cotton farms. The bulk of the de-
crease was for dairy farms and the livestock types listed in the
preceding paragraph. Class IV cash-grain and cotton farms in-
creased by a fifth and a fourth, respectively.
With the exception of cash-grain farms, the number of Class V
farms decreased substantially for each type. The net decrease of
132,000 was a decrease of 15 percent from the number in 1950.
The greatest proportionate decrease was for general livestock
farms, a decrease of 60 percent.
There was a decrease of 246,000 in Class VI farms. The number
of these small farms declined for each type of farm. The greatest
numerical decrease was for cotton farms, a decrease of 104,000.
The greatest proportionate decrease was for general livestock ar.d
general crop and livestock farms. On these types the number of
Class VI farms declined to only a third their number in 1950.
Increases and decreases in some types of farms are closely
related to changes in relative prices received by farmers for
different commodities, and changes in cost-price relationships
that affect alternative enterprises on the farm. Type of farm
was based upon sales of farm products in the particular year.
Farms having substantial sales from two or more commodities
(or commodity groups) may have been classified in some cases
as one type in 1950 and another type in 1954. This shifting
between types probably accounts for a considerable part of the
increase in cash-grain farms and the decrease in livestock farms
and general farms between 1950 and 1954.
Along with the decrease in total commercial farm numbers,
farms of most types have declined in number. But within the
overall decrease there have been differences in the changes geo-
graphically.
A GENERAL VIEW
21
Geographic changes in type and economic class. — The decline
in the number of the smaller economic classes of farms, the in-
crease in the larger classes, and the overall reduction in the total
number of commercial farms between 1950 and 1954, is but a
continuation of the trend in recent decades. The changes in the
number of farms by type and their size distribution, however, is
primarily useful in a description of the current 5-year period
rather than for use in plotting long-run trends or making future
projections. Changes in the number of farms by type as well
as by economic class include shifts from one type or class into
another.
The maps on the following pages show the geographic location
of the changes in economic classes and types of farms. These
maps show a fairly high degree of correlation in some areas
between decreases in some types and classes of farms and as-
sociated increases in other types and classes. Because of the
overall decline in the number of commercial farms, however, it
is not always possible to distinguish between the shifts between
classes and types and the complete disappearance of farms of
any given type and class.
The increase in cash-grain farms between 1950 and 1954 was
highly concentrated in the feed-grain sections of Indiana and
Ohio, southeastern Illinois, north-central Iowa, and south-central
Minnesota. In the wheat-producing areas further west, increases
in cash-grain farms occurred in central Kansas and other scattered
areas.
Increases also took place on the Delmarva Peninsula largely
because of an increased production of soybeans. For the most
part, increases in cash-grain farms in the wheat areas were com-
pensated by decreases in adjoining areas. The acreage in wheat
declined throughout the Plains. Even in Kansas, where increases
in cash-grain farms occurred, the acreage of wheat declined while
that of grain sorghums increased.
Increases in cash-grain farms are closely associated with de-
creases that occurred in general farms (primarily livestock and
primarily crop and livestock) and other livestock farms. The
increase in cash-grain farms in each of the midwestern and Plains
areas coincided with decreases in the number of livestock and
general farms. Furthermore, the increases in the former and
decreases in the latter types are of approximately the same magni-
tude.
The shift from livestock and general to cash-grain farms be-
tween 1950 and 1954 is due largely to changes in the relative prices
of grains and livestock. The prices farmers received for feed
grains were higher relative to livestock prices in 1949 than in 1954.
The table below shows the index of prices received by farmers for
feed grains and livestock for the years 1949 to 1954. In order to
show the relative change between 1949 and 1954, the index has
been computed with 1949 equal to 100.
Year
Index of prices received by
farmers (1949=100)
Feed grains
and hay
animals
100
109
128
US
116
100
In areas affected by the shift from general and livestock to
cash-grain farms, feed grains and livestock are usually grown on
the same farms, and income is derived from sales of both products.
A change in price of one relative to the other may change the
Census classification of these farms even though the farm organi-
zation remains the same. Also, during a period in which prices
for feed grains are high relative to prices for livestock, more of
the grain is sold, resulting first in animals being marketed at
lighter weights, followed by curtailment of the production of
meat animals by reduction in breeding stock. During this period
sales of corn and soybeans increased substantially.
Decreases in livestock and general farms in Kentucky and
Tennessee are related to increases in other field-crop farms and,
in western Kentucky, to a slight increase in cash-grain farms.
While the number of farms reporting sales of tobacco decreased
slightly between 1949 and 1954, yields were higher in the latter
year and also the value of tobacco sold. This, along with lower
prices for livestock, meant that many of the farms that were
classified as livestock and general in 1950, were classified in the
other field-crop category in 1954.
Decreases in livestock and general farms in these States are also
related to the reduction in the number of commercial farms. A
high proportion of the livestock and general farms were in the
smaller economic classes of farms that have been disappearing
rapidly in recent decades.
The other field-crop farms (primarily tobacco and peanut farms)
decreased in all areas, except for the increases in Kentucky and
Tennessee. These decreases are closely related to the large
reduction in Class V and VI farms in the flue-cured tobacco and
peanut areas of Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama.
In the Georgia- Alabama area part of the decreases represent shifts
from tobacco and peanuts to cotton, livestock, and general types
of farming.
In central Louisiana the decrease in other field-crop farms
represents a decline in sugarcane farms. There was a sharp
decrease in the acreage and yield as well as the number of farmers
growing sugarcane. These decreases were compensated by an
almost identical increase in cotton farms.
The number of cotton farms decreased throughout most of the
old Cotton Belt, extending from the Carolinas westward to east
Texas. These decreases are closely related to decreases in Class VI
farms. The number of these small cotton farms decreased by-
more than 100,000. In the old Cotton Belt, however, increases
in cotton farms occurred in the Coastal Plains of the Carolinas,
the southern Georgia-Alabama and the central Louisiana areas
discussed previously, and throughout central and southern
Mississippi. In Mississippi, the increase in cotton farms was
compensated by decreases in livestock and general farms, this
shift being due primarily to differences in yields and prices in
respect to cotton and livestock, between 1949 and 1954.
Cotton farms increased in number in the western areas, par-
ticularly in the High Plains area of northwest Texas. There the
increased numbers of cotton farms are associated with an increase
in irrigation.
The number of dairy farms decreased throughout the North-
east and Lake Dairy areas. There was some shifting of type
from dairy to cash-grain farms in the cash-grain dairy transition
areas. For the most part, however, the decrease in dairy farms
is related to fewer farms, particularly in Economic Classes IV
and V and the combination of farms into larger units.
22
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Dairy farms have a widespread distribution over the country.
In addition to the major dairy regions mentioned, there are
numerous smaller areas of concentration around many of the
larger population centers. Many of these so-called milksheds
show increases in the number of dairy farms whereas outside of
these special areas, the number has declined.
<kii-_ COTTON FARMS-INCREASE AND DECREASE
K# Tr-—^. 1N NUMBER. 1950-1954
\
U'JiTED STATES NET DECREA l V /~-,
The 5-year period ending in 1954 saw poultry farming becom-
ing increasingly specialized and highly concentrated in specific
localities. The greatest increases occurred in the Piedmont of
North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, in central Arkansas,
and east Texas. Sizable decreases in poultry farms took place
in both the Pacific Coast and Middle Atlantic areas.
VEGETABLE FARMS - INCREASE AND DECREASE
Kte--^ FRU1T-AND
UNITED STATES NET DECREASE V
OR LESS THAN 005 PERCENT .
-NUT FARMS
- INCREASE AND DECREASE
ER. 1950-1954
t.
VVW- - DAIRY FARMS- INCREASE AND DECREASE
YV ^ IN NUMBER- 195° " l954
r\
/~""~>~-/Lv '7 i['-'' ■'
. ^YJtk*^
\* \ ■ IhrI ••' :
m
Vi \ /.- , ■ •.-.;,•
— P- ^-tP^/7"
v^ir
UM1TED STATES NET DECREASE V /— ,
53.330 OR 83 PERCENT \
''!%!££££
„,,-,».,,,, C~^T
UPHooXTa
•■■■«•■«■"
A GENERAL VIEW
23
iJtaS-^ POULTRY FARMS - INCREASE AND DECREASE
PJ — 7T— -— IN WJMBQ'- ra5° ' l954 /*~\
V/MV
^"^^^P^v
\ JT | DOT- 25 INCREASE \ \
FigureI32.
Most of the fruit-and-nut farms are located on the Pacific
Coast and the Florida peninsula. The significant change in the
number of these farms was the decrease in the Los Angeles area
of Southern California and the increase in central Florida. The
decrease in the number of fruit-and-nut farms in Southern Cali-
fornia was probably due to the combining of farms into larger
production units. The acreage in fruit and nut trees, as well as
the production, remained about the same, but was distributed
among fewer farmers. In central Florida the land in fruit or-
chards, groves, vineyards, and planted nut trees, increased by
more than a third. This is one of the few areas in which the
total number of farms increased between 1950 and 1954.
The number of vegetable farms decreased by nearly a third
between 1950 and 1954. This decrease was fairly general in most
areas. Because of the small number of vegetable farms and
their geographic dispersion, no attempt is made here to indicate
the relation of these decreases to changes in other types of farms.
The number of vegetable farms decreased in each economic class
except Class I.
Along with changes in types of farms there were notable changes
in the geographic distribution of the economic classes of farms.
As mentioned, there was an increase in the number of Class I
farms for each type of farm. These increases in Class I farms
•GENERAL FARMS- INCREASE AND DECREASE
were mostly confined to specific areas. The area of greatest in-
crease was in northern Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. Here they
are associated closely with the increase in cash-grain farms.
From the areas shown on the map it is apparent that most of the
increases in Class I cash-grain farms were among those with a
major source of income from sales of corn and soybeans rather
than of wheat. In the wheat areas, increases in Class I farms
were confined mainly to the spring-wheat area of Montana and
the white-wheat area of Washington.
There was an increase in Class I cotton farms in the Missis-
sippi Delta and the High Plains of Texas. In the Mississippi
Delta the increase was due largely to a reduction in the number
of cropper farms. Part of the increase represents cotton farms,
formerly operated as multiple units, which decreased the number
of croppers and reorganized production to use hired labor in
mechanized operations.
Increases in the High Plains of Texas resulted from increased
production from irrigated acreages. The irrigated land in cotton
farms nearly doubled between 1950 and 1954. Despite a sharp
decrease in the acreage, the production increased by nearly a
third. The number of cotton farms did not change appreciably
but more of them were classified in the larger economic classes.
Increases in Class I farms in other areas are associated with
poultry farms, fruit-and-nut farms, and a mixture of types in the
Pacific Coast States; fruit-and-nut farms in central Florida; and
cash-grain (rice) farms in southern Louisiana.
Decreases in the number of Class I farms were distributed
fairly generally over the United States. These were more
noticeable, however, among cash-grain and general farms in the
Plains area extending from Texas to Nebraska.
Changes in the geographic distribution of farms in Economic
Classes II through VI are not discussed separately except as
mentioned previously in relation to changes in types of farms.
In general, most areas that show an increase in the larger economic
classes show a corresponding decrease in the smaller economic
classes. These changes are related to the combinations of small
farms into larger units and to continued increases in production
that have resulted from application of better farming practices.
Increases in the number of farms in the smaller economic classes
in specific localities are probably due largely to abnormalities in
production in 1954. Sales may have been below normal because
of poor yields in that particular year.
24
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
!U^_ ECONOMIC CLASS I FARMS* -INCREASE AND DECREASE
|^» i/^^T-p— -___ IN NUMBER. 19501954
\?Vh— i~ii
I0OT-SB INCREASE \' \
UNITED STATES NET INCREASE V ,—y 'i
ECONOMIC CLASS III FARMS '-INCREASE AND DECREASE
H954
CHANGES IN SIZE OF ACREAGE
In terms of acreage, commercial farms are becoming both larger
and smaller. Farms under 10 acres and farms with more than 200
acres have increased in number. (See table 9.) Those in the
size groups between 10 acres and 200 acres have decreased.
Farms in these size groups, however, comprise more than 85
percent of the commercial farms.
N£
ECONOMIC CLASS IV FARMS'-INCREASE AND DECREASE
^~~f7— — __^ IN NUMBER, 1950-1954
1 ^WS^^;^i
(%
~^4~£l '
. ,,";r-- \:ilaz-&
"*: \
■ H
V* / "'
4-A -mM
UNITED STATES NET DECREASE
70.35T0R 6.0 PERCENT
sJ.W^ ECONOMIC CLASS V FARMS'-INCREASE AND DECREASE
The greatest rate of decrease among commercial farms came in
the acreage-size group between 10 and 100 acres. Farms of this
size which account for nearly two-fifths of all commercial farms,
decreased in number by nearly a fifth between 1950 and 1954.
Farms between 100 and 220 acres comprise nearly a third of the
commercial farms. These decreased in number by about 10
percent, or about the same rate as the overall decrease in com-
mercial farms.
A GENERAL VIEW
25
Table 9. — Changes in Number of Farms by Size and
Percent Distribution of Commercial Farms by Size, for
the United States: 1950 to 1954
Acreage size
Number
Increase or de-
crease (-) from
1950 to 1954
Percent of
I960
1954
Number
Percent
1950
1954
Commercial farms
3,706.412
136. 835
7112, 320
710, 876
1,162.419
042, 01S
174, 380
117,568
3, 327. 889
145, 4(K)
022, 921
580,660
1,026,664
042. 333
182, 5a 1
127, 361
-378, 523
8.565
-139.405
-130,216
-135,755
315
8,170
9,803
-10.2
6.3
-18.3
-18.3
-11.7
0.5
4.7
8.3
100.0
3.7
20 .6
19.2
31.3
17.3
3^2
100.0
100 In 219 acres
30.9
Farms of less than 10 acres are not numerous in commercial
agriculture. They are much more common in the noncommercial
farming sector where many part-time and residential farmers have
small acreages. Of the 484,000 farms that are under 10 acres, 70
percent (339,000) were classified as part-time or residential farms.
Among commercial farmers, less than 5 percent (145,000) had
farms of less than 10 acres. These farms increased in number by 6
percent during a period in which commercial farms as a group
declined by 10 percent.
The increase in the number of farms in the larger acreage size
groups between 1950 and 1954 is but a continuation of a trend
toward larger acreage units. Farms between 220 and 500 acres
remained about the same numerically, but increased as a propor-
tion of the commercial farms. These farms comprised a fifth of
all commercial farms in 1954. Farms with more than 500 acres
account for less than 10 percent of all farms. These farms in-
creased numerically by 18,000. The greatest increase came
among farms of 1,000 acres and more — an increase of 8 percent.
Change in acreage by economic class. — There was a substantial
increase in the number of larger farms between 1949 and 1954 as
measured by gross sales of farm products. Also, the larger
acreage units increased in number. These parallel increases in
size, measured by both volume of market sales and acreage,
portray a much closer relationship between the two measures of
size than actually exists.
The increase in the number of Class I farms between 1949 and
1954 was accompanied by increases in each of the acreage size
groups (see table 10). There was an increase of nearly a fifth
even in the few small units of less than 10 acres that sold farm
products valued at $25,000 or more. The bulk of the increase in
the number of Class I farms was among farms of less than 500
acres. The greatest proportionate increase was among farms of
100 to 219 acres. There was an increase of 60 percent in the
number of farms in this acreage-size group that grossed $25,000 or
more from sales of farm products. Numerically, the greatest
increase was among farms between 220 and 500 acres. These
accounted for half of the increase in Class I farms.
The number of farms in Economic Class II also increased be-
tween 1950 and 1954, an increase of 67,696. This increase took
place among all acreage-size groups of farms. Most of the in-
crease in Class II farms (over three-fourths) came among farms
of 100 to 500 acres. Less than 5 percent of the increase was among
farms of 500 or more acres.
Farms in each economic class below Class II (sales of less than
$10,000) decreased in number. These decreases were mostly
among the intermediate acreage groups. Among these classes,
farms below 10 acres and those above 500 acres increased in
number.
The decrease of nearly 400,000 farms in Economic Classes V
and VI (sales of less than $2,500) was almost entirely among farms
between 10 and 220 acres. For these classes taken together, farms
of less than 10 acres and farms larger than 500 acres increased in
number.
Table 10. — Number and Percent Distribution of Farms,
1954, and Change in Number of Farms, 1950 to 1954;
by Size and Economic Class, for the United States
Number of farms, 1954:
Commercial fauns
Class I
Class II
Class III....
Class V. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
Class VI
Percent distribution
1954:
Commercial farms
ClassI
Class II..
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Class VI...
Increase or decrease,
1950 to 1954:
Commercial farms....
Class li'.""'".""
Class III
Class IV
ClassV
Class VI
1954 as percent of 1950:
Commercial farms
ClassI
Class II
Class III
Class IV
ClassV
Class VI
3. 327, 889
131.004
448.847
700, S52
SI 2. 108
763,515
402, a 13
378.523
30, 833
07, 000
- 14,369
-70,194
137. Mil
-254,
52.451
10. 327
47, 352
13. 119
25, 399
-0, S30
182.5.50
24,807
IS, S75
19.087
127,30 1
30,774
38,816
30. 138
2, 7 19
2,840
2,201
102 3
110.0
120 2
135.7
112.0
The changes in acreage as related to economic class show that
among Class I farms there has been an increase in the proportion
of smaller acreage units and a decrease in the larger acreage units.
On the farms with less than $25,000 of farm products sold, the
trend has been toward fewer medium-size acreage units and an
increasing proportion of farms below 10 acres and above 220 acres.
Changes in the number of farms include substantial shifting of
farms between economic classes and acreage-size groups. The
total number of commercial farms decreased by 376,000. Most
land in those farms was consolidated with other farms. The in-
crease in production from the larger farmed acreage resulted in
many farms being classified in groups of higher value of sales.
At the same time, increased yields per acre and per animal unit
served to increase market sales per farm. This also caused farms
to shift into groups of higher value of sales. Shifts between
economic classes also resulted from reorganizations of farming
systems toward enterprises that were yielding a greater return
per acre of land.
The increase in the number of units of smaller acreage with
sales of $25,000 or more is indication of the greater possibilities
for developing fairly sizable' business operations on modest acreages.
26
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Change in acreage by type of farm. — Among most types of
farms there were fewer small farms (measured in acres) and more
of the larger ones. The exception was found among cash-grain
farms which was the only type to grow in number during the period
1950 to 1954. While the number of farms increased in each acre-
age-size group for cash-grain farms, there was a greater propor-
tionate increase in the smaller farms. This came from the shifts
to cash-grain of many midwesteru livestock and general farms,
Table 11. — Number and Percent Distribution, 1954, and
Change in Number of Farms, 1950 to 1954; by Size and
Type of Farm, for the United States
Item and type of farm
Number of farms:
Commercial farms ...
Cash-grain
Cotton-
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than
dairy and poultry..
General
Primarily crop
Primarily live-
stock
Cropand livestock
Miscellaneous
Percent distribution,
1954:
Commercial farms
Cash-grain
Cotton
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than
dairy and poultry
General
Primarily crop
Primarily live-
Crop and iivestock
Miscellaneous
Increase or decrease,
1950 to 1954:
Commercial farms
Cash-grain.
Cotton
Other field -crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than
dairy ami poultry .
General
Primarily crop .. .
Primarily live-
stock
Cropandlivestuck
M iscellaneous
1954 as percent of 1950:
Commercial farms
Cash-grain
Cotton _
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than
dairy and poultry-
General
Primarily crop...
Primarily live-
stock
Cropand livestock
Miscellaneous
...17. '.'7 1
727. lli.'i
3C7, 733
32, 581
82, 096
.MS. 707
17,4. 27,1
i,3. I'.ir
71,3. s 13
717, (17,7
37s. 77::
1117, 7S7,
- M.N It
11. CSS
13.S34
337. sin
233. S'Jil
2(1. 1417.
53, 804
17,(1.317,
70, 2(111
311, MOT
7I.S3S
37, (IS3
II!, 427,
170, sin
97, :1m
74, 77,3
5,752
137.77,7
34, 2711
- 17, Ills
-2, 105
-582
-20,232
-3,851
-52, 192
-58, 341
II. I 14
22.1110
2,412
1S7, 7
,,3,1,33
13. 120
types that are typically smaller in acreage than the wheat farms
in the Plains and western areas.
Less than a tenth of the cash-grain farms have 500 or more
acres. (See table 11.) The number of cash-grain farms with
more than 500 acres increased by 15 percent. This increase, how-
ever, accounted for virtually all of the increase that took place in
commercial farms of 500 to 1,000 acres and nearly half of the in-
crease in farms of 1,000 acres and over.
Farms of less than 10 acres decreased for most types of farms
but increased substantially for cotton and other field-crop farms.
This increase was probably due to the reduction in acreage allot-
ments of cotton and tobacco. Many of these farms are operated
by croppers. A reduction in the allotment on a multiple-unit
operation, unless accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the
number of croppers, usually means that fewer acres of land are
assigned to each cropper. On other field-crop farms this was the
only acreage-size group that increased in number.
All of the net decrease in the number of commercial farms took
place among farms that had between 10 and 220 acres. Decreases
occurred in each type except cash-grain farms.
Farms of 500 acres or more increased in number for most types.
The exceptions are other field-crop, livestock, and general farms.
Two-thirds of the increase was among cash-grain farms. Sizable
increases also occurred for cotton, dairy, and other livestock farms.
To summarize, changes in the distribution of farms by type
and size show a trend toward increasing acreage in farms, for
most types. This is to be expected during a period in which
modern machinery has enabled a given labor force to handle a
greater acreage. Cash-grain farms appear to be an exception,
but this is mainly because of shifts to cash-grain from livestock
and general farms in the Midwest.
CHANGES IN FARM OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS
Along with changes in types and sizes of farms, there have
been noticeable changes in the characteristics of the farm opera-
tors. These changes are shown for types and economic classes
of farms in table 12. The changes in operator characteristics are
interrelated with the shifts that have taken place between types,
economic classes, and acreage-size groups of farms as well as the
overall reduction in commercial farm numbers and the sub-
stantial migration from agriculture to nonfarm occupations. The
data are more adequate for describing the characteristics in each
year than for making precise estimates of changes in each partic-
ular type or economic class.
Age of operator. — By economic class of farm, the median age
of farm operators increased between 1950 and 1954 for all except
Class I and Class II farms. On Class VI farms (which decreased
in number by 236,000), the median age increased from 53 to 58
years.
These changes reflect the movement of young men out of agri-
culture to part-time or full-time nonfarm jobs and fewer young
men taking up farming on the smaller farms. The incomes
from these smaller farms probably do not compare favorably
with earnings from wages and salaries in nonfarm occupations.
The decrease in median age for Class I farms (along with an
identical age on Class II farms) indicates that some of the younger
farmers have taken advantage of opportunities for increasing
their volume of farm sales.
By type of farm, the median age of operators increased for
each type except poultry farms. As each type of farm has a
large proportion of the farms in the smaller economic classes, the
effect of decreasing age among Class I and II farmers does not
become apparent. Decreasing age among poultry farmers is
related to the increasing specialization in broiler and egg produc-
tion. It is probable that many younger farmers, having small
acreage, have reorganized the farms for specialized poultry
production.
A GENERAL VIEW
27
-Specified Farms and Farm-Operator Characteristics, by Type and by Economic Class for Commercial Farms, for
the United States: 1950 and 1954
Median
age of
operator
(years)
Owners,
part-
managers
(percent)
Working off
farm 100
days or
(percent)
Other In-
come greater
than farm
sales
(percent)
Residing
on farm
operated-
percent
total
residence
(percent)
Farms reporting
Economic class and type of farm
Tractors, ex-
cluding
garden
(percent)
Tractors
with no
horses or
mules
(percent)
Commercial farms by economic class:
47.6
49.0
69.1
71.2
9.1
13.0
9.1
10.8
95.2
93.8
57.9
71.1
27.4
1954..
45.3
Class I
1950..
46.1
45.6
45.2
45.2
81.7
77.8
71.3
69.5
8.1
7.8
6.3
7.4
4^6
4.2
4.4
84.6
84.5
93.5
93.0
84.8
91.0
92' 4
38.3
1954..
54.5
43.8
1954..
62.8
45.5
46.5
46.9
48.5
70.3
70^0
70.4
7.0
10.2
11.0
16.2
5.3
6.4
10.2
12.6
95.5
94.4
95.5
94.2
85.0
67] 9
76.0
39.5
1954..
59.3
30.8
1954..
47.1
47.9
50.3
53.3
67.1
69.9
66.4
17.4
24.4
20.7
24.3
95.6
93.0
96.5
95.4
41.9
56.3
18.5
32.4
20.7
1954-
34.4
9.3
18.8
Commercial farms by type:
44.7
47.3
44.2
46.2
62.2
67.2
38.3
40.7
53.3
56.6
9.8
14.6
5.4
a 4
7.2
10.4
6.0
6.3
6.1
6.5
88.4
89.0
96.3
94.5
96.4
94.8
85.2
91.8
30.8
41.6
28.2
44.0
51.2
Cotton
1954..
16! 3
1954-
25.7
9.8
1954..
17.9
Vegetable --
Fruit-and-nut -
1950-
1954..
1950-
1954-
48.6
50.3
54.0
54.8
82! 9
93.9
95.7
11.5
15.2
21.5
27.7
11. 1
13.7
19.8
26.1
90.4
87.8
87.6
84.5
56.9
59i 2
65.7
38.9
55.2
48.1
55.1
Poultry —
General:
Primarily crop -
Primarily livestock
1954..
1950..
1954-
1950-
1954-
48.7
49.0
54.4
53.9
49.7
51.0
85.0
9Z 7
93.6
78.9
80.4
10.2
14.0
18.2
24.1
9.5
13.4
9.3
10.1
21.6
23.3
9.8
12.4
98.0
97.7
97.7
97.1
94.8
93.1
71.5
85.4
35.8
46.9
67.8
80.6
31.5
29! 0
35.8
24.1
44.7
1950..
1954..
1950-
1954-
47.1
49.2
50.4
50.9
47.6
48.7
71.5
75.4
80.2
81.8
73.6
75.2
9.6
15.8
7.0
9.8
6.7
10.1
10.4
14.9
7.7
7.6
7.3
8.5
93.2
91.2
98.6
98.3
97.7
97.1
57.4
70^6
84.6
73.7
88.5
27.3
46.4
31.2
56.0
31.6
1954..
54.9
1954-
52.1
53.5
92.6
94.7
18.1
22.4
20.4
23.5
90.6
88.9
29.1
47.2
23.2
28.9
Tenure of operator. — On Class I and Class II farms, the pro-
portion of tenancy increased. This may indicate that many of
the younger farmers are renting their land and equipment, and
using any cash reserves to increase the scope of their operations
rather than investing in ownership. Increasing ownership among
the smaller economic classes of farms is associated with the overall
decline in tenancy, particularly among croppers on cotton and
tobacco farms. Also, an increasing proportion of the smallest
economic classes of farms are probably serving as retirement
units for elderly persons who own their farms. Three-fourths
of the Class VI farms were owned, in full or in part, in 1954.
This is the highest proportion for any economic class except
Class I.
There was an increase in the proportion of operators that were
full and part owners for each type of farm. In general, this in-
crease was smallest among types already predominantly owner
operated. On the other hand, cotton and other field-crop farms —
types that have a relatively high proportion of tenant opera-
tors— showed only small increases in farms operated by owners
and part owners.
Off-farm work and other income. — The proportion of com-
mercial farm operators working off their farms 100 or more days
and those having a family income from off-farm sources exceeding
the value of farm sales, increased substantially between 1950 and
1954. These increases took place among each economic class,
except Class I, and for each type of farm. A much higher propor-
tion of the operators on the smaller economic classes worked off
the farm and had a greater off-farm income than sales from the
farm.
The types of farms differ considerably in respect to the propor-
tions of each type that reported 100 or more days of off-farm
work and other income exceeding sales. For example, approxi-
mately a fourth of the fruit-and-nut and poultry farms reported
these items compared with less than 10 percent of the cotton
and other field-crop farms.
Residence of farm operator. — Virtually all (94 percent) of the
farm operators live on the farms they operate. The proportion
of nonresident landlords is highest among Class I farms, about 15
percent. The smaller economic classes show small difference in
respect to residence, having only about 5 percent nonresident
operators. By type of farm, the proportion of nonresident
operators ranges from a high of 15 percent on fruit-and-nut
farms to a low of 2 to 3 percent on dairy, poultry, and general
livestock farms.
Nonresident operators increased between 1950 and 1954 among
each economic class except Class I and among each of the types
of farms.
28
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
CHANGES IN FARM RESOURCES
Tractors on farms. — Mechanization of farms continued between
1950 and 1954. Whereas 58 percent of the commercial farms
reported a tractor (excluding garden tractors) in 1950, the pro-
portion had increased to 71 percent in 1954. Approximately 90
percent or more of Economic Classes I, II, and III reported
tractors. On the smaller economic classes, fewer farms have a
tractor. The proportion of the smaller farms reporting a tractor,
however, increased substantially between 1950 and 1954.
Increasing mechanization (as indicated by tractor numbers)
took place for all types of farms. The increase was less for cash-
grain farms than for other types because these farms were already
highly mechanized. More than 90 percent reported a tractor in
1954. In general, the greatest rate of increase was among types
that are comparatively low in the proportion of farms reporting
tractors, such as cotton and other field-crop farms.
Noticeable also, between 1950 and 1954, was the sharp increase
in the number of farms that depend upon tractors alone as a
source of work power. The proportion of all commercial farms
that reported a tractor and no workstock increased from 27
percent to 45 percent. The trend toward complete dependency
on tractors as a source of work power is evident on each economic
class and each type of farm. "Horseless farming" is more common,
however, to Economic Classes II and III and among cash-grain,
fruit-and-nut, vegetable, dairy, and general farms.
land resources and market output. — Between 1949 and 1954,
the value of farm products sold by commercial farmers increased by
12 percent (see table 13). This increase was accomplished on
approximately the same land acreage in farms. The total land in
commercial farms increased by only 1 percent. There was a slight
decrease in the land that was in harvested crops and an increase
in the land that was pastured. More of the land was irrigated,
an increase of 16 percent. Irrigated land, however, accounted
for only 3 percent of the total land in farms. In 1954, farmers
valued their farmland and buildings 29 percent higher than in 1950.
The larger economic classes of farms accounted for an increasing
amount of land resources and of market sales. The value of farm
products sold was a third greater for Class I farms and a fifth
greater for Class II farms. On Class I farms, the land in har-
vested crops was a fifth greater. This increase in harvested crop-
land among Class I farms was due largely to the greater number of
cash-grain farms that were included in Class I in 1954. The acre-
age of land pastured on Class I farms did not change, but the
acreage of land irrigated increased by nearly two-fifths.
The greatest increase in total land was among Class II farms,
an increase of 12 percent. Among farms in this class, the cropland
harvested, land pastured, and land irrigated each increased by
more than 10 percent. The land pastured increased on the smaller
economic classes of farms whereas there were decreases in both
total land and land in harvested crops. The value of farm products
sold was approximately the same for Economic Class III and
decreased on Classes IV, V, and VI.
By type of farm, there was an increasing concentration of land
resources and market sales on cash-grain farms. The value of
farm products sold on cash-grain farms increased by more than
two-fifths. The land in farms and the harvested cropland increased
substantially, but the greatest change was in land pastured — an
increase of a fourth in acreage. This increase was influenced by
the shift into the cash-grain category of many farms classified
in 1950 as livestock and general. A higher proportion of the
cash-grain farms in 1954 were in the Midwest. These farms have
a larger proportion of the land in pasture than the cash-grain
farms in the Plains area farther west. There was a decrease of
nearly half in the land resources contained in general livestock
farms between 1950 and 1954.
By far the greatest increase in land irrigated was on cotton
farms — an increase of 60 percent. This came about mostly in
the western cotton-producing areas.
Table 13. — Specified Farm Resources, Percent 1954 is of 1950,
by Economic Class and by Type of Farm, for the United
States
Economic class and type
of farm
Num-
ber of
(per-
cent)
Land in
cent)
Crop-
land
har-
vested
(per-
cent)
All
pas-
(per-
'(Per-
cent)
Value
■ it hnnl
and
build-
ings
(per-
cent)
Value
of all
prod-
sold
(per-
cent)
Economic class of farm:
All commercial farms
90
130
118
98
92
85
64
90
125
86
90
70
100
91
88
86
95
47
74
74
101
104
112
103
97
93
74
1C1
119
88
88
124
100
94
101
103
52
84
102
98
119
113
96
89
81
58
98
116
94
85
90
112
51
84
105
100
112
110
106
106
105
124
116
99
98
117
101
104
99
55
88
120
116
139
115
94
86
75
116
122
159
106
102
97
113
82
100
96
120
129
167
145
119
111
108
84
129
153
135
120
126
149
122
116
125
145
105
127
112
Type of farm :
Cotton
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
118
108
104
160
Poultry
Livestock other than
dairy and poultry
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily live-
124
98
134
Crop and live-
stock
Miscellaneous
96
103
Notwithstanding decreases in the number of farms for most
types of farms, there was an increase in irrigated land among all
types except fruit-and-nut, poultry, general livestock, and general
crop and livestock farms.
The value of land and buildings for commercial farms increased
by 29 percent between 1950 and 1954. Part of this increase is due
to improvements, such as improved pastures and new and better
houses and farm buildings, made to the land. The increases
also reflect increases in land values.
Between 1950 and 1954, land values rose much more than market
sales for each economic class and type of farm. The increase of
two-thirds in the value of land and buildings on Class I farms is
associated with an increase of only a third in gross farm sales and
an increase of but a fifth in the number of farms. On Class II
farms, land value increased more than two-fifths; sales of farm
products increased by one-fifth. On the smaller economic classes
as well, there was an increase in value relative to the volume of
farm sales.
Increasing land values relative to market sales took place on
each type of farm with the exception of fruit-and-nut farms and
poultry farms. Prices received by farmers for fruits were 12
percent higher in 1954 than in 1949; poultry and egg prices,
however, were 20 percent lower. The increase in market sales
relative to land value probably relates to shifts in the geographic
concentration of poultry production and to developments that
have encouraged more intensive production of broilers and eggs on
fairly small acreages.
The increase in land values between 1950 and 1954 can be
explained partly by the strong demand for land by farmers who
wanted to enlarge their farms, for the increasing mechanization of
farms means that more land can be handled with the same or a
smaller labor force. Farmers that bought tractors and related
equipment have frequently been faced with the need to enlarge
their farms in order to utilize their machinery more efficiently,
and provide full employment for their labor force. It is also
probable that increasing land values have resulted from the growth
of towns and cities and the increasing demand for land for resi-
dential and other purposes.
A GENERAL VIEW
29
CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE OF FARM BY ECONOMIC CLASS
The structure of farming today reflects the changes that have
affected farmers so differently. Close attention to this structure
is basic to an understanding of the problems confronting farmers
and of the adjustments that are needed in a changing Nation.
Farm Operator Characteristics
Color and tenure of operator. — In 1954, 71 percent of the
operators of commercial farms were owners, part owners, or man-
agers. (See table 14.) This was an increase from 69 percent in
Table 14. — Proportion of Farms Operated by Owners,
Part-Owners, and Managers, and Croppers, and by
White and Nonwhite Operators, for Each Type of Farm
by Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
FULL OWNERS, PART OWNERS.
AND MANAGERS
All commercial farms, total
71.2
67.2
40.7
56. 7
82 9
95.7
86. 4
93.6
80.4
75.4
81.8
75.2
94.7
76.0
67.3
54.4
64.0
85.1
96.4
93! 6
SO. 4
78.2
81.8
75.2
95.3
28.7
22.7
30.9
68.5
7.3
28.7
21.3
0.5
3.2
14.4
14.7
0.4
43.5
47.5
44.5
10.2
77 v
70 3
69.8
Ml X
78 5
95 7
82. 2
91.4
71.7
80.3
82.1
77.(1
95.3
77.8
70.2
8L7
79.3
96.5
82.1
"1 1
71.7
80.2
82. 1
76.8
95.6
75.9
68 v
64 7
0.4
1.4
0.7
0.2
0.4
1.4
0.6
0.2
0.9
8.9
1.7
0.1
69.5
:,s :,
58.fi
68.0
82. 2
94. r,
79 7
93.3
66. 4
71 5
09.3
64.0
58^5
58.9
70.0
83.4
95.7
79.7
93. 4
06.4
71.9
69.2
64.0
93.4
60.7
49.5
;o .;
74.1
0.6
3.5
1, 11
0.3
0.5
3.1
4.4
n 1'
11.3
17.0
34.2
2.0
70.6
62.0
II 7
47. 6
81.2
•17. .'.
83 3
94. 3
74.7
69.5
72.7
67. 1
93.9
72.0
62.0
50.4
55.2
84.6
96.1
83.3
94.3
74.7
71.6
72.7
67.1
95.0
24.3
18.7
16.4
60.6
2.9
16.5
22.7
0.4
1.6
9.5
14.9
0.3
15. 5
49.0
54.7
10.8
70! 0
35.9
45 6
96, 4
88.5
93. 9
S4 4
72.2
84.4
94! 7
76.0
70.1
49.0
54.9
96.5
88.6
91 II
84.5
77.2
84.4
77.fi
95.3
20.3
15.6
20.5
57.0
32! 5
28.1
0.6
4.2
17.4
18.8
0.4
52.2
55.7
53 11
19 0
69.9
77. 9
:i4.0
.58.6
84.9
96.5
90.9
94.1
89.2
78.9
89.8
85.7
95.3
79 4
78.1
51.7
65.7
87.2
96.9
90.9
94.2
89.3
82.7
89.8
.85 9
95.8
23.9
16.8
35.5
67.1
13.1
37.6
22.0
0.8
5.5
19.3
16.3
0.6
49. 5
55.4
40.4
12.1
75.2
Fruit-and-nut
96.1
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
Primarily crop
84.8
Livestock oilier than dairy and
General:
CROPPERS
All commercial farms, total
9.6
1950. All tenants (including croppers) operated 29 percent of
the commercial farms.
Ownership of the land is more common among operators of
some types of farms than others. More than 90 percent of the
operators of fruit-and-nut and poultry farms were included in the
ownership group. The lowest proportions of owners are among
cotton farmers (41 percent), other field-crop farmers (57 percent),
and cash-grain farmers (67 percent). On all other types of farms
the ownership ranged between 75 percent and 90 percent.
For all commercial farms as a group, the highest proportion of
ownership is found among Class I farms (78 percent) followed
closely by Class VI farms (75 percent). This varies considerably
by type of farm, however. On vegetable farms, dairy farms,
poultry farms, and other livestock farms, ownership is lowest
among Classes I and II.
A much higher proportion of the white operators, than of
nonwhite operators, were owners, part owners, and managers, in
1954: 76 percent for white operators compared with 29 percent
for nonwhite operators. Among both white and nonwhite oper-
ators, ownership was lowest among operators of cotton and other
field-crop farms. Among these types of farms, ownership was
lowest for the intermediate classes and highest on Class I and
Class VI.
The high proportion of tenancy among cotton and other field-
crop farms and among nonwhite operators is influenced by the
counting of cropper units as farms. Most of the croppers (95
percent) are found among cotton and other field-crop farms. (See
table 1 5.) Also more than 90 percent of the nonwhite operators
are found among these two types of farms.
Nearly half of the nonwhite operators on cotton and other field-
crop farms were croppers in 1954. They were concentrated in
the smaller economic classes of farms.
Table 15. — Percent Distribution of Farms in Each Tenure
and Color Group by Type and Economic Class of Farm,
for the United States: 1954
Type and economic class of farm
Owners,
part-own-
ers, and
maiiaL'rls
All ten-
ants
Croppers
White
operators
Nonwhite
operators
Type of farm :
100.0
15.3
9.0
8.8
1, 1
3.3
20.0
6.1
23.6
2.5
2.2
lie
100.0
4.4
13.2
21.1
24.1
22,5
14.7
100.0
18.4
32.5
16.6
0.4
7.7
1.0
14.2
2.0
1.2
5.3
0.2
100.0
3.1
14.3
21.6
25.1
24.0
12.0
100.0
1.2
62.3
32.3
0.2
m
0.3
0.8
. ' 6
0! 1
100.0
0.2
1.2
8.6
30.3
41.3
18.4
100.0
17.9
10.0
L0
2.7
18.3
23.0
2. 1
6.7
100.0
R9
22.9
24.4
21.2
12.2
Fruit-and-nut
0.8
Livestock other than dairy
General:
2.2
Primarily livestock
Crop and livestock
0.1
0.7
Economic class of farm :
1.2
24.4
28.8
i than 0.05 percent.
30
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Residence of farm operators. — Most farm families live on the
farm they operate. In 1954, only 6 percent of all commercial
farm operators reported that they did not live on the farm (see
table 16). The highest proportions of nonresident operators were
on fruit-and-nut farms (15 percent), vegetable farms (12 percent),
and cash-grain farms (11 percent;. The lowest proportions of
nonresident operators were on dairy, poultry, and general farms.
Table 16. — Percent of Nonresident Operators for Type of
Farm by Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
6.2
11.0
5.S
6.2
12.2
15.5
2.3
2.9
6.9
8.8
1.7
2.9
15.5
16.2
23.0
18.0
33.8
21.1
7.7
8.2
12.2
22.2
6.7
9.4
24.0
7.0
9.0
13.2
7.2
14.6
16.9
3.5
3.3
6.2
9.2
2.2
3.4
15.3
5.6
9.0
3^9
10.1
17.2
2.2
2.6
5.8
7.8
1.8
2.5
11.6
5.8
12.1
4.7
4.1
9.2
15.4
1.9
2.5
7.0
7.4
0.4
2.9
9.8
6.1
14.2
4.0
5.7
9.1
13.2
2.0
2.2
8.5
8.7
1.6
2.6
7.0
Cash-grain.
11.6
5.4
1.7
Livcslork otln r than dairy and poul-
Oeneral:
Among operators of each type of farm the proportion of non-
residence was higher for Class I farms than for the smaller economic
classes. Except for Class I, however, there is no strong relation-
ship between residence of the operator and the value of farm sales.
A substantially higher proportion of the farmers on Class I
farms lived away from their farms, where the major source of
farm sales was from crops. A third of the operators of Class I
vegetable farms and approximately a fifth of those on Class I
cotton farms, other field-crop farms, fruit-and-nut farms, and
general farms did not live on their farms in 1954. On Class I
dairy and poultry farms, for example, only about 8 percent of
the operators were nonresidents.
Work off the farm and other income. — The proportion of farm
operators working off their farms 100 or more days, or reporting
that family income from nonfarm sources exceeded the value of
farm sales, was greater among the smaller economic classes of
farms (see tables 17 and 18). These proportions were lowest
among cotton and other field-crop farms and highest among
fruit-and-nut and poultry farms. Fruit-and-nut farms also
reported the highest proportion of nonresident operators and
poultry farms were among the lowest.
Approximately half of the operators of Class V fruit-and-nut
farms and two-fifths of those on poultry farms worked off their
farms 100 or more days or had other income that exceeded farm
sales. In contrast, only a tenth of the cotton and other field-crop
farms so reported.
Age of operator. — The median age of operator increased with
decreasing size (as measured by gross sales of farm products)
for each type of farm (see table 19). On several types (cash-grain,
dairy, other livestock, and general farms) the operators of Class I
farms were older than those of Class II farms. The median age
of Class VI farm operators was over 65 years on poultry farms and
nearly 65 years on fruit-and-nut and general livestock farms.
Table 17- — Operators Working Off the Farm 100 or More
Days as Percentage of Operators Reporting as to Off-
farm Work, for Each Type of Farm, by Economic Class,
for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
13.3
15.0
7.9
8.5
15.4
27.9
14.4
24.7
13.7
lfi.O
10.1
10.3
23.0
8.0
4.9
7.3
S II
8.1
13.3
8.3
14.5
6.1
8.2
10.0
5.1
10.2
7.6
5.6
9.3
7.2
9.7
19.2
20.2
5.3
7.9
5.0
4.5
17.0
10.4
9.9
9.8
6.1
14.6
28.9
10.0
29.8
8.6
11.6
6.6
6.6
22.7
16.5
21.1
9.5
7.7
23.2
37.4
18.2
36.6
18.4
17.8
11.3
12.2
32.8
24.6
36.4
12.0
15.2
31.5
47.1
28.3
40.1
33.9
30.4
19.8
20.8
41.4
Livestock iittier than dairy and poul-
General:
Table 18. — Percentage of Farms With Other Income
Greater Than the Value of Farm Products Sold, for
Each Type of Farm, by Economic Class, for the United
States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
m
IV
V
VI
10.8
10.4
6.3
6.5
13.7
26.1
10.1
23.3
12.4
14.9
7.7
8.6
23.6
4.6
1.9
2.8
3.1
4.5
7.1
6.4
4.2
3.9
7.8
4.1
7.5
4.4
2.2
4.4
2.9
6.4
13.2
3.6
16.0
3.4
5.2
1.9
2.0
14.7
6.4
4.6
6.8
3.4
10.7
24.1
4.8
25.7
6.3
7.9
2.8
3.5
20.9
12.6
14.0
6.5
6.3
18.9
36.6
11.6
34.7
16.0
15.6
8.0
9.8
32.7
24.3
33.3
11.3
13.4
34.7
53.8
26.2
45.5
34.6
32.9
19.6
21.6
48.5
Livestock other than dairy and poul-
General:
Table 19. — Median Age of Operator for Type of Farm by
Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
49.0
47.3
47.3
46.2
50. 3
64.8
49.0
53.9
51.0
49.2
50.9
48.7
53.5
45.6
44.0
43.2
44.8
44.8
50.6
47.1
45.7
45.6
46.3
45.3
45.7
50.0
45.2
43.9
44.9
44.1
47.0
52.5
45.8
47.7
45.1
45.0
43.1
43.6
50.4
46.5
45.6
45.8
44.3
47.9
54.3
45.9
50.4
48.0
46.4
45.2
45.2
51.0
48.5
49.0
46.1
43.8
50.1
65.7
48.6
53.3
51.5
47.7
50.7
Hi. :■
52.4
60.3
50.6
46.4
46.4
61.6
65.5
52.0
57.0
53.9
50.7
56.2
53.0
54.6
Cotton
51.0
65+
Livestock other than dairy and
61.?.
General:
64.8
«!.»
A GENERAL VIEW
31
Man-Equivalents of Labor Used
For the purpose of showing the amount of farm labor used on
commercial farms, all labor was converted to a man-equivalent
basis. This was necessary in order that meaningful comparisons
might be made between the different types and sizes of farms.
Getting an estimate of the labor used is more difficult in agri-
culture than for most other industries. Farming, generally, is
highly seasonal. Certain farming operations performed during
the year, such as cultivating and harvesting, usually require more
labor than is needed for the remainder of the year.
The seasonal needs for labor in farming vary between different
types of farms and between farms in different geographic locations.
Therefore, data on the number of workers, if based on any given
week, are likely to be less representative of the annual average
on some farms than on others. Many wives and children of farm-
ers work part time at field work and chores. The farmer himself
frequently does not work full time on the farm hut may have a
nonfarm job or business.
For these reasons, the total farm labor used was estimated in
man-equivalents from use of other data obtained by the Census.
As used in this report, a man-equivalent of labor is a relative
measure of employment. The estimates are designed primarily
toward the objective of securing rough comparability in the
amount of labor used between types and sizes of farms. A man-
equivalent, as used here, represents approximately a man-year
of farm work, but no attempt is made to specify the exact number
of days or hours represented.
Operator labor. — The farm operator was considered to be equal
to 1 man-equivalent of farm labor unless he worked off the farm
or was 65 years of age or older. Farm operators who worked
off the farm 1 to 99 days were estimated at 0.85, those working
off the farm 100 to 199 days at 0.5 and those working off the farm
200 or more days at 0.15 man-equivalents of labor. A reduction
of 0.5 man-equivalents was made for each operator who was 65
years or older.
As estimated in this report, farm-operator labor per farm is a
fairly constant factor in the labor force. For most types of
farms his labor amounted to between 0.7 and 0.8 man-equivalents
(see table 20). Operator labor on cotton and other field-crop
farms was slightly higher and on fruit-and-nut farms and poultry
farms was slightly lower than this range.
By economic class of farm, operator labor tended to be higher
on Class I farms for most types and decreased with decreasing
size of farm. For each type of farm, however, operator labor per
farm was higher on Class VI than on Class V farms. This is
because Class VI farms, by definition, had no operators who
worked off the farm as much as 100 days. The relatively small
amount of operator labor on Class VI farms is due to the higher
proportion of operators who were 65 years or older.
Unpaid family labor. — The number of family members who were
reported working 15 or more hours without pay during the specified
calendar week (September 26-Oetober 2 or October 24r-30, de-
pending on the date of enumeration) were estimated at 0.5 man-
equivalents each. This reduction was made in recognition of the
higher composition of children and elderly persons in the unpaid
family labor force. Individually, these are not usually considered
t he equivalent of an able-bodied adult worker.
Unpaid family labor, as estimated, amounted only from one-fourth
to one-half as much as the operator labor. The larger economic
classes of farms naturally had the most operator labor. Unpaid
family labor was most important on the intermediate sizes (Classes
II, III, and IV); it ranged from one-third to one-half man-equiv-
alents on most types. Highest in use of unpaid family labor
were cotton, other field-crop, dairy, and general livestock farms.
The lowest were fruit-and-nut, cash-grain, and other livestock
farms.
Table 20. — Average Man-Equivalents of Labor Used on
Each Type of Farm by Economic Class, for the United
States: 1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
1.46
0.78
0.34
0.34
1.23
0.77
0.25
0.20
1.70
0.86
0.48
0.36
1.51
0.85
0.40
0.27
3. 57
0.76
0.31
2.49
2.46
0.64
0.19
1.62
1.44
0.77
0.40
0.26
1.16
0.65
0.29
0.21
1.30
0.76
0.26
0.28
1.61
0.76
0.30
0.56
1.29
0.79
0.40
0.11
1.37
0.81
0.38
0.18
2.73
0.68
0.22
1.83
5.42
0^27
4.29
:-; (17
0.89
0.27
7.76
0.90
0.16
6.70
8.59
0^29
7.44
17 82
II S.S
0.23
16.71
9.01
0.80
0.18
8.04
5.36
0.85
0.33
4.17
2.71
0.83
0.36
1.52
3.27
II..H7
II 2S
2.12
7.93
II si;
0.24
:; 79
11 M'
0.49
2 IS
4.33
n s7
0.40
3.06
12.29
0.82
0.20
11.26
0.35
0.60
1.51
0.87
0.31
0.33
2.51
0.87
0.25
1.39
2.42
ll S7
0.41
1.14
3.59
0.84
0.40
2.35
2.63
0.74
0.22
1.67
1.97
n si;
0.44
0.67
1.43
0.77
0.38
0.27
1.61
0.87
a 32
0.42
2.07
0.85
0.31
0.90
1.69
0.88
0.49
0.31
1.74
0.88
0.44
0.42
2.80
0.77
0.27
1.76
1.43
0.83
0.38
0.22
1.23
0.82
0.29
0.12
1.93
0.87
0.57
0.49
1.79
0.89
0.57
0.33
2.00
a 78
0.37
1.61
0.65
0.22
1.46
0.83
0.45
0.19
1.13
0^36
0.10
1.33
0.83
0.31
0.19
1.53
0.82
0.35
0.35
1.42
0.86
0.46
0.10
1.42
o si;
0.42
0.14
1.66
0.72
0.28
0.66
1.27
0.77
0.39
0.11
1.00
0.70
0.24
0.07
1.68
0.87
0.66
0.15
1.50
0.88
n III
0.13
1.43
0.72
0.36
0.36
1.12
0.56
0.19
0.36
1.25
0.76
0.43
0.07
0.94
0.59
0.30
0.05
1.12
0.73
0.27
0.12
1.25
0^33
0.15
1.26
0.79
0.42
0.05
1.26
0^39
0.07
I. 16
0.62
0.24
0.30
1.09
II 711
0.34
0.05
0.83
0.60
0.19
0.04
1.40
0.84
0.51
0.05
1.21
0^35
0.06
1.08
0.63
0.30
0.15
0.86
0.49
(l. is
0.18
1.05
0.65
0.37
0.03
0.77
0.51
0.24
0.02
0.88
II. no
0.21
0.07
1.00
0.65
0.28
0.07
1.05
0.68
0.34
0.03
1.07
0.70
0.32
0.04
0.86
0.54
0.20
0.12
1.04
1 07
Unpaid family labor
0.16
Poultry
0.81
Unpaid family labor
0.14
Livestock other than dairy and poultry.
0.94
General, primarily livestock
0.91
Unpaid family labor
0.21
General, crop and livestock
1.04
Unpaid family labor
0. 16
32
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Hired labor. — Man-equivalents of hired labor were computed
by dividing the expenditure for hired labor by the annual cash
wage reported for regular hired workers for each type of farm.
Hired labor is relatively unimportant in commercial farming
as a whole. The man-equivalents of hired labor per farm totaled
about 0.3 man-equivalent per farm in 1954. Only on vegetable,
fruit-and-nut, and general crop farms, did hired labor exceed
this amount. However, hired labor is of considerable importance
on the larger economic classes of farms. The average for Class
I farms of all types was more than 4 man-equivalents per farm in
1954. The average vegetable farm in Class I hired the equivalent
of 17 full-time workers that year. Eight man-equivalents of
hired labor were used on Class I fruit-and-nut farms and 7 man-
equivalents on Class I cotton and other field-crop, and general
crop farms. In contrast, Class I cash-grain and poultry farms
used less than 2 man-equivalents of hired labor per farm.
Hired labor comprises a very small part of the farm labor force
on farms in the smaller economic classes. For economic classes
smaller than Class I it was less important than family labor on
all types, with the exception of Class II cotton, vegetable, and
fruit-and-nut farms. The use of hired labor decreases with
decreasing size of farm for all types.
Cash Wages Paid
The land and labor resources and the value of investment for
types of farms classified by economic class is useful as a measure
of overall distribution of resources of production. When these
resources are taken together there is a close association between
the amount and value of resources and the value of farm products
sold.
Both the value of investment and the value of farm products
are frequently used as measures of farm size. In the purely
physical sense they appear to represent fairly adequate measures.
But interest in farm size also stems from concern over the human
factor in farming. As farms increase in size, measured by business
volume, there is a tendency for the farming to involve more work
than can be handled by the farm family, and for hired labor to
become an increasingly important element in the day-to-day
operations. Many persons have taken the increases in size of
farm to mean a trend toward large-scale farms and a corresponding
increase in the use of hired labor in agriculture.
Since the economic classification has, as its largest size group-
ing, farms that had sales of farm products valued at $25,000 or
more, there is a tendency for these to be treated as representing
large-scale operations employing much hired labor. Actually,
many of these farms do employ a great deal of hired work. On
many others the work is done primarily by members of the family.
Furthermore, there is considerable variation by type of farm
among Class I farms in the amount of hired labor employed.
Table 21 and table 22 show the number and proportion of
farms reporting specified amounts paid for hired labor for types
of farms by economic class. Even among Class I farms, only
two-fifths reported an expenditure of $5,000 or more. An expend-
iture of $5,000 would probably represent the hiring of 2 to 3
full-time workers at current wage rates for hired labor.
By type of farm, Class I farms show striking differences in the
proportion that paid $5,000 or more for hired labor. Only a fifth
of the Class I cash-grain farms hired this amount of farm labor,
reflecting the outstanding progress that has been made in mech-
anization of the entire farming operation of the cash-grains. In
contrast, other types of farming having a major source of income
from crops use much more hired labor in producing $25,000 or
more of farm products for sale. On cotton, other field-crop, and
fruit-and-nut farms, two-thirds to three-fourths, and on vegetable
farms nearly 90 percent, of the Class I farms had $5,000 or more
expended for hired work. On these types of farms much labor is
needed because many of the peak harvest operations are not com-
pletely mechanized. Much of the labor hired on these farms is
Livestock and poultry production is associated with relatively
small use of hired labor, relative to sales. Even on Class I farms
only a fifth of the poultry and a fourth of the livestock farms had
a labor expenditure of $5,000 or more. About half of the dairy
farmers in Class I reported an expenditure of $5,000 or more.
Dairy and poultry farms characteristically buy large quantities
of feed. Many livestock farmers, particularly those engaged in
cattle and hog fattening, have high expenditures for purchases
of feeder cattle and pigs. On these types of farms a smaller
proportion of the gross sales is net than for most specialized crop
farms.
Farms with expenditures for hired labor of $5,000 or more are
not restricted to Class I farms, however. More than a fourth of
the farms employing this much hired work were classified as
Class II. A fairly high proportion of Class II cotton, other field-
crop, vegetable, and fruit-and-nut farms, reported hiring this
much farm labor.
On the smaller economic classes of farms (those with sales of
farm products valued at less than $10,000) few farms of any type
reported as much as $5,000 expended for hired labor.
Table 21. — Percentage of Farms Reporting $5,000 or More
Cash Wages Paid, for Each Type of Commercial Farm, by
Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
n
III
rv
V
VI
2.4
1.2
2.8
1.5
16.7
14.7
1.8
1.7
1.9
3.8
0.4
1.0
16.2
40.2
21.2
70.8
64.8
88.0
73.5
61.5
17.1
21.2
56.5
28.5
34.8
77.9
4.7
1.1
13.7
10.9
41.3
22.8
4.2
1.0
2 4
7.6
l n
2.2
2K 2
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.4
4.8
3.5
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.3
4.9
0.2
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
0.9
0.8
(Z)
0.2
0.4
0.2
(Z)
(Z)
2.3
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
m
<7.)
(7,)
0.3
(Z)
0.1
0.1
Livestock other than <lairy and poul-
(7.)
General:
(Z)
0.4
Z 0.05 percent or loss.
A GENERAL VIEW
33
Table 22.-
-Percentage Distribution of Commercial Farms in Each Type, by Economic Class of Farm, i
for Hired Labor, for the United States: 1954
Amount of Expenditure
All com-
mercial
Type of farm
Economic ebss un.l expenditure for
hired labor
Cash-
grain
Cotton
fleld-
crop
Vege-
table
Fruit-
Dairy
Poultry
Live-
stock
than
dairy
and
poultry
General —
Pri-
marily
crop
Pri-
marily
live-
stock
Crop
live-
stock
Miscel-
laneous
100.0
41.6
45.8
7.3
3.0
L4
0.0
0.4
100.0
7.0
15.5
18.3
19.0
40.2
18.3
13.2
8.7
100.0
21.8
42.2
20.3
11.1
4.7
(Z)'
100.0
34.3
51.1
11.6
2.4
0.5
oil
(Z)
100.0
41.6
53.6
4.1
0.2
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
51.1
47.3
1.3
0.2
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
66.1
33.4
0.4
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
45.1
44.6
6.8
2.4
1.2
0.8
100. 0
6.4
20.0
27.5
24.9
21.2
14.0
5.2
2.0
100.0
25.1
52.2
1.1
0.9
(Z)'
100.0
41.2
62.8
5.0
0.2
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
53.8
43.6
0^4
0.1
0.1
(Z)
100. 0
39.0
48.9
6.5
2.8
2.8
0.4
100.0
1.0
3.3
15' 9
70.8
31.0
24.5
15.3
100.0
4.5
16.7
29.7
35.4
13.7
1.2
(Z)
100.0
14.4
42.0
36.7
6.4
0.6
0.5
0.1
100.0
30.5
60.7
5.6
1.7
1.5
0.4
0.3
100.0
1.7
10! 1
16.5
64.8
27.0
21.1
16.7
100.0
5.3
25.3
34.5
24.0
10.9
10.0
0.9
(Z)
100.0
11.1
65.5
20.2
2.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
100.0
24.8
35.8
14.3
8.4
16.7
7.0
5.1
4.7
100. 0
0.3
1.4
3.9
6.3
88.0
15.8
32.0
40.2
100.0
3.7
8.9
17.8
28.3
41.3
32.3
8.7
0.3
100.0
11.9
27.5
17^6
4.8
4.2
0.6
100.0
15.2
39.8
18.8
11.4
14.7
7.8
100.0
2.1
7l2
14.2
73.5
27.3
26.8
19.4
100.0
4.6
16.8
25.4
30.4
22.8
18.8
3.9
0.1
100.0
9.5
36.2
36.9
13.9
3.5
3.0
0.5
(Z)
100. 0
69^9
21.0
3.5
0.8
0.6
0.1
100.0
46. 0
41.4
7.8
3.0
1.8
1.2
0^2
100.0
4.5
8.3
13.6
22.2
61.5
26. 7
17.7
7.1
100.0
18.9
37.0
26.1
13.8
4.2
3.8
100.0
36.9
50.6
10.6
1.8
0.2
(Z)
100.0
61. 1
29.1
5.5
2.6
1.7
1.1
6.1
100.0
19.6
26. 3
20.5
16.5
10! 8
4.9
1.5
100.0
41.5
40.1
12.8
4.6
1.0
0.8
0.1
100.0
43.1
43.8
3^2
1.9
1.2
0.5
0.2
100.0
9.5
24.1
24.5
20.6
21.2
11.9
6.1
3.2
100.0
24.9
48.6
17.2
6.9
2.4
2.0
0.4
(Z)
100.0
36.9
51.9
8.4
2.2
0.7
oil
(Z)
100.0
4&9
4.9
1.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
(Z)
100.0
54.6
41.8
2.8
0.6
0.1
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
69.5
29.3
1.0
0.2
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
32.1
50.2
9.6
4.3
3.8
2.2
0^7
100.0
3.6
8.5
13.2
18.2
56.5
25.1
15.8
16.6
100.0
11.5
33.4
29.3
18.3
7.5
6.6
o!i
100.0
18.1
67.9
19.1
4.2
0.8
0.6
0.2
100.0
50.8
44.1
3.7
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.1
(Z)
100.0
6.9
18.9
23.8
21.8
28.5
14.7
10.6
3.2
100.0
26.9
51.6
16.2
1.0
0.9
0.1
100.0
4&8
5.5
1.7
o!i
100.0
is! 5
21.5
21.4
34.8
19.1
100.0
49! 1
7^1
2.2
2.0
0.2
(Z)
100.0
37.8
54.3
1.0
0.3
0.2
(Z)
100.0
36.8
30.2
10.4
7.5
6.6
5.0
3.5
100.0
3.9
8.8
77.9
30.0
29.0
100.0
12.5
17.1
19.2
23.1
28.2
20.5
7.6
100.0
56.1
37.7
4.8
1.2
0.2
0.2
(Z)
100.0
42.2
52.8
0^6
6.1
100.0
20.9
35.2
20.2
3.7
29^9
64.0
0.3
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
21.4
74.6
3.7
0.2
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
20! 0
3.8
0.9
0.4
0.5
100.0
51.1
46.0
6.3
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100. 0
0^4
0.2
0.2
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
76.4
22.7
0.7
0.1
(Z)
100.0
28.8
64.6
5.5
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
5£7
45.9
0^1
(Z)
(Z)
100. 0
43.7
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
64.1
34.6
1.0
0.2
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
44.5
55.0
0.5
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
63^3
0.7
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
35.2
57.9
5.7
1.2
100.0
26.2
65.8
6.2
1.6
0.3
0.3
100.0
62.6
36.6
0.7
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
43.0
64.8
1.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
(Z)
100.0
61.6
37.9
0.4
0.1
100.0
47^4
0.9
0.2
<Z)
(Z)
100.0
40.7
1.1
(Z)
100.0
74.2
25.1
0.6
0.2
(Z)
100.0
58.6
41.3
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
57.8
42.0
0.2
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
57.6
40.3
1.7
0.5
100.0
48.2
47.7
2.5
1.4
0.1
100.0
77.3
22.6
0.2
(Z)
100.0
84.6
14.9
0.3
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
100.0
65.6
33.8
0.3
0.2
100.0
74.8
24.9
0.3
100.0
66.7
32.9
0.3
0.1
1OO.0
(Z)
(Z)
0.1
Z 0.05 percent or less.
34
Table 23. — Class of Work Power: Percentage Distribution of Farms
United States: 1954
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Type and by Specified Economic Classes, for the
Total
Economic class of
farm
Percentage distribution by type of farm
Total
Economic class of
farm
1
II, III,
and IV
Vand
VI
I
II, III,
and IV
Vand
VI
100.0
14.9
14.0
25.8
45.3
100.0
6.3
2.0
22.0
69.7
100.0
29.3
29.1
15.9
25.7
100. 0
32^8
26.1
17.8
100.0
14.0
11.2
19.7
55.1
100.0
28.8
5.5
10.5
55.1
100.0
6.5
8.1
29.4
55.9
100.0
6.9
2.3
54] 5
100.0
1.5
0.4
37.9
60.1
100.0
1.7
0.4
37.1
60.8
100.0
1.8
1.5
M. 6
100.0
2.8
1.0
24.2
72.0
100.0
9.8
0.7
17.1
72.4
100.0
6.8
2.0
39.2
52.1
100.0
9.1
6.3
29.5
55.1
100.0
3.9
0.8
22.5
72.8
100.0
22.4
12.7
22.4
42.5
100.0
17.6
23.7
35.2
23.5
100.0
8.4
4.6
22.2
64.8
100.0
27.1
3.2
10.3
59.4
100.0
3.1
3.8
31.7
61.4
100. 0
25.1
27.6
18.7
100.0
15.6
6.3
17.4
60.7
100.0
34.7
40.1
11.0
14. 1
100.0
29.4
42.4
17.2
100.0
24.2
22.2
15.2
38.3
100.0
41.4
12.7
7.9
38.0
100.0
15.1
19.7
23.0
42.2
Poultry
100.0
41.9
11.2
11.0
35.8
100.0
8.8
10.7
44! 6
100.0
10.9
13.2
29.5
46.4
100.0
9' 2
28.8
56.0
100.0
3.6
7.8
33.7
54.9
100.0
37.9
14.9
18.3
28.9
100.0
30.5
4.3
16.3
48.9
100.0
2.3
4.4
49.0
44.3
100.0
2.0
0.4
38.0
100.0
2.5
0.3
34.3
62.8
100.0
1.1
0.8
46.0
52.1
100.0
35.2
2.2
17.9
44.8
100.0
38.5
10.2
12.3
39.0
100.0
4.1
4.8
38.9
52.2
100.0
6.4
6.8
34.6
62.2
100.0
2.7
4.3
29.6
63.4
100.0
2.2
2.5
34.4
60.9
100.0
39.3
9.3
19.9
31.5
No tractor, and 1 or more liaises and/or mules
No tractor, and 1 or more horses and/or mules
No tractor, and 1 or more leases and/or mules
No tractor, and ] or moio horses and/or mules
No tractor, and 1 it mure horses and or mules
19.6
No tractor, and 1 or nunc horses :tn<l/or mules
No tractor, and 1 or more horses and/or mules
No tractor, and 1 or more horses and 'or mules
Class of Work Power
Some indication of the level of mechanization practiced by
types and economic classes of farms may be gained from data on
class of work power. Tractors are more common to some parts
of commercial agriculture than others and there remains con-
siderable difference in the extent to which they now constitute
the sole source of power.
"Horseless farming" is much more a reality on cash-grain
farms than most other types (see table 23). Three-fifths of even
the smaller economic classes of farms reported a tractor and no
horses or mules.
In general, Class I farms of each type are highly dependent
on tractors as the only source of power. The same is true for
Classes II through IV for several types; namely, cash-grain,
vegetable, fruit-and-nut, dairy, and general farms.
Many of the smaller economic classes of farms had neither
tractors nor work stock. This was most common on fruit-and-nut
farms and poultry farms. It was also common on cotton and
other field-crop farms, largely influenced by the fairly high pro-
portion of cropper operators included in the smaller economic
classes.
For several types of farms, cash-grain, dairy, other livestock,
general livestock, and general crop and livestock farms, a higher
proportion of the farms in Classes II through IV than in Class I
reported tractors and no work stock.
Land in Farms
Of the total land area in the United States, encompassing about
3 million square miles, 60.8 percent is in farms. In 1954, the
land in farms totaled 1,158 million acres of which 1,032.5 million
acres, or 89 percent, was in commercial farms.
Nearly half of the land in commercial farms was in livestock
farms and about a fifth was in cash-grain farms (see table 24).
These two types, which comprise 37 percent of the commercial
farm numbers, accounted for more than two-thirds of the land
in commercial farms in 1954. If general livestock and general
crop and livestock farms are included, the proportion of the land
in farms of the livestock and cash-grain types exceeds three-fourths
of the land in all commercial farms.
A GENERAL VIEW
35
Table 24. — Percent Distribution of Total Land for Each
Economic Class, by Type of Farm, for the United States:
1954
Typo of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
100.0
19.8
6.3
3.3
0.5
0.9
9.4
1.2
49.2
LI
5.2
1.0
100.0
12.7
6.0
1.4
0.9
1.9
2.3
0.8
69.6
1.7
0.2
1.5
1.0
100.0
25.6
L5
0.3
0.8
8.5
1.1
50.1
1.9
0.7
4.6
0.9
100.0
26.4
4.2
2.7
0.2
0.5
13.4
1.0
39.8
2.0
1.5
7.5
0.7
100.0
20.6
7.1
5.5
0.3
0.0
14.4
1.2
36.6
2.4
2.0
8.5
100.0
13.6
11.6
7.5
0.7
12.7
1.6
39.1
3.0
2.0
6.6
1.4
1 >
9.0
16.3
8 ','
0.7
Fruit-and-nut
0.7
10.4
3.1
Livestock other than dairy and poul-
41.2
General:
S 0
l.G
1.7
The distribution of land in farms is affected by the different
land requirements for farms in different parts of the country.
Many of the livestock and cash-grain farms are in western regions
where, because of limited rainfall, the yields of crops and pastures
are low, and considerable acreages are required to provide an
efficient farm organization. On many western livestock farms
20 or more acres are required to furnish pasture for one animal
unit. In much of the western plains, wheat can be grown only
in alternate years. Part of the land is "fallowed" each year to
accumulate enough moisture for the next year's crop.
Although less than 10 percent of the livestock farms are in the
West, these comprise 40 percent of the land in all livestock farms.
The western region contains only about a tenth of the total
number of cash-grain farms, but a fifth of the land in such farms
is in the western region. Similarly, the average acreage of live-
stock farms in the West is several times the acreages in northern
and southern regions. Cash-grain farms in the West average
more than twice as large as those in other regions.
Of the 1,032 million acres of land in commercial farms in 1954,
25 percent was in Class I farms, about 60 percent in Classes II,
III, and IV, and slightly less than 15 percent in Class V and VI
farms (see table 25). But among types of farms, the proportion
of the commercial farmland by economic class varies considerably.
Among cash-grain farms, other field-crop farms, dairy farms,
general livestock, and general crop and livestock farms, a relatively
small proportion of the farmland is contained in Class I farms.
On the other hand, about half of the acreage in vegetable and
fruit-and-nut farms falls in Class I and more than a third of the
land in livestock farms.
Of all land in Class I farms more than two-thirds is in livestock
farms. Cash-grain farms contain about 13 percent and cotton
farms 6 percent of the acreage in all Class I farms. No other type
accounts for as much as 3 percent of the acreage in Class I farms.
Nationally, two-thirds of the commercial farms and three-fifths
of the land in commercial farms are in Economic Classes II, III,
and IV. A much higher proportion of the acreage, around three-
fourths, is found in these classes on cash-grain, dairy, general
livestock and general crop and livestock farms. In contrast, less
than half the acreage is found in these classes on cotton, other
field-crop, vegetable, and fruit-and-nut farms.
The land contained in Economic Classes V and VI ranged from
a high of one-third of the land in cotton farms to a low of 9 percent
for cash-grain farms.
Table 25. — Percent Distribution of Total Land in Farms
for Each Type of Commercial Farm, by Economic Class,
for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
ni
IV
V
VI
100.0
1110 II
loo.o
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
25.2
16.1
24.1
11.1
50.0
49.4
6.1
17.8
35.6
20.2
4.0
7.3
26.0
23.4
30.2
14.8
10.8
13.1
18.9
21.1
22.6
23.8
20.9
15.5
20.8
21.8
21.4
28.6
14.2
17.5
10.5
12.1
30.5
18.9
17.3
20.3
28.5
:;o i,
14.9
15.8
16.4
17.7
26.8
10.4
9.3
24.1
15.7
11.8
17.9
28.7
25.6
15.8
9.9
6.8
18.3
22.8
9.1
7.0
13.4
13.4
7.9
14.4
17.3
12.4
14.0
4 4
11.1
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
7.0
3.3
Livestock uttier than dairy and poultry.
General:
Primarily crop... ---
Primarily livestock
3.6
6.3
6.0
3.4
Table 26 shows the average acreage per farm for types of farms
by economic class. These averages disclose the wide range in
acreage found within each economic class of farm and the variation
by type of farm. Within each type there is a correlation between
size measured in acres and size measured by value of farm products
sold. A decrease in average acreage is associated with a decrease
in value of products sold for each type of farm. This relation of
acreage to value, by type of farm, indicates that the classification
by value of products sold provides a fairly good measure of
size when dealing with different types of farms under widely
different production conditions.
Table 26. — Average Size of Farm For Each Type of Com-
mercial Farm, by Economic Class, for the United States:
1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
310.3
3S0. 1
124.4
91.6
146.6
119.3
177.2
78.1
730.7
i-'.i n
264.7
278.0
1,939.1
1,494.7
1.031.6
667. 5
453.6
508.4
162.9
4,539.0
1,147.3
773.1
1,190.7
597.1
537. 8
558. 9
376 0
236 5
139.3
120.6
260 8
94.9
996.5
452.3
240. 0
391.9
385.1
311.9
363. 5
106 7
98! 1
72.6
ISO, 4
79.7
576.0
303.6
200.7
202 (J
276.5
201.0
260. 1
99.3
79.0
78.0
53.8
152.5
417.7
190.5
177.9
234.1
228.6
134.3
167. 9
63.8
65.7
66.9
43.0
126.3
55.9
291.3
147.0
145.1
161. 1
172.1
97.1
121.8
54.1
64.5
52.4
1'nnt-and-nut
46.8
97.8
51.3
Livi-tork oilier than dairy
and poultry
General:
183.6
128.6
106.3
121.6
136.8
36
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
The average acreage per farm, however, tends to conceal the
extreme variations in acreage that exist within each economic
class. Table 27 shows the frequency distribution of the number
of farms grouped by acreage size for each type of farm by economic
class. Although the average acreage of land for Class I farms was
more than 1,000 acres for cash-grain, cotton, livestock, general
crop, and general crop and livestock farms, most of the farms are
considerably smaller. More than half of the Class I farms in
each of these types have from 220 to 999 acres. A majority of
Class I vegetable and fruit-and-nut farms have less than 220
acres, and more than half of the Class I poultry farms have less
than 100 acres. Half of the Class I farms of under 10 acres were
poultry farms in 1954. Nearly half of the Class I farms of 1,000
or more acres were livestock farms and almost a third were cash-
grain farms.
Among farms in the median range in value of products sold
(Classes II, III, and IV), certain acreage-size groups tend to pre-
dominate. Most of the cash-grain, livestock, and general farms
in Classes II, III, and IV, are in the groups between 100 and 500
acres. Cotton and other field-crop farms are heavily concentrated
in the acreage-size groups between 10 and 220 acres. Over half
of the dairy farms fall in the size group between 100 and 220 acres,
while a majority of poultry and fruit-and-nut farms have less than
50 acres.
A higher proportion of Economic Classes V and VI are in the
smaller acreage groups for each type of farm. However, the
relationship between acreage and value of sales is not so direct as
might be expected. For each type of farm, except cash-grain
farms, the modal acreage-size group (the one containing the largest
number of farms) is the same for Class V and VI farms as for
Classes II, III, and IV. This indicates the wide variation in the
quality of land and the proportion that is suitable for growing
crops and grasses even among farms of basically the same type of
farming. It is also related to differences in the extent to which
these groups of farmers have taken advantage of new techniques
that are aimed to increase yields per crop acre and per animal
unit.
Table 27.— Number of Farms in Specified Acreage-Size Groups for Each Type of Commerical Farm by Economic Ci
United States: 1954
Number of farms by type
Kcunnloie class Oct acreage si/.
other
field-
crop
Live-
stock
other
dairy or
poultry
Primarily Plj'™'ily V '"'. '„:"ul
cr°P stock stock
All classes.
Under 10 acres
10 to 49 acres
50 to 99 acres
3, 327,
145. 400
022. 021
525,403
20. 10-1
230, 11'.
(i i r., ;)'.)'.
307.7.;.:
31.721
143,547
1.10,270
37,057
11,200
li, 837
4,184
100 to 219 acres..
220 to 499 acres..
500 to 999 acres.
Class I...
Under lo acres
10 to 49 acres.
50 to 99 acres .
44, 144
13,120
6, 895
13, 137
2, 102
3. 202
2,010
2,805
3,784
1,01)0 acres and over.
100 to 219 acres.
220 to 499 acres.
600 to 999 acres.
1,000 acres and 0
Classes V and VI.
Under 10 acre:
10 to 49 acres.
50 to 99 acres .
19. 127
40, 1110
21.MI7
41, 451
225, 573
270,510
133. O00
153,251
53, 704
5. 5V.I
4,503
3, 570
50, 310
2\ S03
7,479
2,144
1 5, 05S
710
6,891
3, 7S5
48, 573
1,000
21'., 075
9, 131
22. Ms
6,515
11.005
2,871
5S0.270
1,104
15, 474
07,001
84.741
20,330
21,501
17, '240
61, 701
IS. 3H0
11,520
18.4S3
0, 04!'.
3,265
1,536
14,003
2,000
2, 382
2,271
loo to 210 acres
220 t.. too acres
500 to 009 acres
1,000 acres and over..
70, 100
44, 701
11, 400
8, 273
A GENERAL VIEW
37
Cropland Harvested
About 322 million acres were in harvested crops in 1954. This
was slightly less than a third of the total land in farms. The
proportion of the land that was in harvested crops varied among
types of farms and between economic classes within each type
(see table 28). Approximately half or more of the total land was
in harvested crops on cash-grain, cotton, vegetable, and general
farms. Between a third and two-fifths of the land in other field-
crop, fruit-and-nut, and dairy farms, was harvested cropland —
only a fourth of the land in poultry farms and 15 percent of the
land in livestock farms.
Table 28. — Cropland Harvested As A Percent of Total
Land in Farms for Each type of Farm, by Economic Class
of Farm, for the United States: 1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
n
in
IV
V
VI
31.1
54.5
50.6
36.3
46.9
37.0
38.1
26.0
15.4
41.6
46.8
47.0
8.2
18.8
47.5
54.3
49 1
51.4
36.2
:;■_■ i]
30.6
7.5
46.7
31.0
35.6
in ■_'
35.8
57.8
57.1
48.1
54.5
41.9
42.7
28.7
19.4
47.6
58.4
53.4
7.1
40.0
58.2
54.7
40.6
47.3
41.5
42.2
26.8
23.3
42.2
M .',
7! 4
54.1
52.4
36.4
39.5
35.4
37.9
25.6
20.5
40.6
46.3
45.9
7.8
28.7
47.2
45.8
28.5
33.5
30.6
30.2
22.7
15.4
33.8
35.7
36.7
7.7
Fruit-and-nut
23.2
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
For most types of farms the larger farms and the smaller farms
have less of the land in harvested crops. This results in a slightly
higher proportion of the cropland than of the total land being
found among the medium-sized Classes II, III, and IV farms.
Four-fifths or more of the cropland is accounted for by these
classes for cash-grain, dairy, general livestock, and general crop
and livestock farms (see table 29). Half or more of the cropland
is found on Classes II, III, and IV farms for each of the other
types, with the exception of vegetable and fruit-and-nut farms.
For these two types, half or more of the cropland is in Class I
farms. About 70 percent is accounted for by Classes I and II
together. Economic Classes V and VI account for a smaller
proportion of the cropland than of the total land in farms for
each type of farm.
Cash-grain farms and livestock farms accounted for a third and
a fourth, respectively, of the harvested cropland (see table 30).
Cotton farmers and dairy farmers each used about a tenth of the
cropland. With the exception of general crop and livestock farms
which accounted for 8 percent of the cropland, no other type
accounted for as much as 4 percent. Cash-grain farms and live-
stock farms taken together accounted for more than half of the
cropland harvested in each Economic Classes I through IV and
two-fifths of the cropland in Class V and Class VI farms. On
Class VI farms, however, a higher proportion of the cropland
was accounted for by cotton farms.
The average acreage of cropland harvested per farm is largest on
cash-grain farms and lowest on poultry farms (see table 31).
Except for cash-grain farms, livestock farms and general crop and
livestock farms had a larger average acreage in crops harvested
than any of the types that had a major source of income from sales
of crops.
Table 29. — Percent Distribution of Total Acreage of
Cropland Harvested for Each Type of Commercial Farm
by Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
v
VI
All commercial farms
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
inn n
100.0
100.0
15 2
un
2.V *
15.0
54.8
48.3
5.1
20.9
17. 1
22.6
2.7
5.5
32.2
26.9
16.7
14.3
15.2
21.4
:•:;. 7
24.8
29.9
23 9
19.3
23.6
19.0
27.4
30.4
16.3
in. i;
10.6
13.6
33.8
19.5
26.1
20.6
:;;; 2
34.3
13.4
18.4
10.3
18.3
26.8
8.8
8.9
24.0
15.5
15.6
17.5
28.4
25.0
15.0
9.1
5.9
16.5
17.9
6.5
6.7
10.6
11.7
7.9
11.7
13.2
9.7
13.2
3.0
7.4
1 r.iit and
•>, 8
Livestock other than dairy and
3.0
General:
3,2
1.9
Table 30. — Percent Distribution of Total Acreage of
Cropland Harvested for Each Economic Class, by Type
of Farm, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
100.0
34.7
10.3
3.8
0.7
1.1
11.5
1.0
24.3
2.8
1.7
7.9
0.3
loo.o
31.9
17.4
3.8
2.5
3.6
3.9
1.3
27.8
4.1
0.3
2.9
0.6
100.0
41.4
6.4
2.0
0.4
0.9
10.1
0.9
27.1
2.5
1.2
6.9
0.2
inn n
38.6
5.7
2.7
0.3
0.6
14.2
0.7
23.2
2.1
2.0
9.9
0.1
100.0
30.7
10.2
5.5
0.3
0.5
15.0
0.8
20.7
2.6
2.6
10.7
0.2
100.0
22.3
18.6
7.6
0.5
0.7
13.4
1.2
21.0
3.6
2.4
8.4
0.4
100.0
15.6
8.(1
1.0
0 8
10.8
2.5
Livestock other than dairy and poul-
24.5
General:
3 5
5.1
0.6
Table 31. — Average Acreage of Cropland Harvested per
Farm for Each Type of Commercial Farm, by Economic
Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
rv
V
VI
102
207
33
69
44
67
20
113
112
86
124
23
398
710
560
329
327
164
163
60
341
536
246
426
61
201
323
215
76
61
115
27
193
215
146
209
27
129
211
ION
50
46
21
134
128
110
154
20
76
141
52
29
31
19
58
18
86
77
107
18
41
79
29
19
22
13
38
13
45
50
52
59
13
18
15
11
Livestock other than dairy and poul-
try
General:
Primarily crop..
Primarily livestock
23
31
26
II
38
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Value of Land and Buildings
Differences in the land — its quality, productiveness, and loca-
tion, the proportion suitable for crops, and the improvements made
to the land — are reflected in the average values per acre. Table 32
shows the average value of land and buildings per acre for each
type of farm by economic class. The liighest value per acre for
any type of farm is for fruit-and-nut farms. This is true when
comparison is made within each economic class. Relatively high
values per acre are also shown for vegetable farms and poultry
farms.
Table 32. — Average Value per Acre of Land and Buildings
for Each Type of Commercial Farm, by Economic Class,
for the United States: 1954
All commercial farms.
Cash-grain
Cotton...
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than dairy
poultry
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily livestock
Crop and livestock
Miscellaneous
!:<•_'. 2S
105.34
174. T2
n:i ■■:,
in; :.v
96.58
I I 2 lis
Kcononiic class of farm
73.30
108.96
175. 10
r-u mi
2V9. 05
:«2. 21
194.23
210.45
17:;. v.i
122.12
117.54
171.21
-.11 111
134.52
i:u '.i7
I'.i:, iv
107. 26
167. 77
84.46
73.54
88.76
176. 61
412 71
70.93
li'.l 79
2i;o r,r,
61.60
118.95
51.23
On fruit-and-nut farms the land value reflects the substantial
investment in orchards, vineyards, and planted nut trees. Both
fruit-and-nut and vegetable farms are highly specialized types
which require fairly exacting soil and climatic conditions. Many
are in areas that have access to irrigation and irrigation facilities.
Water rights tend to be reflected in land values. Many vegetable
farms are in low-lying tracts that have been reclaimed and drained
at considerable expense per acre. Poultry farms reflect the large
investment in buildings, to house and care for laying hens and
broilers, associated with a relatively small acreage.
The lowest values per acre are found on livestock farms. These
values are influenced by the large number of cattle ranches in
semiarid western regions which have large acreages with a low
carrying capacity per animal unit.
Values per acre tend to decrease with decreasing size as measured
by gross sales. The exception is noticeable among Class I farms.
For about half of the types, the values per acre on Class II farms
exceed those on Class I farms.
The distribution of the value of land and buildings among types
of farms is more nearly equal than the distribution by economic
class, for there is a tendency for types of farms with smaller
acreage requirements to have land of higher value (see table 33).
But within each type of farm a greater concentration of value
than of acreage is shown for the larger economic classes.
The average value of land and buildings per commercial farm
was greatest on cash-grain and fruit-and-nut farms and lowest on
cotton, other field-crop, and poultry farms (see table 34). On
each type of farm the average value of land and buildings per farm
increases directly with increasing size of farm as measured by gross
sales. The range of value is from less than $10,000 per farm on
Class VI farms to more than $100,000 per farm on Class I farms.
But among farms in each economic class there are considerable
differences in value.
Table 33. — Percent Distribution of Value of Land and Buildings by Type
Farms, for the United States: 1954
^nd Economic Class of Commercial
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Percent distribution in each type of farm by economic class:
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ioo.o
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
23.3
8.0
4.5
1.3
4.2
13.2
2.5
31.1
2.7
6^3
1.2
22.2
17.1
37.1
lfi.8
54.6
45.0
11.2
21.5
24.2
30.7
4.5
8.9
38.6
100.0
18.0
13.3
3.4
9.0
6.5
2.5
35.1
3.7
0.3
2.5
2.2
27.4
34.8
18.0
14.0
16.4
22.4
26.8
25.2
28.5
23.5
22.1
22! 7
100.0
29.4
5.2
2.4
0.8
3.5
12.9
2.3
32.6
2.3
1.3
6.3
1.0
23, 2
27.6
IO
10.9
19.9
30.8
18.2
21.0
17.3
33.1
31.6
13.2
100.0
27.6
4.6
3.8
0.6
2.5
17.4
1.8
28.1
2.0
2.2
8.6
0.7
16.1
13.4
13.9
25.7
9.6
14.3
13.5
13.9
24.1
20.4
11.1
100.0
20.9
0^8
2.6
16.9
2.2
7.3
2.5
2.6
8.5
0.9
8.8
5.6
11.9
17.1
6.1
7.1
8.9
12.7
8.9
10.8
12.4
9.1
10.3
100.0
15.0
11.6
8.6
0.9
3.3
13.3
3.4
30.6
3.3
2.1
6.5
1.4
3.3
6.6
3.6
2.0
2.8
8.0
3.8
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily livestock
Crop and livestock
Miscellaneous
Percent distribntion in each economic class of farm by type:
All commercial farms
Cash-grain
Cotton
Other field-crop
Vegetablo
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than dairy and poultry
General:
Primarilv crop _
Primarily livestock
Crop and livestock
Miscellaneous
3.7
3.8
2.1
4.1
100.0
10.3
14.5
8.9
1.5
2.6
10.9
5.7
35.2
3.0
1.7
4.1
1.6
A GENERAL VIEW
39
-Average Value of Investment in Land and Buildings, Livestock Inventory, Machinery, and Total Invest'
ment for Each Type of Commercial Farm, by Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
and type, of farm
nd buildings per farm:
commercial farms
< 'asli-cnnu
Cotton
Other iii'ld-CTOp
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than dairy and poult r
General:
Primarily erop
Primarily livestock.
Crop and livestock.,
M isoellai is
All commercial I
Cash-grain.
Cotton
Other field-crop..
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry...
Livestock other than dairy and poultry.
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily hvestoek
Crop and livestock.
Miscellaneous .
All commercial (arms.
Cash-grain.
Cotton...
Other field-crop.
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy
Poultry
Livestock other than dairy and poultr.
Primarily crop
Primarily livestock.
Crop and livestock .
Miscellaneous
Total investment per farm :
All commercial farms
Cash-grain.
Cotton.
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Dairy.
Poultry
Livestock other tha
dairy and poultry.
General:
Primarily crop
Primardy livestock
Crop and livestock .
Miscellaneous
Total investment per farm:
All commercial farms
Cash-grain.
Cotton ,
Other field-crop
Vegetable
Fruit-and-nut
Poultr"7-l---- ------------------ -----
Livestock other than dairy and poultry
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily livestock
Crop and livestock
Miscellaneous
Kcooomic class of faun
.1* I
Average value (d
ollars)
28, 429
III.IM
12,970
10,44(1
38,327
134, 169
163,664
171,142
109,421
192, 184
51,510
67, 673
49,386
34,934
27,992
37, 193
20. 700
16,071
25,699
15,880
22, 397
8,593
8,788
16,490
9,829
14,402
4,570
5,727
11,334
46,252
is, .Mil
3C.!::ii3
162,497
9ft, 312
33,754
142,449
66, 059
35, 751
18,041
58, 179
33,462
20, 122
13, 091
34, 774
23,021
12.960
111, Mill
23,895
18,071
8,977
9,347
16,541
29,25)6
1!'. Mil'.
25, 499
28, 033
84! 375
128,384
85,411
55,169
39,913
50,626
40,345
28,682
24,669
29,421
25,416
15,998
15,944
18,109
17,038
12,280
1L440
13,624
3,154
2, 279
844
761
871
15,021
6,421
5,074
3,918
3,054
5, 986
3,606
2,031
2,269
850
3,697
2,479
1,264
1,206
737
2,178
1,559
795
685
589
1,327
851
551
527
491
697
3, 434
1,537
7,520
2,560
15,039
4,068
35,327
740
6, 034
2,261
11,544
450
3,872
1,551
7,197
321
2,634
1,197
248
1,801
877
3,162
1,741
3,451
3, 496
1,207
7,290
13, 502
15, 726
2,376
3. 312
6,320
6, 124
1,537
2.094
4.374
4,101
1,280
1,307
3,029
l! 125
790
2,058
1,760
808
4,291
6, 393
2, 091
1,991
0,016
15,649
19,323
18,768
19,337
24,260
8,444
9,738
7,231
7,461
8,036
5,304
3J488
3,039
4,711
3, 232
4,588
1,679
1,655
3,289
L025
1,144
2,309
4,641
4,528
2. 4111'.
6,338
14,433
15,302
6,394
14,058
6,871
8,635
3,502
8,937
3,544
6,150
2,519
6,062
3,' 481
1,992
4,180
1,955
2,421
1,625
2,829
4,835
4,336
ft, 136
3, 94(1
22, 092
15,203
19, 745
11,381
9,442
8,385
9,098
5, 491
5, 410
ft, 666
6,056
3,615
3,209
3,644
4,168
2,808
2,280
2,535
2,671
1,915
32,874
IS, 736
15,914
13,192
45, 214
164,839
189, 408
194,984
132, 676
219,498
65, 940
81,017
58,648
44,664
53,708
36,993
46,052
25,452
20,316
31, 147
21,290
28,544
11,067
11,128
20,368
13,155
18,381
6,146
7,398
14, 134
51, 590
2i'., 163
17.923
49, 221
179,490
125,653
44,216
191,834
61,670
50, 420
23,804
78,660
37,456
29,144
17, 161
48,033
25,771
19, 075
14,079
32,935
20,274
13, 199
11,849
22,532
35, 872
27. I..S3
34, 131
33, 180
219,573
111,080
163,855
99,168
S-jUiS
65,848
47, 373
36, 186
34,709
39, 578
30,311
20, 514
22, 617
25,049
20,971
15,360
15,982
15,877
16,347
lYio.'iti il^tribtition
40
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Value of Livestock
The value of livestock on farms was ascertained by multiplying
the numbers of each kind of livestock and poultry by the average
values per head. Except for regional differentials in values per
head, the computed values assume equal value per head among
livestock and poultry for each type and class of farm.
The value of livestock per farm is much greater on those types
with a major source of income from sales of livestock and livestock
products. Livestock were valued at more than $7,000 on other
livestock farms and at more than $3,000 on dairy, general livestock,
and general crop and livestock farms. A relatively small invest-
ment in livestock is shown for types of farms that have a major
source of sales from crops.
Estimated Value of Machinery
To give a more complete picture of the total investment on
farms, the value of machinery was estimated for each type and
economic class. The total value of machinery and equipment on
farms for the United States (as estimated by the Agricultural
Marketing Service and the Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture) was used as an overall guide. The
U. S. Department of Agriculture estimated the value of machinery
and equipment on farms at $15.9 billion in 1954, of which $3.7
billion was in automobiles, $1.9 billion in motortrucks, $3.2 billion
in tractors, and $7.2 billion in other machinery and equipment.
This value was distributed among types and economic classes of
farms on the basis of numbers of automobiles, trucks, tractors,
and other specified items of machinery reported by the 1954
Census of Agriculture.
Each item of farm equipment reported by the Census was as-
signed a weighting factor equivalent to its average new retail price.
These factors were adjusted to reflect differences in age of machines
on the basis of age differentials reported for automobiles, trucks,
and tractors, by economic class in the Census of 1950. The ad-
justment made for age of machine is shown below. The age
differential for tractors was applied to the weighting factor for
each item of tractor equipment.
Economic class
Automobiles
Trucks
Tractors
(Index, commercial farms= 100)
100
156
140
117
93
77
61
82
100
136
119
99
94
92
84
98
Department of Agriculture that relates size of tractor in belt horse-
power to acreage size of farm.3 The weighting factor for each
item except automobiles was adjusted by the index that is shown
below.
Index of
values (all
Acreage size farms=100)
The factors were then adjusted to further reflect a size of ma-
chine differential for each type and economic class as related to
the average acreage in farms. An index of value differentials by
acreage size of farm was computed from a report by the U. S.
All farms
Under 100 acres
100 to 199 acres
200 to 399 acres
400 to 599 acres
600 to 999 acres
1,000 acres and over.
100
85
92
100
104
108
112
The appropriate weighting factors, as adjusted for age and size
of machine, were multiplied by the number of each specified ma-
chine. The product was then adjusted to agree with the estimate
by the U. S. Department of Agriculture of value for the United
States of automobiles, separately, and of all other machinery and
equipment. Of the total value of machinery and equipment on
farms in 1954, it was estimated that $14,280 million (90 percent)
was on commercial farms.
The average investment per commercial farm in machinery and
equipment ranges from less than $2,000 on cotton and other field-
crop farms to more than $6,000 on cash-grain and vegetable farms.
By economic class, the range is from $1,000 on Class VI farms to
more than $15,000 on Class I farms.
There are even greater differences between economic classes of
farms for certain types of farms. Class VI cotton and other field-
crop farms were estimated to have an investment in machinery of
about $600 compared with nearly $20,000 on Class I farms for
these types. On the smaller economic classes of cotton and other
field-crop farms, however, the value of investment in machinery
and equipment is somewhat incomplete because of the inclusion
of cropper farms. Croppers are particularly numerous among
these types. It is customary for most of the machinery used on
cropper farms to be owned by the landlord and kept on his "home
farm." For landlords who farm on a commercial scale, their
home farms are likely to fall in larger economic classes than do
the individual cropper units.
The range in machinery value between economic classes of
poultry farms is much less than among the other types of farms.
It ranges upward from $1,000 on Class VI farms to $6,000 on Class
I farms. The items of equipment used for estimating value of
machinery are basically field-crop equipment. As such, they are
probably less representative of equipment used on poultry farms
than of most other types. Values of machinery estimated for
the larger economic classes of poultry farms are lower than for
similar classes among other types. This may be affected some-
what by the procedure for estimating value. But values shown
do not appear unreasonable in view of the somewhat different
nature of capital investment on poultry farms. Much of the
machinery is used as installations in poultry housing and becomes
incorporated into the value of land and buildings. The same is
probably true of dairy farms also.
i Br.i.icll, Albert, aw] Kcii'l.ill, Albert R., Fuel and Motor Oil Consumption and Annuo! Use of Farm Tractors, FM-72, BAE, 1'SDA,
A GENERAL VIEW
41
Total Value of Investment
Total values of farm investment are always of interest. When
the investment in land and buildings, livestock, and machinery
are combined, the total investment per commercial farm was
nearly $33,000 in 1954. Highest investment per commercial
farm is shown for cash-grain, fruit-and-nut, and livestock farms,
Table 35. — Percentage of Total Investment by Source for
Each Type of Commercial Farm, by Economic Class, for
the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
ni
rv
V
VI
100
78
13
100
82
5
13
100
83
5
12
100
80
6
15
100
85
2
13
100
91
1
8
100
70
13
100
77
14
100
74
15
11
100
5
13
100
72
12
16
100
75
10
16
100
86
3
11
100
9
100
86
3
10
100
2
9
100
84
3
14
100
1
12
100
91
7
100
76
12
12
inn
77
14
100
76
17
7
100
87
3
10
100
11
12
100
80
9
11
100
2
10
100
78
9
13
100
83
5
12
100
85
3
12
100
5
16
100
15
100
90
100
71
12
17
100
76
14
100
75
14
11
inn
5
13
100
72
12
16
100
77
[-1
100
3
10
100
76
10
14
100
80
5
14
100
82
13
100
80
6
15
100
83
2
15
inn
90
1
9
100
13
18
100
9
14
100
72
16
13
100
80
15
100
71
13
16
100
74
10
15
inn
4
11
100
76
in
15
100
78
6
16
100
78
15
100
79
6
15
100
81
3
16
100
90
1
9
100
68
14
18
inn
77
8
1!
100
73
15
13
100
79
6
15
100
71
13
16
100
7_<
11
17
100
5
13
100
75
10
15
100
5
17
100
75
9
16
100
78
7
15
100
3
16
100
90
1
100
68
14
18
100
79
14
100
73
M
13
100
80
5
15
inn
71
13
16
100
72
11
17
100
84
5
11
Value of land ami 1. nil. lings
76
Cotton.
100
Value of land and buildings
80
Value of land and buildings
81
Livestock other than dairy and poultry.
100
Value of livestock
15
General, primarily livestock
Value of land and buildings
100
73
with about $50,000 each. Lowest investment is shown for cotton
and other field-crop and poultry farms.
The lower average investment for cotton and other field-crop
farms results from the relatively large proportion of these types
that is made up of the smaller economic classes of farms. Much
greater similarity exists between types of farms in the same
economic class. For example, Class I cotton farms with a total
investment of nearly $200,000 per farm are among the highest
in capital requirements. Among each type of farm, except poultry,
the total investment on Class I farms was $100,000 or more.
Capital investment is fairly similar among types of farms
if comparisons are made by economic class. The notable depar-
tures from this are the lower capital requirements shown for poultry
farms and, among the smaller economic classes, the extremely
low capital investment on cotton and other field-crop farms. It
is to be remembered that data for these two types are influenced
by the inclusion of croppers. In general, however, the lower
capital investment is related to the small acreage in these farms
and the relatively low land values per acre.
The total capital investment in commercial farming, as esti-
mated here, was $110 billion, in 1954. The bulk of this (78
percent) was represented in the value of land and buildings.
Livestock and machinery comprised 9 percent and 13 percent,
respectively, of the total. (See table 35.)
Land and buildings represented a slightly higher proportion of
the total investment on farms having a major source of income
from crops than on farms of the livestock types.
For each type of farm, land and buildings represented a greater
proportion of the total investment on the larger economic classes.
Although total investment was much less on the smaller economic
classes, more of it was in livestock and machinery.
The distribution of total investment by economic class and by
type of farm is shown in table 36. Slightly more than a fifth of
the total investment is on Class I farms. Although these farms
produced about one-third of all farm products sold in 1954, in
terms of numbers, they accounted for only 4 percent of the com-
mercial farms. On Class I farms, the proportion of the total
investment for land and buildings was larger than for either live-
stock or machinery.
The intermediate economic classes (II, III, and IV) taken
together accounted for about two-thirds of the total investment.
They had approximately an equal value of land and buildings and
livestock and more than 70 percent of the value of machinery.
Economic Classes V and VI, which comprised a third of the
farm numbers, accounted for only 13 percent of the total invest-
ment. A slightly higher proportion of the livestock value and
machinery value, than of land and buildings, was on these forms.
Two types of farms, cash-grain and livestock, accounted for
more than half of the total investment. If the investment on
dairy farms is added, two-thirds of the total investment was on
these three types. They accounted for approximately two-thirds
of the value of land and buildings and machinery and four-fifths
of the value of livestock. Other livestock farms alone made up
half of the total livestock investment.
42
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 36. — Percent Distribution of Total Investment by
Economic Class and by Type of Farm, for the United
States: 1954
Value of
nvestment
Economic class and type of farm
Total
Land and
buildings
Livestock
inventory
Machinery
and equip-
ment
All commercial farms (million
110, 545
100. n
21.0
27.1
23.7
15.7
3 4
100.0
23.3
8.0
4.5
1.3
4.2
13.2
2.5
31.1
2.7
1.6
6.3
1.2
85, 768
100.0
22.2
27.3
23.1
15.1
8.8
3.3
100.0
24.6
8.5
L5
5.0
11.9
2.5
29.6
2.9
1.4
6.1
1.4
10, 497
100.0
19.2
25.6
24.9
16.9
9.7
3.8
100.0
11.7
4.2
2.7
0.3
0.5
17.9
2.3
49.8
1.3
2.1
6.8
0.4
Percent distribution by economic
class :
Percent distribution by type of farm :
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
Value of Farm Products Sold
The total value of farm products sold from commercial farms
amounted to $24.3 billion in 1954. The distribution of gross
sales of farm products among types of farms is more equitable
than that of land resources or the value of investment. For
example, cash-grain farms, which contained more than a third of
the harvested cropland, produced only a fifth of the farm products
sold. Livestock farms, with half the land in farms, produced only
a fourth of the farm products sold. On the other hand, dairy,
cotton, and other field-crop farms, and the less numerous highly
specialized farm types such as vegetable, fruit-and-nut, and
poultry, accounted for substantially more of the gross sales than
the amount or value of farm resources.
By economic class of farm, however, a much greater proportion
of gross sales than of farm resources is shown for the larger eco-
nomic classes. Class I farms accounted for nearly three-fourths
of the gross sales from vegetable farms and two-fifths that from
fruit-and-nut farms. (See table 37.) About two-fifths of the
gross sales from cotton, poultry, livestock, and general crop farms
was from Class I farms. In contrast, more than three-fourths of
the gross sales from dairy, general livestock, and general crop and
livestock farms, was sold from the medium-size Classes II, III,
and IV.
The average value of farm products sold per commercial farm
is shown in table 38. The average commercial farm grossed
slightly more than $7,000 in 1954. This average ranged from
about $4,000 on other field-crop farms to $16,000 on vegetable
farms.
Table 37. — Percent Distribution of Gross Sales for Each
Type of Farm by Economic Class, for the United States:
1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
n
III
IV
V
VI
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
22.3
40.8
20.8
72.6
59 3
16.4
43.7
37.8
42.0
6.8
12.3
65.1
27.5
36.4
15.1
14.4
13.2
20.8
30.1
30.2
30.2
22.8
29.7
31.7
18.0
20.9
26.1
12.2
20.7
6.9
10.8
31.0
14.2
18.1
16.1
34.1
31.8
7.7
12.4
11.1
15.2
26.6
4.3
5.9
16.1
7.0
8.7
11.7
20.2
17.1
5.2
5.8
3.5
12.7
141
2.2
5.4
3.7
4.1
6.1
7.6
6.1
3.1
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
Table 38. — Average Value of Farm Products Sold per
Farm by Type and Economic Class, for the United States:
1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Value of farm products sold per
All commercial farms
Dol-
lars
7.:i(i_>
s, ::ii'.
1.962
iiijir,::
14,409
6, 529
9,634
8,828
7,365
5, 436
6, 244
13, 189
Dollars
57,997
i,-i. ;.v2
69,744
59, 586
101,301
65, 099
511,130
49,400
58, 114
65,432
39. 1',f.'.l
47, 502
70, 963
Dol-
lars
14.883
14.77C.
15. 13)
14.939
15,458
10,083
14,178
15,727
15,246
13,478
14.26N
14.129
15,117
Dol-
lars
7,178
7,315
6, 787
6,917
7,037
7,806
7. 1199
7,359
7,296
6,579
7,145
7,165
6,845
Dol-
3,703
3. 846
3,418
3,716
3,492
4,108
3, 744
3,808
3,745
3,411
3,714
3, 689
3, 536
Dol-
1,851
1,911
1,765
1,924
1,737
2,041
1,886,
1,878
1,834
1,708
1,886
1,877
1,830
Dol-
756
Cotton
Other field-crop.
769
806
Fruit-and-nut
798
Livestock oilier than dairy
General:
Primardy livestock
Crop and livestock
812
825
The averages by economic class show the extreme range in size
of business that characterizes farming in the United States.
Class I farms are 50 to 100 times as large in business volume as
Class VI farms. The two extremes would compare Class I vege-
table farms with gross sales of more than $100,000 and Class VI
vegetable farms with gross sales of less than $700.
Since the economic classification (based on the value of farm
sales) groups farms within fairly narrow intervals of value, a close
similarity is found in the average sales for each type by economic
class. The exception is for Class I farms which contain all farms
with gross sales of $25,000 or more. The effect of the open-end
value grouping is apparent in the averages for Class I which range
from less than $40,000 to more than $100,000.
A GENERAL VIEW
43
Gross Sales Per Acre
The value of farm products sold per acre of total land in farms
is shown for types and economic classes of farms in table 39. For
commercial farms as a group, the sales per acre averaged $24 in
1954. The average for all commercial farms is weighted heavily
by cash-grain and other livestock farms. Many of these farms
are located in semiarid western regions where production per acre
is relatively low. The average sale per acre was $12 for livestock
farms and $22 for cash-grain farms in 1954.
Gross sales per acre were highest on vegetable, fruit-and-nut,
and poultry farms, averaging more than $100 per acre. All other
types ranged between $25 and $50 per acre.
Gross sales per acre decreased with decreasing size of farm.
For commercial farms as a group, Class I farms had sales per acre
about 4 times greater than Class VI farms. For some types of
farms, however, the differential between the larger and smaller
economic classes was much greater.
Table 39. — Value of All Farm Products Sold per Acre of
Total Land in Farms, by Type of Commercial Farm by
Economic Class of Farm, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of
arm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
Dot-
24
22
40
47
110
121
37
12
27
30
24
47
Dol.
30
31
68
89
159
145
99
303
51
40
119
Dol-
lars
28
26
63
111
133
53
166
15
30
57
36
39
Dol-
lars
23
20
35
56
72
108
37
92
13
22
36
25
Dol-
lars
18
15
34
47
45
76
25
55
9
18
Iti
Dol-
lars
14
28
29
26
47
15
12
13
12
Dol-
lars
8
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
Yield of Corn Per Acre Harvested
Yields of corn per acre by type and economic class of farm
substantiate the differentials in gross productivity shown pre-
viously. Corn is the most widely grown crop in the United
States. Its acreage surpasses that of any other crop. It is a
relatively important crop on most types and economic classes of
farms. Most farmers do not sell corn, except for incidental
sales; they grow it for feed. Thus, for most types of farms, corn
has relatively small influence in determining either the type or
the economic class. Exceptions, of course, are the cash-grain and
general farms on which corn is an important cash crop. The
yield of corn in a particular year influences the number of livestock
purchased, fed, and sold on livestock farms.
The yield of corn per acre harvested is shown for each type of
farm, by economic class, in table 40. The average yield for all
commercial farms was 40 bushels per acre in 1954. As would be
expected, yields were higher than average on types of farms on
which corn for feed or for sale was an important enterprise — cash-
grain, dairy, other livestock, general livestock, and general crop
and livestock farms. Yields were lowest on cotton, other field-
crop, and general crop farms.
On each type of farm, however, yields of corn were highest on
Economic Class I farms and decreased for each successively
smaller economic class. Yields on Class VI farms were approxi-
mately half those realized on Class I farms.
Table 40. — Yield per Acre of Corn Harvested for Grain,
by Type of Commercial Farm and by Economic Class of
Farm, for the United States: 1954
Type of Farm
Total
Economic class of farm
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial
Bushels
40
14
23
34
36
48
38
45
47
41
23
Bushels
64
58
23
41
47
42
55
49
57
42
63
54
25
Bushels
50
17
31
41
55
40
35
52
30
Bushels
41
42
25
35
35
50
28
60
41
21
Bushels
31
36
14
22
30
34
43
33
34
22
39
31
21
I'.usheh
24
32
12
21
23
20
33
31
28
20
33
20
Bushels
other field-crop
20
Livestock other than
dairy and poultry
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily livestock....
Crop and livestock
Miscellaneous
22
17
26
21
17
Gross Sales Per $100 of Capital Investment
For commercial agriculture as a whole, gross sales averaged
$22 in 1954 for each $100 of capital invested in land, buildings,
livestock, and machinery (see table 41). At this rate it takes
approximately 4 years of gross farm sales to equal in value the
capital invested in agriculture.
Table 41. — Value of All Farm Products Sold per $100 of
Capital Invested in Land and Buildings, Livestock, and
Machinery, by Type of Commercial Farm by Economic
Class of Farm, for the United States: 1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
1
11
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
Dollars
22
17
31
33
30
28
25
54
18
21
20
18
40
Dollars
35
24
36
45
46
37
40
112
30
30
36
29
72
Dollars
23
18
26
33
29
26
28
66
19
20
26
21
32
Hull, II.-.
19
16
27
34
23
21
24
43
18
21
18
23
Dollars
17
13
31
33
17
16
27
11
17
16
15
17
Dollars
14
10
29
26
10
8
11
12
12
Dollars
Livestock othei than dairy and
General:
Crop and livestock
Sales per unit of investment were highest on poultry farms. In
general, sales per unit of investment were higher on farms having
a major source of income from crops than from livestock types.
Cash-grain farms were the only notable exception to this; they
averaged only $17 per unit of investment.
Sales per unit of investment decrease with decreasing size.
The differentials are large for some types. Class I poultry farms,
for example, had sales per unit of investment nearly 15 times
greater than Class VI farms of this type. In contrast, the dif-
ferentials between economic classes of cotton farms were relatively
small.
44
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Gross Sales per Man-Equivalent
Gross farm sales per man-equivalent amounted to $5,000 for
all commercial farms in 1954 (see table 42). These ranged from
a high of more than $8,000 for poultry farms to a low of about
$3,000 on cotton and other field-crop farms. Cash-grain and
livestock farms, which had the lowest sales per acre, were among
the highest types in sales per man-equivalent.
Table 42. — Value of All Farm Products Sold per Man-Equiv
alent of Labor Used, by Type of Commercial Farm by
Economic Class of Farm, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
Dulhir.;
r,(un
(',. 785
2,919
2, 877
4,497
5,857
1, ."A!
8,305
6,791
4,575
4,214
4. 558
4,831
Dollars
III, TIM
14,848
S, '.CSS
c, '.137
5,685
7,292
'J, 353
18, 229
17, 772
8,251
III, tr,l
111.97(1
5,774
D„ll„,t,
s, 223
i-.! 147
C, 173
4,306
6,115
7.197
10, 998
9,470
6,511
8, -143
8. 1211
5,399
Dollars
5, 0211
5,947
3,517
3, 864
3,518
4,848
4, 8(12
6,512
5,486
4,300
5,032
5, (140
4,123
Dollars
2, 010
3. 840
2,035
2,477
2,442
3,668
2, 005
4,051
3,344
2,729
2, 0 18
2, 028
3,048
Dollars
1,008
2,3112
1,261
1,50(1
1,608
2,373
1,700
2,439
2,084
1,708
1,700
1,754
2,128
Dollars
727
Livestock other than daily und
General:
Sales per man-equivalent were highest on Class I farms for
each type. They decreased substantially for each successively
smaller economic class. For each type of farm the differential
between economic classes is fairly similar. Each successively
smaller economic class had gross sales per man-equivalent only
half to two-thirds that of the economic class above it. Gross
sales per man-equivalent for Class I farms was 10 to 20 times
greater than for Class VI farms.
Limitations of Relating Sales to Resources
Comparisons of gross productivity per unit of farm resources
do not take account of farm expenses. The proportion of farm
sales that is net varies by type of farm as well as between economic
classes within each type. The effect of these variations is prob-
ably more important between types of farm, however, than be-
tween classes of the same type. Farm expenses and the propor-
tion they comprise of gross farm sales are discussed later in this
report.
In addition, sales per unit of resources between economic
classes of farms are affected by classification on the basis of sales
in the particular year. They may have been higher or lower
than normal because of chance factors.
In view of the wide differentials between economic classes of
farms shown in the preceding tables, it is reasonable to conclude
that resources are used to greater efficiency on the larger economic
classes. The precise amount of these differentials, however,
cannot be determined from the existing data.
Investment per Man-Equivalent
Differences in gross productivity per worker between types and
economic classes of farms may be partly attributable to differences
in the amount of other resources at the disposal of workers on
these farms. The capital investment discussed previously,
provides an indication of the total nonlabor resources. The
capital investment per farm was divided by the man-equivalents
per farm to provide the data shown in table 43.
The investment per man-equivalent worker for commercial
agriculture as a whole was about $22,000 in 1954. For cash-grain
and livestock farms the average was nearly $40,000. The lowest
average investment per worker was on cotton and other field-crop
farms, an average of less than $10,000.
By economic class of farm, the highest investment per worker
was on Classes I and II. This was true for all types except
vegetable farms. For vegetable farms the investment per worker
was highest in Class III.
Investment per worker decreased with decreasing size of farm;
the lowest investment was found on Class VI farms. The
exception is that investment per worker was higher on Class II
than on Class I for all types except cash-grain and cotton farms.
Class II farms are mostly family operated. That is, the farm
operator and members of his family comprise most of the labor
force. These farms as a group typify the large, up-to-date,
highly mechanized family farms. Many Class I farms also are
operated primarily with family labor, but included in this group
are larger farms that hire most of the farm work done.
Apparently Class II farms have reached sufficient size to
achieve reasonably efficient use of most modern innovations
designed to increase output and decrease labor needs. The
income and credit positions of families on Class II farms have
probably been sufficient to enable them to make profitable invest-
ments in productive land, modern buildings, and other capital
items. Workers on these farms have capital resources to work
with that are equal to or greater than that of workers on Class I
farms.
Table 43. — Capital Investment in Land and Buildings,
Livestock and Machinery per Man-Equivalent of Labor
Used, by Type of Commercial Farm by Economic Class of
Farm, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic olass of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial
Dollars
22,516
"\l. 301
8,736
12, 665
20, 972
is. 377
15, 461
22,281
21,401
21.013
12,154
Dollars
30, 113
01,000
25. 127
15.415
12, 318
19, 921
23, 1 13
16, 316
68, 665
27, 689
20. 300
37,812
8,069
Dollars
30,431
53, 054
23, 300
1.8, 450
14,960
23,449
25, 504
16,646
48,857
32, 813
32,318
37,841
16, 919
Dollars
37,' 4 11
13, 18S
11,350
15, 574
23, 265
10, 002
15, 187
36, 115
23,651
24, 443
27, 872
18,260
Dollars
10,704
28,541
6,588
7,419
14, 243
23, 010
15.200
14,978
29, 406
16, 411
17,050
10.880
18, 078
Dollars
12,000
22. 1-10
4,390
6,114
13,087
23, 574
12,570
15,388
25,605
15,350
15,221
14,838
19, 008
Dollars
4,489
Fruit-and-nut
13, 221
8,670
Livestock other than
dairy and poultry
General:
Primarily crop
Primarily livestock,. .
Crop and livestock
14,061
10, 553
11,300
9,77(1
10,720
A GENERAL VIEW
45
TOTAL FARM EXPENSES
Data on total farm expenses are available from a farm expendi-
ture survey taken in the spring of 1956 by the Bureau of the
Census and the Agricultural Marketing Service which has pro-
vided needed information on the production expenses of farmers.
In this survey a sample of approximately 6,600 farmers answered
detailed questions covering their farm expenses for the calendar
year 1955. For an explanation of the sample design and pro-
cedure and for an estimate of the sampling error, see volume III,
part 11.
One tabulation obtained from the survey was by type of farm
and by selected economic classes of farms. The average per farm
of the major categories of farm expenses by type of farm arc
shown in table 44. These farm expenses relate to 1955. Other
data on farm and farm-operator characteristics contained in this
report are from the 1954 Census of Agriculture and relate to 1954.
For this reason direct comparison of the two sets of data would
not be meaningful. Also, the farm expenses obtained in the
survey included expenses incurred for family living that ordinarily
would not be charged against the farm business. (See footnotes
to table 44.) In addition, the production expenses for cropper
farms obtained in the survey were included in the economic class
in which the landlord's home farm was tabulated.
Data from the survey are useful primarily in showing the relative
magnitude of categories of farm expenses for different types and
sizes of farms and the proportions these categories comprise of
total farm expenses. These relationships may also be useful in
examination of the specified expense items obtained by the 1954
Census of Agriculture. An attempt is made later in this report to
indicate the extent to which the Census specified expense items are
representative of total farm expenses for the different types and
economic classes of farms.
Table 44. — Cash Farm Expenditures: Average per Farm by Type of Farm by Economic Class, for the United States: 1955
Expenditure by economic class of farm
ALL CLASSES
Total expenditures
Cash wages
Machine hire and cnstomwork
Livestock and poultry purchased.
Feed for livestock and poultry
Dollars
12,. '171
4,414
Seeds, plants, and trees
Commercial fertilizer and liming materials
Petroleum product--, farm business share i.
Repair and other operating costs for motor vehicles and farm ma-
chinery'
Marketing costs -
Miscellaneous current operating oxpen-e, not included elsewhere '
Property taxes, farm business share *
Interest, farm business share »
Constiuotion mid land improvement'
Purchase of motor vehicles, farm machinery and equipment 7._ ..
CLASSES I AND II
Total expenditures—
("ash iiaees
Machine lure mid cnstomwork.- -
Livestock and poultry purchased
Feed for livestock and poultry
Seeds, plant", and trees-_
Commercial fertilize] and limine materials
Petroleum products, farm business share '
Kepair and oilier operating costs for motor vehicles and farm ;
chinery 3 _.
Marketing costs -
Miscellaneous current upending expense, not included elsewhere '
Property taxi's, farm business share *
Interest, farm business share >
Construction mid land improvement'
Purchase of motor vehicles, farm machinery and equipment T
1,957
2,046
CLASSICS HI THROUGH VI
Total expenditures ,
Cash wages
Machine lure and cnstomwork
Livestock and poultry purchased.
Feed for livestock and poultry
Seeds, plants, and trees-
Commercial fertilizer and limine materials
Petroleum products, farm business share '
Repair and other operating costs for mob
chinery '
Marketing costs
vehicles and farm
Miscellaneous current op.aatiug expense, not included elsewhere '
Property taxes, farm business share *
Interest, farm business share > _..
Construction mid land improvement'- _ _
Purchase of motor vehicles, farm machinery and equipment 7
1 Expenditures minus tax refunds. Includes expenditures attributable to uses other I ban farm business.
' Includes repairs, icplaccmcnl parts, accessories, registration far. and insurani n vehicles. Includes expenditures attributable to uses oilier than farm lni,.moss.
» Medicine, disinti etaiils, pesticides, electricity, telephone service, insurance, hand loots, and miscellaneous farm business expenses (management sei vices, recordkeeping, legal
fees, advertising expenses, etc.).
1 Includes some properly laves on furniture and other household goods attributable to family li
* Includes interest on debt contiacted lor family living expenses.
'■ Kxrludes expend) tines by landlords, excludes expenditures for construction and repair of
' Purchase cost minus value of trade-in and sales. Includes expenditures atti Unliable to uses other than farm business.
oiling except, for multi-unit t
46
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Cash wages. — The expenditure for hired labor amounted to
$764 for the average commercial farm in 1955 and comprised
about a tenth of the total farm expenses. Cash wages were a
much more important expense on some types of farms than others.
In general, cash-grain farms and types of farms having a major
source of income from livestock products had relatively small
expense for hired labor, amounting to 7 percent or less of the total
expenses. (See table 45.) On farms with a major source of
income from crops (except cash-grain farms) cash wages ranged
from nearly a fifth to a fourth or more of the total farm expenses.
The farm expenses have been tabulated into two economic
class groups — Classes I and II, which combine all farms with sales
of farm products valued at $10,000 or more, and Classes III, IV,
V, and VI, a combination of commercial farms that had sales of
farm products valued at less than $10,000.
Cash wages comprised a higher proportion of total expenses
on the larger economic classes of farms than on the smaller
classes — 14 percent and 7 percent, respectively, for all types taken
together. A similar relationship existed between the two size
groups for each type individually.
Table 45. — Cash Farm Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Farm Expenditures,
Farm, for the United States: 1955
Type of Farm, by Economic Class of
All
cial
farms
Type of farm
Cash-
grain
Cotton
Other
field-
crop
table
Fruit-
and-
Dairy
Poul-
try
Live-
stock
other
poultry
General—
Pri-
marily
crop
Pri-
m.'U'ilv
live-
stock
live-
stock
Mis-
cella-
ALL CLASSES
Percent
100.0
10.8
2.3
10.8
17.2
3.4
5.4
8.5
6.1
4.7
6.9
3.2
2.3
5.3
13.1
100.0
14.2
1.7
13.7
18.2
3.1
5.2
5.2
5.2
7.2
2.7
2.0
10^5
100.0
6.9
3.1
7.5
16.2
3.8
5.6
11.1
7.2
4.1
6.5
3.8
2.6
5.6
15.9
Percent
100.0
3^1
8.2
7.2
4.6
6.8
12.3
9.5
2.8
6.6
4.1
2.5
5.2
20.4
100.0
9.1
2.6
6^7
4.6
7.9
10.8
9.4
3.0
3^5
2.1
5.7
18.9
100.0
4.8
3.6
8.0
7.6
4.5
2^5
6.2
4.6
3.0
4.8
21.7
Percent
100.0
23.4
2.9
3.6
3.1
3.5
7.0
9.6
7.0
8.2
7.6
1.5
2.4
4.7
15.7
100.0
27.4
2.8
3.2
1.8
3.4
6.9
7.9
6.6
8.8
9.8
1.5
2.3
5.1
12.4
100.0
18.2
3.0
4.0
4.7
3.5
7.3
11.8
7.4
7.3
4.8
2^5
4.4
19.8
Percent
100.0
19.4
2.8
3.0
4.3
5.5
11.2
9.9
6.7
5.8
7.8
2.3
2.2
6.1
13.1
1110. 0
29.3
2.2
3.0
2.3
6.2
10.0
5.7
5.3
6.7
10.4
2.5
2.0
8^0
100.0
10.5
3.3
6.1
4.9
12.2
13.7
7.9
4.9
5.4
2.2
2.3
5.9
17.7
11.0 0
27.5
1.1
1.0
1.4
6.3
9.8
5.9
4.9
17.8
8.6
3.0
1.5
5.7
5.6
100.0
30.7
1.0
0.7
1.0
4.7
11.1
4.2
4.2
21.3
8.3
2.2
1.4
4.3
5.1
100.0
L4
1.6
2.3
9.9
7.2
6.4
10.0
9.4
1.5
8.8
6.6
1011 II
29.5
1.2
1.3
2.5
1.9
6.8
5.7
4.5
14.8
11.4
3.6
1.6
4.8
10.5
100.0
32.2
lie
2.0
1.3
6.6
4.7
4.2
17.4
11.8
3.4
1.4
4.7
8.1
100.0
23.2
1.9
0.6
3.9
3.6
7.4
8.1
5.3
8.8
10.4
3.9
2.0
5.0
15.9
mil i'i
7.3
2.5
5.3
25.1
2.8
4.2
8.4
6.8
4.9
7.4
3.7
2.6
5.6
14.5
100.0
11.8
1.4
5. 6
30.8
2.3
4.1
4.4
4.7
7.3
2.7
2.2
5.2
12.1
100.0
4.5
3.1
5.1
21.5
3.1
10^2
6.6
5.0
4.4
2.8
5.8
16.0
Percent
100.0
4.0
0.6
12.8
68.2
0.7
1.2
3.8
L8
4.0
1.4
1.3
3.9
4.5
100.0
5.0
12! 5
61.3
0.5
0.8
2.6
1.4
1.7
3.9
1.1
1.3
3.6
4.0
100.0
1.9
13! 3
61.9
1.2
2.0
6.2
3.4
1.9
4.2
1.9
1.3
4.5
5.3
Percent
100.0
2.0
22.0
20.0
2.6
3.9
7.1
5.3
2.7
6.2
3.6
2.5
5.3
10.3
100.0
7.7
1.3
29.1
20.4
2.1
3.3
5.2
4.4
2.5
5.9
3.1
2.3
4.3
8.4
100.0
4.7
3.0
12.0
19.5
3.4
9i 9
6.6
3.0
6.6
4.3
2.6
6.6
13.0
l'l'irt'nt
100.0
17.6
3.7
4.6
3.8
5.1
9.2
9.8
6.4
6.1
9.3
2.5
1.9
5.8
14.4
100.0
21.2
3.3
5.2
2.4
4.6
8.8
7.8
6.1
8.3
10.6
2.1
1.5
5.8
12.4
100.0
11.7
4.3
3.5
6.1
5.8
9.6
13.2
6.8
2.5
7.1
3.3
2.5
5.7
17.9
toil 0
4.4
3.0
7.1
23.7
3.4
9^9
6.3
3.7
6.8
3.8
2.2
5.7
15.4
100.0
8.3
1.7
6.9
25.1
2.9
6.2
7.1
5.6
3.5
6.9
3.0
1.2
6.4
15.1
100.0
2.9
3.5
7.2
23.1
3.6
10^9
6.6
3.8
6.8
4.2
2.6
5. 4
15.5
Pliant
100.0
7.1
3.3
9.2
13.8
4.3
6.7
10.6
7.5
4.2
7.0
3.5
2.4
6.4
13.9
100.0
10.4
2.4
13.1
13.5
3.5
7.3
7.6
6.2
4.5
6.9
2.8
2.6
6.7
12.6
100.0
i.O
6.6
14.1
4.8
6.4
12.7
8.5
3.9
4^0
2.3
6.3
14.8
Pinrnt
Repair and other oporathii; costs fur motor vehicles and farm ma-
Miscellaneous current operating expense, not included elsewhere3.. .
8.0
Purchase of motor vehicles, faun machinery and equipment ;...__
CLASSES I AND II
7.5
Livestock and poultry putcha-ed
0.8
15.0
Commercial fertilizer and 1 1 1 1 1 1 n ur materials
3.8
4.9
Repair and other operating costs for motor vehicles and farm ma-
1.9
Miscellaneous current operator.' expense, not included elsewhere 3._
8.2
2.1
1.2
6.4
Purchase of motor vehicles, farm machinery and. equipment7
CLASSES III THROUGH VI
4.8
100.0
16.6
1.7
1.1
7.2
Seeds, plants, and frees.
11.4
5.1
10.8
Repair and other operating co-is for motor vehicles and farm ma-
6.5
6.3
Miscellaneous current operating expense, not included elsewhere..
7.3
3.7
Purchase of motor vehicles, farm machinery and equipment '
15.9
repair;
3 Medicine, disinfectants, pesticides, electricity, telephone sol \ ice, insurance, hand tools, and miscellaneous faun business expenses (management
fees, advertising expenses, etc.).
< Includes some pinj iert> taxes on fin nil u ml oilier household roods at nil m table to family living expenses.
* Includes interest on debt contracted for family lix Hit' expenses.
• Excludes expenditures by landlords, excludes expend nines en ■const met ion and repair of opei at 01's duel line except for mulli mill tenant farms.
» Purchase cost minus value of trade-in and sales. Includes expenditures at tributable to use:- other than farm business.
A GENERAL VIEW
-17
Of the tot ill rush wages ]i:ud m r01111iMTn.1l agnciill ill f ■, cotton
farms accounted for slightly more than ;i fifth — a larger proportion
than any other type (see table 46). The next highest users of
hired labor were livestock farms other than dairy and poultry
which accounted for slightly less than a fifth of the cash wages
paid.
Machine hire. — The expenditure for machine hire was relatively
small for each type and size of farm. It amounted to $165 for
commercial farms as a group and accounted for only 2 percent of
the total expenses. By type of farm there was small variation.
For each type of farm, however, machine hire was a higher pro-
portion of total expenses on the smaller economic classes of farms.
Operators of the smaller farms frequently have insufficient acreage
to utilize certain items of farm machinery efficiently. This indi-
cates a tendency on the part of many to hire machine work done
on a custom basis.
Purchase of livestock and poultry. — About three-fifths of the
total expenditures for livestock and poultry purchases by com-
mercial farmers in 1955 was accounted for by livestock farms
other than dairy and poultry — an average of nearly $2,000 per
farm. On farms of this type the purchase of livestock and
poultry was the largest single expense item and it amounted to
more than a fifth of the total farm expenses. On other types of
farms the proportion of this expense to total expenses ranged
from 13 percent for poultry farms to only 1 percent for vegetable
and fruit-and-nut farms.
Among types of farms having a major source of income from
crops, the expense for purchase of livestock and poultry was largest
on cash-grain farms. This is an indication of the importance of
livestock feeding as a secondary farm enterprise for farmers who
raise and sell grains, especially feed grains.
For most types of farms there are no appreciable differences
between the larger and smaller farms in the proportion of total
farm expenses comprised by the purchase of livestock and poultry.
The exception is found among livestock farms other than dairy
and poultry. On the larger economic classes for this type 29
percent of the total farm expense was for purchase of livestock
and poultry compared with only 12 percent on the smaller economic
Many more of the larger livestock farms purchase cattle and
hogs and feed them for resale. In fact, this causes some of them
to be classified in the larger economic classes even though the net
income is no more than that of some farmers in the smaller
economic classes who raise a larger part of their livestock.
Feed for livestock and poultry. — This is the largest single
expense item for commercial farmers. Their feed bill amounted
to about $1,200 per commercial farm in 1955 and made up 17
percent of the total expenses. The heaviest users of purchased
feed were dairy, poultry, and other livestock farms. The three
types taken together accounted for four-fifths of the feed purchased
by commercial farmers.
Feed purchased was by far the most important expense for
poultry farmers, comprising 58 percent of their total expenses.
A fourth of the total expenses of dairy and general livestock
farmers and a fifth of the total expenses of other livestock farmers
went for feed.
For poultry, dairy, and other livestock farms the expenditure
for feed comprised a greater proportion of the total expenses on
the larger economic classes of farms. For other types (on which
feed was not an important expense item) the smaller economic
classes had greater proportionate expenses for feed.
Seeds, plants, and trees. — The expenditure for seed, plants,
and trees made up only 3 percent of the total farm expenses. This
ranged from less than 1 percent on poultry farms to about 6 per-
cent on vegetable farms. There was small variation between
the larger and smaller economic classes of farms in this respect.
Commercial fertilizer and liming materials. — The average com-
mercial farmer spent $385 for fertilizer and lime in 1955. This
represents less than 6 percent of the total expenses. The largest
expenditure was made by vegetable farmers who averaged $1,500
each, followed by fruit-and-nut farmers who spent $750 each.
As a proportion of total expenses, however, the largest share (11
percent) was spent on fertilizer and lime by other field-crop farmers.
Of the total commercial fertilizers and liming material pur-
chased, about a fifth each was used on cash-grain farms and live-
stock farms other than dairy and poultry. Between 10 and 15
percent each was used on cotton, other field-crop, and dairy
farms. These 5 types accounted for about four-fifths of the
fertilizers and liming material used.
Table 46. — Percent Distribution of Each Expenditure by Type of Farm, for the United States: 1955
Expenditure by economic class of fan
Other
field-
crop
Total expenditures
Cash w»ges...
Machine hire and customwork.
Livestock and poult; v purchased
Feed for livestock and poultry
Seeds, plants, and trees
Commercial fertiliz.-r ami limine; materials
Petroleum product-, tat m ti'riui'-s -hare _
Repair and other operating costs for motor vehicles and farm
machinery
Marketing costs __.
Miscellaneous current nperatine expense, not incl ided elsewhere-
Property taxes, farm business share
Interest, farm business share
Construction and land improvement
Purchase of motor vehicles and farm machinery and equipment
48
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Fuel, repairs, and other operating costs for motor vehicles and
farm machinery. — Operating costs for motor vehicles and farm
machinery amounted to more than $1,000 per commercial farm
and comprised nearly 15 percent of the total farm expenses in 1955.
This proportion ranged from 22 percent on cash-grain farms to
only 6 percent on poultry farms. Two types of farms, cash-grain
and livestock farms other than dairy and poultry accounted for more
than a third each of the total expenditure for operating costs.
For each type of farm the operating costs were a greater pro-
portion of the total expenses on the smaller economic classes of
farms than on the larger ones. The data are influenced by the
inclusion of fuel and upkeep for the family automobile, an item
found on most farms in 1955. Operating costs for automobiles
would tend to be greater, relative to other machinery expenses for
the smaller farms than for the larger ones. However, the data
are probably indicative of the problems encountered by many
operators of small farms in utilizing machinery efficiently. In
general, they have lagged behind the operators of larger farms in
their use of machinery. But even at their present levels of mech-
anization the smaller farms spent more proportionately for
operation of machinery than the larger ones.
Marketing costs. — These amounted to only 5 percent of the
total farm expenses for commercial farms as a group. Marketing
costs were a more important expense item for vegetable farms and
fruit-and-nut farms than other types. These costs comprised
18 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the total farm ex-
penses. Cotton farmers also had relatively high marketing costs
amounting to 8 percent of all expenditures.
Miscellaneous farm operating expenses. — These include a num-
ber of expense items not included elsewhere. The major items
are expenses for medicine and disinfectants, pesticides, electricity,
telephone service, insurance, hand tools, and miscellaneous farm
business expenses (management services, recordkeeping, legal fees,
advertising expenses, etc.).
These expenses comprised 7 percent of the total cash farm ex-
penses in 1955 for commercial farms as a group. They were a
fairly constant proportion of the total expenses for most types
ranging from a high of 11 percent on fruit-and-nut farms to a low
of 4 percent on vegetable farms.
Property taxes and interest. — About 6 percent of the total cash
expenses of commercial farmers were for these expenses. There
was small variation between the types and economic classes of
farms in this respect.
Capital expenditures. — The total expenditures for 1955 included
two items of capital expenditure: (1) Payment for construction
and land improvement and (2) purchase of motor vehicles and
farm machinery. These items are not generally included in
current farm operating expenses. Their costs are more properly
spread over a period of years.
The capital expenditure items are included here with the total
cash expenses, largely as a matter of convenience. However, the
purchase of capital equipment is largely for replacement of exist-
ing equipment. It is probable that the total cash outlay for
capital equipment by farmers in any one year approximates the
cost that might be attributed to depreciation of all capital equip-
ment on farms for the 1-year period. It is an overstatement
of depreciation to the extent that these purchases represent an
increase in the total investment of farmers.
The cost for construction and land improvements made up
about 5 percent of the total cash expenses of commercial farmers.
This was a fairly constant proportion of the total expenses for
each type of farm. The proportion of total expenses that were
for construction and land improvement was slightly greater on
the smaller than on the larger economic classes for most types
of farms.
The purchase of motor vehicles and farm machinery was one of
the largest cash expenses of commercial farmers in 1955, com-
prising 13 percent of the total cash expenses. This expense varied
considerably by type of farm. It amounted to a fifth of the total
expenses of cash-grain farmers and was the largest single expense.
Each type of farm reported 10 percent or more of the total cash
expenses for purchase of motor vehicles and farm machinery
except vegetable farms and poultry farms.
The proportion of total expenses that went for purchase of
motor vehicles and farm machinery was much greater on the
smaller economic classes of farms than on the larger ones — half
again to twice as much for most types of farms.
Total Motor Vehicle and Machinery Expenses
When the costs for purchase of motor vehicles and farm ma-
chinery are added to the expenses for fuel, repairs, and other
operating costs, it is apparent that these comprised the major
cash expenditure of commercial farmers in 1955. The expenses
for purchase and operation of motor vehicles and farm ma-
chinery are shown as a proportion of the total cash expenses in
table 47. These costs made up 28 percent of the total cash ex-
penses of commercial farmers. They comprised from a fourth
to two-fifths of the total on all except vegetable, fruit-and-nut,
and poultry farms.
Table 47- — Expenses for Purchase and Operation of Motor
Vehicles, Farm Machinery, and Equipment ' as a Per'
centage of total farm expenditure, by type and eco'
nomic Class of Commercial Farm, for the United States:
1955
Total
Economic class
of farm
Type of farm
I and II
III
thrnu^l:
VI
27.7
42.1
32.3
29.7
16.3
20.7
28.7
10.2
22.7
30.6
31.6
32.0
17.0
Percent
39^2
27.0
19.0
13.4
17.0
8.0
18.0
26.2
27.8
26.4
11.6
Percent
General:
On the smaller economic classes the proportions were even
higher, accounting for a third or more of the total expenses for
most types of farms. In Economic Classes III through VI motor
vehicle and machinery costs amounted to 45 percent of the total
cash farm expenses for cash-grain farmers and 39 percent for
cotton and other field-crop farmers.
A GENERAL VIEW
49
Census Specified Expenses
The 1954 Census of Agriculture obtained data on the following
farm expenditure items: Hired labor, machine hire, feed for
livestock and poultry, gasoline and other petroleum fuel and oil,
and commercial fertilizers and liming material. The individual
expense items obtained by the Census for type by economic class
of farm are not shown separately in this chapter but appear in
volume III, part 8, of the Census of Agriculture.
The average per farm of the total specified expenses and the
proportion they comprise of the total value of farm products sold
are shown for each type of farm by economic class in table 48.
By type of farm the average expenditure ranged from about
$1,300 for other field-crop farms to over $7,000 for vegetable and
poultry farms. The specified farm expenses amounted to 37
percent of the value of farm products sold for commercial farms
as a group, but this varied considerably by type of farm — from
a fourth on cash-grain farms to nearly three-fourths on poultry
farms. Also, the specified expenses were higher, relative to sales,
on the smaller economic classes of farms for most types. This is
influenced by the higher proportion of the farm products pro-
duced on these farms that are consumed in the home rather than
sold.
Table 48. — Specified Farm Expenses, Average per Farm and
as a Percentage of the Total Value of Farm Products
Sold, by Type of Farm by Economic Class, for the
United States: 1954
Specified expenses per farm: '
All commercial farms dolla
Cash-grain do.
Cotton... do.
Other field-crop do.
Vegetable do.
Fruit-and-nut do.
Dairy. do
Poultry... do.
Livestock other than dairy a
poultry dolla
General:
Primarily crop do.
Primarily livestock do.
Crop and livestock do.
Miscellaneous do.
Specified expenses as a percent of
the value of farm products sold :
All commercial farms percent-.
Cash-grain... do
Cotton _ do
Other field-crop do
Vegetable do
Fruit-and-nut do
Dairy do
Poultry ...do
Livestock other than dairy and
poultry percent..
General:
Primarily crop _
Primarily livestock.
Crop and livestock..
Miscellaneous
Ki-oni.mic class nf 1 u in
.'1,'JnH
l!i. 4' hi
II,. m,.-,
'-'.-,,1,74
II III IV
1 Includes the following expenses: Cash wages, machine hire, feed for livestock and
poultry, fuel and other petroleum products, and commercial fertilizer and liming
materials.
Relation of Census Specified Expenses to Total Farm Expenses
The 1954 Census of Agriculture obtained specified farm ex-
penses for the year 1954. Data from the Farm Expenditure
Survey relate to 1955. Because of the different years involved
the two series of data may not be compared directly. However,
in the light of data from the Farm Expenditure Survey it is
possible to make a meaningful evaluation of the Census specified
expenses to appraise how representative they are of total ex-
penses. For this purpose, the categories of expenses from the
Farm Expenditure Survey which correspond to the Census speci-
fied items have been computed as a proportion of total current
cash expenses (exclusive of capital expenditures). These per-
centages for types of farms by specified economic classes are
shown in table 49.
On the basis of relationships from the Farm Expenditure Sur-
vey, the farm expenses obtained by the 1954 Census of Agriculture
comprised slightly more than half of the total cash farm expenses
of commercial farmers. The Census specified expenses accounted
for a high of approximately three-fourths of the total expenses
for poultry farmers and nearly three-fifths for those of cotton,
other field-crop, dairy, and general livestock farmers. In con-
trast, these expenses amounted to less than half of the total
expenses of cash-grain and other livestock producers.
There was little difference in tins respect between the two size
groups for most types of farms. Notable exceptions are dairy
farms and other livestock farms. Among dairy farms the Census
specified expenses accounted for a greater proportion of total ex-
penses for the larger economic classes. This was due partly to the
higher expenditure for feed reported by the larger farms. For
other livestock farms the Census specified expenses comprised a
greater proportion of total expenses on the smaller economic
classes. This was partly because the Census specified expenses
did not include the expense for purchase of livestock and poultry.
As mentioned previously, this was a much more important ex-
pense on the larger than on the smaller economic classes of farms.
Table 49. — Specified Group of Farm Expense Items as a
Percentage of the Total Cash Farm Expenses, by Type
of Farm by Economic Class, for the United States: 1955 '
Total
Economic class of
farm
Type of farm
I and II
III
through
Percent
54.2
48.6
57.8
58.9
51.5
53.9
69.3
73.9
46.8
55.2
57.7
62.2
66.9
Percent
53.8
49.3
66.8
57.8
52.8
53.0
64.7
75.9
43.4
53.1
61.7
51.0
68.2
Percent
General:
' The following expenses, cash wages, machine hue f 1 foi livestock and poultry,
fuel and other petroleum jiroilucts, and commercial fertilizer and liming materials,
were divided by the total cash farm . \|,eiis, s lexchcUng those foi construction, land
improvement, and purchase of motor vehicles, farm machinery and equipment).
50
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Estimated Value Added
It is not possible with existing data to make precise determina-
tions of productivity and returns for types and economic classes
of commercial farms. There are several important limitations.
Foremost of these is that the specified farm expenses obtained in
the Census of 1954 are not equally representative of total expenses
for different types and economic classes of farms. An additional
limitation is that data on farm sales obtained by the Census are
not complete, largely because of omissions by farmers in the
reporting of sales of livestock and livestock products. Still
another limitation relates to the fact that the classifications of
farms by type and by economic class are based on the value of
farm products sold in the particular year 1954. Thus, a farm's
type or economic class is affected by any abnormalities in yields
or sales from inventories as well as the relative price relationships
between commodities in 1954.
Notwithstanding these limitations, an attempt has been made
here to estimate differences between types and economic classes
of farms in the value of farm products sold minus the cost of the
material and contract services used in producing the products.
This is an approximation of the value added by agriculture and
will be referred to hereafter as value added.
The estimate of value added was made in order to provide
additional insight into the structural differences in farming.
Technological changes in farming have brought about a sub-
stantial increase in farm production but this has been accompanied
by larger cash costs in farming. Farmers now purchase many
materials for use in further production that they formerly pro-
duced for themselves. The value of products sold is not a satis-
factory measure of the relative productivity of a given type or
size of farm because only a part of this value is actually created
within the farm. Value added, as used here, attempts to correct
for the widely different input-output relationships that exist in
respect to types and sizes of farms. It is thought that the esti-
mate of value added may be useful for a broad appraisal of pro-
ductivity differentials within the various segments of commercial
agriculture.
In developing the estimate of value added, the Census specified
expenses (excluding cash wages) were expanded to reflect several
additional expense items. The expansion was made on the basis
of data from the Farm Expenditure Survey, discussed previously.
The adjusted expenses for each type and economic class of farm
were then subtracted from the total value of farm products sold.
The Census expense items — machine hire, feed for livestock
and poultry, gasoline and other petroleum fuel and oil, and com-
mercial fertilizer and liming materials — were expanded to include
expenditures for the following items: Livestock and poultry,
seeds, plants and trees, and repairs and other operating costs for
motor vehicles and farm machinery. The factor used in expanding
the Census expense items was the percentage the former 4 items
comprised of the larger category of 7 items as determined by data
from the Farm Expenditure Survey. These percentages for each
type of commercial farm are as follows:
Type of farm
S"
Type of farm
sion
Percent
56^8
61.8
64.9
67^7
74.3
80.4
All commercial farms— Con.
Livestock uihcr than dairy
and poultry.
General, primarily crop
General. priinunh livestock
General, crop ami livestock.
Percent
62.3
Vegetable
71.0
The totals of the Census expense items (excluding cash wages)
for each type of farm by economic class were divided by the
percentages shown in the previous table. The expanded expendi-
ture data were then subtracted from the value of farm products
sold.
It will be noted that the farm expenses, as adjusted, do not
include several items commonly included in current cash expenses;
namely, marketing charges, interest, taxes, and other miscella-
neous expenses. Interest and taxes are quite properly excluded
from the value added concept. These are charges to capital and
do not represent materials used in further production. Marketing
cost and other miscellaneous farm expenses would normally be
deducted.
Marketing costs were omitted because of the possible duplication
of this expense in the value of farm products sold. The total
value of farm products, as reported by the Census, has some of
the marketing charges deducted. Farmers, in reporting their
sales of farm products are likely to report the value received after
freight, handling, and commission charges have been deducted.
Under the procedure employed by the Census of Agriculture, each
farmer was asked to report the value of livestock, livestock prod-
ucts, vegetables, horticultural specialities, and forestry products
sold. It is believed that the values reported for these products
tend to have a large part of the marketing costs deducted. On
the other hand, for field crops and .fruits and nuts, each farmer
reported the quantity sold and the market value was computed
as part of the office procedure by applying average unit prices.
Values computed on this basis would more nearly represent
market values before any deduction.
Miscellaneous farm expenses (not included elsewhere) were
excluded from the estimate because this category is composed of
a large variety of minor items. Some of these include expenses
not attributable to the farm business; others are capital and
management services whose inclusion would be questionable. It
was believed that exclusion of this category would not affect
greatly the comparability of the estimates between types and
The value added per farm is shown in table 50. Value added,
as estimated here, amounted to $4,088 per commercial farm in
1954. This was 56 percent of the gross value of farm products
sold. By type of farm, value added was highest for vegetable and
fruit-and-nut farms, averaging about $12,000 per farm. These
types were also highest in the average value of farm products
sold. (See table 26 for comparisons.) Poultry farms, also among
the highest in the average value of farm products sold, were
lowest in the value added, averaging only $1,300 per farm. Most
other types ranged between $3,000 and $5,000 in value added.
Table 50. — Estimated Value Added per Farm by Type of
Farm by Economic Class, for the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
Dollars
1.IISS
'i. 53.1
3,011(1
11,553
12, 146
3, 303
1,324
3,936
4.742
2,556
3. 2117
10, 749
Hollo, x
37, 155
31,0111
52, S01
45. (US
76,956
25! 53 1'
11. 432
32, 230
47, 787
10, 12S
311.720
62, 101
Hollo, s
s, 317
10.010
Id. lino
10, 40S
10,561
13, 510
7,493
1,966
7,309
8,716
7,568
8, 10,4
12,051
Ihilhrs
3. 700
4.431
4, 720
4. SSS
4,336
6,273
3,679
604
2,813
3,909
3,0(10
3, S12
Dollars
1.S37
2.015
2. 373
2. 651
1,960
3,146
1,819
151
943
1,814
1.5*10
1,607
2,079
Dollar*
709
1, 168
1,317
739
1,421
765
114
769
576
606
849
nollars
217
96
421
501
160
Fruil-and-nut
210
(')
w
General:
Primarily crop
250
135
142
164
the value of farm products t
A GENERAL VIEW
51
Among farms in each economic class there is much greater
variation between types in the value added than in the total value
of farm products sold. Value added, as a proportion of total
sales, varies considerably between types of farms for each economic
class (see table 51). It is highest on fruit-and-nut farms for each
economic class of farm. In general, value added was a higher
proportion of the gross sales for farms with a major source of
income from sales of field crops and vegetables than for livestock
types. It comprised the lowest proportion of gross sales on poul-
try farms.
Value added was a greater proportion of farm sales on the larger
than on the smaller economic classes of farms for each type.
This is influenced to a large extent by the measure of value added
being based upon farm products sold rather than the total value
of products produced. On the smaller economic classes of far ms
a substantial part of the production is consumed on the farm.
Table 51. — Estimated Value Added as a Percent of th
Total Value of Farm Products Sold, by Type of Farm by
Economic Class: 1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
Per-
V.o'u
64.6
71.3
71.1
72.0
84.3
50.6
13.7
44.6
64.4
52^8
81.5
Per-
cent
75' 9
75.8
75.6
76.0
86.8
50.9
19.1
55.4
73.0
48.2
64.7
87.5
Per-
67^7
70.7
69.7
68.3
84.0
52.8
12.5
47.9
64.7
53.0
57.8
79.7
Per-
52.4
60.6
69.6
70.7
61.6
80.4
51.8
8.2
38.6
59.4
50.5
53.2
71.2
Per-
cent
49.6
52.4
69.4
71.3
56.1
76.6
48.6
4.0
25.2
53.2
40.5
58^8
Per-
il. 1
66 2
68.4
42.5
69.6
40.6
6.1
7.8
45.0
30.5
32.3
46.4
Per-
28.7
62.2
General:
Primarily crop
34.0
> Expenses exceeded the value of farm products sold.
Value added per man- equivalent. — When converted to a man-
equivalent basis, value added becomes a reasonably good measure
of labor productivity. At prevailing levels of prices for farm
products and costs of materials used in further production, it is a
measure of efficiency in the use of labor resources. Value added
per man-equivalent amounted to $2,800 for commercial farms as
a group. (See table 52.) It was highest on fruit-and-nut and
cash-grain farms, averaging $4,900 and $4,400, respectively.
Table 52. — Estimated Value Added per Man-Equivalent by
Type of Farm, by Economic Class, for the United States:
1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
v
VI
All commercial farms
111,11,1, /
2. Mill
4..SM
2. (Ml
2. Dili
3,236
4,939
2. 2-14
1,141
2,945
1,'Jsl
2,4117
3,937
Il,,U,l,.s
(',, X55
11.271
0.x] 2
''.241
4,318
6,330
4. 703
3, 4x11
9,856
6,026
5.047
7,li:i7
5,053
ll,,U„r.s
4.1.12
('., 1.2:1
4,345
4,301
2,941
5,136
:i, mm
1.375
4,540
4,211
4.478
4,f.'.l2
4,304
Dollars
2. 629
3,1.112
2,440
2, 731
2,168
3,896
2, 520
534
2,115
2,555
2. 539
2. 0X4
2,936
Ih,ll:,,,.
1,440
2,015
1,412
1,767
1,371
2,809
1,455
161
842
1,451
1,195
1,275
1,792
Dollars
750
854
834
1,0X8
684
1,652
729
148
164
769
549
566
987
Dollars
General:
Primarily crop....
260
Expenses exceeded the value of farm products sold.
Most other types of farms ranged between $2,000 and $3,000
value added per man-equivalent. The exception was poultry
farms with about $1,100 per man-equivalent.
Value added per man-equivalent was highest for Class I farms
of each type and decreased with each successively smaller eco-
nomic class. On Classes V and VI farms it was far below the
average for commercial farms as a group.
Value added per $1,000 of capital investment. — This is a
measure of efficiency in the use of capital resources. The value
added was divided by the total investment in land and buildings,
machinery and equipment, and livestock inventory. This is
expressed in terms of value added for each $1,000 of total capital
investment in table 53.
In general, farms with a major source of income from fruits
and nuts, vegetables, and field crops had a higher product added
per unit of capital used than types with a major source of income
from livestock and livestock products. The exception was cash-
grain farms.
Table 53. — Estimated Value Added per $1,000 of Capital
Investment in Land and Buildings, Machinery and Live-
stock Inventory, by Type of Farm by Economic Class, for
the United States: 1954
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
All commercial farms
Dull, us
124
110
222
238
257
235
127
74
80
132
92
97
326
Dollars
183
271
339
351
318
203
213
168
218
172
188
Dollars
127
124
186
231
197
219
149
83
93
128
139
124
256
Dollars
102
96
244
139
170
126
35
59
108
104
96
161
Dollars
86
214
241
98
122
95
29
65
64
99
Dollars
62
39
195
188
70
58
6
50
36
52
Dollars
27
General:
Expenses exceed.:.! the value uf farm products sold
Cash-grain farms, among the highest in value added per man-
equivalent, were among the lowest in value added per unit of total
investment. Cotton and other field-crop farms were among the
lowest in value added per man-equivalent but were relatively high
in value added per capital investment. For fruit-and-nut farms
the value added was relatively high on both bases. It was rela-
tively low on both bases for dairy, poultry, and other livestock
farms.
By economic class of farm the value added per unit of total
investment is highest on Class I farms and decreases with each
successively smaller economic class. For most types, however,
the differences between economic classes are relatively small
compared to the substantial differences between these classes in
the value added per man-equivalent.
Due to the limitations involved in making these estimates, no
precise conclusion may be drawn regarding the specific amounts
of value added per man-equivalent or per dollar of investment.
However, it appears reasonable to conclude that (1) value added
per man-equivalent and per dollar of investment is extremely low
on the smaller economic classes of farms; low in relation to agri-
culture as a whole and also in relation to that obtained in nonfarm
sectors of the economy and (2) for any given type of farm their
amounts are directly associated with the size of the farm business.
52
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Home Facilities
The measures of value added, discussed previously, are useful
primarily in showing efficiency differentials in agriculture. They
are not measures of farm income. However, due to the small
volume of sales (and lesser amounts of value added) on the smaller
economic classes of farms, it is probable that incomes from farming
are fairly low.
An indirect measure of income is found in the levels of living of
farm-operator families as indicated by home facilities. The data
and discussion which follow relate some of these to types and
economic classes of farms.
Electricity. — Most of rural America had electricity in the homes
in 1954 — nearly 94 percent of all commercial farms. (See table
54.) More than 90 percent of each type of farm except cotton
reported electricity. Among farms of each type the proportion
reporting electricity decreased with decreasing size of farm (meas-
ured by gross sales of farm products). Even on Class VI farms,
however, more than four-fifths of each type reported electricity,
except cotton farms, of which about three-fourths had electricity
in the homes.
Table 54. — Percent of Farms Reporting Electricity by
Type of Farm by Economic Class, for the United States:
1954
Type of farm
Total
Economic class of farm
I
n
III
rv
V
VI
93. 8
94.2
86.8
91.8
94.1
93.6
97.3
97.6
95.0
93.4
95.3
97.0
94.6
97.5
97.3
97.1
97.5
92.7
96.5
99.3
98.9
97.3
98.1
100.0
98.4
98.1
97.9
97.6
97.1
98.1
96.9
912
98.6
99.3
98.0
97.8
96.9
98.8
96.7
97.4
96.1
96.2
97.5
96.9
94.0
99.1
98.3
97.2
96.9
96.2
98.4
96.9
95.6
94.1
92.0
9& 8
92.5
98.3
97.8
95.6
95.0
96.5
99.2
95.1
91.2
89.5
86.4
90.4
94.1
92.8
95.7
97.6
93.2
91.5
95.8
93.1
84.2
84.4
76.3
82.2
89.3
91.6
V.I 0
94.3
Livestock other than dairy and
88.8
General:
83.7
KH 5
89.9
Index of home facilities. — The 1954 Census of Agriculture
obtained information relating to whether certain facilities and
conveniences were in the farm home. The existence of these
facilities in farm homes provides a general indication of levels
of household living. As a means of comparing the relative extent
to which operator families on different types and economic classes
of farms have been able to have these home conveniences, they
have been summarized into an index of home facilities. (See
table 55.)
The index is based on the following items: Telephone, television,
piped running water, home freezer, and automobile. Electricity
in the home was not included since several of the other items are
directly related to the availability of electricity there and it is
known that electricity is now available in most of the farm-
operator homes. The automobile is not thought of as a household
facility in the same sense as the other items. As a means of
transportation, however, it represents a convenience that is im-
portant in indicating relative levels of living.
In computing the index, the sum of the farms reporting each
item for each type and class of farm was divided by the total
number of farms in the group. On this basis the highest possible
score (if each farm in the group reported each item) was 5. The
score obtained for each type and economic class of farm was then
divided by the score for all commercial farms; thus, the index is
constructed to show each type and economic class of farm as a
percentage of the average for all commercial farms.
Table 55. — Index of Specified Home Facilities, Commercial
Farms By Economic Class and Type, for the United States:
1954
[Total commercial farms=100 >1
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
100
117
48
125
121
120
116
97
115
111
114
153
153
147
152
145
150
166
152
155
154
165
160
147
145
143
122
132
150
140
157
135
147
137
152
149
139
124
83
89
134
130
140
125
129
111
133
127
128
96
106
61
62
119
120
117
119
113
90
112
105
113
75
98
36
50
104
113
94
116
101
81
95
87
101
65
Livestock other than dairy and
General:
63
(fit
1 Index based on farms report ing 1 or more of the following items of specified facilities
and equipment: Telephone, television set, piped running water, home freezer, and
automobile.
With the exception of cotton and other field-crop farms, each
type of farm was above or approximately equal to the average for
all commercial farms. The indexes of 48 on cotton farms and 60
on other field-crop farms indicate that these farms reported only
about half as many of the specified facilities as most other types.
Within each type of farm the level of home conveniences was
related to economic class of farm. This is to be expected since the
economic classification based upon gross sales may indicate
roughly relative levels of income. Home facilities and conven-
iences depend largely upon the incomes the families on these
farms have at their disposal. For most types of farms the opera-
tors on Class V and Class VI farms reported only one-fourth to
one-third as many of the specified items.
The fact of fewer home facilities on cotton and other field-crop
farms is due chiefly to the much larger proportion of these types
that fall in the smaller economic classes. Classes I and II cotton
and other field-crop farms have an index that is fairly similar to the
commercial farm average for these classes. For Classes III
through VI, however, the indexes for cotton and other field-crop
farms were substantially below the indexes for these
among other types.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11