Demythologizing the Family Farm

by Warren Henegar

Like the weather, everybody talks about the family farm, but nobody does anything about it. Unlike the weather, however, something can be done about the family farm. But not until we truthfully face up to the facts of the true state of the family farm in America.

The family farm, which exists in the heads of most Americans, does not often exist in fact. The family farm of yore is today a family business. The family farm business is still the dominant type of agricultural enterprise today, but it is hardly any more unique, or mystical, than the family clothing store, service station, or a two-generation medical practice.

There are basically three categories of Americans who farm: the subsistence farmer; the part-time farmer; and the commercial farmer. The commercial farmers are the 'real' farmers in that they produce 80-90% of all American agricultural output. The commercial farmers can be further divided into three subgroupings: the younger financially pressed farmer; the older established farmer; and the agribusiness farmer. The "family farm" or family farm business is generally found in the first two groupings of the commercial farmer.

By any definition there are fewer than three million farms, more like two million, in the United States today. The definition would include such disparate types as

There were millions of subsistence farmers in 1930. Even 20 years ago there were 2 or 3 hundred thousand. Today there are not many left.

The part-time farmer is the most numerous type of farmer today, numbering between 1 and 2 million, and including a wide range of people and enterprises. Although these farmers are important in many ways, they are a minor factor in agricultural production.

Commercial farmers number only about 500,000, but produce over 80% of the food and fiber yield of the United States. The first category in this group is made up mostly of younger farmer who have gone into farming in the past 10 or 15 years. They are often deeply in debt; their assets are mostly on paper. These farmers typically operate sizeable farms, several hundred to a couple thousand arable acres. But they live and farm on a financial razor's edge, because of high indebtedness and high interest payments. Two or three of low prices, or bad weather, could ruin them. This genuine possibility haunts them and drives them to demonstrate and take political action.

The next group of commercial farmer is generally older and more well-established. Many of them became adult farmers before land prices began to accelerate in the early 60's. They live well and will surely die rich. They might not farm any more ground than the younger, hardpressed farmer, but on the whole they are better farmers. The less able and aggressive of this bunch got out of agriculture long ago. Their farmsteads are dominated by storage, drying and equipment structures and look more like large commercial enterprises than places to live.

Besides the working members of his family, this type of commercial farmer often has two or three more or less part-time employees. His net worth to debt ratio is very favorable, while the farmer in the first grouping may owe more than he is worth, in reality if not on paper.

The third group of commercial farmer is the real agribusiness, although many in the first two groups like to call themselves that. The farmers in the first group measure their assets in the thousands. The middle group farmer may be worth several hundred thousand to a couple of million dollars. But the agribusiness farmers generally have assets of several millions.

It is important to keep a couple of things in mind. One is that few if any of these farmers are poor in any real sense. Even the ones that are in a critical economic situation live in commodious home, possess several vehicles, and eat well. Secondly, when a farmer is forced to liquidate he does not generally go on welfare or apply for foodstamps. This farmer may not have had the financial resources or management skills to remain in farming, but is generally able and hardworking, and usually does well in non-agriculture employment.

The millions of sharecroppers and subsistence farmers that were forced off the land before the 1950's often ended up in the ghettoes and poor people places of California. But the farmers who have left farming since 1950 generally moved to town and into working middle class houses and jobs, and o quite well. They may have lost their dream of becoming a big farmer, but their plight is hardly a tragedy on any kind of universal scale.

The family farm concept is generally tied to the idea of farming as a way of life. Numerous factors have conspired to bring about the demise of the old "way of life." First and foremost was the technology that enabled one person, or one family, to farm more and more ground. Two or three hands can now plant and harvest 1000 acres --the typically sized family farming operation in the Midwest today--in half the time it would have taken the same crew to plant and harvest 160 acres 30 years ago. Another reason was the consolidation of schools and other changes in the rural cultural scene. A farm kid's friends are as likely to be town kids as other farm kids. The farm family not only does not keep a milk cow, but they often do not even raise a garden. They buy at the chain supermarket like everybody else. In general, they differ from their town neighbors in that they may still live in the country, and are on the average richer, smarter, and better educated. And, like other Americans, they think that in order to be successful they have to be big operators. A farmer is generally judged by his peers on the size of his operation and how it looks from the road.

There are family farms remaining that approach the old idealized version, and many readers are going to strongly disagree with this article because of examples they know about. But the facts are that in general and on the whole the family farm as a way of life is largely gone form the American rural landscape.

There is no doubt about the importance of the family farm business in American agriculture. It is still dominant. However, the wisdom of public policies which continue to pour billions of dollars into these businesses must be questioned. In 1983, over 40 billion dollars in cash and in-kind funds was paid out to American farmers. The lion's share went to agribusiness, but the acreage grain or cotton farmer probably received $50,000. It may be necessary to continue supporting the family farm business as we have done for the last fifty years. But we should understand that this money does not go toward the support of the old way of life in rural America, which is a myth at best and a fraud at worst, but toward the subsidy of agricultural business.

In 1985 farm policy will be sharply debated, and a new farm bill will be enacted into law. Shall we continue as we have, shelling out large welfare payments to agribusiness and encouraging family farm business to become larger and larger and fewer and fewer? Or shall we write legislation which will open up agriculture to more people by supporting small and moderate sized farming operations, and emphasize conservation that will preserve, restore and maintain our productive soil, the most precious resource, next to people, under the sky?

Just as defense policy is too vital to be left to the military-industrial complex, so agriculture is too important to be left to agribusiness, farmers and self-serving politicians. Let's all participate.

In my next article, I'll give you my ideas on what we should and can do. In the meantime, let's hear from you. We want your wisdom and ideas.