xt72z31nhn96 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt72z31nhn96/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1955 journals 027 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.27 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.27 1955 1955 2014 true xt72z31nhn96 section xt72z31nhn96 Progress Report 27 Juno,1955
Adiustments Made by Farm Families in Western
2 Kentucky as a Result of the Industrial Development of the Area
` Number
of .
@$85
25 sir
1t`L from farming
to nonfarm occupations-5 ‘
¢
- 
20 Z ‘
/
¢
I . /
5 9, Shcmft from nonfarm /
zi u
I gtgwugig ons 0 %
I /
\
10 2 · %
  Z ii 5
5 %   e 6
/ 4 r 4 Q g
O V { 0 I I - _ Q
Year 1935 19u0 19LxS 1950
· Number of Heads of Rural Families Shifting
Between Farming and Nonfarm Occupations,
1 by Year, I933—I952.
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
UNIVERSITY or KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON
in cooperation with the
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS _
The study of rural hmilies in the Purchase Area of western
Kentucky was made under the direction of Howard W. Beers, Head of
the Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology, University of Kentucky.
Acknowledgement is made to James S. Brown, Associate Rural Sociol- "
ogist, Department of Rural Sociology, for design and formulation of the
study, to Robert R. Smithers and Herbert A. Aurbach, University of Ken-
tucky, for the field enumeration.

 · C O N T E N T S
p Page
i INTRODUCTION 4
· Agricultural Changes 6
TREND AWAY FROM FULL—TIME FARMING 7
Extent of Trend 7
Frequency of Shifts 9
I When Shift Occurred 9
Patterns of Shifts 10
Where work was found 10
ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING FROM SHIFT TO PART-
TIME FARMING 13
Economic Adjustments 13
Part-time Farming Continuum 13
. Reduction in the Size of Farm Operation 14
Change in Type of Farm Operation 16
Shift in Work Patterns 16
Social Adjustments 19
Social Participation 19
Area of Participation 19
Family Association Z1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Z2.
THE SAMPLE 23
METHOD OF STUDY 24

 THE RURAL FAMILY _II\T_ TRANSITION
Changes in Farm· Families of Western Kentucky
Associated with Industrialization ‘
by .
1
Robert E. Galloway
and
Irwin T. Sandersl _
INTRODUCTION
In few areas of the country have rural residents had greater non-
agricultural employment opportunities since 1950 than have those resid- ·
ing in the Purchase Areaz of western Kentucky. These job opportunities
resulted from industrial development along the Ohio and Tennessee
Rivers and in the city of Paducah in the northern part of the area. Be-
tween January 1948 and May 1954, 27 new manufacturing plants were
built in the area, including the gaseous diffusion plant of the Atomic
Energy Commission and the Shawnee steam plant of the Tennessee
Valley Authority. These employed more than 26, 000 workers during
the height of construction late in 1952 and early in 1953 (Table 1). The
number of jobs necessary to maintain and operate the plants, however,
will be considerably less than the number employed during their con-
struction. The significance of the number of new jobs is evident from .
the fact that the total nonagricultural labor force in the area in 1940 was
only 30, 458 persons. Employment in the area was at a peak at the time P
this study was made.
1?Farm Population and Rural Life Branch, Agricultural Economics Div-
— vision, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture; and Department of Rural Sociol0gY» University of Kentucky,
respectively. '
2/The Purchase Area (Census Economic Area 1) of western Kentucky con- _
sists of the eight counties (Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle, Fulton, Graves,
Hickman, McCracken, and Marshall) lying between the Tennessee and
Mississippi Rivers, with the Ohio River to the north and the state of
Tennessee to the south.

 ·`Table 1. »List of New Manufacturing Plants in Western Kentucky, January 1948~·May 19541
  :   -a`.-L—..-., s, ,.,. __——-—,.., --——. __,
_ Planned Plant
Location and Company Employment Investment Product
_ (Est.) (Approx,)
 
 enton
Ar Acme Sportswear Co., 35 --·~ Apparel
Calvert City
‘ 1 Air Reduction Co., 3 00 $10, 000, 000 Calcium carbide and
 ` (Natl. Carbide Divn,) acetylene
—, Air Reduction Co. ·= »»- (Multi $ million) Vinyl acetate monomers
~ General Aniline and
Film Corp. 100 6, 000, 000 Acetylene derivatives
B., F. Goodrich Chem. Co. 100 5, 000, 000 Vinyl chloride
’ B. F. Goodrich Chem., Co., 100 8, 500, 000 Acrylonitrile
_ Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., . 79 2, 000, 000 Sulphuric acid and
hydrofluoric acid.
Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co. 93 8, 000, 000 Chlorine and anhydrous
hydrogen chloride
_ Pennsylvania Salt Mfg., Co. 30 900, 000 Benzene hexichloride
Pittsburg Metallurgical Co, 5 O0 1, 817, 540 Ferro~alloys
linton
4:, Bugg Bros., Feed and Supply Co., 7 15, 000 Feeds
Custom Bilt Fixtures, Inc., 25 ——— Bank interiors and
furniture
p ·`ancy Farm
_ Brown Tlxompson and Sons 15 -—— Sausage
rlickman
G..P, Glidewell 15 —-·»= Lumber
ulton
BPL-lilidlgé Sausage Co. 6 20, 000 Meat products
West Kentucky Stave Co. 12 10, 000 Staves
.urray _
. Calloway Mfg., Co. 250 250, 000 Work clothes
_ Gee·-Gee Popcorn Co. 6 75,000 Packaging popcorn
· Winslow Engineering C0. 25 75, 000 Filter elements
 aducah 2/ Ay _ I + _ 1
_ FAEC-Gaseous Diffusion Plant 22, 0002/   Eigggicrrgiigga S
TVA Shawnee Steam Plant 2, 000**
· Katterjohn Concrete Co. 55 350,000 Concrete products
Deona of`Ar1ing1.on, Inc. 100 -- —~~»-·» Portable lamps
 F Modine Mfg. Co, 100 _-a.-.. Automotive radiators
' Paducah Battery Co. 100 ~-—. » Flashlight batteries
‘· Walkers Boat Yard 25 --  - ·- Boa’*.bui]ding& repair
Herman Ford Pie Shop 10 ————~— Bakery goods
_Z'€-eniuc-ky—Ec`onoEc__S-tatistics, A. I, D, Board of Kentucky, Frankfort 1954
Estimated top employment figure in early 1953 during the construction phase of the projects.

 - 6 -
The purpose of the study was to ascertain what social and economic changes
had taken place among certain open-country farm families as a result of the g
rapid industrial development, This is the first of a series of reports based on  
data gathered during the spring of 1953 for a studyof 189 rural families in the
Purchase Arear The families studied were confined to those containing a hus-
band and wife and at least one child of school agei(6-18 years) who had lived in J,
the Purchase for at least a year.. Because it was feasible, to study only a lim-
ited number of families it was felt that concentration on the school-age family
was advisable, Further,the residence requirement was included in order to i
eliminate the transient family who came into the area temporarily to work on
the construction phase of the Atomic Energy project.
The most obvious change indicated by the study was the shift from farming
to nonfarm employment as the major source of income for most of the farm
laborers and for many of the farm operators, as wellas members of their fam-
ilies. Generally, when a farm operator took a nonfarmjob he did not change
his residence but remained on the farm and commuted to his place of nonfarm
employment, Many a farmer going into nonfarm work reduced his farm opera- T
tion so that other members of the family could farm with varying degrees of
help from himi, Some farm operators let their farmland lie idle or pastured it; v
others rented it to ne ighborst Two-thirds of the farm households in the study ""i
had some member working off the farm at nonfarm work,.
Agricultural Changes
With the exception of the Delta section, the Purchase area has traditionally
consisted of small, family-sizecommercial owner—operated or tenant-operated
farms. In the 1950 Census of Agriculture, two-thirds of the farms in the area
were’classed as commercial farmst The average value of farm products sold  
by farmers in the area in 1949 was $1, 968., Less than 22 percent of the farms
sold farm products with a value of $2, 500 or more, and 54 percent sold farm 1
products with a value of less than $1, 200. More than a fifth of the farms in
1949 were less than 30 acres in size, and 85 percent were less than 140 acres,
Until the 1920's, the farming economy of the area was centered around the
production of dark tobacco. But when the demand for this type of tobacco fell
off and acreage controls were attempted, a large number of the farms proved ·
too small for effective and economicoperation., As a result many of the opera-
tors left their farms to seek work outside the area. Between 1920 and 1930, a
period of heavy national rural-urban migration, the Purchase experienced a net `
loss of 4, 924 farm operatorsu Some of the farm units were combined to effect ·
economy through increased farm mechanization and some went out of production `
altogether, By 1930, 9 percent less land was in farms than a decade earliert ,
Average acreage per farm increased from 62 acres in 1920 to 72 acres in 1930c I
During the next decade the number of farms continued to decrease at about half
the rate of the previous decade. The size of farm continued to increase until
1940 when the average size of farm increased to 83 acres., Between 1940 and
1949, two significant changes occurred in the agriculture of the area: (1) the

 - 7 -
-moveme-nt of farm people out of agriculture continued, and   the trend to-
ward- improvernent of farming methods was interrupted. Significant causes
of these changes included continued liquidation of large numbers of marginal
farming units. increased local nonfarm employment opportunities, and the
A flooding of the Kentucky Dam reservoir.3 Many farms in poorer agricultural .
sectionswere abandoned or converted to part-time and residential units. Dur-
` ing the idecade,· the number of farm operators supplementing farm income by
working off the farm 100 or more days during the year increased by 58 percent.
By 1950, the number of farms had decreased by 7 percent, and the average size
had increased to 86 acres. However. part of the decrease in the number of
farms reported by the Census in 1949 was due to the change in their definition
of a farm. .
Even greater changes have taken place in agriculture since 1950.. Owing to the
development of the Kentucky Lake and Dam area and increased industrialization
of the northern part of the Purchasey thousands of acres of farm land were
taken out of production and substantial nonfarm employment opportunities were
available to the farm population.
c TREND AWAY FROM FUI..L~~TIME FARMlNi
With changing degrees of availability of nonfarm employment opportunities,
many rural residents in the Purchase have moved in and out of farming during
. the last 20 years. However, the emphasis of the shifts was away from full-time
farming toward part·~time farming and nonfarm employment (Fig. 1).
Extent of Trend. ~—·· Six in 10 of the heads of the sample families shifted
from farmirfg to nonfarm occupation; or from such an occupation into farming,
during the last 20 years, Heads of families who were part—time farmers in
1952 had done the most shiftingg and fulletime farmers the least. 4 Almost 9
in 10 of the part-time farmers had gone into it in the last 20 years. Eighty- l
two percent of the heads of families who had gone into part-time farming had
originally been full—time farmers, the remaining 18 percent having gone into
part—time farming from full~time nonfarm employment, The general move-
ment of farmers into nonfarm employment is also evidenced by the fact that
55 percent of the nonfarm heads had been full—»t1me farmers sometime during
the last 20 years. In contrasty only 36 percent of the full—time farmers in
1952 had shifted from nonfarm employment during this period and were farm-
ing when the survey was made.
37 igrlc;_R’T_];.—1Ee§:_-—(ThangesTE,-fir-ie? 1.2-\z=S1—of Agrfrultura] Production in
_ Selected Western_T<-erltuck yi—C4o·*3ntTeT·;-T9i§-9   
F`H3§EEE `?1•`Ié"f•F5?1."fT`Y”K}1`E.Tf7Ti9`5"?Z—`”""""` W"
4/For an explanation of 1he terms ‘·ful1··*.1me‘· "part *.1me farms" and ‘*non·—
 1 — farm" see page 13 and 1% of thas report.

 - 8 -
Percent of male heads of rural families `
Residence Q
and `
occupation Switching from farming Switching from Who did not l
in 1952 to nonfarm employment nonfarm work shift
to tuning
Total   7-16$ ii I-bx iiR& M0!
(N • 189)
Nonfarm   ssz   us:
(N ·· 97) V
6 e e -3 J J
Fu1l·t:Lms ram   36%  
(N · hh) .
Parrpzme ram   71%   16% ii 13%
(N · U6) t
N • Number of families in each group.
Fig. 1 - Proportion of the male heads of
rural families switching between
farming and nonfarm occupations 4 l
as their major source of employ-
ment the last 20 years, by
residence and occupation in 1952.
O

 - 9 -
’ It was evident that some of the farmers who had gone into nonfarm occupa-
_ tions in the last 20 years had moved into town or out of the area and, conse-
quently, were not included in the sampleq Others had shifted to rural nonfarm
status and many workers in the sample may have had farmer status in other
areas during the last 20 years.,
. Frequency of Shifts, --- Although 40 percent of the male heads of families
- had made no shifts between full-time, part—time and nonfarm occupations during
the last 20 years, slightly more than half of those who had made a shift made
‘ only one, and others had made fromi two toftve shifts (Table 2). In all, heads
of 114 families who made one or more switches made 204 different switches be-
tween farming and nonfarm occupations during the 20-year period, or an average
of 1:.8 shifts per male headu Heads of farm families who made one or more
shifts made the mo st shifts (2. 0) and nonfarm heads the least (1. 5)., Of the heads
changing occupations at least once, 37 percent of ·those in part-time farm families
Shifted between farming and nonfarm occupations three or more times, as C0m"-‘
pared with 20 percent of the heads of full-time farm families and 16 percent of the
heads of nonfarm familiesg Ten percent of the heads of part—time farm families
started out and remained part-time farmers.
Table 2., Percentage Distribution of Heads of the 189 Rural Families By
Residence and Occupation in 1952, and By Number of Shifts
Between Farming and Nonfarm Occupations), 1933-52
Number of All Residence and occupation in 1952 °
shifts families N_o_1Ea5FrT Part-time Fu11~time
farm farm
(N C 97) (N 3 48) (N I 44)
Number Percent Percent Percent Percent
V Total 189 100 100 100 100
None 75 40 45 13 64
1 64 34 38 45 9
2 22 12 8 10 21
3 or more 28 14 9 32 6
N i Number Ofxiai-r-iTilies in_-each grgf-1-pin-_—— __"--N------
When Shifts Occurred, -- In general, the shifts between farming and non-
farm occupatfgifs c~oT·rfc_;:2_d—with the availabilrty of nonfarm employment opportun-
ities not only in the irnmediate area but throughout the nation, Periods of plenti-
ful nonfarrni employment tend to accelerate the shift from farming to nonfarxrm
employment, periods of unemployment in nonfarm industries cause the reverse
(see illustration on the cover); The greatest shifts from farming to nonfarm
occupations occurred in 1950 and 1951, years of unprecedented nonfarm employ-
ment Ln the area, The next highest peak was in 1941y at the time defense plants

 - 10 -
in industrial centers were recruiting workers from all parts of the country,
Some of the farmers who left home to work in such plants in 1940 and 1941 re-
turned to their farms for one reason or the other, This is reflected , by the
large number of heads of families who went back into farming in the mid-forties,
But the peak year of the shift back into farming was in 1945, The return of
servicemen fro·m the Armed Services accounted for much of this movement, ·
The change from farming to a nonfarm occupation as the principal occupa-
tion of the heads of families during the last two decades had been a continuous 4
process (Fig., 2), However, 46 percent of the 98 heads who had left full-time
farming to go into part-time farming or nonf·arm· occupations between 1933 and _
1951 made their last shift in 1950 or 1951, During these two years, 58 percent
of the heads who were part-time farmers at the time of the survey and 37 per-
cent of those who were nonfarm workers had shifted from full—time farming,
Recent trends in the shift from full -tirne farming to nonfarm occupations by heads
of families has been into part-time farming rather than to leaving farrning alto-
_ gether, This is a reversal of the earlier trend when heads of families were j A
younger and a large proportion of those leaving farming to take nonfarrn work
had to go outside the area to obtain work, Only 23 percent of the part—time
farmers, as compared with 54 percent of the heads of nonfarm families, had
switched from full-time farming before 1945,
Patterns of Shifts, --- When heads of the families in the sample who, made
shifts  Ernfmg- and nonfarm occupations in 1933-1951, are grouped by
residence and occupation at the time of survey, several distinct patterns showing ,
the nature of their shifts became apparent (Fig, 3),
Heads of part-time farm families for the most part were farmers who worked ·
at nonfarm jobs when they were plentiful but reverted to full-time farming when
off·farm work was not plentiful, Many of these heads were older men and were _ '
less likely to find nonfarm employment that was relatively secure., However,
, slightly more than half of the heads of part-time farm families had not gone back
to full —time farming since going into nonfarm work. The peak year in the change
from farming to nonfarm occupations for the part-time farming group was in
1950, a year earlier than the peak year of the change for nonfarm heads,
Full—time farm family heads were primarily farmers who worked at non-
farm occupations during the period when they were getting started in farming,
However, a few of the full-time farmers had worked at nonfarm employment for
more than one period during the last 20 years, No full—time farmer had a non-
farm job as his principal income source in 1951 and 1952.
Where Work Was Found, ·- More than 4 out of each 10 of the heads of fam-
ilies in the sample surveyed who were in nonfarm employment the major part of
any year during the 20 years 1933-52 did that work outside the Purchase Area,
Those who were full -time farmers at the end of the period were most likely and
part—time farmers were least likely to have worked outside the area, Most of
those who had worked outside Kentucky had gone to Michigan, and principally to
the cities of Detroit and Flint (Table 3),

 _ - 11 -
Percent
. making d
switch L°g°°
_ to part·t1me
25% f&!'l|1i¤g
7 ' to nonfarm
% residence
Z zi;
20 é
é 15% 16%
10 é 8%
/ V 6%
g   5* uz  
V 1
/ % f ?
0 A A A A
Year 1950- 19115- 19110- 1933-
1951 19149 191414 1939
Fig. 2 — Last year of last shift of heads of families
who have switched from fu11—time farming
operations to part—time farming or fu11-
time nonfarm occupations within the 1ast
20 years, farmed fu11—time. Ninety—eight
fu11—time farmers shifted to part-time
farming or nonfarm occupations between
1933 and 1951.

 -   -
Residence and occupation during various years ‘
|··' P P I-' I··' I-* I-*
&¤¤2:2§:$$§S§§§$§$$$¤
ZjX1;;€Z1jZjK1 g
zEsEsEzEzEzE=E§§§EE‘ H
j11;j1j1ZjZ€$$X1 é_ i
1;j111L11111€$1j=;j
iiititkitéytiiitnrt
1;i1;1;111;1&111};
111111i1;;&1i;¤n1:;
111111;1111$ii$|:1
1Z11j1j11Yj111$#;
X111;;;;ii;1111};
1111i;1ii1;¤¤n¤s  gl
$111111;;
'==" "'=¥.2$"""" 4
=1;$ii11 z
%Z2=$== ° -
pr] V, 1111111 2
'__ ,` 11;;;1; 11
¤¤' ¤ gl %$';2$"""‘ >
· ' · $$111:1 m
;  g
~» E 9 ::::::.1
I by Q  
cg. ° 1 11
‘ Q ig :. K § n *555 ii i
Fg m 0 2 g j1$;w X1  = (2
0 lv H _ 1; $711117 Z
¤ E? 5 »-· Q 3   iliiiiii G
O
3   gg g -.'A.'==.'==='.-.-_ . m
Dim gi W W 111   G
3 g _;   §_¢¤ 0
O. 5 5 111;;;
Q kg ¤ ======EL'='-1$$7.=$$=$$ 0
¤ 0 iii; O
g O . M, g rt; ·-=====_.-...-—======== e;
—!i[11;X1K
gz Ph 2 :3* •·•s   -U
U H O CL 3   j
,__ 3 U, ,,, °   O ·
¤ O W O 0   Z
,. O ¤. H, 9 .-.-—==$=$.E
\D 0 Hi §_ iiiiikt E
U,. Un R QXZKX1
C ¤·· W Q 1;;;;;i
E" 7,2, m B S. E _"'===="" B T6
<_,_ •+ »-·- Q W   Q U!
:1 U, ~.»     "
U, 11i;—:1;i111;11;; ""
. ;1;t; 11ii;;1i; g
111;; 111111;;; fl]
2
......_==¤_¤;¤- "========
—====="""'* _-_-°==== E
11131i 1; $1 I
__, 2 _::::::.. ""**""' ‘
11
E §·· .............·········....:......::55
5 ilijijj
1
g g :5555555::: 5
tt Z; 1
'8 °· =====—_======“ ¤
g =::........ c """"""' —·== 'F
{jjj 113
8   ____'“—-.==== A
it ;;;;;;i; 111;;; -
Z  ¤11;;;;1
 ; txiiik 111 g

 - 13- -
Table- 3. Percentage Distribution of Heads of Families by Residence
in 1952;, and Place of Nonfarm Eimployrnent Outside the
. Purchase Area (Between 1933 and 1952)
Location of All Residence `
‘ employment heads of Heads of nonfarm Heads of farm
1 families families families
(N Z 70) (N = 46) (N = 24)
 ‘ Percent Percent U Percent
Total 100 100 100
Michigan · 47 44 58
Adjoining states 44 48 34
Kentucky (other than _
Purchase Area) 3 4 -·
Other states 6 4 8
N Z Number of heads in each group
Heads of farm families were more likely to have worked in Michigan than those
of nonfarm families. However, in the case of those who had worked in the ad-
joining states of Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri, the reverse
was true. A relatively few of the heads of sample families had worked in Ken-
tucky outside of the Purchase counties or in other states. Most of the work
away from the area was during the 1930“s and the early 1940's.
ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING FROM THE SHIFT TO PART-TIME FARMING
 
A shift from full-time to part-time farming usually requires adjustments
that depend upon the degree to which the farm operator works off the farm at
nonfarm work or the extent of farming done by the family whose head is pri-
marily a nonfarm worker. Adjustments may include a reduction in the size
of farm operation or a change in farm operations, as well as transfer of labor
resources from farm to nonfarm work. ,
Economic Adjustments
Part-time Farming. —--Although there is no static or firm definition of
a part-time farm, it has at least two requirements: (1) some sort of farming
operation and (Z) a source of nonfarm income. Differences in definition of a
part—time farm usually lie in the balance· between the two requirements.
When the families in the sample were placed in a series based on the work
pattern of the head (farm and nonfarm work and combinations of the two) they
fell into eight groups (Fig. 4). At one extreme were the rural nonfarm families
who did no farming and at the other were commercial farm families who had no
nonfarm work. Fifty—four percent of the families fell between the two extremes,

 _ 14 _ .
CATEGORIES OF RURAL FAMILIES
BY WORK PATTERNS OF HEADS Q
RURAL NONFARM WORK PATTERN _
0 0 0
Sli-H EPI [?{ 3I% ‘ "“*‘ “° “““ °*°”““°“‘ t F
° O ° - with some farm operation, .
20 /0 but did not classify as a
farm by Census definition.
RESIDENTIAL FARM
- with total value of sales
{ 2%, ;.g5gs.m products less than
PART-TIME FARM - with value or sales of ram i
products of $250 - 1,199 with
Q Q operator working off fam 100
' ` 2I,/ days or more in 1952 or in-
° come from nonfarm sources
greater than value of fam
products sold,
R IAL FARM
COMME C - with value of farm products
)_ $1,200 or more and operator
working off farm 100 days or
2°/o more in 1952 or income from
nonfarm sources greater than
r from farm.
- with operator working at '
§ nonfarm work less than 1OO
'{°/° days :Ln 1952 and nonfarm
income was less than fam
income.
) - with operator not working
° off farm, but other family
2 /0 members working at nonfarm
work and nonfam income was
smaller than farm income.
9 6
I5 °/° - with no family member work-
ing off the family farm.
Fig. 4 — Proportion of the rural families in various
categories based on the work patterns of the
head of the family.

 - ,15 -
and either the farm operator or some other member of the family worked at
‘ both farm and nonfarm enterprises, Hence, they might be classed as part-
time farm families, but they actually include nonfarmnfamilies with some farm
operation, residential farm families, part-time families (as defined by the 1950
Census of Agriculture,5) and commercial farm families., Residential farm and
part-time farm families fell into one group each, while commercial farm fam-
ilies fell into four groups.,
. The broadest concept of part-time farming might include (1) a third of the
I nonfarm fami1ies,6 those families who carry on a farming operation which is too
small to be classed as a farm by the Census, (2) part-time farm families as de ~`
fined by the Census, and (3) 42 percent of the commercial farm families? those
families having farm operators and/or other members working off the farm at
nonfarm work., However, to make the data in this study comparable with those
published by the Census, the Census definition of part-time farm is used. This
includes 48 families, 25 percent of the sample.
Economic adjustments which are usually made in the shift from full-time
to part-time farming include a reduction in the size and a change in type of the
farming operation, and a fuller utilization of the family labor force.,
Reduction in Size of Farm Operation. -—— Among the sample, full —time
operators farmeRbout§i1Te;$>  acres, on the average, than part-
time farm operators (147 and 85 acres, respectively). As farm acreage sel-
dom porvides an adequate measure of the size of farm operations, a more reli-
able measurement of the labor required for crop and livestock is often used, by
the expression of farm labor requirements in terms of "production man—work
1lI'1it$~ " 8 A production man-work unit is the equivalent of a 10-hour day at farm
work by an adult male., More production man—work units were used on full —time
farms than on part-time farms (Fig. 5)., The average number of production man·—
work units for part-time farms was 112 and for full—time farms 381 per year,
This is one indication that when full —time farmers switch to part-time farming
they often reduce the size of their operation.
Of the farmers who switched from full-time to part-time farming after
1950, 8 in 10 reduced their farm operation after starting nonfarm work,
57 The 1950 Census of Agriculture defines part-time farms as "Farms with
— a value of farm products sold between $250-1, 119, with operator working
off the farm 100 or more days or nonfarm income greater than value of
sales of farm products, "
6/Nonfarm families are those living outside urban areas who do not live-
— on a farm as defined by the Census.,
7/ Commercial farm families in general are those living on farms with a
— value of farm products sold amounting to $ 1, 200 or more,
8/ Production man awork units were computed by use of table in How to Use
Farm Labor Effectively (Purchase Area) Agricultural Extens®e5-WE,
University   Le-anet 40, April 1943.

 — 16 — 5 ’
Percent  
of -
farms Legend — 
38 Part-une farms
7   “:;::¤~  
30   2 30 f ·
/ / %
/ / 9
10     Z  
;:_°f:g;’_li°1';n1tS Ugger 75 • 1}.19 150 - 299 300 - M9 P450 - 599 620;

 rigs
I Changes in Type of Farming Operation. ~=~—·In the Purchase Area in recent
yea-rs  s-T:-enoggnt-i_· reage of row crops and to increase
grassland and pasture, reflecting changes in the relative profitability of row
crops and live»—sto~ck farming. Scarcity of farm labor and the switch to part-
time farming of many full -time farmers further encouraged this change in farm-
‘ ing operations, especially after 1950. Twenty-six percent of the farmers inter-
viewed had decreased row crops and increased grassland and pasture acreages
since June 1950, but 40 percent of the part·—time farmers and only 11 percent of
the full-time farmers had made this change. More than 80 percent of the full- 1
time farmers who had shifted to part-time farming since 1950 had decreased
their row crop acreage and had increased their grassland acreage.
Shift in Work Patterns.---Among the heads of farm families, those living l
‘ ` on full-time7a—rTn?  t likely than those on part—time farms to be working
at each of the various farm operations (Table 4).
Table 4. —·— Proportion of Various Farm Family Members.
Six Years of Age and Over, Working at Speci—
fied Farm Operations on the Home Farm During
- the Year, 1952 by Type of Farm
 
All
Farm Operation members Heads Wives mcztgliirs
- Percent Percent Percent Percent
All Farms
Plowing 33 86 1 25
Planting 31 88 —- 20
Cultivating 35 84 15 24
Haying ° 37 74 20 29
Harvest crops 47 86 35 36
Care of livestock 38 85 16 28
Operating tractor 39 73 8 37
Part—time farms
Plowing 32 81 -·- 26
Planting 31 85 —~~· 21
Cultivating 34 77 15 24
Haying 42 60 35 38
Harvest crops V 47 79 38 38
Care of livestock 47 75 19 27
Operating tractor 42 63 8 46
Full—time Farms
Plowing 34 91 2 23
Planting 31 91 as 18
Cultivating 37 91 16 23
Haying 31 89 2 17
Harvest crops 46 93 27 34
Care of livestock 28 96 14 28
_9perating tractor 35 84 7 26

 - 18 — I
As for the wives of the heads, the reverse was generally true, although their work
was pretty well confined to the cultivation, and harvesting of row crops and hay, and ‘ ,
care of livestock. Other family members of part-time farm families worked at
various farm operations on the home farm to a greater extent than the same group
in full -time farm families. Tobacco was the crop most wives and other members p
helped harvest. They helped also withthe housing and stripping of tobacco. Be-
cause the part-time farmer did not spend as much time on the farm as the fulleiime l
farmer did, he did not operate tractors to as great an extent as the latter. However, `
the other family members of part-time farm families operated tractors in greater ., _
proportions than those in full—time farm families. I
All farm families in the survey had one or more members working sometime dur- _
ing the year an average of 406 days per family. Although there was no significant
difference in the average size of family between full-time and part-time farm . .
families, members of the latter worked more days a year than the former (Table 5).
Table 5. —- Farm Families With One or More Members Employed
at Various Kinds of Work, Total Days Worked and ‘
Average Days Worked For Family Duringthe Year
1952, by Type of Farm
 
Type of farm and Families with one Total days Average days
kind of work or more members working worked worked per family
 
Number Percent ' Number Number
Part—time farms
All work 48 100 19,800 413
Work on home farm 48 100 6,120 128 '
Work off the farm 47 98 13, 680 285 I
Farm work,otherfarmsy9 19 540 60
Nonfarm work 47 98 13,140 280
Full-t ime farms
"pTH@<—‘"` 44 100 17, 550 399
Work on home farm 44 100 15, 540 353
Work off the farm 5135 80 2, 010 57
Farmwork,other farm 7 16 900 129
Nonfarm work 17 39 1,110 65
 
L/ Farm work excluding exchange work
Part-time farm family members averaged 413 days of work per family during
the year, as compared with 399 days for full-time farm family members., The
former ave raged about a third as many days of work on the home farm per family
as the latter. However, other members of the household on part—time farms with
the head employed at nonfarm work averaged more than four times as many days at
work on the home farm per family as household members of full-time farm families.
Family size was about the same for each of these groups.

 _ — 19 ·
Social Adjustments
i Because of inherent differences in the occupational groups, certain social
adjustments might be expected among families that were shifting from full—time
to part-time farming or nonfarm occupation, The extent of the differences among
these three groups was analyzed by selecting from the sample families only those
who had been full—time farmers for the last 2.0 years or longer and part-time farm-
ers and nonfarm residents since 1944.
A Social Participation -— A shift from full-time to part-time farming increases
` the participation of the family in formal organizations., Applying Chapin's Social
Participation Scale, 9 significant differences 10 were found to exist among the scores
of the families, heads, and wives of the three groups full-time and part-time farm-
ing and nonfarm workerst (Fig. 6)t Part-time farm families had the highest med-
ian scoresg nonfarm families the lowestt
Social participation of part-time farm family members in this area differs
greatly from that in many other areast Studies of part—time farming in the coun-
try-city fringesll have emphasized limited participation in community activities
as an important characteristic of the part-time farm familyf Lack of integration
into community life or failure to develop unified locality groups appears to be a
marked trait of the country-city fringe areas, In most instances the part-time
farm family had moved into the area recently either fro