An analysis of farm type classification systems
Abstract
Several land grant universities have programs in operation to analyze farm records. The analysis results are used by farm firms as organizational guides and as a tool to locate strong and weak parts of the firm's business. Segregation of the records in to similar groups provides the basis for explaining agricultural structure useful to legislators, administrators and farm leaders. Thus, the usefulness of the results of any program is a function of the system used for classifying the farms by type. The criteria for typing farms vary greatly among university programs. Also, the method of grouping a set of farm records into subsets differs greatly. Additionally, criteria used by the U.S. Census for typing farms differs from the states' criteria. Complications exist when comparability is attempted among university criteria, Census c rite ria and U.S.D.A. programs such as "Costs and Returns on Commercial Farms". "Costs and Returns on Commercial Farms" are not actual farms but are farms constructed from: (1) the U.S. Census of Agriculture, (2) rural carrier and mailed questionnaire sent to farmers by the A gricultural Estimates D ivision, SRS, (3) enumerative field survey and (4) results of research and related data from state experiment stations and federal agencies when group data meet the specifications for farms by types, size and location J A closely related variation involves aggregate use of farm data in constructing national income accounts by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Various systems of classifications attempt to stratify the sets of records into homogeneous subsets which are then analyzed. The stratification process consists of classifying the records by type, location and various notions of income or sales. Additionally, various schemes group farms by size, represented by sales, labor inputs, value added, acres or other indicators. Almost 30 years ago Benedict and others pointed out the need for 2 classification: "What is particularly needed is a segregation of farms into a few simple, distinct and clearly recognizable classes, and a tabulation for each of these classes of data as are needed for recognizing and understanding the problems related to them. The classifications should be clear to both lay and technical users as well as farm leaders, legislators and administrators." The criteria should reflect differences in interests, characteristies, and behavior under varying conditions. Clear cut lines do not exist between groups of farms. Standards for homogeneity of groups, then, must be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. Comparability of the results of farm record analysis from various land grant university programs becomes difficult, if not impossible. This situation arises due to non uniform definitions, criteria and systems used to classify farms by type and sort into sim ilar groups or subsets from a larger sample or set. A similar situation exists when comparing subsets o f farms typed by 'a' state system to those typed by Census criteria.
Degree
Ph. D.
Thesis Department
Rights
OpenAccess.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.