Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
111
SOME ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PART-TIME FARMING I N BRITAIN
RUTH GASSON Wye College, University of London*
The experience of a number of advanced countries has been that a combination of rising incomes, more leisure and greater personal mobility leads to an increase in part-t.ime farming. In view of its probable spread in this country, it is worth considering some of the implications for the agri- cultural industry as a whole. I t is often assumed that the output contributed by part-time farms is negligible and therefore merits no further investigation. Ashton and Cracknell in their paper to the Agricultural Economics Society conferencet devoted only one paragraph to the types of farming characteristic of part-time holdings, conclulding that, “Apart from pigs, poultry and horti- culture, their contribution was insignificant.” In a number of recent surveys of part-time farming, with the notable exception of Hendry’s study in Scotland,: this side of the subject has been treated superficially or ignored altogether, in favour of a more detailed study of the motivation and attitudes of the occupiers themselves. But for the very reason that part-time farmers are an unusual group, their farming is likely to present some interesting features and contrasts from that of full-time, commercial operators. Ths paper attempts to show some of the ways in which the attitude and approach of the part-time farmer affect the choice of enterprises and scale of operations on his farm.
The term “part-time farmer” is open to a number of interpretations, so that it is not easy to arrive at a definition to suit all schools of thought. W l e it might be tempting to define a part-time farmer rigidly in terms of the time spent or income received from farming and the other employment and to exclude from further consideration all who do not fit neatly into this scheme, such a course would imply a shortcoming cf the classification rather than of the data. Another approach i s to divide farmers into a number of classes to take account of various combinations of occupation, sources of income and farm size, as Scola has done in his article “Scotland’s Farms and Farmers”.$ There was insufficient data, however, to allow this method to be applied in the present survey. Instead, a functional distinction has been made between those occupiers of agricultural. land who are wholly dependent on farming for a living and those who are not. The part-time fanner is defined as an occupier who has another substantial source of income besides fanning, the full-time farmer being one who has to rely entirely on his success in farming for his livelihood. In practice, few cases presented any problems of classification as nearly all the part-time farmers had full-time jobs off the farm, or were pensioners or recipients of private incomes which made an important con- tribution to their budget. I n one respect this differs from Harrison’s definition of a part-time farmer as one who has another income-yielding occupation, since he treats pensioners and persons of private means but with no other occupation as full-time fanners. * Now a t Farm Economics Branch, University of Cambridge.
J . Ashton and B. E. Cracknell. “Agricultural holdings and farm business structure in England and Wales”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, December 1961, pp. 472-506.
G. F. Hendry, “Scotland’s Part-Time Farms”. Scottish Agricultural Economics, Vol. X I ,
5 P. M. Scola, “Scotland’s Farms and Farmers”. Scottish Agricultural Economics, Vol. XI, 1962, pp. 112-1 19.
1961, pp. 59-62.
112 Ruth Gasson
PART-TIME FARMERS-THEIR REASONS FOR FARMING Part-time farmers, partially or completely independent of the income the
farm provides, occupy agricultural land for a variety of motives, which may affect the way in which the land is used. Broadly speaking, part-time farmers can be divided into three categories: those whose farm complements another business, those who are more interested in the farm as an investment although they farm it themselves, and those who treat the farm primarily as a home and source of recreation.
In the first category, where the farm is linked with another business, the needs of the latter may dictate the choice of enterprises. For example, the farms of food processors and wholesalers, produce-retailers and nurserymen will be geared to highly-specialised production for their own outlets. A number of agricultural engineers use their own farms for machinery trials and cattle- dealers, similarly, are likely to run their holdings along different lines from full-time farmers. Many small holdings are used exclusively for horses and ponies, an activity not regarded as agricultural in a strict sense, although it may produce a comparable output per acre. There are also the large gardens and holdings catering for the needs of a hotel, school or hospital, where all the produce is consumed on the premises. Although these are all examples of part-time farms, it does not follow that they are necessarily small concerns. Some of the largest farm businesses are run by “dual-business farmers”, who link farming with agricultural contracting, food processing and similar activities. A businessman with sufficient energy and managerial ability to run two or more diverse enterprises is not likely to be content with a small or static farm business. I t is suggested that this type of part-time farming, using agricultural land for a few specific enterprises, is likely to increase in its scope and share of the total farm output.
While these part-time farmers run their holdings in conjunction with the other occupation, those in the second category may hold land for financial motives although farming is far removed from their main occupation. This covers the farms held by individuals and more frequently by trustees or institutions as a form of long-term investment, to safeguard the value of the capital. Also in this category come the farms whose purchase is designed to reduce the liability to estate duty or those bought speculatively with an eye to resale to realise development value. In cases of this sort, the main concern is with the capital value of the land, its productive capacity being a secondary consideration. Here the occupier is likely to farm on a very low plane of intensity, if at all. I n an extreme case, a plot of land awaiting planning permission may be left idle, and often the emphasis is on grazing only.
The farms linked with another business and those held principally as an investment are expected to yield the occupier some financial reward sooner or later. Some occupiers, however, are motivated principally by the non- material benefits of a farm life-the space and quietness, the healthy surroundings, the open-air life, the physical and mental challenge of over- coming technical problems in cultivation of crops or rearing livestock, the advantages of a farm as a home for children, the attractions of an old farm- house, the social prestige or the sporting amenities attendant upon land- ownership. Part-time farmers in t h s category regard the farm as a home and place of recreation or retirement and only secondarily as a business. Clearly these motives, too, will affect the type and scale of farming, as in the case of the farmer whose crop rotation depended upon where the pheasants were feeding each year.
Some Economic Charactcristics of Part-time Farming in Britain 113
There is probably an element of all these motives in the minds of both part-time and full-time farmers, but it is reasonable to suppose that whichever is foremost will have greatest influence upon the system of farming adopted. While no analysis of farmers’ motivation has been attempted in this paper, there is circumstantial evidence from a few recent surveys of the relative importance of the farm business to the part-time operator.
In a postal survey of all farm occupiers* in 19 parishes of Kent and East Sussex, carried out in 196&65, 600 occupiers were contacted and 458 replied. Of these, 224 were part-time farmers, 168 with another occupation, 46 retired and 10 with independent means. These 168 “other occupations” were divided into those related to farming and those completely unrelated; for example, driving a cattle-lorry was classed as a related occupation while driving a bus was not. Three-quarters of the occupations were found to be unrelated to farming and from this it was concluded that most part-time farmers in the areas investigated would fall into the second and third categories described above. In other words, it seems likely that most of them occupy farms from considerations of investment or because of the attractions of farming as a way of life and only a minority use the farm as a continuation of their other business. For most farm occupiers in the latter two categories, ?he farm would not provide the major share of the income. This is in agreement with Harrison’s discovery? that 75 per cent of the part-time farmers in Buckingham- shire earned more from their other work than from farming and only for 6 per cent was farming more important financially than the other job.
In the Kent and Sussex sample, 70 per cent of the part-time farmers were otherwise engaged in business, administrative or professional capacities, and in Buckinghamshire 62 per cent were members of professions or employed as executives in town businesses. This is not surprising in view of the fact that both surveys covered areas extending from ten to sixty miles from central London. Harrison has pointed out that, while such samples are only repre- sentative of rural areas under the influence of a dominating city, many other regions of the country are expected to experience the same urban influences in the near future.: Hence the findings of surveys carried out in the south-east may foreshadow future trends elsewhere. Of particular significance in the present context is the fact that a large proportion of part-time farmers (who as a group comprised almost half the total number of farm occupiers) were employed in businesses or professions where presumably they earned a sufficient, and sometimes ample, livelihood. Quite apart from their various motives for wishing to occupy a farm, it is suggested that this financial independence of farm profitability will colour the part-time farmers’ attitude and approach to his farming.
TYPES OF FARMING To test this hypothesis, an attempt was made to compare the scale and
types of farming of a group of part-time farmers with that of full-time farmers operating under very similar physical conditions. A random sample of part- time farmers was drawn from the 224 replies to the postal survey, stratified by locality and the acreage they occupied. A sample of full-time farmers was then selected, corresponding as closely as possible with the first in respect of acreage and !ocdity. As ?he !iFitations of farm size and the type of
* For the purposes of this survey, a farm is defined as the land controlled by a single
t A . Harrison, “Some features of farm business structures”. Joirrnal of .4griczrlfurnl
.\. Harrison, The Fnrms of Btrckrngkamslrzre. University of Reading, Department of
operator. The terms “farmer” and “occupier” are used synonymously.
Economics, June 1965. pp. 330-351.
Agricultural Economics, February 1966
114 Ruth Gasson
farming suitable for each area were very similar, it could be assumed that differences between the farming systems of the two groups reflected the differ- ences in approach and the types of occupier.
Half the parishes selected for the survey were in the High Weald, a hilly, heavily-wooded area mainly given to livestock production, and the holdings in these parishes were treated as “livestock farms”. The remaining parishes were divided between the market-gardening area of northwest Kent close to the metropolitan fringe and the highly-productive fruit and hop-growing district in the Weald of Kent, where the survey farms were regarded as primarily arable. The composition of the final sample was as follows:-
Part-time farmers. Full-time farmers. Number of farms
Full-time Part-time Full-time
1,442 rr 267,914 222,423 292,251
67 33
Arable farms ... ... ... 39 Livestock farms ... ... 53
Part-time Full-time
5,812 6,032
448.202 560.165
56 46 44 54
All farms .. -
... ... 92 -
29 44
73 -
-
In eleven cases, the holdings of part-time farmers were found to produce no recognisable agricultural output which could be measured by the normal Standard Output factors, and the following analysis is confined to the farming activities of the remaining 81 part-time and 73 full-time farmers, unless othenvise stated.
Each farmer supplied details of his crop acreages and livestock numbers in 1965, from which the Standard Output of each farm was calculated. Cereal crops were treated as though every farmer sold his grain and purchased the necessary concentrated feedingstuffs, thus putting all farm businesses on the same basis in the calculation. As Table 1 shows, part-time farmers as a whole derived more of their output from crops while full-time farmers relied more heavily on livestock. This is understandable, since a number of part-time farmers leave their holdings unoccupied during the day and crises are less liable to occur in the farmer’s absence with crops than with livestock. The full-time farmer, on the other hand, is more likely to depend on the steady income which livestock enterprises can yield.
TABLE 1 STANDARD OUTPUT ON THE FARMS OF A SAiVlPLE OF PART-TIME
AND FULL-TIME FARMERS VISITED DURING 1966
.\cres . . . . . .
Standard Output (Q . . . . . .
Proportion of ,
Standard Output from:-
Crops (%) ... Livestock ( 9 6 )
I Arable Farmers 1 Livestock Farmers I All Farmers
Part-time
1,900
225.779
s.5 15
Some Economic Characteristics of Part-time Farming in Britain 115
Within each category of enterprises, however, there were distinct variations in those chosen by each type of occupier. Faced with the same alternatives, the part-time farmers tended to select those enterprises which required less daily attention. Although there was no significant difference in the composition of arable output between part-time and full-time farmers, considerable differences appeared in the organisation of livestock. In parti- cular the full-time farmers relied heavily on milk production, with almost half their output from this single source. As Table 2 shows, dairying provided only 27 per cent of the livestock output for part-time farmers but 48 per cent on the holdings of full-time farmers.
TABLE 2 COMPOSITION OF THE STANDARD OUTPUT FROM LIVESTOCK ON THE
FARMS O F A SAMPLE OF PART-TIME hND FULL-TIME FARMERS
Type of Enterprise
hBk production . . . . . . . . . Rearing dairy cattle . . . . . . . . .
Beef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . .I11 livestock enterprises . . . . . .
Standard Output per acre from live- stock enterprises . . . . . . . . .
Proportion of Livestock Output contributed by each Enterprise
Put-time Farmers
% 27
4
10
7
19
33
IOU
Full-time Farmers
% 48
6
8
3
14
19
100
[Significant a& 3.01 yo level]*
28.3 33.6
* The significance of the differences in farm organisation between part-time and full-time farmers have been tested using the Chi Square techniquc.
(The survey of small farrns in industrial Yorkshire in 1958 showed similarly that only 15 per cent of part-time farms were engaged in milk production, compared with 74 per cent of full-time farms in the same area.)* The high and steady labour demand and the frequent necessity of making decisions render dairying an unsuitable enterprise for the majority of part-time farmers. A few part-time farmers kept large herds, either employing a manager, or, in several cases, the occupier himself spending more than half his time on the farm.
Part-time farmers gained only a slightly higher percentage of their live- stock output from beef cattle and sheep, 17 per cent as against 13 per cent by comparabie fuil-time operators. More siiipiisiiig was their greater refiaiice on pigs and especially on poultry, the latter accounting for a third of ail the livestock output of the part-time farmers. At one time pigs and poultry were regarded as labour-intensive, as well as land-intensive enterprises, being the W. H. Long, J . B. Butler, A. .J. Wynne and E. Wright, The Small Farms of I n d i d r i a l
Yorkshirs. University of Leeds. Dept. of Agriculture, Economics Section, 1958.
H
116 R d h Gasso%
province of the small farmer striving for a living on a restricted acreage. Nowadays the operations necessary for keeping battery hens have been mechanised to such an extent that part-time farmers can run large flocks successfully with the minimum of supervision. Broilers, too, were kept by a number of part-time farmers. While it was always necessary to employ full-time labour on these farms, the need for high capital investment and the risk involved make this enterprise more suitable for the businessman with a small holding than for the small farmer.
INTENSITY OF LAND USE As they normally tended towards the less-demanding enterprises, the
potential output per acre on holdings belonging to part-time farmers was usually below that of full-time farmers. In Table 3, Standard Output has been expressed per acre of the entire holding, so that where land is used for unproductive woodlands, paddocks or tennis courts the output per acre will appear correspondingly reduced. A larger proportion (16 per cent) of the part-time farmers with measurable output had a Standard Output below L50 per acre, compared with 26 per cent of full-time farmers. At the other extreme, 7 full-time and 4 part-time farmers ran factory-like glasshouse or poultry businesses on small acreages, producing more than Ll,OOO output per acre. In the middle range, with between L50 and LSOO output, part-time and full- time farmers were more evenly matched.
TABLE 3 INTENSITY O F LAND USE BY GROUPS O F PART-TIME .kND
FULL-TIME FARMERS VISITED DURING 1965
Intensity of Land Use (L Standard Output
per acre)
0
1-20 ...
20-50 ... 50-100 ...
100-200 ...
200-300 .-. 300-1,000 ...
1,000-2,000 ... Over 2,000 ...
111 farmers ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Number of Farmers
Part-time
1 1
12
25
13
19
6
2
3
1
92
Full-time
-
3
16
25
15
7
-
3
4
73
Proportion of Farmers with Postive Standard Output/Acre
Part-time
o/ /o
15
31
16
24
7
2
4
1
100
- Full-time
%
4
22
34
21
10
- 4
5
100
[Significant at 0.01 yo level.]
Although there is a temptation to criticise part-time farmers as a whole for making less productive use of land than full-time farmers, further analysis reveals that there was much more variation in respect of types of farming than of types of occupier. In the High Weald sample as a whole, full-time
Some Economic Characteristics of Part-time Farming in Britain 117
farmers averaged L64 Standard Output per acre and part-time farmers L37, while in the market gardening area and the Wealden hop-growing district, full-time farmers produced on average L185 per acre and part-time farmers 5119. Table 4 illustrates the contrast between the type-of farming areas, taking full-time and part-time farmers together. Whereas 82 per cent of the farms with agricultural output in the predominantly livestock areas produced under i100-worth per acre, in the arable districts only 32 per cent were below 5100 and 14 per cent above Ll,OOO per acre.
TABLE 4 INTENSITY OF LAND USE AND TYPE OF F.4RMING I N THE SAMPLE
Intensity of Land Use (t Standard Output
per acre)
0 . . .
1-20 ...
20-50 . . .
50-100 ...
100-200 ...
200-300 ...
300-1.000 ...
1,000-2.000 . - .
Over 2,000 . .
.Ill farms ...
...
. . .
...
...
...
...
. . .
...
) . .
...
1965
Sumber of Farms
Arable Areas
3
1
'6
13
23
11
-_
3
4
68 --
Livestock Areas
6
14
35
25
11
2
3 - 1
1
97
Proportion of Farms with Positive Standard Outputlacre
Arable Areas
%
2
9
1 1
37
17
-
Y
6
100
Livestock Areas
%
15
39
28
12
1
2
1
1
100
[Significant a t 0.01% level.]
Nevertheless, in comparable situations, the full-time operators appeared to follow systems of farming which would allow them to produce a higher value of output than the part-time farmers. Although averages are of limited value in such a diverse sample, the part-time farmers as a whole were esti- mated to produce a Standard Output of L77 per acre. Supposing this land had been occupied by full-time farmers, the output might have approached their average of k93 per acre. Over the 5,812 acres occupied by the part- time farmers, the loss of LlS output per acre would amount to some A93,OOO. To simplify the position, the existence of nearly 100 part-time farmers in the areas studied resulted in an estimated reduction of farm output approaching ~100,000.
NUMBER OF ENTERPRISES As well as favouring the enterprises which require least attention, such
as beef, sheep or poultry in place of dairy cows, the part-time farmers in the survey appeared to choose simpler farming systems and combinations of
118 Ruth Gasson
enterprises than full-time farmers on holdings of the same size and type. In the analysis of farming systems, fourteen separate enterprises were recognised, namely:-
Cereals Milk production Hops Rearing dairy cattle Orchards Rearing and/or fattening:- Small fruit beef Potatoes sheep
Selling hay or grazing poultry Vegetables and nursery crops Pigs
Egg production
Table 5 shows that only one part-time farmer had more than five of the above-mentioned enterprises, compared with ten full-time farmers. Over half the part-time farmers had only one or two single enterprises. Ashton and Cracknell found that a quarter of their part-time holdings had only one enterprise, poultry and horticulture being the most common, and a third had two. These findings agree closely with those in Table 5.
TABLE 5 NUMBERS OF ENTERPRISES ON THE FARMS OF PART-TIME
AND FULL-TIME FARMERS IN THE SURVEY, 1965
Number of Enterprises
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
All farmers
Number of Farms
Part-time
23
24
15
12
6
1
- - 81
Full- time
11
8
20
12
12
4
5
1
73
Proportion of Farms
Part-time
% 28
30
19
15
7
1
- -
100
Full-time
01
G 11
27
17
17
5
7
1
100
[Significant a t 0.01 yo level.]
By specialising in one or two enterprises alone, the part-time farmer with another occupation elsewhere often makes the best use of his limited time for supervising and working manually on the holding. Particularly among the small arable farms, the part-time farmers had little to do in winter but devoted weekends and evenings in summer to farm work. A number took their annual holiday at harvest or fruit-picking time. This is one example of the many ways in which part-time farmers organise their farming to use the available free time. (It has already been suggested that in most cases farming was subsidiary to the other occupation.)
Some Economic Characteristics of Part-time Farming in Britain 119
On the other hand, the full-time farmer needs to plan his farm so that his own time and that of any regular employees is used to the full throughout the year. As it is becoming increasingly difficult to employ casual workers, especially near urban areas, the farmer growing crops like hops, strawberries or potatoes has to rely more on his regular labour force, levelling out the peaks of labour demand by mechanisation where possible and by combining enterprises. In the second place, the full-time farmer may carry several enterprises as a form of insurance against the failure of any one in a given year. With a steady income from another source, the part-time farmer is not under the same pressure to diversify his farming system.
Thirdly, the full-time farmer, often born into a farming family, knows and appreciates the value of traditional farming practices with their emphasis on mixed husbandry to maintain fertility, control weeds and disease and make best use of by-products. If carried to extremes on too small a scale, time may be wasted in performing a large number of operations on a mixed farm. Part-time farmers, often new to agriculture but familiar with the practices of other businesses, are more likely to question the traditional precepts and form a receptive audience for the newest fashions in farming. Having both the resources and inclination to experiment, the part-time fanner is quite likely to follow the modem trend of specialisation to its logical conclusion and devote the whole of his farm to a single enterprise. (It is also likely that the dual-business farmer who is, for instance, a food processor or nurseryman will run a more specialised type of farm than his full-time counterpart.) The full-time f m e r with his livelihood at stake is naturally more cautious of committing himself to untried methods. Therefore the financially-independent part-time operator can provide a valuable experimental ground for his more conservative neighbour. While many innovations may be rejected as im- practicable, a few will prove acceptable and be adopted by the majority of commercial farmers.
TRE APPROACH TO FARMING The evidence of this survey has suggested that the motivation and financial
security of the majority of pa.rt-time farmers, in addition to the limitations on their available time, influence their choice of fanning systems. But it became clear from discussions with farmers of both types that, irrespective of the farming systems adopted, in the main they were striving for different ends. Most full-time farmers were (concerned with economic efficiency or maximising the returns from all given resources. Naturally there were individuals who ranked the maintaining of a steady level of income above the drive for higher profits with more risk attached. Some required rapid return on capital where others were intent on building up the farm business. Some, particularly elderly farmers approaching retiring age, were seeking an easier life after many years of toil and accepted a lower financial return in consequence but to make a living was the prime objective of most full-time farmers.
In this respect, full-time farmers differed from the majority of part-time farmers encountered in the survey, for whom maximum profits were not the first consideration. Perhaps this attitude is peculiar t o the part-time farmers in south-east England, many of whom treat farming as a recreation rather than as a business, but their satisfaction appeared to derive from technicai rather than economic aspects of farming. Frequently they aimed to achieve high returns to a chosen factor of production, regardless of the opportunity costs of the other resources involved. Since the part-time farmer can regard farming as a recreation, the opportunity cost of his own labour may be very low. The attitude towards fixed capital, too, was often to ignore it and the
120 Rzlth Gasson
operator was satisfied if he had some return on his working capital or if the farm did not lose too much. Land is scarce, however, and there is still a wide- spread belief in this country, probably carried over from the 1940s, that there is a particular virtue in obtaining a high output per acre a t any cost. This may explain why some part-time farmers concentrated on technical objectives, such as raising the yields of cereals or milk per acre. For others, greatest satisfaction was derived from mastering a certain technical problem; for example, how to improve the butterfat quality of milk or how to design a more effective potato-harvester, while some directed aJ1 their efforts to producing and marketing a high-quality product. To achieve these ends, the operator was often obliged to employ more labour or spend more on fertilisers, sprays, machinery or feedingstuffs than the full-time farmer could afford to do. In fact many full-time farmers have been forced to neglect some less-productive work like maintenance of buildings and roads and it is only the part-time farmer who can still afford the luxury of high farming.
To summarise, this survey of part-time farming in an admittedly small area, subject to a high degree of urban influence, has shown that part-time farmers tend to adopt simple and less intensive systems of farming than their full-time neighbours. Although the potential output per acre may be lower, in technical performance the part-time farmer frequently compares not unfavourably with the commercial farmer, since the former is often more interested in yields and the quality of product than in profits. By their readiness to experiment and prove new techniques under a variety of con- ditions, the part-time farmers can perform a valuable service to the whole agricultural industry. They bring capital into this industry from elsewhere, some of it being used to preserve old farmhouses and buildings. Also on the credit side must be added the non-material benefits and satisfaction which the part-time farm family enjoys. When all these benefits are set against the income foregone through part-time rather than full-time farming, the cost does not seem unduly high.
