UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. A i-j L \ Bureau of Agricultural Economics • WARTIME PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENTS OIJ SMALL FARMS This- report' summarizes- a- phase- of- the- study- • of Maximum- Wartime 1 Production Capacity : con- ducted' in 1943- by the- Department of Agricul- ture' in - cooperation - with- the- Land-Grant Colleges'. ' Separate reports "were prepared by 3AS' and' State' workers for each of the areas studied and can be consulted st the State Agricultural Colleges or in- the bureau of Agricultural- Economics, • Washington^ D. C- This 1 summary o'f the State reports was pre- pared' by a committee consisting- of the following members of the BASs 'Harvey Hawthorne Reuben 1\ . Hecht Raymond J. Penn Urlin J. Scoville, Chairman r ^ UNIV. QF FL LiB DOCUMENTS - S DEPT -"'EPOSITORY Washington, D. C. November 1944 . THE PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENTS ON SHALL FARMS CONTENTS Page Summary 1 Small farms 3 How measured 3 How many small farms 4 The resources of small farms 7 Land 7 Machinery and buildings 9 Manpower resources 10 Labor utilization 13 Distribution of 1942 production 15 Production adjustments from 1942 to 1943 » 17 Possibilities for expansion of selected commodities 18 Sweetpotatoes 18 Peanuts 18 Dry b eans 18 YJheat 19 Irish potatoes 19 Commercial vegetables 19 Livestock 19 Share of total expansion in production 21 Extent to 'which maximum production reduces "underemployment" 24 YfJlRTIJE P&ODUCXIOn ADJUST tl^TS ON SMALL FARrlS Public interest in the possibilities for obtaining greater produc- tion from small farms has increased during the war. It has been suggested that, on these farms, manpower is not fully utilized and production can be increased without additional farm workers. The purpose of this report is to appraise the production possibilities of relatively small farm units with respect to the physical and human resources available to. them, the way in \yhich these resources are being used, and the means by which production on these farms can be increased. Summary About two-thirds of the farms in the United States, as counted by the Census of 1940, could be regarded as small farms in the sense that, as operated in 1939, they had a volume of business which was too small to employ fully the labor of a typical farm family at usual levels of efficiency. Increased farm production since 1939 probably has reduced this number to sane extent. Analysis of sample-area studies made in 27 States in 1943 reveals that farms of all sizes, including very small units, can make further increases in production. In general, the greatest percentage increases are possible on the smaller farms, but the greatest cpaantitative increases will come from, the -larger farms. For very small farms, adjustments in the direc- tion of increased work off the farm and a reduction in the number of such units are frequently indicated. It is estimated that about 44 percent of further possible wartime increases in production would come from small farms. This group of farms has 39 percent of the cropland, suggesting that, although the smaller farms are somewhat more intensively operated than larger farms, production possibilities are closely related to the available cropland acreage. Enterprises that offer particularly favorable opportunities for expansion on the smaller farms include sweetpotatoes, dry beans, Irish potatoes in noncommercial areas, peanuts at least in areas where pro- duction is not highly mechanised, commercial vegetables, poultry, dairy products, feeder pigs, and replacement dairy heifers. The areas vary, of course, in regard to suitable commodities and the extent of possible expansion. rluximum production mil not be achieved mthout guidance and assistance. For the larger farms relatively large increases in produc- tion per farm can be obtained by making available adequate supplies of labor, equipment, and materials. For the. smaller farms, rather small individual increases can be secured from many farms. To a greater extent than on the larger farms there is need for guidance and training in — : — cultural practices, more assurance that adequate feed supplies mil be available, and increased cooperative effort to meet special production problems such as providing peanut pickers and storage of sweetpotatoes. If properly guided, increased production should bring the utilization of manpower on perhaps If or 2 million small farms up to a reasonable standard. It would not be sufficient to reduce materially the underemployment on very small farms. To the extent that livestock producers on small farms are not assured of an adequate source of grain feeds and are not otherwise encouraged to maintain livestock production, underemployment on these farms will be aggravated. Increased hiring of members of families on very small farms by other farmers appears to offer a better opportunity for improving the effectiveness of labor use than does increased production on the farm. However, the family labor force on such units is made up of relatively immobile types of workers, such as farm operators, their wives, and young children. The incidence of age and physical incapacity is also high on small farms. The most promising solution appears to be a vigorous local program to promote fuller use of all the labor within each community, together with some recruiting of whole families from the less productive units for year-round work or as operators on other farms. Low output per worker in certain areas, and on the smaller farms within areas, is frequently a result of the application of labor without adequate tools or under conditions that preclude the use of machines. In either case, it is not synonymous with underemployment. Frequently, a low level of output per weaker is accompanied by long hours of work and by little or no idleness. If physical conditions in the area permit the increased use of equipment which will increase the efficiency of labor, it should be made available if through it labor will be released for other vork. In all areas efforts should be made to combine all the available equipment with all the available manpower so as to maximize the use of both. It is too often assumed that the farmer who has a small volume of business will have time to work on larger farms nearby. The large— scale farmer might also make his equipment available for use on the smaller farm. The exchange of labor and machine work would contribute greatly to increased efficiency of labor. Not all of the ineffective use of labor is in the groups of smaller farms. In some cases, a low level of labor effectiveness is found on farms that hire considerable labor or that have several sharecropper families. Although the increase in production would appear to be sufficient in most cases to eliminate underemployment on the relatively large farms, it does not follow as a matter of course that it will do so. Some operators whose labor efficiency is law f if left to themselves, may hire more workers and maintain the present degree of inefficiency. Efforts should be extended to improve labor efficiency on such f arras. •- s - < Small Farms How Measured •For the purposes of this report, a small farm is considered to be one whose level of production in 1942 was insufficient to have fully employed a typical farm family at usual rates of efficiency. This is only one of many standards that might have been used in describing small farms-. It was adopted because it appeared that such a classifica- tion would lend itself more readily to application in different parts of the country than would a classification in terms of acreages, or some other measure. Obviously, all farms are not operated by families that could be considered typical and, as shown later, the smaller farms tend to have a smaller family labor force than the larger farms . Full employment, as used here, represents the amount of work that is normally accomplished by a farm worker in a year in a given area under average conditions and with the usual equipment. It should be kept in mind that some farms that have a relatively large acreage of cropland will be classified as "small farms" according to this procedure. In a highly mechanized area such as the Corn Belt, for example, farms with perhaps 80 acres of cropland and little live- stock would be considered small because of the large acreage that can be handled per man with modern machines. Perhaps a farm with 20 acres of cropland in the more mountainous portions of the Appalachians would not be considered small because the labor required per acre with the tools available is large, and so the acreage that can be taken care of by a worker is limited. To facilitate the analysis, farms are divided into four groups: Group I, farms whose production in 1942 was sufficient to employ fully the family labor of a typical farm family; Group II, farms which as operated in 1942 did not have a volume of business sufficient to employ fully a typical farm family, tut which had a sufficient volume of business to make it likely that, in most cases, production could be increased to a point approaching full employment; Group III, farms whose 1942 volume of business was sufficient to indicate good opportunities for the expansion of production, but so limited that relatively few could be expected to approach full employment of a typical farm family; Group IV, farms whose production in 1942 was so low that opportunities for employing a farm family on the farm or for increasing production would be very limited. In this report, farms in Groups II, III, and IV, are considered small farms, but Group IV contains a considerable number of units that would more properly be classified as retirement homes or rural residences As a part of the Production Capacity study undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and the Land-Grant Colleges in 1943, an investigation was made of the production possibilities of farms of different sizes, on the basis of the human and material resources available to them or that could be made available. This phase of the - 4 - study was undertaken in sample areas in 27 States. The State committees exercised considerable latitude in the selection of areas and in the development of the studies; as a result, in some cases the classification of farms is not strictly comparable. The statistics contained in the State reports cannot, therefore, be suirunarized and expanded in an exact mathematical sense. 3ut they are sufficiently similar that general conclusions can be drawn from points on which the reports are in agreement. Table 1 indicates the areas in which the studies were located and the measures used for the classification of farms. Figure 1 shot's the location of the sample areas. In the selection of areas an attempt was made to secure representation of as many of the major type-of -farming areas in the country as possible. How Many Small Farms About two-thirds of the farms in the United Ctates would be classified as small f arras according to the definition used in this report (table 2). These farms, numbering about 4 million, contain about 40 percent of the cropland. 1/ Of these farms, l| million fall in the class of very small farms, retirement units, and rural residences, Group IV; and 1.8 million are in Group II, and are therefore of sufficient size that most of them could fully occupy the time of a typical farm family provided certain readjustments were made in organization, inclu- ding the addition of labor-intensive livestock enterprises where feas- ible. This leaves something like 350,000 farms which are large enough to be justifiably regarded as farm units but too small to make it likely that many of them could be expanded to occupy fully the time of a farm family without the addition of more land. The problem of expanding production on small farms centers around the 2.7 million farms in Groups II and III. So long as there is demand for increasing farm production efforts should also be made to increase production on the 1§ million small places in Group IV, but the assistance offered should be in keeping with the limited nature of production from this group. The average acreage of harvested cropland per farm in 1939 was 100 acres in Group I, 46 acres in Group II, 24 acres in Group III and 13 acres in Group IV, a:920 17.1 18,695,932 319,142,639 5.9 1C0.0 12.8 All farms: 1 6,093,734 100.0 52.3 1/ Estimates by the BaE, based in part on data secured in- a cpoperative project with the Bureau, of the Census in which a 2-percent sample of the 1940 Agriculture Census Returns were used. : 2/ Farms,, with operators under 65 years of age, and on which operators did not work off the farms as* much as 100 days in 1339. The Resour c es of Small Farms There is wide variation between areas in the proportion of farms falling £h the different size : groups, and in the distribution of land, as shown in table 3 for selected 'sample areas. For the area shown, from one-fourth to two— thirds of the farm land, and a s.omewhat smaller propor- tion of the cropland is contained by the samll farms. land The proportion of farm land, and also the proportion of cropland, represented by small farms is considerably less than the proportion of farms. Small farms, particularly those in Group IV, are limited; not only in quantity of land but in quality as well. In Upshur County, Tf. Va., yields of corn and potatoes on Group IV farms were found to be 20 and 30 percent lower, respectively, than the average of all farms. In, Columbia County, "Wash., "small f arms .... .are located on cut-over land having inferior soils." "*"" - 8 - Table 3«- Distribution of farms, land in farms and cropland for selected sample areas by groups of farms, 1942 : Percent Percent Percent Percent Windham County, Conn, (A New England part-time farming area) Percent of farms Percent of land Percent of cropland Lancaster County, Pa« (A dairy area) Percent of farms Percent of land Percent of cropland Haakon County, 3, Dak» (A range-livestock area) Percent of farms Percent of land Percent of cropland Jefferson County, Term. (A general farming area) Percent of farms Percent of land Percent of cropland Clay Hills Area, Miss. (A cotton area) Percent of farms Percent of land Percent of cropland 44 66 73 56 74 76 33 56 63 16 12 9 13 12 10 13 15 15 20 20 ID 12 10 8 20 11 12 2 12 2 20 29 11 8 10 7 : 11 22 38 29 : 32 34 26 8 : 38 35 21 6 : X : 20 30 35 15 % 49 31 1G 4 : 33 35 22 7 rladison County, Idaho (An irrigated special crop area) Percent of farms Percent of land Percent of cropland 39 66 67 25 23 8 21 12 1 19 12 2 In Pulaski .County, Va., nearly threes-fourths of the farms in Group IV were on land considered :,, submarginal for agriculture, " 98 percent 'of the farms on "submarginal* land were in Groups III and IV.. Conversely, none of the farms in Group IV^.were. on the "better . grades of land which in its present condition and use will support a prosperous agriculture." More than four- fifths of the' farms on :the better -grades of land were., in Group I. In the "open-country" sections of Chemung County, N. Y.-— a part-time farming locality— almost two-thirds- of the families on the smallest farms had "little or no land suitable for farming." . In- Jefferson County, Term., more than nine-tenths of the land in Group IV is "generally best suited to pasture or forest," whereas in Group I mare; than 37 percent of the land is "fair to excellent cropland." In Edgefield County, S. C, cropland in the groups of small farms was. from 10 t o 20 percent less productive than in. Group I in terms of yields that" could: be obtained with the application of lime and fertilizer^ The same' tendency exists to some extent on farms that have irrigated land. In Cache County, Utah,, only 23 percent of the cropland on the smallest farms was irrigated compared with 53 percent or more for the other groups. In addition, "general f.observati on and experience indicate that the smaller farms have the least favorable soil and moisture conditions." In Weld County, Colo., however, "there does not appear to be any marked differ- ence in the quality of the soil or- in the adequacy of irrigation water - between -the groups of farms." In -Lewis County, Wash., "there was little to indicate any appreciable difference- in the location of the first three groups of farms with respect to- quality of soil and distance to markets. There was some indication, however, that. Group IV farms were less favorably located both with respect to distance from towns and to quality of soil." '■-Location near nonfarm employment appears to be of considerable . importance to Group IV farms in many areas. In several instances it was reported that farms in this group are likely to be located near urban -centers and' on improved roads.- • .■...,.,,, Machinery and Buildings -,•'.-„ Naturally- the larger farms tend to have more, larger, and better buildings and. are better equipped with power and machinery than the small farms. Evidently small farms are not adequately equipped wi'th even the simpler equipment and tools, and the operators often substitute man labor which is relatively more abundant . Hence, lack of proper equipment is partly responsible for inefficient use of labor on the small farms. It would be 'difficult, of- course, to use. labor-saving machinery on many of them where fields, are. small or steeply rolling. Frequently farmers who have only a small business cannot afford the more expensive pieces of machinery. Several reports suggested that .the expensive machines needed to produce some crops should be made available for use on small farms by one means or another. Peanut pickers are ah example. However, it may be significant that although nearly all the reports commented upon the lack of common types of labor-saving . machinery on small farms, none suggested their addition as a means of expanding production. There are other and more important limitations; to production on' these farms. -»- The feasibility of expanding livestock numbers on a particular group of f arns does not always depend upon the adequacy of present farm buildings. Frequently the availability of other factors of production, feed for instance, is more important. In a study in a Tennessee dairy area, for example, the suggested increase in numbers of dairy cows on farms in Group I was 27 percent although existing shelter would accommodate an increase of only 2 percent. No increase in dairy cows was suggested on farms in Group III, although barn space was available for an additional number of dairy cows equal to 15 percent of 1942 numbers. Manpower Resources The regular farm-labor force per farm is greater on the larger farms, and decreases as the volume of farm business goes down. For Groups III and IV, operators and members of their families make up nearly all the regular labor force; and the effective family labor force in these two groups is smaller than average because operators tend to be older or more often in- capacitated, and fewer grown sons have remained on the farms. This characteristic must be kept in mind when considering the extent to which workers can be released from the lower producing farms for work elsewhere. Table 4 gives the regular labor force available for farm work on farms classified according to volume of business in 1942. The labor force was converted to man equivalents and expressed in terms of an able— bodied man. The conversion factors used for different types of workers varied by States, but probably reflect the effectiveness of various types of labor reasonably well in all cases 2/. The labor force includes the members of the family who work on the farm, regular hired labor, and croppers. Time spent off the farm by members of t he farm family was deducted, and season- al and occasional hired labor, including contract workers, were not counted in the labor force. In addition to the regular force, many seasonal workers are hired in some areas. Here again the number of workers is much greater on the larger farms, but on relatively small farms it is necessary to hire some for peak loads. In Gloucester County, N. J., for example, the "peak full-time seasonal workers per farm' 1 was 8.8 on farms in Group I, 4.9 in Group II, 3.0 in Group III, and 0.1 in Group IV, with an average on all farms of 4.7 workers. large numbers of seasonal workers are used in this area on fruit and vegetable enterprises. 2/ The man-equivalent conversion ratios by age and sex, as used in the North Carolina report, illustrate the general manner in which workers were rated: Age Man equ ivalents l Male Female Under 14 j : .2 .1 14-17 : .4 1 .2 18-44 ! : 1.0 .3 45-64 ! .8 .2 65— up j i .3 .1 o - 11 - Table 4.- Regular labor force available for farm work on farms classified by size of business, 1942 1/ t i Area covered by sample i I.Ian equiva lents per : Group farm State : Group : Group : Group : ! I II : III IV : Number : Number : Number : Number Vermont : ! Franklin County : 1.9 1.3 1.0 .3 Connecticut i : Windham County ! 2.1 O « w .5 .1 New Jersey : Gloucester County i . 3.1 1.4 1.3 .5 Pennsylvania : Lancaster County : 2.1 1.3 1.3 .6 Illinois i 10 counties : 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.3 South Dakota 2/ : : Haakon County ! 1.8 1.5 1.2 .8 Virginia : Pulaski bounty i l 3.6 2.0 1.4 1.0 West Virginia ! Upshur County ! ! 1.1 .9 .8 .4 Tennessee : : Jefferson County --i 2.8 2.2 1.6 1.0 North Carolina ; ; 12 counties i . 6.3 2.5 1.9 1.7 Goo?gia ! Bulloch County j : 9.5 4.5 2.6 2.0 Ai'-'.oama i Henry County : 5.4 1.7 . 1.2 Oklahoma 2/ \ Okfuskee County i : 2.2 2.0 ; 1.7 1.5 Tex.is ! Smith County i 3.2 2.0 . ; 1.7' 1.6 Colorado s Weld County J t 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.1 'Washington ! (Columbia County \ : 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.0 i (Lewis County j ! 1.8 1.2 1.0 .6 1/ Does not include seasonal workers hired for less than 3 months;' sharecroppers are included, 2/ Includes family labor only. By and large, the primary source of farm labor is the farm family — the farmer, his wife, and their children. Aside from the very large farms, which are rather few, year-round or regular hired men are employed for the most part to supplement the labor force on farms that do. not have a full complement of family workers . Table 5 indicates thei composition of the regular labor force by size groups for seven of the sample areas. The importance of the farmer and the family in getting the farm work done is evident. As the size of business decreases, the family labor becomes a greater part of the farm force. ... But family labor is also very important on the large farms. In areas where there are sharecroppers, they reduce the proportion of the work done by the farm family especially on .the.. larger, farms. .Data from 14 counties in eastern Wisconsin indicate the* kinds of farms that hire labor. In this area only 14 'percent of the farms have a regular hired man for 3 months or more. About t 86 percent of the operators hiring labor are farmers with no sons at home 16 years old or over. Eleven percent have male operators and sons who are over 15 years old. The other 3 per- cent are widows. This situation is probably typical of most areas where farms tend to be of family size or smaller. h 4^ - v G C r "5 o C O C w C\c O O u CO •» o c w • • •• w -P g t T3 Hi G 5 •H (h fc O ID Oi O cv O CO P •r\ r-t P P p , A3 O u •• •• 2-. cm c S +3 O Hi a •H § O O s CO en CO CC m CO rn R M CQ Ch i-4 H •H p- G 0-, +3 J-. ,G o p C CD T3 a o O ' c r-i to O O G o rH •H ^ ' oj «M o Oh •H • • •• 10 M +3 10 M -a c a l-i g o cc LO C\i CO «tf O o r p o * G 0-, H Sh c >> -P ctJ t— i C C\2 *. LO O C\i CD O p ' O O w- Cj C7> c O £^ c5 f f H o P^ Q> 0) c\* o ^ 0-, u +3 Jn CT; G c O H p a , * <.-i r * u C O ' O 'j r CO O O *k O ^ f-^ » Jh to- u ' G O 0} u • ,Q G r-i Cd - Hi •• •• c +3 ■fl X r. -o- C G O O p-i ' b~ O to P. c P bH f-H r4 t-i cd +3 o Q) S-( O U !X * O O o S-< o n ;-. M <• o 43 •H. H T^ -P Q) G •H n *H C to ^< ^3 to O << o p SP r . Ol ^ C£ r4 Ci B' •h | Q e C ♦t .. . o t>> 43 o i H C ■H G CD C> 1—' LO O 0- O fcX. tf J-! cti P=-< J , •P c G 0- • o -d O • M o • O c • 55 k g to Oh CO H u y G •H r; • b • t /" P pi +3 43 C- c d r*\ • 6 oj •H c: '- K • •H O LO o: r-i G p 5-, ^3 cd.. ^ O ,G3 JZ _^ CO 05 o t>, P G «M 43 P •H r— i 3*° a ■ O . c-, •g H & ,o ^ i-H c G O 3 * cd E-i P^ 1— i l-> to • a» • • -p -0 • C • rC jc: i' • H G X 'ti 9 ■P 43 • rH G 0) ^ ra >--. *—« H IH E-< |^r -13 - Operators on the larger farms are younger than those on the smaller farms in nost sample areas for which this information is available (table 6). The average Age of operators is greatest on either Group III or IV farms in seven of the eight sample areas listed. • 1/iany of the Group IV farms are retirement or semiretirement units which accounts for the greater age of this group of operators. On the other hand, this group probably includes a few young operators who are just getting started. In some part-time farming localities, operators on very small units are likely to be younger than the average. Many reports discussed age and physical condition of the operator even though they did not give the average age of operators by groups. In Cache County, Utah, "the average operator (on the small farm) is older, more of them have reached the age of semiretirement, more are partially crippled or incapacitated for heavy labor, and more of the farms are operated entirely by women or children." In Illinois, "part of the small production per worker on small farms is probably due to the advanced age of the operator or to the health of the operator or his family." In Jefferson County, Term., 30 percent of the Group III farms were "farms on which the operators were too old for nonfarm employment" and about one- fourth of the Group IV farms were "farms occupied by aged or disabled persons." Table 6.- Average age of farm operators on farms classified by size of business, selected areas, 1943 Area covered bv A vp.rage. age of ope: rat or s. State '• sample : Group : Group • Group • Group 5 All T : TT : TTT i TV : fa vyuz i Years Years Years Years Years Vt. 1/ ; : Franklin County j 43 48 49 64 49 Conn. 2/ i , Windham County i 49 50 60 57 53 N. J. j Gloucester County « 51 49 55 48 50 Pa. j : lane aster County j : 43 52 55 58 48 S. Dak. ! t Haakon County j 51 51 51 58 53 Ga. j : Bulloch County j : 54 51 53 51 52 Wash. | : (Columbia County ; : 50 48 55 53 51 j 4 i (Lewis County \ i 47 1 50 53 53 52 1/ Does not include 7 female operators. 2/ Does not include 5 female operators. Labor Utilization Although the regular labor force available for farm work is greatest on the relatively large farms and declines through each of the other groups with the decline in volume of business (table 4), this difference is more than offset by the greater quantity of work to be done on the larger farms in caring for crops and livestock. The volume of work to be done per man equivalent available is greatest on the large farms and declines through the other size groups. It should be remembered that much of the work on - 14 - the smaller Tarns is done without labor-saving equipment. Furthermore, these estimates exclude upkeep worl: and take no account of the fact that more time is required for farm operations on the small, irregular fields on the smaller farms. Even when allowance is made for differences in age and physical condition of the workers, farms with a small volume of business apparent- ly used labor less effectively. Eut the underutilization of labor is not confined to small farms and no group has reached the maximum of labor efficiency. A comparison of the quantity of work accomplished per man equivalent on farms in the different size-groups indicates roughly the effectiveness with which labor is used (table 7).. The low number of productive man-work units 3/ per man equivalent in some areas and on some groups of farms should not be construed to mean that there is a correspondingly high degree of unemployment or idleness. The study of Upshur County, W. Va., for example, indicates that, although the average number of work units per man equivalent is only 90, "this area must now be considered as one in which labor resources are fully employed". Farm workers in this area can be expected to accomplish only a relatively low number of man-work units because of the small and irregularly shaped fields, the extensive use of hand labor, and other disadvantages. An approach to the better utilization of labor on small farms in- volves two questions. On farms where labor efficiency is low, does the production obtained justify the high input of labor, and is there an alternative use for the kinds of labor involved at the seasons when it would be available? Can the effectiveness of labor use on such farms be increased by improvements in methods and equipment and would the labor thus released be available for needed work elsewhere? No general answers can be given to these questions that would apply in all parts of the country. However, the total sum of man hours involved in ineffective production on small farms appears to be so large that it would seem well worth while to examine, area by area, the possibilities for improving efficiency and for the release of labor for other activities. Enough has been said about the composition of the labor force on small farms, particularly those in Groups III and IV — the tendency for operators to be older and physically handicapped, and the relatively immobile types of family labor represented — to indicate that small farms constitute a limited source of labor for industry or farms in other areas. The best possibilities lie in the direction of increasing the work done on other farms in the same community and some recruitment of entire families from the less productive farms for work elsewhere. Such a problem should be approached on a local or community basis, with regional or State guidance with respect to types of workers needed and the seasons when they can be used. 5/ A productive man-work unit represents the amount of productive work accomplished by one able-bodied man in a 10-hour work day. -15 - Table 7.- Productive man-work units l/ per nan equivalent 2/ on farms classified by size of business, 1942 Vt. Conn, N. J. Pa, 111. S, Dak. Va. W. Va. Term. N. C. Ga, Ala. Okla. Wash. Franklin Co. Windham Co. Gloucester Co. Lancaster Co. 10 sample counties Haakon Co. t Pulaski Co. : Upshur Co, j Jefferson Co. : 12 sample counties : Bulloch Co. j Henry Co. : (Jackson Co. : (Okfuskee Co. : (Columbia Co. : (Lewis Co. 366 258 316 298 299 271 230 120 228 193 167 250 299 266 257 Man-work units p e r man equivalent Group : Group : Group : Group t II III IV All farms Number Number Number Number Number 278 226 253 230 248 179 211 90 134 164 143 256 184 156 193 222 207 204 160 142 218 161 167 81 87 116 132 175 131 133 108 186 165 200 60 94 149 110 116 70 70 51 89 69 86 49 75 336 231 270 260 231 217 198 90 123 142 136 243 202 153 180 206 1/ Amount of productive work accomplished by one able-bodied man in a 10-hour day, 2/ See footnote 2, page 10. Distribution of 1942 Production The relative distribution of the total acreage of individual crops and the numbers of livestock on farms in the different groups, when compared with the amount of cropland in each, gives an indication of the intensity of operation of farms of different sizes and serves to point out that some enter- prises tend to be concentrated in certain groups of farms. The more extensive crops, such as corn, seem to be distributed among groups in about the same way as is cropland. Farms of larger volume general- ly have a higher proportion of cropland in soybeans than do smaller farms. There is a tendency for sweetpotatoes, and to a lesser extent vegetables grown for sale and Irish potatoes, to occupy a larger proportion of cropland on the smaller businesses than on larger units. For the vegetables grovjn for sale and for potatoes the tendency toward concentration on smaller units is limited to areas which are not highly commercialized. The three enter- prises mentioned contribute to home consumption, and this may be fully as important in explaining the greater concentration on smaller farms as any effort to increase volume of business through intensification. The acre- age of peanuts is distributed among groups approximately in the same proportion as is cropland. -.16 Efforts to build up the size of. the smaller farm businesses and to increase home food supplies are apparent with respect to laying hens and brood sows. In practically all areas the number of hens and sows per acre of cropland is greater on the smaller farms than on the larger. Milk cow numbers tend to be somewhat concentrated on the smaller farms, but do not deviate greatly from the distribution of cropland. Aside from a few sample counties in predominantly subsistence areas, where both the share of cropland and the share of production were rather high in Group IV, farms in this group contributed a very small portion of the production of any commodity, A comparison by groups of farms of aggregate volume of production, as measured by war units 4/ with the distribution of cropland indicates that farms in Groups III and IV are little if any more intensively operated" than the larger farms. Farms in Group II appear in most sample counties to be slightly more intensive than farms in other groups! It would seem that farms. -with a volume of business too small to employ fully a. typical farm family would tend to be more intensively operated than larger units. This does not appear to.be the case except to a very minor degree. This is partly because many families on small farms, particu- larly on the very small places, are not up to the average with respect to size and physical capacity of the family labor force. Also, the ^frequent references in the State reports to the lower quality of soil and inadequacy of buildings and equipment and the suggestion in the Tennessee report that heavier per acre applications of fertilizer are needed on the smaller farms, have a bearing upon the question of the ease with which production could be; intensified. If we were dealing with size of farm in terms of acres per farm there probably would generally be greater. intensity of operation on smaller than on larger farms, particularly in type-of -farming areas where livestock enterprises were important. The classification of farms in the Illinois report was based upon acres per farm, and the smaller farms tended to have a greater share of total war units in comparison with their share of total cropland than the larger farms indicating that t)rey were more intensively operated (table 8). IVhere acreage of cropland per farm is the only limitation, farmers attempt to overcome it by developing more intensive systems of farming. This report, however, deals with groups, of farms that have other limita- tions of resources. In fact, although crop acreage .generally appears to be limited in the lower groups it is not always so, and in some areas con- siderable idle cropland is r.eported on the small farms. It would perhaps be more appropriate to refer to the farms in the lower groups as low- producing farms rather than as small farms. The question now to be con- sidered is whether or not these low-producing farms can be encouraged to expand production in wartime and the means by which.it can be done. 4/ A war unit is a measure developed by Selective Service which permits enterprises to be rated primarily in accordance with the amount of labor required to produce them. - 17 - Table 8.- Distributi on of cropland count and ies total , 1942 war ur tits, 10 Illinois Farms Cropland • TJar units Percent Percent Group I 33.0 26.9 Group II : 26.9 25.9 Group III ! 32.7 37.0 Group IV ! 7.4 10.2 All farms j 100.0 100.0 Produc 1 /ion Ac L.justments fr ora 1942 tc 1943 Changes in production from 1942 to 1943 were reported for the sample areas in seven States. In most areas net increases in production were in- dicated. The aggregate increase for all farms in each group was greater for the groups of larger than for the groups of smaller farms, with few exceptions. On a percentage basis, however, the change was usually greater on the smaller farms, as the following examples will illustrate. In the irrigated sections of VJeld County, Colo., the increase in potato acreage was 9 percent on farms in Group I and 33 percent in Group III. The acre- age increases for these two groups were, respectively, 1,513 acres, and 999 acres. In a cotton area of the Lower Atlantic Coastal Plain, Bulloch County, Ga., the peanut acreage was increased about 47 percent, or 3,641 acres in Group I, and about 60 percent or 1,365 acres in Group IV. The average increases in acreage of corn for the sample farms in 10 Illinois counties, each in a different type of farming area, were 14 percent for farms in Group I and 17 percent in Group. IV. In terms of acreage, this represented an increase of 5,003 acres for Group I and only 1,328 acres for Group IV. In Upshur County, W. Va., representing a general, self-sufficient type of farming, the number of beef cows was increased 9 percent on Group I farms, and 18 percent on Group IV, but the actual increase amounted to 238 animals in Group I compared with 37 in Group IV. - 18 - Possibilities for ISxpansion of Selected Comnodities Because of the differences' in resources available to the various groups of farms, the opportunities for expanding the production of a given commodity are also different. The situation vrith respect to a few selected commodities is here discussed. Swe etpotatoes The seven area reports that considered production possibilities for sweetpotatoes were in agreement that the best opportunities for expansion were on the smaller farms. Reasons given included the greater availability of family labor, the ease with which the crop could be grown on small acreages, and the fact that the crop would not require additional machinery on many farms. The report on Jackson County, Okla., suggested that crops more extensive than sweetpotatoes should be en- couraged on the larger farms in order to utilize the cropland available to them. An investigation in the northeast sandy lands area of Texas in- dicated that curing and storage of sweetpotatoes would raise some problems, but it does not appear that the storage problem would be any more acute oo small than on large farms, particularly if central storage houses could be provided to serve a number of farms. Peanuts The six studies that examined the possible increases in peanut acreage were in general agreement that the greater share of increases would come from the larger farms. In the Texas report it was suggested that the acreage of peanuts on large farms be expanded to the capacity of their land resources and that modern machinery be made available to them. It is said that 30 or more acres per farm are needed in this area to utilize effectively a set of modern machinery. Smaller farms can expand production on the basis of hiring certain harvesting operations, which would be performed by the well-equipped larger operators. This represents the situation in areas that are well adapted to large-scale operation. In the eastern areas, expanding peanut acreage on the smaller farms presents less difficulty, but it was considered that it frequently would be difficult to obtain the services of a picker for small acreages unless the crop could be hauled to the machine. Dry Beans The only major area for which production of dry beans was dis- cussed was ^feld County, Colo. In the nonirrigated parts - of this county, it was felt that increases in dry beans could be most easily obtained on the farms in Groups II and III, because they were generally more diversified and had the equipment for and experience in handling beans. In the irrigated sections relatively large increases would be desirable on farms in Group II because of the need in this group for a crop requiring less labor than sugar beets or potatoes. This situation arises from the fact that the sugar-beet acreage per farm in this group is - 19 - greater than can be handled by the family labor, but is not sufficient- to attract a beet-worker family since the earnings of such families are dependent upon the acreage handled. The suggested increase in bean acre- age is in line with adjustments made on farms in this group in 1943. Wheat Most of the increase in wheat acreage apparently should come from relatively large farms, because of the availability of land and the opportunities for 'large-scale production. Irish Potatoes For the one commercial area where the possibilities of this crop were discussed — Weld County, Colo. — it was suggested that the best opportunities for increase are found on the larger farms because the equipment required for handling the crop is available and because reduc- tion would be feasible in irrigated wheat and in alfalfa acreages on farms in this group. For four noncommercial and- subsistence areas the better opportunities for expansion were on farms in the small-size groups, because of the small acreages of land required per farm, the availability of labor, and the small amount of machinery required for the crop in such areas. Potatoes are also an attractive source of cash income for small farms in many noncommercial areas. Commercial Vegetables The reports generally indicated that expansion of commercial- vegetable production was one of the more promising ways of increasing production in Groups III and IV, because of the small acreage involved per farm, the high labor requirements, and the possibility of handling the crop without elaborate machinery. It' was mentioned in some of the reports that the expansion of acreages on the smaller farms should be accompanied by careful instruction of the growers in cultural methods and intensive efforts to interest them in growing vegetable crops. Location- of the smaller farms with respect to markets did not seem to be less favorable than for larger farms . Livestock The question of possible adjustments in livestock production among groups of farms is closely associated with the distribution of the acre- ages of feed crops and with the extent to which it is desirable to make feed available to the lower producing farms in order to utilize more fully their manpower resources or »ven to maintain existing systems of farming which depend upon purchased feed. The number of roughage-consuming animals is rather closely associated with the roughage-producing capacity of the farm, whereas the number of grain-consuming animals is frequently increased beyond the carrying capacity of the farm through the purchase of grain. This is a common method of expanding the size of business on small farms. - 20 - A comparison of the acreage of roughage per roughage-consuming animal unit in the sample counties for which such a comparison could be made shows very little difference between groups of farms, at least so far as acreage is concerned. A similar comparison of acreages of feed grains per grain-consuming animal unit indicates that generally there is a smaller acreage of feed grain per animal unit on the smaller farms 4 Livestock are probably fed somewhat less heavily on the smaller farms than on larger farms, but it appears from the reports that crop production per acre is lower. Therefore, it can be concluded that their feed resources in relation to feed requirements are less. The Tennessee report furnished information concerning the purchase of feed which indicates that those groups . of . farms .which had the lowest acreage of grain or roughage, or both, per animal unit, bought the largest quantities of feed per animal unit in 1942. In a few cases, changes in the cropping systems on small farms can be made to increase feed production, but generally increased livestock production on the smaller farms will mean buying additional feed. Most of the area reports recognized that increasing livestock on the smaller farms would be one means of increasing the effectiveness of labor on these farms, but with the limited feed supplies in prospect, suggested adjustments in livestock numbers do not go very far to eliminate underemployment. It is possible that, if more attention were given to shifts in production between groups of farms rather than to increases for all farms, some further possibilities could be developed for increasing livestock production- on the smaller farms. Enterprises that would lend themselves particularly well to this type, of adjustment would include, feeder pigs, milk cows, and laying hens. . In some localities, with adequate pasture but with unfavorable market outlets for dairy products, the raising of replacement dairy heifers might offer attractive possi- bilities. It does not appear that changes in the ratio between feed and livestock prices will encourage adjustments of this kind for although a relatively higher price for feed grain might make more feed available to the purchaser, it would discourage the feeder. Obviously, uncertainties with respect to the price of feed or its availability will discourage the livestock producer who is dependent upon purchased feed to a greater extent than other producers. Some of the studies, particularly in the Southern States, raised questions relative to the utilization of increased livestock production on the smaller farms. In the report for the clay-hills section .of Mississippi it was stated that some of the better one-mule cotton farms could expand dairy production without adding to their acreage of cropland; but although one-third of such farms -have 1 milk cow and 57 percent have. 2 cows or more, only 3 percent are selling any dairy products. Apparent- ly increased production on such farms would be mainly for- home use. A study in the northern dairy section of Vermont indicates that nearly all producers who have 20 cows or more can meet the license requirements for the sale of whole milk. A lower percentage of the smaller units have met these requirements, and others can do so only at considerable expense, if at all. - 21 - Share of Total Expansion in Production The extent of change from 1942 production to wartime maximum levels was estimated for 25 areas on the basis of war units (table 9). 5/ The total changes for the four groups in these areas ranged from a decrease of 5 percent for Lewis County, Wash., to an increase of 43 per- cent in the northeast sandy land section of Texas. The net decrease in Lewis County, Wash., was due chiefly to a decrease in poultry numbers and to a shift from canning peas to dry peas. In most of the sample areas possible increases are indicated in each group of farms but occasionally maximum production for an area calls for a decrease from the 1942 level of production for one or more of the groups. These decreases' usually appear in Group IV. In most of the sample areas the estimated percentage increase is larger on farms in Groups III or IV than for the other groups but, with few exceptions, the actual quantity increase is greater on the larger farms (table 10) . A rough measure of the approximate share of production increases that would come from each group of farms can be obtained by using the data from the sample studies in conjunction with the estimates prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics from special census tabulations. (See page 4.) From table 2, page 7, it appears that one-third of the farms and 60 percent of the propland are in the group of relatively large farms. One-fourth of the farms, but only 6 percent of the cropland, are in Group IV. The average acreage of cropland per farm is about 100 acres in the highest group and 13 acres in the lowest. When farms operated by aged persons and by operators who spend con- siderable time in work off the farm are subtracted from the total, a higher proportion of the farms remaining are in Groups II and III. The farms operated by younger men, and by operators who devote most of their • time to work on the farms, would seem to afford the most favorable opportunities for increasing production, as a rough measure of the share of increased production, from 1942 to maximum, that would come from the different groups, the observed percentage increases in volume of produc- tion 6/ as shown by the sample studies were applied to the acreage of cropland in each group. This calculation indicates that about 56 percent of the increased production would be expected to come from the relatively large 'farms, about 30 percent from farms in Group II, 8 percent from farms in Group III, and 6 percent from the very small units in Group IV. » It should be pointed out that the contribution to marketable, sup- plies of -food from very small farms would be smaller than indicated above because a considerable part of the increase would be used at home. 5/ For definition of war unit, see footnote 4, page 16, 6/ As measured by war units. - 22 - to p. o u to >» X> >> -P •H O cti CX cO O £ •H to Jh co co ?-. £ C3 6 r-i O CO CO COLO^OrHcO'd'CU co t> en CM t> C\i O CO CD CD CO CD OOlO CD rH O O CV LO NWrtHlOlOtOW CD CO CO r-i O iH CV CO vj< CO CfltOOOWfjO'^tO LO O O cO t-i CM H c\2 iH O CO tJ< CO CO -^ rH CD •^ CD CD ^ CD O . -P U I o a CD CO O r-i H ^ -P O a • WWW CO t> rH CV2 CO r-i CD t> CV C- C H C- S| LOCO^C\2t>OCDLO (D > O) W W W LO o CO CO I> O C\> CO rH H O C\2 t> rH CV tOHWNWHW'* rH CO r-i CO LO CD CO r-i LO -sj* C\2 H OD-*WOCIOW^ CO LO H rH CO LO >(OifiMiOWWrJ l OCDOcDCDcVCDCD cd cd co «tf cv cd o t HOI - LO Cv2 CV C2 r-i LO OLOCOcDC\2COCCtJ< ^ CO rH H C2 CDOCDLOO^rHcO £>rHcOOCOE*-CDt> CD LO 05 CO LO C*~ LO H •« »* »\ »N •> »\ •, r-i CO r-i t> CV' H CD H H H CfiLOLOCOLOCVOCO CV W CV C\i CV H (Ti co to CV CC C.1 « LO0DCV W W H C\!lOC--CO- cv rH W CD -^ r-i CO rH H O C?> ID CD r-i *? CD CO CO ■ C\J rl< «* Cvi CD O ^f CO O CO -^ CO CV'^CO rH ^* to CO ^ o CO CR ^ "^1* O CO C«i to LO CD CD CO •v •» r-i c o CO tr! & o -p TJ S G) CD CO '>» t> tO rH 3 to n a CO ■H' ■d CO LO| CD CD LO rH -^ O CO rH rH rH ^^ o 00 CD "d" LO o rH << c^- CO CO rH C> CD LO C2 CC o o o O CD OJ CT! CO to CO O "* CD i — i C* ^ C\i to H a; o jn Cj to CD i-HC- H O CO o LO 00 L> H W L-J C- H CO O to O 01 c- H CO CC CD c*: rH •^ to "# cv c- CD c\? c CT t> <* CM Oi CO if. CO CO L^ H H co H CO H LO CD H 10 CV' co ^ a o CD H «H O CO > > • • ■B o o q ;H >it3 u rH S CD 1 Q) ^ - t-^« -P 1 3 1 o •H i -a -p nj o en Jh u A 2 5 ^H 5 -H o -^ o o o o • o X! O o o c rH O co ^a rl cfl I •H t« O O cfl a m o o LOI-P CO • O o o o T3 r< O U C; C ch 0) U-\ co +3 C3 •p -P ^J 1 01 CO to 1 r3 •H £ o oo O co • o o u •p CO 0) o o H o I •H D,\ 0) •H COl CO co U co cd t» •H 0) *"3 CO u to oj ^ si ^ to r-i. r-i H O 1 ^1 O o rH • 3 1 • • o o o o U O ^ CO B •H I LO] CtJ cB sj^-s 3 at o S5 C H U tD O o t C -rH O u >> • -P «H •d c CO CO c c c ri cd b.r o o cO O T". ^ CO CO c c DO ^3 K o cj ta o +» to i-i I X Ci- CO • ^ Vn CO C u I cO I (1)-> CO TD 1 co x X CD to c C +3 +3 6 p 5 E o c C CO eg X -P CO CD • Q> XI r-i • U Xi C CD ■H| -P rH O O c c •H CO -P -P 0) O CD C •° C O - -p to -P P o to o h]^o] cM - 23 - 0) O0 W PJ E3 o rH iH O P «* «« •• CO CV e -^ Ch CD cd rH Cm 1 dl » r to cv ^ co cd rH Cm CD M c o cd -p o CO CV s ^ £■< CO Cm tO Jh P cd »H CO ctf «h (1) bp c3 -p o to cv K CM cd > to o to cv CM CD CO 3tO^<*ONCOCOLO^ H CV CO << LO rH H CV rH CV tO OCW *OHO^O lOCOiHCOOicDO ^ H m O CO C rH ^ CV LOtOCnOCOL>COO^OOOLOOCsiLO OOcnL/OCOCO-^OcVC-OOCrjCOLOO t> cv to co O O CO rH OO CO CV rH t> CV H H W H > H *V H H ~\ tO .' to P H LO tO rH rH LO HtDW^OtOCOC^giWCOCTCVHg^Wq H Oi CV Q H tO o ^ to cv CD t rH H rp O- t> O H t> £> CT 00 to rH CO H iH o co to CV COCV CD to H'LO LO O O CD • LO OLOO-^OOLOCO^LOtOrHO L0t>OHOL0CDC0L>OrHt>-O CT>-^tO COHCO rH CO CV Cn2 t> LO H ■ •* CO "3< CO H LO H W """"■^ •* • <*Ir-i rH OOCTiH>WOcO "vf 1 CO CV rH CO C?. £> CC ^ CO rH CV (V to ^1 rH o to •\ cv CO LO CO c to XJJrilOCTiCOtOCCCO^^OcV to 10 c; cOLotocvtOLOcvt>0 COHOOH^W t> co WH •k •» I I rH CV c cv co O 00 CO O CO CO O H O O CO CV C- CV rH OO-^LOOtOLOcVCO'^rHLOOLOOOCn — ' v -'■' LO ^ LO CV H CO ^ O rH rH CV CO ^ O CD CO LO "* (V rH CO rH V[ Lf J tO tO CO CC' ^ LO ^i O t> cv CO CO CV CV CO cv to O O LO "* LO H to ^ .^- ^ o Wcvi H t> CO rH *\ »\ LO O rH O O H OO'd' 02 O ■\ CV COLO-^LOCOtOI>-cVOLOrHC\>tOrHOCcOCDrHcVrHOtO 00C- "si-i CV CO «sf- CO •» »\ •» »\ CO LO CV rH to H CV| CV CD LO. ^ tO CO O '<' tO tO LO] *\ rH I CD LO CO CO CO O O O C5 CV CO O CV C- CD to CV LO O LO -* ^ OO's? OCVO OOLOtOOOrH^Cvi^HCOLOcV tO rH CO CO CV tO O>0 tOH^ ^ CV "* (V tO LO tO C0 CO LO OCOCVOLOOCOC LOCOVCV CDOCH tO CV CO O CO CD O cvl CD H rH ^ CV O CO t> H V CDCOLOOOCVOCO LO ■<< ^ O -vt* t> LO tO ^t 1 CD C» rH tO o rH ^1 tO-^OL^-rHC-tO^COrHLOsfl to rji co <* cv to co co oo cv a -^ "* CO LO O CV tO O O CV rH O M tpCDrHrHH CVtO H r-i , CO' O CD rH 00 tO CV LO T}< O t> CO CD CV. CV O CD O GO O O CD tO CO (V CV COO ^CV'nF ^1 LOJ O o Hjj S O O ^3 o o c >sT3 £• in rH , c ►? [ CD fe ^ ! t o •H -P o c a o ftol cd CD U CT? CO LO G O o • o o c a O TJ o CD t)-, •H -P .i 1 ! CO «H O O I M O CD X) LOf O o CD CO P rH CO rH CD -H O t£ o ^ rH r o M I -P P -H cd a, co a 3 -H si to o to «5 -H to to CO CO # toI to" o rf CD M ^ C Cti P CO rH O rH O # E3 I rH o a 1 c 1 -H LOI • « C C a o h o fe to o • o o o -a LOI e •H CD ^3 O P Xi CD to CO Ih CD CD O ■H o O CO CD C O d M O O X> ,id CC9l o tr CO 1-^ cd cti O I rcj I !>s o c CD U A-. co ctj cd co ShO P ? O o •P P cd i I CD C U rH ct) -H cd •H rH P C P Q > cd ^3 rH O P! o^ ^ ,C C -P ^> C ?f ? CD o O P-. CO CO TJ • cd C x< cd « CD to • y^ "~^^ • o XI •H O LO| o o 2 O >? o rH X3 • •a • • • £-t o o xs c a o. o O cd 3 c •H CD • o cd O CO o •H ^ •H ■£? "S !>> to CO rQ to & ^ r-t u C -H to s p P H c CD P •ri ^ ■H ^J S3 o to c o ch to 1 rH CO ^' H c ^ c: c co tH o o I c •H ,a 1 — '' CD S cc; I o b£ CD G CD CD p Cj p U & to o «H rH CO | P -H &3 •H C P c cx to I c c C > bC S p E CD CO O -H S pl si c CO nJ c cd ^ £ to P CO CO o < CO C H ^5 ^ ts to D3 CD CD E-< Em P C3 CD -H > > iS CD is rHlCVjtO] ^1 ^1 - 24 - Another method of approximating the part of increased production that would come from the different groups would be to examine the dis- tribution of the production increases for the various sample-area studies and summarize them in a way that would permit a general con- clusion to be drawn. Cne method would be to make an array for each group of farms of the results from the different studies, giving each of them equal weight. If this is done, and if 25 percent of the cases at either end of the array are disregarded in order to secure an idea of the central tendency, it appears that, for the remaining half of the sample areas, from 37 to 65 percent of the increase would come from relatively large farms, 13 to 26 percent from the medium-sized farms, 11 to 19 percent from small, and 2 to 13 percent from very small farms. These results are apparently rather consistent, for the relatively large and very small farms, with the estimates arrived at by the first method and reasonably so for the intermediate groups; and they indicate the rather wide variation that might be expected in the contribution to in- creased production from the different groups in different parts of the country. Extent to Which Maximum Production Reduces "Underemployment" In the discussion of manpower it was shown that the effectiveness of labor in the groups of smaller farms was very low in nearly all areas. This was so even when allovrance was made for the relatively small size of the average family labor force in these groups, for the higher proportion of operators who were older or physically incapacitated, and the greater amount of time spent in work off the farm. The suggested adjustments in production in the different groups, that will result in maximum total wartime production for each area, should if properly guided, bring the utilization of manpower on farms in Group II up to a reasonable standard, although in terms of "war units per man equivalent it will be considerably below the average on Group I farms . For the smaller farms the suggested adjustments in production do not materially improve the utilization of manpower. For example, in Lancaster County, Penn., assuming no change in the number of man equivalents per farm since 1942, the average number of war units per man equivalent on Group III farms would be increased from the 9 units handled in 1942 to 10 war units. For Group IV farms, the adjustment involves a decrease from 5^ war units to 5, chiefly because of reductions in the broiler enterprise. It is possible that the labor force might also be reduced, but in 1942 it represented, 7/ including women and children, only 1.3 man equivalents per farm on farms in Group III and 0.6 man equivalent on those in Group IV. Other areas, a It hough generally showing a slight increase in war units per farm for the smallest farms, do not deviate far from the scale of adjust- ments shown for Lancaster County. The study for Seward County, Nebr., indicates for one area the type of adjustment that would be required to bring labor requirements in- to balance with the family labor supply on small farms (table 11). 7/ Excluding time spent in work off the farm. - 25 - It should be noted that for 29 percent of such farms the labor supply is already in balance "with the limited resources of the farms. Twenty- three percent of the farms need more land, or land in combination with some other factors; 36 percent can be brought into balance with addition- al livestock alone. It is not expected that these adjustments can be made and maximum total production for the area reached at the same time. It is stated that there is not sufficient land available to balance the units that need land. V.'ith respect to livestock, the report concludes: "Without doubt the numbers of livestock that would be needed to balance labor requirements with the available supply on individual farms is greater than will be achieved." This appears to be due to such limita- tions as lack of feed, equipment, and managerial ability. Table 11.- Number of farms on which labor requirements can be brought into balance with the family labor supply, selected townships of Seward County, Nebr., 1943 Number of farms that could be adjusted Type of adjustment Group : II : Group ; III ; Group IV Total small farms Additional land i 4 2 2 8 Additional land and work i off farm : 1 — - 1 Additional land and i livestock : 7 21 7 35 Additional land and live- i stock and work off farm : 3 3 1 7 Rent out or give up land ', ! - 3 1 4 Additional livestock ! 53 25 2 80 Additional livestock and j work off farm : 9 2 1 12 Work off farm : 3 3 4 10 Labor and requirements ; balanced : 43 17 5 65 Total farms \ ! 123 76 23 222 These adjustments therefore do not represent what can be done with- in the framework of maximum capacity production for the area. They do illustrate the changes that would have to be made to eliminate "underemploy- ment." For most of the smaller farms in this area, and it is undoubtedly true of many others, the adjustment needed is either intensification through more livestock and purchased feed, or more livestock and more land. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA " III 3 1262 08918 7339