Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report ... - AgWeb

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California farms heavily influence the composition of production in metroareas of the Fruitful Rim, since California alone accounts for 65 percentof all production in the metro parts of the region. The valleys of Californiawere irrigated by the late 1800s and have specialized in high-value cropsever since (Cochrane, 1993, pp. 88-93). Irrigation—in combination with theState’s climate—enables farmers to harvest some crops more than once peryear.The composition of production in metro areas in regions other than theFruitful Rim shares some characteristics with the composition in nonmetroareas. In nonmetro areas and in non-Rim metro areas, livestock makes upabout one-half of production, and cash grains make up roughly 30 percent.The composition of the livestock sector varies between the two areas,however, with beef and hogs forming a larger share in nonmetro areas, anddairy and poultry forming a larger share in metro areas outside the Rim. Inaddition, the share of production from high-value crops is more than twice ashigh in non-Rim metro counties as in nonmetro counties.20Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2010 Edition / EIB-66Economic Research Service/USDA
Farm Operators, Principal and SecondaryEvery farm has at least one operator, the farmer who makes everyday decisionsabout the farm business. However, some farms—particularly the largerones—have more than one operator who makes decisions. In such cases, oneoperator is designated as the principal operator, the one most responsible forrunning the farm. The others are secondary operators.Commercial-sized farms often require more management and labor than anindividual can provide. Additional operators can provide the necessary laborand management and possibly other resources, such as capital or farmland.Having a secondary operator may also provide a successor when an olderprincipal operator phases out of farming.Secondary Operators and Their FarmsThere are secondary operators on 880,500 multiple-operator farms (table7). Because farms are generally family businesses, one would expectTable 7Multiple-operator farms by farm type, 2007Small family farmsFarming-occupation Large-scale farmsItemRetirementResidential/lifestyleLowsalesMediumsalesLarge Very largeNonfamilyfarms All farmsNumberTotal operators 549,919 1,449,899 597,035 163,098 149,068 193,827 96,717 3,199,563Principal operators 1 403,828 989,830 434,599 111,389 93,601 110,152 53,393 2,196,791Secondary operators 146,091 460,070 162,437 51,709 55,467 83,675 43,325 1,002,772Spouses 102,458 356,660 123,998 35,091 31,413 33,581 5,245 688,447Other 43,633 103,410 38,439 16,617 24,054 50,093 38,080 314,326Percent of farmsFarms with:Spouse as an operator 25.4 36.0 28.5 31.5 33.6 30.5 9.8 31.3Other secondary operator(s) 8.1 8.6 7.5 11.5 18.7 30.5 45.1 10.9Both 1.7 1.7 1.6 3.2 4.1 6.5 3.5 2.1Percent of secondary operatorsSpouse share ofsecondary operators 70.1 77.5 76.3 67.9 56.6 40.1 12.1 68.7Operators (principal andNumbersecondary) per farm 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5Multiple-operator farms 2 128,112 425,748 149,766 44,309 45,037 60,067 27,422 880,460PercentMultiple-operator farmsas share of all farms 31.7 43.0 34.5 39.8 48.1 54.5 51.4 40.1Note: The Agricultural Resource Management Survey counts all operators—principal and secondary—and asks for detailed information on up tothree operators.1The number of principal operators equals the number of farms. Each farm has one principal operator.2Mulitiple-operator farms report more than one operator . .Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service, 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III.21Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2010 Edition / EIB-66Economic Research Service/USDA
Page 1 and 2: United StatesDepartment ofAgricultu
Page 3 and 4: United StatesDepartmentof Agricultu
Page 5 and 6: References. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 7 and 8: Distribution of farms, total produc
Page 9 and 10: IntroductionThe Family Farm Report,
Page 11 and 12: As in previous issues, the Agricult
Page 13 and 14: came from technological change, suc
Page 15 and 16: percent of the farms in both groups
Page 17 and 18: “point system” assigns values f
Page 19 and 20: Full economic costs of milk product
Page 21 and 22: Cow-calf enterprises offer three ad
Page 23 and 24: Location of U.S. Farms and Producti
Page 25 and 26: Table 4Farms and production by reso
Page 27: majority of farms in the region, 65
Page 32 and 33: farms. Since these farmers produce
Page 34 and 35: Farm Income and Financial Performan
Page 36 and 37: Defining the Financial MeasuresSome
Page 38 and 39: Operator Household Income and Net W
Page 40 and 41: of operator household net worth, re
Page 42: About three-fourths of medium-sales
Page 45 and 46: ContractingContracts can potentiall
Page 47 and 48: Types of ContractsA contract is a l
Page 49 and 50: per year rather than below the pove
Page 52: general—are overwhelmingly male.
Page 55 and 56: Farming in Metropolitan AreasFarmin
Page 57 and 58: Figure 15Mean operator household in
Page 59 and 60: into the Twenty-first Century. Marv
Page 61 and 62: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nat
Page 64 and 65: In fact, the number of farms in eac
Page 66 and 67: (version 3). Respondents provide wh
Page 68 and 69: iefing room. Both sets of estimates
Page 70 and 71: • Farm operators forget minor or
Page 72: ecause the sector accounts extend b

Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report ... - AgWeb

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?