|
DRAFT #3 -
THE SMALL FARMERS OF FLORIDA AND SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR ASSISTANCE*
For many years the number of farms in the U.S. has been decreasing as
many farms (mostly small) have been absorbed by other small farms which have
become much larger and more specialized. Even so the large majority of
today farms are small. Let's look at some statistics. Back in 1960 re-
latively few farms in the nation had gross sales of over $100,000, but to-
day the number is up eight-fold, about a third of which is due to higher
prices. The number of farms selling less than $5,000 per farm annually have
decreased about one-half since 1960, yet they still make up about 40% of U.S.
farms. About two-thirds of the farms in the nation sell less than $20,000
per year of farm products (considered "small" by USDA). This continuing
problems of small farms have recently demanded and received new attention
from universities and federal agencies throughout the nation.
Small farms are concentrated in the southern states (Figure 1), with
highest concentrations in the Appalachian area (West Virginia, Tennessee, South
Carolina) and Mississippi and Alabama. But Florida, like many other states,
has its share of small farms, with about 3 out of 4 farmers receiving less
than $20,000 income from farm product sales in 1974.
The widespread small farm problem and the plight of family farms through-
out the nation, plus the loss of agricultural lands to other uses have caused
recent nationwide groundswells (both within and outside agriculture) about
(1) the continued well being of small farmers, and (2) the nation's future
ability to produce a plentiful supply of food and fiber. The widespread con-
cern for family farms and small farms is evidenced by the many articles in
newspapers and journals throughout the nation, and by the recent nation-wide
series of "listening" conferences on small farmer problems.
*Clarence D. Edmond, Director, Center for Community and Rural Development,
IFAS, University of Florida, November, 1979.
90.0%-100%
80.0%-90.0%
70.0%-80.0%
60.0%-70.0%
less than 60.0%
Figure 1. The Percent of Farms With Annual Sales of Less Than $20,000
by State in 1974, United States. ( 1974 Census of Agriculture)
With all the recent concern, meetings, and writings regarding small
farmers, there is still relatively little information specifically related
to small farmers. Very little research actually pinpoints or defines the
small farmer and his problems. Further, there is no easy or quick way to
identify or separate the small farmer from the large farmer, except by
farm survey or by letting the farmer himself decide. However, some definition
of the small farmer is needed to help determine the importance of the small
farmer problem and to provide some general characteristics of "small" farming
operations. Thus, the remainder of this paper will be devoted to discussing
the extent of the small farmer problem in Florida, suggesting some small farm
definitions, and supporting small farm demonstrations as a basic educational
tool for improving small farmer knowhoww", income, and level of living. Re-
member the old saying? "Give a man a fish and you have to feed him each day;
but teach him how to fish, and he can feed himself for the rest of his life."
Florida Farms by Sales Classes
In 1974 the Census of Agriculture listed 32,466 farms in Florida (Table 1).
Of these farms, over 1 out of 3 had sales of less than $2,500, while 3
out of 4 had sales of less than $20,000. Only 1 out of 6 reported sales of
over $40,000, but they accounted for 90% of farm products sold. This points
up the "commercial" importance of the "few" large farms and the "social"
importance of the "many" small farms.
It is often thought that many of the small farm operators in Florida
are black. This is not the case. The 1974 Census shows that the percentage
of farm operators who were white exceeded 95% in all sales classes (Table 1).
TABLE 1. SELECTED DATA FOR FARMS BY ANNUAL SALES CLASS FLORIDA 1974
All Farmsa/
Less than
$2500
$2500-
$49999
$5000-
$99999
$10000-
$199999
$20000-
$39999
$250 $999 1999 1999 39999 more
$40000 or
more
Total Number of Farms, 1974
7 Farm Operators Percent White
7 Percent of Total Farms, 1974
7 Percent of Market Value of
Agricultural Products Sold
Percent of Production Expenses
Percent of Value of Land and
Buildings
Percent of Market Value of
Machinery and Equipment
Percent of Total Estimated Value
of Machinery and Equipment
Percent of All Automobiles
32,466
96.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11,497
96.2
35.5
4,742 4,123
96.9
14.6
95.2
12.7
.8 1.5
1.2
8.8
11.9
11.8
31.0
1.8
7.5
5.6
5.6
10.6
1.7
6.3
5.6
5.6
9.5
3,784
96.8
11.6
2.8
2.8
7.7
6.7
6.6
9.6
2,850 5,428
97.8
8.8
4.2
4.2
9.1
8.2
8.2
9.2
99.0
16.7
89.7
88.0
60.0
61.4
61.0
29.9
Includes "Abnormal Farms" not classified by value of annual sales.
SOURCE: United States Bureau of the
Florida, Volume 1, Part 9.
Census. 1974 Census of Agriculture, State and County Data,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
TABLE 1.
SELECTED DATA FOR FARMS BY ANNUAL SALES CLASS
- FLORIDA 1974
Field experience shows that many of the small farmers are short on
education, finances, knowledge of improved practices, and management skills.
Many work off the farm to supplement their limited net farm income. On the
average, farm expenses take about two-thirds of the sales leaving about one-
third of farm sales as net farm income.
Florida's small farmers not only receive low net farm income, but they
also receive a relatively small share of government farm program payments.
Although farmers receiving less than $40,000 in sales made up 75%
of all farmers in 1974, theyreceived only 18% of "total government farm pro-
gram payments" (Table 2).
It is often thought that many small farmers and few larger farmers work
off the farm. This is partially true in that off-farm work is more important
to small farmers; however, many larger farmers also work "off-farm". In 1974,
the frequency of off-farm work (1-149 days + 150 days or more) decreased
steadily as farm size increased from 78% for farmers with sales of less
$2,500 to 32% for farmers with sales of $40,000 or more (Table 2).
The percentage of farm operators reporting 1-149 days of off-farm work
was about equal for all income classes, running from 10 to 11%. In contrast,
a considerably higher percentage of the smaller farmers reported working off
the farm for 150 days or more. This varied from about 2 out of 3 for the
sales classes below $5,000 to 1 out of 5 for the group with sales of $40,000
or more (Table 2).
Although the frequency of off-farm income was greater for smaller farms,
the amount of off-farm income received per farm of those reporting on off-farm
work tended to be more even (Table 3): Nearly 80% of the farmers with sales
of less than $10,000 received off-farm income of $5,000 or more. But, 2 out
of 3 of the largest farms (sales of $40,000 or more) also received $5,000 or
more of off-farm income.
TABLE 2. _SELECTED DATA FOR FARMS BY ANNUAL SALES CLASS_ FLORIDA 1974
All Farms
Less than
$2500
$2500-
$4999
$5000-
$9999
$10000-
$19999
$20000-
$39999
$40000 or
more
TotallNumber of Farms, 1974
Percent reporting on their
off-farm work
Of those reporting, % reporting:
"-none"
S1-149 days
150 days or more
Percent of total farm related
income
SPercent of total government
farm program payments
7 Percent of total farm related
income resulting from government
farm programs
32,466
78.1
46.1
18.4
S35.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
27.2
11,497
90.7
22.3
11.3 11
66 -
100.0
6.5
3.8
15.8
4,742
81.5
22.6
11.01 1'1
100.0
7.4
3.2
11.9
4,123
79.9
3,784
75.6
36.8 44.8
11.0 10 10 21.5
2 2 45.0J
100.0 100.0
16.5
6.9
3.3
13.1
2,850
75,7
56.7
10.7 1J3 -3
32.63
100.0
9.6
4.0
11.5
a/ Refers only to individual or family operations and partnerships.
SOURCE: United States Bureau of the Census. 1974 Census of Agriculture, State and County Data,
Florida, Volume 1, Part 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
5,428
76.2
68.0
10.0 0 S
100.0
63.3
81.8
35.2
___
TABLE 2. SELECTED DATA FOR
FARMS BY ANNUAL SALES CLASS FLORIDA 1974
SELECTED DATA FOR FARMS BY ANNUAL
All Farms
-Percent of Farmers Reporting
SAny Off-Farm Income, 1974 N/A
Percent of Farmers Reporting
Off-Farm Income with:
Off-farm income greater than
2 farm sales
Off-farm income less than farm
sales
SOff-farm income less than $5000
7Off-farm income $5000 or more
TOTAL
Percent of Off-Farm Income from:
Nonfarm related business
Wages, salaries, commissions and tips
Interest, dividends, royalties or rent
of nonfarm property
Federal social security, pensions, etc.
TOTAL
Less than
$2500
82.7
95.9
4.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$2500-
$4999
70.1
_-m
20.2
79.8
100.0
21.3
61.1
11.6
6.0
100.0
$5000-.
$9999
67.8
21.8
78.2
100.0
19.2
63.3
11.4
6.1
100.0
$10000
$19999
61,6
-.V
24.5
75.5
100.0
17.8
58.7
17.4
6.1
100.0
$20000
$39999
54.9
29.1
70.9
100.0
21.1
53.1
21.8
4.9
100.0
$40000 or
more
47.9
34.0
66.0
100.0
26.6
41.1
29.3
3.1
100.0
a/ Comprehensive data of off-farm income is
not available for farms with sales of less than $2500.
SOURCE: United States Bureau of the Census. 1974 Census of Agriculture, State
Florida, Volume 1, Part 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
and County Data,
Office, 1977.
__
TABLE 3.
SALES CLASS FLORIDA 1974
c.r
8
Wages, salaries, etc., composed the largest source of off-farm income for
all sales classes of farms but this source was relatively more important to the
smaller farms. Conversely income from "Non-farm business" and "interest,
dividends, etc." were both much more important to the larger farms.
From the data reviewed, one could conclude that off-farm income is more
important to small farmers, but that large farmers also depend quite heavily
upon off-farm income. Off-farm income is important to all sales classes of
farms in Florida.
Farm Products Sold as Related to Size
Table 4 shows the types of farm products sold in 1974 and how the mix of
products varied for the various sales classes of farms in Florida. Although
many persons think of Florida's small farmers as growers of vegetables and
fruits, the data show that they depend heavily upon "cattle and calves" for
sales. Farmers with less than $23,500 sales received over half of their farm
sales from "Cattle and'calves" compared to a little over one-third from
three other categories combined ("fruits, nuts and berries", "grains and
other field crops", and "vegetables, sweet corn, and melons"). The next
larger sales class ($2,500-$4,999) still received their highest percentage
of income from "cattle and calves"; but, it was only slightly larger than
the income from "fruits, nuts and berries". "Grains and other field crops"
came in third and "nursery products" made a poor fourth.
Note that for the sales group of $5,000 to $9,999, "fruits, nuts and
berries" were by far the most important sales source, with "cattle and
calves" ranking second and "grains and other field crops" third.
For the sales group of $10,000 to $19,999 "fruits, nuts and berries"
maintained first place by even a wider margin, while "cattle and calves"
barely exceeded "grains and other field crops".
For the two larger sales groups, "fruits, nuts and berries" were most
important by quite a margin, with "grains and other field crops" ranking
SELECTED DATA FOR FARMS BY ANNUAL SALES CLASS -
Less than
$2500
Total Number of Farms, 1974 32,466
Percent of Total
100.0
Percent of Market Value resulting
from:
Fruits, nuts, berries
Grains & other field crops
Vegetables, sweet corn, melons
Dairy products
Poultry
Nursery & greenhouse products
Cattle and calves
Other
TOTAL
11,497
35.5
36.4 b/
.6
6.3
55.8
.8
100.0
$2500-
$4999
4,742
"14.6
31.5
13.5
2.5
0.0
.4
7.0
33.3
11.8
100.0
$5000,.
$9999
4,123
12.7
36.4
16.6
3.8
0.1
.5
7.5
23.3
11.8
100.0
$10000,
$19999
3,784
11.6
39.2
17.2
5,3
.5
.8
7.6
17.7
11.7
100,0
$20000-
$39999
2,850
8.8
38.1
17.3
5.9
.6
1.9
7.9
14.9
13.4
100.0
$40000 or
more
5,428
16.7
24.1
19.9
13.8
12.1
10.4
9.3
7.0
3.4
100,0
-/"Abnormal FarmslA are not classified by value of annual sales, thus are not included.
b Includes all crops and hay.
SIncludes all livestock and livestock products.
SOURCE: United States Bureau of the Census. 1974 Census of Agriculture, State and County Data,
Florida, Volume 1, Part 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
Item
FLORIDA 1974 a/
TABLE 4.
10
second. Although "cattle and calves" ranked third for the $20,000 to $39,999
sales group, it ranked seventh for the highest sales group.
Note that very few of the operators with sales of less than $40,000 re-
ported income from "dairy products" and "poultry". Thirty to forty years ago
these two enterprises were more or less synonymous with small farms. Not so
today. At least, in Florida, these two types of production are associated
with the larger farms.
The above information on the relationship of size of farm and kinds of
products sold sheds light on the types of help that small farmers need most.
It can be surmised that many small farmers in Florida could be helped most
significantly by providing them with more efficient production practices
associated with "cattle and calves". The fact that "cattle and calves" are
either first or second for all sales classes of less than $20,000 points up
the need for an intensive effort in this particular field. The data also
support the same type of intensive training and demonstration work for those
small farmers receiving most of their income from "fruits, nuts and berries"
and "grains and other field crops". However, since citrus is such an important
crop in Florida, it is likely that the "fruits, nuts and berries" category
is more important to southern Florida, while "grains and other field crops"
is more important to north Florida.
Data in Table 5 are somewhat condensed from information shown in Table 4.
Some of the sales categories are combined to more explicitly show the rank in
importance of the various types of products sold for each sales class of farms.
Note that the "Smallest Farms" group includes the two- smallest categories
in Table 4 and that the "Small Farms" category in Table 5 includes the two
middle categories (sales classes of $5,000 $9,999 + $10,000 $19,999)
in Table 4. The two larger categories in Table 5 remain the same as in Table 4.
Grouping the farms as shown in Table 5 provides relatively homogenous
mixes of types of products sold by size of farm. Note that "cattle and calves"
TABLE 5. RANK OF FARM PRODUCT SALES BY FARM SIZE FLORIDA 1974a/
Smallest Farms (Sales of less than $5,000)b/
Cattle & Calves
Fruits, Nuts, Berries
Grains & Other Field Crops
Nursery & Greenhouse
Vegetables, Corn, Melons
(46%)
(28%)
(12%)
(7%)
( 2%)
Medium Farms (Sales of $20,000-$39,999)
Small Farms (Sales of $5,000 $19,999)
1) Fruits, Nuts, Berries (37%)
2) Cattle & Calves (21%)
3) Grains & Other Field Crops (17%)
4) Nursery & Greenhouse ( 8%)
5) Vegetables, Corn, Melons ( 4%)
Large Farms (Sales of $40,000 or more)
Fruits, Nuts, Berries
Grains & Other Field Crops
Cattle & Calves
Nursery & Greenhouse
Vegetables, Corn, Melons
(38%)
(17%)
(15%)
( 8%)
( 6%)
1)
2)
3)
7)
7)
Fruits, Nuts, Berries
Grains & Other Field Crops
Vegetables, Corn,Melons
Dairy Products
Poultry & Products
Nursery & Greenhouse
Cattle and Calves
a/ Source: Table 4
/ Percentages are estimated from data in Table 4.
(24%)
(20%)
(14%)
(12%)
(10%)
(9%)
( 7%)
12
are of much more importance to the smaller size farms than they are to the
larger ones accounting for nearly half of the sales for the "Smallest Farms",
but accounting for only 7% of sales for the largest size farms. Conversely,
"fruits, nuts and berries" were either first or second for each size of farms
shown in Table 5. "Grains and other field crops" ranked third or second for
four classes of farms.
Although it is generally thought that "ornamental horitculture crops"
and "vegetables" offer excellent opportunities for small farmers, they were not
an important source of sales to most small farms in 1974. This, of course,
does not necessarily mean that these crops have low potential for small farmers.
Rather, it may mean that demonstrating the feasibility of these enterprises for
small farmers may be needed.
Thus, the data presented in Table 5 suggest that two modes of assistance
to small farmers would be considered: One mode consists of improving operator
management, production, and marketing skills in those farm enterprises which
have typically produced most of the small farmers' sales (cattle for example).
The other mode consists of encouraging the small farmer to adopt other types
of enterprises for which the future seems especially bright (such as vegetables
and ornamentals) and become proficient in production and marketing them. Both
modes should receive considerable attention so that small farmers might be
able to better evaluate their potential and then obtain the necessary training
to become established in those enterprises showing the greatest potential for
their particular farm.
Small Farm Definitions
Over the years many attempts have been made to define farmers, farms,
family farms, and small farms. The Census definition of a farm has changed
several times since the first farm census was made, and none so far has been
completely satisfactory for all persons concerned. Likewise all attempts to
define a small farm have met with similar criticisms and limitations. Even
so, perhaps another attempt should be made to help guide small farm research
and extension work in Florida. Small farms could be classified according to
13
acres in the farm, labor required, sales class only, sales class plus off-farm
income, net farm income, total income of family, others, or any combination of
these. All have limitations.
Although not the official definition, for convenience USDA seems to have
settled on sales class only, with farms receiving less than $20,000 in sales
being classed as small. Many states seem to have followed this lead. Some
other examples of definitions by "sales" follow:
1) The Texas small farm program gives preference to farmers with
gross agricultural sales under $5,000 per year.(l)
2) Missouri limits its small farm program to farmers with less
than $10,000 annual sales who are under 60 years of age and
who have been farming for 4 years or more.(l)
3) Florida's Small Farm and Home Gardening program was limited
to farmers with less than $10,000 gross sales per year.(2)
4) A 14 southern state study used the USDA "working" definition -
small farms were limited to those with sales of less than $20,000
annually.(5)
Many other studies use the "less than $20,000 sales" criterion. It is
simple and data on sales classes are readily available. But, such a definition
has major disadvantages such as: (1) many farmers (small as well as large) do
receive a substantial part of their net income from off-farm sources; and (2)
"sales" do not very accurately indicate net farm income. Although determining
farm size by "sales class" plus "off-farm income" is more desirable than just
sales class only, it still has serious limitations. Again, the value of sales
does not necessarily indicate net farm income. And of course, neither net
farm income nor off-farm income is readily available for local areas.
Each year the USDA takes a sample of farms for the nation to determine "net
farm income before inventory adjustments", "off-farm income," and "total net in-
come" for the various sales classes of farms (Table 6). Note that while net farm
income (Col. 5) increases as expected with the size of farm, off-farm income (Col. 8)
T ABLE 6. U.S. AVERAGE INCOME PER FARM, 1977
Sales Net farm income Off-Farm Total income including
Value of Sales Class Number of before inventory Income nonmoney income from
Number Farms adjustment farm food and housing
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Thousands % Dollars Rank % Dollars Rank % Dollars 'Rank %
All sales classes 2,706 100 7,439 .39 11,596 .61 19,035 100
$100,000 and over 1 162 6.0 38,310 1 .80 9,636 4 .20 47,946 1 100
$40,000 to $99,999 2 348 12.9 18,502 2 .75 6,011 7 .25 24,513 2 100
$20,000 to $39,999 3 321 11.9 9,993 3 .59 6(,956 6 .41 16,949, 3 100
$10,000 to $19,999 4 311 11.5 4,987 4 .35 9,466 5 .65. 14,453; 7 100
$ 5,000 to $ 9,999 5 302 1\' 11.2 2,696 5; .18 12,179 3 .82 14,875 6 100
$ 2,500 to $ 4,999 6 304 11.2 1,508 7 .09 14,559 2 .91 16,067 5 100
Less than $2,500 7 958 35.4 1,518 6 .09 15,077 1 .91 16,595 4 100
SOURCE: Farm Income Statistics USDA, ESCS, Statistical Bulletin No. 609, July 1978,
decreases with the size of the farm up through the sales class of $20,000 to
$39,999 and then apparently increases. As a result of this negative relation-
ship between net farm income and off-farm income, "total income" per farm
(Col. 11) tends to be rather stable at around $14,500 to nearly $17,000 for
all classes of farms with sales below $40,000. With such information, one might
ask: "Should we concentrate our efforts on farms with the smallest farm sales?"
The answer is: "Yes, if we are interested in farm sales only. But, if we are
interested in net farm income or the welfare of the small farm family (that is,
its total net income), it would seem more appropriate to focus our efforts on
farmers with sales of less than $40,000, since net "total income" is about
equal for all sales classes below this level.
Another definition (which would not require field work) is to define small
farms as those which qualify for Farmers Home Administration and ASCS small
farm assistance. For example Florida's ASCS definition reads:
"A low-income farmer is a farmer who, as determined by the COC, is
a small producer who is largely dependent on the farm or ranch for
his livelihood and whose prospective income and financial resources
for the current year are such that he would not reasonably be ex-
pected to perform needed conservation practices at the rates of
cost-sharing applicable to other farmers and ranchers in the county.
In making such determinations, the COC shall take into consideration
such factors as the size and type of farming operations, estimated
net worth, estimated gross family farm income, estimated family off-
farm income, number of dependents, unusual expenses such as those
resulting from illness, misfortune, or disaster, and other factors
affecting the individual's ability to contribute to the cost of con-
servation practices."I/
1/Payne, Clyde R., State Executive Director, Florida State ASCS Office,
personal letter, Gainesville, FL, dated September 18, 1979.
16
A limitation to such definitions might be the proportion of small farm operators
who do not use Farmers Home Administration and/or ASCS services. The relative
importance of this limitation could be estimated after the 1979 Farm Census is
available.
A small farm definition based on "total net income" would be desirable
from a "family" point of view, but such information is available only through
on site research. Such research would be rather expensive and certainly time-
consuming. Perhaps an even more desirable definition would take into account
the relative size or scale of farming as well as the total family income. These
and creteria for family labor and management input are included in the current
official USDA definition(1):
-- Family net income from all sources (farm and nonfarm is below
the median nonmetropolitan income of the state,
-- The family is dependent on farming for a significant, though
not necessarily a majority, of their income, and
-- Family members provide most of the labor and management.
But this definition, also, would require on-site determination. Therefore,
apparently all USDA publications use the definition of a small farm as one that
usually sells less than $20,000 of farm products annually. Although it can be
used as a guide, it leaves out net farm income and off-farm income.
Thus, a more practical, if not more realistic, approach to a small farm
definition is needed for selecting farms for small farm demonstrations in
Florida. It is suggested that such farms be judged as "typical" of the
specific type (cattle, vegetable, general, ---) of small farms for the
local area by the local USDA agency personnel, local county agents, and
specialists in IFAS.
Review of Small Farm Demonstrations
Small farm demonstrations are not new. They have been a part of Extension
work for years. Other agencies and organizations have also used them. Although
not new, they are usually expensive in dollars and time, which of course have
limited their use. Some examples of results of Small Farm demonstrations in
various states follow(13):
Missouri Over two thirds of the participants realized increased
farm sales and two-thirds used credit compared to 35% of
similar non-participants.
Texas "Net farm income increased an average of 48 percent from
1970 to 1974 for small-scale farmers enrolled. Equally
important, there were substantial increases in the number
of participants who also took advantage of other govern-
ment and Extension programs."
Fourteen Southern States Results of working with 4,543 small-
scale farmers included:
1) an increase in sales of more than $2,000 for 12%
of the small farmers;
2) an increase of between $1,000 and $2,000 for 29%,
and
3) an increase of under $1,000 for 30%.
West Virginia This was initiated in 1970 in two counties, using
Rockefeller funds. It was so successful that as
"Rockefeller funding phased out, the University of West
Virginia assumed full responsibility for the demonstration."
It now operates in nine counties.
Minnesota The results of this "pilot Small Farm Project with pro-
gram assistants funded by the Governor's Rural Development
Council in 1975 was so impressive the State Legislature was
persuaded to provide $75,000 annual funding."
Florida, too, is involved in small farm demonstration. A few examp
follow(3):
les
Jackson County IFAS and Florida A&M teamed up to start a peanut
demonstration and educational program in 1974, which has
continued each year since that time. In 1973, before the
small farmer program began, the small farmers' yields
averaged 1,692 pounds per acre. As a result of using im-
proved practices, yields increased sharply each year, and
in 1978, yields averaged 2,439 pounds per acre. This 747
pound increase over the 1973 yield was worth about $157
per acre. With an average 12 acre allotment increased
income per farm amounted to $1,882.
Gadsden County IFAS and FAMU worked with two small farmers to
demonstrate the value of using improved practices in
vegetable production. In addition to providing very
valuable demonstration to other small farmers, these 1
acre plots were quite profitable to each cooperator.
The farmer with the 1 acre southern pea demonstration
produced 240 bushels valued at $1,400. The farmers
with the 1 acre of okra sold $1,000 worth of okra.
Ripe Tomato Harvesting for Small Farms -
Following several years of testing and development, a
scientist at the Agricultural Research Center at Ft.
Pierce has developed 2 machines which apparently will
make it feasible for small farmers to harvest ripe
tomatoes for marketing. To (1) help test the equipment
and system, and (2) demonstrate the equipment and pro-
cedures, the Community and Rural Development Center in
IFAS has made funds available to (1) help "fix up" the
two machines needed, (2) help finance production and
harvesting the ripe tomatoes, and (3) demonstrate the
feasibility of the whole system. The demonstration
will be carried out during the fall and winter of 1979.
Suggested Small Farm Demonstrations
Due to the sometimes severe limitations of capital, farming knowhow,
managerial ability, and educational levels associated with small farmers in
Florida; and because of IFAS and FAMU successes with using demonstrations
for small farmers, the Florida Rural Development Committee strongly recom-
mends increased use of "Demonstration Small Farms" as a key means of im-
proving, knowhoww", income (thus better living conditions), and involvement
in Community and county affairs of Florida's small farmers.
It seems particularly important that each small farm to be used for
demonstration purposes should be very carefully selected by persons know-
ledgeable of farming and small farms in the area. Selection criteria should
include:
(1) How representative the small farm is of similar small farms
in the area;
(2) Conspicuous location so it can be easily seen from a well
traveled road;
(3) Ease of access for field days, and
(4) The ability and willingness of the small farmer to carry
out the demonstration, including assistance with demon-
strations, and field days.
General Guidelines for Small Farm Demonstrations
Many researchers will say that their research is as applicable to small
farms as it is to large farms. This, of course, is true as far as technical
recommendations on plant and animal nutrition and health are concerned. That
is, the same mix of nutrients is needed by a plant or an animal, regardless
of the size of farm on which it is grown. The biggest differences in needs be-
tween "small" and "large" farms are educational methods and techniques of
application. For example, large farmers arelikely to be much more knowledgeable
about farming and amenable to mass education techniques. Similarly large
farms lend themselves well to aerial spraying for insect control, but such
a method will not work on very small farms. Small beef cattle growers might
not have the large scale up-to-date types of equipment that large ranchers
have, such as large cattle trailers, tractors, gun vaccinating equipment,
scales and working corals and chutes. This is true for many other types of
farms.
Also, due to small lots purchased and sold, small farmers tend to pay
more per unit for supplies and equipment and receive less per unit of pro-
ducts sold.
Thus, it is easily seen that educational methods and techniques for applying
technical recommendations will vary widely with the agricultural knowledge
level of the farmer and size of farm; therefore, it follows that research on
(1) methods of education for small farmers, (2) techniques of application for
small farms, and (3) techniques of purchasing and marketing are all very
important. If so, what educational approaches best fit small farmers? What
techniques best fit small farms? Gaining new information and extending it
along with other improved practices comprise the essentials of a small farm
program. And, experience has shown that demonstration is an excellent
educational tool, especially in cases where step by step advancement in methods
of education are needed, where special or different techniques of application
are required, and where more competitive prices in purchases and/or sales are
needed. It appears that all of these needs are usually common among small
farmers.
For whatever type of farming, the demonstration small farm should be
selected on the basis of how well it fits the following criteria:
(1) The relative need for the demonstration in the geographic
area;
(2) The geographic distribution of demonstrations they should
not all be concentrated in one area;
(3) The availability of professional expertise to help monitor
and carry out the demonstration;
(4) The availability of a typical farm and qualified farmer
for the demonstration; and
(5) Cost of the demonstration and availability of funds.
Examples of Suggested Small Farm Demonstrations
Many suggestions for small farm demonstrations have been received.
of the suggestions are listed below:
1. Demonstration farm in the "persistent low-income area of North
Florida (Holmes, Jackson, Walton, Washington and Calhoun
Counties.
2. Demonstrations for year-round forage in beef production.
(1) Pasture/silage using improved pastures through the
summer and high yield silage for the winter.
Some
(2) Year-round forage production, including native
pastures and winter grasses and legumes.
(3) Reseeding winter annual forage grasses and legumes
for North Florida winter pasture.
(4) Renovation of perennial grasses with the Florigraze
perennial peanut for winter pasture.
3. High profit techniques in swine production, and vegetable
production.
4. Marketing methods for various types of small farms.
5. Growing catfish in raceways.
6. Advantages of cooperative assistance to small farm FmHA
borrowers.
7. Advantages of Cooperatives (farm, health, consumer, etc.)
for small farmers.
8. Feasibility of acidification of irrigation water in
selected areas of North Florida.
9. Advantages of trickle irrigation for selected vegetables.
10. Direct marketing through U-Pic, community markets, and
other channels.
11. Machine harvesting of ripe tomatoes.
12. Blueberries and other fruits for fresh markets.
13. Grape production for fresh market and for wine.
14. Management of non-commercial woodlots for maximum profits
(would include uses of waste as well as other wood products).
15. Using farm biomass for small farm energy needs.
16. Small farm insect control by interplanting crops with plants
which inhibit insect damage.
17. Weed control in small nurseries.
18. Minimum tillage for various types of crops.
19. Nitrogen fixation for small farms.
20. Advantages of soil testing on small farms.
21. Land use based upon soil capabilities.
Selection of Small Farm Demonstrations
Selection of the most appropriate demonstrations would be difficult. A
suggested procedure follows:
Selection would be made by the Small Farm Subcommittee of the Florida
Rural Development Committee after carefully considering the factors listed
previously and after tentative agreements are reached with appropriate
university officials, appropriate federal and state officials and the
appropriate involved private parties. Such a method would help make the
demonstration farm more accurate in its demonstration procedures and more
accessible to persons needing to learn from seeing what can be done on farms
similar to theirs.
The Small Farm Subcommittee of the Florida Rural Development Committee
has suggested that funds for such small farm demonstrations as outlined above,
should be handled through the Center for Community and Rural Development in
the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida.
This suggestion was based upon the state-wide responsibility of IFAS and the
Center's integrated approach between research and extension. Any well-
qualified institution of higher education or appropriate federal or state
agency, with expertise for conducting the proposed small farm demonstration
(in pragmatic research and/or extension education) could be funded.
Summary
Whereas:
A national survey shows that 80% of the nation's farmers received a
net income from all sources of less than $17,000 in 1977;
24
And whereas 3 out of 4 of Florida's farmers sell less than $20,000
worth of farm products annually;
And whereas many of Florida's small farmers receive very low total
income;
And whereas many of Florida's small farmers lack the education and
finances needed for earning adequate total family income;
And whereas much valuable information, management skills, and im-
proved practices are available;
And whereas the adoption of these would help the small farmers in-
crease net income;
Be it therefore resolved, that the Florida Rural Development Committee
does hereby recommend:
1. That the State Legislature provide funds annually for demonstrating
to small farmers the advantages of improved management and skills
(1) utilizing'production practices that protect the soil and water
resource base and are compatible with environmental goals, and (2)
in choosing and/or developing systems or techniques that provide
the highest net returns.
2. That (1) all institutions of higher education with major agri-
cultural research and extension programs, and (2) federal and
state agencies with major interest and assistance for small farms
be eligible.
3. That such funds be administered by the Community and Rural Develop-
ment Center in IFAS, University of Florida, which already has a
major small farm program.
4. That selection of small farm demonstration projects be made by a
committee selected by the Florida Rural Development Committee and
IFAS, and approved by IFAS and the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees.
25
5. That selection of small farm demonstrations would be made by the
Small Farm Subcommittee of the Florida Rural Development Committee
after carefully considering the following factors:
(1) The relative need for the demonstration in the geographic
area;
(2) The geographic distribution of demonstrations they
should not all be concentrated in one area;
(3) The availability of professional expertise to help
monitor and carry out the demonstration;
(4) The availability of a typical farm and qualified
farmer for the demonstration; and
(5) Cost of the demonstration and availability of funds.
REFERENCES
(1) Bay, Ovid, Robert Coleman, Edward Moe, Howard Osborn, & Jerry West
The Science and Education Administration's Research And Extension
Programs For Small Farms, prepared for the Subcommittee on Agri-
culture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, SEA, USDA, March 1,
1979.
(2) Carter, Lawrence C.
Extension Small Farm And Home Gardening Programs, 1976-1977,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida A&M and University
of Florida.
(3) Edmond, Clarence D.
Highlights of the Small Farmer Program in IFAS, Center for
Community And Rural Development, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, IFAS, University of Florida, April 1979.
(4) Hines, Fred K., David L. Brown, and John M. Zimmer
Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metro
and Nonmetro Counties, 1970. Agricultural Economics Report 272,
Economic Resource Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
March 1975.
(5) Orden, David and Alfa Trivett, A. Benjamin Rippe, Dennis K. Smith,
and Robert Jensen
Small Farms in Florida, Staff Paper SP-78-7, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, February 1978.
(6) Pryor, Shirley
Regional And Residential Impacts Of The Proposed Better Jobs And
Income Program, USDA, Economics, Statistics, And Cooperatives
Service, ESCS-69, August 1979.
(7) Reimund, Donn A.
Status Of The Family Farm, A Report To The Congress, ESCS, USDA,
September 1978.
(8) Ross, Peggy J., Herman Bluestone, and Fred K. Hines
Indicators of Social Well-Being For U.S. Counties, Rural Development
Resource Report 10., Economics, Statistics, And Cooperatives Service,
USDA, 1979.
(9) Young, John A., and Peter Caday
Small-Scale Farming: A portrait from Polk County, Oregon, Department
of Anthropology, Oregon State University, WRDC Paper #2, August 1979.
(10)
Farm Income Statistics, USDA, Economics, Statistics, And Cooperatives
Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 609, July 1978.
(11)
Local Area Personal Income, 1970-1975, National Technical Information
Services, Springfield, Virginia, 1976.
(12)
Remarks prepared for delivery by Secretary of Agriculture Bob
Bergland, before the National Farmers Union Convention, Kansas
City, Missouri, March 12, 1979, USDA, Office of the Secretary
(13)
Research, Extension And Higher Education For Small Farms, Ad
Hoc Committee on Small Farms of the Joint Council on Food and
Agricultural Sciences, USDA, Office of the Secretary, October 1,
1979.
(14)
Rural Development Perspectives, ESCS, USDA, RDP 1, November 1978.
(15)
Rural Development Research And Education, Vol. 1, No. 4, Southern
Rural Development Center, Mississippi State, Miss., Summer 1977.
(16)
Small-Farm Issues: Proceedings Of The ESCS Small-Farm Workshop,
May 1978, USDA, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service,
ESCS-60.
(17) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local
Area Personal Income, 1969-1974, Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Services, 1976.
|
