Farms, Farmers, and Farm Workers

The population of the United States is still increasing, even though the rate of increase is slower than in former years. There were 20 million more people in this country on January 1, 1946, than on January 1, 1929, and about 10 million more than in 1939. By 1950 the population is likely to be 15 million more than in 1939. If per capita purchasing power is maintained, the larger population will constitute a significant addition to the domestic market for farm products.

In many parts of the world the levels of food consumption are insufficient even in quantity, to say nothing of quality. If methods could be worked out to exchange goods and services with other nations in a way that would give farmers an opportunity to provide part of the food needed to supplement the diets in some countries that do not have enough food, the market for farm products could be greatly expanded.

One of the most important effects of technological advances is the resulting increase in output per farm worker. Labor-saving machines and the improvements in crop and livestock production that increase production per acre and per animal make it possible for each worker to produce more farm products. That, in turn, means that fewer workers are needed to produce a given product. In fact, total production can increase at the same time that the number of farm workers is reduced. For example, in 1945, when gross farm production was 123 percent of the 1935-39 level, there were only 90 percent as many workers employed on farms. As a result of fewer workers and greatly increased production, the production per worker averaged 137 percent of 1935-39.

If recent trends should continue for a decade from 1945, the level of gross farm production in 1955 would be about 136 percent of 1935-39. There would be only 85 percent as many workers on farms as in those years, and production per worker would be 160 percent of the levels of 1935 to 1939. The figures are straight projections from the changes that took place in the immediate prewar and war years, but they are reinforced by the results of the cooperative study on peacetime adjustments in farming which indicate that similar changes would be profitable under prosperity conditions after the transition from war to peace had been completed.

Production per worker in the South has been relatively low compared with that in other regions over a period of years. We can expect much larger increases in production of each worker in the South than in other regions. Such increases would be possible with accelerated mechanization, which would also result in a larger acreage of cropland per worker.

In 1939, the acres of cropland and value of land, buildings, and livestock per worker in the South Atlantic and East South Central States were less than one-half of the national average and the value of equipment per worker was about one-third of the average for the country as a whole. In other words, in 1939 the average farm worker in those States had less than half as much land, buildings, and livestock and only about a third as much machinery to help him in his farm production job as the average for all farm workers in the United States. For production per worker to be increased materially, it is necessary for each worker to have sufficient land, equipment, and livestock to make his work effective; and production on the farm needs to be planned in such a way that productive employment can be furnished over most of the year.

It is evident that if farmers in all sections of the country are to take full advantage of technological advances more land and capital need to be associated with each farm worker. A man working without tools produces very little except in' an environment where it is possible to harvest the goods supplied directly by nature. It is also difficult to achieve a high production per man on land that yields, say, only 15 bushels of corn to the acre unless one man can farm a large acreage or can greatly increase the yield by use of fertilizer, legume crops, etc. This means a larger investment per man. In some areas a larger investment per man will also mean a higher total investment of capital. On the other hand, fewer full-time workers will be needed for each 100 acres of land. If these changes were made they would mean that in most areas each farm family on a full-time farm would operate more land, use more machinery, and, in livestock areas, would handle more livestock.

Although such shifts would result in fewer and larger full-time commercial farms, there might also be an opposite trend toward more part-time farms and rural homes. If there should be a tendency toward decentralization of industry, and if service enterprises were established to meet the needs of farmers on mechanized farms, considerable nearby nonfarm work would be available for workers who are not needed in agriculture. This work would then be so located that many workers could combine part-time farming and rural living with nonfarm work. Such a development would enable more people to take advantage of the benefits of rural life even though their livelihood would come largely from nonfarm sources.

The net result of changes in the direction of fewer full-time commercial farms and more part-time farms might be little or no reduction in the total number of farm units. But there would be fewer small farms that had no off-farm employment or outside source of income. Operators of small full-time farms usually have the greatest difficulty in adopting new techniques. Many improvements are not adapted for the smaller units. Sometimes, however, it is possible to develop specialty lines for small farms that can compete successfully with larger family farm units.

The changes that have taken place and are coming make farming a complex business, even on family-operated farms. Young men who look forward to farming as an occupation will need to learn the skills associated with mechanized farming and how to conduct a complex business enterprise. Those who are well adapted for managing a business of this kind are likely to find opportunities in agriculture as good as in any other occupation. But farm youths who do not have adequate training, or who do not have the type of ability that is needed for successful farm management are likely to find themselves at a disadvantage. If they are to remain in farming they will need to seek out specialty lines, such as poultry or small fruits, that can compete most effectively with the larger family farms. Many of them will find their best alternatives in nonfarm employment; and some will be able to combine this with part-time farming.

Although advances in technology tend to push agriculture in the direction of fewer and larger full-time commercial farms, there is no evidence to indicate that the competitive position of the efficiently operated family farm is weakened by this change. Recent developments in mechanization have resulted in adapting mechanical power and machinery to family farms. But because the size of the family farm will be larger and more machinery will be needed, the total investment per farm will be high. These changes will make it more difficult for a young man to get started as a farm operator. And the management job becomes more involved. More training will be needed for successful farming. On the more favorable side, tractor and electric power equipment will eliminate most of the drudgery of both farm and home work on the efficient farm.

In Summary

The effects of technology on farm people may be both good and bad. Those who can take advantage of the new techniques are likely to increase their net incomes a great deal. On the other hand, those who cannot adapt their operations to the new conditions may find themselves at a relative disadvantage. And workers who are displaced may suffer hardships unless other employment is readily available. Those growing pains of technological progress can be softened. Special educational and other programs can be provided for those who are disadvantaged by technological changes. Progress in farm technology can result in net social gain, but this is a potentiality and not an inevitable consequence. Farm people will need to learn how to live with the new techniques, and to use them to their advantage. To attempt to stop, or even to slow down, the tide of progress would be too costly to farmers over a period of years.

If farming, as well as other sectors of our economy, is rapidly adjusted to the technical improvements that become available it will be possible to produce more with less effort. More time will be available for other things including education, recreation, and increased leisure. And the real incomes per farm and per family will be larger.

THE AUTHOR Sherman E. Johnson is assistant chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. He was head of that Bureau's Division of Farm Management and Costs for 8 years. Before coming to the Department of Agriculture he was head of the department of agricultural economics at South Dakota State College. He has also been a staff member of land-grant colleges in Montana, Louisiana, and his home State of Minnesota.